Chapter 1: Verses 18-23
Spirit of God that led Christ into the wilderness, to be tempted after His baptism.
Again, here we are taught to acknowledge three things in God. His power, in that He sets up His kingdom where it is most oppugned and reigns in the midst of His own enemies—namely, the wicked and savage Arabians, according to that in the Psalm 110:2. His goodness, in that He sends Paul to preach repentance to the people that are in the snare of the devil at his will (2 Tim. 2:26). His truth, in that He now fulfills things foretold by David, "The Kings of Sheba and Saba shall bring gifts"—that is, Ethiopians and Arabians (Ps. 72:10).
Chapter 1: Verses 18–23 18 Then after three years, I came again to Jerusalem, to visit
Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Paul having proved before, that he learned not the gospel of any man, no not of the apostles at Jerusalem, goes about now to answer exceptions that might be made against his reason. And first of all, it might have been objected that he was seen at Jerusalem sundry times, and therefore in all likelihood went thither to be instructed. To this he answers three things: that he went thither "three years" after his conversion, and not before; that he went "to visit Peter"; [and] that he abode there "fifteen days." For the first, where he says he preached three years in Arabia and Damascus and then after went to Jerusalem and abode there fifteen days (for some special causes), we see Paul is ready and able to make a good account of the spending of his time, both for days and years. And good reason, for time is precious, and great care ought to be had of the expending of it. After Paul's example, we must so live that we may be able to give a good account of the spending of our days. That this may be done, we must
learn to "number our days" and "to redeem the time" (Ps. 90:12; Eph. 5:16). To number our days is to consider the shortness of our lives, and that we are every day subject to death; and withal seriously to bethink ourselves, of the causes of this our condition—namely, our sins, both original and actual. When this twofold consideration takes place, we then begin to number our days. The numbering of our time and the parts thereof brings us to the redeeming of it. To redeem our time is to take time, while time serves, especially for spiritual uses and for the amendment of our lives. When time is thus numbered and redeemed, then shall the good account be made before God and men. Wherefore miserable is the case of them that spend their days in idleness, in riot and sporting, in chambering and wantonness.92
For they neither number time, nor redeem it; and therefore they are far from any good account.
The second point is that Paul goes up to Jerusalem "to visit Peter," that is, to see him, to be acquainted with him, to talk, and confer with him. Hence it appears that there is a lawful kind of peregrination, or pilgrimage, in that Paul journeys from Arabia to Jerusalem to see
Peter. Thus the Queen of Sheba went up to Jerusalem to hear the wisdom of Solomon. The law of God was that all the males in Israel should thrice in the year go up to the place which God had appointed
(Deut. 16). This law was practiced by Elkanah and Hannah (1 Sam.
1), by Joseph and Mary, [and] by the steward of Candace, queen of Ethiopia (Acts 8). Nevertheless, popish pilgrimage is utterly to be condemned, for two causes. One is because it is made a part of God's worship, whereas now in the New Testament, all religious distinction of places is abolished: "Lift up pure hands in every place unto God" (1
Tim. 2:8). Some allege that vows, which were not commanded, were nevertheless parts of God's worship among the Jews. I answer:
Though men were not commanded to vow, yet the matter and form of vows was commanded. And in that God commanded the manner
of vowing, He allowed the act of vow-making. Let the papists show the like allowance for their pilgrimage. The second reason is because popish pilgrimage is not to living men, but to the relics and images of dead men, which kind of peregrination was never used in the world till after the apostles' days. For pilgrimage to relics came in three hundred years after Christ, and pilgrimage to images, after six hundred years.
In that Paul goes about to visit Peter, the papists gather the primacy of Peter over all the apostles, but falsely. For this visitation argues reverence, and reverence is given not only to superiors but also to equals. Again, primacy is twofold: primacy of order and primacy of power. Primacy of order was due unto Peter, in that he was first called to be an apostle, and he was in the faith before Paul. And in this regard, he was reverenced of him.
The third point is that Paul abides with Peter at Jerusalem, and that fifteen days. His abode with Peter was in token of mutual consent and fellowship. Like should be the consent of the ministers of the gospel. For their office is to publish and persuade peace between God and men, to which they are unfit that cannot maintain peace among themselves. And all believers should be of one mind, speaking and thinking the same things. And this cannot be unless there be a consent of them that are guides. This consent therefore is to be maintained and greatly to be prayed for. And when there cannot be consent of judgment by reason of human frailty, yet so long as the foundation is maintained, there must be consent in affection. And injuries offered may not dissolve this bond. Though the Church of Jerusalem suspected Paul and would not at the first acknowledge him for a disciple (Acts 9:26), yet did he for his part accept of their love and fellowship.
Whereas he adds that his abode with Peter was but for fifteen days, hereby he signifies that he learned not the gospel of him, for it could not be learned in so short a space; neither could Paul by the teaching of any man become an apostle in so small a time.
19 And none other of the apostles saw I, save James the Lord's brother.
It might haply be objected against the former verse that Paul might be taught of some other apostle beside Peter, and that at Jerusalem.
To this he answers two things. One, that there was none of the apostles at Jerusalem, but James (beside Peter before named); the second, that he did but see James.
Here I gather that if there be any mother church in the world, it is rather Jerusalem than Rome, because the gospel was first preached there and went thence into the whole world. And Jerusalem was for a time guided by two of the chief apostles, James and Peter.
In that James is called our Lord's brother, three things may be demanded. One, which James this was? Answer. It was James the son of Alpheus. For he lived fourteen years after this (Gal. 2:9), whereas James the son of Zebedee lived not so long because he was put to death by Herod. The second thing is, how James should be the Lord's brother? Answer. In Scripture, children of the same womb are brethren. Men of the same blood are brethren; Abraham and Lot
(Gen. 13:8). Men of the same country are brethren; thus Saul's countrymen are called his brethren (1 Chron. 12:2). And James is called our Lord's brother, not because he was of the same womb, but because he was of the same blood or kindred. For Eli had two daughters, Mary espoused to Joseph, and Mary Cleophas, who afterward was married to Alpheus of whom came James here mentioned. James therefore was the cousin-german of Christ.
Therefore Helvidius97 failed when he went about to infringe the perpetual virginity of the virgin Mary out of this place, as if she had more sons beside Christ. The third thing is, what benefit James had by being the Lord's brother? Answer. He is here called the Lord's brother only for distinction's sake in respect of the other James the son of Zebedee, and this brotherhood does not make him the better apostle, or the better man. Outward things do not commend us to God. And it is the spiritual kindred, by means of faith and our new birth, that brings us into favor with God (Matt. 12:49).
20 Now the things which I write, I speak before God, I lie not.
Before, Paul has avouched sundry things of himself: that he preached in Arabia, and Damascus; that he went thence to Jerusalem; that he did not learn the gospel there of Peter, James, or any other apostle.
Now some man might haply say that these sayings of his are but false and fabulous avouchments. Therefore in this verse Paul defends himself and justifies his own sayings by a divine testimony.
The words contain two parts. An answer to an objection concealed, on this manner: I may be thought to lie, but indeed "I lie not." The second is a confirmation by oath: "Before God I speak it." Touching the first part, there be two points to be handled. What is a lie? And whether it be a sin or no?
A lie is when we speak the contrary to that we think with an intention to deceive. More plainly, in a lie there be four things: the first is to avouch and affirm that which is false. The second is to speak with a double heart (Ps. 12:2). That is, to speak against knowledge and conscience, as when a man says that is true which he knows to be false, or that is false which he knows to be true. This makes a lie to be a lie, and this distinguishes an untruth from a lie. For here it must be observed that a man may speak that which is false, and not lie—
namely, if he speak that which is false, thinking it to be true. For then though he err and is deceived, yet he speaks not against conscience, and consequently he speaks no lie. Again, a man may speak that which is true, and yet lie; for if he speak that which is true indeed, and speak it as a truth, and yet think it to be false, he lies indeed, because he speaks the truth against his conscience. The third thing in a lie is a mind or intention to deceive or hurt. For in the ninth commandment that is a false testimony that is against our neighbor.
The fourth point is that he which speaks that which is false upon a vanity of mind without reasonable cause, is a liar. Thus boasters and flatterers are liars. And these are the things which concur in the making of a lie.
For the better conceiving of the nature of a lie, we must put difference between it and sundry other things incident to speech.
First, we must put difference between a lie and a parable or figure. In a parable indeed there is something supposed or feigned; as for example, when the trees are brought in conferring and consulting about their king (Judg. 9:8). Nevertheless a parable is far from falsehood or lying. For by things feigned, it signifies and declares an unfeigned truth.
Again, difference must be put between a lie and the concealment of a thing. For it is one thing to speak against our knowledge and another to speak that which we know. And concealments, if there be a reasonable cause and it be not necessary for us to reveal the thing concealed, are not unlawful. Thus Abram speaks the truth in part, calling Sarai his sister, and conceals it in part, not confessing her to be his wife (Gen. 12:10). Thus Samuel by God's appointment reveals that he came to Bethlehem to offer sacrifice and conceals the anointment of David, that he might save his life (1 Sam. 16:5). Jonah preaches that Nineveh shall be destroyed within forty days, and he
conceals the condition of repentance. The like did Isaiah to Hezekiah (Isa. 38:1).
Thirdly, a difference must be made between lying and feigning, which some call simulation—not dissembling, but rather sembling (if I may so term it). And that is, when something is spoken, not contrary, but beside or diverse to that which we think. And this kind of feigning—if it be not to the prejudice of truth, against the glory of God, and the good of our neighbor, and have some convenient and reasonable cause—is not unlawful. It was not the will and counsel of God to destroy the Israelites for their idolatry. And He does not speak unto Moses anything contrary to His will, but something that is beside or diverse unto it, when He says, "Let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot, and I may destroy them (Ex. 32:10). And this He spoke, that He might stir up Moses to fervency in prayer for the Israelites, and the Israelites to unfeigned repentance. Joshua, having besieged Ai, meant not to fly, yet does he feign a flight that he might draw his enemies out of the city and destroy them (Josh. 8:5). There is a kind of deceit called dolus bonus, that is, a good deceit, and of this kind was the act of Joshua. Thus physicians for their good use to deceive the senses of their impotent patients. Thus parents insinuate unto their children terrible things of the bear and bull beggar that they may keep them from places of hurt and danger. And this may be done without fault, for it is one thing to contrary the truth, and another to speak or do something diverse unto it without contrariety.
The second point is, whether to lie, be a sin or no? The answer is, Yea. For even in this place, Paul puts lying from himself, and that with an oath. The devil is said to be the author of all lies (John 8).
And it is God's commandment that we should "put away lying" (Eph.
4:25). It is objected, that the sporting and officious lie is not against charity to the hurt of any, but for the good of men. I answer, first,
though it be not to the hurt of our neighbor, yet is it to the hurt and prejudice of truth. Secondly, they are deceived to whom these lies are told. Thirdly, he hurts himself that tells a lie, thought it be for the good of men. For when he speaks the truth indeed, he is less believed. Lastly, though these kinds of lies seem to be good in respect of their end, yet are they not good in respect of their nature and constitution. For in speaking, there should be a conformity and consent between the tongue and the mind, which is not when any lie is uttered. Secondly, it is objected, that the Egyptian midwives saved the male children of the Israelites, and Rahab the spies, by lying (Ex.
1:19; Josh. 2:5); and that they are commended for this. I answer, we must distinguish the work done from the execution of the work. The work in saving the children and the spies was a fruit of faith and the fear of God, and it is commended; but the manner of putting these works in execution, by lying, is not approved. If it be said, that faith and the fear of God cannot stand with a manifest sin, I say again that faith and the fear of God are imperfect in this life, and therefore they are joined with many frailties, and actions of faith are mixed with sundry defects and sins.
Now then we are to be exhorted to make a conscience of lying and to speak the truth from our hearts. And there be many reasons to induce us to the practice of this duty. First, it is God's commandment
(James 3:14). Secondly, lying is a conformity to the devil, and by truth we are made conformable to God, who is truth itself. Thirdly, we are sanctified by the word of truth (John 17:17), and guided by the Spirit of truth. And therefore we are to detest lying and deceit.
Fourthly, truth is a fruit of God's Spirit (Gal. 5) and a mark of God's child—he has the pardon of his sins "in whose spirit there is no guile"
(Ps. 32:2); and "he shall rest in the mountain of God, who speaks the truth from his heart" (Ps. 15:2). Lastly, destruction is the liar's reward—"God will destroy them that speak lies" (Ps. 5:6); and they
must have their portion in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone (Rev. 21:8).
Thus much of the answer to the objection. Now follows the confirmation by oath: "before God." Here it may be demanded, how these words can be a form of swearing? Answer. In an oath there be four things. The first is an asseveration of the truth. The second is confession, whereby the party that is to swear, acknowledges the power, presence, and wisdom of God in searching the heart, and that He is both witness and judge of all our doings. The third is invocation of God, that He would be a witness with us and to us that we speak the truth. The last is imprecation, that God would be a judge to take revenge upon us if we lie. Now then, the form of an oath is a certain form of words in which not all, but some of the principal parts of an oath are expressed, and the rest concealed and yet to be understood.
There is the form of an oath, "The Lord liveth" (Jer. 4:2), and here only confession is expressed. The form of swearing, "I call God to witness to my soul" (2 Cor. 1:23) expresses the third part, namely, invocation. The words, "The Lord do thus and thus unto me" (Ruth
2:17), is an imprecation. The common form, "The Lord help you through Jesus Christ," is partly prayer, and partly imprecation. And the form in this place is directly a confession that God is present to witness and judge the truth. Thus commonly in all forms of oaths one part is expressed, and the rest are infolded.105
Here first we learn that the form of an oath is to be plain and direct in the name of God, and not indirect or oblique, in the name of the creatures, God's name concealed. And it is the flat commandment of God (Matt. 5:34). It is alleged that Paul swears by his "rejoicing in Christ" (1 Cor. 15:31). I answer [that] the words of Paul, "by my rejoicing," are not an oath, but an obtestation. For the meaning of his words is this: that his sorrows and afflictions which he endured for
Christ would testify (if they could speak) that he died daily. Thus Moses called heaven and earth to witness, without swearing. For in an oath the thing by which he swears is made not only witness, but also judge. Nevertheless, it is not unlawful to name the creatures in the form of an oath, if they be considered as pledges presented unto
God, that He should punish us in them if we lie. Thus Paul swears, "I call God to witness to (or upon) my soul." Here they are to be blamed whose common swearing is by the creatures, as by their faith, by their troth,107 by the Mass, Mary, by this bread, by this drink, etc.
Secondly, here we learn to use an oath only in the case of extremity, namely, when a necessary truth is to be confirmed, and when this cannot be done by any reason or proof to be found among men upon earth; then we may fly unto heaven for proof and make God our witness. Thus Paul confirms his own calling when all other proofs failed. And it must further be observed that in extremities he uses an oath but seldom. This seems to condemn their wickedness that cry at every word in the common talk, "before God, before God."
Thirdly, before we swear, we are to use great meditation, consideration, and preparation. And therefore Paul in swearing uses a word of attention and says, "Behold, I speak it before God." This condemns the rash and customable swearing of men in their common talk, who also in that they commonly and rashly swear, commonly forswear themselves.
In that Paul confirms his writings by oath, it appears that they are of God. For if he had sworn falsely, God would have taken revenge upon him and his writings before this, which He has not done.
Whereas Paul says, "Before God" I speak it, he teaches us after his own example to bring ourselves into the presence of God, to walk before Him as Enoch did (Gen. 5:22), and as Abraham was
commanded (Gen. 17:1), and to do whatsoever we do as in the sight and presence of God, and to be afraid to sin, because of His presence.
This is the true fear of God, and this is the right practice of religion.
21 After that I went into the coasts of Syria and Cilicia: and I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea, which were in Christ.
22 But they had heard only some say, He which persecuted us in times past, now preacheth the faith, which before he had destroyed.
23 And they glorified God in me.
Here Paul answers another objection which may be framed thus.
Though Paul learned not the gospel of the apostles at Jerusalem, yet might he haply learn it of them in other churches of Judea. To this
Paul answers three things. The first is that he went from Jerusalem into Syria and Cilicia. The second, that he was not known in person to the churches of Judea, but only by hearsay. And he sets down the report that went of him. The third is that the churches of Judea did not disgrace and slander him, but they glorified God for him. Of these in order. For the first, that Paul went from Jerusalem straight into Syria and Cilicia, the regions of the Gentiles, there be two causes. One, because Paul was ordained specially to be the apostle of the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Rom. 15:16). The second, because Cilicia was his own country. For he was born in Tarsus, a town in Cilicia. And his love to his country, no doubt, was great. For in the like case, he could have wished himself to be accursed for his countrymen the Jews.
From this first answer I gather two things. First, if any apostle above the rest be the pastor and universal bishop of the church over the whole world, it is Paul, and not Peter, because he [Paul] specially was ordained to teach and convert the nations. The second is that Paul's often and dangerous journeys must teach us to attend on our callings
with care and diligence, and not to be dismayed with the troubles that shall befall us.
The second answer, that Paul was known to the Christian Jews not "by face," but by hearsay—this may seem strange, considering Paul was at Jerusalem and traveled through Jewry into Syria and Cilicia; but it is the truth. And the reason of it is plain. The office of an apostle is not to build upon the foundation of another, or to succeed any man in his labors, but to plant and found the church of the New
Testament, "where Christ had not been preached or named" (Rom.
15:20). In this the apostles differ from all the ministers of the New Testament whatsoever. And this is the cause why Paul was not known to the churches of Judea. And here we see that the succession
(which the papists magnify) is not always a note of the true church and the true ministry. For the true ministry of the apostles and the apostolic churches wanted it. And this is for the greater commendation of them.
Again, it is said that Paul was not known to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. Where let it be observed that four years after the ascension of Christ, the apostles had gathered and planted sundry Christian churches in Judea. This greatly commends the efficacy and power of the gospel. For hardness of heart had overspread the nation of the Jews, and they had rejected and crucified the Lord of life. And thus, that is verified which Christ says, that His disciples believing in Him should do greater things than He had done (John 14:12), for He by preaching did not convert multitudes of the Jews and range them into churches as the apostles did. Here again, we see that the gospel by means of the corruption of man is an occasion of divisions. For after the gospel was preached by the apostles, there arose a division of churches among the Jews.
Some were churches in Christ, and some out of Christ, namely the
synagogues which refused Christ. We may not therefore now-a-days take offence, if schisms and dissentions follow where the gospel is preached. It is not the fault of the gospel; it is the fault of men.
That Paul might the better show that he was known to the churches of the Jews only by hearsay, he expresses the report that went of him.
Hence I gather, it is not unlawful to tell and hear reports or news, so be it, they be not to the prejudice of the truth, of the glory of God, and the good name of men. Nay, it is commendable to report and hear news that concerns the increase of God's kingdom and the conversion of wicked men.
In the report, two things are set down. What Paul did? "He once persecuted us, and destroyed the faith." What he now does? "He preacheth the gospel." By this we see that verified which Isaiah foretold, that the lion, the wolf, and the lamb, etc., should peaceably live together. Again, here we see that all things upon earth are subject to change and alteration; so as it may be said, heretofore it was thus and thus, but now it is otherwise. Therefore in miseries, we may not be over-much grieved, for they are changeable. And in earthly things, we may not rejoice over much, because they are mutable and subject to daily alterations. Our special care must be to avoid eternal and unchangeable evils; as death and the cause of death, namely, sin, and to purchase to ourselves the good things which are everlasting, namely, the favor of God and everlasting life.
Furthermore, the thing which Paul aimed at in persecuting the church is to be considered, and that was that "he might destroy the faith." By faith, we are to understand the doctrine of the gospel, and withal, the virtue or gift of faith whereby it is believed. For the devil and his instruments seek the overthrow of both. Christ said, "Satan desired to sift" His disciples, that is, to sift all their faith out of their
hearts, and to leave nothing in them but chaff (Luke 22:31). Here then it may be demanded whether faith may be lost, especially in the children of God, in the time of temptation and persecution? I answer thus. There be three degrees of faith. The first consists in two things: knowledge of the gospel and assent to the truth of it. This faith the devils have, and it may be lost; and believers by this faith may quite fall away. The second kind of faith contains knowledge, assent, a taste or joy in the goodness of God, a zeal to the word of God, and apparent fruits of holiness. This faith also (being better than the former) may be lost in the days of persecution. And believers by this faith may fall quite away (Luke 8:13). The third faith (called the faith of the elect) contains three parts: knowledge of the gospel, assent to the truth of it, and apprehension whereby we do receive and apply
Christ with His benefits to ourselves, or the promise of remission of sins and life everlasting. This faith may be greatly wasted, for things appertaining to it may be lost, as boldness to come unto God, the sense or feeling of spiritual joy, and such like. Again, it may be buried for a time in the heart and not show itself either by fruits or any profession. And in respect of the measure of it, it may be lessened and maimed. And if we respect the nature of it, it is as apt to be lost as any other grace of God, for there is nothing by nature unchangeable but God. Nevertheless, where this faith is in truth, it is never by affliction and temptation put out or extinguished, because
God in mercy confirms it by new grace. Christ says to Peter, "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not" (Luke 22:32). And this privilege have all the godly, for God promises that "they shall not be tempted above their strength" (1 Cor. 10:13). Indeed, persecutors are said to destroy the faith because this is their intent, and they endeavor to do what they can; but God prevents their desires by establishing true faith, that it may not utterly fail.
It may be objected to the contrary, on this manner. The child of God may fall into persecution and deny Christ by this fall; he is guilty of a grievous offence. Being guilty, he has not pardon of his offence, and being without pardon, he is without faith. Touching guiltiness, I answer thus. The child of God, when he falls, is indeed guilty; but how? Guilty in respect of himself, or as much as in him lies, because he has done that which is worthy of death, and he has done all he can to make himself guilty. But he is not guilty to condemnation, because
God on His part does not break off the purpose of adoption and adjudge him to wrath.
Secondly, touching the pardon of his offence, I answer thus. In pardon there be four degrees: the decree of pardon before all worlds; the promise of pardon in the beginning of the Word, "The seed of the woman," etc; the procurement114 of pardon upon the cross; and the donation or the giving of the pardon. This donation is an action of God whereby He gives and communicates Christ unto us and applies to our consciences the remission of our sins. In this donation, there is required a hand to give and a hand to receive. The hand of God, whereby He gives, is the word preached and the sacraments. The hand to receive is our faith. The giving of pardon is necessary. For though sins be pardoned in the decree of God, by His promise in the word, and by procurement upon the cross; yet pardon is no pardon to us, till it be given unto us by God. Furthermore, this giving is not altogether at one instant, but it begins in the conversion of a sinner, and is often iterated in the use of the word and sacraments to the death. Paul wills the Corinthians reconciled to God, still to be reconciled (2 Cor. 5:20). And we are taught every day to pray to God, to give us the pardon of our sins. This giving is twofold: conditional and absolute. Conditional, when God gives the pardon of sin upon condition. Thus in baptism, and in the first conversion of a sinner, all sins without exception are pardoned; yea, future sins, yet not simply
whether a man repent or no, but upon condition of future repentance. The absolute donation is when a man repents or renews his repentance. For then the pardon of sin is simply and fully without condition, applied and revealed to the conscience. When David confessed his sin, Nathan, in the name of the Lord, says, "Thy sin is forgiven thee" (2 Sam. 12).
Now then to come to the point: The child of God has pardon of his fall in respect of the decree to pardon, in respect of the general promise of pardon, in respect of the procurement of pardon, [and] in respect of the conditional donation of pardon which is made in baptism. And he may be said to want pardon, in that the pardon of his offence is not fully and absolutely given him till he recover himself and renew his repentance. If it be here demanded, what the child of God asks when he prays for pardon day by day? I answer he prays for two things. First, that God would continue to show His favor and to impute the merits of Christ unto him, whereas he for his part by his offence deserves to be deprived of all favor. Secondly, he asks the giving of the pardon, that is, that God would certify his conscience thereof.
The Use. Seeing the intent of the devil and wicked men is to destroy the faith (as it appears in this place, and in the first temptation wherewith Satan assaulted Christ, Matt. 4), we must have a special care of our faith. And first we must look that our faith be a true faith, lest we be deceived, as the foolish virgins. Secondly, we must keep and lock up our faith in some safe and sure place, namely, in the storehouse or treasury of a good conscience (1 Tim. 1:19). Thirdly, our care must be to increase in faith, that our hearts may be rooted and grounded in the love of God. And for this cause we are to make continual experiences and observations of the love of God toward us,
and to lay them all together, and to build a joyful conclusion thereupon.
The third answer of Paul is, "And they glorified God for me"—that is, the churches of Judea when they heard of my calling and conversion, they considered therein the power, the goodness, and the mercy of God, and with joy they gave Him thanks for it. In this practice of the church, we learn that our duty is to sanctify and glorify the name of God in every work of His. And this sanctification has two parts. The first is the consideration of the divine virtues that show themselves in every work of God, as His wisdom, power, justice, mercy, providence, presence, etc. The second is praise and thanksgiving to God for the same. And this practice must be enlarged to all His works without exception, to His judgments, as well as to His works of mercy. Therefore we are commanded in persecution [to] "sanctify
God in our hearts" (1 Peter 3:15). And Moses, because he failed in doing of this duty, was barred the land of Canaan (Num. 20:12). In England, God has wrought His wondrous works among us. He has given us peace and protection against our enemies, with the gospel, for the space of forty years and more. And our duty is to glorify God in these works of His; but alas, we do it not. For the gospel of salvation is little regarded of the most, and little obedience is yielded to it. This neglect of ours in glorifying and praising of God is a great sin. And it stands us in hand to repent of it betime, lest God take away His word from us and leave us to strange illusions to believe lies.
Again, here we see what is the right manner of honoring of the saints, and that is to glorify God in them and for them. As for religious worship of adoration and invocation, it is proper to God, and the saints desire it not (Rev. 22:9).