Chapter XL (continued, part 2)
full of compassion, and gracious; longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth. He says not simply, Thou, Lord, art full of compassion, but manageth it with this reduplication, Thou, Lord, art a God full of com
passion ; and so speaks no less than that, as he is God, so he is merciful,
&c., and that his Godhead is the substantial root and subject of his mercy. And that which adds farther confirmation is, that
* plenteous in truth comes in, and is coupled with mercy. They are pairs, then, and pairs alike in this, that they are his being, and God himself both. This for the
first, which at once gives strength to our argument and illustration to this
place.
2. Holiness is argued to be God himself. And why ? Because whereas in one place it is said he swore by himself, having no greater to swear by, Heb. vi. 18 (God will swear by no less than himself never), in another place
it is, He swore by his holiness, Ps. Ixxxix. 35. And these two oaths
were, as to the matter of them, of a kind, being set as seals to the covenant of grace and mercy both. The first was given to Abraham, to perform the mercy promised, Luke i. 72, 73 ; the second to David, and in his name and type, unto Christ, to ascertain the sure mercies given him. And the like instance of the same forms of swearing is given in the case of
* The Lord sware by his holiness. And in chap. vi. 8, The Lord hath sworn by himself.
verifying God s threatenings
: Amos iv. 2,
"
So, then, his holiness is the Lord himself. And we may add this reason, because he can swear by nothing less than himself, as the apostle affirms ; and there-
CHAP. XI.] OF JUSTIFYING FAITH. 99
fore swearing by his holiness, his holiness must be himself. The evidence on mercy s side, that it is himself, is equivalent ; for whereas in some
* Remember not the sins of my youth, according to thy mercies, and for thy goodness sake, Ps. xxv. 7; and Neh. ix. 31, Never
places it is said,
theless, for thy great mercy s sake, thou didst not consume them, &c. ; when God speaking the same nrlsaiah xliii. 25, I, even I, am he (that is, that Jehovah merciful)
* that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own
sake, and will not remember thy sins. What in the one is for his good ness sake, and for thy great mercy s sake, is for his own sake in the
other. So, then, goodness (as all must confess), yea, and mercy, are him
self. You have it again in Daniel s prayer, chapter ix., and there both these conjoined are brought in together as explicatory the one of the other. In ver. 18, 19, We do not present our supplications before thee for our
righteousness, but for thy great mercies. Lord, hear, Lord, forgive, for thine own sake, my God ! What in the very words before is for
thy great mercies, which is plainly for thy mercy s sake, is in the next
petition for thine own sake ; and you have these two picked out as scat
tered, one in one place, the other in another, and so brought together, and
argued from.
I come now to a third proof. It is certain when we hear such and such
effects as involve his being God, and which could not be done unless he were God, and do argue him God alone, that then those effects must pro ceed from the Godhead itself. And farther, unto what in the Godhead can we ascribe them, but such properties in the Godhead as in the Scriptures are held forth as proper to produce such or such effects ? And whilst we
say such or such a property in God did effect such or such a thing, we may warrantably also say that his Godhead did it. The creation of the world
is a mighty product of the Godhead, and argues him God alone : as Isaiah
xliv. 24, I am the Lord that rnaketh all things. And we must say that the Godhead did effect it, for
* he made them by himself. Yet further, we
find the making of them attributed peculiarly unto power and wisdom, as
proper causes of such effects ; and withal, that power of his to be styled his Godhead, Rom. i. 20. So his wisdom also we find to be styled in
finite, Ps. cxlvii. 5, which is equivalent as to say it is his Godhead, for that alone is infinite and without bounds. Now, in correspondency unto
these, we find the effects of pardoning sin, &c., to involve his being God, as that which could never be done if he were not God : Micah vii. 18, Who
is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, &c. ? because he delighteth in mercy. That speech, Who is a God like unto thee ? is still used to shew he is God alone, and that, as the great God, he doth such and such works,* which, if he were not God, he could not do: Ps. Ixxxvi. 8, Among the gods there is none like unto thee, Lord ; neither are there any works
like unto thy works ; and ver. 10, For thou art great, and dost wondrous
things, thou art God alone. Now, pardon of sin is a work of such wonder and greatness, as none ever more. And you see in that prophet how they stand aghast and wondering at him, as a God so great, as God alone, none
like him, in that he can pardon sin. And if he were not so infinite a God, he could not do it ; for sin and sins are infinite. It is his Godhead pardons
sins, as well as his Godhead made the world. It is a truth, though ill in tended by those that spake it: Mark ii. 7, Who can forgive sins but God? And had not Christ been God as well as man, he could not have done it then. Now, as other works of God have some special attribute in God as
* Ps. xxxv, 10, as in Micah in pardoning, so there in delivering.
100 OF THE OBJECT AND ACTS [BOOK I.
their more proper cause, and unto which those works are ascribed for the honour of that attribute ; and from thence we rightly argue that they are
* invisible things of God the apostle terms his
his Godhead (as all those
Godhead, Rom. i. 20), so as the Godhead pardons sins ; so read the
Scriptures, and you find pardon attributed specially to mercy in God as its
proper cause. I need cite no places. And this is done for the glory of
his mercy and grace. And certainly he would not instruct us to give this honour due to his Godhead, and in which he, as God, is so highly con
cerned, if mercy were not his Godhead, as well as any other attribute is. He will not give his glory to what is not himself. We may as warrantably then say his mercy and Godhead, as the apostle doth his power and God head. And this as intending to make both one and the same ; yea, and add his eternal mercy too, for that epithet is given to it, Ps. xxv. And when it is pleaded to God that he would pardon sins for his mercies
sake, Neh. ix. 31 , the plain meaning and resolution is this, for thy great mercies sake, which are thyself, or which are in thyself. And there is this
farther reason to back this, and as strong as that before mentioned was for
the former, that for his mercy s sake, or for the glorifying of thy mercy. This denotes God s utmost and most proper end for which he pardons and shews mercy, and withal, the highest motive by which he is moved to
forgive, &c. And it is urged by these in their petitions as the most pre
vailing plea they could move God withal. Now that can be no less than
himself, whose highest and supremest end is himself; and he is moved to
acts of grace and pardon by nothing but what he is moved with in and from
himself. And therefore, in that 43d of Isaiah, he holds up himself to their
* I, even I, am he that blots out thy transgression for mine own sake ; and we are sure it is mercy for which and by which he only is moved thereto within himself, and is himself. And truly doth not his thrice repeating there I, I, he, answer to his thrice repeating Jehovah, Jehovah, God merciful? &c., Exod. xxxiv. 6.
view, and himself alone :
Arg. 6. The four first attributes we meet with at the entrance in this
divine proclamation, Exod. xxxiv. 6, do, in what is common to them all, prompt us with a sixth argument, that mercy and grace are essential pro
perties of the divine nature.
1. The four attributes are, merciful, gracious, long-suffering, abundant
in goodness and truth. But I reckon not that of truth in this enumeration, as likewise the psalmist doth not in his rehearsal of the words of this pro
clamation, Ps. ciii. 9, which is word for word the same as to these first
four. They are in the original in both places, though our translators have
varied their translations of them there from what is here, yet without any material difference ; for what there they have rendered plenteous in mercy (which they have varied too in the margin, great in mercy, according to
the Hebrew), here they render abundant in goodness. But the psalmist omitteth the mention of and in truth. And the reason of that omission may be the same that mine is in stopping there, namely, because he takes
those attributes that purely concern mercy, and are branches of it ; whereas
truth or faithfulness comes in here, not as being any way a branch of
mercy, but as mercy s supervisor, or mercy s remembrancer, to see to it, that mercy does perform what God out of grace hath promised and declared ;
according to that memorandum of old Zacharias, deduced out of the three names of himself, his son John, and Elizabeth : Luke i. 72, To perform the mercy promised, and to remember his holy covenant, the oath,
1 &c.
2. That which I call common to all these four, from which I would
CHAP. XI.] OF JUSTIFYING FAITH. 101
deduce my argument, are two things. First, that the form of speech they are attributed to God in is nouns, not participles, which denotes them to
be inherent dispositions, or properties in God, which set him forth ab intra,
or by what are in him, the inwards of himself. The second is, that for the
special kind of them, they are of those which divines style the virtues of
the divine nature.
3. The argument from these, or either of them, riseth thus: 1st, That
inherent dispositions in God are to be accounted his nature. 2dly, And
specially virtuous dispositions are so to be esteemed ; and such mercy and
grace are, and therefore are truly his nature.
There are two things then to be performed by me in handling this argu
ment, which consists of two branches. (1.) To establish the proof of this
one proposition, that these four names are attributed in such a form of
speech as denotes them to be inherent dispositions, intrinsecal properties, that are truly in him. (2.) That for the special kind of them, they are
among the virtues, or virtuous dispositions of the divine nature of God.
This proposition hath, as you see, two branches.
2dly. The second thing to be proved is the consequence inferred from
them, viz., 1. That if they be inherent properties that then they are in and of the divine nature. 2. That if they be properly to be reckoned
among the virtues of God, and so to be esteemed, that then much more
they are in and of his divine nature. But all these being in their order
joined and put together will make the argument complete.
My method shall be to handle the two branches of the proposition and
the proof of them first, and then the two consequences and the proofs of
them, whereof the first is a step to the proof of the latter, and both centre
in one and the same reason of either.
1. As for the first branch of the proposition or hypothesis, it is the
animadversion of that learned critic and literal expositor Genebrard, com
menting upon the 8th or 9th verse of Ps. ciii., which I even now cited, to shew that these four first attributes that set forth mercy are word for word
in the original, the same with these four here. He beginning to expound this first word merciful, speaks on this wise of it, and the like of the rest.
It is a noun, says he, not a participle, as also those that follow ; because
thereby is declared not the acts of God, but, as it were, an immoveable
quality, or that which is perpetual in God. And then of the other three
that follow, for the same reason he pronounceth the same of them : for
these are properties, says he, that are innate in God ; nor are they assumed
by him contingently, according as circumstances are and give occasion. Thus he. Wherein his argument lies not simply in this, that for the form
or manner of speech they are nouns, which are not qualities, as great, immense, but taken conjunctly therewith, that the matter of the things attributed are qualities. And whereas Genebrard says that merciful denotes, as it were, an immoveable quality in God, his quasi is but to allay and
qualify our apprehensions, that we should conceive of them with an infinite
disproportion, as they are in God, and in us men. In us they are mere
qualities, differing from the essence of us, as accidents are from the subject
they are in, but in the divine nature there are no accidents ; and yet he is
fain to make use of an assimilation to these of qualities, to convey their
inherency, as of qualities, to our apprehensions, as the nearest notion to do it by ; and that however they are immoveable principles in the divine
nature, as inherent qualities use to be. This he absolutely affirms to be
signified thereby ; and so that mercy is and was permanently in his nature,
102 OF THE OBJECT AND ACTS [BOOK I.
whether he had ever purposed or shewn any act of mercy, yea or no, and not contingently attributed for that he acteth mercifully. And this diffe rence he observed to be between such attributes that are expressed of God by way of nouns and qualitywise, which these are ; and such as denote
acts, by participles.
And this being thus explained, the foundation of the argument proceeds from the common use of speech, that when qualities are simply and
absolutely attributed unto a person in the form of nouns, as that he is
liberal, holy, devout, courageous, bold, and the like, that then, in the wonted acception of speech, men commonly understand, and readily con ceive and apprehend, that he is a person of a liberal spirit, an holy and devotional soul, and so addicted inwardly, so or so disposed, inclined, and
affected within himself; of such a temper, frame, and constitution of spirit, or a man of such inherent principles of heart inwardly moving him, sway ing him to liberal and holy actions, and that these are his indoles, ingenium, his spirit, as the Scripture word is. And in like manner, God s intention, who makes use of our wonted language to make himself known unto us by, as in other his attributes is apparent, here analogously should be to describe himself in such attributions of speech as we use when we would set forth a person, who and what he is, and paint him forth by such qualities and
dispositions as we know are in him. Thus God here, thereby signifying what properties are truly and really in himself, as far as possibly they are by words expressible to us. And as we when we have set out a man of such qualities, good or evil, we use to say, That is the man ; so we may say, This is our God. And indeed,^God himself here doth say in terminis,
fully as much as this of himself thrice over, Jehovah, Jehovah, El, God, God, God, merciful, gracious, &c., as if he had said, This is your God. And as for those other attributions given to God, purely after the manner of man, which the opposers would choke this truth with, they are expressed by words that denote acts only, and those but occasionally expressed
: as that it grieved him, it repented him, and the like, as it is obvious to observe in these scriptures where they are used. But these are solemn names and denominations, whereby God purposely makes a description of himself what a God he is ; and accordingly they do fully answer to this
question, whenever it be demanded, Qualis deits sit, ac quis? who and what a God is he ? as plainly, and directly, and absolutely, and in the like strain of speech, as any other of their fellow-attributes do ; as when it is said, he
is wise, and good, and almighty, these words are justly judged and acknow
ledged to signify what a God he is in his essence ; and in like manner, these here to be a description of his nature, and that even such a God he
is, set out by such characters as are given him ab intra, as our divines speak ; that is, such as do declare what a God he is inwardly, that shew his jery inwards to us. And those characters do express in reality that to be in his divine being which answers to all these (as I have opened it in the
explication I premitted), it being a commonly received maxim amoDg divines of all sorts : Deus dicitur quis, ac gualis est, ab eo quod natum est. And for the close of this point we may affirm, that this his title of mer
ciful, gracious, doth as roundly give and return an absolute answer to any such inquiry, What a God is he ? as any other attribute whatsoever : Ps. cxvi. 5, Gracious is the Lord, and righteous; yea, our God is merciful. This is the saints vogue and saying of him, as here he speaks these of
himself; and it is formed up so as it may serve to be an answer (as the
apostle s word is), an account in readiness to be given to any stranger to
CHAP. XI.J OF JUSTIFYING FAITH. 103
religion who knows not God. If an heathen, suppose such as were in
those times, or are now, should be inquisitive, and demand, What a God
is your God? say this to him, Our God is merciful; yea, our God is
merciful, with an emphasis. And it is as if they had said, If any would know what our God is, let him know him by this, that if he have any in
ternal perfection (who is all perfections, good, holy, wise, gracious), he is
as perfectly merciful as any of these. And (say I) if any such an one be not satisfied with the saints plain verdict, given in upon their own know
ledge, let them then hear and attend to what God himself says of himself, and take from his own mouth what he is :
* Jehovah, Jehovah, God mer
ciful and gracious. He multiplies his substantial name thrice, as well as
his attribute of mercy four times. And why, but because if God, as
God, be to be known by anything, it is by these. The psalmist seems to
vie with all other attributes whatsoever, yea, as it were outvies all other, with this of his being merciful, whilst he so vehemently speaks it, yea, our God is merciful. He sets the crown upon the head thereof. There was an additional branch in the supposition, that these attributes
are the characters of virtues in the divine nature, or virtuous dispositions in God, which superadds unto the former, and is a farther step towards the
proof of the consequences therefrom, which are to follow, viz., that there
fore they are in and of his divine nature.
All perfections are in God, in all kinds of perfections whatsoever. The
attributes of God are usually reduced by schoolmen, as well as our divines, to three heads.
1. Such as are utterly incommunicable to us creatures, as unchangeableness, infinity, eternity, ubiquity, or to be everywhere, and his divine glory. These are the absolute and metaphysical excellencies (as I may call them) of his divine entity.
2. There are also all super-excelling liabilities that belong to and are found
in intelligent creatures ; as faculties of understanding, which the psalmist says is infinite, knowing all things, &c. So of a sovereign will, which doth whatever he pleaseth in the earth, and in the heavens.
3. All sorts of virtues belonging to either of these, perfectiones morales,
all such as are not founded upon imperfection (as humility, self-denial,
&c., are), and when I call them virtues, I mean all the excellencies of good
ness, such as are holiness, righteousness, and mercy, and grace there ; and truth also, which is mentioned here. God ought to be every way most perfect, say the schoolmen, not only in the perfections of entity, or
of natural being, but in the eminency of goodness and virtue, in that kind
of being also. Hence his royal titles among the heathens were Deus
optimus maximus, a God that is most great in power and the absoluteness
of being, and a God most good. And the goodness therein meant was
that virtuous goodness we speak of, whereby he is inwardly, and of him
self, ready to do good to his creatures, according to that of the psalmist,
4 The Lord is good, and doth good ; of which goodness, mercy and grace are the eminent branches, according to that of the psalmist,
* The Lord is
good, and his mercy endureth for ever. And therefore I rightly said that
the virtuousness of mercy in Scripture language is the excellency of his
goodness.
And let no man boggle at the word virtue, or deem it as a lowering of
the Godhead to say he excels in virtues ; for the Scriptures ascribe this to him in terminis, 1 Peter ii. 9, where the apostle exhorts to shew forth the virtues (so in the original) of him that called you. Observe, they
104 OF THE OBJECT AND ACTS [BOOK I.
are the virtues of him that calleth us, not our virtues that are in us that
are called.
And by him that called us is meant not Christ only, and his virtues as man, but God the Father chiefly,* to whom our calling is there ascribed; as also in chap. i. 15, it had been by the same apostle, with the like ex
hortation, for there he says, As he that hath called you is holy, so be
you holy, &c., as children of your Father. Thus in like manner, though in other phrase but in substance the same, he entered his exhortation to
all sorts of goodness, wherein we are to imitate him and be like him, shew
forth the virtues of him that hath called you ; that is, says Gerard, those
attributes of God which in calling you he shewed forth. And particularly and to be sure the most eminent is that which the apostle specially instanceth in, and in this, and in no other else ; so in the following verse, which have now obtained mercy. So as in effect this exhortation is all one with Be ye merciful, because your God that called you is merciful; even as in the former exhortation he had said, Be holy, for I am holy ; holiness in God being the foundation of all those virtues in God, as well
as in us, which the comparing of those verses shews ; and the apostle also
there enforceth from this, that we must be like our Father.
These virtues are to us poor creatures the especial attributes we praise God for, insomuch as the Holy Ghost records it for the title and name of
praises, the word agsrac, there used signifying at once both virtues and
praises, as it is there translated ; or else let those that boggle at the word
virtues say of them, that in God they are the patterns, and samples, or
ideas of what are called virtues in us ; f and it is enough to my purpose. And the reason why that is to be acknowledged is, that there is not, nor can be, any perfection which the creature partaketh of a likeness to God
in, but it is and must be found after an infinitely more excelling manner in
God, and the nature of God, than it is in the creature. Only take this in, that they are found in God after the manner of God, in us creatures after
the mode or manner of creatures, with an infinite difference.
Observe how in the forming this argument I put in this limitation, there
is no perfection in man, in which he partaketh of a likeness to God, but the
perfection thereof is in God. And the reason of this my limitation is, because there are two sorts of gracious perfections in us, whereof some indeed are not in God, though in Christ they are found; as humility, lowliness of heart, submission of our wills. These are not by way of like ness to the like which correspond in God, but by way of applyings of the
soul unto God, or by way of subjection of the creature to such other
attributes in God as are incommunicable; as his sovereignty, greatness, absolute will, &c. And in that respect it is they are reckoned parts of the divine nature, because they give the greatest glory to the divine nature, in
the way now specified. But as for such perfections as are said to bear a
likeness with what is like unto what is attributed unto God, of them all we may and must say, that there is no perfection of such in the creature but
it is much more in God, which is the major or first proposition. And this doth in a more special manner hold true in such virtues or spiritual graces, in which we are said to be like him, and wherein he is expressly made our
pattern in the Scriptures. And of those it must be acknowledged, that if
they be properly in the creature, then they are more properly in God; of
* See Gerard in locum.
f Non tarn virtutes quam idese virtutum in Deo stint. Kekerman, Syst. Theol.,
c. 4.
CHAP. XI. J OF JUSTIFYING FAITH. 105
all which the holiness and purity of God s nature is the root, as being in
himself first, and so becomes the first rule and measure of such virtues
in us.
And that this is particularly true of this virtue of mercy (the thing m
hand), those speeches of Christ, who came out of the bosom of the Father,
and hath declared him both in his nature and in his will, do uncontrollably
* Love your enemies, do good to them that hate
evince : Luke vi. 27, 28,
you; and verse 35, Love your enemies, and ye shall be the children of
the Highest: for he is kind to the evil and the unthankful. And in the
close of all, verse 36, Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is
merciful: as, that is, after the image of God, as Col. iii. 10, Put on the
new man, after the image of him that created him ; whereof mercy and
love are in the 12th verse following mentioned to be an eminent piece
Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mer
cies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering. And then
add those other speeches of our Lord in Mat. v., which correspond with
those recited out of Luke vi. : Mat. v. 48, Be you perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. He speaks of the perfection of
virtues, and specially of that of mercy ; for unto works of mercy unto
enemies, &c., he had particularly exhorted: ver. 44, But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate
you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. And this he exhorts to by the instance of God s mercy to the worst
sinners: ver. 45, That ye may be the children of your Father which is
in heaven : for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and
sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. And thereupon exhorts us to
be perfect in that grace, upon this very ground, because it is a perfection
in God first, and originally in him, and that we have thereby the likeness
of the perfection of our Father. This for the proof of the two branches of
the proposition.
2. I come to the proof of the consequence in the second place proposed, from both, viz., that if these attributes do denote inherent dispositions,
properties, or permanent qualities, and not acts only, especially such
qualities as are virtues in God, that then they are of the divine nature
itself. I put both into one, because the reason of either centres much in
one, although the reason of the latter greatly adds force to the other.
And that reason will at once serve both for a proof of the consequence and also for a caution in this case, that whilst we are forced to use the
term of qualities to express them by, to relieve our apprehensions of them
(whereas indeed they are not such qualities as are in the creature, and yet
denoting inherency and permanency of like properties in God, and not of
acts only), they can be no other but his divine nature.
And the reason is founded on this, that in God there are no accidents
(and such those in us creatures are) inherent or permanent in him; and
therefore these attributes denoting properties, like to qualities in us that
are inherent and permanent, they therefore can be no other than the divine
nature itself; which is confirmed by the infinite difference that is and must
be acknowledged to be between the creatures and God blessed for ever in
this respect, that the inherent qualities in us men or angels, be they never
so excellent, yet they differ from the substance or being of the persons in whom they are, as accidents do from their subject ; and they are said to
be added to perfect and adorn the subjects in which they reside. And
although the most eminent of creature qualifications do vastly differ from
106 OF THE OBJECT AND ACTS [BOOK I.
the substances or essences they are in, yet there are some of them that so
immediately flow from their substances, and are so proper and specifically
peculiar to them, that if we should suppose they could be separate from
that subject or person, the very nature and proper being of that subject would withal cease to be what it was. It is an assured maxim, Proprietatum negatio est naturarum deletio ; as to deny the faculty of reason itself
to be in one of mankind is to degrade a man as a man, and blot him quite out of the catalogue or roll of men, and to set him down a brute ; of which it is said, Ps. xxxii., They want understanding. So that commonly we allow the term of natural unto such properties, and call them essential, or belonging to the essence, although not the essence itself ; but yet they rise to no higher dignities than of faculties and qualifying abilities, which
are at best but accidents, though of another kind than ordinary accidents
are of, and therefore called natural, because they are inbred, inlaid, and blended with the inward constitution and temper of the substance itself.
But, on the contrary, when we speak of God, and say, that mercy is a
property, and of his nature; our intentions, and God s also in so speaking, reach infinitely higher, and intend thereby that it is his very divine nature, as far as it is by words expressed to us ; even as eternity and power are
said to be his Godhead, Rom. i. 20. And the reason thereof is, because
God, and the essential nature of God, is perfected by nothing but himself, and so not by anything differing from his own being; for then his God
head, as he is God, should be imperfect, and needed something besides himself to add perfection and liability unto it, which the Scripture utterly denies of him: Acts xvii., that he needeth not anything. And therefore
all such attributes, and this of merciful, being in tenor of speech given to
him, after the manner of the attribution of inherent qualities, for our con
ception s sake, are to be understood to be his divine nature, in a transcen dent manner, inconceivable by us.
Moreover, take in this for a second caution also, that when we call both
these, or any like qualities in men or angels, as also these attributes in
God, natural or nature in either, the word nature or natural must be taken and understood with an infinitely vast differing respect in the one and in
the other ; for these qualifications, thus said to be natural to us angels and
men, are but at the best the shadow of what is substantially natural in God ; and accordingly, that mercifulness which is in man is but the
imperfect shim* of that essential mercy which is in the divine being. And hence it is so far remote from God s being called merciful, righteous, after
the manner of man (as those other attributes, the opposite instances, which
are styled but ad similitudinem effectus), that to the contrary, these inherent
qualities in man (take them in their perfection) are said to be
* after God, Eph. iii. 24. And therefore they are propriissime, most properly in God
first ; yea, and in truth only in God (as goodness is said to be), and but
similitudinarily, and by way of semblance, in man. And this by way of
caution also.
But, 2dly, I urge this reason further, upon and from the account of that
additional, viz., that mercy and grace are to be reckoned among the highest virtues that are in God. Now, true and perfect virtues are inherent in that
person that deserves the style of virtuous, and if they be true, they are
permanent, and constantly abiding in him ; yea, and the perfection of them
lies in the inward disposition and addictment of the mind as the root of
the actings, or performing virtuous things, though they, as being the fruits
* That is, shimmer ? ED.
CflAP. XI.] OF JUSTIFYING FAITH. 107
thereof, have the name of mercy, and their due valuation ; but still that inward principle of those actings much more and above all, so far as they have been inbred, and by nature found in any person, that is the height of
their perfection. And therefore in God, if they be true and perfect virtues
indeed, as they must be supposed to be, they must be all these, both inward
dispositions, strong inclinations, propensions unto merciful acts, and seated
in his nature, and to be his nature. And to be sure, God is not perfected
(as man), or grows up in virtue by acquisition, or by the increase of habits
that use to be acquired by use, practice, and exercise ; this were to lower him infinitely yet more, so to affirm. And therefore, if virtues be at all in
him, and these virtues (as we have proved them to be), then they must be
acknowledged his divine nature, and his perfections by nature.
I shall cast in a coronis to all, and which will without contradiction con
: it is those words which our Lord hath made the conclusion of his exhortation unto us to be
firm all that I have hitherto said in this third argument
merciful, in that 5th of Matthew, last verse, Be ye therefore perfect, even
as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
1. You see here is a perfection attributed to God, which man is exhorted
to imitate, Be ye perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect. God s
perfection is the original pattern, and man s imitation that is to be the copy to that pattern ; and God s perfection is to be understood after the manner wherein God is or ought to be understood to be perfect, as a God ; or as
* the Highest, and
the evangelist Luke upon that occasion entitles him
men, as men in their kind, as children of the Highest ; so in ver. 35. And he therefore speaks it of such a perfection in God as is of the highest kind of perfection proper and essential unto God. And to be sure, there
are some attributes of his that are the essential perfections of his divine
nature, and then this spoken of by Christ s own arguing is among them
that are of the highest rank.
And, 2, it proves to be this so rich and precious attribute of mercy which Christ intended here, as appears both by the interpretation, that by comparing Christ s discourse about this of our being merciful in those two
evangelists is apparently given of it. For whereas the one says, Mat.
v. 48, Be ye perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect, the other says, Luke vi. 36, Be ye merciful, as your heavenly Father is merciful. And each come in as the last close and conclusion of Christ s exhortation unto
mercy in either place. So then mercy is one of the highest perfections that perfect him that is the Highest, or the most perfect in all perfections. 8. This perfection of mercy must necessarily be understood to be intrin-
secal to him, and so his nature. For nothing extrinsecal or outward to God can add any perfection to him. His own works, be they of mercy and never so excelling, add nothing to him ; he was as perfect a God before he made the worlds as since. And what is it can be his perfection but what
is and was then in himself and of himself? who of himself is the fulness of
all being ; and if anything added the least perfection to him, he must be
said to be of himself and in himself imperfect. And mercy being so plainly,
expressly, in particular thus styled his perfection, it must be a property in himself and of himself, and without which he would not be so perfect as he
is said to be ; yea, we may upon this ground further say, that without it he were not God. Let the opposites bring all their deductions and wonted
pleas to make void this so great a truth, and you will see them all melt
before this speech, as wax when it comes unto the fire, and be confu ted in
every part thereof.
108 OF THE OBJECT AND ACTS [BOOK I.
1st, They distinguish and say, God is merciful quoad effectus, in and for
his doing works of mercy, and not because he is of a merciful nature and inward disposition of mercy.
(1.) Consider that man is here exhorted to be merciful, as God is ; and
though he in his exhortation mainly instanceth in works of mercy which man should perform, yet I demand, doth not the exhortation chiefly intend
that men should be moved by an inward principle of mercy (compared therefore to bowels, which are called the inwards), that should move the heart to works of mercy ? Col. iii. 12,
* Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering. And when Christ pronounceth that blessing upon their souls, Mat. v., Blessed are the merciful, &c., doth not the word JXgty&ovgg import inward mercy and pity more than outward ? as Spanheim hath observed upon it. And if God were not in like manner
filled with merciful dispositions moving thereto in his shewing mercy, why
is his mercy set before them as the excellent pattern, when yet, according to them, it reacheth not to this, to be a pattern of inward mercy ?
(2.) If God were not thus merciful ab intra t his inwards moving him
thereto, do not they that affirm this make man more merciful than they would have God to be, seeing man is merciful with an inward affection of
bowels, besides his works of mercy ; but God should be merciful only quoad
ejfectus, only because he doth acts of mercy without the affection or inward
principle of mercy ?
And, 2dly, whereas they say, Mercy is spoken of God after the manner
of man, or in like sense only as that God is said to grieve, repent, &c.
But, 1, here in Christ s exhortation, on the contrary, man is called upon to be merciful after the manner of God,
* Be ye merciful, as your Father is
merciful. And, 2, if it were otherwise, according to that opinion they have of God, man should only be exhorted here to exercise and put forth outward acts and effects of mercy, for God, say they, doth only so.
Again, ^3, that mercy which is there exhorted to is that which is the
perfection of mercy ; and certainly to be merciful inwardly, and of a merci
ful nature, is that which is the life, the height, the perfection of mercy. I finally close up all with this summary argument, that grace and virtue, that in man is a perfection and a piece of the divine nature in him, and
likeness to what is in God (he being created after the image of God in
truth, as the apostle s words are), and which same is likewise attributed to God as a perfection of him, and a pattern to us of the same ; that must be
acknowledged to be in God as his divine nature and being. But such this
grace or virtue of mercy is ; it is in man a piece of his divine nature, created after the image of God in truth ; and it is ascribed unto God as a
perfection of his Godhead, and made the pattern of our perfection ; there
fore, as it is attributed to God, it must be his divine nature.