Selected quad for the lemma: mercy_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
mercy_n	faith_n	grace_n	repentance_n	2,335	5	7.5639	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35308	A solemn call unto all that would be owned as Christ's faithful witnesses, speedily and seriously, to attend unto the primitive purity of the Gospel doctrine and worship, or, A discourse concerning baptism wherein that of infants is disproved as having no footing nor foundation at all in the Word of God, by way of answer to the arguments made use of by Mr. William Allen, Mr. Sidenham, Mr. Baxter, Dr. Burthogge, and others for the support of that practice : wherein the covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai ... : together with a description of that truly evangelical covenant God was pleased to make with believing Abraham ... / by Philip Carey ...	Cary, Philip.	1690 (1690)	Wing C742; ESTC R31291	244,449	284

requires Perfect and Universal Obedience to the whole Revealed Will and Law of God and Pronounceth a Curse upon the least Transgression or Dis-obedience must needs be a Covenant of Works or else there was never any such thing Extant in the World And of this Nature we have already proved the forementioned Covenants to be viz. that made with Israel at Mount Sinai that in the Land of Moab and that made with Abraham also Gen. 17. 7 8 9. Our present Question therefore whereon the Main Hinge of the Paedo-baptismal Controversy doth depend and which we would therefore drive to an Issue is onely this Whether that Covenant that will not admit of a Partial though Sincere Obedience but strictly requires that which is Perfect and Universal as the Condition of Salvation be not a plain Covenant of Works If so then it cannot be justly denyed but that the several forementioned Covenants are such And Consequently they are all of them now Repealed as hath been already proved From whence it plainly follows that no Just Argument can be drawn from either of these Covenants for the Establishment or Regulation of Gospel Worship For since the Law it self is changed and dis-annulled as the Scriptures do plainly affirm it is Heb. 7. 12 18. Chap. 8. 7 13. there follows of necessity a change of the whole Fabrick and Constitution of the Ordinances thereunto once belonging For so the Apostle himself Reasons Heb. 7. 12. The Priesthood saith he being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law And if the Law is changed there follows with an equal necessity a change also of the Ordinances thereon depending and that news ones take place suitable to the Nature of the Gospel Covenant that Succeeds it And Consequently the Plea for Infants Baptism as founded on either of those forementioned Covenants must of necessity fail Forasmuch as what ever Right Infants had to the Ordinance of Circumcision which you say was Analogous therewith the Right they then had was onely by vertue of those forementioned Covenants which being now Repealed it unavoidably follows that all the Arguments thence deduced for the Establishment of Infants Church Member-ship and Baptism under the Gospel must of necessity also vanish SECT XV. § 1. AS to what Concerns the Covenant of Grace or the Gospel Covenant before Insisted on We are told indeed by some that to affirm that it is wholly free and Absolute and to make that the Covenant of Grace properly so called which God made with Christ is to destroy the whole Tenor of the Gospel and to lay the Foundation of all Libertinism and Looseness of Conversation In Reference whereunto we shall take leave to Insert a Passage or two of the late Worthy Dr. Owen in his Third Volumn upon the Epistle to the Hebrews page 15. It cannot be denyed saith he but that some Men may and it is justly to be feared that some Men do abuse the Doctrine of the Gospel to Countenance themselves in a vain Expectation of Mercy and Pardon whilst they willingly live in a Course of Sin But as this in their Management is the principal means of their Ruine So in the Righteous Judgment of God it will be the greatest Aggravation of their Condemnation And whereas some have charged the Preachers of Gospel Grace as those who thereby give Countenance unto this Presumption It is an Accusation that hath more of the Hatred of Grace in it than of the Love of Holiness For none do or can press the Relinquishment of Sin and Repentance of it upon such Assured Grounds and with such Cogent Arguments as those by whom the Grace of Jesus Christ in the Gospel is fully opened and declared § 2. And as to what concerns the freeness or Absoluteness of the Gospel Covenant The Doctor in his-Exposition of the 12th Verse of Heb. 8. For I will be Merciful to their Vnrighteousness and their Sins and Iniquities will I Remember no more page 290. of his forementioned Discourse Observes That free and Soveraign and undeserved Grace in the Pardon of Sin is the Original Spring and Foundation of all New Covenant Mercies and Blessings Hereby saith he and hereby alone is the Glory of God and the safety of the Church provided for And those who like not Gods Covenant on those Terms will Eternally fall short of the Grace of it Hereby all Glorying and all Boasting in our selves is Excluded which was that which God aimed at in the contrivance and Establishment of this Covenant Rom. 3. 27. 1 Cor. 1. 29 30 31. For this could not be if the Fundamental Grace of it did depend on any Condition or Qualification in our selves Some speak of an Vniversal Conditional Covenant made with all Mankind If there be any such thing it is not that here Intended For they are all actually Pardoned with whom this Covenant is made And the Indefinite Declaration of the Nature and Terms of the Covenant is not the making a Covenant with any And what should be the Condition of this Grace here promised of the Pardon of Sin It is say they that Men Repent and Believe and turn to God and yield Obedience unto the Gospel If so then Men must do all these things before they Receive the Remission of Sins Yes Then must they do them whilst they are under the Law and the Curse of it For so are all Men whose Sins are not Pardoned This is to make Obedience unto the Law and that to be performed by Men whilst under the Curse of it to be the Condition of Gospel Mercy which is to overthrow both the Law and Gospel But then on the other hand it will follow they say that Men are Pardoned before they do Believe But then it must be considered 1. That the Communication and Donation of Faith unto us is an Effect of the same Grace whereby our Sins are Pardoned and they are both bestowed on us by vertue of the same Covenant 2. That though the Application of Pardoning Mercy unto our Souls is in order of Nature consequent unto Believing yet in time they go together 3. That Faith is not required unto the Procuring of the Pardon of our Sins but unto the Receiving of it § 3. To the same purpose He also speaks page 223. 224. of the same Discourse The Promises of the Covenant of Grace saith he are better than those of any other Covenant as for many other Resons so especially because the Grace of them prevents any Condition or Qualification on our part I do not say the Covenant of Grace is Absolute without Conditions if by Conditions we intend the Duties of Obedience which God requireth of us in and by vertue of th●t Covenant But this I say the Principal Promises thereof are not in the first place Remunerative of our Obedience in the Covenant but Efficaciously Assumptive of us into Covenant and Establishing or Confirming in the Covenant The Covenant of Works had its Promises but they were all Remunerative

Promise to their Children as Believers Seed nor to them or any other uncalled by the Lord But with this express Proviso Even as many as the Lord our God shall Call Which calling alone made them Christs and capable of Baptism Nor are the Words To you and your Children mentioned as an acknowledgment of a Priviledge to them before others but by reason of their Wish Mat. 27. 25. His Blood be on us and on our Children And so as a Remedy of their Perplexity v. 37. When they heard this they were pricked to their Heart c. Nor is any Intimation given of a Title Baptism to them or their Children as the Children of Believers but an Exhortation to them and theirs to Repent and be Baptized as their duty for their benefit The Promise being not mentioned as though of it self it gave a Title to Baptism either to them or to their Off-spring without Repentance But as a Motive why both they and theirs should actually Repent and be Baptised because in so doing they would be in the way of obtaining the Remission of their Sins and Receiving the Holy Ghost the two grand Branches of the Promise here mentioned Which duty of Repentance Little Children being uncapable of performing neither are they therefore according to this direction of the Apostle the proper Subjects of such an Ordinance So that this Text is grosly abused by such as infer from thence a Title to Baptism for the Children of Believers by vertue of a Promise to them as such Whereas it is manifest from the whole Scope of the Con-text that it is only an Encouragement to the Jews against Despair by reason of their Crucifying of Christ Letting them know that yet there was hope of Mercy and of Pardon for them and theirs upon the Respective Repentance of either of them A Sixth Argument for Infants Baptism is drawn from Col. 2. 11. In whom also you are Circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Ver. 12. Buried with him in Baptism wherein you are also risen with him through the Faith of the Operation of God who hath raised him from the Dead From whence a groundless Inference is drawn concerning the Succession of Christian Baptism into the Room Place and Use of Jewish Circumcision And that therefore as the Jewish Infants were Circumcised so by way of Analogy those Born of Christian Parents ought to be Baptised To this We Answer First That to suppose that Christian Baptism comes in the Room Place or Use of Jewish Circumcision is a mistaken Inference which can neither be truly drawn from those Words of the Apostle to the Collossians nor from any other place of Scripture Not from the present Words where no Circumsion in the Flesh is at all Expressed or can be meant but that of Christ's in his own Person which is there made the Exemplary Efficient of Spiritual Circumcision for so it is expresly told us In whom also you are Circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ So that this Text avails nothing at all to the present purpose it being e●●dent that the Scope of the Spirit of God there is to shew that we are compleat in Christ v. 10. And to this purpose he Subjoyns v. 12. Buried with Him in Baptism wherein ye are also risen with Him through the Faith of the Operation of God But whereas we are told that the Jewish Teachers would be ready to Object that the receiving of the Inward Grace of Circumcision did not make them so compleat as Abraham and his Seed was because they had also an Outward Visible Sign This is a groundless Conceit that either the Jews were ready thus to Object or that the Apostle intended to Answer such an Objection But supposing it were so Doth it therefore follow that because the Jewish Infants were Circumcised therefore ours must be Baptized Is there a Syllable of that sound or signification in the Text For it is plain that the Apostle is not there speaking of Infants but concerning Adult Believers only nor can it with any shadow of Reason be affirmed that Baptism is appointed to have the same Place and Use in the Church of God that Circumcision had For if so then it would also follow that Females must be Excluded from Baptism because uncapable of Circumcision And that because Circumcision bound Men to keep the whole Ceremonial Law of Moses therefore so doth Baptism also And indeed to affirm that there is the same Ground for Infant Baptism as for Infant Circumcision is to assert that the command of Circumcision is Obligatory to us And to Imagine that there is a Parity of Reason from Analogy or Proportion between them is no other than a groundless Supposition that there is a Reason of them to direct us in their Use besides what God hath expresly declard unto us and to say That tho Christ and His Apostles have not told us so yet we think it should be so is to Impute a defect in them of what they should have done and more Wisdom and Diligence in our selves about Ordering the Divine Service We can fetch saith Mr. Baxter in his late Treatise of Episcopacy no Model of a Gospel Ministry nor proof of our Authority or Obligation as Instituted from the Instituted Ministry of the Mosaical Church Because the Law of Moses is Abrogate and indeed did never bind the Gentiles Nor is it safe saith he to Argue from Parity of Reason that we must now be or do as they did in point of pure Institution while we so little know the total Reason of God's Institutions And when He Himself hath taken them down and set up new Ones we must not then plead our Reason against the Alterations which God Himself hath made P. 29. Besides which Secondly The Argument from Circumcision is invalid upon many Considerations For Figures and Types prove nothing unless a Command go a long with them or some Express to signifie such to be their purpose For the Deluge of Waters and the Ark of Noah were a Figure of Baptism said Peter And if the Circumstances of the one should be drawn to the other we should make Baptism a Prodigy rather than a Rite The Feast of the Passover was a Type of the Supper which succeeds the other as much as Baptism doth to Circumcision But because there was in the eating of the Paschal Lamb no prescription of Sacramental Drink shall we thence Conclude that the Supper is to be Administred but in one kind Or that because the Passover was to be eaten in haste with a Staff in their Hand Must we thence conclude that the Lords Supper ought to be so Celebrated also No we will easily conclude that we are duly to attend unto the Words of the Institution which particularly concerns the right Celebration of that Ordinance

but God gave it to Abraham by Promise So that it clearly appears by the scope of the Apostle's Argument that the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith For if it had it would have been honoured as an Instrument for the conveyance of Abraham's Inheritance But saith he God gave it to Abraham by Promise not by the Law therefore the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith But is the Law then against the Promises God forbid saith he For if there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law but the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin that the Promise of Faith by Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe So that the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith since the Apostle doth here so plainly distinguish between them setting forth the Weakness of the one and the Strength and Perfection of the other The Law saith he Could not give Life but the Covenant of Faith doth The Law indeed would but could not It promiseth Life but it could not perform it through the Weakness of the Flesh So there is no Repugnancy in the Law against the Promises but what the Law could not do the Covenant of Faith performeth For it not only promiseth Life but accomplisheth what it hath promised and sets the Soul in Safety § 4. According to the plain and clear Scope of the Apostle's Reasoning therefore the Law is so far from being a Covenant of Faith that it is quite another thing For if it had been a Covenant of Faith it would have given Life as the Covenant of Faith doth But it could not give Life therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works But is the Law then against the Promises God forbid saith Paul and so say we For supposing the Law to be as it is indeed a pure Covenant of Works yet through the Satisfaction of Christ there is no Repugnancy or Hostile Contrariety betwixt the Law and the Promises or between the Law and Faith which hath respect to the Promises There is only a difference of Deficiency in respect of that Strength that there is in the one to what there was in the other The one being Weak through the Flesh the other Strong and Powerful and goes through-stitch with its Work But what the Law could not do through our Weakness that Christ hath performed by fulfilling its Commands and submitting to its Curse on our behalf whereby God's Justice is satisfied and Everlasting Righteousness obtained for the Salvation of Sinners And indeed herein consisteth the Covenant of Faith here is the Object of it and in this path is the very Law and Justice of God it self most highly Glorified Shall we say then that because the Law is a Covenant of Works that it is therefore against the Promises God forbid For who shall lay any thing to the Charge of God's Elect so as to hinder the accomplishment of the Promises upon them The Law it self doth not cannot Impeach them since it is God that Justifieth Or Who shall Condemn them The Law it self cannot since it is Christ that Died. It is true the Law saith That the man that doth these things shall Live by them And indeed herein the very Essence of the Covenant of Works consisteth But the Covenant of Faith leads us to what Christ hath done and performed for us which the Covenant of Works doth not But though the Law leads us not to Christ yet Christ being made under it and giving it its due honour on our behalf hence it follows that the Law it self that was before our Enemy stands up as our Friend Even that Law that was before against us which was Contrary to us and which was in it self no other than the Ministration of Death and Condemnation even that Law stands up as our Friend through the Mediation of Christ whom God therefore hath set forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood to declare his Righteousness that he might be Just and the Justifier of him that Believeth in Jesus Rom. 3. 24 25 26. So that the Law through the Satisfaction of Christ though it be as it is indeed a Covenant of Works yet is not against the Promises there is no Real Repugnancy or Contrariety between them whatever there seems to be Which made the Apostle Propound the Question as he doth § 5. Besides the same Apostle that tells us The Law is not against the Promises doth also expresly Assure us That the Law is not of Faith but the Man that doth them shall live by them Gal. 3. 12. So that though it is true the Law is not against the Promises Since Mercy and Truth Righteousness and Peace are met together in Christ yet it is as true that the Law is not of Faith And if the Law is not of Faith then neither can it be a Covenant of Faith but of Works as the same Apostle doth plainly affirm it is Rom. 3. 27 28. And therefore neither could it give Life For if it could Righteousness should have been by it But saith he The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe The Law therefore was not a Covenant of Faith For if it had it would have given Life and so Righteousness should have been by the Law But it could not give Life and so Righteousness was not by the Law therefore it was not a Covenant of Faith The like Inference may be clearly drawn from Rom. 10. 5 6 c. Moses saith the Apostle Describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man which doth these things shall live by them But the Righteousness which is of Faith or Gospel Covenant speaketh on this wise c. If thou Believest thou shalt be Saved Wherein we cannot but observe that the Apostle maketh a plain difference betwixt the Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of Faith The one saith he speaketh after this sort the other speaketh after quite another rate From whence also it plainly follows that the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith since the Righteousness of the one is here so plainly Opposed to the Righteousness of the other which yet it would not be had the Law been a Covenant of Faith nay though it had been so only more Darkly and not with that clearness of Demonstration as the Gospel Reveals it had it been so Subserviently only much more if it had been such for the Substance of it as it Affirmed For it cannot be imagined that if it had been a Covenant of Grace or a Covenant of Faith Subserviently much more if it had been such for the Substance of it that ever it would have been set in point blank Opposition to it as quite another thing as it is When the Apostle tells us therefore that the Righteousness which is of the Law saith Do this and Live but the Righteousness of Faith speaketh