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
A54839	The divine purity defended, or, A vindication of some notes concerning God's decrees, especially of reprobation, from the censure of D. Reynolds in his epistolary praeface to Mr. Barlee's correptory correction by Thomas Pierce ...	Pierce, Thomas, 1622-1691.	1659 (1659)	Wing P2180A; ESTC R181791	123,156	150

decree to permit it decree in some in whom he did permit it to pardon it and on them to shew free mercy in others to punish it and in them to shew due and deserved justice the one having nothing to boast of because the Grace which saves them was God's the other nothing to complain of because the sin which ruines them is their own He may by his huge discrimination of persons who were in their lump and mass equal and in themselves indiscriminated shew the absolute soveraignty which he hath over them as the Potter over his clay He may by his most sweet and yet most powerful efficacy work the graces of faith repentance new obedience and persevera●ce in the wills and hearts of those on whom he will shew mercy giving them efficaciously both to will and to do of his own good pleasure and leave others to their own Pride and stubbornness his Grace being his own to do what he will withall And I say once again in all this there is neither modest nor immodest blasphemy T. P. § 1. TO what he saith in the beginning of this long Question concrning God's Councels being secret and unfathomable I have these thi●gs to return him First That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is once mention'd Rom. 11. 33. doth not belong to this matter of election of persons absolute or conditional but to the depth of God's goodnesse in patiently bearing the contumacy both of the Gentiles and of the Iewes to the depth of his wisedom in making the desertion of the Iewes a means of calling in the Gentiles to the depth of his knowledge which found a way to work upon the obstinate Iews by those Jews very Envy and Emulation towards the Gentiles c. He would have found that these things had been alluded to in the Text had he compared it with the Context or consulted the Paraphrase of the most Reverend Doctor Hammond whose Volume of Annotations if he doth not admire and profit by it is only because he doth not read them Besides it is to be wondred how he could be so unmindful of the words immediately going before God hath concluded them all in unbelief that he might have mercy upon all v. 32. and In consideration of that rich mercy the Apostle cryes out O the Depth c. v. 33. So that the purpose is very different for which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by S. Paul and Dr. Reynolds S. Paul alledging that God may have mercy upon all and D. Reynolds the contrary that God may not have mercy upon upon all But 2. If the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostle did belong to that business for which he brings it why doth he himself search into those very mysteries which he confesseth to be insearchable God's secret purposes were not secret much less insearchable if a Mortal such as my Assailant could finde it out● If I may not affirm that Gods decrees are conditional and respective of 〈◊〉 being either in Christ by Faith or out of Christ by infidelity then my Assailant may not affirm that Gods Decrees are unconditional and without respect of mens being or not being in Christ. For if insearchable to me it is insearchable to him and if revealed in the Scriptures it is not revealed to him alone Nay thirdly rather less then more to the men of his party who deny the Scriptures to be the revealed will of God and say it is but called the will of God and that improperly too wherby they virtually confess 〈…〉 nothing of the will of God but only what men ought or ought not to do which they so distinguish from the signification of Gods will as to say that what men ought to do is often contrary to the will of God and what they ought not to do is many times according to Gods own will This is such strange dogmatizng that the Reader will be in danger to think I charge them falsely if I do not carefully refer him to what I have cited and proved against the Correptory Correptor If my Reverend Assailant will endeavour to disclaim or disprove what I have urged I am able and ready to make good my Accusation but I have really a better opinion of him then to believe he will vindicate those ugly Doctrines Fourthly what ever is secret in the point of Election wherein God may do what he will with his own yet he hath clearly revealed himself in his word as to the point of Reprobation or damnatiō or preterition as they call it As for Reprobation or damnation he hath sufficiently revealed that he will never deal with man by rules of meer soveraignty but of righteousness and Iustice such as man himself is permitted to judge of and is appealed to by God whether or no it is not thus Then for the later viz. Preterition God hath revealed himself as plainly that the Son shall not die for the iniquity of the Father and that with the pretious blood of Christ he hath bought every one who was lost in Adam And not to insist in this place on the universality of Christs death with his sincere Intentions of extending the benefit of it to all who were included in Adams Loyn● which doth utterly overthrow the dream of absolute preterition I refer to what I have spoken in 〈◊〉 f defence of Gods Philanthropie Chap. 1. § 2. p. 4 ● 6 besides the other places pointed out in the Margin That which is added by my Assailant concerning the Potter and his clay doth prove nothing in the world but that he misunderstands the ninth Chapter to the Romans for the better interpreting of which I refer him to Castel lio and to Grotius and more especially to Dr. Hammond his Annotati●ns Or if either of those three takes him not off from the ordinary Presbyterian mistake I shall be ready to deal with him when he shall think that fit to be the Apple of Contention § 2. What he saith of Gods permitting sin and his decreeing to permit it is only siding with my Doctrine and saying the same which I said before him and so against me neither strong nor weak● argument can be deducible from thence but against himself and his party in two respects for first his party are wont to say that God doth tempt men unto sin as Mr. Barlee that he makes men Transgressors as Zuinglius that men do sin by Gods Impulse as Mr. Calvin that the will of God doth pass into the sin which is permitted as Dr. Twisse that God ordains men to sin quatenus sin as Maccovius and Smoutius that he is the Cause of sin as Piscator the Author of sin as Borrhaeus and six hundred things of this kinde which I will not weary my Reader with All which though my Assailant hath done his endeavour to excuse in the former part of his Preface yet here he tacitly condemns them all and very orthodoxly casts Anchor

unanimously agree that God did freely elect some Angels and some men If any quarrel with him for his first position they must be a Sect of his own party which I shewed before to be multisariously subdivided to wit the supralapsarians who perhaps will require him to blot out the word Lapsed although they need not to be so nice For that the men who are elected as sons of Adam are lapsed too Dr. Twisse himself could not deny And the Remonstrants do all allow that actual sins suppose a Lapse Only my Assailant must here be minded that by the word freely he must not mean necessarily or unconditionally for if he does there is not a Dictionary in the world will bear him out Our Faith and Obedience do merit nothing nor indeed are they ours but by God's free gift nor do they bear any proportion with an eternal weight of Bliss and Glory so that the mercy of God is free though it exacts somewhat of us to make us capable of it Which he that ventures to deny must either deny that God exacts any Duties from his Elect or that the Graces of God are free If the former he opens a Dore unto the Libertines and if the latter he ruins the Cause which he asserteth He needed not here have mentioned Angels as not belonging to the matter of which he treats for they were never in Adams Loyns And of them he must be told since he hath put them into his Thesis that God eternally foresaw that some of them would persevere and not follow Lucifer in his voluntary defection and that for their voluntary Obedience he would reward them with Confirmation So we know he doth men when he takes them up into their Masters Ioy. which if my Assailant will deny I know not what should scare him from Embracing the way of the Supralapsarians But come we from Angels to men of whom in relation to this matter the plain truth is briefly this God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself who from all eternity elected in Christ those that he saw would persevere in the Faith of Christ which Faith is not salvisick unless it worketh by Love all manner of duty which God requires in whomsoever he doth require it And all this he did freely and justly might do yet he did it not therefore because he might but because he chose it as most for his Glory to be done And we know he did so not because we know he might but because he hath been pleased to assure us of it in his word § 2. His third position or proposition he could not but know would be denied and yet his offer of proof is very feeble He know's it is denied that God did leave some lapsed men to unavoidable Damnation meerly as lying in Adams Loyns which he cannot possibly be thought to have done if he gave his own Son to be a Ransome and Sacrifice for Adam's sin and a propitiation for all that were in his Loyns Which this Reverend Author doth not once offer to deny throughout his whole Preface And for his proof of the supposed Preterition if it is any at all it is but this That God was not a debtor to any of them who were thus left to Damnation in Adams Loins Which at its utmost Improvement hath but the force of another may-be And is this a strong Argument God did leave some lapsed men in massâ because he might without doing them any wrong How much more rationally may it be argued even the same irrational way I mean by a may-be à potentiâ ad actum God did not leave any by an absolute preterition in massâ because he might give Christ for all that Masse and might shew mercy to all then lying in Adams Loins without doing wrong to any vessel of Election whose Eye ought not to be evil because God is good Besides it is a cold commendation of any tolerable Christian to say he doth no wrong and that the rule of his Actions is meer legality God forbid that we should do whatsoever is barely and merely lawful for many things that are lawful are not expedient or content our selves with doing no more A good man is desirous not only to do no wrong to his Neighbour but all the good that he is able From whence we may argue â fortiori That he who is kinde to the unthankful and to the evil and commandeth us to be merciful as He is merciful by loving our Enemies as he did his was more likely to shew mercy upon all that were in massâ because he is kinde to his Creatures and delighteth to forgive and in the midst of judgement remembreth mercy then to leave them in Adams loyns under a desperate impossibility of being saved or of having any Interest in the Saviour of the world and all because he is no mans Debtor The Psalmid saith plainly That the mercy of God is over all his works He saith not Iustice but Mercy which importeth much more then the doing no wrong Nor doth He say that God's Mercy is over some of his works but over all without exception Which how could David affirm with Truth if the far greatest part of mankinde the very noblest of all his works under the Canopy of Heaven had been decreed to infinite and endless Torments without the least respect or consideration of any one the least sin committed actually by any one of them Suppose it were Iustice to damn an Infant of a day old to all eternity meerly as descending from him who descended from him who descended from him who after a succession of numberless Generations descended from him who desceuded from Adam yet where were the Mercy to that poor Infant My Assailant in this place must either contradict David by denying that Gods Mercy is over all his works or say with Dr. Twisse that it is better to be miserable for ever than not to be and so a comparative Mercy to that Infant not to annihilate him but to allow him the Dignity of a Creature and an Immortality in Hell where is weeping and wailing and guashing of Teeth where the worm dieth not and where the fire is not quenched But I will summ up my Answeh to his third position in these few words That God is merciful above all that wee can to ask or think and may give as well as not give what he owes us not Otherwise I am sure it could not be free grace And that he really doth what he thus may He tells us as often as he saith that he giveth Christ to dye for all in giving whom he giveth all things which are sufficient and necessary to mans salvation And though of the all that are called and called seriously but few are chosen yet it is not for want of a serious call on God's part but because all that are called do not answer or if they answer they