Selected quad for the lemma: mercy_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
mercy_n	lord_n	pardon_v	sin_n	9,714	5	5.0242	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A81720	A boundary to the Holy Mount, or a barre against free admission to the Lords Supper. In answer to an humble vindication of free admission to the Lords Supper. Published by Mr. Humphrey minister of Froome in Somersetshire. Which humble vindication, though it profess much of piety and conscience, yet upon due triall and examination, is found worthy of suspension, if not of a greater censure. By Roger Drake minister of Peters Cheap London.	R. D. (Roger Drake), 1608-1669.	1653 (1653)	Wing D2129; Thomason E1314_2; ESTC R209198	85,461	218

himself if he will urge it in order to the Sacrament since its evident Christ here makes a distinction and separation and 1. Would not have all admitted and 2. In particular he rejects sound and righteous ones namely that were so in their own conceit and such were most of the Pharisees and do we suspend any others then those who ate wiser in their own eyes then seven men that can render a reason and fitter for the Lords Supper if themselves may be judges then the best of the approved or approvers Pag. 22. His third instance is John 8. from the woman taken in adultery accused by the Pharisees but not condemned by our Saviour Answ 1. Doth this man take the Scripture for a nose of wax that he perverts it so grosly cither through ignorance instability or prejudice to say no worse what is this to our Sacramentall triall The Pharisees came to trap Christ with a practicall case and a civill case John 8.5 6. Had Christ bid them stone her he had been accused to the Romans as stirring the Jews up to act the supreme power which was taken from them by the Romans see John 18.31 Had he forbid them to stone her he had been slandered to the Jews as an enemy to and contradictor of the Law of Moses Our Saviour at first waves answering to so captious a question ver 6. But when that would not satisfie their malicious importunity he gives them so wise an answer as 1. He avoyded both extreams and 2. He caught them who came to catch him And for the woman though he condemn not her person either to civill death as being no civill Judge Luk. 12.14 nor eternally as not coming in the state of humiliation to destroy but to save Luk. 9.56 John 12.47 yet he condemns her sin and gives her good counsel John 8.11 What is this to our keeping persons visibly unworthy from the Sacrament and that by just authority in a publick and judiciall way I wonder this man doth not now condemn the civill Magistrate for executing adulterers incestuous persons Sodomites c. which Christ and his Apostles would not 1 Cor. 5.1 6 9 11. onely they judged them spiritually shewed them the danger of those sins and Gods mercy in pardoning and purging them Are not many justly cut off both by the Civill and Ecclesiasticall Sword whom yet Christ as absolute Lord of life and death may pardon Shall not man do justice because Christ shews mercy Had this woman been stoned to death had that been any barre to Christs Pardon The most righteous Judge in the world is conscious of the seeds of incest murder c. in himself shall he not therefore condemn such persons legally convicted before him The most pious Minister or Church Officer is conscious of the like shall he not therefore either suspend or excommunicate such persons when legally converged and convicted upon just triall David himself was actually guilty both of murder and adultery was it ever after unlawfull for him as a King and Judge to condemn such persons Indeed the consciousness of our own weakness and guilt should make us put forth such acts with abundance of self-reflection and pity to such offenders but hath not the leaft shew of warrant to root up or make void the power of triall and judgement either in Church or State Foolish pitty mars a City in this case shall the woolf be spared to worry the sheep If such pity be not the greatest cruelty both to soul and body I know not what is Pag. 22. His fourth reason arises from the vanity formality and impossibility of selecting people to this Ordinance For put the case you will have a gathered company I pray whom do you account to be fit and worthy receivers if not all that make profession as we do mixtly then those only that have an interest in Christ and are true Believers Well but how will you be able to know them The heart of man is deceitfull above all things who can know it And if we can hardly discover our own hearts how shall we ever discern others So that all will come but to those that have the fairest shew those that seem such and you cannot be secured but there may be and will be some hypocrites and so this true partaking as all one body and one blood in such a mixt communion as you pretend vanishes and there can be no such matter But now if men here stand upon a formall purity and will have the outward purest Church they can they go to separating again as we have daily testimony till they are quite separated one from another even as in the peeling of an onyon where you may peel and peel till you have brought all to nothing unless to a few teares perchance with which the eyes of good men must needs run over in the doing Answ 1. Here Mr. Humphrey thinks he hath us fast But let me intreat him not to boast before he put off his harness And that both himself and others may see how wide he roves from the mark we shall deny both his Extreams and tell him that neither bate profession on the one hand nor troth of grace on the other hand is the rule we walk by in admitting persons to the Sacrament if considered quatenus Could not all the art Mr. Humphrey hath think of medium participationis between these two extreams which will do very good service for his conviction and our justification 1. Therefore let him know that we look at his rule of bare profession as a very loose principle which will open a door not onely for the wickedest varlets as murderers c. but also for children and fools contrary to his own principles now in print And indeed if bare prosession were enough to warrant admission to the Sacrament how dares Mr. Humphrey excommunicate any baptized person though he be the wickedest villain that ever Tyburn groaned for since even the worst of them are professors as well as the truest Nathanael Therefore say we Profession if joyned with sufficiency of knowledge in fundamentals and sutable practice in conversation at least negatively that there be no evidence against a person as living after conviction in a known sin this is the rule we walk by in admission to the Sacraments though withall we do not neglect inquiry after truth of grace so far as may stand with charity 2. Let him and the world know that truth of grace in the heart on the other hand is not our rule of admitting to the Lords Supper The reason is because we cannot admit divers persons though we should infallibly know they had truth of grace as 1. Children and fools divers of whom undoubtedly have truth of grace in their hearts and that because they cannot examine themselves nor discern the Lords body according to the rule of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.28 29. Nor 2. Such who though they have truth of grace yet fall into some foul and scandalous

its exception so no part of Worship but hath its inclosure Of which afterward And therefore though I cannot justifie any of the Independents in separating from our Congregations yet if in excluding from the Lords Supper persons visibly unworthy they act upon the same principles with us in so doing though they bring in a Quae genus of Anomalacs and Heteroclites at the Lords Supper yet they violate not the Syntax of Divine Worship If they walk by other rules or principles not warranted let them plead for themselves I am not of their Counsell But for his challenge to the Presbyterians or at least some of them How we can admit of children as Members of the visible Church being born of Christian Parents unto Baptisme and yet turn away the Parents of those children from the Sacrament Those that have gone about to answer this had better haply have said nothing for our free course of Baptisme and a deniall of this is such a seam-rent as will never be handsomely drawn up though stitcht together Nevertheless in yeelding the one they have granted the other Answ 1. How can Mr. H. admit the children themselves to Baptisme and yet deny them the Lords Supper If herein he act by faith let him shew a Divine Precept by which he excludes them If he bring a proof by consequence let him consider if that or a like consequence will not exclude others as well as children for whom he keeps the door open 2. How can himself admit children to Baptisme and yet excludes their parents from the Lords Supper If the parents of a child baptized be either distracted or excommunicated Mr. H. being Judge they ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper whereby its apparent that even in Mr. H. his judgement the childes baptisme is no necessary medium to prove the Parents must be admitted to the Lords Supper which yet he urgeth against us but forgets how he wounds himself with the same weapon 3. To come closer to the Objection two things by way of answer are very considerable 1. That we clear and justifie the promiscuous baptizing of children of Christian Parents be the Parents themselves never so unworthy 2. That the promiscuous admission of children to Baptisme is no ground for the promiscuous admission of their parents to the Lords Supper For the first of these We admit children to Baptisme 1. By vertue of their remote parents who may be good though their immediate parents be bad Acts 2.39 The promise is made to you and to your children and to all that are afar off c. To your children indefinitely not to your next children onely Which is yet more evident by comparing Levit. 26.45 Micah 7.20 where the Covenant of Ancestors and Parents extends to the children for many generations till the children themselves in person renounce the Covenant This also is hinted in the Text under the notion of them that are afar off which is extendable not only to remoteness of place or of state but also to remoteness of time that is as Beza notes to your children in remote ages to come Omnibus longè post futuris Nor is it in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Gentiles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 2.17 and so opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but future generations are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this particular mercy triumphs over justice in that God who punishes the parents sin to the fourth generation extends Covenant-mercy to a thousand generations Exod. 20. ver 5 6. Nor was Peters design here to foretell the calling of the Gentiles but to incourage his Auditors to faith and repentance since as Beza well notes upon the place the mystery of the Gentiles votation was not yet known to Peter himself nor was expedient to be revealed to these new Converts had he known it never so well As the Covenant of Adam so the Covenant of Abraham as the Covenant of Works so the Covenant of Grace is extendible to many generations and where the root is holy there not only the immediate but also the most remote branches are federally holy Rom. 11.16 and that whether the branches be naturall or ingrafted ver 17. 2. Children may be admitted by stipulation of others to see them educated in the faith into which they are baptized be the parents themselves never so wicked yea excommunicated yea Papists and thus bastards and foundlings may be baptized See Amesius his Cases lib. 4. cap. 27. Nay upon this account divers learned men very probably conceive that even Heathen children may be baptized if once taken into a Christian Family where the Governour or Governours undertake for their Christian education and they are out of the power of their Heathen parents for by being members of a Christian Family they are made members of the visible Church as civill though not naturall children of Christians I am sure this Doctrine is consonant to the Analogy of Circumcision Genes 17.12 where not onely the childe born in the house but also bought with money was to be circumcised yea bought of strangers and not of the seed of Abraham as is express and evident in the Text. Thus an Heathen born in the house or bought with money might eat of the holy things Levit. 21.11 3. These is something considerable in the immediate parents which makes their children capable of Baptisme and 1. Though they transgress yet they do not renounce the Covenant as Turks do 2. They are Members of the visible Church till excommunicated and why may not the children be admitted to the same priviledge the parents yet injoy provided their tender age be capable of that priviledge and children are as capable of Baptisme as they were of Circumcision both being passive Ordinances The second thing to be cleared is That the promiscuous admission of children to Baptisme is no ground for the promiscuous admission of their parents to the Lords Supper This is evident 1. Because more is required to make a person capable of the Lords Supper then an Infant capable of Baptisme 2. Personall unworthiness may easily appear in the parent which cannot appear in the Infant 3. It is not simple membership gives an immediate right to the Lords Supper and therefore though the parents membership do regularly make the childe capable of Church membership and so give it a right to Baptisme yet neither his own nor his childes Church membership can make the parent capable of the Lords Supper a priviledge not for every Church member but for a visibly worthy Church member Suppose the same person Timothy for instance baptized regularly in his riper years yea and admitted to the Lords Supper also as visibly worthy afterwards he walks scandalously he is 1. Admonished 2. Suspended 3. If persisting obstinate dismembred I beseech you what irregular proceeding is here 4. Therefore if the promiscuous admission of children to Baptisme is no ground for their own promiscuous admission