Selected quad for the lemma: mercy_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
mercy_n	glory_n	prepare_v	vessel_n	3,783	5	9.2997	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62867	An examen of the sermon of Mr. Stephen Marshal about infant-baptisme in a letter sent to him.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1645 (1645)	Wing T1804; ESTC R200471	183,442	201

and others commendation of it To me the Text he cites Rom. 9.32 33. compared with 1 Pet. 2.9 doe as well agree to prove that 1 Pet. 2.9 is meant of all those who doe not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Christ as a harp and a harrow doe consort to make musique But perhaps wee may see more by looking forward Secondly saith Mr Blake by looking forward to that which followes in the character which the Apostle before he ends his description addes which in times past were not a people but now are the people of God A speech taken from the Prophet to set forth the case of the Gentiles as it is also by S t Paul interpreted Rom. 9.26 but the Gentiles thus called and of no people made a people have all a Covenant-holiness and not alwayes inherent holiness Sure the word nation and people did so run in Mr Blakes mind that he could thinke of nothing but a nationall Church like the Jewes whereas if he had weighed the words ver 10. of having obtained mercy and considered that both Rom. 9.25 26. are meant of the same of whom he said ver 23. that they were the vessels of mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory he would have plainly perceived the people and nation to be meant of the invisible Church of the Elect and so nothing in that Text for the holiness of a believing Nation as some speake communicating a priviledge of the seales to the infants of that Nation which how absurd a conceit it is may be shewed perhaps more fully in that which followes You adde to whom as well as to them belongs the adoption the Covenant the promises You allude doubtless to Rom. 9.4 but had you alledged the whole Text ver 3 4 5. you would then have seen that it speakes of peculiar priviledges of the Jewes to whom the adoption Covenants that is as Beza thinkes the tables of the Covenant the promises of their multiplying having the Messiah from them c. were peculiar in the sense the Apostle there speakes And so Mr Rutherfurd due right of Presbyteries Chap. 4. sect 5. pag. 192. That they had prerogatives above us is cleare Rom. 3.1 2 3. Rom. 9.4 and that in other respects far more excellent we have prerogatives above them it is as cleare 2 Cor. 3.7 8 9. Mat. 13.16 17. So that even in respect of the Covenant made with Abraham it is plaine the Jewes had some priviledges above us and therefore this place proves the contrary to your conclusion and that the want of some priviledges they had may be recompensed by some other priviledges we have And therefore you may see how feeble a reason this is from the Jewish priviledge of infant-males circumcision to prove infant-Baptisme But to follow you in your way You say we as well as they injoy him to be our Father and with his dearest Sonne our Lord are made co-heires of the Kingdome of Glory All this is granted but to what purpose it is produced I see not You adde we have all these things with advantage not onely in the clearnesse of the administration but in some sense in greater extent to persons with us there is neither male nor female This is true also we have the substance of the Covenant of Grace that is justification c. with advantage not only in the clearness of administration but in some sense in greater extent to persons with us For now not only the small Nation of the Jewes but also of all Nations believers are brought into the Covenant of Grace But this proves not your conclusion or any of those things that may serve for your purpose You adde And there is neither male nor female Why you adde this I know not except you mean to insinuate that in the Jewish Church there was male and female because Circumcision was onely of Males But neither doth the Apostle Gal. 3.28 intimate that wee are better than the Jewes as if their females were not within the Covenant of Grace nor will you say it Now that which you were speaking of was the substance of the Covenant of Grace that wee are made co-heires of the Kingdome of Glory c. not of the administration of it and so there was no more distinction of male and female with the Jewes then with us nor more priviledges of ours then of the Jewes in this particular Thus have I examined all the proofes you bring for your fifth Conclusion and thereby you may perceive how you have heaped together many places of Scripture without any usefull order or distinction or pertinency to the thing in hand You bring in next an objection thus Some indeed goe about to shew that in some things the Jewes had greater priviledges then we have as that Abraham had the priviledge to be called the Father of the Faithfull that Christ should be borne of his flesh Mary had the priviledge to be the Mother of Christ and the whole Nation this priviledge that God will call in their seed againe after they had been cast off for unbeliefe many hundred yeares which priviledges say they none of the Gentiles have or can have It is true that in answer to the argument from Circumcision as it is popularly framed which yet I perceive many that either are or should be scholars to examine things more scholastically do or pretend to satisfie their consciences with thus If the children of believers be not to be baptized then we have less priviledge then the Jewes then the Grace of God under the new Testament is straitned more then in the old To this argument as being an argument of no weight but onely among vulgar and non-syllogizing capacities among other things I said thus in my Latin paper above mentioned Nec absurdum est dicere respectu aliquorum privilegiorum gratiam Dei contractiorem in novo Testamento quàm in veteri v. gr Nulla familia habet privilegium quod Abrahami familiae concessum est ut ex ea nasceretur Christus nullus vir praeter Abrahamum pater fidelium nulla faemina praeter unicam mater Christi c. Yet it is not absurd to say that in respect of some priviledges the grace of God is more contracted in the new Testament then in the old For instance no family hath now the priviledge that was granted to Abrahams family that out of it Christ should be borne no man besides Abraham is called the Father of the faithfull no woman besides one the mother of Christ. By which I would shew that it is no absurditie to grant that the Jewes may have more priviledges secundum quid in some things then wee and yet our case and condition to speak simply better then theirs by reason of other priviledges we have above them which recompence the defect of those priviledges whether real or supposed which is the very same which as Robinson did alledge so Rutherford grants in the place above-named and cites two Scriptures