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	vessel_n	wrath_n	3,740	5	9.3244	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69227	A sermon preached at Paules Crosse, the sixt of February. 1596 In which are discussed these three conclusions. 1 It is not the will of God that all men should be saued. 2 The absolute will of God, and his secret decree from all eternitie is the cause why some are predestined to saluation, others to destruction, and not any foresight of faith, or good workes in the one, or infidelitie, neglect, or contempt in the other. 3 Christ died not effectually for all. By Iohn Doue, Doctor of Diuinitie.	Dove, John, 1560 or 61-1618.	1597 (1597)	STC 7087; ESTC S111946	36,520	88

thing he commaunded an other thing by them to be done We must not inquire after his secret will but wee must follow his written commandement Secondly howsoeuer the wicked do the wil of god yet they do it not to that ende to obey his will but to satisfie their owne desire As Hugo writeth Non sua voluntate diriguntur ad implendam Dei voluntatem sed occulta illiu dispositione They are not moued by their owne will to fulfill the will of God for they meane nothing lesse but by Gods secret inclination wherby hee moueth them so to do they doe his wil not knowing themselues that God hath appointed them to do so And as Augustine sayth Quum pater tradidit filium Dominus corpus suum Iudas dominum cur in hac traditione Dominus est iustus Iudas reus nisi quod in vna re quam fecerunt causa non erat vna ob quam fecerunt When God the father gaue his Sonne and the Sonne gaue his owne bodie and Iudas gaue our Lorde the action beeing one and the same why were God the father and the sonne iust but Iudas guiltie vnlesse because the thing being one which they did the end and intent was not one for which they did it For God gaue his sonne for the redemption of mankinde the sonne gaue himselfe to be our redeemer but Iudas gaue him for thirty peeces of siluer because he was a theefe and loued the purse As in another place saint Augustine speaketh most fitly to this purpose in this maner Quandoque bona voluntate ho●mo vult quod Deus non vult quum tamen dei voluntas sit bona vt si bonus filius velit patrem viuere quem Deus bona voluntate vult mori Et potest fieri vt homo velit id voluntate mala quod Deus vult bona vt si malus filius velit mori patrem velit hoc etiam Deus Tantum interest quid velle homini quid Deo congruat ad quem finem suam quisque referat voluntatem vt approbetur vel improbetur Deus quasdam voluntates suas bonas implet per hominum voluntates malas sicut per Iudaeos maleuolos bona voluntate patris Christus occisus est quod ita bonum fuit vt Matt. 16. quando Petrus id fieri nolebat Satanas ab eo qui occidi venerat diceretur Sometimes the will of man is contrary to the will of God and yet his will is good sometimes againe the will of man concurreth with the will of God and yet the will of God is good the will of man euill As for example A good sonne desireth that his father may liue when the will of God is that hee shall die there the will of man is pleasing to God though the one be contrarie to the other Likewise an euil sonne is willing that his father shal die God willeth the same the will of God and man are the same yet one is iust the other is sinne c. I come to the second conclusion The absolute will of God and his secret decree from all eternitie is the cause why some are ordayned to saluation others to death and destruction and not any foresight of faith or good works in the one or of infidelity neglect or contempt in the other This conclusion is the doctrine of no lesse Doctor in diuinitie then Saint Paule himself most learnedly and profoundly deliuered in the Epistle to the Romans cap. 9. from the 11. to the 23. verse where he writeth in this maner 11 For before the children were borne and when they had done neither good nor euill that the purpose of God might remain according to election not by works but by him that calleth 12 It was said vnto her the elder shall serue the yonger 13 As it is written I haue loued Iacob and hated Esau 14 VVhat shall we say then Is there vnrighteousnesse with God God forbid 15 For he said to Moses I will haue mercie on him on whom I will haue mercie and will haue compassion on him on whō I will haue compassion 16 So then it is not in him that willeth nor in him that runneth but in God that sheweth mercie 17 For the Scripture saith to Pharao for this purpose haue I stirred thee vp that I might shew my power in thee and that my name might be declared through all the earth 18 Therefore he hath mercie on whom he will haue mercie and whom he will hee hardeneth 19 Thou wilt say then vnto me why doth he yet complaine for who hath resisted his will 20 But O man who art thou which pleadest agaynst God shall the thing formed say to him that formed it why hast thou made me thus 21 Hath not the potter power ouer the clay to make of the same lumpe one vessel to honor and another to dishonor 22 VVhat if God would to shew his wrath and to make his power knowen suffer with long patience the vessels of wrath prepared to destruction 23 And that he might declare the riches of his glorie vppon the vessels of mercie which he hath prepared vnto glorie In which words are cōtained three things first the conclusion it selfe Secondly That notwithstanding he loueth some and hateth others before they are borne when they haue done neyther good nor euill yet God in so doing is not cruell or vniust Thirdly Albeit God hardeneth the harts of men to do euill as hee did the heart of Pharao and that according to his owne will and pleasure and it is not in the power of man to auoyd it for who can resist the will of God yet Gods wrath is iustly kindeled agaynst them whome hee hardeneth The conclusion in these wordes For before the Children were borne meaning the two twinnes of Rebecca Esau and Iacob and when they had done neyther good nor euill it was saide to her that is to Rebecca Gen. 25. the elder shall serue the yonger that is Esau shall serue Iacob And because it may bee a question what is meant by these words The elder shall serue the younger hee dooth interprete them by a playner place of Scripture out of Malachy that is God hath loued Iacob and hated Esau The reason why God loued the one and hated the other before they were borne and when they had done neither good nor euill is alleaged in the parenthesis that the purpose or secret decree of god in choosing one refusing the other might remain according to electiō not by works but by him that calleth which is God alone There is plainly set downe the eternall decree of God in choosing some and reiecting others proceeding meerely from himselfe without any respect or regarde of the persons which are elect or reprobate or any thing foreseene in them where hee sayth Not by workes but by him that calleth And here is preuented the aunswere of the Papistes which confesse that Iacob was loued before hee was borne but

both was in iustice inflicted vpon one and in mercie but vpon the one that as one was an example of his iustice so the other might bee a vessell of mercie that none may boast of his owne merits because it is not in him that willeth nor in him that runneth but in God that sheweth mercie When the wicked shall be tormented in hell fire then shal Gods saints clearly perceiue howe much his grace and mercie did auaile them then shall they find it true by their owne experience as a thing verified in themselues which Dauid speaketh in his hundred Psalme My song shall be of mercie and iudgement For that they are saued it is free mercie that the other are damned it is iust iudgement When of two infants one is chosen through mercie the other refused in iustice he which is chosen cannot but confesse what in iustice was due vnto himselfe had not mercy beene shewed vnto him So then where mercye is not shewed there is not iniquity but iust iudgment inflicted I remember Saint Augustine speaketh very fitly to this purpose in an other place though vpon an other occasion for in his 157. Epistle to Optatus he proposeth this question why God hath ordained so few to be saued and foreseeing that so many millions of men are to bee damned for their sinnes why he doth creaate them Why so mercifull a God should be glorified more by the damnation then saluation of his owne creatures For if his glorie did consist in sauing rather then in destroying it should seeme without doubt that the greatest number shoulde bee saued and that hee would not create those whom he doth foreknowe to be but reprobate Hee maketh this answere Meritò iniustum videretur quòd fiunt vasa ad perditionem nisi esset vniuersa ex Adam massa damnata Indeede it might seeme verie iniurious that anie shoulde be ordayned to bee vessels of wrath if it were not that the whole lumpe of which the vessels of wrath are framed had beene damned before in Adam but nowe Quod fiunt nascendo vasa irae pertinet ad debitam paenam quod fiunt renascendo vasa misericordiae pertinet ad indebitam gratiam That manie are borne vesselles of wrath it is but a iust punishment due to theyr originall sinne that a fewe by their regeneration are made vessels of mercie it is vndeserued fauour But if all which are borne of Adam shoulde bee regenerate and borne anew and none should bee damned then Lateret beneficium quod donatur indignis Then Gods mercie which is extended to them that are saued which indeede are all vnworthy of their saluation would not bee so apparent as nowe it is when but a fewe are saued Plures Deus fecit damnandos quam saluandos incomparabili multitudine vt reiectorum multitudine ostenderetur quàm nulli momenti sit apud Deum iustum quan● talibet numerositas iustissimè damnatorum atque vt hinc quoque intelligant qui ex ipsa damnatione redimuntur hoc fuisse massae illi vniuersae debitum quod tam magnae eius parti redditum cernerent But therefore GOD hath ordayned without all comparison more to bee damned then to bee saued for these two causes First that it myght appeare by the great multitudes of them which are damned howe little GOD which is most iust regardeth the outcryes of whole multitudes of sinners which are iustlye punished Secondlye that they which are redeemed from that damnation may by their owne redemption confesse when they see the greater part damned that that damnation was due to the whole lumpe and therefore to their owne selues which was adiudged to the greater part Secondly he is not vniust by any parciality in punishing because first hee may because it is his will and pleasure iustly condemne some as it appeareth by Pharao secondly as in election so in reprobation between his decree and the execution of his decree there bee subordinate causes for although his will be the first principall cause that he decreeth who shall be saued and who shall bee damned yet between his decree to saue and saluation it selfe there is mercie for none is saued but by mercie and betweene his decree to condemne and the damnation there is hardening that men can not repent but continue in their sinnes So that albeit the cause why he decreed that men shoulde bee damned is only in himself because his owne wil is the cause of that decree there is found cause of damnation inherent in themselues which is infidelitie and hardnesse of heart so that none are condemned but first there is found in them matter enough worthy of condemnation as the Prophet speaketh Perditio tua ex te salus ex me Israel Thy saluation ô Israel commeth onely from me but thy damnation from thy selfe And as the apostle speaketh These which as bruit beasts lead with sensualities speake euill of the things they knowe not shall perish through their owne corruption Lastly where it is written Thou wilt say vnto me why doth hee yet complaine for who hath resisted his will Hee graunteth two antecedents that God hardeneth whō he will And that no man hath power to resist his will And yet the argument is denied as a weake consequent that therfore Gods wrath is vniustly kindled against them whō he thus hardeneth and constraineth to do his will shewing that man may not thus expostulate which hee proueth by two reasons First an argument called in Logicke à comparatis where he saith Nunquid deo non licebit quod figulo licet The potter may of his owne clay make vessels for the bedde as well as for the boord and may not God much more of the same lumpe make vessels of wrath The second is Ab optimo fine diuini concilij drawn from the end which God doth propose where he saith What if God woulde to shewe his wrath and to make his power knowen suffer with long patience the vessels of wrath prepared to destruction And that he might declare the riches of his glorie vppon the vessels of mercie whom he hath prepared to glorie who can accuse him of vniustice Then he sheweth that neither the saluation of the elect nor the damnation of the wicked is the last ende of his eternall decree and purpose but that he proposeth a further and better end which is his owne glorie that he may shewe his wrath and make his power knowne as also he may declare the riches of his glorie A poynt of so deepe diuinitie woulde require both a learned and large discourse especially before so honourable frequent and iudicious an auditorie but two houres are too short a scantling I am cōstrained to be briefer then I woulde But that you may bee fully satisfied concerning this poynt I will with as great breuitie as I can aunswere three obiections which doe seeme to make agaynst this doctrine of predestination which I haue deliuered vnto you The first is of

the dew of heauen and fatnesse of the earth and plentie of wheat and wine But with the same blessing he blessed Esau though not in so great and ample maner saying Behold the fatnesse of the earth shall bee thy dwelling place and thou shalt haue of the dewe of heauen from aboue But all these things are temporall respects 3 If these things had been spirituall and to be vnderstood of the life to come then Iacob and Esau standing in opposition one against the other in so much that one should be chosen the other damned then both of them could not haue beene blessed That I may answer with as great breuitie as I can The Argument doth not follow that because Saint Paule dooth discourse of whole nations and not of particular persons therefore these words do make against predestination For if we do well consider the drift and scope of the Apostle in this place we shall find the contrarie most plainely to appeare For although the argument which the Apostle handleth in that Chapter and the two other Chapters following is a speciall discourse of the generall apostacie and reiection of the Iewes and the vocation of the Gentiles yet by a kinde of occupation he entreth into a particular tract of predestination although it be obiter and by the way as a question most necessary to be touched for the right vnderstanding of a place of Scripture which seemeth at the first sight flatly to make agaynst this doctrine which he hath deliuered concerning the generall reiection of the Iewes and so hee inintreateth of predestination for the preuenting of an obiection For in the beginning of the same chapter hauing lamented the reiecting of his kindred the Iewes hee maketh this obiection with himselfe If it bee so that God hath reiected the Iewes and called the Gentiles in their place it should seem to be contrarie to the couenant which he made with Abraham for his promise to Abraham was otherwise and that his worde should be of none effect To which obiection he answereth that albeit the generall reiecting of the Iewes yet the promise which the Lorde made to Abrahaem remaineth sure and stedfast for as much as notwithstanding their general apostacy and infidelitie the Lorde in his secret counsaile chooseth of them some in particular whom hee listeth whom hee hath before predestinated to saluation For hee made the promise to Abraham and his seede not in a generalitie to all his seede according to the flesh but in particular to all those of his seede which should be his children according to the fayth euen as hee was the father of the faithfull And therefore the state of this question thus standeth That this grace is offered to all the posteritie of Abraham without exception that hee woulde bee their God and they should be his people but it is sealed onely to the faythfull the vertue and efficacie thereof appertaineth onely vnto them of the seed of Abraham which be of the number of Gods elect which are predestinated which hee proueth by two examples the one of Abraham and the other of Isaac Concerning Abraham hee hadde two sonnes Isaac and Ismael though Ismael were the sonne of Abraham as well as Isaac yea and circumcised before Isaac had receyued the circumcision yet by the ordinance of God was Isaac onely reputed the sonne of Abraham and the heire of the promise and Ismael reiected hee yeeldeth this reason because they which are the children according to the flesh are not as children but only the children of the promise are accounted for the seede Concerning Isaac also he had two sonnes Esau and Iacob both they were twinnes and nearer one to the other then Isaac and Ismael because they had both the same father and mother yet before either was borne one was chosen the other refused to shewe that notwithstanding the generall reiection of the Iewes yet God kept his promise with Abraham forasmuch as it concerneth onelye those children of Abraham which are according to faith and not according to the flesh alone whom he predestinated before they were borne not for any foresight of any good thing in them but of his owne good will and pleasure because it was his will and pleasure which in deed are in number but a fewe beeing compared with the great multitude of them whom he hath hated although they be of the stock of Abraham And as for that loue and hatred wherwith hee loued one and hated the other although it be historically vnderstoode as it is in Moses and Malachy consisteth of temporall and worldly blessings yet in this Epistle of Saint Paule it cannot otherwise be constered then of the kingdome of heauen and of the life to come as Paule himselfe the best interpreter of himselfe dooth in the wordes which followe explaine his meaning For he sheweth that the hatred of Esau was such as the hardening of Pharao a reprobate not onely in this life but also in the life to come Moreouer hee tearmeth thē which are so hated the vessels of wrath prepared to destruction and them which were so loued as Iacob was loued the vessels of mercie prepared to glorie saying God to shewe his wrath and to make his power knowen doth suffer with long patience the vessels of wrath prepared to destruction and to declare the riches of his glorie vpon the vessels of mercie which he hath prepared vnto glorie Furthermore least wee should bee like the Iewes which when the vaile was put vppon Moses his face did not looke to the end of that which should be abolished and therefore theyr mindes are hardened and till this day doth remaine the same couering vntaken away in the reading of the olde Testament wee must not be ignorant that it receyueth two interpretations the one hystoricall the other mysticall as Sixtus Senensis and Saint Augustine did well obserue As for example Christ speaketh of Iudas in this maner I speake not of you all I know whom I haue chosen but it is that the scripture might be fulfilled he that eateth bread with me hath lifted vp his heele against me But if ye conferre these wordes with the wordes of the prophet from whence they are taken they do hystorically concerne the person of Dauid and his acquaintance and cannot bee vnderstoode of Christ and Iudas because Christ was without sinne but in the fourth verse of that Psalme he sayth Haue mercy on me and heale my soule for I haue sinned against thee Yet Christ in the new Testament dooth mystically expounde it of himselfe the treason of Iudas against his person Likewise Peter interpreteth this saying of Dauid Let his habitation be void no man dwell therein of Iudas where in that place the prophet speaketh in the plural nūber not of one but of many saying Let their habition be voide and none dwell in their tents speaking of the whole nation of the Iewes that the iust punishment of God should be iustly inflicted

ex praeuisis operibus for the good workes which God foresawe in him as also of Huberus and other Lutherans of our times the brochers of straunge opinions which holde that some are predestinated to bee vessels of honour but expreuisa fide because of theyr fayth which God did foresee to bee in them others of dishonour but ex mero contemptu aut neglectu non ex Dei decreto not by anie decree of God but because hee had in them a foresight eyther of neglect or contempt as if the causes of theyr predestination were in themselues and not in God whereas in deede these wordes Not by workes but by him that calleth do ende all controuersie shewing that the whole causes of election and reprobation are in himselfe and not in vs and therefore not long of any fayth or workes of ours And as Saint Augustine sayth Si futura opera quae Deus vtique praesciebat vellet intelligi nequaquam diceret non ex operibus sed ex futuris operibus eoque modo istam solueret quaestionem immo nullam quam solui opus esset faceret quaestionem If the Apostle did vnderstād any good works foreseene in Iacob to be the cause why God did loue him he would not say as he doth Not of workes but he would rather say God loued him because of his workes which hee foresaw in him and so he would not onely ende this controuersie but make it so plaine that it should be indeed without all controuersie Againe the Apostle doth explaine his owne meaning that he loued Iacob and hated Esau without respect of any thing in them worthy of loue or hatred by the obiection following where he sayth What shall wee say then Is there iniquitie with God God forbid Because it seemeth to flesh and blood not to stand with the iustice of God to condemne men before they are borne but to be crueltie in him to hate thē which neuer did euill therefore the apostle preuenteth that obiection and purgeth God of that suspition which men might cōceiue against him which he should not need to do if God did loue or hate vpon anie foresight of faith or good works in the one or neglect and contempt in the other for that were in the iudgement of men a sufficient cause of loue and hatred without all shewe of iniustice Thirdly he maketh it yet more plaine by the wordes which follow vers 18. where he saith Hee will haue mercie on whom he will haue mercie and whom he will he hardeneth He maketh two causes of saluation and damnation and both subordinate to an higher and more principall cause the subordinate cause of saluation beeing mercye because none is saued but by mercie of damnation hardening or obdurating for they which be damned are hardened in their sinnes that they cannot repent and both those inferior causes are subordinate to his will as the highest cause and onely in himselfe and these inferiour causes doe both proceed from his will And finally when he sayth It is not meaning election in him that willeth that is in the indeuors of man nor in him that runneth that is in the workes of men but in God onely that sheweth mercy hee teacheth that the onely rule of predestination and reprobation whereby God is directed and the only law which he tieth himself to obserue therin is his will so that no part of our electiō is ascribed to our selues or any thing which may be in vs. Secondly to answere this obiection Is there iniquitie with God God forbid He cleareth that two maner of waies First God is not vniust by being partiall in sauing hee dooth not erre in his choyse by preferring Iacob before Esau when the case of them both was one both vnborne neither of them had done good why hee should bee chosen or euill why hee should be refused For God will haue mercy on whom he will haue mercy Non potest peccare in dolectu cuius voluntas est iusticiae regula Hee cannot erre in his choyse when that is iust whatso-soeuer is his will When two theeues haue committed murther and both deserued death may not the King without suspition of iniustice shewe mercie in pardoning the one and doe iudgement in executing the other Iacob and Esau were both as we all are by nature the children of wrath could not God iustly haue compassion on Iacob and let Esau die in his sinnes That anie are saued it is his mercie and hee may haue mercie on whom hee will It is worthie of obseruation that the Apostle dooth say when they had done neither good nor euill But hee dooth not say when they were neither good nor euill For true it is that they had done neither good nor euill because they were vnborne and therefore coulde not commit anie actuall sinne but they were both of them euill for both were infected with originall sinne in their mothers wombe which they drewe by inheritance from Isaac theyr father and Rebecca their mother and therefore sayeth Augustine Ambo gemini natura filijirae nascebantur nullis quidem operibus proprijs sed originaliter in Adam vinculo damnationis obstricti Iacobum igitur dilexit per miscricordiam gratuitam Esaum odit per iudicium debitum quod quum deberetur ambobus in altero tantum alter agnouit non de suis meritis sibi gloriandum sed de diuinae misericordiae largitate quia non est volentis neque currentis sed Dei miserentis Cap. 94. Remanentibus reprobis in aeterna poena sancti scient planius quid illis contulerit gratia tum vebus ipsis apparebit quod Psal 100. scriptum est misericordiam iudicium tibi cantabo domine quia nisi per indebitam misericordiam nemo saluatur nisi per debitum iudicium nemo dānatur Cap. 95. Ex duobus paruulis alter assumiter per dei misericordiam alter relinquitur per Dei iudicium in quo is qui assumitur agnoscit quid sibi per iudicium debebatur nisi misericordia subueniret Cur iste assumitur magis quam ille cum vna causa esset ambobus eadē est causa cur apud quosdam nō sunt factae virtutes nempe in Tiro Sidone Mat. 11. Quae si factae fuissent poenitentiam egissent sed in Corazin Bethsaida factae sunt qui non erant credituri Cap. 99. Quum Dei misericordiam commendasset dicens non est volentis neque currentis c. deinde iudiciū commendat quoniam in quo non fit misericordia non fit iniquitas sed iudicium They were both by nature the children of wrath not by reason of any offence which thēselues had cōmitted but for y ● first offēce of Adam they were in state of damnation as all the rest of Adams posteritie wherefore that God loued Iacob it was free mercy and vndeserued grace that hee hated Esau it was no wrong but iustice a punishment due vnto his sinnes which punishment being due vnto them