Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	covenant_n	promise_n	seal_n	4,049	5	9.6971	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15082	A replie to Iesuit Fishers answere to certain questions propou[n]ded by his most gratious Matie: King Iames By Francis White D: of Div· deane of Carlile, chaplaine to his Matie. Hereunto is annexed, a conference of the right: R:B: of St Dauids wth the same Iesuit*	White, Francis, 1564?-1638.; Laud, William, 1573-1645.; Baylie, Richard, b. 1585 or 6, attributed name.; Cockson, Thomas, engraver.; Fisher, John, 1569-1641.	1624 (1624)	STC 25382; ESTC S122241	841,497	706

speciall Promise of Diuine assistance and grace is annexed to the Sacramentall signes vsed and receiued according to Christs Institution which belongeth not to other signes and figures therefore it is inconsequent to say one Element receiued alone signifies as much in substance as both Ergo the vse of one Element is as profitable and effectuall as the vse and reception of both But if the obiection be reduced to forme the defect will be more apparent If there is the same signification of one single Element which there is of both then there is the same benefit obtained by receiuing one which is obtained by receiuing both But there is the same signification of one single Element which there is of both to wit spirituall Food vnion of the Faithfull and Christs passion Ergo There is the same benefit obtayned by receiuing in one kind as in both I answer First denying the consequence of the Maior Proposition For although there were the same signification in one Element which is of both yet there is not equall benefit reaped by receiuing one as is reaped by receiuing both because the promise of Grace is annexed to the receiuing both and not to the receiuing of one without the other for when a promise is made vpon condition of a duty to be performed the promise is not fulfilled but vpon obseruing the condition Now Christ hauing instituted the Sacrament as a seale of his Couenant and appointed the same to be receiued in both kinds as his Institution shewes the Church cannot expect that Christ should fulfill his promise in giuing his flesh and blood by the Sacrament vnlesse the Church obserue his ordinance and doe that which he appointed Also obedience is better than Sacrifice 1. Sam. 15. 22. but when we administer and receiue in both kinds we obey Christ saying Drinke ye all of this and we disobey when we doe otherwise Therefore although there were the same signification of one Element which is of both yet the same benefit is not reaped by receiuing one which is obtained by receiuing both Secondly to the assumption I answer that there is a more perfect and liuely representation of spirituall feeding and refection and of coniunction of the faithfull and of Christs death and Sacrifice vpon the crosse by both the signes than by one and pouring out of the wine doth in a cleerer manner represent and signifie the effusion of Christs bloud and also the separation of his body and soule and there is a more perfect similitude of nourishment in Bread and Wine together than in Bread alone Eccles. 4. 9. so likewise two Elements represent more than one and nourish more than one and vnite more than one Otherwise if the representation of one Element were equall to the representation of both to what purpose should our Sauiour institute a Sacrament in two kinds which according to Papists who will seeme wiser than God is as sufficient in one kind as in both IESVIT The fourth thing required to the substance of a Sacrament is Causalitie to wit to worke in the soule the Spirituall effects it signifies This Causalitie cannot be wanting to the Sacrament vnder one kind wherein is contayned the fountaine of Spirituall life For the cause why the Sacrament in both kinds giueth grace and refresheth the soule is That Christ is assistant vnto them bound by his promise at the presence of sensible signes to worke the proportionable spirituall effects in disposed soules But Christ is in the Sacrament vnder the forme of Bread and he is able through infinite power and bound by inuiolable promise to worke the effect of grace preseruing vnto life eternall the worthy participant of this Sacrament vnder the forms of Bread Qui manducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum Not any doubt then may be made but the Sacrament in one kind is full entire compleate in substance and by participation thereof prepared consciences doe receiue the benefite of celestiall fauour that conserueth the life of the soule with daily increase in perfection ANSVVER The summe of this obiection is There is the same power of causing Grace in one signe receiued alone as in both because Christ the Fountaine of Grace is receiued in one signe alone Ioh. 6. 51. Therefore the receiuing of one signe alone is as sufficient and profitable as the sumption of both The Antecedent of this Argument is denyed And the Scripture Ioh. 6. 51. saith not Whosoeuer eateth Sacramentall Bread without Wine shall liue for euer but if any eat this Bread which came downe from Heauen to wit Christ Iesus incarnate shall liue for euer And then it followeth Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you Ioh. 6.53 Now let the Romist chuse which Exposition hee pleaseth If our Sauiour in these last words speaketh of Sacramentall and Spirituall eating ioyntly then Communion in both kinds is necessarie to life eternall and if he speake of Spirituall eating only by Faith then this Scripture prooueth not the necessitie of receiuing eyther Bread or Wine and much lesse prooueth it that there is the power of causing Grace in receiuing Bread alone IESVIT §. 4. Communion vnder one kind not against Christ his Precept ALthough Communion vnder both kinds pertaine not to the substance of the Sacrament yet if Christ did specially command the same we are bound to that obseruance and should by Communion vnder one kind sinne not against his Sacrament and Institution but against a speciall Diuine Precept ANSWER WHen Christ instituted the Sacrament he prouided and prescribed two materiall Elements and not one onely or none and he sanctified and distributed both and with his Institution and Practise he conioyned a Precept Doe this in remembrance of me Drinke ye all of this Saint Paul likewise saith Let a man prooue himselfe and so let him eate of this Bread and drinke of this Cup and the practise of the holy Apostles in their dayes and of the successours of the Apostles and Saint Pauls owne practise appeareth 1. Cor. 10.16 cap. 11.26 and he describeth Communicating by taking the Cup as a most noble part saying Yee cannot drinke the cup of the Lord and the cup of deuils 1. Cor. 10.21 Iustin Martir who borders vpon the Apostles saith That Christians in his age distributed the sanctified Bread and Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to euery one present and he addeth further that the Apostles taught That Iesus commanded them to doe thus Saint Chrysostome saith That whereas in the old Law there was a difference betweene Priests and Laicks in communicating of Victimes in the New Testament it is otherwise for one Bodie and one Cup is ministred to all This practise continued as a Law more than a thousand yeeres after Christ. And Haimo who liued in the yeere 850. saith That in his dayes all the people receiued out of the

God for then hee must free iust persons from all sinne but in respect of some particular Actions to wit whereas the Law of Charitie commandeth to distribute a portion of goods to the poore a man may bestow halfe his goods neuerthelesse he which performeth this may be deficient another way for he may fall short in the intension of his Charitie and also in the measure of his Hope Humilitie and other vertues The Iesuit concludeth the place of Saint Ambrose Lib. de viduis with an Exclamation saying What can bee more clearely spoken for Workes of Counsell and Supererogation But before his boasting he should haue aduised better touching these Fathers meaning First Ambrose teacheth that there is a difference betweene Precepts and Counsells Secondly That the obseruing of Counsells is not required of all but of some Thirdly They which besides Precepts obserue Counsells are more profitable seruants and shall receiue a greater reward Now the Argument for Workes of Supererogation from this Testimonie of St. Ambrose must be as followeth If they are more profitable seruants and receiue a greater reward which performe some vertuous and laudable Actions not inioyned by common Precept but by Councell then Workes of Supererogation must be granted But they are more profitable seruants and receiue a greater reward which performe some vertuous Actions not inioyned by common Precept but by Councell Ergo Workes of Supererogation must be granted I answere denying the Consequence for to the being and definition of Workes of Supererogation more is required than the performing of some vertuous and rewardable Actions inioyned by Councell and not by common Precept to wit First That the said vertuous and laudable Actions bee neither inioyned by strict and morall Precept nor yet by the Law of gratitude for when the Fathers oppose Precepts and Councels they vnderstand Precepts strictly and not the Law of Gratitude Secondly They which supererogate must doe the same vniuersally and transcend the common rule in euery Precept and vertuous Action and not in some alone Thirdly They must so transcend that they be guiltie of no Omission or Commission either against the substance or perfection of any morall Commandement IESVIT Neither is there any arrogancie as J said before in this Doctrine for neither the Fathers nor wee attribute more vnto man than Protestants doe but onely acknowledge one kinde of Diuine liberalitie towards man which Protestants bee somewhat backward to beleeue for Protestants will not denie supposing that God exacteth much lesse than man is able by his grace to performe but a man may offer vnto God some voluntarie seruices beyond commanded duties Catholickes also grant that had God vsed the vttermost seueritie in charging vs with debts as hee might hane done we could neuer by any measure of grace that now is ordinarily affoorded vnto men haue complied with vnrequired offices The difference therefore betweene them and vs is this They thinke that God seuerely exacteth of man that euer and in all 〈◊〉 hee worke according to the vttermost of his power yea commands him things impossible for him to performe Contrarywise wee 〈◊〉 that God to the end his Law may bee vnto men A sweet yoke A light loade and his Commandements not difficile doth not exact of man all that man is able to doe with his grace but much lesse and so much lesse as man is able through his remission to offer him liberalities What pride is it for man to acknowledge this sweet prouidence of this Creatour to praise his mercifull indulgence in not exacting so much as he might Especially beleeuing that this diuine indulgence not to exact of man and consequently mans abilitie to present vnto God more perfect and excellent seruice than he requires is giuen him through the merits of Christ Iesus ANSWER First You couple your selues with Fathers like as the Pharises did themselues with Abraham Sed quid Simiae prodest si videatur esse Leo saith Gregorie Nazianzen An Ape is but an Ape although he will seeme a Lyon Secondly A man may offer vnto God a free-will offering and yet herein he performeth no more than he is obliged vnto by the Law of gratitude Thirdly It is no part of our Creed that God in the Euangelicall Couenant seuerely exacteth of man any thing as necessarie to his saluation which is impossible for him to performe by the assistance of diuine grace and yet wee say againe That God by the rule of his Law commandeth a greater perfection of righteousnesse than man is able to performe in this life that all flesh may be humbled by the sight of infirmitie and consider the gracious indulgence of God in remitting sinne and his free bountie in conferring so great and so many vndeserued benefits Fourthly We praise God as much as any Romists can doe for his mercifull indulgence in remitting and not exacting so but with all we beleeue that God hath not 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vs from being stil his debtors and we stand perpetually obliged vnto him touching the debt of Obedience yea more after Grace receined than before Rom. 6. 18. And although he imputeth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 defects when we obey him in the maine yet this indulgence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power to man to merit his owne saluation much lesse to supererogate or to communicate his vertuous actions by way of satisfaction vnto others IESVIT §. 4. Workes with reference to the Treasure of the Church THe other part of this Controuersie proposed by your Maiestie about Workes referred vnto the Treasure of the Church concernes good Workes not as they are meritorious of reward but as they are satisfactorie for sinne for the workes of Saints as they are Merits be laied vp not in the Treasurie of the Church to bee applied vnto others but in the memorie of God to receiue their deserued guerdon in due time ANSWER TO the constitution of Popes Pardons three things are required by the Papals and reiected by vs. First Superfluous and redundant satisfactions of Saints Secondly A vast Treasurie in the Church militant to receiue and containe the same Thirdly An eminent authoritie and power in the Popes and Prelates of the Roman Church to communicate and applie the same to the liuing and defunct Protestants denie that any member of this Doctrine is Catholicke and Orthodoxall or that the holy Apostles or Primitiue Church maintained the same by teaching or practise We affirme also That the said Doctrine is nouell and deuised by Roman Prelates for filthie lucre The Aduersarie notwithstanding laboureth to vnderprop the tottering wall of Papall 〈◊〉 and Indulgences First by distinction of Merits and Satisfactions Secondly by explication of his Romish Tenet touching Satisfactions Thirdly by deliuering the maine grounds of the Doctrine of Satisfactions and Pardons His first Proposition is The merits of Saints are reserued and laid vp in the memorie of God and not in the Treasurie of the Church And on the