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
A50622	Papimus Lucifugus, or, A faithfull copie of the papers exchanged betwixt Mr. Iohn Menzeis, Professor of Divinity in the Marischal-Colledge of Aberdene, and Mr. Francis Demster Iesuit, otherwise sirnamed Rin or Logan wherein the Iesuit declines to have the truth of religion examined, either by Scripture or antiquity, though frequently appealed thereunto : as also, sundry of the chief points of the popish religion are demonstrated to be repugnant both to Scripture and antiquity, yea, to the ancient Romish-Church : to all which is premised in the dedication, a true narration of a verbal conference with the same Iesuit.	Menzeis, John, 1624-1684.; Dempster, Francis.	1668 (1668)	Wing M1725; ESTC R2395	219,186	308

the Gospel Church actus conjugalis est meritorius the conjugal act They who are acquaint with your Iesuit Dialect will understand his meaning I am ashamed to make it plainer Is meritorious not so among Heathens or ancient Iewes These things the Iesuit boldly asserts but doth not once offer a probation for them They might be solidly confuted but that I doubt I be alreadie guilty of too too much prolixity by all the Arguments which our Divines bring against your opus operatum in the general and against your doctrine of Merite all which hold a Fortiori in this particular Hither if in any case I may apply that saying O Spes fallaces Meritis confidere vanis I shall only desire you if you dare owne these impious positions of your fellow Iesuit to try how you can bring any shadow of reason why Marriage doth conferre grace ex opere operato Or why conjugal acts are meritorious now among Christians and not of old among believing Iewes Are Christians now in a state of Grace so were believing Iewes Have Christians now a respect to the ends why Marriage was instituted so had believing Iewes Where then is the difference as to the specifick nature of the ordinance then now But Fourthly If Marriage be a proper Gospel Sacrament how are your Priests interdyted from it Doth one Sarcrament render persons incapable of another How did Siricius and Innocent the first Bishops of Rome passe such an impious glosse if the Deeretals ascribed to them be genuin upon that text Rom. 8.8 They that are in the flesh cannot please GOD As if persons in a married estate could not please GOD because they are in the flesh If this glosse were true marriage were so farre from confering grace Ex opere operato and conjugall acts so farre from being meritorious that they should rather put a person in a state of enmity against GOD which to affirme sayes the Apostle 1. Tim. 4.1.3 Were a doctrine of Devils Fifthly how can it be made out that Marriage is appointed of GOD as a Seal of the Covenant of Grace or promises of Salvation Doth not your own Cassander assirme that your Master of sentences Lombard denyeth Marriage to conferre Grace which you Romanists require as necessary to the nature of a proper Gospell Sacrament Sixthly and Lastly doth not your great Cajetan teach that from Eph. 5.32 Which yet is the only Scripture that can be pretended to favour your Sacrament of Marriage It cannot be solidly concluded that Marriage is a propper Sacrament Non habes sayeth Ca●etan on the place ex hoc loco prudens lector a Paulo conjugium esse Sacramentum But of this point I suppose enough Shall I here give you a touch of your extreme Unction And First though your Councill of Trent have defined Sess 7. can 1. That every Sacrament of the New Testament was instituted by Christ himself yet many of your chief Doctors have denyed that extreme Unction was instituted by Christ such as Hugo de sancto victore Lombard Bonaventure Alensis Alt●siodorensis as is restified by your Jesuit Suarez tom 4. in 3 part disp 39. sect 2. num 1. Consequently if that opinion of these your great Doctors hold Extreme unction can be no proper Sacr●ment of the New Testament But Secondly where have you warrant from the Scripture that the matter of this Sacrament must be Oyle O●ive con●ecrated by a Bishop Or that seven parts of the body should be anointed therewith viz. Eyes Ears Nose Mouth Hands Feet and Reins Or that the Forme of this Sacrament should be these words which you use viz. Per istam unctionem suum piissim●m misericord●●m indulgeat tibi Dominus quicquid deliquishi●per visium c. All which are determined by your Pope Eugeni●●s the fourth in that alleged Decret of the Councill of Florence for the instruction of the Armenians Or that this Unction as so administrated is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace and perpetually to endure in the Christian Church If you essay to prove all these you may find it a difficult work Thirdly might I not here give an account of your altercations among your selves concerning this pretended Sacrament as whether it be necessary to this Sacrament that the Oyle be consecrated by a Bishop or that the body be anoynted in all the forementioned parts which your Pope Eugenius the fourth hath specifyed Whether the words must be pronounced Deprecatively or whether they might be used Indicatively according to that which your Authours call the Ambrosian Forme Ungo te oleo in nomine Patris c. Yea is it not debated among you whether there be any command at all for receiving this pretended Sacrament of Extreme Unction Are not the greatest part of your Doctors for the Negative Hear your own Suarez tem 4. in 3. part disp 44. sect 1. num 2. Communis sayeth he opinio est nullum esse affirmativum praeceptum de suscipiendo hoc sacramento etiam in extremo vitae discrimine That is It is the commone opinion of the Romish Divines that there is no positive precept obliging persons to receive this sacrament of extreme unction even when they are in the most extreme hazard of death A noble Sacrament indeed which by the confession of your own Romanists ye are tyed by no command of GOD to receive The same is granted by your Romish Doctors concerning all your five controverted Sacraments except Pennance That there is no positive command of GOD to receive any of them Whence I argue thus There are positive precepts in the holy Scripture for receiving Baptism and the LORDS-Supper but there is no positive precept of GOD either in or our of Scripture for receiving foure at least of your Sacraments viz. Confirmation Marriage extreme Unction and Ordination as is confessed by your own Romanists Therefore these foure at least are no such Sacraments as Baptism and the Lords-Supper And though your interest and Commodum Curiae induces you to assert a necessity of Pennance for thereby you make your selves Masters both of Purses and Consciences and privie to all Secrets yet try when you will you will be as little able solidly to prove a positive command of GOD for Pennance in your Romish sense and as it is practised among you as for any of the other foure And consequently none of these your five Sacraments is sub pracepto and therefore none of them are such Sacraments as are BAPTISME and the LORDS SUPPER which is that which PROTESTANTS meane when they affirme that there be only two properly so called Sacraments of the New Testament Fourthly not only have our Divines proven that the two places of Scripture which Romanists deprave for this pretended Sacrament viz Marke 6.13 and Iames 5.14.15 make nothing for you But also eminent Authours among your selves have done the same The first place your great Champion Bellarmine lib. de Extrem Vnct. cap 2. denyes to hold out any Sacrament and urges no few Arguments