Selected quad for the lemma: son_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
son_n	daughter_n	husband_n	sister_n	63,589	5	12.8150	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62255	Rome's conviction, or, A vindication of the original institution of Christianity in opposition to the many usurpations of the Church of Rome, and their frequent violation of divine right : cleerly evinced by arguments drawn from their own principles, and undeniable matter of fact / by John Savage ...	Savage, J. (John), 1645-1721.	1683 (1683)	Wing S769; ESTC R34022	148,491	472

was before valid though unlawful is now made void and of no effect Were Matrimony only a Civil Contract and not defin'd by the Church of Rome to be elevated to the dignity of a Sacrament and to produce Grace here would be little ground of altercation for it is not my intent in this Discourse to call in question the power of Ecclesiastical or Secular Law-givers in matters of this nature But they acknowledge Marriage to be a Sacrament and the Matter and Forme thereof wherein consists the whole Essence of it to be instituted and determin'd by Divine Autority whence it becomes Juris Divini Hence ariseth the difficulty How the Church of Rome can make any alteration or change or how they can declare that to be ineffectual and void which Jure Divino is determinately setled and establisht as valid Clandestine Marriage before the Council of Trent was ever held an Essential and a valid Matrimony though unlawful factum valet sed fieri non licet yea and notwithstanding the Councils Decree they still hold it valid in England and Saxony where the Council of Trent was never received nor promulged for they Teach That no Human Law can induce an Obligation to the observance of it but in such places where it hath been sufficiently intimated and accepted Here I suppose with them that the whole Essence and Substance of each Sacrament consists purely in the two Essential parts the Matter and the Forme The Matter of this Contract is the Internal Consent of the Persons Contracting exprest by some External and sensible sign The Forme is the words de praesenti I take thee c. which signifie a Mutual Tradition of themselves to each other for term of life Hence I Argue against them ad hominem supposing the Institution as the Origine and Cause of all Sacraments The whole Essence of Matrimony necessarily Constitutes a valid Marriage but the Matter and Forme are the whole Essence of Matrimony ergo the Matter and Forme necessarily constitute a valid Marriage The Major is universally true in all things for the whole Essence of a thing and the thing it self are convertible the Minor is their own Dectrine as appears by their own words above cited Whence I subsume The Matter and Forme necessarily constitute a valid Marriage but Clandestine Matrimony contains the Matter and Forme ergo Clandestine Matrimony contains a valid Marriage The Major is the conclusion of the last sillogisme The Minor I prove First because Clandestine Matrimony was valid before the Council of Trent and yet it contains now the same Matter and Forme it did then Secondly I prove it because Clandestine Marriage is still valid where the Council of Trent was never received ergo it hath the whole Matter and Forme of Marriage which was Instituted and determin'd by Christ as the whole Essence of it for they that Contract Clandestinè have the same Internal consent made sensible which is the Matter and use the same words by way of Forme as they that Contract in facie Ecclesiae wherefore if the one hath the same Matter and Forme with the other wherein consists the whole Essence of Marriage if the one be valid the other must be valid also And this Argument proceeds in like manner against all other impedimenta dirimentia such impediments as Jure Ecclesiastico are introduced to render Matrimony void and of no effect but if there be any impediment jure naturae destructive of the validity of Matrimony In this case it is most like that the Original Instituter excepted it As many of the Roman Divines conceive Consanguinity in the First Degree to invalidate Matrimony jure naturae by reason of the horror and aversion that Nature hath against a Fathers Marrying his own Daughter or a Mothers taking her own Son for a Husband or for a Brother to Marry his own Sister And therefore Marriage in the first degree of Consanguinity was ever held invalid in the Evangelical Law But this administers matter for an instance against what hath been said for Marriage contracted in the first degree hath all the Essentials of Matrimony and only the proximity of Blood hinders the validity of it therefore it is not enough to have all the Essentials as Matter and Forme to make Matrimony valid I Answer that all Sacraments do necessarily suppose the Original Institution upon which they Essentially depend for the Essential parts of all Sacraments are in themselves natural things but by the Omnipotent Power of the Divine Instituter the Complex which results of these parts is elevated per potentiam obedientialem to produce Grace in the Receiver in that quality and degree as Christ hath setled and establisht without which they are no Sacraments And who can deny but that it was in the free power and election of the Divine Instituter to affix his Supernatural Graces where and when and to what Instruments he pleased for Sacraments are by Institution but instruments to convey the Graces Merited by Christ to our Souls wherefore it being incongruous that a Contract made in the first degree of Consanguinity from which Nature hath so great a horror should be an instrument of conveying Grace to the Souls of the contracters grounded Reason dictates that this was excepted and never Instituted for a Sacrament which the constant practice of the Church from Christ's time sufficiently confirms But it may bereply'd That if Christ in the Original Institution Ordained that all complexes resulting from such a determinate Matter and Forme should be Sacraments and yet an exception may be made in one case Why not in another I Answer That this Reply is grounded on a false Principle for it supposeth Christ to have confused acts such as are proper to Men when they determine things in general and make an universal without distinguishing or distinctly knowing the particulars contained under that universal which argues the imperfection of Human understanding and therefore such obscure and imperfect acts have no place in Christ for the understanding of the Divine Word is infinite and consequently exempt from the least imperfection And the understanding of his Sacred Humanity was indued with an infused knowledge whereby he saw and knew clearly and distinctly all that concerned at least himself as Redeemer of Mankind so that when he Instituted the Sacraments he did it not by a general notion but reflected upon every particular individual cleerly and distinctly Wherefore in the Case proposed he Ordained such and such particular Contracts to be instruments of conveying Grace and no others so as those only which Christ hath so determin'd are valid Contracts by Divine Institution and no others and by this means the cleerness and perspicuity of Christ's understanding hath partioularly determin'd every individual Contract of Marriage that ever hath been or ever will be and decreed its validity or non validity in his Original Institution so as all Declarations and Decrees as are meerly Human have no power at all to alter or change