Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	church_n	scripture_n	word_n	4,333	5	4.7052	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A23646	England's distempers, their cause and cure according to the judgment of famous princes, peers, parliaments &c., occasioned by a book of a learned frier, accusing the whole nation of perjury for abjuring transubstantiation and sent unto the author for a reply / written in defence of the true catholike faith by R.A.	R. A. (Richard Allen)	1677 (1677)	Wing A1043; ESTC R32701	10,647	29

requiring of me a Reply My Reply is That the very first words of his Book are a notorious untruth as all the Nation can witness and but little truth in the rest save in two or three places where the poor Infidel confesseth his Ignorance of the true Faith and some other things that every School-boy knows A full Reply I shall give him in four Assertions 1. That Transubstantiation was never heard of or known in the Church till above 1000 years after Christ neither name nor thing 2. That it was never generally received by Learned Papists themselves till the Council of Trent 3. That their Grounds and Reasons for it are too weak to support it and that monstrous weight of Doubts and Difficulties that depend upon it 4. That the Doctrine of the Church of England in this point is most agreeable to Holy Scriptures and to all pure Antiquity and may be called Transmutation I. To the first the Frier saith It was ever known and believed in the Church quoad rem though not quoad nomen i. e. by certain equivalent terms and for that cites Five Fathers all rejected for spurious by their own Learned Men. His equivalent Terms are Mutatio Transmutatio Transelementatio the two first we admit in the same sense that the Fathers used them the last is a change Etiam ad materiam primam saith a famous Schoolman and will not serve his turn There be other terms used by the Fathers that will do him as little good but I shall take no notice of more than he sends me Anno Christi 420. About this time lived St. Augustine who Lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ printed at Paris Anno 1517. saith Those words Except ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of man c. are a Figure and a little before hath these words Literam sequi signa pro rebus quae his significantur accipere servilis est infirmitatis This I am sure of let the Frier make the best construction of it he can St. Augustine was a famous Bishop sate in several Councils and was President of some himself and must needs know the Catholick sense of the Church at that time better than our Frier Anno 850. About this time lived Bertram a famous Presbyter who in his Book De Corp. Sang. Christi saith That according to their substance the Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament after Consecration The bold Frier calls this an Impertinency when the whole University of Doway in their censure of it could neither deny the Book nor answer it Anno 1057. About this time lived Berengarius Archdeacon of Anjou who denied Transubstantiation Pope Nicholas 2. Concil Lateran 2. made him recant and make this publick Confession That the very Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament was truely and sensually broken and bruised in pieces with the teeth of the Faithful and this Confession the Pope and Council allowed for Catholick Our bold Friar saith it is false I shall prove him a Liar presently For this Confession is recorded by Lombard l. 4. dist 12. D. and De Conser dist 2. Ca. Ego Berengarius And their own Carranza testifies That the Pope did force and compel him to it And that it was allowed for Catholick by Pope and Council appears clearly because Lanfranc of Canterbury who sate in that Council sharply rebukes Berengarius for recanting that Confession as afterwards he did This Confession was as near the Capernaites as could well be But where is now our bold Friars Catholick sense of the Church for Transubstantiation Here is no appearance of it name or thing according to the Friars own terms Anno 1150. About this time lived Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris the likeliest man alive to know the Catholic sense of the Church because he made it his study and business to search the Fathers and collect Sentences out of their Writings and yet he saith l. 4. dist 11. A Si autem quaeritur c. If it be demanded what manner of Conversion is in the Sacrament or of what kind Definire non sufficio I am not able saith he to determine We acknowledg a Conversion as well as they but if Lombard in all his reading could not learn what manner of Conversion it was then it may be the same that we allow and the Fathers understood no other II. My second Assertion is That Transubstantiation was never generally received by Learned Papists themselves till the Council of Trent For their most eminent School-men some of them Cardinals say That they receive it out of reverence to the Church because she hath so decreed but otherwise in their own judgment rather approve that Opinion which saith That the substance of Bread and Wine remains in the Sacrament as most agreeable to holy Scripture and right Reason and that Transubstantiation was a rash Opinion having no ground in Scripture This was the more common Opinion of the Schoolmen for above 200 years The Friar saith I wrong the Doctors and will prove it I know not when But let him unmask himself that I may see the right face and then I shall return him his own challenge and let him put it to trial when he dares III. My third Assertion is That their own Reasons or Grounds for Transubstantiation are too weak to support it and the monstrous weight of Doubts and Difficulties that depend upon it Their general ground is the power and truth of Christ God Almighty who made all the world by his word hence they infer Possibility Verity Necessity The Answer is that an Argument from the Creation is but à particulari ad particulare and holds not nor à posse ad esse from Possibility to Verity as to say It may be so therefore it is so or God can do this and that therefore he doth it or it is done all such Arguments are inconsequent irrational and ridiculous An Argument may well follow from the Will of God to his Power but not from his Power to his Will Particular Reasons or Grounds they have 1. The Time when Christ spake the words a time say they when all Figures were ended but that is apparently false for there is a plain Figure in the Cup which they neither deny nor can avoid 2. Some argue thus The Bread which Christ gave in his last Supper came down from Heaven But Bakers bread came not down from Heaven therefore he gave not Bakers bread but the substance of his own Body It is retorted thus The substance of Christ his natural Body was taken of the B. Virgin and came not down from Heaven But the bread which Christ gave came down from Heaven Therefore the Bread which Christ gave was not the substance of his natural Body Considering the weakness of their Argument and inconvenience of the retort they fly to other grounds as 3. To Ubiquity through Personal Vnion of both Natures But this overthrows the grounds of their own assertion For as they handle the matter their