Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	believe_v	scripture_n	write_v	2,819	5	5.7819	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36211	The Doctrine of the Catholick Church and of the Church of England concerning the blessed Trinity explained and asserted against the dangerous heterodoxes in a sermon by Dr. William Sherlock before my Lord Mayor and the court of aldermen.		1697 (1697)	Wing D1774; ESTC R1156	21,435	32

Reason and Philosophy because tho the Text also calls it Bread yet not after it was blessed I might give a hundred the like Instances but I think 't is not worth while for there is no man of any consideration but will acknowledg from the force of this one Example that Philosophy and Reason may be very useful in the Disputes about Religion and for ascertaining the meaning of Scripture and that by no means should they be wholly excluded as this Noveller pretends To the Third As we are Christians and unless we will be understood to reject the Supream Authority of Divine Revelation we must believe those Doctrines which are thought to be most mysterious and inconceivable notwithstanding any Objections from Reason or from Philosophy against ' em He that believes no farther than Natural Reason approves believes his Reason and not the Revelation he is a Natural Philosopher not a Believer He believes the Scriptures as he would believe Plato or Tully not as they are inspired Writings but as agreeable to Reason and as the Result of wise and deep Thoughts I shufft my Candle and put on my Spectacles when I read this I could not believe but that I mistook for want of a better sight but Spectacles and Candle both stood to it that my Eyes had not deceived me I entreat therefore the Dean of St. Pauls to reconcile what he says here with as clear a Passage in Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Trinity pag. 151. where the Doctor says Suppose that the natural Construction of the words of Scripture import such a Sense as is contrary to some evident Principle of Reason Then I won't believe it How not believe Scripture No no I will believe no pretended Revelation which contradicts the plain Dictates of Reason Were I perswaded that the Books called Holy Scripture did contradict the plain Dictates of Reason I would not believe ' em If this Vindication of the Trinity was written as the Doctor intimates in the Preface to it by Divine Inspiration it would tempt one to think that his Sermon before my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen was composed by Diabolical Suggestion for no man not the Doctor himself will deny that they directly contradict one another The Sermon says we are to believe the most mysterious and inconceivable Doctrines notwithstanding any Objections of Reason the inspired Vindication says we are not to believe Scripture if it contradicts Reason The Sermon says to believe no farther than Reason approves is to be a Philosopher not a Believer the Vindication divinely suggested says if Reason approves not but gainsays or contradicts we are not to believe whatsoever Revelation As to that which he intended I imagine as a choice Thought that to believe no farther than Reason approves is to believe the Scriptures but only as we would believe Plato or Tully It will not help the Preacher in the least For when the Vindicator or any other man sees cause to disbelieve somewhat in Tully or Plato he considers that tho they were indeed great men yet being but men they were fallible it might readily happen that they oversaw in some particular matter oversaw what less able Persons might happen to discern But when Reason cannot approve Doctrines said by some to be contained in Scripture as suppose three Infinite Spirits each of them a God and yet all of them but one God an honest man will easily find a great many Expedients much better than the Vindicator's downright I won't believe the Scriptures He will say for example Let us examine very carefully whether this contradictory impossible and heretical Doctrine three Infinite Spirits each of them a perfect God all of them but one is indeed affirmed any where in Scripture It is not found there besure in express words it only seems to some few Upstarts to be implied in some Passages of Scripture therefore says the honest Christian if those Passages bid any thing fair toward such a Doctrine it 's better however to suppose 't is more congruous to think that an Inspired Writer uses a figurative or it may be a catachrestical Expression or Phrase than that he delivers flat Contradictions or downright Impossibilities In short I say there is an honest Medium between Dr. Sherlock's Impious I won't believe the Scriptures and between believing what Reason and Philosophy do absolutely reject It is this That we know the Inspired Writers do often speak figuratively nay often catachrestically or improperly All Interpreters confess so much There is hardly a Chapter in the Bible where they do not observe it more than once and therefore mollify the words or phrase by a dexterous Interpretation So that neither the Vindicator after all his pretences to Inspiration is to be heard when he cries I won't believe the Scripture nor yet the Preacher when he cants to my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen That no Objections of Reason can be admitted against the meer Phrases and words of Scripture A Rule of Interpreting that would let in the Transubstantiation and a hundred more absurd and heretical Doctrines On the Fourth He tells us next Difficulty of conceiving a thing nay the absolute unconceivableness of it must not hinder our assent to what is contained in Revelation because we do not disbelieve what is made known to us by Sense or by Reason notwithstanding any Difficulty or Inconceivableness adhering to such things And as to Contradictions so often objected in these cases 't is an easy matter to find Contradictions in what we do not understand when we will be reasoning on what we do not understand there will be Contradictions and Impossibilities innumerable in our Guesses about ' em I sincerely believe that God may reveal to us many things impenetrable or unconceivable not only by the Humane Understanding but by the Angelical But 't is not true what our Preacher here adds by way of confirmation or proof namely that we believe what is made known to us by Sense or by Reason notwithstanding any difficulty or inconceivableness adhering to some such things For Sense tells me that the Oar in the Water is crooked that all distant Bodies for Colour are dark and for Figure round it tells me also a great number of things in my Sleep it presents me in Dreams with abundance of Scenes all which I disbelieve for certain Difficulties or an Inconceivableness in the things In like manner I know but few Men who believe Reason when it is not clear but perplexed with Difficulties or darkning Doubts but especially when there is a remarkable and manifest Inconceivableness In that case we do not use to call it Reason but at best Probability and Opinion Great Difficulties and a too dark Vnconceivableness are such a Ballance to whatsoever Reasons that they lose the name of Reasons and are detruded into the rank of Likelihoods and a very honourable rank it is for such kind of Reasons But he plainly shows what he would have and what his