Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	believe_v	christian_a	faith_n	3,911	5	5.5853	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62587	A sermon concerning the unity of the divine nature and the B. Trinity by John, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.	Tillotson, John, 1630-1694.	1693 (1693)	Wing T1222; ESTC R6941	17,786	42

things concerning God which we are very well assured he hath declared concerning Himself though these things by our Reason should be incomprehensible And this is truly the Case as to the matter now under debate We are sufficiently assured that the Scriptures are a Divine Revelation and that this Mystery of the Trinity is therein declared to us Now that we cannot comprehend it is no sufficient Reason not to believe it For if this were a good Reason for not believing it then no man ought to believe that there is a God because his Nature is most certainly incomprehensible But we are assured by many Arguments that there is a God and the same natural Reason which assures us that He is doth likewise assure us that He is incomprehensible and therefore our believing Him to be so doth by no means overthrow our belief of His Being In like manner we are assured by Divine Revelation of the truth of this Doctrine of the Trinity and being once assured of that our not being able fully to comprehend it is not reason enough to stagger our belief of it A man cannot deny what he sees though the necessary consequence of admitting it may be something which he cannot comprehend One cannot deny the Frame of this World which he sees with his eyes though from thence it will necessarily follow that either that or something else must be of it self which yet as I said before is a thing which no man can comprehend how it can be And by the same Reason a man must not deny what God says to be true though he cannot comprehend many things which God says As particularly concerning this Mystery of the Trinity It ought then to satisfy us that there is sufficient evidence that this Doctrine is delivered in Scripture and that what is there declared concerning it doth not imply a Contradiction For why should our finite understandings pretend to comprehend that which is infinite or to know all the real Differences that are consistent with the Unity of an Infinite Being or to be able fully to explain this Mystery by any similitude or resemblance taken from finite Beings But before I leave this Argument I cannot but take notice of one thing which they of the Church of Rome are perpetually objecting to us upon this Occasion And it is this That by the same reason that we believe the Doctrine of the Trinity we may and must receive that of Transubstantiation God forbid Because of all the Doctrines that ever were in any Religion this of Transubstantiation is certainly the most abominably absurd However this Objection plainly shews how fondly and obstinately they are addicted to their own Errors how mishapen and monstrous soever insomuch that rather than the Dictates of their Church how absurd soever should be called in question they will question the truth even of Christianity it self and if we will not take in Transubstantiation and admit it to be a necessary Article of the Christian Faith they grow so sullen and desperate that they matter not what becomes of all the rest And rather than not have their Will of us in that what is controverted they will give up that which by their own confession is an undoubted Article of the Christian Faith and not controverted on either Side except only by the Socinians who yet are hearty Enemies to Transubstantiation and have exposed the absurdity of it with great advantage But I shall endeavour to return a more particular Answer to this Objection and such a one as I hope will satisfy every considerate and unprejudiced mind that after all this confidence and swaggering of theirs there is by no means equal reason either for the receiving or for the rejecting of these two Doctrines of the Trinity and Transubstantiation First There is not equal reason for the belief of these Two Doctrines This Objection if it be of any force must suppose that there is equal evidence and proof from Scripture for these two Doctrines But this we utterly deny and with great reason because it is no more evident from the words of Scripture that the Sacramental Bread is substantially changed into Christ's natural Body by virtue of those words This is my Body than it is that Christ is substantially changed into a natural Vine by virtue of those words I am the true Vine or than that the Rock in the Wilderness of which the Israelites drank was substantially changed into the Person of Christ because it is expresly said That Rock was Christ or than that the Christian Church is substantially changed into the natural Body of Christ because it is in express terms said of the Church That it is his Body But besides this several of their own most learned Writers have freely acknowledged that Transubstantiation can neither be directly proved nor necessarily concluded from Scripture But this the Writers of the Christian Church did never acknowledge concerning the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ but have always appealed to the clear and undeniable Testimonies of Scripture for the Proof of these Doctrines And then the whole force of the Objection amounts to this that if I am bound to believe what I am sure God says though I cannot comprehend it then I am bound by the same reason to believe the greatest Absurdity in the World though I have no manner of assurance of any Divine Revelation concerning it And if this be their meaning though we understand not Transubstantiation yet we very well understand what they would have but cannot grant it because there is not equal reason to believe two things for one of which there is good proof and for the other no proof at all Secondly neither is there equal reason for the rejecting of these two Doctrines This the Objection supposes which yet cannot be supposed but upon one or both of these two grounds Either because these two Doctrines are equally incomprehensible or because they are equally loaded with Absurdities and Contradictions The First is no good ground of rejecting any Doctrine merely because it is incomprehensible as I have abundantly shew'd already But besides this there is a wide difference between plain matters of Sense and Mysteries concerning God and it does by no means follow that if a man do once admit any thing concerning God which he cannot comprehend he hath no reason afterwards to believe what he himself sees This is a most unreasonable and destructive way of arguing because it strikes at the foundation of all Certainty and sets every man at liberty to deny the most plain and evident Truths of Christianity if he may not be humor'd in having the absurdest things in the World admitted for true The next step will be to persuade us that we may as well deny the Being of God because his Nature is incomprehensible by our Reason as deny Transubstantiation because it evidently contradicts our Senses 2dly Nor are these two Doctrines loaded with the like Absurdities and Contradictions So far