Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	church_n	faith_n	matter_n	4,045	5	5.7347	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62586	A seasonable vindication of the B. Trinity being an answer to this question, why do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity? : collected from the works of the most Reverend, Dr. John Tillotson, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and the right Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, now Lord Bishop of Worcester.	Tillotson, John, 1630-1694.; Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.; Assheton, William, 1641-1711.	1697 (1697)	Wing T1221; ESTC R10019	21,341	116

no less Contradiction than Transubstantiation why can't we say that it cannot be contained in Scripture We say Transubstantiation cannot be found in Scripture because it is a plain Contradiction to our Reason but if the Trinity be also a plain Contradiction to our Reason why shan't we be allowed to say that it cannot be contained in Scripture V. Def. of Brief Hist. of Unit. p. 4 and 6. But oh were the Press as free for the Unitarians as 't is for other Protestants how easily would they make it appear that the Follies and Contradictions so justly charged on Transubstantiation are neither for Number Consequence nor Clearness any way comparable to those implied in the Athanasian Creed and that the Trinity hath the same and no other Foundation with Transubstantiation So that we must of necessity admit Both or neither V. Acts of Athanasius p. 16. This is the Sum of what they Object To which I expect an Answer according to your Promise A. As preparatory to a just Answer I cannot but observe how exactly these Socinians do Symbolize with the Papists For as on the one hand they of the Church of Rome are so fondly and obstinately addicted to their own Errors how mishappen and monstrous soever 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 which 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 In like manner These Unitarians are so impertinently zealous in their designs against the Trinity that rather than admit that Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith they will plead for Transubstantiation and this even contrary to the Light and Dictate of their own Conscience For the Socinians are hearty Enemies to Transubstantiation and have exposed the Absurdity of it with great advantage V. Arcbishop Tillotson ' s Serm. on 1 Tim. II. 5. p. 30. Q. Have you nothing further to say in this matter A. You must give me leave to add I did not expect to have found this Parallel so often insisted upon without an Answer to Two Dialogues purposely written on that Subject at a time when the Doctrine of the Trinity was used as an Argument to bring in Transubstantiation as that is now now alledged for casting off the other But I must do them that right to tell the World That at that time a Socinian Answer was written to those Dialogues which I saw and wished it might be Printed that the World might be satisfied about it and them But they thought fit to forbear And in all their late Pamphlets where this Parallel is so often repeated there is but once that I can find any notice taken of those Dialogues and that in a very superficial manner for the main Design and Scope of them is past over V. Vind. of Trinit p. 287. And I must needs remind these Unitarians that it is not fair nor Scholar-like so insultingly to repeat the Parallel between the Trinity and Transubstantiation which hath been so fully confuted in those Two Dialogues Q. You promised an Answer and you bring me a Challenge Which I shall send to the Unitarians Who indeed are obliged in point of Honour to give Satisfaction by a just Reply to those Two Dialogues A. If they would consult their Reputation and credit their Cause they ought not to defer it For those Two Dialogues were writ by an Author Who to give you the very words of an Unitarian hath all the Properties for which an Adversary may be either feared or Reverenced He understands perfectly the Doctrine of the Church and the Points in Question He will commit no oversights through Ignorance Hast or Inadversion He is too experienced and Judicious to hazard his Cause as others have lately done on the Success of a Half-thought Hypothesis a Crude Invention a pretty New Querk In a word we can only say of him since there is no Remedy Contenti simus hoc Catone V. Consid c. in a Letter to H. H. p. 3. Such an Adversary as this is worthy the Pens of their Ablest Writers If therefore at this Juncture when the Press is open these Unitarians shall not Answer those Dialogues I must with freedom tell them It is not because they dare not but because they cannot Q. Leaving these Unitarians to defend their Parallel at their leasure let me now hear your Answer which you were pleased to Promise A. 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 Vid. Archbishop Tillotson's Serm. on 1 Tim. II. 5. p. 30. Q. First Let us examine whether there be equal Reason for the Belief of these Two Doctrines A. If this Suggestion of theirs be of any force we must suppose that there is equal Evidence and Proof from Scripture for these Two Doctrines Q. How do you prove there is not A. From the Confession of our Adversaries themselves For several Learned Writers of the Church of Rome 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 Q. You think then that as there is not equal reason for the Believing so neither is there equal reason for the rejecting of these Two Doctrines A. This the Objection supposes Which yet cannot be supposed but upon one or both of these Two Grounds Either 1. Because these Two Doctrines are equally Incomprehensible Or 2. Because they are equally loaded with Absurdities and Contradictions Q. As to the First Is not the Trinity as Incomprehensible as Transubstantiation and as such equally to be rejected A. It is not good ground of rejecting any Doctrine merely because it is Incomprehensible as I have abundantly shewed already But besides this there is a wide difference between plain matters of Sense and Mysteries concerning God And it does by