Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n
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
reasonably presume that they who talk of them did themselves never thoroughly understand and least of all is it necessary to believe them The modesty of Christians is contented in Divine Mysteries to know what God hath thought fit to reveal concerning them and hath no curiosity to be wise above that which is written It is enough to believe what God says concerning these matters and if any man will venture to say more every other man surely is at his liberty to believe as he sees reason II. I desire it may in the next place be considered that the Doctrine of the Trinity even as it is asserted in Scripture is acknowledged by us to be still a great Mystery and so imperfectly revealed as to be in a great measure incomprehensible by Human Reason And therefore though some learned and judicious Men may have very commendably attempted a more particular explication of this great Mystery by the strength of Reason yet I dare not pretend to that knowing both the difficulty and danger of such an Attempt and mine own insufficiency for it All that I ever designed upon this Argument was to make out the credibility of the thing from the Authority of the H. Scriptures without descending to a more particular explication of it than the Scripture hath given us lest by endeavouring to lay the Difficulties which are already started about it new ones should be raised and such as may perhaps be much harder to be removed than those which we have now to grapple withal And this I hope I have in some measure done in one of the former Discourses Nor indeed do I see that it is any ways necessary to do more it being sufficient that God hath declared what he thought fit in this matter and that we do firmly believe what he says concerning it to be true though we do not perfectly comprehend the meaning of all that he hath said about it For in this and the like Cases I take an implicite Faith to be very commendable that is to believe whatever we are sufficiently assured God hath revealed though we do not fully understand his meaning in such a Revelation And thus every man who believes the H. Scriptures to be a truly Divine Revelation does implicitely believe a great part of the Prophetical Books of Scripture and several obscure expressions in those Books though he do not particularly understand the meaning of all the Predictions and expressions contained in them In like manner there are certainly a great many very good Christians who do not believe and comprehend the Mysteries of Faith nicely enough to approve themselves to a Scholastical and Magisterial Judge of Controversies who yet if they do heartily embrace the Doctrines which are clearly revealed in Scripture and live up to the plain Precepts of the Christian Religion will I doubt not be very well approved by the Great and Just and by the infallibly Infallible Judge of the World III. Let it be further considered That though neither the word Trinity nor perhaps Person in the sense in which it is used by Divines when they treat of this Mystery be any where to be met with in Scripture yet it cannot be denied but that Three are there spoken of by the Names of Father Son and H. Ghost in whose Name every Christian is baptized and to each of whom the highest Titles and Properties of God are in Scripture attributed And these Three are spoken of with as much distinction from one another as we use to speak of three several Persons So that though the word Trinity be not found in Scripture yet these Three are there expresly and frequently mentioned and Trinity is nothing but three of any thing And so likewise though the word Person be not there expresly applied to Father Son and H. Ghost yet it will be very hard to find a more convenient word whereby to express the distinction of these Three For which reason I could never yet see any just cause to quarrel at this term For since the H. Spirit of God in Scripture hath thought fit in speaking of these Three to distinguish them from one another as we use in common speech to distinguish three several Persons I cannot see any reason why in the explication of this Mystery which purely depends upon Divine Revelation we should not speak of it in the same manner as the Scripture doth And though the word Person is now become a Term of Art I see no cause why we should decline it so long as we mean by it neither more nor less than what the Scripture says in other words IV. It deserves further to be considered That there hath been a very ancient Tradition concerning three real Differences or Distinctions in the Divine Nature and these as I said before very nearly resembling the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity Whence this Tradition had its original is not easie upon good and certain grounds to say but certain it is that the Jews anciently had this Notion And that they did distinguish the Word of God and the H. Spirit of God from Him who was absolutely called God and whom they looked upon as the First Principle of all things as is plain from Philo Judaeus and Moses Nachmanides and others cited by the Learned Grotius in his incomparable Book of the Truth of the Christian Religion And among the Heathen Plato who probably enough might have this Notion from the Jews did make three Distinctions in the Deity by the Names of essential Goodness and Mind and Spirit So that whatever Objections this matter may be liable to it is not so peculiar a Doctrine of the Christian Religion as many have imagined though it is revealed by it with much more clearness and certainty And consequently neither the Jews nor Plato have any reason to object it to us Christians especially since they pretend no other ground for it but either their own Reason or an ancient Tradition from their Fathers whereas we Christians do appeal to express Divine Revelation for what we believe in this matter and do believe it singly upon that account V. It is besides very considerable That the Scriptures do deliver this Doctrine of the Trinity without any manner of doubt or question concerning the Unity of the Divine Nature And not only so but do most stedfastly and constantly assert that there is but One God And in those very Texts in which these three Differences are mentioned the Unity of the Divine Nature is expresly asserted and where St. John makes mention of the Father the Word and the Spirit the Unity of these Three is likewise affirmed There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these Three are One. VI. It is yet further considerable That from this Mystery as delivered in Scripture a Plurality of Gods cannot be inferred without making the Scripture grosly to contradict it self which I charitably suppose the Socinians would be as loth