Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	divine_a	faith_n	revelation_n	3,458	5	9.7228	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62556	A treatise of the nature of Catholick faith and heresie with reflexion upon the nullitie of the English Protestant church and clergy / by N.N.	Talbot, Peter, 1620-1680.	1657 (1657)	Wing T119; ESTC R38283	71,413	104

heare the exceptions of Protestants against each of these mysteries Against Transubstantiation they object the evidence of our senses it never being read in Scripture say they that God by a miracle deceived mens senses or made appeare to them one thing for another Moyses and Aarons rod in Egypt was really converted into a serpent and seemed so also to the senses of the spectators The Magicians rods seemed to be serpents to the senses but really were not From hence they conclude that by false miracles and illusions the senses may be deceived but never by true supernaturall signes or miracles Against Transubstantiation they object also novelty of the word and of the thing defined which was in the Councell of Lateran first and after in the Councell of Trent 3 As for worship of Images they looke upon it as idolatry or at least as a thing inclining the common people to it and therefore both dangerous and unlawfull Some object also novelty against it the first time say they worship of Images was heard of being some 800. yeares ago in the second Councell of Nice 4 Now to their first exception and the evidence of their senses against Transubstantiation I answer that the senses are not deceived because according to common Philosophie their proper object which are the accidents do remaine But seeing divers both Catholicks and Protestants do deny that there be any accidents separable from their proper substance my second answer is That there are two sorts of miracles Some miracles are wrought not to be seene but to be believed because they are not onely miracles but also mysteries of Christian Faith The Incarnation or Union of God and man in one person is one of the greatest miracles yet it was not done to be seene or manifested to our senses in this life but being concealed from them to be believed The miracle of Transubstantiation is called by Christ himselfe Mysterium Fidei a mystery of Faith it was not done to be perceived by our senses but to be believed by our understanding 5 Other miracles there are which have been wrought by God to the end they may move us to believe not themselves for they are seene and manifest but some other revealed truth these miracles are patent to our senses because they give us sufficient evidence that the mysteries of Faith may prudently be credited as Divine Revelation Such was Moyses his miracles in Egypt the rod was not turned into a serpent that Pharao and the Egyptians should believe what they did see with their eyes but that they should believe somewhat else to wit that Moyses was sent by God 6 Supposing this difference betweene miracles there can be no difficulty in answering the objection made by Protestants against Transubstantiation Miracles which are not wrought principally to the end that they may be believed by Faith but rather to the end they may be evidently seene and by their meanes other mysteries believed can not deceive the senses because then they would be of no use Gods providence and end in working them would be frustrated Miracles which are together mysteries of Faith and are done that they may be believed and not seene must not appeare evidently to our senses but rather be concealed from them otherwise we should have evidence and beliefe of one thing in the same time The mystery of Transubstantiation is a miracle not to be evidently seene but to be believed Therefore it s no mervaile that it be not patent to our senses when Christ turned water into wine he did it in such a manner that the sense perceived it to be wine because from that evident and sensible miracle they might inferre and believe that he was the true Messias But when he changed bread and wine into his owne Body and Bloud there was no appearance of change it seemed to remaine still bread because the insensible change of one substance to another was a mystery to be credited and not to be seene The Manna which was a figure of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar did savour to the Jewes whatsoever they fancied though it remained the same substance it was before I see therefore no reason why we Christians should give more credit to our palat then the Jewes who had as much reason to doubt of the Manna as we of the Sacrament nay we have lesse because Christs words are so absolutely and cleare This is my Body if it be his Body it is not bread being impossible that Christs Body should be bread 7 Seeing God will not have the mystery of Transubstantiation be evident to our senses it s not to be thought either superfluous or incredible that the species or appearance of bread and wine worke the same effects which their substance would have done if it were present for God is as coherent in supernaturall things as in naturall its necessary therefore for the concealment of this mystery and for the merit of Christian Faith that no want of the substance of bread and wine may be perceived in the Sacrament by any curious experience of men who would eate and drinke onely conscerated species The not manifesting this great mystery to our senses requireth that the same effects be worked by the species as by bread and wine 8 Some Protestants thinke it a contradiction that one body be present in many places together But all Catholicks hold that Christs Body and Bloud have a spirituall presence in the Sacrament which once granted there can be no difficulty in believing that our Saviours Body and Bloud may be in many places at the same time because it s granted to all things which have a spirituall presence 9 If any inquires how can a body have a spirituall presence I answer him with demanding how can a spirit have a corporall presence How can an Angel have the appearance and presence of a young man whereof there are many examples in Scriptures Whence it followeth that our senses may be deceived or to speake more properly may give occasion to the understanding to be deceived not onely in the mystery of Transubstantiation but also in others expressed in Scripture which is contrary to what our adversaries object Angells seemed to the eyes of Abraham Iosue Tobias and others to be young men and yet they were not men but spirits 10 As for their saying that Transubstantiation is a novelty brought into the Church by the Councell of Lateran an 1215. it s a mistake because the very condemning of of Berengarius as an Heretick for impugning this mystery doth demonstrate it was no novelty but believed as an atticle of Faith not onely before the Councell of Lateran but since the Apostles For otherwise how were it possible that the Patriarchs of Hierusalem and Constantinople 70. Metropolitanes 400. Bishops and 800. Conventuall Priors who were present at that Councell should all agree to declare Transubstantiation to have beene revealed by God to the primitive Church and yet the same to be at the same

the truth to give way to the Parliament to pull downe Parliament Bishops who were so farre from being de Iure Divino that they were not so much as de Iure Ecclesiastico 30 And thus much I thought fit to produce at the present in confutation of what either hath or may be said in behalfe of the English Protestant Clergy and report me to the judgement of the impartiall Reader how much he ought to rely upon their ministery that by so many titles is proved to be null But though any person should not be convinced of the nullitie of their Ordination he can not but harbour a prudent doubt thereof there being so evident reasons and motives for it as have beene set downe in this Chapter Now to receive the Sacraments from Priests of so doubtfull authority is without all doubt a damnable sacrilege it being a thing in the highest degree against the light of reason and the rules of Faith to expose to so manifest hazard the reverence of the Sacraments and the remedy of our soules It is time now to passe from the historicall relation of the introduction of a new found Heresie and the intrusion of a new fashioned Clergy to a more strict and Scholasticall examination of the nature of Heresie and Catholick Faith CHAP. III. Of Heresie 1 BEfore Protestancy be compared with Heresie its necessary to declare what Heresie is Catholick Divines commonly define it to be an obstinate errour against any Doctrine of the Catholick Church But because Protestants do not agree with us in determining what the Catholick Church is that we may not be engaged in a new dispute before we explaine what we have in hand I thought fit to define Heresie in such a sort that the definition may seeme indifferent to all Christians and suppose or beg nothing to favour Catholicks or condemne Protestants because if adversaries agree not in some principles they can not come to an issue to end the Controversies 2 The definition is this Heresie is an obstinate errour against the VVord of God or the true sense thereof sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation How shall it be knowne when any verity is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation The bare word or testimony of men doth not seeme to be a sufficient proposall of Gods revealed truths because every Sect give their word and testimony in favour of their owne Religion assuring us that God revealed the doctrine and interpretation of Scripture which they follow And yet the contrary is evident seeing God can not reveale the contradictions nonsence and contrary Tenets which are taught in so contrary Religions Therefore the testimony of men if not confirmed by some supernaturall signe or miracle can not be a sufficient proposall of Divine Revelation 3 But if any Doctrine be testified by lawfull witnesses to be Divine Revelation and their testimony be confirmed by miracles all men are bound to believe that the said Doctrine was revealed by God This is the reason why the perfidious Jewes did sinne grievously in not believing the Doctrine of Christ being confirmed with so many evident miracles It is not necessary every person see a miracle that the true Faith and Doctrine of the Catholick Church be sufficiently proposed to him as Divine Revelation it s enough that he can not prudently deny or doubt that miracles have beene wrought in confirmation of the Doctrine proposed Christs Doctrine was sufficiently proposed as Divine to many Jewes who were not present at his miracles it s enough they were credibly reported Saint Augustine proved that miracles were wrought in confirmation of Christian Religion by this ingenious Dilemma Either the world believing such strange and improbable things to human sense as our Faith teacheth and so contrary to our naturall inclinations did see them confirmed by miracles or no. If they did see miracles we have our intent If they did believe without seeing any miracle we have our intent also because that very beliefe is the greatest of all miracles for how is it possible that sober and wise men should be so mad as to believe and embrace a new and strange Doctrine so repugnant to their senses and contrary to their liberty and naturall inclinations if they had not beene wrought upon by some supernaturall power and signes In one word therefore we may conclude that onely Faith or Doctrine is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation which is not onely proposed as such by the testimony of a Church but of such a Church whose testimony hath beene confirmed by unquestionable miracles either seen by the believer or at least so credibly reported to him by the testimony of honest and learned men that it were want of prudence in any person whosoever to deny the truth and sufficiency of such a testimony and proposall CHAP. IV. In what doth the obstinacy of Heresie consist 1 THere was never any Heretick so madly obstinate as to give God the lye to his face and in plaine termes all Sectaries acknowledge him to be Truth it selfe and therefore not capable of deceiving or of being deceived The obstinacy of Hereticks is against Gods verities not as they are uttered immediatly by himselfe but as they are proposed by his Church If God himselfe were pleased to speake immediatly to men in such a manner that it were evident and cleare to them the words and sense which the Church proposeth were dictated by himselfe we should be little troubled with Heresies none would be obstinate All the obstinacy of Hereticks proceeds from the difficulty they finde in believing that God doth speak or declare his sense by the Church this once granted our understanding hath no difficulty to ubmit by an implicite Faith to whatsoever the Church proposeth as Gods Revelation or Word 2 Against cleare evidence there can be no obstinacy the object of it must be involved in some obscurity otherwise the will which is the source of obstinacy could not master the unstanding He who denyes what is cleare and evident is more mad then obstinate There is nothing more generally acknowledged or more cleate and evident to the understanding of all Christians then this proposition If God said or meant any thing it s very true The obstinacy therefore of Hereticks doth not contest with this cleare and confessed truth it onely doubteth or denyeth that God said or meant any such thing as the Church pretends but no Heretick ever denyed or doubted but that if God meant or said what the Church pretends it must be true 3 The difference therefore betweene an Heretick and a Catholick is not that the Heretick denyes or doubts all that to be true which he thinks God revealed or meant but the difference consists in this that the Heretick doth obstinatly deny or doubt that God said or meant what ●he Church proposeth as Divine Revelation and the Catholick doth firmely believe he did say and meane whatsoever the Church proposeth as revealed The Heretick believes what the Church proposeth onely conditio●ally If