Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	faith_n	historical_a	holpen_v	71	3	16.2007	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A29667	The nature of truth, its union and unity with the soule which is one in its essence, faculties, acts, one with truth / discussed by the Right Honorable Robert Lord Brook, in a letter to a private friend ; by whom it is now published for the publick good.	Brooke, Robert Greville, Baron, 1607-1643.	1641 (1641)	Wing B4913; ESTC S103446	48,160	214

Argument further cleered by more objections propounded and answered p. 17. CHAP. V. The whole Soule and truth in the Soule are one p. 21. CHAP. VI All things are this one light or truth shining from God p. 26. CHAP. VII How unity is all in all things p. 31. CHHP. VIII The nature of Habits p. 45. CHAP. IX The difference betwixt Knowledge and affection discussed p. 59. CHAP. X. That all the severall and particular actings of the soule are this one light and truth p. 81. CHAP. XI An Objection answered in which the nature of time and place are touched p. 88 CHAP. XII Another Objection is answered drawn from the falshood in the working of the soule p. 109 CHAP. XIII Discovering the consequences of this position that All things are one Truth p. 114 CHAP. XIIII The benefit which Knowledge and all Sciences receive from this assertion p. 123 CHAP. XV Confusion in the knowledge of Causes discovered and redressed by this Vnity p. 133 CHAP. XVI The unhappy fruits of Division in other parts of Learning made manifest p. 146 CHAP. XVII A Recapitulation of former instances with some additions of a question or two more p. 160 FINIS * Areopagus for such were the orders for all Pleaders there Aristotel Rhet. lib. 1 Lucian in Anachars * with such Iuno assay'd to kill Hercules in his cradle as the Poets say Matth. 24. Apocal. 20 Dionys. de Divinis Neminib Epist. ad Dionys. See Plato's Parmenid Timeus * Mat. 24. Rev. 20. Expounded in another Treatise * 2 Cor. 2.16 * Veritas in sundo putei Democr * Ioh. 14.6 * 1 Cor. 1.23 Iob 38.2 * 1 Cor. 8.2 A double errour in searching of truth * Rom 10.8 The Vnderstanding or Truth there under two notions An argument proving the nature of the Vnderstanding to be Truth Vitaest in se reflectio Sen. Epist. Life a higher degree of light The eye by the presence of the soule made able to see light Most call the understanding a faculty Three notions requisite to the constitution of every Being The understanding as a faculty affordeth not these 3. notions The understanding is not the subject of truth Marti l. 5. epi. 53. The understanding receiveth not truth from the soule Not from any creature Not from God Deus agit á centro in circumserentiam In spirituall giving and receiving there must be a metaphysical union Iohn 1.5 i Doct. of Syn. Dort p. 25. lin. 12 Neither a quality permanent nor an act immanent unless they bee made inherent in the soul and the latter also produced by it can be said to be given to the soul To receive light is to be light If you make the understanding light you have the three notions which make up every Being 1 The 4. viall mentioned Rev. 16.8 is the thing emptying and emptied upon it selfe Nay in all things Agent and Patient must bee one to him that considers No Being but it is the thing receiving received The vanity of that question Whether the soule be continens or contentum discovered The Vnderstanding cannot be the recipient Some call the Intellect virtus quâ The Intellect cannot be virtus quâ As the Arabians Zabarell c. The last objection answered * Act. 17. vers. 23. The Soul Vnderstanding Truth all but one An Argument proving the Soule and Truth to be one God and his attributes are not two * Deo insunt quasi in esse secundo ab essentiâ inter se distinguuntur non solùm ratione rationante sed etiam rationatâ ita ut fundamentum distinctionis sit in ipso Deo Theo. lib. 1. cap. 4. Sect. 27.28 * 1 Ioh. 3. vers. 2. Truth as it hath been described resembleth the Trinity * Vnum verum bonum Ens terminiconvertibiles All being is this truth * Vide Platonem in Phile in Timaeo Terminus Insinitum prima elementa unde quin que genera teru● Ficin. com in Tim●o Vide Platonem ubique Omnes numeri in unitate r Virg. in {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} s Quia numerus impar numerus indivisibilis Ficin. comment. in Plat. Timae The excellency of unity Rev. 22.9 Vnity all in God Fic comment. in Plat. Sympos Vnity in spirituall Beings Gen. 2.24 1 Cor. 13.12 Morall Vnitie in Physicall Beings * I am informed that my Lord Castle I stand in his book de Veritate affirmeth that there is but one sense but I am not so happy as to have that booke by me nor doe I remember it since my last reading it so that I dare not say it confidently Sir Iohn Suckling in his Play Act 2 Scene 1. Ficin. Comment. in Sympos Plat. * Ficin. Comment. in Tim. Plat. * Plato in Symp. in Orat. Erixym Nominall division of Being requisite for our converse Habits infused acquisite The difference between naturall and supernaturall habits * Mr Ball Divers sorts of Faith page 3. Faith signifying beleefe is used to note first an ordinary knowledge and bare assent to the historicall truth of the Speaker though sometimes holpen by experiments and other inducements and probabilities of the things and this is called Faith Historicall that is a naked imperfect dead assent without trust or confidence in the mercies of God or adherence to the commandements Howbeit we must not imagine that Faith is reputed unsound or not salvificall because Historicall rather it is oftentimes unsufficient to save because it is not so fully Historicall as might be but the name of Historicall Faith arose hence that some are said to beleeve who did never embrace Christ as their only Saviour with all their hearts nor confidently rely upon the promises of mercy otherwise justifying Faith doth more certainly beleeve the truth of the history of the Gospel and so is more historicall than the Faith called Historicall * These meanes teach us further to make much of the least beginnings of grace even those which Divines commonly call repressing since they prepare the heart to conversion and in some sense be called the inchoation thereof seeing temporary and living faith differ not in forme but degrees of perfection there is a faith in the true convert of no better perfection than that in the temporary though he stay not there as the other being an unwise son doth Huit Anat. Conscience pag. 214. * 1 Ioh. 3. vers. 2. The controversie about falling from Grace * Deo enim sive scientiam ejus spectemus quippe omnia scit sive voluntatem quae ad nihil creatum vel creabile est suspensa sed ab aeterno determinata nulla 〈◊〉 potentia disjunctiva considerari quidem potest potentia creata non considerato divino decreto in signo rationis decretum Dei antecedente Sed in tali Chimar●●● consideratione adversary nobis litem vitiosâ nuce ha●● emptitandam srustraserunt Ac verò actu non est ulla potentia creata nisi quae subest aeterno DEI decreto nisi qu●● {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}

the soule is informed by its owne action for what hath the streame which it derives not from the source What can those workings added to that from which they receive themselves And therefore I wholly subscribe to the Platonists who make all scientia nothing but reminiscentia for when it appeareth not it is not the soule being but an activity it must be no more than it acteth and though we seeme by frequent actings to helpe the soule and so to create in it acquisite habits yet these are but a Phaenomenon This is but the way which God discloseth to our eye whereas all the actings are onely new discoveries Our Philosophers affirme thus boldly of the unreasonable creature attributing it all to the instinct or a new influence Why may not why must not we conclude the same of man seeing it is a received truth that acti agimus and we are in our strength in regard of God no better than the most abject creature But if all be one Soule Understanding Habits all the same then neither doe faith and reason differ Surely they differ onely in degrees not in nature That Reverend holy man that dexterous cominus-pugnator seemeth to averre the same or more in historicall and saving faith * Mr Huit in his Anatomy of Conscience cleerely affirmeth it * The first degree is Reason A second Historicall A third Temporary A fourth Saving faith A fift Plerophorie A sixt * Beatifica visio that light whereby we shall see as we are seene these are of the same nature with that light which a reprobate is partaker of And if any man question the truth of this let him but consider that the Donor is the same our good God The Efficient Instrumentall and Formall cause is Jesus Christ The subject recipient the totum existens And the Gift it selfe is light or truth a spirituall Being How can it choose then but to be one and the same seeing as I said before such a Recipient cannot entertain any other guest Neither doe I at all abett that unhappy opinion of falling away from Grace There is in the opinion a liquid nefasti and therefore I study to shun it The propugnators of it are unhappy for they have not onely made a rent amongst us but strengthened a common adversary The oppugnators also are unhappy for they have so managed the cause that their Adversaries lie almost under invincible darknesse for the oppugnators fearing to speake plaine have called Spontaneitatem liberam voluntatem and it is impossible to distinguish betweene Libera voluntas Contra-Remonstrantium liberum arbitrium Remonstrantium And whilst the Remonstrants finde no difference in this main Tenet they weigh all the rest in the same scale and judge accordingly For an argument often alledged by many learned men if it confuteth not it doth confirme an error and thus are they out of the reach of truth That learned that pious man the first fruit of our Church her resurrection famous Calvin styled it Spontaneitatem and not liberam voluntatem For Deus and libera voluntas are incompatible not to be caemented by that distinction without difference Libera à necessitate sed non ab infallibilitate And therfore mighty * Rutterfort affirmeth that posito Dei decreto absoluto and all things are under such a decree insulse quaeritur an potentia libera sub eo decreto sit indifferens But here I am not to I cannot dispute this question Onely I say thus much it is so unhappy an opinion that I hope I shall not at all abett it For though Reason and Faith be one in nature yet is not reason that degree of light of which the Spirit hath said My seed is in you and you cannot sinne And therefore men cannot lose that which they never had And this will be a little more cleere by the answer to the next objection which is this If Faith and Reason if knowledge and grace be all but one light how commeth it to passe that some who have lesse light have more faith and those again who are for knowledge as Angels of light are not partakers of that which is called Saving faith This difficulty is rather mazy than strong I shall therefore hope to bring the Ariadnean thread And at first abord I deny the proposition I conceive it a mistake For I doe verily beleeve that the weakest Saint knoweth more of God than the most intelligent of those Spirits who though once in heaven are now in intolerable flames All men confesse thus much that even the meanest Christian hath more experimental knowledge of GOD than Beelzebub the Prince of the aire And doth not this convince them of what I affirme For what to speake in their language is experiment but the daughter of light gathered by frequent observation If experiment be but light and their experience is more than that of the greatest wits then if I mistake not by necessary consequence their light is more and greater But I suppose the error may be cleared by this Simile The one is as the man who hath studied the Theory the other the Practicke of any art of science The first may know more in appearance but the other indeed knoweth more You shall finde two unequally learned The first is a Gnosticke a helluo literarum the other hath not read so much but hath concocted mastered and subdued all before him Which now is said to know more The foole hath said not as some expound it wished in his heart there is no GOD It is true now and then he hath some glimmering light of a Deity but anon againe all is shaken and he faith there is no God Doth not the people of Israel say Wee are our owne Lords who shall controll us We have made a covenant with death and hell and none shall reach us Can these men these Beings be said to know God If you object the devils age and experience it cannot help it is but as you call it a collection of his owne lights and all the starres shining together make not day I should onely aske this one question Can the divels beleeve or know God to be all mercy It is impossible because they cannot beleeve him so to themselves Ob. But some say Neither doe the best men beleeve him so to the wicked Resp. Yes we doe wee know him in his nature to be mercifull to them Besides mercy and justice are all but one thing in God and this those miserable Creatures cannot consent to that their ruine is the effect of supreme perfection infinite sweetnesse To the confirmation of this I shall but presse this one consideration If they did know more than the Saints they must needs love more and in this I shall have all those my abettors who hold that the Will doth necessarily follow the understanding which whilst Aristotle denieth in broad and open disputes he doth in tacite