Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	work_n	work_v	worth_a	23	3	8.9277	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A97067	Truth tried: or, animadversions on a treatise published by the Right Honorable Robert Lord Brook, entituled, The Nature of Truth, its vnion and vnity with the soule. Which (saith he) is one in its essence, faculties, acts; one with truth. By I. W.	Wallis, John, 1616-1703.	1643 (1643)	Wing W615; Thomason E93_21; ESTC R11854	114,623	143

whether Appearing and not-Appearing be a Reall or onely Imaginary difference If a Reall difference then will there be somewhat Reall Then which is not Now and consequently all Reality will not be Simultaneous there will be somewhat Reall afterwards which before was not If Appearing be onely Imaginary what shall I have to help my knowledge Then which I have not Now Ans 2. If you say Things Future are both now Present we Know them so to be but do not Seem to know them or Seem not to Know them Repl. Then I reply as before If we Shall Seem to know them we Doe Seem to know them because Then and Now are all one So that if Succession of Time be only Imaginary Then do we already know whatsoever we shall know whereas Christ himselfe Increased in wisdom Luk. 2. And the Fore-Knowledge of things to come would not be such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as might distinguish between the True and False Gods And thus if I mistake not I have sufficiently shewed though much more might have been added that there is a Reall Succession a Reall Priority of Duration and not onely Imaginary And therefore notwithstanding his first answer the Soule must really cease to Be when it ceaseth to Work or to work Truth if these Workings of truth be the Soules Essence And the soule must be during that Cessation or Errour as truly Non Ens as before its first Production for the precedent and subsequent workings cannot Then give it an Existence as not Then being His second answer to the Objection propounded in the beginning of this Chapter toucheth not at all the first Branch of it wherein it is objected That if particular Actings of Truth be Truth or the Soules Essence How is it that the Understanding should not cease to Be when it ceaseth to Work for this in his first Answer he seemed to grant But it is applyed to the second Branch of it viz. That If particular Actings of Truth be Truth or the Soules Essence then the Soule entertaining a False position should be no more it selfe To which he answers By denying that the Soule doth at all act upon Falshood and that upon this ground Because Falshood is not a Reall Being upon which the Soule can work For its nature being Privative and no Reall Being how can the Soule or Truth work upon Nothing I might answer here That it is not requisite to the Soules Act that its Object should have a Reall being As appears by the Soules apprehending Ens rationis which Apprehension is a positive Act and yet hath no Reall Object For the Object of Intellection is not Reale but Cognoscibile And therefore That Falshood wanteth a reall being is not inough to shew that the Understanding cannot work upon it And this in effect he granteth soon after For it being Objected that the Soule while it pronounceth a False position doth Really act verè agere He replyes That there are in this Action two things a Thinking and a So-thinking To think is a positive Action a good Action But the formalis ratio of So-thinking lyeth in Thinking an Errour which is Nothing and so a Not-thinking When mistaking a man catcheth at a shadow In catching he doth truly Act But to Catch a Shaddow is to catch nothing Now to catch nothing and not to catch to act nothing and not to act is all one So to Think is Reall but to Think Amisse is Nothing and all one with Not-thinking He grants therefore that the Soule pronouncing or Understanding a False position or thinking Amisse doth really Think really Act Now I ask while it doth really Think What doth it think What doth it Act or Vpon what rather Certainly it must either be Falshood or No●hing For what else it should be neither doth his Lordship shew nor can I imagine If it Act upon Falshood the false position then may Falshood be the Object of a Reall act If it act upon Nothing then what hinders but that Falshood although it be Nothing may yet be the Object of this Act Object But he will say If the Soule do act upon Falshood then must it become Falshood that is a Vanity a Ly a Nothing For I conceive ●aith he the Agent it selfe together with the Subject acted upon the Object to be One in the Act. Ans● But this supposition must I deny For if so Then when the Soule acteth upon God by Knowing Loving c then doth it become God And if so why doth his Lordship at the end of his Preamble blame those for mounting too high who confounding the Creator with the Creature make her to be God But for the better clearing of this whole discourse concerning Falshood and Errour in the Souls working I shall desire you to take notice of a Distinction which all Know and yet but few Think of when they have occasion to use it The non attendency whereof hath produced much Obscurity much Errour and inextricable perplexities concerning this and the like Subjects It is to distinguish between Verum Metaphysicum and Verum Logicum between Bonum Metaphysicum and Bonum Morale To distinguish I say Metaphysicall Truth and Goodnesse from Morall and Logicall Goodnesse and Truth To distinguish the Truth of Being from the Truth of a Proposition the Goodnesse of Being from the Goodnesse of an Action Now this being premised let us examine the truth of some Tenents which are allmost generally received by all 1 The nature of Evill say they is Privative not Positive Evill is Nothing And why Because Ens Bonum convertuntur and therefore Malum must needs be Non-Ens now Non-Ens is Nothing Be it so Evill is Nothing But what Evill do they mean Evill in Metaphysicks or Evill in Ethicks Goodnesse in Metaphysicks is no other th●n Entity for none ever acknowledged a greater distinction between Ens Bonum then a distinction of Reason and therefore Malum in Metaphysicks must be Non Ens. But will they say that Morall Evill is so too If they do then must they say also that bonum Morale is convertible with Ens otherwise their Argument will not hold that All Being is Honesty or Morall Goodnesse and all Morall Goodnesse is Being or Entity I ask therefore whether morall Goodnesse or Honesty ●e the Essence the Entity of a Stone If not then is not every Being Bonum Morale I ask again Whether Silence be not Morally Good at such a time as when a man ought to hold his peace Yet to ● Silent or not to speak hath no Metaphysicall goodnesse no goodnesse of Being for it is a mee● Negation There may be therefore Morall goodnesse where there is no Metaphysicall goodnesse no positive Being and there may be Metaphysicall goodnesse goodnesse of Being without Morall goodnesse or Goodnesse of Honesty Now if Malum Metaphysicum a Negation a Non-Ens may be Bonum Morale what shall be the Malum Morale opposite to this Bonum shall that be also a Non-En●● If it

TRUTH TRIED OR Animadversions On a Treatise published by the Right Honorable ROBERT Lord BROOK ENTITVLED The Nature of Truth Its Vnion and Vnity with the Soule Which saith he is One in its Essence Faculties Acts One with Truth By I. W. LONDON Printed by Richard Bishop for SAMUEL GELLIBRAND at the Signe of the Brazen Serpent in Pauls Church-yard 1643. To the Right Honourable ROBERT Lord BROOK My Noble Lord YOur Lordship being pleased to doe the World that honour to impart to it somewhat of Yours and therefore Honourable it was My Happinesse amongst the rest to be an Object of that Favour And yet my Vnhappinesse so farre as not in all things to fall in with your Lordship Like a Mariner at Sea descrying within kenne a faire Vessell under Sa●le promising a rich Lading makes up to her and understanding whence she is and whether she is bound desires to view her Fraught but comming so neere as to goe aboard falls foule of her as they speak and is entangled and perhaps may both have work enough to get cleare The ●●ire Vessell I had in view was your Lordships Treatise now under Saile when made publique which however directed to a Private Port or Sinus a Friends Bosome yet passes the Ocean to arrive at it your Lordships Name enforms me Whence it is and withall promises a Rich Fraught which the Bill of Lading tells me What it is The Nature of Truth and blame me not if I were ambitious to see it that I might adore it If by mischance I be entangled I hope your Lordships hand will help me to get cleare Our first fathers which had never seene Fire before while every one was catching at that which shone so Bright no marvell if he that first meddled with it Burnt his Fingers The Beauty of Truth is likewise Bright and Glorious so Glorious that some have found her Dazle their Eyes he might have said Others have Burnt their Fingers And I perhaps am one of them Truth is a Glorious Object a fit Object only for a Noble Hand Yet Sutor sometimes though he presume not to Better Apelles Picture may yet find fault with the Shooe and that without blame while he goe not ultra crepidam Your Lordship sometimes in this Divine Treatise for fear of Dazling our Eyes hath left us in a Want of Light Naked Truth which your Lordship had the happinesse to Behold is proposed to us Cloathed and Guilded rather then Painted in a most curious Dresse indeed yet such as hides the Body the Beauty whereof being so well worth beholding we had rather have seene her as your Lordship did without her gowne without her crowne the better to have discerned her true Proportion Rhetoricall Embelishments being the same sometimes in a Philosophicall Discourse that varnish on a faire Picture which helps to set it off but withall hides it and presents it more Glossy but lesse Distinct For what the Orator useth to Illustrate that the Philosopher finds to Obscure And thus much perhaps if no more may be gained by the ensuing discourse that your Lordship taking occasion from thence may afford more Light to that which divers desire better to understand and Vnmask so Faire a Face At least those who have once seene her Naked may take the paines to Vndresse her And perhaps having taken a second view through this a more thick Perspective of not so high raised a Fancy may give us a more Distinct Delineation of what its owne Dazling Brightnesse presented at first more confused I hope I shall need no large Apology to obtaine Acceptance at least a Pardon from so Noble a Lord to whom I am told nothing can be more gratefull and who promiseth the fairest answer if I Accept the Challenge which it 's like your Lordship would Performe if at least Encounters of another nature would give way to those of the Penne. If I be demanded therefore of what I doe Why at all I reply Because in your Lordships name invited If why so late I have nothing to reply but this Qui serò dat diu noluit What was at first in a few dayes written to a private Friend having lien so long in your Lordships hands is a sufficient testimony that I made no haste to publish it I have but one request to make and kisse your Lordships hand that you would vouchsafe if I have done well to Accept if otherwise to Pardon Your Lordships most humble Servant IOHN WALLIS To the Worshipfull and my Worthy Friend Henry Darley Esquire Worthy Sir THe Sad news of so Unhappy a Losse as his Lordships Death forceth me to give an account of what might else seeme a Soloecisme The book was newly finished in the presse before his Lordships death and expected only to be first presented to his Noble Hands before it was presented to the World to whome it was then a going when that unhappy news stopped it and some copies were gone abroad I have suppressed it since to adde that which you see adjoyned in testimony of mine own sadnesse for so great a Losse Which yet cannot be so fully expressed by a private penne as by the common Tears of all those to whome Religion is deare A sad losse it was had it been in the Best times to loose so many excellent Accomplishments in one Noble Breast but Now most Unhappy when there is so much work and so few hands in which I am confident None was guided by a more single Eye with lesse Obliquity to collaterall aimes Vnhappy then was that accident that deprived us of one so well worthy to live Vnhappy hand by one sad stroke who shot Religion Learning Piety what not Sir The Treatise penned long since at your request had once passed in another Character through Yours to his Lordships Hand not then intended to be made publique nor directed to any other then your own eye what entertainment it then found such Candour and Noblenesse dwelt in that Breast You know as well as I And now being oft solicited as well by you as others It was a second time Advancing ambitious again to be made happy by the same Hand and indeed I had been extreamly injurious to His Candour if I should have seemed to decline His Eye and present it to another who taking liberty sometime to dissent from Others did with the same freedome allow others to dissent from Him willing to accept of any Assistance in the search of Truth but being there prevented it is fain to Retreat and fall back to the same hand where it first lodged as being next after his Lordship due to you from Your humble Servant J. W. March 11. 1642 THE CONTENTS of the ensuing Chapters The Preface DIvers acceptations of Truth pag. 1. Logicall and Morall Truth their nature and difference ibid Whether breach of Promise be formally a Ly. 3. Metaphysical Truth 4. Veritas Essendi Cognoscendi or Cognoscibility ibid None of these are Truth or Light as here taken 5.