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_v	world_n	worthy_a	22	3	5.7646	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30977	The genuine remains of that learned prelate Dr. Thomas Barlow, late Lord Bishop of Lincoln containing divers discourses theological, philosophical, historical, &c., in letters to several persons of honour and quality : to which is added the resolution of many abstruse points published from Dr. Barlow's original papers.	Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691.	1693 (1693)	Wing B832; ESTC R3532	293,515	707

necessarily presupposes and to believe that there is a God because God said so whose existence is in the mean time call'd in question were ridiculous Answ I. Tho' the Existence of God be an Article of Faith yet it may likewise be known by Natural light since there are many things in the Scriptures which we believe by Faith that can be demonstrated by natural light such as these known Principles that God is to be honoured Parents obeyed c. And the Reason is because Faith and Natural Scientifick Knowledge do not formally differ in their material Object for both may have one and the same Object viz. one and the same proposition both proved by natural demonstration and believed in by Faith because of the testimony of God but the main and principle difference lies in that which they call Objectum formale and the formality of the Object is taken from the principal Motive or mean by vertue whereof the proposition comes to gain an assent as in Natural things the motive of my assent is evident demonstration and in supernatural things the testimony of God so that I may assent unto a proposition that is demonstrable by natural light because of the clear probation of the same and this is call'd assensus scientificus and if God confirm it by Revelation I assent unto the same proposition because of the testimony of God and this is called assensus fidei or supernaturalis not as if the proposition it self were supernatural incomprehensible by natural light but because the medium or motive upon which I ground my assent unto it is supernatural So that one and the same proposition may be in ordine ad diversa motiva both the object of Faith and of a demonstrative Natural knowledge Instatur The Object of Faith is inevident for Faith is an inevident assent But if the Existence of God can be demonstratively proved by Natural Light then it cannot be inevident Ergo c. Answ There be three things to be considered in giving an assent to a truth 1. Firmitas or the stedfastness of the person in his belief not doubting of any thing 2. Certitudo or the certainty of the truth it self for some Men may be firmly perswaded of a thing which is not in it self a certain truth as the Hereticks are of their Errours 3. Evidentia or a demonstrative perspicuous manifestation of the truth For many things such as matters of Faith are certainly true and Men are firmly persuaded of their truth who yet cannot evidently shew and demonstrate that it is a truth because they believe upon the Testimony of another And of these truths that are evident some are more evident than others as the prima principia or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are more evident than the other conclusions that are deduced tho' with evidence too by a longer series of consequences Now whatever is an Object of Faith is indeed ine●●●ent yet there are some things more inevident than others such as the principal and cardinal truths of th● Christian Rel●gion viz. The Trinity of Persons in the Godhead the divinity and inc●●●nation of Christ and the whole Mystery of his Rede●ption of the World by his bloo● and these are ev●ry way inevident whereas there are some other truths which tho' in so far as they are believed in by Faith are justly denominated inevident because of the motive and medium of the Belief yet may be upon another occasional respect and per accidens called evident of which Nature is this of the Existence of a God which is truly an object of Faith and in that respect inevident viz. as assented unto upon the testimony of God But it is also upon another respect evident bec●use it per accidens so falls out that it is likewise demonstrable by natural knowledge Answ 2. It does not foll●w that the Existence of God cannot be believed by Faith because Faith depends on the Testimony of God which presupposes that there is a God for the contrary seems rather to be deducible from thence viz. That because all Faith is founded upon the Divine Testimony and because no Believer can give assent unto any truth unless he know the Testimony given unto the same to be divine therefore by that same very act of Faith whereby he believes this Testimony to come from God he likewise believes there is a God who sends it For by the same individual act of seeing I must of necessity see the colour and sensible species of a Wall as they call it that I see the Wall it self by No more can I know the testimony to the truth to be divine unless by the same very act of Faith whereby I believe the testimony to be God's I likewise believe the existence of God who gives this Testimony And this Divine Testimony is the ground of all my belief and the ratio a priori wherefore I give mine assent unto any thing yet there can be no ratio a priori given wherefore I believe the Testimony of God as when I see a Wall the ratio is because of the species but the species it self wants any ratio and is only ●●en propter se so in all the objects of my ●aith I believe them because of the Testimony of God but I believe the Testimony of God propter se So that the Existence of God though it be sufficiently demonstrable by the light of Nature and in that sense the Object of a scientifick as●●● yet since God has confirmed it by his revealed Testimony it may well be stated as an Article of our Creed which we believe because God has testified and revealed the same and that in a more clear manner than bare Reason is capable to perform the demonstration of it Objection 4. There is no other way of knowing God naturally than by way of causality from the Creatures arising from the effect unto the cause but that we cannot do unless we can evidently know and demonstrate that the Creature is really the effect and work of God and this we cannot since the greatest Philosophers were ignorant of it and th●ught the World to be eternal which is also confirmed by the Apostle Heb. 11. By faith we know that the World was created intimating that the Creation of the World is a truth not comprehended by Natural Light Answer All the Philosophers have generally acknowledged that God was the Creator of the World Hence Aristotle frequently calls God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Plato in Timaeo Tom. 2. pag. 31. asserts that God made but one World not many Plutarch commends Alexander for saying that God was the Father of all things Plutarch in Alex. Magn. pag 681. What more ordinary amongst the Poets than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I lle opisex rerum c Anaxagoras Hermotinus Pythagoras c. were all asserters of the same Doctrine so that they knew and acknowledged the Creation of the World in general though they could not condescend to the particular Circumstances

that Adam by his fall transmitted no Sin but some miseries and calamities only to his posterity The Good Old Man was extreamly troubled at it and bewailing the miserable effects of those licentious times seemed to worder but that a second Consideration of the times he then was in abated something of his surprise how any should Write or at least be suffered to publish an Errour so contrary to truth and to the Doctrine of the Church of England firmly grounded as he justly affirmed upon the clear Evidence of Scripture and Establish'd by the Lawful Supream Authority both Sacred and Civil of this Nation But our Prelate names not the Books nor their Authors but rather wishes neither of them had been ever known and he adds both the Doctrine and the unadvis'd Abet●ours of it are and shall be to me Apochryphal Next for the proof of the Doctors Piety and great Ability and Judgment in Casuistical Divinity he inserts this Story viz. That he the said Dr. Barlow Discoursing with an Honourable Person who was as Pious and Learned as Noble which we are informed was the late Renowned Rob. Boyle Esq about a Case of Conscience relating to Oaths and Vows and their Nature and Obligation and in which for some particular Reasons the said Mr. Boyle desired at that time more fully to be instructed and having referr'd him for that point to Dr. Sandersons's Book de Juramento He accordingly perused it with great content which done he ask'd Dr. Bar●ow whether he thought Dr. Sanderson might not be persuaded to write Cases of Conscience if he might have an Honorary Pension and a convenient supply of Books to enable him to go through that task to which our Author replied he thought he would and accordingly in a Letter to Dr. Sanderson after he had told him what satisfaction that Honourable Person and many others had found by his Book de Juramento started the Proposal to him whether he would for the Churches Benefit write some more Tracts of Cases of Conscience to which he replied he was glad his Works had done any good and that if he thought any thing else he could do would so much benefit any body as 't was affirmed that his former had done he would presently go about the Work though without a Pension That upon this Answer the said Honourable Person sent 50 l. to the said Doctor by Dr. Barlows hands as knowing him to be then but in a low Condition and that soon after he Revised finish'd and Publish'd his Book of Conscience little says our Author in Bulk but not in the benefit an understanding Reader may reap by it there being so many general propositions about Conscience and its Nature and Obligation laid open and made good there with such forcible Evidence of Reason that he who Reads Retains and can with Discretion apply them with respect to due time and place to particular Cases may by their light very Reasonably resolve a Multitude of Doubts and Scruples of Conscience After this he produces an Instance of the said Dr. Sanderson's Judgment concerning a Passage very pertinent as he says to his present purpose which he thus relates When the said Dr. acted as Royal Professor of Divinity in Oxford and in performing his publick Lectures in the Schools gave great content to his Auditors by the truth of his Positions and uncommon Evidence and clearness of his Proofs and especially in the Resolution of all Casuistical Doubts that occurred in the explication of the matter of his Subject A Person of Quality still living privately ask'd him What method was best for a young Divine to take to make himself an able Casuist To which he reply'd That presupposing this young Student to be already furnish'd with a sufficient Knowledge of the Arts and Sciences and a convenient Understanding at least of Greek Latin and Hebrew There were two things more in Humane Learning the understanding of which would much conduce to make a man a rational and able Casuist which otherwise would be very hard if not impracticable Which were 1. A competent Knowledge of Moral Philosophy and particularly of that part of it that treats of Human Actions and teaches us to distinguish What a Human-Act is Spontaneous Involuntary and mixt from whence Human-Acts derive their Moral Goodness or Badness viz. Whether from their Genus and Object or from their Circumstances And how the Goodness or Evil of Human Acts is varied by the difference of Circumstances How far Ignorance or Knowledge may augment or abate the good or evil of the same Actions Because that all Cases of Conscience including only these Questions viz. Is this Action good or evil Is it lawful to do it or not He who knows not how nor whence Human Actions became morally good or evil can never reasonably and certainly determine whether any particular Action about which he shall be question'd be so or no. And the second thing which he said would be of mighty advantage to a Casuist was a Competent Knowledge of the Nature and obligation of Laws in general ' viz. to know what a Law is what a Natural and what a Positive Law what is necessary for the Authentick passing of a Law to a Dispensation with it and likewise to its Repeal and Abrogation What publication or promulgation is requisite to give any positive Law the Force of obliging and what kind of Ignorance takes off that Obligation or aggravates excuses or diminishes the guilt of the transgression of any Law For all Cases of Conscience as is above said including only Is this thing Lawful or not And the Law the only Rule by which we can judge of the Lawfulness and Vnlawfulness of any thing it must needs follow that he who in these is ignorant of the Laws and of their Nature and Obligation can never reasonably assure himself or any Querist of the Lawfulness or Vnlawfulness of any Actions in particular This was the Judgment and Advice of that Pious and Learned Prelate the truth and benefit of which our Reverend Authour and his Worthy Successor having by a long and happy Experience found he tells his Friend That he thought he could not without Ingratitude to him and want of Charity to others conceal it And so with a Compliment of Modesty he concludes his Letter which is dated London May the 10th 1678. A Letter giving an account of the Bishop and his Clergy's Address to K. James Sir I Receiv'd yours and with my Love and Service return my thanks For our Address which you mention many of the Clergy have been sollicited by Letters from your great Town that they should not Subscribe it and I have had two or three Letters sent me incognito no name subscribed to these Letters wherein they Zealously declame against that Address and all Subscriptions to it but do bring nothing like a Reason to prove that such Subscriptions are either unlawful or Circumstances consider'd imprudent or inconvenient I was lately inform'd by a Person

3. cap. 2. parag 12. pag. 188. Gal. 5.22 But before becomes to the proof of this he confesses he has the Jesuits and some Remonstrants against him such as Maldonat in Joh. 9. c. and Mart. Becan in Compend Man lib. 1. cap. 16. Quest 3. pag. 335. and in Summ. Theol. part 2. Quest 8. pag. 802. and Pet. Bertius de Apostas Sanct. pag. 42 43. Act. Synod Remonstr in Defens Artic. 5. de persever Sanct. pag. 230 231. who in order to establish a worse Errour viz. The final Apostacy of the Saints assert That this common or temporary faith is not only specifically but even gradually the same with saving faith and would justifie if persevered in whose Arguments he passes by as undeserving a confutation being so pitifully weak and because his Learned and Ingenious Adversary Mr. Baxter proceeds not so far as to assert That such a faith can justifie However by the by he tells us that he conceives that it may be manifestly evinced against those Adversaries by many Circumstances of the Text in Matt. 13.5 6 21 22. where common faith is described by four Conditions that cannot possibly agree to a saving faith that it must needs be more than gradually different from it Now proceeds he though this were sufficient to prove his abovesaid position yet he will still add some more distinct Confirmations of it which he does by the following additional Reasons viz. Reason 1. Drawn from the vast difference between the nature of the Causes and first Principles of these two sorts of Faith because the one is Heaven-born immediately from the Spirit of Christ which sows in us an Immortal seed of faith which can never die but must overcome sin in the Elect and work Regeneration And the Other is only a Humane faith wrought by Humane Means and assents to Divine Truths out of meer Humane Motives and by meer Humane Causes as false Reasonings or more forcible Temptations and Persecutions may be overthrown and extinguisht Reason 2. From the different Nature and proper acts of both Qualities saving belief being the first Spiritual Life by which a Christian lives and is justified Heb. 10.38 whereas common belief is often in them who are dead in Trespasses and Sins and neither justifies sanctifies nor saves Reason 3. Because 't is evident common faith may be in a very high degree in some Impious and Vnregenerate Persons who have acute parts and are Learned and Industrious and thrive into a Radicated Habit and a great measure of knowledge of both speculative and practical Divine Truths which by their Learning they may be able to demonstrate and may really believe and assent to and yet never proceed to pay true obedience to c. And because though there are many degrees of saving faith too from the Child to the Strong Man in Christ which include far less knowledge than some degrees of common faith yet the weakest of them is saving whereas the highest degree of common faith can neither justifie nor save a plain Evidence these two faiths are of kinds as different as Heaven and Earth Reason 4. Is because common Grace as the knowledge of several Tongues and of many Divine Truths as it is generally a Habit or Disposition acquired by our Natural Faculties improved by Industry Education c. and so depending upon mutable principles as our Will and Vnderstanding so they may be lost again by negligence or malice whereas saving faith being produced by the Eternal and Immutable Spirit of Christ is incorruptible and can never die nor be lost John 17.3 1 Pet. 1.23 Heb. 10.38 John 6.47 51 54. See Aquin. 1. 2. Quaest 51. Art 4. in Corp. Artic. which he proves further by conferring 1 John 3.9 5.1.4 8. with 1 John 5.18 Reason 5. Is because though common and saving faith may have the same material object viz. Divine Truths revealed by God in the Gospel as that Jesus is the Son of God c. yet these truths are embraced by these two faiths upon different Motives and by far different means the one being built only upon Humane Mediums and Arguments such as Vnregenerate Persons by their natural parts helpt with Learning c. may attain to which is an assent like its Principles that begot it humane and fallible whereas saving faith proceeding from Christ's Spirit and built upon his immediate Illumination and Testimony which is Divine and Infallible must of necessity be an assent differing from the former more than in degree and be like its cause Divine and Infallible likewise which proof he further illustrates by comparing the difference between Opinion and Science with that between common and saving faith and by several Scriptural Arguments besides Reason 6. Is because if common and saving faith were essentially the same then Irregenerate and Impious Persons who have common Graces may be as gracious and as true Believers as the best Saints though not in so high a degree as the smallest grain of Gold is as truly Gold as the whole Wedge but that this consequence is de facto false Ergo c. And that it is really false appears by this says he that 't is as impossible for a Christian to have any other Theological Vertues or Graces without true faith as 't is for a Man according to the Moralists to have any other Moral Vertues without Prudence which is the Root of them all And further adds he if it be true as Mr. Baxter says in Exercit. de fid c. Art 30. pag. 279. Rat. 7. and Aphoris in Explicat Thes 69. pag. 266 and 267. That the Essence of saving faith consists in accepting Christ and loving him as our Lord and Saviour then it follows that those who do not so accept and love him have not the essence of saving faith and therefore that since 't is evident that no Irregenerate Persons though somtimes full fraught with common faith yet do ever so accept and love Christ therefore it follows their faith must needs be of a very different kind from saving faith Q.E.D. Reason 7. And last is Because if common and saving grace be essentialiy the same then it would follow that a Man who has an historical Faith whilst Unregenerate by the help of Natural parts Learning c. and afterwards should become Regenerate would by the Spirit of Christ receive only a greater degree of the same faith he had before and consequently that saving Grace would not be a Gift of God's as to its essence but only as to its degree because we should owe the essence of it only to our natural parts c. and the degree only to Christ's Spirit But this Doctrine says he is contrary to express Scripture and resolved to be so by the Ancient Church and by her expresly condemned in her Councils as Pelagian and Heretical and therefore it follows that the difference between common and saving faith must needs be specifical as appears in Concil Arausicann 2 Can. 4 5 6 7 8.