Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
book_n know_v name_n write_v 5,306 5 5.6704 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A30485 Second remarks upon An essay concerning humane understanding in a letter address'd to the author, being a vindication of the first remarks against the answer of Mr. Lock, at the end of his reply to the Lord Bishop of Worcester. Burnet, Thomas, 1635?-1715. 1697 (1697) Wing B5946; ESTC R20232 13,975 33

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

SECOND REMARKS UPON AN ESSAY CONCERNING Humane Understanding IN A LETTER address'd to the AUTHOR BEING A Vindication of the First Remarks AGAINST THE ANSWER OF Mr. LOCK At the End of His REPLY to the LORD BISHOP of WORCESTER LONDON Printed for M. Wotton at the Three Daggers in Fleet-street 1697. The Occasional Paper will be continu'd next Term. SECOND REMARKS UPON AN ESSAY CONCERNING Humane Understanding In a LETTER address'd to the Author SIR AT the End of your Reply to the Lord Bishop of Worcester I have met with your Answer as you are pleas'd to call it to my short Remarks upon your Essay and am very much surpriz'd to find it writ in such an angry Style and with such undeserved and ill-grounded Reflections I writ to you with Civility and Respect and I dare appeal to any Gentleman if there be any thing unbecoming or provoking in the Style or Expressions of my Letter If you made a false Surmise to your self that a Storm was coming as you phrase it and a Design hatching to run down your Book As there is no Storm I 'm sure in my Letter but every Line calm and peaceable so I protest I never heard of any such Design never had Communication with any about the confuting or opposing your Book And as to these Two short Papers of Remarks 'T is more than I know if any Person in the World besides my self knows me to be the Writer of them So far was I from designing any thing by them but my own Satisfaction and to know the true State of Your Principles that I might the better judge of their Truth and of their Consequences And whereas you say If it was for my own Information what need of putting my Doubts in Print I thought that the best way that your Answer might give Satisfaction to others as well as to me who probably might have the same or like Scruples And as to your self I thought I had done you a Kindness by giving you an Opportunity of explaining or vindicating some of your Principles which were likely I thought to fall under the Censure of Inquisitive Persons Then as to the Crime of concealing my Name which is another thing objected I think of all Men I know Mr. Lock had the least Reason to make that Criminal He who hath writ so many Books without putting his Name to them and some in confutation of the Principles of other Men. Turpe est Censori cùm But you have invented a strange Reason for my concealing my Name with a black Accusation contain'd in it In these Words I cannot much blame him in another respect for concealing his Name For I think any one who appears amongst Christians may be well asham'd of his Name when be raises such a Doubt as this viz. Whether an infinitely Powerful and Wise Being be Veracious or no unless Falshood be in such reputation with this Gentleman that he concludes Lying to be no Mark of Weakness and Folly This Insinuation is the more inexcusable because to bring it in you have misrepresented and perverted the Sense of the Author The Question there is not Whether God be Veracious but Whether according to your Principles he can be prov'd to be so The Reflection which falls upon your Principles onely you would have thrown upon God and very unjustly suppose that the Remarker calls in question the Divine Veracity whereas he onely calls in question the Truth of your Principles which I think is a very different thing from the Divine Veracity In the Pages you cite the Remarker says Veracity according to His Principles may be prov'd to belong to the Divine Nature as being a Perfection but tells you at the same time that you make no use of that Argument nor vouchsafe to give us any Account or Idea of Perfection tho' you do of many other Terms and Notions of less importance You may see by this that Falshood and Lying as your gross Words are are not in reputation with this Gentleman seeing he looks upon them as Imperfections inconsistent with the Divine Nature Now let every impartial Reader judge whether there is less of the Christian in the first Objection or in the pretended Answer and whether of these two Persons hath more reason to be ashamed You add in the same Place that you have more than once Spoke of the Goodness of God another Evidence of his Veracity Be it so But where have you prov'd the Divine Goodness Or how can it be prov'd from your Principles The Question is not as I told you before Whether God be Good and Veracious c. nor whether you think so for I do not enter into your Thoughts but onely Whether you have prov'd these Attributes or laid down any Principles by which they may be prov'd Next you proceed to what concerns the Mathematical Demonstration of Morality where I desired to know how it could be founded on your Principles In answer to this you tell me my Judgment does not seem of that Consequence that any one should be in haste to gratifie my Impatience Sir I did not presume to desire to know the full Systems of your Morality but the Basis up on which you would build it And you having declar'd more than once That from Grounds and Principles laid down in your Book Morality might be Mathematically demonstrated I thought it would give no offence to enquire which Ground or Principle you pitcht upon for your Foundation I thought I say That would have given no offence especially seeing I was willing to suppose That 't was not the deficiency of your Principles but my own short-sightedness that made me at a loss But however if this Enquiry how modestly soever propos'd be look'd upon by you as presumptuous I beg your Pardon if that will satisfie at present And we shall have occasion hereafter to speak more at large concerning the Grounds of Morality where tho' you be so reserv'd in declaring yours I shall not be so in declaring mine After this you make a Remark upon what I had said concerning the Knowledge of our Duty and concerning the Grounds of the Divine Law And you express it in these Words And since he thinks the illiterate part of Mankind which is the greatest must have a more compendious way to know their Duty than by long Deductions you should have said long and obscure Deductions if you had truly taken the Words of the Author He may do well to consider whether it were for their sakes he publish'd this Question viz. What is the Reason and Ground of the Divine Law I suppose this is mentioned as containing something inconsistent or incongruous but I see no such thing in the Words cited May not the illiterate part of Mankind know their Duty by Natural Conscience and the Revealed Law of God and yet that Divine Law have a Reason or Ground I can see no interfering in this nor any Incongruity But this is a gentle Reprimand or
reads the State of their Principles with their Consequences especially as to Moral things that he might make a sure Judgment of them I am sensible that when Men have a different Set of Ideas and First Principles they may be easily mistaken in judging of one anothers Meaning or in drawing Consequences from one anothers Principles But that methinks ought to give no offence but rather to be gently rectified without ill Language by the Authors themselves who best know their own Mind And as I find that you say you are often at a loss in understanding the Lord Bishop of Worcester's Remarks upon some of your Notions so I hope you will not think it strange if I am sometimes at a loss also how to understand your Writings which we may reasonably presume are not more clear either as to Sense or Words You tell me in your Answer That I pretend to have writ that Letter to be inform'd And so I did but withal gave you some Reasons for my Doubts Will you not allow a Learner to desire his Master to explain himself when he does not understand his Dictates and also to propose Objections when his Teacher's Sense seems to him contrary to Reason We are taught by your self not to give up our Assent to the Authority of others without good Evidence and you make it one great Cause of Errour To relie blindly upon the Opinions of others I hope therefore I have obey'd your Precepts in this as I am ready to do in all other things that are reasonable I can truly and sincerly say That I do not write out of any Spirit of Opposition nor for any By-ends whatsoever but for my own Instruction and Satisfaction and for the Discovery of Truth in those great Points When I doubt of your Sense if you please to direct me and when I make Objections if you please to answer them I have my Design and desire onely that the Merits of the Cause may be spoken to on either hand without course Language and Personal Reflexions which I think is your own Advice In your Conclusion you tell me again of my Fault in not setting my Name to my Paper in these hard Words To conclude Were there nothing else in it I should not think it fit to trouble my self about the Questions of a Man which he himself does not think wortby owning To which I answer Tho' in some Cases I think the Sense is more impartially consider'd without Favour or Prejudice when the Author is unknown yet if that will satisfie you Do you put your Name to all the Books and Pamphlets you have writ and I will put my Name to this how unusual soever it is to put a Name to such small Papers SIR Your Humble Servant FINIS Answ. p. 3. Pag. 4. Remarks p. 5 Pag. 4. Pag. 5. Pag. 5 6. Pag. 74 75. Effay p. 44. Pag. 68 fect 10. P. 44 45. Lib. 2. c. 27. Pag. 180. sect 6. Pag. 272. P. 17. sect 5 6. P. 192. sect 5. P. 86. sect 19. P. 197. sect 2. De fin Bon. Mal. c. 18 Pag. 2. Essay p. 405. sect 17. * No bodies Notions I think are the better or truer for ill-manners joined with them and I conclude your Lordship who so well knows the different Cast of Mens Heads and of the Opinions that possess them will not think it ill Manners in any one if his Notions differ from your Lordship's and that he owns that Difference and explains the Grounds of it as well as be can I have always thought that Truth and Knowledge by the ill and over-eager Management of Controversies lose a great deal of the Advantages they might receive from the Variety of Conceptions there is in Mens Understandings Could the Heats and Passions and ill Language be left out of them they would afford great Improvements to those who could separate them from By-interests and Personal Prejudices Answer to the Bishop of Worcester p. 222.