Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	believe_v	faith_n	reveal_v	5,457	5	8.8529	5	true

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

are Cogitations and seated in the Soul So we must have them new imprest we are as it were new born and begin the World again If you say the Ideas remain in the Soul in that State of Silence and Insensibility and need only a new Excitation Why then say I may not Infants have innate Ideas which you so much oppose that want only Objects and Occasions to excite and actuate them with a fit disposition of the Brain Sir I am sorry my Apprehension should be so slow or your Doctrine about the Soul so shaded and cover'd that I cannot without further Light come to know your Meaning or which I most desire see how it is consistent with Reason and Nature To gratifie your Readers with a clearer Explanation of your Principles in this Particular seems to be a Debt due to them which I shall take however as an Obligation But if you be otherwise minded for Reasons best known to your self I shall use no further Entreaty or Importunity Another Head wherein I desir'd your further Explication was in reference to Reveal'd Religion that we may see what Ground we can have upon your Principles for the Certainty of it If we cannot in your way be assur'd of the Immortality of the Soul by the Light of Nature or by Revelation you leave us no certain way to know it Now if you do not make that Revelation certain in it self it cannot make us certain of any thing You seem therefore the more oblig'd to give good Proof of the Certainty of Reveal'd Religion by how much you make the Assurance of our Immortality to depend upon its Testimony I told you formerly why I thought your Principles would not reach to the Proof of a Certainty in Reveal'd Religion namely because they do not prove nor give us Grounds whereupon we may prove the Moral Attributes of God upon which and not upon Infinite Power and Knowledge only depends the Satisfaction and Assurance we have of the Truth of a Revelation The Divine Veracity is the particular Attribute upon which it mainly depends and that we think may be prov'd from the Divine Perfection But you have given us no Idea of Perfection unless you resolve it into Power whereof indeed you have given a large Account but that will not reach and decide the Case in question However I will wait your Pleasure and Leisure to see if you are minded to give us any more Instruction in this Particular The truth is There is a Passage in your late Reply to the Bishop of Worcester p. 95 96. which would incline one to believe That you think there is no Certainty in Reveal'd Religion seeing you do not allow the Certainty of Faith but look upon that Expression as Jargon or next to Nonsense To talk of the Certainty of Faith say you seems all one to me as to talk of the Knowledge of Believing A way of speaking not easie to me to understand Faith methinks must either be Certain or Uncertain and if you refuse the one you must take the other But this I suppose with what follows there will fall under the Examination and Censure of a better Pen I will therefore insist no more upon it I proceed now to the Third Head That of Natural Religion and Morality This you think is demonstrable from your Principles Mathematically demonstrable This indeed would be an happy Performance and of great use to Mankind But I cannot discern from what sure Foundation or in what Method you can make out this Demonstration If you make Natural Religion and Morality to depend upon Future Rewards and Punishments as I think you do then they must depend upon the Immortality of the Soul And if they depend upon That and that be only Probable by the Light of Nature then neither can the other by the Light of Nature be Mathematically demonstrable I should argue thus If Morality stands upon Future Punishments and Rewards and Future Punishments and Rewards stand upon the Immortality of the Soul and the Immortality of the Soul be only Probable then Morality cannot be Mathematically demonstrable This is something like your Indian Comparison If the Earth stand upon an Elephant and the Elephant upon a Tortoise then what supports the Tortoise Thus far we are clear There ought not I 'm sure be more in the Conclusion than was in the Premises You allow I think a Law of Nature with or without Revelation a natural Conscience to distinguish Good and Evil Virtue and Vice This is generally understood by Morality and Natural Religion And this Morality if I understand you aright is what you say is Demonstrable by your Principles But if you use that Word Morality in another sense than what is generally understood by it in common Conversation or by Ancient and Modern Authors you who blame others so often for an uncertain use of Words ought to fix and declare your peculiar Signification of that Word that we may know your Meaning If by Morality you understand the Practical Precepts of the Christian Religion who doubts but That Morality may be known clearly and evidently We have no need of your Mathematical Demonstration in That Case if you mean onely that you can prove Morality from Scripture Besides if that were required you must first give us a Demonstration of the Veracity of the Revealer from your Principles before you can demonstrate Morality in this Sense But if you understand Natural Morality as others do We think and say you cannot give by your Principles a Demonstration of it After all Whatsoever you understand by Morality you seem to ground your Demonstration upon Future Punishments and Rewards and upon the arbitrary Will of the Law giver And I do not think these the first Grounds of Good and Evil Vertue and Vice I do not think they are constituted by Punishments and Rewards nor by the Will of God onely if you take that Will for an Arbitrury Power And I 'll give my Reasons for it If things were so there would be no Fixt Notion of Holiness and God might be the Author of Sin I mean of what we call Sin and judge Sin and for which Sinners are punisht But in reality according to this Principle there is nothing Sin to this Almighty Being nor any fixt Notion of Holiness For if his Will be the Original Rule of Good and Evil and that Will go by no Rule there is no Rule of Sin to him All things are Indifferent till he declare This or That to be Sin according to his Pleasure nor is there any Rule of Sin to us but that Revealed Pleasure This Consequence I believe will be granted admitting the Supposition But you will say it may be After God hath declar'd such and such Things to be Sin they are so and he cannot be the Author of them And why not I pray I desire to know what binds him to his Word to this Order or Declaration he hath made It must be something

intended Reflexion upon me in comparison of the next which flies as high as the imputation of Malice and Ignorance in these Words A Man that insinuates as he does as if I held that the distinction of Vertue and Vice was to be picked up by our Eyes our Ears or our Nostrils shews so much Ignorance or so much Malice that he deserves no other Answer but Pity Malice and Ignorance These are such vulgar Topicks of Railing amongst angry and ill-bred Writers that methinks it should be below the Genius of a Gentleman and a Philosopher to make use of them Do you find these hard Words in the Writing you criticize I know that is no Rule to you but however the World will consider these things whether you will or no to judge of the Temper of a Person who treats another at this rate that us'd him with Respect and in civil Language But let us consider the Matter it self You call this an Insinuation of mine not a thing directly exprest and you have reason for this diminution of it But this also will make it more difficult to find out the particular Passage you understand here The first Passage in the Paragraph to which I suppose you refer is this Your general Principle of picking up all our Knowledge from our Five Senses I confess does not sit easily in my Thoughts tho' you join Reflexion to help us Now if this be the Sentence you mean surely you ought not to have omitted Reflexion and to have charg'd this only upon the Five Senses which you see I do not There is another Sentence in the same Paragraph which possibly you may refer to and 't is this As to Morality we think the great Foundation of it is The Distinction of Good and Evil Vertue and Vice Turpis Honesti as they are usually call'd and I do not find that my Eyes Ears Nostrils or any other outward Sense make any Distinction of these Things as they do of Sounds Colours Scents and other outward Objects nor from any Idea taken in from them or from their Reports am I conscious that I do or can conclude that there is such a Distinction in the Nature of Things In these two Passages I though I had taken in enough to comprehend your Sensation and Reflexion which you make the Principles of all our Knowledge Natural or Moral and consequently of the Distinction of Good and Evil Vertue and Vice But we shall see further into this Matter and into your Sense when you have further explain'd your Moral Notions and let us see what you make Vertue and Vice Good and Evil to be according to your way But I must not forget to speak a few Words to the Charge it self Malice and Ignorance Malice is against a Person Now God knows I never had either Malice or Envy against your Person And whosoever reads that Paper of Remarks I believe will think so for 't is writ in a courteous Style and with favourable Expressions to you from first to last As to the Imputation of Ignorance I am not so much concern'd to clear my self in that Point If it be my Ignorance in general that you pity I acknowledge your Kindness and own your Pity well plac't But if it be my Ignorance of your Principles that you pity as it seems to be That may be a Weakness in me I confess but I hope no mortal Sin nor any thing that requires much pity But however if you pity my Ignorance of your Principles and yet will not instruct me in them nor help me when I beg your Charity that Pity is but a Mock-pity and deserves no Thanks Now we come to the last Head of Inquiries you are pleas'd to take notice of The Immortality of the Soul And for a Proof of this you refer me whether ludicrously and sarcastically or no you best know to the Lord Bishop of Worcester's Arguments taken from your Principles Then you add But if that will not serve his turn I will tell him a Principle of mine that will clear it to him and that is The Revelation of Life and Immortality by Jesus Christ through the Gospel I write it Immortality for so I know it was intended tho' by an unlucky slip of the Press 't is printed there Immorality The Revelation of the Gospel is no doubt an happy Confirmation of the Immortality of the Soul but we are speaking of Proofs to be made by the Light of Nature and particularly by the Principles of Humane Understanding as you have represented them And before you make use of Revelation in this Point you should resolve the other Point objected to you viz. How you can prove the Truth of Revealed Religion according to your Principles Sir I have now done with your Answer as you call it but I can find neither Answer nor Explication in it to those Doubts I proposed You may have some particular Reasons for that which you best know But I know no good Reason you can have for writing in such a snappish and peevish way If you affect the Character of a Captious Disputant I do not envy it you I think you have taken the ready way to gain it by your way of Writing both here and elsewhere If you have been so treated by other Pens as to make you angry and out of humour you ought not to take your Revenge or ease your Spleen upon an inoffensive Pen And you will be less pitied when roughly handled by others if you treat them rudely that treated you civilly There is nothing I 'm sure in my Words or Expressions that could offend you It must be in the Sense by touching it may be upon some tender Parts of your Essay that would not bear pressing without giving Pain If you concluded ' with your self that the Writer of those Remarks was some mean contemptible Thing with whom you were not bound to observe the Measures of common Civility yet methinks even in that Case it had been better to have wholly neglected a Person of whom you had such an Idea than to have given an Answer without giving any Satisfaction to his Doubts or any Vindication of your Principles As to the Storm you speak of preparing against you I know nothing of it as I told you before yet I can blame none that desire such Principles of Humane Understanding as may give them Proofs and Security against such a system as this Cogitant Matter a Mortal Soul a Manichean God or a God without Moral Attributes and an Arbitrary Law of Good and Evil. How far your Principles are concern'd in these Things or lead to Scepticism in these and other material Points is left to your Consideration This however I know The ready way to prevent any such Storm is to give such a plain Explication of your Principles without Art or Chicane as may cure and remove any Fears of this Nature After all notwithstanding this imperfect and angry Answer I will not be