★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
Auto loaded |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<p>14 Sept 1814. 5</p> | |||
<head>Logic or Ethics</head> | |||
<note>Ch. Fortitude</note> | |||
<note>§.2. Aristotelians</note> | |||
<p>3</p> | |||
<p><del>Aristotle had not <gap/> Jesus little as he seems to have <gap/> any<lb/> | |||
and they had become a founder of <add><gap/></add> <sic>Bishopricks</sic> & Fellowship</del></p> | |||
<p>These absurdities would <add>make</add> be a perfect riddle,<lb/> | |||
<add>To account for</add> To understand the cause of these absurdities, it is necessary<lb/> | |||
to advert to the hands through which, <del>before they</del><lb/> | |||
on their <add>its</add> way to the eyes <add>and ears</add> of Oxford students, the <del><gap/></del> doctrines<lb/> | |||
of Aristotle had to pass.</p> | |||
<p>The morality of the heathen being taken for the<lb/> | |||
groundwork <add>foundation</add> <add>main text</add>, to fit it for <add>all such</add> orthodox eyes many amendments<lb/> | |||
required to be made in it, an embroidering of amendments<lb/> | |||
nor that <del>of</del> a scanty one, required to be applied to it.</p> | |||
<p>The word <hi rend="underline">virtue</hi> was <del>found</del> notwithstanding<lb/> | |||
the sparing mention made of it in the Christian Scriptures,<lb/> | |||
still maintained itself in <add>the</add> possession of general<lb/> | |||
not to say universal homage. Be the act what it<lb/> | |||
might, if it were <add>supposing it generally</add> understood that the quality of <hi rend="underline">virtue</hi><lb/> | |||
could without impropriety be applied to it, <add>neither</add> judgment<lb/> | |||
nor therefore language of a condemnatory nature, could<lb/> | |||
not consistently nor therefore would willingly be<lb/> | |||
<del><gap/></del> applied to it.</p> | |||
<p>What was to be done? <del><gap/> <gap/></del> The dilemma<lb/> | |||
was a distressing one. Here were two masters, Aristotle<lb/> | |||
and Jesus, <add>were <gap/></add> at variance. No man can serve two<lb/> | |||
masters. To serve two masters, and those masters<lb/> | |||
issuing contradictory <add>opposite</add> <del><gap/></del> commands was not in human<lb/> | |||
power.<add>+</add> <note><add>+</add> Luke <del><gap/></del> 16.13.</note><lb/> | |||
One was to be cloven to, the other to be <sic>...d</sic><lb/> | |||
<add>The choice was not difficult</add> Aristotle was indeed a hero: but Jesus was a God. Aristotle<lb/> | |||
had founded neither {enthroned} a Bishoprick nor so much as<lb/> | |||
fellowships. Jesus, little as <del>he <gap/></del> for aught appears,<lb/> | |||
he thought of such a thing had become a founder of<lb/> | |||
both, clothing his Bishops in the livery <add>robes</add> of Divines, and seating<lb/> | |||
them on thrones.</p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
14 Sept 1814. 5
Logic or Ethics Ch. Fortitude
§.2. Aristotelians
3
Aristotle had not Jesus little as he seems to have any
and they had become a founder of Bishopricks & Fellowship
These absurdities would make be a perfect riddle,
To account for To understand the cause of these absurdities, it is necessary
to advert to the hands through which, before they
on their its way to the eyes and ears of Oxford students, the doctrines
of Aristotle had to pass.
The morality of the heathen being taken for the
groundwork foundation main text, to fit it for all such orthodox eyes many amendments
required to be made in it, an embroidering of amendments
nor that of a scanty one, required to be applied to it.
The word virtue was found notwithstanding
the sparing mention made of it in the Christian Scriptures,
still maintained itself in the possession of general
not to say universal homage. Be the act what it
might, if it were supposing it generally understood that the quality of virtue
could without impropriety be applied to it, neither judgment
nor therefore language of a condemnatory nature, could
not consistently nor therefore would willingly be
applied to it.
What was to be done? The dilemma
was a distressing one. Here were two masters, Aristotle
and Jesus, were at variance. No man can serve two
masters. To serve two masters, and those masters
issuing contradictory opposite commands was not in human
power.+ + Luke 16.13.
One was to be cloven to, the other to be ...d
The choice was not difficult Aristotle was indeed a hero: but Jesus was a God. Aristotle
had founded neither {enthroned} a Bishoprick nor so much as
fellowships. Jesus, little as he for aught appears,
he thought of such a thing had become a founder of
both, clothing his Bishops in the livery robes of Divines, and seating
them on thrones.
|
Identifier: | JB/014/117/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 14. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
1814-09-15 |
|||
|
014 |
deontology |
||
|
117 |
logic or ethics |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
d5 / e3 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
|||
|
4880 |
|||
