JB/014/117/001: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 09:37, 4 February 2020

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.
Date_1	1814-09-15	Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	014	Main Headings	deontology
Folio number	117	Info in main headings field	logic or ethics
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	d5 / e3
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks
Marginals		Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	4880
Box Contents

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
-Sept 1814 5
+<p>14 Sept 1814. 5</p>
-Logic or Ethics
+<head>Logic or Ethics</head>
-Ch Fortitude
+<note>Ch. Fortitude</note>
-§.2. Aristotelians
-Aristotle had not <gap/> Jesus little as he run <gap/> <gap/> <gap/> any
+<note>§.2. Aristotelians</note>
-and they had become a founder of <gap/> Bishopricks &amp; Fellowship
+<p>3</p>
-These absurdities would be make a perfect riddle,
+<p><del>Aristotle had not <gap/> Jesus little as he seems to have <gap/> any<lb/>
-To understand To account for the cause of these absurdities, it is necessary
+and they had become a founder of <add><gap/></add> <sic>Bishopricks</sic> &amp; Fellowship</del></p>
-to advert to the hands through which, before they
-on their its way to the eyes and ears of Oxford students, the <gap/> doctrines
-of Aristotle had to pass.
-The morality of the heathen being taken for the
+<p>These absurdities would <add>make</add> be a perfect riddle,<lb/>
-groundwork foundation main text, to fit it for orthodox all <gap/> eyes many amendments
+<add>To account for</add> To understand the cause of these absurdities, it is necessary<lb/>
-required to be made to it, an embroidering of amendments
+to advert to the hands through which, <del>before they</del><lb/>
-in that of a <gap/>nly one, required to be applied to it.
+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>
-The word virtue was found notwithstanding
+<p>The morality of the heathen being taken for the<lb/>
-the sparing mention made of it in the Christian Scriptures,
+groundwork <add>foundation</add> <add>main text</add>, to fit it for <add>all such</add> orthodox eyes many amendments<lb/>
-still maintained itself in the possession of general
+required to be made in it, an embroidering of amendments<lb/>
-not to any universal homage. Be the act what it
+nor that <del>of</del> a scanty one, required to be applied to it.</p>
-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
-<gap/> applied to it.
-What was to be done? <gap/> <gap/> The dilemma
-was a distressing one. Here were two masters, Aristotle
-and Jesus, were <gap/> at variance. No man can serve two
-masters.] To serve two masters, and those masters
-issuing contradictory opposite <gap/> commands was not in human
-power. +
-+ Luke <gap/> 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 [cathroned] <gap/> was so much as
-ffellowships. Jesus, little as <gap/> <gap/> for ought appears,
-he <gap/> thought if such a thing had become a founder of
-both, clothing his Bishops in the livery robes of Dives, and seating
-them on thrones.
+<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 -->
-{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}
+{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Views

JB/014/117/001: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 09:37, 4 February 2020

Navigation

Search