On this page
- Departments (1)
-
Text (3)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN LOCKE AND LIMBORCH, TRANSLATED, WITH HISTORICAL NOTES.
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
The Correspondence between Locke and Limborck , 1685—1704 . ( Continued from p . 149 . ) No . 40 . Philip h Limborch to John Locke . Amsterdam , May 16 , 1698 .
Mr worthy Friend , YOU will now learn that your last letter reached me safely . I immediately read it to that eminent person 4 who , being then particularly engaged , proposed another time more convenient for a long conference ,
which the importance of the subject justly deserved . Ir ^ a few days he invited me to renew my visit , when 1 again read to him your letter . He approves of your arguments , if the definition of God , which you propose ,
be admitted , for it is manifest that a Being absolutely perfect , or , which amounts to the same thing , containing in himself all perfections , can be only one . But he wishes for an argument not drawn from the definition of God ,
but merely from natural reason , and from which may be deduced a definition of God . He would thus form his demonstration : 1 . Admit an eternal Being , independent ,, existing by the necessity of his nature and self-sufficient .
2 . Such a Being is only one , and there cannot be several such Beings . S . That Being who is one , contains in himself all perfections , and that Being is God .
That eminent person says , that the first proposition is admirably established in your Essay of Human Understanding , [ B . iv . Ch . x . ] and by the same arguments which he has employed in his Demonstration , so that
he has found his own thoughts expressed in your train of reasoning . But he anxiously desires to have your proof of the second proposition ; which being clearly proved , the third
may be easily deduced from the two former . Me says again , that all divines and philosophers , even Descartes himself , assumed , rather than proved , the second . I have no doubt but he
Untitled Article
will communicate to me all his method of argument on this subject . I think , however , that he will wait till he has seen your arguments , that he may compare your reasonings , which
he is now considering , with his own . But who can pursue this subject without changing the order of these propositions , and placing the second of them in the third , and the third in the
second place ? For , when it has been proved that there exists a Being , eternal , independent , self-sufficient * from thence it may be farther shewn that such a Being must comprehend in himself all perfections ; because it is impossible that any perfection can
be wanting to an eternal , independent and self sufficient Being . Thus having proved that such a Being must comprehend in himself all perfections , it may hence be inferred , that such a Being can be only one . But in such a me * thod this difficulty occurs : we regard thought and extension , as totally
distinct in their nature and properties ( I adopt the terms of those who start this difficulty ) . But admitting thought to be eternal and independent , which I dispute , can we also regard extension or matter as eternal , self sufficient and independent on eternal thought ? Thus would be established the notion of
two eternal Beings . Yet describing matter as eternal and independent , it would by no means follow that it included all perfections . Wherefore it seems necessary , first to prove that a Being , eternal and independent , is only one , before it can be proved that he comprehends , in himself , all perfections . N
For if the second proposition , that an independent Being is only one , were incapable of proof , it does not appear that religion or the necessity of worshiping thatJBeing alone , would
be done away , because I entirely depend on that one Being who created me . To him alone , therefore , 1 am obliged ; him I am bound to love , with my whole heart and mind , and to obey all his commands . If besides that Being there exist another on whom I have 110 depcu-
Untitled Article
( & 17 )
The Correspondence Between Locke And Limborch, Translated, With Historical Notes.
THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN LOCKE AND LIMBORCH , TRANSLATED , WITH HISTORICAL NOTES .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1819, page 217, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1771/page/5/
-