JB/096/001/002

Click Here To Edit

Windmills for geese & Turkeys? Law according to his own definition, is a rule, which is plainly notified by one Being to another, and which the person to whom it is notified has a power "rational, or irrational: and that we say
of following or not, as he pleases,though he follow it if he knew what was his own good. " the laws of motion of gravitation of Optics
The term "Law" (according to our Author's definition of it,) is to excite in us the following ideas: First in <add>one or more intelligent Beings or a body of intelligent</add> "or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature,
Beings, who have <add>having a power of augmenting or diminishing the happiness of one or more other intelligent Beings: who in consequence of this power</add> "and of nations." What must be his surprise
direct <add>directing these other intelligent Beings to do, or to avoid certain things: secondly, these other intelligent Beings acting in conformity to these</add> to hear of a watch, being bounden by
directions from a conviction that it is necessary to their own happiness so to do. For what else is a superior, than <add>but a Being who can augment, </add> to obey the laws prescribed by it's maker?
or diminish my happiness? What else is an inferior, than <add>but a Being whose happiness I can either augment or diminish? or how </add> Surely in the sense which he has appropriated
can I be bound to obey another, but by a conviction that my own happiness will be increased, by obeying? or at least that it would to it, the term law never was, never could
be diminished by not obeying?
After having been forewarned that the term "Law" was to excite these be applied to motion, gravitation &c. It is
ideas in our minds, one would not have expected, that our Author should in the same breath, <add>should tell us, that this term thus defined is </add> inconceivable, that the learned Author
"applied to all kinds of action, animate & inanimate, rational, &c irrational, &c that we say the laws of motion of gravity should see no difference in the Ideas conveyed
“Optics or mechanicas &c: — Tis called by <add>In the language of natural philosophers tis a Law of Optics — "that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of</add> by the word law, as applied on these different
"reflection". Does our Author now suppose, that the Creator calls every ray of light to him, & ordains them to obey this occasions. Was he really so muchLaw? or that the obedient <add>submissive rays do [feel that they are bound to obey it?] finding they shall get into bad bread else, shrug up their shoulders, make their , and go and do so. </add>

Identifier: | JB/096/001/002 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 96.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	096	Main Headings	comment on the commentaries
Folio number	001	Info in main headings field
Image	002	Titles	section i / account of laws in general
Category	collectanea	Number of Pages	4
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	c1 f1 / c2 / c3 / c4
Penner	168	Watermarks	[[watermarks::gr [quartered royal arms motif]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	31005
Box Contents