★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
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 --> | ||
<head>2) <sic>PUB. OFF.</sic></head> <p><note>Incontinence</note></p> <p> remarkable instance enough <del>there remain</del> is recorded of<lb/> his indulgence to an irregularity of this class, whereby<lb/> he saved a delinquent from the punishment to which<lb/>she had been doomed by the <sic>judgment</sic> of more rigid <lb/> moralists. <del>An adulterous</del> A woman taken in adultery<lb/>a crime the mischief of which is <del>the</del> more obvious than<lb/>that of any other of the class, was released in <del>the</del> consequence<lb/> of the effectual interposition made by Jesus in<lb/>her favour. This interposition indeed <add>Her conduct was indeed on this occasion</add> is commonly<lb/>imputed <add>referred</add> to a design of censuring the general <add>habit of</add> severity<lb/>displayed in the deportment of the accusers, than to dispose<lb/> men to <add><sic>shew</sic></add> any particular indulgence <add>laxity</add> to the offence<lb/> in question. There is a great difficulty <add>however</add> attending the<lb/>former interpretation. The doctrine in that case <del><gap/></del><lb/> must be supposed to be that no man ought to contribute<lb/> to the punishment of any one act <del>made</del> that<lb/>stands marked by the Laws as an offence, who should<lb/>himself have been guilty either of that <add><del>one</del></add> or of any other [+]<lb/> <note>[+] How if no man were to<lb/> contribute to the punishment<lb/> of any <del>who</del> <add>offence against the laws</add> who<lb/> should himself <del>of</del> <add> have</add> been<lb/> guilty of an <del>crime</del> offence<lb/> it is certain that no offence<lb/> whatsoever <add>against the Laws</add> would ever be<lb/> punished.</note><lb/>The offence <add> besides its being an immorality</add> was upon the pen of the narrative an offence<lb/> against the Laws; the culprit guilty; and the punishment<lb/>which the company was going to inflict, the punishment<lb/><del>appointed by the Laws for the offence, and <add>the very punishment</add> </del> and<lb/> the manner <del>the</del> of it the very manner appointed by the<lb/>Laws for the offence. Were the doctrine then to be observed<lb/> in the <del>be</del> extent to which <add>put upon it by</add> this interpretation puts upon<lb/>it no political society whatsoever could subsist.</p> <!-- line across the page --> <p>With respect to the pleasures of the senses in general,<lb/> [we know that] Jesus takes notice of his standing distinguished<lb/>in the <del>mind</del> <add>heart</add> of the people from other reformers, by<lb/>the <del>indifference</del> <add>evidence</add> proof which his own example afforded<lb/>of the indifference with which he beheld those pleasures</p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
2) PUB. OFF.
Incontinence
remarkable instance enough there remain is recorded of
his indulgence to an irregularity of this class, whereby
he saved a delinquent from the punishment to which
she had been doomed by the judgment of more rigid
moralists. An adulterous A woman taken in adultery
a crime the mischief of which is the more obvious than
that of any other of the class, was released in the consequence
of the effectual interposition made by Jesus in
her favour. This interposition indeed Her conduct was indeed on this occasion is commonly
imputed referred to a design of censuring the general habit of severity
displayed in the deportment of the accusers, than to dispose
men to shew any particular indulgence laxity to the offence
in question. There is a great difficulty however attending the
former interpretation. The doctrine in that case
must be supposed to be that no man ought to contribute
to the punishment of any one act made that
stands marked by the Laws as an offence, who should
himself have been guilty either of that one or of any other [+]
[+] How if no man were to
contribute to the punishment
of any who offence against the laws who
should himself of have been
guilty of an crime offence
it is certain that no offence
whatsoever against the Laws would ever be
punished.
The offence besides its being an immorality was upon the pen of the narrative an offence
against the Laws; the culprit guilty; and the punishment
which the company was going to inflict, the punishment
appointed by the Laws for the offence, and the very punishment and
the manner the of it the very manner appointed by the
Laws for the offence. Were the doctrine then to be observed
in the be extent to which put upon it by this interpretation puts upon
it no political society whatsoever could subsist.
With respect to the pleasures of the senses in general,
[we know that] Jesus takes notice of his standing distinguished
in the mind heart of the people from other reformers, by
the indifference evidence proof which his own example afforded
of the indifference with which he beheld those pleasures
|
Identifier: | JB/063/012/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 63. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
not numbered |
|||
|
063 |
penal code |
||
|
012 |
pub. off |
||
|
002 |
|||
|
text sheet |
4 |
||
|
recto |
b1 / a2 / b3 / a4 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::[gr with crown motif] propatria [britannia motif]]] |
||
|
20201 |
|||
