★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
<p><note><hi rend='underline'>To be copied</hi></note> of not acting. For notwithstanding | <p><note><hi rend='underline'>To be copied</hi></note> of not acting. For notwithstanding | ||
<lb/> | <lb/> | ||
our | our Author's <del>absurd</del> <add>strange</add> definition of | ||
<lb/> | <lb/> | ||
the word | the word Obligation, yet <del>however</del> <add>amidst</add><lb/> <del>different</del> all the various senses | ||
<lb/> | <lb/> | ||
in which Authors have used that | in which Authors have used that | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
term, They have always supposed it | term, They have always supposed it | ||
<lb/> | <lb/> | ||
to <del>ha</del> imply this power.</p> | to <del><unclear>ha</unclear></del> imply this power.<lb/></p> | ||
<p> | <p>His first <del>absurdity</del><add>inconsequence</add> therefore <del>was to</del><add> is confounding</add> | ||
<lb/> | <lb/> | ||
<del>confound</del> the idea of Law with that of | <del>confound</del> the idea of Law with that of | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
idea of motives is excluded. — | idea of motives is excluded. — | ||
<lb/> | <lb/> | ||
His next <del>absurdity</del> <add>inconsequence</add> is talking of | |||
<lb/> | <lb/> | ||
a Law of Nature. There is no such | a Law of Nature. There is no such | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
term nature is taken for the | term nature is taken for the | ||
<lb/> | <lb/> | ||
Author of Nature, for the Creator<!-- symbol at end of word | Author of Nature, for the Creator<!-- symbol at end of word --> | ||
<lb/> | <lb/> | ||
of the Universe: how should he notify | of the Universe: how should he notify | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
this Law, it would cease to be the | this Law, it would cease to be the | ||
<lb/> | <lb/> | ||
Law of Nature; it would become | |||
<lb/> | <lb/> | ||
a part of the Law of Revelation | a part of the Law of Revelation. <add>&</add><lb/></p> | ||
<head><del>22</del> 70</head> | <head><del>22</del> 70</head> | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
To be copied of not acting. For notwithstanding
our Author's absurd strange definition of
the word Obligation, yet however amidst
different all the various senses
in which Authors have used that
term, They have always supposed it
to ha imply this power.
His first absurdityinconsequence therefore was to is confounding
confound the idea of Law with that of
the principles imprest upon Master.
For these all idea of obligation, all
idea of motives is excluded. —
His next absurdity inconsequence is talking of
a Law of Nature. There is no such
thing. When was this Law notified?
it cannot be notified: for the
term nature is taken for the
Author of Nature, for the Creator
of the Universe: how should he notify
this Law, it would cease to be the
Law of Nature; it would become
a part of the Law of Revelation. &
22 70
|
Identifier: | JB/096/025/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 96. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
096 |
comment on the commentaries |
||
|
025 |
|||
|
001 |
|||
|
collectanea |
1 |
||
|
recto |
c70 |
||
|
168 |
[[watermarks::[quartered royal arms motif]]] |
||
|
[[notes_public::"to be copied" [note not in bentham's hand]]] |
31029 |
||
