★ 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 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head>Civil</head><lb/><p> | <head>Civil</head><lb/> | ||
<p>Filmer's object was to prove the divine right<lb/>of Kings: that is, in his sense, to permeate subjects<lb/>that if in any instance <add> in proportion as </add> they failed in rendering<lb/>obedience to their King, God would punish<lb/>them. <note>and in particular the subject of the British <add> English</add> monarchy in particular</note></p> | |||
<p>The point of rights <add>sound</add> reason no argument <add> this before asserted</add> to his <lb/>purpose could be observed from his stance. Either <lb/>all rights are divisive or none are. In <add>To</add> <add>With</add> those who <lb/>disbelieve the existence of a Deity, it was <add> the argument had no force as </add> nothing.</p> | |||
<p>With those who believe in the existence of a Deity, if <lb/> justice be understood to be one of the attributes of that <lb/>Deity, which I suppose <add> means to be </add> is immeasurably the case all <lb/>rights are in this sense are divine rights, since<lb/> the deity to be a maintainer of justice, must <lb/>lend his sanction to the obligations correspondent to <lb/>all <add> their </add> rights. </p> | |||
<p>Natural [or argumentative] theology therefore <del> was </del> <lb/>afforded him no assistance: but natural or argumentative <lb/> theology was in those days <sic>envelopped</sic> <lb/>and drowned as it were, in the <gap/> or historical <lb/>theology of the Bible. Natural theology <lb/>could not very easily be made to declare for things <add> governors </add> <lb/>more than for people <add> than for governed</add>: for monarchical governments <lb/> than for popular. The Theology of the <lb/>Bible was more favourable. Among the <add> many</add> nations of <lb/> <add> whose </add></p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
Civil
Filmer's object was to prove the divine right
of Kings: that is, in his sense, to permeate subjects
that if in any instance in proportion as they failed in rendering
obedience to their King, God would punish
them. and in particular the subject of the British English monarchy in particular
The point of rights sound reason no argument this before asserted to his
purpose could be observed from his stance. Either
all rights are divisive or none are. In To With those who
disbelieve the existence of a Deity, it was the argument had no force as nothing.
With those who believe in the existence of a Deity, if
justice be understood to be one of the attributes of that
Deity, which I suppose means to be is immeasurably the case all
rights are in this sense are divine rights, since
the deity to be a maintainer of justice, must
lend his sanction to the obligations correspondent to
all their rights.
Natural [or argumentative] theology therefore was
afforded him no assistance: but natural or argumentative
theology was in those days envelopped
and drowned as it were, in the or historical
theology of the Bible. Natural theology
could not very easily be made to declare for things governors
more than for people than for governed: for monarchical governments
than for popular. The Theology of the
Bible was more favourable. Among the many nations of
whose
|
Identifier: | JB/100/110/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 100. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
100 |
civil code |
||
|
110 |
civil |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
e1 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
|||
|
32126 |
|||
