★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''[{{fullurl:JB/096/033/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | '''[{{fullurl:JB/096/033/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head><hi rend='underline'>To be copied</hi></head> | |||
<p>of conduct, and the doctrines only, are<lb/> the rule of faith: the one are intended to <lb/>teach us what we ought to do: the other hold<lb/> out to us, motives for so doing. <hi rend='superscript'>+</hi> <note><hi rend='superscript'>+</hi> <sic>Qu?</sic> this. If this, do then are they parts of Laws. That which holds out motives is a Sanction: and the Sanction is one part of a Law: the Precept being the other. It seems the doctrines are nothing but accounts of matters of fact.</note> We <del>might</del> <add>have<lb/> just </add> <del>have</del> noticed this mistake of our author<del>'s</del><lb/> in the preceding section: <del>for he had before</del> <add>where he</add> told <lb/>us, that the <hi rend='underline'>doctrines</hi> delivered by immediate<lb/> revelation were called the <hi rend='underline'>divine law:</hi><lb/> He might have learned clearer ideas even from<lb/> <del>whereas every sensible</del> <gap/> theology <del>has</del> <lb/>confused as they generally are, <del>yet</del> they do distinguish<lb/> <del>carefully distinguished</del> the doctrines from the <lb/>precepts.</p> | |||
<p>[He has distinguished the rule of civil conduct<lb/> from the rule of moral conduct. <del>whereas</del><lb/> As our author draws some very curious consequences from this distinction<lb/> <del>we must examine it with some attention.<lb/> had he understood the nature of morality, he</del> <add>it must not be slightly past over </add><lb/> Morality considered as a Science, is the doctrine of <del>would </del> <add>social</add><lb/> duties. — a Rule of moral <del>duties</del> conduct, would be a rule directing us<lb/> | |||
84<lb/> | |||
<add>how</add> | |||
</p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
Click Here To Edit To be copied
of conduct, and the doctrines only, are
the rule of faith: the one are intended to
teach us what we ought to do: the other hold
out to us, motives for so doing. + + Qu? this. If this, do then are they parts of Laws. That which holds out motives is a Sanction: and the Sanction is one part of a Law: the Precept being the other. It seems the doctrines are nothing but accounts of matters of fact. We might have
just have noticed this mistake of our author's
in the preceding section: for he had before where he told
us, that the doctrines delivered by immediate
revelation were called the divine law:
He might have learned clearer ideas even from
whereas every sensible theology has
confused as they generally are, yet they do distinguish
carefully distinguished the doctrines from the
precepts.
[He has distinguished the rule of civil conduct
from the rule of moral conduct. whereas
As our author draws some very curious consequences from this distinction
we must examine it with some attention.
had he understood the nature of morality, he it must not be slightly past over
Morality considered as a Science, is the doctrine of would social
duties. — a Rule of moral duties conduct, would be a rule directing us
84
how
|
Identifier: | JB/096/033/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 96. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
096 |
comment on the commentaries |
||
|
033 |
|||
|
001 |
|||
|
collectanea |
4 |
||
|
recto |
c84 / c85 / c86 / c87 |
||
|
168 |
[[watermarks::gr [quartered royal arms motif]]] |
||
|
[[notes_public::"to be copied" [note not in bentham's hand]]] |
31037 |
||
