★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<!-- remove b4 sub--paakre dec 27 -remove --> | <!-- remove b4 sub--paakre dec 27 -remove --> | ||
<!-- t r a n s c r i p t i o n o f r e d i n k o n s o u r c e p a g e f o l l o w s --> | |||
<add><hi rend='underline'>When</hi> this Law was published we know;- "it is coeval with</add | |||
<p> | |||
"we should live honestly, hurt nobody and <add><hi rend='underline'>When</hi> this Law was published we know;- "it is coeval with</add> | |||
"render to everyone his due". <del>I believe our</del> < | <lb/> | ||
<add> | "render to everyone his due". <del>I believe our</del> <add><del>are these laws</del></add> <add> Mankind." By whom we know likewise;- it was by</add> | ||
<del>Author himself would be the first to tell us, </del>< | <lb/> | ||
<add> | <del>Author himself would be the first to tell us,</del> <add>God himself:" — But where to whom, <del>&</del><add>&</add> in what</add> | ||
< | <lb/> | ||
<add> | <add>are all</add> <del>That many of</del> the practices above cited <del>are by</del> <add>terms, we must apply to our Author to learn.—</add> | ||
<del>no means</del> <sic>reconcileable</sic> to | <lb/> | ||
<add> and to whom; our author's | <del>no means</del> <sic>reconcileable</sic> to <add>these</add> his immutable <add>As to the first questions;— where this law was published</add> | ||
account is not so clear</add><lb/> | <lb/> | ||
laws of nature? What consequence will <add> and to whom; our author's | |||
<add>as one could wish. | account is not so clear</add> | ||
<lb/> | |||
comes out at last that it</add | he draw from hence? | ||
<lb/> | |||
<add>was not promulgated anywhere, or to any body.</add><lb/> | <del>The consequence hence appears to me</del> <add>as one could wish. — But after well weighing what</add> | ||
<lb/> | |||
<add>[Speaking of revelation</ | <del>undeniable either</del> that there is no such | ||
<add>he is pleased to tell us, it | |||
comes out at last that it</add> | |||
<add>"is only what by the assistance of human reason</add | <lb/> | ||
universal, uniform, and permanent <add>was not promulgated anywhere, or to any body.</add> | |||
<add>"we <hi rend='underline'>imagine</hi> to be that Law." < | <lb/> | ||
of | law of nature, as he supposes? of that, if <add> <add>[Speaking of revelation</add> For he says p.42 "that the other (i.e. the Law of Nature)</add> | ||
<add> which was thus early <hi rend='underline'>dictated</hi>, was never formally</add><lb/> | <lb/> | ||
there is, he has not given us a clear account <add>"is only what by the assistance of human reason</add> | |||
<lb/> | |||
of it? <add>"we <hi rend='underline'>imagine</hi> to be that Law." <add>/that is the Law of God/</add> So when this law</add> | |||
<add>it was <del>always</del> < | <lb/> | ||
<add>Law</add>< | The fact is, that the same confusion of ideas, <add> which was thus early <hi rend='underline'>dictated</hi>, was never formally</add> | ||
<lb/> | |||
the same abuse of terms appear in this, <hi rend='underline'>declared</hi>: though always <hi rend='underline'>known</hi>, & always <hi rend='underline'>binding</hi></add> | |||
<lb/> | |||
<add>it was <del>always</del> <add>never</add> more than <sic>guessed</sic> at. This great</add> <add>Law</add> | |||
</p> | |||
<head>18</head> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | ||
"we should live honestly, hurt nobody and When this Law was published we know;- "it is coeval with
"render to everyone his due". I believe our are these laws Mankind." By whom we know likewise;- it was by
Author himself would be the first to tell us, God himself:" — But where to whom, &<add>& in what</add>
are all That many of the practices above cited are by terms, we must apply to our Author to learn.—
no means reconcileable to these his immutable As to the first questions;— where this law was published
laws of nature? What consequence will and to whom; our author's
account is not so clear
he draw from hence?
The consequence hence appears to me as one could wish. — But after well weighing what
undeniable either that there is no such
he is pleased to tell us, it
comes out at last that it
universal, uniform, and permanent was not promulgated anywhere, or to any body.
law of nature, as he supposes? of that, if <add>[Speaking of revelation For he says p.42 "that the other (i.e. the Law of Nature)</add>
there is, he has not given us a clear account "is only what by the assistance of human reason
of it? "we imagine to be that Law." <add>/that is the Law of God/ So when this law</add>
The fact is, that the same confusion of ideas, which was thus early dictated, was never formally
the same abuse of terms appear in this, declared: though always known, & always binding</add>
it was always <add>never more than guessed at. This great</add> Law
18
|
Identifier: | JB/096/005/004"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 96. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
096 |
comment on the commentaries |
||
|
005 |
|||
|
004 |
section ii / of the authors account of the laws of nature |
||
|
collectanea |
4 |
||
|
recto |
c15 / c16 / c17 / c18 |
||
|
168 |
[[watermarks::gr [quartered royal arms motif]]] |
||
|
[[notes_public::"to be copied" [note not in bentham's hand]]] |
31009 |
||
