★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Lex univocalitatis</foreign></note> | Lex univocalitatis</foreign></note> | ||
<gap/> <del>the proof of this is as follows</del> <add>is demonstrated from | <gap/> <del>the proof of this is as follows</del> <add>is demonstrated from the following</add> considerations<lb/> | ||
The two causes are supposed to be of the same<lb/> | The two causes are supposed to be of the same<lb/> | ||
effect directed to the same end, & | effect directed to the same end, & seeking it<add>aiming at</add><lb/> | ||
substantially by the same means.<lb/> | substantially by the same means.<lb/> | ||
Either then the import<add>signification</add> of the <gap/> of <gap/>,<lb/> | Either then the import<add>signification</add> of the <gap/> of <gap/>,<lb/> | ||
and <unclear>in</unclear> each is precisely the same or it is<lb/> | and <unclear>in</unclear> each is precisely the same or it is<lb/> | ||
different<lb/> | different<lb/> | ||
<note>The pecuniary penalty is very properly inserted to take in I suppose this case of those who hold not at the pleasure of the Trustees</note> | |||
if it be precisely the same, then can no reason<lb/> | if it be precisely the same, then can no reason<lb/> | ||
be urged why one ought<add>should</add> <hi rend='underline'>not</hi> serve for both - if<lb/> | |||
the interests | the interests of uniformity are a reason why it <hi rend='underline'>should</hi>.<lb/> | ||
If there is a difference, then either each is equally<lb/> | |||
adapted<add>proper</add> to the effect required, or one is more<lb/> | |||
If the former be.<add>each be equally | so than the other.<lb/> | ||
reason against others being used for the | If the former be.<add>each be equally proper</add> <gap/> this <gap/>, then is there no<lb/> | ||
reason against others being used for the others &<lb/> | |||
<unclear>there</unclear> is the reason for it that has been <unclear>encountered</unclear><lb/> | <unclear>there</unclear> is the reason for it that has been <unclear>encountered</unclear><lb/> | ||
above<lb/> | above<lb/> | ||
If one is more so than the other, then | If one is more so than the other, then is there<lb/> | ||
double reason <del>for</del> why that should be | double reason <del>for</del> why that should be adapted<lb/> | ||
<unclear> | <unclear>solely</unclear> | ||
1<hi rend='superscript'>st</hi> | 1<hi rend='superscript'>st</hi> that of it,s <add><being</add> more proper as by the supposition<lb/> | ||
2<hi rend='superscript'>nd</hi> | 2<hi rend='superscript'>nd</hi> that of uniformity, as before<lb/> | ||
Turnp. A. Unsteadiness of expression proved bad.
Lex univocalitatis
the proof of this is as follows is demonstrated from the following considerations
The two causes are supposed to be of the same
effect directed to the same end, & seeking itaiming at
substantially by the same means.
Either then the importsignification of the of ,
and in each is precisely the same or it is
different
The pecuniary penalty is very properly inserted to take in I suppose this case of those who hold not at the pleasure of the Trustees
if it be precisely the same, then can no reason
be urged why one oughtshould not serve for both - if
the interests of uniformity are a reason why it should.
If there is a difference, then either each is equally
adaptedproper to the effect required, or one is more
so than the other.
If the former be.each be equally proper this , then is there no
reason against others being used for the others &
there is the reason for it that has been encountered
above
If one is more so than the other, then is there
double reason for why that should be adapted
solely
1st that of it,s <being more proper as by the supposition
2nd that of uniformity, as before
Identifier: | JB/095/025/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 95. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
095 |
|||
025 |
turnp. a. unsteadiness of expression proved bad |
||
001 |
|||
text sheet |
2 |
||
recto |
|||
jeremy bentham |
|||
30911 |
|||