JB/067/013/002: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/067/013/002: Difference between revisions

Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/067/013/002": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))
Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/067/013/002|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/067/013/002|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<p><head>CLASSIFICATION.  Individuals 𝓧 State – Warb<hi rend="superscript">n.</hi></head></p>
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<p>Nothing exposes us more to illusions than the too free <add>current</add> use of these very general expressions, <del>than</del> <add>within</add><lb/>
 
<add>a careful &amp; continued</add> due examination of their meaning – without it we [are] perpetually [led] <add>stray unawares</add> into nonsense &amp; contradiction.<lb/>
 
It is no uncommon thing <add>to meet</add> with writers who <del>will put</del> <add>speak of the</add> State in contradistinction to the Individuals<lb/>
 
which compose it – A <del>celebrated Prelate</del> <add>Right Reverend Author</add> has gone a step farther and put them<lb/>
by that <add>very</add> description in contradistinction to themselves.  It was necessary however, that this<lb/>
should be done, or <del>tha</del> an octave Volume elegantly written would be [turned into] <add>so much</add> was<lb/>
Paper – Individuals contracting or alleging themselves with one another, would never<lb/>
do, for then the Clergy must be the one, &amp; the rest of the nation <add>State</add> the other, for which<lb/>
purpose the Clergy must have been originally <add>a separate &amp;</add> independent <add>body</add>, and theirs <add>a doctrine which</add>, <del>the</del> as he well knows<lb/>
&amp; openly declares, the <del>neither</del> <add>Age neither</add> would <del>never</del> <add>nor ought to</add> have endured.  <del>All the</del> Individuals therefore he<lb/>
says are the Church, and all the Individuals too are the State.  And the Individuals<lb/>
being Church have contracted <add>&amp; allied <del><gap/> themselves</del></add> with themselves being State:  and the terms of this contract<lb/>
and Alliance are as he sets forth – He admitts indeed, that this was never true in point of<lb/>
fact;  but this he says, signifies nothing:  for the original contract between King &amp; People<lb/>
in which he says what is very true, is in the same case.  But this contract of his is<lb/>
only <del>is not so</del> <add>never was</add> made, but <del>by</del> in the nature of things, (or of words if any one <add>rather</add> so please) <unclear>was</unclear><lb/>
possibly <hi rend="underline">could be</hi> made, or conceived to be so.  It is very possible that Hengist &amp;and Horsa
</p>
<p>[But] nobody who had not <add>but one who has</add> a Theory which was <add>is</add> to be set up at any rate, <del>could ever think</del> <add>could</add> have thought.<lb/>
If there was any sense in <gap/> but in the way of jest or figure, that <del>D</del> M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> Warburton<lb/>
had enter'd into a contract with the <add>present</add> Bishop of Gloucester:  nor <del>can</del> <add>could</add> any thing be more <unclear>negatory</unclear><lb/>
than such a contract, supposing it could be made, when <del>the</del> <add>at what</add> instant <del>that</del> D<hi rend="superscript">r</hi><lb/>
Warburton <del>had brake</del> <add>should <del><gap/></del> choose to broke</add> it, the Bishop of Gloucester should <add>would</add> have consented to the<lb/>
breach.  Universally, <del>it must</del> <add>that there be at least</add> two <add>distinct</add> parties to a contract<hi rend="superscript">†</hi> <note><hi rend="superscript">†</hi> if a person <hi rend="underline">determines with himself</hi> as the phrase is to do a thing it is not a <hi rend="underline">contract</hi> but a <hi rend="underline">resolution.</hi></note>, is a condition the essentiality<lb/>
of which, the very language which he uses, in spite of himself betrays:  and how this<lb/>
is falsified by the splitting of a man or a number of men <add>each</add> into two selves,<lb/>
is for the reader to judge <add>determine.</add>  <del><gap/></del>  If instead of this Technical <gap/> <add>that ingenious and able writer</add> he had taken the<lb/>
principle of Utility for his foundation, it might or might not have answer'd his<lb/>
purpose, but it would never have given birth to any such contradictions.<hi rend="superscript">⊞</hi> <note><hi rend="superscript">⊞</hi> It is inconceivable how much these ingenious Legislators retard the progress of true Science.  Words become spoilt for use;  and <del>the</del> whole Science <del>becomes</del> <add>is bound into something worse than, worse than a Babel in which a man neither knows what is <del><del><gap/></del> <add>said</add> by another nor himself.</note>  He certainly <unclear>means</unclear><lb/>
that <add>the virtues of</add> such powers and privileges in Ecclesiastics <del>was</del> <add>is</add> of utility viz: contributes to the happiness of the<lb/>
<gap/> of the members of the State as well as <add>of</add> themselves &amp; why did he not say so and go about <unclear>discussing</unclear></p>
<p><del>Universal</del> <sic>NOMENCATURE</sic> Individuals 𝓧 State |BR|1| | Warburton. Abuse.  General terms</p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Untranscribed}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Ready_For_Review}}

Revision as of 05:24, 7 September 2021

Click Here To Edit

CLASSIFICATION. Individuals 𝓧 State – Warbn.

Nothing exposes us more to illusions than the too free current use of these very general expressions, than within
a careful & continued due examination of their meaning – without it we [are] perpetually [led] stray unawares into nonsense & contradiction.
It is no uncommon thing to meet with writers who will put speak of the State in contradistinction to the Individuals
which compose it – A celebrated Prelate Right Reverend Author has gone a step farther and put them
by that very description in contradistinction to themselves. It was necessary however, that this
should be done, or tha an octave Volume elegantly written would be [turned into] so much was
Paper – Individuals contracting or alleging themselves with one another, would never
do, for then the Clergy must be the one, & the rest of the nation State the other, for which
purpose the Clergy must have been originally a separate & independent body, and theirs a doctrine which, the as he well knows
& openly declares, the neither Age neither would never nor ought to have endured. All the Individuals therefore he
says are the Church, and all the Individuals too are the State. And the Individuals
being Church have contracted & allied themselves with themselves being State: and the terms of this contract
and Alliance are as he sets forth – He admitts indeed, that this was never true in point of
fact; but this he says, signifies nothing: for the original contract between King & People
in which he says what is very true, is in the same case. But this contract of his is
only is not so never was made, but by in the nature of things, (or of words if any one rather so please) was
possibly could be made, or conceived to be so. It is very possible that Hengist &and Horsa

[But] nobody who had not but one who has a Theory which was is to be set up at any rate, could ever think could have thought.
If there was any sense in but in the way of jest or figure, that D Mr Warburton
had enter'd into a contract with the present Bishop of Gloucester: nor can could any thing be more negatory
than such a contract, supposing it could be made, when the at what instant that Dr
Warburton had brake should choose to broke it, the Bishop of Gloucester should would have consented to the
breach. Universally, it must that there be at least two distinct parties to a contract if a person determines with himself as the phrase is to do a thing it is not a contract but a resolution., is a condition the essentiality
of which, the very language which he uses, in spite of himself betrays: and how this
is falsified by the splitting of a man or a number of men each into two selves,
is for the reader to judge determine. If instead of this Technical that ingenious and able writer he had taken the
principle of Utility for his foundation, it might or might not have answer'd his
purpose, but it would never have given birth to any such contradictions. It is inconceivable how much these ingenious Legislators retard the progress of true Science. Words become spoilt for use; and the whole Science becomes is bound into something worse than, worse than a Babel in which a man neither knows what is <add>said by another nor himself. He certainly means
that the virtues of such powers and privileges in Ecclesiastics was is of utility viz: contributes to the happiness of the
of the members of the State as well as of themselves & why did he not say so and go about discussing

Universal NOMENCATURE Individuals 𝓧 State |BR|1| | Warburton. Abuse. General terms


Identifier: | JB/067/013/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 67.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

067

Main Headings

law in general

Folio number

013

Info in main headings field

nomenclature individuals & state warburton abuse of general terms

Image

002

Titles

classification / abuse of general terms / state - warburton

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

2

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

/ c1 f1

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

[[watermarks::j honig & zoonen [lion with vryheyt motif]]]

Marginals

Paper Producer

cc1

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

21846

Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk
  • Create account
  • Log in