★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
Auto loaded |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''[{{fullurl:JB/070/027/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | '''[{{fullurl:JB/070/027/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head><!-- inverted -->INTROD. Pr. of Utility cannot be opposed by [BR][ ][ ] Religion.</head> | |||
<head>Apologetica contra RELIG: FALSE DIVISION.</head> | |||
<p><add>This may come after the next paragraph</add> But "perhaps" (it has been said for it all amounts to no more than a <add>who knows but</add> perhaps) he <add>may</add><lb/> | |||
only require <del>a temporary</del> sacrifice of a small portion of present happiness in <unclear>return</unclear><lb/> | |||
for a greater portion of which he means to give in future — And how <add>then</add><lb/> | |||
do you know that he means to give us that future happiness? <add>hereafter</add> because he is <add>benevolent</add><lb/> | |||
Agreed — but how do you know that he is benevolent? <add>unless it be</add> <del>because</del> he wills our <add>great</add> <del>per</del><lb/> | |||
happiness here. You prove his future Benevolence very properly, by his prese<gap/><lb/> | |||
but when you come back from his future Benevolence argue against his <add>present</add> <del>f</del><lb/> | |||
do not you see that you proceed in a <sic>vitious</sic> circle, and pull down <add>from</add><lb/> | |||
under you the structure you had just been rearing? <del>Eith</del> <note>It has been <sic>been</sic> <sic>argud</sic> with great Justice against the Catholics by the Protestant Divines as a <add>palpable</add> flagrant Paralogism <add>of theirs</add> that <del>they</del> after proving the <sic>infallibity</sic> of their Church by the Authority of the Scriptures they come back to prove the authority of the Scriptures by the <sic>infallibity</sic> of the Church [or vice versa<!-- diaeresis -->] But what should we say if they <del>combated it</del> <add>argued</add> against that Authority? which would be exactly the case parallel to that before us.</note></p> | |||
INTROD. Pr. of Utility cannot be opposed by [BR][ ][ ] Religion.
Apologetica contra RELIG: FALSE DIVISION.
This may come after the next paragraph But "perhaps" (it has been said for it all amounts to no more than a who knows but perhaps) he may
only require a temporary sacrifice of a small portion of present happiness in return
for a greater portion of which he means to give in future — And how then
do you know that he means to give us that future happiness? hereafter because he is benevolent
Agreed — but how do you know that he is benevolent? unless it be because he wills our great per
happiness here. You prove his future Benevolence very properly, by his prese
but when you come back from his future Benevolence argue against his present f
do not you see that you proceed in a vitious circle, and pull down from
under you the structure you had just been rearing? Eith It has been been argud with great Justice against the Catholics by the Protestant Divines as a palpable flagrant Paralogism of theirs that they after proving the infallibity of their Church by the Authority of the Scriptures they come back to prove the authority of the Scriptures by the infallibity of the Church [or vice versa] But what should we say if they combated it argued against that Authority? which would be exactly the case parallel to that before us.
|
Identifier: | JB/070/027/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 70. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
070 |
of laws in general |
||
|
027 |
introd. pr. of utility cannot be opposed by religion |
||
|
001 |
apologetica contra relig: false division |
||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
|||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::[gr with crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]] |
||
|
23142 |
|||
