JB/096/001/002

Click Here To Edit

[Editor's note: Writing in black to be read first, from the top of the page]

"rational, or irrational: and that we say
"the laws of motion, of gravitation, of Optics,
"or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature,
"and of nations." What must be his surprise
to hear of a watch, being bounden by
to obey the laws prescribed by it's maker?
Surely in the sense which he has appropriated
to it, the term law never was, never could
be applied to motion, gravitation &c. It is
inconceivable, that the learned Author
should see no difference in the Ideas conveyed
by the word law, as applied on these different
occasions. Was he really so much

[Editor's note: Writing in red follows below, to be read from the top of the page]

Windmills for geese & Turkeys? Law according to his own definition, is a rule, which is plainly notified by one
Being to another, and which the person to whom it is notified has a power
of following or not, as he pleases,though he follow it if he knew
what was his own good.

The term "Law" (according to our Author's definition of it,) is to excite in
us the following ideas: First in one or more intelligent Beings or a body of intelligent
Beings, who have having a power of augmenting or diminishing the happiness of
one or more other intelligent Beings: who in consequence of this power
direct directing these other intelligent Beings to do, or to avoid certain things:
secondly, these other intelligent Beings acting in conformity to these
directions from a conviction that it is necessary to their own happiness
so to do. For what else is a superior, than but a Being who can augment,
or diminish my happiness? What else is an inferior, than but a Being
whose happiness I can either augment or diminish? or how
can I be bound to obey another, but by a conviction that my own
happiness will be increased, by obeying? or at least that it would
be diminished by not obeying?

After having been forewarned that the term "Law" was to excite these
ideas in our minds, one would not have expected, that our Author
should in the same breath, should tell us, that this term thus defined is
"applied to all kinds of action, animate & inanimate, rational,
" & irrational, & that we say the laws of motion of gravitation of
"Optics, or mechanics" &c: — Tis called by In the language of natural philosophers tis a Law of
Optics — "that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of
"reflection". Does our Author now suppose, that the Creator
calls every ray of light to him, & ordains them to obey this
Law? or that the obedient submissive rays do [feel that they are
bound to obey it?] finding they shall get into bad bread else,
shrug up their shoulders, make their , and go and do so.

Identifier: | JB/096/001/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 96.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	096	Main Headings	comment on the commentaries
Folio number	001	Info in main headings field
Image	002	Titles	section i / account of laws in general
Category	collectanea	Number of Pages	4
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	c1 f1 / c2 / c3 / c4
Penner	168	Watermarks	[[watermarks::gr [quartered royal arms motif]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	31005
Box Contents