text,updated_at,metaphor,created_at,context,theme,reviewed_on,dictionary,comments,provenance,id,work_id
"But how then does he Answer the Objection, which he puts against himself, of the many False Religions in the world? It was not the True Light which guided men into them. And if they have no other Light, how came they by them? He says, it was because they did not follow the True Light. But why did they not follow it? How could they help following of it, if they had nothing else to follow? What was it that Resisted It? Or, what could Resist It, if we have no Natural Light or Understanding to Refuse its Dictates? But suppose our No Light or Understanding could shut its eyes, and not follow this light; then it might lose the True Religion: But could no understanding invent another Religion? For that is something Positive; and something must Guide and Direct Men to it. The Absence of Light is Darkness, not a False-light. But an Ignis Fatuus, or Will i'th Wisp, is a Light that leads Men wrong. Men that are in Error follow a Light, but it is Falselight, and they think themselves to be in the Right. Our Understandings have a Natural, which is a Fallible-light; and therefore often leads us wrong. What else is the meaning of Prov. 3. 5. Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own Understanding. It is true, that Understanding and the Natural light of it, was given us by God: And he made it Right and True; but Fallible, else it could never be mistaken. God has placed a Natural light, as a Candle in our Hearts; and His Supernatural light does Influence and Direct it, [Page 262 (135)] when we seek to Him for it, and serve Him according as He has commanded: Solomon says, Prov. xx. 27. The Spirit of man is the Candle of the Lord, searching all the Inward Parts. You will not call the Spirit of Man the Eternal Light, which is GOD. This was the Mistake which drove George Fox to make our Soul aPart of God. without Beginning, and Infinite in it self, &c. as shewn in The Snake, Sect. ii. and to make us even Equal with God, as shewn, Sect. iii. And Mr. Penn, p. 15. of this Book, ( Primit. Christian. ) allows no Natural light to the Understanding, For (says he) Man can no more be a Light to his Mind than he is to his Body: And thence infers, that as the Eye has no Light in it self, so neither the Understanding: He makes our Nature and Minds wholly Dark of themselves, only succeptible of Super-natural light, when sent into our Understanding: And that all the Light we have is thus Supernatural; and only called Natural, because, as he says, It is natural to Man to have a Supernatural-light. I will not take advantage of the Philosophy of this; for, I suppose his meaning to be, that it is Natural to the Understanding to Receive a Light that is infused into it, as for the Eye to see by an Extraneous light; that is, it is an Organ fitted to Receive Light, tho' it has none in it self; as the Understanding to Apprehend, tho' it has no Reason or Light in it self Thus he expresses it, p. 50. All men have Reason, (says he) but all Men are not Reasonable; which must be taken with the same grains of Allowance. For every Man is a Reasonable Creature, that is, the Definition of a Man. But according to His Hypothesis, tho' all men have Reason, yet not Natural. but supernaturally put into their Understanding: And so, tho they have Reason, yet are they not Reasonable, because that Reason is none of their own, only as Gifted, that is, Accidental, but not Natural to them; and so they can no more be called Rational, than a Bag can be called Rich, that has Money in it. For he says, p. 15. That God, is the Light of our Nature, of our minds, and understandings. If it were meant as an Assistant, Guide or Director, to the Light of our Understanding, there were no differance betwixt us: But quite to put out the Natural light of our understandings, and make it but only Passive, that is, succeptible of another light, that is the point on which I would Reason now with Mr. Penn. It is said 1 Cor. 1. 21. That the world by Wisdom knew not God. What Wisdom was this? it could not be a Divine light; and if Man have no Natural light; it must be the Quaker third sort of light, that is, No light at all. But if by Wisdom here, you mean Mens Natural light or Reason, the Text is Plain and Easy.
It is Written, 1 John. 3. 20. If our Heart Condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Now, by Heart, here must be meant the Natural light; because, if it means the Light which is God, God is not Greater than Himself. And it is supposed here that the Heart does not Know all Things: Therefore this must be meant of our Natural Conscience, and not of God. And now here is a Natural light, which does Reprove of Evil, which Mr. Penn supposes cannot be shewn, p. 30. Our Saviour says, Luk. xii. 57. Yea, and why even of your selves judge not what is Right? But why of your selves, if we have no Light at all of our selves whereby to Judge?
(p.261-4)
",2009-09-14 19:34:54 UTC,"""For (says he) Man can no more be a Light to his Mind than he is to his Body: And thence infers, that as the Eye has no Light in it self, so neither the Understanding.""",2006-09-11 00:00:00 UTC,"","",,"","•REVISIT. Read the William Penn. Anglican Leslie desires ""to Expostulate a little"" with William Penn ""upon one Part of his Exposition of The Light within, [...] where [...] he will not grant that we have any Natural Light at all, or any other than that Divine Light of the Word, which is God; which he says, some, mistakenly, call Natural Light"" (p. 260)
•I've included twice: Light and Eye",Ad Fontes: Digital Library of Classic Protestant Texts,10331,3953
"But how then does he Answer the Objection, which he puts against himself, of the many False Religions in the world? It was not the True Light which guided men into them. And if they have no other Light, how came they by them? He says, it was because they did not follow the True Light. But why did they not follow it? How could they help following of it, if they had nothing else to follow? What was it that Resisted It? Or, what could Resist It, if we have no Natural Light or Understanding to Refuse its Dictates? But suppose our No Light or Understanding could shut its eyes, and not follow this light; then it might lose the True Religion: But could no understanding invent another Religion? For that is something Positive; and something must Guide and Direct Men to it. The Absence of Light is Darkness, not a False-light. But an Ignis Fatuus, or Will i'th Wisp, is a Light that leads Men wrong. Men that are in Error follow a Light, but it is Falselight, and they think themselves to be in the Right. Our Understandings have a Natural, which is a Fallible-light; and therefore often leads us wrong. What else is the meaning of Prov. 3. 5. Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own Understanding. It is true, that Understanding and the Natural light of it, was given us by God: And he made it Right and True; but Fallible, else it could never be mistaken. God has placed a Natural light, as a Candle in our Hearts; and His Supernatural light does Influence and Direct it, [Page 262 (135)] when we seek to Him for it, and serve Him according as He has commanded: Solomon says, Prov. xx. 27. The Spirit of man is the Candle of the Lord, searching all the Inward Parts. You will not call the Spirit of Man the Eternal Light, which is GOD. This was the Mistake which drove George Fox to make our Soul aPart of God. without Beginning, and Infinite in it self, &c. as shewn in The Snake, Sect. ii. and to make us even Equal with God, as shewn, Sect. iii. And Mr. Penn, p. 15. of this Book, ( Primit. Christian. ) allows no Natural light to the Understanding, For (says he) Man can no more be a Light to his Mind than he is to his Body: And thence infers, that as the Eye has no Light in it self, so neither the Understanding: He makes our Nature and Minds wholly Dark of themselves, only succeptible of Super-natural light, when sent into our Understanding: And that all the Light we have is thus Supernatural; and only called Natural, because, as he says, It is natural to Man to have a Supernatural-light. I will not take advantage of the Philosophy of this; for, I suppose his meaning to be, that it is Natural to the Understanding to Receive a Light that is infused into it, as for the Eye to see by an Extraneous light; that is, it is an Organ fitted to Receive Light, tho' it has none in it self; as the Understanding to Apprehend, tho' it has no Reason or Light in it self Thus he expresses it, p. 50. All men have Reason, (says he) but all Men are not Reasonable; which must be taken with the same grains of Allowance. For every Man is a Reasonable Creature, that is, the Definition of a Man. But according to His Hypothesis, tho' all men have Reason, yet not Natural. but supernaturally put into their Understanding: And so, tho they have Reason, yet are they not Reasonable, because that Reason is none of their own, only as Gifted, that is, Accidental, but not Natural to them; and so they can no more be called Rational, than a Bag can be called Rich, that has Money in it. For he says, p. 15. That God, is the Light of our Nature, of our minds, and understandings. If it were meant as an Assistant, Guide or Director, to the Light of our Understanding, there were no differance betwixt us: But quite to put out the Natural light of our understandings, and make it but only Passive, that is, succeptible of another light, that is the point on which I would Reason now with Mr. Penn. It is said 1 Cor. 1. 21. That the world by Wisdom knew not God. What Wisdom was this? it could not be a Divine light; and if Man have no Natural light; it must be the Quaker third sort of light, that is, No light at all. But if by Wisdom here, you mean Mens Natural light or Reason, the Text is Plain and Easy.
It is Written, 1 John. 3. 20. If our Heart Condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Now, by Heart, here must be meant the Natural light; because, if it means the Light which is God, God is not Greater than Himself. And it is supposed here that the Heart does not Know all Things: Therefore this must be meant of our Natural Conscience, and not of God. And now here is a Natural light, which does Reprove of Evil, which Mr. Penn supposes cannot be shewn, p. 30. Our Saviour says, Luk. xii. 57. Yea, and why even of your selves judge not what is Right? But why of your selves, if we have no Light at all of our selves whereby to Judge?
(p.261-4)
",2009-09-14 19:34:54 UTC,""" I will not take advantage of the Philosophy of this; for, I suppose his meaning to be, that it is Natural to the Understanding to Receive a Light that is infused into it, as for the Eye to see by an Extraneous light; that is, it is an Organ fitted to Receive Light, tho' it has none in it self; as the Understanding to Apprehend, tho' it has no Reason or Light in it self.""",2006-09-11 00:00:00 UTC,"",Mind's Eye,,"","•REVISIT. Read the William Penn. Anglican Leslie desires ""to Expostulate a little"" with William Penn ""upon one Part of his Exposition of The Light within, [...] where [...] he will not grant that we have any Natural Light at all, or any other than that Divine Light of the Word, which is God; which he says, some, mistakenly, call Natural Light"" (p. 260)
•I've included twice: Light and Eye",Ad Fontes: Digital Library of Classic Protestant Texts,10334,3953
"Appetite, the Affection of the Mind, by which we are stirr'd up to any thing, inordinate Desire, Lust: Also the desire of Nourishment, or a Stomach to one's Victuals.",2013-06-10 18:22:20 UTC,"""Appetite, the Affection of the Mind, by which we are stirr'd up to any thing, inordinate Desire, Lust: Also the desire of Nourishment, or a Stomach to one's Victuals.""",2005-06-20 00:00:00 UTC,"",Dualism,2009-02-21,"",•INTEREST. Issues of literal and figurative abound in this dictionary.,"Searching ""mind"" in Phillips's Dictionary (1706), in ECCO.",10518,4075
"Conception, the Product of the Mind, as a Thought, Notion, or Principle; the Simple Ideas or apprehension that a Man has of any Thing, without proceeding to affirm or deny and Point relating thereto; also a Conceiving with Child, or breeding.",2009-09-14 19:35:03 UTC,"""Conception, the Product of the Mind, as a Thought, Notion, or Principle; the Simple Ideas or apprehension that a Man has of any Thing, without proceeding to affirm or deny and Point relating thereto; also a Conceiving with Child, or breeding.""",2005-06-20 00:00:00 UTC,"",Dualism,,"",•INTEREST. Issues of literal and figurative abound in this dictionary.,"Searching ""mind"" in Phillips's Dictionary (1706) in ECCO.",10520,4077
"""Tis worth Observation, that the Metaphor ought no to be too much strain'd, nor taken from things that are mean, flat and contemptible. Here is an Example of each, Of things too much strain'd one of our Authors informs us, that a certain Person speaking of the Tower of a Church that was fallen to the ground, said, That the Twoer was gone to pay a Visit to its Foundation. The Expression of PAaiying a Visit, is there a Metaphor too extravagant; tho' Jesting may cause it to pass current. Of mean things, Tertullian has been blam'd for saying, That the Deluge was but the washing and cleaning of Nature: For the word Washing is too mean for the Deluge, that came from the Appointment of the Lord. And fo contemptible and insipid Metaphors, here is an Example out of M. de la Serre: Each Respiration marks a Minute of the Clock of our Pulse, till our last Breath shall cause the A[lar]m and Hour of our Departure to sound. What a pitiful Metaphor is this? 'Tis doubtless in imitation of the Gibberish of Beuseambille, who has said, The Footman of my Prayers has been tir'd to knock at the Door of your Heart, and the Servant of your Compassion has never vouchsafed to open it. And Harlequin speaking in a Comedy as an Apothecary to Madam Colombine, says, Madam, my Mind is soak'd in the bottom of the Belly of my Ignorance, that I need have some Syrup of your Understanding and Knowledge to liquify the Matter of my Thoughts. But at last the Barber of Time has pull'd out the Tooth of my Passion, that caus'd me to complain so much. And I cannot but relate a Bombast Metaphor, which I heard from the mouth of one who fancy'd that he spoke elegantly. Discoursing of the preaching of the Gospel, in the Audience of the Clergy at a Visitation, from the Pulpt, he said, That it was the brightest Ray, shot out of the Quiver of God's Goodness and Mercy to the English Nation. Did you ever see the Rays of Light come out of a Quiver?
(pp. 92-3, in. 97-8)",2009-09-14 19:35:04 UTC,"The mind may be ""soak'd in the bottom of the Belly"" of one's Ignorance so that he needs the syrup of understanding and knowledge ""to liquify the Matter"" of his thoughts.",2004-01-16 00:00:00 UTC,"","",,"",•I've included twice: once in 'Body' and once in 'Liquid',Gale's Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO).,10539,4091
"Now, the Art of Canting consists in skilfully adapting the voice to whatever words the spirit delivers, that each may strike the ears of the audience with its most significant cadence. The force or energy of this eloquence is not to be found, as among ancient orators, in the disposition of words to a sentence or the turning of long periods, but agreeable to the modern refinements in music, is taken up wholly in dwelling and dilating upon syllables and letters. Thus it is frequent for a single vowel to draw sighs from a multitude, and for a whole assembly of saints to sob to the music of one solitary liquid. But these are trifles, when even sounds inarticulate, are observed to produce as forcible effects. A master workman shall blow his nose so powerfully as to pierce the hearts of his people, who were disposed to receive the excrements of his brain with the same reverence as the issue of it. Hawking, spitting, and belching, the defects of other men's rhethoric, are the flowers and figures and ornaments of his. For, the spirit being the same in all, it is of no import, through what vehicle it is conveyed.
(pp. 135-6)",2011-04-26 17:15:41 UTC,"""A master workman shall blow his nose so powerfully as to pierce the hearts of his people, who were disposed to receive the excrements of his brain with the same reverence as the issue of it.""",2009-07-09 00:00:00 UTC,"","",2009-07-10,"",Snot is the excrement of thought...,Reading,17462,6572
"It was heretofore the Wisdom of some wise Nations, to let People be Fools as much as they pleas'd, and never to punish seriously what deserv'd only to be laugh'd at, and was after all best cur'd by that innocent Remedy. There are certain Humours in Mankind, which of necessity must have vent. The Human Mind and Body are both of 'em naturally subject to Commotions: and as there are strange Ferments in the Blood, which in many Bodys occasion an extraordinary discharge; so in Reason too, there are heterogeneous Particles which must be thrown off by Fermentation. Shou'd Physicians endeavour absolutely to allay those Ferments of the Body, and strike in the Humours which discover themselves in such Eruptions, they might, instead of making a Cure, bid fair perhaps to raise a Plague, and turn a Spring-Ague or an Autumn-Surfeit into an epidemical malignant Fever. They are certainly as ill Physicians in the Body-Politick, who wou'd needs be tampering with these mental Eruptions; and under the specious pretence of healing this Itch of Superstition, and saving Souls from the Contagion of Enthusiasm, shou'd set all Nature in an uproar, and turn a few innocent Carbuncles into an Inflammation and mortal Gangrene.
(pp. 13-14; p. 9 in Klein)",2013-07-09 16:49:08 UTC,"""They are certainly as ill Physicians in the Body-Politick, who wou'd needs be tampering with these mental Eruptions; and under the specious pretence of healing this Itch of Superstition, and saving Souls from the Contagion of Enthusiasm, shou'd set all Nature in an uproar, and turn a few innocent Carbuncles into an Inflammation and mortal Gangrene.""",2013-07-09 16:49:08 UTC,Section 3,"",,"","",Reading; text from C-H Lion,21575,7520
"To this I answer, that tho' Longinus did by long Study, and habitude know the Sublime when he saw it, as well as any Man, yet he had not so clear a knowledge of the Nature of it as to explain it clearly to others. For if he had done that, as the Objector says, he would have defin'd it, but he has been so far from defining it, that in one place he has given an account of it that is contrary to the true nature of it. For he tells us in that Chapter which treats of the Fountains of Sublimity, that Loftiness is often without any Passion at all. Which is contrary to the true nature of it. The sublime is indeed often without Common Passion, as ordinary Passion is often without that. But then it is never without Enthusiastick Passion. For the Sublime is nothing else but a great Thought, or Great Thoughts moving the Soul from it's Ordinary Scituation by the Enthusiasm which naturally attends them. Now Longinus had a notion of Enthusiastick Passion; for he establishes it in that very Chapter for the second Source of Sublimity. Now Longinus by affirming that the Sublime may be without not only that, but ordinary Passion, says a thing that is not only contrary to the true Nature of it, but contradictory of Himself. For he tells us in the beginning of the Treatise that the Sublime does not so properly persuade us, as it Ravishes and Transports us, and produces in us a certain Admiration mingled with astonishment and with surprise, which is quite another thing than the barely Pleasing or the barely perswading; that it gives a noble Vigour to a Discourse, an invincible force which commits a pleasing Rape upon the very Soul of the Reader; that whenever it breaks out where it ought to do, like the Artillery of Jove, it Thunders blazes and strikes at once, and shews all the united force of a Writer. Now I leave the Reader to Judge, whether Longinius has not been saying here all along that Sublimity is never without Passion.
(pp. 77-9)",2013-07-11 18:52:20 UTC,"""For he tells us in the beginning of the Treatise that the Sublime does not so properly persuade us, as it Ravishes and Transports us, and produces in us a certain Admiration mingled with astonishment and with surprise, which is quite another thing than the barely Pleasing or the barely perswading; that it gives a noble Vigour to a Discourse, an invincible force which commits a pleasing Rape upon the very Soul of the Reader; that whenever it breaks out where it ought to do, like the Artillery of Jove, it Thunders blazes and strikes at once, and shews all the united force of a Writer.""",2013-07-11 18:52:20 UTC,"","",,"","Whoa! — Crazy: sublimity and ""pleasing Rape."" INTEREST and REVISIT.","",21661,7540
"[...] You must therefore expect to have me live with you hereafter, with all the Liberty and Assurance of a settled Friendship. For meeting with but few Men in the World whose Acquaintance I find much reason to covet, I make more than ordinary Haste into the Familiarity of a rational Enquirer after, and Lover of Truth, whenever I can light on any such. There are Beauties of the Mind, as well as of the Body, that take and prevail at first sight: And where-ever I have met with this, I have readily surrendered my self, and have never yet been deceiv'd in my Expectation. Wonder not therefore, if having been thus wrought on, I begin to converse with you with as much Freedom as if we had begun, our Acquaintance when you were in Holland; and desire your Advice and Assistance about a second Edition of my Essay, the former being now dispersed. [...]
(p. 10)",2013-10-13 16:01:50 UTC,"""There are Beauties of the Mind, as well as of the Body, that take and prevail at first sight: And where-ever I have met with this, I have readily surrendered my self, and have never yet been deceiv'd in my Expectation.""",2013-10-13 16:01:50 UTC,"","",,"","",Searching in Google Books,22958,7704
"[...] Now by reason of the great Variety that there is in differing Objects, as to the Quantity and Strength, and that the Retina, or sensating part is capable only of receiving Impressions to a certain Degree of Strength, without being hurt by it, there is a contrivance in the Eye, which I shall afterwards more fully explain, by which the Quantity of the Rays admitted is moderated, so as to keep it, that the impression does not exceed that limit: And this is the Aperture or Hole through the Iris, which is the black Hole that appears in the middle of the transparent part of the Eye; for this Hole which admits the Rays to pass into the Eye, is contracted or dilated, according as the object is brighter or darker; that a lesser Quantity of the stronger Rays, and a greater Quantity of the weaker Rays may be admitted, and hence it is, that a brighter Object: among dimmer Objects, does cloud and darken them, because the aperture of the Iris being contracted protionable to the strength of the brighter, the Rays, admitted from the fainter and more dim Objects, are not sufficient to make a sensible Impression. So that the effect of the Rays are by this means proportion'd to the Ability of the sensible Part of the Eye to bear the Impression, and where notwithstanding the utmost contraction of this aperture of the Iris, the Rays make too strong an impression upon the Retina, we are forc'd to wink and close the Eye-Lids nearer, to shut out part of that quantity of Light which would otherwise have entred into the Eye; or to look through a small Hole, or through an opacous Body. And hence it is, that any one may with ease look upon the Sun, if he look through a small Pin-hole in a Plate, by which means one may with pleasure see an Eclipse of the Sun, without using any opacous Glass; though if the Cornea, or any other part of the Eye, be any ways opacous, this way discovers the Defects of them, and does somewhat vitiate the Figure of the Object. But of this, and the manner of contracting of the Pupil, more, when I come to explain that part of the Eye; that which intention it for at present is, only to explain how the Eye becomes as it were a Hand, by which the Brain feels, and touches (the Objects, by creating a Motion in the Retina, the same, and at the same Instant; with the Motion of the lucid Object it self. For the make of the Eye is such, in all its Contrivance and Parts, that the Conical Ray of Light proceeding from a Point of the Object, terminating with a Divergency in the Aperture, or Cornea of the Eye, ib Refraction thereof again reunited into a Point at the Focus, which is in the Retina [...]
(p. 124)",2014-07-30 15:36:03 UTC,"""But of this, and the manner of contracting of the Pupil, more, when I come to explain that part of the Eye; that which intention it for at present is, only to explain how the Eye becomes as it were a Hand, by which the Brain feels, and touches (the Objects, by creating a Motion in the Retina, the same, and at the same Instant; with the Motion of the lucid Object it self.""",2014-07-30 15:36:03 UTC,Section 5,"",,"","","Reading John W. Yolton, ""As in a Looking-Glass: Perceptual Acquaintance in Eighteenth-Century Britain."" Journal of the History of Ideas 40:2 (1979): 212.
",24373,8012