Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	answer_v	scripture_n	word_n	1,678	5	4.1153	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52440	Two treatises concerning the divine light the first, being an answer to a letter of a learned Quaker, which he is pleased to call, A just reprehension to John Norris for his unjust reflections on the Quakers, in his book entituled, Reflections upon the conduct of human life, &c., the second, being a discourse concerning the grossness of the Quakers notion of the light within, with their confusion and inconsistency in explaining it / by John Norris ...	Norris, John, 1657-1711.; Norris, John, 1657-1711. Grossness of the Quaker's principle.	1692 (1692)	Wing N1276; ESTC R2996	64,661	150

it that he might have something to expose and harangue upon For is it in the least to be imagin'd or does Mr. Vickris in his Conscience seriously think that I who in this very Book and in these very Articles he reflects upon as well as in the whole Course of my other Writings upon this occasion do all along earnestly contend that this Internal Light is no other than the very Essence and Substance of God whose Omniformity is exhibitive of all things and is the immediate Object of our Conception that very Truth which we conceive And that I who make this the ground of Difference between my Principle of the Light and that of the Quakers that they do not make it the Substance of God but only something communicated by or from him whereas I expresly do I say can it be imagin'd that after all this I should so far forget my self as to make this Divine Light to be the very same thing with Human Understanding and so confound as he pretends the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Man's Reason and Conscience Sure I should be fitter to pick Straws in Bedlam than to write Books should I be so senseless as to make Truth and Understanding Object and Faculty God and Creature all one But as this is too gross to be my real Meaning so the Scope and Antithesis of the Article do plainly shew that it was not 'T is plain from thence and no candid Reader would have understood me otherwise that my Meaning tho for Brevity's sake not so explicitly worded was no other than what has been already suggested viz. That whereas the Quakers represent their Light as something extraordinarily superadded to the natural way of Understanding as supposing two distinct Lights in the Soul and so not absolutely necessary to Understanding as such which according to them may be without it I on the contrary making but one way of Understanding in all suppose this Light to be so far from being such an Extraordinary Superaddition that 't is so requisite to the Natural and Ordinary way of Understanding that there is no Understanding without it And so when I say pag. 77. This is Reason this is Conscience 't is plain enough that I mean no more than that this namely the Light is that whereby I perform Acts of Reason and Acts of Conscience not that it is my very reasoning Faculty but that whereby I reason and discourse as furnishing me with Idea's for my Contemplation And if this be the Natural and Necessary Sense of my Words as I believe Mr. Vickris must needs be sensible that it is then his whole following Harangue about my confounding the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Man's Natural Reason and Conscience is quite spoil'd and from a piece of Rhetoric becomes a most trifling Impertinence or to borrow a Stroke of Oratory from him Insignificant and like an Arrow shot at Random Exception against the Third Article IN thy Third Section thou com'st in with a Salvo Errore If I mistake not the Quakers confine their Light within to some certain Objects namely Moral and Spiritual Truths in Order only to the Direction of Practice How shouldst thou do otherwise but mistake the Principles of others seeing thou art so confused about thine own However I must tell thee it is no small Fault at such an Uncertainty to expose Peoples Principles and 't is an Abuse to say that the Quakers confine the Light within It is Divine Supernatural and Uncircumscribable in it are hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledg Where have the Quakers taught otherwise Have they not testified and declared the Light and the Spirit of Truth are one and the same in being which will guide into all Truth John 16. 13. The Quakers believe this Divine Light to be the Quickner of their Understandings to Know and of their Wills to Love and Practise all Truth and that it assists the Natural Faculties of the Soul in the Attainment of necessary Arts and Sciences as well as capacitates it to Know and Practise Moral and Spiritual Truths Thou may'st read what the Author to the Book of Wisdom says on this Subject in the 9th and 10th Chapters And whereas thou sayst the Quakers make the Light within a Supplement to Scripture which they say is not sufficient without it nor indeed any more than a meer dead Letter I answer These Words Supplement to Scripture are thy own not ours and this seems to be a Composition of thy own Notion of the Quakers Faith concerning the Holy Scripture without any Quotation of their Words or Writings and as 't is an Objection is built upon thy mistake in thy former Section viz. The Quakers represent this Light within as a sort of extraordinary Inspiration Which hath been already Answer'd proving the Universality of the Divine Light in Man which consider'd there is no just Cause for this as an Objection against the Quakers assigning the Scriptures to be insufficient without the Light because the Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures cannot occur to the Understanding without it and the Formal Reason thereof is its Presence and Manifestation The Quakers believe that Christ Jesus by his Divine Light within doth in these Days as in the Days of his Flesh expound fulfil and open to the True Believers the Holy Scriptures which according to the Apostles Exhortation to Timothy Chap. 2. 3 15. are able to make wise unto Salvation Note through Faith which is in Christ Jesus The Word Supplement in this Sense I hope will be found no Error but according to thy Construction of the Quakers representing the Light within as a sort of Extraordinary Inspiration Sect. 2. or special Priviledg of a certain Order of Men their own Party as in Sect. 4. And then making them to say the Scriptures with relation only to the Direction of Practice as thy Lines import Sect. 3. are not sufficient without it nor indeed any more than a meer dead Letter is to render the Quakers not only singular and erroneous in their Principle of the Light which shall be more duly observ'd in its place but also contemptuous of the Holy Scriptures as useless and insufficient to all but themselves which is a great and hainous Abuse of a Society of People without Cause and Provocation and contrary to their Public and Known Assertions both by Word and Writing who believe according to the same Apostle to Timothy Cap. 2. 3 16 17. that all Scripture c. And this shall suffice for an Answer to thy Third Section The Answer IF I deliver'd my self with more than ordinary Caution and Reservedness in this Article it was because of my abundant Concern lest I should injure those whom I was representing by a false Charge tho I think it is too much for Mr. Vickris to condemn me for misrepresenting them and yet to upbraid me with my Tenderness in doing so at the same Time But I find upon further Examination that I needed

Material Idea can represent an Immaterial Object They are alike Mysteries to me and I doubt not but that they are both alike Absurdities in themselves Well then the Sum of the matter in hand will come to this If the Ideas of a Material Principle must be also Material and if a material Idea cannot represent an Immaterial Object then 't will follow that a Material Light will not be able to give the Soul a Representation of any thing that is Immaterial or Intellectual And if so what little stead will it serve us in The greatest part of our Notions are Intellectual We cannot speak or write three or four Words but some of them will stand for Ideas that represent Intellectual Objects There is no thinking nor conversing tho never so little without this And what shall we do then with a Light that is not able to furnish us with Ideas for a quarter of the things we are concerned both to think and to discourse of So utterly unserviceable and insufficient is a Material Light for the purposes of Human Understanding and so senseless and absurd is the Notion that Asserts it The Sum of what has been hitherto discours'd turns all within the Compass of this Syllogism That Notion which makes the Light within to be a Creature and a material Creature is Absurd But the Notion of the Quakers concerning the Light within makes it to be so Therefore the Notion of the Quakers concerning the Light within is Absurd The First of these Propositions is what we have been proving now last of all The Second was proved in the Account given of the Quakers Principle of the Light The Conclusion therefore follows That the Quakers Principle of the Light within is Absurd Which was the Proposition I undertook to prove and I am very much mistaken in my Accounts if it be not well proved And thus having represented the Grossness of the Quakers Principle of the Light I will now in the Conclusion add a Word or two concerning their Inconsistency in explaining it That Person may well be esteemed Inconsistent with himself who so explains his Hypothesis in the Particulars of it as to contradict that general Ground upon which it is built But now this I take to be the Fault of the Quakers in relation to the Point in Hand The general Ground upon which they build their Hypothesis of the Light within is this That Man cannot be a Light to himself for if he could what need there be another Principle of Light within him and does therefore require some other Principle of Illumination for his Conduct and Direction This is the Principle they go upon and so far I think they are right enough But now when they come to give a particular Account of their Hypothesis they so order the matter as to contradict and give up again that General Principle For if that Light within which is to be the Principle of Human Understanding be a Creature then Man might as well have been his own Light or a Light to himself that is he might arrive to the knowledg of things by consulting the Perfections of his own Nature the only Reason why Man cannot be a Light to himself being this because no Creature can be so But if a Creature may be a Light and the Light within be a Creature then why may not Man himself be that Creature and then what need of any such thing as a Light within distinct from the Rational Nature of Man which would be to renounce their general Principle and to fall in with the Vulgar Hypothesis of Human Understanding So that this is a Notion altogether inconsistent with it self as well as disagreeable to Truth I have now finish'd what I undertook and if I mistake not fully answer'd the Title of this Treatise If any should think it strange that I would be so far diverted from better Studies as to spend time and pains in disproving the Principles of so inconsiderable a Perswasion swasion as that of the Quakers I must in answer to this take the Liberty to tell them 1. That as to better Studies I know nothing that does better deserve the Consideration of a Rational Creature than the Mode and Way of Human Understanding 2. That as to the Inconsiderableness of the Perswasion I cannot think Quakerism to be so as the Principles of it are laid down and managed by Mr. Barclay That Great and General Contempt they lie under does not hinder me from thinking the Sect of the Quakers to be by far the most considerable of any that divide from us in case the Quakerism that is generally held be the same with that which Mr. Barclay has deliver'd to the World for such whom I take to be so great a Man that I profess to you freely I had rather engage against an Hundred Bellarmins Hardings or Stapyltons than with one Barclay However as great a Man as he is I think I have given his Principle of the Light a clear and thorough Confutation and have likewise therein sufficiently answer'd my particular Adversary who perhaps by this time may have reason to repent that ever he set me to work I know Sir very well that 't is one thing to answer the Book and another thing to answer the Man For some Men will never be answered tho their Books are But I am not ambitious of the last Word because I know wise Men do not use to judg of the issue of a Dispute by that Measure Mr. Vickris therefore may have that if he please and the rather because I think it will be all he is like to get by his Engagement with SIR Your Humble Servant J. N. POSTSCRIPT SIR THERE is one very material Consideration relating to the Impossibility of the Hypothesis of a Created Light which happen'd to escape my Thoughts till I was past the place where it ought naturally to have come in and therefore I must set it down here by itself You know Sir a very great Part of our Study and Thinking as well as of our Familiar Discourse and Conversation is employ'd about Necessary and Eternal Truths And most of our Arts and Sciences are Conversant about them as being indeed the Principal Object of Human Knowledg And therefore it is necessary that that which is to serve us as an Intellectual Light should be able to represent these things to our Minds whatever else be left unrepresented But now this is what a Created Light will never be able to do there being nothing in a Created Light that is able to answer or bear any Correspondence to that which is Necessary and Eternal For a Creature is a Contingent Being all the Reality that is in it is wholly Contingent and as Contingency can never represent Necessity or Eternity so neither can that which is Contingent represent what is Necessary or Eternal This I confess is a very Metaphysical Argument and such as will require a great deal of Abstraction and Attention in him that will be Master of it But if attentively weigh'd and consider'd I believe it will be found to amount to no less than a Demonstration FINIS Books Printed for and Sold by Sam. Manship at the Black Bull in Cornhil A Collection of Miscellanies consisting of Poems Essays Discourses and Letters The Second Edition with Amendments Price Bound 4 s. Theory and Regulation of Love a Moral Essay in Two Parts To which are added Letters Philosophical and Moral between the Author and Dr. More In 8 o. Price 2 s. Reason and Religion or the Grounds and Measures of Devotion consider'd from the Nature of God and the Nature of Man in several Contemplations with Exercises of Devotions applied to every Contemplation In 8 o. Price 2 s. Reflections on the Conduct of Human Life with Reference to the Study of Learning and Knowledg In a Letter to the Excellent Lady the Lady Masham To which is annexed a Visitation Sermon by the same Author The Second Edition with large Additions Price Bound 1 s. 6 d. Christian Blessedness or Discourses upon the Beatitudes of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ The Second Edition In large 8 o. Price Bound 3 s. The charge of Schism continued being a Justification of the Author of the Christian Blessedness for his charging the Separatists with Schism notwithstanding the Toleration In a Letter to a City Friend In 12 o. Price 1 s. Practical Discourses upon several Divine Subjects In large 8 o. Price 3 s. All these Seven Written by the Reverend Mr. John Norris M. A. Page 13. Page 15. Jam. 3. 17. Page 7. Page 8. Way to the City of God p. 62. Page 334. Apology p. 133. Way to the City of God p. 130. Apology p. 330. Page 346. Apology p 337. Page 346. Apology p. 337. Page 21. Page 317. Page 6 7. Apology p. 338. Institut Theolog. Pag. 253. Apology P. 330. Apology p. 310. Apology p. 334. Apology p. 354. Ibid. Page 3. Apology p. 338. Truth clear'd of Columnies p. 8. Truth clear'd of Calumnies p. 13. Ibid. p. 16. P. 17. P. 18. P. 28. Apology p. 349. Possibility and necessiry of inward immediate Revelation p. 896. Way to the City of God p. 163. P. 170. Apology P. 333. Apology p. 494. Page 495. Ibid. Page 901. Page 64. Ibid. Page 130. Ibid. Page 129. Page 132. Page 133. Ibid. Page 134. Ibid. Ibid. Apology Vindicated p. 861. De inquirend Veritat p. 198. Prim. Part. Quaest 106. Art 1. Ibid. Art 3.

being intimately united with it but does not formally enlighten or instruct me but when I attend to it and consult it and read what is written in those Divine Ideal Characters VI. And Lastly The Quakers do not offer any rational or intelligible Account of their Light within neither as to the thing nor as to the mode of it but only Gant in some loose general Expressions about the Light which they confirm with the Authority of St. John's Gospel tho they understand neither one nor t'other Whereas I have offer'd a Natural Distinct and Philosophical way of explaining both namely by the Omniformity of the Ideal World or the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who has in himself the Essences and Idea's of all things and in whom the same are perceiv'd by us and by all Creatures Now this Mr. Vickris is pleased to censure as a Misrepresentation of the Quaker's Principle concerning the Light within But before I proceed to consider whether it be or no there are two intermedial Passages of his that expect to be taken notice of I had said in my Reflections pag. 77. speaking of the Light within as untowardly represented by the Quakers that the thing in it self rightly understood is true and if any such shall yet call it Quakerism or Enthysiasm that 't is such Quakerism as makes a good part of St. John's Gospel and of St. Austin's Works And so again to the like purpose in my Postscript that if the Quakers understood their own Notion and knew how to explain it and into what Principles to resolve it it would not much differ from mine Of which two Passages Mr. Vickris endeavours to make a notable Advantage and fancies that they mightily befriend the Cause of Quakerism as implying a sort of Confession to their Principle and that the Difference between us would only be in Terminis But is the Man in good earnest Or does he think that he writes to one that understands not what belongs to Consequence and will be imposed upon by any thing Does it therefore follow that I confess the Truth of the Quakers Principle of the Light because I allow the Notion in its self to be true when rightly understood that is when taken in a right Sense What does the General Truth of any Notion rightly stated infer the Truth of this or that particular way of explaining it May there not be a false and erroneous Explication of a true Hypothesis Suppose I should say that the Doctrin of Justification by Faith only is a true Notion rightly understood do I thereby confess the Truth of the Solifidian way of understanding it who so explain our being justifyed by Faith only as to exclude the concurrence of Obedience Or Suppose I should say that the Doctrin of Pleasures being our supreme Good is a true Doctrin rightly understood do I thereby acknowledge it to be true in that Sense of the Proposition usually attributed to Epicurus Or to put these two Instances together can I justly be supposed to imply that the Solifidian and the Epicurean differ from their respective Adversaries only in Terminis because I acknowledg that the Notions in themselves rightly understood are true If Mr. Vickris had but been at the pains to deck himself with a little more of that Corrupt Wisdom call'd Logic he would never have imposed upon himself nor have offer'd to impose upon me with such Womanish Consequences as these The other Passage that I must take in my way is his general Complaint against me for not quoting the Quakers own Words and Authors in representing their Principle Now to this I answer that having in my time read several of the most considerable of the Quakers Books and as I thought well enough comprehended them as far as they were intelligible I thought I might trust my Memory so far as to venture to represent their Sense as to one and that the most remarkable of their Principles without ransacking their Books and mustering up Quotations which at that time I could not very well do neither having but few of them by me But neither should I have thought it necessary if I had had never so many For sure a Man may venture to give an Account of one Notorious Principle belonging to a certain Perswasion and to shew the difference between that and another upon the Stock of his former Reading without being obliged to bring an Author to attest to every thing he says Thus were I to state the general Difference between the Cartesian and the Aristotelean Philosophy might I not securely place it in this that the one offers to explain Appearances of Nature by Forms and Qualities and other such abstruse Beings which the other chuses to resolve into the more simple and intelligible Principles of Figure and Motion c. without appealing presently either to the Text of Aristotle or to the Principles of Descartes Or suppose I were askt the Difference between a Socinian and a Mahumetan might I not be allow'd to say that tho the Socinian denies the Divinity of Christ as well as the Mahumetan and the Mahumetan owns him as a true Prophet as well as the Socinian yet they differ in this that whereas the Mahumetan allows him to have been only a Temporary Prophet and that his Religion is now superannuated as having had it's Time the Socinian acknowledges him to be a Prophet of a perpetual Authority and that his Religion is ever obliging as being the last and standing Revelation of God I say might I not be allowed to state the difference thus between them without Book but I must needs be put upon fetching Proofs Chapter and Verse out of Socinus and the Alcoran Mr. Vickris might therefore well have spared this Objection without any prejudice either to the Beauty or to the Strength of his Discourse especially considering that he himself is not pleased to bring so much as one single Citation out of any one Quakerish Writer for that Passage of Barclay's pag. 5. is quoted upon another occasion to disprove the Representation of their Principle given by me Now Mr. Vickris was much more concerned to alledge Testimonies out of Authors than I as undertaking to shew that Representation of mine to be false which I was then contented barely to propose not to prove For tho' it was possible for me to give an Account and that a right one too of the Quakers Principle without producing any of their Testimonies yet it was not possible for Mr. Vickris to prove that Account of mine to be false without referring to their Books Because 't is one thing barely to propose which was my Undertaking and another thing to prove which was his Since therefore Mr. Vickris thought fit to save himself the Trouble of appealing to Authors when more concerned to do so he might well forgive it me the only thing material in this business being not whether I quote their Books or no but whether I have given a true Account of