Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	authority_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	2,708	5	9.1860	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A97086	The considerator considered: or, A brief view of certain considerations upon the Biblia polyglotta, the prolegomena and appendix thereof. Wherein, amongst other things, the certainty, integrity, and divine authority of the original texts, is defended, against the consequences of athiests, papists, antiscripturists, &c. inferred from the various readings, and novelty of the Hebrew points, by the author of the said Considerations. The Biblia polyglotta, and translations therein exhibited, with various readings, prolegomena and appendix, vindicated from his aspersions and calumnies. And the questions about the punctation of the Hebrew text, the various readings, and the ancient Hebrew character briefly handled. / By Br. Walton. D.D.	Walton, Brian, 1600-1661.	1659 (1659)	Wing W657; Thomason E1860_1; ESTC R204072	144,833	308

wrought for confirmation of the Doctrine of the Bible attested by the Catholick Tradition of the Church of Christ His affirming that the Alcoran may vie miracles and traditions with the Scripture rejecting all arguments for the authority of Scripture save its own light VI VII No private or new opinions in the Prolegomena or Appendix VIII The just grounds which the publisher had to speak of the things excepted against IX The groundlesse fears and jealousies of the adversary X. His profession of no great skill in this learning XI That he knows not the Authors of this Edition XII His commending the Work and the authors of it XIII His consequences charged upon the Work and not upon the Workmen as he pretends XIV The true cause of the quarrel is against the Workmen XV. The approbation of the Work by forreign Divines Buxtorss testimony of it I. BEfore we descend to particulars it will be needfull to take notice First of the occasion and motives of publishing these Considerations and of their scope and end concerning which the author tells us Cap. 1. sect 1 2 3. c. That he had written a Treatise of the Divine originall of the Scriptures their authority and self evidencing light and of the providence of God in their preservation which being ready for the Presse the Prolegomena and Appendix of the Bible came to his hands wherein the great bulk of various readings and some opinions maintained in the Prolegomena did in his apprehension much weaken the arguments by him insisted upon in that Treatise and therefore a necessity was incumbent upon him either to desist from publishing it or else of giving an accompt of those things in the Prolegomena and Appendix which tended to the disadvantage of that great truth which he had pleaded for After he tells us of his fears and jealousies of dangerous consequences c. and gives some reasons to free himself from any suspition of malice or envy against the Biblia Polyglotta or any that had a hand in publishing of it and calls the searcher of all hearts to witnesse how clear he was from any sinister ends c. and professes how candidly he will proceed for the sake and in the pursuit of truth with a mind free from prejudice and disquieting affections c. II. Concerning all which I shall observe first that it is ominous to stumble at the threshold as our Author here doth what fair dealing may we expect in his ensuing Discourse when he begins with a palpable untruth he saith the Prolegomena and Appendix came to his hands after he had finished his Treatise of the Scripture and was ready to give it to the Stationer which was the occasion of these additional Considerations when as yet it appears that he had read the Prolegomena and Appendix before he had written the first Chapter of his Treatise for in that Chapter he writes p. 16. that Capellus his pernicious opinion about the uncertainty of Scripture is since approved and taken up by others quoting in the margent Prolegomena ad Biblia Polyglotta and p. 20. he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is reckoned amongst the various Readings gathered out of Grotius in the Appendix of the Biblia Polyglotta by which it is evident that he had seen and read the Prolegomena and Appendix before he wrote that Treatise and therefore that the publishing of the Prolegomena and Appendix after his Treatise was finished could not be the cause of writing these Considerations in vindication of that Treatise here it seems his memory failed him to say no worse and hereby it plainly appears that some other motives set him on work and not the vindication of his Treatise and though he protests the contrary yet protestatio contraria facto is not to be admitted nor regarded for it is known that such Protestations with men who make no scruple of affirming untruths arises often from the consciousnesse of the guilt of that against which they protest Quid verba audiam cum facta videam What are his Considerations but a cleere confutation of his protestation III. If he had no sinister ends Why are they written in English the Opinions which he opposes being written in that Language wherein Learned men debate such things as are not fit for popular judgements There could be no other end in this then to expose the Bib. Polyglot and Publishers of it to popular hatred If his fears and jealousies were so great that these opinions should gain credit and be received why did he not write against them in the same Language which is generally known in Europe whereby an Antidote might have been ready wheresoever they came whereas to write in English cannot hinder the spreading of them abroad nor was there any great cause to fear that his English readers could be infected by them when they understood them not till he informed them This was not the true motive or else he took not the right course to prevent the mischief he seemed to fear But to confute a Latine Treatise in English and in the same Book to adde a Latine Discourse against the Quakers who abhor all Learning and account that Language the Language of the Beast will notwithstanding his weak Apologie be judged a Soloecisme IV. Besides if the truth and love of the truth set him on work why doth he fasten upon his adversary things manifestly untrue charging him with opinions in one place which in another he clears him from His perverting his adversaries tenets propounding his Arguments and Answers by halfs cutting them short as Procrustes in Plut did his prisoners that they might be fit for his bed are proofs of his candid and sincere dealing but chiefly his urging the Consequences of Papists Atheists Antiscripturists c. whose Advocate he makes himself rather then his Adversary shall escape If he had not been led by some sinister respects knowing that Pious and Learned men yea the learnedst Protestant Divines and the best skilled in the Eastern Languages that are this day and greatest assertors of the purity and authority of the originall Texts against the Romish tenets have maintained the same with the Author of the Prolegomena about the Hebrew punctation and the various readings and that himself acknowledges the main thing from which perverse and wicked men draw their conclusions viz. the variety of readings in the Hebrew and Greek Copies he would have laboured to free those Worthies from such imputations and have shewed that no such consectaries could be logically and rationally deduced from such Premisses as indeed they cannot whereas we see in him the clean contrary for he takes part with Papists Atheists Antiscripturists c. and pleads their cause and labours to prove even from such Premisses as himself cannot deny that those wretched consequences do necessarily follow which shews plainly how he was blinded with Prejudice and Passion and how far he was from that candor and freedom from disquieting affections and from the love of

truth which he pretends to V. And though it had been the hard hap of the Prolegomena Appendix to come out when his Treatise was ready to be printed which hath procured all this trouble to himself and the Readers yet was there such a necessity of the publishing his Treatise Divers persons of great Learning and Judgement think his pains might very well have been spared and that instead of proving the Divine Authority of the Scripture he hath much weakned it and what in him lies shaken the very foundation of Religion while he rejects that main Argument to prove the Scriptures to be from God pag. 103 104. viz. the Miracles wrought by Moses and Christ the Prophets and Apostles to confirm their doctrine brought down to us by the undoubted testimony and universall tradition of the Church of Christ the most infallible and greatest of all humane testimonies and next to that which is immediatly Divine and sticks not to affirm that the Alcoran may vie miracles and traditions with the Scipture p. 105. and that there is no more reason to believe those who have received that tradition and plead they have it before and against them who professe they have no such report delivered them from their forefathers p. 108. nor have we more inducement to give credit to their assertions then to a like number of men holding out a Tradition utterly to the contrary that is why we should believe the testimony of the whole Christian Church in this point before the testimony of Jews Pagans and Mahumetanes to the contrary p. 110. And whilest he grounds all upon the inward light of the Scripture it self which though it serve to confirm the faith of believers yet in the Question how we come to know the Scriptures to be from God we know is by great and Learned Protestant Divines not allowed as a convincing argument in this case I submit it to the judgement of all men of common reason and judgment whether here be not a fair pretense for Atheists and sanaticall Antiscripturists to reject the Scripture when they find the argument from the miracles and universall tradition rejected by some and that of the inward light of the Scripture which is here said to be all the Divine evidence that God is willing to grant us or can be granted us or is any way needfull for us p. 34. and that there is no need of any further witnesse or testimony p. 56. not admitted as sufficient by others and whether they may not with more colour deduce their conclusions against the Scriptures from these assertions of his then from any thing in the Prolegomena or Appendix For where they find him affirming that there is no way to know the Scriptures to be from God but it s own light and finde this denied by Learned Divines of all sides they have some colour to conclude that there is no way at all to prove their Divine Originall and so to reject them VI. Again he writes p. 159. and 160. That in all these things it is known to all men there is no new Opinion coyned or maintained by the Prefacer to these Bibles but that all have been maintained by sundry Learned men and that if they had been kept in mens private writings he should not have thought himself or his discourse concerned in them but because they are laid as the foundation of the usefulnesse of the Bibl. Polygl and because of the authority which they may gain thereby and because as p. 152. these private Opinions as he calls them are imposed with too much advantage on the mindes of men by their constant neighbourhood unto Canonicall truth therefore he must needs appear against them Here he speaks plainly what was the true cause of these Considerations The Biblia Polyglotta are the Butt against which his Arrows are aimed and these Opinions about the Hebrew punctation and various Readings had not been considered nor meddled with but for that Work to which they were adjoyned which because it was always maligned by himself and some others of his party therefore he took occasion to quarrell with these matters that so he might bring the more obloquie upon the whole and make it the more suspected among the Vulgar VII But whereas he makes them private Opinions which now being joyned with a publike Work may pretend to publike Authority he is much deceived or else seeks to deceive his credulous Reader for how can they be private or new Opinions which have been publikely asserted in Print before either of us were born and have been and are still maintained by the chiefest and Learnedst Divines in Europe and the best skilled in Orientall Learning that have been or are at this day in the Christian World Such as we have already mentioned Cap. 1. Sect. 7. Can these Opinions be counted private which have been and are publikely asserted by men of such eminent worth or can their being mentioned before the Biblia Polyglotta procure them more credit and esteem then the venerable Names of such Great and Learned men with whom the Publisher of this Bible and those that assisted him do not think themselves fit to be named And if they might by these and others be defended in Print and disputed among Learned men why might they not be mentioned here and why might not the Publisher deliver his opinion in these things as well as others especially writing with that moderation he uses not magisterially imposing a beliefe upon any but leaving every one to his own liberty onely shewing his reasons why he judges one opinion more probable then another VIII He conceives he had a fit occasion to speak of these things in the Prolegomena to this Work for seeing the Hebrew Text is the foundation of the whole Fabrick for the Old Testament what was more proper then to speak of the Hebrew Tongue the antiquity use excellencie and preservation of it how the Text came to be pointed what the Keri and Ketib are which appear in most Hebrew Bibles and because there are various Readings both of the Old and New Testament noted in most Editions therefore to speak of various Readings whence they came out of what Copies and how to be gathered and to adde to what others have done out of some ancient and choyce MSS. or printed Copies and to shew that the certainty and authority of Scripture with the integrity of the Originall Texts is not impeached or prejudiced thereby which he asserts upon such foundations as will hold and not upon sandy grounds as his Adversary doth which will not stand not argumentis non cogentibus by which the truth is more prejudiced than by confessing the invalidity of them for when men see the weakness of them they think we have no better to rely upon and so begin to question and doubt the truth of all IX As for his fears and jealousies I say that when they are groundlesse they are not to be regarded and that they are

a more Christian practice for him to shew the Inconsequence of such Conclusions from such Premisses as are confessed by himself then to play fast and loose or to calumniate them who granting what cannot be denied no not by himself do yet uphold the Authority of the Scripture and labour to prove that no such things do follow as are by such men surmized XIII His uncharitable intimation as if the design of the Publisher of the various Readings were to return to Rome again to an infallible Judge reflects upon the chief defenders of the Protestant Profession against the Errors of Rome and the Supposition is as true as the Position in that flower of his discourse twice repeated p. 161. and 282. Hoc Ithacus velit if the rest of the verse magno mercentur Atreidae be added to it It is well known that the Author of the Prolegomena when he kept his Act pro Gradu at Cambridge about twenty years ago maintained this Question Pontifex Romanus non est judex infallibilis in controversiis fidei And he professeth himself to be still of the same Judgement and to be rather more confirmed in that perswasion then any way doubtfull of it And what news can we expect from Rome concerning these various Readings when the same thing is not new with them as appears by the Notes of Lucas Brugensis Nobilius and others which far exceed in bulk any thing that we have done and wherein more MSS. were used which labours of theirs have ever been of high esteem among the Learnedst Protestants as well as those of their own party And how can they justly object these various Readings against us when far more have been observed by themselves in the Vulgar Latine which yet they will not have to derogate from its supreme Authority XIV For his Atheists I wish he had considered better his own doctrine p. 88. 104. 108. 110. c. whether the taking away of one chief Argument to demonstrate the Divine Originall of Scripture against Atheists andVnbelievers viz. The miracles wrought for confirmation of the doctrine brought down and witnessed to us by the Vniversall tradition of the Church of Christ and the affirming that we have no more reason to believe there were any such miracles upon the tradition of the Church of Christ then we have to believe those who deny they have any such tradition that is Jews Pagans and Mahumetanes and that the Alcoran may upon this ground vi● with the Christian Church Whether the affirming these things gives not more advantage to Atheists then to affirm that there are various Readings in Scripture in matters that do not concern Faith or Salvation nor in any thing of weight by the casuall mistakes of Transcribers This I am sure gives no advantage in the least and if Atheists will pervert and abuse the truth upon such Principles why will our Author who would not be reckoned amongst them put them in minde of such advantages and not rather leave the urging of them to Hobbs and his fellows Let him remember what Sixt. Amama hath written against this Antibar lib. 1. which I know he hath read Prolegom 6. Sect. 5. Qui ne minimas a Textu originario variationes dari posse defendunt in laqueos nodos inexplicabiles se involvunt simulque impiis prophanis hominibus quorum haec aetas feracissima se ridendos praebent qui facile observent in libris Regum Chronicorum alibi quaedam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut in 2 Reg. 22. 8. collato cum 2 Chron. 22. 3. de aetate Ahaziae filii Joram unde colligunt nullam esse in sacris literis certitudinē nec iisdem fidem adhibendam Quibus facile as obstruitur cum haec ex variante codicum lectione non ex ipso textu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oriri dicimus unde consequentia illa nullum habet robur XV. The like may be said for his Fanatick Antiscripturists The certainty and divine authority of Scripture hath been made good notwithstanding such various Readings and therefore no just ground can be hence gathered of rejecting the Scriptures He tells us of a Treatise written by some body who upon such Principles rejects the whole Scriptures as uselesse I can say nothing of the book which I have not seen nor known upon what Principles it proceeds if our Author think his Arguments to be good let him produce them and I doubt not but they will be quickly answered In the mean time he may please to consider whether he that rejects all other proofs for the Divine Originall of Scripture and relies onely upon its own light and self-evidence which is denied in this case to be sufficient by many Learned Protestants do not give greater occasion to those who bragg of their new Lights and daily increase amongst us to reject all Scripture as uselesse then he that allows such various Readings in the Scripture as we have declared And whether the levelling of all discipline and order of Government in the Church and leaving every man to follow his own fancie against both Old and New Testament which tell us That they should seek the Law at the Priests mouth and that they who will not hear the Church are to be accounted as Publicans and Heathens have not made way to those Antiscripturists Familists and other Sectaries which swarm among us and like the Locusts that came out of the bottomless pit have overspread the land and darkened the Sun XVI Lastly for Mahumetanisme It is true Mahomet accuseth the Jews of corrupting the Old Testament and the Christians for corrupting the New and saith that he was sent of God to reform all Surat 4. 5. 11. and some of his followers pretend that there was something altered in Joh. 14. about the Comforter which Christ promised to send as if there had been something in that place foretold of Mahomet which the Christians have razed out and corrupted But doth our Author believe that any various Readings gathered out of any MSS. or Printed Copies or ancient Translations do intimate any such thing of Mahomet or favour any part of his impious doctrine I am sory to see any man so transported as to urge such things which must reflect upon the most eminent Divines and chief Lights of the Church in this or former ages yea upon himself in a high measure who affirms the same about various Readings which those do against whom he makes this inference CHAP. IX I. The Occasion pretended of this invective against the Translators of the Biblia Polyglotta II. His mistakes about the Arabick The Publisher of the Arabick the same with the Publisher of the Biblia Polyglotta III. IV. The Adversary misreports Mr. Pococks Preface His contradictions V. VI The Syriack vindicated from his aspersions The antiquity of it proved VII His carping at the Cambridge Copie VIII The Samaritane Pentateuch vindicated IX X. XI His Parodoxes about the Samaritane Pentateuch XII Set forms of

Consequences that attend this imagination pag. 161. Either the pretended infallible Judge or the depth of Atheisme will be found to lye at the door of these Considerations c. III. One would think by these passages that the Prolegomena had delivered some strange and dangerous opinion never heard of before which overthrows all certainty and by Consequence all Authority of Scripture whereas it is there proved and shall now be made appear that the same doctrine of the Originall of points was delivered by the greatest Reformers the most Eminent Protestant Divines both at the begining of the Reformation and since and the best skilled in Eastern Learning which then were or at this day are in the Christian world and the greatest Patrons of the integrity of the Hebrew Text. And that as the same is by the Prolegomena maintained there is no prejudice at all arising to the certainty of the Hebrew Text. For we neither affirm that the vowels and accents were invented by the Masorites but that the Hebrew Tongue did always consist of vowels and consonants Aleph Vau and Jod were the vowels before the points were invented as they were also in the Syriack Arabick and other Eastern Tongues nor that these points which are now used for vowels and accents were the arbitrary invention of the Masorites but that they pointed the Text according to the true and received Reading and not as they pleased nor that it is lawfull for any to reject their Reading at pleasure but that all are tyed to it unlesse some error or better reading can be clearly proved nor that the Authority of the reading depends upon the Masorites but that they pointed it according to the received Reading which expressed the true sence of the Holy Ghost so that the Controversie is onely about the present points in regard of their forms not of their force and signification which D. Prideaux well expresses Sect. 12. Sect. 4. Controversia non est de vocalium sono se● signis an ista fuerint ab initio qualia nunc habemus and Sect. 3. De sonis sive rebus substractis lis non est sed de figuris characteribus c. In which it is true the Author of the Prolegomena denyes the Antiquity or Divine Originall of the present points wherein as I said he hath the concurrent judgement of the Learnedst Protestant Divines and ablest Linguists and maintains that they were long after the time of Esdras yea about five hundred years after Christ yet herein he writes with that moderation that he leaves every man liberty to judge as he pleaseth onely propounds what seemed to him most probable IV. First then for the true stating of the Controversie which our Author wholly neglects we must distinguish between the vowels and accents in regard of their sound and signification and the points and figures whereby they are now signified or expressed for it is frequently acknowledged in the Prolegomena that the Hebrew as all other Languages consists of consonants and vowels and that it hath its accents or tones though not alwayes noted by points in every word as they are now Thus Drusius de recta lectione Linguae sanctae cap. 4. distinguishes Vocalium soni literis coaevi sunt figurae vero posteriores post Hieronymi aetatem So doth Chamier Panstrat lib. 12. cap. 4. n. 5. where he writes Vocales quoad sonos semper fuisse de picturis vero se nolle cum ullo contendere num posse concedi codices antiquitus non fuisse punctatos so also D. Prideaux in the place now alledged Sect. 12. as most term it vowels do as it were animate all words and are as the soul to the body whereupon they are called vocales à voce because by the help of vowels articulate words are pronounced This is largely proved Prolegom 3. Sect. 49. c. where it is also shewed that the ancient Hebrew vowels were the same before the invention of points which are in all other Eastern Tongues as the Chaldee Syriack Arabick c. viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are yet commonly called matres lectionis because they direct the reading in Books not pointed to which some adde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and St. Hierom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Grammarians indeed make them all consonants and exclude the vowels out of the number of letters that they may make way for the points but against all reason and common sence For the Hebrews have as many letters as other Nations for as is shewed Prolegom 2. Other Nations as the Assyrians Greeks c. received their letters originally from them as by their names and order of the Alphabet appears and therefore I see no reason why the Hebrews could not express all their words by these twenty two letters as well as other Nations Certainly the Hebrew Alphabet must be very defective if it have no vowels which are the chief letters without which no letters can be pronounced This would make an Alphabet of such letters as could not at all be pronounced which were most absurd for as Morinus saith quod est sua natura vocalissimum per quod caetera redduntur vocalia esset mutum By the help of these letters Origen exprest all the Hebrew Text in Greek letters in his Hexapla The like hath St. Hierome and diverse others of the Ancients done when they express some Hebrew words or verses in Greeke or Latine letters and why could not Moses and the Prophets doe the like as the Jewes doe at this day when they expresse the words of other Nations Latine Italian Spanish c. in Hebr. letters without points V. Out of Origen we have some reliques left in that ancient Greek MS. of Cardinall Barberines of the Minor Prophets which collated with the Roman LXX I have printed in the Appendix and have produced some verses viz. Hos 3. 2. 11. 1. In Proleg 3. sect 49. as a specimen how Orig. expressed the Heb. Text in Greek letters by which it appears that Jod served for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aleph for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vau for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ain for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Josephus l. 6. de bello Jud. cals the letters of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foure vowels for by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he understands vowels in opposition to consonants called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So St. Hier. frequently as is observed by Gerhard Vossius de Arte Gram. l. 1. c. 27. and others Verum est quidem hodie vocales in iis quiescere at olim pro vocalibus fuisse testatur Hieron qui ●as vocales appellat Epist 145. Docet pro Hosianna dici Hosanna media vocali illisa quia ab Aleph excluditur Jod Here it is evident he reckons Aleph and Jod among vowels And Epist