Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	believe_v	church_n	infallible_a	3,076	5	10.3460	5	true

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

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

which is so evident that none can deny it but denies the Consequence and gives Reasons against it or he that grants both Major and Minor denies onely the Conclusion IX If it shall be said that the Considerations do sometimes deny that various Readings infer the uncertainty and corruptions of the Scripture I answer its true that sometimes he seems to deny any such inference But when he is in hot prosecution of his Adversary he affirms the clean contrary as appears by his whole second Chapter of the Considerations and Chap. 7. Sect. 6. where he denies any difference in Copies either wilfully or by negligence And the third Chapter of his Considerations is wholly spent against the various Readings of the New Testament which are onely out of Greek MSS. and tells us p. 193. that they create a temptation that there is nothing sound and entire in the word of God p. 206. that the Consequences are lawfully derived p. 207. that they do naturally and necessarily flow so p. 147. 161. c. All along throughout his Discourse he inferres from the various Readings in the Appendix of the Bible which are all out of the Originall Texts not any gathered out of Translations that thereby is introduced utter uncertainty about all sacred truth so that nothing is more clear then that he makes the Consequence of the uncertainty and corruption of the Scripture to be the necessary product of various Readings and therefore that he hath plainly prevaricated and betrayed the cause which he seemed to contend for and his friends as he makes them Papists Athiests and Fanatick persons have cause to thank him for disputing so doughtily on their behalf And so I conclude with that of Seneca Controv. 3. l 4. Malo est in loco qui habet rei fortunam accusatoris invidiam He is in an ill case who accuses another of what himself is guilty for Guilt as one observes though it be the effect of some error yet usually it begets a kind of moderation in men so a● not to be violent in accusing others of that which may reflect upon themselves but here we see it is otherwise and from what root it proceeds I leave to every mans judgement X. Having shewed the no consequence of the uncertainty and corruption of the Scripture from various Readings I shall not need to stand long upon the Particulars of Popery Atheisme fanaticall Antiscripturisme and Mahumetanisme mentioned by him p. 147. For Popery he fears the pretended infallible guide c. wil be found to lie at the doore of the Considerations p. 161. and p. 202. He doubts not but to hear news from Rome concerning these varieties there having been no such collections as yet made in the world Enough they are to fright poore unstable souls into the arms of an infallible Judge And p. 207. We went from Rome under conduct of the purity of the Originalls I wish none have a mind to return thither again under pretence of their corruption How these various Readings should be any prop much lesse the principal Pillar of Popery I cannot see nor doth our Author prove His meaning it may be is that Papists do hence infer the Scripture to be uncertain and the Originall Texts to be corrupt so that they can be no sure ground of faith and therefore that all must flie to an infallible Judge and rely upon the vulgar Latine But these grounds we have already taken away and proved that notwithstanding such various Readings the Scriptures are still the certain rule of faith and the Originall Texts the authentick rule of all Translations v. Proleg 7. Besides let our Author shew that any of the various Readings by us collected contain any thing against either faith or good life or make for the Romanists in any of the Controversies between them and us let him instance in any if he can In that place of 1 John 5. 7. are some words left out in many ancient Copies but there is nothing contrary to the Analogy of faith inserted That point of the Trinity hath ground enough besides in Scripture though these words had not been in any copy and whether they were razed out of some Copies by the Arrians as some of the Ancients suppose or whether left out by casuall error of the Transcriber in some one Copy from which many others were derived and that error made use of by the Arrians yet here is nothing against faith affirmed in this place onely an omission of some words in some Copies Besides how can it be imagined that these various Readings should make way for Popery when the first and chief Collectors of them were the chief opposers of Popery as this Author affirms p. 189. where he reckons up Stephanus Beza Camerarius Drasius Heinsius Grotius de Dieu Capellus XI If it be said that Papists mak● use of these various lections to decry the Originalls and to set up the vulgar Latine or from their uncertainty to infer the necessity of an infallible Judge 1. It is true there be some that do so but there are some and those of the most learned among them who are ●●out defenders of the purity of the Originall Texts and prefer them before the vulgar Latine as Simeon de Mins Joh. D' Espieres and others and many among them who maintain that the Councel of Trent in declaring the vulgar Latine to be authentick did no way derogate from the Hebrew and Greek Text but onely preferred the vulgar Latine before all other Latine Translations and meant onely that it contained nothing contrary to faith and good manners as Sal●er Serrar Mariana A●or Driedo Vega and divers others 2. Doth our Adversary think that the Papists can justly deduce any such Conclusions from the various Readings If he think so then he pleads their cause and joyns hands with them against the Originall Texts if no Why doth he urge their deductions against us 3. Though some men pervert and abuse the Truth to bad ends must the Truth therefore be denied because a bad use is made of it There never wanted those who perverted the Scripture to their own destruction but is the Scripture the worse or must not the lawfull use of it be permitted All truth is from God the Author of Truth he needs not mens policies to defend it much lesse can it be upheld by untruths Those pious frauds when discovered have proved prejudiciall to the Truth for which they were devised XII He confesseth p. 206. That the Prefacer doth not own these wretched Consequences but he knows full well who think them to be just It is true he knows some Romanists and others think so and it seems our Author thinks so too But this Author knows also that the Prefacer hath clearly proved both against the Papist and himself that the Consequence is false and invalid and that neither of them have just cause to think so and therefore that this ought not to be by him objected It had been

he was mistaken in some other things that therefore he was mistaken in this is the way to decry all humane testimony at once all Histories and Records are by this means made uselesse for if they mistake in some things they must be believed in nothing and so our Author because in his Treatife he mistakes in many things as I believe he will not I am sure he cannot justly deny therefore he must not be believed in any thing I confesse he that willingly affirms untruth in some things deserves not to believed in any thing but that he who mistakes in some things through inadvertency or involuntary error must be believed in nothing is to take away the credit of all histories in matters past and the ground of all civil society and commerce among men for present and future times The Talmuds are of highest authority with those against whom we chiefly argue viz. the modern Jews and therefore cannot be denied either by them or by any that imbrace their opinion nor was their authority ever denied in this point by any that I have read either Jews or Christians till now but some kinde of answer though absurd and foolish hath been found out rather then they would wholly deny their authority and though the Talmuds be full of fables yet by his own rule if that which they affirm be attested by other good evidence as here it is in this case their testimony ought to be of weight But the same answer serves for all Eusebius Hierome the Talmuds the Rabbins are all deceived their reports fabulous and the Shekels are forged and feigned Here is a ready way to answer all arguments of this kind to deny all authority and to say that all is false and fabulous But this is a sign of a desperate cause to deny all without shew of reason to the contrary which is to cut the knot when it cannot be loosed There are many counterfeit coins I grant I have seen some Jewish coins which might easily be discovered to be forged of which I have spoken in the place above mentioned but to infer thence that all are forged and that there is no way to distinguish between those that are true and those that are counterfeit is as if one should say that all the old Romane coins which are daily found and digged up among us are counterfeit because some such have been counterfeited see Proleg 3. Sect. 35. XIV But that he may not seem to deny all without some shew of reason he brings in a conjecture to answer as he calls it a conjecture But 1. the proof from the coins is not a bare conjecture but as clear a demonstration as in things of this nature can be had 2. His Conjecture is a groundlesse fancy which none could ever have hit on besides himself he tells us the letters of the Sicles are preternaturall which what it means I believe himself can hardly explain I never heard before of this distinction of letters into naturall and preternaturall Are there some letters naturall I thought that all Characters had been the arbitrary invention of men not any from the dictate of nature else there had not been such variety of them in the world It seems then there is an universall Character by nature and so they might have spared their pains that have studied so much for the inverting of an universall Character for the use of all Nations Preternaturall Characters then must be such as proceed from some error in nature as monsters are said to be praeter intentioonem naturae productions wherein nature fails and comes short of her end The Samaritane Character then it seems is some monstrous Character framed besides natures intention and if so why may there not be also some Characters supernatural used by angels and spirits notwithstanding what Duretus writes against them De linguis totius universi and Bangus de literarum Angelicarum vanitate such it may as Liber Enochi in Dr. Dee written by direction of his spirits Here is new Doctrine of letters not heard of before These Samaritane letters then upon coins are monstrous letters but if they be such how come they to be a studied invention and found out to adorn and embosse vessels and coins I had thought that preternaturall issues had been most deformed and ugly but here it seems they adorn pots and coins But what great ornament is there in these letters upon coins for I never saw any upon vessels nor himself I think more then in other letters or what studied invention is there in them they seem to me the plainest and rudest letters of any an argument of their antiquity far from any curiosity or studied artifice many other Characters are far more curious intricate and difficult as those may see that shall look over the severall Alphabets Printed Pr●leg 2. and that make as fair a shew I have seen Coyns both with these letters before the Captivity and others stampt with the modern letter since the Captivity and in my poore judgement there is no more adorning in the one then in the other This preternatural Character I doubt will prove nothing else but the preternaturall issue of a misguided fancy or of one willing to frame and coin any thing rather then to submit to clear truth XV. But yet there might be some other Character besides this with which the Bible might be written Here he brings in that figment of R. Azarias of a twofold Character one sacred with which the Bible was written and one common for other uses and in which the Samaritanes writ their Pentateuch which he would confirm by the practise of the Aegyptians that had diverse sorts of Characters Of the Aegyptian Characters I have spoken at large Proleg 2. and that devise of Azarias taken up by some others the better to uphold their opinion of the modern letters is proved to be a groundlesse conceit Proleg 3. That among the Heathens they used some secret Character which was counted sacred thereby to hide their propha●e mysteries from vulgar knowledge is shewed in the same place lest if the people should know all they should contemn and deride them but that there were any such among the Jews or people of God is a thing meerly devised to avoid the force of this Argument without any ground either in Scripture or any ancient Writer nay against both and against clear reason as is there shewed to which place I refer the Reader where the vanity of this twofold Character is sufficienly proved XVI But here comes in another Argument against this change of Esdras That the ground upon which this supposed change was made shews the thing to be a meer fancie viz. that the Jews had forgot their old Character during the seventy years captivity and had learned the Chaldean when as the same men were alive at the burning of the first and the building of the second Temple and that the men of the same Generation should forget the use