Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	good_a	see_v	word_n	1,813	5	4.0812	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52603	An accurate examination of the principal texts usually alledged for the divinity of our Saviour and for the satisfaction by him made to the justice of God, for the sins of men : occasioned by a book of Mr. L. Milbourn, called Mysteries (in religion) vindicated.	Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719.	1692 (1692)	Wing N1502A; ESTC R225859	84,564	68

and Erasmus translate here According to this Rendring our Saviour is not here called God over all but the Apostle gives Thanks to God over all for his unspeakable Gift our Lord Christ Our Author saith that if there be any Translations of this Text which favour the Socinians they are not much to be regarded But this is an Answer fitter for an Old Woman to make than for a Writer in these Questions Seeing He undertakes to confute the Socinians he ought to have shown that the Translation which confirms their Doctrine is some-way faulty He should have answered the Critical Reason which Erasmus and Curcellaeus give of their Translation They observe that if the words God over all had been intended of our Lord Christ the Apostle should have said in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I doubt not that our Author was aware that those Critics were in the right and therefore he willingly overlook'd both the Translation and the Reason of it If you Sir say to me this being a Critical Dispute how should an Vnlearned Man be able to judg which of the two Senses was intended by the Apostle What Ground can such a one have to say the Trinitarian Translation is not Good Yes he is as much qualified to judg as the most Learned For seeing the words may be confessedly by both Parcies rendred two ways he may be sure that is the true Reading and Rendring which agrees with Evident Reason and with the rest of Scripture both which allow of but one Person who is God over all and if there were more such Persons there must of necessity be more Gods This Reasoning directs him which Side he is to take not only in this Question but in all other Questions Whatsoever the Question is if a Text or Texts be alledged that may be translated several ways that is the true Translation which is firmed by evident Reason and other clear Texts and that is a false Translation which would introduce an Opinion contrary to Reason or to other indisputable Texts Therefore the Faith of the Unlearned may be as certain and well-grounded as the Faith of the greatest Critic for either other clear and indisputable Texts or a demonstrative Reason presents it self and dissolves the Difficulties And if this were not so it would not be the Duty of the Unlearned nay 't would be contrary to their Duty to be of any Perswasion or Party at all such must neither be Protestants nor Papists Socinians nor Trinitarians Remonstrants nor Calvinists nor of any other Sect because of this Pretence that they cannot make a critical Judgment of different Translations But no Party will dare to say this therefore say I the Unlearned may and have a right to be of a particular Side and Perswasion on this Account that by help of clear Texts or of evident Reason they may in all Questions easily discern which side they ought to take I will add that oft-times the Vnprejudiced and Judicious unlearned Person sees farther and clearer than the Interessed Prejudiced and Vnjudicious Critic or other Learned Person But of this I have said enough in that General Preface to some of our Pamphlets which has this Title An Exhortation to a Serious and Impartial Enquiry where I show that this is the very Principle on which the Reformation proceeded and that in taking it away the Reformation must fall and we must all return to Rome His last Scripture-Allegation is from Phil. 2.5 c. Let this Mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus who being in the Form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made himself of no reputation and took on him the Form of a Servant and was made in the Likeness of Man and being found in fashion as a Man he humbled himself and became obedient unto Death even the Death of the Cross Wherefore God hath highly exalted him and given him a Name above every Name Mr. Misb has said but very little on this Context Others of his Parcy have made advantage of almost every Clause thereof The Lord Christ say they was in the Form of God What can that mean but that He was God for the Form of a thing is the very Nature of it And that this is a true Interpretation we certainly know by the next words which say He thought it not robbery to be equal with God Had He not been God it had been the greatest Robbery and Sacrilege possible to think himself equal with God 'T is true He humbled himself and took on him the Form of a Servant and was made in the likeness of Men and was found in fashion as a Man and became obedient to the Death of the Cross But even these very Expressions are such as plainly intimate that all this was nothing else but his Condescension He sloop'd to these things only because for great and weighty Reasons He was pleased so to do Of those Reasons or Ends the Apostle here mentions one to set us an Example Let that Mind saith he be in you which was in Christ Jesus who being so Great a Person yet humbled himself to take the Form of a Servant and was made in the likeness of Man I will here Sir tell you a Story A certain Country-man that hapned to live in a Parish where the Minister used to insist very often on these Questions about the Divinity and the Incarnation of our Saviour turned down in his Bible the Proofs alledged by his Minister and being a Man though of no Learning yet of a Good Capacity he found at length how to satisfy himself of the Insufficiency of all the Minister's Proofs on be half of the Divinity of our Saviour only he was puzled with this Context out of the Philippians that Christ was in the Form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God c. After much thinking he imagined that he could give a reasonable Account even of this Context all but that one Expression He thought it not robbery to be equal with God Here he stuck for if Christ be equal with God sure he is as the Church says a Person of God or of the Deity and the Trinitarian Doctrine must be true At length it came into his mind that there might be some Error in the Translation and therefore he ask'd his Minister Whether the words were altogether so in the true Bible so he called the Original Greek as they are in the English Bible I suspect says he that the word It in this Clause he thought it not robbery to be equal with God is not in what you use to call the Original and out of which you often correct our way of reading in the English Bibles I judg that the Apostle said only He Christ thought not robbery to be equal with God The Minister was forced to confess that It was not in the Greek and that it should have been printed as the words of