Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	call_v	scripture_n	word_n	1,394	5	4.1742	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52612	An historical account, and defence [sic], of the canon of the New Testament In answer to Amyntor.	Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719.	1700 (1700)	Wing N1507A; ESTC R216541	48,595	124

Council determine which were the true Writings of the Apostles and which not but by Revelation or the written Testimony of their Predecessors Revelation in the case there was none and for Testimony I have the same Testimony for the Books I defend which is usually urged in behalf of the Canon We may abridg and distinguish this Judgment into these Propositions 1. The best of the Antients esteemed the Writings that now go under the names of Clemens Romanus Hermas Barnabas Ignatius and Polycarp to be as good Scripture as any part of the New Testament was then or is now accounted 2. The true Canon can be ascertained only by Revelation or the Testimony of the Fathers Revelation there was none and the Testimony of the Fathers is as home and full for Clemens Ignatius and the rest not to mention many other Books of the Catalogue as for our Canonical Books 3. 'T is even certain that the Fathers were mistaken in the Opinion they had concerning the pretended Clemens Hermas Barnabas Polycarp and Ignatius therefore neither is their Testimony valuable concerning the Books of the New Testament or present Scripture Canon We shall answer sufficiently if we prove clearly and indubitably these two things That the Antients had not the same or like regard for Clemens Romanus Barnabas or any other Books of the Catalogue as for the Books of the Canon and that they had other and stronger reasons besides the Testimony of their Predecessors why they establish'd the present Canon or in other words why they received the Books of the Canon and not those of the Catalogue When Amyntor says the best of the Fathers and Antients quote the Writings of Barnabas Hermas Clemens Romanus Ignatius and Polycarp as Canonical and Scripture and that they esteemed them as good as any part of the New Testament For this latter he will never be able to produce one Testimony of any of the Antients and I shall abundantly prove the contrary from those Fathers to whom he appeals and whose sense he hath so much mistaken for the other were it true yet 't is not to the purpose For 't is certain and granted by all Learned Men that those Fathers called all the Antient Ecclesiastical Books if they were Orthodox Scripture and Canonical the terms Canonical and Scripture were not then appropriated to Books written by Inspiration but were common to all Ecclesiastical Writers and Books if Orthodox Origen for instance often cites the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament as Scripture and Canonical in his Homilies and sometimes when he is disputing but when he discourses professedly what Books are Divine Scripture and what are not he admits only those Books of the Old Testament that are received by Protestants rejecting the Apocryphal Books see concerning this Euseb H. E. l. 6. c. 25. Clemens Romanus Hermas and divers more are cited as Scripture by the Antients and Fathers says Amyntor By which of ' em He answers by Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen and he refers us to places in their Writings But in some of those places nothing at all is said by those Fathers concerning the Books of which we are inquiring in other places the Authors are named but nothing is quoted out of them elsewhere are Citations out of them but not under the names of Scripture or Canonical and where they are so called 't is only in the sense that the same and many later Fathers call the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament Canonical or Scripture and yet deny them to be of Divine Authority or to be received by the Churches as a Rule of their Faith Yet more particularly It is not true that Irenaeus in the alledged place or elsewhere calls the Epistle of Clemens Romanus Scripture He cites it only to prove that Apostolical Tradition is contrary to the Heresy which teaches there is a God above the Creator of the World because saith he the said Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians which is older than that detestable and foolish Heresy teaches but one God All-mighty Maker of Heaven and Earth In the same Book and Chapter l. 3. c. 3. he commends the Epistle of Polycarp but cites nothing out of or calls it Scripture and Canonical That Hermas is mentioned by Irenaeus I don't remember Amyntor refers to Lib. 4. cap. 3. but nothing is there said of him As to Ignatius Irenaeus only calls him Quendam ex Nostris adjudicatum ad Bestias propter Deum One of us Christians condemned to the Beasts for the cause of God He doth not so much as name him but 't is guessed he means Ignatius because the words he quotes are found in an Epistle of Ignatius 'T is no wonder that Clemens Alexandrinus may call the Epistle of Barnabas and the Pastor of Hermas Scripture in the sense before mentioned as a term of distinction or to distinguish them from the Writings of the Gentile Moralists and Philosophers whom also he often cites and explains their Opinions Eusebius H. E. l. 6. c. 13. observes that Clemens of Alexandria quotes the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Syrac and with them the Epistles of Barnabas Clemens Romanus and others not universally received among Christians Now as the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus were never reckoned by the Catholic Church and therefore undoubtedly neither by Clemens as parts of the Old Testament but only as laudable Appendices to it so when we find him quoting also Hermas Barnabas or Clemens Romanus under the same names and Epithets that he gives to Ecclesiasticus and the false Solomon he intended no more thereby to make them parts of the New Testament than he or the Catholick Church accounted the other to be parts of the Old Testament What I say is yet more plain from Origen the last of Amyntor's Fathers All the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament are frequently alledged by Origen in company with his Citations out of the genuine Books of the New and Old Testaments he has caused us however to know the vast difference he put between them and that the Catholick Church received only the present Protestant Canon as Divine Scripture the other Books whether the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament or those of the Catalogue only as useful and commendable Writings He tells us as to the Canon of the New Testament There are only four Gospels the first by Matthew written for the use of the Jews the next by Mark who had his Information by St. Peter the Gospel by Luke intended for the Gentiles lastly John's Gospel Concerning the Writings of St. Paul he mentions only his Epistles they are short saith he and not to all the Churches which he had planted or where he had taught Peter so he goes on wrote an Epistle that is received and esteemed by all we may grant he wrote a second Epistle but it is doubted of John wrote a Gospel and Revelation a short Epistle and if you will a second