Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	father_n	ghost_n	holy_a	5,369	5	5.6194	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A60586	A sermon of the credibility of the mysteries of the Christian religion preached before a learned audience / by Tho. Smith ...	Smith, Thomas, 1638-1710.	1675 (1675)	Wing S4250; ESTC R10064	33,935	84

exponis qui me falsarium corruptoremque sacrarum Scripturarum pronunciant Sed ego in tali opere nec aemulorum meorum invidentiam pertimesco nec sanctae Scripturae veritatem poscentibus denegabo Erasmus and Socinus are so urged with this testimony of St. Hierome that they are forced to make use of very pitiful and dis-ingenuous arguments to invalidate it Socinus had said before fortasse ante Hieronymum vix ullus invenietur qui testimonium istud hoc in loco planè agnoverit the falsity of which conjecture however so warily laid down has been disproved hereby craftily concealing the citation out of St. Cyprian he very boldly accuses St. Hierome of Forgery who having got a Copy or Copies in which this verse was added adversus fidem aliorum omnium exemplarium tam Latinorum quam Graecorum lectionem particulae istius tanquam germanam defendere promovere coepit conquerens publicè eam culpâ fraude hereticorum abrasam à vulgatis codicibus fuisse But St Hierome has sufficiently confuted the falseness and boldness of this Cavil He was used to this kind of language as if he had corrupted the Scriptures but he was no way moved by it though this accusation of those of his own time perchance may not so much be referr'd to this place as to his translation in general and may proceed not so much from heretical malice and pravity as envy of several of his contemporaries who were orthodox in the faith but were no friends to his new translation He charges the omission upon these unfaithful Translators questionless Sabellians and Arians and upbraids them with it as a thing manifest and notorious and easily demonstrable and certainly he would not have made himself so obnoxious unless he had grounded his confidence upon the authority of several Greek Copies with what little pretence of reason therefore Erasmus and Socinus fancy St. Hierome to have changed the publick and common reading let any indifferent person judge But supposing that the Copies of those times varied which Erasmus grants and therefore St. Hierome is most falsely and unjustly accused by Socinus to have been the author of this interpolation He enquires quonam argumento docet utrum sit rectius utrumve scriptum sit ab Apostolo praesertim cum quod reprehendit turn haberet publicus usus Ecclesiae To this it may be answered 1. that some vitiated and defective Copies ought not to prejudice the authority of entire and better Copies whether Latin or Greek 2. that St. Hierome had reason to prefer and vindicate that reading which gives such an evident proof of this great Article of the Christian Religion agreeable to the doctrine of the Catholick Church derived down to them by an universal Tradition and acknowledged as such by all excepting a few whom either discontent or pride and conceitedness of their own parts and a love of innovation and of being the author of a Sect had drawn into the contrary heretical opinion Besides his words are so clear that one might justly wonder that Erasmus should pretend any difficulty or perplex sense in them as he does in his non satis video quid sibi velit hoc loco Hieronymus but that we have too just cause to suspect how that great Scholar was biast and perverted in his judgment concerning those great mysteries of Faith though he is so wary and cunning as not to discover himself too openly He indeed is forced to confess the nature of the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be simple and undivided and the essence the same though he is peremptory that it cannot be proved from this Text constat hic agi de fide testimonii non de substantia personarum herein followed by Beza and with a great deal of ceremony confesses it to be pious to submit our understanding to the judgment of the Church as soon as she shall declare herself as certainly she has done in this in her publick Creeds to the great shame and conviction of Hereticks who reject her authority yet still for all this demureness he pleads for a liberty of interpreting Scripture as if the truth were not yet wholly reveal'd and the Church might err in her declarations nec interim nefas est citra contentionem scrutari verum ut Deus aliis alia patefecit which is also the pretence of Socinus and his followers and accordingly he interprets several places of Scripture in favour of Arius and the other Hereticks and particularly this cum totus locus sit obscurus non potest admodum valere ad revincendos Haereticos the same pretence being made use of for all places though never so plain and endeavours to elude the force of that famous place in 1 Tim. 3. 16. by expunging the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much as in him lies that is by pretending it was added by the Arian Hereticks So that we need the less value the censure he passes upon S. Hierome in this matter where nothing but pure zeal for the truths of God could make him so concern'd and fervent Ille saepe numero violentus est parumque pudens saepe varius parumque sibi constans Idacius Clarus a Spanish Bishop who died about the year 388 at what time the elder Theodosius and Valentinian were Emperours cites both verses though as to their order transposed and with a little alteration in his book against Varimadus an Arian Deacon responsione 3. Item ipse i.e. Johannes Evangelista whose Gospel he had just before cited ad Parthos tres sunt inquit qui testimonium perhibent in terrâ Aqua Sanguis Caro tres in nobis sunt tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus hi tres unum sunt which very citation is made use of as being borrowed hence by the author of the collections of the decretal Epistles which beyond all doubt are proved to be counterfeit and supposititious in the 1 Epistle of Hyginus and by this is to be corrected Item ipse ad Parthos tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in terram Aqua Sanguis Caro tres in nobis sunt qui testimonium perhibent in coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus hi tres unum sunt There is like variety of reading in both verses in several old Copies some leaving out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others retaining them For this in terrâ Socinus confesses to be found in quibusdam emendatis exemplaribus though that we may gain nothing by this confession he tells us immediately after it is not extant in emendationibus It might easily be foreseen that if either had been lest and particularly this latter the one would have infer'd the other justly and necessarily and therefore it cannot seem strange if the first corrupters of this Scripture to make all sure and to render their false and perfidious dealing the more unsuspected omitted both so too in that

Upon this the Enemies of this Doctrine triumph and boldly pretend that it was inserted by the Catholicks Thus to mention only one for all Socinus himself in his Commentary on these words Satis constat illa esse Adulterina ab hominibus qui suum dogma de trino uno Deo quâcunque ratione defendere propagare volebant in hunc locum infarcta But let the appeal lye to any indifferent Person which is most likely that those who professed their belief of this Doctrine which was grounded too upon several other Texts of Scripture and was derived down to them from the first Ages of the Church and which they contended for with so much earnestness should without any necessity dare commit such a Forgerie which could not but be taken notice of by their watchful Enemies or that this should be done by the Opposers of this Doctrine who were arraigned in general by all the Catholick Writers who had to do with them as falsifiers of the sacred Records and were so much concern'd to do it in defence of their private tenets and fancies and especially to raze this Text with which they were so oppressed out of several Copies from which by Transcripts it might easily be propagated into others And consequently it is not to be admired that several of the Fathers no not Athanasius himself nor Cyril of Alexandria not St. Hilary who defended with so much learning the truth of this great Mystery did not make use of this Testimony they lighting upon some of these Transcripts which is to be said also for St. Austin in his Book 3. Chap. 22. against Maximinus an Arian Bishop for St. Leo in his Epistle to Flavian Bishop of Constantinople against the Heresie of Eutyches Ep. 10. Cap. 5. for Eucherius de questionibus N. Testamenti and for Oecumenius in his Commentary on this Epistle and several others The same reason holds for the omission of it in the Syriack Arabick and Aethiopick Translations the two former of which as they are now extant as is most probable were made long since the times of Arius notwithstanding the pretensions of some to a far greater Antiquity the last is confessedly of a later Date The scarcity of Copies in those days and the malitious industry and cunning of the Hereticks render the conjecture sufficiently probable if no Copy were to be found with this Verse entire and that we had only the authority of some of the Antients who cite it as authentick as having met with it in their Books The Divines of Lovain in collating the N. T. with a great number of Latin Copies found it only wanting in five R. Stephanus in his Edition of the N. T. had the use of fifteen or sixteen old Greek MSS. above half of which retain'd it So the Edition of the N. T. at Complutum compared with antient MSS. printed in the beginning of the Restauration of Polite Literature in Christendome at the expences of the great Cardinal Ximenes only with this variation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Erasmus confesses he met with a Manuscript in England which he calls by the name of Codex Britanicus which had the whole seventh Verse as we now read it and the eight Verse the latter part thus altered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall lay no stress upon two Writings which pass under the name of Athanasius where this Verse is cited because it is not to be met with in those larger works of his which are acknowledged genuine the one is an account of a disputation according to the title had with Arius in the Council of Nice but the title is faulty as appears from the Discourse it self nor was Arius the Person disputed with there but one of his followers and the reason of the mistake of the title may be ascrib'd to an ignorant Librarius putting down Arius for Arianus and the Dialogue not real but supposed as was usual amongst the Fathers introducing the Hereticks pleading their Cause and the Orthodox refuting their Cavils and defending the Truth And if this may pass for likely there can be no great reason to suspect the Authenticalness of it the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The other is in a Book extant only in Latine lib. 1. de unitâ Deitate Trinitatis ad Theophilum dicente Joanne Evangelistâ in Epistolà sua tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in Coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus But this piece I confess is very justly rejected as none of his though perchance wrote not many years after his time St. Cyprian who suffered Martyrdome about the year of Ch. 258. Galienus and his Son Valerianus being then Emperours about sixty years before the calling of the Council of Nice in his book de unitate Ecclesiae Catholicae cites this Text expresly as found in the Copies of his time Dicit Dominus Ego Pater unum sumus iterum de Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto hi Tres unum sunt It is not any way material to the design and purpose of this Scholion to inquire in what sense St. Cyprian understood these words but only to vindicate the antiquity of the Copies that retained this reading though it might easily be proved that it was a thing usual with the Fathers as no one can be ignorant who has turn'd over their Writings to interpret places of Scriptures sometimes not according to their primary intent but by way of accomodation Which testimony is so clear and convincing that Sandius in his Appendix quaestionum Paradoxarum uses all his art and skill to avoid the force of it by pretending that several things have been changed added taken away and some other way varied in the Epistle as appears by the observation of Possevinus who took the pains to compare the printed Copies with four MSS. and the acknowledgment of others Perkins James and Rivet from which premises he concludes very boldly upon a meer possibility that this place was never cited by that blessed Martyr but put in by some body else Quam facile itaque etiam hic locus interseri potuit ab his qui non exhorruerunt sacras literas corrumpere propter metum Hereticorum But first this is barely said without the least proof and without the authority of any MS. Secondly neither Pamelius nor Rigaltius nor any other as I know of who put forth St. Cyprian make mention of any various reading in this place all agreeing in it Now that this Epistle is St. Cyprians is undoubted St Cyprian himself referring to it and that the reading is the same now as it was in the old Copies written above eleven hundred and forty years ago appears from Fulgentius who not only cites this seventh verse in his book de fide Catholicâ adversus Pintam Episcopum Arianum in his testimonies del rinitate and in his book de Trinitate ad Felicem Notarium c. 4. which thus begins En habes in brevi