Selected quad for the lemma: opinion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
opinion_n	catholic_n	church_n	doctrine_n	2,200	5	6.6923	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

antient MS. Grotius made use of though he gives us no proof of its antiquity in that place and suppose it were written a thousand years since we are not to be swayed by it as if it were authentick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and no more who thereupon conjectures these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the former verse to have been added by the Arians to prove the father son and holy ghost to be one in consent only but afterwards removed and altered by the Catholicks and added to the former verse which is said without any the least proof either from reason or antiquity and has nothing to maintain the fancy but the great name of the Author of it That which Sandius and several others allege in the first place that eo omisso meliorem esse verborum connexionem the connexion is far better if the 7 v. were omitted and that therefore it ought to be so and was antiently omitted if the supposition were true is not only vain and frivolous but very bold and immodest to ty the spirit of God to such a way of writing as pleases their humours and fancies best and savours most of humane artifice and by the same argument they may reject not only verses but whole chapters in the N. T. for the meanness and inaccuracy of the stile and the seeming carelesness of the method which is not always conformable to the rules of the Gr. eloquence 2. Indignum est summo Deo esse testem inio coram quo judice testis foret is a groundless and bold cavil for this witnessing is nothing else but the declaration of God to mankind by evident signs and tokens concerning our Saviours being the true Messias and of his being born in the flesh and that he came from him This God has attested and sufficiently made known to the World and in this sense the Word often occurs in the Scriptures without the least indignity offered to the Divine Nature The only pretence he has for his fancy is a base and unworthy comparison he conceives in his mind between Gods being a witness and mans being a witness in our Courts of Judicature forgetting the genuine and easie sense of the word as I have above expressed it 3. That it is highly probable that this verse was inserted by a Sabellian the contrary whereof is most true 4. That in several MSS. and Editions of modern languages there is a transposition of these two verses The same before was acknowledged to be found in some Greek copies which no way proves the pretended interpolation but only that antient copies do not all agree 5. That this v. does very highly favour the Arians but this is such a strain of fancy that he may as well allege the first words of the Book of Genesis to prove Aristotles opinion of the eternity of the World If men out of a prejudicate opinion against the doctrine of the Catholick Church allow themselves to interpret Scripture according to their own fancies it cannot seem strange to any that they should go about to prove and justifie their blasphemies from the plainest texts of Scripture that in the judgment of all sober persons who are free from those prejudices do most evidently refute them FINIS ● Tim. 1. 10. a Thus Eusebius sums them up in general it being the common argument of the Heathen Philosophers against the Christian religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 4. Parisiis A. C. 1628. b The words of Celsus as we find them in Orig●ns first book against that Epicurean Philosopher are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. ● edit C●ntab In this latter part he alludes to S. Pauls words 1 Cor. 3. 18. which he most horribly and maliciously perverts as Origen shews p. 12. He had before out of his great Philosophical wariness advised his readers not to take up opinions upon trust without following reason and a rational guide which he imputes to the Christians and reckons them among the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. such as rashly believe juglers and pretenders to Legerdemain tricks whose credulity and simplicity they aluse to evil designs and intents So in the third book he most falsly accuses the whole body of Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as diving away every wise man from the doctrine of faith and only admitting persons void of understanding and of a base and servile temper p. 121. c De morte Peregrini speaking of the Christians whom he makes a company of idiots easily cheated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d In Eusebius in the confutation of his impious book which he intitl'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he compared Apollonius of Tyana to our most blessed Saviour where he objects to the Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lightness and easiness of nature p. 512. and calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fools and rusiicks p. 514. edit Paris in fine librorum de demonstratione Evangelica * In Apologetico cap. 5. where he mentions an old decree of the Ron an Senate Ne qui Deus ab Imperatore consecraretur 〈◊〉 à Senatu prebatus and hereupon he tells us that the Emperor Tiberius moved by the report of those mighty works which declared the truth of our Saviours Divinity he received out of Pal●stine detulit ad Senatum cum praerogativa suffrag●i sui though the Senate were not disposed to admit him into the number * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex editione Reverendissimi Usserii Armachani p 20. This perchance more particularly respects Marcion the heretick for by that name he called him to his face as we read in Irenaeus 3. lib. adv haereses cap. 3. a See the excellent discourse of Plato about this subject toward the latter end of his second book de Republica p. 377. c. lomi secundi ex editione Serrani b In his Epistle to Herodotus as it is extant in Diogenes Laertius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 edit Londinensis p. 285. This he establisht as one of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or main principles of his Philosophy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 300. and laid down therefore in the first place by his great admirer and follower Lucretius in the beginning of his philosophical Poem to make the better way for the Atheism which was to follow that is to exclude God with a fairer pretence from having any thing to do either with the framing or governing of the world and to deny a providence that censure which Cotta in Tully mentions to have bin past upon him by several being exactly true Video non●ullis videri Epicurum ne in offensionem Atheniensium caderet verbis reliquisse Deos re sustulisse lib. 1. de Nat. Deorum speaking of this very Atheistical afhorism * In haeresi An●maeorum quae est LXXVI * Principiorum Philosophiae parte primâ sect XXXVII Joh. 20. 29. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphanius in haeresi Ebionaeoru● q●ae est XXX sect XVIII ex edit Pet●vi● Peris●is 1622. pag. 142. b Epiphanius in haeresi A●i●ncrum quae est LXIX sect XVIII p. 741. c Gregorius Abulpharagius in historiâ Dynastiarum Arabicè p. 129. edit Oxon. 1663. Eu●ychius in Annalibus Alexandrinis Arabicè edit Oxon. parte primá p. 397. 441. d This argument drawn from the Form of Baptism is generally made use of by all the antient Fathers against the blasphemy of Sabellius Arius and the rest of the Hereticks who had departed from the true faith establisht at first to follow phansies and inventions of their own But reserving these numerous citations for another work I shall content my self at present to say with the Author of the Breviarium fidei adversus Arianos who lived above 1200 years since put out by the most learned Sirmondus to whom the world is so much obliged for his publishing several writings of the antients out of MSS. Qui Spiritus sanctus si Deus non esset non in baptismo in uno nomine Deitatis patris filio sociaretur sicut scriptum est ubi regulam baptismi posuit ipse Dominus Ite inquit baptizate omnes gentes in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti Quod solum testimonium deberet haereticis sufficere ad credulitatem insiparabilis Trinitatis quia nec ipse audent aliter baptizare ne regulant Domini corrumpere videartur Et ubi unum nomen dicitur ibi mejor miner excluditur e Of this see the Appendix a 1 V●l. p. 147. Paristis 1627. b Tom. 2 p. 55● p. ●8● p. 772. a p. 591 ex Editione Theophili Ranaudi Soc. Jesu ●arisiis 1671. printed with St. 〈◊〉 Maximus T●urinensis and four others which make up the ●●pras ●raesulum P. 447. b lib. 1. p. 16. ex Edit I. Sirmondi Parisiis 1629. a This Preface is printed in an old edition of the N. T. with the interlineary Gloss and I find it in several MSS both in the Bodleyan and our own Colledg-Library before the Catholick Epistles The Stile is exactly St. Hierom's and questionless his and acknowledg'd as such both by Erasmus and Socinus however omitted by Erasmus in his edition of St. Hierom's works at Basil a de illâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut mihi quidem videtur non agitur hoc in loco quod glossa ista interlinearis quam vocant agnosci● Tom. 4. Bibliothecae veterum Patrum Paris 1610. pag. 372. a Consule Epistolarum Pontificalium censuram à D. Blondello editam Genevae A. Chr. 1628. pag. 190. * In appendice Interpretationum Paradoxarum p. 381.