Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	authority_n	divine_a	tradition_n	2,703	5	9.2704	5	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

be always exact in repeating Scripture-Texts as to the words tho they keep well enough to the sense And for this reason also they do not always name the Scripture-Author whom they alledg even to avoid the possible Mistake of one Writer for another I make but this one remark more on the Citations of Scripture by these Fathers It is reckned they all wrote before the whole Canon of the New Testament was compleated M. Dodwel says expresly before Jude or the two Johns had written And they wrote from places very distant from Judea and from one another Hermas and Clemens from Rome Barnabas from Cyprus Polycarp Smyrna in Asia Ignatius from Syria This serves to assure us that the Gospels and Apostolic Writings were immediately communicated either by particular care of the Churches or more probably a publication to the most remote Bishops and Churches that there can be nothing more contrary to Truth and to the zeal and Diligence of the first Christians and Churches than this Affirmation of M. Dodwel and his Second that the Apostolic Writings were lockt up in Coffers of the Churches and Persons to whom they were written till 130 years after Christ Which is so far we have seen from being true that all the Writers of those times tho living in places some Thousands of miles distant from one another and from Judea adorn even their familiar Letters with Flowers from the four Gospels and Epistles of the present Canon nor do they cite that we know of a single Sentence from the Books of the Catalogue Amyntor however tho he assents to M. Dodwel in saying that our present Scripture-Canon and the Books that compose it were unknown to the Churches and Clergy till 130 years after Christ yet he doth not think Barnabas Hermas Clemens Polycarp or Ignatius were the real Authors of those Epistles that go under their Names but that these Epistles were forged about such time as so many other Impostures appeared in the Catholic Church namely a good while after the year 130. But hereby he hath entirely given up the Cause he was maintaining M. Dodwel speaks consistently to himself tho not truly when he says the Scripture-Canon was not known to the Churches or Clergy till about the year 130 because Clemens and the other Writers of those times cite nothing out of the said Canon But Amyntor forgets to be consistent to his Cause when he says the Canonical Books were not known till the year 130 and at the same time denies we have any Monuments left of those antient times Clemens and the rest being of much later date and also Impostures Besides granting to him that these Epistles are Impostures deviled more than 130 years after Christ as 150 or 180 after our Saviour yet having quoted abundance of Paragraphs out of our present Canon and none out of the Books of the Catalogue as we are hereby assured that the former were then known and approved as Books of received and allowed Authority so the other either were not known or not consider'd as Books whose Authority could oblige or so much as persuade There were divers other Writers of those early times besides Clemens and the rest mentioned by M. Dodwel and tho their Works are lost yet we have certain assurance that they quoted the Books of the New Testament Papias Bishop of Hierapolis was Scholar of St. John and Companion of Polycarp Eusebius had read his Works and takes occasional notice that he quotes the Epistles of St. John and St. Peter Euseb H. E. l. 3. Cap. ult Contemporaries to Papias and Polycarp and much within the term of 130 after Christ was Quadratus Agrippa sirnamed Castor and Basilides Of these Basilides wrote 24 Books of Commentaries or Explanations on the Gospels Concerning the other two Eusebius saith They with many more made it their business to preach in places whereas yet Churches were not gathered and τῶν θείων Ἐυανγελίων παραδιδόναι γραφὴν to bestow and disperse Copies of the Inspired Gospels H. E. Lib. 3. c. 37. Lib. 4. c. 7. Justin Martyr in his Second Apology but 140 years after Christ as Dr. Cave hath proved makes us to know that there was then a particular Officer in the Churches called the Reader distinct from the Preacher whose business it was saith he to read the Prophetical and Apostolical Books to the Congregation until it is sufficient Amyntor must suppose with great liberty if he supposes that in the year 130 the Books of the New Testament were unknown to the Churches and Clergy and that but ten years after they were so known and in such credit that the Churches entertained an Officer on purpose to read them in their Assemblies But why do we protract a Dispute and seek to old Authors known to few People to determine it when it may be ended by one demonstrative Argument and of which all Persons are capable The four Gospels Acts general Epistles and Revelation were not written to particular Persons or particular Churches but written and published to all the World Let me hear Amyntor or M. Dodwel say they were not written to be published or were not published so soon as written if they dare not say so why do they say they were kept in private Coffers till 130 years after Christ I don't think any body will believe that the Churches or Clergy were ignorant of the publishst Books of their Religion A Continuation of the Defence of the Canon ANother Detraction of our Author from the Credibility and just Authority of the Canon is that The principal Fathers of the three first Ages Ireneus Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen did quote divers Books of the Catalogue particularly Barnabas Hermas Ignatius Polycarp and Clemens Romanus as Scripture And why should not all the Books that are cited by these Learned Fathers as Scripture be accounted equally Authentic and Canonical Or if these Disciples and Successors of the Apostles could so grosly confound the genuin Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles with such as are spurious and falsly attributed to them how came others the following Fathers and the Councils who have undertaken to declare which Books are Canonical and which not to be better or more certainly informed In short he saith Clemens Romanus Barnabas Ignatius Hermas and Polycarp were esteemed by the Antients to be as good as any part of the New Testament and seeing herein they were so grosly mistaken what stress can be laid on their Testimony concerning the Books of the New Testament itself which Testimony however both formerly and at present is alledged as the principal reason sometimes he maketh it to be the only-reason why the Books of the New Testament are received as Canonical Amynt p. 44 45 46 52 79 80. He adds at p. 57 58. The Council of Laodicea An. 360 after Christ is the first Assembly wherein the Canon of Scripture was determined In so great a variety of Books those of the Catalogue he means and those of the Canon how could that