Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	apostle_n	church_n	great_a	2,465	5	3.0819	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45406	A continuation of the defence of Hvgo Grotivs, in an answer to the review of his annotations whereto is subjoyned a reply to some passages of the reviewer in his late book of schisme, concerning his charge of corruptions in the primitive church, and some other particulars / by H. Hammond ...	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.	1657 (1657)	Wing H529; ESTC R17947	36,523	52

believe that I know and speake my own sense did I ever let fall any thing which will not be exactly reconciled with it The short is this The Ringleaders of the Gnosticks were verry busie in the Apostles times but did at first more clancularly operate from whence in my opinion of which here it seems I must give an account they are in the Apostle exprest by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the mystery of iniquity iniquity but that somewhat disguised till at last in the season most for their turn some of them put off their disguises Simon Magus in the Apostles times and though he miscarried yet many of his followers afterwards in a more avowed and profest hostility the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in Hegesippus when they had the advantage of all those being dead who had received the truth from Christ himself This is the summe of what I have elsewhere frequently and more largely delivered and this is exactly the sense of Hegesippus in that place as will yet more clearly appear by the addition of some other words not yet recited and I know not why omitted by this author in his first producing of them when yet both the antecedents and consequents were set down by him They are these {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Till those times he there speaks of those hereticks though some there were that endeavoured to corrupt the wholesome rule of saving doctrine skulked in darkness undiscernable but afterwards when the senson better agreed with their design they did it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} with bare head or face putting off disguise or care of secresie with this indeed it would not easily be reconcileable to say that the Gnosticks were never more busie nor prevalent then in the Apostles times And this he is pleased to set down as my saying but hath not intimated the place where I said it as easily he might have done and I suppose would not have neglected to do if he had known where For my part I remember not neither believe any such words ever to have past from me If he shall produce any that have the least sound that way I shall not doubt to give him an account of them such as shall sufficiently supersede the conclusion which now he is willing to draw from them 12. Mean while I shall yet farther give thus much over measure of reply to his objection that in case Hegesippus had not expresly named the Gnosticks which yet expresly he names and therefore must mean them if he knew and considered what he said yet the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Atheistical seduction or seducers and the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the riotous convention or confederation of these must needs signifie some known sect of hereticks in that age of the Church be they Cerinthians Ebionites Nicolaitanes Menandrians B●silidians Saturnilians or after them Valentinians Marcionites or who ever else can be supposed And then as it is certain that all or most of these met and agreed in this common notion of the Gnosticks so from the poyson and taint of all and each of them t is still equally clear that the Church of God and the known Governours and shepherds thereof by Gods grace and blessing preserved themselves and exprest their constant opposition and dotestation of them and markt them out to be avoided of all Christians and so cannot be imagined to have been corrupted by them but on the contrary whosoever was discerned to be so corrupted was cast out of the Church and by their contrary doctrine illustriously known in their writings against these heresies long after the Apostles times Irenaus against the Valentinians c. Tertullian c. against the Gnosticks have demonstrated themselves to have continued stedfast and immaculate and not to have been in the least corrupted And then what can be farther removed from truth than this whole suggestion from Hegesippus of the infection being diffused in the Church But he further objects That the opposing and persecuting of the Church which is a great purisying of it cannot be insinuated to be the deflouring and violating of its chastity To this I answer 1. that if there were the least force in this objection it would yet be unsufficient to disprove my answer It might possibly infer the impropriety of Hegesippus's expression whereof I undertook not to be the advocate but cannot conclude him not to have meant those to be the corrupters whom he expresly names to be so 2. That in respect of those weak or deceiveable members of the Church that received the heretical poyson and then fell off from it or were by just censures cast out of it 't is not improper to say that the Church which once conteined them was defloured and violated though on the other side in respect of the constant fidelity of others who were not moved by all their opposition the Church was still rather purified then defloured as gold by trial in the fire comes out more pure whilest yet the drosse is discovered by the same means and declared to have no purity in it The truth is many visible and temporary professors were infected and defiled by the Gnostick infusions as in all times of trial befals those that forsake the Faith rather than they will endure persecution And that is the plain meaning of Hegesippus's words and hath nothing new or strange in it 14. One thing by the way I shall farther observe that in this citation he hath made some change in the words from what before he had represented to the Apostles times adding the time of the Apostles hearers and not onely the Apostles themselves as if Hegesippus included that second generation in the space of the virgin uncorrupted age after whose decease and not till then the corruptions by him spoken of came in But that I suppose will be found to be a mistake also 15. In his former citing of the passage in his Preface of Animadversions he understood Hegesippus of the corruption immediately after the Apostles fell asleep And indeed this is all that the words assure us when the quire of the Apostles saith he were dead and the age past of those that were deemed worthy to heare with their own eares {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the divine wisedom or the wisdome that had divinity in it where that ages being past and the Apostles being dead sure signifies the same thing and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the divine wisdome very fitly signifies Christ himself the wisdome of the Father and no way appears to be extended to the Apostles also and then they that were the hearers of that Wisdome will be the men of the Apostles age specially the Apostles themselves and not the subsequent generation And that indeed thus it was appears by the context in Hegesippus which evidenceth him to speak of Trajanes times wherein Simeon Bishop of Jerusalem

view 1. of my answer 2. of the words of the testimony it self on which it was clearly grounded 3. of that which is here objected against the fitness of my answer 4. For the first It must be remembred as the original of this debate what from this testimony of Hegesippus he had a formerly concluded viz. the corruption of the Church as to doctrine immediately after the Apostles fell asleep whereof saith he whosoever will impartially search into the writings that of those dayes do remain will perhaps find more cause to complain thou is commonly imagined 5. To which my answer was b that all that Hegesippus there saith is onely this that the poyson of the heretical or Apostatical or Atheistical Gnosticks in express words the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the sect of the Gnosticks falsly so called and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Atheistical seducers did openly set up against the truth of Christ as soon as ever the Apostles were dead which being by Hegesippus terminated in the known despisers and persecutors of the true Church and Orthodox professors the grievous Wolves that worried the flock and those constantly resisted and combated with preacht against and written against by the Fathers and ancient writers and never observed by any man to have gained of them or infused any the least degree of their poyson into them or their writings that are come to us 'T is a sad condition that the just and unjust the false teachers and Orthodox professors should fall under the same envy that the shepherds which oft laid down their lives for their sheep should be defamed aend again martyred by us their unkind posterity under pretence that they were in conspiracy with the wolves also 6. In this answer it is not possible I should be subject to any mistake if this one matter of fact be true that the Gnosticks and Atheistical seducers were the very persons of whom alone Hegesippus spake for that those were the wolves and that the Church-writers have constantly refuted and detested them and not suckt any of their poysonous doctrines from them is so evident that this author hath neither formerly nor now suggested the contrary And for this in the next place I appeal to the express words of Hegesippus there at large set down in Greek but here onely referred to and more briefly toucht on by this author 7. The words as far as this matter is concern'd in them I shall recite They are these Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 111. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} That there may be no place for doubt in this matter I shall now give the English Reader a full view of them thus But when the sacred quire of the Apostles had severally ended their lives and the generation of those that had been thought worthy to hear with their own cars the divine wisdome was now past then the rout or riotous convention of the Godless seduction or seducers {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies a seditious assembling or military preparation of confederates or conspirators and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} deceit or seduction may be used for the men that deceive or seduce received its beginning by the cunning or deceit of false teachers who now that none of the Apostles were left avowed and openly attempted to preach or promulgate the science falsly so called in opposition to the preaching of the truth 8. What is here meant by the science falsly so called no man can be ignorant that hath compared that phrase used expresly by the Apostle 1 Tim. 6. 20. with the writings of the Primitive Fathers or but lightly considered the very nature of plain words The word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Gnosticks literally signifies knowing men so styled by themselves but upon no grounds of truth their doctrines being indeed directly opposed to the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and so {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} knowledg or science falsly so called This therefore must be the meaning of the Apostles words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the oppositions of the science falsly so called i. e. the doctrines of the sect of the Gnosticks in direct opposition to the doctrine of the Apostles and consequently the same must be the importance of the like phrase in Hegesippus in consent with the Apostles dialect what the Apostle calls science falsly so called Hegesippus must be believed to mean by the very same words the science falsly so called i. e. the Gnosticks what the Apostle calls {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} oppositions or contradictings Hegesippus expresses by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} opposite or contrary preaching and these phrases are both farther cleared by a passage in the ancient author {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} c. 6. which tels us of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the contradictory discourses of the dotage or folly or madness of Simon by contradictory discourses certainly meaning the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} oppositions and antipreaching and by the dotage or madness of Simon Magus the knowledge that he pretended to and his followers and which so puss them up in a mad conceit of it but was indeed nothing else but blasphemous folly far removed from all degree of true science 9. From this short representation of this plain matter of fact thus visible before our eyes I shall now suppose it cleare that it was not confidence of my abilities but a well grounded perswasion that he that cited these words in Greek understood the plain meaning of them upon which I built my hope that my answer to this passage of Hegesippus would approve it self to him For if the Gnosticks and none else were the men spoken of by Hegesippus then was there no place for exception against my answer and if Hegesippus expresse words might be believed thus it was And thus stands this matter betwixt me and my Reprover at this time I have laid it before him let himself now if he please be party witnesse and judge I cannot think it possible I should need other 10. But then in the third place he hath an objection against this sense which at least may have force against me For saith he if the person thus expounding this testimony i. e. I may be credited the Gnosticks were never more busie nor prevalent then in that time which alone is excepted from the evil here spoken of 11. To this I answer 1. that in case I had at several times spoken things incoherent or contradictory this would be no sufficient proof that what I now recited from Hegesippus's plain words was not contained in them But then 2. I have been far enough from having thus anywhere contradicted my self or what I affirme in this answer of mine nor if I may be allowed the confidence to