Selected quad for the lemma: heart_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heart_n	act_n	faith_n	grace_n	2,836	5	5.7519	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00535	A briefe refutation of Iohn Traskes iudaical and nouel fancyes Stiling himselfe Minister of Gods Word, imprisoned for the lawes eternall perfection, or God's lawes perfect eternity. By B. D. Catholike Deuine.	Falconer, John, 1577-1656.	1618 (1618)	STC 10675; ESTC S114688	42,875	106

so appertayne to the gayning of heauen as Iustice and other vertues do Therfore meats of themselues cannot belong to the morall or supernaturall duty of Christians and consequently no Christian is now bound to the legall obseruance of them Fourthly S. Paul 1 ad Tim. 4. v. 3. 4. 5. speaking against Heretiks teaching people to abstaine from meats which God created to be receaued with thankesgiuing by faythfull persons and such as know the truth yieldeth this reason of his doctrine Because euery creature of God is good and nothing to be reiected to wit for meat which is receaued with thanksgiuing for it is sanctifyed by the word of God and prayer In which Text albeit it should be graunted that the Apostle chiefly disputed against the Symonians Saturnians Marcionites and other like Heretiks who in and soone after the Apostles times taught many Creatures to be ill in their owne nature as hauing been by an euill God created and so to be detested by Christians yet the reason of his doctrine is moral and sufficient to shew the legall impurity of meats abrogated by our Sauiour which I proue by this argument Euery Creature of God that is good and not to be reiected being receaued with thanskgiuing may lawfully be eaten by Christians But euery Creature of God is good acording to the Apostle and not to be reiected being receaued with thanskgiuing Therefore euery creature may lawfully be eaten with prayer and thansksgiuing by Christians Secondly I argue thus No creature is to be accounted impure for food which is or may be sanctified by him that eateth it But S. Paul affirmeth euery Creature to be sanctified with the word of God and by the prayer of him that with thanksgiuing receaueth it Therfore no Creature is to be accounted impure for food being with prayer and thanksgiuing so receaued If Traske aske me how it is to be vnderstood that all creatures may be sanctified with the praiers thanksgiuing of such as receaue them I answere that those words of S. Paul in their true sense do only importe that whosoeuer eateth any creature with prayer and thanksgiuing maketh a holy vse thereof and so that Creature may rightly be called holy or a cause of holynes to him that so receaueth it If he aske me whether it be not also required to the holy vse of any creature that it be wholsome of it selfe for food and created by God to be so with prayer and thanksgiuing receaued I answere yes because no vnwholsom creature poysonous and hurtfull to our bodyes can for food be holily vsed but wickedly against the naturall precept of not killing our selues c. And those words of S. Paul Euery creature of God is good and nothing is to be reiected c. contayning an vniuersall sense without limitation or exception do necessarily inferre euery wholsom creature apt to norish our body and to be conuerted into the naturall substance thereof to haue beene created for that purpose by Almighty God who hath giuen vs naturall iudgment and experience to know what creatures are wholsom and apt to feed and sustaine vs els were the naturall knowledge of man indiuidually to preserue himself by the externall vse of creatures more defectiue and imperfect then the naturall instinct which beasts and other liuing creatures haue to choose wholsom food for themselues and to auoid thinges harmefull and contrary to their nature And whereas eating and other acts tending to mens indiuiduall preseruation are of all others belonging to our human condition and estate meanest in themselus and most connaturall vnto vs Io. Traskes barbarous folly may be worthily admired in excluding naturall reason from being any rule at all to guide and direct vs in them And it may fitly be tearmed a desperate and frantick kind of ignorance and impudency in him to deny against the generall experience of men in all ages and countries of the world that Swines-flesh and other beasts foules and fishes legally prohibited being dressed and eaten are apt to nourish and sustayne our bodyes Qvestion IIII. Prouing by sundry texts of the New Testament the law of meates abrogated to Christians MY first argument prouing the differentiall law of meates to haue beene repealed by our Sauiour and his Apostles in the new Testament shall be deduced out of S. Peters vision Act. 10. v. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. wherein he was willed to kill and eate those vncleane beasts and foules represented vnto him and by a second voyce taught not to tearme that cōmon or vncleane which God had cleansed Which purification of vncleane beasts and foules as I deny not but that mystically and chiefly it imported the cleansing of the Gentills hartes by faith in Christ and supernall graces conferred equally on then and the Iewes as is plainly testified ibid. vers 18. act 15. v. 7. 14. So likewise I affirme that as S. Peters horrour and deniall of hauing euer eaten any vncleane thing was litterally meant by him so was Gods commaund likewise that he should kill and eate them and his diuine warrant of their being cleansed litterally to be vnderstood and made a chiefe ground of that Apostolicall decree Act. 51. wherein all sortes of meates not strangled sacrificed to Idolls and bloud were freely licensed to the conuerted Gentils For as by this vision S. Peter was instructed first concerning the generall and actuall vocation of the Gentills so in like manner was he taught not to impose on them the cerimonious and burdensome law of meates further then a necessary abstinence from these three for a time already mentioned My second argument shal be collected out of the Apostles decree Act. 15. wherein against such as taught to introduce Circumcision and the obseruance of Moyses law vers 5. it was after a diligent conquisition made of this question ioyntly by all the Apostles determined that the heauy and insupportable burden of the old law should be no further imposed vpon the conuerted Gentills then that they should abstaine from meates strangled sacrificed to Idolls bloud and fornication and in so doing they should do well Whence I argue thus The Apostles determined in their decree all necessary abstinence from meates to be obserued by the Gentils But the Apostles in their decree licensed vnto them all sortes of meates except strangled c. Therfore only those meats were necessary to be abstained from by the Gentills The maior of my argument is certainly proued by the mayne drift and intention of the Apostles expressed in the text it selfe which was to determine how far Moyses law did oblige the conuerted Gentills particulerly about meates and vsing many women as they had beene accustomed to do before their conuersion so that as the Apostles in their decree did tye them to the matrimoniall knowledge of one lawfull wife so did they also fully instruct them in such an obseruance of meates as they saw needfull to be imposed for a time to make faithfull Iewes and Gentills to liue