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	reason_n	1,612	5	4.9023	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

one beleeueth that he may eate all thinges But he that is weake to wit the scrupulous Iew that will neither eate meates prohibited in Moyses Law nor sacrificed by the Gentils let him eate hearbes Let not him that eateth dispise him that eateth not he that eateth not let him not iudge him that eateth to wit all sortes of meates for God hath assumed him to himself c. and he eateth to our Lord vers 6. for he giueth thinkes to God c. Why iudgest thou thy brother speaking to the Iew vers 10. for his liberty of eating all thinges And speaking to the Gentills why despisest thou thy brother for his weaknesse in putting a differnce betwene meates I know saith he vers 14. and am persuaded in our Lord Christ that nothing is common or vncleane of it selfe But to him that supposeth any thing to be como or vncleane to him it is common to wit for the errour of his conscience making it-seeme so All things indeed are cleane vers 20 but it is ill for the man that eateth with offence c. to wit of his weake brother concluding thus his advice to Iew and Gentill Hast thou faith that is to say ar●… 〈◊〉 firmely persuaded of the lawfulnes of al meates haue it with thy selfe befor God c. But he that discerneth or maketh a difference of meates is damned or cōmitteth a damnable sinne if hee ●ie because 〈◊〉 of faith or because he is not fully persuaded of the lawfulnes of that meate which he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all that is not of faith is sinne to wit euery thing that a man doth against his owne knowledg and conscience is sinne Which discourse of S. Paul is so cleare in selfe for refutation of Traskes doctrine and so vn●●●●●…lly vnderstood by ancient Fathers and m●de ●●e Expositours aswell Protestantes as Catholikes that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 deuises wherby some of Traskes difciples haue sought to delude so many playne passages of this Chapter may well seeme to learned men not iudiciously imbraced but in an hereticall pride and a desire of nouelty and singularity purposely affected by them In so much as one of them being pressed with the litterall plaines of so many texts concluding in expresse termes directly against his contrary doctrine first he ridiculously deuised a new argument of this Chāpter and pretended that S. Paul endeauoured therein to instruct such Christians as being inuited to mourning and lamentation might thinke it vnlawfull to eate any meates at all idly citing many Propheticall textes commending●… such ti●● abstinence from nourishing and delightful meates Whereas S. Paul speaketh no one word in that Chapter of inuiting Christians to mourning and lamentation but only endeauoureth to compose controuersies and occasions of offence betweene Iewes and Gentills and to make their ordinary conuersation particulerly about meates and festiuall dayes peacefully and charitably togeather They seeme also to haue sundry other fancies to auoyd the pressing authority of these textes but so grossly as I hold them not w●●●●… to be heere recited much lesse particulerly refuted whippes being the best answere to such arguments Bedlam● or Bridewell the fittest schoole for such a Sectmaister and disciples to dispute in QVESTION V. VVherein is proued that Bloud and strangled meates may be lawfully now eaten by Christians MY purpose in this Question is not so much to refute Iohn Traske in his Iewish and absurd doctrine of meates sufficiently already in my former Questions discussed as particulerly to ouerthrow the Puritanicall abstinence of some percise people who wholy grounding their faith vpon he authority of Scripturs litle crediting any Christian practise or doctrine not expressed in them are in many places knowne strictly to obserue the Apostolicall decree Act. 15. commaunding Christians to abstaine from strangled meates bloud c. Which say they was a precept expresly giuen by God in the law of nature Genes 9. and renewed by the Apostles a a law necessary to be obserued by the Gentills conuerted and is not found to haue beene repealed as was the like prohibition of meates offered to Idolls 1. ad Corin. cap. 8 10. by any latter doctrine or practise of the Apostles But contrarily it may be by many ancient and authenticall testimonies of antiquity certainely proued that many hundred yeares togeather after Christ holy people obserued this abstinence from stragled meats and bloud as a doctrine taught them by the Apostles Tertullian for example in Apologia cap. 9. expresly affirmeth Christians not to 〈◊〉 bloud at all but to abstaine for that cause from beasts dying of themselues or strangled least they should be defiled with bloud c. Blandina also in her Martyrdome mentioned by Eusebius lib. 5. hist cap. 1. telleth the Gentils that they did much erre in thinking Christians to eate the bloud of infants who sayd she vse not the bloud of beasts which is testifyed also of Christians by Minutius Felix in Octauio by Origen contra Celsum lib. 8. sundry later Councells haue vnder great penalties forbidden the eating of such meates Apostolically prohibited to all Christians So that their doctrine and practise is not Iewishly grounded as Iohn Traskes opinions are on a cerimonious precept of the old law certainly abrogated as is already proued but they obserue it as a precept giuen to Noah by God himselfe in the law of nature repeated in Moyses law and renewed by the Apostles The difficulty also of this question is increased and made more hard and vneasy to be solued by reason that the Aduersaries against whome I am to dispute admit no infallible authority of any ancient or moderne Church guided by Christs holy Spirit and lead into all truth so that faithfull people may securely and without danger of erring imbrace her communion follow her directions rest in her iudgment as the supporting pillar foundation of Truth according to the Apostle 1. Tim. 3. They admit no Apostolicall Tradition or certayne rule to know any vnwritten doctrin to haue byn held and practised since Christ successiuely and vniuersally by Christians Finally they little regard any reasonable discourse or Theologicall deduction not litterally and playnely expressed in Scripture the only Rule of their faith and Iudge of controuersies betweene vs. According to which their vsuall and vnreasonable manner I cannot more forcibly endeauour to disproue this their Puritanicall abstinence from bloud and strangled meates then by orderly prouing three thinges 1. That this precept giuē to Noah Gen. 9. vers 4. was mysterious and not morall in it selfe 2. That it was not but for a time only and for ends now wholy ceased decreed by the Apostles Act. 15. vers 20. 28. 3. That it hath beene since by a holy and lawfull practise of Christs Church generally repealed so as it is a singular fancy for Christians now againe to renew the obseruance thereof And that this abstinence from bloud and strangled meates was not a morall precept I proue first by the

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