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	tradition_n	2,130	5	9.1915	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40086	The resolution of this case of conscience whether the Church of England's symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold communion with the Church of England?	Fowler, Edward, 1632-1714.	1683 (1683)	Wing F1713; ESTC R9491	34,420	57

Scriptures declare to have revealed Gods will to the World such as Moses our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and that these Persons delivered such Doctrine and Confirmed it by such Miracles and that the Books of Scripture were written by those whose names they bear I say as to the Evidence of the truth of these matters of Fact our Church placeth it not in her own Testimony or in the Testimony of any Particular Church and much less that of Rome but in the Testimony of the whole Catholick Church down to us from the time of the Apostles and of Vniversal Tradition taking in that of Strangers and Enemies as well as Friends of Iews and Pagans as well as Christians Secondly We proceed to shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Agreement with the Church of Rome in things either in their own nature good or made so by a Divine Precept none of our Dissenting Brethren could ever imagine not to be an indispensable duty Agreement with her in what is in its own nature Evil or made so by a Divine Prohibition none of us are so forsaken of all Modesty as to deny it to be an inexcusable sin The Question therefore is whether to agree with this Apostate Church in some things of an indifferent nature be a Sin and therefore a just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing But by the way if we should suppose that a Churches agreeing with the Church of Rome in some indifferent things is sinful I cannot think that any of the more Sober Sort of Dissenters and I despair of success in arguing with any but such will thence infer that Separation from the Church so agreeing is otherwise warrantable than upon the account of those things being imposed as necessary terms of Communion But I am so far from taking it for granted that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome that I must needs profess I have often wondred how this should become a Question Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature as it is not Commanded so neither is it Forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law and where there is no Law the Apostle saith there is no transgression Sin being according to his definition the transgression of the Law And whereas certain Circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither duties nor sins to be either duties or sins and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing 's being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the Nature of that thing and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinful But that it doth so is endeavoured to be proved by that general Prohibition to the Israelites of imitating the doings of the Aegyptians and Canaanites in those Words Lev. 18.2 After the doings of the Land of Aegypt wherein ye dwell shall ye not do and after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not do neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances This place divers of the Defenders of Nonconformity have laid great weight upon as a proof of the Sinfulness of Symbolizing with the Church of Rome Even in indifferent things But I chuse to forbear the Naming of any whose Arguings I purpose to enquire into because I would prevent if it be possible the least suspition in the Readers that I design in this Performance to expose any Mans weakness in particular or that I am therein Acted by any Personal Piques Now then as to the Text now Cited Not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of Arguing without mighty caution from Laws given by Moses to the Israelites so as to infer the Obligation of Christians who are under a dispensation so different from theirs and in Circumstances so vastly differing from those they were in I say not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of this way of Arguing which all considering Persons must needs be aware of if this general Prohibition be not at all to be limited then it will follow from thence that the Israelites might have no usages whatsoever in common with the Aegyptians or Canaanites and therefore in as general terms as the Prohibition runs our Brethren must needs acknowledge that there is a restriction therein intended it being the most absurd thing to Imagine that the Israelites were so bound up by God as to be Obliged to an unlikeness to those People in all their Actions For as the Apostles said of the Christians if they were never to Company with Wicked Men they must needs go out of the World we may say of the Israelites in reference to this Case of theirs they then must needs have gone out of the World Now if this general Prohibition after their doings ye shall not do be to be limited and restrained what way have we to do it but by considering the Context and confining the restriction to those particulars Prohibited in the following verses But I need not shew that the particulars forbidden in all these viz. from v. 5 th to the 24 th were not things of an indifferent Nature but Incestuous Copulations and other abominable Acts of Vncleanness And God doth Expresly enough thus restrain that general Prohibition in the 24 th v. in these Words Defile not your selves in any of these things for in all these the Nations are Defiled which I cast out before you But those that alledge this Text to the foresaid purpose will not hear of the general Proposition's being thus limited by the Context as apparent as it is that it necessarily must because say they we find that God forbids the Israelites in other places to imitate Heathens in things of an Indifferent and Innocent Nature To this I Answer First That supposing this were so it doth not from thence follow that God intended to forbid such imitations in this place the contrary being so manifest as we have seen But Secondly That God hath any where prohibited the Israelites to Symbolize with Heathens in things of a meer Indifferent and Innocent Nature I mean that he hath made it Unlawful to them to observe any such Customs of the Heathens meerly upon the account of their being like them is a very great mistake Which will appear by considering those places which are produced for it One is Deut. 14.1 You shall not Cut your selves nor make any baldness between your Eyes for the dead Now as to the former of these prohibited things who seeth not that 't is Vnnatural and therefore not indifferent And as to the latter viz. the disfiguring of themselves by Cutting off their Eyebrows this was not meerly an indifferent thing neither It being a Custom at Funerals much disbecoming the People of God which would make them look as if they sorrowed for the dead as Men without hope Another place insisted