peacefully togeather in the vnity of one Church The minor of my argument is euident by the decree it selfe wherin it seemed good to the holy Ghost and the Apostles to impose no other burden on them then that they should astaine from those 3. sortes of meates and fornication which decree had beene an insufficient rule to direct them concerning meates lawfull or not to be eaten if other meats prohibited in Moyses law had still remayned so Secondly out of that Apostolicall decree I frame this argument If the legall difference of meats had continued after Christ as before and equally obliged faythfull Iewes conuerted Gentills to the wonted obseruance thereof then was the Apostles particuler and expresse prohibition of bloud meats strangled and offered to Idols needles and ridiculously imposed to the conuerted Gentils they were falsely tould that in abstaining from those meats they should do well because according to Iohn Traske they were by God equally commanded to abstayne from other meats also But it were blasphemy to affirme this Apostolicall decree to containe any false absurd or superfluous doctrine Therefore those meats mentioned in the decree were only and determinatly prohibited to the conuerted Gentills Thirdly neuer any ancient Father or Christian Deuine did before Traske vnderstand other then that the Apostles intended in their decree to ease the Gentills from some burdensome obseruances of the law besides Circumcision which the Iewes had beene before Christs comming tyed vnto as may be playnly gathered from the whole scope of S. Peters and S. Iames speaches assented vnto by the other Apostles But if the Moysaicall Law of meats did generally oblige al Christians after this decree as before then were the Gentils nothing at all eased thereby from the burdensome obseruances of Moyses Law c. Therefore the Apostles certainely meant in that decree to repeale the Mosaicall Law of meats and prohibite to the Gentills only such as that decree particulerly mentioned My third argument shall be the words of S. Paul ad Galat. 2. whereas S. Peter is sayd to haue eaten at Antioch with the Gentills vers 12. but afterwards being fearefull to offend certaine Iews sent by S. Iames from Hierusalem he withdrew himselfe for which simulation S. Paul publiquely tould him vers 14. If thou being a Iew didst liue Gentillike not Iewishlike how dost thou inforce the Gentills to Iudaize which could not be vnderstood of the Iewes in respect of Circumcision whereof no mention is made in that place nor in respect of conuersation wherin it cannot be conceaped how the Gentils could Iudaize or imitate the Iews therfore it must neoessarily be vnderstood of the Iudaicall obseruance of meats wherein they imitated S. Peters example Likewise when S. Peter eating with the Gentils is sayd to haue liued Gentillike and not Iewishlike it cannot wel be vnderstood but in regard of eating such meats as the Gentills did and his not obseruing that difference of meats which the Iewes obserued My fourth argument to conuince Iohn Traske in his Iudaicall obseruance of meats may be taken out of S. Paul ad Hebr. 9. vers 10. numbring the obseruance of meates amongst other cerimonious rites and carnall instifications of Moyses Law imposed only vntill the tyme of correction or reformation which Christ was ordayned to make Wherefore such wonted obseruances of meats are abrogated now by Christ and no longer to continue My fifth argument may be collected out of the same Apostle who hauing in his first Epistle to the Corinthians cap. S. giuen them a liberty to eate or abstaine from meats offered to Idols as their owne consciences serued them obseruing mutuall charity therein cap. 10. vers 25. he willeth them to eate without exception all meats sould in the shambles of the Gentill Citty asking no question for conscience sake that is to say not regarding whether such meats had beene offered to Idolls or not For the earth sayth he is our Lords and the plenitude therof and if any Gentill inuite you to a feast and you will go eate all things set before you c. In which place albeit S. Paul treateth only of meats offered to Idols yet his licence is generally vnderstood of all meats and a fortiori proueth all other things not offered to Idolls lawfully eaten which I proue by these vnanswerable arguments Meats offered to Idols were not only prohibited to the Iewes as were other vncleane meats but also by the former decree of the Apostles Act. â—â— forbidden to all Christians But S. Paul licensed the Corinthians to eate such sacrificed meats without scruple or question Therfore other meates legally only prohibited may be eaten also Secondly S. Paul willeth the Christians of Corinth to eate all thinges sould in the shambles or set at Infidells tables But it cannot be reasonably doubted that in the shambles and at Infidells tables many meates forbidden in Moyses Law were vsually sould and eaten Therfore S. Paul licensed the Christians at Corinth to eate those meates also Io. Traske and his disciples wil not sticke ridiculously to retort the Maior of my argument and to tell me that if the Christians at Corinth might eate all thinges sould in the Gentills shambles they might eate hornes and skinnes also They will also foolishly deny that meates prohibited to the Iewes were eyther sould in the Gentills shambles or set at their tables making so the differentiall law of meats particulerly giuen to the Iewes to haue byn naturally obserued by all other nations also And for a shift they wil flatly deny meats prohibited to the Iewes to be food at all for men more then toades or serpentes Which fooleries against common experience learning and iudgment are to be derided and charitably compassioned in them rather then answered Thirdly the reasons why Christians were licensed by S. Paul to eate Idoll offeringes are two expressed in the text it selfe the first is because an Idoll to him that hath iudgement to distern it is nothing in the world able to pollute the creatures therunto offered the second is because the earth is our Lords and the plenitude thereof that is to say all creatures therein contained are good and created by him Which later reason is effectuall also to proue other meates prohibited to the Iews to be good in themselues and lawfully eaten by Christians Lastly S. Paul ad Rom. 14. like a moderator or peace-maker betweene the firme Christians who were the Gentills and the infirme who were the Iewes weakely scrupulously stil inclined to obserue the differentiall law of meats festiuall dayes coÌ„manded by Moyses be exorteth the Iew not to condemne the Gentill vsing his liberty in eating al sorts of meats the Gentil in like maÌ„ner not to condemne the scrupulous Iew but rather to abstaine from vsing his liberty then offending the Iew to be an occasion to him of scandall and falling from his faith Him that it weake saith the Apostle v. 1 take vnto you not in disputation of cogitations for
A BRIEFE REFVTATION OF IOHN TRASKES IVDAICAL AND NOVEL FANCYES Stiling himselfe Minister of Gods Word imprisoned for the Lawes eternall Perfection or Gods Lawes perfect Eternity By B. D. Catholike Deuine Gal. 3. Vers 13. Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the Law being made a curse for vs. Imprinted with Licence M. DC XVIII THE PREFACE THE Controuersies handled in this short Treatise are two The first is of the Iewes Sabaoth Apostolically translated into the euer memorable day of our Sauiours Resurection The second whether al forts of meates may be lawfully now eaten by Christiās disputed against Iohn Traske of a Puritan minister lately grown halfe a lew in his singular opinions concerning the old Sabaoth and Moysaical difference of meates held by him many other men and women obstinately professing and practising the same doctrines as morall Lawes vnreapealed by Christ and necessarily now to be obserued by Christians His only learning is a litterall knowledge of Scriptures and some little Hebrew and Greeke lately learned for the better vnderstanding of them which alone he holdeth sufficient not only to instruct vs in al points of faith but to direct vs also in our particuler thoughtes speaches actions so as no māner of speach is by Christians to be vsed no meate to be eatē no kind of apparell to be worne c. not particularly expressed and warranted in Scripture Humāe iudgment experience wherby we are originally taught to discerne the naturall goodnes and euil of al our actions and to make a conscience of them being so little regarded by him as he ridiculously deemeth it not to be any rule at all to direct Christian men in common manners and morality of life God himselfe hauing by a higher law contayned in the old new Testament particulerly instructed them in all holy and needfull knowledge Out of which ground he deduceth as I shall haue seuerall occasions to declare afterwards strange Conclusions Distinctions not easy to be distintly knowne refuted by any learned man that hath not from his owne mouth hard them This was my chiefe reasō to write these two Controuersies against him wherby sōe of his disciples may peraduenture be reclaymed from his grosse doctrines and other itching eared people now inclinable to his Sect may be moued vtterly to forsake him And one soule so happely gayned to a neerer degree of truth will make me thinke a few spare houres well bestowed from better studies Learned men also will gladly perchance spare an idle houre or two to read a new Controuersy breifly as I could contriue it and plainly expressed Smaller errours and of lesse consequence then these nouell fancies of Traske haue been by sundry holy Fathers answered in large volums which may well serue to shew my labours not wholy needles Little sparkes of fire not timely quenched soone grow into flames that deuoure houses and Citties Small wounds waxe festered soares when they are not speedily cured Single seedes of tare and cockle sowne in fields amongst good Corne make great bundles in haruest fit only for combustion And the miserable experience of these latter times abounding with nouel heretical doctrines witnesseth that as plaguy people are for feare of infecting others carefully to be secluded and small leakes in a ship are speedily to be stopped for the safety of such persons as sayle in it so all morall and pious diligence is by Gouernours and Guiders of soules to be vsed for the timely preuention and suppressing of pernicious opinions with which Traske is so stored as he is in very few pointes of our Christian fayth rightly persuaded He hath 8. arguments to proue that Melchisedech was the holy Ghost mentioned Genes 14. Hebr. 7. He is infallibly assured that he himselfe hath truly repented and is made sure of his eternall election in Christ and that he can in this life neither sinne nor repent any more Likewis he is able to collect out of Scripture when Abraham Isaac Iacob and other Saints were truly penitent and iustified in Gods sight and will often presume to tell his disciples whether at all or when they truly repented Yea he is able as I haue heard by Phisiognomy to make certaine ghesses whether particular persons shal be damned or saued His owne and his disciples prayers are commonly roaringes and such loud out-cries as may be heard in distant roomes and houses voluntarily framed and filled for the most part with frequent imprecations that God would confound the aduersaries and persecutors of his little flocke such as walke in the lust of their owne flesh eating like the Idolatrous Gentiles all prohibited and vncleane meates prophaning his holy Sabaoth and changing it into another day neuer comanded by him but by themselues inuented Frequently rendring thankes to God for keeping them so holy as hitherto he hath done and desiring him according to their vprightnes to blesse and protect them Pretended reuelations also are not wanting amongst them He will tell you of straung abstinences from food and other great austerities vsed by himselfe notwithstanding his cheekes seeme full and his body still fatt and in good liking He will with great glory vtter the singular approuement made of him in his Ministeriall ordination when other Countrey Schollers were reiected himselfe hauing neuer byn more thē a guest in any Vniuersity His excellency aboue others was chiefly occasioned by a perfect Summe of all Diuinity only abstracted by his owne Confession out of Musculus his cōmon Places When he was a schoolmaster at a Gentlemans house in Somersetshire to a few Grammer scholers he could write and speake pure latin as he grauely tould one of his fellow prisoners which in his riper and maturer studies since of Diuinity he hath quite forgotten and altered his Ciceronian wonted stile into the humble and plaine phrase of Scripture and indeed much more barbarous When he was reprehended by an Aduersary for denying the minor of an enthimeme he produced in excuse of his grosse ignorance Rhamus logique only affirming an enthimeme to be an imperfect sillogisme and sayd that Ramists and Aristotelians could not vnderstand each others termes and manner of disputing but after much practise togeather He will bragge of many bookes written and some of them dedicated by him to his Maiesty who because he eateth not willingly swines flesh he supposeth by his Princely nature halfe framed and fitted to imbrace and professe his doctrines which he is confident to haue generally one day held in our English and all other Protestant Churches Hearing that Maister Howe 's the Continuer Augmenter of Maister Stowes cronicle was desirous to see him out of a vaine desire to haue al circumstances of his person and opinions historically blazed he wrote a letter to Maister Howes fully to informe him of both mentioning therein the day order continuance of his imprisonment if he listed so to recount them He wil tel you how many publique Lectures he made weekly with great
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 arâ—… 〈◊〉 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 coÌ„mitteth a damnable sinne if hee â—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 vnâ—â—â—â—â—…lly vnderstood by ancient Fathers and mâ—de â—â—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 ChaÌ„pter 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 commendingâ—… such tiâ—â— 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 wâ—â—â—â—… to be heere recited much lesse particulerly refuted whippes being the best answere to such arguments Bedlamâ— 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 giueÌ„ 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