Selected quad for the lemma: end_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
end_n good_a law_n moral_a 1,338 5 9.0849 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

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

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

reason for which God prohibited those meates to Noah and his Posterity which was chiefly by this horrour of bloud to make them detest man-slaughter and bloudy cruelty as appeareth by Gods wordes immediatly annexed to that precept Genes 9 vers 5. 6. 7 that sinne of murder hauing beene first committed by Cain Genes cap. 4. vers 8. afterwards by Lamech ibidem v. 23. Nomrod also and other mighty men in those first ages of the world ouer easily multiplyed that horrible offence against Gods intended propagation of mankind whereas now to vs Christians the example of our Sauiours meekenes his expresse prohibition of killing striking or miscalling our Neighbours his doctrine of pardoning seauenty times seauen our enemyes of being quickly reconciled vnto them of doing good for euill and praying for such as persecute vs c. do sufficiently instruct vs to abstaine from effusion of bloud and cruelty so that such a horrour of bloud in meates cannot for that end be longer necessary to be continued by Christians Secondly if this precept had byn a morall law necessary to direct vs in humane conuersation and manners towards God or between our selues it had no doubt byn included in that natural law by which Noah and his faithfull posterity were sufficiently instructed and taught to know the morall good and euill of their actions to refraine from sinne in them So as this precept had byn vnnecessarily imposed if perfect reason and naturall iudgment had otherwise taught it vnto them as it did other morall precepts Thirdly neuer any Philosopher or wise Gentill ignorant of that positiue precept giuen to Noah either taught or practised after Christs dayes or before abstinence from bloud strangled meats as a morall natural precept neither can it be as I haue els where declared out of naturall reason the rule of naturall lawes iudiciously conceaued that bloud or strangled meates entring the body can defile the soule c. Neither was the Apostles Decree Act. 15. concerning abstinence from such meates imposed on the Gentills as a morall law perpetually to continue but only as an easy obseruance necessary for a time the better to vnite Iewes and Gentills in the vnity of one Church For the Iewes hauing an especiall horrour of Idoll-offerings strāgled meats bloud would haue abhorred al manner of society with Gentils if they had not obserued some kind of order and conformity in meates with them And this is to be proued first out of the decree it selfe Act. 15. vers 28. wherin it seemed good to the holy Ghost and the Apostles to lay no further burden vpon the Gentills then that they should abstaine c. By which wordes no further burden is plainely insinuated vnto vs that the prohibitiō of such meats was a part of that burden which the Apostles would not haue wholy laid on the Gentills neckes to wit the cerimonious obseruances of Moyses Law so many in number and so hard in practise as few amongst the Iewes obserued them ibid. v. 10. and so consequently it was no morall precept included in Christs law formerly imbraced and professed by the faithfull Gentills Secondly the Gentills were by the same Apostolicall authority and for the like respects commaunded to abstaine from Idoll-offeringes as they were taught to refraine from meates strangled and bloud But the same Gentills were authorized afterwards by S. Paul ad Rom. 14. 1. ad Corin. cap. 8. 10. to eate Idoll-offeringes without scruple or question as hath byn in my former Question already declared wherefore then might they not afterwards in like manner be licensed to eat indifferently meates strangled and bloud For saith S. Augustin cont Faustum lib. 32. cap. 13. albeit the Apostles then cōmaunded Christians to abstaine from bloud and strangled meates choosing for a time an easy obseruance and not burden some to the Gentils that the Iewes and they might be built on the same corner stone c. yet after the Church of the Gentills became such as no natural Israelite appeared therein what Christian now obserueth it so as not to touch black birdes and other lesser birdes vnlesse their bloud be effused or not to eate a Hare or Conny killed only with a blow giuen in the necke without any other bloudy wound and if perchance some feare to touch those meates they are derided by other Christians so that in S. Austines dayes especially in those Western Churches as Iews for whose satisfaction and better gayning to Christ that cerimoniall Abstinence was conditionally and for a time only imposed ceased to imbrace the Christian faith so the obligation of that precept ceased also began to be no longer obserued by Christians And as the Eastern Churches were neerest to Hierusalem most stored with Iewish Conuertites so the Apostolicall precept of abstayning from strangled meats and bloud was in those Churches longest obserued And in those first ages after Christ because Christians were by occasion of the Carpocratians and other wicked heretikes eating children sacrificed with abhominable rites for their Eucharist exceedingly traduced and infamed to the Gentill magistrates therefore to shew thēselues innocent and fre from such horible slaunders they holily whilst those monstruous Sects continued tyed themselues to a Christian obseruance of that Apostolicall decree as the aboue mentioned authorityes of Tertullian Eusebius and other producible testimonyes of antiquity do certainely testify which maketh nothing at all to proue the still continuing obligation of the precept generally anulled by the contrary practice of Christiās in after ages If my aduersaryes obiect that as the decree of the Apostles was according to the prohibition of Fornication therein contayned a moral Law still continuing so was the same decree morall also according to those inioyned abstinencyes from meates c. I answere that the prohibition of Fornication was a morall precept reducible to the Commandment of not committing Adultery contayned in the Decalogue necessarily imposed at that tyme to instruct the Gentils newly conuerted in the Christian law of Matrimony and to deterre them from Concubinisme and vsing any more then one of those many women whome peraduenture they had ben accustomed carnally to haue known before their conuersions wheras their inioyned abstinence from bloud and stangled meates was no more decreed as a morall and euer continuing law then was their like prohibition of meates sacrificed to Idolls plainely repealed in the Apostles time by a contrary and lawfull practise of Christians And whereas S. Paul ad Rom. 14. vers 1. c. accounted it only weaknes in the Christian Iewes of those times to tye themselues to the legall obseruance of meates and to be scandalized at the liberty of the Gentills eating indifferently all thinges it is now to be worthily reputed an extrauagāt folly fancy for our pure Professours of spiritual Sanctity and Euangelical Perfection to tye themselues to such a Cerimoniall and burdensome obseruance of meats neuer dreamed of in many ages past by their Christian Catholike Predecessours and nothing pertinent to their pretended adoration and seruice of God in spirit and verity FINIS THE CONTENTS THE Preface declaring the Authors scope and intention in this Refutation pag. 3. I. CONTROVERSY QVEST. I. Of the seauenth day before Moyses pag. 21. Quest II. Whether the precept of the Sabaoth were Morall or Cerimoniall pag. 26. Quest III. Concerning the abrogation of the Iewes Sabaoth pag. 31. Quest IIII. Of the Sabaoth translated into the weekly day of our Sauiours Resurrection pag. 42. Quest V. Wherein is proued that Christians are to celebrate the yearly day of our Sauiours Resurrection on Sunday and not on the 14. day of March-Moone as the Iewes celebrated their Paschal pag. 57. II. CONTROVERSY QVEST. I. Of the vncleanesse of meats before Moyses Law pag. 65. Quest II. Of the Moysaicall Law of meates and mysterious ends why God commaunded it pag. 71. Quest III. Wherein the proper and perfect rule of morall Actions is briefly declared and how according to the same no meates are now vncleane and vnlawfull to Christians pag. 77. Quest IIII. Prouing by sundry texts of the New Testament the law of meats abrogated to Christians pag. 85. Quest V. Wherein is proued that bloud and strangled meates may be lawfully now eaten by Christians pag. 95. FINIS
9. of Ioabs cap. 42. vers 8. c. God himselfe no doubt hauing giuen some especiall ordinance or inspiration thereof to Adam himself or Seth his holy sonne who is said to haue begun to inuoke Gods Name Genes 4. vers 26. which must necessarily be vnderstood of some peculiar rites and order of celebrating sacrifices first taught and practised by him But that those birds and beasts are not sayd to haue beene then vncleane for food and vnlawfully to be eaten as afterwards in Moyses Law they were declared to be I proue because before the floud they seeme not at all to haue beene by holy people vsed for food and after Noahs tyme vntill Moyses Law giuen all meats but strangled and bloud were freely permitted The former of these two assertions I proue by this vnanswerable argument Holy people before the floud did only eate such meats as God had licensed and appointed them for food But before the floud no flesh or fish was by God licensed appointed vnto them for food but only hearbs fruits of the earth as Gods owne words do expresly import Gen. 1. vers 29. saying Behold I haue giuen you all kind of hearbs that seed vpon the earth and all trees that haue in themselues seed of their owne kind to be your meate c. not mentioning fish birds or beasts as afterwards he did to Noah and his posterity cap. 9. vers 2. 3. Wherefore only hearbs fruits of the earth were then eaten by holy people And a double reason may be yealded why such hearbes and fruites of the earth were more sufficient for mans sustenance before the floud then after First for that the earth was by the deluge of salt waters corrupted and altered from the former fertility therof and yealded not such wholsome and nourishing fruites as it did before whilst it purely remayned in that estate wherein God created it and whilst the first progeny as I may terme it of hearbes and trees remayned which God himselfe had out of the earth produced Secondly also for that mens nature in processe of time became weakned and lesse able by the fruites of the earth to be sustained then it was before when it newly came out of Gods own omnipotent hands that did temper and frame the same in all naturall perfection and ordaine it no doubt long after so to continue as it appeareth by the lasting liues of our first humane progenitors and their naturall force to beget childrē after they had liued many hundreds of yeares Wherfore holy Iacob tould Pharao demaunding his age Gen. 47. vers 8. 9. that his daies were ā hundred thirty yeares short and euill to wit subiect to infirmity and diseases and not ariuing to the daies of his fore-Fathers Likewise that after Noah vntill Moyses Law giuen which is my second assertion here to be proued all meates but strangled and bloud were freely permitted may euidently be gathered out of Gen. cap. 9. vers 2. 3. 4. where God first licensing men to eate fish and flesh Euery thing saith he which moueth and liueth shall be to you for food as growing hearbes I haue deliuered thē vnto you excepting that you shall not eate flesh with bloud Out of which text I argue thus against Iohn Traske Holy people from Noah vnto Moyses tyme might lawfully eate al meates licensed vnto them by God to be eaten But all meates except such as were strangled bloud were licensed by God to be eaten by them Therfore they might lawfully eate them The first proposition is certaine and graunted by Traske The second likewise is euident because strangled meates and bloud are in that generall Law and appointment of Creatures for food only excepted which kind of exception in such an vniuersall rule as that text conteineth authorizeth all other particulers not therin expressed or out of the same necessarily deduced So that the Minor of Ie. Traskes aboue mentioned argumēt is false to wit that the Moysaicall difference of meates was from the begining cōmaunded by God and by holy people obserued And were it graunted to be true that the Moysaicall difference of meates had ben so cōmaunded by God and by holy people euer vntill Christs time obserued yet doth it not thence necessarily follow that now alsom like manner it is to be practised by Christians all cerimonies and figures of former times as well before Moyses Law as after being by Christ fulfilled and wholy ceased amongst which the legall vncleanesse of meates was one as shall be afterwardes fully declared The first Proposition also of that great argument is clearly false to wit that euery religious rite from the beginning commaunded by God and by holy people obserued is doubtles a morall Law euer to continue amongst Christians because bloudy sacrifices for example were from the begining inspired by God and practised by Adams faithfull posterity and yet as types of Christs bloudy sacrifice they were now with the same wholy abrogated ended so that it is no such certaine signe as Traske would haue it of a morall and euer continuing Law that the same was from the beginning inspired or commaunded by God and by faithfull people vntill Christs comming obserued QVESTION II. Of the Moysaicall law of meats and mysterious endes why God commaunded it IOHN Traske willingly admitteth the common diuision of the old law into Morall Iudiciall and Cerimoniall Precepts mentioned by Moyses himselfe Deut. 2. vers 1. and taught by all moderne and ancient Writers treating of the two later sortes of Precepts abrogated by our Sauiours comming So that if it may by euident circumstances of the text be proued heere in this question by me that the legall obseruance of meates commanded to the Iewes Leuit. 11. Deut. 14. was meerly cerimoniall and for typical mysterious respects only imposed such as can haue now no morall end to be still cōtinued practised by Christians I shal easily shake and ouerthrow the sandy and fleeting ground of my Aduersaries doctrine And to proceed orderly in this question and fitly for my purpose I proue first this Law of meates to haue beene meerely cerimoniall because it is not at all mentioned but joyntly commixt with other Cerimonies of Moyses law For in Leuiticus it is immediatly anexed to the Typicall rites of sacrifices and oblations hath subsequently following it the cerimonious law and order of cleansings and purisications c. In Deutron likewise it hath before it many Iudiciall precepts and that whole cerimonial ordinance of celebrating festiual yeares daies Sacrifices after it c which is a signe at least that this differentiall law of meates is cerimoniall also and no morall part of Moyses law Secondly the endes for which this distinction of meates was holily ordained by God do sufficiently declare it to haue byn cerimoniall then and in no sort now appertaining to the morall obseruance of our Christian duties The first chiefest end therof expressed by God himselfe Deut. 14.