applause during his aboad with Maister Drake in Deuonshire and how his chamber lay open besides to all comers day and night for priuate instruction shewing himselfe a Foole if not a Pharisy in affecting humane prayses so palpably in all his speaches and actions Two of disciples only vnderstand Latin aswell as himselfe the one a poore seduced Gentleman better skilled in Hebrew then himself and equally conuersant in Scripture the other a Comfit-maker who lately vndertooke by Traskes directions as is probably guessed to publish his doctrinall conclusions to defend them against M. Crashaw who hath writē an idle loose refutation of them For contrary to his common Pulpit-doctrine and raylinges against Catholikes for admitting traditions and pointes of faith not contayned in Scripture he supposeth without further proofe that Christ in conuersation with his Apostles after his Resurrection taught our keeping of the Sunday in place of the Sabaoth that being a meere Tradition no where mentioned in Scripture Which sortes of aduantage are craftely obserued by Traske in all conferences of learned Protestantes with him he will not sticke in answering their arguments deduced from the authority and vniuersall practise of Christs Church in all ages before him to tell them that they fight against him with the Catholikes borrowed weapons and in their strokes at him wound themselues more deeply ouerthrowing most opinions of their own faith which are as strange and vnheard of till within the last 100. yeares as his doctrines and equally repugnant to the ancient authority and knowne practise of all Christendome in times past So that if his ground of admitting no doctrine not expressed in Scripture be shaken their Religion will totter also For the same authenticall testimonies of antiquity which serue to proue the Apostolicall obseruation of the Sunday do likewise mentiō Liturgies Massing Sacrifices celebrated by Christians in their publique sinaxes and meetings on festiuall and dominicall dayes testified by S. Augustine serm 251. de tempore by S. Cyprian de oper eleemosyn by the Fathers of the Agathen Councell cap. 47. by the 6. Oecumenicall Councell cap. 8. and sundry other ancient authors His Ipse dixit and sole assertion is a sufficient rule of fayth to all his disciples among whom if any chance to grow wiser as many of them lately haue done and to depart from his doctrine he will seeme to haue formerly feared foreknown that mans frailty and finall reprobation Thus not long since he dealt with one of them who notwithstanding then protested that Traske had heertofore vnder his owne hand warranted his true repentance and eternall election in Christ Iesus though passion at that time transported him to make a contrary iudgement of him There is nothing more troublesome to him and his disciples then to be tearmed ignorant or absurd in any of their assertions And albeit himselfe seemeth modest and temperate in his speaches and carriage yet anger and malice hidden in his hart soone breaketh out vpon very small occasions into rayling and ill tearmes such as himselfe will condemne in others by many Texts of Scripture Which his dangerous disposition tryed by one of his Protestant fellow-prisoners and other personall facts I purposely heere forbeare to relate hauing more authenticall testimonies against him His frequent Solecismes when now and then he boulteth out a word or line of Latin as to say Index expurgatorium c are for quietnes sake to be accounted but lapsus linguae vnfit to be tould him His barbarismes in speaking or writing must passe currently as Hebraismes and Scripture-phrases and all his arguments are to be accounted no other then formall and conuincing demonstrations Among which for proofe that S. Peter and the Apostles still obserued the legall difference of meates this one for example is his Achylles written to my knowledg by him in three seuerall discourses sent to one of his fellow-prisoners Qui ambulat in praecepto veteri recepto à Patre ambulat secundum legem discriminis inter animal quod comeditur animal quod non comeditur Sed Petrus ambulauit in praecepto veteri recepto à Patre Ergo ambulauit secundum legem discriminis inter animal quod comeditur animal quod non comeditur Thus Englished He that walketh in the old Commandment receaued from the Father walketh according to the Law of difference between the liuing creature that is to be eaten and the liuing creature that is not to be eaten But Peter walked in the old Commandment c. If you tell him first that his syllogisme is tedious and composed in barbarous Latin vnfit to come from the pen of an ancient schoolmaister and professed Grammarian He wil falsely tell you that Praecepto veteri recepto à Patre c. is the expresse phrase of S. Iohn in his first Canonicall Epistle If you further tell him that his argument is ridiculous in sense and forme as hauing no medium at all in the premises to proue the conclusion to walke in the old Commaundement c. and to walke according to the law of difference c being in sense all one in wordes only changed He will more absurdly tel you that by the old Commandment c. he meant Gods precept giuen to Adam in Paradise which all learned men know to haue byn a personall precept of abstayning from the fruite of one tree not cōcerning S. Peter afterwards or any Christian more then to the generall knowne doctrine of Adams transgression therof fearefully punished in his posterity And to deterre his aduersary from laughing at this argument and other more ridiculous passages of his papers he added this Caueat for a graue conclusion or memorable sentence of instruction Si fortè dum loquutus fuero postmodum verò sermonem meum subsannato If when peraduenture I shall haue spoken but afterwards laugh at my speach Wherein any learned man may plainely see indeed his wonted Ciceronian style strangely altered By reading in Eusebius history lib. 1. cap. 22. how Saint Policarpe and other holy Bishops of Asia obserued the Iewes time of keeping Easter he and his disciples are lately therein resolued to imitate them And that which he neuer read of S. Policarpe or any Christian Doctor before him he hath added to his Easter the festiuall obseruance of Azimes as is probably guessed by all his fellow prisoners seing him and his disciples after the fourtenth of March moone to eate contrary to their custome at other times white vnleauened loaues and seeming in his speaches to allow of the obseruance of that festiuity albeit of the manner he be somthing doubtfull as peraduenture whether it must be with a Phascall Lambe eaten c. He esteemeth it no arrogancy or pride of iudgment in him to dissent in his doctrines from all known Christians either liuing now or in any age before him Neither will he yield it to be a dangerous nouelty and notable giddines in him to change and coyne at his pleasure weekly doctrines
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
meates are now vncleane and vnlawfull to Christians IOHN Traske and his disciples are so absurd in their doctrine of meats as they wholy in a manner reiect humane reason from being any direction or rule at all to guide them in morall actions The Law of Nature say they is a rule only for naturall and carnall persons to liue by Gods children hauing a higher Law contayned in the holy Scriptures teaching them what to eate and making them perfect in all things els belonging to Christian manners and humane conuersation 2. ad Tim. 3. vers 15. 16. My purpose therfore is in this Question briefly to declare what the naturall light of reason is more fully then I haue done in the 2. Question of my first Controuersy shewing it is perfected by supernaturall knowledge and still remayneth a full and perfect rule to direct vs in all naturall and morall actions Naturall Reason is in it selfe the essentiall internall clarity of mans soule by the vse wherof we are distinguished from bruit beasts taught to know what is morally good and euill in our actions made capable of grace and all supernaturall perfection So that whilst we continue naturally men heere in this life we must guide and gouerne our selues thereby in humane and morall actions Faith being a supernaturall light graciously by God infused into our soule not to destroy naturall knowledge in vs but to perfect the same two Wayes First by helping vs to a more easy and certayne knowledge of sundry naturall verities then we can ordinarily in this life attayne vnto from the bare experience of our senses Secondly by notifying vnto vs the intellectuall power of our soule inclining it firmely and piously to beleeue many reuealed mysteries far aboue the naturall reach capacity thereof to be discouered or thought vpon by vs yet are they alwayes found so conformable thereunto as no point of faith is to be accounted credible and worthy of our faithfull and deuout assent which is in true discourse repugnant to naturall reason iudgment in vs. So that Iohn Traske and his disciples seeme to deale vnreasonably and without iudgment in excluding naturall reason and iudgement from being any rule at all in morall and humane actions contrary to the expresse doctrine of S. Paul ad Rom. 2. vers 24. 25. 26. where he affirmeth that the very Gentils who wanted all knowledge of a written law were a law to thēselues being naturally taught to obserue that law and to shew it written in their hartes to wit according to the morall precepts thereof their owne consciences sufficiently seruing to approue them in good and to condemne them in euill actions and so consequently to be a proper rule to guide and direct them in all morall and humane actions The supernaturall direction of fayth being graciously by Christ ordayned as I haue formerly sayd to facilitate and explane naturall knowledge many wayes corrupted and obscured in vs and happily to conduce vs to a higher degree of heauenly knowledge and Euangelicall perfection is idly and ignorantly confounded by Traske with naturall morality and falsely made the only and proper rule of humane morall actions which Gentill people wanted not according to the Apostle who notwithstanding are knowne not to haue had the light of heauenly knowledg euangelicall perfection reuealed vnto them Which true distinction of a morall and supernaturall law supposed I heere vndertake to proue the law of meates mentioned Leuit. 11. Deutr. 14. to haue ben meerly cerimoniall and no way now to appertaine to the morall or susupernaturall law and direction of Christians And that the Iudaicall obseruance of meates appertayneth not to that internall law of reason written by God in the hartes of all men and suficiently teaching them to knowe the morall good and euill of their actions and to make a cōscience of them I proue it first because neuer any Philosopher or Wiseman among the Gentills can be proued to haue taught or practised amongst many other morall and excellent precepts deliuered obserued by them this difference of meats but they are contrarily knowne to haue indifferently eaten all sortes of meates which experimentally they found wholsome fit to sustayn their bodyes as Connies Hares Swines flesh and other meates prohibited to the Iewes Which naturall and daily experience 10. Traske ridiculously denieth falsely pretending them to be not only legally vncleane but vnwholsome also for corporall sustenance and no more created by God for food or lesse forbidden by any law to be eaten then toades and serpentes which by the naturall precept of not killing our selus we are taught to refraine from not for that they are in themselues naturally vncleane but because they are in experience found to be inconuenient and hurtfull to our nature not nourished but destroied by them yet was neuer wise Iewes or Christians so absurd before as to teach that for the like moral respect of preseruing our naturall life Swines flesh was as toads and serpents forbidden in that precept Secondly holy people after the floud obserued no doubt the morall law and diuine directions giuen them yet as I haue proued in my former Question were no other meats but strangled and bloud and those also for mysterious and figuratiue respects expresly vntill Moyses tyme prohibited vnto them Thirdly our Sauiour Matt. 15. vers 11. 16. 17. from common reason and naturall vnderstanding collecteth this vniuersall rule and morall position that nothing entring the body can defile a man who is only made impure by sinneful acts proceeding from his soule c. S. Paul also ad Rom. 14. vers 17. morally teacheth vs that the kingdome of heauen or the meanes of gaining heauen is not or consisteth in meate and drinke but in iustice peace and ioy in the holy Ghost and he that in this serueth Christ pleaseth God to wit what meats soeuer he eateth For sayth he 1. ad Corinth cap. 8. v. 8. meate commendeth vs not to God Out of which holy texts I frame this argument Nothing is morally vncleane and vnlawfull to Christians that defileth not their soules But no meats entring their bodyes can according to our Sauiours owne words defile their soules Therefore no meates are morally vncleane and vnlawful to Christians The Maior of my argument is certaine because Christian morality consisteth in freedome from sinne The Minor likewise is out of reason it selfe deduced by our Sauiours blaming his disciples for conceauing that any meate eaten by the mouth can of it selfe defile the soule and so consequently for any natural vncleanes be vnlawfull to be vsed wherefore the legall prohibition of them cannot be morall but mysterious and cerimoniall Secondly I frame this argument That which neither commendeth men to God nor appertayneth to the gayning of heauen as Iustice and other vertues do cannot belong to the morall or supernaturall duty of a Christian But meats according to S. Paul do neither of themselues commend vs to God nor