such labours of prouiding corporall foode vnlawfull any day they found none And Moyses sayd vnto them Behould God hath allotted you a Sabaoth giuing you double prouision of food on the sixt day to serue you the seauenth day wherfore let euery man remayne with himselfe or in his owne tent and let him not go out on the seauenth day and the people then sabathized or began to obserue the Sabaoth on the seauenth day first then being taught sayth Philo lib 1. de vita Moysis not only by Propheticall instruction but also by a most manifest argumēt of the Manna ceased to be rayned downe that day and continuing incorupted which was gathered in a double measure on the sixt day that the same was the seauenth day wherein God rested from his labours they hauing longe before desired to know the day of the worlds first creation and could not till then learne it which obseruance God afterwards cōmanded wrote in the first Table of the Decalogue willing his people not only to sanctify and keepe holy the seauenth day but expresly also forbidding them all sorts of externall labours in memory that him selfe had rested from his labours on that day calling it therfore in hebrew Saphath of the word Sacath which signifieth to rest QVESTION II. VVhether the precept of the Sabbaoth were Morall or Cerimoniall IOHN Traske seemeth not in any of his speaches or writings rightly to vnderstand wherein the morality of any Law or Precept consisteth neither doth Maister Cra. his superficiall aduersary indeauour in his confused answere to instruct him in the true vnderstanding thereof as he ought specially to haue done considering that all Traskes singuler opinions are chiefly grounded in a wrongefull conceyuing of some Moysaical precepts to haue ben morall and so consequently not abrogated by Christs coming which were indeed morally cerimoniall according to that precise figuratiue and mysterious manner at the least comaunded to the Iewes in the obseruance of them Heere therfore for both their instructions I define the morality of a law or precept to consist in that conformity which it hath to the naturall light of humane vnderstanding and iudgment taught in all true Philosophy to be the rule of naturall and morall actions and rightly tearmed by the Apostle ad Rom. cap. 2. vers 14. 15. A Law written by God euen in the hartes of such Gentills as had no knowledge of any other supernatural law approuing them in good and reprehending them in euill actions causing in them that practicall internall knowledge called Conscience and iustly seruing to condemne all such as contradict and do against it So that only such lawes and precepts are said to be morall which are conformable to this Synderesis and naturall light of humane iudgment perfected by grace aswell in the knowledge of naturall obiects as of supernaturall reuealed verities amongst which some are purely speculatiue and do only require a faithfull pious and firme assent of our iudgment vnto them and others contrarily are in their owne nature practicall precepts and diuine directions or laws commanding or forbidding things to be done by vs which if they be such according to the substance or manner of the act commaunded or forbidden by them as do appeare to humane vnderstanding and iudgment voluntarily to haue ben commaunded by God and exacted in due obedience from vs his Creatures for such mysterious respects as naturall iudgment cannot apprehend to be necessary or any way belonging to our direction in manners and morality of life towards God our selues or our neighbours those precepts are not to be accounted morall but mysterious and ceremoniall abrogated by Christ as Iohn Traske willingly confesseth Which true ground supposed briefly declaring the nature and condition of a morall law I answere thus to the difficulty of my Question heere proposed that the Commaundement giuen to the Iewes of keeping a Sabaoth or weekely day of rest was according to the substance and chiefe intention of that law morall Because naturall vnderstanding illuminated by faith teacheth it to be fit and expedient that all sorts of persons should abstaine from corporal labours so far forth as to allot certaine daies of their life to the especiall seruice and honour of Almighty God but the determination rather of the seauenth day in which God rested frō his labours then of the sixt in which man was created for to serue his creatour here in this world and to inioy him afterwards meerly depended on Gods free choyce and election misteriously resoluing to make the day of his owne rest the Sabaoth and resting day of his people also from corporall labours symbolizing therby that eternall day of clarity and rest which they were to inioy with himselfe afterwards As touching likewise the precise manner of rest from all sortes of labours euen such as were easily performed and belonged in a sort to the conuenient health and nourishment of their bodies commaunded to the Iewes on their Sabaoth as to light fire prepare meate c. I affirme and proue it to haue beene meerly cerimoniall naturall experience teaching vs first that the lighting of fire and such easy labours of preparing food on the Sabaoth for our selues or for the charitable releife of our brethren are no way repugnant to the morall end and intention for which the Sabaoth was chiefely ordayned to wit of yealding due honor and praise to God for his continuall blessinges and benefits towards vs which only requireth moderate rest from seruile and paineful labours wholy distrasting mens minds and making them vnapt for holy exercises of piety and deuotion Secondly experience likewise teacheth vs that mens dulnes and vnablenes ordinarily to be actuated any whole day togeather in prayer and prayses to God without ceasing is such as easy walking and other needfull or charitable exercises moderately vsed do help rather then hinder the frequent and feruent vse of mental and deuout exercises and serue to honour God and sanctify the Sabaoth more then superfluous sleep idle thoughts vnprofitable conuersation with others not expresly in that commaundement prohibited Which morall obseruation of the Sabaoth euen since Christs time religiously and vniuersally practised by Christian pastours people on the weekly day of our Sauiours Resurection was intimated by our Sauiour himselfe in many passages of the Ghospell doing for example many miracles on that day albeit he saw them by the Scribes and Pharisies scandalously apprehended to haue beene breaches of the Sabaoth Luk. 6. vers 9. Matth. 12. vers 10. c. commaunding such as he had cured to take vp theyr beds and go home to their owne houses which seemed a worke of toyle and labour forbidden to the Iewes on their Sabaoth Io. 5. vers 8. 10. defending his disciples for rubbing the eares of corne to eate Matth. 12. vers 1. Luc. 6. vers 1◠Marc. 2. v. 23. which the Iewes present reputed to haue beene a certaine laborious preparatiō of food seemingly forbiddē by God Exod. 35 vers 3.
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
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