who saw our Lord himself in flesh who also conuersed with many of the Apostles and was the second Bishop of Antioch after S. Peter in his epistle to the Magnesians not only taught them to keepe holy our Lords day as the queene and chiefest of all other daies consecrated to our Sauiours Resurrection but also he contesteth Epist ad Philip. that any Christian celebrating his Paschall with the Iewes maketh himselfe thereby a partaker with those who killed our Lord himselfe and his Apostles Neither was the decre of keeping Easter on the Sunday lightly made in Victors tyme but grauely and maturely determined in many holy and learned Synods of Bishops assembled by Victors appointement before he proceeded to excoÌ„municate the Asian Bishops as Eusebius in his chronicle also testifieth in so much as besids the Councell which Victor himselfe called at Rome Theophilus metropolitan of Cesaraea Narcissus Patriarth of Hierusalem Palmas Bishop of Pontus S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lions Barchillus Bishop of Corinth and many Bishops of other Prouinces assembled Synods and with one consent from no other fountayne then the certaine doctrine tradition of the Apostles themselues determined the Dominicall obseruance of Easter So that Policrates assertion hauing byn taught by S. Iohn the Quartadeciman manner of keeping the yearly feast of our Sauiours Resurrection seemeth to be against S. Iohns owne writing Apocal. 2. calling Sunday Diem Dominicum our Lords day for the reason formerly assigned by his scoller Ignatius to wit because it was sanctified and chiefely aboue all other dayes obserued by Christians for our Sauiours Resurrection which theron hapned And if in a festiuall and holy memory of that sacred mystery the Apostles themselues instituted a weekely obseruance of that day how can it be wisely thought that they would haue the anniuersary day it selfe of our Sauiours Resurrection not celebrated on that determinate day also Wherfore as we may suppose that which S. Iohn only permitted in Asia for the peace of those Churches touching their Quartadeciman obseruance of Easter Policrates partially and mistakingly affirmeth it to haue beene taught by the Apostle As for S. Irenaeus agreeing with Victor in his doctrine yet seeming to blame him for ouermuch seuerity vsed in excommunicating the Asian Churches for a practise tolerated in theÌ„ long before by his holy predecessours I answere that Irenaeus peraduenture knew not Victors motiues of doing so which was to resist Montanus errours then newly begun to be broached in Asia and to cut quickly off Blastus Iudaicall innouations rising euen in Rome it selfe and much confirmed by that legall manner of keeping Easter which made holy Victor to vndertake a violent remedy to cure a dangerous wound then begining to corrupt the purity of Christian doctrine in many Churches the case of the Asian Bishops being not the same then as it was in S. Policarpes dayes For wheras before they only by permission obserued Easter with the Iewes in Victors time they held it to be an Apostolical institutioÌ„ necessary to be imbraced by all other Churches In which decree Victor was according to his name truly Victorious the whole Church of Christ taking afterwards part with him and numbring the Quartadecimans amongst other Iudaizing heretikes and the Nicen Councell as S. Athanasius writeth in his booke of Synods reclaymed multitudes of them renewing Pope Victors decree of keeping Easter on the Sunday and ordayning that the Patriarches of Alexandria for the Aegyptian skill aboue other Nations in computing yeares and dayes should be appointed to order yearly the Paschall Cicles and by their Epistles first directed to the Roman Bishop and by him to other Churches to determine the Sunday on which Easter day was yearly to be obserued by Christians as is testified by S. Leo Epist 64. ad Marcianum Imperat. and is to be seene in the Paschal epistles themselues of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria translated by S. Hierome and yet extant Tom. 1. Biblioth Sanct. PP All which many other authentical testimonies of antiquity for proofe of our Christian manner of keeping Easter on the Sunday Io. Traske is likely to regard as little in this as he doth in other controuersies a ceremoniall precept of the Moysaicall Law being apter to conuince his fantasticall iudgement and immoueably determine him in any opinion let all Christian Churches present and past teach and practise what they will against him THE II. CONTROVERSY QVESTION I. Of the vncleanesse of meates before Moyses Law IOHN Traske and his disciples hold the Legall difference of meates mentioned Leuit. 11. Deutron 10. to be so morall in it selfe and religiously from mans first creation by faythfull people obserued as our first Parents themselues in Paradise had the same in a sort commanded to theÌ„ and their holy posterity euer afterwards â—â—actised it as may be gathered say they by that difference of cleane vncleane beasts entring the Arke Genes 7. vers 2. 3. their vsuall argument being this following That which was from the beginning commanded by God and by holy people obserued is no doubt a moral precept still to continue But the Law of meates was from the beginning commanded by God and by holy people obserued Therefore it is as a morall precept still to continue Which argument before I proceed fully and particulerly to answere I purpose heere orderly to ouerthrow the doctrinall groundes thereof First absolutly denying that Gods precept of not eating the forbidden fruit giuen to our first parents in Paradise was any Law at all of vncleane meates as ridiculously they suppose it to haue beene but only a commandment of abstinence imposed by God for a holy exercise and triall of their obedience towards him that hauing â—…eir soules illuminated and sanctifyed with abundant graces and all sensuall and disordered motions of their inferiour fleshly nature happily restrayned and suppressed with the golden bridle of originall iustice so as all other morall precepts were easily connaturally as it were in that harmonious vnion of nature and grace obserued by them God was pleased only in an extrinsecall indifferent matter to exact their due obedience subiection towards him which did no more concerne the Moysaicall difference of meats afterwards commanded then if he had forbidden them to touch the same tree or to eate of any another fruit in Paradise nor was the tree but the willfull transgression of their Creators coÌ„mandment vncleane aswell in theÌ„selus as in their vnhappy posterity fearfully punished As for the difference of birds and beasts cleane and vncleane entring the Arke which is another chiefe ground of Traskes former argument I answere that this vncleanes was not then vnderstood in respect of their vse for food but for the sacrifyces of those former times before Moyses wherin no birds or beasts but such as were legally afterwards reputed cleane in Moyses Law could be offered as may be gathered out of Abels sacrifice Gen. 4. vers 4. of Noahs cap. 6. vers 20. of Abrahams cap. 15. vers
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
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.
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