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
vers 2. was that this obseruance of meates might be a note and distinctiue signe of his people Because saith Moyses thou art holy to thy Lord God and he hath chosen thee amongst all other nations of the earth to be his peculiar people eate not things vncleane So that this Iudaicall difference of meates was part of that middle vnmortered wall of Cerimoniall and Iudiciall Precepts separating for a time Iewes and Gentills vntill our Sauiour threw it downe conioyning in him selfe the foundation corner-stone both people in the spirituall edifice and building of his Church ad Ephes 2. vers 14. 15. so that now as there is no distinction further made betweene Iew and Gentil ad Rom. 3. vers 9. 29. Act. 15. vers 6. and as circumcision and other distinctiue signes causing enmity and diuision betweene those two people now vnited in Christ are by his death on the crosse taken away and destroyed So is the law of difference imposed for that end euacuated also Secondly as marriage with Gentills was forbidden to the Iewes for that it was foreseene by God to be an occasion to seduce and drawe them from their faithfull profession Exod. 34. vers 16. as was lamentably experienced in Salomon 3. Reg. 11. v. 1. 2. and many other Iewes by that meanes corrupted So for the same cause Almighty God was pleased to inioyne them such a strict abstinence and horrour of sundry meates vsed by the Gentills round about them and such purifications for any that did either touch those meates or such persons as had eaten them that the Iewes for a necessary obseruance of their law were inforced in a manner to abstaine from all ciuill commerce and conuersation with such Gentile nations as might be powerfull to seduce them accounting it a great abhomination euen to enter into them as S. Peter tould Cornelius Act. 10. vers 28. Which reason of forbidding meates is now taken away by the happy conuersion of Gentile people to Christ Thirdly these vncleane foules and beasts forbidden in Moyses law figured the impure manners and abhominable rites of the Gentills as appeareth by S. Peters vision Act. 10. vers 11. by which our Sauiour mystically taught him to account no man vncleanē as before he had done ibid. vers 8. Wherfore as the Gentils spirituall vncleanesse was cleansed by their faith in Christ Act. 15. vers 9. so was the figure therof to cease also And consequently this and all other endes of the cerimoniall law of meates ceasing at Christs comming the obligation of the law it selfe was abrogated also A third Argument to proue the legall difference of meates to haue beene cerimoniall appertaining to the Iewes only whilst they remayned distinguished from other people may be gathered from these wordes so often repeated by God in the ordinance of that law They shal be vncleane to you abhominable to you execrable to you c. which manners of speach import that in themselues and to other nations they were not so but by his forbidding of them only made so Fourthly the same arguments by which Iohn Traske vsually proueth this law of meates to be morall and not cerimoniall proue many other Iudiciall partes of Moyses law morall also and still to be obserued by Christians Traskes common argument is that the Scriptures being perfect must expresly containe a sufficient and particuler rule to direct Christians in all things concerning their duty towards God and ciuill conuersation amongst themselues as what to eate what to weare c. but this particuler rule direction of meats for example to be eaten or not eaten by Christians is no where expressed but in the 11. Chap. of Leuitic and 19. of Deutr. Therefore the Law of meats conteyned in those Chapters is morall still to be obserued by Christians The Maior of which argument is false that the Scriptures must expresly particulerly instruct vs in all naturall actions as what to eate what to weare c. For God hath giuen vs a naturall Law to direct vs sufficiently in such particuler actions according to moral and generall precepts of auoyding sinne in them as to eate only such meats as are wholsome necessary to sustaine our bodily forces humbly thanking and intending to serue our Creatour by them to weare only such garments as are conuenient for our estate needfull to couer and keep our bodyes healthful c. leauing vs to holy liberty to exercise religious abstinence and mortification in them so as no other supernaturall rule is necessary to appoint either the particuler fashions of our garments the kinds of meats which are to be eaten the manners of dressing them c. the Scriptures teaching vs not to be good Cookes or Taylers but to be good Christians and to carry our selues morally and without sinne in all our actions whereunto the speciall nature of meats is wholy impertinent as I shall declare more fully in my next Question Iohn Traske out of the generall promises of Christs graces and mercies plentifully ordayned for faythfull righteous and penitent persons arrogantly presumeth assuredly and infallibly to collect the particuler election of himselfe others of his disciples els why wil he ridiculously deny the sufficiency of generall precepts and instructions to direct vs in moral and particuler actions Or why doth he admit of many vnnecessary trades imbraced by some of his chiefe disciples as the trade of Comfitmaking Perfuming c. tending in their own nature to luxury and no where expresly mentioned in Scripture no not in such places wherein the delicacies of Kings themselues are expressed as Samuel 1. cap. 8. Paralip 2. cap. 9. 3. Reg. cap. 10. c. Moreouer as there is no particuler appointment of meats but in those Chapters of Leuitic and Deutr. so is there no particuler determination of iudgmēts against malefactours and particuler lawes to be obserued for the ciuill gouernement of people but such as are contayned in Moyses Law yet will not Traske I suppose be so very a Iew as to introduce amongst Christians a necessary practise of such Iudicial and sundry other cerimoniall precepts seeming more pertinent to the morality of Christians then the legall obseruance of meates neither vncleane in themselues as the Minicheans and other hatefull Heretikes supposed them nor defiling in any fort the soules of such as do eat them with thanks and a holy intention to honour God by a temperate vse of them Lastly Iohn Traske admitting the legall difference and vncleanes of meats yet to continue amongst Christians is consequently also bound to admit legall purifications appointed to be vsed by such as had eaten or touched them as washing of their cloathes secluding themselues from humane society till the euening c. which he seemeth not to do but reiecteth them as cerimonious and impertinent now to the morall direction of Christians QVESTION III. VVherein the proper and perfect rule of moral Actions is briefly declared and how according to the same no
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