Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
evil_n	good_a	know_v	knowledge_n	3,077	5	7.3450	4	true

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

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 theÌ„selues 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 coÌ„science 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

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 straÌ„gled 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 prohibitioÌ„ 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 coÌ„maunded 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 theÌ„selues 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 ChristiaÌ„s 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 extrauagaÌ„t 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

Selected quad for the lemma: evil_n

Text snippets containing the quad