A09365:1603
The Whole Treatise of the Cases of Conscience
The whole treatise of the cases of conscience distinguished into three books: the first whereof is revised and corrected in sundry places, and the other two annexed. Taught and delivered by M. W. Perkins in his holy-day lectures, carefully examined by his own briefs, and now published together for the common good, by T. Pickering Bachelor of Divinity. Whereunto is adjoined a twofold table: one of the heads and number of the questions propounded and resolved; another of the principal texts of Scripture which are either explained, or vindicated from corrupt interpretation.The whole treatise of the cases of conscience distinguished into three bookes: the first whereof is revised and corrected in sundrie places, and the other two annexed. Taught and deliuered by M. W. Perkins in his holy-day lectures, carefully examined by his owne briefes, and now published together for the common good, by T. Pickering Bachelour of Diuinitie. Whereunto is adioyned a twofold table: one of the heads and number of the questions propounded and resolued; another of the principall texts of Scripture vvhich are either explaned, or vindicated from corrupt interpretation.
Cambridge: printed by John Legat, 1606Cambridge: printed by Iohn Legat, 1606
Book 3 › Chapter 4 › Section 2 › Question 2 › Section 2: §ect. 2.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
I answer. First, one mans particular example, must not be a rule of direction to all. In the East countries, we read, that men have lived, and do yet live a great time with a little; for example with parched corn and a cake. Now this example of theirs, is no rule to us that live in these parts. For their country is hotter then ours, and therefore less might serve them then us: we are hot within, and so our appetite is the more strong. Again, in eating we may not judge or condemn him that eateth more, or less, then we our selves, because his eating is no rule to us in this case.
I answer. First, one mans particular example, must not be a rule of direction to all. In the East countries, we read, that men haue liued, and doe yet liue a great time with a little; for example with parched corne and a cake. Now this example of theirs, is no rule to vs that liue in these parts. For their country is hotter then ours, and therefore lesse might serue them then vs: we are hot within, and so our appetite is the more strong. Againe, in eating we may not iudge or condemne him that eateth more, or lesse, then we our selues, because his eating is no rule to vs in this case.
Secondly, a mans own appetite, is not to be made a rule of eating for others. For a man must not eat, so long as his stomach craves meat; least he fall into the sin of gluttony, Rom. 13. 13. And this sin is noted by our Saviour Christ, to have been in the old world, in the days of Noah, Mat. 24. 38. when they gave themselves to *eating and drinking like the brute beasts: for so the word signifies.
Secondly, a mans owne appetite, is not to be made a rule of eating for others. For a mā must not eate, so long as his stomacke craues meate; least he fal into the sinne of gluttonie,