QVESTION I. Of the seauenth Day before Moyses.

IOHN Traske seemeth falsely to suppose, and Maister Cra. his Aduersary as lightly to graunt, that a Sabaoth, or seauenth daie of rest from bodily labour was from the beginning of mans Creation cōmanded by God, & by faith­full people continually obserued: grounding as it should seeme this their assertion vpon the holy text of Gen. cap. 2. v. 3. wherein God is sayd to haue rested from his laboures, blessed and san­ctified the seauenth day. As if for God to sanctifie and designe a day to be holy afterwards, obserued in his especiall honour and seruice, were all one as to make it a sabaoth, or day of rest from exter­nall labours; which is most false, and may be ea­sily disproued by sundry plaine examples in the Moysaicall feasts of Azimes, Tabernacles &c. [Page 22] Wherein amongst eight holy ferialls or festiuall dayes celebrated with peculiar sacrifices and ce­rimonies cōmanded in them, Leuit. 3. vers. 8. 36 37. the first & eight ōly were to be obserued as sabaoths and daies of rest from corporal labours.

So that God might sanctifie and designe the seauenth day to be holy, and especially hono­red therein by Adam and his faithfull posterity, and yet not make it such a sabaoth, as afterwards he cōmanded Exod. 20. vers. 8. 9. that strict man­ner of rest from eternall labours, being no essen­tiall condition, but only a cerimoniall solemnity of a sanctified day, as those already instanced textes of Leuiticus do import: in which it is said of the first and eight daies, that they should be more solemn thē: he other six; & immediatly God commanded in them abstinence from all sorts of bodily labours, which notwithstanding when they are either necessary in themselues, or chari­tably expedient for others, cannot bee accounted morall breaches, prophaning that day in which they are, with due honour and praise otherwise giuen to God, moderatly performed: That representation of Gods rest by ours on the seauenth day which is cheifly respected and often instanced by Iohn Traske, being only a typicall or figuratiue respect, hauing no holines or mora­lity in itselfe further then moderate rest from ser­uile and continuall labours, as needfull and con­uenient for all men to performe their thankfull duty and seruice towards Almighty God, and [Page 23] lesse oftentimes interrupted and hindered by ex­ternall exercise of the body, then by superfluous sleepe, idle words, or distractiue thoughts not ex­presly forbiden in the precept of the Sabaoth, which according to the strict and ceremonious obseruance thereof from corporall labours is no where in the whole history of Genesis intimated to haue ben obserued by Abraham and other Pa­trarches, whose labours, iournies, māner of spē ­ding their liues, altars erected, sacrifices offered, exequies celebrated, couenants and lawes giuen by God, & holily by them obserued, are without any insinuation of such a Sabaoth particulerly recounted.

Moreouer many passages of that sacred hi­storie seeme euidently to import, that before Moyses time their was no such Sabaoth cōmaun­ded by God, or by holy people practised, as Gene­sis 31. vers. 40. 41. Where Iacob pleading his faithfull & diligent seruices done to Laban, he te­stifieth him selfe to haue indured laborious dayes & sleeplesse nights for twenty yeares togeather, making no exception of Sabaoth daies, as he would haue done no doubt if such had then ben obserued by him. And Exod. 5. vers. 19. the la­bours of his children are said to haue ben per sin­gulos dies, euery day prefixed and exacted by Pharaos officers, without any insinuation of Sa­baoths interposed. And to say, as Iohn Traske seemeth in his conference to do, that as the first institution of mariage was by degrees corrupted. [Page 24] with bigamy and diuorcing one wife to marrie another afterwards, Math. 19. vers. 8. So the Sabaoth likewise in processe of time grew ne­glected by gods people, vntill in his law he rene­wed the old institution thereof, is coniecturally only affirmed, Christ himselfe hauing taught vs the first institution of marriage to haue byn so depraued: but no mention is made in scripture at all of the old Sabaoth neglected.

Who likewise seeth not, that neither the Pa­triarches themselues nor their holy progeny be­ing knowne to haue obserued any Sabaoth, but that it were a far more pious and profitable con­iecture thence rather to inferre, that no Sabaoth was then cōmanded, then that such holy persons neglected the dew obseruance thereof, and liued Idolaters of Gods precept against his owne ex­presse testimony giuen of Abraham Genes. 26. vers. 5. Where he is sayd to haue obayed Gods voice, kept his precepts, comandements, ceremonies, and lawes; amongst which Iohn Traske ground­lesly and idly supposeth to haue been included the obseruance of the sabaoth, sithence no such precept giuen to Abraham, or practise thereof can be found mentioned in scripture, vntill the Israe­lites returning out of Egypt cam into the desert of Sin, and began to be feed on the Manna rayned downe vnto them Exod. 16. vers. 5. of which they were cōmanded to gather only six daies, and on the sixt day they were willed to gather a double measure to serue the day following; Moyses [Page 25] then first begining to tell them, vers. 23. & 26. that God had spoken vnto him, that on the mor­row, which was the seauēth day of gathering that miraculous food, the rest of the Sabaoth was to be sanctified to our Lord.

And when the Israelits either not crediting or not vnderstanding that which Moyses had tould them, went out to gather Māna on the 7. day as they had done on the other six daies before (which is an euident signe that as yet they held not 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 [Page 26] 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 [Page 27] 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 [Page 28] 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 [Page 29] 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 [Page 30] 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. in Moyses declaration of that precept; instan­cing against those captious accusers of himselfe & his disciples, the exercises of Priests labouring about sacrifices in the Temple, yet not violating the Sabaoth, the practise of Circumcision on the eight day, albeit it happened on the Sabaoth, their vsuall custome of leading out their cattle to water, and drawing them out of pittes and places of daunger on the Sabaoth day, without any sinfull breach thereof, as may be gathered out of our Sauiours manner of speach, Luke 13. 14. importing no reprehension of them for such facts, but produced rather by him as fit ex­amples apt to authorize his miraculous workes, done with lesse labour and more charity and v­tility [Page 31] to such as were by his voice, or a touch of his hand or garment, in soule and body perfectly cured.

So that Iohn Traske and other Puritanes in their cerimoniall and precise manner of ob­seruing the Sabaoth, are rather superstirious i­mitators of the Iewes, our Sauiours aduersaries, then humble and faithfull members of Christs Catholike Church, euer knowne to haue practi­sed a morall, and not the Iewish and cerimonial obseruance of the Sunday.

QVESTION III. Concerning the abrogation of the Iewes Sabaoth.

IOHN Traske adhering more constantly, and consequently then other Protestants do, to their dangerous ground of belee­uing nothing not expresly mentioned in Scrip­tures, or thence necessarily deduced; hath of late vpon conference with others, and more diligent search then he had made before of many texts in the old and new Testament, like a weather-cocke, turned with euery blast of his owne ignorant fancy and iudgment, hath determined himselfe, and drawne his disciples to a most strict keeping of Saturday the Iewish Sabaoth, comaunded, saith he, by God out of fire, and written with his owne finger in [Page 32] the first Table of the Decalogue, holily likewise by Christ and his disciples afterwards obserued, as a sacred memoriall of Gods rest on the 7. day, and therfore now also as a morall and diuine precept still to continue▪ Presse him with the vniuersall practise of Christs Church present & past since the Apostles, certainely knowne to haue reiected the Iewish Sabaoth, and insteed thereof to haue obserued the first day of the weeke in continuall memory of our Sauiours Resurection, and he will in horrible pride and pertinacity of iudgment affirme it to haue ben a corrupt and abusiue practise, little by him re­garded, as not being at al grounded in Scripture but repugnant vnto it. Vrge him with Christs promises of being present with his Church to the worlds end, Matth. 28. vers. 20. of establi­shing it so surely on a rocke, that hell gates shall neuer preuaile against it, Matth. 16. vers. 18. of comforting it with his spirit of loue, & leading it into all truth Iob▪ 14. vers. 16. 17. 26. which fitly therfore is said to be Colum [...] & firmamē ­tum veritatis, the suporting pillar and foun­dation of true faith, 1. Tim. 3. vers. 15. to whose holy obedience all Christians are tied vnder paine of being by their brethrē accoun­ted as Ethnickes and Publicans, Matth. 18. v. 17. he will ridiculously tell you as he did to one of his fellow prisoners conferring with him on this very point, that the true Church of which these and the like texts were written, is [Page 33] knowne to very few, consisting of 2. or 3. gathered togeather in Christs name, himselfe promising to be in the midst of them Matth. 18. vers. 20. that is to say, a small number of such little ones as haue truly repented, and are made sure of their election in Christ, hated and per­secuted by men, but beloued by God & guarded by Angells, seeing the face of their Heauenly Father. Matth. ibid. vers. 10. And examining him further on this point, he will in processe of speach, tell such as he will be confident with all, that himselfe and his brethren are those little ones, the only Gnostiks, & illuminated members of Christs Church, others belonging therunto no further then true faith, repentance, and morality of life shall lead them, and ignorance with all excuse them, for not actually professing his singular doctrines.

So he foolishly seeketh with Ebion and o­ther ancient Heretikes to breath life and spirit into the ceremonious carcasse and buried rites of the Iewish law, feeding his grosse children with such vnsauery excrements, for so the A­postle tearmeth them ad Philip. 3. vers. 8. as Christ long since in the ending of that Law hath cast out of the mystical body of his church, as not conteining any true norishment of soules in them; & vainely endeauoureth to illuminate those which obserue shadows, who haue happily since Christs time liued in the cleere sunshine of heauenly graces, planting like a foolish buil­der [Page 34] such new points of his faith on the sandy & fleeting foundation of the Iewish law, and see­king to set vp againe medium parietem maceriae, that parting wall of ceremonies, which distin­guished Iewes and Gentills subuerted and quite ouerthrowne by Christ, ad Eph. 2. vers. 14. & 15. euacuating al such legall decres and ceremonial comandements that he might build on himselfe the foundation and corner stone both people in a Holy Temple and habitation of God &c. pu­rifiyng alike their hares by faith. Act. 15. vers. 9.

And that amongest other cerimoniall pre­cepts and decrees of Moyses Law abrogated by Christ, the Sabaoth was one, holily rrāslated by the Apostles themselues into our Sunday, as shall bee proued in my next Question, is by S. Paul ad Coloss. 2. vers. 16. 17. expresly affirmed willing his disciples not to be iudged or disco­uered in their faithfull profession in meate, or drinke, or new moones, or any part of a festi­uall day or Sabaoth, which are shadowes of fu­ture good thinges. By which Sabaoth cannot be meant the feasts of Trumpets, Tabernacles, Expiation, and other such ceremoniall and Ie­wish festiuities, as Traske heretically cōmenteth. For albeit those feasts be called indeed (Leuit. 23.) Sabboths, or daies of rest, because all ex­ternall workes were alike forbidden in them, as on the seauenth day: yet the Apostle rest rayneth the word Sabaoth in this place, to signifie the weekly Sabaoths of the Iewes, as appeareth first [Page 35] in that hee numbreth such Iewish festiual daies distinctly from the Sabaoth, equally forbiding the obseruance of them both.

His second reason why he prohibiteth them conteyned in that part of the text, quae sunt vm­bra &c. which are shaldowes of future good thinges, equally agreeth to them both: for as those feasts were shaddows and types, so were the weekly Sabaoths also. Wherfore Ebion and his disciples, the first hereticall obseruers of our Lords day and the Iewish Sabaoths togeather, as witnesseth S. Epiphanius haers. 30. S. Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 26. pressed with the authority of this place, and perceauing the vnanswerablenes therof, rather then they would therunto con­forme their doctrines, absolutly reiected all S. Paules Epistles, and accounted him an Apostata from the Iewish faith: The which Iohn Traske seemeth not yet to do, albeit hee dared once to say of S. Paul, that he sought to please men, so consequently could not be the true seruant of Christ.

Secondly, I deduce out of Scripture this The­ological argumēt. The Iews for the like respect, & memory of Gods rest, were as well bound to obserue ech Sabaoth of years, & the Sabaoth of that yearly Sabaoth, called the Iubily, or 50. year, as to keep the weekly Sabaoth of daies, Leuit. 25. But those yearly Sabaoths, are certainely (I suppose in Traskes opinion) abrogated: where­fore the weekly Sabaoth is no longer to bee ob­serued: [Page 36] Gods precepts thereof deliured out of fire to the people, and written wit his owne singer in the Decalogue, especially instanced by Traske, being meere circumstances impertinent to the morality therof, further thē is in my for­mer question already declared: Gods comaun­dement whether giuen out of fire, or not being sufficient of it selfe to oblige his creatures to the perpetuall obseruance of any Law for morality of life fit to be obserued. And no learned man will deny but that many precepts, neither deli­uered out of fire, nor written in the Decalogue Tables were morall, and as such, are now to be obserued by Christians: as for a man not to marry his Fathers wife, his sister, his daughter &c. The prohibition of vsury and sundry other like moral precepts, amongst which (though falsely) Traske numbreth the legall difference of meates, albeit it was neither commaunded out of fire, nor written in the Decalogue Tables.

Thirdly I argue, that Iohn Traske hath no sufficient authority of Scripture, prouing the cōtinuance of the Iewish Sabaoth: for our Saui­ours obseruance thereof little importeth for this purpose, the Law wherunto he voluntarily & in obedience to his Father subiected himselfe, being not before his death determined, so that he practised likewise Circumcision, and many other cerimoniall rites, now vnlawfull to Christians. The practise also of the Apostles, entring commonly, after Christs death, into [Page 37] the Temple, and other Iewish Sinagogues on their Sabaoth, maketh as little as our Sauiours example to proue the continuance thereof, this their practise being in no text of their holy Acts testified. Wherein likewise the holy Euangelist insinuateth not, the motiue & end of this their Custome to haue ben not so much a religions obseruation of that Sabaoth, as a more commo­dious and generall instruction of the Iewes cō ­cerning the Law & Prophets, fulfilled in Christ their expected Messias, they being in those dayes and places chiefly assembled and best prepared to haue such spirituall doctins propounded vn­to them by the Apostles: Who for celebration of Christ supper, preaching, and other publique exercises of Christian piety and deuotion, were accustomed to meete on the first day of the week, called therefore our Lords day Apocal. 2. because our Lord had then sanctified the same by his resurrection, and commaunded the reli­gious obseruance therof, as shall in my next Question bee fully discussed.

If Iohn Traske will further contend, that the Apostles for other religious respects besides preaching of Christ, entred the Temples and Sinagogues on the Sabaoth, and festiuall daies, as Act▪ 21. vers. 23. 24. 25. where S. Paul not to auert the whole nation of the Iewes from Christ, did by the counsell of S. Iames purify him selfe with other Nazaretts, and so enter the Temple, that he might seeme to obserue the [Page 38] Law as other Iewes conuerted vnto Christ thē commonly did. I answere, this conditionall obseruance of the Sabaoth and other cerimo­niall rites for a time by the Apostles, was only permitted by Christ, as a charitable meanes the better to vnite the Iewes and Gentills in the v­nity of one Church: The giuer of the Law (saith S. Augustine writing to S. Hierome E­pist. 19.) hauing so determined to end the same with his owne death, and afterwards honorably to bury it, by permitting the conuerted Iewes for a while to practise it, vntill his Ghospel were sufficiently promulgated. For (saith this holy Father) those legall obseruaunces were not su­dainely to be detested, as the diuelish sacriledges of Gentills, when Christs grace began to be re­uealed, which was in such shadowing rites pre­figured; but to be permitted for a season to their posterity, who first receaued them, which after their exequies honorably performed, were by all Christians to bee vtterly forsaken.

If Traske wil presse me further to know the precise time, when the ceremoniall obseruation of the Sabaoth, and other rites of Moyses Law wholy ceased, and became vnlawfull to be pra­ctised any more by Christians. I answere him, that peraduenture vntill the very destruction of Ierusalem, and subuersion of the Temple, more then 40. yeares after our Sauiours passion, the old Sabaoth and other ceremonious rites of the Law, might be by some faithfull Iewes, with­out [Page 39] any touch of infidelity, and falling from Christ, albeit vnnecessarily and improfitably, obserued: Gods prouidence (saith Origen homil. 10. in Leuit) wisely ordaining, that the Citty, Temple, and all things els belonging to the for­mer glory of that Law and nation, should be al­togeather destroied, least sucklings and wea­klinges in faith, should be longer allured by thē, and drawne away from purely imbracing Christian verities shadowed in them. So that when our Sauiour willed his disciples, Math. 24. vers. 10. to pray that their flight might not hap­pen in winter, saith S. Ierome, because extremity of could would hinder their lasting aboad in mountaines & desert places; nor in the Sabaoth because the religious rest therof would hinder their flight: which had ben idly spoken, saith Traske, if Christians to whome these wordes were vttered, had not ben bound to a strict ob­seruance of the old Sabaoth, when Ierusalem was sacked.

I answere first this obiection, that albeit it might be gathered out of this text, that many Christian Iewes did obserue their old Sabaoth as before, vntill the destruction of Ierusalem: yet can it not thence also be inferred, that such Chri­stians obserued it in like manner afterwards, when they had seene the perfidious cruelty of their whole nation against Christ, so examplarly punished, their citty sacked, their Preists slaugh­tered, and Temple subuerted, neuer againe, by [Page 40] Christs speaches, to be restored, which could not but be taken by faithfull people as certaine signes of that law and religion wholy abrogated by Christ and ended, the cheifest exercises whereof consisted in prayers made in the Temple togeather with misterious rites and sa­crifices therein only performed. Secondly. I answere, that these words were vttered by Christ to his disciples who were naturall Iewes and members of that Commonwealth, where­in the Sabaoth was by most people strictly still obserued. Wherefore our Sauiour might well take an occasion to vtter this speach to them, which cheifly concerned the generality of vn­beleeuing Iewes, liuing togeather with them and obseruing the Sabaoth, as may be instanced in many other examples of like speaches in Scri­pture. Thirdly. I answere, that Christ vttered that speach, as fore seeing that the very day in which Titus should besiege the Citty, should be no other then the Paschall solemnity, and great Sabaoth, wherein multitudes of people repay­ring to Ierusalem from all places, should be sodai­nely so inclosed, as they should haue no meanes to fly, hauing the gates shut vpon them by such captaines and people as vndertooke to defend the citty, and so narowly watched by the Romā soldiars, as when any were taken to fly they were vsually crucified before the walles, and being restained by such multituds, they suffered vnspeakeable famine, plague, and slaughters, by [Page 41] externall foes and intestine dissentions, which being forknowne by our Sauiour, he might wel wish, them to pray that their flight or cause of flying, to wit, the approach of Titus army, might not happen in winter, or on the Sabaoth, not that they might not lawfully fly thereon for safeguard of their liues, or fight against their enimyes, as we read of Iudas Machabaeus souldiers 1. Machab. 3. but because all meanes of flight should be hindred by the sodaine approach of their enimies without, & Iewish captains with­in the Citty, and their miseries be multiplied by occasion of such multitudes assembled on the Sabaoth.

Finally if Iohn Traske for continuance of the Sabaoth, shall obiect, as one of his disciples seemed to do, that the celebration of the same is called, Exod. 31. A sempiternall Couenant betwene God and his people, to be obserued with perpetuall honour in all their generations Exod. 12. I answere, that the like manner of speach is vsed of the old Aaronicall Preisthood, Exod. 28. now translated into the Priesthood of our Sauiour ad Heb. 7. v. 11. 12. 15. 16. and abrogated by Traskes owne confession. Wher­fore we are to interprete the eternal duration of such rites, to import only a continuance of them, till the Law fully ended, or because they still remaine according to the morall & eternal things signified by them, as S. Augustine solueth this obiection quaest. 46. 124. & 131. in Exod.

QVESTION IIII. Of the Sabaoth translated into the weekely day of our Sauiours Resurrection

SAINT Augustine epist. 118. rightly ter­meth it a most insolent madnes for any particuler man to reproue that which the whole Church of Christ generally obserueth for in so doing, with vnreasonable pride he practically prefereth his owne singuler opinion before the iudgements of all other Christian Pastours and people, as doth Iohn Traske in his nouell obseruance of the Iewish Sabaoth, abro­gated by the Apostles themselues, as I haue pro­ued in my former Question, and translated into the holy & euer memorable day of our Sauiours Resurrection, as is plainely testified by the 65. Apostolicall Canon, by S. Ignatius the Apostles disciple, in his Epistle ad Magnesianos, by holy Iustin Apologia 2. by Tertullian de Corona militis & Apologia cap. 16. by Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 7. stromat. by Origen homil. 7. in Exod. by S. A­thanasius in illa verba, Omnia mihitradita sunt &c. by S. Hilary praefat. in psalm. by S. Ambrose epist. 83. & serm. 62. by S. Hierome in cap. 4. ad Ga­latas, by S. Augustin contra Adimant. cap. 16. lib. 22. de ciuitate dei, cap. 30. & serm. 252. by S. Leo epist. 81. ad Dioscorum, by S. Gregory lib 2. epist. 3. by the Laodicean Councell cap. 29. Wherein [Page 43] Christians are expressely forbidden to play the Iewes, and to be idle on the Sabaoth, and willed with all to obserue and prefer our Lords day be­fore it. So as if any testimonies of antiquity might be by Traske and his Companions ad­mitted, and held sufficient to proue the Aposto­licall translation of the Sabaoth, there would need no other arguments to refute, and reduce them from their idle and singuler fancies, then those former vndoubted authorities of ancient & learned Fathers. But as he & his companions are wholy ignorant & vnacquainted with their workes, so are they fully bent to contemne all such Testimonies, which they find not war­ranted by plaine texts of scripture, as themselues only are pleased to expound them.

For whereas not only the Ancient Fa­thers, but Ebion also himselfe, and his disciples acknowledged their hereticall doctrine of Ie­wish feasts and Sabaoths necessary to be obser­ued by Christians, togeather with their owne Dominicall daies and proper festiuities, to haue beene expresly contradicted and condemned by S. Paul ad Coloss. 2. reiecting thereupon all his Epistles from the Canon of Scripture; these new Ebionites, by shifting comments, and absurd glosses of their owne deuising, seeke to delude the text, and drawe it against all ancient expo­sitions therof, to be only vnderstood of cerimo­niall feasts mentioned in the 23. of Leuiticus, only because they are there called Sabaothes. [Page 44] Whereas the Apostle distinguisheth such festi­uall daies from the weekly Sabaoth, and equally in this text forbiddeth the obseruance of them both to Christians. Which true exposition heere supposed, I conclude this argument. One day of seauen is still as a morall precept to be holily obserued by all Christians. But the obseruance of the old Sabaoth is prohibited by the Apostle to Christians, and no other day introduced in place thereof, but the day of our Sauiours Re­surrection. Therfore that day only, and not the Iewish Sabaoth, is still as a morall precept to be holily obserued by Christians.

Secondly, because Iohn Traske is most delighted with Sillogisticall collections, albeit himselfe be so little skilled in Logi­que, as writing lately against an Aduersa­ry, he denied the Minor of his Enthimeme, sup­posing that Christ was, as he tould the Iewes, Dominus Sabati, and had full power either by himselfe, or his Apostles to abrogate and alter as well as to institute & approue the obseruance thereof; I frame this argument. That day of the seauen is by Christians now weekly to bee ob­serued, which the Apostles themselues allotted for their holy Assemblies, and other publique exercises of their Christian faith. But the day which the Apostles so allotted &c. was the first day of the weeke, and not the Iewish Sabaoth. Wherfore the first day of the weeke, & not the Iewish Sabaoth is to be obserued by Christians.

[Page 45]The Maior, or former part of my Argumēt is certaine, because such publique assemblies and exercises of faith, are the chiefe end, for which the Sabaoth, and other festiuall daies were first ordayned. The Minor, or latter part is clearely proued by the practise of the Apostles Act. 20. v. 6. 7. where S. Paul, & many other Disciples, of seauen whole daies which they spent in Troas, are read only to haue assembled themselues for preaching & frequenting Sacraments, which are the most publike exercises of faith, on the first day of the weeke, and not on the Iewish Saba­oth. Likewise on that day, the Apostle 1. Cor. 16. vers. 1. 2. willed the Christians at Corinth to make their Collects, or cōmon gatheringes for the poore brethren at Ierusalem, which is an euident signe that Christians vsed to assemble themselues on that day, there being no reason to be yealded why such common collections of almes should be rather on the first day of the weeke, then any of the rest, but that Christians vsed only therein to make their holy Sinaxes & conuents for praier, preaching, almes, frequen­ting Sacraments &c. mentioned by holy Iustin in Apolog. 2. to Marcus Antoninus, and other Gouerners of the Empire in behalfe of Christi­ans, and sundry of those holy Fathers formerly mentioned.

Thirdly, I make this Argument for ob­seruance of the sunday in place of the Sabaoth. That day of the weeke is chiefly to be obserued [Page 46] by Christians, which our Lord was pleased to make, and haue called his owne day. But our Lord did make and call his owne day, the first day of the weeke, and not the Iewish Sabaoth. Therfore the first day of the weeke, and not the Iewish Sabaoth, is especially to be obserued by Christians. The maior is certaine, because as Christians are bound by their faithfull professi­on to honor Christ himselfe with thankefull & humble seruices; so doth the wisdome of faith teach them also especially to honor and esteeme that day of all others most holy, which their Lord himselfe most respected, and did choose to make, and haue called his owne day. For as to name any day, the day of a King, importeth that day to be specially regarded by the king him­selfe, and festiually obserued by his subiects in memory of some victory obteyned, or memo­rable good, happened to himselfe or his people on the same: so for such holy and memorable respects, the first day of the weeke is called our Lords day, Apocalyp. 2. 5. worthiest of all other daies of the weeke to be honored, and festiual­ly obserued by Christians as shall be particular­ly proued in my next Argument. My minor is proued cleerely by that former text of S. Iohn, expresly calling one day of the weeke or yeare as a familiar name knowne to all Christians in his time▪ Diem Dominicum, our Lords day, to wit, a day especially sanctified by Christ, & de­uoted to his seruice which was not the Sabaoth [Page 47] of the Iewes, no where els in Scripture so cal­led, nor any other day but vna, or prima Sabbati, the next after the sabaoth, as S. Ignatius S. Iohns scholler testifieth epist. 6. ad Magnesianos, say­ing: that after the Sabaoth ech louer of Christ celebrateth Diem Dominicum, our Lords day, consecrated to our Lords Resurrection, regina & principium omnium dierum, the cheifest and principallest of all other daies &c. els where Epist 8. ad Philippenses, he contesteth, that if any Christian celebrateth his Easter with the Iews, or their other Symbolicall festiuities, amongst which the Sabaothes are included, he maketh himselfe partaker with those who killed Christ and his Apostles. S. Augustin also to omit many other like testimonies of ancient Fathers, serm. 251. de tempore, teacheth the religions solemni­zation of our Lords day to haue beene instituted by the Apostles themselues, because our Saui­our therein rose from death to life, and to haue beene by them called our Lords day, that we might learne by that name to abstaine therein from sin, and earthly labours, attending to diuine seruices. And after much honourable mention made of that day, he saith, that there­fore the holy Doctors of Christs Church, mea­ning the Apostles, decreed to transfer on that day al the glory of the Iewish Sabaoth, that what they celebrated in Types we might celebrate in Verities &c.

Fourthly the precept of the Sabaoth obli­geth [Page 48] Christians no further then it can be pro­ued to conteyne a moral law, necessary to direct them in their religious duty, and thankfulnes towards Almighty God for benefitts. But the obseruance of our Lords day is fitter to direct Christians in their duty towards God, & to put them in mind of his gracious benefitts towards them, then the obseruance of the old Sabaoth. Therfore our Lords day, not the old Sabaoth, is now commaunded, and fittest to be obserned by Christians. The maior is certaine because all cerimoniall and iudiciall precepts are confessed by Iohn Traske to haue beene abrogated by Christ; and no law of the old Testament bin­deth Christians which is not morally expedient and necessary to direct them in their Christian duty and seruice. My minor may be best proued by examining and comparing the institution and ends for which our Lords day and the old Sabaoth were first ordayned and obserued.

The old Sabaoth was cheifely ordayned in memory of Gods rest from his labours, of creating all things in six daies, and therefore Philo lib. de opificio mundi, wisely calleth it the worlds birth-day, seruing for a continuall in­struction of Gods people in the knowledge of their creator, and to exclude the error of Philo­sophers commonly teaching the world to haue had no beginning. Secondly it serued to repre­sent vnto the Israelites that rest, which God had giuen vnto them after their Egyptian seruitude, [Page 49] and painefull labours ended, as is expresly affir­med Deut. 5. vers. 15. Thirdly it declared them to be a peculiar people, sanctifyed by God and deuoted to his seruice Exod. 31 vers. 13. Fourth­ly the Iewes Sabaoth allegorically prefigured Christs rest in his sepulcher, after his paynefull labours for mans redemption ended, as is insi­nuated by S. Paul ad Hebr. 4. vers. 10. Fifthly in a tripologicall sense it signifyed the spirituall rest of soules, after the seruile workes of sinne by Christs grace ended, as S. Augustine teacheth vs tract. 30. in Ioan. and in sundry other places. Sixtly is was Anagogically a figure of that rest which holy soules after this laboursome life en­ded, were to enioy in Abrahams bosome, as is insinuated by S. Paul ad Hebr. 4. vers. 6. & 11. and is also taught by S. Augustine epist. 119.

For all which holy respects and mysteri­ous significations it was expedient and necessa­ry that the old Sabaoth should be changed by Christ into that blessed day, on which himselfe was borne for mans redemption, to wit, the first day of the weeke, as may be Mathematically demonstrated by searching backwards the Cicle of Dominical letters, which will be found on the 25. of December in the second yeare of the hundred and ninty fourth Olympiade; of Rome first built 754. from Cesars death 42. from the Triumuirate began by Augustus 41. of He­rods raigne. 29. when our Sauiour was certain­ly borne, to haue beene B. Secondly on that first▪ [Page 50] day of the weeke he rose, and began humanely to lead his glorious immortall life, as may be expresly gathered from the last chapter of all 4. Euangelists. Thirdly, on that day he visibly infused his holy spirit on the Apostles, in the day of Pentecost, to wit, the fiftith day after the se­cond of Azimes whē the Iews began to number their day of Pentecost, which happened to be cō ­pletly ēded in the yeare of our Sauiours passiō on sunday, as is learnedly proued by Ribera de festis Iudaeorum Cap. de Pentecoste, by Bellar de Cultu Sanctorum lib. 3. Cap. 13. and sundry other au­thors. So as three of the greatest mysteries of our Sauiours life, and most singular benefitts that God could deuise to bestow on mankind happe­ned on our Lords day, to sanctify and make it more worthy then the Iewes Sabaoth, to be by vs Christians weekely celebrated, and obser­ued.

To which holy respects we may add also these, that God created the earth, the heauens & Angelicall creatures on that day, graciously so therein preparing the locall place of our eter­nall Beatitude and heauently repose, signified better by ours, then the Iewish Sabaoth, proui­ding our companions therein an earthely ha­bitation in the meane while to honour him in this life, and make our selues by his graces wor­thy of our future glorification. All Types of the old Sabaoth are in the mysteries of this fully ac­complished. This day is a gracious Symbole, or [Page 51] signe of our speciall deuotion towards Christ, a holy memoriall of spirituall graces receaued from him, as the other was chiefly of Gods temporall benefits towards his creatures. So as they seeme to be Iewes rather, then Chri­stians, who against the vniuersall and known practise of Christs Church, since the Apostles tyme, esteeme the old Sabaoth more holy, and worthy to be obserued, then our Lords day, made for such high and mysterious respects, memorable to Christians.

Lastly, the Apostle S. Paul ad Hebr. 4. plainely supposeth Christ to haue instituted a new Sabatisme, or day of rest for his people in memory of his rest, after the labours which he sustayned for our redemption ended, as God ordayned from the beginning, a holy day in memory of his owne rest after his workes of creation perfected. And from the mysticall signification of these two distinct Sabaothes succeding ech other, and simbolizing a double rest of Gods people, the one in Abrahams bo­some, as our Sauiour tearmeth the place, wherein the Patriarches before him rested, and the other in heauen with himselfe after his Resurrection; he taketh an occasion to exhort the Hebrewes, that sithence their Forefathers entred not through their incredulity into Gods rest, figured by the first Sabaoth, they should hasten to enter into the rest of Christ, by the day of his new Sabaoth represented, from [Page 52] which Text litterally, so, and truly explicated, I make this argument.

The first Sabaoth representing that rest which God gaue to his people before Christ, of which it is sayd Genesis 2. he rested the sea­uenth day from his workes &c. is ended accor­ding to the Apostle vers. 7. & 8. and a new Sabaoth, or Symbolicall day of rest was for­tould by Dauid, and ordayned by Christ after his labours ended vers. 9. 10. But no new Saba­oth or Symbolicall day of rest, distinct from the seauenth day can be vnderstood to haue beene mentioned by Dauid, and instituted by Christ after his labours ended, praeter diem Do­minicum, besides the day of his glorious Resur­rection. Therefore the old Sabaoth figuring the rest, whereunto God inuited holy people before Christ, is now ended, and the Domi­nicall day, symbolizing the new rest which Christians inuited holy soules vnto is in place thereof happily succeeded.

Iohn Traske lately entred into a humor of reading histories that he might seeme skilled in some other good studies, besides the knowledg of Scriptures, may chance to stumble vpon an obiection seemingly sufficient to proue the continuance at least of the old Sabaoth, togea­ther with our Lords day. For example S. Gre­gory Nissen in his Oration against such as broo­ked not reprehensions, asketh an Heretike, with what eyes he saw our Lords day, who des­pised [Page 53] the Sabaoth, these dayes being brethren, so as he that reproacheth the one wrongeth the other also. Socrates lib. 6. hist. cap. 8. affirmeth the Sabaoth and our Lords day to be the week­ly feasts of Christians, wherein they were wont to assemble themselues. And Anastasius Nicenus lib quaest. 77. affirmeth those two dayes to be holy and festiuall. The Apostolicall Church also of Aethiopia doth at this day religi­ously obserue both Sabaoths: so as the old Sa­baoth by these historicall passages, and other authenticall testimonies of antiquity, seemeth not to haue beene abrogated by the Apostles.

Whereunto I answere, that albeit the A­postles abrogated the old Sabaoth, and intro­duced the obseruatiō of our Lords day in place thereof, as is already proued in this and my former question, yet afterwards Christian Bi­shops, occasionally, and for a while only in many Easterne Churches renewed a festiuall and Christian obseruance thereof, not that they held the Moysaicall precept still to oblige them thereunto, as doth Iohn Traske and his disciples, or that as Ebion, they held it necessary for all Christians equally to obserue both Sa­baothes, whose opinion all the ancient Fathers are knowne generally▪ to haue detested. But for a holy and zealous refutation of the Symo­nians, Menandrians, Cerinthians, Carpocratians, Basilidians, Marcionistes, and other like Here­tykes, who to reproach the Author of the old [Page 54] Testament, whom they tearmed An euill God & least they might seeme to honor him in any sort, feasted on the Sabaoth, as S. Epiphanius recoun­ted haeres. 42. the holy Pastours and people of Christs Church in a zealous detestation of their blasphemies, and to shew the same God to haue beene author of both Testaments faithfully and fittly for a tyme obserued both Sabaothes, for­bidding any Christian vnder grieuous penalties to fast on Saturday more then on our Lords day, one Saturday only excepted wherein our Saui­our lay dead in his sepulcher, as is expresly men­tioned in S. Ignatius Epist. ad Philipenses, in the 55. Apostolicall Canon, and in sundry other ancient Authors. Which Christian and occasi­onall obseruance of the old Sabaoth is knowne not to haue beene generally practised, but only in particuler Churches, wherein such heretikes liued: and as those Heresies ceased, the festiuall keeping of the Sabaoth ceased also, and Christi­ans feasted aswell on it, as on friday in memo­ry of our Sauiours death, and the Apostles sor­row continued vntill his ioyfull Resurrection, as is expresly affirmed by Innocentius epist. 2. c. 4. Hieron. epist. 97. August. epist. 86. & 18. by Cassianus collat. 3. cap. 10 &c. As for the Aethiopi­ans still obseruing the Sabaoth, I answere, that they are knowne to haue byn corrupted since their Apostolicall conuersion with many Here­ticall and Iudaical doctrines, practising circum­cision and sundry other rites of Moyses law, vn­lawfull [Page 55] to Christians.

An other Argument much vsed by Traskes Disciples is, that if circumcision were by an ex­presse decree of the Apostles Act. 15. repealed, with much more reason was the Sabaoth by their like decree to haue ben abrogated also, considering that the Commandement thereof was included amongest the other morall, and still continuing precepts of the Decalogue ta­bles &c. Wherunto I answere first, that Cir­cumcision was indeed by the Apostles declared to be a burdensome and vnnecessary precept, to be imposed on the Gentills. But to the Iewes it was abrogated only, as generally the Sabaoth was, by the contrary doctrine of the Apostles, sufficiently warranting and securing the consi­ence of any good Christian, to belieue and pra­ctise any point of Religion taught by them, al­beit we read of no Apostolicall Synode purpo­sely made to determine the same.

Secondly I answere, that an expresse decree was more necessary to haue ben made by the Apostles of abrogating the practise of Circum­cision then of transferring the Sabaoth to an o­ther more mysterious and memorable day; the determination of the seauenth day rather then any other being as I haue els where declared, im­materiall to the religious obseruance of Gods Commandement, binding only according to the morall end, and intention thereof, faithfull people to abstaine in one day of seauen from [Page 56] seruile labours, and to deuote the same to Gods especiall honor and seruice: whereas the pra­ctise of Circumcision giuen before Moyses, as a couenant and signe, distinguishing Abrahams holy posterity from other faithlesse people, was wholy to be repealed, notwithstanding the Iewes so highly regarded it, as not to conuerse or admit into their Temple any one that wan­ted that holy seale, and signe of Gods couenant with them.

Other arguments more friuolous & lesse important I willingly omit, being loath to de­taine my Reader needlesly, and impertinently in them, wishing heere for a finall conclusion of this question, that Io. Traske and his brethe­ren would maturely consider the finall issue of their vnchristian and exorbitant doctrines, disliked by our Soueraigne and State, contra­dicted by all learned men comming to heare of them, and vtterly as yet vnheard of in other partes of Christendome: so as the first Inuen­ters and obstinate Professers of them can truly belonge to no Christian Church, present now, or past in any age before them.

QVESTION V: VVherein 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 Paschall.

IOHN Traske in his humor of Iudaisme & Hereticall innouation, is lately growne so great an enemie to the weekely obseruance of our Lords day, as he seemeth also to deny the yearely feast of our Sauiours Resurrection to be lawfully celebrated on any other day in the yeare then the 14. of March-moone, wherin the Iewes were commaunded by God to celebrate their Passouer. And vpon his late reading in Eusebius lib 5. hist. cap. 22. Policrates epistle di­rected to Victor Bishop of Rome concerning the Asian custome of keeping easter with the Iews, & S. Irenaus his iudgment that Victor did with ouer much seuerity excomunicate many Ea­sterne Churches, for persisting in that wonted Quartadeciman manner of celebrating the yearly day of our Sauiours Resurrection, togea­ther with the Iewes Paschall; he will arrogantly presume to call Victor that holy Bishop & Mar­tyr, famously mentioned in ancient histories, a proud Prelate, and not sticke to accuse other an­cient [Page 58] Fathers of ignorance in censuring after­wards, and condemning for heretikes the Quar­tadeciman obseruers of Easter: God himselfe, saith he, hauing expresly commanded, & Christ himselfe with his Apostles celebrated on that day his Paschall festiuity.

And not contented with this hereticall temerity of renewing the Quartadeciman he­resy, he surpasseth Blastus himself in his Iewish manner of keeping Easter. For as I haue tou­ched in my Preface, he by his eating of vnleue­ned bread seauen dayes togeather after the 14. of March-Moone, and by sundry speaches vt­tered to some of his fellow prisoners, hath gi­uen great suspitions that lately he hath ob­serued the feast of Azimes, togeather with his disciples. The next yeare peradueuture they will haue profited in Iudaisme so far, as to sacrifice a Paschall Lambe also. And lastly it is to be feared, that falling more and more from their Christiā profession, they will with Adam Neuserus, Bernardinus Ochinus, and other Puritan Deuines finally forsake Christ, and imbrace Iudaisme, or Turcisme, the fearefull sequell and iust punishment of such fantastical spirits, as will imbrace no Religion but of their owne deuising, nor be obedient children to any Church, but of their owne raising.

But let Iohn Traske, and his Disciples celebrate what Paschall they will, and on what day they please, our Paschal-Lambe according [Page 59] to the Apostle 1. Corinth. 5. vers. 7. 8. is Christ sacrificed in the euening of the world, for our redemption: and our festiuall azimes are to be as neere, as by the assistance of diuine graces we shallbe able to arriue vnto, the sincerity of holy actions, and verity of doctrines, where­by our soules may be happily nourished after their spirituall flight out of Aegypt, and condu­cted towards the eternal inheritance of heauen through the merit of Christs holy life and pas­sion prepared for vs; humbling our selues heer, to be els where eternally exalted; eschewing any temper, as neere as we can, of that Pha­risaicall leauen, with which Traskes speaches, and actions are as it may be probably ghessed in Gods sight abhominably corrupted, who with his disciples will not seem to be sicut ceteri homines in any thing, shewing all those simp­toms, wherby the spirituall Phisitian of soules was pleased to describe the infection of the Scribes and Pharisyes, rightly by him compa­red to dead mens sepulchers painted and poli­shed without, but internally filled with all guile and malice.

The Apostle telleth the Galathians cap. 5. vers. 2. & 3. that whosoeuer circumciseth him­selfe, maketh himselfe a debtour of the whole law, and Christs death profiteth him not: and so it may be proportionably auerred of Traske, that in teaching the festiuall obseruance of A­zimes he is consequently also bound by the same [Page 60] reason, to obserue the entire Law of Moyses, & so cannot be longer a Christian. He was wont heeretofore to vnderstand that text of the Apo­stle ad Coloss. 2. Let not man iudge or discouer you in meate or drinke, or new moones, or part of a festi­uall day &c. of the Ceremoniall feasts of the Ie­wes mentioned Leuitic. 23. abrogated by Christ, amongst which the feast of Azimes is first men­tioned. But he hath as it should seeme since al­tered his iudgment, & (as Ebion & his disciples were wont) little I feare doth he regard any do­ctrine contayned in S. Paules Epistles. Policrates Epistle neuer taught him to conioyne the Iu­daicall feasts of Azimes with our Christian Pas­souer, only that ancient Bishop of Ephesus in a preposterous zeale of obseruing the yearly me­mory of our Sauiours resurrection, as S. Policarpe and other great Saintes had done before him in those partes of Asia, wrote very ernestly in the defence of that Quartadeciman Custome. Whose authority hath, as it should seeme, much moued Iohn Traske, who either out of ignorance had neuer before read, or out of rashenes neuer marked, far more conuincing proofes for the Dominicall obseruance of Easter.

For long before Victors decree thereof, Pius his holy predecessor, as. Eusebius recounteth in his Chronicle, declared it to haue byn an A­postolicall doctrine that Christians should keep their Easter on the Sunday, and not on the 14. of March-moone, as the Iewes celebrated their [Page 61] Paschall. Socrates also lib. 5. hist. cap. 21. expresly affirmeth, that S. Peter & S. Paul taught in the Roman and other Western Churches the like Dominicall obseruaunce of Easter, which is also testified by S. Protenius, Patriarch of A­lexandria in his Epistly to S. Leo, wherein he testifieth also, that S. Marke introduced the same manner of keeping Easter in the Egyptian Churches S. Ignatius 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 excōmunicate 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 [Page 62] 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 thē long before by his holy predecessours; I answe­re, [Page 63] 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 institutiō, 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 [Page 64] 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.

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 thē, and their holy posterity euer af­terwards [...]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 [Page 66] 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 [...]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 cōmandment vncleane, & aswell in thēselus as in their vnhappy posterity fearfully punished.

[Page 67]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. 9. of Ioabs, cap. 42. vers. 8. &c. God him­selfe no doubt hauing giuen some especiall or­dinance or inspiration thereof to Adam himself or Seth his holy sonne, who is said to haue be­gun to inuoke Gods Name, Genes. 4. vers. 26. which must necessarily be vnderstood of some peculiar rites, and order of celebrating sacri­fices, first taught and practised by him.

But that those birds and beasts are not sayd to haue beene then vncleane for food and vnlawfully to be eaten, as afterwards in Moy­ses Law they were declared to be, I proue, be­cause before the floud they seeme not at all to haue beene by holy people vsed for food, and after Noahs tyme vntill Moyses Law giuen, all meats, but strangled and bloud, were freely permitted. The former of these two assertions, I proue by this vnanswerable argument. Holy people before the floud did only eate such meats as God had licensed and appointed them [Page 68] for food. But before the floud no flesh or fish was by God licensed, & appointed vnto them for food, but only hearbs & fruits of the earth as Gods owne words do expresly import, Gen. 1. vers. 29. saying: Behold I haue giuen you all kind of hearbs that seed vpon the earth, and all trees that haue in themselues seed of their owne kind to be your meate &c. not mentioning fish, birds, or beasts, as afterwards he did to Noah and his posterity cap. 9. vers. 2. 3. Wherefore only hearbs & fruits of the earth were then eaten by holy people.

And a double reason may be yealded, why such hearbes and fruites of the earth were more sufficient for mans sustenance before the floud then after. First for that the earth was by the deluge of salt▪ waters corrupted, and altered from the former fertility therof, and yealded not such wholsome and nourishing fruites as it did before, whilst it purely remayned in that estate wherein God created it, and whilst the first pro­geny, as I may terme it, of hearbes and trees remayned, which God himselfe had out of the earth produced Secondly also for that mens na­ture in processe of time became weakned, and lesse able by the fruites of the earth to be sustai­ned, then it was before, when it newly came out of Gods own omnipotent hands, that did temper and frame the same in all naturall perfection, and ordaine it no doubt long after so to con­tinue, as it appeareth by the lasting liues of our first humane progenitors, and their naturall [Page 69] force to beget childrē after they had liued many hundreds of yeares. Wherfore holy Iacob tould Pharao demaunding his age Gen. 47. vers. 8. & 9. that his daies were ā hundred & thirty yeares, short and euill, to wit, subiect to infirmity and diseases, and not ariuing to the daies of his fore-Fathers.

Likewise that after Noah vntill Moyses Law giuen (which is my second assertion here to be proued) all meates, but strangled and bloud, were freely permitted, may euidently be gathe­red out of Gen. cap. 9. vers. 2. 3. 4. where God first licensing men to eate fish and flesh, Euery thing (saith he) which moueth and liueth shall be to you for food, as growing hearbes, I haue deliuered thē vnto you, excepting that you shall not eate flesh with bloud. Out of which text I argue thus against Iohn Traske. Holy people from Noah vnto Moy­ses tyme might lawfully eate al meates licensed vnto them by God to be eaten: But all meates, except such as were strangled & bloud were li­censed by God to be eaten by them. Therfore they might lawfully eate them. The first pro­position is certaine, and graunted by Traske. The second likewise is euident, because strang­led meates and bloud are in that generall Law and appointment of Creatures for food, only excepted; which kind of exception in such an vniuersall rule as that text conteineth, autho­rizeth all other particulers not therin expressed, or out of the same necessarily deduced.

[Page 70]So that the Minor of Ie. Traskes aboue men­tioned argumēt is false, to wit, that the Moysaicall difference of meates was from the begining cō ­maunded by God, and by holy people obserued. And were it graunted to be true, that the Moy­saicall difference of meates had ben so cōmaun­ded by God, and by holy people euer vntill Christs time obserued: yet doth it not thence necessarily follow, that now alsom like manner it is to be practised by Christians all cerimonies and figures of former times, as well before Moy­ses Law, as after, being by Christ fulfilled, and wholy ceased: amongst which the legall vnclea­nesse of meates was one, as shall be afterwardes fully declared.

The first Proposition also of that great ar­gument is clearly false, to wit, that euery religi­ous rite from the beginning commaunded by God, and by holy people obserued, is doubtles a morall Law euer to continue amongst Chri­stians: because bloudy sacrifices, for example, were from the begining inspired by God, and practised by Adams faithfull posterity, and yet as types of Christs bloudy sacrifice they were now with the same wholy abrogated & ended; so that, it is no such certaine signe, as Traske would haue it, of a morall and euer continuing Law that the same was from the beginning in­spired or commaunded by God, and by faith­full people, vntill Christs comming obserued.

QVESTION II. Of the Moysaicall law of meats, and mysteri­ous endes why God commaunded it.

IOHN Traske willingly admitteth the com­mon diuision of the old law into Morall, Iudiciall, and Cerimoniall Precepts, men­tioned by Moyses himselfe, Deut. 2. vers. 1. and taught by all moderne and ancient Writers, treating of the two later sortes of Precepts a­brogated by our Sauiours comming. So that if it may by euident circumstances of the text be pro­ued heere in this question by me, that the legall obseruance of meates commanded to the Iewes Leuit. 11. Deut. 14. was meerly cerimoniall, and for typical & mysterious respects only imposed, such as can haue now no morall end to be still cōtinued & practised by Christians; I shal easily shake and ouerthrow the sandy and fleeting ground of my Aduersaries doctrine.

And to proceed orderly in this question, and fitly for my purpose. I proue first, this Law of meates to haue beene meerely cerimoniall, because it is not at all mentioned, but joyntly & commixt with other Cerimonies of Moyses law. For in Leuiticus it is immediatly anexed to the Typicall rites of sacrifices and oblations, & hath subsequently following it the cerimoni­ous law and order of cleansings and purisicati­ons [Page 72] &c. In Deutron. likewise it hath before it many Iudiciall precepts, and that whole ceri­monial ordinance of celebrating festiual yeares, daies, Sacrifices after it &c which is a signe at least, that this differentiall law of meates is ceri­moniall also, and no morall part of Moyses law. Secondly the endes for which this distinction of meates was holily ordained by God, do suffi­ciently declare it to haue byn cerimoniall then, and in no sort now appertaining to the morall obseruance of our Christian duties. The first & chiefest end therof expressed by God himselfe, Deut. 14. 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 & corner­stone 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 [Page 73] 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 [Page 74] 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 shalbe 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, [Page 75] 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 [Page 76] 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 [Page 77] 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 [Page 78] 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.

[Page 79]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 thē ­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 [Page 80] 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 [Page 81] 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 [Page 82] 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 [Page 83] 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 [Page 84] 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 [Page 85] 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 Swines­flesh, 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 [Page 86] 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 shalbe 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 [Page 87] 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 peacefully togea­ther in the vnity of one Church. The minor of my argument is euident by the decree it selfe, wherin it seemed good to the holy Ghost, and the Apostles, to impose no other burden on them then that they should astaine from those 3. sortes of meates, and fornication: which decree had beene an insufficient rule to direct them concer­ning meates lawfull or not to be eaten, if other meats prohibited in Moyses law had still remay­ned so.

[Page 88]Secondly out of that Apostolicall de­cree, I frame this argument. If the legall diffe­rence of meats had continued after Christ as before, and equally obliged faythfull Iewes & conuerted Gentills to the wonted obseruance thereof, then was the Apostles particuler and expresse prohibition of bloud, meats strangled, and offered to Idols, needles and ridiculously imposed to the conuerted Gentils, & they were falsely tould, that in abstaining from those meats they should do well: because according to Iohn Traske, they were by God equally com­manded to abstayne from other meats also. But it were blasphemy to affirme this Apostolicall decree, to containe any false, absurd, or super­fluous doctrine: Therefore those meats men­tioned in the decree, were only and determi­natly prohibited to the conuerted Gentills. Thirdly neuer any ancient Father, or Chri­stian Deuine did before Traske vnderstand o­ther, then that the Apostles intended in their decree to ease the Gentills from some burden­some obseruances of the law besides Circum­cision, which the Iewes had beene before Christs comming tyed vnto, as may be playn­ly gathered from the whole scope of S. Peters and S. Iames speaches assented vnto by the other Apostles. But if the Moysaicall Law of meats did generally oblige al Christians after this de­cree as before, then were the Gentils nothing at all eased thereby from the burdensome ob­seruances [Page 89] of Moyses Law &c. Therefore the Apostles certainely meant in that decree to re­peale the Mosaicall Law of meats, and prohi­bite to the Gentills only such as that decree particulerly mentioned.

My third argument shallbe the words of S. Paul. ad Galat. 2. whereas S. Peter is sayd to haue eaten at Antioch with the Gentills vers. 12. but afterwards being fearefull to offend certaine Iews sent by S. Iames from Hierusalem▪ he withdrew himselfe, for which simulation S. Paul publiquely tould him vers. 14. If thou being a Iew didst liue Gentillike & not Iewishlike, how dost thou inforce the Gentills to Iudaize? which could not be vnderstood of the Iewes in respect of Circumcision, whereof no mention is made in that place, nor in respect of conuersation wherin it cannot be conceaped how the Gen­tils could Iudaize or imitate the Iews: therfore it must neoessarily be vnderstood of the Iudai­call obseruance of meats wherein they imitated S. Peters example. Likewise when S. Peter ea­ting with the Gentils is sayd to haue liued Gentillike and not Iewishlike, it cannot wel be vn­derstood, but in regard of eating such meats as the Gentills did, and his not obseruing that difference of meats which the Iewes obserued.

My fourth argument to conuince Iohn Traske in his Iudaicall obseruance of meats, may be taken out of S. Paul ad Hebr. 9. vers. 10. num­bring the obseruance of meates amongst other [Page 90] cerimonious rites, and carnall instifications of Moyses Law imposed only vntill the tyme of correction or reformation, which Christ was ordayned to make: Wherefore such won­ted obseruances of meats are abrogated now by Christ and no longer to continue.

My fifth argument may be collected out of the same Apostle, who hauing in his first Epi­stle to the Corinthians cap. S. giuen them a liber­ty to eate or abstaine from meats offered to I­dols, as their owne consciences serued them, obseruing mutuall charity therein, cap. 10. vers. 25. he willeth them to eate without exception, all meats sould in the shambles of the Gentill Citty, asking no question for conscience sake, that is to say, not regarding whether such meats had beene offered to Idolls or not: For the earth (sayth he) is our Lords and the plenitude therof, and if any Gentill inuite you to a feast, and you will go, eate all things set before you &c. In which place albeit S. Paul treateth only of meats offered to Idols, yet his licence is generally vnderstood of all meats and a fortiori proueth all other things not offered to Idolls lawfully eaten, which I proue by these vnanswerable arguments. Meats offered to Idols were not only prohibited to the Iewes as were other vncleane meats but also by the former decree of the Apostles Act. [...]. forbidden to all Christians: But S. Paul licensed the Corinthians to eate such sacrificed meats without scruple or question▪ Therfore [Page 91] other meates legally only prohibited may be eaten also.

Secondly S. Paul willeth the Christians of Corinth to eate all thinges sould in the shambles; or set at Infidells tables: But it cannot be reason­ably doubted that in the shambles, and at Infi­dells tables many meates forbidden in Moyses Law were vsually sould, and eaten: Therfore S. Paul licensed the Christians at Corinth to eate those meates also. Io. Traske and his disciples wil not sticke ridiculously to retort the Maior of my argument, and to tell me, that if the Chri­stians at Corinth might eate all thinges sould in the Gentills shambles, they might eate hornes and skinnes also. They will also foolishly deny that meates prohibited to the Iewes were ey­ther sould in the Gentills shambles or set at their tables making so the differentiall law of meats particulerly giuen to the Iewes, to haue byn naturally obserued by all other nations also. And for a shift they wil flatly deny meats prohi­bited to the Iewes, to be food at all for men, more then toades, or serpentes. Which fooleries against common experience, learning and iudg­ment are to be derided, and charitably compa­ssioned in them, rather then answered.

Thirdly the reasons why Christians were licensed by S. Paul to eate Idoll offeringes, are two expressed in the text it selfe; the first is be­cause an Idoll to him that hath iudgement to distern it is nothing in the world able to pollute [Page 92] the creatures therunto offered; the second is be­cause the earth is our Lords, and the plenitude thereof; that is to say, all creatures therein con­tained are good and created by him. Which la­ter reason is effectuall also to proue other meates prohibited to the Iews to be good in themselues and lawfully eaten by Christians. Lastly S. Paul ad Rom. 14. like a moderator, or peace-maker betweene the firme Christians, who were the Gentills, and the infirme who were the Iewes weakely & scrupulously stil inclined to obserue the differentiall law of meats, & festiuall dayes cōmanded by Moyses, be exorteth the Iew not to condemne the Gentill, vsing his liberty in eating al sorts of meats; & the Gentil in like mā ­ner not to condemne the scrupulous Iew, but rather to abstaine from vsing his liberty, then offending the Iew, to be an occasion to him of scandall and falling from his faith▪ Him that it weake (saith the Apostle v. 1) take vnto you, not in disputation of cogitations: for 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 [Page 93] 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, ar [...] [...] 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 cōmitteth a damnable sinne if hee [...]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 vn [...]lly vnderstood by ancient Fathers and m [...]de [...]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 [Page 94] 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 Chāpter, 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, commen­ding [...] such ti [...] ▪ 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 w [...] to be heere recited, much lesse particulerly refuted: whippes being the best answere to such arguments, & Bedlam [...] 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 [Page 96] 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, [Page 97] 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 giuē 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 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 [Page 98] 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 [Page 99] 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, strāgled 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 prohibitiō 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 [Page 100] 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 cōmaun­ded 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 [Page 101] 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 thē ­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 Christiās 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 [Page 102] 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 ex­trauagāt 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.