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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 cōpletly 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
who saw our Lord himself in flesh who also conuersed with many of the Apostles and was the second Bishop of Antioch after S. Peter in his epistle to the Magnesians not only taught them to keepe holy our Lords day as the queene and chiefest of all other daies consecrated to our Sauiours Resurrection but also he contesteth Epist ad Philip. that any Christian celebrating his Paschall with the Iewes maketh himselfe thereby a partaker with those who killed our Lord himselfe and his Apostles Neither was the decre of keeping Easter on the Sunday lightly made in Victors tyme but grauely and maturely determined in many holy and learned Synods of Bishops assembled by Victors appointement before he proceeded to excoÌ„municate the Asian Bishops as Eusebius in his chronicle also testifieth in so much as besids the Councell which Victor himselfe called at Rome Theophilus metropolitan of Cesaraea Narcissus Patriarth of Hierusalem Palmas Bishop of Pontus S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lions Barchillus Bishop of Corinth and many Bishops of other Prouinces assembled Synods and with one consent from no other fountayne then the certaine doctrine tradition of the Apostles themselues determined the Dominicall obseruance of Easter So that Policrates assertion hauing byn taught by S. Iohn the Quartadeciman manner of keeping the yearly feast of our Sauiours Resurrection seemeth to be against S. Iohns owne writing Apocal. 2. calling Sunday Diem Dominicum our Lords day for the reason formerly assigned by his scoller Ignatius to wit because it was sanctified and chiefely aboue all other dayes obserued by Christians for our Sauiours Resurrection which theron hapned And if in a festiuall and holy memory of that sacred mystery the Apostles themselues instituted a weekely obseruance of that day how can it be wisely thought that they would haue the anniuersary day it selfe of our Sauiours Resurrection not celebrated on that determinate day also Wherfore as we may suppose that which S. Iohn only permitted in Asia for the peace of those Churches touching their Quartadeciman obseruance of Easter Policrates partially and mistakingly affirmeth it to haue beene taught by the Apostle As for S. Irenaeus agreeing with Victor in his doctrine yet seeming to blame him for ouermuch seuerity vsed in excommunicating the Asian Churches for a practise tolerated in theÌ„ long before by his holy predecessours I answere that Irenaeus peraduenture knew not Victors motiues of doing so which was to resist Montanus errours then newly begun to be broached in Asia and to cut quickly off Blastus Iudaicall innouations rising euen in Rome it selfe and much confirmed by that legall manner of keeping Easter which made holy Victor to vndertake a violent remedy to cure a dangerous wound then begining to corrupt the purity of Christian doctrine in many Churches the case of the Asian Bishops being not the same then as it was in S. Policarpes dayes For wheras before they only by permission obserued Easter with the Iewes in Victors time they held it to be an Apostolical institutioÌ„ necessary to be imbraced by all other Churches In which decree Victor was according to his name truly Victorious the whole Church of Christ taking afterwards part with him and numbring the Quartadecimans amongst other Iudaizing heretikes and the Nicen Councell as S. Athanasius writeth in his booke of Synods reclaymed multitudes of them renewing Pope Victors decree of keeping Easter on the Sunday and ordayning that the Patriarches of Alexandria for the Aegyptian skill aboue other Nations in computing yeares and dayes should be appointed to order yearly the Paschall Cicles and by their Epistles first directed to the Roman Bishop and by him to other Churches to determine the Sunday on which Easter day was yearly to be obserued by Christians as is testified by S. Leo Epist 64. ad Marcianum Imperat. and is to be seene in the Paschal epistles themselues of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria translated by S. Hierome and yet extant Tom. 1. Biblioth Sanct. PP All which many other authentical testimonies of antiquity for proofe of our Christian manner of keeping Easter on the Sunday Io. Traske is likely to regard as little in this as he doth in other controuersies a ceremoniall precept of the Moysaicall Law being apter to conuince his fantasticall iudgement and immoueably determine him in any opinion let all Christian Churches present and past teach and practise what they will against him THE II. CONTROVERSY QVESTION I. Of the vncleanesse of meates before Moyses Law IOHN Traske and his disciples hold the Legall difference of meates mentioned Leuit. 11. Deutron 10. to be so morall in it selfe and religiously from mans first creation by faythfull people obserued as our first Parents themselues in Paradise had the same in a sort commanded to theÌ„ and their holy posterity euer afterwards â—â—actised it as may be gathered say they by that difference of cleane vncleane beasts entring the Arke Genes 7. vers 2. 3. their vsuall argument being this following That which was from the beginning commanded by God and by holy people obserued is no doubt a moral precept still to continue But the Law of meates was from the beginning commanded by God and by holy people obserued Therefore it is as a morall precept still to continue Which argument before I proceed fully and particulerly to answere I purpose heere orderly to ouerthrow the doctrinall groundes thereof First absolutly denying that Gods precept of not eating the forbidden fruit giuen to our first parents in Paradise was any Law at all of vncleane meates as ridiculously they suppose it to haue beene but only a commandment of abstinence imposed by God for a holy exercise and triall of their obedience towards him that hauing â—…eir soules illuminated and sanctifyed with abundant graces and all sensuall and disordered motions of their inferiour fleshly nature happily restrayned and suppressed with the golden bridle of originall iustice so as all other morall precepts were easily connaturally as it were in that harmonious vnion of nature and grace obserued by them God was pleased only in an extrinsecall indifferent matter to exact their due obedience subiection towards him which did no more concerne the Moysaicall difference of meats afterwards commanded then if he had forbidden them to touch the same tree or to eate of any another fruit in Paradise nor was the tree but the willfull transgression of their Creators coÌ„mandment vncleane aswell in theÌ„selus as in their vnhappy posterity fearfully punished As for the difference of birds and beasts cleane and vncleane entring the Arke which is another chiefe ground of Traskes former argument I answere that this vncleanes was not then vnderstood in respect of their vse for food but for the sacrifyces of those former times before Moyses wherin no birds or beasts but such as were legally afterwards reputed cleane in Moyses Law could be offered as may be gathered out of Abels sacrifice Gen. 4. vers 4. of Noahs cap. 6. vers 20. of Abrahams cap. 15. vers
reason for which God prohibited those meates to Noah and his Posterity which was chiefly by this horrour of bloud to make them detest man-slaughter and bloudy cruelty as appeareth by Gods wordes immediatly annexed to that precept Genes 9 vers 5. 6. 7 that sinne of murder hauing beene first committed by Cain Genes cap. 4. vers 8. afterwards by Lamech ibidem v. 23. Nomrod also and other mighty men in those first ages of the world ouer easily multiplyed that horrible offence against Gods intended propagation of mankind whereas now to vs Christians the example of our Sauiours meekenes his expresse prohibition of killing striking or miscalling our Neighbours his doctrine of pardoning seauenty times seauen our enemyes of being quickly reconciled vnto them of doing good for euill and praying for such as persecute vs c. do sufficiently instruct vs to abstaine from effusion of bloud and cruelty so that such a horrour of bloud in meates cannot for that end be longer necessary to be continued by Christians Secondly if this precept had byn a morall law necessary to direct vs in humane conuersation and manners towards God or between our selues it had no doubt byn included in that natural law by which Noah and his faithfull posterity were sufficiently instructed and taught to know the morall good and euill of their actions to refraine from sinne in them So as this precept had byn vnnecessarily imposed if perfect reason and naturall iudgment had otherwise taught it vnto them as it did other morall precepts Thirdly neuer any Philosopher or wise Gentill ignorant of that positiue precept giuen to Noah either taught or practised after Christs dayes or before abstinence from bloud strangled meats as a morall natural precept neither can it be as I haue els where declared out of naturall reason the rule of naturall lawes iudiciously conceaued that bloud or strangled meates entring the body can defile the soule c. Neither was the Apostles Decree Act. 15. concerning abstinence from such meates imposed on the Gentills as a morall law perpetually to continue but only as an easy obseruance necessary for a time the better to vnite Iewes and Gentills in the vnity of one Church For the Iewes hauing an especiall horrour of Idoll-offerings 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 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 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 thēselues 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 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 FINIS THE CONTENTS THE Preface declaring the Authors scope and intention in this Refutation pag. 3. I. CONTROVERSY QVEST. I. Of the seauenth day before Moyses pag. 21. Quest II. Whether the precept of the Sabaoth were Morall or Cerimoniall pag. 26. Quest III. Concerning the abrogation of the Iewes Sabaoth pag. 31. Quest IIII. Of the Sabaoth translated into the weekly day of our Sauiours Resurrection pag. 42. Quest V. Wherein is proued that Christians are to celebrate the yearly day of our Sauiours Resurrection on Sunday and not on the 14. day of March-Moone as the Iewes celebrated their Paschal pag. 57. II. CONTROVERSY QVEST. I. Of the vncleanesse of meats before Moyses Law pag. 65. Quest II. Of the Moysaicall Law of meates and mysterious ends why God commaunded it pag. 71. Quest III. Wherein the proper and perfect rule of morall Actions is briefly declared and how according to the same no meates are now vncleane and vnlawfull to Christians pag. 77. Quest IIII. Prouing by sundry texts of the New Testament the law of meats abrogated to Christians pag. 85. Quest V. Wherein is proued that bloud and strangled meates may be lawfully now eaten by Christians pag. 95. FINIS
A BRIEFE REFVTATION OF IOHN TRASKES IVDAICAL AND NOVEL FANCYES Stiling himselfe Minister of Gods Word imprisoned for the Lawes eternall Perfection or Gods Lawes perfect Eternity By B. D. Catholike Deuine Gal. 3. Vers 13. Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the Law being made a curse for vs. Imprinted with Licence M. DC XVIII THE PREFACE THE Controuersies handled in this short Treatise are two The first is of the Iewes Sabaoth Apostolically translated into the euer memorable day of our Sauiours Resurection The second whether al forts of meates may be lawfully now eaten by Christiās disputed against Iohn Traske of a Puritan minister lately grown halfe a lew in his singular opinions concerning the old Sabaoth and Moysaical difference of meates held by him many other men and women obstinately professing and practising the same doctrines as morall Lawes vnreapealed by Christ and necessarily now to be obserued by Christians His only learning is a litterall knowledge of Scriptures and some little Hebrew and Greeke lately learned for the better vnderstanding of them which alone he holdeth sufficient not only to instruct vs in al points of faith but to direct vs also in our particuler thoughtes speaches actions so as no māner of speach is by Christians to be vsed no meate to be eatē no kind of apparell to be worne c. not particularly expressed and warranted in Scripture Humāe iudgment experience wherby we are originally taught to discerne the naturall goodnes and euil of al our actions and to make a conscience of them being so little regarded by him as he ridiculously deemeth it not to be any rule at all to direct Christian men in common manners and morality of life God himselfe hauing by a higher law contayned in the old new Testament particulerly instructed them in all holy and needfull knowledge Out of which ground he deduceth as I shall haue seuerall occasions to declare afterwards strange Conclusions Distinctions not easy to be distintly knowne refuted by any learned man that hath not from his owne mouth hard them This was my chiefe reasō to write these two Controuersies against him wherby sōe of his disciples may peraduenture be reclaymed from his grosse doctrines and other itching eared people now inclinable to his Sect may be moued vtterly to forsake him And one soule so happely gayned to a neerer degree of truth will make me thinke a few spare houres well bestowed from better studies Learned men also will gladly perchance spare an idle houre or two to read a new Controuersy breifly as I could contriue it and plainly expressed Smaller errours and of lesse consequence then these nouell fancies of Traske haue been by sundry holy Fathers answered in large volums which may well serue to shew my labours not wholy needles Little sparkes of fire not timely quenched soone grow into flames that deuoure houses and Citties Small wounds waxe festered soares when they are not speedily cured Single seedes of tare and cockle sowne in fields amongst good Corne make great bundles in haruest fit only for combustion And the miserable experience of these latter times abounding with nouel heretical doctrines witnesseth that as plaguy people are for feare of infecting others carefully to be secluded and small leakes in a ship are speedily to be stopped for the safety of such persons as sayle in it so all morall and pious diligence is by Gouernours and Guiders of soules to be vsed for the timely preuention and suppressing of pernicious opinions with which Traske is so stored as he is in very few pointes of our Christian fayth rightly persuaded He hath 8. arguments to proue that Melchisedech was the holy Ghost mentioned Genes 14. Hebr. 7. He is infallibly assured that he himselfe hath truly repented and is made sure of his eternall election in Christ and that he can in this life neither sinne nor repent any more Likewis he is able to collect out of Scripture when Abraham Isaac Iacob and other Saints were truly penitent and iustified in Gods sight and will often presume to tell his disciples whether at all or when they truly repented Yea he is able as I haue heard by Phisiognomy to make certaine ghesses whether particular persons shal be damned or saued His owne and his disciples prayers are commonly roaringes and such loud out-cries as may be heard in distant roomes and houses voluntarily framed and filled for the most part with frequent imprecations that God would confound the aduersaries and persecutors of his little flocke such as walke in the lust of their owne flesh eating like the Idolatrous Gentiles all prohibited and vncleane meates prophaning his holy Sabaoth and changing it into another day neuer comanded by him but by themselues inuented Frequently rendring thankes to God for keeping them so holy as hitherto he hath done and desiring him according to their vprightnes to blesse and protect them Pretended reuelations also are not wanting amongst them He will tell you of straung abstinences from food and other great austerities vsed by himselfe notwithstanding his cheekes seeme full and his body still fatt and in good liking He will with great glory vtter the singular approuement made of him in his Ministeriall ordination when other Countrey Schollers were reiected himselfe hauing neuer byn more thē a guest in any Vniuersity His excellency aboue others was chiefly occasioned by a perfect Summe of all Diuinity only abstracted by his owne Confession out of Musculus his cōmon Places When he was a schoolmaster at a Gentlemans house in Somersetshire to a few Grammer scholers he could write and speake pure latin as he grauely tould one of his fellow prisoners which in his riper and maturer studies since of Diuinity he hath quite forgotten and altered his Ciceronian wonted stile into the humble and plaine phrase of Scripture and indeed much more barbarous When he was reprehended by an Aduersary for denying the minor of an enthimeme he produced in excuse of his grosse ignorance Rhamus logique only affirming an enthimeme to be an imperfect sillogisme and sayd that Ramists and Aristotelians could not vnderstand each others termes and manner of disputing but after much practise togeather He will bragge of many bookes written and some of them dedicated by him to his Maiesty who because he eateth not willingly swines flesh he supposeth by his Princely nature halfe framed and fitted to imbrace and professe his doctrines which he is confident to haue generally one day held in our English and all other Protestant Churches Hearing that Maister Howe 's the Continuer Augmenter of Maister Stowes cronicle was desirous to see him out of a vaine desire to haue al circumstances of his person and opinions historically blazed he wrote a letter to Maister Howes fully to informe him of both mentioning therein the day order continuance of his imprisonment if he listed so to recount them He wil tel you how many publique Lectures he made weekly with great