applause during his aboad with Maister Drake in Deuonshire and how his chamber lay open besides to all comers day and night for priuate instruction shewing himselfe a Foole if not a Pharisy in affecting humane prayses so palpably in all his speaches and actions Two of disciples only vnderstand Latin aswell as himselfe the one a poore seduced Gentleman better skilled in Hebrew then himself and equally conuersant in Scripture the other a Comfit-maker who lately vndertooke by Traskes directions as is probably guessed to publish his doctrinall conclusions to defend them against M. Crashaw who hath writē an idle loose refutation of them For contrary to his common pulpit-Pulpit-doctrine and raylinges against Catholikes for admitting traditions and pointes of faith not contayned in Scripture he supposeth without further proofe that Christ in conuersation with his Apostles after his Resurrection taught our keeping of the Sunday in place of the Sabaoth that being a meere Tradition no where mentioned in Scripture Which sortes of aduantage are craftely obserued by Traske in all conferences of learned Protestantes with him he will not sticke in answering their arguments deduced from the authority and vniuersall practise of Christs Church in all ages before him to tell them that they fight against him with the Catholikes borrowed weapons and in their strokes at him wound themselues more deeply ouerthrowing most opinions of their own faith which are as strange and vnheard of till within the last 100. yeares as his doctrines and equally repugnant to the ancient authority and knowne practise of all Christendome in times past So that if his ground of admitting no doctrine not expressed in Scripture be shaken their Religion will totter also For the same authenticall testimonies of antiquity which serue to proue the Apostolicall obseruation of the Sunday do likewise mentiō Liturgies Massing Sacrifices celebrated by Christians in their publique sinaxes and meetings on festiuall and dominicall dayes testified by S. Augustine serm 251. de tempore by S. Cyprian de oper eleemosyn by the Fathers of the Agathen Councell cap. 47. by the 6. Oecumenicall Councell cap. 8. and sundry other ancient authors His Ipse dixit and sole assertion is a sufficient rule of fayth to all his disciples among whom if any chance to grow wiser as many of them lately haue done and to depart from his doctrine he will seeme to haue formerly feared foreknown that mans frailty and finall reprobation Thus not long since he dealt with one of them who notwithstanding then protested that Traske had heertofore vnder his owne hand warranted his true repentance and eternall election in Christ Iesus though passion at that time transported him to make a contrary iudgement of him There is nothing more troublesome to him and his disciples then to be tearmed ignorant or absurd in any of their assertions And albeit himselfe seemeth modest and temperate in his speaches and carriage yet anger and malice hidden in his hart soone breaketh out vpon very small occasions into rayling and ill tearmes such as himselfe will condemne in others by many Texts of Scripture Which his dangerous disposition tryed by one of his Protestant fellow-prisoners and other personall facts I purposely heere forbeare to relate hauing more authenticall testimonies against him His frequent Solecismes when now and then he boulteth out a word or line of Latin as to say Index expurgatorium c are for quietnes sake to be accounted but lapsus linguae vnfit to be tould him His barbarismes in speaking or writing must passe currently as Hebraismes and Scripture-phrases and all his arguments are to be accounted no other then formall and conuincing demonstrations Among which for proofe that S. Peter and the Apostles still obserued the legall difference of meates this one for example is his Achylles written to my knowledg by him in three seuerall discourses sent to one of his fellow-prisoners Qui ambulat in praecepto veteri recepto à Patre ambulat secundum legem discriminis inter animal quod comeditur animal quod non comeditur Sed Petrus ambulauit in praecepto veteri recepto à Patre Ergo ambulauit secundum legem discriminis inter animal quod comeditur animal quod non comeditur Thus Englished He that walketh in the old Commandment receaued from the Father walketh according to the Law of difference between the liuing creature that is to be eaten and the liuing creature that is not to be eaten But Peter walked in the old Commandment c. If you tell him first that his syllogisme is tedious and composed in barbarous Latin vnfit to come from the pen of an ancient schoolmaister and professed Grammarian He wil falsely tell you that Praecepto veteri recepto à Patre c. is the expresse phrase of S. Iohn in his first Canonicall Epistle If you further tell him that his argument is ridiculous in sense and forme as hauing no medium at all in the premises to proue the conclusion to walke in the old Commaundement c. and to walke according to the law of difference c being in sense all one in wordes only changed He will more absurdly tel you that by the old Commandment c. he meant Gods precept giuen to Adam in Paradise which all learned men know to haue byn a personall precept of abstayning from the fruite of one tree not cōcerning S. Peter afterwards or any Christian more then to the generall knowne doctrine of Adams transgression therof fearefully punished in his posterity And to deterre his aduersary from laughing at this argument and other more ridiculous passages of his papers he added this Caueat for a graue conclusion or memorable sentence of instruction Si fortè dum loquutus fuero postmodum verò sermonem meum subsannato If when peraduenture I shall haue spoken but afterwards laugh at my speach Wherein any learned man may plainely see indeed his wonted Ciceronian style strangely altered By reading in Eusebius history lib. 1. cap. 22. how Saint Policarpe and other holy Bishops of Asia obserued the Iewes time of keeping Easter he and his disciples are lately therein resolued to imitate them And that which he neuer read of S. Policarpe or any Christian Doctor before him he hath added to his Easter the festiuall obseruance of Azimes as is probably guessed by all his fellow prisoners seing him and his disciples after the fourtenth of March moone to eate contrary to their custome at other times white vnleauened loaues and seeming in his speaches to allow of the obseruance of that festiuity albeit of the manner he be somthing doubtfull as peraduenture whether it must be with a Phascall Lambe eaten c. He esteemeth it no arrogancy or pride of iudgment in him to dissent in his doctrines from all known Christians either liuing now or in any age before him Neither will he yield it to be a dangerous nouelty and notable giddines in him to change and coyne at his pleasure weekly doctrines
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
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
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 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 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 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 Swines-flesh 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 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 shal be 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 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
one beleeueth that he may eate all thinges But he that is weake to wit the scrupulous Iew that will neither eate meates prohibited in Moyses Law nor sacrificed by the Gentils let him eate hearbes Let not him that eateth dispise him that eateth not he that eateth not let him not iudge him that eateth to wit all sortes of meates for God hath assumed him to himself c. and he eateth to our Lord vers 6. for he giueth thinkes to God c. Why iudgest thou thy brother speaking to the Iew vers 10. for his liberty of eating all thinges And speaking to the Gentills why despisest thou thy brother for his weaknesse in putting a differnce betwene meates I know saith he vers 14. and am persuaded in our Lord Christ that nothing is common or vncleane of it selfe But to him that supposeth any thing to be como or vncleane to him it is common to wit for the errour of his conscience making it-seeme so All things indeed are cleane vers 20 but it is ill for the man that eateth with offence c. to wit of his weake brother concluding thus his advice to Iew and Gentill Hast thou faith that is to say arâ—… 〈◊〉 firmely persuaded of the lawfulnes of al meates haue it with thy selfe befor God c. But he that discerneth or maketh a difference of meates is damned or coÌ„mitteth a damnable sinne if hee â—ie because 〈◊〉 of faith or because he is not fully persuaded of the lawfulnes of that meate which he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all that is not of faith is sinne to wit euery thing that a man doth against his owne knowledg and conscience is sinne Which discourse of S. Paul is so cleare in selfe for refutation of Traskes doctrine and so vnâ—â—â—â—â—…lly vnderstood by ancient Fathers and mâ—de â—â—e Expositours aswell Protestantes as Catholikes that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 deuises wherby some of Traskes difciples haue sought to delude so many playne passages of this Chapter may well seeme to learned men not iudiciously imbraced but in an hereticall pride and a desire of nouelty and singularity purposely affected by them In so much as one of them being pressed with the litterall plaines of so many texts concluding in expresse termes directly against his contrary doctrine first he ridiculously deuised a new argument of this ChaÌ„pter and pretended that S. Paul endeauoured therein to instruct such Christians as being inuited to mourning and lamentation might thinke it vnlawfull to eate any meates at all idly citing many Propheticall textes commendingâ—… such tiâ—â— abstinence from nourishing and delightful meates Whereas S. Paul speaketh no one word in that Chapter of inuiting Christians to mourning and lamentation but only endeauoureth to compose controuersies and occasions of offence betweene Iewes and Gentills and to make their ordinary conuersation particulerly about meates and festiuall dayes peacefully and charitably togeather They seeme also to haue sundry other fancies to auoyd the pressing authority of these textes but so grossly as I hold them not wâ—â—â—â—… to be heere recited much lesse particulerly refuted whippes being the best answere to such arguments Bedlamâ— or Bridewell the fittest schoole for such a Sectmaister and disciples to dispute in QVESTION V. VVherein is proued that Bloud and strangled meates may be lawfully now eaten by Christians MY purpose in this Question is not so much to refute Iohn Traske in his Iewish and absurd doctrine of meates sufficiently already in my former Questions discussed as particulerly to ouerthrow the Puritanicall abstinence of some percise people who wholy grounding their faith vpon he authority of Scripturs litle crediting any Christian practise or doctrine not expressed in them are in many places knowne strictly to obserue the Apostolicall decree Act. 15. commaunding Christians to abstaine from strangled meates bloud c. Which say they was a precept expresly giuen by God in the law of nature Genes 9. and renewed by the Apostles a a law necessary to be obserued by the Gentills conuerted and is not found to haue beene repealed as was the like prohibition of meates offered to Idolls 1. ad Corin. cap. 8 10. by any latter doctrine or practise of the Apostles But contrarily it may be by many ancient and authenticall testimonies of antiquity certainely proued that many hundred yeares togeather after Christ holy people obserued this abstinence from stragled meats and bloud as a doctrine taught them by the Apostles Tertullian for example in Apologia cap. 9. expresly affirmeth Christians not to 〈◊〉 bloud at all but to abstaine for that cause from beasts dying of themselues or strangled least they should be defiled with bloud c. Blandina also in her Martyrdome mentioned by Eusebius lib. 5. hist cap. 1. telleth the Gentils that they did much erre in thinking Christians to eate the bloud of infants who sayd she vse not the bloud of beasts which is testifyed also of Christians by Minutius Felix in Octauio by Origen contra Celsum lib. 8. sundry later Councells haue vnder great penalties forbidden the eating of such meates Apostolically prohibited to all Christians So that their doctrine and practise is not Iewishly grounded as Iohn Traskes opinions are on a cerimonious precept of the old law certainly abrogated as is already proued but they obserue it as a precept giuen to Noah by God himselfe in the law of nature repeated in Moyses law and renewed by the Apostles The difficulty also of this question is increased and made more hard and vneasy to be solued by reason that the Aduersaries against whome I am to dispute admit no infallible authority of any ancient or moderne Church guided by Christs holy Spirit and lead into all truth so that faithfull people may securely and without danger of erring imbrace her communion follow her directions rest in her iudgment as the supporting pillar foundation of Truth according to the Apostle 1. Tim. 3. They admit no Apostolicall Tradition or certayne rule to know any vnwritten doctrin to haue byn held and practised since Christ successiuely and vniuersally by Christians Finally they little regard any reasonable discourse or Theologicall deduction not litterally and playnely expressed in Scripture the only Rule of their faith and Iudge of controuersies betweene vs. According to which their vsuall and vnreasonable manner I cannot more forcibly endeauour to disproue this their Puritanicall abstinence from bloud and strangled meates then by orderly prouing three thinges 1. That this precept giueÌ„ to Noah Gen. 9. vers 4. was mysterious and not morall in it selfe 2. That it was not but for a time only and for ends now wholy ceased decreed by the Apostles Act. 15. vers 20. 28. 3. That it hath beene since by a holy and lawfull practise of Christs Church generally repealed so as it is a singular fancy for Christians now againe to renew the obseruance thereof And that this abstinence from bloud and strangled meates was not a morall precept I proue first by the