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 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 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 Columâ—â— firmameÌ„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 brethreÌ„ 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 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 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 rraÌ„slated 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 coÌ„menteth 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 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
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
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