A BRIEF REFUTATION OF JOHN TRASKES JUDAICAL AND NOVEL FANCIES.  
Styling himself Minister of God's Word, imprisoned for the Laws eternal Perfection, or God's Laws perfect Eternity.  
By B. D. Catholic Divine.  Gal. 3. Verse 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us. 
Imprinted with Licence, M. DC. XVIII.   

THE PREFACE.  
THE Controversies handled in this short Treatise are two: The first is of the jews Sabaoth, Apostolically translated into the ever memorable day of our saviours Resurrection. The second, whether all forts of meats may be lawfully now eaten by Christians: disputed against john Traske, of a Puritan minister lately grown half a jew in his singular opinions concerning the old Sabaoth, and Moysaical difference of meats, held by him & many other men and women, obstinately professing and practising the same doctrines, as moral Laws unreapealed by Christ, and necessarily now to be observed by Christians. His only learning is a literal knowledge of Scriptures, and some little Hebrew and Greek lately learned for the better understanding of them: which alone he holdeth sufficient, not only to instruct us in all points of faith, but to direct us also in our particular thoughts, speeches, & actions; so as no manner of speech is by Christians to be used, no meat to be eaten, no kind of apparel to be worn &c. not particularly expressed and warranted in Scripture. Human judgement & experience( whereby we are originally taught to discern the natural goodness and evil of all 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 himself having by a higher law contained in the old & new Testament, particularly instructed them in all holy and needful knowledge.  
Out of which ground he deduceth, as I shall have several occasions to declare afterwards, strange Conclusions & Distinctions not easy to be distintly known & refuted by any learned man that hath not from his own mouth hard them. This was my chief reason to write these two Controversies against him, whereby sun of his disciples may peradventure be reclaimed from his gross doctrines; and other itching eared people now inclinable to his Sect, may be moved utterly to forsake him. And one soul so happily gained to a nearer degree of truth, will make me think a few spare hours well bestowed from better studies. Learned men also will gladly, perchance, spare an idle hour or two to read a new Controversy, briefly, as I could contrive it, and plainly expressed. Smaller errors, and of less consequence than these novel fancies of Traske have been by sundry holy Fathers answered in large volumes, which may well serve to show my labours not wholly needles.  
Little sparks of fire not timely quenched, soon grow into flames, that devour houses and Cities. Small wounds wax festered sores, when they are not speedily cured. Single seeds of tore and cockle sown in fields amongst good Corn make great bundles in harvest, fit only for combustion. And the miserable experience of these latter times abounding with novel & heretical doctrines, witnesseth, that as plaguy people are for fear of infecting others carefully to be secluded; and small leaks in a ship are speedily to be stopped for the safety of such persons as sail in it: so all moral and pious diligence is by Governors and Guiders of souls to be used for the timely prevention and suppressing of pernicious opinions, with which Traske is so stored, as he is in very few points of our Christian faith rightly persuaded.  
He hath 8. arguments to prove that Melchisedech was the holy Ghost mentioned Genes. 14. Hebr. 7. He is infallibly assured, that he himself hath truly repent, and is made sure of his eternal election in Christ: and that he can in this life neither sin, nor repent any more. Likewis, he is able to collect out of Scripture when Abraham, Isaac, jacob and other Saints were truly. penitent and justified in God's sight: and will often presume to tell his disciples, whether at all, or when, they truly repent. Yea he is able, as I have heard, by Physiognomy, to make certain guesses whether particular persons shall be damned or saved. His own and his disciples prayers are commonly roaringes, and such loud outcries as may be heard in distant rooms and houses, voluntarily framed, and filled for the most part with frequent imprecations, that God would confound the adversaries and persecutors of his little flock, such as walk in the lust of their own flesh, eating like the Idolatrous Gentiles all prohibited and unclean meats; profaning his holy Sabaoth, and changing it into another day never commanded by him, but by themselves invented; Frequently rendering thanks to God for keeping them so holy as hitherto he hath done, and desiring him according to their uprightness to bless and protect them.  
Pretended revelations also are not wanting amongst them. He will tell you of strange abstinences from food and other great austerities used by himself, notwithstanding his cheeks seem full, and his body still fat and in good liking. He will with great glory utter the singular approvement made of him in his Ministerial ordination, when other Country Scholars were rejected, himself having never been more than a guest in any University. His excellency above others was chiefly occasioned by a perfect Sum of all Divinity, only abstracted by his own Confession out of Musculus his common Places. When he was a schoolmaster at a Gentleman's house in Somersetshire to a few Grammar scholars, he could write and speak pure latin, as he gravely told one of his fellow prisoners, which in his riper and maturer studies since of Divinity, he hath quite forgotten, and altered his Ciceronian wont style into the humble and plain phrase of Scripture; and indeed much more barbarous. When he was reprehended by an Adversary for denying the minor of an enthimeme, he produced in excuse of his gross ignorance Rhamus' logic, only affirming an enthimeme to be an imperfect syllogism, and said, that Ramists and Aristotelians could not understand each others terms and manner of disputing but after much practice together. He will brag of many books written, and some of them dedicated by him to his Majesty, who because he eateth not willingly swine flesh, he supposeth by his Princely nature half framed and fitted to embrace and profess his doctrines, which he is confident to have generally one day held in our English, and all other Protestant Churches.  
Hearing that Master Howes the Continuer & Augmenter of Master Stows chronicle was desirous to see him, out of a vain desire to have all circumstances of his person and opinions historically blazed, he wrote a letter to Master Howes fully to inform him of both, mentioning therein the day, order, & continuance of his imprisonment, if he listed so to recount them. He will tell you how many public Lectures he made weekly with great applause during his abode with Master Drake in Devonshire, and how his chamber lay open beside to all comers, day and night for private instruction, showing himself a Fool, if not a Pharisy, in affecting human praises so palpably, in all his speeches and actions.  
Two of disciples only understand Latin aswell as himself: the one a poor seduced Gentleman, better skilled in Hebrew then himself, and equally conversant in Scripture: the other a Comfit-maker, who lately undertook by Traskes directions, as is probably guessed, to publish his doctrinal conclusions, & to defend them against M. Crashaw who hath written an idle & loose refutation of them. For contrary to his common Pulpit-doctrine, and railings against Catholics, for admitting traditions and points of faith not contained in Scripture, he supposeth without further proof, that Christ in conversation with his Apostles after his Resurrection, taught our keeping of the Sunday in place of the Sabaoth, that being a mere Tradition no where mentioned in Scripture. Which sorts of advantage are craftily observed by Traske in all conferences of learned Protestants with him, & he will not stick in answering their arguments deduced from the authority and universal practice of Christ's Church in all ages before him, to tell them, that they fight against him with the Catholics borrowed weapons, and in their strokes at him, wound themselves more deeply, overthrowing most opinions of their own faith, which are as strange and unheard of, till within the last 100 years, as his doctrines, and equally repugnant to the ancient authority and known practice of all Christendom 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 authentical testimonies of antiquity which serve to prove the Apostolical observation of the Sunday, do likewise mention Liturgies & Massing Sacrifices celebrated by Christians in their public sinaxes and meetings on festival and dominical days, testified by S. Augustine serm. 251. de tempore, by S. Cyprian de oper. & eleemosyn. by the Fathers of the Agathen Council cap. 47. by the 6. Ecumenical Council cap. 8. and sundry other ancient authors.  
His Ipse dixit, and sole assertion is a sufficient rule of faith to all his disciples, among whom if any chance to grow wiser( as many of them lately have done) and to depart from his doctrine, he will seem to have formerly feared & foreknown that man's frailty and final reprobation. Thus not long since he dealt with one of them, who notwithstanding then protested that Traske had heretofore under his own hand warranted his true repentance, and eternal election in Christ jesus, though passion at that time transported him to make a contrary judgement of him.  
There is nothing more troublesome to him and his disciples, then to be termed ignorant or absurd in any of their assertions. And albeit himself seemeth modest and temperate in his speeches and carriage: yet anger and malice hidden in his heart, soon breaketh out, upon very small occasions, into railing and ill terms, such as himself will condemn in others by many Texts of Scripture. Which his dangerous disposition tried by one of his Protestant fellow-prisoners and other personal facts I purposely here forbear to relate, having more authentical testimonies against him.  
His frequent Solecisms when now and then he boulteth out a word or line of Latin, as to say: Index expurgatorium etc. are for quietness sake to be accounted but lapsus linguae, unfit to be told him. His barbarisms in speaking or writing must pass currently as Hebraisms and Scripture-phrases: and all his arguments are to be accounted no other than formal and convincing demonstrations. Among which for proof that S. Peter and the Apostles still observed the legal difference of meats, this one for example is his Achilles, written to my knowledge by him in three several 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 ambulavit in praecepto veteri recepto à Patre.  
Ergo ambulavit secundum legem discriminis inter animal quod comeditur, & animal quod non comeditur.  
Thus Englished.  
He that walketh in the old Commandment received from the Father, walketh according to the Law of difference between the living creature that is to be eaten, and the living creature that is not to be eaten.  
But Peter walked in the old Commandment etc.  
If you tell him first that his syllogism is tedious and composed in barbarous Latin, unfit to come from the pen of an ancient schoolmaster and professed Grammarian: He will falsely tell you that Praecepto veteri recepto à Patre etc. is the express phrase of S. john in his first Canonical Epistle.  
If you further tell him, that his argument is ridiculous in sense and form, as having no medium at all in the premises to prove the conclusion; to walk in the old Commandment etc. and to walk according to the law of difference etc. being in sense all one, in words only changed. He will more absurdly tell you, that by the old Commandment etc. he meant God's precept given to Adam in Paradise, which all learned men know to have been a personal precept of abstaining from the fruit of one tree, not concerning S. Peter afterwards or any Christian, more than to the general known doctrine of Adam's transgression thereof fearfully punished in his posterity. And to deter his adversary from laughing at this argument, and other more ridiculous passages of his papers, he added this Caveat for a grave conclusion, or memorable sentence of instruction.  
Si fortè dum locutus fuero, postmodum verò sermonem meum subsannato. If when peradventure I shall have spoken; but afterwards laugh at my speech. Wherein any learned man may plainly see indeed his wont Ciceronian style strangely altered.  
By reading in Eusebius history lib. 1. cap. 22. how Saint Policarpe and other holy Bishops of Asia observed the jews time of keeping Easter, he and his disciples are lately therein resolved to imitate them. And that which he never read of S. Policarpe or any Christian Doctor before him, he hath added to his Easter the festival observance of Azimes, as is probably guessed by all his fellow prisoners; seeing him and his disciples after the fourteenth of March moon to eat contrary to their custom at other times, white unleavened loaves, and seeming in his speeches to allow of the observance of that festivity, albeit of the manner he be something doubtful, as peradventure, whether it must be with a Phascall Lamb eaten etc.  
He esteemeth it no arrogancy or pride of judgement in him to dissent in his doctrines from all known Christians, either living now, or in any age before him. Neither will he yield it to be a dangerous novelty and notable giddiness in him to change, and coin at his pleasure weekly doctrines; defending them with such peremptory pride of judgement, as if he had received clear and certain revelations thereof.  
The order of my discourse is easy to be discerned by the titles of my questions in both controversies. My manner of writing is to declare and refute his assertions with as much brevity and plainness as I could contrive each question. I cite not many authors for any opinions, both because my adversary contemneth such proofs, as also for that I want the commodity of a Library to collect them. I have intentionally written this Preface to discover Traskes opinions, not to disgrace his person, further than I conceived personal circumstances fitly uttered to express fully the grounds and occasions of his doctrines: having to authorize me therein sundry examples of great Saints, not sparing to relate grosser passages, than here I have done, of their heresiarchical Adversaries, who as Devils in their fearful apparitions by platter-eyes, cloven feet, or stinking smells are wont to be discerned: so they truly wolves in sheep's garments, are by levity of Doctrine, pride of judgement, and other personal demeanours easily discovered to want the innocent humble nature of lambs, conterfaited by them. And as he that putteth himself on a stage to play the fools part, must patiently expect laughter from his beholders: so Traske broaching his heretical fancies, must prudently prepare himself to be more than smiled at by judicious Readers.   


THE I. CONTROVERSY.  

QUESTION I. Of the seventh Day before Moses.  
JOHN Traske seemeth falsely to suppose, and Master Cra. his Adversary as lightly to grant, that a Sabaoth, or seventh day of rest from bodily labour was from the beginning of man's Creation commanded by God, & by faithful people continually observed: grounding as it should seem this their assertion upon the holy text of Gen. cap. 2. v. 3. wherein God is said to have rested from his labours, blessed and sanctified the seventh day. As if for God to sanctify and design a day to be holy afterwards, observed in his especial honour and service, were all one as to make it a Sabbath, or day of rest from external labours; which is most false, and may be easily disproved by sundry plain examples in the Mosaical feasts of Azimes, Tabernacles etc. Wherein amongst eight holy ferialls or festival days celebrated with peculiar sacrifices and ceremonies commanded in them, Leuit. 3. vers. 8. 36 37. the first & eight only were to be observed as sabbaths and days of rest from corporal labours.  
So that God might sanctify and design the seventh day to be holy, and especially honoured therein by Adam and his faithful posterity, and yet not make it such a Sabbath, as afterwards he commanded Exod. 20. vers. 8. 9 that strict manner of rest from eternal labours, being no essential condition, but only a cerimoniall solemnity of a sanctified day, as those already instanced texts of Leviticus do import: in which it is said of the first and eight days, that they should be more solemn than: he other six; & immediately God commanded in them abstinence from all sorts of bodily labours, which notwithstanding when they are either necessary in themselves, or charitably expedient for others, cannot be accounted moral breaches, profaning that day in which they are, with due honour and praise otherwise given to God, moderately performed: That representation of God's rest by ours on the seventh day which is chiefly respected and often instanced by john Traske, being only a typical or figurative respect, having no holiness or morality in itself further than moderate rest from servile and continual labours, as needful and convenient for all men to perform their thankful duty and service towards Almighty God, and less oftentimes interrupted and hindered by external exercise of the body, then by superfluous sleep, idle words, or distractive thoughts not expressly forbidden in the precept of the Sabaoth, which according to the strict and ceremonious observance thereof from corporal labours is nowhere in the whole history of Genesis intimated to have been observed by Abraham and other Patrarches, whose labours, journeys, manner of spending their lives, altars erected, sacrifices offered, exequys celebrated, covenants and laws given by God, & holily by them observed, are without any insinuation of such a Sabaoth particularly recounted.  
Moreover many passages of that sacred history seem evidently to import, that before Moses' time their was no such Sabaoth commanded by God, or by holy people practised, as Genesis 31. vers. 40. 41. Where jacob pleading his faithful & diligent services done to Laban, he testifieth himself to have endured laborious days & sleepless nights for twenty years together, making no exception of Sabaoth days, as he would have done no doubt if such had then been observed by him. And Exod. 5. vers. 19 the labours of his children are said to have been per singulos dies, every day prefixed and exacted by Pharaos' officers, without any insinuation of Sabbaths interposed. And to say, as john Traske seemeth in his conference to do, that as the first institution of marriage was by degrees corrupted. with bigamy and divorcing one wife to marry another afterwards, Math. 19 vers. 8. So the Sabaoth likewise in process of time grew neglected by god's people, until in his law he renewed the old institution thereof, is coniecturally only affirmed, Christ himself having taught us the first institution of marriage to have been so depraved: but no mention is made in scripture at all of the old Sabaoth neglected.  
Who likewise seeth not, that neither the patriarchs themselves nor their holy progeny being known to have observed any Sabaoth, but that it were a far more pious and profitable conjecture thence rather to infer, that no Sabaoth was then commanded, then that such holy persons neglected the due observance thereof, and lived Idolaters of God's precept against his own express testimony given of Abraham Genes. 26. vers. 5. Where he is said to have obeyed God's voice, kept his precepts, commandments, ceremonies, and laws; amongst which john Traske groundlessly and idly supposeth to have been included the observance of the Sabbath, sithence no such precept given to Abraham, or practise thereof can be found mentioned in scripture, until the Israelites returning out of Egypt came into the desert of Sin, and began to be feed on the Manna rained down unto them Exod. 16. vers. 5. of which they were commanded to gather only six days, and on the sixth day they were willed to gather a double measure to serve the day following; Moses then first beginning to tell them, vers. 23. & 26. that God had spoken unto him, that on the morrow, which was the seventh day of gathering that miraculous food, the rest of the Sabaoth was to be sanctified to our Lord.  
And when the Israelits either not crediting or not understanding that which Moses had told them, went out to gather Mamna on the 7. day as they had done on the other six days before( which is an evident sign that as yet they held not such labours of providing corporal food unlawful any day) they found none. And Moses said unto them: Behold, God hath allotted you a Sabaoth, giving you double provision of food on the sixth day to serve you the seventh day, wherefore let every man remain with himself, or in his own tent, and let him not go out on the seventh day: and the people then sabathized, or began to observe the Sabaoth on the seventh day; first then being taught( saith Philo lib 1. de vita Moysis) not only by Prophetical instruction, but also by a most manifest argument of the Manna ceased to be rained down that day, and continuing incorupted which was gathered in a double measure on the sixth day, that the same was the seventh day wherein God rested from his labours, they having long before desired to know the day of the world's first creation, and could not till then learn it: which observance God afterwards commanded, & wrote in the first Table of the Decalogue, willing his people not only to sanctify and keep holy the seventh day, but expressly also forbidding them all sorts of external labours, in memory that himself had rested from his labours on that day, calling it therefore in hebrew Saphath of the word Sacath, which signifieth to rest.   

QUESTION II. Whether the precept of the Sabbaoth were Moral, or Cerimoniall.  
JOHN Traske seemeth not in any of his speeches or writings rightly to understand wherein the morality of any Law or Precept consisteth; neither doth Master Cra. his superficial adversary endeavour in his confused answer to instruct him in the true understanding thereof, as he ought specially to have done, considering that all Traskes singular opinions are chiefly grounded in a wrongful conceiving of some Moysaical precepts to have been moral, and so consequently not abrogated by Christ's coming, which were indeed morally cerimoniall, according to that precise figurative and mysterious manner, at the least commanded to the jews, in the observance of them.  
here therefore for both their instructions I define the morality of a law or precept, to consist in that conformity which it hath to the natural light of human understanding and judgement, taught in all true Philosophy, to be the rule of natural and moral actions, and rightly termed by the Apostle ad Rom. cap. 2. vers. 14. & 15. A Law written by God, even in the hearts of such Gentills, as had no knowledge of any other supernatural law, approving them in good, and reprehending them in evil actions, causing in them that practical internal knowledge called Conscience, and justly serving to condemn all such as contradict, and do against it.  
So that only such laws and precepts are said to be moral which are conformable to this Synderesis, and natural light of human judgement, perfected by grace, aswell in the knowledge of natural objects, as of supernatural & revealed verities: amongst which some are purely speculative, and do only require a faithful, pious, and firm assent of our judgement unto them: and others contrarily are in their own nature practical precepts and divine directions or laws, commanding or forbidding things to be done by us, which if they be such, according to the substance or manner of the act commanded or forbidden by them, as do appear to human understanding and judgement voluntarily to have been commanded by God, and exacted in due obedience from us his Creatures for such mysterious respects, as natural judgement cannot apprehend to be necessary or any way belonging to our direction in manners, and morality of life towards God, ourselves, or our neighbours; those precepts are not to be accounted moral, but mysterious and ceremonial abrogated by Christ, as john Traske willingly confesseth.  
Which true ground supposed briefly declaring the nature and condition of a moral law, I answer thus to the difficulty of my Question here proposed, that the Commandment given to the jews of keeping a Sabaoth, or weekly day of rest, was according to the substance and chief intention of that law moral: Because natural understanding, illuminated by faith, teacheth it to be fit and expedient that all sorts of persons should abstain from corporal labours, so far forth as to allot certain days of their life to the especial service and honour of Almighty God: but the determination rather of the seventh day in which God rested from his labours, then of the sixth in which man was created for to serve his creator here in this world, and to enjoy him afterwards, merely depended on God's free choice and election misteriously resolving to make the day of his own rest the Sabaoth, and resting day of his people also from corporal labours, symbolizing thereby that eternal day of clarity and rest, which they were to enjoy with himself afterwards.  
As touching likewise the precise manner of rest from all sorts of labours, even such as were easily performed and belonged in a sort to the convenient health and nourishment of their bodies, commanded to the jews on their Sabaoth, as to light fire, prepare meat etc. I affirm and prove it to have been merely cerimoniall; natural experience teaching us first that the lighting of fire, and such easy labours of preparing food on the Sabaoth for ourselves or for the charitable relief of our brethren, are no way repugnant to the moral end and intention for which the Sabaoth was chiefly ordained, to wit of yielding due honour and praise to God for his continual blessings and benefits towards us, which only requireth moderate rest from servile and painful labours, wholly distrasting men's minds; and making them unapt for holy exercises of piety and devotion. Secondly experience likewise teacheth us, that men's dullness and unableness ordinarily to be actuated any whole day together in prayer and praises to God without ceasing, is such, as easy walking and other needful or charitable exercises moderately used, do help rather than hinder the frequent and fervent use of mental and devout exercises, and serve to honour God and sanctify the Sabaoth, more than superfluous sleep, idle thoughts, unprofitable conversation with others, not expressly in that commandment prohibited.  
Which moral observation of the Sabaoth even since Christ's time, religiously and universally practised by Christian pastors & people on the weekly day of our saviours Resurrection, was intimated by our Saviour himself in many passages of the Gospel, doing for example many miracles on that day, albeit he saw them by the Scribes and pharisees scandalously apprehended to have been breaches of the Sabaoth, Luk. 6. vers. 9 Matth. 12. verse. 10. etc. commanding such as he had cured to take up their beds and go home to their own houses, which seemed a work of toil and labour forbidden to the jews on their Sabaoth, Io. 5. vers. 8. 10. defending his disciples for rubbing the ears of corn to eat, Matth. 12. vers. 1. Luc. 6. vers. 1● Marc. 2. v. 23. which the jews present reputed to have been a certain laborious preparation of food seemingly forbidden by God, Exod. 35 vers. 3. in Moses' declaration of that precept; instancing against those captious accusers of himself & his disciples, the exercises of Priests labouring about sacrifices in the Temple, yet not violating the Sabaoth, the practice of Circumcision on the eight day, albeit it happened on the Sabaoth, their usual custom of leading out their cattle to water, and drawing them out of pits and places of danger on the Sabaoth day, without any sinful breach thereof, as may be gathered out of our saviours manner of speech, Luke 13. 14. importing no reprehension of them for such facts, but produced rather by him as fit examples apt to authorize his miraculous works, done with less labour and more charity and utility to such as were by his voice, or a touch of his hand or garment, in soul and body perfectly cured.  
So that john Traske and other Puritans in their cerimoniall and precise manner of observing the Sabaoth, are rather superstirious imitators of the jews, our saviours adversaries, then humble and faithful members of Christ's Catholic Church, ever known to have practised a moral, and not the jewish and cerimonial observance of the Sunday.   

QUESTION III. Concerning the abrogation of the jews Sabaoth.  
JOHN Traske adhering more constantly, and consequently then other Protestants do, to their dangerous ground of believing nothing not expressly mentioned in Scriptures, or thence necessarily deduced; hath of late upon conference with others, and more diligent search than he had made before of many texts in the old and new Testament, like a weathercock, turned with every blast of his own ignorant fancy and judgement, hath determined himself, and drawn his disciples to a most strict keeping of Saturday the jewish Sabaoth, commanded, saith he, by God out of fire, and written with his own finger in the first Table of the Decalogue, holily likewise by Christ and his disciples afterwards observed, as a sacred memorial of God's rest on the 7. day, and therefore now also as a moral and divine precept still to continue▪ Press him with the universal practice of Christ's Church present & past since the Apostles, certainly known to have rejected the jewish Sabaoth, and instead thereof to have observed the first day of the week in continual memory of our saviours Resurrection, and he will in horrible pride and pertinacity of judgement affirm it to have been a corrupt and abusive practice, little by him regarded, as not being at all grounded in Scripture but repugnant unto it. Urge him with Christ's promises of being present with his Church to the world's end, Matth. 28. vers. 20. of establishing it so surely on a rock, that hell gates shall never prevail against it, Matth. 16. vers. 18. of comforting it with his spirit of love, & leading it into all truth job▪ 14. vers. 16. 17. 26. which fitly therefore is said to be Colum●● & firmamentum veritatis, the suporting pillar and foundation of true faith, 1. Tim. 3. vers. 15. to whose holy obedience all Christians are tied under pain of being by their brethren accounted as Ethnics 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 known to very few, consisting of 2. or 3. gathered together in Christ's name, himself promising to be in the midst of them Matth. 18. vers. 20. that is to say, a small number of such little ones as have truly repent, and are made sure of their election in Christ, hated and persecuted by men, but beloved by God & guarded by Angels, seeing the face of their Heavenly Father. Matth. ibid. vers. 10. And examining him further on this point, he will in process of speech, tell such as he will be confident with all, that himself and his brethren are those little ones, the only gnostics, & illuminated members of Christ's Church, others belonging thereunto 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 Heretics to breath life and spirit into the ceremonious carcase and buried rites of the jewish law, feeding his gross children with such unsavoury excrements, for so the Apostle termeth 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 containing any true nourishment of souls in them; & vainly endeavoureth to illuminate those which observe shadows, who have happily since Christ's time lived in the clear sunshine of heavenly graces, planting like a foolish builder such new points of his faith on the sandy & fleeting foundation of the jewish law, and seeking to set up again medium parietem maceriae, that parting wall of ceremonies, which distinguished Iewes and Gentills subverted and quite overthrown by Christ, ad Eph. 2. vers. 14. & 15. evacuating all such legal decres and ceremonial commandments that he might build on himself the foundation and corner stone both people in a Holy Temple and habitation of God etc. purifying alike their hares by faith. Act. 15. vers. 9  
And that amongst other cerimoniall precepts and decrees of Moses' Law abrogated by Christ, the Sabaoth was one, holily rranslated by the Apostles themselves into our Sunday, as shall be proved in my next Question, is by S. Paul ad Coloss. 2. verse. 16. 17. expressly affirmed willing his disciples not to be judged or discovered in their faithful profession in meat, or drink, or new moons, or any part of a festival day or Sabaoth, which are shadows of future good things. By which Sabaoth cannot be meant the feasts of Trumpets, Tabernacles, Expiation, and other such ceremonial and jewish festivities, as Traske heretically commenteth. For albeit those feasts be called indeed( Levit. 23.) sabboth's, or days of rest, because all external works were alike forbidden in them, as on the seventh day: yet the Apostle rest raineth the word Sabaoth in this place, to signify the weekly Sabbaths of the jews, as appeareth first in that he numbereth such jewish festival days distinctly from the Sabaoth, equally forbidding the observance of them both.  
His second reason why he prohibiteth them contained in that part of the text, quae sunt umbra etc. which are shaldowes of future good things, equally agreeth to them both: for as those feasts were shadows and types, so were the weekly Sabbaths also. Wherefore Ebion and his disciples, the first heretical observers of our Lord's day and the jewish Sabbaths together, as witnesseth S. Epiphanius haers. 30. S. Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 26. pressed with the authority of this place, and perceiving the unanswerablenes thereof, rather than they would thereunto conform their doctrines, absolutely rejected all S. Paul's Epistles, and accounted him an Apostata from the jewish faith: The which john Traske seemeth not yet to do, albeit he dared once to say of S. Paul, that he sought to please men, so consequently could not be the true servant of Christ.  
Secondly, I deduce out of Scripture this Theological argument. The jews for the like respect, & memory of God's rest, were as well bound to observe each Sabaoth of years, & the Sabaoth of that yearly Sabaoth, called the jubilee, or 50. year, as to keep the weekly Sabaoth of days, Leuit. 25. But those yearly Sabbaths, are certainly( I suppose in Traskes opinion) abrogated: wherefore the weekly Sabaoth is no longer to be observed: Gods precepts thereof delivered out of fire to the people, and written wit his own singer in the Decalogue, especially instanced by Traske, being mere circumstances impertinent to the morality thereof, further than is in my former question already declared: God's commandment whether given out of fire, or not being sufficient of itself to oblige his creatures to the perpetual observance of any Law for morality of life fit to be observed. And no learned man will deny but that many precepts, neither delivered out of fire, nor written in the Decalogue Tables were moral, and as such, are now to be observed by Christians: as for a man not to marry his Father's wife, his sister, his daughter etc. The prohibition of usury and sundry other like moral precepts, amongst which( though falsely) Traske numbereth the legal difference of meats, albeit it was neither commanded out of fire, nor written in the Decalogue Tables.  
Thirdly I argue, that john Traske hath no sufficient authority of Scripture, proving the continuance of the jewish Sabaoth: for our saviours observance thereof little importeth for this purpose, the Law whereunto he voluntarily & in obedience to his Father subjecteth himself, being not before his death determined, so that he practised likewise Circumcision, and many other cerimoniall rites, now unlawful to Christians. The practice also of the Apostles, entering commonly, after Christ's death, into the Temple, and other jewish Synagogues on their Sabaoth, maketh as little as our saviours example to prove the continuance thereof, this their practice being in no text of their holy Acts testified. Wherein likewise the holy Evangelist insinuateth not, the motive & end of this their Custom to have been not so much a religions observation of that Sabaoth, as a more commodious and general instruction of the jews concerning the Law & Prophets, fulfilled in Christ their expected Messias, they being in those days and places chiefly assembled and best prepared to have such spiritual doctins propounded unto them by the Apostles: Who for celebration of Christ supper, preaching, and other public exercises of Christian piety and devotion, were accustomed to meet on the first day of the week, called therefore our Lord's day Apocal. 2. because our Lord had then sanctified the same by his resurrection, and commanded the religious observance thereof, as shall in my next Question be fully discussed.  
If john Traske will further contend, that the Apostles for other religious respects besides preaching of Christ, entered the Temples and Synagogues on the Sabaoth, and festival days, as Act▪ 21. vers. 23. 24. 25. where S. Paul not to avert the whole nation of the jews from Christ, did by the counsel of S. james purify himself with other Nazaretts, and so enter the Temple, that he might seem to observe the Law as other jews converted unto Christ than commonly did. I answer, this conditional observance of the Sabaoth and other cerimoniall rites for a time by the Apostles, was only permitted by Christ, as a charitable means the better to unite the jews and Gentills in the unity of one Church: The giver of the Law( saith S. Augustine writing to S. Hierome Epist. 19) having so determined to end the same with his own death, and afterwards honourably to bury it, by permitting the converted jews for a while to practise it, until his Gospel were sufficiently promulgated. For( saith this holy Father) those legal observances were not suddenly to be detested, as the devilish sacrileges of Gentills, when Christ's grace began to be revealed, which was in such shadowing rites prefigured; but to be permitted for a season to their posterity, who first received them, which after their exequys honourably performed, were by all Christians to be utterly forsaken.  
If Traske will press me further to know the precise time, when the ceremonial observation of the Sabaoth, and other rites of Moses' Law wholly ceased, and became unlawful to be practised any more by Christians. I answer him, that peradventure until the very destruction of jerusalem, and subversion of the Temple, more than 40. years after our saviours passion, the old Sabaoth and other ceremonious rites of the Law, might be by some faithful jews, without any touch of infidelity, and falling from Christ, albeit unnecessarily and improfitably, observed: God's providence( saith Origen homil. 10. in Levit) wisely ordaining, that the City, Temple, and all things else belonging to the former glory of that Law and nation, should be altogether destroyed, least sucklings and weaklings in faith, should be longer alured by them, and drawn away from purely embracing Christian verities shadowed in them. So that when our Saviour willed his disciples, Math. 24. vers. 10. to pray that their flight might not happen in winter, saith S. Jerome, because extremity of could would hinder their lasting abode in mountains & desert places; nor in the Sabaoth because the religious rest thereof would hinder their flight: which had been idly spoken, saith Traske, if Christians to whom these words were uttered, had not been bound to a strict observance of the old Sabaoth, when jerusalem was sacked.  
I answer first this objection, that albeit it might be gathered out of this text, that many Christian jews did observe their old Sabaoth as before, until the destruction of jerusalem: yet can it not thence also be inferred, that such Christians observed it in like manner afterwards, when they had seen the perfidious cruelty of their whole nation against Christ, so examplarly punished, their city sacked, their Priests slaughtered, and Temple subverted, never again, by Christ's speeches, to be restored, which could not but be taken by faithful people as certain signs of that law and religion wholly abrogated by Christ and ended, the chiefest exercises whereof consisted in prayers made in the Temple together with mysterious rites and sacrifices therein only performed. Secondly. I answer, that these words were uttered by Christ to his disciples who were natural jews and members of that Commonwealth, wherein the Sabaoth was by most people strictly still observed. Wherefore our Saviour might well take an occasion to utter this speech to them, which chiefly concerned the generality of unbelieving jews, living together with them and observing the Sabaoth, as may be instanced in many other examples of like speeches in Scripture. Thirdly. I answer, that Christ uttered that speech, as fore seeing that the very day in which Titus should besiege the City, should be no other than the Paschall solemnity, and great Sabaoth, wherein multitudes of people repairing to jerusalem from all places, should be suddenly so enclosed, as they should have no means to fly, having the gates shut upon them by such captains and people as undertook to defend the city, and so narrowly watched by the Roman soldiers, as when any were taken to fly they were usually crucified before the walls, and being restained by such multitudes, they suffered unspeakable famine, plague, and slaughters, by external foes and intestine dissensions, which being foreknown by our Saviour, he might well 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 lives, or fight against their enemies, as we read of judas Machabaeus soldiers 1. Machab. 3. but because all means of flight should be hindered by the sudden approach of their enemies without, & jewish captains within the City, and their miseries be multiplied by occasion of such multitudes assembled on the Sabaoth.  
Finally if john Traske for continuance of the Sabaoth, shall object, as one of his disciples seemed to do, that the celebration of the same is called, Exod. 31. A sempiternal Covenant between God and his people, to be observed with perpetual honour in all their generations Exod. 12. I answer, that the like manner of speech is used of the old aaronical priesthood, Exod. 28. now translated into the Priesthood of our Saviour ad Heb. 7. v. 11. 12. 15. 16. and abrogated by Traskes own confession. Wherefore we are to interpret the eternal duration of such rites, to import only a continuance of them, till the Law fully ended, or because they still remain according to the moral & eternal things signified by them, as S. Augustine solveth this objection quaest. 46. 124. & 131. in Exod.   

QUESTION FOUR Of the Sabaoth translated into the weekly day of our saviours Resurrection  
SAINT Augustine epist. 118. rightly termeth it a most insolent madness for any particular man to reprove that which the whole Church of Christ generally observeth for in so doing, with unreasonable pride he practically prefereth his own singular opinion before the judgements of all other Christian Pastors and people, as doth john Traske in his novel observance of the jewish Sabaoth, abrogated by the Apostles themselves, as I have proved in my former Question, and translated into the holy & ever memorable day of our saviours Resurrection, as is plainly testified by the 65. Apostolical Canon, by S. Ignatius the Apostles disciple, in his Epistle ad Magnesianos, by holy justin 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 etc. 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 civitate dei, cap. 30. & serm. 252. by S. Leo epist. 81. ad Dioscorum, by S. Gregory lib 2. epist. 3. by the Laodicean Council cap. 29. Wherein Christians are expressly forbidden to play the jews, and to be idle on the Sabaoth, and willed with all to observe and prefer our Lord's day before it. So as if any testimonies of antiquity might be by Traske and his Companions admitted, and held sufficient to prove the Apostolical translation of the Sabaoth, there would need no other arguments to refute, and reduce them from their idle and singular fancies, than those former undoubted authorities of ancient & learned Fathers. But as he & his companions are wholly ignorant & unacquainted with their works, so are they fully bend to contemn all such Testimonies, which they find not warranted by plain texts of scripture, as themselves only are pleased to expound them.  
For whereas not only the Ancient Fathers, but Ebion also himself, and his disciples acknowledged their heretical doctrine of jewish feasts and Sabbaths necessary to be observed by Christians, together with their own Dominical days and proper festivities, to have been expressly contradicted and condemned by S. Paul ad Coloss. 2. rejecting thereupon all his Epistles from the Canon of Scripture; these new Ebionites, by shifting comments, and absurd glosses of their own devising, seek to delude the text, and draw it against all ancient expositions thereof, to be only understood of cerimoniall feasts mentioned in the 23. of Leviticus, only because they are there called Sabaothes. Whereas the Apostle distinguisheth such festival days from the weekly Sabaoth, and equally in this text forbiddeth the observance of them both to Christians. Which true exposition here supposed, I conclude this argument. One day of seven is still as a moral precept to be holily observed by all Christians. But the observance of the old Sabaoth is prohibited by the Apostle to Christians, and no other day introduced in place thereof, but the day of our saviours Resurrection. Therefore that day only, and not the jewish Sabaoth, is still as a moral precept to be holily observed by Christians.  
Secondly, because john Traske is most delighted with Sillogisticall collections, albeit himself be so little skilled in Logic, as writing lately against an Adversary, he denied the Minor of his Enthimeme, supposing that Christ was, as he told the jews, Dominus Sabati, and had full power either by himself, or his Apostles to abrogate and alter as well as to institute & approve the observance thereof; I frame this argument. That day of the seven is by Christians now weekly to be observed, which the Apostles themselves allotted for their holy Assemblies, and other public exercises of their Christian faith. But the day which the Apostles so allotted &c. was the first day of the week, and not the jewish Sabaoth. Wherefore the first day of the week, & not the jewish Sabaoth is to be observed by Christians.  
The Mayor, or former part of my Argument is certain, because such public assemblies and exercises of faith, are the chief end, for which the Sabaoth, and other festival days were first ordained. The Minor, or latter part is clearly proved by the practice of the Apostles Act. 20. v. 6. 7. where S. Paul, & many other Disciples, of seven whole days which they spent in Troas, are read only to have assembled themselves for preaching & frequenting Sacraments, which are the most public exercises of faith, on the first day of the week, and not on the jewish Sabaoth. Likewise on that day, the Apostle 1. Cor. 16. vers. 1. 2. willed the Christians at Corinth to make their Collects, or common gatherings for the poor brethren at jerusalem, which is an evident sign that Christians used to assemble themselves on that day, there being no reason to be yielded why such common collections of alms should be rather on the first day of the week, than any of the rest, but that Christians used only therein to make their holy Sinaxes & convents for prayer, preaching, alms, frequenting Sacraments &c. mentioned by holy justin in Apolog. 2. to Marcus Antoninus, and other Governors of the Empire in behalf of Christians, and sundry of those holy Fathers formerly mentioned.  
Thirdly, I make this Argument for observance of the sunday in place of the Sabaoth. That day of the week is chiefly to be observed by Christians, which our Lord was pleased to make, and have called his own day. But our Lord did make and call his own day, the first day of the week, and not the jewish Sabaoth. Therefore the first day of the week, and not the jewish Sabaoth, is especially to be observed by Christians. The mayor is certain, because as Christians are bound by their faithful profession to honour Christ himself with thankful & humble services; so doth the wisdom of faith teach them also especially to honour and esteem that day of all others most holy, which their Lord himself most respected, and did choose to make, and have called his own day. For as to name any day, the day of a King, importeth that day to be specially regarded by the king himself, and festivally observed by his subjects in memory of some victory obtained, or memorable good, happened to himself or his people on the same: so for such holy and memorable respects, the first day of the week is called our Lord's day, Apocalyp. 2. 5. worthiest of all other days of the week to be honoured, and festivally observed by Christians as shall be particularly proved in my next Argument. My minor is proved clearly by that former text of S. john, expressly calling one day of the week or year as a familiar name known to all Christians in his time▪ Diem Dominicum, our Lord's day, to wit, a day especially sanctified by Christ, & devoted to his service which was not the Sabaoth of the jews, no where else in Scripture so called, nor any other day but una, or prima Sabbati, the next after the Sabbath, as S. Ignatius S. john's scholar testifieth epist. 6. ad Magnesianos, saying: that after the Sabaoth each lover of Christ celebrateth Diem Dominicum, our Lord's day, consecrated to our Lord's Resurrection, regina & principium omnium dierum, the chiefest and principallest of all other days etc. else where Epist 8. ad Philippenses, he contesteth, that if any Christian celebrateth his Easter with the jews, or their other Symbolical festivities, amongst which the Sabaothes are included, he maketh himself 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 solemnisation of our Lord's day to have been instituted by the Apostles themselves, because our Saviour therein rose from death to life, and to have been by them called our Lord's day, that we might learn by that name to abstain therein from sin, and earthly labours, attending to divine services. And after much honourable mention made of that day, he saith, that therefore the holy Doctors of Christ's Church, meaning the Apostles, decreed to transfer on that day all the glory of the jewish Sabaoth, that what they celebrated in Types we might celebrate in Verities etc.  
Fourthly the precept of the Sabaoth obligeth Christians no further than it can be proved to contain a moral law, necessary to direct them in their religious duty, and thankfulness towards Almighty God for benefits. But the observance of our Lord's day is fitter to direct Christians in their duty towards God, & to put them in mind of his gracious benefits towards them, than the observance of the old Sabaoth. Therefore our Lord's day, not the old Sabaoth, is now commanded, and fittest to be obserned by Christians. The mayor is certain because all cerimoniall and judicial precepts are confessed by john Traske to have been 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 service. My minor may be best proved by examining and comparing the institution and ends for which our Lords day and the old Sabaoth were first ordained and observed.  
The old Sabaoth was chiefly ordained in memory of God's rest from his labours, of creating all things in six days, and therefore Philo lib. de opificio mundi, wisely calleth it the world's birthday, serving for a continual instruction of God's people in the knowledge of their creator, and to exclude the error of Philosophers commonly teaching the world to have had no beginning. Secondly it served to represent unto the Israelites that rest, which God had given unto them after their Egyptian servitude, and painful labours ended, as is expressly affirmed Deut. 5. vers. 15. Thirdly it declared them to be a peculiar people, sanctified by God and devoted to his service Exod. 31 vers. 13. Fourthly the jews Sabaoth allegorically prefigured Christ's rest in his sepulchre, after his painful labours for man's redemption ended, as is insinuated by S. Paul ad Hebr. 4. verse. 10. Fifthly in a typological sense it signified the spiritual rest of souls, after the servile works of sin by Christ's grace ended, as S. Augustine teacheth us tract. 30. in joan. and in sundry other places. Sixtly is was Anagogically a figure of that rest which holy souls after this laboursome life ended, were to enjoy in Abraham's bosom, 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 himself was borne for man's redemption, to wit, the first day of the week, as may be Mathematically demonstrated by searching backwards the Cycle of Dominical letters, which will be found on the 25. of December in the second year of the hundred and ninety fourth olympiad; of Rome first built 754. from Caesar's death 42. from the triumvirate began by Augustus 41. of Herod's reign. 29. when our Saviour was certainly borne, to have been B. Secondly on that first▪ day of the week he rose, and began humanly to lead his glorious immortal life, as may be expressly gathered from the last chapter of all 4. Evangelists. Thirdly, on that day he visibly infused his holy spirit on the Apostles, in the day of Pentecost, to wit, the fiftieth day after the second of Azimes when the jews began to number their day of Pentecost, which happened to be completly ended in the year of our saviours passion on sunday, as is learnedly proved by Ribera de festis judaeorum 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 saviours life, and most singular benefits that God could devise to bestow on mankind happened on our Lord's day, to sanctify and make it more worthy than the jews Sabaoth, to be by us Christians weekly celebrated, and observed.  
To which holy respects we may add also these, that God created the earth, the heavens & Angelical creatures on that day, graciously so therein preparing the local place of our eternal Beatitude and heavenly repose, signified better by ours, than the jewish Sabaoth, providing our companions therein an earthily habitation in the mean while to honour him in this life, and make ourselves 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 Symbol, or sign of our special devotion towards Christ, a holy memorial of spiritual graces received from him, as the other was chiefly of God's temporal benefits towards his creatures. So as they seem to be jews rather, than Christians, who against the universal and known practice of Christ's Church, since the Apostles time, esteem the old Sabaoth more holy, and worthy to be observed, than our Lord's day, made for such high and mysterious respects, memorable to Christians.  
Lastly, the Apostle S. Paul ad Hebr. 4. plainly supposeth Christ to have instituted a new Sabatisme, or day of rest for his people in memory of his rest, after the labours which he sustained for our redemption ended, as God ordained from the beginning, a holy day in memory of his own rest after his works of creation perfected. And from the mystical signification of these two distinct Sabaothes succeeding each other, and simbolizing a double rest of God's people, the one in Abraham's bosom, as our Saviour termeth the place, wherein the patriarchs before him rested, and the other in heaven with himself after his Resurrection; he taketh an occasion to exhort the Hebrews, that since their Forefathers entered not through their incredulity into God's 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 literally, so, and truly explicated, I make this argument.  
The first Sabaoth representing that rest which God gave to his people before Christ, of which it is said Genesis 2. he rested the seventh day from his works etc. is ended according to the Apostle vers. 7. & 8. and a new Sabaoth, or Symbolical day of rest was fortould by David, and ordained by Christ after his labours ended vers. 9 10. But no new Sabaoth or Symbolical day of rest, distinct from the seventh day can be understood to have been mentioned by David, 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 invited holy people before Christ, is now ended, and the Dominical day, symbolizing the new rest which Christians invited holy souls unto is in place thereof happily succeeded.  
john Traske lately entered into a humour of reading histories that he might seem skilled in some other good studies, besides the knowledge of Scriptures, may chance to stumble upon an objection seemingly sufficient to prove the continuance at least of the old Sabaoth, together with our Lord's day. For example S. Gregory Nissen in his Oration against such as brooked not reprehensions, asketh an Heretic, with what eyes he saw our Lord's day, who despised the Sabaoth, these days being brethren, so as he that reproacheth the one wrongeth the other also. Socrates lib. 6. hist. cap. 8. affirmeth the Sabaoth and our Lord's day to be the weekly feasts of Christians, wherein they were wont to assemble themselves. And Anastasius Nicenus lib quaest. 77. affirmeth those two days to be holy and festival. The Apostolical Church also of Aethiopia doth at this day religiously observe both Sabbaths: so as the old Sabaoth by these historical passages, and other authentical testimonies of antiquity, seemeth not to have been abrogated by the Apostles.  
Whereunto I answer, that albeit the Apostles abrogated the old Sabaoth, and introduced the observation of our Lord's day in place thereof, as is already proved in this and my former question, yet afterwards Christian Bishops, occasionally, and for a while only in many Eastern Churches renewed a festival and Christian observance thereof, not that they held the Mosaical precept still to oblige them thereunto, as doth john Traske and his disciples, or that as Ebion, they held it necessary for all Christians equally to observe both Sabaothes, whose opinion all the ancient Fathers are known generally▪ to have detested. But for a holy and zealous refutation of the Symonians, Menandrians, Cerinthians, Carpocratians, Basilidians, Marcionistes, and other like Heretics, who to reproach the Author of the old Testament, whom they termed An evil God & lest they might seem to honour him in any sort, feasted on the Sabaoth, as S. Epiphanius recounted haeres. 42. the holy Pastors and people of Christ's Church in a zealous detestation of their blasphemies, and to show the same God to have been author of both Testaments faithfully and fitly for a time observed both Sabaothes, forbidding any Christian under grievous penalties to fast on Saturday more than on our Lord's day, one Saturday only excepted wherein our Saviour lay dead in his sepulchre, as is expressly mentioned in S. Ignatius Epist. ad Philipenses, in the 55. Apostolical Canon, and in sundry other ancient Authors. Which Christian and occasional observance of the old Sabaoth is known not to have been generally practised, but only in particular Churches, wherein such heretics lived: and as those Heresies ceased, the festival keeping of the Sabaoth ceased also, and Christians feasted aswell on it, as on friday in memory of our saviours death, and the Apostles sorrow continued until his joyful Resurrection, as is expressly affirmed by Innocentius epist. 2. c. 4. Hieron. epist. 97. August. epist. 86. & 18. by Cassianus collat. 3. cap. 10 etc. As for the Aethiopians still observing the Sabaoth, I answer, that they are known to have been corrupted since their Apostolical conversion with many Heretical and judaical doctrines, practising circumcision and sundry other rites of Moses' law, unlawful to Christians.  
An other Argument much used by Traskes Disciples is, that if circumcision were by an express decree of the Apostles Act. 15. repealed, with much more reason was the Sabaoth by their like decree to have been abrogated also, considering that the Commandment thereof was included amongst the other moral, and still continuing precepts of the Decalogue tables etc. Whereunto I answer first, that Circumcision was indeed by the Apostles declared to be a burdensome and unnecessary precept, to be imposed on the Gentills. But to the jews it was abrogated only, as generally the Sabaoth was, by the contrary doctrine of the Apostles, sufficiently warranting and securing the conscience of any good Christian, to believe and practise any point of Religion taught by them, albeit we read of no Apostolical Synod purposely made to determine the same.  
Secondly I answer, that an express decree was more necessary to have been made by the Apostles of abrogating the practice of Circumcision then of transferring the Sabaoth to an other more mysterious and memorable day; the determination of the seventh day rather then any other being as I have else where declared, immaterial to the religious observance of God's Commandment, binding only according to the moral end, and intention thereof, faithful people to abstain in one day of seven from servile labours, and to devote the same to God's especial honour and service: whereas the practice of Circumcision given before Moses, as a covenant and sign, distinguishing Abraham's holy posterity from other faithless people, was wholly to be repealed, notwithstanding the jews so highly regarded it, as not to converse or admit into their Temple any one that wanted that holy seal, and sign of God's covenant with them.  
Other arguments more frivolous & less important I willingly omit, being loath to detain my Reader needlessly, and impertinently in them, wishing here for a final conclusion of this question, that Io. Traske and his brethren would maturely consider the final issue of their unchristian and exorbitant doctrines, disliked by our Sovereign and State, contradicted by all learned men coming to hear of them, and utterly as yet unheard of in other parts of Christendom: so as the first Inventors and obstinate Professers of them can truly belong to no Christian Church, present now, or passed in any age before them.   

QUESTION V: Wherein is proved that Christians are to celebrate the yearly day of our saviours Resurrection on Sunday, and not on the 14. day of March-Moone, as the jews celebrated their Paschall.  
JOHN Traske in his humour of judaism & Heretical innovation, is lately grown so great an enemy to the weekly observance of our Lord's day, as he seemeth also to deny the yearly feast of our saviours Resurrection to be lawfully celebrated on any other day in the year than the 14. of March-moone, wherein the jews were commanded by God to celebrate their Passover. And upon his late reading in Eusebius lib 5. hist. cap. 22. Polycrates epistle directed to Victor Bishop of Rome concerning the Asian custom of keeping easter with the jews, & S. Irenaus his judgement that Victor did with over much severity excommunicate many Eastern Churches, for persisting in that wont Quartadeciman manner of celebrating the yearly day of our saviours Resurrection, together with the jews Paschall; he will arrogantly presume to call Victor that holy Bishop & Martyr, famously mentioned in ancient histories, a proud Prelate, and not stick to accuse other ancient Fathers of ignorance in censuring afterwards, and condemning for heretics the Quartadeciman observers of Easter: God himself, saith he, having expressly commanded, & Christ himself with his Apostles celebrated on that day his Paschall festivity.  
And not contented with this heretical temerity of renewing the Quartadeciman heresy, he surpasseth Blastus himself in his jewish manner of keeping Easter. For as I have touched in my Preface, he by his eating of unleavened bread seven days together after the 14. of March-Moone, and by sundry speeches uttered to some of his fellow prisoners, hath given great suspicions that lately he hath observed the feast of Azimes, together with his disciples. The next year peradueuture they will have profited in judaism so far, as to sacrifice a Paschall Lamb also. And lastly it is to be feared, that falling more and more from their Christian profession, they will with Adam Neuserus, Bernardinus Ochinus, and other Puritan Divines finally forsake Christ, and embrace judaism, or turcism, the fearful sequel and just punishment of such fantastical spirits, as will embrace no Religion but of their own devising, nor be obedient children to any Church, but of their own raising.  
But let john Traske, and his Disciples celebrate what Paschall they will, and on what day they please, our Paschal-Lambe according to the Apostle 1. Corinth. 5. vers. 7. 8. is Christ sacrificed in the evening of the world, for our redemption: and our festival azimes are to be as near, as by the assistance of divine graces we shallbe able to arrive unto, the sincerity of holy actions, and verity of doctrines, whereby our souls may be happily nourished after their spiritual flight out of Egypt, and conducted towards the eternal inheritance of heaven through the merit of Christ's holy life and passion prepared for us; humbling ourselves here, to be else where eternally exalted; eschewing any temper, as near as we can, of that Pharisaical leaven, with which Traskes speeches, and actions are as it may be probably guessed in God's sight abominably corrupted, who with his disciples will not seem to be sicut ceteri homines in any thing, showing all those simptoms, whereby the spiritual Physician of souls was pleased to describe the infection of the Scribes and Pharisyes, rightly by him compared to dead men's sepulchres painted and polished without, but internally filled with all guile and malice.  
The Apostle telleth the Galathians cap. 5. vers. 2. & 3. that whosoever circumciseth himself, maketh himself a debtor of the whole law, and Christ's death profiteth him not: and so it may be proportionably averred of Traske, that in teaching the festival observance of Azimes he is consequently also bound by the same reason, to observe the entire Law of Moses, & so cannot be longer a Christian. He was wont heretofore to understand that text of the Apostle ad Coloss. 2. Let not man judge or discover you in meat or drink, or new moons, or part of a festival day etc. of the Ceremonial feasts of the jews mentioned Leuitic. 23. abrogated by Christ, amongst which the feast of Azimes is first mentioned. But he hath as it should seem since altered his judgement, &( as Ebion & his disciples were wont) little I fear doth he regard any doctrine contained in S. Paul's Epistles. Polycrates Epistle never taught him to conjoin the judaical feasts of Azimes with our Christian Passover, only that ancient Bishop of Ephesus in a preposterous zeal of observing the yearly memory of our saviours resurrection, as S. Policarpe and other great Saints had done before him in those parts of Asia, wrote very earnestly in the defence of that Quartadeciman Custom. Whose authority hath, as it should seem, much moved john Traske, who either out of ignorance had never before read, or out of rashness never marked, far more convincing proofs for the Dominical observance of Easter.  
For long before Victor's decree thereof, Pius his holy predecessor, as. Eusebius recounteth in his Chronicle, declared it to have been an Apostolical doctrine that Christians should keep their Easter on the Sunday, and not on the 14. of March-moone, as the jews celebrated their Paschall. Socrates also lib. 5. hist. cap. 21. expressly affirmeth, that S. Peter & S. Paul taught in the Roman and other Western Churches the like Dominical observance of Easter, which is also testified by S. Protenius, Patriarch of Alexandria in his Epistly to S. Leo, wherein he testifieth also, that S. Mark introduced the same manner of keeping Easter in the Egyptian Churches S. Ignatius who saw our Lord himself in flesh, who also conversed 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 keep holy our Lord's day, as the queen and chiefest of all other days consecrated to our saviours Resurrection, but also he contesteth Epist. ad Philip. that any Christian celebrating his Paschall with the jews, maketh himself thereby a partaker with those who killed our Lord himself, and his Apostles.  
Neither was the decree of keeping Easter on the Sunday lightly made in Victor's time, but gravely and maturely determined in many holy and learned Synods of Bishops, assembled by Victor's appointment, before he proceeded to excommunicate the Asian Bishops, as Eusebius in his chronicle also testifieth; in so much as besides the Council which Victor himself called at Rome, Theophilus metropolitan of Cesaraea, Narcissus Patriarth of Jerusalem, Palmas Bishop of Pontus, S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lions, Barchillus Bishop of Corinth, and many Bishops of other Provinces assembled Synods, and with one consent from no other fountain than the certain doctrine & tradition of the Apostles themselves determined the Dominical observance of Easter. So that Polycrates assertion having been taught by S. john, the Quartadeciman manner of keeping the yearly feast of our saviours Resurrection, seemeth to be against S. john's own writing, Apocal. 2. calling Sunday, Diem Dominicum, our Lord's day, for the reason formerly assigned by his scholar Ignatius, to wit, because it was sanctified, and chiefly above all other days observed by Christians for our saviours Resurrection which thereon happened. And if in a festival and holy memory of that sacred mystery the Apostles themselves instituted a weekly observance of that day; how can it be wisely thought that they would have the anniversary day itself of our saviours Resurrection not celebrated on that determinate day also? Wherefore, as we may suppose, that which S. john only permitted in Asia for the peace of those Churches, touching their Quartadeciman observance of Easter, Polycrates partially and mistakingly affirmeth it to have been taught by the Apostle.  
As for S. Irenaeus agreeing with Victor in his doctrine, yet seeming to blame him for overmuch severity used in excommunicating the Asian Churches for a practice tolerated in them long before by his holy predecessors; I answer, that Irenaeus peradventure knew not Victor's motives of doing so, which was to resist Montanus errors then newly begun to be broached in Asia, and to cut quickly off Blastus judaical innovations, rising even in Rome itself, and much confirmed by that legal manner of keeping Easter, which made holy Victor to undertake a violent remedy to cure a dangerous wound then beginning 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' days. For whereas before they only by permission observed Easter with the jews, in Victor's time they held it to be an Apostolical institution, necessary to be embraced 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 numbering the Quartadecimans amongst other judaizing heretics: and the Nicen Council, as S. Athanasius writeth in his book of Synods, reclaimed multitudes of them, renewing Pope Victor's decree of keeping Easter on the Sunday, and ordaining that the patriarchs of Alexandria for the Egyptian skill above other Nations, in computing years and days, 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 observed by Christians, as is testified by S. Leo Epist. 64. ad Marcianum Imperat. and is to be seen in the Paschal epistles themselves 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 proof 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 controversies, a ceremonial precept of the Mosaical Law, being apt to convince his fantastical judgement, and immovably determine him in any opinion, let all Christian Churches present and past, teach and practise what they will against him.    

THE II. CONTROVERSY.  

QUESTION I. Of the uncleanness of meats before Moses Law.  
JOHN Traske and his disciples hold the Legal difference of meats mentioned Leuit. 11. Deutron. 10. to be so moral in itself, and religiously from man's first creation by faithful people observed, as our first Parents themselves in Paradise had the same in a sort commanded to them, and their holy posterity ever afterwards practised it: as may be gathered( say they) by that difference of clean & unclean beasts entering the Ark Genes 7. vers. 2. 3. their usual argument being this following. That which was from the beginning commanded by God, and by holy people observed, is no doubt a moral precept still to continue: But the Law of meats was from the beginning commanded by God, and by holy people observed: Therefore it is as a moral precept still to continue.  
Which argument before I proceed fully and particularly to answer, I purpose here orderly to overthrow the doctrinal grounds thereof. First absolutely denying, that God's precept of not eating the forbidden fruit given to our first parents in Paradise, was any Law at all of unclean meats, as ridiculously they suppose it to have been, but only a commandment of abstinence, imposed by God for a holy exercise, and trial of their obedience towards him, that having ●…eir souls illuminated and sanctified with abundant graces, and all sensual and disordered motions of their inferior fleshly nature happily restrained, and suppressed with the golden bridle of original justice, so as all other moral precepts were easily, & connaturally as it were in that harmonious union of nature and grace observed by them: God was pleased only in an extrinsical & indifferent matter, to exact their due obedience & subjection towards him; which did no more concern the Mosaical difference of meats afterwards commanded, then if he had forbidden them to touch the same tree, or to eat of any another fruit in Paradise; nor was the tree, but the wilful transgression of their Creator's commandment unclean, & aswell in themselves as in their unhappy posterity fearfully punished.  
As for the difference of birds and beasts, clean and unclean entering the Ark, which is another chief ground of Traskes former argument: I answer, that this uncleanness was not then understood in respect of their use for food, but for the sacrifices of those former times before Moses, wherein no birds or beasts but such as were legally afterwards reputed clean in Moses' Law, could be offered, as may be gathered out of Abel's sacrifice Gen. 4. vers. 4. of Noah's, cap. 6. vers 20. of Abraham's, cap. 15. vers. 9 of joabs, cap. 42. vers. 8. etc. God himself no doubt having given some especial ordinance or inspiration thereof to Adam himself or Seth his holy son, who is said to have begun to invoke God's Name, Genes. 4. vers. 26. which must necessarily be understood of some peculiar rites, and order of celebrating sacrifices, first taught and practised by him.  
But that those birds and beasts are not said to have been then unclean for food and unlawfully to be eaten, as afterwards in Moses' Law they were declared to be, I prove, because before the flood they seem not at all to have been by holy people used for food, and after Noah's time until Moses' Law given, all meats, but strangled and blood, were freely permitted. The former of these two assertions, I prove by this unanswerable argument. Holy people before the flood did only eat such meats as God had licenced and appointed them for food. But before the flood no flesh or fish was by God licenced, & appointed unto them for food, but only herbs & fruits of the earth as Gods own words do expressly import, Gen. 1. vers. 29. saying: Behold I have given you all kind of herbs that seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind to be your meat etc. not mentioning fish, birds, or beasts, as afterwards he did to Noah and his posterity cap. 9 vers. 2. 3. Wherefore only herbs & fruits of the earth were then eaten by holy people.  
And a double reason may be yielded, why such herbs and fruits of the earth were more sufficient for man's sustenance before the flood then after. First for that the earth was by the deluge of salt▪ waters corrupted, and altered from the former fertility thereof, and yielded not such wholesome and nourishing fruits as it did before, whilst it purely remained in that estate wherein God created it, and whilst the first progeny, as I may term it, of herbs and trees remained, which God himself had out of the earth produced Secondly also for that men's nature in process of time became weakened, and less able by the fruits of the earth to be sustained, than it was before, when it newly came out of Gods own omnipotent hands, that did temper and frame the same in all natural perfection, and ordain it no doubt long after so to continue, as it appeareth by the lasting lives of our first human progenitors, and their natural force to beget children after they had lived many hundreds of years. Wherefore holy jacob told Pharaoh demanding his age Gen. 47. vers. 8. & 9 that his days were Turrian hundred & thirty years, short and evil, to wit, subject to infirmity and diseases, and not arriving to the days of his forefathers.  
Likewise that after Noah until Moses' Law given( which is my second assertion here to be proved) all meats, but strangled and blood, were freely permitted, may evidently be gathered out of Gen. cap. 9 vers. 2. 3. 4. where God first licensing men to eat fish and flesh, Every thing( saith he) which moveth and liveth shall be to you for food, as growing herbs, I have delivered them unto you, excepting that you shall not eat flesh with blood. Out of which text I argue thus against john Traske. Holy people from Noah unto Moses' time might lawfully eat all meats licenced unto them by God to be eaten: But all meats, except such as were strangled & blood were licenced by God to be eaten by them. Therefore they might lawfully eat them. The first proposition is certain, and granted by Traske. The second likewise is evident, because strangled meats and blood are in that general Law and appointment of Creatures for food, only excepted; which kind of exception in such an universal rule as that text containeth, authorizeth all other particulars not therein expressed, or out of the same necessarily deduced.  
So that the Minor of je. Traskes above mentioned argument is false, to wit, that the Mosaical difference of meats was from the beginning commanded by God, and by holy people observed. And were it granted to be true, that the Mosaical difference of meats had been so commanded by God, and by holy people ever until Christ's time observed: yet doth it not thence necessarily follow, that now alsom like manner it is to be practised by Christians all ceremonies and figures of former times, as well before Moses' Law, as after, being by Christ fulfilled, and wholly ceased: amongst which the legal uncleanness of meats was one, as shall be afterwards fully declared.  
The first Proposition also of that great argument is clearly false, to wit, that every religious rite from the beginning commanded by God, and by holy people observed, is doubtless a moral Law ever to continue amongst Christians: because bloody sacrifices, for example, were from the beginning inspired by God, and practised by Adam's faithful posterity, and yet as types of Christ's bloody sacrifice they were now with the same wholly abrogated & ended; so that, it is no such certain sign, as Traske would have it, of a moral and ever continuing Law that the same was from the beginning inspired or commanded by God, and by faithful people, until Christ's coming observed.   

QUESTION II. Of the Mosaical law of meats, and mysterious ends why God commanded it.  
JOHN Traske willingly admitteth the common division of the old law into Moral, judicial, and Cerimoniall Precepts, mentioned by Moses himself, Deut. 2. vers. 1. and taught by all modern and ancient Writers, treating of the two later sorts of Precepts abrogated by our saviours coming. So that if it may by evident circumstances of the text be proved here in this question by me, that the legal observance of meats commanded to the jews Levit. 11. Deut. 14. was merely cerimoniall, and for typical & mysterious respects only imposed, such as can have now no moral end to be still continued & practised by Christians; I shall easily shake and overthrow the sandy and fleeting ground of my adversaries doctrine.  
And to proceed orderly in this question, and fitly for my purpose. I prove first, this Law of meats to have been merely cerimoniall, because it is not at all mentioned, but jointly & commixed with other Ceremonies of Moses' law. For in Leviticus it is immediately annexed to the Typical rites of sacrifices and oblations, & hath subsequently following it the ceremonious law and order of cleansings and purisications etc. In Deutron. likewise it hath before it many judicial precepts, and that whole cerimonial ordinance of celebrating festival years, days, Sacrifices after it etc. which is a sign at least, that this differential law of meats is cerimoniall also, and no moral part of Moses' law. Secondly the ends for which this distinction of meats was holily ordained by God, do sufficiently declare it to have been cerimoniall then, and in no sort now appertaining to the moral observance of our Christian duties. The first & chiefest end thereof expressed by God himself, Deut. 14. vers. 2. was, that this observance of meats might be a note and distinctive sign of his people. Because( saith Moses') thou art holy to thy Lord God, and he hath chosen thee amongst all other nations of the earth to be his peculiar people, eat not things unclean. So that this judaical difference of meats was part of that middle unmortered wall of Cerimoniall and judicial Precepts, separating for a time jews and Gentills, until our Saviour threw it down, conjoining in himself the foundation & cornerstone both people in the spiritual edifice and building of his Church, ad Ephes. 2. vers. 14. & 15. so that now as there is no distinction further made between jew and Gentil ad Rom. 3. vers. 9 & 29. Act. 15. verse. 6. and as circumcision, and other distinctive signs, causing enmity and division between those two people, now united in Christ, are by his death on the cross taken away and destroyed: So is the law of difference imposed for that end, evacuated also.  
Secondly, as marriage with Gentills was forbidden to the jews, for that it was foreseen by God to be an occasion to seduce and draw them from their faithful profession, Exod. 34. vers. 16. as was lamentably experienced in Solomon 3. Reg. 11. v. 1. & 2. and many other jews by that means corrupted: So for the same cause, Almighty God was pleased to enjoin them such a strict abstinence, and horror of sundry meats, used by the Gentills round about them, and such purifications for any that did either touch those meats, or such persons as had eaten them, that the jews for a necessary observance of their law, were enforced in a manner to abstain from all civil commerce and conversation with such Gentile nations as might be powerful to seduce them, accounting it a great abomination even to enter into them, as S. Peter told Cornelius, Act. 10. vers. 28. Which reason of forbidding meats is now taken away by the happy conversion of Gentile people to Christ.  
Thirdly these unclean fowls and beasts forbidden in Moses' law, figured the impure manners and abominable rites of the Gentills, as appeareth by S. Peter's vision Act. 10. vers. 11. by which our Saviour mystically taught him to account no man uncleanen, as before he had done, ibid. vers. 8. Wherefore as the Gentiles spiritual uncleanness was cleansed by their faith in Christ, Act. 15. vers. 9 so was the figure thereof to cease also. And consequently this, and all other ends of the cerimoniall law of meats, ceasing at Christ's coming, the obligation of the law itself was abrogated also. A third Argument to prove the legal difference of meats to have been cerimoniall & appertaining to the jews only, whilst they remained distinguished from other people, may be gathered from these words so often repeated by God in the ordinance of that law, They shallbe unclean to you, abominable to you, execrable to you etc. which manners of speech import that in themselves and to other nations they were not so, but by his forbidding of them only made so.  
Fourthly, the same arguments by which john Traske usually proveth this law of meats to be moral, and not cerimoniall, prove many other judicial parts of Moses' law moral also, and still to be observed by Christians. Traskes common argument is, that the Scriptures being perfect, must expressly contain a sufficient and particular rule to direct Christians in all things, concerning their duty towards God, and civil conversation amongst themselves, as what to eat, what to wear etc. but this particular rule & direction of meats, for example, to be eaten or not eaten by Christians, is nowhere expressed, but in the 11. Chap. of Levitic. and 19 of Deutr. Therefore the Law of meats contained in those Chapters is moral, & still to be observed by Christians. The Mayor of which argument is false, that the Scriptures must expressly & particularly instruct us in all natural actions as what to eat, what to wear etc. For God hath given us a natural Law to direct us sufficiently in such particular actions, according to moral and general precepts of avoiding sin in them, as to eat only such meats as are wholesome & necessary to sustain our bodily forces, humbly thanking, and intending to serve our Creator by them; to wear only such garments as are convenient for our estate, & needful to cover and keep our bodies healthful etc. leaving us to holy liberty to exercise religious abstinence and mortification in them: so as no other supernatural rule is necessary to appoint either the particular fashions of our garments, the kinds of meats which are to be eaten, the manners of dressing them &c. the Scriptures teaching us not to be good Cooks or Tailors, but to be good Christians, and to carry ourselves morally, and without sin in all our actions, whereunto the special nature of meats is wholly impertinent, as I shall declare more fully in my next Question.  
john Traske out of the general promises of Christ's graces and mercies, plentifully ordained for faithful, righteous, and penitent persons, arrogantly presumeth assuredly and infallibly to collect the particular election of himself, & others of his disciples, else why will he ridiculously deny the sufficiency of general precepts and instructions to direct us in moral and particular actions? Or why doth he admit of many unnecessary trades embraced by some of his chief disciples, as the trade of Comfitmaking, Perfuming &c. tending in their own nature to luxury, and no where expressly mentioned in Scripture, no not in such places, wherein the delicacies of Kings themselves are expressed, as Samuel 1. cap. 8. Paralip. 2. cap. 9 3. Reg. cap. 10. etc. Moreover as there is no particular appointment of meats, but in those Chapters of Levitic. and Deutr. so is there no particular determination of judgements against malefactors, and particular laws to be observed for the civil government of people, but such as are contained in Moses' Law: yet will not Traske I suppose, be so very a jew, as to introduce amongst Christians a necessary practice of such judicial, and sundry other cerimoniall precepts, seeming more pertinent to the morality of Christians, than the legal observance of meats, neither unclean in themselves, as the Minicheans and other hateful Heretics supposed them, nor defiling in any fort the souls of such as do eat them, with thanks and a holy intention to honour God by a temperate use of them. Lastly john Traske admitting the legal difference and uncleanness of meats yet to continue amongst Christians, is consequently also bound to admit legal purifications appointed to be used by such as had eaten, or touched them, as washing of their clothes, secluding themselves from human society, till the evening etc. which he seemeth not to do, but rejecteth them as ceremonious, and impertinent now to the moral direction of Christians.   

QUESTION III. Wherein the proper and perfect rule of moral Actions is briefly declared: and how according to the same no meats are now unclean, and unlawful to Christians.  
JOHN Traske and his disciples are so absurd in their doctrine of meats, as they wholly in a manner reject human reason, from being any direction or rule at all to guide them in moral actions. The Law of Nature, say they is a rule only for natural and carnal persons to live by, God's children having a higher Law contained in the holy Scriptures, teaching them what to eat, and making them perfect in all things else belonging to Christian manners and human conversation, 2. ad Tim. 3. vers. 15. & 16. My purpose therefore is in this Question briefly to declare what the natural light of reason is, more fully than I have done in the 2. Question of my first Controversy, showing it is perfected by supernatural knowledge, and still remaineth a full and perfect rule to direct us in all natural and moral actions.  
Natural Reason is in itself the essential & internal clarity of man's soul, by the use whereof we are distinguished from bruit beasts, taught to know what is morally good and evil in our actions, & made capable of grace and all supernatural perfection. So that whilst we continue naturally men here in this life, we must guide and govern ourselves thereby in human and moral actions: Faith being a supernatural light, graciously by God infused into our soul, not to destroy natural knowledge in us, but to perfect the same two Ways. First by helping us to a more easy and certain knowledge of sundry natural verities, than we can ordinarily in this life attain unto, from the bare experience of our senses. Secondly by notifying unto us the intellectual power of our soul, & inclining it firmly and piously to believe many revealed mysteries far above the natural reach & capacity thereof to be discovered or thought upon by us: yet are they always found so conformable thereunto, as no point of faith is to be accounted credible and worthy of our faithful and devout assent, which is in true discourse repugnant to natural reason & judgement in us.  
So that john Traske and his disciples seem to deal unreasonably, and without judgement, in excluding natural reason and judgement from being any rule at all in moral and human actions; contrary to the express doctrine of S. Paul ad Rom. 2. verse. 24. 25. 26. where he affirmeth, that the very Gentiles who wanted all knowledge of a written law, were a law to themselves, being naturally taught to observe that law, and to show it written in their hearts( to wit, according to the moral precepts thereof) their own consciences sufficiently serving to approve them in good, and to condemn them in evil actions, and so consequently to be a proper rule to guide and direct them in all moral and human actions. The supernatural direction of faith, being graciously by Christ ordained, as I have formerly said, to facilitate and explain natural knowledge many ways corrupted, and obscured in us, and happily to conduce us to a higher degree of heavenly knowledge and evangelical perfection, is idly and ignorantly confounded by Traske with natural morality, and falsely made the only and proper rule of human & moral actions, which Gentle people wanted not, according to the Apostle, who notwithstanding are known not to have had the light of heavenly knowledge & evangelical perfection revealed unto them.  
Which true distinction of a moral and supernatural law supposed, I here undertake to prove the law of meats mentioned Leuit. 11. & Deutr. 14. to have been merely cerimoniall, and no way now to appertain to the moral or susupernaturall law and direction of Christians. And that the judaical observance of meats appertaineth not to that internal law of reason written by God in the hearts of all men, and sufficiently teaching them to know the moral good and evil of their actions, and to make a conscience of them. I prove it first, because never any Philosopher, or Wiseman among the Gentills can be proved to have taught or practised, amongst many other moral and excellent precepts delivered & observed by them, this difference of meats: but they are contrarily known to have indifferently eaten all sorts of meats, which experimentally they found wholesome, & fit to sustain their bodies, as Coneys, Hares Swine's flesh, and other meats, prohibited to the jews. Which natural and daily experience 10. Traske ridiculously denieth, falsely pretending them to be not only legally unclean, but unwholesome also for corporal sustenance, and no more created by God for food, or less forbidden by any law to be eaten, than toads and serpents, which by the natural precept of not killing our selves, we are taught to refrain from; not for that they are in themselves naturally unclean, but because they are in experience found to be inconvenient and hurtful to our nature, not nourished but destroyed by them: yet was never wise jews or Christians so absurd before, as to teach that, for the like moral respect of preserving our natural life, Swine's flesh was as toads and serpents forbidden in that precept.  
Secondly holy people after the flood observed, no doubt, the moral law and divine directions given them, & yet as I have proved in my former Question, were no other meats but strangled and blood, and those also for mysterious and figurative respects, expressly until Moses' time prohibited unto them.  
Thirdly our Saviour Matt. 15. vers. 11. 16. 17. from common reason and natural understanding collecteth this universal rule and moral position, that nothing entering the body can defile a man, who is only made impure by sinful acts proceeding from his soul etc. S. Paul also ad Rom. 14. vers. 17. morally teacheth us, that the kingdom of heaven, or the means of gaining heaven is not, or consisteth in meat and drink, but in justice, peace and joy in the holy Ghost, and he that in this serveth Christ, pleaseth God, to wit, what meats soever he eateth. For( saith he, 1. ad Corinth. cap. 8. v. 8.) meat commendeth us not to God. Out of which holy texts I frame this argument. Nothing is morally unclean, and unlawful to Christians that defileth not their souls: But no meats entering their bodies can according to our saviours own words defile their souls: Therefore no meats are morally unclean and unlawful to Christians. The Mayor of my argument is certain, because Christian morality consisteth in freedom from sin. The Minor likewise is out of reason itself deduced by our saviours blaming his disciples for conceiving that any meat eaten by the mouth can of itself defile the soul, and so consequently for any natural uncleanness be unlawful to be used: wherefore the legal prohibition of them, cannot be moral but mysterious and cerimoniall. Secondly I frame this argument. That which neither commendeth men to God, nor appertaineth to the gaining of heaven, as justice and other virtues do cannot belong to the moral or supernatural duty of a Christian: But meats according to S. Paul do neither of themselves commend us to God, nor so appertain to the gaining of heaven, as justice and other virtues do: Therefore meats of themselves cannot belong to the moral or supernatural duty of Christians, and consequently no Christian is now bound to the legal observance of them.  
Fourthly S. Paul 1 ad Tim. 4. v. 3. 4. & 5. speaking against Heretics teaching people to abstain from meats which God created to be received with thanksgiving by faithful persons, and such as know the truth, yieldeth this reason of his doctrine. Because every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected( to wit for meat) which is received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. In which Text albeit it should be granted that the Apostle chiefly disputed against the Symonians, Saturnians, Marcionites, and other like Heretics, who in, and soon after the Apostles times, taught many Creatures to be ill in their own nature, as having been by an evil God created, and so to be detested by Christians: yet the reason of his doctrine is moral and sufficient to show the legal impurity of meats abrogated by our Saviour, which I prove by this argument.  
Every Creature of God that is good, and not to be rejected, being received with thanskgiving, may lawfully be eaten by Christians: But every Creature of God is good, according to the Apostle, and not to be rejected being received with thanskgiving: Therefore every creature may lawfully be eaten with prayer and thansksgiving 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, every Creature to be sanctified with the word of God, and by the prayer of him that with thanksgiving receiveth it. Therefore no Creature is to be accounted impure for food, being with prayer and thanksgiving so received. If Traske ask me how it is to be understood, that all creatures may be sanctified with the prayers & thanksgiving of such as receive them; I answer, that those words of S. Paul in their true sense, do only import, that whosoever eateth any creature with prayer and thanksgiving, maketh a holy use thereof, and so that Creature may rightly be called holy, or a cause of holiness to him that so receiveth it.  
If he ask me whether it be not also required to the holy use of any creature, that it be wholesome of itself for food, and created by God to be so with prayer and thanksgiving received; I answer yes, because no unwholesome creature, poisonous, and hurtful to our bodies can for food be holily used, but wickedly against the natural precept of not killing ourselves etc. And those words of S. Paul, Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected etc. containing an universal sense, without limitation or exception, do necessarily infer every wholesome creature apt to nourish our body, and to be converted into the natural substance thereof, to have been created for that purpose by Almighty God, who hath given us natural judgement and experience to know what creatures are wholesome and apt to feed and sustain us: else were the natural knowledge of man individually to preserve himself by the external use of creatures, more defective and imperfect than the natural instinct which beasts and other living creatures have to choose wholesome food for themselves, and to avoid things harmful and contrary to their nature. And whereas eating and other acts tending to men's individual preservation are of all others belonging to our human condition and estate meanest in themselves and most connatural unto us, Io. Traskes barbarous folly may be worthily admired, in excluding natural reason from being any rule at all, to guide and direct us in them. And it may fitly be termed a desperate and frantic kind of ignorance and impudence in him, to deny, against the general experience of men, in all ages and countries of the world, that Swines-flesh, and other beasts, fowls, and fishes legally prohibited, being dressed and eaten, are apt to nourish and sustain our bodies.   

Question FOUR Proving by sundry texts of the New Testament the law of meats abrogated to Christians.  
MY first argument proving the differential law of meats to have been repealed by our Saviour and his Apostles in the new Testament, shall be deduced out of S. Peter's vision Act. 10. v. 11. 12. 13. 14. & 15. wherein he was willed to kill, and eat those unclean beasts and fowls represented unto him, and by a second voice taught not to term that common or unclean which God had cleansed. Which purification of unclean beasts and fowls, as I deny not but that mystically and chiefly it imported the cleansing of the Gentills hearts by faith in Christ and supernal graces conferred equally on then and the jews( as is plainly testified ibid. vers. 18. act. 15. v. 7. & 14.) So likewise I affirm, that as S. Peter's horror and denial of having ever eaten any unclean thing, was literally meant by him; so was Gods command likewise that he should kill and eat them, and his divine warrant of their being cleansed, literally to be understood, and made a chief ground of that Apostolical decree Act. 51. wherein all sorts of meats, not strangled, sacrificed to Idols, and blood, were freely licenced to the converted Gentiles. For as by this vision S. Peter was instructed first concerning the general and actual vocation of the Gentills: so in like manner was he taught not to impose on them the ceremonious, and burdensome law of meats, further than a necessary abstinence from these three for a time already mentioned.  
My second argument shallbe collected out of the Apostles decree Act. 15. wherein against such as taught to introduce Circumcision, and the observance of Moses' law vers. 5. it was after a diligent conquisition made of this question, jointly by all the Apostles determined, that the heavy and insupportable burden of the old law should be no further imposed upon the converted Gentills, then that they should abstain from meats strangled, sacrificed to Idols, blood, and fornication; and in so doing they should do well. Whence I argue thus.  
The Apostles determined in their decree all necessary abstinence from meats to be observed by the Gentiles: But the Apostles in their decree licenced unto them all sorts of meats except strangled etc. Therefore only those meats were necessary to be abstained from by the Gentills. The mayor of my argument is certainly proved by the main drift and intention of the Apostles, expressed in the text itself, which was to determine how far Moses' law did oblige the converted Gentills particularly about meats, and using many women, as they had been accustomed to do before their conversion: so that as the Apostles in their decree did tie them to the matrimonial knowledge of one lawful wife; so did they also fully instruct them in such an observance of meats, as they saw needful to be imposed for a time, to make faithful jews and Gentills to live peacefully together in the unity of one Church. The minor of my argument is evident by the decree itself, wherein it seemed good to the holy Ghost, and the Apostles, to impose no other burden on them than that they should astaine from those 3. sorts of meats, and fornication: which decree had been an insufficient rule to direct them concerning meats lawful or not to be eaten, if other meats prohibited in Moses' law had still remained so.  
Secondly out of that Apostolical decree, I frame this argument. If the legal difference of meats had continued after Christ as before, and equally obliged faithful jews & converted Gentills to the wont observance thereof, then was the Apostles particular and express prohibition of blood, meats strangled, and offered to Idols, needles and ridiculously imposed to the converted Gentiles, & they were falsely told, that in abstaining from those meats they should do well: because according to john Traske, they were by God equally commanded to abstain from other meats also. But it were blasphemy to affirm this Apostolical decree, to contain any false, absurd, or superfluous doctrine: Therefore those meats mentioned in the decree, were only and determinately prohibited to the converted Gentills. Thirdly never any ancient Father, or Christian Divine did before Traske understand other, then that the Apostles intended in their decree to ease the Gentills from some burdensome observances of the law besides Circumcision, which the jews had been before Christ's coming tied unto, as may be plainly gathered from the whole scope of S. Peter's and S. james speeches assented unto by the other Apostles. But if the Mosaical Law of meats did generally oblige all Christians after this decree as before, then were the Gentiles nothing at all eased thereby from the burdensome observances of Moses' Law etc. Therefore the Apostles certainly meant in that decree to repeal the Mosaical Law of meats, and prohibit to the Gentills only such as that decree particularly mentioned.  
My third argument shallbe the words of S. Paul. ad Galat. 2. whereas S. Peter is said to have eaten at Antioch with the Gentills vers. 12. but afterwards being fearful to offend certain jews sent by S. james from Jerusalem▪ he withdrew himself, for which simulation S. Paul publicly told him vers. 14. If thou being a jew didst live Gentillike & not jewishlike, how dost thou enforce the Gentills to judaize? which could not be understood of the jews in respect of Circumcision, whereof no mention is made in that place, nor in respect of conversation wherein it cannot be conceaped how the Gentiles could judaize or imitate the jews: therefore it must neoessarily be understood of the judaical observance of meats wherein they imitated S. Peter's example. Likewise when S. Peter eating with the Gentiles is said to have lived Gentillike and not jewishlike, it cannot well be understood, but in regard of eating such meats as the Gentills did, and his not observing that difference of meats which the jews observed.  
My fourth argument to convince john Traske in his judaical observance of meats, may be taken out of S. Paul ad Hebr. 9 verse. 10. numbering the observance of meats amongst other ceremonious rites, and carnal instifications of Moses' Law imposed only until the time of correction or reformation, which Christ was ordained to make: Wherefore such wont observances of meats are abrogated now by Christ and no longer to continue.  
My fifth argument may be collected out of the same Apostle, who having in his first Epistle to the Corinthians cap. S. given them a liberty to eat or abstain from meats offered to Idols, as their own consciences served them, observing mutual charity therein, cap. 10. vers. 25. he willeth them to eat without exception, all meats sold in the shambles of the Gentle City, ask no question for conscience sake, that is to say, not regarding whether such meats had been offered to Idols or not: For the earth( saith he) is our Lords and the plenitude thereof, and if any Gentle invite you to a feast, and you will go, eat all things set before you etc. In which place albeit S. Paul treateth only of meats offered to Idols, yet his licence is generally understood of all meats and a fortiori proveth all other things not offered to Idols lawfully eaten, which I prove by these unanswerable arguments. Meats offered to Idols were not only prohibited to the jews as were other unclean meats but also by the former decree of the Apostles Act. ●●. forbidden to all Christians: But S. Paul licenced the Corinthians to eat such sacrificed meats without scruple or question▪ Therefore other meats legally only prohibited may be eaten also.  
Secondly S. Paul willeth the Christians of Corinth to eat all things sold in the shambles; or set at Infidels tables: But it cannot be reasonably doubted that in the shambles, and at Infidels tables many meats forbidden in Moses' Law were usually sold, and eaten: Therefore S. Paul licenced the Christians at Corinth to eat those meats also. Io. Traske and his disciples will not stick ridiculously to retort the Mayor of my argument, and to tell me, that if the Christians at Corinth might eat all things sold in the Gentills shambles, they might eat horns and skins also. They will also foolishly deny that meats prohibited to the jews were either sold in the Gentills shambles or set at their tables making so the differential law of meats particularly given to the jews, to have been naturally observed by all other nations also. And for a shift they will flatly deny meats prohibited to the jews, to be food at all for men, more than toads, or serpents. Which fooleries against common experience, learning and judgement are to be derided, and charitably compassioned in them, rather than answered.  
Thirdly the reasons why Christians were licenced by S. Paul to eat Idol offerings, are two expressed in the text itself; the first is because an Idol to him that hath judgement to distern it is nothing in the world able to pollute the creatures thereunto offered; the second is because the earth is our Lords, and the plenitude thereof; that is to say, all creatures therein contained are good and created by him. Which later reason is effectual also to prove other meats prohibited to the jews to be good in themselves and lawfully eaten by Christians. Lastly S. Paul ad Rom. 14. like a moderator, or peacemaker between the firm Christians, who were the Gentills, and the infirm who were the jews weakly & scrupulously still inclined to observe the differential law of meats, & festival days commanded by Moses, be exhorteth the jew not to condemn the Gentle, using his liberty in eating all sorts of meats; & the Gentil in like manner not to condemn the scrupulous jew, but rather to abstain from using his liberty, then offending the jew, to be an occasion to him of scandal and falling from his faith▪ Him that it weak( saith the Apostle v. 1) take unto you, not in disputation of cogitations: for one believeth that he may eat all things: But he that is weak, to wit the scrupulous jew that will neither eat meats prohibited in Moses' Law, nor sacrificed by the Gentiles, let him eat herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, & he that eateth not, let him not judge him that eateth, to wit, all sorts of meats, for God hath assumed him to himself etc. and he eateth to our Lord( vers. 6.) for he giveth thinks to God. etc. Why judgest thou thy brother( speaking to the jew vers. 10.) for his liberty of eating all things? And( speaking to the Gentills) why despisest thou thy brother for his weakness in putting a differnce between meats? I know( saith he vers. 14.) and am persuaded in our Lord Christ that nothing is common or unclean of itself. But to him that supposeth any thing to be como or unclean, to him it is common( to wit; for the error of his conscience, making it-seeme so.) All things indeed are clean( vers. 20) but it is ill for the man that eateth with offence &c.( to wit of his weak brother:) concluding thus his advice to jew and gentle▪ Hast thou faith( that is to say, ar●… 〈◊〉 firmly persuaded of the lawfulness of all meats) have it with thyself before God etc. But he that discerneth, or maketh a difference of meats, is damned or committeth a damnable sin if he ●ie, because 〈◊〉 of faith, or because he is not fully persuaded of the lawfulness of that meat which he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for all that is not of faith, is sin, to wit, every thing that a man doth against his own knowledge and conscience is sin.  
Which discourse of S. Paul is so clear in self for refutation of Traskes doctrine, and so vn●●●●●…lly understood by ancient Fathers and m●de ●●e Expositors, aswell Protestants as Catholics, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 devices whereby some of Traskes disciplies have sought to delude so many plain passages of this Chapter, may well seem to learned men, not judiciously, embraced, but in an heretical pride, and a desire of novelty and singularity purposely affected by them▪ In so much as one of them being pressed with the literal plains of so many texts, concluding in express terms & directly against his contrary doctrine; first he ridiculously devised a new argument of this Champter, and pretended that S. Paul endeavoured therein to instruct such Christians, as being invited to mourning and lamentation, might think it unlawful to eat any meats at all; idly citing many Prophetical texts, commending●… such ti●●▪ abstinence from nourishing and delightful meats▪ Whereas S. Paul speaketh no one word in that Chapter of inviting Christians to mourning and lamentation, but only endeavoureth to compose controversies and occasions of offence between jews and Gentills, and to make their ordinary conversation particularly about meats and festival days peacefully and charitably together. They seem also to have sundry other fancies to avoid the pressing authority of these texts, but so grossly as I hold them▪ not w●●●●… to be here recited, much less particularly refuted: whips being the best answer to such arguments, & Bedlams or Bridewell the fittest school for such a Sectmaister, and disciples to dispute in.   

QUESTION V. Wherein is proved, that Blood and strangled meats may be lawfully now eaten by Christians.  
MY purpose in this Question is not so much to refute john Traske in his jewish and absurd doctrine of meats, sufficiently already in my former Questions discussed, as particularly to overthrow the Puritanical abstinence of some percise people, who wholly grounding their faith upon he authority of Scriptures, & little crediting any Christian practice or doctrine not expressed in them, are in many places known strictly to observe the Apostolical decree Act. 15. commanding Christians to abstain from strangled meats blood etc. Which( say they) was a precept expressly given by God in the law of nature Genes. 9 and renewed by the Apostles, a a law necessary to be observed by the Gentills converted, and is not found to have been repealed, as was the like prohibition of meats offered to Idols( 1. ad Corin. cap. 8 & 10.) by any latter doctrine or practice of the Apostles. But contrarily it may be by many ancient and authentical testimonies of antiquity certainly proved, that many hundred years together after Christ, holy people observed this abstinence from straggled meats and blood, as a doctrine taught them by the Apostles. Tertullian for example in Apologia cap. 9 expressly affirmeth Christians not to 〈◊〉 blood at all but to abstain for that cause from beasts dying of themselves or strangled, lest they should be defiled with blood etc.  
Blandina also in her Martyrdom mentioned by Eusebius lib. 5. hist. cap. 1. telleth the Gentiles that they did much err in thinking Christians to eat the blood of infants, who( said she) use not the blood of beasts, which is testified also of Christians by Minutius Felix in Octavio, by Origen contra Celsum lib. 8. & sundry later councils have under great penalties forbidden the eating of such meats, Apostolically prohibited to all Christians. So that their doctrine and practice is not jewishly grounded, as john Traskes opinions are, on a ceremonious precept of the old law, certainly abrogated, as is already proved: but they observe it as a precept given to Noah by God himself in the law of nature, repeated in Moses' law, and renewed by the Apostles.  
The difficulty also of this question is increased and made more hard, and uneasy to be solved, by reason, that the Adversaries against whom I am to dispute, admit no infallible authority of any ancient or modern Church, guided by Christ's holy Spirit, and lead into all truth, so that faithful people may securely and without danger of erring embrace her communion, follow her directions, & rest in her judgement, as the supporting pillar & foundation of Truth, according to the Apostle 1. Tim. 3. They admit no Apostolical Tradition or certain rule to know any unwritten doctrine to have been held and practised since Christ successively and universally by Christians. Finally they little regard any reasonable discourse or Theological deduction, not literally and plainly expressed in Scripture, the only Rule of their faith and judge of controversies between us. According to which their usual and unreasonable manner I cannot more forcibly endeavour to disprove this their Puritanical abstinence from blood and strangled meats, then by orderly proving three things. 1. That this precept given to Noah( Gen. 9 vers. 4.) was mysterious and not moral in itself. 2. That it was not but for a time only, and for ends now wholly ceased, decreed by the Apostles ( Act. 15. vers. 20. 28.) 3. That it hath been since by a holy and lawful practice of Christ's Church generally repealed, so as it is a singular fancy for Christians now again to renew the observance thereof.  
And that this abstinence from blood and strangled meats was not a moral precept, I prove first by the reason for which God prohibited those meats to Noah and his Posterity, which was chiefly by this horror of blood to make them detest manslaughter, and bloody cruelty, as appeareth by God's words immediately annexed to that precept, Genes. 9 vers. 5. 6. 7 that sin of murder having been 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, over easily multiplied that horrible offence against God's intended propagation of mankind: whereas now to us Christians the example of our saviours meekness, his express prohibition of killing, striking, or miscalling our Neighbours, his doctrine of pardoning seventy times seven our enemies, of being quickly reconciled unto them, of doing good for evil, and praying for such as persecute us etc. do sufficiently instruct us to abstain from effusion of blood and cruelty: so that such a horror of blood in meats cannot for that end be longer necessary to be continued by Christians. Secondly, if this precept had been a moral law, necessary to direct us in human conversation and manners towards God, or between ourselves, it had no doubt been included in that natural law, by which Noah and his faithful posterity were sufficiently instructed, and taught to know the moral good and evil of their actions, & to refrain from sin in them: So as this precept had been unnecessarily imposed if perfect reason and natural judgement had otherwise taught it unto them, as it did other moral precepts. Thirdly, never any Philosopher or wise gentle, ignorant of that positive precept given to Noah, either taught or practised after Christ's days or before, abstinence from blood & strangled meats, as a moral & natural precept; neither can it be, as I have else where declared out of natural reason, the rule of natural laws, judiciously conceived, that blood or strangled meats entering the body, can defile the soul etc. Neither was the Apostles Decree( Act. 15.) concerning abstinence from such meats, imposed on the Gentills as a moral law perpetually to continue, but only as an easy observance necessary for a time, the better to unite Iewes and Gentills, in the unity of one Church. For the jews having an especial horror of Idoll-offerings, strangled meats, & blood, would have abhorred all manner of society with Gentiles, if they had not observed some kind of order and conformity in meats with them.  
And this is to be proved first out of the decree itself Act. 15. vers. 28. wherein it seemed good to the holy Ghost and the Apostles, to lay no further burden upon the Gentills then that they should abstain etc. By which words ( no further burden) is plainly insinuated unto us, that the prohibition of such meats was a part of that burden which the Apostles would not have wholly laid on the Gentills necks, to wit the ceremonious observances of Moses' Law, so many in number and so hard in practice, as few amongst the jews observed them, ibid. v. 10. and so consequently it was no moral precept included in Christ's law formerly embraced and professed by the faithful Gentills. Secondly, the Gentills were by the same Apostolical authority, and for the like respects commanded to abstain from Idoll-offeringes, as they were taught to refrain from meats strangled and blood. But the same Gentills were authorized afterwards by S. Paul ad Rom. 14. 1. ad Corin. cap. 8. & 10. to eat Idoll-offeringes without scruple or question, as hath been in my former Question already declared: wherefore then might they not afterwards in like manner be licenced to eat indifferently meats strangled and blood? For( saith S. Augustin cont. Faustum lib. 32. cap. 13.) albeit the Apostles than commanded Christians to abstain from blood and strangled meats, choosing for a time an easy observance, and not burden some to the Gentiles, that the jews and they might be built on the same corner stone etc. yet after the Church of the Gentills became such, as no natural Israelite appeared therein, what Christian now observeth it so as not to touch black birds, and other lesser birds, unless their blood be effused, or not to eat a Hare or Conny killed only with a blow given in the neck, without any other bloody wound? and if perchance some fear to touch those meats, they are derided by other Christians: so that in S. Austin's days, especially in those Western Churches, as jews( for whose satisfaction and better gaining to Christ that cerimoniall Abstinence was conditionally and for a time only imposed) ceased to embrace the Christian faith, so the obligation of that precept ceased also, & began to be no longer observed by Christians. And as the Eastern Churches were nearest to Jerusalem, & most stored with jewish Convertites; so the Apostolical precept of abstaining from strangled meats and blood was in those Church's longest observed.  
And in those first ages after Christ, because Christians were by occasion of the Carpocratians and other wicked heretics, eating children sacrificed, with abominable rites, for their Eucharist, exceedingly traduced and infamed to the Gentle magistrates; therefore to show themselves innocent and free from such horrible slanders, they holily, whilst those monstrous Sects continued, tied themselves to a Christian observance of that Apostolical decree, as the above mentioned authorities of Tertullian, Eusebius, and other producible testimonies of antiquity do certainly testify; which maketh nothing at all to prove the still continuing obligation of the precept generally annulled by the contrary practice of Christians in after ages.  
If my adversaries object, that as the decree of the Apostles was according to the prohibition of Fornication therein contained, a moral Law still continuing: so was the same decree moral also according to those enjoined abstinencyes from meats etc. I answer, that the prohibition of Fornication was a moral precept; reducible to the Commandment of not committing Adultery, contained in the Decalogue, necessarily imposed at that time to instruct the Gentiles newly converted in the Christian law of Matrimony, and to deter them from Concubinisme, and using any more than one of those many women whom peradventure they had been accustomed carnally to have known before their conversions: whereas their enjoined abstinence from blood and stangled meats, was no more decreed as a moral and ever continuing law, than was their like prohibition of meats sacrificed to Idols, plainly repealed in the Apostles time by a contrary and lawful practice of Christians. And whereas S. Paul ad Rom. 14. vers. 1. etc. accounted it only weakness in the Christian jews of those times to tie themselves to the legal observance of meats, and to be scandalised at the liberty of the Gentills, eating indifferently all things, it is now to be worthily reputed an extravagant folly & fancy for our pure Professors of spiritual Sanctity and evangelical Perfection to tie themselves to such a Cerimoniall, and burdensome observance of meats, never dreamt of in many ages passed by their Christian & Catholic Predecessors, and nothing pertinent to their pretended adoration, and service of God in spirit and verity.    
FINIS.   


THE CONTENTS.  
THE Preface, declaring the Author's scope and intention in this Refutation. pag. 3.  


I. CONTROVERSY.  
QVEST. I. Of the seventh day before▪ Moses. pag. 21.  
Quest. II. Whether the precept of the Sabaoth were Moral or Cerimoniall. pag. 26.  
Quest. III. Concerning the abrogation of the jews Sabaoth. pag. 31.  
Quest. FOUR Of the Sabaoth translated into the weekly day of our saviours Resurrection. pag. 42.  
Quest. V. Wherein is proved, that Christians are to celebrate the yearly day of our saviours Resurrection on Sunday, and not on the 14. day of March-Moone, as the jews celebrated their Paschal. pag. 57    


II. CONTROVERSY.  
QVEST. I. Of the uncleanness of meats before Moses Law. pag. 65.  
Quest. II. Of the Mosaical Law of meats, and mysterious ends why God commanded it. pag. 71.  
Quest. III. Wherein the proper and perfect rule of moral Actions is briefly declared: and how according to the same no meats are now unclean, and unlawful to Christians. pag. 77.  
Quest. FOUR Proving by sundry texts of the New Testament, the law of meats abrogated to Christians. pag. 85.  
Quest. V. Wherein is proved, that blood and strangled meats may be lawfully now eaten by Christians. pag. 95.     
FINIS.