THE
I.
CONTROVERSY
.
QVESTION
I.
Of
the
seauenth
Day
before
Moyses
.
IOHN
Traske
seemeth
falsely
to
suppose
,
and
Maister
Cra.
his
Aduersary
as
lightly
to
graunt
,
that
a
Sabaoth
,
or
seauenth
daie
of
rest
from
bodily
labour
was
from
the
beginning
of
mans
Creation
commanded
by
God
,
&
by
faithfull
people
continually
obserued
:
grounding
as
it
should
seeme
this
their
assertion
vpon
the
holy
text
of
Gen.
cap.
2.
v.
3.
wherein
God
is
sayd
to
haue
rested
from
his
laboures
,
blessed
and
sanctified
the
seauenth
day
.
As
if
for
God
to
sanctifie
and
designe
a
day
to
be
holy
afterwards
,
obserued
in
his
especiall
honour
and
seruice
,
were
all
one
as
to
make
it
a
sabaoth
,
or
day
of
rest
from
externall
labours
;
which
is
most
false
,
and
may
be
easily
disproued
by
sundry
plaine
examples
in
the
Moysaicall
feasts
of
Azimes
,
Tabernacles
&c.
Wherein
amongst
eight
holy
ferialls
or
festiuall
dayes
celebrated
with
peculiar
sacrifices
and
cerimonies
commanded
in
them
,
Leuit.
3.
vers.
8.
36
37.
the
first
&
eight
only
were
to
be
obserued
as
sabaoths
and
daies
of
rest
from
corporal
labours
.
So
that
God
might
sanctifie
and
designe
the
seauenth
day
to
be
holy
,
and
especially
honored
therein
by
Adam
and
his
faithfull
posterity
,
and
yet
not
make
it
such
a
sabaoth
,
as
afterwards
he
commanded
Exod.
20.
vers.
8.
9.
that
strict
manner
of
rest
from
eternall
labours
,
being
no
essentiall
condition
,
but
only
a
cerimoniall
solemnity
of
a
sanctified
day
,
as
those
already
instanced
textes
of
Leuiticus
do
import
:
in
which
it
is
said
of
the
first
and
eight
daies
,
that
they
should
be
more
solemn
than
:
he
other
six
;
&
immediatly
God
commanded
in
them
abstinence
from
all
sorts
of
bodily
labours
,
which
notwithstanding
when
they
are
either
necessary
in
themselues
,
or
charitably
expedient
for
others
,
cannot
bee
accounted
morall
breaches
,
prophaning
that
day
in
which
they
are
,
with
due
honour
and
praise
otherwise
giuen
to
God
,
moderatly
performed
:
That
representation
of
Gods
rest
by
ours
on
the
seauenth
day
which
is
cheifly
respected
and
often
instanced
by
Iohn
Traske
,
being
only
a
typicall
or
figuratiue
respect
,
hauing
no
holines
or
morality
in
itselfe
further
then
moderate
rest
from
seruile
and
continuall
labours
,
as
needfull
and
conuenient
for
all
men
to
performe
their
thankfull
duty
and
seruice
towards
Almighty
God
,
and
lesse
oftentimes
interrupted
and
hindered
by
externall
exercise
of
the
body
,
then
by
superfluous
sleepe
,
idle
words
,
or
distractiue
thoughts
not
expresly
forbiden
in
the
precept
of
the
Sabaoth
,
which
according
to
the
strict
and
ceremonious
obseruance
thereof
from
corporall
labours
is
no where
in
the
whole
history
of
Genesis
intimated
to
haue
ben
obserued
by
Abraham
and
other
Patrarches
,
whose
labours
,
iournies
,
manner
of
spending
their
liues
,
altars
erected
,
sacrifices
offered
,
exequies
celebrated
,
couenants
and
lawes
giuen
by
God
,
&
holily
by
them
obserued
,
are
without
any
insinuation
of
such
a
Sabaoth
particulerly
recounted
.
Moreouer
many
passages
of
that
sacred
historie
seeme
euidently
to
import
,
that
before
Moyses
time
their
was
no
such
Sabaoth
commaunded
by
God
,
or
by
holy
people
practised
,
as
Genesis
31.
vers.
40.
41.
Where
Iacob
pleading
his
faithfull
&
diligent
seruices
done
to
Laban
,
he
testifieth
him selfe
to
haue
indured
laborious
dayes
&
sleeplesse
nights
for
twenty
yeares
togeather
,
making
no
exception
of
Sabaoth
daies
,
as
he
would
haue
done
no
doubt
if
such
had
then
ben
obserued
by
him
.
And
Exod.
5.
vers.
19.
the
labours
of
his
children
are
said
to
haue
ben
per
singulos
dies
,
euery
day
prefixed
and
exacted
by
Pharaos
officers
,
without
any
insinuation
of
Sabaoths
interposed
.
And
to
say
,
as
Iohn
Traske
seemeth
in
his
conference
to
do
,
that
as
the
first
institution
of
mariage
was
by
degrees
corrupted
.
with
bigamy
and
diuorcing
one
wife
to
marrie
another
afterwards
,
Math.
19.
vers
.
8.
So
the
Sabaoth
likewise
in
processe
of
time
grew
neglected
by
gods
people
,
vntill
in
his
law
he
renewed
the
old
institution
thereof
,
is
coniecturally
only
affirmed
,
Christ
himselfe
hauing
taught
vs
the
first
institution
of
marriage
to
haue
byn
so
depraued
:
but
no
mention
is
made
in
scripture
at
all
of
the
old
Sabaoth
neglected
.
Who
likewise
seeth
not
,
that
neither
the
Patriarches
themselues
nor
their
holy
progeny
being
knowne
to
haue
obserued
any
Sabaoth
,
but
that
it
were
a
far
more
pious
and
profitable
coniecture
thence
rather
to
inferre
,
that
no
Sabaoth
was
then
commanded
,
then
that
such
holy
persons
neglected
the
dew
obseruance
thereof
,
and
liued
Idolaters
of
Gods
precept
against
his
owne
expresse
testimony
giuen
of
Abraham
Genes.
26.
vers
.
5.
Where
he
is
sayd
to
haue
obayed
Gods
voice
,
kept
his
precepts
,
comandements
,
ceremonies
,
and
lawes
;
amongst
which
Iohn
Traske
groundlesly
and
idly
supposeth
to
haue
been
included
the
obseruance
of
the
sabaoth
,
sithence
no
such
precept
giuen
to
Abraham
,
or
practise
thereof
can
be
found
mentioned
in
scripture
,
vntill
the
Israelites
returning
out
of
Egypt
cam
into
the
desert
of
Sin
,
and
began
to
be
feed
on
the
Manna
rayned
downe
vnto
them
Exod.
16.
vers.
5.
of
which
they
were
commanded
to
gather
only
six
daies
,
and
on
the
sixt
day
they
were
willed
to
gather
a
double
measure
to
serue
the
day
following
;
Moyses
then
first
begining
to
tell
them
,
vers.
23.
&
26.
that
God
had
spoken
vnto
him
,
that
on
the
morrow
,
which
was
the
seauenth
day
of
gathering
that
miraculous
food
,
the
rest
of
the
Sabaoth
was
to
be
sanctified
to
our
Lord
.
And
when
the
Israelits
either
not
crediting
or
not
vnderstanding
that
which
Moyses
had
tould
them
,
went
out
to
gather
Manna
on
the
7.
day
as
they
had
done
on
the
other
six
daies
before
(
which
is
an
euident
signe
that
as
yet
they
held
not
such
labours
of
prouiding
corporall
foode
vnlawfull
any
day
)
they
found
none
.
And
Moyses
sayd
vnto
them
:
Behould
,
God
hath
allotted
you
a
Sabaoth
,
giuing
you
double
prouision
of
food
on
the
sixt
day
to
serue
you
the
seauenth
day
,
wherfore
let
euery
man
remayne
with
himselfe
,
or
in
his
owne
tent
,
and
let
him
not
go
out
on
the
seauenth
day
:
and
the
people
then
sabathized
,
or
began
to
obserue
the
Sabaoth
on
the
seauenth
day
;
first
then
being
taught
(
sayth
Philo
lib
1.
de
vita
Moysis
)
not
only
by
Propheticall
instruction
,
but
also
by
a
most
manifest
argument
of
the
Manna
ceased
to
be
rayned
downe
that
day
,
and
continuing
incorupted
which
was
gathered
in
a
double
measure
on
the
sixt
day
,
that
the
same
was
the
seauenth
day
wherein
God
rested
from
his
labours
,
they
hauing
longe
before
desired
to
know
the
day
of
the
worlds
first
creation
,
and
could
not
till
then
learne
it
:
which
obseruance
God
afterwards
commanded
,
&
wrote
in
the
first
Table
of
the
Decalogue
,
willing
his
people
not
only
to
sanctify
and
keepe
holy
the
seauenth
day
,
but
expresly
also
forbidding
them
all
sorts
of
externall
labours
,
in
memory
that
him selfe
had
rested
from
his
labours
on
that
day
,
calling
it
therfore
in
hebrew
Saphath
of
the
word
Sacath
,
which
signifieth
to
rest
.
QVESTION
II.
Whether
the
precept
of
the
Sabbaoth
were
Morall
,
or
Cerimoniall
.
IOHN
Traske
seemeth
not
in
any
of
his
speaches
or
writings
rightly
to
vnderstand
wherein
the
morality
of
any
Law
or
Precept
consisteth
;
neither
doth
Maister
Cra.
his
superficiall
aduersary
indeauour
in
his
confused
answere
to
instruct
him
in
the
true
vnderstanding
thereof
,
as
he
ought
specially
to
haue
done
,
considering
that
all
Traskes
singuler
opinions
are
chiefly
grounded
in
a
wrongefull
conceyuing
of
some
Moysaical
precepts
to
haue
ben
morall
,
and
so
consequently
not
abrogated
by
Christs
coming
,
which
were
indeed
morally
cerimoniall
,
according
to
that
precise
figuratiue
and
mysterious
manner
,
at
the
least
comaunded
to
the
Iewes
,
in
the
obseruance
of
them
.
Heere
therfore
for
both
their
instructions
I
define
the
morality
of
a
law
or
precept
,
to
consist
in
that
conformity
which
it
hath
to
the
naturall
light
of
humane
vnderstanding
and
iudgment
,
taught
in
all
true
Philosophy
,
to
be
the
rule
of
naturall
and
morall
actions
,
and
rightly
tearmed
by
the
Apostle
ad
Rom.
cap.
2.
vers.
14.
&
15.
A
Law
written
by
God
,
euen
in
the
hartes
of
such
Gentills
,
as
had
no
knowledge
of
any
other
supernatural
law
,
approuing
them
in
good
,
and
reprehending
them
in
euill
actions
,
causing
in
them
that
practicall
internall
knowledge
called
Conscience
,
and
iustly
seruing
to
condemne
all
such
as
contradict
,
and
do
against
it
.
So
that
only
such
lawes
and
precepts
are
said
to
be
morall
which
are
conformable
to
this
Synderesis
,
and
naturall
light
of
humane
iudgment
,
perfected
by
grace
,
aswell
in
the
knowledge
of
naturall
obiects
,
as
of
supernaturall
&
reuealed
verities
:
amongst
which
some
are
purely
speculatiue
,
and
do
only
require
a
faithfull
,
pious
,
and
firme
assent
of
our
iudgment
vnto
them
:
and
others
contrarily
are
in
their
owne
nature
practicall
precepts
and
diuine
directions
or
laws
,
commanding
or
forbidding
things
to
be
done
by
vs
,
which
if
they
be
such
,
according
to
the
substance
or
manner
of
the
act
commaunded
or
forbidden
by
them
,
as
do
appeare
to
humane
vnderstanding
and
iudgment
voluntarily
to
haue
ben
commaunded
by
God
,
and
exacted
in
due
obedience
from
vs
his
Creatures
for
such
mysterious
respects
,
as
naturall
iudgment
cannot
apprehend
to
be
necessary
or
any
way
belonging
to
our
direction
in
manners
,
and
morality
of
life
towards
God
,
our selues
,
or
our
neighbours
;
those
precepts
are
not
to
be
accounted
morall
,
but
mysterious
and
ceremoniall
abrogated
by
Christ
,
as
Iohn
Traske
willingly
confesseth
.
Which
true
ground
supposed
briefly
declaring
the
nature
and
condition
of
a
morall
law
,
I
answere
thus
to
the
difficulty
of
my
Question
heere
proposed
,
that
the
Commaundement
giuen
to
the
Iewes
of
keeping
a
Sabaoth
,
or
weekely
day
of
rest
,
was
according
to
the
substance
and
chiefe
intention
of
that
law
morall
:
Because
naturall
vnderstanding
,
illuminated
by
faith
,
teacheth
it
to
be
fit
and
expedient
that
all
sorts
of
persons
should
abstaine
from
corporal
labours
,
so
far
forth
as
to
allot
certaine
daies
of
their
life
to
the
especiall
seruice
and
honour
of
Almighty
God
:
but
the
determination
rather
of
the
seauenth
day
in
which
God
rested
from
his
labours
,
then
of
the
sixt
in
which
man
was
created
for
to
serue
his
creatour
here
in
this
world
,
and
to
inioy
him
afterwards
,
meerly
depended
on
Gods
free
choyce
and
election
misteriously
resoluing
to
make
the
day
of
his
owne
rest
the
Sabaoth
,
and
resting
day
of
his
people
also
from
corporall
labours
,
symbolizing
therby
that
eternall
day
of
clarity
and
rest
,
which
they
were
to
inioy
with
himselfe
afterwards
.
As
touching
likewise
the
precise
manner
of
rest
from
all
sortes
of
labours
,
euen
such
as
were
easily
performed
and
belonged
in
a
sort
to
the
conuenient
health
and
nourishment
of
their
bodies
,
commaunded
to
the
Iewes
on
their
Sabaoth
,
as
to
light
fire
,
prepare
meate
&c.
I
affirme
and
proue
it
to
haue
beene
meerly
cerimoniall
;
naturall
experience
teaching
vs
first
that
the
lighting
of
fire
,
and
such
easy
labours
of
preparing
food
on
the
Sabaoth
for
our selues
or
for
the
charitable
releife
of
our
brethren
,
are
no
way
repugnant
to
the
morall
end
and
intention
for
which
the
Sabaoth
was
chiefely
ordayned
,
to
wit
of
yealding
due
honor
and
praise
to
God
for
his
continuall
blessinges
and
benefits
towards
vs
,
which
only
requireth
moderate
rest
from
seruile
and
paineful
labours
,
wholy
distrasting
mens
minds
;
and
making
them
vnapt
for
holy
exercises
of
piety
and
deuotion
.
Secondly
experience
likewise
teacheth
vs
,
that
mens
dulnes
and
vnablenes
ordinarily
to
be
actuated
any
whole
day
togeather
in
prayer
and
prayses
to
God
without
ceasing
,
is
such
,
as
easy
walking
and
other
needfull
or
charitable
exercises
moderately
vsed
,
do
help
rather
then
hinder
the
frequent
and
feruent
vse
of
mental
and
deuout
exercises
,
and
serue
to
honour
God
and
sanctify
the
Sabaoth
,
more
then
superfluous
sleep
,
idle
thoughts
,
vnprofitable
conuersation
with
others
,
not
expresly
in
that
commaundement
prohibited
.
Which
morall
obseruation
of
the
Sabaoth
euen
since
Christs
time
,
religiously
and
vniuersally
practised
by
Christian
pastours
&
people
on
the
weekly
day
of
our
Sauiours
Resurection
,
was
intimated
by
our
Sauiour
himselfe
in
many
passages
of
the
Ghospell
,
doing
for
example
many
miracles
on
that
day
,
albeit
he
saw
them
by
the
Scribes
and
Pharisies
scandalously
apprehended
to
haue
beene
breaches
of
the
Sabaoth
,
Luk.
6.
vers.
9.
Matth.
12.
vers
.
10.
&c.
commaunding
such
as
he
had
cured
to
take
vp
theyr
beds
and
go
home
to
their
owne
houses
,
which
seemed
a
worke
of
toyle
and
labour
forbidden
to
the
Iewes
on
their
Sabaoth
,
Io.
5.
vers.
8.
10.
defending
his
disciples
for
rubbing
the
eares
of
corne
to
eate
,
Matth.
12.
vers.
1.
Luc.
6.
vers.
1●
Marc.
2.
v.
23.
which
the
Iewes
present
reputed
to
haue
beene
a
certaine
laborious
preparation
of
food
seemingly
forbidden
by
God
,
Exod.
35
vers.
3.
in
Moyses
declaration
of
that
precept
;
instancing
against
those
captious
accusers
of
himselfe
&
his
disciples
,
the
exercises
of
Priests
labouring
about
sacrifices
in
the
Temple
,
yet
not
violating
the
Sabaoth
,
the
practise
of
Circumcision
on
the
eight
day
,
albeit
it
happened
on
the
Sabaoth
,
their
vsuall
custome
of
leading
out
their
cattle
to
water
,
and
drawing
them
out
of
pittes
and
places
of
daunger
on
the
Sabaoth
day
,
without
any
sinfull
breach
thereof
,
as
may
be
gathered
out
of
our
Sauiours
manner
of
speach
,
Luke
13.
14.
importing
no
reprehension
of
them
for
such
facts
,
but
produced
rather
by
him
as
fit
examples
apt
to
authorize
his
miraculous
workes
,
done
with
lesse
labour
and
more
charity
and
vtility
to
such
as
were
by
his
voice
,
or
a
touch
of
his
hand
or
garment
,
in
soule
and
body
perfectly
cured
.
So
that
Iohn
Traske
and
other
Puritanes
in
their
cerimoniall
and
precise
manner
of
obseruing
the
Sabaoth
,
are
rather
superstirious
imitators
of
the
Iewes
,
our
Sauiours
aduersaries
,
then
humble
and
faithfull
members
of
Christs
Catholike
Church
,
euer
knowne
to
haue
practised
a
morall
,
and
not
the
Iewish
and
cerimonial
obseruance
of
the
Sunday
.
QVESTION
III.
Concerning
the
abrogation
of
the
Iewes
Sabaoth
.
IOHN
Traske
adhering
more
constantly
,
and
consequently
then
other
Protestants
do
,
to
their
dangerous
ground
of
beleeuing
nothing
not
expresly
mentioned
in
Scriptures
,
or
thence
necessarily
deduced
;
hath
of
late
vpon
conference
with
others
,
and
more
diligent
search
then
he
had
made
before
of
many
texts
in
the
old
and
new
Testament
,
like
a
weather-cocke
,
turned
with
euery
blast
of
his
owne
ignorant
fancy
and
iudgment
,
hath
determined
himselfe
,
and
drawne
his
disciples
to
a
most
strict
keeping
of
Saturday
the
Iewish
Sabaoth
,
comaunded
,
saith
he
,
by
God
out
of
fire
,
and
written
with
his
owne
finger
in
the
first
Table
of
the
Decalogue
,
holily
likewise
by
Christ
and
his
disciples
afterwards
obserued
,
as
a
sacred
memoriall
of
Gods
rest
on
the
7.
day
,
and
therfore
now
also
as
a
morall
and
diuine
precept
still
to
continue
▪
Presse
him
with
the
vniuersall
practise
of
Christs
Church
present
&
past
since
the
Apostles
,
certainely
knowne
to
haue
reiected
the
Iewish
Sabaoth
,
and
insteed
thereof
to
haue
obserued
the
first
day
of
the
weeke
in
continuall
memory
of
our
Sauiours
Resurection
,
and
he
will
in
horrible
pride
and
pertinacity
of
iudgment
affirme
it
to
haue
ben
a
corrupt
and
abusiue
practise
,
little
by
him
regarded
,
as
not
being
at
al
grounded
in
Scripture
but
repugnant
vnto
it
.
Vrge
him
with
Christs
promises
of
being
present
with
his
Church
to
the
worlds
end
,
Matth.
28.
vers.
20.
of
establishing
it
so
surely
on
a
rocke
,
that
hell
gates
shall
neuer
preuaile
against
it
,
Matth.
16.
vers.
18.
of
comforting
it
with
his
spirit
of
loue
,
&
leading
it
into
all
truth
Iob
▪
14.
vers.
16.
17.
26.
which
fitly
therfore
is
said
to
be
Colum●●
&
firmamentum
veritatis
,
the
suporting
pillar
and
foundation
of
true
faith
,
1.
Tim.
3.
vers.
15.
to
whose
holy
obedience
all
Christians
are
tied
vnder
paine
of
being
by
their
brethren
accounted
as
Ethnickes
and
Publicans
,
Matth.
18.
v.
17.
he
will
ridiculously
tell
you
as
he
did
to
one
of
his
fellow
prisoners
conferring
with
him
on
this
very
point
,
that
the
true
Church
of
which
these
and
the
like
texts
were
written
,
is
knowne
to
very
few
,
consisting
of
2.
or
3.
gathered
togeather
in
Christs
name
,
himselfe
promising
to
be
in
the
midst
of
them
Matth.
18.
vers.
20.
that
is
to
say
,
a
small
number
of
such
little
ones
as
haue
truly
repented
,
and
are
made
sure
of
their
election
in
Christ
,
hated
and
persecuted
by
men
,
but
beloued
by
God
&
guarded
by
Angells
,
seeing
the
face
of
their
Heauenly
Father
.
Matth.
ibid.
vers
.
10.
And
examining
him
further
on
this
point
,
he
will
in
processe
of
speach
,
tell
such
as
he
will
be
confident
with
all
,
that
himselfe
and
his
brethren
are
those
little
ones
,
the
only
Gnostiks
,
&
illuminated
members
of
Christs
Church
,
others
belonging
therunto
no
further
then
true
faith
,
repentance
,
and
morality
of
life
shall
lead
them
,
and
ignorance
with
all
excuse
them
,
for
not
actually
professing
his
singular
doctrines
.
So
he
foolishly
seeketh
with
Ebion
and
other
ancient
Heretikes
to
breath
life
and
spirit
into
the
ceremonious
carcasse
and
buried
rites
of
the
Iewish
law
,
feeding
his
grosse
children
with
such
vnsauery
excrements
,
for
so
the
Apostle
tearmeth
them
ad
Philip.
3.
vers.
8.
as
Christ
long
since
in
the
ending
of
that
Law
hath
cast
out
of
the
mystical
body
of
his
church
,
as
not
conteining
any
true
norishment
of
soules
in
them
;
&
vainely
endeauoureth
to
illuminate
those
which
obserue
shadows
,
who
haue
happily
since
Christs
time
liued
in
the
cleere
sunshine
of
heauenly
graces
,
planting
like
a
foolish
builder
such
new
points
of
his
faith
on
the
sandy
&
fleeting
foundation
of
the
Iewish
law
,
and
seeking
to
set
vp
againe
medium
parietem
maceriae
,
that
parting
wall
of
ceremonies
,
which
distinguished
Iewes
and
Gentills
subuerted
and
quite
ouerthrowne
by
Christ
,
ad
Eph.
2.
vers
.
14.
&
15.
euacuating
al
such
legall
decres
and
ceremonial
comandements
that
he
might
build
on
himselfe
the
foundation
and
corner
stone
both
people
in
a
Holy
Temple
and
habitation
of
God
&c.
purifiyng
alike
their
hares
by
faith
.
Act.
15.
vers.
9.
And
that
amongest
other
cerimoniall
precepts
and
decrees
of
Moyses
Law
abrogated
by
Christ
,
the
Sabaoth
was
one
,
holily
rrāslated
by
the
Apostles
themselues
into
our
Sunday
,
as
shall
bee
proued
in
my
next
Question
,
is
by
S.
Paul
ad
Coloss.
2.
vers
.
16.
17.
expresly
affirmed
willing
his
disciples
not
to
be
iudged
or
discouered
in
their
faithfull
profession
in
meate
,
or
drinke
,
or
new
moones
,
or
any
part
of
a
festiuall
day
or
Sabaoth
,
which
are
shadowes
of
future
good
thinges
.
By
which
Sabaoth
cannot
be
meant
the
feasts
of
Trumpets
,
Tabernacles
,
Expiation
,
and
other
such
ceremoniall
and
Iewish
festiuities
,
as
Traske
heretically
commenteth
.
For
albeit
those
feasts
be
called
indeed
(
Leuit.
23.
)
Sabboths
,
or
daies
of
rest
,
because
all
externall
workes
were
alike
forbidden
in
them
,
as
on
the
seauenth
day
:
yet
the
Apostle
rest
rayneth
the
word
Sabaoth
in
this
place
,
to
signifie
the
weekly
Sabaoths
of
the
Iewes
,
as
appeareth
first
in
that
hee
numbreth
such
Iewish
festiual
daies
distinctly
from
the
Sabaoth
,
equally
forbiding
the
obseruance
of
them
both
.
His
second
reason
why
he
prohibiteth
them
conteyned
in
that
part
of
the
text
,
quae
sunt
vmbra
&c.
which
are
shaldowes
of
future
good
thinges
,
equally
agreeth
to
them
both
:
for
as
those
feasts
were
shaddows
and
types
,
so
were
the
weekly
Sabaoths
also
.
Wherfore
Ebion
and
his
disciples
,
the
first
hereticall
obseruers
of
our
Lords
day
and
the
Iewish
Sabaoths
togeather
,
as
witnesseth
S.
Epiphanius
haers
.
30.
S.
Irenaeus
lib.
1.
cap.
26.
pressed
with
the
authority
of
this
place
,
and
perceauing
the
vnanswerablenes
therof
,
rather
then
they
would
therunto
conforme
their
doctrines
,
absolutly
reiected
all
S.
Paules
Epistles
,
and
accounted
him
an
Apostata
from
the
Iewish
faith
:
The
which
Iohn
Traske
seemeth
not
yet
to
do
,
albeit
hee
dared
once
to
say
of
S.
Paul
,
that
he
sought
to
please
men
,
so
consequently
could
not
be
the
true
seruant
of
Christ
.
Secondly
,
I
deduce
out
of
Scripture
this
Theological
argument
.
The
Iews
for
the
like
respect
,
&
memory
of
Gods
rest
,
were
as
well
bound
to
obserue
ech
Sabaoth
of
years
,
&
the
Sabaoth
of
that
yearly
Sabaoth
,
called
the
Iubily
,
or
50.
year
,
as
to
keep
the
weekly
Sabaoth
of
daies
,
Leuit.
25.
But
those
yearly
Sabaoths
,
are
certainely
(
I
suppose
in
Traskes
opinion
)
abrogated
:
wherefore
the
weekly
Sabaoth
is
no
longer
to
bee
obserued
:
Gods
precepts
thereof
deliured
out
of
fire
to
the
people
,
and
written
wit
his
owne
singer
in
the
Decalogue
,
especially
instanced
by
Traske
,
being
meere
circumstances
impertinent
to
the
morality
therof
,
further
than
is
in
my
former
question
already
declared
:
Gods
comaundement
whether
giuen
out
of
fire
,
or
not
being
sufficient
of
it selfe
to
oblige
his
creatures
to
the
perpetuall
obseruance
of
any
Law
for
morality
of
life
fit
to
be
obserued
.
And
no
learned
man
will
deny
but
that
many
precepts
,
neither
deliuered
out
of
fire
,
nor
written
in
the
Decalogue
Tables
were
morall
,
and
as
such
,
are
now
to
be
obserued
by
Christians
:
as
for
a
man
not
to
marry
his
Fathers
wife
,
his
sister
,
his
daughter
&c.
The
prohibition
of
vsury
and
sundry
other
like
moral
precepts
,
amongst
which
(
though
falsely
)
Traske
numbreth
the
legall
difference
of
meates
,
albeit
it
was
neither
commaunded
out
of
fire
,
nor
written
in
the
Decalogue
Tables
.
Thirdly
I
argue
,
that
Iohn
Traske
hath
no
sufficient
authority
of
Scripture
,
prouing
the
continuance
of
the
Iewish
Sabaoth
:
for
our
Sauiours
obseruance
thereof
little
importeth
for
this
purpose
,
the
Law
wherunto
he
voluntarily
&
in
obedience
to
his
Father
subiected
himselfe
,
being
not
before
his
death
determined
,
so
that
he
practised
likewise
Circumcision
,
and
many
other
cerimoniall
rites
,
now
vnlawfull
to
Christians
.
The
practise
also
of
the
Apostles
,
entring
commonly
,
after
Christs
death
,
into
the
Temple
,
and
other
Iewish
Sinagogues
on
their
Sabaoth
,
maketh
as
little
as
our
Sauiours
example
to
proue
the
continuance
thereof
,
this
their
practise
being
in
no
text
of
their
holy
Acts
testified
.
Wherein
likewise
the
holy
Euangelist
insinuateth
not
,
the
motiue
&
end
of
this
their
Custome
to
haue
ben
not
so
much
a
religions
obseruation
of
that
Sabaoth
,
as
a
more
commodious
and
generall
instruction
of
the
Iewes
concerning
the
Law
&
Prophets
,
fulfilled
in
Christ
their
expected
Messias
,
they
being
in
those
dayes
and
places
chiefly
assembled
and
best
prepared
to
haue
such
spirituall
doctins
propounded
vnto
them
by
the
Apostles
:
Who
for
celebration
of
Christ
supper
,
preaching
,
and
other
publique
exercises
of
Christian
piety
and
deuotion
,
were
accustomed
to
meete
on
the
first
day
of
the
week
,
called
therefore
our
Lords
day
Apocal.
2.
because
our
Lord
had
then
sanctified
the
same
by
his
resurrection
,
and
commaunded
the
religious
obseruance
therof
,
as
shall
in
my
next
Question
bee
fully
discussed
.
If
Iohn
Traske
will
further
contend
,
that
the
Apostles
for
other
religious
respects
besides
preaching
of
Christ
,
entred
the
Temples
and
Sinagogues
on
the
Sabaoth
,
and
festiuall
daies
,
as
Act
▪
21.
vers.
23.
24.
25.
where
S.
Paul
not
to
auert
the
whole
nation
of
the
Iewes
from
Christ
,
did
by
the
counsell
of
S.
Iames
purify
him selfe
with
other
Nazaretts
,
and
so
enter
the
Temple
,
that
he
might
seeme
to
obserue
the
Law
as
other
Iewes
conuerted
vnto
Christ
than
commonly
did
.
I
answere
,
this
conditionall
obseruance
of
the
Sabaoth
and
other
cerimoniall
rites
for
a
time
by
the
Apostles
,
was
only
permitted
by
Christ
,
as
a
charitable
meanes
the
better
to
vnite
the
Iewes
and
Gentills
in
the
vnity
of
one
Church
:
The
giuer
of
the
Law
(
saith
S.
Augustine
writing
to
S.
Hierome
Epist.
19.
)
hauing
so
determined
to
end
the
same
with
his
owne
death
,
and
afterwards
honorably
to
bury
it
,
by
permitting
the
conuerted
Iewes
for
a
while
to
practise
it
,
vntill
his
Ghospel
were
sufficiently
promulgated
.
For
(
saith
this
holy
Father
)
those
legall
obseruaunces
were
not
sudainely
to
be
detested
,
as
the
diuelish
sacriledges
of
Gentills
,
when
Christs
grace
began
to
be
reuealed
,
which
was
in
such
shadowing
rites
prefigured
;
but
to
be
permitted
for
a
season
to
their
posterity
,
who
first
receaued
them
,
which
after
their
exequies
honorably
performed
,
were
by
all
Christians
to
bee
vtterly
forsaken
.
If
Traske
wil
presse
me
further
to
know
the
precise
time
,
when
the
ceremoniall
obseruation
of
the
Sabaoth
,
and
other
rites
of
Moyses
Law
wholy
ceased
,
and
became
vnlawfull
to
be
practised
any
more
by
Christians
.
I
answere
him
,
that
peraduenture
vntill
the
very
destruction
of
Ierusalem
,
and
subuersion
of
the
Temple
,
more
then
40.
yeares
after
our
Sauiours
passion
,
the
old
Sabaoth
and
other
ceremonious
rites
of
the
Law
,
might
be
by
some
faithfull
Iewes
,
without
any
touch
of
infidelity
,
and
falling
from
Christ
,
albeit
vnnecessarily
and
improfitably
,
obserued
:
Gods
prouidence
(
saith
Origen
homil.
10.
in
Leuit
)
wisely
ordaining
,
that
the
Citty
,
Temple
,
and
all
things
els
belonging
to
the
former
glory
of
that
Law
and
nation
,
should
be
altogeather
destroied
,
least
sucklings
and
weaklinges
in
faith
,
should
be
longer
allured
by
them
,
and
drawne
away
from
purely
imbracing
Christian
verities
shadowed
in
them
.
So
that
when
our
Sauiour
willed
his
disciples
,
Math.
24.
vers.
10.
to
pray
that
their
flight
might
not
happen
in
winter
,
saith
S.
Ierome
,
because
extremity
of
could
would
hinder
their
lasting
aboad
in
mountaines
&
desert
places
;
nor
in
the
Sabaoth
because
the
religious
rest
therof
would
hinder
their
flight
:
which
had
ben
idly
spoken
,
saith
Traske
,
if
Christians
to
whome
these
wordes
were
vttered
,
had
not
ben
bound
to
a
strict
obseruance
of
the
old
Sabaoth
,
when
Ierusalem
was
sacked
.
I
answere
first
this
obiection
,
that
albeit
it
might
be
gathered
out
of
this
text
,
that
many
Christian
Iewes
did
obserue
their
old
Sabaoth
as
before
,
vntill
the
destruction
of
Ierusalem
:
yet
can
it
not
thence
also
be
inferred
,
that
such
Christians
obserued
it
in
like
manner
afterwards
,
when
they
had
seene
the
perfidious
cruelty
of
their
whole
nation
against
Christ
,
so
examplarly
punished
,
their
citty
sacked
,
their
Preists
slaughtered
,
and
Temple
subuerted
,
neuer
againe
,
by
Christs
speaches
,
to
be
restored
,
which
could
not
but
be
taken
by
faithfull
people
as
certaine
signes
of
that
law
and
religion
wholy
abrogated
by
Christ
and
ended
,
the
cheifest
exercises
whereof
consisted
in
prayers
made
in
the
Temple
togeather
with
misterious
rites
and
sacrifices
therein
only
performed
.
Secondly
.
I
answere
,
that
these
words
were
vttered
by
Christ
to
his
disciples
who
were
naturall
Iewes
and
members
of
that
Commonwealth
,
wherein
the
Sabaoth
was
by
most
people
strictly
still
obserued
.
Wherefore
our
Sauiour
might
well
take
an
occasion
to
vtter
this
speach
to
them
,
which
cheifly
concerned
the
generality
of
vnbeleeuing
Iewes
,
liuing
togeather
with
them
and
obseruing
the
Sabaoth
,
as
may
be
instanced
in
many
other
examples
of
like
speaches
in
Scripture
.
Thirdly
.
I
answere
,
that
Christ
vttered
that
speach
,
as
fore
seeing
that
the
very
day
in
which
Titus
should
besiege
the
Citty
,
should
be
no
other
then
the
Paschall
solemnity
,
and
great
Sabaoth
,
wherein
multitudes
of
people
repayring
to
Ierusalem
from
all
places
,
should
be
sodainely
so
inclosed
,
as
they
should
haue
no
meanes
to
fly
,
hauing
the
gates
shut
vpon
them
by
such
captaines
and
people
as
vndertooke
to
defend
the
citty
,
and
so
narowly
watched
by
the
Roman
soldiars
,
as
when
any
were
taken
to
fly
they
were
vsually
crucified
before
the
walles
,
and
being
restained
by
such
multituds
,
they
suffered
vnspeakeable
famine
,
plague
,
and
slaughters
,
by
externall
foes
and
intestine
dissentions
,
which
being
forknowne
by
our
Sauiour
,
he
might
wel
wish
,
them
to
pray
that
their
flight
or
cause
of
flying
,
to
wit
,
the
approach
of
Titus
army
,
might
not
happen
in
winter
,
or
on
the
Sabaoth
,
not
that
they
might
not
lawfully
fly
thereon
for
safeguard
of
their
liues
,
or
fight
against
their
enimyes
,
as
we
read
of
Iudas
Machabaeus
souldiers
1.
Machab.
3.
but
because
all
meanes
of
flight
should
be
hindred
by
the
sodaine
approach
of
their
enimies
without
,
&
Iewish
captains
within
the
Citty
,
and
their
miseries
be
multiplied
by
occasion
of
such
multitudes
assembled
on
the
Sabaoth
.
Finally
if
Iohn
Traske
for
continuance
of
the
Sabaoth
,
shall
obiect
,
as
one
of
his
disciples
seemed
to
do
,
that
the
celebration
of
the
same
is
called
,
Exod.
31.
A
sempiternall
Couenant
betwene
God
and
his
people
,
to
be
obserued
with
perpetuall
honour
in
all
their
generations
Exod.
12.
I
answere
,
that
the
like
manner
of
speach
is
vsed
of
the
old
Aaronicall
Preisthood
,
Exod.
28.
now
translated
into
the
Priesthood
of
our
Sauiour
ad
Heb.
7.
v.
11.
12.
15.
16.
and
abrogated
by
Traskes
owne
confession
.
Wherfore
we
are
to
interprete
the
eternal
duration
of
such
rites
,
to
import
only
a
continuance
of
them
,
till
the
Law
fully
ended
,
or
because
they
still
remaine
according
to
the
morall
&
eternal
things
signified
by
them
,
as
S.
Augustine
solueth
this
obiection
quaest.
46.
124.
&
131.
in
Exod.
QVESTION
IIII.
Of
the
Sabaoth
translated
into
the
weekely
day
of
our
Sauiours
Resurrection
SAINT
Augustine
epist.
118.
rightly
termeth
it
a
most
insolent
madnes
for
any
particuler
man
to
reproue
that
which
the
whole
Church
of
Christ
generally
obserueth
for
in
so
doing
,
with
vnreasonable
pride
he
practically
prefereth
his
owne
singuler
opinion
before
the
iudgements
of
all
other
Christian
Pastours
and
people
,
as
doth
Iohn
Traske
in
his
nouell
obseruance
of
the
Iewish
Sabaoth
,
abrogated
by
the
Apostles
themselues
,
as
I
haue
proued
in
my
former
Question
,
and
translated
into
the
holy
&
euer
memorable
day
of
our
Sauiours
Resurrection
,
as
is
plainely
testified
by
the
65.
Apostolicall
Canon
,
by
S.
Ignatius
the
Apostles
disciple
,
in
his
Epistle
ad
Magnesianos
,
by
holy
Iustin
Apologia
2.
by
Tertullian
de
Corona
militis
&
Apologia
cap.
16.
by
Clemens
Alexandrinus
lib.
7.
stromat
.
by
Origen
homil.
7.
in
Exod.
by
S.
Athanasius
in
illa
verba
,
Omnia
mihitradita
sunt
&c.
by
S.
Hilary
praefat.
in
psalm
.
by
S.
Ambrose
epist.
83.
&
serm.
62.
by
S.
Hierome
in
cap.
4.
ad
Galatas
,
by
S.
Augustin
contra
Adimant
.
cap.
16.
lib.
22.
de
ciuitate
dei
,
cap.
30.
&
serm.
252.
by
S.
Leo
epist.
81.
ad
Dioscorum
,
by
S.
Gregory
lib
2.
epist.
3.
by
the
Laodicean
Councell
cap.
29.
Wherein
Christians
are
expressely
forbidden
to
play
the
Iewes
,
and
to
be
idle
on
the
Sabaoth
,
and
willed
with
all
to
obserue
and
prefer
our
Lords
day
before
it
.
So
as
if
any
testimonies
of
antiquity
might
be
by
Traske
and
his
Companions
admitted
,
and
held
sufficient
to
proue
the
Apostolicall
translation
of
the
Sabaoth
,
there
would
need
no
other
arguments
to
refute
,
and
reduce
them
from
their
idle
and
singuler
fancies
,
then
those
former
vndoubted
authorities
of
ancient
&
learned
Fathers
.
But
as
he
&
his
companions
are
wholy
ignorant
&
vnacquainted
with
their
workes
,
so
are
they
fully
bent
to
contemne
all
such
Testimonies
,
which
they
find
not
warranted
by
plaine
texts
of
scripture
,
as
themselues
only
are
pleased
to
expound
them
.
For
whereas
not
only
the
Ancient
Fathers
,
but
Ebion
also
himselfe
,
and
his
disciples
acknowledged
their
hereticall
doctrine
of
Iewish
feasts
and
Sabaoths
necessary
to
be
obserued
by
Christians
,
togeather
with
their
owne
Dominicall
daies
and
proper
festiuities
,
to
haue
beene
expresly
contradicted
and
condemned
by
S.
Paul
ad
Coloss.
2.
reiecting
thereupon
all
his
Epistles
from
the
Canon
of
Scripture
;
these
new
Ebionites
,
by
shifting
comments
,
and
absurd
glosses
of
their
owne
deuising
,
seeke
to
delude
the
text
,
and
drawe
it
against
all
ancient
expositions
therof
,
to
be
only
vnderstood
of
cerimoniall
feasts
mentioned
in
the
23.
of
Leuiticus
,
only
because
they
are
there
called
Sabaothes
.
Whereas
the
Apostle
distinguisheth
such
festiuall
daies
from
the
weekly
Sabaoth
,
and
equally
in
this
text
forbiddeth
the
obseruance
of
them
both
to
Christians
.
Which
true
exposition
heere
supposed
,
I
conclude
this
argument
.
One
day
of
seauen
is
still
as
a
morall
precept
to
be
holily
obserued
by
all
Christians
.
But
the
obseruance
of
the
old
Sabaoth
is
prohibited
by
the
Apostle
to
Christians
,
and
no
other
day
introduced
in
place
thereof
,
but
the
day
of
our
Sauiours
Resurrection
.
Therfore
that
day
only
,
and
not
the
Iewish
Sabaoth
,
is
still
as
a
morall
precept
to
be
holily
obserued
by
Christians
.
Secondly
,
because
Iohn
Traske
is
most
delighted
with
Sillogisticall
collections
,
albeit
himselfe
be
so
little
skilled
in
Logique
,
as
writing
lately
against
an
Aduersary
,
he
denied
the
Minor
of
his
Enthimeme
,
supposing
that
Christ
was
,
as
he
tould
the
Iewes
,
Dominus
Sabati
,
and
had
full
power
either
by
himselfe
,
or
his
Apostles
to
abrogate
and
alter
as
well
as
to
institute
&
approue
the
obseruance
thereof
;
I
frame
this
argument
.
That
day
of
the
seauen
is
by
Christians
now
weekly
to
bee
obserued
,
which
the
Apostles
themselues
allotted
for
their
holy
Assemblies
,
and
other
publique
exercises
of
their
Christian
faith
.
But
the
day
which
the
Apostles
so
allotted
&c.
was
the
first
day
of
the
weeke
,
and
not
the
Iewish
Sabaoth
.
Wherfore
the
first
day
of
the
weeke
,
&
not
the
Iewish
Sabaoth
is
to
be
obserued
by
Christians
.
The
Maior
,
or
former
part
of
my
Argument
is
certaine
,
because
such
publique
assemblies
and
exercises
of
faith
,
are
the
chiefe
end
,
for
which
the
Sabaoth
,
and
other
festiuall
daies
were
first
ordayned
.
The
Minor
,
or
latter
part
is
clearely
proued
by
the
practise
of
the
Apostles
Act.
20.
v.
6.
7.
where
S.
Paul
,
&
many
other
Disciples
,
of
seauen
whole
daies
which
they
spent
in
Troas
,
are
read
only
to
haue
assembled
themselues
for
preaching
&
frequenting
Sacraments
,
which
are
the
most
publike
exercises
of
faith
,
on
the
first
day
of
the
weeke
,
and
not
on
the
Iewish
Sabaoth
.
Likewise
on
that
day
,
the
Apostle
1.
Cor.
16.
vers.
1.
2.
willed
the
Christians
at
Corinth
to
make
their
Collects
,
or
common
gatheringes
for
the
poore
brethren
at
Ierusalem
,
which
is
an
euident
signe
that
Christians
vsed
to
assemble
themselues
on
that
day
,
there
being
no
reason
to
be
yealded
why
such
common
collections
of
almes
should
be
rather
on
the
first
day
of
the
weeke
,
then
any
of
the
rest
,
but
that
Christians
vsed
only
therein
to
make
their
holy
Sinaxes
&
conuents
for
praier
,
preaching
,
almes
,
frequenting
Sacraments
&c.
mentioned
by
holy
Iustin
in
Apolog.
2.
to
Marcus
Antoninus
,
and
other
Gouerners
of
the
Empire
in
behalfe
of
Christians
,
and
sundry
of
those
holy
Fathers
formerly
mentioned
.
Thirdly
,
I
make
this
Argument
for
obseruance
of
the
sunday
in
place
of
the
Sabaoth
.
That
day
of
the
weeke
is
chiefly
to
be
obserued
by
Christians
,
which
our
Lord
was
pleased
to
make
,
and
haue
called
his
owne
day
.
But
our
Lord
did
make
and
call
his
owne
day
,
the
first
day
of
the
weeke
,
and
not
the
Iewish
Sabaoth
.
Therfore
the
first
day
of
the
weeke
,
and
not
the
Iewish
Sabaoth
,
is
especially
to
be
obserued
by
Christians
.
The
maior
is
certaine
,
because
as
Christians
are
bound
by
their
faithfull
profession
to
honor
Christ
himselfe
with
thankefull
&
humble
seruices
;
so
doth
the
wisdome
of
faith
teach
them
also
especially
to
honor
and
esteeme
that
day
of
all
others
most
holy
,
which
their
Lord
himselfe
most
respected
,
and
did
choose
to
make
,
and
haue
called
his
owne
day
.
For
as
to
name
any
day
,
the
day
of
a
King
,
importeth
that
day
to
be
specially
regarded
by
the
king
himselfe
,
and
festiually
obserued
by
his
subiects
in
memory
of
some
victory
obteyned
,
or
memorable
good
,
happened
to
himselfe
or
his
people
on
the
same
:
so
for
such
holy
and
memorable
respects
,
the
first
day
of
the
weeke
is
called
our
Lords
day
,
Apocalyp.
2.
5.
worthiest
of
all
other
daies
of
the
weeke
to
be
honored
,
and
festiually
obserued
by
Christians
as
shall
be
particularly
proued
in
my
next
Argument
.
My
minor
is
proued
cleerely
by
that
former
text
of
S.
Iohn
,
expresly
calling
one
day
of
the
weeke
or
yeare
as
a
familiar
name
knowne
to
all
Christians
in
his
time
▪
Diem
Dominicum
,
our
Lords
day
,
to
wit
,
a
day
especially
sanctified
by
Christ
,
&
deuoted
to
his
seruice
which
was
not
the
Sabaoth
of
the
Iewes
,
no
where
els
in
Scripture
so
called
,
nor
any
other
day
but
vna
,
or
prima
Sabbati
,
the
next
after
the
sabaoth
,
as
S.
Ignatius
S.
Iohns
scholler
testifieth
epist.
6.
ad
Magnesianos
,
saying
:
that
after
the
Sabaoth
ech
louer
of
Christ
celebrateth
Diem
Dominicum
,
our
Lords
day
,
consecrated
to
our
Lords
Resurrection
,
regina
&
principium
omnium
dierum
,
the
cheifest
and
principallest
of
all
other
daies
&c.
els
where
Epist
8.
ad
Philippenses
,
he
contesteth
,
that
if
any
Christian
celebrateth
his
Easter
with
the
Iews
,
or
their
other
Symbolicall
festiuities
,
amongst
which
the
Sabaothes
are
included
,
he
maketh
himselfe
partaker
with
those
who
killed
Christ
and
his
Apostles
.
S.
Augustin
also
to
omit
many
other
like
testimonies
of
ancient
Fathers
,
serm.
251.
de
tempore
,
teacheth
the
religions
solemnization
of
our
Lords
day
to
haue
beene
instituted
by
the
Apostles
themselues
,
because
our
Sauiour
therein
rose
from
death
to
life
,
and
to
haue
beene
by
them
called
our
Lords
day
,
that
we
might
learne
by
that
name
to
abstaine
therein
from
sin
,
and
earthly
labours
,
attending
to
diuine
seruices
.
And
after
much
honourable
mention
made
of
that
day
,
he
saith
,
that
therefore
the
holy
Doctors
of
Christs
Church
,
meaning
the
Apostles
,
decreed
to
transfer
on
that
day
al
the
glory
of
the
Iewish
Sabaoth
,
that
what
they
celebrated
in
Types
we
might
celebrate
in
Verities
&c.
Fourthly
the
precept
of
the
Sabaoth
obligeth
Christians
no
further
then
it
can
be
proued
to
conteyne
a
moral
law
,
necessary
to
direct
them
in
their
religious
duty
,
and
thankfulnes
towards
Almighty
God
for
benefitts
.
But
the
obseruance
of
our
Lords
day
is
fitter
to
direct
Christians
in
their
duty
towards
God
,
&
to
put
them
in
mind
of
his
gracious
benefitts
towards
them
,
then
the
obseruance
of
the
old
Sabaoth
.
Therfore
our
Lords
day
,
not
the
old
Sabaoth
,
is
now
commaunded
,
and
fittest
to
be
obserned
by
Christians
.
The
maior
is
certaine
because
all
cerimoniall
and
iudiciall
precepts
are
confessed
by
Iohn
Traske
to
haue
beene
abrogated
by
Christ
;
and
no
law
of
the
old
Testament
bindeth
Christians
which
is
not
morally
expedient
and
necessary
to
direct
them
in
their
Christian
duty
and
seruice
.
My
minor
may
be
best
proued
by
examining
and
comparing
the
institution
and
ends
for
which
our
Lords
day
and
the
old
Sabaoth
were
first
ordayned
and
obserued
.
The
old
Sabaoth
was
cheifely
ordayned
in
memory
of
Gods
rest
from
his
labours
,
of
creating
all
things
in
six
daies
,
and
therefore
Philo
lib.
de
opificio
mundi
,
wisely
calleth
it
the
worlds
birth-day
,
seruing
for
a
continuall
instruction
of
Gods
people
in
the
knowledge
of
their
creator
,
and
to
exclude
the
error
of
Philosophers
commonly
teaching
the
world
to
haue
had
no
beginning
.
Secondly
it
serued
to
represent
vnto
the
Israelites
that
rest
,
which
God
had
giuen
vnto
them
after
their
Egyptian
seruitude
,
and
painefull
labours
ended
,
as
is
expresly
affirmed
Deut.
5.
vers
.
15.
Thirdly
it
declared
them
to
be
a
peculiar
people
,
sanctifyed
by
God
and
deuoted
to
his
seruice
Exod.
31
vers
.
13.
Fourthly
the
Iewes
Sabaoth
allegorically
prefigured
Christs
rest
in
his
sepulcher
,
after
his
paynefull
labours
for
mans
redemption
ended
,
as
is
insinuated
by
S.
Paul
ad
Hebr.
4.
vers
.
10.
Fifthly
in
a
tripologicall
sense
it
signifyed
the
spirituall
rest
of
soules
,
after
the
seruile
workes
of
sinne
by
Christs
grace
ended
,
as
S.
Augustine
teacheth
vs
tract.
30.
in
Ioan.
and
in
sundry
other
places
.
Sixtly
is
was
Anagogically
a
figure
of
that
rest
which
holy
soules
after
this
laboursome
life
ended
,
were
to
enioy
in
Abrahams
bosome
,
as
is
insinuated
by
S.
Paul
ad
Hebr.
4.
vers
.
6.
&
11.
and
is
also
taught
by
S.
Augustine
epist.
119.
For
all
which
holy
respects
and
mysterious
significations
it
was
expedient
and
necessary
that
the
old
Sabaoth
should
be
changed
by
Christ
into
that
blessed
day
,
on
which
himselfe
was
borne
for
mans
redemption
,
to
wit
,
the
first
day
of
the
weeke
,
as
may
be
Mathematically
demonstrated
by
searching
backwards
the
Cicle
of
Dominical
letters
,
which
will
be
found
on
the
25.
of
December
in
the
second
yeare
of
the
hundred
and
ninty
fourth
Olympiade
;
of
Rome
first
built
754.
from
Cesars
death
42.
from
the
Triumuirate
began
by
Augustus
41.
of
Herods
raigne
.
29.
when
our
Sauiour
was
certainly
borne
,
to
haue
beene
B.
Secondly
on
that
first
▪
day
of
the
weeke
he
rose
,
and
began
humanely
to
lead
his
glorious
immortall
life
,
as
may
be
expresly
gathered
from
the
last
chapter
of
all
4.
Euangelists
.
Thirdly
,
on
that
day
he
visibly
infused
his
holy
spirit
on
the
Apostles
,
in
the
day
of
Pentecost
,
to
wit
,
the
fiftith
day
after
the
second
of
Azimes
when
the
Iews
began
to
number
their
day
of
Pentecost
,
which
happened
to
be
completly
ended
in
the
yeare
of
our
Sauiours
passion
on
sunday
,
as
is
learnedly
proued
by
Ribera
de
festis
Iudaeorum
Cap.
de
Pentecoste
,
by
Bellar
de
Cultu
Sanctorum
lib.
3.
Cap.
13.
and
sundry
other
authors
.
So
as
three
of
the
greatest
mysteries
of
our
Sauiours
life
,
and
most
singular
benefitts
that
God
could
deuise
to
bestow
on
mankind
happened
on
our
Lords
day
,
to
sanctify
and
make
it
more
worthy
then
the
Iewes
Sabaoth
,
to
be
by
vs
Christians
weekely
celebrated
,
and
obserued
.
To
which
holy
respects
we
may
add
also
these
,
that
God
created
the
earth
,
the
heauens
&
Angelicall
creatures
on
that
day
,
graciously
so
therein
preparing
the
locall
place
of
our
eternall
Beatitude
and
heauently
repose
,
signified
better
by
ours
,
then
the
Iewish
Sabaoth
,
prouiding
our
companions
therein
an
earthely
habitation
in
the
meane
while
to
honour
him
in
this
life
,
and
make
our selues
by
his
graces
worthy
of
our
future
glorification
.
All
Types
of
the
old
Sabaoth
are
in
the
mysteries
of
this
fully
accomplished
.
This
day
is
a
gracious
Symbole
,
or
signe
of
our
speciall
deuotion
towards
Christ
,
a
holy
memoriall
of
spirituall
graces
receaued
from
him
,
as
the
other
was
chiefly
of
Gods
temporall
benefits
towards
his
creatures
.
So
as
they
seeme
to
be
Iewes
rather
,
then
Christians
,
who
against
the
vniuersall
and
known
practise
of
Christs
Church
,
since
the
Apostles
tyme
,
esteeme
the
old
Sabaoth
more
holy
,
and
worthy
to
be
obserued
,
then
our
Lords
day
,
made
for
such
high
and
mysterious
respects
,
memorable
to
Christians
.
Lastly
,
the
Apostle
S.
Paul
ad
Hebr.
4.
plainely
supposeth
Christ
to
haue
instituted
a
new
Sabatisme
,
or
day
of
rest
for
his
people
in
memory
of
his
rest
,
after
the
labours
which
he
sustayned
for
our
redemption
ended
,
as
God
ordayned
from
the
beginning
,
a
holy
day
in
memory
of
his
owne
rest
after
his
workes
of
creation
perfected
.
And
from
the
mysticall
signification
of
these
two
distinct
Sabaothes
succeding
ech
other
,
and
simbolizing
a
double
rest
of
Gods
people
,
the
one
in
Abrahams
bosome
,
as
our
Sauiour
tearmeth
the
place
,
wherein
the
Patriarches
before
him
rested
,
and
the
other
in
heauen
with
himselfe
after
his
Resurrection
;
he
taketh
an
occasion
to
exhort
the
Hebrewes
,
that
sithence
their
Forefathers
entred
not
through
their
incredulity
into
Gods
rest
,
figured
by
the
first
Sabaoth
,
they
should
hasten
to
enter
into
the
rest
of
Christ
,
by
the
day
of
his
new
Sabaoth
represented
,
from
which
Text
litterally
,
so
,
and
truly
explicated
,
I
make
this
argument
.
The
first
Sabaoth
representing
that
rest
which
God
gaue
to
his
people
before
Christ
,
of
which
it
is
sayd
Genesis
2.
he
rested
the
seauenth
day
from
his
workes
&c.
is
ended
according
to
the
Apostle
vers.
7.
&
8.
and
a
new
Sabaoth
,
or
Symbolicall
day
of
rest
was
fortould
by
Dauid
,
and
ordayned
by
Christ
after
his
labours
ended
vers.
9.
10.
But
no
new
Sabaoth
or
Symbolicall
day
of
rest
,
distinct
from
the
seauenth
day
can
be
vnderstood
to
haue
beene
mentioned
by
Dauid
,
and
instituted
by
Christ
after
his
labours
ended
,
praeter
diem
Dominicum
,
besides
the
day
of
his
glorious
Resurrection
.
Therefore
the
old
Sabaoth
figuring
the
rest
,
whereunto
God
inuited
holy
people
before
Christ
,
is
now
ended
,
and
the
Dominicall
day
,
symbolizing
the
new
rest
which
Christians
inuited
holy
soules
vnto
is
in
place
thereof
happily
succeeded
.
Iohn
Traske
lately
entred
into
a
humor
of
reading
histories
that
he
might
seeme
skilled
in
some
other
good
studies
,
besides
the
knowledg
of
Scriptures
,
may
chance
to
stumble
vpon
an
obiection
seemingly
sufficient
to
proue
the
continuance
at
least
of
the
old
Sabaoth
,
togeather
with
our
Lords
day
.
For
example
S.
Gregory
Nissen
in
his
Oration
against
such
as
brooked
not
reprehensions
,
asketh
an
Heretike
,
with
what
eyes
he
saw
our
Lords
day
,
who
despised
the
Sabaoth
,
these
dayes
being
brethren
,
so
as
he
that
reproacheth
the
one
wrongeth
the
other
also
.
Socrates
lib.
6.
hist.
cap.
8.
affirmeth
the
Sabaoth
and
our
Lords
day
to
be
the
weekly
feasts
of
Christians
,
wherein
they
were
wont
to
assemble
themselues
.
And
Anastasius
Nicenus
lib
quaest.
77.
affirmeth
those
two
dayes
to
be
holy
and
festiuall
.
The
Apostolicall
Church
also
of
Aethiopia
doth
at
this
day
religiously
obserue
both
Sabaoths
:
so
as
the
old
Sabaoth
by
these
historicall
passages
,
and
other
authenticall
testimonies
of
antiquity
,
seemeth
not
to
haue
beene
abrogated
by
the
Apostles
.
Whereunto
I
answere
,
that
albeit
the
Apostles
abrogated
the
old
Sabaoth
,
and
introduced
the
obseruation
of
our
Lords
day
in
place
thereof
,
as
is
already
proued
in
this
and
my
former
question
,
yet
afterwards
Christian
Bishops
,
occasionally
,
and
for
a
while
only
in
many
Easterne
Churches
renewed
a
festiuall
and
Christian
obseruance
thereof
,
not
that
they
held
the
Moysaicall
precept
still
to
oblige
them
thereunto
,
as
doth
Iohn
Traske
and
his
disciples
,
or
that
as
Ebion
,
they
held
it
necessary
for
all
Christians
equally
to
obserue
both
Sabaothes
,
whose
opinion
all
the
ancient
Fathers
are
knowne
generally
▪
to
haue
detested
.
But
for
a
holy
and
zealous
refutation
of
the
Symonians
,
Menandrians
,
Cerinthians
,
Carpocratians
,
Basilidians
,
Marcionistes
,
and
other
like
Heretykes
,
who
to
reproach
the
Author
of
the
old
Testament
,
whom
they
tearmed
An
euill
God
&
least
they
might
seeme
to
honor
him
in
any
sort
,
feasted
on
the
Sabaoth
,
as
S.
Epiphanius
recounted
haeres.
42.
the
holy
Pastours
and
people
of
Christs
Church
in
a
zealous
detestation
of
their
blasphemies
,
and
to
shew
the
same
God
to
haue
beene
author
of
both
Testaments
faithfully
and
fittly
for
a
tyme
obserued
both
Sabaothes
,
forbidding
any
Christian
vnder
grieuous
penalties
to
fast
on
Saturday
more
then
on
our
Lords
day
,
one
Saturday
only
excepted
wherein
our
Sauiour
lay
dead
in
his
sepulcher
,
as
is
expresly
mentioned
in
S.
Ignatius
Epist.
ad
Philipenses
,
in
the
55.
Apostolicall
Canon
,
and
in
sundry
other
ancient
Authors
.
Which
Christian
and
occasionall
obseruance
of
the
old
Sabaoth
is
knowne
not
to
haue
beene
generally
practised
,
but
only
in
particuler
Churches
,
wherein
such
heretikes
liued
:
and
as
those
Heresies
ceased
,
the
festiuall
keeping
of
the
Sabaoth
ceased
also
,
and
Christians
feasted
aswell
on
it
,
as
on
friday
in
memory
of
our
Sauiours
death
,
and
the
Apostles
sorrow
continued
vntill
his
ioyfull
Resurrection
,
as
is
expresly
affirmed
by
Innocentius
epist.
2.
c.
4.
Hieron
.
epist.
97.
August
.
epist.
86.
&
18.
by
Cassianus
collat.
3.
cap.
10
&c.
As
for
the
Aethiopians
still
obseruing
the
Sabaoth
,
I
answere
,
that
they
are
knowne
to
haue
byn
corrupted
since
their
Apostolicall
conuersion
with
many
Hereticall
and
Iudaical
doctrines
,
practising
circumcision
and
sundry
other
rites
of
Moyses
law
,
vnlawfull
to
Christians
.
An
other
Argument
much
vsed
by
Traskes
Disciples
is
,
that
if
circumcision
were
by
an
expresse
decree
of
the
Apostles
Act.
15.
repealed
,
with
much
more
reason
was
the
Sabaoth
by
their
like
decree
to
haue
ben
abrogated
also
,
considering
that
the
Commandement
thereof
was
included
amongest
the
other
morall
,
and
still
continuing
precepts
of
the
Decalogue
tables
&c.
Wherunto
I
answere
first
,
that
Circumcision
was
indeed
by
the
Apostles
declared
to
be
a
burdensome
and
vnnecessary
precept
,
to
be
imposed
on
the
Gentills
.
But
to
the
Iewes
it
was
abrogated
only
,
as
generally
the
Sabaoth
was
,
by
the
contrary
doctrine
of
the
Apostles
,
sufficiently
warranting
and
securing
the
consience
of
any
good
Christian
,
to
belieue
and
practise
any
point
of
Religion
taught
by
them
,
albeit
we
read
of
no
Apostolicall
Synode
purposely
made
to
determine
the
same
.
Secondly
I
answere
,
that
an
expresse
decree
was
more
necessary
to
haue
ben
made
by
the
Apostles
of
abrogating
the
practise
of
Circumcision
then
of
transferring
the
Sabaoth
to
an
other
more
mysterious
and
memorable
day
;
the
determination
of
the
seauenth
day
rather
then
any
other
being
as
I
haue
els
where
declared
,
immateriall
to
the
religious
obseruance
of
Gods
Commandement
,
binding
only
according
to
the
morall
end
,
and
intention
thereof
,
faithfull
people
to
abstaine
in
one
day
of
seauen
from
seruile
labours
,
and
to
deuote
the
same
to
Gods
especiall
honor
and
seruice
:
whereas
the
practise
of
Circumcision
giuen
before
Moyses
,
as
a
couenant
and
signe
,
distinguishing
Abrahams
holy
posterity
from
other
faithlesse
people
,
was
wholy
to
be
repealed
,
notwithstanding
the
Iewes
so
highly
regarded
it
,
as
not
to
conuerse
or
admit
into
their
Temple
any
one
that
wanted
that
holy
seale
,
and
signe
of
Gods
couenant
with
them
.
Other
arguments
more
friuolous
&
lesse
important
I
willingly
omit
,
being
loath
to
detaine
my
Reader
needlesly
,
and
impertinently
in
them
,
wishing
heere
for
a
finall
conclusion
of
this
question
,
that
Io.
Traske
and
his
bretheren
would
maturely
consider
the
finall
issue
of
their
vnchristian
and
exorbitant
doctrines
,
disliked
by
our
Soueraigne
and
State
,
contradicted
by
all
learned
men
comming
to
heare
of
them
,
and
vtterly
as
yet
vnheard
of
in
other
partes
of
Christendome
:
so
as
the
first
Inuenters
and
obstinate
Professers
of
them
can
truly
belonge
to
no
Christian
Church
,
present
now
,
or
past
in
any
age
before
them
.
QVESTION
V
:
Wherein
is
proued
that
Christians
are
to
celebrate
the
yearly
day
of
our
Sauiours
Resurrection
on
Sunday
,
and
not
on
the
14.
day
of
March-Moone
,
as
the
Iewes
celebrated
their
Paschall
.
IOHN
Traske
in
his
humor
of
Iudaisme
&
Hereticall
innouation
,
is
lately
growne
so
great
an
enemie
to
the
weekely
obseruance
of
our
Lords
day
,
as
he
seemeth
also
to
deny
the
yearely
feast
of
our
Sauiours
Resurrection
to
be
lawfully
celebrated
on
any
other
day
in
the
yeare
then
the
14.
of
March-moone
,
wherin
the
Iewes
were
commaunded
by
God
to
celebrate
their
Passouer
.
And
vpon
his
late
reading
in
Eusebius
lib
5.
hist.
cap.
22.
Policrates
epistle
directed
to
Victor
Bishop
of
Rome
concerning
the
Asian
custome
of
keeping
easter
with
the
Iews
,
&
S.
Irenaus
his
iudgment
that
Victor
did
with
ouer
much
seuerity
excomunicate
many
Easterne
Churches
,
for
persisting
in
that
wonted
Quartadeciman
manner
of
celebrating
the
yearly
day
of
our
Sauiours
Resurrection
,
togeather
with
the
Iewes
Paschall
;
he
will
arrogantly
presume
to
call
Victor
that
holy
Bishop
&
Martyr
,
famously
mentioned
in
ancient
histories
,
a
proud
Prelate
,
and
not
sticke
to
accuse
other
ancient
Fathers
of
ignorance
in
censuring
afterwards
,
and
condemning
for
heretikes
the
Quartadeciman
obseruers
of
Easter
:
God
himselfe
,
saith
he
,
hauing
expresly
commanded
,
&
Christ
himselfe
with
his
Apostles
celebrated
on
that
day
his
Paschall
festiuity
.
And
not
contented
with
this
hereticall
temerity
of
renewing
the
Quartadeciman
heresy
,
he
surpasseth
Blastus
himself
in
his
Iewish
manner
of
keeping
Easter
.
For
as
I
haue
touched
in
my
Preface
,
he
by
his
eating
of
vnleuened
bread
seauen
dayes
togeather
after
the
14.
of
March-Moone
,
and
by
sundry
speaches
vttered
to
some
of
his
fellow
prisoners
,
hath
giuen
great
suspitions
that
lately
he
hath
obserued
the
feast
of
Azimes
,
togeather
with
his
disciples
.
The
next
yeare
peradueuture
they
will
haue
profited
in
Iudaisme
so
far
,
as
to
sacrifice
a
Paschall
Lambe
also
.
And
lastly
it
is
to
be
feared
,
that
falling
more
and
more
from
their
Christian
profession
,
they
will
with
Adam
Neuserus
,
Bernardinus
Ochinus
,
and
other
Puritan
Deuines
finally
forsake
Christ
,
and
imbrace
Iudaisme
,
or
Turcisme
,
the
fearefull
sequell
and
iust
punishment
of
such
fantastical
spirits
,
as
will
imbrace
no
Religion
but
of
their
owne
deuising
,
nor
be
obedient
children
to
any
Church
,
but
of
their
owne
raising
.
But
let
Iohn
Traske
,
and
his
Disciples
celebrate
what
Paschall
they
will
,
and
on
what
day
they
please
,
our
Paschal-Lambe
according
to
the
Apostle
1.
Corinth.
5.
vers.
7.
8.
is
Christ
sacrificed
in
the
euening
of
the
world
,
for
our
redemption
:
and
our
festiuall
azimes
are
to
be
as
neere
,
as
by
the
assistance
of
diuine
graces
we
shall
be
able
to
arriue
vnto
,
the
sincerity
of
holy
actions
,
and
verity
of
doctrines
,
whereby
our
soules
may
be
happily
nourished
after
their
spirituall
flight
out
of
Aegypt
,
and
conducted
towards
the
eternal
inheritance
of
heauen
through
the
merit
of
Christs
holy
life
and
passion
prepared
for
vs
;
humbling
our selues
heer
,
to
be
els
where
eternally
exalted
;
eschewing
any
temper
,
as
neere
as
we
can
,
of
that
Pharisaicall
leauen
,
with
which
Traskes
speaches
,
and
actions
are
as
it
may
be
probably
ghessed
in
Gods
sight
abhominably
corrupted
,
who
with
his
disciples
will
not
seem
to
be
sicut
ceteri
homines
in
any
thing
,
shewing
all
those
simptoms
,
wherby
the
spirituall
Phisitian
of
soules
was
pleased
to
describe
the
infection
of
the
Scribes
and
Pharisyes
,
rightly
by
him
compared
to
dead
mens
sepulchers
painted
and
polished
without
,
but
internally
filled
with
all
guile
and
malice
.
The
Apostle
telleth
the
Galathians
cap.
5.
vers
.
2.
&
3.
that
whosoeuer
circumciseth
himselfe
,
maketh
himselfe
a
debtour
of
the
whole
law
,
and
Christs
death
profiteth
him
not
:
and
so
it
may
be
proportionably
auerred
of
Traske
,
that
in
teaching
the
festiuall
obseruance
of
Azimes
he
is
consequently
also
bound
by
the
same
reason
,
to
obserue
the
entire
Law
of
Moyses
,
&
so
cannot
be
longer
a
Christian
.
He
was
wont
heeretofore
to
vnderstand
that
text
of
the
Apostle
ad
Coloss.
2.
Let
not
man
iudge
or
discouer
you
in
meate
or
drinke
,
or
new
moones
,
or
part
of
a
festiuall
day
&c.
of
the
Ceremoniall
feasts
of
the
Iewes
mentioned
Leuitic.
23.
abrogated
by
Christ
,
amongst
which
the
feast
of
Azimes
is
first
mentioned
.
But
he
hath
as
it
should
seeme
since
altered
his
iudgment
,
&
(
as
Ebion
&
his
disciples
were
wont
)
little
I
feare
doth
he
regard
any
doctrine
contayned
in
S.
Paules
Epistles
.
Policrates
Epistle
neuer
taught
him
to
conioyne
the
Iudaicall
feasts
of
Azimes
with
our
Christian
Passouer
,
only
that
ancient
Bishop
of
Ephesus
in
a
preposterous
zeale
of
obseruing
the
yearly
memory
of
our
Sauiours
resurrection
,
as
S.
Policarpe
and
other
great
Saintes
had
done
before
him
in
those
partes
of
Asia
,
wrote
very
ernestly
in
the
defence
of
that
Quartadeciman
Custome
.
Whose
authority
hath
,
as
it
should
seeme
,
much
moued
Iohn
Traske
,
who
either
out
of
ignorance
had
neuer
before
read
,
or
out
of
rashenes
neuer
marked
,
far
more
conuincing
proofes
for
the
Dominicall
obseruance
of
Easter
.
For
long
before
Victors
decree
thereof
,
Pius
his
holy
predecessor
,
as
.
Eusebius
recounteth
in
his
Chronicle
,
declared
it
to
haue
byn
an
Apostolicall
doctrine
that
Christians
should
keep
their
Easter
on
the
Sunday
,
and
not
on
the
14.
of
March-moone
,
as
the
Iewes
celebrated
their
Paschall
.
Socrates
also
lib.
5.
hist.
cap.
21.
expresly
affirmeth
,
that
S.
Peter
&
S.
Paul
taught
in
the
Roman
and
other
Western
Churches
the
like
Dominicall
obseruaunce
of
Easter
,
which
is
also
testified
by
S.
Protenius
,
Patriarch
of
Alexandria
in
his
Epistly
to
S.
Leo
,
wherein
he
testifieth
also
,
that
S.
Marke
introduced
the
same
manner
of
keeping
Easter
in
the
Egyptian
Churches
S.
Ignatius
who
saw
our
Lord
himself
in
flesh
,
who
also
conuersed
with
many
of
the
Apostles
,
and
was
the
second
Bishop
of
Antioch
after
S.
Peter
,
in
his
epistle
to
the
Magnesians
,
not
only
taught
them
to
keepe
holy
our
Lords
day
,
as
the
queene
and
chiefest
of
all
other
daies
consecrated
to
our
Sauiours
Resurrection
,
but
also
he
contesteth
Epist.
ad
Philip.
that
any
Christian
celebrating
his
Paschall
with
the
Iewes
,
maketh
himselfe
thereby
a
partaker
with
those
who
killed
our
Lord
himselfe
,
and
his
Apostles
.
Neither
was
the
decre
of
keeping
Easter
on
the
Sunday
lightly
made
in
Victors
tyme
,
but
grauely
and
maturely
determined
in
many
holy
and
learned
Synods
of
Bishops
,
assembled
by
Victors
appointement
,
before
he
proceeded
to
excommunicate
the
Asian
Bishops
,
as
Eusebius
in
his
chronicle
also
testifieth
;
in
so
much
as
besids
the
Councell
which
Victor
himselfe
called
at
Rome
,
Theophilus
metropolitan
of
Cesaraea
,
Narcissus
Patriarth
of
Hierusalem
,
Palmas
Bishop
of
Pontus
,
S.
Irenaeus
Bishop
of
Lions
,
Barchillus
Bishop
of
Corinth
,
and
many
Bishops
of
other
Prouinces
assembled
Synods
,
and
with
one
consent
from
no
other
fountayne
then
the
certaine
doctrine
&
tradition
of
the
Apostles
themselues
determined
the
Dominicall
obseruance
of
Easter
.
So
that
Policrates
assertion
hauing
byn
taught
by
S.
Iohn
,
the
Quartadeciman
manner
of
keeping
the
yearly
feast
of
our
Sauiours
Resurrection
,
seemeth
to
be
against
S.
Iohns
owne
writing
,
Apocal.
2.
calling
Sunday
,
Diem
Dominicum
,
our
Lords
day
,
for
the
reason
formerly
assigned
by
his
scoller
Ignatius
,
to
wit
,
because
it
was
sanctified
,
and
chiefely
aboue
all
other
dayes
obserued
by
Christians
for
our
Sauiours
Resurrection
which
theron
hapned
.
And
if
in
a
festiuall
and
holy
memory
of
that
sacred
mystery
the
Apostles
themselues
instituted
a
weekely
obseruance
of
that
day
;
how
can
it
be
wisely
thought
that
they
would
haue
the
anniuersary
day
it selfe
of
our
Sauiours
Resurrection
not
celebrated
on
that
determinate
day
also
?
Wherfore
,
as
we
may
suppose
,
that
which
S.
Iohn
only
permitted
in
Asia
for
the
peace
of
those
Churches
,
touching
their
Quartadeciman
obseruance
of
Easter
,
Policrates
partially
and
mistakingly
affirmeth
it
to
haue
beene
taught
by
the
Apostle
.
As
for
S.
Irenaeus
agreeing
with
Victor
in
his
doctrine
,
yet
seeming
to
blame
him
for
ouermuch
seuerity
vsed
in
excommunicating
the
Asian
Churches
for
a
practise
tolerated
in
them
long
before
by
his
holy
predecessours
;
I
answere
,
that
Irenaeus
peraduenture
knew
not
Victors
motiues
of
doing
so
,
which
was
to
resist
Montanus
errours
then
newly
begun
to
be
broached
in
Asia
,
and
to
cut
quickly
off
Blastus
Iudaicall
innouations
,
rising
euen
in
Rome
it selfe
,
and
much
confirmed
by
that
legall
manner
of
keeping
Easter
,
which
made
holy
Victor
to
vndertake
a
violent
remedy
to
cure
a
dangerous
wound
then
begining
to
corrupt
the
purity
of
Christian
doctrine
in
many
Churches
:
the
case
of
the
Asian
Bishops
being
not
the
same
then
,
as
it
was
in
S.
Policarpes
dayes
.
For
wheras
before
they
only
by
permission
obserued
Easter
with
the
Iewes
,
in
Victors
time
they
held
it
to
be
an
Apostolical
institution
,
necessary
to
be
imbraced
by
all
other
Churches
.
In
which
decree
Victor
was
according
to
his
name
truly
Victorious
,
the
whole
Church
of
Christ
taking
afterwards
part
with
him
,
and
numbring
the
Quartadecimans
amongst
other
Iudaizing
heretikes
:
and
the
Nicen
Councell
,
as
S.
Athanasius
writeth
in
his
booke
of
Synods
,
reclaymed
multitudes
of
them
,
renewing
Pope
Victors
decree
of
keeping
Easter
on
the
Sunday
,
and
ordayning
that
the
Patriarches
of
Alexandria
for
the
Aegyptian
skill
aboue
other
Nations
,
in
computing
yeares
and
dayes
,
should
be
appointed
to
order
yearly
the
Paschall
Cicles
,
and
by
their
Epistles
first
directed
to
the
Roman
Bishop
,
and
by
him
to
other
Churches
,
to
determine
the
Sunday
,
on
which
Easter
day
was
yearly
to
be
obserued
by
Christians
,
as
is
testified
by
S.
Leo
Epist.
64.
ad
Marcianum
Imperat.
and
is
to
be
seene
in
the
Paschal
epistles
themselues
of
Theophilus
Bishop
of
Alexandria
,
translated
by
S.
Hierome
,
and
yet
extant
Tom.
1.
Biblioth.
Sanct.
PP.
All
which
&
many
other
authentical
testimonies
of
antiquity
for
proofe
of
our
Christian
manner
of
keeping
Easter
on
the
Sunday
,
Io.
Traske
is
likely
to
regard
as
little
in
this
as
he
doth
in
other
controuersies
,
a
ceremoniall
precept
of
the
Moysaicall
Law
,
being
apter
to
conuince
his
fantasticall
iudgement
,
and
immoueably
determine
him
in
any
opinion
,
let
all
Christian
Churches
present
and
past
,
teach
and
practise
what
they
will
against
him
.
THE
II.
CONTROVERSY
.
QVESTION
I.
Of
the
vncleanesse
of
meates
before
Moyses
Law
.
IOHN
Traske
and
his
disciples
hold
the
Legall
difference
of
meates
mentioned
Leuit.
11.
Deutron.
10.
to
be
so
morall
in
it selfe
,
and
religiously
from
mans
first
creation
by
faythfull
people
obserued
,
as
our
first
Parents
themselues
in
Paradise
had
the
same
in
a
sort
commanded
to
them
,
and
their
holy
posterity
euer
afterwards
●●actised
it
:
as
may
be
gathered
(
say
they
)
by
that
difference
of
cleane
&
vncleane
beasts
entring
the
Arke
Genes
7.
vers.
2.
3.
their
vsuall
argument
being
this
following
.
That
which
was
from
the
beginning
commanded
by
God
,
and
by
holy
people
obserued
,
is
no
doubt
a
moral
precept
still
to
continue
:
But
the
Law
of
meates
was
from
the
beginning
commanded
by
God
,
and
by
holy
people
obserued
:
Therefore
it
is
as
a
morall
precept
still
to
continue
.
Which
argument
before
I
proceed
fully
and
particulerly
to
answere
,
I
purpose
heere
orderly
to
ouerthrow
the
doctrinall
groundes
thereof
.
First
absolutly
denying
,
that
Gods
precept
of
not
eating
the
forbidden
fruit
giuen
to
our
first
parents
in
Paradise
,
was
any
Law
at
all
of
vncleane
meates
,
as
ridiculously
they
suppose
it
to
haue
beene
,
but
only
a
commandment
of
abstinence
,
imposed
by
God
for
a
holy
exercise
,
and
triall
of
their
obedience
towards
him
,
that
hauing
●…eir
soules
illuminated
and
sanctifyed
with
abundant
graces
,
and
all
sensuall
and
disordered
motions
of
their
inferiour
fleshly
nature
happily
restrayned
,
and
suppressed
with
the
golden
bridle
of
originall
iustice
,
so
as
all
other
morall
precepts
were
easily
,
&
connaturally
as
it
were
in
that
harmonious
vnion
of
nature
and
grace
obserued
by
them
:
God
was
pleased
only
in
an
extrinsecall
&
indifferent
matter
,
to
exact
their
due
obedience
&
subiection
towards
him
;
which
did
no
more
concerne
the
Moysaicall
difference
of
meats
afterwards
commanded
,
then
if
he
had
forbidden
them
to
touch
the
same
tree
,
or
to
eate
of
any
another
fruit
in
Paradise
;
nor
was
the
tree
,
but
the
willfull
transgression
of
their
Creators
commandment
vncleane
,
&
aswell
in
themselus
as
in
their
vnhappy
posterity
fearfully
punished
.
As
for
the
difference
of
birds
and
beasts
,
cleane
and
vncleane
entring
the
Arke
,
which
is
another
chiefe
ground
of
Traskes
former
argument
:
I
answere
,
that
this
vncleanes
was
not
then
vnderstood
in
respect
of
their
vse
for
food
,
but
for
the
sacrifyces
of
those
former
times
before
Moyses
,
wherin
no
birds
or
beasts
but
such
as
were
legally
afterwards
reputed
cleane
in
Moyses
Law
,
could
be
offered
,
as
may
be
gathered
out
of
Abels
sacrifice
Gen.
4.
vers.
4.
of
Noahs
,
cap.
6.
vers
20.
of
Abrahams
,
cap.
15.
vers.
9.
of
Ioabs
,
cap.
42.
vers.
8.
&c.
God
himselfe
no
doubt
hauing
giuen
some
especiall
ordinance
or
inspiration
thereof
to
Adam
himself
or
Seth
his
holy
sonne
,
who
is
said
to
haue
begun
to
inuoke
Gods
Name
,
Genes.
4.
vers.
26.
which
must
necessarily
be
vnderstood
of
some
peculiar
rites
,
and
order
of
celebrating
sacrifices
,
first
taught
and
practised
by
him
.
But
that
those
birds
and
beasts
are
not
sayd
to
haue
beene
then
vncleane
for
food
and
vnlawfully
to
be
eaten
,
as
afterwards
in
Moyses
Law
they
were
declared
to
be
,
I
proue
,
because
before
the
floud
they
seeme
not
at
all
to
haue
beene
by
holy
people
vsed
for
food
,
and
after
Noahs
tyme
vntill
Moyses
Law
giuen
,
all
meats
,
but
strangled
and
bloud
,
were
freely
permitted
.
The
former
of
these
two
assertions
,
I
proue
by
this
vnanswerable
argument
.
Holy
people
before
the
floud
did
only
eate
such
meats
as
God
had
licensed
and
appointed
them
for
food
.
But
before
the
floud
no
flesh
or
fish
was
by
God
licensed
,
&
appointed
vnto
them
for
food
,
but
only
hearbs
&
fruits
of
the
earth
as
Gods
owne
words
do
expresly
import
,
Gen.
1.
vers.
29.
saying
:
Behold
I
haue
giuen
you
all
kind
of
hearbs
that
seed
vpon
the
earth
,
and
all
trees
that
haue
in
themselues
seed
of
their
owne
kind
to
be
your
meate
&c.
not
mentioning
fish
,
birds
,
or
beasts
,
as
afterwards
he
did
to
Noah
and
his
posterity
cap.
9.
vers.
2.
3.
Wherefore
only
hearbs
&
fruits
of
the
earth
were
then
eaten
by
holy
people
.
And
a
double
reason
may
be
yealded
,
why
such
hearbes
and
fruites
of
the
earth
were
more
sufficient
for
mans
sustenance
before
the
floud
then
after
.
First
for
that
the
earth
was
by
the
deluge
of
salt
▪
waters
corrupted
,
and
altered
from
the
former
fertility
therof
,
and
yealded
not
such
wholsome
and
nourishing
fruites
as
it
did
before
,
whilst
it
purely
remayned
in
that
estate
wherein
God
created
it
,
and
whilst
the
first
progeny
,
as
I
may
terme
it
,
of
hearbes
and
trees
remayned
,
which
God
himselfe
had
out
of
the
earth
produced
Secondly
also
for
that
mens
nature
in
processe
of
time
became
weakned
,
and
lesse
able
by
the
fruites
of
the
earth
to
be
sustained
,
then
it
was
before
,
when
it
newly
came
out
of
Gods
own
omnipotent
hands
,
that
did
temper
and
frame
the
same
in
all
naturall
perfection
,
and
ordaine
it
no
doubt
long
after
so
to
continue
,
as
it
appeareth
by
the
lasting
liues
of
our
first
humane
progenitors
,
and
their
naturall
force
to
beget
children
after
they
had
liued
many
hundreds
of
yeares
.
Wherfore
holy
Iacob
tould
Pharao
demaunding
his
age
Gen.
47.
vers
.
8.
&
9.
that
his
daies
were
Turrian
hundred
&
thirty
yeares
,
short
and
euill
,
to
wit
,
subiect
to
infirmity
and
diseases
,
and
not
ariuing
to
the
daies
of
his
fore-Fathers
.
Likewise
that
after
Noah
vntill
Moyses
Law
giuen
(
which
is
my
second
assertion
here
to
be
proued
)
all
meates
,
but
strangled
and
bloud
,
were
freely
permitted
,
may
euidently
be
gathered
out
of
Gen.
cap.
9.
vers.
2.
3.
4.
where
God
first
licensing
men
to
eate
fish
and
flesh
,
Euery
thing
(
saith
he
)
which
moueth
and
liueth
shall
be
to
you
for
food
,
as
growing
hearbes
,
I
haue
deliuered
them
vnto
you
,
excepting
that
you
shall
not
eate
flesh
with
bloud
.
Out
of
which
text
I
argue
thus
against
Iohn
Traske
.
Holy
people
from
Noah
vnto
Moyses
tyme
might
lawfully
eate
al
meates
licensed
vnto
them
by
God
to
be
eaten
:
But
all
meates
,
except
such
as
were
strangled
&
bloud
were
licensed
by
God
to
be
eaten
by
them
.
Therfore
they
might
lawfully
eate
them
.
The
first
proposition
is
certaine
,
and
graunted
by
Traske
.
The
second
likewise
is
euident
,
because
strangled
meates
and
bloud
are
in
that
generall
Law
and
appointment
of
Creatures
for
food
,
only
excepted
;
which
kind
of
exception
in
such
an
vniuersall
rule
as
that
text
conteineth
,
authorizeth
all
other
particulers
not
therin
expressed
,
or
out
of
the
same
necessarily
deduced
.
So
that
the
Minor
of
Ie.
Traskes
aboue
mentioned
argument
is
false
,
to
wit
,
that
the
Moysaicall
difference
of
meates
was
from
the
begining
commaunded
by
God
,
and
by
holy
people
obserued
.
And
were
it
graunted
to
be
true
,
that
the
Moysaicall
difference
of
meates
had
ben
so
commaunded
by
God
,
and
by
holy
people
euer
vntill
Christs
time
obserued
:
yet
doth
it
not
thence
necessarily
follow
,
that
now
alsom
like
manner
it
is
to
be
practised
by
Christians
all
cerimonies
and
figures
of
former
times
,
as
well
before
Moyses
Law
,
as
after
,
being
by
Christ
fulfilled
,
and
wholy
ceased
:
amongst
which
the
legall
vncleanesse
of
meates
was
one
,
as
shall
be
afterwardes
fully
declared
.
The
first
Proposition
also
of
that
great
argument
is
clearly
false
,
to
wit
,
that
euery
religious
rite
from
the
beginning
commaunded
by
God
,
and
by
holy
people
obserued
,
is
doubtles
a
morall
Law
euer
to
continue
amongst
Christians
:
because
bloudy
sacrifices
,
for
example
,
were
from
the
begining
inspired
by
God
,
and
practised
by
Adams
faithfull
posterity
,
and
yet
as
types
of
Christs
bloudy
sacrifice
they
were
now
with
the
same
wholy
abrogated
&
ended
;
so
that
,
it
is
no
such
certaine
signe
,
as
Traske
would
haue
it
,
of
a
morall
and
euer
continuing
Law
that
the
same
was
from
the
beginning
inspired
or
commaunded
by
God
,
and
by
faithfull
people
,
vntill
Christs
comming
obserued
.
QVESTION
II.
Of
the
Moysaicall
law
of
meats
,
and
mysterious
endes
why
God
commaunded
it
.
IOHN
Traske
willingly
admitteth
the
common
diuision
of
the
old
law
into
Morall
,
Iudiciall
,
and
Cerimoniall
Precepts
,
mentioned
by
Moyses
himselfe
,
Deut.
2.
vers.
1.
and
taught
by
all
moderne
and
ancient
Writers
,
treating
of
the
two
later
sortes
of
Precepts
abrogated
by
our
Sauiours
comming
.
So
that
if
it
may
by
euident
circumstances
of
the
text
be
proued
heere
in
this
question
by
me
,
that
the
legall
obseruance
of
meates
commanded
to
the
Iewes
Leuit.
11.
Deut.
14.
was
meerly
cerimoniall
,
and
for
typical
&
mysterious
respects
only
imposed
,
such
as
can
haue
now
no
morall
end
to
be
still
continued
&
practised
by
Christians
;
I
shal
easily
shake
and
ouerthrow
the
sandy
and
fleeting
ground
of
my
Aduersaries
doctrine
.
And
to
proceed
orderly
in
this
question
,
and
fitly
for
my
purpose
.
I
proue
first
,
this
Law
of
meates
to
haue
beene
meerely
cerimoniall
,
because
it
is
not
at
all
mentioned
,
but
joyntly
&
commixt
with
other
Cerimonies
of
Moyses
law
.
For
in
Leuiticus
it
is
immediatly
anexed
to
the
Typicall
rites
of
sacrifices
and
oblations
,
&
hath
subsequently
following
it
the
cerimonious
law
and
order
of
cleansings
and
purisications
&c.
In
Deutron
.
likewise
it
hath
before
it
many
Iudiciall
precepts
,
and
that
whole
cerimonial
ordinance
of
celebrating
festiual
yeares
,
daies
,
Sacrifices
after
it
&c
which
is
a
signe
at
least
,
that
this
differentiall
law
of
meates
is
cerimoniall
also
,
and
no
morall
part
of
Moyses
law
.
Secondly
the
endes
for
which
this
distinction
of
meates
was
holily
ordained
by
God
,
do
sufficiently
declare
it
to
haue
byn
cerimoniall
then
,
and
in
no
sort
now
appertaining
to
the
morall
obseruance
of
our
Christian
duties
.
The
first
&
chiefest
end
therof
expressed
by
God
himselfe
,
Deut.
14.
vers.
2.
was
,
that
this
obseruance
of
meates
might
be
a
note
and
distinctiue
signe
of
his
people
.
Because
(
saith
Moyses
)
thou
art
holy
to
thy
Lord
God
,
and
he
hath
chosen
thee
amongst
all
other
nations
of
the
earth
to
be
his
peculiar
people
,
eate
not
things
vncleane
.
So
that
this
Iudaicall
difference
of
meates
was
part
of
that
middle
vnmortered
wall
of
Cerimoniall
and
Iudiciall
Precepts
,
separating
for
a
time
Iewes
and
Gentills
,
vntill
our
Sauiour
threw
it
downe
,
conioyning
in
him selfe
the
foundation
&
corner-stone
both
people
in
the
spirituall
edifice
and
building
of
his
Church
,
ad
Ephes.
2.
vers
.
14.
&
15.
so
that
now
as
there
is
no
distinction
further
made
betweene
Iew
and
Gentil
ad
Rom.
3.
vers.
9.
&
29.
Act.
15.
vers
.
6.
and
as
circumcision
,
and
other
distinctiue
signes
,
causing
enmity
and
diuision
betweene
those
two
people
,
now
vnited
in
Christ
,
are
by
his
death
on
the
crosse
taken
away
and
destroyed
:
So
is
the
law
of
difference
imposed
for
that
end
,
euacuated
also
.
Secondly
,
as
marriage
with
Gentills
was
forbidden
to
the
Iewes
,
for
that
it
was
foreseene
by
God
to
be
an
occasion
to
seduce
and
drawe
them
from
their
faithfull
profession
,
Exod.
34.
vers.
16.
as
was
lamentably
experienced
in
Salomon
3.
Reg.
11.
v.
1.
&
2.
and
many
other
Iewes
by
that
meanes
corrupted
:
So
for
the
same
cause
,
Almighty
God
was
pleased
to
inioyne
them
such
a
strict
abstinence
,
and
horrour
of
sundry
meates
,
vsed
by
the
Gentills
round
about
them
,
and
such
purifications
for
any
that
did
either
touch
those
meates
,
or
such
persons
as
had
eaten
them
,
that
the
Iewes
for
a
necessary
obseruance
of
their
law
,
were
inforced
in
a
manner
to
abstaine
from
all
ciuill
commerce
and
conuersation
with
such
Gentile
nations
as
might
be
powerfull
to
seduce
them
,
accounting
it
a
great
abhomination
euen
to
enter
into
them
,
as
S.
Peter
tould
Cornelius
,
Act.
10.
vers
.
28.
Which
reason
of
forbidding
meates
is
now
taken
away
by
the
happy
conuersion
of
Gentile
people
to
Christ
.
Thirdly
these
vncleane
foules
and
beasts
forbidden
in
Moyses
law
,
figured
the
impure
manners
and
abhominable
rites
of
the
Gentills
,
as
appeareth
by
S.
Peters
vision
Act.
10.
vers.
11.
by
which
our
Sauiour
mystically
taught
him
to
account
no
man
vncleanē
,
as
before
he
had
done
,
ibid.
vers
.
8.
Wherfore
as
the
Gentils
spirituall
vncleanesse
was
cleansed
by
their
faith
in
Christ
,
Act.
15.
vers.
9.
so
was
the
figure
therof
to
cease
also
.
And
consequently
this
,
and
all
other
endes
of
the
cerimoniall
law
of
meates
,
ceasing
at
Christs
comming
,
the
obligation
of
the
law
it selfe
was
abrogated
also
.
A
third
Argument
to
proue
the
legall
difference
of
meates
to
haue
beene
cerimoniall
&
appertaining
to
the
Iewes
only
,
whilst
they
remayned
distinguished
from
other
people
,
may
be
gathered
from
these
wordes
so
often
repeated
by
God
in
the
ordinance
of
that
law
,
They
shal
be
vncleane
to
you
,
abhominable
to
you
,
execrable
to
you
&c.
which
manners
of
speach
import
that
in
themselues
and
to
other
nations
they
were
not
so
,
but
by
his
forbidding
of
them
only
made
so
.
Fourthly
,
the
same
arguments
by
which
Iohn
Traske
vsually
proueth
this
law
of
meates
to
be
morall
,
and
not
cerimoniall
,
proue
many
other
Iudiciall
partes
of
Moyses
law
morall
also
,
and
still
to
be
obserued
by
Christians
.
Traskes
common
argument
is
,
that
the
Scriptures
being
perfect
,
must
expresly
containe
a
sufficient
and
particuler
rule
to
direct
Christians
in
all
things
,
concerning
their
duty
towards
God
,
and
ciuill
conuersation
amongst
themselues
,
as
what
to
eate
,
what
to
weare
&c.
but
this
particuler
rule
&
direction
of
meats
,
for
example
,
to
be
eaten
or
not
eaten
by
Christians
,
is
no where
expressed
,
but
in
the
11.
Chap.
of
Leuitic
.
and
19.
of
Deutr.
Therefore
the
Law
of
meats
conteyned
in
those
Chapters
is
morall
,
&
still
to
be
obserued
by
Christians
.
The
Maior
of
which
argument
is
false
,
that
the
Scriptures
must
expresly
&
particulerly
instruct
vs
in
all
naturall
actions
as
what
to
eate
,
what
to
weare
&c.
For
God
hath
giuen
vs
a
naturall
Law
to
direct
vs
sufficiently
in
such
particuler
actions
,
according
to
moral
and
generall
precepts
of
auoyding
sinne
in
them
,
as
to
eate
only
such
meats
as
are
wholsome
&
necessary
to
sustaine
our
bodily
forces
,
humbly
thanking
,
and
intending
to
serue
our
Creatour
by
them
;
to
weare
only
such
garments
as
are
conuenient
for
our
estate
,
&
needfull
to
couer
and
keep
our
bodyes
healthful
&c.
leauing
vs
to
holy
liberty
to
exercise
religious
abstinence
and
mortification
in
them
:
so
as
no
other
supernaturall
rule
is
necessary
to
appoint
either
the
particuler
fashions
of
our
garments
,
the
kinds
of
meats
which
are
to
be
eaten
,
the
manners
of
dressing
them
&c.
the
Scriptures
teaching
vs
not
to
be
good
Cookes
or
Taylers
,
but
to
be
good
Christians
,
and
to
carry
our selues
morally
,
and
without
sinne
in
all
our
actions
,
whereunto
the
speciall
nature
of
meats
is
wholy
impertinent
,
as
I
shall
declare
more
fully
in
my
next
Question
.
Iohn
Traske
out
of
the
generall
promises
of
Christs
graces
and
mercies
,
plentifully
ordayned
for
faythfull
,
righteous
,
and
penitent
persons
,
arrogantly
presumeth
assuredly
and
infallibly
to
collect
the
particuler
election
of
himselfe
,
&
others
of
his
disciples
,
els
why
wil
he
ridiculously
deny
the
sufficiency
of
generall
precepts
and
instructions
to
direct
vs
in
moral
and
particuler
actions
?
Or
why
doth
he
admit
of
many
vnnecessary
trades
imbraced
by
some
of
his
chiefe
disciples
,
as
the
trade
of
Comfitmaking
,
Perfuming
&c.
tending
in
their
own
nature
to
luxury
,
and
no
where
expresly
mentioned
in
Scripture
,
no
not
in
such
places
,
wherein
the
delicacies
of
Kings
themselues
are
expressed
,
as
Samuel
1.
cap.
8.
Paralip.
2.
cap.
9.
3.
Reg.
cap.
10.
&c.
Moreouer
as
there
is
no
particuler
appointment
of
meats
,
but
in
those
Chapters
of
Leuitic
.
and
Deutr.
so
is
there
no
particuler
determination
of
iudgments
against
malefactours
,
and
particuler
lawes
to
be
obserued
for
the
ciuill
gouernement
of
people
,
but
such
as
are
contayned
in
Moyses
Law
:
yet
will
not
Traske
I
suppose
,
be
so
very
a
Iew
,
as
to
introduce
amongst
Christians
a
necessary
practise
of
such
Iudicial
,
and
sundry
other
cerimoniall
precepts
,
seeming
more
pertinent
to
the
morality
of
Christians
,
then
the
legall
obseruance
of
meates
,
neither
vncleane
in
themselues
,
as
the
Minicheans
and
other
hatefull
Heretikes
supposed
them
,
nor
defiling
in
any
fort
the
soules
of
such
as
do
eat
them
,
with
thanks
and
a
holy
intention
to
honour
God
by
a
temperate
vse
of
them
.
Lastly
Iohn
Traske
admitting
the
legall
difference
and
vncleanes
of
meats
yet
to
continue
amongst
Christians
,
is
consequently
also
bound
to
admit
legall
purifications
appointed
to
be
vsed
by
such
as
had
eaten
,
or
touched
them
,
as
washing
of
their
cloathes
,
secluding
themselues
from
humane
society
,
till
the
euening
&c.
which
he
seemeth
not
to
do
,
but
reiecteth
them
as
cerimonious
,
and
impertinent
now
to
the
morall
direction
of
Christians
.
QVESTION
III.
Wherein
the
proper
and
perfect
rule
of
moral
Actions
is
briefly
declared
:
and
how
according
to
the
same
no
meates
are
now
vncleane
,
and
vnlawfull
to
Christians
.
IOHN
Traske
and
his
disciples
are
so
absurd
in
their
doctrine
of
meats
,
as
they
wholy
in
a
manner
reiect
humane
reason
,
from
being
any
direction
or
rule
at
all
to
guide
them
in
morall
actions
.
The
Law
of
Nature
,
say
they
is
a
rule
only
for
naturall
and
carnall
persons
to
liue
by
,
Gods
children
hauing
a
higher
Law
contayned
in
the
holy
Scriptures
,
teaching
them
what
to
eate
,
and
making
them
perfect
in
all
things
els
belonging
to
Christian
manners
and
humane
conuersation
,
2.
ad
Tim.
3.
vers
.
15.
&
16.
My
purpose
therfore
is
in
this
Question
briefly
to
declare
what
the
naturall
light
of
reason
is
,
more
fully
then
I
haue
done
in
the
2.
Question
of
my
first
Controuersy
,
shewing
it
is
perfected
by
supernaturall
knowledge
,
and
still
remayneth
a
full
and
perfect
rule
to
direct
vs
in
all
naturall
and
morall
actions
.
Naturall
Reason
is
in
it selfe
the
essentiall
&
internall
clarity
of
mans
soule
,
by
the
vse
wherof
we
are
distinguished
from
bruit
beasts
,
taught
to
know
what
is
morally
good
and
euill
in
our
actions
,
&
made
capable
of
grace
and
all
supernaturall
perfection
.
So
that
whilst
we
continue
naturally
men
heere
in
this
life
,
we
must
guide
and
gouerne
our selues
thereby
in
humane
and
morall
actions
:
Faith
being
a
supernaturall
light
,
graciously
by
God
infused
into
our
soule
,
not
to
destroy
naturall
knowledge
in
vs
,
but
to
perfect
the
same
two
Wayes
.
First
by
helping
vs
to
a
more
easy
and
certayne
knowledge
of
sundry
naturall
verities
,
then
we
can
ordinarily
in
this
life
attayne
vnto
,
from
the
bare
experience
of
our
senses
.
Secondly
by
notifying
vnto
vs
the
intellectuall
power
of
our
soule
,
&
inclining
it
firmely
and
piously
to
beleeue
many
reuealed
mysteries
far
aboue
the
naturall
reach
&
capacity
thereof
to
be
discouered
or
thought
vpon
by
vs
:
yet
are
they
alwayes
found
so
conformable
thereunto
,
as
no
point
of
faith
is
to
be
accounted
credible
and
worthy
of
our
faithfull
and
deuout
assent
,
which
is
in
true
discourse
repugnant
to
naturall
reason
&
iudgment
in
vs
.
So
that
Iohn
Traske
and
his
disciples
seeme
to
deale
vnreasonably
,
and
without
iudgment
,
in
excluding
naturall
reason
and
iudgement
from
being
any
rule
at
all
in
morall
and
humane
actions
;
contrary
to
the
expresse
doctrine
of
S.
Paul
ad
Rom.
2.
vers
.
24.
25.
26.
where
he
affirmeth
,
that
the
very
Gentils
who
wanted
all
knowledge
of
a
written
law
,
were
a
law
to
themselues
,
being
naturally
taught
to
obserue
that
law
,
and
to
shew
it
written
in
their
hartes
(
to
wit
,
according
to
the
morall
precepts
thereof
)
their
owne
consciences
sufficiently
seruing
to
approue
them
in
good
,
and
to
condemne
them
in
euill
actions
,
and
so
consequently
to
be
a
proper
rule
to
guide
and
direct
them
in
all
morall
and
humane
actions
.
The
supernaturall
direction
of
fayth
,
being
graciously
by
Christ
ordayned
,
as
I
haue
formerly
sayd
,
to
facilitate
and
explane
naturall
knowledge
many
wayes
corrupted
,
and
obscured
in
vs
,
and
happily
to
conduce
vs
to
a
higher
degree
of
heauenly
knowledge
and
Euangelicall
perfection
,
is
idly
and
ignorantly
confounded
by
Traske
with
naturall
morality
,
and
falsely
made
the
only
and
proper
rule
of
humane
&
morall
actions
,
which
Gentill
people
wanted
not
,
according
to
the
Apostle
,
who
notwithstanding
are
knowne
not
to
haue
had
the
light
of
heauenly
knowledg
&
euangelicall
perfection
reuealed
vnto
them
.
Which
true
distinction
of
a
morall
and
supernaturall
law
supposed
,
I
heere
vndertake
to
proue
the
law
of
meates
mentioned
Leuit.
11.
&
Deutr.
14.
to
haue
ben
meerly
cerimoniall
,
and
no
way
now
to
appertaine
to
the
morall
or
susupernaturall
law
and
direction
of
Christians
.
And
that
the
Iudaicall
obseruance
of
meates
appertayneth
not
to
that
internall
law
of
reason
written
by
God
in
the
hartes
of
all
men
,
and
suficiently
teaching
them
to
knowe
the
morall
good
and
euill
of
their
actions
,
and
to
make
a
conscience
of
them
.
I
proue
it
first
,
because
neuer
any
Philosopher
,
or
Wiseman
among
the
Gentills
can
be
proued
to
haue
taught
or
practised
,
amongst
many
other
morall
and
excellent
precepts
deliuered
&
obserued
by
them
,
this
difference
of
meats
:
but
they
are
contrarily
knowne
to
haue
indifferently
eaten
all
sortes
of
meates
,
which
experimentally
they
found
wholsome
,
&
fit
to
sustayn
their
bodyes
,
as
Connies
,
Hares
Swines
flesh
,
and
other
meates
,
prohibited
to
the
Iewes
.
Which
naturall
and
daily
experience
10.
Traske
ridiculously
denieth
,
falsely
pretending
them
to
be
not
only
legally
vncleane
,
but
vnwholsome
also
for
corporall
sustenance
,
and
no
more
created
by
God
for
food
,
or
lesse
forbidden
by
any
law
to
be
eaten
,
then
toades
and
serpentes
,
which
by
the
naturall
precept
of
not
killing
our
selus
,
we
are
taught
to
refraine
from
;
not
for
that
they
are
in
themselues
naturally
vncleane
,
but
because
they
are
in
experience
found
to
be
inconuenient
and
hurtfull
to
our
nature
,
not
nourished
but
destroied
by
them
:
yet
was
neuer
wise
Iewes
or
Christians
so
absurd
before
,
as
to
teach
that
,
for
the
like
moral
respect
of
preseruing
our
naturall
life
,
Swines
flesh
was
as
toads
and
serpents
forbidden
in
that
precept
.
Secondly
holy
people
after
the
floud
obserued
,
no
doubt
,
the
morall
law
and
diuine
directions
giuen
them
,
&
yet
as
I
haue
proued
in
my
former
Question
,
were
no
other
meats
but
strangled
and
bloud
,
and
those
also
for
mysterious
and
figuratiue
respects
,
expresly
vntill
Moyses
tyme
prohibited
vnto
them
.
Thirdly
our
Sauiour
Matt.
15.
vers.
11.
16.
17.
from
common
reason
and
naturall
vnderstanding
collecteth
this
vniuersall
rule
and
morall
position
,
that
nothing
entring
the
body
can
defile
a
man
,
who
is
only
made
impure
by
sinneful
acts
proceeding
from
his
soule
&c.
S.
Paul
also
ad
Rom.
14.
vers.
17.
morally
teacheth
vs
,
that
the
kingdome
of
heauen
,
or
the
meanes
of
gaining
heauen
is
not
,
or
consisteth
in
meate
and
drinke
,
but
in
iustice
,
peace
and
ioy
in
the
holy
Ghost
,
and
he
that
in
this
serueth
Christ
,
pleaseth
God
,
to
wit
,
what
meats
soeuer
he
eateth
.
For
(
sayth
he
,
1.
ad
Corinth
.
cap.
8.
v.
8.
)
meate
commendeth
vs
not
to
God
.
Out
of
which
holy
texts
I
frame
this
argument
.
Nothing
is
morally
vncleane
,
and
vnlawfull
to
Christians
that
defileth
not
their
soules
:
But
no
meats
entring
their
bodyes
can
according
to
our
Sauiours
owne
words
defile
their
soules
:
Therefore
no
meates
are
morally
vncleane
and
vnlawful
to
Christians
.
The
Maior
of
my
argument
is
certaine
,
because
Christian
morality
consisteth
in
freedome
from
sinne
.
The
Minor
likewise
is
out
of
reason
it selfe
deduced
by
our
Sauiours
blaming
his
disciples
for
conceauing
that
any
meate
eaten
by
the
mouth
can
of
it selfe
defile
the
soule
,
and
so
consequently
for
any
natural
vncleanes
be
vnlawfull
to
be
vsed
:
wherefore
the
legall
prohibition
of
them
,
cannot
be
morall
but
mysterious
and
cerimoniall
.
Secondly
I
frame
this
argument
.
That
which
neither
commendeth
men
to
God
,
nor
appertayneth
to
the
gayning
of
heauen
,
as
Iustice
and
other
vertues
do
cannot
belong
to
the
morall
or
supernaturall
duty
of
a
Christian
:
But
meats
according
to
S.
Paul
do
neither
of
themselues
commend
vs
to
God
,
nor
so
appertayne
to
the
gayning
of
heauen
,
as
Iustice
and
other
vertues
do
:
Therfore
meats
of
themselues
cannot
belong
to
the
morall
or
supernaturall
duty
of
Christians
,
and
consequently
no
Christian
is
now
bound
to
the
legall
obseruance
of
them
.
Fourthly
S.
Paul
1
ad
Tim.
4.
v.
3.
4.
&
5.
speaking
against
Heretiks
teaching
people
to
abstaine
from
meats
which
God
created
to
be
receaued
with
thankesgiuing
by
faythfull
persons
,
and
such
as
know
the
truth
,
yieldeth
this
reason
of
his
doctrine
.
Because
euery
creature
of
God
is
good
,
and
nothing
to
be
reiected
(
to
wit
for
meat
)
which
is
receaued
with
thanksgiuing
:
for
it
is
sanctifyed
by
the
word
of
God
and
prayer
.
In
which
Text
albeit
it
should
be
graunted
that
the
Apostle
chiefly
disputed
against
the
Symonians
,
Saturnians
,
Marcionites
,
and
other
like
Heretiks
,
who
in
,
and
soone
after
the
Apostles
times
,
taught
many
Creatures
to
be
ill
in
their
owne
nature
,
as
hauing
been
by
an
euill
God
created
,
and
so
to
be
detested
by
Christians
:
yet
the
reason
of
his
doctrine
is
moral
and
sufficient
to
shew
the
legall
impurity
of
meats
abrogated
by
our
Sauiour
,
which
I
proue
by
this
argument
.
Euery
Creature
of
God
that
is
good
,
and
not
to
be
reiected
,
being
receaued
with
thanskgiuing
,
may
lawfully
be
eaten
by
Christians
:
But
euery
Creature
of
God
is
good
,
acording
to
the
Apostle
,
and
not
to
be
reiected
being
receaued
with
thanskgiuing
:
Therefore
euery
creature
may
lawfully
be
eaten
with
prayer
and
thansksgiuing
by
Christians
.
Secondly
I
argue
thus
.
No
creature
is
to
be
accounted
impure
for
food
which
is
or
may
be
sanctified
by
him
that
eateth
it
:
But
S.
Paul
affirmeth
,
euery
Creature
to
be
sanctified
with
the
word
of
God
,
and
by
the
prayer
of
him
that
with
thanksgiuing
receaueth
it
.
Therfore
no
Creature
is
to
be
accounted
impure
for
food
,
being
with
prayer
and
thanksgiuing
so
receaued
.
If
Traske
aske
me
how
it
is
to
be
vnderstood
,
that
all
creatures
may
be
sanctified
with
the
praiers
&
thanksgiuing
of
such
as
receaue
them
;
I
answere
,
that
those
words
of
S.
Paul
in
their
true
sense
,
do
only
importe
,
that
whosoeuer
eateth
any
creature
with
prayer
and
thanksgiuing
,
maketh
a
holy
vse
thereof
,
and
so
that
Creature
may
rightly
be
called
holy
,
or
a
cause
of
holynes
to
him
that
so
receaueth
it
.
If
he
aske
me
whether
it
be
not
also
required
to
the
holy
vse
of
any
creature
,
that
it
be
wholsome
of
it selfe
for
food
,
and
created
by
God
to
be
so
with
prayer
and
thanksgiuing
receaued
;
I
answere
yes
,
because
no
vnwholsom
creature
,
poysonous
,
and
hurtfull
to
our
bodyes
can
for
food
be
holily
vsed
,
but
wickedly
against
the
naturall
precept
of
not
killing
our selues
&c.
And
those
words
of
S.
Paul
,
Euery
creature
of
God
is
good
,
and
nothing
is
to
be
reiected
&c.
contayning
an
vniuersall
sense
,
without
limitation
or
exception
,
do
necessarily
inferre
euery
wholsom
creature
apt
to
norish
our
body
,
and
to
be
conuerted
into
the
naturall
substance
thereof
,
to
haue
beene
created
for
that
purpose
by
Almighty
God
,
who
hath
giuen
vs
naturall
iudgment
and
experience
to
know
what
creatures
are
wholsom
and
apt
to
feed
and
sustaine
vs
:
els
were
the
naturall
knowledge
of
man
indiuidually
to
preserue
himself
by
the
externall
vse
of
creatures
,
more
defectiue
and
imperfect
then
the
naturall
instinct
which
beasts
and
other
liuing
creatures
haue
to
choose
wholsom
food
for
themselues
,
and
to
auoid
thinges
harmefull
and
contrary
to
their
nature
.
And
whereas
eating
and
other
acts
tending
to
mens
indiuiduall
preseruation
are
of
all
others
belonging
to
our
human
condition
and
estate
meanest
in
themselus
and
most
connaturall
vnto
vs
,
Io.
Traskes
barbarous
folly
may
be
worthily
admired
,
in
excluding
naturall
reason
from
being
any
rule
at
all
,
to
guide
and
direct
vs
in
them
.
And
it
may
fitly
be
tearmed
a
desperate
and
frantick
kind
of
ignorance
and
impudency
in
him
,
to
deny
,
against
the
generall
experience
of
men
,
in
all
ages
and
countries
of
the
world
,
that
Swines-flesh
,
and
other
beasts
,
foules
,
and
fishes
legally
prohibited
,
being
dressed
and
eaten
,
are
apt
to
nourish
and
sustayne
our
bodyes
.
Qvestion
IIII.
Prouing
by
sundry
texts
of
the
New
Testament
the
law
of
meates
abrogated
to
Christians
.
MY
first
argument
prouing
the
differentiall
law
of
meates
to
haue
beene
repealed
by
our
Sauiour
and
his
Apostles
in
the
new
Testament
,
shall
be
deduced
out
of
S.
Peters
vision
Act.
10.
v.
11.
12.
13.
14.
&
15.
wherein
he
was
willed
to
kill
,
and
eate
those
vncleane
beasts
and
foules
represented
vnto
him
,
and
by
a
second
voyce
taught
not
to
tearme
that
common
or
vncleane
which
God
had
cleansed
.
Which
purification
of
vncleane
beasts
and
foules
,
as
I
deny
not
but
that
mystically
and
chiefly
it
imported
the
cleansing
of
the
Gentills
hartes
by
faith
in
Christ
and
supernall
graces
conferred
equally
on
then
and
the
Iewes
(
as
is
plainly
testified
ibid.
vers.
18.
act.
15.
v.
7.
&
14.
)
So
likewise
I
affirme
,
that
as
S.
Peters
horrour
and
deniall
of
hauing
euer
eaten
any
vncleane
thing
,
was
litterally
meant
by
him
;
so
was
Gods
commaund
likewise
that
he
should
kill
and
eate
them
,
and
his
diuine
warrant
of
their
being
cleansed
,
litterally
to
be
vnderstood
,
and
made
a
chiefe
ground
of
that
Apostolicall
decree
Act.
51.
wherein
all
sortes
of
meates
,
not
strangled
,
sacrificed
to
Idolls
,
and
bloud
,
were
freely
licensed
to
the
conuerted
Gentils
.
For
as
by
this
vision
S.
Peter
was
instructed
first
concerning
the
generall
and
actuall
vocation
of
the
Gentills
:
so
in
like
manner
was
he
taught
not
to
impose
on
them
the
cerimonious
,
and
burdensome
law
of
meates
,
further
then
a
necessary
abstinence
from
these
three
for
a
time
already
mentioned
.
My
second
argument
shal
be
collected
out
of
the
Apostles
decree
Act.
15.
wherein
against
such
as
taught
to
introduce
Circumcision
,
and
the
obseruance
of
Moyses
law
vers.
5.
it
was
after
a
diligent
conquisition
made
of
this
question
,
ioyntly
by
all
the
Apostles
determined
,
that
the
heauy
and
insupportable
burden
of
the
old
law
should
be
no
further
imposed
vpon
the
conuerted
Gentills
,
then
that
they
should
abstaine
from
meates
strangled
,
sacrificed
to
Idolls
,
bloud
,
and
fornication
;
and
in
so
doing
they
should
do
well
.
Whence
I
argue
thus
.
The
Apostles
determined
in
their
decree
all
necessary
abstinence
from
meates
to
be
obserued
by
the
Gentils
:
But
the
Apostles
in
their
decree
licensed
vnto
them
all
sortes
of
meates
except
strangled
&c.
Therfore
only
those
meats
were
necessary
to
be
abstained
from
by
the
Gentills
.
The
maior
of
my
argument
is
certainly
proued
by
the
mayne
drift
and
intention
of
the
Apostles
,
expressed
in
the
text
it selfe
,
which
was
to
determine
how
far
Moyses
law
did
oblige
the
conuerted
Gentills
particulerly
about
meates
,
and
vsing
many
women
,
as
they
had
beene
accustomed
to
do
before
their
conuersion
:
so
that
as
the
Apostles
in
their
decree
did
tye
them
to
the
matrimoniall
knowledge
of
one
lawfull
wife
;
so
did
they
also
fully
instruct
them
in
such
an
obseruance
of
meates
,
as
they
saw
needfull
to
be
imposed
for
a
time
,
to
make
faithfull
Iewes
and
Gentills
to
liue
peacefully
togeather
in
the
vnity
of
one
Church
.
The
minor
of
my
argument
is
euident
by
the
decree
it selfe
,
wherin
it
seemed
good
to
the
holy
Ghost
,
and
the
Apostles
,
to
impose
no
other
burden
on
them
then
that
they
should
astaine
from
those
3.
sortes
of
meates
,
and
fornication
:
which
decree
had
beene
an
insufficient
rule
to
direct
them
concerning
meates
lawfull
or
not
to
be
eaten
,
if
other
meats
prohibited
in
Moyses
law
had
still
remayned
so
.
Secondly
out
of
that
Apostolicall
decree
,
I
frame
this
argument
.
If
the
legall
difference
of
meats
had
continued
after
Christ
as
before
,
and
equally
obliged
faythfull
Iewes
&
conuerted
Gentills
to
the
wonted
obseruance
thereof
,
then
was
the
Apostles
particuler
and
expresse
prohibition
of
bloud
,
meats
strangled
,
and
offered
to
Idols
,
needles
and
ridiculously
imposed
to
the
conuerted
Gentils
,
&
they
were
falsely
tould
,
that
in
abstaining
from
those
meats
they
should
do
well
:
because
according
to
Iohn
Traske
,
they
were
by
God
equally
commanded
to
abstayne
from
other
meats
also
.
But
it
were
blasphemy
to
affirme
this
Apostolicall
decree
,
to
containe
any
false
,
absurd
,
or
superfluous
doctrine
:
Therefore
those
meats
mentioned
in
the
decree
,
were
only
and
determinatly
prohibited
to
the
conuerted
Gentills
.
Thirdly
neuer
any
ancient
Father
,
or
Christian
Deuine
did
before
Traske
vnderstand
other
,
then
that
the
Apostles
intended
in
their
decree
to
ease
the
Gentills
from
some
burdensome
obseruances
of
the
law
besides
Circumcision
,
which
the
Iewes
had
beene
before
Christs
comming
tyed
vnto
,
as
may
be
playnly
gathered
from
the
whole
scope
of
S.
Peters
and
S.
Iames
speaches
assented
vnto
by
the
other
Apostles
.
But
if
the
Moysaicall
Law
of
meats
did
generally
oblige
al
Christians
after
this
decree
as
before
,
then
were
the
Gentils
nothing
at
all
eased
thereby
from
the
burdensome
obseruances
of
Moyses
Law
&c.
Therefore
the
Apostles
certainely
meant
in
that
decree
to
repeale
the
Mosaicall
Law
of
meats
,
and
prohibite
to
the
Gentills
only
such
as
that
decree
particulerly
mentioned
.
My
third
argument
shall
be
the
words
of
S.
Paul
.
ad
Galat.
2.
whereas
S.
Peter
is
sayd
to
haue
eaten
at
Antioch
with
the
Gentills
vers.
12.
but
afterwards
being
fearefull
to
offend
certaine
Iews
sent
by
S.
Iames
from
Hierusalem
▪
he
withdrew
himselfe
,
for
which
simulation
S.
Paul
publiquely
tould
him
vers.
14.
If
thou
being
a
Iew
didst
liue
Gentillike
&
not
Iewishlike
,
how
dost
thou
inforce
the
Gentills
to
Iudaize
?
which
could
not
be
vnderstood
of
the
Iewes
in
respect
of
Circumcision
,
whereof
no
mention
is
made
in
that
place
,
nor
in
respect
of
conuersation
wherin
it
cannot
be
conceaped
how
the
Gentils
could
Iudaize
or
imitate
the
Iews
:
therfore
it
must
neoessarily
be
vnderstood
of
the
Iudaicall
obseruance
of
meats
wherein
they
imitated
S.
Peters
example
.
Likewise
when
S.
Peter
eating
with
the
Gentils
is
sayd
to
haue
liued
Gentillike
and
not
Iewishlike
,
it
cannot
wel
be
vnderstood
,
but
in
regard
of
eating
such
meats
as
the
Gentills
did
,
and
his
not
obseruing
that
difference
of
meats
which
the
Iewes
obserued
.
My
fourth
argument
to
conuince
Iohn
Traske
in
his
Iudaicall
obseruance
of
meats
,
may
be
taken
out
of
S.
Paul
ad
Hebr.
9.
vers
.
10.
numbring
the
obseruance
of
meates
amongst
other
cerimonious
rites
,
and
carnall
instifications
of
Moyses
Law
imposed
only
vntill
the
tyme
of
correction
or
reformation
,
which
Christ
was
ordayned
to
make
:
Wherefore
such
wonted
obseruances
of
meats
are
abrogated
now
by
Christ
and
no
longer
to
continue
.
My
fifth
argument
may
be
collected
out
of
the
same
Apostle
,
who
hauing
in
his
first
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians
cap.
S.
giuen
them
a
liberty
to
eate
or
abstaine
from
meats
offered
to
Idols
,
as
their
owne
consciences
serued
them
,
obseruing
mutuall
charity
therein
,
cap.
10.
vers.
25.
he
willeth
them
to
eate
without
exception
,
all
meats
sould
in
the
shambles
of
the
Gentill
Citty
,
asking
no
question
for
conscience
sake
,
that
is
to
say
,
not
regarding
whether
such
meats
had
beene
offered
to
Idolls
or
not
:
For
the
earth
(
sayth
he
)
is
our
Lords
and
the
plenitude
therof
,
and
if
any
Gentill
inuite
you
to
a
feast
,
and
you
will
go
,
eate
all
things
set
before
you
&c.
In
which
place
albeit
S.
Paul
treateth
only
of
meats
offered
to
Idols
,
yet
his
licence
is
generally
vnderstood
of
all
meats
and
a
fortiori
proueth
all
other
things
not
offered
to
Idolls
lawfully
eaten
,
which
I
proue
by
these
vnanswerable
arguments
.
Meats
offered
to
Idols
were
not
only
prohibited
to
the
Iewes
as
were
other
vncleane
meats
but
also
by
the
former
decree
of
the
Apostles
Act.
●●
.
forbidden
to
all
Christians
:
But
S.
Paul
licensed
the
Corinthians
to
eate
such
sacrificed
meats
without
scruple
or
question
▪
Therfore
other
meates
legally
only
prohibited
may
be
eaten
also
.
Secondly
S.
Paul
willeth
the
Christians
of
Corinth
to
eate
all
thinges
sould
in
the
shambles
;
or
set
at
Infidells
tables
:
But
it
cannot
be
reasonably
doubted
that
in
the
shambles
,
and
at
Infidells
tables
many
meates
forbidden
in
Moyses
Law
were
vsually
sould
,
and
eaten
:
Therfore
S.
Paul
licensed
the
Christians
at
Corinth
to
eate
those
meates
also
.
Io.
Traske
and
his
disciples
wil
not
sticke
ridiculously
to
retort
the
Maior
of
my
argument
,
and
to
tell
me
,
that
if
the
Christians
at
Corinth
might
eate
all
thinges
sould
in
the
Gentills
shambles
,
they
might
eate
hornes
and
skinnes
also
.
They
will
also
foolishly
deny
that
meates
prohibited
to
the
Iewes
were
eyther
sould
in
the
Gentills
shambles
or
set
at
their
tables
making
so
the
differentiall
law
of
meats
particulerly
giuen
to
the
Iewes
,
to
haue
byn
naturally
obserued
by
all
other
nations
also
.
And
for
a
shift
they
wil
flatly
deny
meats
prohibited
to
the
Iewes
,
to
be
food
at
all
for
men
,
more
then
toades
,
or
serpentes
.
Which
fooleries
against
common
experience
,
learning
and
iudgment
are
to
be
derided
,
and
charitably
compassioned
in
them
,
rather
then
answered
.
Thirdly
the
reasons
why
Christians
were
licensed
by
S.
Paul
to
eate
Idoll
offeringes
,
are
two
expressed
in
the
text
it selfe
;
the
first
is
because
an
Idoll
to
him
that
hath
iudgement
to
distern
it
is
nothing
in
the
world
able
to
pollute
the
creatures
therunto
offered
;
the
second
is
because
the
earth
is
our
Lords
,
and
the
plenitude
thereof
;
that
is
to
say
,
all
creatures
therein
contained
are
good
and
created
by
him
.
Which
later
reason
is
effectuall
also
to
proue
other
meates
prohibited
to
the
Iews
to
be
good
in
themselues
and
lawfully
eaten
by
Christians
.
Lastly
S.
Paul
ad
Rom.
14.
like
a
moderator
,
or
peace-maker
betweene
the
firme
Christians
,
who
were
the
Gentills
,
and
the
infirme
who
were
the
Iewes
weakely
&
scrupulously
stil
inclined
to
obserue
the
differentiall
law
of
meats
,
&
festiuall
dayes
commanded
by
Moyses
,
be
exorteth
the
Iew
not
to
condemne
the
Gentill
,
vsing
his
liberty
in
eating
al
sorts
of
meats
;
&
the
Gentil
in
like
manner
not
to
condemne
the
scrupulous
Iew
,
but
rather
to
abstaine
from
vsing
his
liberty
,
then
offending
the
Iew
,
to
be
an
occasion
to
him
of
scandall
and
falling
from
his
faith
▪
Him
that
it
weake
(
saith
the
Apostle
v.
1
)
take
vnto
you
,
not
in
disputation
of
cogitations
:
for
one
beleeueth
that
he
may
eate
all
thinges
:
But
he
that
is
weake
,
to
wit
the
scrupulous
Iew
that
will
neither
eate
meates
prohibited
in
Moyses
Law
,
nor
sacrificed
by
the
Gentils
,
let
him
eate
hearbes
.
Let
not
him
that
eateth
dispise
him
that
eateth
not
,
&
he
that
eateth
not
,
let
him
not
iudge
him
that
eateth
,
to
wit
,
all
sortes
of
meates
,
for
God
hath
assumed
him
to
himself
&c.
and
he
eateth
to
our
Lord
(
vers.
6.
)
for
he
giueth
thinkes
to
God
.
&c.
Why
iudgest
thou
thy
brother
(
speaking
to
the
Iew
vers.
10.
)
for
his
liberty
of
eating
all
thinges
?
And
(
speaking
to
the
Gentills
)
why
despisest
thou
thy
brother
for
his
weaknesse
in
putting
a
differnce
betwene
meates
?
I
know
(
saith
he
vers.
14.
)
and
am
persuaded
in
our
Lord
Christ
that
nothing
is
common
or
vncleane
of
it selfe
.
But
to
him
that
supposeth
any
thing
to
be
como
or
vncleane
,
to
him
it
is
common
(
to
wit
;
for
the
errour
of
his
conscience
,
making
it-seeme
so
.
)
All
things
indeed
are
cleane
(
vers.
20
)
but
it
is
ill
for
the
man
that
eateth
with
offence
&c.
(
to
wit
of
his
weake
brother
:
)
concluding
thus
his
advice
to
Iew
and
Gentill
▪
Hast
thou
faith
(
that
is
to
say
,
ar●…
〈◊〉
firmely
persuaded
of
the
lawfulnes
of
al
meates
)
haue
it
with
thy selfe
befor
God
&c.
But
he
that
discerneth
,
or
maketh
a
difference
of
meates
,
is
damned
or
committeth
a
damnable
sinne
if
hee
●ie
,
because
〈◊〉
of
faith
,
or
because
he
is
not
fully
persuaded
of
the
lawfulnes
of
that
meate
which
he
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
for
all
that
is
not
of
faith
,
is
sinne
,
to
wit
,
euery
thing
that
a
man
doth
against
his
owne
knowledg
and
conscience
is
sinne
.
Which
discourse
of
S.
Paul
is
so
cleare
in
selfe
for
refutation
of
Traskes
doctrine
,
and
so
vn●●●●●…lly
vnderstood
by
ancient
Fathers
and
m●de
●●e
Expositours
,
aswell
Protestantes
as
Catholikes
,
that
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
deuises
wherby
some
of
Traskes
difciples
haue
sought
to
delude
so
many
playne
passages
of
this
Chapter
,
may
well
seeme
to
learned
men
,
not
iudiciously
,
imbraced
,
but
in
an
hereticall
pride
,
and
a
desire
of
nouelty
and
singularity
purposely
affected
by
them
▪
In
so
much
as
one
of
them
being
pressed
with
the
litterall
plaines
of
so
many
texts
,
concluding
in
expresse
termes
&
directly
against
his
contrary
doctrine
;
first
he
ridiculously
deuised
a
new
argument
of
this
Chāpter
,
and
pretended
that
S.
Paul
endeauoured
therein
to
instruct
such
Christians
,
as
being
inuited
to
mourning
and
lamentation
,
might
thinke
it
vnlawfull
to
eate
any
meates
at
all
;
idly
citing
many
Propheticall
textes
,
commending●…
such
ti●●
▪
abstinence
from
nourishing
and
delightful
meates
▪
Whereas
S.
Paul
speaketh
no
one
word
in
that
Chapter
of
inuiting
Christians
to
mourning
and
lamentation
,
but
only
endeauoureth
to
compose
controuersies
and
occasions
of
offence
betweene
Iewes
and
Gentills
,
and
to
make
their
ordinary
conuersation
particulerly
about
meates
and
festiuall
dayes
peacefully
and
charitably
togeather
.
They
seeme
also
to
haue
sundry
other
fancies
to
auoyd
the
pressing
authority
of
these
textes
,
but
so
grossly
as
I
hold
them
▪
not
w●●●●…
to
be
heere
recited
,
much
lesse
particulerly
refuted
:
whippes
being
the
best
answere
to
such
arguments
,
&
Bedlam●
or
Bridewell
the
fittest
schoole
for
such
a
Sectmaister
,
and
disciples
to
dispute
in
.
QVESTION
V.
Wherein
is
proued
,
that
Bloud
and
strangled
meates
may
be
lawfully
now
eaten
by
Christians
.
MY
purpose
in
this
Question
is
not
so
much
to
refute
Iohn
Traske
in
his
Iewish
and
absurd
doctrine
of
meates
,
sufficiently
already
in
my
former
Questions
discussed
,
as
particulerly
to
ouerthrow
the
Puritanicall
abstinence
of
some
percise
people
,
who
wholy
grounding
their
faith
vpon
he
authority
of
Scripturs
,
&
litle
crediting
any
Christian
practise
or
doctrine
not
expressed
in
them
,
are
in
many
places
knowne
strictly
to
obserue
the
Apostolicall
decree
Act.
15.
commaunding
Christians
to
abstaine
from
strangled
meates
bloud
&c.
Which
(
say
they
)
was
a
precept
expresly
giuen
by
God
in
the
law
of
nature
Genes.
9.
and
renewed
by
the
Apostles
,
a
a
law
necessary
to
be
obserued
by
the
Gentills
conuerted
,
and
is
not
found
to
haue
beene
repealed
,
as
was
the
like
prohibition
of
meates
offered
to
Idolls
(
1.
ad
Corin.
cap.
8
&
10.
)
by
any
latter
doctrine
or
practise
of
the
Apostles
.
But
contrarily
it
may
be
by
many
ancient
and
authenticall
testimonies
of
antiquity
certainely
proued
,
that
many
hundred
yeares
togeather
after
Christ
,
holy
people
obserued
this
abstinence
from
stragled
meats
and
bloud
,
as
a
doctrine
taught
them
by
the
Apostles
.
Tertullian
for
example
in
Apologia
cap.
9.
expresly
affirmeth
Christians
not
to
〈◊〉
bloud
at
all
but
to
abstaine
for
that
cause
from
beasts
dying
of
themselues
or
strangled
,
least
they
should
be
defiled
with
bloud
&c.
Blandina
also
in
her
Martyrdome
mentioned
by
Eusebius
lib.
5.
hist.
cap.
1.
telleth
the
Gentils
that
they
did
much
erre
in
thinking
Christians
to
eate
the
bloud
of
infants
,
who
(
sayd
she
)
vse
not
the
bloud
of
beasts
,
which
is
testifyed
also
of
Christians
by
Minutius
Felix
in
Octauio
,
by
Origen
contra
Celsum
lib.
8.
&
sundry
later
Councells
haue
vnder
great
penalties
forbidden
the
eating
of
such
meates
,
Apostolically
prohibited
to
all
Christians
.
So
that
their
doctrine
and
practise
is
not
Iewishly
grounded
,
as
Iohn
Traskes
opinions
are
,
on
a
cerimonious
precept
of
the
old
law
,
certainly
abrogated
,
as
is
already
proued
:
but
they
obserue
it
as
a
precept
giuen
to
Noah
by
God
himselfe
in
the
law
of
nature
,
repeated
in
Moyses
law
,
and
renewed
by
the
Apostles
.
The
difficulty
also
of
this
question
is
increased
and
made
more
hard
,
and
vneasy
to
be
solued
,
by
reason
,
that
the
Aduersaries
against
whome
I
am
to
dispute
,
admit
no
infallible
authority
of
any
ancient
or
moderne
Church
,
guided
by
Christs
holy
Spirit
,
and
lead
into
all
truth
,
so
that
faithfull
people
may
securely
and
without
danger
of
erring
imbrace
her
communion
,
follow
her
directions
,
&
rest
in
her
iudgment
,
as
the
supporting
pillar
&
foundation
of
Truth
,
according
to
the
Apostle
1.
Tim.
3.
They
admit
no
Apostolicall
Tradition
or
certayne
rule
to
know
any
vnwritten
doctrin
to
haue
byn
held
and
practised
since
Christ
successiuely
and
vniuersally
by
Christians
.
Finally
they
little
regard
any
reasonable
discourse
or
Theologicall
deduction
,
not
litterally
and
playnely
expressed
in
Scripture
,
the
only
Rule
of
their
faith
and
Iudge
of
controuersies
betweene
vs
.
According
to
which
their
vsuall
and
vnreasonable
manner
I
cannot
more
forcibly
endeauour
to
disproue
this
their
Puritanicall
abstinence
from
bloud
and
strangled
meates
,
then
by
orderly
prouing
three
thinges
.
1.
That
this
precept
giuen
to
Noah
(
Gen.
9.
vers.
4.
)
was
mysterious
and
not
morall
in
it selfe
.
2.
That
it
was
not
but
for
a
time
only
,
and
for
ends
now
wholy
ceased
,
decreed
by
the
Apostles
(
Act.
15.
vers.
20.
28.
)
3.
That
it
hath
beene
since
by
a
holy
and
lawfull
practise
of
Christs
Church
generally
repealed
,
so
as
it
is
a
singular
fancy
for
Christians
now
againe
to
renew
the
obseruance
thereof
.
And
that
this
abstinence
from
bloud
and
strangled
meates
was
not
a
morall
precept
,
I
proue
first
by
the
reason
for
which
God
prohibited
those
meates
to
Noah
and
his
Posterity
,
which
was
chiefly
by
this
horrour
of
bloud
to
make
them
detest
man-slaughter
,
and
bloudy
cruelty
,
as
appeareth
by
Gods
wordes
immediatly
annexed
to
that
precept
,
Genes.
9
vers.
5.
6.
7
that
sinne
of
murder
hauing
beene
first
committed
by
Cain
(
Genes.
cap.
4.
vers.
8.
)
afterwards
by
Lamech
(
ibidem
v.
23.
)
Nomrod
also
and
other
mighty
men
in
those
first
ages
of
the
world
,
ouer
easily
multiplyed
that
horrible
offence
against
Gods
intended
propagation
of
mankind
:
whereas
now
to
vs
Christians
the
example
of
our
Sauiours
meekenes
,
his
expresse
prohibition
of
killing
,
striking
,
or
miscalling
our
Neighbours
,
his
doctrine
of
pardoning
seauenty
times
seauen
our
enemyes
,
of
being
quickly
reconciled
vnto
them
,
of
doing
good
for
euill
,
and
praying
for
such
as
persecute
vs
&c.
do
sufficiently
instruct
vs
to
abstaine
from
effusion
of
bloud
and
cruelty
:
so
that
such
a
horrour
of
bloud
in
meates
cannot
for
that
end
be
longer
necessary
to
be
continued
by
Christians
.
Secondly
,
if
this
precept
had
byn
a
morall
law
,
necessary
to
direct
vs
in
humane
conuersation
and
manners
towards
God
,
or
between
our selues
,
it
had
no
doubt
byn
included
in
that
natural
law
,
by
which
Noah
and
his
faithfull
posterity
were
sufficiently
instructed
,
and
taught
to
know
the
morall
good
and
euill
of
their
actions
,
&
to
refraine
from
sinne
in
them
:
So
as
this
precept
had
byn
vnnecessarily
imposed
if
perfect
reason
and
naturall
iudgment
had
otherwise
taught
it
vnto
them
,
as
it
did
other
morall
precepts
.
Thirdly
,
neuer
any
Philosopher
or
wise
Gentill
,
ignorant
of
that
positiue
precept
giuen
to
Noah
,
either
taught
or
practised
after
Christs
dayes
or
before
,
abstinence
from
bloud
&
strangled
meats
,
as
a
morall
&
natural
precept
;
neither
can
it
be
,
as
I
haue
els
where
declared
out
of
naturall
reason
,
the
rule
of
naturall
lawes
,
iudiciously
conceaued
,
that
bloud
or
strangled
meates
entring
the
body
,
can
defile
the
soule
&c.
Neither
was
the
Apostles
Decree
(
Act.
15.
)
concerning
abstinence
from
such
meates
,
imposed
on
the
Gentills
as
a
morall
law
perpetually
to
continue
,
but
only
as
an
easy
obseruance
necessary
for
a
time
,
the
better
to
vnite
Iewes
and
Gentills
,
in
the
vnity
of
one
Church
.
For
the
Iewes
hauing
an
especiall
horrour
of
Idoll-offerings
,
strangled
meats
,
&
bloud
,
would
haue
abhorred
al
manner
of
society
with
Gentils
,
if
they
had
not
obserued
some
kind
of
order
and
conformity
in
meates
with
them
.
And
this
is
to
be
proued
first
out
of
the
decree
it selfe
Act.
15.
vers.
28.
wherin
it
seemed
good
to
the
holy
Ghost
and
the
Apostles
,
to
lay
no
further
burden
vpon
the
Gentills
then
that
they
should
abstaine
&c.
By
which
wordes
(
no
further
burden
)
is
plainely
insinuated
vnto
vs
,
that
the
prohibition
of
such
meats
was
a
part
of
that
burden
which
the
Apostles
would
not
haue
wholy
laid
on
the
Gentills
neckes
,
to
wit
the
cerimonious
obseruances
of
Moyses
Law
,
so
many
in
number
and
so
hard
in
practise
,
as
few
amongst
the
Iewes
obserued
them
,
ibid.
v.
10.
and
so
consequently
it
was
no
morall
precept
included
in
Christs
law
formerly
imbraced
and
professed
by
the
faithfull
Gentills
.
Secondly
,
the
Gentills
were
by
the
same
Apostolicall
authority
,
and
for
the
like
respects
commaunded
to
abstaine
from
Idoll-offeringes
,
as
they
were
taught
to
refraine
from
meates
strangled
and
bloud
.
But
the
same
Gentills
were
authorized
afterwards
by
S.
Paul
ad
Rom.
14.
1.
ad
Corin.
cap.
8.
&
10.
to
eate
Idoll-offeringes
without
scruple
or
question
,
as
hath
byn
in
my
former
Question
already
declared
:
wherefore
then
might
they
not
afterwards
in
like
manner
be
licensed
to
eat
indifferently
meates
strangled
and
bloud
?
For
(
saith
S.
Augustin
cont.
Faustum
lib.
32.
cap.
13.
)
albeit
the
Apostles
then
commaunded
Christians
to
abstaine
from
bloud
and
strangled
meates
,
choosing
for
a
time
an
easy
obseruance
,
and
not
burden
some
to
the
Gentils
,
that
the
Iewes
and
they
might
be
built
on
the
same
corner
stone
&c.
yet
after
the
Church
of
the
Gentills
became
such
,
as
no
natural
Israelite
appeared
therein
,
what
Christian
now
obserueth
it
so
as
not
to
touch
black
birdes
,
and
other
lesser
birdes
,
vnlesse
their
bloud
be
effused
,
or
not
to
eate
a
Hare
or
Conny
killed
only
with
a
blow
giuen
in
the
necke
,
without
any
other
bloudy
wound
?
and
if
perchance
some
feare
to
touch
those
meates
,
they
are
derided
by
other
Christians
:
so
that
in
S.
Austines
dayes
,
especially
in
those
Western
Churches
,
as
Iews
(
for
whose
satisfaction
and
better
gayning
to
Christ
that
cerimoniall
Abstinence
was
conditionally
and
for
a
time
only
imposed
)
ceased
to
imbrace
the
Christian
faith
,
so
the
obligation
of
that
precept
ceased
also
,
&
began
to
be
no
longer
obserued
by
Christians
.
And
as
the
Eastern
Churches
were
neerest
to
Hierusalem
,
&
most
stored
with
Iewish
Conuertites
;
so
the
Apostolicall
precept
of
abstayning
from
strangled
meats
and
bloud
was
in
those
Churches
longest
obserued
.
And
in
those
first
ages
after
Christ
,
because
Christians
were
by
occasion
of
the
Carpocratians
and
other
wicked
heretikes
,
eating
children
sacrificed
,
with
abhominable
rites
,
for
their
Eucharist
,
exceedingly
traduced
and
infamed
to
the
Gentill
magistrates
;
therefore
to
shew
themselues
innocent
and
fre
from
such
horible
slaunders
,
they
holily
,
whilst
those
monstruous
Sects
continued
,
tyed
themselues
to
a
Christian
obseruance
of
that
Apostolicall
decree
,
as
the
aboue
mentioned
authorityes
of
Tertullian
,
Eusebius
,
and
other
producible
testimonyes
of
antiquity
do
certainely
testify
;
which
maketh
nothing
at
all
to
proue
the
still
continuing
obligation
of
the
precept
generally
anulled
by
the
contrary
practice
of
Christians
in
after
ages
.
If
my
aduersaryes
obiect
,
that
as
the
decree
of
the
Apostles
was
according
to
the
prohibition
of
Fornication
therein
contayned
,
a
moral
Law
still
continuing
:
so
was
the
same
decree
morall
also
according
to
those
inioyned
abstinencyes
from
meates
&c.
I
answere
,
that
the
prohibition
of
Fornication
was
a
morall
precept
;
reducible
to
the
Commandment
of
not
committing
Adultery
,
contayned
in
the
Decalogue
,
necessarily
imposed
at
that
tyme
to
instruct
the
Gentils
newly
conuerted
in
the
Christian
law
of
Matrimony
,
and
to
deterre
them
from
Concubinisme
,
and
vsing
any
more
then
one
of
those
many
women
whome
peraduenture
they
had
ben
accustomed
carnally
to
haue
known
before
their
conuersions
:
wheras
their
inioyned
abstinence
from
bloud
and
stangled
meates
,
was
no
more
decreed
as
a
morall
and
euer
continuing
law
,
then
was
their
like
prohibition
of
meates
sacrificed
to
Idolls
,
plainely
repealed
in
the
Apostles
time
by
a
contrary
and
lawfull
practise
of
Christians
.
And
whereas
S.
Paul
ad
Rom.
14.
vers.
1.
&c.
accounted
it
only
weaknes
in
the
Christian
Iewes
of
those
times
to
tye
themselues
to
the
legall
obseruance
of
meates
,
and
to
be
scandalized
at
the
liberty
of
the
Gentills
,
eating
indifferently
all
thinges
,
it
is
now
to
be
worthily
reputed
an
extrauagant
folly
&
fancy
for
our
pure
Professours
of
spiritual
Sanctity
and
Euangelical
Perfection
to
tye
themselues
to
such
a
Cerimoniall
,
and
burdensome
obseruance
of
meats
,
neuer
dreamed
of
in
many
ages
past
by
their
Christian
&
Catholike
Predecessours
,
and
nothing
pertinent
to
their
pretended
adoration
,
and
seruice
of
God
in
spirit
and
verity
.