A Bloody Tenent confuted, OR, BLOOD FORBIDDEN: SHOWING The unlawfulness of eating Blood, in what manner of thing soever.  
Wherein is clearly proved by Scripture, that eating of Blood was always unlawful both to Jews and Gentiles; and is still unlawful for Christians under the Gospel.  
WITH An Answer to all Objections to the contrary: And the vindicating of this Opinion from Judaisme.  Levit. 17.10. 
And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood, I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and cut him off from his people.  Deut. 12.23, 24. 
Only be sure thou eat not the blood, for the blood is the life, etc. Thou shalt not eat it, thou shalt power it upon the earth as water.  
Thou shalt not eat it, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.  
LONDON, Printed for H. S. and W. L. 1646.   

A Bloody Tenet confuted, OR, Blood forbidden.  
BEing to discourse upon a point, which almost all men deny; and being to show the unlawfulness of that which most men count lawful, it will be expected▪ should make some Apology for the novelty, or newness of the opinion.  
That which I shall say is:  
First, that the objection of novelty, or newness of an opinion, taken in a 〈◊〉 sense, is a sure rule to convince an error: viz. when an opinion is broached cont●●● and besides the Scripture, which is the good old way, that ancient standard, by w●●● all opinions must be measured.  
Secondly, that the objection of the novelty, or newness of an opinion, 〈◊〉 any ●ther sense, as it is usually now taken, for a differing from what our forefathers' 〈◊〉 hold, is a very weak and unreasonable objection, as easily might be proved at larg●●  
Thirdly, the objection of novelty is not only weak, but mischievous, as might be showed in all ages, hindering men from the s●●rch of the Scriptures, and is the gr●●● of the implicit faith now in Rome, and a great cause of the quarrels in all Chr●●● Churches, and of the present troubles of this our Kingdom, as easily might 〈◊〉 shown.  
Briefly to answer these Antiquaries with the words of St. Cyprian, whom 〈◊〉 sure they will not count a Sectary, or novelist: His words are, Quid his, 〈…〉 ●nte nos fecerit, aut docuerit, sed quid is qui ante ●●mes est, Christ●●s, etc. What this or that man did, or taught, before us; but what he did who was before all, 〈◊〉 Christ himself, who only is the way, the truth, and the life, from whose precep 〈◊〉 we ought not to digress: Cyprian. ad Caecil. lib. ●. ●pist. 3. So to Pa●●p against S●●●. Om●es quip antiquitates, etc. All antiquity and custom not grounded o● the truth, is to be accounted no other than an ancient error. To which Austin 〈◊〉 against the Donatists, lib. 2. cap. 3. and Jerome in his Epistle to Minerium.  
Briefly, if this opinion against eating of blood, upon due examination, find not 〈◊〉 foundation in the written word of the ancienter days, let it be rejected as a no 〈◊〉▪ but if it find footing there, let the greatest Antiquary in the world reject it, if he 〈◊〉▪  
Briefly to the point, three things I shall do to clear it.  

First, ci●e the Scriptures which expressly forbidden the eating of any manner of 〈◊〉.  
Secondly, I shall show, that these Scriptures which forbidden ●●ing of b●ou●, 〈…〉 all men, both Jews, Gentiles, and Christians.  
Thirdly, answer the objections to the contrary.   
For the first, the Scriptures to this purpose are many, express, plain●, and obvious to every man's eye, s●ar●ely any thing set out more clearly; some of which I shall cite at large: Le●it. 7, 26, Ye● shal● eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl, or of beast, in any of your dwellings: mark what follows: whatsoever he be (Prince or Potentate, Gentle or Simple) that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people, that is penalty enough. So Levit. 17.10, 11, 12, 13, etc. Whatsoever man there be of the ●●●se of Israel, or stranger which sojourns among you, that eateth any manner of blood: What of him? What? Sentence severe enough: I will (saith God) even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and that is not all neither; but I will cut him off from his people. A heavy sentence. What is the reason of it? Not because blood was ceremonially unclean, as some would have it; but because (as it is fou●● or fi●e times repeated in the following verses) I say it is the life of the beast: but more of that afterwards. Then it follows, Therefore said I to the children of Israel (twice repeated in this Chapter) no soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger among you eat any blood, etc. And in the fourteenth verse he repeats it again, Whosoever eateth it shall be cut off. See the latter part of that Chapter at large. What can be more plain, if there were no other Text? No manner of person, nor no manner of blood. For, it is the life of the beast; and, it is the life of the beast, again and again, and, I will set my face against him, and I will cut him off, twice repeated. If this be not plain enough, no Rhetoric in the world can make it plain. So Deut. 22.16. where God tells them, they might eat flesh, what their souls desired, only, that they should not eat the blood, but should pour it as water upon the ground. And in vers. 23, 24, 25. having told them what beasts they might eat the flesh of, he concludes, only be sure (observe that) that thou eat not the blood: No what is the matter? is it unclean? No, no: It is the life of the beast: Be you not so cruel, that when I give you leave to eat the flesh, that you will eat the very life of the beast. And it followeth, And thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh: Nay, as if God did foresay our foolish custom of eating black puddings, on purpose to beat it into our heads, whether we will or no, he repeats it, Thou shalt not eat it: No? What shall we do with it then, shall we lose good victuals? yea, says God, You shall pour it upon the ground like water; yea, but I hope though we must let it pour out of the beast, yet we may save it in a dish, to make puddings with it, or else we should be counted very ill huswives. Well, if you will be counted ●●tter huswives than God would have you, who can help it: But God tells you expressly, Levit. 17.13. that you shall not only pour it out, and out upon the ground, but that you shall cover it with dust; and if you will make puddings of dust, I doubt your market will be spoilt. And it follows Deut. 12.25. Thou shalt not eat it, that it may go well with th●●, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord. Lo, here is both blessing and cursing, to keep us from eating of blood: Arguments strong enough, if we are flesh and blood, much more if we are Christians.  
So Gen. 9.4. God takes care the first time that we read flesh allowed to be eaten: yet he commands Noah; But the flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood, ye ●●al● not eat: So Levit. 19.16.  
Nay, what say you to a Text in the New Testament, not to the Jews, but to the Christian-Gentiles: Well, such a Text there is, Acts 15.28, 29. For it se● 〈◊〉 good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to Idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from which if you keep yourselves, you shall 〈◊〉 well. You see that neither Old nor New Testament can feare● mention the ●●●b●dding of eating blood, but it annexeth either a blessing to them that abstain, or a 〈◊〉 to such as practise it.  
It is true I confess, many think this Text of Acts 15.28. makes against my opinion, and for the lawfulness of eating blood; for (say they) abstaining from blood is here forbidden to the Christian-Gentiles, only as an indifferent thing to avoid ●n offence, amongst other indifferent things.  
Answ. We answer: For them that hold that opinion, if they will hold it upon any ground, they must not beg the question, when so many plain express precepts, both of the Law with penalty and blessings annexed, and before the Law to Noab, do expressly forbid and prohibit it, men must not think upon another Text in the New Testament which forbids the same thing, and no intimation of making it indifferent, but rather sinful; I say men must not without some better ground count the eating of blood forbidden, Acts 15. to be forbidden as an idifferent thing only.  
But they say blood is there joined with meats offered to Idols, an indifferent thing; Ergo, Blood is indifferent.  
Answ. We answer: whether the eating of meats offered to Idols, in that sense there spoken of, be indifferent or no, more shall be said in the answer to the objections.  
But in case it should be indifferent, and blood joined with it, my argument is every whit as good thus.  
Forbidding to eat blood is joined with fornication, a sin against the Moral Law, and is punished with damnation, 1 Cor. 6.9. Ergo, the eating of blood is a sin against the Law of God, and is punishable with damnation: For blood is as well joined with fornication, Acts 15. as with meats offered to Idols.  
So much for that point, the Scriptures that forbidden to eat blood.  
The second thing is, to prove these Laws to bind us, as well as the Jews: That I shall do thus: 

First, because this Law of forbidding to eat blood, was given to Noah, the father both of Jews and Gentiles, long before the Ceremonial Law, as is clear Gen. 9 4. Thou shalt not eat the flesh with the life, which is the blood: A Text express enough, long before the Ceremonial Law: So that from hence we may argue thus. 

1 This Law was given to the father of both Jews and Gentiles, for him and his posterity. But all the world are the posterity of Noah, to whom this Law was given. Ergo, All the world are bound to this Law, of forbidding to eat blood.  
2 Thus the Ceremonial Law was given to the Jews only, and to such as should become their Proselytes. But the Law of prohibiting to eat blood, was given to the Gentiles in their father Noah, and that long before the Ceremonial Law to the Jews. Ergo, the forbidding to eat blood is no part of the Ceremonial Law.    
Secondly, I prove this Law of forbidding to eat blood, to be Moral, and to bind all, both Jews and Gentiles thus.    
Because it was given upon a moral reason, viz. Because blood is the life of the beast, Gen. 9.4. that is, it were a token of extreme cruelty, and unmercifulness, to eat that when the beast is dead, which was the life of it whilst it was living: A cruel thing to eat life itself; and therefore almost continually that reason is given, why blood should not be be eaten, because it is the life of the beast; not because it is an unclean thing, as things forbidden in the Ceremonial Law; but as a cruel thing forbidden, as a Moral Law.  
From hence we may argue thus:  
Things forbidden to be eaten in the Ceremonial Law, was for some positive, or typical uncleanness put upon them.  
But blood was not forbidden to be eaten, as having some positive or typical uncleanness, but as a token of a merciless cruel heart and disposition.  
Ergo. The Law of forbidding to eat blood was no part of the Ceremonial Law.  
But some may say it seems to be a greater token of cruelty to kill the beast, then to eat the blood when it is dead, for in the one the beast feels pain, not in the other.  
Ans. The kill of the beast is permitted to us as of necessity, to make it fit for our use, and cannot be avoided; and the eating of the blood after a beast is dead, though the beast than feels no harm nor pain, yet may it be a greater token of cruelty then to kill it whilst it was alive.  
As may appear by this familiar example.  
It is a greater token of cruelty and inhumanity to tear the flesh of a dead man, or to kick it up and down the streets, or to abuse it, though the dead body feels no pain, than it is to kill a man by hanging him, in case the Law hath condemned him, and delivered him over to execution, and yet that puts the party to pain and not the other.  
So here it is a greater sign and token of cruelty in us to eat the blood of a dead beast, being the life of it whilst it was, though the beast feels no pain, than it is to kill a beast which God by his permission hath delivered into our hands for food, although by the slaying it seeks pain, and in the eating of the blood none.  
So I conceive this second thing is clear that the Law is not ceremonial but binds both Jews and Christians.  
I might add the Text again, Act. 15. forbidding the Gentiles, but more afterwards.  
Who for the third thing to answer objecteth.  
Object. 1. Against this it is objected, that it is the eating of the blood with the flesh that is forbidden, and not when it is separated from the flesh.  
Ans. 1. Then by this objection, things strangled are forbidden, that is to eat such things who lose their lives by strangling or otherwise, not having their blood taken from them.  
Ans. 2. The Scripture is so clear in answering this Objection, that there is no colour of an Objection left; for it doth not only contain to let out the blood of b●●sts, but to let it out as water upon the ground, and sure it cannot be intended 〈◊〉 should be gathered up to be eaten. Nay, to put it out of doubt that you may have no plea left for saving the blood to make puddings, God tells you not only that you shall pour it as water upon the ground, that cannot be gathered up, but that you shall cover it with dust, Levit. 17 13. and then your puddings are all spoiled.  
Object. 2. It is objected this law belonged only to the Jews, and that in that vision to Peter, Act. 10.13, 14. it was there declared, that nothing is to be accounted unclean now under the Gospel.  
Ans. Blond was never forbidden under the notion of an unclean thing only, but upon a moral reason, as it was a token of cruelty, and that Text in the Acts speak only of unclean beasts, so that vision never cleansed the cruelty of eating blood, neither is it any thing at all to the purpose, but that men catch at any thing to maintain their fancies.  
Object. 3. In the third place it is objected, that Acts 15.29. blood and things strangled, are counted indifferent things, and forbidden to the Gentiles only for 〈◊〉 time to avoid offence.  
Ans. We answer, this is a mere begging the question, we say eating blood an● things strangled, are not indifferent, but sinful, and this Text doth not so much as once intimate that they are indifferent, but rather the contrary, when it ranks it with fornication, a sin against the Moral Law, unless you will account fornication to be a thing indifferent as some have held from this Text, and with as good reason as they who held blood and things strangled are indifferent, from this Text.  
Oh but some will be ready to say, you must not shift off this Text so, for here is meats offered to Idols forbidden, and that was a thing indifferent; only forbidden for scandal as Paul shows, 1 Cor. 20. so therefore was blood.  
Ans. 1. If it should be granted that things offered to Idols are things indifferent, and blood is joined with them, yet this makes not the eating blood to be indifferent, no more than it makes fornication indifferent, with which it is likewise joined.  
But secondly it is qustionable, whether that the meats offered to Idols here forbidden were indifferent or no; for there was in eating of things offered to Idols, at the time and place of the offering, aswell as of the flesh which was left afterward, and I never heard any reason yet, why it was not the eating of meat at the time of offering and in the presence of the Idol which is here forbidden, and then I am sure that was never counted an indifferent thing, but a sinful thing, and so is to this day.  
Object. 4. Oh but it is objected, Rom. 14.14. Paul saith, that that there is nothing unclean of itself, etc. Ergo, not blood.  
Ans. 1. This is one of the worthy objections; for we do not say blood is unclean or forbidden as an unclean thing, but as a cruel thing.  
Secondly no man is so mad to apply Paul's words so universally, as to every individual thing in the world, as if every thing were clean and fit for food, for than it comprehends toads, poison, man's flesh, nay stones and trees; which I think none will say are clean food, nay that soon of them are lawful, as man's flesh, etc. so there is no ground this Text should extend to blood; neither is Paul's scope or drift to show any such thing, as easily might be showed.  
Object. 5. It is again Objected, 1 Tim. 4.5. every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving.  
Ans. The same answer might serve this as did the former objection, but we answer, Paul must be understood of all such things as are not forbidden. As when he says 1 Cor. 10. all things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient. No man is so mad, is to think Paul meant under the word all, that it was lawful for him to murder, or commit adultery, etc. but his words must be restrained to the things he spoke of; so here, when he says every creature is good, you must neither extend it to things unwholesome for food, or unlawful for food, as we have showed blood to be.  
Object. 6. It is objected, Tit. 1.15. to the pure, all things are pure, Ergo, blood lawful to be eaten.  
Ans. There is no ground in this Text to show that Paul speaks at all with relation to food, to conclude all meats to be pure. I rather think the contrary, considering whom he speaketh of, namely the Cretians, whom he says Verse 12. that were evil beasts and slow bellies, and it is not like they who minded to fill their guts so much, should trouble themselves so much about the lawfulness of food, neither is it like that Paul here confutes them in any such thing.  
It's not to our purpose to search out the particular concerning which Paul speaks, it sufficeth he speaketh not concerning meats, or if he did, yet this universal phrase must be expounded, by such exceptions as the Scripture makes to it, and no otherwise, and cannot extend to the lawfulness of blood.  
Object. 7. It is objected, Deut. 14.21. there God forbids to the sews that they should eat any thing that dieth of itself, but they should give it to a stranger to eat, or they might sell it to an alien. The force of the objection lies thus:  
A beast that dies of itself hath the blood in the flesh still remaining, but is allowed to strangers or aliens to eat it notwithstanding, although the Jews might not.  
Ergo, This Law concerning e●●●g of blood, concerned the Jews only, and so was temporary.  
Ans. To this we answer, that indeed this objection hath more force of reason then all the rest; but we answer thus:  
First, that by a beast that dies of itself you may understand, a beast that is sick of a disease which is commonly mortal, or causeth death, and upon the sight thereof the beast is slain, and his blood taken from him, yet because of the disease which was mortal, he is in a sort said to die of himself, and because the food was not therefore so wholesome, as of beasts which were slain in a common way for food, therefore the Jews were to sell it to an alien, and not to eat it; and take it so, than it makes nothing to the eating of blood.  
But secondly, taking it for granted, that it is spoken of a b●●st, that wholly dies of itself; yet it seems, if it be taken whilst it is yet warm, and stuck with a knife, some blood will come from it, and so the case will be but in a manner with the case of a beast killed by an unskilful butcher, or which by some other accident only part of the blood, is taken from the beast and part remaining in his flesh, and yet it is 〈◊〉 unlawful to eat such flesh, although there be some blood in it: otherwise, th●● would scarce be any meat eaten lawfully, because heardly any beast or foul that is killed, voideth all his blood, neither is God's forbidding to eat blood to be taken so strictly, as that no flesh might be eaten except every drop of the blood were out, 〈◊〉 it requires we should use our endeavours to void the blood out, and not to eat it wi●● the blood in the flesh, much less that we should eat it when we have severed it from the flesh.  
And so we conclude, that a stranger might be permitted to eat such a beast, which died of itself; and that it was not forbidden to the Jews, because of some blo●● which avoidable remained in it, and would not be voided out, but for some other reason of typical impurity, or uncleanness, or the like, and so is nothing to the p●int in hand.  
Thus have we briefly and clearly (as we conceive) proved the unlawfulness of eating blood, and answered all objections to the contrary.  
To conclude therefore, let us lay aside this cruel custom of eating the lives of beasts, as it is used throughout all England, in unhallowed black puddings, as we will show ourselves therefore to be merciful men, not inhuman; as we will not be found to be disobeyers of God in such express precepts, but obeyers of his will, and doers of those things that are right in his eyes, as we would have the favour of God, and to prosper both us and our children, and not to be cut off from our people, and have the face of God continually set against us for evil; let us speedily lay aside this barbarous custom of eating black puddings.  
FINIS.