THE TRIAL OF A BLACK-PUDDING. OR, The unlawfulness of Eating Blood proved by Scriptures, Before the LAW, Under the LAW, and After the LAW. BY A well wisher to Ancient Truth. LONDON: Printed by F: N. and are to be sold by John Hancock in Pope's Head-Alley. 1652. THE TRIAL OF THE BLACK PUDDING: OR, THE EATING OF BLOOD Questioned, Convinced, Condemned. SIR, I Have at last got a Copy of the Treatise, you mentioned to me, but with much ado, and for a short time. I made use of my spare hours to extract the sum of it, which here I do impart, and commend to your more serious consideration. I confess, I was always tender in that point, not knowing, what or how to resolve; seeing on one side express and literal Scripture inhibitions; on the other side, the Church's practice and approbation; and being loath to lay an unnecessary burden upon my conscience, and yet fearing to transgress so plain and literal inhibitions, my judgement was distracted between fear to be accounted singular, if I should abstain; and fear to transgress a Law, if I should receive. Now this Treatise in my opinion doth make the point clear enough to any rationable man, that will submit rather to the word, and be ruled by it, then to the conceits and practice of men. I do wonder, you do so violently exclaim against it, as Judaical, and Mosaical, when we see the Apostles Canon and Decree, touching this and other restraints, was published and enjoined then, when all other parts of the Ceremonial Law were altogether abolished, and this Law against Eating of Blood de novo re commanded, and recommended to all Christians practice and observation, you will see more e of it in this Extract, which if you like, I will endeavour to get the whole Treatise, and impart it to you, Herein only I differ from the Author, that he maketh this restraint from eating of Blood General and binding of all men, as men: Whereas, I rather think, it doth concern and oblige only God's people, and under the Gospel all Christians, and such as make profession of Jesus Christ. For what have we to do with them, that are without? I pray, read it without pre-conceit, consider it without partiality, and judge it without passion. Farewell. THE QUESTION IS, Whether it be lawful to Christians under the Gospel, to eat Blood? THe Author answereth Negatively, and saith No, it is not lawful: and doth prove it by one General, and three sorts of particular grounds and Arguments. The main Argument is this: That precept, or command, which God hath given to man before the Law, renewed to the Israelites under the Law, confirmed to Christians after the Law, without any distinction of Times, Places, Persons, is Moral, and perpetual. But the Law against eating of Blood was thus given, before, under, and after the Law, and never repealed. Ergo that Law is Moral and perpetual. The Major or Proposition of this syllogism is thus proved; because 1. the whole time of the Churches subsisting on Earth is divided into these three ages, before, under, and after the Law; so that what Command of God soever was given in any one of these three ages, it did bind all and every one in the Church, during that age of the Church. Now the same Command against Blood, being re-confirmed in all three ages, it was made binding of all men in the Church in all these three ages, and consequently for ever. 2. Because we can hardly find any such command of that Nature, but was either natural or moral; as the Law of keeping the Sabbath, and against murder, which being made in all three Ages, doth prove it moral and perpetual. The Minor or Assumption is contained in the very words of Scripture. For this precept was given before the Law, Gen. 9.4: renewed under the Law, Levit. 17.10. seq: confirmed after the Law, Act. 15.28. Ergo this precept is moral and perpetual. Object. Circumcision was commanded before, and under the Law, and practised after the Law, Ergo it doth not follow, that whatsoever hath a footing in these three Ages, is moral, etc. R: 1. Though Circumcision was commanded before, and under the Law, yet not after the Law, but rather expressly forbidden. Act. 15.10, 19.24. Gal. 5.2. Ergo the comparison faileth. 2. Circumcision was commanded before the Law, but only to one man, Abraham, and his posterity, and consequently doth and cannot bind all men, as the Law against Blood, which was given to Noah, and his posterity, and consequently to all men. The particular Arguments against Eating of Blood are taken from several places of Scripture, in all the three Ages of the Church, which the Author doth prosecute largely, the sum whereof is, as followeth. I. From the command of God before the Law, Gen 9.4. But Flesh with the life thereof, which is the Blood thereof, ye shall not eat. In these words of God's inhibition, the Author findeth three grounds against Blood. 1. From the Persons, to whom this Command was given, Noah, his sons, and posterity, v. 1.9. from whence he doth conclude: Whatsoever Command was given to Man as Man, at the beginning of a 2d. Creation, without any repealing of it in after ages, that Command is Moral and Perpetual. But this Command was thus given. Ergò. The Major is undoubted. The Minor appeareth in the text; where we see, that the Law against eating of Blood was given to the same persons, to whom the blessing of multiplication was given, v: 1. the dominion over the Creatures. v: 2. the permission to eat flesh, v. 3. the command against shedding of Blood. Now all these particulars belong properly to Mankind, without distinction of Persons. Ergò the Law against Blood also, which consequently is Moral and perpetual. 2. From Gods own reason, why he would have us abstain from Blood; because Blood is the life of the flesh, i: e: blood doth contain, and maintain, and convey the vital spirits to all the parts of the body, which receive their ordinary nourishment from the Blood, so that blood being taken away, their lives are taken away. Now God would not have Men eat the life and the soul of Beasts, a thing barbarous and unnatural; so that if it was unlawful then, it is unlawful still to eat Blood, because Blood is still the life of beasts, from whence he concludeth: Wheresoever the same reason, and ground of a Command continueth, there the Command itself continueth in force, till it be expressly abolished. Now the reason, why God would have Men abstain from eating of Blood, continueth; because it is the life of Beasts. Ergò. Obj. The fourth Command hath a continuing reason annexed, because the Lord rested the Seventh Day, and yet that day is altered. Ergò a perpetual reason doth not always prove the perpetuity of a command. Answ: The change of the day of Sabbath is by an express order from God and his Apostles; but we have no such change or alteration of the Law against eating of Blood, which is expressed in the Major, as a limitation, Ergò it continueth still. 2. From God's End in this precept, which was, according to the best Fathers and Divines opinion, to teach us humanity, meekness, bowels of mercy: as if God had said, I would have you abstain from eating the blood of Beasts, that so ye might be the more careful to abstain from shedding the blood of Men. Now this end of God continueth still, who will have us still to labour for humanity, kindness, tender-heartedness, etc. Eph: 4.32: Gal: 5.22. Col. 3.12. and consequently the means to attain this end must continue. From whence he gathereth this conclusion: Where the end intended by God in a Command doth continue, there the means appointed by God for that end ought to continue, unless they be expressly forbidden. Now the end intended by God in this Command doth still continue. Ergò. Obj: The end cannot prove the command lasting, unless it can be proved by the mind of the Lawgiver, that the Command is the only perpetual means to continue for that end: which cannot be said of abstaining from Blood, to be the only, perpetual means to teach us humanity etc. R: An absurd consequence: To abstain from Blood is not the only means, to teach us humanity, Ergò we ought not abstain from Blood. God prescribeth many means to attain to one, and the same end, for the good of body and soul; as for example, to eat, drink, rest, exercise, and use Physic, etc. for outward health: and to hear, read, pray, meditate, confer, etc. for our spiritual health: All these particulars serve for the same end, yet we cannot say any one of them to be the only means, and yet we are bound, as occasion is offered, to make use of all, shall we not eat, nor sleep &c because it is not the only means to preserve our health? shall we not hear, or pray, etc. because neither of it is the only means to preserve Grace in us? God forbidden. If God appointeth a thing to be a means to obtain an end, whether it be the only, or perpetual means, or one of the means, we are bound to use it, as long as it may be a means to obtain that end, unless it be expressly prohibited of God. Now God having appointed the abstaining from blood, as a means to teach us humanity, we must use it, till we are forbidden it. II. From the Command of God under the Law, Levit. 17. v: 10.14. And whatsoever man there be, of the house of Israel, or of the strangers, that so journeth amongst you that eateth any manner of blood, etc. From these and the following words, the Author draweth three arguments more; as, 1. From the repetition of the first natural reason, which God gave to Noah, and his Sons, because blood is the life of Beasts: to show, that the same ground and reason continuing still, for which God at first had forbidden the eating of Blood, the duty should continue likewise; and that the Israelites as Men, and of Noah's Posterity were bound to observe this Law, as long as this reason continueth; from whence he concludeth thus: Whatsoever Law or precept was given to the Isralites, as Noah's posterity, that Law is Moral and Perpetual. But this Law against eating Blood was thus given. Ergò it is Moral and Perpetual. Obj. The main reason added to the renewing of this Law was Ceremonall, and Typical. v: 12. For I have given you the Blood upon the Altar, etc. Ergo this Law bound not others but the Israelites; and no more, than other Ceremonial Laws. R: Though one reason alleged in this Chapter was ceremonial, and bound only the Israelites, yet there were other reasons more general and moral, which bond all men, as that natural reason, v: 11. Because the blood is the life of Beasts, and a judicial reason, that else God would punish them, and cut them off, v: 10.19. seq: And God gave here a threefold reason, natural, mystical, and judicial reason, in the confirmation of this Law to the Israelites, to tie the Israelites the faster to the obedience of this Law, as Men, Israelites, and in Covenant with God. A threefold cord is not easily broken, Eccles: 4.12. 2. From the Persons to whom this renewed command was given, viz: to all Men, Whatsoever Man there be. And lest they should apply it to all Men only that were Israelites, and in the Covenant, it is added, whether he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers, that sojourn amongst you, v: 10. as if God would say, All men, and every one of you, none excepted, of what Country, Religion, profession soever, if he live or sojourn amongst you, shall be bound to this Law. From whence the Author argueth thus: Whatsoever Law amongst the Israelites, did not only bind themselves, but their strangers also that did but sojourn amongst them, that Law is Moral, and Perpetual. But the Law against eating Blood, did bind all strangers. Ergò. The Major is certain: because no stranger or alien durst sojourn amongst the Israelites, but was bound to observe all Moral Laws, though he was freed from all Ceremonial Laws. For the strangers needed not to be circumcised, or to eat the Passeover; but they were bound to keep the Sabbath, Exod: 20.13. Nebem: 13.16.20. and durst not blaspheme or curse, Levit: 24.16. and the like. The Minor is in the words of the Text. Ergo the conclusion is infallible. Obj. There were two sorts of strangers amongst the Israelites; One by descent and birth, but not by Religion, being proselytes to the Jewish Religion, and these were bound to observe all Ceremonies, and amongst the rest, to forbear from Blood: The other sort of strangers was both by birth and Religion, aliens from the Israelites, and not bound to Ceremonial Laws, neither to abstain from blood, as it appeareth out of Deut: 14.21. R. 1. The distinction is true, but not sufficient. For we find three sorts of strangers amongst the Israelites, 1. proselytes, which were called strangers within the Covenant, 2. Sojourners, called strangers within the gates. 3. Aliens, which were open Idolaters, living in neighbour Countries about them. The first sort of them was bound to all Laws, Moral, Ceremonial, Political: The second sort to Moral, and in some respect to Political, but to no Ceremonial Law at all. For whosoever would live or sojourn amongst them, must yield and submit himself to the seven great commandments, which were given, according to the Hebrews relation, to the Sons of Noah, amongst which one was to abstain from Blood. The third sort of strangers durst not live or sojourn amongst them at all, as Ainsworth and other learned men report. Now the Law against Blood was given not only to stranger's proselytes, but to stranger's sojourners, which though not of the Jewish Religion, yet sojourning amongst them were bound to it, as appeareth by what is said. Ergo by this expression are not only understood Proselytes, but even Heathen, and Infidels, if within the gates. 2. The place of Scripture alleged out of Deut: 14, 21. where God gave leave to strangers, to eat that, which dieth of itself; and to the Jews, to sell it them to eat, though they themselves durst not eat it: this can prove nothing against the Morality and perpetuity of the Law against eating Blood. For 1. Suppose God had given the strangers leave to eat Blood in the carcase, which yet is not: he might take it as a particular exception to the general rule, for that time. Now Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis. 2. Though eating of Blood was a sin in itself, yet God's extraordinary warrant and permission intervening, doth make it lawful to that Person, and for that time, that it was allowed. To murder, or to rob is a great sin; yet Gods Command to Abraham to sacrifice his Son, Gen: 22.2. or God's permission (at least) if not command to the Israelites to rob the Egyptians. Exod: 3.22. and 12.35.36. did not make murder or robbing lawful, or abolish the Law against them. 3. It doth not follow, the Aliens might eat that, which died of itself, Ergo they might eat Blood. For either they did eat the carcase cleansed from Blood, as Hugo Grotius upon the Acts 15. judgeth: or they did not eat that Blood, which was forbidden by God, viz: such Blood, as might and should be poured out, in which the soul or life of the Beast goeth out. For this Blood was properly forbidden by God, Levit: 17.12. There was a great difference between Blood and Blood amongst the Jews. And some blood was absolutely forbidden, other Blood lawful to be eaten, even amongst the most zealous and most superstitious. The Hebrews say, that he only was guilty, which did eat the Blood of Beasts and Fowls: but they might eat the Blood of Fishes and Locusts, if clean, as Ainsworth reporteth upon Levit: 17.10. To apply this, the Blood that is left in a carcase cannot properly be said to be the forbidden Blood, ergo the eating of it doth not abolish the Law against eating of Blood. In which respect the Latin calls a carcase ex sangue cadaver. 4. The difference of punishment, which God threatneth to such as eat Blood, or a dead carcase, doth clearly prove a great difference in the act or sin itself. For God will cut him off, and set his face against him, that eateth Blood, Levit. 17.10. but he that eateth of a carcase, should only wash his , bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the Even. v: 15. This should be a sufficient answer to the Objection. 3. Argument is drawn from the Threatening of God's Judgement annexed to it: I will even set my face against that soul which eateth Blood, and will cut him off from amongst his people. Now we can hardly find such an expression, where the Lord threatneth any punishment to Men for breaking Ceremonial Laws; It is true God will many times have the transgressors of Ceremonial Laws to be cut off by men, i: e. either by an Ecclesiastical censure of excommunication; or a civil punishment by death to be afflicted, as we read Gen: 17.14. Exod: 12.19. Levit: 22.3. But we never, or hardly find, that God threatens such an immediate kind of punishment by Himself, to Ceremonial transgressions, as he doth here in this place, Lev: 17. where God threatneth to be not only the Judge, but the Executioner also: as God doth oft in Moral transgressions; Levit: 20.3 6 Jerem: 44.11. Ezek: 14.8 & in other places, from whence the Author thus concludeth: Wheresoever God annexeth a threatening of immediate judgement from Himself to a Law, that Law is Moral and Perpetual: Now in this Law God doth it. Ergo it is Moral and Perpetual. Obj There are many such expressions of God's threatening punishment to ceremonial transgressions, and amongst the rest, Levit: 23.29, 30. Ergo this is no sufficient proof for the Morality of this Law. R, 1. We do not see it yet, nay not in that place alleged, Lev: 23.29, 30. for in that Law of keeping the day of atonement, two things are to be observed; the moral part of it, which is to keep such a day, and to afflict our souls etc. and the Ceremonial part of it, to keep that day of atonement yearly, upon the tenth day of the seventh month, which was a Ceremonial Ordinance, binding only the Israelites; for we may keep such days of atonement at any other convenient time. Now God threatneth a twofold judgement, the one to be inflicted by men, he shall be cut off from amongst his people, for these outward or ceremonial neglects or transgressions, which Man is able to discern and to discover: But the other judgement God reserveth to himself, for the neglect of those moral duties, which Man cannot discern, but only He that knoweth the hearts of men, as, for not afflicting their souls, and sincerely humbling themselves, but resting in outward duties, etc. 2. We answer, that if God doth threaten such immediate judgements to Ceremonial transgressions, than it is in such cases only, where a Moral transgression is joined to Ceremonial, and cannot be severed one from another; but we cannot find any such threatening denounced to merely Ceremonial breaches, and offences alone. 3. And this Calvin takes notice of in his Comment, upon Levit: 17.10. where he saith: God doth not only command to put to death those, which should defile themselves in eating Blood, but he doth threaten to take vengeance. Himself, though they should escape the band of the Judges. For the words do not only exhort the Judges, to do their Office, but that he doth reserve a punishment to himself. III. From the Command of God after the Law. Act. 15.28, 29 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden, than these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered to Idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication, etc. From these words the Author draweth one General, and 3. particular Arguments. The General Argument runneth thus: Whatsoever Law or Command of God is renewed, reconfirmed, reestablished under the Gospel, after the abrogation of all Ceremonial observations, generally, absolutely, without any restriction, or limitation of Time, Place, or Persons, that Law must needs be perpetual, till it be expressly repealed and abrogated by the same Law giver. Now this Law against eating of Blood was so renewed. Ergo. Both Propositions are true; the former being grounded in Reason, the second in Scripture; and consequently the Conclusion undeniable. Obj. This Law was renewed by the Apostles with restitution, and limitation, and was to last no longer, but till Blood might be eaten with a Conscience satisfied in its Christian liberty, and without offence to weak brethren. And therefore cannot be perpetual. R. We answer 1. This limitation is but a humane gloss, and we do not find the least ground or hint of it in the whole word of God. We did show, that God hath forbidden it in general terms, without any limitation: Let them show out of the word, that it was forbidden only for a time. It is a great presumption in man, to limit the time of keeping Gods Commandments, when God himself doth not limit it. In such things we must deal considerably, and not follow the mere ungrounded conceits of Men, but the Rule, To the Law, and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is, because there is no light in them, Isa. 8.20. 2. Suppose it were so, then let us know, when it was, that Christians came to know their liberty in this particular, and that this Law was abolished. We do find it observed, Rev. 2.14, 20. which was about forty years after this Decree was made; And the purest Fathers in the primitive Church do report, that it was observed many hundred years after Christ's Ascension; as we may see in Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 1 Tertullian in his Apologet. cap. 8. where amongst other things he saith, Inter temptamenta Christianorum botulos cruore distentos admonent, etc. they did try men, whether they were Christians, by offering them puddings filled with blood, etc. Origines, li. 8. contra Celsum: Minutius Felix in Octavio etc. Cyrillus Hierosolomit. in 17. catech. chrysostom in Acts 15. Homil. 33. Baronius saith, it was yet in force in St. Augustine's times. Nay longer, in the times of Beda, and Rabanus Maurus, a. c. 855. as Trithemius reporteth: And we find, that when the Pomeranians were convened to Christianity, a. c. 1120. this Law was commanded to them amongst others, to abstain from Blood, as Alph: Ciaconius in vitis pontiff. witnesses. Petrus Martyr in 1 Sam. 14.31. saith, verum fatear, nescimus, quo tempore haec Lex desierit: To speak the truth, we know not, when this Law did end. But in the Eastern Churches it continued longer. Leo Imperator made a severe Constitution against eating of Blood, as impious, contrary to the Old and New Testament of Grace, invented only for luxury and the palates sake; and therefore commanded not only the delinquents to be severely punished, but even the Magistrates themselves, in those places, where the crime was committed, by reason of their carelessness, etc. And the Eastern Churches for the most part do observe this Law and Decree still, as we may read of the Grecians in Breerewards inquiries, ch: 15. of the Aethiopians in Damicanus à Goes history: of Moscovites in Baron of Herverstines' Voyage, etc. The very Turks abstain from Blood, though a bloody Nation. All this is to show, that not all men or Christians know yet this part of their pretended Christian liberties, and that consequently by their own Judgement, the Law must still be in force. We find in Beemans' Theolog. Exercit: that there are yet many in Europe, in Germany, Bohemiah, etc. which abstain from Blood, and that Sebastian Castellis, and Dan Augelocrater name some eminent men of them. But enough of this point. The particular Arguments follow; which are drawn, 1. From the Author of this Decree or Law the Holy Ghost, Apostles, and Elders; from whence he argueth thus: Whatsoever Law is given by the Express Command and order of the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles, is binding of all Christians, and perpetual, till it be abrogated by the same Authority. But this Law was thus given. Ergo. Obj: But this Law was to last only for a time, and was abrogated afterwards, as may be proved by divers places of Scripture, which shall be alleged by and by. Ergo it is not perpetual. R. 1. This, is cram his eocta & a repetition of a former objection, and a mere humane gloss, and therefore not to be regarded. 2. For the places of Scripture concerning the abrogation of this Law, we shall consider them in order, as they shall be proposed. 2. From the Necessity of this duty: to lay upon you no greater burden than these Necessary things, from whence the Author thus argueth. Whatsoever duty the Holy Ghost, and Apostles account, and make necessary to be observed under the Gospel, without any restriction or medification, that is necessary still, till it be abrogated by the same Holy Ghost and Apostles. Now this Law is such. Ergo. The Question only is, what kind of Necessity is understood here in the Decree. To argue hereupon we say, that there is a twofold Necessity, a natural and absolute one, when a thing cannot be otherwise: and a moral conditional Necessity, when a thing shall or ought not to be otherwise. This Law against Blood is of a Moral Necessity, necessitate praecepti, by reason of the express will, and pleasure of God, who hath commanded us to abstain from Blood. Now it is necessary still, as long as this Command is unrepealed. Obj: It was necessary only pro Tempore, to avoid the scandal of weak Brethren. R. This is the great question, whether fear of offence was ground and cause of renewing this Law: we cannot conceive it so. For 1. There were more things more offensive to the Jews, then eating of Blood, and yet not commanded to be observed, as uncircumcision especially, and eating of Swine's flesh, and the like: therefore fear of offence cannot be the cause. 2. Because the holy Ghost in his grounds doth not mention this at all; but the Apostles give other reasons, because all Ceremonial Laws were an intolerable yoke, v: 10. a trouble, v: 19 a subverting of their souls, v: 24. but the abstaining from Blood, a necessary thing, v: 18. as necessary to abstain from Blood, as from fornication, v: 29. a thing which seemed good to the Holy Ghost to command, etc. We may not lay false grounds for the abiding or destroying of the date of a Precept. The great reason of a Precepts continuance is the pleasure of the Great Lawgiver. Let men take heed, to father a false ground upon the Holy Ghost, which is not mentioned; or to desire a true ground of the Holy Ghost, which is mentioned, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, etc. Let them show the contrary pleasure of the Holy Ghost as clearly, and expressly, and we will yield. 3. Suppose fear of scandal was a ground, yet not the main, much less the only ground, for the chief ground is God's pleasure. 4. Neither do we deny, but that it was a great offence to believing Jews, to see men eat Blood, and so it is to us; as great an offence, as to see men continue fornication, or any sin against a Moral Command, and in this respect we grant, fear of offence and of believers, nay of God, to be a ground of this Decree. 3. From the equality of the particulars forbidden in the Decree; where the Author thus concludeth: Whatsoever Command is made as Necessary, as the Law against Fornication, that is moral and perpetual. But the Law against Blood is made as necessary. Ergo. For though we should not say that eating of Blood were as great a sin, as Fornication, in every respect, yet we may say, that by virtue of this Decree we are as much bound to abstain from Blood, as from Fornication, as long as they are thus connexed and joined together in one Law, till the equality be taken away by a countermand. Thus, Gal. 5.19, 20. Ephes. 5.4. different sins are forbidden, adultery, fornication, theft, jesting, etc. Now though jesting be not so great a sin as Adultery, yet we must abstain from one as well as the other; because he that hath said, Thou shalt not commit Adultery, hath also said, Thou shalt not jest. Obj: The Law against Fornication hath footing in the moral Law: not so the other particulars. R: Even all the rest have a footing in the Moral Law. Nay eating of Blood not only forbidden by a moral Law, Gen. 9.4. but more severely threatened, then simple fornication Compare Exod. 22.16. Deut. 22.18. with Levit. 17.10. Deut. 12.23.25. and observe the expressions. Howsoever, till we have a repeal of this Decree, we account eating of Blood as unlawful as Fornication. And thus much of the Arguments against eating of Blood. Followeth the consideration of such Arguments, as are held forth to prove the lawfulness of eating Blood, of which there are divers, but of no great moment. 1. Argument. If there be no meat unclean in itself, i. e. in his own Nature, or by Gods forbidding it to be used, than neither is meat made of blood unclean, but to him that esteemeth it so. But there is no meat unclean in itself. Rom. 14.14. Ergo. R: 1. We must distinguish the Major, and consider what meat is, and whether Blood can properly be said to be meat. Three things must concur to make a thing to be meat. 1. Fitness of a thing for nourishment. 2. God's allowance, or approbation of it for food. 3. The use of it by the custom of men. Now though Blood may perhaps be fit for food, (which many Physician's question, and make it very unwholesome, as Galenus lib. 3. the facult. alim. c. 18. & 23 & de victus attennant. rat. c. 8. Dioseorides lib. 6. c. 25. Weekerus in syntax. utr. Medic. li. 1 p. 5. Sennertus Instit. Medic. lib. 1. p. 3. & 2. c. 4.) yet it hath no allowance from God, neither before, nor under, nor after the Law, but rather an absolute inhibition and restraint in all these 3 Ages: Nor hath it been used by men lawfully, from Adam's days till the days of the Apostles, and afterwards for the space of many hundred years, as it was proved above. Ergo it cannot properly be called meat. 2. We do not abstain from Blood, as unclean, seeing God never calleth it unclean; and almost all things were purged and cleansed under the Law with blood, Heb. 9.22. and God would have it offered in sacrifices to himself; and it did represent the holy Blood of Christ; all which particulars show, that Blood is not unclean, neither forborn for that regard: but only because it pleased the holy Ghost to forbid it to us. Act. 15.28. as being created for another end, to be the life of flesh. Gen. 9 4. 2. Arg: If there be no sin committed by any uncleanness, that goeth into the mouth, than there can be no such uncleanness in Blood, but sin is not so committed, Mar: 7.15. Nothing from without a man, that entereth into him, can defile him. Ergò. R. 1. We must consider the scope of Christ in these words, which was not to take away the distinction of meats, but to reprove the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, that they held those things, which otherwise lawful, yet did defile a man, if they were eaten with unwashen hands; so that Christ speaketh here not of the matter, or thing eaten, but of the manner of eating; else Christ had not answered to the point, nor refuted the Pharises: And this appears out of Christ's own conclusion, Mar: 7.20. 2. Suppose Christ did speak of things eaten likewise, yet he did not understand absolutely all kinds of food, that none did defile a man; but he spoke of such, as knew their ordinary, lawful food, which then they were about to receive. For there were then certain creatures unclean by the Law, of which the Lord could not say, that they did not defile a man, because the Ceremonial Law, and the distinction of clean and unclean, was then yet in full force, and not abrogated, till after Christ's death. 3. Suppose Christ did speak of all kinds of meat, that may be eaten, yet the sense is, that no meat can defile a man, in itself, in its own nature, but may defile him per accidens, if it be expressly forbidden by God, as we know blood was then, and is still. 4. And if Christ had spoken of all kind of meat, yet it cannot be applied to blood, which was not forbidden by that distinguishing Law, Leu. 11.4. but by a Moral Law, above 800. years, afore that distinguishing Law was given to Moses. 5. And is it probable, that Christ hath given leave here to eat all sorts of food, when he knew, that the Apostles shortly after would prohibit blood? Or would the Apostles have crossed Christ's dispensation, if he had here allowed Blood? Or had not Peter despised Christ's licence, nay his power to give liberty to eat of blood and all things, when he confesseth, Act. 10.14. that he had never eaten of any unclean thing? 6. We answer again, that we do not forbear Blood, as unclean, but as appointed for another use, and therefore forbidden to us in the Law and Gospel. 3. Argument. The Law itself alloweth some to eat blood. Deut. 14.21. therefore there was no moral uncleanness in it. Should the stranger be more privileged, than the believer? R: 1. The Law never allowed any man to eat Blood. 2. We say still, that there is no uncleanness in Blood. 3. The place, Deut. 14.21. sheweth, God gave leave to aliens, to eat a carcase, not Blood, as was proved above in the 2d particular Argument out of Levit. 17.10. 4. If it was a privilege to eat a carcase, than our Dogs have more privilege than Men, Exod. 22.31. 4. Argument, If Christ hath freed his people from Ordinances, Touch not, taste not, handle not, than they ought not to make scruple in any such cases. But thus hath he done, Col. 1.20, 21. Ergò. R. 1. We must distinguish the Major, and consider, what Ordinances are meant by the Apostles. And truly the Expositors are of different opinions concerning them. See Mayer upon the place: The soundest Fathers, and Divines take them, not for Ceremonial or Mosaical Ordinances, but for the traditions and ordinances of those Heretics, and Philosophers, which taught the worshipping of Angels, and the abstaining from certain Creatures at certain times, as displeasing to Angels. Thus Beza, and Zanchie understand it, and to them do I subscribe, saith Mayer. See more in Bezas' annotations upon the place: And in this sense, the place will do them no good, Tertullian lib: 5. contra Martion, negat haec ad legem Mosis pertinere. And learned Hugo Grotius saith, that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Commandments, are understood such things, as were commanded by humane Laws, and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Doctrines of Men are meant, quae â Philosophis precipiebantur. But 2. supposed (not granted) that Ceremonial Laws be here understood, then let them prove, that this Law against Blood belongeth to Moses Ceremonial Laws only. The very ground of this mistake is, that they will and do not distinguish, between the Laws given to Noah, ad quae addidit quaedam Christus, dempsit nihil, saith Grotius; and the ceremonial Laws given to Moses, which are abolished, and that they refer the Law against Blood merely to Moses Laws, when it was given so many hundred years before. 5: Argument: If we may eat, whatsoever God hath created to be eaten, and it be a Doctrine of Devils, to teach otherwise, than we may eat Blood, which is created to be eaten, and it is unsound Doctrine, to teach otherwise. But this is so. 1 Tim: 4.2, 3. Ergò. R. 1. The scope of the Apostle is, to forewarn Christians of divers heresies, which should come in with Doctrines of Devils, forbidding to marry, and to eat flesh, as proceeding à malo principio, as were the Encra●ites, Marcionites, Manichees, etc. which is the common opinion of most Fathers, and Divines, amongst them Austin, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Grotius, etc. Thus the Text doth speak nothing of Blood, which was forbidden by God himself, not by those Heretics. 2. We do deny, that Blood was created to be eaten, but to be a means to contain and maintain life in Beasts, as we did show above, out of Gen: 9.7. Lev: 17.11. nay for this cause, the Lord did expressly forbid the eating of it, in these two places alleged. 3. The Apostle doth describe the nature of those Creatures, which were created to be eaten, that they must not only be good, and fit for food, but sanctified by the word, and prayer, v: 5. to receive a Creature with thanksgiving, is not enough to make it lawful to be eaten, unless it be sanctified, i: e: allowed to be eaten, in the word, as Calvin expoundeth it. Now I pray, where is Blood sanctified and allowed in the Word? I find a threefold inhibition of it, before the Law, Gen: 9.4. under the Law, in many places, especially Levit: 17.10 seq: after the Law, Act: 15.28, 29. but no allowance, no leave, no licence to eat it, in no place of Scripture. Ergò it is not sanctified by the word, and consequently not created to be eaten. 3. It is not probable, the Apostle would so quickly repeal the Apostles Decree, not above five years after the publishing of it. For so many years after, this Epistle was written: especially, when about the same time, the Apostle did write to the Romans to be very circumspect even in things lawful, much more indifferent, and rather forbear the use of things lawful, to avoid the offence of the weak, then to follow their own knowledge, with the offence of others; Rom: 14.15.20. 4. The Apostles themselves being met together, in the presence of Paul, did repeat, and reconfirm the Decree against Blood, the next year after this Epistle to Timothy was written, and resolved again, that that Decree should still be observed by the Gentiles, Act. 21.25. Is it likely, that the Apostle should of his own head, contrary to the Apostles mind and determination, give liberty to do here, which they had prohibited; and himself after this Epistle was written, did prohibit and interdict again? We cannot conceive such fickleness in the Apostle. 6. Arg. If every Creature of God be good, and nothing to be refused, than Blood is good, and not to be refused. But every creature of God is good, & nothing to be refused, 1 Tim. 4.4. Ergò. R. 1. This argument is but an old coat turned with a new facing, and a mere repetition of the former argument in other words. 2. It is true, Every Creature of God is good in itself, and by Creation. So God saith himself, Gen: 1.31. but not always good, i: e: fit and lawful to be eaten, and that in many respects, either because it is unnatural, or unwholesome, or forbidden by God, as Blood is. 3. Again it is true, Nothing to be refused, viz: whatsoever is sanctified and allowed by the word, v: 5. but he may refuse, whatsoever is contrary to Nature, to the express word of God, and to our health, or inclination. Now we have proved fully, that the eating of Blood, if it be not against Nature and humanity, and many times prejudicious to our health, that yet it is directly contrary to the express word of God, in the Old and New Testament, and therefore may and aught to be refused. Obj. But this place speaketh so generally, and largely of every Creature of God, that it may be received, if good for food, and not to be refused. R. 1. The Apostle speaketh either of every kind of flesh, which those Heretics did deny to be lawfully eaten: or of such Creatures, as were created to be received and sanctified, or allowed by the word for food, v: 5: which cannot be said of Blood, as was shown in the precedent argument: or of such meat as was never, or should not be forbidden by the Apostles themselves, as Blood was forbidden: for else the Apostles had been guilty of inconstancy, to forbid, and to allow; to forbid again, and allow again, over and over, the same things, to the same Persons, which had been contrary to the Apostles profession, 2 Cor: 1.18. Howsoever, the Apostle doth not speak of Blood, which was never used from the beginning of the world, and never acknowledged for ordinary food by God's people, or fit to be eaten, but always forborn, always abhorred, because always forbidden. 2. It is no good consequence to say, whatsoever is a good Creature of God, and fit for food, may be eaten: The tree of knowledge of good and evil, was a good creature of God, & good for food, pleasant to the eyes, etc. Gen: 3.6. and yet was not created to be eaten, or appointed for food, because God forbade our first Parents at their very first entering into the Paradise, to eat of it. So blood though it may be good for food in itself, yet was forbidden to Man, at the very beginning of a second Creation of the world, and as soon as Blood might have been eaten, by virtue of Gods allowing him flesh to eat. Therefore Blood is none of those Creatures, which the Apostle counteth good for food, and created to be eaten. 3. We may retort these arguments against them upon a better ground; That Doctrine, which for the satisfying of carnal lusts, doth give liberty to eat those Creatures, which the Holy Ghost under the Gospel hath expressly, and by name forbidden, by a public, positive Decree, without any repealing or limitation doth both wrong God and Man. But that Doctrine which do● give liberty to eat Blood, doth give liberty to eat such Creatures, which the H: Ghost hath expressly forbidden in the word under the Gosel: Ergo that Doctrine doth wrong God and Man. For that Men eat Blood is for wantonness, and their palates sake, especially as it is dressed in Italy, France, and here in great Houses. Hence Leo Imper: in his 58. constitut: saith, Alii Lucri, alii gulae causâ, sum â cum impudenti â mandatum (DEI) contemnunt, in escomq: qu â vesci vetitum est, sanguinem convertunt. And afterwards speaking of Puddings filled with Blood, he saith, it was impium soli gulae, inhiantium hominum inventum, etc. Thus it appeareth that Blood is not of those Creatures, which are good, scil: for food, and not to be refused. 7. Argument: If one part of the Decree may be put to an end, than we may without sin so conclude of the rest, that is not clearly moral. But one part is put to an end, the forbidding of eating Idols meat, 1 Cor: 10.27, 29. Ergò. R: 1. The Major is not universally true, seeing that in one and the same Moral Commandment oft one part may be altered, and yet the rest continue: as in the Doctrine of Sabbath, the day is changed, the duty remaineth. But 2. The Minor is false in the particular alleged, because the Decree concerning Idols meat lasted as yet above five and thirty years after the Epistle to Timothy was written, nay after the total destruction of Jerusalem by Vespasian and Titus, when there was hardly a Jew seen, that might be offended: even to the latter days of St. John, when the book of Revelation was written, and the Gospel of Christ dispersed through the whole world For even then the holy Ghost found salt with the Churches of Pergamus, and Thyatira, for eating things sacrificed to Idols. Revel. 2.14.20. Therefore it cannot be proved, that the Apostle should have abrogated that part of the Decree so many years before, in this Epistle. 3. And to answer to the Apostles words, 1 Cor. 10.27. there were two sorts of Idols meat; One sort was that part of the sacrifice which was not only offered to their false gods, but eaten also at the Idols feasts, in the Idols Temples: The other sort was a portion of those sacrifices, which was left, and did belong to the Priest, and either sold in shambles, or eaten in private houses. The first sort of Idols meat was absolutely forbidden to Christians, which durst not so much, as be present at such feasts and sacrifices. The other sort of Idols meat Christians might eat, if they were invited by Gentiles to their private houses; or if they bought it in the shambles, and did eat it at home. The Decree doth most properly speak of the first sort; and the Apostle in 1 Cor. 10. of the second sort. The reason is, because that Idols meat, that was bought in shambles, and brought home to their private houses, was not sold nor eaten, as a sacrifice, but as ordinary meat, and so returned to his former nature again, and became common food, as it was before the sacrifice; or as any other meat, that was sold in shambles publicly: not unlike (if it be lawful to compare holy things with unholy) to the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, which is holy bread, and holy wine during the administration of the Sacrament, but what is left after it, returneth to his common Nature, and use, and may be eaten, or drunk, of children, Heathen, Turks, Jews, and all men without sin. 4. We might as well draw an argument by such an argumentation, that the Decree was abolished in regard of Fornication, as well as of Blood. For if we may argue from the abolishing of one part of the Decree, to the abolishing of two other parts of the same Decree; then we may with a better consequence argue from the abolishing of the three first particulars of the Decree, Idols meat, Blood, and strangled; to the abolishing of the fourth particular, which is Fornication. But we do deny, that the Decree was abolished in regard of Fornication, and so neither in the rest. Obj: But Idols meat might also be eaten in the Idols Temple, 1 Cor: 8.9, 10. where we find the Believer sitting in the Idols Temple, and yet eating with a good conscience, if he do not abuse his liberty. Ergo the Decree was in regard of both sorts of Idols meat abolished. R: 1. The Apostle speaketh of sitting in the Idols Temple, not by way of approbation, or permission, but by way of reproof, as of a thing altogether unlawful, so Beza saith upon the place: Pr●ponit exemplum accubitus in Idolorum templo: quod factum Corinthii malè inter res medias numerabant, cùm simpliciter sit prohibitum, ob loci circumstantiam, etiam cessante offendiculo, etc. The same he repeateth in divers places, and amongst the rest, upon Rom: 14.6. The same, saith Calvin, and shows in his Comment upon 1. Cor. 10. that it is no less than Idolatry, to eat Idols meats in the Holy Temple: and that such persons have communion with Devils, etc. And as I remember, if not all, surely most of the Fathers, and Divines are of this opinion, that it is a sin in itself, to sit and eat Idols meat in an Idols Temple. 2. And if the contrary were true, and the thing lawful, than it would be much more lawful to go into Popish Churches, and to hear a Mass, or to see their Idolatry, when the Corinthians might not only be present and see, but partake of their sacrifices, which Calvin saith, could not be done without yielding to some rites and ceremonies used in honour of Idols, and false Gods; a thing utterly unlawful in itself, and forbidden. Exod. 23.24. Deut. 7.25, 26. and in many places more. But our Divines do absolutely deny it to be lawful to go to hear a Mass, etc. Ergò much more to partake of Idols meat. And thus much concerning the Arguments that are brought in against, and for the eating of Blood. Our duty is, to prove all things, and to keep that, which is good. For a conclusion, seeing there are three sorts of opinions about this question; The first accounting it absolutely unlawful; the second absolutely lawful; the third doubting of it; Let us speak a word to every one of them; to the First a word of confirmation, to the Second a word of conviction; to the Third a word of caution; to show them all, that by God's Law they ought to abstain from Blood. 1. To such, as account the eating of Blood absolutely unlawful: Where we have the express, literal word of God for a duty, before, under, and after the Law, without any clear and evident repealing or abrogation of it, there we may safely rest upon, submit unto, and frame our practice according to it, rather than where we have no word of God, but only uncertain probabilities, and conceits of men. Now we have the express, literal word of God, before, under, and after the Law, against eating of Blood, without any known repealing or abrogation of it; when nothing can be satisfactorily alleged out of the express word of God, for the lawfulness of it; nay not so much, as any probability, but only the opinion and conceit of Men. Ergò we may rest safely upon, submit unto, and frame our practice according to this Truth, that is unlawful to eat Blood. 2. To those, that account eating of Blood absolutely lawful. Where there is an evident scandal given to the Brethren, by the eating of any thing lawful, indifferent, doubtful, there we are bound to abstain rather from the use of it, then to receive it with offence. Rom: 4.21. Now there is an evident offence given to many brethren, by eating of Blood. Ergò they are bound in conscience to abstain from it, to avoid offence. 3. To such, as doubt of it, whether it be lawful or not: Whasoever is not done in faith, is sin, Rom. 14.23. that is, whatsoever a man doth, being not fully persuaded and convinced in his conscience, upon good grounds, of the lawfulness of it, that is sin to him. Now whosoever eateth Blood doubting, whether he may eat it or not, doth not eat it in faith. Ergò it is sin in and to him. It is no sin in us if we abstain from Blood: It may be a sin to us, if we eat Blood. The safest way, the best way: He that maketh no conscience in little things, will hardly do it in greater. The Lord give us grace to practise the Apostles rule, which he giveth, 1 Thes: 5.22. Abstain from all appearance of evil. FINIS.