BEing to discourse upon a point, which almost all men deny; and being to shew the unlawfulnesse of that which most men count lawfull, it will be expected▪ should make some Apologie for the noveltie, or newnesse of the opinion.

That which I shall say is:

First, that the objection of noveltie, or newnesse of an opinion, taken in a [...] sense, is a sure rule to convince an errour: 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 noveltie, or newnesse of an opinion, [...] any [...] ­ther sense, as it is usually now taken, for a differing from what our for [...]-fathers [...] hold, is a veri [...] weak and unreasonable objection, as easily might be proved at larg [...]

Thirdly, the objection of noveltie is not only weak, but mischievous, as might be shewed in all ages, hindring men from the s [...]rch of the Scriptures, and is the gr [...] of the implicite faith now in Rome, and a great cause of the quarrells in all Chr [...] Churches, and of the present troubles of this our Kingdome, as easily might [...] shewed.

Briefly to answer these Antiquaries with the words of St. Cyprian, whom [...] sure they will not count a Sectarie, or Novellist: His words are, Quid his, [...] [...]nte nos fecerit, aut docuerit, sed quid is qui ante [...]mes est, Christ [...]s, &c. What this or that man did, or taught, before us; but what hee did who was before all, [...] Christ himselfe, who only is the way, the truth, and the life, from whose precep [...] we ought not to digresse: Cyprian. ad Caecil. lib. [...]. [...]pist. 3. So to Pa [...]p against S [...]. Om [...]es quippe antiquitates, &c. All antiquitie and custome not grounded o [...] the truth, is to be accounted no other than an ancient errour. To which Austin [...] against the Donatists, lib. 2. cap. 3. and Jerome in his Epistle to Minerium.

Briefly, if this opinion against eating of bloud, upon due examination, find not [...] foundation in the written word of the [...]ncienter dayes, let it be rejected as a no [...] ▪ but if it find footing there, let the greatest Antiquarie in the world reject it, if he [...] ▪

Briefly to the point, three things I shall do to cleere it.

• First, ci [...]e the Scriptures which expressely forbid the eating of any manner of [...].
• Secondly, I shall shew, that these Scriptures which forbid [...]ing of b [...]ou [...], [...] all men, both Jewes, Gentiles, and Christians.
• [Page 3]Thirdly, answer the objections to the contrarie.

For the first, the Scriptures to this purpose are many, expresse, plain [...], and obvious to everie mans eye, s [...]ar [...]ely any thing set out more cleer [...]ly; some of which I shall cite at large: Le [...]it. 7, 26, Ye [...] shal [...] eat no manner of bloud, whether it be of fowle, or of beast, in any of your dwellings: mark what followes: whatsoever he be (Prince or Potentate, Gentle or Simple) that eateth any manner of bloud, even that soule shall be cut off from his people, that is penaltie enough. So Levit. 17.10, 11, 12, 13, &c. Whatsoever man there be of the [...]se of Israel, or stranger which sojournes among you, that eateth any manner of bloud: What of him? What? Sentence severe enough: I will (saith God) even set my face against that soule that eateth bloud, and that is not all neither; but I will cut him off from his people. A heavie sentence. What is the reason of it? Not because bloud was ceremonially uncleane, 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 followes, Therefore said I to the children of Israel (twice repeated in this Chapter) no soule of you shall eat bloud, nei­ther shall any stranger among you eat any bloud, &c. And in the fourteenth verse hee repeats it againe, Whosoever eateth it shall be cut off. See the latter part of that Chapter at large. What can be more plaine, if there were no other Text? No manner of per­son, nor no manner of bloud. For, it is the life of the beast; and, it is the life of the beast, againe and againe, and, I will set my face against him, and I will cut him off, twice repeated. If this be not plaine enough, no Rhetorick in the world can make it plaine. So Deut. 22.16. where God tells them, they might eat flesh, what their soules desi­red, only, that they should not eat the bloud, but should powre 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 bloud: No what is the matter? is it uncleane? No, no: It is the life of the beast: Be you not so cruell, that when I give you leave to eat the flesh, that you will eat the verie life of the beast. And it followeth, And thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh: Nay, as if God did fore-s [...] our foolish custome of eating black puddings, on purpose to beat it into our heads, whether wee will or no, he repeats it, Thou shalt not eat it: No? What shall we do with it then, shall we lose good victualls? yea, sayes God, You shall powre it upon the ground like water; yea, but I hope though we must let it powre out of the beast, yet wee may save it in a dish, to make puddings with it, or else wee should be counted verie ill huswives. Well, if you will be counted [...]tter hus­wives than God would have you, who can help it: But God tells you expressely, Levit. 17.13. that you shall not only powre 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 spoyled. And it followes 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 bloud: Arguments strong enough, if we are flesh and bloud, much more if we are Christians.

So Gen. 9.4. God takes care the first time that we read flesh allowed to be eaten: [Page 4]yet he commands Noah; But the flesh with the life thereof, which is the bloud, yee [...]al [...] not eat: So Levit. 19.16.

Nay, what say you to a Text in the New Testament, not to the Jewes, 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 burthen than these ne­cessarie things; That yee abstaine from meats offered to Idols, and from bloud, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from which if you keep your selves, you shall [...] well. You see that neither Old nor New Testament can feare [...] mention the [...]b [...]d­ding of eating bloud, but it annexeth either a blessing to them that abstaine, or a [...] to such as practise it.

It is true I confesse, many think this Text of Acts 15.28. makes against my opi­nion, and for the lawfulnesse of eating bloud; for (say they) abstaining from bloud is here forbidden to the Christian-Gentiles, only as an indifferent thing to avoyd [...]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 plaine expresse precepts, both of the Law with penaltie and blessings annexed, and before the Law to Noab, do expressely 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 sinfull; I say men must not without some better ground count the eating of bloud forbidden, Acts 15. to be forbidden as an idifferent thing only.

But they say bloud is there joyned with meats offered to Idols, an indifferent thing; Ergo, Bloud is indifferent.

Answ. Wee 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 bloud joyned with it, my argument is eve­rie whit as good thus.

Forbidding to eat bloud is joyned with fornication, a sin against the Morall Law, and is punished with damnation, 1 Cor. 6.9. Ergo, the eating of bloud is a sin against the Law of God, and is punishable with damnation: For bloud is as well joyned with fornication, Acts 15. as with meats offered to Idols.

So much for that point, the Scriptures that forbid to eat bloud.

The second thing is, to prove these Lawes to bind us, as well as the Jewes: That I shall do thus:

• First, because this Law of forbidding to eat bloud, was given to Noah, the father both of Jewes and Gentiles, long before the Ceremoniall Law, as is cleere Gen. 9 4. Thou shalt not eat the flesh with the life, which is the bloud: A Text expresse enough, long before the Ceremoniall Law: So that from hence we may argue thus.
  • 1 This Law was given to the father of both Jewes and Gentiles, for him and his posteritie. But all the world are the posteritie of Noah, to whom this Law was gi­ven. Ergo, All the world are bound to this Law, of forbidding to eat bloud.
  • 2 Thus the Ceremoniall Law was given to the Jews only, and to such as should become their Proselites. But the Law of prohibiting to eat bloud, was given to the [Page 5]Gentiles in their father Noah, and that long before the Ceremoniall Law to the Jews. Ergo, the forbidding to eat bloud is no part of the Ceremoniall Law.
• Secondly, I prove this Law of forbidding to eat bloud, to be Morall, and to bind all, both Jewes and Gentiles thus.

Because it was given upon a morall reason, viz. Because bloud is the life of the beast, Gen. 9.4. that is, it were a token of extreame crueltie, and unmercifulnesse, to eat that when the beast is dead, which was the life of it whilst it was living: A cruell thing to eat life it selfe; and therefore almost continually that reason is given, why bloud should not be be eaten, because it is the life of the beast; not because it is an un­cleane thing, as things forbidden in the Ceremoniall Law; but as a cruell thing for­bidden, as a Morall Law.

From hence we may argue thus:

Things forbidden to be eaten in the Ceremoniall Law, was for some positive, or typicall uncleannesse put upon them.

But blood was not forbidden to be eaten, as having some positive or typicall un­cleannesse, but as a token of a mercilesse cruell heart and disposition.

Ergo. The Law of forbidding to eat blood was no part of the Ceremoniall Law.

But some may say it seemes 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 paine, not in the other.

Ans. The killing of the beast is permitted to us as of necessity, to make it fit for our use, and cannot be avoyded; and the eating of the blood after a beast is dead, though the beast then feeles no harme nor paine, yet may it be a greater token of cruel­ty then to kill it whilst it was alive.

As may appeare by this familiar example.

It is a greater token of cruelty and inhumanitie to teare the flesh of a dead man, or to kicke it up and downe the streets, or to abuse it, though the dead bodie 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 paine and not the other.

So here it is a greater signe 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 paine, then it is to kill a beast which God by his permission hath delivered into our hands for food, al­though by the slaying it seekes paine, and in the eating of the blood none.

So I conceive this second thing is cleare that the Law is not ceremoniall but binds both Jewes 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 bloud with the flesh that is forbidden, and not when it is seperated 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 cleare in answering this Objection, that there is no colour of an Objection left; for it doth not only containe to let out the blood of [Page 4] [...] [Page 5] [...] [Page 6]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 powre 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 Jewes, and that in that vision to Peter, Act. 10.13, 14. it was there declared, that nothing is to be accounted un­cleane now under the Gospell.

Ans. Blond was never forbidden under the notion of an uncleane thing onely, but upon a morrall reason, as it was a token of cruelty, and that Text in the Acts speake onely of uncleane beasts, so that vision never clensed the cruelty of eating bloud, nei­ther is it any thing at all to the purpose, but that men catch at any thing to maintaine their fancies.

Object. 3. In the third place it is objected, that Acts 15.29. bloud and things strangled, are counted indifferent things, and forbidden to the Gentiles onely for [...] time to avoid offence.

Ans. Wee answer, this is a meere begging the question, wee say eating bloud an [...] things strangled, are not indifferent, but sinfull, 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 Morall Law, unlesse 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 bloud 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 Idolls forbidden, and that was a thing indifferent; only forbidden for scandall as Paul shewes, 1 Cor. 20. so therefore was blood.

Ans. 1. If it should be granted that things offered to Idolls are things indifferent, and blood is joyned with them, yet this makes not the eating bloud to be indifferent, no more then it makes fornication indifferent, with which it is likewise joyned.

But secondly it is qustionable, whether that the meats offered to Idolls here forbid­den were indifferent or no; for there was in eating of things offered to Idolls, at the time and place of the offring, 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 Idoll which is here forbidden, and then I am sure that was never counted an indifferent thing, but a sinfull 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 it selfe, &c. Ergo, not blood.

Ans. 1. This is one of the worthy objections; for we do not say bloud is uncleane or forbidden as an uncleane thing, but as a cruell thing.

Secondly no man is so mad to apply Pauls words so universally, as to every in­dividuall thing in the world, as if every thing were clean and fit for food, for then it comprehends toads, poyson, mans flesh, nay stones and trees; which I thinke none will say are clean food, nay that soone of them are lawfull, as mans flesh, &c. so there is no ground this Text should extend to bloud; neither is Pauls scope or drift to shew any such thing, as easily might be shewed.

[Page 7] Object. 5. It is againe Objected, 1 Tim. 4.5. everie 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 saies 1 Cor. 10. all things are lawfull to me, but all things are not expedient. No man is so mad, is to thinke Paul meant under the word all, that it was lawfull for him to murder, or commit adultery, &c. but his words must be restrained to the things he spake of; so here, when he saies every creature is good, you must neither extend it to things unwholsome for food, or unlawfull for food, as we have shewed blood to be.

Object. 6. It is objected, Tit. 1.15. to the pure, all things are pure, Ergo, bloud lawfull to be eaten.

Ans. There is no ground in this Text to shew that Paul speakes at all with relation to food, to conclude all meats to be pure. I rather think the contrary, considering whom hee speaketh of, namely the Cretians, whom hee sayes Verse 12. that were evill 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 lawfullnesse 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 universall phrase must be expounded, by such exceptions as the Scripture makes to it, and no other­wise, and cannot extend to the lawfullnesse of blood.

Object. 7. It is objected, Deut. 14.21. there God forbids to the sewes that they should eat any thing that dieth of it selfe, 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 it selfe hath the bloud 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 bloud, concerned the Jewes only, and so was temporarie.

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 it selfe you may understand, a beast that is sicke of a disease which is commonly mortall, or causeth death, and upon the sight thereof the beast is slaine, and his blood taken from him, yet because of the disease which was mortall, he is in a sort said to die of himselfe, and because the food was not therefore so wholsome, as of beasts which were slaine in a common way for food, therefore the Jewes were to sell it to an alien, and not to eat it; and take it so, then 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 it selfe; yet it seemes, if it be taken whilst it is yet warme, 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 unskilfull butcher, or which by some other accident only part [Page 8]of the blood, is taken from the beast and part remaining in his flesh, and yet it is [...] unlawfull to eat such flesh, although there be some blood in it: otherwise, th [...] would scarce be anie meat eaten lawfully, because heardly any beast or foule that is killed, voideth all his blood, neither is Gods forbidding to eat blood to be taken so strictly, as that no flesh might be eaten except everie drop of the bloud 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 lesse 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 it selfe; and that it was not forbidden to the Jewes, because of some blo [...] which unavoydably remained in it, and would not be voyded out, but for some other reason of typicall impuritie, or uncleannesse, or the like, and so is nothing to the p [...]int in hand.

Thus have wee briefly and clearly (as wee conceive) proved the unlawfulnesse of eating bloud, and answered all objections to the contrarie.

To conclude therefore, let us lay aside this cruell custom of eating the lives of beasts, as it is used thorowout all England, in unhallowed black puddings, as wee will shew our selves therefore to be mercifull men, not inhumane; as wee will not be found to be disobeyers of God in such expresse precepts, but obeyers of his will, and doers of those things that are right in his eyes, as wee 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 evill; let us speedily lay aside this barbarous cu­stome of eating black puddings.