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 Gods inhibition, the Author findeth three grounds against Blood.

1. From the Persons, to whom this Command was given, Noah, his sons, and posteritie, 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 Morall and Per­petuall. 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 Morall and perpetuall.

2. From Gods own reason, why he would have us abstain from Blood; because Blood is the life of the flesh, i: e: bloud doth contain, and maintain, and convay the vitall 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 unnaturall; so that if it was unlawfull then, it is unlawfull 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 it self continu­eth in force, till it be expressely 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 perpetuall reason doth not always proove the perpetuity of a command.

Answ: The change of the day of Sabbath is by an expresse 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 Gods End in this precept, which was, according [Page 5]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 carefull 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, &c. 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, unlesse they be expressely for­bidden. Now the end intended by God in this Com­mand doth still continue. Ergò.

Obj: The end cannot proove the command lasting, unlesse it can be prooved by the mind of the Lawgiver, that the Command is the onely perpetuall means to continue for that end: which cannot be said of abstaining from Blood, to be the onely, perpetual means to teach us humanity &c. R: An absurd consequence: To abstaine from Blood is not the onely 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 Phisick, &c. for outward health: and to hear, read, pray, meditate, conferr, &c. for our spirituall health: All these particulars serve for the same end, yet we cannot say any one of them to be the onely 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 onely means to preserve our health? shall we not hear, or pray, &c. because neither of it is the onely means to preserve Grace in us? God forbid. If God appointeth a thing to be a means to obtain an end, whether it be the onely, or perpetuall means, or one of the means, we are bound to use it, as long as it may be a means to obtain that end, unlesse it be expressely 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, &c.

From these and the following words, the Author draweth three arguments more; as,

1. From the repetition of the first naturall reason, which God gave to Noah, and his Sonns, because blood is the life of Beasts: to shew, 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 Noahs 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 Noahs posterity, that Law is Morall and Perpetuall. But this Law against eating Blood was thus given. Ergò it is Morall and Perpetuall.

Obj. The main reason added to the renewing of this Law was Ceremonall, and Typicall. v: 12. For I have given you the Blood upon the Altar, &c. Ergo this Law bound no others but the Israelites; and no more, then other Ceremoniall Laws.

R: Though one reason alleadged in this Chapter was cere­moniall, and bound onely the Israelites, yet there were other reasons more generall and morall, which bound all men, as that naturall reason, v: 11. Because the blood is the life of Beasts, and a judiciall reason, that else God would punish them, and cut them off, v: 10.19. seq: And God gave here a threefold reason, naturall, mysticall, and judiciall 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 least they should apply it to all Men onely that were Israelites, and in [Page 7]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 Morall, and Perpe­tuall. 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 Morall 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 proselites 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 Ceremo­niall 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. proselites, 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, Morall, Cere­moniall, Politicall: The second sort to Morall, and in some respect to Politicall, but to no Ceremoniall Law at all. For whosoever would live or sojourn amongst them, must yeeld and submit himself to the seven great commandments, which [Page 8]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 strangers proselites, but to strangers 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 onely understood Proselites, but even Heathen, and Infi­dels, if within the gates. 2. The place of Scripture alleadg­ed out of Deut: 14, 21. where God gave leave to strangers, to eat that, which dieth of it self; 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 carkase, which yet is not: he might take it as a particular exception to the generall rule, for that time. Now Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis. 2. Though eating of Blood was a sin in it self, yet Gods extraordinary warrant and permission intervening, doth make it lawfull to that Person, and for that time, that it was allowed. To mur­ther, or to robb is a great sin; yet Gods Command to Abra­ham to sacrifice his Son, Gen: 22.2. or Gods permission (at least) if not command to the Israelites to robb the Aegyptians. Exod: 3.22. and 12.35.36. did not make murther or robbing lawfull, or abolish the Law against them. 3. It doth not follow, the Aliens might eat that, which died of it self, Ergo they might eat Blood. For either they did eat the carkase 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 powred 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 lawfull 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 [Page 9]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 carkase 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 cals a carkase ex sangue cadaver. 4. The difference of punishment, which God threatneth to such as eat Blood, or a dead car­kase, doth cleerly prove a great difference in the act or sin it self. For God will cut him off, and set his face against him, that eateth Blood, Levit. 17.10. but he that eateth of a car­kase, should only wash his cloaths, bath himself in water, and be unclean untill the Even. v: 15. This should be a sufficient answer to the Objection.

3. Argument is drawn from the Threatning of Gods Judg­ment 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 Ceremoniall Laws; It is true God will many times have the transgressors of Cere­moniall Laws to be cut off by men, i: e. either by an Ecclesi­asticall censure of excommunication; or a civill 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 Cere­moniall 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 Morall transgressions; Levit: 20.3 6 Jerem: 44.11. Ezek: 14.8 & in other places, from whence the Author thus concludeth:

Wheresoever God annexeth a threatning of immediate judgment from Himself to a Law, that Law is Morall and Perpetuall: Now in this Law God doth it. Ergo it is Moral and Perpetuall.

Obj There are many such expressions of Gods threatning punishment to ceremoniall transgressions, and amongst the rest, Levit: 23.29, 30. Ergo this is no sufficient proof for the Moralitie of this Law.

R, 1. We do not see it yet, nay not in that place alleadged, [Page 10] Lev: 23.29, 30. for in that Law of keeping the day of atone­ment, two things are to be observed; the morall part of it, which is to keep such a day, and to afflict our souls &c. and the Ceremoniall part of it, to keep that day of atonement yeer­ly, upon the tenth day of the seventh moneth, which was a Ceremoniall Ordinance, binding only the Israelites; for we may keep such dayes of atonement at any other convenient time. Now God threatneth a twofold judgment, the one to be inflicted by men, he shall be cut off from amongst his people, for these outward or ceremoniall neglects or transgressions, which Man is able to discern and to discover: But the other judgment God reserveth to himself, for the neglect of those morall 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, &c.

2. We answer, that if God doth threaten such immediate judgments to Ceremoniall transgressions, then it is in such cases only, where a Morall transgression is joyned to Ceremo­niall, and cannot be severed one from another; but we can­not find any such threatning denounced to meerly Ceremo­niall 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, then these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered to Idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornica­tion, &c.

From these words the Author draweth one Generall, and 3. particular Arguments. The Generall Argument runneth thus:

Whatsoever Law or Command of God is renewed, re­confirmed, re-established under the Gospel, after the abrogation of all Ceremoniall observations, generally, absolutely, without any restriction, or limitation of Time, Place, or Persons, that Law must needs be perpetual, till it be expresly 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 perpetuall.

R. We answer 1. This limitation is but a humane glosse, and we do not find the least ground or hint of it in the whole word of God. We did shew, that God hath forbidden it in ge­nerall terms, without any limitation: Let them shew 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 meer 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 libertie in this particular, and that this Law was abolished. We do finde it observed, Rev. 2.14, 20. which was about fourtie yeers after this Decree was made; And the purest Fathers in the primitive Church do report, that it was observed many hundred yeers after Christs Ascention; 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, &c. they did trie men, whether they were Christians, by offering them puddings filled with blood, &c. Origines, li. [Page 12]8. contra Celsum: Minutius Felix in Octavio &c. Cyrillus Hiero­solomit. in 17. catech. Chrysostome in Acts 15. Homil. 33. Baronius saith, it was yet in force in St. Austins times. Nay longer, in the times of Beda, and Rabanus Maurus, a. c. 855. as Trithemius reporteth: And we finde, that when the Pomeranians were convened to Christianitie, a. c. 1120. this Law was com­manded to them amongst others, to abstain from Blood, as Alph: Ciaconius in vitis pontif. witnesses. Petrus Martyr in 1 Sam. 14.31. saith, Ʋt 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 onely for luxurie and the palates sake; and therefore commanded not onely the delinquents to be se­verely punished, but even the Magistrates themselves, in those places, where the crime was committed, by reason of their carelesness, &c. 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 historie: of Moscovites in Baron of Herverstines Voyage, &c. The very Turks abstain from Blood, though a bloody Nation. All this is to shew, that not all men or Chri­stians know yet this part of their pretended Christian liber­ties, and that consequently by their own Judgment, the Law must still be in force. We find in Beemans Theolog. Exercit: that there are yet many in Europe, in Germanie, Bohemiah, &c. 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 Expresse Command and order of the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles, is binding of all Christians, and perpetuall, 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 prooved by divers places of Scripture, which shall be alledged by and by. Ergo it is not perpetuall.

R. 1. This, is crambe his eocta & a repetition of a former objecti­on, and a meer humane glosse, 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 then 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 naturall and absolute one, when a thing cannot be otherwise: and a morall conditionall 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 expresse 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 scandall 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 offencive to the Jews, then eating of Blood, and yet not commanded to be observed, as uncircumcision especially, and eating of Swines 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 Ceremoniall Laws were an intollerable yoke, v: 10. a trouble, v: 19. a subverting of their souls, v: 24. but the abstaining from [Page 14]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, &c. 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, &c. Let them shew the contrary pleasure of the Holy Ghost as clearly, and expresly, and we will yeeld. 3. Suppose fear of scandal was a ground, yet not the main, much lesse the only ground, for the chief ground is Gods pleasure. 4. Neither do we deny, but that it was a great offence to belee­ving 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 Morall 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 Necessarie, as the Law against Fornication, that is moral and perpetual. But the Law against Blood is made as necessarie. 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 vertue of this Decree we are as much bound to abstain from Blood, as from Fornication, as long as they are thus connexed and joyned together in one Law, till the equa­litie be taken away by a countermand. Thus, Gal. 5.19, 20. Ephes. 5.4. different sins are forbidden, adulterie, fornication, theft, jesting, &c. 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 onely forbidden by a moral Law, Gen. 9.4. [Page 15]but more severely threatned, 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 it self, i. e. in his own Nature, or by Gods forbidding it to be used, then neither is meat made of blood unclean, but to him that esteemeth it so. But there is no meat unclean in it self. 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. Gods allowance, or approba­tion of it for food. 3. The use of it by the custome of men. Now though Blood may perhaps be fit for food, (which many Physi­tians question, and make it very unwholsome, as Galenus lib. 3. de 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 Adams days till the days of the Apostles, and afterwards for the space of many hundred yeers, 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 shew, 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, then there can be no such uncleanness in Blood, but sin is not so commited, Mar: 7.15. Nothing from with­out [Page 16]a man, that entreth 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 hypocrisie, that they held those things, which otherwise lawfull, 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 Christs own conclusion, Mar: 7.20. 2. Suppose Christ did speak of things eaten likewise, yet he did not understand absolutely al kinds of food, that none did defile a man; but he spake of such, as knew their ordinary, lawfull 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 Christs death. 3. Suppose Christ did speak of all kinds of meat, that may be eaten, yet the sence is, that no meat can defile a man, in it self, in its own nature, but may defile him per accidens, if it be expresly forbidden by God, as we know blood was then, and is still. 4. And if Christ had spoken of al kind of meat, yet it cannot be applied to blood, which was not forbidden by that distinguishing Law, Lev. 11.4. but by a Moral Law, above 800. yeers, 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 prohibite blood? Or would the A­postles have crossed Christs dispensation, if he had here allowed Blood? Or had not Peter despised Christs 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 it self alloweth some to eat blood. Deut. 14.21. therefore there was no morall uncleanness in it. Should the stranger be more priviledged, then the beleever?

R: 1. The Law never allowed any man to eat Blood. 2. We [Page 17]say still, that there is no uncleanness in Blood. 3. The place, Deut. 14.21. sheweth, God gave leave to aliens, to eat a carkase, not Blood, as was proved above in the 2d particular Argument out of Levit. 17.10. 4. If it was a priviledge to eat a carkase, then our Doggs have more priviledg then Men, Exod. 22.31.

4. Argument, If Christ hath freed his people from Ordinances, Touch not, taste not, handle not, then 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 Ceremo­niall or Mosaicall Ordinances, but for the traditions and ordi­nances of those Hereticks, 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 sence, the place will do them no good, Tertullian lib: 5. contra Marcion, 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 Ceremoniall Laws be here understood, then let them prove, that this Law against Blood be­longeth to Moses Ceremoniall 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 meerly to Moses Laws, when it was given so many hundred yeers before.

5: Argument: If we may eat, whatsoever God hath created to be eaten, and it be a Doctrine of Devils, to teach otherwise, then 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 [Page 18]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, &c. which is the com­mon opinion of most Fathers, and Divines, amongst them Austin, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Grotius, &c. Thus the Text doth speak no­thing of Blood, which was forbidden by God himself, not by those Hereticks.

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 shew above, out of Gen: 9.7. Lev: 17.11. nay for this cause, the Lord did expresly forbid the eating of it, in these two places alledged.

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 lawfull to be eaten, unlesse 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 license 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 lawfull, much more indifferent, and rather forbear the use of things lawfull, to avoid the offence of the weak, then to follow their own knowledg, 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 Timothie 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 [Page 19]was written, did prohibit and interdict again? We cannot conceive such ficklenes in the Apostle.

6. Arg. If every Creature of God be good, and nothing to be refused, then 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 meer repetition of the former argument in other words. 2. It is true, Every Creature of God is good in it self, and by Creation. So God saith himself, Gen: 1.31. but not always good, i: e: fit and lawfull to be eaten, and that in many respects, either because it is unnaturall, or unwholsome, 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 expresse 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 expresse word of God, in the Old and New Testament, and therefore may and ought 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 above-named Hereticks 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 shewn 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 Gods people, or fit to be eaten, but always forborn, always abhorred, because alwayes forbidden.

2. It is no good consequence to say, whatsoever is a good [Page 20]Creature of God, and fit for food, may be eaten: The tree of knowledg of good and evil, was a good creature of God, & good for food, pleasant to the eyes, &c. Gen: 3.6. and yet was not crea­ted to be eaten, or appointed for food, because God forbad our first Parents at their very first entring into the Paradise, to eat of it. So blood though it may be good for food in it self, 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 ver­tue 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 carnall lusts, doth give liberty to eat those Creatures, which the Holy Ghost under the Gospel hath expresly, and by name forbidden, by a publick, possitive 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 expresly forbidden in the word under the Gosel: Ergo that Doctrine doth wrong God and Man. For that Men eat Blood is for wantonnesse, and their palates sake, especially as it is drest in Italy, France, and here in great Houses. Hence Leo Imper: in his 58. constitut: saith, Alii Lucri, alii gulae causâ, summ^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, &c. 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, then we may without sin so conclude of the rest, that is not clear­ly morall. 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 Morall Commandement 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 alleadged, because [Page 21]the Decree concerning Idols meat lasted as yet above five and thirtie yeers af­ter the Epistle to Timothie 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 sault 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 yeers 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 onely 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 ordinarie 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 publickly: not unlike (if it be lawfull to compare holy things with unholy) to the bread and wine in the Lords 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 denie, 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 Beleever 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 un­lawfull, 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, &c. The same he re­peateth in divers places, and amongst the rest, upon Rom: 14.6. The same, saith Calvin, and shews in his Comment upon 1. Cor. 10. that it is no lesse then Idolatry, to eat Idols meats in the Holy Temple: and that such persons have communion with Devils, &c. And as I remember, if not all, surely most of [Page 22]the Fathers, and Divines are of this opinion, that it is a sin in it self, to sit and eat Idols meat in an Idols Temple. 2. And if the contrary were true, and the thing lawfull, then it would be much more lawfull to go into Popish Churches, and to hear a Masse, 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 yeelding to some rites and ceremonies used in honour of Idols, and false Gods; a thing utterly unlawfull in it self, and for­bidden. Exod. 23.24. Deut. 7.25, 26. and in many places more. But our Di­vines do absolutely deny it to be lawfull to go to hear a Masse, &c. 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 unlawfull; the second absolutely lawfull; 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 shew them all, that by Gods Law they ought to abstain from Blood.

1. To such, as account the eating of Blood absolutely unlawfull:

Where we have the expresse, literall 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 then where we have no word of God, but only uncertain probabilities, and conceits of men.

Now we have the expresse, literall 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 alleadged out of the ex­presse word of God, for the lawfulnesse 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 unlawfull to eat Blood.

2. To those, that account eating of Blood absolutely lawfull.

Where there is an evident scandall given to the Brethren, by the eating of any thing lawfull, indifferent, doubtfull, 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 lawfull or not:

Whasoever is not done in faith, is sin, Rom. 14.23. that is, whatsoever a man doth, being not fully perswaded and convinced in his conscience, upon good grounds, of the lawfulnesse 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 practice the Apostles rule, which he giveth, 1 Thes: 5.22.

Abstain from all appearance of evill.