FIrst, if nothing that enters into the mouth can defile a man, then blood in things strangled or otherwise made into wholsome food for us cannot; but faith Christ Jesus, that which goes into the mouth cannot defile a man, Mark. 7. 15. Ergo, blood in things strangled or otherwise made into wholsome food for us cannot, neither is it blood still when the fire hath purged and changed the propertie of it.

Secondly, if Christians may lawfully eat whatsoever meat is sold at the Sham­bles, asking no qu [...]stion for conscience sake, then they may eat blood in rabbets or fouls that are strangled, or the blood of some beasts, being made into good and wholsome food; for all these are to be sold unto Christians: but Christians may eat whatsoe­ver meat is sold at the Shambles, asking no question for conscience sake, 1 Cor. 20. 25. Ergo, Christians may eat blood in things that are strangled, or otherwise, made in­to wholsome food.

Thirdly, if Christians may eat whatsover meat is set before them, asking no que­stion for conscience sake, then they may eat blood in things that are strangled, or made into wholsome food, being frequently set before them: but Christians may eat whatsoever is set before them, asking no question for conscience sake, 1 Cor. 10. 2 Luk. 10 7, 8. Ergo, Christians may eat blood in things that are strangled, or made into wholsom food.

Fourthly, if it be a Doctrine of Devills, suggested by seducing spirits, whose con­sciences are seared with a hot iron, who speake lies in hypocrisie, that command to abstaine from meats, then we must not give heed to them: but they that would have us to abstaine from meats are such, 1 Tim. 4. 1, 2, 3, 4. then notwithstanding such doctrine we may lawfully eat bloud in things strangled, or made into whol­some food.

Fiftly, if everie creature of God is good, which seducers would have us to ab­staine from, and not to be refused in case it be meat for man, [...] both the flesh and blood of the beasts may be eaten, and not to be refused, being [...] fo [...] [...] but those creatures whom this seducer would have us to avoyd [...]e good, and nothing to to be refused, in case it be recived with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the Word, and Prayer, Ʋers 3, 4, 5. then blood in things strangled or otherwise may be eaten.

Sixtly, if Paul say to Timothy, If thou put them in remembrance of these things, [Page 3] thou shalt be a good Minister of Iesus Christ, nourished up in the words of Faith, and good Doctrine, then he that teacheth contrary is a bad Minister, and destroyes with bad Doctrine, in the same place, Vers. 6. and saith Christ, they are blind leaders of the blind, that say, meat defiles a man, Mat. 15. 11, 14. then let us rather be nouri­shed by good Doctrine, then be destroyed by the false Doctrine of those that say, some meat defiles us.

Seventhly, if it was the prohibition of God that made some creatures uncleane, and not to be eaten while that prohibition lasted, then when that prohibition is taken off, that creatures is cleane unto them: but God hath taken off that prohibition to Christians which was upon the Jewes, Act. 10. 10, 11, 12, 13. 14. then Christians must not now call those things uncleane, that were uncleane among the Jewes, because God hath clensed them: and although blood was not cleane to Jewes, yet now it is made clean to Christians.

Eightly, if it be a note of a weake faith to scruple at some meats, when as no meat is uncleane of it selfe, then we may not scruple at any: but saith Paul, he is we [...]k [...] that eateth herbs, when as nothing is uncleane of it selfe; but to him that esteems it uncleane to him it is unclean, Rom. 14. 2, 14. then he that beleeveth that he may eat blood he may eat it, when as this seducer may be damned if he eat it, be­cause he eateth not of faith, Vers. 22.

Ninthly, if Paul blames it as a sinne to judge others for eating those things which themselves have not faith to eat, then it is a sinne in this man to judge others for eating blood, while he hath not faith to eat it, but Paul blames it as a sinne in those that do so, Rom. 14. 3. then they ought not to judge us, lest themselves be judged for it, Mat. 7. 1.

Tenthly, if blood being the life of the beast was onely forbidden before the death of Christ, to make an atonement, tippifying the blood of Christ that was to be shed to make atonement, and then the end ceased for which it was forbidden, then Chri­stians may now eat blood; but the blood of beasts was forbidden to make atone­ment for the soule, Levit. 15. 11, 12. but Christ hath put an end to all bloody sa­crifices in spilling his owne blood to make atonement, Heb. 10. 12, 14. then Christi­ans may now eat blood.

Eleventhly, if the burnt offering which was a type of Christ, the flesh of it was burnt, and the blood was sprinkled about the Altar at the Tabernacle door, and now since the death of Christ he commands the type of his flesh to be eaten, and the type of his bloud to be drunk in the remembrance of his death, till his coming againe; then now we may not burne the type of his flesh, nor spill the type of his blood, lest we commit that unpardonable sin. of crucifying the Son of God afresh, and trampling the blood of the Covenant under feet, Heb. 10. 29. but in the burnt of­fering, which was the type of Christ, the flesh was burnt, and the blood sprinkled Levit. 1. and now since his death, except we eat the flesh of the Son of God and drink his blood, we have no life in us; for his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood [Page 4] is drinke indeed, He that eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath eternall life▪ Joh. 6. 53, 54, 55. although this I grant to be spiritually by faith, yet the type of his body and bloud we must now eat and drink, which before his death was to be burnt and spilt, and not eaten nor drunk; then the blood which before was forbid­den to Jewes may lawfully be eaten by Christians.

But this man hath some Scriptures to prove it unlawfull for Christians to eat blood, such as these: Levit. 7. 26 where it is said, You shall eat no manner of blood, whether of foule or beast in all your dwellings, for what soule soever it be that eateth a­ny manner of blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, that no soule of you shall eat blood, nor any that so journe among you shall eat blood, they shall powre out the blood, and cover it with dust. Levit. 17. 10, 11, 12, 13 14. You shall not eat the blood, ye shall powre it upon the earth as water, the blood is the life, and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh; thou shalt powre it out upon the earth as water, thou shalt not eat it, that it may go well with thee and thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord, Deut. 12. 16 23▪ 24, 25. I answer, all these precepts are confined to Israel, and their Pr [...]sselites, that are in their dwellings, and all the promises in case they obey, and do that which is right in the sight of the Lord, and all the pennalties in case of diso­bedience, are only to Israel and to their Prosselites that are in their dwellings; see all those Scriptures mentioned by him, then this is not blinding to Christians, for all these Ceremonies are voyd to Christians, then he would prove that Christians now are forbidden to eat blood, because Noah the Father both of Jewes and Gentiles had this Law given him and his posteritie, Gen. 9▪ 4 and all the world is his posterity, and by this law are forbidden to eat blood: and saith he, the Ceremoniall Law was given only to Jewes and their Prosselites, but this Law of prohibiting blood was gi­ven to the Gentiles in their father Noah, therefore it is no part of the Ceremoniall Law.

I answer, by this arguing the sacrifices of the Jewes were not Ceremoniall but Morall, because they were long before▪ the ceremoniall law was given, even from Caine and Abell, and also from Noah, the father to those Jewes and Gentiles, Er­go, wee that are the posterity of Noah, must now offer beasts in sacrifice, because Abell and Noah did, the father of the Gentiles, but Christ our Messias hath put an end to all bloody sacrifices, by that last and great sacrifice of himselfe, unlesse wee should looke for another Saviour, and uphold the Jewish Ceremonies, till he comes to free us of those beggerly elements, Gal. 4 9. for they were Jewish ceremonies, al­though they were in use long before the Jewish Nation was in being, and Christ was that Lamb slaine from the beginning of the world, Revel. 13. 8. for suppose Abell had offered a dog or a swine in sacrifice to the Lord, would it have beene accepted, no it would have been abominable to him, Isa. 66. 3. then from the beginning God made them know which beasts were esteemed of him as clean and which uncleane for sacrifice, for the Lord said to Noah before the flood, take the cleane beasts into▪ [Page 5] the Ark by sevens, and he did so: then it is plaine we know them, Gen. 7. 2. although neither flesh nor blood was then to be eaten; yea, Abells lamb signified Christ the Lamb of God to his faith to take way his sinnes, aswell as the Jewish sacrifices did, although he had this Ordinance but by tradition from his Predecessors, when as the Jewes had this in a written law for their owne Nation, yet all this ended at the sacrifice of Christ, then I say, all those shaddowes of Christ seased, Heb. 10. 1, 13, 14. and I have shewed blood was forbidden to be eaten, because it was to make an atonement for soules, Levit. 17. 11. and the blood of Abells lamb did sig­nifie the blood of Christ that was to make an atonement for sin unto his faith, and how Christ should redeem us to God by his blood, and wash away our sins in his blood, Revel. 1. 3, 4, 5. and 9. Heb. 9. 14, 19, 20, 21. 22. and the blood of beasts was powred upon the ground, to shew how the blood of Christ was to be spilt for our sins, and if any had gone about to save the blood of the lamb that was the type of Christs blood, it was all one as if he had saved the blood of Christ f [...]om being shed for our sins: but when Peter made the least motion to keep the blood of Christ from being shed, saying, this shall not be unto thee, that Christ turned him about in a rage saying, get thee behind me Satan, thou savourest not the things that be of God, Mat. 16. 22, 23, & when he struck at those that came to apprehend Christ, he had him put up his sword, for they that smite with the sword shall perish with the sword, Mat. 26. 52. but when all was finished, he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, drinke ye all of it, for this is my blood o [...] the New Testament which was shed for many for the remission of sins, Mat. 26. 27, 28. so then although the Sacrament of the blood of Christ before his death was to be spilt on the ground, yet now they▪ must drink it, and it were part of that unpardonable sin, now to spill the blood of the Covenant under feet, Heb. 10. 29. although it was to be spilt and sprinkled up­on the ground before his death.

But then he will prove this Law of prohibiting bloud to be eaten to be Morall, his reason is, because bloud is the life of the beast, and it is extreame crueltie to eat the bloud when the beast is dead, which was the life of it when it was living; a cruell thing to eat life it selfe: Therefore it is forbidden, and not because it is an uncleane thing, and forbidden by the Ceremoniall Law; but as a cruell thing forbidden by the Morall Law: Therefore he concludes, it is not Ceremoniall, but Morall; but here I would know of him, whether the seventh Commandement which forbids unclean­nesse, be not as Morall as the sixth, that forbids crueltie. Againe, is a thing first un­cleane, and then forbidden of God, or whether is it not first forbidden of God, and so becomes uncleane? It was Gods prohibition that made bloud to be uncleane to Noah and his posteritie, and to the Jewish Nation, being the visible Church of God; and for this man to say Gods prohibition did not put uncleannesse upon the things▪ prohibited, is to put uncleannesse upon the holy Law of God, and in stead of c [...]sting▪ the uncleane bloud as water upon the ground, this man casts this holy Law of God under feet as an uncleane thing.

But he saith, it is more crueltie to the beast, to eat the bloud after the beast is dead, than it is to kill it when it was alive; because (saith he) it is more inhumane to [...] the flesh of a dead man, or to kick it up and downe the streets, though the dead body feele no paine, than it is to kill a man by hanging him, in case the Law hath cond [...] ­ned him, although he put him to paine, and not the other: So saith hee, It is a greater signe of crueltie to eat the bloud of the beast after it is dead, than to kill a beast for food, by Gods permission being delivered into our hands. But I say againe, the prohibition is taken off which bound the Jewes from eating bloud, so that now the beast is wholly delivered into our hands for food, as well the bloud as the flesh. Againe, bloud is not life, it was only the seat of life, for if it were life, it would act and move as well out of the beast as in it, like the soule of man, but it cannot do so, then it is not life, though life was in it, Levit. 17. 11. and sometimes too much blood will kill the beast, and must be let out to save his life. Then is it as great crueltie to eat the place where life was, as to destroy life by killing the beast. Againe, now the prohibition is taken off, who loves the bloud most, hee that eats it, or hee that [...] ­ples it under his feet? In all wise mens judgement, he that eats it loves it most, and he that casts it under feet to be trampled upon, shewes most hatred and crueltie a­gainst it. Againe, is it true charitie to the lives of Christians, that they should [...] ­ther be destroyed than to eat bloud, being the place in which the life of the beast was? But the life of the beast is gone, and no more hurt can be done to it; but the life of [...] Christian is still in him, and may be refreshed with that thing only: This mans cha­ritie is more to the bloud of a dead beast, than it is either to the life it selfe of man or beast. Much like the charitie of King Saul to Agag, and the best of the ca [...]tell, that he would not slay them at Gods command, 1 Sam. 15: Or like Ahab, who would not slay Ammon at Gods command, saying, He is my brother, 1 King. 20. 32, 42. But cursed be that man that keeps his sword from bloud when God commands it to be shed, Jer. 48. 10. Thy life shall go for his life. Yet I must confesse the Lord said to Noah, He that eats the bloud of a beast, being the life of it, I will require that mans life at the hand of everie beast, Gen. 9. 4, 5. But the prohibition is taken off by Christ, who hath made them cleane that were not cleane, Acts 10. Againe, Is this prohibition morall, because Noah was forbidden to eat bloud, Gen. 9. 4. I say, No: For in the same Text it is plaine, that from the beginning of the world it was not so; for till then the greene herb was their food, according as God had said to Ad [...], Gen. 1. 29, 30. and 9. 4. I say till the floud man did eat that which grew of it selfe, neither did beasts prey one upon another, but went lovingly into the Ark: But after the floud it was permitted to men to eat the flesh of some beasts and fowles, but no [...] their bloud; so then this prohibition began but at Noah, and was to end at the death of Christ, then this Law was not Morall, we know both when it began, and when it ended. From Adam to Noah they were to eat what grew upon the ground, and from thence to the death of Christ they might eat some beasts and fowls, but not the bloud; and from the death of Christ to the end of the world we must not call any thing unclean, for God hath cleansed it, Acts 10.

But then he saith there is a Text in the New Testament, Acts 15. 28, 29. where it is said, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no other burden [...] th [...]se necessarie things, that yee abstaine from meats [...]ff [...]red to Idols, and from bloud, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from which if you keep your selves, yee shall do well. Here (saith hee) you see that neither the Old nor New Te­stament can scarce mention the forbidding to eat bloud, but it annexeth a blessing to them that abstaine, or a curse to those that practise it.

I answer: There was a great controversie at Antioch between the Jewes and Christians, the Jewes said, Except yee be circumcised after the manner of Moses, yee cannot be saved: Hereupon they came to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem about this question, vers. 1, 2. then James the Moderatour of the Synod said, My sentence is, that yee trouble not the Jewes which are among the Gentiles turned to the Lord; but if they will abstain from pollutions of Idols, and from fornication, then we wil yeeld to them to be circumcised after the manner of Moses, & according to Moses Law let them abstaine from things strangled, and from bloud. Hereupon Paul took Timothy and circumcised him, because of the Jewes which were in those quarters, Acts 16. 1, 3. And when the Apostles heard that Paul taught the J [...]wes which were among the Gentiles, saying, that they must forsake Moses, and that they ought not to be cir­cumcised, nor to walk after their customes; they told him saying, We have conclu­ded that they observe no such thing, as to say they must not be circumcised, nor to walk after their customes, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to Idols, and from fornication, and we will yeeld to them, to observe Moses Law, in keeping themselves from things strangled, and from bloud. See Acts 21. 21, 25. where the Apostles tell Paul what they have done at the Synod at Jerusalem, Acts 15. 25, 29. and 26. 4. Then the Apostles perswaded Paul to go in with foure men that had a vow, and purifie himselfe, and so he did, signifying the accomplishment of the dayes of purification, untill that [...]n offering be offered for everie one of them, vers. 23. 24, 26, 27. Thus unto the Jewes bee yeelded, to gaine the Jewes; so hee was two yeares at Ephesus, and never spake all that time against their Diana, that he might gaine them also to the Christian faith, Acts 19. 10. So then the Apo­stles did [...]eare with them in some things, that they might the better perswade them from fornication, and from things offered to Idols; but for any man to say, from this Text that bloud is▪ forbidden to the worlds end, they may as well say that Cir­cumcision must yet r [...]aine; for when Paul said, that they ought not to circumcise their children, the Apostles tell him, that they have written and concluded, that they observe no such thing, Acts 21. 21, 25.

Then he saith, that we object saying, to bind them from things offered to Idols, and from bloud, are but indifferent things: Hereupon he insults over it, saying, Ea­ting of bloud is against the Law of God, and is punished with damnation, for it is joyned with fornication.

I answer: To abstaine from bloud was then a thing indifferent, being between [Page 8] the ending of the Old Testament, and the beginning of the New, but it was not so before nor afterwards: So also was Circumcision before, if any Male was not cir­cumcised, he was to be cut off from the people, for saith the Lord, Hee hath broken my Covenant, Gen. 17. 14. But when they would have circumcised Titus, saith Paul, I would not give place by subjection, no not for an houre, Gal. 2. 3. 5. Yet hee consented to the Apostles conclusion, though hee had preached against it, Acts 21. 21, 25. and he did circumcise Timothy because of the Jewes, Act. 16. 3. so the pro­hibition of blood was only at that instant a thing indifferent, for before the penalty was, to be cut off from Israel, Levit. 17. 10. but now since we must not say any thing is uncleane, for God hath clensed it; Act. 10. 14, 15. and for him to say eat­ing blood is a sin against the Morall Law, as fornication is, it is not true as hath beene proved, although it was given to Noah, and practiced before him, but it is not so now for the time limited is past.

Then he faith, that we obj [...]ct saying, we must not eat flesh and bloud together, but asunder; and he saith, it must be powred upon the ground, and covered with dust, Levit. 17. 13. but I say that command was to Israel, and not to us, unlesse hee can fasten all the Jewish ceremonies upon Christians.

He saith we object, unto the pure all things are pure, Tit. 1. 15. and nothing is un­cleane of it selfe, but to him that esteemes it so: Rom. 14. 14. but he saith, we are not so mad to thinke nothing unfit for food, or uncleane, as to [...]ds, mans flesh, stones and trees.

I answer, will it follow because the prohibition is taken off, and so things that were uncleane are now cleane for food, that it must needs comprehend such things as these.

He saith, we object, that everie creature of God is good, and nothing to be refu­sed, 1 Tim. 4. 5. but he saith Paul must be understood of things not forbidden, so all things are lawfull, 1 Cor. 10. 23. he saith this doth not extend to things unwhol­some, or unlawfull for food, all this I grant, for blood is neither unclean, nor unlaw­full, since the prohibition was taken off, Act. 10 15. and how wholsome it is, thou­sands can daily witnesse.

He saith we object, this Law was Jewish, and not Morall, because the Jewes were forbidden to eat any thing that died of it selfe, when as aliens and strangers might eat it, Deut. 14. 21. to this he saith, strangers and aliens might eat it; here he contradicts himselfe, for he said before, that none of the posteritie of Noah ought to eat flesh with the bloud; but the meaning of this Text is this, those without the Church were without government, but neither the Jewish Church, nor the Church before the flood might do so, Gen. 9 3. then he grants it not uniawfull to eat some blood with the flesh, but he should have set downe his quantitie, or els we shall think it as lawfull to eat all as some. Thus he is moild in his owne Channell, and knowes not how to come clearly out of it, the meane time we may lawfully eat blood in things strangled, or made into wholsome food for us.