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. 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 Vt 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 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
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 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 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
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 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 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 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
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 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 Prâ—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 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 FINIS