Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	cup_n	new_a	testament_n	24,985	5	9.6469	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A82451	The eating of blood vindicated: in a briefe answer to a late pamphlet, intiutled, A bloody tenent confuted.		1646 (1646)	Wing E111; Thomason E506_16; ESTC R205583	8,493	8

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 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 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 FINIS