Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	eat_v	idol_n	weak_a	2,180	5	9.3570	5	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78170	The triall of a black-pudding. Or, The unlawfulness of eating blood proved by Scriptures, before the law, under the law, and after the law. By a well wisher to ancient truth.	Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691.	1652 (1652)	Wing B846; Thomason E666_2	17,359	24

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

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 causÃ¢ summ Ã¢ cum impudenti Ã¢ mandatum DEI contemnunt in escomq qu Ã¢ 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. ErgÃ² 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 malÃ¨ inter res medias numerabant cÃ¹m 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. ErgÃ² 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. ErgÃ² 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 ErgÃ² 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 ErgÃ² 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

Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Text snippets containing the quad