Selected quad for the lemma: death_n
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 Prâ—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 fâ—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 oâ— 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 câ—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 condâ—â—ned him although he put him to paine and not the other So saith hee It is a greater
THE Eating of blood vindicated IN A briefe Answer to a late Pamphlet INTITULED A Bloody Tenent confuted Mark 7. 15. There is nothing from without a man that entring into him can defile him but the things which come out of him those are they that defile the man Rom. 14. 17. For the Kingdome of God is not meat and drinke but Righteousnesse and Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost LONDON Printed for H. Shepheard at the Bible in Tower-Street and W. Ley at PAULS Chaine near Doctors Commons 1646. A just Defence of Christian Libertie in eating things that are strangled 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 quâ—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 â—â—e good and nothing to to be refused in case it be recived with thanksgiving for it is sanctified by the Word and Prayer Vers 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 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 weâ—kâ— 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 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