Lamb Christ our God delivers us from the Curse of the Enemy and from Eternal Death Indeed this is the grand and principal thing signified by the Paschal Lamb viz. our Redemption by the Blood of Jesus Christ. And the Sprinkling of this Blood is twice expresly mention'd as absolutely necessary for this purpose Heb. 12. 24. 1 Pet. 1. 1. And the hearts of Believers are said to be sprinkled from an evil conscience Heb. 10. 22. that is purged and cleans'd from the defilements of Sin by sprinkling of the Blood of this Lamb. Besides the sprinkling and striking of the Blood on the posts denotes unto us the particular applying of the Blood of Jesus and the virtue of his Passion to our selves by a lively Faith Which that Religious and Pious Critick whom I have before quoted expresses thus The Blood of Christ saith he is sprinkled on the posts of our hearts when with a firm Faith we imbrace the Doctrine of the Cross being assured that the Son of God poured out his Blood for us so that every one of us may say with the Apostle This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Iesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am chief Moreover at the Celebration of the Passover they were to strike the blood of the slain Lamb on the two side posts of the door within and without on purpose that they might see it and take special notice of it as the Angel did before and that they might call that Wonderful Mercy to remembrance This shall be to you for a Memorial and ye shall keep it a Feast to the Lord for ever ver 14. This solemn Feast was instituted on purpose to remind them of their Deliverance and so the Lords Supper which succeeds in its room is a Commemâ—ration of our Deliverance by Christ. Do this in Remembrance of me saith he observe this Holy Feast to help you to call to mind my Death and consequently the Infinite Benefits and Advantages which you receive by it In the next place we come to speak of the Eating of the Paschal Lamb and the several Circumstances that were observable in it and let us see how they agree with that which we are speaking of First I say it was to be Eaten and so was the Lamb of God He himself uses this stile and language he calls unto us saying Take eat this is my Body Mat. 26. 26. And he assures us that except we eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood we have no life in uâ— Whose â—ateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal life for my Flesh is meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleâ—h in me and I in him Joh. 6. 53 c. This I think is sufficient to prove the Parallel between Christ and the Paschal Lamb as to eating them Next we are to observe that this Lamb which was to be eaten was to be roasted with fire ver 8. And therein also is prefigured what beâ—el the Lamb of God The Holy Ghost in Scripture is pleased to compare God's Wrath to Fire Deut. 32. 24. Jer. 4. 4. Jer. 15. 14. Jer. 21. 12. Lam. 1. 13. Lam. 2. 4. and in many other places Therefore Roasting in the fire fitly expresseth the Extremity of Christs Sufferings under the Flames of God's Anger He was as it were Scorched and Burnt he underwent the Displeasure of God who is a Consuming Fire Deut. 4. 24. Heb. 12. 29. This is thus expressed in other terms by Isaiah He was woâ—nded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities Isa. 53. 5. He was oppressed and he was afflicted ver 7. It pleased the Lord to bruise him and to put him to grief ver 10. Some Commentators take no notice of this Parallel but certainly it is not to be omitted nay it is of very great moment and the manner of speech very fitly and significantly expresses the Heat the Height of God's wrath kindled against Sinners We see this Torrefaction is adapted to the usual language of Scripture where the Extremity of the Divine Anger against the wicked is set forth by fire with which saith the Learned and Pious Bochart it behoved Christ to be as it were scorched and burnt who had made himself a Surety for Sinners that he might undergo the Punishment which they deserved Nay besides the Mystical signification there is a kind of literal fulfilling of the Expression here used if we may credit an antient and pious Father who acquaints us that the Roasted Lamb at the Passover was spitted in such a manner that it resembled the figure of a Cross and he particularly tells us how If we consider that this Antient Writer of the Church was born and bred in Palestine and was skill'd in the Iewish as well as Pagan Rites and Customs and likewise if we remember that he spoke these words in a Conference with a knowing Iew who could and would have contradicted him if he had deliver'd any thing concerning the Iewish practices which was not true we cannot but look upon this as a very considerable Testimony and we must conclude that he would not have dared to apply this particular passage of the Roasting of the Lamb to our blessed Saviâ—ur he would not have compar'd this Cross to the Spit unless there had been ground for it The next thing observable is that the whole Lamb was to be eaten ver 10. Ye shall let nothing of it remain's which may import how Intire and Compleat the spiritual eating of the Lamb of God should be Whole Christ or none must be receiv'd by Faith Which the forecited Author thus piously descants upon It is not sufficient to eat Christ in part as if we were desirous to enjoy his Glory but not to be partakers of his Sufferings or as if we would have him for our Redeemer not for our Lawgiver and Master as if not attributing enough to the Merits of Christ we would partly place our confident hope of Salvation in our own Works or in the Mediation and Intercession of others And further when it is said that the Lamb must not remain till morning it doth strangely and marvelously agree with what the Evangelists relate that Christ was taken down from the Cross on a sudden contrary to the Custom in such cases and partly because of the Sabbath on the ensuing day that thereby the Parallel between our Saviour and the Iewish Passover might be more manifest It is said further ver 46. and Num. 9. 12. Neither shall ye break a bone thereof That Christ Iesus who suffer'd on the Cross was presignifi'd and foretold by this is plain from what is recorded by St. Iohn who tells us that Divine Providence so order'd it that tho the Souldiers broke the Legs of those that were crucified with Christ yet they brâ—ke not his Legs Joh. 19. 33. A most remarkable completion of the Type
Blood that maketh Atonement for the Soul Lev. 17. 11. Now this Reason ceases under the Gospel since all the Iewish Sacrifices and Effusions of Blood on the Altar are abolished The Blood of Animals was made typical and representative of Christ's Blood but he being come and having shed his Blood what have we to do with the Blood of any Animals what reason have we to have regard to it 3. In the Law which forbids eating of Blood you may observe that Blood it self is not absolutely forbid but living Blood i. e. the Blood of the Beast before it be quite dead therefore eating of the Blood of a Beast when he is deprived of Life is not unlawful according to that Law When the Blood is boiled or roasted and any ways so alter'd that the Life is gone from it it may be eaten notwithstanding that Law 4. Let the Law be understood of what Blood you please our Great and Infallible Law giver hath decided the Controversie by taking away all distinction of Meats There is nothing from without a Man that entring into him can defile him saith our Saviour Mark 7. 15. Here the Ceremonial Rite of abstaining from the eating of Blood is abolish'd by Christ for if no food that enters into a Man defiles him then Blood cannot and Consequently 't is lawful to eat it But for certain Reasons the Apostles at the Council at Ierusalem order'd this old Rite to be continued for a time viz. till the greatest part of the Iews were converted and then it was to be laid down And that it ought to be so is not only the Determination of Christ but of his Apostles I know and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus that there is nothing unclean of it self Rom. 14. 14. And the same Apostle declares it lawful to feed even on thing offer'd to Idols if no weak Brother be offened by it 1 Cor. 10. 25. Whatsoever is sold in the Shambles that eat asking no question for Conscience sake and ver 17. The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink i. e. it doth not consist in using this or that particular sort of Food for under the Gospel all are alike Therefore he saith in Col. 2. 16. Let no Man judg you in meat or in drink And again Every Creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be receiv'd with Thanksgiving 1 Tim. 4. 4. Thus tho it was not absolutely necessary that we should havâ— a particular revoking of the Law for it is enough that the Reason of it ceaseth yet we find that it is more than once revoked and repeal'd in a very formal and express manner and that after the Decree of the Synod at Ierusalem So that now there is no intrinsick Evil and Turpitude no Unlawfulness and Sin in eating of Blood But this was not practised in the Apostles times nor universally obtained a long 〈◊〉 after but they very carefully refrained from eating of Blood for the Reason before mentioned viz. out of compliance and condescension to the Iews who were turn'd Christians And for this Reason the Christians in the Second and Third Century generally observed the Canons of this Apostolical Synod and they were confirmed by several Councils Particularly that the Christians of those days abstain'd from Blood and things strangled is attested by Iustin Martyr Origen Tertullian Minutius Felix and Eusebius Tho it appears likewise that this was not a universal Observance but some did eat Blood whilst others abstained The Greek and Ethiopick Churches to this day abstain from things strangled and from Blood by virtue of the Decree of that first Council in Acts 15. And among the modern Writers some of no mean Learning have espoused this Opinion and Practice and the Learned Grotius seems to favour them These Persons were drawn into this Sentiment by having an eye to the Practice of the old primitive Christians and by not considering the true Reason why that Canon of abstaining from Blood prevail'd in some parts of the Church viz. because the Christian Church was not wholly gather'd in those Parts and several Iews who abhorr'd Blood and things strangled might have been kept from imbracing Christianity if there had not been a compliance in this matter This was the occasion of this Canon of the Apostles saith St. Augustin and this he saith was the Judgment of the Christians in his days He adds that there were but a few in his time that abstain'd from eating Blood and they were laugh'd at by the rest as too nice and scrupulous Nor did those Men attend to the foregoing Reasons and Proofs of the Abrogation of this Decree which if they had done they would have found it to be a temporary Injunction and that it was obligatory so long as any Gentiles were mixed among the Churches but that afterwards it was to be quite cast off for the observing of this and other parts of the Decree were kept up only by reason of the Churches Weakness To conclude this Subject let us sum up the difference of Dispensations as to this particular of abstaining from some Food At first there was a Restraint as to this nothing but the Fruits of the Earth were permitted to be eaten at least generally and usually But after the Flood their Commons were enlarged for Flesh was allowed yet with this Restriction not to eat Flesh with the Blood or Life in it Then afterwards among the Iews a Law restrain'd them from some sort of Food some Animals only were permitted the rest being pronounced unclean But when Christ came this Restraint was removed yet so as the Liberty did not totally prevail for by an Aposâ—olical Council they were bid to abstain from Things strangled and from Blood And afterwards in some Christian Churches this Abstinence was yet observed But at last the Christian and Evangelical Liberty took all Restraint away the Iewish Rites and Usages having had time enough to wear off From other Instances in the Christian Church in those first Times it might be proved that whilst they were not all grown up to the like knowledg and perswasionâ— both Iudaism and Christianity were often twisted together Even in the second Century the Christians in the East following the Example of St. Iohn and St. Philip observed Easter on the very time the Iews did their Passover but those in the West imitating the Practice of St. Peter and St. Paul kept Easter on the Lord's Day the Day on which Christ arose Victor the Bishop of Rome endeavoured to bring the Churches of Asia to his Opinion designing to excommunicate all those who disagreed with the Roman Churches but he was disswaded at last from prosecuting that Design and the celebrating of Easter remained free till the Nicene Council where the Western Churches got the better and they that refused to keep that Feast on Sunday were branded with the Name of Quartodecimani I might further prove this mixture of Iewish and
of Thankfulness which is a Law of Nature taught the Antient Patriarchs to offer these Gifts as Tokens and Testimonies of their Gratitude By these they openly proclaim'd that God was the supreme Giver of all things Natural Light inform'd them that it was fitting to make some Returns to God to give something to him from whom they receiv'd all They needed not a particular Command from God for this These were spontaneous free and uncommanded Offerings these were dictated by Reason and the voluntary Motions of their Hearts which told them that they ought to acknowledg God's Goodness to them by such gratulatory Sacrifices These were but so many Acts of Thanksgiving to God for Benefits and Favours receiv'd of him and were but natural Signs of Worship due to him But Secondly Besides the Eucharistical Sacrifices there were Expiatory ones But these were not the Dictates of Natural Reason for tho the Patriarchs might perswade themselves that those Sacrifices being thankful Acknowledgments and Gifts would be acceptable to God that he would receive them kindly and be pleas'd not to shew himself angry and offended for their former Miscarriages yet this they might as well have thought to have been done by the unbloody Sacrifices the offering of the Fruits of the Earth for they being Gifts as well as these those that offer'd them might expect that God would be pleas'd with them and that thereby they should conciliate the Divine Favor and Acceptance and so that there should be an Expiation made for their Sine Thus the unbloody sort of Sacrifices would have been sufficient and there is no reason why the bloody ones should be added No truly Nature could afford them no substantial Reason why the Blood of Beasts should be shed Reason doth not tell us that God is delighted in the Blood and Pain of the innocent Brutes Reason doth not acquaint us that the offering of these is a satisfaction to his Justice and a means to avert the Judgments of God there is no Law of Nature that dictates any such thing Hence the sacrificing of the Beasts was condemned by the wisest Men among the Heathens What saith Porphyrius and by him you may know what the Pythagoreans thought and held for he was a principal Man of that Sect As for sacrificing of Beasts and Blood saith he that was not from the beginning but introduced lately by superstitious and wicked Persons Bloody Sacrifices commenced from Famine and War when People were forced to tast Blood When they had tasted of the Blood of Animals they sacrificed them to the Gods Again saith he in the same place As they sacrificed so they eat Flesh was at first not eaten afterwards that being sacrificed they eat it for they reckon'd what was good for their Gods was good for themselves so from â—â—ating they proceeded to offer Thus this Philosopher was mistaken about the first Original of bloody Sacrifices and it could not be expected that he should attain to the true Reason of it which as I shall shew you is the grand bottom of revealed Religion But this Testimony of Porphyrius confirmeth what I am asserting viz. that bloody Sacrificing was not the Dictate or Precept of Nature Had it been so this Person who was so well versed in the Law of Nature and Reason would not have inveighed against this kind of Sacrificing as not becoming God nor Men as having no Reason nor Religion to justify it He would not have told us in plain terms that God is by no means delighted in the Blood of Beasts and that this manner of Sacrificing was discountenanced and disapproved by the Oracles as he relateth Let us hear what other Heathens thought of the bloody Sacrifices It is impious to pollute Altars with Blood saith Plato Who concurreth with Pythagorâ—s in this as well as in many other things Varro quoted by Arnobius declareth That the true Gods neither desire nor expect these Sacrifices and the false Gods made of Brass and Wood do less care for them From Tertullian we learn that the Philosophers had no good opinion of Sacrifices and never were urgent with the People to offer them The best Heathen Moralists profess'd that the only acceptable Offerings were a pious Heart and an upright Will Some of the Poets have slighted and disparaged the offering of slain Beasts in Sacrifice Ovid is of this number and moreover tells us that bloody Sacrifices were not in the more Innocent and Primitive Ages of the World Which tho it be false yet it shews the Sentiment of this and other wise Men who had no good opinion of this kind of Sacrifices Among the Egyptians who were the wisest of the Antient Nations no Animals were kill'd for Sacrifice to the Gods saith Macrobius Do you think now that the gravest and wisest Heathens would have disapproved of and condemned Sacrifices if they had been a Dictate of Nature and Morality if they had been the Natural Worship of God Would they not rather have defended and maintain'd them for natural Religion and the main Offices of it are extoll'd by none more than them But as they were bloody Sacrifices there was no Principle in Nature and Reason to commend them and thence it is that the wisest Pagans never spoke seriously for them but generally against them and they were of the opinion that God was not honour'd by the Blood of Brutes and the killing of harmless Beasts and that he took no pleasure in the Smoke that ascended from their slain Bodies It is evident then that bloody Sacrificing as it denoteth Atonement and Propitiating was not the result of Natural Light but was by positive and Divine Institution And from what was known hence there came to be even among the Pagans a Notion of Expiation by sacrificing which we find in several of their Writings but they had not of themselves any such apprehension This I prove from the Reason which Moses or rather the Lord by Moses giveth of bloody Sacrifices Levit 17. 11. The Life of the Flesh is in the Blood and I have given it to you on the Altar to make an Atonement for your Souls for it is the Blood that makes Atonement for the Soul Tho this Reason of offering the Blood of slain Beasts was divulged to the Israelites at this particular time yet this reason was good at first and was the true account of the Service of Bloody Sacrifices among the Patriarchs Now the Reason here given why these Sacrifices are to be used is because it is the Blood that makes Atonement for the Soul And if you ask the Reason of this it is implied in the beginning of the Verse before recited the Life of the Flesh is in the Blood So then when the Blood of the Beast is offer'd in Sacrifice the Life of it is offer'd and the Life of the Beast is supposed to be given instead of the Life of the Offender for whom the Sacrifice is offered and so the Beast
this and say it was by Divine Injunction But Chrysostom and Theodoret seem to be of another Judgment The Moderns are divided some hold that Flesh was eaten before the Flood and others not till after it Luther Peter Martyr Fr. Iunius and Musculus hold the latter But Calvin Rivet Parâ—us and other Reformed Divines hold the former viz. that eating of Flesh as well as Herbs was free from the very Creation Of this Opinion too are Beveroviciâ—â— the Physician Bochart Voetius Hottinger and our Willeâ— But I conceive that these worthy Men fail in this Point and that the other Opinion is to be prefer'd before this because there is a plain Text of Scripture to back it which the other Opinion is destitute of Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you even as thâ— green Herb which was the only Food allow'd you before Gen. 1. 29. have I given you all things Gen. 9. 3. As much as to say you have as free liberty now since the Flood to eat the Flesh of every living Creature as you had before the Flood to feed on every sort of Herbs and Fruits tho you were stinted as to Flesh. This is the clear sense and import of the words and consequently proves that eating Flesh before the Flood was unlâ—wful I do not say they never ate Flesh for it 's pâ—obable they did transgress sometimes and made bold to taste of that sort of Food but this is the thing I assert that â—ating Flesh was forbidden them at that time and that the Prohibition was not taken off till after the Flood and that then first of all it was lawful to kill Animals in order to the eating of their Flesh all which appears from clear words of Scripture If it be objected that the Antediluvians kept Sheep and therefore it is to be infer'd thence that they â—ade use of their Flesh for Food I answer That they kept flocks of Sheep 1. For their Wool and Skins to clothe them 2. For Sacrifices which consumed many of their Sheep and other Cattel And perhaps 3 for Milk to sustain them for as I suggested before they ventured to transgress sometimes and to eat something else besides Herbs and Fruits tho it was against a Command Thus you see the Shepherds Life or keeping of Sheep proveth not that they used the Flesh of Sheep for Food And by what hath been said we know likewise how to answer that common Objection that killing of Beasts was used by the Patriarchs therefore eating Flesh was in use It follows not because they killed them either for their Skins or Fleece or to offer them on the Altar The elder 〈◊〉 thinks that tho at all other times they abstain'd from Flesh yet this was their extraordinary repast at Sacrificing But I do not see any reason to confirm what he suggests for tho afterwards it was usual to eat of the Sacrifices yet it doth not follow thence that this was practis'd before the Flood Others argue also from the difference of clean and unclean Beasts before the Flood It is evident say they that there was eating of Bâ—asts at that time else some could not be said to be clean and others unclean But I have proved before that the distinction of clean and unclean Animals which was before the Flood had respect only to Sacrifices not to Eating Notwithstanding then these Objections I assert that there was no Sarcophagy before the Flood at least it was not common and that if any presumed to eat Flesh it was unlawfully done of them This Notion the Pagan Poets and Philosophers had 〈◊〉 Virgil intimateth that eating of Flesh was an impious thing and not known in the first and purest Ages of the World Ovid describing those Times le ts us know that they sed on no Flesh but lived altogether on the Fruits of the Earth Aâ— vetus illa â—tas cui fecimus aurâ—a nâ—men Foetibus arboreis quas humâ—â— educat herbiâ— Fortunata fuit nec polluit or a cruore Tunc aves tutâ— movérâ— pâ—r â—era pennas Et lepus impavidus mediis erravit in arvis Nec sua credulitas piscâ—m suspender at hâ—mo Cuncta sine inâ—idiis nulláamque timentia fraâ—dem Plenáque paciâ— erant Which may be English'd thus The Antient Age which we the Golden call Was bless'd with Hâ—rbs and Fruits the only Fare That wholesom is Those days were not defil'd With bloody Dainties In those early Times The Fowls in safety flew in th' open Air The Beasts securely ranged in the Plains Fishes were not by their Credulity Unwarily betray'd All Creatures liv'd In a profound security For why They neither used nor fear'd Treachery This the Pythagoreans testify who were great Searchers into the Antient and Primitive Practices of the World Pâ—rphyrius who was one of that Sect asserts that in the Golden Age no Flesh of Beasts was eaten and he is to be pardoned in what he addeth afterwards in the same Book that War and Famine first introduced this usage He was not acquainted with Genesis he knew not that God's Order to Noaâ— after the Flood was that every living Creature should be Meat for him If you enquire into the Reason why God who had restrain'd Men from eating of Flesh before the Flood permitted them to do it aâ—ter it it is likely he did it because the Earth was corrupted by the Deluge and by the saltness of the Seas and so the Plants and Herbs and all Fruits of the Earth were indamaged The natural Virtue of Vegetables was much impaired and thereby they could not yield so wholesom and solid a Nourishment as they once did they were not so sutable to Man's Body as they were before Hereupon God gave them a Licence to eat Flesh he indulged this to them out of the Care and Love he bore to them The Second Positive Law which Noaâ— receiv'd was concerning the not â—ating of Flesh with the Blood Gen. 9. 4. Flesh with thâ— Lifâ— thâ—reof which is the Blood thereof shall ye not â—at Ludâ—vicâ—â— de Dieâ— is of opinion that the eating of Creatures that died of themselves is here forbid but I see no foundation for it St. Chrysâ—â—tom thinks that eating of things strangled is spoken against here But this doth not reach the full meaning of this Prohibition for by this Law it was made unlawful to eat any raw Flesh whilst it was yet warm and had the Blood and Life in it Thus the Iewish Doctors understood it and that very rightly as the famous Mr. Selden hath shew'd This they say was the Seventh Precept given by God to Noah after the Flood We are sure it was one for the Holy Ghost by Moses attesteth it here Tho they had leave to eat Flesh yet it was with this Exception that they should not eat it with the Life or Soul which is the Blood that is they were forbid to eat live Flesh with the Blood in it they were not
permitted to eat the Flesh before it was quite dead or they were not to eat any Limb or Member torn off from an Animal alive The Reason given in another place why they must not â—at Blood is because it is the Soul or Life of all Flesh that is it is the chief Instrument of Life and therefore is properly and significantly used in making Atonement for Souls Therefore it was designed wholly for Expiation it was appointed and appropriated to that sacred Use on the Altar And for this reason it ought not to be used in a common way Again God forbad eating of Blood and that even before the Law to teach abstaining from Man's Blood They must eat no Beast's Blood that they might not thereby learn to delight in Human Blood as we see saith an Expositor upon the place Butchers who kill Beasts are generally cruel and bloody to Men and for that reason the Law suffers them not to be on the Jury of Life and Death The Athâ—nians order'd one to be flead alive because he had serv'd a Ram so The Areopagite Judges condemn'd a Boy to death because he put out the eyes of Quails and this is given as the reason because it shew'd that the Boy was of a cruel disposition and would prove very hurtful if he lived So here it was thought that Blood-eating was a sign of and preparative to inhuman Actions and accordingly was not allow'd of Therefore this Precept of not eating the Flesh of Beasts with the Blood running about it was to restrain this Cruelty The old Giants of the World before the Flood generally liv'd on the Blood of Beasts and so learn'd to be cruel and savage to Men and thence as Maimonides and Mr. Selden from him conjecture this Law had its rise God therefore commanded those of Noah's Posterity to reâ—rain wholly from Blood that they might not proceed from cruelty to Beasts to killing of Men. Besides this may seem partly to be a natural Law Blood being a gross Meat and not fit for nourishment A Third Law given to Noah was that in Gen. 9. 5 6. Surely the blood of your lives will I require at the hand of every beast will I require it and at the hand of man at the hand of every mans brother will I require thâ— lifâ— of man Whoso â—â—eddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed for in the Image of God made 〈◊〉 maâ— There is indeed a Treble Law comprised in these words 1. They are forbid to shed mans blood Noaâ— and his sons are commanded not to be guilty of Homicidâ— Taking away a mans life was unlawful before as in C ain but here it is solemnly denounced to be such and moreover the Punishment of it is set down If shedding of mans blood were not here forbidden as unlawful it would not be followed with a Pâ—nalty as you see it is Which is the second Sanction here the blood of your lives I will require at the hand of every beast and at the hand of every man Whether man or beast procure the death of a man their blood shall be required for it Death is here made the Penalty of Murder Yea the very Beasts that kill'd a man should themselves be kill'd There was no Law before this for the punishing of Bloodshed And thirdly here is also signified the Autâ—ority of thâ— Magistrate whose particular and peculiar work it is to require the life of man at the hand of every mans brâ—thâ—r Whoso sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed Here the manner of punishing bloodshed is set down and appointed it must be done by the Magistrate A publick Minister of Justice is here ordered and appointed to punish the guilty Here is the first Institution of that Political Order Here is the first injunction for erecting Courts of Judicature Some of the Socinian party will allow this to be a Commination but not a Precept given to Magistrates But herein they separate what they ought to have united for these words are both a threatning of Punishment and also an Order or Warrant given to the Magistrate to execute that Punishment It is to be done by Man Adam which word sometimes is appropriated to one of Eminency and Power and therefore here not unfitly denotes the Magistrate the Ruler him that hath Authority and Power above others This is the person that is commission'd here not to suffer Bloodshed to go unpunish'd but to return blood for blood which is a practice grounded on the Law of Reason and Equity which in such a case as this requires a just and equal Retribution But this and other places those of the Racâ—vian way distort to serve their own end viz. to patronize their opinions concerning Magistrates who according to them are not to use any Capital Punishment not to 〈◊〉 War c. But any unprejudic'd and considerate person cannot but see that the power of the Sword is here given to the Civil Magistrate Upon this one Charter depends the Execution of Justice against all Crimes upon this is founded the power of executing judgment upon Offenders and of cutting off of Malefactors So that you see in this forecited place are contain'd two of those Precepts which were said to be given to Adam the Titles whereof were of Iudgments and of not Shedding of Blood which both were Laws of Nature imprinted in mens breasts but when after the flood the World began anew God thought fit to revive the remembrance of these Laws and made them Positivâ— and not before that we know of Some think that under this Dispensation was introduced Slavery that men were all free before the Flood and that not long after Servitudâ— began viz. in Canaan the Son of Cham for which they alledg that Text Gen. 9. 25. A servant of servantâ— shall he bâ— Here is the first servant mention'd and because we read of none before they conclude that Bondage which is a great Curse began in this Cursed Person the Offspring of cursed Câ—am But I cannot so easily assert that Servitudâ— had its first rise here for though Canaan be the first servant mention'd yet it doth not follow thence that Thraldom had its beginning in him for silence is no Argument that there was none before But the main thing which I have to say is this that if Bondage commenc'd in Canaan it is to be understood not of himself but of his posterity So that we may truly say it did not begin in this Dispâ—nsatiâ—n but afterwards And this is plain from the place it self and the following verses where 't is said Canaan shall be the servant of Shâ—m and he was so when his posterity the Canaanitâ—s were overcome and subdued by those of the race of Shâ—m viz. the Israâ—lites Then it was that this Curse on Canaan was fulfill'd and not before But as to common Servitude we read of it long before that time Aâ—raâ—am had mâ—n-servants and maid-sâ—rvants who 〈◊〉 boâ—ght with
here the grand Points of the Christian Belief are here set forth in a clearer Light than before they are proved and confirm'd in these Writings Yea several great Truths and weighty Doctrines of the Christian Faith are mention'd and illustrated here which neither the Gospels nor the Acts speak of Especially St. Paul's Epistles which are thrice as many as any of the other Apostles writ are fraught with extraordinary Discoveries of Divine and Heavenly Mysteries And we could not expect less for this Apostle was the only Person of them all that had the Privilege to be taken up into the third Heaven the Seat of Glory where he was in a more especial manner enlightned and had those sublime Points of the Trinity c. as his Writings abundantly testifie reveal'd and open'd to him so far as the matters were capable of it which the Evangelists and other Apostles knew but little of which makes his Writings more eligible and valuable than all the rest This is so plain and obvious that it is wonderful that any Man who hath read and perused his Epistles can contradict it and which is worse undervalue them as if they were writ only by the by and were not designedly indited to instruct us in the most necessary Articles of our Religion We cannot believe this when we consider the extraordinary Revelations which this Apostle was honoured with and when we observe the gradual Discovery of the Truths of the Gospel But still the Gospel was in its Childhood and Inferior State which is the thing I have now undertaken to make good This Dispensation of Christianity under which the Apostles were was not arrived to a very considerable Pitch There were some Relicks of the Iewish Oeconomy still remaining they had not quite laid aside the Ceremonial Law and Mosaick Rites St. Paul when he was among the Gentiles or writ to them as to the Galatians declared against all Mosaick Observances whatsoever but the other Apostles when they were among the Iews did no such thing yea St. Paul himself to comport with the Iews or Gentiles as he saw occcasion used or used not the Jewish Ceremonies Thus he circumcised Timothy but not â—itus And so without doubt the other Apostles behav'd themselves according to the people they dealt with They kept the first Day of the Week the true Christian Sabbath Acts 17. 7. 20. 7. 25. 66. 1 Cor. 16. 2. and they observed likewise the Iewish one Acts 13. 14 42. 16. 13. for they found it convenient to comply with some because of their weakness therefore for the sake of the converted Iews they observ'd the seventh day Sabbath tho with the converted Gentiles they celebrated the first Day of the Week We find that two or three Iewish Ceremonies were kept up by the Apostles when all the rest were abrogated Acts 15. 28 29. It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things that ye abstain from meats offered to Idols and from Blood and from Things strangled and from Fornication Here St. Iames the Bishop of Ierusalem and St. Peter and St. Iohn Apostles and others of the Church determine what the Gentile Christians shall do in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia as touching the Iewish Rites and Ceremonies They are not to be Circumcised but it is required of them as of all Proselytes of the Gate that they observe the Precepts of abstaining from things offered to Idols c. This is the Decretal Epistle or you may call these the Canons of the Apostolick Council And these things are enjoin'd for no other end but to comply with the believing Iews that in some Observances those Gentile Converts might agree with them Besides as One observes these things named in the Decree and forbidden by it were such as the Pagan Idolaters chiefly observ'd and practised They are four grand Marks of Gentilism and therefore those Gentiles who were converted to Christianity ought to renounce all those things as Idolatrous Especially as to Fornication they were bid to abstain from this not as if it were of the same nature and as indifferent in it self as the other things mentioned but they are joined together because the Gentiles thought Fornication or Whoredom an indifferent thing and they usually allow'd themselves in it A Learned Man of our Nation is of Opinion that by Fornication is meant Poligamy a sort of Fornication as he calls it among the Iews which seem'd to them lawful and marrying within the prohibited degrees is he thinks here forbidden likewise But if we remember that what the Synod decrees here is for the sake of the Converted Gentiles not the Iews we shall rather believe that Fornication properly so call'd is here forbid especially if we consider that the Pagans had no positive Laws among them against this tho they had against Adultery Wherefore this Practice which was look'd upon as an indifferent thing among them is here directly caution'd against and hence you see the Reason why this is ranked with the rest And the abstaining from these things is mention'd as necessary not as if they were all unlawful in themselves and their own nature for Fornication only was so but the rest were for that time and juncture necessary Otherwise they are call'd a burden and therefore not morally good and consequently not Necessary in themselves Yet they were I say Necessary tho not to all Christians yet to all Proselytes of the Gate and for that time only because it was requisite to symbolize with the Iudaizing Christians who urged some Ceremonial Observances and this was the way to unite both converted Iews and Gentiles who then were mixed together But when Christianity prevailed and there was no fear of giving offence to the weak the Obligation of this Decree ceas'd and these things were not observ'd in the Church But one of these viz. abstaining from Blood hath not so soon and so easily been laid aside as the others The Reason of which I conceive was this this was an early Prohibition this was a Law given to Noah Gen. 9. 4. Flesh with the life thereof which is the Blood thereof ye shall not eat and thus having the start of the Ceremonial Law of Moses they might think it forbad something which was morally Evil and that as it obliged before Moses's Law so it ought to do afterwards and that therefore there lay an obligation on Christians to observe it But several things I will here suggest 1. It should be consider'd there were Ceremonial Laws and Rites prescribed before Moses that are universally acknowledged to have no obligation under Chrisâ—ianity and therefore this may cease as well as they 2. It should be remembered that when this Law was deliver'd to Moses the Reason annex'd to it was this The life of the flesh is in the Blood and I have given it to you upon the Altar to make an Atonement for your Souls for it is the