Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	contain_v	law_n	moral_a	2,485	5	9.8922	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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 LONDON Printed by F N. and are to be sold by John Hancock in Popes Head-Alley 1652. THE TRIALL OF THE BLACK PUDDING OR THE EATING OF BLOOD Questioned Convinced Condemned SIR I Have at last got a Copie of the Treatise you mentioned to me but with much ado and for a short time I made use of my spare houres to extract the summe of it which here I do impart and commend to your more serious consideration I confesse I was always tender in that point not knowing what or how to resolve seeing on one side express and literal Scripture inhibitions on the other side the Churches practise and approbation and being loath to lay an unnecessarie burden upon my conscience and yet fearing to transgress so plain and literal inhibitions my judgement was distracted between fear to be accounted singular if I should abstain and fear to transgress a Law if I should receive Now this Treatise in my opinion doth make the point clear enough to any rationable man that will submit rather to the word and be ruled by it then to the conceits and practise of men I do wonder you do so violently exclaim against it as Judaical and Mosaical when we see the Apostles Canon and Decree touching this and other restraints was published and enjoyned then when all other parts of the Ceremonial Law were altogether abolished and this Law against Eating of Blood de novo re commanded and recommended to all Christians practise and observation you will see mo e of it in this Extract which if you like I wil endeavour to get the whole Treatise and impart it to you Herein onely I differ from the Author that he maketh this restraint from eating of Blood Generall and binding of all men as men Whereas I rather think it doth concern and oblige onely Gods people and under the Gospel all Christians and such as make profession of Jesus Christ For what have we to do with them that are without I pray read it without pre-conceit consider it without partialitie and judge it without passion Farewell THE QUESTION IS Whether it be lawfull to Christians under the Gospel to eat Blood THe Author answereth Negatively and saith No it is not lawfull and doth prove it by one Generall and three sorts of particular grounds and Arguments The main Argument is this That precept or command which God hath given to man before the Law renewed to the Israelites under the Law confirmed to Christians after the Law without any distinction of Times Places Persons is Moral and perpetuall But the Law against eating of Blood was thus given before under and after the Law and never repealed Ergo that Law is Moral and perpetual The Major or Proposition of this syllogisme is thus proved because 1. the whole time of the Churches subsisting on Earth is divided into these three ages before under and after the Law so that what Command of God soever was given in any one of these three ages it did binde all and every one in the Church during that age of the Church Now the same Command against Blood being re-confirmed in all three ages it was made binding of all men in the Church in all these three ages and consequently for ever 2. Because we can hardly finde any such command of that Nature but was either natural or moral as the Law of keeping the Sabbath and against murther which being made in all three Ages doth prove it moral and perpetual The Minor or Assumption is contained in the very words of Scripture For this precept was given before the Law Gen. 9.4 renewed under the Law Levit. 17.10 seq confirmed after the Law Act. 15.28 Ergo this precept is moral and perpetuall Object Circumcision was commanded before and under the Law and practised after the Law Ergo it doth not follow that whatsoever hath a footing in these three Ages is moral c. R 1. Though Circumcision was commanded before and under the Law yet not after the Law but rather expresly forbidden Act. 15.10 19.24 Gal. 5.2 Ergo the comparison faileth 2. Circumcision was commanded before the Law but onely to one man Abraham and his posteritie and consequently doth and cannot binde all men as the Law against Blood which was given to Noah and his posteritie and consequently to all men The particular Arguments against Eating of Blood are taken from several places of Scripture in all the three Ages of the Church which the Author doth prosecute largely the sum whereof is as followeth I. From the command of God before the Law Gen 9.4 But Flesh with the life thereof which is the Blood thereof ye shall not eat In these words of Gods inhibition the Author findeth three grounds against Blood 1. From the Persons to whom this Command was given Noah his sons and posteritie v. 1.9 from whence he doth conclude Whatsoever Command was given to Man as Man at the beginning of a 2d Creation without any repealing of it in after ages that Command is Morall and Perpetuall But this Command was thus given Ergò The Major is undoubted The Minor appeareth in the text where we see that the Law against eating of Blood was given to the same persons to whom the blessing of multiplication was given v 1. the dominion over the Creatures v 2. the permission to eat flesh v. 3. the command against shedding of Blood Now all these particulars belong properly to Mankind without distinction of Persons Ergò the Law against Blood also which consequently is Morall and perpetuall 2. From Gods own reason why he would have us abstain from Blood because Blood is the life of the flesh i e bloud doth contain and maintain and convay the vitall spirits to all the parts of the body which receive their ordinary nourishment from the Blood so that blood being taken away their lives are taken away Now God would not have Men eat the life and the soul of Beasts a thing barbarous and unnaturall so that if it was unlawfull then it is unlawfull still to eat Blood because Blood is still the life of beasts from whence he concludeth Wheresoever the same reason and ground of a Command continueth there the Command it self continueth in force till it be expressely abolished Now the reason why God would have Men abstain from eating of Blood continueth because it is the life of Beasts Ergò Obj. The fourth Command hath a continuing reason annexed because the Lord rested the Seventh Day and yet that day is altered Ergò a perpetuall reason doth not always proove the perpetuity of a command Answ The change of the day of Sabbath is by an expresse order from God and his Apostles but we have no such change or alteration of the Law against eating of Blood which is expressed in the Major as a limitation

by humane Laws and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doctrines of Men are meant quae â Philosophis precipiebantur But 2. supposed not granted that Ceremoniall Laws be here understood then let them prove that this Law against Blood belongeth to Moses Ceremoniall Laws only The very ground of this mistake is that they will and do not distinguish between the Laws given to Noah ad quae addidit quaedam Christus dempsit nihil saith Grotius and the ceremonial Laws given to Moses which are abolished and that they refer the Law against Blood meerly to Moses Laws when it was given so many hundred yeers before 5 Argument If we may eat whatsoever God hath created to be eaten and it be a Doctrine of Devils to teach otherwise then we may eat Blood which is created to be eaten and it is unsound Doctrine to teach otherwise But this is so 1 Tim 4.2 3. Ergò R. 1. The scope of the Apostle is to forewarn Christians of divers heresies which should come in with Doctrines of Devils forbidding to marry and to eat flesh as proceeding à malo principio as were the Encra●ites Marcionites Manichees c. which is the common opinion of most Fathers and Divines amongst them Austin Calvin Beza Piscator Grotius c. Thus the Text doth speak nothing of Blood which was forbidden by God himself not by those Hereticks 2. We do deny that Blood was created to be eaten but to be a means to contain and maintain life in Beasts as we did shew above out of Gen 9.7 Lev 17.11 nay for this cause the Lord did expresly forbid the eating of it in these two places alledged 3. The Apostle doth describe the nature of those Creatures which were created to be eaten that they must not only be good and fit for food but sanctified by the word and prayer v 5. to receive a Creature with thanksgiving is not enough to make it lawfull to be eaten unlesse it be sanctified i e allowed to be eaten in the word as Calvin expoundeth it Now I pray where is Blood sanctified and allowed in the Word I find a threefold inhibition of it before the Law Gen 9.4 under the Law in many places especially Levit 17.10 seq after the Law Act 15.28 29. but no allowance no leave no license to eat it in no place of Scripture Ergò it is not sanctified by the word and consequently not created to be eaten 3. It is not probable the Apostle would so quickly repeal the Apostles Decree not above five years after the publishing of it For so many years after this Epistle was written especially when about the same time the Apostle did write to the Romans to be very circumspect even in things lawfull much more indifferent and rather forbear the use of things lawfull to avoid the offence of the weak then to follow their own knowledg with the offence of others Rom 14.15.20 4. The Apostles themselves being met together in the presence of Paul did repeat and reconfirm the Decree against Blood the next year after this Epistle to Timothie was written and resolved again that that Decree should still be observed by the Gentiles Act. 21.25 Is it likely that the Apostle should of his own head contrary to the Apostles mind and determination give liberty to do here which they had prohibited and himself after this Epistle was written did prohibit and interdict again We cannot conceive such ficklenes in the Apostle 6. Arg. If every Creature of God be good and nothing to be refused then Blood is good and not to be refused But every creature of God is good nothing to be refused 1 Tim. 4.4 Ergò R. 1. This argument is but an old coat turned with a new facing and a meer repetition of the former argument in other words 2. It is true Every Creature of God is good in it self and by Creation So God saith himself Gen 1.31 but not always good i e fit and lawfull to be eaten and that in many respects either because it is unnaturall or unwholsome or forbidden by God as Blood is 3. Again it is true Nothing to be refused viz whatsoever is sanctified and allowed by the word v 5. but he may refuse whatsoever is contrary to Nature to the expresse word of God and to our health or inclination Now we have proved fully that the eating of Blood if it be not against Nature and humanity and many times prejudicious to our health that yet it is directly contrary to the expresse word of God in the Old and New Testament and therefore may and ought to be refused Obj. But this place speaketh so generally and largely of every Creature of God that it may be received if good for food and not to be refused R. 1. The Apostle speaketh either of every kind of flesh which those above-named Hereticks did deny to be lawfully eaten or of such Creatures as were created to be received and sanctified or allowed by the word for food v 5 which cannot be said of Blood as was shewn in the precedent argument or of such meat as was never or should not be forbidden by the Apostles themselves as Blood was forbidden for else the Apostles had been guilty of inconstancy to forbid and to allow to forbid again and allow again over and over the same things to the same Persons which had been contrary to the Apostles profession 2 Cor 1.18 Howsoever the Apostle doth not speak of Blood which was never used from the beginning of the world and never acknowledged for ordinary food by Gods people or fit to be eaten but always forborn always abhorred because alwayes forbidden 2. It is no good consequence to say whatsoever is a good Creature of God and fit for food may be eaten The tree of knowledg of good and evil was a good creature of God good for food pleasant to the eyes c. Gen 3.6 and yet was not created to be eaten or appointed for food because God forbad our first Parents at their very first entring into the Paradise to eat of it So blood though it may be good for food in it self yet was forbidden to Man at the very beginning of a second Creation of the world and as soon as Blood might have been eaten by vertue of Gods allowing him flesh to eat Therefore Blood is none of those Creatures which the Apostle counteth good for food and created to be eaten 3. We may retort these arguments against them upon a better ground That Doctrine which for the satisfying of carnall lusts doth give liberty to eat those Creatures which the Holy Ghost under the Gospel hath expresly and by name forbidden by a publick possitive Decree without any repealing or limitation doth both wrong God and Man But that Doctrine which do● give liberty to eat Blood doth give liberty to eat such Creatures which the H Ghost hath expresly forbidden in the word under the Gosel Ergo that Doctrine doth wrong God and Man