Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	law_n	moral_a	precept_n	2,880	5	9.5945	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

from Blood as from Fornication as long as they are thus connexed and joyned together in one Law till the equalitie be taken away by a countermand Thus Gal. 5.19 20. Ephes 5.4 different sins are forbidden adulterie fornication theft jesting c. Now though jesting be not so great a sin as Adultery yet we must abstain from one as well as the other because he that hath said Thou shalt not commit Adultery hath also said Thou shalt not jest Obj The Law against Fornication hath footing in the moral Law not so the other particulars R Even all the rest have a footing in the Moral Law Nay eating of Blood not onely forbidden by a moral Law Gen. 9.4 but more severely threatned then simple fornication Compare Exod. 22.16 Deut. 22.18 with Levit. 17.10 Deut. 12.23.25 and observe the expressions Howsoever till we have a repeal of this Decree we account eating of Blood as unlawful as Fornication And thus much of the Arguments against eating of Blood Followeth the consideration of such Arguments as are held forth to prove the lawfulness of eating Blood of which there are divers but of no great moment 1. Argument If there be no meat unclean in it self i. e. in his own Nature or by Gods forbidding it to be used then neither is meat made of blood unclean but to him that esteemeth it so But there is no meat unclean in it self Rom. 14.14 Ergo. R 1. We must distinguish the Major and consider what meat is and whether Blood can properly be said to be meat Three things must concur to make a thing to be meat 1. Fitness of a thing for nourishment 2. Gods allowance or approbation of it for food 3. The use of it by the custome of men Now though Blood may perhaps be fit for food which many Physitians question and make it very unwholsome as Galenus lib. 3. de facult alim c. 18. 23 de victus attennant rat c. 8. Dioseorides lib. 6. c. 25. Weekerus in syntax utr Medic. li. 1 p. 5. Sennertus Instit Medic. lib. 1. p. 3. 2. c. 4. yet it hath no allowance from God neither before nor under nor after the Law but rather an absolute inhibition and restraint in all these 3 Ages Nor hath it been used by men lawfully from Adams days till the days of the Apostles and afterwards for the space of many hundred yeers as it was proved above Ergo it cannot properly be called meat 2. We do not abstain from Blood as unclean seeing God never calleth it unclean and almost all things were purged and cleansed under the Law with blood Heb. 9.22 and God would have it offered in sacrifices to himself and it did represent the holy Blood of Christ all which particulars shew that Blood is not unclean neither forborn for that regard but only because it pleased the holy Ghost to forbid it to us Act. 15.28 as being created for another end to be the life of flesh Gen. 9 4. 2. Arg If there be no sin committed by any uncleanness that goeth into the mouth then there can be no such uncleanness in Blood but sin is not so commited Mar 7.15 Nothing from without a man that entreth into him can defile him Ergò R. 1. We must consider the scope of Christ in these words which was not to take away the distinction of meats but to reprove the Pharisees for their hypocrisie that they held those things which otherwise lawfull yet did defile a man if they were eaten with unwashen hands so that Christ speaketh here not of the matter or thing eaten but of the manner of eating else Christ had not answered to the point nor refuted the Pharises And this appears out of Christs own conclusion Mar 7.20 2. Suppose Christ did speak of things eaten likewise yet he did not understand absolutely al kinds of food that none did defile a man but he spake of such as knew their ordinary lawfull food which then they were about to receive For there were then certain creatures unclean by the Law of which the Lord could not say that they did not defile a man because the Ceremonial Law and the distinction of clean and unclean was then yet in full force and not abrogated till after Christs death 3. Suppose Christ did speak of all kinds of meat that may be eaten yet the sence is that no meat can defile a man in it self in its own nature but may defile him per accidens if it be expresly forbidden by God as we know blood was then and is still 4. And if Christ had spoken of al kind of meat yet it cannot be applied to blood which was not forbidden by that distinguishing Law Lev. 11.4 but by a Moral Law above 800. yeers afore that distinguishing Law was given to Moses 5. And is it probable that Christ hath given leave here to eat all sorts of food when he knew that the Apostles shortly after would prohibite blood Or would the Apostles have crossed Christs dispensation if he had here allowed Blood Or had not Peter despised Christs licence nay his power to give liberty to eat of blood and all things when he confesseth Act. 10.14 that he had never eaten of any unclean thing 6. We answer again that we do not forbear Blood as unclean but as appointed for another use and therefore forbidden to us in the Law and Gospel 3. Argument The Law it self alloweth some to eat blood Deut. 14.21 therefore there was no morall uncleanness in it Should the stranger be more priviledged then the beleever R 1. The Law never allowed any man to eat Blood 2. We say still that there is no uncleanness in Blood 3. The place Deut. 14.21 sheweth God gave leave to aliens to eat a carkase not Blood as was proved above in the 2d particular Argument out of Levit. 17.10 4. If it was a priviledge to eat a carkase then our Doggs have more priviledg then Men Exod. 22.31 4. Argument If Christ hath freed his people from Ordinances Touch not taste not handle not then they ought not to make scruple in any such cases But thus hath he done Col. 1.20 21. Ergò R. 1. We must distinguish the Major and consider what Ordinances are meant by the Apostles And truly the Expositors are of different opinions concerning them See Mayer upon the place The soundest Fathers and Divines take them not for Ceremoniall or Mosaicall Ordinances but for the traditions and ordinances of those Hereticks and Philosophers which taught the worshipping of Angels and the abstaining from certain Creatures at certain times as displeasing to Angels Thus Beza and Zanchie understand it and to them do I subscribe saith Mayer See more in Bezas annotations upon the place And in this sence the place will do them no good Tertullian lib 5. contra Marcion negat haec ad legem Mosis pertinere And learned Hugo Grotius saith that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Commandments are understood such things as were commanded