blood of bâ—â—sts but to let it out as water upon the ground and sure it cannot be intended 〈◊〉 should be gathered up to be eaten Nay to put it out of doubt that you may have no plea left for saving the blood to make puddings God tells you not only that you shall powre it as water upon the ground that cannot be gathered up but that you shall cover it with dust Levit. 17 13. and then your puddings are all spoiled Object 2. It is objected this law belonged only to the Jewes and that in that vision to Peter Act. 10.13 14. it was there declared that nothing is to be accounted uncleane now under the Gospell Ans Blond was never forbidden under the notion of an uncleane thing onely but upon a morrall reason as it was a token of cruelty and that Text in the Acts speake onely of uncleane beasts so that vision never clensed the cruelty of eating bloud neither is it any thing at all to the purpose but that men catch at any thing to maintaine their fancies Object 3. In the third place it is objected that Acts 15.29 bloud and things strangled are counted indifferent things and forbidden to the Gentiles onely for 〈◊〉 time to avoid offence Ans Wee answer this is a meere begging the question wee say eating bloud anâ— things strangled are not indifferent but sinfull and this Text doth not so much as once intimate that they are indifferent but rather the contrary when it ranks it with fornication a sin against the Morall Law unlesse you will account fornication to be a thing indifferent as some have held from this Text and with as good reason as they who held bloud and things strangled are indifferent from this Text. Oh but some will be ready to say you must not shift off this Text so for here is meats offered to Idolls forbidden and that was a thing indifferent only forbidden for scandall as Paul shewes 1 Cor. 20. so therefore was blood Ans 1. If it should be granted that things offered to Idolls are things indifferent and blood is joyned with them yet this makes not the eating bloud to be indifferent no more then it makes fornication indifferent with which it is likewise joyned But secondly it is qustionable whether that the meats offered to Idolls here forbidden were indifferent or no for there was in eating of things offered to Idolls at the time and place of the offring aswell as of the flesh which was left afterward and I never heard any reason yet why it was not the eating of meat at the time of offering and in the presence of the Idoll which is here forbidden and then I am sure that was never counted an indifferent thing but a sinfull thing and so is to this day Object 4. Oh but it is objected Rom. 14.14 Paul saith that that there is nothing unclean of it selfe c. Ergo not blood Ans 1. This is one of the worthy objections for we do not say bloud is uncleane or forbidden as an uncleane thing but as a cruell thing Secondly no man is so mad to apply Pauls words so universally as to every individuall thing in the world as if every thing were clean and fit for food for then it comprehends toads poyson mans flesh nay stones and trees which I thinke none will say are clean food nay that soone of them are lawfull as mans flesh c. so there is no ground this Text should extend to bloud neither is Pauls scope or drift to shew any such thing as easily might be shewed Object 5. It is againe Objected 1 Tim. 4.5 everie creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving Ans The same answer might serve this as did the former objection but we answer Paul must be understood of all such things as are not forbidden As when he saies 1 Cor. 10. all things are lawfull to me but all things are not expedient No man is so mad is to thinke Paul meant under the word all that it was lawfull for him to murder or commit adultery c. but his words must be restrained to the things he spake of so here when he saies every creature is good you must neither extend it to things unwholsome for food or unlawfull for food as we have shewed blood to be Object 6. It is objected Tit. 1.15 to the pure all things are pure Ergo bloud lawfull to be eaten Ans There is no ground in this Text to shew that Paul speakes at all with relation to food to conclude all meats to be pure I rather think the contrary considering whom hee speaketh of namely the Cretians whom hee sayes Verse 12. that were evill beasts and slow bellies and it is not like they who minded to fill their guts so much should trouble themselves so much about the lawfullnesse of food neither is it like that Paul here confutes them in any such thing It 's not to our purpose to search out the particular concerning which Paul speaks it sufficeth he speaketh not concerning meats or if he did yet this universall phrase must be expounded by such exceptions as the Scripture makes to it and no otherwise and cannot extend to the lawfullnesse of blood Object 7. It is objected Deut. 14.21 there God forbids to the sewes that they should eat any thing that dieth of it selfe but they should give it to a stranger to eat or they might sell it to an alien The force of the objection lies thus A beast that dies of it selfe hath the bloud in the flesh still remaining but is allowed to strangers or aliens to eat it notwithstanding although the Jews might not Ergo This Law concerning eâ—â—â—g of bloud concerned the Jewes only and so was temporarie Ans To this we answer that indeed this objection hath more force of reason then all the rest but we answer thus First that by a beast that dies of it selfe you may understand a beast that is sicke of a disease which is commonly mortall or causeth death and upon the sight thereof the beast is slaine and his blood taken from him yet because of the disease which was mortall he is in a sort said to die of himselfe and because the food was not therefore so wholsome as of beasts which were slaine in a common way for food therefore the Jewes were to sell it to an alien and not to eat it and take it so then it makes nothing to the eating of blood But secondly taking it for granted that it is spoken of a bâ—â—st that wholly dies of it selfe yet it seemes if it be taken whilst it is yet warme and stuck with a knife some blood will come from it and so the case will be but in a manner with the case of a beast killed by an unskilfull butcher or which by some other accident only part of the blood is taken from the beast and part remaining in his flesh and yet it is 〈◊〉 unlawfull to eat such flesh although there be some blood in it otherwise thâ—â— would scarce be anie meat eaten lawfully because heardly any beast or foule that is killed voideth all his blood neither is Gods forbidding to eat blood to be taken so strictly as that no flesh might be eaten except everie drop of the bloud were out 〈◊〉 it requires we should use our endeavours to void the blood out and not to eat it wiâ—â— the blood in the flesh much lesse that we should eat it when we have severed it from the flesh And so we conclude that a stranger might be permitted to eat such a beast which died of it selfe and that it was not forbidden to the Jewes because of some bloâ—â— which unavoydably remained in it and would not be voyded out but for some other reason of typicall impuritie or uncleannesse or the like and so is nothing to the pâ—int in hand Thus have wee briefly and clearly as wee conceive proved the unlawfulnesse of eating bloud and answered all objections to the contrarie To conclude therefore let us lay aside this cruell custom of eating the lives of beasts as it is used thorowout all England in unhallowed black puddings as wee will shew our selves therefore to be mercifull men not inhumane as wee will not be found to be disobeyers of God in such expresse precepts but obeyers of his will and doers of those things that are right in his eyes as wee would have the favour of God and to prosper both us and our children and not to be cut off from our people and have the face of God continually set against us for evill let us speedily lay aside this barbarous custome of eating black puddings FINIS
A Bloudy Tenent confuted OR BLOUD FORBIDDEN SHEWING The unlawfulnesse of eating Bloud in what manner of thing soever Wherein is clearely proved by Scripture that eating of Bloud was alwaies unlawfull both to Jewes and Gentiles and is still unlawfull for Christians under the Gospell WITH An Answer to all Objections to the contrary And the vindicating of this Opinion from Judaisme Levit. 17.10 And vvhatsoever man there be of the house of Israel or of the strangers vvhich sojourne among you that eateth any manner of bloud I vvill even set my face against that soule that eateth bloud and cut him off from his people Deut. 12.23 24. Onely be sure thou eat not the bloud for the bloud is the life c. Thou shalt not eat it thou shalt povvre it upon the earth as vvater Thou shalt not eat it that it may go vvell vvith thee and vvith thy children after thee vvhen thou shalt do that vvhich is right in the sight of the Lord. LONDON Printed for H. S. and W. L. 1646. A Bloudy Tenet confuted OR Bloud forbidden BEing to discourse upon a point which almost all men deny and being to shew the unlawfulnesse of that which most men count lawfull it will be expected should make some Apologie for the noveltie or newnesse of the opinion That which I shall say is First that the objection of noveltie or newnesse of an opinion taken in a 〈◊〉 sense is a sure rule to convince an errour viz. when an opinion is broached contâ—â—â— and besides the Scripture which is the good old way that ancient standard by wâ—â—â— all opinions must be measured Secondly that the objection of the noveltie or newnesse of an opinion 〈◊〉 any â—ther sense as it is usually now taken for a differing from what our forâ—-fathers 〈◊〉 hold is a veriâ— weak and unreasonable objection as easily might be proved at largâ—â— Thirdly the objection of noveltie is not only weak but mischievous as might be shewed in all ages hindring men from the sâ—â—rch of the Scriptures and is the grâ—â—â— of the implicite faith now in Rome and a great cause of the quarrells in all Chrâ—â—â— Churches and of the present troubles of this our Kingdome as easily might 〈◊〉 shewed Briefly to answer these Antiquaries with the words of St. Cyprian whom 〈◊〉 sure they will not count a Sectarie or Novellist His words are Quid his 〈…〉 â—nte nos fecerit aut docuerit sed quid is qui ante â—â—mes est Christâ—â—s c. What this or that man did or taught before us but what hee did who was before all 〈◊〉 Christ himselfe who only is the way the truth and the life from whose precep 〈◊〉 we ought not to digresse Cyprian ad Caecil lib. â— â—pist 3. So to Paâ—â—p against Sâ—â—â— Omâ—es quippe antiquitates c. All antiquitie and custome not grounded oâ— the truth is to be accounted no other than an ancient errour To which Austin 〈◊〉 against the Donatists lib. 2. cap. 3. and Jerome in his Epistle to Minerium Briefly if this opinion against eating of bloud upon due examination find not 〈◊〉 foundation in the written word of the â—ncienter dayes let it be rejected as a no 〈◊〉 but if it find footing there let the greatest Antiquarie in the world reject it if he 〈◊〉 Briefly to the point three things I shall do to cleere it First ciâ—e the Scriptures which expressely forbid the eating of any manner of 〈◊〉 Secondly I shall shew that these Scriptures which forbid â—â—ing of bâ—ou◠〈…〉 all men both Jewes Gentiles and Christians Thirdly answer the objections to the contrarie For the first the Scriptures to this purpose are many expresse plainâ— and obvious to everie mans eye sâ—arâ—ely any thing set out more cleerâ—ly some of which I shall cite at large Leâ—it 7 26 Yeâ— shalâ— eat no manner of bloud whether it be of fowle or of beast in any of your dwellings mark what followes whatsoever he be Prince or Potentate Gentle or Simple that eateth any manner of bloud even that soule shall be cut off from his people that is penaltie enough So Levit. 17.10 11 12 13 c. Whatsoever man there be of the â—â—â—se of Israel or stranger which sojournes among you that eateth any manner of bloud What of him What Sentence severe enough I will saith God even set my face against that soule that eateth bloud and that is not all neither but I will cut him off from his people A heavie sentence What is the reason of it Not because bloud was ceremonially uncleane as some would have it but because as it is fouâ—â— or fiâ—e times repeated in the following verses I say it is the life of the beast but more of that afterwards Then it followes Therefore said I to the children of Israel twice repeated in this Chapter no soule of you shall eat bloud neither shall any stranger among you eat any bloud c. And in the fourteenth verse hee repeats it againe Whosoever eateth it shall be cut off See the latter part of that Chapter at large What can be more plaine if there were no other Text No manner of person nor no manner of bloud For it is the life of the beast and it is the life of the beast againe and againe and I will set my face against him and I will cut him off twice repeated If this be not plaine enough no Rhetorick in the world can make it plaine So Deut. 22.16 where God tells them they might eat flesh what their soules desired only that they should not eat the bloud but should powre it as water upon the ground And in vers 23 24 25. having told them what beasts they might eat the flesh of he concludes only be sure observe that that thou eat not the bloud No what is the matter is it uncleane No no It is the life of the beast Be you not so cruell that when I give you leave to eat the flesh that you will eat the verie life of the beast And it followeth And thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh Nay as if God did fore-sâ—â— our foolish custome of eating black puddings on purpose to beat it into our heads whether wee will or no he repeats it Thou shalt not eat it No What shall we do with it then shall we lose good victualls yea sayes God You shall powre it upon the ground like water yea but I hope though we must let it powre out of the beast yet wee may save it in a dish to make puddings with it or else wee should be counted verie ill huswives Well if you will be counted â—â—tter huswives than God would have you who can help it But God tells you expressely Levit. 17.13 that you shall not only powre it out and out upon the ground but that you shall cover it with dust and if you will make puddings of dust I doubt your market will be spoyled And it followes Deut. 12.25 Thou shalt not eat it that
it may go well with thâ—â— and with thy children after thee when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord. Lo here is both blessing and cursing to keep us from eating of bloud Arguments strong enough if we are flesh and bloud much more if we are Christians So Gen. 9.4 God takes care the first time that we read flesh allowed to be eaten yet he commands Noah But the flesh with the life thereof which is the bloud yee â—â—alâ— not eat So Levit. 19.16 Nay what say you to a Text in the New Testament not to the Jewes but to the Christian-Gentiles Well such a Text there is Acts 15.28 29. For it se◠〈◊〉 good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no other burthen than these necessarie things That yee abstaine from meats offered to Idols and from bloud and from things strangled and from fornication from which if you keep your selves you shall 〈◊〉 well You see that neither Old nor New Testament can feareâ— mention the â—â—â—bâ—dding of eating bloud but it annexeth either a blessing to them that abstaine or a 〈◊〉 to such as practise it It is true I confesse many think this Text of Acts 15.28 makes against my opinion and for the lawfulnesse of eating bloud for say they abstaining from bloud is here forbidden to the Christian-Gentiles only as an indifferent thing to avoyd â—n offence amongst other indifferent things Answ We answer For them that hold that opinion if they will hold it upon any ground they must not beg the question when so many plaine expresse precepts both of the Law with penaltie and blessings annexed and before the Law to Noab do expressely forbid and prohibit it men must not think upon another Text in the New Testament which forbids the same thing and no intimation of making it indifferent but rather sinfull I say men must not without some better ground count the eating of bloud forbidden Acts 15. to be forbidden as an idifferent thing only But they say bloud is there joyned with meats offered to Idols an indifferent thing Ergo Bloud is indifferent Answ Wee answer whether the eating of meats offered to Idols in that sense there spoken of be indifferent or no more shall be said in the answer to the objections But in case it should be indifferent and bloud joyned with it my argument is everie whit as good thus Forbidding to eat bloud is joyned with fornication a sin against the Morall Law and is punished with damnation 1 Cor. 6.9 Ergo the eating of bloud is a sin against the Law of God and is punishable with damnation For bloud is as well joyned with fornication Acts 15. as with meats offered to Idols So much for that point the Scriptures that forbid to eat bloud The second thing is to prove these Lawes to bind us as well as the Jewes That I shall do thus First because this Law of forbidding to eat bloud was given to Noah the father both of Jewes and Gentiles long before the Ceremoniall Law as is cleere Gen. 9 4. Thou shalt not eat the flesh with the life which is the bloud A Text expresse enough long before the Ceremoniall Law So that from hence we may argue thus 1 This Law was given to the father of both Jewes and Gentiles for him and his posteritie But all the world are the posteritie of Noah to whom this Law was given Ergo All the world are bound to this Law of forbidding to eat bloud 2 Thus the Ceremoniall Law was given to the Jews only and to such as should become their Proselites But the Law of prohibiting to eat bloud was given to the Gentiles in their father Noah and that long before the Ceremoniall Law to the Jews Ergo the forbidding to eat bloud is no part of the Ceremoniall Law Secondly I prove this Law of forbidding to eat bloud to be Morall and to bind all both Jewes and Gentiles thus Because it was given upon a morall reason viz. Because bloud is the life of the beast Gen. 9.4 that is it were a token of extreame crueltie and unmercifulnesse to eat that when the beast is dead which was the life of it whilst it was living A cruell thing to eat life it selfe and therefore almost continually that reason is given why bloud should not be be eaten because it is the life of the beast not because it is an uncleane thing as things forbidden in the Ceremoniall Law but as a cruell thing forbidden as a Morall Law From hence we may argue thus Things forbidden to be eaten in the Ceremoniall Law was for some positive or typicall uncleannesse put upon them But blood was not forbidden to be eaten as having some positive or typicall uncleannesse but as a token of a mercilesse cruell heart and disposition Ergo. The Law of forbidding to eat blood was no part of the Ceremoniall Law But some may say it seemes to be a greater token of cruelty to kill the beast then to eat the blood when it is dead for in the one the beast feels paine not in the other Ans The killing of the beast is permitted to us as of necessity to make it fit for our use and cannot be avoyded and the eating of the blood after a beast is dead though the beast then feeles no harme nor paine yet may it be a greater token of cruelty then to kill it whilst it was alive As may appeare by this familiar example It is a greater token of cruelty and inhumanitie to teare the flesh of a dead man or to kicke it up and downe the streets or to abuse it though the dead bodie feels no pain than it is to kill a man by hanging him in case the Law hath condemned him and delivered him over to execution and yet that puts the party to paine and not the other So here it is a greater signe and token of cruelty in us to eat the blood of a dead beast being the life of it whilst it was though the beast feels no paine then it is to kill a beast which God by his permission hath delivered into our hands for food although by the slaying it seekes paine and in the eating of the blood none So I conceive this second thing is cleare that the Law is not ceremoniall but binds both Jewes and Christians I might add the Text again Act. 15. forbidding the Gentiles but more afterwards Who for the third thing to answer objecteth Object 1. Against this it is objected that it is the eating of the bloud with the flesh that is forbidden and not when it is seperated from the flesh Ans 1. Then by this objection things strangled are forbidden that is to eat such things who lose their lives by strangling or otherwise not having their blood taken from them Ans 2. The Scripture is so cleare in answering this Objection that there is no colour of an Objection left for it doth not only containe to let out the