<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2014-11-05</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>John Pas</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed as part of batch B140410.apex.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B43421">
<STC T="W">M1192</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">[ocn]489260603</BIBNO>
<VID>208641</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="2">
<PB N="1" REF="2" MS="y">
<HEAD>A CASE of Con&s;cience Concerning <HI>Eating of Blood,</HI> Con&s;idered and An&s;wered.</HEAD>
<P>COncerning that Ca&s;e of Con&s;cience, <HI>Whether the Eating of Blood be Lawful?</HI> I find that many not only of the more Ignorant, &amp; Common Profe&s;&s;ors of Chri&s;|tianity, but &s;ome very Learned men among them, have Inclined to the Negative in the Que&s;ti|on propo&s;ed. So did &s;ome of the Ancients, parti|cularly <HI>Tertullian, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus,</HI> and the Author of the Que&s;tions and An&s;wers to the Orthodox, which pa&s;&s;eth under the Name of <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr.</HI> Like-wi&s;e <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> relates, that when St. <HI>Biblis</HI> was put upon the Rack to make her Confe&s;s, that Chri&s;tians were wont to Eat Infants (for &s;o had the Accu&s;er of the Brethren made the Heathen Believe) &s;he Re|plyed, <HI>How &s;hould they Eat Children, when they Abstain from all Eating of Blood?</HI> Al&s;o, in the Book of Canons fal&s;ly pretended to be the A|po&s;tles, the Sixty Third Canon declares, that <HI>If any one in Holy Orders, Eateth Blood, he &s;hall be Degraded, but if he be a Lay man, he &s;hall be Excommunicated.</HI> Moreover, &s;ome Old Coun|cils have condemned it, as Unlawful: And &s;ome Emperours have by very &s;evere Laws, Inhibited all Blood-Eating. The mo&s;t Remarkable is that Ordinance of the Emperour <HI>Leo,</HI> Sirnamed the Philo&s;opher <HI>A D.</HI> 886. He &s;ayes, that <HI>He had received Information&punc; that there were &s;ome, who &s;tuffed Blood into Guts, or in Bags, and did Eat</HI>
<PB N="2" REF="3"> <HI>the &s;ame, as u&s;ual Meat: He does therefore Com+mand that no Per&s;on &s;hould dare &s;o to Practice him&s;elf&punc; or to Sell &s;uch things to others; declaring that both Buyer and Sel<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">er, &s;hall have all his Goods forfeited, his Head Shaven, and him&s;elf &s;ent into Perpetual Bani&s;hment.</HI> It is further True, that the Chri&s;tian <HI>Greeks,</HI> the <HI>Ru&s;&s;ians, Aby&s;&s;ines, Maronites,</HI> have ab&s;tained from the Eating of Blood, as unlawfu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Nor are tho&s;e Chri&s;tians free from far greate<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Super&s;tition than this Some late Authors have Written again&s;t it: So <HI>Grotius</HI> and <HI>Curcellaeus</HI> in his Treati&s;e <HI>De &V;&s;u Sanguinis;</HI> Dr. <HI>Du Veil,</HI> in his Commentary on Acts 15. 29&punc; And Dr. <HI>Barlow&punc;</HI> the late Bi&s;hop of <HI>Lyncoln,</HI> who&s;e Arguments in the Opinion of the <HI>Athenian Mercury</HI> (March <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> 1694.) are of &s;uch weight, as that <HI>they will make his Antagoni&s;t &s;weat to An&s;wer them.</HI> This notwith&s;tanding, the Generality of Prote&s;tant Di|vines maintain the Affirmative, in the Que&s;tion under Con&s;ideration. So <HI>Pareus, Rivet, Calvin<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Willet,</HI> and many others in their Commentaries on <HI>Gen</HI> 9 4. So <HI>Voetius de Politia Eccle&s;ia&s;tica,</HI> Part 1. Pag. 471. who refers his Reader for Satis|faction in that point to <HI>Libavius</HI> and <HI>Horn-beck</HI> his <HI>Diatriba de Sanguine &amp; &s;uffocato.</HI> So among Epi&s;copal Divines, Bi&s;hop <HI>Richard&s;on,</HI> and Dr. <HI>Hammond.</HI> Thus al&s;o &s;ome of the Ancients <HI>Quadratus</HI> (an old Chri&s;tian Philo&s;opher who affirms, that in his Time, &s;ome of the Per&s;ons on whom our Saviour wrought Miraculous Cures were &s;till Living) maintains (as is te&s;tified by <HI>Bede)</HI> that there is no Meat from which a Chri&s;tian ought to ab&s;tain Vid. <HI>Menologium Graecorum,</HI> in Septemb 21 See <HI>Dupin</HI> Vol. r. p. 48. But it is not the Practice or Authority of men, without Scrip|ture or Convincing Rea&s;on, that can Determine, or
<PB N="3" REF="3"> &s;atisfy Con&s;cience. For my own part, I concur with the Generallity of Prote&s;tant Chri&s;tians, as to the Ca&s;e under Debate. And that e&s;pecially for the&s;e Rea&s;ons.</P>
<P N="1">1. No Meat does in its own Nature defile, Math. 15. 11. <HI>Not that which goeth into the Mouth Defileth the man.</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e that the Apo&s;tle hath Re&s;pect unto tho&s;e Words of our Saviour, when he &s;ays, <HI>I know and am per&s;waded by the Lord Je&s;us, that there is nothing &V;nclean of it &s;elf,</HI> Rom. 14. 14.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Scriptures of the New-Te&s;tament give &s;uch a General Allowance for the Eating of all &s;orts of Meats as doth Comprehend that of <HI>Blood,</HI> There is that Scripture, Rom. 14 2&punc; <HI>One Believeth that he may Eat all things;</HI> he that Believed &s;o, was Ortho|dox in his Judgment as to that particular, And it was from <HI>Weakne&s;s in Faith,</HI> that is from Ignorance of the Latitude of Chri&s;tian Liberty, under the Go&s;pel, that any did Hae&s;itate about it. Now if the Chri&s;tian may Eat <HI>All Things,</HI> then <HI>Blood.</HI> A|nother Scripture is that in 1 Tim. 4. 3, 4. where the Apo&s;tle condemns the Super&s;tition of tho&s;e, <HI>That Ab&s;tain from Meats, which God had created to be received with Thanksgiving of them, which Believe and Know the Truth, for every Creature of God is good, and nothing to be refu&s;ed, if it be Received with Thanksgiving</HI> Now if <HI>Nothing</HI> is to be Refu&s;ed, then <HI>Blood</HI> is not to be Refu&s;ed. Another Scripture is that 1 Cor. 10 25. <HI>What&s;oever is Sold in the Shambles, that Eat, asking no Que&s;tion for Con&s;cience &s;ake.</HI> It was u&s;ual to Sell <HI>Blood</HI> in the Shambles, If therefore we may Eat not &s;ome Things only, but <HI>whatever</HI> is Sold in the Shambles, we may law|fully Eat <HI>Blood,</HI> for that is there Sold,</P>
<P N="3">3. There are Medicinal U&s;es of Blood. Our
<PB N="4" REF="4"> Modern Phy&s;icians have found, that the Spirit of Blood is a wonderful Re&s;torative, may not a <HI>Chri|&s;tian</HI> who is in a Con&s;umption make u&s;e of that Spirit for the Recovering of his Impaired Health, and Pre&s;ervation of his Life, according to the Sixth Commandment, only becau&s;e <HI>Jews</HI> were pro|hibited things made of Blood?</P>
<P N="4">4. If it be Lawful to Eat things Strangled, then it is Lawful to Eat Blood. The Con&s;equence is undeniable. And the Jews were as much bound in Con&s;cience to ab&s;tain from things Strangled, as from Blood, and they Practi&s;e accordingly to this Day; Some of the Popes have denied Chri&s;tians this Liberty. So did Pope <HI>Zachary,</HI> A D. <HI>circiter.</HI> 756 Al&s;o &s;everal Councils that were Convened in the Dayes of Popery, but <HI>Austin</HI> declares, that in his Time, if any man &s;crupled the Eating <HI>things Strangled,</HI> (which had the Blood in 'em) he was Laughed at by all the World v. <HI>Augu&s;t</HI> Lib. 32. <HI>contra Fau&s;tum.</HI> cap 13. If a man among us &s;hould affirm that it is unlawful to Eat an Hare, or a Rabbet, killed by a &s;troke in the Neck, or a Pigeon caught in a Net, he would be Ridi'cled by mo&s;t people. If the Eating of a <HI>thing that dies of it &s;elf,</HI> is lawful, then to Eat things Strangled, or with the Blood in them, is &s;o too; but this is, and ever was Lawful for the Gentiles, Deut. 14 21. <HI>Thou &s;halt not eat any thing that dyeth of it &s;elf,, thou &s;halt give it to the Stranger, that he may eat it, or Sell it to an Alien.</HI> Divines argue &s;trongly concerning <HI>&V;&s;ury,</HI> that the Prohibition of it to the Jews, was only a <HI>Judici|al,</HI> and not a <HI>Moral</HI> Precept, becau&s;e they might take U&s;e for Mony Lett to Strangers. There is a Parity of Rea&s;on, as to this Ca&s;e. He that Eats that which dies of it &s;elf, eats Blood. This the Gentiles might do. Therefore Eating of Blood
<PB N="5" REF="4"> was not again&s;t the Moral Law.</P>
<P N="5">5. All Precepts which were only Ceremonial &amp; not Moral, are Abrogated by the Death of Chri&s;t. Col. 2. 16, 17. Gal. 4. 9. Heb. 9. 10. &s;uch was this concerning the not Eating of Blood, as appears from the Rea&s;on of the Prohibition mentioned, Lev. 17. 11. <HI>For the Life of the Fle&s;h is in the Blood, and I have given it you upon the Altar to make an Atone|ment for your Souls, for it is the Blood that makes an Atonement.</HI> Blood the Organ of Life, was Holy to God the Author of Life, &amp; therefore they &s;hould not Profane it by Eating thereof. Now this is a Ceremonial Rea&s;on, Blood was a Sacred Thing, be|cau&s;e to be offer'd to God for making Atonement, as Typical of the Blood of Chri&s;t. Wherefore &s;ince Chri&s;t has &s;hed his Blood, there is no Sacredne&s;s in any other Blood.</P>
<P>The Hebrew Doctors object, that there were &s;ix Precepts given to <HI>Adam,</HI> and &s;o to the <HI>Antediluvi|ans,</HI> which were all of them Moral and Perpetual unto the Ob&s;ervation whereof all Mankind is obli|ged. And that a Seventh was added and given to <HI>Noah, viz.</HI> That Gen 9. 4. <HI>The Fe&s;h with the Life thereof, which is the Blood thereof, thou &s;halt not Eat.</HI></P>
<P>For An&s;wer. Not to In&s;i&s;t upon the Fal&s;ene&s;s of that <HI>Rabbinical Notion</HI> of Seven Precepts in the Mo|ral Law, the Error whereof <HI>Hulfius</HI> has &s;hewn in his <HI>Nucleus Prophetiae.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. Some of the <HI>Jewi&s;h Masters</HI> them&s;elves con|fe&s;s, that the Precept which forbids Eating Blood, does concern only I&s;raelites, and not other Nations. Rabbi <HI>Solomon,</HI> and &s;ome others of the Rabbins &s;up|po&s;e that Text does only forbid the Eating of the Fle&s;h of Creatures, whil&s;t they are yet Living, and the Drinking of their Blood. This Interpretation is followed by <HI>Cajetan, Mercer, Ayn&s;worth,</HI> the <HI>Bel|gick</HI>
<PB N="6" REF="5"> <HI>Annotators</HI> &amp; &s;ome others. It is an u&s;ual Cu|&s;tome among the Barbarous <HI>Scythians</HI> to drink the Blood of their Hor&s;es. Al&s;o the <HI>Arabians</HI> will draw Blood from their Camels and Drink it. Mens be|ing u&s;ed to Blood makes them ferocious, and hard|hearted, as we &s;ee in Butchers, whence our Engli&s;h Laws permit not Butchers to be Jury-men in ca&s;es of Life and Death. According to this Interpretati|on, the De&s;ign of that Precept to <HI>Noah,</HI> is to for|bid all Inhumanity, which &s;uits with the next ver&s;e, containing a Prohibition of Murder. But</P>
<P N="2">2 'Tis a mi&s;take to think, that all the Precepts given to <HI>Noah,</HI> were Moral, binding all his Po&s;teri|ty in all the Ages of the World. For in his Dayes there was a Di&s;tinction made betwixt Clean and Unclean Bea&s;ts. Gen. 7. 2. which was a Ceremo|nial, and not a Moral Commandment: And &s;o was Sacrificing required of <HI>Noah,</HI> and of the Patriarchs before the Flood. And for that Rea&s;on it was not meet that they &s;hould Eat Blood.</P>
<P>It is further Objected, That there was a <HI>Synodi|cal Decree</HI> again&s;t the Eating Blood, in the Apo&s;tles Dayes, <HI>viz.</HI> that Acts 15 20. To which may be An&s;wered, that the Apo&s;tolical Advice was ground|ed on the Scandal, which at that time, would have happened, in ca&s;e the Converted Gentiles &s;hould have practi&s;ed the Eating of Blood, and that there|fore it was only a <HI>Temporary Advice,</HI> &amp; not a Precept binding all Chri&s;tians to the End of the World. <HI>Ce&s;satio Cau&s;ae efficit ut ce&s;saret Ob&s;ervatio.</HI> The Learned and Judicious <HI>Turretin</HI> does by divers Rea|&s;ons prove, that that Precept was not of perpetual Ob&s;ervation. He argueth, that <HI>Paul</HI> was pre&s;ent in the Synod at Jeru&s;alem, and knew the true Intend|ment of the Advice given; Neverthele&s;s he after|wards wrote tho&s;e Epi&s;tles, in which he allows the
<PB N="7" REF="5"> Eating of all &s;orts of meat, without any Limitation, which he would not have done, if the Decree, at Je|ru&s;alem had been of perpetual Ob&s;ervation. But in tho&s;e Dayes the Eating of Blood would have &s;can|daliz'd the Jews. That Practice was &s;o abhorrent to them, as that it would have Endangered their be|ing prejudiced again&s;t all Chri&s;tianity, had they ob|&s;erved, that all Chri&s;tians indulged them&s;elves there|in; on which account, to ab&s;tain from it was then <HI>nece&s;sary,</HI> ver&s;e 2<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. It would al&s;o have been Scanda|lous to the Gentiles among whom the Eating of Blood was an Idolatrous Rite. P&s;al. 16. 4. The <HI>Syri|ans</HI> u&s;ed to drink &s;ome of the Blood of their Sacrifi|ces. The Book of <HI>Wi&s;dom</HI> informs us, that the old Canaanites had Blood in their Fea&s;ts. And <HI>Lanctan|tius</HI> te&s;tifies, that the Heathen at the Fea&s;t of <HI>Bacchus</HI> were wont to Drink Goats Blood; they would al&s;o Boil Blood, &amp; mix it with Meat &amp; Spices, &amp; &s;o Eat it at their Sacrifices, which <HI>Tertullian</HI> calls <HI>Botulos Cru|ore di&s;tentos;</HI> they Sacrificed <HI>Saw&s;ages &amp; black pud|dings</HI> to Idols. <HI>Maimonides</HI> &s;ays, that the Rea&s;on, why the Heathen did Eat Blood, was, becau&s;e they thought that Blood was the Food of <HI>Daemons,</HI> whom they Wor|&s;hipped, &amp; that thereby they &s;hould obtain their Love &amp; Fa|vour. To the &s;ame purpo&s;e does <HI>Origen</HI> &s;peak. Hence the <HI>Dae|mons</HI> are by <HI>Athenagoras</HI> called <HI>HAIMA PERILICHMO|MENOI, Lickers of Blood;</HI> &s;o then in Primitive Times Eating of Blood would have Looked like a Symbolizing with the Heathen, &amp; was for that Cau&s;e then Inhibited. And al|though it is mentioned with <HI>Fornication,</HI> it does not follow that if one of the&s;e is again&s;t the Moral Law, that the other is &s;o too; For the <HI>Eating of things offered to Idols</HI> is al&s;o mentioned, <HI>Acts.</HI> 21. 25. But that is an Indifferent thing, the Apo&s;tle does plainly allow of it, when it can be done with|out Scandal, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. 27. He only therefore condemns the Eating of <HI>Idolothytes,</HI> in the Idols Temples, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 8. 10. But
<PB N="8" REF="6"> does not forbid them to do it, in their own Hou&s;es, becau&s;e in the one place it might be without Scandal, but not in the other. There is then no Validity in the Objection. <HI>Eating of Blood &amp; Pornication</HI> are conjunctly mentioned, therefore they are of the &s;ame Nature. We find in other Scriptures that Precepts, which are only <HI>Judicial,</HI> are conjunctly mentioned with tho&s;e that are <HI>Moral.</HI> Thus in <HI>Ezek.</HI> 18. The taking of a <HI>Pledge,</HI> &amp; <HI>U&s;ury,</HI> Judicial Precepts, are condemned with <HI>I|dolatry</HI> &amp; <HI>Adultery,</HI> hainous Tran&s;gre&s;&s;ions of the Moral Law, unlawful to be done by any per&s;ons, in any place, or at any time. Moreover, the Gentiles e&s;teemed <HI>Fornication</HI> to be no &s;in at all, yea, the Unclean Spirit unto whom they Sacrificed, taught them to make it a part of their Idolatrous Wor&s;hip; Wi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;s that &s;hameful thing <HI>Baal peor, Numb.</HI> 23. 3. <HI>Jer.</HI> 11. 13. <HI>Ho&s;.</HI> 9. 10. <HI>Rev.</HI> 2 14. Dr. <HI>Lightfoot</HI> ob&s;erves that the He|brews were wont to Condemn all <HI>Ince&s;tuous Marriages</HI> by the Name of <HI>Fornication,</HI> which the Gentiles made no mat|ter about, &amp; therefore &s;uppo&s;eth that the De&s;ign of the A|po&s;tles in Condemning <HI>Fornication</HI> with things offered to I|dols &amp; Blood, was to bring the Converted Gentiles under the Obedience of the Law, in Lev. 18. Another late <HI>Annotator</HI> conceives, that the Thing more e&s;pecially De&s;igned, is to forbid that <HI>Concubinate,</HI> which was commonly practi&s;ed both by Jews and Gentiles, the Evil whereof was not ge|nerally known, until di&s;covered by the Light of the Go&s;pel. The&s;e four things, <HI>Idolothytes, Fornication, Strangled and Blood</HI> were the Rites of Idolatry commonly practi&s;ed a|mong&s;t the Nations, &s;o that the Gentiles by ab&s;taining from them, declared a perfect Renunciation of their Hea|theni&s;m, which Dr <HI>Spencer</HI> in his late Learned Exercita|tions, takes to be the &s;pecial Rea&s;on why tho&s;e four parti|culars are by the Apo&s;tles in&s;tanced in.</P>
<P>The&s;e things &s;eem a Satisfactory Solution of the weigh|tie&s;t Arguments, which have been produced for the Nega|tive, in the Que&s;tion before us.</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="colophon">
<P>Bo&s;ton in <HI>New-England,</HI> Printed by <HI>B. Green,</HI> and <HI>J. Allen,</HI> 1697.</P>
<PB REF="6">
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
