THE Eating of blood vindicated: IN A brief Answer to a late Pamphlet, ENTITLED, A Bloody Tenent confuted.  Mark. 7. 15. 
There is nothing from without a man that entering into him, can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.  Rom. 14. 17. 
For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but Righteousness, and Peace, and Joy, in the Holy Ghost.  
LONDON, Printed for H. Shepheard, at the Bible in Tower-Street, and W. Ley, at PAUL'S Chain, near Doctor's Commons. 1646.   

A just Defence of Christian Liberty, in eating things that are strangled.  
FIrst, if nothing that enters into the mouth can defile a man, than blood in things strangled or otherwise made into wholesome food for us cannot; but faith Christ Jesus, that which goes into the mouth cannot defile a man, Mark. 7. 15. Ergo, blood in things strangled or otherwise made into wholesome food for us cannot, neither is it blood still when the fire hath purged and changed the property of it.  
Secondly, if Christians may lawfully eat whatsoever meat is sold at the Shambles, ask no question for conscience sake, than they may eat blood in rabbits or fouls that are strangled, or the blood of some beasts, being made into good and wholesome food; for all these are to be sold unto Christians: but Christians may eat whatsoever meat is sold at the Shambles, ask no question for conscience sake, 1 Cor. 20. 25. Ergo, Christians may eat blood in things that are strangled, or otherwise, made into wholesome food.  
Thirdly, if Christians may eat whatsoever meat is set before them, ask no question for conscience sake, than they may eat blood in things that are strangled, or made into wholesome food, being frequently set before them: but Christians may eat whatsoever is set before them, ask no question for conscience sake, 1 Cor. 10. 2 Luk. 10 7, 8. Ergo, Christians may eat blood in things that are strangled, or made into wholesome food.  
Fourthly, if it be a Doctrine of Devils, suggested by seducing spirits, whose consciences are seared with a hot iron, who speak lies in hypocrisy, that command to abstain from meats, than we must not give heed to them: but they that would have us to abstain from meats are such, 1 Tim. 4. 1, 2, 3, 4. then notwithstanding such doctrine we may lawfully eat blood in things strangled, or made into wholesome food.  
Fiftly, if every creature of God is good, which seducers would have us to abstain from, and not to be refused in case it be meat for man, 〈◊〉 both the flesh and blood of the beasts may be eaten, and not to be refused, being 〈◊〉 fo● 〈◊〉 but those creatures whom this seducer would have us to avoid ●●e good, and nothing to to be refused, in case it be received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the Word, and Prayer, Verse 3, 4, 5. then blood in things strangled or otherwise may be eaten.  
Sixtly, if Paul say to Timothy, If thou put them in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good Minister of jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of Faith, and good Doctrine, than he that teacheth contrary is a bad Minister, and destroys with bad Doctrine, in the same place, Vers. 6. and saith Christ, they are blind leaders of the blind, that say, meat defiles a man, Mat. 15. 11, 14. then let us rather be nourished by good Doctrine, then be destroyed by the false Doctrine of those that say, some meat defiles us.  
Seventhly, if it was the prohibition of God that made some creatures unclean, and not to be eaten while that prohibition lasted, then when that prohibition is taken off, that creatures is clean unto them: but God hath taken off that prohibition to Christians which was upon the Jews, Act. 10. 10, 11, 12, 13. 14. then Christians must not now call those things unclean, that were unclean among the Jews, because God hath cleansed them: and although blood was not clean to Jews, yet now it is made clean to Christians.  
Eightly, if it be a note of a weak faith to scruple at some meats, when as no meat is unclean of itself, than we may not scruple at any: but saith Paul, he is we●k● that eateth herbs, when as nothing is unclean of itself; but to him that esteems it unclean to him it is unclean, Rom. 14. 2, 14. then he that believeth that he may eat blood he may eat it, when as this seducer may be damned if he eat it, because he eateth not of faith, Vers. 22.  
Ninthly, if Paul blames it as a sin to judge others for eating those things which themselves have not faith to eat, than it is a sin in this man to judge others for eating blood, while he hath not faith to eat it, but Paul blames it as a sin in those that do so, Rom. 14. 3. then they ought not to judge us, lest themselves be judged for it, Mat. 7. 1.  
Tenthly, if blood being the life of the beast was only forbidden before the death of Christ, to make an atonement, tippifying the blood of Christ that was to be shed to make atonement, and then the end ceased for which it was forbidden, than Christians may now eat blood; but the blood of beasts was forbidden to make atonement for the soul, Levit. 15. 11, 12. but Christ hath put an end to all bloody sacrifices in spilling his own blood to make atonement, Heb. 10. 12, 14. then Christians may now eat blood.  
Eleventhly, if the  offering which was a type of Christ, the flesh of it was burnt, and the blood was sprinkled about the Altar at the Tabernacle door, and now since the death of Christ he commands the type of his flesh to be eaten, and the type of his blood to be drunk in the remembrance of his death, till his coming again; then now we may not burn the type of his flesh, nor spill the type of his blood, lest we commit that unpardonable sin. of crucifying the Son of God afresh, and trampling the blood of the Covenant under feet, Heb. 10. 29. but in the  offering, which was the type of Christ, the flesh was burnt, and the blood sprinkled Levit. 1. and now since his death, except we eat the flesh of the Son of God and drink his blood, we have no life in us; for his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed, He that eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath eternal life▪ Joh. 6. 53, 54, 55. although this I grant to be spiritually by faith, yet the type of his body and blood we must now eat and drink, which before his death was to be burnt and spilt, and not eaten nor drunk; then the blood which before was forbidden to Jews may lawfully be eaten by Christians.  
But this man hath some Scriptures to prove it unlawful for Christians to eat blood, such as these: Levit. 7. 26 where it is said, You shall eat no manner of blood, whether of foul or beast in all your dwellings, for what soul soever it be that eateth any manner of blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, that no soul of you shall eat blood, nor any that so journey among you shall eat blood, they shall pour out the blood, and cover it with dust. Levit. 17. 10, 11, 12, 13 14. You shall not eat the blood, ye shall pour it upon the earth as water, the blood is the life, and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh; thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water, thou shalt not eat it, that it may go well with thee and thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord, Deut. 12. 16 23▪ 24, 25. I answer, all these precepts are confined to Israel, and their Pr●sselites, that are in their dwellings, and all the promises in case they obey, and do that which is right in the sight of the Lord, and all the pennalties in case of disobedience, are only to Israel and to their Prosselites that are in their dwellings; see all those Scriptures mentioned by him, than this is not blinding to Christians, for all these Ceremonies are void to Christians, than he would prove that Christians now are forbidden to eat blood, because Noah the Father both of Jews and Gentiles had this Law given him and his posterity, Gen. 9▪ 4 and all the world is his posterity, and by this law are forbidden to eat blood: and saith he, the Ceremonial Law was given only to Jews and their Prosselites, but this Law of prohibiting blood was given to the Gentiles in their father Noah, therefore it is no part of the Ceremonial Law.  
I answer, by this arguing the sacrifices of the Jews were not Ceremonial but Moral, because they were long before▪ the ceremonial law was given, even from Cain and Abel, and also from Noah, the father to those Jews and Gentiles, Ergo, we that are the posterity of Noah, must now offer beasts in sacrifice, because Abel and Noah did, the father of the Gentiles, but Christ our Messiah hath put an end to all bloody sacrifices, by that last and great sacrifice of himself, unless we should look for another Saviour, and uphold the Jewish Ceremonies, till he comes to free us of those beggarly elements, Gal. 4 9 for they were Jewish ceremonies, although they were in use long before the Jewish Nation was in being, and Christ was that Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, Revel. 13. 8. for suppose Abel had offered a dog or a swine in sacrifice to the Lord, would it have been accepted, no it would have been abominable to him, Isa. 66. 3. then from the beginning God made them know which beasts were esteemed of him as clean and which unclean for sacrifice, for the Lord said to Noah before the flood, take the clean beasts into▪ the Ark by sevens, and he did so: than it is plain we know them, Gen. 7. 2. although neither flesh nor blood was then to be eaten; yea, Abells' lamb signified Christ the Lamb of God to his faith to take way his sins, aswell as the Jewish sacrifices did, although he had this Ordinance but by tradition from his Predecessors, when as the Jews had this in a written law for their own Nation, yet all this ended at the sacrifice of Christ, than I say, all those shadows of Christ seized, Heb. 10. 1, 13, 14. and I have showed blood was forbidden to be eaten, because it was to make an atonement for souls, Levit. 17. 11. and the blood of Abells' lamb did signify the blood of Christ that was to make an atonement for sin unto his faith, and how Christ should redeem us to God by his blood, and wash away our sins in his blood, Revel. 1. 3, 4, 5. and 9 Heb. 9 14, 19, 20, 21. 22. and the blood of beasts was poured upon the ground, to show how the blood of Christ was to be spilt for our sins, and if any had gone about to save the blood of the lamb that was the type of Christ's blood, it was all one as if he had saved the blood of Christ f●om being shed for our sins: but when Peter made the least motion to keep the blood of Christ from being shed, saying, this shall not be unto thee, that Christ turned him about in a rage saying, get thee behind me Satan, thou savourest not the things that be of God, Mat. 16. 22, 23, & when he struck at those that came to apprehend Christ, he had him put up his sword, for they that smite with the sword shall perish with the sword, Mat. 26. 52. but when all was finished, he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, drink ye all of it, for this is my blood o● the New Testament which was shed for many for the remission of sins, Mat. 26. 27, 28. so then although the Sacrament of the blood of Christ before his death was to be spilt on the ground, yet now they▪ must drink it, and it were part of that unpardonable sin, now to spill the blood of the Covenant under feet, Heb. 10. 29. although it was to be spilt and sprinkled upon the ground before his death.  
But then he will prove this Law of prohibiting blood to be eaten to be Moral, his reason is, because blood is the life of the beast, and it is extreme cruelty to eat the blood when the beast is dead, which was the life of it when it was living; a cruel thing to eat life itself: Therefore it is forbidden, and not because it is an unclean thing, and forbidden by the Ceremonial Law; but as a cruel thing forbidden by the Moral Law: Therefore he concludes, it is not Ceremonial, but Moral; but here I would know of him, whether the seventh Commandment which forbids uncleanness, be not as Moral as the sixth, that forbids cruelty. Again, is a thing first unclean, and then forbidden of God, or whether is it not first forbidden of God, and so becomes unclean? It was God's prohibition that made blood to be unclean to Noah and his posterity, and to the Jewish Nation, being the visible Church of God; and for this man to say God's prohibition did not put uncleanness upon the things▪ prohibited, is to put uncleanness upon the holy Law of God, and in stead of c●sting▪ the unclean blood as water upon the ground, this man casts this holy Law of God under feet as an unclean thing.  
But he saith, it is more cruelty to the beast, to eat the blood after the beast is dead, than it is to kill it when it was alive; because (saith he) it is more inhuman to 〈◊〉 the flesh of a dead man, or to kick it up and down the streets, though the dead body feel no pain, than it is to kill a man by hanging him, in case the Law hath condemned him, although he put him to pain, and not the other: So saith he, It is a greater sign of cruelty to eat the blood of the beast after it is dead, than to kill a beast for food, by God's permission being delivered into our hands. But I say again, the prohibition is taken off which bond the Jews from eating blood, so that now the beast is wholly delivered into our hands for food, as well the blood as the flesh. Again, blood is not life, it was only the seat of life, for if it were life, it would act and move as well out of the beast as in it, like the soul of man, but it cannot do so, than it is not life, though life was in it, Levit. 17. 11. and sometimes too much blood will kill the beast, and must be let out to save his life. Then is it as great cruelty to eat the place where life was, as to destroy life by killing the beast. Again, now the prohibition is taken off, who loves the blood most, he that eats it, or he that ●●●ples it under his feet? In all wise men's judgement, he that eats it loves it most, and he that casts it under feet to be trampled upon, shows most hatred and cruelty against it. Again, is it true charity to the lives of Christians, that they should ●ther be destroyed than to eat blood, being the place in which the life of the beast was? But the life of the beast is gone, and no more hurt can be done to it; but the life of ● Christian is still in him, and may be refreshed with that thing only: This man's charity is more to the blood of a dead beast, than it is either to the life itself of man or beast. Much like the charity of King Saul to Agag, and the best of the ca●tell, that he would not slay them at God's command, 1 Sam. 15: Or like Ahab, who would not slay Ammon at God's command, saying, He is my brother, 1 King. 20. 32, 42. But cursed be that man that keeps his sword from blood when God commands it to be shed, Jer. 48. 10. Thy life shall go for his life. Yet I must confess the Lord said to Noah, He that eats the blood of a beast, being the life of it, I will require that man's life at the hand of every beast, Gen. 9 4, 5. But the prohibition is taken off by Christ, who hath made them clean that were not clean, Acts 10. Again, Is this prohibition moral, because Noah was forbidden to eat blood, Gen. 9 4. I say, No: For in the same Text it is plain, that from the beginning of the world it was not so; for till then the green herb was their food, according as God had said to Ad●●, Gen. 1. 29, 30. and 9 4. I say till the flood man did eat that which grew of itself, neither did beasts pray one upon another, but went lovingly into the Ark: But after the flood it was permitted to men to eat the flesh of some beasts and fowls, but no● their blood; so than this prohibition began but at Noah, and was to end at the death of Christ, than this Law was not Moral, we know both when it began, and when it ended. From Adam to Noah they were to eat what grew upon the ground, and from thence to the death of Christ they might eat some beasts and fowls, but not the blood; and from the death of Christ to the end of the world we must not call any thing unclean, for God hath cleansed it, Acts 10.  
But then he saith there is a Text in the New Testament, Acts 15. 28, 29. where it is said, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no other burden 〈◊〉 th●se necessary things, that ye abstain from meats ●ff●red to Idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from which if you keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Here (saith he) you see that neither the Old nor New Testament can scarce mention the forbidding to eat blood, but it annexeth a blessing to them that abstain, or a curse to those that practise it.  
I answer: There was a great controversy at Antioch between the Jews and Christians, the Jews said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved: Hereupon they came to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem about this question, vers. 1, 2. then James the Moderator of the Synod said, My sentence is, that ye trouble not the Jews which are among the Gentiles turned to the Lord; but if they will abstain from pollutions of Idols, and from fornication, than we will yield to them to be circumcised after the manner of Moses, & according to Moses Law let them abstain from things strangled, and from blood. Hereupon Paul took Timothy and circumcised him, because of the Jews which were in those quarters, Acts 16. 1, 3. And when the Apostles heard that Paul taught the Jews which were among the Gentiles, saying, that they must forsake Moses, and that they ought not to be circumcised, nor to walk after their customs; they told him saying, We have concluded that they observe no such thing, as to say they must not be circumcised, nor to walk after their customs, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to Idols, and from fornication, and we will yield to them, to observe Moses Law, in keeping themselves from things strangled, and from blood. See Acts 21. 21, 25. where the Apostles tell Paul what they have done at the Synod at Jerusalem, Acts 15. 25, 29. and 26. 4. Then the Apostles persuaded Paul to go in with four men that had a vow, and purify himself, and so he did, signifying the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that ●n offering be offered for every one of them, vers. 23. 24, 26, 27. Thus unto the Jews be yielded, to gain the Jews; so he was two years at Ephesus, and never spoke all that time against their Diana, that he might gain them also to the Christian faith, Acts 19 10. So then the Apostles did ●eare with them in some things, that they might the better persuade them from fornication, and from things offered to Idols; but for any man to say, from this Text that blood is▪ forbidden to the world's end, they may as well say that Circumcision must yet r●●aine; for when Paul said, that they ought not to circumcise their children, the Apostles tell him, that they have written and concluded, that they observe no such thing, Acts 21. 21, 25.  
Then he saith, that we object saying, to bind them from things offered to Idols, and from blood, are but indifferent things: Hereupon he insults over it, saying, Eating of blood is against the Law of God, and is punished with damnation, for it is joined with fornication.  
I answer: To abstain from blood was then a thing indifferent, being between the ending of the Old Testament, and the beginning of the New, but it was not so before nor afterwards: So also was Circumcision before, if any Male was not circumcised, he was to be cut off from the people, for saith the Lord, He hath broken my Covenant, Gen. 17. 14. But when they would have circumcised Titus, saith Paul, I would not give place by subjection, no not for an hour, Gal. 2. 3. 5. Yet he consented to the Apostles conclusion, though he had preached against it, Acts 21. 21, 25. and he did circumcise Timothy because of the Jews, Act. 16. 3. so the prohibition of blood was only at that instant a thing indifferent, for before the penalty was, to be cut off from Israel, Levit. 17. 10. but now since we must not say any thing is unclean, for God hath cleansed it; Act. 10. 14, 15. and for him to say eating blood is a sin against the Moral Law, as fornication is, it is not true as hath been proved, although it was given to Noah, and practised before him, but it is not so now for the time limited is past.  
Then he faith, that we object saying, we must not eat flesh and blood together, but asunder; and he saith, it must be poured upon the ground, and covered with dust, Levit. 17. 13. but I say that command was to Israel, and not to us, unless he can fasten all the Jewish ceremonies upon Christians.  
He saith we object, unto the pure all things are pure, Tit. 1. 15. and nothing is unclean of itself, but to him that esteems it so: Rom. 14. 14. but he saith, we are not so mad to think nothing unfit for food, or unclean, as toads, man's flesh, stones and trees.  
I answer, will it follow because the prohibition is taken off, and so things that were unclean are now clean for food, that it must needs comprehend such things as these.  
He saith, we object, that every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, 1 Tim. 4. 5. but he saith Paul must be understood of things not forbidden, so all things are lawful, 1 Cor. 10. 23. he saith this doth not extend to things unwholesome, or unlawful for food, all this I grant, for blood is neither unclean, nor unlawful, since the prohibition was taken off, Act. 10 15. and how wholesome it is, thousands can daily witness.  
He saith we object, this Law was Jewish, and not Moral, because the Jews were forbidden to eat any thing that died of itself, when as aliens and strangers might eat it, Deut. 14. 21. to this he saith, strangers and aliens might eat it; here he contradicts himself, for he said before, that none of the posterity of Noah ought to eat flesh with the blood; but the meaning of this Text is this, those without the Church were without government, but neither the Jewish Church, nor the Church before the flood might do so, Gen. 9 3. then he grants it not uniawfull to eat some blood with the flesh, but he should have set down his quantity, or else we shall think it as lawful to eat all as some. Thus he is moild in his own Channel, and knows not how to come clearly out of it, the mean time we may lawfully eat blood in things strangled, or made into wholesome food for us.  
FINIS.