COncerning that Case of Conscience , Whether the Eating of Blood be Lawful ? I find that many not only of the more Ignorant , & Common Professors of Christianity , but some very Learned men among them , have Inclined to the Negative in the Question proposed . So did some of the Ancients , particularly Tertullian , Origen , Clemens Alexandrinus , and the Author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox , which passeth under the Name of Justin Martyr . Like-wise Eusebius relates , that when St. Biblis was put upon the Rack to make her Confess , that Christians were wont to Eat Infants ( for so had the Accuser of the Brethren made the Heathen Believe ) she Replyed , How should they Eat Children , when they Abstain from all Eating of Blood ? Also , in the Book of Canons falsly pretended to be the Apostles , the Sixty Third Canon declares , that If any one in Holy Orders , Eateth Blood , he shall be Degraded , but if he be a Lay man , he shall be Excommunicated . Moreover , some Old Councils have condemned it , as Unlawful : And some Emperours have by very severe Laws , Inhibited all Blood-Eating . The most Remarkable is that Ordinance of the Emperour Leo , Sirnamed the Philosopher A D. 886. He sayes , that He had received Information ▪ that there were some , who stuffed Blood into Guts , or in Bags , and did Eat the same , as usual Meat : He does therefore Command that no Person should dare so to Practice himself ▪ or to Sell such things to others ; declaring that both Buyer and Sel●er , shall have all his Goods forfeited , his Head Shaven , and himself sent into Perpetual Banishment . It is further True , that the Christian Greeks , the Russians , Abyssines , Maronites , have abstained from the Eating of Blood , as unlawfu● Nor are those Christians free from far greate● Superstition than this Some late Authors have Written against it : So Grotius and Curcellaeus in his Treatise De Usu Sanguinis ; Dr. Du Veil , in his Commentary on Acts 15. 29 ▪ And Dr. Barlow ▪ the late Bishop of Lyncoln , whose Arguments in the Opinion of the Athenian Mercury ( March ●● 1694. ) are of such weight , as that they will make his Antagonist sweat to Answer them . This notwithstanding , the Generality of Protestant Divines maintain the Affirmative , in the Question under Consideration . So Pareus , Rivet , Calvin● Willet , and many others in their Commentaries on Gen 9 4. So Voetius de Politia Ecclesiastica , Part 1. Pag . 471. who refers his Reader for Satisfaction in that point to Libavius and Horn-beck his Diatriba de Sanguine & suffocato . So among Episcopal Divines , Bishop Richardson , and Dr. Hammond . Thus also some of the Ancients Quadratus ( an old Christian Philosopher who affirms , that in his Time , some of the Persons on whom our Saviour wrought Miraculous Cures were still Living ) maintains ( as is testified by Bede ) that there is no Meat from which a Christian ought to abstain Vid . Menologium Graecorum , in Septemb 21 See Dupin Vol. r . p. 48. But it is not the Practice or Authority of men , without Scripture or Convincing Reason , that can Determine , or satisfy Conscience . For my own part , I concur with the Generallity of Protestant Christians , as to the Case under Debate . And that especially for these Reasons .

1. No Meat does in its own Nature defile , Math . 15. 11. Not that which goeth into the Mouth Defileth the man . I suppose that the Apostle hath Respect unto those Words of our Saviour , when he says , I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus , that there is nothing Unclean of it self , Rom. 14. 14.

2. The Scriptures of the New-Testament give such a General Allowance for the Eating of all sorts of Meats as doth Comprehend that of Blood , There is that Scripture , Rom. 14 2 ▪ One Believeth that he may Eat all things ; he that Believed so , was Orthodox in his Judgment as to that particular , And it was from Weakness in Faith , that is from Ignorance of the Latitude of Christian Liberty , under the Gospel , that any did Haesitate about it . Now if the Christian may Eat All Things , then Blood . Another Scripture is that in 1 Tim . 4. 3 , 4. where the Apostle condemns the Superstition of those , That Abstain 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 refused , if it be Received with Thanksgiving Now if Nothing is to be Refused , then Blood is not to be Refused . Another Scripture is that 1 Cor . 10 25. Whatsoever is Sold in the Shambles , that Eat , asking no Question for Conscience sake . It was usual to Sell Blood in the Shambles , If therefore we may Eat not some Things only , but whatever is Sold in the Shambles , we may lawfully Eat Blood , for that is there Sold ,

3. There are Medicinal Uses of Blood . Our Modern Physicians have found , that the Spirit of Blood is a wonderful Restorative , may not a Christian who is in a Consumption make use of that Spirit for the Recovering of his Impaired Health , and Preservation of his Life , according to the Sixth Commandment , only because Jews were prohibited things made of Blood ?

4. If it be Lawful to Eat things Strangled , then it is Lawful to Eat Blood . The Consequence is undeniable . And the Jews were as much bound in Conscience to abstain from things Strangled , as from Blood , and they Practise accordingly to this Day ; Some of the Popes have denied Christians this Liberty . So did Pope Zachary , A D. circiter . 756 Also several Councils that were Convened in the Dayes of Popery , but Austin declares , that in his Time , if any man scrupled the Eating things Strangled , ( which had the Blood in 'em ) he was Laughed at by all the World v. August Lib . 32. contra Faustum . cap 13. If a man among us should affirm that it is unlawful to Eat an Hare , or a Rabbet , killed by a stroke in the Neck , or a Pigeon caught in a Net , he would be Ridi'cled by most people . If the Eating of a thing that dies of it self , is lawful , then to Eat things Strangled , or with the Blood in them , is so too ; but this is , and ever was Lawful for the Gentiles , Deut . 14 21. Thou shalt not eat any thing that dyeth of it self , , thou shalt give it to the Stranger , that he may eat it , or Sell it to an Alien . Divines argue strongly concerning Usury , that the Prohibition of it to the Jews , was only a Judicial , and not a Moral Precept , because they might take Use for Mony Lett to Strangers . There is a Parity of Reason , as to this Case . He that Eats that which dies of it self , eats Blood . This the Gentiles might do . Therefore Eating of Blood was not against the Moral Law .

5. All Precepts which were only Ceremonial & not Moral , are Abrogated by the Death of Christ . Col. 2. 16 , 17. Gal. 4. 9. Heb . 9. 10. such was this concerning the not Eating of Blood , as appears from the Reason of the Prohibition mentioned , Lev . 17. 11. For the Life of the Flesh is in the Blood , and I have given it you upon the Altar to make an Atonement for your Souls , for it is the Blood that makes an Atonement . Blood the Organ of Life , was Holy to God the Author of Life , & therefore they should not Profane it by Eating thereof . Now this is a Ceremonial Reason , Blood was a Sacred Thing , because to be offer'd to God for making Atonement , as Typical of the Blood of Christ . Wherefore since Christ has shed his Blood , there is no Sacredness in any other Blood .

The Hebrew Doctors object , that there were six Precepts given to Adam , and so to the Antediluvians , which were all of them Moral and Perpetual unto the Observation whereof all Mankind is obliged . And that a Seventh was added and given to Noah , viz. That Gen 9. 4. The Fesh with the Life thereof , which is the Blood thereof , thou shalt not Eat .

For Answer . Not to Insist upon the Falseness of that Rabbinical Notion of Seven Precepts in the Moral Law , the Error whereof Hulfius has shewn in his Nucleus Prophetiae .

1. Some of the Jewish Masters themselves confess , that the Precept which forbids Eating Blood , does concern only Israelites , and not other Nations . Rabbi Solomon , and some others of the Rabbins suppose that Text does only forbid the Eating of the Flesh of Creatures , whilst they are yet Living , and the Drinking of their Blood . This Interpretation is followed by Cajetan , Mercer , Aynsworth , the Belgick Annotators & some others . It is an usual Custome among the Barbarous Scythians to drink the Blood of their Horses . Also the Arabians will draw Blood from their Camels and Drink it . Mens being used to Blood makes them ferocious , and hardhearted , as we see in Butchers , whence our English Laws permit not Butchers to be Jury-men in cases of Life and Death . According to this Interpretation , the Design of that Precept to Noah , is to forbid all Inhumanity , which suits with the next verse , containing a Prohibition of Murder . But

2 't is a mistake to think , that all the Precepts given to Noah , were Moral , binding all his Posterity in all the Ages of the World . For in his Dayes there was a Distinction made betwixt Clean and Unclean Beasts . Gen. 7. 2. which was a Ceremonial , and not a Moral Commandment : And so was Sacrificing required of Noah , and of the Patriarchs before the Flood . And for that Reason it was not meet that they should Eat Blood .

It is further Objected , That there was a Synodical Decree against the Eating Blood , in the Apostles Dayes , viz. that Acts 15 20. To which may be Answered , that the Apostolical Advice was grounded on the Scandal , which at that time , would have happened , in case the Converted Gentiles should have practised the Eating of Blood , and that therefore it was only a Temporary Advice , & not a Precept binding all Christians to the End of the World . Cessatio Causae efficit ut cessaret Observatio . The Learned and Judicious Turretin does by divers Reasons prove , that that Precept was not of perpetual Observation . He argueth , that Paul was present in the Synod at Jerusalem , and knew the true Intendment of the Advice given ; Nevertheless he afterwards wrote those Epistles , in which he allows the Eating of all sorts of meat , without any Limitation , which he would not have done , if the Decree , at Jerusalem had been of perpetual Observation . But in those Dayes the Eating of Blood would have scandaliz'd the Jews . That Practice was so abhorrent to them , as that it would have Endangered their being prejudiced against all Christianity , had they observed , that all Christians indulged themselves therein ; on which account , to abstain from it was then necessary , verse 2● . It would also have been Scandalous to the Gentiles among whom the Eating of Blood was an Idolatrous Rite . Psal . 16. 4. The Syrians used to drink some of the Blood of their Sacrifices . The Book of Wisdom informs us , that the old Canaanites had Blood in their Feasts . And Lanctantius testifies , that the Heathen at the Feast of Bacchus were wont to Drink Goats Blood ; they would also Boil Blood , & mix it with Meat & Spices , & so Eat it at their Sacrifices , which Tertullian calls Botulos Cruore distentos ; they Sacrificed Sawsages & black puddings to Idols . Maimonides says , that the Reason , why the Heathen did Eat Blood , was , because they thought that Blood was the Food of Daemons , whom they Worshipped , & that thereby they should obtain their Love & Favour . To the same purpose does Origen speak . Hence the Daemons are by Athenagoras called HAIMA PERILICHMOMENOI , Lickers of Blood ; so then in Primitive Times Eating of Blood would have Looked like a Symbolizing with the Heathen , & was for that Cause then Inhibited . And although it is mentioned with Fornication , it does not follow that if one of these is against the Moral Law , that the other is so too ; For the Eating of things offered to Idols is also mentioned , Acts. 21. 25. But that is an Indifferent thing , the Apostle does plainly allow of it , when it can be done without Scandal , 1 Cor . 10. 27. He only therefore condemns the Eating of Idolothytes , in the Idols Temples , 1 Cor . 8. 10. But does not forbid them to do it , in their own Houses , because in the one place it might be without Scandal , but not in the other . There is then no Validity in the Objection . Eating of Blood & Pornication are conjunctly mentioned , therefore they are of the same Nature . We find in other Scriptures that Precepts , which are only Judicial , are conjunctly mentioned with those that are Moral . Thus in Ezek . 18. The taking of a Pledge , & Usury , Judicial Precepts , are condemned with Idolatry & Adultery , hainous Transgressions of the Moral Law , unlawful to be done by any persons , in any place , or at any time . Moreover , the Gentiles esteemed Fornication to be no sin at all , yea , the Unclean Spirit unto whom they Sacrificed , taught them to make it a part of their Idolatrous Worship ; Wi●n●ss that shameful thing Baal peor , Numb . 23. 3. Jer . 11. 13. Hos . 9. 10. Rev. 2 14. Dr. Lightfoot observes that the Hebrews were wont to Condemn all Incestuous Marriages by the Name of Fornication , which the Gentiles made no matter about , & therefore supposeth that the Design of the Apostles in Condemning Fornication with things offered to Idols & Blood , was to bring the Converted Gentiles under the Obedience of the Law , in Lev . 18. Another late Annotator conceives , that the Thing more especially Designed , is to forbid that Concubinate , which was commonly practised both by Jews and Gentiles , the Evil whereof was not generally known , until discovered by the Light of the Gospel . These four things , Idolothytes , Fornication , Strangled and Blood were the Rites of Idolatry commonly practised amongst the Nations , so that the Gentiles by abstaining from them , declared a perfect Renunciation of their Heathenism , which Dr Spencer in his late Learned Exercitations , takes to be the special Reason why those four particulars are by the Apostles instanced in .

These things seem a Satisfactory Solution of the weightiest Arguments , which have been produced for the Negative , in the Question before us .