Ductor dubitantium, or, The rule of conscience in all her generall measures serving as a great instrument for the determination of cases of conscience : in four books / by Jeremy Taylor ...

RULE 2. The Ceremonial law of Moses is wholly void.

FOR this is that hand writing of ordinances which Christ nailed to his Cross,* 1.1 and concerning this we have an express command recorded by the Apostle, Let no man judge you in meat or in drink,* 1.2 or in respect of an Holyday, or of the New moon, or of the Sabbath dayes: and concerning the difference of meats not on∣ly their own Doctors say, the precept of Moses is not obligatory any where but in Palestine, but they have forgot the meaning of the names of some of them, or at least dispute it, which is not likely they would so strangely have lost, if the obligation also had not been remov'd. But as to us the case is confessed: for all the arguments before alleaged proceed of this part of the Mosaick law, if of any, this being chiefly made up of umbrages, figures, and im∣perfect services, relative to place and time, to families and separate persons, such which every change of Government could hinder, and which in the conflict and concussion with other laws did ever give place, even in that time when they were otherwise obligatory, which could not cleanse the conscience, nor take

away sins; but were a burden made to teach something else, like letters written upon little cubes, or given as appellatives to slaves that the children who were waited on by them might learn the Alphabet; but else they were a trouble to no real perfective purpose of our Spirits.

Quest.

I Know but of one difficulty which this thing can meet with,* 1.3 and that is made by the scrupulous inquiries of some tender or curious persons who suppose the difference of meats not to be so wholly taken away, but that still under the lawes of the Gospel we are bound to abstain from blood and from things strangled;* 1.4 pretending for this scruple, the Canon of the Apostles at Jeru∣salem: which injoyns this abstinence, and reckons it amongst the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, things necessary: and this was for a long time used and observed strictly by the Christians:* 1.5 of which we have testimony from that law of Leo the Em∣peror, where having forbidden the use of blood stuff'd in the Entrailes of beasts, he affirmes that in the old law, and in the Gospel it was alwaies esteem∣ed impious to eat it. And this was not onely for the present, and for compli∣ance with the Jewes that by the observance of some common rites the Gen∣tile converts might unite with the beleeving Jewes into one common Church, but they suppos'd something of Natural reason and decency to be in it; and the obligation to be eternal, as being a part of that law which God gave to A∣dam, or at least to Noah after the floud; for they who use to eat or drink bloud are apt to degenerate into ferity and cruelty and easiness of revenge; and if O∣rigen's fancy had been true, it had been very material; for he suppos'd that the Devils were fed with bloud: but however, certain it is that the Church did for divers ages most religiously abstain from bloud; and it was the great argument by which the Primitive Christians did confute the calumnies of the Heathens imputing to them the drinking of humane bloud: they could not be suppos'd to doe that, who so religiously abstain'd from the bloud of beasts, as we find it argued in Tertulliana 1.6, Minutiusb 1.7, and Eusebiusc 1.8, who also tells of Biblis that she rather would die then eat bloud in a pudding: and in the Canons commonly called Apostolicald 1.9 it is forbidden to a Clergy man to eat bloud, under pain of deposition, to a lay man under excommunication: which law was mention'd* 1.10 and suppos'd obligatory in the second Canon of the Councel of Gangra; and long after by the Canon of the Councel in Trullo; by the Councel of Wormes under Ludovicus Pius cap. 65. by Pope Zechary in his epistle to Boniface; and from hence the penitential books had warrant enough to impose Canonical Penances upon them that did tast this forbidden dish: and that they did so is known and confess'd,

But to the Question and inquiry,* 1.11 I answer, 1. That the abstinence from bloud is not a law of Nature or of Eternal rectitude as appears, first in that it was not at all impos'd upon the old world; but for a special reason given to the posterity of Noah to be as a bar to the ferity and inhumane blood-thir∣stiness of which the old Giants were guilty, and possibly others might af∣terwards. For the Jewes reckon but six precepts given to Adam and his po∣sterity after the fall. The first against strange worship. The second of the worshipping the true God. The third of the administration of justice. The fourth of disclosing nakedness, or a prohibition of uncleanness. The fifth against shedding bloud. The sixth against theft: and indeed here are the heads of all Natural laws; but because the old world grew cruel to beasts, and the Gyants were degenerated into a perfect ferity, and liv'd on bloud; therefore it pleas'd

God to superadde this to Noah, that they should not eat blood; that is, that they should not eat the flesh of beasts that were alive; that is, flesh with the bloud: and it is not to be despised that the drinking of bloud is not forbidden; but the eating onely: meaning that the blood was not the main intention of the prohibition; but living flesh, that is, flesh so long as the bloud runs from it: flesh with the life thereof,* 1.12 that is, with the bloud: so run the words of the Com∣mandement; and therefore the Doctors of the Jews express'd it by the not tearing a member of any live creature: which precept was the mounds of cruelty, God so restraining them from cruelty even to beasts, lest they might learne to practise it upon men. For God sometimes places some laws for de∣fensatives to others, and by removing men afar off from impiety he secures their more essential duty.* 1.13 2. But even this very precept is by all the world taught to yeeld to necessity and to charity, and cruelty to beasts is innocent when it is charity to men: and therefore though we doe not eat them, yet we cut living pigeons in halfs and apply them to the feet of men in fevers, and we rip the bellies of sheep, of horses, of oxen, to put into them the side of a Paralytick; and although to rude people and ignorant, such acts of security were useful, yet to Christians it is a disparagement to their most excellent in∣stitution, and the powers and prevalencies of Gods spirit, to think they are not upon better accounts secur'd in their essential duty. The Jews were de∣fended from idolatry by a prohibition even of making and having images: but he is but a weak Christian who cannot see pictures without danger of gi∣ving them worship.* 1.14 3. The secret is explicated by God in the place where he made the law: it was first a direct design to introduce mercy into the world, by taking care even of beasts: and secondly it was an outerguard against the crime of homicide: and Irenaeus, Tertullian, S. Cyprian and S. Am∣brose expound the meaning of the whole affair to be nothing else but a prohibi∣tion of homicide: for as God would have men be gentle to beastsa 1.15, so if beasts did kill a man, it should be exacted of themb 1.16: neither the mans dominion over the beast could warrant his cruelty over them, nor the want of reason in beasts bring immunity if they kill'd a man, and the consequent and purpose of both these is express'd, vers. 6. whoso sheddeth mans bloud, by man shall his bloud be shed; and all this put together is a demonstration how dear lives are to God; even the life of beasts is in one sense sacred: for even then when they were given to Man for food, yet the life was not; they must first be dead before they might be eaten: but therefore the life of Man was sacred in all senses, and should be required of man and beast. But that God doth even take care for Oxen, in the matter of life, appears in this prohibition, flesh with the life thereof ye shall not eat; that is, you shall not devour the flesh even while it is alive; for the bloud is the life thereof; that is, when the bloud is gone you may eat, till then it is presumed to be alive. Now there can be no other meaning of the reason: for if blood were here directly prohibited to be taken and drunk or eaten, this reason could not have concluded it, [because it is the life, there∣fore you may not eat it] being no better an argument then this; you may not eat the heart of a beast, for it is the life thereof; but the other meaning is proper, ye shall not eat flesh with the bloud which is the life thereof, that is, so long as the bloud runs, so long ye must not eat; for so long it is alive: and a beast may be killed but not devour'd alive. So that the prohibition of bloud is not direct in the precept,* 1.17 but accidental, blood is forbidden as it is the sign of life and the vehiculum of the Spirits, the instruments of life; and so long as it runs so long the life abides ordinarily; and therefore Zonaras in his notes upon the Councel of Gangra expounds the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or bloud sup∣pos'd

in that Canon as unlawful to be eaten or drunk, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, blood diligently or fast running or following the wound, and thick; that is, as I suppose, blood digested, to distinguish it from serum sanguinis or the warry bloud that is seen in beasts after they have bled, that they might not have scruple in minutes and little superstitions: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without active blood, so Balsamo: and it is not impertinent to the main inquiry that it be observed that the Jews use [life] instead of bloud, and so does the Vulgar Latin, that we might the easier understand the meaning to be of life, or living bloud. But then this is nothing to eating the bloud when the beast is certainly dead: and therefore it is observable that they who did make a scru∣ple of eating bloud did not all of them make a scruple of eating things stran∣gled in which the bloud remained: and therefore in some copies of the Apo∣stolical decree mention'd Acts 15. the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or strangled is left out; and S. Austin observes that in his time in Africa the Christians did not severely abstain from things strangled. For if the case were the same between bloud running and bloud setled and dead, then the reason of the Commande∣ment were nothing or not intelligible; and besides it would breed eternal scruples: since in the very killing of beasts there will some bloud remain, and in the neck pieces and some veins every body hath observed some bloud remaining even after the effusion by the knife.* 1.18 4. This could not be a law of Nature, because not mention'd by Christ in all his law, which I have al∣ready prov'd to be a perfect Digest of the Natural law: onely that sense of it which I have now given, is involv'd in a law of Nature, and conse∣quently enjoined by Christ, viz. under the precepts of mercy, according to that saying of the wise man, a good man will be merciful to his beast: and the Athenians put a boy to death because he took delight to prick out the eies of birds and so let them flie for his pastime, as supposing that he who exercised his cruelty upon birds being a boy,* 1.19 would in time destroy men too. 5. Up∣on the account of this interpretation we are to distinguish the material part from the formal; the bloud as it is such a substance from the bloud as it is alive: just as the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are to be differenc'd: for to eat the meat when it is sold in the shambles is a thing indifferent,* 1.20 said S. Paul, though it was of∣fered to idols; but this very meat might not be eaten in the Temples, nor any where under that formality, as S. Paul there discourses: and therefore what the Apostles in their letter to the Churches call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, S. James in the decision of the question calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pollutions of idols that is, all communications in their idolatrous portions and services, and so it is for bloud, abstain from life bloud, or bloud that runs while the beast is dying, that is, devour not the flesh while the beast is alive, be not cru∣el and unmerciful to your beast: but if blood be taken in its own materiality when the beast is dead, it may be eaten as other things, without scruple: they being both in the same sense as in the same obligation

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.21

There is a letter and a spirit in both of them.* 1.22 6. One thing only I shall adde to make this appear to have been relative, temporal and ceremonial; and that is, that when God was pleas'd to continue the command to the sons of Israel in Moses law, he changed the reason, onely reciting the old reason for which it was imposed to the posterity of Noah, and superadding a new one as relating to themselves:* 1.23 For the life of the flesh is in the bloud, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your soules; for it is the bloud that maketh an atonement for the Soule. So that to the bloud there

was superadded a new sacredness and religion, it was typical of the great sacri∣fice upon the Cross, the bloud of which was an holy thing, and it was also in∣strumental to their sacrifices and solennities of their present religion: and therefore this ritual is to cease after that the great sacrifice is offer'd and the great effusion of bloud is past. But as they had a new reason, so also had they a new injunction, and they were interdicted the eating of any thing strangled; which they taking to be a pursuance of the precept given to Noah, were the more zealous of it; and lest their zeal might be offended, the first Christians in their societies thought fit to abstain from it. But this ever had a less obli∣gation then the former, and neither of them had in their letter any Natural obligation: but the latter was introduc'd wholly upon the Levitical account: and therefore did cease with it. 7.* 1.24 After this so plain and certain commen∣tary upon this precept I shall the less need to make use of those other true ob∣servations made by other learned persons: as that this Canon was made for a temporary compliance of the Gentile Proselytes with the Jewish converts, that this was not a command to abstain from bloud, or strangled, but a decla∣ration onely that they were not obliged to circumcision; but they already ha∣ving observed the other things, it was declared they need go no further: that whereas these things were said to be necessary 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the meaning of the word is not absolute but relative; for it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to have a thing under some necessary condition, and so it happened to them to whom the Apo∣stles wrote; for they were Gentile Proselytes before they were Christians, and so were tyed to observe the seven precepts of Noah, before the Jewes would converse with them, and therefore that this did not conce••ne the Gentiles after they were an intire Church: for although it did while the separation lasted, and that there were two Bishops in some great Churches as in Rome and Ephesus: yet when the Church was of Gentiles onely, or conversed not with Jewes, this could not relate to them. That bloud should be forbidden in the forma∣lity of meat is infinitely against the Analogy of the Gospel: The decretory and dogmatical words of Christ being, that nothing which enters into the mouth desiles a man:* 1.25 and the words of S. Paul are permissive and preceptive, What∣soever is sold in the shambles, eat, asking no question for Conscience sake. For meat commendeth us not to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat no are we the worse:* 1.26 and the Kingdome of God consisteth not in meat and drink, but in righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. The result is this, that bloud as it is a meat cannot be suppos'd here to be directly forbid∣den as Naturally unlawlful, or essentially evil, or of a proper turpitude: but if the Apostles had forbidden the very eating of bloud as meat, it must be supposed to be a temporary and relative command which might expire by the ceasing of the reason, and did expire by desuetude; but since it was not so, but a permitting the Gentile Proselytes and incouraging them for pre∣sent reasons to abstain from running or life bloud in the sense above explica∣ted, according to the sense of the Jewish Doctors and their Disciples, it no way can oblige Christians to abstain from bloud when it is dead, and alter'd, and not relative to that evil which was intended to be forbidden by God to Noah, and was afterwards continued to the Jewes. I end this with the words of Tertullian,* 1.27 Claves macelli tibi tradidit, permittens esui omnia ad constituen∣dam idolothytorum exceptionem. God hath given to us the keyes of the sham∣bles, onely he hath forbidden the pollution of idols: in all other things you have your liberty of eating.

I am onely now to give an account of the reasons of the Ancient Chur∣ches,* 1.28

why so pertinaciously and so long they refus'd to eat boyl'd bloud, or any thing of that Nature, But for that it is the less wonder when we consider that they found it injoyned by all the Churches where the Jewes were min∣gled, and the necessity lasted in some places till the Apostles were dead, and the Churches were persecuted: and then men use to be zealous in little things, and curious observers of letters; and when the succeeding ages had found the precedents of Martyrs zealous in that instance, it is no wonder if they thought the Article sufficiently recommended to them. 2. But if we list to observe that the Pythagorean Philosophers were then very busy and interested in the persuasions of Men and Sects, and Pythagoras and Plato and Socrates had great Names amongst the leading Christians, it is no wonder if in the percola∣tion something of the relish should remain, especially having a warrant so plausible to persuade, and so easy to mistake as this decretal of the Apostles, and the example of the Ancients living in that time which the Heathens called the Golden age,

Nam vetus illa aetas non polluit ora cruore.* 1.29

Single life, and abstinence from certain meats, and refusing of bloud, and se∣verity of Discipline, and daies of abstinence were sometimes persuaded, some∣times promoted, sometimes urg'd, sometimes made more necessary, by the Montanists, the Essens, the Manichees, the Novatians, the Encratites, the Pytha∣goreans, and the very Heathen themselves, when because they would pretend severity it became fit that the Christians should not be or seem inferior to them in selfdenial, Discipline and austerities. But I shall make no more conjectures in this matter, since if the Church at that time did injoyn it, the Canon was to be obeyed, and it may be in some places it was practis'd upon that stock; upon any other just ground, it could not, as I have already prov'd. Onely this; it cannot be denied but in the Westerne Church where this decree and the consequent Custome was quickly worne out, though it lasted longer even to this day in the Greek Church, and Balsamo inveighs against the La∣tines for their carelesness in this Article; yet there were some intervals in which by chance this decree did prevail; but it was when the Bishops of Rome were so ignorant that they could not distinguish the Old Testament from the New, but in some particulars did Judaize. I instance in Pope Zechary be∣fore mention'd; who in his decretal to Boniface the Arch-Bishop of Mentz is very curious to warne him to forbid all Christians with whom he had to doe, they should abstain from some certain sorts of birds, as jack-dawes, crowes and storks; but especially that Christians should eat no hares, nor bevers, nor wild-horses: and the Councel of Wormes determin'd something to the like purpose, not much wiser; but what was decreed then was long before reprov'd by S. Austin, affirming that if any Christian made a scruple of eat∣ing strangled birds in whom the bloud remain'd,* 1.30 he was derided by the rest: and that this thing which was useful in the infancy of the Church should be obtruded upon her in her strength, is as if we should persuade strong men to live upon milk because their tender Mothers gave it them as the best nourishment of their infancy.

This thing being cleared I know no other difficulty concerning the choice of meats in particular,* 1.31 or the retention of the Ceremonial law in general, or in any of its instances, but what will more properly be handled under other titles.

Notes

• * 1.1

  1.
• * 1.2

  Coloss. 2, 16.
• * 1.3

  2.
• * 1.4

  Acts 15.
• * 1.5

  Novel. 58.
• a 1.6

  In Ap. c. 9
• b 1.7

  In Octivio.
• c 1.8

  Eccles. hist. lib. 5. c. 1.
• d 1.9

  C. 62.
• * 1.10

  Vide etiam Clemen Alex. Paedag. l. 3. c. 3. Niceph. lib. 4. c. 17. & idem vide•••• est apud Luci∣anum in Pereg.
• * 1.11

  3.
• * 1.12

  Gen 9. 4.
• * 1.13

  2.
• * 1.14

  3.
• a 1.15

  Ve••s. 4.
• b 1.16

  Ve••••. 5.
• * 1.17

  Vide 8. Aug. lib. 2. c 6. con∣•••••• adve••iari∣•••• legis & 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.18

  4.
• * 1.19

  5.
• * 1.20

  1 Cor. 1••. 25.
• * 1.21

  Pho••yl.
• * 1.22

  6.
• * 1.23

  Levit. 17. 11.
• * 1.24

  7.
• * 1.25

  Math. 15. 1 Cor. 10. 25.
• * 1.26

  Rom. 14. 17.
• * 1.27

  ••e jejuniis.
• * 1.28

  4.
• * 1.29

  Metam. l. 15.
• * 1.30

  Lib. 32. c. 13. cont. Faustum Manich.
• * 1.31

  5.