A. M. 1657. A. C. 2347; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 2257. A. C. 3154. GEN. CH. viii. 20. TO THE END OF CH. ix. interspersed the faults with the commendations of his that the age and infirmity of his body, or the deep conworthies, and, through his whole history, drawn no one cern and melancholy of his mind, made him liable to be character so very fair, as not to leave some blemishes, overcome with a very little; we may adventure to say, some instances of human frailty still abiding on it. And that he drank plentifully without impeaching his sobriety; indeed, if we consider the thing rightly, we shall find it and that, while he was asleep, he chanced to be uncov an act of singular kindness, and benefit to us, that God ered, without any stain upon his modesty. There is a has ordered the faults and miscarriages of his saints so great deal of difference between satiety and intemperconstantly to be recorded in Scripture; since they are ance, between refreshing nature and debauching it; and written for our instruction,' to remind us of our frailty, considering withal that the fashion of men's habits was at and to alarm our caution and fear. that time loose, (as they were likewise in subsequent ages before the use of breeches was found out) such an accident might have easily happened without the imputation of any harm. Noah, we read, had escaped the pollutions of the old world, and approved his fidelity to God in every trying juncture; and yet we see him here falling of his own accord, and shamefully overcome in a time of security and peace, when he had no temptations to beset him, nor any boon companions to allure him to excess: and therefore his example calls perpetually upon him that thinketh he standeth, to take heed lest he fall.' More especially it informs us, that wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise;' and therefore it exhorts, in the words of the wise man, 3 Look not thou upon wine when it is red, when it giveth its colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it will bite like a serpent, and sting like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things: yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, and as he that lieth upon the top of a mast.' There is not however all the reason that is imagined to suppose that Noah was drunk to any such excessive degree. The same word which is here used occurs in another place in this book of Genesis; where we read, that Joseph's brethren drank and were merry with him;' and yet the circumstances of the entertainment will not suffer us to think that they indulged themselves in any excess, in the presence of him whom, as yet, they knew to be no other than the governor of Egypt. And, in like manner, if we may be allowed to take the word here in an innocent sense, its import will only be, that Noah drank of the wine plentifully perhaps, but not to a debauch, and so fell asleep. For we must observe, that Moses's design is, not to accuse Noah of intemperance, but only to show upon what occasion it was that the Canaanites, whom the people under his command were now going to engage, were accursed, and reprobated by God, even from the days of Noah, and consequently in more likelihood to fall into their hands. Without perplexing ourselves therefore to find out such excuses as several interpreters have devised; as, that Noah was unacquainted with the nature of the vine in general, or with the effects of this in particular, or a Prov. xxiii. 31, &c. 1 1 Cor. x. 12. * Prov. xx. 1. Ch. xliii. 34. indecent posture. She ran immediately, and informed Hammon of it; he gave notice of it to his brothers, who, to prevent the confusion which Cynistas might be in to find himself naked, covered him with something. Cynistas, understanding what had passed, cursed Adonis, and pursued Myrrha into Arabia; where, after having wandered nine months, she was changed into a tree, which bears myrrh. Hammon and Ham are the same person, and so are Adonis and Canaan.-Calmet's Dictionary on the word Ham. a It is a Jewish tradition or allegory, that the vine which Noah planted was not of ordinary terrestrial growth, but was carried down the river out of Paradise, or at least out of Eden, and found 6 5The Jewish doctors are generally of opinion, that Canaan,' having first discovered his grandfather's nakedness, made himself merry therewith, and afterwards exposed it to the scorn of his father. Whoever the person was, it is certain that he is called the younger, or little son of Noah, which cannot well agree with Ham, because he was neither little, nor his younger son, but the second, or middlemost, as he is always placed: ' nor does it seem so pertinent to the matter in hand, to mention the order of his birth, but very fit (if he speaks of his grandson) to distinguish him from the rest. So that, if it was Canaan who treated his grandsire in this unworthy manner, the application of the curse to him, who was first in the offence, is far from being a mistake in Noah. It is no random anathema, which he let fly at all adventures, but a cool, deliberate denunciation, which proceeded not from a spirit of indignation, but of prophecy. The history indeed takes notice of this malediction, immediately upon Noah's awaking out of his sleep, and being informed of what had happened; but this is occasioned by its known brevity, which (as we have often remarked) relates things as instantly successive, when a considerable space of time ought to interfere. In all 5 Calmet's Dict. on the word Canaan, "Gen. ix, 24. 7 Patrick's Commentary. by him; and, as some have imagined, that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a vine; so by the description given thereof, and the fatal consequences attending it, there seems to be a plain allusion to it, and some reason to believe, that it was one and the same tree, by which the nakedness both of Adam and Noah was exposed to derision.-Targ. Jonath. b Interpreters have invented several other reasons, why the curse, which properly belonged to Ham, was inflicted on his son Canaan; as, 1st, When Canaan is mentioned, Ham is not exempted from the malediction, but rather more deeply plunged children's misfortunes than their own; especially if themselves into it, because parents are apt to be more affected with their brought the evil upon them by their own fault or folly. 2dly, God having blessed the three sons of Noah at their going out of the ark, it was not proper that Noah's curse should interfere with the divine blessing, but very proper that it should be transferred to Canaan, in regard to the future extirpation of the people which were to descend from him. But, 3dly, Some imagine that there is here an ellipsis, or defect of the word father, since such relative words are frequently omitted, or understood in Scripture. Thus, Matt. iv. 21, James of Zebedee, for the son of Zebedee; John xix. 25, Mary of Cleopas, for the wife of Cleopas; and Acts vii. 16, Emmor of Sychem, for the father of Sychem, which our translation rightly supplies; and, in like manner, Canaan may be put for the father of Canaan, as the Arabic translation has it, that is, Ham, as the Septuagint here render it. And though Ham had more sons, yet he may here be described by his relation to Canaan, because in him the curse was more fixed and dreadful, reaching to his utter extirpation, whilst the rest of Ham's posterity, in after ages, were blessed with the saving knowledge of the gospel.-Poole's Annotations. A. M. 1657. A. C. 2317; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 2257. A. C. 3154. GEN. CH. viii, 20. TO THE END OF CH. ix. probability these predictions of Noah, which point out the different fates of his posterity, were such as1 we find Jacob pronouncing over his sons a little before his death; and it is not unlikely that the common opinion, of Noah's dividing the earth among his, might take its original from these last words that we read of him, which" who are descended from Shem, according as God had were certainly accomplished in their event. conquered that part of Asia where the posterity of Shem had planted themselves; that both Alexander and Cæsar were masters of Jerusalem, and made all the countries thereabout tributary? "You," says Justin Martyr, (speaking to Trypho the Jew concerning his nation,) The curse upon Canaan is, that he should be a servant to Shem: and, about 800 (or, according to Dr Hales, 1546) years after this, did not the Israelites, descendants of Shem, take possession of the land of Canaan, subdue thirty of its kings, destroy most of its inhabitants, Lay heavy tributes upon the remainder, and, by oppressions of one kind or other, oblige some to flee into Egypt, others into Africa, and others into Greece? He was doomed likewise to be a servant to Japhet; and did not the Greeks and Romans, descended from Japhet, utterly destroy the relics of Canaan, who fled to Tyre, built by the Sidonians; to Thebes, built by Cadmus; and to Carthage, built by Dido? For who has not heard of the conquests of the Romans over the Africans? The blessing upon Japhet is, that his territories should be enlarged: and can we think otherwise, when (as we shall show anon) not only all Europe, and the Lesser Asia, but Media likewise, and part of Armenia, Iberia, Albania, and the vast regions towards the north, which anciently the Scythians, but now the Tartars, inhabit, fell to the share of his posterity? It was likewise declared, that he should dwell in the tents of Shem; and is it not notorious that the Greeks and Romans invaded and 'Gen. xlix. That which may confirm us in this opinion is,-That Jacob, when he calleth his children together, acquaints them, that his Patrick's Commentary in locum. 3 Patrick's Commentary. purpose is to tell them that which shall befall them in the last days; and that he does not always presage blessings, but sometimes ill luck to their posterity, and (in the same manner that Noah does) now and then drops a note of his displeasure, according as their behaviour has been; for thus he says of Simeon and Levi, in regard to the slaughter of the Shechemites, 'Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath, for it was cruel,' ten, xlix. 7. Dr Hales, who perfectly agrees with our author, that the Farse was pronounced on Canaan only, and not on Ham and Lis descendants generally, and who has a long dissertation on the subject, second edition, pp. 344—348, justly remarks, that the curse denounced against Canaan's posterity, to be servant of servants,' the lowest of servants, even slaves, to their brethren in general, did not affect individuals, nor even nations, so long as they continued righteous. In Abraham's days Melchisedek, whose name was expressive of his character, signifying 'king frighteousness,' was a worthy and revered priest of the most agh God.' And Abimelech, whose name denotes 'parental hing, pleaded the integrity of his heart, and righteousness of is nation before God; and his plea was accepted. Yet they ear to have been Canaanites. (See Gen. xiv. 18-20; xv. b; xx. 4-9.) At the same time the impieties and abominatons of their neighbours, in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, & drew down the signal vengeance of Heaven in their overthrow.-ED. < Procopius (on the Vandal war, b. ii. c. 10) tells us, that, in the province of Tingitana, and in the very ancient city of Tingis, which was founded by them, there are two great pillars to be teen, of white stone, erected near a large fountain, with an tuscription in Phoenician characters, to this purpose, "We are people preserved by flight, from that rover Jesus, the son of Nave, whe pursued us." And what makes it very probable that they bent their flight this way, is the great agreement, and almost identity, of the Punic with the Canaanitish, or Hebrew language. -Calmet's Dictionary on the word Canaan. appointed, came into the land of the children of Canaan and made it your own; and, in like manner, according to the Divine decree, the sons of Japhet (the Romans) have broken in upon you, seized upon your whole country, and still keep possession of it. Thus the sons of Shem," says he, "have overpowered and reduced the Canaanite; and the sons of Japhet have subdued the sons of Shem, and made them their vassals; so that the posterity of Canaan are become, in a literal sense, servants of servants." But, in the blessing bestowed upon Shem, why the God of Shem, you will say, and not the God of Japhet?5 They were both of them equally observant of their father, and joined in the pious office that they did him. The preference, if any, was due to the first-born; and therefore we may presume, that if the blessing here, peculiar to Shem, had been any part of a temporal covenant, or any thing in the power of his father to bestow, he would have conferred it on Japhet. But as the apostle to the Hebrews tells us, that he was heir of righteousness which is by faith,' he foresaw that in Seth's family God would settle his church; that of his seed Christ should be born according to the flesh; and that the covenant which should restore man to himself and to his Maker, should be conveyed through his posterity. And this accounts for the preference given to Shem; for Noah spake not of his own choice, but declared the counsel of God, who had now, as he frequently did afterwards, 'chosen the younger before the elder.' Thus it appears upon inquiry, that these prophecies of Noah were not the fumes of indigested liquor, but the words of truth and soberness: and though their sense was not so apparent at the time of their being pronounced, yet their accomplishment has now explained their meaning, and verified that observation of the apostle (which very probably alludes to the very predictions now before us). 'No prophecy is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy came not of old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' CHAP. IV. Of the Prohibition of Blood. THE grant which God was pleased to give Noah and his posterity, to eat the flesh of all living creatures, has this remarkable restriction in it, But the flesh, with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat.'á Whether this prohibition related to the eating of things 'Dial. contra Tryp. Jud. p. 288. d Mr Bruce has given a very satisfactory account of the practice of eating blood in Abyssinia. This custom, so prevalent in several places, is forbidden in the Scriptures. A recital of the narrative will probably suggest to the reader the reasons of the prohibition. Mr Bruce tells us, that not long after our losing A. M. 1657. A. C. 2347; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 2257. A. C. 3154. GEN. CH. viii. 20. TO THE END OF CH. ix. strangled, and such as died of themselves, in which the This is the true sense of the prohibition, compared with those parts of the Levitical law, wherein we find it re-enjoined but then the question is, whether this in : 'St Chrysostom, and Ludovicus de Dieu. "Maimonides, and our Selden de Jure Gentium. 3 See Lev. xvii, 12, and Acts xv. 20. junction be obligatory upon us now, under the dispensation of the gospel? or whether the gospel, which is the law of liberty, has set us free from any such observance ? and a question it is, that ought the rather to be determined, because some have made it a matter of no small scruple to themselves, whilst others have passed it by with neglect, as a law of temporary duration only, and now quite abrogated. That therefore the reader may, in this matter, chiefly judge for himself, I shall fairly state the arguments on both sides; and, when I have done this, by a short examination into the merits of each evidence, endeavour to convince myself and others, on which side of the question it is that truth preponderates, and consequently, what ought to be the practice of every good Christian in relation to this law. Those who maintain the lawfulness of eating blood, do not deny, but that this prohibition obliged Noah and his posterity, that is, all mankind, to the time of the promulgation of the law; do not deny, but that, at the giving of the law, this prohibition was renewed, and more explicit reasons were given for the observation of it; nay, do not deny, after laying his head upon a large stone, and cutting his throat, the blood fell from on high, or was poured on the ground like water, and sufficient evidence appeared that the creature was dead, before it was attempted to eat it. We have seen that the Abyssinians came from Palestine a very few years after this, and we are not to doubt, that they then carried with them this, with many other Jewish customs, which they have continued to this day.”—Bruce's Travels, vol. iii., p. 299. To corroborate the account given by Mr Bruce, in these extracts, it may be satisfactory to affix what Mr Antes has said upon the subject, in his observations on the manners and customs of the Egyptians, p. 17. "When Mr Bruce returned from Abys sinia, I was at Grand Cairo. I had the pleasure of his company for three months almost every day; and having, at that time, myself an idea of penetrating into Abyssinia, I was very inquisitive about that country, on hearing many things from him which seemed almost incredible to me; I heard many eye-witnesses often speak of the Abyssinians eating raw meat. I shall proceed to relate one of those occurrences which Mr Pearce himself wit "sight of the ruins of this ancient capital of Abyssinia, we over- "We have an instance in the life of Saul, that shows the propensity of the Israelites to this crime. Saul's army, after a battle, flew, that is, fell voraciously upon the cattle they had taken, and threw them upon the ground to cut off their flesh, and eat them raw; so that the army was defiled by eating blood, or living animals, 1 Sam. xiv. 33. To prevent this, Saul caused to be rolled to him a great stone, and ordered those that killed their oxen, to cat their throats upon that stone. This was the only lawful way of killing animals for food; the tying of the ox, and throwing it upon the ground, was not permitted as equivalent. The Israelites did probably in that case, as the Abyssinians do at this day; they cut a part of its throat, so that blood might be seen on the ground, but nothing mortal to the animal followed from that wound; but "On the 7th of February, he went out with a party of Lasta soldiers on one of their marauding expeditions, and in the course of the day they got possession of several head of cattle, with which, towards evening, they made the best of their way back to the camp. They had then fasted for many hours, and still a considerable distance remained for them to travel. Under these circumstances, a soldier attached to the party, proposed cutting out the " ghulada" from one of the cows they were driving before them, to satisfy the cravings of their hunger. This term Mr Pearce did not at first understand, but he was not long left in doubt upon the subject; for, the others having assented, they laid hold of the animal by the horns, threw it down, and proceeded without farther ceremony to the operation. This consisted in cutting out two pieces of flesh from the buttock, near the tail, which, together, Mr Pearce supposed, might weigh about a pound. soon as they had taken these way, they sewed up the wounds, plastered them over with cow dung, and drove the animal forwards, while they divided among their party the still reeking steaks. As They wanted Mr Pearce to partake of this meat, raw as it came from the cow, but he was too much disgusted with the scene to comply with their offer; though he declared he was so hungry at the time, that he could without remorse have eaten raw flesh, bad the animal been killed in the ordinary way; a practice which may here observe, he never could before be induced to adopt. notwithstanding its being general throughout the country. The animal, after this barbarous operation, walked somewhat lame, but nevertheless managed to reach the camp without any apparent injury, and immediately after their arrival it was killed by the Worari, and consumed for their supper."-Salt's l'oyage to Abyssinia, p. 295. worse, A. M. 1647. A. C. 2347; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 2257. A. C. 3154. GEN. CH. viii. 20. TO THE END OF CH. ix. but that under the gospel it was enjoined by a very competent authority, to some particular Christians at least, for some determinate time. But then they contend, that, during these several periods, there could be no moral obligation in the injunction, but that, (setting aside the divine authority,)' 'neither if they did eat, were they the neither if they did not eat, were they the better.' For, if there was any moral turpitude in the act of eating blood, or things commixed with blood, how comes it to pass, say they, that, though God prohibited his own people the Jews, yet he suffered other nations to eat any thing that died of itself, and consequently had the blood settled in it? If meat commendeth us to God, the same Providence, which took care to restrain the Jews (for is be the God of the Jews only, is he not also of the Gen-selytes of the gate, that is, Gentiles by birth, but who tiles?) from what was detestable to him, as well as abhorrent to human nature, would have laid the same inhibition upon all mankind; at least he would not have enjoined his own people to give to a proselyte of the gate, or to sell to an alien, or heathen, such meat as would necessarily ensnare them in sin. The place, where the question arose, was Antioch, where (as Josephus tells us) there was a famous Jewish university, full of proselytes of the gate, as they were called, and who, in all probability, were converted by the men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who were among those that were dispersed at the first persecution, which immediately ensued the martyrdom of Stephen. The persons who moved this question, were 8 some of the sect of the Pharisees, converted to Christianity, but still so prejudiced in favour of their old religion, or at least of the divine rite of circumcision, that they thought there was no coming to Christ without entering in at that gate. The law, therefore, which enjoined Noah and his children to abstain from blood, must necessarily have been a law peculiar to that time only. "Cain, in the first age of the world, had slain Abel, while there were but few persons in it: God had now destroyed all mankind except eight persons; and, to prevent the fate of Abel from befalling any of them, he forbids murder under a capital punishment; and to this purpose, forbids the use of blood, as a proper guard upon human life in the infancy of the world. Under the Mosaic covenant he renews this law, indeed, but then he establishes it upon another foundation, and makes blood therefore prohibited, because he had appointed it to be offered upon the altar, and to make an atonement for men's souls; for it is the blood,' saith he, that maketh an atonement for the soul;' and what was reserved for religious purposes, was not at that time convenient to be ate. But now that these purposes are answered, and these sacrifices are at an end, the reason of our abstinence has ceased, and consequently our abstinence itself is no longer a duty. The persons to whom the question related, were pro had renounced the heathen religion, as to all idolatry, and were thereupon permitted to live in Palestine, or wherever the Jews inhabited ; and had several privileges allowed them, upon condition that they would observe the laws of society, and conform to certain injunctions, that10 Moses had prescribed them. The time when this question arose, was not long after the conversion of Cornelius; so that this body of proselytes was, very probably, the first large number of Gentiles that were received into the Christian church, and this the first time that the question was agitated,-whether the proselytes of the gate, who, as the zealots pretended, could not so much as live among the Jews, without circumcision, could be allowed to be a part of the Christian church without it? Under these circumstances the council at Jerusalem convened, and accordingly made their decree, that the proselytes of the gate (for it is persons of this denomination only which their decree concerns)' should" abstain from the meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication;' the very things which,12 according to the law of Moses, they engaged themselves to abstain from, when they were first admitted to the privilege of sojourning among the Jews. So that, in effect, the decree did no more than declare the opinion of those who made it, to those to whom it was sent, namely, that Christianity did not alter the condition of the proselytes in respect of their civil obligations, but that, as they were bound by these laws of Moses before their conversion, so were they still; and, consequently, that the sense of St Paul is the same with the sense of the council at that time; 13 let every one abide in the calling,' that is, in the civil state and condition wherein he is called. But, supposing the decree to extend farther than the proselytes of Antioch, yet there was another reason why the council at Jerusalem should determine in this manner, and that was, the strong aversion which they knew the Jewish converts would The occasion of the decree was this-while Paul and have conceived against the Gentiles, had they been inBarnabas were preaching the gospel at Antioch, certain dulged the liberty of eating blood; and, therefore, to persons, converted from Judaism, came down from Jeru-compromise the matter, they laid on them this prudent salem, and very probably pretending a commission from restraint, from the same principle that we find St Paul the apostles, declared it their opinion, that whoever em- declaring himself in this manner: Though I am free braced the Christian religion, was obliged, at the same from all men, yet have I made myself a servant unto all, time, to be circumcised, and observe the whole law. that I might gain the more. Unto the Jew, I became as Blood, we allow, had still something more sacred in it; it was a type of the sacrifice of Christ, who was to be offered upon the altar of his cross; but that oblation being now made, the reason of its appropriation, and being withheld from common use, is now no more. And though the council at Jerusalem made a decree, even subsequent to the sacrifice of Christ, that the brethren, who were of the Gentiles, should abstain from things strangled, and from blood; yet before we can determine any thing from this injunction, the occasion, place, time, and other circumstances of it, must be carefully looked into. 146 7 Acts xi. 20. 8 Acts xv. 5. Ο A. M. 1657. A. C. 2347; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 2257. A. C. 3154. GEN. CH. viii. 20. TO THE END OF CH. ix. a Jew, that I might gain the Jew; to the weak, became | subjects, say they, they usually reserve some royalties I as weak, that I might gain the weak. I am made all (such as the mines, or minerals) to themselves, as memothings to all men, that I might, by all means, save some.' rials of their own sovereignty, and the other's depenNay, admitting the decree was not made with this view, dance. If the grant, indeed, be given without any reserve, yet, being founded on laws which concerned the Jewish the mines and minerals may be supposed to be included polity only, it could certainly last no longer than the in it; but when it is thus expressly limited, You shall government lasted; and, consequently, ever since the have such and such lordships and manors, but you shall temple worship has expired, and the Jews have ceased not have the mines and minerals with the lands, for seveto be a political body, it must have been repealed; and ral good reasons specified in the patent,' it must needs accordingly, if we look into the gospel, say they, we be an odd turn of thought to imagine that the grantee may there find a repeal of it in full form. For therein has any title to them; and yet this is a parallel case: we are told,' that the kingdom of God is not meat and for, when God has thus declared his will to the children drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy of men, You shall have the flesh of every creature for Ghost; that meat commendeth us not unto God;23 that food, but you shall not eat the blood with it,' it is every 'what goeth into the mouth, defileth not the man ;' that whit as strange an inference, to deduce from hence a 'to the pure, all things are pure; and that there is general right to eat blood. nothing unclean of itself, but only to him, that esteemeth The commandment given to Adam, is,12 Of every tree it to be unclean, it is unclean; for every creature of God in the garden thou shalt freely eat; but of the tree of is good, and nothing is to be refused, if it be received knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat.' This is with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified with the word of the first law; and the second is like unto it,13 Every God and prayer;' and therefore we are ordered, that moving thing, that moveth, shall be meat for you; even 'whatever is sold in the shambles, even though it be a as the green herb, have I given you all things; but flesh, thing offered to idols, that to eat, asking no questions for with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you conscience sake;' and are told, that whoever command-not eat.' This, upon his donation both to Adam and eth us to abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving of them that believe, and know the truth,' ought to be ranked in the number of seducers. 12 6 6 Noah, God manifestly reserves to himself, as an acknowledgment of his right to be duly paid; and when it was relaxed or repealed, say they, we cannot tell. Nay, so far from being repealed, that it is not only in his words to Noah that God has declared this inhibition, but in the law, delivered by his servant Moses, he has explained his mind more fully concerning it. Whatsoever man there is, of the house of Israel, or of the strangers, that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.' This is a severe commination, say they; and therefore observe, how oft, in another place, he reiterates the injunction, as it were with one breath. 15 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood, for the blood is the life, and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh. Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth, as water; thou shalt not eat it, that it may go well with thee and thy children after thee.' In a word, the very genius of the Christian religion, say they, is a charter of liberty, and a full exemption from the law of Moses. It debars us from nothing but what has a moral turpitude in it, or at least, what is too base and abject for a man, that has the revelation of a glorious and immortal life in the world to come and, as there is no tendency of this kind in the eating of blood, they therefore conclude that this decree of the apostles, either concerned the Jewish proselytes only, who, in virtue of the obedience they owed to the civil laws of Palestine, were to abstain from blood; or obliged none but the Gentiles of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, to whom it was directed; was calculated for a certain season only, either to prevent giving offence to the Jews, who were then captious, or to reconcile Gentile and Jewish conNow there are several reasons, continue they, why God verts, who were then at some variance; but was to last should be so importunate in this prohibition: for, having no longer than till the Jews and Gentiles were formed appointed the blood of his creatures to be offered for the into one communion. So that now the prohibition given sins of men, he therefore requires, that it should be reliby God to Noah, the laws given by Moses to the Israel-giously set apart for that purpose; and, having prohibited ites, and the decree sent by the apostles to the Chris- the sin of murder under a severe penalty, he therefore tians at Antioch, are all repealed and gone, and a full guards against it, by previously forbidding the eating of license given to us to eat blood with the same indiffer-blood, lest that should be an inlet to savageness and ence as any other food; if so be we thereby10 give no offence to our weaker brethren, for whom Christ died.' Those who maintain the contrary opinion, namely, that the eating of blood, in any guise whatever, is wicked and unlawful, found the chief of their arguments upon the limitation of the grant given to Noah, the reasons that are commonly devised for the prohibition, and the literal sense of the apostolic decree. 6 "When princes give grants of lands to any of their cruelty. The Scythians (as 16 Herodotus assures us) from drinking the blood of their cattle, proceeded to drink the blood of their enemies; and were remarkable for nothing so much as their horrid and brutal actions. The animals that feed on blood are perceived to be much more furious than others that do not; and thereupon they observe that blood is a very hot, inflaming food, that such foods create choler, and that choler easily kindleth into cruelty. Nay, they observe farther, that eating of blood gave occasion to one kind of early idolatry among the Zabii |