ページの画像
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

some of the Fathers. It does not appear to have been origi- visited, and the work of God more widely and more rapidly nally in the text.

Verse 36. Let us go—and visit our brethren in every city] This heavenly man projected a journey to Cyprus, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, Salamis, Paphos, Perga, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Antioch in Pisidia, and elsewhere; for in all these places he had preached and founded churches in the preceding year. He saw it was necessary to water the seed he had planted; for these were young converts, surrounded with impiety, opposition, and superstition, and had few advantages among themselves.

Verse 37. Barnabas determined to take with them John] John Mark was his sister's son; and natural affection might|| have led him to the partiality here mentioned.

Verse 38. But Paul thought not good to take him with them] On this subject, see the note on chap. xiii. 13.

spread. And why is it that most men attach blame to this difference between Paul and Barnabas ? And why is it that this is brought in, as a proof of the sinful imperfection of these holy apostles? Because, those who thus treat the subject, can never differ with another without feeling wrong tempers; and then, as destitute of good breeding as they are of humility, they attribute to others, the angry, proud, and wrathful dispositions which they feel in themselves; and because they cannot be angry and sin not, they suppose that even apostles themselves cannot. Thus, in fact, we are always bringing our own moral or immoral qualifications to be a standard, by which we are to judge of the characters and moral feelings of men who were actuated by zeal for God's glory, brotherly kindness, and charity. Should any man say, there was sin in this contention between Paul and BarVerse 39. The contention was so sharp between them] For nabas: I answer, there is no evidence of this in the text. all this sentence, there is only in the Greek text EYEVETO OUV Should he say, the word wapououos paroxym denotes this: Tacitusμos; there was therefore a paroxysm, an incitement, I answer, it does not. And the verb mapouvoμal is often a stirring up, from pov, compounded of rasa intensive, used in a good sense. So Isocrates ad Demosth. cap. xx. and οξύνω to whet, or sharpen: there was a sharp contention. μαλισα δ' αν παροξυνθείης ορεχθήναι των καλων εργων But does this imply anger or ill-will on either side? Cer- "But thou wilt be the more stirred up to the love of good tainly not. Here, these two apostles differed, and were stre- works." And such persons forget that this is the very form nuous, each in support of the part he had adopted. "Paul," used by the apostle himself, Heb. x. 24. xaι natavowμev as an ancient Greek commentator has it, “ being influenced αλληλους εις παροξυσμον αγαπης και καλων εργων· which only with the love of righteousness; Barnabas being actu- these objectors would be highly displeased with me, were I to ated by love to his relative." John Mark had been tried in translate, Let us consider one another to an angry contention trying circumstances, and he failed: Paul therefore would of love and good works. From these examples, it appears, not trust him again. The affection of Barnabas led him to that the word is used to signify incitement of any kind; and hope the best, and was therefore desirous to give him another if taken in a medical sense, to express the burning fit of an trial. Barnabas would not give up: Paul would not agree.ague: it is also taken to express a strong excitement to the They therefore agreed to depart from each other, and take different parts of the work: each had an attendant and companion at hand; so Barnabas took John Mark, and sailed to Cyprus: Paul took Silas, and went into Syria. John Mark proved faithful to his uncle Barnabas; and Silas proved faithful to his master Paul. To all human appearance it was best that they separated; as the churches were more speedily

love of God and man, and to the fruits by which such love can be best proved; and in the case before us, there was certainly nothing contrary to this pure principle in either of those heavenly men. See also Kypke on Heb. x. 24.

Verse 40. Being recommended-unto the grace of God.] Much stress has been laid upon this, to shew that Barnabas was in the wrong, and Paul in the right, because "the bre

·Dissertation on Acts xv. 28, 29. concerning THE ACTS.

thren recommend Paul and Silas to the grace of God; but they did not recommend Barnabas and John Mark: this proves that the church condemned the conduct of Barnabas, but approved that of Paul." Now, there is no proof that the church did not recommend Barnabas to the grace of God, as well as Paul; but as St. Luke had for the present dropped the story of Barnabas, and was now going on with that of Paul and Silas, he begins it at this point, viz. his being recommended by the brethren to the grace of God; and then goes on to tell of his progress in Syria, Derbe, Lystra, &c. &c. See the next chapter. And with this verse should the following chapter begin; and this is the division followed by the most correct copies of the Greek text. Verse 41. Confirming the churches.] This was the object of his journey: they were young converts, and had need of establishment; and there is no doubt that by shewing them the decision made at the late council of Jerusalem, their faith was greatly strengthened, their hope confirmed, and their love increased. It was this consideration, no doubt, that led some ancient MSS. and some Versions, to add here, They delivered them the decrees of the apostles and elders to keep; which clause certainly was not an original part of the text, but seems to have been borrowed from the fourth verse of the following chapter. Some have thought that the fourth and fifth verses of the next chapter really belong to this place; or that the first, second, and third verses of it should be read in a parenthesis: but of this, there does not appear to be any particular necessity.

the unlawfulness of eating blood.

life? It is certain, such a monition could have no ill effect; and might, at the same time, be of infinite advantage, in keeping up a constant sense of dependance upon God, and gratitude to him, in the minds of his creatures. And what could answer these ends better, than reserving the blood for sacred use? and assigning that very reason, because it was the life; as a natural and necessary monition to mankind, that God was the author and giver of life.

"When God gave man the fruits of the earth for food, yet he gave them with an exception to the fruit of the tree of knowledge; and in the same analogy, when he gives him the flesh of the creatures for food, he gives it with an exception to the blood. Unlimited grants would but inflame our vanity, and blot out that sense of dependance upon the Divine Being, which is equally necessary to our humility and our happiness.

66

Again: If God foresaw that an unlimited grant would be the cause of much unnecessary cruelty to the creatures; that surely was a sufficient reason with infinite goodness, why a limitation should be made. Now, if we find such cruelties wantonly exercised, where such limitations are not known, or not regarded, then surely we must conclude, that the limitation was merciful, and wise, and well appointed. Plu tarch tells us, that it was customary in his time, to run red hot spits through the bodies of live swine; and to stamp upon the udders of sows ready to farrow, to make their flesh more delicious. And, I believe, Christians have heard of whipping pigs, and torturing other creatures to death, for the same reasons. Could these cruelties be committed, if such men thought themselves bound in conscience to abstain from all unnecessary cruelty to the creatures? and to blood them to death, with all the dispatch they could, before they touched them for food.

On the precept concerning blood, I have referred not only to my note on Gen. ix. 4. but also to additional observations at the end of this chapter: for these observations, I am indebted to an excellent work of Dr. Delaney, entitled Revelation examined with Candour; a work of uncommon merit, and too little known. It is in three small volumes 8vo. and comprises a number of dissertations on the most important facts and histories in the sacred writings; and especially those which have been cavilled at by Deists and freethinkers of every description. In every case he is master of his subject; and in every instance, his pretended Anakim opponentsing mankind against such cruelties, was to guard them against are grasshoppers in his hands.

"As to the precept before us, of not eating the blood with the flesh of the creatures, it is evident that, besides the reason expressly assigned by God himself for this prohibition, there are also several others (very wise and very important) why it should be made.

"But this is not all cruelties are congenial; and rise by an easy gradation, from being practised upon brutes, to be exerted even against men. Thus it is notorious, that the Scythians, from drinking the blood of their cattle, proceeded to drink the blood of their enemies, (as Herodotus assures us they did ;) and certainly the most natural means of guard

the least approaches to it; by obliging them to abstain religiously from blood, and all unnecessary cruelty to the brute creation. And if evil foreseen to the brute creation from eating their blood, was a wise reason why such food should be prohibited to men; evil foreseen to man himself, from such an allowance, will, I believe, be owned a very good additional reason for such a prohibition; and will any man say, that the Scythian cruelty now mentioned, is no evil?

"In the first place then, let me ask any man, that is capable of rational reflection, Whether he imagines it would be "Again: All animals that feed upon blood are observed hard or unreasonable in Almighty God, when he granted man to be much more furious than others. Will any man say, a right to take away the lives of other creatures for food; to that much of their fury is not owing to their food? Have make such a reserve in that grant, as might be a perpetual not creatures of the same kind been found to differ greatly monition to mankind, that God was the author and giver of || in their tempers, from the difference of their diet? I believe

Dissertation on Acts xv. 28, 29. concerning CHAP. XV.

it will be allowed, that blood is a very hot inflaming food. Even flesh is an inflaming fastidious diet, inspiring pride and insolence: and therefore with infinite wisdom was murder so solemnly and immediately prohibited by God, upon the permission of animál food to mankind.

"Bull's blood was a common poison with the ancients : can we imagine there was any peculiar malignity in the blood of that creature, above any other? Or may we not rather imagine, that the malignity is now only abated by the mixtures commonly conveyed into the stomach with it? It is doubtless matter of much consolation to be assured, that the poison of our luxury is well qualified.

"We of these nations, who are wont to feed largely upon flesh, are observed to be remarkably subject to evil, scorbutic habits: and if physicians are right in ascribing these evils to our food, I believe it can scarcely be denied that the grosser, less digested juices of that food, contribute much more towards them, than those juices which are purer, and more digested; and therefore blood, as the grossest of all animal juices, must of necessity do most mischief. And as grosser, less digested juices are less salutary, they must for that very reason be less elegant, and less pleasing to an untainted palate: and whereas it is found by experience, that bathing and cleanliness are a great relief from scorbutic infections, there is no doubt that this was the very reason why God prescribed washing the cloaths, and bathing in water, as the constant penalties of eating flesh with the blood in it. "And as all flesh which hath the blood drained from it, is more salutary, and will keep better, and will consequently be more useful; it is evident, that the ends of life and health will be better answered by draining away the blood, with all the care we can, from all the flesh we eat; but then it must be owned, that the purposes of luxury, as well as cruelty, will be far better served by the contrary practice.

“And forasmuch as the rò TVITY xpias (suffocated or strangled flesh) was in high esteem in point of deliciousness with all the ancients, and is so still with the present patrons of luxury; it is evident that the apostles, in enjoining abstinence from blood and things strangled, did so far prohibit luxury and intemperance, as well as cruelty.

"Besides this, where the ends of luxury cannot be served by blooding, the temptations to cruelty are cut off: and in this is manifested the wisdom of God, in prescribing such a death to the creatures, as would most effectually prevent all temptations to cruelty. And God's intention in this matter once known, is an effectual prohibition of all unnecessary cruelty in killing the creatures, to all that fear him; though neither this, nor any thing else, can absolutely correct the evil dispositions of men, or put cruelty out of their power. "Farther yet: Maimonides assures us, that the eating of blood gave occasion to one kind of early idolatry among the Zabii in the East; the worship of dæmons, whose food, as they imagined, was blood; and therefore they who adored

[ocr errors]

66

the unlawfulness of eating blood.

them, had communion with them, by eating the same food. And it is remarkable, that though they did eat blood in ho|| nour of their dæmons, yet even they thought it foul and detestable food. And it is certain that Arnobius upbraids the heathen with tearing and devouring goats alive, in honour of Bacchus, in that affected fury, to which they wrought themselves up, in the celebration of his mad and monstrous rites. Now, if God had not foreseen these cruelties, corruptions, and inconveniences, consequent to the eating of blood, should we justly deem him infinitely wise? And if foreseeing them, he had not yet prohibited them in their cause, (which was at once the wisest and the most effectual prohibition), could we justly deem him infinitely good and gracious to his creatures? When, therefore, we find him, infinitely wise in foreseeing, and infinitely good in forbidding, such abominable practices; do we yet hesitate to conclude such. prohibitions, the effects of infinite wisdom and goodness?

"But here it may be asked, if one main intention of Almighty God, in prohibiting blood and things strangled, was to restrain men, from luxury, as well as cruelty, why did he not rather choose to prohibit luxury and cruelty in express terms?

"To this I answer, that prohibiting the means, was the sure way to prohibit the end. If God had only prohibited luxury and cruelty in general, every man's own temper, the custom of his country, his humanity or inhumanity, his temperance or gluttony, would have been the measures of that luxury and cruelty; and then, some would have been cruel as Cannibals, savage as Scythians, and luxurious as Sybarites, without imagining they were so and others, as falsely and foolishly merciful and abstemious, as the Pythagoreans : and so either the command would have been disobeyed, or the blessing defeated: though, at the same time, this conduct hath no way precluded God, from giving particular express prohibitions, both of luxury and cruelty, in several parts of the scriptures.

"But still it may be imagined, that Christians are now some way or other exempted from this abstinence; and therefore, to remove all mistakes of this kind, I now proceed to shew, that this prohibition of eating blood lies upon all mankind to this day; and upon Christians in a peculiar

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Dissertation on Acts xv. 28, 29. concerning THE ACTS.

the unlawfulness of cating blood.

in the first of them; and, I think, as clearly prohibited in do not equally extend to all ages and nations of the world; all the rest.

"First, I say, the eating of any living creature, and consequently of blood, is not only not granted before the flood, but plainly enough prohibited, in that part of the curse denounced upon man after the fall, Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it, all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread: till thou return to the ground.' Can any thing be plainer than, that man is here condemned to eat bread, and the herb of the field, to the day of his death!

and if they do, it is evident this injunction of the apostles
had no peculiar relation, either to the infancy of the Christian
religion, or to the people of the Jews; unless it be thought
that the Jews are the only people in the world who are
obliged to abstain from cruelty to the creatures, or to recog
nise God as the author and giver of life; or that this nation
only were entitled to the atonement made by blood;
and if so,
how came sacrifices to be instituted immediately after the fall?
And how came blood to be prohibited to all the sons of Noah,
before there was any such thing as a Jew in the world? This
pretence, then, seems very ill founded.

"It may indeed be urged with much more plausibility by Christians, that blood being consecrated to the making of atonement for sin, as a type of the sacrifice of Christ; and that atonement being now received by his blood, as St. Paul expresses it, in the fifth chapter of his epistle to the Romans, the reason of abstinence in this point is now ceased; and, consequently, that this abstinence is no longer a duty.

for the sins of the whole world; than it was before to abstain from it in the view of that atonement.

"And thus we see that man had no right to the blood of the creatures before the flood. That he had no right after this, from the grant made to Noah; that no man had any right to it from any concession in the law of Moses, but quite the contrary, is undoubted. The only question then is, whether any such permission hath been made under the gospel? And that there hath not, but the direct contrary, "But then it must be remembered, in answer to this reaI now come to prove, from the fifteenth chapter of the Acts; soning, that the apostolic decree against blood was past many where we read, that after a long and solemn debate upon the years after this atonement was made: and, surely, it is question, Whether the Gentile converts to Christianity were no more unreasonable to abstain from blood now, in comobliged to observe the law of Moses? It was at last deter-memoration of the atonement made by the blood of Christ, mined, that they were not; and that no more should be required of them, than to abstain from pollutions of idols,|| and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. And accordingly, a most solemn decree was drawn up to that purpose, by the apostles, and elders, and the whole church at Jerusalem; and transmitted in letters to the brethren at Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, by four deputies of principal note: Paul and Barnabas, Judas and Silas. And those letters were conceived in these terms: For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, &c. See verses 28, 29. "Now, if this decree be obligatory upon all Christians, then can it no longer be a doubt with any Christian, whether he is obliged to abstain from blood and things strangled. And if the direction of any one apostle, inspired of God, be obligatory, certainly it can be no doubt, whether a solemn decision of all the apostles, expressly declaring the joint determination of the Holy Ghost in the point, be also obligatory.

"The only question then is, whether this apostolic decree hath been since repealed; and this will best appear, by considering the arguments for this repeal, produced by the advocates for eating blood: which I now come to examine.

"First then, it is said, that this decree of the apostles was only temporary, to prevent giving offence to the Jews, in the infancy of the Christian religion; and consequently the reason of it is long since ceased; and that cessation is a virtual repeal.

"In answer to this, I desire it may be considered, whether the reasons now mentioned, for abstaining from blood,

"Again it is objected, that creatures which died of themselves, and consequently had the blood in them, might be given to the stranger, or sold to an alien; and it is evident, that the stranger and alien were in this case permitted to eat blood.

"And what then? the question is, concerning the eating of blood separate from the creature, or eating the blood designedly left in the creature, to serve any end of luxury or cruelty and eating blood in either of these ways is what I esteem to be unlawful: the eating of blood, as such, was never imagined an action, simply, and in itself, sinful; though it was, and is, criminal, in certain circumstances, from the reason and nature of things, as well as the divine prohibition; and it was prohibited, for very wise and very important reasons; and when those reasons ceased, as in the instance objected, the prohibition ceased too: and therefore this objection is so far from overthrowing the doctrine laid down, that, in truth, it confirms it; for what can be a clearer proof, that the reasons of any divine prohibition are rightly assigned, than this, that as soon as those reasons cease, the prohibition ceases also? When the creature died of itself, its blood could neither be poured out upon the altar, for atonement, nor abused to idolatry; nor reverenced, in recognition of God's being the author and giver of life: nor spilt, to prevent cruelty in the use of the creatures; and therefore, there, such a small portion of it as could not be separated from the flesh, was permitted to be eaten with it;

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Dissertation on Acts xv. 28, 29. concerning CHAP. XV.

in effect permitted even to the Jew, under a very light penalty; but where there was a possibility, either of cruelty or abuse, there it was more strictly prohibited; and for this reason, when a creature was torn by a beast, there the flesh was not to be touched by any human creature, but thrown to the dogs; as you may read in the 22d chapter of Exodus, at the 31st verse: and the reason of this distinction is obvious; if men were permitted to make any advantage of creatures torn to death by beasts, what an inlet to all manner of cruelty (as well as villany) might such a permission be! And who can say where it would end? Nay, who knows how far such dilacerations might even be counterfeited to the purposes of idolatry, or indulgence in blood?

“Again: I must beseech all Christians seriously to attend to the tenor of the words, by which abstinence from blood and things strangled is enjoined: "It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost, and to us, (say the apostles) to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." If these abstinences were only intended to be enjoined for a season, could they properly be enjoined under the denomination of "necessary things?" Is that the proper appellation for duties of a transient, temporary observance? Did neither the apostles, nor the Holy Ghost, know the distinction between necessary and expedient? Or, suppose it not convenient to make that distinction at that time; How came things of a temporary, and things of an eternal obligation, to be placed upon the same foot of necessity, in the same decree? Or, were fornication and idol pollutions only to be abstained from for a time? And in compliment to the infirmity of the Jews? What monstrous absurdities are these? And what a train of them are they obliged to maintain, who assert this decree to be only of temporary obligation?

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the unlawfulness of eating blood.

"As to the third opinion, viz. that the necessity of observing this decree lasted only till the destruction of the Jewish temple and polity; to this I answer, that whatever may be thought of the necessity of this decree, it is evident that the wisdom of it, and the advantage of that abstinence which was due to it, extended much farther. Since, without this, that calumny imputed to Christians, of killing infants in their assemblies, and drinking their blood, could never be so easily and so effectually confuted; for nothing could do this so thoroughly, as demonstrating that it was a fundamental principle with Christians, to touch no blood of any kind and what could demonstrate this so effectually, as dying in attestation to the truth of it! as it is notorious, both from the apologists and ecclesiastical historians, that many Christian martyrs did.

"But it is further urged, that this apostolic decree was only given to the Jewish proselytes; and, consequently, that the necessity of abstaining from blood and things strangled, related to them only; this they tell us appears, " in that the apostle, when he preached in any city, did it as yet in the synagogues of the Jews; whither the Gentiles could not come, unless they were proselytes of the gate.

"Now this opinion, I think, will be sufficiently confuted, by demonstrating these two things: first, that before the passing of this decree, St. Paul preached Christianity to the whole body of the Gentiles, at Antioch; and, secondly, that this decree is directed to the Gentiles at large, and not to the Jewish proselytes.

"Now this transaction at Antioch happened seven years before the decree against blood, and things strangled, was passed by the apostles at Jerusalem. Can any man in his senses doubt, after this, whether the apostles preached to the Gentiles before the passing of that decree? When it appears from the words now recited, that the apostles not only

"But to proceed: If this was only a temporary necessity, preached to the Gentiles, but preached to them in contrahow long did this necessity last?

"To this Dr. Hammond answers, that it lasted till the Jews and Gentiles were formed into one communion. And St. Augustine says, that it lasted till the time that no carnal Israelite appeared in the church of the Gentiles; and again, that it lasted till the temple and the Jewish polity were destroyed.

distinction to the Jews: and does any man know the Jews so little, as to imagine, that when the apostles turned to the Gentiles, from them, the Jews would after this suffer those apostles to preach to the Gentiles in their synagogues? Besides, the text says, that the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region; consequently, the apostles were so far from confining themselves to the Jewish synagogue, "To all this I answer, that, if the two first opinions are that they were not confined even to the extent of that ample admitted, then, the necessity of observing the apostolic de- city, but preached throughout the whole country. This opinion, cree continues to this day; first, because the Jews and Gen- then, that the apostles preached only to the Jews and protiles are indisputably not yet fully formed into one commu-selytes before the passing of this decree against blood at Jenion and, secondly, because there was never any time, rusalem, is demonstrably false: and if they preached to the wherein there was not some carnal Israelite in the church;|| Gentiles at large, to whom else can that decree be directed? and I think it must be notorious to many of my readers, that It is directed to the Gentile converts at large; and who can there are some such even in this part of the Christian church, we imagine those converts were, but those to whom Christiat this day and so doubtless in every Christian church over anity was preached, i. e. the Gentiles at large? the face of the whole earth; and therefore both these opinions are wild and unsupported.

"But this is yet further demonstrated, from St. James's sentence, in this fifteenth chapter of this Acts, upon

« 前へ次へ »