ESSAY IV. Ο Ν The unanimous Judgement, or Epiftle, of the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren at JERUSALEM, to the Brethren of the GENTILES in ANTIOCH, SYRIA, and CILICIA; about their abftaining from Things offered to Idols, from Blood, from Things strangled, and from Fornication 1. IN N a former Effay, I endeavoured to explain what is meant by the apoftles, elders, and brethren, who affembled together to make the decree, in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles; and the nature and form of that decree. I will here endeavour to explain briefly its matter and fub. ftance; and then fhew, more at large, to whom it was addreffed. 24 1 Acts xv. 23-30. I choose 66 fubject with more learning and invention than any other, and has been fince generally followed by the ableft divines; yet I think he has left it in the ftate, he fays, he found it, when he tells us, "Quod theologi plerique omnes in eo explicando conatu irrito "laboraffe, et difficultates in eo contentas non "tam folviffe, quam evitaffe, videantur m" Which affertion he endeavours afterwards to prove", of the five most celebrated hypothefes of divines about it. However, if this learned man has mistaken the perfons to whom the letter that contains this decree is addreffed, by which he has been led into an entire mistake of the grounds and reasons on which it went, and of the meaning of feveral paffages in the chapter where it occurrs; yet he has with great learning. and judgement explained the matter and fubftance of it. So that he has not only removed the rubbish (which encumbered this decree) with great labour and fkill: but has laid a folid foundation to build on; unhappy as, in my opinion, he himself has been in raising the fuperftructure. I entirely concurr with him in the explication he gives of the parts of this decree. I fhall, therefore, but just mention what I understand by them, and refer the reader to his learned differtation for In Pref. Differt. in loc. in Lib. de Leg. Heb. Rit. P. 471. Edit. Cant. R Cap. ii. a fuller a fuller explication and proof of the meaning of them. And, indeed, it were to be wished, that every one who makes the Bible his ftudy would not only read this differtation, but his incomparable book: where, if a little indulgence be given to the stiffness that prevailed in the time when he wrote, and to fome favourite opinions, the reader will find nothing to diftafte him; and an immenfe treafure of learning, mixed with a great deal of wit and judgement, difpofed in a neat and accurate manner, and expreffed with all the clearness, life, and elegance imaginable, for his inftruction and entertainment. By things offered to idols," I then underftand any meat or drink devoted or offered to an image or idol; but especially fuch as had been offered to an idol in the idol's temple. By "blood," I mean the blood separated from the flesh (which was generally done in the greater beafts only; fuch as fheep, oxen, lambs, goats, kids, &c.), either drunk by itself, or mingled with other liquors, or mixed up with flower, fpice, &c. By" things ftrangled," I understand creatures ftrangled or fuffocated with design to keep the blood in them, in order to be eaten; which generally was ufed in fowl, birds, and game; fuch as hares, rabbits, &c.: and I fuppofe every animal was understood to be strangled $ 2 which which was not flain in fuch a manner as "to have his blood poured out," as it is ordered in Leviticus. The Cambridge copy has not " things ftrangled," and one or two of the fathers quote the text with that omiffion; yet that it is a part of the text is very well proved by Dr. Gale (against Dr. Mill in his Prolegomena). And, By" fornication," I understand uncleannefs of any fort (which is the true sense of the word wogveía), and which was practifed in every kind by the heathens, as part of the worfhip performed to their idols; even in the very worst instances of thofe abominations which are mentioned in Leviticus. I have described things ftrangled, as ftrangled with defign to keep the blood in them, that I might exclude things dying of themfelves, or things torn, because it is plain that Mofes diftinguishes them from things ftrangled (as is very juftly obferved by Dr. Spencer); not only allowing the Ifraelites to give them to the profelytes of the gate (who might confequently eat them), or fell them to an alien; but forbidding the Ifraelites, and the profelytes of righteousness, to eat them (not under the penalty of being cut off, as he does the four that I have mentioned; but) • Lev. xvii. 13. In his Sermons, vol iv. p. 183-187, and p. 203, 204. only |