Adam Clarke’s Notes at the End of Acts Chapter 15, Concerning Blood.

ADAM CLARKE’S NOTES AT THE END OF ACTS CHAPTER 15, CONCERNING BLOOD.

ON the precept concerning blood, I have referred, not only to my note on Genesis 9:4, 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 octavo, 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 free - thinkers of every description. In every case he is master of his subject; and, in every instance, his pretended Anakim opponents 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.

1. “In the first place, then, let me ask any man, that is capable of rational reflection, Whether he imagines it would be hard or unreasonable in almighty God, when he granted man a right to take away the lives of other creatures for food, to make such a reserve in that grant as might be a perpetual monition to mankind that God was the author and giver of life? It is certain, such a monition could have no ill effect, and might, at the same tine, be of infinite advantage, in keeping up a constant sense of dependence 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?

2. “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 dependence upon the Divine Being which is equally necessary to our humility and our happiness.

3. “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. Plutarch 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 harrow, 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 despatch they could, before they touched them for food?

4. “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 the same practice existed among the ancient Scandinavians; they drank the blood of their enemies out of their skulls: this was a double barbarity. And certainly the most natural means of guarding mankind against such cruelties, was to guard them against 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.

5. “Again: All animals that feed upon blood are observed to be much more furious than others. Will any man say that much of their fury is not owing to their food? Have not creatures of the same kind been found to differ greatly in their tempers, from the difference of their diet? I believe 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 animal food to mankind.

6. “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.

7. “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 clothes, and bathing in water, as the constant penalties of eating flesh with the blood in it.

8. “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.

9. “And forasmuch as the to pnikton kreav (suffocated or strangled flesh) was in high esteem in point of deliciousness with all the ancients, and is so stili 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.

10. “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.

11. “Farther yet: Maimomonides assures us that the eating of blood gave occasion to one kind of early idolatry among the Zabii in the east, the worship of demons, whose food, as they imagined, was blood; and therefore they who adored them had communion with them by eating the same food. And it is remarkable that, though they did eat blood in honour of their demons, 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.

12. “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?

1. “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 Scandinavians, 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.

2. “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 show that this prohibition of eating blood lies upon all mankind to this day, and upon Christians in a peculiar manner. “And the proof of this lies within the compass of one plain argument, obvious to every capacity; which is as follows.

“If the eating of blood never was permitted, either before the flood, or after the flood, or under the law, or under the Gospel, then, surely, no man in his senses win say it is now lawful to eat it. Now, that it never was permitted in any of these periods, is undeniable. Nay, the argument is yet stronger; for it was not only not permitted in any of these periods, but, in truth, it is plainly enough prohibited in the first of them; and, I think, as clearly prohibited in 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 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, I now come to prove, from the fifteenth chapter of the Acts; where we read that, after a long and solemn debate upon the question, Whether the Gentile converts to Christianity were obliged to observe the law of Moses? - it was at last determined 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 Acts 15:28, 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.

1. “First, then, it is said that this decree of the apostles was only temporary, to prevent giving offense 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.

2. “In answer to this, I desire it may be considered whether the reasons now mentioned, for abstaining from blood, do not equally extend to all ages and nations of the world; 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 recognize 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 pretense, then, seems very ill founded.

3. “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.

4. “But then it must be remembered, in answer to this reasoning, that the apostolic decree against blood was passed many years after this atonement was made; and surely it is no more unreasonable to abstain from blood now, in commemoration of the atonement made by the blood of Christ for the sins of the whole world, than it was before to abstain from it in the view of that atonement.

5. “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.

6. “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: 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; {Exodus 22:31} 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?

7. “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!

“But to proceed: If this was only a temporary necessity, how long did this necessity last?

8. “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.

9. “To all this I answer, that, if the two first opinions are admitted, then, the necessity of observing the apostolic decree continues to this day; first, because the Jews and Gentiles are indisputably not yet fully formed into one communion; and, secondly, because there was never any time wherein there was not some carnal Israelite in the Church; and I think it must be notorious to many of my readers, that there are some such even in this part of the Christian Church, at this day; and so doubtless in every Christian Church over the face of the whole earth; and therefore both these opinions are wild and unsupported.

10. “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?

11. “But it is farther urged, that this apostolic decree was only given to the Jewish proselytes; and consequently, 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 comes 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.

1. “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 preached to the Gentiles, but preached to them in contradistinction 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 that they were not confined even to the extent of that ample city, but preached throughout the whole country. This opinion, then, that the apostles preached only to the Jews and proselytes before the passing of this decree at Jerusalem, is demonstrably false; and, if they preached to the Gentiles at large, to whom else can that decree be directed? It is directed to the Gentile converts at large; and who can we imagine those converts were, but those to whom Christianity was preached, i.e. the Gentiles at large?

2. “But this is yet farther demonstrated from St. James’s sentence, in this fifteenth chapter of the Acts, upon which the apostolic decree is founded. His words are these: -

“19. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.

“20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. “21. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.

“What then? What if Moses had those that preached him in the synagogues every Sabbath? Why, then, there was no necessity of writing upon these points to any of those who were admitted into the synagogues; because they knew, from the writings of Moses, that all these things were, from the foundation of the world, unlawful to the whole race of Adam. “My sentence (says the apostle) is, that we write to the Gentile converts upon these points; for Moses hath those of old in every city that preach him, i.e. there is no necessity of writing to any Jewish convent, or to any proselyte convert to Christianity, to abstain from these things; because all that are admitted into the synagogues (as the proselytes were) know all these things sufficiently already, and accordingly upon this sentence of St James, the decree was founded and directed; doubtless, from the nature of the thing, directed to those whom it was fitting and necessary to inform upon these points, i.e. those who were unacquainted with the writings of Moses; for the decree, as far as it contained a direction to certain duties, could give no information to any others.

3. “Again: An objection is raised against this doctrine from the conclusion of the decree, ye do well: insinuating that, though they should do well to observe it, yet they did no ill in not observing it.

“I answer, that doing well, in the style of Scripture, as well as common speech, is acting agreeably to our duty; and doing well in necessary things must certainly be acting agreeably to necessary duty; and certainly the same duty cannot at the same time be necessary and indifferent.

4. “But it is objected that, if the points contained in this decree are points of the Mosaic law, the decree has no relation to the question in debate, for the debate was, Whether the Gentile converts to Christianity should be obliged to observe the law of Moses?

“I answer that the decree hath the clearest relation to the question, inasmuch as it is a decision that the Gentile converts mere not obliged to observe the law of Moses. It hath at the same time a plain relation to the point in question; for what could be more proper than to take that occasion to let the Gentiles know that they were obliged to the observance of such duties as were obligatory antecedently to the law of Moses, though they were exempted from that law?

5. “Again: It is urged that this decree could only oblige those to whom it was directed, i.e. the Gentiles of Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. “As if the decree, and the reason of it, did not equally extend to all Gentile converts throughout the whole world. And as if this doctrine were only taught and received in those particular regions; when it is evident, beyond the possibility of being denied or doubted, that all Christians, in every region of the earth, were taught, and actually embraced the same doctrine, at least, for the first three hundred years after Christ.

6. “But it is still objected, that this dispute could not have happened otherwise than between Gentile and Judaizing converts; and, consequently, the decision of it must have respect to the conduct which it was then necessary the Gentiles should hold, with regard to the Jews, who could not converse with them upon the foot of a friendly communication, could not sit at meat, &c., unless the Gentiles abstained from blood, &c. “Consequently, that this necessity is now ceased.

“In answer to this, admitting the premises, I must own I cannot see how this conclusion follows from them, as long as there are Jews and Mohammedans in the world to be converted to the Christian religion. “Fornication, idolatry, luxury, and cruelty to the creatures, are prohibited by this decree; and an original precept from God to Noah, of manifold advantage to mankind, restored; is it to be believed the apostles could stand in need of a particular occasion to prohibit those enormities, or to restore this blessing?

“Fornication did not appear to the heathen world to be contrary to the law of nature; (nor do the libertines of the age see it to be so to this day;) and, as they had no restraints upon intemperance, their luxury of food greatly contributed to make them abandoned. How then could the apostles, whose business it was to reform the world, pretend to amend mankind, without recovering them from these corruptions? And what more effectual method could they take to recover them than a most solemn and sacred injunction of abstinence in those points contained in the decree of Jerusalem? And that the apostles had nothing less than this in view from that decree is, I think, fairly and fully to be collected from these words of St. Luke, Acts 16:4, 5: And as they (i.e. Paul and his companions) went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem, and so were the Churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily. “Now the decree here referred to is evidently the decree concerning blood, &c., from the observance of which the Churches were not only increased, by opening the way to a more friendly communication with the Jews, and so facilitating their admission into the Christian Church, but they were likewise established in the faith. Does this expression mean nothing? Might we not conclude from it, with some appearance of reason, that the Christian religion had been defective without this establishment?

7. “But there are yet two other main fundamental objections against this doctrine, taken from the declarations of our Saviour, St. Peter, and St Paul. “And the first of them is built upon those words of our blessed Saviour, in the 15th chapter of St Matthew, at the eleventh verse. {Matthew 15:11} Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man, but that which cometh out of the mouth. From hence it is inferred that a man may eat or drink any thing without sin, notwithstanding the apostolic decree. “But surely no Christian would say this that saw the absurdities of this assertion: for, if this declaration of our Saviour’s destroys the validity of the apostolic decree, then it will follow: -

“First, That this decree was repealed just twenty years before it was made, which is surely a very extraordinary supposition; for whoever looks into the chronology of his Bible will find that these words of our Saviour were spoken twenty years before the apostolic council was held at Jerusalem. “Secondly, It will follow that the whole body of the apostles did, after full debate and mature deliberation, make a most solemn decree, in direct contradiction to the plain, express declaration of their blessed Lord and Saviour.

“And this supposition is surely as modest and as Christian as the first was extraordinary; nay, more, they made this decree under the immediate direction and influence of the Spirit of God, and yet made it in direct contradiction to the declaration of the Son of God. I am really at a loss to think whether the absurdity or the blasphemy of these suppositions is most shocking. Let us quit them, then, and examine our Saviour’s words by the common rules of reason.

8. “And, to clear this point, I lay this down as a plain rule of interpretation, That general expressions ought not to be extended beyond the reason of them, and the occasion of their being delivered. For example, St. Paul, in the tenth chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians, answering the arguments of those converts who pretended they might innocently eat of those things offered to idols, even in the idol temple, uses these words, All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient. Will any man infer from hence that murder, and adultery, and incest, were lawful to St. Paul? Or that he thought they were? No, surely! What, then, can be mean by them? I answer that the reason and occasion of them must determine that question, and to determine the plain sense of those words to be this: All things that are lawful to any other man are also lawful to me; but every thing that is lawful to be done is not always expedient; though the liberty you took of eating in the idol temple were lawful, yet, if it give offense, you ought not to take it.

9. “In the same manner should that general expression of our Saviour’s be interpreted, Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, that defileth the man. Does any man imagine that our Saviour meant to give full license to gluttony and intemperance by this declaration? Or that a man might deliberately swallow poison by virtue of these words; or, in general, might innocently eat any thing which the law of God at that time forbade to be eaten? These were strange absurdities to be supposed: the sense of the declaration, then, must be drawn from the reason and occasion of it, which was this: The Pharisees were offended with our Saviour’s disciples for sitting down to meat before they washed their hands, contrary to the tradition of the elders; as if such a violation of a traditional precept were sin and a pollution. In answer to this, after our Saviour had shown the iniquity and absurdity of their traditions, he adds, Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man. Now, the question is, what he meant by those words? And if he himself had not told us, I really think that the occasion and common sense would teach us to understand no more by them than this, that it is not any little soil or filth taken into the mouth, from eating with unwashed hands, that can be said to defile a man; nothing of that kind can be called a pollution. This, I say, is the plain, natural, obvious sense of those words. Indeed, the latter part of the declaration is not so plain; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth the man. This part of it, I say, is not so intelligible; neither was it so to the disciples, and therefore Peter desired his Lord to declare this parable unto them. And accordingly he did so, by showing that whatsoever pollution was taken in at the mouth was cast out into the draught, but what came out of the mouth came forth from the heart, as did evil thoughts of all kinds; and then he adds these are the things that defile the man - but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man.

10. “I now come to the last objection of weight, which is this: that the distinction of clean and unclean meats is plainly taken away in the New Testament, and particularly by that voice from heaven in St. Peter’s vision; and that St. Paul clearly determines the lawfulness of eating any thing sold in the shambles, or set before us on the table, asking no questions for conscience’ sake.

“To the first part of this objection, I answer, that the distinction of meats, clean and unclean, commonly supposed to be introduced and established by the law of Moses, is plainly taken away by the voice from heaven, accompanying St. Peter’s vision; but how does this concession affect the prohibition of blood, established before the law of Moses? And which hath nothing to do with the distinction of creatures, clean and unclean, taken away at that time.

11. “But to cut this dispute short, I shall only observe that the very command to St. Peter, in that vision, is so far from taking away the prohibition of blood given to Noah that it clearly establishes it. The words are these: Rise, Peter; kill and eat. Now the Greek word quson, which is here translated kill, does in the original signify to sacrifice; and the plain sense of the command is this, that Peter should slay those creatures as creatures were wont to be slain for sacrifice, that is, that he should first draw away the blood, and then eat them. And no man that pretends to any knowledge in the Greek tongue will say that this word has or can have any other meaning in this place; and therefore the very command which takes away the distinction of creatures clean and unclean, is so far from taking away the prohibition of blood that it establishes it.

“Besides, I desire it may be observed that this command to St. Peter was given in the forty - first year from our Saviour’s birth; or, in other words, in the year of our Lord 41; and the decree of the apostles at Jerusalem was in the year of our Lord 52, i.e. the prohibition of blood was established eleven years after the distinction of meats, clean and unclean, was taken away. Ill - fated decree! to be again repealed so many years before it was made!

12. “Thus have I defended a Divine revelation and command: a command of easy, unexpensive observance; preventive of cruelty, luxury, and many other evils; and conducive to much good; manifestly contributing to the healthfulness and simplicity, and, in consequence of both these, to the elegance and delicacy of food.

“A command in its nature negative and absolute as that of the forbidden fruit.

“A command given by God himself to Noah, repeated to Moses, and ratified by the apostles of Jesus Christ; given immediately after the flood, when the world, as it were, began anew, and the only one given on that great occasion; repeated with awful solemnity to that people whom God separated from the rest of mankind to be holy to himself; repeated with dreadful denunciations of Divine vengeance both against the Jew and the stranger that should dare to transgress it; and ratified by the most solemn and sacred council that ever was assembled upon earth, acting under the immediate influence of the Spirit of God; transmitted from that sacred assembly to the several Churches of the neighbouring nations, by the hands of no meaner messengers than two bishops and two apostles; asserted by the best writers and most philosophic spirits of their age - the Christian apologists; and sealed with the blood of the best of men - the Christian martyrs; confirmed by the unanimous sentences of fathers, emperors, and councils, and one of these as low as the sixth century. Reverenced (in conformity to the practice and principles even of Jews and Mohammedans) by the whole Church of God for the first 300 years after Christ, and by all the Churches of the east to this day - Churches allowed to be more extensive, and not more corrupt, than that which vaunts itself catholic and infallible. And will any man after this dare to vilify this command? Will any man in his senses pronounce a precept so given, so repeated, and so ratified by God himself, unmeaning and unimportant? Can we imagine that it was asserted by the most learned men of the early ages of Christianity without knowledge? Or obeyed by the most holy, even unto death, without conscience? Or reverenced by the whole Church of God without reason? And shall we, after all this, condemn this command, because light libertines revile, and insolents despise it? Or, at best, because some learned men have given very weak and ungrounded, very unlearned reasons, for believing it repealed? - reasons which I have now sufficiently refuted and exposed. And shall such reasons and such authorities weigh against God, and the inspirations of his Holy Spirit? Against the apostles, and apologists, and martyrs, and the whole Church of God, for the three first and purest ages of the Christian era? Let others glory in their Christian liberty as they like best; but, perhaps, to some of these we may say with St. Paul, Your glorying is not good; know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

13. “If mine be an error, it must be owned at the same time that it is an error on the sure side: it is innocent: it is an error infinitely better authorized, and nearer allied to religion, virtue, and humanity, than its contrary; for, (not to mention the precepts of apostles, the opinions of fathers, and the decrees of councils,) if I err, I err with the most men (not heathen) and with the best; with the whole Christian world of the best ages, and the whole eastern world to this day. I err on the side of humanity and health, and a religious gratitude to the Author and Giver of life for every creature slain for my support! I err in opposition to a practice manifestly brutal and savage; a practice which human nature abhors; a savage practice, which overran the west, together with the Goths and Vandals; a practice instituted by Scythian barbarity, and established by popery - established with other works of darkness, in the ages of error and ignorance, and their necessary consequences, immorality and irreligion.

14. “But though all this be demonstrably true, yet am I sufficiently sensible that I have all this time been speaking in a great measure to appetite, which hath no ears; and to prejudice, which hath no eyes; to perverseness, incapable of attention; and to pride, incapable of conviction; and am so far from being able to bring some men to reason, that I am myself, perhaps, become the object of their pity for attempting it; that I have been feeding the raillery of libertines, and the scoffs of infidels; that even dulness will droll on this occasion, and stupidity break stale jests. Alas! who is so ignorant as not to know that the scorner, foe to every virtue and excellence in life! must, in that very character, be the sworn enemy of every part of religion - of that religion by which every virtue lives and is esteemed in the world? Who is so ignorant as not to know that this meanest denomination of men subsists upon earth, like the meanest species of insects, by teasing and tainting to the utmost of their malignant might, and they feeding where they have infected? But, God be praised! their impotence affects nothing but infirmity; and the slightest fence is security against them. Some difference, I hope, will be allowed between us on this occasion. I write from the dictates of a good conscience; it is theirs to see if they reproach not from the influence of an evil: I write from the clearest conviction; let them beware that they rail not from corruption. This I will say without scruple, I reason from the light of an humble, an honest, and a diligent inquiry; and, if they ridicule, they ridicule from the depth of a lazy and a conceited ignorance. How far that ignorance will acquit them at the great day of account, God only knows.” - DELANEY’S Revelation examined with Candour, vol. 2. p. 18, &c.