To uphold its position on banning certain blood transfusions, the Watchtower Society has taken liberties with written presentations from early scientists, the clergy and other authors.
One that stands out is Alexander Pirie.
As background I cite the “Noachian” or “eternal covenant” as it is presented in the Bible:
(Genesis 9:3-7) “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4 Only flesh with its soul-its blood-YOU must not eat. 5 And, besides that, YOUR blood of YOUR souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back; and from the hand of man, from the hand of each one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man. 6 Anyone shedding man's blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God's image he made man. 7 And as for YOU men, be fruitful and become many, make the earth swarm with YOU and become many in it.”
With God’s law to Noah, Jehovah decreed that mankind must hold life in that same high regard. His provision to respect even the life of animals taken or killed for food by not eating their blood emphasized Jehovah's views on the matter.
With those words God for the first time gave mankind permission to kill animals and eat their flesh. The only stipulation was that the blood of such creatures must not be eaten along with the flesh. That required that an animal's blood should be reasonably drained prior to eating the flesh.
However, most people recognize that the text is only talking about animals killed at the hand of man for food. Regarding animals, the text says, “into YOUR hand they are now given” and, “every animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU” and, “only flesh with its soul-its blood-YOU must not eat.”
Clearly those texts are speaking of animals being killed for food. Therefore, prohibitions given to Noah had only to do with eating the blood of animals killed for food. The prohibition applied to no more than that, and it was applicable to all mankind. Is there any explicit textual support for that conclusion?
As recorded at Genesis 9:3, 4 God prohibited man from eating blood from animals he killed for food. Because animals found dead had not been killed by man for food, the Noachian prohibition did not apply, even though such flesh contained its full measure of blood. That indicates that Genesis 9:1-17 was not a case of God instituting some special sacredness regarding blood, but rather God, by decree, was instilling His view of the sacredness of life. Life was the sacred issue addressed to Noah, not blood. Prohibitions regarding blood only served to instill high regard for life, even animal life. If life were not taken, no prohibition of the Noachian Law was applicable. That conclusion is illustrated in God's provision found at Deuteronomy 14:21.
The “eternal covenant” from Genesis IX serves as the foundation for the Watchtower’s blood policy. Note how they interpret the scriptures in their blood pamphlet titled “How Can Blood Save Your Life?” “Blood-Vital for Life” chapter , 1990, page 3:
In one early reference, the Creator declared: “Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. . . . But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.” He added: “For your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting, and he then condemned murder.” (Genesis 9:3-6, New International Version) He said that to Noah, a common ancestor highly esteemed by Jews, Muslims, and Christians. All humanity was thus notified that in the Creator's view, blood stands for life. This was more than a dietary regulation. Clearly a moral principle was involved. Human blood has great significance and should not be misused. The Creator later added details from which we can easily see the moral issues that he links to lifeblood.
So the Watchtower tells us blood stands for life and is more than a dietary regulation. The Watchtower’s blood pamphlet omits verse 7 of the covenant, implies that the covenant extends to all humanity and argues that much more than a "dietary regulation" is involved. The expression “Human blood has great significance and should not be misused” is somewhat misleading. On it's own merit the statement is true. However, there is nothing in this scripture that addresses the transfusion of human blood as the Watchtower’s blood pamphlet implies. Simply stated, it is not possible to substantiate the argument that a blood transfusion is a misuse of blood from these verses. The majority of people in the world tell us “God’s viewed the sacredness of life. Life was the sacred issue addressed to Noah, not blood. Prohibitions regarding blood only served to instill high regard (a symbol) for life, even animal life.”
Then in the “What of Using Blood as Medicine?” section, “Blood-Vital for Life” chapter of the Watchtower’s blood pamphlet titled “How Can Blood Save Your Life?”, there is a an area near the fifth paragraph. The quotation reads as follows:
“God and men view things in very different lights. What appears important in our eye is very often of no account in the estimation of infinite wisdom ; and what appears trifling to us is often of very great importance with God. It was so from the beginning.” - An Enquiry Into the Lawfulness of Eating Blood, Alexander Pirie, 1787.
It is interesting that the quote from Alexander Pirie was put right near Thomas Bartholin, the only scientist who according to the Watchtower “apparently” supports their blood ban (Note to readers - The other scientist the Watchtower Blood Pamphlet quotes is Joseph Priestly who supposedly supported a blood ban. But his writings actually showed he did not conclude a blood eating ban was correct or incorrect and was morally insignificant).
This led me, as a researcher, to think Alexander Pirie was also a scientist because his quote is beside a famous Dutch scientist and in the “What of Using Blood as Medicine?” section of the Watchtower’s blood pamphlet.
In Canada, there is only one copy of a book called “A DISSERTATION on BAPTISM, and LETTERS on the SINAI COVENANT ; together with an INQUIRY into THE LAWFULNESS of EATING BLOOD” by Alexander Pirie, Minister of the Gospel, Newburgh, Fife, Printed by J. Pillans & Sons, Lawnmarket, 1806 in its library system. This book is found at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec if anyone is ever interested. Seeing this book is so rare, I of course photocopied the entire “Dissertation” and have typed it out below in the attached Appendix for all of you to read.
The first thing that struck me with this book is that Alexander Pirie is a “Minister of the Gospel”. Hello did I read that right? Alexander Pirie is a Minister of the Watchtower’s evil Christendom and part of Satan that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to deal with?
Not only that, feast your eyes on pages 274 and 275 and read the sentences about the “cross” that Jesus died on. Seems Pirie did not believe in a “torch stake” as taught by the Watchtower. Also note the supportive comments about communion and the drinking of the grape (wine) as a symbol of Christ’s blood on pages 276 to 279 of the “Dissertation”. Again Pirie supports communion for all parishioners, which I think the Watchtower is against for the most part.
Pirie does support a ban on “blood-eating” but he has some “wacky” theories that I don’t think the Watchtower would want to brag about. For example on page 272, Pirie explains none of the milder animals live off blood and only the most ferocious and savage animals such as bears, foxes, dogs and lions live on blood. Of course Pirie forgot to ask any African that one little question. Who kills more people every year and who is more tempermental - a hippopotamus or a lion? The answer of course is that non-blood and leaf eating hippopotamus! Pirie also forgot to tell of that biology lesson that explains animals such as wolves kill the sick and weak animals to keep the herd strong.
Pirie, who is not a doctor, at the bottom of page 277 thinks the grape (wine) is a medicine and the blood of animals is putrescency. I guess Pirie forgets wine contains alcohol, people can get addicted like other drugs and die from a number of liver and cancer diseases.
Gee, I wonder what a faithful Witness would think when they read the "entire" Dissertation?
The quotation from Pirie found in the Watchotower’s blood pamphlet is found at the very beginning of the Dissertation. It is a correct quotation. And again Pirie does support a blood-eating ban. But what does Pirie say with respect to the ban on blood-eating? Well here are some quotes:
“One would be apt to conclude, from the avowed, irreversibility of this charter or grant, that the reservation of it must be equally irreversible with itself ; or that, so long as man partakes of animal food, he should eat it with the reservation of the blood, so expressly specified in the charter, authorizing him to eat of the flesh. Particularly, this would appear to be of vast consequence to man, since it would appear, that on this condition only, God has promised to have respect to the blood of man, be requiring it at the hand of the shedder : The blood thou shalt not eat: and the blood of your lives will I require*, & c. Gen. ix. 4.5.6. This would seem to say, that God would pay no regard to the life of that man who does not forbear to eat the blood or life of inferior animals.” (Page 244)
Is not Pirie saying to the reader that if man, as a “shedder”, kills inferior animals for food, man must give God the blood. In other words you have to be killing some thing for this “law of God” to apply. Does anyone die in a blood transfusion?
“In all ages, the blood of the slayers is the ransom of the life or blood of the slain. Thus, the promise has been literally fulfilled. It is also mystically accomplished, in all the sacrifices of divine appointment. While the law stood, the blood of beasts must make atonement for our souls ; at the hand of every sacrificial beast he required it ; till he, who is “every man’s brother” appeared, even Jesus Christ, at whose hands the full ransom of our souls has been required.” (Page 277)
Pirie says here that it is the “slayers” of the animal that must make atonement or else. In other words God is speaking to “slayers” who kill animals. Last time I checked in a human blood transfusion, there is no “slayer” and no one dies.
“This honour it had before sacrificial blood was a type at all. It was also drunk in all the drink-offerings of believers, and will continue to be so till Jesus come the second time ; whereas the sacrificial blood was never allowed to be drunk at all, because it was the symbol of the mortal life, which had the curse of the law upon it ; of which curse the new man, the believer, shall never take.” (page 277)
Pirie says here that sacrificial animal blood was a “symbol” of the mortal life. It was a “symbol of life” when a man killed an animal, man had to show respect and absolutely nothing more.
Pirie does not discuss life saving blood transfusions that have nothing to do with killing inferior animals. Blood transfusions save lives which is different than what Pirie talked about in the Dissertation.
Pirie does makes the same mistake as the Watchtower. He does not consider Deuteronomy 14:21 and Leviticus 17:15 in his “Dissertation”. Both parables allow the eating of blood with animals in certain situations.
I can only speculate that Pirie did not discuss these parables because Pirie hated the Roman Catholic Church. To prevent the “dreaded” Catholic Church from discrediting him, Pirie may have purposely left any discussion of these parables out of the Dissertation. My speculation is based on Pirie’s comment on page 251 where he stated “Thus the Pope has proved himself to be Antichrist, by forbidding men to eat meats which God created to be received, and ...”.
I have photocopies of the book for all who need to read it. See the Appendix below for the entire Dissertation. For the record I have taken great “pains” to type exact words written including spelling mistakes etc. Please review and add your comments.
Hawk
APPENDIX
Note to reader - the first two sentences on page 241 of the "Dissertation" make up the quotation used in the Watchtower Blood Pamphlet and have been "italicized" for your assistance. I have also bolded certain sentences in the Dissertation that I think are pertinent quotations to this discussion.
A DISSERTATION on BAPTISM, and LETTERS on the SINAI COVENANT ; together with an INQUIRY into THE LAWFULNESS of EATING BLOOD.By Alexander Pirie, Minister of the Gospel, Newburgh, Fife, Printed by J. Pillans & Sons, Lawnmarket, 1806
Page 241
An INQUIRY into THE LAWFULNESS of EATING BLOOD (Volume V)
God and men view things in very different lights. What appears important in our eye is very often of no account in the estimation of infinite wisdom ; and what appears trifling to us is often of very great importance with God. It was so from the beginning. The disputer of this world cannot see any thing, worthy so severe a punishment, in eating the fruit of the forbidden tree : yet through this offence, by the divine determination, sin and death, with all their attendant woes, came into the world. The next prohibition we read of, with respect to food, is found annexed to the grant of animal food to man, Gen, ix. The Sovereign
Page 242 (paragraph continued)
Proprietor, when he gave us a grant to eat of the flesh of our fellow - animals, gave it with this reservation or limitation – “The flesh, with the blood therof, that is the life therof, thou shall not eat of it.” Against this, also, as an unreasonable and trifling prohibition, the wisdom of this world has often declaimed, or, by shameful evasions and idle quibbles, has explained away the sense of the devine mandate, that the conscience of the creature might be furnished with an apology for transgressing the law of its Matter. Yet this same precept was retained and strongly enforced in the law given to Israel from Sinai ; while the breach of it was guarded against by the most awful sanctions. Yea, even under the gospel, it seemed meet to the Holy Spirit speaking in the apostles to enjoin the observation of this law on all the disciples of Jesus Christ, Acts, xv. It is allowed on all hands, that this degree was in force at least to the time of the final destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans : but if it shall be found, by searching the scriptures, that it was intended by the Holy Spirit to continue in force to the end of the world, how faulty shall the many be found, who consider the observance or non-observance of it as a matter of indifference? Now, as disputes on this point have run high, and many arguments have been offered on both sides of the question, it must concern every Christian to examine what is offered in the scriptures by both parties, that he may either eat or forbear to eat blood in faith, or from conviction of Christ’s authority for his conduct ; since Paul assures us, “he that doubteth is condemned if he eat ; since whatsoever is not of faith in sin.”
Entering on this subject, it is proper we should observe, that as the Creator is the sovereign proprietor and lord of all things, no creature can have any independent right to any thing whatever.
Page 243 (paragraph continues)
Life, and consequently all the means of supporting it, must be derived from the great Author of our being. Man, in particular, as a moral agent, amenable to his Maker for every part of his conduct, must live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God ; or by such means as God has granted for supporting his life ; and any attempts to live in another way, or by other means than God has revealed to him, is the highest act of rebellion against the universal Lord.
It will be also allowed, that when God gave man a right, grant, or title to eat of any particular species of food, he might at the same time give it under reservation or limitation, retaining a part of that species in his own power, and prohibiting man from eating it under certain penalties marked in the grant. In this case, abstinence from the part prohibited is, on man’s part, an acknowledgment of his dependence on his Sovereign for that part granted ; or that he has no original independent claim either to life, or the means of its support.
Having these points in view, we must look into the scared records, that we may see what creature God has granted us a right to eat, and with what reservation the grant is given.
There are only two grants of this kind recorded in scripture ; the first is to be found in the first chapter of Genesis, containing a right given to man to eat of the vegetable creation, or of every green herb : the second is recorded in the ninth chapter of that book, and contains a title granted to man to eat of the inferior animals. Of both these kinds, then, it is lawful for man eat, till his Sovereign be pleased to reverse the grant. Both grants, however, contain a reservation with penalties annexed ; the first of a species of vegetable,
Page 244 (paragraph continued)
called the tree of knowledge of good and evil ; the second, of the blood, the life of the animal. This last grant a renewal of the former, Gen. ix. 3. “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you : even as the green herb have I given you all things.” This grant was given to all mankind then in being, by them to be conveyed down to their posterity, and consequently all nations are interested in this grant, which is made irreversible by the granter, as he established it “to perpetual generations,” (Gen. ix. 12.), in token of which, he has given us “the bow in the cloud.”
One would be apt to conclude, from the avowed, irreversibility of this charter or grant, that the reservation of it must be equally irreversible with itself ; or that, so long as man partakes of animal food, he should eat it with the reservation of the blood, so expressly specified in the charter, authorizing him to eat of the flesh. Particularly, this would appear to be of vast consequence to man, since it would appear, that on this condition only, God has promised to have respect to the blood of man, be requiring it at the hand of the shedder : The blood thou shalt not eat: and the blood of your lives will I require*, & c. Gen. ix. 4.5.6. This would seem to say, that God would pay no regard to the life of that man who does not forbear to eat the blood or life of inferior animals.
This grant, with its reservation, was given to all men, and has been conveyed down to all ages and generations, both of Jew and Gentile ; to the former by a written, to the latter by an unwritten tradition. So that no man whatsoever can law-
(* This certainly means that if we eat blood, he will require the blood of our lives. I see not how it can read otherwise.)
Page 245 (paragraph continued)
fully eat blood, or eat it at the expense of his own life, or of forfeiting his right to the atonement for his soul, unless he shall find in the scared oracles a reversal of his reservation by the hand that gave us the original charter ; or, in other words, that God has contradicted himself, by reserving a deed which he himself has declared to be established to perpetual generations.
It is admitted by all, that this grant, with its reservation was in full force during the Mosaic dispensation, as it is taken into the Jewish law ; where it is renewed in the strongest terms, and forms an essential part of that code, Lev. xvii. Nor did it bind the Jews only, as is generally imagined, but extended its obligation to the Gentiles also. That no stranger, sojourning among the Jews, was allowed to eat blood, is clear from Lev. xvii. 10. 12. 13. Nor was the observation of this law of small importance. So far from it, the most dreadful imprecation was pronounced against the transgressor : “Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth among you, that eateth any manner of blood, I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.” Nor was it less criminal for the Gentiles in other countries to eat blood. Hence David speaks of their practice with abhorrence, Psal. xvi. 4. “Their drink-offerings of blood will I not offer.” This refers to the practice of the Syrians, who made libations of blood to their gods ; and prophetically to the antichristian idolaters, who offer the literal blood of our sacrifice in the cup of the mass. Yet the Gentiles seem in general to have made blood a common meal : only, as the doctrine of atonement by blood was among the things which God shewed to all men, it is easy for a vain imagination to
Page 246 (paragraph continued)
conclude, that the blood of a sacrifice was proper to be offered in drink-offerings, as most acceptable to the gods. Thus their error was much more excusable than that of Christians, since it originated in a religious veneration for the blood of atonement.
Let us now see how this grant stands in the New Testament, that we may know whether the granter, the Lord of life, has freed us from the obligation the grant lays us under, as the tenure or holding by which we have a title to eat flesh, and to expect an atonement for our lives. And here it is certainly of importance to observe, that at the same time, when the Holy Ghost by the apostles declares the Gentiles free from the yoke of circumcision, and so from the whole ritual law, he enforces the obligation of the law, enjoining abstinence from blood-eating as a necessary thing ; yea, no less so than abstaining from idolatry and fornication, Acts, xv. Nor have we the least hint of a reversal of that decision any where in any after-part of New-Testament scripture.
If, then, man forfeited his title to life, of, what is the same thing, to the food which supports it, by eating the fruit of the tree, reserved in the proprietor’s hand by the first charter or grant of vegetable food, one would be apt to conclude, that the same consequence must follow on his eating blood, as abstaining from eating it is made the express tenure by which he holds his right to eat flesh, and, to have an avenger of the blood of his own life. The scripture informs us, that the first forfeiture was owing to the subtilty of Satan ; nor can the second be ascribed to any other original. The first stratagem succeeded by a misinterpretation of the terms of the original grant ; and when we examine the following arguments, produced in favour of blood-eating, we may perhaps find that
Page 247 (paragraph continued)
mankind have been deceived into the second forfeiture by an artifice of the same kind. - Let us examine them and see.
1st, It is argued, that the distinction between clean and unclean meats is abolished in Christ ; therefore every kind is clean to the Christian. Very true, friend : Bur ere this argument can hold in favour of blood-eating, you must prove, first, that blood was given to man for meat ; and, secondly, that it is classed among the unclean meats in the Mosaic system. In Lev. 12th, and Deut. 14th chapters, we have a full list of the unclean meats. There the eagle, the vulture, the raven, &c. are called unclean ; but not a syllable concerning blood. Again, when blood is prohibited as meat, it is forbidden, not because it is unclean, but because it is holy, being the atonement or ransom of the soul. Since, then, blood never was given to man for meat ; and even when eating it is prohibited, it is not called unclean, but holy, it is plain, that a law making unclean meats, cannot effect the law concerning blood, which is not classed among meats at all, much less among the unclean. The gospel had no occasion to make clean, what the law had already pronounced holy. - How absurd thy glosses of scripture, O serpent ! Yet how powerful their influence on the mind of the simple !
Moreover, this argument goes on the supposition, that there is no meat called unclean under the gospel ; whereas it is obvious, that Idolothytes, or meats offered in the idol’s temple, are unclean as ever, as by eating them Christians incur the most awful punishments, Rev. ii 14. 16. 20-23.
2ndly, Blood under the law was a figure of the blood of Christ ; therefore, say the advocates for blood-eating, the precept concerning it was not
Page 248 (paragraph continued)
moral, but ceremonial, and so ceased with other shadows when Christ the substance came. This argument is founded upon a doubt mistake : 1st, It supposes, that no precept of a moral or lasting obligation can be a figure or shadow of Christ and church. This is false in fact. The law of God enjoining marriage, Gen 2d and 9th chapters, is undoubtedly moral, given to all men at all ages ; yet Paul assures us, Eph. v. that it was a type of the union between Christ and his church. Will any aver, that now Christ has come and married his church, and had children begotton by the word of truth, therefore marriage is no more a duty ? 2ndly, But the principal mistake this argument is built on, and which all writers on this subject have inadvertently gone into, is, that the blood of beasts in general was a figure of the blood of Christ. No idea can be more wide of the truth. Only the blood of the sacrificial animals was so ; whereas the blood of beasts slain for common use us no where said to be typical. Hence, when God prohibits the use of the blood of the beasts offered in Sacrifice, he gives this reason for it, “because the blood is the atonement:” but when he forbids the use of the blood of the same kind of beasts, when slain at home for common use, he founds the prohibition on a lasting reason, Deut. xii. 20-24. “ 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 on the ground like water.” Had Israel been allowed to eat the blood of beasts slain for common use, or had the use of such blood been prohibited because it was the atonement, then soon as the blood of beasts ceased to be the atonement, the reason for abstaining from it would have ceased, and so the law itself requiring such abstinence. But Israel was not allowed to eat the blood of any kind of beast, for a reason of a moral or perpetual nature;
Page 249 (paragraph continued)
therefore, till the blood cease to be the life of the animal, no man can eat it, without forfeiting all title to his own life, or right to the blessing annexed to abstinence from blood. This blessing is very important, Deut. xii. 25. “Thou shalt not eat it, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the fight of the Lord.”
The sum of what has been said on this argument is, - The blood of beasts slain in sacrifice was forbid to be eaten, because, for the time then present, it was the atonement. This reason was of a temporary and figurative nature, and must necessarily cease when beasts ceased to be sacrificed. It is impossible for us to break this law now, as no beast can be offered in sacrifice, according to the gospel. But as the law enjoining abstinence from the blood of common animals, or beasts slain at home for ordinary use, is founded on a reason which is lasting as the earth itself, the law founded on that reason must be obligatory to the end of the world, and obligatory on all of mankind. For this is the law given to Noah, the father of all nations, in the everlasting covenant for all the earth ; in which Jew and Greek, Christian and Heathen, are all equally interested.
3rdly, It is argued, that as the fat was forbidden to be eaten under the law, the argument is equally strong against eating the fat as the blood. Let us examine and see. 1st, The fat was not prohibited in the grant of animal food given to Noah, and in him to all mankind ; neither is any such prohibition to be found in the New Testament, and consequently it cannot bind the consciences of Christians, who are under the law of Christ, and not to Moses. No law of Moses can bind us, but what is taken into the code of laws established in the
Page 250 (paragraph continued)
New Testament by Jesus Christ. 2ndly, Israel were only forbid to eat the fat of the sacrifices, but were allowed to eat that of the beasts slain for common use. We find full directions given with regard to the latter in Deut. xii. 20-26 ; but not a syllable there prohibiting fat, nor any reservation made of any part of the slaughtered animal, save the blood only : ver. 23. “Only be sure,” in the Hebrew, “be strong that thou eat not the blood.” 3rdly, Strangers among Israel were not forbid to eat the fat, but no toleration was given for them to eat blood - So destitute of foundation is this specious argument. Fat in general was not forbid to be eaten in Moses’ law, but none could taste “any manner of blood” under the highest penalties. Proceed we now to the
4th Argument in favour of blood-eating, derived from what our Lord says, Matth. xv. 11. “Not that which goeth out into the mouth defileth a man.” It is amazing what influence this weak and wicked argument has had on the minds of men ; though evidently framed by the old serpent. For, 1st, The distinction between clean and unclean meats was still in full force when our Lord spoke these words, so that no Jew could eat any species of food which the law pronounced unclean, but he must have been defiled. Had Jesus himself eaten but a bit of swines-flesh, for instance, he could not have been our Saviour. How wicked, then, to put a sense on our Lord’s words, which even his greatest enemies never pretended to find in them !2ndly, He explains his meaning in ver. 20. “To eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.” He is not speaking of any particular kind of food, but of accidental pollution adhering to food by touching it with soul hands, or the like. This cannot defile a man, because “the drought purgeth all meats.”
Page 251 (paragraph continues)
3rdly, He means, that eating any kind of food as such cannot defile a soul : but when the heart is conscious that any kind of food is prohibited by God, the wickedness of the heart in breaking a law of God defiles the man in eating the food. Thus, not the food, but the breach of the law of God in eating it, defiles the man. The interpretation conflicts with scripture and common sense ; whereas the other makes our Redeemer speak contrary both to law and gospel ; as the gospel itself makes meats offered to idols unclean, when eaten from reverence for the idols.
5thly, It is pled, that “commanding to abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving,” is a part of the character of Antichrist, as described by Paul, 1 Tim. iv. 1-5. This must be Antichristian, since “every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving.”- To this I reply, 1st, The “every creature God has made, since stones, iron, yea poisonous herbs and animals, are certainly to be refused if offered as food. The very creature in this verse, then, must only comprehend the meats in ver. 3. or the “meats which God has created to be received.” But this cannot include blood, as it never was created to be received by man but expressly forbidden to be received at all. 2ndly, The meats here meant are the meats which Antichrist commands men to abstain from ; but these do not include blood, since the eating of blood was first, and is still authorized in the world called Christian, by the Papal power alone. Thus the Pope has proved himself to be Antichrist, by forbidding men to eat meats which God created to be received, and commanding them to eat what God never created for that purpose, but has expressly prohib-
Page 252 (paragraph continued)
-bited ever since the first grant of animal food to man.
6thly, An argument is taken from what Paul says, Rom. xiv. 2.3.4. “One believeth that he may eat all things ; another who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth, despise him hat eateth not,” & c. Hence, it is pled, that blood may be eaten, since Paul does not condemn him who believeth that he may eat all things, and so blood. But little does thou think, O vain man ! Where this reasoning will lead thee. In the 5th verse, Paul says, “One man esteemeth one day above another ; another esteemeth every day alike : let every man be persuaded in his own mind.” Hence, it is inferred, that there is no fabbatism left to the people of God ; or that no regard is due to the first day of the week above any other day. And doubtless this inference is as justly drawn as the former. But, the truth is, we cannot get at Paul’s meaning, unless we attend carefully to the design he has in view in this chapter. Some of the believing Jews, who had been educated among a sect, who reckoned it unlawful to eat flesh, lived on herbs only, as Adam did ; others, of more enlarged ideas, judged it lawful to eat flesh also, in virtue of the grant of animal food given to Noah. The all things, then, this latter class believe they might eat, evidently mean animal as well as vegetable food. But that blood cannot possibly be here intended, is clear from ver. 6. where Paul says, “He that eateth, eateth to the Lord ; for he giveth God thanks.” Now, it must be allowed, that all the churches had received a copy of the decree of the apostles made at Jerusalem, wherein abstinence from the blood-eating is made an express term of discipleship among Christians ; and consequently every Christian knew that blood-
Page 253 (paragraph continued)
-eating was totally inconsistent with his procession. This must be admitted even by our blood-eaters, as they must allow that this edict of the apostles was binding at least till the time of the destruction of binding at least till the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and so long after the date of this epistle to the Romans. In this case it is absurd to say, that Christian could eat to the Lord, or give God thanks for what he well knew the Lord had forbidden him to eat. If he could eat blood to the Lord, he might also commit fornication to the Lord, since both are forbidden by the same authority, and in the same edict. How brutish is the reasoning in error !
As to the inference deduced from ver. 14. ; “I am persuaded that there is nothing unclean of itself,” &c. it is of no force ; blood never was called unclean by the law of God, as I have proved before ; yet it was never allowed to be eaten. Consequently it cannot follow from this assertion, that it is lawful to eat blood.
But it is argued farther in support of blood-eating, that it is said in Rom. xiv. 17. “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink.” Ans. 1st, The sense is, the Mosaic distinction of meats is abolished in the kingdom of God. But how can this affect the law prohibiting blood, which was not classed among meats either clean or unclean? 2ndly, According to this reasoning, there is no meat and drink in the kingdom of God. But is it possible that Paul can intend to say so, when he had received of the Lord an institution to be delivered to the churches, and by them to be observed till Christ shall come again, in which meat and drink, bread and wine, are essential parts? Or how is it possible that Paul could say that blood is not forbidden in the kingdom of God, when he himself had joined in framing the decree forbidding it, but a few
Page 254 (paragraph continued)
years before? This would make Paul either a fool or a knave ; as does the argument taken from,
7thly, I Cor. x. 25. “Whatever is sold in the shambles eat ye, making no question for conscience’ sake”. To this it is replied, 1st, That we have no evidence that blood was sold in the shambles of antiquity ; nor des it appear possible that it could be so in warm climes, where it must have putrified in a few minutes after its extravasation. 2ndly, Paul is speaking here concerning flesh slain in sacrifice in the idol temple, and afterwards exposed to sale in the shambles, as is clear from the context. But what has this to do with blood? 3rdly, Supposing blood to have been sold in hte shambles, if the “whatsoever” in ver. 23. which Paul says are lawful men for him, must include every action, even the most wicked. 4thly, He cannot here mean to reverse the apostolic decree prohibiting blood, as even blood eaters admit the obligation of this edict while Jerusalem stood.
8thly, As the apostolic decree recorded Acts xv. so expressly forbids blood-eating, the abettors of that practice have strained every nerve to explain it away, and turn it into a temporary expedient, intended only to continue in force till the destruction of Jerusalem. In support of this opinion, it is pretended, that this decree was only made with a view to reconcile the Jews to hold communion with the Gentiles ; for so, say they, James insinuates in ver. 21. where he founds the necessity of the decree upon this reason, “Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day.” This is a gross misinterpretation of James’s words ; and it is astonishing to find writers of great and shining talents gravely supporting so absurd a fiction.
Page 255 (paragraph continued)
Had they but glanced at the foregoing verse, it is scarcely possible that a candid mind could have missed the sense of this. “My sentence is, that we trouble not them who from among the Gentiles are turned to God : but what we write to them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols,” &c. Here it is evident that James is not giving the reason of the decree, but the reason for putting it in writing. Let us write the mind of the Holy Spirit concerning the freedom of the Gentiles from the law of Moses, and their obligation to abstain from some moral vices, which they reckon indifferent, such as, eating things offered to idols, things strangled, and blood, with fornication. It is necessary to commit the decision to writing, because as the law of Moses is read in the synagogue every Sabbath, and many Gentile believers attend there ; these believers among the Gentiles might not know whether they are bound to keep the law of Moses or not ; unless we write this decree, and give a copy of it to all the churches, that so all may know upon what foot Gentiles are to be received into the church of Christ, and none may impose on them again by telling them, that they cannot be saved, except they be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.
But since the idea of the temporary nature of this decree is so warmly supported, and so generally received, it is necessary we should expose its weakness and absurdity a little farther.
1st, If the prohibition in the edict were to cease with the Jewish state, the things or actions prohibited by them must be of an indifferent nature, otherwise they could not become lawful after the destruction of Jerusalem. Moral evils are such at all times and in all places. Yet it is impossible to call these things indifferent, without differing
Page 256 (paragraph continued)
from the Spirit of truth, who expressly calls them necessary things, ver. 28. 29. And we must be hard put to it in supporting an hypothesis, when it cannot be done but at the expense of calling in question the judgement of the unerring Spirit. Beside, this idea is inconsistent with the very nature of some of the things forbidden, since idolatry and fornication are allowed to be moral evils. - If it be said, some of them are moral and others indifferent, this is a mere assertion unsupported by evidence. The Holy Spirit makes no such distinction, but prohibits them all under the same idea as necessary things ; and who taught us, then, to call them indifferent? Sure none but he who taught Eve to consider the eating of the tree of knowledge as an indifferent thing. - Again, if it be said, that this decree is called “a burden,” and therefore cannot be intended to continue in the Christian church, then by the same rule the whole law or yoke of Christ must have also been ceased with this decree, since the whole is called a burden, Matth. xi. 30. 2ndly, This hypothesis stands on the absurd idea, that these concessions on the part of the Gentiles would have reconciled the Judaizers to hold communion with them ; whereas sun-shine cannot be more evident than this, that nothing would satisfy the zealots for the Mosaic system but the entire subjection of the Gentiles to the whole law. For we are expressly told in this chapter, (ver. I. 24.), that the tenet they every where inculcated was, “Except a man be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses, he cannot be saved.” How absurd, then, is it to imagine, that the apostles intended to patch up a peace between the furious zealots and the Gentile Christians, while nothing less than a perfect conformity to the law of Moses, on the part of the Gentiles, could have answered that purpose ! Nor
Page 257 (paragraph continued)
did this decree in the least abate the rigour of the terms insisted on by the Judauzers, as, long after the date of this decree, we find them as stiff in opposing the liberty of the Gentiles as before, as is evident from the epistles of Paul to the Romans and Galatians : and, indeed, how could so trifling a concession as this be supposed to effectuate this purpose? He must be a stranger to that uncomplying zeal of religious bigotry, who imagines that the Gentiles, by yielding to one part of the law enjoining abstinence from things strangled and blood, could obtain fellowship with men who considered the whole law of Moses as of eternal obligation. Had the apostles conceived any such idea, they were truly bunglers in the art of peace making : particularly when at the same time they condemn the favourite dogma of the Judaizing party in the most full and express terms, and load the zealots themselves with the odious epithets of troublers of the Gentiles, and subverters of souls. A bad plan for moderating their zeal ! The truth is, no such idea was entertained by the apostles. They expressly loose the Gentiles from any obligation to keep the law of Moses ; and only enjoin them to observe laws which were in force long before the Sinai system had an existence.
3rdly, Supporting what James says in ver. 21. to be the reason for making this decree, it will by no means follow, that the obligation of the decree was temporary, or only intended to continue in force till Jerusalem was destroyed. Had this been intended, James would have said, Let us oblige the Gentile converts to abstain from things strangled and from blood, because Moses is preached and read in the temple every Sabbath-day. In this case, soon as the temple was destroyed, the reason of this prohibition would have ceased : and the Gen-
Page 258 (paragraph continued)
tiles might have eaten blood, when Moses had none to read him in the temple. But since James says, that the decree is obligatory while Moses has in every city them that preach him, being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath-day ; it is clear that this decree is in as much force as ever, since Moses in every city where the Jews reside, has them that preach and read him in the synagogues, with the utmost punctuality, every Sabbith-day : and surely we have as much reason to abstain from giving offence to the Jews as ever. - Thus, if we should even admit the blood-eaters sense of this text, the inference they deduce from it in favour of blood-eating is wild, absurd, and inconclusive.
It is argued further, That Paul himself makes eating meats offered to idols a matter of indifferency, I Cor x, 25. 26. 27. as he allows Christians to eat meats offered to idols, when invited to a feast in an unbeliever’s house, making no question for conscience’ sake ; only in case he was informed that the meat set before him had been offered to idols, he is advised to abstain from it, lest he should offend a weak brother. But this whole argument is founded on a mis-translation of the word Idolthytes, which does not mean meats that has been offered to idols, and afterwards sold in the shambles as common flesh, but idol-sacrifices, all of which were eaten in the temple of the idol : in which case eating Idolothytes was an act of worship performed to the idol in his temple ; whereas eating the same flesh when it has been exposed in the shambles as common flesh, could not infer the least veneration for the idol, being eaten as a common thing. Thus Paul condemns eating Idolothytes in the strongest terms, calling it idlatry, and a partaking of the table of devils, ver. 14. 21 of this chapter, because it was explicit act of idol-
Page 259 (paragraph continued)
worship ; while he permits the believers to eat the same flesh, if sold in the shambles, provided they did not give offence thereby to the weaker brethren. How wicked is it, then, to make Paul contradict himself, while he speaks in the most clear, accurate and consistent manner!
That eating Idolothytes is an act of everlasting criminality, is clear from Rev. ii. 14-24. There we find the Lord of the churches expressing the highest indignation against the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira, because they suffered some false brethren among them to teach the lawfulness of eating, Idolothytes and of committing fornication. Sure matters of indifferency could not merit such dreadful punishment.
I know that it is pleaded, that the prohibition of eating meats offered to idols, whether in the idol-temples, or in private houses after the meat had been sold in the shambles, goes upon the same foot, even scandal and offence. In support of this opinion, it is alledged, that the apostle(i Cor viii. 4 - end) seems to suppose, that those who have knowledge “that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one,” and so can eat without any religious respect to, or veneration for the idol, might without criminality sit at meat even in the idol’s temple, were it not for fear of ensnaring or offending the conscience of weaker Christians, who have not such enlarged degrees of knowledge. - To set this matter in a clear light, it is necessary to observe, that Paul is here replying to the arguments of a set of philosophizing Christians in the church of Corinth, pretenders to superior refinement in idea and sentiment. Of this their liberal knowledge they boast, ver. i. “We know that we all have knowledge.” Very well, says Paul, but what avails knowledge without love? It
Page 260 (paragraph continued)
only puffs up the possessor with a vain conceit of himself, while only he who loves God is approved of him, ver. 1. 2. 3. But with respect to idol sacrifices, what do you know? Why, say they, we know that an idol is nothing, or is no divinity at all ; and consequently in eating meats offered to idols, we eat not with any religious respect to the idol, but view it as common food provided for us by the one God and Father of all. In this case we are not guilty of idol-worship. To this Paul replies, - Every man has not this knowledge; but some weaker Christians, imagining that there is some invisible spirit present in the idol, eat it as a sacrifice offered to that spirit, and so defile their consciences with the guilt of idolatry. - But, reply these philosophers, meats in themselves can never recommend us to God, neither by eating them, nor by abstaining from eating. True, says Paul, but the circumstances of an action are to be taken into the account. Without entering, then, at present into the merits of the question, whether it be lawful for men of your liberal ideas to eat the sacrifice of the idol even in this temple, I shall only say, Take heed left, by this liberty of yours, you lead a weak brother into idolatry, by emboldening him to partake of the idol-sacrifice, while he is conscious of some respect to the idol as the vehicle of some spirit. Thus by sinning against the brethren, ye sin against Christ.
In this eighth chapter, then, it is evident that Paul reasons against eating Idolothytes only on the foot of scandal and offence, and shews that even in this view no Christian could eat them without sin. But this does not say that such a practice was not unlawful in itself, or that Paul could produce no other argument against it. So far from this, he resumes the subject in the tenth chapter, where he enters fully into the merits of the
Page 261 (paragraph continued)
cause, and demonstrates the fallacy of the specious arguments produced by the philosophers in the 8th chapter. There he proves in the strongest light, that eating the sacrifice of any god, whether real or pretended, is an expression of fellowship with that god, and an acknowledgment of his divinity. Thus, ver. 7. Israel were guilty of idolotry by eating the sacrifices of Baal-peor, even while they did not offer these sacrifices. Again, in ver. 16. 17. he shews that we express our communion or fellowship with Jesus Christ by eating the bread and drinking the cup, which are to our faith the body and blood of Christ our sacrifice. Eating the supper is feasting on the sacrifice of Calvary ; and so is the highest expression of our fellowship with the true God. In the same manner, ver. 18. Israel after the flesh, by eating the sacrifice, were partakers of the altar. Hence, he concludes from the clearest premises, that eating the idol-sacrifices is the strongest expression of holding communion with the idol, and consequently must by idolatry. “Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.” Then he proceeds to demonstrate the fallacy of the assertion, that an idol is nothing, and that what is offered to it is no sacrifice, ver. 19. 20. True, says he, the statue of wood, stone, &c. is no animated being of any kind in itself, but the Gentiles imagine that some invisible spirit or demon inhabits the statue, and so when they offer sacrifices before the statue or shrine, they sacrifice to demons, and not to the true God. In this case, by eating the sacrifice with them, which was always done in the temple, you have fellowship with demons or devils; a practice totally subversive of the prosession of Christianity being the most express act of idolatry. “Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and the table of devils.”
Page 262
From the 23rd verse to the end of the chapter, he proceeds to shew two cases in which it is lawful to eat things that have been sacrificed to idols ; first, when sold in the public market as common meat; secondly, when presented at a common entertainment in a private house, provided the Christian guest be not informed that it has been offered to idols. In case he has been informed of this circumstance, he must not eat, for the sake of his brother’s conscience.
In the above view of Paul’s reasoning, it is easy to see in what sense eating Idolothytes is condemned in the apostolic decree, and why such tremendous judgements are threatened against churches of Pergamos and Thyatira for suffering any among them to teach the lawfulness of eating such sacrifices. To eat them in the temple of the idol is idolatry, and so merits the highest punishment ; whereas no such charge can be laid against eating them at a common meal, or when brought in the shambles. Thus Paul speaks confidently with himself, and with other scriptures ; whereas the common interpretation, making it lawful to partake of the table of devils, provided it give no offence to the brethren, renders Paul’s reasoning nugatory, with common sense. On this plan, a Christian may conscientiously join in idolatrous rites of the Papists and Pagans, provided he has sense to know that the whole is a farce.
These free-thinkers in the church of Corinth seem to have been much devoted to sensual gratifications. Educated in the school of Venus, who had a temple in that city, the common resort for venereal purposes, they considered whoredom as a matter of indifferency, as well as eating sacrifices in the temple of that idol. Thousands of loose wo-
Page 263 (Paragraph continued)
men were maintained in the purlieus of the temple for the use of her adorers, who having at the sacrifice and sun hymns in honour of the goddess, proceeded to the most direct act of her worship. These practices, so agreeable to the appetite, and sanctified by custom, were not easily abandoned. These, however, were the chief objects of the apostolic decree at Jerusalem ; hence it became difficult to reconcile these practices with the Christian prosession. Such Christians as determined to continue in such usages applied to philosophy, which furnished them with some maxims very convenient for their purpose. “Meats are for the belly, and the belly for meats ;” that is, God has suited the appetite to the enjoyment, and the enjoyment to the appetite; consequently there can be no harm in gratifying any natural appetite, since God has made the one for the other. Such is the maxim refuted by Paul, I Cor. vi. 12. 13. &c. A maxim which they extended not only to Idolthytes, bu to whoredom. These are the “all things” which they said were lawful ; all gratifications of the natural appetite, as is evident from the connection. The common interpretation puts this maxim. “all things are lawful for me,” in the mouth of Paul, to vindicate his right to eat Idolothyes even in the temple of the idol, as an act not criminal in itself, but only so in case of its giving offence to others. It so, by a parity of reasoning, he adopts it in chapter 6th, that he may assert his liberty to commit whoredom, as he is speaking of that subject only in that chapter.
The tact is, Paul only takes up these libertine principles that he may confute them. This he
Page 264 (Paragraph continued)
does, not only by opposing authority to them, but reasoning and exhortation. “I speak as to wife men ; judge ye what I say.” Thus he opposes them, when employed to vindicate eating idol-sacrifices in the tenth chapter : thus also when used to subserve the purposes of fornication, in chapter vi. Taking it for granted, says he, for the sake of argument, that all things are lawful, yet it is evident that all things lawful to be done are not in every case expedient : and with respect to your favourite maxim, “meats for the belly, and the belly for meats,” this cannot extend to vindicate whoredom. The body is purchased by the Lord, and so ought to be subject to the rules he prescribes for it. Our spirit is already joined to the Lord, so as to be one with him : and although the belly, the seat of appetite, must be destroyed in the grave, with the meats which support it, yet the radical principles of the body shall be raised up in shape and qualities like Christ most glorious body. Thus the body in all its members is made for the Lord, or destined for his service here, as instruments of righteousness, and to be conformed to his own body, as the pattern or model is formed for the thing to be formed upon it. He will raise up the body, shape it, and support it, by that energy whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.
But it is further argued, That this decree of the apostles is of the same kind with the advice given by James to Paul, recorded in Acts, xxi 20. 26. viz. that he should take a vow on him, purify himself, and shave his head, according to the law ; that the believing Jews might see that he walked orderly and kept the law. - Let up compare these two cases, and see whether they have any analogy to one another. The apostolic decree was written, and
Page 265 (Paragraph continued)
a copy of it given to every church, as obligatory upon all : whereas this advice of James to Paul was only given to one man, and he a Jew, while at the same time it is declared not to be binding on the Gentiles at all, ver. 25. “As touching the Gentiles who believe, we have written and concluded, that they should observe no such thing.” By this we are certain it is not a law of Christ, else the believing Gentile must have observed it as well as the Jew. Again, this advice was only to be observed on a particular occasion, and that in Jerusalem only ; whereas the decree is declared binding on all Christians in every place, and on every occasion. So that it is impossible to find the most different analogy between the apostolic decree and the advice under review.
It is argued, again, that this decree is not a law, as it is given in the form of advice, and not enforced by threatening in case of disobedience. But, if this argument be conclusive, we shall scarce find a law of Christ in all the New Testament, as by far the greater part of his laws are delivered in the form of exhortations. He says, for instance, to the church in Laodicea, “I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich.” This is an advice ; but will any person say that it is not the a law, or that we may reject it with impunity? The truth is, the exhortatory form best suits the genius of the laws of Jesus. Love only can obey them ; and love needs no threatenings to terrify it into obedience.
Lastly, The advocates for blood-eating boast, that their cause derives a very strong support from the epistles to the churches in Pergamos and Thyatira, Rev. ii. 14-24. These churches, say they, are condemned for suffering some members to teach the lawfulness of committing fornication, and eat-
Page 266 (Paragraph continued)
ing Idolothyles ; but they are not condemned for teaching that things strangled and blood may be lawfully eaten. Whence they conclude, that the obligation of this last part of the apostolic decree has ceased before the date of these epistles, else it would have been mentioned on this occasion. To this I reply, No part of this decree would have been mentioned on this occasion, had not these churches acted contrary to it ; nor could these churches be blamed, but in so far as they disobeyed the law. Ere this argument, then, can be of use to the blood-eaters, they must prove that these churches taught the servants of Christ to eat things strangled and blood. Could they prove this, their argument would be invincible, as we do not find these churches reproved for these practices. But, as we have not the least hint that any in these churches either taught or practiced blood-eating, how could the Holy Spirit charge them with crimes of which they were not guilty? The truth is, motives of animal pleasure might easily seduce men to eat idolothytes, and commit fornication ; but it does not appear from any part of the history of the Christian church, that in so early a period, or even long after, any person professing Christianity had got it into his head to lay himself on a level with dogs, wolves, and cannibals, by eating blood.
But what puts the matter beyond dispute is, the whole of this of this decree is reinjoined in the most express terms, and declared to be binding on the churches to the end of the world, in the epistle to the church in Thyatira, Rev. ii. 24. 25. The apostolic decree was called a burden when first made. Alluding to this, Christ says, “I put upon you no other burden. But that which you have already, hold fast till I come.” Now, it will be allowed, that this church must have been possessed
Page 267 (Paragraph continued)
of a copy of the decree under review, as a copy of it was sent to every church ; nor is their one single article in that decree reversed here, but the whole declared to be in force till Jesus come again.
Thus, I have weighed all the arguments and even the shadows of argument, produced in favour of blood-eating, in the balance of the sanctuary, and have found them wanting. I shall only add on this head, that it appears surprising, that men should have taken so much pains in wresting the scriptures to support a practice, to beastly in itself, and so expressly prohibited in the word of the living God. On the scared records, we no where read of blood being given to any but as a punishment. The blood of Jezebel was given to the dogs as a punishment upon her for her wickedness ; and blood is said to be given to the mother of harlots for the same reason, Rev. xvi. 6. “Give her blood to drink, because she is worthy,” - worthy, as she first taught the Christians to drink the blood of beasts, and then drunk the blood of saints. The blood-eaters may prove, if they can, that in any instance blood was given for food to any as a blessing.
We shall now take a view of the ideas, concerning blood-eating, entertained by the heathens and primitive Christians, downward to the ninth century ; and then see on what occasion, and by what authority, blood-eating came to be introduced among Christians so called.
As to the heathens, we have observed already, they viewed the sacrificial blood as sacred, and so proper only to be used in drink offerings to their gods. With respect to common blood, they never seem to have considered it as food, at least during the period of sacred history. The tradition from
Page 268 (Paragraph continued)
Noah, their common ancestor, seems in general to have been religiously observed in this respect : and what is noticeable, according to the scripture-idea, they gave blood to criminals, chiefly bull’s blood, to drink, by which they died. In Prideaux’s Connections, we have a variety of instances of that kind. Some suicides, also, put an end to their life by the same means. Sometimes they drunk the blood of their enemies, not as food, but as an expression of their highest indignation against them, and with a view to pierce the hearts of their surviving friends with the most poignant sensations of grief and rage. This was only done, howbeit, on some very particular occasions.
But it imports us more to know what ideas Christians entertained on this point, during the first ages of Christianity. Nor are we at any loss to obtain full information on this head.
Justin Martyr, who became a Christian a little more than thirty years after the death of the apostle John, and wrote his dialogue with Trypho, A.D. 151. has these words : “For that righteous Noah was permitted by God to eat of every animal, excepting flesh, with the blood, which is suffocated or strangled, you have an account given you by Moses, in the book of Genesis.”
Clemens Alexandrinus, in his Pedagogue, A.D. 193. says “It is not lawful for men to touch blood.” And again “It is ridiculous to suppose that the laying of St. Paul, about what is sold in the market, is a repeal of the apostolical cannon.”
Again, the apostolical canons were written before A.D. 200 and in that book we find it decreed, that “If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, shall eat flesh, with the blood of its life, or that is torn by beasts, or which died of itself, let him be de-
Page 269 (Paragraph continued)
prived : but if it be one of the laity, let him be suspended from communion.”
Minucius Felix, in his Octavius, written A.D. 213. says, “But for us Christians, as we think it unlawful to be spectators of your bloody fights, so cannot we endure to hear of them ; and we have so much aversion to human blood, that we do not so much as taste of the flesh of beats, if we know there is any thing of blood in it.”
Moreover, Eusebius (Ecclef. Hist. B. 5. c. I.) Recites a saying of Biblias the martyr thus : “How should persons eat little children, for whom it is unlawful to eat the blood even of irrational creatures?
Tertullian wrote his Apologetic before A. D. 200. and from him we have these words : “ For shame, therefore, blush when you meet a Christian, who will not endure a drop of the blood of any animal among his victuals, and therefore, for fear any should be lodged among the entrails, we abstain from things strangled, and such as die of themselves. - Among other experiments for the discovery of Christians, this is one, to present them with blood-puddings, as very well knowing our opinion about the unlawfulness of eating blood. This, I say, is a stumbling block and offence you lay in the way of Christians ; and what a strange thing is it, that you, who know well that the Christians are so religiously averse to the blood of beasts, should imagine then so sharp set upon the blood of men !”
From these testimonies of the above-quoted venerable writers, we find not only what was the view they themselves had of blood-eating, but the universal opinion of all Christians ; among whom against perpetual obligation of the apostolic decree against blood-eating was held as an indisputable article
Page 270 (Paragraph continued)
of faith. A religious aversion to blood was considered by the heathen as characteristical of a Christian.
I might have adduced a number of other testimonies equally respectable ; such as that of Origen, in his book against Celfus, written A. D. 249 of the council of Gangrena, and that of Orleans, A. D. 538. The sixth general council in Trullo, A.D. 683. Nay, even one down in the dark age of Louis the Pious, A.D. 816 *. All of these concur in establishing the idea of the perpetual obligation of the law against blood-eating.
These things considered, it may be asked with astonishment, By what authority do Christians eat blood, and who gave them such authority? To this I reply, by the sole authority of the church of Rome, the mother of harlots, and of all the abominations of the earth, - an authority, which, for many long and dark ages, challenged the obedience of all Christendom, and which still, by a secret but powerful influence, enthralls the minds of Protestants themselves. Transubstantiation, the monsterous production of the eighth century, nurtured by the care, and supported by the authority of the all deceiving see, came by degrees to be received in to the creed of mankind as an article of divine faith. Meantime, while the many worshipped this unfightly idol, some doubted, calling in question his divine original. These, among other arguments, produced that of the law against eating animal blood. If, said they, the cup in the Lord’s Supper be filled with the literal or real blood of Jesus Christ, we are forbidden to drink it, by the law of God prohibiting blood. To get rid of this troublesome argument, the Pope was obliged to change a stand-
Page 271 (Paragraph continued)
ing law of God into a temporary expedient ; and thus exalting himself above all that is called God, pronounced that lawful, which God has in all ages declared unlawful, and against which he has denounced the most tremendous threatenings. - Thus, blood eating came into fashion among Christians or rather Antichristians. The same authority, which forbade men to eat meats which God created to be received, commanded them to eat what God has not created to be received at all. This is the sole authority any one has for eating blood. If any man think it a good one, let him obey it Christians know such authority.
But, as God has poured wisdom, goodness, and beauty, over all his works, I have no idea of a divine law dictated by pure sovereignty or arbitrary power. The universal Lord is wise and good ; and every thing that comes forth from the Lord of Hosts wears obvious traces of wisdom and love. Let us apply this observation to the law before us that we may see how far it can be prove itself the offspring of a wise and benevolent principle.
1st, When love dictates a law, the law must be calculated to promote the happiness of the subjects since love seeketh not her own, but her neighbour’s good. Such is the law prohibiting blood. The more minutely philosophy has examined the constituent principles of blood, the more fully is she convinced that it is not only improper, but dangerous food for man. It is allowed to contain very little nourishment - it is exceedingly subject to putrescency, as daily experience proves. Scarcely is it extravasated and exposed to the air but it assumes obvious symptoms of putridity. Hence, wolves, foxes, &c. more sagacious than human blood-eaters, such it from the veins of the animals. Expose it a short time to the influence of the air, and the most vo-
Page 272 (Paragraph continued)racious brute will refute to taste it. - Finally, blood is the seat and organ of almost every species of animal disease. Inflammation and putridity are the seeds of disease : and these have not only their origin in the blood, but are often concealed and secretly working in that fluid, long ere the disease itself gives visible symptoms of its existence in the system. Had we just views of the matter, then, we should not only forbear to eat blood, but we would give God thanks for manifesting his love to us in prohibiting a morsel so dangerous to the health of man.
2ndly, This law is also the result of that wisdom which shines in every part of the divine plan, framing the whole in perfect harmony ; adapting every thing to every thing. None of the milder animals eat blood ; none but the most ferocious, savage, and artful brutes, as wolves, foxes, dogs, live on this aliment. Humanity is the characteristic of man. How improper, then, would it have been to have commanded or even permitted man to act as a brother to lions, foxes dogs, and wolves, the most ferocious of the brutal world ! Such a law, indeed, becomes the Papal power, the monster “drunk with the blood of the saints,: but it can not “come forth from the Lord of hosts, who is wonderful in council, and good to all.” - Again, God alone is Lord of life ; the bestowal and support of it is wholly in his hand. It was certainly proper, then, that this idea should be kept alive in the mind of man, by forbidding him the use of blood, which is the life, lest he should forget his dependence on God for so important a blessing. Life is the foundation of all enjoyment. Hence, to acknowledge God as the absolute proprietor of life, is to own him as the author of all that either sustains or makes it happy. - Finally, the propriety
Page 273 (Paragraph continued)
of this law will appear, if we consider, that to partake of the blood is a symbol of our oneness with the creature, of whose blood we partake. We are commanded now to drink the blood of the Son of God. Why? Because we are one body with him, living in his life, united to him as members of his body. Now, all the members of the same body must have a right to partake of the blood, i.e. the life of that body. This is finely expressed in the supper of our Lord. There we drink the blood of the Son of God, as an expression of our living in his life, ad our being members of his body. In this view, to eat the blood of a brute is a symbol of our union with that brute ; an expression of our living its life, as of the same spirit and temper of the animal, is not in the flesh, but the blood. Hence there is no impropriety in the law allowing us to eat flesh, which we possess in common with every other animal; but till we be one body and one spirt with the brute, it must be the highest absurdity to live on the brute’s life, by participating of its blood.
Thus we have seen, that the law against blood-eating founded upon a free grant or promise of benefits, which stands firm while the sun and moon endure. None of these promises given in the charter to Noah have failed. The seasons regularly interchange ; mankind increase and multiply ; vegetable and animal food ate still provided ; the bow is still seen in the cloud ; nor has the earth been again deluged with water, although the imagination of man’s heart be evil continually. Nor has God failed to require the blood of our lives at the hand of the shedder ; at the hand of every beast,
Page 274 (Paragraph continued)
Exod. xxi. 28 ; at the hand of every man, Deut. xix. 11. 12. In all ages, the blood of the slayers is the ransom of the life or blood of the slain. Thus, the promise has been literally fulfilled. It is also mystically accomplished, in all the sacrifices of divine appointment. While the law stood, the blood of beasts must make atonement for our souls ; at the hand of every sacrificial beast he required it ; till he, who is “every man’s brother” appeared, even Jesus Christ, at whose hands the full ransom of our souls has been required. By him, too, the first shedder of man’s blood, even the devil, the murderer from the beginning, has had his blood shed. This author of murder shall be destroyed out of the kingdom of God, by the power of the cross of Christ, who came to destroy him that had the power of death, even the devil. Thus all the grace, and all the promises conveyed by this charter, stand for ever ; who, then, shall reverse the law of gratitude founded upon them?
I have already observed, that sacrificial blood was forbidden to men, because it is the atonement. This law ceased of itself with the Mosaic dispensation, for a very obvious reason, as the blood of beasts then ceased to be the atonement. So far, then, as this law respected the blood of beasts, it must have ceased with the reason on which it was founded. The blood of beasts now is wholly common ; and is to be abstained from only because it is the life. Yet it must be carefully observed here, that we must still our atonement by the blood of Jesus ; and the law prohibiting sacrificial blood, so far as it respects that of Jesus, is still in force. Blood is still the atonement, and therefore must be abstained from still.
This assertion may seem liable to objection, since Jesus our atonement says expressly, “ Except ye
Page 275 (Paragraph continued)
eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” Here he enjoins the drinking of his blood, as essentially necessary to our eternal life. Is not this a reversal of the law prohibiting the use of the atoning blood? - This objection merits particular attention.
To have just ideas of this matter, it is necessary to observe, that in the constitution of grace, revealed at the introduction of sin, two kinds of blood were appointed as symbols of the blood of Jesus ; namely, the blood of the sacrificial animals, as of bulls and goats, and the blood of the grape. Yet, though both these were types of the same thing at the bottom, a little closet attention will convince us that they did not prefigure the blood of our sacrifice in the same respect. The former was a figure of that blood which Jesus shed on Calvary to make atonement for sin ; the blood or life which he received from old Adam, even animal blood, or what we may call the blood of his mortality. This is a blood which he had in common with his brethren of mankind ; a life which he could lay down or lose for our sakes. Of this blood, that of the sacrificial animals was a just figure ; as 1st, it was shed for remission of sin ; 2ndly, Shed by the priest ; 3rdly, Atonement was made by it ; 4thly, It was poured at the bottom of the altar, as Christ’s at the foot of the cross ; and, finally, was not to be eaten as if it had been a common thing. From this last circumstance, it is easy to see, that if it be lawful for us now to drink the blood of Jesus, then the sacrificial blood under the law was not a type of the blood of Jesus at all, as it was expressly forbid to be eaten. Nor is there any way of getting rid of this difficulty, but by observing, that we are no where commanded to drink the animal blood of
Page 276 (Paragraph continued)
Jesus at all. The law of God has prohibited the drinking of any animal blood whatever, and to drink the blood of Jesus literally, or that blood which run in his animal veins, were it possible, would be as unlawful and hurtful as to drink the blood of any other animal. We have no occasion for his mortal life ; we have it already. He partook of our flesh and blood, that we might partake with him in a far higher species of life ; that we might imbibe the life of immortality.
We may then let them keep the animal blood of our sacrifice, who have it already. The Jews said, “Let his blood be upon us and our children;” and it is on them, according to their wish. The Papists drink it in the cup of the mass, and drink judgement to themselves, by trespassing against the express commandment of the Holy Ghost, prohibiting of our sacrifice, no man can nor dare drink it, but he shall be cut off from among the people of God.
But the case was, and still is, very different with respect to the blood of the grape. That it was a symbol of the blood of Jesus, is clear from John, xv. 1. “I am the true vine,” or the truth, of which the vine in its blood was a shadow. It is so still ; as is evident from its use in the supper of our Lord ; wherein the wine in the cup is called symbolically, The New Testament in his blood, or the blood of the New Testament. The blood of the grape, however, is not a figure of the mortal life or animal blood of Christ, but of the resurrection-life, or of that life he was possessed of when quicken by the Spirit, after he had been put to death in the flesh. This is a blood or life of immorality, altogether different from the life he derived from old Adam, as it is not
Page 277 (Paragraph continued)
subject to mortality, communicating immortality even to his very body. Now he dieth no more ; death hath no more domination over him.
This is the blood of Jesus, which we drink in the scared cup of the Supper ; for it is the blood or cup which he said (Matth. xxvi. 29.) He would “drink new with his disciples in his Father’s kingdom.” That the blood of the vine was a symbol of it, or the vehicle for conveying it, he intimated at the same time, when he calls the life or happiness he now enjoys at the Father’s righthand the fruit of the “vine.” The cup, expressive of his resurrection-life and joy, was not filled with the blood of bulls or goats, but with the blood of the grape.
This blood of the grape has honours superior to those of the blood of animals. It was given to man even in paradise itself, before sin entered, where it stood as a type of the free of eternal life, in the midst of the paradise of God. This honour it had before sacrificial blood was a type at all. It was also drunk in all the drink-offerings of believers, and will continue to be so till Jesus come the second time ; whereas the sacrificial blood was never allowed to be drunk at all, because it was the symbol of the mortal life, which had the curse of the law upon it ; of which curse the new man, the believer, shall never take.
The propriety of appointing the blood of the grape, as the very symbol of the resurrection-life of Jesus, is very striking. Unlike the blood of animals, of all fluids the most subject to putrescency, the blood of the grape is capable of being long preserved from corruption, and is the best antidote to putridity in all the vegetable kingdom. Besides, it conveys life, spirit, vigour, joy, and exhilara-
Page 278 (paragraph continued)
tion to man, or, in the scared language, “wine cheers the heart of man,” yea, of God himself, Judges, ix. 13. being used in drink-offerings of God ; whereas, every creature fed by animal blood is gloomy, malignant, and joyless. How fine a figure, then, is the blood of the grape of the blood of Christ, as raised from the dead to incorruption, light, vigour, joy, and immortality.
Of this blood we drink literally in the sacred service of the Lord’s Supper. There we really drink the blood of the grape with our mouth, and our faith no less really drinks or imbibes the resurrection-life, joy strength, and immortality of the Son of God, through its instituted symbol and vehicle of conveyance. This is the wine we drink new with him in his Father’s kingdom. He who drinketh not this blood of the Son of God has no life in him.
This blood of the grape has been used in the same manner, in the sacred services of the church of God, in all ages. It was used in the drink-offerings of the law; and that always after the atonement had been made, by the sacrifice of the burnt-offering or sin-offering ; and it is used in the cup of the gospel, after the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, in commemoration of that great event. The drink-offerings of the old were always a right to life, obtained by the atonement previously made ; and do we not still drink the cup of the New Testament in the faith of the remission of our sins, and of our title to life eternal, through the atonement in our the sacrifice of Jesus ? This is truly the cup of blessing ; it is to believers the communion of the blood of Christ ! This is the blood of which Christians partake by divine authority ; while they
Page 279 (paragraph continued)
leave the blood of beasts, and the “worshippers of the beast ;” that beast who has totally changed the law of God concerning blood, commanding Christians to eat the blood of beasts, which God prohibited ; and forbidding them the cup of the blood of the New testament, of which Christ said to his disciples, “Drink ye all of it.”
END OF VOLUME V.
J. Pillans & Sons, Printers, Edinburgh