us, to lay upon you no greater burden “than these neceffary things; that ye ab"stain from meats offered to idols, and "from blood, and from things ftrangled, "and from fornication: from which, if ye 'keep yourselves, ye fhall do well.”

It is faid by fome, and efpecially Dr. Lardner, that this was only a temporary provision, defigned to prevent giving offence to the Jews; but, in anfwer to this, it may be faid, that there is no intimation, or hint, of its being temporary, or any mention made of a time when the prohibition was to cease; and the apostle John wrote after the deftruction of Jerufalem, when it cannot be pretended, that there was any neceffity for obferving fo much tenderness with refpect to the Jews.

Moreover, it is not impoffible, but that our Lord himself might refer to this decree of the apoftles, and thereby give his fanction to it, when, in his message to the church at Thyatira, he fays, Rev. ii. 24. "I will put upon you none other burden.

But

"But that which ye have already, hold fast "till I come." No moral precept is ever properly called a burden in the fcriptures; and, therefore, they are probably fome obfervances of a ceremonial nature, that are referred to; and the very fame word, fa, burden, is made use of, both by the apoftles, and by our Lord on this occafion *.

It may feem extraordinary, that the prohibition of fornication fhould be joined to that of eating blood, in the fame decree; but it should be confidered, that fornication was not thought to be an immorality by the Gentiles; and even the Jews had not the fame ideas of chastity and purity in this refpect, which are enjoined upon chriftians.

It appears to me rather extraordinary, that Dr. Lardner fhould be of opinion, that our Lord refers to this apoftolical decree in the Revelation, which he fuppofes to have been written in the year 95 or 96, a long time after the deftruction of Jerufalem, and yet that it fhould have been intended to continue in force only till his religion had made greater progress in the world; as if that was the meaning of his coming: whereas, I do not think, that any thing elfe in the language of the New Teftament would lead us to conclude, that this phrafe was applicable to any other than fome determinate event, and especially the deftruction of Jerufalem, or the time of the final judgment. See Remarks on Ward's Differtations, p. 122.

Dr.

Dr. Lardner fuppofes that, by fornication in the apoftolical decree, we are to under ftand marriage with heathens, from which the apofle Paul fo earnestly diffuades the christians at Corinth.

Dr. Lardner alfo fuppofes, that, "the "decree is not to be understood as a pre"cept or commandment, but as advice "and counfel, concerning matters of pru"dence and expedience, confidering the "circumstances of things and perfons in "that time." Remarks on Ward's Differtations, page 141. But it cannot be denied, that it becomes all chriftians to yield to fuch advice and counfel, if it extend to them. And if, as he allows, it did extend to christians after the deftruction of Jerufalem, I do not fee that there is not equal reason why it should extend to us. And one of the reafons for abftaining from blood, which was hinted at when the prohibition was given to Noah, is of as much weight now as ever it was.

It

It has been urged as an argument against the perpetuity of the apoftolical decree in the Acts, that the apostle Paul never quotes, or alludes to it in his writings. But, admitting it to be temporary, no person will maintain that it was not defigned to extend beyond the time of his epiftles; and yet, though the unlawfulness of fornication be allowed to be perpetual, Paul did not avail himself of any argument drawn from that decree when he wrote on that fubject to the Corinthians, who, of all the Greeks, were most remarkably addicted to that vice.

If we interpret this prohibition of the apoftles by the practice of the primitive christians, who can hardly be fuppofed not to have rightly understood the nature and extent of it, we cannot but conclude, that it was intended to be abfolute and perpetual; for blood was not eaten by any chriftians for many centuries. When the christians were charged with meeting in the night, and drinking blood, by way of binding one another to fecrecy, in fome immoral prac

tices, Tertullian obferves with respect to it, that it was well known that no chriftian would eat blood at all; infomuch, that it was ufual with heathens, when they wanted to know whether any perfon was a chriftian, to fet blood-puddings before him as a very fufficient test.

Blood is not eaten by chriftians in any part of the Eaft, or by the Greeks, or Ruffians, who are of the Greek church, to this day; nor indeed was the ufe of blood introduced into this western part of the world till very late. When the Pomeranians were converted to christianity, which was in 1120, they were particularly enjoined to abstain from blood, as a badge of their profeffion. It was not allowed to be eaten in the Weft in the time of Bede, or a century afterwards; and blood was not eaten in any part of Switzerland till Calvin introduced the practice from fome other place. See Curcellæus on this fubject. Dr. Lardner, however, fays, that little regard was paid to these regulations of the apoftolical decree by the Latin chriftians, from the

end