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

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 convert, 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.

"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 be at the same time necessary and indifferent.

the unlawfulness of eating blood.

to the law of Moses, though they were exempted from that law?

"Again it is urged, that this decree could only oblige those to whom it was directed, i. c. 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 a 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.

"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 Mahometans 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?

66 Again: An objection is raised against this doctrine from "Fornication did not appear to the heathen world, to be the conclusion of the decree, ye do well: insinuating, that contrary to the law of nature; (nor do the libertines of the though they should do well to observe it, yet they did no illage see it to be so to this day), and as they had no restraints in not observing it. 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 xvi. 4, 5. And as they (i. c. 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.

"But it is objected, that if the points contained in this decree are not parts 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 were 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 oceasion to let the Gentiles know, that they were obliged to the observance of such duties as were obligatory antecedently

"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

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

the unlawfulness of cating blood.

more friendly communication with the Jews, and so facili-every thing that is lawful to be done, is not always expeditating their admission into the Christian church, but they ent; though the liberty you took of eating in the idol terwere likewise established in the faith. Does this expression ple were lawful; yet, if it give offence, you ought not to mean nothing! Might we not conclude from it, with some appearance of reason, that the Christian religion had been defective without this establishment?

take it.

"In the same manner should that general expression of our Saviour's be interpreted, Not that which goeth into the "But there are yet two other main fundamental objections|| mouth defileth the man, but that which cometh out of the against this doctrine, taken from the declarations of our mouth, that defileth the man. Does any man imagine, that 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, 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 Jeru

salem.

"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.

our Saviour meant to give full licence 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 forbad 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 hath shewn 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, 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 shewing 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 de|| file the man--but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man.

“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 | temples, 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 he mean by them? I answer, that the reason and occasion of them must determine that question; and do 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

I

"I come now 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

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

the unlawfulness of eating blood.

which hath nothing to do with the distinction of creatures, whole church of God for the first 300 years after Christ; clean and unclean, taken away at that time?

"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 Surov, 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!

"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.

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, contemn 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 æra? 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?

"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

"A command, in its nature negative and absolute, as that Christian world of the best ages! and the whole eastern 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 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 Mahometans) by the

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 over-ran the West, together with the Goths and Vandals: a practice, introduced 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.

"But though all this be demonstrably true, yet am I suf ficiently 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 attempt. ing it; that I have been feeding the raillery of libertines, and the scoffs of infidels; that even duliness 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 vir.

Paul associates with himself

CHAP. XVI.

Timothy, a young convert.

tue and excellence in life! must, in that very character, be || occasion. I write from the dictates of a good conscience; it the sworn enemy of every part of religion! of that religion is theirs to see if they reproach not from the influence of an by which every virtue lives, and is esteemed in the world. evil: I write from the clearest conviction; let them beware Who is so ignorant as not to know that this meanest deno- that they rail not from corruption. This I will say without mination of men subsists upon earth, like the meanest species scruple, I reason from the light of an humble, an honest, of insects by teazing and tainting to the utmost of their and a diligent enquiry; and, if they ridicule, they ridicule malignant might, and then feeding where they have infected: from the depth of a lazy and a conceited ignorance. How but, God be praised, their impotence affects nothing but in- far that ignorance will acquit them at the great day of acfirmity; and the slightest fence is security against them. count God only knows." DELANEY'S Revelation Examined Some difference, I hope, will be allowed between us on this with Candor. Vol. II. p. 18, &c.

CHAPTER XVI.

Paul coming to Derbe and Lystra, meets with Timothy, the son of a Jewess by a Greek father, whom he circumcises, and takes with him, into his work, 1—3. As they pass through the different cities, they deliver the apostles' decrees to the churches; and they are established in the faith, and daily increase in numbers, 4-5. They travel through Phrygia, Galatia, Mysia and to Troas, 6—8, Where Paul has a vision, relative to his preaching in Macedonia, 9, 10. Leaving Troas, he sails to Samothracia and Neapolis, and comes to Philippi in Macedomia, 11, 12. Lydia, a seller of purple, receives the apostles' teaching; and she and her family are baptized, 13–15. A young woman, with a spirit of divination, dispossessed by St. Paul, 16-18. Her masters finding their gain by her soothsaying gone, make an attack upon Paul and Silas, drag them before the magistrates, who command them to be beaten, thrust into the closest prison, and their feet made fast in the stocks, 19-24. Paul and Silas singing praises at midnight, the prison doors are miraculously opened, and all the bonds of the prisoners loosed, 25, 26. The keeper being alarmed, supposing that the prisoners were fled, is about to kill himself, but is prevented by Paul, 27, 28. He enquires the way of salvation, believes, and he and his whole family are baptized, 29-34. The next morning the magistrates order the apostles to be dismissed, 35, 36. Paul pleads his privilege as a Roman, and accuses the magistrates of injustice, who, being alarmed, come themselves to the prison, deliver them, and beg them to depart from the city, 37-39. They leave the prison, enter into the house of Lydia, comfort the brethren, and depart, 40.

Verse 1. A certain disciple] Bishop Pearce would read the latter part of this verse, and the beginning of the next thus-a certain disciple named Timotheus, (the son of a certain Jewish woman that believed, but of a father who was a Greek) who was well reported of by the brethren, &c.

This Timothy was the same person to whom St. Paul wrote those two noble epistles which are still extant. His mother's name was Eunice, as we learn from 2 Tim. i. 5. What his father's name was we know not; he was either a mere heathen, or, at most, only a proselyte of the gate, who never submitted to circumcision: had he submitted to this rite, he would, no

Verse 2. Which was well reported of] spoken of Timothy, and not of his father. At this time Timothy must have been very young; for, several years after, when appointed to superintend the church at Crete, he ap pears to have been then so young, that there was a danger of its operating to the prejudice of his ministry; 1 Tim. iv. 12. Let no man despise thy youth. He had a very early religious education from his godly mother Eunice, and his not less

Paul and Timothy deliver the apostolic THE ACTS.

3 Him would Paul have to go forth 5 And so so were the churches esAn. Olymp. with him; and took and circum- tablished in the faith, and increased An. Olymp. circum-tablished cir.CCVIII.1. cised him because of the Jews which in number daily.