may mean the meffengers who were fent from the wilderness to spy out the land of Canaan, as the author of the fcripture meaning of the word Satan has ingeniously conjectured, or it may refer to his hiftory of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, who, for their rebellion againft Mofes, were deftroyed by the earth opening and fwallowing them up. Indeed, the common interpretation of these paffages is not agreeable to the conftant tenor of the fcriptures, in which no more than one devil, or Satan, is ever mentioned.

When the devil is faid " to go about like

a roaring lion, seeking whom he may de“vour,” 1 Pet. v. 8. the best interpreters fuppofe that Nero, or fome other known. adverfary, or accufer, is intended. Alfo, when St. Paul fays, that "he defired to do" a certain thing" again and again, but that fatan "hindered him," I Theff. ii. 10. he might mean any human adverfary, or fome of his friends, influenced by worldly confidera

tions.

These are only a few general hints upon the fubject, nor do I know that any of them

are

are peculiar to myself; but they appear to me to throw confiderable light upon the fubject, and to remove fome difficulties from the scheme of revelation, which, I hope, will recommend them to others as well as to myself,

SECTION II.

Of abftinence from blood.

HE queftion concerning the lawful

THE

nefs of eating blood, ought to have been confidered under the head of precepts that are not of a moral nature; but, as it is a fubject of much lefs importance than the reft, and of a more doubtful nature, I have thought proper to reserve the difcuffion of it to this Appendix, in which I shall endeavour to do juftice to the arguments on both fides.

The prohibition to eat blood, given to Noah, feems to be obligatory on all his

pofterity; and as it accompanied the firft exprefs grant of animal food, it seems to be referved, by way of acknowledgment to God, as the giver of life, and of the food which fupports it. Also this respect paid

to blood, which is fhed when animals are killed for food, and which is the moft apparent vehicle of life, may be intended to inculcate a respect for life, as the most valuable gift of God, and to warn us not to deprive any animal of it, and much less man, without neceffity.

It is obfervable, that the awful denunciation of the judgment of God against murder, immediately follows the prohibition to eat blood, as if it had been understood that they had fome connection. Gen. ix. 3. Every "moving thing that liveth fhall be meat "for you; even as the green herb have I

66

given you all things: but flesh with the "life thereof, which is the blood thereof, "fhall you not eat. And furely your blood "of your lives will I require: at the hand "of every beaft will I require it, and at the “hand of man, at the hand of every man's/ "brother

brother will I require the life of man. "Whofo fheddeth man's blood, by man "fhall his blood be fhed; for in the image " of God made he man.

It may likewise be added, as an additional argument for abftaining from blood, that it is far from being a wholefome aliment, efpecially in hot countries, promoting leprous and fcorbutic diforders*

Some have argued, that the precept given to Noah was only intended to prohibit the eating of the flesh of animals raw, or cut off without killing the animal; but the antient Jews understood it differently; and when Mofes repeats the injunction to the Jews in particular (where it cannot but be acknowledged, that he intended to exprefs a prohibition of the ufe of blood itfelf) he gives

What Dr. Lardner fays upon this fubject is pretty remarkable. "Blood appears to me to be very unwholefome. In"deed, I esteem it filthy, and highly difagreeable. So that I "cannot bear the thought of eating it. If it ever comes to me "in food, it is more than I know. And I fuppofe it is never brought, either alone, or mixed with other things, to the "tables of polite people." Remarks on Ward's Diflertation, P. 132.

precifely

precifely the fame reason for it as in this cafe. Lev. xvii. 14. "Ye fhall eat the "blood of no manner of flesh: for the life "of all flesh is the blood thereof." It is most probable, therefore, that the two commands differ only in terms, and that they have both the very fame meaning.

It might have been imagined that, by christianity, the Gentiles, at least, had been exempted from the obfervance of this precept; but among other things, which were before held innocent or indifferent by them, but which were proper to be obferved after their converfion to chriftianity, the apoftles expreffly included this, when they were folemnly affembled in council, in order to write to the disciples at Antioch, who had applied to them about their obligation to obferve the laws of Mofes. And though it is not exprefly faid, that they were particularly directed by God to decide in this manner, yet it seems to be implied, when they fay, that it feemed good to the Holy Ghoft, sa well as to themselves, Acts xv. 28. "It "feemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to

• us,