6

6

disregard the evidence which had been produced. He acknowledged that the admission of the Gentiles into the blessings and honours of the Messiah's kingdom was in accordance with the purposes of God as declared by the prophets; and as it behoved them to be careful how they offered any obstruction to a great work which God had so visibly favoured, it did not seem to him expedient that they should impose upon them who from among the Gentiles had turned to God,' the obligations of the Mosaic covenant. It would, in his judgment, suffice to enjoin upon them nothing further than to abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.' All these were practices abominable to the Jews, and would oppose an insurmountable barrier to any social approximation between Jewish and Gentile Christians. We are not here to look for any summary of Christian duty and obligation. We hear not of the worship of one God in Christ, of self-denial, of crucifying the flesh with the affections and lusts; but, besides known sins, simply such practices are specified as would prevent the Jews from coalescing with the uncircumcised Gentiles so as to form one church with them. Thus, the proposals of one so highly respected by the Jews as James was, under the influence of that higher Spirit by which the apostolic councils were, according to their Lord's promise, animated, were at once accepted by the assembly, and embodied in a decree drawn up in its name, and addressed to the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia.' This remarkable and interesting document seems to bear the mark of James' own hand in the form of salutation, 'greeting' (xaípew), which occurs nowhere in the New Testament but here, and in the salutation of his own epistle. James i. 1.

Another important matter was also brought to a decision. In order that the converted heathen might have a practical proof of their right to have their sanctification recognised without coming under the ceremonial observances, Paul had taken with him to Jerusalem a Gentile convert named Titus who had never been circumcised. The step was crowned

with success; the Judaizing teachers at Jerusalem, by strongly insisting that Titus ought to be circumcised, brought the matter under the consideration of the apostles, and compelled them to some distinct decision on the matter. They declined to sanction such an imposition, and, evidently after due deliberation, freed Titus from all obligation to be circumcised.

The logical connection between the last clause of the Apos:le James' address (Acts xv. 21), and that which precedes, has occasioned some difficulty. The word 'for,' at the beginning of the clause, shows unquestionably that the fact here mentioned is given as a reason for what precedes-a reason why the Gentile converts should abstain from the things just forbidden. But what reason, it is asked, can there be in this statement: 'For Moses of old time (or from old times) hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day?' Is it meant that the Mosaic law was still binding, and that the Gentile converts were to observe at least such portion of it as is stated in the preceding verse? This is not the meaning of James. The real meaning seems to be this. The law of Moses was binding in sc far as it embodied the eternal law of God; and, besides, the law of charity and expediency was to govern the enlightened and liberal-minded Christian in all matters in themselves indifferent. He was to be careful to do nothing, to eat nothing, to drink nothing that would tend to give offence to a weak brother. The Gentiles had been educated in idolatrous practices, and in the impure rites by which they were generally accompanied. Some of them, though now believers in Christ, might, from training and habit, still be inclined to look lightly upon those rites, and perhaps even to join in the festivals that accompanied them. The apostles enjoined that they should altogether abstain from contact or connection with those practices, which the law of Moses, embodying as it did the eternal law of God, pronounced to be morally wrong. And, further, the eating of things strangled, and of blood, though in itself not morally wrong, yet as it was among the heathen connected with idolatrous and licentious feasts, and as it was an offence against Jewish feelings and ancient Jewish usage, was, for these reasons, to be avoided. The law of charity came in here. 'Living, as the Gentile converts would be, in the presence of Jewish Christians, who heard these Mosaic prohibitions read, as they had been from generations

past, in their synagogues, it would be well for them to avoid all such conduct and habits as would give unnecessary offence."

Forty-eighth Week—Fifth Day.

THE DECREE.—I COR. VIII., X. 14-33; 2 COR. VI. 14-18.

We have already indicated the object of the apostolic decree, and we may now give attention to its details.

In this decree or epistle, the 'pollutions of idols' are more explicitly indicated as 'meat offered to idols.' This is explained by the fact that the Gentiles, after the sacrifices were concluded, and a portion of the consecrated victim had been assigned to the priest, used to hold a sacrificial feast in honour of the god, either in the temple or in private houses, and then ate the residue of the flesh. Some, either from avarice or poverty, salted or laid up the remnant for future use, and some even gave it to the butchers to sell for them in the shambles.

This flesh, as having been offered to idols, was in every form most abhorrent to the Jews; and they considered not only those who were present at such feasts, but those who ate of the flesh which had been offered, even though bought in the market, as infected by the idolatrous contagion. We thus see the foundation of the prohibition advised by James, and adopted by the council. Indeed, apart from any regard to the scruples of the Jews, the reasons why Christians should be forbidden to take any part in the heathen sacrificial feasts were very obvious, seeing that a sacrifice was not merely a ceremony, but a federal rite, by which the sacrifice, and the being to whom it was offered, were (so to speak) closely united.

The extent in which this prohibition was to be understood, seems to have been left open to some question. Understood in the strictest sense, it would have imposed on every one the difficult task of ascertaining what meat offered for sale in the open market had, and what had not, been sacrificed to idols; 1 ALFORD, in loc.

for uncertainty on this point would have been distressing to many tender consciences. Indeed, we know that this very question was brought under the consideration of St. Paul, who was always careful to explain that religion consisted not in meats or drinks, and who above all things feared lest anything besides the finished work of Christ should be taken as a ground of justification before God. He therefore taught that, seeing an idol was a mere nonentity-'nothing in the world,' the meat or drink had not contracted any property from its consecration to an idolatrous purpose, and that, therefore, considered abstractly, no one was the worse for partaking of such meat or drink, or the better for abstaining. He therefore allowed the Corinthians, to whom his advice was directed, to eat freely whatever was sold in the shambles, without being careful to ascertain whether it had been offered to idols or not. In case, however, a weak brother' should call their attention to the circumstance that it had been so offered, then it became their duty, for his sake, to abstain from it; for, whatever might be the question as to the meat itself, there could be no question that they should avoid that which might be a stumblingblock to them that are weak;' or by which the conscience of the weak brother might, on the one hand, be wounded, or, on the other, emboldened to his peril. 'Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.' This, it will be seen, is the very principle on which the prohibition was originally issued the avoidance of grounds of offence between Jewish and Gentile Christians. The Corinthians seem, however, to have misapprehended and abused the liberty thus given. Having been told that an idol was nothing at all, and that the eating of meat offered to an idol was, therefore, in itself a matter of indifference, they chose to infer that all the circumstances which might be connected with such eating were also matter of indifference, and that they were consequently free to visit the heathen temples, which were often scenes of riot and debauchery, and to partake of the offerings, amid the praises which were sung to the heathen god. They knew that

the idol was nothing, and the praises nothing, but that the victuals were good things. This, however, was an actual participation in the idolatry going on; and such persons were of course regarded by the heathen as being themselves idolaters. Paul was, therefore, very careful to caution the Corinthians against idolatry, and to warn them that they could not be 'partakers of the Lord's table and the table of devils.' Whether an act is to be taken as religious or not, depends in some measure on the circumstances of its performance. If one eats a wafer in his own room and alone, it signifies nothing; but if he eats it before a Romish altar, he thereby declares himself a member of the Church of Rome.

The prohibition of blood in general, and the Jewish notions relating to it in particular, we have already had sufficient occasion to explain and illustrate. The reasons for the original prohibition of the use of blood were, that in the blood lay the 'life' of the animal; and that being, as such, consecrated to God on the altar, and typical of the most precious blood of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, it was to be kept apart from mean and common uses. The abstinence also served to keep up a distinction between the Jews and Gentiles; for the latter used the blood of animals freely. They ate it with the flesh, or carefully drew it from the part where the incision. was made, to convert it into nourishment, either by mingling it with flour and oatmeal, and so drinking it in a liquid state, or by mixing and dressing it with other food, as is done by us in black puddings-which, indeed, were in use among the ancients. Virtually the old prohibition had expired; for blood had ceased to be typically sacred, seeing that sacrificial worship was abolished, and Christ had died. Yet it was for the time revived by this decree; for so long as the Jewish Christians retained their notions as to their continued liability to the ritual law, so long would the use of blood by the Gentile Christians prevent the union of the two, and, indeed, render it impossible that they should eat together. The restriction, doubtless, ceased with this condition of affairs; and there is consequently no transgression in our own use of blood, whether in black pud