The only story of this kind which is not pretty easy to be explained by this hypothesis, is that in which a legion of demons is faid to have gone out of two men into a herd of fwine, Matt viii. 28. Mark v. 1. Luke viii. 26. But if the fwine only happened to be drowned about the fame time that the two men were cured, it might have been fufficient to give rife to the ftory; which, it is to be observed, is not related by any perfon who was prefent at the transaction; Matthew not being called to follow Chrift till after his return from this excurfion beyond the fea of Galilee; fo that there was fufficient room for exaggeration and mistake. Or, which I think moft probable, the madness of these men might be transferred to the swine. Much mistake, with respect to this fubject, feems to have been occafioned by the ambiguity in the meaning of the words fatan, angel*, and devil, which fignify respectively, adverfary, messenger, and accufer. Thus the angels that finned, 2 Peter ii. 4. and Jude 6. may mean the messengers who were fent from the wilderness to spy out the land of Canaan, as the author of the scripture meaning of the word Satan has ingeniously conjectured, or it may refer to his hif It is not unufual with the facred writers to call even the unconscious instruments of God's pleasure, such as natural causes, &c. angels, Pf. civ. 4. "Who maketh the wind his angels, and "flaming fire his minifters." For so it may with most propriety be rendered. tory, tory of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, who, for their rebellion against Mofes, were destroyed by the earth opening and swallowing them up. Indeed, the common interpretation of these paffages is not ágreeable to the constant tenor of the scriptures, in which no more than one devil, or Satan, is ever mentioned. When the devil is faid "to go about like a roar❝ing lion, feeking whom he may devour," Pet. v. 8. the best interpreters fuppofe that Nero, or fome other known adverfary, or accufer, is intended. Also, when St. Paul fays, that “he desired "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 confiderations. These are only a few general hints upon the subject, nor do I know that any of them are peculiar to myself; but they appear to me to throw confiderable light upon the fubject, and to remove fome difficulties from the fcheme of revelation, which, I hope, will recommend them to others as well as to myself. SEC. THE SECTION II. Of abftinence from blood. HE queftion concerning the lawfulness 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 less impor tance than the rest, 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 posterity; and as it accompanied the firft express 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 shed when animals are killed for food, and which is the most 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 lefs man, without neneffity. It is obfervable, that the awful denunciation of the judgment of God against murder, immediately follows 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 given you all things; but flesh with the "life thereof, which is the blood thereof, fhall you 66 not eat. And furely your blood of your lives "will I require: at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man, at the hand "of every man's brother will I require the life of Whofo fheddeth man's blood, by man "fhall his blood be fhed; for in the image of God "made he man." man. It may likewise be added, as an additional argument for abstaining from blood, that it is far from being a wholesome aliment, especially 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 dif * What Dr. Lardner says upon this fubject is pretty remarkable. "Blood appears to me to be very unwholesome. Indeed, I "efteem it filthy, and highly disagreeable. So that I cannot bear "the thought of eating it. If ever it comes to me in food, it is પ more than I know. And I fuppofe it is never brought, either "alone, or mixed with other things, to the table of polite people." Remarks on Ward's Differtation, p. 132. ferently; ferently; and when Mofes repeats the injunction to the Jews in particular (where it cannot but be acknowledged, that he intended to express a prohibition of the use of blood itself) he gives precisely 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 apostles exprefsly included this, when they were folemnly affembled in council, in order to write to the difciples at Antioch, who had applied to them about their obligation to obferve the laws of Mofes. And though it is not expressly 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, as well as to themfelves, Acts xv. 28. "It seemed good to the "Holy Ghoft, and to us, to lay upon you no "greater burden than these neceffary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from "blood, and from things strangled, and from for❝nication; |