the life of the Blood is Mr. Hunter, and the mere adoption of the opinion by Mr. Hunter would entitle it to the utmost respect from me, who find the most ardent and independent love of truth, and the genuine stamp of profound genius, in every passage of his works. The freedom of the blood from putrefaction while circulating, and its inability to coagulate after death from arsenic, electricity and lightning, may, like its inability to coagulate when mixed with bile, be simply chemical phenomena, independent of vitality. But its inability to coagulate after death from anger or a blow on the stomach, which deprive the muscles likewise of their usual stiffness; its accelerated coagulation by means of heat; perhaps its diminished coagulation by the admixture of opium; its earlier putridity when drawn from old than from young persons; its freezing like eggs, frogs, snails, &c. more readily when once previously frozen; (which may be supposed to have exhausted its powers;) its directly becoming the solid organized substance of our bodies, while the food requires various intermediate changes before it is capable of affording nutriment; the organization (probably to a great degree independent of the neighbouring parts) of lymph effused from the blood; and finally the formation of the genital fluids, one at least of which must be allowed by all to be alive, from the blood itself, do appear to me very strong arguments in favour of the life of the blood."* But whatever may be thought of the physiological dispute, the obligation remains inviolate; for if we suppose that when Moses says, (Levit. xvii. 11, 14,) "The life of the flesh is in the blood:"-" it is the life of all flesh;" he only meant that "when the blood is withdrawn, life ceases, Blumenbach's Institutions of Physiology, translated by Dr. Elliotson. Sect. 6, Notes, pp. 43, 44.—Dr. Hunter's arguments may be found in an abridged form in Dr. A. Clarke's Commentary on Levit. xvii. 11, and Encyc. Perth. art. Blood. -that it is necessary to the life of animals," it still remains a duty to pour the blood upon the earth as the significant symbol of absolute dependance upon God for life and every blessing; blood being "the most important fluid of the animal machine,-a fluid, which excites the heart to contraction, which distributes oxygen to every part, and conveys the carbon to the excretory vessels, giving rise, by this change, to animal heat: which originally supplies the materials of the solids, and afterwards their nourishment: from which all the fluids with the exception of the crude [or chyle] are secreted and derived."* 3. A third reason which may be adduced for the prohibition of blood, is, that it served to check cruel and savage customs, and prevent the unrestrained indulgence of barbarous and ferocious inclinations.-The Jewish Rabbins assert that the prohibitory injunctions relating to blood were originally designed to suppress a practice, which, they say, obtained even in the time of Noah, of eating raw flesh, and especially of eating the flesh of living animals cut or torn from them and devoured whilst reeking with the warm blood.+-Plutarch, in his Discourse of eating flesh, informs us, that it was customary in his time, to run red-hot spits through the bodies of live swine; and to stamp upon the udders of sows ready to farrow, to make their flesh more delicious; and Herodotus (l. iv.) assures us, that the Scythians, from drinking the blood of their cattle, proceeded to drink the blood of their enemies. It is even affirmed that both in Ireland, and the Islands and Highlands of Scotland, the drinking of the blood of live cattle is still continued or has but recently been relinquished. Patrick Delaney says, "There is a practice sufficiently known to obtain among the poor of the kingdom of Ireland. It is customary with them to bleed their cattle for food in * Ibid. Sect. 2. p. 8. See the following Translation. Dr. years of scarcity:"* and the Analytical Reviewers observe, "It will scarcely appear credible at a future time, that at this day, towards the close of the eighteenth century, in the Islands, and some parts of the Highlands, [of Scotland,] the natives every spring or summer attack the bullocks with lances, that they may eat their blood, but prepared by fire.” † The celebrated traveller, Bruce, relates with minuteness the scene which he witnessed near Axum, the ancient capital of Abyssinia, when the Abys sinian travellers whom he overtook, seized the cow they were driving, threw it down, and cutting steaks from it, ate them raw, and then drove on the poor sufferer before them.-Sir John Carr states, that "the natives of the sandy desart [between Memel and Koningsberg] eat live eels dipped in salt, which they devour as they writhe with anguish round their hands:"§ Major Denham also say, that "an old hadgi, named El Raschid, a native of Medina," who at different periods of his life "had been at Waday and at Sennaar, described to him a people, east of Waday, whose greatest luxury was feeding on raw meats cut from the animal while warm and full of blood."|| And it is a well-known fact, that the savage natives of New Zealand continue to quaff the blood of their enemies when • The Doctrine of Abstinence from Blood defended. p. 124, note. London 1734. See also Revelation examined with Candour, vol. ii. p. 20. London 1732, 8vo. † Analytical Review, vol. xxviii. July 1798.-Retrospect of the Active World, p. 105. Bruce's Travels, vol. iii. pp. 332-334. 8vo. See also some learned remarks by him on the present subject, vol. iv. pp. 477–481, in which he designates Maimonides as "one of the most learned and sensible men that ever wrote upon the Scriptures :" and an able defence of the statement of our author in Murray's Life of Bruce, p. 74, note. § Carr's Northern Summer or Travels round the Baltic in the year 1804, p. 436, London, 1805. Denham and Clapperton's Travels and Discoveries in Northern and Central Africa, vol. ii, p. 36, note. London, second edition, 1826, 8vo. taken in battle. To prevent such cruel and revolting practices, the Divine Being enjoined, that animals destined for food should be killed with the greatest possible despatch, their blood be poured on the ground, and the eating of blood religiously avoided; and still more deservedly prohibits such sanguinary food, from its baneful influence upon the dispositions of those whose vitiated appetites or brutal superstitions led them to indulge in gross and bloody repasts. For, as has been remarked, "all animals that feed upon blood, are observed to be much more furious than others; "-and Byron (Voyage, p. 77.) tells us, that the men by eating what they found raw, became little better than cannibals.+"Drinking of blood," says Michaelis, "is certainly not a becoming ceremony in religious worship. It is not a very refined custom, and if often repeated, it might probably habituate a people to cruelty, and make them unfeeling with regard to blood; and certainly religion should not give, nor even have the appearance of giving, any such direction to the manners of a nation."-We therefore add, in the words of Dr. Delaney,§—“ If God had not foreseen these cruelties, corruptions, and inconveniencies, should we justly deem him infinitely wise? And if foreseeing them, he had not yet prohibited them in their cause, (which was at once the wisest and most effectual prohibition,) could we justly deem Him infinitely good and gracious to his creatures? When therefore we find Him, infinitely wise in foreseeing, and infinitely good in forbidding, such abominable practices, do we hesitate to conclude such prohibitions to be the effects of infinite wisdom and goodness; or consistent with Delaney's Revelation examined with Candour, vol. ii. p. 21. + Fergus's Short Account of the Laws and Institutions of Moses, p. 99, note. Dunfermline, 1810, 8vo.-See also Marshami Chronicon, sec. ix, p. 185. Lipsiæ, 1676, 4to. Michaelis's Commentaries on the Laws of Moses; vol. iii, p. 252. any degree of wisdom and goodness in ourselves, to despise such commands, or to live in open avowed contempt of them ?” II-PHYSICAL. BESIDES the Moral reasons already adduced for the prohibition of Blood, there are also others of a Physical nature relating to the health of the community, deserving of attention. For, 1. The Blood being highly alkalescent, especially in hot climates, is subject to speedy putrefaction; and consequently that flesh will be most wholesome and best answer the purposes of life and health, from which the blood has been drained; and will preserve its suitableness for food the longest. 2. Blood affords a very gross nutriment, and is very difficult of digestion; and in some cases it is actually dangerous to drink it; for if taken warm, and in large quantities, it may prove fatal, particularly bull's blood, which was given, with this view, to criminals, by the Greeks, "its extreme viscidity rendering it totally indigestible by the powers of the human stomach."-Valerius Maximus (lib. v, c. 6,) ascribes the death of Themistocles to his having purposely drunk a bowl of ox-blood, during a sacrifice, in order to avoid subjecting his country, Greece, to the king of Persia. It is true, the blood of animals does not always produce similar effects, but this may be owing rather to the smallness of the quantity taken, than to its not being injurious in its nature; or its malignity may be partially counteracted by the other dietetic substances with which it may be eaten.* 3. Those nations which feed largely upon flesh, are observed to be remarkably subject to scorbutic diseases; Dr. A. Clarke's Commentary on Levit. xvii. 11.—Michaelis's Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. iii, article 206, p. 252.-Revelation examined with Candour, vol. ii, p. 23.-Encyc. Perth., article Blood. |