tion troublesome, whilst it was easy to decline from it on account of the universal example of the Gentiles. For if they considered within themselves that it contributed not to holiness that they should not touch blood, hence a snare to indulgence might easily have arisen.

LEV. XVII. 10. And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel. God here not only condemns to death whosoever shall have polluted themselves by eating of blood, but declares that He will Himself take vengeance on them, though they may escape from the hands of the judges; for He not only prescribes to the judges what it is right for them to do, but asserts for Himself the office of inflicting the punishment. Nor, if we consider the intention of the Law, is there anything to surprise us in this; for although it be not consistent that the blood of a brute should be compensated for by the death of a man, still we must remember that this mode of instruction' was necessary for a rude people, lest they should speedily lapse into barbarism. But, lest they should complain that no use remained for the blood, He reminds them that since it was given for atonement, they would be very ungrateful if they were not content with so great a blessing; and surely, since it was the price they were to pay for appeasing God, this was an employment of it far to be preferred to food. If, then, they desired to exchange into ordinary food the blood, which was destined to the altar for the reconciliation of God, Moses indirectly reproves their ingratitude; for when God took away the right of eating it, He left them something better, which should have abundantly satisfied them. But we have elsewhere seen in what manner blood atones for souls, i.e., in a sacramental manner, upon which it must be observed that what properly belongs to Christ is thus transferred by metonomy to figures and symbols, yet in such a way that the similitude should neither be empty nor inefficacious; for in so far as the fathers apprehended Christ in the external sacrifices, atonement was truly exhibited in them. In this passage also, I do not understand the strangers" to be all such visitors as may 1 "Hanc pædagogiam.”—Lat. "Ceste doctrine puerile."-Fr. 2 See on Exod. xii. 21, ante vol. i. p. 221.

have journeyed amongst them on matters of business, but those who had devoted themselves to the worship of God; for many foreigners, abandoning their superstitions, were circumcised, and it behoved that such as these should be expressly laid under the bonds of the Law, lest, if it had not referred to them, they should have withdrawn themselves from obeying it. This point must, therefore, be briefly adverted to, lest we should suppose that heathen sojourners were prohibited from the eating of blood, whereas they were allowed to buy for food1 even flesh that had been torn by beasts.

Since, however, the Patriarchs before the Law had abstained from blood, and its prohibition had no reference to the First Table or the legal service, hence it came to pass that when the Apostles abrogated the ceremonial law, they did not dare to allow immediately the free eating of blood, lest great scandal should arise from this new and unwonted. thing. (Acts xv. 20.) Wherefore, lest so trifling a matter should cause deadly schisms in the Churches, they commanded the Gentiles not to eat of blood; adding as the reason, that those who were accustomed to read the writings of Moses, would be disturbed at this innovation; yet this was only observed for a short period, as we gather from Paul. It was, not without superstition and misplaced zeal, retained by some even to the days of Tertullian.

1 See on Deut. xiv. 21, ante vol. ii. p. 69.

2 There is no reference here in the Latin, but the Fr. is, "comme il se peut recueillir par ce que Sainct Paul en escrit aux Corinthiens;" as may be gathered from what St. Paul writes respecting it to the Corinthians. In C's Commentary on the Acts, xv. 28, he says, "We know that this law was foredone by Paul, so soon as the tumult and contention was once ended, when he teacheth that nothing is unclean, (Rom. xiv. 14,) and when he granteth liberty to eat all manner of meats, yea, even such as were sacrificed to idols. (1 Cor. x. 25.)"-C. Society's edit., vol. ii. p. 79. Tertullian, Apol., cap. 9, speaks as follows; "Erubescat error vester Christianis, qui ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis esculentas habemus, qui propterea quoque suffocatis et morticinis abstinemus, ne quo modo sanguine contaminemur, vel intra viscera sepulto." See Bingham, book xvii. ch. v. sec. xx. "But on the other hand, because it was the custom of the Catholic Church, almost to the time of St. Austin, to abstain from eating of blood, in compliance with the rule given by the Apostles to the Gentile converts; therefore, by the most ancient laws of the Church, all clergymen were obliged to abstain from it under pain of degradation. This is evident from the Apostolical Canons, and those of

The Political Supplements of the Sixth Commandment.

LEVITICUS, CHAPTER XXIV.

Gangra, and the second Council of Orleans, and the Council of Trullo. But as this was looked upon by some only as a temporary injunction, so it appears from St. Austin that it was of no force in the African Church. (Contra Faust., lib. xxxii. c. xiii.) He that would see more about it may consult Curcellæus, who has written a large dissertation upon the subject."

LEV. XXIV. 17. And he that killeth any man.

proceed to the confirmation of the Sixth Commandment afforded by the Judicial Law; and first, the punishment of death is awarded to murderers. To "smite the life" is equivalent to wounding mortally, so that death ensues, as Moses more clearly explains himself in Exodus. But although he speaks briefly, like a legislator, there is no doubt but that he would have those whom he adjudges to die put to death by the sentence of the judges; the manner of executing the punishment we shall see in its proper place. Now although God did not carry out to absolute perfection the laws which He enacted, yet in their principle He desired that a clear and unreserved approval of His Commandments should appear. And this was the reason why I commenced with this passage, because it directly corresponds with the Sixth Commandment.2

19. And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour. He now also subjects to punishment those who shall have mutilated the body of their neighbour by blows; and this was necessary, because otherwise every very great villain, who might be accomplished in the art of inflicting injury, would have broken his brother's leg or arm, and then would not only have laughed at the poor man himself, but also at God and His Law. If, therefore, a person had injured a member of another, the law of retaliation is enacted, which has also been in use among other nations. But God thus

1 See margin of A. V.

3

2 Lat., "quia præcepto respondet quasi ¿vrísgopos.”

"This is the earliest account we have of the Lex Talionis, or law of like for like, which afterwards prevailed among the Greeks and Romans. Among the latter it constituted a part of the Twelve Tables, so famous in antiquity; but the punishment was afterwards changed to a pecuniary fine, to be levied at the discretion of the Prætor. It prevails less or more in most civilized countries, and is fully acted upon in the Canon Law in reference to all calumniators: "Calumniator, si in accusatione defecerit, talionem recipiat." Nothing, however, of this kind was left to private revenge; the magistrate awarded the punishment when the fact was proved. Otherwise the Lex Talionis would have utterly destroyed the peace of society, and have sowed the seeds of hatred, revenge, and all uncharitableness."-Adam Clarke on Exod. xxi. 24.

The enactment of the Twelve Tables to this effect appears from Festus to have been the following: "Si membrum rupsit, (ruperit,) ni cum eo pacit, (paciscetur,) talio est ;" presenting a singular coincidence with the Mosaic provision. See Aul. Gell., lib. xx. c. 1, where the words are given somewhat differently, as in C.'s text. The objection of Favorinus is that