LatineEnglish
{Save that flesh with the blood you shall not eat. For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of all beasts, and at the hand of man, at the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man. Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for to the image of God was man made.}1
Excepto quod carnem cum sanguine non comedetis. Sanguinem enim animarum vestrarum requiram de manu cunctarum bestiarum, et de manu hominis, de manu viri, et de manu fratris eius requiram animam hominis. Quicumque effuderit humanum sanguinem, fundetur sanguis illius: ad imaginem quippe Dei factus est homo.
QUEMADMODUM in mundi exordio Deus potestatem Adamo fecit edendi fructus omnium arborum praeter arborem scientiae boni et mali: ita post diluvium concessit Noë esum carnium quorumlibet animalium, excepto sanguinis esu. Utrobique autem facta est prohibitio unius alicuius rei quae per se non erat mala, videlicet ad salutarem homini continentiae, humilitatis et obedientiae probationem. Excepto, inquit, quod carnem cum sanguine non comedetis. Quasi dicat: ita vobis esum omnium animalium permitto, ut eorum tamen sanguinem a vobis nolim comedi, sive intra ipsa animalia, sive extra et separatim. Quid autem sit carnem cum sanguine comedere, paulo infra dicetur enucleatius in disputatione quae super hoc tractanda est.
Just as at the beginning of the world God gave Adam the power of eating the fruits of all the trees except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so after the flood He granted Noah the eating of the flesh of any animals whatever, except the eating of blood. And in both cases there was made a prohibition of some one thing which of itself was not evil — namely, for a trial, salutary to man, of continence, humility, and obedience. “Save,” He says, “that flesh with the blood you shall not eat.” As if to say: I so permit you the eating of all animals, that nevertheless I will not have their blood eaten by you, whether within the animals themselves, or outside and separately. But what it is to eat flesh with the blood will be said a little below, more distinctly, in the disputation which is to be treated on this matter.2
STATIM igitur post diluvium animadvertere licet duo Dei praecepta homini data, et utrumque negativum: unum quidem de non edendo sanguine, alterum de non fundendo sanguine humano, sive de vitando homicidio, cum dixit: Sanguinem animarum vestrarum requiram de manu bestiarum et hominum: quicunque enim effuderit humanum sanguinem, fundetur sanguis illius. Sed prius quidem praeceptum positivum est et temporarium, aliquando videlicet abrogandum, nec apud omnes gentes vim habens; posterius autem praeceptum pars est legis naturalis, omnes ubique terrarum et quocunque tempore homines obligans, neque unquam abolendum. Nugantur more suo Hebraei, ut videre licet apud Rabinum Salomon in secundum caput Hieremiae, et in Seder Olam (quod est Chronicon Hebraeorum) capite quinto: Deum septem praecepta post diluvium dedisse hominibus, quae illi appellant praecepta filiorum Noë et praecepta naturae, quibus adstringi censent etiam Gentiles, hoc ordine digesta: Non colere idola; Benedicere Deum; Cavere ab incestu propinquorum omnique nefando concubitu; Non fundere sanguinem humanum; Non rapere aliena; Non tollere membrum de animali viventi.
Immediately after the flood, therefore, one may observe two precepts of God given to man, both negative: one indeed about not eating blood, the other about not shedding human blood, or about avoiding homicide, when He said: “I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of beasts and of men: for whosoever shall shed human blood, his blood shall be shed.” But the former precept is positive and temporary — to be abrogated at some time, and not having force among all nations; but the latter precept is part of the natural law, binding all men everywhere on earth and at whatever time, and never to be abolished. The Hebrews trifle in their manner, as may be seen in Rabbi Solomon on the second chapter of Jeremiah, and in the Seder Olam (which is the Chronicle of the Hebrews) chapter five: that God gave seven precepts to men after the flood, which they call the precepts of the sons of Noah and the precepts of nature, by which they judge even the Gentiles to be bound, arranged in this order: Not to worship idols; To bless God; To beware of incest with kindred and every nefarious intercourse; Not to shed human blood; Not to seize others' goods; Not to take a limb from a living animal.3
VERUM pro eo quod habet Latina versio, Carnem cum sanguine non comedetis, in Hebraeo est: Carnem in anima sua, in sanguine suo, non comedetis. Frequens est in sacris litteris, secundum proprietatem linguae Hebraicae, usus figurae quam nominant Appositionem; apponi[tur]…
But in place of what the Latin version has, “Flesh with the blood you shall not eat,” in the Hebrew it is: “Flesh in its soul [life], in its blood, you shall not eat.” Frequent in the sacred letters, according to the property of the Hebrew tongue, is the use of the figure which they call Apposition; for [a word] is set bes[ide]…4
…apponitur enim vox ad prioris vocis expositionem, ut hic illud, in sanguine suo, appositum est ad explicandum id quod dictum fuerat, in anima sua. Ut sit sensus: Non comedetis carnem cum sanguine qui est anima animalis, vel in quo est anima eius, sicut scriptum est in Levitico capite decimo septimo, Anima omnis carnis in sanguine est.
…for a word is set beside [another] for the explanation of the prior word, as here that phrase, “in its blood,” is set beside to explain what had been said, “in its soul.” So that the sense is: You shall not eat flesh with the blood which is the soul of the animal, or in which is its soul, as is written in Leviticus chapter seventeen, “The soul of all flesh is in the blood.”5
VOCABULUM porro Animae varie sumitur in sacris litteris, sed quatuor potissimum observare licet varias eius significationes: primam, pro ipso homine, ut ibi, Anima quae peccaverit, ipsa morietur; et cum ait scriptura septuaginta animas egressas de femore Iacob intrasse in Aegyptum: secundam, pro anima rationali, ut cum dixit Dominus, Nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus, animam autem non possunt occidere: tertiam, pro inferiore parte animae, id est, pro anima sentiente et facultatibus eius, ut cum iubemur diligere Deum ex toto corde, anima, et omnibus viribus nostris, et cum tria haec enumerantur in homine, corpus, anima et spiritus. Affinis huic est vocabuli animae usus pro voluntate, desiderio, libidine seu cupiditate, ut cum dicitur, Ne tradas eum in animam inimicorum eius, id est, in voluntatem eorum, ne permittas eum potestati inimicorum suorum, ut quaecumque adversus eum facere vellent pro sua libidine exequi et perficere possint. Postrema huius vocis significatio est pro vita. Hinc est illud, Animam suam ponit pro ovibus suis, id est, vitam; et phrasis illa Hebraica, Anima mea in manibus meis semper, id est, in extremo semper versor vitae discrimine, semperque impendentem mihi mortem video. Et hac significatione sumitur hic cum dicitur, Carnem in anima sua non comedetis. Id est, Non comedetis carnem viventem, sicut ferae quae viventium tam hominum quam animalium carnes comedunt: vel, Non comedetis sanguinem quo animalium vita maxime continetur. Septuaginta Interpretes verterunt, Non comedetis carnes in sanguine animae: quae lectio ad sententiam supra expositam revocari debet; dicitur enim sanguis animae pro eo quod est sanguis qui est anima animalis, vel quo maxime sustinetur et conservatur anima.
The word “soul” [anima] moreover is taken variously in the sacred letters, but four chief various significations of it may be observed: first, for man himself, as there, “The soul that has sinned, the same shall die,” and when Scripture says that seventy souls went out from the thigh of Jacob and entered Egypt: second, for the rational soul, as when the Lord said, “Fear not those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul”: third, for the lower part of the soul — that is, for the sentient soul and its faculties — as when we are commanded to love God with all our heart, soul, and all our strength, and when these three are enumerated in man: body, soul, and spirit. Akin to this is the use of the word “soul” for the will, desire, lust, or cupidity, as when it is said, “Deliver him not into the soul of his enemies,” that is, into their will, do not permit him to the power of his enemies, that whatever they wished to do against him they might carry out and accomplish according to their lust. The last signification of this word is for life. Hence is that, “He lays down his soul for his sheep,” that is, his life; and that Hebrew phrase, “My soul is always in my hands,” that is, I am always in the extreme peril of life, and always see death hanging over me. And in this signification it is taken here when it is said, “Flesh in its soul you shall not eat.” That is, You shall not eat living flesh, as the wild beasts do, which eat the flesh of living things both men and animals: or, You shall not eat blood, by which the life of animals is chiefly contained. The Seventy Interpreters translated, “You shall not eat flesh in the blood of the soul”: which reading must be referred to the sense expounded above; for blood is called “of the soul” because it is the blood which is the soul of the animal, or by which the soul is chiefly sustained and preserved.6
SEQUITUR: Sanguinem enim animarum vestrarum requiram de manu cunctarum bestiarum, etc. Quae sit connexio huius sententiae cum superiore, et quid faciat ad non edendum sanguinem animalium quod non debere fundi sanguinem hominis, et adversus id poenam statui capitalem, non facilem habet explicatum: verum de hoc infra dicetur. Dicit, Sanguinem animarum vestrarum, vel sumendo animam pro vita, vel quia per sanguinem praecipue anima conservatur in corpore et in eo viget, siquidem sanguis secundum Philosophos est sedes ac vehiculum animae ac principale instrumentum: ex eo quippe, pro varia ipsius temperie, spiritus naturales, vitales et animales existunt. Sed fortasse simplicior et planior fuerit interpretatio, vocabulum animae esse hic positum pro ipso homine, ut sit sensus, Sanguinem animarum vestrarum, id est, sanguinem vestrum. Illud autem, requirere sanguinem de manu alicuius, Hebraismus est, significans idem quod extremo [supplicio]…
There follows: “For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of all beasts,” etc. What the connection of this sentence is with the preceding, and what it makes toward not eating the blood of animals — that man's blood ought not to be shed, and that against it a capital penalty is established — is not easy to explain: but this will be said below. He says, “the blood of your souls,” either taking “soul” for life, or because through the blood the soul is chiefly preserved in the body and is vigorous in it — since the blood, according to the Philosophers, is the seat and vehicle of the soul and its principal instrument: for from it, according to its varying temper, the natural, vital, and animal spirits arise. But perhaps a simpler and plainer interpretation would be that the word “soul” is here put for man himself, so that the sense is, “the blood of your souls,” that is, your blood. And that phrase, “to require blood at the hand of someone,” is a Hebraism, signifying the same as [to afflict with] the extreme [punishment]…7
…extremo supplicio afficere et poena capitali plectere eum qui fuderit sanguinem hominis et homicidium fecerit.
…to afflict with the extreme punishment and to strike with the capital penalty him who has shed the blood of a man and committed homicide.8
SED quomodo requirit Deus sanguinem hominis de manu bestiarum? num bestias vocat in iudicium, et discussa earum causa pronunciat sententiam mortique addicit? Varie hoc exponitur. Rupertus vocabulo bestiarum intelligit malignos spiritus qui de morte spirituali animarum aeternum iudicium sunt accepturi. Verum, ut taceam daemones pro suis peccatis quae ante creationem hominis admiserunt praecipue damnatos esse, ea certe interpretatio non modo non est litteralis, verum in genere ipso mystico perquam dura est minimeque probabilis. Alii per bestias interpretantur homines qui more ferarum truces atque crudeles sitiunt humanum sanguinem. Sed neque hoc placet. Moses enim hoc loco distinguit bestias ab hominibus, dicens sanguinem hominis requisitum iri de manu bestiarum et de manu hominum: ex quo apparet vocabulum bestiae hic proprie esse positum.
But how does God require the blood of man at the hand of beasts? Does He call the beasts into judgment, and, their cause being examined, pronounce sentence and condemn [them] to death? This is variously explained. Rupert by the word “beasts” understands the malignant spirits who shall receive eternal judgment for the spiritual death of souls. But — to say nothing of the fact that the demons are chiefly damned for their own sins which they committed before the creation of man — that interpretation is certainly not only not literal, but even in the mystical kind itself is exceedingly harsh and least of all probable. Others by “beasts” interpret men who, after the manner of wild animals, fierce and cruel, thirst for human blood. But neither does this please. For Moses in this place distinguishes beasts from men, saying that the blood of man will be required at the hand of beasts and at the hand of men: from which it appears that the word “beast” is here properly put.9
CAIETANUS significari putat, cum bestia occidit hominem, eam occisionem esse naturaliter iniustam: quoniam homo non est naturale alimentum ullius bestiae, cum alimentum sit imperfectius eo quod alitur, cum ad ipsum ordinetur. Est igitur sensus: Non ex ordine naturali a me statuto provenit quod bestiae occidant homines ad comedendum eos, praeter naturam enim est hoc, nec decretum a me sed permissum, utpote naturaliter malum, et idcirco significatur ut a Deo requirendum. Sic ille. Cuius expositionem valde Metaphysicam esse, nec sententiae verborum Mosis congruentem, per se animadvertet lector. Quidam referunt ad Martyricidas: Tyranni enim Martyres exponebant feris, ut earum unguibus ac dentibus discerperentur ac dilaniarentur. At enim quamvis ipsi non occiderent Martyres sed bestiae, culpa tamen et poena caedis Martyrum ipsorum erat Tyrannorum, non bestiarum: quocirca sanguis Martyrum non erat requirendus de manu bestiarum, sed de manu tyrannorum.
Cajetan thinks it is signified that, when a beast kills a man, that killing is naturally unjust: because man is not the natural food of any beast, since the food is more imperfect than that which is nourished, being ordered to it. So the sense is: It does not come about from the natural order established by me that beasts kill men to eat them; for this is against nature, nor decreed by me but permitted, as being naturally evil, and therefore it is signified as to be required by God. So he. His exposition the reader will perceive of himself to be very Metaphysical, and not congruent with the meaning of the words of Moses. Some refer it to the slayers of Martyrs: for the Tyrants exposed the Martyrs to wild beasts, that they might be torn apart and mangled by their claws and teeth. But although they themselves did not kill the Martyrs, but the beasts, yet the guilt and penalty of the slaughter of the Martyrs was the Tyrants', not the beasts': wherefore the blood of the Martyrs was not to be required at the hand of the beasts, but at the hand of the tyrants.10
ILLA igitur verior est interpretatio, propterea dixisse Deum de manu bestiarum esse hominis sanguinem a se requirendum, quod laturus esset legem qua praecipiendum erat ut animal quod occideret hominem etiam ipsum occideretur. Sic enim legitur Exodi vigesimo primo: Si bos cornu percusserit virum aut mulierem, et mortui fuerint, lapidibus obruetur. Sicut alio loco, si quis coisset cum iumento, utrumque iussit occidi. ILLUD autem, de manu hominis, de manu viri, et de manu fratris eius requiram animam hominis, magnam habet emphasim et exaggerationem: significat enim capitaliter punitum iri eum qui fuderit sanguinem hominis, quicunque ille sit, id est, sive vir potestatem habens eaque abutens, sive frater, id est, cognatus vel affinis, sive homo, id est, quilibet alius extraneus. Nemo igitur impune fundet sanguinem humanum. Apud Hebraeos frequens est virum dicere pro quolibet seu quocunque, et fratrem pro eo quem nominamus proximum. Itaque sensus erit: De manu cuiuslibet proximi requiram sanguinem quem ille fuderit. Loquens autem de homicidio, meminit potissimum viri fratris, inquit Caietanus, quia frequentius homicidia patrantur inter invicem communicantes. Persae enim non occiduntur ab Hispanis, nec e converso.
That interpretation, therefore, is truer: that God said the blood of man was to be required by Him at the hand of beasts because He was about to give a law by which it was to be commanded that an animal which killed a man should itself also be killed. For thus it is read in Exodus twenty-one: “If an ox gore a man or a woman, and they die, it shall be stoned.” Just as in another place, if anyone had lain with a beast, He commanded both to be killed. And that phrase, “at the hand of man, at the hand of every man, and at the hand of his brother will I require the life of man,” has great emphasis and exaggeration: for it signifies that he who has shed the blood of a man will be capitally punished, whoever he be — that is, whether a man having power and abusing it, or a brother, that is, a kinsman or relative, or a man, that is, any other stranger. No one, therefore, shall shed human blood with impunity. Among the Hebrews it is frequent to say “man” for anyone whatever, and “brother” for him whom we call our neighbor. So the sense will be: At the hand of any neighbor whatever will I require the blood which he has shed. But speaking of homicide, He mentions especially “man” [and] “brother,” says Cajetan, because homicides are more frequently committed among those who associate with one another. For Persians are not killed by Spaniards, nor vice versa.11
ILLA vero sententia, Quicunque effuderit humanum sanguinem, fundetur sanguis illius, percelebris est ac vice proverbii vulgo iactata: cui vim habet eandem illud Domini dictum, Omnes qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt. Et quod est in Apocalypsi, Qui in gladio occiderit, oportet eum in gladio occidi. Quoniam igitur plerique corporis magis quam animi, et huius vitae quam futurae malis et suppliciis commoventur, ac vehementius a male agendo deterrentur; idcirco Dominus poenam capitalem statuit adversus homicidas, quam poenam confirmavit in lege quam tulit Hebraeis. Sic enim legitur Exodi 21: Si quis volens ac per industriam occiderit proximum suum, ab altari meo avelles eum, ut moriatur. Videlicet noluit Deus ei locum veniae aut clementiae perfugium esse ullum, qui tam atrox interficiendi hominis scelus et animo concepisset et manu patrasset. Atque hoc Dei praeceptum sanctissime Rex Salomon servavit: quippe Ioab, duorum militiae principum Abner et Amasae caedis reum, cum ad tabernaculum Dei confugisset et cornu altaris apprehendisset, inde tamen Salomonis iussu abstractus est et occisus. Atque haec de homicidii poena lex perdurat etiam apud Christianos, hodieque viget apud plerasque gentes.
But that sentence, “Whosoever shall shed human blood, his blood shall be shed,” is very famous and bandied about by the people in the manner of a proverb: to which that saying of the Lord has the same force, “All who shall take the sword, shall perish by the sword.” And that which is in the Apocalypse, “He that shall kill by the sword, must be killed by the sword.” Since, therefore, most people are moved more by the evils and punishments of the body than of the mind, and of this life than of the future, and are more vehemently deterred from doing evil; therefore the Lord established the capital penalty against murderers, which penalty He confirmed in the law He gave to the Hebrews. For thus it is read in Exodus 21: “If anyone willingly and of set purpose kill his neighbor, thou shalt take him away from my altar, that he may die.” Namely, God willed there to be for him no place of pardon or refuge of clemency, who had both conceived in mind and perpetrated by hand so atrocious a crime of killing a man. And this precept of God King Solomon most religiously observed: for Joab, guilty of the slaughter of the two princes of the army, Abner and Amasa, although he had fled to the tabernacle of God and seized the horn of the altar, was nevertheless thence by Solomon's command dragged away and killed. And this law about the penalty of homicide endures even among Christians, and today is in force among most nations.12
ERGO cum Dominus dixerit, Qui fuderit humanum sanguinem, fundetur sanguis eius, poenam homicidii aeterna lege sancivit, potestatemque saecularem instituit, eique gladium in manum tradidit, praecepitque ut homicidas puniret. Quare dupliciter Deus praemunivit nos adversus eos qui vitae hominum insidiantur sitiuntque humanum sanguinem: tum quod se vindicem atque ultorem fore contestatus est; tum quod humanae potestati iniurias hominum vindicandas damnaque compensanda demandavit. Quocirca Paulus Christianos iubet saeculares potestates revereri, honorare ac metuere: Qui resistit, inquit, potestati, Dei ordinationi resistit, et ipse sibi damnationem acquirit. Principes enim non sunt timori boni operis sed mali: Si autem malum feceris, time, non enim sine causa gladium portat: Dei enim minister est, vindex in iram ei qui malum agit.
Therefore when the Lord said, “Who shall shed human blood, his blood shall be shed,” He sanctioned the penalty of homicide by an eternal law, and instituted the secular power, and delivered the sword into its hand, and commanded that it punish murderers. Wherefore in two ways God has fortified us against those who lie in wait for the lives of men and thirst for human blood: both because He has testified that He will be the avenger and vindicator; and because He committed to human power the injuries of men to be avenged and the damages to be compensated. Wherefore Paul commands Christians to revere, honor, and fear the secular powers: “He that resists,” he says, “the power, resists the ordinance of God, and acquires damnation to himself. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil: but if thou do evil, fear, for he beareth not the sword without cause: for he is the minister of God, an avenger to wrath against him that doth evil.”13
SED quomodo verum illud est, Quicunque effuderit humanum sanguinem, fundetur sanguis illius, cum multi homicidae supplicium mortis effugerint, nec unius tantum hominis sed multorum etiam hominum caedem impune tulerint? Sed facilis est responsio. Non loquitur Dominus de ipso facto et eventu, verum de homicidarum merito ac debito illis supplicio, quod eis secundum leges tam divinas quam humanas constitutum et paratum est. Nam qui occidit hominem, hoc ipso meretur supplicium mortis, eique in poenam sceleris iure divi[no]…
But how is that true, “Whosoever shall shed human blood, his blood shall be shed,” since many murderers have escaped the punishment of death, and have committed the slaughter not of one man only but even of many men with impunity? But the answer is easy. The Lord does not speak of the fact and event itself, but of the desert of murderers and of the punishment due to them, which is established and prepared for them according to laws both divine and human. For he who kills a man, by this very thing deserves the punishment of death, and to him, for the penalty of his crime, by divi[ne law]…14
…no et humano mors infligenda est: ut sit sensus, ei qui hominem occiderit et lex mea et omnium ferme gentium leges poenam mortis irrogabunt.
…and human [law] death is to be inflicted: so that the sense is, on him who has killed a man both my law and the laws of almost all nations will impose the penalty of death.15
CETERUM pro eo quod habet Latina lectio, Quicunque effuderit humanum sanguinem, fundetur sanguis illius, sic est Hebraice, si verbum de verbo reddas: Qui fuderit sanguinem hominis in homine, fundetur sanguis eius. Quid autem sit fundere sanguinem hominis in homine, varias interpretationes habet. Tostatus illud in homine interpretatur intra hominem: fundere autem sanguinem hominis intra hominem ait esse occidere hominem non effundendo foras sanguinem eius, quod fit per suffocationem seu strangulationem aut venenum. Sed enim inepta nimis locutio est, nec in usu apud Hebraeos, ut qui suffocatur vel perimitur veneno dicatur sanguis eius intra ipsum fundi: quomodo enim sanguis intra ipsum hominem funditur? Proinde Oleaster dupliciter exponit: primo, qui foedaverit hominem sanguine suo, occidendo ipsum, etc. Fundere igitur sanguinem hominis in homine est hominem cuius sanguis funditur proprii sanguinis effusione foedare. Sed alteram expositionem ipse magis probat, ut illud, in homine, iungatur cum eo quod sequitur, fundetur sanguis eius: et illud, in homine, more Hebraico dictum sit pro per hominem. Statuit enim lex divina ut propinqui eius qui occisus esset ius haberent occidendi homicidas.
But in place of what the Latin reading has, “Whosoever shall shed human blood, his blood shall be shed,” it is thus in Hebrew, if you render word for word: “Who shall shed the blood of man in man, his blood shall be shed.” But what it is to shed the blood of man “in man” has various interpretations. Tostatus interprets that “in man” as “within the man”: and to shed the blood of a man within the man, he says, is to kill a man without pouring out his blood outside — which is done by suffocation, or strangulation, or poison. But it is too inept an expression, and not in use among the Hebrews, that one who is suffocated or killed by poison should be said to have his blood shed within himself: for how is blood shed within the man himself? Accordingly Oleaster expounds it in two ways: first, “who shall defile a man with his blood, by killing him,” etc. So to shed the blood of a man “in man” is to defile the man whose blood is shed by the pouring out of his own blood. But he himself more approves the other exposition: that the phrase “in man” be joined with what follows, “his blood shall be shed”; and that “in man” be said, in the Hebrew manner, for “by man.” For the divine law established that the kinsmen of him who was killed should have the right of killing the murderers.16
PARAPHRASIS Chaldaica illud in homine refert ad testes et iudices, per quos homicidae crimen convincendum et puniendum est. Ita enim expressit hunc locum: Qui effuderit sanguinem hominis, per testes, iuxta sententiam iudicum, sanguis eius fundatur: quibus verbis declaratur non licere cuiquam privato homini impetum facere in homicidam et ex eo poenam exigere, sed id esse munus publici magistratus, qui nec ipse ad damnandum et puniendum homicidam praeceps esse debet, nisi antea per idoneos testes reus coarguatur, totaque causa diligenter excussa et explorata, sententia pronuncietur.
The Chaldaic Paraphrase refers that “in man” to the witnesses and judges, by whom the crime of the murderer is to be convicted and punished. For thus it expressed this place: “Who shall shed the blood of man, by witnesses, according to the sentence of the judges, let his blood be shed”: by which words it is declared that it is not lawful for any private man to make an attack upon a murderer and exact a penalty from him, but that this is the office of the public magistrate, who himself too ought not to be hasty to condemn and punish a murderer, unless first the accused be convicted by suitable witnesses, and the whole cause diligently examined and explored, [and] sentence pronounced.17
CAIETANUS pro in homine legit, in hominem, hanc ex Hebraeo germanam (ut putat ipse) lectionem secutus: effundens sanguinem hominis in hominem, sanguis eius effundetur. Dixit, in hominem, ait Caietanus, tum ad excludendum animalia irrationalia ab hac poenali lege (quam exclusionem oportebat fieri, quia communiter praemiserat se requisiturum hominis sanguinem de manu bestiae et hominis: excluduntur autem animalia ab hac lege poenali, quia non occidunt hominem in hominem, id est, in hominis iniuriam atque contumeliam); tum etiam ad excludendam occisionem hominum a iustis iudicibus factam: tales enim non occidunt hominem in hominem, id est, ut eum iniuria et contumelia afficiant, sed in vindictam criminum et boni publici conservationem. Intelligere autem oportet his Dei verbis poenam talionis esse decretam homicidae secundum meritum: decer[nitur]…
Cajetan, in place of “in man,” reads “against man,” following this (as he thinks) genuine reading from the Hebrew: “pouring out the blood of man against man, his blood shall be poured out.” He said “against man,” says Cajetan, both to exclude irrational animals from this penal law (which exclusion needed to be made, because in common he had premised that he would require the blood of man at the hand of beast and of man; but the animals are excluded from this penal law, because they do not kill a man “against man,” that is, for the injury and insult of a man); and also to exclude the killing of men done by just judges: for such do not kill a man “against man,” that is, to afflict him with injury and insult, but for the avenging of crimes and the preservation of the public good. And one must understand that by these words of God the penalty of talion is decreed for the murderer according to his desert: for it is decr[eed]…18
…decernitur enim homicidam mereri supplicium mortis, ipsi a Deo et a iudicibus Dei vices gerentibus inferendum.
…for it is decreed that the murderer deserves the punishment of death, to be inflicted on him by God and by the judges acting in God's stead.19
Ex supradictis omnibus Dei verbis adversus homicidas, prout sunt in Hebraica Scriptura, demonstrant Hebraei omne genus caedis humanae his verbis esse vetitum. Primo, cum dicitur, Fundens sanguinem hominis, per homines sanguis eius fundatur: hoc, inquiunt, de eo intelligitur qui hominem occidit per seipsum, non per alium ad id subornatum. Illud, Verumtamen sanguinem animarum vestrarum requiram, aiunt dici de eo qui sibi ipsi mortem consciverit. Illud porro, De manu omnis animantis requiram sanguinem hominis, intelligi debet de eo qui proximum suum bestiae dilaniandum obiicit. Denique illud, De manu hominis, de manu viri fratris sui requiram animam hominis, intelligendum est de eo qui conducit alios homines ad occidendum hominem.
From all the aforesaid words of God against murderers, as they are in the Hebrew Scripture, the Hebrews demonstrate that every kind of human slaughter is forbidden by these words. First, when it is said, “Shedding the blood of man, by men shall his blood be shed”: this, they say, is understood of him who kills a man by himself, not by another suborned for it. That phrase, “But yet the blood of your souls I will require,” they say is said of him who has brought death upon himself [suicide]. That phrase, moreover, “At the hand of every living thing I will require the blood of man,” must be understood of him who exposes his neighbor to a beast to be torn apart. Finally that phrase, “At the hand of man, at the hand of his brother man, will I require the life of man,” must be understood of him who hires other men to kill a man.20
RESTAT ultima pars huius sententiae: Ad imaginem quippe Dei factus est homo. Valentissima his verbis continetur ratio (nisi quis plane desipiat) ad coercendum hominem deterrendumque ab homicidio; quod eo scilicet, omnium Dei aspectabilium operum magnificentissimum et honoratissimum atque illustrem expressamque ipsius Dei gerens imaginem, destruatur. Nonne publicam regis celebri posito loco statuam deturbans et confringens, novissimo dignus supplicio censeretur? Ecquod igitur supplicium par esse potest eorum sceleri, qui non mutum et inanime, sed vivens atque intelligens Dei simulacrum dissipare ac perdere non veretur? Audi Chrysostomum: Ingens, inquit, his verbis terror astructus est: quasi diceretur, si te non revocat a caede hominis quod eiusdem tibi naturae est, si adeo totus animo sceleratus et impius es ut fraternum foedus violare pro nihilo habeas omnemque compassionem et sensum humanitatis exueris, cogita tamen quod ille ad imaginem Dei factus est, et quantis eum Deus dignatus sit praerogativis, et quod omnis creaturae dominatu atque imperio donatus sit: et haec cogitatio a tam immani consilio proposito te cohibebit.
There remains the last part of this sentence: “For to the image of God was man made.” A most powerful reason is contained in these words (unless one be plainly senseless) for restraining man and deterring him from homicide: namely, because thereby the most magnificent and most honored and illustrious of all the visible works of God, bearing the express image of God Himself, is destroyed. Would not one who casts down and breaks a public statue of the king, set up in a frequented place, be deemed worthy of the utmost punishment? What punishment, then, can be equal to the crime of those who fear not to scatter and destroy not a mute and inanimate, but a living and intelligent image of God? Hear Chrysostom: “A huge terror,” he says, “is built up by these words: as if it were said, if it does not call you back from the slaughter of a man that he is of the same nature as you, if you are so wholly wicked and impious in mind that you count it as nothing to violate the fraternal bond and have put off all compassion and feeling of humanity, yet consider that he was made to the image of God, and with how great prerogatives God has dignified him, and that he has been endowed with dominion and command over every creature: and this thought will restrain you from so monstrous a purpose proposed.”21
Nec absimile est illud Ambrosii: Demonstrat his verbis Deus, inquit Ambrosius, domesticam et familiarem sibi hominis esse naturam, eaque causa inultum non fore apud se quod in domesticum suum videat crudeliter et impie esse commissum. Causa ergo vindictae addita facit ut, primum, excludamus philosophorum quorundam opiniones qui negant Deum habere curam hominum vel remunerandorum vel puniendorum; deinde, scientes praerogativam nostrae ultionis apud Deum manere, neque in alios committamus quod divino iudicio vindicandum sit, neque mortem ipsi vehementius pertimescamus, cum sciamus necati hominis innocentis apud Deum non esse contemptum, quin etiam ultionem fore certissimam. Sic Ambrosius.
Nor unlike is that of Ambrose: “God demonstrates by these words,” says Ambrose, “that the nature of man is domestic and familiar to Him, and for that cause that what He sees cruelly and impiously committed against His own household member will not go unavenged with Him. The cause of vengeance added serves, first, that we may exclude the opinions of certain philosophers who deny that God has care of men, either to be rewarded or punished; next, that, knowing the prerogative of our avenging to remain with God, we should neither commit against others what is to be avenged by divine judgment, nor ourselves dread death too vehemently, since we know that the killing of an innocent man is not held in contempt with God, but rather that vengeance will be most certain.” So Ambrose.22
QUONIAM autem hic significatur qui occidit hominem propterea extremo supplicio esse plectendum, quod interficiat eum qui ad imaginem Dei factus est, ex hoc argumentatur Oleaster totum hominem esse factum ad imaginem Dei, id est, tam secundum corpus quam animam: alioqui occidens hominem, si imago Dei tantum esset [in anima]…
But since here it is signified that he who kills a man is therefore to be struck with the extreme punishment because he kills him who was made to the image of God, from this Oleaster argues that the whole man was made to the image of God — that is, both according to body and soul: otherwise, one killing a man, if the image of God were only [in the soul]…23
…in anima, non destrueret imaginem Dei, cum non occidat animam. Si igitur homo tam secundum animam quam corpus factus est ad imaginem Dei, cum Deus per se incorporeus sit, existimare convenit Deum, cum creavit hominem, assumpsisse naturam humanam, et ita vere dici hominem esse factum ad imaginem Dei. Verum hanc opinionem ut perabsurdam refutavimus libro quarto horum Commentariorum in Genesim, cum explanaremus illa verba, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Sed quia Oleaster eam opinionem hic repetit, volui memoriam eius renovare lectori, ut intelligeret quantopere figmentum illud placuerit Oleastro.
…in the soul, he would not destroy the image of God, since he does not kill the soul. If, therefore, man was made to the image of God both according to soul and body, since God is of Himself incorporeal, it would be fitting to think that God, when He created man, assumed human nature, and thus that man is truly said to have been made to the image of God. But this opinion, as utterly absurd, we refuted in the fourth book of these Commentaries on Genesis, when we explained those words, “Let us make man to our image and likeness.” But because Oleaster repeats that opinion here, I wished to renew the memory of it for the reader, that he might understand how greatly that figment pleased Oleaster.24
Translator’s notes
- Gen 9:4–6 (lemma). ↩
- §26. The blood-prohibition parallels Eden's forbidden tree — a trial of obedience over a thing not evil in itself. ↩
- §27. Two post-flood precepts (blood-eating: positive & temporary; homicide: natural & perpetual); the rabbinic ‘precepts of the sons of Noah.’ Margin: “The first precepts given to man after the flood.” ↩
- §28. The Hebrew reads ‘flesh in its soul/blood’; the figure of Apposition. Margin: “The Hebrew reading.” Continues on p. 327. ↩
- §28 (cont.). ‘In its blood’ explains ‘in its soul’ — the blood is the animal's life (Lev 17). ↩
- §29. The four scriptural senses of ‘soul’ (man / rational soul / sentient soul & will / life); the LXX reading. Margins: “Four significations of this word, Soul”; Ezek. 18; Gen. 40; Deut. 10; Acts 7; Matt. 10; Deut. 6; Matt. 22; Ps. 40; John 10; Ps. 118; “The reading of the Seventy Interpreters.” ↩
- §30. ‘The blood of your souls’; blood as seat of the soul (the Philosophers); ‘require blood at the hand of’ = a Hebraism for capital punishment. Margin: “How fearful blood in the animal is to man.” Continues on p. 328. ↩
- §30 (cont.). The Hebraism = inflicting the death penalty on the murderer. ↩
- §31. How can God ‘require blood from beasts’? Rupert (demons) and the ‘brutal men’ reading both rejected — ‘beast’ is literal. Margins: “How God requires man's blood at the hand of beasts”; Rupert. ↩
- §32. Cajetan's ‘naturally unjust killing’ reading (too metaphysical) and the martyr-to-beasts reading both set aside. Margin: Cajetan. ↩
- §33–34. The true reading: the law that a man-killing animal be slain (Exod 21); and the ‘man / brother’ emphasis = every killer punished (Cajetan: kin kill kin most often). Margins: Exodus 21; Cajetan. ↩
- §35. The famous ‘blood for blood’ maxim (cf. the sword-sayings); confirmed in the Law (Exod 21, no altar-refuge for murderers — Joab & Solomon). Margins: Matt. 26; Apoc. 13. ↩
- §36. By this law God founded the secular sword-power against murderers (Rom 13). Margins: “In two ways God fortifies us against those who plot against life”; Rom. 13. ↩
- §37. ‘Blood for blood’ speaks of the murderer's desert, not the actual outcome. Margin: “How it is true that whoever kills a man is himself to be killed.” Continues on p. 330. ↩
- §37 (cont.). Divine and human law alike sentence the murderer to death. ↩
- §38. The Hebrew ‘sheds blood in man’: Tostatus (= killing without bloodshed, rejected) vs. Oleaster (= ‘by man,’ the kin-avenger of Num 35). Margins: “The Hebrew reading”; Tostatus; Oleaster; Num. 35. ↩
- §39. The Chaldee: ‘by man’ = by witnesses and judges — punishment belongs to the public magistrate, not private vengeance. Margin: “The Chaldaic Paraphrase.” ↩
- §40. Cajetan reads ‘against man’ — excluding both beasts and just judges, and establishing the law of talion. Margin: Cajetan. Continues on p. 331. ↩
- §40 (cont.). The talion: death, inflicted by God or His deputy judges. ↩
- §41. The Hebrews' fourfold reading: it forbids killing in person, suicide, exposing a man to a beast, and hiring assassins. Margin: “Observation of the Hebrews.” ↩
- §42. The crowning deterrent: the murdered man is God's living image — like smashing the king's statue (Chrysostom). Margins: Chrysostom, hom. 27 on Genesis; Gen. 1. ↩
- §43. Ambrose: man is God's household; the ‘cause of vengeance’ refutes the philosophers who deny providence and steadies us against fearing death. Margin: Ambrose, On Noah and the Ark, ch. 26. ↩
- §44. Oleaster's odd inference: that the whole man (body too) is God's image. Continues on p. 332. ↩
- §44 (cont.). Pererius rejects Oleaster's view (it would imply God assumed a human body at creation) — refuted already in bk. 4. ↩