SECOND DISPUTATION. On the eating of blood forbidden to men — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

SECOND DISPUTATION. On the eating of blood forbidden to men.

SECUNDA DISPUTATIO. De sanguinis esu hominibus interdicto.

TRES quaestiones in hac disputatione tractandae sunt: quarum prima est, Quid sit comedere carnem cum sanguine; altera, Cur tantopere Deus interdixerit homini esum sanguinis; tertia, Qualis sit illa ratio sive causa quam reddit Deus cur abstinendum sit esu sanguinis, quod quicunque fuderit sanguinem hominis, sanguis quoque eius fundendus sit: quam enim habet connexionem abstinentia a caede hominum cum abstinentia ab esu sanguinis animalium? PRIMAE quaestionis difficultas in varia expositione consistit eius quod est comedere carnem cum sanguine. Eugubinus putat esse figuratam locutionem, eaque prohiberi effusionem sanguinis humani atque homicidium: comedere igitur carnem cum sanguine est hominem viventem, cuius vita sanguine potissimum sustinetur, occidere, et fuso eius sanguine vita privare. Huic expositioni fidem faciunt quae consequuntur verba, quae quidem omnia ad effusionem humani sanguinis et ad homicidium pertinent: nisi enim hoc esset comedere carnem cum sanguine, qualis obsecro esset ea ratio quam reddit Deus cur nolit comedi carnes cum sanguine? Quia, inquit, ego requiram sanguinem vestrum de manu bestiarum atque hominum: quae ratio, si illud Comedere carnem cum sanguine proprie sumatur, inconveniens et inepta est; sin autem accipiatur figurate pro homicidio, congruentissima est atque potentissima. Est autem frequens metaphora in Sacris litteris, comedere carnes alicuius vel bibere sanguinem, pro eo quod est mortem eius expetere et moliri: quam metaphoram secutus Homerus bellum appellavit σαρκόφαγον, quod eo multi absumantur et pereant. His adde quod sanguinis esus ad immunditiam hominis nihil facit: alioqui etiam nos Christiani eo abstineremus: non igitur putandum est de eo prohibendo usque eo [solicitum fuisse Deum]…

Three questions are to be treated in this disputation: of which the first is, What it is to eat flesh with blood; the second, Why God so greatly forbade man the eating of blood; the third, Of what sort is that reason or cause which God renders why one must abstain from eating blood — namely, that whosoever has shed the blood of a man, his blood also is to be shed: for what connection has abstinence from the slaughter of men with abstinence from eating the blood of animals? The difficulty of the first question consists in the various exposition of that phrase, “to eat flesh with blood.” Eugubinus thinks it is a figurative expression, and that by it is forbidden the effusion of human blood and homicide: to eat flesh with blood, therefore, is to kill a living man, whose life is chiefly sustained by blood, and, his blood being shed, to deprive him of life. To this exposition the words which follow give credence, all of which pertain to the effusion of human blood and to homicide: for unless this were to eat flesh with blood, what, I beseech, would be that reason which God renders why He does not wish flesh to be eaten with blood? “Because,” He says, “I will require your blood at the hand of beasts and of men”: which reason, if that “to eat flesh with blood” be taken properly, is unsuitable and inept; but if it be taken figuratively for homicide, it is most congruent and most powerful. And there is a frequent metaphor in the Sacred letters, “to eat the flesh of someone” or “to drink [his] blood,” for the thing which is to seek and contrive his death: which metaphor Homer followed [when] he called war σαρκόφαγον [flesh-eating], because by it many are consumed and perish. To these add that the eating of blood makes nothing toward the uncleanness of man — otherwise we Christians too would abstain from it: not, therefore, is it to be thought that God was so solicitous about forbidding it…¹

…solicitum fuisse Deum, ut hoc primo post diluvium praecepto obligare hominem voluerit: sed illud potius ei curae in primis fuit, absterrere homines ab homicidio, ne paucitas illa hominum etiam per homicidium minueretur, neve tunc accideret quod sub mundi primordio contigerat, cum fratrem suum Abel occidit Cain. Atque haec est sententia Eugubini, paulo fusius a nobis exposita et confirmata.

…that He should wish to bind man by this first precept after the flood: but rather it was His care in the first place to deter men from homicide, lest that fewness of men should be diminished also through homicide, and lest there should then happen what had befallen at the beginning of the world, when Cain killed his brother Abel. And this is the opinion of Eugubinus, expounded and confirmed by us a little more fully.²

VERUNTAMEN duo vehementer refragantur Eugubino. Antecedentia enim verba omnino excludunt hanc interpretationem. Etenim Deus dixerat se homini permittere esum quorumlibet animalium: mox subiungit, Excepto quod carnem cum sanguine non comedetis: qualis obsecro est exceptio haec, aut quomodo pertinet ad id de quo agitur, si comedere carnem cum sanguine non intelligitur de vera carne et sanguine animalium, sed per metaphoram de homicidio? Certe non aliud hic interdictum est quam quod postea vetitum est per legem Mosis: sed lex prohibendo esum carnis cum sanguine loquebatur de vera carne et sanguine animalium, non autem de homicidio. Illud praeterea vehementer convincit falsitatis hanc expositionem, quod hic modus loquendi, comedere carnem cum sanguine, nusquam in scriptura ponitur pro eo quod est occidere hominem: at vero pro eo quod est comedere carnem et sanguinem animalium, frequentissime usurpatur, uti licet videre in Levitico, Deuteronomio, et primo libro Regum.

Nevertheless two things vehemently oppose Eugubinus. For the preceding words altogether exclude this interpretation. For God had said that He permitted man the eating of any animals whatever: He at once subjoins, “Save that flesh with the blood you shall not eat”: what, I beseech, is this exception, or how does it pertain to the matter at hand, if to eat flesh with blood is understood not of the real flesh and blood of animals, but by metaphor of homicide? Surely nothing else is here forbidden than what was afterward forbidden by the law of Moses: but the law, in forbidding the eating of flesh with blood, spoke of the real flesh and blood of animals, not of homicide. Besides, this vehemently convicts this exposition of falsity: that this manner of speaking, “to eat flesh with blood,” is nowhere in scripture put for that which is to kill a man; but for that which is to eat the flesh and blood of animals, it is most frequently used, as may be seen in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and the first book of Kings.³

USURPAT quidem nonnunquam scriptura eam phrasim, comedere carnem alicuius, pro eo quod est mortem eius expetere vel etiam ei machinari, videlicet ad exaggerandum odium adversus aliquem, cuius ulciscendi vesana cupiditate luberet devorare carnes et bibere sanguinem. Sic locutus est David Psalmo 26: Dum appropiant super me nocentes ut edant carnes meas. Sic etiam Iob, ut scriptum est capite 31: Dixerunt, inquit, viri tabernaculi mei, Quis det de carnibus eius ut saturemur? quod, etiam si quidam interpretati sunt de summa benevolentia et amore servorum erga Iob, vere tamen contrariam habet sententiam. Significat enim quia Iob dure et aspere tractabat servos, ut eos in officio temperantiae, iustitiae, fidei atque obedientiae contineret, ob id ipsum adeo fuisse illis exosum ut carnes eius devorare cuperent.

Scripture indeed sometimes uses that phrase, “to eat the flesh of someone,” for that which is to seek his death or even to contrive [it] against him — namely, to exaggerate hatred against someone, by the mad desire of avenging whom one would gladly devour his flesh and drink his blood. So David spoke in Psalm 26: “While the harmful draw near against me to eat my flesh.” So also Job, as is written in chapter 31: “The men of my tabernacle said,” he says, “Who will give us of his flesh that we may be filled?” — which, although some have interpreted of the supreme benevolence and love of the servants toward Job, yet in truth has the contrary meaning. For it signifies that, because Job treated his servants harshly and sharply, in order to keep them in the duty of temperance, justice, faith, and obedience, for that very reason he was so hateful to them that they desired to devour his flesh.⁴

QUOCIRCA B. Gregorius libro 22 Moralium ea ipsa verba explanans, ait ea quidem posse per mysterium de Salvatore nostro intelligi, cuius corporis cibo et sanguinis potu fideles esurientes animas saturare cupiunt (ad hoc etiam significandum, in Officio quod de Sacramento Corporis Domini celebratur, verba haec Iob pulchre accommodata sunt): secundum tamen sensum historiae significari potius, sanctissimum virum Iob, eo quod virtutum omnium officia coleret ac severissime custodiret, multos sibi inimicos suaeque mortis cupidissimos comparasse. Sed redeo ad id quod orsus eram dicere, unde ad expositionem huius loci Iob paululum digressus sum. Reperitur quidem in scriptura comedere carnes alicuius pro eo quod est capite aliquem oppugnare vitaque privare: at comedere carnem cum sanguine, nusquam in sacris literis ad id significandum positum invenietur. Reiecta igitur expositione Eugubini, pergamus ad alias.

Wherefore St. Gregory, in the 22nd book of the Morals, explaining those very words, says that they can indeed be understood by mystery of our Savior, with the food of whose body and the drink of whose blood the faithful, hungering, desire to sate their souls (to signify which also, in the Office which is celebrated of the Sacrament of the Lord's Body, these words of Job are beautifully accommodated): yet according to the sense of history it is rather signified that the most holy man Job, because he cultivated and most strictly kept the duties of all the virtues, procured for himself many enemies most desirous of his death. But I return to what I had begun to say, whence I digressed a little to the exposition of this place of Job. It is indeed found in scripture “to eat the flesh of someone” for that which is to assail someone in his life and deprive him of life: but “to eat flesh with blood” will nowhere in the sacred letters be found put to signify that. The exposition of Eugubinus, therefore, being rejected, let us pass on to others.⁵

BEATUS Chrysostomus comedere carnem cum sanguine interpretatur comedere animal suffocatum, continens intra se sanguinem suum: cuiusmodi animalis esus per legem quoque Mosis interdictus est. Sed ut hoc in parte verum sit, non tamen ex toto divini mandati sententiam implet. Latius enim patet comedere carnem cum sanguine quam comedere suffocatum. Quocirca in iis quae Apostoli conversis ex Gentilismo custodienda praescripserunt, distincte ac separatim interdixerunt esum suffocati et sanguinis.

St. Chrysostom interprets “to eat flesh with blood” as to eat an animal suffocated [strangled], containing within itself its blood: which kind of eating of an animal is forbidden also by the law of Moses. But although this is in part true, yet it does not wholly fulfill the meaning of the divine command. For “to eat flesh with blood” extends more widely than “to eat the suffocated.” Wherefore in those things which the Apostles prescribed to be observed by those converted from Gentilism, they distinctly and separately forbade the eating of the suffocated [strangled] and of blood.⁶

CAIETANUS hunc locum ex Hebraeo sic legens, Tantum carnem in anima eius, in sanguine eius non comedetis, arbitratur his verbis a Deo definiri naturalem modum comedendi carnes, et significari non esse comedendam carnem vivam animalium habentium sanguinem; talem enim modum vescendi carnibus ferinum esse, non humanum. Hanc esse autem eorum verborum sententiam, si perpendantur ipsa verba, manifestum sit: namque caro in anima eius seu anima eius non est aliud quam caro viva; similiter quod per appositionem adiungitur, Sanguine eius, significat carnem vivam sanguine praeditam, et hoc ad differentiam multorum animalium quae consuevimus etiam viva comedere, quod sint exanguia et parvula, ut sunt conchilia et alia horum similia. Deus igitur permittendo esum carnium homini docuit eum vescendi carnibus naturalem modum servandum ipsi longe diversum esse ab eo quo ferae multique pisces vescuntur carnibus. Atque hic est Caietani sensus.

Cajetan, reading this place from the Hebrew thus, “Only flesh in its soul, in its blood, you shall not eat,” judges that by these words the natural manner of eating flesh is defined by God, and that it is signified that the living flesh of animals having blood is not to be eaten; for such a manner of feeding on flesh is bestial, not human. And that this is the meaning of those words, if the words themselves be weighed, is manifest: for “flesh in its soul,” or “its soul,” is nothing other than living flesh; similarly what is added by apposition, “in its blood,” signifies living flesh endowed with blood — and this in distinction from the many animals which we are accustomed to eat even alive, because they are bloodless and tiny, such as shellfish and others like these. God, therefore, in permitting man the eating of flesh, taught him that the natural manner of eating flesh to be observed by him is far different from that by which wild beasts and many fishes eat flesh. And this is Cajetan's sense.⁷

EQUIDEM non abnuo esum carnis vivae etiam his verbis prohiberi: verum non assentior Caietano huiusmodi esum carnis vel tantum vel praecipue hic significatum esse. Cum enim ab eo esu natura hominis vehementer abhorreat (nisi quis forte ferini sit ingenii et stomachi, atque Homerici illius Polyphemi similis, qui inter monstra humanae naturae censeri debet), supervacuum fuisset expressam istius rei prohibitionem mandare homini, non minus certe quam ei anthropophagiam interdicere.

I indeed do not deny that the eating of living flesh is also forbidden by these words: but I do not assent to Cajetan that this kind of eating of flesh is either only or chiefly signified here. For since the nature of man vehemently abhors that eating (unless one perhaps be of a bestial disposition and stomach, and similar to that Homeric Polyphemus, who ought to be reckoned among the monsters of human nature), it would have been superfluous to enjoin on man an express prohibition of that thing, no less certainly than to forbid him cannibalism.⁸

LYRANUS, Tostatus, et Carthusianus quatuor modis aiunt posse comedi carnem cum sanguine: vel abscindendo membrum aliquod vivum ex animali; vel comedendo suffocatum animal, vel captum venatu seu aucupio; vel denique separatim comedendo sanguinem: et his modis omnibus prohiberi esum sanguinis. Vera est horum sententia: sed ad duo membra commodius revocari posset. Dupliciter enim potest comedi sanguis: vel intra ipsum animal, comedendo sanguinem simul cum carnibus animalis, sive animal illud fuerit vivum sive quocumque modo mortuum: vel comedendo sanguinem extra ipsum animal, id est, separatim ac per se, vel ad modum potus liquidum…

Lyra, Tostatus, and the Carthusian say that flesh can be eaten with blood in four ways: either by cutting off some living limb from an animal; or by eating a suffocated [strangled] animal, or one taken by hunting or fowling; or finally by eating blood separately: and that in all these ways the eating of blood is forbidden. Their opinion is true: but it could more conveniently be reduced to two members. For blood can be eaten in two ways: either within the animal itself, by eating the blood together with the flesh of the animal — whether that animal was alive or in whatever way dead: or by eating the blood outside the animal itself, that is, separately and by itself, or as a liquid in the manner of drink…⁹

…liquidum sorbendo, vel modo cibi concretum mixtumque cum aliis rebus, uti nunc editur in farciminibus comedendo: uterque autem hic modus edendi sanguinis supradictis Domini verbis interdictus est. Verum de prima quaestione hactenus.

…as a liquid by sipping, or in the manner of food, congealed and mixed with other things, as it is now eaten in sausages: but both these modes of eating blood are forbidden by the aforesaid words of the Lord. But concerning the first question, thus far.¹⁰

ALTERA quaestio est: Cur Deus tam severe hominem vesci sanguine vetuerit. Tribus temporibus, id est, ante legem Mosis, et in lege Mosis, et tempore etiam legis Evangelicae sub initium nascentis Ecclesiae, vetitum esse sanguinis esum legitur in sacris litteris. Causas igitur tam generalis ac toties repetitae prohibitionis lubet exquirere. Principio, multo ante legem Mosis, immo vero statim post diluvium, ut narrat hoc loco Moses, iussit Deus homines ab esu sanguinis abstinere. Sed cur? Nempe quo scilicet vehementius deterreret hominem ab homicidio, quod cum per se detestandum est, tum vero id temporis in tanta hominum paucitate exitiale fuisset humano generi. Quasi significasset Dominus: Si nolo vos concupiscere esum sanguinis animalium, quanto minus sitire humanum sanguinem, et rabidam famem vindictae atrociter fundendo sanguinem hominis explere? Hanc causam attigit Chrysostomus; et praeterea illam, quod a sapientibus mundi proditum sit brutorum sanguinem esse gravem et terrestrem, multarumque aegritudinum causam si comedatur. Idem quoque pertinet ad munditiam et decentiam humani victus: foedum enim visu ac prope horrendum est videre vescentem carnibus sanguine perfusis ac distillantibus, osque ac labia comedentium cruentantibus.

The second question is: Why God so severely forbade man to eat blood. At three times — before the law of Moses, in the law of Moses, and also in the time of the Evangelical law at the beginning of the nascent Church — the eating of blood is read to have been forbidden in the sacred letters. Let us, therefore, inquire into the causes of so general and so often repeated a prohibition. First, long before the law of Moses — nay, immediately after the flood, as Moses narrates here — God commanded men to abstain from eating blood. But why? Namely, that He might the more vehemently deter man from homicide, which, as it is in itself detestable, so at that time, in so great a fewness of men, would have been deadly to the human race. As if the Lord had signified: If I do not wish you to desire the eating of the blood of animals, how much less to thirst for human blood, and to satisfy the rabid hunger of vengeance by atrociously shedding the blood of man? This cause Chrysostom touched on; and besides that, that it has been handed down by the wise men of the world that the blood of brutes is heavy and earthy, and the cause of many diseases if it is eaten. The same also pertains to the cleanliness and decency of human diet: for it is foul to see, and almost horrible, to behold one feeding on flesh drenched and dripping with blood, and bloodying the mouth and lips of those eating.¹¹

SED illa mihi potior videtur ratio: ut, talium rerum observantia longo tempore ante legem praecultis et quasi praeparatis hominum animis, imponendum ipsis iugum legis nec aegre subirent nec gravate ferrent. Multa enim antiquitus fuere in usu apud viros bonos et religiosos Dei cultores, quae postea per legem Mosis sancita et servanda Hebraeis praescripta sunt: exempli causa, abstinentia ab esu sanguinis; distinctio mundorum atque immundorum animalium; votorum nuncupatio; oblatio decimarum; suscitatio seminis fratris demortui sine liberis; adulterii poena capitalis; atque alia quaedam horum similia: quorum cultui et observantiae diu ante suetis hominibus, minus postea lex Mosis eadem praecipiens onerosa fuit. De tempore igitur quod praecessit legem Mosis, ita dictum sit.

But this reason seems to me preferable: that, the minds of men being long before the law fore-cultivated and as it were prepared by the observance of such things, they might neither submit to the yoke of the law to be imposed on them with difficulty, nor bear it grudgingly. For many things were anciently in use among good and religious worshippers of God, which afterward through the law of Moses were sanctioned and prescribed to be observed by the Hebrews: for example, abstinence from eating blood; the distinction of clean and unclean animals; the making of vows; the offering of tithes; the raising up of seed for a brother who died without children; the capital penalty for adultery; and certain other things similar to these: to the cultivation and observance of which, men being long before accustomed, the law of Moses, commanding the same things, was afterward less burdensome. So much, then, be said about the time which preceded the law of Moses.¹²

PROXIME sequitur ut doceamus cur tam severe lex Mosis esu sanguinis interdixerit Hebraeis. Prohibitio haec legis Mosaicae multis locis legitur, sed nusquam expressius ac distinctius quam in capite 17 Levitici, ubi sic est: Homo quilibet de domo Israel, et de advenis qui peregrinantur inter vos, si comederit sanguinem, obfirmabo faciem meam contra animam illius, et disperdam eam de populo suo, quia anima carnis in sanguine est, et ego dedi illum vobis ut super altare meum expietis pro animabus vestris, et sanguis pro animae piaculo sit. Si quis igitur venatione vel aucupio ceperit feram vel avem quibus vesci licitum est, fundat sanguinem eius et operiat illum terra. Haec sunt verba legis de [non edendo sanguine]…

Next it follows that we teach why the law of Moses so severely forbade the Hebrews the eating of blood. This prohibition of the Mosaic law is read in many places, but nowhere more expressly and distinctly than in chapter 17 of Leviticus, where it is thus: “Any man whatever of the house of Israel, and of the strangers who sojourn among you, if he eat blood, I will set my face against his soul, and will destroy him from among his people, because the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you that upon my altar you may make atonement for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul. If anyone, therefore, by hunting or fowling take a wild beast or a bird which it is lawful to eat, let him pour out its blood and cover it with earth.” These are the words of the law about [not eating blood]…¹³

…non edendo sanguine, sive per se, sive simul cum carne animalis.

…not eating blood, whether by itself, or together with the flesh of the animal.¹⁴

HIS autem verbis significantur duae causae propter quas noluit Deus Hebraeos vesci sanguine: prior causa tangitur illis verbis, quia anima eius in sanguine est, id est, vita animalis praecipue consistit in sanguine: quod manifestum fit tripliciter. Namque, ut definit Aristoteles, vita consistit in calido et humido: talis autem maxime est sanguis; nec vita constare potest sine alimento, ultimum vero alimentum sanguis est; denique spiritus vitalis, qui (ut nomine ipso prae se fert) vitam animalis continet, non est aliud quam sanguis ipse, sed tenuior tamen et purior ac fervidior. Verum dicet aliquis, quam vim habet ista ratio: vita animalis maxime consistit in sanguine, ergo non est edendus sanguis animalis? Hanc nempe: quia sanguis est vita animalis, perinde est comedere sanguinem atque vitam ipsam animalis, vel ipsum animal vivum comedere: at hoc inhumanum est et ferinum, et quod omnes aversari ac perhorrescere debeant.

And by these words two causes are signified for which God did not wish the Hebrews to eat blood: the first cause is touched on in those words, “because its life is in the blood” — that is, the life of the animal chiefly consists in the blood: which is made manifest in three ways. For, as Aristotle defines, life consists in the hot and the moist: and such most of all is blood; nor can life subsist without nourishment, and the last nourishment is blood; finally, the vital spirit, which (as by its very name it shows) contains the life of the animal, is nothing other than the blood itself, but thinner, purer, and more fervid. But someone will say, what force has that reason: the life of the animal chiefly consists in the blood, therefore the blood of the animal is not to be eaten? This, namely: because the blood is the life of the animal, to eat the blood is the same as to eat the very life of the animal, or to eat the living animal itself: but this is inhuman and bestial, and what all ought to shun and shudder at.¹⁵

POSTERIOR ratio significatur illis verbis: Et ego dedi illum vobis, ut super altare meum expietis pro animabus vestris. Iussit enim Deus pro expiatione criminum sanguinem animalium quae immolabantur poni super altari, vel ad basem eius fundi: namque, quia sanguis quodammodo est anima animalium, satis convenienter immolabatur pro expiatione animarum hominum: vel quia, propter admissa crimina, debuisset sanguis et vita hominum profundi et perdi, clemens Dominus simul et iustus pro vita et anima hominis iussit vitam et sanguinem animalium sibi offerri. Unde Chrysostomus, considerans Deum esum carnium concessisse homini, sanguinis autem denegasse: carnem, inquit, animalium indulsit homini, quod id pertineret ad eius utilitatem: sanguinem autem sibi reservavit in sacrificiis immolandum.

The latter reason is signified in those words: “And I have given it to you, that upon my altar you may make atonement for your souls.” For God commanded that, for the expiation of crimes, the blood of the animals which were sacrificed be placed upon the altar, or poured at its base: for, because the blood is in a way the soul of the animals, it was fittingly enough sacrificed for the expiation of the souls of men; or because, on account of the crimes committed, the blood and life of men ought to have been poured out and destroyed, the clement and at the same time just Lord, for the life and soul of man, commanded the life and blood of animals to be offered to Him. Whence Chrysostom, considering that God granted to man the eating of flesh but denied [him] that of blood: “the flesh of animals,” he says, “He indulged to man, because that pertained to his utility: but the blood He reserved to Himself, to be sacrificed in the offerings.”¹⁶

PRAETER duas autem supradictas rationes adiungit tres alias B. Thomas: primam, fugiendae Idololatriae causa, ad quam satis proni erant Hebraei (etenim idolorum cultores libabant de sanguine victimarum): alteram, in odium et detestationem homicidii, ut tanto magis horrerent effusionem humani sanguinis, quibus esus sanguinis animalium tam severe interdictus esset (quocirca Genesis 9, cum dictum esset, Carnem cum sanguine non comedetis, subiungitur, Sanguinem enim animarum vestrarum requiram): tertiam, ad reverentiam divini numinis: nam quia sanguis est vita animalis, offertur soli Deo, ut significetur ipsum auctorem esse vitae nostrae, et quae ad vitae nostrae conservationem pertinent ei potius quam vel nobis vel parentibus nostris vel aliis quibuslibet causis accepta ferri oportere.

But besides the two aforesaid reasons, St. Thomas adds three others: the first, for the sake of fleeing Idolatry, to which the Hebrews were prone enough (for the worshippers of idols poured libations of the blood of the victims): the second, in hatred and detestation of homicide, that they might so much the more shudder at the effusion of human blood, to whom the eating of the blood of animals was so severely forbidden (wherefore in Genesis 9, when it had been said, “Flesh with the blood you shall not eat,” there is subjoined, “For I will require the blood of your souls”): the third, for reverence of the divine majesty: for because the blood is the life of the animal, it is offered to God alone, that it may be signified that He is the author of our life, and that the things which pertain to the preservation of our life ought to be ascribed to Him rather than to ourselves or our parents or any other causes whatever.¹⁷

RESTAT exquirendum quod tertio loco positum est, cur prohibitio esus sanguinis etiam tempore legis Evangelicae, in primo Ecclesiae Concilio et Apostolorum decreto, non tantum apud Iudaeos firmata sit, verum etiam omnibus ex Gentilismo ad Christum conversis indicta. Decreti verba prodidit memoriae Lucas ita scribens: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis nihil ultra imponere vobis oneris quam haec neces[saria]…

It remains to inquire into what was set in the third place: why the prohibition of eating blood, even in the time of the Evangelical law — in the first Council of the Church and the decree of the Apostles — was confirmed not only among the Jews, but also enjoined on all converted from Gentilism to Christ. The words of the decree Luke handed down to memory, writing thus: “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no further burden than these neces[sary things]…¹⁸

…saria: Ut abstineatis vos ab immolatis simulachrorum, et sanguine et suffocato, et fornicatione: a quibus custodientes vos bene agetis. Valete. Quaeritur igitur cur prohibitionem edendi sanguinis et apud Iudaeos renovare Apostoli voluerint et Gentibus imponere; praesertim cum praeceptorum legis Mosaicae caeremonialium virtus evanuerit post mortem Domini nostri; observantia vero, post Evangelii promulgationem, etiam detestabilis et Christianis exitiosa fuerit, B. Paulo magna asseveratione et apostolica auctoritate contestante: Ecce ego Paulus dico vobis, quoniam si circumcidamini, Christus vobis nihil proderit. Quod Paulus de Circumcisione dixit, idem in ceteras omnes legales caeremonias dici potest. Varias nodi huius exolvendi rationes breviter exponam.

…sary things: That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Farewell.” It is asked, therefore, why the Apostles wished both to renew among the Jews and to impose on the Gentiles the prohibition of eating blood — especially since the force of the ceremonial precepts of the Mosaic law had vanished after the death of our Lord, and their observance, after the promulgation of the Gospel, was even detestable and ruinous to Christians, as St. Paul testifies with great asseveration and apostolic authority: “Behold, I Paul say to you, that if you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.” What Paul said of Circumcision, the same can be said of all the other legal ceremonies. I shall briefly set forth various ways of loosing this knot.¹⁹

ORIGENES hanc reddit rationem cur Apostoli Christianis interdixerint esu sanguinis et suffocatorum: Suffocata, inquit, sunt animalia mortua non expresso ex illis sanguine, qua utique daemonum esse aiunt cibum, cuius nidore illi pascantur. Haec idcirco vetantur in cibum assumi, ne nos daemonum cibis nutriamur, et nobiscum maligni spiritus coalantur, si pariter cum illis vescamur suffocatis. Verum non sit credibile Apostolos tam absurdis Gentilium figmentis atque erroribus ad condendum illud decretum esse ductos.

Origen renders this reason why the Apostles forbade Christians the eating of blood and of strangled things: “Strangled,” he says, “are animals dead without the blood pressed out of them, which they say is indeed the food of demons, on whose reek they feed. These, therefore, are forbidden to be taken as food, lest we be nourished by the food of demons, and the malignant spirits grow together with us, if we equally feed with them on strangled things.” But it is not credible that the Apostles were led to enact that decree by such absurd figments and errors of the Gentiles.²⁰

B. THOMAS duas narrat opiniones quorundam minime probabilem illius decreti Apostolorum interpretationem afferentium. Quidam verba illius decreti dixerunt non esse accipienda proprie secundum literalem sensum, sed figurate secundum spiritualem intellectum: ut in sanguine vetito intelligendum sit vetitum esse homicidium; in suffocato, violentiam et rapinam; in iis quae simulachris immolata sunt, ipsam Idololatriam; fornicationem autem proprie esse prohibitam, quia per se mala erat. Atque hanc illi decreti Apostolici expositionem deprompserunt ex quibusdam glossis quae verba illius decreti mystice exposuerunt. Sed illud arguit improbabilitatem huius expositionis, tum quod absurdum est putare Apostolos in illo tam necessario et optato decreto ad pacificandas Ecclesias voluisse verbis non secundum propriam eorum atque usitatam significationem acceptis, sed figurate ac mystice sumptis: tum etiam quod, cum apud Gentiles homicidium et rapina haberentur ut mala et illicita, et secundum leges eorum prohiberentur et gravissime punirentur, supervacuum fuisset quasi novum et singulare quoddam praeceptum de his dare Gentilibus ad Christum conversis. Alii putarunt illa tunc fuisse prohibita Christianis non propter observantiam legis Mosaicae, sed gulae coercendae et comprimendae voluptatis causa. Verum cum sint alia ciborum genera multo quam illa et ad esum delicatiora magis et iucundiora gustatui, nulla ratio potest afferri cur non haec potius vetita fuerint quam illa.

St. Thomas relates two opinions of certain men bringing forward a by no means probable interpretation of that decree of the Apostles. Some said the words of that decree are not to be taken properly according to the literal sense, but figuratively according to the spiritual understanding: so that by the forbidden “blood” is to be understood that homicide is forbidden; by “strangled,” violence and rapine; by “things sacrificed to idols,” idolatry itself; but that fornication was properly forbidden, because it was evil in itself. And this exposition of the Apostolic decree they drew from certain glosses which expounded the words of that decree mystically. But this argues the improbability of this exposition: both because it is absurd to think that the Apostles, in that so necessary and longed-for decree for pacifying the Churches, wished the words to be taken not according to their proper and usual signification, but figuratively and mystically; and also because, since among the Gentiles homicide and rapine were held as evil and unlawful, and were forbidden by their laws and most gravely punished, it would have been superfluous to give to the Gentiles converted to Christ a kind of new and singular precept about these. Others thought those things were then forbidden to Christians not for the observance of the Mosaic law, but for the sake of curbing gluttony and repressing pleasure. But since there are other kinds of foods much more delicate to eat than those, and more pleasant to the taste, no reason can be brought why these were not rather forbidden than those.²¹

VERA igitur causa cur in exordio Ecclesiae Christianis interdictum sit esu sanguinis aliorumque quae in eo decreto continentur, ea est quam exposuit B. Augustinus contra Faustum disputans: In Actibus, inquit, Apostolorum praeceptum est ab Apostolis ut abstinerent Gentes a fornicatione, ab immolatis et sanguine; quod ideo factum est, quia eligere voluerunt Apostoli pro tempore rem facilem neque observantibus onerosam, in qua cum Israelitis etiam Gentes — propter angularem lapidem duos parietes in se concordantem — aliquid communiter observarent: simul et admonerent in ipsa Arca Noë, quando Deus primum hoc iussit, Ecclesiam omnium gentium fuisse praefiguratam, cuius facti prophetia iam Gentibus ad fidem accedentibus incipiebat impleri.

The true cause, therefore, why at the beginning of the Church the eating of blood and of the other things contained in that decree was forbidden to Christians is that which St. Augustine expounded, disputing against Faustus: “In the Acts of the Apostles it was commanded by the Apostles that the Gentiles should abstain from fornication, from things sacrificed [to idols], and from blood; which was done because the Apostles wished to choose, for the time, a thing easy and not burdensome to the observers, in which the Gentiles also, together with the Israelites — on account of the corner-stone making the two walls agree in itself — might observe something in common: and at the same time that they might admonish that in the very Ark of Noah, when God first commanded this, the Church of all nations had been prefigured, the prophecy of which fact was now beginning to be fulfilled as the Gentiles came to the faith.²²

Transacto autem illo tempore quo duo illi parietes — unus ex Circumcisione, alter ex Praeputio — quamvis in angulari lapide concordarent, tamen suis quibusdam proprietatibus distinctius eminebant: et ubi Ecclesia Gentium talis effecta est ut in ea nullus Israelita carnalis appareat, quis iam hoc Christianus observat, ut turdos vel minutiores aviculas non attingat, nisi quorum sanguis effusus est? aut leporem non edat, si manu a cervice percussus, nullo vulnere cruento occisus est? Si qui forte pauci adhuc tangere ista formidant, a ceteris irridentur. Ita omnium animos erudivit illa sententia veritatis: Non quod intrat in os vestrum vos coinquinat, sed quod exit; nullam cibi naturam quam societas admittit humana, sed quae iniquitas committit peccata condemnans. Sic Augustinus.

But that time being passed, in which those two walls — one of the Circumcision, the other of the Uncircumcision — although they agreed in the corner-stone, yet were more distinctly prominent by certain properties of their own: and when the Church of the Gentiles was made such that in it no carnal Israelite appears, what Christian now observes this, that he does not touch thrushes or smaller little birds unless their blood has been poured out? or does not eat a hare if, struck on the neck by the hand, it is killed with no bloody wound? If perhaps a few still dread to touch these, they are laughed at by the rest. So that sentence of truth has instructed the minds of all: ‘Not what enters into your mouth defiles you, but what comes out’; condemning no nature of food which human society admits, but the sins which iniquity commits.” So Augustine.²³

LICET autem tempore B. Augustini istarum rerum abstinentia iam defuisset, ut ipse significat, apud plerosque Latinos et in Ecclesiis Occidentalibus; multi tamen, praesertim ex Graecis et apud Orientales Ecclesias, tenaciores fuerunt huius observantiae, vel propter inveteratam eius consuetudinem, vel propter Apostolicae auctoritatis et sententiae reverentiam. Ergo abstinentia illarum rerum decreta est tunc ab Apostolis, non propter observantiam legis Mosaicae, sed quo facilius Iudaeorum et Gentilium simul habitantium animi conglutinati in unum populum coalescerent, his rebus sublatis quae vehementius eos dissociare atque alienare possent. Iudaei vero propter antiquissimam consuetudinem esum sanguinis et suffocatorum incredibiliter aversabantur et exhorrescebant: esus autem eorum quae simulacris immolata erant magnum eis scandalum afferebat, suspicantibus id esse argumentum reditus Gentilium ad idololatriam. Cessante autem tali causa, cessavit etiam effectus; manifesta enim omnibus est doctrinae Evangelicae et Apostolicae veritas, qua persuasum est quod intrat per os non inquinare hominem, nihilque reiiciendum quod cum gratiarum actione percipitur. Fornicatio autem ideo vetita est, quia plerique Gentilium existimabant simplicem fornicationem non esse per se malam neque illicitam.

But although in St. Augustine's time the abstinence from those things had now ceased, as he himself signifies, among most Latins and in the Western Churches; many, however, especially of the Greeks and among the Eastern Churches, were more tenacious of this observance, whether on account of its inveterate custom, or on account of reverence for the Apostolic authority and judgment. Therefore the abstinence from those things was then decreed by the Apostles not for the observance of the Mosaic law, but that the minds of the Jews and Gentiles dwelling together might more easily be glued together and coalesce into one people, those things being removed which could more vehemently dissociate and alienate them. For the Jews, on account of their most ancient custom, incredibly abhorred and shuddered at the eating of blood and of strangled things; and the eating of those things which had been sacrificed to idols brought them great scandal, suspecting it to be an argument of the Gentiles' return to idolatry. But that cause ceasing, the effect also ceased; for the truth of the Evangelical and Apostolic doctrine is manifest to all, by which it is persuaded that what enters by the mouth does not defile man, and that nothing is to be rejected which is received with thanksgiving. But fornication was forbidden because most of the Gentiles thought that simple fornication was not in itself evil nor unlawful.²⁴

TERTIA quaestio super illis verbis Dei tractanda est: Sanguinem enim animarum vestrarum requiram, etc. Nam cum Deus praecepisset ne caro ederetur cum sanguine, rationem huius praecepti reddens subiungit illa verba, sanguinem enim animarum vestrarum requiram. Quaeritur igitur qualis sit ea ratio, quamve consequentiam vel connexionem habeat cum illo praecepto. Quid enim facit ad non edendum sanguinem animalis, non debere fundi sanguinem hominis, et qui fuderit, supremo eum supplicio esse feriendum? Equidem non dissimulabo perdifficilem esse huius loci explicatum; nam quae in eius loci tractatu adferunt interpretes, eiusmodi sunt ut nec omnem penitus ex animo demant scrupulum, nec in his legentium mens acquiescat. Ponam breviter quae aliis, quaeque mihi videntur probabiliora, melioris sententiae iudicium lectori permittens. Si comedere carnem cum sanguine significaret fundere sanguinem humanum et occidere hominem, ut visum est Eugubino, haud dubie aptissima et validissima esset ratio quae hic redditur: plurimum enim valeret ad restinguendam cupiditatem faciendi homicidii, declarasse quantopere Deus caedem hominis detestetur, quantoque supplicio eam vindicaturus sit. Sed quando supra hanc expositionem Eugubini optima ratione reiecimus, quaerenda est alia interpretatio.

The third question is to be treated upon those words of God: “For I will require the blood of your souls,” etc. For when God had commanded that flesh be not eaten with blood, rendering the reason of this precept He subjoins those words, “for I will require the blood of your souls.” It is asked, therefore, of what sort that reason is, and what consequence or connection it has with that precept. For what does it make toward not eating the blood of an animal, that the blood of man ought not to be shed, and that he who has shed it is to be struck with the utmost punishment? I will not, indeed, dissemble that the explanation of this place is very difficult; for the things which the interpreters bring forward in the treatment of this place are such that they neither wholly take away every scruple from the mind, nor does the mind of readers rest in them. I will briefly set down what seems more probable to others, and what to me, leaving the judgment of the better opinion to the reader. If “to eat flesh with blood” signified to shed human blood and to kill a man, as it seemed to Eugubinus, the reason here rendered would doubtless be most apt and most powerful: for it would avail very much to extinguish the desire of committing homicide, to have declared how greatly God detests the slaughter of man, and with how great a punishment He will avenge it. But since above we rejected this exposition of Eugubinus with the best reason, another interpretation must be sought.²⁵

PAULUS Burgensis hoc loco effugium propositae difficultatis reperit diversitatem lectionis Hebraicae, quae pro illa coniunctione causali (enim vel etenim) habet (veruntamen). Sic enim ipse legit hunc locum ex Hebraeo: Veruntamen sanguinem animarum vestrarum requiram, etc. Quod bene cohaeret cum antecedentibus verbis; sensus enim est: Licet permiserim vobis caedem animalium in cibum vestrum, non tamen permitto vobis caedem hominum, quocunque animo seu modo ea fiat; quin si quis fuderit sanguinem hominis, talionis poena plectetur.

Paul of Burgos in this place finds an escape from the proposed difficulty in the diversity of the Hebrew reading, which for that causal conjunction (“for” or “indeed”) has (“but yet”). For thus he himself reads this place from the Hebrew: “But yet the blood of your souls I will require,” etc. Which coheres well with the preceding words; for the sense is: Although I have permitted you the slaughter of animals for your food, yet I do not permit you the slaughter of men, with whatever mind or in whatever manner it be done; nay, if anyone shed the blood of a man, he shall be punished with the penalty of talion.²⁶

MATTHIAS Thoringius, Lyrani propugnator, quique Replicas defensivas (ut ipse vocat) Postillarum Lyrani scripsit adversus Burgensem, negat supradictis verbis Dei rationem exponi cur non debeat caro comedi cum sanguine, sed potius obiectioni cuidam tacitae responderi. Dixerat Deus, omne quod vivit et movetur super terram erit vobis in cibum: poterat obiici, ergo caro humana in cibum sumi potest, homo quippe de numero eorum est quae vivunt et moventur super terram: hanc obiectionem illis verbis repellit Dominus. Oportet autem intelligere in his verbis Domini, si non expresse, attamen involute contineri hunc Syllogismum: Non licet comedere carnem animalis nisi prius occisi animalis sanguis effundatur; sed non licet effundere sanguinem hominis aut hominem occidere, homicida enim quicunque fuerit simili mortis poena punietur; ergo non licet humanam carnem in cibum assumere. Huius Syllogismi Maior expressa ponitur hoc loco: Minor quoque exprimitur simul cum eius probatione, poena scilicet adversus homicidam constituta. Sola igitur conclusio est quae hic expressa non ponitur; subintelligenda tamen est.

Matthias Thoringus, the champion of Lyra, who wrote “defensive Replies” (as he calls them) of Lyra's Postills against [Paul of] Burgos, denies that by the aforesaid words of God a reason is set forth why flesh ought not to be eaten with blood, but rather that a certain tacit objection is answered. God had said, “Everything that lives and moves upon the earth shall be food for you”: it could be objected, therefore human flesh can be taken for food, since man is of the number of those that live and move upon the earth: this objection the Lord repels by those words. And one must understand that in these words of the Lord, if not expressly, yet implicitly, this Syllogism is contained: It is not lawful to eat the flesh of an animal unless first the blood of the killed animal be poured out; but it is not lawful to pour out the blood of a man or to kill a man, for a murderer, whoever he be, will be punished with a like penalty of death; therefore it is not lawful to take human flesh for food. The Major of this Syllogism is here expressly set down; the Minor too is expressed, together with its proof — namely the penalty established against the murderer. The conclusion alone, therefore, is what is not here expressly set down; yet it must be understood.²⁷

NEQUE huius expositionis valde dissimilis est interpretatio Caietani, qui locum hunc ita legit ex Hebraeo: Et solum sanguinem vestrum ad animas vestras requiram. Quibus verbis, inquit, non redditur ratio illius exceptionis, Excepto quod carnem cum sanguine non comedetis; sed adiungitur altera exceptio, ne in cibum assumant carnes humanas. Quasi diceret: Etsi dedi vobis in cibum omnia animalia, exceptam tamen esse volo a materia alimenti carnem hominis; iniustum enim est ut homo sit alimentum sive animalis sive etiam alterius hominis. Et hoc significatur dicendo: Solum sanguinem vestrum, qui est ad animas vestras, id est, ad vitas vestras (supple, servandas), requiram tanquam iniuste ablatum. Ex eo enim quod sanguinis humani officium est conservare hominis vitam non solum vegetativam et sensitivam, sed etiam rationalem, contra rationem et ordinem naturae est ut is fiat alimentum cuiusquam sive animalis sive hominis. Etenim alimentum suapte natura est imperfectius eo quod alitur, utpote quod ordinatur ad id quod alitur tanquam medium ad finem; constat autem in universum perfectiorem esse finem iis quae ad finem ordinantur: quo fit ut homo suapte natura nullius esse debeat alimentum, quippe cum quibuscunque animantibus praestantior sit; aliis vero hominibus par sit perfectione naturalis dignitatis. Haec Caietanus.

Nor very dissimilar to this exposition is the interpretation of Cajetan, who reads this place from the Hebrew thus: “And only your blood, to [the protection of] your souls, will I require.” By which words, he says, the reason of that exception (“Save that flesh with the blood you shall not eat”) is not rendered; but another exception is added, that they should not take human flesh for food. As if He said: Although I have given you all animals for food, yet I will have the flesh of man to be excepted from the matter of nourishment; for it is unjust that man be the nourishment either of an animal or even of another man. And this is signified by saying: “Only your blood, which is to [the protection of] your souls” — that is, to your lives (supply, to be preserved) — “I will require” as unjustly taken away. For from the fact that the office of human blood is to preserve man's life — not only the vegetative and sensitive, but also the rational — it is against reason and the order of nature that he should become the nourishment of anyone, whether animal or man. For nourishment is by its own nature more imperfect than that which is nourished, as being ordered to it as a means to an end; but it is established in general that the end is more perfect than the things ordered to the end: whence it comes about that man by his own nature ought to be the nourishment of none, since he is more excellent than any living creatures whatever, and to other men is equal in the perfection of natural dignity. Thus Cajetan.²⁸

CARTHUSIANUS ait illa verba, Sanguinem enim vestrum requiram, non continere causam proprie dictam supra positae exceptionis, sed quasi motivum et signum; ita ut Deus, in maiorem homicidii detestationem et prohibitionem, vetuerit animalia atrocius suffocari aut edi quam ratio dictat: vel quod tam severa prohibitio homicidii et tam atrox eius ultio signum sit Deum nolle animalia crudelius strangulari aut comedi quam ad debitum hominis usum necesse est. Namque in Deuteronomio etiam vetat Deus hedum coqui in lacte matris suae, et avem capi una cum pullis suis; quae licet spiritualem habeant intellectum, habent nihilominus tamen secundum literam probabilem rationem, quo scilicet etiam circa animalia crudelitatem vitarent Hebraei; quin etiam officia quaedam pietatis exercerent, ut ex eo intelligerent quanto magis id erga homines facto opus esset. Sapienter igitur Salomon: Novit, inquit, iustus iumentorum suorum animas; viscera autem impiorum crudelia. Sunt denique qui illud enim convertant ex Hebraeo in adverbia, sane sive profecto, in hunc sensum: Videte ne, dum permitto vobis caedem animalium ad esum et impero sanguinis eorum effusionem, putetis similiter quoque permitti vobis effusionem sanguinis humani et caedes hominum: profecto sanguinem animarum vestrarum requiram, etc. Haec ab aliis prodita sunt.

The Carthusian says that those words, “For I will require your blood,” do not contain a cause properly so called of the above-placed exception, but as it were a motive and sign; so that God, for the greater detestation and prohibition of homicide, forbade animals to be strangled or eaten more atrociously than reason dictates: or that so severe a prohibition of homicide and so atrocious an avenging of it is a sign that God does not wish animals to be more cruelly strangled or eaten than is necessary for the due use of man. For in Deuteronomy too God forbids a kid to be boiled in its mother's milk, and a bird to be taken together with its young; which, although they have a spiritual understanding, nevertheless have also according to the letter a probable reason — namely, that the Hebrews might avoid cruelty even toward animals; nay, that they might exercise certain duties of piety, that from it they might understand how much more this was needful to be done toward men. Wisely, therefore, Solomon: “The just man,” he says, “knows the souls [lives] of his beasts; but the bowels of the wicked are cruel.” There are, finally, those who turn that “for” from the Hebrew into the adverbs “surely” or “indeed,” in this sense: See lest, while I permit you the slaughter of animals for food and command the effusion of their blood, you think that likewise the effusion of human blood and the slaughter of men is permitted you: indeed, the blood of your souls I will require, etc. These things have been handed down by others.²⁹

BREVE est quod equidem praeter ista habeo dicere. Mihi videtur, quo melius sibi constet lectionis Latinae sententia, aliquid esse hoc loco cogitatione supplendum interiectum inter illud, Carnem cum sanguine non comedetis, et hoc, sanguinem enim animarum vestrarum requiram: ita ut hoc veram contineat rationem non illius praecepti de non edendo sanguine, sed eius quod dixi esse subintelligendum; quod tale quiddam esse potest: Nolo autem vos sanguinem humanum fundere et hominem interficere, aut cibi, aut vindictae, aut voluptatis, aut cuiuscunque rei causa. Sanguinem enim vestrum requiram de manu, etc. Enimvero solet nonnunquam sacra Scriptura ponere aliquid continens rationem et causam alicuius, quod tamen expressum non est, sed debet subintelligi. Quod si neque hoc, neque superiora lectoris animum explent, vel melius aliquid suo ipse ingenio excudat, vel petat ex aliis, si quis forte (quem ego non viderim) probabilius quippiam adinvenit.

Brief is what I, for my part, have to say besides these. It seems to me, that the sense of the Latin reading may better hold together, that something is here to be supplied by thought, interposed between that, “Flesh with the blood you shall not eat,” and this, “for the blood of your souls I will require”: so that this contains the true reason not of that precept about not eating blood, but of that which I said is to be understood; which can be something like this: But I do not wish you to shed human blood and kill a man, whether for the sake of food, or of vengeance, or of pleasure, or of any thing whatever. For your blood I will require at the hand, etc. For indeed sacred Scripture is sometimes wont to set down something containing the reason and cause of something which nevertheless is not expressed, but must be understood. But if neither this nor the foregoing satisfy the reader's mind, let him either hammer out something better by his own genius, or seek it from others, if perchance someone (whom I have not seen) has found something more probable.³⁰

Translator’s notes

§45. The three questions of Disp. 2; Eugubinus's figurative reading (‘eat flesh with blood’ = homicide; Homer's ‘flesh-eating war’; blood-eating brings no uncleanness). Margins: “What it is to eat flesh with blood”; Eugubinus; Homer. Continues on p. 333. ↩
§45 (cont.). Eugubinus: the real concern was deterring homicide (lest a new Cain thin the few survivors). ↩
§46. Two objections refute Eugubinus: the exception fits only literal animal-flesh, and ‘eat flesh with blood’ never means ‘kill a man’ in Scripture. Margin: “Eugubinus is refuted.” ↩
§47. Scripture does use ‘eat the flesh of’ for seeking one's death (Ps 26; Job 31 — the servants' hatred of strict Job). Margin: “The passage of Job ch. 31.” ↩
§48. Gregory (Morals 22) on the Job text (mystically of the Eucharist; literally Job's strictness earning enemies). Final rejection of Eugubinus. Margin: St. Gregory. ↩
§49. Chrysostom (= eating strangled flesh) is only partly right; ‘flesh with blood’ is broader (cf. Acts 15, which lists strangled and blood separately). Margins: Chrysostom, hom. 27 on Genesis; Lev. 17; Acts 15. ↩
§50. Cajetan: the verse forbids eating the living flesh of blooded animals (the bestial way) — with shellfish as the bloodless exception. Margin: Cajetan. ↩
§51. Pererius: living-flesh-eating is too repugnant to need an express ban (only a Polyphemus would do it). Margin: Homer, Odyssey bk. 9. ↩
§52. Lyra/Tostatus/Carthusian's four modes of ‘eating flesh with blood,’ which Pererius reduces to two (blood within the flesh, or blood taken separately). Margins: Lyra; Tostatus; the Carthusian. Continues on p. 335. ↩
§52 (cont.). Both ways of eating blood (sipped, or as in sausages) are forbidden. End of question 1. ↩
§53. Question 2: why God forbade blood. Before the law (right after the flood) — to deter homicide (Chrysostom); also blood is unwholesome and foul to eat. Margins: Acts 15; “Why God forbade eating blood immediately after the flood”; Chrysostom, hom. 27 on Genesis. ↩
§54. Pererius's preferred reason: such practices prepared men in advance so the Mosaic yoke would sit lightly (cf. clean/unclean, vows, tithes, levirate, etc.). ↩
§55. Why the Mosaic law forbade blood so severely — the key text, Leviticus 17. Margin: “Five causes why the law of Moses forbade the Hebrews to eat blood.” Continues on p. 336. ↩
§55 (cont.). The Leviticus law covers blood eaten by itself or with the flesh. ↩
§56. First cause (Lev 17): the animal's life is in the blood (proven three ways from Aristotle) — so eating it is like eating the live animal. Margins: “That the animal's life chiefly consists in the blood”; Aristotle. ↩
§57. Second cause: blood was reserved for atonement on the altar (life given for life). Margin: Chrysostom, hom. 27 on Genesis. ↩
§58. Aquinas's three further causes: to shun idolatry, to deepen horror of homicide, and to honor God as author of life. Margin: Aquinas, I-II, q. 102, art. 3. ↩
§59. Question 3: why the apostolic decree (Acts 15) bound even Gentile Christians from blood. Margins: “Why even in the time of the Evangelical law eating blood was forbidden to Christians”; “The passage Acts 15.” Continues on p. 337. ↩
§59 (cont.). The Acts 15 decree; the puzzle (the ceremonial law was dead — Gal 5 on circumcision). Margin: Gal. 5. ↩
§60. Origen's reason (the blood of strangled things is demons' food) — Pererius finds it incredible. Margin: Origen, Against Celsus, bk. 8. ↩
§61. Two improbable readings of the decree (figurative/mystical; or anti-gluttony) reported by Aquinas and rejected. Margin: Aquinas, I-II, q. 103, art. 4. ↩
§62. The true reason (Augustine, Against Faustus): an easy common observance to bind Jew and Gentile into one Church (the Ark prefiguring it). Continues on p. 338. ↩
§62 (cont.). Augustine: once the two ‘walls’ merged, the observance lapsed (cf. Christ: not what enters defiles). Margins: Eph. 2; Gen. 6; Matt. 15. ↩
§63. The decree was for unity, not law; the East kept it longer; the cause (and so the rule) lapsed — but fornication remained forbidden as evil in itself. Margin: 1 Tim. 4. ↩
§64. Question 3: how does ‘for I will require your blood’ give the reason for the blood-prohibition? (Eugubinus's reading would fit, but it was already rejected.) ↩
§65. Paul of Burgos's escape: the Hebrew has ‘but yet’ (not ‘for’), so it's a contrast, not a reason. Margin: Paul of Burgos. ↩
§66. Matthias Thoringus (Lyra's defender): the words answer a tacit objection (may we eat human flesh?) — an implied syllogism whose conclusion (no cannibalism) is left unstated. Margin: Matthias Thoringus. ↩
§67. Cajetan (similar to Thoringus): the words add a second exception — no eating human flesh, since man (the more perfect) is the nourishment of nothing. Margin: Cajetan. ↩
§68. The Carthusian: the words are a ‘motive,’ not a cause — God dislikes needless cruelty even to animals (Deut: kid in milk, bird with young; Prov 12). Plus the ‘for’→‘indeed’ adverb reading. Margins: Denis the Carthusian; Deut. 22; Prov. 12. ↩
§69. Pererius's own: supply an unstated clause (‘nor do I wish you to kill a man…’) of which ‘for your blood I will require’ is the true reason. Margin: “The author's opinion.” ↩