and wisely ordered all things to the honesty of living, having regard to purity and cleanliness, and to the correction and amendment of manners: and as for birds and flying fowls, he hath permitted us to eat ordinarily of such as are tame, and are different from others in neatness and cleanliness, and that live upon grains and seeds ;—and such as he hath forbidden us to eat, are wild and ravenous, living upon flesh and carrion, of proud natures, inclined to rapine and prey, and such as by force set upon others, and seek not their living, but to the damage, hurt, and injury of the other poultry who are gentle and tame. Our law-maker, therefore, noting this by way of similitude, and by a borrowed way of translation, taken from the nature of such fowls, hath pronounced them unclean and infectious, as being willing to reduce and bring all things to the consideration of purity and cleanliness of the soul, to the end that every one being admonished by ordinary and domestic examples may understand how it behoveth us to use equity and justice; and that it is not granted to man, be he never so strong, powerful, proud, bold, and audacious soever, to ravish by force any thing from another, nor to do any injury to any person; but that it is convenient he should order the course of his life in imitation of the fowl I have spoken of, who live by grain, leading a tame and tractable life; and that it is not lawful to vex and trouble any person of our own kind, nor ravish his goods by force, as do those beasts he hath prohibited us to eat ; and not to use violence in any case, which is figured by the nature of beasts, not wholly void of sense." And again, "Where he hath licensed us eating the flesh of four-footed beasts, who have two, and the hoofs cloven, the import is, that we ought to direct our operations to justice and bounty: by this cloven hoof figuring to us the distribution of rewards and punishments. He hath added further, that they should be such as chew the cud, by which he manifestly admonisheth us to have this rumina

tion in memory, and in the course of our life; for what signifieth the chewing of the cud, but that we ought still to have in our minds a continual revolving of our lives and actions, and so, by a frequent meditation, the duties to which we are obliged, and what we owe to all ?"*

6

The early Christian Fathers abound with similar representations of the tropological or figurative nature of these distinctions. St. Barnabas, in his Catholic Epistle, thus explains the design of these Mosaic precepts. "Why did Moses say, 'Ye shall not eat of the swine, neither the eagle, nor the hawk, nor the crow; nor any fish that has not a scale upon him?" I answer, that under this outside figure, he comprehended three spiritual doctrines that were to be gathered from thence. Therefore David took aright the knowledge of his threefold command, saying in like manner, (Psalm i,) Blessed is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly ;'-as the fishes, before mentioned, in the bottom of the deep in darkness: 'Nor stood in the way of sinners;'-as they who seem to fear the LORD, but yet sin, as the sow:- And hath not sat in the seat of the scorners ;' as those birds who sit and watch that they may devour."+ This interpretation of the first Psalm is copied by Clemens Alexandrinus, in his Stromata, lib. ii. with the addition of many similar expositions of the Mosaic precepts; and Eusebius, in his Præparatio Evangelica, lib. viii, has transcribed from Aristeas, the interpretations of the high-priest Eleazer.§ Origen observes, "There is scarcely any thing more extraordinary in the

* Aristeus's History of the Septuagint : Englished from the Greek, by Rev. Dr. John Done, pp. 76-84. Lond. 1685, 24mo.

+ Wake's Apostolical Epistles:-Epist. of St. Barnabas, pp. 286, 289. Lond. 1693, 8vo.

Clement. Alexand. Stromat. Lib. ii. p. 389. Lib. vii. p. 718. Coloniæ, 1688, fol.

§ Eusebii Præpar. Evan. Lib. viii,

writings of Moses, than his distinctions in the nature of animals; whether the relations subsisting between the different species and demons be considered as revealed to him by God, or discovered by his own observations. For in these distinctions, he places, in the class of unclean, all those which are made use of in their divinations by the Egyptians and other nations; and ranks almost all others among those that are considered clean. Thus, the wolf, the fox, the serpent, the eagle, the hawk, and other similar ones, are, according to Moses, unclean; and commonly, both in the Law, and in the Prophets, these animals are designed to represent whatever is most wicked in the world."* Justin Martyr also says, "He (God) has likewise commanded you to abstain from certain meats, that, even whilst you eat and drink, you might have God before your eyes."+ Tertullian likewise has the following remarks, with which we shall conclude this article: "If the Law takes away the use of some sorts of meat, and pronounces creatures unclean, that were formerly held quite otherwise, let us consider that the design was to inure them to temperance, and look upon it as a restraint laid upon gluttons, who hankered after the cucumbers and melons of Egypt, whilst they were eating the food of angels. Let us consider it too as a remedy at the same time against excess and impurity, the usual attendants on gluttony. It was partly likewise, to extinguish the love of money by taking away the pretence of its being necessary for the providing of sustenance. It was, finally, to enable men to fast with less inconvenience upon religious occasions, by using them to a moderate and plain diet."‡

* Origen contra Celsum. Lib. iv. p. 124.

Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, translated by H. Brown, vol. i. sec. 20, p. 98. Oxford, 1755, 8vo.

Tertullian adv. Marc. lib. ii. c. 18. in fine, quoted in Harris's Nat. Hist of the Bible, Dissert. iii.

The reader who wishes to pursue this subject more at large, may consult with advantage Spencer De Legibus Hebræorum: Michaelis's Commentaries on the Laws of Moses: Young's Historical Dissertation on Idolatrous Corruptions in Religion: Harris's Natural History of the Bible, Dissertation iii.; and the authors to whom they respectively refer.

DISSERTATION V.

ON

THE PROHIBITION OF BLOOD.

THE Reasons for the Prohibition of eating Blood were various, and may be distinguished as Moral, Physical, and Typical.

I.-MORAL.

1. ONE very principal reason for prohibiting blood to be eaten was, beyond all doubt, to prevent idolatrous practices. For blood was regarded as the food of demons, not only by the nations immediately bordering upon the dwellings of the Israelites, but by other idolaters in different parts of the world. Maimonides has stated at large the superstitions of the Zabii, in offering blood as a sacrifice to the infernal objects of their worship.* R. Moses Bar Nachman (on Deut. xii. 23,) says, "They gathered together blood for the devils, their idol gods, and then came themselves and ate of that blood with them as being the devil's guests, and invited to eat at the table of devils, and so were joined in federal society with them; and by this kind of communion with devils, they were able to prophesy and foretel things to come."+ Similar practices obtained also among the Romans, since Horace thus satyrizes the superstitious rites of his countrymen :

* See More Nevochim, Lib. iii.

+ Young on Idolatrous Corruptions in Religion, vol. i. p. 235.