Scotus Academicus, Tomus sextus: De Legibus Divinis et Humanis

So many and so great were the precepts of the Mosaic law, that not undeservedly St. Augustine said that it was itself a burden of innumerable precepts. Wherefore also St. Peter calls the Old Testament, Acts 15, an unsupportable yoke, saying: Why do you tempt God by putting a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear? Nor indeed without cause; for if faith be given to Genebrard, toward the end of his Chronologia, and to William of Paris, book De legibus, chapter 1, about the middle, the ceremonial precepts were at least six hundred and thirteen; of which 218 were affirmative; namely as many as there are members and bones in a man: and 365 negative, as many days as are usually counted in the year.

Note 2. From the same William of Paris, in the same place, there was a threefold cause why so many precepts were prescribed to the Jews:

The first was the rudeness and lack of learning of the people itself, on account of which they could not be taught and instructed by general precepts alone, and therefore God decreed that they must be taught and instructed by means of particular commandments, as one nourishes a child more with morsels of bread and crumbs than with whole loaves. The second cause, the execrable and manifold idolatry, for the elimination of which the law was largely intended, and this chiefly in all those commandments which seem absurd and bring no utility to those observing them. The third cause, because God willed the book of the law to be sufficient for that time, and for the capacity of that people still novices, or for the most part childish. He willed therefore that the law should contain all those things which would suffice to direct, moderate, and adorn the life of this people, giving them in this abundant matter of meditation, or exercise in that law, according to the grasp of their rudeness and inexperience; lest the paucity of books, and the smallness of the commandments, should together be for them an occasion of wandering off to the books of human traditions, and thence drawing in new credences, and errors of impiety, and superstitions contrary to the law of God: and this was observed among the Hebrews with much vigilance and discrimination for many ages, namely that being content with the wisdom of the law, they should shun the books of other nations. Whence they did not even dare in those times to devote themselves to philosophy, until, mingled among the nations, namely the Chaldeans, they greatly advanced its disciplines and studies, and still do not cease to enlarge and advance them; which study indeed the Egyptians began, and the Greeks pursued most studiously and magnificently. This very thing the law willed, Deuteronomy 4, where it says: For this is your wisdom, and understanding. Similarly Isaiah 8: Should not a people seek unto their God, for the living and the dead, to the law rather, and to the testimony? And Psalm 1: Blessed is the man who meditates on the law of the Lord day and night; and many such passages. Then the law itself so constrained them to its yoke, meditation, and observance, that they had no leisure to think of anything else or to study other things; as is read in Deuteronomy 6: Thou shalt meditate upon them sitting in thy house, and walking on thy journey, sleeping and rising etc. But after they were mingled with the Chaldeans or Babylonians, and with the nation of the Arabs, and mixed themselves with their studies and philosophy, and followed the opinions of the philosophers, not knowing how to defend the credences of their law and the faith of Abraham against their disputations and arguments; hence it is that they became erroneous in the law, and heretical in the faith of Abraham himself; especially after the kingdom of the Saracens was diffused over the place of their habitation, for from then onward many of them followed the eternity of the world and other errors of Aristotle.

Note 3. that the old law embraced three kinds of precepts: moral, ceremonial, and judicial, according to that of Deuteronomy 5, 31: I will speak to thee my commandments and my ceremonies and my judgments.

That law was prescribed to the Jews alone, as is clear from many texts of Scripture. First indeed in Deuteronomy 4 we have these words: What other nation so illustrious, that hath ceremonies and just judgments? Psalm 75: God is known in Judea, in Israel great is his name. Psalm 147: He hath not done in like manner to every nation, and his judgments he hath not made manifest to them. To the Romans 7: What then doth the Jew more? much every way; first indeed because the words of God were committed to them. Therefore the old law was not given to others than those of the Jewish race: doubtless it was placed in ceremonies and judgments, in the sincere knowledge of God, in the divine oracles.

In the worship of God there may be considered the worship itself, the worshippers, and the instruments of worship. The worship itself consists specially in sacrifices which are offered in reverence of God. The instruments of worship pertain to sacred things, such is the tabernacle, and the vessels, and other things of this kind. On the part of the worshippers two things can be considered, namely their institution, which takes place through a certain consecration of the people or of the ministers, and to this pertain the sacraments: and their singular preservation, by which they are distinguished from those who worship not God, and to this pertain observances, such as in foods, and garments, and other things of this sort.

Sacrifices were instituted in the old law both that by this means the Jews, otherwise exceedingly prone to idolatry, might be withdrawn from it by sacrificing to the true God, and not to gods.

Theodoret expounds these things most admirably, tom. 1, sermon 7, where he writes:

The Israelite, having spent a long time in Egypt, imbued with the depraved manners of the natives, having been taught by them to sacrifice to idols and demons, and to delight in games, dances, and musical instruments; God willing to liberate him who was established in the habit of these things, permitted him indeed to sacrifice, yet not to sacrifice all things, nor to the false gods of the Egyptians, but to Himself alone, offering up even the gods of the Egyptians.... God therefore, not needing victims, desiring the savour of smoke, did not institute those sacrifices for that reason: but that he might heal diseased affections. So too he suffered musical instruments in his worship, not because he himself was delighted by their harmony, but that he might gradually abolish the error of idolatry. For if, as soon as they were delivered from the power of the Egyptians, he had set before them perfect laws, they would have recoiled altogether, and despising the bridle would have rushed back to their former defilement. — Chrysostom has similar things, homily 6 on these words of St. Matthew: Behold the star which the Magi saw, where he writes: Do not suppose it unworthy of God that the Magi were called by a star: for in this way thou wilt condemn all the ceremonies of the Jews, and all the rites and sacrifices and purifications, and the new moons, and the ark, and the temple itself. Forasmuch as all these took their origin from the rudeness of the nations. God, for the salvation of the deceived, suffered himself to be worshipped through those things by which those demons had formerly been worshipped; bending them somewhat toward the better, that he might lead back the peoples from their custom, and bring them on to a higher philosophy. Thence it is that God did not prescribe sacrifices to the Israelites until after they had declined into idolatry, melting for themselves a calf to be adored; then above all that through them men might profess that they know God as the supreme lord of life and death, and Creator of all things, but also that they might figure the sacrifice of Christ the Lord, the imperfect figuring the perfect, since he by one oblation fulfilled the difference of the various sacrifices.

Now the sacrifices of the old law were of threefold difference, by reason of the threefold end of sacrificing. First holocausts, which were specially instituted for the protestation of the supreme dominion of God over all things: and therefore the victim of such sacrifices was burned up entirely; that thus it might be shown with how sovereign a right the Lord kills and makes alive, and that as in these the whole animal dissolved into vapour ascended upward, so also it signified that the whole man, and all things that are man's, were subject to the dominion of God, and to be offered to him. Thou hast the precepts in Leviticus 6, and the rites of Leviticus 1.

For thus it is enacted therein: A man who of you shall offer an hosty to the Lord of the cattle, that is, of oxen and sheep, offering victims; if his oblation be a holocaust, and of the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish at the door of the tabernacle of testimony, that he may find favour with the Lord; and he shall put his hand upon the head of the hostia, and it shall be acceptable, profiting unto expiation for him; and he shall immolate the calf before the Lord, and the sons of Aaron the priests shall offer its blood, pouring it round about the altar, which is before the door of the tabernacle. And when the skin of the hostia hath been drawn off, they shall cut the limbs into pieces; and shall put fire under the altar, upon a heap of wood previously arranged: and ordering upon it the members which have been cut up, namely the head, and all things that adhere to the liver, the intestines and feet washed with water; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar for a holocaust, and for a sweet odour to the Lord. In which words three things especially occur to be considered: in order, with respect to the victim offered, to the person offering it, and to the priest immolating. In the victim three things were required, 1. that the animal to be offered be a male; 2. that it be without blemish; 3. that it be select. It ought, I say, 1. to be a male, because the masculine sex is more excellent than the female in all things; but to God, the giver of all good things, better things are to be offered in thanksgiving. Then, since God is most holy and removed utterly from every defect, he can have nothing but what is clean and pure, pleasing and acceptable. Finally, the victim ought to be select; for not all animals indiscriminately could be offered in holocaust, but only these: a bullock, a lamb, a goat, a turtledove, the young of pigeons. — On the part of the offerer it was necessary 1. that he bring the victim into the court, doubtless that he might offer his oblation before the Lord: now the presence of the Lord in the holy place was regarded especially from the first court of the Israelites, whether women or men, toward the interior of the temple; but this rite was so necessary, that women, who otherwise were altogether barred from the court, if they brought a victim, had need to enter into this, as we intimated before. 2. The offerer had to impose his hand upon the head of the victim while it lived. Levit. 1, 4. Upon all victims which were offered by any private person, whether owed, or voluntary, it was necessary for him himself to impose his hand while they lived, excepting only the firstfruits, the tithes, and the Pasch. So John Lightfoot, De ministerio templi. 3. There was need that this imposition of hands take place in the court, doubtless that he might as it were impose his own sins before the Lord, inasmuch as by its death they might be washed away and blotted out; but the place where the offerer stood was ordinarily, as some hold, at the gate of the priests' court, others however beside the altar and within the priests' court, which I judge less probable, since entrance within the priests' court was forbidden to the laity. But in offering the victim and imposing his hand upon it, he said before the priest: To the Lord sin hath been committed, I have done wickedly, I have been rebellious, I have omitted this and that, I repent of them, to thee, and let this be my expiation. — Thirdly, finally, on the part of the priest immolating the victim three things alike were required. 1. He ought to slay the living victim when offered, yet the offerer himself or a levite could fulfil this office when very many victims were to be immolated, so that the priests were not equal to slaying them, as happened especially at the time of the Pasch and on other solemnities, witness those in whom the heads of single families were held bound to stand before the Lord and offer victims. 2. He ought to receive the blood of the slain victim before it was flayed. But he received the blood itself in a clean vessel consecrated to divine worship, and sprinkled from it the altar round about, or at least its four corners. 3. He was bound to flay the victim, divide it into parts, season with salt, wash the intestines and entrails, place those parts upon the heap of wood laid in the altar in that order which those parts kept in the animal while it lived, and finally apply the fire whereby they were wholly consumed. So that nothing residual of that victim remained besides the ashes. Nevertheless the priests reserved the skins of the victims, which they seasoned with salt, that when their ministry was completed, on the following sabbath they might divide those skins among themselves and convert them to their own uses.

Second, the sacrifices for sin, which were instituted by God to stir up detestation of sin and to further its expiation through penance. Of those sacrifices some were for trespass, and others for sin. Trespass and sin in the Scriptures are at times the same thing, but in Leviticus they are distinguished, as St. Augustine observes, quaest. 5. on Leviticus; and the more probable opinion seems to be that which holds that to be a trespass which is committed imprudently, that is, in ignorance; that to be a sin which is committed knowingly.

The Hebrew doctors, as adduced by John Lightfoot in the place cited above, sect. 3, add that the oblation for sin was for a thing committed imprudently against one of the negative precepts, and then only come to be known; but the oblation for trespass was for a thing committed indeed, but in such a way that it was doubted whether a precept had been violated by that action. He who still did not know whether he had transgressed or not was nevertheless bound to offer an oblation for trespass, whereby he would be made safe from the punishment of excision. But if he once learned that he had violated some precept which was sanctioned by the punishment of excision, then he was bound to offer a sacrifice for trespass. So the Talmudists in Herithuth, perel. 2., of which they bring forward various examples, as may be seen in the author of the Thosaphte, where among other things we read: The wife and the sister of a man are together, and he lies with one of them, but he does not know which of them it is. He has two wives, one of them is in her separation, the other is not so; he lies with one or the other, but he does not know which of them it was. To himself is opposed the fat, and something left over from the sacrifice; he eats of one or the other, but he does not know which it was. It is the sabbath and the day of expiation; he labors on one or the other, but he does not know which it was. R. Eliezer judges that he ought to offer a sacrifice for sin; but R. Josua absolves him. Now R. Iose says that although R. Josua absolves him from the oblation for sin, he nevertheless judges that he ought to offer a doubtful oblation for trespass. Hence, in their mind, the oblations are so akin that one can scarcely be discerned from the other.

In the sacrifice for sin one part was burned, but the other went to the use of the priests: to signify that the expiation of sins is from God through the ministry of the priests: except when the sacrifice was offered for the sin of the whole people, or specially for the sin of the priest: for then the whole was burned, because those things which were offered for sin ought not to come to the use of the priests, so that no trace of sin might remain in them, and because this would not be satisfaction for sin: for if it were for the use of those for whose sins it was offered, it would seem to be the same as if it were not offered. You have the precept of these sacrifices in Leviticus 7.; the rites in Leviticus 1. and 6.

The victims to be offered for sin were diverse according to the diversity of those for whom they were offered. For those oblations were made either for the congregation or for private individuals. A he-goat was offered on the day of expiation for the sins of all the Israelites, Lev. 16, v. 15. But a calf for the sins of some particular community, say for one tribe, family, sanhedrin, and even for the whole assembly of the Israelites when they had sinned through ignorance and inexperience, and had afterwards acknowledged their sin, as is prescribed in Levit. 4., v. 18. For private individuals victims ought to be offered, for for the sin of a ruler committed through ignorance a he-goat of the unblemished goats was to be immolated. But for the sins of particular persons and subjects there was offered a she-goat or an unblemished ewe. For the sin of the priest there was offered a bullock, and that publicly, as the author Baal Turim relates in cap. 4. of Levit. Let no one, he says, through shame refuse to confess his sin: for behold, the high priest had sinned, he confessed his sin, and offered an oblation for sin. But when the victim was immolated for a sin and trespass committed through ignorance, the same rites were observed as in the holocausts. Concerning the blood, however, which was carried from those victims into the holy place, the priest behaved thus, as the author Iosaphtha relates in Corban perek 6. The bullocks were burned, and the he-goats which were burned outside the camp; while they were being slaughtered, and their blood was sprinkled on the altar of holocausts, the priest entered and stood between the golden altar and the candlestick. The altar was before him, and he dipped his finger into the blood and sprinkled the blood seven times toward the holy of holies; and as often as he dipped his finger and sprinkled the blood, he also anointed the horns of the altar.

Third, finally, there were the peace offerings which were offered to God, either in thanksgiving, or for the salvation and prosperity of the offerers, in acknowledgment of a benefit received, or of one accepted. And they were divided into three parts: one part was burned in honor of God, the second went to the use of the priests, and the third finally to the use of the offerers, to signify that the salvation of man proceeds from God, the ministers of God directing, and the men themselves who are saved cooperating. You have the precept of this sacrifice in Levit. 7.; the rites, however, in Levit. 3.

The peace offerings, by reason of those for whom they were offered, were universally of a twofold kind; for some were common, others private. Those were called common which were made for the whole nation of the Israelites at the feast of Pentecost, as is established in Levit. 23., where, after the sacrifices of the holocausts and for sin which were to be offered on those days have been recounted, there is added v. 19: and two little goats for a sacrifice of peace-offerings, and these peace oblations by the Talmudists in Zenach perek 5. were called most holy sacrifices, while the remaining oblations were sacrifices less holy.

Private peace oblations were of a threefold kind, for some were offered without bread: others indeed with bread, as is provided in Levit. 7. v. 13, and it was granted that this be done by each of the Israelites. Others, however, were called the peace oblations of the Nazarites, of which there is question in Num. cap. 6. v. 14. and the following. Now there could be offered for peace oblations either oxen, or sheep, or lambs, or goats, as is established in Levit. 3. They were offered especially on account of some benefit obtained from God, or deliverance from dangers, from sickness and prison, or preserved health and prosperity, and on account of a vow made, or in testimony of piety and devotion. — But these peace oblations could not be received nor offered for Gentiles and heathens, as Maimonides teaches, in Corban perek. 3. They received, he says, from the heathens only holocausts, because it is said: from the hand of a stranger you shall not offer the bread of your God. They received holocausts of birds also from the heathens, even though they were idolaters, but they did not receive from them peace oblations, nor flour, nor oblations for sin and trespass. For similarly they did not receive holocausts from the heathens, unless they were offered in the manner of spontaneous or voluntary sacrifices. When a heathen offered a peace oblation, they offered it as a holocaust, because the heathen has a certain affection toward heaven, that is, toward God. If he had vowed peace sacrifices, and gave them to an Israelite, that the Israelite might be expiated by them, the Israelites ate them no otherwise than as if they were the sacrifices of the Israelite; if he gave them to the priests, the priests ate them. From an apostate Jew who had fallen into idolatry and had deliberately profaned the sabbath they received no sacrifices, not even holocausts, which they would have received from a heathen.

According to the threefold state of men. For some are beginners, some proficient, others perfect; the victim for sin, says Alensis, paragr. 3, pertained to the beginners or to the state of penance; the victim of the peace-offerings looked to the proficient, or to the state of justice in the fulfillment of the commandments: the holocaust to the perfect, or to the state of supererogation in the fulfillment of the counsels.

If anyone shall ask by what argument the Israelites could be urged to offer these sacrifices? — I shall answer that they were incited to it by two goads, namely an interior and an exterior one. The interior indeed that of conscience, the exterior the punishment to be inflicted: so that if the former did not suffice for the execution of the thing, the latter would follow. First, I say, they were provoked to it by the goads of conscience, which stirred them both to the observance of the divine commandments, and to the remission of sins, and the attainment of the benefits of God, and thereupon urged them to procure the means thereof (of which kind were these sacrifices), that by an easy task they might become possessed of all of them. — But if anyone was moved neither by conscience nor by religion to discharge these, nevertheless there would run up witnesses greater than every exception, who would assert that he was bound to discharge these sacrifices, and by the sentence of the judges he was compelled to fulfill it under the gravest penalties, especially when the matter concerned the sacrifices and oblations for sin and trespass, and also for fulfilling a vow which had been made in the presence of witnesses.

If you require to know what was to be done by an Israelite who had fallen into some sin, which ought not to be expiated without a sacrifice, while he resided far from Jerusalem, namely whether he ought at once to hasten thither to offer this sacrifice? — I shall answer that in that case he who was bound to discharge an oblation for trespass or sin could defer it to the next feast of those three solemnities at which all the Israelites, or at least the heads of the families, were bound to appear before the Lord in Jerusalem. Yet those who were more fervent emulators of the law, as soon as they acknowledged themselves guilty of some crime, left all things and hastened to Jerusalem, that through the oblation of a victim they might obtain pardon of the guilt they had incurred. — But those who were exempt from this appearance at those three feasts committed their vows to other times. For some among the Jews were exempt from that law of appearance, say servants not yet manumitted, the deaf, the mute, the maimed, the unclean, the decrepit, the sick, the weaker, and those who could not make the journey on foot, and also infants who could not ascend the Mount of the House led by the hand of their parents. — But those who were first invited through messengers sent out by the great sanhedrin, who, running throughout all the regions of the Israelites, announced that on such a day would be celebrated the feasts of Pasch, Pentecost and Tabernacles, and that therefore they must hasten to Jerusalem, that there they might celebrate the feast. — They assembled therefore on the first day of the feast week in the court of the temple, where they were bound to offer victims for sin or trespass, if they had committed any, and then the peace oblations, which on those days were called oblations of joy, because namely they ought to spend those festal days with exultation of soul.

You ask first: Why of the animals which God commanded to be offered to Him, only from the quadrupeds were oxen, sheep, and goats designated; and from the birds only the turtledove and the dove. — Our Alensis answers qu. 50. that a manifold reason can be assigned for this matter.

Because, he says, these are the animals which ascribe all that men live by and are to the necessity of man: that is, to food and clothing. If therefore human necessity be rightly regarded, those alone among animals are necessary to men for food and clothing; the others, however, are superfluous with respect to the necessity of life, as the pig, the dog, and the horse. By the very fact, then, that He did not wish others to be offered to Him in sacrifices, He took away from them the occasion of seeking what was not necessary, since He did not wish to be honored by them. Moreover, because of quadrupeds these are the cleanest, since they live on the cleanest pastures. And even their uncleannesses are clean. Furthermore, among all quadrupeds these are the most gentle, and they undergo death with less resistance: and therefore with less danger to those immolating them. In addition, because they used these animals above all, and in them the beneficence of the Creator toward them was more abundant: it was fitting, therefore, to render thanksgiving and honor to the Creator for His beneficence by means of these very animals. But why He chose from birds the turtledove and the dove, which He also commanded Abraham to offer to Him in sacrifice, Genesis 15, it must be said, he says, that these were chosen especially for sacrifice, because among all birds these are clean, and gentle, and useful for human purposes: and also a chastity almost conjugal is found in doves, and almost widowed in turtledoves: whence it was expressly signified thereby, that if He requires such things in birds offered to Himself, how much more strongly in men offering themselves to Him? But concerning the fact that the sparrow is added in the cleansing of the leper, beyond the reason stated above, a special reason could be assigned: because the sparrow is said to suffer, after its manner, at times a disease very similar. But the general reason why God did not wish other animals to be offered to Him besides these is that all other kinds of animals the idolaters had rendered execrable by their sacrifices, or the Augurs had profaned by the vanity of their observations, or the Magi had made abominable by their poisonous malefices.

Thus far Alexander of Hales. Therefore God chose for Himself from among birds especially doves and turtledoves; both because there was held to be a great abundance of these in the land of promise; and because these animals are symbols of mourning, chastity, love, and simplicity of mind: whence they prefigured the simplicity, charity, and bitter suffering of Christ the Lord. — It must further be observed that God wished young pigeons, but not young turtledoves, to be offered to Him; because among turtledoves the older ones are far better than the young; among doves, however, the young are better: but that which is best ought to be offered to God. Moreover, animals of the male sex alone were to be offered in holocaust, because it is the most excellent among sacrifices, whereas the female is an imperfect animal. Wherefore also blemished and imperfect animals, e.g. lame and blind ones, were removed from sacrifice, because they are ordinarily despised by men. Finally, they were not offered before the eighth day from their birth: because they were as it were abortive, and not yet fully settled on account of their tenderness. But God did not require fish in sacrifices; both because since they dwell in the waters they are more alien to man, and are less subject to his dominion and authority, and accordingly pertain less to him; but man ought to offer to God something proper to himself in testimony of his observance toward God and gratitude: and also because fish die immediately upon being drawn from the water; but that which was offered to the priests to be sacrificed to the living God ought to be alive.

You ask secondly: Why did God wish certain animals to be offered to Him, but drive others away from sacrifices as profane and unclean? — Theodoreto answers, question 1. on Leviticus: that God commanded to be sacrificed to Him those things which are worshipped as gods by the Egyptians: of the number of quadrupeds indeed, the calf and the goat and the sheep; and of birds, the turtledove and the young pigeon. Nor do we ignore that the Egyptians held many other things as gods; but from those which were worshipped as gods He appointed the more gentle ones for sacrifices; but called the rest unclean, so that indeed these, having been execrated as impure, might not be placed in the number of gods; but those, which they themselves sacrificed, that they might not hold them for gods, but adore Him alone to whom it is fitting that these things be offered. Similar things are found in sermon 7. against the Greeks cited above, where, when he had said that God permitted sacrifices to the Israelites because they were accustomed to these rites while dwelling in Egypt, he adds:

He permitted them indeed to sacrifice, yet not to sacrifice all things, nor to offer the false gods of the Egyptians, but to offer the gods of Egypt to Himself alone. For the Egyptians of old held in the number of gods the ox, and the sheep, and the goat, and the dove, and the turtledove, and certain other things which were not edible, but were called unclean. Lest therefore they should be indignant as wholly shut out from those customs, He forbade them indeed to sacrifice to false gods, > but commanded them to immolate to Himself those things which they had long adored, namely of land animals the goat, and the ox, and the sheep, and of birds the turtledove and the dove. For both these animals are gentle and lovers of men. And so the wisest physician applied this kind of remedy to the Egyptian malady, granting indeed to the Jews to sacrifice on account of their weakness, but commanding them to immolate those things which they previously worshipped: that by sacrificing they might learn that those are not gods whom they themselves slaughtered as victims.

Thus Theodoreto. — Therefore God wished certain of the animals which were worshipped by the Egyptians to be sacrificed to Him, but rejected others from sacrifices as impure, in order that He might recall the Israelites from the profane rites of the Egyptians. Origen brings forward another reason in book 1. Contra Celsum, namely that the Egyptians used those animals for auguries.

Evil demons indeed, and Titans or Giants who behaved impiously toward the true Divinity and the heavenly Angels, and were cast out of heaven on that account, busy themselves about the coarser and more impure bodies upon earth: and since they have some perspicacity concerning the future, as beings free from earthly bodies and much experienced in such matters, striving solely for this, that they may lead the human race away from the true God, they insinuate themselves into wild and rapacious animals above all, then also into the more cunning ones; and these, whenever they will, they move whither they will, or even summon the imaginative power of such animals to this or that flight and movement, in order that men, captivated by divinations performed through mute animals, may not seek God who contains all things, nor exercise true piety; but fall by their thoughts into the earth, into birds, into serpents, and even into foxes and wolves. For it has been observed by those skilled in these matters that predictions most remarkable come to pass through this kind of animal: the demons seemingly not having power to effect as much in gentle animals as those wicked animals can in the other animals we have mentioned, for this reason, that these have a rite similar, not a vice properly, but as it were a vice. Wherefore if I wondered at anything else in Moses, I myself have wondered, and I deem it worthy of wonder, at this: that when he had perceived the diverse natures of animals, either taught by God those things which pertained to each animal in its affinity to animals and to demons, or led by his own knowledge to discerning the grades of animals, he pronounced impure all those things which were deemed by the Egyptians and other nations to have divine power; but on the contrary pure all those things which were outside that reckoning.

Thus Origen. — From which words it is drawn that when Moses either granted or forbade certain definite animals for sacrifice and food, he followed reasons partly physical, drawn from the nature of animals, which are touched upon by Plutarch in the Sympos. lib. 1. probl. 5. and by Aelian lib. 10. De animalibus c. 16., and explained more fully by St. Thomas 1. 2. quaest. 102, art. 6.; partly moral, taken from the instinct of animals, and declared by Aristeas in Eusebius lib. 8. De preparatione Evangelica, cap. 9., Philo lib. De Agricultura, Barnabas in epist. cap. 10., and Theodoret quaest. 2. in Levit. etc.: and he regarded especially the customs of the Gentiles, particularly the Egyptians: against which he established many things in opposition, as Manetho says in Josephus lib. contra Appionem, and Tacitus confirms hist. lib. 5., asserting that to the Jews all things are profane which among the Gentiles are sacred, and that there is given up by them the ram as it were in contempt of Ammon, and that the ox also is immolated which

the Egyptians worship as Apis. Therefore Moses, taught by God, pronounced impure, or appointed for sacrifices, certain kinds of animals which either are by their own nature rapacious and cunning, or were wont to be usurped by the Gentiles for profane cults, as the most illustrious Ludovicus Ferrandus aptly observes in his notes on psalm 18.

You will ask: why did God command ears of grain, fine flour, and things like these of small worth and price to be offered to Him? — I answer that He ordained it out of indulgence and supreme goodness, because He wished provision to be made for the poverty of the offerers, so that he who could not offer a quadruped should offer a bird, who could not offer a bird, should at least offer bread, who could not offer bread should at least present flour or ears of grain. But of those things which come forth from the earth God required especially in sacrifices those which come into the use of men: whence bread was offered, because the food of man; wine, because drink; oil, and salt, because the seasonings of food: incense, because a medicine. Now all these figured Christ: bread indeed, because He was the living bread, who even as in the ear of grain under the state of the law of nature was in the faith of the Fathers; as the fine flour in the doctrine of the Law, and of the Prophets: just as truly the bread come down from Heaven was formed by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin, and baked in the oven of the Passion. Wine moreover was the figure of His Blood, oil of the grace to be diffused by Him, salt of His divine wisdom, incense of His perpetual and most fervent prayer.

You ask thirdly. — Why did God, Levit. 2, forbid honey and leaven to be offered to Him? — Our Alexander of Hales answers that this was so, both because these things were wont to be offered in the sacrifices of idols, and also in order that it might be signified that those who intend to sacrifice ought to remove from themselves all carnal sweetness and pleasure; and likewise to keep all corruption far from their sacrifices. Finally it must be observed concerning the sacrifice for sin, that the cheaper an animal was offered in it, the graver was the sin for which it was offered.

You ask fourthly: Why, among the animals forbidden to the Jews to be offered in sacrifice and taken for food, do they so greatly abhor swine before all others that they even judge themselves contaminated by their touch? — Plutarch feigns in the Symposia lib. 1, quaest. 5, that the swine is by no means held among the Jews as a thing execrable, but affirms that it is held in the highest honor among them, inasmuch as they venerate it as the mistress of tillage. He says they first learned this in Egypt: since there fields are never turned by the plow, but as soon as the Nile has withdrawn after its customary inundation into its channel, immediately swine are driven by the inhabitants into the fields, that they may break up the rich clod with their snout and hide the seeds in the earth: whence also the plowshare is called by the Greeks pyr, an excellent derivation. And what wonder, he says, that so foul an animal is worshipped by a superstitious people, since the Egyptians also adore the cat, the gryphon, the crocodile? But how shamefully Plutarch wanders in error it is needless to demonstrate at greater length, seeing that these are empty fictions of the Gentiles who, being ignorant of the affairs of the Jews, invented many things about them, of which there was not even a slight suspicion among the Jews. Petronius nevertheless agrees with Plutarch in this fiction, when he thus sported in a most ancient epigram: Iudaeus, licet et porcinum numen adoret, Et caeli summas advocet auriculas.

The genuine reason why the Jews abominate swine above all other animals, Peter Cunaeus judges in De Republica Hebraeorum, chapter 21, is to be sought from this: that the people of Israel was formerly wonderfully subject to those diseases which for the most part infested the Syrians and the Egyptians. For leprosy, scurf, and foul ulcers were long ago ascribed by the chief physicians to those peoples as their proper plagues. Moses, however, comprehended these and nearly similar diseases under one name, and called them leprosy. Now in swine, mange and uncleanness are not a defect but nature itself. Wherefore, lest any contagion of bodily corruption also be added through eating or touching, they turned away from it somewhat more superstitiously than perhaps the law of the Deity had commanded, or than was established in the institutions of other nations. — Yet in truth swine were marked out above all among the unclean animals, whose eating, touching, and offering were forbidden in the old law; whence in Isaiah 65 those eating swine's flesh are compared with worshippers of idols, and with those who consulted demons by the art of necromancy in sepulchres; for we read at verses 3 and 4: A people that provoketh me to anger before my face always: that sacrifice in gardens, and offer upon bricks: that dwell in sepulchres, and sleep in the temples of idols: that eat swine's flesh, and drink profane broth in their vessels. And at verse 17 of the following chapter those eating swine's flesh are likened to those who eat abomination and mice: that ate swine's flesh, and abomination, and the mouse.

Hence the enemies of the Jews took occasion either to persecute them sharply or to mock them insolently. Thus Antiochus, after he had sacrilegiously slaughtered swine in the very sanctuary of Jerusalem, ordered altars to be built throughout all Judaea, and swine's flesh to be immolated on them, as related in 1 Machabees, chapter 1, verse 50; with the threat of death he compelled the Jews to these impure and profane sacrifices. Hence the ministers of his own savagery and impiety compelled Eleazar, one of the chief of the scribes, to eat swine's flesh, that they might lead him away from the religion of his fathers, Machabees, chapter 6, verse 18. But every extremity the religious and generous man endured rather than yield obedience in this matter to the lost ministers of an impious king. Imitating the virtue of Eleazar, the seven Machabean brothers, together with their mother, having suffered many torments for the same cause, consummated their life by martyrdom. Hence it is that the Gentiles insolently seized the occasion of assailing the Jews with taunts and ridiculing them. For Juvenal, in satire 6, writes of them:

They keep sabbath where kings may not set foot, and the ancient mercy of their fathers indulges the swine. And satire 14: They worship nothing but the clouds and the numen of heaven, and think no difference exists between human flesh and swine's.

And in Macrobius, book 2 of the Saturnalia, chapter 4, it is related that when Augustus had heard that among the boys whom Herod, King of the Jews, had ordered to be killed below the age of two, his own son also had been slain, he said: better to be Herod's pig than his son — mocking him, namely, because he spared pigs who had not spared his own son. Nevertheless the Jews, mindful of the law handed down to them, both laughed at and disregarded these sarcasms of profane men. Therefore, when they began to breathe again from the tyranny of Antiochus, the Thalmudists relate in the book Iuchasin that they enacted this law: cursed be whosoever shall rear a swine. And they execrated this animal to such a degree that they deemed it unlawful even to name it by its proper name. Hence as often as mention of the pig had to be made, they substituted something else for this word "pig." From the Jews this preconceived aversion to this unclean beast was derived even to the Arabs. Concerning whom Solinus writes: they altogether abstain from swine's flesh: truly this kind of animal, if infected there, dies on the spot. Hence St. Jerome, book 2 on Ezechiel, chapter 6, writes concerning the Saracens, who were part of the Arabs: These deem it an abomination to feed on the flesh of pigs. Herodotus likewise writes of the Egyptians, book 2, chapter 47: they consider the pig an unclean animal; and if anyone even touches it in passing, he goes away immersed in the river with his very clothes. The reason for this Elianus relates, book 10 of his History, chapter 16: the pig, on account of its ferocity, spares not even its own offspring: and when it falls upon a human body, it does not abstain but devours it; therefore the Egyptians hate this animal as abominable and in every way to be shunned.

You ask fifthly: Why did God sanction in Deuteronomy 23, verse 18: thou shalt not offer the hire of a strumpet, nor the price of a dog, in the house of the Lord thy God, whatsoever it be that thou hast vowed, because both these are an abomination to the Lord thy God?

I answer that the price of a harlot is deservedly and justly forbidden to be brought into the temple and offered to the Lord, namely that the Israelites might guard against the wicked custom of the Gentiles, by which prostituted women were accustomed to offer gifts acquired from the gain of harlotry to fictitious Deities; namely that thence the structures of temples might be restored, priests nourished, victims redeemed, and to the honor of that obscene Deity they would expose their chastity to any mortal who came their way. This teaches us above all the prophet Baruch, chapter 6, verses 12 and 43 etc., in these words which the sacred interpreters greatly twist: But the women girt with cords sit in the ways, burning olive kernels. But when any one of them, drawn away by some passer-by, sleeps with him, she upbraids her neighbor that she was not thought worthy of ornament like herself, nor was her cord broken. And all things that are done by them are false. How then is it to be judged or said that they are gods? They were made by carpenters and goldsmiths, etc. Here there is question of women devoted to the cult of vain gods, who so that they might procure what was necessary for their ministers and sacrifices, sat in the ways leading to their temples, and by magical art tied love-knots from the long cords with which they were bound, so that they might bait men going to the temple into sound love, and make available their body, so that receiving payment as the reward of prostituted modesty they would consign it to their Deity. Herodotus hands down these things, who in book 1, chapter 199 reviews thus that impure rite of the Babylonian women:

To the temple of Venus sit many women, their brows crowned with knots and garlands, of whom some approach and others depart. Little lanes marked out everywhere by cords give access to those women to outsiders, each to be chosen as each shall please. Moreover, once they have sat down there, they do not return home before some stranger has thrown money into the woman's bosom, and has had intercourse with her, she being led apart from the sacred precinct. And that stranger who offers the money must say: I implore thee in the name of the goddess Mylitta. At that sumegtibi — but that money, however small it may be, it is not lawful to refuse: since it is turned to a sacred use.

That prophet Micheas confirms, chapter 1, verse 7, where he upbraids the Jews with this idolatrous and meretricious rite in these words: all her idols shall be broken in pieces: for they were gathered together of the hire of a harlot, and they shall return even to the hire of a harlot. Which St. Jerome expounds thus: the idols, gifts, ornaments, and idolatrous furniture, purchased with harlot's pay, shall be led to another harlot, Ninive: that they may meet an end worthy of their origin, and consumed by fire be reduced to nothing. Although this exposition lacks nothing in probability, it will not be beside the point here to interpose what Athenaeus somewhere left to memory: namely that the nations sometimes offered gifts to deities or temples from harlots. — But St. Jerome's exposition bears more closely upon our aim, for there is nothing more customary among idolaters than that certain women devoted to the cult of such deities should prostitute their chastity, so that they might vow the price of their impurity to the temples and altars of their idols. That the Egyptians were not entirely strangers to that love is gathered from Lucian in the book On the Syrian Goddess, where treating of the inhabitants of the land of Byblus he writes: Any one of the women who are unwilling to have their hair cut shall undergo such a penalty: for one day, indeed, they stand in the marketplace for the earning to be made with the body: but that marketplace is exhibited only to foreigners: and whatever pay they take from it, this is given to Venus as a sacrifice. Justin, History, book 22, is witness that the same custom prevailed in Cyprus, when he says: It was the custom in Cyprus for virgins before marriage, seeking dower-money on appointed days, to be sent to the shore for hire, that they might offer to Venus the first-fruits for the remainder of their chastity. A testimony akin to this Julius Firmicus offers us concerning the errors of profane religions, p. m. 15: I hear that Cinyras the Cyprian endowed the temple of his mistress with a harlot. Her name was Venus. He also initiated very many into Cyprian Venus, and also decreed that whosoever wished to be initiated, a handmaid of Venus being handed over to him secretly, should give a coin into her hand in the name of payment to the goddess. The same shameful custom of those Gentiles, both among the Greeks and among the Romans, Clement of Alexandria in the Protrepticus, Arnobius book 6 against the Gentiles, Athenaeus book 13, chapters 3 and 5, confirm in faith. You see also Martin Delrio, book of magical disquisitions, the Schedium on the German deities, Selden on the Syrian deities, and John Spencer, book 2 of De legibus Hebraeorum, chapter 23, from which we have lightly sampled these things. From all these it appears that God deservedly and justly rejected offerings acquired by the reward of the harlot, lest the Israelitic people should seize from it the occasion of frequently renewing lust, and dissolve into every license of a shameless life. For if God had accepted the price of fornication offered to himself, it would be easy for impure women to suppose that he did not entirely disapprove the commerce of lust, and would readily grant pardon for its commission. It is added that by this prohibition he willed to condemn the depraved rite of the Gentiles customary in the cult of Venus; for had he accepted the gifts of harlots and their sacrifices acquired from filthy gain, he would seem not to condemn even this shameless cult of the Gentiles.

On the price of a dog not being offered. — The Interpreters labor not a little in investigating and expounding the reasons and causes of this divine prohibition. For why did God reject rather the price of a dog, a domestic animal and symbol of fidelity and vigilance, than that of another brute of viler sort and less useful to man? Abarbanel, Junius, and other more recent writers think to untie this knot by saying that dog must be taken figuratively in this place, and that by that word the catamite is designated, or the boy of harlots and male prostitute, mention of whom had been made in the preceding verse in these words: There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, nor whoremonger of the sons of Israel. But they judge that the catamite is here called a dog because this animal represents at once shamelessness and lust; for Martial calls a man devoid of shame a dog, book 1, Epigram 53. Yet since legislators are not accustomed to put forth their edicts in tropes and metaphors, but deliver them in proper words, lest any ambiguity occur in the law, this divine constitution seems to be understood literally of the dog properly so called. Wherefore Josephus, book 4 of the Antiquities, chapter 8, thinks that there is here forbidden to be brought into the temple of God the price accepted for a hunting dog or shepherd dog; to which interpretation Bonfrerius subscribes in his commentary. But since the interpretations of Josephus as an expositor of laws are for the most part erroneous and but little coherent with the genuine sense of Scripture; nor does any reason appear elsewhere why the price of such a dog, which is an animal equally salable as the rest, ought rather to be rejected than money acquired from the sale of others — St. Augustine, with whom Lyranus, Abulensis, and others agree, judges that the words of this law are to be understood of the first-born of a dog, of which an exception is made lest it be redeemed for a price like the first-born of other domestic animals. But since the dog, says Spencer, is accustomed to give birth in lurking-places, and to bring forth many puppies at one birth, so that scarcely can it be known which of them ought to be redeemed, that does not seem the genuine interpretation of the aforesaid law. It is added that God would not seem to have willed the law about redeeming the first-born of unclean animals, Numbers 18, to be extended to the vilest animals: for then the first-born kitten of a cat or ape would have had to be redeemed with a lamb, a dove, or perhaps a sicle — not without loss to the fortune of the poorer sort, and burdensome to men. The foregoing things demonstrate quite clearly that dog must here be taken neither figuratively, namely for the catamite or the sodomy of a dog, nor strictly, for the first-born dog; but properly and broadly, for every animal which we commonly designate by the name of dog.

But why God willed the price of the dog to be barred from his sanctuary, very many probable reasons occur: 1. Because the dog, although the most vigilant of animals, and most faithful to its master, was nevertheless reckoned among the unclean animals in the Mosaic law, Isaiah 66, verse 3. 2. Because it was esteemed the vilest and most abject of animals; whence the name of dog was turned into opprobrium and vituperation; hence in 2 Kings 3, 8, Abner answered Isboseth rebuking him because he had gone in to his father's concubine: am I a dog's head, etc. Wherefore formerly to bear the dog was an argument and punishment of ignominy, whence these verses:

For it is an ancient custom that, if anyone, the king being removed By blood, or flame, or the whirlwind of open sedition, Or by frequent plunderings of the kingdom daring to disturb it, Dares, before he receive the heavy punishment of spilled blood, If he shall be free, according to the ancient custom, An imposed dog upon his shoulders of the adjoining district He is compelled to bear through the countryside to its borders.

In which words Ursinus says: Nobles, he says, before they were subjected to capital punishment, were first stripped of their rank, as also their squires and servants, and it was disputed whether they should be made to ride publicly on those horses. In confirmation of which Guilielmus Saldenus, Exercit. 7., produces what is related by Otto of Freising, namely that a certain Hermann, count of the Rhine, was condemned by the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, together with ten of his companions and other counts, because, while he was absent in Italy, they had disturbed the public peace by plunderings and disorderly conduct, so that for a whole German mile they should carry a dog. To carry a saddle was held a mark of sloth, to carry a dog a mark of contumacy. Hence it is that the French are accustomed to designate men of the lowest sort and rogues by this taunt and jest la Canaille, that is, to be counted no more than dogs. — 3. That dogs are among brute animals the most impure and the most shameless: most impure indeed, for Vossius says, lib. 3. De idololatria, cap. 62., that the lust of dogs is a thing best known to every domestic animal, and perhaps that is an argument of lust which, as Aelian relates, lib. 7. De animalibus, cap. 19., at Rome a husband accused his wife of adultery, and in the trial the adulterer was openly called a dog; and that too is well known, that they spare not even their own dams. Wherefore men who are obscene and of most impure life are likened to dogs, Ecclesiasticus 13. v. 22: what fellowship hath a holy man with a dog? And Matthew 7. v. 6: give not that which is holy to dogs. And Apocalypse 22. v. 15: without are dogs and sorcerers and impure. Wherefore the Hebrews abhor dogs no less than swine, on account of the impurity of both, as Lightfoot testifies on cap. 8. S. Matthew; nay, they even pronounce a curse upon those who keep dogs and swine. Therefore it cannot seem wonderful to anyone that God, most pure, would not have His worship polluted by the oblation of that most impudent and contaminated animal. — Moreover dogs are most shameless, whence Aelian, lib. 7. Historia animalium, cap. 19., says that of imprudence there are two animals by which men are repelled, the fly and the dog. Thence the Cynics took their name from the dog, because they were most shameless, and bit the other philosophers without ceasing. Whence Diogenes himself the Cynic, in Apuleius Florida 2., being asked why he was called a dog, answered: because those who give I fawn upon; those who give not, I bark at; the wicked I bite.

At the most weighty reason why God forbade dogs to be offered to Him in sacrifice, and rejected the price of a dog sold, is this, that He might recall the Israelites from the nefarious worship of the Gentiles, especially of the Egyptians; for as Plutarch relates in Iside, anciently the dog was held in the greatest honors in Egypt. And Diodorus Siculus, lib. 1., says that the Egyptians venerated certain animals beyond measure, not only living, but dead also, as cats, ichneumons, weasels, and dogs. Hence Juvenal, satyr 15., recounting the foolish and ridiculous worship of the Egyptians, sings among other things:

Here they worship the azure goddess, there the fish of the river, there whole towns worship the dog, no one Diana.

But they venerated the dog with so great religion that all the inhabitants of a house in which a dog died shaved themselves all over the body, which was with them the greatest token of grief. Moreover they cultivated him so earnestly, as Diodorus writes, because the dog is said to have helped Isis in searching out the body of Osiris, for which cause in the sacred rites of Isis dogs held the first place. Therefore, that God might expose so insipid a superstition to mockery and contempt, and might recall the Israelites, who were most prone to the manners of the Egyptians, from that nefarious worship, He forbade that the price of a dog should be brought into the temple. For this, like the hire of a harlot, is abomination before God. Therefore God reprobated the price of the harlot and of the dog joined together, both because the dog is the most salacious of animals, and because the Egyptians themselves and other nations worshipped the goddess Isis with acts of prostitution, and consecrated gain procured by whoredom to her temple. But Isis, a fictitious deity, was at the same time worshipped together with Mercury, because there intervened between the two a certain affinity, as Diodorus writes, lib. 1. Now Mercury was represented and worshipped by the Egyptians under the image of a canine head. Whence Virgil, 8. Aeneid.:

And the monsters of all the gods, and barking Anubis.

Now Anubis was the name of that Mercury whose idol was represented with a canine head, who among the Egyptians was held to be the author of letters and sciences; for the ancient Egyptians were wont to shadow forth under the hieroglyphic of a dog the prophet, scribe, magistrate, and judge, as Horapollo relates, hieroglyph. 39. The sacred scribe indeed, he says, because whosoever wishes to perform this office as is fitting and most perfectly must meditate on many things, and after the manner of dogs bark at all things unceasingly and be fierce, and gratify no one. But the prophet, because the dog beyond other animals is wont, fixed upon the images of the gods no otherwise than are statues, to gaze with intent eyes. But the minister of the sacred rites, because he also contemplates naked and shorn images, whereby he performs his offices. But how great was the affinity of Isis with that Mercury appears from an Egyptian column inscribed with these words, as Diodorus relates, lib. 1.:

I am Isis, Queen of this land, taught by Mercury. I am she that riseth in the star of the dog, etc.

But to enumerate more concerning these things at present is not expedient.

OF THE SACRAMENTS OF THE OLD LAW. — The sacraments of the old law were of a twofold kind: some indeed common to all the Israelites, such as circumcision, the Paschal lamb, the various purifications from legal uncleannesses, and the expiations for sins: others were particular to the priests alone and the ministers, such as consecration, the eating of the loaves of proposition, the washing of hands and of feet. For by sacraments men are in a manner deputed to the worship of God; but the worship of God regards generally the whole people of God, and specially the ministers. With respect to both, three things are necessary: First, that they be instituted unto such worship; and this circumcision performed in the people, consecration in the priests, and a special institution in the ministers of God. Secondly, that they use those things which pertain to divine worship; and this the people performed by the eating of the Paschal lamb, but the priests by the eating of the loaves of proposition, and also of other things set apart for their uses. Thirdly, that those things be removed which are forbidden in divine worship, such as uncleannesses; and with respect to the people this was done by purifications and expiations; but with respect to the others by the washing of hands and feet, and also by the shaving of hairs or locks. — Otherwise Hugo Victorinus distinguishes the sacraments of the old law.

Three kinds, he says, of sacraments are found to have been written under the law: some specially unto remedy, some unto observance, some unto divine > worship. The first pertain to the remission of sins, the second to the exercise of devotion, the third to the cultivation of piety. The first were instituted as it were unto necessity, that man might be sanctified in them, such as circumcision, and the victims for sin and for trespass, and certain others, which were instituted specially for cleansing and remission. But the second were proposed as it were unto exercise, that in them the devotion of the faithful might be exercised and merit increased, such as the peace-offerings, which were offered by the faithful to reconcile to themselves the divine grace. The third were instituted as it were unto a certain preparation, that they might be as it were certain instruments for handling and sanctifying the other sacraments, such as the tabernacle, and the court, and all the vessels contained in them.

For what further reasons was Circumcision ordained to be done only on the eighth day from the birth of the infant, with a knife only of stone, prescribed to Abraham alone, and not before, nor used from the going out of Egypt until the entrance into the land of promise?

TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS Alensis answers that circumcision was touched upon for various reasons as a cutting away of the extremity of the little skin of the virile member. The first reason, he says, is the enfeebling of lustful concupiscence, which flourishes in that virile member, both from the wound of circumcision and from the effusion of blood which takes place in it. The second is the exposure of that part, that is, of the pulp of that member to cold and to the rubbing of garments; from all of which it becomes less sensitive: just as hands accustomed to hard labors are thereby rendered less sensitive and less passible; now nothing in that part more diminishes and weakens concupiscence than the diminution of its sensuality and passibility. The third is directed to the abolition of the rites of Venus and Priapus: in which that part, as being a portion and occupation of Venus in the human body, was not a little adorned and worshipped; for this was the part of the flesh which fought most against the spirit, and had most contaminated the peoples of those lands, so that they rushed headlong into every infamy not only of males, but even of brute animals: as we read Leviticus 18: All these abominations did the inhabitants do, who were before you, and they defiled it. And again chapter 20: They have done all these things, and I have abhorred them. This plague of execrable and shameful lust nourished those seven execrable peoples who inhabited the land of promise before the coming of the sons of Israel in idolatry and above all held them fast in it. The fourth cause, or reason, is the strength of the impression of the memory of the Creator: for circumcision is a seal and an inseparable stigma, impressed with most grievous pain; and on this account it is the strongest memorial of the Savior. The fifth cause is the firmness of the pact with God; as we read: I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and between thy seed after thee in their generations by a perpetual covenant. And again: This is my covenant: every male among you shall be circumcised. Wherefore it is manifest that by this seal every circumcised one professes that he has entered into such a pact or covenant with God, and by the very reception of this seal he enters into the pact and covenant of Abraham: and by the very reception of it he binds himself, and constitutes himself debtor to the whole law which was given to the seed of Abraham, as the Apostle says: I testify to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to the doing of the whole law, etc.; just as one who receives a sign, that is, the tonsure or habit of whatever religion, binds himself to it entire. — But why was it prescribed first to Abraham, and not before? The reason is, because idolatrous error abounding, Abraham was the first (as ancient histories relate) who recalled men from idolatry to the worship of the Creator: since therefore circumcision existed for this purpose, that by means of it the worshipers of the Creator might be distinguished from the worshipers of idols, the precept of performing circumcision was given first to Abraham. Besides, another reason is, because the express promise was first made to Abraham that the Redeemer would be born of his stock: when it was said: In thy seed shall all nations be blessed. But the seal of sanctification befitted that generation from which the Redeemer was to be born: hence it is that the precept of circumcision was given to Abraham and to his seed alone. — But why was circumcision commanded to be done on the eighth day from the birth of the infant? To this the reason is, because before the eighth day the tenderness of infants would not easily sustain so grave a wound without danger of death: but if it were deferred until the years of boyhood or of greater age, many would decline to receive it on account of the severity of the pain. — But why was it deferred from the going out of Egypt until the entrance into the land of promise? Such a reason is assigned: because perhaps there was no leisure for them, since they were either shaken by wars, or devastated by plagues, or divided by seditions, or harassed by murmurings, or pressed by other hardships: according to what John Damascene says. But the occasion for performing circumcision was when the people was established in the faith of Abraham, and the promises made to him had been obtained in part. For then the pact of Abraham had to be renewed and confirmed on the part of his seed, since it appeared firm on the part of God, and this through the exhibition of the promises. — But why was it done with a stone knife? The cause is, because sorcerers made incisions in their bodies with iron, especially in the rites of Mars; for the metal of iron was deemed by the vanity of idolaters the metal of Mars, and parts of him among metals: God therefore willed that this rite be exercised by something other than iron, that at least by this dissimilarity He might withdraw them somewhat from idolatry. Another reason is, that the covenant which the Lord had struck with them at the rock of Horeb might thereby be brought back to their memory: or because He had produced water for them from the rock, that in the sight of the worshipers of stones they might call it to mind. A third reason is, that in such stone knives they might read the hardness of their stony hearts at the very hour of circumcision: that thus they might be softened unto penance: and might feel inwardly, through compunction, the hardness of their hearts, even as the bodily hardness of knives of this kind through circumcision. — ON THE PASCHAL LAMB. As regards the Paschal Lamb, the natural reason of its institution was the commemoration of the benefit by which God led His people out of Egypt: for then it was prescribed to them that with the blood of the lamb they should smear the doorposts of their houses, as though protesting that they were withdrawing from the rites of the Egyptians, who worshipped the ram. In it, while it was set before the eyes of the Jews: First, the haste to depart from Egypt, which was also designated by the unleavened loaves which they were bound to eat, as though there had not been sufficient time for them to leaven: and that they should eat the lamb roasted with fire, because thus it was prepared more quickly: and that no bone should be broken, because those who hasten in passing do not linger over bones: which also was designated by the fact that their loins were to be girt, shoes upon their feet, staffs in their hands, whereby is signified man ready to make a journey, and by the fact that they were to eat in one house, nor carry the flesh forth without; because those who hasten to depart cannot send gifts. Second, the bitterness which they had suffered in Egypt, which was signified by wild lettuces. — The figurative reason was this: the immolation of the Paschal Lamb figured the immolation of Christ. The blood of the lamb delivering from the destroyer, the Blood of Christ by which we are delivered from sin: the flesh of the lamb was eaten to signify the eating of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament: they were roasted with fire, to signify that Christ in the Sacrament is the memorial of the Passion, or that He consumes all things with the fire of charity: with unleavened loaves, because those eating Christ must be pure and sincere; with wild lettuces, because of contrite heart; with loins girt, because chaste; with shoes on their feet, because having the examples of the dead Fathers: with staffs, because under pastoral guardianship; in one house, because in the Catholic Church, and not outside her.

ON PURIFICATIONS. As regards the ceremonies of purification from uncleannesses, and the expiations for sins, their institution and ordination rests upon a just and congruent reason; for men contracted interior uncleanness by sin, from which they were purged by sacrifices either offered for the whole community or also specially for the sins of individuals: not that these had of themselves the power of expiating, but because they signified the expiation to come through Christ, of which they were partakers through faith in Him. They contracted also an external uncleanness which was reputed first from men, secondly, from contact with unclean things. From among men there was reputed unclean whatever had any corruption, or was exposed to corruption: hence a corpse was unclean, a leper unclean, a woman suffering a flux of blood unclean, and men also unclean suffering a flux of semen through infirmity, through nocturnal pollution, through coition: the man was reputed unclean who had touched either a dead body or a leper. There was moreover an uncleanness in a house, in vessels, in garments, etc. They were purified commonly by ablution, and by certain sacrifices. — The literal reason of these purifications and expiations was: first, that with reverence they might handle those things which pertain to divine worship, and that the unclean might not approach them. Second, that approaching these sacred things but rarely, since they were oftener unclean, they might dispose themselves thereto with greater reverence and humility. Third, that they should not shrink from approaching divine worship as though fleeing the fellowship of lepers and others like them, whose disease was abominable and contagious. Fourth, because the Gentiles sometimes employed both human blood and semen in their sacrifices. — The figurative reason was, because by these various uncleannesses various sins were figured: mortal sin, which is the death of the soul, by the uncleanness of a corpse; heresy by the uncleanness of leprosy, for heresy is contagious like leprosy, and has truth mixed with falsehoods, just as in a leprous body sound parts and spotted parts appear: idolatry, by the woman suffering a flux of blood, on account of the blood of the sacrificers; vain speech, by the man suffering a flux of semen; original sin, by the uncleanness of coition and of the woman's childbirth; the softness of pleasures, by the menstruous woman; consent in another's sin, by contact with an unclean thing. So of the rest. — But because some were negligent both concerning these purifications and concerning expiations, it pleased God that once in the year, on the tenth day of the seventh month, a sacrifice of expiation should be made for the whole people, in which first the Priest offered for his own sin a calf and a ram for a holocaust; then for the people two he-goats, of which one was immolated to expiate the sin of the multitude: for the goat is a fetid animal from whose hairs are made prickly garments, and thereby is signified the pricking and the uncleanness of the goad of sin. And the blood of this goat immolated was carried in together with the blood of the calf into the Holy of holies, and with it the whole sanctuary was sprinkled, to signify that the Tabernacle was cleansed from the uncleannesses of the sons of Israel. But the bodies of the goat and of the calf immolated for sin were burned, to show the consummation of sins: not on the altar, because there only holocausts were burned, but outside the camp in detestation of sin. But the other goat was sent away into the desert, as if it bore away the sins of the people. The rite of the sending forth was that the Priest should lay his hand upon its head, confessing the sins of the sons of Israel. — Now the figurative reason of these things was this: Christ is signified by the calf on account of His power; and by the ram, because He is the leader of the faithful: and by the goat, on account of the likeness of the flesh of sin, because He was immolated for sins, and through His blood entrance lies open to us into the kingdom of heaven, even as the blood of the calf and of the goat is carried into the Holy of holies by the Pontiff. He suffered outside the gate, Hebrews at the end; even as the goat and the calf were burned outside the camp. The goat which was sent forth into the desert is, either the divinity which while Christ suffered, withholding its power, went as it were into solitude, or evil concupiscence, which we ought to cast away from ourselves, while we immolate our studious affections to the Lord.

ON THE INAUGURATION OF THE PONTIFF AND THE PRIESTS. — Ceremonies of a threefold kind were observed in the institution of the ministers. First, they were purified. Second, they were ordained and consecrated. Third, they were applied to the use of the sacred ministry. They were purified, I say, and that commonly by ablution with water, and by certain sacrifices: but specially the Levites shaved off all the hairs of their flesh. Pontiffs and Priests were consecrated in this order. First, when washed, they were clothed with special garments of their dignities. Second, the Pontiff was anointed on the head with the oil of unction. The Levites were offered to the Lord by the people through the hands of the Pontiff, who prayed for them. But of the lesser Priests only the hands were consecrated, because they were to be applied to the sacrifices; and from the blood of the immolated lamb there was tinged the tip of their right ear, and the thumb of the foot, or of the right hand: namely, that they might be obedient to the law of God in the offering of sacrifices, which is signified in the tinging of the foot and of the right hand. They themselves also and their garments were sprinkled with the blood of the immolated animal, in memory of the blood of the lamb by which they had been delivered in Egypt. — Now in their consecration there was offered a calf for sin, for the remission of the sin of Aaron committed in regard to the molten calf: a ram for a holocaust, in memory of the prayer of Abraham and his obedience, which the Pontiff ought to imitate: a ram as it were a peace-offering, in memory of the deliverance from Egypt: finally a basket of loaves, in memory of the manna granted to the people. Third, they were applied by the imposition upon their hands of the fat of the ram, of a cake of unleavened bread, and of the right arm: that it might be shown that they received the power of offering sacrifices to the Lord. But the Levites, by being brought into the Tabernacle of the covenant, as it were to minister about the vessels of the Sanctuary. — The figurative reason was, because those who are deputed to the ecclesiastical ministry ought first to be purified by the water of baptism and of tears, in faith in the Passion of Christ, which is an expiatory and purgative sacrifice. Moreover they must shave away all depraved thoughts, which are shadowed forth by the hairs of the flesh: to be adorned with virtues, and to be consecrated with the oil of the Holy Ghost and the sprinkling of the Blood of Christ. — It must be observed, however, that the Priests were especially clad in four garments while they fulfilled the sacred ministries; namely, breeches, a straight linen tunic, a girdle or belt, and a tiara or mitre or cidaris. The breeches, says Alensis, signified continence; the linen tunic, cleanness; the girdle, modesty; the mitre, rectitude of intention of mind. Besides these garments common to Pontiffs, saving some slight exception, the Pontiffs had four others proper to themselves, which simple Priests might not lawfully wear: first, the hyacinthine tunic, or pontifical one, at whose extremity toward the feet were placed in a circle certain little bells, and pomegranates made of hyacinth and purple and scarlet twice dyed. Second, the pontifical Ephod, or Superhumeral, which covered the shoulders and the front part down to the girdle; it was of gold, and hyacinth, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and twisted byssus, and upon its shoulders it bore two emeralds, on which were written the names of the sons of Israel. Third, the Rational, made of the same material, square, and placed on the breast, and joined to the Superhumeral: in this were twelve precious stones distinguished into four rows, on which also the names of the sons of Israel were engraved; thus it signified that the Pontiff bore them upon his shoulders and in his heart. Fourth, a plate of gold hanging on his forehead, on which was written the name of the Lord. — Now this diversity of garments, says Alensis, on the First Article according to Josephus, figured him to be the Minister and Pontiff of the Creator of all things. Whence according to what is touched upon Wisdom 18: The disposition of the whole orb was figured in the garment of the Pontiff; the linen breeches and the linen tunic, or one of byssus, figured the earth. The girdle signified the circuit of the Ocean: the hyacinthine tunic by its very color prefigured bronze: by the bells thunder was signified: by the pomegranates coruscations; the superhumeral by its variety the starry heaven: the two sardonyxes, the two hemispheres, or the Sun and Moon: the twelve gems on the breast, the twelve Signs and the Zodiac; and fittingly that which was in the midst was called the Rational: for all things are full of reason, and earthly things are disposed through heavenly ones: the Cidaris, the empyrean heaven: the golden plate, God presiding over all things. Will not this significations' fitness be laughed at? It must be said therefore that the variety of garments designated the variety of virtues with which the Pontiff needed to be fortified: the breeches signified continence: the byssine tunic, which through many beatings arrives at whiteness, interior cleanness through mortification of the flesh: the girdle, which binds the belly, continence and abstinence: the hyacinthine tunic, which is exterior and of ethereal color, heavenly conversation; but the cincture by which the tunic is bound, modesty of conversation: the superhumeral, obedience to the commandments: but the rational, divine science: the cidaris, intention of good will: the plate, on which the name of God is inscribed, figured perpetual memory or meditation of God.

ON THE PRECEPTS TO BE OBSERVED IN GARMENTS AND FOODS. — Finally there were certain rites to be observed by the people from precept in exterior garments, in the choice of foods, in divine worship. First indeed concerning the garments with which they ought to be clothed, many things were enjoined: thus Deuteronomy 22: A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, and a man shall not be clothed with woman's apparel. And chapter 22: Thou shalt not wear a garment which is woven of wool and linen. But the causes, says William of Paris in his book On Laws, chapter 13, of the prohibition that a man should use woman's apparel, or conversely, were many: The first was the congruence of nature itself, namely, that those whom nature distinguished by sex she also distinguishes by garments. Second, that opportunity might be taken away from the spread of shameful deeds. For a man might enter to a woman under womanly attire, and conversely a woman under manly attire: therefore by this distinction of dress much occasion for infamies was removed. Third, the extirpation of the rites of Mars and Venus. For in the rites of Mars not only were women clothed in manly vesture, but they were even armed, that in those warlike vestments, that is, arms, they might worship him as the God of war and giver of victory. And Cocceius the Greek, in an accursed book which he wrote on the stations for the worship of Venus, prescribed among other sacrilegious and God-hateful things, that whoever exercises that abominable rite should have a womanly crown upon his head. In like manner in the rites of Venus men were made effeminate, namely exercising the rites of Venus in womanly garments: believing and seeking by such sacrilegious rites to please Mars and Venus. The fourth cause was that a great occasion for the provocation of lust might be taken away; for great is the provocation of lust to men from womanly dress, and conversely; and this because womanly dress surrounding a man vehemently refreshes the memory and stirs the imagination of woman, and conversely. The fifth cause, that the occasion of sorcery might be taken away, with which those peoples were most replete and nurtured therein. For sorcerers and sorceresses were accustomed to work the sorceries of lust in garments, or out of garments; and this we often read in their books. Therefore that so great an occasion might be removed, God willed this confusion of dress among men and women. Sixth cause, that a dangerous error and superstitious credulity might be removed, by which they could be drawn to idolatry; deceived persons believed that by the application of womanly garments, especially in the rites of Venus, the hearts of women were joined to them and won by most strong love, for whose sake they did this, or who afterwards used such garments. Similarly deceived women believed the same of men and manly garments. God therefore willed this superstitious error to be removed from their hearts through the abolition of such confusion, lest at last they be drawn thereby to the worship of Venus. But the use of a garment woven of wool and linen was prohibited according to the letter, because priests of idols, especially in Egypt, used garments of this kind. The cause therefore herein was lest the people of God be assimilated to idolaters. Another cause was general, that idolatry, which was exercised by such mixtures, might perish on that very account. A third was, that the order of nature, which idolaters perverted in many ways, might be preserved in garments, namely that linen should be beneath wool, and nearer to the human body. Fourth, that in garments and their materials that very distinction which nature had made between them might be preserved, that a shirt by nature should be a shirt, and a tunic by nature a tunic, and so of others. For all these things we have spoken of idolaters confounded and commingled unto the veneration chiefly of the elements, whereof something we shall say in what follows; for it was said that all things of this kind were begotten from the mixture of the elements which they served, and from their confusion. — Many things also were prohibited with regard to food, for the law judged unclean Leviticus 11 the beasts which chew not the cud, or divide not the hoof. Likewise water animals which have not fins and scales. Likewise birds of prey, as the eagle and the race of ravens, and certain others, Leviticus 11; and universally all reptiles, as the gecko, the lizard, and other things which move upon the earth, as the weasel, the mouse, and the like, Leviticus 11. — Alensis brings forward these reasons of this prohibition, saying, in a general answer, that the reason was withdrawal from idolatry.

For those animals which the law judged especially unclean the idolaters had taken up, either in the rite of sacrifices or in veneration. For it is evident that from beasts, and birds, and water animals they figured images of idols: whence Exodus 20, on this account it is said: Thou shalt not make their similitude, which are in heaven above, as of birds: nor of those which are on earth beneath, as of beasts: nor of those which are in the waters, as of swimming creatures. Likewise it is evident that they made idols of reptiles in like manner: whence Isaiah 2: Man shall cast forth his idols wherewith he was offended, moles and bats: And Ezekiel 8: Entering I saw, and behold every similitude of reptiles and of animals, an abomination, and all the idols depicted there, etc. Hence it is that the law judged such things unclean; or because in such idols they sacrificed; hence the pig, which chews not the cud but divides the hoof, is judged unclean: because even still the pagans immolated pigs, and confirmed their covenants with the sacrifice of pigs: deeming them ratified in no other way than that those who contract or league together should pass through the midst of the parts of this sacrifice. In similar manner idolaters and sorcerers sacrifice the camel, which chews the cud but divides not the hoof, as we read in the book On Rings, i. of the Planets: so also the rest must be understood. For just as now it would be necessary by necessity to decree in those regions where the cat is said to be adored, that it not be found there, and that whoever was found having one would be gravely punished: for the same reason also in regions where the toad is said to be adored, if anyone finding a toad did not immediately kill it, he would have to be punished with grave chastisement: so God willed the aforesaid animals, which idolatry had usurped to itself, to be abominable to His people, that they neither eat them nor touch them.

Thus our Alensis.

ON THE SACRED TIMES TO BE OBSERVED IN THE OLD LAW. — Sacred times we call those which are prescribed for the religious worship of God by His own command or inspiration. But in the old law they were of a twofold kind: some indeed diurnal, namely certain fixed hours of each day to be spent in the veneration and service of God: others recurring only after several days. Of the former kind was the perpetual sacrifice, to be offered morning and evening, as God had prescribed in these words Numbers 28: These are the sacrifices which you ought to offer: two lambs of a year old without blemish every day for a perpetual holocaust: one you shall offer in the morning, and the other at even; a tenth part of an ephi of flour, which shall be sprinkled with purest oil, and have a fourth part of a hin. It is the perpetual holocaust which you offered on mount Sinai, for a most sweet odor of the incense of the Lord. And you shall libate thereof a fourth part of a hin for each lamb in the sanctuary of the Lord. Also the other lamb you shall offer in like manner at even, according to all the rite of the morning sacrifice and its libations, an oblation of most sweet odor to the Lord.

Concerning the same thing similarly He had thus ordained Exodus 29. v. 38: This is that which thou shalt do upon the altar: two lambs of a year old for each day continually etc. But this sacrifice was called perpetual or everlasting, because it ought to be offered continually each day as long as the Mosaic law held force. But this sacrifice, to be offered morning and evening, prefigured the twofold oblation of Christ: the one indeed at the beginning of the incarnation and in the first moment of our assumed humanity, concerning which S. Paul to the Hebrews, 10. v. 5: Entering into the world he saith, sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not, but a body thou hast fitted to me: holocausts for sin do not please thee: then said I, behold I come. The other on the cross; for the Apostle says in the same place, chapter 9. v. 11: But Christ being present a Pontiff of things to come, through a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation; neither by the blood of goats or of calves, but by his own blood entered once into the holies, having found eternal redemption etc. But in this sacrifice rather an unblemished lamb than any other animal was to be offered, because it was the type of Christ the Lord who is called the Lamb in Apocalypse. Whence Origen, homily 2? on Numbers. He is called a lamb because his will and goodness, whereby he reconciled God to men and gave indulgence of sins, was such toward humankind, as it were the host of a lamb immaculate and innocent, whereby divine things are believed to be appeased toward men. To these S. Augustine is added, chapter 1. book 21. of Sentences: A lamb, he says, is chosen, that simplicity and innocence may be designated: a male is sought, that strength be approved; unblemished, that it be without crime etc. By which he indicated the perfect figure of Christ, and represented His innocence and meekness and voluntary oblation: for Isaiah says, chapter 53: He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer etc. — In this sacrifice likewise flour, oil, and wine were offered, because Christ willed not only to be immolated in a bloody sacrifice upon the altar of the cross, but also in an unbloody one in the Eucharist, sacrifices administered through the hands of priests of the new law, ministers of His everlasting priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech: and because this ought to be a pledge of His surpassing love toward us, He had commanded oil to be mixed in it as the symbol of His divine charity. But the measure of flour was larger than that of wine, because more ought to partake of that divine benefit under the species of bread than under the species of wine. — The sacred times recurring after some period were the festal days, which can be distinguished into three kinds, namely weekly, monthly, and yearly. Weekly was the solemnity of the seventh day called sabbath, of which enough has been said above. The monthly festal days were the feast of the first day of each month, called by the Hebrews the beginning of the month; by the Seventy Interpreters Neomenia, a compound name from the words neos, that is new, and men, that is month, so that Neomenia means as it were new month; or apo tes selenes, from the moon, because the Hebrews began their months for the most part with the new moon. Whence Philo, book On the Septenary: At the Neomenia the sun begins to illumine the moon with sensible splendor, while she herself then discloses her own glory to beholders. To this Maimonides sings in accord in hilkoth hachodesh, that is the sanctification of the kalends, where he writes: This is the constitution of Moses on mount Sinai, that as long as the sanhedrin should endure they should constitute Neomenias according to the aspect of the moon, that is, its appearance. He teaches in the same place that the Hebrews computed the beginning of the month from the first moment of the moon's appearing, so that when the moon appeared at the appointed time, namely the thirtieth night of the hidden month, that month consisted of twenty-nine days; but the following day was the first of the month beginning; if truly on that night she appeared not, the former month consisted of thirty days, but the subsequent day was the first of the month beginning. But that these things might be certain, the senate of Jerusalem had astronomical tables, by whose benefit it knew whether the new moon would appear on the thirtieth night or still lie hid: moreover it delegated trustworthy men to inspect and report whether the rising moon had shone forth; but if by the astronomical tables they perceived the moon could not appear on the thirtieth night, they did not await the report of the inspectors, but absolutely decreed that the following day was the first of the month beginning. — But that this might be known to the other cities alike, the senate commanded fires to be lit upon the summits of mountains, that there might be an indication of the Neomenia to be celebrated. But when the Samaritans, enemies of the Jews, sometimes lit similar fires, that by this artifice they might mock them and lead them to celebrate the Neomenias on another day than was right, that senate, lest such a prejudice arise, delegated couriers to the principal Jewish cities, to announce that the new moon had appeared and that the Neomenias ought to be celebrated. This same rite of celebrating the Neomenias spread abroad among the Gentiles, testifying S. Isidore book 5. of Etymologies, chapter 33. Among the ancients, he says, the beginnings of all months were honored, as also among the Hebrews. Hence of Homer Herodotus relates in his life that at the Neomenias he was wont to betake himself to the houses of the rich, that he might experience their munificence. Macrobius also writes, book 1. of Saturnalia, chapter 15, that in ancient times this charge was delegated to the lesser pontiff, that he observe the first aspect of the new moon, and having seen it announce it to the king of sacred rites, that is, to the pontiff. To this also pertain those verses of Virgil, 6. Aeneid.

.... such as he who at the month's first arising Either sees, or thinks he has seen through veiling clouds the moon.

But in what manner the Neomenias were to be celebrated Moses declares Numbers 28: But at the kalends you shall offer a holocaust to the Lord, two calves of the herd, one ram, seven lambs of a year old without blemish, and three tenths of flour sprinkled with oil for a sacrifice for each calf: and two tenths of flour sprinkled with oil for each ram: and a tenth for a tenth of flour with oil for a sacrifice for each lamb etc. — But although public sacrifices were made at the Neomenias, yet there was not by precept a ceasing from every servile work on them, although most abstained from them on account of the solemnity of the day, to which they were invited with the clangor of trumpets, according to that Numbers 10: If ever you shall have an assembly, and festal days and kalends, you shall sound with trumpets over the holocausts and peace-victims, that they may be to you in remembrance of your God. To which also pertains that Psalm 80: Sound with trumpet at the Neomenia, on the notable day of the solemnity of you. — But this solemnity was celebrated in thanksgiving for the benefit of divine governance, says S. Thomas 1. 2. question 102. article 4. ad 4; and Lyranus adds upon that Numbers 28. But at the kalends etc.: Therefore it was made at the neomenia, because change in these lower things appears more according to the renewal of the moon than at other times; and therefore this feast is celebrated at the newness of the moon, but not in its fullness, lest the worship of idolaters be imitated, who sacrificed at such a time of the moon. Other reasons of this instituted solemnity can also be brought forward, namely that just as God willed first-fruits of things born from the earth to be offered to Himself, so likewise He willed the first-fruits of time to be consecrated to Himself, as each month revolved through the revolution of that star whereby times were distinguished among the Jews. And moreover that God, appeased by prayers and sacrifices, might make by His blessing that all things succeed prosperously and auspiciously. — The yearly feasts were of a twofold kind: for some recurred every year, others only after a certain period of years were anniversary festivals, in which every male by the command of God was bound to appear with oblations and gift before the Lord. Most famous were Pasch, Pentecost and the feast of tabernacles, which although they were instituted in memory of past benefits, as Pasch in memory of the deliverance from Egypt; Pentecost for recalling the grace of the Law handed over and received; Scenopegia truly or the feast of tabernacles in memory of divine protection during the time of the sojournment of the Israelites in the desert; were nevertheless type and adumbration of spiritual benefits to be granted through Christ: thus Pasch prefigured and promised deliverance from Egypt, and deliverance from the power of hell, and it shadowed forth the immolation of Christ, 1. Cor. 5. 7; 1 Petr. 1. 18. 19. Pentecost the sending of the Holy Ghost, and the inscription of the law on tables of hearts through the same Spirit, 2. Cor. 3. 5. 6; Jerem. 31. 32. Scenopegia the sojournment of the pious man through this world's desert toward the heavenly fatherland. Hebr. 11. 13. — To these three feasts all the Israelites were bound to come together, especially men who were sound of mind and health. Moreover the Thalmudists, treating of Chagigah, that is, the festal day, assert that that was a singular benefit of divine Providence and as it were an assiduous miracle, that those who went to those feasts, leaving behind at home only the aged or infirm, or women and children, found their goods safe and untouched upon their return. R. Nathan adds in Aboth: On those days, he says, ten miracles were shown to our fathers in the sanctuary. No woman suffered miscarriage on account of the odor of the flesh of victims. No one ever dug a garden-bed at Jerusalem: nor did anyone ever fall at Jerusalem: nor did abortion ever happen at Jerusalem: nor did anyone ever say to another: I find no fire at Jerusalem at which to roast my paschal lamb: nor did anyone ever say to another: I find no bed at Jerusalem wherein I might recline: nor did anyone ever say to another: my lodging is too strait at Jerusalem etc. — The feasts recurring after a certain period of years were first, the sabbatic year, to be celebrated every seventh year, as is prescribed Leviticus 25, in which there was an intermission of the cultivation of the land, since in it neither were crops sown nor trees cultivated; but whatever the earth or the trees put forth from native fecundity redounded to the relief and use of the poor, as is provided Exodus 23, where concerning the tillers of the land it is decreed: but in the year thou shalt let it alone, and shalt suffer it to rest, that the poor of thy people may eat, and whatsoever shall be left, the beasts of the field shall eat it. The same shalt thou do in thy vineyard and in thy olive-yard. That the Israelites might accomplish this more easily, God had promised Leviticus 25 that He would give a blessing to the earth in the sixth year so that it should make fruit for three years. Second, in that year all servants originating from the Hebrews were manumitted and recovered liberty, as is provided Exodus 21: If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve thee, in the seventh he shall go out free gratis. For if the servant was a foreigner, he was never manumitted, Leviticus 25: Let bondmen and bondmaids be of the nations that are round about you: and of the strangers who dwell among you, or who were born of them in your land, these you shall have for slaves, and shall transmit them by hereditary right to posterity, that you may possess them forever. Third, all debts were remitted, Deuteronomy 15: In the seventh year thou shalt make a remission, which shall be celebrated in this order: He to whom anything is owed by his friend, or neighbor and brother, cannot demand it again, because it is the year of remission of the Lord. Of the foreigner and stranger thou mayst exact; but of thy citizen and neighbor thou shalt not have power to demand. — But most famous of all was the jubilee year, to be celebrated at the revolving of every fiftieth year, in which took place manumission of servants, remission of debts, and restoration of sold goods, whereby were prefigured the surpassing benefits to be granted to us through Christ: namely liberty from the servitude of sin, the devil, and death, as appears Luke 4. v. 18; and Rom. 6. v. 13(?); then the remission of spiritual debts, namely of sins, Rom. 8. and Coloss. 2. v. 14; besides, the restoration of spiritual honors lost in Adam, Rom. 5. v. 15. and 20. — I pass over the other feasts of the Jews which were of lesser celebrity, such as the day of expiation, the day of purity and of gathering, the day of Encaenia or of the dedication of the temple of Solomon, the day of victory over Nicanor, the day of lots on account of the deliverance of the Jews through the favor of Esther etc.

ON FORENSIC LAW. — The judicial precepts of the old law are those which, not by reason alone but from the institution of God, had power of binding men in their order toward one another. But a fourfold order could be found in any people. First, of the princes of the people toward subjects. Second, of subjects toward one another. Third, of those who are of the people toward strangers. Fourth, finally, toward domestics. Therefore judicial precepts of the old law can be divided into as many modes. Concerning princes the old law fittingly ordained; for, as S. Thomas says, in a good ordination of princes two things are attended to. The first is, that all have a part in the principate, because thereby the peace of the people is preserved, and all love and keep such an ordination. The second is the summit of rule or principate, whose species although diverse, yet the chief rule is that in which one rules according to virtue, and Aristocracy in which some few rule according to virtue: whence the best ordination of Princes is in some city or kingdom, in which one is set over according to virtue, who excels all, and under him are some ruling according to virtue, and nevertheless such a Principate pertains to all: both because they can be chosen from all: and also because they are chosen by all: and thus God had disposed concerning the Principate of the old Law; for Moses and his successors governed the people as it were singularly ruling over all, which is a kind of species of kingdom. But 72. Seniors were elected according to virtue, and these were elected from all the people.. But the election of the Prince he did not leave to the people, but reserved to himself, as appears in the case of Moses, the Judges, and Kings, for this cause, because that people was governed under God's special care: nor did He constitute Kings in full power from the beginning, but Judges and Governors, lest such rule degenerate into tyranny, which happens chiefly if they be cruel and avaricious: such were the Jews: whence He granted a King only as it were indignant at the petition of the people. 1. Kings 8. Yet from the beginning He instituted concerning the King to be elected: First, the mode of election, which consisted in this, that the judgment of the Lord be awaited, nor should anyone of another nation be elected King. Second, how constituted Kings ought to comport themselves toward themselves, toward God, and toward subjects. Deuter. 17. — Concerning subjects toward one another He fittingly ordained: for by just prescriptions order was made concerning the communion which they ought to have mutually. This is twofold: one which takes place by authority of Princes, another which takes place by proper will of private persons. Concerning both the law provided sufficiently: concerning the first by instituting judges, the order of judgment, the number of witnesses, and certain persons for sales, successions, care of parents, and the like. Read S. Thomas treating of these more fully after his manner, excellently qu. 105. art. 2. — Concerning subjects ordered toward strangers He fittingly pronounced: for conversation with strangers can be in two ways: peaceful and hostile; statute was made concerning both ways. Concerning the first, both when foreigners passed through their lands, and when they dwelt among them, prohibiting that they be not saddened, or molestation inflicted upon them, Exodus 22. and 23.; and when they wished to be admitted wholly into their fellowship, provision was also made that they neither be admitted at once nor so altogether excluded; yet certain ones were altogether excluded, because enemies most hostile, such as the Amalecites. Concerning the second however, before they entered war peace was offered: Deut. 20. Second, it was prescribed that war once begun be prosecuted bravely. Third, that the aforesaid impediments be removed, sending back to home certain ones who might supply impediments. Fourth finally, that they use victory moderately, sparing women and little ones, and not burning the fruit-bearing woods of the region. Read S. Thom. art. 3. — Finally as regards domestics the old law fittingly ordained; for concerning domestic persons there are three combinations: namely, of lord toward servant, of husband toward wife, and of father toward son. Concerning the first He fittingly ordained, both concerning those labors moderately to be imposed, and concerning penalties to be inflicted, and concerning the dismissal of those who were of the people: concerning the second He also fittingly ordained, commanding that a wife be taken from the same tribe, lest tribes be confounded; that a brother take the wife of his deceased brother without children, being about to raise up seed to his brother; that foreigners not be received in marriage on account of danger of seduction, nor kinswomen, on account of that natural reverence owed to them: that nothing public of necessity be enjoined upon the newly married whereby he might freely rejoice with his wife and establish friendship; that wives be not lightly defamed; that out of hatred a man afflict not his wife; but rather dismiss her, and that he accomplish this only by written scroll: that finally on account of hatred of the wife the son suffer no detriment. Concerning the third finally, that fathers instruct sons in disciplines and morals, lest they be vacant to revelings and wantonnesses. The rest see in S. Thomas.