supposed to have had this happiness whilst they lived in Paradise; and the poets framed their accounts of the golden age, from the ancient notions of the Garden of Eden; but we do not find that the prose writers fell into them. Diodorus Siculus supposes the lives of the first men to have been far from abounding with ease and plenty; "Having houses to build', clothes to make, and not having invented proper instruments to work with, they lived a hard and laborious life; and many of them not having made a due provision for their sustenance, perished with hunger and cold in winter." This was his account of the lives and condition of the first men. The art of husbandry is now so generally understood, and such plenty is produced by a due and proper tillage, that it may seem no hard matter for any one, who has ground to work on, to produce an ample provision for life; but even still, should any family not used to husbandry, nor supplied with proper tools and instruments for their tillage, be obliged to raise from the ground as much of all sorts of grain as they should want, they would find their time taken up in a variety of labours. And this was the condition of the first men; they had not only to till the ground, but to try, and by several experiments to find out the best and most proper method of tilling it, and to invent and make all such instruments as they had occasion for; and we find them confessing the

'Lib. i. p. 6.

toil and labour that was laid upon them, in the words of Lamech at the birth of Noah, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed'. Lamech was probably informed from GOD that his son Noah would obtain a grant of the creatures for the use of men; and knowing the labour and inconveniences they were then under, he rejoiced in foreseeing what ease and comfort they should have, when they should obtain a large supply of food from the creatures, besides what they could produce from the ground by tillage.

But, secondly, GOD restrained them from eating blood, But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. What the design of this restraint was, or what the very restraint is, has been variously controverted. Mr. Selden in his book De Jure Gentium juxta Disciplinam Hebræorum, has a very learned chapter upon this subject, in which he has given us the several opinions of the rabbins, though I think they give us but little true information about it. The injunction of not eating blood, has in the place before us no circumstances to explain its meaning; but if we look into the Jewish law, we find it there repeated, and such a reason given for it as seems very probable to have been the original reason for this prohibition. Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that so

• Gen. V,

29.

Chap. ix, ver. 4.

• Lib. vii, c. 1.

journ amongst you, that eateth any manner of blood, I will even set my face against that sout that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people; for the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given you that upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls'; (or it might be translated, I have appointed you that to make an atonement upon the altar for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul). An ancient Jewish commentator upon the books of Moses, paraphrases the words pretty justly: "The soul," says he, "of all flesh is in the blood, and for that reason I have chosen the blood of all the beasts, to make an atonement for the soul of man." This is by far the best account that can be given of the prohibition of blood. GoD appointed that the blood of the creatures should be offered for the sins of men, and therefore required that it should be religiously set apart for that purpose. If we examine the Mosaical law, we shall find it strictly agreeable to this notion. In some places the blood is appointed to be offered on the altar, in others, to be poured on the ground as water; but these appointments are easily reconcileable, by considering the reason of each of them. Whilst the Jews were in the wilderness, and the tabernacle near at hand, they were ordered never to kill any thing to eat, without bringing it to be killed at the door of the tabernacle, in order to have the

་

5 Levit. xvii, 10, 11.

• Chauskunni: and Eusebius hints the same reason. Dem. Evang. lib. i, c. 10.

blood offered upon the altar. But when they came into the land of Canaan, and were spread over the country, and had a temple at Jerusalem, and were commanded strictly to offer all their sacrifices there only, it was impossible to observe the injunction before named; they could not come from all parts to Jerusalem to kill their provision, and to offer the blood upon the altar. Against this difficulty Moses provided the book of Denteronomy, which is an enlargement and explanation of the laws in Leviticus. The substance of what he has ordered in this matter is as follows: That when they should come over to Jordan to dwell in Canaan, and there should be a place chosen by GOD, to cause his name to dwell there, they were to bring all their offerings to that place, and to take heed not to offer any offerings elsewhere'. But if they lived so far from the temple, that they could not bring the creatures up thither which they killed to eat, they had leave to kill and eat whatsoever they had a mind to, only instead of offering the blood, they were to pour it upon the earth as water, and to take care that they eat none of it. Thus the pouring out the blood upon the earth was appointed, where circumstances were such that an offering of it could not be made; and agreeably hereto, when they took any thing in hunting, which probably might be so wounded as not to live until they could bring it to the taber

7 Levit. xvii, 3, 4.

Ver. 13.

• Deut. xii.

2 Ver. 21.

9 Ver, 11, 12,

nacle to offer the blood upon the altar, they were to kill it, and pour out the blood, and cover it with dust3. And we may from hence see the reason for what David did, when his three warriors brought him water from the well of Bethlehem, at the extreme hazard of their lives; looking upon the water as if it were their blood, which they hazarded to obtain it, he refused to drink it; and there being no rule or reason to offer such water upon the altar, he thought fit to do what was next to offering it, he poured it out before the Lord.

There is no foundation either in the reason of the thing, or in the prohibition, to support the opinion of some persons, who imagine the eating of blood to be an immoral thing. If it were so, GOD would not have permitted the Israelites 5 to sell a creature which died in its blood, to an alien or stranger, that he might eat it. The Israelites were strictly obliged by their law to eat no flesh until they had poured out the blood, or offered it upon the altar, because God had appointed the blood to be an atonement for their sins; but the alien and stranger, who knew of no such orders for setting it apart for that use, might as freely eat it as any part of the creature. And I think this account of the prohibition of blood will fully answer all the scruples which some Christians have about it. The use of it upon the altar is now over, and therefore the reason for abstaining from it is • 1 Chron. xi, 18.

Levit. xvii, 13.

• Deut. xiv, 21.