Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| And Thus Unclean Animals are Not to Be Reproached, Lest the Reproach Be Thrown Upon Their Author; But When an Irrational Animal is Rejected on Any Account, It is Rather that that Very Thing Should Be Condemned in Man Who is Rational; And Therefore that in Animals the Character, the Doings, and the Wills of Men are Depicted.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter III.
Argument.—And Thus Unclean Animals are Not to Be
Reproached, Lest the Reproach Be Thrown Upon Their Author; But When an
Irrational Animal is Rejected on Any Account, It is Rather that that
Very Thing Should Be Condemned in Man Who is Rational; And Therefore
that in Animals the Character, the Doings, and the Wills of Men are
Depicted.
How far, then, must that law, which—as I have
shown by the authority of the apostle—is spiritual, be
spiritually received in order that the divine and sure idea of the law may be
carried out? Firstly, we must believe that whatever was ordained
by God is clean and purified by the very authority of His creation;
neither must it be reproached, lest the reproach should be thrown back
upon its Author. Then too that the law was given to the
children of Israel for this purpose, that they might profit by it, and
return to those virtuous manners which, although they had received them
from their fathers, they had corrupted in Egypt by reason of their
intercourse with a barbarous people. Finally, also, those ten
commandments on the tables teach nothing new, but remind them of what
had been obliterated—that righteousness in them, which had been
put to sleep, might revive again as it were by the afflatus of the law,
after the manner of a smothered fire. But they could
profit by the perception that those vices were especially to be avoided
in men which the law had condemned even in beasts.5316
| 5316
[See chap. ii. p. 645, supra, note 9.] | For when an irrational animal is
rejected on any account, it is rather that very thing which is
condemned in the man, who is rational. And if in it anything
which it has by nature is characterized as a defilement, that same
thing is most to be blamed when it is found in man opposed to his
nature. Therefore, in order that men might be purified, the
cattle were censured—to wit, that men also who had the same vices
might be esteemed on a level with the brutes. Whence it results,
that not only were the animals not condemned by their Creator because
of His agency;5317
but that
men might be instructed in the brutes to return to the unspotted nature
of their own creation. For we must consider how the Lord
distinguishes clean and not clean. The creatures that are clean,
it says, both chew the cud and divide the hoof; the unclean do neither,
or only one of the two. All these things were made by one
Workman, and He who made them Himself blessed them. Therefore I
regard the creation of both as clean, because both He who created them
is holy, and those things which were created are not in fault in being
that which they were made. For it has never been customary for
nature, but for a perverted will, to bear the blame of guilt.
What, then, is the case? In the animals it is the characters, and
doings, and wills of men that are depicted.5318
| 5318
[The moral uses of the animal creation are recognised in all languages;
as when we say of men, a serpent, a fox, a hog, an ass, etc.; so
otherwise, a lion, a lamb, an eagle, a dove, etc.] | They are clean if they chew
the cud; that is, if they ever have in their mouth as food the divine
precepts. They divide the hoof, if with the firm step of
innocency they tread the ways of righteousness, and of every virtue of
life. For of those creatures which divide the foot into two hoofs
the walk is always vigorous; the tendency to slip of one part of the
hoof being sustained by the firmness of the other, and so retained in
the substantial footstep. Thus they who do neither are unclean,
whose walk is neither firm in virtues; nor do they digest the food of
the divine precepts after the manner of that chewing of the cud.
And they, too, who do one of these things are not themselves clean
either, inasmuch as they are maimed of the other, and not perfect in
both. And these are they who do both, as believers, and are
clean; or one of the two, as Jews and heretics, and are blemished; or
neither, as the Gentiles, and are consequently unclean. Thus in
the animals, by the law, as it were, a certain mirror of human life is
established, wherein men may consider the images of penalties; so that
everything which is vicious in men, as committed against nature, may be
the more condemned, when even those things, although naturally ordained
in brutes, are in them blamed.5319
| 5319
[Novatian was a keen analyst, and his allegorial renderings are logical
generally, though sometimes fanciful.] | For that in fishes the
roughness of scales is regarded as constituting their cleanness; rough,
and rugged, and unpolished, and substantial, and grave manners are
approved in men; while those that are without scales are unclean;
because trifling, and fickle, and faithless, and effeminate manners are
disapproved. Moreover, what does the law mean when it says,
“Thou shalt not eat the camel?”5320
| 5320
Lev. xi. 4. [Jones of Nayland, vol.
iii., Disquisition, ed. 1801.] | —except that by the example of
that animal it condemns a life nerveless5321
| 5321
“Enervem,” but more probably “informem.” | and crooked with crimes. Or when
it forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves
a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice, placing
its supreme good not in generosity of mind, but in the flesh
alone. Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed
into women. And who would use the body of the weasel for
food? But in this case it reproves theft. Who would eat the
lizard? But it hates an aimless waywardness of life. Who
the eft? But it execrates mental stains. Who would eat the
hawk, who the kite, who the eagle? But it hates plunderers and
violent people who live by crime. Who the vulture? But it
holds accursed those who seek for booty by the death of others.
Or who the raven? But it holds accused crafty wills.
Moreover, when it forbids the sparrow, it condemns intemperance; when
the owl, it hates those who fly from the light of truth; when the swan,
the proud with high neck; when the sea-mew, too talkative an
intemperance of tongue; when the bat, those who seek the darkness of
night as well as of error. These things, then, and the like to
these, the law holds accursed in animals, which in them indeed are not
blameworthy, because they are born in this condition;
in man they are blamed, because
they are sought for contrary to his nature, not by his creation, but by
his error.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
