The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 2Browne, Thomas, Sir
Religion
The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 2
Browne, Thomas, Sir
Christianity; Ethics; Religion and medicine
Nor did men only refrain from the flesh of beasts at first, but as some
will have it, beasts from one another. And if we should believe very
grave conjecturers, carnivorous animals now, were not flesh devourers
then, according to the expression of the divine provision for them. [SN:
Gen. 1. 36.] To every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air,
I have given every green herb for meat, and it was so. As is also
collected from the store laid up in the Ark; wherein there seems to have
been no fleshly provision for carnivorous Animals. For of every kind of
unclean beast there went but two into the Ark: and therefore no stock of
flesh to sustain them many days, much less almost a year.
But when ever it be acknowledged that men began to feed on flesh, yet
how they betook themselves after to particular kinds thereof, with
rejection of many others, is a point not clearly determined. As for the
distinction of clean and unclean beasts, the original is obscure, and
salveth not our practice. For no Animal is naturally unclean, or hath
this character in nature; and therefore whether in this distinction
there were not some mystical intention: [SN: _How_ Moses _might
distinguish beasts into clean and unclean before the flood_.] whether
_Moses_ after the distinction made of unclean beasts, did not name these
so before the flood by anticipation: whether this distinction before the
flood, were not only in regard of sacrifices, as that delivered after
was in regard of food: (for many were clean for food, which were unclean
for sacrifice) or whether the denomination were but comparative, and of
beasts less commodious for food, although not simply bad, is not yet
resolved.
And as for the same distinction in the time of _Moses_, long after the
flood, from thence we hold no restriction, as being no rule unto Nations
beside the _Jews_ in dietetical consideration, or natural choice of
diet, they being enjoyned or prohibited certain foods upon remote and
secret intentions. Especially thereby to avoid community with the
Gentiles upon promiscuous commensality: or to divert them from the
Idolatry of _Egypt_ whence they came, they were enjoyned to eat the
Gods of _Egypt_ in the food of Sheep and Oxen. Withall in this
distinction of Animals the consideration was hieroglyphical; in the
bosom and inward sense implying an abstinence from certain vices
symbolically intimated from the nature of those animals; as may be well
made out in the prohibited meat of Swine, Cony, Owl, and many more.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account