386 NOV ATI AN THE ROMAN PRESBYTER things. So,in fishesalso,the law saidthatthoseindeedwere cleanwhich were coveredwith scalesand suppliedwithfins, hut that thosewhich were otherwisewere not clean. More over,it establisheda distinctionamong the fowls,andlaid down what was to be judged eitheran abomination,orclean. Thus thelaw ordained[theexerciseof]verygreatsubtletyin making a separationamong thoseanimalswhich the ancient appointmenthad gatheredtogetherintoone form of blessing. What, then,are we to say? Are the animals thereforeon- clean? But what elseisit[tosay] thatthey arenot clean, than thatthe law has separatedthem from the usesoffood; And what, moreover, is that that we have just now said? Then God isthe ordainerof thingswhich are not clean;and the blame attachedto thingswhich are made willrecoilupon theirMaker, who did not produce them clean; to saywhich iscertainlycharacteristicof extreme and excessivefolly:it is to accuse God as having createdunclean things,andto charge upon the divinemajesty the guiltof having made thingswhich areabomination,especiallywhen they wereboth pronounced " very good,"1 and as being good have obtained the blessingfrom God Himself " that they should increase and multiply." Moreover also they were reservedby the command of the Creatorin Noah's ark forthe sakeof their offspring,that so being kept they might be proved tobe needful; and being needful,they might be proved tobe good,although even in that case alsothereisa distinction appended. But still,even then,the creationof thosevery creaturesthat were not clean might have been utterly abolished,ifithad needed to be abolishedon account ofits own pollution. CHAPTER III. Argument. — And thus uncleananimals are not to bere proached,lestthereproachbe thrown upon theirAuthor; but when an irrationalanimal isrejectedon any account, 1 Gen.i.81.