ON THE JEWISH MEATS. 387 it is ratlierthatthatvery thingshould be condemned in man who is rational;and thereforethatin animals the character,thedoings,and thetrillsof men are depicted. How far,then,must thatlaw,which (asI have shown by the authorityof the apostle)isspiritual,be spirituallyreceivedin orderthatthe divineand sureideaof the law may be carried out? Firstly,we must believethatwhateverwas ordainedby God is cleanand purifiedby the very authorityof His crea tion;neithermust itbe reproached,lestthereproachshouldbe thrown back upon itsAuthor. Then [we must believe]that the law was given to the childrenof Israelforthispurpose, that they might profitby it,and return to thosevirtuous manners which, although they had receivedthem from their fathers,they had corruptedin Egypt by reason of theirin tercoursewith a barbarous people. Finally,also,thoseten commandments on the tablesteach nothing new, but remind them of what had been obliterated— that righteousnessin them, which had been put to sleep,might reviveagain as it were by the afflatusof the law, afterthe manner of a fire[nearlyextinguished]. But they could profitby the perceptionthat thoseviceswere especiallyto be avoided in men which the law had condemned even in beasts. For when an irrationalanimal is rejectedon any account,it is ratherthat very thingwhich iscondemned in the man who isrational.And if in itanythingwhich ithas by natureis characterizedas a defilement,that same thingismost 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,thatmen alsowho had the same vices might be esteemed on a levelwith the brutes. Whence it results,that not only were the animals not condemned by theirCreatorbecauseof His agency ;lbut thatmen might be instructedin the brutesto returnto the unspottednature of their own creation. For we must considerhow the Lord distinguishesclean and not clean. The creaturesthatare clean, it says,both chew the cud and dividethe hoof; the 1 Suiculpa.