NO. LII-ON THE DATE OF THE PERMISSION OF ANIMAL FOOD TO MAN.

PAGE 35. (e) The permission of animal food evidently appears from Scripture to take its date from the age of Noah: the express grant of animal food then made, clearly evincing that it was not in use before. This opinion is not only founded in the obvious sense of the passage Gen. ix. 3. but has the support of commentators, the most distinguished for their learning and candid investigation of the sacred text.* But, as ingenious refinements have been employed to torture away the plain and direct sense of Scripture upon this head, it becomes necessary to take a brief review of the arguments upon the question.

Two grants were made; one to Adam, and one to Noah. To Adam it was said, Gen. i. 29, 30. Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth; and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree, bearing seed, to you it shall be for meat; and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat. Again, to Noah it is said, Gen. ix. 3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; EVEN AS THE GREEN HERB HAVE I GIVEN YOU ALL THINGS. Now, whilst the obvious inference from the former of these passages is, that God's original grant of the use of his creatures for food, was confined to the vegetable creation; the conclusion to be drawn from the latter is found to be precisely similar, inasmuch as, had animal food been before permitted for the use of man, there had been no occasion for the specific grant to that

* See Munst. Vatab. Clar. Grot. and Le Clerc. on Gen. ix. 3. also Shuckf. Connect. vol. i. p. 81. and Kennic. Two Diss. p. 70.

purpose now made to Noah. And, in perfect agree ment with this reasoning, we find the Scripture history of the period antecedent to the flood entirely silent concerning the use of animal food.

Dr. Sykes, however, can see nothing in the first grant to Adam, "but a general declaration of a sufficient provision for all creatures;" nor in the second to Noah," but a command to slay before they ate flesh:" flesh having from the first been used for food. (Essay, &c. pp. 177, 178.) In support of these extraordinary positions, he employs arguments not less extraordinary.

1. He contends, that the former grant is necessarily to be understood with certain limitations; for that, as some creatures were not formed for living on herbs, and some herbs were of a poisonous quality, the grant cannot be supposed to extend to every green herb; and hence he infers, that the grant cannot be interpreted as enjoining or prohibiting any particular species of food; and that consequently animal food may be included. (p. 169-171.) But it seems rather a strange inference, even admitting the existence of noxious vegetables at the time of the grant, that because it must in propriety be limited to a certain description of the things generally permitted, it might therefore be extended to a class of things never once named; or that, because a full power was given to man over all herbs, to take of them as he pleased for food, whilst some would not answer for that purpose, the dominion given was not therefore to relate to herbs, but generally to all things, that might serve for human sustenance.

But 2. he maintains, that, at all events, this grant of herb and tree for the food of man, does not exclude any other sort of food, which might be proper for him. And to establish this, he endeavours to shew (p. 171-177.) that the declaration to Noah

did not contain a grant to eat animal food in general, but only some particular sorts of it, such as are included in the word w, by which he understands creeping things, or such animals as are not comprehended under the denominations of beast and fowl; so that, admitting this to be a grant of something new, it was yet by no means inconsistent with the supposition, that sheep, oxen, goats, and such like animals had been eaten from the first. Now, this directly contradicts his former argument. For if, as that maintains, the grant to Adam was but a general declaration of abundant provision, and consequently leaving man at full liberty to use all creatures for food, why introduce a permission at this time respecting a particular species of creatures?

But besides, on does not imply a particular species of animals, but denotes all, of whatever kind, that move. That this is the true acceptation of the word may be collected from Cocceius, and Schindler, as well as Nachmanides, (who is quoted by Fagius, Crit. Sac. on Gen. i. 29.) and the several authorities in Pole's Syn. on Gen. xix. 3: and so manifest does it appear from the original in various instances, that it requires no small degree of charity, not to believe, that Dr. Sykes has wilfully closed his eyes against its true meaning. His words are particularly deserving of remark. "Throughout the law of Moses, it is certain, that it () never takes in, or includes, beasts of the earth, or birds of the air, but a third species of animals different from the other two:" and this third species he conjectures to be, "all such, either fish or reptiles, that not having feet glide along." (p. 173.) Now the direct contrary of all this is certain: and had Dr. Sykes, in his accurate survey of the entire law of Moses, but allowed his eye to glance on the words contained in Gen. vii. 21. he probably would not have been quite

so peremptory. ALL FLESH died, that moveth (7) upon the earth; both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing (w) that creepeth (p) upon the earth. Here the creeping things are specially named, and included, together with all other creatures, under the general word

(הרמש)

שרץ

And it is particularly deserving of notice, that in the XIth ch. of Levit. in which the different species of animals are accurately pointed out, those that are properly called creeping things, are mentioned no less than eleven times, and in every instance expressed by the word : and yet from this very chapter, overlooking these numerous and decisive instances, Dr. Sykes quotes, in support of his opinion, the use of the word in the two following verses: Neither shall you defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing (p) that moveth () upon the earth, verse 44.-And again, this is the law of the beasts, and of the fowls, and of every living creature that moveth () in the waters, verse 46. Here, because the word w, which is a description of all moving things, (as has been shewn above and may be proved from various other instances,-see Jenn. Jew. Antiq. vol. i. p. 306.) is found connected with reptiles and fishes, it is at once pronounced to be appropriate to them; notwithstanding that through the entire chapter, whose object it is carefully to distinguish the different kinds of animals, it is never once used in the numerous passages referring specially to the reptile and fishy tribes as their proper appellation, and is translated in these two verses by the LXX in its true generic sense, zivovuevos, that moveth. So that Dr. Sykes might with as good reason have inferred, that, because creeping things are occasionally called living creatures, living creatures must consequently

mean creeping things. To say the truth, if Dr. Sykes had been desirous to discover a part of Scripture, completely subversive of his interpretation of the word, he could not have made a happier selection, than the very chapter of Leviticus, to which he has referred.

But, to leave no doubt, that the grant made to Noah was a permission for the first time of animal food, we find an express description of the manner in which this sort of food was to be used, immediately subjoined: But flesh with the life thereof. which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. Now, if animal food had been before in use, this injunction seems unaccountable, unless on the supposition, that it had been the practice, before the flood, to feed on the flesh of animals that had not been duly killed for the purpose; and Dr. Sykes's argument, which maintains, that this prohibition merely tended to prevent the eating such animals as died of themselves, or the eating the animal without having duly killed it, must rest entirely on the presumption, that such had been the practice before. But on what ground he has assumed this, he has not thought proper to inform us: and the certainty, that, before the flood, animals were killed for sacrifice, seems not consistent with the supposition. It is curious to observe, that this argument adduced by Sykes, falls in with one of the strange conceits of the Jewish Rabbins it being a tradition of theirs, that there were seven precepts, handed down by the sons of Noah to their posterity, six of which had been given to Adam, and the seventh was this to Noah, “about not eating flesh, which was cut from any animal alive." See Patrick's Preface to Job-also Jenning's Jew. Antiq. vol. i. p. 147.

It must be confessed, however, that arguments, of a nature widely different from these of Sykes,