The Head Master of Eton (the Rev. and Hon. Canon Lyttelton) writes as
follows:
"The question as to the example of our Lord in the matter of
meat-eating is of great interest and importance, as its solution depends
upon a principle of wide application. It is worth observing that if He
had laid down any law or prohibition on the subject of diet, it would
have stood out from the rest of His teaching as a unique exception to
His method. That method was to proclaim certain profound principles as
to man's relation to God, and to illustrate them by certain typical
instances of difficult problems of conduct. Then He acted on the great
principles which He taught of Sonship to God and love to man, but He
never said or did anything to upset the social or political customs of
the time, except in the case of certain ceremonial laws invented by the
Scribes, and one very obscure utterance about divorce. It would not be
easy but it would be interesting to ascertain the principle on which He
dealt with some few social questions and passed by all the rest in
silence. The restless modern reformer asks why? and the answer is at
least two-fold. (1) The principles would have been choked under a mass
of controversy about detail. (2) Christ would have failed in what was
evidently a prominent object set before Him, viz., to make men think. In
other words reformation of society was to come about by dint of
thoughtful men and women acting out His principles in presence of
manifold practical problems. It was felt by Him to be far more important
that men should think for themselves than that Society should be rapidly
reformed in respect of its outward conduct. St. Paul adopted the same
line of policy, and the reticence of the great Apostle and his Master on
such a subject as slavery is a very good illustration of their leading
principle. If this is intelligible, we can see that it was simply
necessary for our Lord to conform to the dietic practices of the time.
The most aggressive non-conformity was necessary to free men's minds
from the slavery of the Sabbatical rules. Here His behaviour was
revolutionary; but in the case of a whole swarm of other burning
questions, war, slavery, the treatment of the lower animals, the need of
asceticism, etc., if He had by precept or example taken up a clearly
defined position it is not conceivable that the message He came to
deliver would have been understood. The only course open to Him
therefore was to conform. And this leaves the ethics of vegetarianism
exactly where they were. The only thing we may be quite sure of is that
He would not have approved of a great movement being set going only on
individual hygienic grounds: but the broader and more altruistic its
motive is the more it will be in accordance with His spirit."
E. Lyttelton
From The Vegetarian Messenger and Health Review,
October 1905.
Reproduced with Thanks to the Vegetarian Society..
Return to
Letters from History
