witness the tender solicitude with which a hen protects her brood, and he dignifies the act by comparing to it his own compassion for the people of Jerusalem when he anticipated the approaching calamities of the devoted city: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" Matt. xxiii. 37.

Our Lord again shows the benevolence of his nature, when he compares the joy that shall be in heaven over a repentant sinner, to that of a shepherd who goes to the mountains in quest of a lost sheep; and when he finds it, instead of treating it with harshness, and belabouring it with his staff for having wandered from the fold, to spare it the fatigue of farther travel he lays it on his shoulders, carries it home rejoicing, and invites his friends to come and participate his joy. Will any one betray such a total destitution of taste, as not to admit that this beautiful pastoral illustration of a most important doctrine, manifests such a spirit of tenderness and compassion as would have felt warmly indignant at an act of cruelty? Has it not the force of an injunction to be lenient and merciful? Sure we are that many a stronger conclusion is drawn from more feeble premises. Our Lord admonished the disciples to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves;" and none of his admonitions, the latter part especially, has been less heeded, nor violated more grossly. The serpent is described in sacred writ as the subtlest or wisest beast of the field; and wisdom is a virtue which we should by all lawful means endeavour to acquire. The dove is the emblem of innocence and peace, the bearer of the olive branch; the form in which the Holy Spirit was manifested at the waters of Jordan, when it descended on the Saviour's head. To be harmless as doves implies that we should be as free from all violent and sanguinary deeds. What figure could the most tasteful ingenuity supply that would more strongly or beautifully inculcate the duty of humanity? But the conduct of too many evinces that they have never thought of the precept at all, or if they did, they would seem to have understood it as

if it enjoined them to be rapacious as- -I was going to say vultures, but vultures are contented with prey which has been killed for them; and therefore the butcherbird or hawk will suggest a more appropriate comparison. The Saviour himself is compared in Scripture to one of the most gentle and innocent of creatures. He is denominated the "Lamb of God;" and "he was led like a lamb to the slaughter." If to be a Christian be to resemble Christ, here is another powerful argument for humanity. How shall any one be said to resemble the Lamb of God, whose dispositions and conduct bear a much more close similitude to the savage instincts of a wolf or the ferocity of a tiger?

Again, our Lord inculcates the duty of humanity to animals, when he directs our attention to the omniscient providence of God, as extended to the lives of creatures held the most cheap of any amongst the Jews: "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father." Mat. x. 29. Or, as Luke has it, (xii. 6)` "Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God." All sound philosophy and all natural theology must concur with revelation in asserting the truth of this beautiful declaration. The inference from it is irresistible. If God regards the life of a sparrow, is it wise, is it becoming, is it not impious, in man to disregard it? Or is he privileged to take that life merely for his sport, and in contempt of that mercy which is God's darling attribute? But they are a numerous race, it may be said, and a few of them taken in a trap, or singled out as marks for the incipient efforts of young sportsmen, will not be heeded. Thus "fools make a mock at sin," and say, "Jehovah shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it ?" But what says the voice of inspiration? "NOT ONE of them is forgotten before God.' Insignificant as they seem to proud man, drest in his 'little brief authority,' they hold their proper station in the scale of existence, and are no more hidden from the all-seeing eye of the Omniscient, than the purple tyrant or the sceptered potentate. The gunner may make his wretched boast of the number he can bring down at a

shot; but let him remember that though they were numerous as the ocean-sands, "not one of them falleth to the ground" without the knowledge of their Maker; and unless he can plead necessity or use, there is a tribunal to take cognizance of his offence.

It may be scarcely necessary to observe that our Lord's declaration extends to all animated beings, and that the sparrow is selected only for example, because it was among the cheapest of the feathered tribes, and universally known. Besides, the species to which the allusion is made obtains the specific name of house-sparrow, from its being so familiar with man, and seeking the protection of his roof. On this ground it has a special claim to humane consideration; and as it would be inhospitable to deny it a lodging in the eaves, so would it be a pitiful parsimony to refuse it, in conjunction with the red-breast, a share of the crumbs which fall even from the poor man's table. Therefore, it is not without feelings of horror, that the author has read in a public paper the following account of a barbarous association, designated by the name of the "SPARROW CLUB," having for its object the wholesale slaughter of these cheerful interesting birds :

April 19, 1832.-At the parish of Hursterpoint a Sparrow-club was formed in September last, to continue until the following April, each member, during the continuance of that period, to produce, under a forfeiture, if deficient, two dozen sparrows' heads per month. Three prizes to be awarded to the members who should produce the greatest number. A few days since the members and their friends dined together, at the inn at Hursterpoint, when the twelve members present produced the heads of 3,978 sparrows which had been slaughtered in the interim"!!!-London Morning Post.

The existence of such a horrible fraternity is a disgrace to the nation. Twelve Apostles of the Demon of Cruelty would be enough to pollute the land, and fix an indelible stigma on its character-were there not some society, like that for "the Prevention of Cruelty," to

"TZIPPOR. The Hebrew word is used not only for a sparrow, but for all sorts of clean birds, or such whose use was not forbidden." HARRIS'S Nat. Hist. of the Bible.

D

counteract their mischief, and show that humanity is no stranger to the bosoms of Englishmen. May all such diabolical combinations as the Sparrow Club sink under the people's unmitigated abhorrence and execration ! Cruelty is the ally of every vice and every crime; and the sparrow-butcher and the assassin are the progeny of the same parent.

From the frequent introduction of various animals into holy writ to illustrate the divine attributes, to teach man his moral and religious duties, and above all to exemplify the paternal care and providence of the Father of All, we might reasonably conclude, independently of any positive precept, that none of them is a proper object of contempt, much less of inhumanity. As Peter, when in a vision, he beheld a sheet of vast dimensions let down from heaven, "wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air," was commanded not to call "what God cleansed, common or unclean;" so may we suppose ourselves commanded by a voice from universal nature, not to vilify or contemn, much less abuse or torture aught which owes its formation to infinite wisdom and Almighty power. But when we find the Son of God himself breathing mercy and compassion, and illustrating his heavenly doctrine by images and examples taken from the animal kingdom, can we for a moment doubt whether humanity to animals be an evangelical virtue; or whether he who delights in perpetrating acts of cruelty does not forfeit all just pretensions to the name and character of disciple to the meek and benevolent Jesus? Notwithstanding, how many who are proud of their Christianity never consider the kind treatment of animals as in any manner connected with Christian duty? How many start, and wonder, and exclaim, when it is recommended to them under the sanction of religion?

CHAPTER IV.

MAN'S RIGHT TO THE FLESH OF ANIMALS.

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you."-Gen. ix. 3.

The question of man's right to the use of animal food has given rise to much discussion. Those who acknowledge the right contend for it on various principles, but chiefly on the Creator's power to transfer any share he pleases of his absolute dominion over the creatures of his hands, to other beings in subordination to himself. Of this dominion he has given to man a portion on certain conditions; and according to Puffendorf, not on the grounds of mutual friendship between God and man, as alleged by Diogenes the Cynic, who syllogised thus :"All things belong to God; wise men are the friends of God; all things are common amongst friends; therefore all things belong to wise men." But in this case what becomes of the fool? Does his folly exclude him from a participation of the entrusted right? Aristotle held an opinion which egregious pride and arrogance may still defend that as nature has made nothing imperfectly or in vain, she must of necessity have made all things for man-a conclusion which the premises by no means warrant; as if man were the sole object of creation, and that the thousand and ten thousand species of creatures could not exist happily, many of them might say much more happily, without him. Seneca thought more wisely, Nimis nos suscipimus, si digni nobis videmur propter quos tanta moveantur. (See PUFF. p. 284.) We should indeed hold an overweening idea of our own importance, were we to imagine that the magnificent frame of nature was formed solely on our account, and not for myriads of other animated beings.

Since God has given life to man, it follows that he has given all things necessary, not only for the support but the enjoyment of that life; and therefore we conclude that man derives a right from the divine permission clearly indicated by the fact of his creation; and this conclusion is