of oxen. "For whatsoever things were written afore time, were written for our instruction," and were they adverted to and commented on more frequently, the sin of cruelty to animals would be less prevalent.

As it appears to some preachers* that humanity to animals is a subject beneath their dignity, so may it appear to some readers beneath the dignity of Sacred Scripture, to notice the mode in which certain agricultural operations should be performed and so it might, provided these operations were altogether unassociated with moral or religious principle. In this respect it can be of no consequence in what mode seed is scattered in the ground, or trees planted in an orchard. But if in conducting such operations, any cruel or superstitious practices be introduced, it then becomes the moralist and divine to interfere, and if possible, prevent them. And should a law be enacted for the prevention of any one cruelty in connexion with some of the common occupations of life, it might suffice for a whole class of similar cruelties, judging, as we ought, of the intentions of the lawgiver in framing the law, more by its spirit than the letter. If one law written in blood betrays the soul of a Draco, one written in the milk of human kindness manifests the disposition and the wishes of mercy. A single precept in behalf of humanity to the brute creation shows the humane nature of the preceptor. When the Jewish law forbids to "plough with an ox and an ass together," for the obvious reason that they are discordant yoke-fellows-the one being much stronger and larger than the other, the weaker, of consequence, must be oppressed by a task disproportioned to his powers, though in other respects they might chance to be suitable associates-we conclude that the law is not limited to that single act, but that it extends to all such cruel and unnatural coalitions. The law then is designed for the abolition or prevention of all oppressive treatment of animals, and particularly of those employed in our service. No doubt it admits of a symbolical interpretation, and the Apostle Paul is supposed to allude to it in this way in the second Epistle to the Corinthians, vi. 14,

* For instance, foxhunting parsons.

C

when he admonishes-"be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers;" but it needs scarcely be questioned that the symbolical or figurative was not its primitive meaning. This may serve as an answer to those who affirm that humanity to animals is not enjoined in Scripture; and parsons may learn from it that the Jewish law and the Levitical priesthood did not think it beneath their dignity' to enjoin that the brute creation should be treated with clemency. Nay more, in the twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus, where Jehovah himself is introduced speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, and commanding him what he should say to the children of Israel respecting the year of jubilee, the quadrupeds are particularly mentioned, and classed with the different orders of the people ordained to enjoy the rest and participate the blessings of that institution:-" And the Sabbath of the land shall be meat for you; for thee and for thy servant, and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant, and for thy stranger that sojourneth with thee; and for thy cattle, and for the beasts that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be meat."*

The distinction of animals into clean and unclean among the Jews, was for one special reason to "teach them morality even in their food; for the birds and beasts allowed were of the tame and gentler kinds, and not of fierce and voracious natures, to teach them the great truths of justice, moderation, and kindness."-ARISTAUS in EUSEB. Præp. Evang. lib. viii, c. 9. quoted in DR. HARRIS's Nat. Hist. of the Bible. p. 29.

Lowman, after stating that the food allowed to the chosen nation was "of the milder sort of the most common and domestic animals," asks," was not this far better than to license and encourage the promiscuous hunting of wild beasts and birds of prey, less fit for food, more difficult to be procured, and hardly consistent with a domestic, agricultural, and pastoral life? Did not the restrictions in question tend to promote that health and ease, that useful cultivation of the soil, that mildness, diligence, and simplicity, that consequent happiness and prosperity, which were among the chief blessings of the promised land?"-Id. p. 31.

CHAPTER III.

DOES CHRISTIANITY INCULCATE THE DUTY OF
HUMANITY TO ANIMALS?

HERE is a question which could be proposed by no one who was not either an enemy to Christianity, or altogether ignorant of its principles; for no one, though but superficially acquainted with that divine religion, can for a moment question that humanity to animals is a duty accordant with its whole spirit; and that every act of cruelty, though to a reptile or a fly, is in direct hostility to its nature. Christianity is throughout a religion of mercy-of mercy not limited to any tribe or nation, nor to the sphere of rationality itself, but extending to the extreme limit of life and sense. If humanity was taught by the Jewish law, much more is it included in the dictates of him who came not to destroy but to fulfil-not to abolish the moral law but to confirm it, by lending it additional sanctions, and arming it with new authority from heaven. He who said, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy," and "Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father in heaven is merciful," could never have meant that the animal creation should be excluded from the sweet influences of that virtue. We can conceive nothing more abhorrent from his nature, or that would have called forth his more indignant reprehension than cruelty to animals. Why then, it may be asked, do we not find some of that indignant reprehension in his numerous discourses? Why? Wherefore reprehend what did not exist? The Jews, though chargeable with many offences and trangressions of the divine law, remembered the declaration of their wise king, that " a righteous man is merciful to his beast." They might be justly reprehended, many of them at least, with avarice, selfishness, bigotry, and hypocrisy; and these vices the

Great Teacher did not spare; but they could not be taxed with cruelty to the animal tribes. They had no gladiatorial sports, nor Ludi Circenses, and were altogether ignorant of those refined amusements which are fostered by some of the enlightened and christianized nations of Europe, at such an expense of life and suffering. They kept cattle for such uses as Providence designed, and let the working classes of them rest on the seventh day, according to the commandment. They did not tax the horses beyond their strength and fleetness by running them against time. They had no bull-baiting, nor cockfighting, nor bear-garden, nor worrying of dogs and cats, nor any of those spectacles which afford so much delight to our sons of the "Fancy." Neither had they schools for vivisection; nor were they skilled in those culinary arts which are taught by gluttony and cruelty to gratify the taste of the gourmand and epicure. Had such practises been tolerated by the Jewish law or followed by the people, we may be well assured they would not have escaped the special condemnation of the great benevolent Reformer, as the whole spirit of his religion condemns them now. Not only were the Jewish customs, but the criminal code of the Jewish legislature, humane and merciful compared with those of modern times, boastful as we are of our superior refinement, our philosophy, and our science. The Jewish law demanded restitution only, where our laws are not satisfied with less than the offender's perpetual exile or death. Compare the "forty stripes save one" with the lacerating flagellations of the English cat-o'-nine-tails, or the horrible Russian knout, and say in which is the spirit of mercy most apparent. But did not the Jews slaughter numerous animals for the altar ? Unquestionably. Their religion demanded the sacrifice of both birds and beasts. But even in these as much lenity was manifested as is compatible with the act of depriving animals of life. They did not fatten their birds by arts which nature detests, nor bleed their calves to whiten their flesh, in the modes practised by our accomplished butchers, nor madden their beeves by baiting them with bull-dogs. By such acts they would have thought, and justly thought, their offerings profaned, de

secrated, and turned to an abomination in the eyes of the God of mercy. They brought their victims in prime condition from the stall, or the fold, or the dove-cote, and by a single stroke or section (una sectione, BUXT.) dissevered the cords of life without subjecting them to any previous injury. They had officers properly trained up to the performance of this necessary duty, who, with instruments keenly edged and properly adjusted as to form and size, executed their task speedily and effectually This we learn from Buxtorf, Maimonides, and other writers on Jewish antiquities.*

All Christians admit that they are bound to follow the example of Christ, according to the express injunctions both of himself and his apostles. Now if it can be shewn that he was eminently distinguished for his humanity and compassion, these are virtues which we are under an obligation to practise. In some respects, indeed, the Saviour was of too exalted a nature to be imitated by imperfect mortals, but in others he is the great model to which they should assiduously labour to conform. They cannot work miracles as he did, but they may cherish a spirit of benevolence similar to that which prompted him to work them. They cannot satisfy the hunger of thousands with a few loaves and fishes, but they can show compassion to the poor, and contribute of their abundance to relieve the wants of the distressed.

In

Our Lord's compassion was no doubt chiefly exercised on the human race; but it is no more than just to conclude that it flowed thence to the animal creation; for had it not, that virtue would in him have been incomplete. the inspired annunciations of his character which we read in the Prophets, he is described as pacific, merciful, and just. "He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break,

*"Qui artem hanc discit, per aliquot annos perito lanio mactanti adesse debet."-Buxtorf. Synag. Jud. c. xxxvi. p. 612.

"Peculiaribus ad mactationem utuntur cultris, magnis ad animalia magna, parvis ad parva. Magni quidem mucrone carent, sed exactissimæ sunt aciei, alioqui illis uti non liceret." "Guttur una resecant plaga." "Since it is necessary," says Maimonides in his More Nevochim, "that animals should be killed for the sake of good food and nourishment, the law enjoined that kind of death that was easiest, and forbade them to be tortured by a cruel and lingering mode of slaughtering."