" Mao passes still to-day," says M. Secretan, 1 "throngh the form of the ape, and he passes through it visibly; the embryonic evolution continues itself io the transforma- tions of the first age, the spiritual development allies itself to the corporeal evolution, it is regulated by the same laws. Just as the human body reproduces in summary form the whole history of organized nature, the spirit of a civilized person reproduces in abridgment the whole history of the human spirit, and the two histories are in- separable. The characteristic of the ape, imitation without intelligence, is also the characteristic of the child when he is put io possession of his organs. This phase is -essential; the child would not learn to eat, he would not learn to walk, he would not learn especially to speak, and by consequence to think, were he not, during some period and in certain respects, a little parrot and a little ape. Simian imitation is the process by which the acquisitions of the species a.re approp1iated by the individual. Simian imitation, by which I mean the reproduction of movements of which the intention is not comprehended, is the normal and desired transition between instinct and the reflec- tive intelligence, which is the properly human condition." There seems, therefore, to be a reason in the very nature of things for the illustration of moral or immoral qualities from the animals. Amid other uses served by the lower creation, there is certainly this one of furnishing illustrations of character. Our Lord's parables embody the principle of the spiritual significance of nature in its broadest applications. ill BY THE DIVISION OF THE ANIMALS HERE PROPOSED Dll'ORTANT MORAL QUALITIES ABE COMMENDED A.ND IMMORAL ONES CONDEMNED. A scientific division was not needed for a religious purpose. A popular division, easily apprehended, would serve infinitely better. 'l'he distinctions drawn are such as may be seen at a glance. 1. Quadrupeds. The clean a.re those who divide the hoof and chew the cud. In other words, the ruminants are to be regarded as the clean. All other quadrupeds are to be accounted unclean. That there may be no mistake, the camel, coney, hare, and swine are emphasized as unclean, because possessing only one of the required cha- racteristics. '!'he flesh of the ruminants is generally considered as more wholesome than that of the other quadrupeds; but this would scarcely determine the division. Let the fact, however, be noted that f'ejlection finds its fitting illustration in the rumination of these animals, and that they are justly regarded as both sure-footed and cleanly; then we see a moral purpose in the distinction. If the Lord's people were to associate with these animals and use them for food, while the other quadrupeds were to be avoided, it was to teach them to ,-ejlect faithfully upon what God gave them, to be steadfast in running the race he sets before them, and to be pure in their walk and conversation. That such moral ideas were associated with the clean animals is corrobo- rated by such passages as 2 Sam. uii. 34; Ps. xviii. 33; Hab. iii. 19; with which may be compared 1 Sam. ii. 9. 2. Fishes. Here, again, the clean ones are those which have both fins and scales. All that have not these two characteristics are to be deemed an abomination, such as sharks, eels, and the swarmers generally (n~). That moral characteristics are illus- trated in fish as well as in quadrupeds is acknowledged by the common usage of language. Do we not call men of a rapacious disposition "sharks;" and say of men of uncertain and cunning ways that they "wri11;gle like eels"? It seems certain, therefore, that the distinction here made, while perhaps having some foundation in the quality of the flesh, is primarily to illustrate disposition, and to guard the Jews against the selfishness and rapacity associated with the unclean fishes. It could hardly be locomotion which is referred to in this animal kingdom, since some of the unclean fishes, for example, the sharks, are remarkable for their speed. More- over, the fact of sharks and some other fishes having scales, though of almost micro- scopic character, is no argument against the fidelity of the record. 'l'he Law was given primarily to a people of simple and not scientific habits-not to microscopists. Its popular style and adaptation to common life are among its highest recommendations. 3. Birds. Here, again, when the words are looked carefully into, the distinction seems to be that clean birds are such as feed on grain and grasses, while the carnivorous birds are excluded as unclean. In no more sttiking way could unholy appetites be illustrated and condemned. Restraint and purity were thus inculcated. 4. Reptilr,. Of these permission is given to eat four kinds of locust, all of which 1 • Di.scours La"iques,' p. 72. 176 THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS. [011, XI, 1-4'1,
are distinguished as leapers, and not runner.,. Locomotion in this case rather than. food, is the ground of the distinction. When besides, we remember the migratory characu-.r· of_ t.hese insects, there is conveJ'.ed an excellent illustration of the stranger spirit, which, ah,Q:hts on earth only so far as 1s needful, and takes more kindly to the air. If God's- people shonld be "strangers and pilgrims upon earth," if they should be setting their affections on things above, the locust tribes, which the Jews were allowed to eat mosr admirably illustrated the required spirit. ' On the other hand, the mole, the mouse, the liznrd (:lll, not "tortoise" as in Enalish Version), gecko (,,p.i~ not "the ferret," _as in English •version), monitor(~~. fro~ its great strength-not "the chameleon"), lizard and sand-lizard (CCh from lying on thee groun d-no t " sna1, 'l " ,or & th ey are eaten by J ews and Orientals, •as' not unclean), and chameleon are to be regarded as unclean. Earthliness and ualiness-in 0 one word the- repulsiveness of sin-seem indicated by this distinction. '