cerlnin crea(ur<>s to be unfit for food. The Law of Moses drew the line prnctically w!1cre men's ungnided instincts have always drawn it. A le~son of ,·espect foi· natural order. Jn di<>t.. as in higher matters, we do well to follow Nature's guidance, avoiding violations ~r her la'l'"s, nnd refraining from obliterating her distinctions. II. 0:!'s CEREMO:KIAL GROUl\'DS. The prohibition against eating of blood bad conso- qu!>nces in the region of cleanness and uncleanness of food. All flesh-eating and b\0od-eat.ing animals-all beasts and birds of prey-were of necessity excluded. Ceremonially unclean themselves, they could not be clean to those eating them. III. OK SYMBOLIC GROUNDS. The symbolic traits observable in certain animals rr,ay have had to do with their rejection. We can see reason in the exclusion of creatures of crud and rapacious habits, of those also in whose dispositionR we trace a reflection of the human vices. It may be pushing the principle too far to seek recondite meanings in the chewing of the cud (meditation) and the dividing of the hoof (s<>paration of ,valk), or in the possession of fins and scales in fishes (organs of advance and resistance). But a Law impregnated with symbolism could scarcely reckon as clean a filthy and repulsive creature like the sow. The accursed serpent, the treacherous fox, the ra ,·enous jackal, even had they been suitable for food in other respects could scarcely on this principle have been admitted. The reptile tribes generally, ;nd all ! ribes of vermin, were similarly unclean by a kind of natural brand. A lesson of <rei11g in th~_ natur~l a symbol of the moral. Nature is a symbolic lesson-book, daily upeu to our rnspect10n. The distinction once ordained, and invested with religious significance, observance of it became to the Jews a sign and test of holiness. The general lesson taught is that of sane/ ijir,ation in the use of food. Holiness, indeed, is to be carried into every sphere ;ind act of life. Eating, however, is an act which, though on its animal side related to the grossest part of us, is yet, on its spiritual side, of serious religious import. It is the act by which we supply oil to the flame of life. It bas to do with the maintenance of those ,ital functions by which we are enabled to glorify God in the body. 'l'bere is thus a natural sacredness about food, and it i! to be received and used in a sacred fashion. That it mny be" clean'' to us, it is to be" sanctified by the Word of God 2nd prayer," being "received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth" (1 Tim. iv. 3-5). It is to be remembered, too, that in the sphere of the higher life, if not in the lower, clean and unclean are distinptions of abiding validity. Intellect, heart, spirit, etc.-tbe books we read, the company we keep, the principles we imbibe.-J. O. Ver. 21.-Seething a lcid in its mother's milk. This precept, several times repeated in the Law (Exod. xxiii. 16; xxxiv. 25), may be connected with magical superstitions, but it is equally probable that the act was condemned as an outrage on the connection naturally subsisting be,\". een parent and offspring. It is thus related to the commands forbidding the killing of a cow and a calf on the same day (Lev. xxii. 28), or the taking a bird with its young (eh. xxii. 6), and to the precepts enjoining a scrupulous regard for natural distinctions-not sowing a field with mingled seed, etc. (Lev. xix. 19). It suggests- I. THE DUTY OF CHERISHING TEE FTh'ER INSTINCTS OF OUR NATURE. The act here forbiodcn could hardly be called cruelty, the kid being dead, but it was unnatural. It argued a blunted state of the sympathies. A :6.ner instinct, alive to the tenderness of the relation between parent and offspring, would have disallowed it. It is beautiful to see the ancient Law inculcating this rare and delicate :6.neness of feeling-this con- siderateness and sympathy even for dead animals. The lesson is tba.t everything is to be avoided which would tend to blunt our moral sensibilities. The act has its analogue in higher relations. Not unfrequently has the affection of a parent been used by the ingenuity of cruelty to inflict keener tortures on a child; or, conversely, a child has been betrayed into disclosures afterwards used to injure the parent. ll. THE DUTY OF CONSIDERATION IN DEALING WITH IBRATIONAL CREATURES. 1. It is right that irrational creatures should be treated kindly. And if the Law required that this delicate consideration should be shown towards dead animals, bow much more does it require of us kindly treatment of them while living I 2. Our behaviour towards irrational creatures, as seen above, reacts upon ourselves. Ip certain cases, this is CiI. XIV, 1-29.] 'l'HE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. 245
readily perceived. Most people would shrink from the wanton mutilation of a dead animal, even in sport, and would admit the reactive effect of such an action in deaden- ing humane instincts in him who did it. But it is the same with all cruelty and unfeelingness. Any action which, in human relationships, would be condemned as unsympathetic, will be found, if performed to animals, to have a blunting effect on the sensibilities of the agent. A man's clog is more to him than a brute. He is a friend. We cim carry into our behaviour towards the irrational creatures many of the feelincrs which actuate us in our personal relations, and the more we do it, the better f~r ourselves.-J. 0.