DECEMBER 251 



nor Christians are bound by their religion to pay the 

 slightest regard to the feelings of animals. The well- 

 known exception to the discouraging silence upon this 

 subject is quoted by St. Paul, only to be rather 

 contemptuously explained away. 



AUTHORISED VERSION. REVISED VERSION. 



' It is written in the law of ' 'It is written in the law of 

 Moses, thou shalt not muzzle i Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle 

 the ox that treadeth out the ' the ox when he treadeth out 

 corn. Doth God take care for the corn. Is it for the oxen 

 oxen 1 Or saith He it alto- : that God careth ? or saith He 

 gether for our sakes 1 For ! it altogether for our sake ? 

 our sakes, no doubt, this is Yea, for our sake it was 

 written, that he that ploweth written, that he that ploweth 

 should plow in hope, and that ; ought to plow in hope, and 

 he that thresheth in hope ! he that thresheth, to thresh 

 should be partaker of his in hope of partaking.' 

 hope.' (1 Cor. ix. 9). 



The rest of Scripture, Old and New, may be searched 

 in vain for any exhortation of mercy towards beasts, 

 for Solomon's observation about 'the righteous man 

 regarding the life of his beast ' seems to be either the 

 obiter dictum of a nature more refined than his fellows, 

 or, more probably, of common prudence indicating the 

 expediency of keeping domestic animals in good con- 

 dition. To this day the Jews maintain in European 

 slaughter-houses a method of killing which admits of 

 none of the modern expedients for painless despatch. 

 There is not a word in the Sermon on the Mount about 

 mercy to dumb animals ; the Fathers, so far as known 

 to me, are silent on the subject; the earliest example 



