I need not point out to you the inconsistency of all this, with the Bible these holy ' men professed to follow. In that book, the duties man owes to the lower orders of life are not overlooked, but neither are they exalted from their proper place. The merciful man is merciful to his beast,' is the sum and substance of Bible ethics on this point. That is, the duty of kindness to them is regarded not in direct reference to their comfort and ease, but with regard to the mischievous reaction from needless severity which may result to human character. The notion that the animals as such have rights against men, is nowhere sanctioned. No Bible worthy is an animal-lover, a dog-fancier, a horse-worshipper, or fills any of those fantastic roles, which receive such publicity in our days. We find none of them weeping over a dead ass, and neglecting an aged mother, like Laurence Sterne. They seem to have found in human beings scope for all the wealth of affection they had to bestow upon sentient and animated existences. Among the good deeds they perform or commend, we find no such hospital for decayed, superanuated and feeble-minded cats, as exists in this very city, on Lombard Street near Broad. In their praise of God's wonders as seen in his creation, they stoop to none of the puerile inventions and lying wonders which our newspapers catalogue under the rubric Animal Sagacity.' While recognizing that the brute creation are participants in the misery which oppresses the earth, groaning and travailing together with us in pain, they tell us that misery is to be relieved, not by direct and express efforts for the amendment of their condition, but by the moral restoration of the human race, by the manifestation of the sons of God.'

"Take that especial instance of human folly and maladministration of our post as the heads of creation, the dog. You will search in vain through Holy Writ for any praises of this much-belauded animal. It is only in the apochryphal Book of Tobit,' the stupid and superstitious fiction of man's devising which some have sought to foist into the Old Testament, that this detestable beast appears in his modern character as the friend and companion of man. That the majority of Gideon's raw recruits lapped the water as a dog lappeth,' was reason enough for dismissing them from a conflict. which was for all time to symbolize the victory of human civilization over brutish barbarism. Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?' are the strongest words which the Syrian Hazael

can find to express his horror of the base and treacherous act Elisha predicts of him. A living dog is better than a dead lion,' is one of the bitter speeches by which the hero of Ecclesiastes indicates for us how deeply he had sunk into doubt and disbelief of all things noble and excellent. • Give not that which is holy unto dogs' is the warning which marks forever the sunderance between this unclean animal and human kind. Without are dogs,' is one of the points in the description of that holy city into which nothing that defiles can enter. In the thirty-eight references which the Bible makes to this unclean animal, there is not one which is not disparaging, one of the very worst being the solitary one which ist sometimes alleged as favorable to him. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores,' is sometimes interpreted as if it were intended to contrast their pity of Lazarus with the rich man's hardness. But, as both the English moreover' and its Greek equivalent indicate, the sense is exactly the contrary of this. It is meant as one more detail of the misery and degradation to which the poor man had been abandoned by his kind, one more of the evil things in this life' which made up his lot, that he was exposed to this annoyance, and perhaps pain, from these filthy and degraded beasts. It is no wonder that Schopenhauer turned away in disgust from Bible morality to that of the Oupnckhat. How thoroughly the Oupnikhat breathes the holy spirit of the Vedas! How full every line is of firm, definite, and thoroughly self-consistent meaning! And on every page there meet us profound, primitive, lofty thoughts, while a high and holy earnestness pervades the whole book. All that is here breathes the air of India, and fresh, naturelike existence. And oh, how the mind is here washed clean of the Jewish superstition with which it was so early inoculated, and from all philosophy which sustains a servile relation to that superstition. It is of all reading that which best rewards and elevates the student; it has been the consolation of my own life, and will be that of my dying hour." Schopenhauer was not a Sanscrit scholar. He knew his Indian Bible only in a Latin version of the Persian translationOupneck hat, seu Theologia et Philosophia Indica; edidit Anquetil Du Perron (Argent, 1801-2). It is a scholastic system, related to the Vedas much as the Summa of Aquinas is to the Gospel. But little stress seems to be laid upon it by the students of Indian thought, with the exception of Joseph Goerres.

"That such extravagances as those of Schopenhauer are not without significance for us, is seen in the recent history of humanitarianism, or rather of theriolatry, in our own country. It is to Mr. Bergh of New York that the popular attention is always turned, when this topic is mooted; and it is in Mr. Bergh that we find the best instance of the ultimate outcome of the theories this Society was organized to combat. Let me not be unjust to Mr. Bergh. In a few instances the labors of his Society have been productive of good to the human race. His recent prosecution of a swill-milk dealer in Brooklyn is an instance of this. In these few cases the welfare of mankind and the comforts and conveniences of his four-footed clients happened to be identical, and for the sake of the animals he condescended to be the benefactor of man. But in the more usual outbursts of his theriolatric energy, he seems to regard himself as holding a brief for all four-footed creatures against all who have the misfortune to walk on but two. Instances will better explain what I mean:

"A gentleman in delicate health goes out for a ride in Central Park on a snowy and slushy day. His horse falls lame, and he proceeds homeward, driving at a moderate speed. At once he is seized by the agents of Mr. Bergh's Society, made to dismount from the carriage, although very lightly shod, and forced to walk a good distance through slush and snow to the office of a policemagistrate, where he is detained until his friends can be had from a distance to release him on bail. It was already near the time for closing the office when they arrived, and had they been a few minutes later, he would have been consigned all night to the durance vile of a police station, to the still greater danger of his already imperilled health.

A heavy snow-fall has blocked the avenues of New York, and diminished the amount of services to be had from its street cars. Mr. Bergh's agents at once set themselves to see that no car is permitted to carry one more than its legal quota of passengers. A multitude of clerks and shop-women are standing in the cold slush, waiting for a car to take them one of New York's magnificent distances to their humble homes or boarding-houses. They have been toiling all day in hot rooms and under conditions the most unfavorable to health. But there they must wait, lest any street-car horse be over-taxed by a heavier load than usual, until,

after an hour or so of delay, the insufficient conveyances have relieved the human congestion in the city's arteries of trade and traffic.

"This is the spirit in which this society administers laws which, I believe, were passed, or at least amended, at its instance. But a finer illustration of its governing principles is furnished by a recent speech from Mr. Bergh's own lips, which, although spoken without much deliberation at the time, has been adopted by its author as a fair expression of his own views. The occasion was a meeting of a Prisoners' Aid Society in New York City. Of the methods adopted by this Society in its dealings with its beneficiaries, I know nothing. For aught I know, they may be the wisest possible; or they may be such as flow out those mistaken ideas of charity which regard merely the animal in man. Be that as it may, there is no doubt as to the claim this class of unfortunates have upon human sympathy. I use the word unfortunate' deliberately. I do not ignore the guilt by which they have deserved the penalties under which they suffer. I maintain that guilt is misfortune,— misfortune of the very highest degree. And I hold that no Christian has the right to treat those who have fallen from their innocence, on the footing of base desert and demerit. The law must so treat them; but the Christian feeling of a truly Christian community will go out to them with tender pity. If wisely directed, it will not make their rescue from deserved penality its object. It will not concern itself chiefly with those externalities and surroundings which most concern the animal man. It will aim rather at cherishing those influences for good which the criminal has brought with him from his previous life, in awakening others in his heart, and in giving him the assurance of a friendly interest and neighborly help, which will be extended to him when he resumes his place in society. In a word, it is to the human in him, and not to the animal, it will address itself, in seeking to fulfil the command Remember them who are in bonds, as bound with them.' If it concerns itself at all as to the question of their punishment, it will be to see (1) that it is one exactly proportioned to the offence, and therefore likely to impress upon their minds the great law of equal recompense, which is the foundation of righteous law; and (2) that it is not likely to destroy those lingering remains of human feelings, such as self-respect, which are a man's last chance of redemption.

I have said so much to prevent any misapprehension of the views of this society on this head. And from all I can learn of the Prisoners' Aid Society, I believe that these are the ends at which it aims. Certainly the gentlemen who spoke for it, Dr. Armitage and Rabbi Gottheil, spoke in this sense.

"From Mr. Bergh's speech I omit some just censures of the namby-pamby treatment of gross criminals, which is, in the last analysis, traceable to just the animal notion of charity, on which his own charity towards animals, as well as animalized charity is based. The rest is as follows:

"Every word that I shall utter, is in opposition to the sentiments of this meeting. * * I have acted as Assistant District Attorney in the Special Sessions for twelve or fourteen years, looking after the moral interests of that class of beings which is called the lower creation. I am glad to be able to say that my clients don't commit such atrocities as yours do.' (Mark the Schopenhauer touch).... . A great deal has been said about improving criminals. Let me tell you how I would improve them. I would abolish all the penitentaries in the land, and save the expense of running them. In their place I would have whipping-posts everywhere. (Cheers). And to make sure that the lash was laid on feelingly, I would offer a reward for the invention of a steam machine that couldn't be bribed with offers of political place or money. . . . . Years ago, when travelling in Egypt, I stopped a few days in Cairo, and, as a sort of pastime after dinner, I used to go up on the hill where the court for trying petty criminals was held. I have seen them thrown on their faces for petty crimes and given a charming licking, which they call the bastinado. They squirmed and shrieked, and called on Allah to witness that they would never do so any more. My dragoman told me that they never did. They were all contented with what they got. They were morally improved.' (I am surprised that Mr. Bergh does not go on to describe the other striking features of punitive justice in Egypt. He surely saw them impale men alive, and could describe it with as much gusto as young Benjamin Disraeli did, forty years ago, in the hearing of N. P. Willis. Impalement and the bastinado are parts of the same system). That is the kind of treatment which I advocate. I would abolish every penal institution except the State prison, and I'd send felons either there or to the gallows.'