two of the many and various objections that will probably be brought forward in opposition to this system of abstinence from the flesh of animals, which we are feebly attempting to advocate. The first we shall notice is one that has the appearance of much plausibility: it is founded on the distinction between clean and unclean animals as described in the Livitical Law. We Apprehend the nature of the distinction in that law has been generally misunderstood. The prohibitions there given are respecting the animals that give milk, not fit for the use of man. In consequence of such animals not ruminating, their milk is crude and unwholesome; hence they were not to be touched in the operation of milking, nor should they be domesticated for such a purpose. Strange as it may appear so men of our times, it is nevertheless an important truth, in relation to the People of Israel, that the milk and the fleece were the principle objects for which herds and flocks were kept by them, and the Patriarchs who preceded them. Hence it is that we find a charge delivered by Solomon to this end. "Take heed that thou have goats milk enough for thy food, for the food of thy household, and for the maintainance of thy maidens." Paul also reiterated the like sentiment: "Who" says he "planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock?"
My hearers will doubtless remember that we read in the Bible of a law having been given to man, almost immediately after his creation, prohibiting him from "eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil;" from which we at once infer, without any difficulty of apprehension, that he was not to eat of the fruit of that interdicted tree. Now we understand and interpret this law rightly, and that for this very simple reason;—We have not been accustomed either to eat wood, or the branches of trees, or to see our fellow beings doing so. But when we read of certain ani-
