SERMON CXV. THE LAW OF GOD. THE DECALOGUE. THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT. BILLING WHEN LAWFUL, AND WHEN UNLAWFUL. Thou shalt not kill.-Exod. xx. 13. In the five preceding Discourses I have considered summarily several classes of duties involved in the fifth command. Had I no other object before me, beside the examination of this precept, I should feel myself obliged to investigate also the mutual duties of men in various other relations of life, particularly those of husbands and wives, masters and servants, ministers and their congregations. All these, together with the duties of friends and neighbours, of the aged and the young, are, I think, obviously included in this precept, and are of sufficient importance to claim, not only a discussion, but a more extensive and minute investigation, than I have given to those already examined. But a work of this nature, although it may seem large, must necessarily be compendious. The field is too vast even to be wandered over by any single effort, and many parts of it must be left unexplored by any traveller. The command, which is given us in the text, is expressed in the most absolute manner: Thou shalt not kill.' To kill, is the thing forbidden; and by the words it is forbidden in all cases whatever. Whenever we kill any living creature, therefore, we are guilty of a transgression of this command, unless we are permitted to take away the life in question by an exception which God himself has made to the rule. The consideration of the absolute universality of the command in the text, ought invariably to be remembered in all our comments upon it. These, it is ever to be remembered, are the words which God himself has chosen. They accord, therefore, with the dictates of infinite wisdom concerning this subject, and bind us with infinite authority. Man cannot alter them. Man cannot lawfully originate an exception to them, nor in any other manner limit their import. Every comment upon them must, of course, be derived from the words themselves, or from other precepts, or from comments on this precept, found in other parts of the Scriptures. At the same time, a scrupulous attention to the words themselves will, if I mistake not, remove severa difficulties concerning this subject, and contribute not a little towards settling finally some important doctrines of morality. In examining this subject, I shall endeavour to point out, I. Those instances in which life may be lawfully taken away, agreeably to scriptural exceptions under this law; II. Some of those instances in which life is destroyed, in contradiction to this law. I. I shall mention those instances in which life may be lawfully taken away under scriptural exceptions to this law. 1. The life of animals may be lawfully taken away in two cases; when they are necessary for our food, and when they are hostile and dangerous to us. In Gen. ix. 3, God said to Noah and his sons, Every thing that moveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herb have I given you all things.' That this permission was necessary, we know, because it was given. But if it was necessary, men have no right to eat the flesh of animals before it was given. The same thing is evident, also, from the terms of the permission, Even as the green herb have I given you all things.' If God gave men all things, that is, all ani mals, to be their food, then men have no original, natural, or previous right to use them for food. Accordingly, the antediluvians, abandoned as they were, appear plainly never to have eaten animal food. Noah and his descendants began this practice, under this permission. Here is found the only right of mankind to this food. Animals belonged originally and solely to their Creator. We, therefore, could have no right to their lives, unless he who alone possessed that right, had transferred it to us. From these observations it is plain, that infidels, who deny the divine revelation of the Scriptures, can plead no right to eat the flesh of animals. The only being who can possibly communicate this right to us is God, since he is the only being who possesses the right to dispose of them. But God has nowhere communicated this right to mankind, unless he has done it in the Scriptures. But this communication they deny to have been made; and are, therefore, without any warrant for the use of animal food. Nor can they ever make use of it, without contravening the dictates of a good conscience, and violating the plainest principles of justice and humanity. The arguments by which infidels have endeavoured to defend this conduct in themselves, are, in my view, miserable fetches of a disingenuous mind struggling hard to justify itself in a practice which it is loth to give up, and not the honest reasons of fair conviction. They are these: It is the analogy of nature, that the stronger should prey upon the weaker that we feed animals, and have therefore a right to their lives, and their flesh, as a retribution for our kindness to them; and that, if we did not destroy them, they would multiply in such a manner, as ultimately to destroy us.' These reasons are characteristically suited to the mouth of a wolf, or a tiger, but proceed with a very ill grace from the mouth of a man. Were a savage, of superior force, to attack an infidel, plunder his property, and destroy his life, in order to convert his flesh into food and were he, beforehand, to allege, as the justifying reason for this conduct, that it was the analogy of nature for the stronger to prey upon the weaker; the argument, it is believed, would scarcely satisfy the infidel. Were the or en : he allegation, drawn from the kindness of men to oxen, that their labour was an ample compensation for their food; and that men fed them for their own benefit, and not theirs. With respect to the third argument, he might ask, without fearing any reply, Where, and when, did oxen ever multiply in such a manner as to become dangerous to mankind? If infidels can be satisfied with these arguments for the use of flesh, we can no longer wonder, that they are equally well satisfied with similar arguments against the revelation of the Scriptures. The truth is, they are not thus satisfied with either the one or the other. Inclination, and not conviction, is probably the source of their conduct in both cases. Were they as scrupulous, as all men ought to be, they would, like the Hindoos, and even the antediluvians, abstain entirely from eating the flesh of animals. Animals hostile and dangerous to men, God has not only permitted, but commanded, us to put to death; at least whenever they have intentionally destroyed human life. In Genesis ix he says to Noah and his children, Surely your blood of your lives will I require: at the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man.' Agreeably to this law, which makes animals in this situation punishable with death, the ox, which gored a man, or woman, was commanded to be stoned. As the beast which had perpetrated this act could be punished only by men, men were required to put him to death. It will not, I suppose, be contended, that we are not warranted to anticipate this mischief, and prevent the tiger from shedding human blood, as well as to destroy him after his depredations are completed. In all other cases we are unwarranted to take away the life of animals, because God has given us no warrant. There are persons who destroy their domestic animals by compelling them to labour beyond their strength, or their capacity of enduring fatigue. |