city. And at evening let them return, and let them make a noise like a dog, and go round about the city. Let them wander up and down for meat, and grudge if they be not satisfied" (Ps. lix. 6, 14, 15).

The Jews probably permitted the dogs to frequent their cities in consequence of their use in devouring the offal from the daily butchery of animals for food. To them also was given the meat that had become tainted, or the animals that died in consequence of being torn by other beasts, the eating of which was expressly forbidden: "Ye shall not eat of any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs" (Exod. xxii. 31).

The fierce disposition of the dog is also illustrated in the Book of Proverbs: "He that passeth by and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears" (xxvi. 17). In other passages of scripture we find the animal spoken of with contempt. Thus Isaiah, alluding to the degeneracy of the prophets and priests of Israel, says, "His watchmen are blind; they are all ignorant; they are all dumb dogs; they cannot

bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they are greedy dogs, which can never have enough" (lvi. 10): and the patriarch Job, in describing his degradation, indignantly tells his persecutors," But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to set with the dogs of my flock" (xxx. 1); and Mephibosheth, in the depth of his humility, says to David, "What is thy servant that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?" (2 Sam. ix. 8). Not only vile as a dog, the lowest and most contemptible of all creatures, but a "dead dog," the very extremity of contempt. The same expression is used by Abishai of Shimei: "Why should this dead dog curse my Lord the king" (2 Sam. xvi. 9).

It is singular enough that, notwithstanding the contempt in which the dog was held by the Hebrews of later times, in those of the "shepherd kings" it was so highly esteemed as to furnish a name to one of the princes of Judah,-Caleb signifying literally The Dog. The Psalmist also gave one of his sons the name of Cileab. In the present day the name is still common in Arabia; a man being

occasionally called Celb, and a woman Celba; both evidently derived from the same word.

An allusion to the greyhound occurs in the Book of Proverbs: "There be three things which go well, yea four are comely in going: a lion, which is strongest among beasts, and turneth not away for any; a greyhound; a he-goat also; and a king against whom there is no rising up." (Prov. xxx. 29.) The translation of the word has, however, been disputed by critics; it means literally" the girded (or tightly braced) about the loins." Bochart and others contend that the war-horse is intended.

To the sanguinary character of this animal many allusions are made in scripture. The dogs licked the innocent blood of Naboth; and as Elijah had predicted, did the same to that of the royal murderer, and ate the flesh of his partner in guilt. (1 Kings, xxii. 38.) Jeremiah (xv. 3.) appoints "the dogs to tear," as part of the sentence of divine wrath on guilty and unrepenting nations; and in the promise of the complete deliverance of God's ancient people from the power of their enemies, the Psalmist accompanies it with the remarkable

expression, "that thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongues of thy dogs in the same." (Ps. lxviii. 23.) In the first Book of Kings there are no less than three several allusions to this sanguinary disposition: "He that dieth in the city shall the dogs eat, and he that dieth in the fields shall the fowls of the air eat." (1 Kings, xiv. 11, xvi. 4, xxi. 24.)—A fearful and revolting curse, intimating a violent and disgraceful death, without the honours of sepulture.

"The English reader," says a recent writer, who speaks from personal observation, "is apt to be surprised that dogs, which exhibit so many amiable and interesting qualities, should always be mentioned with contempt and aversion in the scriptures. But the known character of the dog is, in a great degree, an improvement resulting from domestication and kind treatment. In the East he is not domesticated or treated well; and for this reason he is there a fierce, cruel, greedy, and base creature, such as the Scriptures describe him. Mahommedanism, which now prevails in Western Asia, proscribes dogs as unclean; and hence, although they are exceedingly

numerous in many of the towns, they are not attached to particular houses, nor belong to particular persons. They live in the streets and open places, and subsist upon offal, with some uncertain assistance from the charity of individuals. As even in the highly domesticated condition of the dog in this country, great numbers of them retain the disposition to assault strangers, it will be easily understood, that this disposition must be more strongly manifested by the half-savage dogs of eastern towns. In large towns, where there is much activity and intercourse, the dogs generally do not offer any molestation to any person in the day-time, or only to persons whom they detect by the scent or costume to be decided foreigners; but at night it is very hazardous to pass the streets, and few like to do so alone, and never without being properly armed. When two persons go together, both armed with strong sticks, they are seldom molested. One person alone, and particularly if unarmed, would be in danger of being seriously injured, if not torn in pieces, unless assistance came; as the attack of one dog would serve as a signal to bring others in great numbers