these, as in previous and following instances, were doves and pigeons, or they might have been geese and ducks, for, while not abundant, they were found in small numbers, and very good food when tender with much fat.

In the New Testament I can find no mention of chickens save in the records of the life of Jesus. His use of them indicated that they were universally known as our domestic fowl of to-day. In one instance the translation reads "chickens," which I had thought a more recent word. Our record of time began with the birth of Christ, and the domestication of the bird seems so complete then, that it will be safe to place its importation into Galilee at about five or six hundred years previous by a rough guess; Italy knew them well at that time.

Then chickens were centuries nearer their origin than they are now and, no doubt, remained the same in color, form, and voice. So I think the crowing of the cocks of Galilee was similar to their wild progenitors in tone and volume. When scientists of the last few centuries take to breeding by selection of the finest, in an incredibly short time they produce different shape, color, and characteristics; but I doubt if much of the work had been done on chickens in Bible times. I may be mistaken about this, for the finest fancy pigeons in the world are bred there to-day, and it may be by men descended from pigeon and poultry breeders of times long past. There is to support the theory, that as early as Bible days men had tamed wild horses, asses, and wolves, and bred them down to war horses, beasts of burden, and sheep dogs. That a wolf should be the ancestor of a sheep dog seems a complete characteristic revolution for an original sheep killer.

When we read the admonition of Jesus to His followers, "Watch ye, therefore; for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cock-crowing, or in the morning," we think of the long-drawn, lusty salute to dawn of our country and village cocks. But I believe the sound to have been shorter, shriller, and wilder, and it was earlier. It began at midnight for the first round, followed near two by a second salute, and a little after four began the regular full chorus which Aristophanes said sent laborers to their tasks.

Fowl are next mentioned when Peter assured Jesus that, though all others might be offended with Him, he would not; and Jesus, knowing the shallows of his nature, warned him, "Verily I say unto thee that this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice." What followed was painful, and a poor commentary on human nature. When Jesus was led away to His doom, Peter remained, and stole in among the servants of the high priest, and warmed by the fire. A maid came by and accused him of having been among the followers of Jesus, and he denied it, saying, "I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. He went out into the porch, and the cock crew." Again the maid accused him, and Peter grew more emphatic. Then the men around reminded him that his speech was Galilean, and he began to curse and swear, and denied Christ utterly. And again the cock crew. I am very sure it was a wild, shrill, and soul-stirring sound, for then Peter remembered, and sat down, and wept. I am sorry that our brave and useful domestic bird had to play even an unconscious part in the world's greatest tragedy; but the

bird was unconscious, and therefore came off well beside the weak, dishonored man.

The hen figured in happier history, and in one of the most expansive and poetic expressions of Jesus. She must have been thoroughly domesticated by that time, and common with her brood around her all along Canaan ways, and the exquisite picture of motherhood she made. had been observed carefully. In reproving Jerusalem, the Master cried out:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the prophets,

And stonest them that are sent unto her!

How often would I have gathered thy children

together,

Even as a hen gathereth her own brood under her

wings,

And ye would not!''

In recording the history of the same scene, Matthew used the words, "Even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

I am a daughter of an ordained minister of the Lord, and all my early life I was surrounded by an atmosphere of worship, and reverence for all things "whatsoever are pure, holy, and right." Yet I never laid hold on Bible. history or felt its people and places a personal possession until I studied it scientifically for the material of this book. To make plain which birds were used, and their appropriateness to the text, I was compelled to have a clear understanding of the time, place, and people. In gaining this I found what I lacked in Bible teaching. I did not know places and people; I knew only the spiritual side, most of which is complex for well-informed adults, and beyond the comprehension of children entirely. The

young try to have faith and believe because they are told they should; but in the end their faith seems to fade, and they are not the stout believers on which the foundations of a Church should rest.

With all deference I would make this suggestion to ministers and Sabbath-school teachers: Hoot and ground your audiences and pupils in the geography of Bible lands, in the time of the world's history, in the animals, in the flowers, in the birds, in the customs, and in the people. Make them fully understand that it was a real place, filled with the most interesting of real things. Put away

the spiritual side of the Bible for a time, that children especially can not grasp, and give them proper foundation on which to build. Teach them the disposition and character of each man from what he wrote and his manner of expression. Depict his surroundings, what he wore, ate, and saw. These are the things in which people are interested concerning living writers; and after all the Bible is only a record of the life and religious traditions of a past age, by a number of different men. To-day, if we like what a man writes, we want to meet him, to know where and how he lives, his habits and surroundings, and many things, little of our affair, no doubt, but still it is human nature to want to know. After all, a man's brainwork is himself, and if he makes it public he must expect in a measure to become public also.

No child can grasp the idea of the Trinity, of Transfiguration, or the Resurrection; but they can learn trees, flowers, birds, exquisite poems, and people. Then, with maturity, the spiritual side of the question will develop itself. Victor Hugo expressed my thought perfectly when he wrote: "The religious fact is not the Church; it