Chapter XVII: Part 17

Two passages of Scripture, one in the Psalms and the other in Ecclesiastes, are almost entirely, if not wholly, responsible for this belief. The former, which runs in the authorized version, “Nevertheless, man being in honor, abideth not; he is like the beasts that perish,” is that which is generally quoted as decisive of the whole question. “Man, being in honor, hath no understanding, but is compared to the beasts that perish” is another translation, but differs not materially from the other. The second passage referred to from Ecclesiastes, reads: “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” Now, it is upon the strength of these two passages that we are called upon to believe that when a beast dies its life, like that of an expired lamp, goes out forever. Nothing is more dangerous in the exposition of Scripture than attempting to explain a passage, however simple it may seem to be, without reference to the original text, for the translator may have mistaken the true sense of the words, or he may have inadequately expressed their signification, or, owing to a change in meaning, the words of a passage may now bear an exactly contrary sense to that conveyed when they were first written.

But laying aside this point for the present, and accepting the passage as it stands, as well as the literal meaning of the words as generally understood, there can be no doubt that we must believe that beasts are not possessed of immortal life. If, however, we are to take the literal sense of the Bible, and no other, we are equally forced to believe that man has no life after death. The book of Psalms is full of examples. Let us take a few from the many that might be given: “In death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave, who shall give thee thanks?” “The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence.” “His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” Taken solely in their literal sense, there can be no doubt of their meaning. Nothing more gloomy, dreary or more despondent can be found in the entire range of heathen literature than these passages, and others that might be quoted from the inspired Psalmist, in the contemplation of death. In the very book from which the single passage was taken, which is claimed to deny immortality to the lower animals, there are five times as many passages that proclaim the same sad end to the life of man. We are distinctly and definitely told therein that those who have died have no remembrance of God, and cannot praise Him. Death has been spoken of as the “land of forgetfulness”--the place of darkness, where all man’s thoughts perish. Certainly no more than this can be said of the “beasts that perish.”

Other holy writers make similar affirmations. Speaking of mankind in general, who “dwell in houses of clay,” Job says: “They are destroyed from morning to evening; _they perish forever_, without any regarding it.” Again he says, and the passage is more definite than the preceding: “As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more.” And still again: “Man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up: so man lieth down, and riseth not.” Chapters III and X tell of the piteous lamentations of Job over his life, wherein he complains that he ever was born, that existence was ever given to him, that he was ever taken from a state of absolute nonentity, and that even death itself can bring no relief to his miseries except extinction.

Turning to Ecclesiastes, in which book occurs the solitary passage which is held to disprove a future existence to the lower animals, there are passages which are even more emphatic as to the immortality of man. Read what is declared: “I said in my heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them. As the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath, so that a man has no preëminence over a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.” Further it is said: “For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.” “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave whither thou goest.” Literally interpreted, no one can doubt the import of these words from Ecclesiastes, for they definitely state that, as regards a future life, there is no distinction between man and beast, and that when they die they all go to the same place. It is also distinctly stated that after death man can do no work, know nothing, nor receive any reward. Were we to deduce our ideas of the condition of man after death from the irrepressibly sad and gloomy passages from Job and Ecclesiastes, most deplorable and hopeless would be the very thought of dissolution. But we do not accept them in this light. They are written symbolically, and there underlies them a spiritual sense. It is not, however, the latter sense that concerns us at present, but the literal meaning of the translation, and, according to that literal meaning, if we take two texts to prove that beasts have no future life, we are compelled by no less than fourteen passages to believe that man, in common with beasts, has no better prospect. We have no right to say which passages are to be taken literally, and which parabolically, but must apply the same test to all alike, and treat all in a similar manner.

All classical readers are familiar with that wonderful eleventh book of Homer’s Odyssey, called the Necyomanteia, or Invocation of the Dead, in which Ulysses is depicted as descending into the regions of departed spirits for the purpose of invoking them and obtaining advice as to his future adventures. Dreary, and horrible indeed, are the revelations which the whole of the strange history makes of the condition of the future life. All is wild and dark, and hunger, thirst and discontent prevail. Nothing is heard of elysian fields, where piety, wisdom and virtue abound. Gloom, misery and vain regrets for earth pervade the entire episode. When is considered this heathen poet’s ideas concerning the future state of man, it is no wonder that sensual pleasures should be held as the principal object of his life when he is to look forward to such a future, a future from which neither wisdom, nor virtue, nor piety could save him, and where there is nothing but an eternity of gloom, remorse and hopeless despondency. Sad as this picture is, yet it is far brighter than that of the Psalmist, the Preacher, or Job. Those who have passed into the world of spirits still retain their individuality after death, being distinguished in the spirit as they had been in the flesh. Memory survives the body’s death. Naught of their earthly career is forgotten. They still have an interest in their friends that remain in the body whom they love, and over whose well-being they unceasingly watch. No such consolation, as has been described, exists in the future state of man if the passages of Scripture that have been quoted are taken in a literal sense. Man, in that event, passes at death into a place of darkness, forgetfulness and silence, where there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, and where even his very thoughts perish. No other interpretation, if taken literally, can be put upon them, for the statements are too explicit to be explained away or softened.

In the outward sense of their writings the Psalmist, Job and the Preacher are on an equality with Horace in their absolute unbelief in a future existence, and in a consequent desire to snatch what fleeting pleasures they can from earth before the inexorable law of fate consigns them to dark oblivion. Startling as it may seem to compare the teachings of a Greek idolater and of a Latin Epicurean heathen with those of sacred writers, yet it is still more startling to show that the teachings of the Epicurean sensualist are not a whit wiser than those of the Scriptural writer, while those of the Greek poet are very much better. Such, however, is the fact, and, if we are to be bound by the literal interpretation of the Scriptures, there is no possibility of denying it without doing violence to reason and common-sense.

We are now brought face to face with the point previously mentioned. Does the authorized version give a full and correct interpretation of the original? It is claimed that it does not. The word “perish,” it is said, does not occur at all in the Hebrew text, nor is even the idea expressed. No such translation as “beasts that perish,” which appears twice in our version, is justified by the Hebrew, the words of the original implying “dumb beasts.” The idea of perishing, in the sense of annihilation, does not seem to be implied. Let us take the Jewish Bible, which is acknowledged to be the best and closest translation in the English language, and examine it. Both in verses 12 and 20 of Psalm XLIX, where the passage occurs, the rendering reads: “Man _that is_ in honor, and understandeth _this_ not, is like the beasts _that are_ irrational.” As an alternative reading for “irrational,” the word “dumb” is given in a footnote. A somewhat similar reading is found in the Septuagint, which, according to Brunton, runs as follows: “Man that is in honor understands not; he is compared to the senseless cattle, and is like them.” In Wycliffe’s Bible, which is a translation from the Vulgate, the passage is rendered: “A man whanne he was in honour understood not; he is comparisoned to unwise beestis, and is maad lijk to tho.” The “Douay” Bible, made by the English Roman Catholic College of Douay, and which is the version accepted by that branch of the Church in England, renders the passage: “Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts and made like to them.” Numerous other translations might be adduced, and it is safe to say that scarcely any of them imply the idea of perishing in the sense of being reduced to nothing. Even supposing that the word “perish” is translated correctly, it does not therefore follow that annihilation is meant. Take the tenth verse of the same Psalm in our authorized version: “For he seeth that wise men die, and likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, and leave their wealth to others.” Surely no sensible, intelligent person would construe this passage into a declaration that the wise and fool and brutish had no existence after the death of the body.

That the last verse of the Psalm is a summary of the whole poem, seems not improbable. A vivid picture of the true object of man’s life in this world is drawn by the Psalmist, and also of his tendency to lose sight thereof. In it he sets forth the shortness of human existence, and shows that neither riches, station in life, nor fame, which appertain to the mere earthly career of man, can endure after his death. He, therefore, reasonably concludes that men who fix their hearts upon these earthly vanities ignore the honor of their manhood, and degrade themselves to the plane of the dumb beasts, whose operations are, as far as we know, restricted to this present world.

From what has been adduced it will at once be evident that the idea that beasts are said by the Psalmist to have no future life may be dismissed from our minds, and that the passage may be rejected as totally irrelevant to the subject. This is of the greatest importance, as the passage in question is the only one which even appears to make any definite statement as to the condition of the lower animals after death. Every reasonable person will now see how essential it is that the true meaning of the Hebrew text should be known, and that the Psalmist should not be charged with the introduction of a doctrine to which, whether true or false, he makes not the slightest reference.

Having settled beyond the possibility of refutation the true meaning implied by the “beasts that perish,” we will now turn to the passage in Ecclesiastes, which, as has been seen, is the only one which contains any direct reference to the future of the lower orders of animal existence: “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?”--exclaimeth the Preacher. Here we have an admission that, whether the spirit ascend or descend, both man and beasts do have spirits, and these are undoubtedly the same in essence, for the Hebrew word is identical is both cases. In the Jewish Bible the rendering is _verbatim_ the same as that of our authorized version. Read, instead of an isolated verse, the entire passage:--

“I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

“For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even the one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preëminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

“All go to one place; all are of the same dust, and all turn to dust again.

“Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

“Wherefore I perceive that _there_ is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that _is_ his portion; for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?”

Every page of Ecclesiastes breathes of the self-reproach of the Preacher for a wasted life. Speaking from his own sad, bitter experience, he shows that riches, glory, pleasure and even wisdom are nothing but utter emptiness. The same theme pervades the forty-ninth Psalm, but the Psalmist treats it with grave solemnity, admonishing his hearers of the shortness of human life, and showing that if a man forgets the glory of his manhood, made in the image of God, he puts himself on the level of the dumb brutes. Though reaching the same conclusion, yet the Preacher views the subject from a different standpoint. Employing biting sarcasm rather than solemn warning, he exposes the vanity of all worldly and selfish pleasures, and the miserable fate that awaits the voluptuary, and then ironically advises his readers to place in such their entire happiness.

So palpable is the bitter irony of the author throughout the book, and even in the twenty-first verse of the third chapter, yet by no manner of interpretation can this specialized text be made to mean that beasts are annihilated after death, while men rise again and soar above earthly things to honor and glory. Ironically the writer assumes in it that his readers do not know the difference between the spirit of man and that of beast, and, reasoning from that position, advises them that “_there is_ nothing better for a man _than that_ he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labor.”

From what has been shown, it is evident that the passage from Psalms does not even contain the idea of annihilation as regards beasts, and that the one from Ecclesiastes is entirely misapprehended. That they have no bearing upon the subject must now be manifest. We cannot, therefore, resist the conclusion that the Scriptures do not deny future life to the inferior animals.

This admission gives courage for a step still further forward. Man’s latest achievement is to conceive that all existence is a unit. One spirit pervades the whole natural world, an emanation from the Spirit of Him who sitteth enthroned in the Eternal Heavens, and who not only is, as Moses declares, “God of the spirits of all flesh,” but God of the spirits of all animate nature. We cannot divorce the two great kingdoms of nature. If there is a futurity of existence for man, whom we are told was “made a little lower than the angels,” but who in these latter days seems to have deteriorated, and who in thousands of instances displays a character far less noble and honorable than that of the dog which he kennels and feeds, then there must be for the so-called brute, the companion of his joys and his sorrows. If for beast, bird, reptile, fish and insect, and none can be so foolish in the face of the most indubitable evidence to deny it, then there must be for tree, shrub and flower, for God, who is infinite in love, mercy and charity, would not be God if solely concerned with the future of the smallest fractional part of His children. Man is psychically related to all life. There is soul, in some sort of development, in everything; and certainly God meant in His grand scheme of redemption to lift the world, not a portion of it, but the entire world, out of its lower ideas into its higher beauties and realities.

FUTURE LIFE.

That the Scriptures, contrary to popular tradition, do not deny a future life to the lower animals has already been conclusively shown. But do they declare anything in favor of another world for beast as well as for man? This is a question which we shall now endeavor to answer. As to man’s immortality, the Old Testament Scriptures teach the doctrine by inference rather than by direct assertion, for the reason, as has been presumed, that the writers of the several books, which were selected at a comparatively late period from among many others and formed into the volume popularly designated the Bible, assumed as a matter of course that man was immortal, and therefore did not concern themselves about a matter which they supposed everybody knew. But as far as the Old Testament goes, inference tells more strongly in favor of the beast’s immortality than that of man. Although in either case there does not appear to be any definite assertion of a futurity of existence, yet there is no such denial of the immortality of the beast as has already been shown in the case of the man.

Beasts, as readers of the Old Testament only too well know, were included in the merciful provision of the Sabbath, which, in its essence, was a spiritual and not simply a physical ordinance. And, again, we find many provisions in the ancient Scriptures against maltreating the lower animals, or giving them unnecessary pain, and these provisions stand side by side in the Divine Law with those which apply to man. All are familiar with the prohibition of “seething a kid in its mother’s milk,” and the non-muzzling of the ox in treading out the corn lest he should suffer the pangs of hunger in the presence of the food which he may not eat. Even bird’s nesting was regulated by Divine Law. “If a bird’s nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, _whether they_ be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: _But_ thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and _that_ thou mayest prolong _thy_ days.” Moreover, as many animals must be killed daily, some for sacrifice and others solely for food, the strictest regulations were enjoined that their death should be sharp and quick, and that the whole of their blood should be poured out upon the ground lest they suffer lingering pain.

In keeping with the same consideration felt by Deity towards the kid and ox and bird, as expressed in the Law, we would refer to the few concluding sentences of the Book of Jonah:--

“Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not labored, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night.

“And should I not spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than six score thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; _and also much cattle_?”

“Every beast of the forest is mine,” saith the Lord, “and the cattle upon a thousand hills.” And again, “I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine.” Similar passages, in which God announces himself as the protector of the beast as well as of man, could be given, for the Scriptures are full of them. Who does not recall the well-known saying of our Lord respecting the lives of the sparrows: “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without the notice of your Father.”

Cowper in his “Task,” makes allusion to this branch of our subject in the following lines:--

“Man may dismiss compassion from his heart,
But God will never. When He charged the Jew
To assist his foe’s down-fallen beast to rise;
And when the bush-exploring boy, that seized
The young, to let the parent-bird go free;
Proved He not plainly that His meaner works,
Are yet His care, and have an interest all--
All in the universal Father’s love?”

One passage there is which certainly does point to a future for the beast as well as for man, and which places them both on the very same plane. It is found in Genesis, ninth chapter and fifth verse, and constitutes a part of the law which was delivered to Noah, and which was subsequently incorporated in the fuller law given through Moses. “And surely your blood of your lives will I require,” said God to Noah and his sons, “at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of every man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.” In Exodus, chapter twenty-one and twenty-eighth verse, we read, “If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox _shall be_ quit.”

While there are no passages of Scripture, as has been seen, which deny immortality of life to the lower animals, yet there are certainly some which tend to show it by inference. But the Scriptures were written for human beings, and not for the lower animals, and therefore it could hardly be expected that any information could be gained therefrom on the subject. As we find so few direct references to the future state of man, it is not at all to be expected that we should receive direct instruction upon the after-life of the beast.

But just as man has had within himself for untold ages an intuitive witness to his own immortality, yet there are those, lovers and friends of the so-called brute, who have an instinctive sense that animals, some of whom surpass in love, unselfishness, generosity, conscience and self-sacrifice many of their human brethren, must share with him in addition to these virtues an immortal spirit in which they take their rise. No more eminent personage than Bishop Butler was a believer in this idea. Substantially he asserts that the Scriptures give no reasons why the lower animals should not possess immortal souls. Similar sentiments have been voiced by equally distinguished writers.

Southey, writing of the death of a favorite spaniel that had been the companion of his boyhood, says:--

“Ah, poor companion! when thou followedst last
Thy master’s parting footsteps to the gate
Which closed forever on him, thou didst lose
Thy best friend, and none was left to plead
For the old age of brute fidelity.
But fare thee well. Mine is no narrowed creed;
And He who gave thee being did not frame
The mystery of Life to be the sport
Of merciless man. There is another world
For all that live and move--a better one!
Where the proud bipeds, who would fain confine
Infinite Goodness to the little bounds
Of their own charity, may envy thee.”

Thus does Lamartine, in “Jocelyn’s Episode,” beautifully express himself in addressing a faithful and affectionate canine by the name of Fido:--

“I cannot, will not, deem thee a deceiving,
Illusive mockery of human feeling,
A body organized, by fond caress
Warmed into seeming tenderness;
A mere automaton, on which our love
Plays, as on puppets, when their wires we move.
No! when that feeling quits thy glazing eye,
’Twill live in some blest world beyond the sky.”

Not by man alone have these higher qualities been accorded to the brute. Women have praised the good within the lower animals, and been quite as willing to share with them the benefits of an immortal life. Eugenie de Guérin, a woman distinguished for her devotional piety, and an author of no mean repute, was, like the most of her sex, quite passionately fond of pets. Hers was a turtle-dove. Its voice was the first to greet her in the morning. There was a pleasure in its soft, gentle cooings, as they fell upon her ear, that sent a sweet consolation to her busy, thinking soul. But the time came at last when she must part with her treasure. The morn dawned bright, an August morning, and the bird was well and happy, but, with the falling of the shadows at even-tide, its little life went out. A bitter trial it was for the mistress, who loved with a perfect love her feathered friend. While wrestling with her intense sorrow, and after she had sincerely placed its mortal remains in a dainty cavity beneath the roses, it was that she wrote: “I have a tolerably strong belief in the souls of animals, and I should even like there to be a little paradise for the good and gentle, like turtle-doves, dogs and lambs. But what to do with wolves and other wicked animals? To damn them?--that embarrasses me.”

Less devotional, perhaps, and looking rather to logic than to intuition, was the mind of Mrs. Somerville. With such a difference in constitution between the two women, we would naturally look for the greatest divergence of opinion upon a matter of this kind, but, astonishing to relate, there is noticeable a marked unanimity. Speaking of death, and the accompanying change of environing objects, this gifted writer, in her eighty-ninth year, says in her “Memoirs”:--

“I shall regret the sky, the sea, with all their beautiful coloring; the earth, with its verdure and flowers; but far more shall I grieve to leave animals that have followed our steps affectionately for years, without knowing for certainty their ultimate fate, though I firmly believe that the living principle is never extinguished. Since the atoms of matter are indestructible, as far as we know, it is difficult to believe that the span which gives to their union life, memory, affection, intelligence and fidelity is evanescent.

“Every atom in the human frame, as well as in that of animals, undergoes a periodical change by continual waste and renovation: the abode is changed, not its inhabitant. If animals have no future, the existence of many is most wretched. Multitudes are starved, cruelly beaten, and loaded during life; many die under a barbarous vivisection.

“I cannot believe that any creature was created for uncompensated misery: it would be contrary to the attributes of God’s mercy and justice. I am sincerely happy to find that I am not the only believer in the immortality of the lower animals.”

To have given the many opinions that have been expressed by the good and wise of the past in favor of the belief that animals received, in common with man, a particle of the divine essence, and hence became immortal, would have extended this chapter beyond intended limits. We have room for just another witness. No one is better known for his convictions upon this subject than the late Dr. Wood, whose contributions to natural history are known the world over. Speaking of the death of his dog Rory, a creature that manifested in the flesh the strongest affection for his keeper, the Doctor says:--

“I could not believe that an animal which would die of grief, as he died, for the absence of his master, would have his existence limited to this present world, and that such intensity of love should terminate at the same moment that the material heart ceased to beat.”

When we think of the apparent inequality that is everywhere to be seen in the lives both of man and beast, we cannot believe, as Mrs. Somerville has remarked, that any being was “created for uncompensated misery.” Some human beings are endowed with everything that a man can desire--health, strength, riches, accomplishments and capacity for enjoyment--while others are destitute of all these accessories to happiness. Putting aside the fact that those whose lots seem to be the most enviable are the least to be envied, we cannot help acknowledging that this disparity does exist, and that the earthly lot of some is very hard, while that of others is very easy. But we must remember that there is taught in the New Testament the grand doctrine of Compensation. Paul alludes to this when he remarks that the sufferings of this world are not to be compared with the glories of the world to come, and that the troubles, trials and tribulations of this life are but the precursor of that glorified existence where all these things will be utterly unknown. That some such arrangement would be nothing more than justice there can be no question, and that some principle of Divine Justice must exist was instinctively known long before it was explicitly declared by the inspired apostle, for references to such compensation are found throughout the Psalms. Even Job himself, sunk as he was in the very depth of afflictions, could say: “Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him; but I will maintain my own ways before Him. He also _shall be_ my salvation; for an hypocrite shall not come before Him.” So far, then, as man is concerned, this problem of apparent inequality is not so difficult of solution, for he knows only too well that in spite of his hard and bitter earth-life that Divine Justice will be more than vindicated in the life beyond the grave to which he aspires. But in the case of the lower animals, granting that they have no future existence, what, I ask, becomes of Divine Justice? In this land of enlightenment we meet with many animals that are treated with the greatest kindness by their masters, and others, endowed with capacities that are not a whit inferior to their more fortunate brethren, that are treated with the utmost cruelty. While one is petted and pampered, another is abused and given over to the pangs of hunger and starvation. If there is a future life for these animals, it is simply impossible to recognize in their Maker that justice which sensible, reasoning man should expect. Such an injustice, as shown by the lives which we have contrasted, would be too flagrant for any human being to perpetrate, unless such a being was wholly deficient in the ideas of right and wrong. But on the supposition that these animals possess immortal souls, and that there is for them a future life in which these souls shall be developed to their fullest capacities, then these apparent discrepancies can be reconciled with Absolute Justice and Perfect Love. In His dealings with the lower animals, as with ourselves, God looks to the spiritual rather than the material world, and by the means of the one instructs and prepares his pupils for the other. With Paul I firmly believe that suffering in the present world has for its object a preparation for and an introduction to a future life, and therefore am thoroughly convinced that any creature capable of suffering has in that capacity its passport to an eternal world.

Another step, that is, the possession of Individuality, as connected with Immortality, now presses forward for consideration. As for man, did he not possess Individuality, no diverseness of management would be needed, for all would be treated in a similar manner. No two faces in man are precisely alike, for the very simple reason that no two souls, of which the countenance is an indication, are alike. The same rule, no matter what may be affirmed to the contrary, holds good among the lower animals. To the casual observer no apparent difference can be detected between any two individuals of a flock of sheep, a portrait of one equally resembling that of any other. But a shepherd, who understands his business, will readily distinguish every sheep of his flock, as well as describe the mental peculiarities of each individual. One ordinary yellow canary looks just like another yellow canary to the ordinary vision, while in reality the mental character of each bird is impressed just as strongly upon its countenance as are human qualities upon that of man. This quality it is, both in man and beast, that implies a separate treatment for each individual, and becomes a plea for an immortality of life. I am not alone in this idea. It is simply astounding how Individuality in the lower animals is ignored by man. The generality of grooms treat all horses as though they were just so many machines turned out of the same mould, and to be treated just like machines. There is in every species a double kind of Individuality. One kind there is that is common to the entire species, and then there is in addition to this common characteristic another that distinguishes each separate being from its fellows. It is the former that makes a species what it is, and there can be no doubt that each will exist in the future life, and that both may be capable of development. The dog, the horse, the lion and the elephant, and in truth all animals that may be fitted to survive, will be in the other world what they are in this. They will be better animals in that world, just as we hope to be better men, but they will not approach us any nearer than they do in the earth-life.

Man does not, as some are foolish enough to claim, lower the condition of humanity the least by granting immortality to the lower animals. If they be immortal, as the evidence adduces most strongly shows, there is not the slightest use of denial. We cannot shirk a fact, and even if we could, we ought not to do it. Such an argument, which seeks to elevate man by depreciating his lower fellow-creatures, is not very creditable to humanity. In announcing the belief that the lower animals share immortality with man in the higher world, as they share mortality in this, does not claim for them the slightest equality. Man will be man and beast will be beast, and insect will be insect, in the next world as they are in this. They are living exponents of Divine Ideas, as is evident from the Scriptures and the teachings of science, and will be wanted to continue in the world of spirit the work which they have begun in the world of matter. True it is, as has been asserted, that because a man can transmit his ideas to the lower animals, there is evidence that they possess a spirit which is able to communicate with the spirit of man. When a man gives an order to his dog, and is obeyed, there is proof that both possess spirits, similar in quality, though differing in degree. We know that to give an order to a plant would be useless and absurd, because the plant has not the spirit that can respond to the spirit of the man in the same manner that a dog’s or a horse’s spirit can, but the inability so to respond does not prove that the plant is devoid of a spirit. That the spirit of the plant does respond to the spirit of the man, when it adapts itself to the conditions which the spirit of the man has imposed upon it, there can be no question, or the many hundred plants which have been reclaimed from a state of wildness by a judicious and careful management upon the part of man would have been among the impossibilities of modern civilization. The spirit of man must have entered into the spirit of the plant, and held communion therewith, or the world to-day would not have been blessed with its manifold cereals, fruits and vegetables, all of which have been rendered possible for use by the spirit of man entering into an understanding with the nature, wants and peculiar dispositions of the plants about him. No less are plants living exponents of Divine Ideas than worms, insects, beasts and men are, and as such living exponents, they are as much needed in the future existence, at least such as are fitted to continue in the spirit-world the work begun in the world of matter, as are the higher forms of animal beings. As plants go a great ways towards making this earth-life a paradise of beauty and delight, and have ever been associated through the ages with animal life, each of the two great kingdoms of life from simple beginnings attaining to higher and still higher development up to the present period--the Era of Mind--it cannot be possible that the two will have become suddenly divorced when the temporal or earth-life is about to pass into the eternal or spirit-life. Heaven would not be Heaven without the plants that we have cultured, and tended, and admired.

Concluding, then, let me say, I claim not for the lower animals the slightest equality with man. What I claim for them is a higher _status_ in creation than is generally attributed to them. I claim for them a future life, where they will receive a just compensation for the sufferings which so many of them have to undergo in this world. Most of the cruelties which are perpetrated upon animals are due to the habit which man has, in his exalted opinion of self, of considering them as mere automata, without susceptibilities, without reason and without the capacity of a future. That I have achieved the purpose, with which I set out, of proving that all life is immortal, or that soul exists in plants and animals, I think must be admitted. If this doctrine of immortality shall have the effect of bringing about a more humane treatment of the animals over which man has been given dominion, and thus contribute, be it ever so little, to their well-being and happiness, even in this life, then the object attained will be felt to be a just and worthy recompense for the thought and labor which have been expended in its support and defence. Not alone are we of the upper walks of being made the possessors of the inner life, but all nature shares it in common with us, and love is its expression and the method of its action.

THE END.

Transcriber’s Notes

Inconsistent and unusual or archaic spelling, use of accents and
diacriticals, hyphenation and capitalisation have been retained,
except as mentioned below.

Depending on the hard- and software used and their settings used to
read this text, not all elements may display as intended.

Page 7, List of Illustrations: the portrait of the author is not the
frontispiece, and is not included in this edition of the book.

Page 45, "a single red-eye speck": should probably read "a single red
eye-speck".

Page 73, "unutterly unable": as printed in the source document.

Page 99, Line Below Shows Natural Size: based on the size of the
physical book, this would make the insect’s natural size around 27 mm
(just over 1″).

Page 317/318, paragraph starting "Returning to the philology ...": a
closing quote mark is missing.

Page 464/465, paragraph starting "That there is a distinction ...": a
closing quote mark is missing.

Changes made

Illustrations have been moved out of text paragraphs.

Some obvious minor typographical and punctuation errors have been
corrected silently.

Lists of illustrations: illustration numbers have been added.

Page 44: "quiet unable" changed to "quite unable".

Page 62: "plants not natives to this country" changed to "plants not
native to this country".

Page 245: PANDION HALIÆTUS changed to _Pandion haliætus_ for
consistency.

Page 264: caption "Red-eyed Vireo’s Two-Storied Nest With Cow-bird’s
egg beneath" added cf. list of full-page plates.