passage upon which many people base a belief in the non-future existence
of animals, there are passages which are really no more positive as to
the future of mankind. For example, "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 pre-eminence over a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one
place; all are of the dust, and all turn to the dust again." Again 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;" and "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."
By interpreting these words literally, there is but one conclusion
relative to a future spiritual life, namely, that there is absolutely
no distinction between man and his "lower brother" animals, and that
when they die they all go to the same place. It is emphatically said
that after death man knows nothing, receives no reward, and can do no
work. Job has the same gloomy strain running through his writings, and
Ecclesiastes gives a most morbid and gloomy view of death.
However, no modern Biblical scholar accepts these passages in this
literal light, for it is known that they were written symbolically, or
as parables, and were not intended to be literally interpreted. They
have a spiritual significance. We are, however, not interested here so
much with this spiritual sense as we are with the literal implication of
the translation. Therefore, according to this literal meaning of the two
texts, if we accept them to prove that animals have no future life, we
are forced to believe by at least fourteen passages, of equal if not
greater power, that man shares their same fate after death. No man has a
right to select certain passages from the same book of the Bible and say
that they shall be accepted literally, and that other passages of equal
merit shall be interpreted otherwise. They must all be treated the same.
All scholars are familiar with that remarkable eleventh book of Homer's
Odyssey, known as the Necromanteia, or Invocation of the Dead, and in it
Ulysses descends into the regions of the departed spirits to invoke them
and obtain advice as to his future adventures. One commentator says: "He
sails to the boundaries of the ocean, and lands in the country of the
Cimmerians, who dwell in perpetual cloud and darkness, and in whose
country are the gates leading to the regions of the dead." All is
darkness, discontent, hunger; nothing is said of virtue, wisdom, beauty,
happiness. Only bitter gloom! No wonder this heathen poet considered,
with such views of a future life, sensual pleasures as the chief object
of this life.
The following dialogue between the inhabitants of the earth and the
dweller in the regions of the dead--between Ulysses and Achilles--is
remarkable for its horrible depiction of the future life:
"Through the thick gloom his friend Achilles knew,
As he speaks the tears dissolve in dew.
'Comest thou alive to view the Stygian bounds,
Where the wan spectres walk eternal rounds;
Nor fear'st the dark and dismal waste to tread,
Thronged with pale ghosts familiar with the dead?'
To whom with sighs, 'I pass these dreadful gates
To seek the Theban, and consult the Fates;
For still distressed I roam from coast to coast,
Lost to my friends and to my country lost.
But sure the eye of Time beholds no name
So blessed as thine in all the rolls of fame;
Alive we hailed thee with our guardian gods,
And, dead thou rulest a king in these abodes.'
'Talk not of ruling in this dolorous gloom,
Nor think vain words (he cried) can ease my doom.
Rather I'd choose laboriously to bear
A weight of woes and breathe the vital air,
A slave for some poor hind that toils for bread,
Than reign the sceptered monarch of the dead.'"
Yet, even this outpouring of hopeless words by the heathen poet is
encouraging when compared to the writings of the Psalmist, of Solomon or
Job, for those who have gone beyond the grave still have memory, an
interest in their friends on earth, love and desire. But no such hope
exists for man, if we are to accept literally all the passages of
Scripture which have been quoted. By such interpretation, man passes
after death into eternal darkness, forgetfulness, silence, "where there
is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom--where even his very
thoughts perish." If these particular passages are to be accepted as
final on the subject, there is no future life for either man or animal.
They are too definite to admit of any interpretation that might soften
or alter their meaning.
It may be shocking to some to compare the belief of an ancient Greek and
the teachings of a Latin Epicurean with the sacred writings of the
Bible. Yet, it may be even more startling to point out that some of the
teachings of the Epicurean sensualist are quite as good as some of those
of the writers of the sacred texts, and that those of the Greek poet are
far better and more spiritual! There is no denying that these are the
facts, if we are to be bound by literal interpretation, unless we throw
to the winds all reason and common-sense.
This leads us back to the point previously mentioned; and we must
determine if the authorised version gives a full and truthful
interpretation of the Hebrew original. Even a man who does not pretend
to scholarship knows that it does not. The word "perish," for example,
is not found at all in the Hebrew text, nor is the idea expressed; the
words which our translation twice renders as "beasts that perish," is,
in the original Hebrew, "dumb beasts." By comparing a number of the
translations of the Psalms, into various languages--Psalm XLIX, for
example--we find that few, if any, of them suggest the idea of
"perishing" in the sense of annihilation. First, let us consider the
Jewish Bible, which is acknowledged to be the most accurate translation
in the English language, and carefully read it. In verses 12 and 20 of
the above Psalm, where the passage is found, the translation reads:
"Man that is in honour, and understandeth this not, is like the beasts
that are irrational." In a footnote the word "dumb" is offered as an
alternative for "irrational." Brunton's translation of the Septuagint is
similar, and reads: "Man that is in honour understands not, he is
compared to the senseless cattle, and is like them." Wycliffe's Bible,
which is translated from the Vulgate, reads thus: "A man whanne he was
in honour understood it not; he is compared to unwise beestis, and is
maad lijk to tho." The "Douay" Bible, put forth by the English Catholic
College of Douay and which is received by the Catholic Church in
England, gives the passage: "Man, when he was in honour, did not
understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to
them." Many other versions might be cited, and very few of them even
suggest the idea of annihilation. If, for argument's sake, we suppose
that the word "perish" has been correctly translated, it by no means
follows that annihilation is signified. Read, for example, the tenth
verse of the same Psalm in our authorised translation: "For he seeth
that wise men die, and likewise the fool and the brutish person perish,
and leave their wealth to others." Certainly no intelligent person would
interpret this passage as declaring that the wise and the foolish and
the brutish have no life after the body dies.
It is plain, therefore, that we may dismiss forever the idea that the
Psalmist believed the beasts had no future life, and the citation may be
rejected as absolutely irrelevant to the subject, and the only one that
appears to make any definite statements as to the future life of the
lower animals. Every student of the Bible will at once recognise how
necessary it is that the original meaning of the Hebrew text should be
known, and that the Psalmist should not be accused of setting forth a
doctrine of such great importance, whether true or false, when he may
never even have thought or suggested it.
[Illustration: MEN CRUELLY TAKE THE LIVES OF THESE DENIZENS OF THE
WILDWOOD, REJOICING IN THEIR SLAUGHTER, BUT THE ANIMAL SOUL THEY CANNOT
KILL.]
[Illustration: TWO PALS. THERE IS BETWEEN MAN AND DOG A KINSHIP OF
SPIRIT THAT CANNOT BE DENIED.]
Having disposed of the possibility of a misunderstanding of the real
meaning of the "beasts that perish," let us consider the quotation from
Ecclesiastes, the only one that refers to the future state of animals.
"Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the
beast that goeth downward to the earth?" We find an admission here that,
whether the spirit ascends or descends, man and beasts alike have the
immortal spark. The Hebrew version is precisely the same as our
authorised translation. Read, not an isolated verse, but the entire
passage:
"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of man, 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 pre-eminence 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?"
These verses tell their own story. It matters little whether Solomon
wrote this book in his later years; it is, in any event, the confession
of one who has had all the good things of this world, and who saw the
emptiness of them all, and who sums up life with the words "Vanity of
vanities, all is vanity." Finally the author ironically advises his
readers to trust only in the good of their labour.
Thus it is shown that the quotation from the Psalms in no way justifies
the belief in the annihilation of beasts, and that the one from
Ecclesiastes has been entirely and wrongfully misunderstood and
interpreted. In no way do the Scriptures deny future life to the lower
animals, but in all ways, if intelligently understood, imply that man
and beasts have, equally, a share in a future life beyond the grave.
As we have found out that the Scriptures, contrary to the popular
belief, do not deny a future life to our lower brethren, the animals,
let us see if they actually declare a future world for them in the same
way that they do for man. Man's immortality, as we know, is taught in
the Old Testament rather by inference than by direct affirmation. This
is possibly due to the fact that the writers of the manifold books,
which were at a late date selected from a large number and made into one
big volume which forms our Bible, thought as a matter of course that man
lived on after death, and never thought it necessary to assert that
which every one knew.
But if we accept the teachings of the Old Testament, inference gives
much stronger testimony to the immortality of animals than it does to
the immortality of man, for while in neither case is there a direct
assertion of a future life, yet there is no direct denial of future life
to the animals, as has been shown to be the case with man.
All Divine Law includes a protection for the beasts, and the laws of
the Sabbath were in essence a spiritual and not only a physical
ordinance. The ancient Scriptures have innumerable provisions against
mistreating or giving unnecessary pain to the lower animals; and these
provisions stand side by side in the Divine Law with those which speak
of man. Note, for example, the prohibition of "seething a kid in its
mother's milk." Again, there is a statement that the ox in treading out
the corn is not to be muzzled, lest he suffer hunger in the presence of
food which he may not eat.
In the following sentences from the Book of Jonah, it is plainly seen
that the Deity has not failed to take notice of the animals: "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?" Again, in the Psalms, "Every beast of
the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the
fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."
Other passages that proclaim God as the protector of beasts, as well as
man, might be cited, for the Bible makes frequent mention of them. Each
of these Scriptures unquestionably proves that God has an interest in
all His creatures, and that each shares His universal love.
No one can deny that Genesis, ninth chapter and fifth verse, refers to a
future life for beasts as well as man; it is a part of the law which was
given to Noah and which was the forerunner of the fuller law handed down
through Moses: "Surely, your blood of your lives will I require; 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."
According to the Mosaic law, an ox which kills a man is subject to
death, exactly as a human murderer. Why should the animal be punished by
death, if he has no soul to be forfeited?
It should be remembered that while there are no Scriptural passages that
definitely promise immortality to animals, there are many which infer
it. Moreover, we should not expect to gain definite information on the
subject from the Bible, for it was written for human beings and not for
animals. If there are few direct references to the future life of man,
surely there must be still fewer to that of animals!
But just as man has for countless ages had within himself an everlasting
witness to his own immortality, so do we find that all who have really
become acquainted with the lower animals, with their unselfishness,
parental love, devotion to duty, generosity, wonderful mentality, and
self-sacrifice--all those who know them realise that they are subject to
the same moral law as man and share with him a future life.
Lamartine beautifully expresses a future hope for his faithful dog:
"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."
Who can say that from the depths of the wide ocean, from regions
unknown, and lands unexplored by man; from the remotest islands of the
sea, and even from the far icy North, there are not animal voices ever
rising in praise of our common Creator? The Bible says: "The Lord is
good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works," and, "All
Thy works shall praise thee, O Lord,"--surely these endorse the above
statements. And why should man define the limit of God's goodness, His
love, care, and attention to the wants and needs of all His creatures?
The distinguished animal authority, Dr. Abercrombie, admitted that
animals have an "immaterial principle" in them, which is distinct from
matter. But he does not say that this principle, or soul, will live
after death, as it is supposed to in man. However, many scholars both of
ancient and modern times hold this opinion. Broderip, in his _Zoological
Recreations_ devotes much space in referring to ancient philosophers and
poets, Christian Fathers, and Jewish Rabbis that have believed in the
immortality of animals. The heroes of Virgil have horses to drive in the
Elysian fields; the Greek poets gave to Orion dogs. Rabbi Manesseh,
speaking of the resurrection, says, "brutes will then enjoy a much
happier state of being than they experienced here," and a number of
scholars, like Philo Judaeus, believe that ferocious beasts will in a
future state lose their ferociousness. Among more recent scholars who
hold this belief is Dr. John Brown, who boldly says: "I am one of those
who believe that dogs have a next world; and why not?" The Rev. J. G.
Wood said: "Much of the present heedlessness respecting animals is
caused by the popular idea that they have no souls, and that when they
die they entirely perish. Whence came that most preposterous idea?
Surely not from the only source where we might expect to learn about
souls--not from the Bible, for there we distinctly read of 'the spirit
of the sons of man,' and immediately afterwards of 'the spirit of the
beasts,' one aspiring, the other not so. And a necessary consequence of
the spirit is a life after the death of the body. Let any one wait in a
frequented thoroughfare for one short hour, and watch the sufferings of
the poor brutes that pass by. Then, unless he denies the Divine
Providence, he will see clearly that unless these poor creatures were
compensated in a future life, there is no such quality as justice."
Eugene T. Zimmerman says: "I cannot help but think that my faithful dog,
and playmate of my younger days, will have some form of a future life."
We do not recognise an absolute spiritual barrier of separation between
man and animals. Man is an animal--the first of animals; but it does not
of necessity follow that he will always continue to be so. By what right
does he presume to deny a soul and a continued spiritual existence to
lower animals? Are we not all of us fellows and co-workers, partakers of
the same universal life, sharing alike a common source and destiny? This
has always been the faith and insight of the child, whose simple wisdom
we ever turn to for truth and guidance. And in our clearer realisation
of the oneness of all life, we will extend to all creatures the Golden
Rule, showing them the love and consideration we would have shown to
us.
* * * * *
The HUMAN SIDE of BIRDS.
By ROYAL DIXON With 4 illustrations in color and 32 in black-and-white.
Cloth, 8vo.
With every statement based on fact, and every fact of unusual interest,
the author shows that many qualities of and occupations in the human
world have their parallels in the bird world.
_Here is bird study from a new angle--instead of treating our bird
neighbors as labeled specimens to be described in scientific terms,
they are treated as friends, and a careful study is made of their
disposition, character, emotions and "thought processes."_
Mr. Dixon tells of birds who are policemen, athletes, divers, bakers;
birds who maintain courts of justice and military organizations and many
other curious types.
BUY FROM YOUR BOOKSELLER
but let us send you the news about books
To the readers of this book who furnish name and address (a postal card
will do), we will gladly send, free of charge, announcements of our new
publications. Our illustrated holiday pamphlets with colored picture
covers are unusually attractive. Books may then be ordered through your
local bookshop.
We employ no agents or canvassers
FREDERICK A. STOKES COMPANY
447-448 Fourth Avenue, New York, N. Y.
Publishers FREDERICK A. STOKES COMPANY New York
End of Project Gutenberg's The Human Side of Animals, by Royal Dixon