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.