The Human Side of Animals Part 14

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 pa.s.sages of Scripture which have been quoted. By such interpretation, man pa.s.ses 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 pa.s.sages 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 scholars.h.i.+p 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 "peris.h.i.+ng" 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage: "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 pa.s.sage 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.

[Ill.u.s.tration: MEN CRUELLY TAKE THE LIVES OF THESE DENIZENS OF THE WILDWOOD, REJOICING IN THEIR SLAUGHTER, BUT THE ANIMAL SOUL THEY CANNOT KILL.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: TWO PALS. THERE IS BETWEEN MAN AND DOG A KINs.h.i.+P 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 pa.s.sage:

"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of man, that G.o.d 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 a.s.sert 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 a.s.sertion 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 pa.s.sages that proclaim G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sages 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 G.o.d'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 s.p.a.ce 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 pa.s.s 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.