1875.] Animal Depravity. 421 
themselves disease or perhaps death. If the gluttonous 
animal gives unchecked play to its propensities, does not the 
temperate animal, like the temperate man resist temptation 
and exercise a certain amount of self-restraint ? Is it not, for 
so doing, equally entitled to credit ? 
The Rev. G. Henslow, in his able and interesting work on 
the ‘‘ Theory of Evolution of Living Things,” makes some 
remarks which must here be taken into consideration if only 
for their cool naiveté of assumption. Says this author :— 
*“In obeying those laws of self-preservation and propagation 
which have been impressed upon it, it is extremely probable 
that wild animals eat and drink not for the purpose of eating 
and drinking, but to maintain bodily life only. The laws 
of propagation are obeyed, but union is probably not re- 
sorted to for mere union’s sake. Animals show no signs of 
distinguishing the object from the means. Man alone can 
see that eating is pleasant, and so often eats for the mere 
sake of eating, and similarly of other pleasures.” 
If animals eat only to maintain life it is somewhat strange 
that they are so extremely nice in the quality of their food. 
Birds and wasps, in their visits to our gardens, select fruit 
with a care surpassing that of any human epicure. They 
attack only the finest pears, peaches, &c., and of these they 
eat only the sunny side. Mr. Henslow confounds the result 
of an action with the motive. Man, at least in his adult state, 
and possibly the higher animals, know that the result of 
eating is the prolongation of life, and that abstinence would 
be ultimately fatal. But neither man nor animal, as a rule, 
eats from any other motive than to avoid the pains of hunger 
and to secure the pleasures of eating. We will even venture 
to say that the less ultimate results are held in view in the 
gratification of any physical appetite the more perfectly those 
very results are obtained. As regards the ‘laws of propa- 
gation.” We can bring forward facts proving that among 
animals union 7s resorted to for mere union’s sake. Into 
what absurdities men are led by their notions of what is 
** extremely probable !” 
It may be urged that the moderation of an animal may 
spring, not from its greater power of self-control, but from its 
feebler appetites. We cannot deny that this is a possible 
explanation. But it may, with equal right, be extended to 
man also. Who knows that the temptation which the saint 
resists is really as strong as that to which the sinner suc- 
cumbs? Are we not, in cases of reformation of character, 
frequently left in painful doubt whether the ‘‘ convertite ” is 
forsaking his vices or his vices forsaking him ? 
