376 
ON THE NON-IMMORTALITY OF ANIMALS. 
is employed in catching his prey, procuring food, satisfying his 
desires, and enjoying his transient existence. 
But let us go still lower in creation, and take for example the 
ephemeron of the moment that dances in the sunbeam, whose be¬ 
ginning and whose end are encompassed by the same hour. Such 
a being is brought into existence, satisfies its desires, continues its 
species, and then dies and makes room for others. What possible 
purpose can it answer to endow such a being with an immortal soul] 
What faculties does it possess separate from the body ] 
What is our idea of an immortal soul in a state of happiness ] Is 
it not as a being free from debasing thoughts and passions, and filled 
with love and reverence for its Maker, and capable of admiring 
and comprehending the mighty works of creation 1 But what in 
animals can we find resembling this 1 The best, or at any rate the 
most striking, illustration of the divine principle in man is when 
we behold or read of a highly-gifted being laid upon the couch of 
sickness;—every portion of the body either racked with pain, or 
rendered powerless by disease, and yet the unconquerable spirit 
soaring, as it were, above its mortal companion, surveying the past 
and contemplating the future, breathing forth the purest benevo¬ 
lence, and beaming with intelligence and intellect. 
What in the most highly-gifted animal can we find in the least 
corresponding with this ] 
Mr. Karkeek considers that the mind and the soul are one and 
the same; that the mind of the brute differs from that of man in 
degree, and not in kind; the former being immortal—ergo, the 
latter must be so likewise. On this subject I do not intend enter¬ 
ing ; for I take it that no human intellect will ever unravel the mys¬ 
tery. It is one of those subjects which I imagine is reserved for 
another state of being to understand. 
But I contend that we have no right thus to reason upon such 
an hypothesis as if it was a demonstrated fact. The soul of man 
may be distinct from the mind, or it may not. Supposing the latter 
be the fact, is there any difficulty in conceiving that an all-power¬ 
ful Being can constitute an animal with a mind, if we choose to 
call it so, as well as a body, adapted for the present state alone; 
Avhilst man is formed with an intellect capable of comprehending 
things unseen, and conceiving of things unknown—of embracing 
the past and contemplating the future, and, thus constituted and 
endowed, prepared for a state of immortal existence. 
In animals we find a perfect and beautiful adaptation of the 
means to the end. They are not, as Mr. Karkeek well observes, 
formed merely for the purposes of man, but to fill up every void of 
nature with life and enjoyment. This, indeed, is the chief end of 
their existence. Born for the present, for the present only are 
