516 
REPLY TO MR. W. C. SPOONER’S PAPER 
most clearly revealed in the New Testament, yet the Testament 
affords not a hint that the animating principles of animals are to 
be dissolved along with their bodies*.” 
Warburton says, '' T think it may be strictly demonstrated that 
man has an immaterial soul; but, then, the same arguments which 
prove that, prove that the souls of all living animals are imma¬ 
terial.” 
Bishop Butler thought there was nothing unreasonable in sup¬ 
posing that the souls of brutes were immortal, though far inferior 
to the dignity of the human soul, and not capable of such a high 
degree of bliss. 
Euler says, “ the perception of sensations is an act of tKe soul’s 
spirituality ; for a body can never acquire ideas. The dog that 
barks when he sees me is certainly convinced that I exist; for 
my presence excites in him the idea of my person. Even the 
meanest insects are assured that bodies exist out of them, and they 
could not have this conviction but by the sensation excited in their 
soulst.” 
The Rev. John Wesley published a sermon entirely devoted to 
this subject:—They (animals) shall be delivered,” he says, “ from 
the bondage of corruption into glorious liberty; even a measure, 
according as they are capable, of the liberty of the children of 
God.” 
Dr. Cudworthf also follows in the same track; and Leibnitz§, 
Dr. Samuel Clarke I, and Dr. Wardlaw**, beside many others, 
authors of equal celebrity, maintained that the immaterial thinking 
substance in man and brute is, in its essential properties, the 
same; and that all created existence, of every possible description, 
must be dependent entirely, and unceasingly dependent, on the 
life-giving God. He may, indeed, if he pleases, annihilate them 
on the dissolution of their bodies; and so he might, if he thought 
fit, annihilate the souls of men. 
I now come to your second proposition,—‘‘ That it is not reason¬ 
able to consider that animals are immortal ,—for two reasons:— 
one, that there would be no use in their being so; and the other, 
that their faculties are not constituted for immortality.” 
If we direct our attention to the busy theatre of animated exist¬ 
ence, where scenes of wonder and enchantment are displayed in 
endless variety around us—where life in its ever-changing forms 
meets the eye in every region, and where every element and every 
clime is peopled by multitudinous races of sensitive beings, who 
* Barclay’s History of Opinions on Life. f Letters, vol. i. 
f Cudworth, Inst. Syst. § Leibnitz, Theodicee. 
II First and Second Defence. ** Lect. on Eccl., vol. i, p. 166. 
