The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, May 3, 1896, Page 19

THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, SUNDAY, MAY 3, 1896. HE question as to whether the lower - animals bave immortal souls has no interest for those who do not believe in the immor- tality of the humansoul. But for those who do admit the existence and immortality of ‘souls in- men the question as it refers to the inferior animals becomes one of the most’ complex and bewildering that it is possiblé for a conservative thinker to conceive,. involving. ethical considera- tions. .of the- ‘profoundest importance. Some Oriental religionists are vegetarians because they believe that animals have souls, and that. to kill- them for food is to check: that. ‘soul-development thich an | embodied ence assures. But how can the lower animals - be admitted to have | sonls; with' ‘the 'necessary coroliary ‘that | their souls are inferior in organizatiom or deveiopment. to: ours, Wwithout pursuing | the provosition to its logical cbnclusion | ‘and assuming that orgamc life inferior to | that of the lower animals is itself similarly | endowed 2 ‘And. if this reasoning’ be ac- cepted; whereih :is it.a smaller sin to eat végetables than meat? This is ‘only the beginning of the in- Guiry.. Inorganic life is unmistakably in, ed- with wonderful and incompre- hensible forces. : What is more marvelous or more’ indicative of superior} inherent intelligence an the phenomenon of crystallization?” - Read Ruskin’s “*Ethics of the Dust” and discover how the ary facts of | science -iii the matter of crystal- lizatidn are -illiminated with the brilliant | teuch of a speculative genins, Turn then fo, Flsmmarion’s “Flowers of the Sky” nd’ find ‘@ similar light thrown on the vels'of the-heavens. At the extreme ite end Of. the scale dig’ into the | sz#ding revelations made by that great Jesuit priest; Father Bayma, in his “‘Ele- | ments of Molepular Mechanics” and find therefrom thé surging, intelligent and in- cessant activities animating theé conduct of a molecule. & . For that matter the air, food and water | wliich sustain’” our lives are swarming | with . minute. ng creatures, each pro- ducing its kind with -strict integrity, and these.-lives are sacrificed in countless millions every.hour to our voracity. To‘ bring -the “subject -nearer home, we can- not -think"or. moye the smallest muscle | without destroying the lives of many of | thé -living'cells, each with its own order of intelligence, constituting our or- ganism.. The ‘argument leads us into a boitomless morass. Tt-was for the purpose of presenting the opinions of sofe able thinkers -hereabout on -this'subject that THE CALL secured the stbjoined essajs. They will be found to | differ as widely as the divergent training and -temperinjents of the contributors | could permit, and they are all the more interesting for that. In papersso short a full presentation of individual views was | impossible,-byt running through them all is 4 fine reverénce that ennobles the treat- meit. It is.a.pity that the theosophical contributor ¢onld not expand the enticing theory. of bis cult and show that all indi- vidual manifestations of life or force are but fragments of one grand comprehensive soul which we may conveniently call God, | these warking through evolution to per- | fection -and. final re-entry to the parent | spirit. It is delicious to see Mr. Harrison | digging up -Wesley's forestalling of Dar- | winism - and..presenting the ripe con- | clusions of Lombrosc, the great alienist, | on’ conscience in_the lower animals. All tne” other contributors have things of special interést-to say; but they can speak for themselves. & 3 One _contributor, Professor George H. Howison, presents the most advanced posi- tion taken by those able modern thinkers who - are. deeply learned in materiali<m and-who eniploy its discoveries to illumi- pate the unknowable. Hence his paper has a nnique ihterest. His logic is harder than that of .fhé theosophists, though the two methods touch at yisible points—par- ticularly that in which the mind or soul or life-principle is regarded as a controiling | force instead qf anincident of-life. The subject.ys by no means one for idle speculation_alone, for an intelligent re- spect for it reaches to ihe development of | buman character itself. Just as a concep- tion of an immortal spirit within us has a wholesome effect in teaching us right copduot iowafd ourselves and to all those whom Jesus defired as our neighbors, so the'recognition of a similar principle in the organization of inferior creatures serv- ing us or existing at our mercy produces both direct and reacting effects which make us finer and better. Here science | and metaphysics join hands and teach us the'blood and spiritual relationship of all living" things. The direct kinship be- tween -us and the lower animals which Darwin failed. to discover, though half- ‘believing it -to exist, was not a more worthy conception than that of the hu- mane German; Henry Berg, who founded in America the great movement for the prevention -of* cruelty to animals. The cultivation of pity and mercy for the weak of all kinds, whether human or brute, is a refining and building up of character on the part of those who cherish the senti- ment. In & desire to turn attention into a wholeseme channel this symposium is presented. 5 A LAYMAN’S OPINION. Like It 1s That Dumb Animals, Man, Possess a Moral Motor. William Greer Harrison.believes that esch animal has a soul, modified as to its potency by the conditions of the organization on the body. Hequotes no less a religious authority than John Wesl¢y, founder of Methodism, with Teierence to the theory of evolution. Mr. Har- rison illusirates his views by an example in the shape of & dog of remarkable intelligence which he owns. From personal observation Mr, Harrison hds sutistied himself that horses and dogs think, feel, origi - fate and copclude.: " 0¥ xinste, reason, calcu Have Dunib Animals Souls ? This is 4n awkward question because it of what we credit man with—souls? As this is intended to be a popular discussion and not an academic essay on souls, I will assume that the propounder of the ques- tion regards the soul in the popular sense as being the moral motor of man, pos- sessed of the capacity to feel, to think, to direct, to suffer, butnot to die. Popularly regarded the soul is immortal. Plato gives a soul to the universe. Fol- lowing the Platonic line of reasoning there isa soul in everything, but what we are called upon to consider is not so much the universality of soul as the soul ego in the individual. ¢ To those who follow Darwin there should not be any difficulty in believing that in- ferior animals possess, equally with man, that something which we call soul. Nor should the Darwinian hesitate about de- claring his belief in the eyolution of the soul. Accepting the Darwinian theory of evolution of the body as including the soul, there can be but one answer to the question as to whether or not dumb animals possess souls. Logically the an- swer is in the affirmative. In this connec- tion, I would refer to an authority rarely quoted with reference to the theory of evolution. I referto John Wesley. 1In his “Compendium of Natural Philosophy’’ Mr. Wesley practically accepts what, many years later, Darwin projected as the doc- trine of evolution. He goes somewbat beyond Darwin in his analysis of the soul, and differs from Darwin in regarding the soul as a separate entity, beine of the body but superior toit. Mr. Wesley is, however, mei with the very same problem which is now presented, and, with a frankness and breadth of view remarkable in a church- man of his days, he admits the difficulty and deals with it. He begins by settin, forth that every form in matter is linke to every other form, and that from the marine worm to man there is a com- plete chain of connection. He sets forth the Darwinian theory in the transforma- tion of the reptile to the bird, of the bird to the quadruped, and of the quadruped to gt e e sugges- tively: Are the souls of inferior animals subject to the process of evolution, which he admits culminates in man? He does not dogmatize on this point, but snggests that there may be a soul primarily of the same nature in all animals, but that the soul in each animal may be subject to con- ditions peculiar to itself. But a close read- ing of Mr. Wesley’s thoughts in this con- nection indicates that he believed that all animals have souls. When he reaches the question as to the immortality of souls he is disposed to contine himself to a positive agsertion as to the immortality of the soul of man without absolutely rejecting the theory that the souls of all animals are alike immortal. When Mr. Wesley considered the sub- ject many eminent men were of the ofin- ion that brutes were mere machines. This Mr. Wesley indignantly denied, claiming that as brutes gave clear indication of the possession of reason, and that as they have a perception of both pleasure anc pain, they are not mere animated mechanisms, but are possessed of sowething imma- terial, and therefore of the nature of a soul. Permit me to quote one or two para- irawbs from Mr, Wesley. After giving is theory of evolution as already referred to he says: ‘‘Between the lowest and high- est degree of corporeal and spiritual per- fection there is an almost infinite number of intermediate degrees; the resuit of these degrees composes the universal chaip. This unites all beings, connects all worlds, comprehends all the spheres.” He tnen adds: “The polypus links the vegetable to the animzl; the flying-squir- rel unites the birds to the quadruped; the ape bears affinity to the quadruped and the man.” Then reasoning in reference to the brute creation, he asks the uestion, “Do they reason or do they not? Whence arise the differ- ent. qualities and tempers, not, only in_different kinds and species, but even in the individuals of one species, as in dogs, cats and horses? Are they mere machines? If we assert they are, it inevitably follows that they neither see nor hear, nor- smell, nor feel, for of this mere machines are utterly incapable. Much less can they know or remember anything or move anyv otherwise than they are impelled. Butall this, as num- berless experiments show, is quite con- trary to matter of fact. On the other hand, if they are not mere machines, if they have either sensation, or knowledge, or memory, or a principle of self-motion, then they are not mere matter; they have in them an immaterial princivle. But, of what kind? Will it die with the body or not? Is it mortal or immortal? Here, A§nin, we are got into an unknown path. ‘We cannot order our speech by reason of darkness.” Mr. Wesley then devoted a churter to the question, ‘“What is the soul?” and he honestly and candidly ad- mits that he doesn’t know. - Again—and you will notice that Mr. Wesley was very fond of asking questions— he asks, “Has God created as many spe- involves the putting of two other ques- tions, namtly, are animals dumb and what 1s a soal? {dpresume what is meant wounld ~be expresséd by asking the question, Are all the aninials inferior v man Dossessed | | | | | cies of souls as of animals, or is there only one species of soul in animals, differently modified according to the diversity of or- ganization?” And, like the wise man that he was, he says, “This question is abso- lutely impenetrable by us,”” and con- tinues, “All we can say concerning it is this: if God, who has always acted by the most simple means, has thought proper to vary the spiritual perfection of animals, merely by organization, his wisaom has so ordammed it.” Mr. Wesley evidently concluded that there is nothing in science, nothing in reason, nothing in religion that forbids a belief that a horse, or a dog, or any other animal is possessed of a soul. eviewing the question, from personal vbservation, I commit myself to a belief that there is an individual soul in each form of animated nature. I have satis- fied myself that the horse and the dog think, feel, originate, reason, calculate and conclude. I see, therefore, no reason for denying to them what the magnificent egotist, man, claims for himself—the pos- session of a moral motor. The great Ital- ian scientist, Lombroso, asserts that animals not only sin, but are conscious of the sin, and that they have, therefore, a moral nature; that they are virtuous and that they lack virtue, that they are con- scious of a law Foverningtheir acts, and that they know that any violation of that law is a crime, and, therefore, they have a conscience. Now, if animals "have a knowledge of right and wrong, if obe- dient to that knowledge they live righteously, or if in defiance of that knowledge they commit crime, are they not pussessed of a force that is not material? Is not that directing force a soul? The great distinction made be- tween man and the inferior animals is in the recognition by man of God and in man’s_ possession of the art of speech. How do we know that animals do not resognize God, and is it demonstrated that they have not the power to communicate their thoughts? Being a lover of animals and a student of their ways I have satisfied myself that, while we do not understand them, they understand us. I am also sat- isfied that animals do communicate thoughts. It is true that we are not yet in possession of all the means which ani- s employ to communicate their ideas, but any observant person can determine for himself the fact that ideas are commu- nicated by the lower animals to each other. Are not love, affection and grati- tude the highest qualities in man, and do they not proceed from the highest na- ture in man, namely, the soul? Are we prepared to deny that the dog and the horse and many other animals exhibit love, affection, gratitude? I am not pre- pared to doubt what my constant observa- tion confirms. Perhaps one of the noblest ?ullities in man is the sense of duty, and claim :hat that sense is not wanting in the horse and the dog. It may be urged that domesticated animals imitate in some respect the quaiities of their owners, but there is no evidence to confirm this suggestion. On the contrary, I think the domestication is the result of a sense of aflinity between the animals and their owners. I think the dog recognizes in the man asoul having in it the nature of his own, and that the sympathy which un- doubtedly exists between man and his domestic animals is a spirit or soul affinity. To attribute to instinct all the acts performed by the lower animals is simply to exhibit our own ignorance, our assumption of superiority and our spiendid egotism. I have in my possession a fox- terrier. She has been with us some seven years and she exhibits all the qualities which indicate the possession of reason and reflection. She has a_complete indi- viduality of her own, and has very little in_common with her species. Iam sat- isfied that she knows right from wrong; that she understands the mood of every person in the family; that she does not take the family asa whole, but separates 1t and distinguishes it. With some mem- bers she is most intimate and exhibits a tenderness and affection for them that is thoroughly human. With other members she is polite butdistant. I have never known her to make a mistake with visit- ors. She invariably attaches herself to those who are fond of dogs and she avoids those who are not. She has a way of making known .her every want am{ is very persistent in having ‘that want sup- plied. What has attracted my observa- tion must have attracted thousands of other observers, and were it not for the weak but common pride of humanity I think all who have carefully studied the inferior animals will admit that they have, subject to modifications, all that we claim for ourselves. What I mean by this is that each animal has a soul modified as to its potency by the eonditions of the organ- ization of the body. I —— FROM A PAULIST FATHER. Sclence Warrants Bellef In the Immortality of All Animal Souls. Rev. H. H. Wyman, the head of the Paulist I 1 W | ! “Why may we not suppose that animals P = s 7 F 5 g G0 e infip, U “Each animal has a soul modified as to its potency by the conditions of the organization of the body,” says Mr. Harrison. ‘ ‘This is a question of philosophy, not of theology,” says Father Wyman. order in this City, while conceding that the belief in the immortality of all animated creatures is warranted by science, takes occa- sion to observe that the opinions of eminent psychologists that the animal soul is immortal furnishes, by way of analogy, a strong argu- ment for the immortality of the rational soul, besides removing the strongest grounds upon which materialism rests. Father Wyman maintains that the question of immortal souls does not belong to the domain of theology, but of philosophy. ¥ SRS Have the Lower Animals Immortal Souls? This is a question of philosophy—not of theology. The Christian revelation does not touch it, therefore liberty of opinion concerning it is allowed without prejudice to faith. The older metaphysicians, as for instance St. Thomas of Aquin, held that the substantiality or the existence of the soul when separated from the body was true'of the soul of man only—not of that of the lower animal, because man alone has intellect or reason and the moral faculty, which, alone, as they assumed, necessitated an immaterial or spiritual nature. They considered that a soul which has only the sentient faculty or re- ceives impressions from and acts only through physical organs and eannot form an abstract judgment and choice, is a mere principle of operation of amaterial nature, and, therefore, cannot subsist by itself. Nothing is so difficult in science, it seems to me, as the discovery of what the inner conscionsness of an animal is. But re- cently the study of comparative psychol- ogy has bronght out o many facts con- cerning the power of the higher animal instinct that many eminent psychologists are now inclined to think that the animal soul is, to say the least, immaterial, and consequently immortal. This opinion. by 19 RS P B < R i Ay “Yes; animals have souls,” says Dr. Allen Griffiths. are immortal ?” asks Professor Howison. way of analogy, certainly furnishes a strong argument for the immortality of the rational soul, and, besides, removes the strongest ground upon which materialism rests. On the other hand, 1 think there 1s no danger that this theory will lead to a misundersianding of the infinite difference between the simplest act of human veason and the highest form of anima! intelli- gence. Every one can see that the animals do not reason, talk, invent or progress as have all races of men, and that they have not the moral notions of right, wrong, justice, injustice, etc., which faculties, if they could belong to the mere animal natura, would be plainly manifested in each indi- vidual of the genus. While it is true that animals do sometimes exhibit such ex- traordinary intellizence that ic is difficult to distinguish some of their acts from those which are purely rational, still we are not forced, on this account, to ascribe reason to them as belonging to their na- ture any more than we are compelled to conclude that all men have hypnotic power because a few have it. Magicians, medinms and witches also sometimes do wonders that are beyond the powers of the natural man, and demonolozy shows that animals, even swine, have in some instances been subject to spiritual powers which are above their nature. It is not my intention, however, to dis- cuss the nature of these occult influences, so I will proceed with the philosophical argument in favor of the immortality of the souls of all animated creatures, Philosophers and physicists have, gen- erally speaking, held that living organic matter is essentiailly different from that which is lifeless and inorganic. The ‘*principie of life,”” as it is called, is what distinguishes the nature of organic mat- ter generically from that which is inor- ganie. This vital principle if it has departed from an organism cannot by any natural process, as far as we know, be reproduced, nor can it be originated irom inorganic matter by any known chemical action. Now, since God hascreated thie principle of life it is only reasonable to suppose that he preserves it forever, and it would be absurd to think that he annihilates it when the organism dies. Natural science teaches that nothing is annihilated. The belief in the immortality of animal souls enhances the value of their lives in our estimation, and so prevents cruelty to them and the wanton and useless killing of them. Thus from a mere speculative theory it becomes a practical belief regu- lating our conduct toward them. It shoula not, however, prevent us from slaughter- ing them for food or destroyins them when they are Feam Physiology .eaches the necessity of some animalfood 1or man, and there are lower animals that are by nature wholly carnivorous. One might as well argue that the belief m the im- mortality of the human soul would make capital punishment and ail wars unjustifi- able as to maintain that animals may not be killed for the sustenance of man and the preservation of other animals which are more useful but defenseless, and for the saving of the valuable products of the soil. The universal practice of the human race. with the exception of the de- generate Buddhists who are burdened with the irrational superstition that the souls of men live again after death in ani- wals, has sanctioned the sacrifice of ani- mal hife for the benefit of man. We may conclude, then, I think, that the beliefin the immortality of the souls of all animated creatures is warranted by science, and is favorable to the doctrine of man’s immortality. Ky 76- #‘/"‘A‘- —_— WHY NOT IMMORTAL? The Advanced Ground Taken by Professor George H. How- ison. The position taken by George H. Howison, LL.D., professor of intellectual and moral phil- osophy and civil polity et the University of Cal- ifornia, is quite an advanced one. The wide | reputation of the writer asa thinker and a | leader of thought will command for his views a careful consideration. Why may we not sup- pose that animals are immortal? he asks. | “Will men be less so, if they are 2" The Soul in Dumb Arimals. In the few paragraphsat my disposal it is, of course, impossible to do any suffi- cient justice tosuch a question as that of a soul in dumb animals. Nothing finally convincing could be said about it except by arguing at such length and with such subtle refinements as would be foreign to the whole aim and spirt of the daily newspaper. But the readers of such ¢on- tributions as this, I suppose, care more to know what the writer’s opinions on the question are than what are the arguments by which he supports them. I'am accordingly ready to say that I have long been convinced that all animals have a principle at the root of their being which cannot justly be called anything but a soul ora mind. For that matter I think the same is true of all living beings of every sort, plants as well as animals. In short, the truth is that life in every form, 1 Rhsveure: and in all its degrees, is consequent upon mind, and comes from it and by help of it, instead of mind’s coming from life, and being fed from life and sustained by life. The profoundest and most coherent phil- osophy, the exactest and most compre- hensive science, alike point to this as the | truth, and tend alike to reverse the more obvious and superficial judgment which | makes mind dependent upon life and |life dependent upon matter and mo- tion. In opposition to this material- istic and mechanical explanation of life and mind Dr. Le Conte rightly argues that nothing but a mind, and a inind resident in the living being, can ex- plain the subtle, the complex, the incon- i ceivably intricate, the incessantly develop- ing processes of life. He conceives of this | resident mind as the one and only cosmic mind, or God. But I would goon from this | and say that, while I can attach no really | intelligible meaning to the residence of | the divine or cosmic intelligence in each | separate living being, I can readily under- | stand the need of each being’s own mind, | resident in it in the sense of being its own | ana its own exclusively, in order to its living, its acting and its growing. This general philosophical tenet of the | primacy of the mind ove:life and matter— | a tenet for the proofs of which, remote as they are, the present is no place—is the | chief and, to my mind, the sufficient basis | for a belief that mind is co-extensive with | life, and that, therefore, every animal has | asoul. There are, indeed, manifold cor- roborative proofs of this to be drawn from the study and analysis of the endless de- tails in animal life and habit ana bena- | vior. It would be idle here to attempt to | go into these. But it may be pertinent to say that if one demanded a summary statement of the reason why animals should be credited with a mental bemng and a real self the answer might well be: The same reason, in general, that leads us to believe in the personal mind, the real self, of our fellow-men. As we only judge that we have fellow-men and that they | are real personal minds from the nature of | the movements which they make and the perceptible actions they perform, all with | an apparently intelligent purpose, soin the | dumb creation our notice of movements and actions that serve ends analogous | to those which the purposeful acts of men secure leads us to infer a like mental re- ality for them. I know the round of objections to this, | but they do not seem to me conclusive, nor even well-founded. It is easy to lay down a distinction between consciousness and seli-consciousness, to say that nothing but the self-conscious being should be called a soul and to maintain that no brute ives any evidence of self-consciousness. ut I much doubt if consciousness does not necessarily involve self-consciousness: Linsist that the general fact of self-con- sciousness is the vital matter, and that its degree is & minor consideration, and that a deficient degree of self-consciousness is therefore no proof that a soul does not ex- ist. The argument, were it valid, would prove the soullessness of every infant., of every child suffering from arrested devel- opment, and of everybody but the one possessing the maximum possible self-con- sciousness. In brief, it would permit no soul but God, or else would teach that the soul is ouly gradually acquired, and that, too, by but few. But I wonder how many of these objectors have ever thought it out | to the bottom—how a soul, once wholly unpossessed and non-existent, couid ever get to be. I know, too, it is said that speech is the test of mind, and that, therefore, the very dumbness of the brutes is their damnation. He who speaks not has no_general ideas, it is claimed ; and general ideas are the life | of thinking, of purpose, of ideals, of spirit, of soul. But the possession of general ideas in the sense of mere generalizations from things perceived, is proof of nothing more than a certain degree attained 1n the use oi self-consciousness. The beart of the matter is not reached till we ask what are the clews to possible self-consciousness of this sort—a compara- tiveiy poor sort—and thus what are the traly general ideas, primarf. undenied, generic and engendering. Tnen we see that these are such thoughts as time, space, cause, the true, the beautiful, the good. And I ask, Do not all living crea- tures that perceive at all prove by their perceptions and by their actions suited to their aims that they have every one of these thoughts? It seems to me undeni- able that whatever perceives, even in the least degree, ana acfs upon that perceiv- inf. proves thereby that it is a comnlex of all the a priori_thoughts, be the deveiop- ment of its victorious career in apply- ing those thougnts to the canceling of their limitation as low as it may. All this development is a question merely of degree; it is- the question of kind that tells; and this is settled by the plainly inferable fact tbat the animal is in manifest possession of the elementary constituents in the system of thought, namely, time, space, number, cavuse and all the forms of the ideal. The doctrine of psychologists, like Wundt and those who {follow him, to the effect that the apparent reasonings of animals are only apparent and are the mere results of association, seems to me to be a case of cart before the borse. _Association itself needs explan- tion and cannot really be explained except as founded on reasoning. lgumb animais may indeed be unable in their present state of existence to reflect on theiir rea- soning and analyze it as logic-making human beings do, but this, again, is only a matter of degree in their development., Thev.actually and instinctively do reason in spite of that,and one may fairly er that they can be seen in the very act of reasoning. : “In their present state of existence!” some one may echo. ‘“‘And are we, then, to suppose that animals are immortal in- stead of being the beasts that perish?” Well, why not? Will men be less so if they are?” Why should we grudge to the silent makers and interpreters of signsthe chance fora larger being which we so much value for ourselves? They surely need it at least as much as we, and will their bliss in it in the least diminish ours? A THEOSOPHICAL VIEW. Dr. Allen Griffiths Avers ThatiDar= win Guessed but Half the 2 Truth. Dr. Allen Griffiths, one of the leading Theoso= phists of this City, furnishes some interesting views and arguments on the subject of soul | evolution. He is an evolutionist of an extreme type, and believes that the souls of plants, i animals and men are necessarily immortal, each rising through cycles of evelution, from plane to plane, in its progress (no matter from how low a state) to divinity. As Theosophists View It. Yes; animals have souls. This is on the authority of Theosophy, the wisdom religion, which in turn rests upon no narrower basis than justice, com- mon-sense and logic. Theosophy gives to every animate creature a soul—and eyen to every inanimate object. But the soul of an animal is not the same as that im- prisoned in the human; nor that of the stone like that of the plant. The smallest atom in the universe 1s’ the prison-house of a zerm that will, in the ages to come, evolve into a god—or else this i5 a disor- derly universe, and life and justice itself is a farce. Having said so much, and having no wish to be dogmatic, it is only fair to the wisdom religion, Mr. Editor, that I should be permitted at Jeast a very brief argu- ment to sustain these statements. Why do animals have souls? Because all nature with its innumerable universes exists but for the evolution of the soul. { What is the soul ? A ray of divinity and lone of its expressions. How does it evolve? In great cycles from the highest to the lowest and back again to_the highest.. The cycles proceed in ascending spiral from plane to plane, and each plane is a degree higher than its predecessor. This is the divine law. It is mamifested so clearly in all things thut all deep thinkers | have ~ recognized it. Even Spencer ex- pounds it when his philosophy is sifted to t Sweeping throughout cosmos this uviversal and undeviating law of periodicity operates as terms of activity and inactivity, motion and rest. Day and | night, the seasons of the vear, the ebb and flood of restless tides, the circulation of the blood, growth and decaw, youth ana old age—everywhere and in all things is this law manifested. And these periods mark the ebb and flow of that evolutionary wave of divinity which bears the visible and invisible contents of cosmos upon its bosom toward the goal of a higher life. ‘What has all this to do with the soul of { an animal? Everything. Itisa necessary step in a rational explanation of evolution | itself. Bear with me a moment longer. | At ‘the beginning of a great period of | evolntion—not the beginning of infinite duration, for that has no beginning and | no end—Deity rises upon the plane of oo- jective manifestation and emanates count- less rays. Isthis mysticallanguage? Does it convey no meaning to your mind? Re- member that an explanation of the sim- Pplest laws of electricity would be even more mystical to the Digger Indian. Remem- ber, too, that my own powers of clarity are but human, and seek the truth for your- self. But possibly vou catch a glimpse of it now. Well, then, each of these rays of Divinity manifesting itself upon this ob- ective plane is the vesture of an immortal soul destined to career through infinity as a Pilgrim of Eternity, as a tireless traveler of the cycles of necessity. It is constituted of the essence, quality, potentiality and nfinite duration of its source, Deity. Upon our earth the soul—whether that of tne mineral, vegetable, animal or hu- man—began its evolution in the lowest elemental kingdom, which is below even the mineral, and began its task of evolving, I i | expanding, growing to that stage where its outer garb was the stone or the metal. In each kingdom there are vast experiences to be obtained, and each new experience is a step forward in its progress toward divinity. And when the soul in the peb- ble exhausted the possibilities for develop- mentin that kingdom, it passed on up to the vegetable kingdom. The stone becomes a plant, the plant becomes a beast, the beast pecomes a man, and the man becomes a god. Do not mistake. It was notthe soul that was a plant ora stone or a beast. It was and is the soul that wasand is im- prisoned in these varying outer garbs and each kingdom is but one of the innunier- able links in its endless chain of evolution. In each-new and higher garb come greater possibilities for expansion. The stone can-, not feel, but the plants can; the plant can- not suffer, but the beast can; the beast can- not will, but man can. Does evolution cease with man? Isit seventy years of life and an eternity of bliss or misery? No: this Continued on Twenticth Page. NEW TO-DAY. CURSED. For 16 Years Compelled to Eat a Pound of Poison Weekly. Saved at Last by a Wonderful Antl- dote~An Almostincredible Story of Suffering Told by a Louisianian. It is wonderful what a human being will en- dure. Just look around and see the people day after day toying recklessly with life and henlth, the most precious things we have. Nature will not be imposed upon. Bhe is bound to get even—io square accounts. So man starts & habit, but nature continues it, and, for punishment, he can’t quit. Take the case of George Rathban. For sixteen years he had to fill his system with poison to keéep from going insane, and he would still be in the rack of torture had not No-To-Bac cured him—cured the habit of sixteen years in sixteen da; Read his letter: BONTITA, La., August 18, 1895. Gentlemen: I have been completely cured of the tobacco habit by using No-To-Bac. I used to- Dbacco over seventey ars, four pounds a month, and I believe No-To'Bac will cure any one that will take half a boxX. I ook six tablets one day, three the next, three the next, and one the next day, and 1 was completely cured. After that [ had'to take eight more tablets to cure me of nery- ousness. Twenty-one tablets, you sec, inade a final cure, and all in_sixteen diys. I can very lighly recommend No-To-Bac to all who are cursed_with the tobacco habit and want to get riG ofit. One pox will cure the worst case I ever saw. Very truly yours, GEO. RATHBAN. Now, dear reader, tobacco-user for a little or along time, don’t say ‘‘Ican’t be cured.” No- To-Bac makes it so easy to quit, and will do you so much good for your nerves, blood and manhood. You don’t have to take our word for it. Buy it from your own druggist under absolute guarantee of cure. Get our booklet “Don’t Tobacco Spit and Smoke Your Life Away.” Written guarantee and free samples mailed for the asking. Address The Ster] ing Remedy Co., Chicago or New York.