The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-02-13

through life to be disappointed in death.
Hence l say that mans Immortality re-
suits as logical sequence from the con-
cessions mentioned above. but this is not
the argument in proof of mans immortal
ity which desire to present.
The account of the creation of man as
given In the Bible is remarkable for its
statement of the distinguishing differ
ences between man and the rest Of the
creation. When man was created God
breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life and man became q living soul. He
created the beasts Os the field, the fowls of
the air, the fishes in the sea and the creep
ing things on the earth, but concerning
none of them used the language used with
reference with man, that they became liv-
ing souls. This language. whether in
spired or not, states the difference which
now exists and which has ever existed
between man and the other created things.
What do we understand by soul? By soul
is meant the power to think and reflect
and to judge Of the moral quality of actions
and thoughts. In the lOllowing reasoning
take the sceptic's standard of what we
should believe and what we should not
believe; that is, We ought not to believe
that of which we have no evidence and
for which We can give no satisfactory
reason. proceed by process of elimina-
ton, as will be readily seen.
Ny first proposition, interrogatively
stated, is this: Is the power to think and
reflect and to Judge of the moral quality
of thoughts and actions property Of mat
ter or not? If it is property Of matter
then the sands and rocks and the earth
thinks and reflects and judges of the
moral quality of actions and thoughts, but
We have no reason to believe that the sand
or rocks, or earth thinks, or that either
possesses the ability to Judge Of the moral
quality of actions or of thoughts-hence
we ought not to believe it. Thus we see
that the general proposition is not true
and ought not to be believed.
Secondly-Is thought and the power to
Judge of the moral qualities of thoughts
and actions property of organized mat
ter? The grass and shrubs and trees are
organized matter, but we have no reason
to believe ard no evidence upon which
such belief can be founded that the grass,
or trees, or shrubs think or possess any
power to judge of the moral quality Of
things-hence, according to the standard
which we have adopted, We ought not to
sition is not true.
Thirdly--Is the power to think and re-
feet ana to Judge of the moral quality OF
actions and thoughts a property of animal
organization? Ii it is. clans and oysters
as animal organizations think; possess
the power TO reflect and to Judge of the
moral quality of thoughts and actions, but
we have no evidence that they possess any
to believe it.
Fourthly-Are the powers that We have
been considering essential TO the existence
of soul life possessed by the higher animal
organizations, such as lions and tigers and
domestic animals?
Here an important distinction must be
noted. There is such thing universally
recognized as existing. called instinct. All
OF the actions of animals and many of the
actions of human beings spring from in
stinct. Instinct was given for seifpreser-
Walton and defense. 1t is a sort of semi
| intellect, and sometimes In the perfection
| of it's action is equal 20 the highest de-
velopment of soul power, such as We have
| described them for instance. the action OF
bee, purely the result OF instinct in the
economy Of space and in the fitness OF al,
! Its cOuLrtNanCeS III MAKING the CGllp, is
wonderful; no Improvement can be made
upon it by the highest development OF in
| ventive genius. How does instinct &C. as
contradistinguished from actions based
upon the exercise OF soui powers? know
| OF no better statement than the following
| Instinct acts in straight or direct
| line with It's object. As an illustra-
ton, tiger is hungry. a man is
/ hungry; the tiger sees lamh-the
| man sees loaf Of bread in the bakers
| window: both left to the impulses OF in
| stinct would go directly to the object de-
| sired by each; the man. although cruelty
hungry. as he approaches the objec. of his
| desires says TO himself, This bread does
! not belong 10 me; II is the property o.
another, and | have no right TO take j,
| without his consent" Here We see In the
| case OF the man soul power acting Al
right angles with the impulse of instinct
| and controlling aud governing the aciion
| of the man. and we may remark that men
| are only men in the higher sense Of tbs
/ term, as they are. as in this instance, IN
| der the control Of soul powers and have III
| subsection, when there IS eoualcy be