The San Francisco call., 1896-05-03

of what we credit man with-souls? AS
this is intended to be popular discussion
and not an academic essay on souls, VIII
assume that the propounder OF the ques-
ton 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, but not to die. Popularity
regarded the soul is immortal.
Plato gives soul to the universe. Fol-
lowing the Platonic line of reasoning there
is soul in everything, but what we are
called upon to consider is not so much the
universally 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 evolution 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 / would refer to an authority rarely
quoted with reference to the theory of
evolution. refer TO John Wesley. In his
Compendium of Natural Philosophy"
Mr.. Wesley practically accepts hat, many
years later, Darwin projected as the doc
trine of evolution. He goes somewhat
beyond Darwin in his analysis of the soul,
and differs from Darwin in regarding the
soul as a separate entity, being of the body
but superior tol 1t. Mr.. Wesley is, however,
mel with the very same problem which is
now presented, and, with frankneSs and
breadth of view remarkable in a church
man of his days, he admits the difficulty
and deals with it. He begins by setting
forth that every form in matter is linked
to every other form, and that from
the marine worm to man there is COM
plete chain of connection. He sets forth
the Darwinian theory in the transforma-
ton of the reptile to the bird. of the bird
to the quadruped, and of the quadruped to
man, He then asks the question sugges-
lively: Are the souls of inferior animals
subject to the process of evolution, which
he admits eliminates in man? He does
not dogmatize on this point, but suggests
that there may be 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 close read
ing of Mr.. Wesley's thoughts in this con-
nection indicates that he believed that all
animals have souls. When be reaches the
question as to the immortality of souls he
is disposed to conine himself 10 positive
assertion 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
iect many eminent men were of the opin-
ion that b-utes 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 anG pain,
they are not mere animated mechanisms,
but are possessed of something imma-
terial, and therefore of the nature of
soul.
Permit me to quote one or two para
graphs from Mr.. Wesley. After giving
his theory OF evolution as already referred
to ne SAYS: Between the lowest and high
est degree of corporeal and spiritual per-
| lection there is an almost infinite number
of intermediate degrees; the result of
these degrees composes the universal
chain. This unites all beings, connects all
! worlds, compreheuds all the spheres {"
He then adds: "The polypus links the
vegetable to the animal; 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
! question, 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 remem Der
anything or move any otherwise than
! they are lmpelled. But all 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 principle of self-motion.
then they are not mere matter; they have
in them an immaterial principle. But, OF
what kind? Will it die with the body or
notP Is it mortal or immortal? Here,
again, we are got into an unknown path.
We cannot order our speech by reason of
darkness" Mr.. Wesley then devoted a
chapter 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 creatad as m a,nu sro