Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-01-28
HAVE BRUTES SOULS?
ENGLISH BISHOP ARGUES THAT
THEY HAVE.
Instances Where Animals Have Exer-
cised Moral Discrimination
Equal to That of Man.

From the London Daily Telegraph.
In the course of an address on Teachings
from the Zoo, delivered at the monthly
service for men at Blackburn PARISH
Church. Bishop Thornton. assistant bishop
of Manchester, expressed the opinion that
the lower animals possessed souls as well as
minds Brutes, he exp AIMED. have not souls
in the popular theology. which speaks OF
the soul as the exclusive endowment or
man; but Scripture uses the very same
word for the Giving SOUL of the brute as
for that of man. reserying the word spirit
to denote the special endowment of man
kind.
Yes" said Bishop Thornton. 1.-The soul
of man. by which he hopes and fears. re-
joices and SorTows loves and hates. seems
shared by him with the lower animals. 1t is
that in his inmaterial nature which hangs
suspended between the flesh and the spirit,
capable of being dominated, as IN brutes,
by the animal propenStieS-capable in
sanctified man. of being linked up with
what is spiritual. immortal end divine. This
soul and spirit not only Identical but
may be in conflict with one another. The
writer to the Hebrews speaks of the 'di-
viding of the soul and spirit, of the joints
and marrow Yes, the lower animals have
souls, and exhibit what may be called moral
qualities. They display sympathy, gener
osity, courage or cowardice; they evince
pride. jealousy. vindctiyeness; they mani
fest roguery and what may be called con-
scientiousness. Time fails me to give ex-
amples. but we all remember the hound
Gelert, who let himself be slain by his mis-
taken master when, at the cost almost OF
his own life. he had saved that masters
child from the wolf whose blood. and not
the childs, was on his muzzle.
Moral Nature in Brutes.
Some would draw the inference" con-
tinued his lordship in answer TO a ques-
ton. mot only that the brutes possess souls.
or a moral and emotional nature-in which
/ should agree with them-but even that a
resurrection and personal Immortality Is
before them. One cannot treat contemptu-
ously opinion. however startling. that
has been entertained not only by savage
peoples. but by such thinkers as Luther,
Butler. Southey Lamartine and Mrs. Som
erTille Among the arguments used in IA
vor of 1t are such as these: The body of a
brute is indeStructible for, although 1t dis
solves. its constituent parts never really
perish. 1r, then. the brute has a nobler and
immaterial part. why should not that a
fortfori be conceived? And as its imma-
terial part is indivisible. it must, if 1t sur
Vfve death at all, exist On in its integrity,
which means Immortality for brutes or at
any rate transmigration or reincarnation.
Others demur to these reasonings If
there be future reward for brutes, they
urge. there must be future punishment,
which, for some reason, one feels it i'm
possioie 10 peiieNe lndeed, the individual
brute life is not important enough to de-
mand future to redress its deficiencies. A
horse has fulfilled adequately the aim and
ideal of his being if he has served the con-
venience of man, ministered to his needs
and innocent pleasures. That after death
1t should minister to the nourishment of
his pack of hounds is, on the whole no in
appropriate or even unworthy conclusion
of his career As for the moral qualities
.d1scoverable In brutes 1t is said they have
been overrated. There is no. touch in these
with what Is spiritual. divine. eternal.
Conscience in brutes amounts to little or
nothing more than fear of punishment or
the hope Of sensual qualification.
Denizens of the Zoo.
IF you look around the zoo and study
the denizens of it's cages you may find there
ship to man in bodily structure. mental en-
dowment, and moral quality; but you will
utterly fail to find the least trace of one
characteristic of man-his grandest-the
want of which differentiates the lower ami
mails absolutely from the human race. And
what is this? Spirit--capacity for religion
Seriously, is there discernible In any ami
NAL known to biologists besides man as
piration, contemplation, self-introspection,
awe, self-denial. chastity. filial duty, hu-
mility. We understand those ideas? To
ask the question is to answer it. Here,
then, is the grand distinction between man
and beast Man is capable of religious ex-
perience. He is capable of sin. of supersti-
ton, of idolatry, of vice. Of which no brute
Is ever guilty; but he Is capable, too of a
spiritual and therefore an eternal life, to
which so far as We can learn from the
brutes they are utter strangers. There is
a something in man which tinges and ele-
Yates all that he shares with them, trans
figuring 1t into what Is different from any
thing they possess"