The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1905-02-08

49, - .aSAoS itflo AhtAAiSd dltellAdtc
ly the aim and ideal of his being if
he has served the convenience Of
man, ministered to his needs and IN
Inocent pleasures. That after death
Fit should minister to the nourish-
ment Of his pack of hounds is, on
1.-THE whole, no inappropriate or even
unworthy conclusion Of his career.
As for the moral qualities discover
able IN brutes, it is said they have
been oycrrated. There is no touch
lin these with what is spiritual, di-
Ivinc, eternal. Conscience in brutes
lamomts to little or nothing more
than fear of punishment or the
Ihope of sensual qualification"
/ So far the Bishop aseribes no at
tribute to man that he does not give
to the brute, except spirit" which
he has not as yet explained, and yet
he undertakes to define conscience
las between man and beast, and as
Icribes beasts conscience as the re-
lsult Of fear Of punishment or sem
sual qualification. When he does
| this he also should consider the fact
that nothing he has stated so far
lplaees man on a higher scale so far
as conscience is concerned, except a
system Of education, which has re-
lsulted in a standard of higher con-
Iceptions, and only then is man CON
trolled in the qualities Of conscience
mentioned as leading the brute be-
cause of the enactment Of law and
precept handed down. Thus he has
not as yet made any great distinc-
ton.
Next we have the Bishop saying
"lf you look around the ZOO and
study the denizens Of its cages yor
may find there resemblance and cor
respondcnce and kinship 10 man in
bodily structure, mental endowment
and moral quality; but you viii ut.
tcrly fail to find the least trace Of
one characteristic Of man-hi;
grandest-thc want Of which differ
entiates the lower animals absolute
ly from the human race. And what
is this2 Spirit-capacity for relig-
ion. Seriously, is there discerniblc
in any animal known to biologists
besides man aspiration, contempla-
ton, self-introspection, awe, self
denial, chastity, filial duty, humil-
lily as 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 sin, of superstition, OF
idolatry. of vice, Of which no brute
is ever guilty; but he is capable, too,
Of spiritual and therefore an cter-
nal life, to which so far as we can
learn from the brutes they are utter
strangers. There is something in
man which tinges and eleyates all
that he shares with them, transfgur-
ing il into what is different from
anything they possess"
And here we have for the first
time what the Bishop terms as
spirit" lie defines it as capacity
for religion Then take him at his
uttered word. He SAYS man aud
brutcs have souls and man spirit in
addition. or rather man has the
power Of receiving or containing re-
ligion, while The brute has not.
Then taking him at his own argu-
ment that the brute docs not live on
after its death because cf the fact
that it has no spirit, though il has
4 soul, it must be accepted that that
part of mankind that does not avail
itself Of the spirit also meets the
fate he describes for the brute, or in
other words, neither exist after NOR
I'll death. Also he defines spiritual
life as eternal life and says the brute
is an utter stranger TO that life. He
saws the reason is that the brute is
not capacitatcd to take on that life.
And then, according to his line Of
argument, man who is capable TO
take il on and does not meets the
fate Of the brute. and that fate is
not beyond tile earth.
The Bishop is certainly teaching
some very dangerous doctrine. The
Bible does not teach ii as to man at
least. The Good Book does not hold
out the idea that the wicked do not
survive the earth. Neither does il
leach that the spirit Of man is other
than his soul.