eT ee Re Sn es ape ke ea ee 
102 MAN. 
is that the Scriptural account of man, which is one and 
selfconsistent, is true; that God made man in his own im- 
age, fitted for fellowship with himself and favored with it 
—a state from which man has fallen, but to which restora- 
tion is possible through Him who is the brightness of his 
Father's glory, and ‘the express image of his Person.” 
We cannot refrain from reverting, in this connection, 
to the essential difference between the animal instincts 
and the intellect of man, and would quote, on this sub- 
ject, the forceful statement of the case by Paul Haff- 
ner in his “Materialismus”’ (Mainz, 1865). We trans- 
late: “If the hypothesis of materialism were acceptable, 
if we were to believe that a merely animal form of con- 
sciousness might develop into spiritual and intellectual 
perceptions, we ought to be able to observe such capa- 
cities of change and growth also in the animal world of 
to-day. Yet this is not the case. For thousands of 
years we have observed the domestic animals, and still 
we can see no trace of a dawn of intellect. We expend 
much training upon them; we make them our confidants 
and treat them with inexhaustible tenderness, and still] 
we never see them rise out of their narrow sphere and 
out of the bonds of their primitive desires and instincts. 
We note external imitation of human activities, such as 
the ludicrous virtuosity of the apes, and that superficial 
adaptation which we call ‘animal training’ and which is 
nothing but a development of sense stimuli; the animal 
does not know what it is doing, it is duped by man who 
knows how to employ its instincts and make them ser- 
viceable to his purposes. We cannot fail to note that 
never, not even under the most favorable conditions, do 
the animals step out of their original sphere; that neither 
by their own efforts nor through the aid of man are they 
able to rise into ideas of a spiritual or suprasensual na- 
ture; that they remain forever what they were in the be- 
