DEONTOLOGY. 303 
animals have a moral sense—that they have, I think he said, not 
a sense of justice—perhaps you will kindly tell me. 
Mr. Cuartres Browne.—On the contrary, I should say that they 
had a sense of justice. I said property—that they have a sense of 
property. 
The AutHor.—Yes, they most certainly have, and that implies 
a sense of justice. Now if animals, in those respects, are consti- 
tuted as human beings ; in what respects, so far as duty is concerned, 
do they differ from men? I maintain it is in this; an animal can 
be pulled or drawn only by some outward and visible manifesta- 
tion of authority—something which is in its nature changeable. 
The animal has, as its master, a person whom he recognises as a 
master—somebody who belongs to this world of sense and time; 
but the human being, in so far as he exercises his conscience, 
recognises an authority that is Hternal and Unchangeable and 
shows himself to be the child of the Father of Spirits and there- 
fore maintains a sense of duty which I say is properly called not 
psychic but pneumatic. At the same time, I maintain that he has 
also a psychic sense of duty, and of this I think there is no doubt. 
Professor Maurice, after commenting on the use of the word, 
thought that its significance as used in the Northern Farmer lay 
in the word “ought.” I cannot accept that statement without 
qualification, ‘‘ That which is born of the flesh is flesh ” ; but if that 
which is born of the flesh is but flesh, then no racial prerogative 
can constitute a spiritual distinction. What I take the truth to be 
is this: that the so-called Anglo-Saxon sense of duty is a mere 
psychic affection—purely psychic—and that it has comparatively 
little in it of reverence—comparatively little of the religious 
sentiment ; that, on the contrary, it is somewhat given to push 
aside, contemptuously, and to sweep out of its path all obstructions 
that may have been placed against it by religious scruples. It 
seems to me, therefore, that if we are to attribute to some 
nation a peculiar sense of duty or sensitiveness to moral 
obligation, we must admit that it is of a psychic—of an animal 
nature, as distinguished from what I maintain is a pneumatic 
or spiritual sense of duty. I do not see how it is possible to 
explain the various phenomena of the workings of the mind of 
man unless we make this distinction. I find it made in the 
Scriptures, z.e., in the use of the term “ psychic” (yvxe«cs in the 
original), as applicable to the man who acts simply from a psychic 
