« PreviousContinue »
“It is not a very difficult undertaking to class Fielding or Smollett—the one as an observer of the characters of human life, the other as a describer of its various eccentricities."—Hazlitt.
EXERCISE XXIX. -Insert the proper adjective pronouns in the places where dashes indicate their omission in the following extracts:
“As – climate has its peculiar diseases, so — walk of life has its peculiar teinptations." — Macaulay.
"Here I would frequent
I heard; here, with him, at — fountain, talked.”—Milton. “In the - (novel, Caleb Williams '] Mr. Godwin has hit upon the extreme point of the perfectly natural and perfectly new; in the - [St. Leon '] he enters into the preternatural world, and comes nearer to the world of commonplace."-Hazlitt.
“O Nature! boon from whence proceed
- forceful thought, – prompted deed;
“Let's take the instant by the forward top,
" -- have had — earthly visions,
- thoughts mistook- "-Byron. We have now somewhat fully explained and exemplified the essentials in the grammar of Pronouns. Our next paper, on the Verb, will terminate our preliminary instructions on the infected parts of speech. The uninflected parts will not, of course, detain us so long and we shall shortly be able to give our attention to composition of a higher cast. But we must remind you, that unless this labour is truly and honourably performed, higher teaching will avail nought. The primary processes of labo'ır cannot be dispensed with. Give all heed and diligence, then succeed.
IS REASON CONFINED TO MAN?
AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-III. The word “Reason ” has a higher and I actual and presumptive doings, of each and more precious meaning than the word all of those various creatures, he would, we “ Instinct;" and it is very appositely made hesitate not to say, find them minus of the to signify that portion of mental superiority human hecciety. They do not possess it, which man possesses over and above the consequently they cannot produce it. If aggregate of animals by which he is sur- reason be not peculiar to man, what is? If rounded. Animals may-indeed, they do— reason be not peculiar to man, why make it possess much in common with man, anal- the chief hecciety of man? If reason be not ogous to what man possesses in common peculiar to man, to whom and to how many with angels and the Deity, and to what genera and species of beings is it peculiar? plants possess in common with animals. To say that animals possess something like But we are not to argue from this that they reason, or an inferior kind of reason, does are, therefore, an inferior species of man, or not reach the spirit of the question before a race of beings possessing, in some degree, us. It would be an easy matter to accomthe essential characteristics of man. Such modate our ideas of reason in man and a process of reasoning would lead to disas- instinct in animals to what our opponents trons consequences. It is a maxim in phi- call the superior reason of man, and the inlosophy, “that although all the individuals ferior reason of animals. For what we call of one kind agree in one specific nature, yet the higher order of instinct, they call the every one has a particular difference, where- lower order of reason; so that, after all, the by it is distinguished from another.” This difference between us is not great. “particular difference," or peculiar mark, is, Again: that man possesses mind is asfor want of a better term, called hecciety. sumed, or tacitly acknowledged, in the quesNow, every genius and every species of crea- tion under debate. And what is mind? tures, as well as every species of individnal, Mind is that portion of man, that invisible has its hecciety, or that that makes it what something within us, that thinks, reasons, it is. And however much another genus or judges, and prompts us on to acts of rationspecies may resemble it, it is not exactly ality. It is sometimes called the heart, the like it, nor one with it, simply because it soul, and the spirit of man. It is this, and lacks the same essential characteristic. not an isolated portion thereof, that consti
The hecciety by which man is distin- tutes man the master of his own actions, guished from and rendered superior to the the subject of morality and religion, and the animal tribes is rationality, or mind, with only being who is accountable to Heaven all its intellectual, moral, and religious for his thoughts, articulations, and actions. appurtenances. Were this god-like, beaven- This mind is divine in its origin, spiritual in born impression to be effaced in man, could its essence, immaterial in its nature, intelour friend “Clement” restore it from the lectual in its operations, religious in its animal creation? Could he produce a cor- aspirations, and immortal in its duration. rect likeness of it? Reason answers, No. But, according to “Clement's” own showing, History and experience echo, No. Were animals have no mind, no “moral sense," “ Clement" to collect all the elephants, are subject to no moral law, and will not monkeys, dogs, cats, beavers, birds, wrens, exist after death. And why? Simply and bees, of which he speaks, and to which because they do not possess mind. They he alludes; were he to have them all at his have a something about them that is the command, and under his personal control; subject of instinct, sagacity, and animal and were he put in possession of all know action; but this something dies with them ledge, so as to be able to comprehend and —at death it goeth downwards. This someunderstand the essence and organization, the thing wants a name: it is not mind, and yet
it cannot be called matter. We will call it, our bidding. The proofs and productions of an instinctive subject. It is matter imbued man's reason are to be seen everywhere--in with a lower order of properties than those the ships, bridges, and mansions he has of the mind, but properties which seem to built, in the railroads and machinery he has approximate thereto. Locke argued the produced, in the books he has written and possibility of the soul's materiality. But is printed, and in the various branches of art it not probable that the highest state of and science which he discovers and cultiperfection and refinement, of which the Al- vates. Where are the proofs and producmighty has made matter capable, is that of tions of animal reason? They invent no its being made instinctive, as in the animal logarithms, produce no Euclid, go not in creation? As a rule, every animal seems to search of the north pole, build no schools, be endued with its peculiar kind and share publish no Controversialist, leave no “Prins of instinct. There appears to be a differ- cipia” behind them. They do nought that ence in quality as well as in quantity; and resembles such things. each one has that, and just enough of it, Reason, though often very unreasonable, which is the most suitable for it. The laws is inherent in every man. It is a common of instinct have fewer exceptions than those property of our nature. True, it is more of reason; they are subject to fewer viola- cultivated, receives a fuller development, tions; and by virtue of them, animals can and produces more and better fruit, in some accomplish their ends at less expense, with than in others; but you cannot be in the greater ease, accuracy, and certainty of company of a sane man many minutes, withsuccess, than what man can by virtue of his out perceiving signs of rationality. Un
laws of reason. In migrating from country educated men, poor men, uncivilized men, E to country, they need no ships, charts, com- evince unmistakable manifestations of rea
passes, knowledge of stars, days, and months. son. From beginning to end, from centre to Instinct, or “an agency which performs circumference, men have given proof upon blindly and ignorantly a work of intelligence proof of their rational and argumentative and knowledge,” supersedes the use of all endowments. Indeed, the whole history of these things. But would this be the case man is one grand incontrovertible demonwere the instinctive faculty to become stration of his rationality. Now, were readefunct? Would reason, as is the case in son as inherent in the animal department, man, undertake and accomplish the task? or were it inherent at all in any part therewe think not.
of, would it not be palpably evident and The question, moreover, states, as it were, universally acknowledged ? But, this is in so many words, that man does possess not the case, “Clement” himself being the reason. And what is reason? Reason is judge. He cites instances—" few and far an attribute, faculty, or power of the mind. between"-in which an individual or two of It is peculiar to mind; and where there is certain species have manifested signs of no mind, as is the case in animals, there is reason; but, supposing all to be true that no reason. Rationality and mentality are “Clement” states, regarded in the most inseparably connected. We can no more favourable light, these signs of reason are conceive the existence of one without the exceptions to a rule, and such as are essenother, than we can conceive the existence of tial to prove it. an effect without a cause. And what is We place but very little confidence in reason's province or mission? It is to com- newspaper authority, when vaguely intropare realities, to test truths, to estimate duced into the Controversialist, as in the actions, to weigh consequences, to plan the case of the Edinburgh cat affair. This execution of rational purposes, and to pilot animal may have acted as stated by the the soul over the untraversed seas of futu- " press;" and if so, he was indeed a very rity. By the aid of this faculty, we discover cunning creature. But did the “press” say What our other faculties believe to be dis- that he had not been “trained” to this coverable; we invent means to accomplish work? Did the “press” hold itself in readipresumptive ends; we improve upon what ness to produce two or three creditable withas been done ages ago; we take the ele. nesses, to prove, upon their oath, the truth ments into our service, and make nature do of the story? This is a very fluid premiss
on which to rest a philosophical argument. I our dispassionate friend “ Clement” hopes But, allowing it all to be verbally true, it is his article will teach us, viz., “ to treat with no proof that the cat possessed what is greater kindness the inferior creation." properly called reason. If so, it is a proof In conclusion, reason either is or is not equally strong that the rats did not, or they confined to man. Either one or the other is would have argued that the vicinity of their a reality-a reality unaltered by all that hole was not a proper place for that kind of has been said and written on the subject. meat to be in, and that there must be some We believe it is confined to man; “Clement" plot upon their lives in its being placed believes it is not. Let every man be pertbere. But does“ Clement” wish to teach us suaded in his own mind. that cats, and not rats, are the subjects of Believing that the annexed “scale of reason? And then, for “ Tom” to pounce beings"* (the only one we have seen) will upon and kill “two large rats” at once is be both interesting and useful to the readers very improbable, and, if true, it was very of this discussion, we deem it not too much cruel. He was a murderer. His reason trouble to copy it. ought to have taught him the lesson, which! ( xxvii. Cherubim or seraphim, the living throne of God, the constant attendants
of the Divine Majesty-four, Isa. vi. 2; Ezek. i. 5; 1. 5, 10; Rev. iv. 6.
slo. S Dominations,
doms, į Thousands of thousands, Rev. v. 11.
In the Empyrean.
On the Earth.
1. The magnet.
* Applegarth's “ Theological Survey," &c., p. 270.
NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-III. We have read with considerable interest the mental blindness on our part, but we really opening negative article on this question by cannot see the force of "Persona's” argu“Clement," and the affirmative one by “ Per- ment, when he says, that if the lower ani. sona” has rather strengthened than otherwise mals be gifted like man, with reason, “ then our belief that reason is not confined to man. the rule which pronounces immortality for We agree with him that it is to reason the one and not for the other must be felt " that man owes his vast practical supe-| to be arbitrary, and thus the matter of riority” over the lower animals; but it is to man's immortality is prejudiced.” Surely reason, aided by his other endowments. we may do justice to the small amount of Without it, we acknowledge," he would be understanding possessed by the brutes withviler and more helpless than any of the out prejudicing the immortality of man. lower animals;" but with it, what would be What have the faculties given to them to do his present condition, if unendowed with the with the immortality of the soul? What faculty of speech? This is the great barrier knowledge have they of a Creator? Is between him and them, and to this is owing reason and the soul one? If such is "Perhis “ progressiveness," and not to the posses- sona's” belief, it is not ours. Though we sion of reason; for without the means of do not consider that animals are intended transmitting thought, of what ase could for a future world, yet “Persona” must reason be to man in general? It could only have been determined to set aside all facts benefit the individual, without aiding in the when he penned the following astounding progression of the race. The unprogressive- passage:-“ An almost universal intuition ness of animals is thus accounted for, since prompts man to reject the idea that creathe experience gained by one individual tures whom he slays without compunction cannot be communicated to the rest of the for his food, his convenience, or his pleaspecies. Again: with them reason is only sure, are beings of a like destiny with himà secondary power; they are gifted with self; or rather, the intuitional conviction instinct to such an extent that improvement of their lower and more contracted destiny, on the acts necessary to tbeir existence disabuses him of any compunction in the would be impossible. “Persona," referring matter.” Whence does " Persona" derive to "the ant, the bee, and the beaver," says, his information? With more truth, I that amongst them he cannot “detect any believe, we may say, that since the comprogress whatever.” We know it; but does mencement of the world those nations that it in any way tend to show that they are were unacquainted with revealed religion not reasoning animals? Can “ Persona” had “ an almost universal” belief in the iminform us in what direction they could pro- mortality of the brutes. Was it not so with gress? The bee builds the waxy cells, in the Ancient Britons ? Did not the Egyptended to contain its store of honey, con- tians worship animals, thus making themformable to the most profound geometrical selves inferior to them? Even now, do not principles ;-the hexagonal form, which is the North American Indians believe that invariably adopted, is the best for containing their faithful hounds will accompany them the greatest quantity in the smallest space. to the happy hunting grounds of their When the whole workmanship is perfect in fathers in a future world? finish and design, how is it possible to im- Before attempting to substantiate our prove it?
opinion that the lower animals are endowed We deny that the notion that “man is with something higher than mere instinct, only a superior kind of animal” “is implied it will be necessary to define, in a few words, in the negation of the present question.” the difference between instinct and reason. The faculty of speech, which is possessed by Man, when first ushered into the world, is him alone, constitutes the great difference one of the most defenceless of beings in it; between him and the animal world, and and were it not for certain instinctive proentirely demolishes, as we have above pensities, urging him to acts necessary to shown, the theory of the progressive develop- his preservation, he would probably perish ment of the lower animals. It may be as soon as born. This provident law of