essential to the manhood of man, there is good ground for concluding that it is a distinctive attribute, and "confined to him." 66 We now turn to our à priori argument. This involves a consideration of "Life, its origin, forms, gradations, and issues," which we shall argue from a scriptural basis. The Supreme Being is there revealed to us as "I AM," or the only self-existent being; hence all lower degrees of life are derived from him, as the grand source of life. Men and animals are therefore organized recipients of life, which is in them by influx from their Creator; and the various phases of this life are attributable to the modifications impressed upon it by this recipiency. We infer the vast superiority of the life enjoyed by man over the lower animals from the scriptural intimation that man was created in the image of God," which evidently denotes a capacity in man for receiving the influx of life in a most eminent degree; and it becomes of importance in the present connection, to consider what constitutes this "image of God" in him. We opine that it consists in the free will and intellectual faculties with which he is endowed, answering respectively to the divine love and the divine wisdom which are the revealed will and intellect of Deity. If this be so, our argument is established, for man alone 66 was created in the image of God," and intellect or reason is an essential feature of that image. It remains to notice the connection between reason in man and his immortality. We have seen that man receives the influx of life from its divine source in the highest degree (for what can be higher than the "image of God," except God himself?). The issues of this life in him are free will and intellect, and these imply the faculty of conjunction with Deity, for thereby man can receive, appreciate, and reciprocate the regards of his Maker. We have already seen that character is the result of the action of free will in connection with intellect, which modifies the influent life, and constitutes it the peculiar life of the individual; but character may be either good or bad. So conjunction, the faculty of which must always pertain to the essential attributes of man may be either positive or negative. It is positive when man determines the issues of his life to God, "to do his will and walk in his ways," and negative when he determines its issues to self and selfish ends-the former leading to a blissful, the latter to an unhappy, immortality. Brutes, on the other hand, receiving life only in the lower degrees of instinct and innate science, do not appropriate this life by any such elaboration as character. Life is in them as motion is in a machine. Hence, when natural death ensues, the life of the individual is dissipated. The scope of our arguments has had in view to show that the proper characteristics and privileges of man are due to the action of reason, and that the absence of the same in brutes demonstrates the absence of reason; ergo, reason is "confined to man." It is for our readers to say how far we have succeeded. PERSONA. NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-I. modified within certain limits by circumstances, climate, and the influence of man. The increase of knowledge shows that it is more philosophical and truthful to suppose that each species had an independent crea tion, than a successive development, "according to law," of each from one proceeding that, in fact, there is an impassable gulf between each species which none can ever cross. WHEN we view with an intelligent eye | liar character, which may be, and often is, the many varieties of organized nature, we perceive a great diversity, and yet a corresponding fitness in each to the position it occupies as a connecting link in the great chain of organized being. Beginning at the lowest, we may proceed upwards by a steady, certain, and rapid step, through higher and still higher forms of life, until we arrive at the highest condition of terrestrial existence MAN, who, lord of the lower creation, shows, even in his degradation, that he is not unworthy of wielding the sceptre over all inferior tribes. In all this connection there is, we think, no development of species one from the other. Each species has its own pecu If we turn our attention to man, we find that he is not only distinguished from the inferior creation by his physical frame, but possesses mental faculties which are at once his glory, and make up for all the deficien cies of physical strength, giving him the means of power far surpassing all the resources of inferior creatures, and by which he is able to defy the strongest and most powerful animals, and subdue them to be his servants or his slaves. It is this characteristic feature of man which has given rise to the question before us, and it is natural to ask, " Do the lower animals possess in common with man any faculties of a mental nature, or are they ever led by a blind something over which they have no control?" "Is the reason of man distinguished from that of the brute in kind or degree?" In other words, and more explicitly, "Is reason confined to man?” In attempting to answer this question in the negative, it may be well first to define our terms, Reason and Instinct. reason." correctly the provinces of reason and instinct, properly so termed. The question now is, Have we any evidence to show that any of the lower animals possess some mental faculties in common with man, by the aid of which they perform actions that lie beyond and out of the province of instinct? In reply to this question, we remark that many animals, especially those standing highest in the scale of being, possess something analogous to the mind of man. The truth of this might be argued from the discoveries supposed to have been brought to light by the science of phrenology, and this without committing ourselves to any materialistic theory; but, leaving this debated ground, we may observe, that a reference to instinct alone does not always explain many actions of the higher classes of animals. Instinct may direct the bee to build its cell, the bird her nest, and the beaver his dam;— instinct certainly enables each animal to choose the peculiar food necessary to its existence; for what is rejected by, and is poisonous to one, is received, and becomes nutritious food to another. Instinct may direct the animal in the gratification of its appetites and passions; but does not the term become somewhat meaningless when adduced to explain many other actions which we almost daily witness, and have often read of, among the higher animals? To speak more particularly, the monkey tribe, those animals which approach nearest to man in several respects, have often displayed qualities entirely unaccountable by a reference to instinct. The feathered tribes have also been noticed as evincing something of the same kind of intelligence. Without referring to more than one in particular, we just remember a very interesting anecdote of one of our songsters, which appeared in print some time since. As we only write from memory, we cannot give the minutia cf particulars as to time or place, but these may perhaps be supplied by some of our readers. In close proximity to a quarry, a Reason we consider to be the collective power of the intellectual faculties, the acting of mind upon its knowledge. Speaking of the mind, Isaac Taylor says, "Its power over itself, a power directed by knowledge, and employed for the accomplishment of some purpose foreseen, is what constitutes "Reason consults for the future by the knowledge of the past, putting a restraint upon present impulses. By reference to what memory can supply from the past, reason combines the means suitable to effect ends, and, not discouraged by repeated failures, changes and improves those means, till the end is accomplished, as often as that is attainable." ""* This we conceive is the true definition of reason, and from it we see that reason is not so much a single faculty, as the power of combining several or all the intellectual faculties in their operation towards the attainment of the object in view. Instinct is very different to this. As generally defined, it is "an agency which performs blindly and ignorantly a work of intelligence and knowledge." The work performed by instinct is never improved by the worker on that of the original. The honeycomb is now constructed by its interesting builders with the exactness of mathe-wren had built her nest, and, having promatical precision just as the first generation of the species did; there is no improvement nor yet deterioration; it is essentially the same. These definitions, we think, express duced her eggs, proceeded to hatch her young, but was soon annoyed by a blast of rock, and frightened for the safety of herself and young. She shortly noticed that each blast was preceded by the ringing of a bell, which, now known, she observed, and on the given signal quitted her position on the nest, animal, as he was able to choose those means which were likely to attain his object. Innumerable are the anecdotes recorded of the sagacity of the elephant, the intelligence of the dog, and the wonderful knowledge frequently displayed by them. Who has not heard of the tailor of Delhi, and the manner in which an unoffending brute he had wantonly exasperated inflicted severe and merited punishment? Who has not heard of the heroic dog, which swam off with a rope to the unfortunate mariners on a wreck, at a time when the raging of the sea was such that no boat could for a moment live retiring to a distance. This extraordinary conduct was noticed by the men employed, and, the report being spread, many visitors came to see the wonderful bird, and, in order to gratify their curiosity, and show them how well the signal was understood, the bell was rung, and for several times with the desired result of drawing the bird from her nest. But the bird was not to be outwitted; she very soon noticed that no blast succeeded the bell, and, not liking to be disturbed unnecessarily, when the bell was again rung she peeped out to see if the men engaged left their work; if they did, she followed their example; but if they did not, no ring-in it, and so succeeded in establishing a coming of the bell could induce her to come from her hiding place, and so she continued until her young were fledged, and could take the wing. Was there, we ask, nothing more than instinct here? What induced this little creature to connect the ringing of the bell with the succeeding blast of rock? What led her to know how to detect the true from the false alarm? Instinct? What does the term here mean? Surely not the operation of "blind ignorance"! Rather was it something in principle analogous to, and similar in kind, to the higher development of reason in man. Many such anecdotes of other creatures might be related. The domestic cat, maligned as she is, if treated with kindness, will almost equal the dog in sagacity and affection. We ourselves have noticed something above the operation of instinct in several members of the feline race, and are here reminded of an anecdote which a short time since went the round of the press. At a certain house in Edinburgh a very fine Tom cat was kept. One day he was observed to purloin very quietly a piece of meat, and carry it into the cellar. He was silently followed, with the view of a little chastisement being inflicted for his supposed theft. It was then found that he had deposited the piece of meat opposite a large hole, and was himself very quietly watching it from a shelf opposite. In a little time two large rats made their appearance out of the hole, and, having seized the meat, proceeded to drag it back after them. But in this they were prevented by Tom, who quickly pounced upon them, and, after a fierce struggle, succeeded in killing them both. This fact, we think, proves the possession of intelligence and reason in this munication with the shore, eventually saving the lives of many who had lost all hope? Who has not read the history of Androcles and his lion, and admired the way in which the latter showed his gratitude and repaid an obligation many years after, when he spared the life of the unfortunate slave? What do these and similar records teach? Do they show us only the operation of blind instinct? Is there no reason here? A dog may be trained to carry a stick in its mouth, and do many other wonderful tricks that may not indicate anything more than instinct; but when an animal of itself performs actions such as these, we perceive a higher degree of intelligence displayed by it. "Do they not love, hate, hope, fear?" Is there not memory? "Do they not remember, decide about difficulties, and choose between alternatives?" If so, is this the operation of instinct or reason? "Acts are sometimes committed in error, and end in failure. There must have been reason, for there is often mistake."* They certainly do not possess it in the same degree as man; but while mind presents points of resemblance in man and other animals, it is also susceptible of the greatest distinctions. When we think of the human mind and its powers, we are conscious that there exists a vast gulf between it and every form of brute sense. "The power of analyzing mental phenomena is doubtless denied to these humbler existences, but we may, in comparing ourselves with them, boast of it as our exclusive faculty, while to our mind, so superior to whatever looks like it in them, other endowments may be added."† * Dr. Hamilton. + Ibid. By way of objection it may be asked, if we suppose that the lower animals are subject to a moral law? We at once reply, this cannot be, for they do not appear to possess any moral sense of good or evil, right or wrong. They are guided chiefly by their passions, their appetites, and the circumstances in which they are placed; and of course, being unable to distinguish right from wrong, i. e., having no moral sense, they cannot be responsible or accountable for any of their actions. It may be asked, Do we suppose that animals will enjoy a future state of existence? We again reply, there is no evidence for such a belief. Animals have here ample opportunity for the attainment of every enjoyment of which they are capable, and, not being accountable creatures, there is no necessity for their existence hereafter. Man alone of all earthly creatures has not here a sphere sufficiently wide for the development of his faculties, and the gratification of the holiest desires of his nature; he alone possesses any aspirations towards immortality, while future existence is necessary for him as an accountable being, that he may receive a just reward for his actions, according as they are good or evil. Whatever may be the mental constitution of animals, it is evident that it is in a great measure dependent on physical organization; it is nothing superinduced; "it is but a higher form of life, and not independent, and it never passes into anything higher than animal acts and functions. It is of the body-its adjunct, its instrument, rather than its guide." It may be objected that, by ascribing to animals the possession of reason, even in a very limited degree, we detract from the dignity of man. This we deny. We only place some members of the lower creation in their proper place. Man's dignity is not affected by this. He is still lord of all below. The possession of reason in a far higher degree, and capable of an almost unlimited development, raises man infinitely above the position occupied by the highest of the inferior creation. To man is also given speech and language, with all their wonderful powers, which enable him to exchange thought with his fellows; and with these and other means, every successive generation of men may surpass their predecessors, and improve on their knowledge. What, we may here ask, other things being equal, would man himself have become, had speech and language been withheld from him? His condition outwardly would not have differed so much from that of the brute, while little more than a void would have occupied the place of active mind. But, further, the possession of a moral nature, which subjects him to a moral law, and of an immortal SOUL, destined to eternity, raises the grandeur of man's nature infinitely above the "brutes that perish." This it is which constitutes the true dignity of man, and is the glorious distinction between him and all inferior existences. In conclusion we may remark, that if speech had been granted to some of the lower animals, we doubtless should frequently hear, as did Balaam of old, many a patient servant address the rebuke to his master, asking a reason for his unreasonable cruelty; and if the discussion of this subject, which is confessedly mostly speculative, lead any to treat with greater kindness the inferior creation, at least one practical lesson will have been learnt, and the object of the writer of this article attained, even though he should not succeed in obtaining the suffrages of the majority of his readers. CLEMENT. Bistory. WAS MAHOMET AN IMPOSTOR? AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-I. "THE appearance," says Hallam," of Mo- | more important and definite than the subhammed, and the conquests of his disciples, form an epoch in the history of Asia still version of the Roman empire in Europe." This, then, being the case, surely a question which involves the discussion of the charac- | Who would have thought, while gazing upon ter of the prophet of Mecca-the most prominent figure in the picture-can by no means be devoid of interest. But, at the outset, we may premise that the opinions we may have formed, with respect to the religion of which Mahomet was the founder, must not necessarily of themselves compel us to give our vote against him, and to brand him an "impostor." We may be well acquainted with the doctrines of Islamism, and may know very little of its originator; we may laugh at the fables which flourish under its shade, and yet be unacquainted with his character who reared it. We are well aware that common sense would tell us that the doctrines promulgated by any man must be, to some extent at least, an index of himself; but, we contend, an estimate formed from such data alone must be very defective; besides, we know not how any one can say 'impostor" or no impostor' without having made himself somewhat acquainted with the life of him upon whom he pronounces judgment. There have been those who have taught truth, yet were they impostors "wolves in sheep's clothing." There have been others who, amid a cloud of misconceptions on their part, have seized upon error, and, with the wild enthusiasm of untutored zeal, have thrown it broadcast around them, while they were no impostors, but honest men. Whether Mahomet belonged to this latter class, or was included in a third-those who, while they teach error, are at the same time impostors-is the question, we apprehend, which the discussion of the present subject in the pages of the Controversialist is designed to settle, or, at least, to elucidate. And now, as we gird ourselves for the investigation of the matter, let us cast from us prejudice, that loose, flowing robe which trips so many in their race for truth, and let us make up our mind, if needs be, to let go as we run any preconceived notions which may burden, as we make for the wished-for goal. We confess the present subject is to us pregnant with interest. All will admit that if Mahomet was not a reformer he was at least an innovator, and that, too, on a large scale, having been the founder of what Mr. W. C. Taylor designates "the most influential system ever devised by human reason." Mahomet as he lay an infant in Mecca, that ere his withdrawal from this our earth, he would found a throne, upon which would sit conqueror after conqueror, and a faith which should bear his name, and live even to the present day? This, although he belonged to the tribe of Koreish, was never anticipated. If any ambitious notions had entered the minds of his relatives concerning him, the successive deaths of his father and grandfather annihilated them. By these bereavements he was not left wholly destitute of friends, for his uncle took him home, and had him educated. Subsequently to this, while yet comparatively young, Mahomet became agent to a wealthy widow, named Kadijah, whose mercantile affairs he thenceforth managed. As might be expected from his energy and intelligence, the commercial interests of the widow-merchant prospered in his hands, and after some time she gave him her hand in marriage. His frequent journeyings, made in the prosecution of his daily business, threw him among men of various religious beliefs, for at that time there was in Arabia almost every form of religion. Now we can imagine with what eagerness such an one as the youthful Mahomet would seek to ascertain their various peculiarities. Losing faith in Meccan idolatry,-with whose gross absurdities he was no doubt disgusted, he would anxiously turn to some other system which might promise something more satisfying than it was in the power of the 360 idols, which surrounded the walls of the Kaaba, to confer. But, unfortunately for Mahomet, the number of religious sects at that time in Arabia equalled, or surpassed, their errors. the various forms of idolatry (which became, and continued to be, abominations in our inquirer's eyes), a corrupt Judaism and a degenerate Christianity held ground there. In neither of them did he see those varied excellencies which their heavenly origin would seem to imply; in both he would behold religions which, like the fruit we are told of that furnishes but ashes to the traveller, appears fair at a distance, but, when touched, only yields disappointment to the ardent seeker. We are inclined to think, with the Rev. Richard Dill, that had pure Christianity at this time been brought to Mahomet's notice, he would have gladly Besides |