Here then whether man would or not, we find him classified by one of the highest living authorities as a member of the animal world, having nothing in peculiar which should exclude him from this classification. More than this the same eminent authority informs us that "the structural differences between man and the Primates which approach nearest to him, are not greater than those which exist between the latter and the other members of the order of Primates.' Translated into every-day English, this means that the physiological bridge which separates man from the highest monkies, is no greater than that which separates monkies of the highest order from monkies of the lowest order. It was once claimed that man had a peculiar lumbar curve, a curve in his back unlike that of any inferior animal. Goodsir and Sir William Turner were positive of this. Huxley was among the first to deny it. He was followed by Broca and Topinard. Now it is generally denied. Prof. Cunningham of Dublin, in a remarkable paper printed by the Royal Irish Academy in 1886, has conclusively shown that not only the highest simiadæ, but also the majority of the lower, possess this curve; and that under certain conditions, even quadrupeds show traces of it. He proves that this graceful curve is a result of adaptation. In the Australian, the Negro, and the Andaman Islander, this curve is not so well marked as in the European. In the European the bodies of the vertebra are more or less moulded in adaptation to the curve: but in the lower races there is to be found no traces of this. It is now known that there is scarcely any difference between the human lumbar curve and that of the chimpanzee. Even

sively proved that his one-millionth ancestor was a thirdrate monkey, says: "I have always treated man not only as a descendant of an animal, but as to all intents and purposes an animal." (Sci. of Th. 573). A person would think that the last clause of this admission was very unnecessary; for it is hard to see why a descendant of an amimal, could be anything other than an animal.

We know that all this varied tree of animal life dies, and that man is a limb of this great tree. No one reasonably believes that any limb of this tree lives after death, with the possible exception of the limb representing man. The philosopher asks "why except man? on what grounds do you reasonably expect a life beyond the grave for man, while you assign the rest of his kind to oblivion? Why give only man immortality, when from those of the order of Primates nearest to him, he does not differ any more than the latter from the other members. of the order of Primates? To this question of the philosopher no satisfactory and conclusive answer can be given. On the grounds of physiology our reason for the immortality of the soul, is any thing but satisfactory.

II: PSYCHOLOGICAL:

(I): REASON;

(II): LANGUAGE:

To superficial observers it appears that man is the only animal which possesses reason. Not only do the ignorant think thus, but many of the most eminent philosophers have

tive mark of man: εγγίνεται, προαίρεσις

* Ορεξις μεν γαρ και εν τοις αλλοις ζῴοις & ου: ή γαρ προαίρεσις μετα λόγου,

βουλευτικού Αναμιμνήσκεσθαι

λογος δ' εν ουδενι των άλλων ζώων εστιν. δε μόνον ανθρωπος εστι των ζώων. δε ουδεν αλλο δυναται πλην ανθρωπος. Desire is common to all animals; fore-thought is not. Reason is necessary to forethought, and reason belongs exclusively to man. Of all animals man only is deliberative; man only is able to recall the past." (Eth. Meg. I, 17, 1; Peri Ta Zoia I, 1, 34).

Should a man say to me to-day that no animal except man has reason, I would ask him how he knew. I might repeat the words of Mill to Whewell: "I do not know what passes in a mole's mind." Philosophers do not claim to-day for man the exclusive possession of reason. "I have often,"

66

says Max Mueller, "dwelt on this kind of reasoning as common to man and brute." (Sci. of Th. 32). Mill holds that the higher animals make their inductions as the uncultivated masses make nearly all theirs. Says Schopenhauer: "Those who deny understanding to the higher animals, can have very little themselves." This philosopher holds that the higher animals have both memory and imagination. Tito Vignoli insists that the processes of human and animal reasoning, are essentially the same. Says Spencer: Every one is bound to admit that as the rationality of the infant is no higher than that of the dog, if so high; and as from the rationality of the infant to that of a man the progress is through gradations which are infinitesimal; there is also a series of infinitesimal gradations through which brute rationality may pass into human ration

66

the North American Review, says: "Thomas Brian Gunning, whose scientific discoveries have given him, I believe, alone among Americans a fellowship in the Royal Society of Surgeons of Great Britain, once owned one of the most learned cats known. 'Black' was the name of the cat. He always sat at the table with the family, in his own chair, with his own crockery, and with his fore-paws delicately placed beside his plate. He used his paws and his mouth much more deftly and politely than the masses of humanity. 'Black' delivered the mail at the box on the corner lamppost, and never forgot a face nor a friend, though years intervened between the meetings. The most remarkable of his acts occurred when a swelling appeared on his body causing him great pain. 'Black' was always present at surgical operations, and in this instance demonstrated that he had not been an unobservant student. His master examined the sore and requested the boy to call in the younger surgeon to lance the sore. 'Black' heard the words, jumped upon the bed, and lanced the sore with his teeth. When the place healed there was no scar, and the surgeons agreed that they could not perform the operation and cure without leaving one. It is evident that the animal which enjoys the most constant and intimate association with educated people is the most learned. Thus the pet dogs and cats, constantly with their owners, acquire the most intelligence. Many of these are taught to be epicures, dining in the choicest way, to show disdain for vulgar people, to have a fondness for jewelry, to cast off indecent street manners of their kind, and in every way to show a sense of refinement.

use the term instinct as applied to all acts of the lower animals, and will not admit that some of them have a higher mentality than primeval man and the modern scum of mankind. . A decent, well-bred lower animal is a far better citizen than an indecent, ill-mannered person." The late Dr. Carpenter of England said he knew a dog which was a good domino-player; and that he was fully satisfied the animal's skill was genuine. Mr. Joseph John Murphy says. that animals perceive as vividly as we do, but have only a rudimentary power of conception and thought.

(Vid. Nature, June, 1887).. Scientists to-day will not grant that to man exclusively belongs the power of reason. In this opinion I myself concur. I believe that reason extends throughout the whole animal world, and that the difference between the reason of an amoeba and that of a Newton is one of degree only. Therefore, it cannot be said that man has a passport to a future state because of his possession of reason: he possesses. this in common with all other animals. But if it be the degree of reason, not the exclusive possession of it, upon which man founds his hopes for immortal life, we grant that the possession by man of the most highly developed reason, does make immortal life possible; but we are still obliged to confess ourselves "agnostics." We cannot say that the possession of high reasoning power, insures immortal life. It does make it possible; it does not. make it certain. So then, as far as reason qualifies for immortality, since the animal world possesses this in common, and yet dies to live no more; we cannot be certain because of