grave, man shall ever again break through the barriers of the tomb. Even if we hold that reason cannot be a product of molecular activity, and, therefore, must continue after death; it still follows that the possession of the highest reason does not guarantee us immortality. We may lose our identity through absorption, as it were, by the Infinite Reason. In the words of the Vedas: "When a man departs from hence, his speech is merged in his mind, his mind in his breath, his breath in heat, his heat in the Highest Being." Our possession of the highest reason, therefore, does not to a certainty disprove the words of Ecclesiastes: "He that goeth to the grave, shall come up no more." LANGUAGE:- We have seen that the universal opinion that man is in exclusive possession of reason has been once for all overthrown to rise no more. Can it be said that man is in exclusive possession of language? We answer that there are high authorities who hold this opinion, but we are certain that they cannot consistently do so; and that as all those: who have defined man as the only reasoning animal have been forced to give up their opinion, so in like manner will those be forced to acknowledge their defeat who teach that. man is the only animal which uses language. Language is the natural outcome of reason; and from the first use of such a sign of the reason within, language and thought have ever aided each other in their development. Any sound caused by an animal as expressive of its wants, feelings, or desires, should be called language; and it will be so called 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 grave, man shall ever again break through the barriers of the tomb. Even if we hold that reason cannot be a product of molecular activity, and, therefore, must continue after death; it still follows that the possession of the highest reason does not guarantee us immortality. We may lose our identity through absorption, as it were, by the Infinite Reason. In the words of the Vedas: "When a man departs from hence, his speech is merged in his mind, his mind in his breath, his breath in heat, his heat in the Highest Being." Our possession of the highest reason, therefore, does not to a certainty disprove the words of Ecclesiastes: "He that goeth to the grave, shall come up no more." LANGUAGE: We have seen that the universal opinion that man is in exclusive possession of reason has been once for all overthrown to rise no more. Can it be said that man is in exclusive possession of language? We answer that there are high authorities who hold this opinion, but we are certain that they cannot consistently do so; and that as all those who have defined man as the only reasoning animal have been forced to give up their opinion, so in like manner will those be forced to acknowledge their defeat who teach that. man is the only animal which uses language. Language is the natural outcome of reason; and from the first use of such a sign of the reason within, language and thought have ever aided each other in their development. Any sound caused by an animal as expressive of its wants, feelings, or desires, should be called language; and it will be so called stand an animal, we do not speak philosophically; the truth is, we do to some extent interpret the cries and sounds animals make in our presence. If we say we have no means of clearly understanding them, those animals may retort and say they have no means of clearly understanding us. As far as I know many of those animals may pity our helplessness in that we cannot converse with them. If you say that you do not believe this, I reply you are welcome to your belief, and say with Max Mueller: "We can imagine anything we like about what passes in the mind of the animal,— we can know absolutely nothing." (S. of Th. 9). We cannot doubt that the lower animals have unmistakable, elementary signs, or means, of communicating their feelings or desires to one another; and as human language is but an elaboration of such simple signs or means, it would properly follow that man is not in exclusive possession of language. That language is not an exclusive possession of man, I myself have no doubt. There was a time when language was looked upon as something very mysterious, as not having a natural origin, as having been a creation, or a result of miraculous intervention. Ignorant theologians believe and teach this to-day. Such a belief is not accepted by any scientific scholar. To speak on this subject no one has a higher right than Lazar Geiger who says: "Reason does not date from all eternity, but like everything else on earth it has an origin. Although man is always rational, he cannot always have been so. Reason does not spring into existence finished in all its perfection, as it were by a kind of a catastrophe, but it had its own devel human nature, no one can form a true conception of the origin of language, who does not clearly see, that for a time every human being and, therefore, the ancestors of the human race themselves were without language, without reason. Language which formerly seemed so wonderful a thing as to require a superhuman framer, is now seen to be very intelligible and a purely human piece of workmanship. Language seemed a very mysterious thing, the most wonderful gift bestowed on man by a divine power; but now, how different! So far from being mysterious and wonderful, language has become perfectly simple and intelligible. It is in fact no more than addition and subtraction. How a student of the science of language can be anything but an evolutionist, is to me utterly unintelligible." Prof. Noiré, points out that "wherever our senses are excited and our muscles hard at work, we feel a kind of relief in uttering sounds; that these sounds are almost involuntary vibrations of the voice, corresponding to the more or less regular movements of our whole bodily frame.” By the repeated use of these natural sounds or grunts expressive of the consciousness, they finally became understood. This was the natural beginning of language according to Prof. Noiré, and in his opinion Max Mueller concurs. (Vid. Sci. of Thought). Speaking further on this subject Max Mueller says: "We cannot doubt that language had an historical beginning, and represents the work of man carried on through many thousands of years, and cannot avoid the conclusion that, before those many thousands of years, there was a |