ARE ANIMALS AUTOMATONS? 733 



doubtedly I do hold that the view I have taken ot the relations be- 

 tween the physical and mental faculties of brutes applies in its fullness 

 and entirety to man ; and, if it was true that the logical consequences 

 of that belief must land me in all these terrible things, I do not hesi- 

 tate in allowing myself to be so landed. I should conceive that, if I 

 refused, I should have done the greatest and most abominable violence 

 to every thing which is deepest in my moral nature. But now I beg 

 leave to say that, in my conviction, there is no such logical con- 

 nection as is pretended between the doctrine I accept and the con- 

 sequences which people profess to draw from it. Many years ago I 

 had occasion, in dealing with the philosophy of Descartes, and some 

 other matters, to state my conviction pretty fully on those subjects, 

 and, although I know by experience how futile it is to endeavor to 

 escape from those nicknames which many people mistake for argu- 

 ment, yet, if those who care to investigate these matters in a spirit of 

 candor and justice will look into those writings of mine, they will see 

 my reasons for not imagining that such conclusions can be drawn from 

 such premises. To those who do not look into these matters with 

 candor and with a desire to know the truth I have nothing whatever 

 to say, except to warn them on their own behalf what they do; for 

 assuredly, if, for preaching such doctrine as I have preached to you 

 to-night, I am cited before the bar of public opinion, I shall not stand 

 there alone. On my one hand I shall have, among theologians, St. 

 Augustine, John Calvin, and a man whose name should be well known 

 to the Presbyterians of Ulster — Jonathan Edwards — unless, indeed, it 

 be the fashion to neglect the study of the great masters of divinity, as 

 many other great studies are neglected nowadays. I should have upon 

 my other hand, among the philosophers, Leibnitz; I should have Pere 

 Malebranche, who saw all things in God; I should have David Hart- 

 ley, the theologian as well as philosopher ; I should have Charles Bon- 

 net, the eminent naturalist, and one of the most zealous defenders 

 Christianity has ever had. I think I should have, within easy reach at 

 any rate, John Locke. Certainly the school of Descartes would be 

 there, if not their master; and I am inclined to think, in due justice, a 

 citation would have to be served upon Emmanuel Kant himself. In 

 such society it may be better to be a prisoner than a judge ; but I 

 would ask those who are likely to be influenced by the din and clamor 

 which are raised about these questions whether they are more likely 

 to be right in assuming that those great men I have mentioned — the 

 fathers of the Church and the fathers of philosophy — knew what they 

 were about, or that the pigmies who raise this din know better than 

 they did what they meant. It is not necessary for any man to occupy 

 himself with problems of this kind unless he so choose. Life is full 

 enough, filled amply to the brim, by the performance of its ordinary 

 duties ; but let me warn you, let me beg you to believe that if a man 

 elect to give a judgment upon these great questions; still more, if he 



