12 MENTAL EVOLUTION IN MAN. 



blended with the latter, and the latter as often becoming 

 transmuted into the former, — and, in the next place, that all 

 the higher animals manifest in various degrees the faculty of 

 inferring. Now, tJiis is the faculty of reason, propc7'ly so called; 

 and although it is true that in no case does it attain in 

 animal psychology to more than a rudimentary phase of 

 development as contrasted with its prodigious growth in 

 man, this is clearly quite another matter where the question 

 before us is one concerning difference of kind.* 



Again, the theological distinction between men and' 

 animals may be passed over, because it rests on a dogma with 

 which the science of psychology has no legitimate point of 

 contact. Whether or not the conscious part of man differs 

 from the conscious part of animals in being immortal, and 

 whether or not the " spirit " of man differs from the " soul " of 

 animals in other particulars of kind, dogma itself would main- 

 tain that science has no voice in either affirming or denying. 

 For, from the nature of the case, any information pf a positive 

 kind relating to these matters can only be expected to come 

 byway of a Revelation ; and, therefore, however widely dogma 

 and science may differ on other points, they are at least agreed 

 upon this one — namely, if the conscious life of man differs thus 

 from the conscious life of brutes, Christianity and Philosophy 

 alike proclaim that only by a Gospel could its endowment 

 of immortality have been brought to light.f 



Another distinction between the man and the brute which i 

 we often find asserted is, that the latter shows no signs of 



* Of course where the term Reason is intended to signify Introspective 

 Thought, the above remarks do not apply, further than to indicate the misuse of 

 the term. 



t I here neglect to consider the view of Bishop Butler, and others who have ' 

 followed him, that animals may have an immortal pruiciple as well as man ; for, 

 if this view is maintained, it serves to identify, not to separate, human and brute 

 psychology. The dictum of Aristotle and Buffon, that animals differ from man in 

 having no power of mental apprehension, may also be disregarded ; for it appears 

 to be sufficiently disposed of by the following remark of Bureau de la Malle, 

 which I here quote as presenting some historical interest in relation to the theory 

 of natural selection. He says : " Si les animaux n'etaient pas susceptibles 

 d'apprendre les raoyens de se conserver, les especes se seraient aneanties." 



