52 THE HUMANIZING OF THE BRUTE. 



deed, as we have proved, there is no greater error 

 imaginable, than to attribute to animals, when acting 

 instinctively, an intellect similar to that of man. If 

 then the animal acting under the laws of instinct can- 

 not boast even of a human intelligence, then all in- 

 telligence of a higher kind is a fortiori excluded. 

 No, the superhuman intelligence, radiating, as it were, 

 from all instinctive activity, does not abide in the ani- 

 mal itself. On the contrary, we are impelled with 

 logical necessity by most evident facts to acknowledge 

 a being which many nowadays are so surprisingly loath 

 to admit, namely, a divine Intelligence, distinct from 

 the animal and from the whole creation, a personal 

 God, infinitely wise and powerful. But since it is re- 

 pugnant that this God personally governs the animal's 

 instinctive activity by endless miracles, we have to as- 

 sume that the Infinite has inscribed in the animal as 

 in every living being an immanent law according to 

 which the animal by its own activity performs its in- 

 stinctive actions. And wherein does this law consist? 

 As we have seen the facts do not allow us to assign to the 

 animal when acting instinctively a higher faculty than 

 sensitive cognition and appetency. Consequently, we 

 have to infer that the law imprinted in the animal-soul 

 consists in this very sensitive cognition and appetency, 

 qualified in such a way that, as St. Thomas says, 

 "what is the specific object of pleasure to the animal" 

 is at the same time "the best and most appropriate ob- 

 ject of its well being. ' ' 



What, therefore, is our definition of instinct? L,add 

 says: "The simple fact is that we find men and the 

 lower animals generally, using the structure with 



