116 CUTHBERT COLLINGWOOD, ESQ., M.A., B.M. (OXON.), ETC. 
the subject is involved in great obscurity. I doubt if Dr. Colling- 
wood has given sufficient credit to the capacity of the instinctive - 
faculty in the lower animals for expanding, on special occasions, 
into something very like reason and reflection. Most of us have 
had opportunities of witnessing examples of this higher exercise 
of the instinctive faculty—which would have done no discredit to 
the reasoning faculty in a human being; at least in the case of a 
boy or girl. But, notwithstanding such exceptional instances, the 
essentially limited scope of Instinct as compared with Reason 
appears to show a difference not only in degree but in kind, as the 
author maintains. 
By Professor Duns, D.D., F.R.S.H., New College, Edinburgh.— 
I have read Dr. Cuthbert Collingwood’s paper with much interest. 
It is an able statement, review, and criticism of a great subject, 
which holds at present a prominent place in, so-called, philo- 
sophical biology. Is brute instinct generically the same as human 
reason? Have ‘‘the higher organic forms been developed from 
lower in such a manner as to leave no important gap in the animal 
series?” The latter question is generally answered first, and, by 
assumptions for which no reasons are given but subjective ones, the 
theory of evolution is held to warrant an affirmative answer to both. 
Oken’s dictum passes for true science :—“ Every organic thing has 
arisen from primitive slime, which originated in the sea from 
inorganic matter!” And man is no more than a link in the 
chain of being. It seems to me that this is begging the whole 
question, and is not scientific, because science rests on facts. Long 
ago Sir William Hamilton set this in its true light, so far as 
man is concerned: ‘“‘ What man holds of matter does not make up 
his personality. Man is not an organism, he is an intelligence 
served by organs; they are his—not he.’’ This, moreover, strikes 
the point at which Scripture and true science bear one testimony 
as to man’s place in Nature. In one aspect of his being man is 
linked to the lower animals; in another he has mental qualities 
which make a great gulf beween him and the lower animals. 
When we take into account his rational nature—will, affections, 
imagination, hopes, capacity of education, self-consciousness, 
thinking that he thinks—we meet with elements which refuse to 
fit into any scheme of zoological classification that attempts to 
deal with man as if his place were not unique in Nature. Dr. 
Collingwood’s able discussions are of much value from this point 
of view. 
