125 
which belong merely to our “ physical organization,” or bodies, we are cer- 
tainly no other than animals ; and I would go further, and say that, in some 
respects, we are no better even than the invertebrate animals. The in- 
vertebrate animals are as good as we in regard to their eating and drinking, 
living and dying ; but that does not invalidate the superiority of man in other 
respects. Of course I am not prepared to agree with Professor MacDonald 
on another point. I cannot agree, or at least Ido not think it is an argument 
which we can at all use, that man is the only animal having any idea of 
infinity. We do not know, and have no means of knowing, whether the 
inferior animals have any idea of infinity or not ; and I am not very sure, on 
the other hand, whether men generally have any full idea of it either. That 
case quoted by Captain Fishbourne of the monkey which pinched the beetles 
out of the book and ate them shows how very poor the animal intellect is, 
and there are better instances even than that. Gorillas in the African forests 
will watch the traveller as he passes through them, and see him sit at the 
fire he has made, and warm himself ; and after he has passed on, they will 
also sit round the fire, stretch out their legs, and warm themselves like the 
man ; but they have not the common sense — and that is really the exact 
expression for what they want — they have not the common sense to put on a 
single stick to keep the fire alive ! That alone shows what an immense 
intellectual difference there is between a man and a brute. We cannot deny, 
and I do not think Mr. Morshead means to deny, that there is a certain 
amount of ratiocinative power in the animal ; but there is a difficulty about 
Mr. Morshead’s definition, perhaps, which laid him open to some of the 
criticisms of Mr. Row. 
Rev. S. Wainwright. — I think Mr. Reddie has shown — what, indeed, is 
self-evident, and what I am prepared to maintain, in the face of the Saturday 
Revieiv, and of the whole school of those who oppose us — that we cannot 
possibly have a true solution of the matters which surround this subject on 
every side, except by adopting that which, until it is put out of court by a 
positive refutation, has an unanswerable claim to be considered the absolute 
truth. Mr. Morshead has pointed out that, viewed on one side of his being, 
man is only an animal ; but there is another side of his being, in respect of 
■which he is not an animal ; and the whole man is that complete being so 
fearfully and wonderfully made that there is plenty of room for him to 
wander up and down within himself, and in himself be lost. I cannot agree 
with the view held by Mr. Row, that animals have an intellect of the same 
kind as, and merely differing in degree from, that of man. The difference 
is one not only of extent and degree, but of kind. The intellectual power 
of the animal, if you like to call it so, is sni generis : it has nothing in 
common with the human intellect. Mr. Row linked several of his facts 
together with a copula very much in favour with Mr. Darwin and others of 
his school when they declare that so-and-so must be so-and-so, and must have 
such-and-such an effect. Though I am a clergyman, I confess I am of a 
somewhat sceptical turn of mind when I come across that phrase ; and, until 
I have seen a reason for it, I never admit a “ must.” I am bound to say 
