311 
to be distinct from the human, with which they seem to cor- 
respond, and in some sense really do. We may compare 
them, and contrast them with our own ; but we cannot identify 
them. We have heard of an elephant who, as his keeper said, 
would “ bear malice like a Christian.” But we may rather say, 
that the faithfulness of inferior creatures in the use of their 
faculties may seem to rebuke the unfaithful of a higher degree. 
“ The ox knoweth his owner : — My people doth not know.” 
XXVII. And this leads us to refer to that highest distinction 
of our race — the moral : though we could first have _ . .. . 
wished, if the occasion allowed, to tollow some morals stm lesa 
naturalists into their admission of an “ Unknown posslWe - 
Cause,” in order to show how little of the moral and personal 
they mean by it. Some certainly do not mean a Creating 
Power beyond Nature ; much less a Moral Power ; for the 
philosopher to whom, as we saw, Mr. Darwin refers at times, 
and who owns an unknown causation at present, regards the 
hypothesis of special creation as absolutely “ unthinkable.” 
He says distinctly (as Berkeley feared it would be said) that 
the creation of matter “ implies the establishment of a rela- 
tion in thought between something and nothing, a relation of 
which one term is absent — an impossible relation.” But in 
this the philosopher scarcely has reflected, that the demanded 
relation of something to nothing is already implied in the 
idea of something, and not less implied by the contradiction 
than by the affirmation of Creation. But it is not fit here to 
continue this subject, as the metaphysics of origination, 
though so close to ethical truth, would need an analysis 
of Ontology, which may indeed be necessary hereafter, but 
is not possible now, when, as we have said, moral considera- 
tions claim attention. 
While admitting the moral distance of man from other 
creatures, as a fact, the theory which deduces man The idea is 
from the beast has in it a sensuality which cannot sensual - 
but tend to set him free from the highest morality and from 
the possibility of religion. Nor is this debasing tendency 
relieved, but rather increased, by attempts to combine as in 
one class the instincts of animals and the conscience in man. 
We are far from wishing, as we have said, to stint our admis- 
sions that in creatures beneath the rank of man, there is a 
rudimentary knowledge that some things ought not to be, 
and that some things ought. Let it be analyzed by all means. 
Yet none but triflers will talk to us of “bees,” e.g. } as having 
feelings of “ sacred Duty ” / The generosity and affection of 
some animals, the faithfulness and bravery of others — (unself- 
ishness we cannot say, for that could not be where there had 
