143 
INS! 
gence. But, before we affirm that fuch accommodation to 
circumftances can never take place without a companion 
of ideas and a deduction of inferences, let us confider 
how nature acts in other organized bodies, fuch as the 
vegetable. We fee that a vegetable, reared in the corner 
of a dark cellar, will bend itfelf towards the light which 
comes in at the window ; and, if it he made to grow in a 
flower-pot with its head downwards, it will turn itfelf 
into the natural pofition of a plant. Can it be fuppofed, 
that the plant, in either cafe, does what it does from any 
judgment or opinion that it is belt, and not from a necef- 
fary determination of its nature? But, further, to take 
the cafe of bodies unorganized, how fliall we account for 
tire phenomena which chemiftry exhibits to us ? When 
one body unites with another, and then, upon a third be¬ 
ing' p relented to it, quits the fir ft, and unites itfelf with 
it, lhall we fuppofe that this preference proceeds from any 
predilection or opinion that it is better to cleave to the one 
than to the other, from any comparifon of ideas or de¬ 
duction of inferences ? Or fnall we not rather fay, that 
it proceeds from an original law of nature impreffed upon 
it by that Being who mediately or immediately direCls 
every motion of every the minuted atom in the univerfe ? 
And, if fo, why may not inftinCt be an original determi¬ 
nation of the mind of the animal, of which it is part of 
the nature or effence to accommodate itfelf to certain cir¬ 
cumftances, on which depends the prelervation of the in¬ 
dividual, or the continuation of the kind ? Indeed it 
cannot be othenvife, if we have defined inftinft properly; 
for no man ever fuppofed, that, when animals work in- 
ftinCtively, they aft for no purpofe. It is only affirmed 
that the purpofe is not known- to them. It is known, 
however,To the Author of inftinCt; who knows likewife 
that the fame purpofe mu ft in different climates be pro¬ 
moted by different means, and who accordingly deter¬ 
mines the operations of animals of the fame ipecies to be 
different under different circumftances. 
But, though we cannot agree that no accommodation 
to circumftances can ever take place with a comparifon of 
ideas, we readily admit that no faculty which is capable 
of improvement by obfervation and experience can in pro¬ 
priety-of fpeech be termed inltinCl. Inftinft, being a po- 
fitive determination given to the minds of animals by the 
Author of nature for certain purpoles, muft neceffariiy be 
perfect when viewed in connection with thole purpofes ; 
and therefore to talk, as Mr. Smellie does, of the improve¬ 
ment of inftinCt, is to perplex the nnderftancfing by a per- 
verlion of language. There is not, however, a doubt, 
but that reafon may copy the works of inftinCt, and fo 
far alter or improve them as to render them fubfervient 
to other purpefes than thofe for-wliich they were origi¬ 
nally and inftinftively performed. It was thus in all pro¬ 
bability that man at firft learned many of the molt uieful 
arts of life: 
Thy arts of building from the bee receive ; 
Learn of the mole to plough, the worm to weave; 
Learn of the little nautilus to fail, 
Spread the thin oar, and catch the driving gale. Pope. 
But the arts thus adopted by men are no longer the works 
of inftinct, but the operations of reafon influenced by 
motives. This is fo obvioufly and undeniably true, that 
it has compelled the author laft mentioned to confefs, in 
that very lection which treats of inftinfts improvable by 
experience, that “ what men or brutes learn by experi¬ 
ence, though this experience be founded on inftinct, can¬ 
not with propriety be called inftinCtive knowledge, but 
knowledge derived from experience and obfervation. In- 
ftinCt (he fays) Ihould be limited to fuch aCtions as every 
individual of a fnecies exerts without the aid either of ex¬ 
perience or imitation.” This is a very juft diftinction. 
between inftinct and experience. 
We have given a full detail of the ftruCtureof a honey¬ 
comb, becaule it is an effect of inftinCt which cannot be 
confounded with the operations of reafon. The author 
’ I N C T. 
of The Natural Hiftory of Animals, juftly offended with 
that theory which treats of inJlinElive motives, which reore- 
fents the human mind as a bundle of inJUnBs, and of which 
the objeCt feems to be to degrade mankind to the level of 
brutes, has very laudably exerted his endeavours to de- 
teCt its weaknefs, and to expofe it to contempt. But, in 
avoiding one extreme, he feems to have run into the 
other; and, whilft he maintains the rights of his own foe- 
cies, he almoft railes the brutes to the rark of men. “ It 
is better (be lays) to ffiare our rights with others, than 
to be entirely deprived of them.” This is certainly true; 
and no good man will hefitate to prefer his theory to thar 
of his antagonist; but we fee no neceflity for adopting 
either ; the phenomena may he accounted for without 
degrading reafon to the level of inftinCt, or elevating- i n - 
ftinCt to the dignity of reafon. 
_ We lhall readily allow to Locke, that fome of the infe¬ 
rior animals feem to have perceptions of particular truths 
and within very narrow limits the faculty of reafon; but 
we fee no ground to fuppofe that their natural operations* 
are performed with a view to coiiffequences, and there¬ 
fore cannot perfuade ourfelves, that thefe operations are 
the refult of a train of reafoning in the mind of the 
animal. He acknowledges, indeed, that their reafon iim 
and thinking powers are remarkably deficient when- 
compared with thole of men; that they cannot take fo 
full a review of the paft, nor look forward with fo pene¬ 
trating an eye to the future; that they do not accumulate 
obfervation upon obfervation, or add the experience of 
one generation to that of another; that their manners do 
not vary nor their cuftoms fluctuate like ours ; and that 
their arts always remain the lame, without degeneracy 
and without improvement. The crow (be oblerves) al¬ 
ways builds its neftin the fame way; every hen treats her 
young with the lame meafure of affeCtion ; even the dog,, 
the horfe, and the fugacious elephant, feem to aCt rather 
mechanically than with defign From fuch obfervations 
as thefe, it may be inferred, that brutes are directed in 
their aCtions by fome myfterious influence, which impels 
them to employ their powers unintentionally in perform¬ 
ing aftions beneficial to themlelves, and fuitable to their 
nature and circumftances. 
Having thus proved that there is fuch a principle as 
inltinCl in the inferior animals, and that it is tilentially 
different from hitman reafon ; let us return to our own 
Ipecies, and inquire whether there be any occafions upon 
which man acts inftinftively, and what thofe occafions- 
are. This is a queltion of fome difficulty, to which a 
complete and fatisfaftory arifwer will perhaps never be 
given, and to which wo have not the vanity to think that 
fuch an anfwer will be given by us. The principle of 
ajfociation (to be explained afterwards, under the article 
Metaphysics) operates fo powerfully in man, and atVo 
early a period of life, that in many cafes it feems to be 
impoffibie to diftinguilh the effeCts of habit from the ope¬ 
rations of nature. Yet there are a few cafes immediately 
counefied with The prelervation of the individual and the 
propagation of the kind, in which by a little attention, 
thefe things may be diftinguilhed. 
In the firft place, the fucking of a child we believe to 
be an operation performed by inftinCt. Dr. Prielfley 
however, thinks differently: “The action of fuckin’ 
(fays he), I am confident, from my own obfervations, is 
not natural, but acquired.” What obfervations they were 
which led him to this conclulion he has not told us, and 
we cannot imagine ; but every obfervation which we our¬ 
felves have rn3de, compels us to believe that an attempt to 
fuck is natural to children. It has been obierved by the 
author of the Pliilofophy of Natural Hiltory, that the in-- 
ftinft of fucking is not excited by any fmell peculiar to. 
the mother, to milk, or to any other lubftance ; for that 
infants fuck indilcriminately every thing brought into 
contaCl with their mouths. He therefore infers,°that ths- 
defire of fucking is innate, and coeval with the appetite 
for air. The obfervation is certainly juft ; but a difeipie ■ 
of.’ 
