J44 
INSTINCT. 
of Dr. Prieftlejf’s may* objeft to the inference; for, “in 
facking and fwallowing our food, and in many fuch in- 
ftances, it is.exceedingly probable (fays the doftor), that 
the aftions of the mufcles are originally automatic, having 
been fo placed by our Maker, that at frit they are Simu¬ 
lated and contrail mechanically whenever their aftion is 
requisite.’' This is certainly the cafe with refpeft to the 
motion of the mufcles in the aftion of breathing; and, 
if.that aftion be of the fame kind, and proceed from 
the very fame caufe, with the action of fucking, and if a 
child never flows a deiire to fuck but when Something 
is brought into'contact with its mouth, Dr. Prieftley’s ac¬ 
count of this operation appears to us much more fatisfac- 
tory than that of the authors who attribute it to inftinft. 
But the aftions of breathing and fucking feem to dif¬ 
fer effentially in feveral particulars. . They are indeed 
both (performed by means of air; but in the former a 
child,for many months exerts no fpontaneous effort, whilft 
a fpontaneous effort feems to be abfolutely neceffary for 
the performance of the latter. Of this indeed we could 
not be certain, were it true that infants never exhibit 
fymptoms of a wifh to fuck but when fomething is actu¬ 
ally in contaft with their mouths; for the mere aft of 
fucking then might well be fuppofed to be automatic, and 
the efleft of irritation. But this is not the cafe: for a 
healthy and vigorous infant, within ten minutes of its 
birth, gives the plaineft and moll unequivocal evidence of 
a defire to fuck, before any thing be brought into aftual 
contaft with its mouth. It flretches out its neck, and 
turns its head from fide to fide apparently in queft of fome¬ 
thing ; and that the objeft of its purluit is fomething 
which it may fuck, every man may fatisfy himfelf by a 
very convincing experiment. When an infant is thus 
ftretching out fits neck and moving its head, if any thing 
be made to touch any part of its face, the little creature 
will inftantly turn to the objeft, and endeavour by quick 
alternate motions from fide to fide to feize it with its 
mouth, in the very fame manner in which it always feizes 
the break of the nurfe, till taught by experience to dif- 
tinguifii objefts by the fenfe of fight, when thefe alternate 
motions, being no longer ufeful, are no longer employed. 
If this be not an inftance of pure inftinft, we know not 
what it is. It cannot be the refult of affociation or me- 
chanifm ; for, when the ftretching of the neck takes place, 
nothing is in contaft 'with the child’s mouth, and no af¬ 
fociation which includes the aft of fucking can have been 
formed. Afiociations of ideas are the confequences of 
iimultaneous impreffions frequently repeated ; but, when 
the child firit' declares, as plainly as it could do were it 
poffeiied of language, its wilh to fuck, it has not received 
a fingle impreilion with which that wifii can poffibly be 
.affociated. 
Were Dr. Prieltley to weigh thefe fafts, of the truth of 
which we are certain, we doubt not that his well-known 
candour would make him retraft the afl'ertion, that all the 
actions which Dr. Reid and others refer to inftinft are 
either automatic or acquired. The greater' part of thofe 
aftions, as well as of the a-pparently-inftmotive principles 
of belief, we have no doubt are acquired ; but we are per- 
fuaded that a child fucks its nurle as a bee builds its cell, 
by inftinft; for upon no other hypothefts can we account 
for the Ipontandous efforts exerted in both thefe opera¬ 
tions ; and we think it no diigrace to our fpecies, that in 
fome few cafes we fiiould aft from the fame principle 
with the inferior creation, as nothing feems more true 
than that, 
Reafon raife o’er inftinft as we can ; 
In this ’tis God that works, in that ’tis man. 
Secondly, we think the aftion of eating may be attri¬ 
buted to inftinft. It is certainly performed by a fpon¬ 
taneous exertion of the proper organs; and that exertion 
is firit made at a time of life when we have no concep¬ 
tion of the end which it ferves to accomplish, and there¬ 
fore, cannot be influenced by motives. It muft indeed be 
4 
confeffed, that the firff aft of chewing is performed by & 
child, not for the purpofe.of mafticating food, but to 
quicken the operation of nature in the cutting of teeth ; 
and perhaps it may be laid, that the pleating fenfation of 
tajle, which is then firft experienced, and afterwards re¬ 
membered, prompts the child to continue at intervals the 
exertion of chewing after all his teeth are cut; fo that, 
though the aft of eating is not performed with a view to 
the maftication of food or the naurifhment of the body, 
it may yet be performed, not from any inftinftive impulfe, 
but merely from an early and deep-rooted affociation. 
But in anfwer to this it is fufficient to afk, Who taught 
the infant that the aft of chewing would quicken the ope¬ 
ration of nature in the cutting of teeth ? Not reafon, 
furely, nor experience; for an infant knows nothing of 
teeth, or the manner in which they grow ; and, if it be 
granted, that for this purpofe it was originally impelled 
by fome internal and myfteriaus influence to perform the 
aftion of chewing, we are not inclined to deny that the 
operation may be continued for other purpofes by means 
of affociation: 
In human works, though labour’d on with pain, 
A thoufand movements fcarce one purpofe gain ; 
In God’s, one fingle can its end produce. 
Yet ferves to fecond too fome other ufe. Pope. 
This is found philofophy, confirmed by obfervation and 
daily experience ; but though, in the works of God, one 
principle produces many confequences, and though per¬ 
haps there is not a principle which falls under our cog¬ 
nizance more fruitful than that of affociation, yet, if it bs 
not fufficient to account for the firjl aSl of chewing, we 
cannot refer to it alone as to the fource of that operation. 
Should it be faid, that the gums of an infant are at the 
period of cutting teeth fo irritable, that, the moment any 
thing is applied to them, the jaws perform a motion 
merely automatic, which we priftake for the fpontaneous 
efleft of inftinft; ftill we would afk, What prompts the 
child to apply every thing to its mouth ? Does the irri¬ 
tation of the gums contraft the mufcles of the arm ? By 
a bigot for mechanifra this might be faid, were it true 
that the arm of an infant, like a piece of clock-work, is 
always fo regularly moved as to bring its hand direftly 
into contaft with its gums; but this is far from being 
the cafe; an infant makes many unfuccefsful efforts to 
reach its mouth, and does not accomplifh its purpofe till 
after repeated trials. Perhaps it may be alleged (for when 
men adopt a favourite hypothefis they will allege any 
thing in its fupport), that infants are taught to carry 
things to their mouths by the pleafmg fenfation received 
from the application of their nurfes breaks, and continue 
the praftice from habit and affociation. But it is certain 
that they do not begin this praftice till teeth are forming 
in their gums; and then they ufe fuch things as they 
themfelves carry to their mouths very differently from the 
breaks of their nurfe : they conftantly chew and bite their 
rattles, though they do not very often bite their nurfes. 
As this praftice cannot be begun from a principle of af¬ 
fociation, fo it appears to us that it cannot be continued 
upon fuch a principle. Were the fenfation experienced 
by an infant when chewing a hard lubftance a pleafing 
fenfation, the remembrance of the pleafure might as a 
motive prompt it to repeat the operation; but it is ob¬ 
vious, that by prefling a gum, through which a tooth is 
making its way, againlt an y thing hard, the infant muft 
experience a painful fenfation ; and therefore the influ¬ 
ence which impels it to continue this operation, muft be 
fomething more powerful than pleafure or pain. 
Thirdly, we think that, in the favage ftate, the fexes 
go together, foir the jirjl time, by inftinft, without any view 
to offspring, and perhaps with no determinate idea of en¬ 
joyment. This opinion, we believe, has been generally 
maintained; but it is controverted by Dr. Hartley, who 
infills that the firft commerce of the fexes amonglt hu¬ 
man beings is direfted by reafon; and the arguments af- 
• iigned 
