1801. ] 
all material properties, as gold or marble. 
The popuiar ideas, however, of the foul, 
when feparated from the body, have in all 
countries been derived from this falfe ana- 
logy between f{pirit and matter of great 
tenuity ; whence have {prung all the fan- 
cied forms of ghofts and fpectres, fouls 
clad in veftments of air or light, which 
were objects of the ficht and hearing, but 
not of the touch. The anthropomorphifm 
of rude nations, and perhaps of the vulgar 
in all nations, has a fimilar origin. To 
this head may be referred the errors arifing 
from the ufe of fymbols, which have fo 
often been carried into practice, to the 
great injury of rational religion and mo- 
yality. Thus, crime being metaphorical - 
Jy the ftain and pollution of the foul, and 
innocence its whitenels and purity, the em- 
blem of wafhing was employed to denote 
fuch a change of conduct as might efface 
mental vitiations. But the Jews and Ma- 
hometans have made a duty of the mere 
corporeal ablution, and thus have fatisfied 
themfelves with the type inftead of the 
thing typified. The ideas of Chriftian 
baptifm have too much partaken of the 
fame error. The notions of phyfiognomy 
feem very much to have arifen from mere 
verbal analogies between the properties of 
mind and body. Thus the expanded brow 
is fuppofed to denote an open temper ; the 
dark overhanging brow a gloomy and re-_ 
ferved one: fharp features imply an acute 
underftanding, or a keen difpofition ; thick 
Slefhy ones, a grofs, obtufe mental character: 
a high nole indicates haughtinefs; a pro- 
longed one, lonz-fuffering, or patience, &c. 
Ot fimilar origin is the hypothefis that a 
fublime genius is the product of a moun- 
tainous or elevated country ; and that flat- 
nefs and uniformity characterife the native 
ot the plaiz. In all thefe cafes, it is ob- 
vious that men have been mifled by words; 
and that the poverty of language, which 
has occafioned fimilar terms to be applied 
to diffimilar things, has given rife to falfe 
inferences. 
Secondly, analogical reafonings muft be 
carried to their full and fair extent. Ge- 
neral refemblance, if it infers one thing, 
infers more; and we muft not feleé cer- 
tain points of fimilitude, and reject the 
refit, merely becaufe it fuits the purpofe of 
cur argument. It is true, refemblance is 
not identity ; and from the infinite variety 
of nature, we have reafon to believe, that 
differences do exift where we do not fee 
them. But if, from one known point of 
refemblance, we venture to infer another 
unknown, there is jut the fame reafon for 
Proceeding in the parallel to the remaining 
Enquirer, No. XXIII. 
29 
points. Thus, fuppofing that the various 
difcoveries of aftronomers relative to the 
other planets eftablith fuch a refemblance 
between them and our world, as to afford 
ground for the analogical conclufion, that 
they are inhabited as well as it, we mut 
make the fame refemblance the foundation 
of our ideas concerning the creatures inha- 
biting them. We need not indeed fuppofe 
that the!e creature are men, dogs, or hories, 
nor that their mode's of fentation, nutri- 
tion, propagation, and the like, are exaét- 
ly the fame with thofe we obferve on this 
earth (for the produétion of variety is 
even here one of the moft obvious inten- 
tions of nature) ; but inattributing tothem 
life, we cannot confiftently feparate thofe 
circumftances by which life, as tar as we 
have known it, is invariably accompanied, 
namely, origin, progrefs, maturity, and 
decay, pleafure and pain, health and dif- 
eafe. And as in this world we univertal- 
ly behold good and evil, advantage and 
difadvantage, mutually aéting as caufe and 
effect, and combining in every difpofition 
of things, natural and moral; fo analogy 
obliges usto conclude, that the fame mix- 
ture prevails more or lefs in the fyftem ef- 
tablifhed in other refembling worlds. 
The ftriking corporeal analogies that 
take place between man and other animals 
have been minutely noticed by fome philo- 
fophers, who have yet been led by the 
force of pre-conceived hypothefes to vio- 
late analogy, in denying that the mental 
faculties of the latter have any thing fimi- 
lar in their nature to thofe of the former. 
Thus Defcartes has pzrtinacioufly main- 
tained that brutes are mere machines or 
automatons; and that what appears in 
them to be memory, choice, conirivance, 
attachment, and the like, is not the refult 
of any thing like a foul, as in the human 
fpecies, but proceeds from mere mechanifin. 
But furely if, in comparing the ftruéture of 
the eye in a man and ina dog, I difcovera 
perfect fimilarity of organ, and thence in- 
fer that the dog fees in the fame manner 
that the man does ; I ought to conclude, 
that when he comprehends his mafter’s 
figns, when he fawns upon him, guards 
him, protects his property, and the like, 
he undergoes internal imprefiions fimilar to 
thofe of a human being in like circam- 
ftances. Acad, indeed, the argument from 
analogy, if uncontradicted by any thing 
more poiitive, would go much further, and 
warrant conciufions of fimilarity with re- 
fpe& to the future deltiny of our fellow- 
animals. 
Thirdly, analogy 1s not to be purfued 
in contradiétion to actual obfervation. 
This 
