The Scottish Philosophy [151]
call beauty. And the greater the variety there is in this system, the greater the number of parts, the more various their connections and dependencies upon one another, the greater the beauty, provided the mind can distinctly comprehend the several parts in one united view." There must be some truth here, though it may not be the whole truth.
In vols. iii. and iv. he treats of man. This is the only part of his book fitted to excite an interest in these times. " It is surprising," he says, " that so little inquiry has been made concerning {253} the natural history of our own species." He then proceeds to divulge his own theory, which, in some respects, is an anticipation of the Darwinian. He maintains that man was at first a mere animal, that he walked on all fours, and that he possessed a tail, of which we discover the rudiments. There has been a progression in mankind from one stage to higher they erect themselves, they learn the use of their hands, and they learn to swim. They lived first on natural fruits as they presented themselves, and then learned hunting and fishing. Men were for a time solitary, and then came to herd together. He is not so trustworthy as Darwin in his facts: he tells us that there is a whole nation of Esquimaux with only one leg; that the one-eyed cyclops of Homer is not a mere fiction; that in Ethiopia men have only one eye, and this in their foreheads and he expresses his belief in mermaids.
But he detects far higher properties than the Darwinians have yet done. Man's mind was at first immersed in matter; but, by exerting its native power, it can act without the assistance of body, and transports itself into that ideal world which every man who believes in God must believe to be the archetype of this material world. But he insists that there has been a great degeneracy in the race, of which Moses' account of the fall of man is an allegorical version. Corruption of manners begins in every nation among the better sort, and from them descends to the people. He shows that there must be a total reformation of manners and morals; and, in doing so, be speaks of the effeminacy which has arisen from the use of clothes. But he is ever insisting on the difference between man and brute. The actions of man proceed from opinion, but not the actions of brutes. In the lower animals there is no consideration of means and ends. He finds one great difference in the circumstance that man is dissatisfied, envies, and repines, which the brute creatures never do.
In volume vi. he treats of the being of God. Nothing can exist without a cause. A first cause, therefore, is necessary, and he inquires into what must be the nature of the cause of the world. The cause must be self-existent, necessarily existent, eternal, and unchangeable Of this nature must be the efficient cause of the world. But he agrees with Aristotle that there must also have been a natural cause from all eternity. In {254} his work on language he represents the theology of Plato as more sublime than that of Aristotle. The theology of Aristotle, so far as it goes, is a pure system of theism; but it is defective in two great points. First, the providence of God over all his works is not asserted; on the contrary, God is represented as passing his whole time in contemplation. Secondly, he does not make God the author of the material world, but only the mover; he does not derive from Him even the minds that animate this world.
His work on " The Origin and Progress of Language," in six vols. 8vo., is less important. Still, it contains some shrewd remarks. By language he means the expression of the conceptions of the mind by articulate sounds. He does not think that language is natural to man. Men came to invent articulate sounds by the imitation of other animals. A political state was necessary for the invention of language. He had evidently some acquaintance with the affinities of the Teutonic, Persian, Greek, and Latin. He represents the Hebrew, Phoenician, Syriac, and Chaldaic, as having also an affinity. He believes that
In vols. iii. and iv. he treats of man. This is the only part of his book fitted to excite an interest in these times. " It is surprising," he says, " that so little inquiry has been made concerning {253} the natural history of our own species." He then proceeds to divulge his own theory, which, in some respects, is an anticipation of the Darwinian. He maintains that man was at first a mere animal, that he walked on all fours, and that he possessed a tail, of which we discover the rudiments. There has been a progression in mankind from one stage to higher they erect themselves, they learn the use of their hands, and they learn to swim. They lived first on natural fruits as they presented themselves, and then learned hunting and fishing. Men were for a time solitary, and then came to herd together. He is not so trustworthy as Darwin in his facts: he tells us that there is a whole nation of Esquimaux with only one leg; that the one-eyed cyclops of Homer is not a mere fiction; that in Ethiopia men have only one eye, and this in their foreheads and he expresses his belief in mermaids.
But he detects far higher properties than the Darwinians have yet done. Man's mind was at first immersed in matter; but, by exerting its native power, it can act without the assistance of body, and transports itself into that ideal world which every man who believes in God must believe to be the archetype of this material world. But he insists that there has been a great degeneracy in the race, of which Moses' account of the fall of man is an allegorical version. Corruption of manners begins in every nation among the better sort, and from them descends to the people. He shows that there must be a total reformation of manners and morals; and, in doing so, be speaks of the effeminacy which has arisen from the use of clothes. But he is ever insisting on the difference between man and brute. The actions of man proceed from opinion, but not the actions of brutes. In the lower animals there is no consideration of means and ends. He finds one great difference in the circumstance that man is dissatisfied, envies, and repines, which the brute creatures never do.
In volume vi. he treats of the being of God. Nothing can exist without a cause. A first cause, therefore, is necessary, and he inquires into what must be the nature of the cause of the world. The cause must be self-existent, necessarily existent, eternal, and unchangeable Of this nature must be the efficient cause of the world. But he agrees with Aristotle that there must also have been a natural cause from all eternity. In {254} his work on language he represents the theology of Plato as more sublime than that of Aristotle. The theology of Aristotle, so far as it goes, is a pure system of theism; but it is defective in two great points. First, the providence of God over all his works is not asserted; on the contrary, God is represented as passing his whole time in contemplation. Secondly, he does not make God the author of the material world, but only the mover; he does not derive from Him even the minds that animate this world.
His work on " The Origin and Progress of Language," in six vols. 8vo., is less important. Still, it contains some shrewd remarks. By language he means the expression of the conceptions of the mind by articulate sounds. He does not think that language is natural to man. Men came to invent articulate sounds by the imitation of other animals. A political state was necessary for the invention of language. He had evidently some acquaintance with the affinities of the Teutonic, Persian, Greek, and Latin. He represents the Hebrew, Phoenician, Syriac, and Chaldaic, as having also an affinity. He believes that