The Parables of Our Lord | Page 3

or the
stars that in the evening reciprocate from heaven the gentle salutation.

Analogy occupies the whole interval between absolute identity on the
one hand, and complete dissimilarity on the other. You would not say
there is an analogy between two coins of the same metal, struck
successively from the same die; for all practical purposes they are
identical. Although the two objects are thoroughly distinct, as all their
sensible qualities are the same, we are accustomed to speak of them not
as similar but the same. In order that a comparison may be effective
either for ornament or for use, there must be, between the two acts or
objects, a similarity in some points, and a dissimilarity in others. The
comparison for moral or æsthetic purposes is like an algebraic equation
in mathematical science; if the two sides are in all their features the
same, or in all their features different, you may manipulate the signs till
the sun go down, but you will obtain no useful result: it is only when
they are in some of their terms the same and in some different, that you
can bring fruit from their union.
We stand here on the brink of a great deep. For wise ends the system of
nature has been constructed upon a line intermediate between the
extremes of sameness and diversity. If the measure of difference
between classes and individuals had been much greater or much
smaller than it is, the accumulation of knowledge would have been
extremely difficult, or altogether impossible. It is by the combination of
similarity and dissimilarity among sensible objects that science from its
lowest to its highest measures becomes possible. If all animals, or all
plants had been in their sensible qualities precisely the same, there
would have been of animals or vegetables only one class: we could
have had no knowledge regarding them, except as individuals: our
knowledge would at this day have been less than that of savages. Again,
if all animals or all plants had been in their sensible qualities wholly
dissimilar--all from each, and each from all, it would have been
impossible to frame classes; our knowledge, as on the opposite
supposition, would have been limited to our observation of individuals.
In either case Zoology or Botany would have been impossible. Man,
endowed with intelligence, could not, in such a world, have found
exercise for his faculties. It would have been like a seeing eye without a
shining light. The power would have lain dormant for want of a
suitable object. Ask the Botanist, the Naturalist, the Chemist--ask the

votary of any science, what makes accumulated knowledge possible; he
will tell you, it is the similarity which enables him to classify,
accompanied by the diversity which enables him to distinguish.
Wanting these two qualities in balanced union there could be no
analogy; and wanting analogy, man could not be capable of occupying
the place which has been assigned to him in creation.[1]
[1] But in order to employ analogy with effect more is needful than to
make sure that the two objects or acts compared are similar without
being identical: the design for which a comparison is made enters as an
essential element, and decisively determines its value. Between two
given objects an analogy may exist, good for one purpose but worthless
for another. Given two balls, spherical in form and equal in size, the
one of wood and the other of iron; and let the question be, Do these two
objects bear any analogy to each other, real in itself and capable of
being usefully employed? The question cannot yet be answered: we
must first ascertain for what purpose the comparison is instituted. The
two balls are like each other in form, but unlike in material; whether is
it in respect of their form or their material that you propose to compare
them? If one of them rolls along a gently inclined plane, you may
safely infer that the other, when placed in the same position, will follow
the same course; for although different in other features they are similar
in form. But you cannot infer that because one floats when thrown into
the water the other will float too, for in respect to specific gravity there
is no similarity between them. Again, let two pieces of wood, cut from
the same tree, be brought together, the one a cube, the other a sphere;
you may safely conclude, if one swim in water that the other will swim
too, because though of diverse forms they are of the same specific
gravity; but you cannot conclude, if the one roll on an inclined plane,
that the other will roll also, because though of the same specific gravity
they are diverse forms. Two objects may be compared for the purpose