The text discusses the representation of animals with human-like reasoning in art, finding it inappropriate outside caricature or satire. It humorously mentions 'animal advocates' defending this concept. The passage suggests that while animals must fulfill natural purposes, they do not possess human-like thought or conscience.
Maxim and Service of the Muscles.
Sometimes displayed are animals depicted with the attentive reasoning and thinking capacity of the human soul; such that he creates beasts that seem to reason, or converse among themselves. This is seen rather absurdly in serious paintings where figures appear animal-like in their nature, as it is inappropriate to the style intended for serious art. Scenes of this kind fit only within caricatures, satirical art, or comedic works featuring monkeys. It would be inappropriate to delve deeply into this material, and concerning our knowledge of humanity, we would find a legion of 'Animal Advocates', who are people keen to argue for the thinking and reasoning of animals. Among them, one might lightly find a common theologian, throwing some not-so-fitting biblical passages onto the subject; moreover, an old woman might attempt to support the idea, claiming more understanding from her dog and cat than in herself. We hold it certain that, if animals had their nature, they must have some actions and deeds to fulfill the purpose of the Creator; to exist for a time and remain in being, and through reproduction, maintain their continued existence. However, because they perform some acts necessary by the aforementioned causes, sharing commonality with our actions, it is not required that they have the same insight, thought, or conscience, akin to that of a human being.
Animals have many advocates, who defend their reasoning.