Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][merged small]

CHAPTER I. PAGE
STATE of the Argument . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER II.
State of the Argument continued . . . . . 8
CHAPTER III.
Application of the Argument . . . . . . . It
CHAPTER IV
Of the Succession of Plants and Animals . . . 49
CHAPTER V.
Application of the Argument continued . . . 55
CHAPTER VI.
The Argument cumulative . . . . . . . 75
CHAPTER VII.
Of the Michanical and tourchasical part
and Functions of Animals and Vegetables . 78

CHAPTER VIII.

Frame, Of the Bones

CHAPTER IX.
Of the Muscles . .

CHAPTER X.
Of the Wessels of Animal Bodies . .

CHAPTER XI.
Of the Animal Structure regarded as a Mass
CHAPTER XII. . .

Comparative Anatomy

CHAPTER XIII. . .

Peculiar Organizations

CHAPTER XIV.

Prospective Contrivances .
CHAPTER XV.
Relations . . . . . . .
CHAPTER XVI. A
Compensation . .

CHAPTER XVII.

The Relation of animated Bodies to inanimate
s

Nature . . . . .
- CHAPTER XVIII.

Instincts

PAGE
Of MECHANICAL Arrangement in the human

92
122
147
185
211
24, 1
252
261

275

291

299

CHAPTER XIX.
of Insects - -
** CHAPTER XX.
Of Plants -
CHAPTER XXI.
Of the Elements . . . . . .
CHAPTER XXII.
Astronomy
- CHAPTER XXIII.
Personality of the Deity
CHAPTER XXIV.
Of the natural Attributes of the Deity
CHAPTER XXV.
Of the Unity of the Deity .
cHAPTER xxvi.
The Goodness of the Deity
CHAPTER XXVII.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

Conclusion

e e 44.1

. . 449

-- w * f

[ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][graphic][graphic]

NATURAL THEOLOGY. . .

CHAPTER I.

state of the ARGUMENT. IN crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? For this reason,

B

« VorigeDoorgaan »