Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

'CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I. Page
STATE of the Argument 1

CHAPTER II.
State of the Argument continued 8

CHAPTER III.
Application of the Argument 17

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 Mechanical and Immechanical Parts
and Functions of Animals and Vegetables . 78
CHAPTER VIII.

PAGE

Of Mechanical Arrangement in the human
Frame,Of the Bones 92

CHAPTER IX.
Of the Muscles . . . ] 22

CHAPTER X..
Of the Vessels of Animal Bodies 147

CHAPTER XL >
Of the Animal Structure regarded as a Mass . 185

CHAPTER XII. .
Comparative Anatomy ......... 211

CHAPTER XIII.
Peculiar Organizations 241

CHAPTER XIV. . . v
Prospective Contrivances 252

CHAPTER XV.
Belations 261

CHAPTER XVI.
Compensation . . . . 275

CHAPTER XVII.

The Relation of animated Bodies to inanimate
Nature 291

CHAPTER XVIII.:

Instincts . . . 299
CHAPTER XIX.

PAGE

Of Insects 319

CHAPTER XX.
Of Plants 345

CHAPTER XXI.
Of the Elements 368

CHAPTER XXII.
Astronomy . 378

CHAPTER XXIII.
Personality of the Deity 408

CHAPTER XXIV.
Of the natural Attributes of the Deity . ... 441

CHAPTER XXV.
Of the Unity of the Deity . 449

CHAPTER XXVI.
The Goodness of the Deity ....... 454

CHAPTER XXVII.
Conclusion 535

[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> contraryr 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 »