lofophers, than the refult of habit; not of the habit or effort of a single pelican, or of a single race of pelicans, but of a habit perpetuated through a long series of generations. The pelican foon found the conveniency, of referving in its mouth, when its appetite was glutted, the remainder of its prey, which is fish. The fullness produced by this attempt, of course ftretched the skin which lies between the under chaps, as being the most yielding part of the mouth. Every distension increased the cavity. The original bird, and many generations which fucceeded him, might find difficulty enough in making the pouch answer this purpose: but future pelicans, entering upon life with a pouch derived from their progenitors, of considerable capacity, would more readily accelerate its advance to perfection, by frequently preffing down the fac with the weight of fish which it might now be made to contain.

Thefe, or of this kind, are the analogies relied upon. Now in the first place, the instances themselves are unauthenticated by teftimony; and, in theory, to fay the leaft of them, open to great objections. Who ever read of camels without bunches, or with bunches less than those with which they are at prefent

2H 3

prefent ufually formed? A bunch, not unlike the camel's, is found between the fhoulders of the buffalo; of the origin of which it is impoffible to give the account which is here given. In the second example; Why should the application of water, which appears to promote and thicken the growth of feathers upon the bodies and breafts of geefe and fwans and other water fowls, have divefted of this covering the thighs of cranes? The third instance, which appears to me as plaufible as any that can be produced, has this against it, that it is a fingularity restricted to the fpecies; whereas, if it had its commencement in the cause and manner which have been affigned, the like conformation might be expected to take place in other birds, which fed upon fish. How comes it to pass, that the pelican alone was the inventress, and her defcendants the only inheri tors, of this curious resource?

But it is the lefs neceffary to contravert the inftances themselves, as it is a ftraining of analogy beyond all limits of reason and credibility, to affert that birds, and beafts, and fish, with all their variety and complexity of organization, have been brought into their forms, and diftinguished into their feveral kinds and na

tures,

tures, by the fame procefs (even if that procefs could be demonftrated, or had ever been actually noticed) as might feem to ferve for the gradual generation of a camel's bunch, or a pelican's pouch.

The folution, when applied to the works of nature generally, is contradicted by many of the phænomena, and totally inadequate to others. The ligaments or ftrictures, by which the tendons are tied down at the angles of the joints, could, by no poffibility, be formed by the motion or exercife of the tendons themfelves; by any appetency exciting these parts into action; or by any tendency arising therefrom. The tendency is all the other way: the conatus in conftant opposition to them. Length of time does not help the cafe at all, but the reverse. The valves alfo in the bloodveffels, could never be formed in the manner, which our theorift proposes. The blood, in its right and natural courfe, has no tendency to form them. When obftructed or refluent, it has the contrary. These parts could not grow out of their use, though they had eternity to grow in.

The fenfes of animals appear to me altoge ther incapable of receiving the explanation of

their origin which this theory affords. Including under the word "fenfe" the organ and the perception, we have no account of either. How will our philofopher get at vi fion, or make an eye? How fhould the blind animal affect fight, of which blind animals, we know, have neither conception nor defire? Affecting it, by what operation of its will, by what endeavour to fee, could it fo determine the fluids of its body, as to inchoate the formation of an eye? or, fuppofe the eye formed, would the perception follow? The fame of the other fenfes. And this objection holds its force, afcribe what you will to the hand of time, to the power of habit, to changes, too flow to be obferved by man, or brought within any comparison which he is able to make of paft things with the prefent: concede what you please to these arbitrary and unattefted fuppofitions, how will they help you? Here is no inception. No laws, no courfe, no powers of nature which prevail at prefent, nor any analogous to thefe, could give commencement to a new fenfe. And it is in vain to enquire, how that might proceed, which could never begin.

I think the fenfes, to be the most inconfiftent

fiftent with the hypothefis before us, of any part of the animal frame. But other parts are sufficiently fo. The folution does not apply to the parts of animals, which have little in them of motion. If we could fuppofe joints and muscles to be gradually formed by action and exercife, what action or exercise could form a skull, or fill it with brains? No effort of the animal could determine the clothing of its skin. What conatus could give prickles to the porcupine or hedgehog, or to the sheep its fleece?

In the last place; What do these appetencies mean when applied to plants? I am not able to give a fignification to the term, which can be transferred from animals to plants; or which is common to both. Yet a no lefs fuccefsful organization is found in plants, than what obtains in animals. A folution is wanted for one, as well as the other.

Upon the whole; after all the struggles of a reluctant philofophy the neceffary refort is to a Deity. The marks of defign are too strong to be got over. Defign must have had a de. figner. That defigner must have been a perfon. That perfon is God.

СНАР