OF THE PERSONALITY OP THE DEITV. 241 



things not generated. If it were merely one part of a gen- 

 erated body bearing a relation to another part of the same 

 body, as the mouth of an animal to the throat, the throat 

 to the stomach, the stomach to the intestines, those to the 

 recruiting of the blood, and, by means of the blood, to the 

 nourishment of the whole frame or if it were only one 

 generated body, bearing a relation to another generated 

 body, as the sexes of the same species to each other, 

 animals of prey to their prey, herbivorous and gra- 

 iiivorous animals to the plants or seeds upon which they 

 feed, it might be contended, that the whole of this corres- 

 pondency was attributable to generation, the common origin 

 from which these substances proceeded. But what shall 

 we say to agreements which exist between thmgs generated 

 and things not generated? Can it be doubted, was it ever 

 doubted, but that the lungs of animals bear a relation to 

 the air, as a permanently elastic fluid ? They act in it 

 and by it ; they cannot act without it. Now, if generation 

 produced the animal, it did not produce the air ; yet their 

 properties correspond. The ei/e is made for light, and light 

 for the eye. The eye would be of no use without lights 

 and light perhaps of little without eyes ; yet one is produc- 

 ed by generation ; the other not. The ear depends upon 

 undulations of air. Here are two sets of motions ; first, of 

 the pulses of the air ; secondly, of the drum, bones, and 

 nerves of the ear ; sets of motions bearing an evident re- 

 ference to each other ; yet the one, and the apparatus for 

 the one, produced by the int- rvention of generation ; the 

 other altogether independent of it. 



If it be said, that the air, the light, the elements, the 

 world itself, is generated, I answer that I do not comprehend 

 the proposition. If the term mean any thmg, similar ta 

 what it means, when applied to plants or animals, the pro- 

 position is certainly without proof; and, I think, draws as 

 near to absurdity, as any proposition can do, which does 

 iiot include a contradiction in its terms. I am at a loss to 

 conceive, how the formation of the world can be compared 

 to the generation of an animal. If the term generation sig- 

 nify something quite different from what it signifies upoii 

 ordinary occasions, it may, by the same latitude, signify any 

 thing. In which case a word or phrase taken from the 

 language of Otaheite, would convey as much theory con- 

 cerning the origin of the universe, as it does to talk of its 

 being generated. 



We know a cause (intelligence) adequate to the appear- 

 ances, which we wish to account for; we have this cause 



