NATURAL THEOLOGY. 309 



lar in its form and in the substance of which it is 

 composed, not less remote from the materials, the 

 model, and the analogy of any part of the animal 

 frame, than the element to which it relates is spe- 

 cific amidst the substances w^ith which we con- 

 verse. If this does not prove appropriation, I de- 

 sire to know what would prove it. 



Yet the element of light and the organ of vision, 

 however related in their office and use, have no 

 connexion whatever in their original. The action 

 of rays of light upon the surfaces of animals has 

 no tendency to breed eyes in their heads. The 

 sun might shine for ever upon living bodies, w^ith- 

 out the smallest approach towards producing the 

 sense of sight. On the other hand also, the ani- 

 mal eye does not generate or emit light. 



V. Throughout the universe there is a wonder- 

 ful proportioning of one thing to another. The 

 size of animals, the human animal especially, w^hen 

 considered with respect to other animals, or to the 

 plants which grow around him, is such as a regard 

 to his conveniency would have pointed out. A 

 giant or a pigmy could not have milked goats, reap- 

 ed corn, or mowed grass; we may add, could not 

 have rode a horse, trained a vine, shorn a sheep, 

 with the same bodily ease as we do, if at all. A 

 pigmy would have been lost amongst rushes, or 

 carried off by birds of prey.71 



It may be mentioned, likewise, that the model 



*' See the Appendix, on the bones of huge animals^ 



