a THE PHILOSOPHY 



apparently, is more eafy than to diftinguilli an animal from 

 a plant ; and yet the proper diftindtion has puzzled the moft 

 acute enquiries^ and perhaps exceeds the limits of human 

 capacity. 



' A plant,' fays Jungius, * is a living but not 3. fcniii; nihodyy 



< which is fixed in a determined place, and grows, increafes 



< in fize, and propagates its fpecies*.' In this definition living 

 pov/ers are afcribed to vegetables ; but they are denied the 

 faculty of fenfation. Life, without fome degree of fenfation, 

 is an incomprehenfible idea. An animal limited to the lenfe 

 of feeling alone, is the loweft conception we can form of life. 

 Deprive this being of the only {enfe it polTeiTes, and, though 

 its figures fhould remain, we would inftantly conclude it to 

 be as inanimate as a ftone. The life attributed to plants 

 feems to be nothing more than an analogical dedudlion from 

 their growth, nutrition, continuation of their fpecies, and 

 iimilar circumftances. 



Ludwig defines vegetables to be * natural bodies, always 



* endowed with the fame form, but deprived of the power of 



< local motionf .* Every branch of this definition is, with 

 equal propriety, applicable to precious ftones, falts, and fome 

 animals ; and, therefore, requires no farther attention. 



Sir Charles Linnaeus, in his Fundameiita Botanica, intends 

 to difcriminate the three kingdoms of nature in two lines. 



< Stones,' fays he, ' groiu ; vegetables grow and live ; ani- 



* mals grow, live, andy^^/f .' This is an aflemblage of words, 

 the meaning of which is entirely perverted. The idea of 

 growth implies nutrition and expanfion by the intervention 

 of organs. The magnitude of ftones may be augmented by 

 an accretion of new matter. But this is not growth, or ex- 

 panfion of parts. The fecond definition, * that vegetables 

 grow and live, is equally inaccurate. Infi:ead of proving 



• Rail Hift, Plant, p. i. f Ludwig, Phil. Bot. p. i. \ Fund. Bot. ^ j. 



