PHYSIOLOGY. 75 



I resume the quotation from Huish ; " If we examine the 

 account which Huber gives of his invention (1) of the royal 

 jelly, the existence and efficacy of which are fully ac- 

 quiesced in by the aforesaid editors, to what other conclu- 

 sions are we necessarily driven, than that they are the 

 dupes of a visionary enthusiast, whose greatest merit con- 

 sists in his inventive powers, no matter how destitute those 

 powers may be of all affinity with truth or probability ? 

 Before, however, these editors bestowed their unqualified 

 assent on the existence of this royal jelly, did they stop to 

 put to themselves the following questions ? By what kind 

 of bee is it made ?* Whence is it procured ? Is it a natu- 

 ral or an elaborated substance ? If natural, from what 

 source is it derived ? If elaborated, in what stomach of the 

 bee is it to be found ? How is it administered ? What are 

 its constituent principles ? Is its existence optional or defi- 

 nite ? Whence does it derive its miraculous powfer of con- 

 verting a common egg into a royal one ? Will any of the 

 aforesaid editors publicly answer these questions ? and ought 

 they not to have been able to answer them, before they so 

 unequivocally expressed their belief in its existence, its 

 powers and administration ?" 



How puerile does all this sound to one who has seen and 

 tasted the royal jelly ! And permit me to add, how equally 

 unmeaning do the objections of infidels seem, to those who 

 have an experimental acquaintance with the divine hopes 

 and consolations of the Gospel of Christ. 



* Suppose that we are unable to give a satisfactory answer to any 

 of these questions, does our ignorance on these points disprove the 

 fact of the existence of such a jelly ? 



