xl 
THE QUINARY SYSTEM. 
been found. Even upon the same principles it might, by revers- 
ing Savigny’s process, be as plausibly argued that the ‘‘ perfect” 
mouth of a beetle, is more imperfect than that of a gnat. The 
correct view of the matter I take to be, that a worm is as perfect 
“ after its kind,” as a man or an angel ; and that all its organs, 
which are the workmanship of an All-perfect Creator, are as per- 
fect, whatever be their number, for performing the functions 
assigned them by divine wisdom, as those with which we our- 
selves are furnished. Will the authors, who maintain that an 
animal rises, in their scale of perfection, in proportion as it has 
fewer feet,* — say that a goose is more perfect than an elephant, or 
that a snail is more perfect than a man, because it has but 
one foot, (as it is usually termed f,) or a worm more perfect 
still because it has no7ie ? Mr. MacLeay says well that there is 
nothing within the whole range of science more worthy of 
profound meditation, than the plan by which the Deity regu- 
lated the creation ;” J but when those who lay claim to the 
discovery of this plan, or at least to part of it, talk of the Creator 
wandering from a supposed type to form aberrant groups, and of the 
‘^imperfection” and “degradation” of particular animals, because 
they have a greater number of feet, or a smaller number of feeding 
organs, the strongest terms become too feeble for condemning the 
highly objectionable doctrine. How very different was the conduct 
of Socrates, who, according to St. Augustine, swore by the dog, 
(/cwojj/,) to teach the Athenians that this animal, being the workman- 
ship of God, was more worthy of honour than images and idols. § 
That the Quinary system is advocated by men of talent and learn- 
ing, and occasionally with great eloquence and ingenuity j] is much 
to be regretted ; for though religious feelings have hitherto stood 
prominent in the school, it certainly, from these plain documents, 
appears calculated to be turned to the worst purposes of the sceptic, 
confirming instead of furnishing, as is alleged, “ a new argument 
against those” who affirm “under the most stultifying blindness of 
^ See Swammevdam’s Book of Nature, Tab. xxxii. and Reaumur, Mem. iv. 
Planelies 41 and 42, &e. 
t Linn. Trans, xiv. 46. f: Ibid. iv. 365. 
§ See Plato’s Pha3don, and De Ver. Relig. iv. 
II See Winter’s Wreath for 1828, p. 289 ; and Zool. Jour. i. 196, Nc.&c. 
