OF THE PERSONALITY OF THE DEITY. 
241 
sion, “internal mould,” in this sentence? Ought it then 
to be said that though we have little notion of an internal 
mould, we have not much more of a designing mind? The 
very contrary of this assertion is the truth. When we 
speak of an artificer or an architect, we talk of what is com¬ 
prehensible to our understanding, and familiar to our expe¬ 
rience. We use no other terms, than what refer us for their 
meaning to our consciousness and observation; what express 
the constant objects of both; whereas names, like that we 
have mentioned, refer us to nothing; excite no idea: convey 
a sound to the ear, but I think do no more. 
Another system, which has lately been brought forward, 
and with much ingenuity, is that of appetencies. The prin¬ 
ciple, and the short account of the theory, is this: Pieces 
of soft, ductile matter, being endued with propensities or 
appetencies for particular actions, would, by continual en¬ 
deavours, carried on through a long series of generations, 
work themselves gradually into suitable forms; and at 
length acquire, though perhaps by obscure and almost im¬ 
perceptible improvements, an organization fitted to the ac¬ 
tion which their respective propensities led them to exert. 
A piece of animated matter, for example, that was endued 
with a propensity to fly, though ever so shapeless, though 
no other we will suppose than a round ball, to begin with, 
would, in a course of ages, if not in a million of years, 
perhaps in a hundred millions of years, (for our theorists, 
having eternity to dispose of, are never sparing in time,) ac¬ 
quire wings. The same tendency to locomotion in an 
aquatic animal, or rather in an animated lump which might 
happen to be surrounded by water, would end in the pro¬ 
duction o £ fins; in a living substance, confined to the solid 
earth, would put out legs and feet; or, if it took a different 
turn, would break the body into ringlets, and conclude by 
crawling upon the ground. 
Although I have introduced the mention of this theory 
into this place, I am unwilling to give to it the name of an 
atheistic scheme, for two reasons: first, because, so far as 
I am able to understand it, the original propensities, and 
the numberless varieties of them (so different, in this re¬ 
spect, from the laws of mechanical nature, which are few 
and simple,) are, in the plan itself, attributed to the ordina¬ 
tion and appointment of an intelligent and designing Crea¬ 
tor; secondly, because, likewise, that large postulatum, 
which is all along assumed and presupposed, the faculty 
in living bodies of producing other bodies organized like 
themselves, seems to be referred to the same cause; at 
VV 
