no example, that I know of, among other animals. Let us fuppofe, that, in ten days after conception, the fœtus of a bitch has only attained the fize of a pea: that a pea is equal to five hundred grains of fand, and that a grain of fand is a million of times larger than the feminal animal of the dog, as Leewenhoek himfelf affirms, in his letter of the 13th July, 1685, Edit. 1696; we fhall find, by calculating on thefe data, that this foetus has become, in ten days, five hundred millions of times larger than it was. Such an aftonishing growth will appear the more fingular, that there is here no unformed mafs of matter, increafing by an external accretion of parts; but, that it is, according to the fame author, an organized body, with a stomach, inteftines, and other parts, which enter into the conformation of our body, and each of which, like it, grows by intus-fufception.

But, if the fpermatic animals grow with fuch celerity in the uterus, is it not, in the fifth place, very ftrange, that they fhould not grow in the femen, although they are there immerfed in their native substance, which nourishes them, and preferves their life? By what miracle does it happen, that an animal, which, in the uterus, can become, in ten days, five hundred millions of times larger than it was, cannot grow in the femen, however long it may remain there. Does not a circumftance, fo incomprehenfible, lead one to believe, that the animalcule and the foetus, are beings of a very different kind, and that the one, by no means proceeds from the other?

In the fixth place, it appears ftrange, that of fo many hundred millions of animalcules, which, it is faid, enter at one time into the matrix of the larger terrestrial animals, there thould be only one or two, or at most feven or eight, according to the fpecies which become foetufes there. If the fœtus proceeded from the fpermatic worm, we should naturally expect to find in the matrix, fome days after copulation, a vaft number of fœtufes. But we find no fuch thing. All that are found, are merely the fmall number of fuch as are deftined to become perfect animals. According to the idea of Leewenhoek, who denies the existence of an ovarium, we cannot account for an event fo little agreeable to nature, except, in fuppofing, that among thofe myriads of animalcules, there are only a few that have received the faculty of exifting, or, that in the uterus, there are but few places proper for receiving and foftering thofe little beings: we

muft

muft likewife fuppofe, that these places are exceedingly small, otherwife we must believe, that a fingle place would be fufficient for a great number, at least for a certain time. Those who imagine, that the foetus of all animals proceeds from an egg, are likewife at a lofs to extricate themselves from this difficulty. Some take it for granted, that after the egg is detached, as they pretend, from the ovarium, and has fallen into the matrix, there is a very narrow aperture in it, at the place by which it adhered to the ovarium; that this aperture is fhut by a valve, which permits the entrance of the fpermatic worms: that thefe worms, by a natural instinct, endeavour to enter by the aperture; that, when one has got in, its tail preffes upon the valve, and fhuts the entrance against the rest, and, that this is the reafon, why there is only a fingle foetus in each egg, and that fuch a multitude of animalcula produce fo few foetufes. But all this requires another fuppofition, contrary to experience, namely, that the egg, which, they fay, has fallen into the matrix, must be so small, that a worm, a million of times less than a grain of fand, cannot extend itself in it, its whole length; for, without fupponing this, its tail could not prefs against the valve, and keep it fhut. Now, it is very certain, that these bodies, which are taken for the eggs of the ovarium, are of a very difcernible bulk, and infinitely exceed that of the animalcula in queftion. Others pretend, that the femen rifes in vapour in the matrix, and that this vapour, being loaded with animalcules, penetrates to the ovarium, through the Fallopean tube; that at this time, the pores of the eggs ready for fecundation, are so open, that they permit the entrance of the animalcules; that one accordingly does enter, keeps itfelf there, and grows; that afterwards, the egg, become thereby heavier, detaches itself by its own weight from the ovary, and falls down into the matrix. But, muft not this explanation appear exceedingly forced, when we reflect, that before it can be admitted, we muft fuppofe, contrary to all probability, that although all the pores of the egg are open, there enters but a single animalcule; or that, if many enter, only one of them grows there?

There is fomething very fingular in all this; and an opinion, deftitute of proofs, and which, in order to be fupported, muft have recourfe to vague and forced fuppofitions, is not likely to gain ground.

Z z

Let

Let us reflect further in the feventh place, on the conduct which this opinion obliges us to afcribe to the Creator. It prefuppofes that this omnifcient being, in order to produce a fingle perfect animal, has been obliged to form fo many hundred thoufand imperfect beings that the number is inconceivable. Does fuch a conduct correfpond to that which we fee reign in the other operations of nature, where all things tend to their ultimate perfection by the most direct, the fimpleft and fhorteft courfe?

I know that the ways of God are not as our ways; that it would be culpable temerity to condemn his works because they are not conformable to our ideas, and that tho we do not comprehend the reafons which may have indu ced the fupreme Being to act in fuch a particular manner, we ought not to be the lefs convinced that these reasons have been conformable to his infinite wifdom. If therefore it were demonftrated, that generation takes place in the manner which Leewenhoeck and his followers pretend, far from impugning, I fhould confider it as the strongest proof poflible that the thing was fo. But I know likewife. on the other hand, that when on the ftrength of our own weak reason, we would attempt to account for the operations of nature, the relpect we owe the Creator fhould render us careful not to attribute to him a conduct which we can fuppofe unfuitable to the ideas we have of his adorable wifion; and in this view I think the fyftem in question faulty.

It will perhaps be objected to me, that what I here condemn as a fault in the System of Leewenhoeck we have nevertheless very frequent examples of in plants, which produce incomparably more feeds than are neceflary for the prefervation of their fpecies, and of which a great part perithes without having contributed to this purpose. But if we bestow a little attention we fhall find that this example has no relation to the prefent cafe. For befides that there is no proportion between the number of fpermatic worms which are produced in a fingle animal, and that of the feeds produced by the most fertile plants, the feeds of vegetables are not defined merely for the preferyation of the fpecies, they are likewife deftined for the nourishment of animals. They make the principal part of the food of man, and of the greater part of the food of birds; this is a fact we know, but we do not fee how the prodigious number of animalcules, which

perish in the uterus, can be of the fame ufe there. Add to this, that as plants have not the power of fowing their feeds in the earth, and that thus after they are thed, many of them perish for want of being fown, it was neceffary that plants fhould produce a quantity of feed fufficient to make up for this lof; befides we may fay that if any feeds perifh, this happens only by accident. There is hardly any feed which, when thrown into the ground, does not produce a plant; but it is quite otherwife with fpermatic worms. If they perifh it is by neceffity, and of fo many hundreds of millions which enter into the place faid to be destined to receive them, there are only a few which, according to the fyftem of Leeuwenhoeck, can become large animals.

To all thefe difficulties which regard animals in general, there are others which refpect man in particular. It is allowed that the animalcules, of which it is pretended man is formed, are living, animated beings. I afk what is the nature of the foul which animates them? Is it the foul of a brute? Is it a foul endowed with reafon? If it be the foul of a brute, then is man composed of three diftinct principles, a body, the foul of a brute, and a foul endowed with reafon. This is what I fuppofe the advocates for the fyftem of Leeuwenhoeck will not admit, and which would indeed be an opini on too fingular to be admitted without proof or foundation. But if it is a rational foul, and the fame which animates our bodies, as Leeuwenhoeck makes no difficulty in averring, can we conceive, that in order to form our body, the leaft noble part of us, God created fo many myriads of rational fouls, all except one or two deftined to deftruction? Would that accord with the notions we entertain of his infi nite wifdom? I fhall be told perhaps, that while these fouls refide in the animalcules, they have not yet acquired rea fon, and that they do not acquire it but by degrees from the knowledge the man receives as he grows up; at leaft it is thus that a difciple of Wolfius would reafon. But this would not remove all the difficulty. The foul of the animalcule would always be effentially the fame with that of man; it would always be a foul capable of receiving the perception of objects as they fhould be prefented to it, and of reflecting on thofe objects. All the difference would be, that in the body of the animalcule thofe objects would be presented to it fewer in number and more obicurely; but this defect, which proceeds from the condition and imperfection of the body Z 22

in

in which it is found, does not diminish the intrinfic value of the foul, which would always be capable of reafon, and in this refpcct a being very fuperior to matter. This is not all; thofe fouls being endowed with reafon, or at least capable of reafon, and the fame which animates us, they would alfo be immortal. What would be their condition after this life? A Proteftant might find in the fatisfaction of Chrift, and in the divine mercy, a means of falvation: but what would thefe of the Church of Rome do with them? According to the principles of their doctrine, they would deprive of eternal happiness, and banith to a place fimilar to what they call the Limbus of the Fathers, thofe which had received exiftence in the body of fome one of their religion; for to fave them is impoffible, as they have not been baptized. And for thofe who have had the misfortune to be placed in perfons born out of the bofom of this Church, I have no doubt but they would damn them without redemption. Here then for a member of the Church of Rome who fhould adopt the fyftem of Leeuwenhoeck, the number of the Reprobate, who have never known good nor ill, becomes a thousand million of times greater than that of those who have become fo by their own crimes; and yet the number of the Bleffed is not encreafed by a fingle individual. What a horrible idea! and how little it accords with the fentiment which we ought to entertain of the goodness, mercy and even juftice of the Being of beings! I believe if Mr Andri had confidered this when he wrote in favour of Leeuwenhoeck's fyftem, the pen would have fallen from his hand and he would have fuppreffed that part of his Work. Since then the fyftem we have been examining feems to be founded merely on corjecture without any proof; that it appears repkite with difficulties, and contrary to probability; that it is derogatory to the ideas we ought to entertain of the perfections of the divine majefty, I think we may reasonably refufe to adopt it; or at least not till fome folid proofs have been adduced in its fupport. In the mean time, the difcovery of the animalcules we have been talking of, furnithes us with a noble opportunity of admiring the wonders of the Creator, who has thus formed the Jarger animals, not only to ferve the final purpofes of their deftination, but to be, without knowing it, as fo many worlds peopled with an infinite multitude of inhabitants.

Page 86,