give assent to positions and
principles which at best are merely assumed, but to which he is called
upon dogmatically to subscribe his acquiescence as the indubitable
results of experience, skill and ability? The editors of the works above
alluded to, should boldly and indignantly have declared, that from their
own experience in the natural economy of the insect, they were able to
pronounce the circumstances as related by Huber to be directly
_impossible_, and the whole of them based on fiction and imposition."

Let the reader change only a few words in this extract: for "the natural
history of the bee or its management," let him write, "the subject of
religion;" for, "the works of Bagster, Bevan," &c., let him put, "the
works of Moses, Paul," &c.; for, "their own experience in the natural
economy of the insect," let him substitute, "their own experience in the
nature of man;" and for, "circumstances as related by Huber," let him
insert, "as related by Luke or John," and it will sound almost precisely
like a passage from some infidel author.

I resume the quotation from Huish; "If we examine the account which
Huber gives of his invention (!) of the royal jelly, the existence and
efficacy of which are fully acquiesced in by the aforesaid editors, to
what other conclusions are we necessarily driven, than that they are the
dupes of a visionary enthusiast, whose greatest merit consists 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?[9] Whence is it procured? Is it a natural 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 definite? Whence does it derive its miraculous power of
converting 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,