This mode of investigation has not, so far as we can see, produced _any one useful discovery_; whilst it has tended to obscure, by all that is disgusting and repulsive, the true mode of cultivating a most alluring science. But as we write, however humbly, as physiologists, and may be regarded as advocating the claims and attractions of that science with something of the _esprit de métier_, rather than in the cautious spirit which should characterize a philosophical discussion,—let us for one moment consider the claims of physiology on the attention of mankind. Physiology has for its object the investigation of the functions and relations of the whole organic kingdom (the vegetable and animal creation), and cannot be successfully cultivated without consulting the phenomena in both these kingdoms of nature. The branch of physiology most interesting to the medical philosopher is that which deals with the functions of animals in general, and of man in particular. The special interest to the medical philosopher is therefore obvious: let us just glance at its more general claims. Linnæus said that the world was one vast museum; and it illustrates the nature and attributes of the Deity. But how? In the first place, by the numerous evidences it _everywhere_ presents, even to our finite capacities, of design, wisdom, and power; and further, of the Unity of that power. But, to our finite perceptions, it does not _everywhere_ present evidences of love, mercy, and parental care. Not because they may not exist universally, but because our faculties do not allow us to connect these ideas with any but "sentient beings." This alone renders physiology one of the most elevating of all human studies—most general in its application—most comprehensive in the attributes it unfolds to us, and therefore most refining to our moral nature. Although, therefore, we would claim the _special_ theological evidences of physiology, as the distinguishing excellence of this science, it is not less commanding as regard the evidences which it affords in _common_ with other parts of the Creation. In animals, we see not less indications of design, wisdom, power, and beauty, than elsewhere; but we _also_ see a provision for their wants and comforts, of such a kind as leaves no room for doubting that both have been the objects of design. We need not here go into the multiplied proofs of this proposition. _A priori_, then, it would seem very unlikely that a mode of investigating the functions of animals would be productive, which begins by ignoring one of their most striking relations.