fupport its progeny. All fuperabundance fuppofes deftruction, or must destroy itself. Perhaps there is no fpecies of terrestrial animals whatever, which would not overrun the earth, if it were permitted to multiply in perfect safety; or of fish, which would not fill the ocean: at leaft, if any fingle fpecies were left to their natural increase without difturbance or reftraint, the food of other species would be exhausted by their maintenance. It is necessary, therefore, that the effects of fuch prolific faculties be curtailed. In conjunction with other checks and limits, all fubfervient to the fame purpose, are the thinnings which take place among animals, by their action upon one another. In fome inftances we ourselves experience, very directly, the use of these hoftilities. One fpecies of infects rids us of another fpecies; or reduces their ranks. A third fpecies perhaps keeps the fecond within bounds: and birds or lizards are a fence against the inordinate increase by which even these last might infeft us. In other, more numerous, and poffibly more important inftances, this difpofition of things, although less necessary or ufeful to us, and of course lefs obferved by us, may be neceffary and ufeful to certain other species;

fpecies; or even for the preventing of the lofs of certain species from the universe: a misfortune which feems to be ftudiously guarded against. Though there may be the appearance of failure in fome of the details of Nature's works, in her great purposes there never are. Her species never fail. The provision which was originally made for continuing the replenishment of the world has proved itself to be effectual through a long fucceffion of ages.

What further shews, that the system of deftruction amongst animals holds an exprefs relation to the fyftem of fecundity; that they are parts indeed of one compenfatory scheme; is, that, in each species, the fecundity bears a proportion to the fmallness of the animal, to the weakness, to the fhortness of its natural term of life, and to the dangers and enemies by which it is furrounded. An elephant produces but one calf: a butterfly lays fix hundred eggs. Birds of prey feldom produce more than two eggs: the fparrow tribe, and the duck tribe, frequently fit upon a dozen. In the rivers, we meet with a thousand minnows for one pike; in the sea, a million of herrings for a fingle fhark. Compenfation obtain

2 L 2

obtains throughout. Defencelefsnefs and devaftation are repaired by fecundity.

We have dwelt the longer upon these con fiderations, because the fubject to which they apply, namely, that of animals devouring one another, forms the chief, if not the only inftance, in the works of the Deity, of an oeconomy, ftamped by marks of defign, in which the character of utility can be called in queftion. The cafe of venomous animals is of much inferior confequence to the cafe of prey, and, in fome degree, is alfo included under it. To both cafes it is probable that many more reafons belong, than thofe of which we are in poffeffion.

Our firft propofition, and that which we have hitherto been defending, was, "that in a vaft plurality of inftances, in which contrivance is perceived, the defign of the contrivance is beneficial."

Our fecond propofition is," that the Deity has added pleasure to animal fenfations, beyond what was neceflary for any other purpose, or when the purpose, fo far as it was neceffary, might have been effected by the operation of pain."

This propofition may be thus explained. The capacities, which, according to the established courfe of nature, are necessary to the fupport or prefervation of an animal, however manifeftly they may be the result of an organization contrived for the purpose, can only be deemed an act or a part of the fame will, as that which decreed the existence of the animal itself; because, whether the creation proceeded from a benevolent or a malevolent being, these capacities must have been given, if the animal exifted at all. Animal properties therefore, which fall under this description, do not strictly prove the goodness of God. They may prove the existence of the Deity. they may prove a high degree of power and intelligence but they do not prove his goodness; forafmuch as they must have been found in any creation which was capable of continuance, although it is poffible to fuppose, that fuch a creation might have been produced by a being whofe views refled upon mifery.

But there is a clafs of properties, which may be faid to be fuperadded from an intention ex-. prefsly directed to happiness; an intention to give a happy existence diftinct from the general intention of providing the means of exiftence;

2L 3

iftence; and that is, of capacities for pleasure, in cafes, wherein, fo far as the confervation of the individual or of the fpecies is concerned, they were not wanted, or wherein the purpose might have been fecured by the operation of pain. The provision which is made of a variety of objects, not neceffary to life, and miniftring only to our pleasures; and the properties given to the neceffaries of life themfelves, by which they contribute to pleasure as well as prefervation; fhew a further design, than that of giving existence*.

A fingle inftance will make all this clear. Affuming the neceffity of food for the support of animal life, it is requifite, that the animal be provided with organs, fitted for the procuring, receiving, and digefting of its food, It may be alfo neceffary, that the animal be impelled by its fenfations to exert its organs. But the pain of hunger would do all this. Why add pleasure to the act of eating; sweetnefs and relish to food? Why a new and ap

See this topic confidered in Dr. Balguy's treatise upon the Divine Benevolence. This excellent author first, I think, propofed it; and nearly in the terms in which it is here flated. Some other obfervations allo under this head are taken from that treatise. --'

propriate