122 Natural Theology. 



than by disease or old age, and their destruction is 

 a source of enjoyment to the destroyers. Granting, 

 then, that the mere capability of suffering is no 

 proof of malevolence, the introduction of carnivorous 

 animals certainly shows a benevolent Creator. For 

 by this provision we have a saving of suffering to 

 one portion of the animal kingdom, and at the 

 same time an increase of enjoyment for another. 

 But we have also death from disease. It would 

 certainly be difficult to show benevolence here, 

 were there not plainly provisions made for the 

 alleviation of suffering. And all that we feel bound 

 to show is, that suffering is not inflicted for its own 

 sake. That there is design and plan in disease, has 

 been of late fully illustrated. Indeed, were there 

 not, the study of diseases would be hopeless. Hut 

 i does not by any means always imply benevo- 

 lence. It may show cruelty as well. Yet some- 

 times there may be apparent cruelty where there is 

 the fullest benevolence. It is easy to see the 

 design of the surgeon, as he severs the flesh and 

 bone of the limb apparently sound. It is to cut 

 off the limb. And if we saw the operation now for 

 the first time, and knew nothing of surgery, and 

 nothing of the cause of the act, it would seem to us 

 unmitigated cruelty. But if we saw the operator 

 first put the patient into an insensible state so as to 

 diminish pain, and then tend him carefully till a 

 cure was completed, we should have good grounds 

 for supposing that the operator was not a malevo- 

 lent being ; but on the other hand, we should rca- 



