Benevolence of tJic Creator. 123 



sonably infer that there was the controlling princi- 

 ple of benevolence in the whole transaction, even in 

 that part which seemed most cruel. 



-v the animal system is liable to pain from dis- 

 ease and accident. This fact standing by itself, 

 would look like malevolence in the Creator. But 

 since there is provision for counteracting disease 

 and diminishing pain, even among the lower animals, 

 WC not only h;: bound to' infer 



that the </e the capacity of suffering 



and allowed <!: vrise pu'fp 



and with no malevolent Certain it is that 



remedies have hern provided in nature both for the 

 alleviation of pain and the cure of disease. And 

 if a bone is broken, nature has her machinery ready 

 to join the fractured portions together, and so sur- 

 round their roughened points that suffering shall be 

 brought to an end. Amidst all the pain and suffer- 

 ing among animals, then, we see benevolence in the 

 provisions made for their alleviation. We see that 

 physical enjoyment among animals is vastly in 

 excess of suffering. We see no case where suffer- 

 ing is inflicted for its own sake. With all these 

 evidences of His good-will before us, we cannot 

 believe that the Creator takes pleasure in suffering. 

 And if he does not take pleasure in it, we see enough 

 of II is wisdom and skill in securing results to be 

 sure that the pain and suffering incident to animal 

 life have a wise purpose, or He would not allow them. 

 It is not needful for our present purpose to discuss 

 the possible theories why they are allowed. The 



