312 NATUilAL THEOLOaY. 



all. Animal properties, therefore, whicli fall under this de- 

 scription, do not strictly prove the goodness of God : they 

 may prove the existence of the Deity ; they may prove a 

 high degree of povv^er and intelligence : but they do not 

 prove his goodness ; forasmuch as they must have been 

 found in any creation which was capable of continuance, 

 although it is possible to suppose that such a creation might 

 have been produced by a being whose views rested upon 

 misery. 



But there is a class of properties which may be said to 

 be superadded from an intention expressly directed to hap- 

 piness — an intention to give, a happy existence distinct from 

 the general intention of providing the means of existence ; 

 and that is, of capacities for pleasure in cases wherein, so 

 far as the conservation of the individual or of the species is 

 concerned, they were not wanted, or wherein the purpose 

 might have been secured by the operation of pain. The 

 provision which is made of a variety of objects not necessary 

 to Hfe, and ministering only to our pleasures, and the prop- 

 erties given to the necessaries of life themselves, by which 

 they contribute to pleasure as well as preservation, show a 

 further design than that of giving existence.^ 



A single instance will make all this clear. Assuming 

 the necessity^ of food for the support of animal life, it is requi- 

 site that the animal be provided with organs fitted for the 

 procuring, receiving, and digesting of its food. It may also 

 be necessary, that the animal be impelled by its sensations 

 to exert its organs. But the pain of hunger would do all 

 this. Why add pleasure to the act of eating ; sweetness 

 and relish to food ? Why a new and appropriate sense for 

 the perception of the pleasure ? Why should the juice of a 

 peach applied to the palate, affect the part so differently 



* See tliis topic considered in Dr. Ealguy's Treatise upon the Di- 

 vine Benevolence. TMs excellent author first, I think, proposed it 

 Rnd nearly in the terms in which it is here stated. Some other obser 

 »^ations also under this head are taken from that treatise. 



