[ ix J 
Rv Eo? Pol LE S. 
7} FE are now to confider the clafs of reptiles, 
which are, for the moft part, objects of de- 
teftation ; but however the opinion of the world 
may be, if a writer undertakes a general hiftory of 
animals, he muft include them: they form at left 
ene link in the chain of beings, and may therefore 
be viewed with a degree of pleafure by a philofo- 
phic eye. 
But notwithftanding the prejudice againft. this 
clafs is almoft univerfal, is it founded on reafon? In 
fome it may be owned that the outward form is 
difacreeable, while the noxious qualities of others 
are juftly productive of terror: but are we on that 
account to reject them? The more fatal they are, 
the more deeply we fhould enquire into their effects, 
that we may be capable of relieving thofe who are 
fufferers, and fecure others from the fame misfor- 
tune. But if we duly weigh their noxious qualities, 
we fhall, with our moral poet, find 
“ Al] partial evil univerfal good.” 
The teeth of wild beafts, and of ferpents, are 
not only created as inftruments of vengeance, but 
are falutary in leffening the numbers of thofe ani- 
mals which are highly ufeful in the degree, and only 
hurtful in their excefs; but if their bad qualities 
are ferviceable, we are more indebted to their good 
ones than we chufe to acknowlege, 
+8 te But 
