THE TELEOLOGICAL VIEW. 19 
Agassiz. His celebrated work, “An Essay on Classifica- 
tion,” > which is entirely opposed to Darwin’s, and appeared 
almost at the same time, has elaborated quite consistently, 
and to the utmost extent, these anthropomorphic conceptions 
of the Creator. 
I maintain with regard to the much-talked-of “purpose 
in nature,” that it really has no existence but for those 
persons who observe phenomena in animals and plants in 
the most superficial manner. Without goig more deeply 
into the matter, we can see at once that the rudimentary 
organs are a formidable obstacle to this theory. And, indeed, 
every one who makes a really close study of the organization 
and mode of life of the various animals and plants, and 
becomes familiar with the reciprocity or inter-action of the 
phenomena of life, and the so-called “economy of nature,” 
must necessarily come to the conclusion that this 
“purposiveness” no more exists than the much-talked-of 
“eneficence ” of the Creator. These optimistic views have, 
unfortunately, as little real foundation as the ‘favourite 
phrase, the “ moral order of the universe,” which is illustrated 
in an ironical way by the history of all nations. The 
dominion of the “moral” popes, and their pious inquisition, 
in the medieval times, is not less significant of this than 
the present prevailing militarism, with its “moral” 
apparatus of needle-guns and other refined instruments of 
murder. 
If we contemplate the common life and the mutual rela- 
tions between plants and animals (man included), we shall 
find everywhere, and at all times, the very opposite of that 
kindly and peaceful social life which the goodness of the 
Creator ought to have prepared for his creatures—we shall 
