32 



Perfection^ 



The next element entering into the view of the ordinary 

 teleologist and which must be noticed, is that of perfection. 

 So much has been already said about the imperfections of 

 nature, which I call the law of inideality, that the general, nay, 

 universal, absence of absolute perfection will be almost inferred. 

 It will suffice, therefore, to allude to three * only of the phases 

 of design ; viz., in organs, in their uses, and in the adjustment 

 of creatures to their environments. 



This idea of perfection is not equally maintained by all 

 teleologists. In the writings of some of the more advanced 

 thinkers, such as the late Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, 

 there appear qualifying expressions when alluding to structures 

 in which they cannot help seeing certain imperfections. Thus, 

 in the Plurality of Worlds (p. 345), Dr. Whewell alludes to 

 rudimentary organs, which he admits have no use to the beings 

 in which they occur. But, as we have seen, he does not ad- 

 vance further than what appears to be the general explanation 

 of all others who allude to them, viz., " that they exist for the 

 sake of similarity,^^ and he adds " this similarity is a general 

 law, the result it would seem of a creative energy which is 

 wider in its operation than the particular purpose.^' This 

 explanation (?) of Dr. WhewelFs is worthy of criticism, for it 

 fairly expresses the general interpretation hitherto given by 

 natural theologians of these seemingly mysterious structures. 

 The expression " they exist for the sake of similarity taken ^ 

 per se seems to lead us to a reductio ad absurdmn, for let us 

 remember that the argument of design professes to reason from 

 man to God. Does, then, man leave rudiments of other designs 

 in every kind of work which comes under the same general 

 plan ? Take for example ecclesiastical buildings. Does he 

 tack on to a plainly-built chapel a few unfinished pinnacles 

 which find their proper place on the tower of a cathedral ? 

 Certainly not ! The perfection of art in each building consists 

 in the unity or harmony of its design as carried out in the 

 details of its own style.^' 



Nor will such an idea of purpose hold good if we admit deve- 

 lopment in the progress of architecture. Thus, could we say 

 that man leaves rudiments of antiquated styles with the express 

 purpose of showing that his modern edifices are constructed on 

 an older plan ? Assuredly not ! I introduce this hypothetical 



* I purposely avoid alludincr to the imperfections of the spiritual part of 

 man and nninials, as that would lead me away into metaphysical subjects, 

 with which this essay is not concerned. 



