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. Whewelhs 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 absurdum } 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 alluding to the imperfections of the spiritual part of 
man and animals, as that would lead me away into metaphysical subjects, 
with which this essay is not concerned. 
