10 
ture in an organism has its designed use. Moreover every 
adaptation of the creature to its sphere of existence or sur- 
rounding conditions is a proof of a wise and prescient Designer 
and witness to a divine intelligence. Reason is displayed in 
every direction, and chance is eliminated altogether. 
As these opinions will form the chief matter for review in this 
essay, it will be necessary to consider carefully each of the ele- 
ments involved in this view. 
First, then, let us clearly define what is implied by design ; 
and as there are several phases of it, it will be well to enume- 
rate and then consider them in order, thus : — 
1. Design in organs, e.g. eye, hand, heart, &c. 
2. Design in the uses of such organs. 
3. Design in the spiritual element or life of an organism, 
which requires such bodily structures ; inclusive of man. 
4. Design in the plan of animal life, or the unity of type 
observable in groups of organized beings. 
5. Design in the range of animal life from an “ amoeba” up 
to man. 
6. Design in the adaptations of man, of animals and plants to 
their sphere of existence. 
7. Design in the elaboration of the present condition of the 
inorganic world through past geologic ages. 
Design No. 1. — The first and most obvious may be called 
design of structure. This has been well explained and illus- 
trated by Archdeacon Paley in the Introduction to his Natural 
Theology in his argument of the watch, by which he wishes to 
show that, as man designs, if not creates, constructs and pro- 
duces an object which of itself witnesses to great intelligence, 
so do the works of Nature, e.g., the eye, hand, or heart, as well 
as leaves, flowers, and fruits of plants, by a like reasoning 
witness to a far higher and superhuman intelligence. Now it 
must be observed that the argument of design as limited to 
structure does not rise higher than to prove the existence of that 
intelligence, and the power of the intelligent being who pos- 
sesses it to put such designs into execution. And it is worth 
repeating, that however much men may try and persuade them- 
selves to the contrary, by no effort of mind is it possible to 
sever the idea of design from such structures as I have men- 
tioned. The Lucretian idea cannot be entertained now. Our 
minds cannot separate such from the existence of a spiritual 
agency that has brought them into existence.* But while the 
* Of course this position will not be allowed by the Positivist, at least so 
far as the assertion of the impossibility of severing design from nature is 
concerned. For, starting from the dictum that Deity is unknowable, and that 
the finite mind cannot pronounce at all upon final causes, the Positivist 
