313 
the Universe showed Order, and had called it for that reason Kosmos. The first 
person again, to state the argument from design, as we know it, was Socrates, 
as he is reported by Xenophon — a more trustworthy authority for some 
purposes than Plato, because in Plato’s eloquent and imaginative writings we 
never know whether we have the real Socrates or simply the mouth-piece 
of Platonic speculations. The opinions of Socrates on this point are to be 
found in the first book, fourth chapter, and again in the fourth book, third 
chapter, of the Memorabilia , a little treatise written in the purest Attic and 
full of practical wisdom. The argument was afterwards repeated by Plato, 
with a great deal of detail, in two works, in the Timceus and in the tenth 
book of the Laws. Besides Plato, Aristotle, the keenest, most searching, 
most all-embracing intellect of antiquity, distinctly rested in a teleological 
view of the universe. His statements of his views on this subject are only 
to be found in isolated passages, as they appear in his extant works ; but it 
would seem, from a fragment translated by Cicero, that in one of his lost 
dialogues he had treated of design at great length and with much fulness 
and eloquence. Such is the history of Greek philosophy upon this subject — 
that is to say, from a crude origin, and from wild theories of evolution and 
development, it rose to the reasonable conclusion that the universe bears 
traces of intelligence and design ; so that, when Haeckel and his imitators in 
England have the arrogance to speak of their monistic theory as an advance 
on all previous theories, they simply show their total ignorance of ancient 
philosophy. In doing this they evince not an advance, but distinct retro- 
gression ; they are going back from the sober conclusions of the splendid 
maturity of Greek speculation to the fanciful dreams of its childhood. 
(Applause.) 
Mr. D. Howard (Vice-Pres. Chem. Inst.). — It is difficult to attempt to 
make a speech on a paper one so cordially agrees with, and of which one can- 
not speak too highly. It has been a very keen enjoyment to me to hear the 
theories dealt with by the author subjected to critical examination with 
all the dialectic skill of a trained and accomplished debater. I cannot help 
thinking that, with all their faults, the ancients had one wise method ; they 
did submit their views to public discussion. It would be well if some of the 
moderns did the same. I was asked by a student the other day, “ What is 
the use of teaching medical men logic ? ” I replied, that when he had seen 
more of scientific men he would not ask that question ; but, rather, why did 
not they learn more ? The paper read to-night has brought before us, in an 
admirable manner, the terrible confusion that exists among scientific men 
between deduction and induction — between what are spoken of as necessary 
truths and those truths that are proved by experiment. All I can say on 
the matter is, that to me nothing is more startling than to find that most 
difficult induction, which was the result of many years of patient labour — 
the correlation of physical forces — treated as a self-evident truth. This is 
one of the most amazing things we can possibly hear ; and one can only 
lament the excessive density of one’s own brain in never having seen the 
