the agony sufficiently high, without caring about the reasonableness of the foundation on which it rests, we may well hesitate before expressing a regret that, in a series of half-adozen delightful novels, there is not one distressing death, not one terrible domestic tragedy, not one horrible crime, not even one irresistible temptation. All can be good if they choose, and nearly all may be happy if they will.

We may say of these books that they are simply and entirely delightful. The cheerful reality of interest and the genial spirit of laughter which pervade them carry us on through pleasant and instructive pages to a pleasant and satisfactory end. We know none, except Jane Austen, who, by a few delicate touches, can so completely satisfy us concerning the disposal of a heroine at the close of a novel. After passionate quarrels the reconciliation generally seems tame; but we are wholly content with the fate of Emma in the novel which bears her name, of her favourite Lizzy in “Pride and Prejudice," and of the gentle heroine in "Persuasion."

There is no respect of persons in the works of this writer. A charming impartiality and candour are to be found in all her portraits of friend or foe. Jane Austen delights us as much in depicting the peculiarities of a pleasant old woman as in relating the fortunes of a blooming young one.

And the most extraordinary thing is that at a time when every other writer thought it necessary to write in another way, and to depend upon incident and plot for his interest, Jane Austen ventured to write in this way, and has so commended herself to this generation beyond her more brilliant contemporaries.

Even the king of novelists, Sir Walter Scott, whose wonderful masterpieces of fiction we have all read with absorbing delight and interest, must, in some points, as he has himself so generously acknowledged, bend his head before this quiet and unobtrusive young woman, who never made,

and never seemed to wish to make, a sensation of any sort.

The fact that so little of the interest of Jane Austen's works depends on her incidents is in favour of a repeated perusal of these delicate etchings of human life. The characters she depicts are less romantic than is, or was, usual in fiction; but then they are much more real-with the reality not of stupid commonplace, but of pleasant familiarity, intelligently and suggestively unveiled to us.

Her style seemed prosaic to Charlotte Brontë, and her characters uninteresting. Life was full of meaning to the younger authoress, and even the minor incidents in her novels are stamped with the impress of some strong feeling, or carry a reflection of some intense personal experiences. But Jane Austen's belief in the seriousness of life went beyond Charlotte Brontë's; and the author of "Pride and Prejudice" found the drama of human existence so full of meaning that she dared to leave it to explain itself.

A. ARMITT.

NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS.

DARWINIANISM AND RELIGION.-—A NOTE ON MR. GRAHAM'S 'CREED OF SCIENCE.'

S the doctrine of Evolution, as stated by Darwin, essentially and fundamentally in antagonism with the first principles of religion? is a question raised in the reader's mind by Mr. Graham's Creed of Science.'* In the absence of any single and universally acknowledged authority on all problems of faith and doctrine, Mr. Graham takes "the consensus of scientific opinion" amongst the highest authorities on each particular article, and treats this "as the orthodox teaching of science," as what would have been the decision had all such authorities met together in council to fix the faith. His book is not the shriek of frightened ignorance: it bears no trace of ecclesiastical resistance to the removal of old landmarks. It is marked by careful study of the scientific thinkers who are criticised, by great willingness to accept facts, and by the dignity of devout conviction.

I do not propose to examine its general course of argument, but to ask for a reconsideration of the description given of the Darwinian hypothesis when looked at from a religious point of view.

What strikes Mr. Graham most in reading Darwin's marvellous story of the origin and process of manufacture of Nature's living forms," is the seemingly chance affair it all was.

We are not permitted, on Darwinian principles, to suppose that there was any prevision or forecast of what was to come resident in Nature's blind bosom. There was no conception, not even the vaguest dream, on

The Creed of Science, Religious, Moral, and Social. By WILLIAM GRAHAM, M.A., author of Idealism: an Essay, Metaphysical and Critical.' London: Kegan Paul and Co. 1881.

the part of Nature, at the commencement of the cosmic process, of the forms of life that should emerge in the sequel. . . . Nature had no special aims in view; anything, in fact, might have happened. She did not aim particularly at life or the human consciousness. When life first resulted, it was an accident, lucky or unlucky, as we chocse to regard it. When the first rudiments of that wonderful revealer of Nature, the eye, were laid, they came by chance, and by further repeated processes the eye was improved. It was improved as a telescope is improved, by slow degrees, only, unlike the telescope, it was improved not by an inventor or maker, but by natural selection, which preferred the animals with good eyes, and elected them to continue the advantage to the species. What has resulted need not have resulted, for Nature neither knew, nor cared, nor directed (pp. 25, 26).

This identification of the Darwinian hypothesis with chance pervades the book. Man, on that hypothesis, is called "the child of chance." Mr. Graham admits that in Darwin's 'Origin of Species,' a Creator is placed at the commencement of the process of organic evolution, but considers that his most eminent followers are justified, "on Darwinian principles," in setting this intelligent Creator aside. It is distinctly stated that "the real and most important issue raised to-day by Darwin, as in ancient times by Democritus," is "whether chance or purpose governs the world" (p. 50). Natural selection is described as a method requiring "little reflection or genius," and as "a rule of thumb" (p. 321).

I submit, however, that the Darwinian hypothesis in itself, and considered in its strictly scientific character, is entirely distinct from any doctrine of chance, and does not necessarily involve unpurposed accident in the slightest degree.

In treating of variations dependent upon constantly changing circumstances, it is extremely easy to speak of them as "accidental," or even as connected with " chance," through the limitations of human language, and the difficulty of restating a profound hypothesis in connection with every illustration. It is the language of some one looking on, from the outside, not an account of the conditions under which changes take place. All that is strictly and scientifically involved when even Darwin himself may incidentally use the word chance or accident, is the fact that slight variations of specific forms take place in manifold directions unanticipated by the observer.

The title of Darwin's book clearly states its substantial doctrine. It is "the origin of species by means of natural selection." Natural selection is the means by which the origin of new

species has been secured. It is a method by which an end has been attained. Darwin bases upon actual observation certain statements concerning the method which has been pursued in the introduction of more and more complex forms of life into the world; all the mighty problems regarding the nature of the power of which this method is a manifestation, these statements leave untouched.

In the struggle for existence the fittest have survived. Any peculiarity by which advantage has been gained has been inherited, and has become a specific characteristic. These are facts. Upon these and kindred points Darwin records what actually has taken place. The conclusion that an endless variety of species has been produced by the operation of certain laws, no more implies a belief in "chance" or "accident" than does the acceptance of the law of gravitation. When it is said that a certain kind of eye has been produced by "natural selection," it does not mean that "natural selection" is a living being, preferring animals with good eyes, and electing them to continue the advantage to the species, but that as a matter of fact special peculiarities are transmitted with certain definite results. Why this method of evolving complex forms from more simple ones should be taken, and by what authority it is sustained in daily action, are questions which the naturalist does not attempt to answer.

It is perfectly true, as Mr. Graham suggests, that a slight alteration of conditions at a critical moment in the history of any one species might have caused things on earth to have taken a wholly different course. It does not in any way follow, however, that there is no Supreme Being who has cared, known, and directed. The importance of infinitesimal changes in an animal's surroundings does not imply the predominance of chance, but emphasizes the sublime watchfulness of a controlling will.

"The more we read the story of Darwin (writes Mr. Graham) the further and further the notion and the possibility of mind recedes" (p. 37). The question respecting mind as evidenced by the phenomena of the universe, is this: Can we or can we not detect the action of forces of a character akin to those we term mental, when they come within the range of personal experience? How does "the story of Darwin" adversely affect the argument? It tells us that all living creatures are connected by physical ties. and that the struggles brought about by their