1883.] Recent Literature. 857 
tists at a safe distance, are now in the Darwinian woods, and are 
trying to hew a way out. The question with Messieurs Janet 
and Hicks is, not whether evolution be true, they accept this 
latest dictum of science, but whether it be a result of design as 
indicated by the causal school, or by chance, as follows from the 
teaching of the selective or Darwinian school. On the truth of 
the former doctrine depends the belief in intelligent creation, 
The latter form of doctrine cannot admit of any such origin of 
things, for, as Huxley has said, “teleology, as commonly under- 
stood, has received its death-blow at Mr. Darwin’s hands.” Of 
course the theologists, anxious to preserve and demonstrate the 
doctrines of theism, seek for proof of design in evolution. This 
leads them at once into conflict with Darwinism. 
The works of Janet, Schmid and Hicks are what one might 
term theologico-philosophical or philosophico-theological. They 
agree in their general inefficiency and inadequacy in dealing with 
the phenomena of the actual world. They display little or no 
knowledge of the sciences on which the principles of evolution 
rest, viz., embryology and palzontology. This being true, a good 
deal of space appears, to the critical reader, to be occupied with 
unnecessary and feeble discussion of the subject. Thus Schmid 
tells us there are four theories of creation, viz., by selection, by 
evolution, by descent, by direct creation! He sustains the third 
of these supposed distinct doctrines. We think Dr. Schmid's 
book the weakest of the three, and a person who desires to have 
any clear idea of the doctrine of evolution had better avoid it. 
anet’s work is an abler production. It is a prolonged investi- 
gation of the probabilities of the truth of the teleological and 
antiteleological schools of evolution. Probably had the writing 
e work been postponed to the present time, the learned 
author would have materially altered his views as to the nature of 
the evidence obtainable, and would have discovered that there are 
two totally distinct kinds of teleology. -He opposes the Darwin- 
ians, using Bennett’s effective arguments against “ omnifarious 
variation,” but he sustains the untenable position of Milne Ed- 
wards respecting the nature of the animal mind. 
Professor Hicks has written a polemical work in support of the- 
ism by a doctrine which he calls eutaxiology. He distinguishes 
it from teleology, as expressive of the general order of the uni- 
verse; the latter being defined as the law of foreordination of 
means to definite ends in creation. 
The attitude of Dr. McCosh towards natural science has always 
been liberal, and he has greatly aided the theological world in 
understanding the doctrine of evolution. He, too, is an objector 
to pure Darwinism, but has no scientific hypothesis to offer in its 
Stead. His strongest objections are directed against the experi- 
mental and derivative hypothesis of the evolution of mind. He 
