1 882,] The Philosophy of Thomas Carlyle . 321 
his influence upon human welfare is not less problematic 
than the influence of a meteor upon the agriculture of our 
planet. 
Far different was the destiny of that great scientific phi- 
losopher whom the world has more lately lost. Patient, 
modest, impartial, Darwin was not content to cross-examine 
Nature, and to interpret her answers in accordance with 
his own prepossessions ; but he lived in communion with 
her, and disdained none of her dwellings because it was 
common or unclean. Every truth thus brought to light he 
regarded not as a solitary phenomenon, but as related to all 
other truths, known and unknown, and sought — still by the 
same method of experiment and research— to discover the 
grand generalisation which unites ail particulars. The mind 
of Carlyle was medieval and theocratic, imbued with the 
parental Calvinism, which was practically embodied in his 
matured thought ; that of Darwin, on the contrary, was 
essentially secular and modern. There was no place in his 
system for that remnant of Animism which Christian admirers 
would fain interpolate.* He himself could never have 
cherished the “ sure and certain hope ” expressed over his 
grave, nor could he have harboured any fear such as one 
would think must sometimes haunt even the clerical mind 
when it meditates upon the “ future state ” of unorthodox 
savants. ^ 
The theory of Natural Selection owes its epochal character 
to the nature of the evidence adduced in its support, and 
affords a perfect example of the potency of induction and the 
impotence of a priori reasoning. From the earliest times 
Evolution has been a constantly recurring commonplace of 
philosophy. Without referring to early Greek speculations, 
we may mention the names of Descartes, Leibnitz, De 
Maillet, Goethe, and Lamarck. But the principle was 
fruitless, because rootless. The data on which it was based 
were inadequate, and often fallacious, thus constituting an 
ingenious hypothesis rather than a sober thesis. The 
idea remained sterile for lack of verification. As soon, how- 
ever, as fresh faCts supplied this essential element of scien- 
* See the Sermons preached on the occasion of his death by the Bishop of 
Carlisle, and by Canons Liddon and Farrar. The absence of any representa- 
tive of the Royal Family at his funeral seems to imply that clearer vision is 
possessed by the hereditary Head of the English Church. A similar insight 
into the heterodoxy of the Darwinian theory was displayed by the Archbishop 
of Yod^ in. a Leilure delivered in St. George’s Hall, May 25th, 1871. For a 
forcible criticism of this Lecture see the first of a series of trails written by a 
well-known scholar and divine, under the pseudonym of Julian, for whose 
work Dr, Lewins stands sponsor. 
