i88 3 .] 
his Biographers and Ins Traducer. 
205 
“ We acquire the sublime and interesting idea that all the 
calcareous mountains of the world are monuments of the 
past felicity of organised Nature, and consequently ot the 
benevolence of the Deity” (p.560). .Whether these pas- 
sages, to which many more might easily be added from the 
other works of Erasmus, do not outweigh the statement ot 
Carlyle, even if not a forgery, we cheerfully leave to the 
judgment of our readers. . , 
Turn we next to Dr. Robert Darwin, the father of Charles. 
This gentleman was admittedly for many years the contem- 
porary of Carlyle. It is perfeftly possible that they may 
have met, and even — though we have no evidence to that 
effedt— that some degree of intimacy may have existed be- 
tween them. But there is no collateral evidence in support 
of the alleged Atheism of Robert Darwin. The mere word 
of Thomas Carlyle can count for very little, for though he 
might not consciously and knowingly promulgate falsehood 
he was essentially a self- deceiver. 1 hough far from oithodox 
himself, and at one time regarded by the religious world as 
an arch-infidel, he had an intense hatred of Atheism and 
“ Materialism,” and was apt to suspect their presence where 
non-existent. In opposition to his alleged testimony, it is a 
known fact that Robert Darwin was a member of a Unitarian 
congregation at Shrewsbury. He further, as may be learnt 
from the little work before us, destined his illustrious son foi 
the Church. With this view Charles was sent to the Uni- 
versity of Cambridge, where he graduated as B.A. in 1831, 
and as M.A. in 1837. Nay, even in 1838, when he was 
about setting out on his memorable voyage, his father hesi- 
tated, fearing lest it might “ unsettle him for the Church. 
We can scarcely imagine an avowed Atheist seeking, during 
the term of more than seven years, to devote his son to a 
clerical career. Here also, as in the case of Erasmus, we 
are forced to conclude that Carlyle s evidence, as given by 
Mr. H. G. Atkinson, is, if authentic, untrustworthy. 
Charles Darwin and Thomas Carlyle were of course con- 
temporaries for upwards of threescore years. Their respective 
places of abode were, since 1842, not very far apart. The 
i( philosopher of flatulence and acid indigestion, as Carlyle 
has been happily named, was well acquainted with a brother 
of Darwin’s, and may consequently have met with the great 
“ Reformator ” of Natural History. But between two cha- 
racters of such world-wide difference there could be little 
sympathy. Hence, without such full proof as would satisfy 
a court of justice, we must decline to believe that Darwin 
would make a confidant of Carlyle. 
