221 
obliged to admit the presence of another law more rapid in 
its operation — that of retrogressive degeneration. If improve- 
ments in the condition of human society ever take place at a 
more accelerated ratio, they can only be effected by external 
influences. These also are deeply modified by the condition 
of the moral, religious, and intellectual atmosphere in the 
midst of which they exist. It is necessary thus to refer to 
my own views to prevent the possibility of misapprehension, 
or the supposition that I am impugning Mr. Buckle where I 
am not. My own opinions as to the operation of these laws I 
have briefly stated elsewhere.* What I am contending against 
is the unnecessary matter which Mr. Buckle imports into 
what I believe to be a statement of a great truth, and his em- 
bodying it in propositions of unnecessary universality. 
This arises from his theory of antecedents and consequents, 
his denial of freewill, and his attempt to establish a philosophy 
of man as necessary as are the conditions of his physical being. 
In some respects there is a similarity between the results of 
his philosophic principles and those of Mr. Carlyle, widely as 
they differ in other respects. I am the last person to speak dis- 
respectfully of some of the works of the latter writer, especially 
of the History of the French Revolution, from which I have 
derived the greatest instruction. But, while acknowledging the 
good, I am deeply sensible of the errors of both writers. One 
principle underlies both minds in common — the principle of the 
inevitable action of force. With them the individual is nothing; 
the mass and the inevitable current of events are everything. 
Others, on the contrary, commit the error of assigning every- 
thing to individual agency, and little to the great moral, 
religious, and intellectual forces. One of the great errors of 
both writers is that they concur in representing human things 
as moving by the force of inevitable destiny, and that what- 
ever has perished, has perished because it deserved to perish. 
Mr. Carlyle assigns great weight to the occasional advent of a 
great man, when nature vouchsafes to send us one. In other 
respects, individuality is by both writers reduced nearly to 
zero. Of course I do not mistake Mr. Carlyle for a Positive 
philosopher. For the philosophical aspect of that system he 
would feel unbounded scorn. 
Three chief powers control the affairs of men, and make 
them what they are. First, the influences which act on the 
masses ; secondly, the action of individuality ; thirdly, the 
orderings of the providences of God. If we overlook either 
of these influences, the result will be a false philosophy. 
I cannot avoid putting one or two questions, which I appre- 
* I have discussed this subject in the sixth chapter of The Jesus of the 
Evangelists , as far as is necessary for the purposes of my argument. 
