The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-03-02

had too great contempt for the masses
I the influence of whose opinion upon
rulers has made great strides since the
days of Frederick the Great. But he
stood almost alone in his inhexible resist
ance to the modern assertion "vor popuh
vor dei." He perpetually antagonized
the exaltation of popular opinion and
popular movements as oracles to be be-
heved and followed above any other
Judgment. Starting upon his career as a
Democrat, he broke utterly with Democ-
racy whenever it became pretentious and
arrogant, and insisted that the combined
opinion of the ignorant masses was to be
accounted more trustworthy than the in
telligent judgment of the wise, the strong,
the good. He seemed to make one of the
foundations of his philosophy the fact
that not many men were destined by the
supreme ruler to rule their fellows, and
when God does clothe the few with this
executive genius and force, it is the duty
of the multitude to seek and follow their
lead.
Why was it, then, that this man who
treated so contemptuously the common
people, yet retained so warm a place in
their esteem? To the question, What are
the people of England? He answered
with an unparalleled audacity, "Thirty
millions-mostly fools"-and yet that
answer became a proverb amongst those
who liked it least. He trampled on the
most cherished idols of the mart and OF
society. He classed all idle and unpro-
itable persons as devils regiments of
whom he would make short work and
fog them to their tasks, instead of treat
ing them as men and brethren. Yet the
workmen of England reverenced him.
He rebuked Cant and Cloth-worship, yet
the clergy call him Prophet" What
is the meaning of this anomaly-that he
was revered and loved by those most
with whom he most disagreed? Was it
not because they were conscious that he
was sincere of soul, and nothing but
moral power and heart full of the sor-
rows and needs of his suffering fellow
men could ever have sustained him in
the emphatic utterance of SO many un-
palatable truths In this sense he was
Prophet. "His prophets mantle was his
rough Scottish dialect and his own pecu-
liar diction and his own secluded manner
OF life" His prophets work was one of
lconoclasm. With ruthless hand he laid
the axe at the root of all shams and hewed
down with relentless stroke the fallacies
OF his time. His work was one of de-
struction and not of construction. AL
ready men are turning from him with
sigh that he builded nothing. Already
he is lost and thrust aside in the new
absorption of intellect in the purely scien-
tific aspects of truth, and his philosophy
meets with no attention because it deals
not with Evolution nor the doctrine of
development, about which Carlyle knew
nothing, and which in his days of vigor
he would probably have been unwilling
to understand. But let not the physical
student cast the great Scotsman aside
with contempt, now that his work is done
for what has been will be, and by and
by the Evolution theory itself will be-
come curiosity in the history of opinion,
and will be interesting chiefly as illus
trating stages of growth. The man of
science of one day is supplanted by the
man Of science who follows and knows
more. Only one science remains forever.
But one philosophy survives all changes.
But one word never passes away. Christ
and his religion alone are eternal. No
new theory or teacher can supplant the
gospel and teacher of Galilee. In this
sense Carlyle was no prophet. He read
the portents of his own age, but he drew
not aside the veil of coming ages The
curtain began to fall upon his truths be-
fore he had himself passed away. The
soul of man cannot feed upon mere
criticism. And we fail to find in all Car
lyle's writings anything but critique.
He dwelt in the past and present but
had no supporting inspiring truths for
the future. He confessed that Christian
ity was ga symbol OF quite perennial, in
finite character. but one whose signif-
canoe will ever demand to be inquired
into anew" Sorrowful is it that he never
seems to have inquired into it for him.
self, and that in the Church of his heroes
he never seems to have placed the Christ,
nor crowned him as the hero Of all, wor-
thy of his definite and intelligent wor-
ship. He was prophet of a wholly neg
ative character prophet who never by
one distinct word prepared the way of
the Son of Man, or pointed to the Lamb
of God which taketh away the sin of the
world. No one ever dealt more 6ercely
with the sins of the people. No one ever
suggested less of the only way by which
the penalty and power and effects Of sin
may be taken away. He could denounce