Of Christ, Carlyle directly says little or nothing. In one or two instances he appears to start awe-stricken at the very mention of his name; as though nothing but sacred silence became us when the mind rested upon him. In several places he calls him the "Divine Man," the "God-Man ;" and phrases of this import are often applied. But unless one is determined to see nothing out of the way in this writer, it must be evident, from all his indirect allusions to Christ, that he views him as a Prophet in the same sense he considers Mahomet a Prophet. He would deem Christ decidedly, almost immeasurably, greater than any other character. He was not only nearer right than other prophets and great men, but he was wholly right. He saw clearly into the eternal truth of all things which pertain to man's spiritual nature and destiny. He spoke to the inner souls of men. His words were from the heart, and they reached the heart. His gospel was triumphant, for it was true; men could see its truth, and truth seen will do its work of enlightening and reforming. All systems owe their success, as far as they have any, to their truth and not to their error. No wonder, then, that the gospel has done more for the world than any other published religion. We doubt not Carlyle would say all this and much more in favor of Christ. The fact that he applies to him the epithets of divinity, in itself, proves nothing either way. Epithets of this kind are showered bountifully upon numerous individuals in his writings. We must look at the leading features of his belief; and unless we can find him inconsistent with himself, (and we are confident we cannot) it would be utterly impossible to weave our belief respecting Christ into Carlyle's system of faith. He would heartily laugh at such an attempt.

The question has often been asked, "Why, since Carlyle is so independent a writer, and since the subject of religion, in some form or other, is always in view, why has he not told us in so many words what he thinks of Christ, if his opinion here is peculiar?" A fair question, and we shall attempt an answer. Carlyle does not wish to disturb the mind upon this subject. He knows that men will have some system of religion; he knows and he feels that the Christian system, with Christ for its centre, is the best-the only one for civilized society. And he knows another thing; that the great mass of men have neither the ability nor the inclination

to examine that kind of reasoning which he would use; and hence he would consider that only evil could result from laying violent hands upon the commonly received opinions of Christ and his gospel. He would have Christ revered a thousand fold more than he now is. It is one of his burdens that men do not see more that is good and god-like in all `great men. And there is so little thought in respect to the great mystery of being, that there must be both the exoteric and esoteric doctrines; and did men desire it, it would be impossible to initiate the greatest portion. Let the sensuous, statute system stand open for the reception of all; and as fast as they can bear it, let them take the maximum gradum -into the full effulgence of the sun of Transcendentalism!

We believe that Carlyle would deplore the licentious opinions which his writings are generating. And if he kept the keys of his Spiritual Temple, he would not admit into its Holy of Holies one half that are rushing in; and we are sure he would turn out, as too unholy and sensual, some who are profaning it by their presence. He does not wish to pull down, but to build up; this is apparent both in his political and religious opinions. But some of his admirers, being unequal to the task of building up with such ethereal materials, and anxious to show their earnestness to work, will do nothing but pull down. Animals know when the proper season for moulting comes; Carlyle would have men as wise; and not set about violently rending asunder their old "garments" till new ones were formed beneath. Neither the snake nor the eagle is guilty of such folly! He would say to his adherents, 'If you are initiated-truly converted, you will be content to enjoy your heavenly visions in silence: do not disturb those who are not worthy of receiving what is revealed to you; you will do them no good, but injury.' In his opinion of Christ, as well as of the natural goodness of the human heart, Carlyle would be classed (if he must be classed at all), among the Unitarians. I think he transcends them-but they claim him, and there is no good ground for disputing the claim.

One other character that finds favor in the eyes of Carlyle must not be omitted: be not astounded, reader, at the incongruity; the man is James Boswell, Johnson's biographer! Call Boswell as vain as you please; but take care how you sport with him; for he had a noble vein of spirituality in his

nature. Why did he so fawningly follow Johnson at a time when Johnson was a poor, obscure, ill-fed, ill-favored man? The answer is plain if you have an eye to see it, he saw, at a time when no other man did see, Johnson's greatness. Boswell had reverence in him as well as vanity; and Johnson was in reality the divinest man of his age, and Boswell bowed at his shrine! He only worshiped earlier what all England worshiped at a later day. As a spiritual man, Boswell was one of the first of the age.' It would help us in coming to a correct view of Carlyle's 'spirituality,' to dwell upon particular individuals concerning whom he has uttered his anathemas; but space will admit of only a word. Byron finds no favor in his sight; for while Byron had talents, he was only a sickly sentimentalist; his heart was of gall; he did not embrace Nature with a warm bosom; he loved nothing that was truly lovely; he hated nothing which deserved hating. All the strings of his heart were ajar-dissonance and not melody was the result. He was sincere in nothing. His music stirred, but did not soften and cheer the soul. Beauteous, bountiful, loving Nature had no smiles and no blessings for this fallen spirit. He never ascended into the Mystery of Being farther than to doubt and despair. Reverence, sincere, earnest worship, found no place in poor Byron's heart.'

Napoleon is admitted with reluctance into his calendar of great men. 'We will call him a hero of a low order; for while he had insight into the realities of things, and saw clearly the difference between a some-thing and a no-thing; while too there was red earnest in the man, yet he lacked sincerity-the cardinal quality for a truly heroic man. He became ambitious-too self-conscious, and on the whole had better be consigned to the list of fighting captains.'

The class called "gentlemen," comes into his writings for sportive illustrations, or to receive the lashes of irony, and is then dismissed. These, and that species of the human race named "dandies," he considers quite a useless and profitless part of God's creation. The hard-handed, thinly-clad, and scantily fed day laborer is infinitely superior and more worthy of our regard. His sympathies are with the poor and the suffering. To see how he handles political demagogues and all who strive to be noticed by the world, would be amusing and instructive, but out of place here.

Carlyle takes enlarged views of men of all countries, and of all ages; this is a prominent feature of his writings. He is constantly suggesting new trains of thought about men. The thousand different aspects which society has assumed; the habits, the dress, the customs, the forms of religion and civil polity, seen in different ages and nations, are no obstacle to his vision. In his eye all these are but the outward vesture, and he attempts to strip them all off. Beneath all these he sees the same throbbing heart, the same strong desires; the same hopes and fears that he sees in himself. The written creed of man's religion, the laws of his statute book are no part of man-often no true index of what man is. Neither in estimating man as a spiritual being would he have us much regard the advancement of science and literature in his age and country; not too rigidly inquire whether he worships in a Mosque, Pagoda, Cathedral or Meeting-house, or in no house at all. The one great, almost sole inquiry should be : What does man sincerely believe concerning this universe, and his duty and destiny in it? Know this, and we know what is most worth the knowing, about the man or nation. Now, Carlyle would consider that nation truly religious, (faulty as its religion might be) which had a sincere, soulstirring worship, and worship with him is the deep emotion. of admiration and wonder. It is the same in kind, whether felt in view of a man, or a mountain, a flower, or a star; a king, priest, pope, or God. 'Did Boswell stand in awe before the giant intellect of Johnson? Did he admire, did he wonder? then did he worship! Did the ancient Icelander have the same emotions looking at an ice-berg? No wonder then it was to him a God! Does the beautiful lily of the standing pool excite the like feelings in the soul of the Poet? this is the purest devotion! Was Zoroaster awe-stricken as he looked up to the burning orb of day? How should he feel otherwise than that a God was looking down upon him? Was not the ancient Persian right in feeling that every star was an eye of Deity? and, if he felt this, should he not have done homage? If the Norwegians viewed Odin so much greater than themselves, are we not to commend them for making him a god? that is, for looking upon him with infinite wonder. Even the heartless superficiality of our own time has left a remnant of devotion for those we highly value. O that men would think deeper! descend beneath the surface of

things and not be deceived and be-fooled by mere semblance and formulas, and creeds which are only the outer garment of realities, Simpleton! can you not see the difference between a bit of cloth and a god-inspired soul? Will you call that rich, sensual, tinselled bishop who divides his time between hunting excursions into Scotland, and feasting and riding about in his gig at home; who fleeces but never feeds his flock, will you call him a religious man, destined for heaven, because you occasionally see him pompously going to a Christian church, and consign to eternal night and Orcus the Mussulman who, with a burning, wrapt soul, five times a day, most devoutly kneels to Allah? Will you forever be calling that heathenism and a lie, deserving damnation, which leads its devotee to consecrate all upon its altar, and with a wonder which transcends all your logic, bows before some idol of Nature; while those who, with sleepy heads and lifeless spirits, meet in a framed house, and go over a different set of forms, are the only elect of God? Clear thy mind of cant! Does not God look at the heart? But you say, "other nations worship false gods ;" very true, they have many erroneous ideas of God; but be assured the image you see is not the thing they worship. They use this only as an aid to the mind; and cannot we believe that their idea of God, in many cases, is as near the reality as the ideas men called Christians, form of him! Bethink yourself! what is a man's god? is it not the thing he thinks most of? loves most? the thing he wonders at and admires most? If you will look at the subject you will find as great a diversity of gods in London as in Calcutta or Pekin! The Burmese worship Gaudama; now drop the name which is a nothing and look at the real thing which they worship. You will find this to be a great, good being, who formerly ruled their ancestors, and gave them great blessings, for which they are "thankful." You say the "Hindoo worships the Ganges." Not exactly so. It is not so much water, so much oxygen and hydrogen, but a living spirit that enriches their rice-fields, that he worships! and is it not the true religious soul which sees God in his works? The origin of all you call heathen idolatry was nature-worship-a recognition of God in every thing; a god who gave them fruitful land, refreshing showers, a cheering sun, and a spangled heaven. They embraced Nature as a kind and loving and fruitful mother; they loved her sincere

SECOND SERIES, Vol. VIII, NO. II.

9