fellow crusaders:  it seems that he also would willingly have gone with such an army of the faithful.  But when he turns from the past to the present, all this charity and indulgence are at an end.  He finds in his own mechanico-philosophical age a faith in accordance with its prevailing modes of thought—­faith lying at the foundation of whatever else of doctrinal theology it possesses—­a faith diffused over all society, and taught not only in churches and chapels to pious auditories, but in every lecture-room, and by scientific as well as theological instructors—­a faith in God, as creator of the universe, as the demonstrated author, architect, originator, of this wondrous world; and lo! this same philosopher who looked with encouraging complacency on Abbot Samson bending in adoration over the exhumed remains of a fellow mortal, and who listens without a protest to the cries of sanguinary enthusiasm, rising from a throng of embattled Christians, steps disdainfully aside from this faith of a peaceful and scientific age; he has some subtle, metaphysical speculations that will not countenance it; he demands that a faith in God should he put on some other foundation, which foundation, unhappily, his countrymen, as yet unskilled in transcendental metaphysics; cannot apprehend; he withdraws his sympathy from the so trite and sober-minded belief of an industrious, experimental, ratiocinating generation, and cares not if they have a God at all, if they can only make his existence evident to themselves from some commonplace notion of design and prearrangement visible in the world.  Accordingly, we have passages like the following, which it is not our fault if the reader finds to be not very intelligible, or written in, what our author occasionally perpetrates, a sad jargon.

“For out of this that we call Atheism, come so many other isms and falsities, each falsity with its misery at its heels!—­A SOUL is not, like wind, (spiritus or breath,) contained within a capsule; the ALMIGHTY MAKER is not like a clockmaker that once, in old immemorial ages, having made his horologe of a universe, sits ever since and sees it go!  Not at all.  Hence comes Atheism; come, as we say, many other isms; and as the sum of all comes vatetism, the reverse of heroism—­sad root of all woes whatsoever.  For indeed, as no man ever saw the above said wind element inclosed within its capsule, and finds it at bottom more deniable than conceivable; so too, he finds, in spite of Bridgewater bequests, your clockmaker Almighty an entirely questionable affair, a deniable affair; and accordingly denies it, and along with it so much else.”—­(P. 199.)

Do we ask Mr Carlyle to falsify his own transendental philosophy for the sake of his weaker brethren?  By no means.  Let him proceed on the “high a priori road,” if he finds it—­as not many do—­practicable.  Let men, at all times, when they write as philosophers, speak