FroudetellsusthathefoughtagainstDarwinism，butapparently’dreadedthatitmightturnouttrue。’213*Yetisnotthedoctrineofthe’survivalofthefittest’justthescientificversionofCarlyle’stheoryofthe’identityofRightandMight’？
Wasnotevolutionreallyinharmonywithhisconclusion？Tohim，accordingtoFroude，itseemedthatScienceledto’LucretianAtheism。’HestillbelievedinGod，butwhenFroudeoncesaidthathecouldonlybelieveinaGodwhodidsomething，Carlylereplied，withacryofpainwhichIFroudeshallneverforget，Hedoesnothing！’Thereconstructionwhichwastofollowthedestructionwasindefinitelydelayed。Theherodidnotcome；andCarlylewasaprophetwhohadledhisfollowersintothedesert，butfoundthatthelandofpromisealwaysturnedouttobeamirage。Carlyleheldthathypocrisywasstillworsethanmaterialism；but，ashegrewolderandwatchedmoderntendencies，hebecamelesshopefulofthe’ExodusfromHoundsditch，’andsometimeswishedtheoldsheltertoremainstanding。HeshrankevenfromtheessayistsandreviewersandfromColenso，thoughhehadrejectedhistoricalcreedsfarmoresummarilythantheyhaddone。
Carlyle，then，andMauricemightbothbecalled’mystics’inthesufficientlyvaguesenseusedbyCarlylehimself。Theyobjecttologiconprinciple。Theyappealtocertainprimitiveinstinctswhichcanbeoverriddenbynologicalmanipulationsorbyanyappealtooutwardfacts。Both，afterall，areforcedintheendtoconsidertheplain，simple，’objective’test。Mauricefindsthathemustanswerthequestionofthehistoricalcritic：arethestatementsoffacttrueorfalse？Carlyle，notseekingforabasetosupportanyparticularcreed，canthrowtheThirty-nineArticlesoverboard，butfinallycomesintoconflictwithscientificconceptionsingeneral。Hefindshimselfopposedtothescientificviewofhistoricalevolution，andseesinthemostconspicuoustendenciesofmodernthoughtthedisappearanceofallthemostennoblingbeliefs。The’supernatural’and’transcendental’have，afterall，toconformtotheprosaicmatteroffactunderstanding。Accepting，asIdo，whatIsupposetobethescientificview，IfullybelievethatCarlyle’smethodiserroneous；thatindenouncingscientificmethodsassimplymaterialistic，heisopposingthenecessarylogicofintellectualdevelopment，andthathishero-worshipandtheoryofrightreallyleadtoarbitraryandchaoticresults。
Thereis，however，anotherremarktobemade。IfCarlyle’sviewofascientificdoctrinebecorrect；ifitslegitimateresultbethedestructionofmorality，ofallourhighestaspirations，evenofanybeliefintherealityofthemindortheemotions；iftheuniverseistobemadeintoadeadmechanismorahugeswine’strough，wearecertainlyreducedtoamostterribledilemma。ItwasreallythedilemmafromwhichCarlylecouldneverescape，andtheconsciousnessofwhichtormentedhimtothelast。Hehadtochoosebetweenallegiancetomoralityandallegiancetotruth。Scientifictendencies，especiallyasembodiedinUtilitarianism，seemedtomanymen，and，asCarlyle’scaseshows，tothemenofthehighestabilities，tohavethattendency。Theabsolutesincerityofthatconvictionisunmistakable。Idonotdoubtthatmen，holdingtheconvictionsincerely，wereboundtoseeksomeescape；norcouldIcondemnthemifundersoterribleadilemmatheyallowedtheirloveoftruthtobepartlyobscured。Infact，too，Ithinkthatitcannotbedeniedthatmanyofthementowhomweowemost，whosemoralitywasthehighestandmoststimulating，andwho，moreover，weremosthostiletothelowerformsofsuperstition，didinfacttakethisposition。ThoughMauricewasfarfromclear-headed，I
fullybelievethathisliberalandhumanespiritwasofthegreatestvalue，andthathedidmorethanmostmentoraisethesocialtoneinregardtothegreatestproblems。Carlyle’sdoctrineis，Iequallybelieve，radicallyincoherent；butIamalsoconvincedthatCarlyle’simpetuousandvehementassertionofcertaingreatsocial，ethical，andpoliticalprincipleswasofthehighestvalue。Itmustbeallowed，Ithink，thatsuchmenasCarlyleandEmerson，forexample，vagueandevencontradictoryaswastheirteaching，didmoretorouseloftyaspirationsandtomoralisepoliticalcreeds，thoughlessfortheadvancementofsoundmethodsofinquiry，thantheteachingoftheUtilitarians。