FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288  
289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   >>   >|  
pened twenty years before: nor, had it happened, would it have been respectfully announced. There are people who are very unfortunate in the expression of their meaning. Mr. Holyoake, in the name of the "London Society" etc., forwarded a pamphlet on the existence of God, and said that the Society trusted I "may be induced to give" the subject my "consideration." How could I know the Society was one person, who supposed I had arrived at a conclusion and wanted a "_guiding word_"? But so it seems it was: Mr. Holyoake, in the _English {401} Leader_ of October 15, 1864, and in a private letter to me, writes as follows: "The gentleman who was the author of the argument, and who asked me to send it to Mr. De Morgan, never assumed that that gentleman had 'that particular subject to begin'--on the contrary, he supposed that one whom we all knew to be eminent as a thinker _had_ come to a conclusion upon it, and would perhaps vouchsafe a guiding word to one who was, as yet, seeking the solution of the Great Problem of Theology. I told my friend that 'Mr. De Morgan was doubtless preoccupied, and that he must be content to wait. On some day of courtesy and leisure he might have the kindness to write.' Nor was I wrong--the answer appears in your pages at the lapse of seventeen years." I suppose Mr. Holyoake's way of putting his request was the _stylus curiae_ of the Society. A worthy Quaker who was sued for debt in the King's Bench was horrified to find himself charged in the declaration with detaining his creditor's money by force and arms, contrary to the peace of our Lord the King, etc. It's only the _stylus curiae_, said a friend: I don't know _curiae_, said the Quaker, but he shouldn't style us peace-breakers. The notion that the _non_-existence of God can be _proved_, has died out under the light of discussion: had the only lights shone from the pulpit and the prison, so great a step would never have been made. The question now is as above. The dictum that Christianity is "part and parcel of the law of the land" is also abrogated: at the same time, and the coincidence is not an accident, it is becoming somewhat nearer the truth that the law of the land is part and parcel of Christianity. It must also be noticed that _Christianity_ was part and parcel of the articles of _war_; and so was _duelling_. Any officer speaking against religion was to be cashiered; and any officer receiving an affront without, in the last resort,
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288  
289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Society

 

parcel

 
Holyoake
 

Christianity

 

curiae

 
supposed
 
officer
 
conclusion
 

guiding

 

gentleman


contrary
 

Quaker

 

stylus

 
Morgan
 
friend
 
subject
 
existence
 

breakers

 

notion

 
discussion

lights

 

proved

 

declaration

 

detaining

 

creditor

 
charged
 

horrified

 

people

 

pulpit

 

shouldn


question

 

duelling

 
articles
 

noticed

 

nearer

 

speaking

 

resort

 
affront
 

receiving

 

religion


cashiered

 

accident

 

announced

 

dictum

 

unfortunate

 
respectfully
 
happened
 

coincidence

 

twenty

 

abrogated