The Reasoner. No. 45. Edited by G.J. Holyoake.[820] Price _2d._ Is
there sufficient proof of the existence of God? 8vo. 1847.
This acorn of the holy oak was forwarded to me with a manuscript note,
signed by the editor, on the part of the {400} "London Society of
Theological Utilitarians," who say, "they trust you may be induced to give
this momentous subject your consideration." The supposition that a
middle-aged person, known as a student of thought on more subjects than
one, had that particular subject yet to begin, is a specimen of what I will
call the _assumption-trick_ of controversy, a habit which pervades all
sides of all subjects. The tract is a proof of the good policy of letting
opinions find their level, without any assistance from the Court of Queen's
Bench. Twenty years earlier the thesis would have been positive, "There is
sufficient proof of the non-existence of God," and bitter in its tone. As
it stands, we have a moderate and respectful treatment--wrong only in
making the opponent argue absurdly, as usually happens when one side
invents the other--of a question in which a great many Christians have
agreed with the atheist: that question being--Can the existence of God be
proved independently of revelation? Many very religious persons answer this
question in the negative, as well as Mr. Holyoake. And, this point being
settled, all who agree in the negative separate into those who can endure
scepticism, and those who cannot: the second class find their way to
Christianity. This very number of _The Reasoner_ announces the secession of
one of its correspondents, and his adoption of the Christian faith. This
would not have happened 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,
attempting to kill his opponent, was also to be cashiered. Though somewhat
of a book-hunter, I {402} have never been able to ascertain the date of the
collected remonstrances of the prelates in the House of Lords against this
overt inculcation of murder, under the soft name of _satisfaction_: it is
neither in Watt,[821] nor in Lowndes,[822] nor in any edition of
Brunet;[823] and there is no copy in the British Museum. Was the collected
edition really published?
[The publication of the above in the _Athenaeum_ has not produced reference
to a single copy. The collected edition seems to be doubted. I have even
met one or two persons who doubt the fact of the Bishops having
remonstrated at all: but their doubt was founded on an absurd supposition,
namely, that it was _no business of theirs_; that it was not the business
of the prelates of the church in union with the state to remonstrate
against the Crown commanding murder! Some say that the edition was
published, but under an irrelevant title, which prevented people from
knowing what it was about. Such things have happened: for example, arranged
extracts from Wellington's general orders, which would have attracted
attention, fell dead under the title of "Principles of War." It is surmised
that the book I am looking for also contains the protests of the Reverend
bench against other things besides the Thou-shalt-do-murder of the Articles
(of war), and is called "First Elements of Religion" or some similar title.
Time clears up all things.]
* * * * *