come together, and which was dismissed, after one of
the most sensible sermons ever preached, by the Recorder. E. I see your
meaning: it is true, there is that one exception! H. Why, the Recorder's
sermon itself contains another, the [Greek: ennomos ekklesia],[67]
legislative assembly. E. Ah! the New Testament can only be interpreted by
the Church! H. I see! the Church interprets itself into existence out of
the New Testament, and then interprets the New Testament out of existence
into itself!

I look upon all the Churches as fair game which declare of me that _absque
dubio in aeternum peribo_;[68] not for their presumption towards God, but
for their personal insolence towards myself. I find that their sectaries
stare when I say this. Why! they do not speak of you in _particular_! These
poor reasoners seem to think that there could be no meaning, as against me,
unless it should be propounded that "without doubt he shall perish
everlastingly, especially A. De Morgan." But I hold, with the schoolmen,
that "_Omnis_ homo est animal" in conjunction with "Sortes est homo"
amounts to "_Sortes_ est animal."[69] But they do not mean it _personally_!
Every universal proposition is {33} personal to every instance of the
subject. If this be not conceded, then I retort, in their own sense and
manner, "Whosoever would serve God, before all things he must not pronounce
God's decision upon his neighbor. Which decision, except every one leave to
God himself, without doubt he is a bigoted noodle."

The reasoning habit of the educated community, in four cases out of five,
permits universal propositions to be stated at one time, and denied, _pro
re nata_,[70] at another. "Before we proceed to consider any question
involving physical principles, we should set out with _clear ideas_ of the
naturally possible and impossible." The eminent man who said this, when
wanting it for his views of mental education (!) never meant it for more
than what was in hand, never assumed it in the researches which will give
him to posterity! I have heard half-a-dozen defences of his having said
this, not one of which affirmed the truth of what was said. A worthy
clergyman wrote that if A. B. had said a certain thing the point in
question would have been established. It was shown to him that A. B. _had_
said it, to which the reply was a refusal to admit the point because A. B.
said it in a second pamphlet and in answer to objections. And I might give
fifty such