text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography, Second Supplement, volume 1.djvu/29

 the 'Rambler,' which, having been started ten years before by an Oxford convert, John Moore Capes, had won the support of Newman. Acton's fellow proprietors were Richard Simpson [q.v.] and Frederick Capes, and Simpson was serving as editor. In 1859 Newman, whose aid was reckoned of great moment, succeeded Simpson as editor (cf., Lord Acton and his Circle, xxi), but the authorities urged his retirement within four months. Thereupon Acton became editor in name, although Simpson did most of the work. The periodical in its old shape came to an end in 1862, being converted into a quarterly, with the title 'The Home and Foreign Review.' This review represents the high-water mark of the liberal catholic movement. Probably no review of the reign of Queen Victoria maintained so high a standard of general excellence. Some of the strongest articles were written by Acton himself, though his style had neither the point nor the difficulty of his later writings. Many of them have since been republished in the two volumes entitled 'The History of Freedom' and 'Lectures and Essays on Modern History.' The amazing variety of his knowledge is better shown in the numerous shorter notices of books, which betrayed an intimate and detailed knowledge of documents and authorities. The new quarterly had, however, to run from the first the gauntlet of ecclesiastical criticism. Cardinal Wiseman publicly rebuked the editors in 1862. Acton in reply claimed for catholics the right to take 'a place in every movement that promotes the study of God's works and the advancement of mankind.'

Acton attended in March 1864 the Congress of Munich, when Döllinger pleaded on liberal grounds for a reunion of Christendom. Acton reported the proceedings in the 'Review.' His report awakened orthodox hostility, and when a papal brief addressed to the archbishop of Munich asserted that all Roman Catholic opinions were under the control of the Roman congregations, Acton stopped the review instead of waiting for the threatened veto. In withdrawing from this unequal contest, Acton, in a valedictory article called 'Conflicts with Rome' (April), which he signed as proprietor, declared once more in stately and dignified language his loyalty at once to the church and to the principles of freedom and scientific inquiry. At the end of the year Pope Pius IX promulgated the encyclical 'Quanta Cura' with the appended 'Syllabus Errorum,' which deliberately condemned all such efforts as those of Acton to make terms between the church and modern civilisation. At the time Acton informed his constituents at Bridgnorth that he belonged rather to the soul than the body of the catholic church. This expressed very clearly the distinction dominant in his mind between membership of the church of Rome and trust in the court of Rome.

The 'Review' was replaced to some extent by a weekly literary and political journal called the 'Chronicle,' which was started by T. F. Wetherell in 1867 with some pecuniary aid from Sir Rowland Blennerhassett [q. v. Suppl. II]. It ran for the most part on secular lines merely coloured by a Roman Catholic liberalism. Acton wrote regularly through 1867 and 1868. In some of his articles, notably in that on Sarpi and others on the Roman question, he was seen at his best. None of these contributions have been reprinted. On the stoppage of the 'Chronicle' at the end of 1868 he again interested himself in a journalistic venture of an earlier stamp. He helped Wetherell to launch in a new form and in the liberal catholic interest an old-established Scottish quarterly, the 'North British Review.' Acton eagerly suggested writers and themes, and was himself a weighty contributor until the periodical ceased in 1872. For the first number he wrote a learned article on 'The Massacre of St. Bartholomew,' wherein he sought to establish the complicity if not of the papacy, at least of the Popes in this great auto da fé. Acton subsequently modified his conclusions. The article, which was afterwards enlarged and translated into Italian by Signor Tommaso Gar, was doubtless designed as a piece of polemics as well as an historical inquiry.

Meanwhile, two lectures which Acton delivered at the Bridgnorth Literary and Scientific Institution—on the American Civil War (18 Jan. 1866) and on Mexico (10 March 1868)—illustrated his masterly insight alike into past history and current politics. In Nov. 1868 he stood unsuccessfully for his old constituency of Bridgnorth. By that time Acton's intimacy with Gladstone, now the liberal prime minister, had ripened into very close friendship. They were in Rome together in Dec. 1866, and Acton had guided Gladstone through the great library of Monte Cassino. Acton was Gladstone's junior by twenty-five years, and to the last he addressed the statesman with all the distant marks of respect due to a senior. But Acton influenced


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography, Second Supplement, volume 1.djvu/28

 ACTON, JOHN EMERICH EDWARD DALBERG, first  and eighth baronet (1834–1902), historian and moralist, born at Naples on 10 Jan. 1834, was the only child of Sir Ferdinand Richard Edward Acton, seventh baronet (1801–1835), by a German wife, Marie Louise Pellini de Dalberg, only child of Emeric Joseph Duc de Dalberg. After his father's early death his mother married (2 July 1840), second Earl Granville [q. v.], the liberal statesman; she died 14 March 1860. The Acton family had long been settled in Shropshire, and the first baronet owed his title (conferred in 1643) to his loyalty to Charles I. Acton was descended from a cadet branch of the family. His great-grandfather, Edward Acton, was the youngest son of a younger son of the second baronet, and settled at Besançon as a doctor. From his marriage with a daughter of a Burgundian gentleman there issued Sir [q. v.], the friend of Queen Caroline and premier of the Two Sicilies at the time of Nelson. His career was not unstained, and Acton, it is said, refused to touch monies coming to him from that source. Acton, who although a Roman Catholic by race and training was deeply hostile to the arbitrary power of the Pope, owed his existence to a papal dispensation. In 1799 Sir John Acton (who eight years earlier succeeded to the title owing to the lapse of the elder branch of the family) obtained a dispensation to marry his brother's daughter. From this marriage issued Acton's father.

Of mingled race and bred amid cosmopolitan surroundings, Acton was never more than half an Englishman. His education was as varied as his antecedents. After a brief time at a school in Paris, he was sent in 1843 to the Roman Catholic College at Oscott, then under Dr. Wiseman, for whom he always retained affection in spite of later divergence of opinion. Thence he went for a short time to Edinburgh as a private pupil under Dr. Logan. There he found neither the teaching nor the companionship congenial. In 1848 began that experience which was to mould his mind more than any other influence. He went to Munich to study under Professor von Döllinger, and as his private pupil to live under the same roof. There he remained for six years in all, and not only laid the foundations of his vast erudition but also acquired his notions of the methods of historical study and the duty of applying fearless criticism to the history of the church. From this time he never wavered in his unflinching and austere liberalism, and very little in his dislike of the papal curia. A passionate sense of the value of truth, of the rights of the individual conscience, and of the iniquity of persecution, and hatred of all forms of absolutism, civil or ecclesiastical, were henceforth his distinctive qualities, and coupled with these was that desire to bring his co-religionists into line with modern intellectual developments and more particularly the science of Germany.

In 1855 he accompanied Lord Ellesmere to the United States; presence at the important constitutional debates at Philadelphia stimulated his interest in the question of state rights. In 1856 he accompanied his step-father, Lord Granville, to the coronation of the Czar Alexander II, and made a great impression on statesmen and men of intellectual eminence by a display of knowledge surprising in a youth. In 1857 he journeyed to Italy with Döllinger, and became versed in Italian affairs. Minghetti, the successor of Cavour, was a family connection and a frequent correspondent. (For evidence of Acton's insight into Italian matters, see articles in the Chronicle, 1867-8, and hitherto unpublished correspondence with T. F. Wetherell.)

On his return from Italy, Acton settled at the family seat at Aldenham, Shropshire, beginning to collect there the great library which reached a total of some 59,000 volumes. In 1859 he was elected to the House of Commons as whig M.P. for Carlow, and he sat for that constituency till 1865. He was then elected for Bridgnorth, in his own county, by a majority of one, and was unseated on a scrutiny. His parliamentary career was not successful. He was no debater; he only made a single short speech and put two questions while a member of the house. What he said of himself, 'I never had any contemporaries,' rendered him unfit for the rough and tumble of political life. The House of Commons proved a thoroughly uncongenial atmosphere, but it brought him the acquaintance of Gladstone, who soon inspired Acton with devotional reverence.

Acton proceeded to win intellectual and moral eminence at the expense of immediate practical influence. Even before he entered parliament he had actively joined those who were seeking to widen the horizons of English Roman Catholics. In 1858 he acquired an interest in a liberal catholic monthly periodical, called

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User talk:Rillke

— billinghurst  sDrewth  14:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rillke


text:
Page:Sons and Lovers, 1913, Lawrence.djvu/225

Rh “Why painting and books. You don’t care about Herbert Spencer.”

“No,” was the sad reply. “And you won’t at my age.”

“Well, but I do now—and Miriam does——”

“And how do you know,” Mrs. Morel flashed defiantly, “that I shouldn’t. Do you ever try me!”

“But you don’t, mother, you know you don’t care whether a picture’s decorative or not; you don’t care what manner it is in.”

“How do you know I don’t care? Do you ever try me? Do you ever talk to me about these things, to try?”

“But it’s not that that matters to you, mother, you know it’s not.”

“What is it, then—what is it, then, that matters to me?” she flashed. He knitted his brows with pain.

“You’re old, mother, and we’re young.”

He only meant that the interests of her age were not the interests of his. But he realized the moment he had spoken that he had said the wrong thing.

“Yes, I know it well—I am old. And therefore I may stand aside; I have nothing more to do with you. You only want me to wait on you—the rest is for Miriam.”

He could not bear it. Instinctively he realized that he was life to her. And, after all, she was the chief thing to him, the only supreme thing.

“You know it isn’t, mother, you know it isn’t!”

She was moved to pity by his cry.

“It looks a great deal like it,” she said, half putting aside her despair.

“No, mother—I really don’t love her. I talk to her, but I want to come home to you.”

He had taken off his collar and tie, and rose, bare-throated, to go to bed. As he stooped to kiss his mother, she threw her arms round his neck, hid her face on his shoulder, and cried, in a whimpering voice, so unlike her own that he writhed in agony:

“I can’t bear it. I could let another woman—but not her. She’d leave me no room, not a bit of room——”

And immediately he hated Miriam bitterly.

“And I’ve never—you know, Paul—I’ve never had a husband—not really——”

He stroked his mother’s hair, and his mouth was on her throat.

“And she exults so in taking you from me—she’s not like ordinary girls.”


text: The Kernel and the Husk/The Worship of Christ


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/283

Rh XXV

——,

I had not forgotten that, in order to complete the brief discussion of the miraculous element in the New Testament, it is necessary to give some explanation of the origin of the accounts of the birth of Christ. Your last letter reminds me of this necessity, and you put before me two alternatives. "If," you say, "Christ was born of a Virgin, then a miracle is conceded so stupendous that it is absurd to object to the other miracles: but if Christ was not born of a Virgin, then, unless the honesty of the Gospel narratives is to be impeached, some account is needed of the way in which the miraculous legend found its way into the Gospels;" and you add that you would like to know what meaning, if any, I attach to the statement in the Creed, that Jesus was "born of a Virgin."

As you probably anticipate, I accept the latter of your alternatives, and I will therefore endeavour briefly to shew how the story of the Miraculous Conception "found its way into the Gospels." But first I must protest against your expression as inexact. The story of the Miraculous Conception, so far from having "found its way into the Gospels found its way into only two out of the four, namely, St. Matthew's and St, Luke's. And this fact, strong as it is, does not represent the strength of the negative argument from omission. Of the nine authors, or thereabouts, of the different books in the New Testament, only two contain any account, reference, or allusion


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/284

268 to the Miraculous Conception. No mention is made of it in any of the numerous Epistles of St. Paul; nor in any of his speeches, nor in those of St. Peter, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, nor in any part of that book; nor in the Epistles of St. John, St. James, St. Peter, St. Jude; nor in the Apocalypse; nor in the Gospels of St. Mark and St. John! Even the two Gospels that mention it contain no evidence that it was known to any of the disciples during the life-time of Jesus, and one of these (Luke iii. 23) traces the genealogy of Jesus from Joseph and expressly declares that He "was supposed" to be "the Son of Joseph." This negative evidence becomes all the more weighty if you consider how very natural it was, and I may almost say inevitable, that the story of a Miraculous Conception should speedily find its way into the traditions of the early Church. The causes that worked toward this result were, first, Old Testament prophecy; secondly, traditions and expressions current among a certain section of the Jews; thirdly, the preconceptions of pagan converts.

Recall to mind what was said in a previous letter concerning the importance attached by the earliest Christians to the argument from prophecy. Now there is a prophecy in Isaiah which, if separated from its context, might seem to point to nothing but the Miraculous Conception of the Messiah: "The Lord himself shall give you a sign: behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel." But a careful study of the context puts the matter in a quite different light. Isaiah (vii. 10—viii. 4) is promising to King Ahaz


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/285

Letter 25] deliverance from the kings of Syria and Samaria. As the king will not ask for a sign, the prophet promises that the Lord will give him one; a virgin shall conceive and bring forth a child and shall call his name Immanuel ("God with us"): he shall "eat butter and honey" when he arrives at the age of distinction between good and evil; for before he arrives at that age, the land abhorred by Ahaz shall be "forsaken by both her kings." The meaning appears to be that, within the time necessary for the conception and birth of a child, that is to say, in less than a year, the prospects of deliverance for Judah from her present enemies (Syria and Samaria) shall so brighten that a child shall be born and called by a name implying the favour of God; afterwards, before that child shall grow up to childhood, the two aggressive countries of Syria and Samaria shall be themselves desolated, as well as Judah, by the "razor" of Assyria which shall shave the country clean from all cultivated crops. Amid the general desolation, the fruit trees will be cut down, the corn will not be sown; bread there will be none; there will be nothing to eat but "butter and honey;" it is not the new-born child alone who shall eat "butter and honey;" "butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land" (vii. 22).

In all this, even though we may suppose that there may have been some Messianic reference, there is no prediction at all of a conception from a virgin or of a miracle of any kind. Indeed, the prophecy appears to find some sort of fulfilment in what happens immediately afterwards (Isaiah viii. 1-4), when the prophet contracts a marriage, and calls the son who springs from it by a name implying the vengeance imminent on Samaria and Assyria: "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz (i.e. booty, quick, spoil, speedy): for before the boy shall have knowledge to cry my father! my mother! the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/286

270 Assyria." No doubt it may be said that this son was not called "Immanuel," so that the prophecy was not fulfilled in him. But the same argument might be urged against the application to our Lord; for He also was not called "Immanuel," but received the old national name of "Joshua," "Jeshua," or "Jesus." Reviewing all the circumstances of the prophecy, I think we may say, without exaggeration, first, that there are no grounds for seeing in it any reference to a Miraculous Conception; secondly, that, when isolated, it might easily be misinterpreted so as to convey such a reference. You remember that the two accounts of the Miraculous Conception differ in respect of the "annunciation"; which St. Matthew describes as being made to Joseph, St. Luke as being made to Mary. It is interesting to note how these two variations correspond to two variations in the ancient prophecy.

In the LXX the name is to be given to the child, not by the mother, but by the future husband: "The virgin shall be with child and bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Immanuel". In the Hebrew, the "virgin," or "maiden," is herself to name the child: "A virgin shall ... bring forth and shall call, &c." Adopting the former version, a narrator would infer that the announcement of the birth was to be made to Joseph, as the first Gospel does: "She shall bring forth a child and thou (Joseph) shalt call his name Jesus." Adopting the latter version, and changing the third into the second person for the purpose of an "annunciation," the narrator would infer that since the name was to be given by the mother, the announcement was made to the mother, as the third Gospel does: "Thou shalt be with child, and shalt bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus."

Note also that afterwards, when St. Matthew actually quotes the whole prophecy with the name "Immanuel" (i. 23), he alters the verb into the third person plural; "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a child, and they shall call his name Immanuel." The reason is obvious. It would not be true to say that Mary called her son "Immanuel;" it would only be possible to suggest that men in general ("they"), looking on the Child as the token of God's presence among them, might bestow on him some such title (not name) as "God with us." Consequently St. Matthew here alters "thou" into "they."

Even if no such prophecy had existed, the language and preconceptions of the earliest Christians and their converts would almost necessarily have introduced a belief in the Miraculous Conception. The language of Philo—who represents not a mere individual eccentricity but the current phraseology of the Alexandrine school of thought, and whose influence may be traced in almost every page


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/287

Letter 25] of the Fourth Gospel—consistently affirms that, whenever a child is mentioned in the Old Testament as having been born to be a deliverer in fulfilment of a divine promise, that child is "begotten of God." The words of Sarah, he says, indicate that, in reality, "The Lord begot Isaac." God is also spoken of as "the husband of Leah." Zipporah is described as being "pregnant by no mortal." Samuel, in words that contain an implied belief that only his maternal parentage was mortal, is declared to be "perhaps a man," and "born of a human mother." I have already quoted one passage about Isaac; but another asserts that he is to be considered "not the result of generation but the work of the unbegotten." Sometimes the language of Philo is so worded as to convey even to a careful reader the impression that he believed in a literally Miraculous Conception, as for example when he says that "Moses introduces Sarah as being pregnant when alone, and as being visited by God." Elsewhere, he removes the possibility of misunderstanding by saying that "the Scripture is cautious, and describes God as the husband, not of a virgin, but of virginity." None the less, you can easily see how expressions of this kind, current among Jewish philosophers a generation before the time of St. Paul, might be very easily interpreted literally by ordinary people unskilled in these metaphorical subtleties, and especially by Gentile converts asking for a plain answer to a plain question, "What was the parentage of this man whom you call the Son of God?"

In truth the preconceptions of the Gentile converts must have played no small part in preparing the way for the doctrine of the literal Miraculous Conception. The Greeks and Romans who worshipped or honoured Æsculapius son of Apollo, Romulus son of Mars, Hercules son of Jupiter, and a score of other demi-gods, would be quite familiar with the notion of a god or hero


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/288

272 born of a human mother and of a divine father; they would not only be prepared for it in the case of Jesus, whom they were called on to adore as the Son of God, they would even demand and assume it. They would argue much as Tertullian argued: "If he was the son of a man, he was not the son of God; and if he was the son of God, he was not the son of a man." This argument ought to have been met by a flat denial, thus: "The mere physical and carnal union by which, according to your legends, the gods, assuming the forms of men, generated Æsculapius, Romulus, and Hercules, is not to be thought of here. When we speak of Jesus being the Son of God, we do not mean that His body was formed by God descending from heaven and assuming human shape or functions, but that His Spirit was spiritually begotten of God. It is therefore quite possible that Jesus may have been the Son of God according to the Spirit and yet the son of man according to the flesh." But instead of that, the whole truth, there came back this half-true answer. "The parentage was divine, but not of the materialistic nature you suppose: God did not assume human shape: the generation was spiritual." By these words there may have been meant at first, simply what Philo meant, that while the spiritual parentage was divine, the material parentage was human: but such an answer would leave many under the impression that the body as well as the spirit of Jesus resulted from a spiritual generation in which no human father participated. The Gentiles would naturally interpret the Philonian doctrine literally and say of Mary, as Philo had said of Sarah, that she was "pregnant when alone, and visited by God."

From a very different point of view, the ritual and hymnals of some of the Jews might facilitate the growth of the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin. For they


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/289

Letter 25] might naturally speak of their Messiah as being a child of the virgin daughter of Sion, whose only husband was Jehovah. And hence in the Apocalypse, a book imbued with Jewish feeling, we find Jesus described (xii. 1—6) as the child of a woman who evidently represents Israel: "A woman arrayed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars; and she was with child.... And she was delivered of a son, a man child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron." This personification of the daughter of Israel or of Jerusalem as representing the nation, the bride of Jehovah, is very common in the prophets. You may find similar personifications in the New Testament. The Apocalypse describes the Church as the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, descending from Heaven "as a bride adorned for her husband." St. Paul speaks of the New Jerusalem, which is above (i.e. the spiritual Jerusalem, free from the law), as being "the mother of us all." Sometimes the personification of the Church is liable to be misinterpreted literally, as in St. Peter's and St. John's Epistles, where "the elect lady" "thine elect sister" and "the (lady) in Babylon" have been supposed by some to refer to individuals, but are believed by Bishop Lightfoot to represent the Churches of the places from which, and to which, the epistles were written. The whole of St. Paul's Epistles presuppose the metaphor of a Virgin Church, and toward the end of the second century (177 A.D.) we find a very curious passage (in an epistle from the Church of Lyons) in which the repentance and martyrdom of some previous apostates are described as a restoration to "the Virgin Mother" of her children, "raised from the dead." You see then how this personification runs through all Jewish and all early Christian literature, so that the Church, old or new, might be described as a woman; and I ought perhaps


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/290

274 not to have omitted the strange dream in the second book of Esdras (x. 44-46) where Israel is a woman and the Temple is the son: "This woman whom thou sawest is Sion ... she hath been thirty years barren, but after thirty years Solomon builded the city and offered offerings, and then bare the barren a son." Does not this continuous stream of thought shew how natural it would be for the earliest Jewish Christians to adore Christ in their hymns as the son of the daughter of Zion, the son of the Virgin Mother? Add to this the prejudice among the Gentile converts against a human paternity for the Son of God, the influence of the Alexandrine Jewish philosophy and the still more powerful influence of Isaiah's prophecy about "the virgin," and I think you will see that the causes at work to produce the belief in the Miraculous Conception were so strong that I may almost say a miracle would have been needed to prevent it.

But it has been urged that St. Luke was a historian and a physician; that he had great power of careful description—as may be seen from his exact account of St. Paul's shipwreck;—that he describes the circumstances of the miraculous birth in a plain and simple manner: and that he assures us that he had taken every pains to make himself acquainted with the truth of the things which he records. All this may be: but because a man can describe exactly a comparatively recent shipwreck, which he may have himself witnessed, or which at all events may have been witnessed by some who told him the story, it does not follow that he has exact information about a miraculous birth which occurred (if at all) upwards of sixty years—more probably upwards of seventy—before he wrote. The mother of Jesus had, in all probability, passed away when St. Luke was writing. Such obscurities and variations by this time attended the stories concerning


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/291

Letter 22] the infancy of Jesus, that we find even the compiler of St. Matthew's Gospel apparently ignorant that the home of the parents of Jesus was (if St. Luke is correct on this point) not Bethlehem, but Nazareth. It is hardly possible to deny his ignorance when we find in the First Gospel these words: "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judæa.... And he arose and took the young child and his mother and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judæa, he was afraid to go thither; and being warned [of God] in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth." Obviously the writer is ignorant that "a city called Nazareth" was the original home of the parents of Jesus, and that they had no reason for returning to "Judæa;" his whole narrative assumes that Bethlehem in Judæa was the home, and that the parents of Jesus were only prevented from returning thither by the fear of Archelaus, which forced them to leave their native city and to take up their abode in "a city called Nazareth." Now it is probable that St. Luke's account is here the correct one, and that the erroneous tradition found in the First Gospel was a mere inference from the prophecy that "from Bethlehem" there should "come forth a governor." But what a light does this discrepancy throw upon the uncertainty of the very earliest traditions about the infancy of Jesus when we find the only two Evangelists who say anything about it, differing as to the place where the parents of Jesus lived at the time when they were married! I have no doubt that St. Luke did his best, in the paucity, or more probably in the variety, of conflicting traditions, to select those which seemed to him most authoritative and most spiritual. Even the most careless reader of the English text must feel, without knowing a word of Greek, that St. Luke's first two chapters—which contain the stories of the infancy—are entirely


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/292

276 different from the style of the preface (i. 1-4), and from that of the rest of the Gospel. The two chapters sound, even in English, like a bit out of the Old Testament; and any Greek scholar, accustomed to the LXX, would recognize that they were either a close translation from the Aramaic, or written by some one who wrote in Greek, modelling his style on the LXX. It is probable that they represent some traditions of Aramaic origin, the best that St. Luke could find when he began to write of the wonders that had happened more than sixty or seventy years ago. To those who can form the least conception of the extent to which Oriental tradition in the villages of Galilee might be transmuted after an interval of sixty or seventy years, it must seem quite beside the mark to assert the historical accuracy of the tradition concerning the Miraculous Conception which St. Luke has incorporated in his Gospel, on the ground that he was a physician; that he took pains to get at the truth; and that he has written a masterly and exact account of a shipwreck which he, or some friends of his, may have witnessed in person.

The very sobriety of his own preface ought to put us on our guard against attaching to St. Luke's history such weight, for example, as we attach to the history of Thucydides. He says, it is true, that he had "traced the course of all things accurately from the first, i.e. from the commencement of Christ's life:" but this amounts to much less than the statement of Thucydides, who tells us that he had personally inquired from those who knew the facts, besides having seen some of the facts himself (Thuc. i. 22). He does not say that "the eye-witnesses and ministers of the word" had given him any special information: on the contrary he mentions himself only as one of many who had received "traditions" from eye-witnesses, and he implies that a good many of the existing narratives, based upon these very traditions, were at least so far unsatisfactory


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/293

Letter 25] that they did not dispense with an additional narrative from him. The emphasis which St. Luke lays on the fact that he has traced things "from the first," and that he writes "in order,"—combined with the mention of "many" predecessors who have "taken in hand" the work which he intends to do over again—makes it almost certain that some of these Evangelists had omitted all account of our Lord's birth; others had not regarded chronological order; others had not written "accurately." All these deficiencies indicate a great and general difficulty in obtaining exact information; and the mere honesty of a new attempt, under circumstance so disadvantageous, cannot justify us in attaching a very high authority to a tradition in this new Gospel, of a miraculous character, and in a style that appears to be not St. Luke's own, referring to an incident supposed to have occurred upwards of sixty years before. This digression about St. Luke's Gospel will not be without its use if it leads you to perceive that history, and experience, and criticism, while they tend to make us believe more, tend also to make us know less, about Christ's life and doctrine; I mean, that we find we know a little less about the historical facts of Christ's life than we supposed we knew, while we are led to believe a great deal more in the divine depth and wisdom of His ideas.

I pass to the second question which you put to me, "What sense, if any, do you yourself attach to the statement in the Creed that Christ was born of a Virgin?" Before I tell you what sense I attach to it, or rather what sense seems to me the only one compatible with the facts, I must honestly express my doubt whether any sense that is compatible with the facts, is also compatible with the words. To speak plainly, the statement appears to be so obviously literal that I shrink from interpreting it metaphorically; and yet, if taken literally, it


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/294

278 appears to me to be false. The word "Virgin" is perhaps the only word in the service and ritual of the Church of England (if the Athanasian Creed be left out of consideration, owing to the non-natural and humane interpretations of it which have been sanctioned by high authority) which has made me doubt at times whether I ought to do official work as a minister in that Church. As regards the "resurrection of the body," asserted in one of the Creeds, I feel little or no difficulty: for St. Paul's use of the term "spiritual body" allows great latitude to those who would give a spiritual interpretation to the phrase in the Creed; and I trust that I have made it clear to you that I accept Christ's Resurrection as a reality, though a spiritual reality. But the words implying the birth from the Virgin stand on a different footing. In the Resurrection of Jesus I believe that there was a unique vision of the buried Saviour, apparent to several disciples at a time; but in the conception and birth of Jesus I have no reason for thinking that there was anything unusual apparent to the senses. What can I mean then by saying that Jesus is "born of a Virgin"?

All that I can mean is this. Human generation does not by any means account for the birth of a new human spirit. So far as we are righteous, we all owe our righteousness to a spiritual seed within us; "we are not," as Philo would say, "the result of generation but the work of the Unbegotten." So far as we are righteous, we are "born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John i. 13). But of the Lord Jesus Christ we are in the habit of saying and believing


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/295

Letter 25] that He was uniquely and entirely righteous; and therefore we say that He was uniquely and entirely born of God. In all human generation there must be some congenital divine act, if a righteous soul is to be produced; and in the generation of Christ there was a unique congenital act of the Holy Spirit. That Word of God which in various degrees inspires every righteous human soul (none can say how soon in its existence) did not inspire Jesus, but was (to speak in metaphor) totally present in Jesus from the first so as to exclude all imperfection of humanity. Human unrighteousness—such as we are in the habit of attributing to human generation—there was, in this case, none. Therefore we say that the generation of Jesus was not human but divine.

So much I can honestly say because I heartily believe it. How far one is justified in putting so strained an interpretation on the words "born of the Virgin Mary"—even in the Church of England, where simultaneous conservatism and progress have been bought at the cost of many strained interpretations—is a question on which I may perhaps hereafter say a word or two, but not now. Meantime let me merely add my conviction that there may have been a time when this illusion of the Miraculous Conception did more good than harm. In former days, that spiritual truth which we can now disentangle from the story of the Miraculous Conception may have been conveyed by means of it to hearts which would have otherwise never recognized that Jesus was the Son of God. It was surely better then, and it is better now, that men should believe the great truth that Jesus is the Son of God, at the cost of believing (provided they can honestly believe) the untruth that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, than that they should altogether fail to recognize His divine Sonship, because they were alive to the fact that He was born of human parents in


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/296

280 accordance with the laws of humanity. But in these days the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception seems to me fraught with evil; partly because the weakness of the evidence makes the narrative a stumbling-block for many who are taught to consider this doctrine essential and who cannot bring themselves to believe it; partly because it tends to sanction a false and monastic ideal of life; to separate Jesus from common humanity and from human love and sympathy; and to encourage false notions about a material Resurrection of the body of Jesus, which naturally result in a false, bewildering, and disorderly expectation of a material Resurrection for ourselves.


text:
Page:Sons and Lovers, 1913, Lawrence.djvu/226

214 “Well, I don’t love her, mother,” he murmured, bowing his head and hiding his eyes on her shoulder in misery. His mother kissed him a long, fervent kiss.

“My boy!” she said, in a voice trembling with passionate love.

Without knowing, he gently stroked her face.

“There,” said his mother, “now go to bed. You’ll be so tired in the morning.” As she was speaking she heard her husband coming. “There’s your father—now go.” Suddenly she looked at him almost as if in fear. “Perhaps I’m selfish. If you want her, take her, my boy.”

His mother looked so strange, Paul kissed her, trembling.

“Ha—mother!” he said softly.

Morel came in, walking unevenly. His hat was over one corner of his eye. He balanced in the doorway.

“At your mischief again?” he said venomously.

Mrs. Morel’s emotion turned into sudden hate of the drunkard who had come in thus upon her.

“At any rate, it is sober,” she said.

“H’m—h’m! h’m—h’m!” he sneered. He went into the passage, hung up his hat and coat. Then they heard him go down three steps to the pantry. He returned with a piece of pork-pie in his fist. It was what Mrs. Morel had bought for her son.

“Nor was that bought for you. If you can give me no more than twenty-five shillings, I’m sure I’m not going to buy you pork-pie to stuff, after you’ve swilled a bellyful of beer.”

“Wha-at—wha-at!” snarled Morel, toppling in his balance. “Wha-at—not for me?” He looked at the piece of meat and crust, and suddenly, in a vicious spurt of temper, flung it into the fire.

Paul started to his feet.

“Waste your own stuff!” he cried.

“What—what!” suddenly shouted Morel, jumping up and clenching his fist. “I’ll show yer, yer young jockey!”

“All right!” said Paul viciously, putting his head on one side. “Show me!”

He would at that moment dearly have loved to have a smack at something. Morel was half crouching, fists up, ready to spring. The young man stood, smiling with his lips.

“Ussha!” hissed the father, swiping round with a great stroke just past his son’s face. He dared not, even though so close, really touch the young man, but swerved an inch away.

“Right!” said Paul, his eyes upon the side of his father’s mouth, where in another instant his fist would have hit. He


text:
Page:Sons and Lovers, 1913, Lawrence.djvu/227

Rh ached for that stroke. But he heard a faint moan from behind. His mother was deadly pale, and dark at the mouth. Morel was dancing up to deliver another blow.

“Father!” said Paul, so that the word rang.

Morel started, and stood at attention.

“Mother!” moaned the boy. “Mother!”

She began to struggle with herself. Her open eyes watched him, although she could not move. Gradually she was coming to herself. He laid her down on the sofa, and ran upstairs for a little whisky, which at last she could sip. The tears were hopping down his face. As he kneeled in front of her he did not cry, but the tears ran down his face quickly. Morel, on the opposite side of the room, sat with his elbows on his knees glaring across.

“What’s a-matter with ’er?” he asked.

“Faint!” replied Paul.

“H’m!”

The elderly man began to unlace his boots. He stumbled off to bed. His last fight was fought in that home.

Paul kneeled there, stroking his mother’s hand.

“Don’t be poorly, mother don’t be poorly!” he said time after time.

“It’s nothing, my boy,” she murmured.

At last he rose, fetched in a large piece of coal, and raked the fire. Then he cleared the room, put everything straight, laid the things for breakfast, and brought his mother’s candle.

“Can you go to bed, mother?”

“Yes, I’ll come.”

“Sleep with Annie, mother, not with him.”

“No. I’ll sleep in my own bed.”

“Don’t sleep with him, mother.”

“I’ll sleep in my own bed.”

She rose, and he turned out the gas, then followed her closely upstairs, carrying her candle. On the landing he kissed her close.

“Good-night, mother.”

“Good-night!” she said.

He pressed his face upon the pillow in a fury of misery. And yet, somewhere in his soul, he was at peace because he still loved his mother best. It was the bitter peace of resignation.

The efforts of his father to conciliate him next day were a great humiliation to him.

Everybody tried to forget the scene.


text:
Page:Sons and Lovers, 1913, Lawrence.djvu/228

 was dissatisfied with himself and with everything. The deepest of his love belonged to his mother. When he felt he had hurt her, or wounded his love for her, he could not bear it. Now it was spring, and there was battle between him and Miriam. This year he had a good deal against her. She was vaguely aware of it. The old feeling that she was to be a sacrifice to this love, which she had had when she prayed, was mingled in all her emotions. She did not at the bottom believe she ever would have him. She did not believe in herself primarily: doubted whether she could ever be what he would demand of her. Certainly she never saw herself living happily through a lifetime with him. She saw tragedy, sorrow, and sacrifice ahead. And in sacrifice she was proud, in renunciation she was strong, for she did not trust herself to support everyday life. She was prepared for the big things and the deep things, like tragedy. It was the sufficiency of the small day-life she could not trust.

The Easter holidays began happily. Paul was his own frank self. Yet she felt it would go wrong. On the Sunday afternoon she stood at her bedroom window, looking across at the oak-trees of the wood, in whose branches a twilight was tangled, below the bright sky of the afternoon. Grey-green rosettes of honeysuckle leaves hung before the window, some already, she fancied, showing bud. It was spring, which she loved and dreaded.

Hearing the clack of the gate she stood in suspense. It was a bright grey day. Paul came into the yard with his bicycle, which glittered as he walked. Usually he rang his bell and laughed towards the house. To-day he walked with shut lips and cold, cruel bearing, that had something of a slouch and a sneer in it. She knew him well by now, and could tell from that keen-looking, aloof young body of his what was happening inside him. There was a cold correctness in the way he put his bicycle in its place, that made her heart sink.


text:
Page:William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (4th ed, 1770, vol IV).djvu/22

10 commits it. It is not it's frequency only, or the difficulty of otherwie preventing it, that will excue our attempting to prevent it by a wanton effuion of human blood. For, though the end of punihment is to deter men from offending, it never can follow from thence, that it is lawful to deter them at any rate and by any means ; ince there may be unlawful methods of enforcing obedience even to the jutet laws. Every humane legilator will be therefore extremely cautious of etablihing laws that inflict the penalty of death, especially for light offences, or uch as are merely poitive. He will expect a better reaon for his o doing, than that looe one which generally is given ; that it is found by former experience that no lighter penalty will be effectual. For is it found upon farther experience, that capital punihments are more effectual ? Was the vat territory of all the Ruias wore regulated under the late empres Elizabeth, than under her more anguinary predeceors ? Is it now, under Catherine II, les civilized, les ocial, les ecure ? And yet we are aured, that neither of thee illutrious princees have, throughout their whole adminitration, inflicted the penalty of death : and the latter has, upon full peruauion of it's being ueles, nay even pernicious, given orders for abolihing it entirely throughout her extenive dominions. But indeed, were capital punihments proved by experience to be a ure and effectual remedy, that would not prove the neceity (upon which the jutice and propriety depend) of inflicting them upon all occaions when other expedients fail. I fear this reaoning would extend a great deal too far. For intance, the damage done to our public roads by loaded waggons is univerally allowed, and many laws have been made to prevent it ; none of which have hitherto proved effectual. But it does not therefore follow, that it would be jut for the legilature to inflict death upon every obtinate carrier, who defeats or eludes the proviions of former tatutes. Where the evil to be prevented is not adequate to the violence of the preventive, a overeign that thinks eriouly can never jutify Rh


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 35.djvu/64

MacDonnell of Buckingham, died in November 1649, at Waterford, where she was buried, though a monument was erected to her in Westminster Abbey. He married, secondly, about 1653, Rose, daughter of Sir Henry O'Neill, of Shane's Castle, co. Antrim, the only sane member of a family of five. She survived him, dying on 27 April 1695, and was buried in St. Nicholas's Church, Carrickfergus. Antrim had no issue by either of his wives, and was succeeded in the earldom by his younger brother,

, third, who died about 1696. On the death Of his father in 1636 he spent the three following years travelling on the continent. He returned to Ireland shortly before the outbreak of the rebellion, and sided more determinedly than did his brother with the Irish. In 1642 he obtained a regiment from the confederates, but during the war he seems to have played a pacific part, inclining rather to Ormonde than to the extreme catholic party. In 1651 he served under Ever Mac Mahon, the warlike bishop of Clogher, and was taken prisoner at Tecroghan by Sir Theophilus Jones [q. v.] He forfeited the estate he inherited from his father in the barony of Glenarm, co. Antrim, receiving 3,500 acres in Connaught as an innocent papist. From 1656 to 1665 he appears to have resided in England, where he had influential friends. He represented Wigan in Lancashire at intervals from 1660 to 1683, and was restored by the Act of Explanation to his estate in Glenarm. On the death of his brother in 1683 he succeeded to the earldom of Antrim. During the rebellion in 1689 he marched with his regiment to the relief of Londonderry, but the citizens, mistaking him for an enemy, shut the gates in his face, for which he suffered forfeiture as an adherent of James II. He recovered his estate by the Articles of Limerick, but before his outlawry was reversed (Thesis of the Earl of Antrim's Case, October 1696), he died at Thistlewater, near London, about 1696, and was buried at Holywell in Wales.

He married, first, Elizabeth Annesley, daughter of the Earl of Anglesey, who died childless in 1669; secondly, Helena, daughter of Sir John Bourk of Derrymaclachtney in co. Galway, by whom he had a son, Randal, fourth earl of Antrim, and a daughter married to Henry Wells, esq., of Bambridge in the county of Southampton. He also had an illegitimate son, Daniel MacDonnell, for whom he provided liberally in his will.  MACDONNELL, RICHARD GRAVES (1814–1881), colonial governor, was eldest son of Richard MacDonnell, D.D., who was provost of Trinity College, Dublin, from 1852 till his death on 24 Jan. 1867. His mother was Jane, second daughter of Richard Graves, dean of Ardagh. Macdonnell was born in Dublin 3 Sept. 1814, and was educated at Trinity College, where he was a scholar 1833, and graduated B.A. 1836, M.A. 1836, LL.B. 1846, and LL.D. 1862. He was called to the Irish bar 1838, and to the English bar, at Lincoln's Inn, 25 Jan. 1841. On 20 July 1843 he was appointed chief justice of the Gambia, and on 1 Oct. 1847 governor of the British settlements on the Gambia. While holding that post he conducted several exploring expeditions, opening up the interior of Africa from the Gambia to the Senegal. He also organised and accompanied some military expeditions, with success, against native tribes who had long oppressed the traders of the river. In 1832 he became governor of St. Lucia, and on 10 Jan. 1863 administrator and captain-general of the island of St. Vincent. From 8 June 1866 to 4 March 1862 he was governor of South Australia, where he aided in opening up the Murray river and in developing the resources of the colony. He was afterwards lieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia from 28 May 1864 till October 1866, and governor of Hong-kong from 19 Oct. 1866 till 1872, when he retired from the public service on a pension. He was gazetted C.B. 12 Feb. 1862, was knighted by the queen at Buckingham Palace 28 Jan. 1866, and was created K.C.M.G. 23 Feb. 1871. His wife, whom he married in 1847, was Blanche Ann, the third daughter of Francis Skurray of Brunswick Square, Brighton.

He died at Hyeres, France, 5 Feb. 1881, and was buried in Kensal Green cemetery 14 Feb.

He contributed letters or papers to 'The Church of the Future,' an address by the Rev. Thomas Binney, 1869, and to 'Christian Union, as discussed by the Bishop of Adelaide, Sir R. C. MacDonnell, &c.,'1859, and he published a lecture on 'Australia,' Dublin,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 35.djvu/65

McDonnell

 McDONNELL, ROBERT (1828–1889), surgeon, born at Dublin 15 March 1828, was second son of Dr. John McDonnell, a descendant of Ian Vohr of Isla and Cantyre, whose great-grandson was Alaster MacColl Macdonald [q. v.] Robert was educated privately until he entered Trinity College, Dublin, in 1844. In the following year he was apprenticed to Richard Carmichael, the great Irish surgeon, and on Carmichael's death by drowning in 1849 he was transferred to Robert Moore Peile. Robert graduated B.A. and M.B. in 1850, obtained the license of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland on 22 Feb. 1851, and was admitted a fellow on 24 Aug. 1853. He afterwards visited Edinburgh, Paris, and Vienna. In 1855, during the Crimean war, he was attached to the British Hospital at Smyrna, and he volunteered as civil surgeon to serve in the general hospital in the camp before Sebastopol, where he remained until the end of the siege. For his services he received the British medal and clasp and the Turkish medal. In 1856 he was appointed demonstrator of anatomy in the Carmichael school of medicine, where he afterwards became lecturer on anatomy and physiology. In 1857 he proceeded M.D. in the university of Dublin, and in 1864 he was admitted to the degree of M.D. in the Queen's University in Ireland. He was appointed a surgeon to Jervis Street Hospital in Dublin in 1863, and three years later he was elected surgeon to Steevens's Hospital, and professor of descriptive anatomy in the medical school attached to it. In 1857 he was appointed medical superintendent of the Mountjoy government prison. In the discharge of his official duties he came into collision with the prisons board upon questions of the food supply and general treatment of the prisoners under his charge. He stoutly maintained that the medical officer should exercise an unfettered discretion in such matters. The board thought otherwise, and he resigned his post in 1867. Some demur was made to granting him a pension, but in the interests of his professional brethren he fought out the battle, and eventually obtained the pension. The sum of money thus acquired he contributed annually until his death to the Royal Medical Benevolent Fund Society. He was twice elected by the senate of the Dublin University a member of the university council. For some years he was an examiner at the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland, a body of which he was elected president in 1877. In 1885 he was elected president of the Academy of Medicine in Ireland, an honourable position which he filled for three years. He belonged to several of the leading English scientific societies, and among others to the Royal Society, of which he was elected a fellow on 1 June 1865. He died suddenly at his house in Merrion Square, Dublin, on Monday, 6 May 1889, as is supposed of rupture of an aneurysm. He was twice married, and left one son by his second wife. A portrait was presented by his friends to the Irish College of Surgeons after his death.

McDonnell was an Irishman of the very best type; of strong individuality, of many and varied attainments; he was a wise surgeon and a graceful speaker, honourable, fearless, and upright, yet popular with all parties. An offer of knighthood was twice declined by him. He wrote no books, but his contributions to surgical and scientific literature were so numerous that they fill a column of the ‘Royal Society's Catalogue of Scientific Papers.’ He edited a volume of the works of Abraham Colles for the New Sydenham Society in 1881.

 MACDONNELL, SORLEY BOY (1506?–1590), Scoto-Irish chieftain, lord: of the Route and constable of Dunluce Castle, born probably in the castle of Dunanynie, near Ballycastle in co. Antrim, about 1505, was sixth and youngest son of Alexander or Alaster MacDonnell, lord of Isla and Cantyre in Scotland and of the Glynns in Ireland, the great-great-grandson of John Mor MacDonnell, who about 1400 married Margaret Bisset of the Glynns. Sorley Boy's mother was Catherine, daughter of John Marfan MacDonnell, lord of Ardnamurchan.

Apparently during one of the many abortive attempts of thelrish government to expel the Hebridean Scots, Sorlev Boy was taken prisoner and incarcerated in Dublin Castle, but after an imprisonment of about twelve months he was, in September 1552, exchanged for certain prisoners made by his brother James on the occasion of Lord-deputy Sir James Croft's unsuccessful attack on the island of Rathlin. Shortly after his release he retaliated by seizing the constable of Carrickfergus Castle, Walter Floody, whom he compelled to pay a heavy ransom. In 1558, on the death of his brother, Colla, Sorley Boy, who had taken an active part in subjugating the MacQuillins of the Route, was appointed by his brother James to the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 35.djvu/66

MacDonnell lordship of that district. The MacQuillins, however, resisted his authority, and during the spring of 1559 Sorley Boy was busily engaged in raising troops on the Scottish coast. Early in July he landed at Marketon Bay, and finding the MacQuillins strongly posted at the foot of Glenshesk he attacked them at a place called Beal-a-faula and repulsing them with heavy loss drove them southwards. Several bloody encounters followed, but at Slieve-an-aura the MacQuillins and their allies were completely routed, and the MacDonnells re-established in possession of the Route.

The Scottish settlements along the Antrim coast had long been regarded with disfavour by the Englisn government, but the efforts made to destroy them had so signally failed that Elizabeth was quite ready to listen to certain overtures made to her by Sorley Boy shortly after her accession, to submit to her authority on condition of being confirmed in his possessions, and all the more so, probably, because she saw in the Scots a means of curbing the power of Shane O'Neill. To O'Neill the growth of a strong, independent power in the north-east was naturally as displeasing as it was to Elizabeth, but in the event of a rupture with the crown an alliance with Sorley Boy was a thing not to be despised. As for Sorley Boy there can be no doubt that his interest lay in coming to terms with the government. In 1660, when matters between the government and O'Neill were approaching a crisis, he readily consented to follow the lead of Argyll and his brother James in forming a league against Shane O'Neill, merely stipulating that as a reward for his services ne should receive letters of denization and a grant of all the lands he held as deputy for his brother. Elizabeth and her advisers appear to have regarded his claims as somewnat extravagant, but there was an evident desire on their part to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion (see particularly Cecil's own instructions to Henry Warren in State Papers, Ireland, Eliz. ii. 14). Obstacles, however, arose for which neither side was wholly responsible. As time went on and the situation of affairs altered, the government became less anxious to treat, and the murder of Alaster MacRandal Boy Macdonnell and his brother Gillaspic by Andrew Brereton in March 1563 made Sorley Boy stand on the defensive. A month or two later peace was concluded between the government and Shane O'Neill. The latter, who had been waiting his opportunity to break up the northern confederacy, thought the moment for action had arrived. Veiling his intention under the guise of loyalty, he in August 1 564 announced his determination to expel Sorley Boy and the Scots. His resolution was applauded by government and immediately put into execution. In a battle near Coleraine Sorley Boy was himself wounded and his territory afterwards laid waste with fire and sword. In the spring of the following year, 1566, O'Neill renewed his invasion, and, proceeding northward through the Glynns, destroyed as far as possible every trace of the Scottish settlements. At Ballycastle he encountered the MacDonnells, and in the battle that followed Sorley Boy and James MacDonnell were taken prisoners. A few months later James died in prison, not without suspicion that his end had been purposely hastened by O'Neill. For two years Sorley Boy remained in captivity, but early in 1667 Shane O'Neill, whose situation had become desperate, determined — acting, it is conjectured, on the advice of Sorley Boy — to make a personal appeal for assistance to the Antrim Scots. The MacDonnells had neither forgotten nor forgiven his treatment of their chief, and, without supposing his murder to have been deliberately planned beforehand, it may well have been that his presence in their midst and his arrogant demeanour provoked them beyond endurance.

To the government, however, Sorley Boy was almost as objectionable as Shane Neill, and various schemes were set on foot to compel him to abandon his Irish possessions. But Sorley Boy, who since the death of Shane had been occupied in strengthening his connection in Scotland, landed at Marketon Bay on 27 Nov. at the head of six or seven hundred redshanks, in whose presence he swore never to leave Ireland with his good-will. The news of his landing spread considerable consternation through official circles, but though Elizabeth issued peremptory orders for his expulsion, no attempt was made to execute them, and Sorley Boy, who consistently aimed at conciliation, after again urging the legal recognition of his claims, returned to Scotland, where he appears to have taken a personal part in a conflict between the Clan Donnell and MacLeans. During the year there were continual rumours of a combination between him and Turlough Luineach O'Neill, but though he was probably present at the marriage of Turlough and the widow of his brother James in Rathlin Island in the autumn of 1569, it was not till February 1571, when the air was full of the colonisation schemes of Sir Thomas Smith and others, that he deemed his presence in Ireland necessary. Leaving his son Donnell with three hundred Scots to guard the Glynns, he returned to


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 35.djvu/67

MacDonnell to raise fresh troops. In February 1572 he made a sudden attack on Carrickfergus, but was repulsed by the garrison, and himself wounded. He had naturally felt apprehensive at the announcement of Smith's intention, but finding the latter after a time willing to come to terms with him, he again preferred a petition to be recognised as the legal owner of the territory he claimed. In forwarding his petition Smith suggested that if it was granted it would be advisable to persuade Sorley Boy to adopt the reformed religion. On 14 April 1573 letters patent of denization were addressed to him, but the determination of the Earl of Essex to resume Smith's project seems to have had the effect of frustrating them. Nevertheless, the arrival of the Earl of Essex in the summer of that year, notwithstanding his efforts to smooth the way by negotiating with the regent of Scotland and the Earl of Argyll for the revocation of the Scots, did not materially affect the situation. For finding Sir Brian MacPhelim O'Neill [q. v.], on whose submission he had laid considerable store, but a fickle ally, he in November turned his attention to Sorley Boy, who had recently renewed his offer of submission. Nothing, however, came of the matter, and in July 1575 Essex, having managed to come to some sort of terms with Turlough Luineach, made a determined effort to subdue Sorley Boy. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of Castle Toome he inflicted a sharp defeat upon him, but provisions running short he returned to Carrickfergus, where he deputed Captain John Norris [q. v.] to proceed by sea against Rathlin Island, where Sorley Boy had 'put most of his plate, most of his children, and the children of most part of his gentlemen with their wives,' for the sake of safety. Norris carried out his instructions to the letter, and Sorley Boy, who from the mainland saw the massacre of all those that were nearest and dearest to him, went almost frantic with despair. Notwithstanding his terrible loss, Sorley Boy in the beginning of September swooped down on Carrickfergus and carried off all the townsmen's cattle, defeating the garrison who tried to rescue them. A month later Sir Henry Sidney found the Glynns and Route in the possession of Sorley Boy, 'the country full or corn and cattle, and the Scots very haughty and proud by reason of the late victories he hath had.' Sorley Boy was, however, willing to treat on the old terms, and Sidney having agreed to a cessation of hostilities, undertook to forward his petition, though personally in favour of restoring the MacQuillins to the Route, and of supporting the claims of James MacDonnell's sons to the Glynns. The privy council, to whom he referred the question, declined to move in the matter, and things were allowed to drift back into their old position. The same policy of inaction was pursued by Sidney's immediate successors, and notwithstanding the efforts of the MacQuillins to recover the Route, Sorley Boy, by fresh arrivals from Scotland and by his alliances with Turlough Luineach, became yearly more powerful. So great indeed was the influx of Scots at this time, that, according to Sir Nicholas Malby [q. v.], Ulster threatened to become a second Scotland.

Such was the situation of affairs in August 1584, when Sir John Perrot [q. v.], alarmed by rumours of fresh arrivals, determined to make a strenuous effort to expel Sorley Boy. Mustering what forces he could, he proceeded northwards ; but the news of his preparations had already alarmed Sorley Boy, who, after making hasty arrangements for the safety of his followers, slipped across to Scotland, where he had soon collected four thousand Islesmen, with whose assistance he determined to make a resolute effort to recover his position in Ulster. Perrot, who had reaped little honour from his elaborate expedition, seems to have connived at a scheme for Sorley Boy's assassination, which, however, proved unsuccessful (State Papers, Ireland, Eliz. cxii. 90, ii.) In January 1585 Sorley Boy arrived at Cushindun with what forces he could muster, just in time to save his nephew, Donnell Gorme, who was vainly trying to hold his own against Sir W. Stanley and Sir H. Bagenal, from destruction. But the situation offered little prospect of success, and having obtained an interview with Captain Carleil, he offered to submit on the conditions offered him ten years before by Sir Henry Sidney. But Perrot, who had determined to expel him, declined to listen to any terms, and so, hunted from one stronghold to another, Sorley Boy was at last glad to escape to Scotland. A few months later the MacDonnells, notwithstanding the threats fulminated against them by James VI (Hamilton Papers, ii. 682), were back again in considerable numbers in the Glynns, and a small body of them having succeeded in recapturing Dunluce Castle, Perrot reluctantly consented to treat with Sorley Boy. The latter was at first unwilling to go to Dublin, but the execution of his eldest son, Alaster, broke his resolution, and in June 1586 he presented himself before the lord deputy. Prostrating himself before a picture of Queen Elizabeth, and kissing 'the pantofle of the same' (Cal. State Papers, Ireland, iv. 85), he


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 35.djvu/68

MacDonnell  that he had no legal right in Ulster, expressed his sorrow for his past contumacy, and promised faithfully to abide by such conditions as were imposed upon him. An official, it is said (, MacDonnell of Antrim, p. 187), brutally showed him his son's head over the castle gate, to which he proudly replied, 'My son hath many heads.' On 18 June indentures were signed (Cal. Careio MSS. ii. 427), whereby he received letters of denization, together with a grant by knight's service, the yearly payment of fifty beeves, twelve horsemen, and forty footmen to every hosting, to himself, and the issue male of his body, of all the land between the Bann and the Bush, embracing the greater part of the Route, the constableship of Dunluce Castle, and such land to the east as was not included in a grant to his nephew Angus. From this time forward he gave no trouble to the state, though his name figures in a list of 'doubtful persons' drawn up by Sir William Fitzwilliam [q. v.] in 1689. He died at Dunanynie Castle early in 1690, and was buried in the older vault in the abbey of Bunnamairge. It is traditionally stated that when his son Randal built the new vault in 1621 he transferred his father's remains thither, but no trace of his coffin is now to be found.

By his wife Mary, daughter of Con O'Neill, first earl of Tyrone, who died in 1682, Sorley Boy had, among other children, Alaster, who was killed, as noted above, in 1686; Donnell, who is said to have been slain by Turlough Luineach O'Neill; Sir James, who succeeded his father, and died suddenly at Dunluce on 13 April 1601; Sir Randal, first earl of Antrim (d. 1636) [q. v.]; Angus, and Ludar or Lother, who was implicated in the 1614 conspiracy. Of his daughters, one is said to have been married to the chief of the Macnaghtens in Scotland; another to MacQuillin of the Route; a third to Cormack O'Neill, brother of Hugh, earl of Tyrone; a fourth to Magennis, lord of Iveagh, and a fifth to Shane MacBrian MacPhelim O'Neill of Clandeboye (see MacFirbis's pedigree in, MacDormells of Antrim, App. i. and the pedigree in Harl. MS. 1426, f. 188).

From information received by Sir W. Fitzwilliam in October 1688 (Cal. State Papers, Ireland, iv. 63, 64), it appears that Sorley Boy, who was then about eighty-three years of age, married in that month a daughter of Turlough Luineach O'Neill.

 MACDOUGALL, ALLAN (1750?–1829), Gaelic poet, known as Blind Allan, was born in Glencoe, Argyllshire, about 1750. At an early age he was apprenticed to an itinerant tailor, and during his wanderings he committed to memory many lines of Gaelic poetry, then orally preserved, and he thus quickened a natural aptitude for composing satirical verse. One day while at work he quarrelled with a fellow-tailor, who pierced his eye with a needle, and the wound rendered him totally blind. He afterwards made a living as a strolling musician, attending country feasts with his fiddle, and reciting his own compositions. In 1790, having received a house and a plot of land at Inverlochy, near Fort William, he retired thither, and, with the assistance of Ewan Maclachlan [q. v.], himself a poet, made arrangements for publishing his Gaelic verses, which duly appeared at Edinburgh in 1798, and included some work by Maclachlan. Colonel MacDonald, laird of Glengarry, subsequently took MacDougall under his care, and appointed him his family bard. In 1828 the poet travelled over the Western Highlands, soliciting subscriptions for a new edition of his book, but before it was issued he died, in 1829. He is buried at Kilfinan, Argyllshire.

 McDOUGALL, FRANCIS THOMAS (1817–1886), bishop of Labuan and Sarawak, born at Sydenham in 1817, was son of William Adair McDougall, captain in the 88th regiment, and his boyhood was spent among military surroundings. His mother, whose maiden name was Gell, had strong religious principles of the evangelical type. At her suggestion McDougall was entered as a medical student at the university of Malta, where his father's regiment was quartered, and he walked the hospitals at Valetta. In 1835 he became a medical student at King's College, London, and graduated in medicine at London University. Accompanying a young gentleman to Oxford as physician, he matriculated at Magdalen Hall, and graduated B.A. in 1842, rowing bow in the university eight which beat Cambridge in the same year. On leaving Oxford he found


text:
Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 45.jpg

 CHAPTER V

THE GOOD THAT IS IN YOU

The good that is inherent in everything is infinitely greater and more powerful than any imperfection or undeveloped condition that may exist in the outer world. And therefore when this good is recognized and brought out into real life, that which is not good must disappear. To apply this great truth to yourself, to others, to circumstances, is to place mind and soul in that attitude where conscious contact with the divine perfection in all things will be gained. In consequence, the good that is within will increase, while undesired conditions in the without will decrease. To recognize the greater good that is inherent in all things is to cause that good to become a greater and greater power in you, until it becomes just as strong in action as it previously was in realization.

Live in the conviction that "I am greater than all my ills or failures; that I am greater than the limitations of my circumstances, and greater than any condition that I can possibly meet." When you feel that you are greater than your ills, those ills cannot long remain, because what you inwardly feel, you realize, and what you realize, you bring forth into


text:
Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 46.jpg

46 living expression. To open the mind to the great thought that the health that is within you is greater than any disease than you can ever know, is to open your life to the power of that health; and when the greater power of the health that is within you comes forth into the life of every atom in your being, the lesser power of disease, weakness or adverseness must vanish completely. No disease can long remain in your system after you begin to live in the constant conviction that the absolute health that is within you is infinitely greater and more powerful than all the sickness in the world. Nor can failure continue after you begin to realize that you, in the reality of your whole being, have the power to turn the tide of any circumstance that may ever appear in your world. The good that is within you is larger and more powerful than all the troubles, misfortunes or disappointments in existence; and this good, when fully recognized by you, will begin to work for you. It will work for your good, and will turn to good account everything that can happen.

When you know that you are greater than any undeveloped condition that may exist in mind or body, you gain the power to transcend limitations. Your consciousness begins to break bounds, and you find yourself in that larger, richer mental world that you so long have desired to reach. You are placed in touch with the universal and begin to draw upon the limitless for wisdom and power and joy. You no longer feel cramped,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 35.djvu/69

McDougall employment in superintending some iron-works in South Wales, and soon married Harriette, daughter of Robert John Bunyon, who was connected with the concern. The elder sister married Bishop Colenso. The works failed, and were closed. Thereupon McDougall, in accordance with a resolve formed at Oxford, took holy orders. He was ordained in 1845 by Dr. Stanley, bishop of Norwich, and became curate first of Farnlingham Pigot, and in 1846 successively of St. Mark's, Lakenham, a populous suburb of Norwich, and of Christ Church, Woburn Square, London. In 1847 he had almost simultaneously the offers of a permanent position at the British Museum, which he could hold with his curacy, and of mission work in Borneo, under the auspices of Sir James Brooke [q. v.], the newly constituted rajah of Sarawak. He chose the former, for the sake of his family, but afterwards repented, and in December 1847 set out for Borneo. Three races were then settled in that part of Borneo in which the McDougalls laboured: the Malays, who had come over from the Malay peninsula on the opposite shore, and were the ruling class; the native Dyaks, and the immigrant Chinese. The Malays were Mahommedans upon whom little impression could be made; but the Dyaks and the Chinese, especially the Dyaks, were much more promising. McDougall found his medical Knowledge of great service. Medical missions were not then understood; and he had to explain to the supporters of the mission that in using his medical skill he was not going out of his proper sphere as a Christian. With the invaluable aid of Mrs. McDougall he established what was termed a 'Home School,' in which children were trained from infancy in the principles of Christianity. In 1853 he returned home in order to manage the transfer of the mission from the Borneo Mission Society, whose funds came to an end, to the Society for Propagating the Gospel which adopted it. In 1854 he was back again in Sarawak. The work of the mission grew, and as more clergy and catechists came to take part in it, need was felt for a properly constituted head. After many difficulties, McDougall was appointed bishop, taking his title at first, not from Sarawak, where the bulk of his work lay, but from the small island of Labuan, off its coast. Sarawak was a native state under an English rajah; Labuan was the only spot in those seas under the immediate control of the colonial office, and it was then thought impossible to erect a bishopric beyond the dominions of the crown. He was consecrated at Calcutta on St. Luke's Day, 1855. This was the first consecration that had taken place out of England, and it was by special commission from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Bishop of Calcutta (Dr. Daniel Wilson). McDougall had many trials; his children died, his own health and that of his wife were impaired, though they both remained bravely at their post when others deserted it; and an insurrection of the Chinese in 1856 nearly swept away all the good work that had been done.

In 1862 McDougall's position was seriously imperilled. He accompanied Captain Brooke, the rajah's nephew, who was then taking his uncle's place at Sarawak on a three months' cruise. On their way the ship was attacked by pirates, who far outnumbered them. Every available man was of the utmost importance. The bishop felt it his 'stern duty' to take part in the combat. He fought bravely, and applied his medical skill to dress the wounds of his comrades. Unfortunately he sent an account of the affray to the 'Times,' in which he adopted rather too bellicose a tone. 'My double-barrelled Terry's breech-loader,' he wrote, 'proved itself a most deadly weapon for its true shooting and certainty and rapidity of firing.' The Bishop of London (Dr. Tait) shrewdly told McDougall, 'The letter will soon be forgotten; but when you next get into a similar encounter, you must get your wife to write about it.'

The bishop's troubles did not interfere with his work. Converts both among the Dyaks and Chinese increased. In three consecutive years, 1864, 1865, and 1866, the bishop held diocesan synods of all his clergy. He rewrote a 'Malay Prayer-book,' which he had published through the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in 1857, and prepared 'A Catechism for the use of the Missions of the Church in Borneo,' which was published in 1868. Meanwhile his health had in 1867 compelled him to return to England, and in the spring of 1868 he resigned his bishopric. Dean Stanley presented him to the vicarage of Godmanchester (1868), where he formed a close friendship with the bishop of the diocese, Dr. Harold Browne, who made him archdeacon of Huntingdon in 1870, and canon of Ely in 1871. When Dr. Browne was translated from Ely to Winchester, he took McDougall with him, giving him a canonry at Winchester in 1873, and the archdeaconry of the Isle of Wight in 1874. To these he added in 1886 the small vicarage of Milford. There he died on 16 Nov. 1886. Mrs. McDougall, who published 'Letters from Sarawak on Borneo,' 1854, and 'Sketches of our Life at Sarawak,' 1882, predeceased him on 7 May 188a


text:
Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 47.jpg

Rh but realize that you are absolutely free to live the largest, the best and the most beautiful life that you can possibly picture. The ideals that you discover during the highest flights of mind and soul, are no longer considered impossibilities; you know that you can realize them all; to you there is no failure because the good that is within you is greater than all failure. You are above limitations; you are master of limitations, and have the power to transform every undeveloped condition into the highest form of completeness and superior worth. The lesser is passing away, and the greater is being realized in an ever increasing measure.

The good that is inherent in others is infinitely greater than all their faults, short-comings or imperfections; therefore we can readily forgive them for all these. There is more in man than the undeveloped surface, and it is this more that we will recognize, love and admire. When anyone goes wrong we will not criticise or complain; we cannot criticise anyone without harming everybody concerned, ourselves included; nor can we think well of anyone without helping everybody concerned, ourselves included. And everybody wants the best to happen to everybody. To live in constant recognition of the weaker side of human nature is to open the mind to weakness, discord, failure and unhappiness. We steadily grow into the likeness of that which we think of the most. But to live in constant spiritual touch with


text:
Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 48.jpg

48 the great good that exists in everybody, is to open the mind to strength and happiness that cannot be measured. The most beautiful moments in life are realized when we feel that we are one with God and one with that something in man that is created in the image of God. And these moments may become eternal.

Whatever we may meet in life we should always remember that the good within all things is far greater than anything that may appear on the surface; and that this greater good will finally rule the day. When this good is to reign supremely in our world will depend upon us and us alone. The superior within us is always ready and will come forth into tangible expression whenever we are ready to receive it. But we are not ready until we give the greater good in all things the first thought, no matter what the circumstances may be. Whatever may come, meet it all with the thought that the good within is greater still. The good that is inherent in all things is always greater and more powerful. The greatest things in the without are insignificant in comparison. Therefore, we can readily understand how easily the circumstances and conditions in the external world could be changed for the better, provided the all-powerful good within us was called forth into tangible action. And now we smooth the pathway of life when we realize that there is a greater good in everything we meet. How kindly we feel towards all persons and all


text:
Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 49.jpg

Rh events; nothing seems adverse any more and what we previously looked upon as obstacles are now stepping stones in attainment. By recognizing the greater good in all things, we open our minds to the wisdom and the power that is contained in this greater good; and, in consequence, we are inspired by every circumstance and enriched by every experience. We gain something from everything we pass through, and every event, however adverse, simply tends to arouse more and more of the real greatness within. Even evil, in all of its forms, becomes a lifting power in our world, because we are in constant touch with the great good that is back of and above all evil. We are not crushed by the ills and the wrongs that may exist about us, but instead we are inspired to greater thoughts, greater deeds and a greater life. All things serve us because we have found that greater good in all things that is ever waiting to serve. We have become friendly with the best that is in the world, and the best is becoming friendly with us in return.


text: Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 50.jpg


text: Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 51.jpg


text: Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 52.jpg


text:
Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/217

Rh

W.B.

title: Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/217


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 35.djvu/70

MacDougall

 MACDOUGALL, JOHN (1790–1865), vice-admiral, born in 1790, was the second son of Patrick MacDougall of Dunolly Castle, Argyllshire, lineal representative of the MacDougalls of Lorne, by his wife Louisa, youngest daughter of John Campbell of Achallader in Argyllshire. His elder brother, Alexander, captain in the 5th regiment of foot, was killed in 1812, at the storming of Ciudad Rodrigo. John MacDougall entered the navy in December 1802, on board the Cruiser sloop, actively employed on the north coast of France through 1803. In he was in the Doris frigate with his cousin, Patrick Campbell [q. v.]; see also, 1776-1847]. When the Doris was burnt, January 1805, he was appointed to the Hero, in which he was present in the action off Cape Finisterre, 22 July 1805 [see ]. He was afterwards again with Patrick Campbell in the Chiffonne, and in the Unité from June 1806 to November 1809, during which time he was repeatedly engaged in boat actions in the Adriatic. On 25 Nov. 1809 he was promoted by Lord Collingwood to be lieutenant of the Ville de Paris, a promotion confirmed by the admiralty on 3 Jan. 1810. Li May 1811 he was again appointed to the Unité, which under the command of Captain Chamberlayne still formed part of the squadron in the Adriatic. The service was very severe, and MacDougall was, as before, frequently engaged in boat actions. In November 1811 he was in command of a prize to take her to Malta, when he fell in with three French sums of war. 'With a judgment and zeal which did him infinite credit' he returned to communicate his intelligence to the senior officer, Captain Murray Maxwell [q. v.], with the result that two of the French ships were captured. Towards the end of 1812 he was invalided from the Unité; in 1814 he was in the Leander on the coast of North America; and in 1816 was a lieutenant of the Superb with Captain Ekins, at the bombardment of Algiers, 27 Aug. In 1819 he was flag-lieutenant to Rear-admiral Donald Campbell in the West Indies, and was officially thanked by the king of Denmark, through the lords of the admiralty, for his conduct in saving the crew of a Danish ship wrecked in a hurricane at St. Thomas. He was promoted to be commander on 9 Feb. 1820. From 1833 to 1835 he commanded the Nimrod on the coast of Portugal, and was promoted to be captain 16 Aug. 1836. In February 1845 he commissioned the Vulture, paddle-wheel frigate, for the East India station, and in April 1847, being then senior officer at Hongkong, escorted the governor, Sir John Davis, with a strong body of troops up the river to Canton, capturing the Bogue forts on the way, spiking upwards of five hundred guns and destroying the ammunition (Bulletins of State Intelligence, 1847, p. 262). It would appear that the Chinese were taken unawares, and that the forts were not garrisoned to their proper strength. He returned to England in 1848. He had no farther service, but was promoted to be rear-admiral on 12 May 1857; was nominated a K.C.B. 10 Nov. 1862; attained the rank of vice-admiral 3 Nov. 1863; and died at Dunolly on 12 April 1865. He married in 1826 Elizabeth Sophia, only daughter of Commander Charles Sheldon Timins of the royal navy, and had issue, among others, Colonel Charles Allan, the present laird of Dunolly, Patrick Charles Campbell, who died a commander in the navy in 1861, and Somerled, now a captain on the retired list.

 MACDOWALL, ANDREW, (1685–1760), Scottish judge, born in 1685, was second son of Robert Macdowal of Logan, by his wife Sarah, daughter of Sir John Shaw of Greenock, bart. He was educated at the university of Edinburgh, and was admitted an advocate, 24 Feb. 1708. He succeeded John Sinclair of Murkle, Caithness, 5 July 1755, taking the title of Lord Bankton, and continued in that post until he died at Bankton, 22 Oct. 1760. From 1744 he had possessed the estate of Olivestob, formerly owned by Colonel Gardiner. He was author of 'An Institute of the Laws of Scotland in Civil Rights,' in four books, after the method of Lord Stair's 'Institutions,' 3 vols, fol., 1751-8.

 M'DOWALL, WILLIAM (1815–1888), journalist and antiquary, born at Maxwelltown, Kirkcudbrightshire, 21 July 1815, was son of a traveller for a cabinet-making firm. Receiving a good school education in Dumfries, he learned bookbinding there, and enlarged his experience in Glasgow and


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 35.djvu/71

McDowell . 1843, on becoming a free churchman, he was appointed to the editorial staff of the ‘Scottish Herald,’ an Edinburgh free church paper, and was afterwards for a short time reporter on the ‘Banner of Ulster.’ In 1846 he became editor of the ‘Dumfries and Galloway Standard,’ and with a short interval, during which he edited a Sunderland paper, about 1853–4, M'Dowall conducted the ‘Galloway Standard’ till his death, raising it to an influential position. A public-spirited citizen, he was connected with all the leading institutions of his burgh, and in his ‘History of Dumfries,’ 1867 (enlarged in 1873), he produced a most valuable record. He died at Dumfries, 28 Oct. 1888. He was twice married, and his second wife survives him.

M'Dowall displays grace of fancy and expression in ‘The Man of the Woods and other Poems,’ published in 1844, 2nd edit. 1882. Two chapters of his ‘History of Dumfries,’ relating to Burns, were separately issued in 1870 as ‘Burns in Dumfriesshire.’ In 1876 he published ‘Memorials of St. Michael's Churchyard,’ a compilation of antiquarian and biographical importance. His ‘Mind in the Face,’ which appeared in 1882, and reached a third edition in 1888, is a substantial contribution to the literature of physiognomy. M'Dowall's sumptuous and exhaustive volume, ‘Chronicles of Lincluden, as an Abbey and as a College,’ was published in 1886, and his last work, issued in 1888, is a study of ballad-writers, entitled ‘Among the Old Scottish Minstrels.’

 McDOWELL, BENJAMIN, D.D. (1739–1824), Presbyterian divine, son of Ephraim McDowell, an Irish emigrant, from Connor, co. Antrim, was born at Elizabethtown, New Jersey, on 25 Dec. 1739. He was educated at the universities of Princeton, New Jersey, and Glasgow. His parents had belonged to the 'reformed presbyterian' church, founded in 1743 by John Macmillan [q. v.] McDowell joined the established church of Scotland, and was licensed by the Glasgow presbytery on 3 July 1766. Visiting his relatives at Connor, co. Antrim, Ireland, he received a call to the congregation of Ballvkelly, co. Londonderry, and was there ordained by the Route presbytery on 3 Sept. 1766. He succeeded John Nelson, who had been compelled to resign on the ground of heterodoxy. McDowell soon appeared as a champion of conservative doctrine against John Cameron (1725-1799) [q. v.] The controversy was taken up by Alexander Colvill or Colville, M.D. [q. v.], to whom McDowell replied in an able defence of the Westminster doctrine. At this time 'new light' sentiments prevailed in the ministry of the general synod of Ulster ; McDowell even thought (1775) it might be necessary for the minority to preserve their orthodoxy by secession; the effect of his polemics was greatly to increase the strength of the conservative section.

In 1778 he accepted a call to Dublin, as the successor of John Baird, D.D. [q. v.] The Capel Street meeting-house (sometimes, though without any historical reason, called the Scots Church) had just been rebuilt, and had changed its name, having a new entrance into Mary's Abbey. Its congregation, however, was reduced to some half a dozen families. McDowell rapidly became a power in Dublin presbyterianism. He was ably seconded by his elder, Alderman Hutton (afterwards high sheriff and lord mayor), and the congregation of Mary's Abbey came to number two thousand souls. From 1783 he took a leading part in negotiations between the presbyterians and the government relating to 'regium donum' and other public Questions, acting with William Campbell, D.D. [q. v.], a prominent leader of the 'new light' party, who in his manuscript 'Sketches' (1803) has left a good-humoured account of their theological relations. In 1786 McDowell was elected moderator of the general synod, and in 1788 he was appointed by the synod, in conjunction with Robert Rodgers (d. 1791), minister of Corboy, co. Longford, to visit and inspect the presbyterian churches in the west and south-west of Ireland. The Edinburgh University gave him the degree of D.D. on 22 Jan. 1789. In 1791 he was in France, not drawn thither by any sympathy with the revolution. During the troubled years prior to 1798 he took no part in political agitation on either side, but organised weekly meetings for prayer, in view of the state of the nation.

On 4 Nov. 1791 James Horner (d. 1843) afterwards D.D., was ordained as his copastor. Service was regularly held on Christmas day, a very rare usage among presbyterians. On 14 May 18 1 3, as McDowellwas no longer equal to the duties of the co-pastorate, James Carlile, D.D. [q. v.], was ordained as his assistant and successor. McDowell died on 13 Sept. 1824, leaving a family. Horner preached his funeral sermon, which was published. A marble tablet to his memory was placed in his meeting-house (removed in 1864 to the new building in Rutland Square). Armstrong agrees with Horner's estimate of the excellences of his character, his fervid zeal, his gentleness, and his purity. He published: 1. 'The Requiring Sub-


text:
Page:William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (4th ed, 1770, vol IV).djvu/23

Ch. 1. uch a law to the dictates of concience and humanity. To hed the blood of our fellow creature is a matter that requires the greatet deliberation, and the fullet conviction of our own authority : for life is the immediate gift of God to man ; which neither he can reign, nor can it be taken from him, unles by the command or permiion of him who gave it ; either exprely revealed, or collected from the laws of nature or ociety by clear and indiputable demontration.

not be undertood to deny the right of the legilature in any country to inforce it's own laws by the death of the trangreor, though perons of ome abilities have doubted it ; but only to ugget a few hints for the conideration of uch as are, or may hereafter become, legilators. When a quetion aries, whether death may be lawfully inflicted for this or that trangreion, the widom of the laws mut decide it : and to this public judgment or deciion all private judgments mut ubmit ; ele there is an end of the firt principle of all ociety and government. The guilt of blood, if any, mut lie at their doors, who miinterpret the extent of their warrant ; and not at the doors of the ubject, who is bound to receive the interpretations, that are given by the overeign power.

to the end, or final caue of human punihments. This is not by way of atonement or expiation for the crime committed ; for that mut be left to the jut determination of the upreme being : but as a precaution againt future offences of the ame kind. This is effected three ways : either by the amendment of the offender himelf ; for which purpoe all corporal punihments, fines, and temporary exile or imprionment are inflicted : or, by deterring others by the dread of his example from offending in the like way, “ ut poena (as Tully exprees it) ad paucos, metus ad omnes perveniat ;” which gives rie to all ignominious punihments, and to uch executions of jutice as are open and public : or, latly, by depriving Rh


text:
Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/123

Rh

gomen glēo-bēames,ne gōd hafoc geond sæl swingeð,ne se swifta mearh burh-stede bēateð.Bealo-cwealm hafað fela feorh-cynnaforð onsended.” Swā gīomor-mōdgiohðo mǣnde ān æfter eallum,unblīðe hwē[op] dæges ond nihtes,oð ðæt dēaðes wylm hrān æt heortan.Hord-wynne fond eald ūht-sceaðaopene standan, sē ðe byrnendebiorgas sēceð, nacod nīð-draca,nihtes flēogeð fȳre befangen;hyne fold-būend *[swīðe ondrǣ]da[ð]. Hē gesēcean sceall [ho]r[d on] hrūsan,þǣr hē hǣðen gold warað wintrum frōd;ne byð him wihte ðȳ sēl. Swā se ðēod-sceaðaþrēo hund wintra hēold on hrūsan hord-ærna sum ēacen-cræftig,oð ðæt hyne ān ābealh mon on mōde;man-dryhtne bær fǣted wǣge,frioðo-wǣre bæd hlāford sīnne.Ða wæs hord rāsod, onboren bēaga hord; bēne getīðad fēa-sceaftum men.Frēa scēawode fīra fyrn-geweorcforman sīðe.

7–2

title: Page:Beowulf (Wyatt).djvu/123