DR. ROSEBY IN EXPLANATION.

Evening Star, Issue 3423, 10 February 1874, Page 2

DR. ROSEBY IN EXPLANATION.

To the Editor. Sir, — I do not complain of criticism, bo it just or unjust, so long as it is criticism of wbat I have actually said or done; but to have language and sentiments attributed to one which one utterly abhors is simply intolerable. It is now apparent how great an injustice has been done me by the utterlymisleading—l do not say, of course, intentionally misleading—report of my lecture in yesterday’s ‘Times.’ 1 confidently appeal to the hundreds of people who heard that lecture, whether its whole tone was not, even when severest, courteous j andj even when plainest, pure. I trmt I am not insensible to what is becoming a gentleman and a scholar, to say nothing of my profession—unworthy as I know that is—of the name of Christ. Not a word did I utter in my lecture about an inhdel Tress, 1 never charged the supporters of the opening of the Athemeum on Sunday, in the most distant way, with “ atheism,'' nor with “socialism,” nor with “demagogism.” A vile quotatian is put into my mouth which I am incapable of uttering, and am unable to repeat. The creed blurted into the face of the minister to whom I referred, was not that which, contrary to all bonos mores, is published in the ‘Times,’ but this : “My creed is that eternity is an imagination and God a dream.” 1 did not tay that was the creed" of those who disagree with me on the question of the opening of the Athenaeum. r lhe very thought of such unchanty is abhorrent to me. Nor did I say that our opponents are selfish, nor that they are greedy of gain, nor that they desire—l apeak of the generality of them-to make the Sabbath a secular day. I believe and know that many of them are, to say the least, as good men as myself. Ifivery statement ! made on those points was carefully guarded, and as charitable in tone, again to say the least, as even yourself could desire. Of course I said, and say, what is quite notorious, that some of those who advocate the opening of the Athenaeum do so from an anti-Christian animus. But I know too

weU, and respect too highly, many who are on that side—nor herein do I except the mover of the motion—to indulge in the sweeping and silly malignity which you assume. Let those who differ from me understand my position. I retract nothing. I say that the tendencies of the proposed movement are, in my judgment, bad. I think the movement, socially considered, most unwise. I have a strong conviction, not lightly formed, that its issues will be pr judicial to religion. Surely I may say that, at the same t me, I believe that many of its advocates are most worthy, however mistaken, men. T trust this frank explanation may secure for me the justice of an amended judgment on my recent lecture.—! am, Ac., Thomas Eoskby. . Duuelin, February 10.