CONTENTS PART I.-MR. KINGSLEY METHOD OF DISPUTATION, II. TRUE MODE OF MEETING MR. KINGSLEY, 84 135 187 264 305 385 LIB THE UNIV FBSIT PART I MR. KINGSLEY'S METHOD OF DISPUTATION. I CANNOT be sorry to have forced Mr. Kingsley to bring out in fulness his charges against me. It is far better that he should discharge his thoughts upon me in my lifetime, than after I am dead. Under the circumstances I am happy in having the opportunity of reading the worst that can be said of me by a writer who has taken pains with his work and is well satisfied with it. I account it a gain to be surveyed from without by one who hates the principles which are nearest to ny heart, has no personal knowledge of me to set right his misconceptions of my doctrine, and who has some motive or ther to be as severe with me as he can possibly be. And first of all, I beg to compliment him on the motto in is Title-page; it is felicitous. A motto should contain, as in nutshell, the contents, or the character, or the drift, or the nimus of the writing to which it is prefixed. The words hich he has taken from me are so apposite as to be almost rophetical. There cannot be a better illustration than he ereby affords of the aphorism which I intended them to coney. I said that it is not more than an hyperbolical expreson to say that in certain cases a lie is the nearest approach truth. Mr. Kingsley's pamphlet is emphatically one of ch cases as are contemplated in that proposition. I really lieve, that his view of me is about as near an approach to the truth about my writtings and doings, as he is capable of taking. He has done his worst towards me; but he has also done his best. So far well; but, while I impute to him no malice, I unfeignedly think, on the other hand, that, in his invective against me, he as faithfully fulfils the other half of the proposition also. This is not a mere sharp retort upon Mr. Kingsley, as will be seen, when I come to consider directly the subject, to which the words of his motto relate. I have enlarged on that subject in various passages of my publications; I have said that minds in different states and circumstances cannot understand one another, and that in all cases they must be instructed according to their capacity, and, if not taught step by step, they learn only so much the less; that children do not apprehend the thoughts of grown people, nor savages the instincts of civilization, nor blind men the perceptions of sight, nor pagans the doctrines of Christianity, nor men the experiences of Angels. In the same way, there are people of matter-of-fact, prosaic minds, who cannot take in the fancies of poets; and others of shallow, inaccurate minds, who cannot take in the ideas of philosophical inquirers. In a Lecture of mine I have illustrated this phenomenon by the supposed instance of a foreigner, who, after reading a commentary on the principles of English Law, does not get nearer to a real apprehension of them than to be led to accuse Englishmen of considering that the Queen is impeccable and infallible, and that the Parlia ment is omnipotent. Mr. Kingsley has read me from begin ning to end in the fashion in which the hypothetical Russian read Blackstone; not, I repeat, from malice, but because of his intellectual build. He appears to be so constituted as to have no notion of what goes on in minds very different from his own, and moreover to be stone-blind to his ignorance. A modest man or a philosopher would have scrupled to trea with scorn and scoffing, as Mr. Kingsley does in my own in stance, principles and convictions, even if he did not acquiesc in them himself, which had been held so widely and for s long, the beliefs and devotions and customs which have been the religious life of millions upon millions of Christians for nearly twenty centuries,-for this in fact is the task on which he is spending his pains. Had he been a man of large or cautious mind, he would not have taken it for granted that cultivation must lead every one to see things precisely as he sees them himself. But the narrow-minded are the more prejudiced by very reason of their narrowness. The Apostle bids us "in malice be children, but in understanding be men." I am glad to recognize in Mr. Kingsley an illustration of the first half of this precept; but I should not be honest, if I ascribed to him any sort of fulfilment of the second. I wish I could speak as favourably either of his drift or of his method of arguing, as I can of his convictions. As to his drift, I think its ultimate point is an attack upon the Catholic Religion. It is I indeed, whom he is immediately insulting, -still, he views me only as a representative, and on the whole a fair one, of a class or caste of men, to whom, conscious as I am of my own integrity, I ascribe an excellence superior to mine. He desires to impress upon the public mind the conviction that I am a crafty, scheming man, simply untrustworthy; that, in becoming a Catholic, I have just found my right place; that I do but justify and am properly interpreted by the common English notion of Roman casuists and confessors; that I was secretly a Catholic when I was openly professing to be a clergyman of the Established Church; that so far from bringing, by means of my conversion, when at length it openly took place, any strength to the Catholic cause, I am really a burden to it,—an additional evidence of the fact, that to be a pure, germane, genuine Catholic, a man must be either a knave or a fool. These last words bring me to Mr. Kingsley's method of disputation, which I must criticize with much severity;-in |