Apologia pro Vita Sua | Page 7

dishonest. He goes on, "I am informed by those from whose
judgment on such points there is no appeal, that 'en hault courage,' and
strict honour, I am also precluded, by the terms of my explanation,
from using any other of Dr. Newman's past writings to prove my
assertion." And then, "I have declared Dr. Newman to have been an
honest man up to the 1st of February, 1864; it was, as I shall show, only
Dr. Newman's fault that I ever thought him to be anything else. It
depends entirely on Dr. Newman whether he shall sustain the
reputation which he has so recently acquired," (by diploma of course
from Mr. Kingsley.) "If I give him thereby a fresh advantage in this
argument, he is most welcome to it. He needs, it seems to me, as many
advantages as possible."
What a princely mind! How loyal to his rash promise, how delicate
towards the subject of it, how conscientious in his interpretation of it! I
have no thought of irreverence towards a Scripture Saint, who was
actuated by a very different spirit from Mr. Kingsley's, but somehow
since I read his pamphlet words have been running in my head, which I
find in the Douay version thus; "Thou hast also with thee Semei the son
of Gera, who cursed me with a grievous curse when I went to the camp,
but I swore to him, saying, I will not kill thee with the sword. Do not
thou hold him guiltless. But thou art a wise man and knowest what to
do with him, and thou shalt bring down his grey hairs with blood to
hell."
Now I ask, Why could not Mr. Kingsley be open? If he intended still to
arraign me on the charge of lying, why could he not say so as a man?
Why must he insinuate, question, imply, and use sneering and irony, as
if longing to touch a forbidden fruit, which still he was afraid would
burn his fingers, if he did so? Why must he "palter in a double sense,"
and blow hot and cold in one breath? He first said he considered me a
patron of lying; well, he changed his opinion; and as to the logical
ground of this change, he said that, if any one asked him what it was,
he could only answer that he really did not know. Why could not he
change back again, and say he did not know why? He had quite a right

to do so; and then his conduct would have been so far straightforward
and unexceptionable. But no;--in the very act of professing to believe in
my sincerity, he takes care to show the world that it is a profession and
nothing more. That very proceeding which at p. 15 he lays to my
charge (whereas I detest it), of avowing one thing and thinking another,
that proceeding he here exemplifies himself; and yet, while indulging
in practices as offensive as this, he ventures to speak of his sensitive
admiration of "hault courage and strict honour!" "I forgive you, Sir
Knight," says the heroine in the Romance, "I forgive you as a
Christian." "That means," said Wamba, "that she does not forgive him
at all." Mr. Kingsley's word of honour is about as valuable as in the
jester's opinion was the Christian charity of Rowena. But here we are
brought to a further specimen of Mr. Kingsley's method of disputation,
and having duly exhibited it, I shall have done with him.
It is his last, and he has intentionally reserved it for his last. Let it be
recollected that he professed to absolve me from his original charge of
dishonesty up to February 1. And further, he implies that, at the time
when he was writing, I had not yet involved myself in any fresh acts
suggestive of that sin. He says that I have had a great escape of
conviction, that he hopes I shall take warning, and act more cautiously.
"It depends entirely," he says, "on Dr. Newman, whether he shall
sustain the reputation which he has so recently acquired" (p. 8). Thus,
in Mr. Kingsley's judgment, I was then, when he wrote these words,
still innocent of dishonesty, for a man cannot sustain what he actually
has not got; only he could not be sure of my future. Could not be sure!
Why at this very time he had already noted down valid proofs, as he
thought them, that I had already forfeited the character which he
contemptuously accorded to me. He had cautiously said "up to
February 1st," in order to reserve the title-page and last three pages of
my pamphlet, which were not published till February 12th, and out of
these four pages, which he had not whitewashed,