It may be thought that some apology is necessary for the frequent reference made to the treatise just mentioned, and, occasionally, to some other works of my own. It appeared to me, however, that either of the other two alternatives would have been more objectionable; viz. either to omit entirely much that was needful for the elucidation of the subject in hand; or, to repeat, in the same or in other words, what had been already published. Perhaps some apology may also be thought necessary for the various illustrations, selected from several authors, or framed for the occasion, which occur both in the present treatise, and in that on Logic; and in which, opinions on various subjects are incidentally conveyed; in all of which, it cannot be expected that every one of my readers will concur. And some may accordingly be disposed to complain that they cannot put these works into the hands of any young person under their care, without a risk of his imbibing notions which they think erroneous. This objection, I have reason to believe, has been especially felt, though not always explicitly stated, by the most decidedly antichristian writers of the present day. But it should be remembered, that Logic and Rhetoric having no very work was before the public) as having declared the impossibility of making such an Analysis and Classification of the different kinds of Arguments as I have here laid before the reader. Such a misapprehension seems very unaccountable; for if I ever had made such an assertion, I should have been, I suppose, the first person that ever proclaimed the impossibility of something which at the same time he professed to have accomplished proper subject-matter of their own, it was necessary to resort to other departments of knowledge for exemplifications of the principles laid down; and it would have been impossible, without confining myself to the most insipid truisms, to avoid completely all topics on which there exists any difference of opinion. If, in the course of either work, I have advocated any erroneous tenet, the obvious remedy is, to refute it. I am utterly unconscious of having in any instance resorted to the employment of fallacy, or substituted declamation for argument; but if any such faults exist, it is easy to expose them. Nor is it necessary that when any book is put into the hands of a young student, he should understand that he is to adopt implicitly every doctrine contained in it, or should not be cautioned against any erroneous principles which it may inculcate: otherwise indeed, it would be impossible to give young men what is called a classical education, without making them Pagans. That I have avowed an assent to the evidences of Christianity (that, I believe, is the point on which the greatest soreness is felt), and that this does incidentally imply some censure of those who reject it, is not to be denied. But they again are at liberty,and they are not backward in using their liberty,- to repel the censure, by refuting, if they can, those evidences. And as long as they confine themselves to calm argumentation, and abstain from insult, libellous personality, and falsification of facts, I earnestly hope no force will ever be employed to silence them, except force of argument. I am not one of those jealous lovers of freedom, who would fain keep it all to themselves; nor do I dread ultimate danger to the cause of truth from fair discussion.* It may be objected by some, that in the foregoing words I have put forth a challenge which cannot be accepted; inasmuch as it has been declared by the highest legal authorities, that "Christianity is part of the Law of the Land;" and consequently any one who impugns it, is liable to prosecution. What is the precise meaning of the above legal maxim, I do not profess to determine; having never met with any one who could explain it to me: but evidently the mere circumstance, that we have a "Religion by Law established," does not, of itself, imply the illegality of arguing against that Religion. The regulations of Trade and of Navigation, for instance, are unquestionably part of the Law of the Land; but the question of their expediency is freely discussed, and frequently in no very measured language; nor did I ever hear of any one's being menaced with prosecution for censuring them. I presume not, however, to decide what steps might, legally, be taken; I am looking only to facts and probabilities; and I feel a confident trust, as well as hope (and that, founded on experience of the past), that no legal penalties will, in fact, be incurred by temperate, *See Speech on Jews' Relief Bill, and Remarks appended to it. Vol. of Tracts, &c., pp. 419-446. decent, argumentative maintainers even of the most erroneous opinions. To the examples introduced by way of illustration, and to the incidental remarks on several points, I have now made (1846) some additions, the chief part of which have been also printed separately, for the use of those who possess earlier editions. To some readers the work may appear to be, even yet, too scanty in this respect; while others, again, may have thought even the former editions too full, and too digressive. Rhetoric having, as I have elsewhere observed, (like Logic,) no proper subject-matter of its own, it is manifestly impossible to draw the line precisely between what does, and what does not, strictly appertain to it. I have endeavored to introduce whatever may appear, to the majority of students, relevant, interesting, and instructive. I have only to add my acknowledgments to many kind friends, to whose judicious suggestions and careful corrections I am indebted, both in the original composition of the Work, and in the subsequent revisions and enlargements of it. |