only apologetic argument, repeated and enlarged in his successive works, which may be put to Mr. Mivart's credit as useful and original. On other points, such as the freedom of the will, the evolution of ethics, and the origin of the universe, he is conspicuously feeble; and he has a disposition to waste his strength upon the criticism of accidental phases and features of monism and agnosticism rather than upon their essential destructiveness.
Of the Jesuit writers and their series of volumes on scholastic philosophy sufficient has been already said: they have passed some brilliant criticism upon minor issues and aspects of opposing systems, but have made no serious effort to make their more important theses accessible to the modern mind by substituting some solider demonstration for the aerial structures of the schoolmen. Mr. Lilly belongs to the Platonic, sentimental, or semi-sceptical group of apologists. He also is much tainted with Kantism, and offers no solid satisfaction to minds of a severer cast. Like Plato, Kant, Newman, or Balfour, he seems to think it desirable that humanity should cling to certain opinions, and therefore seeks evidence in support of them. Of Cardinal Manning's apologetic efforts little need be said. He was a man of action, not of speculation—certainly not a philosopher. His cast of mind is well illustrated by his words to one who was urging certain scientific statements in conflict with Genesis: without listening to them he blandly replied, like
