It may be worth while to add how in the “Defence” Mr. Rogers pounces on my phrase “a priori view of the Divine character,” as an excuse for burying his readers in metaphysics, in which he thinks he has a natural right to dogmatize against and over me.  He must certainly be aware of the current logical (not metaphysical) use of the phrase a priori:  as when we say, that Le Verrier and Adams demonstrated a priori that a planet must exist exterior to Uranus, before any astronomer communicated information that it does exist.  Or again:  the French Commissioners proved by actual measurement that the earth is an oblate spheroid, of which Newton had convinced himself a priori.

I always avoid a needless argument of metaphysics.  Writing to the general public I cannot presume that they are good judges of anything but a practical and moral argument.  The a priori views of God, of which I here speak, involve no subtle questions; they are simply those views which are attained independently of the alleged authoritative information, and, of course, are founded upon considerations earlier than it.

But it would take too much of space and time, and be far too tedious to my readers, if I were to go in detail through Mr. Rogers’s objections and misrepresentations.  I have the sad task of attacking his good faith, to which I further proceed.

II.  In the preface to my second edition of the “Hebrew Monarchy,” I found reason to explain briefly in what sense I use the word inspiration.  I said, I found it to be current in three senses; “first, as an extraordinary influence peculiar to a few persons, as to prophets and apostles; secondly, as an ordinary influence of the Divine Spirit on the hearts of men, which quickens and strengthens their moral and spiritual powers, and is accessible to them all (in a certain stage of development) in some proportion to their own faithfulness. The third view teaches that genius and inspiration are two names for one thing.... Christians for the most part hold the two first conceptions, though they generally call the second spiritual influence, not inspiration; the third, seems to be common in the Old Testament.  It so happens that the second is the only inspiration which I hold.” [I here super-add the italics] On this passage Mr. Rogers commented as follows ("Defence” p. 156):—­

“The latest utterance of Mr. Newman on the subject [of inspiration] that I have read, occurs in his preface to the second edition of his “Hebrew Monarchy,” where he tells us, that he believes it is an influence accessible to all men, in a certain stage of development! [Italics.] Surely it will be time to consider his theory of inspiration, when he has told us a little more about it.  To my mind, if the very genius of mystery had framed the definition, it could not have uttered anything more indefinite.”