From my defender in the “Prospective Review” I learn that in the first edition of the “Defence” the word thought in the last sentence above was placed in italics.  He not only protested against this and other italics as misleading, but clearly explained my sense, which, as I think, needs no other interpreter than the context.  In the new edition the italics are removed, but the unjust isolation of the sentences remains. “The processes of thought,” of which I spoke, are not “all processes,” but the processes involved in the abstruse inquiries to which I had referred.  To say that no processes of thought quicken the conscience, or affect the soul, would be a gross absurdity.  This, or nothing else, is what he imputes to me; and even after the protest made by the “Prospective” reviewer, my assailant not only continues to hide that I speak of certain processes of thought, not all processes, but even has the hardihood to say that he takes the passages as everybody else does, and that he is compelled so to do.

In my own original reply I appealed to places where I had fully expressed my estimate of intellectual progress, and its ultimate beneficial action.  All that I gain by this, is new garblings and taunts for inconsistency.  “Mr. Newman,” says be, “is the last man in the world to whom I would deny the benefit of having contradicted himself.”  But I must confine myself to the garbling.  “Defence,” p. 95:—­

“Mr. Newman affirms that my representations of his views on this subject are the most direct and intense reverse of all that he has most elaborately and carefully written!” He still says, “what God reveals, he reveals within and not without,” and “he did say (though, it seems, he says no longer), that ’of God we know everything from within, nothing from without;’ yet he says I have grossly misrepresented him.”

This pretended quotation is itself garbled.  I wrote, ("Phases,” 1st edition, p. 152)—­“Of our moral and spiritual God we know nothing without, everything within.”  By omitting the adjectives, the critic produces a statement opposed to my judgment and to my writings; and then goes on to say.  “Well, if Mr. Newman will engage to prove contradictions,...  I think it is no wonder that his readers do not understand him.”

I believe it is a received judgment, which I will not positively assert to be true, but I do not think I have anywhere denied, that God is discerned by us in the universe as a designer, creator, and mechanical ruler, through a mere study of the world and its animals and all their adaptations, even without an absolute necessity of meditating consciously on the intelligence of man and turning the eyes within.  Thus a creative God may be said to be discerned “from without.”  But in my conviction, that God is not so discerned to be moral or spiritual or to be our God; but by moral intellect and moral experience acting “inwardly.”  If Mr. Rogers chooses to deny the justness of my view, let him deny it; but by omitting the emphatic adjectives he has falsified my sentence, and then has founded upon it a charge of inconsistency.  In a previous passage (p. 79) he gave this quotation in full, in order to reproach me for silently withdrawing it in my second edition of the “Phases.”  He says:—­