[Footnote 15: He puts it between two other statements which avowedly refer to me.] [Footnote 16: Mr. Rogers asks on this: "Does Mr. Newman mean that he claims as much as the _apostles_ claimed, _whether they did so rightfully or not_?" See how acutely a logician can pervert the word _all_!] [Footnote 17: There is much meaning in the word imprudencies on which I need not comment.] [Footnote 18: "Unspeakably painful" is his phrase for something much smaller, ("Eclipse" ninth edition p. 194,) which he insists on similarly obtruding, against my will and protest.] APPENDIX I. It is an error not at all peculiar to the author of the "Eclipse of Faith," but is shared with him by many others, and by one who has treated me in a very different spirit, that Christians are able to use atheistic arguments against me without wounding Christianity. As I have written a rather ample book, called "Theism," expressly designed to establish against Atheists and Pantheists that moral Theism which Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans have in common, and which underlies every attempt of any of the three religions to establish its peculiar and supernatural claims; I have no need of entering on that argument here. It is not true, that, as a Theist, I evade the objections urged by real atheists or sceptics; on the contrary, I try to search them to the very bottom. It is only in arguing with Christians that I disown the obligation of reply; and that, because they are as much concerned as I to answer; and ought to be able to give me, _on the ground of natural theology_, good replies to every fundamental objection from the sceptic, if I have not got them myself. To declare the objections of our common adversaries valid against those first principles of religion which are older than Jesus or Moses, is certainly to surrender the cause of Christianity.