After naming local history, criticism of texts, history of philosophy, logic, physiology, demonology, and other important but very difficult studies, I ask:-- "Is it not extravagant to call inquiries of this sort _spiritual_ or to expect any spiritual[11] results from them?
When the spiritual man (as such) cannot judge, the question is removed into a totally different court from that of the soul, the court of the critical understanding....

How then can the state of the soul be tested by the conclusion to which the intellect is led?
What means the anathematizing of those who remain unconvinced?
And how can it be imagined that the Lord of the soul cares more about a historical than about a geological, metaphysical, or mathematical argument?
The processes of thought have nothing to quicken the conscience or affect the soul." 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_.