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.