59, he says, that "according to Mr.Newman's theology, it is most _probable_ (in italics) that the successive generations of men, with perfect indifference to their relative moral conditions, their crimes or wrongs, are all knocked on the head together; and that future adjustment and retribution is a dream." (So p.

72.) In a note to the next page, he informs his readers that if I say that I have left the question of immortality _doubtful_, it does not affect the argument; for I have admitted "the probability" of there being no future life.
This topic was specially discussed by me in a short chapter of my treatise on the "Soul," to which alone it is possible for my critic to refer.

In that chapter assuredly I do _not_ say what he pretends; what I _do_ say is, (after rejecting, as unsatisfactory to me, the popular arguments from metaphysics, and from the supposed need of a future state to _redress the inequalities of this life_;) p.

232: "But do I then deny a future life, or seek to undermine a belief of it?
_Most assuredly not_; but I would put the belief (whether it is to be weaker or firmer) on a _spiritual_ basis, and on none other." I am ashamed to quote further from that chapter in this place; the ground on which I there tread is too sacred for controversy.

But that a Christian advocate should rise from reading it to tell people that he has a right to _ridicule_ me for holding that "man is _most likely born for a dog's life_, and there an end;" absorbs my other feelings in melancholy.