Upon this passage the “Prospective” reviewer said his say as follows (vol x. p. 217):—­

“The writer will very considerately defer criticism on Mr. Newman’s indefinite definition, worthy of the genius of mystery, till its author has told us a little more about it.  Will anyone believe that he himself deliberately omits the substance of the definition, and gives in its stead a parenthetical qualification, which might be left out of the original, without injury either to the grammatical structure, or to the general meaning of the sentence in which it occurs?” He proceeds to state what I did say, and adds:  “Mr. Newman, in the very page in which this statement occurs, expressly identifies his doctrine with the ordinary Christian belief of Divine influence.  His words are exactly coincident in sense with those employed by the author of the “Eclipse,” where he acknowledges the reality of ’the ordinary, though mysterious action, by which God aids those who sincerely seek him in every good word and work.’  The moral faithfulness of which Mr. Newman speaks, is the equivalent of the sincere search of God in good word and work, which his opponent talks of.”

I must quote the entire reply given to this in the “Defence,” second edition, p. 224:—­

“And now for a few examples of my opponent’s criticisms. 1.  I said in the “Defence” that I did not understand Mr. Newman’s notions of inspiration, and that, as to his very latest utterance—­namely, that it was an influence accessible to all men in a certain stage of development [italics], it was utterly unintelligible to me.  ’Will any one believe (says my critic) that he deliberately omits the substance of the definition, and gives in its stead a parenthetical qualification, which might be left out of the original without injury either to the grammatical structure or to the general meaning of the sentence in which it occurs?  Was anything ever more amusing?  A parenthetical clause which might be left out of the original without injury to the grammatical structure or to the general meaning! Might be left out?  Ay, to be sure it might, and not only ‘without injury,’ but with benefit; just as the dead fly which makes the ointment of the apothecary to stink might be left out of that without injury.  But it was not left out; and it is precisely because it was there, and diffused so remarkable an odour over the whole, that I characterized the definition as I did—­and most justly.  Accessible to all men in a certain stage of development!  When and how accessible?  What species of development, I beseech you, is meant?  And what is the stage of it?  The very thing, which, as I say, and as everybody of common sense must see, renders the definition utterly vague, is the very clause in question.”