make them plainer, you are at liberty to say that a book of Mr.
Newman's will? It is undoubtedly a subtile question for him to
decide for you; namely, what is the condition of your own
consciousness? But I really see no help for it, after what you have
granted; nor, without his aid, do I see whether you can truly affirm
that you have an internal revelation, independently of him or not.
And whichever way he decides, I am afraid lest he should prove both
himself and you very much in the wrong. If he decides for you, that
your internal revelation must and did anticipate any thing he might
write, and that it was perfectly articulate, as well as inarticulately
present to your 'insight' before, it will be difficult to determine
why he should have written at all; he would also prove, not only how
superfluous is your gratitude, but that he understands your own
consciousness better than you do. If he decides it the other way, and
says you had a 'revelation' before he revealed it, yet that he made
it utter articulate language, and interpreted its hieroglyphics,--
then it more seems very strange that either you or he should contend
that a 'book-revelation' is impossible, since Mr. Newman has produced
it. If, however, he should in the first of these two ways, I fear,
my good friend, that we shall fall into another paradox worse than
all for it will prove that the 'internal revelation' which you
possess is better known to Mr. Newman than to yourself, which will
be a perfectly worthy conclusion of all this embarrass. It would be
surely droll for you to affirm that you possess an internal revelation
which renders all 'external revelation' impossible, but yet that its
distinctness is unperceived by yourself, and awaits the assurance
of an external authority, which at same time declares all 'external
revelation' impossible!"

"There is still another word," said Fellowes, "which you forget