Surely, Harrington, you forget that you are speaking of God, not of man:  you ought not to reason so (said Fellowes, somewhat agitated).

Surely, Fellowes, it is you who forget (retorted Harrington) that syllogism depends on form, not on matter.  Whether it be God or Man, makes no difference; the logic must be tried by turning the terms into X Y Z. But I have not said all Mr. Rogers says, I am bound to throw away the moral principles which I already have, at the bidding of a God whom I am bound to believe to be immoral.

No, you are unfair (said Fellowes), I know he says that revelation would confirm and improve your moral principles.

But I am not unfair.  It is he who argues in a circle.  What will be improvement, is the very question pending.  He says, that if Jehovah called to me from heaven, “O Harrington!  O Harrington! take thine innocent son, thine only son, lay him on the altar and kill him,” I should be bound to regard obedience to the command an improvement of my morality; and this, though, up to the moment when I heard the voice, I had been bound logically to believe Jehovah to be an IMMORAL God.  What think you of that for logic?

I confess (said Fellowes, with great candour) I must yield up my friend’s reputation as a logician; and I begin to think he was unwise in talking so contemptuously of Mr. Newman’s reasoning faculties.  But in truth, I love my friend for the great spiritual benefits I have derived from him and cannot admit to you that he is not a very sincere believer in mystical Christianity.

What benefits, may I ask? (said Harrington).

I have found by his aid the peace which passeth understanding (replied he).

It passes my understanding, if you have (answered Harrington, laughing), and I shall be infinitely obliged by your allowing me to participate in the discovery.  In plain truth, I do not trust your mysticism.

But are you in a condition to form an opinion? (said Fellowes, with a serious air).  Mr. Rogers has enforced on me St. Paul’s maxim:  “The natural man discerneth not the things of the Spirit of God.”

My most devout gentleman I (replied Harrington), how unctuous you are!  Forgive my laughing; but it does so remind me of Douce Davie Deans.  I will make you professor of spiritual insight, &c., &c., &c.

* * * * *

Now is not this disgusting?  Might I not justly call the man a “profane dog” who approved of it?  Yet everything that is worst here is closely copied from the Eclipse of Faith, or justified by the Defence.  How long will it be before English Christians cry out Shame against those two books?