“Why” answered Harrington, “one wonder is, that they alone, and amidst such gross errors, should possess these spiritual advantages.  But it also appears to me that your notions of the ‘spiritual’ are not the same theirs, for you reject the New Testament dogmas as well as its history; if so, it is another reason for not misleading us by using language in deceptive senses.  But, at all events, I cannot help pitying your poverty of thought, or poverty of expression,—­one or both; and I beg you, for my sake, if not for your own, to express your thoughts as much as possible in your own terms, and avail yourself less liberally of those of David and Paul, whose language ordinary Christians will always associate with another meaning, and can never believe you sincere in supposing that it rightfully expresses the doctrines of your most; spiritual’ infidelity.  They will certainly hear your Scriptural and devout language with the same feelings with which they would nauseate that most oppressive of all odors, —­the faint scent of lavender in the chamber of death.  My good uncle here, who cannot be prevailed upon to reject the Bible will not, I am sure, hear you, without supposing that you resemble those Rationalists of whom Menzel says, ’These gentlemen smilingly taught their theological pupils that unbelief was the true apostolic, primitive Christian belief; they put all their insipidities into Christ’s month, and made him, by means of their exegetical jugglery, sometimes a Kantian, sometimes a Hegelian, sometimes one ian and sometimes another, ‘wie es dem Herrn Professor beliebt’:  neither will he be able to imagine that you are not resorting to this artifice for the same purpose.  ‘The Bible,’ says Menzel, ’and their Reason being incompatible, why do they not let them remain separate?  Why insist on harmonizing things which do not, and never can harmonize?  It is because they are aware that the Bible has authority with the people; otherwise they would never trouble themselves about so troublesome a book.’  I cannot suspect you of such hypocrisy; but I must confess I regard your language as cant.  As I listen to you I seem to see a hybrid between Prynne and Voltaire.  So far from its being true that you have renounced the ‘letter’ of the Bible and retained its ‘spirit,’ I think it would be much more correct to say, comparing your infidel hypothesis with your most spiritual dialect, that you have renounced the ‘spirit’ of the Bible and retained its ‘letter.’”

“But are you in a condition to give an opinion?” said Fellowes, with a serious air.  “Mr. Newman says in a like case, ’The natural man discerneth not things of the spirit of God, because they are foolishness unto him’; it is the ’spiritual man only who search the deep things of God.’  At the same time I freely acknowledge that I never could see my way clear to employ an argument which looks so arrogant; and the less, as I believe, with Mr. Parker, that the only revelation is in all men alike.  Yet, on the other hand, I cannot doubt my own consciousness.”