“As to what is impossible,” said the other, “I fancy it would be difficult to get one thoroughly convinced of his ignorance and feebleness to be other than very cautious how he used the word.  Perhaps, however, Mr. Newman may be more readily excused than most men for the strength with which he pronounces his opinions; for, as he has passed through an infinity of experiences, it may have given him ‘insight’ into many absurdities which, to the generality of mankind, do not appear such.  I think if I had believed half so many things, I should have lost all confidence in myself.  What a strong mind, or what buoyant faith, he must have!”

“Both,—­both,” said Fellowes.

“Well, be it so.  But let us, as you promised yesterday, examine this very point.”  This led on to a dialogue in which it was distinctly proved that

That may be possible with man, which is
impossible with god.

“Mr. Newman affirms, you say,” said Harrington, “that in his judgment every book-’revelation’ is an absurdity and a contradiction; or, in the words quoted by you, ‘impossible.’”

“Yes,—­of ‘moral and spiritual truth.’”

“And of any other truth—­as of historical truth—­you say such revelation is unnecessary?”

“Yes.”

“Moreover, as you and Mr. Newman affirm, the bulk of mankind are not competent to investigate the claims of such an historic revelation?”

“Certainly.”

“And, therefore, it is impossible in fact, if not per se, unless God is to be supposed doing something both unnecessary and futile.”

“I think so, of course,” said Fellowes.

“So that all book-revelation is impossible.”

“I affirm it.”

“Very well,—­I do not dispute it.  There still remain one or two difficulties on which I should like to have your judgment towards forming an opinion:  and they are on the very threshold of the subject.  And, first, I suppose you do not mean to restrict your term of a ‘book-revelation’ to that only which is literally consigned to a book in our modern sense.  You mean an external revelation?”

“Certainly.”

“If, for example, you could recover a genuine manuscript of Isaiah or Paul, you would not think it entitled to any more respect, as authority, than a modern translation in a printed book,—­though it might be free from some errors?”

“I should not.”

“You would not allow that parchment, however ancient, has any advantage in this respect over paper, however modern?”

“Certainly not.”

“Nor Hebrew or Greek over English or German?

“No.”

“All such matters are in very deed but ’leather and prunella’?”

“Nothing more.”