“And for a similar reason, surely, you would reject at once the oral teaching of any such man as Paul or Matthew, or any body else, if he professed that what he said was dictated by divine inspiration, concurrently or not with the use of his own faculties?  You would repudiate at once his claims, however authenticated, to be your infallible guide; to tell you what you are to believe, and how you are to act?  For surely you will not pretend that there is any difference between statements which are merely expressed by the living voice, and those same statements as consigned to a book; except that, if any difference be supposed at all, one would, for some reasons, rather have their in the last shape than in the first.”

“Of course there is no difference:  to object to a book-revelation and grant a ‘lip-revelation’ from God, or to deny that lip-revelation (when it is made permanent and diffusible) the authority it had when first given, would be a childish hatred of a book indeed,” answered Fellowes.

“I perfectly agree with you,” replied Harrington.

“I understand you, then, to deny that any revelation professedly given to you or to me does, or ever can, come to us through any external channel, printed or on parchment, ancient or modern, by the living voice or in a written character; and that this is a proper translation, in a generalized form, of the phrase ’a book-revelation’?”

“I admit it.  For surely, as already said, it would be truly ridiculous to allow that Paul, if we could but hear his living voice, was to be listened to with implicit reverence as an authorized teacher of divine truth; but that his deliberate utterances, recorded in a permanent form, were to be regarded not merely as less authoritative, but of no authority at all.”

“So that if you saw Peter or Paul to-morrow, you would tell him the same story?”

“Of course I should,” replied Mr. Fellowes.

“And you would of course also reject any such revelation, coming from any external source, even though the party proclaiming it confirmed it by miracles?  For I cannot see how, if it be true that an external revelation is impossible, and that God always reveals himself ‘within us’ and never ‘out of us,’ (which is the principle affirmed,)—­I say I cannot see how miracles can make any difference in the case.”

“No, certainly not.  But surely you forget that miracles are impossible on my notion:  for, as Mr. Newman says—–­”

“Whatever he says, I suppose you will not deny that they are conceivable; and that is all I am thinking of at present.  Their impossibility or possibility I will not dispute with you just now.  I am disposed to with you; only, as usual, I have some doubts, which I wish you would endeavor to solve; but of that another time.  Meantime, my good friend, be so obliging as to give me an answer to my question,—­whether you would deem it to be your duty to reject any such claims to authoritative teaching, even if backed by