an exorcist;—­the same argument precisely will apply for the possibility and utility of a revelation from God to men in general.  What has been done for you by man, even though no more were done, might, one would imagine, be done for the rest of mankind, and in a much better manner, by God.  If that internal and native revelation which both you and Mr. Newman say has its seat in the human soul, be clear without his aid, why did he write a syllable about it?  If, as you say, its utterances were not recognized, and that his statements have first made them familiar to you, the same argument (the Christian will say) will do for the Bible.  It is of little use that nature teaches you, if Mr. Newman is to teach nature.”

Fellowes was silent; and, after a pause, Harrington resumed; he could not resist the temptation of saying, with playful malice,—­

“Perhaps you are in doubt whether to say that the internal revelation which you possess does teach you dearly or darkly.  It is a pity that nature so teaches as to leave you in doubt till some one else teaches you what she does teach you.  She must be like some ladies, who keep school indeed, but have accomplished masters to teach every thing.  Shall we call Mr. Newman the Professor of ‘Spiritual Insight’?  Would it not be advisable, if you are in any uncertainty, to write to him to ask whether the internal truths which no external revelation can impart be articulate or not; or whether, though a book from God could not 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!”