“There is still another word,” said Fellowes, “which you forget that Mr. Newman employs; he says that an authoritative book-revelation of moral and spiritual truth is impossible.”

“Why” said Harrington, laughing, “while you were without the truth, as you say you were, it was not likely to be authoritative:  if, when you have it, it is recognized as authoritative, which you say is the case with the truth you have got from Mr. Newman,—­if you acknowledge that it ought to have authority as soon as known, —­that is all (so far as I know) that is contended for in the case of the Bible.  If you mean by ‘authoritative’ a revelation which not only ought to be, but which is so, I think mankind make it pretty plain that neither the ‘external’ nor the ‘internal’ revelation is particularly authoritative.  In short,” he concluded “I do not see how we can doubt, on the principles on which Mr. Newman acts and yet denies, that a book-revelation of moral and spiritual truth is very possible; and if given, would be signally useful to mankind in general.  If Mr. Newman, as you admit, has written a book which has put you in possession of moral and spiritual truth, surely it may be modestly contended that God might dictate a better.  Either you were in possession of the truths in question before he announced them, or you were not; if not, Mr. Newman is your infinite benefactor, and God may be at least as great a one; if you were, then Mr. Newman, like Job’s comforters, ‘has plentifully declared the thing as it is.’  If you say, that you were in possession of them, but only by implication; that you did not see them dearly or vividly till they were propounded, —­that is, that you saw them, only practically you were blind, and knew them, only you were virtually ignorant; still, whatever Mr. Newman does (and it amounts, in fact, to revelation), that may the Bible also do.  If even that be not possible, and man naturally possesses these truths explicitly, as well as implicitly, then, indeed, the Bible is an impertinence,—­and so is Mr. Newman.”

After a pause, Harrington suddenly asked,—­

“Do you not think there is some difference between yourself and a Hottentot?”

“I should hope so,” said Fellowes, with a laugh.

“But still the Hottentot has all the ‘spiritual faculties’ of which you speak so much?”

“Certainly.”

“What makes this prodigious difference?—­for of that, as a fact, we cannot dispute.”

“Different culture and education, I suppose.”

“This culture and education is a thing external?”

“It is.”

“This culture and education, however, must be of immense importance indeed, since it makes all the difference between the having or the not having, practically, any just religious notions, or sentiments, or practices, (even in your estimation,) whatever our eternal revelation.”

“But still I hold, with Mr. Parker, that the ‘absolute religion’ is the same in all men.  The difference is in circumstantials only, as Mr. Parker says.”