"Sir," replied Dr. Barlow, "it is worse than puritanical, it is hypocritical, where the principle itself does not exist, and even where it does, it is highly inexpedient to introduce such phrases into general company at all. But I am speaking of serious private conversation when, if a minister is really in earnest, there is nothing absurd in his prudent use of Scripture expressions. One great difficulty, and which obstructs the usefulness of a clergyman, in conversation with many persons of the higher class, who would be sorry not to be thought religious, is, that they keep up so little acquaintance with the Bible, that from their ignorance of its venerable phraseology, they are offended at the introduction of a text, not because it is Scripture--for that they maintain a kind of general reverence--but because from not reading it, they do not know that it _is_ Scripture. "I once lent a person of rank and talents an admirable sermon, written by one of our first divines. Though deeply pious, it was composed with uncommon spirit and elegance, and I thought it did not contain one phrase which could offend the most fastidious critic. When he returned it, he assured me that he liked it much on the whole, and should have approved it altogether, but for one methodistical expression. To my utter astonishment he pointed to the exceptionable passage, 'There is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit.' The chapter and verse not being mentioned, he never suspected it was a quotation from the Bible." "This is one among many reasons," said Mr. Stanley, "why I so strenuously insist that young persons should read the Scriptures, unaltered, unmodernized, unmutilated, unabridged. If parents do not make a point of this, the peculiarity of sacred language will become really obsolete to the next generation."