Surely, Fellowes, it is _you_ who forget (retorted Harrington) that syllogism depends on form, not on matter. Whether it be God or Man, makes no difference; the logic must be tried by turning the terms into X Y Z. But I have not said all Mr. Rogers says, I am bound to throw away the moral principles which I already have, at the bidding of a God whom I am bound to believe to be immoral. No, you are unfair (said Fellowes), I know he says that revelation would confirm and _improve_ your moral principles. But I am _not_ unfair. It is he who argues in a circle. What will be _improvement_, is the very question pending. He says, that if Jehovah called to me from heaven, "O Harrington! O Harrington! take thine innocent son, thine only son, lay him on the altar and kill him," I should be bound to regard obedience to the command an _improvement_ of my morality; and this, though, up to the moment when I heard the voice, I had been _bound logically_ to believe Jehovah to be an IMMORAL God. What think you of that for logic? I confess (said Fellowes, with great candour) I must yield up my friend's reputation as a _logician_; and I begin to think he was unwise in talking so contemptuously of Mr. Newman's reasoning faculties. But in truth, I love my friend for the great _spiritual_ benefits I have derived from him and cannot admit to you that he is not a very sincere believer in mystical Christianity. What benefits, may I ask? (said Harrington). I have found by his aid the peace which passeth understanding (replied he). It passes my understanding, if you have (answered Harrington, laughing), and I shall be infinitely obliged by your allowing me to participate in the discovery. In plain truth, I do not trust your mysticism. But are you in a condition to form an opinion? (said Fellowes, with a serious air). Mr. Rogers has enforced on me St. Paul's maxim: "The natural man discerneth not the things of the Spirit of God." My most devout gentleman I (replied Harrington), how unctuous you are! Forgive my laughing; but it does _so_ remind me of Douce Davie Deans. I will make you professor of spiritual insight, &c., &c., &c. * * * * * Now is not this disgusting? Might I not justly call the man a "profane dog" who approved of it? Yet everything that is worst here _is closely copied from the Eclipse of Faith, or justified by the Defence_. How long will it be before English Christians cry out Shame against those two books?