whether they ever uttered these simple
'utterances'? or whether they are not part of the corruptions? or
how can you separate the one from the other? or how can you ascertain
these men meant what you mean, when you thus vilely copy their
language?"

"Because I know these truths independently of Bible, to be sure."

"Then speak of them independently of the Bible. If you profess to
have broken the stereotype-plates of the 'old revelation' and
delivered mankind from their bondage, do not proceed to express
yourself only in fragments from them; if you profess freedom of
soul, and the possession of the pure truth, do not appear to be so
poverty-stricken as to array your thoughts in the tatters of
the cast-off Bible."

"Ay, but the 'saints' of the Bible," replied Fellows, "are, even
by Mr. Frank Newman's own confession, those who have entered, after
all, most profoundly the truths of spiritual religion, and stand
almost alone in the history of the world in that respect."

"If it be so, it is certainly very odd, considering the mountain-loads
of folly, error, fable, fiction, from which their spiritual religion
did not in your esteem defend them, and which you say you are
obliged to reject. It is a phenomenon of which, I think, you are
bound to give some account."

"But what is there so wonderful in supposing them in possession of
superior 'spiritual' advantages, with mistaken history and fallacious
logic, and so forth?"

"Why" answered Harrington, "one wonder is, that they alone, and
amidst such gross errors, should possess these spiritual advantages.
But it also appears to me that your notions of the 'spiritual' are
not the same theirs, for you reject the New Testament dogmas as well
as its history; if so, it is another reason for not misleading us by
using language in deceptive senses. But, at all events, I cannot help
pitying your poverty of thought, or poverty of expression,--one or
both; and I beg you, for my sake, if not for your own, to express your
thoughts as much as possible in your own terms, and avail yourself
less liberally of those of David and Paul, whose language ordinary
Christians will always associate with another meaning, and can never
believe you sincere in supposing that it rightfully expresses the
doctrines of your most; spiritual' infidelity. They will certainly
hear your Scriptural and devout language with the same feelings
with which they would nauseate that most oppressive of all odors,
--th