hear your Scriptural and devout language with the same feelings
with which they would nauseate that most oppressive of all odors,
--the faint scent of lavender in the chamber of death. My good uncle
here, who cannot be prevailed upon to reject the Bible will not, I
am sure, hear you, without supposing that you resemble those
Rationalists of whom Menzel says, 'These gentlemen smilingly taught
their theological pupils that unbelief was the true apostolic,
primitive Christian belief; they put all their insipidities into
Christ's month, and made him, by means of their exegetical jugglery,
sometimes a Kantian, sometimes a Hegelian, sometimes one ian and
sometimes another, 'wie es dem Herrn Professor beliebt': neither
will he be able to imagine that you are not resorting to this
artifice for the same purpose. 'The Bible,' says Menzel, 'and
their Reason being incompatible, why do they not let them remain
separate? Why insist on harmonizing things which do not, and
never can harmonize? It is because they are aware that the Bible
has authority with the people; otherwise they would never trouble
themselves about so troublesome a book.' I cannot suspect you of
such hypocrisy; but I must confess I regard your language as cant.
As I listen to you I seem to see a hybrid between Prynne and
Voltaire. So far from its being true that you have renounced
the 'letter' of the Bible and retained its 'spirit,' I think it
would be much more correct to say, comparing your infidel
hypothesis with your most spiritual dialect, that you have renounced
the 'spirit' of the Bible and retained its 'letter.'"

"But are you in a condition to give an opinion?" said Fellowes, with
a serious air. "Mr. Newman says in a like case, 'The natural man
discerneth not things of the spirit of God, because they are
foolishness unto him'; it is the 'spiritual man only who search