Again:  p. 126 [1st ed.] “Mr. Newman says to those who say they are unconscious of these facts of spiritual pathology, that the consciousness of the spiritual man is not the less true, that [though?] the unspiritual man is not privy to it; and this most devout gentleman quotes with unction the words:  For the spiritual man judgeth all things, but himself is judged of no man.”

P. 41, [1st ed.], “I have rejected creeds, and I have found what the Scripture calls, that peace which passeth all understanding.”  “I am sure it passes mine, (says Harrington) if you have really found it, and I should be much obliged to you, if you would let me participate in the discovery.”  “Yes, says Fellowes:... ’I have escaped from the bondage of the letter and have been introduced into the liberty of the Spirit....  The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.  The fruit of the Spirit is joy, peace, not—­’” “Upon my word (said Harrington, laughing), I shall presently begin to fancy that Douce Davie Deans has turned infidel.”

I have quoted enough to show the nature of my complaints.  I charge the satirist with profanity, for ridiculing sentiments which he himself avows to be holy, ridiculing them for no other reason but that with me also they are holy and revered.  He justifies himself in p. 5 of his “Defence,” as above, by denying my facts.  He afterwards, in Section XII. p. 147, admits and defends them; to which I shall return.

I beg my reader to observe how cleverly Mr. Rogers slanders me in the quotation already made, from p. 5, by insinuating, first, that it is my doctrine, “that man is most likely born for a dog’s life, and there an end;” next, that I have taken under my patronage the propositions, that “the miracles of Christ might be real, because Christ was a clairvoyant and mesmerist, and that God is not a Person but a Personality.”  I cannot but be reminded of what the “Prospective” reviewer says of Zeuxis and the grapes, when I observe the delicate skill of touch by which the critic puts on just enough colour to affect the reader’s mind, but not so much as to draw him to closer examination.  I am at a loss to believe that he supposes me to think that a theory of mesmeric wonders (as the complement of an atheistic creed?) is “a question pertaining to God,” or that my rebuke bore the slightest reference to such a matter.  As to Person and Personality, it is a subtle distinction which I have often met from Trinitarians; who, when they are pressed with the argument that three divine Persons are nothing but three Gods, reply that Person is not the correct translation of the mystical Hypostasis of the Greeks, and Personality is perhaps a truer rendering.  If I were to answer with the jocosity in which my critic indulges, I certainly doubt whether he would justify me.  So too, when a Pantheist objects (erringly, as I hold) that a Person is necessarily something finite, so that God cannot be a Person; if, against this, a Theist contend that God is at once a Person and a Principle, and invent a use of the word Personality to overlap both ideas; we may reject his nomenclature as too arbitrary, but what rightful place ridicule has here, I do not see.  Nevertheless, it had wholly escaped my notice that the satirist had ridiculed it, as I now infer that he did.