But had he gone on only a few lines, the reader would have seen Harrington saying: 'These words you have just quoted were well in St.Paul's mouth, and had a meaning.

In yours, I suspect, they would have none, or a very different one.'" According to this doctrine of Mr.Rogers, it would not have been profane in an unbelieving Jew to _make game_ of Moses, David, and the Prophets, whenever they were quoted by Paul.

The Jew most profoundly believed that Paul quoted the old Scriptures in a false, as well as in a new meaning.

One Christian divine does not feel free to ridicule the words of Paul when quoted erroneously (as he thinks) by another Christian divine?
Why then, when quoted by me?
I hold it to be a great insolence to deny my right to quote Paul or David, as much as Plato or Homer, and adopt their language whenever I find it to express my sentiment.

Mr.Rogers's claim to deride highly spiritual truth, barely because I revere it, is a union of inhumanity and impiety.