For Rogers is of the Paley school, and a wit; and a brilliant chap he is, like Macaulay.

Such men cannot be mystics nor Puritans in Pauline fashion; they cannot bear to hear of a religion _from within_; but, as I heard a fellow say the other day, Newman has never worked off the Puritan leaven.
Well (said Fellowes), but why do you call Mr.Rogers illogical?
I think you have seen one instance already, but that is a trifle compared to his fundamental blunder (said Harrington).
What can you mean?
how fundamental (asked his friend)?
Why, he says, that _I_ (for instance) who have so faith whatever in what he calls revelation, cannot have any just belief or sure knowledge of the moral qualities of God; in fact, am logically bound (equally with Mr.Newman) to regard God as _im_moral, if I judge by my own faculties alone.

Does he not say that?
Unquestionably; he has a whole chapter (ch.

III.) of his "Defence" to enforce this on Mr.Newman (replied Fellowes).
Well, next, he tells me, that when the Christian message, as from God, is presented to me, I am to believe it on the word of a God whom I suppose to be, or _ought_ to suppose to be, immoral.

If I suppose A B a rogue, shall I believe the message which the rogue sends me?
Surely, Harrington, you forget that you are speaking of God, not of man: you ought not to reason so (said Fellowes, somewhat agitated).
Surely, Fellowes, it is _you_ who forget (retorted Harrington) that syllogism depends on form, not on matter.