persuaded that, while making them, most, if not all of them felt a secret compunction and consciousness that they were doing wrong. One of them afterwards told me, that he had no doubt that, when he grew older, he should have recourse to the Scriptures, as the only source of comfort and tranquility to his mind in old age, and of hope with regard to a future state; and all of them expressed their great dislike to be called infidels even in argument, because it appeared to them a term of reproach, and because, as Lord Byron afterwards remarked, it was 66 a cold and chilling appellation." On Sunday morning I sent down a few books to M.'s house, in case it should be found necessary to refer to them. These were, the first volume of "Scott's Bible,” “ Erskine's Evidence," and "Paley and Gregory's," "Bogue's Essay" and Horne's Critical Introduction to the Scriptures." While sitting with M., a note was received from an officer who begged to be allowed to be present. This was declined, as it was wished to keep the meeting as quiet as possible, and to admit only the original members; but the officer coming himself, and stating that he had no doubt of the truth of Christianity, and that he was not influenced by a mere desire of seeing Lord Byron, but by a wish to obtain information, he was admitted, and this the more readily, as one of the gentlemen who was present when the discussion was first suggested, had left the island.

66

Count Delladecimo breakfasted that morning on board with his lordship, and continuing to sit and converse beyond the hour appointed for meeting, his lordship said that he had an engagement to meet some gentlemen to hear the truth of Christianity explained and defended, and asked the count to accompany him. When they came on shore, the count took his leave as he had other engagements, and said to his lordship, "Well, I hope your lordship will be converted." "I hope so too," he replied.

His lordship came attended by Count Gamba and Mr. Brown; and, at the same time, two other gentlemen, influenced by curiosity, arrived, who from their rank and office, could not be denied admittance. Thus our meeting, which at first was intended to be held by five persons, was now increased to ten. His lordship sat on the sofa. Colonel N.

in a chair beside him, the others formed a circle round the table at a distance from them at which I sat, being opposite to Lord B.

I began by apologizing for my boldness in undertaking

such a task, and hoped that they would excuse me when they considered the circumstances which led to it. After explaining them, I said that I did not rely on my own abilities and qualifications on the occasion, but on the nature of the subject, which was supported by such evidence, that no one who understood it could be apprehensive that its truth might be shaken or disproved by any, whatever might be his talents. I had certainly, I said, not expected such a distinguished and numerous meeting; and begged that they would acquit me of presumption if I still dared to explain and defend those truths, which I had at first simply undertaken to do to a few familiar friends.

I had some claim, I said, to be allowed to state my opinions with confidence. I had received a religious education, and had witnessed in my earliest youth many examples of genuine piety. At college I had no opportunities of mixing with pious people. My friends there, without denying the truth of Christianity, neither regarded its doctrines nor its precepts; and some of my companions, from affectation or conviction, professed themselves freethinkers. Hume, Gibbon, Voltaire Rousseau, and the other freethinking French authors, were held in high estimation among many of my friends, as those who chiefly merited the appellation of philosophers. My early impressions were never, however, so far effaced as to carry me the length of denying, or even doubting the truth of the Scriptures; but I lived almost in the total neglect of religious duties and studies, and frequently joined in the laugh and sneer against those whose lives were strict, as men of hypocritical character, or at least of a weak and narrow understanding. When doing these things, I often, indeed, felt a secret reproach of conscience, which was at times silenced by the resolution I formed, that some time or other, when it was more convenient, I would attend strictly to the study and practice of Christianity. I was of ten sensible of the inconsistency of my conduct in always talking with respect of religion,-nay, and of defending it, though very ignorantly in the company of deists, and yet joining in the ridicule against those who were more severe in regulating their lives and conversation by its doctrines. Circumstances at last led me seriously to reflect on the subject, and after two years of almost exclusive study and investigation of religious points, I took upon me the name and profession of a Christian, determined to participate in the lot

both in this world and in the next, of the sincere and humble followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

My habits of study and reflection, I said, had led me to investigate the subject with a severe scrutiny, and I examined every book which fell in my way that seemed likely to afford any elucidation of the truth. I did not confine myself to the books written by professed Christians, but was even more eager to read those which were written by their enemies; and from the time I could read, to the present time, I had perused every work against Christianity which fell in my way, and had read a greater number of infidel productions than is usually done by most laymen. From the wide and circuitous mode in which I had investigated the subject, I had become well acquainted and familiar with the writings of deists and infidels, knew the nature and value of their objections, and had found that I was much better acquainted with this class of writers than many of their most ardent followers whom I had known. It was this consideration that had induced me with such confidence, to enter upon the present discussion, knowing, on the one hand, the strength of Christianity, and, on the other, the weakness of its assailants, especially of those with whom I had originally undertaken the discussion. To show you, therefore, I said, the grounds on which I demand your attention to what I may say on the the nature and evidences of Christianity, I shall mention the the names of some of the authors whose works I have read or consulted. When I had mentioned all their names, Lord Byron asked me if I had read Barrow's and Stillingfleet's works. I said I had seen them, but that I had not read them.

The task, I said, that I had undertaken was attended with some peculiar difficulties; that I should have to talk of a change in my own mind and feelings, which I was conscious they had never felt in theirs, and that I could only convince them of this, not in the way of direct demonstration, but by testimony and analogy. The way in which this discussion was to be conducted, required on their part so much reading and reflection, and the knowledge of so many facts, of which I believed most of them were ignorant, that no other way of overcoming the difficulty presented itself, than by their giving their undivided attention to what was said. I requested them for the first hour not to consider themselves as disputants in the cause, or called upon to marshal arguments and invent objections, while I was speaking; but to divest

themselves, if possible, of all prejudices and prepossessions, and to conceive themselves as about to give an honest judg ment in a cause, the evidence in which would be clearly laid before them. Or, if they would divest themselves of all feelings of interest, their judgment would be more impartial, could they consider the question in an abstract point of view; as one, for instance, of mere science, or philosophy. After I had finished all my preliminary observations, I would pledge myself to refute every objection which could be made against the Scriptures, by showing that those objections were not founded on fact, but on assumptions, suppositions, and conjectures, or on mere propositions without proof. I said that the truth of the Scriptures was as susceptible of demonstration as any proposition in "Euclid," though by a different kind of evidence, and by a different process of reasoning, and that the truth or falsehood of the Scriptures would produce the same unerring conviction, provided we would, or could, study the evidence with the same coolness, and fredom from prepossession, with which a mathematical problem can be stated, and its falsehood or truth demonstrated. The force of evidence does not depend upon the statement of the evidence itself, for a chain of evidences might be stated with the utmost conceivable precision and accuracy; yet if the hearer listen to it with inattention, forgetting, or not hearing some of its most important points, and yet set himelf to give his opinion, it is obvious, that his being right or wrong in his judgment does not depend upon the pure exercise of his reason. Besides this, if the hearer be incapable, from want of attention or capacity, to comprehend the nature and force of the evidence presented before him; if his conclusion be erroneous, as it must of necessity be, we have no right to blame the faculty of reason, or accuse the evidence of imperfection or obscurity. The power of evidence, therefore to produce conviction depends not merely on its own nature but also on the perfect attention and the perfect capacity of understanding it by the hearer; and where these qualities are combined, the conclusion is exempt from error. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find men who can thus divest themselves of all bias and feeling in matters relating to the religion in which their hopes and fears are necessarily concerned; yet this proceeds not from any defect in the evidence, but from the imperfection and prejudices of the human mind. Some are so sensible of these difficulties, and of the apparent impossibility of examining the subject with perfect coolness

and impartiality, that they attempt to justify themselves for the total neglect of it, by throwing the blame on the difficulty and obscurity of the subject, instead of confining it, as they should do, to themselves. The nature of religion, directed to a being like man, born and educated in imperfection, and prejudice, and error, may appear, at first sight, not to have a foundation in the nature of things so clear and demonstrable as that of the mathematical sciences; but an attentive consideration of the subject will convince any one who examines it rightly, that the evidence of the truth of Christianity rests on a foundation as certain, and produces a more permanent and internal conviction, than that of any truth whatever, whether moral, physical, or mathematical. In fact, this should be the case, judging from the nature of all things a priori; for the Creator of the minds of men, and of all material existence, can, as he is omnipotent, and must, we should infer from his attributes, give a revelation, -if he gave one at all,-with that fulness of evidence which is perfect in its kind and degree, and capable of producing, when properly examined and understood, as perfect a conviction, as can be felt for any other abstract truth which we may please to call mathematical or scientific. To suppose

that there is any imperfection in the nature of the evidence which he has given of the revelation of his will, is to suppose the Deity either imperfect in his attributes, or imperfect in the manifestations which he gives of them to his

creatures.

There are two ways, I said, in which the discussion may be conducted. The first, by commencing with what is called the external evidence for the truth of the Scriptures, and then examining the internal; the second, by exactly reversing this order. The first method, which opens into a wide, varied, and no doubt interesting field of observation, and which requires or implies an extensive course of reading, is less adapted to our present meeting than the latter; and were I to attempt it,their curiosity and patience would be exhausted before we arrived at the most important part of the inquiry, namely, the nature and tendency of the truths revealed in the Scriptures; and our discussion, I feared, might probably terminate in an increased disinclination, on their part, to examine its doctrines. The best plan, therefore, it appeared to me, was first to endeavour to convey to them a clear account of the nature of the truths revealed in the Bible,—their consistency with the attributes of the Deity,—and the state of man