“The author,” replied the doctor, “is, I suppose, one of the Socinians; who, in a short time, will try to get rid of every doctrine in the Bible.  How did your Lordship get hold of this book?”

“They sent it out to me from England, to make a convert of me, I suppose.  The arguments are strong, drawn from the Bible itself; and by showing that a time will come when every intelligent creature shall be supremely happy, and eternally so, it expunges that shocking doctrine, that sin and misery will for ever exist under the government of God, Whose highest attribute is love and goodness.  To my present apprehension, it would be a most desirable thing, could it be proved that, alternately, all created beings were to be happy.  This would appear to be most consistent with the nature of God.—­I cannot yield to your doctrine of the eternal duration of punishment.- -This author’s opinion is more humane; and, I think, he supports it very strongly from Scripture.”

The fourth conversation was still more desultory, being carried on at table amid company; in the course of it Lord Byron, however, declared “that he was so much of a believer as to be of opinion that there is no contradiction in the Scriptures which cannot be reconciled by an attentive consideration and comparison of passages.”

It is needless to remark that Lord Byron, in the course of these conversations, was incapable of preserving a consistent seriousness.  The volatility of his humour was constantly leading him into playfulness, and he never lost an opportunity of making a pun or saying a quaint thing.  “Do you know,” said he to the doctor, “I am nearly reconciled to St Paul; for he says there is no difference between the Jews and the Greeks, and I am exactly of the same opinion, for the character of both is equally vile.”

Upon the whole it must be conceded, that whatever was the degree of Lord Byron’s dubiety as to points of faith and doctrine, he could not be accused of gross ignorance, nor described as animated by any hostile feeling against religion.

In this sketch of these conversations, I have restricted myself chiefly to those points which related to his Lordship’s own sentiments and belief.  It would have been inconsistent with the concise limits of this work to have detailed the controversies.  A fair summary of what Byron did not believe, what he was disposed to believe but had not satisfied himself with the evidence, and what he did believe, seemed to be the task I ought to undertake.  The result confirmed the statement of his Lordship’s religious condition, given in the preliminary remarks which, I ought to mention, were written before I looked into Dr Kennedy’s book; and the statement is not different from the estimate which the conversations warrant.  It is true that Lord Byron’s part in the conversations is not very characteristic; but the integrity of Dr Kennedy is a sufficient assurance that they are substantially correct.