This tract has since been acknowledged by Archbishop Whately[566] and reprinted. It is certainly a paradox: but differs from most of those in my list as being a joke, and a satire upon the reasoning of those who cannot receive narrative, no matter what the evidence, which is to them utterly improbable _a priori_. But had it been serious earnest, it would not have been so absurd as many of those which I have brought forward. The next on the list is not a joke. The idea of the satire is not new. Dr. King,[567] in the dispute on the genuineness of Phalaris, proved with humor that Bentley did not write his own dissertation. An attempt has lately been made, for the honor of Moses, to prove, {247} without humor, that Bishop Colenso did not write his own book. This is intolerable: anybody who tries to use such a weapon without banter, plenty and good, and of form suited to the subject, should get the drubbing which the poor man got in the Oriental tale for striking the dervishes with the wrong hand. The excellent and distinguished author of this tract has ceased to live. I call him the Paley of our day: with more learning and more purpose than his predecessor; but perhaps they might have changed places if they had changed centuries. The clever satire above named is not the only work which he published without his name. The following was attributed to him, I believe rightly: "Considerations on the Law of Libel, as relating to Publications on the subject of Religion, by John Search." London, 1833, 8vo. This tract excited little attention: for those who should have answered, could not. Moreover, it wanted a prosecution to call attention to it: the fear of calling such attention may have prevented prosecutions. Those who have read it will have seen why. The theological review elsewhere mentioned attributes the pamphlet of John Search on blasphemous libel to Lord Brougham. This is quite absurd: the writer states points of law on credence where the judge must have spoken with authority. Besides which, a hundred points of style are decisive between the two. I think any one who knows Whately's writing will soon arrive at my conclusion. Lord Brougham himself informs me that he has no knowledge whatever of the pamphlet. It is stated in _Notes and Queries_ (3 S. xi. 511) that Search was answered by the Bishop of Ferns[568] as S. N., with {248} a rejoinder by Blanco White.[569] These circumstances increase the probability that Whately was written against and for. VOLTAIRE A CHRISTIAN. Voltaire Chretien; preuves tirees de ses ouvrages. Paris, 1820, 12mo.