23. The instance of Balaam is a case in point.* Hence we infer, that, in the commands of the Lord, there is always a clause implied or understood, which leaves it to the discretion of the faithful to act as they think proper. It is true, that this position leads immediately to the doctrines of the Jesuits, which have been so universally abhorred: but why need we regard the abhorrence of the world, while we are convinced that our tenets are scriptural? With regard to the affairs of Satan and the Lord, we leave it to your Lordships' management; but cannot help observing with derision, the futility of the objections respecting the three and seven years' famine. They have little skill in divine arithmetic, if this affords them any embarrassment. They know nothing of the sublime logic by which divines prove three to be one, and one to be three. For example, if it were affirmed that Eldon is a Lord, Castlereagh is a Lord, and Sidmouth is a Lord, and yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord, this would be termed absolute and ridiculous nonsense, notwithstanding their close Ministerial union. But in holy matters it is quite otherwise,** as might easily be elucidated by instances too sacred to be commented upon by any unconsecrated individual. * Qu. 16. ** See an excellent specimen of this in the Creed commonly ascribed to St. Athanasius. 94. Another instance of the imperfection of the art of arithmetic, as it is erroneously taught in our schools, appears in its affording no rule by which the two genealogies of Jesus Christ may be reconciled to each other. Matthew reckons twenty-seven generations from David to Christ. Luke reckons forty-two; and the names totally disagree. Matthew traces the descent from Solomon, and Luke from Nathan, both sons of David. According to our feeble notions, twenty-seven cannot be equal to forty-two, neither can Nathan, &c. be imagined to be Solomon, &c. The infidels suppose, that the two evangelists, rather than the church should be without the genealogy of its founder, chose to invent them; but we good Christians, who know that both writers were infallible and inspired, are ready to reject the clearest axioms of mere human science, and allow that, in sacred matters, the greater number may be equal to the less. These cavillers and infidels also demand how these genealogies of Joseph prove, that Jesus was the son of David, when it is avowed that Joseph was not his father? But they do not consider, that a married man is obliged to father all the children his wife may produce; and if this answer does not satisfy them, they must at all events confess, that Joseph was father-in-law to Jesus, by being married to his mother; consequently Jesus was son (in-law) to Joseph, Q. E. D. As there is no answering for the perverseness of men, there may perhaps be some, whom even this demonstration will not satisfy. To these we offer an argument discovered by the truly profound Mr. Pascal.* He justly observes, that