But I disapprove of the plan and spirit of this work, (Deism Revealed.) The cold-hearted, worldly-minded, cunning Deist, or the coarse sensual Infidel, is of all men the least likely to be converted; and the conscientious, inquiring, though misled and perplexed, Sceptic will throw aside a book at once, as not applicable to his case, which treats every doubt as a crime, and supposes that there is no doubt at all possible but in a bad heart and from wicked wishes.  Compare this with St. Paul’s language concerning the Jews.

So again, pp. 225, &c. of this volume.  Do not the plainest intuitions of our moral and rational being confirm the positions here attributed to the Deist, Dechaine?  Are they not the same by which Melancthon de-Calvinized, at least de-Augustinized, the heroic Luther;—­those which constitute one of the only two essential differences between the Augsburg Confession and the Calvinistic Articles of Faith?  And can anything be more flittery and special-pleading than Skelton’s objections?  And again, p. 507, “and that prayer which he (Tindal) is reported to have used a little before his death, ’If there is a God, I desire he may have mercy on me;’”—­was it Christian-like to publish and circulate a blind report—­so improbable and disgusting, as to demand the strongest and most unsuspicious testimony for its reception?

Ib. p. 268.

  ‘Shep’.  Pray, Mr. Dechaine, if a person, whom you knew to be an honest
          and clear-sighted man, should solemnly assure you he saw a
          dead man restored to life, what would you think of his
          testimony?

  ‘Dech’.  As I could not possibly have as strong an assurance of his
          honesty, clear-sightedness, and penetration, as of the great
          improbability of the fact, I should not believe him.

  ‘Shep’.  Well; it is true he might be deceived himself, or intend to
          impose on you.  But in case ten such persons should all, at
          different times, confirm the same report, how would this
          affect you?

There is one inconvenience, not to say danger, in this argument of Mr. Shepherd’s; namely, that of its not standing in the same force, when it comes to be repeated in the particular miraculous facts in support of which it is adduced.

Ib. p. 281.

No other ancient book can be so well proved to have been the work of the author it is now ascribed to, as every book of the New Testament can be proved to have been written by him whose name it hath all along borne.

This is true to the full extent that the defence of the divinity of our religion needs, or perhaps permits, and I see no advantage gained by asserting more.  I must lose all power of distinction, before I can affirm that the genuineness of the first Gospel,—­that in its present form it was written by Matthew, or is a literal translation of a Gospel written by him,—­rests on as strong external evidence as Luke’s, or on as strong internal evidence as St. John’s.  Sufficient that the evidence greatly preponderates in its favor.