1817 Nov 7.

Not Paul

I. Argument

Ch. Quasi Miracles &c

§ Least improbability Paul

§. 3. Rule of least improbability or least improbability explained and justified

In the endeavour to account for a notorious or undisputed fact In every other part of the field of thought and action, reason common sense without any objection on the part of the most zealous religionists, prescribes the employing in the endeavour to account for a notorious or undisputed fact that mode of accounting that presents itself as most probable.

Why this course of which the reasonableness―the exclusive[?] reasonableness is in respect of every other part of the field of thought and action is universally admitted should not be admitted in this part―in this part in which the importance and mischievousness of error is at its maximum seems not altogether easy to pronounce.

If any opposite or different rule were admitted, in what respect would true religion in what respect would that / a portent[?] / which is admitted / embraced / as true by Protestants be a given[?] by it? How in behalf of purely Catholic miracles could it be refused admittance by Protestants? how in behalf of the miracles of the Mahometan or / and / Hindoo religions could it be refused by either Protestant or Catholic Christians? How Sentence breaks off.

Among Protestants if the opposite rule were admitted―all those verbal miracles with which the language of Methodists and even of Missionaries of other persuasion as well as that are so abundant could they be saved from being counted[?] into―from being admitted into the character of real miracles?

Thus would not only incorrect editions of the true, be proved correct, but false religions of all sorts be proved true.