“Reason:  Because three things are required, three things which will never happen:  firstly, I must have heard the prophecy; secondly, I must have seen its fulfilment; and thirdly, it must be clearly proved that the fulfilment of the prophecy could not by any possibility have been a mere coincidence; for even if it was as precise, as plain, and clear as an axiom of geometry, since the clearness of a chance prediction does not make its fulfilment impossible, this fulfilment when it does take place does not, strictly speaking, prove what was foretold.

“See what your so-called supernatural proofs, your miracles, your prophecies come to:  believe all this upon the word of another, Submit to the authority of men the authority of God which speaks to my reason.  If the eternal truths which my mind conceives of could suffer any shock, there would be no sort of certainty for me; and far from being sure that you speak to me on God’s behalf, I should not even be sure that there is a God.

“My child, here are difficulties enough, but these are not all.  Among so many religions, mutually excluding and proscribing each other, one only is true, if indeed any one of them is true.  To recognise the true religion we must inquire into, not one, but all; and in any question whatsoever we have no right to condemn unheard. [Footnote:  On the other hand, Plutarch relates that the Stoics maintained, among other strange paradoxes, that it was no use hearing both sides; for, said they, the first either proves his point or he does not prove it; if he has proved it, there is an end of it, and the other should be condemned:  if he has not proved it, he himself is in the wrong and judgment should be given against him.  I consider the method of those who accept an exclusive revelation very much like that of these Stoics.  When each of them claims to be the sole guardian of truth, we must hear them all before we can choose between them without injustice.] The objections must be compared with the evidence; we must know what accusation each brings against the other, and what answers they receive.  The plainer any feeling appears to us, the more we must try to discover why so many other people refuse to accept it.  We should be simple, indeed, if we thought it enough to hear the doctors on our own side, in order to acquaint ourselves with the arguments of the other.  Where can you find theologians who pride themselves on their honesty?  Where are those who, to refute the arguments of their opponents, do not begin by making out that they are of little importance?  A man may make a good show among his own friends, and be very proud of his arguments, who would cut a very poor figure with those same arguments among those who are on the other side.  Would you find out for yourself from books?  What learning you will need!  What languages you must learn; what libraries you must ransack; what an amount of reading must be got through!  Who will guide me in such a choice?  It will be