ded as to
the fact of the existence of a revelation, but seemed to allow its
possibility.(460) He examined the three great forms of religion which
professed to depend upon a positive revelation, Judaism,(461)
Mahometanism, and Christianity. The claims of the first he wholly
rejected, on grounds similar to those explained by Morgan, as incompatible
with the moral character of God. In reference to the second he anticipated
the modern opinions on Mahometanism, by asserting that its victory was
impossible, if it had not contained truth which the human spirit needed.
In examining the third he attacked, like Morgan, the evidence of
miracles(462) and prophecy,(463) and asserted the necessity of moral right
and wrong as the ground of the interpretation of scripture.

One of his most celebrated works was an explanation of "the true gospel of
Jesus Christ," which is one of the many instances which his works afford
of the unfairness produced by the want of moral insight into the woes for
which Christianity supplies a remedy, and into the deep adaptation of the
scheme of redemption to effect the object proposed by a merciful
Providence in its communication.(464) It will be perceived that the three
last writers whose systems have been explained, resemble each other so
much as to form a class by themselves. They restrict their attack to the
internal character of revelation, employ the moral rather than the
historical investigation, embody the chief speculations of their
predecessors, and offer, as has been already stated, a constructive as
well as a destructive system; morality or natural religion in place of
revealed.(465)

An anonymous work was published in 1744, which merits notice as indicating
a slight alteration in the mode of attack on the part of the deists. It
was entitled, _The Resurrection of Jesus considered_, and is attributed to
P. Annet, who died in the wretchedness of poverty.(466) It was designed in
reply to some of the defences of this subject which the writings of
Woolston and others had provoked. Its object was to show that the writings
which record the statement of Christ's prediction of his own death are a
forgery; that the narrative of the resurrection is incredible on internal
grounds, and the variety in the various accounts of it are evidences of
fraud. It indicates the commencement of the open allegation of literary
imposture as distinct from philosophical error, which subsequently marked
the criticism of t