CHAPTER XI: THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT, WERE WRITTEN BY THE

THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT, WERE WRITTEN BY THE INSPIRATION OF GOD; AND THIS INSPIRATION, HOWEVER IT MAY BE DISTINGUISHED, WAS PLENARY; THAT IS, THE WRITERS WERE UNDER AN INFALLIBLE GUIDANCE, 130TH AS IT RELATES TO THE IDEAS AND WORDS: AND YET, THE ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE, HABITS, AND PECULIAR DISPOSITIONS OF THE WRITERS, WERE NOT SUPERSEDED.

HAVING endeavored to establish the authenticy of the Scriptures, I come now to say something respecting the inspiration of the writers of the several books. These two subjects are, it is true, involved, in each other; and many of the arguments for the former, are conclusive in favor of the latter; but still, there is a distinction which it is important to observe. A book may be authentic, without having the least claim to inspiration, as are all true narratives of facts, written by men of veracity, in the exercise of their unassisted powers. The gospel history may be established on the common principles of human testimony, in the same manner, as any other history. Indeed, this must be done, in the order of proof, before any convincing argument can be formed, in favor of divine revelation. Accordingly, all judicious writers on the Evidences of Christianity, first attempt to establish the facts recorded in the Gospels, by an appeal to merely human testimony. This distinction is so clear, and practically so important, that many persons believe in the facts--miracles as well as others--and yet have no conviction that the history of these events was written by divine inspiration. This is understood to be the case in regard to most of those called Unitarians. Dr. Priestley, in his "Institutes of the Christian Religion," has established the authenticity of the facts, recorded by the evangelists, with great force of reasoning; and yet, in the same work, he utterly denies the plenary inspiration of these writers; but alleges, that they were men of veracity, and that their testimony should be received, just as we receive that of other credible historians; but without ascribing infallibility to them The same opinions have been maintained by many others. The authenticity of the facts is sufficient to demonstrate, that the Christian religion is of divine origin; but it does. not follow, as a matter of course, that the historian who gives an account of the facts orr which it rests, was inspired. This is a distinct inquiry; and, although, not so vitally important as the former, yet is of great moment, and deserves a serious and impartial consideration.

It may be proper, also, in this place, to distinguish between inspiration, and that illumination, which every true Christian must receive, and which is the foundation of that saving faith which is produced in the mind, by the operation of the Holy Spirit. The distinction is, that the object of inspiration is commonly to reveal some new truths; or more clearly to reveal such as were before but obscurely revealed; or, it is intended, to direct the mind, in a supernatural way, to write and speak certain things; and so superintends or strengthens its faculties, that it is enabled to communicate, with unerring certainty, truths before known; or, to form ideas and adopt expressions so sublime, as to be above the range of the natural powers of the person. But the illumination of the Holy Spirit communicates no new truths, but enables the soul spiritually to apprehend truths already revealed. Here then is the grand distinction between those spiritual influences which all Christians enjoy, and enthusiasm, which claims something of the nature of inspiration. The sober Christian can appeal to the word of God, as containing all the ideas by which his mind is affected, in its highest elevations of joy and love: but the enthusiast departs from the written word, and trusts to impulses, impressions on the imagination, immediate suggestions, dreams, or supposed visions. If these impulses or suggestions were from the Spirit of God, they would be strictly of the nature of inspiration. And, accordingly, most fanatics believe themselves to be inspired; but however strong their persuasion, we are not bound to believe in their pretensions, unless they can exhibit these external proofs, by which God is pleased to give attestation to those communications which he makes to men.

There is also a difference between inspiration, and revelation. All revelations are not made by a suggestion of truth to the mind of an individual. God often spike to people of old, by audible voices; and communicated his will by the missions of angels. Many persons have thus received divine revelations, who had no pretensions to inspiration. All the people of Israel, who stood before God at Mount Sinai, heard his voice, uttering the ten commandments, and yet no one would say, that all these were inspired. So, also, when Christ was upon earth, in more instances than one, a voice was heard declaring, that he was the beloved Son of God. Indeed, all who had the opportunity of hearing Christ's discourses, might be said to receive a revelation immediately from God; but it would be absurd to say, that all these were inspired. Dr. Dick is of opinion, that the word revelation would be more expressive, as being more comprehensive than suggestion, which last conveys the idea of an operation on the mind; whereas, truth, in many cases was made known, in other ways. But for the reasons stated above, it would not do to substitute the word revelation for inspiration; inasmuch as, multitudes received revelations, who had no claim to inspiration. And when inspiration is confined to those who wrote the books of Scripture, no other word would so clearly express the idea.

Inspiration has, by theologians, been distinguished into three kinds; that of superintendence, of suggestion, and elevation. The first of these takes place, when a historian is influenced, by the Holy Spirit, to write, and in writing is so directed as to select those facts and circumstances, which will answer the end proposed; and so assisted and strengthened in the narrative of events, as to he preserved from all error and mistake. The facts need not be revealed, because they may be well known to the writer from his own observation, and may be deeply impressed on his memory; but, no man can avoid inaccuracies and mistakes, in a narrative of facts, long past. If it is important that such a narrative be exempt from error, the writer must be inspired. But as the chief object of inspiration is, to communicate truths before unknown; so, the inspiration of suggestion is requisite, in all such eases; as when the prophets were inspired to predict the revolutions of empires; or, to communicate a message from God to a whole people, or to an individual, the ideas must of course, have been immediately suggested, by the Holy Spirit. The third species of inspiration, is, when, by a divine influence, persons are enabled to bring forth productions, in speaking or writing, far more sublime and excellent, than they could have attained, by the exercise of their own faculties. Thus, often, women, under the inspiration of God, have instantly uttered, in elevated strains of poetry, discourses in praise of God, which, by their unassisted powers, they could never have produced. In these compositions, there may be no revelation of new truth; nor is there a mere superintendence of the human faculties, as in the first case, was described; but the powers of the mind, are, for the occasion, wonderfully elevated above their common level, so that the conceptions are more vivid and sublime, and expressed in language more appropriate and striking, than would have naturally occurred to them. By an inspiration of this sort, David wrote the Psalms, and Solomon the Proverbs, and the Speakers in the book of Job, the sublime discourses, which are there recorded. Many things of this kind, are also found in the writings of the prophets.

Here, another question of some perplexity, demands our attention. It is, whether the words of Scripture, as well as the ideas, were given by inspiration. On the one hand, it is alleged, that there is no necessity for supposing that the words used in communicating revealed truth, should be suggested by the Holy Spirit; and that the fact proves that no such inspiration existed, because the style of each of the writers is peculiar, and accords precisely with his education, disposition, and turn of mind. But on the other hand, it is argued that unless the words were inspired, as well as the ideas we cannot be certain, that the writer has, in any case, communicated accurately, the mind of the Spirits; for, men are liable to mistake, in the selection of appropriate words, as much as in any thing else; and as men often fail in conveying their own ideas, in language which correctly expresses their meaning; so, also, they might make similar mistakes in the use of language, to express ideas received by inspiration; if in this matter they were left to the guidance of their own minds. It has also been plausibly urged in favor of inspiration extending to the words, that we can scarcely conceive of a revelation of truths to the mind, without supposing, that they were clothed in language. We cannot even think distinctly, much less reason conclusively, on any subject, without the intervention of words.

Now, it is probable, that, that has occured in this controversy, which has in many others; namely, that both parties are right; or, rather, that the truth will be fully possessed, by adopting the views entertained on both sides, and endeavoring to reconcile them. The fact is, that the same principles which apply to the ideas, may, without any alteration, be applied to the words. When the truths revealed were before unknown to the inspired person; and, especially--as seems often to have been the case with the prophets--when they did not fully comprehend the import of what was revealed, it is necessary to suppose, that the words, as well as ideas, were immediately suggested by the Holy Spirit. This was remarkably the case, when the apostles and others received the gift of tongues; which was nothing else but the inspiration of words, as they were needed, for the communication of the truths of the Gospel.

But as in the narration of well-known facts, the writer did not need a continual suggestion of every idea, but only to be so superintended, as to be preserved from error; in the use of language, in recording such familiar things, there existed no necessity that every word should be inspired; but there was the same need of a directing and superintending influence, as in regard to the things themselves. Here then, we see, that the language of the sacred writers might be preserved from impropriety, and inaccuracy; and yet, all the characteristics of style, peculiar to each writer, be retained. Just as if a master should so guide the hand of a child in writing, that the pen should be actually moved by the pupil; but governed and directed by the master, so as not to transgress the limits prescribed. Or, this superintendence, both as to ideas and words, may be illustrated, by the case of a father conducting a child along a narrow path. The child walks by its own activity, and takes steps according to its ability; but the father preserves it from falling, and keeps it in the straight path. Just so it is with men, when under the superintending influence of the Holy Spirit. Their own powers of understanding, memory, and invention, are not superseded, but only directed, and preserved from inaccuracy and error; but the man pursues his own peculiar method of thinking, reasoning, and expression. Ile speaks or writes in the language which he has learned, and uses that idiom and style, which have become habitual; so that inspired men, will, according to this theory, retain their peculiarity of style and expression, just as fully as if they were writing or speaking, without inspiration.

Some object to this theory of superintendence, under the impression, that it is less perfect, than if every thing was inspired by direct suggestion of the Holy Spirit. But there is really no foundation for this objection. It certainly is a matter of no consequence, how our knowledge is obtained, if only it is rendered infallibly certain. There are many things, concerning which we could not acquire a greater degree of assurance than we already possess, by inspiration of any kind: and such knowledge, acquired by the exercise of reason or intuition, is not the less valuable, because it has been obtained in a natural way. Indeed, these natural faculties, by which we are so constituted as to be capable of certain knowledge of the first principles of truth, are the gift of God, as much as any inspiration can be; and the clear intuitive knowledge, which we .possess of certain truths, may be considered as a sort of permanent inspiration; for, suppose a man, by a constant plenary inspiration, to be made absolutely sure of the truth of certain propositions, so that he could not entertain any doubt respecting them, in what respect would there be any difference between this, and the intuitive perception of self-evident principles, which every rational man by nature possesses? There would, then, be nothing gained by the inspiration of direct suggestion, in regard to our knowledge of those things, of which we already possess intuitive certainty; so, it is also evident, that in relation to all our knowledge acquired by experience, or testimony, we only need such an influence, as will enable us to communicate what ought to be recorded, for the benefit of the church, and to do this without error, either as to matter or manner.

Some, who do not deny the inspiration of the sacred writers, in the general, have thought it necessary to make concessions on this subject, which are not called for, from the nature of the case, and have thus involved the cause which they defend, in real difficulties. They have granted, that while, in all matters of real importance, the penmen of the Scriptures were guided by a plenary inspiration; yet, in trivial matters, and the relation of unimportant circumstances, they were left to their own unassisted powers; and in such matters; have, therefore, fallen into mistakes, such as are incident to other honest historians, in similar circumstances. Now, no evil or inconvenience would result from this hypothesis, if the line could be definitely drawn, between the parts of the book, written by inspiration, and those in which the writers were left, to themselves. But as no human wisdom is sufficient to draw this line, the effect of this opinion is, to introduce uncertainty and doubt, in a matter, concerning which assurance is of the utmost importance. And it is in itself an improbable supposition, that the spirit of God should infallibly guide a writer in some parts of his discourse, and forsake him in other parts. If we find a witness mistaken in some particulars, it weakens our confidence in his general testimony. And could it be shown, that the evangelists had fallen into palpable mistakes, in facts of minor importance, it would be impossible to demonstrate, that they wrote any thing by inspiration.

The case of Paul is often adduced to prove, that a writer, who, for the most part, was inspired, may, in particular cases, be left to follow his own opinions. [45] If the meaning here ascribed to this apostle, and which, perhaps, is the most obvious, should be admitted, yet it. would riot authorise the opinion which we are now opposing. It would only follow, that in these few excepted cases, Paul was not inspired; which would leave us to enjoy full confidence in what he says, in all other cases, as being spoken by divine inspiration. But it may well be doubted, whether this was the true meaning of the apostle. It is much more probable, that all that he intended to teach, was, that our Lord Jesus Christ had delivered no opinion on the point which he was treating; but that he, by the aid of the spirit which was in him, expressed an opinion, which evidently he intended should be authoritative. And he plainly intimates, that be spoke by inspiration, when he says, "And I think also that I have the spirit of God." The import of this declaration, according to the usage of the New Testament, is, that Paul was persuaded that he was inspired, in uttering the sentiments which he did. The words "I think" should not be interpreted as signifying any doubt or uncertainty, for that is not at all the meaning of the original; but as being the expression of the conviction of his own mind. There is, therefore, no need to suppose, that Paul intended to intimate, that lie wrote any thing without the aid of divine inspiration. It would be strange, indeed, that lie who was inspired for all other purposes, should be left to himself in this one instance: and this is not to be reckoned among the least important matters which have fallen from his pen.

The true doctrine of inspiration then, is, SUCH A DIVINE INFLUENCE ON THE MINDS OF THE SACRED WRITERS, AS RENDERED THEM EXEMPT FROM ERROR, BOTH IN REGARD TO THE IDEAS AND WORDS.

This is properly called PLENARY inspiration. Nothing can be conceived more satisfactory. Certainty, infallible certainty, is the utmost that can be desired, in any narrative; and if we have this, in the sacred Scriptures, there is nothing more to be wished, in regard to this matter.

That the Scriptures of the Old Testament were appealed to, and constantly spoken of; as inspired, and as free from error, is capable of the clearest proof. Christ said to the Jews, "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, but they are they which testify of me." "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me." On another occasion, he said, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures," where, it is evidently implied, that the Scriptures are an unerring rule. In the same chapter, it is recorded, that Jesus confounded the Pharisees by asking them, how David could, IN SPIRIT, call Christ, Lord, when he was his son. Again, Christ, after his resurrection, expresses this sentiment in the strongest terms: "These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you; THAT ALL THINGS MUST BE FULFILLED, which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understandings, that they should understand the Scriptures; and said unto them, thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, on the third day." In the preceding part of the same discourse, this idea is also clearly exhibited. "Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all. the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself. And they said one to another, did not our hearts burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures?" So, also, in the garden of Gethsemene, our Lord in addressing Peter, said, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be." The same infallible authority is ascribed to the Old Testament, by Christ, in his dispute with the Jews, recorded in the tenth chapter of John. "Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came; and THE SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN." We have, besides, many passages, in which the evangelists refer to the Holy Scriptures, as an infallible standard of truth. "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him, that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake--Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?" "Therefore, they could not believe, because that Esaias said again--he hath blinded their eyes," &c. "For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, a bone of him shall not be broken. And again, another Scripture saith, they shall look on him whom they have pierced."

The apostles are not less explicit, in testifying to the inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, than Christ and the evangelists. Paul, in his second epistle to Timothy, puts him in mind, "that from a child he had known the Holy Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus;" and then adds, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." The Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his childhood, must have been the books of the Old Testament, for, at that time, no others had been written: but when Paul goes on to declare, that "all Scripture was given by inspiration of God," he might have included under this general expression, all the books of the New Testament, which had been published, before his second imprisonment at Rome; and this would comprehend, probably, the first three Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and all his own epistles, besides; for this seems to have been the last of Paul's writings; for in the close of this epistle, he says, "For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand." And that, about this time, the writings of Paul were, by the Church, reckoned among the sacred Scriptures, we learn from the second epistle of Peter, which was probably written about this time, or a little before. His words are remarkable, as containing the only clear testimony, on record, of one apostle, to the writings of another. "And account," says he, "that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you. As, also, in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood; which they that are unlearned and unstable pervert, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." Hence, it would appear, that Paul's epistles were now well known, and were reckoned among the other Scriptures, by the apostle Peter. Certainly, then, Paul himself might have included them, as well as the other published books of the New Testament, under the phrase "all Scripture;" and if so, this passage will contain a strong testimony to the inspiration of the whole of the Old Testament, and a large part of the New Testament. And admitting the facts, of Paul's miraculous conversion, divine mission as an apostle, and that he was richly endowed with the gifts of tongues, of healing, of prophecy, &c., we cannot deny that he is a witness, in this case, on whom we may repose the most perfect confidence.

The apostle Peter has also given the most unequivocal testimony, to the inspiration of the prophets who penned the Old Testament. He had been speaking concerning the wonderful scene of which he was a witness, on the mount of transfiguration, whereupon, he goes on to say, "We have a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." There is another testimony of this apostle, in his first epistle; in which he clearly speaks of the inspiration of the prophets. "Of which salvation the prophets have inquired, and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you; searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it certified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves but unto us, they did minister the things which are now reported unto you, by them that have preached the Gospel unto you, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven."

That the Scriptures of the Old Testament were continually recognized by4he apostles, as given by inspiration of God, is so evident from every mention of them, that it may seem to be a waste of time, to adduce the testimonies; but the subject is exceedingly important, and we cannot too frequently have these evidences set before our eyes.

In the epistle to the Hebrews, there are many clear testimonies, some of which I will bring forward. In the very first sentence, it is said, "God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days, spoken unto us by his Son." Whatever is spoken by the prophets is represented throughout this book, as spoken by God himself. Thus, in the same chapter, it is declared, "And when he bringeth the first begotten into the world, HE saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And to the angels, HE saith, who maketh his angels spirits--but to the Son, HE saith, thy throne O God is for ever and ever." Now, all these passages, where God is said to speak, are quotations from the Psalms. Certainly then, we may conclude, that whatever is spoken in this book of Psalms, is from the inspiration of God. The same is the fact, in the next chapter, where a large part of the eighth Psalm is quoted, and applied to Christ. So, also, the Captain of our Salvation is represented as saying certain things, which are found written in the Old Testament. "Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren"--"And again, I will put my trust in him." And in the third chapter of this epistle, we have a quotation from the Psalms in the following remarkable words, "Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts." And in the fourth chapter, the same style is used as before." For HE spake in a certain place of the seventh day, in this wise, and God did rest the seventh day from all his works." And in the fifth. "But HE said unto him, thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, thou art a priest, forever after the order of Melchisedek." And God is represented as the speaker; not only in what is written in the Psalms, but in the prophets also. Thus, in the eighth chapter, we have a long quotation from Jeremiah, which is declared to be, the word of the Lord. "Behold the days come saith the Lord," &c. One more testimony from this book shall suffice. In the tenth chapter, it is said, "Wherefore the Holy Ghost also is a witness unto us; for after that he had said before, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord."

Nothing can be more evident then, than that as the writers of the Old Testament declared themselves to speak what they received from the Lord, so the whole of the Scriptures are continually referred to, and recognized, as given by inspiration; insomuch, that it would he difficult to find a single passage, in which these Scriptures are mentioned, in which this idea is not expressed, or clearly implied. And it will be shown, hereafter, that the writers of the New Testament claim inspiration for themselves.

lf, as has been shown, the Old Testament was written by inspiration, and if the New Testament contains a revelation from God, not less important; and which, in fact, is the completion of the Old, can we believe, that. while prophets were inspired to write the former, the latter was left to be marred and obscured, by the weaknesses of uninspired men?

To accomplish the purpose intended by revelation, it seems necessary, that the writers who communicate it to posterity, should be guided by inspiration. The end of revelation is, to convey to men, a certain knowledge of truth, to guide their faith and practice. But if the book which contains such a revelation, is composed by erring, fallible men, we never can be sure, in any particular case, that we are in possession of the truth revealed. The men may be honest and faithful, but we know that all men are liable to errors and mistakes; and all men are more or less under the influence of prejudices and prepossessions. It is evident, therefore, that the purpose of giving a revelation, would be, in a great measure defeated, unless inspired men were employed to make the record by which it is to be transmitted to the various nations of the earth, and to posterity.

Again, when we carefully consider the subject matter of the books of the New Testament, we cannot repose implicit confidence in what is taught, unless we have evidence that the pens of the writers were under the guidance of inspiration. To record the discourses which a man hears, and transactions which he sees, seems, at first sight, to require nothing more than veracity and integrity, in the historian. This might, to a certain extent, be admitted, if the witness instantly noted down what he heard, or saw; but who can believe, that after the lapse of eight, fifteen, or fifty years, the evangelists would be able to record, with perfect accuracy, long discourses of their Master; and, to relate correctly, all the circumstances of the miracles, of which they have given an account? It may be said, indeed, that they could give, substantially, the facts of which they were witnesses; but this is far from being satisfactory. Such a record would lose a portion of that reverence which it ought to receive, to give it a commanding authority over the conscience, and to be a solid foundation for unshaken confidence, And in regard to mysterious and sublime doctrines, which the apostles teach in their epistles, if once we admit the idea, that they were fallible men, we shall continually be liable to doubt;--we shall be afraid that they have misapprehended, or forgotten, what they had heard: or, that under the bias of prejudice or inclination, they may have been led, insensibly, to give a distorted view of the truths which they inculcate.

But we are not left to conclude, from the necessity of the case merely, that the writers of the New Testament were inspired, by the Holy Ghost. We have clear and abundant proof, that our blessed Lord promised infallible guidance to his disciples, whom he chose to be his witnesses to the world; and to whom he committed the propagation of his religion, through all nations, and all ages, "And I will pray the father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever: even the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." And that the Holy Spirit here promised, was to guide the apostles in delivering their testimony, may be inferred from what is said in the xv. chapter. "But when the COMFORTER is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. And ye shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning." The promise of plenary inspiration is, however, more explicitly given, in the xvi. chapter of John. "Howbeit, when he the Spirit of truth is come, HE WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me; for be shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the father hath are mine; therefore, said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you." Christ also promised the inspiration of immediate suggestion to his disciples, when called to answer before kings and rulers, and commanded them not to premeditate what they should say, for it would be given to them at the moment what they ought to say, "For," said he, "It is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost who speaketh in you." Now we may argue, with irresistible force, if plenary inspiration was granted to the apostles to enable diem to make a proper defence, when arraigned at a human tribunal, surely they would not be abandoned to their own weakness, when preparing a record of Christ's words and actions, which was, through all ages, to be the guide of his church? If the apostles were ever inspired, we may be sure that it was, when directed to finish and record the testimony of God. The very idea, that every book of the Old Testament was given by inspiration, but that the whole of the New was composed without this aid, is revolting to the reason of man. And this will appear the more unreasonable, when we consider, that the light of the new dispensation is seven-fold clearer than that of the Old. The very forerunner of Christ, was superior to all the prophets that preceded him: but the least in the kingdom of heaven was greater than he. Then, certainly, if all the prophets only spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, the apostles, who were the chosen witnesses of Christ, and chief officers of his kingdom, were not left without this infallible guidance, when engaged in performing the most important part of the responsible duty assigned them; when executing that part of their commission, which was most effectual in extending and perpetuating his spiritual kingdom? Accordingly, the apostles claim to be inspired men; and speak with an authority which would be arrogant, if they had not written under an infallible guidance. They do not merely express their own private opinions, and endeavor to support them by argument; but they speak as men assured of the truth of what they deliver; and decide with authority and without hesitation, questions, which none but men inspired by the Holy Spirit could undertake thus positively to determine, without, exposing themselves to the charge of dogmatism and self-sufficiency.

Besides, some parts of the New Testament--like much of the old--are prophetic; and if true, could be written in no other way, than by inspiration. The Apocalypse, or Revelation given to John, is either a mere enthusiastic fable, or, it was written by inspiration; and such is the majesty of the ideas here presented, and the awful sublimity of the style, that even Dr. Priestly, was constrained to acknowledge, that it bore on its face, marks of a superhuman origin. And if we bad time to compare the prophetic representations .of this singular book with authentic history, there would arise an evidence of its inspiration, which could not be easily contradicted. Such men as, Sir Isaac Newton, Dr. Clarke, bishop Hurd, bishop Newton, and a multitude of others, have seen in this book, the most convincing .proof of divine inspiration. The same may be said of all the prophecies of the Old and New Testament. if there is any truth, whatever, in them, they must be inspired; for, none but inspired men can foretell future, contingent events. Indeed, in all the cases, where Moses and others declare, that God spoke to them, and communicated instructions, or laws, they must be considered as divinely directed, unless we deny their veracity. But we are now reasoning on the hypothesis, that the books are authentic, and written by men of truth and honesty.

The style of the evangelists has often been adduced as an evidence of their inspiration. Not that they write with an elegance and sublimity which cannot be imitated; but because they write as persons divested of the feelings which commonly belong to men. They write with an unaffected simplicity, and with an impartial, dispassionate regard to truth, that has no parallel, and has never been successfully initiated. How could illiterate men produce such works as the Gospels, without inspiration? Select a thousand sensible men, but unaccustomed to composition, and set them to write a simple history of the most remarkable transactions with which they have been conversant, and there will not be in any one of them, an approximation to the characteristic manner of the evangelists. Others, and men possessed of more learning than the apostles, have undertaken, without inspiration, to write Gospels, as if composed by some one or other of these holy men; but you cannot place the evidence of the inspiration of the genuine Gospels, in a stronger light, than by contrasting them with any, or all the apocryphal writings, under the names of the apostles.

But we are in danger here of repeating what has already been said, under the head of the Internal Evidences of Christianity. The truth is, that the whole of the arguments from this source, for divine revelation, are directly in point, to prove the doctrine of inspiration; and, therefore, instead of going over the ground a second time, I would refer to what has been said, in the preceding chapter.

Miracles, also, furnish the most conclusive proof of inspiration, where it can be ascertained, that the writer of any book of Scripture possessed the power of performing such works; for, the very end for which miracles were exhibited, was to prove that the person speaking was sent from God, to deliver some message. As Nicodemus properly said, "We know that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do the miracles which thou doest, unless God be with him." Well, if miracles are sufficient to prove the truth of an oral communication, will they not also be equally conclusive, in favor of a written declaration? If there be any difference, it is in favor of the latter, because it is much more important, that a written discourse, intended for the instruction of all ages, should be well attested, than a discourse from the lips, which is heard by few, and can never be recovered after it has been spoken.

In the whole of what has been said on the subject of inspiration, the truth of the facts recorded in the New Testament has been taken for granted; and, also, that the Scriptures contain a divine revelation. We are not arguing with infidels, but with those, who, while they acknowledge the divine origin of the Christian religion, doubt, or deny, that the persons who wrote the books of the Old and New Testament, were guided by a plenary inspiration. Now, as these persons admit that the apostles and evangelists were men of veracity and integrity, their testimony, on this subject, ought to be decisive. If they claim inspiration, we cannot deny it to them, without invalidating all the strongest evidences of the truth of Christianity. Why were they endowed with the power of working miracles, but that full credence might be given to what they testified; and when they declare, that they were moved by the Holy Ghost; and that what they delivered, was not the word of men but the word of God, received by divine revelation, do not these miraculous powers which they possessed, as fully confirm what they wrote, as what they spoke?

Having before shown, that the apostles furnish ample testimony to the inspiration of the Old Testament, we shall now adduce a few texts to prove, that they claimed inspiration for themselves. Their message is every where called THE WORD OF GOD; and Paul declares, that what he preached, he received not from man, but "from the revelation of Jesus Christ." that the things which he wrote, were "The commandments of the Lord;" and that the things which he and his brethren taught, "God had revealed them to them by his Spirit." He, therefore, declared, "He who despiseth the things which he taught, despised not men but God." Peter ranks "the commandments delivered by the apostles, with the words of the Holy Prophets; and as has been before remarked, reckons the epistles of Paul, with the other Scriptures." John says, "We are of God; he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."

The only thing wanting to complete the evidence of the inspiration of the New Testament, and consequently that of the Old, is to show, that these writings were received unanimously by the Christian Church, as inspired writings. But although, there exists abundant evidence of this fact, yet to pursue it would lead., us too much into detail, and would not comport with the studied brevity of this work. And I am the less inclined to enter on the labor of collecting this testimony, here, because I have attempted this in another work. I may say, however, that in the early ages of the Church, no Christian ever called in question the inspiration of the sacred volume; but all held this as a fundamental point, in their religion. It was left for those, who chose to style themselves rationalists, in modern times, to admit the authenticity of the facts recorded in the Bible; while they utterly deny the plenary inspiration of the writers. But this is ground on which no consistent reasoner can long stand. The truth is, if the miracles and prophecies of the Scriptures be acknowledged, and the divine origin of Christianity be admitted, the inspiration of the penmen of these books must follow as a corollary. It cannot be denied without the greatest inconsistency. And, on the other hand, if inspiration be denied, the authenticity of the miracles and prophecies will soon Le abandoned. The course of theological opinion among the neologists of Germany, for a number of years past, furnishes a striking illustration of the truth of the aforesaid observations. For a while, the assault, in that country, was merely upon the doctrine of inspiration; but no sooner was that ground conceded, than the critics directed their artillery against the authenticity of the miraculous facts and prophecies.

There is no end to the objections which may be started against the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, just as is the fact in regard to the visible universe, as. the work of God; and it cannot be denied, that there is a striking analogy between the mode of reasoning pursued by atheists and deists. But the foundation of all their arguments is human ignorance and they cannot, form the conception of a creation, by a Being of almighty power and infinite wisdom, and of a supernatural revelation from such a being, which would not be liable. to as great, and much greater objections, than they are able to bring forward against his works and word, as they do actually exist. If such men could be induced,. in a calm and unprejudiced manner, to examine this subject, I would recommend to them a careful perusal of Butler's Analogy, between Natural and Revealed Religion; and to the deist, I would especially recommend the seventh chapter, of the second Part, where. the author, in a manner peculiar to himself, makes first, some observations ON THE PARTICULAR EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY, and then, in the close, exhibits a view of the evidence arising from a general survey of the contents of the Bible. The argument, as presented in this last form, is so original and striking, that I would insert it in this place, were I not afraid of swelling this volume to an inconvenient size. The whole of the second book of the Analogy may be considered as the most satisfactory method of meeting the popular objections to divine revelation, which was ever adopted.

And in regard to particular objections, arising from apparent discrepancies, from extraordinary facts, and from mysterious doctrines, found in the sacred volume, it will be sufficient to refer the inquisitive reader, to the first volume of Horne's Introduction, and to Dr. Dick's deservedly popular work, on Inspiration; and also, to learned commentators, some of whom have taken much pains to reconcile seeming contradictions, and to elucidate obscure passages, by an application of the rules of sacred criticism. I would only further remark, in relation to the usual objections to the inspiration of the Scriptures, that they militate as fully against the authenticity of the facts, as against, the inspiration of the writers; and, therefore, do not require to be considered and obviated under this head.

A summary of the whole evidence for the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, of the Old and New Testament, is as follows:--All the Internal Evidences of Christianity, whether arising from the peculiar excellence of the matter, or the simplicity and sublimity of the style--from the perfection of the character ascribed to Jesus Christ--from the continual recognition of the over-ruling Providence of God--from the pure and elevated spirit of devotion which breathes through the sacred pages--from the penetrating and transforming efficacy of the Holy Scriptures--and from, their adaptation to the constitution of the human mind,. and to the existing relations among men;--go to prove, that they were written under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Again, every prophecy which has been fulfilled, furnishes undoubted and independent evidence of the inspiration of that particular part of the Scriptures; and all the laws which proceeded from the mouth of Jehovah, must be considered as infallible precepts, unless we should call in question the whole truth of the narrative.

The writers, for the most part, were endued with the power of working miracles. These facts, it is admitted, prove that God spake by them; and if the: prophets and apostles were inspired in the discourses, which they delivered, then a fortiori, they must have been inspired in preparing those writings which were intended to guide the faith and practice of believers, through all ages.

Moreover, the sacred writers, generally lay claim to inspiration. They speak authoritatively in the name of the Lord. They call their message, the WORD OF GOD and Christ has set his seal to the plenary inspiration of all the Scriptures of the Old Testament. The apostles and evangelists, in the most explicit manner; declare the same truth.

Besides, Christ promised plenary inspiration to his disciples; and they professed to be under the guidance of the Spirit, in what they wrote.

And, finally, while some of the apostles were living, their writings were classed with the divine Scriptures; and were universally received as inspired, and as the infallible word of God, by the whole primitive Church.

We cannot but conclude, therefore, that all the books of the Old and New Testament, were written by the inspiration of God; and contain an infallible rule, to guide the faith and practice of the church, to the end of the world. __________________________________________________________________

[45] See 1 Cor. vii. 12-40. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

NOTES. __________________________________________________________________

NOTE A.
AN APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VI.
On the Proof of Miracles by Testimony.

IN a recent popular, but anonymous publication, entitled, Essays on the Pursuit of Truth, on the Progress of Knowledge, and the Fundamental Principles of all Evidence and Expectation, By the Author of Essays on the Formation and Publication of Opinions," the doctrine of ne, on the subject of testimony, has been exhibited in a ...a somewhat new and imposing, And as this writer has ired considerable celebrity in England, and his Essays have been republished in Philadelphia, and recommended strongly to the public, upon the authority of the Westminster Review, it seems necessary to guard the public against the insidious design of these Essays; which we have reason to think, was not known to those concerned in the republication of the work in this country. Indeed, the ingenious author, never brings the subject of divine revelation directly into view, in all that he has written; and I believe, the word "miracles" does not occur in either of the volumes which he has published nevertheless, it is a fact, that in the last of his essays, he has revived, in substance, the famous argument of Hume, on miracles; and has, with even more concealed istry; than that celebrated infidel employed, endeavored to e that no testimony, however strong, is sufficient to establish fact which involves a deviation from the regular course of the laws of Nature. But that I may not be suspected of misrepresenting the sentiments of this discriminating and popular writer, I will here insert an extract, from the Essay before-mentioned, which contains the substance of the whole argument.

"But it is only a small part of our knowledge of past events which we gather from physical evidence. By far the most important source of information of such events is the testimony of human beings; and it is a curious, interesting, and momentous inquiry, whether we proceed on the same principle when we avail ourselves of this moral evidence to penetrate into the past, as when we make use of that which is of a purely physical character.

"Testimony must be either oral or written. As far as the mere physical circumstances are concerned, we evidently commence our use of it by reasoning from effects to causes. We infer, for example, that the writing before us has been the work of some human being, in doing which we of course assume the uniformity of causation. If from the circumstances attending the testimony we infer that is entitled to be received as veracious; if for instance, we find that it has proceeded from a man of tried integrity, and who acted under the influence of motives which render it unlikely that he should deceive, our inference still proceeds on the assumption of the same principle. I may have in other cases found these circumstances to have been the precursors or causes of true testimony; but how can I or any one tell that they have operated in the same way in the instance before me? The reply must evidently I be, that it is impossible to avoid assuming that the same causes have invariably the same effects.

"In fact, if we examine any of the rules which have been laid down for the reception of testimony, or any of those marks which have been pointed out as enabling us to judge of its credibility, we shall find them all involving the uniformity of causation. It is allowed on all hands, that the concurrence of a number of witnesses in the same assertion, their reputation for veracity, the fact of the testimony being against their own interest, the probability of detection in any false statements, are all circumstances enhancing the credibility of what they affirm. These are considered as general principles on the subject gathered from experience, and we apply them instinctively to any new case which may be presented to us, either in the course of our own observation, or as having taken place at some former period. But it is obvious from what has just been said, that unless we assume a uniformity in the succession of causes and effects, we cannot transfer our experience from any one case to another. That certain circumstances have produced true testimony in one or a hundred instances, can be no reason why they should produce it in a different instance, unless we assume that the same causes have necessarily the same effects.

"It is clearly shown by this reasoning, that in the reception of testimony and the use of physical evidence we proceed on the same principle. But in the case of testimony there is a peculiarity not belonging to physical evidence. In the former we not only have certain effects from which it is our task to infer the causes, or certain causes from which to infer the effects; as when we judge the writing before us to have been the work of some human being, or the testimony to be true on account of the circumstances under which it was given; but the testimony itself consists of the assertion of facts, and the nature of the facts asserted often forms part of the grounds on which the veracity of the testimony is determined; it frequently happens, that while external circumstances tend to confirm the testimony, the nature and circumstances of the facts attested render it highly improbable that any such facts should have taken place, and these two sets of circumstances -may be so exactly equivalent as to leave the mind in irremediable doubt. In the consideration of both, however, the same assumption is involved. We think the facts improbable, because we have found them rarely occurring under the circumstances stated; we think the testimony likely to be true, because we have generally found true testimony to proceed from witnesses acting under the influence of similar motives, and what we have found to happen in other cases we are irresistibly led to conclude must also happen in the case before us.

"The opposition of the circumstances of the evidence and the nature of the facts may be carried still further. Assertions are frequently made which in themselves imply a breach of the uniformity of causation. From such cases the conclusions already established remove all difficulty. To weigh probabilities, to determine what credit is due to two sets of conflicting circumstances, neither of which as far as our knowledge extends is irreconcilable to the usual course of nature, is often a nice and arduous task; but if the principles of this essay are correct, it is easy to see what reception ought to be given to assertions professedly implying a deviation from the uniform succession of causes and effects.

"Suppose, for instance, any person to affirm that he had exposed a cubic inch of ice to a temperature of 200 degrees of Fahrenheit, and that at the expiration of an hour it had retained its solidity. Here is a sequence of events asserted which is entirely at variance with the admitted course of nature; and the slightest reflection is sufficient to show that to believe the assertion would involve a logical absurdity. The intrinsic discrepancy of the facts could never be overcome by any possible proofs of the truth of the testimony.

"For let us put the strongest case imaginable; let us suppose that the circumstance of the ice remaining unmelted, rests on the concurrent testimony of a great number of people, people too of reputation, science, and perspacity, who had no motive for falsehood, who had discernment to perceive and honesty to tell the real truth, and whose interests would essentially suffer from any departure from veracity. Under such circumstances false testimony it may be alleged is impossible.

"Now mark the principle on which this representation proceeds. Let us concede the positions, that what is attested by a great number of witnesses must inevitably be true,--that people of reputation and intelligence without any apparent motive for falsehood are invariably accurate in their testimony, and that they are above all, incapable of violating truth, when a want of veracity would be ruinous to their interests. Granting all this, I ask the objector, how he knows that these things are so; that men of this character and in these circumstances speak truth? He will reply that he has invariably found them to act in this manner: but why, because you found them to act in this manner in a few or even in many cases, within your own experience or in the experience of ages, do you conclude that they have acted so in all cases and in the case before us? The only answer is, that it is impossible not to take for granted, that in precisely similar circumstances similar results will ensue, or that like causes have always like effects.

"Thus on the ground of the uniformity of causation, he would be maintaining the competency of testimony to prove a fact which implies a deviation from that uniformity."

Now it will abbreviate the answer to this specious argument, to acknowledge, that the general principle which this author takes so much pains to establish, and on which he builds his reasoning, is freely admitted, to be not only correct, but self-evident. That the same causes uniformly produce the same effects, is a truth so obvious, and so generally admitted, that it. was unnecessary for the ingenious author of this essay, to spend so much time in rendering it evident. And I am willing to admit its certainty to be as undoubted in moral, as in physical subjects. But while I freely admit, that the same causes will uniformly be followed by the same effects, I do by no means accede to the proposition, which our author seems to consider as of the same import; namely, that the course of nature, or the laws of nature, never have been interrupted, or suspended; and the whole appearance of force and plausibility which the argument of this writer possesses, arises from the artful confounding of these distinct propositions. I agree, that no testimony can be strong enough to induce a rational man to believe that the same causes will not be attended with the same effects: for this would be to assent to an evident absurdity. But it is an entirely different thing to believe, that the laws of nature have sometimes been suspended; for in this case, we suppose, that an extraordinary cause has intervened. To believe, that a divine power has interposed to change the course of nature, is surely not the same thing, as to believe that the same cause which commonly produced one effect, is now attended by another entirely different. The natural causes, it is true, remain the same, but the general proposition slated above, is not true, if confined only to these. If there exist supernatural causes, or a power superior to the laws of nature,--and this our author does not profess to deny--then the laws of nature, or mere natural causes may remain the same; and yet, by the operation of these supernatural causes, effects entirely diverse from those that would be the sequence of natural causes, may take place, And the author himself seems in one place to, have been aware of this distinction, and to admonish the reader of its existence; and yet, through the whole of the argument he proceeds, as if the two propositions were identical. fie ought, however, to have recollected, that while no man in his senses disbelieves the first proposition, much the greater number of men have believed, that in some cases the laws of nature have been suspended; not, that they thought that the same causes did not, in these instances, produce the same effects, but that other causes of greater potency than natural causes, were put into operation.

When our author, therefore, infers from the uniformity of causation, that no testimony is sufficient to be the foundation of a rational belief, that there has been a deviation from the common course of nature, be applies a correct principle to a case to which it evidently does not belong. Because, the same cause must produce the same effects, does it follow, that when another and superior cause operates, the same effects must be produced? This would be in direct repugnance to his own maxim. Then, before this principle of the uniformity of causes and effects can he applied, it must be demonstrated, that in the case under consideration, no other causes operate, but such as are usual and natural, and whenever he shall be able to establish this, there will be no further contest respecting the matter.

That I do not misrepresent the argument of the author, wilt appear satisfactorily, by considering the cases which be has adduced. "Suppose, for instance," says he, "any person to affirm, that he had exposed a cubic Inch of ice to a temperature of 200 degrees of Fahrenheit, and that at the expiration of an hour, it had retained its solidity. Here is a sequence of events asserted, which is entirely at variance with the admitted course of nature; and the slightest reflection is sufficient to show, that to believe the assertion, would involve a logical absurdity, The intrinsic discrepancy of the facts could never be overcome by any possible proofs of the truth of testimony."

In another page, he says, "If a number of Men were to swear, that they had seen the mercury of the barometer remain at the height of thirty inches, when placed in the exhausted receiver of an air-pump, their testimony would be instantly rejected. The universal conclusion would be, that such an event was impossible." What is here so confidently asserted, would only be true upon the supposition, that no causes but such as were natural operated in the cases adduced; but on the hypothesis of the operation of a supernatural cause, there would be neither absurdity nor impossibility in either of the facts. What! could not He, who established these laws, and gave to heat and air, respectively, their peculiar powers and qualities, suspend their usual operation? Could not He, clause the ice to remain unmelted in any temperature; and the mercury to remain suspended, without the pressure of the atmosphere? But the sophistical nature of the argument used, is most evident. The principle is, that similar causes must have similar effects. Very good--what then? Why, if ice remain unmelted at 200 degrees of Fahrenheit, then this principle would be violated. I answer, not at all, provided another cause is in operation, of such potency as to counteract the usual effects of caloric; or to counteract the gravity of the quicksilver, in vacuo. And it will not do to allege, that God, who established these laws, will not contravene them, on any occasion; for this would be an entire change of the ground of the argument, and a relinquishment of the principle on which the reasoning of our author is founded. Besides, it would be a mere begging the question in dispute.

Now, in both the cases adduced by this writer, to illustrate and confirm his argument, on which he pronounces so confidently, that the judgment of men would universally reject any testimony, I beg leave to be of a different opinion, and will appeal to the common sense of all reflecting men, whether, on the supposition, that a dozen men of perspicacity and undoubted integrity, should solemnly affirm that they had seen a cubic inch of ice remain an hour unmelted at 200 degrees of Fahrenheit, whether they could refuse their assent? even if they knew of no good reason why the laws of nature should be suspended. But if they knew that an important purpose in the divine government could be answered by such a miracle, much less testimony would be sufficient to produce unwavering conviction of the truth of the extraordinary fact. And while they assent to such facts, on sufficient testimony; they are guilty of no absurdity, and violate no rule of common sense. It is true, that the credibility of the event reported, may be reduced to this question--whether is it more probable, that the laws of nature should, for a good end, be suspended, or that twelve men of tried veracity, should agree to assert a falsehood, without any motive to induce them to do so? And here our ingenious author revives the metaphysical balance or Mr. Hume; and after admitting that the evidence from testimony may be so strong that nothing is wanting to give it force, yet the maxim, that the same causes must have the same effects, is also a truth so certain, that no evidence can countervail it. We have, therefore, according to this statement, the equipoise of evidence, which we have already considered, in Mr. Hume's argument. The rational mina, in such circumstance, must remain neutral; it can neither believe nor disbelieve; for the evidence for the one exactly counterbalances that for the other. But after stating this hypothesis, our author finds that the evidence from testimony never can be so convincing, as that which we have for the uniformity of causation. His words are--"If the rejection and the admission of the testimony equally implied a deviation from the uniform sequence of causes and effects, there could be no reason for rejecting or admitting it."--"But the rejection of the testimony is not in this predicament. The causes of testimony, or in other words, those considerations which operate on the minds of the witness, cannot always be ascertained; and as we are uncertain as to the causes in operation, we cannot be certain of the effects, we cannot be sure that the circumstances of the witness are such as have given rise to true testimony, and consequently we cannot be sure that the testimony is true."

On this whole subject I have several remarks to make.--First, this method of destroying the equipoise of evidence granted by Mr. Hume, and conceded by himself, is not altogether fair; because it does not adroit what Is obviously true, that in regard to some kinds of testimony, the evidence is so certain, that we might as soon doubt of our own existence as of the truth of the facts attested. Now, this being the case, there was no propriety in representing all testimony as being involved in some degree of uncertainty.

Again, what is here said of testimony will apply just as fully to what we ourselves witness, and for the truth of which we have the testimony of our own senses. I mean, that if the argument of our author is at all valid, it will prove, that if we saw the ice remain unmelted in the heat, and beheld it ever so often; and found that thousands around us received the same impression, we must not credit our own senses, nor believe what we saw with our own eyes; because, however certain this kind of, evidence may be, it cannot be more certain, than the principle, that the same causes will uniformly produce the same effects. Therefore, although we should, under all manner of circumstances, see such events, they could not be believed; for to believe them would be a logical absurdity. And thus, would these men, by their metaphysics, reason us out of the evidence of our very eye-sight. I know, indeed, that neither Hume, nor the author whose reasoning, we are now considering, have pushed the argument to this its just consequence; but I would defy any man to show, that it is not as applicable to the evidence of the senses as to that derived from testimony. Now, as the kind of evidence which will invariably command assent, is not learned by metaphysical reasoning, but by experience, I would leave the matter to be decided by every man of impartial judgment, for himself. Every man knows, whether or not, he would believe his own eyes, if lie should see ice remain unmelted in 200 degrees of temperature, according to Fahrenheit: or would be say, it seems to be so, but it cannot be true, because it contradicts a self-evident principle, "that the same causes must always be followed by the same effects." To which a man of plain, unsophisticated common sense would reply, "I must believe my own senses; if doing so contradicts a thousand abstract principles, I care not--seeing is believing.'" And the same may be said in regard to testimony. Suppose a thousand persons entirely disinterested to aver, that they had seen ice remain unmelted in a very high temperature, we could not but believe them, account for the fact as we might. But we have already proved, that believing in such an event violates no maxim, but only supposes that some extraordinary power or cause is in operation; and when it is understood, that this deviation from the laws of nature is intended to confirm the declarations of some person who claims to be a messenger of God, there is not only no absurdity in the thing; but all presumption against the probability of such supernatural interposition is removed, as has been shown in the argument on that subject.

It might also be demonstrated, that upon the principles of this author, not only would it be absurd, upon any evidence, to believe in a fact which involved a real deviation from the laws of nature, but in any one which was entirely different from all our own experience of the laws of nature. For if it would be absurd to believe, on the testimony of thousands of unconnected witnesses that ice did not melt in a certain case when placed in the fire; then it was altogether rational for the king of Siam, and all others in similar circumstances, to disbelieve the fact, that water had been known to become as hard as a stone so that men and animals could walk upon it. Persons so situated never could know that. such an effect existed but by testimony; yet as this testimony contradicted all their own experience about the laws of nature, in relation to water, they ought rather to reject the testimony, however strong, than to credit a fact which seemed to involve a deviation from "the sequence of causes and effects," to use the language f this author. And thus we should be reduced to the necessity of rejecting all facts not consonant to our own personal experience; for to receive them on the ground of testimony, would be to violate the principle, that causation is uniform.

But the zeal of our author to establish his favorite point, has led him, not only to assert, that a deviation from the regular succession of the laws of nature was incredible, on the ground of testimony, but that it is, in the nature of things. impossible. In this assertion, he certainly may lay claim to originality; for I believe no one before him, not even Hume, has gone so far, in bold affirmation. His words are--"An event is impossible which contradicts our experience, or which implies that the same causes have produced different effects, or the same effects been preceded by different causes. Thus, when we pronounce that it was impossible for a piece of ice to remain in the midst of burning coals without being dissolved,. our conclusion involves a complete knowledge of this particular effect of fire on ice."

And he is so confident that this is the true import of the word impossible, that he says, "If I am not greatly deceived, the acutest reasoner, the closest thinker, the most subtle analyser of words, will find himself unable to produce any other meaning of the term, impossible, than that which is here assigned to it." But he seems to have felt that he had gone too far in this dogmatical, and I must say, irrational assertion; for in a note he gives himself, another, and one of the true meanings of the word, impossible. But as confident assertion, accompanied by no proof nor reason, is sufficiently answered by a confident denial, I would take the liberty of saying, therefore, that if I am not greatly mistaken, no accurate philologist will admit, that this is the true meaning of the word, impossible. And certainly, men of plain common sense, never can be persuaded, that it is impossible for the succession of events according to the laws of nature, to be changed. It is true, when we confine our ideas to the mere powers and qualities of nature, we do assert that their effects will be uniform, and that it is impossible that the same causes should produce different effects; but when we extend our views to the Great FIRST CAUSE, it is not only absurd, but impious, to assert, that he cannot suspend or alter the laws of nature. Nothing is impossible to him which does not imply a contradiction, or is not repugnant to his attributes.

The conclusion which is rational on this subject, is, that all things are possible to God, and whatever is possible may be believed on sufficient testimony; which testimony, however, must be strong, in proportion to the improbability of the. event to be confirmed. __________________________________________________________________

NOTE B.

Mohammed asserted, that while he was in his bed one night, the Angel Gabriel knocked at his door, and that when he went out, he saw him with seventy pair of expanded wings, whiter than snow, and clearer than chrystal. The angel informed him that he had come to conduct him to heaven; and directed him to mount an animal, which stood ready at the door, and which was between the nature of an ass and a mule. They name of this beast was Alborak, in color whiter than milk, and swift as lightning. But when the prophet went to mount, the animal proved refractory, and he could not seat himself upon its back, until he promised it a place in Paradise.

The journey from Mecca to Jerusalem was performed in the twinkling of an eye. When he arrived at the latter place, the departed prophets and saints came forth to meet him, and saluted him. Here, he found a ladder of light, and tying Alborak to a rock, he followed Gabriel on the ladder, until they arrived at the first heaven, where admittance was readily granted by the porter, when he was told by Gabriel, that the person who accompanied him, was Mohammed, the prophet of God. Here, he met an old decrepit man, who it seems was no other than our father Adam; and who greatly rejoiced at having so distinguished a son. He saw also innumerable angels, in the shape of birds, beasts, and men. This heaven was made of pure silver, and he saw the stars suspended from it, by chains of gold.

In like manner, he ascended to the second heaven, a distance of five hundred years journey, which was of pure gold, and contained twice as many angels as the former. Here, he met Noah. Thence he proceeded to the third, which was made of precious stones, where he met Abraham. The fourth was all of emerald, where he met Joseph, the son of Jacob. In the fifth, which was of adamant, lie met Moses. In the sixth, which was of carbuncle, he saw John the Baptist. In the seventh which was made of divine light, he saw Jesus Christ, and commended himself to his prayers. All the persons he had seen before, however, begged an interest in his prayers. Here Gabriel informed him, that he could go no further, and he proceeded alone, through snow and water, until he came near the throne of God, when he heard a voice, saying, "O Mohammed, salute thy Creator!" He was not permitted to come near the throne of the Almighty, on the right side of which he saw inscribed the sentence, there is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet; which is the fundamental article of the Mohammedan creed.

After being permitted to bold a long conversation with the Creator, he returned as he came, and found Alborak ready to convey him home, on whose back he swiftly glided again to Mecca. All this happened in the space of the tenth part of a night.

In the third heaven, he says, he saw an angel of so great a size, that the distance between his eyes, was of seventy thou. sand days journey. This was the angel of death, who has a large table before him on which he is ever writing and blotting out; whenever a name is blotted, the person immediately dies. He speaks also of another angel, in the sixth heaven; which had seventy thousand heads and as many tongues. __________________________________________________________________

NOTE C.

The Abbe Paris was the oldest son of a counsellor of Paris, but being much inclined to a life of devotion, he relinquished his patrimony to his younger brother, and retired to an obscure part of Paris, where he spent his life in severe penance, and in charitable exertions, for the relief of the distressed poor, He was buried in the ground of the church of St. Medard, near the wall, where his brother erected a tomb-stone over the grave. To this spot many poor people, who knew his manner of life, came to perform their devotions, as much, probably out of feelings of gratitude, as any thing else. Some among the devotees who attended at this place, professed that they experienced a salutary change in their ailments. This being noised abroad, as the Abbe had been a jealous Jansenist, all who were of this party encouraged the idea of miracles having been performed; and multitudes who were indisposed, were induced to go to the tomb of the saint; and some, as they confessed before a competent tribunal, were persuaded to feign diseases which they never bad. It is a fact, however, that the greater part received no benefit, and that more diseases were produced than were cured; for, soon, many of the worshippers were seized with convulsions, from which procceeded the sect of Convulsionists, which attracted attention for many years. It was soon found expedient to close up the tomb; but cures were still said to be performed by the saint, on persons in distant places. The Jesuits exerted themselves to discredit the whole business, and the Archbishop of Paris had a judicial investigation made of a number of the most remarkable cases, the results of which were various, and often ludicrous. A young woman, said to have been cured at the tomb of blindness and lameness, was proved to have been neither blind nor lame. A man with diseased eyes was relieved, but it appeared that he was then using powerful medicine, and that after all, his eyes were not entirely healed. A certain Abbe who had the misfortune to have one of his legs shorter than the other, was persuaded that he experienced a sensible elongation of the defective limb, but on measurement no increase could be discovered. A woman in the same situation danced on the tomb daily, to obtain an elongation of a defective limb, and was persuaded that she received benefit; but it was ascertained, that she would have to dance there fifty-four years, before the cure would be effected, at the rate at which it was proceeding; but for the unfortunate Abbe, seventy-two years would have, been requisite. In short, the whole number of cures, after examination, was reduced to eight or nine, all of which can be easily accounted for, on natural principles; and in several of these instances, the cures were not perfect. __________________________________________________________________

Indexes __________________________________________________________________

Index of Scripture References
Leviticus
[1]26:1-46
Deuteronomy
[2]28:1-68 [3]28:53
2 Kings

[4]6:5 [5]6:28 [6]6:29 [7]18:9 [8]18:10 [9]25:3 [10]25:10

2 Chronicles
[11]36:17
Psalms

[12]22:1 [13]34:1-22 [14]103:1-22 [15]104:1-35 [16]145:1-21 [17]146:1-10 [18]147:1-20 [19]148:1-14

Isaiah
[20]44:1-28 [21]45:1-25
Jeremiah
[22]10:15 [23]26:29
Lamentations
[24]4:10 [25]4:19
Matthew
[26]24:1-51
Mark
[27]13:1-37
Luke
[28]12:57 [29]19:1-48 [30]21:1-38
John

[31]14:1-31 [32]15:1-27 [33]15:26-27 [34]16:1-33 [35]16:13-15

Romans
[36]11:12 [37]13
1 Corinthians
[38]7:12-40
Hebrews

[39]3:7-8 [40]4:4 [41]5:5-6 [42]8:8 [43]10:15-16

Revelation

[44]9:3 __________________________________________________________________

Index of Latin Words and Phrases

* Cujus impugnatio testimonium veritatis est. Tanta enim dictorum
fides fuit, ut propheta incredulis hominibus non videatur futura
dixisse, sed narrasse, præterita.: [45]1
* a fortiori: [46]1
* divinitus impeditus: [47]1
* in vacuo: [48]1
* petitio principii: [49]1
__________________________________________________________________

Index of Pages of the Print Edition

[50]i [51]ii [52]iii [53]iv [54]5 [55]6 [56]7 [57]8 [58]9
[59]10 [60]11 [61]12 [62]13 [63]14 [64]15 [65]16 [66]17 [67]18
[68]19 [69]20 [70]21 [71]22 [72]23 [73]24 [74]25 [75]26 [76]27
[77]28 [78]29 [79]30 [80]31 [81]32 [82]33 [83]34 [84]35 [85]36
[86]37 [87]38 [88]39 [89]40 [90]41 [91]42 [92]43 [93]44 [94]45
[95]46 [96]47 [97]48 [98]49 [99]50 [100]51 [101]52 [102]53
[103]54 [104]55 [105]56 [106]57 [107]58 [108]59 [109]60 [110]61
[111]62 [112]63 [113]64 [114]65 [115]66 [116]67 [117]68 [118]69
[119]70 [120]71 [121]72 [122]73 [123]74 [124]75 [125]76 [126]77
[127]78 [128]79 [129]80 [130]81 [131]82 [132]83 [133]84 [134]85
[135]86 [136]87 [137]88 [138]89 [139]90 [140]91 [141]92 [142]93
[143]94 [144]95 [145]96 [146]97 [147]98 [148]99 [149]100
[150]101 [151]102 [152]103 [153]104 [154]105 [155]106 [156]107
[157]108 [158]109 [159]110 [160]111 [161]112 [162]113 [163]114
[164]115 [165]116 [166]117 [167]118 [168]119 [169]120 [170]121
[171]122 [172]123 [173]124 [174]125 [175]126 [176]127 [177]128
[178]129 [179]130 [180]131 [181]132 [182]133 [183]134 [184]135
[185]136 [186]137 [187]138 [188]139 [189]140 [190]141 [191]142
[192]143 [193]144 [194]145 [195]146 [196]147 [197]148 [198]149
[199]150 [200]151 [201]152 [202]153 [203]154 [204]155 [205]156
[206]157 [207]158 [208]159 [209]160 [210]161 [211]162 [212]163
[213]164 [214]165 [215]166 [216]167 [217]168 [218]169 [219]170
[220]171 [221]172 [222]173 [223]174 [224]175 [225]176 [226]177
[227]178 [228]179 [229]180 [230]181 [231]182 [232]183 [233]184
[234]185 [235]186 [236]187 [237]188 [238]189 [239]190 [240]191
[241]192 [242]193 [243]194 [244]195 [245]196 [246]197 [247]198
[248]199 [249]200 [250]201 [251]202 [252]203 [253]204 [254]205
[255]206 [256]207 [257]208 [258]209 [259]210 [260]211 [261]212
[262]213 [263]214 [264]215 [265]216 [266]217 [267]218 [268]219
[269]220 [270]221 [271]222 [272]223 [273]224 [274]225 [275]226
[276]227 [277]228 [278]229 [279]230 [280]231 [281]232 [282]233
[283]234 [284]235 [285]236 [286]237 [287]238 [288]239 [289]240
[290]241 [291]242 [292]243 [293]244 [294]245 [295]246 [296]247
[297]248 [298]249 [299]250 [300]251 [301]252 [302]253 [303]254
[304]255 [305]256 __________________________________________________________________

This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College, http://www.ccel.org, generated on demand from ThML source.

References

1. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Lev&scrCh=26&scrV=1#ii.ix-p8.1
2. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Deut&scrCh=28&scrV=1#ii.ix-p8.2
3. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Deut&scrCh=28&scrV=53#ii.ix-p23.2
4. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=2Kgs&scrCh=6&scrV=5#ii.ix-p18.1
5. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=2Kgs&scrCh=6&scrV=28#ii.ix-p24.1
6. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=2Kgs&scrCh=6&scrV=29#ii.ix-p24.1
7. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=2Kgs&scrCh=18&scrV=9#ii.ix-p15.1
8. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=2Kgs&scrCh=18&scrV=10#ii.ix-p15.1
9. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=2Kgs&scrCh=25&scrV=3#ii.ix-p20.1
10. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=2Kgs&scrCh=25&scrV=10#ii.ix-p16.1
11. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=2Chr&scrCh=36&scrV=17#ii.ix-p13.1
12. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=22&scrV=1#ii.ix-p54.1
13. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=34&scrV=1#ii.xi-p17.2
14. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=103&scrV=1#ii.xi-p17.2
15. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=104&scrV=1#ii.xi-p17.2
16. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=145&scrV=1#ii.xi-p17.2
17. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=146&scrV=1#ii.xi-p17.2
18. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=147&scrV=1#ii.xi-p17.2
19. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=148&scrV=1#ii.xi-p17.2
20. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=44&scrV=1#ii.ix-p41.1
21. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=45&scrV=1#ii.ix-p41.1
22. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Jer&scrCh=10&scrV=15#ii.ix-p10.1
23. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Jer&scrCh=26&scrV=29#ii.ix-p23.1
24. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Lam&scrCh=4&scrV=10#ii.ix-p25.1
25. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Lam&scrCh=4&scrV=19#ii.ix-p11.1
26. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=1#ii.ix-p61.1
27. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=13&scrV=1#ii.ix-p61.2
28. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=12&scrV=57#i-p2.1
29. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=19&scrV=1#ii.ix-p61.3
30. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=21&scrV=1#ii.ix-p61.3
31. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=14&scrV=1#ii.xi-p62.1
32. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=15&scrV=1#ii.xi-p62.1
33. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=15&scrV=26#ii.xii-p24.1
34. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=16&scrV=1#ii.xi-p62.1
35. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=16&scrV=13#ii.xii-p24.3
36. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=11&scrV=12#ii.ix-p79.1
37. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=13&scrV=0#ii.xi-p48.1
38. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=12#ii.xii-p12.1
39. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=3&scrV=7#ii.xii-p19.4
40. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=4&scrV=4#ii.xii-p19.5
41. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=5&scrV=5#ii.xii-p19.7
42. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=8&scrV=8#ii.xii-p19.9
43. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=10&scrV=15#ii.xii-p19.10
44. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=9&scrV=3#ii.x-p29.1
45. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-p43.1
46. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-p36.1
47. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-p78.1
48. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-p15.1
49. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-p11.1
50. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#i-Page_i
51. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#i-Page_ii
52. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#i-Page_iii
53. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.i-Page_iv
54. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.i-Page_5
55. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_6
56. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_7
57. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_8
58. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_9
59. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_10
60. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_11
61. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_12
62. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_13
63. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_14
64. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_15
65. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iii-Page_16
66. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iii-Page_17
67. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iii-Page_18
68. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iii-Page_19
69. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iii-Page_20
70. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iii-Page_21
71. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iii-Page_22
72. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iii-Page_23
73. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_24
74. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_25
75. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_26
76. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_27
77. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_28
78. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_29
79. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_30
80. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_31
81. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_32
82. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_33
83. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_34
84. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_35
85. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_36
86. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_37
87. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_38
88. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_39
89. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_40
90. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_41
91. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_42
92. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_43
93. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_44
94. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_45
95. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_46
96. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_47
97. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_48
98. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_49
99. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_50
100. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_51
101. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_52
102. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_53
103. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_54
104. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_55
105. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_56
106. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_57
107. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_58
108. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_59
109. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_60
110. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_61
111. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_62
112. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_63
113. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_64
114. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_65
115. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_66
116. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_67
117. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_68
118. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vi-Page_69
119. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vi-Page_70
120. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vi-Page_71
121. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vi-Page_72
122. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vi-Page_73
123. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vi-Page_74
124. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_75
125. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_76
126. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_77
127. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_78
128. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_79
129. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_80
130. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_81
131. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_82
132. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_83
133. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_84
134. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_85
135. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_86
136. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_87
137. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_88
138. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_89
139. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_90
140. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_91
141. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_92
142. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_93
143. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_94
144. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_95
145. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_96
146. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_97
147. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_98
148. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_99
149. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_100
150. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_101
151. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_102
152. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_103
153. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_104
154. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_105
155. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_106
156. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_107
157. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_108
158. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_109
159. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_110
160. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_111
161. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_112
162. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_113
163. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_114
164. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_115
165. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_116
166. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_117
167. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_118
168. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_119
169. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_120
170. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_121
171. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_122
172. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_123
173. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_124
174. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_125
175. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_126
176. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_127
177. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_128
178. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_129
179. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_130
180. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_131
181. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_132
182. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_133
183. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_134
184. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_135
185. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_136
186. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_137
187. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_138
188. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_139
189. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_140
190. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_141
191. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_142
192. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_143
193. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_144
194. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_145
195. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_146
196. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_147
197. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_148
198. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_149
199. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_150
200. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_151
201. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_152
202. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_153
203. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_154
204. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_155
205. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_156
206. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_157
207. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_158
208. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_159
209. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_160
210. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_161
211. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_162
212. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_163
213. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_164
214. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_165
215. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_166
216. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_167
217. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_168
218. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_169
219. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_170
220. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_171
221. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_172
222. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_173
223. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_174
224. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_175
225. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_176
226. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_177
227. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_178
228. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_179
229. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_180
230. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_181
231. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_182
232. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_183
233. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_184
234. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_185
235. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_186
236. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_187
237. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_188
238. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_189
239. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_190
240. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_191
241. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_192
242. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_193
243. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_194
244. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_195
245. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_196
246. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_197
247. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_198
248. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_199
249. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_200
250. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_201
251. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_202
252. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_203
253. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_204
254. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_205
255. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_206
256. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_207
257. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_208
258. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_209
259. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_210
260. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_211
261. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_212
262. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_213
263. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_214
264. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_215
265. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_216
266. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_217
267. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_218
268. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_219
269. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_220
270. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_221
271. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_222
272. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_223
273. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_224
274. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_225
275. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_226
276. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_227
277. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_228
278. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_229
279. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_230
280. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_231
281. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_232
282. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_233
283. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_234
284. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_235
285. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_236
286. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_237
287. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_238
288. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_239
289. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_240
290. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_241
291. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_242
292. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_243
293. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_244
294. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_245
295. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_246
296. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_247
297. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_248
298. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_249
299. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_250
300. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_251
301. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_252
302. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_253
303. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.ii-Page_254
304. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.ii-Page_255
305. file:///ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.iii-Page_256