From the foregoing observations too, it will follow, and those who will thoroughly examine into revelation will find it worth remarking, that there are several ways of arguing, which though just with regard to other writings, are not applicable to Scripture: at least not to its prophetic parts. We cannot argue, for instance, that such and such cannot be the sense or intent of a passage of Scripture, for, if it had, it would have been expressed more plainly, or represented under a more apt figure or hieroglyphic. Yet we may justly argue thus, with respect to common books. And the reason of this difference is very evident. In Scripture we are not competent judges, as we are in common books, how plainly it were to have been expected, that the sense should have been expressed, or under how apt an image figured. The only question is, what appearance there is, that this _is_ the sense; and scarce at all, how much more determinately or accurately it might have been expressed or figured.[176] “But is it not self-evident, that internal improbabilities of all kinds weaken external probable proof?” Doubtless. But to what practical purpose can this be alleged here, when it has been proved before,[177] that real internal improbabilities, which rise even to moral certainty, are overcome by the most ordinary testimony; and when it now has been made to appear, that we scarce know what are improbabilities, as to the matter we are here considering: as it will further appear from what follows.