=10.= That the Jewish government was destroyed, and the people dispersed into all lands; and still for many centuries, continue to be a distinct race, professing the law of Moses. If this separateness be _accounted for_, in any way, it does not destroy the fact that it was _predicted_. CONCLUSION. =1.= Recapitulation of the preceding ten observations. =2.= Add the fact that there are obvious appearances in the world, aside from the Jews, which correspond to prophetic history. =3.= These appearances, compared with Bible history, and with each other, in _a joint view_, will appear to be of great weight, and would impress one who regarded them for the first time, more than they do us who have been familiar with them. =4.= The preceding discussion, though not thorough, amounts to proof of something more than human in this matter. 1.) The sufficiency of these proofs may be denied, but the _existence_ of them cannot be. 2.) The conformity of prophecies to events may be said to be accidental, but the _conformity itself_ cannot be denied. 3.) These collateral proofs may be pronounced fanciful, but it cannot be said they are _nothing_. Probabilities may not amount to demonstration, but they remain probabilities. =5.= Those who will set down all seeming completions of prophecy, and judge of them by the common rules of evidence, will find that _together_ they amount to strong proof. Because probable proofs, added together, not only increase evidence, but multiply it. =6.= It is very well to observe objections; but it should be remembered that a mistake on one side is far more dangerous than a mistake on the other; and the safest conclusion is the best. =7.= Religion, like other things, is to be judged by all the evidence taken together. Unless _all_ its proofs be overthrown, it remains proved. If no proof singly were sufficient, the whole taken together might be. =8.= It is much easier to start an objection, than to comprehend the united force of a whole argument. =9.= Thus it appears that the positive evidence of revelation cannot be destroyed, though it should be lessened. CHAPTER VIII. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE ANALOGICAL ARGUMENT.