ANALOGIES MATERIAL AND SPIRITUAL. 29% 
evidently unsound, as appears from this consideration 
alone,— that, as every induction is relative to the 
circumstances under which it is made, and as analogy 
is only a substitute for induction, so also must 
analogy express, or at least imply, that relation to 
the altered circumstances which would have been 
expressed, had the conclusion been directly obtained 
by induction. And whether we are able to state 
exactly the effect which these new circumstances 
may produce, or can only allow for it by an implied 
reference to them, the conclusion is equally logical, 
since in either case we do not proceed beyond the 
limits of the premises. It remains, however, to 
ascertain whether the allowances which we make 
for the peculiarities of each mode of divine instruc- 
tion, in tracing out by analysis the common prin- 
ciples into which they are ultimately resolvable, may 
be identified with those variations in ‘the facts of 
each system, which might be anticipated in reason- 
ing by analogy concerning the truths of Scripture, 
from the data furnished by experience. For this is 
necessary, in order to show that the facts of nature, 
and the doctrines of Scripture, are really analogous 
to each other. If the difference between a scriptural 
truth, and its counterpart in the system of nature, 
were greater or less than such as might be attributed 
to the difference of circumstances, the scriptural 
truth could not, in such a case, be regarded as a_ 
conclusion from experience, nor could the Christian 
religion be established as philosophically true.* 
(203.) “ While analogy is the happy instrument of 

* Hampden, p. 56. 
U 3 
