493 
tion would be afforded us. . . . In like manner we are wholly 
ignorant what degree of new knowledge God would give 
mankind by revelation, or how far, or in what way, He would 
interpose miraculously to qualify them to whom He should 
originally make the revelation, for communicating the know- 
ledge of it, or to secure their doing it, to the age in which 
they should live; and to secure its being transmitted to 
posterity. . . . Nay, we are not in any sort able to judge 
whether it were to have been expected that the revelation 
should have been committed to writing, or left to be 
handed down, and consequently corrupted by verbal tra- 
dition. But it may be said, a revelation in some of 
the above-mentioned circumstances .... would not have 
answered its purpose. I ask, what purpose ? It would 
not have answered all the purposes which it has now 
answered, and in the same degree ; but it would have 
answered others or the same in different degrees. And 
which of these were the purposes of God, and best fell in with 
His general government, we could not have at all determined 
beforehand/ - ’ I only regret the impossibility of transferring 
the entire passage to this paper. 
It follows, therefore, that it is impossible to determine this 
question on a priori principles ; and if Scripture is silent on 
the point, or nearly so, the only mode of investigation is the 
application of the principle of induction to the facts and 
phenomena of Scripture. When we have ascertained their 
true character — i. e ., allowed the Bible to speak for itself — 
the theory which will precisely cover them will be the true 
theory of inspiration. Such a mode of investigation, mutatis 
mutandis , is the same which is applicable to every branch of 
human knowledge. 
If such a mode of investigation should prove that Scriptural 
inspiration is confined to the communication of religious 
truth, and does not extend to points of human science, and 
such subjects as man’s unaided powers can discover for him- 
self, a large number of the difficulties arising out of the 
controversy immediately disappear. 
The general principle which I lay down is, that we are in 
no sort able to determine, on a priori principles, what would 
be the amount of knowledge which God would communicate 
in giving a revelation — whether it would be much or little, 
perfect or imperfect ; or what instrumentality He would 
employ in its communication — whether it would be one purely 
divine, or one largely mixed up with a human element ; 
or in how large a proportion, or in what manner, that 
human element might be allowed to enter into its contents. 
