xact record of words being
continued. It may indeed be alleged that God could cause a revelation to
be recorded, in its exact words, in each distinct language. We hardly
think however that such a view as this will be seriously entertained by
any one. Not to mention how completely contrary this would be to what
analogy would lead us to expect, we may observe that, as languages are
continually undergoing changes, such a method of recording must be
continually renewed; and, moreover, as language does not convey precisely
the same ideas to any two individuals, it would be almost needful that a
separate record, or rather a separate revelation, should be made for each
person. Such views as these require only to be stated to shew that they
are untenable; but, if they are untenable, it is plain that the
_continuance_ of an exact record of words cannot be expected.

But may it not be expected that, at least, _one_ exact record would be
made of any revelation which God might think fit to give, and that this
would afford the best guarantee which could be had for future
truthfulness? In answering this question it is very important to draw a
distinction. _The words of the record may be exactly such words as God
approves of_, _although they may not be the precise words in which the
original revelation was made_. In some particular instances God might
determine that the precise words of the revelation should be used, while
in others He might think fit that it should be otherwise. In either case
the record would be a true one, and each method of recording might have
its own peculiar advantages. Under some circumstances it might be
desirable that not the slightest deviation from the precise mode of
expression which God had communicated should be made; while under others,
the human view--by which we here mean the view of the particular person
to whom the revelation is made--might be recorded, and add to it a force
which could hardly be had in any other way. So long as the record is
such as God approves of, every requisite to a true record is complied
with. If a minister of state were commissioned to make a communication
to a foreign court, he might write down the whole or a part of it in his
own words, and, if his own court approved of the words, contained in the
writing, the object in view would be answered. We can even understand
that, in some respects, the communication might gain force by this mode
of proceeding. The [Gre