309 



The length of tliis paper now requires me to bring it to a 

 close. The whole subject consists of a number of very minute 

 particulars, and extends over an extremely wide field. It is 

 therefore impossible to treat it with strict scientific accuracy in 

 a short paper. My object has been to bring before you a few 

 important principles which are of the highest importance with 

 respect to historic truth in general, and to revelation in par- 

 ticular. I have found it wholly impossible in the limits assigned 

 to me to treat them in an exhaustive manner. Criticism will 

 only rest on a solid foundation as long as it applies to history 

 the same principles as those which we daily apply to common 

 life. All historical evidence rests on the same foundation. A 

 principle which I would refuse to act on as my guide in life I 

 am fully entitled to reject as a guide in history. What in the 

 one case conducts to practical truth will conduct to the same 

 result in the other. 



The Chairman. — I think it speaks well for the interest taken in this 

 Institute, when, considering the state of the weather, we see so large an 

 attendance ; but I am sure we are amply repaid, and shall unanimously 

 accord a vote of thanks to Mr. Kow. It is now open for any one to offer 

 remarks upon the paper. 



Kev. G. CuRREY, D.D. — The paper which has been read, embraces so 

 large a number of topics, that it is not possible to attempt ,to discuss them 

 all. I would, however, observe that there seem to be three subjects which 

 are quite distinct, — so distinct, indeed, that one almost regrets their being 

 treated together in the same paper. These three subjects are, first, the 

 nature of the evidence required for common historical facts ; secondly, of 

 the acceptance of miracles on such evidence ; and, thirdly, the detection of 

 forged documents. I will make a few remarks upon these various points in 

 the inverse order. First, referring to the method of detecting forged 

 documents by an examination into their style. There can be but little 

 doubt that differences of style form fair subjects for examination, and 

 that we may properly draw conclusions from them with regard to author- 

 ship. On the other hand, this may also be said, that such work has some- 

 times been recklessly and carelessly done, and persons have arrived at hasty 

 conclusions, which they have too readily assumed to be facts. One point 

 may be specially noticed with regard to those documents with which we are 

 most nearly concerned, namely, those which relate to the revelation of 

 our religion, — and I think Mr. Eow will agree with me here — that it is 

 not safe to rely mainly upon the internal style, although it is often a 

 valuable corroboration of external evidence. We base our acceptance of the 

 documents upon external evidence, furnished by the careful consideration 

 and adoption of documents by those early assemblies and councils which 

 considered the subject at a time when they were able to collect together the 

 traditions of past ages ; and thus, in accepting such documents as the work 



