309 
The length of this 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. Row. It is now open for any one to offer 
remarks upon the paper. 
Rev. 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. Row 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 
