252 
(5.) The absence of any conceivable motive for fraud or 
falsehood. 
(6.) The difficulty, if not the absurdity, of supposing that 
the teachers of the purest morality should be engaged 
in the immoral work of propagating an imposture and 
forging documents. 
(7.) The utter absence of any contradiction to their state- 
ments during the first four centuries. 
(8.) The frequent reference to the words of the four Evan- 
gelists by writers who lived in the first two centuries, 
showing that their narratives were then current and 
well known. 
(9.) The adequacy of the cause for miraculous interposition, 
if we believe in a benevolent Creator and in the 
immortality of the soul. 
(10.) The sufficiency of the -accounts to explain the pheno- 
menon of Christianity as a religion which now exists 
in the world, whereas no other theory has or can 
explain it. 
If these be not sufficient grounds for believing the truth 
of the accounts that have come down to us, I know not any 
historical fact which we are justified in believing* 
The Chairman - . — I am sure I may offer to Mr. Forsyth the thanks of the 
meeting for the very interesting and learned paper which he has read. 
We shall now be happy to hear the remarks which any one present may 
have to offer upon the subject of the paper. 
The Rev. G. Currey, D.l). — Perhaps I may be allowed to offer some 
opinions at which I have arrived, for I have had the opportunity of reading 
the paper before I came here, which of course places me in a better posi- 
tion for commenting upon it than if I had merely heard it read for the first 
time in this room. I will not waste the time of the meeting by expressing 
my opinion on the general merits of the paper, or by pointing out those 
parts of it which I think are deserving of praise. In such a meeting as 
this, it should rather be the part of those who speak to see if there be 
anything which may strike them as defective, in order to give the author, 
in replying, an opportunity of supplying any suoh defects, or of showing to 
objectors that they really have no existence. I would say, then, that my 
first impression on reading this paper was rather a melancholy one ; for it 
seemed to tell me very much that I was not to believe, and to leave very 
little which I was justified in believing. That is the main point which I 
have to bring forward, and I shall be very glad if the author in his reply 
will show that I was wrong in entertaining this impression. I am thankful 
to see that he has not failed to explain the grounds upon which the evidence 
for Holy Scripture rests. On that point we can have no difference of 
