opinion, but shall all acknowledge the clear and distinct manner in which 
the author has set forth our belief in the historical facts detailed in our 
Scripture history. (Cheers.) But, apart from this, I must say that there 
is left but little for us to believe, nor does it appear to me that the rules of 
evidence, as applicable to the credibility of history, have been as clearly 
drawn up in this paper as I might have desired. I should have preferred 
seeing them in a more distinct and clear, and perhaps tabulated form, in 
order that I might apply those rules to any particular case, or to any parti- 
cular historian, in order to ascertain the credibility of the fact which I was 
considering, or of the historian whom I was examining. There appears to 
be in that respect, a want of clearness, owing, probably, to the scantiness 
of information adducible on the numerous topics introduced by way. of 
illustration. One of the reasons which leaves this impression on my mind 
is, that the greater part of the paper is occupied in showing what we 
should not believe, and because there is a certain confusion, between the 
leading facts of history, and smaller incidents contained in anecdotes, 
sometimes of a slight though interesting character. The laws of evidence 
indeed may be unalterable, but there is a difference in their application to 
anecdotes and to the more important facts of history. Many of these 
anecdotes, we are told, are not to be believed in at all, and it seems to me 
that in a paper in which we hope to find rules laid down to point out what 
we should believe, too much space has been given up to the introduction of 
trivial anecdotes which we are not to believe. We know that, as time 
goes on, small anecdotes, worthy of our attention as amusing or beautiful 
stories, but not to be accepted as claimants to the dignity of history , 
gather round great acts. Several of the anecdotes which have been given 
to-night seem to me to be of this kind, and appear to have been brought 
forward in order to be rejected. They are simply illustrations of what few 
will deny, that much of history, commonly so-called, is not to be received 
without question. I would separate anecdotes from the consideration of a 
subject of this kind. They are too apt to become like the fringe described 
in that well-known story, the “ Tale of a Tub,” where a coat is represented 
as being decorated with such a quantity of fringe, that the original 
material is altogether hidden by the superfluous mass of adornment. . You 
will remember how one of the brothers carefully took off the fringe without 
injuring the coat, but the other tore it off with so much vehemence that 
he rent the coat as well. In the same way, when we are disposing of 
anecdotes, we should take care not to lose sight of the historical truth which 
lies underneath. With regard to the story of William Tells shooting at an 
apple placed upon his son’s head, I reject it, not simply because it 
appeared for the first time many years after the occurrence itself was alleged to 
have taken place, but also because, as Mr. Forsyth has pointed out, it appears 
in connection with other persons and other countries. But while I reject the 
story of the apple, it does not follow that I reject the story of the fact 
that William Tell arose as an heroic defender of liberty to rescue his country 
from the oppression of a foreign yoke ; this is the great historical fact that 
