261 
the ecclesiastical history of the first three centuries. It has been written 
through the spectacles of narrow views, and we have as many ecclesiastical 
histories as there are narrow views. We want a thoroughly critical analysis 
of the evidence on which a great deal of what is called the history of that 
time rests. We have much evidence that we can trace to distinctly con- 
jectural sources, and we ought to be careful in ascertaining how far the 
evidence rests upon direct historical testimony. Dr. Currey is fearful 
lest a large portion of so-called history should be consigned to the 
grave ; but it is better to do this than to set up myths and call them 
history. 
The Rev. J . Sinclair. — It is difficult to speak upon such a subject as that 
before us with precision and scientific accuracy. What "we want is some 
test whereby we can determine the truth or falsehood of some events 
alleged to have taken place in the past. That is the desideratum, and my 
impression on listening to this paper is, that it contains an answer to that 
question, but that it does not put the answer in a sufficiently definite form. 
This may seem a bold statement to make, but I hope the author of the paper 
will excuse it, as I am simply expressing the feeling produced on my mind by 
the paper. There is one point which has been distinctly enunciated, both in the 
paper, and more or less in all the comments upon it, and that is, that the 
proper evidence on which to believe a statement with respect to anything 
alleged to have taken place in the past, is the testimony of witnesses who are 
competent, from their ability, their opportunity, and their honesty, to bear 
witness to the point. So far we have got something positive and satisfac- 
tory, but we require a great deal more than that, in order to test the accuracy 
of an historical statement. In the first place, we want evidence as to 
the moral and intellectual competence of the witnesses. We are not 
personally acquainted with them : none of us have had an intimacy with 
Thucydides, with Herodotus, with Livy, or with any other of the old 
historians. We want some evidence of the old historians ; we want 
some evidence of their intellectual and moral capability of testifying as 
to those matters of fact with which they have dealt, and anything which can 
be discovered as to the characters of such men, and which throws light on 
their mental or moral character, assists us in judging how much credit we 
may attach to their testimony. This only indicates the direction in which 
the historical student has to look for the grounds of rational belief. Another 
question is suggested to the mind of one who stands in this attitude, and 
that is : How do we know that these statements were actually made by 
the person whose name is attached to them ? How do we know that 
they are the genuine statements of Herodotus or Livy, or any one 
else, when we had not the privilege of seeing them make the state- 
ment ? We must look for evidence in confirmation of this, and that 
points to another line of inquiry. Anything which tends to prove 
that a book was actually written by the particular person whose name 
is affixed to it, helps us in forming a rational judgment as to the trust- 
worthiness of that history ; there has not been much allusion to these 
u 2 
