124 
favour ; but what is to be done with those who are equally biassed on the 
other side 1 (Hear, hear.) Before we go on multiplying miracles beyond any 
express warrant for them in the Scriptures, we ought really to pause and 
consider what we are doing in the way of throwing a tremendous stumbling- 
block in the path of those who feel that there are difficulties in the Scrip- 
tures, and who feel that some of them are very great difficulties. It is of 
the very highest importance that we should attend to this point, because if 
we multiply miracles in this way, I can see no reason, so far as evidence is 
concerned, why we should reject the early church miracles, as the miracles 
of Ambrose, and the rest. (Hear, hear.) Those are miracles that I utterly 
disbelieve, because miracles have high moral purposes to serve. We do not 
simply rely upon testimony to prove the miracles of the New Testament ; 
they bear a moral aspect of a very remarkable character which is a strong 
argument in their favour. With one or two exceptions, every miracle of oor 
Lord’s divine mission is stamped in this way. The miracles, such as are 
reported in the first four centuries, bear a different aspect from the miracles 
of our Lord, which are all of a consistent character throughout the Gospels. 
Compare these miracles with the miracles of the spurious gospels, and it is 
totally impossible for a rational man to arrive at any other conclusion than 
that those who originally fabricated these spurious miracles were utterly ana 
hopelessly unable to elaborate the miracles recorded in the genuine gospels. 
I am very sorry when I hear of men inventing miracles, and I am much 
obliged to Dr. Thornton for adding the weight of his authority on this 
important point in the defence of Christianity. The real weight of infi- 
delity does not so much rest on the scientific difficulties as on the alleged 
moral ones. And I say that the defenders of Christianity have in a great 
degree themselves created moral difficulties which modern infidelity has 
only been too glad to seize upon to use in her attacks upon our faith. 
(Cheers.) 
Rev. John James.— I am thankful for the exposition of the various 
probable ways set forth in this paper, in which errors in point of numbers 
contained in the Scriptures may have arisen. Dr. Thornton’s knowledge of 
the Samaritan has enabled him to point out to us the close resemblance whLh 
exists between the forms of various Hebrew and Samaritan letters, each 
bearing a different numerical value, and to show us the mistakes which were 
capable of being made by those who transcribed the manuscripts. I am 
very grateful for that— I am grateful for the knowledge that even a dash or 
a dot after a letter might make a difference of thousands in value. Forwent 
of that sort of knowledge which Dr. Thornton has to-night given us, I have 
often been unable, in speaking with those who had difficulties on these points, 
to support the arguments which I had been using. When Dr. Coienso s 
papers first came out, the very same argument which we have now had 
elaborately brought before us, occurred to me, namely, that I was perfectly 
prepared to suppose that there is great exaggeration in certain parts of the 
Scriptures, not of an intentional kind, but through some error in the manu- 
script or on the part of the transcribers. My hypothesis is now abundantly 
