391 
For even, if fora moment it be admitted that numerical letters 
were then in use, and if further it be admitted that through the 
similarity of the. names of the letters Ain and Zain , a careful 
scribe might accidentally have written “ seventy ” instead of 
“ seven,” yet the concord of Hebrew numerals would have 
necessitated an alteration of the text, designed to agree with 
this accident. The words in the present text are O'iDttr, 
shiveem eesh. Had it originally been seven instead of seventy , 
it would have been written D'EttKnjOT, shivvah andshim. 
Alteration to such an extent from the mistake of one letter or 
symbol for another is evidently, then, an impossibility. 
The Chairman. — The first thing we have to do is to return a vote of 
thanks to Mr. Moule for his paper. I may also state that our Honorary Secre- 
tary has in his hands a letter from the author of the paper read on the 7th 
February last year, which is the cause of the papers read here to-night 
being written. It appears desirable that that letter should now be read. 
Captain F. Petrie then read the following letter from the Eev. Dr. 
Thornton : — 
I am glad to have the points I have mooted thoroughly discussed ; but I 
most strongly and emphatically protest against the way in which my name is 
mixed up with that of Dr. Colenso, whose avowed opinions lie under the 
gravest censure of the religious body to which he professes to belong, and of 
which I also am a humble member and minister. Should Mr. Gosse’s paper 
be printed, I shall request that this protest be appended to it. I desire to 
repeat what I have already said, that my argument differs toto codo from Dr. 
Colenso’s. He says, “ Because these numbers seem incredible, therefore the 
Bible, of which they are part, is not the Word of God.” I say, “ Because the 
Bible is, every part of it, the Word of God, therefore some of these numbers 
must be considered incorrect.” I propose to rectify, or to disregard, some of 
the numbers ; he flings away numbers and Book together. He writes as a 
professed and avowed sceptic, I as a stanch believer. He is ready and 
willing to allow the whole Book to be a clumsy forgery ; I hold to the Book, 
and shall be ready to hold to the numbers also, if I find any argument to 
show that they must really be considered an integral part of the Book. 
Whilst I protest against being in the smallest degree identified with that 
unhappy enemy of the Bible, I thank Mr. Gosse for the tone of his paper. 
I am sure he did not intend to cause — he certainly has not caused — the least 
uneasiness either to me or those who think with me. I am glad to find he 
has an opinion, holds it stoutly, and is ready and able to defend it. I respect 
and admire the man who does so, however much he may differ from me, and 
am quite open to conviction, and thankful for all reasoning that may tend to 
preserve me from error. Surely from the collision of minds, in loving argu- 
ment rather than in hostile dispute, sparks will be struck out to glitter in 
concert with the Great Lamp of Truth. 
