397 
that there may have been a corruption of the numbers— the addition, say, of 
a cipher in each case, and that the whole narrative would stand good, and 
the difficulties disappear, if for 600,000 men we read 60,000.” 
Let me now draw attention to the really important point in connection with 
this subject — the hard manner of putting it that if a man cannot accept all 
the difficulties in Biblical numbers he therefore rejects the Divine authority 
of Christianity itself. The Council of the Institute have eased me of some 
of my difficulties by deciding that the paragraphs in Mr. Gosse’s paper 
[paragraphs 31, 32, and 33] are not to be the subject of discussion, but there 
is quite enough left to show the ideas of the author on the subject. In the 
fourth paragraph strong language is used. I am ready to let the matter rest 
on the exceedingly high authority of Bishop Butler. He says : — 
“ These observations, relating to the whole of Christianity, are applicable 
to inspiration in particular. As we are in no sort judges beforehand by what 
laws or rules, in what degree, or by what means it were to be expected that 
God would naturally instruct us ; so upon his affording us light and instruc- 
tion by Revelation, additional to what he has afforded us by reason and 
experience, we are in no sort judges by what methods, or in what proportion 
it was to be expected that this supernatural light and instruction would be 
afforded us In like manner we are wholly ignorant what degree 
of new knowledge it were to be expected God would give mankind by 
Revelation upon supposition of his affording one ; or how far, or in what 
way, he would interpose miraculously to qualify them to whom he should 
originally make the Revelation for communicating the knowledge given by 
it ; and to secure their doing it to the age in which they should live, and to 
secure its being transmitted to posterity Hay, we are not in any sort 
able to judge whether it were to have been expected that the Revelation 
should have been committed to writing, or left to be handed down, and con- 
sequently corrupted, by verbal tradition, and at length sunk under it if 
mankind so pleased, and during such times as they are permitted, in the 
degree they evidently are, to act as they will. 
u But it may be said that a Revelation in some of the above-mentioned 
circumstances, one, for instance, which was not committed to writing, and 
thus secured against danger of corruption, would not have answered its 
purpose. . I ask, What purpose ? It would not have answered all the pur- 
poses which it has now answered, and in the same degree ; but it would 
have answered others, and in the same or different degrees. And which of 
these were the purposes of God, and best fall in with His general govern- 
ment we could not at all have determined beforehand. 
* * . ■ ; thus we see that the only question respecting the truth of 
Christianity is, whether it be a real revelation, not whether it be attended 
with every circumstance which we should have looked for ; and concerning 
the authority of Scripture, whether it be what it claims to be : not whether 
it be a book of such sort and so promulgated as weak men are apt to fancy 
a book containing a divine Revelation should.” — Butler’s Analogy , Part II., 
chap. 3. 
How these words of the great defender of revealed religion seem to me to be 
worthy of our profound attention. It is sufficient for my purpose if this pas- 
sage simply stands in opposition to these strong statements of Mr. Gosse’s. 
Mr. Gosse says in the 13th paragraph of his paper, speaking of himself : — 
