detail,--but on such as shake the foundations of the whole edifice of
evidence. It will not do to say, 'Here is a minute discrepancy in the
history of Matthew or Luke as compared with that of 'Mark or John;'
for, first, such discrepancies are often found, in other authors, to be
apparent, and not real,--founded on our taking for granted that there is
no circumstance unmentioned by two writers which, if known, would
have been seen to harmonise their statements. We admit this possible
reconciliation readily enough in the case of many seeming discrepancies
of other historians; but it is a benefit which men are slow to admit in
the case of the sacred narratives. There the objector is always apt to
take it for granted that the discrepancy is real; though it may be easy
to suppose a case (a possible case is quite sufficient for the purpose)
which would neutralise the objection. Of this perverseness (we can call
it by no other name) the examples are perpetual in the critical tortures
which Strauss has subjected the sacred historians.*"--

It may be objected, perhaps, that the gratuitous supposition of some
unmentioned fact--which, if mentioned, would harmonise the apparently
counter-statements of two historians--cannot be admitted, and is, in
fact, a surrender of the argument. But to say so, is only to betray an
utter ignorance of what the argument is. If an objection be founded
on the alleged absolute contradiction of two statements, it is quite
sufficient to show any (not the real, but only a hypothetical and
possible) medium of reconciling them; and the objection is, in all
fairness, dissolved. And this would be felt by the honest logician, even
if we did not know of any such instances in point of fact. We do know
however, of many. Nothing is more common than to find, in the narration
of two perfectly honest historians,--referring to the same events from
different points of view, or for a different purpose,--the omission
a fact which gives a seeming contrariety to their statements; a