Now, I shall have something to say to all these different kinds of objectors, on some subsequent occasion. But I shall be rendering the younger men a far more important service if to-day I address my remarks to a different class of objectors altogether: _that_ far larger body, I mean, who without at all desiring to impugn the Inspiration of GOD'S Oracles, yet make no secret of their belief that the Bible is full of inaccuracies and misstatements. These men ascribe a truly liberal amount of human infirmity to the Authors of the several Books of the Bible;--slips of memory, misconceptions, imperfect intelligence, partial illumination, and so forth;--and, under one or other of those heads, include whatever they are themselves disposed to reject. The writers who come in for the largest share of this indulgence, are the Evangelists; because the Historians of our LORD'S life, having happily left us four versions of the same story, and often three versions of the same transaction, the evidence whereby _they_ may be convicted of error is in the hands of all. Truly, mankind has not been slow to avail itself of the opportunity. You will seldom hear a Gospel difficulty discussed, without a quiet assumption on the part of the Reverend gentleman that _he_ knows all about the matter in question, but that the Evangelist did _not_. His usual method is, calmly to inform us that it is useless to look for strict consistency in matters of minute detail; that _general agreement_ between the four Evangelists there does exist, and _that_ ought to be enough. The inevitable inference from his manner of handling the Gospels, is, that if his actual thoughts could find candid expression, we should hear him address their blessed authors somewhat as follows:--"You are four highly respectable characters, no doubt; and you _mean_ well. But it cannot be expected that persons of your condition in life should have described so many intricate transactions so minutely without making blunders. I do not say it unkindly. I often make blunders myself,--_I_, who have a "clearness of understanding," "a power of discrimination between different kinds of Truth[359]" unknown to the Apostolic Age!" ... Of course the preacher does not _say_ all this. He has too keen a sense of "the dignity of the pulpit." And so he puts it somewhat thus:--"While we are disposed to recognize substantial agreement, and general conformity in respect of details, among the synoptical witnesses, in their leading external outlines, we are yet constrained to withhold our unqualified acceptance of any theory of Inspiration which should claim for these compilers exemption from the oscitancy, and generally from the infirmities of humanity." ... This sounds fine, you know; and is thought an ingenious way of wrapping up the charge which the Reverend preacher brings against the Evangelists;--of having, in plain terms,--_made blunders_.