'The discrepancies between the statements of the four Evangelists,--the indications of individual or national peculiarities,--the modes of describing occurrences, true because well understood in the locality of the speaker, but not strictly true in other places,--all matters which serve to show that the same objects have been seen by different persons, but from different points of view, are to be allowed for as reconcilable with a truthfulness that may be implicitly relied upon. One informant may have blundered in geography, another may have been mistaken in an historical reference, a third may have misquoted or misapplied some prophetical allusion, and all may have given ample proof that they were not free from the influence of the traditions generally received in the places to which they belonged; but unless these peculiarities and infirmities show a want of competency as witnesses, or a lack of integrity, they may be dismissed, as having no bearing on the main point. 'The question whether the Gospel records are free from blemishes found to attach to every other record, has nothing to do with the main issue. Our _theories_ may require them to be free from such harmless imperfections; but our _reason_ makes no such demand. 'The memoir of a great man does not lose its use and virtue, because written by a biographer open to some censure: nor can the life of Christ fail of its transcendent purpose, because the writers were not in all things infallible. 'Appearances of harmless human imperfections in the writers do not invalidate the sacred records. For instance, if it should be found that those faithful witnesses have given their testimony in exceptionable Greek,--or that in some matters, not touching their main object, they are not enlightened above the common standard of their times and station,--or that they have habits of thought, or speech, or action, which, though perfectly innocent in themselves, show that they are not so far advanced in science as some,--if, in a word, it should appear that the historic writers of the New Testament were really men of the age in which they lived, and men of the country in which they were born and educated, subject to the then limitations of general knowledge,--men of individual tendencies, tastes, temperaments, passions, and even prejudices,--wherein is the world worse for this, and in what respect could our reason have wished it otherwise? We protest, we do not see. On the contrary, we feel it to be an advantage, that the divine light emanating from the life of Jesus Christ, should reach us through an artless and thoroughly human medium. It is no misfortune, in our judgment, but quite the opposite, that 'we have this treasure in earthen vessels.' Such traces on the pages of evangelic history as mark the writers for men,--honest, faithful, competent, but yet verily and indeed men,--bring their narrative much more closely home to our sympathies,