1. I cannot see for whom I should be writing; in other words,—what I should propose to myself as the end to be attained by what I wrote. For, 2. What would be gained by demonstrating,—(as I am of course prepared to do,)—that there is really _no inconsistency whatever_ between anything which S. Mark here says, and what the other Evangelists deliver? I should have proved that,—(assuming the _other_ Evangelical narratives to be authentic, i.e. historically true,)—the narrative before us cannot be objected to on the score of its not being authentic also. But _by whom_ is such proof required? (_a_) Not by the men who insist that errors are occasionally to be met with in the Evangelical narratives. In _their_ estimation, _the genuineness of an inspired writing_ is a thing not in the least degree rendered suspicious by the erroneousness of its statements. According to them, the narrative may exhibit inaccuracies and inconsistencies, and may yet be the work of S. Mark. If the inconsistencies be but “trifling,” and the inaccuracies “minute,”—these “sound Theologians,” (for so they style themselves,(325)) “have no dread whatever of acknowledging” their existence. Be it so. Then would it be a gratuitous task to set about convincing _them_ that no inconsistency, no inaccuracy is discoverable within the compass of these Twelve concluding Verses. (_b_) But neither is such proof required by faithful Readers; who, for want of the requisite Scientific knowledge, are unable to discern the perfect Harmony of the Evangelical narratives in this place. It is only one of many places where a primâ facie discrepancy, though it does not fail to strike,—yet (happily) altogether fails to distress them. Consciously or unconsciously, such readers reason with themselves somewhat as follows:—"GOD’S Word, like all GOD’S other Works, (and I am taught to regard GOD’S Word as a very masterpiece of creative skill;)—the blessed Gospel, I say, is _full_ of difficulties. And yet those difficulties are observed invariably to disappear under competent investigation. Can I seriously doubt that if sufficient critical skill were brought to bear on the highly elliptical portion of narrative contained in these Twelve Verses, it would present no exception to a rule which is observed to be else universal; and that any apparent inconsistency between S. Mark’s statements in this place, and those of S. Luke and S. John, would also be found to be imaginary only?" This then is the reason why I abstain from entering upon a prolonged Inquiry, which would in fact necessitate a discussion of _the Principles of Gospel Harmony_,—for which the present would clearly not be the proper place. VIII. Let it suffice that, in the foregoing pages,— 1. I have shewn that the supposed argument from “Style,” (in itself a highly fallacious test,) disappears under investigation.