an inspiration would be given as would be most conducive to the end in view. And a like answer disposes of his confident assertion, that “_one_ inspired record of all that happened ought to be enough.” _He_ would have Divine wisdom sacrifice everything else for the sake of uniformity and precise accuracy in incidental and immaterial matters. In other words he would tithe “mint and anise and cummin,” at the expense of “weightier matters.” The Gospels were separately written at different times, according to the needs in the first instance of the particular classes for which they were immediately intended, and ultimately for the wants of the whole world. Each by itself was as complete and accurate as it was best it should be; and the whole taken together are as full and exact, as it is best they should be. And looking beyond the particular classes to whom they were first given, to all generations and peoples, it was of supreme importance that they should be _believed_; and in order to this, that they should be so written as not to carry suspicion of collusion or fabrication upon their face. Mr. Ingersoll knows that the testimony of four witnesses agreeing in the main points, while differing in minor matters, is more satisfactory than the testimony of one. If there were nothing to be counted but numbers, the evidence would be four times as strong. It is more than four times as strong. For, as Mr. Starkie says,[5] and every lawyer knows, “The credibility of testimony frequently depends upon the exercise of reason, on the effect of _coincidences in testimony_, which, if collusion be excluded, cannot be accounted for but upon the supposition that the testimony of concurring witnesses is true; so much so that their individual character for veracity is frequently but of secondary importance.” But to have this effect it is _indispensable_ that _collusion_ be excluded. And it is of vastly greater consequence that we be certain that we have (as it is conceded we have) independent accounts of the crucifixion than it is, for instance, that the inscriptions over the cross as given by the four Evangelists should precisely agree, or that either should have been the exact words that were written. In fact, while they all agree that the accusation was “_The King of the Jews_” (which is all that is material), no two of them agree with each other. But as Professor Greenleaf says, no greater certainty is called for. “The same[6] verbal exactness is not necessary in historians whose aim is religious instruction, as in recorders of public inscriptions.” If but one account, there would be the absence of that personality and variety, which we now have, and more especially the want of that conclusive proof which comes from independent witnesses.