It is also to be remembered that the Gospels are not so much connected histories, as reminiscences of events and teachings, with but little regard (sometimes an utter disregard) to their chronological order. Neither Gospel is, of itself, any approach to a connected history from Christ’s birth to his ascension. The events, so far as known to us, are to be gathered _from them all_. Mark begins with the Baptist at the river Jordan, and John at about the same time. It is not to be inferred that they knew nothing of the infancy, or childhood, or young manhood of Jesus. Matthew omits the presentation at the temple, the vision to the Shepherds, and other incidents; and Luke omits the visit of the Wise men, the slaying of the children, the flight into Egypt, and other incidents. But in so doing, neither contradicts the other; nor does Josephus, by his silence concerning these events, contradict the Evangelists. He may have been ignorant of some of these events, for he was not born until the year 37, and, being a Jew and not a Christian, he might not choose to mention those which had come to his knowledge. Luke’s Gospel may or may not have made use of writings then in existence relating to Christ (but which never found general acceptance), and the same is true of the First and Second Gospels. _It is no impeachment of their credibility._ Every historian makes such use of materials that he deems reliable, as best answers his purpose, and his history is none the less trustworthy on that account. Hence, as a matter of evidence, it is of no consequence how many or how few, previous manuscripts may be traced in our Gospels, or either of them. Such writings had an ephemeral existence, never came into general use, and the Four Gospels and no others were the accepted Gospels in all the churches. Whatever literature of the kind preceded them perished so early that it cannot be told when it disappeared, or what was its character or completeness. The Evangelists give every mark of honest witnesses. Their story is simple, straightforward and unimpassioned, even under circumstances calculated to arouse resentment. They seem intent upon nothing but the giving of a truthful narrative, not sparing themselves or extenuating their own faults. Their frequent incidental allusions to matters of government, custom, nationality, etc., and minuteness of detail, are such as would never be found in false witnesses. “A false witness,” says Mr. Greenleaf, “will not willingly detail any circumstances in which his testimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there is danger of being detected by a comparison of them with other accounts equally circumstantial.” It would detract nothing from the credit of the Evangelists, if, in the multitude of their incidental references, error should be found in a few of them, for some error is inseparable from all human productions; and their inspiration may not have been so circumstantial as to exclude immaterial errors.