Every lawyer knows that omission is not contradiction. Even when witnesses profess to give the whole, it rarely or never happens that some will not state something which others omit, and not unfrequently a witness is called to testify to a part only, and does not undertake to give the whole. This is the precise truth in respect to the Evangelists. Not one of them professes to state all that occurred after the crucifixion, or all the instances of our Lord’s appearing to his disciples. Each writes for the particular object he has in view. And there is a great liability to mistake, if one forgets that it is true in narratives in respect to transactions subsequent to the crucifixion, as well as before, that there is often a passing from one event to another with nothing to indicate but that they were immediately connected in point of time, when, in fact, there was a considerable interval between them.[A] Of the ten specified instances of his appearing, Matthew speaks of two, Mark of three, Luke of three, John of four, and Paul of five, or seven;[7] but neither contradicts the other, nor Luke’s statement in his subsequent “treatise,” that Jesus showed himself alive after his passion “forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God.” The instances were sufficiently numerous, the time long enough, and the acts tangible enough, to afford as undoubted proof as that which they had of the existence and bodily presence of each other. Peter might as well have doubted the denial of which he had so bitterly repented, as to have doubted that it was his Master who said unto him the third time, “Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?” and all of them might as well have doubted that they had ever listened to his teaching, as to have doubted the commission which they received from him. The evidence that was personal to themselves we cannot have. We know they had it, and were capable of judging concerning it, and we can see that it was of a character that might be justly deemed conclusive. There is, besides, much that is common to us with them. The judgment was not of one but of many, and not from a single appearance to one of their number, but from many appearances to different persons, at various times, and under circumstances most favorable to a true apprehension, usually in open day; and it would be passing strange if each and all were deceived by their own senses.