ntioned, would harmonise the apparently
counter-statements of two historians--cannot be admitted, and is, in
fact, a surrender of the argument. But to say so, is only to betray an
utter ignorance of what the argument is. If an objection be founded
on the alleged absolute contradiction of two statements, it is quite
sufficient to show any (not the real, but only a hypothetical and
possible) medium of reconciling them; and the objection is, in all
fairness, dissolved. And this would be felt by the honest logician, even
if we did not know of any such instances in point of fact. We do know
however, of many. Nothing is more common than to find, in the narration
of two perfectly honest historians,--referring to the same events from
different points of view, or for a different purpose,--the omission
a fact which gives a seeming contrariety to their statements; a
contrariety which the mention of the omitted fact by a third writer
instantly clears up.+

___

* The reader may see some striking instances of his disposition to
take the worse sense, in Beard's 'Voices of the Church.' Tholuck truly
observes, too, in his strictures on Strauss, 'We know how frequently the
loss of a few words in one ancient author would be sufficient to cast
an inexplicable obscurity over another.' The same writer well observes,
that there never was a historian who, if treated on the principles of
criticism which his countryman has applied to the Evangelists, might
not be proved a mere mytholographer ... 'It is plain', he says, 'that
if absolute among historians'--and still more absolute apparent
agreement--is necessary to assure us that we possess in their writings
credible history, we must renounce all pretence to any such possession.'
The translations from Quinet, Coquerel, and Tholuck are all, in
different ways, well worth reading. The last truly says, 'Strauss came
to the study of the Evangelical history with the forgone conclusion that
"miracles are impossible;" and where an investigator brings with him an
absolute conviction of the guilt of the accused to the examination
of his case, we know how even the most innocent may be implicated and
condemned out of his own mouth.' In fact, so strong and various are the
proofs of truth and reality in the history of the New Testament, that
none would ever have suspected the veracity of the writers, or tried to
disprove it, except for the above forgone conclusion--'that miracles
are impossible.' We also re