biblical students have with reason devoted much labor, since they mutually supplement and illustrate each other in many ways.  We understand the books of Samuel and Kings more fully by comparison with the books of Chronicles, and the reverse.  Each of the four gospels sheds light on the other three.  It is by placing the three accounts of Paul’s conversion side by side that we gain the most perfect knowledge of this event.  The numerous coincidences between the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles, give us a fuller idea of the apostle’s inward life and outward labors than we could otherwise gain.  Without the epistles the biographical notices of the Acts would be very incomplete; without the narrative of the Acts many references in the epistles would remain obscure.

Yet these same historic parallelisms, which are the source of so much light, are the occasion of difficulties also, which require for their adjustment a comprehensive view of the spirit of inspiration.  In respect to all essential matters of faith and practice, a divine unity pervades the Holy Scriptures.  But this essential unity does not exclude diversity of conception and representation.  Though all the “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” it pleased the divine Spirit to leave them free to speak each in accordance with his individual peculiarities of thought and language.  A page from the writings of the apostle John, taken anywhere at random, can be at once distinguished from a page of Paul or Luke.  In relating the same transaction, two inspired writers often select different materials, or handle them in a different way.  The narrative of each is truthful, but not exhaustive.  It gives a correct view of the thing related, but not all the particulars connected with it.  The omission from two or more parallel narratives of concomitant circumstances, or the neglect of exact chronological order, sometimes makes the work of harmonizing them a very difficult matter.  We feel confident that each separate narrative is correct, and that, had we all the accompanying circumstances in the true order of time, we could see how they are consistent with each other; but for want of this light the exact mode of reconciliation remains doubtful.  Such difficulties are incident to all parallel histories.  Had the Holy Spirit seen good, he could have excluded them from the pages of inspiration; but herein he chose to deal with us not as children, but rather as men “of full age, even those who, by reason of use, have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”  It is worthy of special notice, that where two or more evangelists record the same words of our Saviour, they are solicitous only about their substance.