(4.) Hence we readily infer the office of a sound judgment in reconciling apparent contradictions, since these arise mainly from the neglect, in one or both of the passages between which the contradiction is said to exist, of reasonable qualifications and limitations.

A striking illustration of this is found in the two accounts of the creation.  Gen. chaps. 1-2:3 and chap. 2:4-25.  In the former narrative the order of time is an essential element.  Not so in the latter, where man is the central object, and the different parts of creation are mentioned only as the writer has occasion to speak of them in connection with him.  Hence we have in this latter passage the creation of the man (ver. 7), the planting of the garden for his use with its trees and rivers (ver. 8-14), the placing of the man in the garden and the law imposed upon him (ver. 15-17), the defective condition of the man (ver. 18), the notice in connection with this of the creation of beasts and fowls and their being brought to the man to receive names (ver. 19, 20), the creation of the woman and the primitive condition of the pair (ver. 21-25).  This simple statement of the course of narration sufficiently refutes the allegation that the second account is inconsistent with the first.

In the first account of Paul’s conversion it is said that “the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no man.”  Acts 9:7.  In the second Paul says:  “They that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.”  Acts 22:9.  There is no valid ground for doubting that the first narrative, as well as the other two, came from the lips of the apostle himself, and the assumption of any essential contradiction is unreasonable and unnecessary.  In regard to the light, it is certain that Paul saw the person of the Saviour, and was made blind by the glory of the vision (Acts 9:17, 27; 22:14; 1 Cor. 9:1), while his companions saw only the light that shone around them, which did not make them blind.  In regard to the voice, it is a fair interpretation that they heard a voice only, but no intelligible words. How this difference of perception between Paul and his companions in regard to both the light and the voice was effected we do not know, nor is it necessary that we should.  The first account, again, represents Paul’s companions as having “stood speechless,” while in the third the apostle says:  “When we were all fallen to the earth,” Acts 26:14.  The most natural explanation here is that the third narrative gives the posture with accuracy, while the first lays stress only upon the amazement which fixed them in a motionless attitude.  The apparent discrepancies in these three parallel histories are peculiarly instructive, because they all proceed from the pen of the same author, and must all have been derived from the same source.  Such circumstantial differences have the stamp of reality.  Instead of throwing any discredit upon the transaction, they only establish its truth upon a firmer basis.  Many like illustrations might be added.