John Ball on the consent of scripture’s parts

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
... If the Prophets or Apostles, who wrote the same histories, do seem to dissent in any circumstances, this doth nothing derogate from their authority; for in themselves they differ not, the fault is our ignorance, and apprehension: by a right and just interpretation, they may easily be reconciled; and the dissonancy which seems to be amongst them in small things, doth free them from all suspicion of fraud; and their sweet consent in all matters of importance, doth convince that they wrote by the guidance of the same Spirit.

If they had all written one thing, they might seem superfluous; if each a new history, there could appear no steps of consent; when they relate the same story with the same circumstances, they have their use, one sometimes speaking more plainly then the other; and when they agree in matter, but seem to dissent in circumstance, the truth is the more confirmed, an argument of fuller credit may be drawn out of that dissent; for as the Heathen man observeth, too exact diligence is neither approved of al, neither doth it want suspicion. To this sweet agreement of holy Scripture with it self, it might be further added, that it agreeth with all other truth whatsoever; there is nothing true in divinity, which is false in Philosophy; nothing in Philosophy is repugnant to the truth in divinity, but it may be overthrown by the principles of right and true Philosophy. ...

For more, see John Ball on the consent of scripture’s parts.