had taken place in nature of which we did not know the cause.  But to prove a miracle to any person who consistently denies that he has any evidence that any being exists which is not a portion of and included in the material universe, or developed out of it, is impossible” ("The Supernatural in the New Testament,” by Prebendary Row, pp. 14, 15).  We maintain that Nature includes everything, and that, therefore, the supernatural is an impossibility.  Every new fact, however marvellous, must, therefore, be within Nature; and while our ignorance may for awhile prevent us from knowing in what category the newly-observed phenomenon should be classed, it is none the less certain that wider knowledge will allot to it its own place, and that more careful observation will reduce it under law, i.e., within the observed sequence or concurrence of phenomena.  The natural, to the unthinking, coincides with their own knowledge, and supernatural, to them, simply means super-known; therefore, in ignorant ages, miracles are every-day occurrences, and as knowledge widens the miraculous diminishes.  The books of unscientific ages—­that is, all early literature—­are full of miraculous events, and it may be taken as an axiom of criticism that the miraculous is unhistorical.

(2). The numerous contradictions of each by the others.—­We shall here only present a few of the most glaring contradictions in the Gospels, leaving untouched a mass of minor discrepancies.  We find the principal of these when we compare the three synoptics with the Fourth Gospel, but there are some irreconcilable differences even between the three.  The contradictory genealogies of Christ given in Matthew and Luke—­farther complicated, in part, by a third discordant genealogy in Chronicles—­have long been the despair of Christian harmonists.  “On comparing these lists, we find that between David and Christ there are only two names which occur in both Matthew and Luke—­those of Zorobabel and of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus.  In tracing the list downwards from David there would be less difficulty in explaining this, at least, to a certain point, for Matthew follows the line of Solomon, and Luke that of Nathan—­both of whom were sons of David.  But even in the downward line, on reaching Salathiel, where the two genealogies again come into contact, we find, to our astonishment, that in Luke he is the son of Neri, whilst in Matthew his father’s name is Jechonias.  From Zorobabel downwards, the lists are again divergent, until we reach Joseph, who in St. Luke is placed as the son of Heli, whilst in St. Matthew his father’s name is Jacob” ("Christian Records,” Dr. Giles, p. 101).  According to Chronicles, Jotham is the great-great-grandson of Ahaziah; according to Matthew, he is his son (admitting that the Ahaziah of Chronicles is the Ozias of Matthew); according to Chronicles, Jechonias is the grandson of Josiah, according to Matthew, he is his son; according to Chronicles,