then are the "errors?" and where the "contradictions?" We cannot "suppose Him to suggest contradictory accounts:" [not _contradictory_, of course; because contradictories cannot both be true:] "or accounts only to be reconciled in the way of hypothesis and conjecture."--(_Ibid._) _Why_ not[91]? "To suppose a supernatural influence to cause the record of that which can only issue in a puzzle, is to lower indefinitely our conception of the Divine dealings in respect of a special Revelation." (_Ibid._)--_Why_ more of a lowering puzzle in GOD'S Word than in GOD'S Works[92]? Mr. Wilson proceeds:--"It may be attributed to the defect of our understandings, that we should be _unable altogether to reconcile the aspects_ of the SAVIOUR as presented to us in the first three Gospels, and in the writings of St. Paul and St. John. At any rate, there were current in the primitive Church very distinct Christologies."--(_Ibid._) Queer language this for a plain man! _I_, for my own part, have never yet discovered the difficulty which is here hinted at; but which has been prudently left unexplained. It follows:--"But neither to any defect in our capacities, nor to any reasonable presumption of a hidden wise design, nor to any partial spiritual endowments in the narrators, can we attribute the difficulty, if not impossibility, of reconciling the genealogies of St. Matthew and St. Luke; or the chronology of the Holy Week; or the accounts of the Resurrection: nor to any mystery in the subject-matter can be referred the uncertainty in which the New Testament writings leave us, as to the descent of JESUS CHRIST according to the flesh, whether by His mother He were of the tribe of Judah or of the tribe of Levi."--(pp. 179-180.) I, for my part, can declare that I have found the reconcilement in the three subjects first alluded to, as complete as could be either expected or desired. The last part of the sentence discovers nothing so much as the writer's ignorance of the subject on which he presumes to dogmatize.