heaven. So that the promises in the Old Testament, of a general felicity in this life, are not so literally to be applied to Christians as they were to the Jews.1 III. God has suited his promises to his precepts. By his precepts we see what is our duty, and what should be the scope of our endeavours; and by his promises we see what is our inability, what should be the matter or object of our prayers, and where we may be supplied with that grace which will enable us to discharge our duty. Compare Deut. x. 16. with Deut. xxx. 6. Eccles. xii. 13. with Jer. xxxii. 40. Ezek. xviii. 31. with Ezek. xxxvi. 37. and Rom. vi. 12. with v. 14. IV. Where any thing is promised in case of obedience, the threatening of the contrary is implied in case of disobedience: and where there is a threatening of any thing in case of disobedience, a promise of the contrary is implied upon condition of obedience.2 In illustration of this remark, it will be sufficient to refer to, and compare, Exod. xx. 7. with Psal. xv. 1-4. and xxiv. 3, 4. and Exod. xx. 12. with Prov. xxx. 17. There are, however, two important cautions to be attended to in the application of Scripture promises; viz. that we do not violate that connection or dependency which subsists between one promise and another; and that we do not invert that fixed order which is observable between them. 1. The mutual connection or dependency subsisting between promises, must not be broken. As the duties enjoined by the moral law are copulative, and may not be disjoined in the obedience yielded to them (James ii. 10.); so are the blessngs of the promises; which may not be made use of as severed from each other, like unstringed pearls, but as collected into one entire chain. For instance, throughout the sacred volume, the promises of pardon and repentance are invariably connected together; so that it would be presumptuous in any man to suppose that God will ever hearken to him who implores the one and neglects to seek the other. "He pardoneth and absolveth all thein that truly repent and unfeignedly believe his holy word." In like manner, in Psal. lxxxiv. 11. the promise of grace and glory is so inseparably united, that no person can lay a just claim to the one, who is not previously made a partaker of the other. Bishop Horne's commentary on this verse is not more beautiful than just.3 2. In applying the promises, their order and method should not be inverted, but be carefully observed. The promises made by God in his word have not inaptly been termed an ample storehouse of every kind of blessings, including both the mercies of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. There is, indeed, no good that can present itself as an object to our desires or thoughts, but the promises are a ground for faith to believe, and hope to expect the enjoy ment of it; but then our use and application of them must be regular, and suitable both to the pattern and precept which Christ has given us. sive prayer, emphatically termed the Lord's Prayer (Matt. vi. 9–13.); in The Pattern or example referred to, we have in that most comprehen which he shows what is chiefly to be desired by us, viz. the sanctification of his name in our hearts, the coming of his kingdom into our souls, and the doing of his will in our lives; all which are to be implored, before and above our daily bread. We are not to be more anxious for food than for divine grace. The Precept alluded to, we have in his sermon on the mount (Matt. vi. 33): Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you. The soul is of more worth than the body; as the body is more valuable than raiment; and therefore the prin cipal care of every one should be, to secure his spiritual welfare, by interesting himself in the promises of life and eternal happiness. Here, however, a method must be observed, and the law of the Scripture must be exactly followed, which tells us (Psal. lxxxiv. 11.) that God first gives grace and then glory. "As it is a sin to divide grace from glory, and to seek the one without the other: so it is also a sin to be preposterous in our seeking, to look first after happiness and then after holiness: no man can be rightly solicitous about the crown, but he must first be careful about the race; nor can any be truly thoughtful about his interest in the promises of glory that doth not first make good his title to the promises of grace." CHAPTER VII. ON THE INTERPRETATION, AND MEANS OF HARMONIZING PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE, WHICH ARE ALLEGED TO BE CONTRADICTORY. ALTHOUGH the sacred writers, being divinely inspired, were necessarily exempted from error in the important truths which they were commissioned to reveal to mankind, yet it is not to be concealed, that, on comparing Scripture with itself, some detached passages are to be found, which appear to be contradictory; and these have been a favourite topic of cavil with the enemies of Christianity from Spinosa down to Voltaire, and the opposers of Divine Revelation in our days, who have copied their objections. Unable to disprove or subvert the indisputable FACTS on which Christianity is founded, and detesting the exemplary holiness of heart and life which it enjoins, its modern antagonists insidiously attempt to impugn the credibility of the sacred writers, by producing what they call contradictions. It is readily admitted that real contradictions are a just and sufficient proof that a book is not divinely inspired, whatever pretences it may make to such inspiration. In this way we prove, that the Koran of Mohammed could not be inspired, much as it is extolled by his admiring followers. The whole of that rhapsody was framed by the wily Arab to answer some particular exigencies. If any new measure was to be proposed,-any objection against him or the religion which he wished to propagate, was to be answered,-any difficulty to be solved,-any discontent or 1 Collyer's Sacred Interpreter, vol. i. p. 336. offence among his people to be removed, or any other thing done that could promote his designs,-his constant recourse was to the angel Gabriel, for a new revelation: and instantly he produced some addition to the Koran, which was to further the objects he had in view, so that by far the greater part of that book was composed on these or similar occasions to influence his followers to adopt the measures which he intended. Hence not a few real contradictions crept into the Koran; the existence of which is not denied by the Mussulman commentators, who are not only very particular in stating the several occasions on which particular chapters were produced, but also, where any contradiction occurs which they cannot solve, affirm that one of the contradictory passages is revoked. And they reckon in the Koran upwards of one hundred and fifty passages thus revoked. Now this fact is a full evidence that the compiler of that volume could not be inspired; but no such thing can be alleged against the Scriptures. They were indeed given at sundry times and in divers manners, and the authors of them were inspired on particular occasions: but nothing was ever published as a part of it, which was afterwards revoked; nor is there any thing in them which we need to have annulled. Errors in the transcription of copies, as well as in printed editions and translations, do unquestionably exist: but the contradictions objected are only seeming, not real, nor do we know a single instance of such alleged contradictions, that is not capable of a rational solution. A little skill in criticism in the ori (of which the modern opposers of revelation, it is well known, have for the most part been and are notoriously ignorant), and in the times, occasions, and scopes of the several books, as well as in the antiquities and customs of those countries, which were the scenes of the transactions recorded, will clear the principal difficulties. Bp. Wilkins, in his admirable Discourse on the Gift of Preaching, has stated this rule in the following terms:-"Every Scripture does affirm, command, or threaten, not only that which is expressed in it, but likewise all that which is rightly deducible from it, though by mediate conseginal languages of the Scriptures, their idioms and properties quences." (Dr. Williams's Christian Preacher, p. 22.) "Jesus Christ is our 'Lord' and our 'God he is a 'sun' to enlighten and direct us in the way, and a 'shield' to protect us against the enemies of our salvation. He will give 'grace' to carry us on from strength to strength,' and 'glory' to crown us when we appear before him in Zion; he will withhold' nothing that is 'good' and profitable for us in the course of our journey, and will himself be our reward, when we come to the end of it." Commentary on the Psalms, vol. ii. (Works, vol. iii. p. 81.) Dr. Spurstowe's Treatise on the Promises, pp. 62. 65. The whole volume will abundantly repay the trouble of perusing it. There is also an To the person who honestly and impartially examines the admirable discourse on the Promises, in the Sermon published by the Rev. various evidences for the divinity and inspiration of the Bible Charles Buck in which their divine origin, their suitability, number, (and it not only invites but commands investigation), most clearness of expression, the freeness of their communication, and the certainty of their accomplishment, are stated and illustrated with equal ability of the alleged contradictions, which are discussed in the foland piety. See also 'Hoornbeck's Theologia Practica, pars i. lib. v. c. 2.lowing pages, will appear frivolous: for they have been made pp. 468-477. Prideaux's Life of Mohammed, pp. 158, 159. 3 G VOL. I. and refuted nearly one hundred and fifty years since. But as they are now reasserted, regardless of the satisfactory an- | press. The apparent contradictions, in the historical passages swers which have been given to them in various forms, of Scripture, arise from the different circumstances related,both in this country and on the Continent, the author would from things being related in a different order by the sacred deem his work imperfect if he were to suffer such objections writers, from differences in numbers, and from differences to pass unnoticed, particularly as he has been called upon, in the relation of events in one place, and references to those through the public press, to consider, and to obviate them. events in another. Should the reader be led to think, that an undue portion of the present volume is appropriated to the interpretation of passages alleged to be contradictory, he is requested to bear in mind that, although the pretended contradictions, here considered, have for the most part been clothed in a few plausible sentences,' yet their sophistry cannot be exposed without a laborious and minute examination. Wherever, then, one text of Scripture seems to contradict another, we should, by a serious consideration of them, endeavour to discover their harmony; for the only way, by which to judge rightly of particular passages in any book, is, first, to ascertain whether the text be correct, and in the next place to consider its whole design, method, and style, and not to criticise some particular parts of it, without bestowing any attention upon the rest. Such is the method adopted by all who would investigate, with judgment, any difficult passages occurring in a profane author: and if a judicious and accurate writer is not to be lightly accused of contradicting himself for any seeming inconsistencies, but is to be reconciled with himself if possible,-unquestionably the same equitable principle of interpretation ought to be applied in the investigation of Scripture difficulties. Some passages, indeed, are explained by the Scriptures themselves, which serve as a key to assist us in the elucidation of others. Thus, in one place it is said that Jesus baptized, and in another it is stated that he baptized not the former passage is explained to be intended not of baptism performed by himself, but by his disciples who baptized in his name. Compare John iii. 22. with iv. 1, 2. Frequently, also, a distinction of the different senses of words, as well as of the different subjects and times, will enable us to obviate the seeming discrepancy. Thus, when it is said. It is appointed unto all men once to die (Heb. ix. 27.); and elsewhere, If a man keep Christ's saying, he shall never see death, there is no contradiction; for, in the former place, natural death, the death of the body, is intended, and in the latter passage, spiritual or eternal death. Again, when Moses says, God rested on the seventh day from all his works (Gen. ii. 2.), and Jesus says, My Father worketh hitherto (John v. 17.), there is no opposition or contradiction; for Moses is speaking of the works of creation, and Jesus of the works of providence. So Samuel tells us God will not repent (1 Sam. xv. 29.); and yet we read in other parts of the Old Testament that It repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth (Gen. vi. 6.); and that he had set up Saul to be king. (1 Sam. xv. 11.) But in these passages there is no real contradiction; repent ance in the one place signifies a change of mind and counsel, from want of foresight of what come to pass, and thus God cannot repent; but then he changes his course as men do when they change their minds, and so he may be said to repent. In these, as well as in other instances, where personal qualities or feelings are ascribed to God, the Scriptures speak in condescension to our capacities, after the manner of men; nor can we speak of the Deity in any other manner, if we would speak intelligibly to the generality of mankind. § 1. Seeming Contradictions in the different Circumstancer related. These arise from various causes, as the sources whence the inspired writers drew their relations, the different designs of the sacred writers, erroneous readings, obscure or ambigu ous expressions, transpositions in the order of narrating, and sometimes from several of these causes combined. related, arise from the different sources whence the inspired 1. Apparent contradictions, in the different circumstances writers drew their narratives. respecting the birth and childhood of Jesus Christ, from whom could they For instance, in the brief accounts recorded by Matthew and Mark have derived their information? They could not have become acquainted with those circumstances, unless from the particulars communicated by marked, it is highly probable that they received their information from his relatives according to the flesh; and, as it has been frequently reMary and Joseph, or others of the family of Jesus. How easy, then, is it for some trifling variations to creep into such accounts of infancy as are perfectly consistent with the truth! Again, during our Lord's three years' preserved by oral relation; all of which, though differing, are nevertheless circuit in Palestine, Matthew and John were constantly his disciples and companions: the source of their narratives, therefore, was ocular testithings as they were communicated to them by the apostles and others mony; while Luke and Mark, not having been Christ's disciples, related who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, as Saint Luke expressly states at the commencement of his Gospel. Under such circumstances, how is it possible that some discrepancies should not appear in the writings of such persons? Yet these discrepancies, as we shall presently see, are so far from affecting their credibility as historians, that, on the contrary, they confirm their veracity and correctness. The same remark will apply to the history of our Lord's death and resurrec tion, as well as to the account of the sermon delivered on the mount and on the plain. 2. Seeming contradictions, in the different circumstances rewriters had in the composition of their narratives; for the lated, may also arise, from the different designs which the sacred difference of design will necessarily lead to a corresponding selection of circumstances. The consideration of this circumstance will remove the contradiction the first and second chapters of the book of Genesis. The design of which modern opposers of the Scriptures have asserted to exist between Moses, in the first chapter, was to give a short account of the orderly creation of all things, from the meanest to the noblest, in opposition to the absurd and contradictory notions which at that time prevailed among the Egyptians and other nations. In the second chapter, the sacred writer explains some things more at length, which in the preceding were nar rated more briefly, because he would not interrupt the connection of his discourse concerning the six days' work of creation. He therefore more particularly relates the manner in which Eve was formed, and also further illustrates the creation of Adam. In thus recapitulating the history of creation, Moses describes the creation through its several stages, as the phenomena would have successively presented themselves to a spectator, had a spectator been in existence. Again, the design of the two books of conduced to the wonderful elevation of David from a low condition to the Samuel, especially the second book, is, to relate the various steps which throne of Judah first, and after seven years and six months to that of The contradictions which are alleged to exist in the Scriptures, may be referred to the following classes, viz.-seeming contradictions in historical passages in chronology-be-Israel, together with the battles and occurrences which led to that great tween prophecies and their fulfilment-in points of doctrine and morality-in the quotations from the Old Testament in the New-between the sacred writers themselves-between the sacred writers and profane authors-and, lastly, seeming contradictions to philosophy and the nature of things. SECTION I. SEEMING CONTRADICTIONS IN HISTORICAL PASSAGES. MOST of the seeming contradictions in Scripture are found in the historical parts, where their connection with the great subject or scope is less considerable; and they may not unfrequently be traced to the errors of transcribers or of the 1 Bishop Horne, when speaking of the disingenuity of infidels in bring. ing forward objections against the Scriptures, has the following remarks: Many and painful are the researches, usually necessary to be made for settling points of this kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a ques tion in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject. And as people in general, for one reason or other, like short objections better than long answers, in this mode of disputation (if it can be styled such) the odds must ever be against us; and we must be content with those of our friends, who have bonesty and erudition, candour and pa. tience, to study both sides of the question." Letters on Infidelity, p. 82. (Works, vol. vi. pp. 447, 448. 8vo. London, 1809.) close (2 Sam. xxiii. 8-39) we have a catalogue to perpetuate the memory and secured to hit the possession of his kingdom: and then at the of those warriors who had been particularly instrumental in promoting the book of Chronicles the history of David begins with him as king, and imsuccess and establishing the glory of their royal master. But in the first mediately mentions the heroes of his armies, and then proceeds to an abridgment of the events of his reign. This difference of design will account for the variations occurring in the two principal chapters containing the history of those heroes; for in 1 Chron. xi. they are recorded in the beginning of David's reign, with Joab introduced at their head, and the reason assigned for his being so particularly distinguished; but in the concluding chapter of Samuel, when the history of David's reign had already been given, there the name of Joab is omitted, since no one could forget that he was David's chief mighty man, when he had been mention. ed, in almost every page, as captain general of the armies of Israel. The difference of design also will satisfactorily explain the seeming difference between the genealogies of our Saviour given by the evangelist Matthew and Luke from the public registers, and which comprise a period of four thousand years, from Adam to Joseph his reputed father, or to Mary his mother. The genealogy given by Saint Matthew was principally designed for the Jews; and, therefore, it traces the pedigree of Jesus Christ, as the promised seed, down from Abraham to David, and from him through Solomon's line to Jacob the father of Joseph, who was the reputed or legal father of Christ. (Matt. i. 1-16.) That given by Saint Luke was intended for the Gentiles, and of this very learned volume is appropriated to an elaborate comparison of Dr. Kennicott's First Dissertation, pp. 13-15. The subsequent part the discrepancies between 1 Chron. xi. and 2 Sam, v. and xxiii., to which the reader is referred. traces the pedigree upwards from Heli, the father of Mary, to David, through the line of his son Nathan, and from Nathan to Abraham, concurring with the former, and from Abraham up to Adam, who was the immediate "Son of God," born without father or mother. (Luke iii. 23-38.)1 To this satisfactory answer to the cavils of modern infidels, the Jews object-Why is Mary not mentioned in this genealogy, and Joseph said to be the son of Heli? "ANSWER. This is a mode of speaking quite warranted by the Old Testament, the authority of which is acknowledged by the Jews themselves. For example, Neh. vii. 63. And of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, THE CHILDREN OF BARZILLAI, WHICH TOOK ONE OF THE DAUGHTERS OF Barzillai the GILEADITE TO WIFE, and was called after their name. Here it appears that a person of the priestly tribe, or tribe of Levi, took to wife a daughter of Barzillai, and that he and the issue of this marriage were regarded as children of Barzillai, though properly the sons of Levi, and though the mother's name is not mentioned. Bo Joseph, taking the daughter of Heli to wife, is called the son of Heli." That Saint Luke gives the pedigree of Mary, the real mother of Christ, may be collected from the following reasons:"1. The angel Gabriel, at the annunciation, told the virgin, that 'God would give her divine Son the throne of his father David (Luke i. 32); and this was necessary to be proved, by her genealogy, afterwards. 2. Mary is called by the Jews, y ra, the daughter of Eli,' and by the early Christian writers, 'the daughter of Joakim and Anna.' But Joakim and Eliakim (as being derived from the names of God,, Iahoh, and ⚫, Eli) are sometimes interchanged. (2 Chron. xxxvi. 4.) Eli, therefore, or Heli, is the abridgment of Eliakim. Nor is it of any consequence that the Rabbins called hun by, instead of, the aspirates Aleph and Ain being frequently interchanged. 3. A similar case in point occurs elsewhere in the genealogy. After the Babylonish captivity, the two lines of Solomon and Nathan, the sons of David, unite in the generations of Salathiel and Zorobabel, and thence diverge again in the sons of the latter, Abiud and Resa. Hence, as Salathiel in Matthew, was the son of Jechoniah, or Jehoiachim, who was carried away into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, so in Luke, Salathiel must have been the grandson of Neri, by his mother's side. 4. The evangelist himself has critically distinguished the real from the legal genealogy, by a parenthetical remark:-us-vs VOMITO, viss 129 (XXX' OUTING Vios], TOU HA" Jesus-being (as was reputed) the son of Joseph, (but in reality) the son of Heli," or his grandson by the mother's side: for so should the ellipsis involved in the parenthesis be supplied." This interpretation of the genealogy in Saint Luke's Gospel, if it be admitted, removes at once every difficulty; and (as Bishop Gleig has truly remarked) it is so natural and consistent with itself, that, we think, it can hardly be rejected, except by those who are determined, that "seeing they will not see, and hearing they will not understand." But the difference in the circumstances related, arising from the difference in design of the sacred writers, is to be found chiefly in those cases, where the same event is narrated very briefly by one evangelist, and is described more copiously by another. An example of this kind we have in the account of our Lord's threefold temptation in the wilderness, which is related more at length by Matthew and Luke, while Mark has given a very brief epitome of that occurrence. But these variations, which arise from differences of design, do not present a shadow of contradiction or discrepancy: for it is well known that Saint Matthew wrote his Gospel a few years after our Lord's ascension, while the church wholly consisted of converts from Judaism. Saint Mark's Gospel, probably written at Rome, was adapted to the state of the church there, which consisted of a mixture of converts who had been Pagans and Jews. He inserts many direct or oblique explanations of passages in Saint Matthew's Gospel, in order to render them inore intelligible to the converts from Paganism. The Gospel of Saint Luke was written for the immediate use of the converts from Heathenism; several parts of it appear to be particularly adapted to display the divine goodness to the Gentiles. Hence, he traces up Christ's lineage to Adam, to signify that he was THE SEED of the woman promised to our first parents, and the Saviour of all their posterity. He marks the æra of Christ's birth, and the time when John the Baptist began to announce the Gospel, by the reigns of the Roman empe rors. Saint John, who wrote long after the other evangelists, appears to have designed his Gospel to be partly as a supplement to the others, in order to preserve several discourses of our Lord, or facts relating to him which had been omitted by the other evangelists; but chiefly to check the heresies which were beginning to appear in the church, and (as he The view above given is confirmed and illustrated by Dr. Benson in his History of the first planting of the Christian Religion, vol. i. pp. 259-268. 2d edit. The Jewish Messenger, No. I. p. 2. London, 1833, 8vo. Dr. Hales's Analysis, vol. ii. book ii. pp. 699, 700. In pp. 700-704. he has considered and accounted for particular seeming discrepancies between the evangelists Matthew and Luke. But the fullest discussion of the subject is to be found in Dr. Barrett's Preliminary Dissertation pre. fixed to his edition of the Fragments of Saint Matthew's Gospel, from a Codex Rescriptus in Trinity College Library at Dublin. (Evangelium se cundium Matthæum ex Codice Rescripto in Bibliotheca Collegii Sancta Trinitatis juxta Dublin, &c. 4to. Dublin, 1801.) In this Dissertation he examines and notices the difficulties of the hypothesis proposed by Africanus, a father of the third century, preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 7.), and translated by Dr. Lardner (Works, vol. ii. pp. 436-438. 8vo. or vol. i. pp. 416, 417. 4to.), and which Africanus professed to have received from some of our Lord's relatives. As Dr. Barrett's book is scarce, and comparatively little known, it may gratify the reader to learn that a copious and faithful abstract of it is given in the Eclectic Review for 1807, vol. iii. part 2. pp. 586-594. 678-698.; and also with some additional ob servations by Dr. A. Clarke, at the end of his commentary on Luke iii. See also Mr. R. B. Green's "Table for exhibiting to the View, and impressing clearly on the Memory, the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, with Notes," &c. London, 1822, 8vo. himself declares, xx. 31.) to establish the true doctrine concerning the divinity and mediatorial character of Christ. The differences, however, which thus subsist in the respective narratives of the evangelists, do not in any degree whatever affect their credibility. The transactions related are still true and actual transactions, and capable of being readily comprehended, although there may be a trifling discrepancy in some particulars. We know, for instance, that a discourse was delivered by our Lord, so sublime, so replete with momentous instruction, that the people were astonished at his doctrine. But whether this discourse was delivered on a mountain or on a plain, is a matter of no moment whatever. In like manner, although there are circumstantial differences in the accounts of our Lord's resurrection from the dead, the thing itself may be known, and its truth ascertained.6 A narrative is not to be rejected by reason of some diversity of circumstances with which it is related: for the character of human testimony is, substantial truth under circumstantial variety; but a close agreement induces suspicion of Confederacy and fraud. Important variations, and even contradictions, are not always deemed sufficient to shake the credibility of a fact; and if this circumstance be allowed to operate in favour of profane historians, it ought at least to be admitted with equal weight in reference to the sacred writers. It were no difficult task to give numerous instances of differences between profane historians. Two or three may suffice. It is well known that Julius Cæsar wrote histories both of the civil war and of the war in Gaul: the same events are related by Dion Cassius, as well as by Plutarch in his lives of Pompey and Cæsar. The transactions recorded by Suetonius are also related by Dion, and many of them by Livy and Polybius. What discrepancies are discoverable between these writers! Yet Livy and Polybius are not considered as liars on this account, but we endeavour by various ways to harmonize their discordant narratives, conscious that, even when we fail, these discordancies do not affect the general credibility of their histories. Again, the embassy of the Jews to the emperor Claudian is placed by Philo in harvest, and by Josephus in seed-time; yet the existence of this embassy was never called in question. To come nearer to our own times: Lord Clarendon states that the Marquis of Argyle was condemned to be hanged, which sentence was executed on the same day : four other historians affirm that he was beheaded upon the Monday, having been condemned on the preceding Saturday; yet this contradiction never led any person to doubt, whether the Marquis was executed or not. Much of the discrepancy in the Gospels arises from omission, which is always an uncertain ground of objection. Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dion Cassius have all written an account of the reign of Tiberius; and each has omitted many things mentioned by the rest, yet their credit is not impeached. And these differences will be more numerous, when men do not write histories, but memoirs (which perhaps is the true name of the Gospels), that is, when they do not undertake to deliver, in the order of time, a regular account of all things of importance which the subject of the history said and did, but only such passages as ' Further, as these seeming discordancies in the evangelical histowere suggested by their particular design at the time of writing.7 rians prove that they did not write in concert; so from their agreeing in the principal and most material facts, we may infer that they wrote after the truth. In Xiphilin and Theodosius, the two abbreviators of the historian Dion Cassius, may be observed the like agreement and disa greement; the one taking notice of many particulars which the other passes in silence, and both of them relating the chief and most remarkable events. And since, from their both frequently making use of the very same words and expressions, when they speak of the same thing, it is apparent that they both copied from the same original; so, no person was ever absurd enough to imagine that the particulars mentioned by the one were not taken out of Dion Cassius, merely because they were omitted by the other. And still more absurd would it be to say (as some modern opposers of revelation have said of the Evangelists), that the facts related by Theodosius are contradicted by Xiphilin, because the latter says nothing of them. But against the Evangelists, it seems, all kinds of arguments may not only be employed but applauded. The case, however, of the sacred historians is Townson in his Discourses on the Four Gospels, chiefly with regard to the Christ is given in this volume, pp. 106–115. Mori Acroases in Ernesti Instit. Interp. Nov. Test. tom. ii. pp. 26-30. exactly parallel to that of these two abbreviators. The latter extracted the particulars, related in their several abridgments, from the history of Dion Cassius, as the former drew the materials of their Gospels from the life of Jesus Christ. Xiphilin and Theodosius transcribed their relations from a certain collection of facts contained in one and the same history; the four evangelists, from a certain collection of facts contained in the life of one and the same person, laid before them by that same SPIRIT, which was to lead them into all truth. And why the fidelity of the four transcribers should be called in question for reasons which hold equally strong against the two abbreviators, we leave those to determine who lay such a weight upon the objection.' 3. A third source of apparent contradictions, in the different circumstances related, arises from false readings, or from obscure and ambiguous expressions, or from transpositions in the order of relating, and sometimes from several of these causes combined. The only way by which these seeming repugnancies may be reconciled, is to call in the aid of sacred criticism; which, when judiciously applied, will, in most instances, if not in every case, remove them. Thus, in Gen. xxix. 1-8. we have a dialogue in which no man is men. tioned but Jacob, the only living creatures present being three flocks of sheep: yet these are represented as conversing, rolling away the stone, and watering the sheep. This appearance of contradiction probably origi nated, first, in some transcriber writing Dyn (HADⱭRIM), flocks, for Dy (HAROIM), shepherds, in three places; and, secondly, from verse 3. expressing what customarily happened, not what then had actually taken place; and this mistake, having obtained in some copy of high repute, has been transcribed into all the later manuscripts. That the above mistake has actually been made appears from the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch, from the Arabic version in Bishop Walton's Polyglott (which has preserved the true reading in verses 3 and 8.), and from the Greek version. The true reading, therefore, as Houbigant and Dr. Kennicott contend, is shepherds, not flocks, and the third verse should be read parenthetically. Having thus stated the various causes of apparent contradictions in the different circumstances related by the inspired writers, we shall proceed to illustrate the preceding remarks. I. The names of persons and places are respectively liable to change. Gadarenes. the names of the same apostle. Simon, it is well known, was called Peter, in like manner, the same places are distinguished by several names: as and all the other apostles, except Saint John, had more names than one. Emishphat and Kadesh, Gen. xiv. 7. Hermon, Sirion, Shenir, Deut. üi. 9, Magdala in Matt. xv. 39. is termed Dalianutha in Mark viii. 10., and the country of the Gergesenes, in Matt. viii. 28., in Mark v. 1. called that of the V. Many persons and places also have the same name. another in the tribe of Judah, Matt. ii. 6. Luke ii. 4. There were two towns There was one Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun, Josh. xix. 15. and called Cana, Josh. xix. 28. John ii. 1. Several Casareas, Matt. xvi. 13. xxiv. 25, &c. 2 Chron. xvii. 7. xx. 14. Zech. i. 1. Luke i. 5. Matt. xxiii. 35, Acts ix. 30. and xviii. 22. Several Zechariahs, as in 1 Chron. v. 7. xv. 20 The Zechariah in this last cited passage was probably the person mentioned in 2 Chron. xx. 14. and the name of the father has been added since by some transcriber, who took it from the title of the prophecy. Several Herods, as, 1. Herod the Great, in whose reign our Redeemer was incar nate, Matt. ii. 1. and by whom the infants at Bethlehem were massacred, Matt. ii. 16. 2. Herod Antipas, surnamed the Tetrarch, Matt. xiv. 1. by mocked and set at nought, Luke xxiii 11. 3. Herod Agrippa, who slew whom John the Baptist was murdered (verse 10.), and our Saviour was the apostle James, Acts xii. 2 and miserably perished, verse 23. So, there all, the successive kings of a country. Thus, Pharaoh was the general are some names which appear to have been common to several, if not to 17., and very frequently in the prophecy of Ezekiel; and that this was the naine of the kings of Egypt, Gen. xii. 15. xxxix. 1. Exodus i.-xv. passim, I Kings iit. 1. 2 Kings xxiii. 29. Isa. xix. 11. Jer. xxv. 19. xliv. 30, and xlvi. constant title of the Egyptian kings, is further attested by Josephus and Suidas. Artaxerxes was the common name of the whole race of Persian kings; as Abimelech was of the Philistines, Gen. xx. 2. xxvi. 8. compared from Num. xxiv. 7. compared with 1 Sam. xv. 8. with the title to Psal. xxxiv. ; and Agag of the Amalekites, as may be inferred VI. The differences in names occurring in the Scriptures reconciled by correcting these; but the true name may in such are sometimes occasioned by false readings, and can only be cases be distinguished from the erroneous one, by the usage of Scripture in other places, as well as from the Samaritan Pentateuch, the ancient versions, and Josephus.7 xviii. 3. ought to be Hadadezer, as in 2 Sam. viii. 3. a Resh being mistaken for a Daleth 8 Joshebbassebet, in 2 Sam. xxii. 8. (marg, rend.) should be Jashobeam, as in 1 Chron. xi. 11. and xxvii. 2.9 Bathshua, the daughter of Amiel, in 1 Chron. iii. 5. should be Bathsheba the daughter of Eliam, as in 2 Sam. xi. 3. the two last letters of the father's name being transposed, and the two first put last 10 Azariah, in 2 Kings xiv. 21. should be Uzziah, as in 2 Chron. xxvi. 1. and elsewhere; which reading is adopted, or nearly so, by the Arabic and Syriac versions. Jehoahaz, in 2Chron. xxi. 17. should be Abazihu, or Ahaziah, as in 2 Kings viii. 24. and elsewhere, is The name of the great king Nebuchadnezzar is spelled seven different ways. 13 The following instances will illustrate this remark. Hadarezer, 1 Chron. Thus, the name of one person is sometimes given to another, either as they are types of them,--so Christ is called David (Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24.) and Zerubbabel (Hag. ii. 23.)-or, on account of some resemblance between them, as in Isa. i. 10. Ezek. xvi. 3. 46. Mal. iv. 5. compared with Matt, xi. 14. and John i. 21. Rev. ii. 20. and xviii. 2. So Hell derives its name, in many languages, from the valley of the children of Hinnom, on account of the wickedness there committed, and the dreadful cries formerly heard in that 2. Apparent Contradictions, from Things being related in a place. In like manner, the place of the great slaughter (Rev. xvi. 16.) has its name from the place of the memorable battle where Josiah was slain, 2 Kings xxiii. 29. II. The name of the head of a tribe or nation is sometimes given to their posterity. Thus, Edom or Esau is put for the Edomites, who were the descendants of Esau, in Num. xx. 18. Gen. xxxvi. 1. and Obadiah i. 6. Very numerous similar examples are to be found in the Sacred Writings, which it is unnecessary to specify. III. Sometimes names remain after the reason for which they were given, or the thing whence they were taken, has ceased to exist. Aaron's rod, for instance, retained its name when changed into a serpent, Exod. vii. 12. So Matthew is called a publican, because he had formerly followed that calling. Simon the leper is so termed because he had forInerly been afflicted with the leprosy, Matt. xxvi. 6. So it is said in Matt. xi. 5. that the blind see, and the deaf hear, that is, those who had been blind and deaf. A similar instance occurs in Matt. xxi. 31. The publicans and harlots enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, those who had been such, not those who continue so. (Compare 1 Cor. vi. 9.) different Order by the sacred Writers. I. The Scriptures being as it were a compendious record of important events, we are not to infer that these took place exactly in the order narrated; for frequently things are related together, between which many things intervened while they were transacting. Neither are we to conclude that a thing is not done, because it is not related in the history of other things happening in the same age, of the Israelites, which are not noticed in their proper place in the book 1. Thus, in Num. xxxiii. we have a particular account of the journeyings of Exodus. In the four Gospels especially, we find that each of the evangelists did not relate every word and thing; but one frequently omits what has been related by the rest, while that which has been briefly noticed by one is recorded at length by the others; and two evangelists, when relating the same fact, do not always observe the order of time. 2. So, in John xii. 1-3. Jesus Christ is said to have been anointed at takes no notice of this remarkable circumstance till within two days of the Bethany six days before the passover; yet Saint Matthew (xxvi. 2. 6, 7.) feast. "The reason is manifest. It was at this time that Judas offered to the chief priests and elders to betray him; and the evangelist, intending to IV. The same persons or places sometimes have several relate his treachery, returns to give an account of the event which prompt. names. Thus, Esan's wife is called Bashemath in Gen. xxvi. 34. and Adah in Gen. xxxvi. 2. Gideon is called Jerubbaal in Judges vi. 32. and vii. 1. Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar are the saine person, Ezra i. 8. and v. 14. compared with Hag. i. 14. and ii. 2. 21. Almost numberless similar instances might be adduced froin the Old Testament: nor are examples wanting in the New. Thus, he who was nominated for the apostleship, is called Joseph, Barsabas, and Justus. (Acts i. 25.) Joses and Barnabas are 1 West's Observations on the History of the Resurrection, pp. 279. 2 Gerard's Institutes, p. 426. § 1147. Jahnii Enchiridion Herm. Gen. cap. vi, De Compositione Evarova, p. 137. The Vulgate version so renders verse 3. Morisque erat ut cunctis ovibus (lege pastoribus) congregatis devolverent lapidem, &c. Houbigant in loc. Dr. Kennicott's First Dissertation on the Hebrew text, pp. 360-365. The proper version of the passage above referred to will be thus:-"Then Jacob went on his journey, and came into the land of the people of the east 2. And he looked, and behold a well in a field; and, lo, three shepherds were lying by it, for out of that well they watered their flocks; and a great stone was upon the well's mouth. (And there all the shepherds usually met together, and rolled the stone from the well's mouth, and watered the sheep; and put the stone again upon the well's mouth, in its place.) 4-7. And Jacob said, &c. &c. 8. And they said, We cannot until all the shepherds shall be gathered together, and roll the stone from the well's mouth'; then we water the sheep." ed him to it. The rebuke which he received in the house of Simon, when he complained of the waste of ointment, had irritated his proud disaffected heart, and inspired him with sentiments of revenge. The mention of the unction of our Saviour, which was preparatory to his burial, reminds us of another observation, which is of use in removing difficulties, namely, that two facts may much resemble each other and yet not be the saine. Although they differ, therefore, in some circumstances, while they agree in others, it is through haste and inattention that, on this account, we charge the Scriptures with contradiction. The anointing of Christ, six days before the passover, is evidently different from the anointing recorded in the seventh chapter of Luke. The two incidents agree, as both happened at table, and in the house of a person named Simon; but on considering the passages, they appear to have taken place at different times."4 Apparent contrarequire a harmony of them to be constructed, were we here to specify dictions of this kind are so numerous in the Gospels, that it would almost them; and from these discrepancies have originated harmonies, or connected histories, compiled from the writings of the evangelists, in the structure of which different theories of arrangement have been adopted in [ order to reconcile their seeming discrepancies.1 3. Other additional instances of things that are mentioned as having happened, but of which no notice is taken in the sacred histories, occur in Gen. xxxi. 7, 8., the changing of Jacob's wages ten times, that is, frequently; in Psalm cv. 18. Joseph's feet being hurt with fetters; in Hosea xii. 4. Jacob's weeping; in Acts vii. 23-30. several things concerning Moses; in Acts xx. 35. a saying of our Lord; in 1 Cor. xv. 7. an appearance of Christ to St. James; in 2 Tim. iii. 8. Jannes and Jambres withstanding Moses; in Heb. ix. 19. Moses sprinkling the book as well as the people with blood; and in Heb. xii. 21. a saying of Moses. Jude 9. Michael's contending for the body of Moses; and verse 14. Enoch's prophecy; and in Rev. ii. 14. Balaam teaching Balak to put a stumbling-block before the children of Israel: all which things might be known by revelation, or by personal communication, as in the case of Christ's appearance to James, who was evi. dently living when Paul mentioned it, or by tradition, or by the history of those times, as some of the circumstances above adverted to are mentioned by Josephus. II. Things are not always recorded in the Scriptures exactly in the same method and order in which they were done; whence apparent contradictions arise, events being sometimes introduced by anticipation and sometimes by iorqaσis, in which the natural order is inverted, and things are related first which ought to appear last. Thus, in Gen. xxvii. 37. we read, I have made him thy Lord, that is, I have foretold that he shall be so. Gen. xxxv. 12. The land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, that is, promised or foretold should be theirs. See like instances in Num xvi. 7. Job v. 3. Jer. i. 10. xv. 1. and xxv. 15. VI. So, actions or things are said to be done, which only seem or are reputed to be done. Thus, in Josh. ii. 7. it is said, the men pursued after the spies; that is, they believed they were doing so, at the very time when the spies were concealed. VII. So, a thing is said to be done by him who only desires or endeavours to accomplish it, or uses proper means for that purpose. See examples of this in Gen. xxxvii. 21. Esther viii. 5. Ezek. xxiv. 13. 1 Cor. x. 33., &c. Apparent contradictions in the Sacred Writings, arising from the difference of numbers, proceed from the Scriptures speaking in whole or round numbers,-from numbers being taken sometimes exclusively and sometimes inclusively,from various readings,-and from the writers of the New Testament sometimes quoting numbers from the Alexandrian version, not from the Hebrew text. 1. Events introduced by anticipation. The creation of man in Gen. i. 27. ; which, after several other things in. serted, is related more at large, particularly the creation of Adam, in Gen. ii. 7. and of Eve, in verses 21-23. The death of Isaac (Gen. xxxv. 29.) is anticipated, as several transactions, especially those in chapters xxxvii. and xxxviii. must have happened during his life: it was probably thus antiI. The Scriptures sometimes speak in whole, or, as we usucipated, that the history of Joseph might not be disturbed. Isaac is supally term them, round numbers; though an odd or imperfect posed to have lived at least twelve years after Joseph was sold into Egypt. number would be more exact. In Exod. xvi. 33. we read of the keeping of the pot of manna, which was not done till many years after. David's adventure with Goliath, related in 1 Sam. xvii., was prior to his solacing Saul with his music; and the latter story is recorded in 1 Sam. xvi., the historian bringing together the effect of Saul's rejection, and the endowment of David with various graces, among which was, his pre-eminent skill on the harp. "It appears, indeed, from many circumstances of the story, that David's combat with Goliath was inany years prior in time to Saul's madness, and to David's introduction to him as a musician. In the first place, David was quite a youth when he engaged Goliath (1 Sam. xvii. 33. 42): when he was introduced to Saul, as a musician, he was of full age. (xvi. 18.) Secondly, his combat with Goliath was his first appearance in public life (xvii. 56.); when he was introduced as a muscian he was a man of established character. (xvi 18) Thirdly, his combat with Goliath was his first military exploit. (xviii. 38, 39.) He was a man of war when he was introduced as a musician. (xvi. 18.) He was unknown both to Saul and Abner when he fought Goliath. He had not, therefore, yet been in the office of Saul's armour-bearer, or resident in any capacity at the court. Now, the just conclusion is, not that these twenty verses are an 'interpolation, (as some critics have imagined), but that the last ten verses of 1 Sam. xvi., which relate Saul's madness and David's introduction to the court upon that occasion, are misplaced. The true place for these ten verses seems to be between the ninth and tenth of the eighteenth chapter. Let these ten verses be removed to that place, and this seventeenth chapter be connected immediately with the thirteenth verse of chapter xvi., and the whole disorder and inconsistency that appears in the present narrative will be removed." In Matt. xxvi. 21. and Mark xiv. 18. our Saviour is recorded to have intimated by whom he was to be betrayed, while eating the passover; which Saint Luke (xxii. 21.) shows to have been after the institution of the Lord's Supper: the order of Luke therefore is the true one. The imprisonment of John is set down in Luke iii. 19. before the baptism of Christ, whereas it happened after he had entered on his public ministry. The same occurrence is related by Saint Matthew and the other evangelists, per repдy, on occasion of Herod's consternation. The calling of Abraham to depart from Ur in Chaldea, in Gen. xii. 1., for it preceded that departure which is related in ch. xi. 31. Compare Gen. xv. 7. with Acts vii. 3. The history of Judah, in Gen. xxxviii. for most of the particulars related happened before the sale of Joseph. In Luke iv. 9. the carrying and placing of Christ on one of the battlements of the temple is related after his being transported to an exceeding high mountain; whereas it certainly preceded it, as appears from Matt. iv. 5. 8. who has distinctly noted the order of the temptations. III. A thing is sometimes attributed to one who was formerly an example of any action. See an instance of this in Jude, verse 11. IV. Actions or things are sometimes said to be done, when they are not already done, but upon the point of being accomplished, or (as we usually say) "as good as done." And in this language Christ ordinarily spoke a little before his death, as in Matt. xxvi. 24. the son of man goeth, &c. verse 45. the son of man is betrayed. So Mark xiv. 41. Luke xxii. 19, 20. which is given, which is shed, and verse 37. the things concerning me have an end. A similar expression occurs in Isa. ix. 6. to us a child is born; to us a son is given, &c. and in Rev. xviii. 2. Babylon is fallen, is fallen. Thus, in Gen. xv. 13. it is foretold that his posterity should be enslaved in Egypt four hundred years. Moses (Exod. xii. 40.) states their sojourn ing to be four hundred and thirty years, as also does Paul, Gal. iii. 17. and Josephus. In Acts vii. 6. Stephen says that the children of Israel sojourn. ed in Egypt four hundred years, leaving out the odd tens. Though the Israelites themselves resided in Egypt only two hundred and some odd years, yet the full time of their peregrination was four hundred and thirty years, if we reckon from the calling of Abraham and his departure from Ur, until the Israelites quitted Egypt; and that this is the proper reckoning appears from the Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch; which in all its printed editions and manuscripts, as well as the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch, reads the passage in Exod. xii. 40. thus: Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, and of their fathers, which they sojourned in the land of Canaan, and in the land of Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.• In Num. xiv. 33. it is denounced to the murmuring Israelites that they should wander forty years in the wilderness; but if we compare Num. xxxiii. with Josh. iv. 19. we shall find that some days, if not weeks, were wanting to complete the number: but, forty years being a round and entire number, and because in so many years a few days were inconsiderable, therefore Moses delivers it in this manner. The same remark applies to Judges xi. 26. relative to the sojourning of the Israelites in the land of the Amorites. The twelve apostles are also mentioned in 1 Cor. xv. 5. though Judas was no more; and Abimelech is said to have slain seventy persons, though Jotham escaped. Compare Judges ix. 18. 56. with verse 5. II. Sometimes numbers are to be taken exclusively, and sometimes inclusively. Matt. xvii. 1. Mark ix. 2. Luke ix. 28. and John xx. 26. may be mentioned as examples of this remark. See them further explained in p. 405. Obs. V. infra. III. Differences in numbers not unfrequently arise from false readings. As the Hebrews anciently used the letters of their alphabet to denote numbers, many of those numbers which to us appear almost incredible in some places, and contradictory in others, are owing to mistakes in some of the similar letters. Thus, in 2 Kings viii. 26. we read that Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign; but in 2 Chron. xxii. 2. he is said to have been forty-two years old, which is impossible, as he could not be born two years before Jehoram his father, who was only forty years old. Twenty-two years, therefore, is the proper reading, a Kaph 5, whose numeral power is twenty, being put for a Mem 2, whose numeral power is which in 1 Chron. xviii. 4. and xix. 18. is seven thousand, theproper number. As the Jews anciently appear to have expressed numbers by marks analogous to our common figures, the corruption (and consequently the seemcarelessly added or omitted a single cipher. In 1 Kings iv. 26. we are told ing contradiction) may be accounted for, from the transcribers having that Solomon had forty thousand stalls for horses, which number, in 2 Chron. ix. 25. is only four thousand, and is most probably correct, a cipher having been added. In 2 Chron. xiii. 3. 17. we meet with the following numbers, four hundred thousand, eight hundred thousand, and five hundred thousand, which in several of the old editions of the Vulgate Latin Bible are forty thousand, eighty thousand, and fifty thousand; the latter are probably forty. In like manner, in 2 Sam. viii. 4. and x. 18. we read seven hundred, the true numbers." By the application of this rule, some critics have endeavoured to reconcile the difference relative to the hour of Christ's crucifixion, which by Mark (xv. 25.) is stated to be the third, and by St. John (xix. 14.) the sixth V. So actions or things are said to be done, which are only hour; for, as in ancient times all numbers were written in manuscripts, declared to be done. 1 See an account of the principal Harmonies of the Gospels, pp. 319, 320. supra, and for editions of Harmonies, see the BIBLOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX to the second Volume, Part I. Chap. II. Sect. II. and III. 2 Particularly Mr. Pilkington (Remarks on Scripture, pp. 62-68.), and Dr. Kennicott. (Diss. ii. on the Hebrew Text, pp. 419-429.) Bp. Horsley's Biblical Criticisms, vol. i. p. 331. Mr. Townsend in his Harmony of the Old Testament, has judiciously arranged the above chap ters agreeably to Bp. H.'s suggestion, and has thus obviated a seeming contradiction, which has long since called forth the sarcasms of infidels. • Glassii Philologia Sacra, tom. i. pp. 668-671. edit Dathii. not at length, but with numeral letters, it was easy for I, three, to be taken Ibid. Diss. i. pp. 96-99. 462, 463. Diss. ii. p. 209. Other similar remarks Ibid. Diss. i. pp. 532-534. Diss. ii. pp. 196-218. Other examples occur in Diss. ii. p. 219. et seq. |