the next world,--the salvation of their souls,-as worldly minded men are in their management of the affairs of this world. (2) The interrogatory (1 Cor. ix. 5.) has been distorted into a charge of adultery against the aposde Paul. It would be a sufficient reply to this falsehood, to state that the whole of his conduct and sentiments completely disproves it. The purest benevolence, the severest reproofs of all sin, and the most exemplary discharge of all the civil, social, and relative duties pervade all his justly admired epistles. Let us, however, briefly consider this passage. It is sufficiently evident from the context, that at Corinth there were false teachers of Christianity, who questioned Paul's apostleship; and that he was obliged to conduct himself in the most circumspect manner, in order that they might not find any occasion against him. Having vindicated his apostolic character and mission, and proved his right to have the necessaries of life supplied to him, if he had demanded them of those among whom he had laboured gratuitously, he says,-Have we not power (authority or right) to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? What is there in this passage, which can be construed into a sufficient proof of adultery in an English court of law?-When the apostle speaks of his right to take with him a sister, a wife, he means, first, that he and all other apostles, and, consequently, all ministers of the Gospel, had a RIGHT to marry; for it appears that James and Jude, who were the brethren or kinsmen of the Lord, were married: and we have infallible evidence that Peter (surnamed Cephas) was a married man, not only from this verse, but also from Matt. viii. 14. where his mother-in-law is mentioned as being cured by Jesus Christ of a fever. And, secondly, we find that their wives were persons of the same faith; for less can never be implied in the word sister. It is further worthy of notice that Clement of Alexandria has particularly remarked that the apostles carried their wires about with them, "not as wives but as SISTERS, that they might minister to those who were mistresses of families; that so the doctrine of the Lord might, without reprehension or evil suspicion, enter the apartments of the women." in giving his finished picture of a perfect Christian, he says,-"Er 22 vi, ** FAMEI....EIKONA21% TOUS AIOтOAO-He eats and drinks and MARRIES....having the APOSTLES for his EXAMPLE !"'1 SECTION VI. And They are perfectly consistent. In the first chapter, Moses gives a general account of the whole creation in six days; and then, carrying on his history, he proceeds to describe particularly the formation of Adam and Eve. In Gen. ii. 3. it is said, that God had rested from all his works which he had created and made; that is, he ceased to make any more creatures; con. sequently, Adam was NOT made after this. 2. Gen. vii. 12. And the is said to be Gen. vii. 17. The flood was rain was upon the earth forty contradicted by forty days upon the earth. days and forty nights. The words "and forty nights,” in Gen. vii. 17. are lost from the Hebrew copies, but they are found in the Septuagint Greek version, and also in many MSS. of the Latin Vulgate version. They ought to be restored to the text, which will read as follows, in perfect unison with Gen. vii. 12.The flood was forty days and forty nights upon the earth. 3. Gen. vii. 24. And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. is said to be Gen. viii. 3. The waters returned from off the earth continually; and after the contradicted by end of the hundred and fifty days, the waters were abated. Gen. viii. 3. ought to be rendered:-The waters continually subsided from off the earth; and at the end of the hundred and fifty days, the waters were much abated. This rendering (which Dr. Boothroyd has adopted in his new version of the Bible) completely removes the alleged contradiction. 4. Gen. viii. 4, 5. are affirmed to be repugnant. | pairs, the male and his female. In vii. 8, 9. and 15. the historian, relating what was done in obedience to the divine command, says generally, that pairs went with Noah into the ark; and in viii. 20. it is stated, also, in general terms, that he offered sacrifices of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl. There is, therefore, no real contradiction between these seve ral numbers. As animals were not used for food before the Deluge, it is probable that the distinction of beasts and fowls into clean and unclean was made with respect to sacrifices; the former being offered while the latter were not. 6. On the alleged contradiction between Gen. xv. 13. Exod. xii. 40, 41. and Acts vii. 6. see p. 405. supra. apparently contradicts (James i. 13. God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man. 7. Gen. xxii. 1. It came to pass after these things, that, God did tempt Abraham. Temptation signifies nothing more than trial; any opposition or difficulty that may exercise our virtues, and make them known. In this sense God may be said to tempt men, that is, he tries and proves them, and fous he tempted Abrahamn. Sometimes temptation means dangerous trials and enticements to sin, under which we are more likely to sink, than to overcome them. In this sense God tempteth not any man; nor, if we resist them, will He suffer us to be tempted above what we are able. (1 Cor. x. 13.) 8. From Gen. xxxi. 38. and 41. compared with Gen. xxxiv. it has been asserted that Dinah was only six years of age (instead of sixteen), when she was forcibly defiled by Shechem; and hence it is insinuated that the narrative is so contradictory as to be unworthy of credit. This pretended difficulty, concerning the age of Dinah, originated in the supposition that that disastrous circunstance took place in the very same Genesis from dating it in that year, that, on the contrary, we learn from it, year when Jacob returned into Palestine. So far, however, is the book of that Jacob resided in that country a long time. (Compare Gen. xxxin. 11. 18. xxxiv. 1. 30. and xxxv. 1. 28, 29.) The best chronologists compute that the patriarch's residence, both at Succoth and at Shechem, was about ten years; and there is not a single word in the book of Genesis that affords any ground of contradiction or difficulty against this computation. Dinah, therefore, was about sixteen, or between sixteen and seventeen, years of age; and her brothers Simeon and Levi, about twenty-two or twenty-three (instead of twelve, as the opposers of the Bible falsely assert), when the disastrous occurrence at Shechem obliged Jacob to quit that district or canton, and go to Bethel, whence he repaired to Mamre to his father Isaac. It is true, that Isaac's death, which is recorded at the close of Gen. xXXV. was subsequent to Joseph's departure into Egypt, though the latter is not related until the thirty-seventh chapter; but that patriarch's decease was might not be interrupted. This mode of narrating facts, it is well known, noticed in this place by anticipation, in order that the bistory of Joseph is pursued by all historians who do not wish to be mere annalists, and by no means affects the date of the account of Dinah, which took place previously to Isaac's death, as well as the sale of Joseph. The days of Isaac were a hundred and fourscore years; he was one hundred and seventythree years old when Dinah was violated, and one hundred and seventyfour when Joseph was sold into Egypt, Goshen, and not the capital of that district; it was probably so called in the time of Moses, from the city of Rameses, which the Israelites had built for Pharaoh. The Hebrew historian used an appellation well known to them. There is no improbability or contradiction whatever between Gen. xlvii. 11. and Exod. i. 11. 10. Gen. xlviii. 8. and 10. In the first of these verses it is said, that Israel beheld Joseph's sons; and in the other, that his eyes were dim, so that he could not see. 9. The land of Rameses, in Gen. xlvii. 11. means, the land of The meaning is, not that he could not see at all, but only that he could not plainly and distinctly see the objects which were before him. Therefore, though he beheld Ephraim and Manasseh, yet he could not distinguish them, until they were brought nigh to him. The declaration of Jacob to Joseph, in xlviii. 22. is not prophetic of the future, as a scoffing writer of the present day has asserted. From Gen. xxxiii. 19. we learn, that Jacob bought a piece of land from Hamor at Shechem; to which he doubtless alludes in Gen. xlviii. 22. I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow. It should seem that this spot had afterwards fallen into the hands of an Amorite family or tribe, after the destruction of the Shechemites, and that Jacob had retaken it from them by force of arms, though this transaction is nowhere else mentioned. 11. Reuel in Exod. ii. 18. is the same as Raguel in Num. X. 29. The Hebrew is the same in both places; consequently there is no con tradiction. The reason of the seeming difference is, that the (oin or áin)' Dr. Boothroyd renders them thus, which obviates that repugnancy-in The waters were much abated, so that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon one of the mountains of AraAnd the waters were continually decreasing until the tenth month; and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains were visible. rat. 5. Gen. vi. 19. vii. 2, 3. 8, 9. and 15. and viii. 20. are charged with being direct contradictions. A little attention to the context and connection of the passages in question will show their perfect consistency. In Gen. vi. 19-21. general orders are given to Noah to take into the ark with him animals of every kind, pairs of each. In Gen. vii. 2. the number of pairs is stated, viz. seven pairs of clean beasts, and two pairs of beasts that are not clean; and (verse 3.) of the fowls of the air that are clean, seven pairs, the male and the female, and of foils that are not clean, two 1 Clementis Alexandrini Stromata, lib. vii. c. 2. cited by Dr. A. Clarke in his Commentary on 1 Cor. ix. 5.-Clement was one of the most learned Greek Christian writers in the close of the second century. His Stromata were written A. D. 193. 1, is sometimes used merely as a vowel, and sometimes as g, ng, and gn; and this is occasioned by the difficulty of the sound, which scarcely any European organs can enunciate. As pronounced by the Arabs, it strongly resembles the first effort made in the throat by gargling. Raguel is the worst method of pronouncing this word; Re-u-el, the first syllable being strongly accented, is nearer to the true sound. On a com parison of all the places where these relations of Moses are mentioned, it Zipporah Moses married; and it is most probable that Hobab was the son is evident that Re-u-el or Raguel was the father of Jethro, whose daughter of Jethro who accompanied the Israelites through the wilderness. (Compare Exod. iii. 1. iv. 18. and Num. x. 29.) No solid objection can be made against this explanation from Reuel being called “their father" (Exod. ii. 18.), as this appellation frequently denotes any remote ancestor.a Aged men, uncles, and grandfathers are in the Scriptures sometimes called fathers. Thus in Gen. xxxi. 43. Laban calls his grand children his children, and considers himself as their father, and in 2 Kings xiv. 3. David is called the father of Amaziah, though he was his remote ancestor. The above is the reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and of the Septuagint and Syriac versions. The rendering of the Hebrew text is imperfect-Of fowls of the air also by sevens, the male and the female Bishop Newton's Works, vol. i. p. 168. Dr. A. Clarke and Dr. Boothroyd on Exod. ii. 18. Exod. iii. 4. And when the | 22. the Israelites, just before they entered Palestine, were perLORD saw that he turned aside mitted to slaughter oxen, sheep, or other clean animals at pleato see, God called unto him sure, in any part of the country, provided they did not regard out of the midst of the bush. them as sacrifices, and abstained from their blood, which the heathens, in their sacrifices, were accustomed to drink. In these two verses there is no contradiction whatever. On the subject of this and other divine appearances related in the Old Testament (which both Jews and Christians believe, on the solid evidence of facts, though Between these two passages there is an apparent contradiction; but it infidels, unable to refute them, dismiss them with scoffing), the solid and may be readily accounted for, when we consider that the laws of Moses incontestable solution is laid by Jesus Christ himself, who perfectly underwere necessarily regulated by the circumstances of the Israelites, and that stood the whole affair of divine appearances, in John v. 37. And the Father they were not intended to be absolutely unalterable. The law in question himself which hath sent me hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither might be observed in the wilderness, where the Israelites kept near heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. (John i. 18.) No man together, and, from their poverty, ate but little animal food; but in Paleskath seen God at any time. He is the invisible God, whom no man hath tine, and when their circumstances were improved, it would have been an seen, nor can see. It is often said, that the Lord, the Most High God, intolerable grievance, for inany of them lived at the distance of several appeared to the patriarchs, to Moses and to the prophets, the ancestors of days' journey from the sanctuary, at which alone offerings could be made; the Jews: but, according to Jesus Christ's rule, the appearance, forin, or and they must, consequently, either have altogether denied themselves the shape which they saw, was not the appearance of the Lord God himself; use of the flesh of oxen, sheep, and goats, or else have travelled long jour for never, at any time, did they see his shape. Again, it is often said, that neys to present them at the altar before they could taste it. But, in fact, the Most High God spake to the patriarchs, to Moses, and to the prophets; Moses himself shows that Lev. xvii. 1-7. was a temporary law intended only but our Lord affirms, that they never heard his voice at any time. How for their situation in the wilderness, by the phrase "without or within the shall we reconcile this seeming inconsistency? The true solution, accord- camp. And in the law last promulgated (Deut. xii. 15. 20-22.), in the ing to the Scriptures, is this :-That the Lord God never spake or appeared fortieth year of their pilgrimage, just before their entrance into Palestine, in person, but always by a proxy, nuncius, or messenger, who represented he explicitly declares it repealed, as soon as they should abide there, per bin and spake in his name and authority. It was this messenger of Jeho-mitting them to kill and eat the flesh of oxen, sheep, &c. any where, as vah (or angel of Jehovah), who appeared unto Moses (Exod. ii. 2.), and who already noticed. He tells them, that they might then eat them even as the is called, in verse 4. JEHOVAH or Lord (whence it is evident that he was no hart and the roe, that is, with as full liberty, and likewise without the smallcreated human being); and who spake to Moses, in verse 5. saying, Draw est idea of offering them; for the hart and the roe were not allowed to be not nigh hither, &c. I am the God of Abraham (ver. 6.), and I AM THAT I brought to the altar.2 AM. (ver. 14.) All which words were pronounced by an angel, but are true, not of the angel, but of God, whom he represented. So a herald reads a proclamation in the king's name and words, as if the king himself were speaking. The word ANGEL, both in the Greek language and in the Hebrew, siguifies a messenger or nuncius, an ambassador; one who acts and speaks, not in his own name or behalf, but in the name, person, and behalf of him who sends him. Thus the word is frequently rendered in our authorized translation; and if it had always been rendered the mes senger of the Lord, instead of the angel of the Lord, the case would have been very plain. But angel, being a Greek word, which the English reader does not understand, throws some obscurity upon such passages. 13. Exod. vii. 19-21. is apparently contradicted by Exod. vii. 22. Both are reconciled by comparing verse 24. The Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink: and it seems that the water thus obtained was not bloody like that in the river; on this water, therefore, the magicians might operate. Again, though Moses was commissioned to turn into blood, not only the waters of the river Nile, but also those of their streams, rivers, ponds, and pools; yet it seems evident from verse 20. that he did not proceed thus far, at least in the first instance, for it is there stated, that only the waters of the river were turned into blood. Afterwards, doubtless, the plague became general. At the commencement, therefore, of this plague, the magicians night obtain other water, to imitate the miracle; and it would not be difficult for them, by juggling tricks, to impart to it a bloody appearance, a fetid smell, and a bad taste. On either of these grounds there is no contradiction in the Mosaic account. Exod. ix. 20. He that feareth the word of the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh made HIS CATTLE flee into the ... houses. Nothing can be more evident than that universal terms are used in all languages in a limited sense; so that the word ALL, in verse 6. means, that all the cattle that did die belonged to the Egyptians, and died in the field, while those in the houses escaped; or else that a great many of all sorts of cattle died; or, if we understand that all the cattle of the Egyptians perished, as asserted in ix. 6., what was there to hinder them from obtaining others from the Israelites, not one of whose cattle died in the land of Goshen ? This justifies the supposition that there was some respite or interval between the several plagues. 15. It has been asserted, that Exod. xx. 11. and Deut. v. 15. (both which passages enjoin the observance of the Sabbath) are at variance; and hence it has been inferred that Moses could not be the author of the Pentateuch. But the enforcement of the same precept by two different motives does not constitute two discordant precepts; and this is the case with the passage in question. In Exod. xx. 11. Moses urges the observance of the Sab. bath, by a motive taken from the creation; and in the latter, by another derived from their exode or departure from bondage in Egypt. apparently 16. Exod. xxxiii. 11. The John i. 18. 1 John. iv. 12. LORD spake unto Moses face No man hath seen God at to face. any time. The Almighty is said to have conversed with Moses, and Jacob to have seen him. (Gen. xxxii. 30.) But this only signifies that God revealed him self to them in a more particular manner than to others; for God is a Spirit whom no one hath seen or can see (1 Tim. vi. 16.), that is, as he is in heaven. And when Moses besought this favour of God, he refused him, saying, Thou canst not see my face, for there shall no man see me and live. (Exod. xxxiii. 20.) The apostle John, might, therefore, say, that no man hath seen God at any time. The ancient Christian writers (who certainly were more likely to understand the subject than we are) were generally agreed, that the person who appeared to Adam, Abraham, Moses, and the Prophets, was the Word of God, the Son of God, Jesus Christ. 17. In Lev. xvii. 1—7. the Israelites were prohibited from slaughtering any clean animal, which they were permitted to eat, in any other place except upon the altar at the door of the tabernacle, whither they were to bring it, and to immolate it. The reason assigned for this prohibition in verse 7. is, that they should no longer offer sacrifice unto idols. But in Deut. xii. 15. 20— 1 Dr. J. Taylor's Scheme of Scripture Divinity ch. xv. (Bp. Watson's Collection of Theological Tracts, vol. i. p. 65.) VOL. I. 3 I 18. The promulgation of the Levitical law is said (Lev. i. 1.) to have been made from the tabernacle, and in Lev. xxvii. 34. we read, These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses in Mount SINAI. But there is no real contradiction here. The Hebrew preposition ◄ (beth) signifies near as well as in; the meaning, therefore, is, that these were added to the foregoing commandments, before the Israelites removed from the wilderness of Mount Sinai, or while they were near Mount Sinai. And if the objector had distinguished the time and place when the Levihe would not have asserted the existence of a contradiction. The latter was tical law was given, from the time when the moral law was promulgated, given on Mount Sinai, in the third month of the first year after the departure of the Israelites from Egypt. (Exod. xix. xx.) The tabernacle was raised on the first day of the first month of the second year after their departure; on which occasion Aaron and his sons were set apart to the sacerdotal office. (Exod. xl. 2. 17-32.) To the ceremonies attendant on this consecration, the chief part of Leviticus belongs; and from the manner in which this book begins, it is plainly a continuation of the preceding. Indeed, the whole is but one law, though divided from a very ancient period into five portions. The twenty-fifth verse should be read without a parenthesis, and in the present tense dwell. The meaning simply is, that they at present lie in wait for you, at the bottom on the other side of the mountain. God, having consented not to destroy the people, suddenly gave them notice of their danger from the neighbouring people, who were lying in wait to give them battle. The Israelites presumed (verse 41.) to go up into the hill-top; whence they were driven and discomfited by the Amalekites and Canaanites, who had posted themselves there. A detachment of the Amalekites, who were encamped on the opposite foot of the hill, might easily ascend to succour their Canaanitish allies. 21. Num. xxi. 2, 3. is said to be contradicted by the subsequent history of the conquest of Canaan. But there is no reason why we should not understand the destruction of the Canaanites, and their cities as limited to those which they then took; for Joshua afterwards took the king of Arad. (Josh. xii. 14.) See also Judg. i. 16, 17. 22. In 1 Cor. x. 8. St. Paul tells us, that the number of persons who were cut off in the plague was twenty-three thousand; but in Num. xxv. 9. Moses makes them not less than twentyfour thousand, because in this number he includes the thousand who were found guilty of idolatry, and were in consequence slain with the sword; whereas the apostle speaks only of those who died of the pestilence. 23. From the law being mentioned in the book of Exodus as delivered on Mount Sinai, and from Mount Horeb being mentioned as the place where it was delivered, in the book of Deuteronomy, without any notice being taken of Mount Sinai, it has been insinuated, that neither of these books is worthy of credit, in maps as two distinct mountains. especially because some injudicious persons have represented them of one and the same range of mountains; and hence it is, that what is in It is, however, well known that Sinai and Horeb are two different peaks one passage of Scripture related as having been done at Horeb, is in another place said to have been done at Sinai, or in the wilderness of Sinai. Michaelis's Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. ii. pp. 414, 415. vol. i. pp. 28-33. 24. Deut. i. 9-18. is said to contradict Exod. xviii. 13—23. and Moses is asserted to have conceived the idea of setting judges and rulers over the people. A little attention to the two passages would have satisfied the objector that Moses did not conceive any such idea. In Exod. xviii. 13-23. Jethro, his father-in-law, having observed the great personal fatigue to which the Jewish legislator daily exposed himself, suggested to him the appointment of magistrates over thousands, hundreds, fitues, and tens, men of integrity and piety, to hear and determine minor questions between the people, subject, however, to the approbation of God. In verses 24-27, we read generally that Moses hearkened to the voice of his father-in-law, followed his counsel, with the approbation of God, and appointed the necessary officers. In the first chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses is represented as alluding to this fact, but with this remarkable difference, that he not only says nothing of Jethro, but instead of representing himself as the person who selected those magistrates, he states that he had appealed to the people, and desired that they would elect them. "There is a great and striking difference between these statements, but there is no contradiction. Jethro suggested to Moses the appointment; he, probably after consulting God, as Jethro intimates, if God shall thus command thee, referred the matter to the people, and assigned the choice of the individuals to them; the persons thus selected he admitted to share his authority as subordinate judges. Thus the two statements are perfectly consistent. But this is not all: their difference is most natural. In first recording the event, it was natural Moses should dwell on the first cause which led to it, and pass by the appeal to the people as a subordinate and less material part of the transaction; but in addressing the people, it was natural to notice the part they themselves had in the selection of those judges, in order to conciliate their regard and obedience. How naturally also does the pious legislator, in his public address, dwell on every circumstance which could improve his hearers in piety and virtue. The multitude of the people was the cause of the appointment of these judges. How beautifully is this increase of the nation turned to an argument of gratitude to God! How affectionate is the blessing with which the pious speaker interrupts the narrative, imploring God, that the multitude of his people inay increase a thousand fold! How admirably does he take occasion, from mentioning the judges, to inculcate the eternal principles of jus tice and piety, which should control their decisions! How remote is all this from art, forgery, and imposture! Surely here, if any where, we can trace the dictates of nature, truth, and piety." 25. Deut. x. 6, 7. is affirmed to contradict Num. xx. 23-29. and xxxiii. 30. 37, 38. Jebusites. And the Israelites not being able immediately to people all the But the fortress of Mount Zion remained in their hands until the reign of 31. Josh. xxi. 43, 44. we read, The Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they pos sessed and dwelt therein. And the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the Lora delivered all their enemies into their hand. This is asserted to be a direct contradiction to the preceding parts of this book; but it is assertion without proof. The whole country was now divided by lot unto them; and their ene mies were so completely discomfited, that there was not a single army of the Canaanites remaining to make head against them; and those who were left in the land served under tribute; and the tribute so paid by thein was the amplest proof of their complete subjugation. Add to this, that the Israelites had as much of the land in actual possession as they could oc cupy; and as they increased, God enabled them to drive out the ancient inhabitants, but in consequence of the infidelity of the Israelites, their enemies were often permitted to straiten them, and sometimes to prevail against them. It is also to be recollected, that God never promised to give them the land, or to maintain them, but upon condition of obedience; and so punctually did he fulfil this intention, that there is not a single instance upon record in which they were either straitened or subjugated, while they were obedient and faithful to their God. In this sense, therefore, it might most correctly and literally be said that there failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel: all came to pass.-Nor will one word of his ever fail, while sun and moon endure. 32. In Judg. i. 19. we read, The Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had cha riots of iron. A little consideration, however, of the context of the passage will show that this mighty difficulty has as little foundation as all the rest which the ingenuity of the enemies of the Bible have imagined to exist. In the first place, then, it is to be observed, that when it is said He drove out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley; the antecedent is Judah, not Jehovah; because Jehovah had often the greater, could certainly have effected the less. In the second place, though it pleased God to give success to Judah in one instance, it does not necessarily follow, that therefore he should give it in all. So that there is no more absurdity in the passage, than there would be in the following speech, if such had been addressed to the sovereign by one of his com manders returned from America:-"By the blessing of God upon your majesty's arms, we overcame General Greene in the field; but we could not attack General Washington, because he was too strongly entrenched in his camp." There is no reason, therefore, for supposing, that "the Jews considered the God of Israel their protector as a local divinity; who was, in some instances, more, and in others less powerful, than the gods of their enemies."4 From this passage M. Voltaire and his copyists in this country have taken occasion to remark that it is difficult to conceive how the Lord of heaven and earth, who had so often changed the order and suspended the establishBut Dr. Kennicott has shown that verses 6-9, of Deut. x. are an interpo-ed laws of nature, in favour of his people, could not succeed against the lation, and ought to be inserted after Deut. ii. 11. For reconciling this inhabitants of a valley, because they had chariots of iren. passage, where Aaron is said to have died at Moserah, with Num. xxxiii. 31, 32. where his death is said to have taken place on Mount Hor, it is sufficient to remark that the same place frequently had different names; just as (we have seen) Horeb and Sinai were two peaks of the same ridge, so Moserah might have been a peak of Mount Hor, and interchanged with it. In Deut. x., as it stands in our printed copies, there are several things omitted, which are preserved in the Samaritan copy, and remove the difficulty we other-displayed much more eminent instances of his power; and be that effected wise find respecting the time and place of Aaron's death. The Samaritan copy may be thus translated: "Thence they journeyed, and pitched their camp in Gudgodah; thence they journeyed, and pitched in Jobbatha, a land of springs and water. Thence they journeyed, and pitched in Abarned. Thence they journeyed, and pitched in Ezion-geber, Thence they journeyed, and pitched in the desert of Sin, which is Kadesh. Thence they journeyed, and pitched in Mount Hor, and there Aaron died,” &c. 26. Deut. x. 22. is apparently contradicted by Acts vii. 14. The family of Jacob are differently reckoned at their going into Egypt. In Deut. x. 22. Moses says, that they were threescore and ten, that is to say, all who came out of Jacob's loins (Gen. xlvi. 26.) were threescore and six, besides himself, Joseph, and his two sons who were in Egypt before; which make threescore and ten. But in Acts vii. 14. Stephen adds to these nine of his son's wives, and thus makes the number threescore and fifteen. The latter, though not of Jacob's blood, were of his kindred, as Stephen justly expresses it, being allied to him by marriage. 27. There is no "strange inconsistency" between Deut. xxxii. and Deut. xxxiii. The former is a sublime ode, which contains a defence of God against the Israelites, and unfolds the method of the divine judgments. In the latter chapter Moses takes his leave of the people, by pronouncing a blessing upon thein generally, and upon each tribe in particular. 28. In Joshua x. 23. and 37. the Israelitish general is charged with killing the same king of Hebron twice. The historian relates no such thing. Hebron was a place of considerable note; and its inhabitants, finding that their king had fallen in battle, elected another in his place. The second king was he whom Joshua slew, after he had taken the city and its dependencies, as related in verse 37. 29. Josh. x. 15. is apparently contradicted by verse 43. of the same chapter. 33. Judg. vi. 1. is said to contradict Num. xxxi. 10. In the latter place, however, it is not said that all the Midianites were extirpated. Those who engaged the Israelites were discomfited, and their country was laid waste, that those who fled might have no encouragement might increase and become sufficiently formidable (as we read that they to return thither. In the course of two hundred years, however, they did in Judg. vi. 1.) to oppress the northern and eastern Israelites, espe east, as their allies are termed in the third verse. This remark will serve cially when joined by the Amalekites and Ishmaelites, or children of the also to remove the contradiction alleged to exist between 1 Sam. xv. 7, 8, where the Amalekites are said to have been discomfited by the Israelites under Saul, and 1 Sam. xxx. 1, 2, where they are said, twenty-three years afterwards, to have made a predatory incursion against Ziklag. The latter were, doubtless, a travelling predatory horde, similar to those who to this day live in the country where the Amalekites formerly dwelt, viz. Arabia. 34. The account of Saul's death, related in 1 Sam. xxxi. 1—6. (whence it is copied, with some trifling difference, in 1 Chron. x.) is said to be contradicted by the account of the Amalekite, narrated in 2 Sam. i. 10. The historian relates the fuct as stated by the Amalekite himself, whose In the former place he is said to have returned and all Israel with him to story bears every mark of being a fiction, forined in order to ingratiate Gilgal; which he certainly did not do until the end of the expedition himself with David as the next probable successor to the crown. (Compare (verse 43.), where it is properly introduced. It is therefore either an inter-2Sam. iv. 10.) There are always men of this description about camps, polation, or must signify that Joshua intended to have returned, but changed whose object is plunder, and for which they will strip the dead. his resolution, when he heard that the five kings had fled and hidden them35. 2 Kings xxiv. 13. and xxv. 8-12. are stated to be contraselves in a cave at Makkedah. So Balak, king of Moab, is said (Josh. xxiv. 9.) to have warred against Israel, that is, he intended to war against them. dictory. the reign of Jehoiachim he again took the city, and cut to pieces a great | examination of the various passages themselves. 36. Ezra ii. is apparently at variance with Nehemiah vii. On the discrepancies occurring throughout these two chapters, the commentators must be consulted: it may suffice here to remark that the account contained in Ezra was taken in Chaldæa before the Jews commenced heir return; and that which is related in Nehemiah vii. after their arrival in Jerusalem. Some of them altering their minds and staying behind after they had given in their names to go, and others dying on the way, lessened part of the numbers in Nehemiah; as on the contrary, some of them coming to them afterwards, made the numbers mentioned in the latter appear the greater. It remains only that we notice a few passages in the New Testament which have also been the subject of cavil. 40. Matthew xxvii. 9, 10. disagrees with Zechariah xi. 13. Both may be reconciled by supposing the name of the prophet to have been originally omitted by the evangelist, and that the naine of Jeremiah was inserted by some subsequent copyist. Jeremiah is omitted in two manuscripts of the twelfth century, in the Syriac, the later Persian, and modern Greek versions, and in some later copies. What renders it likely that the original reading was die тou #рonтou by the prophet, is, that Saint Matthew frequently omits the name of the prophet in his quotations. On this passage, see further p. 296. note 5. in this Volume. 42. The different manner in which the four evangelists have mentioned the superscription which was written over Jesus Christ when on the cross was objected as a want of accuracy and truth by Dr. Middleton; and his objection has been copied by later writers. But it is not improbable that it varied in each of the languages in which that accusation or superscription was written: for both Luke (xxiii. 38.) and John (xxix. 20.) say that it was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. We may then reasonably suppose Matthew to have recited the Hebrew: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 41. Mark ii. 26. is at variance with 1 Sam. xxi. 1. Abiathar was not high-priest at that time: but the expression may easily But the principal and most numerous contradictions are to be found in the Old Testament between some parts of the second book signify, in the days of Abiathar, who was afterwards high priest. Or, proof Samuel and the books of Kings and Chronicles; and chiefly re-bably, both Animelech and Abiathar might officiate in the high-priesthood, and the name of the office be indifferently applied to either." late to numbers, dates, names, and genealogies. The means by which some of these repugnancies may be reconciled have already been indicated;' in addition to which we may remark, that although the commentators generally present satisfactory solutions, yet many of the seeming differences may be easily reconciled on the principle that the books of Chronicles are supplementary to those of Kings; and hence they are termed in the Septuagint Пapuroμe, or things omitted. Besides, the language was slightly changed, after the captivity, from what it had previously been. The various places had received new names, or undergone sundry vicissitudes; certain things were now better known to the returned Jews, under other appellations than those by which they had formerly been distinguished; and from the materials before him, which often were not the same as those used by the abridgers of the histories of the kings, the author of the books of Chronicles takes those passages which seemed best adapted to his purpose, and most suitable to the time in which he wrote. It must also be considered, that he often elucidates obsolete and ambiguous words, in former books, by a different mode of spelling them, or by a different order of the words employed even when he does not use a distinct phraseology of narration, which he sometimes adopts. The following are the most material passages of these books, which have been the subject of cavil to the modern advocates of infidelity. 37. In 1 Chron. xix. 7. the children of Ammon are said to have hired thirty-two thousand chariots, and the king of Maachah and his people; which appears an incredible number. But the original word here rendered chariots does not always bear that meaning: it is a collective noun signifying cavalry or riders. The meaning, therefore, is, that they hired thirty-two thousand Syrian auxiliaries, who were usually mounted on chariots or horses, but who occasionally also served as foot soldiers, which is perfectly in unison with 2 Sam. x. 6., where the Syrian auxiliaries engaged by the Ammonites amount exactly to thirty-two thousand, besides a thousand men, whom they hired of the king of Maachah; and whom we may presume to be infantry. 38. 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel; and he moved David against them, to say, Go number Israel and Judah. It is not usual to mention the anger of God, without stating its cause: but as the first of these texts now stands, God is stated to be angry, and his anger leads him to move David to number the people. This numbering of the people, however, was not the cause, but the effect of his anger; the cause is stated in the second passage, which may be rendered-an adver sary (perhaps one of David's wicked counsellors, for the Hebrew word (Sarax) signifies an adversary) stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. At the time referred to, David probably coveted an extension of empire; and having through the suggestions of an adver sary given way to this evil disposition, he could not well look to God for help, and, therefore, wished to know whether the thousands of Israel and Judah might be deemed equal to the conquest which he meditated. His Jesign was, to force all the Israelites to perform military service, and engage in the contest which his ambition had in view; and, as the people might resist his census, soldiers were employed to make it, who might not only put down resistance, but also suppress any disturbances that might arise. Concerning the difference of numbers in this census, see Sect. VIII. Obs. 6. p. 421. infra. 39. In 2 Kings xvi. 9. it is said, that the king of Assyria hearkened unto Ahaz, but in 2 Chron. xxviii. 20. we read that he distress'd him, but strengthened him not. But Both state nents are true. He did help him against the king of Syria, took Lar.ascus, and delivered Ahaz from the power of the Syrians. this se: vize was of little value; for the Assyrian monarch did not assist Ahaz against the Edomites or Philistines; and he distressed him by taking the royal treasures and the treasures of the temple, and rendered him but little service for so great a sacrifice." The preceding are the chief passages in the Old Testament, in which differences have been imagined to exist; but with how little propriety the reader will be enabled to judge from a careful 1 See pp. 400-404. of the present Volume. 2 This seeming contradiction is illustrated by what happened in our own nation. The Britons invited the Saxons to help them against the Scots and Picts. The Saxons accordingly came and assisted them for a time, but at length they made themselves masters of the country. And John the Greek: JESUS THE NAZARENE THE KING OF THE JEWS. If it should be asked, Why the Nazarene was omitted in the Hebrew, and we must assign a reason for Pilate's humour; perhaps we may thus account for it. He might be informed, that Jesus in Hebrew denoted a Saviour;3 and as it carried more appearance of such an appellative or general term by standing alone, he might choose, by dropping the epithet the Nazarene, to leave the sense so ambiguous, that it might be so thus understood: THIS IS A SAVIOUR THE KING OF THE JEWS. Pilate, as little satisfied with the Jews as with himself on that day, meant the inscription, which was his own, as a dishonour to the nation; and thus set a momentous verity before thein, with as much design of declaring it as Caiaphas had of prophesying, That Jesus should die for the people. The ambiguity not holding in Greek, the Nazarene might be there inserted in scorn again of the Jews, by denominating their king from a city which they held in the utmost contempt.s Let us now view the Latin. It is not assuming much to suppose, that Pilate would not concern himself with Hebrew names, nor risk an impropriety in speaking or writing them. It was thought essential to the dignity of a Roman inagistrate in the times of the republic not to speak but in Latin on public occasions. Of which spirit Tiberius the emperor retained so much, that in an oration to the senate he apologizes for using a Greek word; and once, when they were drawing up a decree, advised them to erase another that had been inserted in it. And though the magistrates in general were then become more condescending to the Greeks, they retained this point of state with regard to other nations, whose languages they esteemed barbarous, and would give themselves no trouble of acquiring. Pilate, indeed, according to Matthew, asked at our Lord's trial, Whom will ye that I release unto you, Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? And again, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? But we judge this to be related, as the interpreter by whom he spake delivered it in Hebrew. For if the other evangelists have given his exact words, he never pronounced the name of Jesus, but spake of him all along by a periphrasis: Will ye that I release unto you The king of the Jews? What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call The king of the Jews? Thus he acted in conference with the rulers, and then or dered a Latin inscription without mixture of foreign words, just as Mark repeats it: THE KING OF THE JEWS: Which is followed by Luke; only that he has brought down This is from above, as having a common reference to what stood under it: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Thus it is evident that there were variations in the inscription, and that the Latin was the shortest; but it is equally evident that these variations are not discrepancies or contradictions in the narratives of the evangelists. 43. The alleged discrepancies in the genealogies recorded by Matthew (i.) and Luke (iii.) have already been considered in pp. 400, 401. supra. In addition to the observations there adduced, the following solution of the supposed contradiction, by Professor Hug (founded on the law of the levirate), is highly deserving of consideration, both from its novelty and its probability. By that law one and the same son might have two different fathers, one real and the other legal. Most of the apparent contradictions in the gene alogies of Matthew and Luke disappear, since Salathiel might be declared to Pearson on the Creed, art. ii. at the beginning. 6 Valerius Maximus, b. ii. c. 2. § 2. blem. s John i. 46. Sueton. in Tiberio, c. 71. The two words were Monopoly and Em See Wolfius on Matt. xxvii. 2. 9 Dr. Townson's Works, vol. i. pp. 200-202. 10 By the jus leviratus, or law of the levirate, when a man died without issue, his nearest male relative was obliged to raise up seed to him; accordingly, he married his widow, and the first-born son, of that marriage, was reputed to be the son of the deceased, to whose name and rights he suc ceeded. be the son of Jechonias as well as Neri, and since Zorobabel might appear in one filiation as the father of Abiud and in the other as the father of Rhesa Thus, since one genealogy makes Jacob to be the father of Joseph, and the other makes Heli to be his father, he might be the son of both, viz. of one by nature, and of the other by law. According to this solution, the design of the two evangelists, in giving the genealogy of Jesus Christ, would have been to prove to the Jews, that the man who called himself the Messiah was by his legal father Joseph inscribed as a descendant of David in the genea: logical tables, to which that nation attached so much importance and authority. Indeed, in a country where a legal descent was the same as a real descent, and where an inscription in the genealogical tables was every thing, the Jews, to whom the apostles addressed themselves, were to be the sole judges, from the ancestors of Joseph, of the fulfilment of the prophecies relative to the family of the Messiah; and the descent of Mary was of no importance to them. The following additional remarks of the late Bishop Horne, on the subject of the Jewish Genealogies, are likewise highly deserving of attention. In the first place, Genealogies in general, and those of the Jews in particular, with their method of deriving them, and the confusion often arising from the circumstance of the same person being called by different names, or different persons by the saine name, are in their nature, and must be to us, at this distance of time, matters of very complicated consideration, and it is no wonder they should be attended with difficulties and perplexities. Secondly, The evangelists, in an affair of so much importance, and so open then to detection, had there been any thing wrong to be detected, would most assuredly be careful to give Christ's pedigree as it was found in the authentic tables, which, according to the custoin of the nation, were preserved in the family, as is evident from Josephus, who says, "I give you this succession of our family, as I find it written in the public tables." Thirdly, As it was well known the Messiah must descend from David, the genealogical tables of that family would be kept with more than ordinary diligence and precision. Fourthly, Whatever cavils the modern Jews and others now make against the genealogies recorded by the evangelists, the Jews their contemporaries never offered to find fault with, or to invalidate, the accounts given in the Gospels. As they wanted neither opportunity, materials, skill, nor malice to have done it, and it would have offered them so great an advantage against the Christians, this circumstance alone, as Dr. South well remarks, were we not now able to clear the point, ought with every sober and judicious person to have the force of a moral demonstration.2 44. Matt. xxvii. 5. apparently disagrees with Acts i. 18. Matthew simply says, that Judas went and hanged himself; and this he thought sufficient to say of the traitor, without adding the other circumstances of his death. Luke parenthetically states those circumstances only which followed after he had hanged himself; viz. that, falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. He hanged himself; and whether the cord or rope with which he committed suicide broke, or that to which it was fastened gave way, he fell with his face to the ground, and the violence of the fall ruptured the abdomen, so that his intestines were dashed upon the ground.3 45. Heb. ix. 4. is apparently contradictory to 1 Kings viii. 9. From the text of the former book, it appears that the ark contained several things therein specified: whereas, we learn from the latter, that it contained only the two tables of stone. The word Ev, in which (wherein in the authorized translation), therefore, refer to the tabernacle, and not to the ark; and thus the difference is removed. Lastly, Some of the differences between the Old and New Testaments arise from numbers and dates, and may be explained on the principles already laid down in pp. 403, 404. supra; and others arise from the variances occurring in the quotations from the Old in the New Testament. But as these require a distinct consideration, the reader will find them fully discussed in pp. 293-318. of this volume. SECTION VII. SEEMING INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN SACRED AND PROFANE WRITERS. Scripture be contradicted by an historian who lived many centuries after the time when it took place, such contradiction ought to have no weight. 1. Justin, the abbreviator of Trogus Pompeius, who wrote at least eighteen hundred years after the time of Moses, relates that the Israelites were expelled from Egypt, because they had communicated the itch and leprosy to the Egyptians, who were apprehensive lest the contagion should spread; and that the Israelites, having clandestinely carried away the sacred mysteries of the Egyptians, were pursued by the latter; who were compelled to return home by tempests. It is scarcely necessary to remark, how contrary this statement of the Roman historian is to that of the Jewish legislator; and when Justin's credulity and want of information are properly weighed, the contradiction falls entirely to the ground. The same remark is applicable to the accounts of the Jewish nation given by the prejudiced historian Tacitus; which evidently betray the injurious representations of their avowed enemies. Bp. Gray, who has given these accounts (for which we have not room), has observed that many of them had been distinctly refuted in the time of Tacitus by Josephus and other historians. They contain in themselves sufficient to show how full of errors they are; and while they exhibit much truth blended with falsehood, they tend to establish the former, without conferring any shadow of probability on the latter." 2. It has been thought impossible to raise so vast an empire as that of Assyria is described to have been by Herodotus and Ctesias (whose accounts contradict the relation of Moses), so early as within one hundred and fifty years after Noah. But their accounts are, probably, exaggerated, and in many instances fictitious; and, according to the chronology of the LXX. as well as of the Samaritan Pentateuch, the origin of the Assyrian empire is carried to a much greater distance from the flood. 3. Joseph's division of the land of Egypt, which is recorded by Moses (Gen. xlvii.) has been represented as contradictory to the account of that country by Diodorus Siculus. But on comparing the two narratives together it will be found that the latter fully supports the sacred historian. Diodorus expressly affirms that the lands were divided between the king, the priests, and the soldiery; and Moses expressly says, that they were divided between the king, the priests, and the people. "Moses tells us that before the famine, all the lands of Egypt were in the hands of the king, the priests, and the people; but that this national calamity made a great revolution in property, and brought the whole possessions of the people into the king's hands; which must needs make a prodigious accession of power to the crown. But Joseph, in whom the office of high-priest and patriot supported each other, and jointly concurred to the public service, prevented for some time the ill effects of this accession by his farming out the new domain to the old proprietors on very easy conditions. We may well suppose this wise disposition to have continued, till that new king arose that knew not Joseph (Exod. i. 8.); that is, would obliterate his memory, as averse to his system of policy. He, as it appears from Scripture, greatly affected a despotic government; to support which he first established a standing militia, and endowed it with the lands formerly belonging to the people, who now became a kind of villains to this order, and were obliged to personal service; this and the priesthood being the orders of nobility in this powerful empire: and so considerable were they, that out of them, indifferently, their kings were taken and elected lates; and it is remarkable that from this time, and not till now, we hear in Thus the property of Egypt became divided in the manner the Sicilian reScripture of a standing militia, and of the king's six hundred chosen chariots," &c.10 4. The destruction of Sennacherib's army, which is ascribed to divine ageney by the sacred historian (2 Kings xix. 35. 2 Chron. xxxii. 21. and Isaiah xxxvii. 36.) was probably the blast or hot pestilential south wind called the Simoom, so well described by Mr. Bruce.11 The destruction of the same army before Pelusium, in the reign of Sethos king of Egypt, is attributed by Herodotus1 to an immense number of mice, that infested the Assyrian camp by night, so that their quivers and bowS together with what secured their shields to their arms, were gnawed in pieces. It is particularly to be remarked that Herodotus calls the Assyrian king Sennacherib, as the Scriptures do; and that the time referred to in both is perfectly accordant. Hence it appears that it is the same fact to which Herodotus alludes, although much disguised in the relation; and thus the seeming contradiction between the sacred and profane historians is easily removed. The difference between them may be readily explained, Egyptian priests, who cherished the greatest aversion from the nation and religion of the Jews, and, therefore, would relate nothing in such a manner as would give reputation to either.13 when it is considered that Herodotus derived his information from the 5. There are many, apparently considerable, contradictions of the Scriptures in the writings of Josephus. It is not to be denied that the sacred Scriptures contain facts which appear to be contradictory to the relations of the same facts by profane historians. But the objections which some would derive from these seeming inconsistencies lose all their force, when the uncertainty and want of credibility in heathen historians are considered, as well as their want of authentic records of the times. It may further be added, that the silence of the latter, concerning facts related by the inspired writers, cannot be regarded as contradicting them; because many of these facts are either too ancient to come within the limits of profane histories, or are of such a description that they could not take notice of them. The. silence or omission even of many historians ought not to overturn the testimony of any one author, who positively relates a matter of fact: if, therefore, a fact related in the 1 Cellérier. Introd. au Nouv. Test. pp. 332-334. Hug's Introd. to the New Test. vol. ii. pp. 266-272. 2 Bishop Horne's Works, vol. vi. p. 513. Biscoe on the Acts, vol. ii. p. 639. Justin. Hist. Philipp. lib. xxxvi. c. 2. p. 308. ed. Bipont. See Bp. Gray's Connection between Sacred and Profane Literature, vol. pp. 435-443. And also Du Voisin's Autorité des Livres de Moyse, pp. 180-199. 8 Doddridge's Lectures, vol. ii. Lect. 146. § x. (Works, vol. v. p. 127.) See also Dr. Hales's Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. pp. 48-52. Bib. Historic. 1. i. c. 73. 10 Bishop Warburton's Divine Legation, book iv. § 3. in fine. (Works, vol. iv. pp. 115, 116.) 11 Travels, vol. v. pp. 80. 295.322, 323. 350-353. 1 Book ii. c. 141. 13 Prideaux's Connection, book i. sub anno 710. (Part i. p. 25. edit. 1720) It is remarkable that the blast, which destroyed the Assyrians, happened at 4 Bishop Stillingfleet has largely proved this point in the first book of his night; whereas the Simoom usually blows in the daytime, and mostly Origines Sacræ, pp. 1-65. (edit. 1709, folio.) On this subject, see the present Volume, pp. 85-87. about noon, being raised by the intense heat of the sun. Dr. Hales's Ana lysis of Chronology, vol. ií. p. 467. |