to be intended not of baptism performed by himself, but by his disciples, who baptised 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. 7.), 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. 11.); and that he had set up Saul to be king (1 Sam. xv. 11.). But in these passages there is no real contradiction; repentance in the one place signifies a change of mind and counsel, from want of foresight of what would come to pass, and thus God canhot 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.

. 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-between 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 his

torical 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 press. The apparent contradictions, in the historical passages of Scripture, arise from the different circumstances related, from things being related in a different order by the sacred writers, from differences in numbers,-and from differences in the relation of events in one place, and references to those events in another.

§ 1. Seeming Contradictions in the different Circumstances 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 ambiguous expressions, transpositions in the order of narrating, and sometimes from several of these causes combined.

1. Apparent contradictions, in the different circumstances related, arise from the different sources whence the inspired writers drew their narratives.

For instance, in the brief accounts recorded by Matthew and Mark respecting the birth and childhood of Jesus Christ, from whom could they have derived their information? They could not have become acquainted with those circumstances, unless from the particulars communicated by his relatives according to the flesh; and, as it has been frequently remarked, it is highly probable that they received their information from Mary 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 preserved by oral relation: all of which, though differing, are nevertheless perfectly consistent with the truth! Again, during our Lord's three years' circuit in Palestine, Matthew and John were constantly his disciples and companions: the source of their narratives, therefore, was ocular testimony: while Luke and Mark, not having been Christ's disciples, related things as they were communicated to them by the apostles and others, 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 resurrection, as well as to the account of the sermon delivered on the mount and on the plain.

2. Seeming contradictions, in the different circumstances related, may also arise from the different designs which the sacred writers had in the composition of their narratives; for the difference of design will necessarily lead to a corresponding selection of circumstances.

The consideration of this circumstance will remove the contradiction which modern opposers of the Scriptures have asserted to exist between the first and second chapters of the book of Genesis. The design of 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 narrated 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 Samuel, especially of the second book, is, to relate the various steps which conduced to the wonderful elevation of David from a low condition to the throne of Judah first, and after seven years and six months to that of Israel, together with the battles and occurrences which led to that great event, and secured to him the possession of his kingdom: and then at the close (2 Sam. xxiii. 8-39.) we have a catalogue to perpetuate the memory of those warriors who had been particularly instrumental in promoting the success and establishing the glory of their royal master. But in the first book of Chronicles the history of David begins with him as king, and immediately 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

1 On this Subjeet compare Vol. IV. Part II. Chap. II. Sec. V.

forget that he was David's chief mighty man, when he had been mentioned, in almost every page, as captain-general of the armies of Israel.1

The difference of design also will satisfactorily explain the seeming difference between the genealogies of our Saviour, given by the evangelists 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, downwards 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 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.)2

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, na, "the daughter of Eli," 3 and by the early Christian writers," the daughter of Joakim and Anna." But Joakim and Eliakim (as being derived from the names of God, may, Iahoh, and ↳î, Æl) 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 him, 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 Jehoiachin, 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 remnark : Ιησούς-ων ὡς ενομίζετο, υἱος Ιωσηφ [αλλ' OVTWC vioc] TOU HAL. "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 ellipses involved in the parenthesis be supplied."4 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 St. 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

1 Dr. Kennicott's First Dissertation, pp. 13-15. The subsequent part of this very learned volume is appropriated to an elaborate comparison of the discrepancies between 1 Chron. xi. and 2 Sam. v. and xxiii., to which the reader is referred.

2 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. 259–263. 2d edit. Lightfoot on Luke iii. 23.

Hales's Analysis, vol. ii. book ii. pp. 699, 700. In pp. 700-704, he has conaccounted for particular seeming discrepancies between the evangelists Matike. But the fullest discussion of the subject is to be found in Dr. Barrett's

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 more intelligible to the converts from Paganism. The Gospel of St. 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 era of Christ's birth, and the time when John the Baptist began to announce the Gospel, by the reigns of the Roman emperors. 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 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.2 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

Preliminary Dissertation prefixed to his edition of the Fragments of Saint Matthew's Gospel, from a Codex Rescriptus in Trinity College Library at Dublin. (Evangelium secundum Matthæum ex Codice Rescripto in Bibliotheca Collegii Sanctæ 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 observations by Dr. A. Clarke, at the end of his Commentary on Luke iii. See also Mr. R. B. Green's ingenious tract, entitled, “A newly invented Table for exhibiting to the View, and impressing clearly on the Memory, the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, with notes," &c. London, 1822. 8vo.

1 The topic here briefly noticed is ably illustrated by the late Rev. Dr. Townson in his Discourses on the Four Gospels, chiefly with regard to the peculiar design of each, &c. (Works, vol. i. PP: 1-274.)

2 An abstract of the evidence for the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is given in pp. 277-300. of this volume.

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 harmonise their discordant narratives, conscious that, even when we fail, these discordances 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 were suggested by their particular design at the time of writing. Further, as these seeming discordances in the evangelical historians 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 disagreement; 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 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 evange lists, from a certain recollection 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.2

1 Mori Acroases in Ernesti Instit. Interp. Nov. Test. tom. ii. pp. 26-30. Paley's Evidences, vol. ii. pp. 274-279.

2 West's Observations on the History of the Resurrection, p. 279.