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 Numb. 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.

§3. Apparent contradictions, arising from differences in numbers.

Apparent contradictions in the sacred writings, arising from the difference of numbers, proceed from the scriptures speaking in whole orround 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.

Examples are the speaking of twelve apostles, 1 Cor. xv. 5., when Judas was dead; and the adoption of the LXX. version of Gen. xlvi. 27. in Acts vii. 14.

SECTION II.

APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN CHRONOLOGY.

CHRONOLOGY is a branch of learning which is most difficult to be exactly adjusted; because it depends upon so many circumstances and comprehends so great a variety of events in all ages and nations, that, with whatever punctuality the accounts of time might have been set down in the original manuscripts, yet the slightest change in one word or letter may cause a material variation in copies. Besides, the difference of the eras adopted in the computations of different countries, especially at great distances of time and place, is such, that the most exact chronology may easily be mistaken, and may be perplexed by those who endeavour to rectify what they conceive to be erroneous; for that which was exact at first is often made incorrect by him who thought it false before. Chronological differences do undoubtedly exist in the scriptures, as well as in profane historians; but these differences infer no uncertainty in the matters of fact themselves. It is a question yet undetermined, whether Rome was founded by Romulus or not, and it is a point equally litigated, in what year the building of that city commenced; yet, if the uncertainty Jenkin, The Reasonableness and Certainty of the Christian Religion, (edit. 1715) vol. ii. p. 151. It would require too extensive an inquiry for the limits of this work, to enter into a detail of the various systems of chronology extant: the most recent is the elaborate Analysis of Dr. Hales, in 3 vols. 4to., or 4 vols. 8vo., to which we can confidently refer the reader. [Ideler, Handbuch der Mathem. und Techn. Chronologie, Berlin, 2 vols. 1825-6, and Lehrbuch der Chronologie, Berlin, 1831; also the Fasti Hellenici of Clinton may be mentioned. Greswell, Browne, and others are labourers in the same field.]

of the time when any fact was done imply the uncertainty of the fact itself, the necessary inference must be, that it is uncertain whether Rome was built at all, or whether such a person as Romulus was ever in existence. Further, differences in chronology do not prove that the sacred historians were mistaken, but they arise from the mistakes of transcribers or expositors, which may be obviated by applying the various existing aids to the examination and reconciliation of the apparent contradictions in scriptural chronology.

I. Seeming contradictions in chronology arise from not observing that what had before been said in the general is afterwards resumed in the particulars comprised under it.

II. Sometimes the principal number is set down, and the odd or smaller number is omitted; which, being added to the principal number in some other place, causes a difference not to be reconciled but by considering that it is customary in the best authors not always to mention the smaller numbers, where the matter does not require it.

III. As sons frequently reigned with their fathers, during the Hebrew monarchy, the reigns of the former are not unfrequently made, in some instances, to commence from their partnership with their fathers in the throne, and in others from the commencement of their sole government after their fathers' decease; consequently the time of the reign is sometimes noticed as it respects the father, sometimes as it respects the son, and sometimes as it includes both.1

IV. Seeming chronological contradictions arise from the sacred historians adopting different methods of computation, and assigning differing dates to the same period.

V. The terms of time in computation are sometimes taken inclusively, and at other times exclusively.

Thus, in Matt. xvii. 1., and Mark ix. 2., we read that after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart. But, in Luke ix. 28., this is said to come to pass about an eight days after; which is perfectly consistent with what the other evangelists write. For Matthew and Mark speak exclusively, reckoning the six days between the time of our Saviour's discourse (which they are relating) and his transfiguration; but Luke includes the day on which he held that discourse, and the day of his transfiguration, and reckons them with the six intermediate days. So, in John xx. 26., eight days after are probably to be understood inclusively; it being most likely on that day se'nnight on which Jesus Christ had before appeared to his disciples. It were unnecessary to subjoin additional examples of a mode of reckoning which obtains to this day in common speech, and in almost every writer, except those who professedly treat on chronology.

and

The preceding, and various other ways by which disputes in chronology may be occasioned, are a sufficient argument to us, that they do not imply that there were, originally, chronological mistakes in the books themselves. And, if mistakes might arise in so many such various ways, without any error in the original writings; if the same difficulties occur upon so very nice and intricate a subject in any or all the books which are extant in the world; and if it could by no means be necessary that books of divine authority should either be at first so penned as to be liable to no wrong interpretations, or be ever after preserved by miracle from all corGreswell does not admit this. Dissertations on the Gospels, (edit. 1837) vol. iii. p. 489.

Apparent Contradictions between Prophecies and their Fulfilment. 443 ruption, it is great rashness to deny the divine authority of the scriptures, on account of any difficulties that may occur in chronology.

SECTION III.

APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN PROPHECIES AND THEIR FULFILMENT.

I. "WHEN both a prediction and the event foretold in it are recorded in scripture, there is sometimes an appearance of disagreement and in consistency between them.

"This appearance generally arises from some difficulty in understanding the true meaning of the prediction: it may be occasioned by any of those causes which produce the peculiar difficulties of the prophetic writings; and it is to be removed by the same means which serve for clearing these difficulties. It may proceed from any sort of obscurity or ambiguity in the expression, or from any uncertainty in the structure of a sentence."

Thus, there is a seeming difference in Matt. xii. 40. between our Lord's prediction of the time he was to be in the grave, and the time during which his body was actually interred. Now this difference is naturally and easily obviated by considering that it was the custom of the orientals to reckon any part of a day of twenty-four hours for a whole day, and to say it was done after three or seven days, &c., if it were done on the third or seventh day from that last mentioned. Compare 1 Kings xx. 29. and Luke ii. 21. And, as the Hebrews had no word exactly answering to the Greek vvxehμepov to signify a natural day of twenty-four hours, they used night and day, or day and night, for it; so that to say a thing happened after three days and three nights was the same as to say that it happened after three days, or on the third day. Compare Esther iv. 16. with v. 1.; Gen. vii. 4, 12, 17.; Exod. xxiv. 18.; and Dan. viii. 14.

II. Apparent contradictions between prophecies and their accomplishment sometimes proceed from the figurative language of the prophets; which is taken, partly from the analogy between the world natural and an empire or kingdom considered as a world politic, and partly from sacred topics.3

Hence it is that the prophets so frequently express what relates to the Christian dispensation and worship in terms borrowed from the Mosaic religion; of which instances may be seen in Isai. ii. 2, 3., xix. 19., and lvi. 7.; Jer. iii. 17.; Zech. viii. 22.; and Mal. i. 11. For, the religion of Moses being introductory to that of Jesus, and there being, consequently, a mutual dependency between the two religions, "it is reasonable to suppose that, previous to such an important change of the economy, some intimations would be given of its approach. And yet, to have done this in a way that would have led the Jews to look with irreverence on a system under which not only themselves but their posterity were to live would not have harmonized with our notions of the divine wisdom. A method was therefore to be invented; which, while it kept the people sincerely attached to the law, would dispose them, when the time was come, for the reception of a better covenant that was to be established on better promises. Now the spirit of prophecy, together with the language in which that prophecy was conveyed, fully accomplished both these purposes. By a contrivance only to be suggested by divine prescience, the same expressions, which in their primary and literal meaning were used to denote the fortunes and deliverances of the Jews, for the present consolation of that people, were so ordered, as in a secondary and figurative sense to adumbrate the sufferings and victories of the Messiah, for the future instruction of the church of Christ. Had no expedient of this sort been employed, we should have wanted one proof of the connection between the Mosaic and Christian religions; and, on the other hand, had the nature of the Messiah's kingdom been plainly described, the design of the national separation would have been defeated. But, when spiritual blessings were promised under the veil of temporal blessings, and in terms familiar to the carnal expectations of the Jews, a proper degree of respect for the

1 Gerard, Institutes of Biblical Criticism, p. 434.
2 Doddridge, Macknight, &c. on Matt. xii. 40.

9 Newton on Daniel, p. 16. edit. 1733.

old system was preserved, at the same time that matters were gradually ripening for the introduction of the new; and the shadow of good things held forth obscurely in the law prepared them to look forward to that happier day, when the very image itself should be presented in full splendour, and distinctly defined by the gospel." i

III. Apparent contradictions between prophecies and their accomplishment" may be occasioned by a prediction relating only to one part of a complex character or event, and on that account seeming to be inconsistent with other parts of it; and the appearance will be removed by taking in such predictions as relate to these other parts, and considering them all in connection."

Such seeming differences occur in the predictions relative to the exaltation and glory of the Messiah, compared with the prophecies concerning his previous sufferings. On this subject the reader may compare pp. 404-412. of the present volume. In Vol. I. pp. 549-562. we have given a table of the chief predictions relative to the Messiah.

IV. Seeming differences in the interpretation of prophecies also proceed partly from the difficulty of fixing the precise time of their fulfilment, and partly from the variety of opinions adopted by expositors; who, being dissatisfied with the views taken by their predecessors, are each solicitous to bring forward some new interpretation of his own.

These differences, however, are no more an objection against prophecy, than they are against the truth of all history; and we may with equal propriety conclude that things never came to pass, because historians differ about the time when they were done, as that they were never predicted, because learned men vary in their modes of explaining the accomplishment of such predictions. Expositors may differ in the niceties of the chronological part, but in general circumstances they are agreed; hence, whoever will consult them may be greatly confirmed in the truth of the prophecies, upon this very consideration that there is less difference in the explanation of the principal prophecies than there is in the comments upon most ancient profane histories; and that those who differ in other matters must have the greater evidence for that in which they agree. Although there may be a difficulty in calculating the precise time when some predictions were fulfilled, because it is disputed when the computation is to begin, or how some other circumstance is to be understood, yet all interpreters and expositors are agreed, concerning these very prophecies, that they are fulfilled. For instance, in Gen. xlix. 10., it is certain that the sceptre has departed from Judah, whether that prophecy is to be understood of the tribe of Judah, or of the Jewish nation who were denominated from that tribe. Although the later Jewish writers deny its application to the times of the Messiah, yet the elder writers invariably refer it to him; and it is certain that the city and sanctuary are destroyed, and that the sacrifice and oblation are entirely done away, though interpreters do not agree about the precise time and manner of the accomplishment of every particular. In a similar manner, the prophecy of Daniel respecting the seventy weeks is equally plain, and its accomplishment in the destruction of Jerusalem is certain; notwithstanding the differences of opinion in assigning the precise epoch of time. Plain matter of fact shows that these memorable predictions are fulfilled; and the only difference is concerning a single circumstance. To doubt, therefore, of the fulfilment of prophecies, merely because we do not certainly know the exact time when each particular was accomplished, though we certainly know that they must have long since been fulfilled, is as unreasonable as if a man should question the truth of history on account of the uncertainties which are to be found in chronology. The existence of Homer is not denied because it is uncertain when he lived; nor is the reality of the Trojan war the less certain because the time of the capture of Troy has been variously determined. History, it has been well remarked, relates what has happened; and prophecy foretells what shall come to pass; and an uncertainty in point of time no more affects the one than the other. We may be uncertain of the time foretold by the prophet, and as uncertain of the time mentioned by the historian; but, when all other circumstances agree, there is no reason why our uncertainty, as to the single circumstance of time, should be alleged against the credibility of either of them."

Bishop Hallifax, Sermons on the Prophecies, serm. 1.

2 Gerard, Institutes, p. 435.

Jenkin on the Reasonableness of the Christian Religion, vol. ii. pp. 175, 176.

V. Some of the prophetic declarations are not predictions concerning things future, but simply commands relative to things which were to be performed, or they are conditional promises and threatenings, not absolute predictions; so that, if it subsequently appear that these were not executed, such non-performance cannot create any difficulty or repugnancy between the supposed prophecy and its fulfilment.

We may illustrate this remark by reference to the fast observed by the Jews on the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar : these fasts the prophet Zechariah (viii. 19.) in the name of Jehovah declares are to be abolished, and converted into a joyous festival; but, notwithstanding this declaration, we know that they continued afterwards to be observed. Another instance may be seen in 2 Kings viii. 10., Elisha's answer to Hazael; to which we may add the seeming assertion, that the last day was near, in Rom. xiii. 11, 12.; 1 Cor. x. 11.; 1 Thess. iv. 15.; Heb. ix. 26.; James v. 7, 8; 2 Pet. iii. 12, 13.; and 1 John ii. 18.

VI. Some of the prophetic promises appear to have been made to individuals, which, however, were not fulfilled in them.

But between such prophecies and their fulfilment there is no real discordance; because they were accomplished in the posterity of the person to whom the promise was made. Thus, in Isaac's prophetic blessing of Jacob, it was announced (Gen. xxvii. 29.) that he should be lord over his brethren. Now we know from the sacred writings that this never took effect in the person of Jacob; but it was fully verified in his posterity.

SECTION IV.

APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN DOCTRINE.

THESE arise from various causes; as contradictions from a mode of speaking which, to our apprehensions, is not sufficiently clear, from the same term being used in different senses in different texts, from the same word being used in apparently contradictory senses, from the different designs of the sacred writers, from the different ages in which the various sacred writers lived, and from the different degrees of their knowledge respecting the coming of the Messiah, and the religion to be instituted by him.

§ 1. Seeming contradictions from a mode of speaking which, to our apprehensions, is not sufficiently clear.

It has been the practice of some writers to assert that the apostles, St. Paul in particular, have argued both illogically and inconclusively; this assertion, however, falls to the ground of itself, when we consider the violent dislocations, to which writers of the school alluded to have resorted, in order to disprove what is self-evident from the Bible-the divinity and atonement of the Messiah. At the same time it is not to be concealed, that apparent contradictions do sometimes arise from a mode of speaking which, to OUR apprehensions, does not seem sufficiently clear. For instance, salvation is in one passage ascribed to grace through faith, which we are assured is not of ourselves, but is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast (Eph. ii. 8-10.); and in another Abraham is said to be justified by faith without works (Rom. iv. 2-6.); while in a third