30. Gal. vi. 2. with 5.

In the former verse we find rà ẞápn: the apostle is inculcating Christian sympathy, which can be carried only to a limited extent; in the latter verse the word is popríov: each man will have a load (of imperfections and sins) of his own.

31. Heb. xi. 33. with 39.

The early fathers had the fulfilment of many promises; but that, by virtue of which all other promises were faithful and true, the appearing of Messiah, was not accomplished in their day.

32. 1 John i. 8. with iii. 9.

A man, born of God, still in this life commits sin: "this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated" (Art. ix.). Yet a new principle ultimately destructive of sin is introduced into his heart; and under the influence of this he cannot be, as he once was, the habitual slave of sin.

§3. Alleged contradictions between the Old Testament and the New. 1. Mark ii. 26. with 1 Sam. xxi. 1-9.

Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was nigh-priest when the event mentioned took place. But Abiathar was, no doubt, assistant to his father, and almost immediately after, by Ahimelech's murder, he became highpriest by right. There is, therefore, no contradiction. Men are frequently distinguished by the title or office which they subsequently bear: e. g. Matt. i. 6. it is said, "Jesse begat David the king;" though he was not king for thirty years after his birth. It must, however, be admitted that, if the reading be ἐπὶ ̓Αβιάθαρ ἀρχιερέως (the article τοῦ being omitted before ȧpxiɛpéws), and Tischendorf (with other critics) regards this as the true reading, the interpretation will be "during the high-priesthood of Abiathar." Another suggestion has been made that the words are the title to a particular section of the history; just as (Mark xii. 26.) those, inì rov ẞárov, mean the section which comprises the appearing of God in the bush.'

2. John i. 18. with Exod. xxiv. 10.

God, in his full glory, no man hath seen or can see (Exod. xxxiii. 20.); but some visible manifestations of the second Person in the Trinity were occasionally made in old time. The expression, however, of John i. 18. includes more than bodily vision; even that "intuitive and infallible knowledge which enables him who has it to declare the nature and will of God." 2

3. Acts vii. 2. with Gen. xii. 1.

It is somewhat rash, as Dr. Lee well observes, in modern critics, to accuse Stephen, against whom the Jews could find no answer (Acts vi. 10.) of historical inaccuracy3; and careful examination will supply very natural solutions of the alleged difficulties. Here it has been supposed that there were two calls, one in Ur, which Stephen mentions, the other to leave Charran, recorded Gen. xii. 1. It is very probable that Abraham's steps on many important occasions were directed by divine intimation; so that there is no reasonable objection to the belief that there was a call to leave Mesopotamia, and a call to quit Charran. But the expressions in Gen. xii. l. would seem to show that the original call—exactly in accordance with

See before, pp. 105., 461.

Alford, The Greek Testament, note on John i. 18.

The Inspiration of Holy Scripture, Append. H. (2nd edit.) p. 531.

Stephen's words-was "before he dwelt in Charran." For how could 7 mean any other than the native country of Abraham? The English authorized version, taking this view, translates "the Lord had said." And this is perfectly justifiable.

4. Acts vii. 14. with Gen. xlvi. 26, 27.

Stephen has reckoned the family of Jacob as seventy-five, the identical number which the version of the LXX. gives in Gen. xlvi. 27.; while the Hebrew text has seventy. According to the LXX., Joseph had nine sons (or grandsons) in Egypt; and, these being added to the sixty-six of Gen. xlvi. 26., the sum will be seventy-five. Still only seven of Joseph's descendants are named; and it is not easy to see how the LXX. gets the number nine, even if he were included. It may be questioned whether the simplest solution is not the best-that Stephen was satisfied to cite the number of Jacob's family from a version in every one's hands and generally esteemed of authority. But various other explanations have been given. It must be sufficient to quote a valuable note of Dr. Lee's: Bishop Kidder considers that Moses designs to give an account of Jacob's whole family, or such as came out of his loins, Gen. xlvi. 6—8., and v. 26.; in order that, by comparing the small number who went down to Egypt with the great number who came out of that land, the protection of God might be the more manifest. Hence he does not include the wives of Jacob's sons, enumerating merely Jacob, his sons, and also Joseph's sons, which were born him in Egypt.' (See vv. 26, 27.) But take now the words and the design of St. Stephen. He does not confine himself to those who came out of Jacob's loins:' he plainly includes all those whom Joseph called into Egypt. Then sent Joseph and called his father to him, and all his kindred, three-score and fifteen souls.' 'Moses tells us how many Jacob and his seed amounted to, omitting his sons' wives. Stephen tells us how many they were that Joseph called into Egypt.' Some, therefore, in the list of Moses, must be left out of the number given by St. Stephen. Joseph and his two sons could not be said to be called into Egypt; still less could Hezron and Hamul, the sons of Pharez (Gen. xlvi. 12), who were not yet born. Besides, Jacob, too, must be considered apart. Hence six persons are to be deducted from the number of Moses (viz. Jacob, Joseph, and his two sons, with Hezron and Hamul), in order to find those who are reckoned by St. Stephen; and hence sixty-four only are common to both. Add now the eleven wives of the sons of Jacob, and we get the number seventy-five, given by St Stephen. This conclusion is slightly modified by Dr. Hales: In this statement, the wives of Jacob's sons, who formed part of the household, are omitted; but they amounted to nine; for, of the twelve wives of the twelve sons, Judah's wife was dead (Gen. xxxviii. 12.), and Simeon's also, as we may collect from his youngest son, Shaul, by a Canaanitess (xlvi. 10.); and Joseph's wife was already in Egypt. These nine wives, therefore, added to the sixty-six, gave seventy-five souls, the whole amount of Jacob's household that went down with him to Egypt; critically corresponding with the statement in the New Testament, that Joseph sent for his father Jacob and all his kindred, amounting to seventy-five souls.'-A New Analysis of Chronol. vol. ii. p. 160. (p. 144. edit. 1830). Dr. Wordsworth's explanation does not appear to me satisfactory: The number seventy-five, which St. Stephen specifies, consists of the seventy mentioned (Gen. xlvi. 27.), together with the issue of the sons of Joseph's own sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, Machir (son of Manasseh), Galaad (son of Machir), Sutalaim,

See before, p. 454.

Taam (sons of Ephraim), Edom (son of Sutalaim).'-'The Acts of the Apost., p. 32." It will be observed that Dr. Hales's explanation is manifestly untenable. Judah's wife, it is true, was dead; but surely Tamar must be taken into the account. Also it is an arbitrary conjecture that Simeon's wife was dead; the more natural supposition is that he had two. Further, Asher had grandsons, some of the ten sons of Benjamin were, according to the larger usage of the word, his grandsons (Numb. xxvi. 38-40.); and, if Hezron and Hamul (as Dr. H. believes) were born in Canaan, Pharez had a wife it is evident, then, that more than nine wives would have to be reckoned. The same objection would apply, though not so forcibly, to Bp. Kidder's hypothesis, which Dr. Lee approves. Hence, Dr. Wordsworth's would seem the preferable explanation.

5. Acts vii. 15, 16. with Gen. xxiii. 16-18., 1. 13., and Josh. xxiv. 32.

These passages have been represented as irreconcilable. If they were, it would be no argument against the inspiration of the sacred writer, who simply records what Stephen uttered. But, as before observed, it is not probable that one so well versed in the history of his nation would make a blunder. "It is better," Dr. Davidson admirably observes, on Acts vii. 15, 16., "to tax ourselves with ignorance, than the Bible with confusion. Had Stephen ventured to utter expressions so contradictory to the Jewish scriptures as those in the text are usually represented to be, his enemies would have at once detected the error, and accused him of falsehood. They were too much incensed against him to let slip an opportunity of entangling him in his words. There is no mention of his incurring any such censure. "2 And Stier3 goes still farther, and maintains that "to ascribe to Stephen an error of memory in the statement of a fact so wellknown may be named almost a piece of infatuation (fast thöricht)."

Several explanations have been attempted. One is offered by Dr. Davidson in the place above referred to; but he has since given it up as untenable. Dr. Lee adopts the following after Luger; who, says he, "answers this common objection by pointing to the peculiar manner in which St. Stephen alludes to the national history. Abrahanı bought the sepulchre near Mamre; and there Jacob was buried (Gen. 1. 13.): Jacob bought a parcel of a field' at Sychem; and there Joseph was buried (Josh. xxiv. 32.); that is, Abraham purchased a grave for Jacob; and so did Jacob for Joseph; and thus we have an additional instance of the law of repetition above alluded to. These two facts St. Stephen combines in a single phrase; and this same system of combination is constantly repeated throughout his address: e. g. cf. ver. 7. with Gen. xv. 13, 14. and Exod. iii. 12.; add, too, the statement of ver. 9. Compare, especially, the reference of ver. 43. 'I will carry you away beyond Babylon,' with the denunciation of Amos (v. 27.) against the ten tribes: 'Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus;' in which words the deportation to Assyria (2 Kings xvii. 6.) is alone spoken of. Babylon, however, as the prophets declared, was to be the exile of disobedient Judah; and both denunciations are here combined by St. Stephen. So, also, in the passage before us, it is, with similar brevity, implied that Jacob was laid in the grave which Abraham had purchased in Hebron, Gen. xxiii. 19.; l. 13.; and Joseph in the possession which Jacob had purchased at Sychem, Gen. xxxiii. 19.; Josh. xxiv. 32."4 A few words would suffice to the Jews, who were acquainted with the history.

The Inspiration of Holy Scripture, pp. 534, 535.

2 Sacr. Hermeneutics, chap. xii. pp. 586, 587.

Cited by Dr. Lee.

The Inspiration of Holy Scripture, Append. H. (2nd edit.) pp. 533, 534.

6. Acts xiii. 19-21. with 1 Kings vi. 1.

Some of the modes which have been proposed of reconciling these passages may be found noted by dean Alford; who characterizes them as "arbitrary and forced." But there is reason to believe that the present reading in the Acts is incorrect. Accordingly, Dr. Davidson says, "Lach mann has the true reading, which runs thus: And, when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he divided their land to them by lot, about the space of four hundred and fifty years; and after this gave them judges until Samuel the prophet.' In this there is no difficulty."2

7. 1 Cor. x. 8. with Numb. xxv. 9.

Differences in numbers, we have sufficiently seen, are not uncommon; and it is often difficult to reconcile them. But because we have not now the requisite knowledge we may not conclude that they are irreconcilable. And it is somewhat uncharitable to style, as Dr. Alford does, on the first passage, the attempts-well intended they certainly are-of commentators to arrive at a satisfactory solution, "subtilties... discreditable alike to themselves and the cause of sacred truth,"

8. 2 Tim. iii. 12. with Prov. xvi. 7.

In neither place must an universal sense be put upon the words. In primitive times persecution was rife; but very often (though by no means always) God turns enemies into friends of his people.

9. Heb. ix. 4. with 1 Kings viii. 9.

It must be remembered that the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews is describing the tabernacle; while the reference in 1 Kings is to the temple. Still there is a difficulty; for, according to Exod. xvi. 32-34., Numb. xvii. 10., the pot of manna and Aaron's rod seem to have been placed before, not in the ark. Hence some would refer ἐν ᾗ to σκηνή, and not to κιβωτόν; but this can hardly be allowed. The Jewish rabbis represent the rod and the pot of manna as having been in the ark. See Dr. Alford, note in loc.; where all the difficulties connected with the description given in the earlier part of Heb. ix, are elaborately discussed.]

SECTION VI.

SBEMING INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN SACRED AND PROFANE WRITERS.

THE sacred scriptures contain facts which appear to be contradictory to the relations of the same facts by profane historians. But the objections 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

The Greek Testament, note on Acts xiii. 20.

2 Sacred Hermeneutics, chap. xii. p. 588. Conf. Bengel, in loc.

Bishop Stillingfleet has largely proved this point in the first book of his Origines Sacræ, pp. 1-65. (edit. 1709, folio). Comp. Rawlinson, The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records, 1859, lect. iii. pp. 109-112.

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 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.2

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 are but injurious representations of their avowed enemies. Bp. Gray 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.3

2. There are many, apparently considerable, contradictions of the scriptures in the writings of Josephus.

But these, as well as his omissions, may be accounted for by his peculiar situation. His country was now in great distress; its constitution was overturned, and his countrymen in danger of extirpation, from the circumstance of their being confounded with the Christians, who were reputed to be a sect of the Jews, and at that time were suffering persecution. Josephus's deviations from scripture, therefore, were made in order to accommodate his work to the taste of the Greeks and Romans.$

3. In consequence of this Jewish historian having omitted to notice the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem, which is related in Matt. ii. 16., the evangelical narrative has been pronounced a "fabrication," and "a tale that carries its own refutation with it."

But

This assertion was first made, we believe, by Voltaire, whose disregard of truth, especially in matters connected with the sacred history, is sufficiently notorious. the evidence for the reality of the fact, and, consequently, for the veracity of Matthew, is too strong to be subverted by any bold and unsupported assertions. For,

In the first place, The whole character which Josephus ascribes to Herod is the most evident confirmation of the barbarous deed mentioned by the evangelist.

Secondly, The gospel of Matthew was published about the year of our Lord 38, at which time there doubtless were persons living who could, and (from the hostility then manifested against the Christian faith) who would, have contradicted his assertion if it had been false or erroneous: their silence is a tacit proof that the evangelist has stated the fact correctly. But,

Thirdly, The reality of the fact itself (though mentioned in his usual scoffing manner) was not denied by the philosopher Celsus, one of the bitterest enemies of Christianity, who

On this subject, see Vol. I. pp. 184-188.

2 Justin. Hist. Philipp. lib. xxxvi. cap. 2. p 308. edit. Bipont.

See Bp. Gray, Connection between Sacred and Profane Literature, vol. i. pp. 435443.; and also Du Voisin, Autorité des Livres de Moyse, pp. 180-199.

Ottius has compiled a curious treatise, intitled Prætermissa à Josepho: it is a collection of sixty-eight articles, of which, in all probability, the Jewish historian could not be ignorant; but which he chose to omit for the reason above assigned. This treatise is appended to Ottius's very valuable Spicilegium sive Excerpta ex Flavio Josepho, pp. 527

-612.

Divine Legation of Moses, book v. sect. 4. (Warburton's Works, vol. v. pp. 126128) The bishop has given several instances at length, which we have not room to insert see pp. 130-132.