because God does not change his counsel and purpose, but takes off the sentence, which he had passed with reserved conditions.

19. It has also been objected, that the Book of Ecclesiastes contains some passages which savour of irreligion, and others which savour of immorality.

But the passages, thus excepted against, are either innocent when rightly interpreted; or else they express,-not the sentiments of Solomon, but the false opinions of others, whom he personates in order to confute them ;-or, however, not his deliberate sentiments, but such hasty and wrong notions, as during the course of his inquiry after happiness, arose successively in his mind, and were on mature consideration rejected by him, that he might fix at last on the true basis,-the conclusion of the whole matter: which is to fear God and keep his commandments: for God will bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. (Eccl. xii. 13, 14.)

20. It has likewise been objected that the Song of Solomon, and the sixteenth and twenty-third chapters of Ezekiel's prophecy, contain passages offensive to common decency.

But this objection will fall to the ground by interpreting those parts allegorically, as almost all the commentators, from the earliest times, have unanimously done and likewise, by considering that the simplicity of the eastern nations made these phrases less offensive to them than they appeared to us; as, on the other hand, many things which are perfectly correct in our view, would appear far different in eastern climates. With respect to the Song of Solomon, in particular, it is to be remarked, 1. That most of the forms of speech, against which exceptions have been made, are mistranslations, and do not exist in the original :-And, 2. Admitting the correctness of these remarks, it may also be shown, that this book abounds with beautiful poetic images. There is therefore no just exception to supposing it allegorical, provided the allegory be not extravagant and inconsistent.

21. It is asserted, that the imprecations contained in some of the prophetic parts of Scripture, and in the book of Psalms (especially in the fifty-fifth and hundred and ninth psalms), breathe a spirit of malice, are highly inconsistent with humanity, and highly vicious.

These, however, are to be considered not as prayers, but as simple predictions; the imperative mood being put for the future tense agreeably to the known idiom of the Hebrew language, and shown to be so put by the future being used in other parts of the prediction, as in Psalm xxviii. 4, 5.; and this idiom is more natural in prediction than in other kinds of composition, because it is the immediate result of combining idioms common in the prophetic style. For, as the prophets are often commanded to do a thing, when it is only intended that they should foretel it,2 so they often foretell a thing by commanding it to be done ;3 and they often express their predictions in an address to God, the union of which two idioms gives them the appearance of imprecations.

Of all those tremendous imprecations which appear in our common English version of Deut. xxvii. 15-26., there is not one authorised by the original. The Hebrew texts express no kind of wish, but are only so many denunciations of the displeasure of God against those who either were, or should be guilty of the sins therein mentioned, and of the judgments which they must

1 Thus, Gen. xx. 7. if rendered literally is, And he shall pray for thee, and LIVE, that is, thou shalt live. A similar example occurs in Gen. xlii. 18. This do and live, that is, ye shall live; and in Gen. xlv. 18. I will give you the land of Egypt, and eat (that is, ye shall eat) the fat of the land.

2 See examples of this mode of speech in Isa. vi. 10. and Jer. i. 10.

3 Isa. xlvii. 1. Come down (that is, thou shalt come down) and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; (thou shalt) sit on the ground.

4 Isa. ix. 3. Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased their joy; they joy (that is, they shall joy) before thee, according to the joy in harvest.-Gerard's Institutes, p. 448.

VOL. I.

72

expect to be inflicted upon them, unless prevented by a timely and sincere repentance. And agreeably to this view, the sacred texts should have been rendered "cursed they," or, "cursed are they," and not "cursed be they,” in the sense of Let them be cursed; the word be, though inserted in our translation, having nothing answerable to it in the Hebrew.

It is further worthy of remark, that the fifty-fifth Psalm is a plain prophecy of the untimely fate of Ahithophel, and is so interpreted by the Chaldee para phrase. The fifteenth verse should be rendered,

Death shall suddenly seize upon them;

Alive (that is, in their full strength and vigour) shall they go down into Hades or the Grave.

But the Septuagint has rendered it :

Ελθετω θανατος επ' αυτούς

Και καταβητωσαν εις άδου ζωντες.

Let death come upon them;

Let them go down alive to the mansion of the dead

And our common translation has it still worse.

Let death come hastily upon them;

And let them go down quick into hell.

In which rendering are two capital faults: 1. A most horrid curse is given to us instead of a prophecy and 2. (SHEOL,) which signifies the grave, or state of the dead, is translated Hell; which is commonly, though erroneously, understood of the state and place of eternal punishment.

The offence, which has also been taken against the supposed imprecations of the hundred and ninth Psalm, may be obviated in the manner above noticed, by rendering the verbs in the future tense, that is, literally as they are in the Hebrew. That Psalm contains a twofold prophecy, primarily of the fate of Doeg the Edomite, and secondarily of the traitor Judas; and to this last the apostle Peter has applied it in Acts i. 20. And it is further to be observed, that the imprecations in the hundred and ninth Psalm, are not the imprecations of David against his enemies, but of his enemies against him.1

The same idiom, which appears in the prophetic writings and Psalms, is also to be found in 1 Cor. xvi. 22. and 2 Tim. iv. 14.

The former passage runs thus:-If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be anathema maranatha. From 1. Cor. xii. 3. we find that the Jews, who pretended to be under the Spirit and teaching of God called Jesus Christ ava epa or accursed, that is, a person devoted to destruction. In 1 Cor. xvi. 22. Saint Paul retorts the whole upon themselves, and says, If any man love not the Lord Jesus let HIM be (that is, he will be) accursed; our Lord cometh. This is not said in the way of imprecation, but as a prediction of what would certainly come upon the Jews if they did not repent; and of what actually came upon them, because they did not repent, but continued to hate and execrate the Saviour of the world; as well as a prediction of what still lies upon them because they continue to hate and execrate the Redeemer.

In 2 Tim. iv. 14. we read Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil; the Lord reward him according to his works; which has the appearance of an imprecation. But instead of aroown may the Lord reward, anodwσe will reward is the reading of the Codices,Alexandrinus and Ephremi (which are of the best authority,) the Codices Claromontanus, San Germanensis, Augiensis, also of those numbered by Griesbach, 6. 17. 31. 37. 67 **. 71. 73. 80. and of the MS. by Matthæi noted with the letter f.;-of the Coptic, Armenian, and Vulgate

1 William's Dissertation on Scripture Imprecations, prefixed to "The Book of Psalms as translated, paraphrased, or imitated by some of the most eminent English Poets." 8vo. 1781. Green's note on Psalm 109. (Translation of the Psalms, 8vo. 1762.) The late Bishop Horsley also renders the imprecations as prophetic maledictions; though he considers that Psalm as denounced by Messiah against the Jewish nation. See also Dr. Randolph's Comment on Psalms cix. and lv. in the second volume of his 'View of our Saviour's Ministry,' pp. 315–335.

versions—and of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Eulogius as cited by Photius, Johannes Damascenus, Oecumenius, Augustine, and others among the fathers of the Christian Church. The reading of arodwoa makes the sentence declaratory, The Lord WILL REWARD him according to his works: and, as it is supported by such satisfactory evidence, Griesbach has inserted it in his inner margin, as being nearly equal, if not preferable to the common reading. An additional proof that this is the preferable lection is furnished by the fact, that is in unison with the spirit and temper of the intrepid apostle Saint Paul; who, in the sixteenth verse, when speaking of his being deserted by every one, when (during his second imprisonment at Rome) he was first summoned to vindicate himself before the sanguinary emperor Nero, says, Let it not be placed to their charge, that is, Let them not have to reckon for it with the Supreme Judge, at the great day. This passage furnishes an additional example of the canon, concerning various readings, which is given in Vol. II. Part I. Chap. VIII. § IV. rule 8.

22. The preceding examples, with two exceptions, have been taken from the Old Testament. So pure indeed is the morality of the New Testament, that the advocates of infidelity can find no other fault with it, than this,—that it carries the principle of forbearance too far, because among other things it inculcates the love of our enemies. Notwithstanding this involuntary testimony to its inimitable excellence, two passages have been singled out, as inculcating immorality, viz. Luke xvi. S. and 1 Cor. ix. 5.

(1.) In Luke xvi. 8. we read that The lord commended the unjust steward (who in the parable had been represented as having defrauded his master,) because he had done wisely: And hence Jesus Christ has been unjustly charged with countenancing dishonesty. The whole of the context, however, shows, that it was the master or lord of the steward, and NOT Christ, who is represented as commending his conduct, and it is in consequence of his master's so commending him, that Jesus made the reflection, that the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. The parable in question is to be interpreted solely in reference to the principal idea contained in it: and that idea is, from the conduct of a worldly minded man, to enforce upon the followers of Jesus Christ the necessity of their being at least as assiduous in pursuing the business of 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 apostle 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

wives 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." And in giving his finished picture of a perfect Christian, he says— “ Εσθίεικαι πίνει, και ΓΑΜΕΙ... ΕΙΚΟΝΑΣ έχει τους ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΥΣ—He cats and drinks and MARRIES... having the APOSTLES for his EXAMPLES.” 1

SECTION VI.

APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE SACRED WRITERS.

THERE

HERE are some facts recorded in one part of the sacred writings, which seem to be repugnant to the statements contained in other parts of the Scriptures: and these apparent contradictions are to be found between different writers of the Old Testament, and also between the Old and the New Testament.

I. In the Old Testament, the following passages are objected to as contradictory.

1. Gen. i. and Gen. ii. have been affirmed to contradict each other. 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; consequently, Adam was NOT made after this.

2. Gen. vii. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

is said to be contradicted by

Gen. vii. 17. The flood was forty days upon the earth.

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.

Gen. viii. 3. The waters returned from off the earth continually; and after the 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.

Dr. Boothroyd renders them thus, which obviates that repugnancy::-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 Ararat. And 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.

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.

1 Clementis Alexandrini Stromata, lib. vii. c. 2. cited by Dr. A. Clarke in his Com nentary on 1 Cor. ix. 5.-Clement was one of the most learned Greek Christian riters in the close of the second century. His Stromata were written A. D. 193.

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 mule and the female, and of fowls that are not clean, two 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 several 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. 547. supra.

7. Gen. xxii. 1. It came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham.

apparently contradicts

James i. 13. God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man.

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 thus he tempted Abraham. 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 will he if he resist them, 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 circumstance took place in the very same year when Jacob returned into Palestine. So far, however, is the book of Genesis from dating it in that year, that on the contrary, we learn from it, that Jacob resided in that country a long time. (Compare Gen. xxxiii. 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 noticed in this place, by anticipation, in order that the history of Joseph might not be interrupted. This mode of narrating facts, it is well known, 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 four score years; he was one hundred and seventy-three years old when Dinah was violated, and one hundred and seventy-four when Joseph was sold into Egypt.

9. The land of Rameses, in Gen. xlvii. 11. means the land of 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

1 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.