Part 11
This will appear, if we consider that the penmen thereof were in themselves as liable to mistake as other men; and had they been left to themselves herein, they would have betrayed as much weakness, confusion, and self-contradiction, as any other writers have done; and it may be more, inasmuch as many of them had not the advantage of a liberal education, nor were conversant in human learning, but were taken from mean employments, and made use of by God in this work, that so we may herein see more of the divinity of the writings they were employed to transmit to us: besides, they lived in different ages and places, and so could not consult together what to impart, and yet we find, as we shall endeavour to prove, that they all agree together: therefore the harmony of their writings is an evident proof that they were inspired by the same spirit, and consequently that they are the word of God.
We might here consider the historical parts of scripture, and the account which one inspired writer gives of matters of facts as agreeing with what is related by another; and also the harmony of all the doctrines contained therein, as not only agreeing in the general scope and design thereof, but in the way and manner in which they are laid down or explained: but we shall more particularly consider the harmony of scripture, as what is foretold in one part thereof, is related as accomplished in another. And,
1. There are various predictions relating to the providential dealings of God with his people, which had their accomplishment in an age or two after. Thus the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others, foretold the captivity and the number of years they should be detained in Babylon, and their deliverance by Cyrus, who is expressly mentioned by name. These prophecies, and the accomplishment thereof are so obvious, that there is no one who reads the Old Testament but will see an harmony between them; so that what in one place is represented as foretold, in another place, is spoken of as accomplished in its proper time, Isa. xliv. 28. and Chap. xlv. 1, 4. compared with Ezra i. 2, 3.
And the revolt and apostacy of Israel, their turning aside from God, to idolatry, which was the occasion of their desolation, was foretold by Moses, Deut. xxxi. 29. and by Joshua, Chap. xxiii. 15, 16. and Chap. xxiv. 19. And every one that reads the book of Judges, will see that this was accomplished; for when Moses and Joshua were dead, and that generation who lived with them, they revolted to idolatry and were punished for the same in various instances, Judg. ii. 8, 10, 11, 14.
And the prophecy of the great reformation which Josiah should make, and in particular, that he should _burn the bones_ of the idolatrous priests _on the altar at Bethel_, 1 Kings xiii. 2. was exactly accomplished above three hundred years after, 2 Kings xxii. 15, 16.
2. There are various predictions under the Old Testament relating to our Saviour, and the New Testament church, many of which have had their accomplishment, and others are daily accomplishing. It is said, Acts x. 43. _To him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins_; and we shall find, that what is foretold concerning him in the Old Testament, is related as accomplished in the New; particularly,
(1.) That he should come in the flesh, was foretold in the Old Testament, Hag. ii. 7. Mal. iii. 1. Isa. ix. 6. and is mentioned as accomplished in the New, John i. 14. Gal. iv. 4.
(2.) That he should work miracles for the good of mankind, and to confirm his mission, was foretold, Isa. xxxv. 5, 6. and accomplished, Matth. xi. 4, 5.
(3.) That he should live in this world in a low and humbled state, was foretold, Isa. lii. 14. and chap. liii. 3. and the whole account of his life in the gospels bears witness that those predictions were fully accomplished.
(4.) That he should be cut off, and die a violent death, was typified by the brazen serpent in the wilderness, _viz._ that he should be lifted up upon the cross, Numb. xxi. 9. compared with John iii. 14. and foretold in several other scriptures, Isa. liii. 7. and Dan. ix. 26. and this is largely insisted on, as fulfilled in the New Testament.
(5.) That after he had continued some time in a state of humiliation, he should be exalted, was foretold, Isa. lii. 13. chap. liii. 11, 12. Psal. lxviii. 18. and fulfilled, Acts i. 9. Phil. ii. 9.
(6.) That his glory should be proclaimed and published in the preaching of the gospel, was foretold, Isa. xi. 10. Psal. cx. 2. Isa. lx. 1, 2, 3. and fulfilled, 1 Tim. iii. 16. Mark xvi. 15. as appears from many scriptures.
(7.) That he should be the spring and fountain of all blessedness to his people, was foretold, Gen. xxii. 18. Psal. lxxii. 17. Isa. xlix. 8, 9. and fulfilled, 2 Cor. vi. 2. Acts iii. 26. In these, and many other instances, we may observe such a beautiful consent of all the parts of scripture, as proves it to be the very word of God.
But since it will not be sufficient, to support the divine authority of scripture, to assert that there is such a harmony, as we have observed, unless we can prove that it doth not contradict itself in any instances; therefore the next thing we are to consider, is the reproach cast upon it by those who would bring all divine revelation into contempt, as though it contradicted itself in several instances, and contained various absurdities; which, were they able to make appear, would enervate the force of the argument we are maintaining, to prove the scripture to be the word of God from the consent of the parts thereof: therefore we shall consider some of those contradictions, which many, who pretend to criticise on the words of scripture, charge it with, as so many objections against the harmonious consent, and consequently the divine authority thereof, together with the answers, which may be given to each of them.
_Object._ 1. If we compare our Saviour’s genealogy, as related in the first of Matthew and the third of Luke, they allege that there is a very great inconsistency between them, for one mentions different persons, as his progenitors, from what the other does; as, for instance, in Matth. i. he is said to be the son of Joseph, and Joseph the son of Jacob, and he the son of Matthan; but the other evangelist, _viz._ Luke, says that he was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat: and so we find the names of each genealogy very differing, till we come to David; therefore they suppose both those genealogies cannot be true, inasmuch as the one contradicts the other.
_Answ._ It evidently appears, that there is no contradiction between these two genealogies, since Matthew gives an account of Joseph’s ancestors, and Luke of Mary’s, and so, both together, prove that he was the son of David, by his reputed father’s, as well as his mother’s side.
And if it be replied, that Luke, as well as Matthew, gives an account of Joseph’s genealogy, and therefore this answer is not sufficient: we may observe, that it is said, Luke iii, 23, 24. that _Jesus was, as it is supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, &c._ the meaning is, he was, indeed, the supposed son of Joseph, but he really descended from Heli, the father of the virgin Mary; and nothing is more common in scripture than for grandsons to be called sons; and if we observe the meaning of the Greek words, which we render, _which was the son, &c._ it may better be rendered, who descended from Heli, and then there is not the least absurdity in it, supposing Heli to be his grandfather; and therefore there is no appearance of contradiction between these two scriptures.
_Object._ 2. It is pretended, that there is a plain contradiction between these two places, 2 Sam. xxiv. 24. and 1 Chron. xxi. 25. in the former whereof it is said, that David bought the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, to build an altar on, and the oxen for burnt-offerings, that the plague might be stayed, _for fifty shekels of silver_; but in the other, _viz._ in Chronicles, it is said, that _he gave him for the place six hundred shekels of gold_; therefore they pretend that one of these places must be wrong, inasmuch as they plainly contradict one another.
_Answ._ The answer that may be given to this objection, is, that David paid Araunah (who is otherwise called Ornan) for his threshing-floor, where he built an altar, and for the oxen, which he bought for sacrifice, fifty shekels of silver, as it is expressed in Samuel. But, beside this threshing-floor, he bought the whole place, as it is said in Chronicles, _i. e._ the whole tract of ground, or mountain, on which it stood, whereon he designed that the temple should be built; and therefore he saith concerning it, 1 Chron. xxii. 1. _This is the house of the Lord God_, _i. e._ this place, or tract of land, which I have bought round about the threshing-floor, is the place where the house of God shall stand; _and this is the altar of burnt-offering for Israel_, which was to be built in that particular place, where the threshing-floor was: now, though he gave for the threshing-floor but fifty shekels of silver, (which probably was as much as it was worth) yet the whole place, containing ground enough for the temple, with all its courts, and the places leading to it, was worth a great deal more; or, if there were any houses in the place, these were also purchased to be pulled down, to make room for the building of the temple; and, for all this, he gave six hundred shekels of gold, and we can hardly suppose it to be worth less; so that there is no real contradiction between these two places,
_Object._ 3. It is pretended, that there is a contradiction between 2 Sam. xxiv. 13. and 1 Chron. xxi. 12. in the former of which Gad came to David, being sent to reprove him for his numbering the people, and said, _Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?_ But, in Chronicles, he speaks of but _three years of famine_.
_Answ._ To reconcile this seeming contradiction,
1. Some think, that in some ancient copies, it is not seven, but three,[37] years of famine, in Samuel, as it is in Chronicles; the reason of this conjecture is, because the LXX, or Greek translation, have it so; and they think that these translators would hardly have made so bold with scripture, as to put three for seven, if they had not found it so in the copies that they made use of, when they compiled this translation: but probably this answer will not give satisfaction to the objectors; therefore,
2. The best way to account for this seeming contradiction, is this: in Chronicles, Gad bids him chuse if he would have three years of famine, _viz._ from that time; but in Samuel he saith, shall seven years of famine come unto thee, that is, as though he should say there hath been three years of famine already, for Saul _and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites_, 2 Sam. xxi. 1. Now, that famine ceased but the year before, and the ground being so chaped and hard for want of rain this year, which was the fourth, it was little better than a year of famine. Now, said Gad, wilt thou have this famine continued three years more (which, in all, makes up seven years) unto thee in the land? And, if we take it in this sense, there is no contradiction between these two scriptures, though one speaks of three years, and the other of seven.
_Object._ 4. They pretend to find an inconsistency, or absurdity, little better than a contradiction, by comparing 1 Sam. xvi. 21, 22. and chap. xvii. 55. In the former it is said, _David came to Saul, and stood before him, and he loved him greatly; and he sent to Jesse_, with the intent that he might give him leave _to stand before him, inasmuch as he had found favour in his sight_. Now, say they, how can this be consistent with the other scripture; where Saul seeing David going forth against Goliath the Philistine, asked Abner, _Whose son is this youth?_ And Abner replied, _He could not tell_; and, in the next verse, he is ordered to _enquire who he was_. Now how could this be, when he had been his armour-bearer, stood before him, and found favour in his sight; and he had sent to Jesse, to desire that he might live with him?
_Answ._ I can see no appearance of absurdity, or defect of harmony, between these two scriptures; for supposing Saul’s memory had failed him, and he had forgot that David had stood before him as a servant, shall the scripture, that gives an account of this, be reflected on, as containing an inconsistency? It is true, David had stood before Saul, as his armour-bearer; yet he had, for some time, been sent home and dismissed from his service, during which time he kept his father’s sheep; and probably he lived not long in Saul’s family; therefore it is no wonder if Saul had now forgot him. There is no master of a family but may forget what servants have formerly lived with him, and much more a king, who hardly knows the names of the greatest part of the servants that are about him: besides, at this time, David appeared in the habit of a shepherd, and therefore Saul might well say, _whose son is this youth?_ This sufficiently accounts for the difficulty, and vindicates this scripture from the charge of inconsistency; though some account for it thus, by supposing that Saul knew David, (as having been his armour-bearer) but did not know his father, and therefore asks, _whose son is this?_ or who is he that hath so bold and daring a son, as this youth appears to be? If these things be considered, there appears not the least absurdity in this scripture.
_Object._ 5. Another contradiction, which some charge the scripture with, is, that when Israel, pursuant to the advice of Balaam, committed idolatry, and went a-whoring after the daughters of Moab, and God consumed them for it by the plague, it is said, Numb. xxv. 9. _Those that died in the plague were twenty-four thousand_; but the apostle Paul, referring to the same thing, says, 1 Cor. x. 8. _Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand._
_Answ._ 1. The answer that may be given to this objection, that the apostle Paul, when he says, _three and twenty thousand died_, or fell, _in one day_, speaks of those who died by the immediate hand of God, by the pestilential distemper that was sent among them; but, besides these, there were many more that died by the hand of public justice for this sin; for in that chapter in Numbers, verse 4 and 5. we read of the _heads of the people being hanged up before the Lord, and the judges being ordered to slay every man his men that were joined unto Baal-peor_. These died by the sword of justice, and it is no great impropriety to say, that such died in a mediate way, by the plague, or sword of God; the sword is one of his plagues, as well as pestilential diseases, and is frequently so styled in scripture: now we cannot suppose that fewer died of this latter plague, if that be the import of the word, than a thousand; so that Moses gives the number of all that died, whether by God’s immediate hand, or by the sword of the magistrate, pursuant to his command: but if it be reckoned too great a strain upon the sense of the word plague, to admit of this solution, let it be farther observed, that, in the 9th verse, where Moses gives the sum total of those that died, it is not said that they were such who died _of_ the plague, but _in_ the plague; that is, those that died in or soon after the time that the plague raged among them, whose death was occasioned by this sin, were _four and twenty thousand_; so that these two places of scripture are so far from contradicting, that they rather illustrate one another.
_Object._ 6. Another contradiction is pretended to be between Gal. i. 8. where the apostle says, _Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed_; 2 Cor. xi. 4. _If he that cometh, preacheth another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him._ In one place he speaks against those who preach another gospel; in the other he says, they may be borne with; which seems to be a contradiction.
_Answ._ For the reconciling and accounting for the sense of these two scriptures, let us consider, that in the former of them the apostle pronounces them that preached another gospel accursed, and therefore, doubtless, they were not to be borne with, or allowed of; therefore it must be enquired what he means when he says, in the other scripture, that such may be well borne with; now this scripture will, without the least strain or force upon the words, admit of one of these two senses.
1. It may be considered as containing a sarcasm, by which the apostle reproves their being too much inclined to adhere to false teachers: if, says he, these bring you tidings of a better Spirit, a better gospel, then bear with them; but this they cannot do, therefore reject them; or,
2. The words may be rendered, instead of _ye might well bear with him, ye might well bear with me_, as is observed in the marginal reference; the word _him_ being in an Italic character, as will be elsewhere observed,[38] is not in the original, and therefore _me_ may as well be supplied as _him_, and so the meaning is this; ye bear with false preachers, are very favourable to them, and seem a little cold to us the apostles; so that I am afraid, as is observed in the foregoing verse, lest your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ; you can bear with these false teachers, and will you not bear with me? as he says, ver. 1. _Would to God you could bear with me a little in my folly, and indeed bear with me._ It is a sign religion is at a low ebb, when it is with some difficulty that professors are persuaded to bear with those that preach the pure gospel of Christ, who are too prone to turn aside to another gospel. Take the words in either of these senses, and they exactly harmonize with that text in Galatians, and not, as the objectors pretend, contradict it.
_Object._ 7. Another charge of contradiction, which is brought against scripture, is, that our Saviour saith, Matth, x. 34. _Think not that I am come to send peace on the earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword_: this is contrary to Christ’s general character, as a _prince of peace_, Isa. ix. 6. and to the advice he gives his disciples, not to use the sword, because _such shall perish by it_, Mat. xxvi. 52. and what be saith else, _My kingdom is not of this world_, John xviii. 36. and therefore not to be propagated by might or power, by force or civil policy, or those other carnal methods, by which the kingdoms of this world are advanced and promoted.
_Answ._ For the reconciling this seeming contradiction, let it be considered, that Christ did not come to put a sword into his followers hands, or to put them upon making war with the powers among whom they dwell, for the propagating the Christian religion; his gospel was to be advanced by spiritual methods: in this sense, the design of his coming was not to send a sword, but to bring spiritual peace to his people; but when he saith, I came to send a sword, it implies that his coming, his kingdom and gospel, should occasion persecution and war, by reason of the corruption of men; this the gospel may do, and yet not put men upon disturbing their neighbours, or making war with them; and this is not contrary to Christ’s general character of coming to be the author of spiritual peace to his people.
_Object._ 8. Another contradiction is pretended to be between 1 Kings viii. 9. and Heb. ix. 4. in the former it is said, _There was nothing in the ark but the two tables, which Moses put there_; in the latter, that _there was the golden pot, that had manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant_.
_Answ._ This seeming contradiction may easily be reconciled: for we suppose it true that there was nothing in the ark but the two tables, as it is said in the former of these scriptures; therefore to explain the latter agreeably to it, two senses may be given of it.
1. It is not necessary to suppose, that the apostle means, in the ark was the golden pot, &c. but in the holiest of all, which he mentions in the foregoing verse; therefore the meaning is, as in the holiest of all, there was the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant, so in it was the golden pot and Aaron’s rod: but because there may be an objection against this sense, from its being said in the words immediately following, that over it were the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat, where it refers to the ark, and not to the tabernacle, or holiest of all; if therefore the cherubims were over the ark, then the other things must be supposed to be in it, which objection, indeed, is not without its force, unless we suppose that the words[39] may be rendered _in the higher parts of it_, to wit, of _the holiest of all, were the cherubims of glory above the mercy seat_, and accordingly the meaning is this; that within this second vail was not only the ark, the golden pot of manna, Aaron’s rod, &c. but also the cherubims of glory, which were above them all: but since the grammatical construction, seems rather to favour the objection, there is another sense given of the words, which sufficiently reconciles the seeming contradiction, _viz._
2. When it is said,[40] that therein, or in it, to wit, the ark, was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, the meaning is, they were near it, or beside it, or some way or other fastened, or adjoining to it, in some inclosure, in the outside of the ark, whereas nothing was in it but the two tables; so that there is no real contradiction between these two scriptures.
Many more instances of the like nature might have been given, but, instead thereof, we shall rather chuse to lay down some general rules for the reconciling seeming contradictions in scripture, which may be applied by us in other cases, where we meet with the like difficulties. As,
1. When two scriptures seem to contradict each other, we sometimes find that this arises from the inadvertency of some who have transcribed the copies of scripture, putting one word for another; though it may be observed,
(1.) That this is not often found; for as great care has been taken in transcribing the manuscripts of scripture, as in any manuscripts whatever, if not greater.
(2.) If there have been mistakes in transcribing, it is only in a few instances, where there is a likeness between two words, so that one might easily be mistaken for the other; and this ought not to prejudice any against the scripture, for it only argues, that though the inspired penmen were infallible, the scribes that took copies of scripture for common use were not so.
(3.) When there is any such mistake, it may generally be rectified by some other copy, that has the word as it really should be: it is so in our printed Bibles, in some editions of them we find mistakes, as to some words, that may be rectified by others, which are more correct; and if so, why may not this be supposed to be in some written copies thereof, that were used before printing, which is but a late invention, was known in the world, from which all our printed copies are taken?