A reformed chronology – interpreting the prophecies.

Harrison expected to find significant meaning in history, for he approached it with the same scrupulous care for the limits of regenerate understanding which he observed in the most important spheres of human knowledge, such as theology. More precisely, his caution in dealing with historical and chronological patterns and periods testifies to their importance in his thought, for he only accepted those which he believed conformed to Elect doctrine. Any periodisation which did not originate in what Harrison regarded as Elect prophecies, or which did not conform to the knowledge transmitted by the covenant line, had to be rejected. Therefore, the periodisations which Harrison rejected only serve to emphasise the importance of those patterns that he accepted as part of Elect knowledge. The following discussion also illustrates the individuality of his vision within this general framework, for the boundaries of legitimate knowledge which he recognised emerged through a process of constant interaction between his contemporary circumstances and his response to the particular Scriptural interpretation of history. Indeed those boundaries could shift under the changing pressure of circumstances. These various and variable influences led Harrison to some strikingly original conclusions on the chronological questions which absorbed the energies of sixteenth-century intellectuals, but the ways in which he arrived at those conclusions have wider implications for his thought. Thus, much can be learned about Harrison's way of thinking by examining his attitudes towards the prophecy of Elias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]