Bern. Lamy Commentarius in harmoniam sive concordiam Evangelistarum, published at Paris in 1699, is a learned work, and it is itself a commentary on the Gospels 15.

Johan. Clerici harmonia evangelica, printed at Amsterdam 16 in 1700, is an useful book. Le Clerc has in general very just notions with respect to an harmony of the Gospels, which he has delivered in a dissertation annexed to his work. He has arranged the history of the four Evangelists according to chronological order, in columns parallel to each other, in Greek and in Latin under the text he has added a Latin paraphrase, the design of which is to remove the apparent contradictions.

William Whiston's Short view of the Chronology of the Old Testament, and of the Harmony of the four Evangelists,' published at Cambridge in 1702, deserves particular notice. Whiston is of opinion, that the Evangelists wrote according to the order of time, except in one single passage: and that the reason, why St. Matthew appears to be at variance with the other Evangelists is, that the chapters in his Gospels, from the fourth to the tenth ", have been strangely confounded and intermixed by the copyists. This opinion he endeavours to support by the circumstance, that in St. Mark's Gospel, which he supposes to be only an abridgment of St. Matthew's, a very different arrangement is observed, from that which we find at present in the Gospel of St. Matthew 18. My sentiments on this subject I shall deliver in the last section of this chapter.

Jo. Reinh. Rus. published at Iena in 1727, in four volumes octavo 19, a work entitled, Harmonia evangelistarum ita adornata, ut, investigatâ sedulo textus cohærentiâ, nullus versus sive trajiciatur, sive prætereatur sine brevi et succincta explicatione, quo justi commentarii loco esse queat. He follows principally Sandhagen, and there is nothing in his explanations, which is particularly remarkable. Wherever he has an opportunity of displaying his knowledge of Hebrew an

tiquities, or of the geography of Palestine, he is extremely prolix, and introduces matter, which is wholly foreign to the purpose of explaining the passages in question. For instance, in his notes on St. Luke i. 39, 40. he inquires what the name of the city was, in which Elizabeth dwelt: and after having observed, that some commentators suppose it to have been Hebron, he gives the ancient history of that city, mentions its various names, relates what persons were buried there, and even examines whether it was not the burial place of Adam. In short his object was to write a great deal, in order that his work might appear to be very learned, though the author's learning extended no further than to a knowledge of Hebrew: hence he was obliged to be prolix, or his work would, in his own opinion, have been too small.

Bengel, in his Harmony of the Gospels, published in 1736, proceeds upon more just principles, and maintains that the Evangelists did not write merely in chronological order. But the chronology, which Bengel has adopted, is not at all times to be defended, and the arrangement which he has chosen for the several facts, is too frequently the result of a particular system.

In the year following, E. D. Hauber published, 1. An Harmony of the Evangelists,' in which the words of the Evangelists themselves, according to the German version, are printed in the order which, in Mr. Hauber's opinion, corresponds to the time in which each transaction happened. 2. The Life of Jesus Christ, taken from the accounts of all the four Evangelists, reduced into a small compass, and accompanied with a general Introduction to the Harmony of the Evangelists.' 3. "Harmónical Observations.' Of these writings, the last is the most valuable, the two former being of less value, on account of the principle, which the author had adopted, and from which he has never deviated, that the four Gospels are absolute journals, and never deviate from the order of time 20.

In the year 1756, Büsching published the first volume of an harmony under the title, The four Evangelists put together in their own words, translated into German, and accompanied with numerous annotations"," a work both entertaining and instructive, and containing in particular much valuable geographical information, which throws a light on many passages of the life of Christ, which were before obscure. In the arrangement of the transactions, Büsching chiefly follows Hauber in this respect therefore we are of different opinions, yet I have a great desire to see the work completed.

In the next year, namely in 1767, Bertling published a New Harmony of the four Evangelists, a work founded on principles diametrically opposite to those adopted by Büsching, a work likewise, which shews the author to have possessed a considerable share of penetration, and which deserves particular attention. As far as general principles go, I perfectly accede to the opinion of this author: but I would not have it understood, that I agree with him in their application to each particular case, or in the arrangement of every transaction 3.

Whoever is in possession of the harmonies written Whiston, Bengel, Hauber, Büsching, and Bertling, may in general dispense with the other more voluminous harmonies: for in those, which I have here enumerated, he will find the grounds of the different opinions advanced by the several harmonists fully explained and defended. With respect to those writers who have not written general harmonies, but have attempted only to reconcile single contradictions, the reader will excuse me, if I pass them over in silence, as the enumeration of them would take up too much room for the present section 25.

SECTION VII.

Harmony of the Gospels proposed by the author of this Introduction.

THE harmony, which I shall deliver in this section, is a table of contents to the four Evangelists, which I have drawn up with a view of assisting the reader in bis examination of the several transactions recorded in the Gospels and of directing his judgement in the various inferences, to which such an examination may give birth. I will first however explain the principles, upon which this table is formed.

1. Chronology, and the arrangement of facts according to the order of time, a matter, which St. Matthew and St. Mark at least have wholly disregarded, and to which the Evangelists in general have paid much less attention than is imagined by those, who consider their Gospels as journals, is discoverable only in some few passages of the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John 3. For instance, St. Luke has determined, ch. iii. 1-3. the period at which John the Baptist, who was at that time about thirty years of age, began publicly to preach. Again, from a comparison of ch. i. 8. with 1 Chron. xxiv. 10. we find that the annunciation of the birth of St. John happened in the fourth month of the Jews, which corresponds nearly to our July 5, consequently the conception of St. John (which took place soon after the return of Zacharias from his service in the Temple) in the month of August: whence it appears that John was born in May', and Jesus in October ".-St. John likewise,

It is true, that according to this mode of reckoning Jesus was born at a different part of the year from that, in which we celebrate his birth. But our festivals were not arranged according to the time, in which the several events intended to be celebrated really happened; for they were substituted in the place of heathen festivals, in order to annihilate even the traces of heathenism. Thus the festival called Nativitas Invicti was converted into Nativitas Christi *.

by determining the feasts of the Passover, and other feasts, at which Jesus was present in Jerusalem, has in some measure introduced chronology into his history of Christ's ministry, which may be applied to the other Gospels, because St. John has some material facts, which form so many epochs, or points of reckoning, in the life of Christ, in common with the other Evangelists. See the following Table, No. 22. 53. 97.

2. But not all the single facts, related by the three first Evangelists, can be introduced with certainty either in the intervals determined by the above-mentioned feasts of the Passover, or in the intervals determined by the three principal points of reckoning just mentioned, because the Evangelists follow not always the order of time.

3. For this reason, I would not have the reader suppose, that the several facts delivered in the following Table are arranged, without exception, according to the order, in which they really happened: for it is iny intention to give rather a General Index to the Four Gospels, than to draw up a Chronological Table. In general, I follow St. Matthew, who was eye-witness to the facts which he has recorded, and from whose arrangement I shall not depart, except for particular reasons, as in No 33-38.

4. I shall not attempt to determine the time with any certainty, except in those cases, where it is determined by the Evangelists themselves; as, for instance, where they say, ' on the evening of the same day,' or, ' on the following morning,' or as in N° 63, after six days,' which I do not consider as a contradiction to St. Luke, who says, 'about eight days after.' It is true that in these determinations of time the Evangelists might make mistakes, if they were not rendered infallible by divine inspiration: but of historians in general we suppose that their accounts are exact, till we have reason to believe the contrary, and I know of no such reason, which takes place in regard to the Evangelists. When one Evangelist determines the time,