HARMONIES. The object of Harmonies is to arrange the Scriptures in chronological order, so that the mutual agreement of the several parts may be rendered apparent, and the true succession of events clearly understood. With this view vari ous scholars have compiled harmonies of the Old Testament, of the New, and of particular portions of both. Harmonies of the O. T. exhibit the books disposed in chronological order ; as is done by Lightfoot in his Chronicle of the Times, and the order of the Texts of the Old Testament ;' and by Townsend in his Old Testament arranged in His torical and Chronological order.' Hanronies of the N. T. present the gospels and epistles distri buted in like order ; the latter being interspersed among the Acts of the Apostles. In this way Townsend has proceeded in his valuable work en titled, The New Testament arranged in Chrono logical and Historical order.' Books, however, of this kind are so few in number, that usage has almost appropriated the term harmony to the gospels. lt is this part of the .N. T. which has chiefly occupied the attention of those inquirers whose object is to arrange the Scriptures in their true order. The memoirs of our Lord written by the four Evangelists, have chiefly engaged the thoughts of those who wish to shew that all agree, and mutually authenticate one another. Accord ingly, such compositions are exceedingly numerous. The four gospels narrate some of the events con nected with our Lord's abode on earth, from his birth to his ascension, There must therefore be a general resemblance between them ; though that of John contains little in common with the others, being apparently supplementary to them. Yet there are considerable diversities, both in the order in which facts are narrated, and in the facts them selves. Hence the difficulty of weaving the ac counts of the four into a continuous and chronolo gical history. Those portions of the Gospels that relate to the resurrection of the Saviour have always presented the greatest obstacles to the com pilers of harmonies ; and it must be candidly admitted that they are not easily reconciled. Here the labours of 'West and Townson, especially the latter, have served to remove some contradictions. In addition to them may be mentioned Greswell, Robinson, and Stroud, who have tried the same problem with greater success.
In connection with harmonies, the term diates saran frequently occurs. It denotes a continued narrative selected out of the four Gospels, in which all repetitions of the same or similar words are avoided. It is thus the result of a harmony ; since the latter, properly speaking, exhibits the entire texts of the four Evangelists, arranged in corres ponding columns. In popular language the two are often used synonymously (see, however, David son's State of the Old Testament Text consia'ered, etc. etc., p. 541, zd ed.) The following questions relative to harmonies demand attention :— t. Have all or any of the Evangelists observed chronological arrangement in their narratives ? 2. What was the duration of our Lord's mi nistry ? 1. It was the opinion of Osiander and his fol lowers, that all the Evangelists record the facts of the Saviour's history in their true order. When therefore the same transactions are placed in a dif ferent order by the writers, they were supposed to have happened more than once. It was assumed that they took place a.3 often as they were diffe rently arranged. This principle is too improbable to require refutation. Instead of endeavouring to solve difficulties, it boldly meets them with a clumsy expedient. Improbable however as it is, it has been adopted by Macknight. It is our de cided conviction that the Evangelists have not fol lowed chronological arrangement.
The question then arises, have all neglected the order of time. Newcome and many others espouse this view. Chronological order,' says this writer, is not precisely observed by any of the Evan. gelists ; St. John and St. Mark observe it most ; and St. Matthew neglects it most.' Bishop Marsh supposes that Matthew probably adhered to the order of time, because he was for. the most part an eye-witness of the facts. The others, he thinks, neglected the succession of events. The reason assigned by the learned prelate in favour of Mat thew's order proves too much ; because John was also an eye-witness ; yet his order differs from Matthe),v's. The fact of one being an eye-witness has no conclusive relation, by itself, to the arrange ment of written materials.