and the other does not; for instance, when the one unites several facts in such a manner, as to shew that they happened on the same day, but the other separates them in his narrative, I follow the former in preference to the latter.

5. St. Luke, ch. ix. 51.-xviii. 14. has recorded a set of facts without any determination of time, and which appear to have happened in different years. These facts I arrange (N°. 69-83) in the order in which they are placed in St. Luke's Gospel, except those, which are determined in point of time by other Evangelists: but this order must not be considered as chronological. In some of these facts, for instance, N°. 69, 77, are traces, from which we may perceive, that they happened a few months before the death of Christ; but some of them certainly happened much earlier. It is therefore not commendable, that harmonists, not excepting even the excellent Archbishop Usher, have interwoven them in the continued narrative of the life of Christ, into which they cannot with any propriety be introduced. Several volumes of anecdotes of the late King of Prussia have lately been published, but wholly without regard to the order of time. Any person therefore, who undertook to compose a chronological journal of the life of the late King, might introduce all those anecdotes, of which the time is capable of being determined: but those, which admit of no determination, he would be obliged to omit.

6. That I do not deny, there are contradictions in the Gospels, appears from what I have already written on this subject: but the greatest part of them admit of a reconciliation, which however I cannot attempt at present, because it is a subject, which properly belongs to the Notes to the New Testament.