the medium: the gift of the faculty of sight by the gift also of all, which are essential to the use and effect of sight: and so in every other case likewise.

These auxiliary or concomitant effects of such miracles may justly be considered not the least extraordinary or admirable of any; and the use of the miracle, now performed at Bethsaida, it appears to me is this, that, with regard to the evidence of such effects, it is a case in point, and what seems to have held good in the secret process of this miracle, we may reasonably conclude, would be equally true, under the same circumstances, of every other. The faculty of sight, and the power of using that faculty, were both communicated in this instance, and both communicated at twice, and as far as the one was communicated so far it was immediately attended by the other. As the faculty was communicated gradually, so the power was developed gradually -but the use of the faculty still kept pace with the power of using it. The ideas of vision clearly went along with the exercise of the powers of vision, and if the ideas were not all at once distinct, it was because the faculty was not all at once complete, or the power of its use all at once developed. But the man could comprehend what he saw, and could discriminate between what he saw, as far as he could see them, even from the first: the use, then, of the faculty of sight was still in proportion to the extent of the possession, or the degree of the power of its use; and, considered in reference to that, it was as adequately exercised at first, when objects were seen confusedly, as at last, when every thing was perceived distinctly.

But to return from this digression. While Jesus was yet on the way to Cæsarea Philippi and its vicinity, according to St. Marka, and while he was praying by the way, apart, with his disciples, according to St. Lukeb, the memorable confession of Peter, and, directly after it, the first instance --and, by St. Matthew and St. Mark, critically specified as such-of any particular prediction concerning the rejection,

the death, and the resurrection, of the Christ (which, consequently, begin to be thus foretold about a year before the event) must have taken place. This prediction, like every other instance of its kind subsequently, as well as the rebuke of Peterd which arose out of it, and the original question, which produced the confession, must have been delivered, apart from the multitude, in the presence of the Twelve alone. But the doctrine of self-denial, and of the duty of taking up the cross, which followed upon the of fence, and the rebuke of the offence, of Peter, because it concerned all, was delivered in the audience of alle. Our Lord is said to have expressly called the people to him, before he proceeded to discourse upon that.

The next event on record is the Transfiguration, which seems to have been, at least in their primary sense, the fulfilment of the concluding words in the above discourse, as they are reported by each of the Evangelists. And so Theophylact understood it : Οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἡ μεταμόρφωσις ἦν, ἀλλ ̓ ἢ τῆς δευτέρας παρουσίας προμήνυμα. The distance of this transaction from the last is differently represented-by St. Matthew and St. Mark, at six days afterwards-by St. Luke, at about eight. The expression of the latter, however, wσel hμépaι ixτà, is so guarded, that it must be evident he did not intend to affirm the fact of eight entire days, but either of seven whole days, and part of an eighth, or of six whole days, and parts of two more days. And as to the expression of St. Matthew and St. Mark, μeď nμépas ë¿—I shall shew hereafter that this may, and perhaps must, be understood of six whole days, and a part of a seventh; in which case there will be no difference between the two statements, except of one day, and this may be explained as follows.

Luke ix. 37. our Lord and the three Apostles are said to have come down from the mountain, τ és μépa—which seems to me to imply very plainly that the Transfiguration

Matt. xvi. 13-21. Mark viii. 27-31. Luke ix, 18—22. xvi. 22.23. Mark viii. 32. 33. e Matt. xvi. 24. to the end. —ix. 1. Luke ix. 23-27. f Matt. xvii. 1-9.

d Matt.

Mark viii. 34

Mark ix. 2-8.

had taken place the night before. And this conclusion is further confirmed by the circumstances before and during the event itself—that Jesus went up into the mountain, for the purpose of private prayer; in order to which he is not seen to have retired apart at other times, except in the night, or early in the morning-that the Apostles were sleeping at the commencement of the Transfiguration, and were awakened on purpose to behold it—that the whole transaction, awful and mysterious as it was, would be rendered still more solemn and impressive, if it had happened amidst the darkness and stillness of the night.

On all these accounts, I think, we may infer that our Saviour took the three Apostles up into the mountain either at the close of the preceding day, or, what is equally probable, sometime in the ensuing night-that the Transfiguration occurred soon after, and, therefore, in the night as such-that when this was over they did not come down until the following day. Now in this case, from the day of the confession of Peter, reckoned as the first, to the day before the Transfiguration, reckoned as the last, the interval might be exactly seven days and six nights-but from the same time to either the night of the Transfiguration, considered as part of the same Jewish vuxnμepov, or to the morning of the day when it was over as such, the interval might be eight days and seven nights, or what St. Luke would call wσeì źμépai ixτά. If St. Matthew and St. Mark go by the former rule, and St. Luke goes by the latter, it is manifest that their statements may both be correct, and will be consistent the one with the other. It is a probable conjecture, though I have not the means of rendering it demonstrably certain, that both the prediction of the Transfiguration, and the Transfiguration, took place on the same day of the week, either the Jewish sabbath as such, or the Christian Sunday as such. If either of these was the case, then both modes of speaking concerning the distance of time between them would be strictly true. Let me assume that Christ was transfigured this year at the same distance of time from the day of Pentecost, at which he ascended

into heaven the next. The day of Pentecost this year fell upon June 6. and the day analogous to ascension-day before that was May 27. A. D. 29. May 27. according to the Tables was Friday, but, according to my computation, was Sunday. Moreover, the day of Pentecost itself the next year fell upon May 26. and May 26. on the first day of the week.

The scene of the Transfiguration is described by the Evangelists simply as a high mountain-the other particular, xar' idíav, which might be understood to belong to the same description, being rather to be understood of the taking the Apostles apart. Yet I can discover no good reason for questioning the ancient ecclesiastical tradition, which supposes it to have been Mount Tabor-called by Josephus, Tò 'Iraßúpiov gosh, situated in Lower Galilee, between the great plain of Galilee, and Scythopolis, the ancient Bethshan-on what was formerly the confines of the tribes of Issachar, and Napthali-accessible only on its northern side, rising to an altitude of thirty stades, and consisting, at its summit, of a level and grassy surface, the circumference of which was almost four Roman miles. Jerome also describes it as Mira rotunditate sublimis, distans a Diocæsarea (the Sepphoris of Josephus) decem millibus, contra orientalem plagam. Nor is it any great objection that Jesus was previously in the vicinity of Cæsarea Philippi; for a week's interval would be more than sufficient in order to travel thence to Mount Tabor. And that the Transfiguration happened somewhere in Galilee may be presumptively conjectured from the mention of Galilee, Matt. xvii. 22. Mark ix. 30-so soon afterwards. Nor is it improbable that either this mountain, or the mountain of Beatitudes, near to Capernaum, was the very mountain on which our Lord was manifested in Galileek, after his resurrection; especially if, according to Adamnanus', its distance from the lake of Gennesaret is to be computed at merely three miles.

Ant. v. v. 3. xiv. vi. 3. B. iv. i. 8. Vita. 37. i Oper. ii. De Situ et

With regard, however, to the further question of the time, the history of our Saviour's motions hitherto has been so continuous, and the proof that, since he quitted Capernaumm, he stayed little or no time in any particular place, is so clear and decisive, that I am persuaded whatsoever has been recorded, from that time to this, might all be comprehended in the few first weeks after the third Passover. The Transfiguration, both in itself, as regarded the material fact, and in its secret meaning, as regarded what was probably its moral end and purpose, must be considered on every account one of the most memorable transactions in our Saviour's life; which not only have the three first Evangelists recorded, accordingly, with proportionate distinctness, and and the fourth", if I mistake not, in no obscure terms alluded to*, but to arrive at which, as it appears to me, was the specific object of this part of their accounts from the first. The minuteness with which they relate the particulars of the intermediate events, from the beginning of the year, down to the time of this single transaction, compared with the brevity of their narratives for many months afterwards, is implicitly an argument that they were desirous to arrive regularly at this: but, having done so, had nothing of equal interest or importance to dwell upon, for some time after. I place it, therefore, between the third feast of the Passover, and the third feast of Pentecost; concerning both which we have the clearest proof that our Lord attended neither of them in Jerusalem. The circumstances of the narrative, directly afterwards, shew that the feast of Pentecost was either still to come, or already past; the former of which suppositions is just as probable as the latter. It might have happened, therefore, ten days before it, on the day which we have conjectured, May 27.

The first event of the ensuing day was the conversation,

* Ποῦ δὲ ἐθεάσαντο τὴν δόξαν ; Ἴσως μέν τινες ὑπολήψονται ὅτι ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ Θαβώρ. Theophyl. in Johann. 568. Οἷς ἔδειξε τὴν δόξαν ἐν τῷ Oaßup. Id. in Matt. 164.

Matt. xv. 21. Mark vii. 24.

■ John i. 14.