scrutinized by us, and found unstable. Hence . the record of that disciple whom Jesus loved may be accepted without hesitation as perfectly true. Lazarus died and was raised from the dead: Christ is the resurrection and the life.1

vi. 13, 14.

1 Besides the miracles which are described by the evangelists, many more are referred to in general terms. We have marked the following passages; pèrhaps there are others: Matthew iv. 23, 24; viii. 16, 17; ix. 35; xi. 5, 21, sq.; xii. 15; xiv. 2, 14; xv. 30, 31; xix. 2. Mark i. 32-34, 39; iii. 10, 11; Luke iv. 30, 40, 41; v. 15; vi. 18, 19; vii. 21, 22; viii. 2, 3; ix. 6, 7, 11; x. 17; xiii. 32; xxii. 50, 51. John ii. 23; iii. 2; xi. 47; xii. 37; xx. 30. "The healing of Malchus, which is mentioned by St. Luke (xxii. 51), while the other evangelists only speak of his wound, seems to lie without the true cycle of the evangelical miracles. In this Christ is seen to meet and remedy the evils which are wrought among men by the false zeal of his own followers."- Westcott. Why this act should be said "to lie without the true cycle of evangelical miracles," we cannot That no other instance of the kind is recorded does not warrant such a remark; and when we reflect upon the various circumstances and moral reasons which appear to have led to miracles, the object of the one in question does not make it in any proper sense anomalous.

see.

PART THIRD.

MIRACLES ON HIS OWN BODY.

THERE yet remain two events which ought to have a place in this course of study, viz: The Transfiguration and the Resurrection of Jesus.

§ I. The Transfiguration of Christ. Matthew xvii. 1-13; Mark ix. 2-13; Luke ix. 28-36; (cf. II. Peter i. 16-18, and John i. 14.)

(a) These accounts are in no respect contradictory. Matthew and Mark, it has been said, place the transfiguration "six days" after a certain event (say the noble confession of Peter), while Luke puts it "about eight days" after the same event. But, to say nothing of the vagueness of Luke's statement, the first two evangelists probably give the number of days between the events, and Luke includes those on which they took place. Again: The evangelists differ from one another as to

the title which Peter gave to Christ. Matthew writes Kúpe, Mark Rabbi, and Luke énтára. But there is here no difference in the meaning. Mark probably gives the Aramaic term used by Peter, while Matthew and Luke translated it by two words substantially equivalent. It is a striking instance of. unity in variety. There are many other differences between the third gospel and the other two, but they involve no disagreement, and merely serve to evince the independence of the several writers, increasing the value of their testimony.

(b) The accounts agree in every essential point. For they testify in common: (1.) that about one week had elapsed since a given event, (2.) when Jesus took Peter, James, and John with him and went up into a mountain; (3.) that he was there transfigured before them, (4.) his face becoming radiant with light as the sun, (5.) and his garments white as snow; (6.) that Moses and Elias at the same time appeared to them, (7.) talking with Jesus; (8.) that Peter addressed the Saviour, saying: (9.) "Master, it is good for for us to be here; (10.) let us make three tents, (11.) one for thee, one for Moses, and one for Elias," (12.) when a cloud overshad

owed them, and (13.) a voice proceeded from the cloud, saying: (14.) "this is my beloved Son; (15.) hear ye him"; (16.) that thereupon the disciples looked around and saw Jesus only, and (17.) that they did not at that time report what they had seen.

(c) According to Neander, the transfiguration may have been a purely subjective phenomenon: "The disciples, worn out with fatigue, fell asleep while Jesus was praying, and the impressions made by his prayer and their previous conversation with him were reflected in a vision. At length their slumbers were disturbed, and, in a half-waking condition, they saw and heard what followed." This view of the event is professedly drawn from the narrative of Luke, but it is hardly supported, much less required, by that narrative. Besides, it is difficult to believe that the phenomenon, if purely psychological, could have been the same in all. To remove this difficulty, Neander conjectured that only Peter reported the event. But this appears to be incompatible with the differences between the several accounts. Moreover, the first two evangelists testify explicitly that "Jesus was transfigured before them;" the change was

in him.

They also mention that Jesus "charged his disciples not to make known what they had seen, until he was risen from the dead." Luke does not mention this charge, but he remarks that "they were silent, and reported to no one in those days anything of what they had seen," a statement which is perfectly explained by the charge referred to. And, finally, Luke himself appears to say that the transfiguration was witnessed by the disciples awake. Alford translates Saypnyоpýσavτe, having kept awake, and remarks: "The word is expressly used to show that it was not merely a vision seen in sleep." This is true even if we translate: "And awaking they saw his glory," etc.

(d) Paulus represents the transfiguration as objective, and at the same time natural. While Jesus was praying the disciples fell asleep. During their sleep, he went farther up the mountain and was joined by two strangers. By the sound of voices the sleepers were at length awakened, and just then the rays of the morning sun fell on the person of Jesus, and seemed to cover him with celestial glory. Presently a cloud gathered round him, and at the moment some