In Matt. xvi. 13—xvii. 21; Mark viii. 27-ix. 29, we have the account of his journey into the "parts" (uépn, Matthew) or villages (kopas, Mark) of Cæsarea Philippi, (i.e., to the regions about the sources of the Jordan :) of his memorable conversations by the wayside with his disciples,-memorable, as containing at once a more emphatic statement of his Messiahship, and a clearer prediction of impending struggle at Jerusalem, than any which had preceded them-of the transfiguration, of his answer to the question about the necessary pre-advent of Elias, (where Matthew alone gives the solution of the difficulty, viz. the reference to John the Baptist,) and lastly, of his cure of the lunatic child, which his disciples had attempted in vain. After it,

Mark ix. 30, tells us that "they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it, for he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of Man is delivered into the hands of men," etc. "And he came to Capernaum;" and when there, questioned his disciples about their dispute on the way.

Matt. xvii. 22-23, says, "And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of Man shall be betrayed into the hands of men :" thus omitting all mention of the secresy of the journey, and not directly stating that this communication was made on a journey at all, but he implies it; for ver. 24 continues the narrative, "And when they were come to Capernaum.'

Matt. xxii. 24-xxiii. 35, and Mark ix. 38-50, record divers discourses of our Lord's, apparently in Capernaum, the former evangelist being here considerably the more minute; in fact the incident of the tribute-money, and the Stater in the fish, is recorded by Matthew alone.

Now, taking these two accounts together, observing the slight, but significant difference of language between them, and comparing them with John's history of the same period; there can, we imagine, be no doubt that we have here two very much condensed statements of those movements of our Lord, which Occupy

the ninth, (from verse 22, onwards) tenth, and eleventh chapters of that evangelist; these movements being the (implied) journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, the short stay there, the withdrawal to the scene of John's first baptisms on the other side of Jordan, the visit to Bethany, and the withdrawal to Ephraim. Our two evangelists, whose attention has been, throughout, so much more fixed on their master's journeyings in the north, than in the south of Palestine, do but describe the broad general result of these movements:-that he left Galilee, and after traversing some part of the country east of Jordan, established himself for a time on the frontiers of Judæa: and that throughout this last journey, his teaching and his mighty works attracted a more than ordinary amount of popular attention. So stated and considered only as rapid sketches of his journeyings during this time, these accounts, which at first sight appeared to differ, really correspond with considerable closeness, to John's. If we would insist on rigorous accuracy in the interpretation of the two, we might perhaps conclude that Mark has traced our Lord's course as far as Ephraim, while Matthew stops short with his sojourn at the place of John's baptism.

Matt. xix. 3-xx. 16, and Mark x. 2-31, record with very close parallelism the chief events and discourses of this period : almost the only difference between the two, being, that Mark omits the parable of the labourers in the vineyard, which Matthew inserts.

MATT. XX. 17.

"And Jesus going up to Jerusalem, took unto him the twelve disciples apart in the way."

MARK X. 32.

"And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem, and taking to him again the twelve disciples."

These are the words with which the two evangelists respectively preface their account of our Lord's prophecy of his approaching humiliation, which was followed by the strange request for preeminence made by the wife of Zebedee on behalf of her sons. As we find him in the next section of the narrative passing through Jericho, it is plain that he must have taken a circuitous route, possibly returned to Bethabara, in the interval between arriving at Ephraim, and thus finally "going up to Jerusalem."

Matt. xx. 29-34, contains the account of the restoration of sight to two blind men: Mark x. 46-52, is the obviously parallel narrative (though with features of difference, which we cannot now hope to explain)-of the cure of "blind Bartimeus;" both describe it as occurring "when they were going forth out of Jericho."

VOL. V. NO. IX.

E

Neither of these two evangelists allude to his halt at Bethany on the evening of the sixth day before the passover: but both go on (Matt. xxi. 1; Mark xi. 1) to describe as it were continuous with the journey from Jericho, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Yet we may probably trace an allusion thereto in Mark, who preludes his account thus, "when they came nigh to Jerusalem unto Bethphage and Bethany," whereas Matthew only mentions Bethphage.

We now turn to the gospel of Luke.

This evangelist, immediately after describing the feeding of the five thousand, passes on (omitting the journey to the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, the return to the sea of Galilee, and the feeding of the four thousand) to relate the transfiguration, the discourses which preceded and followed it, the cure of the lunatic child, the rebuke to the disciples for their desire of preeminence, and the prohibition to interfere with the man who cast out demons in Christ's name (Luke ix. 12-50).

Verse 5l is as follows, Εγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ συμπληρούσθαι τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήψεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸς τὸ πρόσωπον αὑτοῦ ἐστήριξε τοῦ πορεύεσθαι εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ. This verse raises one of the most difficult questions to be met with in the whole course of our attempt to harmonize the four narratives. To what journey of our Saviour's to Jerusalem is allusion here made? The words, τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήψεως αὐτοῦ, being admitted to be rightly referred to his approaching crucifixion, the first impression which we derive from the passage certainly is that it must allude to his last journey (from Ephraim or Bethabara) by way of Jericho to Jerusalem. But in that case we must suppose an absolute disregard of chronological sequence to pervade a large portion of Luke's gospel; for nine chapters further on we find this journey unmistakeably described. And as, moreover, many of the intervening descriptions appear to correspond sufficiently close with the accounts given by the other evangelists of his journeyings and sojourn in Peræa, it would certainly much simplify our labour if we could believe ourselves not compelled by these words, denoting the time of the journey, to fix it at the very end of our Lord's ministry.

But if it be not the final journey, which is it? Not certainly the rapid and hurried visit to Bethany. It may be, then, either that secret journey which he made (as recorded in the 7th of John) to attend the feast of tabernacles, or that other of which we have conjectured the existence from the terms of John viii. 22, between this festival and the feast of the dedication.

We incline to believe-though this can of course be little more than conjecture-that it is the former of the two.

In the first place, this is the journey which in the regular course of his narrative St. Luke ought here to notice.

Secondly, the allusion to Elias made by James and John, enraged at the churlishness of the Samaritans (Luke ix. 54), seems to tally well enough with a time shortly after the transfiguration; for from Matt. xvii. 10, we see how vividly present to the minds of the disciples was the memory of this the greatest of Jewish prophets shortly after that event. Their thoughts seemed to have been full of him; his name came naturally to their lips and this rejection of God's chosen one by the inhabitants, too, of the very district in which Ahab had reigned, and Elijah had fought the battles of Jehovah with that idolatrous king, at once raised the question, "What would he have done to such men as these?" But if this journey really occurred shortly after the transfiguration, we may with some confidence say that it must have been the journey of John vii. 2.

Thirdly; there is no doubt an apparent contradiction between John and Luke as to the circumstances of the journey. The former represents it as undertaken with the appearance of a sudden resolve, and "not openly, but as it were in secret ;" while the latter speaks of his "sending messengers before his face." But the contradiction is rather apparent than real. For these messengers do not appear to have been sent on this occasion to publish abroad his approach, or to fulfil any of that missionary labour which was at another period formally entrusted to the seventy, but simply to provide the needful accommodation in each place for our Lord and his disciples. It is possible that the character of a "forced march," which this journey bore, may have rendered such a proceeding all the more necessary. And the words of Luke," He stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,” (ἐστήριξε τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ πορεύεσθαι ε. Ι.,) by no means necessarily imply a long preconceived purpose of undertaking the journey; but rather seem to point to a struggle of mind in the prospect of exciting the known and daily increasing hatred of the Jerusalem Jews, ended by a resolute determination to go at whatever hazard. Such a conflict of heart is not undoubtedly what our à priori reasonings would have led us to expect, but in the face of the wonderful history of the scene in Gethsemane we dare not deny its possibility.

Other indications besides the statement of John shew that our Lord's movements about this time were surrounded with a degree of mystery that he had not before made use of. Thus Mark ix. 30, says, "And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee, and he would not that any man should know it. For he taught his disciples and said unto them, The Son of

Man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him, and after that he is killed he shall rise the third day."

This brings us back to the original difficulty, viz., the words, ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήψεως αὑτου. On turning to Matt. xvi. 21, and xvii. 22, and Mark viii. 31, we see that on the journey towards Cæsarea Philippi (i. e., very shortly before his transfiguration), our Lord first began to warn his disciples of the humiliation and sufferings which at no distant period awaited him at Jerusalem. This is a new and strange subject of conversation to them; how new and how strange, we see from Peter's impetuous unwillingness to admit the impending woe. But once introduced, it becomes the frequent, almost continual, theme. In the transfiguration,-itself no doubt an important element in the preparation of the minds of the disciples for the coming trial of their faith,—" his decease, which he should accomplish at Jerusalem," is again the subject of that wonderful converse which he holds with Moses and Elias. Over the whole period one dark shadow of coming calamity (λéyw Kar' äveρwπov) seems to brood; the "hour" of the oppressors, and "the power of darkness" seen from afar, seem already to chill and sadden the hearts of the faithful disciples.

The interval thus characterized would be about six months (extending from the feast of tabernacles to the passover). Under these circumstances we think we are justified in translating the words of difficulty, "As the days for his being taken up were being fulfilled;" or (to keep closer to the A. V.), "When the time was coming that he should be received up.' And so translating, we refer this description to the journey of John vii. 10.

But though inclined to believe that this journey is inserted in its true chronological place in the gospel of Luke, we must confess that chaps. x.-xvii. bear far less evidence of chronological arrangement than either the preceding or succeeding portion. They contain no fewer than fourteen parables and numerous other discourses. Prima facie there is a strong improbability that in the two and a half years of our Lord's previous ministry he should have confined himself to the working of miracles (the record of which occupies almost the whole of chaps. iii-x.), and then during the few months between the transfiguration and the journey to Peræa should have uttered all the discourses here reported. And farther, several of the incidents of these chapters are introduced by words which do not seem intended to convey the idea of any very definite notation of time. “Εγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ πορεύεσθαι αὐτοὺς” (π. 38); σε ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐν τόπῳ τινὶ προσευχόμενον ” (xi. 1);