1ee In it dishonour to the temple. Suspicion ,roii). The form of expression recalls th0 o.nd animosity would be arousecl ; ill feeling, original cleeign of the institntion, as e. injurious both to themeelna who encouraged ransom of sonls (comp. eh. xx. 28 in th0 it and to the cause of Christ, woulcl weaken Greek). He cloee not say, "for us;" for, the effects of his acts ancl cloctrine. Further though he snbmittecl to the ta.x, it was not offence would supervene if he did not confirm on the same ground as his servant. He Peter's engagement e.nd execute tho promise himself paid, though exempt; Peter paid which the foremost disciple he.d virtually becanee he we.a liable. In the one case it mo.de in his name; since it might thus appear was from hnruility, in the other from legal that he and his followers were not of one obligation. The e.ccount en<L eomewhat mind in this important matter. For such abruptly, nothing being eaicl of the result considerations he was content to we.ive his of the Lord's command, what action Peter prerogative, and to provide for the payment took, and what ensued thereon. But we by a mire.ole, which should e.t once vindicate need no e.ssnrance that e.ll came to pass ae his royal che.racter and demonstrate that, Christ directed. The very silence is sig- while he WCLB obedient to the Law, he was nificant ; it ie the sublimest language. superior to it, wa.s the Lord of heaven e.nd Neologian criticism has endeavoured to ~arth e.nd sea. Go thou to the sea. The Sea explain e.way or to throw cliecredit on the of Galilee, on whose shore Capeme.um stood, miracnlone nature of this "transaction." and with which Peter had been all his life W0 e.re o.akecl to believe that Christ by his familiar. Cast an hook. The fisbern1an command meant only that Peter we.a to go we.a to ply his trade, yet not to use hie and catch a fish and sell it for a stater. rr custome.ry net; he we.s to fish with line e.nd this w88 the case, why did not the evangelist hook, the.t the miracle might be more say so? Why dicl he introcluce a story striking. Te.ke up the fish the.t first cometh which he mnat have known to b0 untrue? up. From the deep we.tere to the bait. Thon Is there any ground for supposing that St. shalt lind a pieoe of money; a stater. This Matthew was e. writer of myths and legends, Greek coin, circulating throughout the Ee.et, or one who intentionally falsified the records we.a about equal in value to the shekel, or on which he framecl his history? Surely no two didrachme, and therefore enffi.cient to unprejudiced person conldjndge thus of the pay the half-shekel for two persons. That writer of the First Gospel; to those who a fish should seize a bright object which believe in inspiration the notion is sacri- might drop into the eea is nothing unoom- legious. The incident is no embellishment .mon. A cod he.a been found with a watch of a nature.I fact, no mer0 sailor's anecdote, in its stome.ch, still going. The mire.cle is but the trn0 e.cconnt of e. ree.l occurrence, shown in the omniscience which knew what which the narrator credited e.nd probably the fish co.rried in its maw, and in the witnessed. Another e.llegation eqnally un- omnipotence which drew it to the hook. founded is that Christ was rebuking Peter Ae far e.e we know, e.nd rege.rding the for precipitancy in promioing payment present e.ge as the ee.bbath of creation (see when they had no funds in their possession, John v. 17), Christ in his mire.oles created e.s though Jesus we.a saying ironically, "Yon nothing e.bsolutely, e.lwe.ys using a ne.tural he.d better go and catch e. fish, and look for and existing be.sis e.s the support of the the money in its month 1" Snch attempted wonder. So here he does not oree.te the evasions of the miraculous e.re pnerile fish or the ate.tar, but by me.rvellous coin- and saddening. And if it be objected, as cidences makes them subserve hie purpose. indeed it is, that the mire.ale was unneces- Tradition he.a stereotyped the miracle by sary and unworthy of Jesus, who never assigning to a certain tribe of fish a per- exerted his supernatural power for his own manent mark of the occurrence. The john- benefit, it is easy to show that the won,ler dory, whose name is corrupted either from was required in order to give and enforce jaune dor(!, "gold colour," or ador(!, "wor- e. lesson to Peter and his compauioDB. In shipped," is called in some countries Peter's what better way could Jesus have conveyed fieb, ancl is supposed to retain the impression to them the truth that, e.lthongh for the of the apostle's fingers on its sides. Others nonce he consented to the Le.w, he was e.eeert that it is the haddock whioh presents superior to it and exempt from the obliga- this memorial of the mire.cle. But neither of tion, e.nd the.t if he paid the te.x he did so these fish ie found in the Lake of Oennese.reth. by a.n exercise of power which proved him Give , . , for me a:id thee (~, rl li,oii 1<cd to be the Son of God ?
HOMILETICS. Vers, 1-13.-The Transfiguration. I. THE GLORY. 1. The attendant circ-um- 1tancea, Six days hnd elapsed since the memorable conversatiou in the parts 0f 1S2 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. [011. xvn. 1-27.