_The mountain appointed for his meeting_, &c.――It would be hard to settle the locality of this mountain with so few data as we have, but a guess or two may be worth offering. Grotius concludes it to have been Mount Tabor, “where,” as he says, “Jesus formerly gave the three a taste of his majesty;” but I have fully shown, on much better authority, that Tabor was _not_ the mount of the transfiguration; nor can we value highly the fact, that “habet veteris famae auctoritatem,” for we have abundant reason to think that in such matters, “the authority of ancient tradition” is not worth much. There are better reasons, however, for believing Tabor to have been the mountain in Galilee, where Christ met his disciples. These are, the fact that it was near the lake where he seems to have been just before, and was in the direction of some of his former places of resort, and was near the homes of his disciples. None of the objections that I brought against its being the mount of the transfiguration, can bear against this supposition, but on similar grounds I now _agree_ with the common notion. Paulus suggests Mount Carmel, as a very convenient place for such a meeting of so many persons who wished to assemble unseen, it being full of caverns, in which they might assemble out of view; while Tabor is wholly open (GANZ OFFEN) and exposed to view; for it is evident that all the exhibitions of Christ to his disciples after his resurrection, were very secret. For this reason Rosenmueller remarks, that Jesus probably appointed some mountain which was lonely and destitute of inhabitants, for the meeting. But Tabor is, I should think, sufficiently retired for the privacy which was so desirable, and certainly is capable of accommodating a great number of persons on its top, so that they could not be seen from below. The objection to Carmel is, that it was a great distance off, on the sea coast, and should therefore be rejected for the same reasons which caused us to reject Tabor for the transfiguration. THE ASCENSION.