explained, but it is by the merest accident. We are there informed, "that Jesus went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God; and the twelve were with him, and certain women which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils; and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance."

And again, in chap. xiii. v. 1, of the Acts of the apostles, we read, amongst other distinguished converts, of "Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch," or, in other words, who was his foster-brother. We see, therefore, that Christ had followers from amongst the household of this very prince, and, accordingly, that Herod was very likely to discourse with his servants on a subject in which they were better informed than himself.

IX.

We do not read a great deal respecting Herod the Tetrarch in the Evangelists; but all that is said of him will be perceived, on examina

tion, (for it may not strike us at first sight,) to be perfectly harmonious.

The

When the disciples had forgotten to take bread with them in the boat, our Lord warns them to "take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod." So says St. Mark, viii. 15. The charge which Jesus gives them on this occasion is thus worded by St. Matthew, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees," xvi. 6. obvious inference to be drawn from the two passages is, that Herod himself was a Sadducee. Let us turn to St. Luke, and though still we find no assertion to this effect, he would clearly lead us to the same conclusion. Chap. ix. 7, "Now Herod the Tetrarch heard of all that was done by him; and he was perplexed, because it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead; and of some, that Elias had appeared; and of others, that one of the old prophets was risen again. And Herod said, John have I beheaded, but who is this of whom I hear such things? And he desired to see him."

The transmigration of the souls of good men was a popular belief at that time amongst the Pharisees; (see Josephus, B. J. ii. 83. 14.)

a Pharisee, therefore, would have found little
difficulty in this resurrection of John, or of an
old prophet; in fact, it was the Pharisees, no
doubt, who started the idea: not so Herod,
he was perplexed about it; he had "beheaded
John," which was in his creed the termination
of his existence; well then might he ask,
"Who is this, of whom I hear such things ?”
Neither do I discover any objection in the
parallel passage of St. Matthew, xiv. 1.
"At

that time Herod the Tetrarch heard of the
fame of Jesus, and said unto his servants,
This is John the Baptist: he is risen from
the dead; and therefore mighty works do show
forth themselves in him." It is the language
of a man, (especially when taken in connex-
ion with St. Luke,) who began to doubt
whether he was right in his Sadducean no-
tions. A guilty conscience awaking in him
some apprehension that he whom he had
murdered might be alive again, that there
might, after all, be a "resurrection, and an-
gel, and spirit."

X.

MATT. xxvi. 67.-" Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee ?"

I THINK undesignedness may be traced in this passage, both in what is expressed and what is omitted. It is usual for one, who invents a story which he wishes to have believed, to be careful that its several parts hang well together-to make its conclusions follow from its premises and to show how they follow. He naturally considers that he shall be suspected unless his account is probable and consistent, and he labors to provide against that suspicion. On the other hand, he, who is telling the truth, is apt to state his facts and leave. them to their fate: he speaks as one having authority, and cares not about the why or the wherefore, because it never occurs to him that such particulars are wanted to make his statement credible; and accordingly, if such particulars are discoverable at all, it is most commonly by inference, and incidentally.

66

Now in the verse of St. Matthew placed at the head of this paragraph, it is written that they smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?" Had it happened that the records of the other Evangelists had been lost, no critical acuteness could have possibly supplied by conjecture the omission which occurs in this passage, and yet, without that omission being supplied, the true meaning of the passage must forever have lain hid; for where is the propriety of asking Christ to prophesy who smote him, when he had the offender before his eyes? But when we learn from St. Luke (xxii. 64) that "the men that held Jesus blindfolded him" before they asked him to prophesy who it was that smote him, we discover what St. Matthew intended to communicate, namely, that they proposed this test of his divine mission, whether, without the use of sight, he could tell who it was that struck him. Such an oversight as this in St. Matthew it is difficult to account for on any other supposition than the truth of the history itself, which set its author above all solicitude about securing the reception of his conclusions by a cautious display of the grounds whereon they were built.