the absence of assertion, a presumption of such fact is conveyed to us by the separate narrative of each of the Evangelists.

VIII.

MATT. xiv. 1.-" At that time Herod the Tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus, and said unto his servants, (τοῖς παισὶν αὐτοῦ,) This is John the Baptist: he is risen from the dead."

ST. MATTHEW here declares, that Herod delivered his opinion of Christ to his servants. There must have been some particular reason, one would imagine, to induce him to make such a communication to them above all other people. What could it have been? St. Mark does not help us to solve the question, for he contents himself with recording what Herod said. Neither does St. Luke, in the parallel passage, tell us to whom he addressed himself he was desirous of seeing him, because he had heard many things of him.' By referring, however, to the 8th chapter of this last Evangelist, the cause why Herod had heard so much about Christ, and why he talked to his servants about him, is sufficiently

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.

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. The 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 connexion with St. Luke,) who began to doubt whether he was right in his Sadducean notions. 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 angel, 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.