him from taking him up to Jerusalem, till he heard that Archelaus was deposed.

X.

LUKE, vi. 13.-" And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples; and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named Apostles."

x. 1.-"After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face," &c.

THERE is something in the selection of these numbers which indicates veracity in the narrative. They were, on several accounts, favorite numbers amongst the Jews; the one (to name no other reason) being that of the Tribes, the other (taken roundly) that of the Elders. Accordingly we read in Josephus, that Varus, who held a post in the government under Agrippa, "called to him twelve Jews of Cæsarea, of the best character, and ordered them to go to Ecbatana, and bear this message to their countrymen who dwelt there : Varus hath heard that you intend to march against the king; but not believing the report,

he hath sent us to persuade you to lay down your arms, counting such compliance to be a sign that he did well not to give credit to those who so spake concerning you." “He also enjoined those Jews of Ecbatana to send seventy of their principal men to make a defence for them, touching the accusation laid against them. So when the twelve messengers came to their countrymen at Ecbatana, and found that they had no designs of innovation at all, they persuaded them to send the seventy also. Then went these seventy down to Casarea, together with the twelve ambassadors." (Life of Josephus, § 11.)

This is a very slight matter, to be sure, but it is still something to find the subordinate parts of a history in strict keeping with the habits of the people and of the age to which it professes to belong. The Evangelist might have fixed upon any other indifferent number for the apostles and first disciples of Jesus, without thereby incurring any impeachment of a want of veracity; and, therefore, it is the more satisfactory to discover marks of truth, where the absence of such marks would not have occasioned the least suspicion of falsehood.

XI.

LUKE, Xxiii. 6.-" When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man was a Galilean. And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself ALSO was at Jerusalem at that time."

THE fair inference from this last clause is, that Jerusalem was not the common place of abode either of Herod or Pilate. Such is certainly the force of the emphatic expression, "who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time,” applied, as it is, directly to Herod, but with a reference to the person of whom mention had been made in the former part of the sentence. The more circuitous this insinuation is, the stronger does it make for the argument. Now, that Herod did not reside at Jerusalem may be inferred from the following passage in Josephus.

"This king" (says he, meaning the Herod who killed James, the brother of John.-Acts, 12) "was not at all like that Herod who reigned before him, (meaning the Herod to

whom Christ was sent by Pilate,) for the latter was stern and severe in his punishments, and had no mercy on them he hated: confessedly better disposed towards the Greeks than the Jews accordingly, of the cities of the strangers, some he beautified at his own expense with baths and theatres, and others with temples and corridores; but upon no Jewish city did he bestow the smallest decoration or the most trifling present. Whereas the latter Herod (Agrippa) was of a mild and gentle disposition, and good to all men. To strangers he was beneficent, but yet more kind to the Jews, his countrymen, with whom he sympathized in all their troubles. He took pleasure therefore in constantly living at Jerusalem, and strictly observed all the customs of his nation." (Antiq. xix. ch. 7. § 3.) Thus does it appear from the Jewish historian, that the Herod of the Acts was a contrast to the Herod in question, inasmuch as he loved the Jews, and dwelt at Jerusalem. Nor is St. Luke less accurate in representing Pilate to have been not resident at Jerusalem. Cæsarea seems to have been the place of abode of the Roman governors of Judea in general. (See Antiq. xviii. 4. § 1.-xx. 4. § 4.) Of Pilate it certainly was, for when the Jews had to

complain to him of the profanation which had been offered to their temple by the introduction of Cæsar's image into it, it was to Cæsarea that they carried their remonstrance. (Bell. Jud. ii. c. 9. § 2.)

It was probably the business of the passover which had brought Pilate to Jerusalem for a few days, the presence of the governor being never more needful in the capital than on such an occasion.

XII.

JOHN, iv. 15.—“The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me of that water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw."

It seems, therefore, that there was no water in Sychar, and that the inhabitants had to come to this well to draw. Most likely it was at some little distance from the town; for the woman speaks of the labor of fetching the water as considerable; and Christ stopped short of the town at the well, because he "was wearied with his journey," whilst his disciples went on to buy bread.

Now, on the breaking out of the war with the Romans, some of the Samaritans assem