explained. Aretas was king of Arabia (Ant. xviii. 5), at the time of the death of Tiberius, or A.D. 37, probably only three or four years before the escape of the apostle. Just before that time, he had made war on Herod, tetrarch of Galilee, and gained a complete victory, which brought on him the resentment of Tiberius, and orders for a campaign against him. From another place it appears that the whole district of Abilene, where Damascus lay, was afterwards given by Claudius to Herod Agrippa. Hence, from comparing these facts, it is clearly explained that Aretas was the king of Arabia, and that Damascus might probably be under his power about the very time.

Again: Strabo, as quoted by Josephus (Ant. xiv. 7. 2), says of the Jews of Alexandria: "An ethnarch also is appointed over them, who disposes of that race, determines causes, and watches over covenants and agreements, as if he were the ruler of a distinct city." The same plan would clearly be followed in those large cities, where there were many Jews, and hence at Damascus. It was such a Jewish ethnarch, under the Arabian king, to whom St. Paul refers; and there is thus a minute correspondence with the known facts of history.

VI. Matt. ii. 22: "But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judæa in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither."

This passage has been already referred to by Paley, following Lardner, for one coincidence, in the implied extent of Archelaus' kingdom, which was confined to Judæa. But there seem to be two or three other points of correspondence, which reveal themselves on closer examination.

1. First; it is here implied that Archelaus, from his very accession, gave cause to dread the renewal of Herod's cruelty. Now this is in harmony, as Mr. Blunt has remarked, with the narrative of Josephus; who tells us that Archelaus, even before he was confirmed in the kingdom by Augustus, caused the death of some hundreds of Jews in a tumult at the Passover, very soon after the death of Herod.

2. Secondly; it seems plainly taught us that the first intention of Joseph and Mary was to settle in Judæa. This may appear strange, since St. Luke shows us clearly that Nazareth was their dwelling before. But it is explained by the circumstances which attended the visit of the Magi. Joseph and Mary would learn that the birth of their Son at Bethlehem had been announced as the fulfilment of a Divine prophecy. He had been honoured already as the destined King of the Jews, and they would naturally infer that either Bethlehem, or the neigh'bourhood of Jerusalem, was his fittest residence. Hence it would be almost of course, since they belonged to the family of David, that they would seek first to settle in Judæa.

3. Thirdly; they were warned of God to make their home in

Galilee. It seems at first as if no special direction were needed to make them return to their original home, if they knew that Archelaus had no power in that district; but, in fact, Archelaus was left heir of Galilee as well as Judæa. It was only after his journey to Rome, and the accusation of his rivals, that Augustus limited his power to Judæa. The journey in the Gospel, if it followed close on the death of Herod, as the words imply, would occur in this interval; and hence it would need a Divine admonition, to assure them of safety in Galilee, which seemed at first likely to be included in the kingdom of Archelaus. All the features of the narrative thus agree fully with the facts of general history.

VII. Matt. xvii. 24: "And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your Master pay tribute? He saith, Yes."

The word rendered tribute money is really the didrachma. The following verses prove, indirectly, that it was a religious payment for the service of the temple. Accordingly, Josephus uses the same word to describe this Jewish tribute.

"Nisibis, too, is a city surrounded by the same river; wherefore the Jews, trusting to the nature of its position, deposited there the didrachma, which it is customary for each individual to pay to God, as well as their other offerings." (Ant. viii. 10. 1.)

VIII. Matt. xxvi. 5: "But they said, Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar among the people.'

The words imply an insubordinate state of Jerusalem at the time of the great feasts. And this is fully confirmed by the history of Josephus. One passage may suffice to prove it.

"The feast of the Passover being at hand, and a great multitude being drawn together from all parts to the feast, Cumanus, fearing that some disturbance might fall out among them, commanded one cohort of soldiers to arm themselves, and stand in the porticoes of the temple, to suppress any riot which might occur; and this precaution the governors of Judæa before him had adopted,” (Ant. xx. 4. 3.) Yet, in spite of these precautions, Josephus reports that twenty thousand Jews perished at that very time.

IX. Mark v. 1, 11. Here the country of the Gadarenes is mentioned, and many swine are said to be feeding near the mountains. This might seem an oversight, since swine were unclean to the Jews, and their flesh forbidden. But Josephus mentions, on the accession of Archelaus, that "Gaza, Gadara, and Hippos, being Grecian cities, were annexed by Cæsar to Syria. This fact will account for swine being found among the Gadarenes.

X. Mark vi. 21: "And a convenient day having come,

when Herod on his birth-day was making a feast to his lords, high captains, and the first men of Galilee.

From Ant. xix. 7, 1, we learn that it was usual, in the family of Herod, to invite the public officers at such feasts; for Herod Agrippa, the brother of Herodias, and successor of Herod, "made a feast on his birth-day, when all under his command partook of the mirth."

XI. John xix. 13: "He brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment-seat, in a place that is called the Pavement."

In Josephus (Ant. xv. 8. 5; xv. 11. 5; Bell. vi. 1, 9,) we learn that there was a pavement in this very place, near to the palace of the governor, and he narrates how a Roman centurion fell upon this pavement, in a solitary conflict with the Jews: "He slipped as he was running upon the pavement, and fell upon his back. The clatter of his arms caused the fugitives to turn about, and now a cry was set up by the Romans in the castle of Antonia, (where was the palace,) who were in alarm for the man."

XII. Acts iii. 1, 2: "Whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful.'

Verse 11: "The people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering."

This double notice implies that a gate called Beautiful, and a porch, inscribed to Solomon, lay near together. Now let us turn to Josephus.

"Opening into the court of the women on the east, and opposite the gate of the temple, is the outer gate, in size surpassing the others, being fifty cubits high and forty wide, and more finished in its decorations, by reason of the thick plates of gold and silver which were upon it." (Bell. v. 5. 3.)

"They persuaded the king to restore the eastern porch. This was a porch of the outer temple, situate on the edge of a deep abyss, resting upon a wall four hundred cubits high, of squared stones, each stone twenty cubits by six, the work of king Solomon, the original builder of the temple. (Ant. xx. 8, 7.)

XIII. Acts xxv. 13. 23: “And after certain days king Agrippa and Bernice came unto Cæsarea to salute Festus "On the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp."

Josephus has recorded an exactly similar instance of the diligence and obsequiousness of Agrippa in paying his court to the Roman governors.

"About this time king Agrippa went to Alexandria, to salute Alexander, who had been sent by Nero to govern Egypt. (Bell. ii. 15. 1.) And again; Agrippa and Bernice having appointed Verus to take care of their kingdom, "went to Berytus in order to meet Gessius, the Roman governor of Judæa" (Vit. § 11).

That Bernice took a prominent share in political affairs with her brother Agrippa, is plain from several passages, but especially from one respecting Philip of Gamala (Vit. § 11).

"He wrote to Agrippa and Bernice, and gave the letters to one of his freedmen to carry to Varus, who at that time was procurator of the kingdom, which the kings (Agrippa and Bernice) had intrusted him with, when they were gone to Berytus to meet Gessius. When Varus had received these letters of Philip, and had learned that he was in safety, he was very uneasy, supposing that he should appear useless to the sovereigns, now Philip was come."

It thus appears that Bernice was wont to take part in Agrippa's visits of ceremony, and was viewed as a partner with him in the royal dignity. This accords precisely with the statements of St. Luke.

XIV. Acts xxviii. 13: "And we came the next day to Puteoli."

That Puteoli was the port of Italy to which ships from Egypt and the Levant in those times commonly sailed, is clear from several passages of Josephus. Thus Herod Agrippa went from Palestine to Alexandria, and thence to Rome, and landed at Puteoli (Ant. xviii. 7, 4). When Herod the tetrarch went to Rome to obtain the royal dignity from Caligula, he landed at Dicæarchia, or Puteoli (Ant. xviii. 8, 2). And when Josephus himself went to Rome in his youth, he was shipwrecked, and saved by a vessel from Cyrene, "and having safely arrived at Dicæarchia, which the Italians call Puteoli, I became acquainted with Aliturus" (Vit. § 3).

In this last passage, as professor Blunt observes, there is a singular resemblance to St. Luke's narrative. Josephus was going to Rome on account of two friends, whom Felix had sent to Cæsar's judgment-seat; he suffered shipwreck, was forwarded by another vessel coming from Africa; and, finally, he landed at Puteoli.

SUPPLEMENT H.-(PAGE 282.)

ON INTERNAL CONFIRMATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

THE argument for the genuineness and veracity of historical writings, drawn from the undesigned coincidences they contain, is one of the strongest and most convincing to every thoughtful mind. In the Hora Paulinæ, to which Paley refers his readers in the present work, he has applied it, with great skill and force, to the book of Acts, and the Epistles of St. Paul, and shown how thoroughly they confirm each other. It may be well to add some further examples, drawn from the Gospels and Acts, which

complete the evidence of consistency in the whole of the New Testament. Some of them are selected from Professor Blunt's interesting work, and others are added from independent inquiry.

I. Matt. viii. 14: "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever."

1 Cor. ix. 5: "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Here, quite incidentally in each case, it appears that Peter was married. Nothing can be more indirect than the assertion of the fact in each instance; but the two statements plainly agree, and yield a full proof that Peter had a wife, and a strong confirmation of the asserted miracle, in the cure of her mother. II. Matt. viii. 16: "When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils," etc.

It does not appear at all from this passage, why this crowd of applicants should only begin to come in the evening. But we learn from St. Mark and St. Luke (Mark i. 21, Luke iv. 31,) that the cure of Peter's mother-in-law took place on the sabbath. It was therefore the natural result of Jewish scruples, that the people should wait till sunset, when the sabbath was over, before they brought their sick to be healed.

III. Matt. xiii. 2: "And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into the ship, and sat.

Here the ship is mentioned definitely, but no help is given us to understand what ship is meant. In St. Mark's Gospel, however, we have a fact that clearly explains the statement in St. Matthew: "And he spake to his disciples, that a small vessel should wait upon him (προσκαρτερησῇ ἀυτῷ) because of the multitude, lest they should throng him." Nothing can be more incidental than the allusion to this fact in the former passage, and nothing more complete than the explanation it affords of St. Matthew's remark.

IV. Matt. xiv. 1: "At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus, and said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist, who is risen from the dead."

Why should Herod speak to his servants on this subject? Certainly the fact would be quite possible, on general grounds. But it is still more natural when we compare Luke viii. 1, and Acts xiii. 1. We there learn that Joanna, the wife of Chuza, was one of our Lord's attendants, and that Manaen, his foster brother, was one of his disciples, and, from his rank as a prophet in the church, might probably have become a disciple at an early date.

V. Matt. xiv. 20; Mark vi. 43; Luke ix. 17; John vi. 13; Matt. xv. 37; Mark viii. 1; Matt. xvi. 9, 10.

There are four accounts of the miracle of feeding the five