affirm; whether he were of Jewish extraction, as others say; or whether he were an Idumean, according to the general opinion, is not very material. It is very certain, that if this prince were not sincerely of the religion of Moses, he pretended to be so; and, as the law required all heads of families to celebrate four grand festivals in the year at the capital of Judea, he had come up to Jerusalem to keep the passover, at which time the Lord Jesus underwent his passion.

The reputation of our Saviour had reached this prince. The gospel tells us the absurd notion that he had entertained of him. He thought him John the Baptist, whom he had sacrificed, with as much cowardice as cruelty, to the revenge of Herodias. His notion was founded on an opinion of the Jews, who thought, that many prophets, particularly they who had sealed their doctrine with their blood, would rise again at the coming of the Messiah. Herod was glad of an opportunity of informing himself on this article. He flattered himself, that if he should not see such a singular object as a man raised from the dead, at least Jesus Christ would not refuse to conciliate his esteem, by gratifying his curiosity, and by performing some extraordinary work in his presence. But should Providence interrupt the ordinary course of nature to amuse a profane court? Jesus Christ not only would not prostitute his miraculous gifts before Herod, he would not even deign to answer him.

A very little attention to the genius of the great will be sufficient to convince us, that the silence of

Jesus Christ, and his refusal to condescend to the caprice of Herod, must naturally expose him to the contempt of this prince, and to that of his courtiers. Accordingly, we are told, that they set him at nought, and mocked him, and sent him back again to Pilate. Some have inquired a reason, why Herod put on him a white garment ;* and some learned men have thought he intended thereby to attest his innocence; and this opinion seems to agree with what Pilate said to the Jews; neither I nor Herod have found any fault in this man, touching those things whereof ye accuse him. But they who advance this opinion, ought to prove, that the Jews, or the Romans, did put

* Our author follows the reading of the French bible, revestu d'un vestement blanc; our translation reads it, arrayed in a gorgeous robe; and the original word λμgav signifies both. A white garment was a gorgeous, a splendid garment, because priests, and kings wore white garments. See Esther viii.15.2 Chron. v. 12. The heavenly visions, which are recorded in scripture, and which were intended for the more easy apprehension, and instruction, of those who were honoured with them, preserve an analogy in their imagery between themselves and the known objects of real life. Hence God, Christ, angels, and the spirits of the just, are represented as clothed in white, Dan. vii. 9. Luke ix. 29. Acts i. 10. and Rev. iii. 4.

Herod's design in arraying Christ in white is not known; and whether we ought, with Casaubon, in the following words, to find a mystery in it, we will not pretend to say. "Cum igitur vestis candida, apud veteres, regia pariter et sacerdotalis esset; quis mysterio factum a providentia divina non agnoscat; quod verus rex, verus sacerdos, a suis irrisoribus candida veste amicitur? Fuit, quidem, istorum animus pessimus: sed hoc veritatis significationem mysticam, neque hic, neque in crucis titulo lædebat." Exerc. in Bar. Annal. S. 73. E. 16.

*

white garments on persons whom they acquitted. I own, though I have taken some pains to look for this custom in the writings of antiquity, I have not been able to find it: however, it doth not follow, that others may not discover it. Nor is it any clearer, in my opinion, that the design of those, who put this habit on Jesus Christ, was the same with that of the soldiers, who put a reed in the form of a sceptre into his hand, to insult him, because he said he was a king. I would follow the rule here which seems to me the most sure, that is, I would suspend my judgment on a subject that cannot be explained.

I add but one word more before I come to the principal object of our meditation. The Evangelist remarks, that the circumstances which he related, I mean the artful address of Pilate to Herod, in sending a culprit of his jurisdiction to his bar; and the similar artifice of Herod to Pilate, in sending him back again, occasioned their reconciliation. What could induce them to differ? The sacred history doth not inform us ; and we can only conjecture. We are told, that some subjects of Herod Antipas, who probably had made an insurrection against the Romans, had been punished at Jerusalem during the passover by Pilate, Luke xiii. 1. who had mixed their blood with that of the sacrifices, which they intended to offer to God at the feast. But the scripture doth not say, whether this affair occasioned the difference that subsisted between the tetrarch of the Jews and the Roman governor. In general, it was natural for these two men to be at enmity. On the one hand, the yoke, which the Ro

mans had put on all the nations of the earth, was sufficient to excite the impatience of all, except the natives of Rome; and to stir them up to perplex and to counteract, the governors, whom they set over the countries which they had invaded. On the other, it must be acknowledged, that they, who are deputed to govern conquered provinces, and, for a time to represent the sovereign there, very seldom discharge their offices with mildness and equity. They are instantly infatuated with that shadow of royalty to which they have not been accustomed; and hence come pride and insolence. They imagine, they ought to push their fortune, by making the most of a rank, from which they must presently descend; and hence come injustice and extortion. The reconciliation of Herod and Pilate is more surprizing than their discord.

We hasten to more important subjects. We will direct all your remaining attention to the examination of the text, He stirreth up the people from Galilee to this place. The doctrine of Jesus Christ hath always been accused of troubling society. They, who have preached truth and virtue, have always been accounted disturbers of the peace of society. I would inquire,

I. In what respects this charge is false: and in what respects it is true.

II. From the nature of those troubles which Jesus Christ, and his ministers, excite, I would derive an apology for christianity in general, and for a gospel ministry in particular; and prove that the troubling of society ought not to be imputed to those who

preach the doctrine of Christ; but to those who hear it.

III. As we are now between two days of solemn devotion, between a fast, which we have observed a few days ago, and a communion, that we shall receive a few days hence: I shall infer from the subject a few rules, by which you may know, whether you have kept the first of these solemnities, or whether you will approach the last, with suitable dispositions. Our text, you see, my brethren, will supply us with abundant matter for the remaining part of this exercise.

1. One distinction will explain our first article, and will shew us in what respects religion doth not disturb society, and in what respects it doth. We must distinguish what religion is in itself from the effects which it produceth through the dispositions of those to whom it is preached. In regard to the first, Jesus Christ is the Prince of Peace. This idea the prophets, this idea the angels, who announced his coming, gave of him: "Unto us a child is born, unto us a

son is given, and the government shall be upon his "shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonder"ful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting "Father, the Prince of Peace:" this is what the prophets said of him, Isa. ix. 6. "Glory to God in the "highest, and on earth peace, good will towards "men!" Luke ii. 14. This was the exclamation of the heavenly host, when they appeared to the shepherds. Jesus Christ perfectly answereth these descriptions.