passage in John iv. 1, in which the departure of Jesus is referred to the fact that Jesus made and baptised more disciples than John, the implication being, that if John had fallen under the open displeasure of the rulers of the land, Jesus, who was making greater inroads on their power, could not consider himself safe. Accordingly, Matthew expressly ascribes his repairing to Galilee at this juncture to the imprisonment of John; his words are, 'Now, when Jesus heard (or, more literally, Jesus having heard) that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee' (Matt. iv. 12, comp. Mark i. 14, Luke iv. 14).

We must explain the immediate occasion of John's imprisonment. Herod Antipas, who, with the title of tetrarch, was, after the death of his father, Herod the Great, ruler of Galilee and Pere'a, had married the daughter of A'retas, king of Arabia. Having been entertained in the house of his half-brother, Philip, who lived as a private person, he abused the confidence by winning the love of Herodias, the wife of his host. A part of the secret understanding that arose between these guilty persons was, that the daughter of Aretas should be put away. The latter became acquainted with the fact, and induced her husband to convey her to the castle of Machæ'rus. As soon as she arrived thither, she hastened into Arabia to her father. Meanwhile, Antipas and Herodias came together. So scandalous an affair occasioned great excitement. John, as a teacher of morality, could not hold his peace. He spoke in terms of strong reprobation of Herod's conduct. The prince was displeased. He saw the general dissatisfaction, and was afraid of its political consequences. He believed John was at the head of the complainants, and determined to put a stop to the growing discontent. He cast that virtuous man into prison. Punishment awaited the abandoned tetrarch. The father of his injured wife began against him a successful war, which must have ended in his ruin, had he not been bidden by his masters, the Romans, to discontinue hostilities. Eager to procure the title of king, Herod went to Rome, and, with Herodias, was banished to Lyons, in France.

How much are great men dependent on princes! How much are God's messengers dependent on the vices of the great! Had not Herod Antipas been the ruler of Galilee, had he not been guilty of incest, he would not have been reproved, and John would not have been cast into prison. But over and through the evil as well as the good deeds of high and low, God works his sovereign will and brings his gracious designs to pass. John was silenced, but a greater than John was there; and though 'the Prince of Peace' and his harbinger both suffered death at the hands of unjust and bigoted men, yet their names live, their teachings survive, their deeds have become imperishable; more still, their lives are an unfading and inexhaustible source of

moral power to all generations. The good never die; the memory of Herod and Herodias remains for ever covered with disgrace.

Fort Machærus, in which John was held captive, stood in Pere'a, three hours from the northern part of the Dead Sea, on a high and steep hill, environed by deep valleys, of which the northern has still hot and cold springs. At the foot of the hill there in time grew up a considerable town, in which Herod the Great built a splendid palace.

In passing into Galilee, our Lord's road lay through Samaria. The evangelist John speaks of this route being necessary. He does not tell us whence the necessity arose. The train of remark in which we are engaged may serve to make it clear. Jesus left Judea in order that he might avoid being near Herod Antipas. The same consideration induced him to travel into Galilee through Samaria, instead of Pere'a, the way ordinarily taken by Israelites passing to the north, in order to keep aloof from the Samaritans, between whom and the Jews there was an old bitter feud. The existence of that enmity, indeed, could hardly have prevailed with Jesus so as to make him shun Samaria; for while he partook not in the narrow feelings of the Jew, he would be very desirous to abate the ill-will of the Samaritan. He could not forget that he had other sheep, not of the pure Hebrew blood, whom he must bring to himself, that there might be one fold and one shepherd (John x. 16). And certainly his heart was ready to exhibit the Samaritans in the most favourable light, since in his inimitable parable he makes one of that despised race perform an act of humanity which had been neglected by priest and levite (Luke x. 33). Nor was his impartial love without its reward. On one occasion, he passed through Samaria to Jerusalem. Ten lepers met him and sought his aid. They were healed. But the only one that showed his gratitude was a Samaritan (Luke xvii. 11, seq.).

The inhabitants of Samaria were not legitimate descendants of Abraham, the great forefather of the Hebrew people. The kingdom of Israel, after its separation from Judah, became very idolatrous; and when it fell under the power of Assyria, large portions of its native population were replaced by various families of Chaldee origin. With these pagans the old residents intermarried, giving birth to a spurious race, who, as such, were held in disesteem by their Jewish neighbours. This sentiment became the stronger, since at the era when Judah was rising to a practical acknowledgment of Jehovah as the only God, the population of Samaria endeavoured to unite the worship of the Creator with that of idols. In time, however, the latter, as well as the former, came to recognise Jehovah alone. Meanwhile, the ill-will between these neighbouring and kindred peoples was increased

by efforts perseveringly made, on the part of the Samaritans, to impede the Jews in their labours to procure a secure settlement in their native land after their return from captivity at Babylon, and in particular to prevent, or at least hinder, the reconstruction of the old national temple. The hatred was carried to a very high pitch by another event. An attempt had been made to purify the Hebrew blood, by inducing Israelites married to foreign women to put away their wives. Hence there arose a patriotic feeling which, supported by the Mosaic law, made the Jews feel very averse to the union of one of their countrymen with a woman of another land. Now, at the time when Alexander of Macedonia overcame Dari'us, king of Persia, Mana'sseh, brother of the Jewish high-priest Jaddu, married the daughter of Sanba'llat, the Persian governor of Samaria. This occasioned great offence. The Jews required Manasseh to divorce his heathen wife. He refused, maintaining that the laws of Moses had been made more rigid in their application than the legislator himself intended. In consequence of his refusal, the Jews threatened they would take away his sacerdotal office. On this he fled, and his father-in-law procured for him the dignity of high-priest among the Samaritans. He also succeeded in gaining from Alexander permission to erect a temple on Mount Gerizim.

Through the hands of Manasseh the Samaritans received the book of the law, the only part of the Hebrew Scriptures which they recognised as of divine authority. Under the guidance of this book, divine worship was set up in the temple on Gerizim, and the prevalent idolatry was effectually undermined. In one respect, indeed, the Samaritans were superior to the Jews, for they did not make the word of God of none effect by the traditions of narrow-minded men. It is also said that in the Messiah they expected not so much a temporal as a spiritual deliverer. It is an old and a true remark, that the nearer sects are to each other, the greater is their mutual dislike. This is exemplified in the hatred, which now took a very deep hue, and has lasted to the present hour, between the Jews and the Samaritans, and which with the former made the very name of the latter a term of reproach (John viii. 48). That the Samaritans possessed and reverenced the five books of Moses, might have been a point of union between them and the Jews; and that they had an altar on Gerizim, was a recognition of the same Jehovah whom the Jews worshipped. To a great extent, the two nations were in substance agreed. But the inveterate hostility that had long prevailed, fixed attention on the points of diversity alone; and the inconsiderable question whether men ought to worship in Jerusalem or on Gerizim, became far more important and influential than the great fact that Jew and Samaritan were, as mo

notheists, worshippers of the Great Being who made heaven and earth.

But a new dispensation was at hand. Jesus, returning through Samaria in the power of the Spirit (Luke iv. 14), preached a doctrine there which causes all questions of local worship to sink in importance. These are his words, as spoken to the woman of Samaria: 'God is Spirit; and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth' (John iv. 24). The greater is the condemnation of those who, professing to receive Jesus as 'the way, the truth, and the life,' act still after the old leaven, and have no dealings with even fellow-professors of the gospel, if in their creed or their ritual they differ from themselves 'one jot or one tittle.'

The apostles of Jesus shared the prejudices of their countrymen against the Samaritans. When, however, they had received the same Holy Spirit as actuated their Lord, Philip preached Christ in Samaria (Acts viii. 5), and Peter and John completed the foundation there of a Christian church.

It was the general opinion that the Samaritans had died out, till a learned Frenchman, named Sylvester de Sacy, in 1822, informed the world that a remnant of them still remained in the old locality. Since his time, the Samaritans have been repeatedly visited by travellers. They retain their reverence for Moses and the Pentateuch; but their temple is in ruins, their number is very small, and almost the only thing that they retain undiminished is their bigotry.

Passing through Samaria, Jesus came to Sychar, now Nablous, the capital of the modern province of Nablous. The ancient name of the place is Shechem, that is 'shoulder,' an appellation said to be derived from the shape of the city. Sychar, denoting 'falsehood' or 'drunkenness,' is one of those plays on words of which the Jews were fond, and was the name by which in derision they denominated the place. At a later period it received the name of Neapolis, or 'new town,' which is found in its present designation, Nablous. Shechem, which has even now a population of ten thousand persons, lies in part on the slope of a hill, in part stretches along a beautiful but narrow vale, about a quarter of an hour in breadth, which divides Mount Gerizim on the south from its opposite hill, Mount Ebal. In the town is a fine fountain, springing forth in a kind of grotto, canals from which carry water to all parts of the city. The view of Nablous from the neighbouring hills is ravishing. There the eye falls on charming plants, whose odours embalm the air; there, gardens spread out, attired in the gayest colours and the most delicate forms; and there also rise trees of various kinds, yet all beautiful. The valley itself, well watered and prolific, offers 'fields white unto harvest,' or olives, figs, almonds, citrons, and mulberries.

Shechem, the capital of Ephraim, was, next to Jerusalem and Hebron, one of the most ancient and most celebrated towns of the Land of Promise. At a very early day it may be considered to have been the central point of the country. When Abraham came from Mesopotamia into Canaan, he first tarried here (Genesis xii. 6). Here, too, Jacob bought land and erected an altar (xxxiii. 18). On the same spot, Joshua, now near his end, collected the chiefs of the people, in order to bind them in a bond of faithful service to Jehovah (Josh. xxiv.). Yet the old idolatry retained roots in the soil, on which rose a temple to the Phenician divinity, Baal-Berith (covenant-lord, Judg. ix.). Not unsuitable, therefore, was Shechem to become the centre of the new and idolatrous kingdom founded by Jeroboam (1 Kings xii.). It was customary, under the Roman dominion, to give new names to towns in honour of some emperor. Thus, Shechem received the appellation of Flavia Neapolis in honour of Vespasian, whose family title was Flavius. When Christianity prevailed, Neapolis was the seat of a bishop, and in it the phifosopher and martyr Justin, generally called Justin Martyr, was born (163 A.D.), who suffered death at Rome for his fidelity to Christ.

Near Nablous is Jacob or Joseph's field-'the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph' (John iv. 5, comp. Genesis xlviii. 22), having purchased it of the children of Hamor' (xxxiii. 19). It begins at the foot of Mounts Gerizim and Ebal, and extends about an hour in length and a quarter of an hour in breadth. Being well watered, it is very fruitful, and the more pleasant because surrounded by fruitful hills. In this parcel of ground stands a small white building, which is called 'Joseph's Grave,' but which, whatever the original was, is a Mohammedan tomb or wely. Here the bones of Joseph were buried (Joshua xxiv. 32). This tomb is honoured alike by Turks, Arabs, Jews, and Christians.

Near the south-east, about half an hour, from the entrance of the vale and the town, is Jacob's Well. Entering it by a narrow opening, the traveller finds himself under a kind of dome, beneath which stands an altar where mass is performed. The well itself, hewn out of the rock, is nine feet in diameter. The depth, though much lessened by stones thrown in to sound it by travellers, is still seventy-five feet. It contains spring

water.

On the two opposite sides of the valley rise Gerizim and Ebal. Gerizim, south-east of Shechem, nearly a thousand feet in height, has vegetation at its foot, but presents in general a bare appearance. On the north-west stands Ebal, similar in shape and character to Gerizim. The two rise like immense walls or bastions, as if for the protection of the venerable objects which they enclose. After the destruction (129 A. C.) of their temple on