Lives of the apostles of Jesus Christ

by David Francis Bacon

THOMAS, DIDYMUS.

The second name of this apostle is only the Greek translation of the former, which is the Syriac and Hebrew word for a “twin-brother,” from which, therefore, one important circumstance may be safely inferred about the birth of Thomas, though unfortunately, beyond this, antiquity bears no record whatever of his circumstances previous to his admission into the apostolic fraternity.

Nor is the authentic history of the apostles, much more satisfactory in respect to subsequent parts of Thomas’s history. A very few brief but striking incidents, in which he was particularly engaged, are specified by John alone, who seems to have been disposed to supply, by his gospel, some characteristic account of several of the apostles, who had been noticed only by name, in the writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Those in particular who receive this peculiar notice from him, are Andrew, Philip, Nathanael, Thomas, and John himself,——of all whom, as well as of Peter, are thus learned some interesting matters, which, though apparently so trivial, do much towards giving a distinct impression of some of the leading traits in their characters. Among those facts thus preserved respecting Thomas, however, there is not one which gives any account of his parentage, rank in life, or previous occupation; nor do any other authentic sources bring any more facts to view on these points. The only conclusion presented even by conjecture, about his early history, is, that he was a publican, like Matthew,——a notion which is found in some of the Fathers,——grounded, no doubt, altogether on the circumstance, that in all the gospel lists, he is paired with Matthew, as though there were some close connection between them. This is only a conjecture, and one with even a more insignificant basis than most trifling speculations of this sort, and therefore deserving no regard whatever. Of the three incidents commemorated by John, two at least, are such as to present Thomas in a light by no means advantageous to his character as a ready and zealous believer in Jesus; but on both these occasions he is represented as expressing opinions which prove him to have been very slow, not only in believing, but in comprehending spiritual truths. The first incident is that mentioned by John in his account of the death of Lazarus, where he describes the effect produced on the disciples by the news of the decease of their friend, and by the declaration made at the same time by Jesus, of his intention to go into Judea again, in spite of all the mortal dangers to which he was there exposed by the hatred of the Jews, who, enraged at his open declarations of his divine character and origin, were determined to punish with death, one who advanced claims which they pronounced absolutely blasphemous. This mortal hatred they had so openly expressed, that Jesus himself had thought it best to retire awhile from that region, and to avoid exposing himself to the fatal effects of such malice, until the other great duties of his earthly mission had been executed, so as to enable him, at last, to proceed to the bloody fulfilment of his mighty task, with the assurance that he had finished the work which his Father gave him to do.

But in spite of the pressing remonstrances of his disciples, Jesus expressed his firm resolution to go, in the face of all mortal dangers, into Judea, there to complete the divine work which he had only begun. Thomas, finding his Master determined to rush into the danger, which, by once retreating from it for a time, he had acknowledged to be imminent, resolved not to let him go on, alone; and turning to his fellow-disciples, said, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” The proposal, thus decidedly made, shows a noble resolution in Thomas, to share all the fortunes of him to whom he had joined himself, and presents his character in a far more favorable light than the other passages in which his conduct is commemorated. While the rest were fearfully expostulating on the peril of the journey, he boldly proposed to his companions to follow unhesitatingly the footsteps of their Master, whithersoever he might go,——thus evincing a spirit of far more exalted devotion to the cause.

The view here taken differs from the common interpretation of the passage, but it is the view which has seemed best supported by the whole tenor of the context, as may be decided by a reference to the passage in its place, (John xi. 16.) The evidence on both views can not be better presented than in Bloomfield’s note on this passage, which is here extracted entire.

“Here again the commentators differ in opinion. Some, as Grotius, Poole, Hammond, Whitby, and others, apply the αὐτου to Lazarus, and take it as equivalent to ‘let us go and die together with him.’ But it is objected by Maldonati and Lampe, that Lazarus was already dead; and die like him they could not, because a violent death was the one in Thomas’s contemplation. But these arguments seem inconclusive. It may with more justice be objected that the sense seems scarcely natural. I prefer, with many ancient and modern interpreters, to refer the αὐτου to Jesus, ‘let us go and die with him.’ Maldonati and Doddridge regard the words as indicative of the most affectionate attachment to our Lord’s person. But this is going into the other extreme. It seems prudent to hold a middle course, with Calvin, Tarnovius, Lyser, Bucer, Lampe, and (as it should appear) Tittman. Thomas could not dismiss the idea of the imminent danger to which both Jesus and they would be exposed, by going into Judea; and, with characteristic bluntness, and some portion of ill humor, (though with substantial attachment to his Master’s person,) he exclaims: ‘Since our Master will expose himself to such imminent, and, as it seems, unnecessary danger, let us accompany him, if it be only to share his fate.’ Thus there is no occasion, with Markland and Forster, apud Bowyer, to read the words interrogatively.” (Bloomfield’s Annotations, vol. III. p. 426, 427.)

In John’s minute account of the parting discourses of Christ at the Last Supper, it is mentioned, that Jesus after speaking of his departure, as very near, in order to comfort his disciples, told them, he was going “to prepare a place for them, in his Father’s house, where were many mansions.” Assuring them of his speedy return to bring them to these mansions of rest, he said to them, “Whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.” But so lost, for the time, were all these words of instruction and counsel, that not one of his followers seems to have rightly apprehended the force of this remark; and Thomas was probably only expressing the general doubt, when he replied to Jesus, in much perplexity at the language, “Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?” Jesus replied, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father but by me.” But equally vain was this new illustration of the truth. The remark which Philip next made, begging that they might have their curiosity gratified by a sight of the Father, shows how idly they were all still dreaming of a worldly, tangible and visible kingdom, and how uniformly they perverted all the plain declarations of Jesus, to a correspondence with their own pre-conceived, deep-rooted notions. Nor was this miserable error removed, till the descent of that Spirit of Truth, which their long-suffering and ever watchful Lord invoked, to teach their still darkened souls the things which they would not now see, and to bring to their remembrance all which they now so little heeded.

The remaining incident respecting this apostle, which is recorded by John, further illustrates the state of mind in which each new revelation of the divine power and character of Jesus, found his disciples. None of them expected his resurrection;——none would really believe it, until they had seen him with their own eyes. Thomas therefore showed no remarkable skepticism, when, hearing from the others, that one evening, when he was not present, Jesus had actually appeared alive among them, he declared his absolute unbelief,——protesting, that far from suffering himself to be as lightly deceived as they had been, he would give no credit to any evidence but that of the most unquestionable character,——that of seeing and touching those bloody marks which would characterize, beyond all possibility of mistake, the crucified body of Jesus. “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” After eight days, the disciples were again assembled, and on this occasion Thomas was with them. While they were sitting, as usual, with doors closed for fear of the Jews, Jesus again, in the same sudden and mysterious manner as before, appeared all at once in the midst, with his solemn salutation, “Peace be with you!” Turning at once to the unbelieving disciple, whose amazed eyes now for the first time fell on the body of his risen Lord, he said to him, “Thomas! Put thy finger here, and see my hands; and put thy hand here, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.” The stubbornly skeptical disciple was melted at the sight of these mournful tokens of his Redeemer’s dying agonies, and in a burst of new exalted devotion, he exclaimed, “My Lord! and my God!” The pierced hands and side showed beyond all question the body of his “Lord;” and the spirit that could, of itself, from such a death, return to perfect life, could be nothing else than “God.” The reply of Jesus to this expression of faith and devotion, contained a deep reproach to this slow-believing disciple, who would take no evidence whatever of the accomplishment of his Master’s dying words, except the sight of every tangible thing that could identify his person. “Thomas! because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they, who though not seeing, yet believe.”

“Put thy finger here.”——This phrase seems to express the graphic force of the original, much more justly than the common translation. The adverb of place, ὧδε, gives the idea of the very place where the wounds had been made, and brings to the reader’s mind the attitude and gesture of Jesus, with great distinctness. The adverb “here,” refers to the print of the nails; and Jesus holds out his hand to Thomas, as he says these words, telling him to put his finger into the wound.

Not seeing, yet believe.——This is the form of expression best justified by the indefiniteness of the Greek aorists, whose very name implies this unlimitedness in respect to time. The limitation to the past, implied in the common translation, is by no means required by the original; but it is left so vague, that the action may be referred to the present and the future also.

Beyond this, the writings of the New Testament give not the least account of Thomas; and his subsequent history can only be uncertainly traced in the dim and dark stories of tradition, or in the contradictory records of the Fathers. Different accounts state that he preached the gospel in Parthia,——Media,——Persia,——Ethiopia,——and at last, India. A great range of territories is thus spread out before the investigator, but the traces of the apostle’s course and labors are both few and doubtful. Those of the Fathers who mention his journeys into these countries, give no particulars whatever of his labors; and all that is now believed respecting these things, is derived from other, and perhaps still more uncertain sources.

India is constantly asserted by the Fathers, from the beginning of the third century, to have very early received the gospel, and this apostle is named as the person through whom this evangelization was effected; but this evidence alone would be entitled to very little consideration, except from the circumstance, that from an early period, to this day, there has existed in India, a large body of Christians, who give themselves the name of “St. Thomas’s Christians,” of whose antiquity proofs are found in the testimony, both of very ancient and very modern travelers. They still retain many traditions of the person whom they claim as their founder,——of his place of landing,——the towns he visited,——the churches he planted,——his places of residence and his retreats for private devotion,——the very spot of his martyrdom, and his grave. A tradition, however, floating down unwritten for fifteen centuries, can not be received as very good evidence; and the more minute such stories are in particulars, the more suspicious they are in their character for truth. But in respect to the substance of this, it may well be said, that it is by no means improbable, and is in the highest degree consistent with the views, already taken, in former parts of this work, of the eastward course of the apostles after the destruction of Jerusalem. The great body of them, taking refuge at Babylon, within the limits of the great Parthian empire, the more adventurous might follow the commercial routes still farther eastward, to the mild and generally peaceful nations of distant India, whose character for civilization and partial refinement was such as to present many facilities for the introduction and wide diffusion of the gospel among them. These views, in connection with the great amount of respectable evidence from various other sources, make the whole outline of the story of Thomas’s labors in India very possible, and even highly probable.

The earliest evidence among the Fathers that has ever been quoted on this point, is that of Pantaenus, of Alexandria, whose visit to what was then called India, has been mentioned above; (page [363];) but as has there been observed, the investigations of Michaelis and others, have made it probable that Arabia-Felix was the country there intended by that name. The first distinct mention made of any eastward movement of Thomas, that can be found, is by Origen, who is quoted by Eusebius, (Church History, III. 1,) as testifying, that when the apostles separated to go into all the world, and preach the gospel, Parthia was assigned to Thomas; and Origen is represented as appealing to the common tradition, for the proof of this particular fact. Jerome speaks of Thomas, as preaching the gospel in Media and Persia. In another passage he specifies India, as his field; and in this he is followed by most of the later writers,——Ambrose, Nicephorus, Baronius, Natalis, &c. Chrysostom (Oration on the 12 Apostles) says that Thomas preached the gospel in Ethiopia. As the geography of all these good Fathers seems to have been somewhat confused, all these accounts may be considered very consistent with each other. Media and Persia were both in the Parthian Empire; and all very distant countries, east and south, were, by the Greeks, vaguely denominated India and Ethiopia; just [♦]as all the northern unknown regions were generally called Scythia.

[♦] removed duplicate “as”

Natalis Alexander (Church History, IV. p. 32,) sums up all these accounts by saying, that Thomas preached the gospel to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Brachmans, Indians, and the other neighboring nations, subject to the empire of the Parthians. He quotes as his authorities, besides the above-mentioned Fathers, Sophronius, (A. D. 390,) Gregory Nazianzen, (A. D. 370,) Ambrose, (370,) Gaudentius, (A. D. 387.) The author of the imperfect work on Matthew, (A. D. 560,) says, that Thomas found in his travels, the three Magi, who adored the infant Jesus, and having baptized them, associated them with him, in his apostolic labors. Theodoret, (A. D. 423,) Gaudentius, Asterius, (A. D. 320,) and others, declare Thomas to have died by martyrdom. Sophronius (390,) testifies that Thomas died at Calamina, in India. This Calamina is now called Malipur, and in commemoration of a tradition, preserved, as we are told, on the spot, to this effect, the Portuguese, when they set up their dominion in India, gave it the name of the city of St. Thomas. The story reported by the Portuguese travelers and historians is, that there was a tradition current among the people of the place, that Thomas was there martyred, by being thrust through with a lance. (Natalis Alexander, Church History, vol. IV. pp. 32, 33.)

A new weight of testimony has been added to all this, by the statements of Dr. Claudius Buchanan, who, in modern times, has traced out all these traditions on the spot referred to, and has given a very full account of the “Christians of St. Thomas,” in his “Christian researches in India.”

On this evidence, may be founded a rational belief, though not an absolute certainty, that Thomas actually did preach the gospel in distant eastern countries, and there met with such success as to leave the lasting tokens of his labors, to preserve through a course of ages, in united glory, his own name and that of his Master. In obedience to His last earthly command, he went to teach “nations unknown to Caesar,” proclaiming to them the message of divine love,——solitary, and unsupported, save by the presence of Him, who had promised to “be with him always, EVEN TO THE END OF THE WORLD.”

---

JAMES, THE LITTLE;
THE SON OF ALPHEUS.

HIS NAME.

It will be observed, no doubt, by all readers, that the most important inquiry suggested in the outset of the most of these apostolic biographies, is about the name and personal identification of the individual subject of each life. This difficulty is connected with peculiarities of those ancient times and half-refined nations, that may not, perhaps, be very readily appreciated by those who have been accustomed only to the definite nomenclature of families and individuals, which is universally adopted among civilized nations at the present day. With all the refined nations of European race, the last part of a person’s name marks his family, and is supposed to have been borne by his father, and by his ancestors, from the time when family names were first adopted. The former part of his name, with equal definiteness, marks the individual; and generally remains fixed from the time when he first received his name. Whenever any change takes place in any part of his appellation, it is generally done in such a formal and permanent mode, as never to make any occasion for confusion in respect to the individual, among those concerned with him. But no such decisive limitation of names to persons, prevailed among even the most refined nations of the apostolic age. The name given to a child at birth, indeed, was very uniformly retained through life; but as to the other parts of his appellation, it was taken, according to circumstances, chance or caprice, from the common name of his father,——from some personal peculiarity,——from his business,——from his general character,——or from some particular incident in his life. The name thus acquired, to distinguish him [♦]from others bearing his former name, was used either in connection with that, or without; and sometimes two or more such distinctive appellations belonged to the same man, all or any of which were used together with the former, or separate from it, without any definite rule of application. To those acquainted with the individual so variously named, and contemporary with him, no confusion was made by this multiplicity of words; and when anything was recorded respecting him, it was done with the perfect assurance, that all who then knew him, would find no difficulty in respect to his personal identity, however he might he mentioned. But in later ages, when the personal knowledge of all these individual distinctions has been entirely lost, great difficulties necessarily arise on these points,——difficulties which, after tasking historical and philological criticism to the highest efforts, in order to settle the facts, are, for the most part, left in absolute uncertainty. Thus, in respect to the twelve apostles, it will be noticed, that this confusion of names throws great doubt over many important questions. Among some of them, too, these difficulties are partly owing to other causes. Their names were originally given to them, in the peculiar language of Palestine; and in the extension of their labors and fame, to people of different languages, of a very opposite character, their names were forced to undergo new distortions, by being variously translated, or changed in termination; and many of the original Hebrew sounds, in consequence of being altogether unpronounceable by Greeks and Romans, were variously exchanged for softer and smoother ones, which, in their dissimilar forms, would lose almost all perceptible traces of identity with each other, or with the original word.

[♦] replace word omitted from text “from”

These difficulties are in no case quite so prominent and serious as in regard to the apostle who is the subject of this particular biography. Bearing the same name with the elder son of Zebedee, he was of course necessarily designated by some additional title, to distinguish him from the other great apostle James. This title was not always the same, nor was it uniform in its principle of selection. On all the apostolic lists, he is designated by a reference to the name of his father, as is the first James. As the person first mentioned by this name is called James, the son of Zebedee, the second is called James, the son of Alpheus; nor is there, in the enumeration of the apostles by Matthew, Mark or Luke, any reference to another distinctive appellation of this James. But in one passage of Mark’s account of the crucifixion, it is mentioned, that among the women present, was Mary the mother of James the Little, and of Joses. In what sense this word little is applied,——whether of age, size, or dignity,——it is utterly impossible to ascertain at this day; for the original word is known to have been applied to persons, in every one of these senses, even in the New Testament. But, however this may be, a serious question arises, whether this James the Little was actually the same person as the James, called, on the apostolic lists, the son of Alpheus. In the corresponding passage in John’s gospel, this same Mary is called Mary the wife of Clopas; and by Matthew and Mark, the same James is mentioned as the brother of Joses, Juda, and Simon. In the apostolic lists given by Luke, both in his gospel, and in the Acts of the Apostles, Juda is also called “the brother of James;” and in his brief general epistle, the same apostle calls himself “the brother of James.” In the beginning of the epistle to the Galatians, Paul, describing his own reception at Jerusalem, calls him “James, the brother of our Lord;” and by Matthew and Mark, he, with his brothers, Joses, Juda and Simon, is also called the brother of Jesus. From all these seemingly opposite and irreconcilable statements, arise three inquiries, which can, it is believed, be so answered, as to attribute to the subject of this article every one of the circumstances connected with James, in these different stories.

James, the Little.——This adjective is here applied to him in the positive degree, because it is so in the original Greek, [Ιακωβος ὁ μικρος, Mark xv. 40,] and this expression too, is in accordance with English forms of expression. The comparative form, “James, the Less,” seems to have originated in the Latin Vulgate, “Jacobus Minor,” which may be well enough in that language; but in English, there is no reason why the original word should not be literally and faithfully expressed. The Greek original of Mark, calls him “James, the Little,” which implies simply, that he was a little man; whether little in size, or age, or dignity, every one is left to guess for himself;——but it is more accordant with usage, in respect to such nicknames, in those times, to suppose that he was a short man, and was thus named to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, who was probably taller. The term thus applied by Mark, would be understood by all to whom he wrote, and implied no disparagement to his mental eminence. But the term applied, in the sense of a smaller dignity, is so slighting to the character of James, who to the last day of his life, maintained, according to both Christian and Jewish history, the most exalted fame for religion and intellectual worth,——that it must have struck all who heard it thus used, as a term altogether unjust to his true eminence. His weight of character in the councils of the apostles, soon after the ascension, and the manner in which he is alluded to in the accounts of his death, make it very improbable that he was younger than the other James.

First: Was James the son of Alpheus the same person as James the son of Clopas? The main argument for the identification of these names, rests upon the similarity of the consonants in the original Hebrew word which represents them both, and which, according to the fancy of a writer, might be represented in Greek, either by the letters of Alpheus or of Clopas. This proof, of course, can be fully appreciated only by those who are familiar with the power of the letters of the oriental languages, and know the variety of modes in which they are frequently given in the Greek, and other European languages. The convertibility of certain harsh sounds of the dialects of southwestern Asia, into either hard consonants, or smooth vowel utterances, is sufficiently well-known to Biblical scholars, to make the change here supposed appear perfectly probable and natural to them. It will be observed by common readers, that all the consonants in the two words are exactly the same, except that Clopas has a hard C, or K, in the beginning, and that Alpheus has the letter P aspirated by an H, following it. Now, both of these differences can, by a reference to the original Hebrew word, be shown to be only the results of the different modes of expressing the same Hebrew letters; and the words thus expressed may, by the established rules of etymology, be referred to the same oriental root. These two names, then, Alpheus and Clopas, may be safely assigned to the same person; and Mary the wife of Clopas and the mother of James the Little, and of Joses, was, no doubt, the mother of him who is called “James the son of Alpheus.”

Clopas and Alpheus.——It should be noticed, that in the common translation of the New Testament, the former of these two words is very unjustifiably expressed by Cleophas, whereas the original (John xix. 25,) is simply Κλωπας. (Clopas.) This is a totally different name from Cleopas, (Luke xxiv. 18, Κλεοπας,) which is probably Greek in its origin, and abridged from Cleopater, (Κλεοπατρος,) just as Antipas from Antipater, and many other similar instances, in which the Hellenizing Jews abridged the terminations of Greek and Roman words, to suit the genius of the Hebrew tongue. But Clopas, being very differently spelt in the Greek, must be traced to another source; and the circumstances which connect it with the name Alpheus, suggesting that, like that, it might have a Hebrew origin, directs the inquirer to the original form of that word. The Hebrew חלפא (HHALPHA) may be taken as the word from which both are derived; each being such an expression of the original, as the different writers might choose for its fair representation. The first letter in the word, ח, (hhaith,) has in Hebrew two entirely distinct sounds; one a strong guttural H, and the other a deeply aspirated KH. These are represented in Arabic by two different letters, but in Hebrew, a single character is used to designate both; consequently the names which contain this letter, may be represented in Greek and other languages, by two different letters, according as they were pronounced; and where the original word which contained it, was sounded differently, by different persons, under different circumstances, varying its pronunciation with the times and the fashion, even in the same word, it would be differently expressed in Greek. Any person familiar with the peculiar changes made in those Old Testament names which are quoted in the New, will easily apprehend the possibility of such a variation in this. Thus, in Stephen’s speech, (Acts vii.) Haran is called Charran; and other changes of the same sort occur in the same chapter. The name Anna, (Luke ii. 36,) is the same with Hannah, (1 Samuel i. 2,) which in the Hebrew has this same strongly aspirated H, that begins the word in question,——and the same too, which in Acts vii. 2, 4, is changed into the strong Greek Ch; while all its harshness is lost, and the whole aspiration removed, in Anna. These instances, taken out of many similar ones, may justify to common readers, the seemingly great change of letters in the beginning of Alpheus and Clopas. The other changes of vowels are of no account, since in the oriental languages particularly, these are not fixed parts of the word, but mere modes of uttering the consonants, and vary throughout the verbs and nouns, in almost every inflexion these parts of speech undergo. These therefore, are not considered radical or essential parts of the word, and are never taken into consideration in tracing a word from one language to another,——the consonants being the fixed parts on which etymology depends. The change also from the aspirate Ph, to the smooth mute P, is also so very common in the oriental languages, and even in the Greek, that it need not be regarded in identifying the word.

Taking into consideration then, the striking and perfect affinities of the two words, and adding to these the great body of presumptive proofs, drawn from the other circumstances that show or suggest the identity of persons,——and noticing moreover, the circumstance, that while Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of Alpheus, they never speak of Clopas,——and that John, who alone uses the name Clopas, never mentions Alpheus,——it seems very reasonable to adopt the conclusion, that the last evangelist means the same person as the former.

Second: Was James the son of Alpheus the same person as “James, the brother of our Lord?” An affirmative answer to this question seems to be required by the fact, that Mary the wife of Clopas is named as the mother of James and Joses; and elsewhere, James and Joses, and Juda and Simon, are called the brothers of Jesus. It should be understood that the word “brother” is used in the scriptures often, to imply a relationship much less close than that of the children of the same father and mother. “Cousins” are called “brothers” in more cases than one, and the oriental mode of maintaining family relationship closely through several generations, made it very common to consider those who were the children of brothers, as being themselves brothers; and to those familiar with this extension of the term, it would not necessarily imply anything more. In the case alluded to, all those to whom the narratives and other statements containing the expression, “James the brother of our Lord,” were first addressed, being well acquainted with the precise nature of this relationship, would find no difficulty whatever in such a use of words. The nature of his relationship to Jesus seems to have been that of cousin, whether by the father’s side or mother’s, is very doubtful. By John indeed, Mary the wife of Clopas is called the sister of the mother of Jesus; but it will seem reasonable enough to suppose,——since two sisters, daughters of the same parents, could hardly bear the same name,——that Mary the mother of James, must have been only the sister-in-law of the mother of Jesus, either the wife of her brother, or the sister of her husband; or, in perfect conformity with this use of the term “sister,” she may have been only a cousin or some such relation.

The third question which has been originated from these various statements,——whether James, the brother of Jesus and the author of the epistle, was an APOSTLE,——must, of course, be answered in the affirmative, if the two former points have been correctly settled.

All the opinions on these points are fully given and discussed by Michaelis, in his Introduction to the epistle of James. He states five different suppositions which have been advanced respecting the relationship borne to Jesus by those who are in the New Testament called his brothers. 1. That they were the sons of Joseph, by a former wife. 2. That they were the sons of Joseph, by Mary the mother of Jesus. 3. That they were the sons of Joseph by the widow of a brother, to whom he was obliged to raise up children according to the laws of Moses. 4. That this deceased brother of Joseph, to whom the laws required him to raise up issue, was Alpheus. 5. That they were brothers of Christ, not in the strict sense of the word, but in a more lax sense, namely, in that of cousin, or relation in general, agreeably to the usage of this word in the Hebrew language. (Genesis xiv. 16: xiii. 8: xxix. 12, 15: 2 Samuel xix. 13: Numbers viii. 26: xvi. 10: Nehemiah iii. 1.) This opinion which has been here adopted, was first advanced by Jerome, and has been very generally received since his time; though the first of the five was supported by the most ancient of the Fathers. Michaelis very clearly refutes all, except the first and the fifth, between which he does not decide; mentioning, however, that though he had been early taught to respect the latter, as the right one, he had since become more favorable to the first.

The earliest statement made concerning these relations of Jesus, is by John, who, in giving an account of the visit made by Jesus to Jerusalem, at the feast of the tabernacles, mentions, that the brethren of Jesus did not believe in him, but, in a rather sneering tone, urged him to go up to the feast, and display himself, that the disciples who had formerly there followed him, might have an opportunity to confirm their faith by the sight of some new miracle done by him. Speaking to him in a very decidedly commanding tone, they said, “Depart hence, and go into Judea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that does anything in secret, while he himself seeks to be widely known; if thou do these things, show thyself to the world.” The whole tenor of this speech shows a spirit certainly very far from a just appreciation of the character of their divine brother; and the base, sordid motives, which they impute to him as ruling principles of action, were little less than insults to the pure, high spirit, which lifted him so far above their comprehension. The reply which Jesus made to their taunting address, contained a decided rebuke of their presumption in thus attacking his motives. “My time is not yet come, but yours is always ready. The world can not hate you, but me it hates, because I testify of it that its works are evil. Go ye up to this feast; but I am not going yet; for my time is not yet fully come.” They might always go where mere inclination directed them, nor was there any occasion to refer to any higher object. But a mighty scheme was connected with his movements, to which he directed every action. In his great work, he had already exposed himself to the hatred of the wicked, and his movements were now checked by a regard to the proper time for exposing himself to it; and when that time should come, he would unhesitatingly meet the results.

By a passage in Mark’s gospel, it appears also, that at the first beginning of the ministry of Jesus, his relations generally were so little prepared for a full revelation of the character and destiny of him with whom they had long lived so familiarly as a brother and an intimate, that they viewed with the most disagreeable surprise and astonishment, his remarkable proceedings, in going from place to place with his disciples,——neglecting the business to which he had been educated, and deserting his family friends,——preaching to vast throngs of wondering people, and performing strange works of kindness to those who seemed to have no sort of claim on his attention. Distressed at these strange actions, they could form no conclusion about his conduct that seemed so reasonable and charitable, as that he was beside himself, and needed to be confined, to prevent him from doing mischief to himself and others, by his seemingly extravagant and distracted conduct. “And they came out to lay hold on him, for they said ‘He is beside himself.’” With this very purpose, as it seems, his brothers and family relations had come to urge and persuade him back to their home if possible, and stood without, utterly unable to get near him, on account of the throngs of hearers and beholders that had beset him. They were therefore obliged to send him word, begging him to stop his discourse and come out to them, because they wanted to see him. The request was therefore passed along from mouth to mouth, in the crowd, till at last those who sat next to Jesus communicated the message to him,——“Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.” Jesus fully apprehending the nature of the business on which their ill-discerning regard had brought them thither, only suspended the train of his discourse to make such a remark as would impress all with the just idea of the value which he set upon earthly affections, which were liable to operate as hindrances to him in the great work to which he had been devoted; and to convince them how much higher and stronger was the place in his affections held by those who had joined themselves to him for life and for death, to promote the cause of God, and to do with him the will of his Father in heaven,——in the striking language of inquiry, he said, “Who is my mother or my brethren?” Then looking with an expression of deep affection around, on those who sat near him, he said, “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister and mother.” It appears by this remark, as well as by another passage, that he had not only brothers, but sisters, who lived at Nazareth at that time, and were well known as his relations. No mention however is any where made of his father; so that it would appear that Joseph was now dead.

This remarkable faithlessness on the part of the brothers of Jesus, may be thought to present an insuperable difficulty in the way of the supposition that any of them could have been numbered with the apostles. But great as seems to have been their error, it hardly exceeded many that were made by his most select followers, even to the time of his ascension. All the apostles may be considered to have been in a great measure unbelievers, until the descent of the Holy Spirit,——for until that time, on no occasion did one of them manifest a true faith in the words of Jesus. Times almost without number, did he declare to them that he should rise from the dead; but notwithstanding this assertion was so often made to them in the most distinct and solemn manner, not one of them put the slightest confidence in his words, or believed that he would ever appear to them again after his crucifixion. Not even the story of his resurrection, repeatedly and solemnly attested by the women and others, could overcome their faithlessness; so that when the risen Lord, whose words they had so little heeded, came into their presence, moved with a just and holy anger, “he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not those who had seen him after he was risen.” So that his brothers at this early period, can not be considered any worse off than the rest of those who knew and loved him best; and if any are disposed to oppose the view that his brethren were apostles, by quoting the words of John, that “neither did his brethren believe in him,” a triumphant retort may be found in the fact, that NEITHER DID HIS APOSTLES BELIEVE IN HIM.

There were, however, other “brothers” of Jesus, besides those who were apostles. By Matthew and Mark is also mentioned Joses, who is nowhere mentioned as an apostle; and there may have been others still, whose names are not given; for, in the account given, in the first chapter of Acts, it is recorded that, besides all the eleven apostles, there were also assembled in the upper room, Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brethren. It is very likely, that Jesus may have had several other cousins, who followed his fortunes, though they were not considered by him, qualified to rank among his chosen apostles. But a very prominent objection to the notion that they were the children of his mother, with whom they are mentioned in such close connection,——is, that when Jesus was on the cross, he commended her to the care of John, his beloved disciple, as though she were destitute of any immediate natural protector; and certainly, if she had at that time several sons living, who were full-grown, she could not have needed to be intrusted thus to the kindness of one who claimed no relationship whatever to her; but would, of course, have been secure of a home, and a comfortable support, so long as her sons could have worked for her. These also may have been those brethren who did not believe in him, and who considered him beside himself, though there seems no good reason to except any of those who are mentioned by Matthew and Mark, as his brethren,——James, Juda, Joses and Simon.

Beyond these allusions to him, in connection with others, the gospels take no notice whatever of this apostle; and it is only in the Acts of the Apostles, and some of the epistles of Paul, that he is mentioned with any great distinctness. In all those passages in the apostolic writings where he is referred to, he is presented as a person of high standing and great importance, and his opinions are given in such a manner as to convey the impression that they had great weight in the regulation of the apostolic doings. This is particularly evident in the only passage of the Acts of the Apostles where his words are given, which is in the account of the consultation at Jerusalem about the great question of communion between the circumcised and uncircumcised. On this occasion, James is mentioned in such a way as to make it evident that he was considered the most prominent among those who were zealous for the preservation of the Mosaic forms, and to have been by all such, regarded in the light of a leader, since his decision seems to have been esteemed by them as a sort of law; and the perfect acquiescence of even the most troublesome in the course which he recommended, is a proof of his predominant influence. The tone and style of the address itself, also imply that the speaker thought he had good reason to believe that others were looking to him in particular, for the decision which should regulate their opinions on this doubtful question. After Simon Peter, as the great chief of the apostles, had first expressed his opinion on the question under discussion, and had referred to his own inspired divine revelations of the will of God in respect to the Gentiles, Paul and Barnabas next gave a full account of their operations, and of the signs and wonders with which God had followed their labors.

After the full exposition made by Paul and Barnabas, of all their conduct, James arose to make his reply in behalf of the close adherents of Mosaic forms, and said, “Men and brethren! listen to me. Simeon has set forth in what manner God did first condescend to take from the heathen a people for his name. And with this, all the words of the prophets harmonize, as it is written, ‘After these things I will turn back, and will rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David; I will both rebuild its ruins and erect it again, IN ORDER THAT THE REST OF MANKIND may seek out the Lord, together with all the heathen who are called by my name, saith the Lord who made all things.’ ‘Well known to God are all his works from eternity.’ So I think that we ought not to make trouble for those who have turned from the heathen, to God; but that we should direct them to refrain from things that have been offered unto idols, and from fornication, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For Moses has, from ancient generations, in these cities, those who make him known,——his law being read every sabbath day.” This opinion, formed and delivered in a truly Christian spirit of compromise, seems to have had the effect of a permanent decision; and the great leader of the rigid Judaizers, having thus renounced all opposition to the adoption of the converted heathen into full and open Christian communion, though without the seals of the Mosaic covenant,——all those who had originated this vexatious question, ceased their attempts to distract the harmony of the apostles; and the united opinions of the great apostolic chief, who had first opened the gates of Christ’s kingdom to the heathen, and of the eminent defender of Mosaic forms, so silenced all discussion, that thenceforth these opinions, thus fully expressed, became the common law of the Christian churches, throughout the world, in all ages.

This address of James (Acts xv. 13–21.) may justly be pronounced the most obscure passage of all that can be found in the New Testament, of equal length,——almost every verse in it containing some point, which has been made the subject of some dispute. Schoettgen (quoted by Bloomfield,) thus analyzes this discourse:——“It consists of three parts;——the Exordium, (verse 13,) in which the speaker uses a form of expression calculated to secure the good-will of his auditors;——the Statement, (verses 16–18,) containing also a confirmation of it from the prophets, and the reason;——the Proposition, (verses 19–20,) that the Gentiles are not to be compelled to Judaism, but are only to abstain from certain things particularly offensive to the spirit of the Mosaic institutions.”

Simeon. (verse 14.) This peculiar form of Peter’s first name, has led some to suppose that he could not be the person meant, since he is mentioned in all other narratives by the name of Simon. Wolf imagines that Simon Zelotes must have been the person thus distinguished, though all the difficulties are the same in his case as in Peter’s. But Simeon (Συμεων) and Simon are the same name, the latter being only an abridged form, better suited to the inflections of the Greek than the former.——This preference of the full Hebrew form was doubtless meant to be characteristic of James, who seems to have been in general very zealous for ancient Jewish usages in all things.

Has condescended to take. Common translation: “did visit them to take,” &c. This much clearer translation is justified by the meaning which Bretschneider has given to επισκεπτομαι, benigne voluit, &c., for which he quotes the Greek of the Alexandrian version.

Harmonize. (verse 15.) The original (συμφωνοῦσιν) refers in the same manner as this word does to the primary idea of accordance in sound, (symphony,) and thence by a metonymy is applied to agreement in general. The passage of prophecy is quoted by James from Amos ix. 11, 12, and accords, in the construction which he puts upon it, much better with the Alexandrian Greek version, than with the original Hebrew or the common translations. The prophet (as Kuinoel observes) is describing the felicity of the golden age, and declares that the Jews will subdue their enemies and all nations, and that all will worship Jehovah. Now this, James accomodates to the present purpose, and applies to the propagation of the gospel among the Gentiles, and their reception into the Christian community. (See Rosenmueller, Acts, xv. 17, for a very full exegesis of this passage.)

Well known to God are all his works. These words have been made the subject of a great deal of inquiry among commentators, who have found some difficulties in ascertaining their connection with the preceding part of the discourse. Various new and unauthorized renderings of the words have been proposed, but have been generally rejected. It seems to me that the force of the passage is considerably illustrated by throwing the whole emphasis of the sentence upon the word “all,”——“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of ages.” James is arguing on the equal and impartial grace of God, as extended not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles;——not to one nation merely, but to all his creatures. “Thus saith the Lord who makes (or does) all things.” The original Hebrew of the prophecy indeed, does not contain this, but that is itself a circumstance which shows that James had a particular object in this [♦]accommodation of the words to this form and purpose.

[♦] “accomodation” replaced with “accommodation”

So I think, &c. (verse 19.) Hammond and others have attempted to find in the original of this verb (κρινω) a peculiar force, implying that James announced his decision with a kind of judicial emphasis, in the character of “Bishop of Jerusalem.” The groundlessness of this translation is shown by Bloomfield’s numerous references to classical authority for the simple meaning of “think.” The difficulties in the twentieth verse are so numerous and weighty, and have been made the subject of such protracted and minute discussions by all the great commentators, that it would be vain to attempt any account of them here.

The great eminence of James among the apostles is very fully shown in several incidental allusions made to him in other passages of the apostolic writings. Thus when Peter, after his miraculous release from prison, came to the house of Mary the mother of John Mark, he, at departing from the Christians there assembled, told them to tell James and the brethren; implying, of course, that James was altogether the most prominent person among them, and might justly be considered chief apostle in the absence of Peter; and that to him any message intended for all, might be appropriately first addressed. In the same way did the angel, at the resurrection of Jesus, distinguish Peter among all the apostles, mentioning him alone by name, as the individual person to whom the divine message was to be delivered.

But no where is his eminence among the apostles so strongly marked, as in Paul’s account of his own visits to Jerusalem, and the incidents connected with them. He there mentions “James, the brother of our Lord,” in such terms as to show that he must have been one of the apostles; thus adding a valuable confirmation to the testimony above adduced in favor of this very point, that James, the brother of Jesus, was an apostle. Paul’s words are, “Other of the apostles, (besides Peter,) saw I none, except James, the Lord’s brother;” an expression which all analogy requires to be construed into a clear assertion that this James was an apostle. In speaking of his second visit, fourteen years after, Paul also bears a noble testimony to the eminence of James, and, what is remarkable, gives him the very first place among those three whom he mentions by name. He says, “When James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” This very peculiar arrangement of these three great names, has seemed so strange to the more stubborn Papists, that they can not believe that the Cephas here mentioned in the second place, is their great idol, Peter; and many of them have maintained, in long arguments, that he was not Peter,——a notion which might seem plausible at first glance, from the circumstance, that throughout his whole narrative, Paul has been speaking of Peter by the common Greek form of his surname, while in this particular passage, he uses the original Hebrew word, Cephas. But this verbal change is of no consequence whatever, except as showing that in this connection there was something which suggested a preference of the Hebrew name, while mentioning him along with the two other great apostolic chiefs, James and John. And even this very peculiar promotion of James to the first place, is easily explained by a consideration of the subject in connection with which these personages are mentioned. James was unquestionably the great leader of the sticklers for Mosaic forms; and he is therefore the most important person to be quoted in reference to Paul’s reception, while the dissensions about circumcision were raging. Peter, on the other hand, being himself the great champion of open Gentile communion, from his having been himself the first of all men to bring them under the gospel, was, of course, understood to be a favorer of Paul’s views, of the noble catholic extension of Christianity; and his name was therefore of really less importance in Paul’s statement, than the name of James, who was everywhere known as the head of the circumcision party, and being mentioned as having shown such respect to Paul, would make it evident that the two Hellenist apostles were taken into favor by all parties, and heartily commended to the great work of evangelizing the heathen.

The especially watchful zeal of James, for the preservation of Mosaic forms, is very distinctly implied in another passage of the same epistle. He had, in a nobly considerate spirit of compromise, agreed that it was best to receive all the Gentile converts as Christian brethren, though they conformed only very partially to the Mosaic institutions. It was perfectly a matter of common sense, to every reasonable man, that the progress of the gospel would be greatly hindered, and almost brought to a stand, among the heathen, if a minute adherence to all the corporeal observances of the Levitical code, were required for Christian communion; and James, though profoundly reverencing all the requirements of his national religion, was too wise to think of imposing all these rituals upon those whose whole habits would be at war with the observance of them, though in heart and in life they might be fully fitted to appreciate and enjoy the blessings of Christ’s spiritual covenant. He therefore distinctly expressed his accordance with Peter, in these general principles of Christian policy, yet, as subsequent events show, he was by no means disposed to go to all lengths with the more zealous chief of the apostles, in his readiness to renounce, in his own person, all the peculiarities of Jewish habits; and seems to have still maintained the opinion, that the original, pure Hebrew apostles, should live in the most scrupulous observance of their religious exclusiveness, towards those whom the Levitical law would pronounce unclean, and too much polluted with various defilements, to be the familiar associates of a truly religious Jew. This sentiment of James appears to have been well known to Peter, who, conscious of the peculiar rigidity of his great apostolic associate, on these points, wisely sought to avoid all occasions of needlessly exciting complaints and dissensions among the chief ministers of the word of truth. For this reason, as has already been narrated in his life, when he was at Antioch, though during the first part of his residence there, he had, without the slightest scruple, gone familiarly and frequently into the company of the unbelieving Gentiles, eating and drinking with them, without regard to any liability to corporeal pollutions, that were against the rules of Levitical purity,——yet when some persons came down from [♦]Jerusalem, from James, he entirely withdrew himself, all at once, within the strict bounds of Mosaic observances. Perhaps these visitors from James had been specially instructed by him to note the demeanor of Peter, and to see whether, in his zeal for removing all obstruction out of the way of the Gentile converts, he might not forget what was due to his own character as a descendant of Abraham, and a disciple of him who so faithfully fulfilled all the righteousness of the law. However this might be, Peter’s actions plainly expressed some dread of offending James, and those who came from him; else he certainly would not have refrained, in this remarkable manner, from a course of conduct, which he had before followed unhesitatingly, as though he had not the slightest doubt of its perfect moral propriety; and the conclusion is reasonable, that he now changed his demeanor, only from views of expediency, and a regard to the jealous sensitiveness of his great associate, on points of Levitical law.

[♦] “Jerasalem” replaced with “Jerusalem”

HIS APOSTOLIC OFFICE.

From these and other passages, implying a great eminence of James in the direction of the plans of evangelization, it is evident, that, in the absence of Peter, he must have been the most important person among the apostles at Jerusalem; and after the permanent removal of the commissioned apostolic chief, to other and wider fields of action, his rank, as principal person among all the ministers of Christ in Jerusalem, must have been very decidedly established. From this circumstance has originated the notion that he was “bishop of Jerusalem;” and this is the title with which the later Fathers have attempted to decorate him,——as if any honor whatever could be conferred on an apostle, by giving him the title of a set of inferior ministers appointed by the original commissioned preachers of Christ, to be merely their substitutes in the instruction and management of those numerous churches which could not be blessed by the presence of an apostle, and to be their successors in the supreme earthly administration of the affairs of the Christian community, when the great founders had all been removed from their labors, to their rest. How nearly the duties performed by James corresponded to the modern episcopal function, it is utterly impossible to say, for the simple reason that not the slightest record of his actions is left, to which references can be made, on this interesting question. That he was the most eminent of the apostles resident at Jerusalem, is quite clear; and that by him, under these circumstances, were performed the great proportion of the pastoral duties among the believers in that city, may be most justly supposed; and his influence over Christian converts would by no means be limited by the walls of the Holy city. In his apostolic functions, he, of course, became known to all resorting to that place; and his faithful and eminent ministry in the capital of the Jewish religion would extend not only his fame, but the circle of his personal acquaintances, throughout all parts of the world, from which pilgrims came to the great annual festivals in Jerusalem. His immense apostolic diocese, therefore, could not be very easily bounded, nor was it defined with any exactness, to prevent it from running into the limits of those divisions of the fields of duty, in which Peter, Paul, John and others, had been more especially laboring. His influence among the Jews in general, (whether believers in Christ or not,) would, from various accounts, appear to have been greater than that of any other apostle; and this, combined with the circumstances of his location, would seem to entitle him very fairly to the rank and character of the apostle of the “Dispersion.” This was a term transferred from the abstract to the concrete sense, and was applied in a collective meaning to the great body of Jews in all parts of the world, through which they were scattered by chance, choice, or necessity.

Bishop of Jerusalem. The first application of this title to James, that appears on record, is in Eusebius, who quotes the still older authority of Clemens Alexandrinus. (Church History, II. 1.) The words of Eusebius are, “Then James, who was called the brother of our Lord, because he was the son of Joseph, and whom, on account of his eminent virtue, those of ancient times surnamed the Just, is said to have first held the chair of the bishopric of Jerusalem. Clemens, in the sixth book of his Institutes, distinctly confirms this. For he says that ‘after the Saviour’s ascension, although the Lord had given to Peter, James, and John, a rank before all the rest, yet they did not therefore contend among themselves for the first distinction, but chose James the Just, to be bishop of Jerusalem.’ And the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, says these things of him, besides: ‘To James the Just, and John, and Peter, did the Lord, after the resurrection, grant the knowledge, [the gnosis, or knowledge of mysteries,] and these imparted it to the other disciples.’”

In judging of the combined testimony of these two ancient writers, it should be observed that it is not by any means so ancient and direct as that of Polycrates, on the identity of Philip the apostle, and Philip the deacon, which these very Fathers quote with assent. Nor can their opinion be worth any more in this case than in the other. On no point, where a knowledge of the New Testament, and a sound judgment are the only guides, can the testimony of the Fathers be considered of any value whatever; for the most learned of them betray a disgraceful ignorance of the Bible in their writings; nor can the most acute of them compare, for sense and judgment, with the most ordinary of modern commentators. The whole course of Patristic theology affords abundant instances of the very low powers of these writers, for the discrimination of truth and falsehood. The science of historical criticism had no existence among them——nor indeed is there any reason why they should be considered persons of any historical authority, except so far as they can refer directly to the original sources, and to the persons immediately concerned in the events which they record. On all matters of less unexceptionable authority, where their testimony does not happen to contradict known truth or common sense, all that can be said in their favor, is, that the thing thus reported is not improbable; but all supplements to the accounts given in the New Testament, unless they refer directly to eye-witnesses, may be pronounced very suspicious and wholly uncertain. In this case, Eusebius’s opinion that James, the brother of our Lord was the son of Joseph, is worth no more than that of the latest commentator; because he had no more historical aids than the writers of these days. Nor is the story of Clemens, that James was bishop of Jerusalem, worth any more; because he does not refer to any historical evidence.

HIS EPISTLE.

Noticing some peculiar circumstances in the condition of his countrymen, throughout this wide dispersion, the apostle addressed to them a written exhortation, suited to their spiritual necessities. In the opening, he announces himself simply by the title of “James, the servant of Jesus Christ,” not choosing to ground any claim for their respect or obedience on the accidents of birth or relationship, but on the mere character of one devoted to the cause of Christ for life and for death,——and entitled, by the peculiar commission of his Lord, to teach and direct his followers in his name. In consequence of this omission of the circumstance of relationship, a query has been even raised whether the author of this epistle could really be the same person as the brother of Jesus. But a trifle of this kind can never be allowed to have any weight in the decision of such a question. He directs himself, in general terms, to all the objects of his extended apostolic charge;——“to the twelve tribes that are in the Dispersion.”

A brief review of the contents of the epistle will furnish the best means of ascertaining its scope and immediate object, and will also afford just ground for tracing the connection, between the design of the apostle and the remarkable events in the history of those times, which are recorded by the other writers of that age. He first urges them to persevere in faith, without wavering or sinking under all the peculiar difficulties then pressing on them; and refers them to God as the source of that wisdom which they need for their direction. From him alone, all good proceeds; but no sin, nor temptations to sin. The cause of that, lies in man himself: let him not then blasphemously ascribe his evil dispositions nor the occasions of their development, to God; but seeking wisdom and strength from above, let him resist the tempter:——blessed is the man that thus endures and withstands the trial. He next points out to them the utter worthlessness of all the distinctions of rank and wealth among those professing the faith of Jesus. Such base respect of persons on the score of accidental worldly advantages, is denounced, as being foreign to the spirit of Christianity. True religion requires something more than a profession of faith; its substance and its signs are the energetic and constant practice of virtuous actions, and it allows no dispensations or excuses to any one. He next dwells especially on the high responsibilities of those who assume the office of teaching. The tongue requires a most watchful restraint, lest passion or haste pervert the advantages of eminence and influence, into the base instruments of human wrath. The true manifestations of religious knowledge and zeal, must be in a spirit of gentleness, forbearance, and love,——not in the expressions of hatred, nor in cursing. But of this pure, heavenly spirit, their late conduct had shown them to be lamentably destitute. Strifes, tumults, and bitter denunciations, had betrayed their un-Christian character. They needed therefore, to humbly seek this meek spirit from God, and not proudly to assume the prerogatives of judgment and condemnation, which belonged to Him alone. His condemnation was indeed about to fall on their country. With most peculiar ruin would it light on those now reveling in their ill-gotten riches, and rejoicing in the vain hope of a perpetual prosperity. But let the faithful persevere, cheered by the memory of the bright examples of the suffering pious of other days, and by the hope of the coming of their Lord, whose appearance in glory and judgment, would soon crown their fervent prayers. Meanwhile, supported by this assurance, let them continue in a virtuous course, watching even their words, visiting the sick in charity and mercy, and all exhorting and instructing each other in the right way.

The peculiar difficulties of the times here referred to, are——a state of bloody intestine commotion, disturbing the peace of society, and desolating the land with hatred, contention and murder;——a great inequality of condition, in respect to property,——some amassing vast wealth by extortion, and abusing the powers and privileges thereby afforded, to the purposes of tyranny,——condemning and killing the just;——a perversion of laws for the gratification of private spite;——and everywhere a great occasion for good men to exercise patience and faith, relying upon God alone, for the relief of the community from its desperate calamities. But a prospect was already presented of a consummation of these distracting troubles, in the utter ruin of the wicked; a change in the condition of things was about to occur, which would bring poverty and distress upon the haughty oppressors, who had heaped treasure together only for the last days. The brethren therefore, had but a little time to wait for the coming of the Lord. Both of these two latter expressions point very clearly at the destruction of Jerusalem,——for this is the uniform reference which these terms had, in those days, among the Christians. Jesus had promised his chosen disciples, that their generation should not pass away, till all those awful calamities which he denounced on the Jewish state, should be fulfilled; and for this event all his suffering followers were now looking, as the seal of the truth of Christ’s word. Searching in the history of the times, a few years previous to that final desolation, it is found in the testimony of impartial writers, that these were the too faithful details of the evils which then raged in Palestine. “For, under Felix, and again under Portius Festus, desperate patriots marched through the country, in whole bodies, and forcibly tore away with them the inhabitants of open places, and if they would not follow them, set fire to the villages, and enacted bloody scenes. They even made their appearance in the capital and at the feasts, where they mixed among the crowd of people, and committed many secret assassinations with concealed weapons. As to that which regards the external circumstances and the civil condition of the Jews and Jewish Christians, they were far from being agreeable. The praetors, under all manner of pretexts, made extortions, and abused their legal authority for the sake of enriching themselves; a person was obliged to purchase with money his liberation from their prisons, as well as his safety and his rights; he might even purchase a license to commit crimes. In this state, under these circumstances, and in this degree of civil disorder, the author might probably have regarded his countrymen; for, although he wrote to the whole world, yet his native land passed more immediately before his eyes.”

For the sources, and for the minuter proofs and illustrations of these views, see Hug’s Introduction, as translated by Wait, Vol. II. §§ 148–159.

In the immediate consideration of all these present iniquities and coming desolations, he wrote to prepare the believing Jews, in Palestine more particularly, but also throughout the world, for the overwhelming consummation of their nation’s destiny. Terrible as would be this doom, to the wicked, and mournful as would be these national desolations, to all, the righteous should find consolations in the peaceful establishment of the spiritual kingdom of their Lord, over the ruins of the dominion of his murderers,——of those who had “condemned and killed the just One, though he did not resist them.” But in all these awful signs, should the faithful see the forewarned coming of the Son of Man; and as he himself told his chosen apostles, “then should they lift up their heads; for their redemption drew nigh.”

Besides these external troubles, there were others of a different character, arising and existing solely among those who professed the religion of Christ. The instructions given by Paul, in reference to the absolute necessity of faith, and the insufficiency of a mere formal routine of religious duties, had been most grossly perverted into a warrant for the all-sufficiency of a mere belief, as the means of salvation;——an error by no means limited in its mischievous existence, to the days of the apostles, but so comfortable to the minds of mere religious formalists, in all ages of Christianity, that a new revelation, like that here made by James, though directly repeated through every century of the Christian era, would be equally vain, for the prevention or the remedy of this never-dying heresy. All the words of James on the subject of faith and works, are evidently aimed at the refutation of those who had taken advantage of the opinions which Paul had expressed, on the same subjects; but which were expressed with a totally different reference, being stated not generally nor abstractly, but in application to some particular dogmatic errors. James, after distinctly condemning the “unlearned and unstable, who thus wrested to their own destruction the things hard to be understood in the writings of Paul,” next attacks certain persons who, without being authorized or qualified, had assumed the station and responsibility of religious teachers. Many persons taking up the office of instructors in this manner, had caused great confusion, by using their hasty tongues, in mere polemic and denunciatory discourse, condemning and cursing, in unmeasured terms, those who differed from them in opinion. These he rebukes, as thus “giving occasion for offense and error to all;” and sets forth the character of that true wisdom which comes from above, and which is peaceable, “sowing the fruit of righteousness in peace.”

Many teachers. In order to understand this reference, it should be noticed that the word masters in the common translation of chap. iii. verse 1, of this epistle, is not to be taken in the common modern sense, but in that of “religious teachers.” The original is not Κυριοι (Kurioi,) “Lords,” “Masters,”——but διδασκαλοι (didaskaloi,) “teachers.” The translators probably intended it only in the latter sense; for the word “Master” really has that meaning in such connections, in good authors of that age; and even at this day, in England, the same usage of the word is very common, though almost unknown in this country, except in technical phrases.

HIS DEATH.

The epistle was probably the last great act of his life. No record, indeed, of any of his labors, except this living instance, exists of his later years; but there is certain ground for supposing that his residence in Jerusalem was characterized by a steady course of apostolic labors, in the original sphere of action, to which the twelve had first confined themselves for many years. When, by the special calls of God, in providences and in revelations, one and another of the apostles had been summoned to new and distant fields, east, west, north and south, “preaching repentance and remission of sins, in his name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem,” and bearing witness of his works, thence, “through Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth,” there was still needed one, who, highly “indued with power from on high,” might remain in that city to which all the sons of Israel, throughout the world, looked as the fountain of religious light. There too was the scene of the first great triumphs of the Christian faith, as well as of the chief toils, the trials, and the death of the great founder himself. All these circumstances rendered Jerusalem still an important post to the apostles; and they therefore left on that station the apostle, whose steady courage in the cause of Christ, and blameless yet jealous conformity to the law of Moses, fitted him at once for the bold maintenance of his Master’s commission, and for the successful advancement of the gospel among the faithful believers of the ancient covenant. Thus James continued at Jerusalem throughout his life, being kept at this important station, perhaps on account of his age, as well as for his fitness in other respects; as there is some reason to think that he was older than those more active apostles who assumed the foreign departments of the work. His great weight of character, as evinced in the council of the apostles, and by the fear which Peter showed of offending him, very naturally gives the idea of a greater age than that of the other apostles; and this notion is furthermore confirmed by the circumstance that the brethren of Jesus, among whom this apostle was certainly included, are mentioned as assuming an authority over their divine relation, and claiming a right to control and direct his motions, which could never have been assumed, according to the established order of Jewish families, unless they had been older than he. It is therefore a rational supposition, that James was one of the oldest, perhaps the oldest, of the apostles; and at any rate he appears to have been more advanced in life than any of those who are characterized with sufficient distinctness to offer the means of conjecture on this point.

From the high charge of this great central apostolic station, in which he had, through a course of more than twenty-five years, accumulated the ripe honors of a “righteous” name upon his hoary head, James was now called to end a career, which so much resembled that of the ancient prophets, by a death equally assimilated to the bloody fate to which so many of them had been doomed by the subjects of their reproofs. The fact and circumstances of his death are given on an authority so blameless and disinterested as not to admit of dispute; nor is there any thing in the narrative which can throw the slightest suspicion upon it. The eminent Jewish historian, Josephus, himself a resident in Jerusalem at that time, and an eye-witness of these events, and acquainted by sight and fame, at least, with James, has given a clear account of the execution of this apostle, which can best evince its own merit by being given entire.

The account which Josephus has given, shows that the death of James, must have happened during Paul’s imprisonment, and is delivered in the following words:——“The emperor, being informed of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to be prefect of Judea. But the younger Ananus, who, as we said before, was made high priest, was haughty in his behavior, and very ambitious. He was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who, as we have also observed before, are above all other Jews severe in their judicial sentences. This then being the temper of Ananus, he, thinking he had a convenient opportunity, because Festus was dead, and Albinus was not yet arrived, called a council, and brought before it James, brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, with several others, where they were accused of being transgressors of the law, and stoned to death. But the most moderate men of the city, who were also the most learned in the laws, were offended at this proceeding. They sent therefore privately to the king, and entreated him to give orders to Ananus to abstain from such conduct in future. And some went to meet Albinus, who was coming from Alexandria, and represented to him, that Ananus had no right to call a council without his permission. Albinus, approving of what they said, wrote a very severe letter to Ananus, threatening to punish him for what he had done. And king Agrippa took away from him the priesthood, after he had possessed it three months, and appointed in his stead Jesus, the son of Damnaeus.” From this account of Josephus we learn, that James, notwithstanding he was a Christian, was so far from being an object of hatred to the Jews, that he was rather beloved and respected. At least his death excited very different sensations from that of the first James; and the Sadducean high priest, at whose instigation he suffered, was punished for his offense by the loss of his office.

This translation is taken from Marsh’s Michaelis, (Introduction, Vol. IV. pp. 287, 288.) The original is in the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus. (XX. ix. 1.)

This however, is not the statement which the early Christian writers give of the death of James the Just; but from the oldest historian of the church, is derived another narrative, so highly decorated with minute particulars, that while it is made very much more interesting than the concise and simple account given by Josephus, it is at the same time rendered altogether suspicious by the very circumstance of its interesting minuteness. Josephus had no temptation whatever to pervert the statement. He gives it in terms strongly condemnatory of the whole transaction; but the Christian writers, as they have shown in other such instances, are too often disposed to sacrifice truth, for the sake of making a story whose incidents harmonize best with their notions of a desirable martyrdom. The story however, deserves a place here, both for the sake of a fair comparison, and on account of its own interesting character.

“James, the brother of our Lord, surnamed the Just, was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine, nor strong drink; nor ate any creature wherein was life. There never came a razor upon his beard;——he anointed not himself with oil, neither did he use a bath. To him only it was lawful to enter into the holy of holies. He wore no woolen, but only linen garments; and entered the temple alone, where he was seen upon his knees, supplicating for the forgiveness of the people, till his knees became hard, and covered with a callus, like those of a camel. On account of his eminent righteousness, he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies ‘the people’s fortress.’ Then, after describing the divisions among the people respecting Christianity, the account states, that all the leading men among the Scribes and Pharisees, came to James, and entreated him to stand up on the battlements of the temple, and persuade the people assembled at the passover, to have juster notions concerning Jesus; and that, when thus mounted on the battlements, he cried with a loud voice, ‘Why do ye question me about Jesus, the Son of Man? He even sits in heaven, at the right hand of great power, and will come in the clouds of heaven.’ With this declaration, many were satisfied, and cried ‘Hosanna to the Son of David.’ But the unbelieving Scribes and Pharisees, mortified at what they had done, produced a riot; for they consulted together, and then cried out, ‘Oh! oh! even the Just one is himself deceived.’ They went up, therefore, and cast down the Just, and said among themselves, ‘Let us stone James the Just.’ And they began to stone him, for he did not die with his fall; but turning, he kneeled, saying, ‘I entreat, O Lord God the Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ And while they were stoning him, one of the priests, of the sons of Rahab, spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, ‘Cease; what do ye? Justus prays for us.’ But a certain one among them, a fuller, took a lever, such as he had used to squeeze garments, and smote Justus on the head. Thus he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him in that place, and his grave-stone yet remains near the temple.”

This story is from Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, to whom alone we owe its preservation,——the works of the original author being all lost, except such fragments, accidentally quoted by other writers. The translation I have taken from the MS. of the Rev. Dr. Murdock, to whose research I am already so much indebted in similar instances.

The comments of Michaelis on these two testimonies, may be appropriately subjoined. (Introduction, Vol. IV. pp. 288, 291. Marsh’s translation.)

“The account given by Hegesippus, contains an intermixture of truth and fable; and in some material points contradicts the relation of Josephus, to [♦]which no objection can be made. It confirms however the assertion, that James was in great repute among the Jews, even among those who did not believe in Christ; and that they paid him much greater deference than we might suppose they would have shown to a Christian bishop, and a brother of Christ, whom they had crucified. Many parts of the preceding account are undoubtedly fabulous, especially that part which relates to the request of the Jews, that James would openly declare from the battlements of the temple, that Jesus was not the Messiah. Indeed, if this were true, it would not redound to his honor; for it would imply that he had acted with duplicity, and not taken a decided part in favor of Christianity, or the Jews could never have thought of making such a request. But that a person, who was the head of the church in Jerusalem, should have acted such a double part as to leave it undecided what party he had embraced, and that too for thirty years after the ascension, is in itself almost incredible. It is inconsistent likewise with the relation of Josephus, and is virtually contradicted both by Paul and by Luke, who always speak of him with the utmost respect, and have no where given the smallest hint, that he concealed the principal doctrines of the Christian religion.”

[♦] “whieh” replaced with “which”

Thus gloriously ended the steady, bright career of “the second apostolic martyr.” Honored, even by the despisers of the faith and haters of the name of Christ, with the exalted title of “THE JUST,” he added the solemn witness of his blood, to that of his divine brother and Lord, and to that of his young apostolic brother, whose name and fate were equally like his,——a testimony which sealed anew the truth of his own record against the sins of the oppressors, published in his last great earthly work:——“Ye have condemned and killed the JUST; yet he doth not resist you.”

---