I. THE GALILEAN APOSTLES. (continued 12)

III. At what time did Matthew write his gospel?

This is a question on which the records of antiquity afford no light, that can be trusted; and it is therefore left to be settled entirely by internal evidence. There are indeed ancient stories, that he wrote it nine years after the ascension,――that he wrote it fifteen years after that event,――that he wrote it while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,――or when he was about leaving Palestine, &c., all which are about equally valuable. The results of the examinations of modern writers, who have labored to ascertain the date, have been exceedingly various, and only probabilities can be stated on this most interesting point of gospel history. The most probable conjecture on this point is one based on the character of certain passages in Christ’s prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, which by their vividness in the evangelist’s record, may be fairly presumed to have been written down when the crisis in Jewish affairs was highest, and most interesting; and when the perilous condition of the innocent Christians must have been a matter of the deepest solicitude to the apostles,――so much as to deserve a particular provision, by a written testimony of the impending ruin. A reference made also to a certain historical fact in Christ’s prophecy, which is known on the testimony of Josephus, the Jewish historian, to have happened about this time, affords another important ground for fixing the date. This is the murder of Zachariah, the son of Barachiah, whom the Jews slew between the temple and the altar. He relates that the ferocious banditti, who had possessed themselves of the strong places of the city, tyrannized over the wretched inhabitants, executing the most bloody murders daily, among them, and killing, upon the most unfounded accusations, the noblest citizens. Among those thus sacrificed by these bloody tyrants, Josephus very minutely narrates the murder of Zachariah, the son of Baruch, or Baruchus, a man of one of the first families, and of great wealth. His independence of character and freedom of speech, denouncing the base tyranny under which the city groaned, soon made him an object of mortal hatred, to the military rulers; and his wealth also constituted an important incitement to his destruction. He was therefore seized, and on the baseless charge of plotting to betray the city into the hands of Vespasian and the Romans, was brought to a trial before a tribunal constituted by themselves, from the elders of the people, in the temple, which they had profaned by making it their strong hold. The righteous Zachariah, knowing that his doom was irrevocably sealed, determined not to lay aside his freedom of speech, even in this desperate pass; and when brought by his iniquitous accusers before the elders who constituted the tribunal, in all the eloquent energy of despair, after refuting the idle accusations against him, in few words, he turned upon his accusers in just indignation, and burst out into the most bitter denunciations of their wickedness and cruelty, mingling with these complaints, lamentations over the desolate and miserable condition of his ruined country. The ferocious Zealots, excited to madness by his dauntless spirit of resistance, instantly drew their swords, and threateningly called out to the judges to condemn him at once. But even the instruments of their power, were too much moved by the heroic innocence of the prisoner, to consent to this unjust doom; and, in spite of these threats, acquitted him at once. The Zealots then burst out, at once, into fury against the judges, and rushed upon them to punish their temerity, in declaring themselves willing to die with him, rather than unjustly pronounce sentence upon him. Two of the fiercest of the ruffians, seizing Zachariah, slew him in the middle of the temple, insulting his last agonies, and immediately hurled his warm corpse over the terrace of the temple, into the depths of the valley below.

This was, most evidently, the horrible murder, to which Jesus referred in his prophecy. Performed thus, just on the eve of the last, utter ruin of the temple and the city, it is the only act that could be characterized as the crowning iniquity of all the blood unrighteously shed, from the earliest time downwards. It has sometimes been supposed by those ignorant of this remarkable event, that the Zachariah here referred to, was Zachariah, son of Jehoiada, who in the reign of Joash, king of Judah, was stoned by the people, at the command of the king, in the outer court of the temple. But there are several circumstances connected with that event, which render it impossible to interpret the words of Jesus as referring merely to that, although some of the coincidences are truly amazing. That Zachariah was the son of Jehoiada,――this was the son of Baruch or Barachiah;――that Zachariah was slain in the outer court,――this was slain “in the midst of the temple,”――that is, “between the temple and the altar.” Besides, Jesus evidently speaks of this Zachariah as a person yet to come. “Behold, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and writers; and some of them you shall kill and crucify; and some of them you shall scourge and persecute; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah, the son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. All these things shall come upon this generation.” It is true that here, the writer, in recording the prophecy, now referring to its fulfilment, turns to the Jews, charging it upon them as a crime already past, when he writes, though not at the time when the Savior spoke; and it is therefore, by a bold change of tense, that he represents Jesus speaking of a future event, as past. But the whole point of the discourse plainly refers to future crimes, as well as to future punishment. The multitude who heard him, indeed, no doubt considered him as pointing, in this particular mention of names, only to a past event; and notwithstanding the difference of minor circumstances, probably interpreted his words as referring to the Zachariah mentioned in 2 Chronicles, who was stoned for his open rebukes of the sins of king and people;――a conclusion moreover, justified by the previous words of Jesus. He had just been denouncing upon them the sin of their fathers, as the murderers of the prophets, whose tombs they were now so ostentatiously building; and if this wonderful accomplishment of his latter words had not taken place, it might reasonably be supposed, that he spoke of these future crimes only to show that their conduct would soon justify his imputation to them of their fathers’ guilt; that they would, during that same generation, murder similar persons, sent to them on similar divine errands, and thus become sharers in the crime of their fathers, who slew Zachariah, the son of Jehoiada, in the outer temple. But here now is the testimony of the impartial Josephus, a Jew,――himself a contemporary learner of all these events, and an eye-witness of some of them,――who, without any bias in favor of Christ, but rather some prejudice against him,――in this case too, without the knowledge of any such prophecy spoken or recorded,――gives a clear, definite statement of the outrageous murder of Zachariah, the son of Baruch or Barachiah, who, as he says, exactly, was “slain in the middle of the temple,”――that is, half-way “between the temple-courts and the altar.” He mentions it too, as the last bloody murder of a righteous man, for proclaiming the guilt of the wicked people; and it therefore very exactly corresponds to the idea of the crime, which was “to fill up the measure of their iniquities.” This event, thus proved to be the accomplishment of the prophecy of Jesus, and being shown moreover, to have been expressed in this peculiar form, with a reference to the recent occurrence of the murder alluded to,――is therefore a most valuable means of ascertaining the date of this gospel. Josephus dates the murder of Zachariah in the month of October, in the thirteenth year of the reign of Nero, which corresponds to A. D. 66. The Apostle Matthew then, must have written after this time; and it must be settled by other passages, how long after, he recorded the prophecy.

The passage containing the prophecy of ♦the death of Zachariah, is in Matthew xxiii. 35; and that of “the abomination of desolation,” is in xxiv. 15.

This interesting event is recorded by Josephus; (History of Jewish War, IV. v. 4;) and is one of the numerous instances which show the vast benefit which the Christian student of the New Testament may derive from the interesting and exact accounts of this Jewish historian.

Another remarkable passage occurring in the prophecy of Jesus to his disciples, respecting the ruin of the temple, recorded by Matthew immediately after the discourse to the multitude, just given, affords reasonable ground for ascertaining this point in the history of this gospel. When Jesus was solemnly forewarning Peter, Andrew, James and John, of the utter ruin of the temple and city, he mentioned to them, at their request, certain signs, by which they might know the near approach of the coming judgment upon their country, and might thus escape the ruin to which the guilty were doomed. After many sad predictions of personal suffering, which must befall them in his service, he distinctly announced to them a particular event, by the occurrence of which they might know that “the end was come,” and might then, at the warning, flee from the danger to a place of safety. “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, (whoso READETH, let him understand,) then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains.” This parenthetical expression is evidently thrown in by Matthew, as a warning to his readers, of an event which it behoved them to notice, as the token of a danger which they must escape. The expression was entirely local and occasional, in its character, and could never have been made a part of the discourse by Jesus; but the writer himself, directing his thoughts at that moment to the circumstances of the time, called the attention of his Christian countrymen to the warning of Jesus, as something which they must understand and act upon immediately. The inquiry then arises as to the meaning of the expression used by Jesus in his prophecy. “The abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, as standing in the holy place,” unquestionably refers to the horrible violation of the sanctity of the holy places of the temple, by the banditti, styling themselves “Zealots for their country,” who, taking possession of the sanctuary, called in the savage Idumeans, a heathen people, who not only profaned the temple, by their unholy presence, but defiled it with various excesses, committing there a horrible massacre, and flooding its pavements with blood. This was the abomination to which both Daniel and Matthew referred, and which the latter had in mind when he mentioned it to his brethren to whom he wrote, as the sign which they in reading should understand, and upon the warning, flee to the mountains. These horrible polluting excesses are the only events recorded in the history of the times, which can with such certainty and justice be pronounced the sad omens, to which Jesus and his evangelist referred. They are known to have occurred just before the death of Zachariah; and therefore also show this gospel to have been written after the date above fixed for that event. That it must have been written before the last siege of Jerusalem, is furthermore manifest from the fact, that, in order to have the effect of a warning, it must have been sent to those in danger before the avenues of escape from danger were closed up, as they certainly were after Titus had fully encompassed Jerusalem with his armies, and after the ferocious Jewish tyrants had made it certain death for any one to attempt to pass from Jerusalem to the Roman camp. To have answered the purpose for which it was intended, then, it must have been written at some period between the murder of Zachariah, which was in the winter of the year 66, and the march of Titus from Galilee to Jerusalem, before which place he pitched his camp in the month of March, in A. D. 70. The precise point of time in these three years it is impossible to fix; but it was, very probably, within a short time after the commission of the bloody crimes to which he refers; perhaps in the beginning of the year 67.

This view of these passages and the circumstances to which they refer, with all the arguments which support the inferences drawn from them, may be found in Hug’s Introduction, (Vol. II. §4.) He dates Matthew’s gospel much later than most writers do; it being commonly supposed to have been written in the year 41, or in the year 61. Michaelis makes an attempt to reconcile these conjectures, by supposing that it was written in Hebrew by Matthew, in A. D. 41, and translated in 61. But this is a mere guess, for which he does not pretend to assign a reason, and only says that he “can see no impropriety in supposing so.” (Introduction, III. iv. 1, 2.)

Eichhorn suggests, that a reason for concluding that Matthew wrote his gospel a long time after the events which he relates, is implied in the expression used in chap. xxvii. 8, and xxviii. 15. “It is so called, to this day,”――“It is commonly reported, to this day,”――are expressions which, to any reader, convey the idea of many years intervening between the incidents and the time of their narration. In xxvii. 15, also, the explanation which he gives of the custom of releasing a prisoner to the Jews on the feast-day, implies that the custom had been so long out of date, as to be probably forgotten by most of his readers, unless their memories were refreshed by this distinct explanation.

IV. With what special design was this Gospel written?

The circumstances of the times, as alluded to under the last inquiry, afford much light on the immediate object which Matthew had in view, in writing his gospel. It is true, that common readers of the Bible seldom think of it as anything else than a mere complete revelation made to all men, to lead them in the way of truth and salvation; and few are prepared for an inquiry which shall take each portion of the scriptures by itself, and follow it through all its individual history, to the very source,――searching even into the immediate and temporary purpose of the inspired writers. Indeed, very many never think or know, that the historical portions of the New Testament were written with any other design than to furnish to believers in Christ, through all ages, in all countries, a complete and distinct narrative of the events of the history of the foundation of their religion. But such a notion is perfectly discordant, not only with the reasonable results of an accurate examination of these writings, in all their parts, but with the uniform and decided testimony of all the Fathers of the Christian church, who may be safely taken as important and trusty witnesses of the notions prevalent in their times, about the scope and original design of the apostolic records. And though, as to the minute particulars of the history of the sacred canon, their testimony is worth little, yet on the general question, whether the apostles wrote with only a universal reference, or also with some special design connected with their own age and times,――the Fathers are as good authority as any writers that ever lived could be, on the opinions generally prevalent in their own day. In this particular case, however, very little reference can be made to external historical evidence, on the scope of Matthew’s gospel; because very few notices indeed, are found, of its immediate object, among the works of the early writers. But a view of the circumstances of the times, before referred to, will illustrate many things connected with the plan of the work, and show a peculiar force in many passages, that would otherwise be little appreciated.

It appears on the unimpeachable testimony of the historians of those very times, of Josephus, who was a Jew, and of Tacitus and Suetonius, who were Romans, that both before and during the civil disturbances that ended in the destruction of Jerusalem, there was a general impression among the Jews, that their long-foretold Savior and national restorer, the Messiah-king, would soon appear; and in the power of God, lead them on to a certain triumph over the seemingly invincible hosts, which even the boundless strength of Rome could send against them. In the expectation of the establishment of his glorious dominion, under which Israel should more than renew the honors and the power of David and Solomon, they, without fear of the appalling consequences of their temerity, entered upon the hopeless struggle for independence; and according to the testimony of the above-mentioned historians, this prevalent notion did much, not only to incite them to the contest, but also to sustain their resolution under the awful calamities which followed. The revolt thus fully begun, drew the whole nation together into a perfect union of feeling and interest; all sharing in the popular fanaticism, became Jews again, whereby the Christian faith must have lost not a few of its professors.

In these circumstances, and while such notions were prevalent, Matthew wrote his sketch of the life, teachings and miracles of Jesus; and throughout the whole of his narrative makes constant references, where the connection can suggest, to such passages in the ancient holy books of the Hebrews, as were commonly supposed to describe the character and destiny of the Messiah. Tracing out in all these lineaments of ancient prophecy, the complete picture of the Restorer of Israel, he thus proved, by a comparison with the actual life of Jesus of Nazareth, that this was the person, whose course throughout, had been predicted by the ancient prophets. In this way, he directly attacked the groundless hopes, which the fanatical rebels had excited, showing, as he did, that he for whom they looked as the Deliverer of Israel from bondage, had already come, and devoted his life to the disenthralment and salvation of his people from their sins. A distinct and satisfactory proof, carried on through a chain of historical evidence to this effect, would answer the purpose as fully as the written truth could do, of overthrowing the baseless imposition with which the impudent Zealots were beguiling the hopes of a credulous people, and leading them on, willingly deceived, to their utter ruin. In this book, containing a clear prediction of the destruction of the temple and Holy city, and of the whole religious and civil organization of the Jewish nation, many would find the revealed truth, making them wise in the way of salvation, though, for a time, all efforts might seem in vain; for the literal fulfilment of these solemn prophecies thus previously recorded, afterwards ensuing, the truth of the doctrines of a spiritual faith connected with these words of prediction, would be strongly impressed on those whom the consummation of their country’s ruin should lead to a consideration of the errors in which they had been long led astray. These prophecies promised, too, that after all these schemes of worldly triumph for the name and race of Israel, had sadly terminated in the utter, irretrievable ruin of temple and city,――and when the cessation of festivals, and the taking away of the daily sacrifice, had left the Jew so few material and formal objects, to hang his faith and hopes on,――the wandering ones should turn to the pure spiritual truths, which would prove the best consolation in their hopeless condition, and own, in vast numbers, the name and faith of him, whose sorrowful life and sad death were but too mournful a type of the coming woes of those who rejected him. Acknowledging the despised and crucified Nazarene as the true prophet and the long-foretold Messiah-king of afflicted Judah, the heart-broken, wandering sons of Israel, should join themselves to that oft-preached heavenly kingdom of virtue and truth, whose only entrance was through repentance and humility. Hence those numerous quotations from the Prophets, and from the Psalms, which are so abundant in Matthew, and by which, even a common reader is able to distinguish the peculiar, definite object that this writer has in view:――to show to the Jews, by a minute detail, and a frequent comparison, that the actions of Jesus, even in the most trifling incidents, corresponded with those passages of the ancient scriptures, which foreshadowed the Messiah. In this particular, his gospel is clearly distinguished from the others, which are for the most part deficient in this distinct unity of design; and where they refer to the grand object of representing Jesus as the Messiah,――the Son of God,――they do it in other modes, which show that it was for more general purposes, and directed to the conversion of Gentiles rather than Jews. This is the case with John, who plainly makes this an essential object in his grand scheme; but he combines the establishment of this great truth, with the more immediate occasions of subverting error and checking the progress of heretical opinions that aimed to detract from the divine prerogatives of Jesus. But John deals very little in those pointed and apt references to the testimony of the Hebrew scriptures, which so distinguish the writings of Matthew; he evidently apprehends that those to whom he writes, will be less affected by appeals of that kind, than by proofs drawn from his actions and discourses, and by the testimony of the great, the good, and the inspired, among those who saw and heard him. The work of Matthew was, on the other hand, plainly designed to bring to the faith of Jesus, those who were already fully and correctly instructed in all that related to the divinely exalted character of the Messiah, and only needed proof that the person proposed to them as the Redeemer thus foretold, was in all particulars such as the unerring word of ancient prophecy required. Besides this object of converting the unbelieving Jews, its tendency was also manifestly to strengthen and preserve those who were already professors of the faith of Jesus; and such, through all ages, has been its mighty scope, enlightening the nations with the clearest historical testimony ever borne to the whole life and actions of Jesus Christ, and rejoicing the millions of the faithful with the plainest record of the events that secured their salvation.

Beyond the history of this gospel, the Fathers have hardly given the least account, either fanciful or real, of the succeeding life of Matthew. A fragment of tradition, of no very ancient date, specifies that he wrote his gospel when he was about to leave Palestine to go to other lands; but neither the region nor the period is mentioned. Probably, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, he followed the eastward course of the Jewish Christians; but beyond this, even conjecture is lost. But where all historical grounds fail, monkish invention comes in with its tedious details of fabulous nonsense; and in this case, as in others already alluded to, the writings of the monks of the fourteenth century, produce long accounts of Matthew’s labors in Ethiopia, where he is carried through a long series of fabled miracles, to the usual crowning glory of martyrdom.

Ethiopia.――The earliest testimony on this point by any ecclesiastical history, is that of Socrates, (A. D. 425,) a Greek writer, who says only, that “when the apostles divided the heathen world, by lot, among themselves,――to Matthew was allotted Ethiopia.” This is commonly supposed to mean Nubia, or the country directly south of Egypt. The other Fathers of the fifth and following centuries, generally assign him the same country; but it is quite uncertain what region is designated by this name. Ethiopia was a name applied by the Greeks to such a variety of regions, that it is quite in vain to define the particular one meant, without more information about the locality.

But no such idle inventions can add anything to the interest which this apostolic writer has secured for himself by his noble Christian record. Not even an authentic history of miracles and martyrdom, could increase his enduring greatness. The tax-gatherer of Galilee has left a monument, on which cluster the combined honors of a literary and a holy fame,――a monument which insures him a wider, more lasting, and far higher glory, than the noblest ♦achievements of the Grecian or the Latin writers, in his or any age could acquire for them. Not Herodotus nor Livy,――not Demosthenes nor Cicero,――not Homer nor Virgil,――can find a reader to whom the despised Matthew’s simple work is not familiar; nor did the highest hope or the proudest conception of the brilliant Horace, when exulting in the extent and durability of his fame, equal the boundless and eternal range of Matthew’s honors. What would Horace have said, if he had been told that among the most despised of these superstitious and barbarian Jews, whom his own writings show to have been proverbially scorned, would arise one, within thirty or forty years, who, degraded by his avocation, even below his own countrymen’s standard of respectability, would, by a simple record in humble prose, in an uncultivated and soon-forgotten dialect, “complete a monument more enduring than brass,――more lofty than the pyramids,――outlasting all the storms of revolution and of disaster,――all the course of ages and the flight of time?” Yet such was the result of the unpretending effort of Matthew; and it is not the least among the miracles of the religion whose foundation he commemorated and secured, that such a wonder in fame should have been achieved by it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”