existed, still, before the commencement of our Saviour's ministry, that is, before John ii. 12. at least, she must have been dead; and, if she was dead before that point of time, she might have been dead some length of time before it. It seems equally clear that Joseph himself was not then alive, any more than she. It would follow, therefore, that these sons and daughters, the fruit of a distinct marriage, were all older, instead of being all younger, than our Saviour; and if the difference of years, between the age of Joseph and that of the Virgin, was such as has been supposed, much older too: a conclusion which would involve us in great perplexity. Nor do I see how it could come to pass that our Lord should have been so commonly reputed the son of Joseph and Mary, that is, confounded with their natural offspring, if he had not brothers or sisters who were naturally their offspring, and justly to be considered such.

Matt. xiii. 55. Mark vi. 3. the names of these adexpoì of our Lord are specified as follows: James and Joses, Simon and Jude, or Jude and Simon. John vii. 5.-a point of time which coincides with the third feast of Tabernacles-his adeλpoì, it is said, did not believe in him; and Matt. xii. 46. Mark iii. 21. iii. 31. Luke viii. 19-all relating to a point of time one year earlier than the notice in St. John-implicitly confirm St. John Yet, Acts i. 14. they must have become believers after the resurrection, and before the descent of the Holy Ghost; and 1 Cor. ix. 5. they must have become, in due time, Evangelists of Christianity itself. If, then, they continued unbelievers up to the time of the last Passover, and yet were converted before the day of Pentecost ensuing, it is probable they were converted by the fact of the resurrection between. It would be, consequently, in their unbelieving state that our Saviour, John xix. 25—27. committed his mother, in his dying moments, to the care, not of these his brethren, but of St. John. And this, I think, is the best reason why he might pass over them, even though they had been present; and (what is much more probable) had not been absent at the time-to commit his mother to St. John. Not but that commentators, both an

cient and modern, have supposed some relationship between the Virgin and St. John; which, if the fact of this relationship could be made out, might conspire to produce the same effect. Be this, however, as it may, still, with respect to the unbelief of our Lord's adλpol, the gospel accounts are not inconsistent with each other. They will all shew, either directly or by implication, that up to the close of his public ministry his brethren, or some at least who are called by that name, were not believers as yet—but they will none of them imply that they did not become so afterwards.

Now, among those who, even in the lifetime of Christ, were not merely believers, but already Disciples, and already Apostles, of our Lord, Matt. x. 3. Mark iii. 18. Luke vi. 15. Ἰάκωβος ̓Αλφαίου is invariably mentioned as one: and if this James was James the first Bishop of Jerusalem, then, Gal. i. 19. and even Joseph. Ant. xx. ix. 1.— this James was undoubtedly known and denominated as the ̓Αδελφὸς τοῦ Κυρίου, οι τοῦ Χριστοῦ. There was one, then, even in the lifetime of Christ, known as an adeλpòs, or brother of Christ, who believed in him—and there were others known by the same relation, who did not believe in him. It follows, therefore, either that this one of his brethren was a particular exception from the rest, or that there were a number of persons, all of whom might be called in some sense or other, adeλçoì, or brethren, of Christ, and yet be distinct from each other; some of whom believed in him, and others believed not.

Now, according to the Hebrew idiom, the relation of son is extended to every direct remove, however distant, from the fountain head; and, on the same principle, the relation of brother or sister to every collateral, equally remote. In proof of this idiom, the very subject under discussion supplies a case in point. Matt. xxvii. 56. Mark xv. 40. xvi. 1. Luke xxiv. 10.-the Mary, there spoken of, is described as Mary the mother of James-concerning which James, we may take it for granted, he is James the Apostle, the son of Alphæus. But in the parallel place of John xix. 25. she

Jesus; from both which descriptions we may argue as follows.

If this Mary was really the sister of the Virgin, their children would be simply cousins; and, consequently, James, the son of this Mary, could not be really the brother of Jesus, the son of the other: and therefore i ådeλpòs Tou Kupiov, as applied to him, cannot mean the brother of the Lord. But if she was not really the sister, then, ʼn ådɛλøǹ Tñs μηtpòs avtoũ, as applied to her, does not mean the sister of his mother. In either case, then, it will follow that adeλpòs, or adeλon, do not strictly denote the relation of a brother or a sister, but at the utmost of a male or a female cousin. The term, therefore, in a given instance, agreeably to the Jewish usage, may imply no more than this. Nor is it possible to escape this conclusion, except by contending that this Mary was really the sister of the Virgin, and really the wife of Joseph; in which case two uterine sisters must have both borne the name of Mary—both must have been married to Joseph-and living in marriage with him at the same time-which, I think, is directly repugnant to Lev. xviii. 18-and Joseph himself must have borne the other name of Alphæus. All these suppositions are very incredible, and open to the greatest objections. Besides which, Mary is called in the same passage, John xix. 25. † toũ Κλωπά, which must be understood with the ellipsis of γυνή, agreeably to the Latin idiom-Apicatam Sejania-Agrippina Germanicib-Antonia Drusic-Verania Pisonisd—in all which there is the same ellipsis of uxor*: and Cleopas, if Hegesippus f is to be believed, was himself the brother of Joseph. But, Lev. xviii. 16. except in the case provided by the Law, to marry with the wife of a brother, even after

* So common is this ellipsis, both in Latin and in Greek, that Eckel considers it a great singularity to find the word y expressed on some of the coins of Agrippina, the consort of Claudius.

a Tac. Ann. iv. 11. d Plin. Ep. ii. xx.

b Plin. H. N. vii. 13.

c Ib. vii. 19.

• vi. 259.

f Eus. E. H. iii. xi.

his deaths, was forbidden. Δύο αδελφὰς ἄγεσθαι τὸν αὐτὸν οὐκ ἐπίτρεπει, οὔτ ̓ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ, οὔτ ̓ ἐν διαφέρουσι χρόνοις, κἂν τύχῃ τις ἣν προέγημεν ἀπεωσμένος.

It remains, then, that the name of adeλpòs among the Jews might be applied indifferently to the relation of brother, or to the relation of cousin. Hence, it may be so applied, Matt. xiii. 55. and Mark vi. 3; that is, some of the persons, there mentioned by name, may be strictly the brethren, and the rest may be merely the cousins, of our Lord. But how are we to discriminate them asunder? I observe that the two first are called James and Joses-the two last Simon and Jude, or Jude and Simon. I observe also, and it appears to me a critical coincidence, that Mary, the dexon or cousin of the Virgin, who is called, Mark xvi. 1. and Luke xxiv. 10. Mary the mother of James, is called, Matt. xxvii. 56. and Mark xv. 40. 47. Mary the mother of James and Joses. It is an obvious and natural inference that this James and this Joses, who are here described as the children of Mary, are the same James and the same Joses, who were described above, Matt. xiii. 55. Mark vi. 3. as among the assapoì of our Lord. I observe also, that Mary is never called the mother of Simon and Jude-or of Jude and Simon-and, therefore, I cannot assume that these were her children also. One of our Saviour's Apostles, besides Judas Iscariot, was certainly called Jude', the same who, Matt. x. 3. Mark iii. 18. is also called Lebbæus, or Thaddeus; and whom Luke vi. 16: Acts i. 13. twice describe by a certain relation to James, which his own Epistle, Jude 1. proves to be rightly pronounced the relation of brother. This Jude, then, as well as James, must have been a son of Alphæus; but this Jude is never called, like James, a son of Mary, or consequently a brother, in any sense, of our Lord. I infer, then, that he was no such son of Mary, though he might be the son of Alphæus; and I assign thereby a reason which no commentator, as far as I know, has yet been able satisfactorily to do, why he should call himself, the Philo Jud. de Legibus Special. 780.

Jos. Ant. Jud. xvii. xiii. 1.

brother of James, but not the brother of Christ. Alphæus, whosoever he was, was married to two wives-one, the mother of Jude the Apostle-the other, Mary, the cousin of the Virgin, and mother of James and Joses, and, consequently, adλpoì of Christ.

That Alphæus was no uncommon name, among the Jews, may be collected from Mark ii. 14. where Levi is called the son of Alphæus-unless, what is not probable, this Levi also (in other words, St. Matthew the Apostle) was the brother of James and Jude. Hence, if Alphæus is not another name for Cleopas, which also Luke vi. 15. compared with xxiv. 18. shews not to be probable, at the time of our Lord's crucifixion, when, John xix. 25. this Mary is called the wife of Cleopas, Alphæus was dead, and Mary also had been twice married; once to Alphæus, and again to Cleopas. Nor is it unlikely that the marriage at Cana in Galilee, John ii. 1. only three years before xix. 25. was this very marriage of Cleopas and Mary; especially if Mary was the sister or cousin of the Virgin, and Cleopas the brother or cousin of Joseph; for both our Lord and his mother were present at it-which proves it was the marriage of relations -and St. John, who alone mentions this marriage, mentions also alone the consequent relation of Mary to Cleopas.

If now Mary, the mother of James and Joses, was married to Alphæus about the same time when Mary the Virgin was espoused to Joseph, the Apostle James would be about the same age with our Saviour as we may presume all or most of his Apostles were, at the time when he entered on his ministry. Nor is there any reason to suppose the Apostle Jude would be much older or much younger than James. It will follow, however, that this Jude, the brother of James, the Disciple and Apostle of our Lord, as well as he, is a different person from Jude, who is mentioned along with Simon, as one of the other two ảdexpoì or brethren of Christ. He could not be one of that number, and not a son of Mary, the cousin of the Virgin, and yet a believer in, and an Apostle of, Christ. For the same rea

son, neither can the other, Simon, be the same with that