στάσεως δήμων—the moving cause to which was commonly some national calamity, as a drought, a famine, or an earthquake; all which the populace were accustomed to lay to the charge of the so, that is, the Christians. Secondly, Symeon was denounced as one of the posterity of David, an accusation, which the rebellion of the Jews was most likely to have suggested, and to have rendered dangerous.

The go

The contest does not appear to have lasted more than one year; and we are told by Dio, loco citato, that Lusius, the commander of the Roman forces, was made governor of Palestine, in return for his services in the war. vernment of Palestine, then, was probably conferred upon him in the twentieth of Trajan, A. U. 870: whence, if Symeon was put to death in Palestine, and ἐπὶ 'Αττικοῦ, not ἐπὶ Aovolov, he could not have been put to death as not earlier than the eighteenth of Trajan on the one hand, so neither later than the twentieth, on the other; the inference from which is that he was probably put to death in the nineteenth itself. In this case he was put to death A. U. 869. A. D. 116; and, therefore, if he was a son of Joseph and Mary, born after the birth of Christ indeed, but two or three years before the vulgar era, he might be actually one hundred and nineteen years old at his death; which, in round numbers, would easily be called one hundred and twenty.

III. St. Luke's mention of the name of Simon 2, xal μωνα τὸν καλούμενον Ζηλωτήν, is not exactly to the same ef fect with that of St. Matthew, Ziμwv i Kavavíτns, or that of St. Marka, Ziuava тòv Kavavíτny—that is, there would be no reason to infer from either of the latter that he was called Simon the Cananite, as there is, to infer from the former that he was called Simon the Zealot. It is commonly believed, indeed, that Simon the Zealot is an equivalent designation to Simon the Cananite. But this does not appear to me to be the case. For in the first place, the Hebrew root, zelotypus fuit, can be no where shewn to have

given birth to any such verbal derivative, as NP or PP, from which only Κανανίτης, as equivalent to Ζηλωτής, could be transferred into Greek. Secondly, Kavavirns, or Cananite, would be as regularly formed from Kavav, or Canan, as Canaanite from Canaan, Horonite from Horon, Canite from Cana, Gaulonite from Gaulon, or the like-all which are nomina gentilitia, derived from the names of countries or places, to express the inhabitants or the natives thereof.

Thirdly, There is proof in Strabo that Canan was the name of a certain village, which might be a village of Judæa, and was certainly some village in the east. Speaking of the illustrious men whom Tarsus had produced, he mentions two philosophers of the name of Athenodorus; one of whom was a contemporary, and preceptor or tutor, of Augustus Caesar; whom he calls the son τοῦ Σάνδωνος, ὃν καὶ Κανανίτην φασὶν ἀπὸ κώμης τινός 5. This name of Sando, the father of Athenodorus, is evidently not a Greek one-like the name of his son-and Canan, the name of his native village, is still less like the name of a Grecian settlement: not to mention that such Grecian settlements, at least in the east, are commonly known and described as móλes, not as xãμas. The fact, however, that, either in the neighbourhood of Tarsus, or in some of the adjacent countries, there was at this time a village, from the name of which KavavíTs would be regularly derived, and which must, consequently, have been called Kaváv, is placed by this testimony beyond a question. I should conjecture that it was either in Phoenicia, or in Judæa, and that Sando, though born there, had afterwards migrated to Tarsus. Simon the Cananite is a designation absolutely identical with Sando the Cananite; and if the latter is taken from the name of this village, the former, it is reasonable to suppose, is taken either from the same, or from another, which bore the same

name.

Fourthly, The appellation of Cananite, as equivalent to Zealot, if it was bestowed upon Simon before his ordination

b xiv. 961. Dio. Ivi. 43.

as an Apostle, or relates to any circumstance in his history, prior to that event, would imply that he either was, or had been, a Zealot-which as a term of distinction denotes a follower of Judas of Galilee—the founder of the sect of the Zealots. Now the followers of Judas of Galilee, and, consequently, the sect which he had just founded, if we may believe the assurance of Gamaliel in the Acts, had been extinguished as soon as they appeared; and, at the time of that deliberation in the Acts, were notoriously dispersed and scattered. It follows, therefore, that no disciple of our Lord, at the time of his ordination to be an Apostle, whatever might have been his previous history, could still be known and described as the Zealot-that is, as a follower of Judas of Galilee. And if, notwithstanding what he had once been, he was actually no longer such, it would have been not merely an erroneous, but even an unjust and disparaging, manner of describing him, still to represent him as the Zealot. The name of Zealot was identified from the very first with faction and turbulence-and in the course of time with hypocrisy, violence, and wickedness, exceeding the measure of human.

Besides which, it is reasonable to suppose that all our Lord's Apostles, at the time of their ordination, were in the flower of their age, or neither much younger, nor much older, than himself, who was then in his thirty-second year. The insurrection of Judas of Galilee was produced by the census of Quirinius, A. U. 760. in the eleventh year of our Saviour's age; and if his followers consisted of men, Simon the Zealot, who could not have been less than thirty, when our Lord was ten years old, would not be less than fifty when our Lord was thirty; and at the age of fifty, the age when St. Paul or St. Peter were arriving at the close of their Apostolic career itself, he was surely too old to have been ordained one of our Lord's Apostles.

The name of Zealot, then, which is found only in St. Luke, applies to his subsequent history, and to something in his character as an Apostle, which the modesty of St.

Matthew, himself an Apostle, and in consequence of the silence of St. Matthew, which St. Mark also, did not think proper to mention; but which St. Luke might very fitly allude to. The name of Cananite, therefore, may still have been the name of his native place; in which case, his individual distinctness from any brother of our Lord follows as matter of course. Nor is it an unlikely circumstance that, though the son of Galilean parents, he was born by accident at Canan; Canan itself not being any village of Judæa. In this case, all the rest of our Lord's Apostles being Galileans, it might be necessary, for the sake of distinction, to specify the contrary of him.

Hippolytus, περὶ τῶν ιβ'. ἀποστόλων d, asserts that Simon the Cananite, whom also he calls the son of Cleopas, was the next Bishop of Jerusalem after James the Just; and that he died at the age of one hundred and twenty. By the Chronicon Paschalee, his death is placed in the consulate of Syrianus, or Suburanus, and Marcellus, which answers to A. U. 857. or the seventh of Trajan. The same Chronicon makes him a martyr; but Hippolytus, as before quoted, implies that he died a natural death: and there are other circumstances of difference between them, which prove that the Chronicon did not borrow the tradition from Hippolytus: for it calls this Simon the son of James, not of Cleopas; and speaks of the martyrdom of Simon the son of Cleopas, under the next year.

It is manifest, then, that either in these traditions Simon the Cananite, and Simon, the reputed son of Cleopas, with their respective personal history, are strangely confounded together, or it must have been the case, and tradition have some way or other perpetuated it, that they were each of them Bishops of Jerusalem-each after James-and each died at the age of one hundred and twenty-under the reign of Trajan. There is no impossibility in these suppositions, if we assume only that Simon the Cananite first succeeded to James the Just, and then Simon, the reputed

son of Cleopas, to him: and that the former died in the seventh, the latter suffered martyrdom in the eighteenth or nineteenth, of Trajan. Simon the Cananite might have been born A. U. 738. or 739; in which case he might be said to be one hundred and twenty years old, A. U. 857: and Simon, the reputed son of Cleopas, A. U. 751. or 752-in which case he might be called of the same age, A.U.868. or 869. Nor is it impossible that Simon the Cananite might be a son of Cleopas; and that this circumstance may have caused the other Simon to be considered so likewise. If Cleopas was the brother of Joseph, and Joseph was past the prime of life at the time of the birth of our Saviour, Cleopas might be so too; and therefore it would be nothing incredible that he should then have a son, nor that that son should be nine or ten years old. Moreover, Simon the Cananite might actually have died in the tenth of Trajan, A. U. 760 and Simon, the reputed son of Cleopas, not until his eighteenth or nineteenth; which would so far account for the confusion respecting that fact also. In this case, Simon the Cananite would have been born A. U. 740: and been ten years older than our Lord.

These points, then, being presumptively established, I shall conclude with observing that those, who are called, Matt. xiii. 56. Mark vi. 3. the sisters of our Lord, may have been either his sisters, or merely his cousins, as they were the children of Mary the Virgin, or of Mary the mother of James. But I incline to the latter suppositionbecause, at the time of this visit to Nazareth, these ád≤λøɑì are all said to have been there, that is, living there-but no such thing is implied of the adexpoì also-and in fact, they who are called by this name, Mark iii. 21. and iii. 31. only a day or two before this visit, are seen to have been in Capernaum-and if we compare John vii. 3. the scene of which is Capernaum, were actually settled there, and the mother of our Lord was living with them. I consider this, then, a strong proof of the distinctness of families; that those who are called the deλpoì of our Lord, with his mother, were living in Capernaum, at the very time when