Antioch." The choice appears all the more natural, when we remember that these conversions were chiefly by Jews of Cyprus, and that Barnabas was of the same country.

66

3. When Paul and Barnabas set out on their first mission, they departed from Seleucia, and from thence sailed unto Cyprus." The choice of Cyprus, for the first place to be visited, is explained by the circumstance, that it was the native place of Barnabas. And again, when they parted on their second journey, "Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus." So also Mark "departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work." As Mark was sister's son to Barnabas, his journey to Cyprus might be referred by Paul to a domestic motive, since he refused to accompany them any further. There were local inducements, apart from the work itself, which might have accounted for his proceeding with them to Cyprus, but no further.

XVIII. Acts xi. 26: "The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

From this verse it appears that the name, Christian, was in use when St. Luke wrote. From its absence in the rest of the book, it is tolerably plain that it was not the most usual term among Christians themselves. From Acts xxiv. 5, it is plain that the usual title given them by the Jews was Nazarenes. Several other phrases are used to describe them in the course of the narrative, "all that believed," the disciples, those of the way, the way of God. The generic name would naturally be required, when the church began to include many Gentile converts, and would be given them by the unbelieving Gentiles around them. It would naturally be formed from that name which was continually in the mouths of believers, the name of Christ. Hence its origin at Antioch, and its actual form, are both in accordance with all the other features of the history. It would follow of course that it would not at first be much used by Christians or native Jews, but only by foreign Jews or Gentiles. Accordingly, it only occurs twice in the New Testament; once in the exclamation of Agrippa, the favourite of Claudius, and much more a Roman than a Jew; and once by St. Peter, when speaking of the persecutions inflicted by Gentiles, and plainly borrowing their own usual term.

XIX. Acts xxiv. 23: "And he commanded the centurion to keep Paul, and let him have liberty."

The words of St. Luke imply that some one centurion was already pointed out, or delineated by the circumstances of the history, to whom Paul was committed. Now, in the previous chapter, the captain Lysias had ordered two centurions to accompany St. Paul, with two hundred soldiers, horsemen three score and ten, and spearmen two hundred. When, however, they reached Antipatris, they were parted, all the infantry

returning to Jerusalem. It is plain that two centurions were commissioned, that one of them might accompany each body of troops, after their intended separation. Hence the definite

phrase, the centurion, which is lost in the version, is really a key, to explain the choice at first of two centurions for the escort, and binds the whole together with the clearest evidence of historical truth.

XX. Acts xxvii. 5-38: Here three facts occur at some interval, amidst a multitude of other details of the voyage: "The centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing into Italy." The apostle announced, at first, that there would be much damage, not only of the cargo and ship, but also of their lives. length, near the close of the chapter, we read that, when they had eaten enough, "they lightened the ship, and cast out the wheat into the sea.'

At

It is a notorious fact, that Rome was supplied with corn chiefly from Egypt, and from the port of Alexandria; and that these corn vessels were not inferior in size to our ships of the line, which was rare in the navies of the ancients. Yet how indirectly these features meet in the narrative! When the ship is first named, nothing is said of its cargo, but only the port from which it came and to which it was bound. Its size is not stated, but implied by the double fact, that it could receive the centurion and all the prisoners, besides its own crew, and that the total number was 276 souls. At length, by occasion of their meal, after long fasting, and the need of lightening the vessel, it is stated that they threw the wheat overboard. No mark of preciseness, and of the pen of an eye-witness, could be more distinct and decisive. It puts the seal of truth upon the whole narrative, which is indeed marked throughout by other indications of the same kind, hardly less striking and impressive.

The above examples are selected, with some modification, from Professor Blunt's valuable work. A few others may be

added of the same kind.

XXI. Matt. xxvi. 73: "They that stood by said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee.'

Luke xxii. 59: "Another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him; for he is a Galilean."

Acts i. 19: "And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem, insomuch that that field is called in their own dialect, Aceldama, that is, The field of blood."

Acts ii. 7-9: "Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own dialect wherein we were born-the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa?”

From all these passages, it appears equally that the dialect of Galilee differed, in a very marked and conspicuous manner,

from that of Judea, and especially of Jerusalem. The servants of the high priest could detect Peter by his dialect; and Peter speaks himself of the dialect of Jerusalem, as distinct from his own, and that of his fellow-disciples from Galilee. The same is the testimony of the dwellers in Judæa on the day of Pentecost. Yet how incidental is the statement in each case! And how little likely was such a difference to be thought of, unless by a Jew or Jewish proselyte living at the time, and familiar with the distinctions of language which then prevailed!

XXII. Matt. x. 3: "James the son of Alpheus, and Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus."

xiii. 55: "Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

xxvii. 56: "Among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."

Ver. 61: “And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre."

Mark iii. 18: "And James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus." xv. 40: "Among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome."

Ver 47: "And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid."

xvi. 1: "Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.'

Luke vi. 15, 16: " James, the son of Alpheus . . . and Judas the brother of James."

xxiv. 10: "It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, which told these things to the apostles." John xiv. 22: "Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot."

xix. 25: "There stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.'

Acts i. 13, 14: "James the son of Alpheus, and Judas the brother of James. These continued. . . . with Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."

xii. 17: "Go, show these things unto James, and the brethren." Gal. i. 19: "I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

ii. 9: "James, Cephas, and John, which seemed to be pillars." 1 Cor. ix. 5: "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Jude 1: 66

James."

Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of

These passages are gathered, as it is plain, from almost every

part of the New Testament; and yet, amidst some apparent obscurity, a deep harmony is found, on examination, to exist in all these various statements.

1. Two apostles are given, in every list, with the name of James. One was the son of Zebedee, the other of Alpheus. The former had clearly the precedence, being one of the three who were present at the transfiguration and the agony. Hence, wherever the name occurs in the Gospels simply, this apostle is intended. Yet, as soon as he is put to death, the name is used, without any further mark of distinction, to denote the other apostle; four times in the Acts, and as often in the Epistles. This is just what might be expected from writers who were living amidst the occurrences, but not from others.

2. St. Matthew, writing in Judæa, describes the other Mary, simply as the mother of James and Joses; but St. Mark, writing for Christians at Rome, adds the distinctive term, the mother of James the less and Joses. This also is just what is natural, that one at a distance should be more specific in his description, where perplexity might otherwise arise.

66

3. From the three lists of the apostles, it is plain only that James was the son of Alpheus. The speech of the Nazarenes proves that a certain James and Joses were counted brethren of our Lord, but neither fixes their exact relationship, nor determines whether this James were the apostle. From Matt. xxvii. 5, 6, we learn that the mother of James and Joses was not the same with the mother of Jesus, but still a disciple. From John xix. 25, compared with the parallel passages, it appears that this other Mary" was then the wife of Cleophas, and was also a sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. Hence her sons, James and Joses, would be own cousins of our Lord, or, in the language of Scripture, his brethren. It is not still quite plain, whether this James is the same with the apostle, or a distinct person. The words of St. Mark, who calls him James the less, as if to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, strongly imply that he is. This is rendered almost certain, when we observe that James is always mentioned simply, with no distinctive term, after the son of Zebedee was slain. At length St. Paul, quite incidentally, completes the evidence, and tells us that James, the Lord's brother, was one of the apostles, the only one whom he saw besides Peter, at his first visit to Jerusalem. What coincidence could be less obvious, and still what harmony could be more complete?

5. The other apostle, in these passages, is named variously. In St. Matthew, he is called Lebbeus, surnamed Thaddeus. In St. Mark, Thaddeus. In St. Luke, Judas, brother of James; and so in the book of Acts. In St. John, Judas, not Iscariot. The name Judas seems gradually to have superseded the others in frequency of use, as it alone occurs in the two later Gospels.

This agrees with its use in the Epistle, supposing the apostle to be its author.

5. The Nazarenes, in St. Matthew and St. Mark, mention a Jude among our Lord's brethren, but there is nothing to indicate that he is an apostle. St. Luke and St. John mention Jude as an apostle, but give us no proof that he was a relative of our Lord. He is called by St. Luke, Judas of James, but it is not clear from the words whether a son or brother. If a brother, then it is clearly of James the less, and if that James be meant, it is clearly as his elder brother. But the same Gospel uses the very same phrase, Mary of James, to denote not the wife, but the mother of James the less, the apostle. Hence the presumption must arise, that this Jude the apostle is a brother of James the apostle, and not the son of some James mentioned nowhere beside. And since James and Joses, Simon and Jude, are mentioned together by the Nazarenes as brethren of our Lord, it will follow, in this case, that the Jude there named is the same with the apostle. This presumption is strengthened by the fact, that another Judas is mentioned, not an apostle, and singled out for an important mission; but is clearly not a brother of our Lord, or of James, having a distinct surname. The words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. ix. 5, when strictly taken, remove the doubt, since they imply that there were more than one of our Lord's brethren among the apostles. Finally, the inscription of St. Jude's epistle seals the whole, and expounds the briefer phrase in St. Luke, since the apostle plainly calls himself the brother of James. No coincidence, here also, can be more circuitous, depend on more minute accuracy of exposition, or be really more complete.

SUPPLEMENT I.

THE VOYAGE OF ST. PAUL.

AMONG the chameleon-like forms of infidelity, the most recent, and perhaps the most dangerous at the moment, is the mythical hypothesis, of which Strauss's Life of Christ is the fullest exposition. It denies the historical character of the New Testament, and maintains that the Gospels were formed gradually, towards the close of the first, or beginning of the second century, out of vague recollections of Jesus, and floating impressions of the great Messianic idea, which clothed themselves in a semblance of real history. The view is so utterly opposed to the impression, which must strike every simple and honest reader in perusing the Gospels, of their intense historical reality, and perfect simplicity of direct narrative, that it is hard to conceive how any show of learned research can disguise its gross absurdity. Yet