thBt he should speoify the looality as being willingness to acquiesce in the above-men- one which withdrew him away from all tioned identification. They nre etruok by who might have been supposed his pos- observing that, so fe.r as has been shown, sible instructors in the gospel. Moreover, the notion that "Ja.mes the Lord's brother" this view furnishes the most satisfactory was in reality only his cousin wo.s never explanation of any that has been offered, heard of in the Church till it we.a brou.ched of the omission of this particular in St. by Jerome very near the end of the fourth Luke's history. Such a retreat from the century (A.D. 392); e.nd further, tho.t in the world needs not to be supposed to have been New Testament the term "brothers," when long protracted. The wonderful vivacity used to describe family rela.tionship, is and quick versatility which characterized always used in its usual and obvious sense both the intellect and the feelings of the of persons who were regarded e.s being chil- apostle rendered him capable under the dren of the so.me father or of the so.me Divine grace of a spiritual transformation mother. When mention is made of Jamee vastly more rapid than with most men (the son of Zebedee) being the brother of would have been possible. A period of John, or of Andrew being the brother of (say) forty days, snch as that during which Simon Peter, the reader never stops to con- Moses, Elijah, and the Lord Jesus were sider whether they might not have been severally withdrawn from human associa- cousins, but at once assumes that they were tion, in order to be brought into closer com- brothers in the ordinary e.cceptation of the munication with the spiritual world, may term. In reference to the case now before perhaps have sufficed in this case also. us, some in ancient times, e.s for example And as the word " immediately" shows Helvidius-against whom Jerome wrote the that the departure into Arabia was the first controversial treatise in which the theory of course of proceeding adopted by the apostle cousinship is first found stated and argued after his illumination, it is a highly probable for-and some also quite recently, have sup- supposition that it took place directly after posed "the Lord's brothers" to have been his baptism, mentioned Acts ix. 19. Upon later children of his mother Mary, born of returning to Damascus, he would naturally her union with Joseph. But, ape.rt from at once attach himself, in the way that St. any repugnance that has been felt to this Luke in the verse jnst cited makes mention view which he.a its origin in sentiments of of, to the society of the " disci pies" among pious reverence, not to speak of mariole.trous the Jews, e.nd proceed without delay in the fanaticism, there is another hypothesis synagogues to "proclaim J esns, that he is which seems to fit much better in with all the Son of God" (Acts ix. 20). Such being the circumste.ncee, namely, that which re- the conditions of the case, it is quite Bllp- gards our "Lord's brothers" as children of posable that St. Luke, though perhaps his adoptive father Joseph, whom everybody aware of this journey inte Arabia, might regarded as his father-children born to not have felt that there was e.ny occe.sion Joseph in a former marriage. This view for referring to it ; not only beoouse it occu- has been proved to have been, with only pied so brief a space of time, but_als~ because doubtful exceptions, 1 the one generally ac- it formed no pa.rt of that pnbhc life of St. cepted in the early Church for more than Paul which we.a the historian's proper three centuries (see Bishop Lightfoot, concern. He was not likely to have never • Galatians,' Dissertation ii., "The Brethren known of it, seeing that it he.d been stated of the Lord"). Thie is scarcely the place in this Epistle. for discussing at length the details of the Ver. 19.-"James the Lor<I'a brother." critical controversy. I cannot, however, for- This ,erse has been the subject of much bear drawing attention to one aspect of the discussion. Many have considered the turn question, which, so far e.s I am awe.re, of expression used by the apostle to imply has not been sufficiently considered. For that the James here spoken of we.a himself the purpose of the present Commento.ry it one of the original apostolic body to which he.a the recommendation of involving no Ceph.e.s belonged. And from this it has subtleties of dispute.hie interpretation, but further been inferred that the passage of making its appeal e.t once to the common favours the notion that "James the Lord's instincts of human feeling. We ho.ve the brother" woe identical with "James the son of Alphreus "-the word "brother" 1 Bishop Lightfoot is inclined to concede
being interpreted to mean " near kinsma~," Tertullian to the supporters of the He! vidiun and taken in the present case to describe hypothesis. The present writer, however, one conceived to have been in reality a first ventures to demur to even this exception. cousin. Bnt there are so many serious diffi- Tertullio.n's words do not seem to him to culties and precarious assumptions attach- require the interpretation thus put upon ing to this theory, that students of the them (see Georgi's 'Tertullio.nus Redi• sacred history have of late shown an un- vivus,' vol. iii. pp. 427-42[)). Olf, J, 1-24.] THE Ji!PISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 39