what to the other. For which, I think, he deserves to be censured. Nor could I pass it by without notice, as an use may be made of it. For it may induce us to suspect, that to such carelessness and inaccuracy of quotation we owe those passages of Josephus, in which he is said to have assigned the death of James, as the sole cause of the ruin of the Jewish people.

And now I proceed to make some remarks upon the chapter of Eusebius, and the passage therein quoted by him.

1. In the first place, it appears from Eusebius's introduction, at the beginning of the chapter, that he supposed the martyrdom of St. James to have happened at a time when there was no Roman governor in Judea, after the death of Festus, and before the arrival of Albinus in the province. What reason he had for this we do not certainly know. We do not observe any notice of that circumstance in what he has transcribed from Hegesippus. It is indeed expressly said in the passage of Josephus. But if that passage be the only foundation for the opinion, its authority may be questioned. For divers learned men have suspected the genuineness of that

part of the passage, which speaks of the death of James. As will be shown more particularly by

and by.

b

2. Upon the first quotation, which is from Hegesippus, it is easy for any one to observe, that' there are in it many things very unlikely: as that James should live in the manner here represented, and particularly, that he should eat no animal food: that he had a right to enter into the holy place when he pleased, whether thereby be understood the holy of holies, or only the temple: that the Scribes and Pharisees should place him on a pinnacle, or battlement of the temple, to deliver his opinion to the people concerning Jesus: that they should throw him down thence, and kill him in the temple, or any of the courts of it: that they should bury him near the place in which he is here said to have been killed: when the Jews, and all other people in those times, usually buried their dead without the walls of their cities: and, finally, that he should have a monument, or pillar over him, near the place where he was buried, which remained to the time of Hegesippus, after the war was over, and the city of Jerusalem, and the temple had been overthrown. Concerning which last particular, Jerom in the catalogue above-mentioned, says, He was buried near the temple, where he had been thrown down. He had a conspicuous • monument, till the siege of Titus, and that since by Adrian. Some of our people have thought that he was buried on mount Olivet. But that is a mistaken opinion.' So that even in Judea there were different opinions concerning the place where James was buried. Nevertheless, I presume, all were persuaded, that he had suffered martyrdom from the Jews at Jerusalem. There was no different sentiment about that.

6

However, this difference of opinion concerning the place where St. James was buried, deserves our notice; for it may lead us to suspect some mistake in the account of Hegesippus. Possibly, St. James was buried in mount Olivet, though there was a pillar erected near the place where he was killed. I think this may be of use to remove some difficulties in the account of Hegesippus. The pillar, which he saw, might be erected after the siege of Jerusalem, by some, who remembered the place where St. James had been killed. And some from that monument might conclude he had been buried there though really he was not.

I have made some remarks upon the passage of Hegesippus. A fuller critique may be seen in other writers: partly aggravating the improbabilities of this account, partly softening them, and striving to remove difficulties. Accordingly Petavius says, that though there are in it a Et Jacobus Justus, ecclesiæ Hierosolymitanæ antistes, contra Legem hoc fuit, quâ multæ ablutiones Judæis impositæ. quem misere trucidârunt: quod ipse Josephus paucis, copio- Nec certe sordes quæsita quidquam ad sanctitatem faciunt. sius Hegesippus apud Eusebium memoriæ prodidit; quam- Cleric. Hist. Ec. Ann. lxii. not. 2. p. 415. quam in narratione hujus multa sunt, quibus nemo, nisi rerum veterum, et Christianarum et Judaïcarum, prorsus ignarus, fidem habeat. Moshem. De Reb. Christian. ante Constantin. Sect. i. sect. xxiii. p. 93.

bHic ab utero matris sanctus fuit:' Nazireatûs nempe voto Deo consecratus, ut sequentia ostendunt. Nec fieri hoc potuisse negârim. 'Nec vinum unquam bibit, nec siceram.' Ita debuit, si Naziræus fuit. Ab animantium carnibus abstinuit.' Hoc vero Pythagoricum et superstitiosum fuit institutum, de quo nihil in Mosaïcâ Lege, et cujus reum fuisse Jacobum, etiam postquam Christianus factus est, vix credibile fit. Comam nunquam totondit.' Recte, atque ordine. Sic enim Lex jubet. Num. vi. 3-5. Neque ungi, neque lavare balneo corpus unquam solitus.' Non tantum præter, sed et

e

et juxta templum, ubi et præcipitatus fuerat, sepultus est. Titulum usque ad obsidionem Titi, et ultimam Hadriani notissimum habuit. Quidam e nostris in monte Oliveti eum putaverunt conditum; sed falsa eorum opinio est. De V. I. cap. 2.

d Vid. Joseph. Scaliger. Animadvers. in Euseb. Chron. p. 193, 194. J. Cleric. Hist. Ec. A. D. lxii. Petav. Animadvers. ad Epiphan. Hær. lxxviii. Vales. Annot. in Euseb. H. E. 1. 2. cap. 23. et Tillemont S. Jacque le Mineur. Mem. Ec. tom. I. Basnag. Ann. 33. num. 184. &c.

e Nec diffiteor nonnulla vel ab Hegesippo prodita, vel ab aliis inserta, quæ parum probabilia videantur. Sed totam ipsam historiam nego propterea dainnandam esse. Petav. Animadv. ad Epiph. H. 78. n. iii. p. 332.

* several things very unlikely, yet the whole history ought not therefore to be rejected.' To whom I am not unwilling to accede. But as I have not room to enlarge upon particulars, for showing the reasonableness of that judgment, I must be content with recommending a careful and impartial attention to the observations of the writers to whom I have referred. However, I may by and by have an opportunity to mention a few thoughts, beside what I have already said, for removing difficulties, and answering objections.

3. Eusebius says, that many thoughtful men among the Jews were of opinion, that the 'death of Jaines was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, and that it was owing to nothing else but the wickedness committed against him, and that Josephus says the same.'

Origen speaks to the like purpose, as we have seen: but not quite so strongly. The same is said by Jerom more than once. I mean in his book of Illustrious Men, and also elsewhere. But neither he, nor Eusebius expressly say, in what place of Josephus. Which may make us think that they borrowed this from Origen. Nor does Origen inform us in what work of Josephus those things were said, though he has mentioned them several times. Which may dispose us to think that they were no where expressly in Josephus.

с

4. Eusebius proceeds, and says, that in the twentieth book of his Antiquities Josephus had related the death of James in a passage which he there transcribes. Which passage is still in the works of Josephus. And what is there said, may be very true, for the most part:' that • Ananus the younger, being high-priest, and a man of an haughty and enterprizing temper, when there was no Roman governor in Judea, convened a council, and had some stoned to death, as transgressors of the laws; and that many of the most discreet and moderate men among the Jews were offended at this proceeding: forasmuch as whilst Judea was in the state of a province, the high-priest had no right to call the council together, without leave, and they feared that this action would be resented by the emperor.' All this, I say, is very likely. Nevertheless those words," James the brother of him who is called Christ," have been suspected to be an interpolation. And probably are so. Supposing those words to be an interpolation, we can gather no more from that passage, than that Ananus did illegally condemn several persons to death, as transgressors of the Jewish laws. But who they were, or whether any of them were Christians, or not, cannot be determined with certainty.

5. Eusebius supposeth, that this passage of Josephus confirms the account given by Hegesippus: whereas it appears, on the other hand, very difficult to reconcile them. I do not perceive Hegesippus to say any thing of Ananus, the high-priest. Nor has he expressly mentioned the Sadducees, of which sect Ananus was. Nor does Hegesippus say a word of the council of the Jews. And as the punishment of stoning, when ordered by magistrates, was generally inflicted on men out of the city, it is probable, that they who were put to death by the procurement of Ananus, suffered without Jerusalem. But according to Hegesippus, James died at the temple or near it, and was buried not far off from the place where he expired.

6. Since what is said of James in the passage of Josephus, is justly suspected to be an interpolation, it ought not to be regarded. Learned men of late times find it very difficult to determine how James died. But that difficulty, as seems to me, is much increased by paying too

a Tradit enim Josephus, tantæ eum sanctitatis fuisse et celebritatis in populo, ut propter ejus necem creditum sit, subversam Hierosolymam. De V. I. cap. 2. Vid. et cap. 13. b Transeamus ad Jacobum, qui frater Domini dicebatur, tantæ sanctitatis, tantæque justitiæ, et perpetuæ virginitatis, ut -Josephus quoque historicus Judæorum propter hujus necem Jerosolymam subversam referat. Hic primus episcopus ex Judæis Jerosolymæ credentis ecclesiæ. Adv. Jovin. 1. 1. T. IV. P. 2. p. 182. in.

Facile quidem crediderim Jerosolymitanos proceres graviter tulisse, quod synedrium suâ auctoritate instituisset, cum dudum jus gladii a Romanis Judæis esset ereptum : quod . iterum inconsulto Cæsare ab Anano usurpatum timebant, ne "genti suæ gravi fortasse pœnâ luendum esset. Sed quæ de Jacobo, Jesu, qui Christus dicebatur, fratre, habentur, merum adsumentum male feriati Christiani esse videntur : quâ de re alibi diximus. Cleric. ubi supr. sect. ii. p. 415. Conf. ejusd. Ars Crit. part III. sect. i. cap. 14. num. xi.

See Vol. i. p. 45. See here likewise, note

VOL. III.

с

3

See Dr. Benson's History of St. James, sect. ii. p. 12. the second edition.

f Quid magis contrarium esse potest, quam hæc Josephi, et illa Hegesippi narratio? Nam Josephus quidem damnątum esse scribit in publico Judæorum concilio; Hegesippus vero, per seditionem ac tumultum populi occisum. Et Hegesippus quidem fuste fullonis necatum in media urbe, Josephus autem lapidatum occubuisse narrat. Fiebat autem lapidatio extra portas civitatis, ut notum est. Vales. Annot, ad Euseb. 1. 2. cap. 23. p. 41.

Secundo, qui fidem habent narrationi Hegesippi, eos oportet, aut Josephum falsi arguere, aut suspectum habere hunc locum, quo res publice Jerosolymæ gesta, adeoque notissima, aliter narratur ; ut mirari subeat, ab Eusebio Josephi et Hegesippi verba allata, eodem capite, nec eum tentâsse ea in concordiam redigere, aut alterutrius narrationis fidem in dubium non revocâsse. Cleric. Ars Crit. P. III. sect. i. n. xii.

Potest tamen fieri, ut Jacobus hoc tempore mortuus sit. Sed genus mortis ignotum. Cleric. H. E. Ann. Ixii, num, iii. in. 3 с

much regard to a passage, the genuineness of which is far from being certain. Josephus indeed is an older author than Hegesippus, and he is an historian of good credit. But we should be first assured that the account is his. If a passage, or part of a passage, has been inserted in his works, and there is good reason to think it not his, it should be disregarded, and stand for nothing.

If we once set aside that passage, we may soon come to a determination concerning the manner of James's death. That James had suffered martyrdom at Jerusalem, was the general persuasion of Christians in the time of Eusebius, and before, as we plainly perceive. Two ancient Christian writers of the second century assure us, that his death was completed by the blow of a fuller's pole, with which they are wont to beat wet clothes. And Hegesippus, in particular, and at large, relates that his death was effected in a tumultuous manner. The tumult began at the temple; where the Scribes, and Pharisees, and other Jews, entered into discourse with James. He standing upon some eminence, which Hegesippus calls TEPUYOV, and we now generally render a battlement, or pinnacle, openly declared and argued, that Jesus was the Christ, or the expected Messiah, and that his doctrine contained full instruction how men may be saved and obtain eternal life. At which some leading men among the Jews were much offended. They then laid hold of him, and perhaps dragged him out of the temple. Some of the people threw stones at him. And though he earnestly prayed to God in the behalf of those who abused him, they persisted in their abuses, till one struck him with a long pole, which put an end to his life.

St. John has recorded two instances of the Jews taking up stones to throw at our Lord, when he was teaching in the temple, ch. viii. 59, and ch. x. 31. The first is in these words: "Then took they up stones to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. They took up stones to cast at him." And if our Lord had not saved himself by a miraculous exertion of power, they would have then killed him. Divine providence not interposing in a like manner, when a like attempt was made upon James, he fell a sacrifice to the rage of the unbelieving part of the Jewish people at Jerusalem.

Nor ought it to be thought exceeding strange, or absolutely unaccountable, that some Scribes and Pharisees, or other Jews, should gather about James at the temple, and ask his opinion concerning Jesus, though they knew it very well already: or that they should come to him with pretences of great respect, and assurances of paying a regard to his judgment. For many like things are recorded in the gospels: which every one is able to recollect. I shall therefore take particular notice only of that second instance, mentioned by St. John, of their taking up stones to throw at our Lord, John x. 22-31. " And it was at Jerusalem, the feast of the dedication" -And "Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him: How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them: I told you, and ye believed not. The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.—Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him." They came to Jesus, and desired an answer to a question that, had been answered before. But they pretend now to desire it should be answered in the plainest and fullest manner. Nevertheless they could not hear the answer with patience.

a

I said just now, that two ancient writers of the second century, Clement and Hegesippus, assure us, that the death of James had been completed by a fuller's pole, after he had been thrown off from the temple. I suppose this must have been the opinion also of Eusebius, who has taken notice of these things, and of other ancient Christians. It is the account which Jerom gives of the death of James, in his article, in the book of Illustrious Men, and likewise " elsewhere. The same is said by Epiphanius.

C

Let this suffice for the circumstances and the manner of the death of James.

VI. The time of the death of James may be determined without much difficulty. He was alive when Paul came to Jerusalem at the Pentecost in the year of Christ 58. And it is likely that he was dead when St. Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, at the beginning of the year 63. Theodoret upon Hebr. xiii. 7, supposeth the apostle there to refer to the martyrdoms of

Qui cum præcipitatus de pinnâ templi, confractis cruribus, adhuc semivivus- -fullonis fuste, quo uda vestimenta extorqueri solent, in cerebro percussus interiit. De V. I. cap. 2.

Hic autem Jacobus Episcopus Jerosolymorum primus fuit, cognomento Justus; qui et ipse postea de templo a

Judæis præcipitatus, successorem habuit Simonem, &c.
Comm. in ep. ad Gal. cap. i. T. IV. p. 237.

© Hær. 78. num. xiv. p. 1046.

d Theod. tom. III. p. 459.

Stephen, James, the brother of John, and James the Just. According to Hegesippus the death of James happened about the time of passover, which might be that of the year 62. And if Festus was then dead, and Albinus not arrived, the province was without a governor. Such a season left the Jews at liberty to gratify their licentious and turbulent disposition. And they were very likely to embrace it. We may therefore very reasonably place this event at that juncture.

b

And it is now the general opinion of learned men, that James died about that time. Pearson, who seems to admit the genuineness of the whole passage of Josephus, placeth the death of James in the year 62. Him Mill follows. Le Clerc, who disputes, the genuineness of those words that relate to James, allows that he might die about that time. This also is agreeable to Tillemont's computation. And I refer to Valesius.

d

с

с

VII. It still remains that we consider on what account he was called the Lord's brother, and whether he be the same as James the son of Alpheus.

James, as we have seen, is called by St. Paul "the Lord's brother." Gal. i. 19. All Christian writers in general speak of him in the like manner. The question is, in what sense he

was so.

That James was not the son of Mary, or our Lord's brother by nature, has been well argued by Christians in former times, both Latins and Greeks, from our Lord's words upon the cross, recorded John xix. 26, 27, where he recommends the care of his mother to John: requiring her to consider him as her son, and him to take care of her, as his mother.

And indeed it has been the opinion of all Christians in general, that Mary was always a virgin, and that she never had any children by Joseph. We must therefore inquire in what respect this James was our Lord's brother, and some others his brothers, or sisters.

h

Eusebius, in a chapter quoted some while ago, the first of the second book of his ecclesiastical history, without hesitation says, that James was said to be the Lord's brother, because he also ⚫ was called the son of Joseph. And Joseph was reckoned his father, because the virgin Mary was espoused to him.'

Origen in a passage also cited Joseph by a former wife, who had supported by an ancient tradition. writers, both Greeks and Latins.

k

above, says, that the brethren of Jesus were the sons of cohabited with him before Mary. And he mentions it as This was the opinion' of Epiphanius, and of many" ancient

Jerom, in his article of this person, in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, says: James * who is called the Lord's brother, surnamed the Just, was as some think, the son of Joseph by another wife, but, as seems to me, the son of Mary, sister to our Lord's mother, mentioned by 'John in his gospel, John xix. 25.' And in his book against Helvidius he delivers it as his opinion, that those called our Lord's brethren in the gospels, were so named, as they were cousins, or relations. He speaks to the like purpose also in his commentary upon Matth.

xii. 49, 50.

* Ann. Paulin. p. 19. A. Chr. lxii. Prolegom. num. 56.

d S. Jacque le Mineur. art. vii. in.

H. E. An. 62. num. iiì.

• Vales. Annot. ad Euseb. 1. 2. cap. 23. p. 41.

Verum homines pravissimi hinc præsumunt opinioni suæ auctoritatem, quod plures Dominum nostrum fratres habuisse sit traditum. Qui si Mariæ filii fuissent, et non potius Josephi ex priore conjugio suscepti, nunquam in tempore passionis Joanni Apostolo transcripta esset in matrem, Domino ad utrumque dicente, Mulier, ecce filius tuus, et Joanni, Ecce mater tua; nisi quod desolatæ solatium caritatem filii in discipulo relinquebat. Hilar. Pict. Comm. in Matt. cap. i. p. 612. Ed. Bened.

8 Ει ήσαν δε τεκνα τη Μαρία, και ει ὑπῆρχεν αυτή ανήρ, τινι λόγω παρεδίδε την Μαρίαν τῳ Ιωαννη, και τον Ιωαννην τη Mapia; Epiph. Hær. 78. num. x. p. 1042. C.

Ει γαρ εγνω αυτήν, και εν ταξει γυναικος ειχε, πως ὡς απροστάτευτον αυτήν, και εδενα έχεσαν, τῳ μαθητῇ παρατιθεTXI, XAI KEλEVEI AUTŲ εis Ta idia autηy xabe; Chrysost. in Matt. hom. 5. T. VII. p. 77.

* Τοτε δη και Ιακωβον, τον τ8 κυριο λεγόμενον αδελφον, ὅτι δγκ αι οὗτος Ιωσήφ ω ομάς ο παις· το δε Χρισε πατηρ ὁ Ιωσήφ, ψ μνηδευθείσα ἡ παρθένος, κ. λ. L. 2. c. 1. p. 33. Β.

'Epiph. Hær. 29. n. iii. et iv. Hær. 51. num. x. Hær. 78. num. viii. et ix. Ancorat. num. lx. p. 62.

m

Greg. Nyssen. de Christi Resur. Or. 2. tom. III. p. 412, 413. Chrysost. in Matt. hom. 5. tom. VII. p. 77. C. Theophyl. in Gal. i. 19. p. 448. Niceph. Call. 1. 2. cap. 3. in. Hilar. Pictav. Comm. in Matt. cap. i. p. 612. ed Bened. Ambros. de Instit. Virg. cap. vi. T. II. p. 260. Bened. Ambrosiastri Comment. in Gal. i. 19. ap. Ambros. in App. T. II. p. 213.

n

» Jacobus, qui appellatur frater Domini, cognomento Justus, ut nonnulli existimant, Joseph ex aliâ uxore, ut mihi videtur, Mariæ sororis matris Domini, cujus Joannes in libro suo meminit, filius. De V. I. cap. 2.

Restat igitur, ut, juxta superiorem expositionem, fratres eos intelligas appellatos, cognatione, non affectu, non gentis privilegio, non naturâ; quomodo Lot Abraha, quomodo Jacob Laban est appellatus frater, &c. Adv. Helvid. T. IV. P. 2. p. 140.

P Quidam fratres Domini de aliâ uxore Joseph filios suspicantur, sequentes deliramenta apocryphorum, et quamdani

This opinion was at length embraced by Augustine. In his exposition of the epistle to the Galatians, written about the year 394, he speaks dubiously, saying, that James was the Lord's brother, as he was the son of Joseph by a former wife, or else as he was related to his mother Mary.' But in works written afterwards, he continually says, that our Lord's brethren were relations of his mother Mary.

The former, as appears from the authors just cited, was the more ancient opinion. Nor does Jerom allege any before him who held the opinion mentioned as his own. Indeed he seems to have been the first who said that our Lord's brethren were the sons of Mary, his mother's sister, and therefore only cousins or relations. But when he advanced this notion, he was inclined to Joseph also a virgin. As has been well observed by G. J. Vossius.

However Jerom's opinion has prevailed very much of late. I suppose it may be that of the Romanists in general. It was also the opinion of Lightfoot. It is likewise embraced by * Witsius, and Lampe, and many other protestants. But Valesius, among the Romanists, in his annotations upon the above cited chapter of Eusebius, says, he thinks that James was the son of Joseph by a former wife. The same opinion has been asserted by several among the protestants, G. J. Vossius, and Basnage, and Cave, in his Lives of the Apostles written in English. Nor does it appear that he had abandoned his first judgment, when he wrote his

I likewise have for a long time been much inclined to the same opinion; and have com