Division £|S2 
 
 ,'^ 
 
 Section 
 
MARY OF NAZARETH 
 
 AND HER FAMILY 
 
 By S. M. MERRILL, D. D. 
 
 BISHOP OF the; METHODIST i^PISCOPAI, CHURCH 
 
 !* OCT 12 1909 * 
 
 ^/C4L SEW# 
 
 CV' 
 
 CINCINNATI : CRANSTON & CURTS 
 
 NEW YORK: HUNT & EATON 
 
 1895 
 
COPYRIGHT 
 BY CRANSTON (^ CURTS, 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THE genesis of this little book is 
 this : While looking over some 
 manuscripts of a book recently pub- 
 lished, written by another, my attention 
 was arrested by the statement of Ne- 
 ander, with regard to the question, *' Wlio 
 was James, the Lord's brother?" This 
 venerable historian of the Church said: 
 "This is the most difficult question in 
 the apostolic history, and can not be con- 
 sidered as decided." The impression 
 came to me that a little study might 
 shed light upon this open question. 
 
 The doctrines involved are important, 
 chiefly because of the use that has been 
 made of unproved assumptions. In 
 
 3 
 
4 PREFACE. 
 
 looking into it, the conclusion was soon 
 reached that it is a question not to be 
 settled by ecclesiastical history, but by 
 the Scriptures alone. In this light it 
 has been pursued, and as ''a Scripture 
 study" this little volume is sent forth, 
 not so much as an exhaustive treatise, as 
 an inquiry and a pointer in the right di- 
 rection. It is believed that nothing 
 essential to a right conclusion has been 
 overlooked. 
 
 The temptation was strong to go into 
 the history of the question to ascertain 
 the opinions of '* the fathers," and the 
 beginnings of the controversy, as well as 
 the growth and development of Mari- 
 olatry in the Roman Catholic Church, 
 with its pernicious influence ; but my 
 preference for small books, and belief 
 that the final authority must eventually 
 prevail, determined me to adhere to the 
 purpose to make it a '' Scripture study.'' 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The incidental matter of harmony be- 
 tween the evangelists is not the least im- 
 portant part of this investigation. The 
 interpretation of Scripture by Scripture 
 must not become a lost art. It is an ex- 
 ercise which always returns full compen- 
 sation for the time and effort expended. 
 Whatever was critical in this study, 
 requiring a look into the original, or a 
 little tracing in etymology, has been 
 given in result, without the processes of 
 reasoning or the authorities relied upon. 
 In the matter of names and words, the 
 authorities are divided, so that the scope 
 and connection of disputed terms is, 
 after all, the only safe and final resort. 
 If the conclusions here presented are 
 sound, the reader will find, not only one, 
 but several very difficult questions in 
 apostolic history illuminated, if not set- 
 tled. The relations of the Marys and 
 the Jameses of the New Testament, and 
 
6 PREFACE. 
 
 the questions with regard to the ''breth- 
 ren" of our Lord, must be -questions of 
 interest to all lovers of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 S. M. M. 
 Chicago, February, 1895. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Subject Stated, ii 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 The Birth of Jesus, 26 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 His Infancy— The Star and the Magi, . . 48 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Mary, and " The Other Mary," 71 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 His Brethren — Conjectures, 113 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 His Brethren Not Disciples, 144 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 His Brethren Converted, 164 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 " The Lord's Brother," 177 
 
PROPOSITION. 
 
 mary of Xla^avzili, tl^e oirgin motljer of our 
 Sarior 3^-ws dl^rtst, n?as tfje espouscb tutfc 
 of 3oscpI? tlje (Carpenter, tptjo, unber biuine t)trec= 
 tion, took l]er unbcr I^is protecting care till after st|e 
 Ijab brougtjt fortt^ Ijer ftrst=born son. SI]e lljen, as 
 l^is Iatt)ful tptfe, Itoeb ipitl^ I^im in tlje Ijoly estate 
 of matrimony, anb bore unto l|im boti? sons anb 
 baugl^ters, w^id} sons anb baugl^ters were knomn to 
 Ijer netgl^bors anb frienbs, anb ©ere acknoirlebgeb 
 bg I^erself anb t^usbanb as tl^eir on?n, lioing in tl^eir 
 t|ouse, anb subject to tl^cir voili. Ct^e names of tl^e 
 sons mere '^ames, 3oses, Simon, anb Z^^^^r ^^^ 
 ttje names of ttje baugb^ters are unknomn. Ct|ese 
 sons mere knomn as tl]e Sretl^ren of 3^sus, being 
 the sons of I]is motl^er ; but ttjey bib not become tjis 
 bisciples till after t^is crucifirion, beai1:i, anb resur= 
 rcction. dl^ey bib, I^omccer, become ibentifieb mitl^ 
 tjis follomers before tl^e bai^ of pentecost, anb one 
 of ttjem subsequently became an apostle, Unomn as 
 " 3ames tl^e £orb's brotl^er." 
 
 9 
 
MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 fflFrapftr I. 
 
 THE SUBJECT STATED. 
 
 tHE first appearance of the name of 
 Mary of Nazareth in Gospel his- 
 tory is in connection with her espousal 
 to Joseph. It was undoubtedly by gra- 
 cious design that the knowledge of her 
 childhood and maiden life was with- 
 holden from the Church. In the early 
 centuries there was manifested a disposi- 
 tion to magnify whatever was known of 
 her into the supernatural, making it the 
 occasion of undue veneration amounting 
 to superstitious worship, such as is for- 
 bidden to any created being. 
 
 Whoever reads the brief story of her 
 
 II 
 
12 MAJ?y OF NAZARETH, 
 
 call to the special mission assigned her, 
 as the mother of our Savior, Jesus Christ, 
 becomes deeply interested, and would 
 love to know more of her than is possi- 
 ble. Curiosity in this respect can not be 
 gratified. Only an occasional glimpse of 
 her real life is all that is vouchsafed to 
 us ; but the little known of her is enough 
 to call forth from all lovers of true 
 womanhood the fullest sympathy with 
 her cousin Elizabeth, when she said: 
 "Blessed art thou among women!" 
 While she is honored as the mother of 
 our Lord, and held in highest esteem for 
 her womanly virtues, there is no reason 
 in her personal merits, or in her relation 
 to humanity, for bestowing upon her 
 divine honors, or for exalting her above 
 her station as a person chosen of God for 
 special service. Although honored as 
 the instrument of special grace, she is 
 honored only in her sphere as a woman 
 
THE SUBJECT STATED, 13 
 
 meeting the providential requirement 
 laid upon her. 
 
 In this relation to her mission, her vir- 
 ginity was an indispensable factor, ful- 
 filling prophecy, and proving the divinity 
 of her son; yet this holy estate, with the 
 blessing of God upon it, was not in any 
 sense a disparagement to marriage, which 
 is an ordinance of God designed for the 
 upbuilding of the race in all that makes 
 existence a blessing. There is no law, 
 human or divine, that condemns mar- 
 riage, or makes motherhood a dishonor. 
 It is never forbidden, except at the be- 
 hest of priestcraft and superstition. God 
 instituted the marriage relation at the 
 beginning of human history, and or- 
 dained it for the race throughout all gen- 
 erations. "Marriage is honorable in all, 
 and the bed undefiled." Hence, if it 
 shall appear that Mary, after fulfilling 
 her mission as the virmn mother of the 
 
14 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 incarnate Savior, fulfilled also the office 
 of wife and mother, according to the 
 order of God in developing his creative 
 energy for the propagation of the race, 
 not one ray of brilliancy shall be dimmed 
 in the crown of her rejoicing. She is 
 honored in every relation she sustained, 
 in which she was obedient to the law of 
 her being and the law of God. 
 
 The proposition laid down at the be- 
 ginning of this treatise indicates the aim 
 of all that is to be said. It is the con- 
 clusion reached after careful considera- 
 tion of all the information available. 
 The only authoritative record to be con- 
 sulted is the Gospel history. Myths, 
 legends, and traditions abound, but they 
 are not to be regarded. If any allega- 
 tion in this proposition falls short of 
 support from the Sacred Scriptures, it 
 must fall out of our conclusion, and by 
 so much will this writing prove unsuc- 
 
THE SUBJECT STATED. 1 5 
 
 cessful. If all are sustained, not the 
 slightest shadow is cast upon the stain- 
 less reputation of the honored subject of 
 this sketch. With all that is here at- 
 tributed to her, she stands forth an ex- 
 ample of purity and devotion, faithful in 
 all her relations, obedient to the order of 
 God, an ornament to her sex, and a ben- 
 ediction to mankind. Indeed it will ap- 
 pear, upon investigation, that the main- 
 tenance of all the allegations of this 
 proposition is necessary to protect her 
 from very serious implications — implica- 
 tions which involve her loyalty to her 
 husband, and to the matrimonial vows 
 which she assumed before the world in 
 becoming a wife. 
 
 The scope of the inquiry to which our 
 proposition leads is rather wide, not be- 
 cause of anything in the subject itself 
 which is particularly difficult, but be- 
 cause of the denials and gratuitous as- 
 
l6 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 sumptions made from time to time by 
 those who have erected upon her brief 
 history and special calling the mar\^el- 
 ous system of creature-worship, not to 
 say of idolatry, known as the Mariolatry 
 of the Roman Catholic Church. It will 
 not be necessary, fortunately, that we 
 examine the growth and manifestations 
 of that system., with its attendant super- 
 stitions, which have blinded and misled 
 Romanists through generations past; 
 but, since the foundation of the Romish 
 errors is laid in the denial of the chief 
 allegations of our proposition, the sup- 
 port of these allegations will leave the 
 whole fabric of Mariolatry without any- 
 thing to stand upon. *'If the founda- 
 tions be destroyed, what can even the 
 righteous do?" The Christian intelli- 
 gence of our times revolts at the extrav- 
 agancies of Romanistic eulogies of the 
 virtues of the "ever-blessed virgin," not 
 
THE SUBJECT STATED. ij 
 
 because of any dislike to the due recoo-- 
 nition of human excellence wherever 
 found, but because it finds what is purely 
 human exalted into the divine. The 
 legends of superstition are held forth as 
 revelations from God. The mother of 
 the human nature of the Son of God is 
 deified as the ''Mother of God," as the 
 ''Queen of Heaven," and made the ob- 
 ject of human and angelic worship. We 
 stand aghast at this folly of the "Dark 
 Ages," and yet find its influence wonder- 
 fully effective in holding the adherents 
 of JRome to slavish obedience to priestly 
 rule in this day of light, and in this land 
 of liberty. 
 
 The traditions which have brought to 
 our times the habit of attributing to 
 Mary qualities unknown to herself and 
 to the times in which she lived, and re- 
 pugnant to the Holy Scriptures, when 
 traced to their sources, betray an origin 
 
1 8 MAJ^V OF NAZARETH, 
 
 in the midst of the grossest darkness 
 that ever settled on the Church; yet 
 these traditions are not the subject of 
 our study, nor in the range of our in- 
 quiry. Their falsity will be amply ex- 
 posed in the light of the simple record 
 of the life of Mary and her family, as 
 given by the evangelists, when rightly 
 interpreted. Our appeal is from the vain 
 traditions of a superstitious age to the 
 testimony of the writers of the New 
 Testament. These are witnesses w^orthy 
 of all credence. They wrote without 
 bias, for the matters now in question 
 were unknown to them. The disputes 
 of later generations had not then arisen. 
 Nor is their testimony conflicting when 
 properly understood. Our business is to 
 adjust the testimony so that one fact will 
 shed light upon another, and so that 
 what seems obscure will become clear 
 when brought under the illumination of 
 
THE SUBJECT STATED. 19 
 
 that which is too direct and plain to be 
 misunderstood. We are to interpret 
 Scripture by Scripture. In performing 
 this task we are to remember that much 
 of the material from which testimony is 
 drawn relates to the subject in hand only 
 incidentally, the main thought of the 
 writer being quite aside from the issues 
 pending. While these writers w^ere alive 
 such issues were impossible; for there 
 could have been no question at that time 
 about the family of the wife and mother, 
 whose domestic relations have since then 
 received so much attention. 
 
 Conditions arising from traditional ex- 
 positions render it necessary to consider 
 the relations of two families to one an- 
 other, and to the apostleship as appointed 
 or constituted by the Master when he 
 first chose the twelve. The one family 
 is that of Joseph and Mary, of Naza- 
 reth; and the other is that of Cleopas 
 
20 MAJ^V OF NAZARETH. 
 
 and Mary, whose residence is not given. 
 In the family of Cleopas and Mary there 
 were four sons, two of which became 
 apostles — namely, James the Less, and 
 his brother Judas; and our contention 
 is, that there were also four sons, besides 
 daughters, in the family of Joseph and 
 Mary, which were not disciples till after 
 the crucifixion. The coincidence — which 
 is somewhat remarkable, and v/hich has 
 created confusion in the minds of ex- 
 positors — is, that the four sons in each 
 of these families bore the same names; 
 that is, in both families were found 
 James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, al- 
 though there is no record of any sisters 
 in the family of Cleopas and Mary. 
 Whether these two families were related 
 is a question. Mary seems to have been 
 a favorite name in those days, as no less 
 than five Marys are found among the 
 women who had prominence in the 
 
THE SUBJECT STATED. 21 
 
 apostolic record: First of all was Mary 
 of Nazareth, the mother of Jesus; then, 
 Mary, wife of Cleopas, and mother of 
 James the Less; then, Mary of Mag- 
 dala, who was healed of afflictions 
 caused by demons; Mary of Bethany, 
 sister to Martha and Lazarus ; and Mary 
 the m.other of John, whose surname was 
 Mark. The habit of naming children 
 for relatives, so as to perpetuate family 
 names, was so common as to be looked 
 upon as a duty. When John the Bap- 
 tist was born, the relatives wanted to 
 give him the name borne by his father, 
 Zacharias; and when his mother, Eliza- 
 beth, said his name should be John, as 
 the angel of God had directed, the neigh- 
 bors and cousins remonstrated, and said: 
 "There is none of thy kindred called by 
 this name." Hence, while the corre- 
 spondence of the names of the sons in 
 these two families indicates the possi- 
 
22 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 bility of relationship, it does not shed 
 light upon the questions to be solved in 
 the study now before us. 
 
 The real question is as to whether 
 there were, in fact, two families of sons 
 bearing the same names or not. In the 
 interest of the Romanist doctrine of the 
 perpetual virginity of Mary, the wife of 
 Joseph, it is denied that she had any 
 children other than her "first-born Son." 
 In order to carry out this thought, it has 
 been assumed and maintained with great 
 vigor, so that many learned non-Roman- 
 ists accept it, that the sons of "the other 
 Mary'^ were members of the family of 
 Joseph, being cousins to Jesus, and on 
 this account called "his brethren." 
 
 In this interest it is also assumed that 
 these two Marys were sisters; and that 
 James the Less, and Judas, the brother 
 of James, who were of "the twelve," 
 and therefore disciples from very early 
 
THE SUBJECT STATED. 23 
 
 in the public ministry of Christ, were of 
 **his brethren," although not his brothers 
 in any proper sense, or the sons of his 
 mother. It is freely conceded that this 
 hypothesis has the sanction of men of 
 great worth and learning ; that it is very 
 old, probably dating from the third cen- 
 tury ; and that no particular heresy arises 
 necessarily from its adoption, although 
 it is necessary to the Romish dogma of 
 the perpetual virginity, which is the 
 basis of the whole scheme of Mariol- 
 atry. In other words, one might con- 
 cede the identity of the sons of "the 
 other Mary" with ''his brethren" with- 
 out accepting the notion of perpetual 
 virginity; but this dogma of Rome can 
 not possibly subsist without this as- 
 sumption. 
 
 As intimated above, opinions on this 
 subject of a divergent character were 
 expressed at a very early period in the 
 
24 MAI^y OF NAZARETH. 
 
 history of the Church. Citations from 
 early writers, sufficient to give the scope 
 of the discussions, would swell this 
 treatise beyond its proposed limits, and 
 yet fail to add to the light drawn from 
 the Scriptures. Origen believed the 
 persons called the brethren of Jesus 
 were the sons of Joseph by a former 
 wife. The dominant opinion in the 
 Western Church was, that they were the 
 sons of the other Mary; while that in 
 the Eastern Church was favorable to the 
 position of Origen. If the consensus 
 of opinion at so early a day could be 
 obtained, it would be influential; but 
 that is impossible, since as little una- 
 nimity prevailed then as now. We must 
 therefore proceed without bias from the 
 expressed opinions of any writers out- 
 side of the New Testament. Modern 
 commentators follow one another in a 
 beaten track, with conjectures founded 
 
THE SUBJECT STATED. 25 
 
 on very superficial study, as one may see 
 by testing their reasons for the opinions 
 preferred. Of course, it is seemingly 
 presumptuous to speak with confidence 
 where men eminent for learning speak 
 tentatively, or without dogmatism; but 
 it is to be remembered that most of 
 those who have done so were absorbed 
 with other great themes, and treated this 
 subject as incidental. But few have given 
 it direct and original investigation. When 
 all of us have done our best, there will 
 still remain some obscurities in the rec- 
 ord, with regard to which hard questions 
 may arise. It is not expected to remove 
 all the difficulties which scholars have 
 encountered for ages; but our utmost 
 hope is to trace the facts given, so as to 
 present conclusions in harmony with all 
 that is written, consistent with them- 
 selves, and creditable to the character of 
 the families most intimately concerned. 
 
ClfrapfBr II. 
 
 THE BIRTH OF JESUS. 
 
 tHE date of the birth of Jesus is 
 not settled with absolute certainty. 
 Matthew says: *'In the days of Herod 
 the king.*' This is not definite, nor was 
 it the purpose of Matthew to make it so. 
 The best authorities known place it in 
 the fifth year before the era called Anno 
 Domini. Luke tells us it was while Cy- 
 renius was governor of Syria. This ap- 
 proximation to the date is sufficient. 
 
 The account given by Matthew of the 
 marriage of Joseph and Mar}% and of 
 the birth of the child, is less minute 
 than that given by Luke; but it has a 
 different purpose. It is preparatory to 
 the representation of prophecies fulfilled 
 
 by the cruelty of Herod, and by the so- 
 26 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS. 2/ 
 
 journ in Egypt. It is as follows: "Now 
 the birth of Jesus Christ was on this 
 wise: When as his mother Mary was 
 espoused to Joseph, before they came 
 together, she was found with child by 
 the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph, her hus- 
 band, being a just man, and not willing 
 to make her a public example, was 
 minded to put her away privily. But 
 while he thought on these things, be- 
 hold, the angel of the lyord appeared unto 
 him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son 
 of David, fear not to take unto thee 
 Mary thy wife: for that which is con- 
 ceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And 
 she shall bring forth a son, and thou 
 shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall 
 save his people from their sins. Now 
 all this was done, that it might be ful- 
 filled which was spoken of the Lord by 
 the prophet, saying. Behold, a virgin 
 shall be with child, and shall bring forth 
 
28 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 a son, and they shall call his name Em- 
 manuel, which being interpreted is, God 
 with us. Then Joseph, being raised 
 from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord 
 had bidden him, and took unto him his 
 wife: and knew her not till she had 
 brought forth her first-born son : and he 
 called his name Jesus." (Matt, i, 18-26.) 
 
 This statement is designedly general ; 
 but it contains two expressions which 
 are wonderfully expressive, and utterly 
 irreconcilable with the notion that this 
 babe was her only child. But the appli- 
 cation is reserved till after the fuller ac- 
 count given by Luke is brought out. 
 
 ''And it came to pass in those days 
 that there went out a decree from Caesar 
 Augustus that all the world should be 
 taxed. (And this taxing was first made 
 when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) 
 And all went to be taxed, every one into 
 his own city. And Joseph also went up 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS. 29 
 
 from Galilee, out of the city of Naza- 
 reth, into Judea, unto the city of David, 
 which is called Bethlehem (because he 
 was of the house and lineage of David), 
 to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, 
 being great with child. And so it was, 
 that, while they were there, the days 
 were accomplished that she should be 
 delivered. And she brought forth her 
 first-born son, and wrapped him in swad- 
 dling clothes, and laid him in a manger; 
 because there was no room for them in 
 the inn." (Luke ii, 1-7.) 
 
 Both Joseph and Mary were of the 
 lineage of David. Two genealogies are 
 given, one by Matthew and one by 
 Luke; but they are not the same. It 
 is thought by those who have most 
 thoroughly investigated the questions 
 raised by their divergences, that one is 
 the line of Joseph's own descent, and 
 the other that of Mary; but that, in that 
 
30 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 of Mary, the name of her husband is 
 used as her official or legal representa- 
 tive. Mary was the espoused wife of 
 Joseph. She took his name, and came 
 inider his lawful protection as a wife. 
 Under divine direction, he took her, and 
 gave her a home, and all needed care, 
 shielding her person and her good name 
 from the shadow of suspicion of evil 
 till her first-born son was brought forth. 
 A gracious providence guided her foot- 
 steps, and those of her husband, through 
 all the trials her acceptance of the spe- 
 cial mission from God brought to her. 
 The formality of her marriage with 
 Joseph is not given, but it was doubt- 
 less observed according to the custom 
 of the times. It is enough for us to 
 know that they became husband and 
 wife. 
 
 This supernatural conception is re- 
 ported without hesitation, and without 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS. 3 1 
 
 any attempt at proof or explanation, as 
 if the work of God needed no defense. 
 It is plainly affirmed with sufficient cir- 
 cumstantiality, and left to vindicate it- 
 self in the life of the child born, the 
 only proof tendered being the declaration 
 that it was an event come to pass in ful- 
 fillment of prophecy. What God does 
 is expected to ^commend itself to men 
 who recognize his authority, without 
 formal vindication. This is particularly 
 so with miracles. Whenever any event 
 comes into the range of human observa- 
 tion, bearing upon its face the appear- 
 ance of the supernatural, being without 
 conformity to the known laws of nature, 
 it is proper and duty to study it in the 
 character it assumes; and if it be found 
 belonging to a class of events attributa- 
 ble to the immediate agency of God, the 
 moral reasons for its occurrence are to be 
 considered as the most weighty and as 
 
32 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 entitled to our highest respect. The ab- 
 sence of natural causes is not an obstacle 
 to faith, where the moral reasons justify 
 divine intervention, since dependence 
 on natural causes would destroy the 
 character of the event as a miracle. 
 Supernatural events are not necessarily 
 lawless; but their dependence is on 
 forces or powers above the knov/n laws 
 of nature — upon something able to con- 
 travene or set aside known laws — al- 
 though the superior power may be in 
 strict accordance with the higher laws 
 of the higher realm of God's great uni- 
 verse. In the material world it often 
 happens that a known law of physics is 
 arrested in its course by the interven- 
 tion of a higher law, which is as nat- 
 ural as is the law arrested, when the 
 superior prevails to the suspension or 
 setting aside of the results which would 
 naturally flow from the uninterrupted 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS. 33 
 
 course of the inferior law. The higher 
 law which is displayed in miraculous 
 events, is something not definable, be- 
 yond the fact that it is the mode of the 
 divine procedure, in the exercise of 
 power beyond that contained in the 
 system of nature which he has ordained. 
 As he has not exhausted his resources 
 by his investment in laws for the gov- 
 ernment of the natural world, we are 
 not to deny the possibility of divine in- 
 tervention for moral purposes where 
 these subserve higher ends than can be 
 reached by the orderly working of the 
 forces known as natural laws. 
 
 God has often given children in an- 
 swer to prayer. Isaac was born as one 
 out of due time, a child of promise, in- 
 volving the supernatural with scarcely 
 less positiveness than did the birth of 
 Jesus. Samuel was a son asked of the 
 Lord, and granted to Hannah as a token 
 3 
 
34 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 of special favor. John the Baptist was 
 the son of Elizabeth, born to her *'who 
 had been called barren," and by special 
 promise and grace, when she was now 
 "in her old age." 
 
 The supernatural birth of the son of 
 Mary was in fulfillment of prophecy, 
 one of the predictions of which is in 
 Isaiah vii, 14: "Therefore the Lord 
 himself shall give you a sign; Behold, 
 a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, 
 and shall call his name Immanuel." 
 Whatever local or metaphorical mean- 
 ing this passage may have had in its 
 primary and subordinate application to 
 the rulers of Israel in the days of the 
 prophet, it is enough for all the purposes 
 of Christian faith to find the Evangelist 
 giving it literal application to the child 
 of Bethlehem. This is its literal mean- 
 ing, its true and ultimate signification, 
 whatever other events may have been 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS. 35 
 
 embraced in the scope of its connections. 
 This supernatural child was also the 
 subject of another prediction by the 
 same prophet: ''Unto us a child is born, 
 unto us a son is given: and the govern- 
 ment shall be upon his shoulder: and 
 his name shall be called Wonderful, 
 Counsellor, The mighty God, The ever- 
 lasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 
 Of the increase of his government and 
 peace there shall be no end, upon the 
 throne of David, and upon his kingdom, 
 to order it, and to establish it with judg- 
 ment and with justice from henceforth 
 even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of 
 hosts will perform this." (Isaiah ix, 6, 7.) 
 The Messianic character of this proph- 
 ecy is unquestionable, except by the 
 sheerest obstinacy in unbelief. It ap- 
 plies to no other. He is the supernat- 
 ural child, the son given. While others 
 have been born in answer to prayer, and 
 
36 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 have fulfilled providential missions, to 
 the Son of Mary alone belongs the dis- 
 tinguishing honor of being *'the only 
 begotten of the Father, full of grace 
 and truth." 
 
 Marvelous manifestations attended his 
 birth, and sacred wonders crowded the 
 days of his early childhood. The angel 
 Gabriel visited the virgin chosen to 
 be his mother, announced his coming, 
 and pronounced her "blessed among 
 women." Angels proclaimed his ad- 
 vent to the waiting shepherds, and filled 
 the heavens with their chorus of praise. 
 To the astonished watchers, who were 
 terrified by the wonders they saw and 
 heard, an angel spoke in assuring ac- 
 cents, saying: "Fear not: for, behold, I 
 bring you good tidings of great joy, 
 which shall be to all people. For unto 
 you is born this day in the city of 
 David a Savior, which is Christ the 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS. 2>7 
 
 Lord. And this shall be a sign unto 
 you: Ye shall find the babe wrapped in 
 swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. 
 And suddenly there was with the angel 
 a multitude of the heavenly host prais- 
 ing God, and saying, Glory to God in 
 the highest, and on earth peace, good- 
 will toward men." (Luke ii, 9-14.) 
 
 No wonder that Mary *'kept all these 
 things, and pondered them in her heart.'^ 
 Filled with wonder, as she must have 
 been, not the slightest incident could 
 have been forgotten ; and yet the future 
 of the precious life committed to her 
 keeping was graciously kept from her 
 knowledge. It was not yet time for the 
 iron to pierce her soul. Years of 
 motherly anxiety were before her, with 
 alternations of sunshine and shadow. 
 From highest hopes, with unmistakable 
 tokens of God's special favor and assur- 
 ances of a divine mission for the child to 
 
38 MAI^V OF NAZARETH. 
 
 fulfill, slie was brought into humbling ex- 
 periences of sorrowful privations, to grap- 
 ple with distressing forebodings of im- 
 pending evil. Steadfast trust in God, 
 and silent submission, became the habit 
 of her soul during the mysterious trial. 
 Loyal obedience to every requirement 
 of Jewish law was promptly given. 
 When that law directed circumcision, 
 the child was circumcised; and when 
 the time came for the mother's purifica- 
 tion, and for presenting an offering for 
 the child in the temple, not a jot of the 
 law was disregarded. *'And when eight 
 days were accomplished for the circum- 
 cising of the child, his name was called 
 Jesus, which was so named of the angel 
 before he was conceived in the womb." 
 Two lines of instruction were to be fol- 
 lowed — that of the lav/, and that of the 
 angel of God; but there is never conflict 
 in divine requirements, and, therefore, 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS. 39 
 
 these lines never clashed. God never, 
 by any special revelation, leads any one 
 away from the path of obedience to his 
 law. The next step to be taken was to 
 observe the requirement of the law con- 
 cerning purification. This law is found 
 in the twelfth chapter of Leviticus. 
 Thirty-three days from the time of the 
 circumcision of the child were required 
 to fulfill it. At the end of that time, a 
 lamb and a young pigeon, or a turtle- 
 dove, must be *' brought unto the door of 
 the tabernacle of the congregation, unto 
 the priest;'* and if the person be unable 
 to bring the lamb, then two turtledoves, 
 or two young pigeons, will suffice. The 
 mother must, therefore, remain at the 
 place of the birth of the child till after it 
 is forty days old. It was a long time for 
 her and her husband to stay away from 
 their home in Nazareth; but the law's 
 demand was imperative, and impatience 
 
40 MARY OF NAZARETH, 
 
 must not be indulged. It is not known 
 whether room had been found in the inn 
 for these strangers in Bethlehem, or 
 whether they continued camping out, 
 with the grotto-manger for their best 
 shelter. The latter was most likely true. 
 The weather was probably favorable for 
 that kind of life, as it was at the season 
 of the year when the shepherds kept 
 their flocks in the open fields, which 
 they did not do in the winter. Through 
 the winter months, including December 
 and March, they gathered sheep and cat- 
 tle into the folds and under shelter ; but in 
 warm weather they left them out, them- 
 selves remaining with them during the 
 night. While we can not fix the month 
 in which the Savior was born, we can 
 confidently infer that it was not in the 
 winter, when the gathered flocks would 
 leave as little room in the mangers as 
 was in the inn. However this was, these 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS. 4 1 
 
 parents tarried in Bethlehem till the 
 forty days expired, when they started for 
 their home in Galilee, prepared to stop 
 in Jerusalem on their way to do for 
 mother and child whatever the law re- 
 quired. Being in humble circumstances, 
 they provided the offering which was ac- 
 ceptable from poor people — a pair of 
 turtledoves, or two young pigeons. ''And 
 when the days of her purification accord- 
 ing to the law ot Moses were accom- 
 plished, they brought him to Jerusalem 
 to present him to the Lord." 
 
 Here new surprises awaited them. 
 There was nothing unusual in the offer- 
 ing brought, or in the ceremony per- 
 formed by the priest; but other attend- 
 ing circumstances attested the Divine 
 presence, and made the service memo- 
 rable. Two venerable servants of God 
 appeared in the temple at the time, who 
 recognized the child as the Christ, and 
 
42 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 Uttered words of blessing and prophecy, 
 which filled the mother and Joseph with 
 amazement. Only the inspired words 
 can suitably represent the aged Simeon : 
 *'And, behold, there was a man in 
 Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; 
 and this man was righteous and devout, 
 looking for the consolation of Israel : 
 and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And 
 it had been revealed unto him by the 
 Holy Spirit, that he should not see death, 
 before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 
 And he came in the Spirit into the tem- 
 ple : and when the parents brought in 
 the child Jesus, that they might do con- 
 cerning him after the custom of the law, 
 then he received him into his arms, and 
 blessed God, and said. 
 Now lettest thou thy servant depart, O 
 
 Lord, 
 According to thy word, in peace; 
 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS, 43 
 
 Which thou hast prepared before the 
 
 face of all peoples ; 
 A light for revelation to the Gentiles, 
 And the glory of thy people Israel. 
 And his father and his mother were 
 marveling at the things which were 
 spoken concerning him. And Simeon 
 blessed them, and said unto Mary his 
 mother, Behold, this child is set for the 
 falling and rising up of many in Israel ; 
 and for a sign which is spoken against; 
 yea, and a sword shall pierce through 
 thine own soul, that thoughts out of 
 many hearts may be revealed." (I^uke 
 ii, 25-35. Revised Version.) 
 
 Before their surprise at these marvel- 
 ous words could find utterance, and be- 
 fore they could grasp their meaning, 
 these parents v/ere greeted by another 
 venerable saint. *'And there was one 
 Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of 
 Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher: she was 
 
44 MARY OF NAZARETH, 
 
 of a great age, and had lived with a hus- 
 band seven years from her virginity; 
 and she was a widow of about fourscore 
 and four years, which departed not from 
 the temple, but served God with fastings 
 and prayers night and day. And she 
 coming in at that instant gave thanks 
 likewise unto the Lord, and spake of 
 him unto all them that looked for re- 
 demption in Jerusalem.'^ Neither the 
 exposition of the words of these aged 
 servants of God, nor of their habits of 
 worship in the temple, comes within the 
 range of our purpose. We only note the 
 fact that there were some in Jerusalem 
 who were waiting for the consolation 
 which only the coming of the Messiah 
 could bring ; and that the Spirit of God 
 rested upon devout souls before the usher- 
 ing in of the Spirit's special dispensation. 
 In some way the Spirit of God revealed 
 the presence of this Christ-child to these 
 
THE BIRTH OF JESUS. 45 
 
 saints who looked for him, till their 
 hearts glowed with celestial warmth, as 
 they poured benedictions upon these 
 parents, and upon the child, breathing 
 the atmosphere of the border-land of 
 heaven, and leaving no lack of proof of 
 Divine inspiration. 
 
 *'And when they had performed all 
 things according to the law of the Lord, 
 they returned into Galilee, to their own 
 city Nazareth." (Luke ii, 39.) Such is 
 the story of Luke. They were on their 
 way home, and they made no needless 
 delay. This is the fullest and most cir- 
 cumstantial account we have of the in- 
 fancy of Jesus. It traces him from the 
 manger in Bethlehem to his mother's 
 home in Nazareth. It accounts for the 
 providential presence of the parents at 
 the place of his predicted birth; fur- 
 nishes the data for ascertaining the time 
 of this wonderful event; gives the par- 
 
ar^apto III. 
 
 HIS INFANCY— THE STAR AND THE 
 MAGI. 
 
 y i^ ITH all the carefulness of Luke 
 Vf# in tracing the early days of Jesus, 
 from his birth to his first trip to his fu- 
 ture home in Nazareth, nothing is said 
 of the star in the East, the visit of the 
 magi, the wrath of Herod, the flight into 
 Egypt, the slaughter of the babes of 
 Bethlehem, or the return from Egypt. 
 
 Luke purposely discontinues his nar- 
 rative at the close of the ceremonies re- 
 quired by the law of Moses, when Jo- 
 seph and Mary, with the child, took their 
 departure from Jerusalem for Nazareth. 
 This was the natural thing for them to 
 do, under the circumstances. The sup- 
 position that they returned from Jerusa- 
 48 
 
HIS INFANCY. 49 
 
 lem to Bethlehem, and postponed their 
 return to Galilee till after the flight to 
 Egypt and return, is not only contrary 
 to Ivuke's positive statement, but it is 
 out of harmony with all the probabilities 
 of the case, in view of their fixed resi- 
 dence in Nazareth, and of their hasty 
 and temporary absence for enrollment. 
 
 There is evidently a long hiatus after 
 the close of Luke's story, before he re- 
 sumes it again, which Matthew fills with 
 the incidents of the flight to Egypt; yet 
 not so as to obviate questionings. When 
 did the star appear? When did the magi 
 arrive in Jerusalem? Whither did they 
 go when they left Jerusalem? Where 
 did they find the young child and his 
 mother? These very natural questions 
 can not be answered to the entire satis- 
 faction of any one. Reasonable conjec- 
 ture must be employed in order to the 
 completion of any hypothesis one may 
 
50 3fAJ?V OF NAZARETH. 
 
 adopt for the explanation of these won- 
 derful incidents, as related without date 
 or chronological order by the first evan- 
 gelist. 
 
 Skeptical writers have taken advan- 
 tage of the manifest incorrectness of the 
 popular beliet with regard to the time of 
 the appearance of the star, and the visit 
 of the magi, and the flight to Egypt, and 
 have alleged positive and irreconcilable 
 contradictions between Matthew and 
 Ivuke touching the early days of the 
 young child's life. It is held that the 
 story of the ^' wise men" was legendary or 
 mythical, akin to the stories of the apoc- 
 ryphal Gospels, unknown to Luke, un- 
 recognized by any other writer, and un- 
 worthy of belief. It is true that Luke 
 makes no mention of it; but it is not 
 true that he leaves no room for the events 
 it describes. It is also claimed that Mat- 
 thew was equally ignorant of the visit to 
 
HIS INFANCY. 5 1 
 
 the temple, and of the testimony to the 
 child's future, given by the aged Simeon 
 and Anna. Of course, when properly 
 interpreted, there is no contradiction be- 
 tween these evangelists; but one sup- 
 plements the other. Luke tells nothing 
 that took place after the child was taken 
 from the temple ; and what Matthew re- 
 lates must have occurred after that time 
 The whole story of the star and the magi 
 and the flight into Egypt is not to be re- 
 jected because there is no room for these 
 things between the birth of the child 
 and the return to Nazareth. If ]\Iatthew 
 placed all these occurrences inside of the 
 first forty days of the child's life, there 
 would be difficulty in harmonizing the 
 two writers ; but he does not. 
 
 It is not to be denied that the popular 
 impression is at fault. If we undertake 
 to find the magi in Bethlehem before the 
 child was taken home to Nazareth, by 
 
52 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 the way of tlie temple, failure is una- 
 voidable ; and yet this is the commonly- 
 accepted view. Evidently it is the idea 
 followed by artists and poets. The pic- 
 tures represent the magi as opening their 
 treasures and presenting their gifts to 
 the child in the manger, in the presence 
 of the "beasts of the stall;" and some 
 of the most beautiful songs ever sung 
 describe the magi as following the star 
 to the "manger-bed." It seems a pity 
 to interfere with the poetic license which 
 allows these inaccuracies; but these pic- 
 tures and songs create the popular im- 
 pression which opens the way for the 
 cold criticisms of the unbelieving; and 
 neither the songs nor the pictures are of 
 any value in comparison with the con- 
 sistency of the Gospel narratives. 
 
 The account given by Matthew is as 
 follows: " Now when Jesus w^as born in 
 Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of 
 
HIS INFANCY. 53 
 
 Herod the king, behold, there came wise 
 men from the East to Jerusalem, saying, 
 Where is he that is born king of the 
 Jews? for we have seen his star in the 
 East, and are come to worship him. 
 When Herod the king heard these things, 
 he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with 
 him. And when he had gathered all the 
 chief priests and scribes of the people 
 together, he demanded of them where 
 Christ should be born. And they said 
 unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea: for 
 thus it is written by the prophet, And 
 thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, 
 art not the least among the princes of 
 Judah: for out of thee shall come a gov- 
 ernor, who shall rule my people Israel. 
 Then Herod, when he had privily called 
 the wise men, inquired of them dili- 
 gently what time the star appeared. 
 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and 
 said. Go, search diligently for the young 
 
54 3IARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 child: and when ye have found him, 
 bring me word again, that I may come 
 and worship him also. When they had 
 heard the king they departed; and, lo, 
 the star, which they saw in the east, 
 went before them, till it came and stood 
 over where the young child was. When 
 they saw the star, they rejoiced with ex- 
 ceeding great joy. And when they were 
 come into the house, they saw the young 
 child w4th Mary his mother, and fell 
 down and worshiped him: and when 
 they had opened their treasures, they 
 presented unto him gifts, gold, and frank- 
 incense, and myrrh. And being warned 
 of God in a dream that they should not 
 return to Herod, they departed into their 
 own country another way. And when 
 they were departed, behold, the angel of 
 the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, 
 saying, Arise, and take the young child 
 
HIS INFANCY. 55 
 
 and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and 
 be thou there until I bring thee word : 
 for Herod will seek the young child to 
 destroy him. When he arose, he took 
 the young child and his mother by night, 
 and departed into Eg3^pt, and was there 
 until the death of Herod: that it might 
 be fulfilled which was spoken of the 
 Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of 
 Egypt have I called my son. Then 
 Herod, when he saw that he was mocked 
 of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, 
 and sent forth, and slew all the children 
 that were in Bethlehem, and in all the 
 coasts thereof, from two years old and 
 under, according to the time which he 
 had diligently inquired of the wise men. 
 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken 
 by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In 
 Rama was there a voice heard, lamenta- 
 tion, and weeping, and great mourning, 
 
56 MAJ^V OF NAZARETH. 
 
 Rachel weeping for her children, and 
 would not be comforted, because they 
 were not." (Matt, ii, 1-18.) 
 
 Assuming the truth of this narrative, 
 the first thing to do, in order to bring it 
 into line with the description of the 
 events of the early days of the young 
 child's life as given by Luke, is to find 
 out, if possible, the time of this remark- 
 able visit of the "wise men," and of the 
 sensation produced in Jerusalem by their 
 visit. There is evidently too much of it 
 to have occurred within the forty days 
 before the presentation in the temple; 
 and since Luke so closely follows the 
 child up to that time, he certainly would 
 not have omitted all allusion to these 
 events if they had come within the period 
 of his narrative. 
 
 But judgment must finally be based 
 on what Matthew says, rather than upon 
 what Luke does not say. Why, then 
 
HIS INFANCY. 57 
 
 was this visit to Bethlehem impossible 
 before the child was taken away? It is 
 generally conceded that the magi came 
 from Persia. They are understood to 
 have been Chaldean astrologers, learned 
 in the wisdom of the Orient, and men of 
 wealth and dignity. Such men moved 
 deliberately, and never with haste. After 
 observing the star and studying its im- 
 port, they considered the journey, and 
 made preparation for it. It is not prob- 
 able that they started for some weeks, 
 and possibly months, after the star ap- 
 peared. Their journey would occupy 
 several weeks after it was begun. Their 
 speediest transportation was by camels. 
 Then they tarried in Jerusalem till they 
 could interview Herod, and till the chief 
 priests and scribes could search the Sa- 
 cred Writings, and report to the king a 
 conclusion with regard to the place where 
 the Messiah should be born. Before all 
 
58 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 this could be accomplished, the ** forty- 
 days" were expired, and Jesus had been 
 presented in the temple, after which 
 ceremony, Luke says, "they returned 
 into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.'^ 
 The record itself wull not permit the 
 supposition that the magi appeared upon 
 the scene in Bethlehem before the pre- 
 sentation in the temple. The reason 
 is — and it is commanding — that imme- 
 diately after the departure of the magi 
 to their own country, Joseph took the 
 young child and his mother, by night, 
 with every appearance of haste, and de- 
 parted into Egypt. There was no such 
 thing as the presentation of the child in 
 the temple, with the impressive occur- 
 rences which Luke records in connection 
 with that service, after the wise men had 
 disappointed Herod, and after Joseph 
 had been warned of God in a dream to 
 "flee into Egypt.'* After that warning. 
 
HIS INFANCY. 59 
 
 Joseph made no public appearance in 
 Jerusalem with the child and his mother, 
 but without delay sought safety by car- 
 rying the child beyond the reach of 
 Herod's power. This settles the ques- 
 tion beyond dispute as to the non-ap- 
 pearance of the magi between the birth 
 of the child and the return to Nazareth. 
 The popular impression, carried out in 
 art and in song, is, that the wise men 
 not only went to Bethlehem and found 
 the child, but that they found him " in 
 the manger," the place of his birth. But 
 the words of Matthew do not authorize 
 this impression. Indeed, it is an utterly 
 groundless impression, contrary to the 
 language of the record. ^'And when 
 they were come into the house, they 
 saw the young child with Mary his 
 mother." Whether the "house" they 
 were in was their own house in their 
 own city of Nazareth — whither they had 
 
6o MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 gone — or not, is not so material at this 
 point ; but it is certain they were " in 
 the house," and not yet in the place of 
 his birth, where he was laid in the 
 manger. 
 
 It is not denied that the account as 
 given by Matthew wears upon its face 
 an appearance as if the magi went from 
 Jerusalem to Bethlehem, and there found 
 the babe. It is not strange that such is 
 the popular belief. After consulting 
 the priests and scribes, Herod ^'sent 
 them to Bethlehem.'* They followed his 
 advice so far as to start in that direction. 
 The journey was easily made ; two hours 
 would accomplish it. If they were going 
 the right way, with a plain road before 
 them, and almost in sight of their des- 
 tination, why should the star again ap- 
 pear to guide them? There has always 
 been strict economy in supernatural 
 manifestations, when the end was possi- 
 
HIS INFANCY. 6 1 
 
 ble by natural means. These men were 
 following not only the instruction of the 
 king, but that of prophetic inspiration 
 as well. They were going to Bethlehem, 
 as they had been told in Jerusalem, to 
 make inquiry for the child, whose ap- 
 pearance had not been a secret, but was 
 known to the shepherds, and perhaps to 
 the populace. Additional miraculous in- 
 tervention can scarcely be accounted for, 
 if they were in the way to find the ob- 
 ject of their search. They were little 
 more than out sight of Jerusalem before 
 Bethlehem would come into view. Why, 
 then, should the star appear? Was it 
 really needed? The words of Matthew 
 neither say, nor do they necessarily 
 mean, that the star led the wise men to 
 Bethlehem. It intercepted them in their 
 course, and such was their joy on seeing 
 it that the instruction of Herod was no 
 longer regarded, unless it agreed with 
 
62 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 the leading of the star. *'And, lo, the 
 star which they saw in the east, went 
 before them, till it came and stood over 
 where the young child was.'* Not over 
 the manger, nor necessarily over any 
 house in Bethlehem, but "over where 
 the young child was." According to 
 Luke's account, he had been taken to 
 the temple before this, and with his 
 mother and Joseph "to their own city 
 Nazareth.'* 
 
 "The star went before them." This 
 sounds as if they were following it in a 
 way that they knew not. Possibly it 
 guided them during the night till they 
 found their devious way around Jerusa- 
 lem to the north ot the city, in the di- 
 rection to Nazareth, " where the young 
 child was." Much traveling was done 
 in the night in that climate, and per- 
 chance these star-led travelers spent 
 more than one night in their journey to 
 
HIS INFANCY. 63 
 
 the place where the star rested. In- 
 deed, the intimation is rather plain that 
 they did ; for they must have slept on 
 the way after they left Jerusalem, which 
 they would not do in going to Bethle- 
 hem, because they dreamed, and were 
 warned of God in their dream not to re- 
 turn to Herod. If this be conjecture, it 
 is in the line of harmony in the Gospel 
 narratives. Something of the kind is 
 necessary to this end; for the account 
 given by Luke, which so definitely fixes 
 dates, and traces the child so carefully, 
 requires some draft upon the imagina- 
 tion to provide for this visit of the magi 
 at all, while there is not a word in the 
 story of Matthew inconsistent with it. 
 
 After they had found the place, and 
 ^'were come into the house," they made 
 their prostrations as in the presence ot 
 royalty, and then opened their treasures 
 and made their presents. This done, 
 
64 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 " they departed into their own country, 
 another way." Their obHgation to Herod 
 was no longer upon them, since his in- 
 structions did not lead them to the child. 
 From Nazareth they could easily do this, 
 as they were very nearly on the line to 
 Damascus, or to any main route to Per- 
 sia; while from Bethlehem the natural 
 way would be through Jerusalem, al- 
 though they could find a difficult line 
 eastward by way of the Dead Sea and 
 the fords of the Jordan. 
 
 Immediately after this visit of the 
 magi, the flight into Egypt began. 
 There was no reason for delay, other 
 than hasty preparation for the trip, as 
 all the requirements of the law of Moses 
 concerning the mother and child had 
 been met. He had been circumcised on 
 the eighth day, and he had been pre- 
 sented to the Lord in the temple, and 
 the proper offering had been made for 
 
HIS INFANCY. 65 
 
 him when forty days old, so that no 
 ceremonial duty remained unfulfilled. 
 His parents were at liberty to go with 
 him beyond the jurisdiction of Herod, 
 without violating any law. They started 
 by night. It was probably more com- 
 fortable to travel by night than by day. 
 The journey to Egypt is not described. 
 It is thought the sojourn there lasted 
 nearly two years. Traditions respecting 
 the life of this family in Egypt are not 
 trustworthy. They were hidden from 
 view for a time, and all conjectures con- 
 cerning their doings or experiences are 
 vain. 
 
 When Herod found that the magi 
 would not return to him, his anger 
 burned. He felt that he had been 
 ''mocked" and cruelly deceived. His 
 kingly pride was wounded, and his ma- 
 licious design upon the life of the "young 
 child" seemed thwarted. This he de- 
 5 
 
66 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 termiiied should not be. He would 
 destroy the possible aspirant to the 
 throne if it cost the life of every child in 
 Bethlehem. "Then Herod, when he 
 saw that he was mocked of the wise 
 men, was exceeding wroth, and he sent 
 forth and slew all the children that were 
 in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts 
 thereof, from two years old and under, 
 according to the time which he had dili- 
 gently inquired of the wise men." The 
 crime of murder was not new to Herod, 
 but the cruelty of this slaughter has been 
 seldom equaled in the history of human 
 atrocities. It is thought that not less 
 than forty innocents fell victims to his 
 inhuman rage, which is not an extrava- 
 gant estimate. 
 
 There is an objection to the thought 
 here advanced, that Jesus had already 
 gone from Bethlehem before the wise 
 men appeared, on the ground that if he 
 
HIS INFANCY. 67 
 
 was safe at home in Nazareth, there 
 would have been no need of the flight 
 from there to Egypt, in order to escape 
 the danger at Bethlehem. This is the 
 most plausible objection to the chrono- 
 logical order herein favored, that has 
 been made, or that seems possible; and 
 yet it is inconclusive. If safety were 
 certain at Nazareth, the flight to Egypt 
 was unnecessary, even from Bethlehem; 
 for in that case all that was needed was 
 that Joseph and Mary abandon any 
 thought they might have been cherish- 
 ing of adopting Bethlehem as their 
 home, and return to their own city and 
 home in Nazareth. If there was safety 
 there from Herod's persecutions on one 
 hypothesis, there was also on the other. 
 God's thought was, that the child 
 should be removed out of Herod's juris- 
 diction. He must therefore leave Gal- 
 ilee as well as Judea, as it is not likely 
 
68 MARY OF NAZARETH, 
 
 that all the danger was in the neighbor- 
 hood of Bethlehem. 
 
 There is also a note of time in this 
 report of Herod's rage, which is of 
 value in judging of the period of the 
 visit of the magi. When they first 
 came to Jerusalem to make inquiry 
 concerning the child, Herod inquired of 
 them "diligently,'* or very particularly, 
 what time the star appeared. He 
 sought to know the age of the child at 
 that time. Then, after their departure, 
 when he found they did not return, he 
 issued the decree for the destruction of 
 the children "from two years old and 
 under, according to the time he had 
 diligently inquired of the wise men." 
 He estimated the age of the child from 
 the time of the appearance of the star, 
 as he had learned it from his strange 
 visitors. It is clear that only a little 
 time elapsed after they left Herod, till 
 
HIS INFANCY. 69 
 
 he knew they had left the country, per- 
 haps a few weeks, and probably not 
 a month ; and yet he included the chil- 
 dren "two years old" in his decree of 
 death. Of course, this estimate of time 
 can not be taken as exact, since the 
 cruel king would allow a margin, so 
 as to make sure of his intended victim; 
 but if the star appeared one year before 
 the decree of death to the children, it 
 would still bring the wise men to Jeru- 
 salem, and to Bethlehem, if they went 
 to Bethlehem, some time after the pre- 
 sentation in the temple and the return 
 to Nazareth. It can scarcely be pos- 
 sible, in the light of all the facts, that 
 the wise men found the child before he 
 was six months old; and yet the con- 
 secutive and minutely definite story of 
 Luke takes the mother and child away 
 from Bethlehem at the end of the days 
 of her purification according to the 
 
70 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 law of Moses, and presents him in the 
 temple while on the way home ; show- 
 ing that, in the natural order of things, 
 they would reach Nazareth in less than 
 fifty days after the child was born. 
 
 Many writers pass over this matter 
 as of little importance, simply assum- 
 ing that the wise men found the babe 
 in Bethlehem, without suspecting any 
 difficulty in harmonizing the accounts 
 of Matthew and Luke. This is unfor- 
 tunate, and inexcusable, indeed, in any 
 who pretend to accuracy. Others see 
 the difficulty in adjusting the chrono- 
 logical order of events, so as to make 
 room for the visit of the magi in Beth- 
 lehem, and assume that Joseph and 
 Mary returned to Bethlehem, after the 
 presentation in the temple. If it were 
 absolutely necessary to locate the visit 
 of the wise men in Bethlehem, in order 
 to meet the language of Matthew, a 
 
HIS INFANCY. 7 1 
 
 return trip would have to be assumed. 
 It is, however, the height of folly to 
 think of the presentation in the temple 
 as occurring after the wise men had 
 been there and departed. Then, if the 
 wise men found the child in Bethlehem 
 at all, it was after the presentation, and 
 there must have been a return trip after 
 leaving the temple, either before or 
 after the return to Nazareth. Matthew 
 mentions their *' turning aside" to dwell 
 at Nazareth, as an afterthought; but 
 that was not till after the return from 
 Egypt. Then they went to Nazareth, 
 that being out of the jurisdiction of 
 Archelaus, the kingdom of Herod being 
 divided on his death; Archelaus reign- 
 ing in Judea, and his half-brother be- 
 coming tetrarch of Galilee. The so- 
 journ in Egypt had broken up their 
 home and loosened their ties in Naz- 
 areth, so that it is not strange that 
 
72 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 they now thought of taking up their 
 abode in the city of David, where 
 Joseph was enrolled, and where the 
 child was born, whose birth had given 
 such distinct intimations that he was 
 destined to sit upon the throne of 
 David, to order and rule the kingdom 
 of Israel. There was a Providence 
 which directed the steps of those to 
 whom was committed the charge of 
 this young child; and Providence never 
 favored any thought Joseph and Mary 
 might have entertained of bringing up 
 this child in Bethlehem. It would have 
 been inconsistent with the experiences 
 they had been through, for them to plan 
 to live in Bethlehem without some in- 
 timation of the Divine will; and it does 
 not accord with any right conceptions 
 of God's dealings with this family to 
 suppose that they were divinely led to 
 leave their home in Nazareth, and trans- 
 
HIS INFANCY. 73 
 
 fer all their interests to BetHlehem, just 
 a few days or weeks before the necessity 
 would be upon them to move on to 
 Egypt. This thought appears legiti- 
 mate, and it antagonizes the supposi- 
 tion of any return to Bethlehem after 
 the presentation in the temple, or after 
 the return to Nazareth, before starting 
 to Egypt. 
 
 Writers sometimes remind us that 
 we often find events mentioned in the 
 Scriptures as if they were closely con- 
 nected in time, when in fact they are 
 separated by months and years. There 
 are examples of this kind that might 
 be cited; and so it is held that the re- 
 turn to Nazareth mentioned by Luke, 
 may not have occurred immediately 
 when they left the temple, as the lan- 
 guage seems to imply, but might have 
 followed the sojourn in Egypt, and be 
 the same trip described or mentioned 
 
74 MAi?r or nazareth, 
 
 by Matthew. To this view there are 
 strong objections. If the description 
 of the child-life of Jesus, found in 
 Luke, were as general as is the lan- 
 guage of Matthew, there would be more 
 reason for taking this supposition as 
 probable; but there is evident exactness 
 in Luke's narrative, as far as he carries 
 it, which is to the point of the depar- 
 ture of the family for their home in 
 Nazareth. Luke did not mention the 
 visit of the magi, for the reason that his 
 plan did not carry the story of the child 
 to the time of its occurrence. The 
 same is true of the flight to Egypt. 
 He only followed the movements of 
 the family till the requirements of the 
 law were fulfilled, when they all started 
 back to Galilee. His is a Judean his- 
 tory of the child. What occurred in the 
 family, or happened to the child in 
 Galilee or in Egypt i^ passed over by 
 
HIS INFANCY. 75 
 
 him till the child and his mother again 
 appear in Judea, and are found in the 
 temple. He left the family when they 
 left the temple, and he resumed his nar- 
 rative when the family returned with 
 the child, now twelve years old. The 
 whole story of Matthew relates to 
 events between these two points. When 
 Luke resumed, and related the second 
 temple scene, wherein the child of 
 twelve displayed such wisdom in the 
 presence of the *' doctors," he described 
 only what occurred on that one occa- 
 sion, and spoke of the return of the 
 family again to Nazareth, where the 
 child remained subject to his parents; 
 and then he broke off the narrative as 
 before till the appearace of John the 
 Baptist, whose office it was to introduce 
 the public ministry of Christ. 
 
 When Joseph and Mary left Nazareth 
 before going to Egypt, whether they first 
 
76 MARV OF NAZARETH. 
 
 went to Bethlehem or not, they evidently- 
 broke up their residence, so that when 
 the sojourn in Egypt was over they con- 
 templated taking up their abode in 
 Judea. It was natural that they should 
 think of this, since they must have re- 
 garded the future of the child, which was 
 their special charge, as related to the 
 metropolis of the Jewish people, so as to 
 make it proper that he should grow up 
 in that vicinity. It was not, therefore, 
 their first thought to return to Nazareth ; 
 but while hesitating because of their 
 fear of Archelaus, the voice of warning 
 in a dream determined them. It was 
 evidently not the Divine purpose that 
 they should reside in Bethlehem, and 
 there is doubt whether they ever saw 
 the city of David, the birthplace of Jesus, 
 after they closed their temporary visit, 
 and took the young child to the temple, 
 when forty days old, on their way to 
 
HIS INFANCY. 77 
 
 their home in Nazareth, which they had 
 temporarily left for the purpose of en- 
 rollment. Since there is no mention in 
 the Scriptures of any return to Bethle- 
 hem, either from Jerusalem or from 
 Nazareth ; and since there is nothing in 
 the words of Matthew which necessarily 
 takes the wise men into Bethlehem when 
 they started to go there; and since it is 
 plain that the sudden reappearance of 
 the star, when they were approaching 
 the suburbs of that city, intercepted 
 them for a purpose, and caused them to 
 disregard the instructions received in 
 Jerusalem ; and since the star " went be- 
 fore them,'' and they followed it, not to 
 the manger, but *' till it came and stood 
 over where the young child was ;'' and 
 since the wise men first saw the young 
 child with Mary his mother ^'when they 
 were come into the house;" and since 
 they had been sleeping and dreaming 
 
78 MARY OF NAZARETH, 
 
 after seeing the star, the implication is 
 very strong that they found Mary and the 
 child in their own house, in their own 
 city, Nazareth. With this order of events 
 there is not the slightest disagreement 
 between Matthew and Luke, nor is there 
 occasion to assume a return trip to Beth- 
 lehem, which is neither asserted nor 
 hinted at in the Scriptures. 
 
 If we must assume that there was a 
 return to Bethlehem; and if we must 
 find the magi in that city ; and if we 
 must believe that the star reappeared to 
 guide them where they were really going, 
 and when they were nearly there, — then, 
 by all means, let the assumption be that 
 the parents went from the temple to 
 Nazareth, as Luke affirms, and that the 
 unrecorded return was from Nazareth to 
 Bethlehem. The assumption in this 
 form w411 not contradict either of the 
 evangelists, and as it is only an assump- 
 
HIS INFANCY. 79 
 
 tion, it will encounter nothing worse 
 than the implication that the parents 
 gave up their home in Nazareth, and re- 
 moved to Bethlehem, on their own mo- 
 tion, without consulting providential 
 indications, since all these point to Naz- 
 areth, and not to Bethlehem, as the 
 child's providential home. It is always 
 difficult to reach conclusions on his- 
 torical points in the absence of testi- 
 mony, yet it is sometimes necessary to 
 form theories in order to supply omis- 
 sions in the record. Well for us, if in 
 emergencies requiring this, we do not 
 substitute mere guesses for rational in- 
 ferences. It is particularly true, and 
 should not be astonishing, that when the 
 supernatural works with the natural 
 forces of life in bringing about a provi- 
 dential purpose, unexpected turns " sur- 
 prise " us, even to our bewilderment. 
 The teachable spirit is therefore becom- 
 
8o MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 ing wlien we study the brief outlines 
 given us of the history of the child-life 
 of the son of Mary. God was with him, 
 and watchful love guarded his steps in 
 every movement from his birth in Beth- 
 lehem till his mission was crowned with 
 triumph in his ascension from Olivet to 
 his Father's throne. 
 
(EFjapfsr IV. 
 
 MARY, AND "THE OTHER MARY." 
 
 f ^ INCB the aim of this treatise is 
 ^^ more than biographical, its design 
 can be best accomplished without at- 
 tempting to restrict the treatment of 
 facts recorded to the chronological order, 
 even if such an order were possible. Be- 
 yond the events making up the history, 
 it looks to the solution of the most diffi- 
 cult problems which have arisen in con- 
 nection with the brief record we have of 
 this extraordinary Galilean family. The 
 chief question calling for attention has 
 come down to us from an early period in 
 the history of the Church, not later than 
 the third century, and has to do with 
 far-reaching influences in the Christian 
 
 world. It is as to whether any other 
 6 8i 
 
8o MAJ^y or NAZARETH. 
 
 ing when we study the brief outlines 
 given us of the history of the child-life 
 of the son of Mary. God was with him, 
 and watchful love guarded his steps in 
 every movement from his birth in Beth- 
 lehem till his mission was crowned with 
 triumph in his ascension from Olivet to 
 his Father's throne. 
 
Or^apf^r IV. 
 
 MARY, AND "THE OTHER MARY." 
 
 SINCE the aim of this treatise is 
 more than biographical, its design 
 can be best accomplished without at- 
 tempting to restrict the treatment of 
 facts recorded to the chronological order, 
 even if such an order were possible. Be- 
 yond the events making up the history, 
 it looks to the solution of the most diffi- 
 cult problems which have arisen in con- 
 nection with the brief record we have of 
 this extraordinary Galilean family. The 
 chief question calling for attention has 
 come down to us from an early period in 
 the history of the Church, not later than 
 the third century, and has to do with 
 far-reaching influences in the Christian 
 world. It is as to whether any other 
 
82 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 child than Jesus was born into this fam- 
 ily. A very simple question, indeed, it 
 appears to be at first blush ; but around 
 it have raged some of the most acri- 
 monious and persistent discussions of 
 Christendom, and upon a single view of 
 it have been founded some of the most 
 powerful institutions of the Church of 
 Rome. The doctrine of the perpetual 
 virginity of the mother of Jesus has long 
 been vital to that Church, as upon it rests 
 the whole system of Mariolatry or crea- 
 ture-worship, which has been the source 
 of so much superstition and spiritual 
 blindness among Romanists for ages. 
 
 In our present study of the subject, it 
 is not in our thought to undertake the 
 impossible task of filling up the long 
 period of silence which the Scriptures 
 leave, no doubt providentially, with re- 
 gard to this family, extending from the 
 time Jesus was twelve years old, till he 
 
MARV, AND ''THE OTHER MARV.'' 83 
 
 was about thirty ; for there are no data, 
 either in the sacred writings, or in any 
 other writings, to guide in such an effort. 
 It was, perhaps, according to the pur- 
 pose of God, that nothing should be told 
 us concerning Joseph and Mary during 
 this time. Their domestic life does not 
 seem to have been designed for public 
 observation any more than the private 
 affairs of any other family, except when 
 it had some special significance in con- 
 nection with the life of Jesus, the first- 
 born son of Mary. The later allusions 
 to the family indicate to us nothing from 
 which we can infer anything other than 
 that they lived a quiet and honorable 
 life, awaitijig providential developments 
 with regard to Jesus, and properly caring 
 for the other children which Providence 
 gave them. It is remarkable that in all 
 the Scriptural allusions to this family, 
 Jesus is always the central figure. Mary 
 
84 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 appears always as *' his mother," and the 
 other children are mentioned as *' his 
 brethren," and ''his sisters." Whatever 
 is said of these is incidental, and comes 
 ont only as it relates to him and his 
 work. 
 
 This brings us to the great fact in 
 question. There was a family in Naz- 
 areth, of which Joseph and Mary were 
 the head, in which Jesus lived as a son, 
 and was known as such to all the neigh- 
 bors ; and in which there were other 
 children known as his brothers and sis- 
 ters. This fact is well attested, being 
 recognized by all the evangelists. So 
 far as appearances go, there was nothing 
 extraordinary in the constitution or com- 
 position of this family. The husband 
 and wife were lawfully married, and 
 their occupation was creditable. They 
 were of the industrial class, and probably 
 shrank from notoriety, although they 
 
MARY, AND ''THE OTHER MARV^ 85 
 
 were well aware that in their household 
 was one destined in some way to accom- 
 plish an extraordinary mission. 
 
 The presumption is, that the brothers 
 and sisters in this family were what the 
 language so clearly means — the sons and 
 daughters of Joseph and Mary, and "his 
 brethren" and *'his sisters." There was 
 certainly no law against the existence of 
 such a family, and nothing discreditable 
 to any of the parties. Motherhood was 
 not then dishonorable. Indeed it was 
 the glory of womanhood. It is incon- 
 ceivable how the idea originated that 
 perpetual virginity could honor the name 
 of Mary. She had honored the period 
 of her virginity, and entered the estate 
 of matrimony so as to honor that by liv- 
 ing the life of a loyal wife, and becoming 
 a loving, faithful mother. The assump- 
 tion that she could or did at the same 
 time observe the vows of celibacy and of 
 
86 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 matrtmojiy is absurd. No accurate writer 
 would speak of her son as *'her first- 
 born son," if there were not others born 
 to her at a later period. Not only is 
 the implication of this expression clear 
 and unmistakable, but the other chil- 
 dren are found and known by name. 
 
 Not only was Jesus called *'her first- 
 born son" — implying that others were 
 born later — but the limit to the period 
 of her virginity is distinctly marked in 
 the declaration concerning her marriage. 
 Joseph took his "espoused wife,'* and 
 yet as a wife he "knew her not U7ttil — '* 
 If she never became a wife, what lan- 
 guage is this? It is not merely mean- 
 ingless, but it is misleading and false. 
 It stamps the transaction with fraud. 
 She pretended to what w^as unreal, un- 
 natural, deceptive, and fraudulent. Why 
 it should be deemed a glory to her, or 
 be taken as an evidence of sanctity, to 
 
MARY, AND ''THE OTHER MARV.'' 87 
 
 live in such a false relation, is most 
 wonderful. The consensus of virtuous 
 womanhood is against it. 
 
 Joseph and Mary have been accused 
 with indifference, or with lack of pa- 
 rental watchfulness, on the occasion of 
 their "first-born son's" appearance in 
 the temple when but twelve years old. 
 They started on the homeward journey 
 without looking after him. They thought 
 he was in the com.pany; but they did 
 not know, till they had gone a day's jour- 
 ney, that he was not among his "kins- 
 folk and acquaintance. '^ Then, of course, 
 their anxiety was aroused. Careful par- 
 ents, with so tender a charge, would not 
 have been so easy about him, unless they 
 were occupied with the care of younger 
 children. In that event, their conduct 
 was natural, and free from blameworthi- 
 ness. On any other supposition, it is 
 hard to excuse them, or to free them 
 
8S iMARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 from the charge of neglect. It is not 
 said that younger children were with 
 them ; but this supposition is not to their 
 discredit, and it is the best vindication 
 of their course that can be devised. If 
 there were younger children, the boy of 
 twelve would have acquired some ex- 
 perience and confidence in looking out 
 for himself. 
 
 There is another side to this repre- 
 sentation of the family of Joseph and 
 Mary, of course, or the great discussions 
 of past centuries would not have taken 
 place. In those discussions almost every 
 phase of the question has been can- 
 vassed, and several different hypotheses 
 have been set forth to account for the 
 existence of a family of children in the 
 house of Joseph and Mary, known as 
 the brothers and sisters of Jesus, with- 
 out allowing them to be such in fact. 
 The different explanations offered must 
 
3fARV, AND ''THE OTHER MARV^ 89 
 
 not be disregarded, but whatever of merit 
 or plausibility there is in them must be 
 brought out. 
 
 The study of these hypotheses will 
 lead to an inquiry concerning another 
 Mary, known in the Scriptures as the 
 wife of Cleopas, the mother of James 
 the Less, and frequently mentioned as 
 *'the other Mary.'' This Mary seems to 
 have had sons bearing the same names 
 as *'the brethren of Jesus,'* on which 
 account many have taken her sons to 
 be the ones the Scriptures call **his 
 brethren.'* To give color to this sup- 
 position, the very remarkable claim has 
 been set up that these two Marys were 
 sisters ; and som.e have gone so far as to 
 hold that they were both widows, living 
 together in Nazareth as one family, 
 where the children of *' the other Mary," 
 were taken by the neighbors to be the 
 brothers and sisters of Jesus. The the- 
 
90 3fARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 ory is, that they were not his brothers 
 in the sense of being the sons of his 
 mother, but only *' cousins" — the word 
 brethren being used in so general a 
 sense as to denote relatives, without re- 
 gard to the degree of kinship. Of course, 
 the word ** brethren'* is used sometimes 
 to indicate a fellowship in a common 
 cause or work, but only when its meta- 
 phorical use or meaning is apparent. 
 When used to express blood kinship, its 
 literal meaning must prevail, unless a 
 different meaning is not only obvious, 
 but necessary. When the angel spqke 
 to Mary of her relative, the wife of Zach- 
 arias, who was to be the mother of John 
 the Baptist, he said: *'Thy cousin Eliza- 
 beth.'* The word ^'brother," or *'breth- 
 ren," is as definite in the Greek of the 
 New Testament as with us; so, also, is 
 the word *' cousin." These words are 
 not synonymous, nor are they used in- 
 
MARY, AND ''THE OTHER JlfARV.'' 91 
 
 differently. Neither of the evangelists 
 said "brethren" when "cousins" were 
 meant. 
 
 There is, however, no available proof 
 that the children of this "other Mary" 
 were the cousins of our Lord. It is not 
 conceded that the two Marys were sis- 
 ters. So remarkable a thing as two 
 sisters in the same family bearing the 
 same name is not to be accepted with- 
 out the most indubitable and explicit 
 testimony. It is too unusual, if not pre- 
 posterous, to be received on slight 
 ground. No evangelist asserts it; no 
 properly-read passage hints it, or im- 
 plies it; and no alleged fact requires it 
 to be taken as an inference. It is sim- 
 ply a mistake. The only basis for it is 
 a single verse in John's Gospel, which 
 is misread and misinterpreted when that 
 meaning is given to it. The slight am- 
 biguity in one verse, the real meaning 
 
92 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 of which is easily gained, is quite too 
 narrow a foundation for an hypothesis of 
 such extraordinary character to rest upon. 
 We must study the passage, and see the 
 unreasonableness of the construction 
 which makes sisters of the two IMarys. 
 There is something peculiar in this 
 matter of kinship with Jesus. He had 
 many ^' kinsfolk'^ among whom he might 
 have traveled from Jerusalem on the oc- 
 casion of his visit to that city when 
 twelve years old. He had two *' cousins " 
 in the apostleship from the beginning, 
 without regarding James the Less as 
 one. The fact has not been so generally 
 recognized, but is nevertheless pretty 
 clearly established, that the mother of 
 Zebedee's children was sister to Mary, 
 the mother of Jesus, and that she was 
 the "sister'* who was present with her 
 at the cross. Hence it follows that 
 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, 
 
MARY, AND ''THE OTHER MAR)'.'' 93 
 
 were his cousins. The proof of this is 
 much more satisfactory than anything 
 that can be said in favor of the proposi- 
 tion that James the Less sustained that 
 relation to him. In fact, there is no 
 available proof at all on this point, not- 
 withstanding the confidence with which 
 the assertion has been made, and its 
 wide acceptance. 
 
 This study of the kinship of Jesus 
 with the apostles brings up another 
 question which must receive due atten- 
 tion, because it is vital in the main issue. 
 The Apostle Paul, in speaking of his 
 early association with the apostles after 
 his conversion, says: *'Then, after three 
 years, 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.'* (Gal. 
 i, 18, 19.) What James was this? Why 
 was he called ''the Lord's brother?" 
 
94 3fARV OF NAZARETH. 
 
 The position of those who deny that the 
 Lord had any brother is well understood, 
 but must be stated again. It is, that 
 this James was *' James the Less," one 
 of the twelve, who was the son of Al- 
 pheus, and whose mother was Mary, the 
 wife of Cleopas, the alleged sister to 
 Mary, the mother of Jesus ; and that be- 
 ing a cousin to Jesus, he was called his 
 brother, in a sort of loose or general use 
 of the word. Everything in this view 
 of the case hinges on the unproved as- 
 sum.ption that these two Marys were 
 sisters. Whether there was a third 
 James, who became an apostle, as did 
 Paul and Barnabas and others, who were 
 not of the twelve, is also involved in 
 this inquiry. If the two Marys were 
 not sisters, the children of *'the other 
 Mary" were not cousins to Jesus — not 
 on his mother's side, at least — and there- 
 fore James the Less could not have been 
 
MARV, AND ''THE OTHER MARV." 95 
 
 called the "Lord's brother'^ on the 
 ground alleged, meaning not brother, 
 but cousin. Thus it appears that so 
 much depends on proving the extraor- 
 dinary proposition that two sisters in the 
 same family were named Mary, that one 
 might properly expect the proof to be as 
 clear as the sun in a cloudless sky; but, 
 instead, it does not amount to proof at 
 all, being only an improper reading or 
 punctuation of a sentence in a single 
 verse. 
 
 The passage which means so much in 
 this discussion is John xix, 25: "Now 
 there stood by the cross of Jesus, his 
 mother, and his mother's sister, Mary 
 the wife of Cleopas, and Mary Mag- 
 dalene." The meaning of this verse 
 very largely depends on the tone and 
 punctuation. It can be read so as to 
 favor the hypothesis which makes the 
 two Marys sisters j but that is evidently 
 
96 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 not the true meaning. The question is, 
 How many persons, besides the mother 
 of Jesus, were designated as standing by 
 the cross? If only two, then one of 
 them was his mother's sister, and that 
 one was named Mary, the wife of 
 Cleopas. But if there were three 
 women designated, then *'his mother's 
 sister" w^as not named by John, and was 
 not the wife of Cleopas. It is easy to 
 read the passage so as to indicate the 
 presence of three in addition to *'his 
 mother," and thus bring it into harmony 
 with the statements of the other evan- 
 gelists on the same point, who clearly 
 mention three. Let it be read with a 
 different punctuation, so as to bring out 
 the sense: "Now there stood by the 
 cross of Jesus, his mother and his 
 mother's sister; Mary, the wife of Cle- 
 opas, and Mary Magdalene." Since 
 punctuation is not of divine authority, 
 
MARY, AND ''THE OTHER MARY. 97 
 
 that is best which best gives the sense 
 of the writer. The two sisters are prop- 
 erly joined in one member of the sen- 
 tence. Then the third one of the group 
 is '' Mary, the wife of Cleopas." The 
 occurrence of the semi-colon at once dis- 
 tinguishes the persons as not the same, 
 and supersedes the conjunction "and,'* 
 which might have been used without 
 altering the sense. The conjunction be- 
 tween the words "sister^' and "Mary" 
 would certainly have necessitated the 
 meaning here contended for; and yet it 
 was not necessary to express that mean- 
 ing, because the person named after 
 " sister " was not the last one named in 
 the list. It is common usage, and good 
 usage both in Greek and English, to 
 omit the conjunction till the last name 
 in a list is reached, or till the beginning 
 of the last member of a compound sen- 
 tence. Peter, James, and John is the 
 7 
 
98 MAJ?V OF NAZARETH. 
 
 common form. But where two are re- 
 lated, or more intimately grouped than 
 others, it is good form to join them in 
 one expression, as ** his mother and his 
 mother's sister;" and, while the semi- 
 colon here would better bring out the 
 sense, neither its absence, nor the ab- 
 sence of the conjunction *^ and,'* binds us 
 to accept a meaning which is so unusual 
 and extraordinary as that sought to be 
 put upon this verse. Learned essays 
 have been written to show that the ab- 
 sence of the *'and'' {kai) in this place 
 proves the strange assumption not 
 hinted at elsewhere in all the Scriptures, 
 that the two Marys w^ere sisters, and 
 that only two women were designated 
 by John as standing with the mother of 
 Jesus at his cross. But all the other 
 evangelists designate three, while the 
 best reading of this passage, either with 
 or without the better punctuation, 
 
MARY, AND ''THE OTHER MARY.'' 99 
 
 clearly indicates three. His mother's 
 sister, who was not named, was the first ; 
 Mary, the wife of Cleopas, the second; 
 and Mary Magdalene was the third. 
 
 In confirmation of this reading, we 
 shall find out that these three were pres- 
 ent ; and we shall also find the name of 
 this sister to the mother of Jesus, whom 
 this evangelist did not name; and we 
 shall find, in addition, the reason why 
 John did not give her name ; and also 
 that she was John's own mother. If all 
 this be shown, then, of course, the other 
 interpretation which makes the two 
 Marys sisters fails of proof, and goes 
 down with all the vast superstructure of 
 Mariolatry and false interpretations built 
 upon it. A most marvelous instance is 
 this of almost infinite results following a 
 mistaken reading of a single verse — nay, 
 a single sentence in a single verse ! 
 
 The record by the other evangelists 
 
lOO MAJ^y OF NAZARETH. 
 
 settles the question as to the number of 
 women present — that is, the number of 
 those designated, and, inferentially, as to 
 the one who was " sister '* to the mother 
 of Jesus. We read, Matthew xxvii, 55, 
 56 : " And many women were there be- 
 holding afar off, which followed Jesus 
 from Galilee, ministering unto him : 
 among which was Mary Magdalene, and 
 Mary the mother of James and Joses, 
 and the mother of Zebedee's children.'* 
 Here are the three who were sufficiently 
 prominent or important to be designated 
 particularly, as those who came with 
 Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto 
 him. There is no reason to doubt that 
 Matthew and John designated the same 
 three who were with the mother of Jesus, 
 although Matthew does not mention her 
 as present at all. Of these three, two 
 are the same that John named, and the 
 third Is the one whom John did not 
 
MARY, AND ''THE OTHER MARY^ lOI 
 
 name, but mentioned as sister to Mary, 
 the mother of Jesus. She is not named 
 here, but is identified as " the mother of 
 Zebedee's children." She is, therefore, 
 the mother of James and John. Now, 
 by turning to Mark xv, 40, 41, we find 
 the same group recognized and desig- 
 nated as follows : ** There were also 
 women looking on afar off: among 
 whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary 
 the mother of James the Less and of Jo- 
 ses, and Salome ; who also, when he was 
 in Galilee, followed him, and ministered 
 unto him; and many other women 
 which came up with him unto Jerusa- 
 lem." All the three which are honored 
 with such particular mention were with 
 him in Galilee, and followed him, and 
 ministered unto him, a service in which 
 Salome was conspicuous. Mary Mag- 
 dalene, and "the other Mary," the 
 mother of James the Less, are never 
 
I02 3IARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 omitted. The third of this select group 
 is named by Mark, but otherwise desig- 
 nated by Matthew and John. Matthew 
 calls her *' the mother of Zebedee's chil- 
 dren ;'' John speaks of her as the sister 
 of the mother of Jesus — "his mother 
 and his mother's sister;" but here in 
 Mark she is *' Salome." Collating all 
 these, we designate her at once as Sa- 
 lome, sister to Mary the mother of Jesus, 
 wife of Zebedee, and the mother of 
 James and John. She was with Jesus 
 in Galilee, and ministered unto him, 
 probably furnishing him with a home 
 much of the time he spent in Caper- 
 naum and the vicinity of the lake, be- 
 fore his mother moved from Nazareth, 
 and possibly after she and her other chil- 
 dren came to Capernaum to live. She 
 certainly came with him from Galilee 
 up to Jerusalem ; for it was on this 
 journey that she brought her two sons 
 
MARY, AND ''THE OTHER JlfARV.'' 103 
 
 to Jesus, and requested him to place 
 them, one on his right hand and the 
 other on his left hand, when he should 
 come into his kingdom. A very strange 
 and bold request, one is ready to say, 
 and utterly presumptuous, till we re- 
 member the relation she sustained to 
 Jesus, as his mother's sister, and his 
 own aunt and hostess, and as the 
 mother of two of his most devoted and 
 most beloved disciples, who were with 
 her, and joined her in the request. 
 
 John was peculiar about mentioning 
 the names of those especially dear to him. 
 Among these were his mother and the 
 mother of Jesus. These are not named 
 in his Gospel. His brother James he 
 does not name. All these are recognized 
 in his writings, so as to be identified, but 
 not by name. It was so with his own 
 name. When he spoke of himself, it 
 was ''that other disciple," or the "disci- 
 
I04 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 pie whom Jesus loved," or *'the disciple 
 which testifieth of these things." When 
 he spoke of his brother and himself, 
 he said, ''the sons of Zebedee." When 
 he spoke of Mary, the mother of Jesus, 
 the name was omitted, and it w^as "the 
 mother of Jesus," or *'his mother." So 
 when he would identify the two women 
 at the cross of Jesus for whom he felt 
 the tenderest sympathy and the deepest 
 veneration, he wrote, *'His mother and 
 his mother's sister." There must have 
 been in his nature some peculiar sensi- 
 tiveness on this subject, perhaps a feel- 
 ing akin to that which restrained a de- 
 vout Israelite from pronouncing the 
 name of the Deity without uncovering 
 his head. Now, in view of this singu- 
 larity in John's character, it appears in 
 exact keeping with his method, to indi- 
 cate the presence of these two sisters in 
 this way, without naming either, or in- 
 
MARY, AND ''THE OTHER AfARV,'' 105 
 
 timating the relation of either to him- 
 self. His own mother, *'the mother of 
 Zebedee's children,'* was one of the 
 most prominent of the noted women 
 who ministered to Jesus in Galilee, and 
 who came up to the feast, and stood by 
 the cross. She was conspicuous in 
 every good work, and was not absent 
 when the supreme trial came. True to 
 her faith, and true to her instincts of 
 sisterhood, she was with the mother 
 of Jesus in this darkest hour, and with 
 her till after the Sabbath was past, and 
 with those who brought the glad news 
 of the resurrection on the morning of 
 the first day of the week. 
 
 John named the other women without 
 hesitation. He said, *'Mary the wife 
 of Cleopas;'* that is, literally, *'Mary 
 of Cleopas," the word *'wife" being 
 supplied, where the word "daughter" 
 might have been inserted; or, if Klopas 
 
I06 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 were a place, and not a person, it would 
 be Mary of Klopas^ as Mary Magdalene 
 is Mary of Magdala. But no such place 
 is known, and Clopas, or Cleopas, is the 
 name of a person, and the indication of 
 this Mary as his wife is probably cor- 
 rect. It seems to have been another 
 name for Alpheus, it being not unusual 
 for one to be known by two names, as 
 Matthew was also Levi; and as Bar- 
 tholomew was also Nathanael; and as 
 Simon was called Cephas; and as Leb- 
 beus was Thaddeus, and possibly Judas. 
 When Luke made reference to the 
 women standing at the cross, he did it 
 in a more general way. He gave no 
 names, simply saying: *^And all his ac- 
 quaintance, and the women that fol- 
 lowed him from Galilee, stood afar off, 
 beholding these things.'* But further 
 along in the story, when he describes 
 the fidelity of those who remained till 
 
iMARV, AND ''THE OTHER MARV." 1 07 
 
 after the burial, and prepared for the 
 embalming, he gives the names of the 
 women who reported the resurrection, 
 and among them one who was not of 
 the distinguished group that stood afar 
 off, witnessing the crucifixion. She may 
 have been present, as were many others, 
 but she was not spoken of by name, or in 
 any way designated till after the resurrec- 
 tion. She can not therefore be thought 
 of as being the unnamed *' sister" to the 
 mother of Jesus; nor yet as the *' mother 
 of Zebedee's children.'^ The identifica- 
 tion of that one already made can not be 
 impeached. Luke says: *'It was Mary 
 Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the 
 mother of James, and other women that 
 were with them, which told these things 
 unto the apostles.'* (Luke xxiv, lo.) 
 Joanna was undoubtedly a person of 
 some importance, worthy of this men- 
 tion in this company of excellent 
 
I08 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 women, whose names are enshrined for- 
 ever in the hearts of believers, as well 
 as written in the imperishable records 
 of inspiration. If unknown in all other 
 relations, this one recognition would 
 place her among the honorable women 
 whose devotion led them early to the 
 forsaken tomb, and brought them visions 
 of angels, and made them the first wit- 
 nesses of the resurrection of the Son of 
 God. She was, by implication, one of 
 those of whom this evangelist says : *'And 
 the women also, which came with him 
 from Galilee, followed after, and beheld 
 the sepulcher, and how his body was 
 laid. And they returned, and prepared 
 spices and ointments; and rested the 
 Sabbath day according to the command- 
 ment." These same women, after the 
 Sabbath, while it was yet twilight, on 
 the morning of the first day of the 
 week, came to the sepulcher, to carry 
 
MARY, AND ''THE OTHER MARVy 109 
 
 out their purpose of embalming the 
 body, when, to their great astonishment, 
 they found the stone rolled away, and 
 the sepulcher empty. Their distress at 
 this discovery was at first agonizing, but 
 it lasted only for a moment; for just 
 then appeared angels from heaven, and 
 announced to them the most stupendous 
 fact in the history of Redemption. 
 "He is not here; for he is risen, as he 
 said.'* Then immediately one of the 
 angels, to quiet the alarm of the women, 
 that they might assure themselves of 
 the reality of the wonderful things tak- 
 ing place before their eyes, tenderly 
 said to them: "Come, see the place 
 where the Lord lay.'* He then bade 
 them go and tell his disciples that He 
 who was crucified was risen. Luke 
 says it was "Mary Magdalene, and Jo- 
 anna, and Mary the mother of James, 
 and other women that were with them. 
 
no MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 whicli told these things unto the apos- 
 tles." Mark puts John's mother, Sa- 
 lome, among them: *'And when the 
 Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, 
 Mary the mother of James, and Salome, 
 had bought sweet spices, that they 
 might come and anoint him. And very 
 early in the morning, the first day of 
 the week, they came unto the sepulcher 
 at the rising of the sun.'* John does 
 not include his mother in the list of 
 these early visitors, but she was there, 
 as she was never behind in the ministry 
 of love. Mary the mother of Jesus was 
 not there. She remained alone in her 
 silent grief, or perhaps with her other 
 sons, whose fidelity to her never failed, 
 while kindred and friends from Galilee 
 attended to the kindly offices for the 
 dead. But here we find the name of 
 this other woman, Joanna. 
 
 Who, then, was Joanna? May it not 
 
MAJ^ V, AND * ' THE OTHER MAR F. " III 
 
 be, after all, that this is the unnamed 
 sister to the mother of Jesus, who stood 
 with her at the cross? We find her 
 name elsewhere among those who had 
 received healing at the hand of Jesus. 
 *'And it came to pass afterward, that he 
 went throughout every city and village, 
 preaching and showing the glad tidings 
 of the kingdom of God; and the twelve 
 were with him. And certain women 
 which had been healed of evil spirits 
 and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, 
 out of whom went seven devils, and 
 Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's 
 steward, and Susanna, and many others, 
 which ministered to him of their sub- 
 stance." (lyuke viii, 1-3.) Joanna is 
 thus identified. She was the wife of 
 Chuza, Herod's steward. Her devotion 
 to Jesus was like that of Mary Magda- 
 lene, a tribute of gratitude for personal 
 healing. She was not mentioned as 
 
112 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 Standing at the cross, but she was prob- 
 ably there as one of the other women. 
 She was not the unnamed sister, to 
 whom John referred. (John xix, 25.) 
 That was Salome, "the mother of 
 Zebedee's children." Thus every line 
 of investigation brings us back to the 
 inevitable conclusion that three women 
 stood with the mother of Jesus at his 
 cross, and that these three were Salome, 
 his mother's sister; Mary the wife of Cle- 
 opas; and Mary Magdalene. This fact 
 is far-reaching in this discussion, and 
 tells with tremendous power against the 
 unnatural supposition that Mary the 
 wife of Cleopas, was the sister of Mary 
 the mother of Jesus. It also applies 
 with equal decisiveness against the 
 claim set up that James the Less, was 
 the apostle whom Paul designated as 
 "James the I^ord's brother." 
 
HIS BRETHREN— CONJECTURES. 
 
 '^N order to do full justice to the hy- 
 ffj pothesis which denies to Jesus any 
 brother, and to his mother any other 
 child than her *' first-born son,'^ we must 
 look at the several conjectures put forth 
 to give it the appearance of plausibility. 
 If the hypothesis be sustained, it must, 
 in some reasonable way, account for all 
 the facts known to exist in connection 
 with this family in Nazareth. 
 
 The leading fact, which is palpable 
 and indisputable, is, that there was a 
 family of children living in the house 
 Y/ith Joseph and Mar}^, as if they be- 
 longed there, and known to the neigh- 
 bors as their own. Unless this can be 
 
 explained in harmony with the supposed 
 ^ 8 113 
 
114 3IARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 non-parentage of this husband and wife, 
 the hypothesis falls to the ground for 
 want of support. Hence the ingenuity 
 of believers in the perpetual virginity 
 has been taxed to the utmost to give a 
 plausible solution of the problem. The 
 result is, that the ground is taken that 
 these children were all the children of 
 another Mary, who, upon the slender 
 ground already considered, is alleged to 
 have been the sister of Mary the wife of 
 Joseph, making her children cousins to 
 Jesus, and on that account called his 
 brethren. It is also assumed, on this 
 behalf, that Joseph was dead, and that 
 Cleopas, the husband of "the other 
 Mary," was dead; and that these two 
 widowed sisters, both named Mary, were 
 living together in one house, as one fam- 
 ily, and that the neighbors who knew 
 Jesus, looked upon the other children in 
 this household as his brothers and sis- 
 
HIS BRETHREN— CONJECTURES. 1 1 5 
 
 ters, when, in fact, they were only his 
 cousins. 
 
 The ingenuity of this conjecture is 
 not questioned; but its foundation has 
 already been removed in the showing 
 that there is not the least shadow of 
 reason for believing that these two 
 Marys were sisters, or ever lived to- 
 gether as one family. The children of 
 this family were not only supposed by 
 the neighbors to be the brethren and 
 sisters of Jesus, but the *' brethren" are 
 recognized by the sacred writers them- 
 selves as "his brethren," again and 
 again, and that through all his ministry 
 and till after the crucifixion and the 
 Pentecost. Moreover, they are spoken 
 of as "his brethren" in his presence, 
 and without any denial or modification 
 on his part. Further than this it is 
 scarcely necessary to go; and yet, in 
 order that the entire lack of trustworthi- 
 
1 1 6 MA R Y OF NAZA RETH. 
 
 ness in this conjecture may appear, it 
 will be shown that' facts do not admit 
 of the supposition that either one of 
 these Marys was a widow at the time 
 these children were living in the family 
 and passing in the community as the 
 brothers and sisters of Jesus. It is a 
 sort of common tradition that Joseph 
 died before Jesus began his public life, 
 but there is no proof of it; and it is 
 simply a part of the conjecture which 
 seems necessary to the dogma involved, 
 and which is so essential to Roman 
 Catholicism — the Mariolatry of that 
 Church resting upon it. 
 
 There is not the least particle of proof 
 that either Joseph or Cleopas was dead. 
 The occurrences which bring these chil- 
 dren into view belong to the earlier part 
 of the public ministry of Jesus. He had 
 been baptized; he had been through the 
 temptation in the mountain or wilder- 
 
HIS BRETHREN— CONJECTURES. 1 1 7 
 
 ness; and had returned to Nazareth, 
 where he preached in the synagogue, 
 and astonished the people, so that they 
 said: "Is not this the carpenter's son? 
 is not his mother called Mary? and his 
 brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, 
 and Judas? And his sisters, are they 
 not all with us? Whence, then, hath 
 this man all these things?" This famil- 
 iar way of alluding to Joseph as "the 
 carpenter," who was well known, and 
 whose sons and daughters were at home, 
 is not the way they would have spoken 
 if "the carpenter" had been dead. The 
 implication is clear that the \vhole fam- 
 ily lived there, so as to be known by 
 name. At a later period in his ministry, 
 when Jesus had come over to Capernaum 
 from beyond the lake, and, in addressing 
 the people, had spoken of himself as 
 "the bread of life," and as "the bread 
 which cometh down from heaven," "the 
 
Il8 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 Jews murmured at him, because he said, 
 I am the bread which came down from 
 heaven. And they said, Is not this 
 Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father 
 and mother we know? how is it then 
 that he saith, I came down from heaven?'^ 
 It is unreasonable to imagine the people 
 thus speaking if his ** father and mother" 
 were not both living. His mother was, 
 we know, and the two are so associated 
 in the minds of those who spoke of them 
 as to imply that they were together. It 
 is not at all likely that they would have 
 spoken of Joseph in this familiar way if 
 he had been dead. They did not refer 
 to him as one dead, or as having once 
 been known to them, but as still living, 
 "whose father and mother we know." 
 In this way people speak of their ac- 
 quaintances who are living. The whole 
 tenor of the Scriptures is against the 
 supposition that Joseph was dead at the 
 
HIS BRETHREN— CONJECTURES. 1 19 
 
 time James and Joses and Simon and 
 Judas were at home in Nazareth, known 
 as the brethren of Jesus, and as the 
 children of Joseph and Mary. We may 
 safely set this conjecture aside, not 
 merely as not proven, but as proven 
 false. It is not known when Joseph 
 died; but evidently it was not before the 
 time when the murmuring Jews said: 
 *' His father and mother we know." The 
 probability is that Joseph lived till near 
 the close of the public ministry of Christ* 
 The fact that he was not recognized as 
 being present at the crucifixion, and that 
 after that the mother of Jesus v/as put 
 under the care of her nephew John, who 
 took her to '^his own home," to live with 
 his mother, who was her own sister, gives 
 color to the supposition that her husband 
 was dead at that time. This presump- 
 tion of her widowhood at the time of the 
 crucifixion proves nothing favorable to 
 
I20 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 the conjecture that she had been a widow 
 for a long time, and had been living with 
 a sister whose .children passed for her 
 own. If that had been the case, there 
 appears no particular reason for break- 
 ing up so delightful an arrangement by- 
 sending her to live elsewhere. But if 
 her husband had recently died; and if 
 her home in Nazareth had been broken 
 up but a short time; and if she had 
 lately gone to Capernaum to reside ; and 
 if "the mother of Zebedee's children" 
 was really her sister, who did the sister's 
 part by standing with her at the cross ; 
 and seeing that her own sons were not 
 yet disciples, and were not settled for 
 living or for business, — the arrangement 
 for her was natural, and can be easily 
 understood. The mother of James and 
 John was evidently in good circum- 
 stances. Zebedee was possibly still 
 alive. The home was one where Jesus 
 
HIS BRETHREN— CONJECTURES. 121 
 
 and his niotlier were not strangers, and 
 wliere the kindly attentions of the "be- 
 loved disciple^' would come to her as a 
 balm to her wounded spirit. In all 
 probability, the commendation of Jesus 
 to his mother and John, to regard each 
 other with motherly and filial love, did 
 not change the home which had previ- 
 ously opened to her; but sanctioned and 
 sanctified an order of things which was 
 now to become permanent, and needed 
 only his blessing. 
 
 The conjecture before us makes '*the 
 other Mary" a widow also, living in 
 Nazareth with the mother of Jesus, 
 where her children were taken to be the 
 brothers and sisters of Jesus. What 
 ground is there for supposing she was a 
 widow? Not the least in the world. It 
 is gratuitous guess-work, pure and sim- 
 ple. Moreover, it is highly improbable. 
 She is not at any time spoken of as a 
 
122 MAI^y OJ^ JVAZA RETH. 
 
 widow, but always as a wife. She is the 
 wife of Cleopas. If Cleopas was living 
 when she was mentioned as being his 
 wife, she was identified at once. The 
 question as to whether Cleopas and 
 Alpheus are identical, is not involved at 
 this point, but simply the question as to 
 whether Mary, the mother of James the 
 Less, was the wife, or the widow, of Cle- 
 opas. She is called his wife ; but is there 
 any ground for believing him dead? 
 There certainly is not; while all refer- 
 ences to him, and to Mary his wife, 
 clearly imply that he was living. This 
 ought to be sufficient to set aside a base- 
 less conjecture; but, then, there is proof 
 on the other side. Cleopas was living, 
 and he was a disciple, probably known 
 to all the company of the disciples gath- 
 ered at Jerusalem ; a witness of the cruci- 
 fixion, and one to whom Jesus revealed 
 himself after his resurrection. He was 
 
HIS BRETHREN— CONJECTURES. 1 23 
 
 one of the two disciples walking towards 
 Bmmaus, when the risen Christ came to 
 them, and walked and talked with them, 
 and then made himself known to them. 
 We read, Luke xxiv, 13-18: ''And, be- 
 hold, two of them went that same day 
 to a village called Bmmaus, which was 
 from Jerusalem about threescore fur- 
 longs. And they talked together of all 
 these things which had happened. And 
 it came to, pass that, while they com- 
 muned together and reasoned, Jesus 
 himself drew near, and went with them. 
 But their eyes were holden, that they 
 should not know him. And he said 
 unto them, What manner of communi- 
 cations are these that ye have one to 
 another, as ye walk, and are sad? And 
 the one of them whose name was Cle- 
 opas, answering, said unto him. Art thou 
 only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast 
 not known the things which are come 
 
124 MARY OF NAZARETH, 
 
 to pass there in these days?" Here is a 
 disciple named Cleopas, and he is evi- 
 dently one of the "acquaintances" who 
 lingered about the cross till all was over, 
 and then remained with the sorrowing 
 company till the Sabbath was past. He 
 identified himself with those most inti- 
 mately concerned, when he said: "Yea, 
 and certain women also of our com- 
 pany made us astonished, which were 
 early at the sepulcher; and when they 
 found not his body, they came, saying 
 that they had also seen a vision of an- 
 gels, which said that he was alive. And 
 certain of them which were with us 
 went to the sepulcher, and found it even 
 so as the women had said." (Luke 
 xxiv, 22-24.) ^^^^ women who went 
 first to the sepulcher were "of our com- 
 pany;" they also "made us astonished;" 
 and, then, "certain of them which were 
 with us went to the sepulcher." Surely, 
 
HIS BRETHREN— CONJECTURES. 1 25 
 
 then, this disciple was with the apostles, 
 and with the women, and there is no 
 reason for doubting that he was the 
 Cleopas who was the husband of "the 
 other Mary," one of the women last at 
 the cross and first at the sepulcher; and 
 this Mary was the mother of James the 
 Less, one of the twelve. It is therefore 
 impossible that she should have been a 
 widow, living in Nazareth with the 
 mother of Jesus, and her children pass- 
 ing as the brethren of Jesus. At that 
 very time two of her children were 
 apostles, traveling about with Jesus in 
 the active pursuit of his great mission. 
 Thus it appears that this conjecture of 
 the widowhood of these two Marys is 
 contradicted by facts too formidable to 
 be set aside without positive testimony, 
 which is wholly lacking and impossible. 
 Commentators follow one another in 
 the hasty conclusion that this Cleopas, 
 
126 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 wliom Jesus met on the way to Em- 
 maus, is not the same as the husband of 
 Mary. There is a slight difference in 
 the orthography of the name in different 
 places ; but, unless the derivation is 
 proven to be entirely different, this fact 
 proves nothing. Whether written Clo- 
 pas, Cleopas, or Cleophas, there is not 
 the shadow of argument against the 
 identity of the person in the spelling, 
 since very many proper names in the 
 Gospels are differently spelled. Even 
 Simon is sometimes Simeon. (Acts xv, 
 14.) No other Cleopas than the husband 
 of Mary is known to have been so in- 
 timately related to the disciples as this 
 man is shown to have been ; and if he 
 were another, the fact would have been 
 intimated in some way. 
 
 There is still another conjecture to be 
 considered. Some who concede that 
 there were two families with sons of the 
 
HIS BRETHREN— CONJECTURES. 1 2 7 
 
 same names, assume that those passing 
 as the brothers of Jesus were the sons 
 of Joseph by a former wife, and were, 
 therefore, his stepbrothers, and popu- 
 larly known as his brethren in the com- 
 munity. The age of this conjecture, 
 though it be traced to the second cen- 
 tury, gives it no authority. While it is 
 more plausible than is the assumption 
 that the two Marys were sisters, it is 
 without the semblance of truth, having 
 no recognition in the Scriptures. No 
 one knows whether Joseph was a wid- 
 ower or not, whether he was an elderly 
 man or quite young, when he married 
 Mary. The work of artists in repre- 
 senting him as an old man is purely 
 imaginary. It is like that of picturing 
 the mother of Zebedee's children as a 
 beautiful young woman, with two little 
 boys at her knees, asking Jesus to place 
 one of them at his ris:ht hand and one 
 
128 MAJ^r OF NAZARETH. 
 
 Sit his left, in his kingdom ; when, in 
 fact, this request was made in behalf of 
 two apostles, of full stature and mature 
 life. If Joseph had been married pre- 
 viously, and had these four sons and 
 several daughters, even the youngest of 
 them would have been older than Mary's 
 "first-born son,'* and some of them con- 
 siderably older ; and as Jesus was thirty 
 when he began his ministry, some of 
 them would have been settled in fam- 
 ilies of their own, and would not have 
 been living with their stepmother, and 
 accompanying her from place to place 
 as her children, subject to her will, while 
 Jesus was going about with his disciples 
 preaching the Kingdom of God. 
 
 While we may not deny the possibility 
 that Joseph was a widower, the conjec- 
 ture is devoid of important elements of 
 probability. It is in the highest degree 
 improbable that he had a, family of chil- 
 
HIS BRETHREN— CONJECTURES. 1 29 
 
 dren at home, and left them to care for 
 themselves, when he so hastily took 
 Mary and the young child and departed 
 into Egypt. While they were older than 
 the child whose life he sought to save, 
 they were not at that time — thirty years 
 before the beginning of Christ's min- 
 istry — old enough to warrant the father 
 and stepmother in departing out of the 
 country without making provision for 
 their protection and support. It is next 
 to impossible to believe that any humane 
 father would do such a thing, or be 
 providentially led to do it. In view of 
 all the circumstances, the supposition 
 that Joseph had this large family of 
 young children before his marriage with 
 Mary, is so unreasonable that one may 
 safely say it would never have had any 
 credence in the Church but for the sup- 
 posed necessity of holding, at any cost of 
 consistency, to the non-parentage life of 
 
130 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 Joseph and Mary. There is nothing 
 like blind devotion to Church traditions 
 to override reason and common sense. 
 
 This does not exhaust the catalogue 
 of conjectures, which have had more or 
 less of patronage from age to age in the 
 past, all designed to furnish a mother 
 for the "brethren" of our Savior, with- 
 out allowing them to be the children of 
 Joseph and Mary, which ought to be the 
 most natural and honorable conclusion 
 one could reach from the Scripture nar- 
 ratives. A false estimate of Paul's com- 
 mendation of celibacy for the period of 
 persecution, as an expediency in the 
 time of the wonderful distress to which 
 the Church was subjected, has been car- 
 ried to such extremes that the estate of 
 singleness has been exalted into a vir- 
 tue, while matrimony has been dispar- 
 aged as incompatible with the highest 
 spirituality. This persistent effort, in 
 
HIS BRETHREN— CONJECTURES. 13I 
 
 one way or another, to make the breth- 
 ren of Jesus his cousins, has brought out 
 the conjecture that Joseph and Cleopas, 
 or Alpheus, were brothers, and that 
 therefore, in the popular thought, the 
 children of the latter were related to the 
 son of Mary in this roundabout way, 
 which was enough to justify the evan- 
 gelists in calling them "his brethren." 
 Some ancient writers believed this rela- 
 tion existed between Joseph and Al- 
 pheus, We do not know whether it did 
 or not; but whether the conjecture be 
 true or false, it is not sufficiently authen- 
 ticated to command belief; and, if be- 
 lieved, it does not account for the as- 
 sumed fact that the children of Alpheus 
 lived with Joseph and Mary, passing for 
 their children, and did not live with 
 their own parents. The ingenuity of 
 men has not yet proved keen enough to 
 invent an hypothesis that will satisfy all 
 
132 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 the conditions of this problem. The 
 stubborn fact remains that in the house- 
 hold of the carpenter of Nazareth, there 
 were several children living as in the 
 home of their parents, known to the 
 neighbors as the children of Joseph and 
 Mary, and definitely recognized in the 
 Scriptures as the brothers and sisters of 
 Jesus, and never as his cousins. 
 
 It is known that one of this family was 
 named James, and it has always been 
 claimed by those who deny that Mary 
 had any other child than Jesus, that this 
 James was one of the twelve, James the 
 Less, the son of Alpheus ; and that this 
 particular James was also the one whom 
 the Apostle Paul recognized as '* James 
 the Lord's brother." Now, if this James 
 was indeed James the Less, the son of 
 Alpheus, he was not at home in Nazareth 
 with the carpenter when Jesus came 
 there to preach in the synagogue ; when 
 
HIS BRETHREN— CONJECTURES. 1 33 
 
 the neiglibors referred to him by name 
 as the brother of Jesus, and as at home, 
 known to them all. James the Less, the 
 son of Alpheus, had been called into the 
 apostolic family before this, and was 
 with the twelve, spending his time with 
 them traveling about the villages and 
 cities of Galilee, but most of the time in 
 the vicinity of the lake of Galilee. How 
 could he be at home and abroad at once ? 
 How could he be with the Master and 
 the twelve, and yet with the carpenter 
 in Nazareth? These points will become 
 more and more significant as we proceed. 
 When Jesus was in the very height 
 of his busiest journeyings from place to 
 place, teaching and preaching, and doing 
 wonderful works, with his twelve dis- 
 ciples, and large crowds waiting upon 
 his ministry, his mother and his brethren 
 came to see him, and wished to speak 
 with him. They could not approach 
 
134 3fARV OF NAZARETH. 
 
 him because of the crowd. It was 
 doubtless some important matter, either 
 with reference to himself or the family, 
 in which they sought to interest him. 
 What it was is not important to us. Of 
 their coming Matthew says : " While he 
 yet talked to the people, behold, his 
 mother and his brethren stood without, 
 desiring to speak with him. Then one 
 said unto him, Behold, thy mother and 
 thy brethren stand without, desiring to 
 speak with thee. But he answered and 
 said unto him that told him. Who is my 
 mother? and who are my brethren? 
 And he stretched forth his hand toward 
 his disciples, and said. Behold my 
 mother and my brethren ! For whoso- 
 ever shall do the will of my Father which 
 is in heaven, the same is my brother, 
 and sister, and mother." (Matthew xii, 
 46-50. See, also, Mark iii, 31-35; and 
 Luke viii, 19-21.) In these passages, 
 
HIS BRETHREN— CONJECTURES. 1 35 
 
 while he sought to impress the people 
 that the spiritual relation to God and to 
 one another, was more valuable in the 
 religious sense than the ties of nature, 
 he did not disparage the latter, nor deny 
 that the parties standing without were 
 what they were supposed to be — "his 
 mother and his brethren." He never 
 denied the relation which the people 
 thought to exist between himself and 
 " his brethren.'^ If the people were be- 
 lieving what was untrue, he confirmed 
 them in the wrong impression, and mis- 
 led them. He pointed to the most en- 
 dearing relations of human life, as under- 
 stood by all present, to illustrate the 
 spiritual union between himself and 
 those who do the will of God. If some 
 one says he did not acknowledge "his 
 brethren'* as being such, the reply is 
 that he treated his "mother'* precisely 
 as he did "his brethren." There is not 
 
136 3fARV OF NAZARETH. 
 
 room for doubt that all who heard him 
 believed that his brethren were brothers 
 indeed, the sons of his mother, and he 
 said no word to indicate the contrary. 
 
 Beyond this, however, is the fact that 
 at the time of this interview, while *' his 
 mother and his brethren " were without, 
 James the Less was not with those with- 
 out, but he was with the disciples within, 
 he being one of the twelve. It is, there- 
 fore, impossible to regard him as the 
 James whose name heads the list of "his 
 brethren." He was not of that family, 
 whether he was in any sense a cousin, or 
 other relative, or not. True, it is not 
 said that all his brethren were without, 
 or that every member of the family was 
 there, but the scope of the passage is en- 
 tirely inconsistent with the idea that one 
 of *' his brethren " was inside with him, 
 and had been with him from the begin- 
 ning, as one of the twelve. No one 
 
HIS BRETHREN— CONJECTURES. 1 37 
 
 would ever infer such a thing from this 
 passage, or from any other Scripture. 
 Every effort to make out that James the 
 Less, the son of Alpheus, was of the 
 family of Joseph the carpenter, and 
 known in Nazareth, or among the 
 twelve, or by any person on the earth, 
 as one of " his brethren," must fail ut- 
 terly, because there is nothing to support 
 it, and very much against it. He was 
 the son of another Mary, the wife of 
 Cleopas, who, as has been seen, was a 
 living disciple till after Christ's resur- 
 rection, and, without reasonable doubt, 
 was the head of his own family, of which 
 James the Less was a member, whether 
 he lived in Nazareth or not; for the 
 place of his residence is not reported in 
 the Scriptures. From all allusions made 
 to Nazareth, and the treatment Jesus 
 himself received there, no one would 
 ever suspect that one or two of the 
 
138 MAI?V OF NAZARETH. 
 
 twelve apostles came from there, at so 
 early a period as that at which he called 
 the twelve, and ordained them apostles. 
 The residence of several of the apostles 
 is given, with such distinguishing re- 
 marks concerning their families, that if 
 one came from Nazareth, and from the 
 family of Joseph, it is incredible that 
 such a fact would have been passed over 
 in silence. '' Now Philip was of Beth- 
 saida, the city of Andrew and Peter." 
 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, 
 are easily located. The other James 
 was " the son of Alpheus." If Alpheus 
 was well known, which is probable, that 
 designation would fully identify this 
 James, and prevent any one from think- 
 ing him of the family of Joseph of Naz- 
 areth. If Alpheus and Cleopas were the 
 same person, Cleopas being a disciple, 
 but not an apostle, and being the hus- 
 band of *' the other Mary," the family is 
 
HIS BRETHREN— CONJECTURES, 1 39 
 
 amply identified. If Alpheus and Cle- 
 opas were not the same, the only rational 
 conclusion is that Alpheus was the for- 
 mer husband of Mary, who was now the 
 wife of Cleopas, and the mother of 
 James. She was also the mother of 
 Joses, who was doubtless a disciple, as 
 his name appears in such intimate asso- 
 ciation with that of James and his mother 
 at the crucifixion. Still another of this 
 family came into the apostolic office, 
 Judas the brother of James, who was 
 one of the twelve, thought by many to 
 be the person who was called Thaddeus 
 by Matthew. The identity of this Judas 
 with Thaddeus is important here only 
 as showing that two sons of " the other 
 Mary " were apostles early, while as yet 
 all '' his brethren '» were out of the fold, 
 and not so much as disciples. It is 
 thought that this Judas, the brother of 
 James, was called Thaddeus to distin- 
 
I40 MAIiV OF NAZARETH. 
 
 guish him from the other Judas, who 
 was also one of the twelve; that is, 
 Judas Iscariot. But, even if this identi- 
 fication should fail, there is still a possi- 
 bility of finding harmony as to the lists 
 of the apostles, and a place for this 
 Judas. When Jesus had spoken some 
 truths too deep for the people, it is said 
 that from that time '* many of his dis- 
 ciples went back, and walked no more 
 with him.'* They may not have aposta- 
 tized, but withdrew from public identi- 
 fication with him. There is no hint that 
 one of the twelve withdrew, but the 
 Master's pathetic appeal to those that 
 remained, indicates some apprehension 
 as to the stability of all of them. " Then 
 said Jesus unto the twelve. Will ye also 
 go away? Then Simon Peter answered 
 him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou 
 hast the words of eternal life." In the 
 list of apostles as first chosen, Matthew 
 
HIS BRETHREN— CONJECTURES. 1 4 1 
 
 gives the name of Lebbeus, also called 
 Thaddeus, and only one Judas; but in 
 the later lists, and notably that given of 
 the eleven after the resurrection, Judas, 
 the brother of James, appears, and Thad- 
 deus does not. Either Thaddeus and 
 this Judas were the same, or else Thad- 
 deus withdrew and Judas took his place. 
 Whether Judas, the brother of James, 
 came into the apostolic office at the be- 
 ginning as Thaddeus or not, he is in it, 
 and one of the twelve, before any of the 
 brethren of Jesus became believers. He, 
 with James the Less, belonged to the 
 other family, as has been abundantly 
 shown, and not to the family of Joseph, 
 the carpenter of Nazareth. When he 
 wrote the epistle which bears his name, 
 he called himself *' Jude, the serv^ant of 
 Jesus Christ, and brother of James."' 
 Thus two of the family of "the other 
 Mary" are apostles, and Joses is un- 
 
142 MARV OF NAZARETH. 
 
 doubtedly a disciple, while the fourth, 
 Simon, may or may not have been. 
 These can not be the brethren of Jesus, 
 notwithstanding the similarity of their 
 names. It is inconceivable that they 
 should be when all the facts are taken 
 into the account. The coincidence of 
 names is remarkable, but that is all. 
 There is no Scriptural authority for call- 
 ing them ^' cousins." Their mother was 
 one of the noblest of women, ever true 
 to her faith, and courageous to the last 
 degree ; standing in sight of the cross, 
 last at the tomb to see the dead body of 
 Jesus laid away, and with the first to re- 
 turn at dawn of the first- day of the 
 week with spices for the anointing; 
 then to become one of the first to be as- 
 sured of his resurrection and to bear the 
 news to his disciples. Nothing is taken 
 from the honor of her loyalty and gen- 
 uineness as a worthy disciple, and as the 
 
HIS BRETHREN— CONJECTURES. 1 43 
 
 mother of two of the chosen twelve, by 
 insisting that she was not the motheif of 
 those "brethren" who did not believe in 
 Jesus during all the period of his Gali- 
 lean ministry. Her sons were in the 
 faith very early, and endured to the end ; 
 but neither of them was "James, the 
 Lord's brother." 
 
Or^apfBr VI. 
 
 HIS BRETHREN NOT DISCIPI.ES. 
 
 tHIS brings us to another fact full 
 of significance in this discussion, 
 and which, added to the foregoing, ought 
 to be decisive, and settle the entire ques- 
 tion beyond dispute. It is that "his 
 brethren " did not believe on him, and 
 never became disciples till after his cruci- 
 fixion. The scope of the testimony is to 
 the effect that his brethren stood to- 
 gether in their relations with him ; and 
 it is not improbable that his mother hes- 
 itated, and moved very slowly in com- 
 mitting herself to his movements, being 
 amazed and full of wonder, not knowing 
 whereunto his strange career would lead. 
 She carried a burden in her heart with 
 
 reference to him; for, no doubt, the 
 144 
 
HIS BRETHREN NOT DISCIPLES. 1 45 
 
 prophetic words of Simeon, which fell 
 upon her ears in the temple, often came 
 to her with thrilling vividness, some- 
 tim.es bringing a pang, and casting a 
 shadow upon her hopes as to his future : 
 "Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy 
 own soul also." Her relation to him was 
 peculiar. As yet she could only *' ponder 
 in her heart" the things she knew, and 
 wait. But there was no division among 
 his brethren. Neither one nor two of 
 them became his disciples in his early 
 ministry. They tarried with his mother 
 while he went forth with the twelve. 
 They were not of the twelve ; therefore 
 they were not the children of " the other 
 Mary." Two of her children were ol 
 the twelve — ^James and Judas. 
 
 His standing in his own family, among 
 his kin, and in his own house, was 
 singular, and yet, perhaps, not unnat- 
 ural. There could have been no lack of 
 
146 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 reverence on his part towards Joseph 
 and his mother, nor of brotherly affec- 
 tion towards his brethren and sisters; 
 but the mysterious outgivings of his life, 
 which they witnessed and yet could not 
 understand, must have tended to keep 
 them somewhat aloof from him, and to 
 inspire in them feelings of anxiety, if 
 not questionings of his sanity. Indeed, 
 his friends or kinsfolk — no doubt includ- 
 ing his brethren — in the midst of his suc- 
 cess, ''went out to lay hold on himi for 
 they said, He is beside himself." (Mark 
 iii, 21.) The whole tenor of his life 
 was beyond their comprehension. They 
 stood in awe of him; and while they did 
 not commit themselves to him as dis- 
 ciples, they did not lose brotherly re- 
 gard for him. On the other hand, their 
 backwardness to enter into full sympathy 
 with him, must have been to him the 
 source of keen reo^ret. There is an evi- 
 
HIS BRETHREN NOT DISCIPLES. 1 47 
 
 dent tinge of sadness in his words when 
 he speaks of his non-acceptance at home, 
 although there is not lacking a strain of 
 rebuke: "And he went out from thence, 
 and came into his own country; and his 
 disciples follow him. And when the Sab- 
 bath-day was come, he began to teach in 
 the synagogue: and many hearing him 
 were astonished, saying. From whence 
 hath this man these things? and what 
 wisdom is this which is given unto him, 
 that even such mighty works are wrought 
 by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, 
 the son of Mary, the brother of James, 
 and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? 
 and are not his sisters here with us? 
 And they were offended in him. But 
 Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not 
 without honor, but in his own country, 
 and among his own kin, and in his own 
 house. And he could there do no mighty 
 work, save that he laid his hands upon a 
 
148 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 few sick folk, and healed them. And he 
 marveled because of their unbelief." 
 (Mark vi, 1-6. See also Matt, xiii, 
 54-58; and Luke iv, 16-23.) ^^^ ^^t- 
 thew the question is: ''Is not this the 
 carpenter's son?" This is doubtless the 
 visit to Nazareth, "where he was brought 
 up," when the people first "wondered at 
 the gracious words which proceeded out 
 of his mouth," and then became angry, 
 and "rose up, and thrust him out of the 
 city, and led him unto the brow of the hill 
 whereon their city was built, that they 
 might cast him down headlong." Their 
 sudden revulsion of feeling, seemingly 
 caused by his intimation that God had 
 thoughts of mercy towards some who 
 were not Jews, shows their excitable- 
 ness, as well as the strength of their 
 bigotry as Jews. From this time for- 
 ward he made Capernaum his home, and 
 the center of his operations, probably 
 
HIS BRETHREN NOT DISCIPLES. 1 49 
 
 accepting the hospitality of his aunt, the 
 mother of Zebedee's children. 
 
 The unbelief at Nazareth, at which he 
 marveled, was plainly painful to him. 
 Some of his own family were implicated. 
 This fact gave poignancy to his .grief. 
 There is pathos in the way he came, in 
 his reply, to those who were so dear to 
 him, and who withheld from him the 
 confidence he craved: "Save in his own 
 country^ and among his own kin^ and in 
 his own house, ^^ Passing from his coun- 
 trymen to his kin^ and from his kin to 
 those of his own house ^hs, touched a chord 
 that, in his mother's breast, must have 
 awakened memories of early prophecies 
 and deepest solicitude, and should have 
 brought from *'his brethren" responses 
 of fraternal sympathy. With what emo- 
 tions they received the expressions of 
 his sorrow is not known; but they did 
 not become his disciples. Neither James 
 
I50 3fAI?y OF NAZARETH. 
 
 nor Joses nor Judas nor Simon was ready 
 to receive his testimony, or enter into his 
 work; much less was either ready to be- 
 come an apostle. The James who was 
 with him — James the Less — was evi- 
 dently not of his kiii^ or of his own house. 
 Surely this is demonstrated. 
 
 The unbelief of his brethren contin- 
 ued throughout his ministry in Galilee, 
 and till after his crucifixion at Jerusalem. 
 It was late in his ministry, and not long 
 before his last journey to Jerusalem, 
 when they urged him to go into Judea 
 that his disciples might see his works, 
 rather implying inconsistency on his part 
 in keeping his works secret, and yet de- 
 siring public recognition of his claims. 
 So we read: *'Now the Jews' feast of 
 tabernacles was at hand. His brethren 
 therefore said unto him, Depart hence, 
 and go into Judea, that thy disciples 
 also may see the works that thou doest: 
 
HIS BRETHREN NOT DISCIPLES, 1 5 1 
 
 for there is no man that doeth anything 
 in secret, and he himself seeketh to be 
 known openly. If thon do these things, 
 show thyself to the world. For neither 
 did his brethren believe in him. Then 
 Jesus said unto them, My time is not 
 yet come : but your time is always ready. 
 The world can not hate you: but me it 
 hateth, because I testify of it that the 
 works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto 
 this feast: I go not up yet unto this 
 feast ; for my time is not yet full come. 
 When he had said these w^ords unto 
 them, he abode still in Galilee. But 
 when his brethren were gone up, then 
 went he also up unto the feast, not 
 openly, but as it were in secret." (John 
 vii, 2-10.) 
 
 Evidently *'his brethren" were per- 
 plexed, and while unwilling to acknowl- 
 edge him as the Messiah, they were im- 
 pressed with his extraordinary character. 
 
1 5 2 MAR Y OF NAZARETH. 
 
 They knew that strange influences at- 
 tended him; that he did things which 
 other men could not do ; that his wisdom 
 was beyond their depth ; that the purity 
 of his life lifted him above the suspicion 
 of pretentiousness; that neither sordid 
 nor selfish motives actuated him, — yet 
 they could not realize that the long-ex- 
 pected King of Israel dwelt in their 
 humble home. They were persuaded 
 that he was no ordinary person, and 
 were solicitous that those at Jerusalem, 
 whom they supposed most capable, 
 might have the opportunity, if it were 
 possible, to discover the secret of his 
 power. It is not unlikely that indigna- 
 tion sometimes mingled with their won- 
 der, as they sought to know more of the 
 mystery that surrounded him, only to find 
 themselves unable to approach the solu- 
 tion. They naturally held him at a dis- 
 tance, till he became, in feeling and in 
 
HIS 'BRETHREN NOT DISCIPLES. 1 53 
 
 fact, a "stranger to his brethren, and an 
 alien to his mother's children." 
 
 This exact condition of things was 
 foretold in the Psalms, proving at once 
 the prophetic character of the Psalm as 
 truly Messianic, and the relation of "his 
 brethren" to himself and to his mother. 
 In this investigation great weight is to 
 be recognized in these prophetic utter- 
 ances. They are quoted and applied to 
 him by the evangelists so as to show 
 their meaning and literal fulfillment. 
 In Psalm Ixix, 8, 9, we read words which 
 the New Testament ascribes to him: "I 
 am become a stranger unto my brethren, 
 and an alien unto my mother's children. 
 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten 
 me up: and the reproaches of them that 
 reproach thee are fallen upon me." If 
 these words relate to Christ, their testi- 
 mony is as if he had uttered them with 
 his own lips ; and their exact description 
 
154 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 of the state of things in his own house- 
 hold at Nazareth is something to think 
 about. 
 
 That the language does refer to him, 
 and is so applied in the New Testament, 
 is unquestionable. Take the following : 
 *'And his disciples remembered that it 
 was written, The zeal of thine house 
 hath eaten me up." (John ii, 17.) This 
 application to him of this sentence car- 
 ries with it the application of the whole 
 passage. The Apostle Paul applies the 
 same passage to Christ, quoting another 
 part of it : " For even Christ pleased not 
 himself; but, as it is written. The re- 
 proaches of them that reproached thee 
 fell on me.'^ (Romans xv, 2.) Then, 
 how pertinent and discriminating these 
 words : "A stranger unto my brethren, 
 and an alien unto my mother^s chil- 
 dren !'* An alien, not to my kindred, 
 nor to my cousins, nor to my father's 
 
HIS BRETHREN NOT DISCIPLES. 1 55 
 
 children, but *' an alien unto my mother's 
 children" — literally, *'the sons of my 
 mother." Further along in this Psalm 
 are other predictions concerning him, 
 which were fulfilled in him, and were 
 applied to him in the New Testament, 
 confirming the interpretation which 
 makes him and his brethren, who did not 
 believe in him, the subjects of this 
 prophecy : " They gave me also gall for 
 my meat, and in my thirst they gave me 
 vinegar to drink." (Psalm Ixix, 21.) 
 Who doubts that this was fulfilled when 
 Jesus hung upon the cross ? We read, 
 Matthew xxvii, 34: ''They gave him 
 vinegar to drink, mingled with gall." 
 Mark xv, 36: "And one ran and filled a 
 sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a 
 reed, and gave him to drink." John 
 xix, 29: "Now there was a vessel full of 
 vinegar, and they filled a sponge full of 
 vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and 
 
156 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 put it to his mouth." It can not be 
 that any one who believes the Scriptures 
 will doubt that the predictions of this 
 Psalm, even in their minuteness of de- 
 tail, were applied to Christ, and fulfilled 
 in him. But, if so, here are words w^liich 
 belong to him, with all their signifi- 
 cance: ''I am become a stranger unto 
 my brethren, and an alien unto my 
 mother's children.'' 
 
 There are predictions in another 
 Psalm concerning him, which were as 
 literally fulfilled in him, and are as dis- 
 tinctly applied to him, which are so used 
 by the evangelists as to corroborate the 
 above. Psalm xxii, 15-18: ''My strength 
 is dried up like a potsherd; and my 
 tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou 
 hast brought me into the dust of death. 
 For dogs have compassed me: the as- 
 sembly of the wicked have inclosed me : 
 they pierced my hands and my feet. I 
 
HIS BRETHREN NOT DISCIPLES. 1 57 
 
 may tell all my bones : they look and 
 stare upon me. They part my garments 
 among them, and cast lots upon my ves- 
 ture." Matthew so blends this passage 
 in its fulfillment, with the words above 
 quoted from Psalm Ix, 19, that the two 
 prophecies must apply alike to the same 
 person; ''They gave him vinegar to 
 drink, mingled with gall : and when he 
 had tasted thereof, he would not drink. 
 And they crucified him, and parted his 
 garments, casting lots : that it might be 
 fulfilled which was spoken by the 
 prophet, They parted my garments 
 among them, and upon my vesture did 
 they cast lots." 
 
 In the light of these prophecies, and 
 of their fulfillment in the person of the 
 Son of Mary, and their authoritative ap- 
 plication to him by New Testament 
 writers, we may well ask, What is lack- 
 ing in the proof that "his brethren," 
 
158 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 who did not believe in him; who took 
 him to be beside himself; who virtually 
 challenged him to submit his claims to 
 the specialists and experts of Jerusalem; 
 and to whom he became a "stranger'* 
 and an "alien,'' were his mother's chil- 
 dren? They were persistently called his 
 brethren, not only by their neighbors, 
 but by his disciples and by the evan- 
 gelists, and this till after his crucifixion 
 and ascension; and finally, by the Apostle 
 Paul after their conversion. Not one of 
 them was of " the twelve," but they are 
 always distinguished from " the twelve," 
 so that they can not be confounded with 
 the children of the other Mary without 
 absolute confusion. 
 
 Possibly this attitude of his brethren 
 towards him may help us to understand 
 some things in his earthly life, and es- 
 pecially in his course towards his family, 
 that some have thought strange. It is 
 
HIS BRETHREN NOT DISCIPLES. 159 
 
 evident that he did not seem to value 
 the ties of flesh and blood as many 
 others do. He looked upon them in the 
 light of higher relationships in the king- 
 dom of God, which were constantly be- 
 fore his mind, and the contrast brought 
 worldly things to their proper level. His 
 constant exaltation of the spiritual above 
 the temporal is the explanation of what 
 appears to be a disregard of the claims ot 
 these earthly relationships. He is not 
 known to have shown any partiahty 
 towards his brethren, because they were 
 his brethren ; nor to have made any ex- 
 cuse for their unbelief on this account. 
 So, also, in his relation to his mother, 
 while he was kind and courteous and 
 affectionate, yet he sometimes appeared 
 stern and almost disrespectful. 
 
 At the time of his visit to Jerusalem, 
 at twelve years of age, this peculiarity 
 exhibited itself. He tarried behind when 
 
l6o MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 his parents started home, without con- 
 sulting them. When they missed him, 
 and returned and found him, with great 
 tenderness his mother referred to the 
 anxiety they had felt while seeking him 
 " sorrowing." In his reply we have the 
 first recorded words from his lips. In 
 them there is no expression of regret 
 for their trouble or sorrow, but what ap- 
 proaches the character of rebuke. "And 
 he said unto them, How is it that ye 
 sought me? Wist ye not that I must 
 be about my Father's business?" He 
 saw, as they did not, the higher claims 
 of the things of God. When at the mar- 
 riage at Cana, where his mother was 
 active,* and probably anticipated a mir- 
 acle, he displayed a disposition not to 
 permit any one, not even his mother, to 
 meddle with what was his own work. 
 When the wine was exhausted, his 
 
 * Some thiuk one of her daughters was the bride. 
 
HIS BRETHREN NOT DISCIPLES. l6l 
 
 mother came and said to him, *'They 
 have no wine!" ''Jesus said unto her, 
 Woman, what have I to do with thee ? 
 Mine hour is not yet come." These 
 words can hardly be explained without 
 including in their meaning some ele- 
 ments of rebuke. It was not dislike to 
 his mother, or to womanhood, but his 
 unyielding purpose not to permit inter- 
 ference with his own work, or to allow any 
 worldly influence or motive to sway him 
 in what pertained to his mission. When 
 his mother and his brethren came where 
 he was teaching, and wanted to speak 
 with him, he did not deny their relation 
 to him, nor their claim upon his atten- 
 tion; but he took occasion to show his 
 higher appreciation of the spiritual re- 
 lation that grows out of obedience to 
 God, and membership in the kingdom of 
 heaven. 
 
 In all these instances he shows that 
 
1 62 MAJ^V OF NAZARETH. 
 
 the Spiritual and eternal have precedence 
 over the material and temporal relations. 
 The lesson was taught by his action 
 more impressively than it could be by 
 words. It is the lesson taught in his 
 terms of discipleship, when he requires 
 that father, mother, wife, children, and 
 all possessions be given up, or held in 
 abeyance, so as not to stand in the way 
 of complete devotion to his service. 
 " Whosoever loveth father or mother 
 more than me, is not worthy of me." 
 On this high plane he lived on earth, 
 never hesitating, never faltering in any 
 emergency, and never failing to make 
 the will of God the supreme law of his 
 life and being. Even his mother could 
 not fully understand him, and to his 
 brethren he was a perplexity and grief. 
 They could not enter into his sphere, 
 nor realize the power of his consecration ; 
 so they waited, and wondered, and 
 
HIS BRETHREN NOT DISCIPLES. 1 63 
 
 wished him to go to Jerusalem, the seat 
 of wisdom and knowledge, that his 
 claims to the supernatural might be 
 tested. His brethren did not believe. 
 His standard was too high for them till 
 after the dispensation of the Spirit came 
 with power. 
 
ar^aphr VIL 
 
 HIS BRETHREN CONVERTED. 
 
 FTER this study of the attitude of 
 the family of Mary towards her 
 first-born son, and the recognition of 
 their persistent doubts, it is a comfort to 
 be assured that at last "his brethren" 
 were all brought into the kingdom of 
 God and numbered with the saved. 
 
 The details of their conversion are not 
 available. The exact time of the aban- 
 donment of their doubts, and of the 
 opening of their hearts to the testimony 
 that satisfied them, we may not know; 
 nor can we trace their mental processes 
 in entering into the faith; but the very 
 brief recognition of their discipleship 
 with which we are favored points pretty 
 
 conclusively to their acceptance of the 
 T64 
 
HIS BRETHREN CONVERTED. 1 65 
 
 proofs of his resurrection from the dead, 
 and joining themselves to the company 
 of believers as a result. Before his last 
 journey to Jerusalem, and, as far as we 
 can gather, up to the time of the cruci- 
 fixion, they held themselves apart, and 
 formed a distinct company in all their 
 movements. They are always separately 
 classed, as in John ii, 12: "After this he 
 went down to Capernaum, he, and his 
 mother, and his brethren, and his dis- 
 ciples; and they continued there not 
 many days." This was not the removal 
 of the family, but was a family visit, 
 possibly to the home of her sister. When 
 he was within, with the twelve, his 
 mother and his brethren stood without. 
 They were interested enough in him 
 and in his work to look after him ; and 
 their faithful attendance upon their 
 mother in all her movements is worthy 
 of admiration. With such a mother and 
 
1 66 MARV OF NAZARETH. 
 
 such surroundings, it must be that they 
 possessed some admirable traits of char- 
 acter. They were, no doubt, model 
 young men, such as Jesus loved, as was 
 the young man of the Gospel who 
 wanted to know what good thing he 
 should do in order to inherit eternal life. 
 In all the Scriptural references to them 
 and their course with regard to Jesus, 
 there is no intimation of misconduct, or 
 of undutiful action towards their parents, 
 or even towards their elder brother, ex- 
 cept the fact that they did not become 
 his disciples. 
 
 They observed the requirements of the 
 law, and went up to the feasts at Jerusa- 
 lem, as they had done from their youth. 
 When the Feast of Tabernacles was ap- 
 proaching, as we have seen, they urged 
 Jesus to go to it, and show himself to 
 the world. It can not be doubted that 
 they were at Jerusalem at the time of 
 
HIS BRETHREN CONVERTED. 1 67 
 
 his arrest. Their loyalty to their mother 
 and his, would keep them near her per- 
 son. They could not fail to be anxious 
 observers of all that was taking place. 
 We must suppose that they were present 
 at his trial ; that they saw the confusion 
 of Pilate; that they heard the shout of 
 the rabble, crying, "Away with him! 
 crucify him!" and without doubt they 
 followed to Golgotha, and kept with his 
 other acquaintances from Galilee, who 
 stood afar off, and beheld these things. 
 They joined their mother and her rela- 
 tives, who were present, in mourning 
 his tragic end. Nor is it at all unlikely 
 that they saw his body taken from the 
 cross and laid in Joseph's new tomb. 
 On the first day of the week they were 
 not far away when the news of his rising 
 spread abroad. Strange if they did not 
 visit the empty sepulcher! Soon they 
 heard the witnesses tell their story, who 
 
1 68 MARV OF NAZARETH, 
 
 had seen him alive. At some point or 
 other, while these stirring events were 
 taking place, their doubts gave way, and 
 the light and joy of faith dawned upon 
 their souls, as they realized the fact that 
 he had risen. They humbly accepted 
 the testimony that proved him divine. 
 Step by step they followed on till they 
 saw him for themselves, and knew that 
 he lived again. Tarrying still in Jeru- 
 salem, and companying with his friends 
 from Galilee, they learned all. If they 
 went to Galilee, they probably saw him 
 in the mountain, and mingled with the 
 large company when five hundred saw 
 him at once. They were back in Jeru- 
 salem before he was taken up, and from 
 the Mount of Olivet they gazed at his 
 ascending form till the cloud received 
 him out of their sight. Then, too, they 
 must have heard the words of the angel, 
 saying: *'Ye men of Galilee, why stand 
 
HIS BRETHREN CONVERTED. 1 69 
 
 ye gazing up into heaven? this same 
 Jesus, which is taken up from you into 
 heaven, shall so come in like manner as 
 ye have seen him go into heaven." 
 From this sight, and from this angelic 
 testimony, they gladly returned to Jeru- 
 salem, their souls enraptured with tri- 
 umphant faith, and were henceforth 
 numbered with the disciples. 
 
 This is not all fancy. The record 
 which discloses this outcome is unequiv- 
 ocal. When the celestial visitors of the 
 ascension escort, who tarried behind, had 
 delivered their greeting and message to 
 the ''men of Galilee," it is said of the 
 company of believers: "Then returned 
 they unto Jerusalem from the mount 
 called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a 
 Sabbath-day's journey. And when they 
 were come in, they went up into an up- 
 per room, where abode both Peter, and 
 James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, 
 
lyo MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Mat- 
 thew, James the son of Alpheus, and 
 Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of 
 James. These all continued with one 
 accord in prayer and supplication, with 
 the women, and Mary the mother of 
 Jesus, and with his brethren.'* (Acts i, 
 12-14.) Here are all the apostles, in- 
 cluding James the son of Zebedee, and 
 James the son of Alpheus, and Judas 
 the brother of James, and the women, 
 and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his 
 brethren! His brethren are not included 
 in the list of the apostles. Not one of 
 them as yet belongs to that company. 
 James and Judas, the two sons of ''the 
 other Mary,'* are in that list, but ''his 
 brethren" are not. Yet now at lenQ^th 
 they are with the disciples, for the first 
 time. Their unbelief is gone, and from 
 the Mount of Olivet they come with the 
 company of believers into this "upper 
 
HIS BRETHREN CONVERTED. 171 
 
 room,'* and henceforth they are in the 
 inner circle of this holy fellowship. 
 "The number of names together were 
 about one hundred and twenty," and 
 "his brethren,'* the sons of his mother, 
 are all within. They, with the others, 
 await the promise of the Father, and 
 share the baptism of Pentecost. On 
 them was poured out the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost. Their induction into the king- 
 dom w^as complete. 
 
 In after years the Apostle Paul recog- 
 nizes them as standing high in the 
 Church. He was not of "the twelve," 
 and his apostleship was challenged by 
 some, to which challenge he gave an- 
 swer: "If I be not an apostle to others, 
 yet doubtless I am to you : for the seal 
 of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. 
 Mine answer to them that do examine 
 me is this: Have we not power to eat 
 and to drink? Have we not power to 
 
172 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 lead about a sister, a wife, as well as 
 other apostles, and as the brethren of 
 the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and 
 Barnabas, have not we power to forbear 
 working?" He and Barnabas had been 
 working with their hands to support 
 themselves, and had appeared to some 
 not quite up to the standard of apostle- 
 ship, and Paul shows why they did it. 
 Their service in this regard was volun- 
 tary. They fully appreciated their right 
 to "forbear Avorking," and to become a 
 charge to the Church; to avail them- 
 selves of all domestic privileges and 
 comforts; to marry, and gather about 
 them the advantages of home, — as "the 
 brethren of the Lord" had done, with- 
 out reproach, and as Cephas or Peter 
 had done. "Even so hath the Lord or- 
 dained that they which preach the gos- 
 pel should live of the gospel. But I 
 have used none of these things. . . . 
 
HIS BRETHREN CONVERTED. 1 73 
 
 For it were better for me to die, than 
 that any man should make my glorying 
 void. . . . What is my reward then? 
 Verily that, when I preach the gospel, 
 I may make the gospel of Christ with- 
 out charge, that I abuse not my power 
 in the gospel." In this way Paul justi- 
 fied himself in continuing without a 
 wife; at the same time claiming the 
 same rights in this respect that were 
 enjoyed by Peter and "the brethren of 
 the Lord." Surely, then, these "breth- 
 ren" had become eminent in the Church 
 of God, worthy to be cited as examples 
 in connection with the apostles. 
 
 It was not because he deemed it unlaw- 
 ful for him to have a wife ; for he claimed 
 the right, and vindicated it, showing 
 that his commendation of celibacy was 
 only for times of persecution, and that 
 his practice of it was voluntary, and 
 simply a , matter of expediency. He 
 
174 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 would not burden the Church with his 
 own support, much less just then with 
 the support of himself with a family. 
 In support of his right to marry, he 
 pointed to the example of Peter, who 
 was known to be a married man; and in 
 this connection he referred, in a general 
 way, to "the other apostles,'* without 
 naming them, but so as to imply that 
 some of them were married. It is not 
 known whether John was or not. When 
 he took Mary, the mother of Jesus, to 
 " his own home '* to live, he either took 
 her to his mother's house, which was yet 
 his home, as before stated, or else he was 
 married, and had a home of his own. 
 Paul also alludes to "the brethren of the 
 Lord,'* who were doubtless by this time 
 highly esteemed and influential in the 
 Church, and some of them, at least, mar- 
 ried. This allusion to "the brethren of 
 the Lord," as honored disciples, can not 
 
HIS BRETHREN CONVERTED. 1 75 
 
 be misunderstood. They were yet dis- 
 tinct from ''the twelve," but they were 
 believers, well known, and worthy to be 
 cited as examples. 
 
 The oldest of these ''brethren of the 
 Lord" was James; at least his name is 
 first in the list given by the evangelists. 
 He, like Paul and Barnabas, was not of 
 "the twelve." There were, however, 
 two of the name in the original twelve — 
 the son of Zebedee, and the son of Al- 
 pheus. It is clear that there were other 
 apostles besides the twelve, for Paul and 
 Barnabas were such. At some time after 
 the Pentecost another James became an 
 apostle, and was known to Paul as 
 "James the Lord's brother." This dis- 
 tinguished him from James the brother 
 of John, and from James the son of Al- 
 pheus and brother of Jude; but it does 
 not entitle him to all the honor which 
 tradition has given him. In the early 
 
176 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 ages of the Church, the "fathers" spoke 
 of him as James the Just, as the first 
 Bishop of Jerusalem, as presiding in the 
 council at Jerusalem, and as doing many 
 things which were really done by James 
 the Less. 
 
Oriiaphr VIII. 
 
 «'THE LORD'S BROTHER." 
 
 tHE date at wliicli Paul visited Jeru- 
 salem, when he saw "James the 
 Lord's brother," is not easily fixed. It 
 was after his conversion, and after he 
 had been in Arabia, and had returned to 
 Damascus. Whether the three years he 
 mentions included all the time of his ab- 
 sence from Jerusalem, since he started 
 to Damascus on his mission of persecu- 
 tion, till he returned to see Peter; or 
 whether it was three years after he re- 
 turned from Arabia to Damascus, before 
 he went to Jerusalem, is an open ques- 
 tion. It is thought by some that he 
 went to Jerusalem immediately after his 
 escape from Damascus, when he was let 
 down from the wall in a basket; but his 
 12 177 
 
178 MARV OF NAZARETH. 
 
 own account does not look that way. He 
 was evidently absent from Jerusalem 
 three years. His visit to see Peter may 
 have been a private visit, for his personal 
 benefit, before he went to Tarsus, where 
 he was subsequently found by Barnabas, 
 and taken over to Antioch, and put into 
 active service. 
 
 A close inspection of the record indi- 
 cates that after his conversion, and first 
 preaching in Damascus, and his escape 
 therefrom, Paul was not known as an 
 active apostle for some considerable 
 time ; perhaps not till after the great re- 
 vival in Antioch, the news of which 
 came to the Church in Jerusalem, and 
 caused that Church to send Barnabas to 
 Antioch to see about it. Barnabas went 
 and inspected the work, and approved 
 it, and joined in to help it along. He 
 had not been there long till he felt the 
 need of more help, and went to Antioch 
 
''THE LORD'S BROTHER:' 179 
 
 to seek Paul. The account in Acts ix 
 reads as if Paul came directly to Jerusa- 
 lem from Damascus; but this account 
 does not give dates, and this visit must 
 have been after he had been in Arabia. 
 It may have been his visit to Jerusalem 
 when he essayed to join himself to the 
 disciples, and they were afraid of him, 
 and would not believe he was a disciple. 
 '*Then Barnabas took him and brought 
 him to the apostles, and declared unto 
 them how he had seen the Lord in the 
 way, and that he had spoken to him, 
 and how he had preached boldly in 
 Damascus in the name of Jesus." This 
 was not a private visit to Peter; for he 
 was with the apostles, coming in and 
 going out, and spake boldly in the name 
 of the Lord Jesus, and disputed with the 
 Grecians. If this was the occasion when 
 he saw only Peter and James the Lord's 
 brother, it must have been before Barna- 
 
l8o AfAI^r OF NAZARETH. 
 
 bas became an apostle ; for he saw Bar- 
 nabas, and Barnabas took him to the 
 apostles, and attested his conversion and 
 discipleship. This was probably a short 
 visit, and immediately after it, Paul was 
 taken by the brethren to Cesarea, and 
 went on to Tarsus. It may be that at 
 that time the other apostles w^ere all out 
 of the city, so that only Peter and this 
 James were there. Paul himself was a 
 disciple, but not yet accredited as an 
 apostle. This was also the standing of 
 Barnabas at that time; but after the great 
 work at Antioch, both Barnabas and 
 Paul became apostles, and went forth 
 fully equipped for all of the work of 
 apostles. Barnabas, after introducing 
 Paul in Jerusalem, and vouching for his 
 discipleship, was sent to Antioch, and 
 thence went to Tarsus, and found Paul; 
 and the two together continued there 
 a year, and after visiting other places, 
 
"THE LORD'S BROTHER^ l8l 
 
 doing evangelistic work, they were to- 
 gether sent to Jerusalem with the con- 
 tributions of the Churches for the poor 
 in Judea. These two were specially set 
 apart at Antioch, and ordained apostles, 
 under the direction of the Holy Ghost, 
 and sent forth by the Church to their 
 special work; and this after they had re- 
 turned from their mission of charity to 
 Jerusalem. From which it appears that 
 apostles could be made by the Church 
 without the presence of other apostles, 
 and without the formality of an appoint- 
 ment or approval by the apostles, or by 
 the Mother Church in Jerusalem. It is 
 possible that Paul's first visit to Jerusa- 
 lem to see Peter was while the elder 
 James was yet living. If so, he was not 
 in the city at the time, or Paul would 
 have seen him. After the persecution 
 that arose about Stephen, which appears 
 to have been quite a while after the death 
 
1 82 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 of Stephen, those of prominence in the 
 Church, doubtless including several apos- 
 tles, *'were scattered abroad,'* and went 
 to Phenice and Cyprus and Antioch, 
 preaching the Word. Through their in- 
 strumentality the work was begun in 
 Antioch. It was almost certainly during 
 the time of this "scattering abroad,'* or 
 while the apostles were engaged in the 
 work begun at that time in distant parts, 
 that Paul came and found so few apostles 
 in Jerusalem. 
 
 Peter was there, and so was "James 
 the Lord's brother." It is not unlikely 
 that the latter was as yet quite young in 
 the office. Paul himself had not entered 
 it. He was a disciple, and had preached 
 in Damascus, but was not yet accredited 
 as he was after his labors in Antioch, 
 and his ordination there. Whether any 
 other James was in the city or not, when 
 Paul, years afterward, wrote of this visit, 
 
"THE LORD'S BROTHER." 183 
 
 he applied the descriptive phrase to the 
 one he saw, so as to distinguish him 
 from both the others of the name, who 
 were apostles from the beginning. If 
 Josephus confounded this James with 
 James the Less, and spoke of the Loid's 
 brother when he meant James the Less, 
 he made a very natural mistake, such as 
 others made, and have been making 
 through all these centuries. But Paul 
 made no mistake of this kind. He spoke 
 of James the Less in the same epistle, 
 but applied no descriptive epithet to 
 him. He was the James whom Peter 
 feared, and because of whom he "dis- 
 sembled." Before that time the elder 
 James had been killed with the sword, 
 and previous to this execution James 
 the Less had always been so designated; 
 but now he is simply James. "Go tell 
 James;" "came from James;" "after 
 they all held their peace, James an- 
 
1 84 MAJ^V OF NAZARETH. 
 
 swered.'* These expressions show how 
 this James now stood. He needed no 
 other description; bnt another James, 
 younger than he, just admitted to the 
 office, must be distinguished. He is 
 *' James the Lord's brother." At what- 
 ever time this third James became an 
 apostle, whether before or after the death 
 of the first James, some descriptive title 
 was necessary, in order to avoid con- 
 fusion ; and no other was so natural or 
 expressive as the one Paul used. It was 
 the one he had always borne, was well 
 understood, and distinguished him from 
 both the others. 
 
 That this third James became an 
 apostle, seems the necessary conclusion 
 from all that has gone before. It has 
 been clearly shown that the son of Al- 
 pheus was not a cousin to Jesus; never 
 lived with Mary his mother, and was 
 one of *'the twelve" when James and 
 
''THE LORD'S BROTHER^ 185 
 
 Joses and Simon and Judas were all at 
 home in Nazareth, known as ''his breth- 
 ren." The other Mary was not the 
 sister of his mother; but her sons were 
 disciples, and two of them apostles, be- 
 fore "his brethren" beheved on him. 
 These facts, so clearly proven, leave us 
 no alternative. "James the Lord's 
 brother" must have been the James who 
 was known in Nazareth long after the 
 twelve were chosen and ordained, and 
 who did not becom.e a disciple till after 
 the resurrection. This phrase, "the 
 brethren of the Lord," was kept up too 
 persistently not to have had a basis and 
 reason in actual fact. 
 
 No trustworthy account of the apos- 
 tolic labors of this third James has come 
 down to us. The same is true with re- 
 o-ard to the labors of several of the others 
 who were apostles from the beginnmg. 
 We can not tell where they lived, 
 
1 86 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 whither they went, or where they died. 
 Vague traditions are all we have, but 
 our ignorance does not discredit their 
 apostleship. Neither should it that of 
 the third James. Early Church history 
 tells what the fathers of the early cen- 
 turies thought and believed with regard 
 to several of whom we know so little, 
 and also of this "James the Lord's 
 brother;^* but it is next to impossible to 
 distinguish between what was ascribed 
 to James the Less, and to this third 
 James; for at that early day the habit of 
 speaking of James the Less as James 
 the Just and '^ James the Lord's brother," 
 was becoming common. 
 
 There is nothing in the slightest de- 
 gree unreasonable in the claim that one 
 of "his brethren," who lived in the 
 home of his mother, and was reared 
 under her care, and yet so long with- 
 stood the evidences of his Messiahship, 
 
''THE LORD'S BROTHER^ 1 87 
 
 and only consented to become a disciple 
 after the most indubitable proofs of his 
 resurrection from the dead, should at last 
 become an apostle of Christ. His eligi- 
 bility and qualifications were complete. 
 He was an ^'eye-witness" of the death 
 and resurrection, in that he saw him 
 after he was alive from the dead; and 
 there is no doubt that he saw him ascend 
 from Mount Olivet, and heard the voice 
 of the angel, and returned with joy to 
 the city, and shared the enduement of 
 power in the upper room, receiving the 
 baptism of the Holy Ghost on the day of 
 Pentecost. What, then, was lacking to 
 make him an apostle indeed? In 
 natural ability and moral fitness he was 
 equal to the demand. He was probably 
 the peer of any of the twelve. Being 
 the oldest of the family, next to '' the 
 first-born son" of Mary, he was now 
 about the age that Jesus was when he 
 
1 88 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 began his ministry. Why should he not 
 become an apostle? He was, indeed, 
 "James the Lord's brother." 
 
 The question has arisen as to the 
 number of the apostles. It is held that 
 there could be only twelve. The im- 
 pression prevailed among the apostles 
 themselves at the start, that twelve was 
 the fixed number. When Judas fell, 
 they thought they must fill his place 
 from amongst those who were eyewit- 
 nesses, and could give testimony to the 
 resurrection. Whether this were neces- 
 sary or not, they so regarded it. But 
 others became apostles afterwards. 
 Whether more than twelve were in the 
 office at one time, does not appear. Pos- 
 sibly not. Paul and Barnabas became 
 apostles in the fullest sense. It may be 
 that some died before this occurred. 
 That is not important. It may be that 
 the first James was killed with the 
 
''THE LORD'S BROTHERr 189 
 
 sword before tlie third James came into 
 the apostleship. This is not impossible. 
 We only know that Paul saw him, and 
 declared him an apostle, and called him 
 "James the Lord's brother.'* 
 
 Others did much apostolic work, and 
 joined with Paul in some of his apostolic 
 epistles. Timothy, Sylvanus, and Sos- 
 thenes did this. Apollos and Silas were 
 active and successful ministers, and so 
 were Luke and Mark; but whether they 
 were ever inducted into the office as 
 apostles is not known. Apollos was 
 closely identified with the office in Paul's 
 writings, and perhaps not less in the 
 work he did. He appears nearly on a 
 level with the great apostle himself 
 when Paul says: "For while one saith, I 
 am of Paul; and another, I am of 
 Apollos, are ye not carnal? Who then 
 is Paul, and who is Apollos, but minis- 
 ters by whom ye believed?'» "I have 
 
I90 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 planted, and ApoUos watered; but God 
 gave the increase.'* Again: "All things 
 are yours ; whether Paul, or Apollos, or 
 Cephas, or the world. '^ Surely, if 
 Apollos was not an apostle, he was little 
 inferior in position or power. 
 
 Perhaps he lacked one thing. It 
 seems to have been necessary to the 
 office that the incumbent should have 
 seen the Lord after his resurrection. 
 Paul was not an exception to this re- 
 quirement, for he says: "And last of all 
 he was seen of me also, as of one born 
 out of due time.'* (i Corinthians xv, 8.) 
 If this was indispensable, as it was evi- 
 dently regarded, it did not exclude 
 "James the Lord's brother," who re- 
 turned from Olivet with the disciples 
 after the ascension, and with his mother 
 entered the upper room. He was of 
 the one hundred and twenty. If it was 
 necessary to the apostolate that one 
 
''THE LORD'S BROTHER:' 191 
 
 should be an ^'eyewitness to the resur- 
 rection," or should have "seen the Lord," 
 the discontinuance of the office after the 
 "eyewitnesses" were dead, is readily 
 understood. The pretentious claim to 
 successorship in this office, set up by the 
 Roman Catholic Church, and by some 
 Protestant Churches, proves an un- 
 founded assumption. The only suc- 
 cessorship that is either possible or val- 
 uable is in the spiritual functions of the 
 gospel ministry. Whoever is called of 
 God to the ministry of the Word, and 
 is graciously endowed for the work by 
 the gift of the Holy Spirit, is the true 
 successor of the apostles. In this sense 
 Apollos and Timothy and Silas, and 
 many others, were apostles indeed; min- 
 isters with the apostolic spirit, doing the 
 chiefest of all apostolic work, winning 
 souls to Christ, and edifying the Church. 
 This apostolic ministry abides. It is. 
 
192 MARY OF NAZARETH. 
 
 tHerefore, proper to hold that any Church 
 which is steadfast in the apostles' doc- 
 trine, and in the fellowship of the saints, 
 holding fast the form of sound words, 
 and maintaining the spirit of the gospel 
 of peace, is a genuine Church of Christ, 
 and entitled to recognition as such by 
 all the brotherhood of believers who 
 love our Lord Jesus Christ, and love one 
 another with pure hearts fervently 
 
 dr&B €ntJ. 
 
Date Due 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 '1 ^- ■ ■•-, 
 
 
 
 
 D?' 
 
 
 
 
 ^mm^M- 
 
 
 
 
 r'*-«u..«^ 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 iiliiiiiiir^ 
 
 
 
 
 'f^jm^ 
 
 JSiit' 
 
 
 
 ^^,^-,.ifltf^ 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 JMii 
 
 mi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 1 
 
 
 
 .,, _j