of a prevalent persuasion that the Lord Jesus would come during the night.

Ver. 13. Tv Oúpav тоû TUλ@vos-the door of the gate. Oúpa is probably the small outside door that formed the entrance from the street into the court or area where the house was; TUλov was the large door or gate of the particular house.1 'Ovóμarı 'Pódŋ-named Rhoda, or Rose. The Jews frequently gave to their female children the names of plants and flowers: thus Susannah signifies a lily, Esther a myrtle, and Tamar a palm tree.

Ver. 15. O ayyeλos Éσtiv avтoû-it is his angel. Some (Hammond, Basnage, Du Veil) render this, "It is his messenger," and suppose that the disciples thought a messenger had been sent by Peter out of the prison. No doubt this is a common meaning of ayyeλos; but against this interpretation are the considerations, that the disciples could not have expected such a messenger, and that it is expressly said that Rhoda recognised the voice of Peter. Others take ǎyyeλos ἄγγελος in the sense of πveûμa, and suppose that the disciples thought that it was the spirit of Peter which came to give them a premonition of his death; but the notion that the soul leaves the body of a man before his death does not seem to have been adopted by the Jews, nor would they have employed the word ayyeλos to express it. The only meaning of which the words are capable is-it is his angel. The idea of guardian angels is here alluded to. This belief is chiefly founded on these words of our Lord: "I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. xviii. 10). This notion, that each individual has his guardian angel, was strongly maintained by the early Fathers. Thus Chrysostom, in commenting on this passage, observes: "Thus it is true that each one of us has his own angel: ὅτι ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἄγγελον ἔχει.” How far the doctrine of guardian angels is scriptural is a difficult question. The words of our Saviour may be interpreted as asserting the guardianship of angels in general, and not that a particular angel is attached to 1 For another interpretation, see Robinson's Lexicon―úpa.

each individual. And as to the phrase in the text, there is in it no announcement of doctrine, but merely the expression of the opinion of those assembled in Mary's house. The belief in guardian angels was not confined to the Jews, but was common both to the Greeks and Romans. Every scholar will recall the famous instance of Socrates.

Ver. 17. 'Απαγγείλατε Ἰακώβῳ· announce to James. This James is doubtless the so-called bishop of Jerusalem, who afterwards is several times mentioned in the Acts and in the Epistle to the Galatians. He appears to have been a person of considerable weight and importance among the apostles. Paul calls him one of the pillars of the church. As to the question whether he was the same with James the son of Alphæus, one of the original apostles, see note at the end of this section.

Εξελθὼν ἐπορεύθη εἰς ἕτερον τόπον having departed to another place. Whither Peter betook himself is not mentioned. Meyer thinks that it is not necessary to suppose that he even left the city; for eşeλ0wv, he observes, does not signify relictâ urbe, but relictâ domo. But it is not said that he entered into the house, and certainly the natural meaning is that he left the city. The reason of his departure was a regard to personal safety. Baumgarten thinks that this was unworthy of an apostle, and that he left because the tie which bound the apostles to Jerusalem was now broken: "After such abominations, Jerusalem neither could nor ought to be the peculiar and permanent resting-place of the apostles." But this is a reason foreign to the text. Peter was delivered from prison in order to escape danger; and his departure was no cowardice, but merely a compliance with the intimations of Providence. He followed the injunction of Christ: "When they persecute you in one city, flee ye to another."

Ver. 18. Tevoμévns dè ñμépas—but when it was day. Peter must have escaped during the last watch, otherwise his departure would have been observed before daybreak, when the guard was changed. If, however, the two soldiers in 1 Baumgarten's Apostolic History, pp. 313, 314.

the cell remained all night, this supposition is unnecessary. 'Ev Tois σтρаTIÓTais-among the soldiers; that is, among the sixteen soldiers who were appointed to guard Peter, and especially among the particular quaternion who were on guard when Peter, made his escape, and who would have the most reason to fear the consequences.

Ver. 19. 'Ekéλevσev åπaxonval-ordered them to be led to execution. 'Amáy signifies to lead away, and in a judicial sense to lead to execution; hence àπaxoval in the passive, to be led to execution, to be put to death. Thus Pliny in his celebrated letter to Trajan, speaking of the Christians, says: "When they again confessed, and I had the third time questioned them with threats of punishment, seeing them obstinate, I commanded them to be led away," that is, to be put to death. We are not to think that this was an extraordinary act of cruelty on the part of Herod. A soldier to whom a prisoner was entrusted, and who permitted his escape, was held guilty of a capital offence. Nor is it necessary to suppose that the whole sixteen soldiers were put to death, but only the four who were on guard at the time of the escape.

ON JAMES THE LORD'S BROTHER.

After the death of James the brother of John, there is frequent mention in the Acts and the Pauline epistles of another James. He was a person of great importance in the Christian church. Peter directs that information of his escape should be sent to him; he presides at the celebrated Council of Jerusalem; mention is made of those who came from James to Antioch; to him Paul repairs on his arrival at Jerusalem; he is called the Lord's brother, and one of the three pillars of the church. Now, besides James the brother of John, there was another James among the apostles, called James the son of Alphæus. The question has been raised whether James "the Lord's brother" was

the same as James the apostle, "the son of Alphæus;" or whether they were different persons.

There are three opinions: 1. That this James "the Lord's brother," who is so prominently mentioned in the Acts and the Pauline epistles, was an apostle, and the cousin of our Lord, the same with James the son of Alphæus. 2. That he was the son of Joseph and Mary, and not one of the original apostles. 3. That he was the son of Joseph by a former marriage, and was therefore called a brother of our Lord.

The first opinion asserts the identity between James "the Lord's brother," and James "the apostle, the son of Alphæus." According to this hypothesis, it is supposed that the word "brother" is used in a lax sense to signify "cousin." The argument by which this opinion is maintained is as follows:-The brethren of Christ are stated to have been James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3). Now three of these names-James, and Joses, and Judas-are elsewhere mentioned as the names of the sons of Mary, the sister of the Virgin, and the wife of Clopas. We are informed that there stood at the cross of Jesus His mother and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene (John xix. 25); and it is elsewhere said that this Mary, the sister of the Virgin, was the mother of James the Less and Joses (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40): consequently these two-James and Joses-were the cousins. of our Lord. Again, it is maintained that Alphæus is in Hebrew the same name as Clopas;1 so that James the apostle, the son of Alphæus, is the same as the above-mentioned James the cousin of our Lord: and we know that he had a brother named Judas, another of the apostles (Acts i. 18). Hence these children of Clopas, or Alphæus, and Mary the sister of the Virgin-namely, James, and Joses, and Judasare regarded as the same as those bearing the same names who are mentioned as the brethren of Christ. The names are the same, and to identify them we have only to suppose that the word "brethren" is used in an extended sense so as to include cousins.

1 Winer's Wörterbuch-Alphæus.

This opinion, however, is supported by some doubtful suppositions, rests on arbitrary assumptions, and is liable to several objections. 1. It is doubtful whether Mary the wife of Clopas was the sister of the Virgin. John says: "There stood at the cross of Jesus His mother and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." Now these words may be read as mentioning four women at the cross: first, our Lord's mother and her sister, whose name is not given; and secondly, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. On this supposition, the sister of our Lord's mother and Mary the wife of Clopas are different persons. As we learn from the other evangelists that Salome the mother of John was at the cross, some suppose that it was she who is intended by "His mother's sister." Besides, it is very unlikely that the Virgin and her sister would both be called by the same name. It is also doubtful if Ἰούδας Ἰακώβου is to be translated " Judas the brother of James," and not rather "Judas the son of James." And it is by no means a certainty that the names Clopas and Alphæus are identical. 2. It is an arbitrary assumption that the word "brethren" here signifies "cousins." The word brethren is frequently used in Scripture in a metaphorical sense, but without any danger of misconception. In only two instances is it used to signify a relationship different from that of a brother. Lot is called the brother of Abraham, and Jacob the brother of Laban, whereas in reality they were merely nephews; but it is never once used to denote cousins. The objection is equally strong in reference to those who are called the sisters of Christ. 3. We are informed by John that "His brethren did not believe on Him" (John vii. 5). But according to the hypothesis that James the Lord's brother was the son of Alphæus, two of these brethren-James and Judas-were at that time apostles. To

1 According to this supposition, the sons of Mary the wife of Clopas were no relations to Christ; whereas James and John, the sons of Zebedee and Salome, were His full cousins.

2 If they had been cousins, we would have expected the word ave101, and not ἀδελφοί.