Jacob. The grandson of Abraham. His father Isaac was fifty-nine years old when the twins Esau and Jacob were born. It was foretold to his mother Rebecca that Jacob's descendant should rule his brothers. From this Rebecca endeavored, on at least one memorable occasion, to push his interests forward at his brother's expense. The two young men were brought up together sharing their father's wandering life. Esau was loved by Isaac, Jacob by his mother. It was characteristic of Jacob that he should take advantage of his brother's faintness after a long chase, and buy of him the coveted birthright foretold to be his. Esau probably thought little of the sale of it for a mess of pottage, but Jacob treasured it up, and was the more ready to lend himself to his mother's instigation to perpetrate the wellknown deceit upon his father. He obtained the blessing by fraud and it brought its own punishment, in the hatred of his brother and his own flight from home. Rebecca's influence over Isaac was great enough to persuade him to send Jacob to seek a wife in his kinsman Laban's family. On this journey was renewed to him at Bethel the covenant, which JEHOVAH had made with Abraham and Isaac, in the vision of the ladder reaching down to earth. The fraud which he had practiced was repaid him by Laban, who betrothed to him Rachel, the younger daughter, but on the marriage night substituted Leah, the older. Jacob was indignant, but Laban bestowed on him his other

daughter also, and gave to each a handmaid. Leah bore to Jacob, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah; Bilhah, Rachel's maid, bore him Dan and Naphtali; Zilpah, Leah's maid, Gad and Asher; Leah gave him Issachar and Zebulun and Rachel, Joseph and Benjamin. The wary, observant character of Jacob was shown in the management of Laban's flocks. It was while he was serving Laban, and before Rachel's death, that Joseph, a lad of seventeen, was sold by his brethren into slavery. His early sin was sorely visited upon him by Laban's fraud, the turbulence of his sons, and the loss of Joseph. After twenty-one years' absence, finding Laban very jealous because of his success in caring for his own flocks, he set out to return home to his father. His journey home was marked by three dangers, the angry pursuit of Laban, whom GOD warned not to speak either good or bad to Jacob; the meeting with his angry brother Esau, whom he propitiated with a present, which, however, Esau would not accept; on the night before, when in anxious sorrow he sent his caravan forward

and paused at the brook Jabbok, the Angel

of the LORD, the Jehovah-Angel, wrestled with him. In that mysterious contest, which was typical of the religious earnestness and perseverance of the Patriarch, there is much significance, both of the weakness and the strength of the people. Both the contest, the halting, and the blessing have rested together with the name upon Israel. Jacob rested at Shechem, where occurred the disgrace of his daughter Dinah and the vengeance which Simeon and Levi exacted of the Shechemites. Here Divine interposition took him to Bethel, where he purged his family of the idols they had learned to use in Padan-aram, and renewed his covenant with GOD. Apparently he reached his father not long before Isaac's death.

Jacob

is left here by the sacred narrative, and the acts of Judah are next recorded and the history of Joseph is given. Jacob went down to Egypt to his son Joseph when he was an hundred and thirty years old.

The life of Jacob is marked in the sacred history. He was a type of CHRIST, as a supplanter; the second Adam, not casting out, but supplanting the first Adam with a better life. In this view his fraud is not to be considered as at all justified. The blessing would have been given him could he have waited GOD's time. His after-career was a just sequel to the deceit, while with it were mingled many Divine comforts and blessings. His character was undoubtedly formed in reality by his life and struggles under Laban's jealous and repressive treatment, and but for his own shrewdness he would have fared badly under his kinsman; thrice were his wages changed. His patience was tested and developed; he felt the power of GOD ever about him; his deep religiousness was ever quickened. His dream on the plain; the meeting of the angels at Mahanaim; the wrestling with the Man at Peniel; his renewed covenant with GoD at Bethel, and throughout his whole career his vow of the tenth which could only be offered as a sacrifice, educated him in the life hid with GOD. In two points was his life a type of our LORD'S: he was the one who should be a substitute offering a better, holier life; he was a type of CHRIST in that he prevailed in his wrestling. So our LORD'S human trials and temptations and prayers and strong cry prevailed, and He, as the Patriarch of old (Gen. xlix.), has left a perpetual blessing behind Him on all who believe on Him who is the Gon of Abraham, the GOD of Isaac, and the Gon of Jacob.

James, St., usually surnamed the Great, the brother of John the beloved disciple. The notices of him in the Gospels are very

few. With his brother he was a fisherman, working in his father Zebedee's boat, when he was called by JESUS to follow Him. He was one of the Twelve, and of these he was the second of the three who stood nearest our LORD. ("And He taketh with Him Peter, James, and John.") He with the other two went into the death-chamber of Jairus' daughter. With them he was on the Mount of Transfiguration. His zeal procured him the surname Boanerges,-Son of Thunder. It brought upon him the rebuke of the LORD. For him and his brother his mother preferred her petition that they might sit, the one on the right hand, the other on the left, in His Kingdom. He was one of the four who questioned the Master about the last days. He was one of the three at the Agony in the Garden. Except the record of his name in the list in Acts i. 13, he is not mentioned till we read that Herod killed James, the brother of John, with sword (A.D. 44), when he drank of his Master's cup and received his Master's baptism. Every notice of him by the Evangelists, slight as it is, leaves the impression that there was a nobleness and loveliness in his character. That he and his brother were chosen to be our LORD'S most intimate earthly companions proves their sympathy with Him, if not the insight, which they afterwards assuredly received, into His nature. Even their ambitions tended to better things. Of his labors we know nothing. Everything that is told of him outside the Gospels and Acts is purely legendary. His mission to Spain (of which he is the patron saint) is wholly mythical. His twelve years of work in Jerusalem were not wasted we may be sure, but it is one of the mysterious acts of Providence that he should have been killed just when, humanly speaking, he could have been most usefully employed.

James, St., the Less, properly the Little, the son of Alphæus, is another instance where the life of one chosen to do the LORD'S work has left no earthly record save the name. Their work we know is not forgotten in the Book of Remembrance, and here it was merged into the sum of the labor necessary for founding the Church; but except his title, the son of Alphæus, and his own name in the list of the Apostles, we know nothing about him. It is here as

sumed that he is not the same as the James to whom the LORD appeared at His Resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 7), who presided at the Council at Jerusalem, and who wrote the Epistle. There is considerable difficulty upon either hypothesis, but upon a review of the whole evidence it is more probable that James the Little was not James the brother of the LORD.

James the Just, the brother of the LORD. It is claimed that this James was really the cousin of our LORD, and the son of Alphæus, or Clopas, names which can be shown to be identical, for the title Brother,

often meant Cousin, as Son is often "descendant;" that when it is said, "neither did His brethren believe on Him," it does not necessarily include all His brethren; that the omission of the title Brethren of the LORD from the names of James the Little and Jude, his brother, does not prove that they were not His brethren; that it is strange that our LORD should have intrusted His mother to St. John, when there were those whose duty it was to care for her, had there been any brethren according to the Flesh. The reply is that "brother," denoting a kinship, is always used accurately in the New Testament, that the LORD'S brethren appear separately in the Gospel; that the LORD'S brethren are separated from the Apostles in 1 Cor. ix. 5; that James was called a pillar and distinguished from the Apostles by St. Paul (Gal. ii. 9, and Gal. i. 9). The arguments can be seen in full for the identity of the two in Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible;" for the view that they are separate persons, see Professor Plumptre's Introduction to Epistle of St. James, in the Cambridge Bible for Schools.

Assuming, then, that James, the brother of the LORD, was a separate person, the recorded facts of his life are almost as meagre as those in the life of St. James the Greater. His brethren did not believe on Him during His life. "A prophet," said our LORD, "is not without honor but in his own country and among his own kin and in his own house." They, with His mother and sisters, seek Him out, desiring to speak with Him to withdraw Him from His course. They were at the last feast of Tabernacles that preceded His Passion. They were, or at any rate James was, at Jerusalem at the time of His Passion, for the risen LORD was seen first of Cephas, then of the Twelve, then of the five hundred brethren at once, then of James, then of all the Apostles (1 Cor. xv. 5-7). The brethren were present with the Twelve at the election of St. Matthias. Then James appears as the pillar of the Church at Jerusalem when St. Paul goes up thither, then he is the presiding Apostle at the Council (Acts xv.). Then he receives St. Paul upon his last visit to Jerusalem. There is nothing more recorded in the sacred narrative. His Epistle is his great work. That tells us more of his character than anything else we have. The account of his death as given by Eusebius (E.H., ii. 23) out of Heggesipus fits into the current of events and is marked with the traits implied in his Epistle so as to bear at least the air of the truth. "Noted for his asceticism-a Nazarite-he had gained great influence with the people, whom he taught concerning JESUS the Door. He bore the title of Oblias, the bulwark of the people, and the Righteous or Just. He frequented the sanctuary in constant prayer for the people, so that his knees became callous. He was urged to stay those who had gone astray after JESUS, and for

this purpose was put upon the pinnacle of the Temple and called upon to proclaim from thence, What is the door of JESUS?' 'And he answered with a loud voice, Why ask ye me concerning JESUS the Son of Man? He hath sat down in heaven on the right hand of the GREAT POWER, and is about to come in the clouds of heaven.' Upon this many believed and cried 'Hosanna to the son of David.' But the Scribes and Pharisees who had set him upon the pinnacle were filled with wrath and cast him down, and the people in the court stoned him, and a fuller beat out his brains while, like St. Stephen, he was praying for his murderers." Such is the bare outline of the beautiful narrative Eusebius quotes in full. In it there is nothing improbable, but rather it falls in with all we know of the state of mind among the Jews then.

It is difficult to fix the date of the death of St. James. If the Epistle to the Hebrews be St. Paul's, is there a reference to St. James in chapter xiii. 7, 8; "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of GOD: considering the end of their conversation: JESUS CHRIST the same yesterday, to-day, and forever." If so, then, as the Epistle was written about 64 A.D., the martyrdom occurred later. In fact, Hegesippus (Eusebius, E. H.) says, and straightway Vespasian began the siege, placing it then about 70 A.D. His EPISTLE has been questioned, rejected, and when received has been the subject of countless controversies. The Church has always received it, though it was classed for a time with the doubtful Epistles. This hesitation most likely was because it was imperfectly circulated, being addressed to the Jewish converts. At the time of the Reformation it was violently discussed, and by some rejected because of its teaching, which seemed so opposed to that of St. Paul. The date of the Epistle has much to do with considering the extent of that alleged antagonism. If (with the Cambridge Editor Plumptre) it is dated before the Council of Jerusalem, it must be placed before 51 A.D. As our space only permits us to give the results, not the details by which this conclusion is reached, we will accept as proven this date in place of the later one of 61 A.D. The contents of the Epistle have caused great debates, it being claimed that he was opposed to St. Paul. There is no foundation whatever for this in the inspired narrative. Its real source is in the perversions of the heretical romance of the Recognitions and the Homilies of the pseudo-Clement, used with critical skill and infidel principles by the German critics. This, then, is summarily dismissed, for James the Just was not the man to give the right hand of fellowship to a man to whom he was opposed. Let us look at the contents of the Epistle, and then we will be able to judge of the relation of St. James' doctrine of Works to St. Paul's doctrine of Faith. There are many paral

lelisms of thought and of teaching in this Epistle to that of St. John Baptist. Of these are James i. 22-27 with St Matt. iii.; James ii. 15, 16, with St. Luke iii. 11; James ii. 19, 20; St. Matt. iii. 9; James v. 1-6; St. Matt. iii. 10-12. There are others to the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., James ii. 14; St. Matt. vii. 21-23; James v. 2 to St. Matt. vi. 19). The Jewish cast of thought, the references to the Old Testament history (to Abraham, Job, Rahab, and Elijah), the probable influence of the Wisdom of the son of Sirach, make this a peculiar Epistle. It is more intense than the Epistles of St. Peter, and in this respect is like the First Epistle of St. John. Its ascetic tone, its practical teaching, its stern reproofs, all mark it. But its doctrine of the relation of Faith to Works gives it a special prominence relative to St. Paul's Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. St. Paul asserts Faith without Works alone can save. St. James teaches, "I will show thee my Faith by my Works." St. Paul condemns dead works. St. James condemns a dead Faith. St. Paul adduces Abraham's obedience before circumcision as the obedience of Faith, "and it was counted unto him for righteousness." St. James adduces the obedience of Abraham in offering up Isaac as the righteousness by works. "Seest thou how Faith wrought with his works, and by works was Faith made perfect (ch. ii. 22). Is there any antagonism between these two Apostles, both zealous for their Master, both of the straitest sect, both eager to teach the whole truth? It is impossible to believe this. The Apostle to the Gentiles was writing to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews, and he adduces one part of Abraham's life, the beginning of his wonderful career. Faith in him must be precedent to action, and all have their blessed significance from his faith. St. James the Just, the unceasing pleader for his people, the Bishop in the Holy City, argues with the faithful of the Dispersion, from the crowning act of faith in Abraham, when his act in its sublimity proved his faith. There is no antagonism, but, rather, both taught the very same truth. For in one of those grand outpourings of his enthusiasm, St. Paul longs that he may "be found in Him," not having mine own righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of CHRIST, the righteousness which is of GOD by faith, that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable to His death if by any means I might attain to the resurrection of the dead." It is impossible to exclude work, life-long work, sanctified by Faith, from these words. The fellowship of His suffering, the conformation to His death, the capacity for having the power of His resurrection unto life resting upon him, demand a preceding and continuing presence of Faith shown in and by works. It is noticeable that St. James does not appeal to the Law, "which was four

hundred years after," but to the life of Abraham to establish his position. So doth St. Paul, but St. Paul contrasts it for the Gentiles with the mere literal outward obedience to the Law, while St. James in all his teaching which refers to the Law is writing to those Christians who yet felt the binding authority of the Law, and urges the true law of liberty. It is the fact that a similar use of the Law is made by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews that indicates that St. Paul must be its author. It is a cavil

ing spirit, or one which, too curiously contrasting the two Apostles, does not mark their agreement, and overlooks the fact that they were addressing Christian audiences differently trained, that can now insist that St. James and St. Paul are in opposition to each other.

The Epistle is not written upon any fixed plan. It deals just with the unsettled, tempted, self-indulgent, self-excusing man. Then it passes to practicing the duty of caring in every way for the poor as a matter of practical faith. Then St. James reproves his readers for sins of the tongue; roused by this, the next chapter (iv.) and part of the fifth are filled with warning and invective against the careless, the rich, the worldly-minded. The pause is sudden, the return to a gentle tone is quite remarkable after so vehement an outburst, and with earnest suggestions upon patience and prayer, he closes with an abruptness that occurs in no other book in the New Testament. It is in perfect keeping with the character of one who was filled with noble, devout asceticism, who was a keen observer and a fearless denouncer of sin, who though not having a polished education was a master of the learning which maketh wise unto salvation, who deserved pre-eminently the title of the Righteous.

Jehovah. The glorious name of GOD. In the English Version it is always translated LORD, as Elohim is translated GOD.

It oc

curs in its simplest form JAH in the lxviii. Psalm, 4 v., and is transferred without translation in Ex. vi. 3; Ps. lxxxiii 18; Is. xii. 2 (JAH JEHOVAH) xxvi. 4 (JAH JEHOVAH), and in compound names several times. It was the ineffable name, the Tetragrammaton, the name of four letters, and its true pronunciation is said to be lost. Its formal announcement to the nation (for it was known before) was itself a step up for the chosen people. Its meaning, the self-existent ONE, the living GOD (vide ELOHIM), involved a doctrine which was the greatest revelation that the Israelite had yet received, and one which of itself separated him from the heathen. It was held to be wrong to pronounce it (Lev. xxiv. 16), and other vowels were attached to the four consonants, so that it is claimed that its true pronunciation is lost, but from the law of the formation of words in Hebrew its true pronunciation was Jahaveh or Jahveh. Its meaning from the Hebrew verb "to be" is I Am that J Am.

He has the attribute of self-existence, and therefore of eternity. "I am Jahveh, I alter not" (Mal. iii. 6). Again, in Joshua (xxii. 22) and in Psalm 1. 1, the three titles EL, ELOHIM, JAHVEH follow in ascending intensity of meaning. "The Mighty, The Mighty Ones, The Self-Existent," hath spoken, or knoweth. It implies, then, personality in the strictest sense, and gives the true Israelite a knowledge of Him, a knowledge which revelation can alone establish, that is beyond all the speculations of men. The distinction between EL (and ELOHIM) as GOD known from nature, and JEHOVAH as known by His revelation of Himself, will give a clue to the reason why GOD-Elohim is used at times, LORD-Jehovah at others, and why again both names are combined. A study of these will reveal to him who will undertake it devoutly the marvelous depth and accurate language of Holy Scripture even when it apparently is most arbitrary.

Jeremiah. The prophet whose life and prophetic work was spent in protests against those sins of his people, both political, ecclesiastical, and social, which led to the captivity and to the burning of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar.

He was the son of Hilkiah, who may have been the Hilkiah the High-Priest, who discovered the Book of the Law in the House of the LORD (2 Kings xxii. 8). He was sanctified for his work from his mother's womb, ordained a prophet unto the nations. His birthplace was in the priestly city of Anathoth. He was called to his life-work quite early. Just at that date Egypt and Nineveh were the upper and lower millstones between which Judah feared she would be ground, and was wavering between alliances with either power, and finally chose to side with Egypt. The people still hankered for the old idolatries, the Ashera (A. V. groves), Astaroth and Moloch. They were guilty of open adultery, false swearing, and murder, and claimed that they were given over to do these abominations; and withal punctually performed the offices of the Temple. Whatever training Jeremiah as the son of a Priest and marked out for a prophet's work received, it had as its basis a deep study of the Law and a grasp of its true spiritual meaning. He prophesied in the last eighteen years of Josiah's reign (629 or 627 B.c.?), and through the reigns of Jehoahaz (three months), of Jehoiakim of eleven years, and of Jehoiachin (three months), and of Zedekiah of eleven years, in all, his prophecies were uttered dur ing a period of forty years. It was a career full of sorrow and of misunderstanding and gainsaying. He was exposed to reproach and derision, his fellow-townsmen of Anathoth sought his life, his brethren dealt treacherously with him. He was smitten by a fellow-priest, and put in the stocks because of his prophecies. The roll of his prophecies was burnt in the king's presence. Though many of his prophecies had been fulfilled and political events were rapidly

hurrying to the final catastrophe which he foretold, yet he met with but little attention, and when he tried to leave the now nearly beleaguered city to attend to his private affairs at Anathoth, he was arrested as a deserter and put into ward under Jonathan the scribe in the prison till Zedekiah sent for him Jeremiah told him plainly his coming fate and asked for better treatment. The king remanded him to prison, but ordered bread for him. But his political opponents obtained him from the king and cast him into a pit in the prison court, where Jeremiah sank in the mire. From this he was saved by Ebed Melech. Another interview, first with the feeble-minded King and then with Pashur and with Zephaniah, proved useless.

In the eleventh year of Zedekiah the city was stormed, the Temple burnt, Zedekiah captured, his sons slain, and then himself blinded. But Jeremiah himself was cared for by Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, who had a special order about him. He settled at Mizpah till Gedeliah, the governor under Nebuchadnezzar, was murdered by Ishmael and the refugees at Mizpah carried away captive. Jeremiah was rescued by Johanan, who, despite Jeremiah's prophecy of evil attendant on such a step, carried the whole company down into Egypt, where the prophet ended his days. The noble form of Jeremiah, the greatest of all the historical and literary prophets, fades from our sight together with the monarchy. In misery and continual peril of death he witnessed the fall of the state and the destruction of Jerusalem; he survived it, but found his tomb in an alien land. His was a rare courage, yet he was of a quiet, retiring disposition, shrinking under the great weight of responsibility laid upon him, despairing because so misunderstood and hated; alone, and sustained only by divine comfort. He speaks plainly, simply, honestly; he makes no pretensions to great literary polish, and does not hesitate to repeat phrases and images and the same thoughts over and often, yet there is such intensity in his purpose that it is no mere repetition, but rather a Divine insistence. He falls back upon the Law and upon earlier predictions. His prophecies do not only relate to the Jews but also to the heathen, for whom also he was ordained a prophet. He bears the cup of fury to the Jews and to the Gentiles from the petty kings of Palestine to the kings of Egypt and Babylon (Sheshak). The burden of woe passed upon Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar and Hazor, Elam and Babylon (ch. xlvi.-li.).

The prophecies, as they are now arranged, are evidently not in the order in which they were uttered. It is probable that when the prophet added many more like words to the new roll, which Baruch wrote at his mouth, he made the nucleus of the present work, but that it took a new shape. There are transpositions, and the whole order bespeaks

haste and oversight such as would most naturally happen to one who was so hated, imprisoned, maltreated, and forced into a foreign land to die there a sorrowful death. The transpositions that are often dwelt upon as against the authenticity of the book are, in fact, the best internal proof of its genuineness. The later prophecies, inserted in the midst of certainly much earlier matter, show that the prophet had no opportunity to arrange the transcripts of prophecies uttered in so troubled a time It is probable that the last chapter was added by another hand, possibly by Baruch. Chapter xli. ends, "thus far are the words of Jeremiah." The next chapter contains material found in Jei. xxxix. and in 2 Kings xxiv. 8; xxv. 30; but it also contains other matter besides, and records some things Jeremiah probably did not live to see, the liberation of Jehoiachin, and the placing him at the royal table.

Jeremiah, in some respects, is himself a type of CHRIST. A parallelism runs through their lives. Not only does he prophesy of CHRIST as the righteous Branch, the LORD our Righteousness, and utter other allusions to the Messianic kingdom, but in his own person there are analogies. In both there is the same early manifestation of the consciousness of a Divine mission; the persecution which drove the prophet from Anathoth had its counterpart in the enmity of the men of Nazareth. His protests against the priests and prophets are the types of the woes against the Pharisee, the scribe, and the lawyer. His lamentations over the coming miseries of his country are as the weeping of the SON of Man over Jerusalem. His sufferings, of those of the whole army of martyrs, come nearest to those of the Teacher against whom princes and priests and elders and people were gathered together. He saw, more clearly than others, that new covenant, with all its gifts of spiritual life and power, which was proclaimed and ratified in the death upon the cross.

As

Jesus Christ. I. Divinity of.—Our LORD asked, "Whom do men say that I the SON of MAN am ?" Simon Peter replied, "Thou art the CHRIST, the SON of the Living GOD" (St. Matt. xvi. 13, 16). The SAVIOUR then blesses him and declares that GOD the FATHER has revealed this important doctrine of CHRIST'S Divinity to Him (v. 17). Still the Manhood of CHRIST is constantly kept in view in Scripture. แ The Word was made flesh" (John i. 14). "the Angel of the LORD," CHRIST appears to Abraham at Mamre (Gen. xviii. 22, and xix. 1), to Hagar (Gen. xvi. 11), to Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 1 and 30), to Moses at the bush (Ex. iii. 1, 2), to Joshua (Josh. v. 14), to Gideon (Judges vi.11 and 22), and to Manoah and his wife (Judges xiii. 3–24). Our LORD declared that the Old Testament testified of Him (John v. 39), and the Theophanies add their testimony to prophecy, "No man hath seen GOD" (John i. 18) the FATHER, hence "the only-begotten SoN" is the One who