rancia" (Macerata, 1653), which was translated to French by Father Martin, S. J. (Montreal, 1852). Thwaites. Jesuit Relations (Cleveland, 1897). XXIII, 320, 7; MicHADD, Biog. Univ., V; Sommervogel, II.
Edward P. Spillane.
Bressano. See Brixen.
Brest, Union of. See Union of Brest.
Brethren, Moravian. See Bohemian Brethren.
Brethren, Plymouth. See Plymouth.
Brethren, United. See Holzhauser, Barthol-
Brethren of the Conunon Life. See Common iFE, Brethren of the.
Brethren of the Free Spirit. See Adamites.
Brethren of the Hospital. See Brothers Hospi- iLLERs of St. John of God.
Brethren of the Lord, The. — A group of per- ms closely connected with the Saviour appears re- ■atcdly in the New Testament under the designa- on "his brethren", or "the brethren of the Lord" .latt., xii, 46; xiii, 55; Mark, iii, 31, 32; vi, 3; Lulve, ii, 19, 20; John, ii, 12; vii, 3, 5; Acts, i, 14; I Cor., , 5). Four .such " brethren " are mentioned by name tiie parallel texts of Matt., xiii, .55, and Mark, vi, (where "sisters" are also referred to), namely, lines (also mentioned Gal., i, 19), Joseph, or Joses, mon, and Jude; the incidental manner in which lese names are given, shows, however, that the list ys no claim to completeness. Two questions in mnexion with these "brethren" of the Lord have ng been, and are now more than ever, the subject
■ controversy: (1) The identity of James, Jude, and mon; (2) T'he exact nature of the relationsliip he- veen the Saviour and his "brethren".
(1) James is without doubt the Bi.shop of Jerusa- m (Acts, xii, 17; xv, 13; xxi, 18; Gal., i, 19; ii, 9, 12) id the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His
- entity with James the Less (Mark, xv, 40) o.nd the
postle James, the son of Alpheus (Matt., x, 3;
ark, iii, 18), although contested by many Protes- int critics, may also he considered as certain. There
no reasonable doubt that in Gal., i, 19: "But other
■ the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving iraes the brother of the Lord", St. Paul represents imes as a member of the Apostolic college. The irpose for which the statement is made, makes it ear that "apostles" is to be taken strictly to 'signat« the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands lal the clause "saving James" be understood to lean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another postle, "James the brother of the Lord" (cf. Acts,
- , 27). Besides, the prominence and authority of
mies among the Apostles (Acts, xv, 13; Gal., ii, 9; I tiie latter text he is even named before Cephas) )uld have belonged only to one of their number, ow there were only two Apostles named James: mies the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Ipheus (Matt., x, 3; Mark, iii, 18; Luke, vi, 16; cts, i, 13). The former is out of the question, since jc was dead at the time of the events to which Acts, |v, 6 sqq., and Gal., ii, 9, 12, refer (cf. Acts, xii, 2). uiics "the brother of the Lord" is therefore one ith James the son of Alpheus, and consequently itli James the Less, the identity of the.se two being "iierally conceded. Again, on comparing John, xix, 5, with Matt., xxvii, 56, and Mark, xv, 40 (cf. Mark, v, 47; xvi, 1), we find that Mary of Cleophas, or lore correctly Clopas (KXuirSs), the sister of Mary ic Mother of Christ, is the same as Mary the mother
]f James the Less and of Joseph, or Joses. As mar- ed women are not distinguished by the addition of leir father's name, Marv of Clopas must be the wife f Clopas, and not his daughter, as ha-s been main-
tained. Moreover, the names of her sons and the order in which they are given, no doubt the order of seniority, warrant us in identifying these sons with James and Joseph, or Joses, the "brethren" of the Lord. The existence among the early followers of Christ of two sets of brothers having the same names in the order of age, is not likely, and cannot be as- sumed without proof. Once this identity i.s con- ceded, the conclusion cannot well be avoided that Clopas and Alpheus are one person, even if the two names are quite distinct. It is, however, highly probable, and commonly admitted, that Clopas and Alpheus are merely different transcriptions of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and Joseph the "brethren" of the Lord are thus the sons of Alpheus. Of Joseph nothing further is kno%™. Jude is the WTiter of the last of the Catholic Epistles (Jude, i). He is with good reason identified by Catholic com- mentators with the "Judas Jacobi" ("Jude the brother of James" in the D. V.) of Luke, vi, 16, and Acts, i, 13, otherwise known as Thaddeus (Matt., X, 3; Mark, iii, 18). It is quite in accordance with Cireek custom for a man to be distinguislied by the ad- dition of his brother's name instead of his father's, when the brother was better known. That such was the case with Jude is inferred from the title "the brother of James", by which he designates himself in his Epistle. About Simon nothing certain can be stated. He is identified by most commentators with the Symeon, or Simon, who, according to Hegesippus, was a son of Clopas, and succeeded James as Bishop of Jerusalem. Some identify him with the Apostle Simon the Cananean (Matt.^ x, 4; Mark, iii, 18), or the Zealot (Luke, vi, 15; Acts, i, 13). The grouping together of James, Jude or Thaddeus, and Simon, after the other Apostles, Judas Iscariot excepted, in the lists of the Apostles (Matt., x, 4, 5; Mark, iii, IS; Luke, vi, 16; Acts, i, 13) lends some probability to this view, as it seems to indicate some sort of con- nexion between the three. Be this as it may, it is certain that at least two of the "brethren" of Christ were among the Apostles. This is cleariy implied in I Cor., ix, 5: "Have we not the power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" The mention of Cephas at the end indicates that St. Paul, after speaking of the Apostles in general, calls special attention to tlie more prominent ones, the " brethren " of the Lord and Cephas. The objection that no "brethren" of the Lord could have been members of the Apostolic college, because six months before Christ's death they did not believe in Him (John, vii, 3, 5), rests on a misunderstanding of the text. His "brethren" believed in his miraculous power, and urged liim to manifest it to the world. Their unbelief was therefore relative. It was not a want of belief in His Messiahship, but a false conception of it. They had not yet rid themselves of the Jewish idea of a Messiah who would be a temporal ruler. We meet with this idea among the Apostles as late as the day of the Ascension (Acts, i, 6). In any case the expression "his brethren" does not necessarily include each and every "brother", wherever it oc- curs. This last remark also sufficiently answers the difficulty in Acts, i, 13, 14, where, it is said, a clear distinction is made between the Apostles and the "brethren" of the Lord.
(2) The texts cited at the beginning of this article show beyond a doubt that there existed a real and near kinship between Jesus and His "brethren". But as "brethren" (or "brother") is applied to step- brothers as well as to brothers by blood, and in Scriptural, and Semitic use generally, is often loosely extended to all near, or even distant, relatives (Gen., xiii, 8; xiv, 14, 16; Lev., x, 4; I Par., xv, 5-10; xxiii, 21, 22), the word furnishes no certain indication of the exact nature of the relationship. Some ancient