rks of his prelatic
influence. [255:2] But the sacred narrative, when candidly interpreted,
merely shews that he acted on the occasion as a judicious counsellor. He
was, assuredly, not entitled to dictate to Paul or Peter. The reasoning
of those who maintain that, as a matter of right, he expected the
meeting to yield to the weight of his official authority, would go to
prove, not that he was bishop of the Jewish capital, but that he was the
prince of the apostles.

The New Testament history speaks frequently of James, and extends over
the whole period of his public career; but it never once hints that he
was bishop of Jerusalem, he himself has left behind him an epistle
addressed "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad," in which he
makes no allusion to his possession of any such office. Paul, who was
well acquainted with him, and who often visited the mother Church during
the time of his alleged episcopate, is equally silent upon the subject.
But it is easy to understand how the story originated. The command of
our Lord to the apostles, "Go ye unto all the world and preach the
gospel to every creature," [256:1] did not imply that their countrymen
at home were not to enjoy a portion of their ministrations; and it was
probably considered expedient that one of their number should reside in
the Jewish capital. This field of exertion seems to have been assigned
to James. His colleagues meanwhile travelled to distant countries to
disseminate the truth; and as he was the only individual of the
apostolic company who could ordinarily be consulted in the holy city, he
soon became the ruling spirit among the Christians of that crowded
metropolis. In all cases of importance and of difficulty his advice
would be sought and appreciated; and his age, experience, and rank as
one of the Twelve, would suggest the propriety of his appointment as
president of any ecclesiastical meeting he would attend. The precedence
thus so generally conceded to him would be remembered in after-times
when the hierarchical spirit began to dominate; and would afford a basis
for the legend that he was the first bishop of Jerusalem. And as he,
perhaps, commonly occupied the chair when the rulers of the Church
assembled there at the annual festivals, we can see too why he is also
called "bishop of bishops" in documents of high antiquity. [257:1]

During a considerable part of the first century Jerusalem probably
contained a much greater number of d