Page images
PDF
EPUB

or

We might argue also from the characters of Philemon and Archippus, in the first two verses of the same epistle. The former the apostle calls his fellow-labourer," and the other his "fellow-soldier." Which expressions imply personal acquaintance, and that they had laboured with him in the service of the gospel in some place. And what place can be so likely as Colosse? There are many, of whom St. Paul speaks in his epistles, as his "fellow-labourers," "fellow-helpers," or "fellow-soldiers:" concerning whom it may be made to appear, that he and they had laboured together in some one place. And why then should these two be exceptions? Yea, it may be reckoned not improbable, that Archippus had been ordained by St. Paul himself an elder at Colosse. Whether Philemon likewise was an elder there, I do not say: though he may have been so.

From all these considerations it appears to me very probable, that the church of Colosse had been planted by the apostle Paul, and that the Christians there were his friends, disciples, and converts. And if the Christians at Colosse were his converts, it may be argued, that so likewise were the Christians at Laodicea and Hierapolis. None of which places were far asunder.

I.

be

Ja

CHAP. XV. ·

OF THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES.

I. The Antiquity, and the Reason of that Denomination. II. Called also canonical. III. Concerning their Reception in several Ages. IV. Their Order.

THERE

a

are seven epistles, which we call catholic. The antiquity of this denomination may made manifest from a few quotations. Eusebius having given an account of the death of mes called the Just, and our Lord's brother, concludes: Thus far concerning this James, who is said to be the author of the first of the epistles called catholic.' In another place he says, That in his Institutions Clement of Alexandria had given short explications of all the canonical scriptures, not omitting those which are contradicted. I mean the epistle of Jude, and the other catholic epistles.' They were so called therefore in the time of Eusebius, and probably before. Of which likewise we have good proof. For St. John's first epistle is several times called a Catholic epistle by Origen, in his remaining Greek works, as well as in others. It is likewise so called several times by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius, Epiphanius, and later Greek writers received seven epistles, which they called catholic. I only observe here farther, that they are so called likewise by Jerom.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

They are called catholic, or universal, or general, because they are not written to the believers of some one city, or country, or to particular persons, as St. Paul's epistles are, but to Christians in general, or to Christians of several countries. This is the case of five, or the greater part of them, with which the two others are joined. Moreover when the first epistle of Peter, and the first of St. John, were called catholic by the most early Christian writers, the two smaller of St. John were unknown, or not generally received.

h

II. These epistles are several times called canonical by Cassiodorius, about the middle of the sixth century, and by the writer of the prologue to these epistles, ascribed to Jerom, though • Τοιαύτα και τα κατα τον Ιακωβον, ε ἡ πρώτη των ονομα Judas, frater Domini, parvam, quæ de septem catholicis est, ζομενων καθολικων επιτολων είναι λεγεται. Η. Ε. 1. 2. c. 23. epistolam reliquit. Ib. cap. 4. P. 66. D.

b

-win δε τας αντιλεγομενας παρελθων την 18δα λεγω, και τας λοιπας καθολικας επιςολας. ib. 1. 6. cap. 14. in. See of this work, Vol. i. p. 540.

4.. στο ευαγγελιον το κατά Ιωάννην επιγεγραμμένον, και η emigoan naboxix. Ap. Euseb. 1. 7. cap. 25. p. 273. D. Vid. ib. p. 274. B. And in this work, Vol. i. p. 635.

e Petrus

-scripsit duas epistolas, quæ catholicæ nominan

tur. De V. I. cap. i.

Jacobus -unam tantum scripsit epistolam, quæ tem catholicis est. Ib. cap. 2.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

Or, as Leontius expresseth it, They are called catholic, 'because they are not written to one nation, as Paul's epistles, but in general to all,' See this Vol. p. 77.

8 Octavus codex canonicas epistolas continet Apostolorum -sed cum de reliquis canonicis epistolis magna nos cogitatio fatigaret, subito nobis codex Didymi Græco stylo conscriptus in expositionem septem canonicarum epistolarum Domino largiente concessus est. De Instit. Div. Lit. cap. 8.

Vid. et Cassiodorii Complexiones canonicarum epistolarum septem.

Prologus septem epistolarum Canonicarum. Ap. Hieron. tom. I. p. 1667.

not his. The reason of which appellation is not certainly known. Nor is it easy to perceive the propriety of it. Du Pin says: Some Latins have called these epistles canonical, either confounding the name with catholic, or else to denote, that they also are a part of the canon of the 'books of the New Testament.'

III. Of these epistles two only, the first of St. Peter, and the first of St. John, were universally received in the time of Eusebius. However, the rest were then well known. In proof of which I shall allege one passage only from him. Here," says he, it will be proper to enumerate in a summary way the books of the New Testament, which have been already mentioned. And in the first place are to be ranked the four sacred gospels. Then the book of the Acts of the apostles. After that are to be reckoned the epistles of Paul. In the next place, that called the first epistle of John, and the first of Peter. After these is to be placed, if it be thought fit, the Revelation of John.And among the contradicted, but yet well known to the most [or approved by many] are that called the epistle of James, and that of Jude, and the second of Peter, and the second and third of John.'

[ocr errors]

And in the preceding volumes of this work we have observed all the seven to have been received by Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerom, Augustine, and many other writers: but the Syrian churches received three only of these epistles. Nor does it appear, that more were received by • Chrysostom or Theodoret. And Amphilochius, in his Iambic poem, says, ' Of the catholic epistles some receive seven, others three only.' However, as we proceed, we shall particularly consider the claims of the disputed epistles, under the names of those to whom they are ascribed. IV. Before I conclude this introduction, I would take notice of the order of these epistles, because there is some variety in ancient authors. In the passage cited from Eusebius at the beginning of this chapter, he says, that the epistle of James was the first of those called catholic. In the passage, since taken from him, where he mentions these epistles according to the degree of authority which they had obtained, he first speaks of the first epistle of John, and the first of Peter. Nevertheless, when he comes to those that were contradicted, the epistle of James is first named. This is the order in the festal epistle of Athanasius: "Seven" epistles of the apostles," says he, 'called catholic: of James one, of Peter two, of John three, and after them, of Jude one.' Which is our present order. The same order is observed in the catalogue of Cyril of Jerusalem, the council of Laodicea, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerom's letter to Paulinus, Euthalius, Gelasius, bishop of Rome, the Alexandrian manuscript, the Stichometry of Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, Leontius, J. Damascenus. The same order is in Bede's prologue to these epistles, largely transcribed by us in its proper place: where he assigns reasons of this order, and particularly, why the epistle of James was placed first. In other authors is a different order. By Rufinus they are rehearsed in this manner: Two epistles of the apostle Peter, one of James, the brother of the Lord, and apostle, one of Jude, three of John: the Revelation of John.' One may be apt to think, that St. John's three epistles are here mentioned last, that they might not be separated from the book of the Revelation. In the canon of the third council of Carthage, they stand in this order: Two' epistles of the apostle Peter, three of the apostle John, one of the apostle Jude, one of the apostle James.' In Augustine's work of the Christian Doctrine: Two" epistles of Peter, three of John, one of Jude, and one of James.' In the catalogue of In the catalogue of pope Innocent. Three epistles of John, two epistles of Peter, an epistle of Jude, an epistle of James.' In the commentary of Cassiodorius upon these epistles they are in this order: Two epistles of Peter, three of John, of Jude one, of James one.'

[blocks in formation]

k

n

See Vol. ii. p. 488, 489. and p. 620. and this Vol. f This Vol. p. 11, 12. μεν έπτα φασιν, οἱ δε τρεις

e Vol. ii. p. 602, 607, 608.

p. 473.

5 καθολικών επιςόλων τινες povas. Amphil. p. 132. ver. 310, 311. And see Vol. ii. h Ib. p. 400. See this Vol. p. 78, 79. P. 575. m P. 579.

k Vol. ii. p.573. n P. 628.

• This Vol. p. 61.

368

CHAP. XVI.

ST. JAMES, THE LORD'S BROTHER.

1. His History from the N. T. whereby he appears to have been an apostle. II. His History from ancient Authors. A Passage from Eusebius concerning him, with Remarks, showing him to be the same as James the Son of Alpheus. III. A Passage of Eusebius, containing two Quotations from Clement of Alexandria, mentioning his Appointment to be Bishop, or residing Apostle at Jerusalem, and the Manner of his Death. IV. A Passage of Origen, speaking of our Lord's Brethren, and the death of James. V. A Chapter of Eusebius, containing Accounts of his Death from Hegesippus, and Josephus, with Remarks. VI. The Time of his Death. VII. How he was related to our Lord, and in what Respect he was his Brother. VIII. That he was an Apostle and the Son of Alpheus. IX. Why called the Less. X. Surnamed the Just, and other Marks of Respect shown him. XI. A Review of what has been said.

1. THERE is frequent mention of James in the Acts, and St. Paul's epistles. If he was an apostle he must be James, the son of Alpheus, always distinctly named in the catalogues of the apostles in the first three gospels, and in the first chapter of the Acts. For there was but one other apostle of this name, James the brother of John and son of Zebedee. However, the proofs of his oeing James the son of Alpheus are deferred for the present. I begin with writing the history of James, mentioned in the Acts, and St. Paul's epistles.

St. Paul, reckoning up the several appearances of our Lord to the disciples after his resurrection, says, 1 Cor. xv. 5-8. "That he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once :" meaning, I suppose, at the place in Galilee, where he had appointed to meet the disciples. "After that he was seen of James, then of all the apostles;" meaning, it is likely, when they were witnesses of his ascension. "And last of all he was seen of me also."

By James must be here intended the same that is mentioned by St. Paul elsewhere. Moreover James, the son of Zebedee, had been dead a good while before writing this epistle to the Corinthians, in the year of Christ 56. It is likely, that St. Paul speaks of him, who was still living. And he here speaks of a particular appearance of Christ to him.

[ocr errors]

We learn from Jerom, that in the gospel according to the Hebrews there was an account of a particular appearance of our Lord to James, the Lord's brother, who according to his computation, governed the church of Jerusalem thirty years. It is to this purpose. Very soon after 'the Lord was risen, he went to James, and showed himself to him. For James had solemnly sworn, that he would eat no bread from the time that he had drunk the cup of the Lord, till he should see him risen from among them that sleep." It is added a little after: "Bring," saith the Lord, "a table and bread." And lower: "He took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and then gave it to James the Just, and said to him: My brother, eat thy bread. For the Son of man is 'risen from among them that sleep."

I think this story may be sufficient to show, that James, called the Just, and the Lord's brother, was in high esteem with the Jewish believers, who used the gospel above-mentioned. But some of the circumstances of this account must needs be fabulous. Nor is there any reason to think that James, or any of the apostles, had a certain expectation of the Lord's rising from the dead: nevertheless I shall mention a thought to be considered by candid readers. Possibly this account is founded upon the history recorded in Luke xxiv. 13-35. of the two disciples, to

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

whom the Lord appeared on the day of his resurrection, "to whom he was known in breaking of bread." One thing more may be concluded from this passage. They who used this gospel, thought James, the Lord's brother, to have been an apostle. For here is a reference to his partaking in the eucharist, appointed by our Lord, where none were present beside the twelve.

However, as I have proposed a conjecture concerning the history in Luke xxiv. it ought to be observed, that the two disciples, there mentioned, were not apostles. For at ver. 35 it is said, that when they were returned to Jerusalem, "they found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them.”

[ocr errors]

a

Upon that text of St. Paul Dr. Doddridge mentions a conjecture, which had been communicated to him: that James had not seen our Lord after his resurrection, until the time there mentioned by St. Paul. That by sickness, or some other accident, James had been detained from meeting his brethren, both on the day of our Lord's resurrection, and that day sevennight ⚫ and likewise at the time when Christ appeared to the five hundred. And that he might in this respect be upon the level with them, our Lord appeared to him alone, after all the appearances mentioned before.' But I take that conjecture to be without ground, as well as very improbable. St. Paul's words do not imply that our Lord had not been seen by St. James before, but that this was a particular appearance to him alone, as Augustine has observed. Who likewise adds very judiciously: Nor did Christ now first show himself to all the apostles.' Which agrees with Lightfoot's interpretation of that text.

b

I have one thing more to add. It seems to me, that James here spoken of, was an apostle. And it will afford a good argument, that James, sometimes called by ancient Christian writers bishop of Jerusalem, was an apostle.

Gal. i. 18, 19. "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."

This text seems decisive in favour of the apostleship of James. St. Luke speaks of the same thing in this manner, Acts ix. 27. " Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles." Comparing these two texts together, I conclude, that James now resided at Jerusalem, and acted there as president of that church. And I imagine, that Barnabas first brought Paul to James, and James brought him to Peter. Thus Paul had communion with all the apostles, though he saw and conversed with none of them, beside James and Peter.

When St. Peter had been delivered out of prison, in the reign of Herod Agrippa, about the time of passover, in the year 44, "he came to the house of Mary, where many were gathered together, praying. And when he had declared unto them, how the Lord had brought him out of prison, he said: go show these things to James, and to the brethren." Acts xii. 12-17. This also gives ground to think, that James now presided in the church of Jerusalem.

Before, Acts xi. 29, 30, it is said: "then the disciples at Antioch, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea. Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." Hence, some have concluded, that James was not now at Jerusalem. But there is no reason for that supposition. For it would imply also, that none of the apostles were at Jerusalem: whereas, probably, they were all there, or near it. We have proof from the next chapter, already cited, that James the son of Zebedee and Peter were there. For the former was beheaded, and Peter imprisoned at Jerusalem by Herod Agrippa about this time. And when Peter had been brought out of prison, he desired his friends to inform James of it, as we have just seen. Therefore he certainly was then at Jerusalem.

There are two ways of understanding that expression. By elders may be meant elders in general, not excluding the apostles. So in the place of Paul, before cited: " after that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once." Where the apostles are not excluded, but included in the word brethren. For it is reasonable to think, that divers, yea most, if not all of the

b

See the Family Expositor, Vol. IV. p. 380.

Postea,' inquit, apparuit Jacobo.' Non tunc autem primum accipere debemus visum esse Jacobo, sed aliquâ propriâ manifestatione singulariter. Deinde Apostolis omnibus;' nec illis tunc primum, sed jam ut familiarius conversaretur cum eis usque ad diem adscensionis suæ. Aug. de Consens. Evang. 1. 3. cap. 25. num. 85. tom. III. P. 2.

After the appearing to above five hundred brethren at once, which we suppose, and not without ground, to have been that last mentioned, the apostle relateth that " he was

VOL. III.

[ocr errors]

'seen of James," 1 Cor. xv. 7, "and then of all the apostles." Which does plainly rank this appearance to James between that to the five hundred brethren on the mountain in Galilee, and his coming to all the apostles, when they were come again to Jerusalem. Which James this was, Paul is silent of, as all the evangelists are, of any such particular appearance. It is most likely he means "James the less," of whom he speaks often elsewhere.' Harmony of the N. T. Vol. 1. p. 273.

[ocr errors]

3 B

apostles, were present at that time. So here the apostles may be included in the general denomination of elders. Or by elders may be meant such as are called elders by way of distinction from apostles, as in Acts xv. 4. 22. xxi. 18, who might be persons, more especially entrusted with the receiving and the distributing such contributions. Neither of these senses oblige us to

think that James was not now at Jerusalem.

When the controversy about the manner of receiving the Gentiles was brought before "the apostles and elders," assembled in council at Jerusalem; "after there had been much disputing," Peter spoke, and then Barnabas, and Paul. After all which, James speaks last, sums up the argument, and proposeth the terms upon which the Gentiles should be received. To which the whole assembly agreed. And they sent letters to the Gentiles in several places accordingly. Acts xv. 1-29. It is manifest, I think, that James presided in this council. And it may be thence reckoned probable, that he was an apostle, as well as president of the church of Jerusalem.

2

Chrysostom, in a homily upon the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, says: James was bishop of Jerusalem, and therefore spoke last.' In the same place he justly applauds the propriety of his discourse in the council.

St. Paul, in the second chapter of the epistle to the Galatians, giving an account of some things which happened when he was that time at Jerusalem, but are not mentioned in the book of the Acts, speaks of James, Cephas, and John as pillars: "who also gave to him and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship." Those expressions strongly imply that James was an apostle, and presiding apostle in the church of Jerusalem.

Jerom in his book against Helvidius, allows, that the texts, which I have already cited from the epistle to the Galatians, show James, the Lord's brother, to have been an apostle.

Afterwards, in the same chapter, giving an account of what happened at Antioch: ver. 11, 12, he says, that "when Peter was come thither, he did eat with the Gentiles, before that certain came from James: but when they were come, he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them of the circumcision." This, I think, implies that James resided at Jerusalem, and presided in that church, and that he was greatly respected by the Jewish believers there. Once more, Acts xxi. 17, 18. When Paul went up to Jerusalem, about Pentecost, in the year 58, the day after our arrival, says St. Luke, "Paul went in with us unto James, and all the elders were present;" and what follows. Here is another proof that James resided at Jerusalem, and super

intended in that church.

In what has been now alleged we have perceived evidences of James being related to our Lord, forasmuch as he is called his brother, and that he was much at Jerusalem, and presided in that church, and that, probably, he was an apostle in the highest sense of that word. We have also seen reason to think that he was much respected by the Jewish believers. And though we do not allow ourselves to enlarge upon every thing said of him in the history of the council of Jerusalem, and his reception of Paul when he went up to Jerusalem, and was imprisoned, yet I suppose that every one may have discerned marks of an excellent character, and of his admirably uniting zeal and discretion, a love of truth and condescension to weak brethren. His epistle confirms that character. I think likewise that the preservation of his life, in such a station as his, to the time when he is mentioned last by St. Luke (which we suppose to have been about the time of Pentecost, in the year of Christ 58) may induce us to believe, that he was careful to be inoffensive in his behaviour toward the unbelieving part of the Jewish nation, and that he was had in reverence by many of them.

II. I should now proceed to write the history of this person from ancient authors. But that is a difficult task, as I have found, after trying more than once, and at distant spaces of time. I shall therefore take divers passages of Eusebius, and others, and make such reflections as offer, for finding out as much truth as we can.

d

Eusebius has a chapter concerning our Saviour's disciples.' Where he speaks of all these

* Επίσκοπος ην της εν Ιεροσολύμοις εκκλησίας οὗτος· διο úsapos λɛya. In Act. Ap. hom. 33. p. 253. T. IX.

-et frater Domini Apostolus sit, Paulo dicente: Deinde post triennium veni Jerusalem, videre Petrum.' Gal. i. 18, 19. Et in eâdem epistolâ: Et cognitâ gratiâ, quæ data est mihi cap. ii. 9. Adv. Helvid. p. 138. in. Dr. Whitby, in his preface to the epistle of St. James,

has argued in a like manner that I have done, that he was an apostle in the strict acceptation of the word. And to the same purpose also Cave at the beginning of his Life of St. James the Less, in English.

• Περί των μαθητων τη σωτηρος ήμων. Η. Ε. l. i. cap. 12.

P. 30.

« PreviousContinue »