Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

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.

II. These epistles are several times called canonical by 3 Cassiodorius, about the middle of the sixth century, and " by the writer of the prologue to these epistles, ascribed to Jerom, though 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 timek 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 sum‘mary 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, Jare that called the epistle of ‘James, and that of Jude, and the second of Peter, and the * second and third of John.”

* 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 Vol. v. ch. clviii. & Octavus codex canonicas epistolas continet apostolorum—sed cum de reliquis canonicis epistolis magna nos cogitatio fatigaret, Subito nobis codex Didymi Graeco 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.

' Diss. Prelim. l. 2. ch. 2. Sect. ix.

* Vid. Euseb. H. E. l. 3. cap. 3. cap. 24. et cap. 25.

l aic &ng rnv pspousvnv Iwavva Tporepav, kav ćuotag rmv IIsrps kupwreov striso}\my Twy 68 avròsyouevov Yvapupwy 3' 8v Ópawg roug troX\otg # Asyouévn Iakw88 papetal, kat is Iača àTs IIsrps devrepa struso)m kat is ovopačouévn Ösvrepa kat rpirm Iwavve. Ibid. c. 25. in. See also in this work, Vol. iv. p. 96.

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 lambic poem, says, “OfP 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 q “ 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 m See Vol. iv. ch. ciii. and ch. cxix. and Vol. v. ch. cxlviii. " Vol. iv. ch. cxviii. num. iv. and viii. ° Vol. v. ch. cxxxi. mum. iv. p ka00\ticwy striso}\tov rivec pav Štra pagw, oi és Tpsvg |uovaç.

Amphil. p. 132. ver. 310, 311. And see Vol. iv. ch. xcix. 4 lb. ch. lxxv. num. iii. * See Vol. v. ch. clix.

* Vol. iv. ch. cxv. * Ch. cxvi. VO L. VI, M

‘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 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.’

CHAP. XVI.
ST. JAMES, THE LORD'S BROTHER.

I. 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 with James the son of Alpheus. III. A passage of Eusebius, containing two quotations from Clement of Aleaxandria, 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.

I. 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

" Vol. iv. ch. cxvii. num. ii. * Ch. cxxii. " Vol. v. ch. cliii. num. iv * Mat. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13.

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 being 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, I 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. 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.”

* Nulli dubium est, duos fuisse apostolos Jacobi vocabulo nuncupatos: Jacobum Zebedaei, et Jacobum Alphaei. Hieron. adv. Helvid. T. IV. p. 137. fin. * Evangelium quoque, quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos, et a me nuper in Graecum Latinumque sermonem translatum est, —post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert: Dominus autem cum dedisset sindonem servo Sacerdotis, ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit ei. Juraverat enim Jacobus, se non comesturum panem ab illá horá, quá biberat calicem Domini, donec videret eum resurgentem ‘a dormientibus.” Rursusque post paululum. ‘Afferte,' ait Dominus, “mensam et panem.' Statimdue additur. * Tulit panem, et benedixit, ac fregit, et post dedit Jacobo Justo, et dixit ei: Frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit Filius hominis a dormientibus.” De V. I. cap. 2.

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 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.”

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 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

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

* “Postea,' inquit, “apparuit Jacobo.' Non tune autem primum accipere debemus visum esse Jacobo, sed aliquà propriá manifestatione singulariter. * Deinde apostolis omnibus; nec illis tunc primum, sed jam ut familiarius conversaretur cum eis usque ad diem adscensionis suae. Aug. de Consens. Evang. l. 3. cap. 25. num, 85. tom. III. p. 2.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »