Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

f

'to all the apostles.' Which agrees with Lightfoot's ' interpretation of that text.

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 the 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.

[ocr errors]

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 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

f. 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 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. I. p. 273.

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 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.

6

g

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.

8 Επίσκοπος ην της εν Ιεροσολύμοις εκκλησίας οὗτος· διο ὑπερος λεγει In Act. Ap. hom. 33. p. 253. T. IX.

h

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 superintended in that church.i

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. 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.

h

et frater Domini apostolus sit, • nium veni Jerusalem, videre Petrum.' • Et cognitâ gratiâ, quæ data est mihi'.

His

Paulo dicente: Deinde post trienGal. i. 18, 19. Et in eâdem epistolâ : -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.

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.

[ocr errors]

k

Eusebius has a chapter concerning our Saviour's disciples.' Where he speaks of all these following, as said to be of the number of the seventy: Barnabas, Sosthenes, who joins with Paul in writing the first epistle to the Corinthians, Cephas, whom Paul resisted at Antioch, of the same name with the apostle Peter, but different from him, Matthias, chosen in the room of Judas, and he who was put up with Matthias, and James, to whom Christ showed himself after his resurrection, as related by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 7. 'He likewise,' says Eusebius,' was one of those call'ed our Saviour's disciples, and one of his brethren.'

Some

Upon this it is easy to observe, that beside the loose and inaccurate manner in which this chapter is written by our historian, here are, probably, several mistakes. things will be readily assented to, as not unlikely; that Matthias, and the other disciple put up with him, were of the seventy. But omitting some other things, there is no good reason to say that Cephas was different from Peter, or that Sosthenes was one of the seventy. If those things are wrong, there is the less reason to rely upon that account which places James, the Lord's brother, in the number only of his disciples, or of the seventy.

However, we here seem to discern the opinion of our Ecclesiastical Historian, that James, the Lord's brother, so often mentioned in the Acts, and St. Paul's epistles, was not one of Christ's apostles. And there we have also bis interpretation of these words. Cor. xv. 7," then he was seen of all the apostles." By m which he understands others, beside the twelve. And to the like purpose" Origen. And it was formerly shown at large, in the chapter of Eusebius, that he did not esteem this James an apostle in the highest acceptation of the word. It may be observed likewise, in the large account formerly given of Jerom's opinion concerning this James, that P he seems not to be quite free i. cap. 12. p. 30.

1

[ocr errors]

k Περι των μαθητων τε Σωτηρος ήμων. Η. Ε. l. i. Έπειτα δ' ώφθαι αυτόν Ιακωβῳ φησιν· εἰς δε και ούτος των φερομενων τε Σωτήρος μαθητων, αλλα μην και αδελφων ην. Ib. p. 31. B.

m Ειθ ̓ ὡς παρα τετοις κατα μιμησιν των δωδεκα πλειςων όσων ὑπαρξαντων αποτόλων - προςίθησι λεγων' επειτα ώφθη τοις αποςόλοις πασι. Ib. p. 31. "See Vol. ii. ch. xxxviii. num. xxviii. 11. • Vol. iv. ch. lxxu. num. ix. 20, 21, 22.

P Ch. cxiv. num. viii. 6.

t

r

from hesitation. Sometimes he speaks of him as one of the twelve apostles, and sometimes not so. We have also seen reason to think, that a Cyril of Jerusalem did not reckon James, called bishop of Jerusalem, to have been one of the twelve apostles. Gregory Nyssen likewise distinguishes James, the son of Alpheus, one of the twelve apostles, from James the Less, who was not of that number. The same opinion appears in the Apostolical Constitutions. Tillemont says • The Greek christians of our time distinguished James the son of Alpheus, one of the twelve 'apostles, and James the Lord's brother, and bishop of Jerusalem, as two different persons: so making us entirely ignorant of the history of James, the son of Alpheus, and excluding the Lord's brother from the number of apostles. But the opinion of the Latins, who believe that they are one and the same person, and the apostle, appears more 'conformable to the scripture, and is supported by the authority of St. Paul in particular, who gives to James 'the Lord's brother the title of apostle in the same manner 'that he gives it to Peter.' Gal. i. 19.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

III. Eusebius has " another chapter, entitled, Of things 'constituted by the apostles after our Saviour's ascension.' Which is to this purpose. The first is the choice of 'Matthias, one of Christ's disciples, into the apostleship in 'the room of Judas. Then the appointment of the seven deacons, one of whom was Stephen, who soon after his being • ordained was stoned by those who had killed the Lord, and was the first martyr for Christ. Then James, called 'the Lord's brother, because he was the son of Joseph

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

to whom the virgin Mary was espoused. This James, 'called by the ancients the Just, on account of his eminent 'virtue, is said to have been appointed the first bishop of 'Jerusalem. And Clement, in the sixth book of his Iustitutions, writes after this manner: That after our Lord's 'ascension, Peter, and James, and John, though they had been favoured by the Lord above the rest, did not contend for honour, but chose James the Just to be bishop of Jerusalem. And in the seventh book of the same work, he says, that after his resurrection, the Lord gave to James the Just, and John, and Peter, the gift of knowledge. And they gave it to the other apostles. And the other apostles gave it to the seventy, one of whom was Barnabas. For there were two named James: one the Just,

1 Vol. iv. ch. lxxix. num. vii.

p. 413. B. C.

'S. Jacque le Mineur, Art. i. tom. I.

• De Christi Res. Or. 2. tom. III.

s See Vol. iv. ch. lxxxv. num. viii. 6. u H. E. 1. 2. cap. i.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »