« ZurückWeiter »
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. Vị. 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.
HERE is frequent mention of Jaines 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 inust 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 afier • 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 a, Matt. 3.3. Mark jij 18. Luke vi. 15. Acts i. 13.
et apparuit ei. Juraverat enim Jacobus, se non commestų• Nulli dubium est, duos fuisse A postolos Jacobi vocabulo fum panem ab illå horâ, quâ bibcrat calicem Domini, donec nuncupatos : Jacobum Zebedæi, et Jacobum Alphæi. Hieron. videret eum resurgentem • a dormientibus.' Rursusque post adv. Helvid. T. IV. p. 137. fin.
paululum. • Afferte,' ait Dominus, mensam et panem.' © Evangelium quoque, quod appellatur secundum Hebræos, Statimque additur. •Tulit panem, et benedixit, ac fregit
, et et a me nuper in Græcum Latinumque sermonem translatum post dedit Jacobo Justo, et dixit ei : Frater mi, comede papem
post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert: Dominus au- tuum, quia resurrexit Filius hominis a dormientibus. De. V. tem, cum dedisset sindonem servo Sacerdotis, ivit ad Jacobum 1. cap. 2.
whom the Lord appeared on the day of his resurrection," to whom he was known in breaking of breoul.” 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 thie 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.
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 * See the Family Expositor, Vol. IV. p. 380.
seen of James," I Cor. xv. 7, "and then of all the apostlcs." b • Postea, inquit, - apparuit Jacobo. Non tunc autem • Which does plainly rank this appearance to James between primum accipere debemus visum esse Jacobo, sed aliquâ pro- that to the five hundred brethren on the mountain in Galilee, priâ manifestatione singulariter. . Deinde Apostolis omnibus;' ' and his coming to all the apostles, when they were come nec illis tunc primum, sed jam ut familiarius conversaretur again to Jerusalem. Which James this was, Paul is silent cum eis usque ad diem adscensionis suæ. Aug. de Consens. of, as all the evangelists are, of any such particular appearance. Evang. I. 3. cap. 25. num. 85. tom. III. P. 2.
• It is most likely he means “ James the less," of whom he c. After the appearing to above five hundred brethren at speaks often elsewhere.' Harmony of the N. T. Vol. I. once, which we suppose, and not without ground, to have been that last mentioned, the apostle relateth that “ he was
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.
Chrysostom, in a homily upon the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, says: • Jameswas 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 superintended 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 con-, firms 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 68) 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.
Eusebius has a chapter d « concerning our Saviour's disciples.' Where he speaks of all these
2 Επισκοπος ην της εν Ιεροσολύμοις εκκλησιας ούτος: διο úsepos heyeb. In Act. Ap. bom. 33. p. 253. T. IX.
et frater Domini Apostolus sit, Paulo dicente : • Deinde post trienniuin veni Jerusalem, videre Petrum.' Gal. i. 18, 19. Et in eâdem epistolâ : ' Et cognitâ gratiâ, quæ data est mibi: -cap. ji: 9. Adv. Helvid.
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
• Περι των μαθητων τε σωτηρος ημων. Η. Ε. 1. i. cap. 12.
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 oť 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 called our Saviour's disciples, and one of his brethren.'
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. Some 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 his interpretation of these words. 1 Cor. xv. 7. “ then he was seen of all the apostles.” By • 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 he seems not to be quite free 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' 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.
III. Eusebius has k 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--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 his sixth book of his Institu* tions, 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, who * was thrown down from the battlement of the temple, and killed by a fuller's staff. The other
• Επειτα δ' ωφθαι αυτον Ιακωζω φησιν εις δε και ουτος των φερομένων τη σωτηρος μαθητων, αλλα μην και αδελφων ην. Ib. p. 31. B.
• E3' ως παρα τετοις κατα μιμησιν των δωδεκα πλεισων όσων υπαρξαντων απος ολων-αρος ιθησι λεγων" επειτα ωφτη τοις απο, ολοις πασι. . Ib. p. 31.
· See Vol. i. p. 572.
e P. 559, 560. f Vol. ïi. p. 410.
De Christi Res. Or. 2. tom. III. p. 413. B. C. ho See Vol. ii. p. 438.
S. Jacque le Mineur, Art. i. tom. I. * H. E. 1. 2. cap. i.
is he who was beheaded. Of him that was called the Just, Paul also makes mention, saying: other of the apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother.'
Upon what has been thus transcribed a few remarks may be properly made. In the former part of it Eusebius seems to declare it as his own opinion, that James, called the Lord's brother, was the son of Joseph, that is, by a former wife.
For clearing up this passage, I would farther observe: I suppose the whole of this quotation to be taken from Clement. Some may indeed at first be apt to think that the second passage
of Clement concludes with the word Barnabas. But I rather think that all which follows in this quotation is Clement's, and nothing of Eusebius. One reason of my thinking so is, that in the twenty-third chapter of the same book, where our Ecclesiastical Historian gives an account of the death of James from Hegesippus, who relates, that James was thrown down from the temple, and killed by a fuller's staff, he twice says, that is, at the entering upon that account, and at finishing it, that this was agreeable to what had been before alleged from Clement. The other reason is, that Eusebius seems not to have been so clear that there were no more than two of
is implied in this passage, particularly in the conclusion of it. Upon these two passages cited by Eusebius from Clement, one from the sixth, the other from the seventh book of his Institutions, we are led to observe, first, that James, called the Just, is here supposed to be an apostle. Nor did Clement know of any more of the name James, in the New Testament, beside James the son of Zebeclee, and him called James the Just. Secondly, I observe, that James, called the Just, is supposed to have been appointed bishop of Jerusalein, by three apostles especially, Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee, and not by our Lord. And the order and coherence of things in this chapter of Eusebius seems to imply that this was done soon after the martyrdom of Stephen.
Which appears to me agreeable to the history in the Acts, and the passages alleged thence ať the beginning of this chapter. Peter always speaks first, as president among the apostles, until after the choice of the seven deacons. Every thing said of St. James after that implies his presiding in the church of Jerusalem. And when St. Paul mentions the three chiefs, who were pillars, Gal. ii. 9, with whom he conferred at Jerusalem, he names James first. The reason of his doing so, I take to be, that James then presided in the church of Jerusalem.
Tillemont thinks, • That Christ himself may have appointed James to be bishop in that church: but the apostles deferred the declaring it solemnly, till the time of the persecution, · which broke out after the leath of St. Stephen. Then they thought of providing more parti.
cularly for the church of Jerusalem, whence, perhaps, they feared they should be constrained i to remove. This obliged them to appoint a proper pastor, who should be obliged to stay there * till his death, and should charge himself with every thing necessary for their welfare.'
To me it appears evident, that the apostles did not now leave Jerusalem, nor till a good while afterwards. But they were obliged to live privately. And the circumstances of things made it prudent to appoint one of their number, who should preside in that church, and act in their name. Though they could not at all appear in public, it was fit there should be one at least, to whom the faithful might apply at any time, in case of need. This choice, or appointment, is ascribed by Ciement to three of the apostles. But it might be done with the consent and approbation of all.
As this episcopate, or superintendence of James has been thus mentioned, I shall here observe what notice is taken of it by other ancient Christian writers.
Eusebius, in one place, says, that · James was appointed bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles': in another by Christ and the apostles. So likewise in the Apostolical Constitutions. Jerom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, says, - that " James surnamed the Just, was ordained
• Τον δε της τε Ιακωβε τελευτης τροπον ηδη μεν προτερον ai παρατεθεισαι το Κλημεντος φωναι δεδηλωκασιν, απο το πτερυγια βεβλησθαι, ξυλψ τε την προς θανατον πεπληχθαι αυτον i5OSTKoto5. 1. 2. cap. 23. p. 63. C.
Ταυτα δια πλατες συνδα τω Κλημεντι και ο Ηγήσιππος. Ibid. p. 65. C.
St. Jacque le Mineur. Art. iv. mem. tom. I. d See Acts viü. I.
-ώ προς των αποστολέων και της επισκοπής της εν Ιεροσο
Auxois EYLEXEIDI50 Opovos. H. E. 1. 2. cap. 23. in Vid. et 1. 2. cap. 1. in. p. 38. B.
Τον γαρ Ιακωβε θρονον το πρατία της Ιεροσολύμων εκκλησιας την επισκοπης προς τη σωτηρος και των αποβολων ισοδεξqueva. %. 1. 1. 7. c. 19.
& Constit. 1. 8. cap. 35.
" Jacobus, qui appellatur frater Domini, cognomento Justus -post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus. De V. I. cap. 2.