« AnteriorContinua »
same women, says, There stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. Wherefore, our Lord's mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, mentioned by John, is, in all probability, the person whom Mark calls Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joses ; consequently her sons, James and Joses, were our Lord's cousin-germans by his mother. And as the Hebrews called all near relations brethren, (compare Gen. xiii. 8. with Gen. xi. 27. and Gen. xxix. 12. with ver. 15.) it is more than probable, that James the son of Alpheus, who was our Lord's cousin-german, is James the Lord's brother, mentioned Gal. i. 19.—Three circumstances confirm this opinion, 1st, James and Joses, the sons of Mary our Lord's mother's sister, are expressly called the brethren of Jesus, Mat. xiii. 55. Mark vi. 3.-2d, James the son of our Lord's mother's sister, being distinguished from another James by the appellation of the less, Mark xv. 40. there is good reason to think, that he is the James whom Mark in his catalogue distinguishes from James the son of Zebedee, by the appellation of the son of Alpheus. It is true, Mary the mother of Janies and of Joses, is called the wife of Cleophas, John xix. 25. But Cleophas and Alpheus are the same names differently pronounced, the one according to the Hebrew, the other, according to the Greek orthography.-3d, Of the persons called the brethren of Jesus, Mat. xiii. 59. three are mentioned in the catalogues as apostles ; namely, James, and Simon, and Judas. They, I suppose, are the brethren of the Lord, who are said, as apostles, to have had a right to lead about a sister, or a wife, EC. I Cor. ix. 5.-Jerome likewise thought James the Lord's brother was so called, because he was the son of Mary our Lord's mother's sister. “ Jacobus, qui appellatur frater Domi“ni, cognomento justus, ut nonnulli existimant Josephi ex alia of uxore, ut autem mihi videtur, Mariæ fororis matris Domini « (cujus Joannes in libro suo meminit) filius, post passionem u Domini ab apostolis Hierosolymorum episcopus ordinatus,
unam tantum scripsit epistolam, quæ de septem Catholicis 66 est." Art. Jacobus. --Lardner, Canon. vol. iii. p. 63. says, Jerome seems to have been the first who said our Lord's brethren were the sons of his mother's sister; and that this opinion was at length embraced by Augustine, and has prevailed very much of late ; being the opinion of the Romanists in general, and of Lightfoot, Witsius, Lampe, and many of the Protestants. On the other hand, Origen, Epiphanius, and other ancient writers, both Greeks and Latins, were of opinion, that James the Lord's brother was not the son of the Virgin's sister, but of Joseph our Lord's reputed father, by a former wife, who died before he espoused the Virgin. Of the same opinion were Vossius, Basnage, and Cave among the Protestants, and Valesius among the Romanists. Epiphanius and Theophylact supposed, that Joseph's first wife was the widow of Alpheus, who being Joseph's brother, Joseph married her to raise up seed to him, and therefore James the issue of that marriage was fitly called the son of Alpheus, and brother of our Lord. But these suppositions might have been spared, if the ancients and moderns had recollected, that near relations were called brethren by the Hebrews; and that Alpheus and Cleophas are the same names differently written.
James the less, the son of Alpheus, being not only the Lord's near relation, but an apostle, whom, as is generally supposed, he honoured in a particular manner, by appearing to him alone after his resurrection, I Cor. xv. 7. these circumstances, together with his own personal merit, rendered him of such note among the apostles, that they appointed him to reside in Jerusalem, and to superintend the church there. This appointment, Lardner says, was inade soon after the martyrdom of Stephen; and in support of his opinion he observes, “ That Peter always “ speaks first as president among the apostles, until after the 36 choice of the seven deacons. Every thing said of St. James « after that, implies his presiding in the church of Jerusalem.” Canon. vol. iii. p. 28. For example : When the apostles and elders at Jerusalem came together to consider whether it was needful to circumcise the Genuiles, after there had been much disputing, Peter spake, Acts xv. 7. Then Barnabas and Paul, ver. 12. And when they had ended, James summed up the arguments, and proposed the terms on which the Gentiles were to be received into the church, ver. 19, 20, 21. to which the whole assembly agreed, and wrote letters to the Gentiles conformably to the opinion of James, ver. 22.-29. From this it is inferred, that James presided in the council of Jerusalem because he was president of the church in that city. Chrysostom, in his homily on Acts xv. says, “ James was Bishop of Jerusa“ lem, and therefore spake last.”
In the time of this council Paul communicated the gospel which he prcached among the Gentiles to three of the apostles,
whom he calls pillars ; and tells us, that when they perceived the inspiration and miraculous powers which he possessed, they gave him the right hands of fellowship, mentioning James first, Gal. ii. 9. And knowing the grace that was bestowed on me, James, Cephas, and John, who were pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. This implies, that James, whom in the first chapter he had called the Lord's brother, was not only an apostle, but the presiding apostle in the church of Jerusalem. In the same chapter, Paul giving an account of what happened after the council, says, ver. 11. When Peter was come to Antiochi 12. Before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles : But when they were come, he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. This shews that James resided at Jerusalem, and presided in the church there, and was greatly respected by the Jewish believers. The same circumstance appears from Acts xxi. 17. Where, giving an account of Paul's journey to Jerusalem with the collections for the saints in Judea, Luke says, ver. 18. Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. Farther, the respect in which James was held by the apostles, appears from two facts recorded by Luke. The first is, When Paul came to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, Barnabas took him and brought him to Peter and James as the chief apostles. Compare Acts ix. 27. with Gal. i. 19. The second fact is, After Peter was miraculously delivered out of prison, about the time of the passover in the year 44. He came to the house of Mary, where many were gathered together praying, Acts xii. 12.-And when he had declared to them how the Lord had brought him out of prison, he said, Go shew these things to James, and to the brethren, ver. 17.—These particulars are mentioned by Lardner, and before him by Whitby and Cave, to shew that James the Lord's brother, was really an apostle in the strict acceptation of the word; consequently, that Eusebius was mistaken, when he placed him among the seventy disciples. E. H. lib 1. c. 12.
In the history of the Acts, there are some circumstances which, as learned men bave remarked, lead us to conclude, that the apostles, by common agreement, allotted to each other the offices and duties which they were to perform. Thus, Acts viii. 14. When the apostles, who were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word, they sent to them Peter and John.
Acts xi. 22. Then tidings of these things, (namely, that a number of the Hellenist Jews in Antioch had received the word,) came to the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem, and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far a: Antioch.-Gal. ii. 9. When James, Cephas, and John, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the righi hands of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision. Wherefore, if James the Lord's brother was really president of the church in Jerusalem, as was formerly mentioned, and as the ancients universally affirm, he was in all probability placed in that station by the appointment, or with the approbation, of the other apostles, as an ancient tradition, preserved by Eusebius and Jerome, informs us. But Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Photius think he was raised to that office by our Lord himself. That one of the apostles should reside constantly in Jerusalem, to whom the faithful might apply for advice in any difficult case, was very proper; because circumstances might make it necessary for the greatest part of the apostles to leave Jerusalem, and go to other countries. Wherefore, as James the Lord's brother was a person of singular prudence, and great authority, as well as an apostle, he was well qualified for that important station, and may have been appointed to it by common consent. And as every apostle, by virtue of his superior character and illumination, had a right to direct the affairs of the church where he happened to reside, the apostle James, by constantly residing in Jerusalem, became the perpetual president and director of the church there; on which account the ancients called him the Bishop of Jerusalem.
Lardner's character of James deserves a place here. “ Though
we do not allow ourselves to enlarge on every thing said of 6 bim in the history of the council of Jerusalem, and his recep« tion of Paul when he came up to Jerusalem and was imprison6 ed : 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 Luke, may induce us to believe, « that he was careful to be inoffensive in his behaviour to the " unbelieving part of the Jewish nation, and that he was had in “ reverence by many of them.” Can. vol. iii.p. 20.
James the Lord's brother was surnamed the le88, John xix. 25. either because he was younger than James the son of Zebedee, or because he was a person of small stature, which is the literal meaning of 78 peorps, the little. James was likewise surnamed the Just, not indeed in the New Testament, but by the ancients, who gave him that appellation on account of his singular virtue. Some indeed have supposed James the Just to be a different person from James the son of Alpheus, and have ascribed this epistle to him ; but I think without foundation. For, as there are only two persons of the name of James mentioned in scripture as apostles, and as the most ancient Christian writers have given James the Lord's brother the surname of the Just, there is no reason to believe that there was any third person of the name of James, who was surnamed the Just, and who was the writer of this epistle. See Euseb. E. H. lib. ii. c. i. Lard. Com. vol. iii. p. 26,
of the Authenticity and Authority of the Epistle of James. Beza in his preface to this epistle tells us, that in the Syriaç version, (I suppose he means the second Syriac), the general title prefixed to the Catholic epistles is, The three epistles of the three apostles before whose eyes the Lord transfigured himself. Wherefore, according to that translator, the author of this epistle was James the son of Zebedee ; in which opinion he hath been followed by the Arabic translator, and by some modern commentators. But on that supposition, the epistle of James must have been written the first of all the epistles ; namely, before the year 43 or 44. for in one of these years James the son of Zebedee was put to death by Herod, Acts xii. 2. The errors, however, and vices reproved in this epistle, shew it to be of a much later date, being the very errors and vices which gave occasion to the epistles of Peter, and John, and Jude, which all agree were written towards the conclusion of the lives of these apostles. Besides, there are passages in the epistle itself, which imply, that at the time it was written the destruction of Jerusalem was at hand. For these reasons, Jerome's opinion, formerly mentioned, page 4. ought to be adopted, who tells us, that this epistle was written by James, who was called