place. And why then fhould these two be exceptions? Yea, it may be reckoned not improbable, that Archippus had been ordained by St. Paul himself an Elder at Coloffe. Whether Philemon likewife was an Elder there, I do not fay: though he may have been fo. From all these confiderations it appears to me very probable, that the church of Coloffe had been planted by the Apostle Paul, and that the Chriftians there were his friends, difciples, and converts. And if the Chriftians at Coloffe were his converts, it may be argued, that fo likewife were the Christians at Laodicea, and Hierapolis. None of which places were far asunder. CHA P. XV. Of the Seven Catholic Epiftles. I. The Antiquity, and the Reafon of that Denomination. II. Called aljo canonical. III. Concerning their Reception in feveral Ages. IV. Their Order. 1. TH The Antiquity of this HERE are feven epiftles, which we call Catholic. The antiquity of this denomination may be made manifeft from a few quotations. Eufebius having given an account of the death of James, called the Juft, and our Lord's brother, concludes: "Thus (a) far con"cerning this James, who is faid to be the author of the first of the "epiftles called catholic." In another place he says, "That (b) in his "Inftitutions Clement of Alexandria had given fhort explications of "all the canonical scriptures, not omitting those which are contradicted. "I mean the epiftle of Jude, and the other catholic epiftles." They were fo called therefore in the time of Eufebius, and, probably, before. Of which likewife we have good proof. For St. John's first epiftle is feveral times called a catholic epiftle by Origen (c) in his remaining Greek works, as well as in others. It is likewife (d) fo called several times by Dionyfius, Bishop of Alexandria. Athanafius, Epiphanius, and later Greek writers received feven epiftles, which they called catholic. I only observe here farther, that they are fo called likewife by (e) Jerome. They (α) Τοιαῦτα καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὸν ἰάκωβον, ᾧ ἡ πρώτη τῶν ὀνομαζομένων καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν εἶναι λέγεται. Η. Ε. l. 2. c. 23. p. 66. D. (6) . . . . μὴ δὲ τὶς αντιλεγομένας παρελθών· τὴν ἰδα λέγω, καὶ τὰς λοιπάς καθολικώς ἐπιςολάς. Ib. 1. 6. cap. 14. in. (c) See of this work Vol. iii. p. 268. (d). 8 τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην ἐπιγεγραμμένον, καὶ ἡ ἐπιτολὴ ἡ naborian. Ap. Eufeb. 1. 7. cap. 25. p. 273. D. Vid. ib. p. 274. B. this work, Vol. iv. p. 672. 673. (e) Petrus 1. cap. i. And in fcripfit duas epiftolas, que catholicæ nominantur. De V. Jacobus They are called catholic, or univerfal, or general, because The Reathey are not writ to the believers of fome one city, or coun fon of it. trey, or to particular perfons, as St. Paul's epiftles are, but to Chriftians in general, or to Chriftians of feveral (f) countreys. This is the cafe of five, or the greater part of them, with which the two other are joyned. Moreover, when the first epiftle of Peter, and the first of St. John were called Catholic by the most early Chriftian writers, the two fmaller of St. John were unknown, or not generally received. canonical. II. These epiftles are several times called canonical by (8) Called alfo Caffiodorius, about the midle of the fixth centurie, and (b) by the writer of the prologue to thefe epiftles, afcribed to Jerome, though not his. The reafon of which appellation is not certainly known. Nor is it eafie to perceive the propriety of it. Du Pin fays: "Some (1) Latins have called thefe epiftles canonical, either confounding the name with catholic, or elfe to denote, that they also are a part of the canon of the books of the New Teftament." By whom received. III. Of thefe epiftles two only, the first of St. Peter, and the first of St. John, were univerfally received in the time () of Eufebius. However, the reft were then well known. In proof of which I fhall allege one paffage only from him. "Here ) "fays he, it will be proper to enumerate in a fummarie way the books "of the New Teftament, which have been already mentioned. And “in the first place are to be ranked the four facred Gofpels. Then the "book of the Acts of the Apoftles. After that are to be reckoned the "epiftles of Paul. In the next place, that called the first epiftle of John, and the firft of Peter. After thefe is to be placed, if it be "thought fit, the Revelation of John. . . . And among the contra dicted, but yet well known to the moft, [or approved by many,] "are that called the epiftle of James, and that of Jude, and the second "of Peter, and the fecond and third of John." Jacobus Ib. cap. 2. ... And unam tantum fcripfit epiftolam, quæ de feptem catholicis eft. Judas, frater Domini, parvam, quæ de feptem catholicis eft, epiftolam reliquit. Ib. cap. 4. (f) Or, as Leontius expreffeth it, "They are called catholic, because they are not writ to one nation, as Paul's epiftles, but in general to all." See Vol. xi. p. 381. () Octavus codex canonicas epiftolas continet Apoftolorum . . . fed cum de reliquis canonicis epiftolis magna nos cogitatio fatigaret, fubito nobis codex Didymi Græco ftilo confcriptus in expofitionem feptem canonicarum epiftolarum Domino largiente conceffus eft. De Inftit. Div. Lit. cap. 8. Vid. et Caffiodorii Complexiones canonicarum epiftolarum feptem. (b) Prologus feptem Epiftolarum Canonicarum. Ap. Hieron. Tom. i. p. 1667. (i) Diff. Prelim. 1. 2. ch. 2. §. ix. () Vid. Eufeb. H. E. 1. 3. cap. 3. cap. 24. ct cap. 25. And fee this Work, Vol. viii. p. 96. 97. (4) .. εἰς ἑξῆς τὴν φερομένην Ιωάννα προτέραν, καὶ ὁμόιως τὴν πέτρα κυρωτέον έτσι πλήν τῶν δὲ ἀντιλεγομένων γνωρίμων δ' ἐν ὅμως τοῖς πολλοῖς ἡ λεγομένη ἐακώβει φέρεται, καὶ ἡ ἰέδας ήτε πέτρες δευτέρα ἐπιτολὴ, καὶ ἡ ὀνομαζομένη δευτέρα και τρίτη Ιωάννα. H. E. 1. 3. c. 25. in. See alfo in this Work, Fol. vi. p. 96. 97 And in the preceding volumes of this Work we have obferved all the seven to have been received by Athanafius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustin, and many other writers. But the Syrian churches received (m) there only of these epiftles. Nor does it appear, that more were received by (n) Chryfoftom or (o) Theodoret. And Amphilochius, in his Iambic Poem, fays: "Of (p) the Catholic Epiftles fome receive feven, others three, only." However, as we proceed, we fhall particularly confider the claims of the difputed epiftles, under the names of those, to whom they are afcribed. IV. Before I conclude this introduction, I would take Their Order. notice of the order of thefe epiftles, because there is fome variety in ancient authors. In the paffage, cited from Eufebius at the begining of this chapter, he fays, that the epiftle of James was the first of thofe called catholic. In the paflage, fince taken from him, where he mentions thefe epiftles 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 thofe, that were contradicted, the epiftle of James is first named. This is the order in the Festal epiftle of Athanafius: "Seven (q) epiftles of the Apoftles, fays he, called catholic: Of James one, of Peter two, of John three, and after them, of Jude one." Which is our prefent order. The fame order is obfer. red in the catalogue of Cyril of Jerufalem, the council of Laodicea, Epiphanius, Gregorie Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerome's letter to Paulinus, Euthalius, Gelafius, Bishop of Rome, the Alexandrian Manufcript, the Stichometric of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Conftantinople, Leontius, J. Damafcen. The fame order is in Bede's prologue to thefe epiftles, largely tranfcribed by us (r) in it's proper place. Where he affigns reafons of this order, and particularly, why the epiftle of James was placed firft. In other authors is a different order. By Rufin (s) they are rehearfed in this manner: "two epiftles of the Apoftle Peter, one of James, the "brother of the Lord, and Apoftle, one of Jude, three of John: the "Revelation of John." One may be apt to think, that St. John's three epiftles are here mentioned laft, that they might not be separated from the book of the Revelation. In the canon of the third council of Carthage, they ftand in this order: "two (t) epiftles of the Apoftle Peter, three of the Apoftle John, one of the Apoftle Jude, one of the Apostle James." In Auguftin's work of the Chriftian Doctrine: "two (u) epiftles of Peter, three of John, one of Jude, and one of James." In the catalogue of Pope Innocent: " three (x) epiitles of John, two epi"ftles of Peter, an epiftle of Jude, an epiftle of James." In the Commentarie of Caffiodorius (y) upon thefe epiftles they are in this order: "Two epiftles of Peter, three of John, of Jude one, of James one.' 274. (0) Vol. xi. p. 88. . · . 91. (m) See Vol. ix. p. 217. 222. and Vol. xi. p. 5. and p. 270. ... 132. ver. 310. 311. And fee Vol. ix. p. (q) See Vol. viii. p. 227. (s) Vol. x. p. 187. (x) Vol. xi. p. 39. 4 148. Amphil. (r) See Vol. xi. p. 387. 388. (t) P. 194. (2) P. 211. (3) See Vol. xi. p. 311. CHAP. 366) ST. JAMES, the LORD's Brother 1. His Hiftorie from the N. T. whereby he appears to have been an Apofile. II. His hiftorie from ancient Authors. A Paffage from Eufebius concerning Him, with Remarks, fhewing Him to be the fame, as James the Son of Alpheus. III. A paffage of Eufebius, containing two Quotations from Clement of Alexandria, mentioning his Appointment to be Bishop, or refiding Apoftle at Jerufalem, and the Manner of his Death. IV. A Passage of Origen, fpeaking of our Lord's Brethren, and the Death of James. V. A Chapter of Eufebius, containing Accounts of his Death from Hegefippus, and Jofephus, 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 Apoftle, and the Son of Alpheus. IX. Why called the Lefs. X. Surnamed the Juft, and other Marks of Respect fhewn Him. XI. A Review of what has been faid. His Hiflorie from the N. T. TH I. HERE is frequent mention of James in the Acts and St. Paul's epiftles. If he was an Apostle, he must be James, the fon of Alpheus, always distinctly named in the catalogues of the Apoftles (a) in the first three Gofpels, and in the first chapter of the Acts. For (b) there was but one other Apostle of this name, James the brother of John, and fon of Zebedee. However the proofs of his being James the fon of Alpheus are deferred for the prefent. I begin with writing the hiftorie of James, mentioned in the Acts, and St. Paul's epiftles. St. Paul, reckoning up the several appearances of our Lord to the difciples after his refurrection, fays 1 Cor. xv. 5. . . . 8. that he was feen of Cephas, then of the twelve. After that he was feen of above five hundred brethren at once: meaning, I fuppofe, at the place in Galilee, where he had appointed to meet the difciples. After that he was feen of James, then of all the Apostles: meaning, it is likely, when they were witnesses of his afcenfion. And laft of all he was feen of me alfo. By James must be here intended the fame, that is mentioned by St. Paul elfewhere. Moreover James, the fon of Zebedee, had been dead a good while before writing this epiftle to the Corinthians, in the Year of Chrift 56. It is likely, that St. Paul fpeaks of him, who was ftill living. And he here fpeaks of a particular appearance of Chrift to him. We learn from Jerome, that in the Gofpel 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 (a) Matth. x. 3. Mark iii. 18. Luke vi. 15. Acts i. 13. church (b) Nulli dubium eft, duos fuiffe Apoftolos Jacobi vocabulo nuncupatos: Jacobum Zebedæi, et Jacobum Alphæi. Hieron. adv. Helvid. T. 4. p. 137.fin. church of Jerufalem thirty years. It is to this purpose. « Very (c) Soon after the Lord was rifen, he went to James, and fhewed himself to him. "For James had folemnly fwore, that he would eat no bread from the time “that he had drunk the cup of the Lord, till he should fee him rifen from a"mong them that fleep. It is added a little after. Bring, faith 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 rifen from among them that fleep. I think, this ftorie may be fufficient to fhew, that James, called the Juft, and the Lord's brother, was in high esteem with the Jewish believers, who used the Gospel above mentioned. But fome of the circumstances of this account muft 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 rifing from the dead. Nevertheless I fhall mention a thought, to be confidered by candid readers. Poffibly, this account is founded upon the hiftorie recorded in Luke xxiv. 13. . . 35. of the two difciples, to whom the Lord appeared on the day of his refurrection, to whom he was known in breaking of bread. One thing more may be concluded from this paffage. They who used this gofpel, thought James, the Lord's brother, to have been an Apostle. For here is a reference to his partaking in the eucharift, appointed by our Lord. Where none were prefent, befide the twelve. However, as I have propofed a conjecture concerning the hiftorie in Luke xxiv. it ought to be obferved, that the two difciples, there mentioned, were not Apoftles. For at ver. 35. it is faid, that when they were returned to Jerufalem, they found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them. Upon that text of St. Paul Dr. Doddridge (d) mentions a conjecture, which had been communicated to him: that James had not feen our Lord after his refurrection, untill the time there mentioned by St. Paul. "That by fickneffe, or fome other accident, James had been detained from meeting his brethren, both on the day of our Lord's refurrection, and that day fevennight, and likewife at the time, when Chrift appeared to the five hundred. And that he might on this refpect 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 feen by James before, but that this was a particular appearance (c) Evangelium quoque, quod appellatur fecundum Hebræos, et a ne nuper in Græcum Latinumque fermonem tranflatum eft, . . . poft refurrectionem Salvatoris refert. Dominus autem, cum dediffet findonem fervo Sacerdotis, ivit ad Jacobum, et apparuit ei. Juraverat enim Jacobus, fe non comefturum panem ab illa hora, quâ biberat calicem Domini, donec videret refurgentem a dormientibus. Rurfufque poft paululum. Afferte, ait Dominus, menfam et panem. Statimque additur. Tulit panem, et benedixit, ac fregit, et poft dedit Jacobo Jufto, et dixit ei: Frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia refurrexit Filius hominis a dormientibus. De V. I. cap. 2. eum (d) See the Family-Expofitor, Vol. iv. p. 380. |
