tile Christians in any country whatever. The two Epistles of Peter were written to Christians in general, but particularly those who had been converted from Judaism. The first Epistle of John and the Epistle of Jude were probably written to Jewish Christians; and the second and third Epistles of John were unquestionably written to particular persons.

3. A third opinion is that of Dr. Hammond, adopted by Dr. Macknight and others, which we think is the most probable. It is this: The first Epistle of Peter and the first Epistle of John, having from the beginning been received as authentic, obtained the name of catholic or universally acknowledged (and therefore canonical) Epistles, in order to distinguish them from the Epistle of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, and the Epistle of Jude, concerning which doubts were at first entertained, and they were considered by many as not being a rule of faith. But their authenticity being at length acknowledged by the generality of the churches, they also obtained the name of catholic or universally received Epistles, and were esteemed of equal authority with the rest. These Epistles were also termed canonical by Cassiodorus in the middle of the sixth century, and by the writer of the prologue to these Epistles, which is erroneously ascribed to Jerome. The propriety of this latter appellation is not satisfactorily ascertained. Du Pin says that some Latin writers have called these Epistles canonical, either confounding the name with Catholic, or to denote that they are a part of the canon of the books of the New Testament.

II. The denomination of Catholic Epistles is of very considerable antiquity, for Eusebius uses it as a common appellation in the fourth century, and it is probably earlier: for St. John's first Epistle is repeatedly called a catholic Epistle by Origen, and by Dionysius bishop of Alexandria. Of these Epistles, two only, viz. the first Epistle of Saint Peter and the first Epistle of Saint John, were universally received in the time of Eusebius; though the rest were then well known. And Athanasius, Epiphanius, and later Greek writers, received seven Epistles which they call catholic. The same appellation was also given to them by Jerome.

Although the authenticity of the Epistle of James, the second of Peter, the Epistle of Jude, and the second and third Epistles of John, was questioned by some antient fathers, as well as by some modern writers, yet we have every reason to believe that they are the genuine and authentic productions of the inspired writers whose names they bear. The claims to authenticity of these disputed Epistles are discussed in the following sections. We may however here remark, that the primitive Christians were extremely cautious in admitting any books into their canon, the genuineness and authenticity of which they had any reason to suspect. They rejected all the writings forged by heretics in the names of the apostles, and therefore, most assuredly, would not have received any, without previously subjecting them to a severe scrutiny. Now, though these five Epistles were not immediately acknowledged as the writings of the apostles,

VOL. IV.

52

this only shows that the persons, who doubted, had not received complete and incontestable evidence of their authenticity. But, as they were afterwards universally received, we have every reason to conclude, that, upon a strict examination, they were found to be the genuine productions of the apostles. Indeed, the antient Christians had such good opportunities for examining this subject, they were so careful to guard against imposition, and so well founded was their judgment concerning the books of the New Testament, that, as Dr. Lardner has remarked, no writing which they pronounced genuine has yet been proved spurious; nor have we at this day the least reason to believe any book to be genuine which they rejected.

III. The order, in which these Epistles are placed, varies in antient authors; but it is not very material in what manner they are arranged. Could we fix with certainty the date of each Epistle, the most natural order would be according to the time when they were written. Some have placed the three Epistles of Saint John first, probably because he was the beloved disciple of our Lord. Others have given the priority to the two Epistles of Saint Peter, because they considered him as the prince of the apostles. Some have placed the Epistle of James last, possibly because it was later received into the canon by the Christian church in general. By others, this Epistle has been placed first, either because it was conjectured to have been the first written of the seven Epistles, or because Saint James was supposed to have been the first bishop of Jerusalem, the most antient and venerable, and the first of all the Christian churches; or because the Epistle was written to the Christians of the twelve tribes of Israel, who were the first believers. In the following sections the usual order has been retained.1

SECTION II.

ON THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES.

1. Account of the author of this Epistle.-II. Its genuineness and authenticity.III. To whom addressed. - IV. Its scope.-V. Synopsis of its contents. — VI. Observations on this Epistle.

1. CONSIDERABLE doubts have existed respecting the author of this Epistle. Two apostles of the name of James are mentioned in the New Testament.

The first was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman upon the lake of Galilee, and the brother of the evangelist John; and, as he is uniformly mentioned by the evangelists before John (except in Luke is. 28.), he is supposed to have been the elder of the two. As he was put to death by Herod Agrippa, A. D. 44. (Acts xii.), it is

1 Benson's Preface to the Catholic Epistles. Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 269–271. Pritii Introd. ad Nov. Test. pp. 62-65. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 465165.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 366, 367. Rosenmüller, Scholia, vol. v. pp. 317, 318.

evident that he was not the author of the Epistle which bears the name of James, because it contains passages which refer to a later period, viz. v. 1-8., which intimates the then immediately approaching destruction of Jerusalem, and the subversion of the Jewish polity.

The other James was the son of Alpheus or Cleopas; he is called the brother or near relation of our Lord (Gal. i. 18, 19.), and is also generally termed "the Less," partly to distinguish him from the other James, and probably also because he was lower in stature. That he was an apostle, is evident from various passages in the New Testament, though it does not appear when his designation to this office took place. He was honoured by Jesus Christ with a separate interview soon after his resurrection. (1 Cor. xv. 7.) He was distinguished as one of the apostles of the circumcision (Acts i. 13.); and soon after the death of Stephen, A. D. 34. he seems to have been appointed president or superintendent of the Christian church at Jerusalem, to have dwelt in that city, and to have presided at the council of the apostles, which was convened there A. D. 49. On account of his distinguished piety and sanctity, he was surnamed "the Just." But, notwithstanding the high opinion that was generally entertained of his character, his life was prematurely terminated by martyrdom, according to the account of Hegesippus, an ecclesiastical historian, who flourished towards the close of the second century. Having made a public declaration of his faith in Christ, the Scribes and Pharisees excited a tumult among the Jews, which began at the temple or at least they availed themselves of a general disturbance, however it might have originated, and demanded of James an explicit and public declaration of his sentiments concerning the character of Christ. The apostle, standing on an eminence or battlement of the temple, whence he could be heard by the assembled multitude, avowed his faith, and maintained his opinion, that Jesus was the Messiah. The Jews were exasperated, and precipitated him from the battlement where he was standing; and, as he was not killed by the fall, they began to cast stones at him. The holy apostle, kneeling down, prayed to God to forgive his murderers, one of whom at length struck him with a long pole, which terminated his life. According to Hegesippus, this event took place about the time of the passover A. D. 62. At this time the procurator Festus is supposed to have been dead, and his successor Albinus had not arrived; so that the province was left without a governor. Such a season left the Jews at liberty to gratify their licentious and turbulent passions; and, from their known character and sentiments about this time, they were very likely to embrace the opportunity. We may therefore date the apostle's death about the time assigned by Hegesippus, viz. A. D. 62, in which year it is placed by most learned men,'

1 Hegesippus, cited by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 23. Eusebius also quotes a passage from Josephus, that is no longer extant in his works, in which the Jewish historian considers the miseries which shortly after overwhelmed his countrymen as a judgment for their murder of James, whom he calls a most righteous person. The genuineness of Josephus's testimony has been questioned, so that no

who are agreed in dating the Epistle of Saint James in the year 61.1

II. A considerable diversity of opinion has prevailed respecting the canonical authority of this Epistle; but though Michaelis and some other modern critics are undecided on this subject, we apprehend that there is sufficient evidence to prove that it was written in the apostolic age. Clement of Rome has alluded to it twice.3 Hermas has not fewer than seven allusions to it, which Dr. Lardner thinks sufficient to prove the antiquity of this Epistle. It is classed by Eusebius among the Avriksyoueval or writings, concerning whose authenticity the antients were not unanimous, though the majority was in favour of them. This Epistle was quoted as genuine by Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, and most of the subsequent ecclesiastical writers; and it is found in all the catalogues of the canonical books of Scripture, which were published by the general and provincial councils. But the most decisive proof of its canonical authority is, that the Epistle of Saint James is inserted in the Syriac version of the New Testament, executed at the close of the first or early in the second century, in which the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Book of Revelation are omitted. This, Dr. Macknight truly remarks, is an argument of great weight; for certainly the Jewish believers, to whom that Epistle was addressed and delivered, were much better judges of its authenticity than the converted Gentiles to whom it was not sent, and who had perhaps no opportunity of being acquainted with it until long after it was written.

III. Commentators and critics are by no means agreed concerning the persons to whom this Epistle was addressed. Beza, Cave, Scott, Fabricius, Bishop Tomline, and others, are of opinion that it was addressed to the believing Jews who were dispersed all over the world. Grotius and Dr. Wall think that it was written to all the people of Israel living out of Judæa. Michaelis considers it certain that Saint James wrote to persons already converted from Judaism to Christianity; but at the same time he believes, as the apostle was highly respected by the Jews in general, that he wished and designed that it should also be read by the unbelieving Jews, and that this design and intention had some influence on the choice of his materials. Dr. Benson is of opinion that this Epistle was addressed to the

reliance can be placed upon it. Origen and Jerome cite it as authentic, and they are followed by Bishop Pearson, who has defended its genuineness. Dr. Doddridge considers the testimony of Josephus as unworthy of credit; and Dr. Benson thinks that both the accounts of Josephus and Hegesippus are extremely dubious. 1 Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 403-502.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 368-384. Dr. Benson's History of Saint James, prefixed to his Paraphrase, pp. 1-13. 2d edit. Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 273–292.

2 It is well known that the venerable Martin Luther, in the earlier part of the Reformation, spoke rather in a slighting manner of this Epistle, which he called straminea epistola, a strawy epistle, and excluded it at first from the sacred canon on account of its supposed contradiction of Saint Paul concerning the doctrine of justification by faith; but more mature experience and deeper research induced him subsequently to retract his opinion.

3 Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 44.; 4to. vol. i. p. 301. 4 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 58-60.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 309, 310.

converted Jews out of Palestine; but Whitby, Lardner, and after them Macknight, think it was written to the whole Jewish nation, both within and without Judæa, whether believers or not. This opinion is grounded on some expressions in the first ten verses of the fourth chapter, and in the first five verses of the fifth chapter, which they suppose to be applicable to unbelievers only. It is true that in the fifth chapter the apostle alludes to the then impending destruction of Jerusalem, and the miseries which soon after befel the unbelieving Jews; but we think, with Bishop Tomline, that in these passages the apostle alludes merely to the great corruptions into which the Hebrew Christians had fallen at that time.

It does not appear probable that James would write part of his Epistle to believers, and part to unbelievers, without any mention or notice of that distinction. It should also be remembered, that this Epistle contains no general arguments for the truth of Christianity, nor any reproof of those who refused to embrace the Gospel; and therefore, though his lordship admits that the inscription "to the twelve tribes that are scattered abroad," might comprehend both unbelieving and believing Jews, yet he is of opinion that it was intended for the believing Jews only, and that Saint James did not expressly make the discrimination, because neither he, nor any other apostle, ever thought of writing to any but Christian converts. "The object of the apostolical Epistles," he further observes, "was to confirm, and not to convert; to correct what was amiss in those who did believe, and not in those who did not believe. The sense of the above inscription seems to be limited to the believing Jews by what follows almost immediately, 'The trial of your faith worketh patience.' (i. 3.) And again, My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.' (ii. 1.) These passages could not be addressed to unbelievers."

IV. The design of the apostle James, in writing this Epistle, we may collect, from a consideration of its contents, to be as follows: First, to prevent the Jewish Christians from falling into the vices which abounded among the Jews; such as pride in prosperity, impatience under poverty, or any other affliction; unworthy thoughts of God, and more particularly the looking upon him as the author of moral evil; a valuing themselves on their faith, knowledge, or right opinion, without a virtuous practice; a very criminal partiality for the rich, and a contempt for the poor; an affectation of being doctors or teachers; indulging passion and rash anger, envy and uncharitableness, strife and contention; abusing the noble faculty of speech, and being guilty of the vices of the tongue, such as cursing and swearing, slander and backbiting, and all rash and unguarded speeches whatever. So, likewise, he wrote to caution them against covetousness and sensuality, distrusting the divine goodness, neglecting prayer, or praying with wrong views, and the want of a due sense of their constant and immediate dependence upon God. Secondly, to set the Jewish Christians right as to the doctrine of

1 Bishop Tomline's Elements of Christian Theology, p. 472.