Galatians, and the first Epistle of St. Peter. But one of the two paffages, which St. James quotes, ch. iv. 4-6. is in the Old Teftament, in Prov. iii. 24, from which place St. James probably took it: and the other quotation, which has not yet been difcovered in the Old Teftament, could not have been made either from the Epistle to the Romans, or from that to the Galatians, for I have never been able to find the paffage in either of them. Another argument in favour of a late date is derived from the fuppofition that St. James intended to prevent a misconftruction of St. Paul's doctrine of faith in the Epiftle to the Romans: but, as I have fhewn in the preceding fection, that this fuppofition is falfe, the inference derived from it falls of itfelf to the ground. A third argument has been derived from ch. v. 8.: but this I have already answered in the second section of this chapter.

In fact, the arguments, which I have used in the latter part of the second section, render it probable that the Epiftle was written long before the Epiftle to the Romans, and even before St. Paul had preached the Gospel to the Gentiles; fince it was addreffed to Jews, and no mention is made in it of brotherly love toward Gentile converts. I conclude therefore, that this was written before the events, which are recorded in Acts xiii., took place, and even before the death of the elder James, whether he, or the younger James was the author of it.

The only objection to this early date is, that St. Paul, if he had written his Epiftle to the Romans, after the Epiftle of St. James had been written, would have avoided in the third and fourth chapters an appearance of contradiction to St. James. But as the Epistle of St. James was fent perhaps to the Jews of Egypt, Cyrene, Syria, and Cyprus, countries in which the Chriftian religion was foon propagated, it was probably unknown in Rome, when St. Paul wrote to the Romans, and therefore he had no reason to apprehend that the Romans would fuppofe he contradicted St. James;,

and if they did fuppofe fo, a more minute examination muft convince them, that the contradiction was only apparent, and that St. Paul spake of faith in the death and facrifice of Chrift, but St. James of faith in the one true God. Or the Epiftle of St. James, though it existed when St. Paul wrote to the Romans, might have remained unknown to him.

They who afcribe the Epiftle to the elder James, of courfe agree with me in refpect to its early date. Bede' hikewife, though he afcribes it to the James, of whom St. Paul peaks, Gal. ii. 12. is ftill of opinion that it was written foon after the death of the martyr Stephen, and addreffed to thofe converts, of whom it is faid, Acts viii. 4. that they were scattered abroad.

Ο

SECT. VIII.

Of the canonical authority of this Epifle,

N the canonical authority of this Epiftle the ancients were very much divided; nor do modern writers agree on this fubject. I confefs likewife, that I myself am greatly in doubt, though I confider the queftion in a different light from moft other authors. But before I deliver my own fentiments, I will ftate and examine what has been advanced on this head, both in ancient, and in modern times.

In the earliest ages of Chriftianity the Epiftle was rejected by many, not only as uncanonical, but as fpurious. Eufebius in the celebrated chapter of his Eccleftaftical Hiftory, B. III. ch. 25. where he treats of the writings of the New Teftament, which he divides into ¿μoroysμeva, artiλeyoueva, and vota, places the Epiftle of

St.

In his Expofition of the Epistle of St. James, Ch. i. 1. Vol. V. F. 673. af the Cologne edition of his works.

St. James in the fecond clafs, faying; among the controverted, but yet approved by many, are, the Epiftle afcribed to James, and that of Jude, and the fecond of Peter, and the second and third of John.' And in B. II. ch. 23. where Eufebius fpeaks of the James, who was ftoned to death at the inftigation of Ananus, he says toward the end of the chapter, It is reported that the first among the Catholic Epiftles, as they are called, was written by him. But it must be obferved that this Epistle is now confidered as fpurious; for not many ancient writers have noticed it, any more than the Epiftle of Jude, which is another of the feven Epiftles called Catholic. We know however that thele alfo, together with the reft, are publicly read in moft churches." From these two paffages it appears that Eufebius himself doubted, whether the Epifle was genuine. Jerom alfo feems to have remained in doubt, though he does not deny the opinion which others entertained of its fpurioufnefs. For he fays in his catalogue of ecclefiaftical writers', Jacobus, qui appellatur frater Domini, cognomento Juftus-unam tantum fcripfit epiftolam, quæ de catholicis eft: quæ et ipfa ab alio quodam fub nomine ejus edita afferitur, licet paullatim, tempore procedente, obtinuerit autoritatem.' From this confeffion of Jerom we fee, that the Epiftle was in much lefs repute in the fecond and third centuries, than at the end of the fourth.. The ecclefiaftical writers before the time of Eufebius, as well those who have noticed, as thofe who have not noticed this Epiftle, are enumerated by Lardner, in his Supplement to the Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftory, Vol. III. ch. 17.; whence it appears, that, if we except a few uncertain and only imaginary allufions, the Epiftle is not quoted in a fingle inftance either by Irenæus, Tertullian, or Clement of Alexandria, that it is quoted twice by Origen, though only as a book of uncertain authority, and in both places in reference to the doctrine, that faith without works is dead. And that Origen's doubts in refpect to this Epiftle did not

Tom. IV. P. II. p. 102. ed. Benedict.

proceed

proceed from any objection to its contents, will appear from his own words which I will fubjoin in the margin2, Here I beg leave to make the following remarks.

1. As the ancients are fo divided in regard to this Epiftle, its canonical authority cannot be founded on the teftimony of the church, which indeed can in no queftion of this kind be confidered as decifive. In fact, the teftimony of the most ancient Chriftian church, according to the reprefentation of Eufebius, if it decided any thing, would decide against the canonical authority of this Epiftle.

2. Though Eufebius places the Epiftle of St. James in the fame class with that of St. Jude, the fecond of St. Peter, and the fecond and third of St. John, it has in some respects a better claim to canonical authority, than these. For neither of thefe four laft mentioned Epiftles were admitted into the Syrian canon, but the Epiftle of St. James was admitted into it, and the Syriac verfion of this Epiftle appears to have been made by the fame perfon, who tranflated the other Epistles: at least no difference of ftyle has hitherto been difcovered, as in the tranflation of the Epiftle to the Hebrews. We must conclude therefore that; when the Syriac verfion was made, which was at the clofe of the first century, the tranflator found this Epiftle in the Greek collection of canonical writings, and that the Syrian church received it as canonical, with the first Epistle of St. Peter and the first of St. John. And this authority it conftantly retained in the Syrian church: for Ebed Jefu, a Syrian

writer

Comment. in Johannem. Tom. XIX. p. 284. ed. Colon. B if that be called faith, it is dead without works, as we read in the Epiftle, which is fuppofed to have been written by James ( n goMern Ianwbe avayvaμer). And Tom. XXI. in his obfervations on Joh. viii. 39. p. 294. he fays, Even if it is granted that faith is a work, which however will not be granted by thofe who admit the paffage, faith without works is dead' (u ovyxwender ar iztatu qaçar. δεχομένων το, Πισις χωρίς έργων νεκρα στι), &c.

See what was faid on this subject, in the first volume of this Introduction, Ch. iii. Sect. z.

See Vol. I. Ch. vii. Se&. z.

writer of the thirteenth century, in his catalogue of the books of the New Teftament, diftinguishes these three from the other four, by calling them the three Epiftles, which are afcribed to Apoftles in all books and in all: languages". Ephrem, a Syrian writer of the fourth century, has in feveral paffages of his Greek works quoted the Epiftle of St. James, two of which I will transcribe, because they fhew that Ephrem confidered this Epiftle as holy fcripture, and as written by James the brother of the Lord, Tom. I. p. 18. nne yag & Delα γραφη Εξομολογείσθε αλλήλοις τας αμαρτίας, και προσευχεσθε ύπερ αλλήλων, όπως ιαθητε. Tom. 111. p. 51. Ιακωβος δε ο το κύριο αδελφος λέγει· Πενθήσατε και κλαύσατε, ὁ γελως ύμων εις πενθος μεταγραφητώ, και η χαρα εις κατήφειαν.

P.

3. The circumftance, which in my opinion makes it: doubtful, whether the Epiftle of St. James ought to be received as canonical, namely, the want of certainty that. the author was an Apostle, appears, as far as I have been able to discover, to have had no influence on the judge-ment of ancient writers on this fubject; which is the more extraordinary, becaufe on that very ground they doubted whether the Epiftle to the Hebrews was a divine work. If we may judge from the reprefentations

He means MSS. of the N. T.

of

In the preceding edition of this Introduction I obferved, that, if the Manicheans, according to Beaufobre Hiftoire des Manichéens, Tom. I. p. 292, 293., received the Epiftle of St. James, it might probably be afcribed to the circumftance, that the Epiftle was received by the Syrian church, which was extended over a great part of the Eaft. In confirmation of this affertion may be added, that the Manicheans in general did not understand Greek, but that they understood Syriac: confequently, they read the Syriac and not the Greek New Teftament. However, left the circumstance that this Epiftle was received by the Manicheans fhould appear of greater weight than it really is, I will add the words of Auguftin (contra Fauftum L. XXXII. c. 15), because they do not diftinguish the three Catholic Epiftles, which the Syrian church received, from the four which it rejected: quod quidem in Evangelio, vel in Epiftolis Canonicis, quo adjuvari hærefin fuam putent, id effe a Chrifto et Apoftolis dictum teneant.

• This is a quotation from James v. 16.

James iv. 9.