of Eufebius and Jerom, they who rejected the Epiftle, rejected it because they believed it to be fpurious.

Now I wish that Eufebius and Jerom had mentioned what reasons they, who rejected this Epiftle, had for fuppofing that it was fpurious, or a forgery in the name. of James the brother of Chrift. The Epistle itfelf con◄ tains no marks whatsoever of fpurioufnels, whether we confider its contents, or its language: and whichever of the three fuppofitions we adopt, that it was written by the elder Apoftle James, or by the younger Apottle James, or by James the brother of Chrift, the fuppofi tion will by no means involve an abfurdity. Befides, it is difficult to comprehend, what motive could have in duced an impoftor to forge fuch an Epistle, and ascribe it to either of thefe three perfons.

It may be asked, whether the apparent contradiction between the doctrine contained in this Epiftle, and that of St. Paul, in refpect to the efficacy of faith, did not induce the ancients to reject it, and pronounce it fpurious. But I much doubt whether this was the caufe of its rejection, fince no ancient writer who fpeaks doubtfully of the Epiftle, affigns this apparent contradiction as a reafon for doubting of its authenticity: and Origen in particular, as I have already obferved, appears to have had no objection whattoever to the doctrines contained in it. If however this apparent contradiction was really the caule of its rejection, it was rejected withe out reafon, as appears from what has been faid in the fixth fection. Nay, what is ftill more, this apparent contradiction may be alleged as an argument in favour of its antiquity and authenticity. For had it been fabricated by a Chriftian impoftor after the Apoftolic age, at a time when the Epiftle to the Romans was known in general to the Chriftian communities, the impoftor would have taken care to avoid even the fmalleft appearance of contradiction to an Epiftle, which every Chriftian received as divine. Befides, if the Epiftle had been written after the Apoftolic age, it could hardly have occurred to the author to combat the Jewish doctrine, that faith in the

one true God was alone fufficient for falvation. And, fince it is directed immediately to Jews, the author of it, if he had meant to exercise a pious fraud, and promote the caufe of Chriftianity by inventing an Epiftle in the name of St. James, would furely have introduced fome arguments for the truth of the Chriftian religion, or have at least exhorted them to embrace it: but of fuch arguments and exhortations the Epiftle contains no traces. I have no doubt therefore that it is ancient and genuine.

Later critics who have objected to this Epiftle, and have thought it undeferving a place in the facred canon, have grounded their objections merely on its contents. Now this is a very precarious mode of determining whether a book is cánonical: for when we have a divine revelation, we must believe and do what it contains, and not expunge any part of it, merely because that part difpleafes us. But I think there is no ground what foever for being difpleafed with the Epiftle of St. James, and in my opinion its contents are highly rational and well worthy of an Apoftle. The only difficulty is to prove that an Apostle was the author. That its contents are more moral than doctrinal, cannot furely form a ferious ground for objection: and the epithet which Luther very anjufty applied to it, might as well be applied to the fermon on the mount, That the members of the church of Rome prove their doctrine of confeffion and extreme unction from ch. v. 14--16. is no reafon, why proteftants fhould reject this Epiftle: for in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of moft proteftant commentators, this paffage does not contain any fuch doctrine. At the time when this Epistle was written, the practice of phyfic was attended with great fuperftition: and confcientious Jews were apprehenfive that, if they fent for an heathen phyfician, he would either invoke fome idol in the administration of his medicines, or exercife magic arts. The author of this Epiftle therefore advises thofe, who are fick, to fend for the elders of the church, that they may pray over

the medicines, and then adminifter them to the fick. In like manner St. Paul fays, that, if they who partake of the flesh of animals offered to idols, pray over it, and thank God for his bounty, they may partake of it with a good confcience.

The contents therefore of this Epiftle afford no ground whatsoever for objecting to it: and the queftion, whether it is canonical, that is, whether we ought to receive it as a divine and infallible work, muft, according to the principles which I have laid down in Vol. I. ch. iii. fect. 2. depend on the previous queftion, whether the author was an Apostle. If the James who wrote this Epiftle, was either the elder Apoftle James, the fon of Zebedee, or the younger Apoftle James, the fon of Alphæus, it is canonical. But if it was written by the James, who was brother in law of Chrift, and not an Apostle, we can have no proof of its infpiration and infallibility. Supernatural affiftance was promifed by Chrift to the Apostles alone: and therefore, though James, the brother in law of Chrift, was a man of great eminence in the church of Jerufalem, though he took a principal part in the first council, which was held there, though he is called by St. Paul a pillar of the church, and is mentioned Gal. ii. 9. even before St. Peter and St. John, yet all these circumstances put together are not fufficient to prove that his writings were divinely infpired. I conclude therefore by repeating the affertion that, if the James, who wrote this Epiftle, was either the one or the other of the twelve Apoftles, who bore this name, it is canonical; but if not, it is not canonical.

CHAP. XXVII.

OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER.

SECT. I.

Of the perfous to whom St. Peter addressed this Epifle.

ST

T. PETER begins his first Epiftle with the following addrels: Πέτρος αποςολος Ιησε Χριςε εκλεκτοίς παρεπιδη μοις διασπορας Ποντα, Γαλατίας, Καππαδοκίας, Ασίας, και Βιθυνίας. Thefe εκλεκτοι παρεπίδημοι διασπορας are fuppofed by many commentators to have been native Jews difperfed in thefe countries, who had been coverted to Christianity. But I am of opinion that they were not native Jews, and for the following reasons,

1. St. Peter fays, ch. i. 18. Ye know, ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as filver and gold, from your vain converfation received by tradition from your fathers.' Now vain converfation,' according to the biblical fenfe of the word 'vain,' denotes 'idolatrous converfation. Confequently the perfons, to whom St. Peter wrote, were formerly idolaters, and therefore not native Jews.

2. St. Peter fays in exprefs terms, ch. iv. 3. that thefe very perfons had spent the former part of their lives in 'abominable idolatries.' Here therefore he certainly meant heathen converts, for in the Apoftolic age idolatry was a vice, to which the Jews were not addicted. To evade this argument, the advocates for the opinion, that St. Peter wrote to native Jews, affert that the word idolatry is here used not literally, as denoting the worship of idols, but figuratively, and that idolatry is equivalent

to

See 1 Kings xvi. 2. 13. 26. 2 Kings xvii. 15. Ifaiah x. 20. Jerem. ii. 5. viii. 19. x. 3. 8. Jonah ii. 9. Rom. i. 21.

to avarice, because a mifer worships his gold; or to fornication, because this was not uncommon in the heathen temples. Now I do not deny, that idolatry is fometimes ufed in a figurative fenfe, but I cannot admit, that it is used fo in the prefent inftance. For St. Peter in this very place enumerates feveral other vices, all of which must be taken in their strict and literal fenfe and therefore no reafon can be affigned, why an exception fhould be made to the word 'idolatry' in particular. Befides, if we refufe to afcribe to it its literal meaning, it is impoffible to determine what its meaning really is.

There are feveral other paffages in this Epiftle, which tend to confirm my opinion, though I do not confider them alone as decifive. For inftance, ch. i. 14. St. Peter fays: as obedient children, not fashioning yourfelves according to the former lufts in your ignorance. Now an ignorance of the word of God cannot eafily be imputed to the Jews, who had received the oracles of God. Again he fays, ch. v. 12. I have written briefly, exhorting and teftifying, that this is the grace of God, wherein ye ftand.' Here St. Peter explains the object, which he had in view, in writing this Epiftle but if he had written to native Jews, this would hardly have been his object, becaufe the Jews were already the favourite people of God, and therefore St. Peter would not have thought it neceifary to prove, that they stood in his grace.

Having produced the arguments, which induce me to believe, that St. Peter did not write to native Jews, I will now examine the arguments, which have been alleged in favour of the contrary opinion..

1. St. Peter exhorts his readers to holinefs, ch. i. 15, 16. and quotes from Ley. xi. 44. the words Be ye holy, for I am holy. Now thefe words were addreffed to the Ifraelites: and hence it is inferred, that St. Peter likewife addreffed Ifraelites in this Epiftle. But this inference is without foundation: for an Apoftle, let his readers be of what defcription they will, may

on