fcripturas canonicas, nec Græcorum quidem ecclefiæ Apocalypfin Johannis eadem libertate recipiunt, nosi tamen utramque fufcipimus, nequaquam hujus temporis confuetudinem, fed veterum fcriptorum auctoritatem fequentes, qui plerumque utriufque abutuntur teftimoniis, non ut interdum de apocryphis facere folent, quippe qui et gentilium literarum raro utuntur exemplis, fed quafi canonicis et ecclefiafticis. Here is a clear confeffion of the fact, that the Latin church did not receive the Epiftle as canonical, though the argument, which Jerom ufes in favour of its canonical authority is a falfe one. Again in his Commentary on the eighth chapter of Ifaiah, he fays, Cæterum beatus Apoftolus in Epiftola ad Hebræos (licet eam Latina confuetudo inter canonicas fcripturas non recipiat) docet, &c. And in his Note1 to Zechar. xvii. 14. he fays, De hoc monte, et de hac civitate et Apoftolus Paulus (fi tamen in fufcipienda epiftola Græcorum auctoritatem Latina lingua non refpuit) facrata oratione difputans, ait. After Jerom's time, the number of thofe, who received the Epiftle as canonical, gradually increafed, and at length its canonical authority ceased, in the Latin church, to be a matter of doubt.

In the Syrian church the Epiftle to the Hebrews is received (and, as far as we know, without exception) as canonical. But I have fhewn in the fecond volume of this Introduction, ch. vii. Sect. 2. that the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Syriac, verfion was not tranflated by the perfon, who tranflated the other books of the New Teftament. In the oldeft Syrian canon therefore the Epiftle to the Hebrews was not admitted: but it was afterwards admitted into the canon, and as it appears, in a very fhort time.

We fee then that in the early ages of Chriftianity the Epiftle to the Hebrews was received as canonical by fome churches, while other churches did not reckon it among the canonical writings. Whether we ought to receive it as fuch, depends, according to the criterion laid down in the beginning of this fection, on the previ1 Ib. p. 1744.

Namely, I Jerom,

k Tom.

III.

p.

80.

ous

ous question, whether it was written by an Apostle. But we have already seen that this previous question cannot, at least not with certainty, be anfwered in the affirmative: confequently, the canonical authority of the Epiftle is uncertain. The feveré doctrines, which are contained in ch. vi. 4, 5, 6, x. 26. 28. have by many been thought exceptionable: but, for my own part I think them capable of a fatisfactory explanation. However, if in ch. ii. 6—9. a paffage from the eighth Pfalm is applied to Chrift, and in ch. xii. 26. 27. a paffage from the prophet Haggai is applied to the end of the world, and any man is perfuaded that these paffages have really no fuch reference, he need not afk any further questions about the infpiration of the Epiftle. In my Commentary, I have endeavoured, as far as lay in my power, to rescue the paffages, to which objections have been made. I will not affert, that I have every where met with fuccefs: and it is therefore poffible, that in the Notes, which I intend to publish to my tranflation of the New Teftament, I fhall give up points, which I formerly defended, and acknowledge perhaps, that the author was fometimes inaccurate.

Of the contents of the Epifle to the Hebrews.

HE contents of this Epiftle I have represented at T large in my Commentary on it; at prefent therefore I fhall only give a short sketch of them.

In the first place, the author endeavours to answer objections, which the Jews had made to the Christian religion, and which had occafioned the Jewish profelytes to waver in the faith. He then points out the impending abolition of the Levitical law, and its inefficacy even to

the

the Jews: which subject is treated in a more clear and comprehenfive manner, than in any other book of the New Teftament. The chief arguments are taken from Pfalm cx. which relates to the Priest after the order of Melchifedek ", and from the prophecy of Jeremiah relative to a New Covenant. These arguments are produced in the feventh and eighth chapters, but the fubject is ftill continued in the following chapters.

Here it may be remarked, that St. Paul, though he never permitted the Levitical law to be impofed on the heathen converts to Chriftianity, and undoubtedly confidered it as unneceffary, ftill permitted the Jews to continue the exercise of it: he likewife obferved it himfelf, and in order to convince the Jews that he did not preach apoftacy from the law, he made a Nazarite vow, and accompanied it with the neceffary offerings at Jerufalem". The open declaration therefore made in the Epistle to the Hebrews, relative to the abolition of the Levitical law, is to be afcribed, perhaps to the circumftance, that it was written not long before the destruction of the temple, when the Jewish facrifices ceafed.

CHAP. XXV.

GENERAL REMARKS ON THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.

THE HE Epiftle of St. James, the two Epiftles of St. Peter, the first Epistle of St. John, and the Epiftle of St. Jude, were not addreffed to any one perfon, or to any one community in particular: hence they acquired the title of catholic, or general Epiftles. The fecond

Or, of the fanctuary of Melchifedek.

Acts xviii. 18. 21. 22. XX. 20–26. xxiv, 17. 18.

and

and third Epiftles of St. John do not come under this defcription: but they were annexed to St. John's first Epiftle, partly becaufe they proceeded from the fame author, and partly becaufe, as they are very fhort, they would have been in danger of being loft, if written by themselves.

The term Catholic' was applied to thofe Epiftles in a very early age, for Eufebius ufes it as the common appellation of them in the fourth century. But in the fixth century the Latin writers began to apply to them the appellation of canonical,' of which the firft inftance occurs in the writings of Caffiodorus. Some critics have fuppofed that the Latin writers in the fixth and following centuries confounded the words catholicus' and canonicus,' and that the former was exchanged for the latter, through mere ignorance. But I would rather afcribe the origin of the term 'canonicus' to the circumftance, that the authenticity of five out of the feven was formerly doubted, and that the firft Epiftle of St. Peter and the firft Epiftle of St. John were the only two, which the ancient church confidered as of undoubted authority. Hence the appellation of canonical' was at firft perhaps given to thofe two Epiftles only, in order to diftinguifh them from the other five. But as the doubts gradually fubfided, and these five were written in the fame manufcripts with the other two, the title, which at firft was a mark of diftinction for thefe two alone, became at laft the common appellation of them all. Nay, it is not impoffible that the term Catholic,' as applied to thefe Epiftles owes its origin to a fimilar caufe, and that it was ufed at firft to denote the univerfality of their reception: in the fame manner, as Ebedjefu in his enumeration of the books, which form the Syrian canon, fays of the Epiftle of St. James, the firit of St. Peter, and the first of St. John, that they were acknowledged in all books, and in all languages".

Eufebius in his catalogue of the writings of the New Teftament, has placed only the first Epistle of St. Peter,

• Affemani Bib. Orient. Tom. III. P. I. P Hift. Ecclef. Lib III. 23.

P. 9.

and

and the first Epiftle of St. John, among the duoλoysgueva, or books univerfally received by the Chriftian church. The other five he has placed among the αντιλεγόμενα, οι books which were not univerfally received. However the Epistle of St. James was admitted by the greatest part of those who rejected the remaining four. Whether they who rejected thefe Epiftles had good reafon for fo doing, will be confidered in the proper places.

CHAP. XXVI.
CHA P.

OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES.

SECT. I.

Previous obfervations, relative to the James, who was called the brother of Jefus,

B

EFORE we examine by what James this Epiftle was written, it will be neceffary to premife a few obfervations relative to that James, who was called the brother of Jefus: for without thefe obfervations it will be difficult to ftate the principal queftion with precision,

St. John and St. Mark' have spoken in general terms of brethren of Chrift, fome of whom did not believe in him, at least not during his life time. St. Matthew' has mentioned four by name, James, Jofes, Simon, and Judas: and he has likewife fpoken of fifters of Jefus, who appear to have been more numerous, than they, who are called his brothers. Now the words of St. Matthew, where he fpeaks of these four perfons, are capable

9 Ch. vii. 3-8.

r Ch. iii. 21. 31-35.

• Ch. xiii. 55. See alfo Mark vi. 3.

As Judas is likewise mentioned as brother of Jefus, the inquiry inftituted in this fection applies to the Epiftle of St. Jude, as well as to the Epiftle of St. James.