from it in regard to the time, when the Epiftle was written, falls at once to the ground. And as to the fins, against which the author of this Epiftle warns, they were fuch, as were common among the Jews, and were brought by the Jewish converts into the Chriftian. church for we must not imagine, that the first Chriftian communities confifted wholly of members, who were in a ftate of perfect regeneration.

Further, this argument not only proves, that the Epistle of St. James was written at a late period, but may really be applied to prove the very reverfe. The author of our Epiftle combats the Jewish notion, that they would be justified or faved merely by their faith in the one fupreme God". Hence, it may be inferred, that St. Paul had not yet preached in thofe communities, to which this Epiftle was addreffed, and that his tropus pædia was not known to them: for if it. were, our author would probably have avoided the apparent contradiction, which neceffarily arifes from his having used the term Juftification in a different fenfe from that, which St. Paul afcribed to it. fides, if St. Paul had already taught in those communities, to which the Epiftle of St. James was addreffed, it is probable, that they would have been better inftructed, than from this Epiftle they appear to have been. On these accounts therefore I am really inclined to ascribe a very early date to this Epistle.

Be

4. In ch. v. 8. the coming of the Lord to judge Jerufalem is reprefented as being near at hand: confequently, the Epiftle could not have been written by a perfon, who was beheaded not lefs than feven and twenty years before the deftruction of Jerufalem.'

Answer. Without entering into the queftion, whether allufion is made in James v. 8. to the deftruction of Jerufalem, which however is a matter of doubt, I will only obferve, that the terms, near,' and diftant,' are merely relative, and may denote a greater or fmaller portion of time, according to the rule or mea

See the fixth fection of this chapter.

fure,

fure, by which they are estimated. More than twentyseven years muft elapfe before the prefent century expires" and yet, if I expected that a great revolution would take place in Europe before the clofe of this century, I might, without impropriety, defcribe it as not far diftant. In fhort, the deftruction of a state, which has lafted many centuries, may be faid to be near at hand, if it shall happen within the prefent generation, and the half of those, who are now alive, furvive it. This argument therefore is indecifive.

All things confidered then, I fee no ground for the affertion, that the elder James was not the author of this Epiftle though on the other hand, I will not pofitively affirm, that he was. One circumftance however affords at least a prefumptive argument in favour of the opinion, that it was really written by the elder James, and at a time when the Gofpel had not been propagated among the Gentiles: namely, that it contains no exhortations to harmony between the Jewish and Gentile converts, which, after the time that the Gentiles were admitted into the church, became abfolutely neceffary. Had it been written after the apoftolic, council at Jerufalem, mentioned in the 15th chapter of the Acts, and by the younger James, we might have expected that at least fome allufion would be made in it to the decree of this council, which was propounded by the younger James in favour of the Gentile converts, and that the Epiftle would contain an admonition to the Jewish converts, to confider the Gentile converts as their brethren. On a fecond confideration however I perceive that this argument applies rather to the time, when the Epiftle was written, than to the author of it: for the younger James might have written it as early, as it is fuppofed that the elder James wrote it, and either of the fuppofitions will account for the circumftance, that the Epiftle contains no exhortations to harmony between the Jews and Gentiles.

་

This I wrote in 1766.

Το

To the argument, which I have here used in favour of an early date, may be oppofed another argument in favour of a late date, and confequently in favour of the opinion, that the Epiftle was not written by the elder James. Namely, it may be faid, that if this Epiftle had been written before the apoftolic council at Jerufalem was held, it would hardly have remained unknown to St. Paul. But if St. Paul had feen this Epiftle, he would have probably used fuch terms in his Epiftles to the Romans and Galatians, as would have prevented all appearance of contradiction between this Epiftle and his own writings. I mention this as an argument, which may be produced on the prefent queftion, though I by no means think it a decifive

one.

After all then I must confefs my uncertainty, and must leave the question undecided.

SECT. III.

7

Whether the author of this Epifle was St. James, called the brother of Jefus.

IN

N the firft fection of this chapter, where I have enumerated the five different opinions relative to James, Jofes, Simon, and Judas, who are called brothers of Jefus, Matth. xiii. 55. I have fhewn, that the moft ancient opinion is, that they were fons of Jofeph by a former wife, and brothers in law of Chrift. Now there is no improbability in the fuppofition, that a brother in law of Chrift wrote the Epiftle in queftion: and that this was a very common opinion in the four first centuries, appears from what Jerom has faid in his Catalogue

Catalogue of Ecclefiaftical Writers, though Jerom himself did not fubfcribe to it.

The Epiftle itself however contains nothing, which warrants the inference, that the author of it was a brother of Chrift, for the author calls himself only the fervant of Chrift:' and St. Jude, though he expressly calls himself brother of James,' names himfelf in like manner 'fervant,' and not brother of Chrift.' Hence it may be objected, that if the James and the Jude, who wrote these Epiftles, had been brothers as well as fervants of Chrift, they would not have affumed merely the latter title: for the appellation of brother and fervant of Chrift' would not only have been more honourable, but more characteristic, and would more eafily have diftinguished them from other disciples of the fame name, than the bare appellation of fervant.' Now if the expreffion • brother of Chrift, as applied to James, Jofes, Simon and Judas, Matth. xiii. 55. be explained, according to the fecond opinion delivered in the first section of this chapter, as denoting, that they were the fons of Jofeph and Mary, I think that the objection is hardly capable of an anfwer: for in that cafe, fince the mother of Christ, was likewife their mother, the appellation of brother of Christ' was due to them in the ftricteft fenfe. But the objection will lofe its force, if we adopt the first opinion, namely, that these four perfons were fons of Jofeph, not by Mary, but by a former wife. For in> this cafe, though their father Jofeph was the reputed father of Chrift, and he is named as fuch in Chrift's genealogy, yet if James and Jude believed in Mary's fupernatural conception of Chrift, they must have been confcious to themselves, that they were really not his brothers, and therefore that they could not without impropriety affume the title.

James, called the brother of Chrift, had likewife the appellation of James the Juft, and ftood in very high reputation among the Jews. This is confirmed by

• Tom. IV. P. ii. p. 1o. ed. Benedict.

a

paffage

paffage of Jofephus", which I fhall prefently quote. Further, he is faid to have been bishop of Jerufalem : and (if we diftinguish James the brother of Jefus from the Apostle James) he is that important perfon, by whofe opinion the Apoftolic council at Jerufalem, defcribed Acts xv. 13-29. abided, who again appears as a principal perfon in the church of Jerufalem, Acts xxi. 18-26. He is likewife mentioned by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 7. Gal. i. 19. ii. 9. 12. among which paffages Gal. ii. 9. deferves particularly to be noticed, because he is not only there called one of the pillars of the church, but is ranked even before St. Peter, on account of his great authority in Jerufalem. He every where appears as the friend of St. Paul, with whofe fentiments his own coincide. At the fame time he was extremely cautious not to give offence to the Jews, on whofe account he propofed, that the heathen converts fhould be admonished to abftain from blood and from meats offered to idols; which doctrine St. Paul not only adopted and delivered to the church of Antioch, by virtue of the apoftolic decree, but likewife recommended and explained in his Epiftles, especially Rom. xiv. 1 Cor. viii. x. Now the contents of the Epiftle of St. James are fuch as might be expected from a writer of this defcription; and if he was the author, we have an additional argument, in favour of the opinion, that it contains nothing contradictory to St. Paul's doctrines .

Though it would be foreign to the prefent purpose to collect all the circumstances, which have been recorded of St. James, called the brother of Chrift, yet I think it neceffary to quote two paffages concerning him, the one from the works of Jofephus, the other from the works of Hegefippus, who lived in the time of

P Namely, if the James, of whom Jofephus fpeaks, be the fame perfon as James, the brother of Chrift, and not the younger Apoftle James, according to the fifth opinion.

See the fixth fection of this chapter.