k

James seems to preside in making a speech on a difficult question, and what he dictates is put in execution. James presides at Jerusalem; the ancients have called him Bishop of Jerusalem. James is one of those, who reconcile Paul and Barnabas. And his weight appears in the obedience of Peter to a commission deputed and sent by him.-The word 'ATOσTÓλov in the title, is in most manuscripts. And though the word Apostle, like other titles of honour, has got extended, yet the twelve seem to have been upon a different footing from the seventy, or any other disciples'.-It need scarce be mentioned, that the writer of the Epistle calls himself the Servant" of Christ, whereas he, whom we suppose to have written it, is called by St. Paul" and the Evangelists, his Brother. After the Ascension of Christ, James became his Minister, or Servant: he was never a strict or proper Brother, nor perhaps would he ever have called himself so; except it might be in boyhood. To the Messias, to the Lord, he was Servant; though he might be Brother to the Carpenter's Son.

What has now been said, with regard to St. James, will make us ready to accept the evidence of antiquity concerning the genuineness and authenticity of his Epistle. Internal evidence we can expect none, except the reasonableness and morality of the composition, considered with the discretion

Acts xv. 13.

h Acts xxi. 18.

i Gal. ii. 9.

and

Gal. ii. 12.-Lardner, vol. II. p. 357, thinks, with Grotius and Beza, that Jews coming from James, means only coming from Jerusalem: but I hesitate:-Peter might be too familiar with Gentiles; the Jews from James might intimate this; Peter might grow more reserved to Gentiles than seemed to himself needful or right; and in that sense he might dissemble.

Luke vi. 13. Christ called his Disciples, and distinguished the twelve "whom also he named Apostles."

and amiable goodness of St. James's conduct.His character is drawn by Lardner, vol. VI. p. 473. Some Latin Fathers, who lived at a distance from Judea, do not speak as if they had been acquainted with this Epistle; as Tertullian, and Cyprian : Irenæus is thought by some to have known of it, at least in some degree.-Origen says, in the part of his works which we have in Greek, that this Epistle is ascribed to James; but, in that part of his works, which were translated into Latin by Ruffinus (if there has been no interpolation made by Ruffinus), he speaks of it as the Epistle of "James Apostle and Brother of the Lord, and divine Scripture"." If we found a MS so inscribed as our Epistle is, in any other case, we should not think of making much doubt about the author, except some particular difficulty occurred.-But I will not dwell more upon the genuineness of St. James's Epistle, as it is attested by most of the witnesses, who come next to be considered.

26. Now we may call our witnesses to the authenticity of our Epistle. They are so numerous, that I can only make a selection. The witnesses of authenticity will generally be witnesses of genuineness; conversely not so often. The earliest Fa

thers

* Clemens Alexandrinus occasions some difficulty. See Lardner's Works, vol. II. p. 226. Lardner is very candid in not reckoning any of his passages to refer to James.-I do not see how to account for James's Epistle not having made its way to Alexandria before 194: but that might not be the case; Clem. Alex. might only omit James, or have no occasion to quote any passage from a writing rather moral than doctrinal ; nay, one seemingly avoiding the mention of doctrines, except when endeavouring to prevent their being abused.

b See Lard. vol. II. p. 479.

• See Index to Lardner's Works, under St. James, his Epistle. -And the same might be done also with regard to Hebrews, &c.-consult also Gibson's third Pastoral Letter:-Richardson's Canon, p. 42.

thers seem to have known and acknowledged what we call the Epistle of James, as authentic: Clement of Rome and Hermas are to be consulted particularly the Apostolic Fathers were more moral than some who came after them.-Origen has been already mentioned.-Eusebius and Jerom should be added; the former of whom says, that the Epistle was known to most; and the latter, that gradually, in process of time, it obtained authority; which accounts agree with what we have said about the manner of the circulation of the sacred writings. We are moreover told, that the Epistle of James was translated into Syriac with the first of Peter and the first of John.

The particular obstacle, by which this Epistle might be impeded on its first outset, seems well assigned by Bishop Gibson. St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans was universally received, and this seemed to contradict it with respect to justification by faith. We may add, its being moral more than doctrinal: it seems frequently of use to observe, that the Fathers were more Divines than Moralists. Lardner also mentions as an obstacle, its being thought by some, that there were more than two James's (Lard. vol. IV. p. 253.): this is also mentioned by Bishop Gibson. Martin Luther went farther when he rejected this Epistle, on account of what it contains with regard to faith, after it had been many centuries established in the Canon. Notwithstanding

By the way, this is not said about the Epistle of James as distinguished from the other areyoueva; it is said of them all, though James is specified first.

Whitby. And in Gibson, p. 199, there is a second passage about Jerom stronger than the first. Bp. Gibson is not strong enough about Eusebius ; γνωρίμων ὅμως τοῖς πολλοῖς.

See also Lardner, IV. 227.

f Third Past. Letter, p. 199.

L. 3. S. 25,

See Bp. Hallifax, Serm. vii. p. 212. Jer. Jones 1. 10.

1

Notwithstanding this exception of some Antinomians, I shall venture to read you a passage, which Whitby quotes from Esthius, a celebrated Divine of Holland or Flanders, who lived till the year 1613.-With this Bishop Gibson concludes his account; and I will conclude mine with Dr. Lardner's final opinion.

a

27. Our next object is the second Epistle of Peter; which Grotius thinks may have made two Epistles the former containing the two first Chapters, the latter, the third Chapter. But, as this supposition has no support, and is formed only in order to support the notion, that this Epistle was written by Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, we may pass it over, and proceed to our proofs. Here we will first take internal evidence, then external, having, in the present case, something with which we can compare the composition in question.

C

Peter, mentioned in the Gospels, was unquestionably an Apostle in the highest sense. If this Epistle was written by him, that is enough. We must be allowed to go upon the supposition, that he wrote the first Epistle of Peter, as upon an axiom and then we may produce reasons why this second Epistle was written by the author of the first. The names Simon Peter do not belong jointly to any other person. No other Peter could with propriety be called " an Apostle of Christ," in The Author of this Epistle was preany sense. sent at our Lord's Transfiguration, as appears by Chap. i. 18. He writes "this second Epistle" to the same persons with the first: (though this argument will not have weight with those, who suppose Peter to begin a new Epistle with what we commonly

a Bishop Gibson seems to refer to Jerom for this passage, p. 199, but there must be a false print.

b Lard. Works, vol. VI. p. 505.

c 2 Pet. i. 1.

commonly call the third Chapter.)-In the second verse of the third Chapter, is a second claim to Apostleship: " the commandment of us the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour."-If we take for granted the authority of the Epistle of Jude, we may prove that of the second of Peter from it; for Jude refers to the second of Peter;-I think I may say, no less than fourteen times. And, in the 17th verse, Jude puts Paul on the same footing with the writer of what we call the second Epistle of Peter; for they are the two, who speak of mockers or scoffers to come in the last time.-In John xxi. 18, 19, our Saviour foretels St. Peter's death: in 2 Pet. i. 14. the writer says, "I must shortly put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me."-St. Peter is said to have been crucified at Rome in Nero's persecution; a little while before the destruction of Jerusalem: he says, 'in his first Epistle," the end of all things is at hand." John xxi. 18, 19. seems to imply a violent death.

Some reasoning has taken place about a supposed difference in regard to stile between the first and second Epistle of Peter. But Blackwall thinks there is scarce any difference. It is not easy to prove any thing upon this point to others; each person must judge, or feel, for himself".

The

• Compare 1 Tim. iv. 1. and 2 Tim. iii. 1. with 2 Pet. iii. 3. Yet I doubt whether Paul comes up quite to the idea of scoffers or mockers:-" despisers of those that are good," 2 Tim. iii. 3. comes the nearest.

• See Lardner, vol. VI. chap. xviii.

f 1 Pet. iv. 7.

8 The second Chapter is lofty by containing insinuations against false teachers, and others, perhaps, pretending to take the lead in sanctity without being the best moral men: these insinuations must be the most decorous when made in allusions to writings deemed sacred: but such must raise the stile: St. Paul uses the same kind of stile about the Fornicator at Corinth.