and third Epiftles of St. John do not come under this description: but they were annexed to St. John's first Epiftle, partly because they proceeded from the fame author, and partly because, 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 first 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 first Epistle 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 first perhaps given to thofe two Epiftles only, in order to diftinguish 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 distinction for these two alone, became at laft the common appellation of them all. Nay, it is not impoffible that the term 'Catholie,' as applied to these Epiftles, owes its origin to a fimilar caufe, and that it was used 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 firft of St. Peter, and the firft 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. 9.

P Hift. Ecclef. Lib. III. 23.

and

and the first Epistle of St. John, among the duoloyueva, 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 these Epiftles had good reafon for fo doing, will be confidered in the proper places.

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

BEF

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 these observations it will be difficult to state 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 likewise spoken of fifters of Jesus, who appear to have been more numerous, than they, who are called his brothers. Now the words of St. Matthew, where he speaks of these four perfons, are capable

1 Ch. vii. 3-8.

☛ Ch. iii. 21. 31—35.

Ch. xiii. 55. See also Mark vi. 3.

As Judas is likewife 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.

capable of a two-fold interpretation: and the decifion of our prefent queftion will in fome meafure depend upon that, which we adopt. Namely, St. Matthew's words may be rendered either,

Are not his brothers called James, Jofes, Simon, and Judas and are not all his fifters with us?'

Or they may be rendered,

Are not his brothers, James, Jofes, Simon, and Judas, and all his fifters with us ?'

If we adopt the latter interpretation, it follows, that thefe four brothers of Jefus were then at Nazareth: but if they were at Nazareth, they could not have been in the number of thofe, who attended Chrift on his journies. Confequently, not one of them could have been an Apoftle: and they come under the defcription, which St. John" has given of Chrift's brothers, in whofe com. pany Chrift refused to go to Jerufalem.

Now, as James and Judas are here mentioned as brothers of Chrift, and we have two Epiftles afcribed to authors, who bear thefe names, the first question, which occurs is, Are they the authors of thefe Epiftles? But before this question is answered, we must previously examine, in what fenfe James and Judas, with Jofes and Simon, were called brothers of Chrift. On this fubject there are five different opinions.

1. That they were the fons of Jofeph, not by Mary the mother of Jefus, but by a former wife. This is a very ancient, and I believe the moft ancient opinion: nor do I know any material objections which can be made to it. In this fenfe, James, Jofes, Simon, and Judas were brothers-in-law of Jefus, and older than he. Now with this reprefentation the accounts given of thefe four perfons are perfectly confiftent. For it might be expected, that they lived at Nazareth, and that they would affume to themfelves a kind of authority over the actions of Jefus, out of concern for his fafety, of which we meet with an inftance in Mark iii. 21. 31-35. During his life, they might have disbelieved in him, and

yet have been convinced after his death and refurrection.

2. That they were the fons of Jofeph by Mary the mother of Jesus". In this fenfe they were own brothers of Jefus, but younger than he. It is true, that this opinion is not confiftent with the notion formerly entertained of the fuppofed perpetual virginity. But this notion is wholly incapable of fupport: and, even if it had been poffible for Jofeph and Mary to have lived after their marriage in a state of perpetual continency, a life of this kind would not only have been inconfiftent with found reafon, but, according to the precepts delivered by St. Paul in 1 Cor. vii. would have merited cenfure. On this ground therefore no objection can be made. But there are other reafons, which render this opinion. improbable. For, if thefe four perfons were the fons of Mary, and the fifters mentioned by St. Matthew were likewife her daughters, which we must suppose agreeably to this hypothefis, it cannot be imagined that he had loft all her children, when Jefus was crucified: for if all the reft were dead, which however is not probable, James and Judas were still alive. Yet from the account given by St. John, ch. xix, 26, 27. it feems as if Mary was without children, and without fupport: for Jefus recommends her to the care of St. John, and commands him to regard her as a mother, on which St. John takes her to his own houfe. On this account it is improbable that Mary, the mother of Jefus, was likewife the mother of James and Judas. I do not mean to affert, that Mary never had children by Jofeph, for it appears from Matth. i. 25. that the contrary is probable: but, if the had, they must have died young, or at leaft have been no longer alive, when Chrift was crucified.

If

This opinion, which is by no means new, has been lately fupported with great warmth by Herder in his Epiftles of two brothers of Jefus in our Canon,' published in 1775. But Herder's arguments have been combated by Gabler, in a differtation entitled, De jacobo epiftolæ ei attribute auctore, published in 1787.

If either the one, or the other, of the two preceding opinions be true, and James and Judas, the authors of the Epiftles, were literally brothers of Chrift", it follows that they were not Apoftles: for the elder Apostle James was the fon of Zebedee, and the younger Apostle James and his brother Judas were fons of Aphæus. Nor do the titles, which the authors of thefe Epistles have given themfelves, indicate that they were Apoftles: for they call themfelves, not Apoftles of Jefus Chrift, but fervants of Jefus Chrift. But if they were not Apoftles, their writings can lay no claim to canonical authority. In refpect to the Epiftle of St. Jude, this inference is in fome meafure warranted by its contents, which are not of fuch a nature, as to imply divine infpiration. To the Epiftle of St. James I have no objections to make, and I fee nothing in the contents of it, which might form a bar to its canonical authority: but others have thought differently on this fubject, and the ancients were very much divided about it, as will appear in one of the following fections.

3. A third opinion relative to James, Jofes, Simon, and Judas, is, that they were fons of Jofeph by the widow of a brother, who had died without children, and to whom therefore Jofeph by the laws of Mofes was obliged to raife iffue. In this fenfe, James, Jofes, Simon, and Judas would be again half-brothers of Jefus. But this opinion I think extremely improbable: for the law which obliged the Jews to take the widows of their brothers, who had died without children, affected thofe only who were fingle, and was not extended to thofe, who were already married". Befides, as foon as one

heir

*The former I think preferable, for the reafons already affigned.

An objection however may be made from the circumftance, that in neither the Epifle of St. James, nor in that of St. Jude, has the author called himself brother of Jefus. In the former, the author calls himfelf James the fervant of Jefus and in the latter the author gives himfelf the fame title, with the addition of brother of James,' whereas if he had been really brother of Jefus, he would probably have preferred this more diftinguished appellation.

z See my Mofaic law, § 98.