2. Before the death of the elder James, the preaching of the Gofpel was chiefly confined within the limits. of Paleftine: but our Epiftle was written to Chrif tians of the difperfion, that is, to Chriftians out of Palestine.'

Answer. That the Gofpel was not preached without the limits of Paleftine before the death of the elder James, is a pofition, which is grounded only on the filence of the Acts of the Apoflles. But this inference is hardly defenfible: for it was not St. Luke's object to give a complete hiftory of all the tranfactions, which took place in the Chriftian church, and therefore his filence in refpect to the propagation of Christianity out of Palestine within the firft ten years after the crucifixion, will not warrant the inference, that it was preached during this interval in Paleftine alone. On the contrary, there is reafon to believe, that it actually was propagated in diftant countries within a very few years after the death of Chrift. For not to mention, that St. Paul preached the Gofpel in Arabia, and that the eunuch of Candace, queen of Ethiopia, was bap tized by Philip, on which I will not infift, becaufe into neither of thefe countries would a Greek Epiftle have been fent, there were Jews prefent at Jerufalem from Cappadocia, Pontus, Afia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Cyrene, and Rome, when the gifts of the Holy Ghost were firft communicated to the Apoftles on the day of Pentecoft, and they acknowledged the wonderful powers, which the Apoftles had received. Now it cannot be fuppofed, that these perfons neglected, on their return to their own countries, to make known the Chriftian religion: and we know, that in Alexandria, and in Rome, there were Chriftians before any Apoftle came thither. At Damafcus there were likewife Chriftians, though perhaps they did not fpeak Greek

f See what was said on this subject, Ch. viii. Sect. 2.

but

but Tarfus, where Greek was fpoken, had been vifited by St. Paul, between the time of his converfion and the death of the elder James'; and St. Paul hardly spent his time there without making converts. Chriftians from Cyprus and Cyrene were already become preachers of the Golpel, and by their means a very flourishing community had been eftablished at Antioch, which attracted the particular notice of the Apoftles at Jerufalem *. There was a fufficient number of Jewish converts to Chriftianity out of Paleftine before the death of the elder James, to occafion an Epiftle addreffed to the twelve tribes, which are fcattered abroad.' Nay, the communities in Antioch and its neighbourhood were alone almoft fufficient to have occafioned fuch an Epiftle.

3- Among the Jewish converts, to whom the Epiftle of St. James was addreffed, there prevailed a great corruption of morals, and of doctrines, efpecially in the article of Juftification, which arofe from a perverfion of the precepts delivered by St. Paul on this fubject. Now the perverfion of a doctrine, which is in itself clear and intelligible, feldom takes place, till fome time has elapfed after the firft delivery of that doctrine, and till it has gone through a great variety of hands. Confequently, an Epiftle, like that of St. James, in which the falfe notions, which prevailed in regard to Juftification, are corrected, could not have been written fo early, as during the life of the elder James.'

Answer. This argument is founded on a mistake: for the Juftification, of which the author of our Epiftle speaks, is a very different kind of Juftification from that of which St. Paul fpeaks. It is the old Jewish doctrine of Juftification, and not a mifunderflood doctrine of St. Paul, which the author of this Epiftle combats: confequently, the argument deduced from

Afts ix. 30.

Acts xi. 20-30.

This will be fully proved in the fixth fection of this chapter.

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 Jewith converts into the Chriftian church: for we must not imagine, that the firft Chriftian communities confifted wholly of members, who were in a ftate of perfect regeneration.

Further, this argument not only proves, that the Epiftle 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 juftified 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 Epistle 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. Befides, 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 afcribe a very early date to this Epiftle.

4. In ch. v. 8. the coming of the Lord to judge Jerufalem is reprefented as being near at hand: confe quently, 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,

1

fure, by which they are estimated. More than twentyfeven years muft elapfe before the prefent century expires and yet, if I expected that a great revolution would take place in Europe before the close of this century, I might, without impropriety, defcribe it as not far diftant. In thort, the deftruction of a state, which has lafted many centuries, may be faid to be near at hand, if it thall happen within the present 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 thought on the other hand, I will not pofitively affirm, that he was. One circumftance however affords at leaft 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 leaft 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 Epiftie contains no exhortations to harmony between the Jews and Gentiles.

This I wrote in 1766.

Το

To the argument, which I have here ufed 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 ufed 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 present queftion, though I by no means think it a decifive

one.

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

SECT. III.

Whether the author of this Epiftle was St. James, called the brother of fefus.

IN

N the first 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