Page images
PDF
EPUB

of the church, and who at the fame time was fo delicate in his conduct toward the Jews, that even they, who did not believe, respected him, is exactly such a perfon, as the author of our Epiftle, as far as we may judge from its contents, appears to have been. Abfolute certainty however is hardly to be obtained, becaufe our historical information is here defective. We have

no writer to whom we can appeal on this fubject; and Hegefippus, who lived in the former part of the fecond century, and who therefore had the means of procuring intelligence, has fo blended his account with fable, that no dependence can be placed on it.

SECT. IV.

Of the perfons, to whom this Epifle was written.

T. JAMES, the author of this Epiftle (whether

was a brother of Chrift, I leave here undecided), begins in the following manner: James, a fervant of God, and of the Lord Jefus Chrift, to the twelve tribes, which are fcattered abroad, greeting." He addreffed therefore his Epiftlé, not to heathen converts, but to native Jews, who lived out of Palestine, and (fince

the

e. That the ten tribes really returned from the Babylonian captivity, is fhewn in Benfon's Prolegomena; and I have confirmed it in my effay entitled, De exfilio decem tribuum, printed in the Commentationes focietati regia Goettingenfi per annos 1758-1762,

oblatæ.

[ocr errors]

The opinion of Beza, relative to the word diamoga, which however is inconfiftent with the use of this word among the Hellenists, may be seen in Lardner's Supplement, Vol. III. Ch. xvii. § 3.

the Epiftle is written in Greek) who fpake the Greek language. The question however ftill remains to be afked; Did he addrefs it to Jews in general, including unbelievers as well as believers, or only to thofe, who were already converted?

Many writers, among whom is Lardner, have adopted the former opinion. Now this opinion would be thought very extraordinary, if it were not in fome measure countenanced by the character, which has been given of James, the brother of Jefus, whom Lardner confiders as the fame with the younger Apoftle James. For a writer, who was the head of the Chriflian church in Jeru falem, or an Apoftle of Chrift, could hardly expect that an Epiftle full of exhortations would have influence on the conduct of unbelieving Jews. And if he had thought it neceffary to write to men of this defcription, we might have expected, that he would endeavour to convince them of the truth of Chriftianity, rather than admonish and reprimand them in the tone of an eftablished teacher. But, as I have already obferved, the character of St. James makes the opinion lefs improbable, and renders it worthy of examination.

Some of the arguments, which have been alleged in its fupport, are however incapable of defence, For inftance, appeal has been made to ch. v. 1-6. where St. James fays, Go to now, ye rich men, weep and how! for the miferies, that fhall come upon you, &c.': and hence it has been inferred, that St. James addreffed himself to perfons, who were not Chriftians.. Now this argument refts entirely on the fuppofition, that none of the primitive Chriftians could have deferved this cenfure, and that they were all in a ftate of perfect regeneration, a fuppofition, which is abfolutely inconfiftent with the description, which St. Paul has given of the Corinthians in his two Epiftles to them. It will be faid perhaps in reply, that St. James could hardly mean Chriftians, when he wrote ver. 6. Ye have killed the just one.' But are there no examples of impious Chriftians, as well as

* Supplement, Vol. III. Ch. xviii. § 3.

of

I

of impious Jews, and are there not murderers among the former, as well as among the latter? In this paffage however, I would not understand the wordkill' in its literal fenfe, because both Chriftians and Jews were fubject to the Roman laws, and could not take away the life of another, without forfeiting their own. would ascribe to it therefore the sense of, to take away from another all that he has,' in the fame manner as Cicero has used it in his Oration for Quintius", though with a variation in the words and expreffions. Befides, it is really a matter of doubt, whether St. James in ch. v. 6. though he there speaks in the second person, meant those to whom he was writing. He made ufe perhaps of the figure called Apoftrophe, and thus addreffed the rich in ver. 6. in order to reprefent in more lively colours the confolation, which he adminifters to the poor in the next verse. It is true, that this figure is not very fuitable to the familiar epiftolary ftyle: but the Epiftle of St. James has in many other places terms of expreffion, which are more ufual in poetry than in letter-writing.

Another argument for the opinion, that the Epiftle of St. James was addreffed to unbelieving, as well as to believing Jews, is derived from the circumftance, that St. James warns his readers against grofs and ungodly behaviour. But if this argument proved any thing, it would prove too much for it would prove with equal force, that the two Epiftles to the Corinthians were not written to Chriftians.

The

h Examine the following expreffions in this oration, in their connexion with the queftion of law, which was the fubject of debate. C. 2. quorum in alterius manu vita pofita eft, and in the fame chapter, qui caput alterius, famam, fortunafque omnes defendam. C. 7. ifte caput petere non definebat, that is, the object of the prosecution was to obtain, not a certain fum, but the whole fortune of Quintius. C. 8. fe de capite fuo priore loco caufam dicturum. C. 9. 11. fanguinem vitamque eripere, interficere. C. 12. 13. ne numeretur inter vivos ? decernat de vita et ornamentis fuis omnibus ?-jugulare-contra caput dicere ut hominis propinqui caput incolume effe patiamur: and many other expreffions of the fame kind in C. 14. 15. 16. 22. 29. 31.

[ocr errors]

The only argument of any confequence is, that St. James addreffes his Epiftle in general terms, ch. i. 1. to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad,' without any reftricting claufe, which might confine the meaning to believers only: and that in ch. ii. 2. he calls their place of public worship by the name of ruvaywyn, which denotes not a Chriftian, but a Jewish affembly.. However to this argument may be oppofed others, which are more decifive on the other fide of the question.

1. St. James fays, ch. i. 3. the trying of your faith worketh patience.' He could hardly mean any other than Chriftian faith: for though the Jews, who believed in Mofes, had their fufferings, as well as they who believed in Chrift, yet the fufferings of the Jews in the time of St. James could not be called trials of their faith, because no one compelled them to renounce it. But the cafe of the Chriftians was different; for they really had trials of their faith, fince the perfecutions, which they underwent, were on account of their faith.

2. In ch ii. 1. St. James fpeaks in exprefs terms of faith in Jefus Chrift, which he cautions his readers. not to hold εν προσωποληψίαις της δόξης'. Now this admonition neceffarily implies that his readers already believed in Christ, at least to all outward appearance, or St. James could not have cautioned them againft an abufe of their faith in Chrift.

It is certain therefore that St. James wrote to perfons, who were already converted from Judaifm to Chriftianity. At the fame time I believe, as St. James was highly refpected by the Jews in general, that it was his with and intention, that unbelieving Jews alfo fhould read it, and be converted, and that this with and intention had fome influence on the choice of his materials.

i I here use the words of the original, because I think the common tranflation faulty.

[blocks in formation]

SECT. V.

Of the contents of this Epiftle.

For St. James, though his defcription is highly ex

ROM the character, which Hegefippus has given

aggerated, it appears that St. James was more a moralift, than a dogmatift: and this character is vifible throughout the whole of his Epiftle, which contains rather moral precepts, than points of doctrine. It is extraordinary, that on this very account fome commentators have objected to the Epiftle, and doubted of its divine infpiration. Luther for this reafon called it an Epiftle of ftraw but we might with equal reason apply this term to Chrift's fermon on the mount. The moral part of the New Teftament is neceffary, as well as the doctrinal: and an Epiftle is not to be defpifed, because it is chiefly moral, and contains no difquifitions on the death and facrifice of Christ.

In each of St. Paul's Epiftles the former part is for the most part doctrinal, and only the latter part exhortatory. On the contrary, where St. James has introduced points of doctrine, as for inftance, that God is not the cause of our temptation to evil, or that faith without works is infufficient for falvation, he does it only occafionally, and by way of illuftration. I conclude therefore that in the scattered communities, for which he defigned his Epiftle, no material errors generally prevailed: för in this cafe St. James would have had the fame motive for writing on points of doctrine, as St. Paul and other Apostles, who were induced to be explicit on doctrinal matters, becaufe errors on thefe fubjects prevailed in the communities, to which they wrote. That St. James has no where taught the abolition of the Levitical law, is to be afcribed to the circumftance, that he addreffed

k He speaks indeed Ch. i. 25. ii. 12. of the law of liberty:" but this cannot be conftrued into an affertion that the Levitical law ceased to be in force.

« PreviousContinue »