that we will do this or that, that we will go to this or that city, &c. St. James then concludes, ch. v. 13-18. with an exhortation to confide in the Supreme Being, whether in prosperity or in adversity.

6 3. In the third chapter St. James censures the great desire, which many had to teach publicly in the place of worship. This must not be understood of a desire to obtain the office of a minister or bishop, for this explanation renders the passage obscure. We must make a distinction between holding an ecclesiastical office, and teaching in the place of public worship, for among the Jews, and likewise among the primitive Christians, the latter did not necessarily imply the former. In the Jewish synagogues, after a chapter had been read from the Bible, every man who had sufficient learning and ability was permitted to expound and to exhort: and the same custom prevailed in the primitive church. St. James therefore warns his readers against the abuse of this liberty, and advises them to be cautious how they spake in public, because it was extremely difficult to perform this task with propriety. St. James had probably been informed, that many of those who were so forward to deliver their sentiments, harangued only to gratify their vanity, and that they censured others, not so much to promote piety, as to gratify private hatred and envy. For this reason, after having censured the abuses of public speaking, he proceeds to the source of those abuses, namely, hatred and envy and concludes ch. iv. 11. 12. with an exhortation, not to calumniate and unjustly judge our brethren.

Whether the Jewish converts, to whom St. James wrote his epistle, had places of worship apart from the synagogue, and in these places the abuses prevailed, which St. James censures; or whether they still met in the synagogue, and certain Christians abused the privilege of speaking, so as to create disorder, is a question, which has not yet been examined, and which I propose for future consideration. The latter is at least not impossible: for it appears from the Acts of the Apostles, that in the age, in which the Epistle of St. James was written, Christians, and even the apo stles themselves were permitted to teach in the Jewish synagogues.' Vol. iv. P. 297.

To this analysis, which exhibits the usual marks of our author's acuteness, the following remarks are subjoined.

Though St. James lived in Jerusalem, he has quoted the Old Testament, not according to the Hebrew text, but according to the Septuagint, whence it appears that he was very conversant with the Greek Bible. However there is one passage, namely, that quoted in ch. iv. 5. which has not yet been discovered in the Septuagint. I formerly made an attempt in my Latin notes to this epistle to point out the place: but I now perceive that the attempt I was unsuccessful.

The style of this epistle is not more unclassical, than that of other books of the New Testament; and the thoughts, especially such as are figurative, are elegant and lively, so that St. James appears to have been endued with a poetical genius.

The language is more figurative, than that of a Greek epistle written by a classic author would be. It is sometimes poeti cal, sometimes oratorical, and has the usual marks of oriental com, position.

4. There occur sometimes words, which a correct Greek writer would not have used in those places, for instance Togatal, ch. i. 11. and βεληθεις, ch. i. 18. This perhaps may be ascribed to the circumstance, that the author was not much accustomed to write Greek.

• The materials are not methodically arranged: there are frequent transitions from one subject to another: and even where the same subject is continued, the connexion of one period with another is not always obvious. Sometimes St. James quits a subject, which he appears to have finished, and after he has discussed some other topic returns to the subject, which he had before quitted. This arrangement is very different from that of St. Paul's Epistles.

6. It is remarkable, that in this short epistle two passages occur, which are perfect hexameters, namely in ch. i. 17. iv. 4. Was St. James, who lived in Palestine, accustomed to read Greek verses: did he quote from Christian hymns in the Greek language: or what was the origin of these hexameters ?

7. Wetstein in his note to ch. iv. 5. has drawn a parallel between several passages in this epistle, and passages in the Wisdom of Solomon, which in Wetstein's opinion warrant the conclusion that St. James borrowed from this book. I wish that this question were examined more minutely, especially as I have hardly ever met with a passage in other parts of the New Testament, which was taken from the Wisdom of Solomon. However, it is not improbable, that St. James, as he lived in Jerusalem, where Chaldee was spoken, endeavoured to familiarise himself with the Greek language by studying the Greek Apocrypha more diligently, than the other writers of the New Testament appear to have done.' Vol. iv. P. 300.

The professor, having thus generally stated the contents of this epistle, goes on to examine whether St. James's doctrine concerning faith and works contradicts St. Paul's doctrine of faith without works-which having determined in the negative, he concludes the discussion by observing that St. James, when he wrote his epistle, had not seen St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans; for, if he had, he would probably have delivered his doctrine relative to faith and works in other words, and would have avoided the use of terms which St. Paul had adopted in his doctrine of faith without works; since he must have been aware that the use of the same terms would unavoidably create, at least, an apparent contradiction to the doctrine of St. Paul...

Having entered into the question of the time when the Epistle of St. James was written,' and determined it, upon very probable grounds, to have been long before St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans,-agreeing with Bede, who refers it to

the scattering abroad of the converts soon after the death of St. Stephen, mentioned in Acts viii. 4.-the canonical authority of the epistle is more fully investigated, and the result stated in the following words.

:

The question, whether it is canonical, that is, whether we ought to receive it as a divine and infallible work, must, according to the. principles which I have laid down in vol. i. ch. iii. sect. 2. depend on the previous question, whether the author was an apostle. If. the James who wrote this epistle, was either the elder apostle James,. the son of Zebedee, or the younger apostle James, the son of Alphæus, it is canonical. But if it was written by the James, who. was brother in law of Christ, and not an apostle, we can have no proof of its inspiration and infallibility. Supernatural assistance was promised by Christ to the apostles alone and therefore, though. James, the brother in law of Christ, was a man of great eminence in the church of Jerusalem, though he took a principal part in the first council, which was held there, though he is called by St. Paul a pillar of the church, and is mentioned Gal. ii. 9. even before St. Peter and St. John, yet all these circumstances put together are not suf ficient to prove that his writings were divinely inspired. I conclude. therefore by repeating the assertion that, if the James, who wrote this epistle, was either the one or the other of the twelve apostles, who bore this name, it is canonical: but if not, it is not canonical.' Vol. iv. P. 314.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER comes next in succes sion; and from the contents of it, accurately examined, it is with the highest probability concluded, that the apostle addressed himself to Jewish proselytes, then become converts. to Christianity, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor, and Bithynia, though it be difficult at present to assign his real motive for addressing them, from the want of historical data.

Having stated his reasons for concluding that, before St. Peter wrote this epistle, he had read the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, Michaëlis inquires into the time of St. Peter's writing; determines it to have been not long before or after the year 60, upon the belief that Babylon is to be understood in its literal sense; whereas Lardner, taking it as the mystical name of Rome, fixes the date upon this latter belief between 63 and 65. Our author, having grounded his conclusion upon this foundation, proceeds in the next section to show, that Babylon, whence St. Peter dated his First Epistle, was either the ancient city of that name on the Euphrates, or Seleucia on the Tigris; but, concluding in favour of the former, attempts to confute by various arguments the interpretation of Babylon in a mystical sense. This being accomplished, he thus exhibits the contents and design of the epistle.

The object of this epistle is assigned by St. Peter himself, ch, v. 12. where he says, "I have written briefly, exhorting, and

testifying, that this is the true grace of God, wherein ye stand." But I have shewn in the first section of this chapter, that the persons, to whom he wrote, were uncircumcised Jewish proselytes, who had received the Christian faith. St. Peter wrote therefore to convince his readers, that, though they were of gentile origin, and had not been circumcised, they stood in the grace of God, as well as the Jewish and circumcised converts to Christianity.

The manner, in which St. Peter has treated this question, is very different from that of St. Paul. For he has not divided his epistle into two distinct parts, the one doctrinal, the other practical, as St. Paul has usually done: but has interwoven the doctrines with the exhortations. This remarkable difference in their modes of thinking and writing deserves particularly to be noted. Several adversaries of Christianity have asserted, that St. Peter's doctrine, in respect to the Levitical law, was not the same with that of St. Paul, and that St. Peter maintained the necessity of this law even for the heathens. Now this assertion is not only contradicted by what we read of St. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles, but more especially by the very contents of his own epistle. In order therefore to support it with any colour of argument, the first step must be to deny that the epistle is genuine. It is true, that no one has hitherto had recourse to this pretext: but lest any one should have recourse to it in future, and even contend that St. Paul himself wrote this epistle in St. Peter's name in order to remove all suspicion of a difference in their doctrines, I have thought it not unnecessary to shew that St. Paul's manner is totally different from that, which is observable in the First Epistle of St. Peter.

Another object, which St. Peter had in view, according to what he says, ch. v. 12. was, to exhort. Now the exhortations, which occur in this epistle, beside some occasional admonitions on idolatry and other heathen vices, may be reduced to the three following classes.

1. To patience in misfortunes; whence we may conclude that the Christians in Asia Minor were then in affliction: and in this respect the object of St. Peter's First Epistle agrees with that of St. James. These exhortations to patience St. Peter has not arranged systematically, but has introduced them in various places, as oppor tunities offered, namely, ch. i. 6-11. ii. 21-25. iii. 14.—iv. 7. iv. 12-19. v. 7-11. St. Paul would have placed them more methodically.

2. To avoid whatever might give just offence to the magistrates and their fellow citizens, and might confirm the slanderous reports of their adversaries. St. Peter speaks of slander in more than one place of this epistle; and he seems to have apprehended, that the magistrates would make an inquiry into the conduct of the Christians. He advises them therefore to be on their guard, to pay par ticular attention to their own conduct, that they, who spoke evil of them, might be put to silence. He enforces the duty of men toward the magistrates, and of wives toward their husbands: and recommends to the wives, whose husbands were yet unbelievers, not to convert them by disputation, but to win them by their own good conduct. Hence we may conclude, that one of the evil re

The ex

ports, which St. Peter wished principally to remove, was, that the Christian religion contributed to excite sedition on the part of the men, and to cause disobedience on the part of the wives. hortations on this subject are delivered likewise in detached parts of the epistle, namely, ch. ii. 12-20. iii. 1-13. iv. 14-16. v. 7—9. In this last passage the word diaconos denotes not " devil," but "calumniator."

3. To brotherly love. This exhortation is principally given in ch. i. 22.-ii. 10. and St. Peter enforces it by representing to his readers, that "they were born again, not of corruptible, but of incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever" and that they were a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation. But a similar exhortation occurs again, ch. iv. 8—11.' Vol. iv. P. 341.

A discussion next follows on St. Peter's mode of writing, and the peculiarities observable in his Greek style, as of particular importance in determining, by its internal characters, whether the Second Epistle, ascribed to him, be or be not authentic. Haying, after a variety of learned and acute observations, determined the question in the affirmative, and turned the arguments against its authenticity into so many proofs for it, the author fixes its date to the year 64, and concludes his observations by stating its design to have been of a polemical nature; and that St. Peter wrote it against certain persons, who, though members of the church, denied the doctrine of a general judgement and a dissolution of the world: and these he pronounces, from various reasons, to have been Gnostics.

Having terminated in an interesting manner these researches, we now come to THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE. In inquiring after the author, the first question which presents itself is, Whether he were an apostle called Jude, or Jude the brother-in-law of Jesus? After much research, the decision is in favour of the latter. That the Jude, who wrote our epistle, was the same person as the Jude whom the Evangelists call "brother of Jesus,"—that is, the son of Joseph by a former wife,'--Michaëlis declares to be the most defensible opinion, and

adds:

On this supposition we may assign the reason, why the author called himself brother of James :" for if he was the brother-in-law of Jesus, his brother James was the person, who during so many years had presided over the church at Jerusalem, was well known both to Jews and to Christians, and appears to have been more cele brated than either of the apostles, who were called James. It will be objected perhaps, that the very same reasons, which I have alleged, to shew that an apostle, of the name of Jude, would have assumed his proper title, will likewise shew that a person, who was called brother of Jesus, would have done the same, and have styled himself Jude the brother of Jesus. To this I answer, that if he was CRIT. REV. Vol.35. July, 1802.

Ꮓ