No doubt can be justly entertained but that James, called the Less, was
the author of the Epistle. He was the son of Alphaeus or Cleopas, and
of Mary, probably a cousin, not a sister, of Mary the mother of our
Lord. Hence he is called our Lord's brother, (Galatians 1:19) that is,
a near relative, as the Word brother is often taken in Scripture. He
took a leading part in the council held at Jerusalem, mentioned in Acts
15; and, according to Jerome, he resided there thirty years, and
presided over the Church. He was put to death, as Hegesippus relates,
who flourished in the second century, by a tumultuous mob, excited by
Jewish zealots, in the year 62.

The canonicity of James's Epistle has been a subject of dispute, though
almost universally allowed in the present day. The facts respecting it,
according to Basnage, are these, -- During the three first centuries it
was not extensively known; in the fourth century its authenticity was
by some disputed; but in the fifth century it was universally
acknowledged as genuine; and it has ever since been so acknowledged,
with a very few exceptions. What seems to be a sufficient evidence in
its favor is the fact, that it is found as a part of Holy Scripture in
the first Syriac Version, which was made early in the second century.

The occasion of writing the Epistle appears to have been the abuse made
of the doctrine of free grace by professing Christians, -- a subject
referred to also by Paul in Romans vi., and in his other Epistles.
Abounding grace is at one time despised and rejected; at another time
it is turned into licentiousness: these are evils which have ever
prevailed in the Church. The Pharisee is too proud to receive grace;
the Antinomian pretends to receive and magnify grace, that he may
gratify the inclinations of his sinful nature. It was against the
Antinomian that James wrote his Epistle.

According to Lardner and Macknight, the Epistle was addressed to the
whole Jewish nation, at home and abroad, believers and unbelievers;
according to Grotius and Wall, to the Jews dispersed abroad
indiscriminately, believing and unbelieving; according to Michaelis, to
the believing Jews, while the unbelieving were not overlooked; but
according to Beza and Scott, to the scattered Jews who professed the
Christian faith. And this last opinion has the strongest reasons and
evidence in its favor. [1]

With regard to the First Epistle of Peter, there has never been a doubt
respecting its genuineness. This Apostle took a prominent part at first
in the cause of Christianity, but of his labors after the council at
Jerusalem, in the year 49, recorded in Acts 15, we have no account in
Scripture. Mention is indeed made, in Galatians 2:11, of his being
afterwards at Antioch. It has been justly concluded from the
superscription of this Epistle that he exercised his ministry in those
parts which are here mentioned.

It was thought by Beza and Grotius that the Epistle was addressed to
converted Jews; but by Doddridge, Macknight, and Scott, to Christians
in general, both Jews and Gentiles. The latter opinion is the most
probable. The arguments assigned by Horne, in his Introduction, in
favor of the former opinion, are by no means satisfactory.

With regard to the Second Epistle of Peter, doubts have been
entertained by some as to its authenticity. It appears that it was not
at first so widely known as his First Epistle; and this was probably
the reason why there were some during the first three centuries who did
not regard it as genuine. But it has been quoted as a part of Scripture
by some of the earliest Fathers, and fully acknowledged as authentic by
those of the fourth and succeeding centuries.

The First Epistle of John has from the beginning been uniformly
received as a portion of Divine Revelation. Some difference has existed
as to the persons for whom it was especially intended, -- a matter of
no great importance. Some have supposed it to have been written for the
Jewish Christians in Judea; but others, with more probability, for
Christians generally, both Jewish and Gentile.

Though there is no name attached to it, yet there has been universal
consent from the beginning that John was its author; and indeed the
style of it throughout is sufficient to shew that he was the writer of
it; for his Gospel and the Book of Revelation are in this respect
exactly alike; and it is a style peculiarly his own.

Jude, or Judas, was, as he says, the brother of James, and therefore
the son of Alphaeus or Cleopas. Though he does not call himself an
apostle, yet he proved himself to be so by saying that he was the
brother of James. He is called, as James was, the brother of our Lord,
Matthew 13:55. We have in Scripture no account of his ministry after
the day of Pentecost.

His Epistle was not at first universally received as canonical. This is
acknowledged by Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome; at the same time, they
themselves so regarded it; and Jerome says that in his day it was by
most received as genuine; and it has been quoted as a part of Scripture
by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius,
Ambrose, and Augustine. [2]

That some of the Epistles were not universally received as authentic at
first is no matter of wonder, when we consider the scattered condition
of the Church, and the scanty means of communication. The fact, that
some had doubts respecting them does not in the least degree invalidate
their genuineness; on the contrary, it has conduced to strengthen the
evidence in their favor; for the doubts of some must have occasioned a
more minute inquiry as to their authenticity. And it was not long
before all the Epistles, about which there had been some doubts, had
attained the universal approbation of the Church; and what Lardner
states is worthy of special attention, -- That no writings, received by
the primitive Church as genuine, have
been since proved to be spurious;
and that no writings, regarded by it as spurious, have been since
proved to be genuine.

The Editor must mention here, what perhaps he ought to have mentioned
before, -- that in his translations he has not always retained what is
called the historical present tense, which is often used by Calvin,
according to the practice of Latin and Greek writers, and also of the
Prophets and the Evangelists. This mode of writing does not accord with
the usage of the present day.

Our translators have not been uniform in this respect either in the New
or the Old Testament; for they sometimes departed from the original as
to this tense, though, for the most part, they retained it. As, for
instance, in John 11:39-40, the historical present is not retained in
the 39th, while it is retained in the 40th verse. The anomalies as to
the tenses often met with, especially in the Psalms, have arisen from
overlooking this peculiarity. The future in Hebrew is very often used
for the present; and this is the historical present, and ought to be
rendered in our language in the past tense.

J.O.
ThrussIngton, Sept. 29, 1855.