The remaining books of the epistolary class are styled Catholic or General Epistles; the qualifying word implying that they were not addressed to any particular branches or divisions of the early Church, or designed for a local application, but intended for the admonition. and instruction of the believers in general, wherever they resided. The first, as they are ranged in our English version, is ascribed to the Apostle James; the second and third, to Peter; the fourth, fifth and sixth, to John; and the seventh, to Jude.

The serial arrangement of the Epistles was not intended to indicate the order of time in which they were severally written. The Epistle to the Romans, for instance, was not written, it is supposed, until about six years after the three letters which immediately follow it were composed: but it is placed before all the others because the canonical supervisors regarded the main subjects of which it treats as being of pre-eminent importance; and also, it is said, because of the dignity of Rome, "the imperial city," whither it was directed. The Epistle to the Galatians is by some thought to have been written previously to any of the others, and should, therefore, in their opinion, be the first in a chronological arrangement.

Various students and critical inquirers have assigned different periods as the dates of the several writings we are considering but as each hypothesis is characterized by uncertainty, I shall not weary you with a long disquisition upon the comparative accuracy of either one

of them; for it would necessarily be somewhat dry and uninteresting. In lieu thereof, I will merely present the following chronological table from the writings of Dr. NATHANIEL LARDNER, one of the most distinguished Biblical scholars in the world.* This table exhibits not only the periods of time at which he supposed the Epistles to have been written, but also the names of the places wherein each author is thought to have sojourned while engaged in the labor of composition. It should be remembered that the following dates are not based upon certainty, but are merely the results of conjectural estimate:

*See Lardner's "Supplement to the Second Part of the Credibility of

the Gospel History."

The remaining books of the epis Catholic or General Epistles; plying that they were not a branches or divisions of th

Jooks (aside from inculcate what they ad morality) may be rusal of the exordium of for a local application, b ury that I could present in and instruction of the stances, local allusions and prethey resided. The tion are explained by the connec glish version, is asceverally occur.

ond and third, tr

John; and the which are ascribed to Paul exhibit great of character. They furnish indubitable

The serial ed to ind.

severall

stance

year

we

soning

are the production of a noble man—an whose mind was of a truly liberal stamp, alcurrent of his thoughts and his course of reawere colored somewhat by Jewish notions and

prejudices imbibed early in life. His style abounds in

tropes

and

quite

and metaphors, and is never feeble, but energetic well sustained throughout. Various and sometimes affluent imagery is employed by his inventive mind to illustrate the teachings of Christ, as he understood them. As fine specimens of forcible and significant declamation, interspersed with intensely apposite figures of speech, could be selected from his writings, as may be found in almost any other composition. Like all truly great men, he manifests the spirit of unaffected modesty. He nowhere betrays any thing like unreasonable selfesteem, or even a vivid consciousness of his real superiority. Ilis speech, it is true, is sometimes very bold and confident: he is occasionally very positive, verging

FIELE.

318

hat day and

ت

matism, perhaps, in the assertion in relation to some points of

this results more from the arat, than from the spirit of down

cherished, perhaps to the close of his life,

early Jewish predilections and errors, yet grew the superstitious idea of HOLY TIME which med the basis of that austere sanctity with which the seventh day of the week had been so long observed. This is evident from the tolerant manner in which he speaks of this subject. Says he, "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it."* I understand him as expressing the idea, that he attached no great importance to the formal observance of any day, merely as a day; but, at the same time, if any one were deeply conscientious in regard to the matter, the observance might not be entirely unprofitable; for his conscientiousness and purity of motive would hallow it, in some sense, and thereby make it consecrate "unto the Lord,"-as, indeed, are the harmless observances of every pure mind, even when logically mistaken as respects their supposed authority.

Perhaps the most remarkable portion of Paul's let

*Romans, xiv. 5, 6.

Some statements in the Gospels might be modified, perhaps, without doing any injustice to the original intention of their authors. Of such, may perhaps be reckoned the assertion that Jesus "fasted forty days and forty nights," while tarrying in the wilderness, previous to his being "tempted of the devil."* We have no reason for believing that a human being could subsist for that length of time without partaking of material food. Why, then, should we be required to accept the evangelist's statement, merely on his authority?

Universalists and Unitarians, and some others, regard the detailed conversation which we are certified took place between Jesus and Satan, as all figurative, and as intended simply to convey the idea that various seducing thoughts and suggestions arose in the mind of the former, while he reflected upon what outward glory he might attain if he would but minister to the superstitious thirst of the Jewish people, &c.

If we may allegorize the plain statements that he was "tempted of Satan," with whom he conversed, and to whom he said, "Get thee behind me," &c., why may we not rightfully modify the phrase "forty days and forty nights," and consider it as used only in an indefinite and proverbial sense,-intended merely to imply several days?

According to the Apocryphal New Testament, Joachim, (the reputed grandfather of Jesus, on his mother's side) on a certain occasion, "retired into the wilderness, * Matt. iv. 1, 2. Luke, iv. 2.