( 8Z )

universally allowed to be spurious. Origen too, hefays, quotes it in his Commentary upon John, butas a Writing of doubtful Authority. Tho’ Mills,from whom he takes this, fays, that Origen quotesthis Epistle as of doubtful Authority with some ;which implies, that it was of unquestionable Autho-rity with others. And what is more, Origen, Com.in Joan. p. 294. makes express Mention of r 1Hexo/jS/juv, such as received this Epistle for Canoni-cal. But between these Sayings there is a wideDifference. The former represents this Epistle doubtful, even in Origen 's Judgment , whereas thelatter is consistent with its being genuine, in theJudgment of that celebrated Critic. And so itcertainly was. For, in his other Works, he citesthis Epiflle , as written by James the Apostle and theBrother of our Lord, and as divine Scripture. Seethe Places referred to by Mills Prolog. 203.

But besides these two Authorities in Favour ofSt. James’s Epistle , there are many others laid to-gether by Dr. Mills , in his Prolegomena, and en-tirely suppressed by our Adversary. There we findsome of every Greek and Eastern Church witnessingto this Epistle, as written by James the Apostle .From Jerusalem, their Bishop Cyril , from theChurches of Palceftine, Eusebius of Ccesarea, Pro-copius Gazceus, Leontius and others. From thoseof Syria , in the fourth Century, Ephrœm, theDeacon of Edest'a, testifies to this Truth. For theCypriots, Epiphanius answers. For those of Egypt ,Antony the Hertnit, Athanasus and Didymus, allwithin the seme Compass of Time, besides others,in the Beginning of the fifth Age. Lastly, for theChurch of Constantinople stands up the great Chry-

sosom