# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juli 1856_S211
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Whether Such a One Is to Be Declared a Heretic or a Dangerous False Teacher, etc. 211

...were the apostles James and Judas. For the Epistle of James departs not a little from the analogy of apostolic doctrine, in that it ascribes justification not to faith alone but to works, and calls the Law a law of liberty, whereas the Law is a covenant that bears unto bondage, Gal. 4. Furthermore, he does not observe the manner of teaching of the apostles. For whereas it is customary with the other apostles, even when they treat of the doctrine of good works, nevertheless soon to bring in something as proof from the benefit of Christ and faith in Christ, this one, by contrast, scarcely mentions the name of Christ once or twice, and of his work he is entirely silent. Moreover, he makes use of certain sayings of Peter and Paul, and does not call himself an apostle of Christ, as Paul and Peter do, but only a servant of Christ. It is therefore not improbable that this epistle was written by a disciple of the apostles toward the end of this century, or in the time following. — That the Epistle of Jude likewise is not genuine is charged against it also by this: that he calls himself not an apostle but a servant, and that he himself betrays having lived after the apostles, when he says: But, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, how they told you that in the last time there would be mockers, etc.; and that he copies some things word for word from the second epistle of Peter, and that he brings in the account of the archangel Michael's contest with the devil over the body of Moses, and from the prophecy of Enoch, which is not found in the approved books of the Old Testament, etc.; and because it is reported that Judas went not to Greece but to Persia, where he would rather have written in Persian than in Greek. — Of the other Epistle of Peter, Eusebius says: We have received that it is not legitimate, and yet, because it seemed useful to many, it has been used along with the others. Eusebius, Book 2, Chapter 3. Apart from this one thing — that it is said to lack the testimony of antiquity — nothing else, it seems to me, stands in the way of its being held a genuine Epistle of Peter. For its style and composition do not depart very much from the first. Moreover, it testifies that he had been with Christ on the holy mountain, etc., and states with certainty that he is an apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 Peter 1 and 3. He also approves the epistles of Paul and shows that he believes the same as Paul does, and with a prophetic spirit portrays the heretics, the Antichrist, and the Epicureans of the last time. — That the other two epistles of John were disputed by the ancients is shown by Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 25. And since he proves, from Papias, that there were two who bore the name John and lived in Ephesus — the one the Evangelist and Apostle, the other an elder named John — he seems to indicate that it was doubted to which of these two, both called John, these epistles should be ascribed. Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 39. But the style does not depart very much from the