judged in righteousness. (It may be noted here that verse 14 must be translated" will reward," according to the best reading.)

The eighteenth verse closes like an echo of the Lord's Prayer. St. Paul seems to be drawing his phraseology from it. (See note on Matt. vi. 13, the doxology.)

Very shortly after this, the crown of martyrdom was given. According to trustworthy tradition, St. Paul was beheaded as a Roman citizen in the last year of Nero (A.D. 68), two years before the destruction of Jerusalem.

THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES.

THE authorship of this Epistle is an extremely intricate and difficult question. Let us first see who are the persons bearing the name of James in the New Testament.

We have (a). The brother of John, and son of Zebedee, commonly called "the Great," an Apostle (Matt. x. 2).

(b). The son of Alphæus (or Cleopas), an Apostle (Matt. x. 3), called in Mark xv. 40 "the Less."

(c). The Lord's brother (Matt. xiii. 55; Gal. ii. 9, 12,ţi. 19).

(d). The Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17, xv. 43, xxi. 18). Both external and internal evidence are conclusive that the Epistle before us was written by him.

Now (c) and (d) are seen to be one and the same, on comparing the references attached to their names. Omitting (a), who was martyred by Herod (Acts xii. 2), we have two left, viz., James the son of Alphæus, and James the Lord's brother, Bishop of Jerusalem.

The question debated is whether or not these two are really one and the same person.

There is weighty authority on each side. In our own time, Dean Stanley and Dr. Wordsworth are in favour of the identity; Archbishop Trench, Dean Alford, and Professor Plumptre against it. It will therefore be obvious that it is impossible to speak with anything like certainty; but on the whole the balance of probabilities seems to incline to their being two persons.

I. This was certainly the view of the early Church. The Apostolic Constitutions (third century) say that there were three Jameses-the Great, the Less, the Bishop. The early Fathers never call the Bishop of Jerusalem an Apostle.

II. The argument from the Bible stands thus :-James, the son of Alphæus, was one of the Twelve. But it is expressly stated by St. John (vii. 2), after Our Lord had chosen the Twelve, that "His brethren did not believe in Him." The natural inference is, that James, the Lord's brother, was not one of the Twelve. To this it has been answered, that James may have faltered in his faith for a while, even after his calling; or that he may have been an ex

ception among the Lord's brethren. But neither solution is satisfactory. Again, St. James, in his Epistle, does not call himself an Apostle (see James i. 1). It is not likely he would have suppressed the name of highest honour and authority, had he possessed a claim to it.

It is true that much has been said on the other side. Thus it is argued that Gal. i. 19 proves that "the Lord's brother" was an Apostle. Not so; for the Greek conjunction translated "save," does not necessarily refer to what precedes. Thus in Rev. xxi. 17 (translated "but ") it cannot so refer. The verse in Galatians may mean, "I saw none of the Apostles. I only saw James, the Lord's brother." In 1 Cor. xv. 7, James seems to be distinguished from the Twelve.

If, then, we take for granted that James the son of Alphæus was not the Lord's brother, we must conclude that the latter, disbelieving at first in Jesus, was converted by the great sign of the Resurrection. This supposition will fit exactly with what is recorded (see Acts i. 19; 1 Cor. xv. 7). Our Lord appeared first to the Twelve; then to his brother James; then to all those whom He saw to be worthy to bear witness of His name, who are called in a general sense "Apostles."

The very fact that St. James resisted the truth so long is probably a sign of his firm and solid character. When a place was left vacant in the number of the Twelve, by the death of his namesake, the son of Zebedee, he tacitly, and without any form of election, seems to have passed into the vacant place, and to have been made Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles. Their commission was universal; but he, having received none from Christ, might well receive this office. Add to this, that the Jewish Christians, accustomed to the traditions of their fathers, would naturally prefer to be ruled by a relative of Our Lord according to the flesh. In the same way, afterwards, they had another Bishop, Symeon, who is also said to have been one of our Lord's brethren. It would seem that the election of James to the presidency of the mother church followed close upon the martyrdom of James the Great; for when St. Peter was delivered from prison, he sent news to "James and the brethren" (Acts xii. 17). At the Council of Jerusalem James gathers the opinions of the assembly, and gives judgment (Acts xv. 13). St. Paul, on his arrival at Jerusalem, first visits James; and he places him in the rank of the very chiefest Apostles (Gal. ii. 19). We have further accounts of St. James than those contained in Scripture, in the works of some very early Church historians, as well as in Josephus. The accounts are evidently not all perfectly accurate; but in the main are undoubtedly true.

We gather, then, that James of Jerusalem was most strict of life, keeping the Nazarite rule, drinking no wine, nor strong drink, nor eating animal food. That he was regarded in Jerusalem, not only by Christians, but by the Jews themselves with the deepest veneration. The people vied with each other in their attempts to touch the hem of his garment, and believed him able to call down rain from Heaven. He was known universally as " James the Just." He was admitted into the Holy Place of the Temple, and there was commonly found upon his knees, praying for forgiveness for the people. It is plain that this man was, by the Providence of God, excellently fitted for the work of converting the Jews. Here, as evermore, Wisdom is justified of her children." But in his case, as in that of too many of the Jewish prophets and holy men, his

66

sanctity did not preserve him from death at his countrymen's hands. The narratives of Josephus and of the Church historians are not quite alike, but agree in the main. It is said that before the Feast of the Passover, the Scribes and Pharisees came to him, and besought him that he would address the people, and turn them away from believing in Jesus: "We beseech thee, restrain the people, for they have gone astray after Jesus, as though he were the Christ. Therefore, persuade all who come to the Passover; for to thee we all give heed, for we and all the people testify that thou art just, and regardest not the persons of men. Do thou, therefore, persuade the multitude not to be deceived concerning Jesus." They then placed him on a pinnacle of the Temple, that he might address the assembled multitude. Thereupon he cried with a loud voice, "Jesus, the Son of Man, sits in Heaven on the right hand of power, and He will come in the clouds of Heaven." They rushed on him, crying, “The Just one also is deceived,” and threw him down. An attempt was made by some of the Rechabites to save him, but in vain; and the life that remained was taken away with a fuller's club. The act was regarded by the Jewish historian himself as the crowning act of Jewish wickedness. Vespasian immediately began the siege. All this history the good providence of God has seen fit to exclude from the Scripture. Peculiarities which doubtless had their use in the Jewish community, are nothing to us. As he comes down to us in his writings, these merely human characteristics disappear. They are purged away, and nothing is left but the pure inspired Word which the Holy Ghost had committed to him.

According to the oldest arrangement of the New Testament, this stands first in order amongst the Epistles. And some divines (Alford, Stanley, Neander, &c.) suppose that this is its position as regards chronology; that it is indeed the first writing of the New Testament, prior to the Gospel of St. Matthew. Its object seems not so much to teach doctrine as morality. The belief in Jesus Christ is regarded not in its future results, but as the completion of the Jewish covenant. No allusion is made to the admission of the Gentiles into this covenant.* The Epistle is distinctly addressed to the twelve tribes. The meeting in the synagogue is even spoken of (James ii. 2. E. V. " assembly ").

The opening words of the Epistle claim careful attention,-"To the twelve tribes which are [literally] in the dispersion."

We know that the Jews were scattered all over the world; in some of the great commercial cities they are said to have constituted a third of the inhabitants. It was the policy both of Assyria and Rome to transplant large bodies of men whom they had conquered. Consequently there was the "dispersion of the East," Jews, who, from necessity or choice, had remained in the districts whither the Assyrians had removed them, and the "dispersion of the West" (cf. John vii. 35, and see Acts ii. 9-11,-those persons are all Jews who had come up to celebrate the feast of Pentecost).

The Apostle addresses himself to the twelve tribes. Some, no doubt, from every tribe had returned; those like Anna, to whom the hope of Israel was

This has led to the supposition that the Epistle was written before the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv.).

dear (Luke ii. 36). But it is not on this account that St. James speaks of the twelve tribes. He contemplates them in their ideal completeness and unity (cf. Matt. xix. 28). He looks on all Jews everywhere as partakers of the covenant which God made with Abraham, and, as Bishop of Jerusalem, regards them as members of the flock which Christ had committed to his care. He bids those who had been united in their love for their mother city Jerusalem now turn to Jesus, the hope and glory of Israel. And we may trace in the Epistle his sure knowledge that he will be obediently and reverently heard by them. For the last time the voice is heard from Jerusalem of a prophet of God. The whole matter and spirit of the Epistle reminds us of the writers of the Old Testament. If we ask, "Is the Apostle addressing believers or unbelievers in Christ?" the answer must be, "Neither exclusively." The name of Jesus is used most sparingly. The tone is that of John the Baptist, of a preacher of righteousness, rather than of Christian doctrine. His teaching is well calculated to affect those who had no knowledge of Christ at all. But yet it is evident that he is also addressing himself to Jewish Christians in particular; that there are words of which they only would feel the forcewords partly of rebuke, partly of comfort. It is plain that the Jewish Christians, not being as yet penetrated perfectly with Christ's spirit, had brought with them much of the old man; many of the sins which belonged to them in their former state. They were fond of being teachers; desirous of being called Rabbi (cf. Matt. xxiii. 15; Rom. ii. 17-20). St. James accordingly warns them against this spirit of Rabbinism (iii. 1).

Another characteristic sin of the Jews, closely connected with the preceding, was that of being ready to glory in the knowledge of the One God, because it made them superior to the rest of men, without seeking to let this knowledge sanctify their hearts. For this self-same thing they had been sternly rebuked by John the Baptist, and by Christ (Matt. iii. 9, 10, xxiii. 15-27). St. James indicates that they have brought the same spirit with them into their new state; that, whereas they had formerly gloried in the mere possession of the Law of Moses, they want now to substitute a dead knowledge of the Gospel for the living practice of it. This is what he is rebuking in the famous passage about faith and works (ii. 14-26). It is not, as some say, intended as a corrective of St. Paul. As has been already said, probably St. Paul had not yet written. If he had, it was all but impossible that the Jewish Christians would see his Epistles; and if they had, they would have regarded them with dislike. Faith, with St. James, is the Christian religion-Christian doctrine. In St. Paul it signifies personal belief; the Christian's trust in God's promises. The Jews were now glorying that they had “the Faith "the Christian revelation. They were right thus far. But they did not obey its commands: they were contented with receiving the facts into their understanding, without suffering them to kindle their hearts into love or holiness. This is the faith which St. James says will not profit. The devils have that. They are orthodox enough in doctrine, but are no better for it.

Again, it would appear that some Christian converts brought into the Church some of that fierce, fiery, carnal zeal, which was at this period burning in all Jewish hearts against their Roman oppressors,-prelude of the great final revolt which was drawing near. They sought other freedom than that which was

D

bestowed by the meek and gentle Son of Man (iv. 1). We read in Josephus of the fanaticism which led the later Jews into atrocious and cold-blooded crimes. St. James warns his disciples that" the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God."

We may learn also, not only from the Jewish historian, but from the words of Our Lord (Matt. xxiii., &c.), the hollowness and falsehood of Jewish ethics; the Bishop repeats earnestly the Lord's teaching-oftentimes his very words -as to the control of the tongue, the danger of hypocrisy, the absolute necessity of truthfulness, kindness, and consideration for the poor.

But the Epistle is not entirely admonition and rebuke. It speaks also tenderness and comfort. The believers were suffering much from the cruel persecutions of their unbelieving brethren, Let them possess their souls in patience; the day of the Lord was at hand, when the wicked should be cast down for ever, and the meek should inherit the earth. He rises by the greatness of his subject into the grandeur and sublimity of one of the Old Testament prophets (v. 1-6). Indeed, it has been well said that Hebrew prophecy closes with the solemn words of St. James.*

This Epistle is one of those the genuineness of which has at different times been called in question. The reason appears to have been, that it was little quoted by early writers. However, it approved itself more and more strongly as years went on, and was unanimously admitted into the Canon, at the Council of Laodicea, when the Canon was finally settled. Luther was led unadvisedly into speaking a hasty word against it, on the ground that there was so little about Christ in it. But it is just to him to remember in what a strong conflict he was engaged when he rashly spoke. It was in the earnestness of his first love for that great truth which God raised him up to bring forth out of forgetfulness into light. He could bear nothing which seemed to militate against it. Later in life he modified his opinion, though probably he never did the Book justice.† He does not carry the Lutheran Church with him in his dislike of it. It is now universally received, except by a few sceptics, who question everything.

DIFFERS from all the others in one striking characteristic. It nowhere names its author. It is entitled in our English Bibles, "the Epistle of St. Paul; but this has been questioned from the earliest times until the present. In reviewing the history of its place in the Canon, we must follow two separate streams of opinion: those of the Eastern or Greek, and of the Western or * Dr. Wordsworth's Introduction to St. James. See Hare's Vindication of Luther, p. 215.