was at a distance from all personal outward communication with him, and learnt to know him first by spiritual communication. James, on the contrary, stood in the closest family relation to the Redeemer, and from the first was present with him during the whole of his earthly development; but it was exactly this circumstance which contributed to his being more slow to recognise in the son of man, the Son of God; and while he clave only to the earthly appearance, he was prevented from penetrating through the shell to the substance. Paul, by a violent crisis, made the transition from the most vehement and unsparing opposition to the gospel, to the most zealous advocacy of it. James gradually advanced from a Judaism of great earnestness and depth, which blended with a faith that constantly became more decisive in Jesus as the Messiah, to Christianity as the glorification and fulfilling of

the law.

There is probably some truth in what is narrated by the Christian historian Hegesippus, that this James led from childhood the life of a Nazarene. If we consider what an impression the appearances at and after the birth of Christ, and the conviction that the first-born son of Mary was destined to be the Messiah-must have left on the minds of his parents, it may be easily explained how they felt themselves compelled to dedicate their first-born son James,' to the service of Jehovah in strict abstinence for the whole of his life. To this also it might be owing, that the freer mode of living which Christ practised with his disciples was less congenial to him; and from his strict, legal, Jewish standing-point he could not comprehend the new spirit which revealed itself in Christ's words; many of these must have appeared to him as "hard James, the son of Alpheus, who was no longer living, as the first nephew. We might also insert a stop after κupíou, and connect deÚTEрor with πрoélevтo; by this construction, mention would be made of only one cousin of the Lord, as the successor of his brother, as the second overseer of the church. But the position of the words is very much against this construction. Certainly, the testimony of Hegesippus must have great weight, on account of his high antiquity, his descent, and his connexion with the Jews of Palestine. But it is undeniable, if we compare the two passages from the Hypotyposeis of Clement, quoted by Eusebius, ii. 1, that he distinguishes James, who bore the surname of the Just, as an apostle in the stricter sense of the word.

1 His being described by the appellation of the son, indicates that he was the eldest.

sayings." Proceeding from the common Jewish standingpoint, he expected that Jesus, if he were the Messiah, would verify himself to be such, in the presence of the people by signs that would compel the universal recognition of his claims, by the establishment of a visible kingdom in earthly glory. By the impression of Christ's ministry he became indeed excited to believe, but the power of early habit and prejudice always counteracted that impression, and he found himself in a state of indecision from which he could not at once free himself. Only half a year before the last sufferings of Christ we find him in this vacillating condition, for John does not in this respect distinguish him from the other brethren of Jesus, with whom this was certainly the case; John vii. 5. But after the ascension of Christ, he appears as a decided and zealous member of the company of disciples; Acts i. 13. We see how important the Saviour deemed it to produce such a faith in him by his honouring him with a special appearance after the resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 7), whether this was occasioned or not, by his having expressed doubts like Thomas.' This James obtained constantly increasing respect in the church at Jerusalem.

Every feature of his character which we can gather from the Acts, from Josephus,2 and from the traditions of Hegesippus in Eusebius,3 well agrees with the image of him presented in the epistle that bears his name. By his strict pious life, which agreed with the Jewish notions of legal piety, he won the universal veneration, not only of the believers among the Jews,

1 The narrative in the Gospel of the Hebrews (see Leben Jesu, p. 720,) is not an authority of sufficient credit to allow of our following it here. It tells us that James, after partaking of the Last Supper with Christ, made a vow that he would not again taste food till he had seen him risen from the dead; that Christ appeared to him as the Risen One, and said, "Now eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from the dead." We must certainly consider how important it was for the wavering-minded James, who, in his epistle, has eo vividly described the unhappiness of such a state (i. 5), to attain to the certainty on this subject, which such an occurrence would give him, and which such a vow led him to expect. But not only is the work of the Jewish Christian, who bestowed so much pains in embellishing the history of James, not a credible source of information in itself, but there is also a palpable contradiction in the chronology of the history of the resurrection between this narrative and Paul's account.

2 Joseph. Archæol. xx. 9.

3 Hist. Eccles. ii. 23.

1

but also of the better disposed among his countrymen generally on this account, he was distinguished by the surname of the Just, P, dikaios; and, if we may credit the account of Hegesippus, he was viewed as one of those men of distinguished and commanding excellence who set themselves against the corruptions of their age, and hence was termed the bulwark of the people. According to the representations of this writer, he must have led a life after the manner of the strictest ascetics among the Jews. The consecration of his childhood had already introduced him to such a mode of life, and we might suppose, that he had already won by it peculiar respect among the Jews, if it were not surprising that no trace can be found of it in the gospels, no marks of special distinction awarded to him by his brethren. At all events, he might afterwards avail himself of this ascetic strictness as a means of attracting the attention of the multitude to his person, and thereby to the doctrine he published. This mode of life considered in itself, provided its value was not rated too high, was by no means unchristian. What Hegesippus narrates of him perfectly suits his character, that he frequently prostrated himself on his knees in the temple, calling upon God to forgive the sins of his people, (probably having a special reference to the forgiveness of their sins against the Messiah,)—that the divine judgments on the unbelievers might be averted, and that they might be led to repentance and faith, and thus to a participation of the kingdom of the glorified Messiah.

But some important doubts may be raised against the credibility of this account of Hegesippus, taken in its full extent. That Ebionite party among whom an ascetic, theosoI hic tendency prevailed, and who circulated apocryphal writings under the name of James, had probably formed an ideal conception of his character in harmony with their own peculiarities, and Hegesippus might mistake the image delineated in their traditions for an historical reality. The Epistle of James by no means bears decided marks of such a tendency, for everything which has been supposed to be of this kind may very properly be referred to the simple Christian renun

Perhaps y or Dy, which comes nearer the phraseology of Hegesippus; unless, which is indeed less probable, we read, with Fuller, Dry, which Hegesippus translates περιοχὴ τοῦ λαοῦ.

ciation of the world, such as has its seat in the disposition. If the Jewish love of gain is here spoken against, if the earthlymindedness of the rich, the homage paid to this class and the contempt of the poor, is condemned, and it is declared that the gospel has found the most ready access to the latter, and exalted them to the highest dignity, yet it by no means follows, that the author of this epistle entirely condemned, like the Ebionites, all possession whatever of earthly goods.

This epistle is especially important, not only for illustrating the character of James, but also for giving us an insight into the state of the Christian churches which were formed from Judaism, and unmixed with Christians of Gentile descent. According to an opinion very generally prevalent from ancient times, we should be led to believe that the peculiar doctrinal system of the apostle Paul had already been formed and disseminated when this epistle was written, and that those churches particularly to whom it was addressed, had been affected by the influence of this Pauline system. The opinion we refer to is, that James in this epistle either combated the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith in and for itself, or a misunderstanding, and an erroneous application of it. And it would not be difficult to support this opinion by many isolated passages in the epistle taken alone, without a reference to their connexion with the whole: for it seems as if the express reference to the Pauline formula of the justification to be obtained by faith alone, and to which works can contribute nothing, could not be mistaken; especially as the same examples of faith as those mentioned by Paul, namely those of Abraham and Sarah, are adduced. But this opinion, though plausible at first sight, if we examine more closely the relation of particular passages to the whole tenor of the epistle, will soon appear untenable. The error in reference to faith which

1 We wish to remark, in passing, that among those who have thought that they have detected a contradiction between James and Paul in the doctrine of justification, is the celebrated patriarch Cyrillus Lucaris, of Constantinople, who was led to the opinion by reading the epistle. It also struck him that the name of Christ is scarcely mentioned above once or twice, and then coldly (anzi del nomo di Jesu Christo a pena fa mentione una o due volte e freddamente); that the mysteries of the incarnation of the Son of God and of redemption are not treated of, but only morality (solo a la moralita attende); see Letter vii. in Lettres Anecdotes de Cyrille Lucar. Amsterdam, 1718, p. 85.

James combats in this epistle, is certainly not one altogether isolated: but it appears as an offset proceeding with many others from the root of one false principle: and this principle is quite distinct from that which would admit of an application, whether correct or incorrect, of the Pauline doctrine. It was the tendency of the Jewish spirit, refusing to acknowledge the life of religion as seated in the disposition, everywhere taking up the mere dead form, the appearance instead of the reality, in religion; this tendency, which substituted a lifeless arrogant acquaintance with the letter for the genuine wisdom inseparable from the divine life—which prided itself in an inoperative knowledge of the law, without paying any attention to the practice of the law-which placed devotion in outward ceremonies, and neglected that devotion which shows itself in works of love-which contented itself with the verbal expression of love, instead of proving it, by works; it was the same tendency of the Jewish mind estranged from the spirit and life of religion, which, as it laid an undue value on the opus operatum of outward religious acts, so also on the opus operatum of a faith in the one Jehovah and in the Messiah, which left the disposition unchanged; and which presumed that by such a faith, the Jew was sufficiently distinguished from the sinful race of the Gentiles, and was justified before God even though the conduct of the life was in contradiction to the requirements of faith. Thus we find here one branch of that practical fundamental error which chiefly prevailed among these Jewish Christians, whom James combats in the whole of the epistle, even where faith is not the immediate subject of discourse. It was the erroneous tendency, which belonged to those that commonly prevailed among the great mass of the Jews, and which had found its way also among those Christians in whose minds the gospel had not effected a complete transformation, but whose Jewish spirit had only connected itself with faith in Jesus as the Messiah.' (See above, p. 21, and my Church History, vol. i. p. 47.)

1 That Jewish mode of thinking which Justin Martyr describes in Dial. c. Tryph. Jud. fol. 370, ed. Colon.-as vues àπátate éavтoùs kal ἄλλοι τινες ὑμῖν ὅμοιοι κατὰ τοῦτο (in this respect Jewish-minded Christians), οἱ λέγουσιν, ὅτι καν ἁμάρτωλοι ὦσι, θεὸν δὲ γινώσκουσιν, οὐ μὴ λογίσηται αὐτοῖς κύριος ἁμαρτίαν. That mode of thinking which is found in the Clementine homilies, according to which, faith in one God (τὸ τῆς μοναρχίας καλὸν) has such great magical power, that the ψυχὴ