But as to the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, whether correctly or incorrectly understood and applied, we cannot suppose its influence to be possible in churches of this class, and hence argumentation against it from the standingpoint of James is utterly inconceivable.' As the superscription and contents of his epistle inform us, it was manifestly addressed only to churches that were composed entirely of Jewish Christians. But such persons were least of all disposed to attach themselves particularly to Paul, and least of all disposed and fitted to agree to the Pauline doctrine, which presented the most direct opposition to their customary mode of thinking. It was precisely from persons of this stamp that the intemperate fanatical outcry was raised against this form of Christian doctrine, as if by depending on grace, men were made secure in sin, or that they were authorized in doing evil that good might come, Rom. iii. 8. In an entirely different quarter, from an Hellenic (gnostic) Antinomianism, which was also Antijudaism, arose at a later period an erroneous, practically destructive appropriation and application of the Pauline doctrine of justification, such as Paul himself thought it needful to guard against by anticipation; Rom. vi. 1; Gal. v. 13. And this later erroneous application of μovaρxin, even while living in vice, had this advantage before idolaters, that it could not perish, but through purifying punishments would at last attain to salvation. See Hom. iii. c. 6. The idea of faith, which, from an entirely different source than from a misunderstanding of Paul, found entrance afterwards among Christians themselves, and to which a Marcion directly opposed the Pauline idea of faith. Against such perversions Paul warned the churches, both by word of mouth and in writing, when he so impressively charged it upon them that their renunciation of heathenism was nugatory, and could not contribute to their participation of the kingdom of God, if they did not renounce their former sinful habits. See Gal. v. 21. The Kevol λóyo, against which he warns the Ephesians, v. 6.

1 Dr. Kern, in his essay on the Origin of the Epistle of James, in the Tubingen Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1835, p. 25, on account of what is here asserted, charges me with a petitio principii; but I cannot perceive with any justice. This charge might be brought home to me if I had assumed, without evidence, that this epistle was addressed to an unmixed church; or if I had passed altogether unnoticed the possible case which Kern considers as the actual (though he has abandoned it lately in the Introduction to his Commentary on this Epistle), that it was forged by a Jewish Christian in James's name, in order to controvert the Pauline doctrinal views which prevailed among the Gentile churches.

the idea of faith, which tended likewise to the injury of prac. tical Christianity, proceeded from an entirely different exposition of this idea than that presented by the one-sided direction of the Jewish spirit. It manifested itself rather as an Oriental Hellenic than as a Jewish spirit; it was not the abstract idea of faith, but a one-sided contemplative or idealising tendency, which deviated from the conception of faith as an animating principle of the will and a practical determination of the life.

From what has been said, therefore, it is impossible to suppose, in an epistle addressed to such churches as these, any reference whatever to the Pauline formula of faith. And even admitting such a reference to exist, yet the notion that it consisted only in combating a misunderstanding of the Pauline doctrine, would be wholly untenable. For how can we suppose that James, if he did not intend to contradict Paul, but to maintain apostolic fellowship with him, and the knowledge of it in the churches,- would not, while combating an erroneous interpretation of the Pauline doctrine, at the same time expressly state the correct interpretation, and guard himself against the appearance of opposition to Paul, especially when an opposition might otherwise be so easily imagined by the Jewish Christians. But if we assumed that the intention of James was really to combat Paul's doctrine, this view would be at variance with what we know from history of the good understanding between the two apostles, and which cannot be set aside by the fact that some of Paul's opponents were those who appealed to the authority of James. See above, p. 115.

Another supposition still remains, that some one forged the Epistle under James's name,' in order to give currency

1 The assertion made by Kern, p. 72 of the essay before quoted, that, according to the principles of that early Christian age, such a literary imposture would be irreproachable, I cannot acknowledge as wellfounded, if expressed without limitation. There was indeed a certain standing-point, on which such a fraus pia, as we must always call it (when a palpable falsehood was made use of to put certain sentiments in circulation,) would be allowed; but that this was a generally approved practice, appears to me an arbitrary assumption. We ought carefully to guard against supposing that to be an universally received principle, which was only the peculiarity of individual mental tendencies. There was a one-sided theoretic, speculative, standing-point, from which lax principles respecting veracity proceeded, as we have

in the church to a belief in an opposition between the two apostles, and this design would well suit the one-sided tendency of a Jewish Christian. But such a person would not only have expressed himself in a more decided manner than that James, of whose reputation he wished to avail himself; but he would have pointed out by name the individual (Paul) against whom he directed his attack, and would have expressed in stronger terms the censure of his doctrine. The subordinate place which in this case the confutation of the Pauline doctrine occupies in relation to the whole of the epistle, certainly does not agree with this hypothesis. Or, if it be said that the author of this epistle, who presented himself under the mask of James, did not belong to the violent Judaizing opponents of Paul, but to a milder, more accommodating party, who only aimed at smoothing down the peculiarities of the Pauline scheme of doctrine, and so modifying it as to bring it nearer the Jewish Christian standingpoint, and for that reason adopted a gentler method, and avoided the mention of Paul's name; in this case, there would still have been a necessity of naming him, and explicitly stating that the writer of the epistle impugned not his doctrine in itself, but only a harsh and overstrained construction of it. And after all, the singular fact would remain unaccounted for, that the main object and design of the writer occupies only a subordinate place in relation to the whole of the epistle.

What has given occasion to all these various suppositions, is the apparent allusion to expressions and illustrations made

remarked in Plato. It was connected with that aristocraticism of antiquity, first overturned by the power of the gospel, which treated the mass of the people as unsusceptible of pure truth in religion, and hence justified the use of falsehood to serve as leading-strings for the Toλλoí. As the reaction of such an earlier standing-point, we find this view in parties of kindred tendencies, such as the Alexandrian Jews, the Gnostics, the Platonising Alexandrian fathers. But from the first, a sounder practical Christian spirit combated this error, as we see in the instances of Justin Martyr, Irenæus, and Tertullian. The antignostic tendency was also zealous for strict veracity. Now a similar practical tendency distinguishes this epistle, in which I cannot find an Ebionitish anti-pauline standing-point. This spirit of strict veracity is shown in what is said respecting swearing. This epistle, indeed, wears aitogether a different character from the Clementines, which show a decided party tendency and party bias.

use of by Paul. But is this allusion really so very evident? Let us recollect that the Pauline phraseology formed itself from Judaism, from the Jewish-Greek diction-that it by no means created new modes of expression,' but often only appropriated the ancient Jewish terms, employed them in new combinations, applied them to new contrasts, and animated them with a new spirit. Thus neither the term δικαιοῦσθαι in reference to God, nor the term πίστις was entirely new; but both these terms and the ideas indicated by them (and indeed, in reference to the first, the same idea the existence of which among the Jews Paul must have assumed in arguing with his Jewish opponents) had been long familiar to the Jews. The example likewise of Abraham as a hero in faith must have been obvious to every Jew, and the example of Rahab (which is adduced only in the Epistle to the Hebrews-an epistle neither composed by Paul nor containing the peculiarly Pauline doctrinal statement of justifying faith), since it proved the benefit of the monotheistic faith to a Gentile of impure life, must have especially commended itself to the Jews who were disposed to extol the importance of faith in Jehovah.2

Since it appears that a reference to the Pauline doctrinal scheme is not indicated in this epistle, that mark is withdrawn by which it has been thought that the late period of its composition could be proved; in order, therefore, to determine this point, we must seek for other marks in the epistle itself. It is remarkable that, according to its superscription, it is addressed only to the Jews of the twelve tribes who lived in the dispersion, and yet it is manifestly addressed to Christians. Yet this may be very well explained if we consider the standing-point of James, such as it is shown to be by the whole of the epistle. He considers

1 On the manner in which Paul employed phrases which were already in use among Jewish theologians, compare Dr. Roeth's work, De Epistola ad Hebræos, p. 121, &c., though I cannot agree with the author in what he attempts to prove; for in the use which Paul makes of an existing form of dogmatic expression, he forms the most decided contrast to the Jewish meaning. But it appears from this, how James, proceeding from the Jewish standing-point, without any reference to the Pauline doctrine, would be led to the choice of such expressions.

2 Thus it appears to me that what Dr. De Wette says in the Studien und Kritiken, 1830, p. 349, in order to point out an intentional opposition of James to Paul, is nullified.

the acknowledgment of the Messiahship of Jesus as essentially belonging to genuine Judaism, believers in Jesus as the only genuine Jews, Christianity as perfected Judaism, by which the rouos had attained its completion. And it is not impossible that, although he addressed himself especially to Christians, he also had in his thoughts the Jewish readers into whose hands the epistle might fall, as Christians lived among the Jews without any marked separation. From the mention of their descent from the twelve tribes, we may infer that these churches consisted purely of Jewish Christians, or that James, who considered himself peculiarly the apostle of the Jews, addressed only the Jewish part of the church. Yet as no notice is taken of the relation of Jewish to Gentile Christians, it is by far the most probable opinion that these churches consisted entirely of the former. Partly from the peculiar standing-point of James, and partly from the peculiar situation of these churches which had retained all the Jewish forms, we may account for the use of the ancient Jewish name ovvaywyn, instead of the peculiar Christian term ÉKKλnTia as the designation of the meeting of the community of believers. Such churches might exist during the later apostolic age in the inland parts of Asia, perhaps in Syria. But if the epistle was addressed to churches in these parts, it appears strange that James, to whom the Aramaic must have been much more familiar than the Greek, (although it was not impossible that he had so far learnt the Greek as to be able to write an epistle in it,) should have made use of the latter language. We must therefore conclude, that this point was determined by a regard to the wants of his readers, and that part of them at least belonged to the Hellenists. This being assumed, we must fix the date of the epistle at a time preceding the separate formation of Gentile Christian churches, before the relation of Gentiles and Jews to one another in the Christian church had been brought under discussion," the

1 Our knowledge of the spread of Christianity at this period, is indeed far too defective to give a decisive opinion with Kern on this point.

2 The view which Dr. Schneckenburger has acutely developed, and defended in his valuable Beiträge zur Einleitung ins Neue Testament, Stuttgart, 1832, and in his Annotatio ad Epistolam Jacobi. He has expressed his agreement respecting the object of the argumentative portion of this epistle, with the views I have developed in this work,