period of the first spread of Christianity in Syria, Cilicia, and the adjacent regions.'

These churches consisted for the most part of the poor,' (though some individuals among them were rich,) and they were in various ways oppressed by the wealthy and influential Jews. Certainly these churches were so constituted, that, in many cases, their Christianity consisted only in the acknow

and in my earlier occasional writings. See his essays on this subject in Steudel's Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1829, and in the Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1830, part ii.

1 An allusion to the use of the name xpiσriavol has been erroneously supposed in James ii. 7, and hence an attempt to fix the date of the epistle. By kaλòv ovoμa we may most properly understand the name of Jesus, and this is the simplest explanation, since the words will be most naturally applied to the invocation of the name of Jesus as the Messiah, to whom believers were consecrated at baptism, the baptism εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. See Schneckenburger's Commentary on the passage.

2 According to the views brought forward by Kern, the author of this epistle, in an Ebionitish manner, marked the genuine Christians, that is in his opinion the Jewish Christians, as the poor, and the Gentile Christians as the rich, whom he would not acknowledge to be genuine Christians. But the condition of the Christian churches among the Gentiles generally in this first age, certainly will not allow us to suppose, that it would occur to any one, to impose this name upon them, and in every point of view this supposition appears to be entirely unsound.

3 James i. 10.

4 The passage in James ii. 7, is referred most naturally to the blas pheming of Jesus by the enemies of Christianity, although the preceding context relates not to religious persecutions, but to oppressions and extortions of a different kind. Compare v. 4. It is by no means evident, that by the rich in this epistle we are always to understand members of the Christian community. The author may refer partly to the rich among the Jews, who were averse from Christianity, partly to the rich among the Christians, who formed a very small minority. From the contrast in i. 9, 10, it by no means follows that by the rich in the latter verse only Christians are intended. By those of low degree who were to rejoice in being exalted, he could indeed mean only Christians; but among the rich, he might include those wealthy Jews, who by their entire devotedness to earthly objects were prevented from becoming Christians. It was the duty of these persons to learn the nothingness of earthly possessions, which they had hitherto made their highest good, to humble themselves, and in this self-humiliation to find their true glory; for with the nothingness of earthly things they would learn the truly highest good,-the true dignity or elevation which was imparted by the Messiah. In this manner they were required to

become Christians.

ledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, and of his peculiar moral precepts, which they considered as the perfecting of the law. Since they were far from recognising and appropriating the real essence of Christianity, they resembled the great mass of the Jewish nation, in the predominance of a carnal mind, and the prevalence of worldly lusts, contention, and slander. Accordingly, we must either assume that Christianity among them was still novel, and had not yet penetrated the life, as from the beginning (see above, p. 21), there were many among the Jews, who, carried away by the impression which the extraordinary operations of the apostles had made upon them, and attracted by the hope that Jesus would soon return, and establish his kingdom on earth, the happiness of which they depicted agreeably to their own inclinations, in such a state of mind and with such expectations, made a profession of Christianity, without having experienced any essential change of character--or we must suppose, that these churches had sunk into a state of degeneracy from a higher standing-point of the Christian life. In the constitution of these churches there was this peculiarity, that as the direction of the office of teaching had not been committed to the presbyters, but only the outward management of church affairs, many members of the community came forward as teachers, while no one acted officially in that capacity; (see above, pp. 35-141.) Hence James deemed it needful to admonish them, that too many ought not to obtrude themselves as teachers; that none ought inconsiderately to speak in their public meetings, but that each should recollect the responsibility he incurred by such a procedure; James i. 19; iii. 1, 2.

As to the doctrine of James and the mode of its exhibition in this epistle, we find nothing whatever which stands in contradiction to the more fully developed doctrine of the New Testament, as we shall show when we come to treat of doctrine; and the Christian ideas actually presented in this epistle are evidently in unison with the whole extent of Christian truth. But the contents of the Christian system are not exhibited separately in all their details; what is purely Christian is more insulated; the references to Christ are not so predominant and all-penetrating as in the other epistles. References to the Old Testament, though placed in connexion with the Christian standing-point, are most frequent. For the explanation of this phenomenon, to allege the pecu

liar standing-point of the persons addressed is not sufficient, for a Paul, a John, or a Peter would certainly have written to them in a very different strain; we must rather seek the explanation in the peculiar character of the writer himself. We might hence infer (with Schneckenburger) that James wrote this epistle at a time when Christianity had not thoroughly penetrated his spiritual life, during the earliest period of his Christian development; but it may be questioned whether we are justified in drawing such a conclusion, for no proof can be given that he enlarged his doctrinal views at a later period. It is possible that he remained confined in this form of imperfect doctrinal development, although his heart was penetrated by love to God and Jesus. He still maintained the character which belonged to him on his original standing-point as a teacher of the Jews, as the guide of his countrymen in passing over from the Old to the New Testament. True it is, that much would have been wanting to the church for the completeness of Christian knowledge, if the statement of Christian doctrine by James had not found its complement in the representations of the other apostles; but in this connexion it forms an important contribution to the entire conception and development of Christian truth, and furnishes all that can be expected from such a standing-point.

It was exactly this form of doctrine that secured for James a long and undisturbed ministration among the Jews, and many were led by his influence to faith in Christ; but this excited so much the more the hatred of the basest among the party-leaders of the Jewish people, who sought for an opportunity to sacrifice him to their rage. One of the most impetuous among them, the high priest Ananus, who was disposed to all the violent acts of party hatred, availed himself for this purpose of the interval between the departure of the Roman procurator Felix, and the arrival of his successor Albinus, about the year 62. He caused James with some other Christians to be condemned to death by the Sanhedrim as a violator of the law; and in conformity with that sentence he was stoned.' But the better disposed among

1 We here follow the account of Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9, which certainly is more credible than the legendary narrative of Hegesippus in Eusebius ii. 23. How can it be supposed that the heads of the Pharisaic party would have been foolish enough to demand of James, and to suppose it possible that he would bear a public testimony against Christianity? Nor can I be induced by what Credner has said in his

the Jews were greatly dissatisfied with this proceeding, and Ananus, on account of it, was accused to the new governor, for which there was sufficient reason, as he had manifestly exceeded the limits of the power guaranteed to the Jewish Sanhedrim by the Roman law. See above, p. 55.

Einleitung, &c. p. 581, in which Rothe and Kern (see his Commentary on the Epistle of James, published in 1838, p. 341) agree with him, to give up the opinion I have here expressed. It would place the question on a different footing, if the interpretation of the passage in Josephus could be really proved. In that case, we must admit, that although the history of the martyrdom of James was garnished after an Ebionitish legend, yet the historical truth is to be discerned lying at its basis. But this interpretation does not appear to me proved. The words of Josephus, xx. c 9, § 1, in which we include in brackets what is considered suspicious by Credner and others, are as follows; (he is here speaking of the high priest Ananus) :-Καθίζει συνέδριον κριτῶν καὶ παραγαγὼν εἰς αὐτὸ [τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, καί] τινας [ἑτέρους] ὡς παρανομησάντων κατηγορίαν ποιησά μενος παρέδωκε λευσθησομένους· ὅσοι δὲ ἐδοκοῦν ἐπιεικέστατοι τῶν κατὰ τὴν πόλιν εἶναι, καὶ τὰ περὶ τοὺς νόμους ἀκριβεῖς, βαρέως ἤνεγκαν T TOUT. Credner considers the clauses I have marked as the interpretation of a Christian, because Josephus as a Jew would not have so emphatically prefixed the epithet ådeλpòv, &c., but rather have placed first the proper name, and because he must rather have called Jesus Tov dikalov, and not left his readers in almost total darkness as to the meaning of that very general epithet. But since James was best known by that appellation, which gave him the greatest importance whether in a good or bad sense, according to the standing-points of those who employed it, since Jesus who was considered to be the Christ might be presumed to be known under that title, both among Gentile and Jewish readers, we have reason for thinking, that the person of the brother of Jesus first presented itself to Josephus, and he mentioned this before adding the designation of the proper name. When those persons are mentioned who had been accused as violaters of the law, and whose condemnation had been blamed by the most devout of the Jewish nation, this would certainly lead us to think of the Christians who strictly observed the Mosaic law, and above all, we should refer this to James. When Christians were persecuted as Christians, or as opponents of the prevalent corruptions, the persecution would especially affect James, who had the greatest influence among the Jews, and was the firmest pillar of the Christian community. It is therefore in itself probable, that the persecution excited by the high priest would fall particularly on James. And if a Christian had interpolated this passage, he would hardly have satisfied himself with only foisting in these words, as a comparison with the interpolation of other passages, which relate to Jesus himself, will convince us still more. In reference to the incredibility of such traditions as those of Hegesippus respecting the martyrdom of James, a comparison with the tales reported by Papias about the death of Judas Iscariot will serve for a proof. Perhaps the image of the martyrdom of Stephen suggested to the Ebionites their method of forming the account of the martyrdom of James.

CHAPTER II.

THE APOSTLE PETER.

FROM James we now proceed to the apostle Peter, who, as appears from the course of historical development already traced, forms a connecting link between the two most widelydiffering spheres of action and tendencies of Paul and James. We must here take a brief survey of his situation and character in early life.

Simon was the son of Jonas, a fisherman in the town of Bethsaida, on the western shore of the Sea of Gennesareth in Galilee. The interest universally excited in this region respecting the appearance of the Messiah, which seized with peculiar force the ardent minds of the young, led him, among others, to that divinely enlightened man John the Baptist, who was called to prepare the way for that event. His brother Andrew, who had first recognised the Messiah in Jesus, imparted to him the glorious discovery. When the Lord saw him, he perceived, with his divinely-human look, what was in him, and gave him the surname of Cephas, Peter, the Rock. These surnames, like others which Christ gave his disciples, may be taken in a twofold point of view. The principal point of view which, without doubt, the Redeemer had in the imposition of this name, related to what Simon would become in and for the service of the gospel. But as the influences of transforming grace, always attaching themselves to the constitutional character of an individual, purify and ennoble it, so in this instance, what Peter became by the power of the divine life, was in a measure determined by his natural peculiarities. A capacity for action, rapid in its movements, seizing with a firm grasp on its object, and carrying on his designs with ardour, was his leading characteristic, by which he effected so much in the service of the gospel. But the fire of his powerful nature needed first to be transformed by the flame of divine love, and to be refined from the impurity of selfishness, to render him undaunted in the publication of the gospel. By the natural constitution of his mind, he was indeed disposed to surrender himself at the moment entirely