ANALYSIS

The subject of the Epistle: CHRISTIANITY AS THE FINAL RELIGION. The contrast of the Old Revelation and the New in method, time, and messengers; the divine personality and incarnation of the Son (i. 1-4).

A. The superiority of the Son, the Mediator of the New Revelation, to the angels, and to the human founders of the Jewish polity: i. 5-iv. 13.

a. Scripture shows the Son to be above the angels (i. 5-14).

b. The danger of rejecting the Son's revelation (ii. 1-4).

c. The Son of Man through suffering fulfils the high destiny of mankind (ii. 5-18).

d. The dignity of Jesus is far above that of Moses, He is the Maker and Son, Moses represents the house in which he is a servant (iii. 1-6).

e. Faith is necessary if we would enter the promised land of rest (iii. 7-19).

f. Encouragement as well as warning can be based on the failure of the Israelites. Under Joshua they did not reach their rest. The promise of it remains for us (iv. 1-13).

{218}

B. The high-priesthood of Christ, superior to that of Aaron's line, universal and royal: iv. 14-vii. 28.

a. Transition to the doctrine of Christ's high priesthood (iv. 14-16).

b. The characteristics of a high priest, human sympathy and divine appointment, fulfilled in Christ (v. 1-10).

c. A digression to urge the readers to advance; the writer's hope for the Hebrews, God's blessing is assured (v. 11-vi. 20).

d. The characteristics of Christ, as perfect and universal High Priest, shadowed forth by Melchizedek (vii.).

C. The liturgy and sanctuary of Christ superior to those of Judaism: viii. i-x. 18.

a. Christ offers sacrifice in heaven (viii. 1-6).

b. Thus He maintains the New Covenant between God and man promised in the Old Testament (viii. 7-13).

c. The sanctuary and priests of the Old Covenant (ix. 1-10).

d. Fuller explanation of the atoning work of Christ under the New Covenant (ix. 11-28).

e. The inadequacy of the old sacrifices, the abiding efficacy of Christ's one sacrifice (x. 1-18).

D. The appropriation and application of the above truths: x. 19-xiii. 25.

a. The privilege of entering the holy place with confidence, the duty of public worship (x. 19-39).

b. The past triumphs of heroes of the faith (xi.).

c. Exhortation to energy, endurance, fidelity to our Mount Zion and its divine utterances (xii.).

d. Detailed instructions (xiii.).

[1] Eusebius, H. E. v. 26, says that Irenaeus "mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, comparing certain expressions from them." Eusebius does not say that Irenaeus attributed it to St. Paul. We can compare words in Heb. i. 1 with Wisd. vii. 22; Heb. i. 3 with Wisd. xvi. 21; Heb. xii. 17 with Wisd. xii. 10; Heb. xiii. 7 with Wisd. ii. 17.

[2] Stephen Gobar, in a passage preserved by Photius, Cod. 232.

[3] The word "effulgence" (Heb. i. 3) is a favourite word with Philo. The interpretation of "King of Salem" as "King of peace" (Heb. vii. 2) occurs in Philo, and Heb. xiii. 5 has a quotation from Josh. i. 5 exactly resembling in form a quotation in Philo, De conf. ling., 33.

[4] De Pudic, 20.

{129}

CHAPTER XIX

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES

The New Testament contains seven letters known as "Catholic," viz. that of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, and that of Jude. These letters were added to the Canon of the New Testament later than the rest of its contents. In ancient manuscripts, versions, and catalogues their position in the New Testament varies, and for a long time they were often placed between Acts and St. Paul's Epistles. 1 Peter and 1 John were the first to be universally received. About A.D. 300 all seven were known and received in the Greek Churches, but nearly as late as A.D. 350 the Syrian Church was unacquainted with any of them except James. After this the Syrian Church adopted 1 Peter and 1 John, and finally the whole seven. This fact with regard to the Syrian Church is of peculiar importance. It shows us that we must take care not to argue that an Epistle is probably a forgery because an important Christian community was unacquainted with it at a comparatively late date. For the evidence for the genuineness of 1 Peter and 1 John is even stronger than the evidence for the genuineness of James. Yet at a time when the best Greek critics were entirely satisfied as to the genuineness of 1 Peter and 1 John, the Syrians did not recognize them. The only reasonable explanation of this is the simplest explanation, namely, that some Epistles were translated at a later date than others. Among Syrian writers we find two distinct tendencies. Writers who were entirely at home with Greek literature, and in communion with the orthodox Greek Church, like St. Ephraim or St. John of Damascus, used the same Catholic {220} Epistles as the Christians of Alexandria or Jerusalem. On the other hand, Christians who were cut off by schism from the main body of Christendom continued for centuries to use exactly the same Canon of Scripture as that which had been employed by their ancestors before the schism. Thus Ebed Jesu, Metropolitan of Nisibis, and the last prelate of the Nestorian sect who wrote important works in Syriac, died in A.D. 1318. But we find that he only uses the three Catholic Epistles contained in the Peshitta Syriac version of the New Testament, probably completed soon after A.D. 400.

If we pass from the extreme east to the extreme west of ancient Christendom, we find ourselves confronted with similar but not identical facts. We find that a superior degree of authority was allowed to belong to 1 Peter and 1 John. There can be no doubt that in all the great centres of Christian life outside Syria these two Epistles were in the Canon by the year 200. The Muratorian Fragment, written in Italy about A.D. 180, mentions two Epistles of St. John and that of St. Jude. It contains no mention of 1 Peter, but there are grounds for believing that there was a reference to it in the lost portion which was devoted to Mark. It contains no mention of James, though that Epistle seems to be quoted in the Shepherd of Hermas, written at Rome about A.D. 140. It was long before James was universally regarded as part of the Canon. It is quoted as Scripture by Origen of Alexandria early in the 3rd century, but a hundred years later Eusebius says that it was disputed by a minority. It is accepted by Eusebius himself. The very private character of 2 and 3 John accounts for the slowness with which they won acceptance as part of the word of God, yet 2 John is backed by the high authority of Irenaeus, and both Epistles are obviously the work of the same author. The Second Epistle which bears the name of St. Peter is connected with peculiar difficulties, and possesses less evidence in its favour than any of the other Catholic Epistles.

We cannot do better than quote the admirable words in {221} which Dr. Sanday has sketched the adventures of such books. "An Epistle lodged in the archives of a great and cultured Church like the Church of Rome would be one thing, and an Epistle straying about among the smaller communities of Bithynia or Pontus would be another; while an Epistle written to an individual like the Gaius of 3 St. John would have worse chances still. There were busy, careless, neglectful, and unmethodical people in those days as well as now; and we can easily imagine one of these precious rolls found with glad surprise, covered with dust in some forgotten hiding-place, and brought out to the view of a generation which had learnt to be more careful of its treasures. But even then, once off the main roads, circulation was not rapid; an obscure provincial Church might take some time in making its voice heard, and the authorities at headquarters might receive the reported discovery with suspicion. They might, or they might not, as it happened." [1]

But by degrees the customs of the different Churches were levelled. Before the end of the 4th century all the Catholic Epistles were accepted as canonical in Europe, and in a large part of the Christian world which lay beyond Europe. This leads us to inquire why these Epistles bear the name of Catholic. The answer seems to be that the name Catholic or General was given to the more important of the seven, because they were addressed to the Church Universal, or to groups of Churches, and not to individuals or to single Churches. The words Catholic Epistles therefore signify Circular or Encyclical Letters. Origen gives the name of Catholic to 1 Peter, 1 John, and Jude. By the 4th century the name was applied to all the seven. There can be little doubt that 2 and 3 John are not Catholic in the sense of being Circular or Encyclical. But they were numbered with the others for the sake of convenience, being naturally associated with the first and more important letter by St. John.

{222}

The following table gives an idea of the gradual incorporation of the Catholic Epistles into the Canon. An * denotes a direct quotation or the expression of almost no doubt; a ? notes that the writer is aware of decided doubts, a () marks an uncertain reference.

1 2 J P P 1 2 3 a e e J J J J m t t o o o u e e e h h h d s r r n n n e

I. COUNCILS—
Laodicea, A.D. 363 . . . . . . . * * * * * * *
Rome, A.D. 382 . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * *
Carthage, A.D. 397 . . . . . . . * * * * * * *

II. EASTERN LISTS—
(a) Syria.
Ephraim, A.D. 370 . . . . . * * * * * * *
Chrysostom, A.D. 400 . . . . * * *
Peshitta version, ? A.D. 410 * * *
Junilius, A.D. 550 . . . . . ? * ? * ? ? ?
John of Damascus, A.D. 750 * * * * * * *
Ebed Jesu, A.D. 1300 . . . . * * *
(b) Palestine.
Eusebius, A.D. 330 . . . . . ? * ? * ? ? ?
Cyril, A.D. 348 . . . . . . * * * * * * *
(c) Alexandria.
Clement, A.D. 190 . . . . . * * * *
Origen, A.D. 220 . . . . . . * * ? * ? ? *
Athanasius, A.D. 367 . . . . * * * * * * *
(d) Asia Minor.
Polycarp, A.D. 110 . . . . . * *
Amphilochius, A.D. 380 . . . * * ? * ? ? ?
Gregory Nazianzen, A.D. 380 * * * * * * *

III. WESTERN LISTS—
(a) Italy.
Muratorian, A.D. 180 . . . . * * *
Hippolytus, A.D. 220 . . . . * ( ) *
(b) Gaul.
Irenaeus, A.D. 180 . . . . . * * *
(c) Roman Africa.
Tertullian, A.D. 200 . . . . * * *

[1] Inspiration, p. 368.

{223}

CHAPTER XX

THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES

[Sidenote: The Author]

In the 4th century this Epistle was reckoned among the authentic documents of the apostolic period. It does not seem to have been universally known in the Church at an earlier period. It is not in the Muratorian Fragment. But it is plainly quoted by Irenaeus, though he does not mention the author's name. The same is true with regard to the Shepherd of Hermas, which was written at Rome about A.D. 140. Justin Martyr quotes the words "the devils shudder" (James ii. 19, Trypho, 49). Polycarp seems to quote James i. 27, and 1 Peter seems to show traces of its influence. The first writer who both quotes it and mentions the author is Origen.

It opens with the name of "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." There can be no reasonable doubt that this is James "the Lord's brother." James the son of Zebedee was killed as early as A.D. 44, before which date it is unlikely that the Epistle was written. We have no reason to attribute the Epistle to the Apostle James "the Little." He does not seem to have been of sufficient prominence to write an authoritative letter "to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion." But such an action would have been exceedingly natural on the part of a saint who was bishop of "the mother of Churches," Jerusalem itself. It will be convenient to postpone the consideration of such evidence as we possess for the foregoing conclusion until we have discussed the exact relation of St. James to our Lord.

{224}

Three important theories must be mentioned as offering a solution of the difficult problem as to this relationship—

(a) That James, Joses, Simon, and Jude, mentioned in the Gospels as the "brethren" of our Lord, were His first cousins on His mother's side.

(b) That they were the children of Joseph and Mary.

The theory of St. Jerome (a) may be perhaps discarded without any further comment than that St. Jerome apparently invented it, that he claimed no traditional sanction for it, he did not hold it consistently himself in his later writings, and it is very difficult to reconcile it with Scripture. The theory of Helvidius (b), which called forth St. Jerome's attempted refutation, answers some verbal requirements of the Gospel narrative, and has found some skilful modern advocates. But with the possible exception of Tertullian, no Christian seems to have held it before Helvidius, and the theory that Mary had other children besides Jesus gave a profound shock to Christian sentiment. No argument can be brought against (c), the theory defended, though not originated, by St. Epiphanius, that the brethren of our Lord were children of St. Joseph by a former wife. It is in keeping with the strong tradition which maintained the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin; it helps to explain the attitude of unbelief recorded in the Gospels of Christ's brethren, and at the same time requires no distortion of the literalness of the passages in which they are mentioned. There is hardly sufficient evidence to show that first cousins were ever called "brethren." But it would have been quite natural for those who called St. Joseph "the father of Jesus" to call St. Joseph's sons "the brothers of Jesus." And again, the supposition that the Blessed Virgin had no other son, seems strongly supported by the fact that at the crucifixion our Lord commended her to His beloved disciple, and not to one of St. Joseph's family.

{225}

This theory of St. Epiphanius is much older than the 4th century. It is sometimes urged against it that Origen derived it from the Apocryphal Gospels of the 2nd century, and that its popularity in the Church was owing to Origen's influence. But though the Apocryphal Gospels often contained fictions, we cannot argue that everything in them is fictitious. The tradition agrees with the words of Scripture, and gains support from some fragments of Hegesippus, a cultured Palestinian Christian, born about A.D. 100. He states directly that Symeon, the second bishop of Jerusalem, was the cousin of our Lord, because son of Clopas who was the brother of Joseph. He also calls James "the brother of the Lord," and in another passage speaks of Jude as "called brother" of the Lord. He therefore plainly distinguishes the cousins from the so-called "brethren." We then get the following genealogy:—

We conclude, therefore, that St. James was the son of St. Joseph.

The writer of the Epistle frequently colours his sentences with words from the Old Testament, and assumes a knowledge of it among his readers. He makes no allusion to the Gentiles. He writes in a tone of authority and without any self-advertisement. He briefly uses for illustration certain natural phenomena which would be familiar to the people of Palestine, such as allusions to "the early and latter rain" (v. 7), the effect on vegetation of the burning wind (i. 11), the existence of salt or bitter springs (iii. 11), the cultivation {226} of figs and olives (iii. 12), and the neighbourhood of the sea (i. 6; iii. 4). From such a cursory view of the character of this Epistle, it would seem reasonable to admit that it was written by a Palestinian Jewish Christian for the edification of Christians of the same race and locality.

We get the same impression when we study what is said by the writer about the readers. He speaks as though they had been under a law of bondage, but are now under a law of liberty (i. 25; ii. 12). They are in touch with men who are unbelievers, who blaspheme Christ and persecute Christians (ii. 6, 7). The believers are mostly poor (ii. 5); the few rich who are Christians are in danger of falling away through covetousness and pride (iv. 3-6, 13-16). The rich appear as oppressors, who luxuriously "nourish their hearts in a day of slaughter," and had even "killed the righteous" (v. 5, 6). The Church is ruled by "elders" (v. 14) like the Jewish synagogues, and the Christian "synagogue" is occasionally frequented by rich strangers (ii. 2). All this is well suited to the conditions of Christian life in Palestine. And it is difficult to find any locality equally appropriate. Even as late as the first part of the 2nd century rich Gentiles were reluctant to persecute Christians, and to describe them as blaspheming the name of Christ at any time within or near the apostolic age would be almost impossible. They regarded Christianity with good-natured contempt, not with blasphemous hostility. We have only to read Acts to see that among the Gentiles it was the poor and ignorant rather than the rich who began the persecution of the Christians. On the other hand, if we turn to the Jews, we find that the rich were the leaders of persecution. It was the wealthy Sadducee party in union with the influential Pharisees which harried the Church. The Gospels and Acts give repeated evidence on this point, and the evidence of the Jewish historian Josephus supplies the keystone of that evidence.

Against the Palestinian origin of the Epistle it is urged that {227} the Greek is too correct and rhetorical. The style is vivacious and forcible. It contains many rather unusual Greek words, including six which are neither in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament nor in the rest of the New Testament, a long list of words which are found in the Septuagint and not in the New Testament, and seven rare classical or late Greek words. The whole question of the style of the Epistle requires the most delicate handling. But the style is distinctly unfavourable to the theory that the Epistle was written at a late date in a centre of Gentile Christianity. The Greek is neither the flowing Greek of a Greek, nor the rough provincial Greek which St. Paul spoke and wrote. It is slow and careful, with short sentences linked by repetitions. One epithet is piled effectively on another (e.g. iii. 15, 17), and abstract statements are avoided. Galilee was studded with Greek towns, and in Jerusalem Greek was well known. The Epistle might well have been written by a Jew of Palestine who had made a good use of his opportunities. And the introduction of some rare words in the midst of a simple moral exhortation is by no means a proof of complete mastery over Greek. It points, not to a mastery over the language, but to a painstaking familiarity with it.

These facts seem compatible with the few details which we know about St. James. Their full significance can only be appreciated when we know the difficulties which have beset the commentators who assign to the Epistle a date outside his lifetime.

Before considering the question of the date more minutely, we may collect together some points of interest connected with St. James.

St. James, like the other "brethren" of our Lord, watched the development of our Lord's career, but was unconvinced of the truth of His mission. After the Resurrection, our Lord, St. Paul tells us, "was seen of James." Perhaps this was the turning-point of his life, he, like St. Thomas, "saw and {228} believed." The Gospel according to the Hebrews, one of the oldest of the Apocryphal Gospels, says that our Lord, after His Resurrection, "went to James and appeared to him—for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord, until he saw Him rising from the dead;—and again after a little while. 'Bring hither, saith the Lord, a table and bread.'" . . . "He brought bread, and blessed and brake it, and gave it to James the Just, and said unto him, 'My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man hath risen from the dead.'" There are other versions of the story which make the vow to be taken after the death of Christ. In spite of some absurdities in this Apocryphal Gospel, it is possible that the legend is true, and that the sublime death of the Redeemer began to effect the repentance of His brother. However this may be, before Pentecost, A.D. 29, we find him joined to the Christian community at Jerusalem, where he afterwards attained a foremost position. In Gal. i. we find that St. Paul visited St. James and St. Peter at Jerusalem. In Acts xii. 17 St. Peter, on escaping from prison in A.D. 44, desires that news of his escape should be taken to St. James. In Gal. ii. St. Paul speaks of "James and Cephas and John" as pillars of the Church at Jerusalem. From Acts xv. we find that at this time, A.D. 49, St. James acted as president of the Council which determined how far the Gentile Christians need conform to the customs of the Jews. It is remarkable that the speech of St. James in Acts xv. and the circular despatched from the Council show several coincidences of style with the Epistle. If these coincidences are due to forgery, the forger has certainly used consummate self-restraint and skill.

Again, when St. Paul paid his last visit to Jerusalem, in A.D. 56, and the Jews accused him of advocating the abandonment of the Law of Moses and "the customs," it is St. James and his presbyters who advise him to go up to the Temple and purify himself with four Nazirites, and so reassure the "myriads" of Christian Jews who were zealous for the Law. {229} Once more we cannot help observing how well this anxiety of St. James agrees with the very cautious tone of the Epistle with regard to distinctively Christian doctrine.

The end of St. James is recorded by Hegesippus and by Josephus. Hegesippus represents him living as a strict Nazirite, always frequenting the Temple, with knees as hard as a camel's because of his perpetual prayers.[1] He tells us that St. James was thrown from a pinnacle of the Temple, stoned, and clubbed to death at the order of the scribes and Pharisees for asserting that Jesus was on the right hand of God. From Josephus we learn that his martyrdom took place when a vacancy in the procuratorship caused by the death of Festus (in A.D. 62) gave the Sadducees the opportunity which they desired. He was dragged before the Sanhedrim, condemned and stoned. Josephus also gives us to understand that the more moderate Jews were not in sympathy with such a thoroughly unconstitutional proceeding, and that Agrippa deprived Ananus, the high priest, of his office for invading the rights of the civil power.

[Sidenote: To whom written.]

"The twelve tribes of the Dispersion." We might suppose that the writer had in his mind all the Jews who were dispersed throughout the world, but came to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice when they were able, and who were all bound by the religious obligation to pay the yearly tribute to the temple. There had been several dispersions in the history of the chosen people, to Assyria under Shalmaneser, to Babylon and Egypt in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and to Rome under Pompeius. But ch. ii. 1 shows that the Epistle was written to men who acknowledged Jesus as Lord. It is therefore natural to think that it was written only to men who were both Christians and of Jewish origin. But there is another interpretation of the phrase "the twelve tribes." Some think that it is merely a symbolical name for the Christian Church composed both of Jews and Gentiles, and {230} forming the new and spiritual Israel. Strong arguments have been brought forward in favour of each of these views, but the former seems to be the sounder. The argument that the Jews at this period could not have been called "twelve" tribes when only two had returned from the captivity, is disproved by the fact that the phrase is unquestionably used in this meaning in Acts xxvi. 7. We must frankly admit that St. Paul speaks of the Gentile Christians as forming part of the new Israel of God, but he never alludes to them as part of twelve tribes. In Rev. vii. the twelve tribes still mean Christian Jews in contrast with the "great multitude" of redeemed Gentiles. Justin Martyr speaks of "your twelve tribes" in addressing Trypho[2] the Jew, and several instances are to be found in early Christian literature where the words are used in this literal sense.

We may therefore rest content with this literal meaning. But we must maintain it with reserve in view of the fact that St. Peter applies the word "dispersion" to the new and ideal Israel. And we must beware of arguing that the word "synagogue" (ii. 2) proves that the readers were necessarily Jews. The word "synagogue" was for a long time occasionally applied to the Gentile Christian congregations, as we find in the Shepherd of Hermas[3] (A.D. 140) and Theophilus[4] (A.D. 180).

[Sidenote: When and where written.]

We have already seen that Palestine is the most likely place, and as St. James lived at Jerusalem, the Epistle was probably written there. The date has always been a hopeless problem to those who reject the authenticity of the Epistle. That it was written by a heretic in Palestine about A.D. 70, or by a Catholic at Rome about A.D. 90, or that it represents a "Catholicized Paulinism" of A.D. 140, or that it is a patchwork of homilies written soon after A.D. 120, are guesses which have been made but not substantiated. The fact that it was written before A.D. 62 is {231} self-evident if we admit that it was written by St. James. But it is also corroborated by the fact that 1 Peter, written about A.D. 64, seems to show a knowledge of this Epistle. Far more complicated is the question as to whether St. James shows any knowledge of St. Paul's Epistles. He insists so pointedly on the need of being justified by works that some writers have thought that he is attacking St. Paul's doctrine of justification by faith. The idea must be dismissed. Such a masterly writer would not have attacked what an apostle did not really hold. St. James, in attacking a theory of justification by faith, is condemning a faith which means only orthodox intellectual assent. St. Paul, in defending his doctrine of justification by faith, is upholding a faith which implies energetic and loving service. The two doctrines simply supplement one another. When Luther called the Epistle to the Galatians his "wife" and called the Epistle of St. James an "Epistle of straw," he simply showed that he understood neither. St. James is not only not criticizing St. Paul; he is perhaps not even criticizing a popular perversion of St. Paul's doctrine. The question of the justification of Abraham was a favourite subject of discussion among the Jews, and the teaching of our Lord had shown the superiority of a living faith over dead works. There is no difficulty in supposing that some Jewish believers were confused with regard to these great matters before they had read a word of St. Paul's letters. And to such men the Epistle of St. James might be of the highest value.

In spite of this, there often seems to be a verbal connection between this Epistle and those of St. Paul. The connection is admitted by critics of the most different schools. Moreover, some are of opinion that there is a connection between James and the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. xi. These connections have been exaggerated, but they are hard to deny. Now, if St. James had borrowed from any of these Epistles, it would be very difficult for us to account for the extreme simplicity of his {232} doctrine. On the other hand, there is no difficulty in the fact that they put his words in a more elaborate setting. And as St. Paul's opponents declared that they were backed by St. James, we may be sure that St. Paul would eagerly read anything written by St. James. We may therefore place this Epistle earlier than St. Paul's Epistles to Corinth and Rome, and perhaps earlier than any of his extant Epistles.

It is sometimes objected to this that it is "grotesque" to suppose that St. James would have originated the practice of writing religious Epistles. It is said that the practice must have been begun by an apostle of supreme originality, and one who travelled widely, therefore by St. Paul. But we have no means of deciding the question. And as St. Paul may have written Epistles before he wrote those now extant, we may still hold that St. Paul began the practice, and that this Epistle is nevertheless older than the works of St. Paul which we now possess. We can, therefore, see no good reason for denying that this Epistle is as early as A.D. 50.

[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]

The Epistle is intensely practical, and though it is in no sense anti-doctrinal, it does not discuss doctrine. The evils against which it contends all concern conduct. The good which it recommends is persistent well-doing in accordance with the new moral law of Christianity. The sole validity of the law of love (ii. 8), the gift of a new birth by the word of truth, making us heirs of God (i. 18; ii. 5), the mention of the author's servitude to Christ (i. 1), and the ascription of divine power to His name (v. 14), show conclusively that the writing is not, as some say, of Jewish origin. The tone is austere, and the Epistle contains no word of praise for the readers.

A strong argument in favour of the genuineness of the Epistle is furnished by the numerous parallels which it presents to the Synoptic Gospels. These parallels are not quotations from the Gospels, but they show that the writer was saturated with the kind of teaching which the Gospels record. The {233} connection with the Sermon on the Mount as recorded by St. Matthew is particularly plain. Among the numerous proofs of this connection we must content ourselves with noticing the agreement as to the spiritual view of the Law (Jas. i. 25; ii. 8, 12, 13; Matt. v. 17-44), the blessings of adversity (Jas. i. 2, 13; ii. 5; v. 7, 8; Matt. v. 3-12), the dangers of wealth (Jas. i. 10, 11; ii. 6, 7; iv. 13-16; v. 1-6; Matt. vi. 19-21, 24-34), the true nature of prayer (Jas. i. 5-8; iv. 3; v. 13-18; Matt. vi. 6-13), the necessity of forgiving others (Jas. ii. 13; Matt. vi. 14, 15), the tree known by its fruits (Jas. iii. 11, 12; Matt. vii. 16-20), the prohibition of oaths (Jas. v. 12; Matt. v. 34-37), the Judge before the door (Jas. v. 9; Matt. xxiv. 33). Many other coincidences can be found. The "perfect law" upheld by St. James, a law both "free" and "royal," irresistibly reminds us of the legislation of the Messianic King in our first Gospel.

In v. 14-16 we have a direction given with regard to the anointing of the sick by the presbyters of the Church. This rite, perverted by the Gnostics in the 2nd century, survived that perversion. The first full directions for it in a Catholic document are in the prayers of Bishop Sarapion of Thmuis in Egypt, about A.D. 350. In the Eastern Church the oil used for this purpose may be consecrated by presbyters, contrary to the usual practice of the West, which requires it to be consecrated by a bishop.

{234}