{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_47337/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_47337","id":"gutenberg_47337","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47337","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. James -- Commentaries","Bible. Jude -- Commentaries","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Transcriber's Note.\n\nAn advertisement for the Expositor's Bible series has been shifted to\nthe end of the text.\n\nApparent typographical errors have been corrected; inconsistent\nhyphenation has been retained.\n\nSmall capitals have been replaced by full capitals while italics are\nindicated by _underscores_.\n\n\n\n\nTHE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE\n\n EDITED BY THE REV.\n W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.\n _Editor of \"The Expositor\"_\n\n\n\n\n THE GENERAL EPISTLES OF\n ST. JAMES AND ST. JUDE\n\n BY THE REV.\n ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.\n MASTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DURHAM\n FORMERLY FELLOW AND SENIOR TUTOR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD\n\n _SIXTH EDITION_\n\n HODDER AND STOUGHTON\n LONDON MCMVII\n\n _Printed by Hazell, Watson & Vincy, Ld., London and Aylesbury._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n_INTRODUCTORY._\n PAGE\n CHAPTER I.\n THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES 1\n\n_THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES._\n\n CHAPTER II.\n THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES 13\n\n CHAPTER III.\n THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE: JAMES THE BROTHER OF THE LORD 25\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n THE PERSONS ADDRESSED IN THE EPISTLE: THE JEWS OF\n THE DISPERSION 42\n\n CHAPTER V.\n THE RELATION OF THIS EPISTLE TO THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL\n AND OF ST. PETER.--THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.--THE DOCTRINE\n OF JOY IN TEMPTATION 55\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n THE RELATION OF THIS EPISTLE TO THE BOOKS OF ECCLESIASTICUS\n AND OF THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON.--THE VALUE OF THE APOCRYPHA,\n AND THE MISCHIEF OF NEGLECTING IT 68\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n THE EXALTATION OF THE LOWLY, AND THE FADING AWAY\n OF THE RICH.--THE METAPHORS OF ST. JAMES AND THE PARABLES\n OF CHRIST 80\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n THE SOURCE OF TEMPTATIONS, AND THE REALITY OF SIN.--THE\n DIFFICULTIES OF THE DETERMINIST 89\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n THE DELUSION OF HEARING WITHOUT DOING.--THE MIRROR\n OF GOD'S WORD 99\n\n CHAPTER X.\n THE CHRISTOLOGY OF ST. JAMES.--THE PRACTICAL UNBELIEF\n INVOLVED IN SHOWING A WORLDLY RESPECT OF PERSONS\n IN PUBLIC WORSHIP 111\n\n CHAPTER XI.\n THE INIQUITY OF RESPECTING THE RICH AND DESPISING\n THE POOR.--THE SOLIDARITY OF THE DIVINE LAW 124\n\n CHAPTER XII.\n FAITH AND WORKS: THREE VIEWS OF THE RELATION OF THE TEACHING\n OF ST. JAMES TO THE TEACHING OF ST. PAUL.--THE RELATION\n OF LUTHER TO BOTH 135\n\n CHAPTER XIII.\n THE FAITH OF THE DEMONS; THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM;\n AND THE FAITH OF RAHAB THE HARLOT 149\n\n CHAPTER XIV.\n THE HEAVY RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEACHERS.--THE POWERS\n AND PROPENSITIES OF THE TONGUE.--THE SELF-DEFILEMENT\n OF THE RECKLESS TALKER 165\n\n CHAPTER XV.\n THE MORAL CONTRADICTIONS IN THE RECKLESS TALKER 179\n\n CHAPTER XVI.\n THE WISDOM THAT IS FROM BELOW 191\n\n CHAPTER XVII.\n THE WISDOM THAT IS FROM ABOVE 203\n\n CHAPTER XVIII.\n ST. JAMES AND PLATO ON LUSTS AS THE CAUSES OF STRIFE;\n THEIR EFFECT ON PRAYER 214\n\n CHAPTER XIX.\n THE SEDUCTIONS OF THE WORLD, AND THE JEALOUSY OF\n THE DIVINE LOVE 226\n\n CHAPTER XX.\n THE POWER OF SATAN AND ITS LIMITS.--HUMILITY THE\n FOUNDATION OF PENITENCE AND OF HOLINESS 238\n\n CHAPTER XXI.\n SELF-ASSURANCE AND INVASION OF DIVINE PREROGATIVES\n INVOLVED IN THE LOVE OF CENSURING OTHERS 250\n\n CHAPTER XXII.\n SELF-ASSURANCE AND INVASION OF DIVINE PREROGATIVES INVOLVED\n IN PRESUMING UPON OUR FUTURE.--THE DOCTRINE OF PROBABILISM 261\n\n CHAPTER XXIII.\n THE FOLLIES AND INIQUITIES OF THE RICH; THEIR MISERABLE END 274\n\n CHAPTER XXIV.\n PATIENCE IN WAITING.--THE ENDURANCE OF JOB.--THE\n SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MENTION OF JOB BY ST. JAMES 289\n\n CHAPTER XXV.\n THE PROHIBITION OF SWEARING.--THE RELATION OF THE LANGUAGE\n OF ST. JAMES TO RECORDED SAYINGS OF CHRIST 302\n\n CHAPTER XXVI.\n WORSHIP THE BEST OUTLET AND REMEDY FOR EXCITEMENT.--THE\n CONNEXION BETWEEN WORSHIP AND CONDUCT 315\n\n CHAPTER XXVII.\n THE ELDERS OF THE CHURCH.--THE ANOINTING OF THE\n SICK AND EXTREME UNCTION 323\n\n CHAPTER XXVIII.\n THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONFESSION OF SINS.--THE LAWFULNESS\n OF PRAYERS FOR RAIN 335\n\n CHAPTER XXIX.\n THE WORK OF CONVERTING SINNERS; ITS CONDITIONS AND REWARDS 350\n\n_THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF ST JUDE._\n\n CHAPTER XXX.\n THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE 365\n\n CHAPTER XXXI.\n THE PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE.--THE FAITH ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED\n AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 377\n\n CHAPTER XXXII.\n THE PERSONS DENOUNCED IN THE EPISTLE.--ITS RELATION\n TO 2\u00a0PETER 388\n\n CHAPTER XXXIII.\n DOUBTFUL READINGS AND THE THEORY OF VERBAL INSPIRATION--THREE\n PALMARY INSTANCES OF DIVINE VENGEANCE UPON GRIEVOUS SIN 401\n\n CHAPTER XXXIV.\n RAILING AT DIGNITIES.--\"THE ASSUMPTION OF MOSES.\"--ST. JUDE'S\n USE OF APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE 415\n\n CHAPTER XXXV.\n THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO CAIN. THE LIBERTINES\n AT THE LOVE-FEASTS.--THE BOOK OF ENOCH 426\n\n CHAPTER XXXVI.\n THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO BALAAM: THE IMPIOUS\n DISCONTENT AND GREED OF THE LIBERTINES.--THE APOSTOLIC\n WARNING RESPECTING THEM 442\n\n CHAPTER XXXVII.\n THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO KORAH: MAKING\n SEPARATIONS.--EXHORTATIONS TO THE FAITHFUL TO\n BUILD UP THEMSELVES, AND THEN RESCUE OTHERS 450\n\n CHAPTER XXXVIII.\n THE FINAL DOXOLOGY: PRAISE TO GOD, THE PROTECTOR OF\n HIS SERVANTS 463\n\n\nINDEX 471\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n\n _THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES._\n\n\nThis volume is to treat of the General Epistle of St.\u00a0James and the\nGeneral Epistle of St.\u00a0Jude. According to the most common, but not\ninvariable arrangement, they form the first and the last letters in\nthe collection which for fifteen centuries has been known as the\nCatholic Epistles. The epithet \"General,\" which appears in the titles\nof these Epistles in the English versions, is simply the equivalent of\nthe epithet \"Catholic,\" the one word being of Latin (_generalis_), the\nother of Greek (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2) origin. In Latin, however, _e.g._ in the\nVulgate, these letters are not called _Generales_, but _Catholic\u00e6_.\n\nThe meaning of the term Catholic Epistles (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9) has\nbeen disputed, and more than one explanation may be found in\ncommentaries; but the true signification is not really doubtful. It\ncertainly does not mean _orthodox_ or _canonical_; although from the\nsixth century, and possibly earlier, we find these Epistles sometimes\ncalled the Canonical Epistles (_Epistol\u00e6 Canonic\u00e6_), an expression in\nwhich \"canonical\" is evidently meant to be an equivalent for\n\"catholic.\" This use is said to occur first in the _Prologus in\nCanonicas Epistolas_ of the Pseudo-Jerome given by Cassiodorus (_De\nJustit. Divin. Litt._, viii.); and the expression is used by\nCassiodorus himself, whose writings may be placed between A.D. 540 and\n570, the period spent in his monastery at Viviers, after he had\nretired from the conduct of public affairs. The term \"catholic\" is\nused in the sense of \"orthodox\" before this date, but not in connexion\nwith these letters. There seems to be no earlier evidence of the\nopinion, certainly erroneous, that this collection of seven Epistles\nwas called \"Catholic\" in order to mark them as Apostolic and\nauthoritative, in distinction from other letters which were heterodox,\nor at any rate of inferior authority. Five out of the seven letters,\nviz. all but the First Epistle of St. Peter and the First Epistle of\nSt. John, belong to that class of New Testament books which from the\ntime of Eusebius (_H. E._ III. xxv. 4) have been spoken of as\n\"disputed\" (\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1), _i.e._ as being up to the beginning of\nthe fourth century not _universally_ admitted to be canonical.[1] And\nit would have been almost a contradiction in terms if Eusebius had\nfirst called these Epistles \"catholic\" (_H. E._ II. xxiii. 25; VI.\nxiv. 1) in the sense of being universally accepted as authoritative,\nand had then classed them among the \"disputed\" books.\n\nNor is it accurate to say that these letters are called \"catholic\"\nbecause they are addressed to both Jewish and Gentile Christians\nalike, a statement which is not true of all of them, and least of all\nof the Epistle which generally stands first in the series; for the\nEpistle of St. James takes no account of Gentile Christians. Moreover,\nthere are Epistles of St. Paul which are addressed to both Jews and\nGentiles in the Churches to which he writes. So that this explanation\nof the term makes it thoroughly unsuitable for the purpose for which\nit is used, viz. to mark off these seven Epistles from the Epistles of\nSt. Paul. Nevertheless, this interpretation is nearer to the truth\nthan the former one.\n\nThe Epistles are called \"Catholic\" because they are not addressed to\nany particular Church, whether of Thessalonica, or Corinth, or Rome,\nor Galatia, but to the Church universal, or at any rate to a wide\ncircle of readers. This is the earliest Christian use of the term\n\"catholic,\" which was applied to the Church itself before it was\napplied to these or any other writings. \"Wheresoever the bishop shall\nappear, there let the people be,\" says Ignatius to the Church of\nSmyrna (viii.), \"just as where Jesus Christ is, _there is the Catholic\nChurch_\"--the earliest passage in Christian literature in which the\nphrase \"Catholic Church\" occurs. And there can be no doubt as to the\nmeaning of the epithet in this expression. In later times, when\nChristians were oppressed by a consciousness of the slow progress of\nthe Gospel, and by the knowledge that as yet only a fraction of the\nhuman race had accepted it, it became customary to explain \"catholic\"\nas meaning that which embraces and teaches the whole truth, rather\nthan as that which spreads everywhere and covers the whole earth. But\nin the first two or three centuries the feeling was rather one of\njubilation and triumph at the rapidity with which the \"good news\" was\nspreading, and of confidence that \"there is not one single race of\nmen, whether barbarians or Greeks, or whatever they may be called,\nnomads or vagrants, or herdsmen living in tents, among whom prayers\nand giving of thanks are not offered, through the name of the\ncrucified Jesus, to the Father and Creator of all things\" (Justin\nMartyr, _Trypho_, cxviii.); and that as \"the soul is diffused through\nall the members of the body, Christians are scattered through all the\ncities of the world\" (_Epistle to Diognetus_, vi.).[2] Under the\ninfluence of such exultation as this, which was felt to be in harmony\nwith Christ's promise and command (Luke xxiv.\u00a047; Matt. xxviii.\u00a010),\nit was natural to use \"catholic\" of the universal extension of\nChristendom, rather than of the comprehensiveness of the truths of\nChristianity. And this meaning still prevails in the time of\nAugustine, who says that \"the Church is called 'Catholic' in Greek,\nbecause it is diffused throughout the whole world\" (_Epp._ lii.\u00a01);\nalthough the later use, as meaning orthodox, in distinction to\nschismatical or heretical, has already begun; _e.g._ in the Muratorian\nFragment, in which the writer speaks of heretical writing \"which\ncannot be received into the Catholic Church; for wormwood is not\nsuitable for mixing with honey\" (Tregelles, pp. 20, 47; Westcott _On\nthe Canon_, Appendix C, p. 500);[3] and the chapter in Clement of\nAlexandria on the priority of the Catholic Church to all heretical\nassemblies (_Strom._ VII. xvii).\n\nThe four Gospels and the Epistles of St.\u00a0Paul were the Christian\nwritings best known during the first century after the Ascension, and\nuniversally acknowledged as of binding authority[4]; and it was common\nto speak of them as \"the Gospel\" and \"the Apostle,\" much in the same\nway as the Jews spoke of \"the Law\" and \"the Prophets.\" But when a\nthird collection of Christian documents became widely known another\ncollective term was required by which to distinguish it from the\ncollections already familiar, and the feature in these seven Epistles\nwhich seems to have struck the recipients of them most is the absence\nof an address to any local Church. Hence they received the name of\nCatholic, or General, or Universal Epistles. The name was all the more\nnatural because of the number seven, which emphasized the contrast\nbetween these and the Pauline Epistles. St.\u00a0Paul had written to seven\nparticular Churches--Thessalonica, Corinth, Rome, Galatia, Philippi,\nColoss\u00e6, and Ephesus; and here were seven Epistles without any address\nto a particular Church; therefore they might fitly be called\n\"_General_ Epistles.\" Clement of Alexandria uses this term of the\nletter addressed to the Gentile Christians \"in Antioch and Syria and\nCilicia\" (Acts xv.\u00a023) by the Apostles, in the so-called Council of\nJerusalem (_Strom._ IV. xv.); and Origen uses it of the Epistle of\nBarnabas (_Con. Celsum_ I. lxiii.), which is addressed simply to \"sons\nand daughters,\" _i.e._ to Christians generally.\n\nThat this meaning was well understood, even after the misleading title\n\"Canonical Epistles\" had become usual in the West, is shown by the\ninteresting Prologue to these Epistles written by the Venerable Bede,\n_c._ A.D.\u00a0712.[5] This prologue is headed, \"Here begins the Prologue\nto the seven _Canonical_ Epistles,\" and it opens thus: \"James, Peter,\nJohn, and Jude published seven Epistles, to which ecclesiastical\ncustom gives the name of _Catholic_, _i.e._ _universal_.\"\n\nThe name is not strictly accurate, excepting in the cases of 1\u00a0John,\n2\u00a0Peter, and Jude. It is admissible in a qualified sense of 1\u00a0Peter\nand James; but it is altogether inappropriate to 2 and 3\u00a0John, which\nare addressed, not to the Church at large, nor to a group of local\nChurches, but to individuals. But inasmuch as the common title of\nthese letters was not the Epistles \"to the Elect Lady\" and \"to Gaius,\"\nas in the case of the letters to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy, but\nsimply the Second and Third of John, they were regarded as without\naddress, and classed with the Catholic Epistles. And of course it was\nnatural to put them into the same group with the First Epistle of\nSt.\u00a0John, although the name of the group did not suit them. At what\ndate this arrangement was made is not certain; but there is reason for\nbelieving that these seven Epistles were already regarded as one\ncollection in the third century, when Pamphilus, the friend of\nEusebius, was making his famous library at C\u00e6sarea. Euthalius (_c._\nA.D.\u00a0450) published an edition of them, in making which he had\ncollated \"the accurate copies\" in this library; and it is probable\nthat he found the grouping already existing in those copies, and did\nnot make it for himself. Moreover, it is probable that the copies at\nC\u00e6sarea were made by Pamphilus himself; for the summary of the\ncontents of the Acts published under the name of Euthalius is a mere\ncopy of the summary given by Pamphilus, and it became the usual\npractice to place the Catholic Epistles immediately after the Acts.\nIf, then, Euthalius got the summary of the Acts from Pamphilus, he\nprobably got the arrangement from him also, viz. the putting of these\nseven Epistles into one group, and placing them next to the Acts.[6]\n\nThe order which makes the Catholic Epistles follow immediately after\nthe Acts is very ancient, and it is a matter for regret that the\ninfluence of Jerome, acting through the Vulgate, has universally\ndisturbed it in all Western Churches. \"The connexion between these two\nportions (the Acts and the Catholic Epistles), commended by its\nintrinsic appropriateness, is preserved in a large proportion of Greek\nMSS. of all ages, and corresponds to marked affinities of textual\nhistory.\"[7] It is the order followed by Cyril of Jerusalem,\nAthanasius, John of Damascus, the Council of Laodicea, and also by\nCassian. It has been restored by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott\nand Hort; but it is not to be expected that even their powerful\nauthority will avail to re-establish the ancient arrangement.\n\nThe order of the books in the group of the Catholic Epistles is not\nquite constant; but almost always James stands first. In a very few\nauthorities Peter stands first, an arrangement naturally preferred in\nthe West, but not adopted even there, because the authority of the\noriginal order was too strong. A scholiast on the Epistle of James\nstates that this Epistle has been placed before 1\u00a0Peter, \"because it\nis _more catholic_ than that of Peter,\" by which he seems to mean that\nwhereas 1\u00a0Peter is addressed \"to the elect who are sojourners of the\nDispersion\" in certain specified districts, the Epistle of James is\naddressed \"to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion,\" without\nany limitation. The Venerable Bede, in the Prologue to the Catholic\nEpistles quoted above (p. 6), states that James is placed first,\nbecause he undertook to rule the Church of Jerusalem, which was the\nfount and source of that evangelic preaching which has spread\nthroughout the world; or else because he sent his Epistle to the\ntwelve tribes of Israel, who were the first to believe. And Bede calls\nattention to the fact that St.\u00a0Paul himself adopts this order when he\nspeaks of \"James, and Cephas, and John, they who were reputed to be\npillars\" (Gal. ii.\u00a09). It is possible, however, that the order James,\nPeter, John was meant to represent a belief as to the chronological\nprecedence of James to Peter, and Peter to John; Jude being placed\nlast because of its comparative insignificance, and because it was not\nat first universally admitted. The Syriac Version, which admits only\nJames, 1\u00a0Peter, and 1\u00a0John, has the three in this order; and if the\narrangement had its origin in reverence for the first Bishop of\nJerusalem, it is strange that most of the Syriac copies should have a\nheading to the effect that these three Epistles of James, Peter, and\nJohn are by the three who witnessed the Transfiguration. Those who\nmade and those who accepted this comment certainly had no idea of\nreverencing the first Bishop of Jerusalem, for it implies that the\nEpistle of James is by the son of Zebedee and brother of John, who was\nput to death by Herod. But it is probable that this heading is a mere\nblundering conjecture. If persons who believed the Epistle to be\nwritten by James the brother of John had fixed the order, they would\nhave fixed it thus--Peter, James, John, as in Matt. xvii.\u00a01; Mark\nv.\u00a037; ix.\u00a02; xiii.\u00a03; xiv.\u00a033; comp. Matt. xxvi.\u00a037; or Peter, John,\nJames, as in Luke viii.\u00a051; ix.\u00a028; Acts i.\u00a013. But the former\narrangement would be more reasonable than the latter, seeing that John\nwrote so long after the other two. The traditional order harmonizes\nwith two facts which were worth marking--(1) that two of the three\nwere Apostles, and must therefore be placed together; (2) that John\nwrote last, and must therefore be placed last; but whether or no the\nwish to mark these facts determined the order, we have not sufficient\nknowledge to enable us to decide.\n\nHow enormous would have been the loss had the Catholic Epistles been\nexcluded from the canon of the New Testament it is not difficult to\nsee. Whole phases of Christian thought would have been missing. The\nActs and the Epistles of St.\u00a0Paul would have told us of their\nexistence, but would not have shown to us what they were. We should\nhave known that there were serious differences of opinion even among\nthe Apostles themselves, but we should have had a very imperfect\nknowledge as to their nature and reconciliation. We might have guessed\nthat those who had been with Jesus of Nazareth throughout His ministry\nwould not preach Christ in the same way as St.\u00a0Paul, who had never\nseen Him until after the Ascension, but we should not have been sure\nof this; still less could we have seen in what the difference would\nhave consisted; and we should have known very little indeed of the\ndistinctive marks of the three great teachers who \"were reputed to be\npillars\" of the Church. Above all, we should have known sadly little\nof the Mother Church of Jerusalem, and of the teaching of those many\nearly Christians who, while heartily embracing the Gospel of Jesus\nChrist, believed that they were bound to hold fast not only to the\nmorality, but to the discipline of Moses. Thus in many particulars we\nshould have been left to conjecture as to how the continuity in the\nDivine Revelation was maintained; how the Gospel not merely\nsuperseded, but fulfilled, and glorified, and grew out of the Law.\n\nAll this has to a large extent been made plain to us by the providence\nof God in giving to us and preserving for us in the Church the seven\nCatholic Epistles. We see St.\u00a0James and St.\u00a0Jude presenting to us that\nJudaic form of Christianity which was really the complement, although\nwhen exaggerated it became the opposite, of the teaching of St.\u00a0Paul.\nWe see St.\u00a0Peter mediating between the two, and preparing the way for\na better comprehension of both. And then St.\u00a0John lifts us up into a\nhigher and clearer atmosphere, in which the controversy between Jew\nand Gentile has faded away into the dim distance, and the only\nopposition which remains worthy of a Christian's consideration is that\nbetween light and darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hate, God\nand the world, Christ and Antichrist, life and death.\n\n[1] \"Canonical\" (\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2), from canon (\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd, connected with \u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1,\n\"a reed or _cane_,\" \"measuring-rod or ruler\"), is used in both a\npassive and an active sense. A canonical book is primarily one which\nhas been measured and tested, and secondarily that which is itself a\nmeasure or standard. Just as a cane, cut to the length of a\nyard-measure, thenceforth becomes a yard-measure itself, so the\nScriptures were first of all tested as to their authority, and then\nbecame a standard for testing all other teaching; _i.e._ they became\n_canonical_.\n\n[2] Comp. Ignatius, _Magn._ X.; Iren\u00e6us, _H\u00e6r._ I. x.\u00a01, 2; III.\niv.\u00a02; V. xx.\u00a01; Clement of Alexandria, _Strom._ VI., _sub-finem_;\nTertullian, _Apol._ i., xxxvii.; _Adv. Jud\u00e6os_, vii., xii., etc., etc.\n\n[3] It has been remarked that this play upon words (_fel_ and _mel_),\nwhich cannot be reproduced in English, is an argument against the\ntheory of a Greek original.\n\n[4] In the _Codex Sinaiticus_ and some other authorities the Pauline\nEpistles are placed immediately after the Gospels, an arrangement\nwhich probably had its origin in the fact that for many early\nChristians these two groups constituted their New Testament. Among\nversions the Memphitic and the Thebaic have this order.\n\n[5] It is omitted by Giles and other editors, but is given by Cave, in\nhis _Historia Literaria_ (I., p. 475), who says that it comes from an\nancient MS. in the Library of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.\n\n[6] Westcott _On the Canon_, pp. 362, 417, 3rd Ed.\n\n[7] Westcott and Hort, II., p. 321; Scrivener, _Introduction to the\nCriticism of the N.T._ pp. 70, 74, 3rd Ed.\n\n\n\n\n_THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES._\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n\n _THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES._\n\n \"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus\n Christ.\"--JAS. i.\u00a01.\n\n\nThe question of the authenticity of this Epistle resolves itself into\ntwo parts--Is the Epistle the genuine product of a writer of the\nApostolic age? if so, which of the persons of the Apostolic age who\nbore the name of James is the author of it? In answering the former of\nthese two questions it is important to put it in the proper way. We\nhave done a good deal towards the solution of a problem when we have\nlearned to state it correctly; and the way in which we ought to\napproach the problem of the genuineness of this and other books of the\nNew Testament is not, Why should we believe that these writings are\nwhat they profess to be? but, Why should we _refuse_ to believe this?\nHave we any sufficient reason for reversing the decision of the fourth\nand fifth centuries, which possessed far more evidence on the question\nthan has come down to us?\n\nIt must be remembered that that decision was not given mechanically or\nwithout consideration of doubts and difficulties; nor was it imposed\nby authority, until independent Churches and scholars had arrived at\npretty much the same conclusion. And the decision, as soon as it was\npronounced, was unanimously accepted in both East and West--a fact\nwhich was ample guarantee that the decision was universally recognized\nas correct; for there was no central authority of sufficient influence\nto force a suspected decision upon mistrustful Churches. Eusebius, it\nis true, classes most of the Catholic Epistles among the \"disputed\"\n(\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1) books of the New Testament, without, however,\naffirming that he shared the doubts which existed in some quarters\nrespecting them. This fact, which is sometimes rather hastily taken as\ntelling altogether against the writings which he marks as \"disputed,\"\nreally tells _both_ ways. On the one hand, it shows that doubts had\nexisted respecting some of the canonical books; and these doubts must\nhave had some reason (whether valid or not) for existing. On the other\nhand, the fact that the authority of these books was sometimes\ndisputed in the third century shows that the verdict formally given\nand ratified at the Council of Laodicea (_c._ 364)[8] was given after\ndue examination of the adverse evidence, and with a conviction that\nthe doubts which had been raised were not justified; and the universal\nwelcome which was accorded to the verdict throughout Christendom shows\nthat the doubts which had been raised had ceased to exist. If, then,\non the one hand we remember that misgivings once existed, and argue\nthat these misgivings must have had some basis, on the other we must\nremember that these misgivings were entirely abandoned, and that there\nmust have been reason for abandoning them. What reason, then, have we\nfor disturbing the verdict of the fourth century, and reviving\nmisgivings long ago put to rest?\n\nOf course those who gave that verdict and those who ratified it were\nfallible persons, and no member of the English Church, at any rate,\nwould argue that the question is closed and may not be reopened. But\nthe point to be insisted upon is that the _onus probandi_ rests with\nthose who assail or suspect these books, rather than with those who\naccept them. It is not the books that ought, on demand, again and\nagain to be placed on their trial, but the pleas of those who would\nonce more bring them into court that ought to be sifted. These\nobjectors deserve a hearing; but while they receive it, we have full\nright to stand by the decision of the fourth century, and refuse to\npart with, or even seriously to suspect, any of the precious\ninheritance which has been handed down to us. It may be confidently\nasserted that thus far no strong case has been made out against any of\nthe five \"disputed\" Epistles, excepting 2\u00a0Peter; and with regard to\nthat it is still true to affirm that the Petrine authorship remains,\non the whole, a reasonable \"working hypothesis.\"\n\nDo not let us forget what the epithet \"disputed,\" applied to these and\none or two[9] other books of the New Testament, really means. It does\n_not_ mean that at the beginning of the fourth century Eusebius found\nthat these writings were _universally regarded with suspicion; that is\na gross exaggeration of the import of the term_. Rather it means that\nthese books were _not universally accepted_; that although they were,\nas a rule, regarded as canonical, and as part of the contents of the\nNew Testament (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03af), yet in some quarters their\nauthority was doubted or denied. And the reasons for these doubts were\nnaturally not in all cases the same. With regard to 2\u00a0Peter, the doubt\nmust have been as to its genuineness and authenticity. It claimed to\nbe written by \"Simon Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ\" and a witness\nof the Transfiguration (2\u00a0Peter i.\u00a01, 18); but the obscurity of its\norigin and other circumstances were against it. With regard to James,\nJude, and 2 and 3\u00a0John the doubt was rather as to their Apostolicity.\nThey did not claim to be written by Apostles. There was no reason for\ndoubting the antiquity or the genuineness of these four books; but\ngranting that they were written by the persons whose name they bore,\nwere these persons Apostles? And if they were not, what was the\nauthority of their writings? The doubts with regard to the Revelation\nand to the Epistle to the Hebrews were in part of the same character.\nWere they in the full sense of the term Apostolic, as having been\nwritten by Apostles, or at least under the guidance of Apostles?\nEusebius says expressly that all these \"disputed\" books were\n\"nevertheless _well known to most_ people.\"[10]\n\nAnd it is manifest that the doubts which Eusebius records were ceasing\nto exist. Only in some cases does he indicate, and that without open\nstatement, that he himself was at all inclined to sympathize with\nthem. And Athanasius, writing a very short time afterwards (A.D.\u00a0326),\nmakes no distinction between acknowledged and disputed books, but\nplaces all seven of the Catholic Epistles, as of equal authority,\nimmediately after the Acts of the Apostles.[11] Cyril of Jerusalem, in\nhis Catechetical Lectures, written before his episcopate, _c._\nA.D.\u00a0349, does the same (_Lect._ IV. x.\u00a036). Some fifteen years later\nwe have the Council of Laodicea, and near the end of the century the\nCouncil of Hippo, and the third Council of Carthage, giving formal\nratification to these generally received views; after which all\nquestioning for many centuries ceased. So that while the\nclassification into \"acknowledged\" and \"disputed\" writings proves that\neach book was carefully scrutinized, and in various quarters\nindependently, before it was admitted to the canon, the cessation of\nthis distinction proves that the result of all this scrutiny was that\nthe sporadic doubts and hesitations respecting certain of the books of\nthe New Testament were finally put to rest.\n\nAnd it must not be supposed that the process was one of general\namnesty. While some books that had here and there been excluded were\nfinally accepted, some that had here and there been included in the\ncanon, such as the Epistles of Clement and of Barnabas and the\nShepherd of Hermas, were finally rejected. The charge of uncritical or\nindiscriminate admission cannot be substantiated. The facts are quite\nthe other way.\n\nWhen we confine our attention to the Epistle of James in particular,\nwe find that if the doubts which were here and there felt respecting\nit in the third century are intelligible, the universal acceptance\nwhich it met with in the fourth and following centuries is well\nfounded. The doubts were provoked by two facts--(1) the Epistle had\nremained for some time unknown to a good many Churches; (2) when it\nbecame generally known it remained uncertain what the authority of the\nwriter was, especially whether he was an Apostle or not. It is\npossible also that these misgivings were in some cases emphasized by\nthe further fact that there is a marked absence of doctrinal teaching.\nIn this Epistle the articles of the Christian faith are scarcely\ntouched upon at all. Whether the apparent inconsistency with the\nteaching of St.\u00a0Paul respecting the relation between faith and works,\nof which so much has been made since Luther's time, was discovered or\nnot by those who were inclined to dispute the authority of this\nEpistle, may be doubted. But of course, if any inconsistency _was_\nbelieved to exist, that also would tell against the general reception\nof the letter as canonical.\n\nThat the Epistle should at first remain very little known, especially\nin the West and among the Gentile congregations, is exactly what we\nshould expect from the character of the letter and the circumstances\nof its publication. It is addressed by a Jew to Jews, by one who never\nmoved from the Church over which he presided at Jerusalem to those\nhumble and obscure Christians outside Palestine who, by their\nconscientious retention of the Law side by side with the Gospel, cut\nthemselves off more and more from free intercourse with other\nChristians, whether Gentile converts or more liberally-minded Jews. A\nletter which in the first instance was to be read in Christian\n_synagogues_ (James ii.\u00a02) might easily remain a long time without\nbecoming known to Churches which from the outset had adopted the\nprinciples laid down in St.\u00a0Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. The\nconstant journeys of the Apostle of the Gentiles caused his letters to\nbecome well known throughout the Churches at a very early date. But\nthe first Bishop of the Mother Church of Jerusalem had no such\nadvantages. Great as was his influence in his own sphere, with a rank\nequal to that of an Apostle, yet he was not well known outside that\nsphere, and he himself seems never to have travelled beyond it, or\neven to have left the centre of it. With outsiders, who simply knew\nthat he was not one of the Twelve, his influence would not be great;\nand a letter emanating from him, even if known to exist, would not be\neagerly inquired after or carefully circulated. Gentile prejudice\nagainst Jewish Christians would still further contribute to keep in\nthe background a letter which was specially addressed to Jewish\nChristians, and was also itself distinctly Jewish in tone. Nor would\nthe exclusive class of believers to whom the letter was sent care to\nmake it known to those Christians from whom they habitually kept\naloof. Thus the prejudices of both sides contributed to prevent the\nEpistle from circulating outside the somewhat narrow circle to which\nit was in the first instance addressed; and there is therefore nothing\nsurprising in its being unknown to Iren\u00e6us, Hippolytus, Tertullian,\nCyprian, and the author of the Muratorian Canon. There is no sign that\nthese writers _rejected_ it; they had never heard of it.[12]\n\nAnd yet the Epistle did become known at a very early date, at any rate\nto some outsiders, even in the West. It was almost certainly known to\nClement of Rome, whose Epistle to the Church of Corinth (written _c._\nA.D.\u00a097) contains several passages, which seem to be reminiscences of\nSt.\u00a0James. And although not one of them can be relied upon as proving\nthat Clement knew our Epistle, yet when they are all put together they\nmake a cumulative argument of very great strength.[13] So cautious and\ncritical a writer as Bishop Lightfoot does not hesitate to assert, in\na note on Clement, chap. xii., \"The instance of Rahab was doubtless\nsuggested by Heb. xi.\u00a031; James ii.\u00a025; for _both these Epistles were\nknown to St.\u00a0Clement, and are quoted elsewhere_.\" And the Epistle of\nSt.\u00a0James was certainly known to Hermas, a younger contemporary of\nClement, and author of the _Shepherd_, which was written in the first\nhalf, and possibly in the first quarter, of the second century.[14]\nOrigen, in the works of which we have the Greek original, quotes it\nonce as \"the Epistle current as that of James\" (\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc7--_In Johan._ xix.\u00a06), and once (_In Psal._ xxx.) without any\nexpression of doubt; and in the inaccurate Latin translations of\nothers of his works there are several distinct quotations from the\nEpistle. So that it would seem to have reached Alexandria just as\nClement, Origen's instructor and predecessor, left the city during the\npersecution under Septimius Severus (_c._ A.D.\u00a0202).[15]\n\nBut the conclusive fact in the external evidence respecting the\nEpistle is that it is contained in the Peshitto. This ancient Syriac\nVersion was made in the second century, in the country in which the\nletter of James would be best known; and although the framers of this\ntranslation omitted 2\u00a0Peter, 2 and 3\u00a0John, and Jude, they admitted\nJames without scruple. Thus the earliest evidence for this Epistle, as\nfor that to the Hebrews, is chiefly Eastern; while that for Jude, as\nfor 2 and 3\u00a0John, is chiefly Western.\n\nAnd the evidence of the Peshitto is not weakened by the fact, if it be\na fact, that there was a still earlier Syrian canon which contained\nnone of the Catholic Epistles. There is no certain allusion to them or\nquotation from them in the Homilies of Aphrahat or Aphraates (_c._\nA.D.\u00a0335); and in the \"Doctrine of Addai\" (A.D.\u00a0250-300) the clergy of\nEdessa are directed to read the Law and the Prophets, the Gospel,\nSt.\u00a0Paul's Epistles, and the Acts, no other canonical book being\nmentioned. In all Churches the number of Christian writings read\npublicly in the liturgy was at first small, and in no case were the\nCatholic Epistles the first to be used for this purpose.\n\nThe internal evidence, as we shall see when we come to examine it more\nclosely, is even more strong than the external. The character of the\nletter exactly harmonizes with the character of James the first Bishop\nof Jerusalem, and with the known circumstances of those to whom the\nletter is addressed, and this in a way that no literary forger of that\nage could have reached. And there is no sufficient motive for a\nforgery, for the letter is singularly wanting in doctrinal statements.\nThe supposed opposition to St.\u00a0Paul will not hold; a writer who wished\nto oppose St.\u00a0Paul would have made his opposition much more clear. And\na forger who wished to get the authority of St.\u00a0James wherewith to\ncounteract St.\u00a0Paul's teaching would have made us aware that it was\neither an Apostle, the son of Zebedee or the son of Alph\u00e6us, or else\nthe brother of the Lord, who was addressing us, and would not have\nleft it open for us to suppose that the Epistle was from the pen of\nsome unknown James, who had no authority at all equal to that of\nSt.\u00a0Paul. And let any one compare this Epistle with those of Clement\nof Rome, and of Barnabas, and of Ignatius, and mark its enormous\nsuperiority. If it were the work of a forger, what a perplexing fact\nthis superiority would be! If it be the work either of an Apostle or\nof one who had Apostolic rank, everything is explained.\n\nLuther's famous criticism on the Epistle, that it is \"a veritable\nEpistle of straw,\" is amazing, and is to be explained by the fact that\nit contradicts his caricature of St.\u00a0Paul's doctrine of justification\nby faith. There is no opposition between St.\u00a0James and St.\u00a0Paul, and\nthere is sometimes no real opposition between St.\u00a0James and Luther\n(see p. 147). And when Luther gives as his opinion that our Epistle\nwas \"not the writing of any Apostle\" we can agree with him, though not\nin the sense in which he means it; for he starts from the erroneous\nsupposition that the letter bears the name of the son of Zebedee. We\nmust also bear in mind his own explanation of what is Apostolic and\nwhat is not. It has a purely subjective meaning. It does not mean what\nwas written or not written by an Apostle or the equal of an Apostle.\n\"Apostolic\" means that which, in Luther's opinion, an Apostle _ought_\nto teach, and all that fails to satisfy this condition is not\nApostolic. \"Therein all true holy books agree, that they preach and\nurge Christ. That too is the right touchstone whereby to test all\nbooks--whether they urge Christ or not; for all Scripture testifies of\nChrist (Rom. iii.\u00a021).... That which does not teach Christ is still\nshort of Apostolic, even if it were the teaching of St.\u00a0Peter or\nSt.\u00a0Paul. Again, that which preaches Christ, that were Apostolic, even\nif Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod preached it.\" The Lutheran Church\nhas not followed him in this principle, which places the authority of\nany book of Scripture at the mercy of the likes and dislikes of the\nindividual reader; and it has restored the Epistles to the Hebrews and\nof James and Jude to their proper places in the New Testament, instead\nof leaving them in the kind of appendix to which Luther had banished\nthem and the Revelation. Moreover, the passage containing the\nstatement about the \"veritable Epistle of straw\"[16] is now omitted\nfrom the preface to his translation. And with regard to this very\npoint, his former friend and later opponent Andrew Rudolph Bodenstein,\nof Karlstadt, pertinently asked, \"If you allow the Jews to stamp books\nwith authority by receiving them, why do you refuse to grant as much\npower to the Churches of Christ, since the Church is not less than the\nSynagogue?\" We have at least as much reason to trust the Councils of\nLaodicea, Hippo, and Carthage, which formally defined the limits of\nthe New Testament, as we have to trust the unknown Jewish influences\nwhich fixed those of the Old. And when we examine for ourselves the\nevidence which is still extant, and which has greatly diminished in\nthe course of fifteen hundred years, we feel that both on external and\ninternal grounds the decision of the fourth century respecting the\ngenuineness of the Epistle of St.\u00a0James, as a veritable product of the\nApostolic age and as worthy of a place in the canon of the New\nTestament, is fully justified.\n\n[8] The date so frequently given, A.D.\u00a0363, cannot be substantiated,\nand on the whole is not probable. See Hefele, _History of the Church\nCouncils_, II. vi.\u00a093.\n\n[9] The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse.\n\n[10] \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4' \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f45\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 (_H. E._ III. xxv.\u00a03), where\n\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, as usual, indicates _familiar_ knowledge. Eusebius is a\ndesultory writer, and one has to gather his views from statements\nscattered over chaps. iii., xxiv., and xxv., some of which are not\nvery precise. The following table seems to represent his opinion:--\n\n { Four Gospels, Acts,\n { fourteen Epistles\n { _Universally acknowledged_ { of Paul (Hebrews ?),\n { (\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1) { 1\u00a0John, 1\u00a0Peter,\n CANONICAL BOOKS { { Apocalypse (?).\n (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 {\n \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03af) { { _As to authenticity_--2\u00a0Peter.\n { _Disputed_ {\n { (\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1) { _As to Apostolicity_--James,\n { Jude, 2 and 3\u00a0John.\n\n { _As to authenticity_--Acts of Paul,\n { Shepherd, Apocalypse of Peter.\n { _Orthodox_, but {\n { of no authority, { _As to Apostolicity_--Epistle of\n { because _defective_ { Barnabas, Doctrines of the\n { { Apostles, Gospel according to\n UNCANONICAL { { Hebrews, Apocalypse (?).\n {\n { _Heretical_ { Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias,\n { Acts of Andrew, John, etc., etc.\n\n[11] _Epist. Fest._ xxxix. The passage is given in full by Westcott\n_On the Canon_, Appendix D., xiv. The _Ecclesiastical History_ of\nEusebius cannot have been completed later than A.D.\u00a0325, but the\nearlier books were probably written about A.D.\u00a0313, soon after the\nEdict of Milan. See Bishop Lightfoot, _Dict. of Chris. Biog._, I., p.\n322.\n\n[12] Harnack, _Das Neue Testament um das Jahr_ 200 (Freiburg I. B.,\n1889), p. 79.\n\n[13]\n Compare Clement x.\u00a01 with James ii.\u00a023.\n \" \" xi.\u00a02 \" \" i.\u00a08; iv.\u00a08.\n \" \" xii.\u00a01 \" \" ii.\u00a025.\n \" \" xvii.\u00a06 \" \" iv.\u00a014.\n \" \" xxx.\u00a02 \" \" iv.\u00a06.\n \" \" xxxi.\u00a02 \" \" ii.\u00a021.\n \" \" xlvi.\u00a05 \" \" iv.\u00a01.\n \" \" xlix.\u00a05 \" \" x.\u00a020.\n\n[14] Salmon, _Introduction to the N.T._, pp. 52, 582-91, 4th Ed.\n(Murray, 1889); Zahn, _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons_\n(Erlangen, 1889), p. 962.\n\n[15] If Zahn is right in thinking that Clement knew, and perhaps\ncommented on, the Epistle of James, it may have become known in\nAlexandria somewhat earlier. A few passages in Clement have possible\nreminiscences of James; _e.g._ in _Strom._ II. v. he says of Abraham\nthat he is found to have been expressly called the \"friend\" of God\n(James ii.\u00a023); and in _Strom._ VI. xviii., in connexion with loving\none's neighbour (the \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 of James ii.\u00a08), he speaks of\nbeing \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af (Zahn, _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons_,\nI., pp. 322, 323--Erlangen, 1888). The _Hypotyposeis_, in which\nClement perhaps treated of the Catholic Epistles, were written after\nhe left Alexandria (_Ibid._, p. 29).\n\n[16] Or, more literally, \"a right strawy Epistle\"--\"eine rechte\nstrohern Epistel.... Denn sie doch keine evangelische Art an sich hat\"\n(_Luther's Werke_, ed. Gustav Pfizer, Frankfurt, 1840, p. 1412; see\nalso pp. 1423, 1424, and Westcott _On the Canon_, 3rd ed., pp. 448-54).\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n\n _THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE:\n JAMES THE BROTHER OF THE LORD._\n\n \"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus\n Christ.\"--JAS. i.\u00a01\n\n\nWe have still to consider the second half of the question as to the\nauthenticity of this letter. Granting that it is a genuine Epistle of\nJames, and a writing of the Apostolic age, to which of the persons in\nthat age who are known to us as bearing the name of James is it to be\nattributed? The consensus of opinion on this point, though not so\ngreat as that respecting the genuineness of the letter, is now very\nconsiderable, and seems to be increasing.\n\nThe name James is the English form of the Hebrew name Yacoob (Jacob),\nwhich in Greek became \u1f38\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, in Latin Jac\u014dbus, and in English\nJames, a form which grievously blurs the history of the name. From\nhaving been the name of the patriarch Jacob, the progenitor of the\nJewish race, it became one of the commonest of proper names among the\nJews; and in the New Testament we find several persons bearing this\nname among the followers of Jesus Christ. It would be possible to make\nas many as six; but these must certainly be reduced to four, and\nprobably to three.\n\nThese six are--\n\n1. James the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and brother of John the\nApostle (Matt. iv.\u00a021; x.\u00a02; xvii.\u00a05; Mark x.\u00a035; xiii.\u00a03; Luke\nix.\u00a054; Acts xii.\u00a02).\n\n2. James the Apostle, the son of Alph\u00e6us (Matt. x.\u00a03; Mark iii.\u00a018;\nLuke vi.\u00a015; Acts i.\u00a013).\n\n3. James the Little, the son of Mary the wife of Cl\u014dpas (John\nxix.\u00a025), who had one other son, named Joses (Matt. xxvii.\u00a056; Mark\nxv.\u00a040).\n\n4. James the brother of the Lord (Gal. i.\u00a019), a relationship which he\nshares with Joses, Simon, and Judas (Matt. xiii.\u00a055; Mark vi.\u00a03) and\nsome unnamed sisters.\n\n5. James the overseer of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts xii.\u00a017;\nxv.\u00a013; xxi.\u00a018; 1\u00a0Cor. xv.\u00a07; Gal. ii.\u00a09, 12).\n\n6. James the brother of the Jude who wrote the Epistle (Jude i.\u00a01).\n\nBesides which, we have an unknown James, who was father of the Apostle\nJudas, not Iscariot (Luke v.\u00a016); but we do not know that this James\never became a disciple.\n\nOf these six we may safely identify the last three as being one and\nthe same person; and we may probably identify James the Apostle, the\nson of Alph\u00e6us, with James the Little, the son of Mary and Clopas; in\nwhich case we may conjecture that the epithet of \"the Little\" (\u1f41\n\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2) was given him to distinguish him from the other Apostle James,\nthe son of Zebedee. Clopas (not Cleophas, as in the A.V.) may be one\nGreek form of the Aramaic name Chalpai, of which Alph\u00e6us may be\nanother Greek form; so that the father of this James may have been\nknown both as Clopas and as Alph\u00e6us. But this is by no means certain.\nIn the ancient Syriac Version we do not find both Alph\u00e6us and Clopas\nrepresented by Chalpai; but we find Alph\u00e6us rendered Chalpai, while\nClopas reappears as Kleopha. And the same usage is found in the\nJerusalem Syriac.\n\nWe have thus reduced the six to four or three; and it is sometimes\nproposed to reduce the three to two, by identifying James the Lord's\nbrother with James the son of Alph\u00e6us. But this identification is\nattended by difficulties so serious as to seem to be quite fatal; and\nit would probably never have been made but for the wish to show that\n\"brother of the Lord\" does not mean brother in the literal sense, but\nmay mean _cousin_. For the identification depends upon making Mary the\nwife of Clopas (and mother of James the son of Alph\u00e6us) identical with\nthe sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, in the much-discussed\npassage John xix.\u00a025; so that Jesus and James would be first cousins,\nbeing sons respectively of two sisters, each of whom was called\nMary.[17]\n\nThe difficulties under which this theory labours are mainly these:--\n\n1. It depends on an identification of Clopas with Alph\u00e6us, which is\nuncertain, though not improbable.\n\n2. It depends on a further identification of Christ's \"mother's\nsister\" with \"Mary the wife of Clopas\" in John xix.\u00a025, which is both\nuncertain and highly improbable. In that verse we almost certainly\nhave four women, and not three, contrasted with the four soldiers just\nmentioned (vv.\u00a023, 24), and arranged in two pairs: \"His mother, and\nHis mother's sister; Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.\"\n\n3. It assumes that two sisters were both called Mary.\n\n4. No instance in Greek literature has been found in which \"brother\"\n(\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2) means \"cousin.\" The Greek language has a word to express\n\"cousin\" (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2), which occurs Col. iv.\u00a010; and it is to be noted\nthat the ancient tradition preserved by Hegesippus (c. A.D.\u00a0170)\ndistinguishes James the first overseer of the Church of Jerusalem as\nthe \"_brother_ of the Lord\" (Eus. _H. E._ II. xxiii.\u00a01), and his\nsuccessor Symeon as the \"_cousin_ of the Lord\" (IV. xxii.\u00a04). Could\nHegesippus have written thus if James were really a cousin? If a vague\nterm such as \"kinsman\" (\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2) was wanted, that also might have\nbeen used, as in Luke i.\u00a036, 58; ii.\u00a044.\n\n5. In none of the four lists of the Apostles is there any hint that\nany of them are the brethren of the Lord; and in Acts i.\u00a013, 14, and\n1\u00a0Cor. ix.\u00a05, \"the brethren of the Lord\" are expressly distinguished\nfrom the Apostles. Moreover, the traditions of the age subsequent to\nthe New Testament sometimes make James the Lord's brother one of the\nSeventy, but never one of the Twelve, a fact which can be explained\nonly on the hypothesis that it was notorious that he was not one of\nthe Twelve. The reverence for this James and for the title of Apostle\nwas such that tradition would eagerly have given him the title had\nthere been any opening for doing so.\n\n6. The \"brethren of the Lord\" appear in the Gospels almost always with\nthe mother of the Lord (Matt. xii.\u00a046; Mark iii.\u00a032; Luke viii.\u00a019;\nJohn ii.\u00a012); never with Mary the wife of Clopas; and popular\nknowledge of them connects them with Christ's mother, and not with any\nother Mary (Mark vi.\u00a03; Matt. xiii.\u00a055). \"My brethren,\" in Matt.\nxxviii.\u00a010, and John xx.\u00a017, does not mean Christ's earthly relations,\nbut the children of \"My Father and your Father.\"\n\n7. But the strongest objection of all is St.\u00a0John's express statement\n(vii.\u00a05) that \"even His brethren did not believe on Him;\" a statement\nwhich he could not have made if one of the brethren (James), and\npossibly two others (Simon and Judas), were already Apostles.\n\nThe identification of James the son of Alph\u00e6us with James the Lord's\nbrother must therefore be abandoned, and we remain with three\ndisciples bearing the name of James from which to select the writer of\nthis Epistle--the son of Zebedee, the son of Alph\u00e6us, and the brother\nof the Lord. The father of Judas, not Iscariot, need not be\nconsidered, for we do not even know that he ever became a believer.\n\nIn our ignorance of the life, and thought, and language of the son of\nZebedee and the son of Alph\u00e6us, we cannot say that there is anything\nin the Epistle itself which forbids us to attribute it to either of\nthem; but there is nothing in it which leads us to do so. And there\nare two considerations which, when combined, are strongly against\nApostolic authorship. The writer does not claim to be an Apostle; and\nthe hesitation as to the reception of the Epistle in certain parts of\nthe Christian Church would be extraordinary if the letter were reputed\nto be of Apostolic authorship. When we take either of these Apostles\nseparately we become involved in further difficulties. It is not\nprobable that any Apostolic literature existed in the lifetime of\nJames the son of Zebedee, who was martyred, under Herod Agrippa I.,\n_i.e._ not later than the spring of A.D.\u00a044, when Herod Agrippa died.\nThat any Apostle wrote an encyclical letter as early as A.D.\u00a042 or 43\nis so improbable that we ought to have strong evidence before adopting\nit, and the only evidence worth considering is that furnished by the\nPeshitto. The earliest MSS. of this ancient Syriac Version, which date\nfrom the fifth to the eighth century, call it an Epistle of James the\nApostle; but evidence which cannot be traced higher than the fifth\ncentury respecting an improbable occurrence alleged to have taken\nplace in the first century is not worth very much. Moreover, the\nscribes who put this heading and subscription to the Epistle may have\nmeant no more than that it was by a person of Apostolic rank, or they\nmay have shared the common Western error of identifying the brother of\nthe Lord with the son of Alph\u00e6us. Editors of the Syriac Version in a\nmuch later age certainly do attribute the Epistle to the son of\nZebedee, for they state that the three Catholic Epistles admitted to\nthat version--James, 1\u00a0Peter, and 1\u00a0John--are by the three Apostles\nwho witnessed the Transfiguration. The statement seems to be a\nblundering misinterpretation of the earlier title, which assigned it\nto James the Apostle. And if we attribute the letter to the son of\nAlph\u00e6us we get rid of one difficulty, only to fall into another; we\nare no longer compelled to give the Epistle so improbably early a date\nas A.D.\u00a043, but we are left absolutely without any evidence to connect\nit with the son of Alph\u00e6us, _unless_ we identify this Apostle with the\nbrother of the Lord, an identification which has already been shown to\nbe untenable.[18]\n\nTherefore, without further hesitation, we may assign the Epistle to\none of the most striking and impressive figures in the Apostolic age,\nJames the Just, the brother of the Lord, and the first overseer of the\nMother Church of Jerusalem.\n\nWhether James was the brother of the Lord as being the son of Joseph\nby a former marriage, or as being the son of Joseph and Mary born\nafter the birth of Jesus, need not be argued in detail. All that\nspecially concerns us, for a right understanding of the Epistle, is to\nremember that it was written by one who, although for some time not a\nbeliever in the Messiahship of Jesus, was, through his near\nrelationship, constantly in His society, witnessing His acts and\nhearing His words. This much, however, should be noted, that there is\nnothing in Scripture to warn us from understanding that Joseph and\nMary had other children, and that \"_first_born\" in Luke ii.\u00a07, and\n\"till\" in Matt. i.\u00a025, appear to imply that they had; a supposition\nconfirmed by contemporary belief (Mark vi.\u00a03; Matt. xiii.\u00a055), and by\nthe constant attendance of these \"brethren\" on the mother of the Lord\n(Matt. xii.\u00a046; Mark iii.\u00a032; Luke viii.\u00a019; John ii.\u00a012); that, on\nthe other hand, the theory which gives Joseph children older than\nJesus deprives Him of His rights as the heir of Joseph and of the\nhouse of David; seems to be of apocryphal origin (Gospel according to\nPeter, or Book of James); and like Jerome's theory of cousinship,\nappears to have been invented in the interests of ascetic views and of\n_\u00e0 priori_ convictions as to the perpetual virginity of the Blessed\nVirgin. The immense consensus of belief in the perpetual virginity\ndoes not begin until long after all historical evidence was lost.\nTertullian appears to assume as a matter of course that the Lord's\nbrethren are the children of Joseph and Mary, as if in his day no one\nhad any other view (_Adv. Marc._, IV. xix.; _De Carne Christi_,\nvii.).[19]\n\nAccording to either view, James was the son of Joseph, and almost\ncertainly was brought up with his Divine Brother in the humble home at\nNazareth. His father, as St.\u00a0Matthew tells us (i.\u00a019) was a _just_ or\n_righteous_ man, like the parents of the Baptist (Luke i.\u00a06), and this\nwas the title by which James was known during his lifetime, and by\nwhich he is still constantly known. He is James \"the Just\" (\u1f41 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2).\nThe epithet as used in Scripture of his father and others (Matt.\ni.\u00a019; xxiii.\u00a035; Luke i.\u00a06; ii.\u00a025; xxiii.\u00a050; Acts x.\u00a020; 2\u00a0Peter\nii.\u00a07), and in history of him, must not be understood as implying\nprecisely what the Athenians meant when they styled Aristeides \"the\nJust,\" or what we mean by being \"just\" now. To a Jew the word implied\nnot merely being impartial and upright, but also having a studied and\neven scrupulous reverence for everything prescribed by the Law. The\nSabbath, the synagogue worship, the feasts and fasts, purification,\ntithes, all the moral and ceremonial ordinances of the Law of the\nLord--these were the things on which the just man bestowed a loving\ncare, and in which he preferred to do more than was required, rather\nthan the bare minimum insisted on by the Rabbis. It was in a home of\nwhich righteousness of this kind was the characteristic that St.\u00a0James\nwas reared, and in which he became imbued with that reverent love for\nthe Law which makes him, even more than St.\u00a0Paul, to be the ideal\n\"Hebrew of Hebrews.\" For him Christ came \"not to destroy, but to\nfulfil.\" Christianity turns the Law of Moses into a \"royal law\"\n(ii.\u00a08), but it does not abrogate it. The Judaism which had been his\nmoral and spiritual atmosphere during his youth and early manhood\nremained with him after he had learned to see that there was no\nantagonism between the Law and the Gospel.\n\nIt would be part of his strict Jewish training that he should pay the\nprescribed visits to Jerusalem at the feasts (John vii.\u00a010); and he\nwould there become familiar with the magnificent liturgy of the\nTemple, and would lay the foundation for that love of public and\nprivate prayer within its precincts which was one of his best-known\ncharacteristics in after-life. A love of prayer, and a profound belief\nin its efficacy, appear again and again in the pages of his Epistle\n(i.\u00a05; iv.\u00a02, 3, 8; v.\u00a013-18). It was out of a strong personal\nexperience that the man who knelt in prayer until \"his knees became\nhard like a camel's\" declared that \"the supplication of a righteous\nman availeth much in its working.\"\n\nStrict Judaism has ever a tendency to narrowness, and we find this\ntendency in the brethren of the Lord, in their attitude both towards\ntheir Brother, and also towards Gentile converts after they had\naccepted Him (Gal. ii.\u00a012). Of the long period of silence during which\nJesus was preparing Himself for His ministry we know nothing. But\nimmediately after His first miracle, which they probably witnessed,\nthey went down with Him, and His mother, and His disciples to\nCapernaum (John ii.\u00a012), and very possibly accompanied Him to\nJerusalem for the Passover. They would be almost certain to go thither\nto keep the feast. It was there that \"many believed on His Name,\nbeholding His signs which He did. But Jesus did not trust Himself unto\nthem, for that He knew all men.\" He knew that when the immediate\neffect of His miracles had passed off the faith of these sudden\nconverts would not endure. And this seems to have been the case with\nHis brethren. They were at first attracted by His originality, and\npower, and holiness, then perplexed by methods which they could not\nunderstand (John vii.\u00a03, 4), then inclined to regard Him as a dreamer\nand a fanatic (Mark iii.\u00a021), and finally decided against Him (John\nvii.\u00a05). Like many others among His followers, they were quite unable\nto reconcile His position with the traditional views respecting the\nMessiah; and instead of revising these views, as being possibly\nfaulty, they held fast to them, and rejected Him. It was not merely in\nreference to the people of Nazareth, who had tried to kill Him (Luke\niv.\u00a029), but to those who were still closer to Him by ties of blood\nand home, that He uttered the sad complaint, \"A prophet is not without\nhonour, save in his own country, and among _his own kin_, and in _his\nown house_\" (Mark vi.\u00a04).\n\nThe fact that our Lord committed His mother to the keeping of St.\u00a0John\nharmonizes with the supposition that at the time of the Crucifixion\nHis brethren were still unbelievers. The Resurrection would be likely\nto open their eyes and dispel their doubts (Acts i.\u00a014); and a special\nrevelation of the risen Lord seems to have been granted to St.\u00a0James\n(1\u00a0Cor. xv.\u00a07), as to St.\u00a0Paul; in both cases because behind the\nexternal opposition to Christ there was earnest faith and devotion,\nwhich at once found its object, as soon as the obstructing darkness\nwas removed. After his conversion, St.\u00a0James speedily took the first\nplace among the believers who constituted the original Church of\nJerusalem. He takes the lead, even when the chief of the Apostles are\npresent. It is to him that St.\u00a0Peter reports himself, when he is\nmiraculously freed from prison (Acts xii.\u00a017). It is he who presides\nat the so-called Council of Jerusalem (xv.\u00a013; see esp. ver. 19). And\nit is to him that St.\u00a0Paul specially turns on his last visit to\nJerusalem, to report his success among the Gentiles (xxi.\u00a017).\nSt.\u00a0Paul places him before St.\u00a0Peter and St.\u00a0John in mentioning those\n\"who were reputed to be pillars\" of the Church (Gal. ii.\u00a09), and\nstates that on his first visit to Jerusalem after his own conversion\nhe stayed fifteen days with Peter, but saw no other of the Apostles,\nexcepting James, the Lord's brother (Gal. i.\u00a018, 19); a passage of\ndisputed meaning, but which, if it does not imply that James was in\nsome sense an Apostle, at least suggests that he was a person of equal\nimportance. (Comp. Acts ix.\u00a026-30.) Moreover, we find that at Antioch\nSt.\u00a0Peter himself allowed his attitude towards the Gentiles to be\nchanged in deference to the representations of \"certain that came from\nJames,\" who had possibly misunderstood or misused their commission;\nbut the narrowness already alluded to may have made St.\u00a0James himself\nunable to move as rapidly as St.\u00a0Peter and St.\u00a0Paul in adopting a\ngenerous course with Gentile converts.\n\nUnless there is a reference to St.\u00a0James in Heb. xiii.\u00a07, as among\nthose who had once \"had the lead over you,\" but are now no longer\nalive to speak the word, we must go outside the New Testament for\nfurther notices of him. They are to be found chiefly in Clement of\nAlexandria, Hegesippus, and Josephus. Clement (_Hypotyp._ VI. ap. Eus.\n_H. E._ II. i.\u00a03) records a tradition that Peter, James, and John,\nafter the Ascension of the Saviour, although they had been preferred\nby the Lord, did not contend for distinction, but that James the Just\nbecame Bishop of Jerusalem. And again (_Hypotyp._ VII.), \"To James the\nJust, John, and Peter, the Lord, after the Resurrection, imparted the\ngift of knowledge (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd); these imparted it to the rest of the\nApostles, and the rest of the Apostles to the Seventy, of whom\nBarnabas was one. Now, there have been two Jameses--one the Just, who\nwas thrown from the gable [of the Temple], and beaten to death by a\nfuller with a club, and another who was beheaded.\"[20] The narrative\nof Hegesippus is also preserved for us by Eusebius (_H. E._ II.\nxxiii.\u00a04-18). It is manifestly legendary, and possibly comes from the\nEssene Ebionites, who appear to have been fond of religious romances.\nIt is sometimes accepted as historical, as by Clement in the passage\njust quoted; but its internal improbabilities and its divergencies\nfrom Josephus condemn it. It may, however, contain some historical\ntouches, especially in the general sketch of St.\u00a0James; just as the\nlegends about our own King Alfred, although untrustworthy as to facts,\nnevertheless convey a true idea of the saintly and scholarly king. It\nruns thus: \"There succeeds to the charge of the Church, James, the\nbrother of the Lord, in conjunction with the Apostles, the one who has\nbeen named Just by all, from the time of our Lord to our own time, for\nthere were many called James.[21] Now, he was holy from his mother's\nwomb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink; nor did he eat animal\nfood. No razor ever came upon his head; he anointed not himself with\noil; and he did not indulge in bathing. To him alone was it lawful to\ngo into the Holy Place[22]; for he wore no wool, but linen. And he\nwould go into the Temple alone, and would be found there kneeling on\nhis knees and asking forgiveness for the people, so that his knees\nbecame dry and hard as a camel's, because he was always on his knees\nworshipping God and asking forgiveness for the people. On account,\ntherefore, of his exceeding justness, he was called Just and Oblias,\nwhich is in Greek 'bulwark of the people' and 'justness,' as the\nprophets show concerning him. Some, then, of the seven sects among the\npeople, which have been mentioned before by me in the _Memoirs_, asked\nhim, What is the Door of Jesus? And he said that He was the Saviour.\nFrom which some believed Jesus is the Christ. But the sects aforesaid\ndid not believe, either in the Resurrection or in One coming to\nrecompense to each man according to his works. But as many as believed\ndid so through James. When many, therefore, even of the rulers were\nbelieving, there was a tumult of the Jews and scribes and Pharisees,\nwho said, It looks as if all the people would be expecting Jesus as\nthe Christ. They came together, therefore, and said to James, We pray\nthee, restrain the people, for it has been led astray after Jesus, as\nthough He were the Christ. We pray thee to persuade all that come to\nthe day of the Passover concerning Jesus; for to thee we all give\nheed. For we bear witness to thee, and so do all the people, that thou\nart just, and acceptest not the person of any. Do thou, therefore,\npersuade the multitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus; for all\nthe people and all of us give heed to thee. Stand, therefore, upon the\ngable of the Temple, that thou mayest be visible to those below, and\nthat thy words may be readily heard by all the people. For on account\nof the Passover there have come together all the tribes, with the\nGentiles also. Therefore the aforesaid scribes and Pharisees placed\nJames upon the gable of the Temple, and cried to him and said, O just\none, to whom we ought all to give heed, seeing that the people is\nbeing led astray after Jesus, who was crucified, tell us what is the\nDoor of Jesus. And he answered with a loud voice, Why ask ye me\nconcerning Jesus the Son of man? Even He sitteth in heaven, at the\nright of the Mighty Power, and He is to come on the clouds of heaven.\nAnd when many were convinced, and gave glory on the witness of James,\nand said, Hosannah to the Son of David, then again the same scribes\nand Pharisees said unto one another, We have done ill in furnishing\nsuch witness to Jesus. But let us go up, and cast him down, that they\nmay be terrified, and not believe him. And they cried out, saying, Oh!\noh! even the Just has been led astray. And they fulfilled the\nScripture, which is written in Isaiah, Let us take away the Just One,\nfor he is troublesome to us; therefore shall they eat the fruit of\ntheir deeds. So they went up, and cast down the Just, and said to one\nanother, Let us stone James the Just. And they began to stone him,\nseeing that he was not dead from the fall, but turning round, knelt,\nand said, I pray Thee, Lord God and Father, forgive them, for they\nknow not what they do. But whilst they were thus stoning him, one of\nthe priests of the sons of Rechab, son of Rechabim,[23] to whom\nJeremiah the prophet bears testimony, cried, saying, Stop! what are ye\ndoing? The Just One is praying for you. And one of them, one of the\nfullers, took the club with which clothes are pressed, and brought it\ndown on the head of the Just One. And in this way he bore witness. And\nthey buried him on the spot by the Temple, and his monument still\nremains by the Temple. This man has become a true witness, to both\nJews and Gentiles, that Jesus is the Christ. And straightway Vespasian\nlays siege to them.\" That is, Hegesippus regards the attack of the\nRomans as a speedy judgment on the Jews for the murder of James the\nJust, and consequently places it A.D.\u00a069. This is probably several\nyears too late. Josephus places it A.D.\u00a062 or 63. His account is as\nfollows:--\n\n\"Now, the younger Ananus, whom we stated to have succeeded to the\nhigh-priesthood, was precipitate in temper and exceedingly audacious,\nand he followed the sect of the Sadducees, who are very harsh in\njudging offenders, beyond all other Jews, as we have already shown.\nAnanus, therefore, as being a person of this character, and thinking\nthat he had a suitable opportunity, through Festus being dead, and\nAlbinus still on his journey (to Jud\u00e6a), assembles a Sanhedrin of\njudges; and he brought before it the brother of Jesus who was called\nChrist (his name was James) and some others, and delivered them to be\nstoned, on a charge of being transgressors of the law. But as many as\nseemed to be most equitable among those in the city, and scrupulous as\nto all that concerned the laws, were grievously affected by this; and\nthey send to the king [Herod Agrippa II.], secretly praying him to\norder Ananus to act in such a way no more; for that not even his first\naction was lawfully done. And some of them go to meet Albinus on his\njourney from Alexandria, and inform him that Ananus had no authority\nto assemble a Sanhedrin without his leave. And Albinus, being\nconvinced by what they said, wrote in anger to Ananus, threatening to\npunish him for this. And for this reason King Agrippa took away the\nhigh-priesthood from him after he had been in office three months, and\nconferred it upon Jesus the son of Damn\u00e6us\" (_Ant._ XX. ix.\u00a01).\n\nThis account by Josephus contains no improbabilities, and should be\npreferred to that of Hegesippus. It has been suspected of Christian\ninterpolation, because of the reference to Jesus Christ, whom Josephus\npersistently ignores in his writings. But a Christian who took the\ntrouble to garble the narrative at all would probably have done so to\nmore purpose, both as regards Jesus and James. In any case Hegesippus\nand Josephus agree in confirming the impression produced by the New\nTestament, that James the Just was a person held in the greatest\nrespect by all in Jerusalem, whether Jews or Christians, and one who\nexercised great influence in the East over the whole Jewish race. We\nshall find that this fact harmonizes well with the phenomena of the\nEpistle, and it leads directly to the next question which calls upon\nus for discussion.\n\n[17] The supposed relationship may be exhibited thus:--\n\n |\n +------------------+-----+\n | |\n Mary == Joseph. Mary == Clopas or Alph\u00e6us.\n | |\n | +------------+-----+-------+-------------+\n | | | | |\n JESUS CHRIST. James the Apostle. Joseph. Simon Judas\n (Apostle?). (Apostle?).\n\n[18] It seems to be right to take this opportunity of preventing a\nname of great authority from being any longer quoted as favouring the\nidentification. Dr. D\u00f6llinger, in his _Christenthum und Kirche in der\nZeit der Grundlegung_ (1860), translated by H. N. Oxenham as _The\nFirst Age of Christianity and the Church_, advocated the\nidentification (chap. iii.). The venerable author told the present\nwriter, in June, 1877, that he was convinced that his earlier opinion\non this subject was entirely erroneous, and that the Apostle James of\nAlph\u00e6us was a different person from James Bishop of Jerusalem and\nbrother of the Lord. He added that the Eastern Church had always\ndistinguished the two, and that their identification in the West was\ndue to the influence of Jerome.\n\nThe evidence of Martyrologies and Calendars is worth noting as\nindicating the tradition on the subject. The Hieronymian Martyrology\nand other early Roman Martyrologies commemorate James of Alph\u00e6us June\n22nd, and James the Lord's brother December 27th; the Ambrosian\nLiturgy, James of Alph\u00e6us December 30th, and the Lord's brother May\n1st; the Byzantine Calendar, James of Alph\u00e6us October 9th, and the\nLord's brother October 23rd; the Egyptian and Ethiopic Calendars,\nJames of Alph\u00e6us October 2nd, and the Lord's brother October 23rd.\n\n[19] Alford, Farrar, Meyer, Schaff, Stier, Weiss, Wieseler, Winer, and\nothers support this view. See also McClellan's note on Matt. xiii.\u00a055,\nand Plumptre's Introduction to St.\u00a0James. Bishop Lightfoot contends\nfor the Epiphanian theory.\n\n[20] Comp. _Strom._ VI. viii., where Clement speaks of James, Peter,\nJohn, Paul (note the order) as possessing the true _gnosis_, and\nknowing all things.\n\n[21] Hegesippus evidently distinguishes James the brother of the\nLord from any of the Twelve.\n\n[22] It is incredible that he should be allowed the privileges of the\nhigh priest.\n\n[23] What is the meaning of this tautology? And could a Rechabite,\nwho was not a Jew, become a priest?\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n\n _THE PERSONS ADDRESSED IN THE EPISTLE;\n THE JEWS OF THE DISPERSION._\n\n \"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve\n tribes which are of the Dispersion, greeting.\"--JAMES i.\u00a01.\n\n\nThese words appear to be both simple and plain. At first sight there\nwould seem to be not much room for any serious difference of opinion\nas to their meaning. The writer of the letter writes as \"a servant of\nGod and of the Lord Jesus Christ,\" _i.e._ as a Christian, \"to the\ntwelve tribes which are of the Dispersion,\" _i.e._ to the Jews who are\nliving away from Palestine. Almost the only point which seems to be\nopen to doubt is whether he addresses himself to all Jews, believing\nand unbelieving, or, as one might presume from his proclaiming\nhimself at the outset to be a Christian, only to those of his\nfellow-countrymen who, like himself, have become \"servants of the Lord\nJesus Christ.\" And this is a question which cannot be determined\nwithout a careful examination of the contents of the Epistle.\n\nAnd yet there has been very great difference of opinion as to the\npersons whom St.\u00a0James had in his mind when he wrote these words.\nThere is not only the triplet of opinions which easily grow out of the\nquestion just indicated, viz. that the letter is addressed to\n_believing Jews_ only, to _unbelieving Jews_ only, and to _both_:\nthere are also the views of those who hold that it is addressed to\nJewish and Gentile Christians regarded _separately_, or to the same\nregarded _as one body_, or to _Jewish Christians primarily_, with\nreferences to Gentile Christians and unconverted Jews, or finally to\n_Gentile Christians primarily_, seeing that they, since the rejection\nof Jesus by the Jews, are the true sons of Abraham and the rightful\ninheritors of the privileges of the twelve tribes.\n\nIn such a Babel of interpretations it will clear the ground somewhat\nif we adopt once more[24] as a guiding principle the common-sense\ncanon of interpretation laid down by Hooker (_Eccles. Pol._ V.\nlix.\u00a02), that \"where a literal construction will stand, the farthest\nfrom the letter is commonly the worst.\" A literal construction of the\nexpression \"the twelve tribes of the Dispersion\" will not only stand,\nbut make excellent sense. Had St.\u00a0James meant to address all\nChristians, regarded in their position as exiles from their heavenly\nhome, he would have found some much plainer way of expressing himself.\nThere is nothing improbable, but something quite the reverse, in the\nsupposition that the first overseer of the Church of Jerusalem, who,\nas we have seen, was \"a Hebrew of Hebrews,\" wrote a letter to those of\nhis fellow-countrymen who were far removed from personal intercourse\nwith him. So devoted a Jew, so devout a Christian, as we know him to\nhave been, could not but take the most intense interest in all who\nwere of Jewish blood, wherever they might dwell, especially such as\nhad learned to believe in Christ, above all when he knew that they\nwere suffering from habitual oppression and ill-treatment. We may\nwithout hesitation decide that when St.\u00a0James says \"the twelve tribes\nwhich are of the Dispersion\" he means Jews away from their home in\nPalestine, and not Christians away from their home in heaven. For what\npossible point would the Dispersion (\u1f21 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac) have in such a\nmetaphor? Separation from the heavenly home might be spoken of as\nbanishment, or exile, or homelessness, but not as \"dispersion.\" Even\nif we confined ourselves to the opening words, we might safely adopt\nthis conclusion, but we shall find that there are numerous features in\nthe letter itself which abundantly confirm it.\n\nIt is quite out of place to quote such passages as the sealing of \"the\nhundred and forty and four thousand ... out of every tribe of the\nchildren of Israel\" (Rev. vii.\u00a04-8), or the city with \"twelve gates,\n... and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve\ntribes of the children of Israel\" (Rev. xxi.\u00a012). These occur in a\nbook which is symbolical from the first chapter to the last, and\ntherefore we know that the literal construction cannot stand. The\nquestion throughout is not whether a given passage is to be taken\nliterally or symbolically, but what the passage in question\nsymbolizes. Nor, again, can St.\u00a0Peter's declaration that \"ye are an\nelect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own\npossession\" (1\u00a0Pet. ii.\u00a09), be considered as at all parallel. There\nthe combination of expressions plainly shows that the language is\nfigurative; and there is no real analogy between an impassioned\nexhortation, modelled on the addresses of the Hebrew prophets, and the\nmatter-of-fact opening words of a letter. The words have the clear\nring of nationality, and there is nothing whatever added to them to\nturn the simple note into the complex sound of a doubtful metaphor. As\nDavidson justly remarks, \"The use of the phrase _twelve tribes_ is\ninexplicable if the writer intended all believers without distinction.\nThe author makes no allusion to Gentile converts, nor to the relation\nbetween Jew and Gentile incorporated into one spiritual body.\"\n\nLet us look at some of the features which characterize the Epistle\nitself, and see whether they bear out the view which is here\nadvocated, that the persons addressed are Israelites in the national\nsense, and not as having been admitted into the spiritual \"Israel of\nGod\" (Gal. vi.\u00a016).\n\n(1) The writer speaks of Abraham as \"our father,\" without a hint that\nthis is to be understood in any but the literal sense. \"Was not\nAbraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his\nson upon the altar?\" (ii.\u00a021). St.\u00a0Paul, when he speaks of Abraham as\n\"the father of all them that believe,\" clearly indicates this (Rom.\niv.\u00a011). (2) The writer speaks of his readers as worshipping in a\n\"synagogue\" (ii.\u00a02), which may possibly mean that, just as St.\u00a0James\nand the Apostles continued to attend the Temple services after the\nAscension, so their readers are supposed to attend the synagogue\nservices after their conversion. But at least it shows that the\nwriter, in speaking of the public worship of those whom he addresses,\nnaturally uses a word (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae) which had then, and continues to\nhave, specially Jewish associations, rather than one (\u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1)\nwhich from the first beginnings of Christianity was promoted from its\nold political sphere to indicate the congregations, and even the very\nbeing, of the Christian Church. (3) He assumes that his readers are\nfamiliar not only with the life of Abraham (ii.\u00a021, 23), but of Rahab\n(25), the prophets (v.\u00a010), Job (11), and Elijah (17). These frequent\nappeals to the details of the Old Testament would be quite out of\nplace in a letter addressed to Gentile converts. (4) God is spoken of\nunder the specially Hebrew title of \"the Lord of Sabaoth\" (v.\u00a04); and\nthe frequent recurrence of \"the Lord\" throughout the Epistle (i.\u00a07;\niii.\u00a09; iv.\u00a010, 15; v.\u00a010, 11, 15) looks like the language of one who\nwished to recall the name Jehovah to his readers. (5) In\ndiscountenancing swearing (v.\u00a012) Jewish forms of oaths are taken as\nillustrations. (6) The vices which are condemned are such as were as\ncommon among the Jews as among the Gentiles--reckless language, rash\nswearing, oppression of the poor, covetousness. There is little or\nnothing said about the gross immorality which was rare among the Jews,\nbut was almost a matter of course among the Gentiles. St.\u00a0James\ndenounces faults into which Jewish converts would be likely enough to\nlapse; he says nothing about the vices respecting which heathen\nconverts, such as those at Corinth, are constantly warned by St.\u00a0Paul.\n(7) But what is perhaps the most decisive feature of all is that he\nassumes throughout that for those whom he addresses the Mosaic Law is\na binding and final authority. \"If ye have respect of persons, ye\ncommit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors. ... If thou\ndost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor\nof the law\" (ii.\u00a09-11). \"He that speaketh against a brother, or\njudgeth his brother, speaketh against the law, and judgeth the law\"\n(iv.\u00a011).\n\nScarcely any of these seven points, taken singly, would be at all\ndecisive; but when we sum them up together, remembering in how short a\nletter they occur, and when we add them to the very plain and simple\nlanguage of the address, we have an argument which will carry\nconviction to most persons who have no preconceived theory of their\nown to defend. And to this positive evidence derived from the presence\nof so much material that indicates Jewish circles as the destined\nrecipients of the letter, we must add the strongly confirmatory\nnegative evidence derived from the absence of anything which specially\npoints either to Gentile converts or unconverted heathen. We may\ntherefore read the letter as having been written by one who had been\nborn and educated in a thoroughly Jewish atmosphere, who had accepted\nthe Gospel, not as cancelling the Law, but as raising it to a higher\npower; and we may read it also as addressed to men who, like the\nwriter, are by birth and education Jews, and, like him, have\nacknowledged Jesus as their Lord and the Christ. The difference\nbetween writer and readers lies in this, that he is in Palestine, and\nthey not; that he appears to be in a position of authority, whereas\nthey seem for the most part to be a humble and suffering folk. All\nwhich fits in admirably with the hypothesis that we have before us an\nEpistle written by the austere and Judaic-minded James the Just,\nwritten from Jerusalem, to comfort and warn those Jewish Christians\nwho lay remote from his personal influence.\n\nThat it is Jewish _Christians_, and not unbelieving Jews, or Jews\nwhether believing or not, who are addressed, is not open to serious\ndoubt. There is not only the fact that St.\u00a0James at the outset\nproclaims himself to be a Christian (i.\u00a01), but also the statement\nthat the wealthy oppressors of his poor readers \"blaspheme the\nhonourable Name by which ye are called,\" or more literally \"which was\ncalled upon you,\" viz. the Name of Christ. Again, the famous paragraph\nabout faith and works assumes that the faith of the readers and the\nfaith of the writer is identical (ii.\u00a07, 14-20). Once more, he\nexpressly claims them as believers when he writes, \"My brethren, hold\nnot _the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ_, the Lord of glory, with\nrespect of persons\" (ii.\u00a01). And if more be required, we have it in\nthe concluding exhortations: \"Be patient, therefore, brethren, _until\nthe coming of the Lord_.... Stablish your hearts: for _the coming of\nthe Lord_ is at hand\" (v.\u00a07, 8).\n\nWhether or no there are passages which glance aside at unbelieving\nJews, and perhaps even some which are directly addressed to them,\ncannot be decided with so much certainty; but the balance of\nprobability appears to be on the affirmative side in both cases. There\nprobably are places in which St.\u00a0James is thinking of unbelieving\nIsraelites, and one or more passages in which he turns aside and\nsternly rebukes them, much in the same way as the Old Testament\nprophets sometimes turn aside to upbraid Tyre and Sidon and the\nheathen generally. \"Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag\nyou before the judgment-seats?\" (ii.\u00a06), seems to refer to rich\nunconverted Jews prosecuting their poor Christian brethren before the\nsynagogue courts, just as St.\u00a0Paul did when he was Saul the persecutor\n(Acts ix.\u00a02). And \"Do not they blaspheme the honourable Name by which\n_ye_ are called?\" can scarcely be said of Christians. If the\nblasphemers were Christians they would be said rather to blaspheme the\nhonourable Name by which _they themselves_ were called. _There_ would\nlie the enormity--that the name of Jesus Christ had been \"called upon\nthem,\" and yet they blasphemed it. And when we come to look at the\nmatter in detail we shall find reason for believing that the stern\nwords at the beginning of chapter v. are addressed to unbelieving\nJews. There is not one word of Christian, or even moral, exhortation\nin it; it consists entirely of accusation and threatening, and in this\nrespect is in marked contrast to the equally stern words at the\nbeginning of chapter iv., which are addressed to worldly and godless\nChristians.\n\nTo suppose that the rich oppressors so often alluded to in the Epistle\nare _heathen_, as Hilgenfeld does, confuses the whole picture, and\nbrings no compensating advantage. The heathen among whom the Jews of\nthe Dispersion dwelt in Syria, Egypt, Rome, and elsewhere, were of\ncourse, some of them rich, and some of them poor. But wealthy Pagans\nwere not more apt to persecute Jews, whether Christians or not, than\nthe needy Pagan populace. If there was any difference between heathen\nrich and poor in this matter, it was the fanatical and plunder-seeking\nmob, rather than the contemptuous and easy-going rich, who were likely\nto begin a persecution of the Jews, just as in Russia or Germany at\nthe present time. And St.\u00a0James would not be likely to talk of \"the\nLord of Sabaoth\" (v.\u00a04) in addressing wealthy Pagans. But the social\nantagonism so often alluded to in the Epistle, when interpreted to\nmean an antagonism between Jew and Jew, corresponds to a state of\nsociety which is known to have existed in Palestine and the\nneighbouring countries during the half-century which preceded the\nJewish war of A.D.\u00a066-70. (Comp. Matt. xi.\u00a05; xix.\u00a023, 24; Luke i.\u00a053;\nvi.\u00a020, 24; xvi.\u00a019, 20.) During that period the wealthy Jews allied\nthemselves with the Romans, in order more securely to oppress their\npoorer fellow-countrymen. And seeing that the Gospel in the first\ninstance spread chiefly among the poor, this social antagonism between\nrich and poor Jews frequently became an antagonism between unbelieving\nand believing Jews. St.\u00a0James, well aware of this state of things,\nfrom personal experience in Jud\u00e6a, and hearing similar things of the\nJews of the Dispersion in Syria, reasonably supposes that this\nunnatural tyranny of Jew over Jew prevails elsewhere also, and\naddresses all \"the twelve tribes which are of the Diaspora\" on the\nsubject.[25] In any case his opportunities of knowing a very great\ndeal respecting Jews in various parts of the world were large. Jews\nfrom all regions were constantly visiting Jerusalem. But the knowledge\nwhich he must have had respecting the condition of things in Palestine\nand Syria would be quite sufficient to explain what is said in this\nEpistle respecting the tyranny of the rich over the poor.\n\nThe _Diaspora_,[26] or _Dispersion of the Jews_ throughout the\ninhabited world, had been brought about in various ways, and had\ncontinued through many centuries. The two chief causes were _forcible\ndeportation_ and _voluntary emigration_. It was a common policy of\nOriental conquerors to transport whole populations, in order more\ncompletely to subjugate them; and hence the Assyrian and Babylonian\nconquerors of Israel carried away great multitudes of Jews to the\nEast, sending Eastern populations to take their place. Pompey on a\nmuch smaller scale transported Jewish captives to the West, carrying\nhundreds of Jews to Rome. But disturbances in Palestine, and\nopportunities of trade elsewhere, induced large multitudes of Jews to\nemigrate of their own accord, especially to the neighbouring countries\nof Egypt and Syria; and the great commercial centres in Asia Minor,\nAlexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, Miletus, Pergamus, Cyprus, and Rhodes\ncontained large numbers of Jews. While Palestine was the battle-field\nof foreign armies, and while newly founded towns were trying to\nattract population by offering privileges to settlers, thousands of\nJews preferred the advantages of a secure home in exile to the risks\nwhich attended residence in their native country.\n\nAt the time when this Epistle was written three chief divisions of the\nDispersion were recognized--the Babylonian, which ranked as the first,\nthe Syrian, and the Egyptian. But the Diaspora was by no means\nconfined to these three centres. About two hundred years before this\ntime the composer of one of the so-called Sibylline Oracles could\naddress the Jewish nation, and say, \"But every land is full of\nthee,--aye and every ocean.\"[27] And there is abundance of evidence,\nboth in the Bible and outside it, especially in Josephus and Philo,\nthat such language does not go beyond the limits of justifiable\nhyperbole. The list of peoples represented at Jerusalem on the Day of\nPentecost, \"from every nation under heaven,\" tells one a great deal\n(Acts ii.\u00a05-11. Comp. xv.\u00a021, and 1\u00a0Macc. xv.\u00a015-24). Many passages\nfrom Josephus might be quoted (_Ant._ XI. v.\u00a02; XIV. vii.\u00a02; _Bell.\nJud._ II. xvi.\u00a04; VII. iii.\u00a03), as stating in general terms the same\nfact. But perhaps no original authority gives us more information than\nPhilo, in his famous treatise _On the Embassy to the Emperor Caius_,\nwhich went to Rome (_c._ A.D.\u00a040) to obtain the revocation of a decree\nrequiring the Jews to pay divine homage to the Emperor's statue. In\nthat treatise we read that \"Jerusalem is the metropolis, not of the\nsingle country of Jud\u00e6a, but of most countries, because of the\ncolonies which she has sent out, as opportunity offered, into the\nneighbouring lands of Egypt, Ph\u0153nicia, Syria, and C\u0153lesyria, and\nthe more distant lands of Pamphylia and Cilicia, most of Asia, as far\nas Bithynia and the utmost corners of Pontus; likewise unto Europe,\nThessaly, B\u0153otia, Macedonia, \u00c6tolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth, with\nthe most parts and best parts of Greece. And not only are the\ncontinents full of Jewish colonies, but also the most notable of the\nislands--Eub\u0153a, Cyprus, Crete--to say nothing of the lands beyond\nthe Euphrates. For all, excepting a small part of Babylon and those\nsatrapies which contain the excellent land around it, contain Jewish\ninhabitants. So that if my country were to obtain a share in thy\nclemency it would not be one city that would be benefited, but ten\nthousand others, situated in every part of the inhabited\nworld--Europe, Asia, Libya, continental and insular, maritime and\ninland\" (_De Legat. ad Caium_ xxxvi., Gelen., pp. 1031-32). It was\ntherefore an enormous circle of readers that St.\u00a0James addressed when\nhe wrote \"to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion,\" although\nit seems to have been a long time before his letter became known to\nthe most important of the divisions of the Diaspora, viz. the Jewish\nsettlement in Egypt, which had its chief centre in Alexandria. We may\nreasonably suppose that it was the Syrian division which he had\nchiefly in view in writing, and it was to them, no doubt, that the\nletter in the first instance was sent. It is of this division that\nJosephus writes that, widely dispersed as the Jewish race is over the\nwhole of the inhabited world, it is most largely mingled with Syria on\naccount of its proximity, and especially in Antioch, where the kings\nsince Antiochus had afforded them undisturbed tranquillity and equal\nprivileges with the heathen; so that they multiplied exceedingly, and\nmade many proselytes (_Bell. Jud._ VII. iii.\u00a03).\n\nThe enormous significance of the Dispersion as a preparation for\nChristianity must not be overlooked. It showed to both Jew and Gentile\nalike that the barriers which had hedged in and isolated the hermit\nnation had broken down, and that what had ceased to be thus isolated\nhad changed its character. A _kingdom_ had become a _religion_. What\nhenceforth distinguished the Jews in the eyes of all the world was not\ntheir country or their government, but their creed, and through this\nthey exercised upon those among whom they were scattered an influence\nwhich had been impossible under the old conditions of exclusiveness.\nThey themselves also were forced to understand their own religion\nbetter. When the keeping of the letter of the Law became an\nimpossibility, they were compelled to penetrate into its spirit; and\nwhat they exhibited to the heathen was not a mere code of burdensome\nrites and ceremonies, but a moral life and a worship in spirit and\ntruth. The universality of the services of the synagogue taught the\nJew that God's worship was not confined to Jerusalem, and their\nsimplicity attracted proselytes who might have turned away from the\ncomplex and bloody liturgies of the Temple. Even in matters of detail\nthe services in the synagogue prepared the way for the services of the\nChristian Church. The regular lessons--read from two divisions of\nScripture, the antiphonal singing, the turning towards the east, the\ngeneral Amen of the whole congregation, the observance of the third,\nsixth, and ninth hours as hours of prayer, and of one day in seven as\nspecially holy--all these things, together with some others which have\nsince become obsolete, meet us in the synagogue worship, as St.\u00a0James\nknew it, and in the liturgies of the Christian Church, which he and\nthe Apostles and their successors helped to frame. Thus justice once\nmore became mercy, and a punishment was turned into a blessing. The\ncaptivity of the Jew became the freedom of both Jew and Gentile, and\nthe scattering of Israel was the gathering in of all nations unto God.\n\"He hath scattered abroad; He hath given to the poor: His\nrighteousness abideth for ever\" (Ps. cxii.\u00a09; 2\u00a0Cor. ix.\u00a09).\n\n[24] See _The Pastoral Epistles_ in this series, pp. 285-6.\n\n[25] See Salmon, _Introduction to the N.T._, p. 502, 4th ed. (Murray,\n1889); Renan, _L'Antechrist_, p. xii.; Ewald, _History of Israel_,\nvol. vii., p. 451, Eng. Tr. (Longmans, 1885); Weiss, _Introduction to\nthe N.T._, vol. ii., pp. 102-3 (Hodder and Stoughton, 1888).\n\n[26] See the immense amount of information collected in Sch\u00fcrer, _The\nJewish People in the Time of Christ_, div. ii., vol. ii., pp. 219-327;\nalso Westcott's article \"Dispersion,\" in Smith's _Dict. of Bible_;\nHerzog and Plitt, _Real-Encykl._, vol. vii., pp. 203-8; and esp.\nPhilo, _Legat. ad Caium_.\n\n[27] \u03a0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V.\n\n _THE RELATION OF THIS EPISTLE TO THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL\n AND OF ST. PETER. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.\n THE DOCTRINE OF JOY IN TEMPTATION._\n\n \"Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold\n temptations, knowing that the proof of your faith worketh patience.\n And let patience have its perfect work, that ye may be perfect and\n entire, lacking in nothing.\"--JAMES i.\u00a02-4.\n\n\nThis passage at once raises the question of the relation of this\nEpistle to other writings in the New Testament. Did the writer of it\nknow any of the writings of St.\u00a0Paul or of St.\u00a0Peter? It is contended\nin some quarters that the similarity of thought and expression in\nseveral passages is so great as to prove such knowledge, and it is\nargued that such knowledge tells against the genuineness of the\nEpistle. In any case the question of the _date_ of the Epistle is\ninvolved in its relation to these other documents; it was written\nafter them, if it can be established that the author of it was\nacquainted with them.\n\nWith Dr. Salmon[28] we may dismiss the coincidences which have been\npointed out by Davidson and others between expressions in this Epistle\nand the Epistles to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, and Philippians.\nSome critics seem to forget that a large number of words and phrases\nwere part of the common language, not merely of Jews and early\nChristians, but of those who were in the habit of mixing much with\nsuch persons. We can no more argue from such phrases as \"be not\ndeceived\" (1\u00a0Cor. vi.\u00a09; xv.\u00a033; Gal. vi.\u00a07, and James i.\u00a016), \"but\nsome one will say\" (1\u00a0Cor. xv.\u00a035, and James ii.\u00a018), \"a transgressor\nof the law\" (Rom. ii.\u00a025, 27, and James ii.\u00a011), \"fruit of\nrighteousness\" (Phil. i.\u00a011, and James iii.\u00a018), or from such words as\n\"entire\" (1\u00a0Thess. v.\u00a023, and James i.\u00a04), \"transgressor\" used\nabsolutely (Gal. ii.\u00a018, and James ii.\u00a09), and the like, that when\nthey occur in two writings the author of one must have read the other,\nthan we can argue from such phrases as \"natural selection,\" \"survival\nof the fittest,\" and the like that the writer who uses them has read\nthe works of Darwin. A certain amount of stereotyped phraseology is\npart of the intellectual atmosphere of each generation, and the\nwriters in each generation make common use of it. In such cases even\nstriking identity of expressions may prove nothing as to the\ndependence of one author upon another. The obligation is not of one\nwriter to another, but of both to a common and indefinite source. In\nother words, both writers quite naturally make use of language which\nis current in the circles in which they live.[29]\n\n_Some_ of the coincidences between the Epistle of James and the\nEpistle to the _Romans_ are of a character to raise the question\nwhether they can satisfactorily be explained by considerations of this\nkind, and one of these more remarkable coincidences occurs in the\npassage before us. St.\u00a0James writes, \"Knowing that the proof of your\nfaith worketh patience.\" St.\u00a0Paul writes, \"Knowing that tribulation\nworketh patience; and patience, probation\" (Rom. v.\u00a03). In this same\nchapter we have another instance. St.\u00a0James says, \"Be ye doers of the\nword, and not hearers only\" (i.\u00a022). St.\u00a0Paul says, \"Not the hearers\nof a law are just before God, but the doers of a law shall be\njustified\" (Rom. 13). There is yet a third such parallel. St.\u00a0James\nasks, \"Whence come fightings? Come they not hence, even of your\npleasures which war in your members?\" (iv.\u00a01). St.\u00a0Paul laments, \"I\nsee a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind\"\n(Rom. vii.\u00a023).[30]\n\nThe effect of this evidence will be different upon different minds.\nBut it may reasonably be doubted whether these passages, even when\nsummed up together, are stronger than many other strange coincidences\nin literature, which are known to be accidental. The second instance,\ntaken by itself, is of little weight; for the contrast between hearers\nand doers is one of the most hackneyed commonplaces of rhetoric. But\nassuming that a _prim\u00e2 facie_ case has been established, and that one\nof the two writers has seen the Epistle of the other, no difficulty is\ncreated, whichever we assume to have written first. The Epistle to the\nRomans was written in A.D.\u00a058, and might easily have become known to\nSt.\u00a0James before A.D.\u00a062. On the other hand, the Epistle of St.\u00a0James\nmay be placed anywhere between A.D.\u00a045 and 62, and in that case might\neasily have become known to St.\u00a0Paul before A.D.\u00a058. And of the two\nalternatives, this latter is perhaps the more probable. We shall find\nother reasons for placing the Epistle of St.\u00a0James earlier than\nA.D.\u00a058; and we may reasonably suppose that had he read the Epistle to\nthe Romans, he would have expressed his meaning respecting\njustification somewhat differently. Had he wished (as some erroneously\nsuppose) to oppose and correct the teaching of St.\u00a0Paul, he would have\ndone so much more unmistakably. And as he is really quite in harmony\nwith St.\u00a0Paul on the question, he would, if he had read him, have\navoided words which look like a contradiction of St.\u00a0Paul's words.\n\nIt remains to examine the relations between our Epistle and the First\nEpistle of St.\u00a0Peter. Here, again, one of the coincidences occurs in\nthe passage before us. St.\u00a0James writes, \"Count it all joy, when ye\nenter into manifold temptations; knowing that the proof of your faith\nworketh patience;\" and St.\u00a0Peter writes, \"Ye greatly rejoice, though\nnow for a little while, if need be, ye have been put to grief in\nmanifold temptations, that the proof of your faith ... might be found\"\n(1\u00a0Peter i.\u00a06, 7). Here there is the thought of rejoicing in trials\ncommon to both passages, and the expressions for \"manifold\ntemptations\" and \"proof of your patience\" are identical in the two\nplaces. This is remarkable, especially when taken with other\ncoincidences. On the other hand, the fact that some of the language is\ncommon to all three Epistles (James, Peter, and Romans) suggests the\npossibility that we have here one of the \"faithful sayings\" of\nprimitive Christianity, rather than one or two writers remembering the\nwritings of a predecessor.\n\nIn three places St.\u00a0James and St.\u00a0Peter both quote the same passages\nfrom the Old Testament. In i.\u00a010, 11 St.\u00a0James has, \"_As the flower of\nthe grass_ he shall pass away. For the sun ariseth with the scorching\nwind, and _withereth the grass; and the flower_ thereof _falleth_,\"\nwhere the words in italics are from Isaiah xl.\u00a06-8. St.\u00a0Peter (i.\u00a024)\nquotes the words of Isaiah much more completely and consecutively, and\nin their original sense; he does not merely make a free use of\nportions of them. Again, in iv.\u00a06 St.\u00a0James quotes from Prov. iii.\u00a034,\n\"God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.\" In v.\u00a05\nSt.\u00a0Peter quotes exactly the same words. Lastly, in v.\u00a020 St.\u00a0James\nquotes from Prov. x.\u00a012 the expression \"covereth sins.\" In iv.\u00a08\nSt.\u00a0Peter quotes a word more of the original, \"love covereth sins.\"\nAnd it will be observed that both St.\u00a0James and St.\u00a0Peter change\n\"covereth _all_ sins\" into \"covereth _a multitude_ of sins.\"\n\nOnce more we must be content to give a verdict of \"Not proven.\" There\nis a certain amount of probability, but nothing that amounts to proof,\nthat one of these writers had seen the other's Epistle. Let us,\nhowever, assume that echoes of one Epistle are found in the other;\nthen, whichever letter we put first, we have no chronological\ndifficulty. The probable dates of death are, for St.\u00a0James A.D.\u00a062,\nfor St.\u00a0Peter A.D.\u00a064-68. Either Epistle may be placed in the six or\nseven years immediately preceding A.D.\u00a062, and one of the most recent\ncritics[31] places 1\u00a0Peter in the middle of the year A.D.\u00a050, and the\nEpistle of James any time after that date. But there are good reasons\nfor believing that 1\u00a0Peter contains references to the persecution\nunder Nero, that \"fiery trial\" (iv.\u00a012) in which the mere being a\nChristian would lead to penal consequences (iv.\u00a016), and in which, for\nconscience' sake, men would have to \"endure griefs, suffering\nwrongfully\" (ii.\u00a019), thereby being \"partakers of Christ's sufferings\"\n(iv.\u00a013). In which case 1\u00a0Peter cannot be placed earlier than A.D.\u00a064,\nand the Epistle of James must be the earlier of the two. And it seems\nto be chiefly those who would make our Epistle a forgery of the second\ncentury (Br\u00fcckner, Holtzmann) who consider that it is James that\nechoes 1\u00a0Peter, rather than 1\u00a0Peter that reproduces James. There is a\npowerful consensus of opinion[32] that if there is any influence of\none writer upon the other, it is St.\u00a0James who influences St.\u00a0Peter,\nand not the other way.\n\nWe must not place the Epistle of St.\u00a0James in or close after A.D.\u00a050.\nThe crisis respecting the treatment of Gentile converts was then at\nits height (Acts xv.); and it would be extraordinary if a letter\nwritten in the midst of the crisis, and by the person who took the\nleading part in dealing with it, should contain no allusion to it. The\nEpistle must be placed either before (A.D.\u00a045-49) or some time after\n(A.D.\u00a053-62) the so-called Council of Jerusalem. There is reason for\nbelieving that the controversy about compelling Gentiles to observe\nthe Mosaic Law, although sharp and critical, was not very lasting. The\n_modus vivendi_ decreed by the Apostles was on the whole loyally\naccepted, and therefore a letter written a few years after it was\npromulgated would not of necessity take any notice of it. Indeed, to\nhave revived the question again might have been impolitic, as implying\neither that there was still some doubt on the point, or that the\nApostolic decision had proved futile.\n\nIn deciding between the two periods (A.D.\u00a045-49 and 53-62) for the\ndate of the Epistle of St.\u00a0James, we have not much to guide us if we\nadopt the view that it is independent of the writings of St.\u00a0Peter and\nof St.\u00a0Paul. There is plenty in the letter to lead us to suppose that\nit was written before the war (A.D.\u00a066-70) which put an end to the\ntyranny of the wealthy Sadducees over their poorer brethren, before\ncontroversies between Jewish and Gentile Christians such as we find at\nCorinth had arisen or become chronic, and before doctrinal\ncontroversies had sprung up in the Church; also that it was written at\na time when the coming of Christ to judgment was still regarded as\nnear at hand (v.\u00a08), and by some one who could recollect the words of\nChrist independently of the Gospels, and who therefore must have stood\nin close relationship to Him. All this points to its having been\nwritten within the lifetime of James the Lord's brother, and by such a\nperson as he was; but it does not seem to be decisive as to the\ndifference between _c._ A.D.\u00a049 and _c._ A.D.\u00a059. We must be content\nto leave this undecided. But it is worth while pointing out that if we\nplace it earlier than A.D.\u00a052 we make it the earliest book in the New\nTestament. The First Epistle to the Thessalonians was written late in\nA.D.\u00a052 or early in 53; and excepting our Epistle, and _perhaps_\n1\u00a0Peter, there is no other writing in the New Testament that can\nreasonably be placed at so early a date as 52.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\"Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold\ntemptations.\" \"My brethren,\" with or without the epithet \"beloved,\" is\nthe regular form of address throughout the Epistle (16, 19; ii.\u00a01, 5,\n14; iii.\u00a01, 10, 12; v.\u00a012), in one or two places the \"my\" being\nomitted (iv.\u00a011; v.\u00a07, 9, 19). The frequency of this brotherly address\nseems to indicate how strongly the writer feels, and wishes his\nreaders to feel, the ties of race and of faith which bind them\ntogether.\n\nIn \"Count it all joy,\" _i.e._ \"Consider it as nothing but matter for\nrejoicing,\"[33] we miss a linguistic touch which is evident in the\nGreek, but cannot well be preserved in English. In saying \"joy\"\n(\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd) St.\u00a0James is apparently carrying on the idea just started\nin the address, \"greeting\" (\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd), _i.e._ \"wishing joy.\" \"I wish\nyou _joy_; and you must account as pure _joy_ all the troubles into\nwhich you may fall.\" This carrying on a word or thought from one\nsentence into the next is characteristic of St.\u00a0James, and reminds us\nsomewhat of the style of St.\u00a0John. Thus \"The proof of your faith\nworketh _patience_. And let _patience_ have its perfect work\" (i.\u00a03,\n4). \"_Lacking_ in nothing. But if any of you _lacketh_ wisdom\" (4, 5).\n\"Nothing _doubting_: for he that _doubteth_ is like the surge of the\nsea\" (6). \"The lust, when it hath conceived, beareth _sin_; and the\n_sin_, when it is full grown, bringeth forth death\" (15). \"Slow to\n_wrath_: for the _wrath_ of man worketh not the righteousness of God\"\n(19, 20). \"This man's _religion_ is vain. Pure _religion_ and\nundefiled before our God and Father is this\" (26, 27). \"In many things\nwe all _stumble_. If any man _stumbleth_ not in word\" (iii.\u00a02).\n\"Behold, how much wood is kindled by how small a _fire_! And the\ntongue is a _fire_\" (iii.\u00a05, 6). \"Ye have not, because ye _ask_ not.\nYe _ask_, and receive not\" (iv.\u00a02, 3). \"Your gold and your silver are\n_rusted_; and their _rust_ shall be for a testimony against you\"\n(v.\u00a03). \"We call them blessed which _endured_: ye have heard of the\n_endurance_ of Job\" (v.\u00a011).\n\nIt is just possible that \"_all_ joy\" (\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd) is meant exactly\nto balance \"_manifold_ temptations\" (\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2). Great\n_diversity_ of troubles is to be considered as in reality _every kind_\nof joy. Nevertheless, the troubles are not to be of our own making or\nseeking. It is not when we inflict suffering on ourselves, but when we\n\"fall into\" it, and therefore may regard it as placed in our way by\nGod, that we are to look upon it as a source of joy rather than of\nsorrow. The word for \"fall into\" (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) implies not only that\nwhat one falls into is unwelcome, but also that it is unsought and\nunexpected. Moreover, it implies that this unforeseen misfortune is\nlarge enough to encircle or overwhelm one. It indicates a _serious_\ncalamity. The word for \"temptations\" in this passage is the same as is\nused in the sixth petition of the Lord's Prayer; but the word is not\nused in the same sense in both places. In the Lord's Prayer all kinds\nof temptation are included, and especially the internal solicitations\nof the devil, as is shown by the next petition: \"Lead us not into\ntemptation, but deliver us from the tempter.\" In the passage before us\ninternal temptations, if not actually excluded, are certainly quite in\nthe background. What St.\u00a0James has principally in his mind are\n_external_ trials, such as poverty of intellect (ver. 5), or of\nsubstance (ver. 9), or persecution (ii.\u00a06, 7), and the like; those\nworldly troubles which test our faith, loyalty, and obedience, and\ntempt us to abandon our trust in God, and to cease to strive to please\nHim. The trials by which Satan was allowed to tempt Job are the kind\nof temptations to be understood here.[34] They are material for\nspiritual joy, because (1) they are opportunities for practising\nvirtue, which cannot be learned without practice, nor practised\nwithout opportunities; (2) they teach us that we have here no abiding\ncity, for a world in which such things are possible cannot be a\nlasting home; (3) they make us more Christlike; (4) we have the\nassurance of Divine support, and that no more will ever be laid upon\nus than we, relying upon that support, can bear; (5) we have the\nassurance of abundant compensation here and hereafter.\n\nSt.\u00a0James here is only echoing the teaching of his Brother: \"Blessed\nare ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all\nmanner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be\nexceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven\" (Matt. v.\u00a011, 12).\nIn the first days after Pentecost he had seen the Apostles acting in\nthe very spirit which he here enjoins, and he had himself very\nprobably taken part in doing so, \"rejoicing that they were counted\nworthy to suffer dishonour for the Name\" (Acts v.\u00a041. Comp.\niv.\u00a023-30). And as we have already seen in comparing the parallel\npassages, St.\u00a0Peter (1\u00a0Peter 1, 6) and St.\u00a0Paul (Rom. v.\u00a03) teach the\nsame doctrine of rejoicing in tribulation.\n\nAs St.\u00a0Augustine long ago pointed out, in his letter to Anastasius\n(_Ep._ cxlv.\u00a07, 8), and Hooker also (_Eccl. Pol._ V. xlviii.\u00a013),\nthere is no inconsistency in teaching such doctrine, and yet praying,\n\"Lead us not into temptation.\" Not only is there no sin in shrinking\nfrom both external trials and internal temptations, or in desiring to\nbe freed from such things; but such is the weakness of the human will,\nthat it is only reasonable humility to pray to God not to allow us to\nbe subjected to severe trials. Nevertheless, when God, in His wisdom,\nhas permitted such things to come upon us, the right course is, not to\nbe cast down and sorrowful, as though something quite intolerable had\novertaken us, but to rejoice that God has thought us capable of\nenduring something for His sake, and has given us the opportunity of\nstrengthening our patience and our trust in Him.\n\nThis doctrine of joy in suffering, which at first sight seems to be\nalmost superhuman, is shown by experience to be less hard than the\napparently more human doctrine of resignation and fortitude. The\neffort to be resigned, and to suffer without complaining, is not a\nvery inspiriting effort. Its tendency is towards depression. It does\nnot lift us out of ourselves or above our tribulations. On the\ncontrary, it leads rather to self-contemplation and a brooding over\nmiseries. Between mere resignation and thankful joy there is all the\ndifference that there is between mere obedience and affectionate\ntrust. The one is submission; the other is love. It is in the long run\neasier to rejoice in tribulation, and be thankful for it, than to be\nmerely resigned and submit patiently. And therefore this \"hard saying\"\nis really a merciful one, for it teaches us to endure trials in the\nspirit that will make us feel them least. It is not only \"a good thing\nto sing praises unto our God;\" it is also \"a joyful and pleasant thing\nto be thankful\" (Ps. cxlvii.\u00a01).\n\nAnd here it may be noticed that St.\u00a0James is no Cynic or Stoic. He\ndoes not tell us that we are to anticipate misfortune, and cut\nourselves off from all those things the loss of which might involve\nsuffering; or that we are to trample on our feelings, and act as if we\nhad none, treating sufferings as if they were non-existent, or as if\nthey in no way affected us. He does not teach us that as Christians we\nlive in an atmosphere in which excruciating pain, whether of body or\nmind, is a matter of pure indifference, and that such emotions as fear\nor grief under the influence of adversity, and hope or joy under the\ninfluence of prosperity, are utterly unworthy and contemptible. There\nis not a hint of anything of the kind. He points out to us that\ntemptations, and especially external trials, are really blessings, if\nwe use them aright; and he teaches us to meet them in that conviction.\nAnd it is manifest that the spirit in which to welcome a blessing is\nthe spirit of joy and thankfulness.\n\nSt.\u00a0James does not bid us accept this doctrine of joy in tribulation\nupon his personal authority. It is no philosopher's _ipse dixit_. He\nappeals to his readers' own experience: \"Knowing that the proof of\nyour faith worketh patience.\" \"Knowing\" (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd), _i.e._ \"in that\nye are continually finding out and getting to know.\" The verb and the\ntense indicate progressive and continuous knowledge, as by the\nexperience of daily life; and this teaches us that proving and testing\nnot only brings to light, but brings into existence, patience. This\npatience (\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae), this abiding firm under attack or pressure, must\nbe allowed full scope to regulate all our conduct; and then we shall\nsee why trials are a matter for joy rather than sorrow, when we find\nourselves moving onwards towards, not the barrenness of Stoical\n\"self-sufficiency\" (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1), but the fulness of Divine perfection.\n\"That ye may be perfect and entire,[35] lacking in nothing,\" is\nperhaps one of the many reminiscences of Christ's words which we shall\nfind in this letter of the Lord's brother. \"Ye therefore shall be\nperfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect\" (Matt. v.\u00a048).\n\n[28] _Introduction to the N.T._, pp. 509-10, 4th Ed.\n\n[29] It is quite possible that both St.\u00a0Paul and St.\u00a0James derive the\nphrase \"a transgressor of the law\" from the remarkable addition to the\ncanonical Gospels which is found in Codex D (Beza) after Luke vi.\u00a04:\n\"The same day He beheld a certain man working on the Sabbath, and said\nto him, Man, if thou knowest what thou art doing, blessed art thou;\nbut if thou knowest not thou art accursed and _a transgressor of the\nlaw_.\" Note that in Rom. ii., where the phrase occurs twice (vv.\u00a025,\n27), the address \"O man\" also occurs twice. Comp. Gal. ii.\u00a018, and see\nA. Resch, _Agrapha; Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente_ (Leipzig,\n1889), pp. 36, 189-92.\n\n[30] In order to do justice to these coincidences one must look at\nthem in the original Greek; but to those who cannot read Greek the\naccuracy of the Revised Version gives a very fair idea of the amount\nof similarity.\n\n1. \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03bd\n(James i.\u00a03): \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f21 \u03b8\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd (Rom. v.\u00a03).\n\n2. \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (James i.\u00a022): \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb' \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (Rom. ii.\u00a013).\n\n3. \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd (James\niv.\u00a01): \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bd\u03bf\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 (Rom vii.\u00a023).\n\n[31] B. Weiss, _Introduction to the N.T._, vol. ii., pp. 106, 150\n(Hodder and Stoughton, 1888).\n\n[32] Beyschlag's revision of Meyer's _Brie des Jacobus_ (G\u00f6ttingen,\n1888), p. 22.\n\n[33] This rendering has been questioned; but it is justified by such\nexpressions as \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \"I will tell nothing but\nwhat is true\" (Hom. Od. xi.\u00a0507). See _Pastoral Epistles_ in this\nseries, p. 392.\n\n[34] See F. D. Maurice, _Unity of the N.T._ (Parker, 1854), p. 318.\n\n[35] On the strength of the word for \"entire\" (\u1f41\u03bb\u03cc\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2), which\noccurs nowhere else in the New Testament, excepting 1\u00a0Thess. v.\u00a023, it\nhas been asserted that the writer of this Epistle must have seen that\npassage. The adjective is used in the Septuagint of whole, unhewn\nstones, _saxis informibus et impolitis_ (Deut. xxvii.\u00a06), and in\nJosephus of entire animals used for sacrifice (_Ant._ III. ix.\u00a02). It\nis fairly common in Plato and Aristotle. The substantive \u1f41\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\noccurs in Acts iii.\u00a016, of the \"perfect soundness\" given to the\nimpotent man, and in the Septuagint (Isa. i.\u00a06), of the \"soundness\"\nwhich was wholly wanting in Israel. If St.\u00a0James did not get his\nknowledge of the word simply from his knowledge of the Greek language,\nwhich is manifestly very complete, he probably derived it from the\nSeptuagint. It is absurd to base an argument as to acquaintance with\n1\u00a0Thessalonians on so common a word.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n\n _THE RELATION OF THIS EPISTLE TO THE BOOKS\n OF ECCLESIASTICUS AND OF THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON.\n THE VALUE OF THE APOCRYPHA, AND THE MISCHIEF\n OF NEGLECTING IT._\n\n \"But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to\n all liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But\n let him ask in faith, nothing doubting: for he that doubteth is like\n the surge of the sea driven by the wind and tossed. For let not that\n man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord; a double-minded\n man, unstable in all his ways.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES i.\u00a05-8.\n\n\nThe previous section led us to the question as to the relation of this\nEpistle to certain Christian writings, and in particular to the\nEpistle of St.\u00a0Paul to the Romans, and to the First Epistle of\nSt.\u00a0Peter. The present section, combined with the preceding one,\nraises a similar question--the relation of our Epistle to certain\nJewish writings, and especially the Books of Ecclesiasticus and the\nWisdom of Solomon.\n\nThe two sets of questions are not parallel. In the former case, even\nif we could determine that the writer of one Epistle had certainly\nseen the Epistle of the other, we should still be uncertain as to\nwhich had written first. Here, if the similarity is found to be too\ngreat to be accounted for by common influences acting upon both\nwriters, and we are compelled to suppose that one has made use of the\nwriting of the other, there cannot be any doubt as to the side on\nwhich the obligation lies. The Book of Ecclesiasticus certainly, and\nthe Book of Wisdom possibly, had come into circulation long before\nSt.\u00a0James was born. And if, with some of the latest writers[36] on the\nsubject, we place the Book of Wisdom as late as A.D.\u00a040, it\nnevertheless was written in plenty of time for St.\u00a0James to have\nbecome acquainted with it before he wrote his Epistle. Although some\ndoubts have been expressed on the subject, the number of similarities,\nboth of thought and expression, between the Epistle of St.\u00a0James and\nEcclesiasticus is too great to be reasonably accounted for without the\nsupposition that St.\u00a0James was not only acquainted with the book, but\nfond of its contents. And it is to be remembered, in forming an\nopinion on the subject, that there is nothing intrinsically improbable\nin the supposition that St.\u00a0James had read Ecclesiasticus. Indeed, the\nimprobability would rather be the other way. Even if there were no\ncoincidences of ideas and language between our Epistle and\nEcclesiasticus, we know enough about St.\u00a0James and about the\ncirculation of Ecclesiasticus to say that he was likely to become\nacquainted with it. As Dr. Salmon remarks on the use of the Apocrypha\ngenerally, \"The books we know as Apocrypha are nearly all earlier than\nthe New Testament writers, _who could not well have been ignorant of\nthem_; and therefore coincidences between the former and the latter\nare not likely to have been the result of mere accident.\"[37]\n\nBut it will be worth while to quote a decided expression of opinion,\non each side of the question immediately before us, from the writings\nof scholars who are certainly well qualified to give a decided\nopinion. On the one hand, Bernhard Weiss says, \"It has been\nincorrectly held by most that the author adheres very closely to Jesus\nSirach.... But it must be distinctly denied that there is anywhere an\necho of the Book of Wisdom.\"[38] On the other hand, Dr. Edersheim,\nafter pointing out the parallel between Ecclus. xii.\u00a010, 11, and James\nv.\u00a03, concludes, \"In view of all this it _cannot be doubted_ that both\nthe simile and the expression of it in the Epistle of St.\u00a0James were\nderived from Ecclesiasticus.\" And then he gives some more coincidences\nbetween the two writings, and sums up thus: \"But if the result is to\n_prove beyond doubt_ the familiarity of St.\u00a0James with a book which at\nthe time was evidently in wide circulation, it exhibits with even\ngreater clearness the immense spiritual difference between the\nstandpoint occupied in Ecclesiasticus and that in the Epistle of\nSt.\u00a0James.\"[39] And Archdeacon Farrar quotes with approval an estimate\nthat St.\u00a0James \"alludes more or less directly to the Book of the\nWisdom of Solomon at least five times, but to the Book of\nEcclesiasticus more than fifteen times.... The fact is the more\nstriking because in other respects St.\u00a0James shows no sympathy with\nAlexandrian speculations. There is not in him the faintest tinge of\nPhilonian philosophy; on the contrary, he belongs in a marked degree\nto the school of Jerusalem. He is a thorough Hebraiser, a typical\nJudaist. All his thoughts and phrases move normally in the Palestinian\nsphere. This is a curious and almost unnoticed phenomenon. The\n\"sapiential literature\" of the Old Testament was the _least_\nspecifically Israelite. It was the direct precursor of Alexandrian\nmorals. It deals with mankind, and not with the Jew. Yet St.\u00a0James,\nwho shows so much partiality for this literature, is of all the\nwriters of the New Testament the least Alexandrian, and the most\nJudaic.\"[40]\n\nLet us endeavour to form an opinion for ourselves; and the only way in\nwhich to do this with thoroughness is to place side by side, in the\noriginal Greek, the passages in which there seems to be coincidence\nbetween the two writers. Want of space prevents this from being done\nhere. But some of the most striking coincidences shall be placed in\nparallel columns, and where the coincidence is inadequately\nrepresented by the English Version the Greek shall be given also.\nOther coincidences, which are not drawn out in full, will be added, to\nenable students who care to examine the evidence more in detail to do\nso without much trouble. Two Bibles, or, still better, a Septuagint\nand a Greek Testament, will serve the purpose of parallel columns.\n\nIt will be found that by far the greater number of coincidences occur\nin the first chapter, a fact which suggests the conjecture that\nSt.\u00a0James had been reading Ecclesiasticus shortly before he began to\nwrite. In the middle of the Epistle there is very little that strongly\nrecalls the son of Sirach. In the last chapter there are one or two\nstriking parallels; but by far the larger proportion is in the first\nchapter.\n\n ECCLESIASTICUS. ST. JAMES.\n\n 1. A patient man will bear for a Count it all joy, my brethren,\n time, and afterward joy shall when ye fall into manifold\n spring up unto him (i.\u00a023). temptations (\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2), knowing\n that the proof (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd)\n My son, if thou come to serve the of your faith worketh patience.\n Lord, prepare thy soul for And let patience have her perfect\n temptation (\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd). Set thy work, that ye may be perfect\n heart aright, and constantly and entire, lacking in nothing\n endure.... Whatsoever is brought (i.\u00a02-4).\n upon thee take cheerfully, and be\n patient when thou art changed to a Blessed is the man that endureth\n low estate. For gold is tried temptation (\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd);\n (\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) in the fire, and for when he hath been approved\n acceptable men in the furnace of (\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2), he shall\n adversity (ii.\u00a01-5). receive the crown of life (i.\u00a012).\n\n 2. If thou desire wisdom But if any of you lacketh\n (\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd), keep the commandments, wisdom (\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd), let him ask\n and the Lord shall give her unto of God, who giveth to all men\n thee (i.\u00a026). liberally, and upbraideth not\n (\u03bc\u1f74 \u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2); and it shall\n I desired wisdom (\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd) openly be given him (i.\u00a05).\n in my prayer.... The Lord hath\n given me a tongue for my reward\n (li.\u00a013, 22).\n\n Thy desire for wisdom (\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2)\n shall be given thee (vi.\u00a037. Comp.\n xliii.\u00a033). [A fool] will give\n little, and will upbraid\n (\u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9) much (xx.\u00a015).\n\n After thou hast given, upbraid\n (\u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5) not (xli.\u00a022. Comp.\n xviii.\u00a018).\n\n 3. Distrust not the fear of the But let him ask in faith,\n Lord; and come not unto Him with a nothing doubting: for he that\n double heart (i.\u00a028). doubteth is like the surge of\n the sea driven by the wind and\n Woe be to fearful hearts, and faint tossed. For let not that man\n hands, and the sinner that goeth think that he shall receive\n two ways (ii.\u00a012). anything of the Lord; a\n double-minded man, unstable in all\n Be not faint-hearted when thou his ways (i.\u00a06-8. Comp. iv.\u00a08).\n makest thy prayer (vii.\u00a010. Comp.\n xxxiii.\u00a02; xxxv.\u00a016, 17).\n\n 4. Exalt not thyself, lest thou But let the brother of low\n fall, and bring dishonour upon thy degree glory in his high estate;\n soul (i.\u00a030). and the rich in that he is made\n low (i.\u00a09, 10).\n The greater thou art, the more\n humble thyself, and thou shalt find\n favour before the Lord (iii.\u00a018.\n Comp. xxxi.\u00a01-9).\n\n 5. Say not thou, It is through the Let no man say, when he is\n Lord that I fell away: for thou tempted, I am tempted of God:\n oughtest not to do the things that for God cannot be tempted\n He hateth. Say not thou, He hath with evil, and He Himself\n caused me to err: for He hath no tempteth no man (i.\u00a013).\n need of the sinful man (xv.\u00a011, 12).\n\n 6. Be swift in thy listening Let every man be swift to hear\n (\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5); and (\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9), slow\n with patience give answer (v.\u00a011). to speak, slow to wrath (i.\u00a019).\n\n 7. Thou shalt be to him as one that He is like unto a man beholding\n hath wiped a mirror (\u1f14\u03c3\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd), his natural face in a mirror (\u1f10\u03bd\n and shalt know that it is not \u1f10\u03c3\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff3).... Your gold and your\n rusted (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) for ever silver are rusted (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9);\n (xii.\u00a011). and their rust (\u1f30\u03cc\u03c2) shall\n be a testimony against you\n Like as bronze rusteth (\u1f30\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9), (i.\u00a023; v.\u00a03).\n so is his wickedness (xii.\u00a010).\n\n Lose money through a brother and a\n friend, and let it not rust\n (\u1f30\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9) under the stone unto\n loss (xxix.\u00a010).\n\n 8. He that looketh in He that looketh into\n (\u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd) through her (\u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cd\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2) the perfect\n windows, _i.e._ the windows of law (i.\u00a025).\n wisdom (xiv.\u00a023).\n\n A fool peepeth in (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9)\n at the door (xxi.\u00a023).\n\n 9. A prey of lions are wild asses But ye have dishonoured the poor\n in the wilderness; so the fodder of man (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd). Do not the\n the rich are the poor (\u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u1f76 rich (\u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9) oppress you,\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u03af: xiii.\u00a019. Comp. and themselves drag you before the\n xiii.\u00a03, 17, 18). judgment-seats? (ii.\u00a06).\n\nIt will be observed that of these nine examples all come out of the\nfirst two chapters of St.\u00a0James, and six are from the first two\nchapters of Ecclesiasticus. This fact is worth considering in\nestimating the probabilities of St.\u00a0James being under the influence of\nthis earlier and popular book. Owing to recent reading, or some other\ncause, he seems to have been specially familiar with the opening\nchapters of Ecclesiasticus. Probably most persons who study these\ncoincidences will be of the opinion that Bernhard Weiss is needlessly\ncautious and sceptical when he refuses to assent to the common opinion\nthat in some portions of the Epistle St.\u00a0James closely follows the\nWisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach. The strongest coincidence is the\nseventh in the table. The word for \"to rust\" (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c9) occurs nowhere\nelse either in the Septuagint or in the New Testament, and the\npassages in Ecclesiasticus and St.\u00a0James \"are the only Biblical\npassages in which the figure of rust as affecting unused silver and\ngold occurs\" (Edersheim). The fifth instance is also very striking.\n\nLet us now look at some of the coincidences between the Book of the\nWisdom of Solomon and the Epistle of St.\u00a0James.\n\n WISDOM. ST. JAMES.\n\n 1. The hope of the ungodly is like He that doubteth is like the surge\n thistle-down carried away by the of the sea driven by the wind and\n wind; like a thin froth that is tossed.... As the flower of the\n driven away by the blast, and like grass he shall pass away.... So\n smoke is dispersed by the wind also shall the rich man fade away\n (v.\u00a014. Comp. \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 in (\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) in his ways\n ii.\u00a08). (i.\u00a06, 10, 11).\n\n 2. In eternity it weareth a crown When he hath been approved he shall\n and triumpheth (iv.\u00a02). receive the crown of life, which\n the Lord promised to them that love\n Him (i.\u00a012).\n\n 3. The alterations of the solstices With whom can be no variation,\n and the change of seasons (\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd neither shadow of turning (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1'\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd: \u1fa7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u1f74 \u1f22 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c2\n vii.\u00a018). \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1: i.\u00a017).\n\n 4. Let us oppress Ye have dishonoured the poor man.\n (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd) the poor Do not the rich oppress\n righteous man.... Let us examine (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd) you, and\n him with despitefulness and torture themselves drag you before the\n (ii.\u00a010, 19). judgment-seats? (ii.\u00a06).\n\n 5. For the lowest is pardonable by For judgment is without mercy to\n mercy; but mighty men shall be him that hath showed no mercy:\n mightily chastised (vi.\u00a06). mercy glorieth against judgment\n (ii.\u00a013).\n\n 6. What hath pride profited us? or Go to now, ye that say, To-day or\n what good hath riches with our to-morrow we will go into this\n vaunting (\u1f00\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) brought us? city, and spend a year there, and\n All those things are passed away trade and get gain: whereas ye know\n like a shadow, and as a post that not what shall be on the morrow.\n hasted by, etc. etc.; even so we, What is your life? For ye are a\n as soon as we were born, came to an vapour, that appeareth for a little\n end\" (v.\u00a08-14). time, and then vanisheth away....\n But now ye glory in your vauntings\n (\u1f00\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2): all such glorying\n is evil (iv.\u00a013-16).\n\n 7. Let us lie in wait for the Ye have condemned (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5),\n righteous (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd).... Let ye have killed the righteous one\n us condemn him (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd) (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd); he doth not resist\n with a shameful death (ii.\u00a012, 20). you (v.\u00a06).\n\nIt will at once be perceived that these parallels are neither so\nnumerous nor so convincing as those which have been pointed out\nbetween Ecclesiasticus and the Epistle of St.\u00a0James; but they are\nsufficient to make a _prim\u00e2 facie_ case of considerable probability,\nwhatever date we assign to the Book of Wisdom. This probability is\nstrengthened by the fact that this book, with the rest of the\nApocrypha or deutero-canonical writings, constituted to a large extent\nthe _religious literature of the Jews of the Dispersion_; and\ntherefore in writing to such Jews St.\u00a0James would be likely to make\nconscious allusions to writings with which his hearers would be sure\nto be familiar; a consideration which strengthens the case as regards\nthe coincidences with Ecclesiasticus, as well as regards those with\nthe Wisdom of Solomon. Even if the probability as to the Alexandrian\norigin of Wisdom were a certainty, and if the conjectural date A.D.\u00a040\nwere established, there would be nothing surprising in its becoming\nwell known in Jerusalem within twenty years of its production. It is,\ntherefore, far too strong an assertion when Weiss declares that \"it\nmust be distinctly denied that there is anywhere [in the Epistle of\nSt.\u00a0James] an echo of the Book of Wisdom.\" All that one can safely say\nis that the evidence for his acquaintance with the book does not\napproach to proof.\n\nBut the use of these two books of the Apocrypha by writers in the New\nTestament does not depend upon the question whether St.\u00a0James makes\nuse of them or not. If this were the place to do it, it might be shown\nthat other coincidences, both of language and thought, far too\nnumerous and too strong to be all of them accidental, occur in the\nwritings of St.\u00a0Peter, St.\u00a0Paul, and St.\u00a0John.[41] Such things also\noccur outside the New Testament in the Epistles of Clement and of\nBarnabas; while Clement of Alexandria frequently quotes Ecclesiasticus\nwith the introductory formula, \"The Scripture saith.\"\n\nThese facts go a long way towards proving that the neglect of the\nApocrypha which is so prevalent among ourselves is a thing which\ncannot be defended, either by an appeal to Scripture or by the\npractice of the primitive Church; for both the one and the other show\na great respect for these deutero-canonical writings. That the New\nLectionary omits a good deal of what used to be read publicly in\nchurch is not a thing to be lamented. We gladly sacrifice portions of\nthe Apocrypha in order to obtain more of Ezekiel and Revelation. It is\nthe neglect of them in private reading that is so much to be deplored.\nPassages which are too grotesque and too unspiritual to be edifying\nwhen read to a mixed congregation are nevertheless full of\ninstruction, and throw most valuable light both on the Old and on the\nNew Testament. The Apocryphal writings, instead of being a worthless\ninterpolation between the Old Testament and the New, like a block of\npaltry buildings disfiguring two noble edifices, are among our best\nmeans of understanding how the Old Testament led up to the New, and\nprepared the way for it. They show us the Jewish mind under the\ncombined influences of Jewish Scriptures, Gentile culture, and new\nphases of political life, and being gradually brought into the\ncondition in which it either fiercely opposed or ardently accepted the\nteaching of Christ and His Apostles. A huge chasm yawns between\nJudaism as we leave it at the close of the Old Testament canon, and as\nwe find it at the beginning of the Gospel history; and we have no\nbetter material with which to bridge the chasm than the writings of\nthe Apocrypha. This is well brought out, not only in the commentary on\nthe Apocrypha already quoted more than once, but also in a valuable\nreview of the commentary from which some of what follows is taken.[42]\n\nThe neglect of the Apocrypha has not been by any means entirely\naccidental. It is partly the result of a deliberate protest against\nthe action of the Council of Trent in placing these books on a level\nwith the books of the Old and New Testament. In the seventeenth\ncentury we find the learned John Lightfoot writing, \"Thus sweetly and\nnearly should the two Testaments join together, and thus Divinely\nshould they kiss each other, but that the wretched Apocrypha doth\nthrust in between.\" And the fact that many people are now unable to\nrecognize or appreciate an allusion to the Apocrypha is by no means\nthe most serious result of this common neglect of its contents.\nAppreciation of the Bible in general, and especially of those books in\nwhich the Old and New Testaments come most in contact, is materially\ndiminished in consequence. The Apocrypha is not a barrier, but a\nbridge; it does not separate, but unite the two Covenants. What\nthoughtful reader can pass from the Old to the New Testament without\nfeeling that he has entered another world? He is still in Palestine,\nstill among the Jews; but how different from the Palestine and the\nJudaism of Ezra, and Nehemiah, and Malachi! He \"finds mention of\npersons, and sects, and schools of which he can find no trace in the\nOld Testament. He comes upon beliefs and opinions for which the\nearlier canon does not even furnish a clue. He discovers institutions\nlong settled, and dominating the religious life of the people, of\nwhich the Old Testament supplies not even the name. He finds popular\nideas, religious terms and phrases in current use wholly unlike those\nof ancient psalmists and prophets.\" And there is no literature that\ncan explain all these changes to him either so surely or so fully as\nthe Apocrypha. It supplies instances of the early use of New Testament\nwords, of old words in new senses. It throws light upon the growth of\nthe popular conception of the Messiah. It illuminates still more the\ndevelopment of the doctrine of the Logos. Above all, it helps us to\nsee something of the evolution of that strange religious system which\nbecame the raw material out of which the special doctrines of\nPharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes were formed, and which had a\npowerful influence upon Christianity itself.\n\nThe neglect of the Apocrypha has been greatly increased by the\nwidespread practice of publishing Bibles without it, and even of\nstriking out from the margins of these mutilated Bibles all references\nto it. And this mischief has lately been augmented by the fact that\nthe Revised Version omits it. Yet no portion of the Bible was in\ngreater need of revision. The original texts used by the translators\nof 1611 were very bad; and perhaps in no part of the Authorized\nVersion are utterly faulty translations more abundant. A comparison of\nthe quotations given above with the text of the Authorized Version of\nWisdom and Ecclesiasticus will show that considerable changes have\nbeen made in order to bring the quotations into harmony with the true\nreadings of the Greek text, and thus give a fair comparison with the\nwords of St.\u00a0James.\n\nBooks which the writers of the New Testament found worthy of study,\nand from which they derived some of their thoughts and language, ought\nnot to be lightly disregarded by ourselves. We cannot disregard them\nwithout loss; and it is the duty of every reader of the Bible to see\nthat his apprehension of the Old and New Testaments is not hindered\nthrough his ignorance of those writings which interpret the process of\ntransition from the one to the other. Neglect of the helps to\nunderstanding His Word which God has placed easily within our reach\nmay endanger our possession of that wisdom which St.\u00a0James here\nassures us will be given to every one who asks for it in faith.\n\nA discussion of that heavenly wisdom, and of the efficacy of prayer\noffered in faith, will be found in the expositions of later passages\nin the Epistle.[43]\n\n[36] Gr\u00e4tz, Noack, Plumptre, F. W. Farrer.\n\n[37] _The Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha_, vol. i., p. xli. (Murray,\n1888).\n\n[38] _Introduction to the N.T._, vol. ii., pp. 114, 115 (Hodder and\nStoughton, 1888).\n\n[39] _The Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha_, vol. ii., pp. 22, 23\n(Murray 1888).\n\n[40] _The Early Days of Christianity_, vol. i., pp. 517-18. Dr. Salmon\nleaves the question undecided (_Introduction to N.T._, p. 511).\n\n[41] See Dr. Salmon's _General Introduction_ to the Apocrypha in the\n_Speaker's Commentary_, vol. i., pp. xli., xlii.\n\n[42] _Edinburgh Review_, No. 345, January, 1889, pp. 58-95.\n\n[43] See on iii.\u00a013-18, and on v.\u00a013-18. In connexion with this\nsubject the Inaugural Lecture of Professor Margoliouth, on _The Place\nof Ecclesiasticus in Semitic Literature_ (Clarendon Press, 1890), and\nhis defence of the position there maintained in the pages of the\n_Expositor_, should be studied. It is _possible_ that from the\nlanguage of Ecclesiasticus we may be able to demonstrate that the late\ndate assigned by recent critics to certain books in the Old Testament\nis quite untenable for the language of them is centuries older than\nthat of Ecclesiasticus.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n\n _THE EXALTATION OF THE LOWLY, AND THE FADING\n AWAY OF THE RICH. THE METAPHORS OF ST. JAMES\n AND THE PARABLES OF CHRIST._\n\n \"But let the brother of low degree glory in his high estate: and the\n rich in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he\n shall pass away. For the sun ariseth, with the scorching wind, and\n withereth the grass; and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace\n of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away\n in his goings.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES i.\u00a09-11.\n\n\nIn this section St.\u00a0James returns to what is the main thought of the\nfirst chapter, and one of the main thoughts of the whole Epistle, viz.\nthe blessedness of enduring temptations, and especially such\ntemptations as are caused by external trials and adversity. He adds\nanother thought which may help to console and strengthen the oppressed\nChristian.\n\nThe Revisers have quite rightly restored the \"But\" (\u03b4\u03ad) at the\nbeginning of this section. There seems to be absolutely no authority\nfor its omission; and we may conjecture that the earlier English\ntranslators ignored it, because it seemed to them to be superfluous,\nor even disturbing. The Rhemish Version, made from the Vulgate\n(_Glorietur autem_), is the only English Version which preserves it;\nand Luther (_Ein Bruder aber_) preserves it also. The force of the\nconjunction is to connect the advice given in this section with the\nitems of advice already given. They form a connected series. \"Count it\nall joy, when ye fall into manifold temptations.... But (\u03b4\u03ad) let\npatience have its perfect work. ... But (\u03b4\u03ad) if any lacketh wisdom,\nlet him ask of God.... But (\u03b4\u03ad) let him ask in faith.... But (\u03b4\u03ad)\nlet the brother of low degree glory in his high estate: and the rich\nin that he is made low.\"\n\nThe meaning of this last item in the series is by no means clear.\nVarious interpretations have been suggested, and it is difficult or\neven impossible to arrive at a conclusive decision as to which of them\nis the right one. But we may clear the ground by setting aside all\nexplanations which would make \"the brother of low degree\" (\u1f41 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2)\nto mean the Christian who is lowly in heart (Matt. xi.\u00a029), and \"the\nrich\" (\u1f41 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) the Christian who is rich in faith (ii.\u00a05) and in\ngood works (1\u00a0Tim. vi.\u00a018). Both words are to be understood literally.\nThe lowly man is the man of humble position, oppressed by poverty, and\nperhaps by unscrupulous neighbours (ii.\u00a03), and the rich man, here, as\nelsewhere in this Epistle, is the man of wealth who very often\noppresses the poorer brethren (i.\u00a011; ii.\u00a06; v.\u00a01).\n\nWhat, then, is the meaning of the \"high estate\" (\u1f55\u03c8\u03bf\u03c2) in which the\nbrother of low degree is to glory, and of the \"being made low\"\n(\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), in which the rich man is to do the same? At first sight\none is disposed to say that the one is the heavenly birthright, and\nthe other the Divine humiliation, in which every one shares who\nbecomes a member of Christ; in fact, that they are the same thing\nlooked at from different points of view; for what to the Christian is\npromotion, to the world seems degradation. If this were correct, then\nwe should have an antithesis analogous to that which is drawn out by\nSt.\u00a0Paul, when he says, \"He that was called in the Lord, being a\nbond-servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise he that was called,\nbeing free, is Christ's bond-servant\" (1\u00a0Cor. vii.\u00a022). But on further\nconsideration this attractive explanation is found not to suit the\ncontext. What analogy is there between the humiliation in which every\nChristian glories in Christ and the withering of herbage under a\nscorching wind? Even if we could allow that this metaphor refers to\nthe fugitive character of earthly possessions, what has that to do\nwith Christian humiliation, which does not depend upon either the\npresence or the absence of wealth? Moreover, St.\u00a0James says nothing\nabout the fugitiveness of riches: it is the rich man _himself_, and\nnot his wealth, that is said to \"pass away,\" and to \"fade away in his\ngoings.\" Twice over St.\u00a0James declares this to be the destiny of the\nrich man; and the wording is such as to show that when the writer says\nthat \"the rich man shall fade away in his goings\" he means the man,\nand not his riches. \"His goings,\" or \"journeys,\" very likely refers to\nhis \"going into this city to spend a year there, and trade, and get\ngain\" (iv.\u00a013); _i.e._ he wastes himself away in the pursuit of\nwealth. But what could be the meaning of _wealth_ \"fading away _in its\njourneys_\"? Evidently, we must not transfer what is said of the rich\nman himself to his possessions.\n\nIt is a baseless assumption to suppose that the rich man here spoken\nof is a Christian at all. \"The brother of low degree\" is contrasted,\nnot with the _brother_ who is rich, but with the rich man, whose\nmiserable destiny shows that he is not \"a brother,\" _i.e._ not a\nbeliever. The latter is the wealthy Jew who rejects Christ. Throughout\nthis Epistle (ii.\u00a06, 7; v.\u00a01-6) \"rich\" is a term of reproach. This is\nwhat is meant by the Ebionite tone of the Epistle; for poverty is the\ncondition which Ebionism delights to honour. In this St.\u00a0James seems\nto be reproducing the thoughts both of Jesus Christ and of Jesus the\nson of Sirach. \"Woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your\nconsolation. Woe unto you, ye that are full now! for ye shall hunger\"\n(Luke vi.\u00a025, 26. Comp. Matt. xix.\u00a023-25). \"The rich man hath done\nwrong, and is very wroth besides: the poor man is wronged, and he must\nintreat also.... An abomination to the proud is lowliness; so the poor\nare abomination to the rich\" (Ecclus. xiii.\u00a03, 20).\n\nBut when we have arrived at the conclusion that the \"being made low\"\ndoes not refer to the humiliation of the Christian, and that the rich\nman here threatened with a miserable end is not a believer, a new\ndifficulty arises. What is the meaning of the wealthy unbeliever being\ntold to _glory_ in the degradation which is to prove so calamitous to\nhim? In order to avoid this difficulty various expedients have been\nsuggested. Some propose a rather violent change of _mood_--from the\nimperative to the indicative. No verb is expressed, and it is said\nthat instead of repeating \"let him glory\" from the previous clause, we\nmay supply \"he glories,\" as a statement of fact rather than an\nexhortation. The sentence will then run, \"But let the brother of low\ndegree glory in his high estate; but (\u03b4\u03ad) the rich _glorieth_ in his\nbeing made low;\" _i.e._ he glories in what degrades him and ought to\ninspire him with shame and grief. Others propose a still more violent\nchange, viz. of _verb_; they would keep the imperative, but supply a\nword of opposite meaning: \"so let the rich man _be ashamed_ of his\nbeing made low.\" Neither of these expedients seems to be necessary, or\nindeed to be a fair treatment of the text.[44] It is quite possible to\nmake good sense of the exhortation, without any violent change either\nof mood or of verb. In the exhortation to the rich man St.\u00a0James\nspeaks in severe irony: \"Let the brother of low degree glory in his\nhigh estate; and the rich man--what is he to glory in?--let him glory\nin the only thing upon which he can count with certainty, viz. his\nbeing brought low; because as the flower of the grass he shall pass\naway.\" Such irony is not uncommon in Scripture. Our blessed Lord\nHimself makes use of it sometimes, as when He says of the hypocrites\nthat they have their reward, and have it in full (\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9: Matt.\nvi.\u00a02, 5, 16).\n\nWhether or no this interpretation be accepted--and no interpretation\nof this passage has as yet been suggested which is free from\ndifficulty--it must be clearly borne in mind that no explanation can\nbe correct which does not preserve the connexion between the\nhumiliation of the rich man and his passing away as the flower of the\ngrass. This fading away _is_ his humiliation, _is_ the thing in which\nhe is to glory, if he glories in anything at all. The inexorable\n\"because\" must not be ignored or explained away by making the wealth\nof the rich man shrivel up, when St.\u00a0James twice over says that it is\nthe rich man himself who fades away.\n\nThe metaphor here used of the rich man is common enough in the Old\nTestament. Man \"cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down\" (\u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd LXX.), says Job, in his complaint (xiv.\u00a02);\nand, \"As for man, his days are as grass; as a flower of the field, so\nhe flourisheth. For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the\nplace thereof shall know it no more,\" says the Psalmist (ciii.\u00a015,\n16). But elsewhere, with a closer similarity to the present passage,\nwe have this transitory character specially attributed to the ungodly,\nwho \"shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green\nherb\" (Ps. xxxvii.\u00a02). None of these passages, however, are so clearly\nin St.\u00a0James's mind as the words of Isaiah: \"All flesh is grass, and\nall the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: the grass\nwithereth, the flower fadeth; because the breath of the Lord bloweth\nupon it: surely the people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower\nfadeth; but the word of our God shall stand for ever\" (Isa. xl.\u00a06, 7).\nHere the words of St.\u00a0James are almost identical with those of the\nSeptuagint (\u1f61\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c7\u03cc\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7 \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f41 \u03c7\u03cc\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\n... \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c7\u03cc\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2); and, as has been already\npointed out (p. 59), this is one of the quotations which our Epistle\nhas in common with that of St.\u00a0Peter (1\u00a0Peter i.\u00a024).\n\n\"Grass\" throughout is a comprehensive term for herbage, and the\n\"flower of grass\" does not mean the bloom or blossom of grass in the\nnarrower sense, but the wild flowers, specially abundant and brilliant\nin the Holy Land, which grow among the grass. Thus, in the Sermon on\nthe Mount, what are first called \"the lilies (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b1) of the field\"\nare immediately afterwards called \"the grass (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c7\u03cc\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd) of the\nfield\" (Matt. vi.\u00a028, 30).\n\n\"The scorching wind\" (\u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd) is one of the features in the Epistle\nwhich harmonize well with the fact that the writer was an inhabitant\nof Palestine. It is the furnace-like blast from the arid wilderness to\nthe east of the Jordan. \"Yea, behold, being planted, shall it prosper?\nshall it not utterly wither when the east wind toucheth it? It shall\nwither in the beds where it grew\" (Ezek. xvii.\u00a010). \"God prepared a\nsultry east wind; and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he\nfainted\" (Jonah iv.\u00a08). The fig-tree, olives, and vine (iii.\u00a012) are\nthe chief fruit-trees of Palestine; and \"the early and latter rain\"\n(v.\u00a07) points still more clearly to the same district.\n\nIt has been remarked with justice that whereas St.\u00a0Paul for the most\npart draws his metaphors from the scenes of human activity--building,\nhusbandry, athletic contests, and warfare--St.\u00a0James prefers to take\nhis metaphors from the _scenes of nature_. In this chapter we have\n\"the surge of the sea\" (ver. 6) and \"the flower of the grass\" (ver.\n10). In the third chapter we have the \"rough winds\" driving the ships,\nthe \"wood kindled by a small fire,\" \"the wheel of nature,\" \"every kind\nof beasts and birds, of creeping things, and things in the sea,\" \"the\nfountain sending forth sweet water,\" \"the fig-tree and vine\" (vv.\u00a04,\n5, 6, 7, 11, 12). In the fourth chapter human life is \"a vapour, that\nappeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away\" (ver. 14). And\nin the last chapter, besides the moth and the rust, we have \"the fruit\nof the earth,\" and \"the early and latter rain\" (vv.\u00a02, 3, 7, 18).\n\nThese instances are certainly very numerous, when the brevity of the\nEpistle is considered. The love of nature which breathes through them\nwas no doubt learned and cherished in the village home at Nazareth,\nand it forms another link between St.\u00a0James and his Divine Brother.\nNearly every one of the natural phenomena to which St.\u00a0James directs\nattention in this letter are used by Christ also in His teaching. The\nsurging of the sea (Luke xxi.\u00a025), the flowers of the field (Matt.\nvi.\u00a028), the burning of wood (John xv.\u00a06), the birds of the air (Matt.\nvi.\u00a026; viii.\u00a020; xiii.\u00a04, 32), the fountain of sweet water (John\niv.\u00a010-14; vii.\u00a038), the fig-tree (Matt. vii.\u00a016; xxi.\u00a019; xxiv.\u00a032),\nthe vine (John xv.\u00a01-5), the moth (Matt. vi.\u00a019), the rust (Matt.\nvi.\u00a019), and the rain (Matt. v.\u00a045; vii.\u00a025). In some cases the use\nmade by St.\u00a0James of these natural objects is very similar to that\nmade by our Lord, and it may well be that what he writes is a\nreminiscence of what he had heard years before from Christ's lips; but\nin other cases the use is quite different, and must be assigned to the\nlove of nature, and the recognition of its fitness for teaching\nspiritual truths, which is common to the Lord and His brother. Thus,\nwhen St.\u00a0James asks, \"Can a fig-tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a\nvine figs?\" we seem to have an echo of the question in the Sermon on\nthe Mount, \"Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?\" And\nwhen St.\u00a0James tells the rich oppressors that their \"garments are\nmoth-eaten; their gold and their silver are rusted,\" is he not\nremembering Christ's charge, \"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon\nthe earth, where moth and rust do consume, and where thieves break\nthrough and steal\"? But in most of the other cases there is little or\nno resemblance between the similes of Christ and the figurative use of\nthe same natural phenomena made by St.\u00a0James. Thus, while Jesus uses\nthe flowers of the field to illustrate God's care for every object in\nthe universe, and the superiority of the glory which He bestows over\nthat with which man adorns himself, St.\u00a0James teaches thereby the\ntransitory character of the glory which comes of riches; and while\nChrist points to the rain as illustrating God's bounty to good and bad\nalike, St.\u00a0James takes it as an illustration of His goodness in answer\nto patient and trusting prayer.\n\nIt is manifest that in this matter St.\u00a0James is partly following a\ngreat example, but partly also following the bent of his own mind. The\nfirst, without the second, would hardly have given us so many examples\nof this kind of teaching in so small a space. St.\u00a0John had equal\nopportunities with St.\u00a0James of learning this method of teaching from\nChrist, and yet there are scarcely any examples of it in his Epistles.\nPossibly his opportunities were even greater than those of St.\u00a0James;\nfor although he was at most the cousin of the Lord, whereas St.\u00a0James\nwas His brother, yet he was present during the whole of Christ's\nministry, whereas St.\u00a0James was not converted until after the\nResurrection. But there is this great difference between Christ's\nteaching from nature and that of St.\u00a0James: St.\u00a0James recognizes in\nthe order and beauty of the universe a revelation of Divine truth, and\nmakes use of the facts of the external world to teach spiritual\nlessons; the incarnate Word, in drawing spiritual lessons from the\nexternal world, could expound the meaning of a universe which He\nHimself had made. In the one case it is a disciple of nature who\nimparts to us the lore which he himself has learned; in the other it\nis the Master of nature, who points out to us the meaning of His own\nworld, and interprets to us the voices of the winds and the waves,\nwhich obey Him.\n\n[44] 1\u00a0Tim. iv.\u00a03, where commanding is understood from forbidding, is\nnot strictly parallel: \"forbidding to marry, _and commanding_ to\nabstain from meats.\" The context is such as to prevent any\nmisunderstanding of the loosely worded sentence. See Moulton's Winer,\np. 777; also Bede, who rightly remarks, \"Subauditur a superiore versa,\n_glorietur_. Quod per irrisionem qu\u00e6 Gr\u00e6ce ironia vocatur, dictum esse\nconstat ... ut humiliatus in \u00e6ternum pereat cum purpurato illo divite\nqui Lazarum despexit egentem.\"\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n\n _THE SOURCE OF TEMPTATIONS AND THE REALITY OF SIN.\n THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE DETERMINIST._\n\n \"Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he hath been\n approved, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord\n promised to them that love Him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I\n am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, and He\n Himself tempteth no man: but each man is tempted when he is drawn\n away by his own lust and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath\n conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is full-grown, bringeth\n forth death. Be not deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift\n and every perfect boon is from above, coming down from the Father of\n lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast\n by turning. Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of\n truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of His\n creatures.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES i.\u00a012-18.\n\n\nAfter the slight digression respecting the short-lived glory of the\nrich man, St.\u00a0James returns once more to the subject with which the\nletter opens--the blessing of trials and temptations as opportunities\nof patience, and the blessedness of the man who endures them, and thus\nearns \"the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to them that\nlove Him.\" These last words are very interesting as being a record of\n_some utterance of Christ's not preserved in the Gospels_, of which we\nhave perhaps other traces elsewhere in the New Testament (1\u00a0Pet. v.\u00a04;\nRev. ii.\u00a010; 2\u00a0Tim. iv.\u00a08).[45] They imply a principle which qualifies\nwhat goes before, and leads on to what follows. The mere endurance of\ntemptations and afflictions will not win the promised crown, unless\ntemptations are withstood, and afflictions endured in the right\nspirit. The proud self-reliance and self-repression of the Stoic has\nnothing meritorious about it. These trials must be met in a spirit of\nloving trust in the God who sends or allows them. It is only those who\nlove and trust God who have the right to expect anything from His\nbounty. This St.\u00a0James continually insists on. Let not the\ndouble-minded man, with his affections and loyalty divided between God\nand Mammon, \"think that he shall receive anything of the Lord\" (i.\u00a07).\nGod has chosen the poor who are \"rich in _faith_\" to be \"heirs of the\nkingdom which He promised _to them that love Him_\" (ii.\u00a05). And this\nlove of God is quite incompatible with love of the world. \"Whosoever\ntherefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of\nGod\" (iv.\u00a04).\n\nIt is the loving withstanding of temptation, then, that wins the crown\nof life: the mere being tempted tends rather to death. \"Lust, when it\nhath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is full-grown,\nbringeth forth death.\" With these facts before him, the loving\nChristian will never say, when temptations come, that they come from\nGod. It cannot be God's will to seduce him from the path of life to\nthe path of death. The existence of temptations is no just ground of\ncomplaint against God. Such complaints are an attempt to shift the\nblame from himself to his Creator. The temptations proceed, not from\nGod, but from the man's own evil nature; a nature which God created\nstainless, but which man of his own free will has debased. To tempt is\nto try to lead astray; and one has only to understand the word in its\ntrue sense to see how impossible it is that God should become a\ntempter. By a simple but telling opposition of words St.\u00a0James\nindicates where the blame lies. God \"_Himself_ tempteth no man\n(\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1); but each man is tempted when by his _own_\nlust he is drawn away and enticed\" (\u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2). It is his own evil desire which plays\nthe part of the temptress, drawing him out from his place of safety by\nthe enticement of sinful pleasure.[46] So that the fault is in a sense\ndoubly his. The desire which tempts proceeds from his own evil nature,\nand the will which consents to the temptress is his own. Throughout\nthe passage St.\u00a0James represents the evil desire as playing the part\nof Potiphar's wife. The man who withstands such temptation is winning\nthe promised crown of life; the man who yields has for the offspring\nof his error death. The one result is in accordance with God's will,\nas is proved by His promising and bestowing the crown; the other is\nnot, but is the natural and known consequence of the man's own act.\n\nAt the present time there is a vehement effort being made in some\nquarters to shift the blame of man's wrong-doing, if not on to God\n(and He is commonly left out of the account, as unknown or\nnon-existing), at any rate on to those natural laws which determine\nphenomena. We are asked to believe that such ideas as moral freedom\nand responsibility are mere chim\u00e6ras, and that the first thing which a\nreasonable person has to do, in raising himself to a higher level, is\nto get rid of them. He is to convince himself that character and\nconduct are the necessarily evolved result of inherited endowments,\ndeveloped in certain circumstances, over neither of which the man has\nany control. He did not select the qualities of body and mind which he\nreceived from his parents, and he did not make the circumstances in\nwhich he has had to live since his birth. He could no more help acting\nas he did on any given occasion than he could help the size of his\nheart or the colour of his brain. He is no more responsible for the\nacts which he produces than a tree is responsible for its leaves. And\nof all senseless delusions and senseless wastes of power, those which\nare involved in the feeling of remorse are the worst. In remorse we\nwring our hands over deeds which we could not possibly have avoided\ndoing, and reproach ourselves for emitting what we could not by any\npossibility have done. Ethiopians might as reasonably blame themselves\nfor their black skins, or be conscience-stricken for not having golden\nhair, as any human being feel remorse for what he has done or left\nundone in the past. Whatever folly a man may have committed, he\neclipses it all by the folly of self-reproach.\n\nPositivism will indeed have worked marvels when it has driven remorse\nout of the world; and until it has succeeded in doing so, it will\nremain confronted by an unanswerable proof--as universal as the\nhumanity which it professes to worship--that its moral system is based\nupon a falsehood. Whether or no we admit the belief in a God, the fact\nof self-reproach in every human heart remains to be accounted for. And\nit is a fact of the most enormous proportions. Think of the years of\nmental agony and moral torture which countless numbers of the human\nrace have endured since man became a living soul, because men have\ninvariably reproached themselves with the folly and wickedness which\nthey have committed. Think of the exquisite suffering which remorse\nhas inflicted on every human being who has reached years of reflexion.\nThink of the untold misery which the misdeeds of men have inflicted\nupon those who love and would fain respect them. It may be doubted\nwhether all other forms of human suffering, whether mental or bodily,\nare more than as a drop in the ocean, compared with the agonies which\nhave been endured through the gnawing pangs of remorse for personal\nmisconduct, and of shame and grief for the misconduct of friends and\nrelations. And if the Determinist is right, all this mental torture,\nwith its myriad stabs and stings through centuries of centuries, is\nbased on a monstrous delusion. These bitter reproachers of themselves\nand of those dearest to them might have been spared it all, if only\nthey had known that not one of the acts thus blamed and lamented in\ntears of blood could have been avoided.\n\nCertainly the Positivist, who shuts God out from his consideration,\nhas a difficult problem to solve, when he is asked how he accounts for\na delusion so vast, so universal, and so horrible in its consequences;\nand we do not wonder that he should exhaust all the powers of rhetoric\nand invective in the attempt to exorcize it. But his difficulty is as\nnothing compared with the difficulties of a thinker who endeavours to\ncombine Determinism with Theism, and even with Christianity. What sort\nof a God can He be who has allowed, who has even ordained, that every\nhuman heart should be wrung with this needless, senseless agony? Has\nany savage, any inquisitor, ever devised torture so diabolical? And\nwhat kind of a Saviour and Redeemer can He be who has come from\nheaven, and returned thither again, without saying one word to free\nmen from their blind, self-inflicted agonies; who, on the contrary,\nhas said many things to confirm them in their delusions? Whence came\nmoral evil and the pangs of remorse, if there is no such thing as free\nwill? They must have been fore-ordained and created by God. The Theist\nhas no escape from that. If God made man free, and man by misusing his\nfreedom brought sin into the world, and remorse as a punishment for\nsin, then we have _some_ explanation of the mystery of evil. God\nneither willed it nor created it; it was the offspring of a free and\nrebellious will. But if man was never free, and there is no such thing\nas sin, then the madman gnawing his own limbs in his frenzy is a\nreasonable being and a joyous sight, compared with the man who gnaws\nhis own heart in remorse for the deeds which the inexorable laws of\nhis own nature compelled him, and still compel him, to commit.\n\nIs there, or is there not, such a thing as sin? That is the question\nwhich lies at the bottom of the error against which St.\u00a0James warns\nhis readers, and of the doctrines which are advocated at the present\ntime by Positivists and all who deny the reality of human freedom and\nresponsibility. To say that when we are tempted we are tempted by God,\nor that the Power which brought us into existence has given us no\nfreedom to refuse the evil and to choose the good, is to say that sin\nis a figment of the human mind, and that a conscious revolt of the\nhuman mind against the power of holiness is impossible. On such a\nquestion the appeal to human language, of which Aristotle is so fond,\nseems to be eminently suitable; and the verdict which it gives is\noverwhelming. There is probably no language, there is certainly no\ncivilized language, which has no word to express the idea of sin. If\nsin is an illusion, how came the whole human race to believe in it,\nand to frame a word to express it?[47] Can we point to any other word\nin universal, or even very general use, which nevertheless represents\na mere chim\u00e6ra, believed in as real, but actually non-existent? And\nlet us remember that this is no case in which self-interest, which so\nfatally warps our judgment, can have led the whole human race astray.\nSelf-interest would lead us entirely in the opposite direction. There\nis no human being who would not enthusiastically welcome the belief\nthat what seem to him to be grievous sins are no more a matter of\nreproach to him than the beatings of his heart or the winkings of his\neyes. Sometimes the conscience-stricken offender, in his efforts to\nexcuse his acts before the judgment-seat of his higher self, tries to\nbelieve this. Sometimes the Determinist philosopher endeavours to\nprove to him that he ought to believe it. But the stern facts of his\nown nature and the bitter outcome of all human experience are too\nstrong for such attempts. In spite of all specious excuses, and all\nplausible statements of philosophic difficulties, his conscience and\nhis consciousness compel him to confess, \"It was my own lust that\nenticed me, and my own will that consented.\"\n\nHow serious St.\u00a0James considers the error of attempting to make God\nresponsible for our temptations is shown both by the earnest and\naffectionate insertion of \"Be not deceived,[48] my beloved brethren,\"\nand also by the pains which he takes to disprove the error. After\nhaving shown the true source of temptation, and explained the way in\nwhich sin and death are generated, he points out how incredible it is\non other grounds that God should become a tempter. How can the Source\nof every good gift and every perfect boon[49] be also a source of\ntemptations to sin? How can the Father of lights be one who would lead\naway His creatures into darkness? If what we know of human nature\nought to tell us whence temptations to sin are likely to come, what we\nknow of God's nature and of His dealings with mankind ought to tell us\nwhence such things are _not_ likely to come.\n\nAnd He is far above those heavenly luminaries of which He is the\nAuthor. _They_ are not always bright, and are therefore very imperfect\nsymbols of His holiness. In their revolutions they are sometimes\novershadowed. The moon is not always at the full, the sun is sometimes\neclipsed, and the stars suffer changes in like manner. In Him there is\nno change, no loss of light, no encroachment of shadow. There is never\na time at which one could say that through momentary diminution in\nholiness it had become possible for Him to become a tempter.\n\nNor are the brightness and beneficence which pervade the material\nuniverse the chief proofs of God's goodness and of the impossibility\nof temptations to sin proceeding from Him. It was \"of His own will\"\nthat He rescued mankind from the state of death into which their\nrebellious wills had brought them, and by a new revelation of Himself\nin \"the Word of truth,\" _i.e._ the Gospel, brought them forth again,\nborn anew as Christians, to be, like the first-born under the Law, \"a\nkind of first-fruits of His creatures.\"[50]\n\nWhen, therefore, we sum up all the known facts of the case, there is\nonly one conclusion at which we can justly arrive. There is the nature\nof God, so far as it is known to us, utterly opposed to evil. There is\nthe nature of man, as it has been debased by himself, constantly\nbringing forth evil. There is God's goodness, as manifested in the\ncreation of the universe and in the regeneration of man. It is a\nhopeless case to try to banish remorse by making God responsible for\nman's temptations and sin.\n\nThere is only one way of getting rid of remorse, and that is to\nconfess sin--to confess its reality, to confess it to God, and if need\nbe to man. No man ever yet succeeded in justifying himself by laying\nthe blame of his sins on God. But he may do so by laying the sins\nthemselves upon \"the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the\nworld,\" and by washing his stained robes, \"and making them white in\nthe blood of the Lamb.\" That done, remorse will have no power over\nhim; and instead of fruitlessly accusing God, and seeking vain\nsubstitutes for the service of God, he will humbly \"give Him glory,\"\nand \"serve Him day and night in His temple\" (Joshua vii.\u00a019; Rev.\nvii.\u00a015).\n\nNOTE.--The difficult expression (\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1) rendered in the\nAuthorized Version \"shadow of turning,\" and in the Revised \"shadow\nthat is cast by turning,\" has received a great variety of translations\nand explanations. The Old Latin, _modicum obumbrationis_, like the\nGreek commentators, makes \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 = \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac = \"shade, trace, small\namount.\" It is doubtful whether the rare compound \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 ever\nacquired this meaning; but the opinion of Greeks on this point is of\ngreat weight, and certainly this meaning makes good sense. The\nVulgate, _vicissitudinis obumbratio_, is as difficult as the Greek;\nand Augustine's _momenti obumbratio_ comes from the false reading\n\u1fe5\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c2. \"Shadow cast by turning\" does not seem to be very helpful,\nwhether we interpret \"turning\" to mean the revolutions of the sun or\nof the earth, or the changes of nature generally. Perhaps the genitive\nis the genitive of quality, \"shadow of change\" for \"changing shadow;\"\nso Stier and Theil, _wechselnde Beschattung_, and Stolz _abwechselnde\nVerdunkelung_. Comp. \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 (i.\u00a025), and, see the\n_Expositor_, Sept. 1889, pp. 228-30.\n\n[45] In the _Acta Philippi, Apocal. Apocr._, ed. Tischendorf, p. 147,\nwe have, \"Blessed is he who hath his raiment white; for he it is who\nreceiveth the crown of joy.\" See A. Resch, _Agrapha; Aussercanonische\nEvangelienfragmente_ (Leipzig, 1889), p. 254.\n\n[46] The punctuation and order of words in both A.V. and R.V. seem to\nbe faulty: \"enticed,\" quite as much as \"drawn away,\" belongs to \"by\nhis own lust.\" Moreover, the metaphor is not seduction from the right\nroad, but alluring out of security into danger.\n\n[47] See R. H. Hutton on _The Service of Man_, in the _Contemporary\nReview_, April, 1887, p. 492.\n\n[48] Or, \"led astray\" (\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5). The word implies fundamental\ndeparture from the truth (v.\u00a019; John vii.\u00a047; 1\u00a0John i.\u00a08; ii.\u00a026;\niii.\u00a07; Rev. xviii.\u00a023).\n\n[49] The words form an hexameter in the original, which may be either\naccidental or a quotation: \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n(\"Every gift that is good, and every boon that is perfect\").\n\n[50] See F. D. Maurice, _Unity of the N.T._ (Parker, 1854), pp. 320-23.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n\n _THE DELUSION OF HEARING WITHOUT DOING.\n THE MIRROR OF GOD'S WORD._\n\n \"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your\n own selves. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer,\n he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he\n beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what\n manner of man he was. But he that looketh into the perfect law, the\n law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that\n forgetteth, but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in\n his doing.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES i.\u00a022-25.\n\n\nHere we reach what on the whole seems to be the main thought of the\nEpistle--_the all-importance of Christian activity and service_. The\nessential thing, without which other things, however good in\nthemselves, become insignificant or worthless, or even mischievous, is\n_conduct_. Everything else, if not accompanied by practice, by\navoiding evil and doing good, is vain. In Bishop Butler's words,\nreligion \"does not consist in the knowledge and belief even of\nfundamental truth,\" but rather in our being brought \"to a certain\ntemper and behaviour;\" or as St.\u00a0John puts it still more simply, only\n\"he who _doeth_ righteousness is righteous.\" Suffering injuries,\npoverty, and temptations, hearing the Word, teaching the Word, faith,\nwisdom (i.\u00a02, 9, 12, 19; ii.\u00a014-26; iii.\u00a07-13), are all of them\nexcellent; but if they are not accompanied by a holy life, a life of\nprayer and gentle words and good deeds, they are valueless.\n\nThere are two or three other leading thoughts, but they are all of\nthem subordinated to this main thought of the necessity for Christian\nconduct as well as Christian belief and wisdom. One of these secondary\nthoughts has already been noticed more than once--the blessedness of\nenduring temptations and other trials; it is specially prominent in\nthe first and last chapters (i.\u00a02-4, 12; v.\u00a07-11). Another of the\nsecondary topics which have a prominent place in the letter is the\nperil of much speaking. It introduces and closes the section which\nlies immediately before us (i.\u00a019, 26), and it is dwelt upon at length\nin the third chapter. Yet a third topic which cannot fail to attract\nthe attention of the reader is the preference given to the poor over\nthe rich as regards their spiritual opportunities, and the stern\nwarnings addressed to all those whose wealth leads them to become\ntyrannical. This subject is specially prominent in the first, second,\nand last chapters (i.\u00a010, 11; ii.\u00a01-7; v.\u00a01-6). But all these matters\nare looked at from the point of view of Christian conduct and service.\nThey are not in any one case the idea which binds together the whole\nEpistle, but they lead up to it and emphasize it. If we were to single\nout one verse as in a special way summing up the teaching of the whole\nletter, we could hardly find one more suitable for the purpose than\nthe first of the four which stand at the head of the present chapter:\n\"Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own\nselves.\" It will be worth while to examine this simple and most\npractical exhortation somewhat in detail.\n\nIt is one of the many sayings in the Epistle which irresistibly remind\nus of the teaching of Jesus Christ; not as being a quotation from any\nof His recorded discourses, but as being an independent reproduction\nof the substance of His conversation by one who was quite familiar\nwith it, but was not familiar with the written Gospels. Had the writer\nof this letter been well acquainted with any of the four Gospels, he\ncould hardly have escaped being influenced by them, and the echoes of\nChrist's teaching which we find in its pages would have been more\nclosely in accordance with the reports of His words which they\ncontain. This feature of the Epistle harmonizes well with its being\nwritten by the Lord's brother, who must have been very familiar with\nthe Lord's teaching, and who wrote before A.D.\u00a062, _i.e._ at a time\nwhen perhaps not one of our Gospels was written, and when certainly\nnone of them can have had a very wide circulation. More will be said\nupon this point hereafter (p. 308): for the present it suffices to\npoint out the resemblance between this warning against the delusion of\nthinking that hearing without doing is of any avail, and the warning\nwhich closes the Sermon on the Mount: \"Every one which heareth these\nwords of Mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, which\nbuilt his house upon the rock.... And every one that heareth these\nwords of Mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish\nman, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and\nthe floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it\nfell: and great was the fall thereof\" (Matt. vii.\u00a024-27).\n\n\"Be ye doers of the Word.\" Both verb and tense are remarkable\n(\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5): \"_Become_ doers of the Word.\" True Christian practice is a\nthing of growth; it is a process, and a process which has already\nbegun, and is continually going on. We may compare, \"_Become_ ye\ntherefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves\" (Matt. x.\u00a016);\n\"Therefore _become_ ye also ready\" (xxiv.\u00a044); and \"_Become_ not\nfaithless, but believing\" (John xx.\u00a027; where see Westcott's note).\n\"Become doers of the Word\" is more expressive than \"Be doers of the\nWord,\" and a good deal more expressive than \"Do the Word.\" A \"doer of\nthe Word\" (\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5) is such by profession and practice; the\nphrase expresses a habit. But one who merely incidentally performs\nwhat is prescribed may be said to \"do the Word.\" By the \"Word\" is\nmeant what just before has been called the \"implanted Word\" and the\n\"Word of truth\" (w. 21, 18), and what in this passage is also called\n\"the perfect law, the law of liberty\" (ver. 25), _i.e._ the Gospel.\nThe parable of the Sower illustrates in detail the meaning of becoming\nan habitual doer of the implanted Word.\n\n\"And not hearers only.\" The order of the words in the Greek is a\nlittle doubtful, the authorities being very much divided; but the\nbalance is in favour of taking \"only\" closely with \"hearers\" (\u03bc\u1f74\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd rather than \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03af); \"Be not such as are\nmere hearers and nothing more.\" The word for \"hearer\" occurs nowhere\nelse in the New Testament, excepting in the singularly similar passage\nin the Epistle to the Romans, which is one of the passages that give\nsupport to the theory that either St.\u00a0Paul had seen this Epistle, or\nSt.\u00a0James had seen St.\u00a0Paul's: \"Not the hearers (\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03af) of a law\nare just before God, but the doers of a law shall be justified,\" (Rom.\nii.\u00a013; see above, p. 57). The verb (\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03ac\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9) does not occur in the\nNew Testament; but another cognate substantive (\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), meaning\n\"a place of hearing,\" is found in the Acts (xxv.\u00a023). In classical\nGreek this group of words indicates _attentive_ listening, especially\nin the case of those who attend the lectures of philosophers and the\naddresses of public speakers. It is thus used frequently in Plato,\nAristotle, Thucydides, and Plutarch. It is somewhat too hastily\nconcluded that there is nothing of this kind included either in this\npassage or in Rom. ii.\u00a013. Possibly that is the very thing to which\nboth St.\u00a0James and St.\u00a0Paul allude. St.\u00a0James, in the address which he\nmade to the so-called Council of Jerusalem, says, \"Moses from\ngenerations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read\nin the synagogues every Sabbath\" (Acts xv.\u00a021). The Jews came with\ngreat punctiliousness to these weekly gatherings, and listened with\nmuch attention to the public reading and exposition of the Law; and\ntoo many of them thought that with that the chief part of their duty\nwas performed. This habitual public testimony of respect for the\nMosaic Law and the traditional interpretations of it, and this zeal to\nacquire a knowledge of its contents and an insight into its meaning,\nwas the main portion of what was required of them. This, St.\u00a0James\ntells them, is miserably insufficient, whether what they hear be the\nLaw or the Gospel, the Law with or without the illumination of the\nlife of Christ. \"Being swift to hear\" (ver. 19) and to understand is\nwell, but \"apart from works it is barren.\" It is the habitual practice\nin striving to _do_ what is heard and understood that is of value.\n\"Not a hearer that forgetteth, but a doer that worketh\" is blessed,\nand \"blessed in his doing.\" To suppose that mere hearing brings a\nblessing is \"deluding your own selves.\" Bede rightly quotes Rev. i.\u00a03\nin illustration: \"Blessed are they that hear the words of the\nprophecy, and _keep_ the things which are written therein.\"\n\nThe word here used for deluding (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9) is found nowhere\nelse in the New Testament, excepting in one passage in the Epistle to\nthe Colossians (ii.\u00a04), in which St.\u00a0Paul warns them against allowing\nany one to \"delude them with persuasiveness of speech.\" But the word\nis fairly common both in ordinary Greek and in the Septuagint. Its\nmeaning is to mislead with fallacious reasoning, and the substantive\n(\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2) is the Aristotelian term for a fallacy. The word does\nnot necessarily imply that the fallacious reasoning is known to be\nfallacious by those who employ it. To express that we should rather\nhave the word which is used in 2\u00a0Peter i.\u00a016 to characterize\n\"cunningly devised fables\" (\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9). Here we are to\nunderstand that the victims of the delusion do not, although they\nmight, see the worthlessness of the reasons upon which their\nself-contentment is based. It is precisely in this that the danger of\ntheir position lies. Self-deceit is the most subtle and fatal deceit.\nThe mere knowledge of the law derived from their attentive listening\nto it does but increase their evil case, if they do not practise it.\n\"To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin\"\n(iv.\u00a017).\n\nThe Jews have a saying that the man who hears without practising is\nlike a husbandman who ploughs and sows, but never reaps. Such an\nillustration, being taken from natural phenomena, would be quite in\nharmony with the manner of St.\u00a0James; but he enforces his meaning by\nemploying a far more striking illustration. He who is a hearer and not\na doer \"is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror.\"\nAlmost all the words in this sentence are worthy of separate attention.\n\n\"Is like unto a _man_\" (\u1f14\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03af). St.\u00a0James uses the more\ndefinite word, which usually excludes women, and sometimes boys also.\nHe does not say, \"is like unto a _person_\" (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u1ff3), which would have\nincluded both sexes and all ages. A somewhat quaint explanation has\nbeen suggested by Paes, and adopted as probable elsewhere; viz. that\nmen, as a rule, give only a passing look to themselves in the glass;\nwhereas it is a feminine weakness to be fond of attentive\nobservations. But it is fatal to this suggestion that the word here\nused for beholding (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd) means to fix one's mind upon, and\nconsider attentively. It is the word used in \"Consider the ravens,\"\nand \"Consider the lilies\" (Luke xii.\u00a024, 27). Moreover, the Greeks\nsometimes do what we very frequently do in speaking of the human race;\nthey employ the male sex as representative of both. This usage is\nfound in the New Testament; _e.g._ \"The queen of the South shall rise\nup in the judgment with _the men_ (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd) of this generation, and\nshall condemn them.... _The men_ (\u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2) of Nineveh shall stand up in\nthe judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it\" (Luke xi.\u00a031,\n32). Here it is impossible that the women are not included. And this\nuse of \"man\" (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1) in the sense of human being is specially common in\nSt.\u00a0James. We have it four times in this chapter (vv.\u00a08, 12, 20, 23),\nand again in the second (ver. 2) and third (ver. 2).\n\nThis man, then, attentively studies his natural face in a mirror. The\nwords for \"his natural face\" literally mean \"the face of his birth\"\n(\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6), _i.e._ the features with which he\nwas born; and the mirror would be a piece of polished metal, which,\nhowever excellent, would not reflect the features with the clearness\nand fidelity of a modern looking-glass. Hence the necessity for\nattentive observation, the result of which is that the man recognizes\nhis own face beyond all question. But what follows? \"He beheld\nhimself, and he has gone away, and he straightway forgot what manner\nof man he was.\" The perfect tense between two aorists gives a lively\nsimplicity to the narration (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd ... \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd ... \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf).\nThis is represented as a common case, though not an invariable one.\nMost of us know our own features sufficiently well to recognize them\nin a good representation of them, but do not carry in our minds a very\naccurate image of them. But what has all this to do with being\nhearers, and not doers, of the Word?\n\nThe spoken or written Word of God is the mirror. When we hear it\npreached, or study it for ourselves, we can find the reflexion of\nourselves in it, our temptations and weaknesses, our failings and\nsins, the influences of God's Spirit upon us, and the impress of His\ngrace. It is here that we notice one marked difference between the\ninspiration of the sacred writers and the inspiration of the poet and\nthe dramatist. The latter show us _other people_ to the life;\nScripture shows us _ourselves_.\n\n \"Our mirror is a blessed book,\n Where out from each illumined page\n We see one glorious image look,\n All eyes to dazzle and engage,\n\n The Son of God; and that indeed\n We see Him as He is we know,\n Since in the same bright glass we read\n The very life of things below.\n\n Eye of God's Word, where'er we turn\n Ever upon us! thy keen gaze\n Can all the depths of sin discern,\n Unravel every bosom's maze.\n\n Who that has felt thy glance of dread\n Thrill through his heart's remotest cells,\n About his path, about his bed,\n Can doubt what Spirit in thee dwells?\"[51]\n\nKeble's metaphor is somewhat more elaborate than St.\u00a0James's. He\nrepresents the Bible as a mirror, out of which the reflected image of\nthe Son of God looks upon us and reads our inmost selves. St.\u00a0James\nsupposes that in the mirror we see ourselves reflected. But the\nthought is the same, that through hearing or reading God's Word our\nknowledge of our characters is quickened. But does this quickened\nknowledge last? does it lead to action, or influence our conduct? Too\noften we leave the church or our study, and the impression produced by\nthe recognition of the features of our own case is obliterated. \"We\nstraightway forget what manner of men we are,\" and the insight which\nhas been granted to us into our own true selves is just one more\nwasted experience.\n\nBut this need not be so, and in some cases a very different result may\nbe noticed. Instead of merely looking attentively for a short time, he\nmay _stoop down and pore over it_. Instead of forthwith going away, he\nmay _continue_ in the study of it. And instead of straightway\nforgetting, he may prove a mindful _doer that worketh_. Thus the three\nparts of the two pictures are made exactly to balance. The word for\n\"looking into\" is an interesting one (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd). It indicates\nbending forward to examine earnestly. It is used of Peter looking into\nthe sepulchre (Luke xxiv.\u00a012, a verse of doubtful genuineness); and of\nMary Magdalene doing the same (John xx.\u00a011); and of the angels\ndesiring to look into heavenly mysteries (1\u00a0Peter i.\u00a012). He who does\nthis recognizes God's Word as being \"the perfect law, the law of\nliberty.\" The two things are the same. It is when the law is seen to\nbe perfect that it is found to be the law of liberty. So long as the\nlaw is not seen in the beauty of its perfection, it is not loved, and\nmen either disobey it or obey it by constraint and unwillingly. It is\nthen a law of bondage. But when its perfection is recognized men long\nto conform to it; and they obey, not because they must, but because\nthey choose. To do what one likes is freedom, and they like to obey.\nIt is in this way that the moral law of the Gospel becomes \"the law of\nliberty,\" not by imposing fewer obligations than the moral law of the\nJew or of the Gentile, but by infusing into the hearts of those who\nwelcome it a disposition and a desire to obey. Christian liberty is\nnever licence. It is not the relaxation of needful restraints, but the\nspontaneous acceptance of them as excellent in themselves and\nbeneficial to those who observe them. It is the difference between a\ncode imposed by another, and a constitution voluntarily adopted. To be\nmade to work for one whom one fears is slavery and misery; to choose\nto work for one whom one loves is freedom and happiness. The Gospel\nhas not abolished the moral law; it has supplied a new and adequate\nmotive for fulfilling it.\n\n\"Being not a hearer that forgetteth.\" Literally, \"having become not a\nhearer of forgetfulness\" (\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2);\n_i.e._ having by practice come to be a hearer, who is characterized,\nnot by forgetfulness of what he hears, but by attentive performance of\nit.[52] The unusual word \"forgetfulness\" occurs nowhere else in the\nNew Testament, nor in classical Greek; but it is found in\nEcclesiasticus (xi.\u00a027), \"The affliction of an hour causeth\nforgetfulness of pleasure;\" and this adds a trifle to the evidence\nthat St.\u00a0James was acquainted with that book (see above, p. 71). \"A\nhearer of forgetfulness\" exactly balances, both in form and in\nthought, \"a doer of work;\" and this is well brought out by the\nRevisers, who turn _both_ genitives by a relative clause: \"a hearer\nthat forgetteth,\" and \"a doer that worketh.\" The Authorized Version is\nmuch less happy: \"a forgetful hearer, but a doer of _the_ work.\" There\nis no article in the Greek, and the translation of one genitive by an\nadjective, and of the other by a genitive, is unfortunate. \"A doer of\n_work_\" (\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5), or \"a doer that _worketh_,\" is an expression\nthat emphasizes just what St.\u00a0James wishes to emphasize, viz. the\nnecessity of actively practising what is attentively heard. \"A doer\"\nwould have sufficed, but \"a doer that worketh\" makes the idea of\nhabitual action still more prominent.\n\n\"This man shall be blessed in his doing\" (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9). Once more we\nhave a word which is found nowhere else in the New Testament, but\noccurs in Ecclesiasticus (xix.\u00a020), and with much the same meaning as\nhere: \"All wisdom is fear of the Lord; and in all wisdom there is\ndoing of the law\" (\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5). The correspondence between the\nmeaning of St.\u00a0James and the meaning of the son of Sirach is very\nclose. Mere knowledge without performance is of little worth: it is in\nthe doing that a blessing can be found.\n\nThe danger against which St.\u00a0James warns the Jewish Christians of the\nDispersion is as pressing now as it was when he wrote. Never was there\na time when interest in the Scriptures was more keen or more widely\nspread, especially among the educated classes; and never was there a\ntime when greater facilities for gratifying this interest abounded.\nCommentaries, expositions, criticisms, introductions, helps of all\nkinds, exegetical, homiletic, historical, and textual, suitable both\nfor learned and unlearned students, multiply year by year. But it is\nmuch to be feared that with many of us the interest in the sacred\nwritings which is thus roused and fostered remains to a very large\nextent a literary interest. We are much more eager to know all _about_\nGod's Word than from it to learn His will respecting ourselves, that\nwe may do it; to prove that a book is genuine than to practise what it\nenjoins. We study Lives of Christ, but we do not follow the life of\nChrist. We pay Him the empty homage of an intellectual interest in His\nwords and works, but we do not the things which He says. We throng and\npress Him in our curiosity, but we obtain no blessing, because in all\nour hearing and learning there is no true wisdom, no fear of the Lord,\nand no doing of His Word.\n\n[51] _The Christian Year_, St.\u00a0Bartholomew's Day.\n\n[52] This \"characterizing genitive\" is not exactly a Hebraism, like\n\"children of wrath,\" \"son of perdition,\" \"son of light,\" and the like;\nbut the use of the genitive in place of an adjective is more common in\nOriental languages, and therefore in Greek which is under Oriental\ninfluences. See p. 122.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X.\n\n _THE CHRISTOLOGY OF ST. JAMES. THE PRACTICAL UNBELIEF INVOLVED\n IN SHOWING A WORLDLY RESPECT OF PERSONS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP._\n\n \"My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord\n of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come into your\n synagogue a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come\n in also a poor man in vile clothing; and ye have regard to him that\n weareth the fine clothing, and say, Sit thou here in a good place;\n and ye say to the poor man, Stand thou there, or sit under my\n footstool; are ye not divided in your own mind, and become judges\n with evil thoughts?\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES ii.\u00a01-4.\n\n\nAs has been stated already, in a previous chapter (p. 23), one of\nLuther's main objections to this Epistle is that it does not \"preach\nand urge Christ.\" \"It teaches Christian people, and yet does not once\nnotice the Passion, the Resurrection, the Spirit of Christ. The writer\nnames Christ a few times; but he teaches nothing of Him, but speaks of\ngeneral faith in God.\"\n\nThis indictment has been more fully drawn out by a modern writer. \"The\nauthor's stand-point is Jewish rather than Christian. The ideas are\ncast in a Jewish mould. The very name of Christ occurs but twice\n(i.\u00a01; ii.\u00a01), and His atonement is scarcely touched. We see little\nmore than the threshold of the new system. It is the teaching of a\nChristian Jew, rather than of one who had reached a true apprehension\nof the essence of Christ's religion. The doctrinal development is\nimperfect. It is only necessary to read the entire Epistle to perceive\nthe truth of these remarks. In warning his readers against\ntransgression of the law by partiality to individuals, the author\nadduces Jewish rather than Christian motives (ii.\u00a08-13). The greater\npart of the third chapter, respecting the government of the tongue, is\nof the same character, in which Christ's example is not once alluded\nto, the illustrations being taken from objects in nature. The warning\nagainst uncharitable judgment does not refer to Christ, or to God, who\nputs His Spirit in the hearts of believers, but to the law\n(iv.\u00a010-12). He who judges his neighbour judges the law. The\nexhortation to feel and act under constant remembrance of the\ndependence of our life on God belongs to the same category\n(iv.\u00a013-17). He that knows good without doing it is earnestly\nadmonished to practise virtue and to avoid self-security, without\nreference to motives connected with redemption. Job and the Prophets\nare quoted as examples of patience, not Christ; and the efficacy of\nprayer is proved by the instance of Elias, without allusion to the\nRedeemer's promise (v.\u00a017). The Epistle is wound up after the same\nJewish fashion, though the opportunity of mentioning Christ, who gave\nHimself a Sacrifice for sin, presented itself naturally.\"[53]\n\nAll this may be admitted, without at all consenting to the conclusion\nwhich is drawn from it. Several other considerations must be taken\ninto account before we can form a satisfactory opinion respecting the\nwhole case. Few things are more misleading, in the interpretation of\nScripture, than the insisting upon one set of facts and texts, and\npassing over all that is to be found on the other side. In this manner\nthe most opposite views may be equally proved from Scripture.\nUniversalism and the eschatology of Calvin, Pelagianism and Fatalism,\nPapalism and Presbyterianism.\n\nFirst, both logically and chronologically the teaching of St.\u00a0James\nprecedes that of St.\u00a0Paul and of St.\u00a0John. To call it \"retrograde\"\nwhen compared with either of them is to call a child retrograde when\ncompared with a man. St.\u00a0Paul had to feed his converts with milk\nbefore he fed them with meat, and the whole of the congregations\naddressed by St.\u00a0James in this letter must have been at a\ncomparatively early stage of development. In some respects even the\nMother Church of Jerusalem, from which his letter was written, did not\nget beyond these early stages. Before it had done so the centre of\nChristendom had moved from Jerusalem to Antioch; and to Jerusalem it\nnever returned. It was useless to build a structure of doctrine before\na foundation of morality had been laid. Advent must come before\nChristmas, and Lent before Easter. The manifold significance of the\ngreat truths of the Incarnation and the Resurrection would not be well\nappreciated by those who were neglecting some of the plainest\nprinciples of the moral law; and to appeal to the sanctions which\nevery Jew from his childhood had been accustomed to regard as final\nwas probably in the long-run more convincing than to remind these\nconverts of the additional sanctions which they had admitted when they\nentered the Christian Church. Moreover, there are passages in the\nEpistle which seem to show that St.\u00a0James at times looks aside to\naddress Jews who are not Christians at all, and it may be that even\nwhen He addresses Christian converts he deliberately prefers arguments\nwhich would weigh with Jew and Christian alike to those which would\nappeal to the latter only. Like St.\u00a0Paul himself, he was willing to\nbecome to the Jews a Jew, that he might win the Jews. Besides which,\nwe must allow something for the bias of his own mind. To his death he\nremained in many respects, not only a saintly shepherd of the\nChristian Church, but also a Hebrew of Hebrews. He is the last Jewish\nprophet as well as the first Christian bishop, a Hebrew Rabbi inside\nthe Church; and even if the condition of his readers had not made it\ndesirable to lay much stress upon the Law and the Old Testament, the\nassociations of a lifetime would have led him frequently to those old\nsources of truth and morality, all the more so as no authoritative\nChristian literature was as yet in existence. It was part of his\nmission to help in creating such a literature. He sets one of the\nfirst, it may be the very first, of the mystic stones, which, although\napparently thrown together without order or connexion, form so\nharmonious and so complete a whole; and alike in the solidity of its\nmaterial and in the simplicity of its form this Epistle is well fitted\nto be one of the first stones in such a building.\n\nBut it is easy to go away with an exaggerated view of the so-called\ndeficiencies of this letter as regards distinctly Christian teaching.\nThe passage before us is a strong piece of evidence, and even if it\nstood alone it would carry us a long way. Moreover, the strength of it\nis not much affected by the ambiguity of construction which confronts\nus in the original. It is impossible to say with absolute certainty\nhow the genitive \"of glory\" (\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2) ought to be taken; but the\nRevisers are possibly right: \"Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus\nChrist, (the Lord) of glory, with respect of persons.\"[54] Nor does it\nmuch matter whether we take the Greek negative (\u03bc\u1f74 ... \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5) as an\nimperative, \"Do not go on holding;\" or as an interrogative which\nexpects a negative reply, \"Do ye hold?\" In any case we have the\nDivinity of Jesus Christ, and the fact of His being an object of faith\nto Christians, placed before us in clear language. No mere Jew, and no\nEbionite who believed that Jesus was a mere man, could have written\nthus. And the words with which the Epistle opens are scarcely less\nmarked: \"James, of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ a bond-servant.\"\nIn both passages the title \"Lord,\" which in the Old Testament means\nJehovah, is given to Jesus Christ, and in the opening words God and\nthe Lord Jesus are placed side by side as equal. Moreover, St.\u00a0James,\nwho might have claimed honour as the brother of the Lord, prefers to\nstyle himself His bond-servant. He has \"known Christ after the flesh,\"\nfew more closely and intimately, and he knows from experience how\nlittle such knowledge avails: \"henceforth knows he Him so no more.\" He\nwho does the will of God is the true brother of the Lord, and it is\nthis kind of relationship to Christ that he wishes to secure for his\nreaders.\n\nNor do these two passages, in which Jesus Christ is mentioned by name,\nstand alone. There is the question, \"Do not they blaspheme the\nhonourable Name by which ye were called?\" The honourable Name, which\nhad been \"called upon\" them, is that of Christ, and if it can be\nblasphemed it is a Divine Name (ii.\u00a07). The Second Advent of Christ,\n\"the coming of the Lord,\" is a thing for which Christians are to wait\npatiently and longingly (v.\u00a07-9), and the office which He will then\ndischarge is that of the Divine Judge of all mankind. \"The coming of\nthe Lord is at hand. Murmur not, brethren, one against another, that\nye be not judged: behold, the Judge standeth before the doors\" (v.\u00a08,\n9).\n\nNor have we yet exhausted the passages which in this singularly\npractical and undoctrinal Epistle point clearly to the central\ndoctrine of the Divinity of Christ and His eternal relation to His\nChurch. \"Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the\nChurch; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Name\nof the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and\nthe Lord shall raise him up\" (v.\u00a014, 15). As in the case of the man\nhealed at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Acts iii.\u00a06, 16) it is \"in\nthe Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, ... whom God raised from the\ndead, even in this Name,\" that the sick man is to be restored. And\nsome interpreters (Dorner and Von Soden) think that Christ is\nincluded, or even exclusively intended, in \"One is the Lawgiver and\nthe Judge\" (iv.\u00a012. Comp. v.\u00a09). Thus Liddon: \"Especially noteworthy\nis his assertion that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Judge of men, is not\nthe delegated representative of an absent Majesty, but is Himself the\nLegislator enforcing His own laws. The Lawgiver, he says, is One Being\nwith the Judge who can save and can destroy; the Son of man, coming in\nthe clouds of heaven, has enacted the law which He thus\nadministers.\"[55] But without taking into account expressions of which\nthe interpretation is open to doubt, there is quite enough to show us\nthat the Divinity of Jesus Christ, His redeeming death, His abiding\npower, and His return to judgment are the basis of the moral teaching\nof St.\u00a0James, and are never long absent from his thoughts.\nExpressions, some of which no mere Jew or Ebionite could have used,\nand others which no such imperfect believer would have been likely to\nuse, abound in this short Epistle, in spite of its simple and\npractical character.[56]\n\n\"My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of\nglory, with respect of persons.\" These words open a new section of the\nletter, as the renewed address indicates; and although the Epistle is\nnot a set treatise, capable of analysis, but a letter, in which the\nsubjects to be treated are loosely strung together in the order in\nwhich they occur to the writer, yet the connexion between the two very\ndifferent subjects of this section and the preceding one can be\ntraced. The previous section teaches that much hearing is better than\nmuch talking, and that much hearing is worthless without corresponding\nconduct. This section denounces undue respect of persons, and\nespecially of wealthy persons during public worship. The connecting\nthoughts are religious worship and the treatment of the poor. The\nconduct which is true devotion is practical benevolence, moral purity,\nand unworldliness. This conclusion suggests a new subject, worldly\nrespect of persons in public worship. That is the very reverse of pure\ndevotion. To _profess_ one's belief in Jesus Christ, the Lord of\nglory, and at the same time _show_ one's belief in the majesty of mere\nmoney, is grievously incongruous. St.\u00a0James is not making any attack\non differences of rank, or asserting that no man is to be honoured\nabove another. He is pointing out that reverence for the wealthy is no\npart of Christianity, and that such reverence is peculiarly out of\nplace in the house of God, especially when it brings with it a\ncorresponding disregard of the poor.\n\n\"If there come into your _synagogue_.\" This is one of several\nimprovements which the Revisers have introduced into this passage. The\nAuthorized Version has \"assembly,\" which obscures the fact that the\nletter is written in those very early days of the Church in which the\nJewish Christians still attended the worship of the Temple and the\nsynagogue, or if they had a separate place of worship, spoke of it\nunder the old familiar name. The latter is probably what is meant\nhere. St.\u00a0James, in writing to Christians, would hardly speak of a\nJewish place of worship as \"_your_ synagogue,\" nor would he have\nrebuked Christians for the way in which different persons were treated\nin a synagogue of the Jews. The supposition that \"the article (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f74 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd) indicates that the _one_ synagogue of the entire Jewish\nChristian Dispersion is meant, _i.e._ their religious community\nsymbolically described by the name of the Jewish place of worship,\"\nis quite unfounded, and against the whole context. A typical\nincident--perhaps something which had actually been witnessed by\nSt.\u00a0James, or had been reported to him--is made the vehicle of a\ngeneral principle (comp. i.\u00a011). That the reference is to judicial\ncourts often held in synagogues is also quite gratuitous, and destroys\nthe contrast between \"pure religion\" and worldly respect of persons in\npublic worship.\n\nAnother improvement introduced by the Revisers is a uniform\ntranslation of the word (\u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c2) capriciously rendered \"apparel,\"\n\"raiment,\" and \"clothing.\" Only one word is used in the Greek, and it\nis misleading to use three different words in English. By a quaint\nmisuse of the very passage before us, the translators of 1611 defend\ntheir want of precision in such matters, and avow that in many cases\nprecision was deliberately sacrificed to variety and to a wish to\nhonour as many English words as possible by giving them a place in the\nBible! In ordinary copies of the Authorized Version the Address to\nKing James is commonly given, the far more instructive Address to the\nReader never. Near the close of it the translators say as follows:--\n\n\"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that\nwe have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an\nidentity of words, as some peradventure would wish we had done,\nbecause they observe, that some learned men some where, have been as\nexact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the\nsense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified\nthe same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of\nthe same sense every where) we were especially careful, and made a\nconscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the\nsame notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we\ntranslate the _Hebrew_ or _Greek_ word once by _Purpose_, never to\ncall it _Intent_; if one where _Journeying_, never _Travelling_; if\none where _Think_, never _Suppose_; if one where _Pain_, never _Ache_;\nif one where _Joy_, never _Gladness_, etc. Thus to mince the matter,\nwe thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it\nwould breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly\nReader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? why\nshould we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely,\nwhen we may use another no less fit, as commodiously? A godly Father\nin the primitive time shewed himself greatly moved, that one of\nnew-fangleness called \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c9 \u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 though the difference be\nlittle or none (Niceph. Call. viii.\u00a042); and another reporteth, that\nhe was much abused for turning _Cucurbita_ (to which reading the\npeople had been used) into _Hedera_ (Jerome _in iv. Jon\u00e6_. See S.\nAugustine, _Epist._ 71). Now if this happen in better times, and upon\nso small occasions, we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we\nshould make verbal and unnecessary changings. We might also be charged\n(by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good\nEnglish words. For as it is written of a certain great Philosopher,\nthat he should say, that those logs were happy that were made images\nto be worshipped; for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks\nbehind the fire: so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words,\nStand up higher, have a place in the Bible always, and to others of a\nlike quality, Get ye hence, be banished for ever, we might be taxed\nperadventure with S. James his words, namely, _To be partial in our\nselves and judges of evil thoughts_.\"[57]\n\nIn the passage before us the repetition of one and the same word for\n\"clothing\" is possibly not accidental. The repetition accentuates the\nfact that such a thing as clothing is allowed to be the measure of a\nman's merit. The rich man is neither the better nor the worse for his\nfine clothes, the poor man neither the better nor the worse for his\nshabby clothes. The error lies in supposing that such distinctions\nhave anything to do with religion, or ought to be recognized in public\nworship; and still more in supposing that any one, whether rich or\npoor, may at such a time be treated with contumely.\n\n\"Are ye not divided in your own mind, and become judges with evil\nthoughts?\" Here, as in the first verse, there is a doubt whether the\nsentence is an interrogation or not. In the former case the meaning is\nthe same, whichever way we take it; for a question which implies a\nnegative answer (\u03bc\u03ae interrogative) is equivalent to a prohibition.\nIn the present case the meaning will be affected if we consider the\nsentence to be a statement of fact, and the number of translations\nwhich have been suggested is very large. In both cases we may safely\nfollow the Vulgate and _all_ English versions in making the first\nverse a prohibition, and the fourth a question. \"Are ye not divided in\nyour own mind?\" Or more literally, \"Did ye not doubt in yourselves?\"\n_i.e._ on the typical occasion mentioned. At the outset St.\u00a0James\nsays, \"Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of\npersons.\" But the conduct described respecting the treatment of the\ngold-ringed man and the squalidly clothed man shows that they do have\nrespect of persons in their religion, and that shows that genuine\nfaith in Christ is wanting. Such behaviour proves that they _doubt_ in\nthemselves. They are not single-hearted believers in the Lord Jesus,\nbut double-minded doubters (i.\u00a06, 7), trying to make the best of both\nworlds, and to serve God and Mammon.\n\nThe word rendered \"doubt\" (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) _may_ mean \"distinguish:\"\n\"Do ye not make distinctions among yourselves?\" It is so taken by\nRenan (_L'Ant\u00e9christ_, p. 49) and others. This makes sense, but it is\nrather obvious sense; for of course to give a rich man a good place,\nand a poor man a bad one, is making distinctions. It seems better to\nadhere to the meaning which the word certainly has in the preceding\nchapter (i.\u00a06), as well as elsewhere in the New Testament (Matt.\nxxi.\u00a021; Mark xi.\u00a023; Acts x.\u00a020; Rom. iv.\u00a020; xiv.\u00a023), and\nunderstand it as referring to the want of faith in Christ and in His\nteaching which was displayed in a worldly preference for the rich over\nthe poor, even in those services in which His words were to be taught\nand His person adored.\n\n\"Judges _with_ evil thoughts\" is an improvement on the more literal\nbut misleading \"judges _of_ evil thoughts\" (\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c9\u03b7\u03c1\u1f7c\u03bd). The meaning of the genitive case is that the evil thoughts\n_characterize_ the judges, as in such common phrases as \"men _of_ evil\nhabits,\" \"judges _of_ remarkable severity\" (see above on \"hearers of\nforgetfulness,\" p. 108). The word for \"thoughts\" is one which in\nitself suggests evil, even without any epithet. It is the word used of\nthe reasonings of the Pharisees, when they taxed our Lord with\nblasphemy for forgiving sins (Luke v.\u00a022. Comp. xxiv.\u00a038). St.\u00a0Paul\nuses it of those who are \"vain in their reasonings\" (Rom. i.\u00a021;\n1\u00a0Cor. iii.\u00a020), and couples with it \"murmurings\" (Phil. ii.\u00a014) as\ncongenial company. Those men who, even while engaged in the public\nworship of God, set themselves up as judges to honour the rich and\ncondemn the poor, were not holding the faith of Jesus Christ, but were\nfull of evil doubts, questionings, and distrust.\n\n[53] Davidson, _Introduction to the Study of the N.T._ vol. i. pp. 327,\n328, 2nd ed. (Longmans, 1882).\n\n[54] There is, however, a good deal to be said for Bengel's\nsuggestion, that \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 is in apposition with \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f21\u03bc. \u1f38.\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, _i.e._ \"the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, (who is) the\nGlory.\" Comp. Luke ii.\u00a032; Eph. i.\u00a07; 1\u00a0Peter iv.\u00a014; 2\u00a0Peter i.\u00a017;\nCol. i.\u00a027; John i.\u00a014. See J. B. Mayor's note in the _Expositor_,\nSept., 1889, pp. 225-28.\n\n[55] _Bampton Lectures_, Lect. VI, p. 433 (Rivingtons, 1867).\n\n[56] Among these should be included the phrases which St.\u00a0James uses\nto indicate the Gospel revelation: \"the Word of truth\" (i.\u00a018); \"the\nimplanted Word\" (i.\u00a021); \"the perfect law, the law of liberty\"\n(i.\u00a025); \"the royal law\" (ii.\u00a08).\n\n[57] From the _Exact Reprint Page for Page of the A.V. published in\nthe Year MDCXI._ (Oxford, 1833). See also Trench _On the A.V. of the\nN.T._, pp. 83-101, and Lightfoot _On a Fresh Revision of the N.T._,\npp. 33-59, for some excellent remarks on the harm done by making\ndifferences in the English where there is no difference in the Greek.\nIn the present passage, besides the threefold translation of \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c2,\nthere is a double translation of \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 (\"_goodly_ apparel\" and\n\"gay clothing\"), and also of \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3 (\"come\" and \"come in\"). In\n1\u00a0John ii.\u00a024 we have the same word (\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) translated in three\ndifferent ways (\"abide,\" \"remain,\" \"continue\") in the same verse,\nentirely destroying the effect of St.\u00a0John's impressive repetition.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI.\n\n _THE INIQUITY OF RESPECTING THE RICH AND DESPISING THE POOR.\n THE SOLIDARITY OF THE DIVINE LAW._\n\n \"Hearken, my beloved brethren; did not God choose them that are poor\n as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which\n He promised to them that love Him? But ye have dishonoured the poor\n man. Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the\n judgment-seats? Do not they blaspheme the honourable Name by the\n which ye are called? Howbeit if ye fulfil the royal law, according to\n the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:\n but if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being convicted by\n the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and\n yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of\n all.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES ii.\u00a05-10.\n\n\nSt.\u00a0James is varied in his style. Sometimes he writes short,\nmaxim-like sentences, which remind us of the Book of Proverbs;\nsometimes, as in the passage before us, he is as argumentative as\nSt.\u00a0Paul. Having condemned worldly respect of persons as practical\ninfidelity, he proceeds to prove the justice of this estimate; and he\ndoes so with regard to both items of the account: these respecters of\npersons are utterly wrong, both in their treatment of the poor and in\ntheir treatment of the rich. The former is the worse of the two; for\nit is in flat contradiction of the Divine decree, and is an attempt to\nreverse it. God has said one thing about the poor man's estate, and\nthese time-servers, publicly in the house of God, say another.\n\n\"Hearken, my beloved brethren.\" He invites their attention to an\naffectionate and conclusive statement of the case. \"Did not God choose\nthem that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of\nthe kingdom? But _ye_ have dishonoured the poor man.\" By the humble\nlife which, by Divine decree, God's Son led upon the earth, by the\nsocial position of the men whom He chose as His Apostles and first\ndisciples, by blessings promised to the poor and to the friends of the\npoor, both under the Law and under the Gospel, God has declared His\nspecial approbation of the poor man's estate. \"But _ye_\" (\u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad,\nwith great emphasis on the pronoun) \"have dishonoured the poor man.\"\nWith Haman-like impiety ye would disgrace \"the man whom the King\ndelights to honour.\"\n\nLet us not misunderstand St.\u00a0James. He does not say or imply that the\npoor man is promised salvation on account of his poverty, or that his\npoverty is in any way meritorious. That is not the case, any more than\nthat the wealth of the rich is a sin. But so far as God has declared\nany preference, it is for the poor, rather than for the rich. The poor\nman has fewer temptations, and he is more likely to live according to\nGod's will, and to win the blessings that are in store for those who\nlove Him. His dependence upon God for the means of life is perpetually\nbrought home to him, and he is spared the peril of trusting in riches,\nwhich is so terrible a snare to the wealthy. He has greater\nopportunities of the virtues which make man Christlike, and fewer\noccasions of falling into those sins which separate him most fatally\nfrom Christ. But opportunities are not virtues, and poverty is not\nsalvation. Nevertheless, to a Christian a poor man is an object of\nreverence, rather than of contempt.\n\nBut the error of the worldly Christians whom St.\u00a0James is here\nrebuking does not end with dishonouring the poor whom God has\nhonoured; they also pay special respect to the rich. Have the rich, as\na class, shown that they deserve anything of the kind? Very much the\nreverse, as experience is constantly proving. \"Do not the rich oppress\nyou, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats? Do not they\nblaspheme the honourable Name by the which ye are called?\" Unless we\nconsider the \"synagogue\" mentioned above to be a Jewish one, in which\nChristians still worship, as in the Temple at Jerusalem, the\ngold-ringed worshipper is to be understood as a Christian; and reasons\nhave been given above (p. 118) for believing that the \"synagogue\" is a\nChristian place of worship. But in any case the rich oppressors here\nspoken of are not to be thought of as exclusively or principally\nChristian. They are the wealthy as a class, whether converts to\nChristianity or not; and apparently, as in chap. v.\u00a01-6, it is the\nwealthy unbelieving Jews who are principally in the writer's mind.\nSt.\u00a0James is thinking of the rich Sadducees, who at this period\n(A.D.\u00a035-65) were among the worst oppressors of the poorer Jews, and\nof course were specially bitter against those who had become adherents\nof \"the Way,\" and who seemed to them to be renegades from the faith of\ntheir forefathers. It was precisely to this kind of oppression that\nSt.\u00a0Paul devoted himself with fanatical zeal previous to his\nconversion (Acts ix.\u00a01, 2; 1\u00a0Tim. i.\u00a013; 1\u00a0Cor. xv.\u00a09; Phil. iii.\u00a06).\n\n\"The judgment-seats\" before which these wealthy Jews drag their poorer\nbrethren may be either heathen or Jewish courts (comp. 1\u00a0Cor. vi.\u00a02,\n4), but are probably the Jewish courts frequently held in the\nsynagogues. The Roman government allowed the Jews very considerable\npowers of jurisdiction over their own people, not only in purely\necclesiastical matters, but in civil matters as well. The Mosaic Law\npenetrated into almost all the relations of life, and where it was\nconcerned it was intolerable to a Jew to be tried by heathen law.\nConsequently the Romans found that their control over the Jews was\nmore secure, and less provocative of rebellion, when the Jews were\npermitted to retain a large measure of self-government. This applied\nnot only to Palestine, but to all places in which there were large\nsettlements of Jews. Even in the New Testament we find ample evidence\nof this. The high priest grants Saul \"letters to _Damascus_, unto the\nsynagogues,\" to arrest all who had become converts to \"the Way\" (Acts\nix.\u00a02). And St.\u00a0Paul before Herod Agrippa II. declares that, in his\nfury against converts to Christianity, he \"persecuted them even unto\n_foreign_ cities\" (Acts xxvi.\u00a011). Most, if not all, of the five\noccasions on which he himself \"received of the Jews forty stripes save\none\" (2\u00a0Cor. xi.\u00a024) must have been during his travels outside\nPalestine. The proconsul Gallio told the Jews of Corinth, not only\nthat they might, but that they must, take their charges against Paul,\nfor breaking Jewish law, to a Jewish tribunal; and when they\nostentatiously beat Sosthenes before his own tribunal, for some Jewish\noffence, he abstained from interfering. It is likely enough that\nprovincial governors, partly from policy, partly from indifference,\nallowed Jewish officials to exercise more power than they legally\npossessed; but they possessed quite enough to enable them to handle\nseverely those who contravened the letter or the traditional\ninterpretation of the Mosaic Law. That the dragging before the\njudgment-seats refers to bringing Christians before Roman magistrates,\nin a time of persecution, is a gratuitous hypothesis which does not\nfit the context. It was the mob, rather than the rich, that in the\nearlier persecutions acted in this way. The rich were contemptuously\nindifferent. There is, therefore, no evidence here that the letter was\nwritten during the persecution under Domitian or under Trajan.\nNevertheless, their Christianity, rather than their debt, was probably\nthe reason why these poor Jewish Christians were prosecuted in the\nsynagogue courts by the wealthy Jews.\n\nSo far from this passage being evidence that the Epistle was written\nat a time long after the death of St.\u00a0James, it is, as Renan has\ncarefully shown, almost a proof that it was written during his\nlifetime. As regards the relations between rich and poor, \"the Epistle\nof James is a perfect picture of the Ebionim at Jerusalem in the years\nwhich preceded the revolt.\" The destruction of Jerusalem \"introduced\nso complete a change into the situation of Judaism and of\nChristianity, that it is easy to distinguish a writing subsequent to\nthe catastrophe of the year 70 from a writing contemporary with the\nthird Temple. Pictures evidently referring to the internal contests\nbetween the different classes in Jerusalem society, such as that which\nis presented to us in the Epistle of James, are inconceivable after\nthe revolt of the year 66, which put an end to the reign of the\nSadducees.\"[58] These were the times when women bought the priesthood\nfor their husbands from Herod Agrippa II., and went to see them\nofficiate, over carpets spread from their own door to the Temple; when\nwealthy priests were too fastidious to kill the victims for sacrifice\nwithout first putting on silk gloves; when their kitchens were\nfurnished with every appliance for luxurious living, and their tables\nwith every delicacy; and when, supported by the Romans, to whom they\ntruckled, they made war upon the poor priests, who were supported by\nthe people. Like Hophni and Phinehas, they sent out their servants to\ncollect what they claimed as offerings, and if payment was refused the\nservants took what they claimed by force. Facts like these help us to\nunderstand the strong language used here by St.\u00a0James, and the still\nsterner words at the beginning of the fifth chapter. In such a state\nof society the mere possession of wealth certainly established no\nclaims upon the reverence of a Christian congregation; and the fawning\nupon rich people, degrading and unchristian at all times, would seem\nto St.\u00a0James to be specially perilous and distressing then.\n\n\"Do not they blaspheme the honourable Name by which ye are called?\"\nThe last clause literally means \"which was called upon you\" (\u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6' \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2); and we need not doubt that the reference is\nto the Name of Christ which was invoked upon them at their baptism;\n_quod invocatum est super vos_, as the Vulgate has it. The same\nexpression is found in the Septuagint of those who are called by God's\nName (2\u00a0Chron. vii.\u00a014; Jer. xiv.\u00a09; xv.\u00a016; Amos ix.\u00a012). Some have\nsuggested that the name here indicated is that of \"poor,\" or of\n\"brethren,\" or of \"Christian;\" but none of these is at all probable.\nIt may be doubted whether the last was already in common use; and\n\"blaspheme\" would be a very strong expression to use of any of them;\nwhereas both it and \"honourable\" are quite in keeping if the name be\nthat of Christ. The word rendered \"honourable\" (\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd) cannot be\nadequately translated. It is the same as that which is rendered \"good\"\nwhen we read of \"the _Good_ Shepherd\" (John x.\u00a011). It suggests what\nis beautiful, noble, and good, as opposed to what is foul, mean, and\nwicked; and such is the Name of Christ, which is called in a special\nsense \"_the_ Name\" (Acts v.\u00a041; 3\u00a0John 7. Comp. Ignatius, _Eph._ iii.,\nvii.; _Philad_. x.; Clem. Rom. ii., xiii.). That the blasphemers are\nnot Christians is shown by the clause \"which was called upon _you_.\"\nHad Christians been intended, St.\u00a0James would have written \"Do not\nthey blaspheme the honourable Name which was called upon _them_?\" That\nthey blasphemed the Name in which they were baptized would have been\nsuch an aggravation of their offence that he would not have failed to\nindicate it. These blasphemers were no doubt Jews; and St.\u00a0James has\nin his mind the anathemas against Jesus Christ which were frequent\nutterances among the Jews, both in the synagogues and in conversation.\nSt.\u00a0Paul alludes to these when he says, \"No man speaking in the Spirit\nof God saith, Jesus is anathema;\" and Justin Martyr writes, \"That\nwhich is said in the Law, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,\nconfirms our hope which is hung upon the crucified Christ, not as if\nGod were cursing that crucified One, but because God foretold that\nwhich would be done by all of you (Jews) and those like you.... And\nyou may see with your eyes this very thing coming to pass; for in your\nsynagogues you curse all those who from Him have become Christians\"\n(_Trypho_, xcvi.). The text, \"Cursed is every one that hangeth on a\ntree,\" was a favourite one with the Jews in their controversies with\nChristians, as St.\u00a0James would know well (see Gal. iii.\u00a013); and all\nthis tends to show that he refers to literal blasphemy by word of\nmouth, and not to the virtual blasphemy which is involved in conduct\nthat dishonours Christ.\n\nHis argument, therefore, amounts to this, that the practice of\nhonouring the rich for their riches is (quite independently of any\ndishonour done to the poor) doubly reprehensible. It involves the\nmeanness of flattering their own oppressors, and the wickedness of\nreverencing those who blaspheme Christ. It is a servile surrender of\ntheir own rights, and base disloyalty to their Lord.\n\nBut perhaps (the argument continues) some will defend this respect\npaid to the rich as being no disloyalty to Christ, but, on the\ncontrary, simple fulfilment of the royal law, \"Thou shalt love thy\nneighbour as thyself.\" Be it so, that the rich as a class are unworthy\nof respect and honour, yet nevertheless they are our neighbours, and\nno misconduct on their side can cancel the obligation on our side to\ntreat them as we should wish to be treated ourselves. We ourselves\nlike to be respected and honoured, and therefore we pay respect and\nhonour to them. To those who argue thus the reply is easy. Certainly,\nif that is your motive, ye do well. But why do you love your neighbour\nas yourselves if he chances to be rich, and treat him like a dog if he\nchances to be poor? However excellent your reasons for honouring the\nwealthy may be, you still do not free yourselves from the blame of\nshowing an unchristian respect of persons, and therefore of committing\nsin, \"being convicted by the law as transgressors.\"\n\nThe law of loving one's neighbour as oneself is a \"royal law,\" not as\nhaving emanated from God or from Christ as King, still less as being a\nlaw which binds even kings, or which makes kings of those who observe\nit. It is a royal law, as being sovereign over other laws, inasmuch as\nit is one of those two on which \"hang all the Law and the Prophets\"\n(Matt. xxii.\u00a040). Indeed, either of the two may be interpreted so as\nto cover the whole duty of man. Thus St.\u00a0Paul says of this royal law,\n\"The whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love\nthy neighbour as thyself\" (Gal. v.\u00a014). And St.\u00a0John teaches the same\ntruth in a different way, when he declares that \"he that loveth not\nhis brother whom he hath seen cannot love God whom he hath not seen\"\n(1\u00a0John iv.\u00a020). The expression \"royal law\" occurs nowhere else,\neither in the New Testament or in the Septuagint, but it is found in a\ndialogue entitled Minos (p. 317), which is sometimes wrongly\nattributed to Plato. It is one which might readily occur to any one as\na name for a supreme moral principle.\n\n\"Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he\nis become guilty of all.\"[59] The law is the expression of one and the\nsame principle--love; and of one and the same will--the will of God.\nTherefore he who deliberately offends against any one of its\nenactments, however diligently he may keep all the rest, is guilty of\noffending against the whole. His guiding principle is not love, but\nselfishness--not God's will, but his own. He keeps nine tenths of the\nlaw because he likes to do so, and he breaks one tenth because he\nlikes to do so. The fact of his wilful disobedience proves that his\nobedience is not the fruit of love or loyalty, but of self-seeking. If\nwe ask what his character is, the answer must be, \"He is a\nlawbreaker.\" These respecters of persons claimed to be observers of\nthe law, because they treated their rich neighbours as they would have\nliked to be treated themselves. St.\u00a0James shows them that, on the\ncontrary, they are transgressors of the law, because they pick and\nchoose as to what neighbours shall be treated thus kindly. They keep\nthe law when it is convenient to keep it, and break it when it is\ninconvenient to keep it. Such keeping of the law is in its essence,\nnot obedience, but disobedience. He who follows honesty only because\nhonesty is the best policy is not an honest man, and he who obeys the\nlaw only because obedience suits him is not an obedient man. There is\nno serving God with reservations. However small the reservation may\nbe, it vitiates all the rest. In order to \"_fulfil_ the law\" (a rare\nexpression, found only here and in Rom. ii.\u00a027), we must keep it all\nround, independently of our own likes and dislikes.\n\nSt.\u00a0James is not here countenancing the severity of Draco, that small\ncrimes deserve death, and that there is no worse punishment for great\ncrimes; nor yet the paradox of the Stoics, that the theft of a penny\nis as bad as parricide, because in either case the path of virtue is\nleft, and one is drowned as surely in seven feet of water as in\nseventy fathoms. He is not contending that all sins are equal, and\nthat to break one of God's commands is as bad as to break them all.\nWhat he maintains is that no one can claim to be a fulfiller of the\nlaw in virtue of his extensive obedience so long as there is any\nportion of the law which he wilfully disobeys. Why does he disobey in\nthis? Because it pleases him to do so. Then he would disobey in the\nrest if it pleased him to do so. The motive of his conduct is not\nsubmission, but self-will. He is in character \"a transgressor of the\nlaw.\"\n\nBoth defects are common enough still, and are likely to remain so.\nPaying respect to _persons_, _dignities_, and _positions_ is a\nfrequent form of meanness, especially in the manner here condemned, of\ncourting the rich and slighting the poor. It is a Christian duty to\nrespect the rank or the office of those whom God has placed in a\nposition superior to ourselves, and it is also a Christian duty to\nreverence those who by God's grace are leading lives of virtue and\nholiness; but it is unchristian partiality to honour a man merely for\nhis wealth, or to dishonour him merely for his poverty. And secondly,\nwe are all of us prone to plead, both before the world and our own\nconsciences, the particulars in which we do _not_ offend as a set-off\nagainst those in which we _do_. To detect ourselves thus balancing a\ntransgression here, against many observances there, ought at once to\nstartle us into the conviction that the whole principle of our lives\nmust be faulty. Our aim is, not to love God, or to obey Him, but to\nget to heaven, or at least to escape hell, _on the cheapest terms_.\n\n[58] _L'Antechrist_, pp. xi.-xiii., 49-54.\n\n[59] This text caused St.\u00a0Augustine much perplexity. He sent a long\ndiscussion of it to Jerome, asking for his opinion. Augustine's solution\nis that the whole law hangs on the love of God, and that every\ntransgression is a breach of love (_Ep._ CLXVII. iv.\u00a016).\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XII.\n\n _FAITH AND WORKS: THREE VIEWS OF THE RELATION OF THE TEACHING\n OF ST. JAMES TO THE TEACHING OF ST. PAUL. THE RELATION OF\n LUTHER TO BOTH._\n\n \"What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but\n have not works? can that faith save him? If a brother or sister be\n naked, and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in\n peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things\n needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it have\n not works, is dead in itself. Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith,\n and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my\n works will show thee my faith. Thou believest that God is One; thou\n doest well: the devils also believe, and shudder. But wilt thou know,\n O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham\n our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son\n upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by\n works was faith made perfect; and the Scripture was fulfilled which\n saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for\n righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that by\n works a man is justified, and not only by faith. And in like manner\n was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she\n received the messengers, and sent them out another way? For as the\n body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is\n dead.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES ii.\u00a014-26.\n\n\nThis famous passage has been quoted in full, because one needs to have\nthe whole of it before one in order to appreciate the value of the\narguments used on this side and on that as to its relation to the\nteaching of St.\u00a0Paul on the connexion between faith and works; for\nwhich purpose mere extracts will not do; and also because considerable\nchanges, some of them important, have been made throughout the passage\nby the Revisers, and these will influence the impression derived from\nreading the passage as a whole.\n\nIt might be thought that here, at any rate, we have got, in this\nsingularly practical and undogmatic Epistle, a paragraph which is,\nboth in intention and in effect, distinctly doctrinal. It seems at\nfirst sight to be a careful exposition of St.\u00a0James's views as to the\nnature and value of faith and its relation to conduct. But a little\nattention will prove to us that throughout the passage St.\u00a0James is as\npractical in his aim as in any part of the letter, and that whatever\ndoctrinal teaching there may be in the passage is there because the\npractical purpose of the writer could not be fulfilled without\ninvolving doctrine, and not at all because the writer's object is to\nexpound or defend an article of the Christian faith. He has _agenda_\nrather than _credenda_ in his mind. An orthodox creed is assumed\nthroughout. What needs to be produced is not right belief, but right\naction.\n\nIn this affectionate pastoral St.\u00a0James passes in review the defects\nwhich he knows to exist in his readers. They have their good points,\nbut these are sadly marred by corresponding deficiencies. They are\nswift to hear, but also swift to speak and slow to act. They believe\nin Jesus Christ; but they dishonour Him by dishonouring His poor,\nwhile they profess to keep the law of charity by honouring the rich.\nThey are orthodox in a Monotheistic creed; but they rest content with\nthat, and their orthodoxy is as barren as a dead tree. It is with this\nlast defect that St.\u00a0James is dealing in the passage before us. And as\nso often (i.\u00a012, 19; ii.\u00a01; iii.\u00a01, 13; iv.\u00a01, 13; v.\u00a01, 7, 13), he\nclearly states his main point first, and then proceeds to enforce and\nelucidate it.\n\n\"What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but\nhave not works? Can that faith save him?\" \"_That_ faith\" is literally\n\"_the_ faith,\" or \"_his_ faith;\" viz. such faith as he professes, a\nfaith that produces nothing. There is no emphasis on \"say.\" St.\u00a0James\nis not insinuating that the man says he has faith, when he really has\nnone. If that were the case, it would be needless to ask, \"Can his\nfaith save him?\" The question then would be, \"Can his _profession_ of\nfaith save him?\" But St.\u00a0James nowhere throws doubt on the truth of\nthe unprofitable believer's professions, or on the possibility of\nbelieving much and doing nothing. Why, then, does he put in the \"say\"?\nWhy not write, \"If a man have faith\"? Perhaps in order to indicate\nthat in such cases the man's own statement is all the evidence there\nis that he has faith. In the case of other Christians their works\nprove them to be believers; but where there are no works you can only\nhave the man's word for it that he believes. The case is parallel to\nthat sketched by our blessed Lord, which St.\u00a0James may have in his\nmind. \"Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into\nthe kingdom of heaven; but he that _doeth_ the will of My Father which\nis in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not\nprophesy by Thy Name, and by Thy Name cast out devils, and by Thy Name\ndo many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew\nyou; depart from Me, ye that work iniquity\" (Matt. vii.\u00a021-23). In\nthis case it is manifest that the profession of faith is not mere\nempty hypocrisy; it is not a saying of \"Lord, Lord,\" to one who is not\nbelieved to be the Lord. It is a faith that can remove mountains, but\ndivorced from the love which makes it acceptable. The two, which God\nhath joined together, have by man's self-will been put asunder.\n\nThe relation, therefore, of the teaching of St.\u00a0James to that of His\nDivine Brother is clear: the two are in perfect harmony. What is its\nrelation to the teaching of St.\u00a0Paul? Omitting minor differences,\nthere are in the main three answers to this question: (1) The writer\nof this Epistle is deliberately contradicting and correcting the\nteaching of St.\u00a0Paul. (2) St.\u00a0James is correcting prevalent\nmisunderstandings, or is anticipating probable misunderstandings, of\nthe teaching of St.\u00a0Paul. (3) St.\u00a0James writes without reference to,\nand possibly without knowledge of, the precise teaching of the Apostle\nof the Gentiles respecting the relation between faith and works.\n\n(1) Those who hold the first of these three views naturally maintain\nthat the Epistle is not genuine, but the production of some one of a\nlater age than St.\u00a0James, who wished to have the great authority of\nhis name to cover an attack upon the teaching of St.\u00a0Paul. Thus F. C.\nBaur maintains that \"the doctrine of this Epistle must be considered\nas intended to correct that of Paul.\" This, which is taken from the\nsecond edition of his work on the _Life and Work of St.\u00a0Paul_,\npublished after his death in 1860, by his pupil Zeller, may be taken\nas his matured opinion. In his history of the _Christian Church of the\nFirst Three Centuries_, published in 1853, he expresses himself a\nlittle less positively: \"It is impossible to deny that the Epistle of\nJames presupposes the Pauline doctrine of justification. And if this\nbe so, its tendency is distinctly anti-Pauline, though it may not be\naimed directly against the Apostle himself. The Epistle contends\nagainst a one-sided conception of the Pauline doctrine, which was\ndangerous to practical Christianity.\" In both works alike Baur\ncontends that the Epistle of James cannot be genuine, but is the\nproduct of some unknown writer in the second century. The opinions\nthat our Epistle is directed against the teaching of St.\u00a0Paul, and\nthat it is not genuine, naturally go together. It is against all\nprobability that St.\u00a0James, who had supported St.\u00a0Paul in the crisis\nat Jerusalem in A.D.\u00a050 (Acts xv.), and who had given to him and\nBarnabas the right hand of fellowship (Gal. ii.\u00a09), should attack\nSt.\u00a0Paul's own teaching. But to deny the authenticity of the Epistle,\nand place it in a later age, does not really avoid the difficulty of\nthe supposed attack on St.\u00a0Paul, and it brings with it other\ndifficulties of a no less serious character. In any case the letter is\naddressed to _Jewish_ Christians (i.\u00a01); and what need was there to\nput _them_ on their guard against the teaching of a man whom they\nregarded with profound distrust, and whose claim to be an Apostle they\ndenied? It would be as reasonable to warn Presbyterians against the\ndoctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope. Besides all which, as Renan\nhas shown, the letter sketches a state of things which would be\ninconceivable after the outbreak of the war which ended in the\ndestruction of Jerusalem; _i.e._ it cannot be placed later than\nA.D.\u00a066.\n\nDr. Salmon justly observes, \"To a disciple of Baur there is no more\ndisappointing document than this Epistle of James. Here, if anywhere\nin the New Testament, he might expect to find evidence of anti-Pauline\nrancour. There is what looks like flat contradiction between this\nEpistle and the teaching of St.\u00a0Paul.... But that opposition to Paul\nwhich, on a superficial glance, we are disposed to ascribe to the\nEpistle of James, disappears on a closer examination. I postpone for\nthe moment the question whether we can suppose that James intended to\ncontradict Paul; but whether he intended it or not, he has not really\ndone so; he has denied nothing that Paul has asserted, and asserted\nnothing that a disciple of Paul would care to deny. On comparing the\nlanguage of James with that of Paul, all the distinctive expressions\nof the latter are found to be absent from the former. St.\u00a0Paul's\nthesis is that a man is justified not by works of the law, but by the\nfaith of Jesus Christ. James speaks only of works without any mention\nof the law, and of faith without any mention of Jesus Christ, the\nexample of faith which he considers being merely the belief that there\nis one God. In other words, James is writing not in the interests of\nJudaism, but of morality. Paul taught that faith in Jesus Christ was\nable to justify a man uncircumcised and unobservant of the Mosaic\nordinances.... For this Pauline teaching James not only has no word of\ncontradiction, but he gives no sign of ever having heard of the\ncontroversy which, according to Baur, formed the most striking feature\nin the early history of the Church.... Whatever embarrassment the\napparent disagreement between the Apostles has caused to orthodox\ntheologians is as nothing in comparison with the embarrassment caused\nto a disciple of Baur by their fundamental agreement.\"[60]\n\nWe may, therefore, safely abandon a theory which involves three such\ndifficulties. It assigns a date to the Epistle utterly incompatible\nwith its contents. It makes the writer warn Jewish Christians against\nteaching which they, of all Christians, were least likely to find\nattractive. And after all, the warning is futile; for the writer's own\nteaching is fundamentally the same as that which it is supposed to\noppose and correct. Besides all which, we may say with Reuss that this\nT\u00fcbingen criticism is mere baseless ingenuity. It \"overlooks the\nunique originality of the Epistle;\" and to ascribe to the writer of it\n\"any ulterior motives at all is simply a useless display of\nacuteness.\"[61]\n\n(2) This last remark will not predispose us to regard with favour the\nsecond hypothesis mentioned above--that in this passage St.\u00a0James is\ncorrecting prevalent misunderstandings, or is anticipating probable\nmisunderstandings, of the teaching of St.\u00a0Paul. There is no trace of\nany such intention, or of any anxiety on the subject. The purpose of\nthe passage is not doctrinal at all, but, like the rest of the\nEpistle, eminently practical. The writer's object throughout is to\ninculcate the necessity of right conduct. Readiness in hearing the\nWord of God is all very well, and correctness of belief in God is all\nvery well; but without readiness to do what pleases Him it is as\nuseless as a dead vine. Whether St.\u00a0James remembered the words, \"We\nreckon that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the\nlaw\" (Rom. iii.\u00a028), must remain doubtful; for, as has been pointed\nout in a previous exposition (p. 57), there is some reason for\nbelieving that he had seen the Epistle to the Romans. But there is no\nreason for believing that he was acquainted with the parallel\nstatement in the Epistle to the Galatians, \"We being Jews by nature,\nand not sinners of the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not\njustified by the works of the law, save through faith in Jesus Christ,\neven we believe on Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by faith\nin Christ, and not by the works of the law; because by the works of\nthe law shall no flesh be justified\" (ii.\u00a015, 16). Of one thing,\nhowever, we may feel confident, that, had St.\u00a0James been intending to\ngive the true meaning of either or both of these statements by\nSt.\u00a0Paul, in order to correct or obviate misunderstanding, he would\nnot have worded his exposition in such a way that it would be possible\nfor a hasty reader to suppose that he was contradicting the Apostle of\nthe Gentiles instead of merely explaining him. He takes no pains to\nshow that while St.\u00a0Paul speaks of works _of the law_, _i.e._\nceremonial observances, he himself is speaking of good works\ngenerally, which St.\u00a0Paul no less than himself regarded as a necessary\naccompaniment and outcome of living faith.\n\nMoreover, was there any likelihood that the Jewish Christians would\nthus misinterpret St.\u00a0Paul? Among Gentile Christians there was danger\nof this, because they misunderstood the meaning of the Christian\nliberty which he so enthusiastically preached. But with Jewish\nconverts the danger was that they would refuse to listen to St.\u00a0Paul\nin anything, not that they would be in such a hurry to accept his\nteaching that they would go away with a wrong impression as to what he\nreally meant. And precisely that doctrine of St.\u00a0Paul which was so\nliable to be misunderstood St.\u00a0James proclaims as clearly as St.\u00a0Paul\ndoes in this very Epistle. He also declares, more than once, that the\nGospel is the \"law of _liberty_\" (i.\u00a025; ii.\u00a012). Had St.\u00a0James been\nwriting to Gentiles, there might have been some reason for his putting\nhis readers on their guard against misinterpreting St.\u00a0Paul's manner\nof preaching the Gospel: in writing \"to the twelve tribes which are of\nthe Dispersion\" there was little or no reason for so doing.\n\n(3) We fall back, therefore, upon the far more probable view that in\nthis passage St.\u00a0James is merely following the course of his own\nargument, without thinking of St.\u00a0Paul's teaching respecting the\nrelation between faith and works. How much of St.\u00a0Paul's teaching he\nknew depends upon the date assigned to this Epistle, whether before\nA.D.\u00a050 or after A.D.\u00a060. At the later date St.\u00a0James must have known\na good deal, both from St.\u00a0Paul himself, and also from the many Jews\nof the Dispersion, who had heard the preaching of the Apostle in his\nmissionary journeys, had seen some of his letters, and brought both\ngood and evil reports of his work to the Church at Jerusalem. Each\nyear, at the Passover and other festivals, James would receive\nmultitudes of such visitors. But it does not follow that because he\nknew a good deal about St.\u00a0Paul's favourite topics, and his manner of\npresenting the faith to his hearers, therefore he has his teaching in\nhis mind in writing to Jewish converts. The passage before us is\nthoroughly intelligible, if it is treated on its own merits without\nany reference to Pauline doctrine; and not only so, but we may say\nthat it becomes more intelligible when so treated.\n\nAt the opening of the Epistle St.\u00a0James insists on the necessity of\n_faith_: \"knowing that the proof of your faith worketh patience\" (ver.\n3); and \"Let him ask in faith, nothing doubting\" (ver. 6). Then he\npasses on to insist upon the necessity of _practice_: \"Be ye doers of\nthe Word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves\" (ver. 22);\nand \"Being not a hearer that forgetteth, but a doer that worketh\"\n(ver. 25). At the beginning of the second chapter he does exactly the\nsame. He first assumes that as a matter of course his hearers have\n_faith_ (ver. 1), and then goes on to show how this must be\naccompanied by the _practice_ of charity and mercy towards all, and\nespecially towards the poor (vv.\u00a02-13). The passage before us is\nprecisely on the same lines.\n\nIt is assumed that his readers profess to have _faith_ (vv.\u00a014, 19);\nand St.\u00a0James does not dispute the truth of this profession. But he\nmaintains that unless this faith is productive of a corresponding\n_practice_, its existence is not proved, and its utility is disproved.\nIt is as barren as a withered tree, and as lifeless as a corpse. Three\ntimes over he asserts, with simple emphasis, that faith apart from\npractice is dead (vv.\u00a017, 20, 26). All which tends to show that the\npresent paragraph comes quite naturally in the course of the\nexhortation, without any ulterior motive being assumed to explain it.\nIt is in close harmony with what precedes, and thoroughly in keeping\nwith the practical aim of the whole letter. We see how easily it might\nhave been written by any one who was in earnest about religion and\nmorality, without having heard a word about St.\u00a0Paul's teaching\nrespecting faith in Christ and works of the law.\n\nIt has been already pointed out that a letter addressed by a Jewish\nChristian to Jewish Christians would not be very likely to take\naccount of St.\u00a0Paul's doctrine, whether rightly or wrongly understood.\nIt has also been shown that St.\u00a0James, as is natural in such a letter,\nmakes frequent appeals to the Old Testament, and also has numerous\ncoincidences with portions of that now much-neglected Jewish\nliterature which forms a connecting-link between the Old and the New,\nespecially with the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. It was in the\nperiod in which that literature was produced that discussions as to\nthe value of faith in God, as distinct from the fear of God, and in\nparticular as to the faith of Abraham, the friend of God, began to be\ncommon among the Jews, especially in the Rabbinical schools. We find\nevidence of this in the Apocrypha itself. \"Abraham was a great father\nof many people, ... and when he was proved he was found faithful\"\n(Ecclus. xliv.\u00a019, 20). \"Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation,\nand it was imputed unto him for righteousness?\" (1\u00a0Macc. ii.\u00a052),\nwhere the interrogative form of sentence may have suggested the\ninterrogation of St.\u00a0James. It will be observed that in these passages\nwe have the adjective \"faithful\" (\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2); not yet the substantive\n\"faith\" (\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2). But in the composite and later work which in our\nBibles bears the name of the Second Book of Esdras we have faith\nfrequently spoken of. \"The way of truth shall be hidden, and the land\nshall be barren of faith\" (v.\u00a01). \"As for faith, it shall flourish,\ncorruption shall be overcome, and the truth, which hath been so long\nwithout fruit, shall be declared\" (vi.\u00a028). \"Truth shall stand, and\nfaith shall wax strong\" (vii.\u00a034). And in two remarkable passages\nfaith is spoken of in connexion with works. \"And every one that shall\nbe saved, and shall be able to escape by his works, and by faith,\nwhereby ye have believed, shall be preserved from the said perils, and\nshall see My salvation\" (ix.\u00a07, 8). \"These are they that have works\nand faith towards the Most Mighty\" (xiii.\u00a023). With Philo faith and\nthe faith of Abraham are common topics. He calls it \"the queen of the\nvirtues,\" and the possessor of it \"will bring a faultless and most\nfair sacrifice to God.\" Abraham's faith is not easy to imitate, so\nhard is it to trust in the unseen God rather than in the visible\ncreation; whereas he without wavering believed that the things which\nwere not present were already present, because of His most sure faith\nin Him who promised.[62]\n\nOther instances might be quoted from Jewish literature; but these\nsuffice to show that the nature of faith, and the special merit of\nAbraham's faith, were subjects often discussed among Jews, and were\nlikely to be familiar to those whom St.\u00a0James addresses. This being\nso, it becomes probable that what he has in his mind is not Pauline\ndoctrine, or any perversion of it, but some Pharisaic tenet respecting\nthese things. The view that faith is formal orthodoxy--the belief in\none God--and that correctness of belief suffices for the salvation of\na son of Abraham, seems to be the kind of error against which\nSt.\u00a0James is contending. About faith in Christ or in His Resurrection\nthere is not a word. It is the cold Monotheism which the\nself-satisfied Pharisee has brought with him into the Christian\nChurch, and which he supposes will render charity and good works\nsuperfluous, that St.\u00a0James is condemning.[63] So far from this being\na contradiction to St.\u00a0Paul, it is the very doctrine which he taught,\nand almost in the same form of words. \"_What doth it profit_ (\u03c4\u03af\n\u1f44\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2), my brethren,\" asks St.\u00a0James, \"if a man say he hath faith,\nbut have not works?\" \"If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains,\nbut have not love, I am nothing,\" says St.\u00a0Paul. \"And if I bestow all\nmy goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but\nhave not love, _it profiteth me nothing_\" (\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03c9 \u1f60\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9).\n\nSt.\u00a0Paul and St.\u00a0James are thus found to be agreed. It remains to be\nshown that in spite of his own statements to the contrary, Luther was\nas fully agreed with the latter as with the former. When he writes\nabout St.\u00a0James, Luther's prejudices lead him to disparage a form of\nteaching which he has not been at the pains to comprehend. But when he\nexpounds St.\u00a0Paul he does so in words which would serve excellently as\nan exposition of the teaching of St.\u00a0James. In his preface to the\nEpistle to the Romans he writes thus: \"But faith is a Divine work in\nus, that changes us and begets us anew of God (John i.\u00a013); and kills\nthe old man, makes of us quite other men in heart, courage, mind, and\nstrength, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. Oh, it is a living,\nactive, energetic, mighty thing, this faith, _so that it is impossible\nthat it should not work what is good without intermission. It does not\neven ask whether good works are to be done, but before one asks it has\ndone them, and is ever doing._ But he who does not do such works is a\nman without faith, is fumbling and looking about him for faith and\ngood works, and knows neither the one nor the other, yet chatters and\nbabbles many words about both.\n\n\"Faith is a living, deliberate confidence in the grace of God, so sure\nthat it would die a thousand times for its trust. And such confidence\nand experience of Divine grace make a man merry, bold, and joyful\ntowards God and all creatures; all which the Holy Spirit does in\nfaith. Hence the man without compulsion becomes willing and joyful to\ndo good to every one, to serve every one, to endure everything, for\nthe love and praise of God, who has shown him such grace. Therefore\n_it is impossible to sever works from faith; yea, as impossible as to\nsever burning and shining from fire_.\"[64]\n\n[60] _Introduction to the N.T._, 4th ed. (Murray, 1889), pp. 504, 506,\na work which may be most heartily commended to every student of the\nNew Testament.\n\n[61] _History of the Sacred Scriptures of the N.T._, translated by E.\nL. Houghton (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1884), p. 143.\n\n[62] See the passages quoted by Hatch, _Essays in Biblical Greek_,\npp. 85-87 (Oxford, 1889).\n\n[63] This kind of error is alluded to by Justin Martyr, in his\n_Dialogue with the Jew Trypho_: \"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord\nwill not impute sin; that is, who receives remission of his sins from\nGod as having repented of his sins; but not as ye deceive yourselves,\nand some other (Jews) who resemble you in this, who say that even if\nthey are sinners, but attain to a knowledge of God, the Lord will not\nimpute sin to them\" (cxli., p. 370, D).\n\n[64] _Werke_, ed. Gustav Pfizer, Frankfurt am Main, 1840, p. 1415.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII.\n\n _THE FAITH OF THE DEMONS; THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM;\n AND THE FAITH OF RAHAB THE HARLOT._\n\n \"Thou believest that God is One; thou doest well: the devils also\n believe, and shudder.\"\n\n \"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered\n up Isaac his son upon the altar?\"\n\n \"And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by\n works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out\n another way?\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES ii.\u00a019, 21, 25.\n\n\nIn the preceding chapter several points of great interest were passed\nover, in order not to obscure the main issue as to the relation of\nthis passage to the teaching of St.\u00a0Paul. Some of these may now be\nusefully considered.\n\nThroughout this volume, as in the companion volume on the Pastoral\nEpistles and other volumes for which the present writer is in no way\nresponsible, the Revised Version has been taken as the basis of the\nexpositions. There may be reasonable difference of opinion as to its\nsuperiority to the Authorized Version for public reading in the\nservices of the Church, but few unprejudiced persons would deny its\nsuperiority for purposes of private study and both private and public\nexposition. Its superiority lies not so much in happy treatment of\ndifficult texts, as in the correction of a great many small errors of\ntranslation, and above all in the substitution of a great many true or\nprobable readings for others that are false or improbable. And while\nthere are not a few cases in which there is plenty of room for doubt\nwhether the change, even if clearly a gain in accuracy, was worth\nmaking, there are also some in which the uninitiated student wonders\nwhy no change was made. The passage before us contains a remarkable\ninstance. Why has the word \"devils\" been retained as the rendering of\n\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1, while \"demons\" is relegated to the margin?\n\nThere are two Greek words, very different from one another in origin\nand history, which are used both in the Septuagint and in the New\nTestament to express the unseen and spiritual powers of evil. These\nare \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, or in one place \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd (Matt. xlii.\u00a031;\n_not_ Mark v.\u00a012, or Luke vii.\u00a029, or Rev. xvi.\u00a014 and xviii.\u00a02). The\nScriptural usage of these two words is quite distinct and very marked.\nExcepting where it is used as an adjective (John vi.\u00a070; 1\u00a0Tim.\niii.\u00a011; 2\u00a0Tim. iii.\u00a03; Titus ii.\u00a03), \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 is one of the names of\nSatan, the great enemy of God and of men, and the prince of the\nspirits of evil. It is so used in the Books of Job and of Zechariah,\nas well as in Wisdom ii.\u00a024, and also throughout the New Testament,\nviz. in the Gospels and Acts, the Catholic and Pauline Epistles, and\nthe Apocalypse. It is, in fact, a proper name, and is applied to one\nperson only. It commonly, but not invariably (1\u00a0Chron. xxi.\u00a01; Ps.\ncviii. [cix.] 5) has the definite article. The word \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, on the\nother hand, is used of those evil spirits who are the messengers and\nministers of Satan. It is thus used in Isaiah, the Psalms, Tobit,\nBaruch, and throughout the New Testament. It is used also of the false\ngods of the heathen, which were believed to be evil spirits, or at\nleast the productions of evil spirits, who are the inspirers of\nidolatry; whereas Satan is never identified with any heathen divinity.\nThose who worship false gods are said to worship \"demons,\" but never\nto worship \"the devil.\" Neither in the Old Testament nor in the New\nare the two words ever interchanged. Satan is never spoken of as a\n\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd or \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, and his ministers are never called \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9. Is\nit not a calamity that this very marked distinction should be\nobliterated in the English Version by translating both Greek words by\nthe word \"devil,\" especially when there is another word which, as the\nmargin admits, might have been used for one of them? The Revisers have\ndone immense service by distinguishing between _Hades_, the abode of\ndeparted spirits of men, and _Hell_ or _Gehenna_, the place of\npunishment (iii.\u00a06). Why did they reject a similar opportunity by\nrefusing to distinguish _the devil_ from _the demons_ over whom he\nreigns? This is one of the suggestions of the American Committee which\nmight have been followed with great advantage and (so far as one sees)\nno loss.\n\nSt.\u00a0James has just been pointing out the advantage which the Christian\nwho has works to show has over one who has only faith. The one can\nprove that he possesses both; the other cannot prove that he possesses\neither. The works of the one are evidence that the faith is there\nalso, just as leaves and fruit are evidence that a tree is alive. But\nthe other, who possesses only faith, cannot prove that he possesses\neven that. He says that he believes, and we may believe his statement;\nbut if any one doubts or denies the truth of his profession of faith\nhe is helpless. Just as a leafless and fruitless tree may be alive;\nbut who is to be sure of this? We must note, however, that in this\ncase the statement is _not_ doubted. \"Thou _hast_ faith, and I have\nworks;\" the possibility of possessing faith without works is not\ndisputed. And again, \"Thou _believest_ that God is One;\" the orthodox\ncharacter of the man's creed is not called in question. This shows\nthat there is no emphasis on \"say\" in the opening verse, \"If a man\n_say_ he hath faith, but have not works;\" as if such a profession were\nincredible (see p. 137). And this remains equally true if, with some\nof the best editors, we turn the statement of the man's faith into a\nquestion, \"Dost thou believe that God is One?\" For \"Thou doest well\"\nshows that the man's orthodoxy is not questioned. The object of\nSt.\u00a0James is not to prove that the man is a hypocrite, and that his\nprofessions are false; but that, _on his own showing_, he is in a\nmiserable condition. He may plume himself upon the correctness of his\nTheism; but as far as that goes, he is no better than the demons, to\nwhom this article of faith is a source, not of joy and strength, but\nof horror.\n\nIt is most improbable that, if he had been alluding to the teaching of\nSt.\u00a0Paul, St.\u00a0James would have selected the Unity of the Godhead as\nthe article of faith held by the barren Christian. He would have taken\nfaith in Christ as his example. But in writing to Jewish Christians,\nwithout any such allusion, the selection is very natural. The\nMonotheism of his creed, in contrast with the foolish \"gods many, and\nlords many,\" of the heathen, was to the Jew a matter of religious and\nnational pride. He gloried in his intellectual and spiritual\nsuperiority to those who could believe in a plurality of deities. And\nthere was nothing in Christianity to make him think less highly of\nthis supreme article of faith. Hence, when St.\u00a0James desires to give\nan example of the faith on which a Jewish Christian, who had sunk into\na dead formalism, would be most likely to rely, he selects this\narticle, common to both the Jewish and the Christian creed, \"I believe\nthat God is One.\" \"Thou doest well\" is the calm reply; and then\nfollows the sarcastic addition, \"The demons also believe--and shudder.\"\n\nIs St.\u00a0James here alluding to the belief mentioned above, that the\ngods of the heathen are demons? They, of all evil spirits, might be\nsupposed to know most about the Unity of God, and to have most to fear\nin reference to it. \"They sacrificed unto demons, which were no God,\"\nwe read in Deuteronomy (xxxii.\u00a017). And again, in the Psalms, \"They\nsacrificed their sons and their daughters unto demons\" (cvi.\u00a037. Comp.\nxcvi.\u00a05). In these passages the Greek word \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 represents the\nElilim or Shedim, the nonenities who were allowed to usurp the place\nof Jehovah.[65] And St.\u00a0Paul affirms, \"That the things which the\nGentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God\" (1\u00a0Cor.\nx.\u00a020). It is quite possible, therefore, that St.\u00a0James is thinking of\ndemons as objects of idolatrous worship, or at any rate as seducing\npeople into such worship, when he speaks of the demons' belief in the\nUnity of God.\n\nBut a suggestion which Bede makes, and which several modern\ncommentators have followed, is well worth considering. St.\u00a0James may\nbe thinking of the demons which possessed human beings, rather than\nthose which received or promoted idolatrous worship. Bede reminds us\nof the many demons who went out at Christ's command, crying out that\nHe was the Son of God, and especially of the man with the legion among\nthe Gadarenes, who expressed not only belief, but horror: \"What have I\nto do with Thee, Jesus, Son of the most high God? I adjure Thee by\nGod, that Thou torment me not.\" Without falling into the error of\nsupposing that demons can mean demoniacs, we may imagine how readily\none who had witnessed such scenes as those recorded in the Gospels\nmight attribute to the demons the expressions of horror which he had\nheard in the words and seen on the faces of those whom demons\npossessed. Such expressions were the usual effect of being confronted\nby the Divine presence and power of Christ, and were evidence both of\na belief in God and of a dread of Him. St.\u00a0James, who was then living\nwith the Mother of the Lord, and sometimes followed His Divine Brother\nin His wanderings, would be almost certain to have been a witness of\nsome of these healings of demoniacs. And it is worth noting that the\nword which in the Authorized Version is rendered \"tremble,\" and in the\nRevised \"shudder\" (\u03c6\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd), expresses _physical horror_,\nespecially as it affects the hair; and in itself it implies a body,\nand would be an inappropriate word to use of the fear felt by a purely\nspiritual being. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; but in\nthe Septuagint we find it used in the Book of Job: \"Then a spirit\npassed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up\" (iv.\u00a015). It is\na stronger word than either \"fear\" or \"tremble,\" and strictly speaking\ncan be used only of men and other animals.\n\nThis horror, then, expressed by the demons through the bodies of those\nwhom they possess, is evidence enough of faith. Can faith such as that\nsave any one? Is it not obvious that a faith which produces, not works\nof love, but the strongest expressions of fear, is not a faith on\nwhich any one can rely for his salvation? And yet the faith of those\nwho refuse to do good works, because they hold that their faith is\nsufficient to save them, is no better than the faith of the demons.\nIndeed, in some respects it is worse. For the sincerity of the demons'\nfaith cannot be doubted; their terror is proof of it: whereas the\nformal Christian has nothing but cold professions to offer. Moreover,\nthe demons are under no self-delusion; they know their own terrible\ncondition. For the formalist who accepts Christian truth and neglects\nChristian practice there is a dreadful awakening in store. There will\ncome a time when \"believe and shudder\" will be true also of him. \"But,\nbefore it is too late, willest thou to get to know, O vain man, that\nfaith apart from works is barren?\"\n\n\"Wilt thou know\" does not do justice to the full meaning of the Greek\n(\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3 \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9). The meaning is not, \"I would have you know,\" but,\n\"Do you wish to have acquired the knowledge?\" You profess to know God\nand to believe in Him; do you desire to know what faith in Him really\nmeans? \"O vain man\" is literally, \"O empty man,\" _i.e._ empty-headed,\nempty-handed, and empty-hearted. Empty-headed, in being so deluded as\nto suppose that a dead faith can save; empty-handed, in being devoid\nof true spiritual riches; empty-hearted, in having no real love either\nfor God or man. The epithet seems to be the equivalent of _Raca_, the\nterm of contempt quoted by our Lord as the expression of that angry\nspirit which is akin to murder (Matt. v.\u00a022). The use of it by\nSt.\u00a0James may be taken as an indication that the primitive Church saw\nthat the commands in the Sermon on the Mount are not rules to be\nobeyed literally, but illustrations of principles. The sin lies not so\nmuch in the precise term of reproach which is employed as in the\nspirit and temper which are felt and displayed in the employment of\nit. The change from \"dead\" (A.V.) to \"barren\" (R.V.) is not a change\nof translation, but of reading (\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac to \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae), the latter term\nmeaning \"_workless_, idle, unproductive\" (Matt. xx.\u00a03, 6; 1\u00a0Tim.\nv.\u00a013; Titus i.\u00a012; 2\u00a0Peter i.\u00a08). Aristotle (_Nic. Eth._, I. vii.\u00a011)\nasks whether it is likely that every member of a man's body should\nhave a function or work (\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd) to perform, and that man as a whole\nshould be functionless (\u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2). Would nature have produced such a\nvain contradiction? We should reproduce the spirit of St.\u00a0James's\npointed interrogation if we rendered \"that faith without fruits is\nfruitless.\"\n\nIn contrast with this barren faith, which makes a man's spiritual\ncondition no better than that of the demons, St.\u00a0James places two\nconspicuous instances of living and fruitful faith--Abraham and Rahab.\nThe case of \"Abraham our father\" would be the first that would occur\nto every Jew. As the passages in the Apocrypha (Wisdom x.\u00a05; Ecclus.\nxliv.\u00a020; 1\u00a0Macc. ii.\u00a052) prove, Abraham's faith was a subject of\nfrequent discussion among the Jews, and this fact is quite enough to\naccount for its mention by St.\u00a0James, St.\u00a0Paul (Rom. iv.\u00a03; Gal.\niii.\u00a06), and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi.\u00a017),\nwithout supposing that any one of them had seen the writings of the\nothers. Certainly there is no proof that the writer of this Epistle is\nthe borrower, if there is borrowing on either side. It is urged that\nbetween the authors of this Epistle and that to the Hebrews there must\nbe dependence on one side or the other, because each selects not only\nAbraham, but Rahab, as an example of faith; and Rahab is so strange an\nexample that it is unlikely that two writers would have selected it\nindependently. There is force in the argument, but less than at first\nsight appears. The presence of Rahab's name in the genealogy of the\nChrist (Matt. i.\u00a05), in which so few women are mentioned, must have\ngiven thoughtful persons food for reflexion. Why was such a woman\nsingled out for such distinction? The answer to this question cannot\nbe given with certainty. But whatever caused her to be mentioned in\nthe genealogy may also have caused her to be mentioned by St.\u00a0James\nand the writer of Hebrews; or the fact of her being in the genealogy\nmay have suggested her to the authors of these two Epistles. This\nlatter alternative does not necessarily imply that these two writers\nwere acquainted with the written Gospel of St.\u00a0Matthew, which was\nperhaps not in existence when they wrote. The genealogy, at any rate,\nwas in existence, for St.\u00a0Matthew no doubt copied it from official or\nfamily registers. Assuming, however, that it is not a mere coincidence\nthat both writers use Abraham and Rahab as examples of fruitful faith,\nit is altogether arbitrary to decide that the writer of the Epistle to\nthe Hebrews wrote first. The probabilities are the other way. Had\nSt.\u00a0James known that Epistle, he would have made more use of it.\n\nThe two examples are in many respects very different. Their\nresemblance consists in this, that in both cases faith found\nexpression in action, and this action was the source of the believer's\ndeliverance. The case of Abraham, which St.\u00a0Paul uses to prove the\nworthlessness of \"works of the law\" in comparison with a living faith,\nis used by St.\u00a0James to prove the worthlessness of a dead faith in\ncomparison with works of love which are evidence that there is a\nliving faith behind them. But it should be noticed that a different\nepisode in Abraham's life is taken in each Epistle, and this is a\nfurther reason for believing that neither writer refers to the other.\nSt.\u00a0Paul appeals to Abraham's faith in believing that he should have a\nson when he was a hundred, and Sarah ninety years of age (Rom.\niv.\u00a019). St.\u00a0James appeals to Abraham's faith in offering up Isaac,\nwhen there seemed to be no possibility of the Divine promise being\nfulfilled if Isaac was slain. The latter required more faith than the\nformer, and was much more distinctly an _act_ of faith; a work, or\nseries of works, that would never have been accomplished if there had\nnot been a very vigorous faith to inspire and support the doer. The\n_result_ (\u1f10\u03be \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd) was that Abraham was \"justified,\" _i.e._ he was\naccounted righteous, and the reward of his faith was with still\ngreater solemnity and fulness than on the first occasion (Gen.\nxv.\u00a04-6) promised to him: \"By Myself have I sworn, saith the Lord,\n_because thou hast done this thing_, and hast not withheld thy son,\nthine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying\nI will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which\nis upon the sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his\nenemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be\nblessed; _because thou hast obeyed My voice_\" (Gen. xxii.\u00a016-18).\n\nWith the expression \"was justified _as a result of_ works\" (\u1f10\u03be \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7), which is used both of Abraham and of Rahab, should be\ncompared our Lord's saying, \"By thy words thou shalt be justified, and\nby thy words thou shalt be condemned\" (Matt. xii.\u00a037), which are of\nexactly the same form; literally, \"_As a result_ of thy words thou\nshalt be accounted righteous, and _as a result_ of thy words thou\nshalt be condemned\" (\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3); that is, it is from the consideration of the\nwords in the one case, and of the works in the other, that the\nsentence of approval proceeds; they are the _source_ of the\njustification. Of course from the point of view taken by St.\u00a0James\nwords are \"works;\" good words spoken for the love of God are quite as\nmuch fruits of faith and evidence of faith as good deeds. It is not\nimpossible that his phrase is an echo of expressions which he had\nheard used by Christ.\n\nThat the words rendered \"offered up Isaac his son upon the altar\"\nreally mean this, and not merely \"brought Isaac his son as a victim up\nto the altar,\" is clear from other passages where the same phrase\n(\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) occurs. Noah \"offering burnt\nofferings on the altar\" (Gen. viii.\u00a020) and Christ \"offering our sins\non the tree\" (1\u00a0Pet. ii.\u00a024) might be interpreted either way, although\nthe _bringing up_ to the altar and to the tree does not seem so\nnatural as the _offering on them_. But a passage in Leviticus about\nthe offerings of the leper is quite decisive: \"Afterward he shall kill\nthe burnt offering: and the priest shall offer the burnt offering and\nthe meal offering upon the altar\" (xiv.\u00a019, 20). It would be very\nunnatural to speak of bringing the victim up to the altar after it had\nbeen slain. (Comp. Baruch i.\u00a010; 1\u00a0Macc. iv.\u00a053.) The Vulgate, Luther,\nBeza, and all English versions agreed in this translation; and it is\nnot a matter of small importance, not a mere nicety of rendering. In\nall completeness, both of will and deed, Abraham had actually\nsurrendered and offered up to God his only son, when he laid him bound\nupon the altar, and took the knife to slay him--to slay that son of\nwhom God had promised, \"In Isaac shall thy seed be called.\" Then \"was\nthe Scripture fulfilled;\" _i.e._ what had been spoken and partly\nfulfilled before (Gen. xv.\u00a06) received a more complete and a higher\nfulfilment. Greater faith hath no man than this, that a man gives back\nHis own promises unto God. The real but incomplete faith of believing\nthat aged parents could become the progenitors of countless thousands\nhad been accepted and rewarded. Much more, therefore, was the perfect\nfaith of offering to God the one hope of posterity accepted and\nrewarded. This last was a _work_ in which his faith co-operated, and\nwhich proved the complete development of his faith; by it \"was faith\nmade perfect.\"\n\n\"He was called the Friend of God.\" Abraham was so called in Jewish\ntradition; and to this day this is his name among his descendants the\nArabs, who much more commonly speak of him as \"the Friend\" (_El\nKhalil_), or \"the Friend of God\" (_El Khalil Allah_), than by the name\nAbraham. Nowhere in the Old Testament does he receive this name,\nalthough our Versions, both Authorized and Revised, would lead us to\nsuppose that he is so called. The word is found neither in the Hebrew\nnor in existing copies of the Septuagint. In 2\u00a0Chron. xx.\u00a07, \"Abraham\nThy friend\" should be \"Abraham Thy beloved;\" and in Isaiah xli.\u00a08,\n\"Abraham My friend\" should be \"Abraham whom I loved.\" In both\npassages, however, the Vulgate has the rendering _amicus_, and some\ncopies of the Septuagint had the reading \"friend\" in 2\u00a0Chron. xx.\u00a07,\nwhile Symmachus had it in Isa. xli.\u00a08 (See Field's _Hexapla_, I., p.\n744; II., p. 513). Clement of Rome (x., xvii.) probably derived this\nname for Abraham from St.\u00a0James. But even if Abraham is nowhere styled\n\"the Friend of God,\" he is abundantly described as being such. God\ntalks with him as a man talks with his friend, and asks, \"Shall I hide\nfrom Abraham that which I do?\" (Gen. xviii.\u00a017); which is the very\ntoken of friendship pointed out by Christ. \"No longer do I call you\nservants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have\ncalled you friends; for all things that I heard from My Father I have\nmade known unto you\" (John xv.\u00a015). It is worthy of note that\nSt.\u00a0James seems to intimate that the word is not in the sacred\nwritings. The words, \"And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned\nunto him for righteousness,\" are introduced with the formula, \"The\nScripture was fulfilled which saith.\" Of the title \"Friend of God\" it\nis simply said \"he was called,\" without stating by whom.[66]\n\n\"_In like manner_ was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works?\"\nIt is because of the similarity of her case to Abraham's, both of them\nbeing a contrast to the formal Christian and the demons, that Rahab is\nintroduced. In her case also faith led to action, and the action had\nits result in the salvation of the agent. If there had been faith\nwithout action, if she had merely believed the spies without doing\nanything in consequence of her belief, she would have perished. She\nwas glorified in Jewish tradition, perhaps as being a typical\nforerunner of proselytes from the Gentile world; and it may be that\nthis accounts for her being mentioned in the genealogy of the Messiah,\nand consequently by St.\u00a0James and the writer of the Epistle to the\nHebrews. The Talmud mentions a quite untrustworthy tradition that she\nmarried Joshua, and became the ancestress of eight persons who were\nboth priests and prophets, and also of Huldah the prophetess.\nSt.\u00a0Matthew gives Salmon the son of Naasson as her husband; he may\nhave been one of the spies.\n\nBut the contrast between Abraham and Rahab is almost as marked as the\nsimilarity. He is the friend of God, and she is of a vile heathen\nnation and a harlot. His great act of faith is manifested towards God,\nhers towards men. His is the crowning act of his spiritual\ndevelopment; hers is the first sign of a faith just beginning to\nexist. He is the aged saint, while she is barely a catechumen. But\naccording to her light, which was that of a very faulty moral\nstandard, \"she did what she could,\" and it was accepted.\n\nThese contrasts have their place in the argument, as well as the\nsimilarities. The readers of the Epistle might think, \"Heroic acts are\nall very suitable for Abraham; but we are not Abrahams, and must be\ncontent with sharing his faith in the true God; we cannot and need not\nimitate his acts.\" \"But,\" St.\u00a0James replies (and he writes \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad,\nnot \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2), \"there is Rahab, Rahab the heathen, Rahab the\nharlot; at least you can imitate her.\" And for the Jewish Christians\nof that day her example was very much in point. She welcomed and\nbelieved the messengers, whom her countrymen persecuted, and would\nhave slain. She separated herself from her unbelieving and hostile\npeople, and went over to an unpopular and despised cause. She saved\nthe preachers of an unwelcome message for the fulfilment of the Divine\nmission with which they had been entrusted. Substitute the Apostles\nfor the spies, and all this is true of the believing Jews of that age.\nAnd as if to suggest this lesson, St.\u00a0James speaks not of \"young men,\"\nas Joshua vi.\u00a023, nor of \"spies,\" as Hebrews xi.\u00a031, but of\n\"messengers,\" a term which is as applicable to those who were sent by\nJesus Christ as to those who were sent by Joshua.\n\nPlutarch, who was a young man at the time when this Epistle was\nwritten, has the following story of Alexander the Great, in his\n\"Apothegms of Kings and Generals\": The young Alexander was not at all\npleased with the successes of his father, Philip of Macedon. \"My\nfather will leave me nothing,\" he said. The young nobles who were\nbrought up with him replied, \"He is gaining all this for you.\" Almost\nin the words of St.\u00a0James, though with a very different meaning, he\nanswered, \"_What does it profit_ (\u03c4\u03af \u1f44\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2;), if I possess much\nand _do_ nothing?\" The future conqueror scorned to have everything\ndone for him. In quite another spirit the Christian must remember that\nif he is to conquer he must not suppose that his heavenly Father, who\nhas done so much for him, has left him nothing to do. There is the\nfate of the barren fig-tree as a perpetual warning to those who are\nroyal in their professions of faith, and paupers in good works.\n\n[65] D\u00f6llinger, _The Gentile and the Jew_, II., pp. 384, 386, Eng. Tr.,\n_Heidenthum und Judenthum_, pp. 825, 827.\n\n[66] The following story is given by Mahometan commentators on the\npassage, \"God took Abraham for His friend,\" which occurs in the fourth\nchapter of the Koran, entitled _Nessa_, or \"Women:\" Abraham was the\nfather of the poor, and in a famine he emptied his granaries to feed\nthem. Then he sent to one of his friends, who was a great lord in\nEgypt, for corn. But the friend said, \"We also are in danger of\nfamine. The corn is not wanted for Abraham, but for his poor. I must\nkeep it for our own poor.\" And the messengers returned with empty\nsacks. As they neared home they feared being mocked for their failure;\nso they filled their sacks with sand, and came in well laden. In\nprivate they told Abraham of his friend's refusal, and Abraham at once\nretired to pray. Meanwhile Sarah opened one of the sacks, and found\nexcellent flour in it, and with this began to bake bread for the poor.\nWhen Abraham returned from prayer he asked Sarah whence she obtained\nthe flour. \"From that which your friend in Egypt has sent,\" she\nreplied. \"Say rather from that which the true Friend has sent, that is\nGod; for it is He who never fails us in our need.\" At the moment when\nAbraham called God his Friend God took Abraham also to be His friend.\n(See the notes in Sale's _Koran_; D'Herbelot's _Biblioth\u00e8que\nOrientale_, Maestricht, 1776, p. 13; Bishop Thirlwall's _Letters to a\nFriend_, Bentley, 1882, pp. 63, 64).\n\nEusebius (_Pr\u00e6p. Evan._ IX. xix., p. 420) quotes Alexander Polyhistor\n(_c._ B.C.\u00a080) as stating that Molon (Josephus, _Contra Apionem_, II.\nxiv.) interpreted the name Abraham as meaning the \"Father's Friend\"\n(\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2), probably through a misspelling of the name. (See\nLightfoot's note on Clem. Rom. x.)\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIV.\n\n _THE HEAVY RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEACHERS.\n THE POWERS AND PROPENSITIES OF THE TONGUE.\n THE SELF-DEFILEMENT OF THE RECKLESS TALKER._\n\n \"Be not many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive\n heavier judgment. For in many things we all stumble. If any stumble\n not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body\n also. Now if we put the horses' bridles into their mouths, that they\n may obey us, we turn about their whole body also. Behold, the ships\n also, though they are so great, and are driven by rough winds, are\n yet turned about by a very small rudder, whither the impulse of the\n steersman willeth. So the tongue also is a little member, and\n boasteth great things. Behold, how much wood is kindled by how small\n a fire! And the tongue is a fire: the world of iniquity among our\n members is the tongue, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on\n fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell. For every kind\n of beasts and birds, of creeping things and things in the sea, is\n tamed, and hath been tamed by mankind: but the tongue can no man\n tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison.\"--ST. JAMES\n iii.\u00a01-8.\n\n\nFrom the \"idle faith\" (\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae) St.\u00a0James goes on to speak of\nthe \"idle word\" (\u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd). The change from the subject of faith\nand works to that of the temptations and sins of speech is not so\nabrupt and arbitrary as at first sight appears. The need of warning\nhis readers against sins of the tongue has been in his mind from the\nfirst. Twice in the first chapter it comes to the surface. \"Let every\nman be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath\" (ver. 19), as if\nbeing slow to hear and swift to speak were much the same as being\nswift to wrath. And again, \"If any man thinketh himself to be\nreligious, while he bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his heart,\nthis man's religion is vain\" (ver. 26). And now the subject of barren\nfaith causes him to return to the warning once more. For it is\nprecisely those who neglect good works that are given to talk much\nabout the excellence of their faith, and are always ready to instruct\nand lecture others. That _controversies_ about faith and works\nsuggested to him this section about offences of the tongue, is a\ngratuitous hypothesis. St.\u00a0James shows no knowledge of any such\ncontroversies. As already pointed out, the purpose of the preceding\nsection (ii.\u00a014-26) is not controversial or doctrinal, but purely\npractical, like the rest of the Epistle. The paragraph before us is of\nthe same character; it is against those who substitute words for works.\n\nSt.\u00a0James is entirely of Carlyle's opinion that in the majority of\ncases, if \"speech is silvern, silence is golden;\" but he does not\nwrite twenty volumes to prove the truth of this doctrine. \"In noble\nuprightness, he values only the strict practice of concrete duties,\nand hates talk\" (Reuss); and while quite admitting that teachers are\nnecessary, and that some are called to undertake this office, he tells\nall those who desire to undertake it that what they have to bear in\nmind is its perils and responsibilities. And it is obvious that true\nteachers must always be a minority. There is something seriously wrong\nwhen the majority in the community, or even a large number, are\npressing forward to teach the rest.\n\n\"Be not many teachers, my brethren;\" or, if we are to do full justice\nto the compact fulness of the original, \"Do not many of you become\nteachers.\" St.\u00a0James is not protesting against a usurpation of the\nministerial office; to suppose this is to give far too specific a\nmeaning to his simple language. The context points to no such sin as\nthat of Korah and his company, but simply to the folly of incurring\nneedless danger and temptation. In the Jewish synagogues any one who\nwas disposed to do so might come forward to teach, and St.\u00a0James\nwrites at a time when the same freedom prevailed in the Christian\ncongregations. \"Each had a psalm, had a teaching, had a revelation,\nhad a tongue, had an interpretation.... All could prophesy one by one,\nthat all might learn and all be comforted\" (1\u00a0Cor. xiv.\u00a026, 31). But\nin both cases the freedom led to serious disorders. The desire to be\ncalled of men \"Rabbi, Rabbi,\" told among Jews and Christians alike,\nand many were eager to expound who had still the very elements of true\nreligion to learn. It is against this general desire to be prominent\nas instructors both in private and in public that St.\u00a0James is here\nwarning his readers. The Christian Church already has its ministers\ndistinct from the laity, to whom the laity are to apply for spiritual\nhelp (v.\u00a014); but it is not an invasion of their office by the laity\nto which St.\u00a0James refers, when he says, \"Do not many of you become\nteachers.\" These Jewish Christians of the Dispersion were like those\nat Rome to whom St.\u00a0Paul writes; each of them was confident that his\nknowledge of God and the Law made him competent to become \"a guide of\nthe blind, a light of them that are in darkness, a corrector of the\nfoolish, a teacher of babes, having in the Law the form of knowledge\nand of the truth\" (Rom. ii.\u00a017 _ff._). But in teaching others they\nforgot to teach themselves; they failed to see that to preach the law\nwithout being a doer of the law was to cause God's name to be\nblasphemed among the Gentiles; and that to possess faith and do\nnothing but talk was but to increase their own condemnation; for it\nwas to place themselves among those who are condemned by Christ\nbecause \"they say and do not\" (Matt. xxiii.\u00a03). The phrase \"to receive\njudgment\" (\u03ba\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) is in _form_ a neutral one: the judgment\nmay conceivably be a favourable one, but in _usage_ it implies that\nthe judgment is adverse (Mark xii.\u00a040; Luke xx.\u00a047; Rom. xiii.\u00a02).\nEven without the verb \"receive\" this word \"judgment\" in the New\nTestament generally has the meaning of a _condemnatory_ sentence (Rom.\nii.\u00a02, 3; iii.\u00a08; v.\u00a016; 1\u00a0Cor. xi.\u00a029; Gal. v.\u00a010; 1\u00a0Tim. iii.\u00a06;\nv.\u00a012; 1\u00a0Pet. iv.\u00a017; 2\u00a0Pet. ii.\u00a03; Jude\u00a04; Rev. xvii.\u00a01; xviii.\u00a020).\nAnd there is no reason to doubt that such is the meaning here; the\ncontext requires it. The fact that St.\u00a0James with affectionate\nhumility and persuasiveness includes himself in the judgment--\"_we_\nshall receive\"--by no means proves that the word is here used in a\nneutral sense. In this he is like St.\u00a0John, who breaks the logical\nflow of a sentence in a similar manner, rather than seem not to\ninclude himself: \"If any man sin, _we_ have an Advocate\" (1\u00a0John\nii.\u00a01); _he_ is as much in need of the Advocate as others. So also\nhere, St.\u00a0James, as being a teacher, shares in the heavier\ncondemnation of teachers. It was the conviction that the word is not\nneutral, but condemnatory, which produced the rendering in the\nVulgate, \"knowing that ye receive greater condemnation\" (_scientes\nquoniam majus judicium sumitis_), it being thought that St.\u00a0James\nought not to be included in such a judgment.\n\nBut this is to miss the point of the passage. St.\u00a0James says that \"in\nmany things we stumble--_every one of us_.\" He uses the strong form of\nthe adjective (\u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 for \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2), and places it last with great\nemphasis. Every one of us sins, and therefore there is condemnation in\nstore for every one of us. But those of us who are teachers will\nreceive a heavier sentence than those of us who are not such; for our\nobligations to live up to the law which we know, and profess, and urge\nupon others, are far greater. Heaviest of all will be the condemnation\nof those who, without being called or qualified, through fanaticism,\nor an itch for notoriety, or a craze for controversy, or a love of\nfault-finding, push themselves forward to dispense instruction and\ncensure. They are among the fools who \"rush in where angels fear to\ntread,\" and thereby incur responsibilities which they need not, and\nought not, to have incurred, because they do not possess the\nqualifications for meeting them and discharging them. The argument is\nsimple and plain: \"Some of us must teach. All of us frequently fall.\nTeachers who fall are more severely judged than others. Therefore do\nnot many of you become teachers.\"\n\nIn what sphere is it that we most frequently fall? Precisely in that\nsphere in which the activity of teachers specially lies--in speech.\n\"If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man.\" St.\u00a0James\nis not thinking merely of the teacher who never makes a mistake, but\nof the man who never sins with the tongue. There is an obvious, but by\nno means exclusive, reference to teachers, and that is all. To every\none of us, whatever our sphere in life, the saying comes home that one\nwho offends not in word is indeed a _perfect_ man. By \"perfect\"\n(\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) he means one who has attained full spiritual and moral\ndevelopment, who is \"perfect and entire, lacking in nothing\" (i.\u00a04).\nHe is no longer a babe, but an adult; no longer a learner, but an\nadept. He is a full and complete man, with perfect command of all the\nfaculties of soul and body. He has the full use of them, and complete\ncontrol over them. The man who can bridle the most rebellious part of\nhis nature, and keep it in faultless subjection, can bridle also the\nwhole. This use of \"perfect,\" as opposed to what is immature and\nincomplete, is the commonest use of the word in the New Testament. But\nsometimes it is a religious or philosophical term, borrowed from\nheathen mysteries or heathen philosophy. In such cases it signifies\nthe _initiated_, as distinct from novices. Such a metaphor was very\napplicable to the Gospel, and St.\u00a0Paul sometimes employs it (1\u00a0Cor.\nii.\u00a06; Col. i.\u00a028); but it may be doubted whether any such thought is\nin St.\u00a0James's mind here, although such a metaphor would have suited\nthe subject. He who never stumbles in word can be no novice, but must\nbe fully initiated in Christian discipline. But the simpler\ninterpretation is better. He who can school the tongue can school the\nhands and the feet, the heart and the brain, in fact \"the whole body,\"\nthe whole of his nature, and is therefore a perfect man.\n\nIn his characteristic manner, St.\u00a0James turns to natural objects for\nillustrations to enforce his point. \"Now if we put the horses' bridles\ninto their mouths, that they may obey us, we turn about their whole\nbody.\" The changes made here by the Revisers are changes caused by a\nvery necessary correction of the Greek text (\u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u03ad instead of \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5,\nwhich St.\u00a0James nowhere else uses, or \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd, which here has very\nlittle evidence in its favour); for the text has been corrupted in\norder to simplify a rather difficult and doubtful construction. The\nuncorrupted text may be taken in two ways. _Either_, \"But if we put\nthe horses' bridles into their mouths, that they may obey us, and so\nturn about their whole body\"--(much more ought we to do so to\nourselves); this obvious conclusion being not stated, but left for us\nto supply at the end of an unfinished sentence. _Or_, as the Revisers\ntake it, which is simpler, and leaves nothing to be understood. A man\nwho can govern his tongue can govern his whole nature, just as a\nbridle controls, not merely the horse's mouth, but the whole animal.\nThis first metaphor is suggested by the writer's own language. He has\njust spoken of the perfect man _bridling_ his whole body, as before he\nspoke of the impossibility of true religion in one who does not\n_bridle_ his tongue (i.\u00a026); and this naturally suggests the\nillustration of the horses.\n\nThe argument is _\u00e0 fortiori_ from the horse to the man, and still more\nfrom the ship to the man, so that the whole forms a climax, the point\nthroughout being the same, viz. the smallness of the part to be\ncontrolled in order to have control over the whole. And in order to\nbring out the fact that the ships are a stronger illustration than the\nhorses, we should translate, \"Behold, _even_ the ships, though they\nare so great,\" etc., rather than \"Behold, the ships _also_, though\nthey are so great.\" First the statement of the case (ver. 2), then the\nillustration from the horses (ver. 3), then \"_even_ the ships\" (ver.\n4), and finally the application, \"so the tongue _also_\" (ver. 5). Thus\nall runs smoothly. If, as is certainly the case, we are able to govern\nirrational creatures with a small bit, how much more ourselves through\nthe tongue; for just as he who has lost his hold of the reins has lost\ncontrol over the horse, so he who has lost his hold on his tongue has\nlost control over himself. The case of the ship is still stronger. It\nis not only devoid of reason, but devoid of life. It cannot be taught\nobedience. It offers a dead resistance, which is all the greater\nbecause of its much greater size, and because it is driven by rough\nwinds; yet its whole mass can be turned about by whoever has control\nof the little rudder, to lose command of which is to lose command of\nall. How much more, therefore, may we keep command over ourselves by\nhaving command over our tongues! There is nothing more in the metaphor\nthan this. We may, if we please, go on with Bede, and turn the whole\ninto a parable, and make the sea mean human life, and the winds mean\ntemptations, and so on; but we must beware of supposing that anything\nof that kind was in the mind of St.\u00a0James, or belongs to the\nexplanation of the passage. Such symbolism is read into the text, not\nextracted from it. It is legitimate as a means of edifying, but it is\nnot interpretation.\n\nThe expression \"rough winds\" (\u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd) is peculiar, \"rough\"\nmeaning hard or harsh, especially to the touch, and hence of what is\nintractable or disagreeable in other ways (1\u00a0Sam. xxv.\u00a03; Matt.\nxxv.\u00a024; John vi.\u00a060; Acts xxvi.\u00a014; Jude\u00a015). Perhaps in only one\nother passage in Greek literature, previous to this Epistle, is it\nused as an epithet of wind, viz. in Prov. xxvii.\u00a016, a passage in\nwhich the Septuagint differs widely from the Hebrew and from our\nversions. St.\u00a0James, who seems to have been specially fond of the\nsapiential books of Scripture, may have derived this expression from\nthe Proverbs.\n\n\"So the tongue also is a little member, and boasteth great things.\"\nThe tongue, like the bit and the rudder, is only a very small part of\nthe whole, and yet, like them, it can do great things. St.\u00a0James says,\n\"boasteth great things,\" rather than \"doeth great things,\" not in\norder to insinuate that the tongue boasts of what it cannot or does\nnot do, which would spoil the argument, but in order to prepare the\nway for the change in the point of the argument. Hitherto the point\nhas been _the immense influence which the small organ of speech has\nover our whole being_, and the consequent need of controlling it when\nwe want to control ourselves. We must take care to begin the control\nin the right place. This point being established, the argument takes a\nsomewhat different turn, and the necessity of curbing the tongue is\nshown, not from its great power, but from its _inherent malignity_. It\ncan be made to discharge good offices, but its natural bent is towards\nevil. If left unchecked, it is certain to do incalculable mischief.\nThe expression \"boasteth great things\" marks the transition from the\none point to the other, and in a measure combines them both. There are\ngreat things done; that shows the tongue's power. And it boasts about\nthem; that shows its bad character.[67]\n\nThis second point, like the first, is enforced by two illustrations\ntaken from the world of nature. The first was illustrated by the power\nof bits and rudders; the second is illustrated by the capacity for\nmischief in fire and in venomous beasts. \"Behold, what a fire kindles\nwhat a wood!\" is the literal rendering of the Greek, where \"what a\nfire\" evidently means \"how small a fire,\" while \"what a wood\" means\n\"how large a wood.\" The traveller's camp-fire is enough to set a whole\nforest in flames, and the camp-fire was kindled by a few sparks.\n\"Fire,\" it is sometimes truly said, \"is a good servant, but a bad\nmaster,\" and precisely the same may with equal truth be said of the\ntongue. So long as it is kept under control it does excellent service;\nbut directly it can run on unchecked, and lead instead of obeying, it\nbegins to do untold mischief. We sometimes speak of men whose \"_pens_\nrun away with them;\" but a far commoner case is that of persons whose\n_tongues_ run away with them, whose untamed and unbridled tongues say\nthings which are neither seriously thought nor (even at the moment)\nseriously meant. The habit of saying \"great things\" and using strong\nlanguage is a condition of constant peril, which will inevitably lead\nthe speaker into evil. It is a reckless handling of highly dangerous\nmaterial. It is playing with fire.\n\nYes, \"the tongue is a fire. The world of iniquity among our members is\nthe tongue, which defileth the whole body.\" The right punctuation of\nthis sentence cannot be determined with certainty, and other possible\narrangements will be found in the margin of the Revised Version; but\non the whole this seems to be the best. The one thing that is certain\nis that the \"so\" of the Authorized Version--\"_so_ is the tongue among\nour members\"--is not genuine; if it were, it would settle the\nconstruction and the punctuation in favour of what is at least the\nsecond best arrangement: \"The tongue is a fire, that world of\niniquity: the tongue is among our members that which defileth the\nwhole body.\" The meaning of \"the world of iniquity\" has been a good\ndeal discussed, but is not really doubtful. The ordinary colloquial\nsignification is the right one. The tongue is a boundless store of\nmischief, an inexhaustible source of evil, a universe of iniquity;\n_universitas iniquitatis_, as the Vulgate renders it. It contains\nwithin itself the elements of all unrighteousness; it is charged with\nendless possibilities of sin. This use of \"world\" (\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2) seems not\nto occur in classical Greek; but it is found in the Septuagint of the\nProverbs, and again in a passage where the Greek differs widely from\nthe Hebrew (see above, p. 172). What is still more remarkable, it\noccurs immediately after the mention of sins of speech: \"An evil man\nlisteneth to the tongue of the wicked; but a righteous man giveth no\nheed to false lips. The faithful man has the whole _world_ of wealth;\nbut the faithless not even a penny\" (xvii.\u00a04).\n\n\"_Is_ the tongue.\" The word for \"is\" must be observed (not \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, nor\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, but \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9). Its literal meaning is \"constitutes\nitself,\" and it occurs again in iv.\u00a04, where the Revisers rightly\ntranslate it \"maketh himself:\" \"Whosoever would be a friend of the\nworld _maketh himself_ an enemy of God.\" The tongue was not created by\nGod to be a permanent source of all kinds of evil; like the rest of\ncreation, it was made \"very good,\" \"the best member that we have.\" It\nis by its own undisciplined and lawless career that it _makes itself_\n\"the world of iniquity,\" that it _constitutes itself_ among our\nmembers as \"that which defileth our whole body.\" This helps to explain\nwhat St.\u00a0James means by \"_unspotted_\" (\u1f04\u03c3\u03c0\u03b8\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd) or \"undefiled\"\n(i.\u00a027). He who does not bridle his tongue is not really religious.\nPure religion consists in keeping in check that \"which _defileth_\n(\u1f21 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1) our whole body.\" And the tongue defiles us in three\nways;--by suggesting sin to ourselves and others; by committing sin,\nas in all cases of lying and blasphemy; and by excusing or defending\nsin. It is a palmary instance of the principle that the best when\nperverted becomes the worst--_corruptio optimi fit pessima_.\n\nIt \"setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell.\"\nWe must be content to leave the precise meaning of the words rendered\n\"the wheel of nature\" (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2) undetermined. The\ngeneral meaning is evident enough, but we cannot be sure what image\nSt.\u00a0James had in his mind when he wrote the words. The one substantive\nis obviously a metaphor, and the other is vague in meaning (as the\nlatter occurs i.\u00a023, the two passages should be compared in\nexpounding); but what the exact idea to be conveyed by the combination\nis, remains a matter for conjecture. And the conjectures are numerous,\nof which one must suffice. The tongue is a centre from which mischief\nradiates; that is the main thought. A wheel that has caught fire at\nthe axle is at last wholly consumed, as the fire spreads through the\nspokes to the circumference. So also in society. Passions kindled by\nunscrupulous language spread through various channels and classes,\ntill the whole cycle of human life is in flames. Reckless language\nfirst of all \"defiles the whole\" nature of the man who employs it, and\nthen works destruction far and wide through the vast machinery of\nsociety. And to this there are no limits; so long as there is\nmaterial, the fire will continue to burn.\n\nHow did the fire begin? How does the tongue, which was created for far\nother purposes, acquire this deadly propensity? St.\u00a0James leaves us in\nno doubt upon that point. It is an inspiration of the evil one. The\nenemy, who steals away the good seed, and sows weeds among the wheat,\nturns the immense powers of the tongue to destruction. The old serpent\nimbues it with his own poison. He imparts to it his own diabolical\nagency. He is perpetually setting it on fire (present participle) from\nhell.\n\nThe second metaphor by which the malignant propensity of the tongue is\nillustrated is plain enough. It is an untamable, venomous beast. It\ncombines the ferocity of the tiger and the mockery of the ape with the\nsubtlety and venom of the serpent. It can be checked, can be\ndisciplined, can be taught to do good and useful things; but it can\nnever be tamed, and must never be trusted. If care and watchfulness\nare laid aside, its evil nature will burst out again, and the results\nwill be calamitous.\n\nThere are many other passages in Scripture which contain warnings\nabout sins of the tongue: see especially Proverbs xvi.\u00a027, 28; Ecclus.\nv.\u00a013, 14, and xxviii.\u00a09-23, from which St.\u00a0James may have drawn some\nof his thoughts. But what is peculiar to his statement of the matter\nis _this_, that _the reckless tongue defiles the whole nature of the\nman who owns it_. Other writers tell us of the mischief which the\nfoul-mouthed man does to others, and of the punishment which will one\nday fall upon himself. St.\u00a0James does not lose sight of that side of\nthe matter, but the special point of his stern warning is the\ninsisting upon the fact that unbridled speech is a _pollution_ to the\nman that employs it. Every faculty of mind or body with which he has\nbeen endowed is contaminated by the subtle poison which is allowed to\nproceed from his lips. It is a special application of the principle\nlaid down by Christ, which was at first a perplexity even to the\nTwelve, \"The things which proceed out of the man are those that defile\nthe man\" (Mark vii.\u00a015, 20, 23). The emphasis with which Christ taught\nthis ought to be noticed. On purpose to insist upon it, \"He called to\nHim the multitude _again_, and said unto them, Hear ye _all_ of you,\nand _understand_: there is nothing from without the man, that going\ninto him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man\nare those that defile the man.\" And He repeats this principle a second\nand a third time to His disciples privately. \"Are ye so without\nunderstanding also?... That which proceedeth out of the man, that\ndefileth the man.... All these things proceed from within, and defile\nthe man.\" If even an unspoken thought can defile, when it has not yet\nproceeded farther than the heart, much greater will be the pollution\nif the evil thing is allowed to come to the birth by passing the\nbarrier of the lips. This flow of evil from us means nothing less than\nthis, that we have made ourselves a channel through which infernal\nagencies pass into the world. Is it possible for such a channel to\nescape defilement?\n\n[67] There is a story that Amasis, King of Egypt, sent a sacrifice to\nBias the sage, asking him to send back the best part and the worst;\nand Bias sent back the tongue.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XV.\n\n _THE MORAL CONTRADICTIONS IN THE RECKLESS TALKER._\n\n \"Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men,\n which are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth\n cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought\n not so to be. Doth the fountain send forth from the same opening\n sweet water and bitter? Can a fig-tree, my brethren, yield olives, or\n a vine figs? neither can salt water yield sweet.\"--ST. JAMES\n iii.\u00a09-12.\n\n\nIn these concluding sentences of the paragraph respecting sins of the\ntongue St.\u00a0James does two things--he shows the moral chaos to which\nthe Christian who fails to control his tongue is reduced, and he\nthereby shows such a man how vain it is for him to hope that the\nworship which he offers to Almighty God can be pure and acceptable. He\nhas made himself the channel of hellish influences. He cannot at\npleasure make himself the channel of heavenly influences, or become\nthe offerer of holy sacrifices. The fires of Pentecost will not rest\nwhere the fires of Gehenna are working, nor can one who has become the\nminister of Satan at the same time be a minister to offer praise to\nGod.\n\nWhen those who would have excused themselves for their lack of good\nworks pleaded the correctness of their faith, St.\u00a0James told them that\nsuch faith was barren and dead, and incapable of saving them from\ncondemnation. Similarly, the man who thinks himself to be religious,\nand does not bridle his tongue, was told that his religion is vain\n(i.\u00a026). And in the passage before us St.\u00a0James explains how that is.\nHis religion or religious worship (\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1) is a mockery and a\ncontradiction. The offering is tainted; it comes from a polluted altar\nand a polluted priest. A man who curses his fellow men, and then\nblesses God, is like one who professes the profoundest respect for his\nsovereign, while he insults the royal family, throws mud at the royal\nportraits, and ostentatiously disregards the royal wishes. It is\nfurther proof of the evil character of the tongue that it is capable\nof lending itself to such chaotic activity. \"Therewith bless we the\nLord and Father,\" _i.e._ God in His might and in His love; \"and\ntherewith curse we men, which are made after the likeness of God.\" The\nheathen fable tells us the apparent contradiction of being able to\nblow both hot and cold with the same breath; and the son of Sirach\npoints out that \"if thou blow the spark, it shall burn; if thou spit\nupon it, it shall be quenched; and both these come out of thy mouth\"\n(Ecclus. xxviii.\u00a012). St.\u00a0James, who may have had this passage in his\nmind, shows us that there is a real and a moral contradiction which\ngoes far beyond either of these: \"Out of the same mouth cometh forth\nblessing and cursing.\" Well may he add, with affectionate earnestness,\n\"My brethren, these things ought not so to be.\"\n\nAssuredly they ought not; and yet how common the contradiction has\nbeen, and still is, among those who seem to be, and who think\nthemselves to be, religious people! There is perhaps no particular in\nwhich persons professing to have a desire to serve God are more ready\nto invade His prerogatives than in venturing to denounce those who\ndiffer from themselves, and are supposed to be therefore under the ban\nof Heaven. \"They have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.\nFor being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish\ntheir own, they do not subject themselves to the righteousness of God\"\n(Rom. x.\u00a02, 3). Hence they rashly and intemperately \"curse whom the\nLord hath not cursed, and defy whom the Lord hath not defied\" (Num.\nxxiii.\u00a08). There are still many who believe that not only in the\npsalms and hymns in which they bless the Lord, but also in the sermons\nand pamphlets in which they fulminate against their fellow-Christians,\nthey are \"offering service to God\" (John xvi.\u00a02). There are many\nquestions which have to be carefully considered and answered before a\nChristian mouth, which has been consecrated to the praise of our Lord\nand Father, ought to venture to utter denunciations against others who\nworship the same God and are also His offspring and His image. Is it\nquite certain that the supposed evil is something which God abhors;\nthat those whom we would denounce are responsible for it; that\ndenunciation of _them_ will do any good; that this is the proper time\nfor such denunciation; that _we_ are the proper persons to utter it?\nAbout every one of these questions the most fatal mistakes are\nconstantly being made. The singing of _Te Deums_ after massacres and\n_dragonnades_ is perhaps no longer possible; but alternations between\nreligious services and religious prosecutions, between writing pious\nbooks and publishing exasperating articles, are by no means extinct.\nFor one case in which harm has been done because no one has come\nforward to denounce a wrongdoer, there are ten cases in which harm has\nbeen done because some one has been indiscreetly, or inopportunely, or\nuncharitably, or unjustly denounced. \"Praise is not seasonable\n(\u1f61\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2) in the mouth of a sinner\" (Ecclus. xv.\u00a09); and whatever\nmay have been the writer's meaning in the difficult passage in which\nit occurs, we may give it a meaning that will bring it into harmony\nwith what St.\u00a0James says here. The praise of God is not seasonable in\nthe mouth of one who is ever sinning in reviling God's children.\n\nThe illustrations of the fountain and the fig-tree are among the\ntouches which, if they do not indicate one who is familiar with\nPalestine, at any rate agree well with the fact that the writer of\nthis Epistle was such. Springs tainted with salt or with sulphur are\nnot rare, and it is stated that most of those on the eastern slope of\nthe hill-country of Jud\u00e6a are brackish. The fig-tree, the vine, and\nthe olive were abundant throughout the whole country; and St.\u00a0James,\nif he looked out of window as he was writing, would be likely enough\nto see all three. It is not improbable that in one or more of the\nillustrations he is following some ancient saying or proverb. Thus,\nArrian, the pupil of Epictetus, writing less than a century later,\nasks, \"How can a vine grow, not vinewise, but olivewise, or an olive,\non the other hand, not olivewise, but vinewise? It is impossible,\ninconceivable.\" It is possible that our Lord Himself, when He used a\nsimilar illustration in connexion with the worst of all sins of the\ntongue, was adapting a proverb already in use. In speaking of \"the\nblasphemy against the Spirit\" He says, \"Either make the tree good, and\nits fruit good; or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for\nthe tree is known by its fruit. Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye,\nbeing evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart\nthe mouth speaketh. The good man out of his good treasure bringeth\nforth good things; and the evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth\nforth evil things. And I say unto you, That every idle word that men\nshall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment\"\n(Matt. xii.\u00a033-36). And previously, in the Sermon on the Mount, where\nHe is speaking of deeds rather than of words, \"By their fruits ye\nshall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?\nEven so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but the corrupt\ntree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil\nfruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit\" (Matt.\nvii.\u00a016-18).\n\nCan it be the case that while physical contradictions are not\npermitted in the lower classes of unconscious objects, moral\ncontradictions of a very monstrous kind are allowed in the highest of\nall earthly creatures? The \"double-minded man,\" who prays and doubts,\nreceives nothing from the Lord, because his petition is only in form a\nprayer; it lacks the essential characteristic of prayer, which is\nfaith. But the double-tongued man, who blesses God and curses men,\nwhat does he receive? Just as the double-minded man is judged by his\ndoubts, and not by his forms of prayer, so the double-tongued man is\njudged by his curses, and not by his forms of praise. In each case one\nor the other of the two contradictories is not real. If there is\nprayer, there are no doubts; and if there are doubts, there is no\nprayer--no prayer that will avail with God. So also in the other case:\nif God is sincerely and heartily blessed, there will be no cursing of\nHis children; and if there is such cursing, God cannot acceptably be\nblessed; the very words of praise, coming from such lips, will be an\noffence to Him.\n\nBut it may be urged, our Lord Himself has set us an example of strong\ndenunciation in the woes which He pronounced upon the scribes and\nPharisees; and again, St.\u00a0Paul cursed Hymen\u00e6us and Alexander (1\u00a0Tim.\ni.\u00a020), the incestuous person at Corinth (1\u00a0Cor. v.\u00a05), and Elymas the\nsorcerer (Acts xiii.\u00a010). Most true. But firstly, these curses were\nuttered by those who could not err in such things. Christ \"knew what\nwas in man,\" and could read the hearts of all; and the fact that\nSt.\u00a0Paul's curses were supernaturally fulfilled proves that he was\nacting under Divine guidance in what he said. And secondly, these\nstern utterances had their source in love; not, as human curses\ncommonly have, in hate. It was in order that those on whom they were\npronounced might be warned, and schooled to better things, that they\nwere uttered; and we know that in the case of the sinner at Corinth\nthe severe remedy had this effect; the curse was really a blessing.\nWhen _we_ have infallible guidance, and when _we_ are able by\nsupernatural results to prove that we possess it, it will be time\nenough to begin to deal in curses. And let us remember _the\nproportion_ which such things bear to the rest of Christ's words and\nof St.\u00a0Paul's words, so far as they have been preserved for us. Christ\nwrought numberless miracles of mercy: besides those which are recorded\nin detail, we are frequently told that \"He healed many that were sick\nwith divers diseases, and cast out many devils\" (Mark i.\u00a034); that \"He\nhad healed many\" (iii.\u00a010); that \"wheresoever He entered, into\nvillages, or into cities, or into the country, they laid the sick in\nthe market-places, and besought Him that they might touch if it were\nbut the border of His garment; and as many as touched Him were made\nwhole\" (vi.\u00a056); and so forth (John xxi.\u00a025). But He wrought only one\nmiracle of judgment, and that was upon a tree, which could teach the\nnecessary lesson without feeling the punishment (Mark xi.\u00a012-23). All\nthis applies with much force to those who believe themselves to be\ncalled upon to denounce and curse all such as seem to them to be\nenemies of God and His truth: but with how much more force to those\nwho in moments of anger and irritation deal in execrations on their\nown account, and curse a fellow-Christian, not because he seems to\nthem to have offended God, but because he has offended themselves!\nThat such persons should suppose that their polluted mouths can offer\nacceptable praises to the Lord and Father, is indeed a moral\ncontradiction of the most startling kind. And are such cases rare? Is\nit so uncommon a thing for a man to attend church regularly, and join\nwith apparent devotion in the services, and yet think little of the\ngrievous words which he allows himself to utter when his temper is\nseverely tried? How amazed and offended he would be if he were invited\nto eat at a table which had been used for some disgusting purpose, and\nhad never since been cleansed! And yet he does not hesitate to \"defile\nhis whole body\" with his unbridled tongue, and then offer praise to\nGod from this polluted source!\n\nNor is this the only contradiction in which such a one is involved.\nHow strange that the being who is lord and master of all the animal\ncreation should be unable to govern himself! How strange that man's\nchief mark of superiority over the brutes should be the power of\nspeech, and that he should use this power in such a way as to make it\nthe instrument of his own degradation, until he becomes lower than the\nbrutes! They, whether tamed or untamed, unconsciously declare the\nglory of God; while he, with his noble powers of consciously and\nloyally praising Him, by his untamed tongue reviles those who are made\nafter the image of God, and thus turns his own praises into\nblasphemies. Thus does man's rebellion reverse the order of nature and\nfrustrate the will of God.\n\nThe writer of this Epistle has been accused of exaggeration. It has\nbeen urged that in this strongly worded paragraph he himself is guilty\nof that unchastened language which he is so eager to condemn; that the\ncase is over-stated, and that the highly coloured picture is a\ncaricature. Is there any thoughtful person of large experience that\ncan honestly assent to this verdict? Who has not seen what mischief\nmay be done by a single utterance of mockery, or enmity, or bravado;\nwhat confusion is wrought by exaggeration, innuendo, and falsehood;\nwhat suffering is inflicted by slanderous suggestions and statements;\nwhat careers of sin have been begun by impure stories and filthy\njests? All these effects may follow, be it remembered, from a single\nutterance in each case, may spread to multitudes, may last for years.\nOne reckless word may blight a whole life. \"Many have fallen by the\nedge of the sword, but not so many as have fallen by the tongue\"\n(Ecclus. xxviii.\u00a018). And there are persons who habitually pour forth\nsuch things, who never pass a day without uttering what is unkind, or\nfalse, or impure. When we look around us, and see the moral ruin which\nin every class of society can be traced to reckless language--lives\nembittered, and blighted, and brutalized by words spoken and\nheard--can we wonder at the severe words of St.\u00a0James, whose\nexperience was not very different from our own? Violent and\nuncharitable language had become one of the besetting sins of the\nJews, and no doubt Jewish Christians were by no means free from it.\n\"Curse the whisperer and the double-tongued,\" says the son of Sirach,\n\"for such have destroyed many that were at peace\" (Ecclus.\nxxviii.\u00a013). To which the Syriac Version adds a clause not given in\nthe Greek, nor in our Bibles: \"Also _the third tongue_, let it be\ncursed; for it has laid low many corpses.\" This expression, \"third\ntongue,\" seems to have come into use among the Jews in the period\nbetween the Old and New Testament. It means a slanderous tongue, and\nit is called \"third\" because it is fatal to three sets of people--to\nthe person who utters the slander, to those who listen to it, and to\nthose about whom it is uttered. \"A third tongue hath tossed many to\nand fro, and driven them from nation to nation; and strong cities hath\nit pulled down, and houses of great men hath it overthrown\" (Ecclus.\nxxviii.\u00a014); where not only the Syriac, but the Greek, has the\ninteresting expression \"third tongue,\" a fact obscured in our version.\n\nThe \"third tongue\" is as common and as destructive now as when the son\nof Sirach denounced it, or St.\u00a0James wrote against it with still\ngreater authority; and we all of us can do a great deal to check the\nmischief, not merely by taking care that we keep our own tongues from\noriginating evil, but by refusing to repeat, or if possible even to\nlisten to, what the third tongue says. Our unwillingness to hear may\nbe a discouragement to the speaker, and our refusal to repeat will at\nleast lessen the evil of his tale. We shall have saved ourselves from\nbecoming links in the chain of destruction.\n\nThere is one kind of sinful language to which the severe sayings of\nSt.\u00a0James specially apply, although the context seems to show that it\nwas not specially in his mind--impure language. The foul tongue is\nindeed a \"world of iniquity, which defileth the whole body, and\nsetteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell.\" In\nno other case is the self-pollution of the speaker so manifest, or the\ninjury to the listener so probable, so all but inevitable. Foul\nstories and impure jests and innuendoes, even more clearly than oaths\nand curses, befoul the souls of those who utter them, while they lead\nthe hearers into sin. Such things rob all who are concerned in them,\neither as speakers or listeners, of two things which are the chief\nsafeguards of virtue--the fear of God, and the fear of sin. They\ncreate an atmosphere in which men sin with a light heart, because the\ngrossest sins are made to look not only attractive and easy, but\namusing. What can be made to seem laughable is supposed to be not very\nserious. There is no more devilish act that a human being can perform\nthan that of inducing others to believe that what is morally hideous\nand deadly is \"pleasant to the eye and good for food.\" And this\ndevil's work is sometimes done merely to raise a laugh, merely for\nsomething to say. Does any one seriously maintain that the language of\nSt.\u00a0James is at all too strong for such things as these? We hardly\nneed his authority for the belief that a filthy tongue pollutes a\nman's whole being, and owes its inspiration to the evil one.\n\nIt is of angry, ill-tempered, unkind words that we do not believe this\nso readily. Words that are not false or calumnious, not running out\ninto blasphemies and curses, and certainly not tainted with anything\nlike impurity, do not always strike us as being as harmful as they\nreally are, not only to others, whom they irritate or sadden, but to\nourselves, who allow our characters to be darkened by them. The\ncaptious word, that makes everything a subject for blame; the\ndiscontented word, that would show that the speaker is always being\nill-treated; the biting word, that is meant to inflict pain; the\nsullen word, that throws a gloom over all who hear it; the provoking\nword, that seeks to stir up strife--of all these we are most of us apt\nto think too lightly, and need the stern warnings of St.\u00a0James to\nremind us of their true nature and of their certain consequences. As\nregards _others_, such things wound tender hearts, add needlessly and\nenormously to the unhappiness of mankind, turn sweet affections sour,\nstifle good impulses, create and foster bad feelings, embitter in its\nsmallest details the whole round of daily life. As regards\n_ourselves_, indulgence in such language weakens and warps our\ncharacters, blunts our sympathies, deadens our love for man, and\ntherefore our love for God. \"In particular it makes prayer either\nimpossible or half useless. Whether we know it or not, the prayer that\ncomes from a heart indulging in evil temper is hardly a prayer at all.\nWe cannot really be face to face with God; we cannot really approach\nGod as a Father; we cannot really feel like children kneeling at His\nfeet; we cannot really be simply affectionate and truthful in what we\nsay to Him, if irritation, discontent, or gloom, or anger, is busy at\nour breasts. An undisciplined temper shuts out the face of God from\nus. We may see His holy Law, but we cannot see Himself. We may think\nof Him as our Creator, our Judge, our Ruler, but we cannot think of\nHim as our Father, nor approach Him with love.\"[68] \"Salt water cannot\nyield sweet.\"\n\nIt was once pleaded on behalf of a man who had been criticized and\ncondemned as unsatisfactory, that he was \"a good man, all but his\ntemper.\" \"All but his temper!\" was the not unreasonable reply; \"as if\ntemper were not nine tenths of religion.\" \"If any man stumbleth not in\nword, the same is a _perfect_ man.\"\n\n[68] _Sermons preached in Rugby School Chapel_, by the Rev. Frederick\nTemple, D.D. (Macmillan, 1867), pp. 324, 325.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVI.\n\n _THE WISDOM THAT IS FROM BELOW._\n\n \"Who is wise and understanding among you? let him show by his good\n life his works in meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter jealousy\n and faction in your heart, glory not, and lie not against the truth.\n This wisdom is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is\n earthly, sensual, devilish. For where jealousy and faction are, there\n is confusion and every vile deed.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES iii.\u00a013-16.\n\n\nThis section, which again looks at first sight like an abrupt\ntransition to another subject, is found, upon closer examination, to\ngrow quite naturally out of the preceding one. St.\u00a0James has just been\nwarning his readers against the lust of teaching and talking. Not many\nof them are to become teachers, for the danger of transgressing with\nthe tongue, which is great in all of us, is in them at a maximum,\nbecause teachers must talk. Moreover, those who teach have greater\nresponsibilities than those who do not; for by professing to instruct\nothers they deprive themselves of the plea of ignorance, and they are\nbound to instruct by example of good deeds, as well as by precept of\ngood words. From this subject he quite naturally passes on to speak of\nthe difference between the wisdom from above and the wisdom from\nbelow; and the connexion is twofold. It is those who possess only the\nlatter wisdom, and are proud of their miserable possession, who are so\neager to make themselves of importance by giving instruction; and it\nis the fatal love of talk, about which he has just been speaking so\nseverely, that is one of the chief symptoms of the wisdom that is from\nbelow.\n\nThis paragraph is, in fact, simply a continuation of the\nuncompromising _attack upon sham religion_ which is the main theme\nthroughout a large portion of the Epistle. St.\u00a0James first shows how\nuseless it is to be an eager hearer of the word, without also being a\ndoer of it. Next he exposes the inconsistency of loving one's\nneighbour as oneself if he chances to be rich, and neglecting or even\ninsulting him if he is poor. From that he passes on to prove the\nbarrenness of an orthodoxy which is not manifested in good deeds, and\nthe peril of trying to make words a substitute for works. And thus the\npresent section is reached. Throughout the different sections it is\nthe empty religiousness which endeavours to avoid the _practice_ of\nChristian virtue, on the plea of possessing zeal, or faith, or\nknowledge, that is mercilessly exposed and condemned. \"Deed, deeds,\ndeeds,\" is the cry of St.\u00a0James; \"these ought ye to have done, and not\nto have left the other undone.\" Without Christian practice, all the\nother good things which they possessed or professed were savourless\nsalt.\n\n\"Who is wise and understanding among you?\" (\u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd). The same two words meet us in the questionings of Job\n(xxviii.\u00a012): \"Where shall wisdom (\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1) be found? and where is the\nplace of understanding (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7)?\"[69] Of all the words which signify\nsome kind of intellectual endowment, _e.g._ \"prudence\" (\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2),\n\"knowledge\" (\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 or \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), and \"understanding\" (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7 or\n\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c3), \"wisdom\" (\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1) always ranks as highest. It indicates, as\nClement of Alexandria defines it (_Strom._ I. v.), \"the understanding\nof things human and Divine, and their causes.\" It is the word which\nexpresses the typical wisdom of Solomon (Matt. xii.\u00a042; Luke xi.\u00a031),\nthe inspiration of St.\u00a0Stephen (Acts vi.\u00a010), and the Divine wisdom of\nJesus Christ (Matt. xiii.\u00a054; Mark vi.\u00a02; and comp. Luke xi.\u00a049 with\nMatt. xxiii.\u00a034). It is also employed in the heavenly doxologies which\nascribe wisdom to the Lamb and to God (Rev. v.\u00a012; vii.\u00a012).\nSt.\u00a0James, therefore, quite naturally employs it to denote that\nexcellent gift for which Christians are to pray with full confidence\nthat it will be granted to them (i.\u00a05, 6), and which manifests its\nheavenly character by a variety of good fruits (iii.\u00a017).\n\nWhether we are to understand any very marked difference between the\ntwo adjectives (\"wise\" and \"understanding\") used in the opening\nquestion, is a matter of little moment. The question taken as a whole\namounts to this: Who among you professes to have superior knowledge,\nspiritual or practical? The main thing is not the precise scope of the\nquestion, but of the answer. Let every one who claims to have a\nsuperiority which entitles him to teach others _prove_ his superiority\nby his good _life_. Once more it is a call for deeds, and not\nwords--for conduct, and not professions. And St.\u00a0James expresses this\nin a specially strong way. He might have said simply, \"Let him by his\nconduct show his wisdom,\" just as he said above, \"I by my works will\nshow thee my faith.\" But he says, \"Let him show by his good life his\nworks in meekness of wisdom.\" Thus the necessity for _practice_ and\n_conduct_, as distinct from mere knowledge, is enforced twice over;\nand besides that, the particular character of the conduct, the\natmosphere in which it is to be exhibited, is also indicated. It is to\nbe done \"in _meekness_ of wisdom.\" There are two characteristics here\nspecified which we shall find are given as the infallible signs of the\nheavenly wisdom; and their opposites as signs of the other. The\nheavenly wisdom is fruitful of good deeds, and inspires those who\npossess it with gentleness. The other wisdom is productive of nothing\nreally valuable, and inspires those who possess it with\ncontentiousness. The spirit of strife, and the spirit of meekness;\nthose are the two properties which chiefly distinguish the wisdom that\ncomes from heaven from the wisdom that comes from hell.\n\nThis test is a very practical one, and we can apply it to ourselves as\nwell as to others. How do we bear ourselves in argument and in\ncontroversy? Are we serene about the result, in full confidence that\ntruth and right should prevail? Are we desirous that truth should\nprevail, even if that should involve _our_ being proved to be in the\nwrong? Are we meek and gentle towards those who differ from us? or are\nwe apt to lose our tempers, and become heated against our opponents?\nIf the last is the case we have reason to doubt whether our wisdom is\nof the best sort. He who loses his temper in argument has begun to\ncare more about himself, and less about the truth. He has become like\nthe many would-be teachers rebuked by St.\u00a0James; slow to hear, and\nswift to speak; unwilling to learn, and eager to dogmatize; much less\nready to know the truth than to be able to say something, whether true\nor false.\n\nThe words \"by his good life\" (\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2) are a change\nmade by the Revisers for other reasons than the two which commonly\nweighed with them. As already stated (p. 150), their most valuable\ncorrections are those which have been produced by the correction of\nthe corrupt Greek text used by previous translators. Many more are\ncorrections of mistranslations of the correct Greek text. The present\nchange of \"good _conversation_\" into \"good _life_\" comes under neither\nof these two heads. It has been necessitated by a change which has\ntaken place in the English language during the last two or three\ncenturies. Words are constantly changing their meaning. \"Conversation\"\nis one of many English words which have drifted from their old\nsignification; and it is one of several which have undergone change\nsince the Authorized Version was published, and in spite of the\nenormous influence exercised by that version. For there can be no\ndoubt that our Bible has retained words in use which would otherwise\nhave been dropped, and has kept words to their old meaning which would\notherwise have undergone a change. This latter influence, however,\nfails to make itself felt where the changed meaning still makes sense;\nand that is the case with the passages in which \"conversation\" (as a\nrendering of \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae) occurs in the New Testament. \"Conversation\"\nwas formerly a word of much wider meaning, and its gradual restriction\nto intercourse by word of mouth is unfortunate. Formerly it covered\nthe whole of a man's _walk_ in life (_Lebenswandel_), his going out\nand coming in, his behaviour or conduct. Wherever he \"turned himself\nabout\" and lived, there he had his \"conversation\" (_conversatio_, from\n_conversari_, the exact equivalent of \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae, from \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9).\nIt was exactly the word that was required by the translators of the\nGreek Testament. In the Septuagint it does not occur until the\nApocrypha (Tobit iv.\u00a014). But it causes serious misunderstanding to\nrestrict the meaning of all the passages in which the word occurs to\n\"conversation\" in the modern sense, as if speaking were the only thing\nincluded; and the Revisers have done very rightly in removing this\nsource of misunderstanding; but they have been unable to find any one\nexpression which would serve the purpose, and hence have been\ncompelled to vary the translation. Sometimes they give \"manner of\nlife\" (Gal. i.\u00a013; Eph. iv.\u00a022; 1\u00a0Tim. iv.\u00a012; 1\u00a0Peter i.\u00a018;\niii.\u00a016); once \"manner of living\" (1\u00a0Peter i.\u00a015); three times\n\"behaviour\" (1\u00a0Peter ii.\u00a012; iii.\u00a01, 2); three times \"life\" (Heb.\nxiii.\u00a07; 2\u00a0Peter ii.\u00a07; and here); and once \"living\" (2\u00a0Peter\niii.\u00a011). These different translations are worth collecting together,\ninasmuch as they give a good idea of the scope of \"conversation\" in\nthe old sense,[70] which really represents the word used by St.\u00a0James.\nThat \"conversation,\" with the modern associations which inevitably\ncling to it now, should be used in the passage before us, is\nsingularly unfortunate. It not only misrepresents, but it almost\nreverses the meaning of the writer. So far from telling a man to show\nhis wisdom by what he _says_ in his intercourse with others, St.\u00a0James\nrather exhorts him to show it by saying as little as possible, and\ndoing a great deal. Let him show out of a noble life the conduct of a\nwise man in the gentle spirit which befits such. In modern language,\nlet him in the fullest sense be a Christian gentleman.\n\n\"In _meekness_ of wisdom.\" On this St.\u00a0James lays great stress. He has\nalready told his readers to \"receive with meekness the implanted word\"\n(i.\u00a021), and what implies the same thing, although the word is not\nused, to \"be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath\" (i.\u00a019). And\nin the passage before us he insists with urgent repetition upon the\npeaceable and gentle disposition of those who possess the wisdom from\nabove (vv.\u00a017, 18). The Christian grace of meekness is a good deal\nmore than the rather second-rate virtue which Aristotle makes to be\nthe mean between passionateness and impassionateness, and to consist\nin a due regulation of one's angry feelings (_Eth. Nic._ IV. v.). It\nincludes submissiveness towards God, as well as gentleness towards\nmen; and it exhibits itself in a special way in giving and receiving\ninstruction, and in administering and accepting rebuke. It was,\ntherefore, just the grace which the many would-be teachers, with their\nloud professions of correct faith and superior knowledge, specially\nneeded to acquire. The Jew, with his national contempt for all who\nwere not of the stock of Israel, was always prone to self-assertion,\nand these Christian Jews of the Dispersion had still to learn the\nspirit of their own psalms. \"The meek will He guide in judgment; and\nthe meek will He teach His way\" (xxv.\u00a09). \"The meek shall inherit the\nland, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace\"\n(xxxvii.\u00a011). \"The Lord upholdeth the meek\" (cxlvii.\u00a06). \"He shall\nbeautify the meek with salvation\" (cxlix.\u00a04). In all these passages\nthe Septuagint has the adjective (\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2) of the substantive used by\nSt.\u00a0James (\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b0\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2). \"But if,\" instead of this meekness, \"ye have\nbitter jealousy and faction in your heart, glory not, and lie not\nagainst the truth.\" With a gentle severity St.\u00a0James states as a mere\nsupposition what he probably knew to be a fact. There was plenty of\nbitter zealousness and party spirit among them; and from this fact\nthey could draw their own conclusions. It was an evil from which the\nJews greatly suffered; and a few years later it hastened, if it did\nnot cause, the overthrow of Jerusalem. This \"jealousy\" or zeal\n(\u03b6\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2) itself became a party name in the fanatical sect of the\nZealots. It was an evil from which the primitive Church greatly\nsuffered, as passages in the New Testament and in the sub-Apostolic\nwriters prove; and can we say that it has ever become extinct? The\nsame conclusion must be drawn now as then.\n\nJealousy or zeal may be a good or a bad thing according to the motive\nwhich inspires it. God Himself is called \"a jealous God,\" and is said\nto be \"clad with zeal as a cloak\" (Isa. lix.\u00a017), and to \"take to Him\njealousy for complete armour\" (Wisdom v.\u00a017). To Christ His disciples\napplied the words, \"The zeal of Thine house shall eat me up\" (John\nii.\u00a017). But more often the word has a bad signification. It indicates\n\"zeal not according to knowledge\" (Rom. x.\u00a02), as when the high priest\nand Sadducees arrested the Apostles (Acts v.\u00a017), or when Saul\npersecuted the Church (Phil. iii.\u00a06). It is coupled with strife (Rom.\nxiii.\u00a013), and is counted among the works of the flesh (Gal. v.\u00a020).\nTo make it quite plain that it is to be understood in a bad sense\nhere, St.\u00a0James adds the epithet \"bitter\" to it, and perhaps thereby\nrecalls what he has just said about a mouth that utters both curses\nand blessings being as monstrous as a fountain spouting forth both\nbitter water and sweet. Moreover, he couples it with \"faction\"\n(\u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1), a word which originally meant \"working for hire,\" and\nespecially \"weaving for hire\" (Isa. xxxviii.\u00a012), and thence any\nignoble pursuit, especially political canvassing, intrigue, or\nfactiousness (Arist. _Pol._ V. ii.\u00a06; iii.\u00a09; Rom. ii.\u00a08; Phil. i.\u00a016;\nii.\u00a03). This also St.\u00a0Paul classes among the works of the flesh (Gal.\nv.\u00a020). What St.\u00a0James seems to refer to in these two words is bitter\nreligious animosity; a hatred of error (or what is supposed to be\nsuch), manifesting itself, not in loving attempts to win over those\nwho are at fault, but in bitter thoughts, and words, and party\ncombinations.\n\n\"Glory not, and lie not against the truth.\" To glory with their\ntongues of their superior wisdom, while they cherished jealousy and\nfaction in their hearts, was a manifest lie, a contradiction of what\nthey must know to be the truth. In their fanatical zeal for the truth\nthey were really lying against the truth, and ruining the cause which\nthey professed to serve. Of how many a controversialist would that be\ntrue; and not only of those who have entered the lists against heresy\nand infidelity, but of those who are preaching a crusade against vice!\n\"The whole Christianity of many a devotee consists only, we may say,\nin a bitter contempt for the sins of sinners, in a proud and loveless\ncontention with what it calls the wicked world\" (Stier).\n\n\"This wisdom is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is\nearthly, sensual, devilish.\" The wisdom which is exhibited in such a\nthoroughly unchristian disposition is of no heavenly origin. It may be\na proof of intellectual advantages of some kind, but it is not such as\nthose who lack it need pray for (i.\u00a05), nor such as God bestows\nliberally on all who ask in faith. And then, having stated what it is\nnot, St.\u00a0James tells in three words, which form a climax, what the\nwisdom on which they plume themselves, in its nature, and sphere, and\norigin, really is. _It belongs to this world_, and has no connexion\nwith heavenly things. _Its activity is in the lower part of man's\nnature_, his passions and his human intelligence, but it never touches\nhis spirit. And in its origin and manner of working _it is\ndemoniacal_. Not the gentleness of God's Holy Spirit, but the fierce\nrecklessness of Satan's emissaries, inspires it. Just as there is a\nfaith which a man may share with demons (ii.\u00a019), and a tongue which\nis set on fire by hell (iii.\u00a06), so there is a wisdom which is\ndemoniacal in its source and in its activity.\n\nThe second of the three terms of condemnation used by St.\u00a0James\n(\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2) cannot be adequately rendered in English, for \"psychic\"\nor \"psychical\" would convey either no meaning or a wrong one. It does\nnot occur in the Septuagint, but is found six times in the New\nTestament--four times in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (ii.\u00a014;\nxv.\u00a044, 46), where most English versions have \"natural;\" once in Jude\n(19), where Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan have \"fleshly,\" the\nRhemish, the Authorized, and the Revised \"sensual;\" and once here,\nwhere Genevan, Rhemish, Authorized, and Revised all give \"sensual,\"\nthe last placing \"natural or animal\" in the margin.[71] When man's\nnature is divided into body and soul, or flesh and spirit, every one\nunderstands that the body or flesh indicates the lower and material\npart, the soul or spirit the higher and immaterial part. But when a\nthreefold division is made, into body, soul, and spirit, we are apt to\nallow the more simple and more familiar division to disturb our ideas.\n\"Soul\" is allowed to keep its old meaning, and to be understood as\nmuch more allied with \"spirit\" than with \"body\" or \"flesh.\" This\ncauses serious misunderstanding. When the soul is distinguished, not\nonly from the flesh, but from the spirit, it represents a part of our\nnature which is much more closely connected with the former than with\nthe latter. The \"natural\" or \"sensual\" man, though higher than the\ncarnal man, who is the slave of his animal passions, is far below the\nspiritual man, who is ruled by the highest portion of his nature,\nwhich is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The natural man does\nnot soar above the things of this world. His inspirations are not\nheavenly. \"Of the earth he is, and of the earth he speaketh.\" The\nwisdom from above is heavenly, spiritual, Divine; the wisdom from\nbelow is earthly, sensual, devilish.\n\nDoes this seem to be an exaggeration? St.\u00a0James is ready to justify\nhis strong language. \"For where jealousy and faction are, there is\nconfusion and every vile deed.\" And who are the authors of confusion\nand vile deeds? Are they to be found in heaven, or in hell? Is\nconfusion, or order, the mark of God's work? If one wished to sum up\nsuccinctly the manner in which the activity of demons specially\nexhibits itself, could one do so better than by saying \"confusion and\nevery vile deed\"? \"God is not a God of confusion, but of peace,\" says\nSt.\u00a0Paul, using the very word that we have here (1\u00a0Cor. xiv.\u00a033); and\nevery one heartily assents to the doctrine. The reason and conscience\nof every man tell him that disorder cannot in origin be Divine; it is\npart of that ruin which Satanic influences have been allowed to make\nin a universe which was created \"very good.\" Jealousy and faction mean\nanarchy; and anarchy means a moral chaos in which every vile deed\nfinds an opportunity. We know, therefore, what to think of the\nsuperior wisdom which is claimed by those in whose hearts jealousy and\nfaction reign supreme. It may have a right to the name of wisdom, just\nas a correct belief about the nature of God may have a right to the\nname of faith, even when it remains barren, and therefore powerless to\nsave. But an inspiration which prompts men to envy and intrigue,\nbecause, when many are rushing to occupy the post of teacher, others\nfind a hearing more readily than themselves, is the inspiration of\nCain and of Korah, rather than of Moses or of Daniel. The professed\ndesire to offer service to God is really only a craving to obtain\nadvancement for self. Self-seeking of this kind is always ruinous. It\nboth betrays and aggravates the rottenness that lurks within. It was\nimmediately after there had been a contention among the Apostles,\n\"which of them was accounted to be greatest\" (Luke xxii.\u00a024), that\nthey \"all forsook Him and fled.\"\n\nNOTE.--A portion of Dr. Newman's description of a gentleman will serve\nto illustrate what has been said above. It occurs in his _Discourses\naddressed to the Catholics of Dublin_. \"It is almost a definition of a\ngentleman to say that he is one who _never inflicts pain_. He is\nmainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free\nand unembarrassed action of those about him, and he concurs with their\nmovements rather than takes the initiative himself. He carefully\navoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with\nwhom he is cast--all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all\nrestraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern\nbeing to make every one at their ease and at home. He has his eyes on\nall his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the\ndistant, and merciful towards the absurd. He guards against\nunseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate. He has no ears\nfor slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who\ninterfere with him, and interprets everything for the best.\"\n\n[69] Comp. also Deut. i.\u00a013, and iv.\u00a06, where we have the same\ncombination.\n\n[70] That \"conversation\" should also have been used as a rendering of\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 (Phil. iii.\u00a020; comp. i.\u00a027) and \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 (Heb. xiii.\u00a05) is\nvery unfortunate.\n\n[71] Purvey has \"beastly\" in all six places, which is a translation of\nthe _animalis_ of the Vulgate: \"earthly, beastly, fiendly\" is his\ntriplet. See p. 453.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVII.\n\n _THE WISDOM THAT IS FROM ABOVE._\n\n \"But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable,\n gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without\n variance, without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown\n in peace for them that make peace.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES iii.\u00a017, 18.\n\n\nAt the beginning of his Epistle St.\u00a0James exhorts those of his readers\nwho feel their lack of wisdom to pray for it. It is one of those good\nand perfect gifts from above, which come down from the Father of\nlights, who \"giveth to all liberally, and upbraideth not\" (i.\u00a05, 17).\nHe now, after having sketched its opposite, states, in a few clear,\npregnant words, what the characteristics of this heavenly gift of\nwisdom are. In both passages he probably had in his mind, and wished\nto suggest to the minds of his readers, well-known utterances on the\nsame subject in the Books of Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom.\n\n\"My son, if thou cry after discernment, and lift up thy voice for\nunderstanding; if thou seek her as silver, and search for her as for\nhid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and\nfind the knowledge of God. For the Lord giveth wisdom; out of His\nmouth cometh knowledge and understanding\" (Prov. ii.\u00a03-6).\n\nAgain, the magnificent \"Praise of Wisdom\" in the twenty-fourth chapter\nof Ecclesiasticus, in which Wisdom is made to tell her own glories,\nopens thus: \"I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered\nthe earth like a cloud;\" and it continues, \"Then the Creator of all\nthings gave me a commandment, and He that created me caused my\ntabernacle to rest, and said, Let thy dwelling be in Jacob, and thine\ninheritance in Israel. Before time was, from the beginning, He created\nme, and until times cease I shall in nowise fail\" (vv.\u00a03, 8, 9).\n\nAnd in the similar passage in the Book of Wisdom, in which the praise\nof Wisdom is put into the mouth of Solomon, he says, \"Wisdom, which is\nthe worker of all things, taught me.... She is the breath of the power\nof God, and a pure emanation from the glory of the Almighty: therefore\ndoth no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the effulgence\n(\u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1: Heb. i.\u00a03) of the everlasting light, the unspotted\nmirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness. And being\none, she can do all things; and remaining in herself, she maketh all\nthings new; and in all generations entering into holy souls, she\nmaketh them friends of God, and prophets. For God loveth nothing but\nhim that dwelleth with wisdom\" (vii.\u00a022, 25-28).\n\nThree thoughts are conspicuous in these passages. Wisdom originates\nwith God. It is consequently pure and glorious. God bestows it upon\nHis people. These thoughts reappear in St.\u00a0James, and to them he adds\nanother, which scarcely appears in the earlier writers. Wisdom is\n\"peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy, and good\nfruits.\" In Proverbs we do indeed read that \"all her paths are peace\"\n(iii.\u00a017); but the thought is not followed up. It does not seem to\noccur to the son of Sirach; and not one of the twenty-one epithets\nwhich the writer of Wisdom piles up in praise of this heavenly gift\n(vii.\u00a022, 23) touches upon its peaceable and placable nature. It was\nleft to the Gospel to teach, both by the example of Christ and by the\nwords of His Apostles, how inevitably the Divine wisdom produces, in\nthose who possess it, gentleness, self-repression, and peace.\n\n\"But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable,\ngentle, easy to be entreated.\" The \"first\" and the \"then\" may be\nseriously misunderstood. St.\u00a0James does _not_ mean that the heavenly\nwisdom cannot be peaceable and gentle until all its surroundings have\nbeen made pure from everything that would oppose or contradict it; in\nother words, that the wise and understanding Christian will first free\nhimself from the society of all whom he believes to be in error, and\nthen, but not till then, will he be peaceable and gentle. That is, so\nlong as folly and falsehood remain, they must be denounced, and made\neither to recant or to retire; for only when they have disappeared\nwill wisdom show itself easy to be entreated. Purity, i.e. freedom\nfrom all that would dim the brightness of truth, must precede peace,\nand there can be no peace until it is obtained.\n\nThis interpretation contradicts the context, and makes St.\u00a0James teach\nthe opposite of what he says very plainly in the sentences which\nprecede, and in those which follow, the words which we are\nconsidering. It tries to enlist him on the side of partisanship and\npersecution, at the very moment when he is pleading most earnestly\nagainst them. He is stating a logical, and not a chronological order,\nwhen he declares that true wisdom is \"first pure, then peaceable.\" In\nits inmost being it is pure; among its very various external\nmanifestations are the six or seven beneficent qualities which follow\nthe \"then.\" If there were no one to be gentle to, no one coming to\nentreat, no one needing mercy, the wisdom from above would still be\npure; therefore this quality comes first.\n\nWhen the author of the Book of Wisdom says that wisdom is \"a pure\nemanation from the glory of God: therefore can no defiled thing fall\ninto her\" (vii.\u00a025), he is thinking of a pure stream, into which no\nfoul ditch is able to empty its polluting contents, or of a pure ray\nof light, which does not admit of mixture with anything that would\ncolour or darken it. He does not use the word for pure which we have\nhere (\u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2), but one which signifies \"unmixed,\" and hence \"unsullied\"\n(\u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2), and which occurs Phil. i.\u00a010 and 2\u00a0Pet. iii.\u00a01. The word\nused here by St.\u00a0James is akin to \"holy\" (\u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2), and primarily\nsignifies what is associated with religious awe (\u1f05\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2), and hence\n\"hallowed,\" especially by sacrifice. From this it became narrowed in\nmeaning to what is free from the pollution of unchastity or bloodshed.\nAs a Biblical word it sometimes has this narrow meaning; but generally\nit implies freedom from all stain of sin, and therefore is not far\nremoved in meaning from \"holy.\" But it is worth noting that whereas\nChrist and good men are spoken of as both pure and holy, yet God is\ncalled holy, but never pure. Divine holiness cannot be assailed by any\npolluting influence. Human holiness, even that of Christ, can be so\nassailed, and in resisting the assault it remains \"pure.\"\n\nIn the passage before us \"pure\" must certainly not be limited to mean\nsimply \"chaste.\" The word \"sensual,\" applied to the wisdom from below,\ndoes not mean unchaste, but living wholly in the world of sense; and\nthe purity of the heavenly wisdom does not consist merely in victory\nover temptations of the flesh, but in freedom from worldly and low\nmotives. Its aim is that truth should become known and prevail, and it\ncondescends to no ignoble arts in prosecuting this aim. Contradiction\ndoes not ruffle it, and hostility does not provoke it to retaliate,\nbecause its motives are thoroughly disinterested and pure. Thus, its\npeaceable and placable qualities flow out of its purity. It is\n\"_first_ pure, _then_ peaceable.\" It is because the man who is\ninspired with it has no ulterior selfish ends to serve that he is\ngentle, sympathetic, and considerate towards those who oppose him. He\nstrives, not for victory over his opponents, but for truth both for\nhimself and for them; and he knows what it costs to arrive at truth.\nWe have a noble illustration of this temper in some of the opening\npassages of St.\u00a0Augustine's treatise against the so-called\n_Fundamental Letter_ of Manich\u00e6us. He begins thus:--\n\n\"My prayer to the one true God Almighty, of whom, and through whom,\nand in whom are all things, has been and is, that in refuting and\ndisproving the heresy of you Manich\u00e6ans, to which you adhere perchance\nmore through thoughtlessness than evil intent, He would give me a mind\ncomposed and tranquil, and aiming rather at your amendment than your\ndiscomfiture.... It has been our business, therefore, to prefer and\nchoose the better part, that we might have an opportunity for your\namendment, not in contention, and strife, and persecutions, but in\ngentle consolation, affectionate exhortation, and quiet discussion; as\nit is written, The Lord's servant must not strive, but be gentle\ntowards all, teachable, forbearing, in meekness correcting them that\noppose themselves....\n\n\"Let those rage against you who know not with what toil truth is\nfound, and how difficult it is to avoid errors.... Let those rage\nagainst you who know not with how great difficulty the eye of the\ninner man is made whole, so that it can behold its Sun.... Let those\nrage against you who know not with what sighs and groans it is made\npossible, in however small a degree, to comprehend God. Finally, let\nthose rage against you who have never been deceived by such an error\nas that whereby they see you deceived....\n\n\"Let neither of us say that he has already found the truth. Let us\nseek it as if it were unknown to us both. For it can be sought for\nwith zeal and unanimity only if there be no rash assumption that it\nhas been found and is known.\"\n\nAnd to the same effect, although in a different key, a critical writer\nof our own day has remarked that \"by an intellect which is habitually\nfilled with the wisdom which is from heaven, in all its length and\nbreadth, 'objections' against religion are perceived at once to\nproceed from imperfect apprehension. Such an intellect cannot rage\nagainst those who give words to such objections. It sees that the\nobjectors do but intimate the partial character of their own\nknowledge.\"[72]\n\nIt will be observed that while the writer just quoted speaks about the\n_intellect_, St.\u00a0James speaks about the _heart_. The difference is not\naccidental, and it is significant of a difference in the point of\nview. The modern view of wisdom is that it is a matter which mainly\nconsists in the strengthening and enrichment of the intellectual\npowers. Increase of capacity for acquiring and retaining knowledge;\nincrease in the possession of knowledge: this is what is meant by\ngrowth in wisdom. And by knowledge is meant acquaintance with the\nnature and history of man, and with the nature and history of the\nuniverse. All this is the sphere of the intellect rather than of the\nheart. The purification and development of the moral powers, if not\nabsolutely excluded from the scope of wisdom, is commonly left in the\nbackground and almost out of sight. What St.\u00a0James says here is fully\nadmitted: the highest wisdom keeps a man from the bitterness of party\nspirit. But why? Because his superior intelligence and information\ntell him that the opposition of those who dissent from him is the\nresult of ignorance, which requires, not insult and abuse, but\ninstruction. St.\u00a0James does not dissent from this view, but he adds to\nit. There are further and higher reasons why the truly wise man does\nnot rail at others, or try to browbeat and silence them. Because,\nwhile he abhors folly, he loves the fool, and would win him over from\nhis foolish ways; because he desires not only to impart knowledge, but\nto increase virtue; and because he knows that strife means confusion,\nand that gentleness is the parent of peace. Christians are charged to\nbe \"wise as serpents, but _harmless as doves_.\"\n\nThe Scriptural view of wisdom does not contradict the modern one, but\nit is taken from the other side. In it the education of the moral and\nspiritual powers is the main thing, while intellectual advancement is\nin the background or out of sight. There is nothing in the teaching of\nChrist or his Apostles that is hostile to intellectual progress; but\nneither by His example, nor by the directions which His disciples\nreceived or delivered, do we find that culture was regarded as part\nof, or necessary to, or even a very desirable companion for, the\nGospel. Neither Christ nor any one of His immediate followers came\nforward as a great promoter of intellectual pursuits. Why is this? It\nwould perhaps be a sound and sufficient answer to say, that valuable\nas such work would have been, there was much more serious and\nimportant work to be done. To convert men from sin to righteousness\nwas far more urgent than to improve their minds. But there is more to\nbe said than this. That perverse generation had to \"turn, and become\nas little children,\" before it could enter into the kingdom of heaven.\nTo develop a man's intellectual powers is not always the best way to\nmake him \"humble himself as a little child.\" Increase of knowledge may\nmake a Newton feel like a child picking up pebbles on the shore of\ntruth, but it is apt to make \"the natural man\" less childlike. But for\nno one, whether catechumen, or convert, or mature Christian, can the\ncultivation of his intellect be as pressing a duty as the cultivation\nof his heart. \"To speak with the tongues of men and of angels,\" and to\n\"know all mysteries and all knowledge,\" is as nothing in comparison\nwith love. And it is in some measure possible to see why this is so.\nMan's moral nature certainly suffered, and ruinously suffered, at the\nFall. It is not so certain that his intellectual nature suffered also.\nIf it did suffer, it suffered _through_ the moral nature, because\ndepravation of the heart depraved the brain. In neither case would\nthere be any necessity for the Gospel to pay special attention to the\nregeneration of the intellect. If man's intellect was unscathed by his\nfall from innocence, it could continue its natural development, and go\non from strength to strength towards perfection. If, however, the loss\nof innocence has entailed a loss of mental capacity, then the wound\ninflicted on the intellectual nature through the moral nature must be\nhealed in the same way. First purify the heart and regenerate the\nwill, and then the recovery of the intellect will follow in due\ncourse.[73] It is easy to reach the intellect through the heart, and\nthis is what the wisdom that is from above aims at doing. If we begin\nwith the intellect, we shall very likely end there; and in that case\nthe man is not raised from his degradation, but equipped with\nadditional powers of mischief. \"Into a soul that deviseth evil, wisdom\nwill not enter, nor yet dwell in a body that is sunk in sin\" (Wisdom\ni.\u00a04).\n\n\"Full of mercy and good fruits.\" The wisdom from above is not only\npeaceable, reasonable, and conciliatory, when under provocation or\ncriticism, it is also eager to take the initiative in doing all the\ngood in its power to those whom it can reach or influence. Thus it\ngoes hand in hand with that pure and undefiled religion which visits\n\"the fatherless and widows in their affliction\" (i.\u00a027). Just as\nSt.\u00a0James has no sympathy with a faith which does not clothe the naked\nand feed the hungry, and offer of its best to God (ii.\u00a015, 16, 21),\nnor with a tongue which blesses God and curses men (ii.\u00a09), so he has\nno belief in the heavenly character of a wisdom which holds itself\naloof in calm superiority to all cavil and complaint, with a\ncondescending air of passionless impartiality. The intellectual miser,\nwho gloats over the treasures of his own accumulated knowledge, and\nsmiles with lofty indifference upon the criticisms and squabbles of\nthe imperfectly instructed, has no share in the wisdom that is from\nabove. He is peaceful and moderate, not out of love and sympathy, but\nbecause his time is too precious to be wasted in barren controversy,\nand because he is too proud to place himself on a level with those who\nwould dispute with him. No selfish arrogance of this kind has any\nplace in the character of the truly wise. His wisdom not only\nenlightens his intellect, but warms his heart and strengthens his\nwill. He believes that \"the wise man alone is king,\" and that \"the\nwise man alone is happy,\" yet not because he has the crown of\nknowledge and abundance of intellectual enjoyment, but because he\n\"fulfils the royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself\"\n(ii.\u00a08), and because happiness is to be found in promoting the\nhappiness of others.\n\n\"Without variance, without hypocrisy.\" These are the last two of the\ngoodly qualities which St.\u00a0James gives as marks of the heavenly\nwisdom. Similarity in sound, which cannot well be preserved in\nEnglish, has evidently had something to do with their selection\n(\u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2). The first of the two has perplexed\ntranslators, and the English versions give us considerable choice:\n\"without variance,\" \"without wrangling,\" \"without partiality,\"\n\"without doubtfulness,\" \"without judging.\" Purvey has for the two\nepithets \"deeming without feigning,\" following the Sixtine edition of\nthe Vulgate, which has _judicans sine simulatione_, instead of _non\njudicans, sine simulatione_. The word occurs nowhere else either in\nthe Old or in the New Testament; but it is cognate with a word which\nSt.\u00a0James uses twice at the beginning of this Epistle (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2:\ni.\u00a06), and which is there rendered \"doubting\" or \"wavering.\" Of the\nvarious possible meanings of the word before us we may therefore\nprefer \"without doubtfulness.\" The wisdom from above is unwavering,\nsteadfast, single-minded. Thus Ignatius charges the Magnesians (xv.)\nto \"possess an unventuring spirit\" (\u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1), and tells the\nTrallians (i.) that he has \"learned that they have a mind unblameable\nand unwavering in patience\" (\u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1fc7). And Clement of\nAlexandria (_P\u00e6d._ II. iii., p. 190) speaks of \"unwavering faith\"\n(\u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9), and a few lines farther on he reminds his readers,\nin words that suit our present subject, that \"wisdom is not bought\nwith earthly coin, nor is sold in the market, but in heaven.\" If he\nhad said that wisdom is not sold in the market, but _given_ from\nheaven, he would have made the contrast both more pointed and more\ntrue.\n\n\"The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for them that make\npeace.\" The Greek may mean either \"_for_ them that make peace,\" or\n\"_by_ them that make peace;\" and we need not attempt to decide. In\neither case it is the peacemakers who sow the seed whose fruit is\nrighteousness, and the peacemakers who reap this fruit. The whole\nprocess begins, progresses, and ends in peace.\n\nIt is evident that the heavenly wisdom is pre-eminently a _practical_\nwisdom. It is not purely or mainly intellectual; it is not\nspeculative; it is not lost in contemplation. Its object is to\nincrease holiness rather than knowledge, and happiness rather than\ninformation. Its atmosphere is not controversy and debate, but\ngentleness and peace. It is full, not of sublime theories or daring\nhypotheses, but of mercy and good fruits. It can be confident without\nwrangling, and reserved without hypocrisy. It is the twin sister of\nthat heavenly love which \"envieth not, vaunteth not itself, seeketh\nnot its own, is not provoked, taketh no account of evil.\"\n\n[72] Mark Pattison, _Essays: Life of Bishop Warburton_, vol. ii., pp.\n163, 164 (Oxford: 1889).\n\n[73] See Jellett's _Thoughts on the Christian Life_, p. 49 (Dublin:\n1884).\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVIII.\n\n _ST. JAMES AND PLATO ON LUSTS AS THE CAUSES\n OF STRIFE; THEIR EFFECT ON PRAYER._\n\n \"Whence come wars, and whence come fightings among you? come they not\n hence, even of your pleasures which war in your members? Ye lust, and\n have not: ye kill and covet, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war; ye\n have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask\n amiss, that ye may spend it in your pleasures.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES\n iv.\u00a01-13.\n\n\nThe change from the close of the third chapter to the beginning of the\nfourth is startling. St.\u00a0James has just been sketching with much\nbeauty the excellences of the heavenly wisdom, and especially its\nmarked characteristic of always tending to produce an atmosphere of\npeace, in which the seed that produces the fruit of righteousness will\ngrow and flourish. Gentleness, good-will, mercy, righteousness,\npeace--these form the main features of his sketch. And then he\nabruptly turns upon his readers with the question, \"Whence come wars,\nand whence come sightings among you?\"\n\nThe sudden transition from the subject of peace to the opposite is\ndeliberate. Its object is to startle and awaken the consciences of\nthose who are addressed. The wisdom from below produces bitter\njealousy and faction; the wisdom from above produces gentleness and\npeace. Then how is to be explained the origin of the wars and\nfightings which prevail among the twelve tribes of the Dispersion?\nThat ought to set them thinking. These things must be traced to causes\nwhich are earthly or demoniacal rather than heavenly; and if so, those\nwho are guilty of them, instead of contending for the office of\nteaching others, ought to be seriously considering how to correct\nthemselves. Here, again, there is the strangest contradiction between\ntheir professions and their practice. Clement of Rome seems to have\nthis passage in his mind when he writes (_c_. A.D.\u00a097) to the Church\nof Corinth, \"Wherefore are there strifes and wraths, and factions and\ndivisions, and war among you?\" (xlvi.).\n\n\"Wars\" (\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9) and \"fightings\" (\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9) are not to be understood\nliterally. When the text is applied to international warfare between\nChristian states in modern times, or to any case of civil war, it may\nbe so interpreted without doing violence to its spirit; but that is\nnot the original meaning of the words. There was no civil war among\nthe Jews at this time, still less among the Jewish Christians.\nSt.\u00a0James is referring to private quarrels and law-suits, social\nrivalries and factions, and religious controversies. The\nsubject-matter of these disputes and contentions is not indicated,\nbecause that is not what is denounced. It is not for having\ndifferences about this or that, whether rights of property, or posts\nof honour, or ecclesiastical questions, that St.\u00a0James rebukes them,\nbut for the rancorous, greedy, and worldly spirit in which their\ndisputes are conducted. Evidently the lust of possession is among the\nthings which produce the contentions. Jewish appetite for wealth is at\nwork among them.\n\nIt was stated in a former chapter (p. 48) that, there are places in\nthis Epistle in which St.\u00a0James seems to go beyond the precise circle\nof readers addressed in the opening words, and to glance at the whole\nJewish nation, whether outside Palestine or not, and whether Christian\nor not. These more comprehensive addresses are more frequent in the\nsecond half of the Epistle than in the first, and one is inclined to\nbelieve that the passage before us is one of them. In that case we may\nbelieve that the bitter contentions which divided Pharisees,\nSadducees, Herodians, Essenes, Zealots, and Samaritans from one\nanother are included in the wars and fightings, as well as the\nquarrels which disgraced Christian Jews. In any case we see that the\nJews who had entered the Christian Church had brought with them that\ncontentious spirit which was one of their national characteristics.\nJust as St.\u00a0Paul has to contend with Greek love of faction in his\nconverts at Corinth, so St.\u00a0James has to contend with a similar Jewish\nfailing among the converts from Judaism. And it would seem as if he\nhoped through these converts to reach many of those who were not yet\nconverted. What he wrote to Christian synagogues would possibly be\nheard of and noted in synagogues which were not Christian. At any rate\nthis Epistle contains ample evidence that the grievous scandals which\namaze us in the early history of the Apostolic Churches of Corinth,\nGalatia, and Ephesus were not peculiar to converts from heathenism:\namong the Christians of the circumcision, who had had the advantage of\nlife-long knowledge of God and of His law, there were evils as\nserious, and sometimes very similar in kind. The notion that the\nChurch of the Apostolic age was in a condition of ideal perfection is\na beautiful but baseless dream.[74]\n\n\"Whence wars, and whence fightings among you? come they not hence,\neven of your pleasures which war in your members?\" By a common\ntransposition, St.\u00a0James, in answering his own question, puts the\npleasures which excite and gratify the lusts instead of the lusts\nthemselves, in much the same way as we use \"drink\" for intemperance,\nand \"gold\" for avarice. These lusts for pleasures have their quarters\nor camp in the members of the body, _i.e._ in the sensual part of\nman's nature. But they are there, not to rest, but to make war, to go\nafter, and seize, and take for a prey that which has roused them from\ntheir quietude and set them in motion. There the picture, as drawn by\nSt.\u00a0James, ends. St.\u00a0Paul carries it a stage farther, and speaks of\nthe \"different law in my members, warring _against the law of my\nmind_\" (Rom. vii.\u00a023). St.\u00a0Peter does the same, when he beseeches his\nreaders, \"as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lusts,\nwhich war _against the soul_\" (1\u00a0Peter ii.\u00a011); and some commentators\nwould supply either \"against the mind\" or \"against the soul\" here. But\nthere is no need to supply anything, and if one did supply anything\nthe \"wars and sightings _among you_\" would rather lead us to\nunderstand that the lusts in each one's members make war against\neverything which interferes with their gratification, and such would\nbe the possessions and desires of other people. This completion of\nSt.\u00a0James's picture agrees well also with what follows: \"Ye lust, and\nhave not: ye kill and covet, and cannot obtain.\" But it is best to\nleave the metaphor just where he leaves it, without adding anything.\nAnd the fact that he does not add \"against the mind\" or \"against the\nsoul\" is some slight indication that he had not seen either the\npassage in Romans or in the Epistle of St.\u00a0Peter. (See above, p. 57.)\n\nIn the _Ph\u00e6do_ of Plato (66, 67) there is a beautiful passage, which\npresents some striking coincidences with the words of St.\u00a0James.\n\"Wars, and factions, and sightings have no other source than the body\nand its lusts. For it is for the getting of wealth that all our wars\narise, and we are compelled to get wealth because of our body, to\nwhose service we are slaves; and in consequence we have no leisure for\nphilosophy, because of all these things. And the worst of all is that\nif we get any leisure from it, and turn to some question, in the midst\nof our inquiries the body is everywhere coming in, introducing turmoil\nand confusion, and bewildering us, so that by it we are prevented from\nseeing the truth. But indeed it has been proved to us that if we are\never to have pure knowledge of anything we must get rid of the body,\nand with the soul by itself must behold things by themselves. _Then_,\nit would seem, we shall obtain the wisdom which we desire, and of\nwhich we say that we are lovers; when we are dead, as the argument\nshows, but in this life not. For if it be impossible while we are in\nthe body to have pure knowledge of anything, then of two things\none--either knowledge is not to be obtained at all, or after we are\ndead; for then the soul will be by itself, apart from the body, but\nbefore that not. And in this life, it would seem, we shall make the\nnearest approach to knowledge if we have no communication or\nfellowship whatever with the body, beyond what necessity compels, and\nare not filled with its nature, but remain pure from its taint, until\nGod Himself shall set us free. And in this way shall we be pure, being\ndelivered from the foolishness of the body, and shall be with other\nlike souls, and shall know of ourselves all that is clear and\ncloudless, and that is perhaps all one with the truth.\"\n\nPlato and St.\u00a0James are entirely agreed in holding that wars and\nfightings are caused by the lusts that have their seat in the body,\nand that this condition of fightings without, and lusts within, is\nquite incompatible with the possession of heavenly wisdom. But there\nthe agreement between them ceases. The conclusion which Plato arrives\nat is that the philosopher must, so far as is possible, neglect and\nexcommunicate his body, as an intolerable source of corruption,\nyearning for the time when death shall set him free from the burden of\nwaiting upon this obstacle between his soul and the truth. Plato has\nno idea that the body may be sanctified here and glorified hereafter;\nhe regards it simply as a necessary evil, which may be minimized by\nwatchfulness, but which can in no way be turned into a blessing. The\nblessing will come when the body is annihilated by death. St.\u00a0James,\non the contrary, exhorts us to cut ourselves off, not from the body,\nbut from friendship with the world. If we resist the evil one, who\ntempts us through our ferocious lusts, he will flee from us. God will\ngive us the grace we need, if we pray for that rather than for\npleasures. He will draw nigh to us if we draw nigh to Him; and if we\npurify our hearts He will make His Spirit to dwell in them. Even in\nthis life the wisdom that is from above is attainable, and where that\nhas found a home factions and fightings cease. When the passions cease\nto war, those who have hitherto been swayed by their passions will\ncease to war also. But those whom St.\u00a0James addresses are as yet very\nfar from this blessed condition.\n\n\"Ye lust, and have not: ye kill and covet, and cannot obtain: ye fight\nand war.\" In short, sharp, telling sentences he puts forth the items\nof his indictment; but it is not easy to punctuate them\nsatisfactorily, nor to decide whether \"ye kill\" is to be understood\nliterally or not. In none of the English versions does the punctuation\nseem to bring out a logical sequence of clauses. The following\narrangement is suggested for consideration: \"Ye lust, and have not; ye\nkill. And ye covet, and cannot obtain; ye fight and war.\" In this way\nwe obtain two sentences of similar meaning, which exactly balance one\nanother. \"Ye lust, and have not,\" corresponds with, \"Ye covet, and\ncannot obtain,\" and \"ye kill\" with \"ye fight and war;\" and in each\nsentence the last clause is the consequence of what precedes. \"Ye\nlust, and have not; _therefore_ ye kill.\" \"Ye covet, and cannot\nobtain; _therefore_ ye fight and war.\" This grouping of the clauses\nyields good sense, and does no violence to the Greek.\n\n\"Ye lust, and have not; therefore ye kill.\" Is \"kill\" to be understood\nliterally? That murder, prompted by avarice and passion, was common\namong the Christian Jews of the Dispersion, is quite incredible. That\nmonstrous scandals occurred in the Apostolic age, especially among\nGentile converts, who supposed that the freedom of the Gospel meant\nlax morality, is unquestionable; but that these scandals ever took the\nform of indifference to human life we have no evidence. And it is\nspecially improbable that murder would be frequent among those who,\nbefore they became Christians, had been obedient to the Mosaic Law.\nSt.\u00a0James may have a single case in his mind, like that of the\nincestuous marriage at Corinth; but in that case he would probably\nhave expressed himself differently. Or again, as was suggested above,\nhe may in this section be addressing the whole Jewish race, and not\nmerely those who had become converts to Christianity; and in that case\nhe may be referring to the brigandage and assassination which a\ncombination of causes, social, political, and religious, had rendered\ncommon among the Jews, especially in Palestine, at this time. Of this\nevil we have plenty of evidence both in the New Testament and in\nJosephus. Barabbas and the two robbers who were crucified with Christ\nare instances in the Gospels. And with them we may put the parable of\nthe man \"who fell among robbers,\" and was left half-dead between\nJerusalem and Jericho; for no doubt the parable, like all Christ's\nparables, is founded on fact, and is no mere imaginary picture. In the\nActs we have Theudas with his four hundred followers (B.C.\u00a04), Judas\nof Galilee (A.D.\u00a06), and the Egyptian with his four thousand\n\"Assassins,\" or _Sicarii_ (A.D.\u00a058); to whom we may add the forty who\nconspired to assassinate St.\u00a0Paul (v.\u00a036, 37; xxi.\u00a038; xxiii.\u00a012-21).\nAnd Josephus tells us of another Theudas, who was captured and put to\ndeath with many of his followers by the Roman Procurator Cuspius Fadus\n(c. A.D.\u00a045); and he also states that about fifty years earlier, under\nVarus, there were endless disorders in Jud\u00e6a, sedition and robbery\nbeing almost chronic. The brigands inflicted a certain amount of\ndamage on the Romans, but the murders which they committed were on\ntheir fellow-countrymen the Jews (_Ant._ XVII. x.\u00a04, 8; XX. v. i).[75]\n\nIn either of these ways, therefore, the literal interpretation of a\n\"kill\" makes good sense; and we are not justified in saying, with\nCalvin, that \"kill in no way suits the context.\" Calvin, with Erasmus,\nBeza, Hornejus, and others, adopts the violent expedient of correcting\nthe Greek from \"kill\" (\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5) to \"envy\" (\u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5), a reading for\nwhich not a single MS., version, or Father can be quoted. It is\naccepted, however, by Tyndale and Cranmer and in the Genevan Bible,\nall of which have, \"Ye _envy_ and have indignation, and cannot\nobtain.\" Wiclif and the Rhemish of course hold to the _occiditis_ of\nthe Vulgate, the one with \"slay,\" and the other with \"kill.\"\n\nBut although the literal interpretation yields good sense, it is\nperhaps not the best interpretation. It was pointed out above that \"ye\nkill\" balances \"ye fight and war,\" and that \"wars and fightings\"\nevidently are _not_ to be understood literally, as the context shows.\nIf then, \"ye fight and war\" means \"ye quarrel, and dispute, and\nintrigue, and go to law with one another,\" ought not \"ye kill\" to be\nexplained in a similar way? Christ had said, \"Ye have heard that it\nwas said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall\nkill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That\nevery one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the\njudgment\" (Matt. v.\u00a021, 22). And St.\u00a0John tells us that \"every one who\nhateth his brother is a murderer\" (1\u00a0John iii.\u00a015). \"Every one who\nhateth\" (\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd) is an uncompromising expression, and it\ncovers all that St.\u00a0James says here. Just as the cherished lustful\nthought is adultery in the heart (Matt. v.\u00a028), so cherished hatred is\nmurder in the heart.\n\nBut there is an explanation, half literal and half metaphorical, which\nis well worth considering. It has been pointed out how frequently\nSt.\u00a0James seems to have portions of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in his\nmind. We read there that \"the bread of the needy is the life of the\npoor: he that defraudeth him thereof is a man of blood. He that taketh\naway his neighbour's living slayeth him (\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd); and he that\ndefraudeth the labourer of his hire is a blood-shedder\" (xxxiv.\u00a021,\n22). If St.\u00a0James was familiar with these words, and still more if he\ncould count on his readers also being familiar with them, might he not\nmean, \"Ye lust, and have not; and then, to gratify your desire, you\ndeprive the poor of his living\"? Even Deut. xxiv.\u00a06 might suffice to\ngive rise to such a strong method of expression: \"No man shall take\nthe mill or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man's life\nto pledge.\" Throughout this section the language used is strong, as if\nthe writer felt very strongly about the evils which he condemns.\n\nWhile \"ye lust, and have not, and thereupon take a man's livelihood\nfrom him,\" would refer specially to _possessions_, \"Ye covet (or envy)\nand cannot obtain, and thereupon fight and war,\" might refer specially\nto _honours_, _posts_, and _party advantages_. The word rendered\n\"covet\" (\u03b6\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b5) is that which describes the thing which love never\ndoes: \"Love _envieth_ not\" (1\u00a0Cor. xiii.\u00a04). When St.\u00a0James was\nspeaking of the wisdom from below (iii.\u00a014-16) the kind of quarrels\nwhich he had chiefly in view were party controversies, as was natural\nafter treating just before of sins of the tongue. Here the wars and\nfightings are not so much about matters of controversy as those things\nwhich minister to a man's \"pleasures,\" his avarice, his sensuality,\nand his ambition.\n\nHow is it that they have not all that they want? How is that there is\nany need to despoil others, or to contend fiercely with them for\npossession? \"Ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not,\nbecause ye ask amiss.\" _That_ is the secret of these gnawing wants and\nlawless cravings. They do not try to supply their needs in a way that\nwould cause loss to no one, viz. by prayer to God; they prefer to\nemploy violence and craft against one another. Or if they do pray for\nthe supply of their earthly needs, they obtain nothing, because they\npray with evil intent. To pray without the spirit of prayer is to\ncourt failure. That God's will may be done, and His Name glorified, is\nthe proper end of all prayer. To pray simply that our wishes may be\nsatisfied is not a prayer to which fulfilment has been promised; still\nless can this be the case when our wishes are for the glorification of\nour lusts. Prayer for advance in holiness we may be sure is in\naccordance with God's will. About prayer for earthly advantages we\ncannot be sure; but we may pray for things so far as they are to His\nglory and for our own spiritual welfare. Prayer for earthly goods,\nwhich are to be used as instruments, not of His pleasure, but of ours,\nwe may be sure is not in accordance with His will. To such a prayer we\nneed expect no answer, or an answer which at the same time is a\njudgment; for the fulfilment of an unrighteous prayer is sometimes its\nmost fitting punishment.\n\nSt.\u00a0James is not blaming his readers for asking God to give them\nworldly prosperity. About the lawfulness of praying for temporal\nblessings, whether for ourselves or for others, there is no question.\nSt.\u00a0John prays that Gaius \"in all things may prosper and be in health,\neven as his soul prospereth\" (3\u00a0John 2), and St.\u00a0James plainly implies\nthat when one has temporal needs one _ought_ to bring them before God\nin prayer, only with a right purpose and in a right spirit. In the\nnext chapter he specially recommends prayer for the recovery of the\nsick. The asking amiss consists not in asking for temporal things, but\nin seeking them for a wrong purpose, viz. that they may be squandered\nin a life of self-indulgence. The right purpose is to enable us to\nserve God better. Temporal necessities are often a hindrance to good\nservice, and then it is right to ask God to relieve them. But in all\nsuch things the rule laid down by Christ is the safe one, \"Seek ye\n_first_ the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these\nthings shall be added unto you.\" A life consecrated to the service of\nGod is the best prayer for temporal blessings. Prayer that is offered\nin a grasping spirit is like that of the bandit for the success of his\nraids.\n\n[74] See the volume on the _Pastoral Epistles_ in this series, pp.\n264, 265.\n\n[75] If \u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 is taken with what follows, it is best to render\n\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b5 \"Ye act as Assassins and Zealots,\" referring both\nwords to the fanatics who a little later killed James himself, and\nwere the hasteners of the downfall of Jerusalem.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIX.\n\n _THE SEDUCTIONS OF THE WORLD, AND THE JEALOUSY\n OF THE DIVINE LOVE._\n\n \"Ye adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is\n enmity with God? Whosoever, therefore, would be a friend of the world\n maketh himself an enemy of God. Or think ye that the Scripture\n speaketh in vain? Doth the Spirit which He made to dwell in us long\n unto envying? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore the Scripture\n saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the\n humble.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES iv.\u00a04-6.\n\n\nThe Revisers are certainly right in rejecting, without even mention in\nthe margin, the reading, \"Ye _adulterers and_ adulteresses.\" The\ndifficulty of the revised reading pleads strongly in its favour, and\nthe evidence of MSS. and versions is absolutely decisive. The\ninterpolation of the masculine was doubtless made by those who\nsupposed that the term of reproach was to be understood literally, and\nwho thought it inexplicable that St.\u00a0James should confine his rebuke\nto female offenders.\n\nBut the context shows that the term is not to be understood literally.\nIt is not a special kind of sensuality, but greed and worldliness\ngenerally, that the writer is condemning. It is one of the\ncharacteristics of the letter that being addressed to Jewish, and not\nGentile converts, and occasionally to Jews whether Christians or not,\nit says very little about the sins of the flesh; and \"adulteresses\"\nhere is no exception. The word is used in its common Old Testament\nsense of spiritual adultery--unfaithfulness to Jehovah regarded as the\nHusband of His people. \"They that are far from Thee shall perish: Thou\nhast destroyed all them that go a-whoring from Thee\" (Ps. lxxiii.\u00a027).\n\"Thus will I make thy lewdness to cease from thee, and thy whoredom\nbrought from the land of Egypt\" (Ezek. xxiii.\u00a027). \"Plead with your\nmother, plead; for she is not My wife, neither am I her Husband\" (Hos.\nii.\u00a02). The fifty-seventh chapter of Isaiah contains a terrible\nworking out of this simile; and indeed the Old Testament is full of\nit. Our Lord is probably reproducing it when he speaks of the Jews of\nHis own time as an \"adulterous and sinful generation\" (Matt. xii.\u00a039;\nxvi.\u00a04; Mark viii.\u00a038). And we find it again in the Apocalypse\n(ii.\u00a022).\n\nBut why does St.\u00a0James use the feminine? Had he accused his readers of\nadultery, or called them an adulterous generation, the meaning would\nhave been clear enough. What is the exact meaning of \"Ye adulteresses\"?\n\nSt.\u00a0James wishes to bring home to those whom he is addressing that not\nonly the Christian Church as a whole, or the chosen people as a whole,\nis espoused to God, but that each individual soul stands to Him in the\nrelation of a wife to her husband. It is not merely the case that they\nbelong to a generation which in the main has been guilty of\nunfaithfulness, and that in this guilt they share; but each of them,\ntaken one by one, has in his or her own person committed this sin\nagainst the Divine Spouse. The sex of the person does not affect the\nrelationship: any soul that has been wedded to God, and has then\ntransferred its affection and allegiance to other beings, is an\nunfaithful wife. St.\u00a0James, with characteristic simplicity,\ndirectness, and force, indicates this fact by the stern address, \"Ye\nadulteresses.\"\n\n\"Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?\" He\nimplies that they might know this, and that they can scarcely help\ndoing so; it is so obvious that to love His opponent is to be\nunfaithful and hostile to Him. At the beginning of the section\nSt.\u00a0James had asked whence came the miserable condition in which his\nreaders were found; and he replied that it came from their own\ndesires, which they tried to gratify by intrigue and violence, instead\nof resorting to prayer; or else from the carnal aims by which they\nturned their prayers into sin. Here he puts the same fact in a\nsomewhat different way. This vehement pursuit of their own pleasures,\nin word, and deed, and even in prayer--what is it but a desertion of\nGod for Mammon, a sacrifice of the love of God to the friendship (such\nas it is) of the world? It is a base yielding to seductions which\nought to have no attractiveness, for they involve the unfaithfulness\nof a wife and the treason of a subject. There can be no true and loyal\naffection for God while some other than God is loved, and not loved\nfor His sake. If a woman \"shall put away her husband, and marry\nanother, she committeth adultery\" (Mark xi.\u00a012); and if a soul shall\nput away its God, and marry another, it committeth adultery. A wife\nwho cultivates friendship with one who is trying to seduce her becomes\nthe enemy of her husband; and every Christian and Jew ought to know\n\"that the friendship of the world is enmity with God.\"\n\nSt.\u00a0John tells us (and the words are probably not his, but Christ's)\nthat \"God loved the world\" (John iii.\u00a016). He also charges us _not_ to\nlove the world (1\u00a0John ii.\u00a015). And here St.\u00a0James tells us that to be\nfriends with the world is to be the enemy of God. It is obvious that\n\"the world\" which God loves is not identical with \"the world\" which we\nare told not to love. \"World\" (\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2) is a term which has various\nmeanings in Scripture, and we shall go seriously astray if we do not\ncarefully distinguish them. Sometimes it means the whole universe in\nits order and beauty; as when St.\u00a0Paul says, \"For the invisible things\nof Him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being\nperceived through the things that are made\" (Rom. i.\u00a020). Sometimes it\nmeans this planet, the earth; as when the evil one showed to Jesus\n\"all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them\" (Matt. iv.\u00a08).\nAgain, it means the inhabitants of the earth; as when Christ is said\nto \"take away the sin of the world\" (John i.\u00a02; 1\u00a0John iv.\u00a014).\nLastly, it means those who are alienated from God--unbelievers,\nfaithless Jews and Christians, and especially the great heathen\norganization of Rome (John viii.\u00a023; xii.\u00a031). Thus a word which\noriginally signified the natural order and beauty of creation comes to\nsignify the unnatural disorder and hideousness of creatures who have\nrebelled against their Creator. The world which the Father loves is\nthe whole race of mankind, His creatures and His children. The world\nwhich we are not to love is that which prevents us from loving Him in\nreturn, His rival and His enemy. It is from this world that the truly\nreligious man keeps himself unspotted (i.\u00a025). Sinful men, with their\nsinful lusts, keeping up a settled attitude of disloyalty and\nhostility to God, and handing this on as a living tradition, is what\nSt.\u00a0Paul, and St.\u00a0James, and St.\u00a0John mean by \"the world.\"\n\nThis world has the devil for its ruler (John xiv.\u00a030). It lies wholly\nin the power of the evil one (1\u00a0John v.\u00a019). It cannot hate Christ's\nenemies, for the very reason that it hates Him (John vii.\u00a07). And for\nthe same reason it hates all those whom He has chosen out of its midst\n(xv.\u00a018, 19). Just as there is a Spirit of God, which leads us into\nall the truth, so there is a \"spirit of the world,\" which leads to\njust the opposite (1\u00a0Cor. ii.\u00a012). This world, with its lusts, is\npassing away (1\u00a0John ii.\u00a017), and its very sorrow worketh death\n(2\u00a0Cor. vii.\u00a010). \"The world is human nature, sacrificing the\nspiritual to the material, the future to the present, the unseen and\nthe eternal to that which touches the senses and which perishes with\ntime. The world is a mighty flood of thoughts, feelings, principles of\naction, conventional prejudices, dislikes, attachments, which have\nbeen gathering around human life for ages, impregnating it, impelling\nit, moulding it, degrading it. Of the millions of millions of human\nbeings who have lived, nearly every one probably has contributed\nsomething, his own little addition, to the great tradition of\nmaterialized life which St.\u00a0[James] calls the world. Every one, too,\nmust have received something from it. According to his circumstances\nthe same man acts upon the world, or in turn is acted on by it. And\nthe world at different times wears different forms. Sometimes it is a\nsolid compact mass, an organization of pronounced ungodliness.\nSometimes it is a subtle, thin, hardly suspected influence, a power\naltogether airy and impalpable, which yet does most powerfully\npenetrate, inform, and shape human life.\"[76]\n\nThere is no sin in a passionate love of the ordered beauty and harmony\nof the universe, as exhibited either in this planet or in the\ncountless bodies which people the immensity of space; no sin in\ndevoting the energies of a lifetime to finding out all that can be\nknown about the laws and conditions of nature in all its complex\nmanifestations. Science is no forbidden ground to God's servants, for\nall truth is God's truth, and to learn it is a revelation of Himself.\nIf only it be studied as His creature, it may be admired and loved\nwithout any disloyalty to Him.\n\nStill less is there any sin in \"the enthusiasm of humanity,\" in a\npassionate zeal for the amelioration of the whole human race. A\nconsuming love for one's fellow-men is so far from involving enmity to\nGod that it is impossible to have any genuine love of God without it.\n\"He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen cannot love God whom\nhe hath not seen\" (1\u00a0John iv.\u00a020). The love of the world which\nSt.\u00a0James condemns is a passion which more than anything else renders\na love of mankind impossible. Its temper is selfishness, and the\nprinciple of its action is the conviction that every human being is\nactuated by purely selfish motives. It has no belief in motives of\nwhich it has no experience either in itself or in those among whom it\nhabitually moves. Next to a cultivation of the love of God, a\ncultivation of the love of man is the best remedy for the deadly\nparalysis of the heart which is the inevitable consequence of\n_choosing_ to be a friend of the world.\n\nThis choice is a very important element in the matter. It is lost in\nthe Authorized Version, but is rightly restored by the Revisers.\n\"Whosoever, therefore, _would be_ (\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc7 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9) a friend of the\nworld _maketh himself_ (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) an enemy of God.\" It is useless\nfor him to plead that he has no wish to be hostile to God. He has of\nhis own free will adopted a condition of life which of necessity\ninvolves hostility to Him. And he has full opportunity of knowing\nthis; for although the world may try to deceive him by confusing the\nissue, God does not. The world may assure him that there is no need of\nany choice: he has no need to abandon God; it is quite easy to serve\nGod, and yet remain on excellent terms with the world. But God\ndeclares that the choice must be made, and that it is absolute and\nexclusive. \"And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of\nthee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to\nlove Him, and to serve the Lord thy God with _all_ thy heart and with\n_all_ thy soul, to keep the commandments of the Lord, and His\nstatutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?\" (Deut. x.\u00a012,\n13; comp. vi.\u00a05 and xxx.\u00a06).\n\nThe next two verses are a passage of known difficulty, the most\ndifficult in this Epistle, and one of the most difficult in the whole\nof the New Testament. In the intensity of his detestation of the evil\nagainst which he is inveighing, St.\u00a0James has used condensed\nexpressions which can be understood in a variety of ways, and it is\nscarcely possible to decide which of the three or four possible\nmeanings is the one intended. But the question has been obscured by\nthe suggestion of explanations which are not tenable. The choice lies\nbetween those which are given in the margin of the Revised Version and\nthe one before us in the text; for we may safely discard all those\nwhich depend upon the reading \"_dwelleth_ in us\" (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff4\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd), and we\nmust stand by the reading \"_made to dwell_ in us\" (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff4\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd).\n\nThe questions which cannot be answered with certainty are these: 1.\nAre two Scriptures quoted, or only one? and if two are quoted, where\nis the first of them to be found? 2. Who is it that \"longeth\" or\n\"lusteth?\" is it God, or the Holy Spirit, or our own human spirit? 3.\nWhat is it that is longed for by God or the Spirit? Let us take these\nthree questions in order.\n\n1. The words which follow \"Think ye that the Scripture speaketh in\nvain?\" do not occur in the Old Testament, although the sense of them\nmay be found piecemeal in a variety of passages. Therefore, either the\nwords are not a quotation at all, or they are from some book no longer\nextant, or they are a condensation of several utterances in the Old\nTestament.[77] The first of these suppositions seems to be the best,\nbut neither of the others can be set aside as improbable. We may\nparaphrase, therefore, the first part of the passage thus:--\n\n\"Ye unfaithful spouses of Jehovah! know ye not that to be friendly\nwith the world is to be at enmity with Him? Or do ye think that what\nthe Scripture says about faithlessness to God is idly spoken?\" But as\nregards this first question we must be content to remain in great\nuncertainty.\n\n2. Who is it that \"longeth\" or \"lusteth\" (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6)? To decide\nwhether \"longeth\" or \"lusteth\" is the right translation will help us\nto decide this second point, and it will also help us to decide\nwhether the sentence is interrogative or not. Is this word of desiring\nused here in the good sense of longing or yearning, or in the bad\nsense of lusting? The word occurs frequently in the New Testament, and\nin every one of these passages it is used in a good sense (Rom. i.\u00a011;\n2\u00a0Cor. v.\u00a02; ix.\u00a014; Phil. i.\u00a08; ii.\u00a026; 1\u00a0Thess. iii.\u00a010; 2\u00a0Tim.\ni.\u00a04; 1\u00a0Peter ii.\u00a02). Nor is this the whole case. Substantives and\nadjectives which are closely cognate with it are fairly common, and\nthese are all used in a good sense (Rom. xv.\u00a023; 2\u00a0Cor. vii.\u00a07;\nvii.\u00a011; Phil. iv.\u00a01). We may therefore set aside the interpretations\nof the sentence which require the rendering \"lusteth,\" whether the\nstatement that man's spirit lusteth enviously, or the question, Doth\nthe Divine Spirit in us lust enviously? The word here expresses the\nmighty and affectionate longing of the Divine love. And it is the\n_Spirit_ which God made to dwell in us which longeth over us with a\njealous longing. If we make the sentence mean that _God_ longeth, then\nwe are compelled to take the Spirit which He made to dwell in us as\nthat for which He longs; God has a jealous longing for His own Spirit\nimplanted in us. But this does not yield very good sense; we decide,\ntherefore, for the rendering, \"Even unto jealousy doth the Spirit\nwhich He made to dwell in us yearn over us.\" \"Even unto jealousy;\"\nthese words stand first, with great emphasis. No friendship with the\nworld or any alien object can be tolerated.\n\n3. The third question has been solved by the answer to the second.\nThat which is yearned for by the Spirit implanted in us is ourselves.\nThe meaning is not that God longs for man's spirit (the human spirit\nwould hardly be spoken of as that which God \"made to dwell in us\"), or\nthat He longs for the Holy Spirit in us (a meaning which would be very\nhard to explain), but that His Holy Spirit yearns for us with a\njealous yearning. God is a jealous God, and the Divine love is a\njealous love; it brooks no rival. And when His Spirit takes up its\nabode in us it cannot rest until it possesses us wholly, to the\nexclusion of all alien affections.\n\nAt one of the conferences between the Northern and the Southern States\nof America during the war of 1861-1866 the representatives of the\nSouthern States stated what cession of territory they were prepared to\nmake, provided that the independence of the portion that was not ceded\nto the Federal Government was secured. More and more attractive offers\nwere made, the portions to be ceded being increased, and those to be\nretained in a state of independence being proportionately diminished.\nAll the offers were met by a steadfast refusal. At last President\nLincoln placed his hand on the map so as to cover all the Southern\nStates, and in these emphatic words delivered his ultimatum:\n\"Gentlemen, this Government _must have the whole_.\" The constitution\nof the United States was at an end if any part, however small, was\nallowed to become independent of the rest. It was a vital principle,\nwhich did not admit of exceptions or degrees. It must be kept in its\nentirety, or it was not kept at all.\n\nJust such is the claim which God, by the working of His Spirit, makes\nupon ourselves. He cannot share us with the world, however much we may\noffer to Him, and however little to His rival. If a rival is admitted\nat all, our relation to Him is violated and we have become unfaithful.\nHis government _must have the whole_.\n\nDo these terms seem to be harsh? They are not really so, for the more\nwe surrender, the more He bestows. We give up the world, and that\nappears to us to be a great sacrifice. \"But He giveth more grace.\"\nEven in this world He gives far more than we give up, and adds a crown\nof life in the world to come (i.\u00a012). \"Verily I say unto you, There is\nno man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or\nfather, or children, or lands, for My sake, and for the Gospel's sake,\nbut he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and\nbrethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with\npersecutions; and in the world to come eternal life\" (Mark x.\u00a029, 30).\n\"God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.\" Those who\npersist in making friends with the world, in seeking its advantages,\nin adopting its standards, in accepting its praise, God resists. By\nchoosing to throw in their lot with His enemy they have made\nthemselves His enemies, and He cannot but withstand them. But to those\nwho humbly submit their wills to His, who give up the world, with its\ngifts and its promises, and are willing to be despised by it in order\nto keep themselves unspotted from it, He gives grace--grace to cling\ncloser to Him, in spite of the attractions of the world; a gift which,\nunlike the gifts of the world, never loses its savour.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWas St.\u00a0James acquainted with the _Magnificat_? May not he, the Lord's\nbrother, have sometimes heard the Mother of the Lord recite it? The\npassage before us is almost like an echo of some of its words: \"His\nmercy is unto generations and generations of them that fear Him. He\nhath showed strength with His arm; He hath scattered the proud in the\nimagination of their heart. He hath put down princes from their\nthrones, and hath exalted them of low degree. The hungry He hath\nfilled with good things; and the rich He hath sent empty away.\" At any\nrate the _Magnificat_ and St.\u00a0James teach the same lesson as the Book\nof Proverbs and St.\u00a0Peter, who, like St.\u00a0James, quotes it (1\u00a0Peter\nv.\u00a05), that God resists and puts down those who choose to unite\nthemselves with the world in preference to Him, and gives more and\nmore graces and blessings to all who by faith in Him and His Christ\nhave overcome the world. It is only by faith that we _can_ overcome. A\nconviction that the things which are seen are the most important and\npressing, if not the only realities, is sure to betray us into a state\nof captivity in which the power to work for God, and even the desire\nto serve Him, will become less and less. We have willed to place\nourselves under the world's spell, and such influence as we possess\ntells not for God, but against Him. But a belief that the chief and\nnoblest realities are unseen enables a man to preserve an attitude of\nindependence and indifference towards things which, even if they are\nsubstantial advantages, belong to this world only. He knows how\ninsignificant all that this life has to offer is, compared with the\nimmeasurable joys and woes of the life to come, and he cannot be\nguilty of the folly of sacrificing a certain and eternal future to a\nbrief and uncertain present. The God in whom he believes is far more\nto him than the world which he sees and feels. \"This is the victory\nwhich hath overcome the world, even his faith.\"\n\n[76] Liddon, _Easter Sermons_, vol. ii., pp. 56, 57 (Rivingtons, 1885).\n\n[77] Comp. 1\u00a0Cor. ii.\u00a09; ix.\u00a010; Eph. v.\u00a014, in all which places we\nhave quotations the source of which cannot be determined. Similar\nphenomena are frequent in patristic literature. See A. Resch's\n_Agrapha; Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente_ in _Texte und\nUntersuchungen z. Gesch. d. Altchr. Lit._ (Leipzig, 1889), p. 256.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XX.\n\n _THE POWER OF SATAN AND ITS LIMITS. HUMILITY THE FOUNDATION\n OF PENITENCE AND OF HOLINESS._\n\n \"Be subject therefore unto God; but resist the devil, and he will\n flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you.\n Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye\n double-minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter\n be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves\n in the sight of the Lord, and He shall exalt\n you.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES iv.\u00a07-10.\n\n\nSubmission to God is the beginning, middle, and end of the prodigal's\nreturn from disastrous familiarity with the world to the security of\nthe Father's home. A readiness to submit to whatever He may impose is\nthe first step in the conversion, just as unwillingness to surrender\none's own will is the first step towards revolt and desertion. \"I am\nno more worthy to be called Thy son: make me as one of Thy hired\nservants.\" As soon as the resolve to make this act of submission is\nformed, the turning-point between friendship with the world and\nfidelity to God has been passed. The homeward path is not an easy one,\nbut it is certain, and those who unflinchingly take it are sure of a\nwelcome at the end of it. The prodigal was tenderly received back by\nhis offended father, and these adulterous souls will be admitted to\ntheir old privileges again, if they will but return. God has given\nthem no bill of divorcement to put them away for ever (Isa. l.\u00a01). \"If\na man put away his wife, and she go from him and become another man's,\nshall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly\npolluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return\nagain to Me, saith the Lord\" (Jer. iii.\u00a01). An amount of mercy and\nforgiveness which cannot be shown by an earthly husband to his\nunfaithful wife is readily promised by God.\n\nBut the return must be a complete one. There must be every guarantee\nthat the penitent is in earnest and has utterly broken with the past.\nAnd St.\u00a0James with affectionate sternness points out the necessary\nsteps towards reconciliation. He will not be guilty of the crime of\nthose who \"have healed the hurt of the daughter of My people lightly,\nsaying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace\" (Jer. viii.\u00a011). The\nresults of intimacy with the world cannot be undone in a day, and\nthere is painful work to be done before the old relationship can be\nrestored between the soul and its God.\n\nAmong the most grievous consequences of yielding to the world and its\nways are the weakening of the will and the lowering of the moral tone.\nThey come gradually, but surely; and they act and react upon one\nanother. The habitual shirking of the sterner duties of life, and the\nliving in an atmosphere of self-indulgence, enervate the will; and the\nconscious adoption of a standard of life which is not approved by\nconscience is in itself a lowering of tone. And this is one of the\nessential elements of worldliness. The pleas that \"I can't help it,\"\nand that \"everybody does it,\" are among the most common excuses urged\nby those whose citizenship is not in heaven (Phil. iii.\u00a020) but in\nthat commonwealth of which Satan is the presiding power. They like to\nbelieve that temptations are irresistible, and that there is no\nobligation to rise above the standard of morality which those about\nthem profess to accept. Such men deliberately surrender to what they\nknow to be evil, and place what they think to be expedient above what\nthey know to be right, forgetting that even the worldlings who set\nthem this low standard, and openly defend it, very often do not really\napprove it, but despise while they applaud the man that conforms to it.\n\nSt.\u00a0James enters an earnest and simple protest against the weak plea\nthat temptations are irresistible. To maintain _that_ is to assert\nthat the evil one has more will and power to destroy mankind than God\nhas to save them. The truth is exactly the other way. God not only\nallows to Satan no power to coerce a man into sin, but He Himself is\never ready to aid when He is faithfully prayed to do so. Every\nChristian is endowed with sufficient power to withstand Satan, if only\nthe will to withstand is present, because he has the power to summon\nGod to his assistance. \"Resist the devil, and he will flee from you;\"\nthat is one side of the blessed truth; and the other is its\ncorrelative: \"Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you.\"\n\nIt will be observed that St.\u00a0James, quite as much as St.\u00a0Peter, or\nSt.\u00a0Paul, or St.\u00a0John, speaks of the chief power of evil as a\n_person_. The passage is not intelligible on any other interpretation;\nfor there is a manifest and telling antithesis between the devil who\nyields to opposition, and the God who responds to invitation. It is a\ncontrast between two personal agencies. Whether St.\u00a0James was aware of\nthe teaching of the Apostles on this point is not of great moment; his\nown teaching is clear enough. As a Jew he had been brought up in the\nbelief that there are evil spiritual beings of whom Satan is the\nchief, and since he became a Christian he had never been required to\nrevise this belief. He was probably well aware of the teaching of\nJesus Christ as to the real source of temptations. He may have heard\nChrist's own interpretation of the birds in the parable of the Sower:\n\"And when they have heard, straightway cometh Satan, and taketh away\nthe word which hath been sown in them\" (Mark iv.\u00a015). He probably had\nheard of Christ's declaration to St.\u00a0Peter, \"Simon, Simon, behold,\nSatan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat: but I made\nsupplication for thee, that thy faith fail not\" (Luke xxii.\u00a031), where\nwe have a contrast similar to this, an infernal person on one side,\nand a Divine Person on the other, of the man assailed by temptation.\nHow easy to have interpreted the birds in the parable as the\nimpersonal solicitations of a depraved nature, the hearers' own evil\ntendencies; and perhaps if we had not possessed Christ's own\nexplanation we should so have explained the birds by the wayside. But\nChrist seems to have made use of this, the queen of all the parables\n(Mark iv.\u00a013), in order to teach that a personal enemy there is, who\nis ever on the watch to deprive us of what will save our souls. And\nthe warning to St.\u00a0Peter might easily have been given in a form that\nwould not have implied a personal tempter. Nor do these two striking\npassages stand alone in our Lord's teaching. How unnecessary to speak\nof the woman who \"was bowed together, and could in nowise lift up\nherself,\" as one \"whom Satan had bound,\" unless He desired to sanction\nand enforce this belief (Luke xiv.\u00a011, 16). And why speak of having\n\"beheld Satan fall as lightning from heaven\" (Luke x.\u00a018), unless He\nhad this desire? When the Jews said that He cast out devils by the aid\nof the prince of the devils, it would have been a much more complete\ncontradiction to have replied that no such person existed, than to\nargue that Satan was not likely to fight against his own interests. If\nthe belief in personal powers of evil is a superstition, Jesus Christ\nhad ample opportunities of correcting it; and He not only steadfastly\nabstained from doing so, but in very marked ways, both by His acts and\nby His teaching, He did a great deal to encourage and inculcate the\nbelief. He showed no sympathy with the scepticism of the Sadducees\nabout such things. He argued convincingly against them as regards the\ndoctrine of the resurrection and a future life, and He gave full\nsanction to the belief in angels and spirits, both good and bad. There\nis no need to lay much stress upon the disputed meaning of the last\npetition in the Lord's Prayer; the evidence is quite ample without\nthat. Yet those who are convinced that \"Lead us not into temptation,\nbut deliver us from the evil,\" must mean, \"Lead us not into\ntemptation, _but_ deliver us from _the tempter_,\" have a very\nimportant piece of evidence to add to all the rest. Is a gross\nsuperstition embodied in the very wording of the model prayer?\n\nIn the volume in this series which treats of the Pastoral Epistles is\na passage on this subject respecting which a very friendly critic has\nsaid that he cannot quite see the force of it.[78] As the argument is\nof value, it may be worth while to state it here more clearly. The\nstatement criticized is the concluding sentence of the following\npassage: \"It has been said that if there were no God we should have to\ninvent one; and with almost equal truth we might say that if there\nwere no devil we should have to invent one. Without a belief in God\nbad men would have little to induce them to conquer their evil\npassions; _without a belief in a devil good men would have little hope\nof ever being able to do so_.\"[79] The meaning of the last statement\nis this, that if good men were compelled to believe that all the\ndevilish suggestions which rise up in their minds come _from\nthemselves alone_, they might well be in despair of ever getting the\nbetter of themselves or of curing a nature capable of producing such\noffspring. But when they know that \"a power, _not_ themselves, which\nmakes for\" wickedness is the source of these diabolical temptations,\nthen they can have confidence that their own nature is not so\nhopelessly corrupt but that, with the help of \"the Power, not\nthemselves, that makes for _righteousness_\" they will be able to gain\nthe victory.\n\nThe plea that the devil is irresistible, and that therefore to yield\nto temptation is inevitable, is only another form of the fallacy,\nagainst which St.\u00a0James has already protested, of trying to shift the\nresponsibility of temptation from oneself to God (i.\u00a013-15). It is the\nold fallacy carried a stage farther. The former plea has reference to\nthe temptation; the present one has reference to the fall. As regards\nboth the facts are conclusive. We often provoke our own temptations;\nwe always can resist them if we in faith draw nigh to God for\nprotection. \"To this end the Son of man was manifested, that He might\ndestroy the works of the devil\" (1\u00a0John iii.\u00a08). And the Son of God\npreserveth every child of God, \"and the evil one toucheth him not\"\n(1\u00a0John v.\u00a018). But the man himself must consent and co-operate, for\nGod saves no man against his will. \"Return unto Me, and I will return\nunto you,\" is the principle of the Old Covenant (Zech. i.\u00a03); and\n\"Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you,\" is the principle of\nthe New.\n\nThe converse of this is true also, and it is a fact of equal solemnity\nand of great awfulness. Resist _God_, and He will depart from you.\nDraw nigh to the _devil_, and he will draw nigh to you. If we persist\nin withstanding God's grace, He will at last leave us to ourselves.\nHis Spirit will not always strive with us; but at last He Himself\nhardens the heart which we have closed against him, for He allows\nthings to take their course, and the heart which refuses to be\nsoftened by the dew of His grace must become harder and harder. And\nthe more we place ourselves in the devil's way, by exposing ourselves\nto needless temptations, the more diligently he will seek us and abide\nwith us. Those who voluntarily take up their abode in the tents of\nungodliness have surrendered all claim to be kept unspotted from the\nworld. They have lost their right to join in the cry, \"Why standest\nThou afar off, O Lord? why hidest Thou Thyself in times of trouble?\"\n\nBut the hands which one raises in prayer to God must be cleansed by\nwithholding them from all evil practices, and from all grasping after\nthe contaminating gifts of the world; and the heart must be purified\nby the quenching of unholy desires and the cultivation of a godly\nspirit. In this St.\u00a0James is but repeating the principles laid down by\nthe Psalmist: \"Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? and who\nshall stand in His holy place? He that hath _clean hands_ and a _pure\nheart_\" (Ps. xxiv.\u00a03, 4). And in similar language we find Clement of\nRome exhorting the Corinthians, \"Let us therefore approach Him in\n_holiness of soul_, lifting up _pure and undefiled hands_ unto Him\"\n(xxix.). In all these instances the external instruments of human\nconduct are mentioned along with the internal source of it.\n\nSt.\u00a0James is not addressing two classes of people when he says,\n\"Cleanse your hands, ye _sinners_; and purify your hearts, ye\n_double-minded_.\" Every one whose hands have wrought unrighteousness\nis a sinner who needs this cleansing; and every one who attempts to\ndraw nigh to God, without at the same time surrendering all unholy\ndesires, is a double-minded man who needs this purification. The\n\"halting between two opinions,\" between God and Mammon, and between\nChrist and the world, is fatal to true conversion and efficacious\nprayer. What is necessary, therefore, for these sinners of double\nmind, is outward amendment of life and inward purification of the\ndesires. \"The sinner that goeth two ways\" must with \"a single eye\"\ndirect his path along the narrow way. \"Whoso walketh uprightly shall\nbe delivered; but he that walketh perversely in two ways shall fall at\nonce\" (Prov. xxviii.\u00a018). The whole exhortation is in spirit very\nsimilar to the second half of the second chapter of Ecclesiasticus.\nNote especially the concluding verses: \"They that fear the Lord will\nprepare their hearts and humble their souls in His sight, saying, We\nwill fall into the hands of the Lord, and not into the hands of men;\nfor as His majesty is, so is His mercy.\"\n\nThere must be no \"light healing,\" or treatment of the grievous sins of\nthe past as of no moment. There must be genuine sorrow for the\nunfaithfulness which has separated them so long from their God, and\nfor the pride which has betrayed them into rebellion against Him. \"Be\nafflicted, and mourn, and weep.\" The first verb refers to the inward\nfeeling of wretchedness, the other two to the outward expression of\nit. These two are found in combination in several passages, both in\nthe Old Testament and in the New (2\u00a0Sam. xix.\u00a02; Neh. viii.\u00a09; Mark\nxvi.\u00a010; Luke vi.\u00a025; Rev. xviii.\u00a015, 19). The feelings of\nsatisfaction and self-sufficiency in which these friends of the world\nhave hitherto indulged, and the glowing complacency which has been\nmanifest in their demeanour, have been quite out of place, and must be\nexchanged for feelings and manifestations of grief. Their worldly\nmerriment also must be abandoned; those who have cut themselves off\nfrom God have no true spring of joy. \"Let your laughter be turned to\nmourning, and your joy to heaviness.\" The last word (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1), which\noccurs nowhere else in Scripture, refers primarily to the dejected\nlook which accompanies heaviness of heart. The writer of the Book of\nWisdom uses the adjective (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c6\u03ae\u03c2) to express the \"_gloomy_ phantoms\nwith unsmiling faces\" which he supposes to have appeared to the\nEgyptians during the plague of darkness (xvii.\u00a04). The term admirably\nexpresses the opposite of boisterous lightheartedness.\n\nSt.\u00a0James ends as he began, with submission to the Almighty. He began\nhis exhortation as to the right method of conversion with \"Be subject\nunto God.\" He ends with \"Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord,\nand He will exalt you.\" The root of their worldliness and their\ngrasping at wealth and honour is pride and self-will, and the cure for\nthat is self-abasement and self-surrender. If it is God's will that\nthey should occupy a lowly place in society, let them humbly accept\ntheir lot, and not try to change it by violence or fraud. If they will\nbut remember their own transgressions against the Lord, they will\nadmit that the humblest place is not too humble for their merits; and\nit is the humble whom God delights to honour. Here, again, St.\u00a0James\nis reproducing the teaching of his Divine Brother: \"Every one that\nexalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall\nbe exalted\" (Luke xiv.\u00a011; Matt. xxiii.\u00a012). And the Old Testament\nteaches the same lesson. \"The humble person He shall save,\" says\nEliphaz the Temanite (Job xxii.\u00a029); and the Psalmist gives us both\nsides of the Divine law of compensation: \"Thou wilt save the afflicted\npeople; but the haughty eyes Thou wilt bring down\" (xviii.\u00a027).\n\n\"Humble _yourselves_;\" \"He that humbleth _himself_.\" Everything\ndepends on that. It must be _self_-abasement. There is nothing\nmeritorious in chancing to be in a humble position, still less in\nbeing _forced_ to descend to one. It is the voluntary acceptance, or\nthe choice, of a lowly place that is pleasing to God. We must choose\nit as knowing that we deserve nothing better, and as wishing that\nothers should be promoted rather than ourselves. And this must be done\n\"_in the sight of the Lord_;\" not in self-consciousness, to \"to be\nseen of men,\" which is \"the pride that apes humility,\" but in the\nconsciousness of the ineffable presence of God. That is the source of\nall true self-abasement and humility. To realize that we are in the\npresence of the All-holy and All-pure, in whose sight the stars are\nnot clean, and who charges even the angels with folly, is to feel that\nall differences of merit between man and man have faded away in the\nimmeasurable abyss which separates our own insignificance and\npollution from the majesty of His holiness. \"Now mine eye seeth Thee.\nWherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes,\" is the\nlanguage of Job (xlii.\u00a05, 6). And it was the same feeling which wrung\nfrom St.\u00a0Peter, as he fell down at Jesus' knees, the agonizing cry,\n\"Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord\" (Luke v.\u00a08). Hence it\nis that the most saintly persons are always the most humble; for they\nrealize most perfectly the holiness of God and the ceaselessness of\nHis presence, and are therefore best able to appreciate the contrast\nbetween their own miserable imperfections and His unapproachable\npurity. The language which they at times use about themselves is\nsometimes suspected of unreality and exaggeration, if not of downright\nhypocrisy; but it is the natural expression of the feelings of one who\nknows a great deal about the difference between a creature who is\nhabitually falling into sin and One who, in holiness, as in wisdom and\npower, is absolute and infinite perfection. Humility is thus the\nbeginning and end of all true religion. The sinner who turns to God\nmust be humble; and this is the humility which St.\u00a0James is urging.\nAnd the saint, as he approaches nearer to God, will be humble; for he\nknows what the approach has cost him, and how very far off he still\nremains.\n\n\"And He will exalt you.\" This is the result, not the motive. To strive\nto be humble _in order_ to be exalted would be to poison the virtue at\nits source. Just as the conscious pursuit of happiness is fatal to its\nattainment, so also the conscious aim at Divine promotion. The way to\nbe happy is not to think about one's own happiness, but to sacrifice\nit to that of others; and the way to be exalted by God is not to think\nof one's own advancement, but to devote oneself to the advancement of\nothers. The exaltation is sure to come, if only humility is attained;\nan exaltation of which there is a foretaste even in this life, but the\nfull fruition of which lies in those unknown glories which await the\nhumble Christian in the world to come.\n\nNOTE.--It may be that in the phrase \"Resist the devil\" we have an echo\nof another unrecorded utterance of Christ, of which we have possible\ntraces also in St.\u00a0Paul's \"Stand against the wiles of the devil\" (Eph.\nvi.\u00a011), and St.\u00a0Peter's \"Whom withstand, steadfast in your faith\"\n(1\u00a0Peter v.\u00a09). Comp. Shepherd of Hermas, _Mand._ XII. v.\u00a02; iv.\u00a07;\nTestament of the Twelve Patriarchs, _Neph._ viii., where James iv.\u00a07\n(or its source) would seem to be quoted.\n\n[78] _Sunday School Chronicle_, March 15th, 1889; also the _Durham\nChronicle_, Jan. 31st, 1890.\n\n[79] _Expositor's Bible: Pastoral Epistles_ (Hodder and Stoughton,\n1888), p. 80.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXI.\n\n _SELF-ASSURANCE AND INVASION OF DIVINE PREROGATIVES\n INVOLVED IN THE LOVE OF CENSURING OTHERS._\n\n \"Speak not one against another, brethren. He that speaketh against a\n brother, or judgeth his brother, speaketh against the law, and\n judgeth the law: but if thou judgest the law, thou art not a doer of\n the law, but a judge. One only is the Lawgiver and Judge, even He who\n is able to save and to destroy: but who art thou that judgest thy\n neighbour?\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES iv.\u00a011, 12.\n\n\nFrom sins which are the result of a want of love to God St.\u00a0James\npasses on, and abruptly, to some which are the result of a want of\nlove for one's neighbour. But in thus passing on he is really\nreturning to his main subject, for the central portion of the Epistle\nis chiefly taken up with one's duty towards one's neighbour. And of\nthis duty he again singles out for special notice the necessity for\nputting a bridle on one's tongue (i.\u00a026; iii.\u00a01-12). Some have\nsupposed that he is addressing a new class of readers; but the much\ngentler address, \"brethren,\" as compared with \"ye adulteresses\" (ver.\n4), \"ye sinners,\" \"ye double-minded\" (ver. 8), does not at all compel\nus to suppose that. After a paragraph of exceptional sternness, he\nreturns to his usual manner of addressing his readers (i.\u00a02, 16, 19;\nii.\u00a01, 5, 14; iii.\u00a01, 10, 12; v.\u00a07, 9, 10, 12, 19), and with all the\nmore fitness because the address \"brethren\" is in itself an indirect\nreproof for unbrotherly conduct. It implies what Moses expressed when\nhe said, \"Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another?\"\n(Acts vii.\u00a026).\n\n\"Speak not against one another, brethren.\" The context shows what kind\nof adverse speaking is meant. It is not so much abusive or calumnious\nlanguage that is condemned, as the _love of finding fault_. The\ncensorious temper is utterly unchristian. It means that we have been\npaying an amount of attention to the conduct of others which would\nhave been better bestowed upon our own. It means also that we have\nbeen paying this attention, not in order to help, but in order to\ncriticize, and criticize unfavourably. It shows, moreover, that we\nhave a very inadequate estimate of our own frailty and shortcomings.\nIf we knew how worthy of blame we ourselves are, we should be much\nless ready to deal out blame to others. But over and above all this,\ncensoriousness is an invasion of the Divine prerogatives. It is not\nmerely a transgression of the royal law of love, but a setting oneself\nabove the law, as if it were a mistake, or did not apply to oneself.\nIt is a climbing up on to that judgment-seat on which God alone has\nthe right to sit, and a publishing of judgments upon others which He\nalone has the right to pronounce. This is the aspect of it on which\nSt.\u00a0James lays most stress.\n\n\"He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth a brother, speaketh\nagainst the law and judgeth the law.\" St.\u00a0James is probably not\nreferring to Christ's command in the Sermon on the Mount, \"Judge not,\nthat ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be\njudged\" (Matt. vii.\u00a01, 2). It is a law of far wider scope that is in\nhis mind, the same as that of which he has already spoken, \"the\nperfect law, the law of liberty\" (i.\u00a025); \"the royal law, according to\nthe Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself\" (ii.\u00a08). No\none who knows this law, and has at all grasped its meaning and scope,\ncan suppose that observance of it is compatible with habitual\ncriticism of the conduct of others, and frequent utterance of\nunfavourable judgments respecting them. No man, however _willing_ he\nmay be to have his conduct laid open to criticism, is _fond_ of being\nconstantly subjected to it. Still less can any one be fond of being\nmade the object of slighting and condemnatory remarks. Every man's\npersonal experience has taught him that; and if he loves his neighbour\nas himself, he will take care to inflict on him as little pain of this\nkind as possible. If, with full knowledge of the royal law of charity,\nand with full experience of the vexation which adverse criticism\ncauses, he still persists in framing and expressing unfriendly\nopinions respecting other people, then he is setting himself up as\nsuperior, not only to those whom he presumes to judge, but to the law\nitself. He is, by his conduct, condemning the law of love as a bad\nlaw, or at least as so defective that a superior person like himself\nmay without scruple disregard it. In judging and condemning his\nbrother he is judging and condemning the law; and he who condemns a\nlaw assumes that he is in possession of some higher principle by which\nhe tests it and finds it wanting. What is the higher principle by\nwhich the censorious person justifies his contempt for the law of\nlove? He has nothing to show us but his own arrogance and\nself-confidence. _He_ knows what the duty of other persons is, and how\nsignally they fall short of it. To talk of \"hoping all things, and\nenduring all things,\" and of \"taking not account of evil,\" may be all\nvery well theoretically of an ideal state of society; but in the very\nfar from ideal world in which we have to live it is necessary to keep\none's eye open to the conduct of other people, and to keep them up to\nthe mark by letting them and their acquaintances know what we think of\nthem. It is no use mincing matters or being mealy-mouthed; wherever\nabuses are found, or even suspected, they must be denounced. And if\nother persons neglect their duty in this particular, the censorious\nman is not going to share such responsibility. This is the kind of\nreasoning by which flagrant violations of the law of love are\nfrequently justified. And such reasoning, as St.\u00a0James plainly shows,\namounts really to this, that those who employ it know better than the\nDivine Lawgiver the principles by which human society ought to be\ngoverned. He has clearly promulgated a law; and they ascend His\njudgment-seat, and intimate that very serious exceptions and\nmodifications are necessary; indeed, that in some cases the law must\nbe entirely superseded. _They_, at any rate, are not bound by it.\n\nThis proneness to judge and condemn others is further proof of that\nwant of humility about which so much was said in the previous section.\nPride, the most subtle of sins, has very many forms, and one of them\nis the love of finding fault; that is, the love of assuming an\nattitude of superiority, not only towards other persons, but towards\nthe law of charity and Him who is the Author of it. To a truly humble\nman this is impossible. He is accustomed to contrast the outcome of\nhis own life with the requirements of God's law, and to know how awful\nis the gulf which separates the one from the other. He knows too much\nagainst himself to take delight in censuring the faults of others.\nCensoriousness is a sure sign that he who is addicted to it is\nignorant of the immensity of his own shortcomings. No man who\nhabitually considers his own transgressions will be eager to be severe\nupon the transgressions of others, or to usurp functions which require\nfull authority and perfect knowledge for their equitable and adequate\nperformance.\n\nCensoriousness brings yet another evil in its train. Indulgence in the\nhabit of prying into the acts and motives of others leaves us little\ntime and less liking for searching carefully into our own acts and\nmotives. The two things act and react upon one another by a natural\nlaw. The more seriously and frequently we examine ourselves, the less\nprone we shall be to criticize others; and the more pertinaciously we\nbusy ourselves about the supposed shortcomings and delinquencies of\nour neighbours, the less we are likely to investigate and realize our\nown grievous sins. All the more will this be the case if we are in the\nhabit of _giving utterance_ to the uncharitable judgments which we\nlove to frame. He who constantly expresses his detestation of evil by\ndenouncing the evil doings of his brethren is not the man most likely\nto express his detestation of it by the holiness of his own life; and\nthe man whose whole life is a protest against sin is not the man most\ngiven to protesting against sinners. To be constantly speculating, to\nbe frequently deciding, to be ready to make known our decisions, as to\nwhether this man is \"awakened\" or not, whether he is \"converted\" or\nnot, whether he is a \"Catholic\" or not, whether he is a \"sound\nChurchman\" or not--what is this but to climb up into the White Throne,\nand with human ignorance and prejudice anticipate the judgments of\nDivine Omniscience and Justice, as to who are on the right hand, and\nwho on the left?\n\n\"One only is Lawgiver and Judge, even He who is able to save and to\ndestroy.\" There is one and only one Source of all law and authority,\nand that Source is God Himself. Jesus Christ affirmed the same\ndoctrine when He consented to plead, as a prisoner charged with many\ncrimes, before the judgment-seat of His own creature, Pontius Pilate.\n\"Thou wouldest have no power against Me, except it were given thee\nfrom above\" (John xix.\u00a011). It was Christ's last word to the Roman\nProcurator, a declaration of the supremacy of God in the government of\nthe world, and a protest against the claim insinuated in \"I have power\nto release Thee, and I have power to crucify Thee,\" to be possessed of\nan authority that was irresponsible. Jesus declared that Pilate's\npower over Himself was the result of a Divine commission; for the\npossession and exercise of all authority is the gift of God, and can\nhave no other origin. And this sole Fount of authority, this one only\nLawgiver and Judge, has no need of assessors. While He delegates some\nportions of His power to human representatives, He requires no man, He\nallows no man, to share his judgment-seat, or to cancel or modify His\nlaws. It is one of those cases in which the possession of power is\nproof of the possession of right. \"He who is _able_ to save and to\ndestroy,\" who has the power to execute sentences respecting the weal\nand woe of immortal souls, has the right to pronounce such sentences.\nMan has no right to frame and utter such judgments, because he has no\npower to put them into execution; and the practice of uttering them is\na perpetual usurpation of Divine prerogatives. It is an approach to\nthat sin which brought about the fall of the angels.\n\nIs not the sin of a censorious temper in a very real sense diabolical?\nIt is Satan's special delight to be \"the accuser of the brethren\"\n(Rev. xii.\u00a010). His names, Satan (\"adversary\") and devil (\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 =\nmalicious accuser\"), bear witness to this characteristic, which is\nbrought prominently forward in the opening chapters of the Book of\nJob.[80] It is of the essence of censoriousness that its activity is\ndisplayed with a sinister motive. The charges are commonly uttered,\nnot to the person who is blamed, but to others, who will thereby be\nprejudiced against him; or if they are made to the man's own face, it\nis with the object of inflicting pain, rather than with the hope of\nthereby inducing him to amend. It is no \"speaking truth in love\" (Eph.\niv.\u00a015), but reckless or malevolent speaking evil, without much caring\nwhether it be true or false. It is a poisoning of the wells out of\nwhich respect and affection for our fellow-men flow. Thus the\npresumption which grasps at functions that belong to God alone leads\nto a fall and a course of action which is indeed Satanical.\n\n\"One only is the Lawgiver and the Judge, even He who is able to save\nand to destroy.\" St.\u00a0Peter and St.\u00a0Paul teach the same doctrine in\nthose Epistles which (as has been already pointed out) it is\n_possible_ that the writer of this Epistle may have seen. \"Be subject\nto every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the\nking, as supreme (_i.e._ to the Roman Emperor); or unto governors, as\nsent by him\" (1\u00a0Peter ii.\u00a013). However much of human origination\n(\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b7) there may be about civil government, yet its\nsanctions are Divine. And St.\u00a0Paul affirms that its real origin is\nDivine also: \"There is no power but of God; and the powers that be are\nordained of God\" (Rom. xiii.\u00a01). The ultimate sanction of even\nPilate's misused jurisdiction was \"from above;\" and it was to\ninhabitants of Rome, appalled by the frantic atrocities of Nero, that\nSt.\u00a0Paul declared that the authority of their Emperor existed by \"the\nordinance of God.\" If to resist this delegated authority be a serious\nmatter, how much more to attempt to anticipate or to contradict the\njudgments of Him from whom it springs!\n\n\"But who art thou, that judgest thy neighbour?\" St.\u00a0James concludes\nthis brief section against the sin of censoriousness by a telling\n_argumentum ad hominem_. Granted that there are grave evils in some of\nthe brethren among whom and with whom you live; granted that it is\nquite necessary that these evils should be noticed and condemned; are\nyou precisely the persons that are best qualified to do it? Putting\naside the question of authority, what are your personal qualifications\nfor the office of a censor and a judge? Is there that blamelessness of\nlife, that gravity of behaviour, that purity of motive, that severe\ncontrol of tongue, that freedom from contamination from the world,\nthat overflowing charity which marks the man of pure religion? To such\na man finding fault with his brethren is real pain; and therefore to\nbe _fond_ of finding fault is strong evidence that these necessary\nqualities are not possessed. Least of all is such a one fond of\ndisclosing to others the sins which he has discovered in an erring\nbrother. Indeed, there is scarcely a better way of detecting our own\n\"secret faults\" than that of noticing what blemishes we are most prone\nto suspect and denounce in the lives of our neighbours. It is often\nour own personal acquaintance with iniquity that makes us suppose that\nothers must be like ourselves. It is our own meanness, dishonesty,\npride, or impurity that we see reflected on what is perhaps only the\nsurface of a life whose secret springs and motives lie in a sphere\nquite beyond our grovelling comprehension. Here, again, St.\u00a0James is\nquite in harmony with St.\u00a0Paul, who asks the same question: \"Who art\nthou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth\nor falleth.... But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou\nagain, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand\nbefore the judgment-seat of God?\" (Rom. xiv.\u00a04, 10).\n\n * * * * *\n\nBut are not St.\u00a0James and St.\u00a0Paul requiring of us what is impossible?\nIs it not beyond our power to avoid forming judgments about our\nbrethren? Certainly this is beyond our power, and we are not required\nto do anything so unreasonable as to attempt to avoid such inevitable\njudgments. Whenever the conduct of others comes under our notice we\nnecessarily form some kind of an opinion of it, and it is out of these\nopinions and judgments, of which we form many in the course of a day,\nthat our own characters are to a large extent slowly built up; for the\nway in which we regard the conduct of others has a great influence\nupon our own conduct. But it is not this necessary judging that is\ncondemned. What is condemned is the inquisitorial examination of our\nneighbours' views and actions, undertaken without authority and\nwithout love. Such judging is sinister in its purpose, and is\ndisappointed if it can find nothing to blame. It is eager, rather than\nunwilling, to think evil, its prejudices being against, rather than in\nfavour of, those whom it criticizes. To discover some grievous form of\nwrong-doing is not a sorrow, but a delight.\n\nBut what both St.\u00a0James and St.\u00a0Paul condemn, even more than the habit\nof forming these unfavourable judgments about our neighbours, is the\ngiving effect to them. \"_Speak_ not one against another.\" \"Why dost\nthou _set at nought_ thy brother?\" This at any rate we all can avoid.\nHowever difficult, or impossible, it may be to avoid forming\nunfavourable opinions of other people, we can at any rate abstain from\npublishing such opinions to the world. The temper which delights in\ncommunicating suspicions and criticisms is even more fatal than the\nhabit of forming and cherishing them; it is the difference between a\ndisease which is infectious, and one which is not. The bitterness and\nmisery which are caused by the love of evil speaking is incalculable.\nIt is one enormous item in that tragic sum of human suffering which is\nentirely preventable. Much of human suffering is inevitable and\nincurable; it may be compensated or consoled, but it can be neither\nescaped nor remedied. There is much, however, that need never be\nincurred at all, that is utterly wanton and gratuitous. And this\npathetic burden of utterly needless misery in great measure consists\nof that which we heedlessly or maliciously inflict upon one another by\nmaking known, with quite inadequate reason, our knowledge or suspicion\nof the misconduct of other people. Experience seems to do little\ntowards curing us of this fault. Over and over again we have\ndiscovered, after having communicated suspicions, that they are\nbaseless. Over and over again we have found out that to disclose what\nwe know to the discredit of a neighbour does more harm than good. And\nnot infrequently we have ourselves had abundant reason to wish that we\nhad never spoken; for curses are not the only kind of evil speaking\nthat is wont to \"come home to roost.\" And yet, each time that the\ntemptation occurs again, we persuade ourselves that it is our duty to\nspeak out, to put others on their guard, to denounce an unquestionable\nabuse, and so forth. And forthwith we set the whisper in motion, or we\nwrite a letter to the papers, and the supposed delinquent is \"shown\nup.\" An honest answer to the questions, \"Should I say this of him if\nhe were present? Why do I not speak to him about it, instead of to\nothers? Am I sorry or glad to make this known?\" would at once make us\npause, and perhaps abstain. They would lead us to see that we are not\nundertaking a painful duty, but needlessly indulging an unchristian\ncensoriousness, and thereby inflicting needless pain. It is not given\nto many of us to do a great deal towards making other persons holier;\nbut it is within the power of all of us to do a very great deal\ntowards making others happier; and one of the simplest methods of\ndiminishing the miseries and increasing the joys of society is to\nmaintain a firm control over our tempers and our tongues, and to\nobserve to the utmost St.\u00a0James's pregnant rule, \"Speak not one\nagainst another, brethren.\"\n\n[80] Dr. Hatch thinks that in both the Septuagint and the New\nTestament \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, when used as a proper name, has \"the general\nconnotation of enmity, and without implying accusation, whether true\nor false.\" As an adjective it has its usual meaning of \"slanderous\"\n(1\u00a0Tim. iii.\u00a011; 2\u00a0Tim. iii.\u00a03; Titus ii.\u00a03) (_Biblical Greek_ pp. 46,\n47).\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXII.\n\n _SELF-ASSURANCE AND INVASION OF DIVINE PREROGATIVES\n INVOLVED IN PRESUMING UPON OUR FUTURE.\n THE DOCTRINE OF PROBABILISM._\n\n \"Go to now, ye that say, To-day or to-morrow we will go into this\n city, and spend a year there, and trade, and get gain: whereas ye\n know not what shall be on the morrow. What is your life? For ye are a\n vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.\n For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall both live, and\n do this or that. But now ye glory in your vauntings: all such\n glorying is evil. To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth\n it not, to him it is sin.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES iv.\u00a013-17.\n\n\nWorldliness and want of humility are the two kindred subjects which\nform the groundwork of this portion of the Epistle. This fourth\nchapter falls into three main divisions, of which the third and last\nis before us; and these two subjects underlie all three. In the first\nthe arrogant grasping after the pleasures, honours, and riches of the\nworld, in preference to the love of God, is condemned. In the second\nthe arrogant judging of others in defiance of the Divine law of\ncharity is forbidden. In the third arrogant trust in the security of\nhuman undertakings, without consideration of God's will, is denounced.\nThe transition from the false confidence which leads men to judge\nothers with a light heart, to the false confidence which leads men to\naccount the future as their own, is easily made; and thus once more,\nwhile we seem to be abruptly passing to a fresh topic, we are really\nmoving quite naturally from one branch of the main subject to another.\nThe assurance which finds plenty of time for censuring others, but\nlittle or none for censuring self, is closely akin to the assurance\nwhich counts on having plenty of time for all its schemes, without\nthought of death or of the Divine decrees. This, then, is the subject\nbefore us--presumptuous security as to future undertakings. The future\nis God's, not ours, just as to judge mankind belongs to Him, and not\nto us. Therefore to think and speak of the future as if we had the\npower to control it is as presumptuous as to think and speak of our\nfellow-men as if we had the power to judge them. In both cases we\nassume a knowledge and an authority which we do not possess.\n\n\"Go to now\" (\u1f04\u03b3\u03b5 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03c9) is a vigorous form of address, which occurs\nnowhere in the New Testament, excepting here and at the beginning of\nthe next section. Although originally an imperative singular, it has\nbecome so completely an adverb that it can be used, as here, when a\nnumber of persons are addressed. It serves to attract attention. Those\nwho think that they can acquit themselves of the charge of\ncensoriousness have yet another form of presumptuous confidence to\nconsider. The parable of the Rich Fool, who said to his soul, \"Soul,\nthou hast much good laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat,\ndrink, and be merry\" (Luke xii.\u00a019), should be compared with this\nexhortation. And it is remarkable that it was just after our Lord had\nrefused to be made a judge over two contending brothers that He spoke\nthe parable of the Rich Fool.\n\nThere is no special emphasis on \"ye that _say_,\" as if the meaning\nwere, \"ye who not only have these presumptuous thoughts, but dare to\nutter them.\" In the previous section giving utterance to unfavourable\njudgments about one's neighbours is evidently worse than merely\nthinking them, and is a great aggravation of the sin; but here\nthinking and saying are much the same. The presumptuous people look\nfar ahead, think every step in the plan quite secure, and speak\naccordingly. To-day and to-morrow are quite safe. The journey to the\nproposed city is quite safe. That they will spend a year there is\nregarded as certain, and that they will be able to spend it as they\nplease, viz. in trading. Lastly, they have no doubts as to the success\nof the whole enterprise; they will \"get gain.\" All this is thought of\nand spoken of as being entirely within their own control. They have\nonly to decide on doing it, and the whole will be done. That there is\na Providence which needs to be considered is entirely left out of\nsight. That not even their own lives can be counted on for a single\nday is a fact that is equally ignored.\n\nIt was long ago remarked that \"All men are mortal\" is a proposition\nwhich each man believes to be true of every one excepting himself. Not\nthat any one seriously believes that he himself will be exempt from\ndeath; but each one of us habitually thinks and acts as if in his case\ndeath were such an indefinite distance off that practically there is\nno need to take account of it--at any rate at present. The young and\nthe strong rarely think of death as a subject that calls for serious\nattention. Those who are past the prime of life still think that they\nhave many years of life in store. And even those who have received the\nsolemn warning which is involved in reaching man's allotted threescore\nand ten years remember with satisfaction that many persons have\nreached fourscore and ten or more, and that therefore there is good\nreason for believing that they themselves have a considerable portion\nof life still in front of them. Perhaps the man of ninety finds\nhimself sometimes thinking, if not talking to others, of what he means\nto do, not only to-morrow, but next year.\n\nSuch habits of thought and language are very common, and a man has to\nbe carefully on the watch against himself, in order to avoid them.\nThey are entirely opposed to the spirit of both the Old and the New\nTestament, and in the most literal sense of the term may be\nstigmatized as _godless_. The security which ignores the will of God\nin its calculations, and thinks and acts as an independent power, is\ngodless. Dependence upon God is the centre both of Judaism and of\nChristianity. A story of the Rabbinists brings this out as clearly on\nthe Jewish side as the parable of the Rich Fool does on the Christian.\nAt his son's circumcision a Jewish father set wine that was seven\nyears old before his guests, with the remark that with this wine he\nwould continue for a long time to celebrate the birth of his son. The\nsame night the Angel of Death meets the Rabbi Simeon, who accosts him\nand asks him, \"Why art thou thus wandering about?\" \"Because,\" said the\nangel, \"I slay those who say, We will do this or that, and think not\nhow soon death may come upon them. The man who said that he would\ncontinue for a long time to drink that wine shall die in thirty days.\"\nIt is in this way that \"the _careless ease_ of fools shall destroy\nthem\" (Prov. i.\u00a032). And hence the warning, \"Boast not thyself of\nto-morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth\" (Prov.\nxxvii.\u00a01). The man who makes plans for the future without taking\naccount of Providence is not far removed from \"the fool, who says in\nhis heart, There is no God\" (Ps. xiv.\u00a01; liii.\u00a01). \"Set not thy heart\nupon thy goods; and say not, I have enough for my life. Follow not\nthine own mind and thy strength, to walk in the ways of thy heart; and\nsay not, Who shall control me? for the Lord will surely avenge thy\npride\" (Ecclus. v.\u00a01-3). \"There is that waxeth rich by his wariness\nand pinching, and this is the portion of his reward. Whereas he saith,\nI have found rest, and now will eat continually of my good; and yet he\nknoweth not what time shall come upon him, and that he must leave\nthose things to others, and die\" (Ecclus. xi.\u00a018, 19).\n\nThe Cyrenaics and their more refined followers the Epicureans started\nfrom the same premises, viz. the utter uncertainty of the future, and\nthe inability of man to control it, but drew from them a very\ndifferent conclusion. Dependence upon God was one of the last\ndoctrines likely to be inculcated by those who contended that there is\nno such thing as Providence, for the gods do not concern themselves\nwith the affairs of men. True wisdom, they said, will consist in the\nskilful, calm, and deliberate appropriation of such pleasure as our\ncircumstances afford moment by moment, unruffled by passion,\nprejudice, or superstition. The present alone is ours, and we must\nresolutely make the most of it, without remorse for a past which we\ncan never alter, and without disquietude about a future which we\ncannot determine, and may never possess. This is not very profound as\nphilosophy, for in the wear and tear of life it can neither fortify\nnor console; and as a substitute for religion it is still less\nsatisfying. The whole difference which separates Paganism from\nChristianity lies between two such stanzas as these;--\n\n \"Quid sit futurum cras, fuge qu\u00e6rere; et\n Quem Fors dierum cunque dabit, lucro\n Appone, nec dulces amores\n Sperne puer neque tu choreas;\"\n\nand--\n\n \"Lead, kindly Light, amid th' encircling gloom,\n Lead Thou me on:\n The night is dark, and I am far from home;\n Lead Thou me on.\n Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see\n The distant scene; one step enough for me.\"[81]\n\n\"We will go into this city, _and_ spend a year there, _and_ trade,\n_and_ get gain.\" The frequent conjunctions separate the different\nitems of the plan, which are rehearsed thus one by one with manifest\nsatisfaction. The speakers gloat over the different steps of the\nprogramme which they have arranged for themselves. St.\u00a0James selects\ntrading and getting gain as the end of the supposed scheme, partly in\norder to show that the aims of these presumptuous schemers are utterly\nworldly, and partly because a restless activity in commercial\nenterprise was a common feature among the Jews of the Dispersion. Such\npursuits are not condemned; but they are liable to become too\nabsorbing, especially when not pursued in a God-fearing way; and it is\nthis which St.\u00a0James denounces.\n\n\"Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. What is your life?\nFor ye are a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then\nvanisheth away.\" It is not easy to determine the original Greek text\nwith certainty, but about the general sense there is no doubt. It is\npossible, however, that we ought to read, \"Whereas ye know not as to\nthe morrow of what kind your life will be: for ye are a vapour,\" etc.\nIn any case \"Whereas ye know not\" represents words which literally\nmean, \"Since ye are people _of such nature_ as not to know\" (\u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5). As human beings, whose life is so full of changes\nand surprises, it is impossible for them to know what vicissitudes the\nnext day will bring. The real uncertainty of life is in marked\ncontrast to their unreal security.\n\n\"What is your life?\" Of what kind is it? What is its nature (\u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1)?\nBede remarks that St.\u00a0James does not ask, \"What is _our_ life?\" He\nsays, \"What is _your_ life?\" It is the value of the life of the\ngodless that is in question, not that of the godly. Those who, by\ntheir forgetfulness of the Unseen, their desire for material\nadvantages, and their friendliness with the world, have made\nthemselves enemies of God--what is their life worth? Such persons \"are\na vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.\"\nBut it may be doubted whether St.\u00a0James is here speaking of the\nemptiness of an _ungodly_ life. He is addressing godless persons, and\nin rebuking them reminds them how unstable and fleeting life is, not\nmerely to them, but to all men. It is the same thought as we find in\nJob's complaint, \"As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he\nthat goeth down to the grave shall come up no more\" (vii.\u00a09); and we\nshall see that in the next two sections (v.\u00a01-6, 7-11) there are\ncoincidences with the Book of Job (see pp. 281, 291). But it is\nperhaps the Book of Wisdom that is specially in the writer's mind:\n\"Our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be\ndispersed as a mist, that is driven away with the beams of the sun,\nand overcome with the heat thereof\" (ii.\u00a04). \"For the hope of the\nungodly is like dust that is blown away with the wind; like a thin\nfroth that is driven away with the storm; like as the smoke which is\ndispersed here and there with a tempest, and passeth away as the\nremembrance of a guest that tarrieth but a day\" (v.\u00a014). And if these\npassages _are_ the source of St.\u00a0James's metaphor, Bede's\ninterpretation becomes more probable; for in both of them it is the\nlife of the ungodly that is likened to everything that is\nunsubstantial and transitory.[82]\n\n\"For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall both live, and\ndo this or that.\" We must beware of understanding these words in such\na way as to lose the spirit of them. It is one of many passages of\nScripture which are often taken according to the letter, when the\nletter is of little or no importance. As in so much of the teaching in\nthe Sermon on the Mount, we have a _principle_ given in the form of a\n_rule_. Rules are given that they may be observed literally.\nPrinciples are given that they may be applied intelligently and\nobserved according to their spirit. We do not obey Christ when we\nallow the thief who has taken our upper garment to have our under one\nalso; nor do we obey St.\u00a0James when we say, \"If the Lord will,\" or\n\"Please God,\" of every future event, and make a plentiful use of\n\"D.V.\" in all our correspondence. Nor is it enough to say that\neverything depends upon the _spirit_ in which the second garment is\nsurrendered, and in which the \"Please God\" is uttered, or the \"D.V.\"\nwritten. It is quite possible to keep Christ's precept without ever\nsurrendering the second garment at all; and indeed we ought not to\nsurrender it. And it is quite possible to keep His brother's precept\nwithout ever writing \"D.V.\" or saying \"Please God,\" the habitual use\nof which would be almost certain to generate formalism and cant in\nourselves, and would be quite certain to provoke needless criticism\nand irreverent ridicule. St.\u00a0James means that we should habitually\nfeel that moment by moment we are absolutely dependent upon God, not\nonly for the way in which our lives are henceforth to be spent, but\nfor their being prolonged at all. At any instant we may be called upon\nto surrender, not only all the materials of enjoyment which He has\nbestowed upon us, but life itself, which is equally His gift; and\nwhenever He does so call upon us we shall have neither the right nor\nthe power to resist. \"Shall He not do what He will with His own?\" \"The\nLord gave; and the Lord may take away. Blessed be the name of the\nLord.\"\n\nThe man who is thoroughly impressed with the fact of his utter\ndependence upon God for life and all things is sure to express this in\nhis bearing, his tone, and his manner of speaking about the future,\neven although such phrases as \"Please God\" and \"If the Lord will\"\nnever come from his lips or his pen. Indeed, the more complete his\nrealization of this truth is, the less likely will he be to be\nconstantly expressing it in a formula. It is the habitual setting of\nhis thoughts, and does not need to be stated any more than the\nconditions of time and space. On rare occasions it may be well to\nremind others of this truth by giving expression to it in words; but\nin most cases it will be wisest to retain it as an unforgotten but\nunexpressed premise in the mind. But it is for each one of us to take\ncare that it is _not_ forgotten. Only those who have it constantly in\ntheir hearts can safely absolve themselves from the obligation of\nobeying the words of St.\u00a0James literally.\n\n\"But now ye glory in your vauntings: all such glorying is evil.\" The\ncarnal self-confidence with which people serenely talk about what they\nmean to do next year, or many years hence, is only part of a general\nspirit of arrogance and worldliness which pervades their whole life\nand conduct; it is one of the results of the thoroughly vitiated moral\natmosphere which they have chosen for themselves, and to the\nnoxiousness of which they are constantly contributing. The word here\nrendered \"vaunting,\" and in 1\u00a0John ii.\u00a016 \"vainglory,\" (\u1f00\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1),\nindicates insolent and empty assurance; and here the assurance lies in\npresumptuous trust in the stability of oneself and one's surroundings.\nPretentious ostentation is the radical signification of the word, and\nin Classical Greek it is the pretentiousness which is most prominent,\nin Hellenistic Greek the ostentation. There is manifest ostentation in\nspeaking confidently about one's future; and seeing how transitory\neverything human is, the ostentation is empty and pretentious. To be\nguilty of such vaunting is serious enough; but these fellow-countrymen\nof St.\u00a0James, with their minds absorbed in material interests, gloried\nin their godless view of life. The simple character of his comment\nmakes its severity all the more impressive: \"all such glorying is\nevil.\" He uses the very word which is commonly used to express \"the\nevil one\" (\u1f41 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2), and thereby indicates the character and source\nof such glorying.\n\nIn concluding this section of his letter, St.\u00a0James brings the conduct\nwhich he has been condemning within the sweep of a very comprehensive\nprinciple: \"To him, therefore, that knoweth to do good, and doeth it\nnot, to him it is sin.\" No Jew, whether Christian or not, could plead\nignorance as an excuse for his transgressions in this matter. Every\nhuman being has experienced the uncertainty of the future and the\ntransitoriness of human life; and every Jew was well instructed in the\ntruth that man and all his surroundings are absolutely dependent upon\nthe Divine will. Moreover, those whom St.\u00a0James is addressing prided\nthemselves on their spiritual knowledge (i.\u00a019); they were professed\nhearers of God's Word (i.\u00a022, 23), and were anxious to become teachers\nof others (iii.\u00a01). Theirs is the case of servants who knew their\nmaster's will, and neglected to do it (Luke xii.\u00a047). They themselves\ndeclared, \"We see;\" and the rejoinder is, \"Your sin remaineth\" (John\nix.\u00a041). They knew, long before St.\u00a0James instructed them on the\nsubject, what was seemly for human beings living as creatures in\ndependence upon their Creator; and they neglected to do what is\nseemly. To them this neglect is sin.\n\nThe passage is very commonly understood as applying to all sins of\nomission; and no doubt it is very capable of such application, but it\ndoes not follow that St.\u00a0James was thinking of more than the\nparticular case before him. The words may be interpreted in three\ndifferent degrees of comprehensiveness, and St.\u00a0James may have meant\none, or two, or all three of them.\n\n1. The relation in which a creature ought to stand to the Creator is\none of humility and entire dependence; and he who knows that he is a\ncreature, and adopts an attitude of self-confidence and independence,\nsins.\n\n2. In all cases of transgression knowledge of what is right aggravates\nthe sin, which is then a sin against light. \"If I had not come and\nspoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse\nfor their sin\" (John xv.\u00a022).\n\n3. This applies not only to transgressions, but to omissions.\nKnowledge of what is evil creates an obligation to avoid it, and\nknowledge of what is good constitutes an obligation to perform it. The\nlatter truth is not so readily admitted as the former. Everyone\nrecognizes that an opportunity of doing _evil_ is not a thing about\nwhich any choice is allowable. We are not permitted to use the\nopportunity or not, just as we please; we must on no account make use\nof it. But not a few persons imagine that an opportunity of doing\n_good_ is a thing about which they have full right of choice; that\nthey may avail themselves of the opportunity or not, just as they\nplease; whereas there is no more freedom in the one case than in the\nother. We are bound to make use of the opportunity of doing good. \"To\nhim that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.\"\n\nSome of those who think that St.\u00a0James knew the Epistle to the Romans\nsee here an allusion to the principle which St.\u00a0Paul there lies down:\n\"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin\" (xiv.\u00a023). For reasons already\nstated (p. 57), it must remain doubtful whether St.\u00a0James had\nknowledge of that Epistle; and even if he had, we could not by any\nmeans be sure that he had it in his mind when he wrote the words\nbefore us. But his words and St.\u00a0Paul's, when combined, give us a\ncomplete statement of a great moral principle respecting the\npossession or non-possession of knowledge as to what is right and\nwrong in any given case. So long as we have _no_ knowledge that a\ngiven act is right, _i.e._ so long as we are in doubt as to whether it\nis allowable or not, it is sin to do it. As soon as we _have_\nknowledge that a given act is right it is sin to leave it undone.\n\nThis principle cuts at the root of that unwholesome growth which in\nmoral theology is known as the doctrine of _Probabilism_, and which\nhas worked untold mischief, especially in the Roman Church, in which\nits chief supporters are to be found. This doctrine teaches that in\nall cases in which there is doubt as to whether a given act is\nallowable or not the less safe course may be followed, even when the\nbalance of probability is against its being allowable, if only there\nare grounds for believing that it _is_ allowable. And some supporters\nof this doctrine go so far as to maintain that the amount of\nprobability need not be very great. So long as it is not certain that\nthe act in question is forbidden it may be permitted. The object of\nwhich teaching is not that which ought to be the object of all moral\nteaching, viz. to save beings with immortal souls from making serious\nmistakes of conduct, but to enable beings with strong desires and\npassions to gratify them without scruple. The moral law is not so much\nexplained as explained away. The very titles of some of the treatises\nin which the doctrine of Probabilism is advocated indicate their\ntendency, _e.g._ \"The Art of Perpetual Enjoyment.\"[83] To all such\nspecial pleading, and making the Word of God of none effect by human\nglosses, the simple principles laid down by St.\u00a0Paul and St.\u00a0James are\nthe best antidote: \"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin;\" and \"To him\nthat knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.\"\n\n[81] Horace, _Odes_ I. ix.\u00a013. J. H. Newman, _Verses on Various Occasions_,\n\"The Pillar of the Cloud,\" June 16th, 1833.\n\n[82] In commenting on Wisdom ii.\u00a04, Farrar quotes Gregory Nazianzen:\n\"We are a flitting dream, a phantom that cannot be grasped,\nthe scud of a passing breeze, a ship that leaves no trace on the sea,\ndust, vapour, morning dew, a flower that now blossoms, and now is\ndone away\" (_Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha_, I., p. 431).\n\n[83] _Ars Semper Gaudendi_, by Alphonso de Sarasa, a Flemish theologian\nof Spanish extraction, 1741. For the fullest account of the\nhistory of Probabilism see the great work by D\u00f6llinger and Reusch,\n_Geschichte der Moralstreitigkeiten in der R\u00f6misch-katholischen Kirche_\n(N\u00f6rdlingen, 1889).\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIII.\n\n _THE FOLLIES AND INIQUITIES OF THE RICH;\n THEIR MISERABLE END._\n\n \"Go to now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming\n upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are\n moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver are rusted; and their rust\n shall be for a testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh as\n fire. Ye have laid up your treasure in the last days. Behold, the\n hire of the labourers who mowed your fields, which is of you kept\n back by fraud, crieth out: and the cries of them that reaped have\n entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. Ye have lived\n delicately on the earth, and taken your pleasure; ye have nourished\n your hearts in a day of slaughter. Ye have condemned, ye have killed\n the righteous one; he doth not resist you.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES v.\u00a01-6.\n\n\nHere, if anywhere in the Epistle, the writer glances aside from the\nbelieving Jews of the Dispersion, to whom the letter as a whole is\naddressed, and in a burst of righteous indignation which reminds us of\npassages in the old Hebrew Prophets, denounces members of the twelve\ntribes who not even in name are Christians. In the preceding section\nsuch a transition is in preparation. When he is condemning the godless\npresumption of those seekers after wealth who dared, without thought\nof their own frailty and of God's absolute control over their lives\nand fortunes, to think and speak confidently of their schemes for\nfuture gains, he seems to be thinking almost as much of unbelieving\nJews as of those who have accepted the Gospel. Here he appears for the\nmoment to have left the latter entirely out of sight, and to be\naddressing those wealthy Jews who not only continued the policy and\nshared the guilt of the opponents and murderers of Christ, but by\nscandalous tyranny and injustice oppressed their poor brethren, many\nof whom were probably Christians. The severity of the condemnation is\nnot the only or the main reason for thinking that the paragraph is\naddressed to unconverted Jews. The first ten verses of chapter iv. are\nvery severe; and there also, as here, the affectionate form of\naddress, \"brethren,\" so frequent elsewhere in the Epistle, is wanting;\nbut there is no doubt that those ten verses, like the paragraphs which\nimmediately precede and follow them, are addressed to Christians. What\nis so exceptional in the passage now under consideration is _the\nentire absence of any exhortation to repentance_, or of any indication\nthat there is still hope of being reconciled to the offended Jehovah.\nThey are to \"weep and howl,\" not in penitence, but in despair. The end\nis at hand; the day of reckoning is approaching; and it is a fearful\naccount which awaits them. In this respect there is a very marked\ndifference between this paragraph and the one which follows it. In\nboth the nearness of the Day of Judgment is the motive; but this\nnearness is to \"the rich\" a terror, to \"the brethren\" a comfort. This\ndifference would be very difficult to explain if both paragraphs were\naddressed to believing Jews.\n\nThroughout the Epistle there are strains which sound like echoes from\nthe Prophets of the Old Testament, with whom St.\u00a0James has much in\ncommon; but the passage before us is specially in their spirit. It\nwould not surprise us to meet with it in Isaiah or Jeremiah. One or\ntwo similar passages are worth comparing: \"Woe to thee that spoilest,\nand thou wast not spoiled; and dealest treacherously, and they dealt\nnot treacherously with thee! When thou hast ceased to spoil, thou\nshalt be spoiled; and when thou hast made an end to deal\ntreacherously, they shall deal treacherously with thee\" (Isa.\nxxxiii.\u00a01). \"Woe to him that getteth an evil gain for his house, that\nhe may set his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the hand of\nevil! Thou hast consulted shame to thy house, by cutting off many\npeoples, and hast sinned against thy soul. For the stone shall cry out\nof the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it\" (Hab.\nii.\u00a09). In the New Testament the passage which most resembles it is\nour Lord's denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt.\nxxiii.\u00a013-36).\n\n\"Go to now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming\nupon you.\" We have the same combination of words in Isaiah: \"In their\nstreets they gird themselves with sackcloth: on their housetops, and\nin their broad places, every one _howleth, weeping_ abundantly\"\n(xv.\u00a03). And in an earlier chapter we have a still closer parallel to\nthe spirit of this verse: \"_Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at\nhand_\" (xiii.\u00a06). The miseries to which St.\u00a0James alludes are those\nwhich shall befall them at \"the coming of the Lord\" (ver. 8). It is\nthe impending judgment of the tyrannous rich that is primarily in his\nmind. He may also have foreseen something of the horrors of the Jewish\nwar and the destruction of Jerusalem, and in accordance with Christ's\nprophecy may have considered these calamities typical of the judgment,\nor part and parcel of it. In the Jewish war the wealthy classes\nsuffered terribly. Against them, as having been friendly to the\nRomans, and having employed Roman influence in oppressing their own\ncountrymen, the fury of the fanatical party of the Zealots was\nspecially directed; and although the blow fell first and heaviest upon\nthe Jews in Jerusalem and Jud\u00e6a, yet it was felt by all Jews\nthroughout the world.\n\nThey imagined themselves to be rich; they were really most poor and\nmost miserable. So sure is the doom that is coming upon them, that in\nprophetical style St.\u00a0James begins to speak of it as already here;\nlike a seer, he has it all before his eyes. \"Your riches are\ncorrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver\nare rusted.\" We have here three kinds of possessions indicated. First,\nstores of various kinds of goods. These are \"corrupted;\" they have\nbecome rotten and worthless. Secondly, rich garments, which in the\nEast are often a very considerable portion of a wealthy man's\npossessions. They have been stored up so jealously and selfishly that\ninsects have preyed upon them and ruined them. And thirdly, precious\nmetals. These have become tarnished and rusted, through not having\nbeen put to any rational use. Everywhere their avarice has been not\nonly sin, but folly. It has failed of its sinful object. The\nunrighteous hoarding has tended not to wealth, but to ruin. And thus\nthe rust of their treasures becomes \"a testimony against them.\" In the\nruin of their property their own ruin is portrayed; and just as\ncorruption, and the moths, and the rust consume their goods, so shall\nthe fire of God's judgment consume the owners and abusers of them.\nThey have reserved all this store for their selfish enjoyment, but God\nhas reserved them for His righteous anger.\n\n\"Ye laid up your treasure in the last days.\" _There_ was the monstrous\nfolly of it. The end of all things was close at hand; \"the last days\"\nhad already begun; and these besotted graspers after wealth were still\nheaping up treasures which they would never have any opportunity of\nusing. The Authorized Version spoils this by a small, but rather\nserious, mistranslation. It has, \"Ye have heaped up treasure together\n_for_ the last days,\" instead of \"_in_ the last days\" (\u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2). The case is precisely that which Christ foretold: \"As were\nthe days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. For as in\nthose days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking,\nmarrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into\nthe ark, and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all\naway; so shall be the coming of the Son of man\" (Matt. xxiv.\u00a037-39).\n\"Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they\ndrank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but in the\nday that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from\nheaven, and destroyed them all: after the same manner shall it be in\nthe day that the Son of man is revealed\" (Luke xvii.\u00a028-30).\n\nThat the \"last days\" mean the days immediately preceding the Second\nAdvent can scarcely be doubted. The context renders this very\nprobable, and the exhortation in the next section renders it\npractically certain. \"Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for\n_the coming of the Lord is at hand_. Murmur not, brethren, one against\nanother, that ye be not judged: behold, _the Judge standeth before the\ndoors_.\" That the first Christians believed that Jesus Christ would\nreturn in glory during the lifetime of many who were then living, will\nhardly be disputed by any one who is acquainted with the literature of\nthe Apostolic age and of the period immediately following. Nor,\nperhaps, will many at the present time care to dispute that this\nerroneous opinion was shared, for a time at any rate, even by\nApostles. \"Ye are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be\nrevealed in the last time,\" says St.\u00a0Peter (1\u00a0Peter i.\u00a05). \"We that\nare alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in nowise\nprecede them that are fallen asleep\" (1\u00a0Thess. iv.\u00a015; _cf._ 1\u00a0Cor.\nxv.\u00a051); and again, writing some years later, \"In the last days\ngrievous times shall come,\" about which Timothy is to be on his guard,\nsays St.\u00a0Paul (2\u00a0Tim. iii.\u00a01). And much nearer to the close of the\nApostolic age we have St.\u00a0John telling his little children that \"it is\nthe last hour\" (1\u00a0John ii.\u00a018). Some twenty or thirty years later\nSt.\u00a0Ignatius writes to the Ephesians, \"These are the last times.\nHenceforth let us be reverent; let us fear the longsuffering of God,\nlest it turn into a judgment against us. For either let us fear the\nwrath which is to come, or let us love the grace which now is\" (xi.).\n\nOnly very gradually did the Christian Church attain to something like\na true perspective as to the duration of Christ's kingdom upon earth.\nOnly very gradually did even the Apostles obtain a clear vision as to\nthe nature of the kingdom which their Lord had founded and left in\ntheir charge, for them to occupy until He came. Pentecost did not at\nonce give them perfect insight into the import of their own\ncommission. Much still remained to be learned, slowly, by experience.\nAnd if this was the case with Apostles, we need not wonder that it was\nso with James, the Lord's brother. It is remarkable that Christ's\nsolemn warning against speculating as to the time of His return seems\nto have made only partial impression upon the disciples. \"Of that day\nor that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither\nthe Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not\nwhen the time is\" (Mark xiii.\u00a032, 33). But it is our gain that they\nwere allowed for a time to hold a belief that the Lord would return\nvery speedily. The Epistles and Gospels were written by men under the\ninfluence of that belief, and such influence is a very considerable\nguarantee for the honesty of the writers. It was because the rich whom\nSt.\u00a0James here denounces had no such belief in a speedy judgment,\nindeed had very little thought of a judgment at all, that they were\nguilty of such folly and iniquity.\n\nHaving indicated their folly in amassing wealth which was no blessing\nto themselves or others, but simply deteriorated by being hoarded,\nSt.\u00a0James passes on to point out their iniquity. And first of all he\nmentions the gross injustice which is frequently inflicted by these\nwealthy employers of labour upon those who work for them. The payment\nof the wages which have been earned is either unfairly delayed or not\npaid at all. \"Behold, the hire of the labourers who mowed your fields,\nwhich is of you kept back by fraud, crieth out.\" Several passages in\nthe Old Testament appear to be in the writer's mind. \"Thou shalt not\noppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy\nbrethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:\n_in his day thou shalt give him his hire_, neither shall the sun go\ndown upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he\n_cry_ against thee unto the Lord, and it be sin unto thee\" (Deut.\nxxiv.\u00a014, 15; cf. 17, and Lev. xix.\u00a013). \"And I will come near you to\njudgment; and I will be a swift witness against ... those that\n_oppress the hireling in his wages_, the widow and the fatherless, and\nthat turn away the stranger from his right, and fear not Me, saith the\nLord\" (Mal. iii.\u00a05; _cf._ Jer. xxii.\u00a013). Perhaps also, \"Their cry\ncame up unto God by reason of the bondage\" (Exod. ii.\u00a023); and \"The\nvoice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground\" (Gen.\niv.\u00a010). The frequency with which the subject is mentioned[84] seems\nto show that the evil which St.\u00a0James here denounces had long been a\ncommon sin among the Jews. Tobit, in his charge to his son, says,\n\"What is hateful to thee do not thou to others. Let not the wages of\nany man, which hath wrought for thee, tarry with thee (abide with thee\nall night), but give him it out of hand\" (Tobit iv.\u00a014). And in\nEcclesiasticus, which St.\u00a0James seems so often to have in his\nthoughts, we read, \"The bread of the needy is the life of the poor: he\nthat defraudeth him thereof (\u1f41 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd) is a man of blood. He\nthat taketh away his neighbour's living slayeth him; and he that\ndefraudeth the labourer of his hire (\u1f41 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03c5)[85]\nis a blood-shedder\" (Ecclus. xxxiv.\u00a021, 22).\n\nBut none of these passages determine for us a point of some interest\nin the construction used by St.\u00a0James. The words translated \"_of_\nyou,\" in \"of you kept back by fraud,\" literally mean \"_from_ you\" (\u1f00\u03c6'\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, not \u1f51\u03c6' \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd). Two explanations are suggested: 1. The fraudulent\naction proceeds _from_ them, and hence \"from\" becomes nearly\nequivalent to \"by;\" and the use of \"from\" (\u1f00\u03c0\u03cc), rather than \"by\"\n(\u1f51\u03c0\u03cc), is all the more natural because the word for \"kept back by\nfraud\" has the former preposition compounded with it. 2. \"From you,\"\nbeing placed between \"kept back by fraud\" and \"crieth out\" (\u1f41\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6' \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9), may go with either, and it will be\nbetter to take it with \"crieth out:\" \"The hire kept back by fraud\n_crieth out from you_.\" The wrongfully detained wages are with the\nrich employers, and therefore it is from the place where they are\ndetained that their cry goes up to heaven. The passage quoted above\nfrom Exodus ii.\u00a023 slightly favours this view, for there the\nSeptuagint has, \"Their cry came up unto God _from their labours_\" (\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd); but the passages are not really parallel.\n\nThe word used for \"fields\" (\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2) is worth noting. It implies\nextensive lands, and therefore adds point to the reproach. The men who\nown such large properties are not under the temptations to fraud which\nbeset the needy, and it is scandalous that those who can so well\nafford to pay what is due should refuse. Moreover, the labour of\nmowing and reaping such fields must be great, and therefore the\nlabourers have well earned their wage. The words \"into the ears of the\nLord of Sabaoth\" probably come from Isaiah (v.\u00a09), and perhaps\nSt.\u00a0James was led to them by the thought that these extensive fields\nare the result of fraud or violence; for the verse which precedes the\nwords in Isaiah runs thus: \"Woe unto them that join house to house,\nthat lay field to field, till there be no room, and ye be made to\ndwell alone in the midst of the land!\" No other New Testament writer\nuses the expression \"the Lord of Sabaoth,\" although St.\u00a0Paul once\nquotes it from Isaiah (Rom. ix.\u00a029). Bede may be right in thinking\nthat its point here is that the rich fancy that the poor have no\nprotector; whereas the Lord of hosts hears their cry. And there is\npossibly another point in mowers and reapers being selected as the\nrepresentatives of all hired labourers. Calvin suggests that it is\nspecially iniquitous that those whose toil supplies us with food\nshould themselves be reduced to starvation; and to this it has been\nadded that the hard-heartedness of the grasping employers is indeed\nconspicuous when not even the joy of the harvest moves them to pay the\npoor who work for them their hardly earned wage.\n\nThe second feature in the iniquity of the rich is the voluptuous and\nprodigal life which they lead themselves, at the very time that they\ninflict such hardships upon the poor. \"Ye lived delicately on the\nearth, and took your pleasure; ye nourished your hearts in a day of\nslaughter.\" The aorists should perhaps be translated as aorists\nthroughout these verses: \"Ye laid up your treasure, ... ye lived\ndelicately,\" etc. rather than, \"Ye _have_ laid up, ye _have_ lived,\"\netc. The point of view is that of the Day of Judgment, when these\nwealthy sinners are confronted by the enormities which they committed\nduring their lives. But it is a case in which it is quite permissible\nto render the Greek aorist by the English perfect. \"On the earth\" may\neither mean \"during your lifetime,\" or may be in contrast to \"entered\ninto the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.\" All the while that the cry\nagainst their iniquity was ascending to _heaven_, as an accumulating\ncharge that would at last overwhelm them, they were living in luxury\n_on earth_, thinking nothing of the wrath to come. It was the converse\nof the old Epicurean doctrine, so graphically described by the\nLaureate in \"The Lotus-eaters.\" There it is the gods who \"lie beside\ntheir nectar\" in ceaseless enjoyment, \"careless of mankind,\" who send\nup useless lamentations, which provoke no more than a smile among the\nneglectful deities. Here it is the men who revel in boundless luxury,\ncareless of the righteous God, whose vengeance they provoke by\npersistent neglect of His commands.\n\nThe meaning of \"in a day of slaughter\" is not easily determined. The\n\"as\"--\"_as_ in a day of slaughter\"--must certainly be omitted. It was\ninserted to make more evident one of the possible interpretations of\n\"day of slaughter.\" \"Ye fattened your heart with perpetual banqueting,\nas if life were made up of killing and eating.\" \"And in that day did\nthe Lord, the Lord of hosts, call to weeping and to mourning, and\nbaldness, and to girding with sackcloth: and behold, joy and gladness,\nslaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine: let us\neat and drink, for to-morrow we die\" (Isaiah xxii.\u00a012, 13). If this be\nthe idea which is expressed by the words in question, then the meaning\nwould be, \"Ye fared sumptuously every day.\" But it is possible that\n\"in a day of slaughter\" here balances \"in the last days\" just above.\nAs the folly of heaping up treasure was augmented by the fact that it\nwas done when the end of all things was at hand, so the iniquity of\nvoluptuous living was augmented by the fact that their own destruction\nwas at hand. In this case the wealthy owners, like stalled oxen, were\nunconsciously fattening themselves for the slaughter. Instead of\nsacrificing themselves to God's love and mercy, they had sacrificed\nand devoured their poor brethren. They had fed themselves, and not the\nflock; and unwittingly they were preparing themselves as a sacrifice\nto God's wrath. _For a sacrifice, either willingly or unwillingly,\nevery one must be._\n\nDid any of those whom St.\u00a0James here condemns remember his words when,\na few years later, thousands of the Jews of the Dispersion were once\nmore gathered together at Jerusalem for the sacrifice of the Passover,\nand there became unwilling sacrifices to God's slow but sure\nvengeance? As already pointed out, it was the wealthy among them who\nspecially suffered. Their prosperity and their friendship with the\nRomans provoked the envy and enmity of the fanatical Zealots, and they\nperished in a day of slaughter. Josephus tells us that it was all one\nwhether the richer Jews stayed in the city during the siege or tried\nto escape to the Romans; for they were equally destroyed in either\ncase. Every such person was put to death, on the pretext that he was\npreparing to desert, but in reality that the plunderers might get his\npossessions. People who were evidently half-starved were left\nunmolested, when they declared that they had nothing; but those whose\nbodies showed no signs of privation were tortured to make them reveal\nthe treasures which they were supposed to have concealed (_Bell. Jud._\nV. x.\u00a02).\n\n\"Ye condemned, ye killed the righteous one; he doth not resist you.\"\nDoes this refer to the condemnation and death of Jesus Christ? This\ninterpretation has found advocates in all ages--Cassiodorus, Bede,\n\u0152cumenius, Grotius, Bengel, Lange, and other modern commentators;\nand it is certainly attractive. St.\u00a0Peter, addressing the Jews in\nSolomon's Porch, says, \"But ye denied the Holy and _Righteous One_,\nand asked for a murderer to be granted unto you, and killed the Prince\nof Life\" (Acts iii.\u00a014, 15). St.\u00a0Stephen, in his speech before the\nSanhedrin, asks, \"Which of the prophets did not your fathers\npersecute? and they killed them which showed before of the coming of\n_the Righteous One_; of whom ye have now become betrayers and\nmurderers\" (Acts vii.\u00a052; _cf._ xxii.\u00a014, and 1\u00a0Pet. iii.\u00a018). It is\ncertainly no objection to this interpretation that St.\u00a0James uses the\naorist--\"ye condemned, ye killed.\" That tense might fittingly be used\neither of a course of action in the past, as in the aorists\nimmediately preceding, or of a single action, as of Abraham's offering\nIsaac (ii.\u00a021). Nor is it any objection that in \"He doth not resist\nyou\" St.\u00a0James changes to the present tense. In any case the change\nfrom past to present has to be explained, and it is as easy to explain\nit of the present long-suffering of Christ, or of His abandoning them\nto their wickedness, as of the habitual meekness of the righteous man.\nNor, again, is it any objection that the Jews addressed in this\nEpistle could not rightly be charged with the condemnation and death\nof Christ, for twenty or thirty years had elapsed since that event. It\nis by no means improbable that among the Jews then living there were\nmany who had cried \"Crucify Him\" on Good Friday; and even if there\nwere not, the words of St.\u00a0James are quite justifiable. The\nCrucifixion was in a very real sense the act of the whole nation, far\nmore so than was the murder of Zacharias the son of Jehoiada, and yet\nJesus says to the Jews respecting Zacharias, \"whom ye slew between the\nsanctuary and the altar.\" If at the present day the English might be\ntold that they condemned and killed Charles I., and the French be told\nthat they condemned and killed Louis XVI., much more might the Jews in\nthe middle of the first century be said to have condemned and killed\nJesus Christ.\n\nBut nevertheless, this attractive and tenable interpretation is\nprobably not the right one; the context is against it. It is the evil\nthat is inherent in class tyrannizing over _class_ that is condemned,\nthe rich oppressing the poor, and the godless persecuting the godly.\n\"The righteous one\" is here not an individual, but the representative\nof a class. The iniquitous violence which slew Jesus Christ and His\nmartyrs, James the son of Zebedee and Stephen, _illustrates_ what\nSt.\u00a0James says here, just as his own martyrdom does; but it does not\nfollow from this that he is alluding to any one of these events in\nparticular. The Book of Wisdom seems once more to be in the writer's\nmind: \"Let us oppress the poor righteous man; let us not spare the\nwidow, nor reverence the ancient grey hairs of the aged.... Let us lie\nin wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is\nclean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the\nlaw, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our\neducation.... He is grievous to us even to behold: for his life is not\nlike other men's; his ways are of another fashion.... Let us examine\nhim with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness,\nand prove his patience. Let us condemn him with a shameful death; for\nby his own saying he shall be respected\" (ii.\u00a010-20).\n\n * * * * *\n\nJulius C\u00e6sar on one occasion stated his financial position by\nconfessing that he needed half a million of money in order to be worth\nnothing. The spiritual condition of many prosperous men might be\nexpressed in a similar way. C\u00e6sar never allowed lack of funds to stand\nbetween him and his political aims; when he had nothing he borrowed at\nenormous interest. So also with us. In pursuing our worldly aims we\nsink deeper and deeper in spiritual ruin, and accumulate debts for an\neternal bankruptcy. Riches are not a whit less perilous to the soul\nnow than they were in the first century, and yet how few among the\nwealthy really believe that they are perilous at all. The wisdom of\nour forefathers has placed in the Litany a petition which every\nwell-to-do person should say with his whole heart: \"In all time of our\n_wealth, Good Lord, deliver us_.\"\n\n[84] In addition to the passages quoted in the text see Job vii.\u00a01, 2;\nix.\u00a024; xii.\u00a05, 6; xxiv.\u00a01-12; xxxi.\u00a038, 39.\n\n[85] It is uncertain whether the word which St.\u00a0James uses is\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 or \u1f00\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIV.\n\n _PATIENCE IN WAITING. THE ENDURANCE OF JOB.\n THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MENTION OF JOB BY ST. JAMES._\n\n \"Be patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord.\n Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth,\n being patient over it, until it receive the early and latter rain. Be\n ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is\n at hand. Murmur not, brethren, one against another, that ye be not\n judged; behold, the Judge standeth before the doors. Take, brethren,\n for an example of suffering and of patience, the prophets who spake\n in the Name of the Lord. Behold, we call them blessed which endured:\n ye have heard of the endurance of Job, and have seen the end of the\n Lord, how that the Lord is full of pity, and\n merciful.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES v.\u00a07-11.\n\n\n\"Be patient, therefore, brethren.\" The storm of indignation is past,\nand from this point to the end of the Epistle St.\u00a0James writes in\ntones of tenderness and affection. In the paragraph before us he, as\nit were, rounds off his letter, bringing it back to the point from\nwhich he started; so that what follows (vv.\u00a012-20) is of the nature of\na postscript or appendix. He began his letter with the exhortation,\n\"Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold trials;\nknowing that the proof of your faith worketh patience. And let\npatience have its perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire,\nlacking in nothing\" (i.\u00a02-4). He draws to a close with the charge, \"Be\npatient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord\".\n\nThe \"therefore\" shows that this sympathetic exhortation of the\nbrethren is closely connected with the stern denunciation of the rich\nin the preceding paragraph. The connexion is obvious. These brethren\nare in the main identical with the righteous poor who are so cruelly\noppressed by the rich; and St.\u00a0James offers them consolation mainly on\ntwo grounds: First, their sufferings will not last for ever; on the\ncontrary, the end of them is near at hand. Secondly, the end of them\nwill bring not only relief, but reward.\n\nAs has been already pointed out (p. 279), St.\u00a0James evidently shared\nthe belief, which prevailed in the Apostolic age, that Jesus Christ\nwould very speedily return in glory to punish the wicked and reward\nthe righteous. This belief, as Neander observes, was very natural:\n\"Christ Himself had not chosen to give any information respecting the\ntime of his coming. Nay, He had expressly said that the Father had\nreserved the decision to Himself alone (Mark xiii.\u00a032); that even the\nSon could determine nothing respecting it. But still, the longing\ndesire of the Apostolic Church was directed with eager haste to the\nappearing of the Lord. The whole Christian period seemed only as the\ntransition-point to the eternal, and thus as something that must soon\nbe passed. As the traveller, beholding from afar the object of all his\nwanderings, overlooks the windings of the intervening way, and\nbelieves himself already near his goal, so it seemed to them, as their\neye was fixed on that consummation of the whole course of events on\nearth.\"\n\nThus, by a strange but unperceived incongruity, St.\u00a0James makes the\nunconscious impatience of primitive Christianity a basis for his\nexhortation to conscious patience. Early Christians, in their\neagerness for the return of their Lord, impatiently believed that His\nreturn was imminent; and St.\u00a0James uses this belief as an argument for\npatient waiting and patient endurance. It is only for a short time\nthat they will have to wait and endure, and then the rich reward will\nbe reaped. Ploughing and harrowing are toilsome and painful, but they\nhave to be gone through, and then, after no intolerable waiting, the\nharvest comes.\n\nAbove, when St.\u00a0James was rebuking his readers for their presumptuous\nconfidence respecting their future plans, he reminded them of the\nshortness of life. \"What is your life? For ye are a vapour, that\nappeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away\" (iv.\u00a014). Here\nthe shortness of the interval between the present moment and the end\nof all things is urged as a reason both for circumspection and for\npatience. In both cases, with his characteristic fondness for\nillustrations drawn from nature, he employs physical phenomena to\nenforce his lesson. In the one case life is a vapour, not substantial\nat any time, and soon dispersed;[86] in the other case life is the\nwork and the waiting which must precede the harvest.\n\nThe key-note of the whole passage is _patience_, which in one form or\nanother occurs six times in five verses In the original two different\nwords are used--one (\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd and \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03bc\u03af\u03b1) four times in the first\nfour verses; and the other (\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae) twice in the last\nverse, where we certainly need \"the _endurance_ of Job\" rather than\n\"the _patience_ of Job,\" in order to preserve the transition from the\none word to the other. \"Take, brethren, for an example of suffering\nand of _patience_ (\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) the prophets who spake in the Name of\nthe Lord. Behold, we call them blessed which _endured_ (\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2): ye have heard of the _endurance_ (\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03bd) of Job.\" It\nwas perhaps because \"the _patience_ of Job\" has become a proverbial\nformula that the Revisers banished \"endurance\" to the margin, instead\nof placing it in the text.[87] The two words are not infrequently\nfound together (2\u00a0Cor. vi.\u00a04-6; Col. i.\u00a011; 2\u00a0Tim. iii.\u00a010; Clement of\nRome, lviii.; Ignatius, _Ephes._ iii.). The difference between the two\nis, on the whole, this, that the first is the long-suffering which\ndoes not retaliate upon oppressive persons, the second the endurance\nwhich does not succumb under oppressive things. The persecuted\nprophets exhibited the one; the afflicted Job exhibited the other. The\noppressed and poor Christians whom St.\u00a0James addresses are able to\npractise both these forms of patience, which Chrysostom extols as the\n\"queen of the virtues.\"\n\nThere is a remarkable diversity of readings in the illustration about\nthe husbandman's waiting. Some authorities make him wait for the early\nand latter _rain_, others for the early and latter _fruit_. The best\nwitnesses leave the substantive to be understood, and this is\ndoubtless the original reading; it accounts for the other two. Some\ncopyists thought that rain was to be understood, and therefore\ninserted it; while others for a similar reason inserted fruit. No\ndoubt it is rain that is intended, in accordance with several passages\nin the Old Testament (Deut. xi.\u00a014; Jer. v.\u00a024; Joel ii.\u00a023; Zech.\nx.\u00a01). The rains of autumn and of spring are meant, not \"morning rain\nand evening rain\" as Luther renders it in his version; and no moral or\nspiritual facts are symbolized by these natural phenomena, such as the\npenitential tears of youth and of old age, which would not fit the\ncontext. The point of the simile lies in the patient waiting, not in\nthat which is waited for.\n\n\"Murmur not, brethren, one against another.\" The literal meaning of\nthe Greek is \"_Groan_ not;\" that is, \"Grumble not.\" Earlier English\nversions have \"Grudge not;\" and \"grudge\" once had the meaning of\n\"murmur,\" as in \"They will run here and there for meat, and _grudge_\nif they be not satisfied\" (Ps. lix.\u00a015). It is altogether a mistake to\nsuppose that \"one against another\" includes the wealthy oppressors\nspoken of in the preceding section. It is the common experience of\nevery one that men who are irritated and exasperated by trying persons\nor circumstances are liable to vent their vexation on those who are in\nno way responsible for what tries them. St.\u00a0James is well aware of\nthis danger, and puts his readers on their guard against it. \"Be\nlong-suffering,\" he says, \"and do not retaliate on those who maltreat\nyou; and do not let the smart of your troubles betray you into\nimpatience towards one another. He who is to judge your oppressors\nwill judge you also, and He is close at hand.\" We can hardly doubt\nthat Christ's saying, \"Judge not, _that ye be not judged_\" (Matt.\nvii.\u00a01), is in his mind. The way to lighten one's burden is not to\ngroan over it, still less to murmur against those who are in the same\ncase, but to try to console and help them. \"Bear ye one another's\nburdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.\" It is a good thing to take\nas an example of patience the prophets and others among God's\nsuffering saints; but it is a still better thing to give such an\nexample ourselves.\n\nBy the prophets St.\u00a0James no doubt means the prophets of the Old\nTestament--Elijah, Jeremiah, and others. It is not likely that he\nincludes any of the persecuted disciples of the New Testament, such as\nJames the son of Zebedee, and Stephen. Here again we seem to have an\necho of Christ's words: \"_Blessed_ are ye when men shall reproach you,\nand persecute you\" (comp. \"We call them _blessed_ which endured\"):\n\"for so persecuted they the _prophets_ which were before you\" (Matt.\nv.\u00a011, 12). It is the ceaseless reproach against the Jews that they\nboasted that theirs were the prophets, and yet were the persecutors of\nthe prophets. \"The children of Israel ... have slain Thy prophets with\nthe sword,\" says Elijah (1\u00a0Kings xix.\u00a010, 14). \"That I may avenge the\nblood of My servants the prophets,\" says God to Elisha (2\u00a0Kings\nix.\u00a07). They \"slew Thy prophets which testified against them to turn\nthem again to Thee,\" says Nehemiah, in his prayer (Neh. ix.\u00a026). \"Your\nown sword hath devoured your prophets, like a destroying lion,\" is the\naccusation of Jeremiah (ii.\u00a030). \"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which\nkilleth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her!\" is the\nlamentation of Christ (Matt. xxiii.\u00a037). And Stephen, just before he\nwas himself added to the number of the slain, asks, \"Which of the\nprophets did not your fathers persecute? and they killed them which\nshowed before of the coming of the Righteous One\" (Acts vii.\u00a052).\nCertainly those who try to do God's work in the world have no lack of\nexamples of patient suffering for such work. The reasonable question\nwould seem to be, not, \"Why should I be made to suffer for\nendeavouring to do good?\" but, \"Why should I _not_ be made to suffer?\nSeeing what others have had to endure, why should I be spared?\"\n\n\"Ye have heard of the endurance of Job.\" It is possible that this\nrefers specially to the reading of the Book of Job in public service;\nbut there is no need to restrict the hearing to such occasions. We\nneed not doubt that the endurance of Job was a familiar topic among\nthe Jews long before this Epistle was written, and independently of\nthe book being read in the synagogues. Yet, in spite of this\nfamiliarity, the passage before us is the only reference in the whole\nof the New Testament to the story of Job, and there is only one\nquotation from the Book: \"He taketh the wise in their own craftiness\"\n(Job v.\u00a013) is quoted by St.\u00a0Paul (1\u00a0Cor. iii.\u00a019). There are several\nloose quotations from it in the Epistle of Clement of Rome (xvii.,\nxx., xxvi., xxxix., lvi.); and the remarkable insertion in the Vulgate\nVersion of Tobit ii.\u00a012-15 is worthy of quotation: \"This trial the\nLord _therefore_ permitted to happen to him, that an example might be\ngiven to posterity of his patience, as also of holy Job. For whereas\nhe had always feared God from his infancy, and kept His commandments,\nhe repined not against God because the evil of blindness had befallen\nhim, but continued immovable in the fear of God, giving thanks to God\nall the days of his life. For as the kings[88] insulted over holy Job,\nso his relations and kinsmen mocked at his life, saying, Where is thy\nhope, for which thou gavest alms, and buriedest the dead? But Tobias\nrebuked them, saying, Speak not so; for we are the children of saints,\nand look for that life which God will give to them that never change\ntheir faith from Him.\"\n\n\"Ye have heard of the endurance of Job, and have seen the end of the\nLord, how that the Lord is full of pity, and merciful.\" A\nwell-supported, but, on the whole, less probable reading, gives us the\nimperative, \"_see_ the end of the Lord,\" instead of the indicative,\n\"ye have seen\" (\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, instead of \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5). If it be correct, it may be\ntaken either with what precedes or with what follows: either, \"Ye have\nheard of the endurance of Job: see also the end of the Lord, how that\nthe Lord is full of pity, and merciful;\" or, \"Ye have heard of the\nendurance of Job and the end of the Lord: see that the Lord is full of\npity, and merciful.\"\n\nBut a more important question than either the reading or the division\nof the clauses is the meaning of the expression \"the end of the Lord.\"\nBede follows Augustine in understanding it of the death of Christ, which\nno doubt many of the readers of the Epistle had witnessed--\"_Exitum\nquoque Domini in cruce quem longanimiter suscepit, adstantes ipsi\nvidistis_\": and in this interpretation Bede is followed by Wetstein,\nLange, and some other modern writers. It cannot be considered as\nprobable. St.\u00a0James would hardly couple the endurance of Job with the\ndeath of Christ in this abrupt way; and the words which follow--\"that\nthe Lord is full of pity, and merciful\"--do not fit on to this\ninterpretation. \"The end of the Lord\" much more probably means the end\nto which the Lord brought the sufferings of Job. It may have special\nreference to the concluding portion of the Book of Job, in which\nJehovah is represented as bringing the argument to a close: \"Then the\nLord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that\ndarkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?\" etc., etc.\n(xxxviii.-xlii.). This appearance of Jehovah to end the trials of Job\nwould then be analogous to the appearance of Christ to end the trials\nof the persecuted Christians; and it is possible that the combination\n\"ye have heard ... and have seen\" was suggested by the last words of\nJob: \"_I have heard of_ Thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine\neye _seeth_ Thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and\nashes\" (xlii.\u00a05, 6).\n\nStier remarks that the mention of Job in Ezekiel (xiv.\u00a014, 16, 20),\nand here by St.\u00a0James, shows us \"that the man Job actually lived, like\nNoah, Daniel, and all the prophets; that the narrative of his life is\nnot a didactic poem, but a real history.\" But is that a necessary\nconclusion? Let us leave on one side the question whether or no there\nreally was such a person as Job, who experienced what is recorded in\nthe book which bears his name, and let us consider whether the mention\nof him by Ezekiel and by St.\u00a0James proves that there was such a\nperson. It proves nothing of the sort. It shows no more than this,\nthat the story of Job was well known, and was employed for moral and\nspiritual instruction. Let us suppose that the Book of Job is a\nparable, like that of Dives and Lazarus. Would the fact that its\ncontents are not historical prevent Ezekiel or St.\u00a0James from speaking\nof Job as a well-known person of exemplary life? There would be\nnothing unnatural in coupling together Dives, who is probably an\nimaginary person, and the rich young man, who is certainly a real\nperson, as examples of men to whom great wealth has proved disastrous,\nnor, again, in speaking of Lazarus and the penitent thief as instances\nof souls that had passed from great earthly suffering to the rest of\nParadise. Such combinations would not commit the writer or speaker who\nmade use of them to the belief that Dives and Lazarus were historical\npersons. Why, then, should the fact that an inspired writer couples\nJob with Noah and Daniel commit _us_ to the belief that Job is a real\nperson? He may have been so, just as Lazarus may have been so, but the\nmention of him by Ezekiel and by St.\u00a0James does not prove that he was.\nWe know too little about the effects of inspiration to be justified in\nsaying dogmatically that an inspired writer would never speak of an\nunhistorical person as an example to be imitated. Is the merchant who\nsold all that he had in order to buy one pearl of great price an\nhistorical person? and is he not put before us as an example to be\nimitated? It is quite possible that the story of Job is in the main a\nnarrative of facts, and not an inspired fiction; but the mention of\nhim by Ezekiel and by St.\u00a0James is no proof of it. It is neither fair\nnor prudent to cite either of them as witnesses to the historical\ncharacter of the Book of Job. It is not fair, because we are ignorant\nof their opinion on the subject, and are also ignorant as to whether\ntheir opinion on the subject would be under the direct inspiration of\nthe Holy Spirit. And it is not prudent, because it may be demonstrated\nhereafter that the story of Job is not historical; and then we shall\nhave pledged the testimony of inspired persons to the truth of a\nnarrative which is, after all, fictitious. If St.\u00a0Paul may cite Jannes\nand Jambres as instances of malignant opposition to the truth, without\ncompelling us to believe that those names are historical,[89]\nSt.\u00a0James may quote Job as an example of patient endurance, without\nobliging us to believe that Job is an historical personage. In each\ncase the historical character of the illustrations must be decided on\nother grounds than the fact that they are employed by writers who were\ninspired.[90]\n\nQuestions of this kind are among the many spheres in which we need\nthat virtue on which St.\u00a0James here insists with such simple\nearnestness--patience. When certainty has not been attained, and\nperhaps is not attainable, let us learn to wait patiently in\nuncertainty. Was there ever such a person as Job? Who wrote the Book\nof Job? What is its date? Does inspiration produce infallibility? and\nif so, what are the limits to such infallibility? There are men to\nwhom uncertainty on such questions as these seems intolerable. They\ncannot \"learn to labour and to wait;\" they cannot work patiently, and\nwait patiently, until a complete solution is found. And hence they\nhurry to a definite conclusion, support it by evidence that is not\nrelevant, and affirm that it is demonstrated by what is perhaps\nrelevant, but is far short of proof. Intellectual probation is part of\nour moral probation in this life, and it is a discipline much needed\nin an age of great mental activity. Impatience of the intellect is a\ncommon blemish, and it is disastrous both to him who allows himself to\nbe conquered by it and to the cause of truth. He does good service\nboth to himself and to others, who cultivates a dread of jumping to\nunproved conclusions, and who in speaking and writing watchfully\ndistinguishes what is certain from what is only probable, and what is\nprobable from what is only not known to be untrue.\n\n_The_ great example of patience is not given by St.\u00a0James, although we\ncan read it into his words. In a sense not meant by him there is the\nHusbandman, who waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, until it\nreceive the early and the latter rain. There is that precious harvest\nof human souls which must receive and welcome the dew of God's grace\nbefore it is ready for His garner. On some it has never yet fallen; on\nsome it has fallen, but as yet in vain; and meanwhile the Husbandman\nwaiteth, \"being patient over it,\" until it receive the one thing\nneedful. Through long, long centuries He has been waiting, and He\ncontinues so doing. St.\u00a0Augustine tells us why. God is \"patient,\nbecause He is eternal\" (_patiens quia \u00e6ternus_). He who is \"from\neverlasting to everlasting\" can afford to wait. He waits patiently for\nus, generation after generation. Can we not wait for Him one hour? Let\nus patiently abide until \"the end of the Lord\" comes, the end which He\nhas prepared for us, and towards which all things under His guiding\nhand are working. When we have seen it we shall once more see \"that\nthe Lord is full of pity, and merciful.\"[91]\n\n[86] As already pointed out, this metaphor is perhaps a reminiscence\nof the Book of Job, to which St.\u00a0James alludes in the passage before\nus. He was evidently fond of the sapiential writings, to which Job\nis akin. \"My days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle, and are spent\nwithout hope. As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he\nthat goeth down to Sheol shall come up no more\" (Job vii.\u00a06, 9).\nSee [footnote 84].\n\n[87] The Rhemish Version distinguishes the words--\"be patient\" and\n\"patience\" for the one, \"suffer\" and \"sufferance\" for the other, the\nVulgate having _patientia_ and _sufferentia_.\n\n[88] _Reges._ \"So Job's friends are here called, because they were\nprinces in their respective territories.\" Note in the Douay Version,\nfrom which the translation of the passage is taken.\n\n[89] See _The Pastoral Epistles_, in this series, pp. 379-84 (Hodder and\nStoughton, 1888).\n\n[90] That the Book of Job is not pure history is plain from (1) the\ndialogue between Jehovah and Satan, and the addresses ascribed to the\nAlmighty in the body of the poem; (2) the dramatic character of Job's\ncalamities, man and nature alternately inflicting blows at him, and in\neach case just one messenger escaping; (3) the dramatic character of\nhis compensation, his goods being exactly doubled, and his family\nbeing made exactly what it was before; (4) the elaboration of the\ndialogue between Job and his friends. On the other hand, it is not\nlikely that it is pure invention. We have no evidence of literary\npower equal to such invention at the early date to which the Book of\nJob must be assigned, viz. before the Return from the Captivity; and\nthe writer's object would be better attained if he took an historical\nperson, than if he invented one, as his centre.\n\n[91] The word for \"full of pity\" (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) was possibly coined\nby St.\u00a0James himself; it occurs nowhere else. It might be rendered\n\"large-hearted.\" A few inferior MSS. have \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, a word\nwhich is found in ecclesiastical and Byzantine writers. The simpler\n\u03b5\u1f54\u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 occurs 1\u00a0Pet. iii.\u00a08; Eph. iv.\u00a032; and in the Prayer of\nManasses; \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b5\u1f36 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3 \u1f55\u03c8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f54\u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2. The unique \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 looks like a combination of\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c3 and \u03b5\u1f54\u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Comp. Joel ii.\u00a013; Jonah iv.\u00a02. The word\nfor \"merciful\" occurs Luke vi.\u00a036 (comp. Col. iii.\u00a012) and frequently\nin the Septuagint; _e.g._ Ecclus. ii.\u00a011; \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c1\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41\n\u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXV.\n\n _THE PROHIBITION OF SWEARING. THE RELATION OF THE LANGUAGE\n OF ST. JAMES TO RECORDED SAYINGS OF CHRIST._\n\n \"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven,\n nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and\n your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment.\"--ST. JAMES v.\u00a012.\n\n\nThe main portion of the Epistle is already concluded. St.\u00a0James has\nworked through his chief topics back to the point from which he\nstarted, viz. the blessedness of steadfast and patient endurance of\ntrials and temptations. But one or two other subjects occur to him,\nand he reopens his letter to add them by way of a farewell word of\ncounsel.\n\nOne of the leading thoughts in the letter has been warning against\nsins of the tongue (i.\u00a019, 26; iii.\u00a01-12; iv.\u00a011, 13; v.\u00a09). He has\nspoken against talkativeness, unrestrained speaking, love of\ncorrecting others, railing, cursing, boasting, murmuring. One grievous\nform of sinful speech he has not mentioned particularly; and about\nthis he adds a strong word of warning in this postscript to the\nEpistle: \"Above all things, my brethren, swear not.\"\n\nTwo questions are raised by this remarkable prohibition--first, the\nexact meaning of it, especially whether it forbids swearing for any\npurpose whatever; and secondly, its relation to the almost identical\nprohibition uttered by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v.\u00a035,\n36). It will be obvious that whatever this relation may be, the\nmeaning of our Lord's injunction determines the meaning of St.\u00a0James\nin his injunction. It is hardly worth arguing that he did not mean\neither more or less than Christ meant.\n\nI. The immediate context of the prohibition is worth noting in each\ncase; it seems to throw light upon the scope of the prohibition. Jesus\nChrist, after saying \"Swear not at all; neither by the heaven, ... nor\nby the earth.... But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay,\" goes on\nto forbid retaliation of injuries, and to enjoin love towards enemies.\nSt.\u00a0James enjoins long-suffering towards enemies, thence goes on to\nforbid swearing, and then again returns to the subject of how to\nbehave under affliction and ill-treatment: \"Is any among you\nsuffering? let him pray.\" Prayer, not cursing and swearing, is the\nright method of finding relief. There is, therefore, some reason for\nthinking that both in the Sermon on the Mount and here the prohibition\nof swearing has special reference to giving vent to one's feelings in\noaths when one is exasperated by injury or adversity. No kind of oath\nis allowable for any such purpose.\n\nBut it is quite clear that this is not the whole meaning of the\ninjunction in either place. \"But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay,\nnay;\" and, \"But let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay,\" manifestly\nrefers to strengthening affirmations and negations by adding to them\nthe sanction of an oath. There was an old saying, now unhappily quite\ngrotesque in its incongruity with facts, that \"an Englishman's word is\nas good as his bond.\" What Christ and St.\u00a0James say is that a\nChristian's word should be as good as his oath. There ought to be no\nneed of oaths. Anything over and above simple affirming or denying\n\"cometh of the evil one.\" It is because Satan, the father of lies, has\nintroduced falsehood into the world that oaths have come into use.\nAmong Christians there should be no untruthfulness, and therefore no\noaths. The use of oaths is an index of the presence of evil; it is a\nsymptom of the prevalence of falsehood.\n\nBut the use of oaths is not only a sign of the existence of mischief,\nit is also apt to be productive of mischief. It is apt to produce a\nbelief that there are two kinds of truth, one of which it is a serious\nthing to violate, viz. when you are on your oath; but the other of\nwhich it is a harmless, or at least a venial thing to violate, viz.\nwhen falsehood is only falsehood, and not perjury. And this, both\namong Jews and among Christians, produces the further mischievous\nrefinement that some oaths are more binding than others, and that only\nwhen the most stringent form of oath is employed is there any real\nobligation to speak the truth. How disastrous all such distinctions\nare to the interests of truth, abundant experience has testified: for\na common result is this;--that people believe that they are free to\nlie as much as they please, so long as the lie is not supported by the\nparticular kind of oath which they consider to be binding.\n\nThus much, then, is evident, that both our Lord and St.\u00a0James forbid\nthe use of oaths (1) as an expression of feeling, (2) as a\nconfirmation of ordinary statements; for the prohibitions plainly mean\nas much as this, and we know from other sources that these two abuses\nwere disastrously common among both Jews and Gentiles at that time.\nThat converts to Christianity were exempt from such vices is most\nimprobable; and hence the need that St.\u00a0James should write as he does\non the subject.\n\nBut the main question is whether the prohibition is _absolute_;\nwhether our Lord and St.\u00a0James forbid the use of oaths _for any\npurpose whatever_; and it must be admitted that the first impression\nwhich we derive from their words is that they do. This view is upheld\nby not a few Christians as the right interpretation of both passages.\nChrist says, \"Swear not _at all_ (\u03bc\u1f74 \u1f40\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2).... But let your\nspeech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.\" St.\u00a0James says, \"Swear not, neither by\nthe heaven, nor by the earth, _nor by any other oath_ (\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\n\u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd): but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay.\" In both cases we\nhave an unqualified prohibition of what is to be avoided, followed by\na plain command as to what is to be done.\n\nBut further investigation does not confirm the view which is derived\nfrom a first impression as to the meaning of the words. Against it we\nhave, first, the fact that the Mosaic Law not only allowed, but\nenjoined the taking of an oath in certain circumstances; and Christ\nwould hardly have abrogated the law, and St.\u00a0James would hardly have\ncontradicted it, without giving some explanation of so unusual a\ncourse; secondly, the indisputable practice of the early Church, of\nSt.\u00a0Paul, and of our Lord Himself.\n\nIn Deuteronomy we read, \"Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; and Him\nshalt thou serve, and _shalt swear by His Name_\" (vi.\u00a013); and, \"to\nHim shalt thou cleave, and _by His Name shalt thou swear_\" (x.\u00a020).\nThe Psalmist says, \"The king shall rejoice in God; every one that\nsweareth by Him shall glory: but the mouth of them that speak lies\nshall be stopped\" (lxiii.\u00a011). Isaiah says, \"He that sweareth in the\nearth shall swear by the God of truth\" (lxv.\u00a016); and still more\nstrongly Jeremiah: \"Thou shalt swear, As the Lord liveth, in truth, in\njudgment, and in righteousness\" (iv.\u00a02); and, \"If they will diligently\nlearn the ways of My people, to swear by My Name, As the Lord liveth;\neven as they taught My people to swear by Baal; then shall they be\nbuilt up in the midst of My people\" (xii.\u00a016. Comp. xxiii.\u00a07, 8). An\nabsolute prohibition of all swearing would have been so surprisingly\nat variance with these passages of Scripture that it is difficult to\nbelieve that it would have been made without any allusion to them.\nEven the Essenes, who were very strict about swearing, and considered\nit to be worse than perjury (for a man is condemned already who cannot\nbe believed except upon his oath), imposed \"terrific oaths\" (\u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2) upon those who wished to enter their community, before\nadmitting them (Josephus, _Bell. Jud._ II. viii.\u00a06, 7; _Ant._ XV.\nx.\u00a04); and we can hardly suppose that St.\u00a0James means to take up a\nmore extreme position than that of the Essenes.\n\nBut even if we suppose that he does mean this we have still to explain\nthe _practice_ of those who were well aware of Christ's command\nrespecting swearing, and certainly had no intention of deliberately\nviolating it. If the first Christians were willing on certain\noccasions to take certain oaths, it must have been because they were\nfully persuaded that Jesus Christ had not forbidden them to do so.\nWhen called upon by heathen magistrates to take an oath, the\ndistinction which they drew was not between swearing and not swearing,\nbut between taking oaths that committed them to idolatry and oaths\nwhich did nothing of the kind. The latter oaths they were willing to\ntake. Thus Tertullian says that they would not swear by the _genii_ of\nthe emperors, because these were supposed to be demons; but by the\nsafety of the emperors they were willing to swear (_Apol._ xxxii.).\nOrigen writes to much the same effect (_Con. Celsum_, viii., lxv.).\nThe oath by the _genius_, or _numen_, or \"fortune\" (\u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b7) of the\nemperor was recognized as a formula for abjuring Christianity. Thus\nthe proconsul presses Polycarp again and again: \"Swear by the genius\nof C\u00e6sar; swear the oath, and I will release thee\" (_Mart. Pol._ ix.,\nx.); and the fear of being betrayed into an act of idolatry was one of\nthe main reasons why the early Christians disliked taking oaths. But\nthere was also the feeling that for Christians oaths ought to be quite\nunnecessary. Thus Clement of Alexandria says that the true Christian\nought to maintain a life calculated to inspire such confidence in\nthose without that an oath would not even be demanded of him. And of\ncourse, when he swears, he swears truly; but he is not apt to swear,\nand rarely has recourse to an oath. And his speaking the truth on oath\narises from his harmony with the truth (_Strom._ vii., viii.).\nPelagius maintained that all swearing was forbidden; but Augustine\ncontends, on the authority of Scripture, that oaths are not unlawful,\nalthough he would have them avoided as much as possible (_Ep._ clvii.\nComp. _Epp._ cxxv., cxxvi.).\n\nBut there is not only the evidence as to how the primitive Church\nunderstood the words of Christ and of St.\u00a0James; there is also the\npractice of St.\u00a0Paul, who frequently calls God to witness that he is\nspeaking the truth (2\u00a0Cor. i.\u00a023; xi.\u00a031; xii.\u00a019; Gal. i.\u00a020; Phil.\ni.\u00a08), or uses other strong asseverations which are certainly more\nthan plain Yea and Nay (Rom. ix. i.; 1\u00a0Cor. xv.\u00a031; 2\u00a0Cor. i.\u00a018;\nxi.\u00a010). Augustine quotes St.\u00a0Paul in defence of swearing, but adds\nthat St.\u00a0Paul's swearing, when there was weighty reason for it, is no\nproof that we may swear whenever we think proper to do so. And in the\nEpistle to the Hebrews the fact that men swear in order to settle\ndisputes is mentioned without any intimation that the practice is\nutterly wrong. On the contrary, we are told that God has condescended\nto do the same, in order to give us all the assurance in His power\n(vi.\u00a016-18).\n\nLastly, we have the convincing fact that Jesus Christ allowed Himself\nto be put upon His oath. After having kept silence for a long time, He\nwas _adjured_ by the High Priest to answer; and then He answered at\nonce. The full meaning of the High Priest's words are, \"I exact an\noath of Thee (\u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03b6\u03c9 \u03c3\u03b5) by the Living God\" (Matt. xxvi.\u00a063, 64).\nHad this been an unlawful thing for the High Priest to do, our Lord\nwould have kept silence all the more, or would have answered under\nprotest.\n\nII. It remains to consider the relation of the prohibition of swearing\nin this Epistle to the almost identical prohibition in the Sermon on\nthe Mount. Is St.\u00a0James quoting Christ's words? and if so, whence did\nhe derive his knowledge of them?\n\nNo one who compares the two passages will believe that the similarity\nbetween them is accidental. Even if such an hypothesis could\nreasonably be entertained, it would be shattered by the number of\nother coincidences which exist between passages in this Epistle and\nthe recorded words of Christ. In this instance we have the largest\namount of coincidence; and therefore the discussion of this point has\nbeen reserved until this passage was reached, although numerous other\ncases of coincidence have already occurred.\n\nThe remark is sometimes made that there are more quotations of\nChrist's words in the Epistle of St.\u00a0James than in all the Epistles of\nSt.\u00a0Paul, or than in all the other books of the New Testament other\nthan the Gospels. It would be better to word the remark somewhat\ndifferently, and say that there are more coincidences which cannot be\nfortuitous between this Epistle and the recorded words of Christ than\nin all the Epistles of St.\u00a0Paul; or that there is far more evidence of\nthe influence of Christ's discourses upon the language of St.\u00a0James\nthan there is of any such influence upon the language of St.\u00a0Paul.\nSt.\u00a0Paul tells us much about Christ and His work, but he very rarely\nreproduces any of His sayings. With St.\u00a0James it is exactly the\nopposite; he says very little indeed about Christ, but, without\nquoting them as such, he frequently reproduces His words. It will be\nfound that the largest number of these coincidences are between\nSt.\u00a0James and sayings that are recorded by St.\u00a0Matthew, especially in\nthe Sermon on the Mount. But this does not warrant us in asserting\nthat St.\u00a0James must have seen St.\u00a0Matthew's Gospel or any other\nwritten Gospels. The coincidences, as will be seen, are not of a\ncharacter to show this. Moreover, it is extremely doubtful whether any\nof the Gospels were written so early as A.D.\u00a062, the latest date which\ncan be given to our Epistle; and if any earlier date be assigned to\nit, the improbability of the writer's having seen a written Gospel\nbecomes all the greater. The resemblances between the words of\nSt.\u00a0James and the recorded words of Christ are such as would naturally\narise if he had himself heard Christ's teaching, and was consciously\nor unconsciously reproducing what he remembered of it, rather than\nsuch as would be found if he had had a written document to quote from.\nIf this be so, we have a strong confirmation of the view adopted at\nthe outset, that this Epistle is the work of the Lord's brother, who\nhad personal experience of Christ's conversation, and was independent\nof both the oral and the written tradition of His teaching. It will be\nworth while to tabulate the principal coincidences, so that the reader\nmay be able to judge for himself as to their significance. They\nsuffice to show how full the mind of St.\u00a0James must have been of the\nteaching of Jesus Christ, and they lead to the highly probable\nconjecture that in other parts of the Epistle we have reminiscences of\nChrist's words of which we have no record in the Gospels.[92] It is\nnot likely that St.\u00a0James has remembered and reproduced only those\nsayings of which there is something recorded by the Evangelists.\n\n ST. MATTHEW. ST. JAMES.\n\n 1. Blessed are they that have Count it all joy, my brethren,\n been persecuted for righteousness' when ye fall into manifold\n sake: for theirs is the temptations; knowing that the\n kingdom of heaven. Blessed proof of your faith worketh\n are ye when men shall reproach patience (i.\u00a02, 3).\n you, and persecute you, and say\n all manner of evil against you Take, brethren, for an example\n falsely, for My sake. Rejoice of suffering and of patience,\n and be exceeding glad: for the prophets who spake in the\n great is your reward in heaven: name of the Lord. Behold, we\n for so persecuted they the prophets call them blessed which endured\n which were before you (v.\u00a010, 11).\n (v.\u00a010-12).\n\n 2. Ye therefore shall be perfect, And let patience have its\n as your heavenly Father is perfect work, that ye may be\n perfect (v.\u00a048). perfect and entire, lacking in\n nothing (i.\u00a04).\n\n 3. Ask, and it shall be given But if any of you lacketh\n you; seek, and ye shall find; wisdom, let him ask of God,\n knock, and it shall be opened who giveth to all liberally and\n unto you: for every one that upbraideth not; and it shall be\n asketh receiveth (vii.\u00a07, 8). given him (i.\u00a05).\n\n 4. Blessed are the poor in Let the brother of low degree\n spirit: for theirs is the kingdom glory in his high estate (i.\u00a09).\n of heaven (v.\u00a03. Comp. Luke\n vi.\u00a020). Did not God choose them\n that are poor as to the world\n to be rich in faith, and heirs of\n the kingdom? (ii.\u00a05).\n\n 5. Not every one that saith Be ye doers of the word, and\n unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall not hearers only, deluding your\n enter into the kingdom of own selves. For if any one is\n heaven; but he that doeth the a hearer of the word, and not\n will of My Father which is in a doer, he is like unto a man\n heaven.... And every one beholding his natural face in a\n that heareth these words of mirror (i.\u00a022, 23).\n Mine, and doeth them not,\n shall be likened unto a foolish\n man, which built his house\n upon the sand (vii.\u00a021, 26).\n\n 6. Blessed are the merciful: So speak ye, and so do, as\n for they shall obtain mercy (v.\u00a07). men that are to be judged by a\n law of liberty. For judgment\n If ye forgive not men their is without mercy to him that\n trespasses, neither will your hath showed no mercy: mercy\n Father forgive your trespasses glorieth against judgment (ii.\n (vi.\u00a015). 12, 13).\n\n With what judgment ye\n judge, ye shall be judged\n (vii.\u00a02).\n\n 7. Do men gather grapes of Can a fig-tree, my brethren,\n thorns, or figs of thistles? yield olives, or a vine figs?\n (vii.\u00a016). (iii.\u00a012).\n\n 8. No man can serve two Know ye not that the friendship\n masters: for either he will hate of the world is enmity\n the one, and love the other; or with God? Whosoever, therefore\n else he will hold to one, and would be a friend of the\n despise the other. Ye cannot world maketh himself an enemy\n serve God and Mammon (vi.\u00a024). of God (iv.\u00a04).\n\n 9. Whosoever shall humble Humble yourselves in the\n himself shall be exalted (xxiii. sight of the Lord, and He shall\n 12). exalt you (iv.\u00a010).\n\n 10. Be not therefore anxious Whereas ye know not what\n for the morrow (vi.\u00a034). shall be on the morrow (iv.\u00a014).\n\n 11. Lay not up for yourselves Your riches are corrupted,\n treasures upon the earth, where and your garments are moth-eaten.\n moth and rust doth consume Your gold and your\n (vi.\u00a019). silver are rusted (v.\u00a02, 3).\n\n 12. Swear not at all; neither But above all things, my\n by the heaven, for it is the throne brethren, swear not, neither by\n of God; nor by the earth, for the heaven, nor by the earth,\n it is the footstool of His feet; nor by any other oath.\n nor by Jerusalem, for it is the\n city of the great King. Neither\n shalt thou swear by thy head,\n for thou canst not make one\n hair white or black. But let But let your yea be yea, and\n your speech, be Yea, yea; Nay, your nay, nay; that ye fall not\n nay: and whatsoever is more under judgment (v.\u00a012).\n than these is of the evil one\n (v.\u00a034-37).\n\nThese twelve parallels are by no means exhaustive, but they are among\nthe most striking. The following are worthy of consideration, although\nthose which have been quoted above are more than sufficient for our\npurpose:--\n\n St.\u00a0Matthew i.\u00a019 St.\u00a0James v.\u00a019\n \" \" i.\u00a020 \" v.\u00a022\n \" \" ii. 8 \" vii.\u00a012\n \" \" ii.\u00a010, 11 \" v.\u00a027\n \" \" iii.\u00a017, 18 \" v. 9\n \" \" iv. 3 \" vii. 8\n\nLet us now consider some coincidences between the language of\nSt.\u00a0James and our Lord's words as recorded by the other three\nEvangelists.\n\n ST. MARK. ST. JAMES.\n\n 13. Whosoever shall say unto If any of you lacketh wisdom,\n this mountain, Be thou taken let him ask of God, who giveth\n up and cast into the sea; and to all liberally and upbraideth\n shall not doubt (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u1fc7) in not. But let him ask in faith,\n his heart, but shall believe that nothing doubting (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2):\n what he saith cometh to pass; for he that doubteth etc. (i.\n he shall have it (xi.\u00a023). 5, 6).\n\n 14. They shall deliver you up Do not the rich oppress you,\n to councils; and in synagogues and themselves drag you before\n shall ye be beaten (xiii.\u00a09). the judgment-seats? (ii.\u00a06).\n\n 15. Know ye that he is nigh, Behold, the Judge standeth\n even at the doors (xiii.\u00a029; before the doors (v.\u00a09).\n Matt. xxiv.\u00a033).\n\n ST. LUKE. ST. JAMES.\n\n 16. Woe unto you, ye that Let your laughter be turned\n laugh now! for ye shall mourn to mourning, and your joy to\n and weep (vi.\u00a025). heaviness (iv.\u00a09).\n\n 17. Woe unto you that are Go to now, ye rich, weep\n rich for ye have received your and howl for your miseries that\n consolation (vi.\u00a024). are coming upon you (v.\u00a01).\n\n ST. JOHN. ST. JAMES.\n\n 18. If ye know these things, Being not a hearer that forgetteth,\n blessed are ye if ye do them but a doer that worketh,\n (xiii.\u00a017). this man shall be blessed in\n his doing (i.\u00a025).\n\n 19. If ye were of the world, Know ye not that the friendship\n the world would love its own: of the world is enmity\n but because ye are not of the with God? Whosoever therefore\n world, ... therefore the world would be a friend of the\n hateth you (xv.\u00a019. Comp. world maketh himself an enemy\n xvii.\u00a014). of God (iv.\u00a04).\n\nIt will be observed that these reminiscences of the teaching of Christ\nare all of one kind. They are all of them concerned with the morality\nof the Gospel, with Christian conduct and Christian life. Not one of\nthem is doctrinal, or gives instruction as to the Christian creed.\nThis, again, is what we might expect if the brother of the Lord is the\nwriter of the Epistle. At the time when he listened to his Divine\nBrother's teaching he did not believe on Him. The doctrinal part of\nHis discourses was precisely that part which did not impress him; it\nseemed to him as the wild fancies of an enthusiast (Mark iii.\u00a021). But\nthe moral teaching of Jesus impressed many of those who rejected His\nclaims to be the Messiah, and it is this element which St.\u00a0James\nremembers.\n\nBefore concluding, let us return to the moral precept contained in the\nverse which we have been considering: \"Above all things, my brethren,\nswear not.\" The prohibition has not ceased to be necessary, as our\ndaily experience proves. The vice of profane swearing (and all\nswearing about ordinary matters is profane) is a strange one. Where is\nthe pleasure of it? Where, before it becomes a fashion or a habit, is\nthe temptation to it? Where, in any case, is the sense of it? There is\npleasure in gluttony, in drunkenness, in lust, in pride, in avarice,\nin revenge. But where is the pleasure in an oath? The sensualist, the\nhypocrite, the miser, and the murderer can at least plead strong\ntemptation, can at least urge that they get something, however\npitiful, in exchange for eternal loss. But what can the blasphemer\nplead? what does he get in exchange for his soul? In times of strong\nexcitement it is no doubt a relief to the feelings to use strong\nlanguage; but what is gained by making the strong language trebly\nculpable by adding blasphemy to it? Besides which, there is the sadly\ncommon case of those who use blasphemous words when there is no\ntemptation to give vent to strong feeling in strong language, who\nhabitually swear in cold blood. Let no one deceive himself with the\npaltry excuse that he cannot help it, or that there is no harm in it.\nA resolution to do something disagreeable every time an oath escaped\none's lips would soon bring about a cure. And let those who profess to\nthink that there is no harm in idle swearing ask themselves whether\nthey expect to repeat that plea when they give an account for every\nidle word at the day of judgment (Matt. xii.\u00a036).\n\n[92] See Salmon's _Introduction to the N.T._, pp. 221, 500, 4th ed., 1889.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVI.\n\n _WORSHIP THE BEST OUTLET AND REMEDY FOR EXCITEMENT.\n THE CONNEXION BETWEEN WORSHIP AND CONDUCT._\n\n \"Is any among you suffering? let him pray. Is any cheerful? let him\n sing praise.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES v.\u00a013.\n\n\nThe subject of this verse was probably suggested by that of the\npreceding one. Oaths are not a right way of expressing one's feelings,\nhowever strong they may be, and of whatever kind they may be. There\nis, however, no need to stifle such feelings, or to pretend to the\nworld that we have no emotions. In this respect, as in many others,\nChristianity has no sympathy with the precepts of Stoicism or\nCynicism. It is not only innocent, but prudent, to seek an outlet for\nexcited feelings; the right and wrong of the matter lie in the _kind_\nof outlet which we allow ourselves. Language of some kind, and in most\ncases articulate language, is the natural instrument for expressing\nand giving vent to our feelings. But we need some strong safeguard, or\nthe consequences of freely giving expression to our emotions in speech\nwill be calamitous. This safeguard is clearly indicated by the rules\nhere laid down by St.\u00a0James. Let the expression of strongly excited\nfeelings be an act of _worship_; then we shall have an outlet for them\nwhich is not likely to involve us in harmful results. By the very act\nin which we exhibit our emotions we protect ourselves from the evil\nwhich they might produce. The very mode of expressing them moderates\nthem, and serves as an antidote to their capacity for evil. Prayer and\npraise, or (in one word) worship, according to St.\u00a0James, is the\nChristian remedy for \"allaying or carrying off the fever of the mind.\"\nIn all cases in which the mind is greatly agitated, whether painfully\nor pleasantly, whether by sorrow, anger, regret, or by joy, pleasure,\nhope,--the wise thing to do is to take refuge in an act of worship.\n\nMental excitement is neither right nor wrong, any more than physical\nhunger or thirst. Everything depends on the method of expressing the\none or gratifying the other. It will be easy in both cases to indulge\na legitimate craving in such a way as to turn a natural and healthy\nsymptom into a disease. Neither a heated mind nor a heated body can\nwithout danger be kept heated, or treated as if they were at their\nnormal temperature. The advice of St.\u00a0James is that in all cases in\nwhich our minds are agitated by strong emotion we should turn to Him\nwho gave us minds capable of feeling such emotion; we should cease to\nmake ourselves our own centre, and turn our thoughts from the causes\nof our excitement to Him who is the unmoved Cause of all movement and\nrest.\n\nWe need not tie ourselves to the distribution of prayer and praise\nexpressed in the text. It is the most natural and most generally\nuseful distribution; but it is not the only one, and perhaps it is not\nthe highest. The precept will hold good with equal truth if we\ntranspose the two conclusions: \"Is any among you suffering? let him\nsing praise. Is any cheerful? let him pray.\" \"In _everything_ give\nthanks,\" says St.\u00a0Paul; which involves our frequently giving thanks in\nsuffering. This was what Job, to whom St.\u00a0James has just directed his\nreaders, did in his trouble. He \"fell upon the ground and worshipped:\nand he said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I\nreturn thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed\nbe the name of the Lord\" (i.\u00a020, 21). And the Psalmist teaches much\nthe same lesson as St.\u00a0Paul: \"I will bless the Lord _at all times_;\nHis praise shall continually be in my mouth\" (xxxiv.\u00a01). But if praise\nis as suitable as prayer for suffering, prayer is as suitable as\npraise for cheerfulness. He who is cheerful has indeed great reason to\nbless and praise God. He has a priceless gift, which is a blessing to\nhimself and to all around him, a gift which makes life brighter to the\nwhole circle in which he moves. We most of us take far too little\npains to cultivate it, to retain it when it has been granted to us, to\nregain it when we have lost it or thrown it away. Yet cheerfulness has\nits dangers. The light-hearted are apt to be light-headed, and to be\nfree from care leads to being free from carefulness. The cheerful may\neasily lose sobriety, and be found off their guard. The remedy is\nprayer. Prayer steadies without dimming the bright flame of\ncheerfulness; and just as thanksgiving sweetens sorrow, so\nsupplication sanctifies joy. \"Is any suffering? let him sing praise.\nIs any cheerful? let him pray.\"\n\nBut there is another advantage in making religious worship, whether\npublic or private, the outlet for our emotions. It secures a real\nconnexion between worship and life. Missionaries tell us that this is\na frequent difficulty in their work. It is a hard enough thing to win\nconverts from heathenism; but it is perhaps still harder to teach the\nnewly converted that the worship of God has any bearing whatever upon\ntheir conduct. This idea is quite strange to them, and utterly alien\nto their whole mode of thought. They have never been taught anything\nof the kind before. They have been accustomed to regard the worship of\nthe gods as a series of acts which must be religiously performed in\norder to win the favour of the deities, or at least to avert their\nwrath. But it has never occurred to them, nor have their priests\nimpressed upon them, that their lives must be in accordance with their\nworship, or that the one has any connexion with the other, any more\nthan the colour of their clothes with the amount that they eat and\ndrink. From this it follows that when the idolater has been induced to\nsubstitute the worship of God for the worship of idols, there still\nremains an immense amount to be done. The convert has still to be\ntaught that there can no longer be this divorce of religion from\nconduct, but that prayer and praise must go hand in hand with work and\nlife.\n\nConverts from heathenism are by no means the only persons who are in\nneed of this lesson. We all of us require to be reminded of it. All of\nus are apt to draw far too strong a line of distinction between Church\nand home, between Sunday and week-day, between the time that we spend\non our knees and that which we spend in work and recreation. Not,\nalas! that we are too scrupulous about allowing worldly thoughts to\ninvade sacred times and places, but that we are very jealous about\nallowing thoughts of God and of His service to mingle with our\nbusiness and our pleasures, or at least take no pains to bring about\nand keep up any such mingling. Our worship is often profaned by being\nshared with the world; our work is rarely consecrated by being shared\nwith God.\n\nWhat St.\u00a0James recommends here is a remedy for this. There can be no\nwall of partition between conduct and religion if our feelings of joy\nand sorrow, of elation and despondency, of hope and fear, of love and\ndislike, are daily and hourly finding expression in praise and prayer.\nOur emotions will thus become instruments for moving us towards God.\nSo much of life is filled with either vexation or pleasure, that one\nwho has learned to carry out the directions here given of turning\nsuffering into prayer, and cheerfulness into praise, will have gone a\nlong way towards realizing the Apostolic command, \"Pray without\nceasing.\" As Calvin well observes, St.\u00a0James \"means that there is no\ntime in which God does not invite us to Himself. For afflictions ought\nto stimulate us to pray; prosperity supplies us with an occasion to\npraise God. But such is the perverseness of men, that they cannot\nrejoice without forgetting God, and when afflicted they are\ndisheartened and driven to despair. We ought, then, to keep within due\nbounds, so that the joy which usually makes us forget God may induce\nus to set forth the goodness of God, and that our sorrow may teach us\nto pray.\"\n\nThe word used by St.\u00a0James for \"to sing praise\" (\u03c8\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) is worthy\nof notice. It is the source of the word \"psalm.\" Originally it meant\nsimply to _touch_, especially to _make to vibrate_ by touching; whence\nit came to be used of playing on stringed instruments. Next it came to\nmean to _sing to the harp_; and finally to sing, whether with or\nwithout a stringed accompaniment. This is its signification in the New\nTestament (Rom. xv.\u00a09; 1\u00a0Cor. xiv.\u00a015; Eph. v.\u00a019);--to sing praise to\nGod. St.\u00a0James, therefore, regards music as a natural and reasonable\nmode of expressing joyous feelings; and few will care to dispute that\nit is so; and it is evident that he is thinking chiefly, if not\nexclusively, of the joyous Christian singing by himself, rather than\nof his joining in psalms and hymns in the public worship of the\ncongregation. A portion of Hooker's noble vindication of music as a\npart of religious worship may here with advantage be quoted.\n\n\"Touching musical harmony, whether by instrument or by voice, it being\nbut of high and low in sounds a due proportionable disposition, such,\nnotwithstanding, is the force thereof, and so pleasing effects it hath\nin that very part of man which is most divine, that some have been\nthereby induced to think that the soul itself, by nature, is or hath\nin it harmony. A thing which delighteth all ages and beseemeth all\nstates; a thing as seasonable in grief as in joy; as decent being\nadded unto actions of greatest weight and solemnity, as being used\nwhen men most sequester themselves from action. The reason hereof is\nan admirable facility which music hath to express and represent to the\nmind, more inwardly than any other sensible mean, the very standing,\nrising, and falling, the very steps and inflexions every way, the\nturns and varieties of all passions whereunto the mind is subject;\nyea, so to imitate them that whether it resemble unto us the same\nstate wherein our minds already are, or a clean contrary, we are not\nmore contentedly by the one confirmed, than changed and led away by\nthe other.... So that although we lay altogether aside the\nconsideration of ditty or matter, the very harmony of sounds being\nframed in due sort, and carried from the ear to the spiritual\nfaculties of our souls, is by a native puissance and efficacy greatly\navailable to bring to a perfect temper whatsoever is there troubled,\napt as well to quicken the spirits as to allay that which is too\neager, sovereign against melancholy and despair, forcible to draw\nforth tears of devotion if the mind be such as can yield them, able\nboth to move and to moderate all affections.\n\n\"The Prophet David having therefore singular knowledge, not in poetry\nalone, but in music also, judged them both to be things most necessary\nfor the house of God, left behind him to that purpose a number of\nDivinely indited poems, and was farther the author of adding unto\npoetry melody both vocal and instrumental, for the raising up of men's\nhearts, and the sweetening of their affections towards God. In which\nconsiderations the Church of Christ doth likewise at this present day\nretain it as an ornament to God's service, and an help to our own\ndevotion. They which, under pretence of the Law ceremonial abrogated,\nrequire the abrogation of instrumental music, approving nevertheless\nthe use of vocal melody to remain, must show some reason wherefore the\none should be thought a legal ceremony, and not the other\" (_Eccles.\nPol._, V. xxxviii.\u00a01, 2).\n\nIt hardly needs to be stated that it is not necessary to be able to\nsing in order to observe this precept of St.\u00a0James. The \"singing and\nmaking melody with our hearts to the Lord\" of which St.\u00a0Paul writes to\nthe Ephesians (v.\u00a019) is all that is necessary; \"giving thanks always\nfor all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the\nFather.\" The lifting up of the heart is enough, without the lifting up\nof the voice; and if the voice be lifted up also, it is of little\naccount, either to the soul or to God, whether its tones be musical,\nalways provided that he who thus offers praise is alone, and not in\nthe congregation. Those who have no music in their voices, and yet\npersist in joining aloud in the singing of public service, are wanting\nin charity. In order to gratify themselves, they disturb the devotions\nof others. And that principle applies to many other things in public\nworship, especially to details of ritual other than those which are\ngenerally observed. There would be much less difficulty about such\nthings if each member of the congregation were to ask, \"By doing this,\nor by refusing to do it, am I likely to distract my neighbours in\ntheir worship?\" Ought not the answer to that question to be conclusive\nas regards turning or not turning to the East at the creed, bowing or\nnot bowing the head at the _Gloria Patri_, and the like? We come to\nchurch to be calmed, sobered, soothed, not to be fretted and vexed.\nLet us take care that our own behaviour is such as not to irritate\nothers. By our self-will we may be creating or augmenting mental\nexcitement, which, as St.\u00a0James tells us, worship, whether public or\nprivate, ought to cure.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVII.\n\n _THE ELDERS OF THE CHURCH. THE ANOINTING OF\n THE SICK AND EXTREME UNCTION._\n\n \"Is any among you sick? let him call for the elders of the Church;\n and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the\n Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the\n Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be\n forgiven him.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES v.\u00a014-15.\n\n\nTwo subjects stand out prominently in this interesting passage--the\nelders of the Church, and the anointing of the sick. The connexion of\nthe passage with what immediately precedes is close and obvious. After\ncharging his readers in general terms to resort to prayer when they\nare in trouble, St.\u00a0James takes a particular and very common instance\nof trouble, viz. bodily sickness, and gives more detailed directions\nas to the way in which the man in trouble is to make use of the relief\nand remedy of prayer. He is not to be content with giving expression\nto his need in private prayer to God; he is to \"call for _the elders\nof the Church_.\"\n\nI. The first thing to be noted in connexion with this sending for the\nelders of the congregation by the sick man is, that in this Epistle,\nwhich is one of the very earliest among the Christian writings which\nhave come down to us, we already find a _distinction made between\nclergy and laity_. This distinction runs through the whole of the New\nTestament. We find it in the earliest writing of all, the First\nEpistle to the Thessalonians, in which the Christians of Thessalonica\nare exhorted \"to know them that labour among you, and are over you in\nthe Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them exceeding highly in\nlove for their work's sake\" (v.\u00a012, 13). And here St.\u00a0James assumes as\na matter of course, that every congregation has elders, that is a\nconstituted ecclesiastical government. Compare with these the precept\nin the Epistle to the Hebrews, \"Obey them that have the rule over you,\nand submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they\nthat shall give account\" (xiii.\u00a017); and the frequent directions in\nthe Pastoral Epistles (1\u00a0Tim. iii.\u00a01-13; iv.\u00a06, 13, 14; v.\u00a017, 19, 22;\nTit. i.\u00a05-9; ii.\u00a015; 2\u00a0Tim. i.\u00a06, 14; ii.\u00a02; iv.\u00a05). What the precise\nfunctions of the clergy were is not told us with much detail or\nprecision; but it is quite clear, from the passage before us, and\nthose which have been quoted above, that whatever the functions were,\nthey were spiritual rather than secular, and were duties which a\nselect minority had to exercise in reference to the rest; they were\nnot such as any one might exercise towards any one. In the present\ncase the sick person is not to send for any members of the\ncongregation, but for certain who hold a definite, and apparently an\nofficial position. If _any_ Christians could discharge the function in\nquestion, St.\u00a0James would not have given the sick person the trouble\nof summoning the elders rather than those people who chanced to be\nnear at hand. And it is quite clear that not all Christians are over\nall other Christians in the Lord; that not all are to rule, and all to\nobey and submit; therefore not all have the same authority to\n\"admonish\" others, or to \"watch in behalf of their souls, as they that\nshall give account.\"[93]\n\nThe reason why the elders are to be summoned is stated in different\nways by different writers, but with a large amount of substantial\nagreement. \"As being those in whom the power and grace of the Holy\nSpirit more particularly appeared,\" says Calvin. \"Because when they\npray it is not much less than if the whole Church prayed,\" says\nBengel. St.\u00a0James, says Neander, \"regards the presbyters in the light\nof organs of the Church, acting in its name;\" and, \"As the presbyters\nacted in the name of the whole Church, and each one as a member of the\nbody felt that he needed its sympathy and intercession, and might\ncount upon it; individuals should therefore, in cases of sickness,\nsend for the presbyters of the Church. These were to offer prayer on\ntheir behalf.\" The intercession which St.\u00a0James recommends, says\nStier, is \"intercession for the sick on the part of the\nrepresentatives of the Church, ... not merely the intercession of\nfriends or brethren as such, but in the name of the whole community,\none of whose members is suffering.\" It is altogether beside the mark\nto suggest that the elders were summoned as people of the greatest\nexperience, who perhaps also were specially _skilled in medicine_. Of\nthat there is not only no hint, but the context excludes the idea. If\nthat were in the writer's mind, why does he not say at once, \"Let him\ncall for the physicians\"? If the healing art is to be thought of at\nall in connexion with the passage, the case is one in which medicine\nhas already done all that it can, or in which it can do nothing at\nall. St.\u00a0James would doubtless approve the advice given by the son of\nSirach: \"My son, in thy sickness be not negligent; but pray unto the\nLord, and He will make thee whole\" (Ecclus. xxxviii.\u00a09). This exactly\nagrees with the precept, \"Is any among you suffering? let him pray.\"\n\"Then give place to the physician, for the Lord hath created him: let\nhim not go from thee, for thou hast need of him. There is a time when\nin their hands there is good success\" (12, 13). To this there is no\nequivalent in St.\u00a0James; but he says nothing that is inconsistent with\nit. Then, after the physician has done his part, and perhaps in vain,\nwould come the summoning of the elders to offer prayer. But it is\nsimpler to suppose that the physician's part is left out of the\naccount altogether.\n\nII. The second point of interest is the anointing of the sick person\nby the elders. That what is said here affords no Scriptural authority\nfor the Roman rite of Extreme Unction, is one of the commonplaces of\ncriticism. One single fact is quite conclusive. The object of the\nunction prescribed by St.\u00a0James is the recovery of the sick person;\nwhereas Extreme Unction, as its name implies, is never administered\nuntil the sick person's recovery is considered to be almost or quite\nhopeless, and death imminent; the possibility of bodily healing is not\nentirely excluded, but it is not the main purpose of the rite. The\nonly other passage in the New Testament in which the unction of the\nsick is mentioned is equally at variance with the Roman rite. We are\ntold by St.\u00a0Mark that the Twelve, when sent out by Christ two and two,\n\"anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them\" (vi.\u00a013).\nHere also recovery, and not preparation for death, was the purpose of\nthe anointing, which the Apostles seem to have practised on their own\nresponsibility, for it is not mentioned in the charge which Christ\ngave them when He sent them out (7-11).\n\nBut there is this amount of connexion between these two passages of\nScripture and the Roman sacrament of Extreme Unction, viz. that the\nlatter _grew out of ecclesiastical practices which were based upon\nthese passages_. As in not a few other instances, development has\nbrought about a state of things which is inconsistent with the\noriginal starting-point. But in order to understand the development we\nmust understand the starting-point, and that requires us to find an\nanswer to the question, What purpose was the oil intended to serve?\nWas it purely symbolical? and if so, of what? Was it merely for the\nrefreshment of the sick person, giving relief to parched skin and\nstiffened limbs? Was it medicinal, with a view to a permanent cure by\nnatural means? Was it the channel or instrument of a supernatural\ncure? Was it an aid to the sick person's faith? One or both of the\nlast two suggestions may be accepted as the most probable solution.\nAnd the reason why oil was selected as a channel of Divine power and\nan aid to faith was, that it was believed to have healing properties.\nIt is easier to believe when visible means are used than when nothing\nis visible, and it is still easier to believe when the visible means\nappear to be likely to contribute to the desired effect. Christ twice\nused spittle in curing blindness, probably because spittle was\nbelieved to be beneficial to the eyesight. And that oil was supposed\nto be efficacious as medicine is plain from numerous passages both in\nand outside of Holy Scripture. \"From the sole of the foot even unto\nthe head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and\nfestering sores: they have not been closed, nor bound up, neither\nmollified with oil\" (Isa. i.\u00a06). The Good Samaritan poured wine and\noil into the wounds of the man who fell among robbers (Luke x.\u00a034). A\nmixture of oil and wine was used for the malady which attacked the\narmy of \u00c6lius Gallus, and was applied both externally and internally\n(Dion Cass. LIII. 29; Strabo XVI., p. 780). His physicians caused\nHerod the Great to be bathed in a vessel full of oil when he was\nsupposed to be at death's door (Josephus, _Ant._ XVII. vi.\u00a05). Celsus\nrecommends rubbing with oil in the case of fevers and some other\nailments (_De Med._ II. 14, 17; III. 6, 9, 19, 22; IV. 2).[94] But it\nis obvious that St.\u00a0James does not recommend the oil merely as\nmedicine, for he does not say that the oil shall cure the sick person,\nnor yet that the oil with prayer shall do so; but that \"the prayer of\nfaith shall save him that is sick,\" without mentioning the oil at all.\nOn the other hand, he says that the anointing is to be done by the\nelders \"in the name of the Lord.\" If the anointing were merely\nmedicinal, it might have been performed by any one, without waiting\nfor the elders. And it can hardly be supposed that oil was believed to\nbe a remedy for all diseases.\n\nOn the other hand, it seems to be too much to say that the anointing\nhad nothing to do with bodily healing at all, and was simply a means\nof grace for the sick. Thus D\u00f6llinger says, \"This is no gift of\nhealing, for that was not confined to the presbyters; and for that\nChrist prescribed not unction, but laying on of hands. Had he meant\nthat, St.\u00a0James would have bidden or advised the sick to send for one\nwho possessed this gift, whether presbyter or layman.... What was to\nbe conveyed by this medium was, therefore, only sometimes recovery or\nrelief, always consolation, revival of confidence and forgiveness of\nsins, on condition, of course, of faith and repentance\" (_First Age of\nthe Church_, p. 235, Oxenham's translation, 2nd ed.: Allen, 1867). But\nalthough the gift of healing was not confined to the elders, yet in\ncertain cases they may have exercised it; and although Christ\nprescribed the laying on of hands (Mark xvi.\u00a018), yet the Apostles\nsometimes healed by anointing with oil (Mark vi.\u00a013). And that \"shall\n_save_ him that is sick\" (\u03c3\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1) means \"shall _cure_\nhim,\" is clear both from the context, and also from the use of the\nsame word elsewhere. \"Daughter, be of good cheer; thy faith hath\n_saved_ thee,\" to the woman with the issue of blood (Matt. ix.\u00a022).\nJairus prays, \"Come and lay Thy hands on her, that she may be _saved_\"\n(Mark v.\u00a023). The disciples say of Lazarus, \"Lord, if he is fallen\nasleep, he will be _saved_\" (John xi.\u00a012). And \"the Lord shall raise\nhim up\" makes this interpretation still more certain. The same\nexpression is used of Simon's wife's mother (Mark i.\u00a031). \"The Lord\"\nis Christ, not the Father, both here and \"in the Name of _the Lord_.\"\nThus St.\u00a0Peter says to \u00c6neas, \"_Jesus Christ_ healeth thee\" (Acts\nix.\u00a034. Comp. iii.\u00a06, 16; v.\u00a010).\n\nThat St.\u00a0James makes the promise of recovery without any restriction\nmay at first sight appear to be surprising; but in this he is only\nfollowing the example of our Lord, who makes similar promises, and\nleaves it to the thought and experience of Christians to find out the\nlimitations to them. St.\u00a0James is only applying to a particular case\nwhat Christ promised in general terms. \"All things, whatsoever ye pray\nand ask for, believe that ye have received them, and ye shall have\nthem\" (Mark xi.\u00a024. Comp. Matt. xvii.\u00a020). \"If ye shall ask [Me]\nanything in My Name, I will do it\" (John xiv.\u00a014). \"If ye shall ask\nanything of the Father, He will give it you in My Name\" (John\nxvi.\u00a023). The words \"in My Name\" point to the limitation; they do not,\nof course, refer to the use of the formula \"through Jesus Christ our\nLord,\" but to the exercise of the spirit of Christ: \"Not My will, but\nThine be done.\" The union of our will with the will of God is the very\nfirst condition of successful prayer. The Apostles themselves had no\nindiscriminate power of healing. St.\u00a0Paul did not heal Epaphroditus,\nmuch as he yearned for his recovery (Phil. ii.\u00a027). He left Trophimus\nat Miletus sick (2\u00a0Tim. iv.\u00a020). He did not cure his own thorn in the\nflesh (2\u00a0Cor. xii.\u00a07-9). How, then, can we suppose that St.\u00a0James\ncredited the elders of every congregation with an unrestricted power\nof healing? He leaves it to the common sense and Christian submission\nof his readers to understand that the elders have no power to cancel\nthe sentence of death pronounced on the whole human race. To pray that\nany one should be exempt from this sentence would be not faith, but\npresumption.\n\nOf the employment of the rite here prescribed by St.\u00a0James we have\nvery little evidence in the early ages of the Church. Tertullian\nmentions a cure by anointing, but it is not quite a case in point. The\nEmperor Septimius Severus believed that he had been cured from an\nillness through oil administered by a Christian named Proculus\nTorpacion, steward of Evodias, and in gratitude for it he maintained\nhim in the palace for the rest of his life (_Ad. Scap._ iv.). Origen,\nin the second Homily on Leviticus (iv.), quotes the passage from\nSt.\u00a0James, and seems to understand the sickness to be that of sin. He\ninterpolates thus: \"Let him call for the elders of the Church, and\n_let them lay their hands on him_, anointing him with oil,\" etc. This\nperhaps tells us how the rite was administered in Alexandria in his\ntime; or it may mean that Origen understood the \"pray _over_ him\"\n(\u1f10\u03c0' \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd) of St.\u00a0James to signify imposition of hands. With him,\nthen, the forgiveness of sins is the healing. A century and a half\nlater Chrysostom takes a further step, and employs the passage to show\nthat priests have the power of absolution. \"For not only at the time\nwhen they regenerate us, but afterwards also, they have authority to\nforgive sins.\" And then he quotes James v.\u00a014, 15 (_De Sacerd_. III.\n6). It is evident that this is quite alien to the passage. The\nsickness and the sins are plainly distinguished by St.\u00a0James, and\nnothing is said about absolution by the elders, who pray for his\nrecovery, and (no doubt) for his forgiveness.\n\nWhen we reach the sixth century the evidence for the custom of\nanointing the sick with holy oil becomes abundant. At first any one\nwith a reputation for sanctity might bless the oil--not only laymen,\nbut women. But in the West the rule gradually spread from Rome that\nthe sacred oil for the sick must be \"made\" by the bishop. In the East\nthis has never been observed. Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of\nCanterbury, says that according to the Greeks it is lawful for\npresbyters to make the chrism for the sick. And this rule continues to\nthis day. One priest suffices; but it is desirable to get seven, if\npossible.\n\nBut the chief step in the development is taken when not only the\nblessing of the oil, but the administering of it to the sick, is\nreserved to the clergy. In Bede's time this restriction was not yet\nmade, as is clear from his comments on the passage, although even then\nit was customary for priests to administer the unction. But by the\ntenth century this restriction had probably become general. It became\nconnected with the communion of the sick, which of course required a\npriest, and then with the _Viaticum_, or communion of the dying; but\neven then the unction seems to have preceded the last communion. The\nname \"Extreme Unction\" (_unctio extrema_), as a technical\necclesiastical term, is not older than the twelfth century. Other\nterms are \"Last Oil\" (_ultimum oleum_) and \"Sacrament of the\nDeparting\" (_sacramentum exeuntium_). But when we have reached these\nphrases we are very far indeed from the ordinance prescribed by\nSt.\u00a0James, and from that which was practised by the Apostles. Jeremy\nTaylor, in the dedication of the _Holy Dying_, says fairly enough,\n\"The fathers of the Council of Trent first disputed, and after their\nmanner at last agreed, that Extreme Unction was instituted by Christ;\nbut afterwards being admonished by one of their theologues that the\nApostles ministered unction to infirm people before they were priests,\nfor fear that it should be thought that this unction might be\nadministered by him that was no priest, they blotted out the word\n'instituted,' and put in its stead 'insinuated' this sacrament, and\nthat it was published by St.\u00a0James. So it is in their doctrine; and\nyet in their anathematisms they curse all them that shall deny it to\nhave been instituted by Christ. I shall lay no prejudice against it,\nbut add this only, that there being but two places of Scripture\npretended for this ceremony, some chief men of their own side have\nproclaimed these two invalid as to the institution of it;\" and he\nmentions in particular Suarez and Cajetan. But he states more than he\ncan know when he declares of Extreme Unction that \"since it is used\nwhen the man is above half dead, when he can exercise no act of\nunderstanding, it must needs be nothing.\" Those who receive the rite\nare not always unconscious; and is it certain that an unconscious\nperson \"can exercise no act of the understanding,\" or that prayer for\none who can exercise no act of the understanding \"must needs be\nnothing\"? With similar want of caution Stier speaks of \"the\n_superstition_ which sends for the minister to 'pray over the sick,'\nwhen these have scarce any consciousness left.\" Whether or no Extreme\nUnction is an edifying ceremony is a question worthy of argument, and\nnothing is here urged on either side; but we are going beyond our\nknowledge if we assert that it _can_ have no effect on the dying man;\nand we are unduly limiting the power of prayer if we affirm that to\npray for one who has lost consciousness is a useless superstition. All\nthat is contended for here is, that the Roman rite is something very\ndifferent from that which is ordered by St.\u00a0James.[95]\n\n\"And if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him.\" We ought\nperhaps rather to translate, \"Even if he have committed sins, it shall\nbe forgiven him.\" (The Greek is not \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ac\u03bd or \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad, but \u03ba\u1f04\u03bd,\nfor which comp. John viii.\u00a014; x.\u00a038; xi.\u00a025). The meaning would seem\nto be, \"even if his sickness has been produced by his sins, his sin\nshall be forgiven, and his sickness cured.\" It is possible, but\nunnatural, to join the first clause of this sentence with the\npreceding one: \"the Lord shall raise him up, even if he have committed\nsins.\" In that case \"It shall be forgiven him\" forms a very awkward\nindependent sentence, without conjunction. The ordinary arrangement of\nthe clauses is much better: even if the malady is the effect of the\nman's own wrong-doing, the prayer offered by faith--his faith, and\nthat of the elders--shall still prevail. St.\u00a0Paul tells the\nCorinthians that their misconduct respecting the Lord's Supper had\ncaused much sickness among them, and not a few deaths (1\u00a0Cor. xi.\u00a030);\nand such direct punishments of sin were not confined to the Corinthian\nChurch nor to the Apostolic age. They still occur in abundance, and\nthose who experience them have the assurance of Scripture that if they\nrepent and pray in faith their sins will certainly be forgiven, and\ntheir punishment possibly removed.\n\n[93] The question of the Origin of the Christian Ministry has been\ndiscussed in another volume of this series. See the _Pastoral\nEpistles_, pp. 104-117 (Hodder and Stoughton, 1888).\n\n[94] For additional evidence see J. C. Wolf, _Cur\u00e6 Philol. et Crit._\nV., pp. 79-81; Lightfoot, _Hor\u00e6 Hebr._ II., pp. 304, 444, on Matt.\nvi.\u00a017 and Mark vi.\u00a013; Launoi, _De Sacramento Unctionis Infirmorum_,\nI., p. 444.\n\n[95] See letters in the _Guardian_ of Mar. 12, 19, Apr. 9, 16, 23, May\n7, 1890; pp. 447, 481, 594, 633, 682, 763.\n\nIn the Visitation of the Sick in the First Prayer Book of Edward\nVI. there is provision for the older rite: \"If the sicke person desyre\nto be annoynted, then shall the priest annoynte him upon the forehead\nor breast only, making the signe of the crosse, saying thus,\nAs with this visible oyle thy body outwardly is annoynted: so our\nheavenly father almyghtye God graunt of his infinite goodnesse, that\nthy soule inwardly may be annoynted with the holy gost, who is the\nspirite of al strength, comforte, reliefe, and gladnesse. And vouchsafe\nfor his great mercy (yf it be his blessed will) to restore unto thee thy\nbodely helth and strength, to serve him,\" etc.\n\nReaders of the _Confessions_ will remember how St.\u00a0Augustine on\none occasion asked his friends to pray that he might be freed from great\npain, and forthwith found relief. \"I have neither forgotten nor will\nbe silent about the severity of Thy scourge, and the marvellous speed\nof Thy mercy. Thou didst then torture me with toothache (he says\nelsewhere that this was so grievous that he could learn nothing fresh,\nbut could only think of what he already knew), and when the pain\nbecame so severe that I was unable to speak the thought rose in my\nheart to urge all my friends who were present to pray for me to Thee,\nthe God of all health. And I wrote this on a waxen tablet, and gave\nit to them to read. Presently, as with suppliant desire we bowed our\nknees, that great pain fled away. But what pain? and how did it\nflee? I confess, my Lord and my God, that it frightened me; for\nfrom my earliest days I had experienced nothing like it\" (IX. iv.\u00a012).\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVIII.\n\n _THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONFESSION OF SINS.\n THE LAWFULNESS OF PRAYERS FOR RAIN._\n\n \"Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for\n another, that ye may be healed. The supplication of a righteous man\n availeth much in its working. Elijah was a man of like passions with\n us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain; and it rained not\n on the earth for three years and six months. And he prayed again; and\n the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her\n fruit.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES v.\u00a016-18.\n\n\nThe connexion of this passage with the preceding one is very close.\nThis is evident even in the Authorized Version; but it is made still\nmore manifest by the Revisers, who have restored the connecting\n\"therefore\" to the text upon overwhelming authority. St.\u00a0James is\npassing from the particular case of the sick person to something more\ngeneral, viz. mutual confession of sins. If we draw out his thought in\nfull, it will be something of this kind: \"Even if the sick person be\nsuffering the consequences of his sins, nevertheless the faith and\nprayers of the elders, combined with his own, shall prevail for his\nforgiveness and healing. Of course he must confess and bewail his\nsins: if he does not admit them and repent of them, he can hope for\nnothing. _Therefore_ you ought all of you habitually to confess your\nsins to one another, and to intercede for one another, in order that\nwhen sickness comes upon you, you may the more readily be healed.\" It\nis not quite certain that the word rendered \"ye may be healed\"\n(\u1f30\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc7\u03c4\u03b5) ought to be limited to bodily healing; but the context\nseems to imply that the cure of bodily disorders is still in the mind\nof St.\u00a0James. If, however, with various commentators, we take it to\nmean \"that your _souls_ may be healed,\" then there is no need to\nsupply any such thought as \"when sickness comes upon you.\"\n\nIt might surprise us to find that the practice of auricular confession\nto a priest is deduced from the precept, \"Confess your sins one to\nanother,\" if we had not the previous experience of finding the rite of\nExtreme Unction deduced from the precept respecting the anointing of\nthe sick. But here also Cajetan has the credit of admitting that no\nScriptural authority for the Roman practice can be found in the words\nof St.\u00a0James. The all-important \"to one another\" (\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2) is quite\nfatal to the interpretation of confession to a priest. If the\nconfession of a layman to a priest is meant, then the confession of a\npriest to a layman is _equally meant_: the words, whether in the Greek\nor in the English, cannot be otherwise understood. But the injunction\nis evidently quite general, and the distinction between clergy and\nlaity does not enter into it at all: each Christian, whether elder or\nlayman, is to confess to other Christians, whether elders or laymen,\neither to one or to many, as the case may be. When the sick person\njust spoken of confessed his sins, he confessed them to the elders of\nthe Church, because they were present; they did not come to receive\nhis confession, but to pray for him and to anoint him. He sent for\nthem, not because he wished to confess to them, but because he was\nsick. Even if he had had nothing to confess to them--a case evidently\ncontemplated by St.\u00a0James as not only possible, but common--he would\nstill have sent for them. So far from its being among their functions\nas elders to hear the sick man's confession, St.\u00a0James seems rather to\nimply that he ought to have made it previously to others. If\nChristians habitually confess their sins to one another, there will be\nno special confession required when any of them falls ill. But\ngranting that this interpretation of his brief directions is not quite\ncertain, it is quite certain that what he commends is the confession\nof any Christian to any Christian, and not the confession of laity to\npresbyters. About that he says nothing, either one way or the other,\nfor it is not in his mind. He neither sanctions nor forbids it, but he\ngives a direction which shows that as regards the duty of confession\nto man, the normal condition of things is for any Christian to confess\nto any Christian. The important point is that the sinner should not\nkeep his guilty secret locked up in his own bosom; to whom he should\ntell it is left to his own discretion. As Tertullian says, in his\ntreatise _On Penance_, \"Confession of sins lightens as much as\nconcealment (_dissimulatio_) aggravates them. For confession is\nprompted by the desire to make amends; concealment is prompted by\ncontumacy\" (viii.). Similarly Origen, on Psalm xxxvii.: \"See,\ntherefore, what the Divine Scripture teaches us, that we must not\nconceal sin within us. For just as, it may be, people who have\nundigested food detained inside them, or are otherwise grievously\noppressed internally, if they vomit, obtain relief, so they also who\nhave sinned, if they conceal and retain the sin, are oppressed\ninwardly. But if the sinner becomes his own accuser, accuses himself\nand confesses, he at the same time vomits out both the sin and the\nwhole cause of his malady\" (_Homil._ II. 6). In much the same strain\nChrysostom writes, \"Sin, if it is confessed, becomes less; but if it\nis not confessed, worse; for if the sinner adds shamelessness and\nobstinacy to his sin, he will never stop. How, indeed, will such a one\nbe at all able to guard himself from falling again into the same sins,\nif in the earlier case he was not conscious that he sinned.... Let us\nnot merely call ourselves sinners, but let us make a reckoning of our\nsins, counting them according to their kind, one by one.... If thou\nart of the persuasion that thou art a sinner, this is not able so much\nto humble thy soul as the very catalogue of thy sins examined into\naccording to their kind\" (_Homil._ xxx. _in Ep. ad Hebr._)\n\nAll these writers have this main point in common, that a sinner who\ndoes not confess what he has done amiss is likely to become careless\nand hardened. And the principle is at least as old as the Book of\nProverbs: \"He that covereth his transgressions shall not prosper: but\nwhoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall obtain mercy\" (xxviii.\u00a013).\nBut, as the context clearly shows in each case, they are each of them\nwriting of a different kind of confession. The confession\n(_exomologesis_) which Tertullian so urgently recommends is public\nconfession before the congregation; that which Origen advises is\nprivate confession to an individual, particularly with a view to\ndeciding whether public confession is expedient. What Chrysostom\nprefers, both here and elsewhere in his writings, is secret confession\nto God: \"I say not to thee, Make a parade of thyself; nor yet, Accuse\nthyself in the presence of the others.... Before God confess these\nthings; before the Judge ever confess thy sins, praying, if not with\nthe tongue, at any rate with the heart, and in this way ask for\nmercy.\" All which is in accordance with the principle laid down by\nSt.\u00a0John, \"If we confess our sins\"--our sins in detail, not the mere\nfact that we have sinned--\"He is faithful and righteous to forgive us\nour sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness\" (1\u00a0John i.\u00a09).\nBellarmine has the courage to claim not only St.\u00a0James, but St.\u00a0John,\nas teaching confession to a priest (_De P\u0153nit._ III. iv.); but it\nis manifest that St.\u00a0John is speaking of confession to God, without\neither approving or condemning confession to man, and that St.\u00a0James\nis speaking of the latter, without saying anything about the former.\nBut just as St.\u00a0James leaves to the penitent's discretion the question\nto whom he shall confess, whether to clergy or laity, so also he\nleaves it to his discretion whether he shall confess to one or to\nmany, and whether in private or in public.[96] In the second, third,\nand fourth centuries public confession was commonly part of public\npenance. And the object of it is well stated by Hooker: \"Offenders in\nsecret\" were \"persuaded that if the Church did direct them in the\noffices of their penitency, and assist them with public prayer, they\nshould more easily obtain that they sought than by trusting wholly to\ntheir own endeavours.\" The primitive view, he holds, was this: \"Public\nconfession they thought necessary by way of _discipline_, not private\nconfession as in the nature of a _sacrament_\" (_Eccl. Pol._, VI.\niv.\u00a02, 6). But experience soon showed that indiscriminate public\nconfession of grievous sins was very mischievous. Therefore in the\nEast, and (if Sozomen is correct) at Rome also, penitentiary\npresbyters were appointed to decide for penitents whether their sins\nmust be confessed to the congregation or not. Thus, what Origen\nadvises each penitent to do for himself, viz. seek a wise adviser\nrespecting the expediency of public confession and penance, was\nformally done for every one. But in A.D.\u00a0391, Nectarius, the\npredecessor of Chrysostom in the see of Constantinople, was persuaded\nto abolish the office, _apparently_ because a penitentiary presbyter\nhad sanctioned public confession in a case which caused great scandal;\nbut neither Socrates (V. xix.) nor Sozomen (VII. xvi.) makes this\npoint very clear. The consequence of the abolition was that each\nperson was left to his own discretion, and public penance fell into\ndisuse.\n\nBut public confession had other disadvantages. Private enmity made use\nof these confessions to annoy, and even to prosecute the penitent.\nMoreover, the clergy sometimes proclaimed to the congregation what had\nbeen told them in confidence; that is, they made public confession on\nbehalf of the sinner without his consent. Whereupon Leo the Great, in\na letter to the Bishops of Apulia and Campania, March 6th, A.D.\u00a0459,\nsanctioned the practice of private confession (_Ep._ clxviii.\n[cxxxvi.]). Thus, in the West, as previously in the East, a severe\nblow was given to the practice of public confession and penance.\n\nBut it is probable that the origin, or at least the chief\nencouragement, of the practice of auricular confession is rather to be\nlooked for in _monasticism_. Offences against the rule of the Order\nhad to be confessed before the whole community; and it was assumed\nthat the only other grave offences likely to happen in the monastic\nlife would be those of thought. These had to be confessed in private\nto the abbat. The influences of monasticism were by no means bounded\nby the monastery walls; and it is probable that the rule of private\nconfession by the brethren to the abbat had much to do with the custom\nof private confession by the laity to the priest. But it is carefully\nto be noted that for a considerable period the chief considerations\nare the penitent's admission of his sins and the fixing of the\npenance. Only gradually does the further idea of the absolution of the\npenitent by the body or the individual that hears the confession come\nin; and at last it becomes the main idea. Confession once a year to a\npriest was made compulsory by the Lateran Council in 1215; but various\nlocal synods had made similar regulations at earlier periods; _e.g._\nthe Council of Toulouse in 1129, and of Li\u00e8ge in 710.[97] But when we\nhave reached these regulations we have once more advanced very far\nindeed beyond what is prescribed by St.\u00a0James in this Epistle.\n\nThere cannot be much doubt what is the main idea with St.\u00a0James:\n\"Confess therefore your sins one to another, and _pray_ one for\nanother, that ye may be healed. The _supplication_ of a righteous man\navaileth much in its working. Elijah ... _prayed fervently_.... And he\n_prayed again_,\" etc. It is in order that we may _induce others to\npray for us_ that we are to confess our sins to them; and this is the\ngreat motive which underlies the public confession of the primitive\nChurch. As Hooker well expresses it, \"The greatest thing which made\nmen forward and willing upon their knees to confess whatever they had\ncommitted against God ... was their fervent desire to be helped and\nassisted with the prayers of God's saints.\" And the meaning of these\nprayers is strikingly expressed by Tertullian, who thus addresses the\npenitent in need of such intercession: \"Where one and two meet, there\nis a Church; and a Church is Christ. Therefore, when thou dost stretch\nforth thy hands to the knees of thy brethren, it is Christ that thou\ntouchest, Christ on whom thou prevailest. Just so, when _they_ shed\ntears over _thee_, it is Christ who feels compassion, Christ who is\nentreating the Father. Readily doth He ever grant that which the Son\nrequests\" (_De P\u0153nit._ x.). To unburden his own heart was one\nbenefit of the penitent's confession; to obtain the intercession of\nothers for his forgiveness and recovery was another; and the latter\nwas the chief reason for confessing to man; confession to God might\neffect the other. The primitive forms of absolution, when confession\nwas made to a priest, were precatory rather than declaratory. \"May the\nLord absolve thee\" (_Dominus absolvat_) was changed in the West to \"I\nabsolve thee,\" in the twelfth century. From the Sarum Office the\nlatter formula passed into the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., in the\nVisitation of the Sick, and has remained there unchanged; but in 1552\nthe concluding words of the preceding rubric, \"and the same forme of\nabsolucion shalbe used in all pryvate confessions,\" were omitted.[98]\nIn the Greek Church the form of absolution after private confession is\nprecatory:--\n\n\"O my spiritual child, who dost confess to my humility, _I, a humble\nsinner, have no power on earth to remit sins_. _This God alone can\ndo._ Yet by reason of that Divine charge which was committed to the\nApostles after the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the\nwords, Whose soever sins ye forgive, etc., and by that encouraged,\n_we_ say, Whatsoever thou hast confessed to my most lowly humility,\nand whatsoever thou hast omitted to confess, either through ignorance\nor any forgetfulness, _may God forgive thee_, both in this world and\nin that which is to come.\" And this is followed by a prayer very\nsimilar to the absolution: \"God ... forgive thee, by the ministry of\nme a sinner, all thy sins, both in this world and in that which is to\ncome, and present thee blameless at His dread tribunal. Go in peace,\nand think no more of the faults which thou hast confessed.\" The \"_we_\nsay\" holds fast to the doctrine that it is to the Church as a whole,\nand not to Peter or any individual minister, that the words, \"Whose\nsoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them\" (John xx.\u00a023),\nwere spoken.\n\n\"The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working.\"\n\"The effectual earnest prayer\" of the Authorized Version cannot be\njustified: either \"effectual\" or \"earnest\" must be struck out, as\nthere is only one word (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7) in the original; moreover, the\nword for \"prayer\" is not the same as before (\u03b4\u03ad\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, not \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03ae).\nBut it may be doubted whether \"earnest\" is not better than \"in its\nworking.\" Perhaps \"in its earnestness\" would be better than either:\n\"Great is the strength of a righteous man's supplication, in its\nearnestness.\"\n\nThe example by which St.\u00a0James proves the efficacy of a righteous\nman's prayer is interesting and important in two respects:--\n\n1. It is the only evidence that we have that the great drought in the\ntime of Ahab was prayed for by Elijah, and it is the only direct\nevidence that he prayed for the rain which put an end to it. We are\ntold that Elijah _prophesied_ the drought (1\u00a0Kings xvii.\u00a01) and the\nrain (1\u00a0Kings xviii.\u00a041); and that before the rain he put himself in\nan attitude of prayer, with his face between his knees (ver. 42); but\nthat he prayed, and for the rain which he had foretold, is not stated.\nWhether the statement made by St.\u00a0James is an inference from these\nstatements, or based on independent tradition, must remain uncertain.\nWe read in Ecclesiasticus of Elijah that by \"the word of the Lord he\nshut up (held back) the heaven\" (xlviii.\u00a03); but that seems to refer\nto prophecy rather than to prayer. The difference, if there be any,\nbetween the duration of the drought as stated here and by St.\u00a0Luke\n(iv.\u00a025), and as stated in the Book of the Kings, will not be a\nstumbling-block to any who recognize that inspiration does not\nnecessarily make a man infallible in chronology. Three and a half\nyears (= 42 months = 1,260 days) was the traditional duration of times\nof great calamity (Dan. vii.\u00a025; xii.\u00a07; Rev. xi.\u00a02, 3; xii.\u00a06, 14;\nxiii.\u00a05).\n\n2. This passage supplies us with _Biblical authority for prayers for\nchanges of weather_, and the like; for the conduct of Elijah is\nevidently put before us for our imitation. St.\u00a0James carefully guards\nagainst the objection that Elijah was a man gifted with miraculous\npowers, and therefore no guide for ordinary people, by asserting that\nhe was a man of like nature (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c2) with ourselves. And let\nus concede, for the sake of argument, that St.\u00a0James may have been\nmistaken in believing that Elijah prayed for the drought and for the\nrain; yet still the fact remains that an inspired New Testament writer\nputs before us, for our encouragement in prayer, a case in which\nprayers for changes of weather were made and answered. And he\ncertainly exhorts us to pray for the recovery of the sick, which is an\nanalogous case. This kind of prayer seems to require special\nconsideration.\n\n\"Is it, then, according to the Divine will that when we are\nindividually suffering from the regularity of the course of\nnature--suffering, for instance, from the want of rain, or the\nsuperabundance of it--we should ask God to interfere with that\nregularity? That in such circumstances we should pray for submission\nto the Divine will, and for such wisdom as shall lead to compliance\nwith it in the future, is a matter of course, and results inevitably\nfrom the relation between the spiritual Father and the spiritual\nchild. But ought we to go farther than this? Ought we to pray,\nexpecting that our prayer will be effectual, that God may interfere\nwith the fixed sequences of nature? Let us try to realize what would\nfollow if we offered such prayer and prevailed. In a world-wide Church\neach believer would constitute himself a judge of what was best for\nhimself and his neighbour, and thus the order of the world would be at\nthe mercy everywhere of individual caprice and ignorance. Irregularity\nwould accordingly take the place of invariableness. No man could\npossibly foretell what would be on the morrow. The scientist would\nfind all his researches for rule and law baffled; the agriculturist\nwould find all his calculations upset; nature, again, as in the days\nof ignorance, would become the master of man; like an eagle transfixed\nby an arrow winged by one of its own feathers, man would have shackled\nhimself with the chains of his ancient servitude by the licentious\nemployment of his own freedom, and would have reduced the cosmos of\nwhich God made him the master to a chaos which overwhelmed him by its\nunexpected blows\" (the Bishop of Manchester, September 4th, 1887, in\nManchester Cathedral, during a meeting of the British Association).\n\nThe picture which is here drawn sketches for us the consequences of\nallowing each individual to have control over the forces of nature. It\nis incredible that God could be induced to allow such control to\nindividuals; but does it follow from this that He never listens to\nprayers respecting _His_ direction of the forces of nature, and that\nconsequently all such prayers are presumptuous? The conclusion does\nnot seem to follow from the premises. The valid conclusion would\nrather be this: No one ought to pray to God to give him absolute\ncontrol of the forces of nature. The prayer, \"Lord, in _Thy_ control\nof the forces of nature have mercy upon me and my fellow men,\" is a\nprayer of a very different character.\n\nThe objection to prayers for rain, or for the cessation of rain, and\nthe like, is based on the supposition that we thereby \"ask God to\ninterfere with the regularity of the course of nature.\" Yet it is\nadmitted that to \"pray for submission to the Divine will, and for such\nwisdom as shall lead to compliance with it in the future, is a matter\nof _course_, and results _inevitably_ from the relation between the\nspiritual Father and the spiritual child.\" But is there no regularity\nabout the things thus admitted to be fit objects of prayer? Are human\ncharacter and human intellect not subject to law? When we pray for a\nsubmissive spirit and for wisdom, are we not asking God to \"interfere\nwith that regularity\" which governs the development of character and\nof intelligence? Either the prayer is to obtain more submission and\nmore wisdom than we should otherwise get, or it is not. If it is to\nobtain it, then the regularity which would otherwise have prevailed is\ninterrupted. If our prayer is not to obtain for us more submission and\nmore wisdom than we should have obtained if we had not prayed, then\nthe prayer is futile.\n\nIt will perhaps be urged that the two cases are not strictly parallel.\nThey are not; but for the purposes of this argument they are\nsufficiently parallel. It is maintained that we have no right to pray\nfor rain, because we thereby propose to interfere with the regularity\nof natural processes; yet it is allowed that we may pray for wisdom.\nTo get wisdom by prayer is quite as much an interference with the\nregularity of natural processes as to get rain by prayer. Therefore,\neither we ought to pray for neither, or we have the right to pray for\nboth. And so far as the two cases are not parallel, it seems to be\nmore reasonable to pray for rain than to pray for submissiveness and\nwisdom. God has given our wills the awful power of being able to\nresist His will. Are we to suppose that He exercises less control over\nmatter, which cannot resist Him, than over human wills, which He\nallows to do so; or that He will help us or not help us to become\nbetter and wiser, according as we ask Him or do not ask Him for such\nhelp, and yet will never make any change as to giving or withholding\nmaterial blessings, however much, or however little, we may ask Him to\ndo this?\n\nThe objection is sometimes stated in a slightly different form. God\nhas arranged the material universe according to His infinite wisdom;\nit is presumptuous to pray that He will make any change in it. The\nanswer to which is, that if that argument is valid against praying for\nrain, it is valid against all prayer whatever. If I impugn infinite\nwisdom when I pray for a change in the weather, do I not equally\nimpugn it, when I pray for a change in the life or character of myself\nor of my friends? God knows without our asking what weather is best\nfor us; and He knows equally without our asking what spiritual graces\nare best for us.\n\nDoes not the parallel difficulty point to a parallel solution? What\nright have we to assume that in either case effectual prayer\ninterferes with the regularity which seems to characterize Divine\naction? May it not be God's will that the prayer of faith should be a\nforce that can influence other forces, whether material or spiritual,\nand that its influence should be according to _law_ (whether natural\nor supernatural) quite as much as the influence of other forces? A man\nwho puts up a lightning-conductor brings down the electric current\nwhen it might otherwise have remained above, and brings it down in one\nplace rather than another; yet no one would say that he interferes\nwith the regularity of the course of nature. Is there anything in\nreligion or science to forbid us from thinking of prayer as working in\nan analogous manner--according to a law too subtle for us to\ncomprehend and analyse, but according to a law none the less? In the\nvast network of forces in which an all-wise God has constructed the\nuniverse a Christian will believe that one force which \"availeth\nmuch,\" both in the material and in the spiritual world, is the earnest\nprayer of the righteous. It is better for us that we should be able to\ninfluence by our prayers God's direction of events than that we should\nbe unable to do so; therefore a merciful Father has placed this power\nwithin our reach.[99]\n\n[96] In the _Dict. of Chr. Biogr._, I., p. 615, Tertullian's account\nof public confession is given at some length, and then the question is\nasked, \"Is not this, clearly, the _exomologesis_ which St.\u00a0James\nenjoins?\" To this one replies that St.\u00a0James enjoins confession, but\nsays nothing about publicity.\n\n[97] The Council of Trent anathematizes any one \"who denies that\nsacramental confession was instituted of Divine right, or that it is\nnecessary to salvation, or who says that the manner of confessing\nsecretly to a priest alone, _which the Church has ever observed from\nthe beginning_, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and\ncommand of Christ, and is a human invention\" (Canon VI. ii.\u00a0165).\n\n[98] Moreover, \"shall absolve hym after this _forme_\" was changed to\n\"shall absolve hym after thys _sorte_,\" as if allowing another form in\nthe Visitation of the Sick.\n\n[99] Dean Plumptre has pointed out an \"interesting coincidence\"\nbetween this mention of Elijah and the account given by Josephus of\nCaligula's mad attempt to set up his statue in the Temple.\nP.\u00a0Petronius Turpilianus had been appointed Governor of Syria in the\nroom of Vitellius, and was commissioned to erect the statue; but he\nwas much impressed by the earnestness of the Jews in opposing the\nproposed outrage, and promised large multitudes of them at Tiberias\nthat he would do all in his power to induce Caligula to desist. It was\na year of great drought, no rain falling even when the sky was\novercast; but on this day, although there had been no previous signs\nof it, abundance of rain fell directly Petronius had finished his\nspeech to the Jews. Josephus speaks of this as God showing His\npresence (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1) to Petronius, and says that Petronius recognized\nit as a Divine manifestation (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1) of God's care of the Jews.\nDr.\u00a0Plumptre says that the people--\"Christians, we may believe, as\nwell as Jews\"--had been praying for rain, and that Petronius regarded\nthe rain \"partly as an answer to the prayers of the people;\" which may\nhave been so, but _it is not so stated by Josephus_. \"According to the\ndate which, on independent grounds, has here been assigned to\nSt.\u00a0James's Epistle, the event referred to must have happened but a\n_few months_ before, or but a _few months_ after it. If before, he may\nwell have had it in his thoughts; if after, it may well have been in\npart the effect of his teaching.\" Dr.\u00a0Plumptre thinks that the Epistle\nwas written between A.D.\u00a044 and 51. The events recorded by Josephus\ntook place A.D.\u00a039. Caligula was assassinated January 24th, A.D.\u00a041.\nThe coincidence, therefore, breaks down upon examination. (1) The\nunexpected rain is represented, not as an answer to prayer, but as a\nsign of God's approval of the decision of Petronius. (2) Even if we\nplace the Epistle as early as A.D.\u00a045, it was written _six years_\nafter the sudden rain at Tiberias; and St.\u00a0James did not need that\noccurrence (of which he had possibly never heard) in order to be\nreminded of the drought and the rain prophesied by Elijah.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIX.\n\n _THE WORK OF CONVERTING SINNERS; ITS CONDITIONS AND REWARDS._\n\n \"My brethren, if any among you do err from the truth, and one convert\n him, let him know, that he which converteth a sinner from the error\n of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude\n of sins.\"--ST.\u00a0JAMES v.\u00a019, 20.\n\n\nSt.\u00a0James has just been speaking of the case of a man who is sick, and\nneeds the prayers of others for his healing, both in body and soul;\nfor it may be that the sick man has sins to be repented of as well as\nailments to be cured. This leads naturally enough to the common case\nof those who, whether sick in body or not, feel their consciences\nburdened by sin. They are to make known their trouble to one or more\nof the brethren, in order that efficacious prayers may be offered to\nGod on their behalf. But these cases do not by any means cover the\nwhole ground. Besides those who feel and make known their bodily\nsickness, and those who feel and make known their spiritual sickness,\nin order that their fellow Christians may pray to God for their\nhealing, there is the common case of those who either do not feel, or\nif they feel do not confess, that their souls are sick unto death.\nThere are many who have left the path of life, and are going steadily,\nand perhaps rapidly, to destruction, who are ignorant of their piteous\ncondition; and there are others who are aware of their peril, but are\neither too hardened to desire any serious change, or too proud to own\ntheir condition to others and ask their help towards recovery. Are\nsuch unhappy persons to be left to themselves, and allowed to go on\ntheir way to perdition, for want of the aid which they are too\ninsensate or to haughty to ask?\n\nCertainly not, says the writer of this Epistle. The reclaiming of such\nsinners is one of the noblest tasks which a Christian can undertake;\nand the successful accomplishment of it is fraught with incalculable\nblessings, the thought of which ought to move us to undertake such\nwork. To save one immortal soul from eternal death is worth the labour\nof a lifetime. If to lead one soul astray is to share the devil's work\nand incur guilt to which a violent death would be preferable (Matt.\nxviii.\u00a06; Mark ix.\u00a042; Luke xvii.\u00a02), to lead one soul back from death\nis to share Christ's work (2\u00a0Cor. vi.\u00a01) by blotting out from God's\nsight the sins which cry for punishment.\n\nWe shall obtain a clearer view of the meaning of St.\u00a0James in these\nconcluding verses of his Epistle if we begin with the last words of\nthe passage, and from them work back to what precedes.\n\n\"Shall cover a multitude of sins.\" Whose sins? Not the sins of him who\nconverts the erring brother. This view, which is perhaps the one which\nmost readily occurs to those who merely listen to the passage as it is\nread in church, but have never studied it, may safely be rejected,\nalthough it has the sanction of Erasmus and to some extent also of the\nVenerable Bede. There are two reasons, each of which would suffice to\ncondemn this explanation, and which taken together are almost\nunanswerable. (1) Nowhere else in Scripture do we find any such\ndoctrine, that a man may cover his own sins by inducing another sinner\nto repent. On the contrary, it is one of the terrible possibilities\nwhich attend the work of the ministry that a man may preach\nsuccessfully to others, and yet himself be a castaway (1\u00a0Cor. ix.\u00a027),\nand may move many hearts, while his own remains as hard as the nether\nmillstone. It is altogether misleading to quote Matt. vi.\u00a014 in\nconnexion with this passage. There Christ says, \"If ye forgive men\ntheir trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.\" What\nhas that to do with converting sinners from their sins? Is \"Forgive,\nthat ye may be forgiven,\" even parallel to \"_Convert_, that ye may be\nforgiven\"? It is very far indeed from being equivalent to it. The\nexact parallel would be, \"Convert, that ye may be converted;\" and\nwhere in either the Old or the New Testament do we find any such\nteaching as that? What we _do_ find is the converse of it: \"Be\nconverted, that ye may convert. Cast out first the beam out of thine\nown eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of\nthy brother's eye\" (Matt. vii.\u00a05). And this brings us to the other\nreason why this interpretation ought to be set aside. (2) We cannot\nsuppose that St.\u00a0James would contemplate, not merely as a possible\ncase, but as the normal condition of things, that a Christian would\nundertake the task of converting others while his own conscience was\nburdened with a multitude of sins. He no doubt assumed, and meant his\nreaders to assume, that before taking this very glorious, but also\nvery difficult work upon themselves, Christians would at least have\nrepented of their own sins, and thus have won the assurance that they\nwere covered and forgiven. As we have seen, St.\u00a0James shows an\nintimate personal knowledge of the teaching of Christ, and especially\nof that portion of it which is contained in the Sermon on the Mount.\nIt is difficult to believe that any one who was acquainted with the\nfundamental principle involved in the saying just quoted, about the\nmote and the beam, would end his exhortations to the Church with a\ndeclaration which, according to the view of Erasmus and others, would\nmean that it is precisely those who have a beam in their own eye who\nshould endeavour to convert sinners from the error of their ways, for\nin this way they may get the beam removed, or at least overlooked.\n\nIt is the sins of the converted sinner that are covered when a brother\nhas had the happiness of converting him. The saying \"cover sins\" is a\nproverbial one, and seems to have been common among the Jews.\nSt.\u00a0Peter also makes use of it (1\u00a0Peter iv.\u00a08); and this is one of the\npoints which make some persons think that the writer of this Epistle\nhad seen that of St.\u00a0Peter, and others that St.\u00a0Peter had seen this\none (see above, p. 59). The source of the saying appears to be Prov.\nx.\u00a012, \"Hatred stirreth up strifes: but _love covereth all\ntransgressions_.\" It is, however, by no means certain that St.\u00a0James\nis consciously quoting this saying, although his evident fondness for\nthe sapiential books of Scripture would incline us to think that he is\ndoing so. But the Septuagint of the passage in Proverbs has a\ndifferent reading: \"Friendship shall cover those who love not strife.\"\nA similar expression to the one before us occurs twice in the Psalms:\n\"Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of Thy people; Thou hast covered all\ntheir sin\" (lxxxv.\u00a02): \"Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,\nwhose sin is covered\" (xxxii.\u00a01). The fact that the phrase occurs so\nfrequently renders it impossible for us to determine the precise\npassage which suggested the use of the words in this place. (See note\nat the end of this chapter.)\n\nThe statement that the converted sinner had \"a multitude of sins\"\nwhich are covered by his returning from \"the error of his way\" shows\nus plainly what is meant by \"the error of his way\" and by his \"erring\"\nor \"being led astray[100] from the truth.\" St.\u00a0James is evidently not\nthinking of purely dogmatic error, about which his Epistle is almost,\nif not entirely, silent. It is conviction as expressed in _conduct_\nwith which he deals throughout. As we have seen again and again, the\nevils which he denounces are those of a sinful life: with the evils of\nerratic speculation he does not deal at all. Quite in harmony,\ntherefore, with the practical character of the Epistle, we find that\nwith him to \"err from the truth\" means the apostasy that is involved\nin a life of sin. \"Of His own will God brought us forth by _the word\nof truth_, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures\"\n(i.\u00a018); and those who allow themselves to be seduced into sinful\ncourses dishonour their Divine parentage and desert their Father's\nhome. To recover such from the path of destruction is the blessed work\nto which St.\u00a0James wishes to incite and encourage his readers.\n\nIt is important to recognize the fact that it is the _lives_ of\nnotorious _sinners_, and not the _views_ of those who _differ from\nus_, that we are urged to correct. The latter interpretation is not an\nuncommon one. The expression \"err from the truth\" seems at first sight\nto countenance it; and to many of us the work of winning over others\nto accept our religious opinions is much more congenial employment\nthan that of endeavouring to reclaim the profligate. But the duty to\nwhich St.\u00a0James here exhorts us is one of universal obligation. It is\none which every Christian must recognize, and according to his\nopportunities perform; and it is one which every one, however\nignorant, simple, and insignificant he may be, is able in some measure\nto fulfil. But comparatively few of us are qualified to deal with the\nerroneous opinions of others. Not infrequently those which we think to\nbe erroneous are nearer the truth than those which we hold ourselves.\nEven where this is not the case, the errors may be much less hurtful\nthan we suppose, because, with happy inconsistency, men allow the\ngoodness of their hearts to direct their conduct, rather than the\nerratic convictions of their heads. And again, our efforts to change\nthe erroneous opinions of others may do more harm than good, for it is\nmuch more easy to unsettle than to establish. We may take away a\nplank, without being able to supply an ark; and an inadequate or even\nfaulty principle is better than no principle at all. The man who\nendeavours to act up to erroneous convictions is in a much healthier\nstate than the man who has lost all convictions whatever. And this is\nthe danger which always lies before us when we attempt to win others\nover from sincere and steadfast beliefs which seem to us to be untrue.\nWe may succeed in shaking these beliefs; but it by no means follows\nthat we shall be equally successful in giving them better beliefs in\nexchange for them. We may accomplish no more than the miserable result\nof having convinced them that in religion everything is uncertain.\n\nOf course there are times when it is our duty to do what we can to\nbring others over to opinions which we are persuaded are much sounder\nand safer than those which they at present hold; but such times are\nvery much less frequent than many of us are inclined to believe. It is\nobviously our duty to undertake this difficult task when other people\nconsult us as to their religious convictions; but the mere fact that\nwe know what their convictions are, and that we hold them to be\nperilously unsound, does not establish a right on our part to attempt\nto change them. And as regards the passage before us, it is quite\nclear, both from the context and from the tenour of the whole Epistle,\nthat the rare occasions on which we are under the obligation of\nendeavouring to convert others to our own ways of thinking are not the\noccasions to which St.\u00a0James refers in these concluding sentences of\nhis letter.\n\nThe duty of reclaiming the lost grows out of the condition of\nbrotherhood which is assumed all through the Epistle as being the\nrelation which exists between those who are addressed. This is\nmanifestly the case here. \"My _brethren_, if any among _you_ do err\nfrom the truth.\" If it be right to clothe and feed the naked and\nhungry brother, to pray for the sick brother, and for those who\nconfess their faults to us, much more must it be right to do all that\nis possible to bring back from the way of death those who are walking\nin it, to convert them, turn them right round, and induce them to go\nin the opposite direction. To believe in God, to believe that we are\nHis children, and yet to act as if the bodies and souls of others, who\nare equally His children, are in no degree in our keeping, and that\ntheir condition is no concern of ours--this is indeed to have that\nfaith which, being apart from works, is dead.\n\nHow is the conversion of the erring brother to be effected? St.\u00a0James\ngives no explicit directions, but leaves all matters of detail to the\ndiscretion of the worker. Yet he does not leave us altogether without\nguidance as to what are the best methods. One of these is intimated by\nwhat immediately precedes, and the other by the general import of the\nletter. These two efficacious means for the conversion of sinners are,\nnot rebuke or remonstrance, not exhortation or advice, not anger or\ncontempt, but--_prayer_ and _good example_. It is by prayer that the\nsick may be restored to health; it is by prayer that sinners who\nconfess their sins may be healed; and it is by prayer that sinners,\nwho as yet will not confess and repent, may be won over to do so. And\nhere the appropriateness of the example of Elijah becomes evident.\nElijah was a prophet, and he knew that when he prayed for drought and\nfor rain he was praying for what was in accordance with the will of\nGod; and it is such prayers that are sure of fulfilment. We are not\nprophets, and when we pray for changes of weather we cannot be sure\nthat what we ask is in accordance with God's will. All that we can do\nis to submit humbly to His will, and to beg that, so far as they are\nin harmony with it, our desires may be granted. But when we pray for\nthe conversion of sinners we are in the same position as Elijah. We\nknow from the outset that we are praying for something which it is His\nwill to grant, if only the rebellious wills of impenitent sinners do\nnot prove insuperable: for He forces no one to be converted; He will\nhave voluntary service, or none at all. When, therefore, we ask Him\nfor the assistance of His Holy Spirit in bringing back sinners from\nthe error of their ways, we may have the greatest confidence that we\nare desiring that which He would have us desire, and are uniting our\nwills to His. This, then, is one great instrument for the conversion\nof our erring brethren--the _prayer of faith_, which can remove\nmountains of sin out of God's sight, by bringing the sinner, who has\npiled them up during years of sinning, to confess, and repent, and be\nforgiven.\n\nThe case of St.\u00a0Monica, praying for the conversion of her sinful and\nheretical son Augustine, will occur to many as a beautiful\nillustration of the principle here indicated. He himself tells us of\nit in his immortal _Confessions_ (III. xi., xii.\u00a020, 21); how that for\nyears, especially from his nineteenth to his twenty-eighth year, he\nwent on seduced and seducing, deceived and deceiving, in various\nlusts; and how his mother continued to pray for him. \"And her prayers\nentered into Thy presence; and yet Thou didst leave me to wallow\ndeeper and deeper in that darkness.\" Then she went to a certain\nbishop, and entreated him to reason with her son; but he declined,\nsaying that the time for that had not yet come. \"Leave him alone for a\ntime; only pray to God for him.\" But she was not satisfied, and\ncontinued to implore him with tears that he would go and see\nAugustine, and try to move him. At which he somewhat lost patience,\nand sent her away, saying, \"Go, leave me, and a blessing go with thee:\nit is impossible that the son of such tears should perish.\" Which\nanswer, as she often told her son afterwards, she accepted as if it\nwere a voice from heaven; and all Christendom knows how her prayer was\nheard. He himself attributed all that was good in him to his mother's\ntears and prayers.\n\nThe other great instrument in accomplishing this blessed work is a\n_good example_. A holy life is the best sermon, the most effectual\nremonstrance, the strongest incentive, the most powerful plea. Without\nit words are of little avail; with it words are scarcely necessary.\nThis is the instrument which St.\u00a0James throughout this Epistle\ncommends. Not words, but works; not professions, but deeds; not fair\nspeeches, but kind acts (i.\u00a019, 22, 27; ii.\u00a01, 15, 16, 26; iii.\u00a013;\niv.\u00a017). Nothing that we can say will ever make such impression upon\nothers as what we _do_ and what we _are_. Eloquence, reasoning,\nincisiveness, pathos, persuasiveness, all have their uses, and may be\nof real service in the work of winning back sinners from the error of\ntheir ways, but they are as nothing compared with holiness. It is when\ndeep calls to deep, when life calls to life, when the life of manifest\ndevotion at once shames and attracts the life of flagrant sin, that\nspirits are moved, that the loathing for vice and the longing for\nvirtue are excited. The man whose own habitual conduct most often\nmakes other men ashamed of themselves is the man who not only has the\nbest of all qualifications for winning souls to God, but is actually\naccomplishing this work, even when he is not consciously attempting\nit. And such a one, when he does attempt it, will have a large measure\nof the requisite wisdom. The earnestness of his own life will have\ngiven him a knowledge of his own heart, and that is the best of all\nkeys to a knowledge of the hearts of others.\n\nThere is something fatally wrong about us if we have no strong desire\nto bring back sinners to God. We cannot be Christ's disciples without\nhaving it. The man who would go to heaven _alone_ is already off the\nroad thither. The man whose one consuming thought is to save his _own_\nsoul has not yet found out the best means of saving it. The surest\nroad to personal happiness is to devote oneself to promoting the\nhappiness of others, and the best way to secure one's own salvation is\nto devote oneself to the Divine work of helping forward the salvation\nof others. Let the fear of giving scandal to others keep us from sin;\nlet the hope of being a help to others encourage us in well-doing; and\nlet our prayers be more for others than for ourselves. As Calvin says,\non this passage, \"We must take heed lest souls perish through our\nsloth whose salvation God puts in a manner in our hands. Not that we\ncan bestow salvation on them, but that God by our ministry delivers\nand saves those who seem otherwise to be nigh destruction.\"\n\nWhat is the reward which St.\u00a0James holds out to us to induce us to\nundertake the work of converting a sinner? He offers nothing; he\npromises nothing. The work itself is its own reward. To win back an\nerring brother is a thing so blessed, so glorious, so rich in\nincalculable results, that to have been enabled to accomplish it is\nreward enough--is a prize sufficient to induce any true hearted\nChristian to work for it. It is no less than the \"saving of a soul\nfrom death;\" and who can estimate what that means? It is the \"covering\nof a multitude of sins.\"\n\nThere is no need to make this last phrase include the sins which the\nman would otherwise have committed had he not been converted. Sins not\ncommitted cannot be covered. It is quite true that by conversion a man\nis saved from sins into which he would certainly have fallen; and this\nis a very happy result, but it is not the result pointed out by\nSt.\u00a0James. The sins which have been committed during the daily walk\ntowards destruction are what he has in his mind; and they are not one\nor two here and there, but a _multitude_. To aid a brother to get rid\nof these by confession and repentance is an end that amply repays all\nthe trouble that we can take in attaining to it.\n\n\"But the number of renegades is so enormous; the multitude of\nimpenitent sinners is so overwhelming: how is it possible to convert\nthem?\" St.\u00a0James says nothing about converting multitudes; he speaks\nonly of converting _one_. \"If any (\u1f10\u03ac\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2) among you do err from\nthe truth, and one convert _him_.\" To bring over _one_ soul from\neternal death to eternal life may be within the power of any one\nearnest Christian. Is each one of us making the attempt? Are we making\nour lives as beneficent, as sympathetic, as unselfish as our\nopportunities admit of? Do we give a generous, or even a moderate\nshare of encouragement to the numerous agencies which are at work to\nlessen the temptations and increase the means of grace for those who\nare living in sin, and to help and encourage those who, in however\nfeeble a way, are making a fight against it?\n\n\"Know ye,[101] that he which converteth a sinner from the error of his\nway shall save a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of\nsins.\" With these words St.\u00a0James abruptly takes leave of those whom\nhe addresses. The letter has no formal conclusion; not because it is\nunfinished, or because the conclusion has been lost, but because\nSt.\u00a0James wishes by means of a sudden close to leave his last words\nringing in the hearts of his readers. In this respect the Epistle\nreminds us of the First Epistle of St.\u00a0John. \"Guard yourselves from\nthe idols\" is the only farewell which the last of the Apostles has for\nhis \"little children;\" and a very summary statement of what the\nconversion of one sinner means is the farewell of St.\u00a0James to his\n\"brethren.\" In both cases it is the abruptness of emphasis, as if the\nwriter said, \"If all else that I have written be forgotten, at least\nremember this.\"\n\nHow beautiful to find one noble soul, and enter into frequent\ncommunion with it! how happy to be the means of preserving it from\ndefilement! but most blessed of all to be instrumental in rescuing it\nfrom degradation and destruction! \"I say unto you, That there shall be\njoy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety\nand nine righteous persons, which need no repentance.\"\n\nNOTE.--It is by no means impossible that in the phrase \"cover a\nmultitude of sins\" neither St.\u00a0James is quoting St.\u00a0Peter, nor\nSt.\u00a0Peter St.\u00a0James, nor either of them quoting Psalms or Proverbs,\nbut that each of them is reproducing a saying of Christ's which is not\nrecorded in the Gospels. The phrase occurs in both Clement of Rome\n(XLV.) and Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ I. xxvii.; II. xv.; IV.\nxviii.; _Quis Div. Salv._ xxxviii.), in all which places it may be a\nquotation from 1\u00a0Peter iv.\u00a08. But in one place (_P\u00e6dag._ III. xii.) he\nseems to give it as a saying of our Lord's, for he couples it with a\nsaying which is certainly His (Luke xx.\u00a025). Clement's wording is as\nfollows: \"Love, He saith, covereth a multitude of sins; and respecting\ncitizenship, Render to C\u00e6sar the things that are C\u00e6sar's, and to God\nthe things that are God's;\" where one and the same \"He saith\"\n(\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af) covers both sayings. In the _Didascalia_ (II. iii.) the\nsaying is explicitly attributed to Christ: \"Because the Lord saith,\nLove covereth a multitude of sins.\" See Resch, _Agrapha;\nAussercanonische Evangelienfragmente_ (Leipzig, 1889), pp. 248, 249.\n\n[100] \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc7. This aorist passive _may_ have a middle signification,\nbut it is simpler to allow it to be passive: the man has been led\nastray by evil influences, and he is led back by good influences. It\nmatters not whether we regard him as led astray by sin (Bengel), or\nSatan, or wicked companions.\n\n[101] This is probably the true reading.\n\n\n\n\n_THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE._\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXX.\n\n _THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE._\n\n \"Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that\n are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ:\n mercy unto you and peace and love be multiplied.\"--ST. JUDE\u00a01, 2.\n\n\nPrecisely as in the case of the Epistle of St.\u00a0James, the question as\nto the authenticity of this letter resolves itself into two parts: Is\nthe Epistle the veritable product of a writer of the Apostolic age? If\nit is, which of the persons of that age who bore the name of Judas is\nthe author of it? Both of these questions can be answered with a very\nconsiderable amount of certainty.\n\nLet us remember the right way of putting the first of these two\nquestions. Not, Why should we believe that this Epistle was written by\nan Apostle or a contemporary of the Apostles? but, Why should we\nrefuse to believe this? What reason have we for rejecting the verdict\nof ecclesiastics and theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries,\nwho were well aware of the doubts which had been raised respecting the\nauthority of the Epistle, and after full and prolonged consideration\ndecided that it possessed full canonical authority. Not only were they\nin possession of evidence which is no longer available, and which\nrendered it probable that their decision would be correct; but the\nuniversal acceptance of their decision in all the Churches proves that\ntheir decision was admitted to be correct by those who had ample means\nof testing its soundness.\n\nThe Epistle of St.\u00a0Jude, like that of St.\u00a0James, is reckoned by\nEusebius as one of the six or seven \"disputed\" (\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1) books\nof the New Testament, which fact, while it proves that misgivings had\nexisted in some quarters respecting the authority of the letter, at\nthe same time proves that it was not admitted into the canon by an\noversight. The difficulties respecting it were well known, and were\nconsidered to be by no means fatal to its otherwise strong claim to be\naccepted (see above, pp. 15-18). And the difficulties respecting the\ntwo Epistles were similar in kind. 1. Many Churches remained for a\nconsiderable time without any knowledge of one or other of the two\nEpistles; but whereas it was in the West that the Epistle of St.\u00a0James\nwas least known, it was Eastern Churches that remained longest without\nknowledge of that of St.\u00a0Jude. 2. Even when the Epistle did become\nknown it remained doubtful whether the writer was a person of\nauthority. He was possibly not an Apostle, and if he was not such,\nwhat were his claims to be heard? 3. To these two difficulties, which\nwere common to both Epistles, must be added another which was peculiar\nto that of St.\u00a0Jude. It may be stated in Jerome's words. \"Because in\nit Jude derives a testimony from the Book of Enoch, which is\napocryphal, it is rejected by some\"[102] (_Catal. Scr. Eccl._ iv.). As\nwe shall see hereafter, it probably makes use of yet another\napocryphal book; and it was not unreasonably doubted whether an\nApostolic writer would compromise himself by the use of such\nliterature. If he were inspired, he would know it to be apocryphal,\nand would abstain from quoting it; and if he did not know its\napocryphal character, how could he be inspired, or his words be of any\nauthority?\n\nThat so brief a letter should remain for a considerable time quite\nunknown to some Churches, is not at all surprising. Its evident Jewish\ntone would render it less attractive to Gentile Christians. Its making\nno claim to Apostolic authority raised a doubt whether it had any\nauthority whatever, and this doubt was increased by the fact that it\nquotes apocryphal writings. Consequently those Christians who knew the\nEpistle would not always be ready to promote its circulation. Even if\nwe were compelled to infer that silence respecting it implies\nignorance of its existence, such ignorance would in most cases be very\nintelligible: but this perilous inference from silence in some cases\ncan be shown to be incorrect. Hippolytus may _possibly_ have remained\nignorant of it; but if, as Bishop Lightfoot suggests,[103] he is the\nauthor of the supposed Greek original of the Muratorian Canon, he\ntestifies strongly (note the _sane_) to the general reception of the\nEpistle. This holds good, however we may deal with the ambiguous _in\ncatholica_, which may possibly mean \"in the Catholic Church,\" or be a\nmistake for _in catholicis_, \"among the Catholic Epistles.\" Cyprian,\nwho never quotes the Epistle of St.\u00a0Jude, must have known of it from\nthe celebrated passage in \"the master\" Tertullian, whose works he was\nalways reading. And it is quite incredible that Chrysostom, who in all\nhis voluminous writings does not chance to quote it even once, was not\nfamiliar with its contents. The brevity of the Epistle is sufficient\nto explain a great deal of the silence respecting it.\n\nThe most serious item in the external evidence against the Epistle is\nits absence from the Peshitto, or ancient Syriac Version. The\nconsiderations already mentioned go a long way towards explaining this\nabsence, and it is a great deal more than counterbalanced by the\nstrong external evidence in its favour. This is surprisingly strong,\nespecially when compared with that in favour of the Epistle of\nSt.\u00a0James. In both cases the troubles which overwhelmed the Church of\nJerusalem and Jewish Christianity in the reign of Hadrian interfered\nwith the circulation of the letters; but it is the shorter letter and\nthe letter of the less-known writer which (so far as extant testimony\ngoes) seems in the first instance to have obtained the wider\ncirculation and recognition. The Muratorian Canon, as we have seen,\ncontains it; so also does the old Latin Version. Tertullian (_De Cult.\nFem._ I. iii.) vehemently contends that the Book of Enoch ought to be\naccepted as canonical, and he clenches his argument with the fact that\nit is quoted by \"the Apostle Jude.\" This appeal would have seemed\ndangerous rather than conclusive, if in North Africa there had been\nany serious misgivings about the authority of Jude's Epistle.\nTertullian evidently entertained nothing of the kind. In a similar\nspirit Augustine asks, \"What of Enoch, the seventh from Adam? Does not\nthe canonical Epistle of the Apostle Jude declare that he prophesied?\"\n(_De Civ. Dei_, xviii.\u00a038). Clement of Alexandria quotes it as\nScripture (_P\u00e6d._ III. viii., and _Strom._ III. ii.), and commented\nupon it in his _Hypotyposeis_ (Eus. H. E. VI. xiv.\u00a01), of which we\nprobably still possess some translations into Latin made under the\ndirection of Cassiodorus. Origen, although he was aware that it was\nnot universally received, for in one place he uses the cautious\nexpression, \"If any receive the Epistle of Jude,\" yet accepted it\nthoroughly himself, as the frequent citations of it in his works show.\nIn one passage he speaks of it as \"an Epistle of but few lines, yet\nfull of the strong words of heavenly grace\" (_Comm._ on Matt.\nxiii.\u00a055). Athanasius places it in his list of the canonical\nScriptures without any mark of doubt. And Didymus, head of the\nCatechetical School at Alexandria, and instructor of Jerome and\nRufinus, condemns the opposition which some offered to the Epistle on\naccount of the statement respecting the body of Moses (ver. 9), just\nas Jerome virtually condemns those who opposed it because of the\nquotation from the Book of Enoch.\n\nThis evidence, it will be observed, is mostly Western. The blank as\nregards the East is to some extent filled by the letter of the Synod\nat Antioch against Paul of Samasota, A.D.\u00a0269. Portions of this letter\nhave been preserved by Eusebius, and Malchion, the presbyter who\nchiefly composed it, seems to have had the Epistle of Jude in his mind\nwhen he wrote. This is chiefly evident in the tone of the letter; but\nhere and there the wording approaches that of St.\u00a0Jude; _e.g._\n\"denying his God [and Lord]\" reminds us of \"denying our only Master\nand Lord\" (Jude\u00a04); and \"not guarding the faith which he once held\"\nmay be suggested by \"contend earnestly for the faith which was once\nfor all delivered unto the saints\" (Jude\u00a03). The quotations from Jude\nin Ephrem Syrus (_c._ A.D.\u00a0308-73) are somewhat discredited, for they\noccur only in the Greek translations of his works, some of which,\nhowever, were made in his lifetime; but the quotations may be\ninsertions made by translators.\n\nThat so short a letter should have so much testimony in its favour is\nremarkable; and although it may be a slight exaggeration to say, with\nZahn, that about A.D.\u00a0200 it was accepted \"in the Church of all lands\nround the Mediterranean Sea\" (_Gesch. d. Neutest. Kanons_, I., p.\n321), yet even Harnack admits that this is not much in excess of the\ntruth. The only abatement which he suggests is that the misgivings to\nwhich Origen on one single occasion bears witness, show that the\nEpistle was not _everywhere_ in the East part of the New Testament\nScriptures (_Das N.T. um d. Jahr 200_, p. 79). We may take it,\ntherefore, as sufficiently proved that this letter was written by one\nwho belonged to the Apostolic age. Had it been a forgery of the second\ncentury, it would not have found this general acceptance. Moreover, a\nforger would have chosen some person of greater fame and greater\nauthority as the supposed writer of the Epistle, or would at least\nhave made Jude an Apostle; and above all, he would have betrayed some\n_motive_ for the forgery. There is nothing in the letter to indicate\nany such motive. Renan accepts the Epistle as a genuine relic of the\nApostolic age, and indeed places it as early as A.D.\u00a054; yet his view\nof it would lead other people to regard it as a forgery, for it\nsupplies a strong motive. Renan considers it to be an attack on\nSt.\u00a0Paul. The Clementine literature shows us how a heretic of the\nsecond century can make a covert attack on the Apostle of the\nGentiles; and if we could believe that the writer of this Epistle had\nSt.\u00a0Paul in his mind when he denounced those who \"in their dreamings\ndefile the flesh, and set at nought dominion, and rail at dignities,\"\nwe should be ready enough to believe that he was not really \"Judas,\nbrother of James,\" but one who did not dare to say openly in the\nChurch the accusations which he tried to insinuate. But no critic has\naccepted this strange theory of Renan's, and it is hardly worth while\nasking, Why was not St.\u00a0Peter or St.\u00a0John taken as the authority\nwherewith to counteract the influence of St.\u00a0Paul? Of what weight\nwould the words of the unknown Jude be in comparison with his? Renan's\nliterary acuteness recognizes in this Epistle a veritable product of\nthe first century: his prejudices respecting anti-Pauline tendencies\namong the Apostolic writers lead him amazingly astray as to the\nmeaning of its contents.\n\nIt remains to consider the second part of the question respecting the\nauthenticity of this Epistle. We are justified in believing that it is\na writing of the Apostolic age, by a person bearing the name of Judas\nor Jude. But to which of the persons who bore that name in the first\nage of the Church is the letter to be assigned? Only two persons have\nto be considered--(1) \"Judas not Iscariot,\" who seems also to have\nbeen called Lebb\u00e6us or Thadd\u00e6us, for in the lists of the Apostles\nThadd\u00e6us or Lebb\u00e6us (the readings are confused) stands in Matthew x.\nand Mark iii. as the equivalent of \"Judas [the son] of James\" in Luke\nvi. and Acts i.; and (2) Judas one of the four brethren of the Lord;\nthe names of the other three being James, Joseph or Joses, and Simon\n(Matt. xiii.\u00a055; Mark vi.\u00a03). These two are sometimes identified, but\nthe identification is highly questionable, although the Authorized\nVersion encourages us to make it by giving to \"Judas of James\" the\nimprobable meaning, \"Judas the _brother_ of James,\" instead of the\nusual meaning, \"Judas the _son_ of James.\"[104] In other words, the\nAuthorized Version assumes that the writer of this Epistle is the\nApostle \"Judas not Iscariot;\" the writer calls himself \"brother of\nJames,\" and the Authorized Version makes this Apostle to be \"the\nbrother of James.\"\n\nWe have seen already that both Tertullian and Augustine speak of the\nwriter of this Epistle as an Apostle. So also does Origen, but only in\ntwo passages, of which the Greek original is wanting (_De Principiis_,\nIII. ii.\u00a01; _Comm. on Romans_ v.\u00a013, vol. iv., 549). In no passage of\nthe Greek works, and in no other passage of the Latin translations,\ndoes he call Jude an Apostle; so that the addition of Apostle in these\ntwo places may be an insertion of his not very accurate translator\nRufinus. But even if the authority of Origen is to be added to that of\nTertullian and Augustine, the opinion that the author of this letter\nwas an Apostle is not probable. Had he been such, it would have been\nnatural to mention the fact as a claim on the attention of his\nreaders, instead of merely contenting himself with naming his\nrelationship to his much more distinguished brother James. It is not\nto the point to urge that St.\u00a0Paul does not always call himself an\nApostle in his Epistles. He was a well-known person, especially after\nhis four great Epistles had been published, in all of which he styles\nhimself an Apostle. In the two to the Thessalonians he does not,\nprobably because he there associates Silvanus and Timothy with himself\n(but see 1\u00a0Thess. ii.\u00a06). St.\u00a0Jude was comparatively unknown, having\nwritten nothing else, and having probably travelled little. The\ncharge, \"Remember ye the words which have been spoken before by the\nApostles of our Lord Jesus Christ\" (ver. 17), although it does not\nnecessarily imply that the writer himself is not one of these\nApostles, yet would be more suitable to one who did not possess\nApostolic rank. And when we ask what _James_ is meant, when he styles\nhimself \"brother of James,\" the answer cannot be doubtful; it is James\nthe brother of the Lord, one of the three \"Pillars\" of the Jewish\nChristian Church, first overseer of the Church of Jerusalem, and\nauthor of the Epistle which bears his name. The Epistle of Jude is\nevidently by a Jewish Christian, who, while writing to all that have\nbeen called to the faith, evidently has Jewish Christians chiefly in\nhis mind. To such a writer it was well worth while to mention that he\nwas brother of that James who was so revered by all his fellow\ncountrymen. Reasons have been given already for believing that this\nJames was not an Apostle (pp. 27-29), and these will confirm us in the\nopinion that his brother Jude was not such. The question of their\nrelationship to Jesus Christ has also been discussed (pp. 31, 32), and\nneed not be reopened here. If it be argued that, had St.\u00a0Jude been the\nbrother of the Lord, he would have mentioned the fact, we may securely\nanswer that he would not have done so. \"As the author of the\n_Adumbrationes_ centuries ago remarked, religious feeling would deter\nhim, as it did his brother James, in his Epistle, from mentioning\nthis. The Ascension had altered all Christ's human relationships, and\nHis brethren would shrink from claiming kinship after the flesh with\nHis glorified body. This conjecture is supported by facts. Nowhere in\nprimitive Christian literature is any authority claimed on the basis\nof nearness of kin to the Redeemer. He Himself had taught Christians\nthat the lowliest among them might rise above the closest of such\nearthly ties (Luke xi.\u00a027, 28); to be spiritually the \"servant of\nJesus Christ\" was much more than being His actual brother.\"[105]\n\nWe may suppose that Jude, like the rest of his brethren (John vii.\u00a05),\ndid not at first believe in the Messiahship of Jesus, but was\nconverted by the convincing event of the Resurrection (Acts i.\u00a014). We\nknow that he was married, not merely from the general statement made\nby St.\u00a0Paul respecting the brethren of the Lord (1\u00a0Cor. ix.\u00a05), but\nfrom the interesting story told by Hegesippus, and preserved by\nEusebius (_H. E._ III. xx.\u00a01-8), that two grandsons of Jude were taken\nbefore Domitian as being of the royal family of David, and therefore\ndangerous to his rule. \"For,\" says Hegesippus, \"he was afraid of the\nappearance of the Christ, as Herod was.\" In answer to his questions,\nthey stated that they were indeed of the family of David, but were\npoor and humble persons, who supported themselves by their own labour;\nin proof of which they showed their horny hands. When further\nquestioned respecting the Christ and His kingdom, they said that it\nwas not earthly, but heavenly, and would arise at the end of the\nworld, when He came to judge the living and the dead. Whereupon\nDomitian contemptuously dismissed them as too simple to be dangerous,\nand ordered that the persecution of the descendants of David should\ncease. These two men were afterwards honoured in the Churches, both as\nconfessors and as being near of kin to the Lord. A fragment of Philip\nof Side (_c._ A.D.\u00a0425) lately discovered says that Hegesippus gave\nthe names of these two men as Zocer and James (_Texte und\nUntersuchungen_, V. 2, p. 169).\n\nThis narrative implies that both St.\u00a0Jude and the father of these\ngrandsons were already dead, and this gives us a terminus respecting\nthe date of the Epistle. St.\u00a0Jude was almost certainly dead when\nDomitian came to the throne, in A.D.\u00a081, and therefore this letter was\nwritten before that date. Whether, as Hilgenfeld and others would have\nus believe, the Epistle is aimed at Gnostic errors which did not arise\nuntil the second century, will be considered hereafter, when the\nnature of the evils denounced by St.\u00a0Jude is discussed; but the\nevidence which has been examined thus far entirely agrees with the\nsupposition that the letter was written during the Apostolic age.\n\nIt is not impossible that in calling himself \"brother of James\"\nSt.\u00a0Jude is thinking of his brother's _Epistle_, and wishes his\nreaders to consider that the present letter is to be taken in\nconjunction with that of St.\u00a0James. Both letters are Palestinian in\norigin and Jewish in tone; and they are almost entirely practical in\ntheir aim, dealing with grave errors in conduct. Those which are\ndenounced by St.\u00a0Jude are of a grosser kind than those denounced by\nSt.\u00a0James, but they resemble the latter in being errors of behaviour\nrather than of creed. They are to a large extent the _outcome_ of\npernicious principles; but it is the vicious lives of these \"ungodly\nmen\" that are condemned more than their erroneous beliefs. St.\u00a0Jude,\ntherefore, may be appealing not only to his brother's position and\nauthority as a recommendation for himself, but also to his brother's\nEpistle, which many of his readers would know and respect.\n\nThe attempts which have been made to find a locality for St.\u00a0Jude's\nreaders altogether fail. Palestine, Asia Minor, Alexandria have all\nbeen suggested; but the letter does not offer sufficient material for\nthe formation of a reasonable opinion. \"To them that are called,\nbeloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ,\" is a formula\nwhich embraces _all_ Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, and whether\ninside or outside Palestine. The topics introduced are such as would\nchiefly interest Jewish Christians, and it is probable that the writer\nhas the Jewish Christians of Palestine and the adjoining countries\nchiefly in his mind; but we have no right to limit the natural meaning\nof the formal address which he himself has adopted. All Christians,\nwithout limitation, are the objects of St.\u00a0Jude's solicitude.\n\n[102] _A plerisque rejicitur._ Possibly this means \"is rejected by\n_very many_;\" it certainly ought not to be rendered \"is rejected by\n_most_.\" \"Most\" is the classical meaning of _plerique_; but in Tacitus\nit means no more than \"very many\" (_Hist._ iv.\u00a084, etc.), and in\nJerome and his contemporaries it need mean no more than \"some.\" Thus\nin Jerome's letter to Dardamus (_Ep._ cxxix.) we have _licet plerique\neam vel Barnab\u00e6 vel Clementis arbitrentur_ (of the Epistle to the\nHebrews), where _plerique_ = the \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2 of Eusebius and Origen (_H. E._\nVI. xx.\u00a03; xxv.\u00a014).\n\n[103] See the _Academy_ of September 21st, 1889, where he shows how\nmuch of the Fragment can be turned quite literally into Greek verse,\nand suggests that the \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b1\u03c2, \"Odes referring to all\nthe Scriptures,\" mentioned among the works of Hippolytus whose titles\nare inscribed on his chair (see Kraus, _Real. Encykl. der Chris.\nAlterth\u00fcmer_, I., pp. 661-64), refers to metrical compositions on the\ncontents of the Old and New Testaments. The Fragment says respecting\nthis Epistle, \"Epistola sane Iude et superscrictio (_sic_) Iohannis\nduas in catholica habentur\", where _superscrictio_ is a clerical error\nfor _superscripti_, \"the John mentioned above.\"\n\n[104] The Genevan Version introduced this rendering. Previous versions\neither leave the meaning doubtful, \"Judas of James,\" as Wiclif, or\ntranslate \"James' _sonne_,\" as Tyndale and Cranmer. Luther also is for\n\"son.\"\n\n[105] These words are quoted from a commentary which the writer of\nthis volume wrote in 1879 for Messrs. Cassell, in the _New Testament\nCommentary for English Readers_, edited by Bishop Ellicott (p. 505),\nof which, through the courtesy of the publishers, he is allowed to\nmake use for the present work.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXI.\n\n _THE PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE.--THE FAITH ONCE FOR ALL\n DELIVERED AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE_\n\n \"Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our\n common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you\n to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered\n unto the saints.\"--ST.\u00a0JUDE 3.\n\n\nThe Greek of the opening sentence of this passage, in which St.\u00a0Jude\nexplains his reason for writing this Epistle, is ambiguous. The words\n\"of our common salvation\" (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) may go\neither with what precedes or with what follows. But there is little\ndoubt that both the Authorized and the Revised Versions are right in\ntaking them with what precedes. The true connexion is, not, \"While I\nwas giving all diligence to write unto you, I was constrained to write\nunto you of our common salvation,\" but, \"While I was giving all\ndiligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained\nto write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith.\"\nThis Epistle can scarcely be called a letter \"about our common\nsalvation.\" The meaning is that St.\u00a0Jude had intended to write such a\nletter, but the crisis created by the entrance of these ungodly men\ninto the Church constrained him to write a letter of a different kind,\nviz. the one which lies before us. That he had already _begun_ to\nwrite a letter \"respecting our common salvation,\" and that we have\nhere to lament the loss of another Epistle besides the lost Epistles\nof St.\u00a0Paul and St.\u00a0John (1\u00a0Cor. v.\u00a09; 3\u00a0John 9), is neither stated\nnor implied.[106] St.\u00a0Jude had been thinking very earnestly about\nwriting a more general and comprehensive Epistle, when he realized\nthat the presence of a very serious evil required immediate action,\nand accordingly he writes at once to point out the existing peril, and\nto denounce those who are the authors of it. It is the duty of all\nChristians to be on their guard, and to be unflinching in their\ndefence of the truth which has been committed to them to preserve and\ncherish.\n\n\"The faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.\" This\ndoes not mean, which was delivered by God to the Apostles, but which\nwas delivered by the Apostles to the Church. \"The saints\" here, as so\noften in the New Testament (Acts ix.\u00a013, 32, 41; xxvi.\u00a010; Rom.\nviii.\u00a027; xiii.\u00a013; xv.\u00a025, 26, 31; etc., etc.), means _all_\nChristians. If the whole nation of the Jews was a \"holy people\" (\u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2), \"a peculiar treasure unto Jehovah from among all peoples\"\n(Exod. xix.\u00a05), by reason of their special election by Him (Deut.\nvii.\u00a06; xiv.\u00a02, 21); if they were \"saints of the Most High\" (Dan.\nvii.\u00a018, 22, 25), much more might this be said of Christians, who had\ninherited all the spiritual privileges of the Jews, and had received\nothers in abundance, far exceeding any that the Jews had ever\npossessed. Christians also, in a still higher sense, were \"an elect\nrace, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own\npossession\" (1\u00a0Peter ii.\u00a09). The Christians of Corinth, Ephesus, and\nColoss\u00e6, in spite of the enormous evils which they practised or\nsanctioned, or at least tolerated, are still called \"saints.\" They are\nholy, not as being persons of holy life, but as being devoted to God.\nOf course such persons _ought_ to be holy in conduct, but to call them\n\"saints\" does not assert that they are so. The name asserts the fact\nof being set apart by God for Himself, and implies what ought to be\nthe result of such separation. \"Thus the main idea of the term is\n_consecration_. But though it does not assert moral qualifications as\na fact in the persons so designated, it implies them as a duty.\"[107]\nTo each individual Christian, therefore, the name is at once an\nhonour, an exhortation, and a reproach. It tells of his high calling,\nit exhorts him to live up to it, and it reminds him of his grievous\nshortcomings.\n\n\"The faith _once for all delivered_ unto the saints\" (\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f05\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9): both the adverb, \"once for all,\"\nand the aorist participle, \"delivered,\" are worthy of special notice.\n\"The faith\" does not mean any set formula of articles of belief, nor\nthe internal reception of Christian doctrine, but the _substance_ of\nit; it is equivalent to what St.\u00a0Paul and the Evangelists call \"the\nGospel,\" viz. that body of truth which brings salvation to the soul\nthat receives it. This Faith, or this Gospel, has been once for all\ndelivered to Christians. No other will be given, for there is no\nother. Whatever may be delivered by any one in future cannot be a\ngospel at all. The one true Gospel is complete and final, and admits\nof no successors and no supplements (Gal. i.\u00a06-9).\n\n\"The faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.\" Does\nthis exclude all possibility of a \"development of Christian doctrine\"?\nThat depends upon what one means by \"development.\" The expression has\nbeen interpreted to mean \"that the increase and expansion of the\nChristian creed and ritual, and the variations which have attended the\nprocess in the case of individual writers and Churches, are the\nnecessary attendants on any philosophy or polity which takes\npossession of the intellect and heart, and has had any wide or\nextended dominion; that from the nature of the human mind, time is\nnecessary for the full comprehension _and perfection_ of great ideas;\nand that the highest and most wonderful truths, though communicated to\nthe world once for all by inspired teachers, could not be comprehended\nall at once by the recipients, but, as received and transmitted by\nminds not inspired and through media which were human, have\nrequired only the longer time and deeper thought for their full\nelucidation.\"[108] If the ambiguous expression \"and perfection\" be\nomitted, one may readily allow that development of Christian doctrine\nin this sense has taken place. To say that time is needed for the\n_full comprehension_ of the great truths which were communicated to\nthe Church once for all by the Apostles is one thing; to say that time\nis needed for the _perfection_ of those truths may or may not be quite\nanother. And the manner in which the subject is treated in the famous\nEssay from which the passage just quoted is taken shows that what is\nmeant by the \"perfecting\" of the truths is a very different thing from\nthe full comprehension of their original contents; it means making\nadditions to the original contents in order to remedy supposed\ndeficiencies. In this sense it may be confidently asserted, and as\nloyal Christians we are bound to assert, that there is no such thing\nas development of Christian doctrine. If there be such a thing, then\nwe cannot stop short with those developments which can in some measure\nbe called Christian. The author himself reminds us that \"no one has\npower over the issues of his principles; we cannot manage our\nargument, and have as much of it as we please, and no more\" (p. 29).\nIf the faith once for all delivered to the saints was defective, and\nneeded to be supplemented by subsequent additions, why may not\nChristianity itself be, as some have maintained, only a phase in the\ndevelopment of religion, which in process of time is to be superseded\nby something wholly unchristian? The transition is easily made from\nthe position of the _Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_\nto that of Channing, that \"it makes me smile to hear immortality\nclaimed for Catholicism or Protestantism, or for any past\ninterpretations of Christianity: as if the human soul had exhausted\nitself in its infant efforts; as if the men of one or a few\ngenerations could bind the energy of human thought and affection for\never;\"[109] and thence to the position of Strauss, who, in his latest\nand most dreary work, on _The Old and the New Faith_, asks the\nquestion, \"Are we still Christians?\" and answers it emphatically in\nthe negative. The chief doctrines of Christianity are to him childish\nor repulsive beliefs, which thoughtful men have long since left\nbehind. We may still in some sense be religious; but Christianity has\ndone its work, and is rightly being dismissed from the stage.[110]\nThis is the advanced thinking of which St.\u00a0John writes in his Second\nEpistle: \"Everyone that _goeth onward_ (\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd), and\n_abideth not in the doctrine of Christ_, hath not God\" (ver. 9). There\nis an advance which involves desertion of first principles; and such\nan advance is not progress, but apostasy.\n\nBut _does_ the development of doctrine, in the sense contended for by\nthe author of the celebrated Essay, mean making actual additions to\nthe faith once for all delivered, as distinct from arriving at a\nbetter comprehension of the contents and logical consequences of the\noriginal deposit? This question must be answered in the affirmative,\nfor various reasons. The whole purpose of the Essay, and the actual\nexpressions used in it, require this meaning; and that this is the\nobvious meaning has been assumed by Roman Catholic as well as\nProtestant critics, and (so far as the present writer is aware) this\ninterpretation has never been resented as illegitimate by the author.\nThe whole argument is admittedly \"an hypothesis to account for a\ndifficulty,\" \"an expedient to enable us to solve what has now become a\nnecessary and an anxious problem\" (pp. 27, 28), viz. the enormous\ndifference between the sum total of Roman Catholic doctrines and those\nwhich can be found in the Christian documents of the first two or\nthree centuries. The Essay is believed by its author to furnish \"a\nsolution of such a number of the reputed corruptions of Rome as might\nform a fair ground for trusting her where the investigation had not\nbeen pursued\" (p. 29). And that the faith once for all delivered is\nregarded as in need of supplements and additions seems to be implied\nin such language as the following: \"In whatever sense the need and its\nsupply are a proof of design in the visible creation, in the same do\n_the gaps_, if the word may be used, _which occur in the structure of\nthe original creed of the Church_, make it probable that those\ndevelopments, which grow out of the truths which lie around them, were\nintended to complete it\" (pp. 101, 102). It is the business of\nsucceeding ages of the Church to \"keep what was exact, and _supply\nwhat was deficient_\" (p. 354).\n\nThe author of the _Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_\nstates in another of his works that when he was admitted to the Church\nof Rome he embraced volumes containing the writings of the Christian\nFathers, crying out that now they were really his own. The action and\nexclamation were thoroughly inconsistent with the position maintained\nthroughout the Essay, and since then adopted by numbers of Roman\ncontroversialists. He ought rather to have cleared his shelves of the\nworks of the Fathers, and to have consigned them to the lumber-room,\nwith the remark, \"Now I need never look at you any more.\" As Bishop\nCornelius Mussus (Musso) said long ago, \"For my part, to speak quite\nfrankly, I would give more credence to a single Pope than to a\nthousand Augustines, Jeromes, and Gregorys\" (_In Epist. ad Rom._ xiv.,\np. 606, Venet., 1588, quoted in Hardwick's edition of Archer Butler's\n_Letters on Romanism_, p. 394). It is the latest and most modern works\non Roman theology, especially those which expound the utterances of\nthe most recent Popes, that deserve to be studied, if the theory of\nthe development be correct. According to that theory, the teaching of\nthe primitive Church was certainly immature and defective, and\npossibly even erroneous. In order to find out what primitive writers\nmeant, or _ought to have meant_, we must look to the latest\ndevelopments. _They_ are the criteria by which to test the teaching of\nthe early Church; it is beginning at the wrong end to test the\ndevelopments by Christian antiquity. In former times Romanists were at\ngreat pains to show that traces of their peculiar tenets could be\nfound in the writers of the first few centuries; and in not a few\ncases the works of these primitive writers were interpolated, in order\nto make out a fair case. Criticism has exposed these forgeries, and it\nhas been demonstrated that the early Christian teachers were ignorant\nof whole tracts of Roman doctrine and practice. Roman controversy has\ntherefore entirely shifted its ground. It now freely admits that these\nthings were unknown to Iren\u00e6us, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Athanasius, and\nAugustine; but for the simple reason that, when they wrote, these\nthings had not yet been revealed. The Church was still ignorant that\nthe Blessed Virgin was conceived without sin, was taken bodily to\nheaven after her death, and ought to be invoked in prayer; it was\nstill ignorant of the doctrine of purgatory, of indulgences, and of\nthe necessity of being in communion with the Church of Rome. It will\nnot do to say that Christ and His Apostles planted the _germs_ of\nthese things, and that for centuries the germs did not expand and\nfructify, and therefore remained unnoticed. For, first, how can there\nbe _a germ of an historical fact_, such as the supposed removal of the\nVirgin's body to heaven, which is most happily named an \"assumption\"?\nSecondly, now that the fruit _has_ appeared, we ought to be able to\ntrace it back to the germ which for so long was ignored. And thirdly,\nif the germs were really deposited by Christ and His Apostles, they\nwould have developed in a _somewhat_ similar manner in all parts of\nChristendom. Different surroundings will account for some variety of\ndevelopment, but not for absolute difference in kind. The germ\nrespecting communion with the Church of Rome, if there was one,\ndeveloped in the East, where all germs were in the first instance\nplanted, into the doctrine that no such communion was necessary.[111]\nTherefore, from the Roman point of view, it is necessary to maintain\nthat the development of Christian doctrine involves, not merely the\nbetter comprehension of the contents of doctrines, and the expansion\nof seeds and germs of truth, but the admission of actual supplements\nand additions, derived from new revelations of fresh items of truth.\nAs the Jesuit Father Harper said, in his reply to Dr. Pusey's\n_Eirenicon_, \"Christ grew in wisdom daily. So does the Church, not in\nmere appearance, but of truth. Her creed, therefore, can never shrink\nback to the dimensions of the past, but must ever enlarge with the\nonward future.\"\n\nHence the necessity for the doctrine of Infallibility. For Roman\ndevelopments are not the only ones. The Eastern Churches have theirs;\nProtestant Churches have theirs; and outside these there are other\ndevelopments, both non-Christian and anti-Christian. Unless there is\nsome authority which can say, \"Our developments are Divinely inspired\nand necessary, while all others are superfluous or wrong,\" the\ndoctrine of Development may be used with as much force against Rome as\nfor her. Consequently, we find the author of the Essay using the\ntheory of Development as an argument for that of the Infallibility.\n\"If the Christian doctrine, as originally taught, admits of true and\nimportant developments, ... this is a strong antecedent argument in\nfavour of a provision in the Dispensation for putting a seal of\nauthority upon those developments.... If certain large developments of\nit are true, they must surely be accredited as true\" (pp. 117-19).\n\nThis is further proof that what is contemplated in this theory is not\nmere logical deductions from revealed truth; for logical deductions\nvindicate themselves by an appeal to the reason, and need no sanction\nfrom an infallible authority. Developments are indeed said to follow\nby way of \"logical sequence,\" but this term is made to receive an\nenlarged meaning. \"It will include any progress of the mind from one\njudgment to another, as, for instance, _by way of moral fitness_,\nwhich may not admit of analysis into premiss and conclusion\" (p. 397).\nThus the \"deification of St.\u00a0Mary\" is a \"logical sequence\" of our\nLord's Divinity. \"The votaries of Mary do not exceed the true faith,\nunless the blasphemers of her Son came up to it. The Church of Rome is\nnot idolatrous, unless Arianism is orthodoxy\" (p. 406). The following\ncriticism, therefore, does not seem to be unjust: \"However the theory\nmay be modified by the subsequent additional supposition of infallible\nguidance, it is quite evident that, considered in itself, its internal\nspirit and scope (especially as illustrated by its alleged Roman\ninstances) are nothing short of this, that _everything_ which\n_certain_ good men in the Church, or men assumed to be such, can by\nreasoning _or feeling_ collect from a revealed truth is, by the mere\nfact of its recognition [_i.e._ by the supposed infallible guide],\nadmissible and authoritative.\"[112] This is indeed a wide door to open\nfor the reception of additions to the faith!\n\nThat St.\u00a0Jude lays much stress on the fact that the sum total of the\nGospel, and not merely the elementary portions of it, have been once\nfor all committed to the Church, is shown, not only by the prominence\nwhich he gives to the thought here, but by his repetition of it a few\nlines later, when he begins the main portion of his Epistle: \"I desire\nto put you in remembrance, though ye know _all things once for all_\"\n(ver. 5). Any teaching of new doctrines is not only unnecessary, it is\nalso utterly inadmissible. And every Christian has his responsibilities\nin this matter. He is to \"contend earnestly\" (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9), with\nall the energy and watchfulness of an athlete in the arena, for the\npreservation of this sacred deposit, lest it be lost or corrupted. And\nthe manner in which this earnest contest is to be maintained is not\nleft doubtful; not with the sword, as Beza rightly remarks, nor with\nintemperate denunciation or indiscriminate severity, but with the\nmighty influence of a holy life, built upon the foundation of our\n\"most holy faith\" (vv.\u00a020-23). It is in this way that lawful\ndevelopment of Christian doctrine is secured; not by additions to what\nwas once for all delivered, but by a deeper and wider comprehension of\nits inexhaustible contents. \"If any man willeth to do His will, he\nshall know of the doctrine.\"\n\nNOTE.--In connexion with the subject treated above, chapter ix. of R.\nH. Hutton's sketch of _Cardinal Newman_ (Methuen & Co., 1891) may be\nprofitably read.\n\n[106] This is an assumption of De Wette, who in this followed\nSherlock, and was followed by Br\u00fcckner. It is worth noting that the\nVulgate here is as ambiguous as the original Greek: \"_Omnem\nsolicitudinem faciens scribendi vobis de communi vestra salute necesse\nhabui scribere vobis_,\" etc.\n\n[107] Lightfoot, _Philippians_, note on i.\u00a01.\n\n[108] J. H. Newman, _An Essay on the Development of Christian\nDoctrine_ (London, Toovey, 1845), p. 27.\n\n[109] _Letter on Catholicism: Complete Works_ (Routledge, 1884), p. 346.\n\n[110] _Der alte und der neue Glaube_ (Leipzig, 1872), pp. 13-91: see\nespecially pp. 90, 91.\n\n[111] See Dr. Salmon's admirable work on _The Infallibility of the\nChurch_ (Murray, 1888), pp. 33-41.\n\n[112] Archer Butler's _Letters on Romanism_, Revised by Rev. Charles\nHardwick (Macmillan, 1858), p. 91.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXII.\n\n _THE PERSONS DENOUNCED IN THE EPISTLE.\n ITS RELATION TO 2\u00a0PETER._\n\n \"For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of\n old set forth unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace\n of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord,\n Jesus Christ.\"--ST.\u00a0JUDE 4.\n\n\nWe have here the _occasion_ of the letter stated very plainly.\nSt.\u00a0Jude was meditating a letter on a more general subject, when the\ngrave peril created by the anti-Christian behaviour of the persons\ncondemned in the text constrained him to write at once on this more\nurgent topic. An insidious invasion of the Christian Church has taken\nplace by those who have no right to a place within it, and who\nendanger its peace and purity; and he dare not keep silence. The\nstrong must be exhorted to withstand the evil; the weak must be\nrescued from it.\n\nThese invaders are in one respect like those who are condemned in the\nEpistle to the Galatians, in another respect are very unlike them.\nThey are \"false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily\"\n(ii.\u00a04); but they have come in, not \"to spy out our liberty which we\nhave in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage,\" but to\n\"turn the grace of our God into lasciviousness.\" The troublers of the\nGalatian Church were endeavouring to _contract_ Christian liberty,\nwhereas these ungodly men were _straining_ it to the uttermost. Both\nended in destroying it. The one turned the \"freedom with which Christ\nset us free\" into an intolerable yoke of Jewish bondage; the other\nturned it into the polluting anarchy of heathen, or worse than\nheathen, licence. How utterly alien these latter are from\nChristianity, or even from Judaism, is indicated by St.\u00a0Jude's pointed\nintroduction of the pronoun \"our\" in two clauses in this verse:\n\"turning the grace of _our_ God into lasciviousness, and denying _our_\nonly Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.\" Jehovah is \"_our_ God,\" not\ntheirs; they are \"without God in the world.\" And Christ is \"_our_ only\nMaster and Lord,\" but not theirs; they have denied and rejected Him,\nchoosing to \"walk after their own lusts\" (ver. 16), rather than to\n\"walk even as He walked\" (1\u00a0John ii.\u00a06). They have repudiated His easy\nyoke, that they may follow their own bestial desires.\n\nWho are these \"ungodly men\"? Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ III. ii.\n_sub fin._) thinks that St.\u00a0Jude is speaking prophetically of the\nabominable doctrines of the Gnostic teacher Carpocrates. Some modern\nwriters adopt this view, with the omission of the word \"prophetically,\"\nand thus obtain an argument against the genuineness of the Epistle. If\nthe writer knew the teaching of Carpocrates, he cannot have been Jude\nthe brother of James and the brother of the Lord. The date of\nCarpocrates is too uncertain to make this a perfectly conclusive\nargument, even if we admit the assumption that the writer of this\nEpistle _is_ alluding to his teaching; for he is sometimes placed\nbefore Cerinthus, who was contemporary with St.\u00a0John. But it may be\nallowed as probably correct that St.\u00a0Jude was dead before Carpocrates\nwas known as a teacher of Antinomian Gnosticism. There is, however,\nnothing whatever to show that it is to his teaching that St.\u00a0Jude is\nalluding. He says nothing whatever about the _teaching_ of these\n\"ungodly men,\" who perhaps were not teachers at all; still less does\nhe indicate that they belonged to those Gnostics who, from the\nOriental doctrine of the absolutely evil character of matter and\neverything material, drew the practical conclusion that man's material\nbody may be made to undergo every kind of experience, no matter how\nshameless, in order that the soul may gain knowledge; that the soul is\nby enlightenment too pure, and the body by nature too impure, to be\ncapable of pollution; that filth cannot be defiled; and that pure gold\nremains pure, however often it may be plunged in filthiness. No such\ndoctrine is hinted at by St.\u00a0Jude. Dorner, therefore, goes beyond what\nis written when he says that \"the persons whom Jude opposes are not\nmerely such as have practically swerved from the right way; they are\nalso teachers of error\" (_Doctrine of the Person of Christ_, Intr., p.\n72, Eng. Tr.: T. and T. Clark, 1861). It is more reasonable, with De\nWette, Br\u00fcckner, Meyer, K\u00fchl, Reuss, Farrar, Salmon, and others to\nregard these \"ungodly men\" as just what St.\u00a0Jude describes them, and\nno more; libertines, who ought never to have been admitted into the\nChurch at all; who maintained that Christians were free to live lives\nof gross sensuality; and who, when rebuked by the elders or other\nofficers of the Church for their misconduct, not only refused to\nsubmit, but reviled those who were set over them. They were \"teachers\nof error,\" but by their bad example, not by systematic preaching. They\n\"screened their immoral conduct by blasphemous assumptions,\" because\nthey assumed that \"having been called for freedom,\" they might \"use\ntheir freedom for an occasion to the flesh\" (Gal. v.\u00a013), not because\nthey assumed that they ought to disobey the commandments of the\nCreator of the material universe. And for the same reason they may be\ncalled \"libertines\" on principle. When St.\u00a0Jude says that they \"denied\nour only Master[113] and Lord, Jesus Christ,\" he means that they\ndenied Him by their lives. It is altogether unreasonable to read into\nthis simple phrase, which is sufficiently explained by the context, a\ndogmatic denial of the Incarnation. That the germs of Antinomian\nGnosticism are here indicated may be true enough; but they have not\nyet developed into a body of doctrine. Still less have those who are\ntainted by these germs developed into an heretical sect.[114]\n\nIt is with the verse before us that the marked resemblance between the\nEpistle of St.\u00a0Jude and the central portion of the Second Epistle of\nSt.\u00a0Peter begins; and it continues down to ver. 18. In this short\nletter of twenty-five verses, only the first three and last seven\nverses, _i.e._ about a third of the whole, have no intimate relations\nwith 2\u00a0Peter. The last word has not yet been spoken upon this\nperplexing subject. The present writer confesses that he remains still\nuncertain as to the true relation between the two, and that he has\ninclined sometimes to the one, and sometimes to the other of the two\nrival hypotheses. Thus much of what he wrote on the subject more than\nten years ago may be repeated now:--\n\n\"The similarity, both in substance and wording, is so great that only\ntwo alternatives are possible--either one has borrowed from the other,\nor both have borrowed from a common source. The second alternative is\nrarely, if ever, advocated; it does not explain the facts very\nsatisfactorily, and critics are agreed in rejecting it. But here\nagreement ends. On the further question, as to which writer is prior,\nthere is very great diversity of opinion. One thing, therefore, is\ncertain, that whichever writer has borrowed, he is no ordinary\nborrower. He knows how to assimilate foreign material so as to make it\nthoroughly his own. He remains original, even while he appropriates\nthe words and thoughts of another. He controls them, not they him.\nWere this not so, there would be little doubt about the matter. In any\nordinary case of appropriation, if both the original and copy are\nforthcoming, critics do not doubt long as to which is the original. It\nis when the copy itself is a masterpiece, as in the case of Holbein's\nMadonna, that criticism is baffled. Such would seem to be the case\nhere; and the present writer is free to confess his own\nuncertainty.\"[115]\n\nOther persons are able to write with much more confidence. Dean Mansel\nsays, \"Some eminent modern critics have attempted, on the very\nprecarious evidence of style, to assign the priority in time of\nwriting to St.\u00a0Jude; but there are two circumstances which appear to\nme to prove most conclusively that St.\u00a0Jude's Epistle was written\nafter that of St.\u00a0Peter, and with express reference to it. The first\nis, that the evils which St.\u00a0Peter speaks of as partly future St.\u00a0Jude\ndescribes as now present. The one says, 'There _shall_ be false\nteachers among you' (2\u00a0Peter ii.\u00a01; the future tense being continued\nthrough the two following verses); the other says, 'There _are_\ncertain men crept in unawares.' The other circumstance is still more\nto the point. St.\u00a0Peter, in his Second Epistle, has the remarkable\nwords, 'Knowing this first, that in the last days mockers\n(\u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts'\n(iii.\u00a03). St.\u00a0Jude has the same passage, repeated almost word for\nword, but expressly introduced as a citation of Apostolic language:\n'But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which have been spoken before\nby the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they said to you,\nIn the last time there shall be mockers (\u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9), walking after\ntheir own ungodly lusts' (vv.\u00a017, 18). The use of the plural number\n(\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd) may be explained by supposing that the writer may\nalso have intended to allude to passages similar in import, though\ndifferently expressed, in the writings of St.\u00a0Paul (such as 1\u00a0Tim.\niv.\u00a01, 2; 2\u00a0Tim. iii.\u00a01), but the verbal coincidence can hardly be\nsatisfactorily explained, unless we suppose that St.\u00a0Jude had\nprincipally in his thoughts, and was actually citing the language of\nSt.\u00a0Peter\" (_The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries_,\nMurray, 1875, pp. 69, 70). Hengstenberg puts forward the same\narguments, and considers the second to be decisive as to the priority\nof 2\u00a0Peter.\n\nNot less confident is Archdeacon Farrar that exactly the opposite\nhypothesis is the right one. \"After careful consideration and\ncomparison of the two documents it seems to my own mind _impossible to\ndoubt_ [the italics are Dr. Farrar's] that Jude was the earlier of the\ntwo writers.... I must confess my inability to see how any one who\napproaches the inquiry with no ready-made theories can fail to come to\nthe conclusion that the priority in this instance belongs to St.\u00a0Jude.\nIt would have been impossible for such a burning and withering blast\nof defiance and invective as his brief letter to have been composed on\nprinciples of modification and addition. All the marks which indicate\nthe reflective treatment of an existing document are to be seen in the\nSecond Epistle of St.\u00a0Peter. In every instance of variation we see the\nreasons which influenced the later writer.... The notion that St.\u00a0Jude\nendeavoured to 'improve upon' St.\u00a0Peter is, I say, a literary\nimpossibility; and if in some instances the phrases of St.\u00a0Jude seem\nmore antithetical and striking, and his description clearer, I have\nsufficiently accounted for the inferiority--if it be inferiority--of\nSt.\u00a0Peter by the supposition that he was a man of more restrained\ntemperament; that he wrote under the influence of reminiscences and\nimpressions; and that he was warning against forms of evil with which\nhe had not come into so personal a contact\" (_The Early Days of\nChristianity_, Cassell and Co., 1882, i., pp. 196-203).\n\nThe main arguments in favour of the view that the Second Epistle of\nSt.\u00a0Peter was used by St.\u00a0Jude, besides those stated by Dean Mansel,\nare the following:--\n\n(1) If 2\u00a0Peter is genuine, it is more probable that St.\u00a0Jude should\nborrow from St.\u00a0Peter than that the chief of the Apostles should\nborrow from one who was not an Apostle at all.\n\nIf 2\u00a0Peter is not genuine, it is improbable that the forger would\nborrow from a writing which from the first was regarded with\nsuspicion, because it quoted apocryphal literature.\n\n(2) St.\u00a0Jude tells us (ver. 3) that he wrote under pressure to meet a\ngrave emergency, and therefore he would be more likely to make large\nuse of suitable material ready to his hand, than one who was under no\nsuch necessity.\n\nThe main arguments on the other side are these:--\n\n(1) It is more probable that the chief portion of a short letter\nshould be used again with a great deal of additional matter, than that\none section only of a much longer letter should be used again with\nvery little additional matter.\n\n(2) It is more probable that the writer of 2\u00a0Peter should omit what\nseemed to be difficult or likely to give offence, than that St.\u00a0Jude\nshould insert such things; _e.g._ \"_clouds_ without water\" (Jude\u00a012)\nis a contradiction in terms, and therefore is naturally corrected to\n\"_wells_ without water\" (2\u00a0Pet. ii.\u00a017); the particular way in which\nthe angels fell (Jude\u00a06), the allusion to certain Levitical pollutions\n(ver. 23), and the citations from apocryphal books (vv.\u00a09, 14, 15) are\neither entirely omitted by the writer of 2\u00a0Peter, or put in a way much\nless likely to seem offensive (ii.\u00a04, 11). And Jude\u00a09 has been so\ntoned down by the writer of 2\u00a0Peter that without St.\u00a0Jude's statement\nrespecting Michael and the devil we should scarcely understand 2\u00a0Peter\nii.\u00a011.\n\nBesides these points, there are two arguments which are used on _both_\nsides of the question:--\n\n(i) There are certain elements in St.\u00a0Jude's Epistle of which the\nwriter of 2\u00a0Peter would probably have made use, had he seen them;\n_e.g._ the ironical play upon the word \"kept\" in \"the angels which\n_kept_ not (\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2) their own principality.... He hath _kept_\n(\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd) in everlasting bonds;\" the telling antithesis in ver.\n10, that what these sinners do not know, and cannot know, they abuse\nby gross irreverence; and what they know, and cannot help knowing,\nthey abuse by gross licentiousness; and the metaphor of \"wandering\nstars\" (ver. 13), which would fit the false teachers, who lead others\nastray, in 2\u00a0Peter, much better than the ungodly men, who are not\nleaders at all, in Jude. As the writer of 2\u00a0Peter makes no use of\nthese points, the inference is that he had never seen them.\n\nBut, on the other hand, there are certain elements in 2\u00a0Peter of which\nSt.\u00a0Jude would probably have made use, had he seen them; _e.g._ the\ndestruction of \"the world of the ungodly\" by the Flood; the \"eyes full\nof an adulteress;\" and the explanation of the \"great swelling words\"\nas \"promising them liberty,\" which would exactly have suited\nSt.\u00a0Jude's purpose in condemning those who turned liberty into\nlicense. As St.\u00a0Jude makes no use of these points, the inference is\nthat he had not seen them.\n\n(ii) St.\u00a0Jude, as will be shown presently, groups nearly everything in\nthrees. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that wherever he can\nmake a threefold arrangement he does so. Is this artificial grouping a\nmark of originality or not? Some would urge that it is the writer who\nis using up another's material who would be likely to add this\nfanciful arrangement, and that, therefore, St.\u00a0Jude is the borrower.\nOthers would urge that such triplets would be just the things to be\noverlooked or disregarded by the borrower, and that, therefore,\nSt.\u00a0Jude is the original.\n\nAbout the existence of the triplets in Jude, and their absence in\n2\u00a0Peter, there can be no question, whatever view we may hold as to\ntheir significance. They begin in the very first verse of our Epistle,\nand continue to the last verse, although those at the close of the\nletter are lost in the Authorized Version, owing to the fact that the\ntranslators used a faulty Greek text. It will be worth while to run\nthrough them. (1) Judas, a servant ... and brother. (2) To them that\nare called, beloved, ... and kept. (3) Mercy unto you and peace and\nlove. (4) Ungodly men, turning, ... and denying. (5) Israelites,\nangels, cities of the plain. (6) Defile, ... set at nought, ... and\nrail. (7) Cain, Balaam, Korah. (8) These are.... These are.... These\nare.... (9) They who make separations, sensual, having not the Spirit.\n(10) Building up yourselves, ... praying, ... looking for the mercy,\n(11) On some have mercy; ... and some save; ... and on some have mercy\nwith fear. (12) Before all time, and now, and for evermore.\n\nBefore parting with this verse it will be well to put readers on their\nguard against a misinterpretation of the phrase, \"They who were of old\nset forth unto this condemnation;\" a misinterpretation all the more\nlikely to be made by those who use the Authorized Version, which has,\n\"Who were before of old _ordained_ to this condemnation.\" The text is\na favourite one with Calvinists; but when rightly translated and\nunderstood, it gives no support to extreme predestinarian theories.\nWhen literally rendered it runs, \"Who have been of old _written down\nbeforehand_ for this _sentence_;\" or possibly, \"Who have been written\n_up_ beforehand;\" for the metaphor may be borrowed from the custom of\nposting up the names of those who had to appear before the court for\ntrial. Be this as it may, \"of old\" (\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9) cannot refer to the\neternal counsel and decree of Almighty God, but to something in human\nhistory, something remote from St.\u00a0Jude's own day, but in time, and\nnot in eternity. Perhaps some of the warnings and denunciations in the\nprophets of the Old Testament or in the _Book of Enoch_ are in his\nmind. \"Condemnation\" is a justifiable rendering of the Greek word\n(\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bc\u03b1), because it is manifest from the context that the sentence\nor judgment intended is one of condemnation, and not of acquittal; but\nthis word when coupled with \"ordained\" is likely to be grievously\nmisunderstood. \"Ordained to condemnation\" suggests with fatal facility\n\"predestined to damnation\"--a doctrine which has perhaps been a more\nfruitful cause of the rejection of Christianity than all the doctrines\nincluded in the creeds.\n\nProbably in all ages of the Church there have been men such as\nSt.\u00a0Jude here describes--nominal members of the Church who are nothing\nbut a scandal to it, and professing Christians whose whole life is one\nflagrant denial of Christ. Such persons certainly trouble Christendom\nnow. By their luxury and licentiousness they set an evil example and\ncreate a pestilential moral atmosphere. They practise no self-control,\nand sneer at self-denial in others. They reject all Christian\ndiscipline, and mock at those who endeavour to maintain it. And\nsometimes they are not at once recognized in their true character.\nThey are plausible and amusing, obviously not strict, but not\nobviously scandalous in their manner of life. It is then that such men\nbecome specially dangerous. Such may have been the case in the\nChurches which St.\u00a0Jude has in mind. Therefore he strips off all this\nspecious disguise, and describes these profligate scoffers according\nto their true characters. Moreover, we must remember that there were\nsome, and perhaps many, who, like Simon Magus (Acts viii.\u00a013),\naccepted baptism without any real appreciation of the meaning of\nChristianity, and who remained either Jews or heathen at heart, long\nafter they had enrolled themselves as Christians. Where dangerous\nmaterial of this kind abounded, it was necessary to put the faithful\non their guard about the danger; and hence the strength and vehemence\nof St.\u00a0Jude's language. A sharp, clear statement of the evil was\nnecessary to put the weak and the unwary on their guard against a\nperil to which they might easily succumb, before they were fully aware\nof its existence. We all of us need such warnings still, not merely to\nform a truer estimate of the nature and tendency of certain forms of\nevil, and thus keep on our guard against courting needless temptation,\nbut also to preserve us from becoming in our own persons, through\nmanifest self-indulgence and carelessness of life, a snare and a\nstumbling-block to our brethren.\n\nNOTE.--On the question as to which of the two Epistles is prior, the\nopinion of scholars has been greatly divided; but a comparison of the\nfollowing lists will show that among more recent critics the decision\nis commonly in favour of the priority of our Epistle:--\n\n_For the priority of 2\u00a0Peter_: Bauer, Beausobre, Benson, Bloomfield,\nDahl, Dietlein, Dodwell, Estius, Fronm\u00fcller, H\u00e4nlein, Hengstenberg,\nHeydenreich, Hofmann, Lange, Lenfant, Lumby, Luthart, Luther, Mansel,\nMichaelis, Mill, \u0152cumenius, Pott, Schaff, Schmid, Schoff, Schulze,\nSemler, Steinfass, Stier, Stolz, Storr, Thiersch, Wetstein, Wolf,\nWordsworth, Zachari\u00e6, and others.\n\n_For the priority of St.\u00a0Jude_: Alford, Angus, Arnaud, Bleek,\nBr\u00fcckner, Caffin, Credner, Davidson, De Wette, Eichhorn, Ewald, F. W.\nFarrar, Guerike, Hatch, Herder, Hilgenfeld, Hug, Huther, K\u00fchl, Kurz,\nMayerhoff, Neander, Plumptre, Reuss, Salmon, Schenkel, Sieffert,\nThorold, Weiss, Wiesinger, and others. Plumptre makes the remarkable\nsuggestion that St.\u00a0Jude may have written _both_ letters. He first\nwrote his own Epistle, then was sent with it to St.\u00a0Peter by\nSt.\u00a0James, and finally acted as St.\u00a0Peter's amanuensis in writing\n2\u00a0Peter (_Cambridge Bible for Schools, Epistle of St.\u00a0Peter and\nSt.\u00a0Jude_, 1879, pp. 79, 80, 88, 89).\n\nOn this point also Dr. D\u00f6llinger changed his mind (see p. 31). In _The\nFirst Age of the Church_ (pp. 93, 108, Eng. Tr., 2nd ed.) he\nmaintained the priority of 2\u00a0Peter. June 22nd, 1879, he wrote to me,\n\"Its priority to the Epistle of Jude I _cannot_ believe\" (_kann ich\ngar nicht glauben_).\n\n[113] The insertion of the word \"God\" into the authorities followed in\nthe Authorized Version is one of the few instances in which it is\npossible that the Greek text of the N.T. has been corrupted in the\ninterests of orthodoxy.\n\n[114] See the author's _Epistles of St.\u00a0John_ in the _Cambridge Greek\nTestament_, pp. xx-xxix and 160-162.\n\n[115] _N.T. Commentary for English Readers_, edited by Bishop Ellicott\n(Cassell and Co. 1879), iii., p. 506.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXIII.\n\n _DOUBTFUL READINGS AND THE THEORY OF VERBAL INSPIRATION.\n THREE PALMARY INSTANCES OF DIVINE VENGEANCE UPON GRIEVOUS SIN._\n\n \"Now I desire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all things\n once for all, how that the Lord, having saved a people out of the\n land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them that believed not. And\n angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper\n habitation, He hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the\n judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities\n about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to\n fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an\n example, suffering the punishment of eternal\n fire.\"--ST.\u00a0JUDE 5-7.\n\n\nWith these three verses the main portion of the Epistle begins, the\nfirst three verses being introductory. These put before us three\ninstances of Divine vengeance upon those who were guilty of grievous\nsin--the unbelieving Israelites in the wilderness, the impure angels,\nand the inhabitants of the cities of the plain; and in the three\nverses which follow (8-10) St.\u00a0Jude points out the similarity between\nthe offences of these wicked persons and the offences of the\nlibertines who are provoking God to execute similar vengeance upon\nthem. It is quite possible that we have here the explanation of the\nwords, \"Who were of old set forth unto this condemnation\" (ver. 4).\nThe doom of these impious profligates has long since been written in\nthe doom of those who sinned in a similar manner.\n\nThe Greek text of the opening verse exhibits a great variety of\nreadings, and one may suspect with Westcott and Hort that there has\nbeen some primitive error, and that none of the existing readings are\ncorrect. Of the points in which they differ from one another three\nrequire notice:--\n\n(1) In the words, \"The Lord, having saved a people out of the land of\nEgypt,\" the authorities vary between \"the Lord\" (with or without the\narticle), \"God,\" and \"Jesus.\" This last is far the best attested (AB,\nthe best cursives, the Vulgate, both Egyptian Versions, both Ethiopic,\nthe margin of the Armenian, and several Fathers); but the internal\nevidence against it is immense. Nowhere else in Scripture is Jesus\nsaid to be the Author of anything which took place before the\nIncarnation. Had St.\u00a0Jude written \"Christ,\" we might have compared\n\"the rock was Christ\" (1\u00a0Cor. x.\u00a04). But the general adoption of the\nreading \"Jesus\" shows how completely in Christian thought and language\nthe Man Jesus had become identified with the Eternal Son. If \"Lord\" be\ncorrect (\u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, without the article), it should be understood as\nmeaning Jehovah; and therefore \"God,\" though not likely to be right as\nthe reading, is right as an interpretation. In the Latin translation\nof the _Hypotyposeis_ of Clement of Alexandria we have these two\nreadings combined, _Dominus Deus_, and the Greek of Didymus has \"Lord\nJesus\" combined. Possibly all three readings are insertions, and\nshould be omitted, the true text being simply, \"He who saved a people\nout of the land of Egypt\" (\u1f41 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2).[116]\n\n(2) In the words, \"Though ye know all things once for all,\" some\nauthorities, which were followed by the translators of 1611, have\n\"this\" for \"all things,\" while one authority makes \"all\" to be\nmasculine instead of neuter (\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 for \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1). This last _may_ be\ncorrect, for the final letter of the masculine might easily be lost\n(especially in front of \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9); and in that case the meaning would be,\n\"though ye all know it,\" _i.e._, \"know what I am going to point out.\"\nThere is a similar confusion of reading in 1\u00a0John ii.\u00a020, where for\n\"Ye know all things\" (\u03bf\u1f34\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1) we should perhaps read, \"Ye all\nknow\" (\u03bf\u1f34\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2). But here the masculine has too little support\nto be adopted.\n\n(3) The Sinaitic MS. transposes the \"once\" or \"once for all\" (\u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be)\nfrom \"know\" to \"saved,\" and makes it answer to the \"afterwards,\" or\n\"the second time\" (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd) which follows. In this it is supported\nby the Armenian Version and a single cursive of the fourteenth\ncentury.[117] If it were adopted, the sentence would run thus: \"Now I\ndesire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all things, how that\nthe Lord, having _once_ saved a people out of the land of Egypt,\n_afterwards_ destroyed them that believed not.\" The correspondence\nbetween \"once\" and \"afterwards\"--\"having _a single time_ saved, ...\n_the second time_ He destroyed\"--is at first sight attractive; but it\nis precisely this superficial attractiveness which has caused the\ncorruption of the text. A recent writer pleads for its adoption, but\nhis reasons are not convincing.[118] The external evidence against the\nproposed transposition is enormous; and there is no strong internal\nevidence against the best-attested text (as there is against the\nreading \"Jesus\") to turn the scale. \"Though ye know all this _once for\nall_\" makes excellent sense; and so also does \"He who saved a people\nout of Egypt, _the second time_ (viz. in the wilderness) destroyed\nthem that believed not.\"\n\nThis collection of various readings, out of which it is impossible to\nselect the true text with anything like certainty, is worth\nremembering in considering the theory of _verbal_ inspiration. If\nevery word that St.\u00a0Jude wrote was supernaturally dictated, why has\nnot every word been supernaturally preserved? It is manifest that God\nhas not, either miraculously or in any other way, secured that the\nexact words written by St.\u00a0Jude should come down to us without\nalteration. The alterations are so ancient, so widely diffused, and so\nnumerous, that we are unable to decide what St.\u00a0Jude's exact words\nwere. We are not even certain that among the numerous variations we\nhave got his exact words. This is not a common case. The usual\nproblem, when various readings occur, is to select the right reading\nout of several that have been handed down to us, there being no reason\nto doubt that one of them is the original reading of the autograph.\nBut there are a few passages, and this is one of them, where one may\nreasonably doubt whether the original reading has not been altogether\nlost (Acts vii.\u00a046; xiii.\u00a032 [comp. Heb. xi.\u00a04]; xix.\u00a040; xxvi.\u00a028;\nRom. xv.\u00a032; 1\u00a0Cor. xii.\u00a02; Col. ii.\u00a018, 23; Heb. iv.\u00a02; x.\u00a01; 1\u00a0Tim.\nvi.\u00a07; 2\u00a0Tim. i.\u00a013; 2\u00a0Peter iii.\u00a010, 12; Jude\u00a022, 23). This result\nmight easily be produced through an error in the earliest copies made\nfrom the original document, or through a slip made by the amanuensis\nwho wrote the original document. There are minds to which this\nsupposition is very repugnant; and there are writers who assure us\nthat in Biblical criticism \"_conjectural emendation_ must never be\nresorted to, even in passages of acknowledged difficulty,\" or that\n\"conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field.\" But if\nthe whole of an Apostolic Epistle may have been lost (1\u00a0Cor. v.\u00a09;\n3\u00a0John 9), why may not a word or two of an extant Epistle have been\nlost? And is it quite natural that there should sometimes be a doubt\nas to _which_ of several existing readings is the original, and yet\nquite inconceivable that there should ever be a doubt as to whether\n_any_ of them is original? In either case we are left in uncertainty\nas to the precise words which are inspired; and we are thus confronted\nwith the perplexing result that the Almighty has specially guided a\nwriter to use certain words and phrases, to the exclusion of all\nothers, and yet from very early times has, in not a few cases, allowed\nChristians to be in doubt as to what these exact words and phrases\nare. Have we any right to assume that there was this special Divine\ncare to produce a particular wording, when it is quite manifest that\nthere has not been special Divine care to preserve a particular\nwording?\n\nThe theory of verbal inspiration imports unnecessary and insuperable\ndifficulties into the already sufficiently difficult problem as to the\nproperties of inspired writings. It maintains that \"the line can never\nrationally be drawn between the thoughts and words of Scripture;\"\nwhich means that the only inspired Word of God is the original Hebrew\nand Greek wording which was used by the authors of the different books\nin the Bible. Consequently all who cannot read these are cut off from\nthe inspired Word; for the inspired thoughts are, according to this\ntheory, inseparably bound up with the original form of words. But if\nit is the thought, and not the wording, that is inspired, then the\ninspired thought may be as adequately expressed in English or German\nas in Hebrew or Greek. It is the inspired thought, no matter in what\nlanguage expressed, which comes home to the hearts and consciences of\nmen, and convinces them that what is thus brought to them by a human\ninstrument is indeed in its origin and in its power Divine. \"Never\n_man_ thus spake\" was said, not of the choice language that was used,\nbut of the meaning which the language conveyed.\n\nIn the passage before us there are several points which call for\nattention, most of which are independent of the differences of reading.\n\nIt may be doubted whether the participle (\u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2) is rightly rendered\n\"_though_ ye know all things once for all.\" It makes good, and perhaps\nbetter sense to understand it in the equally possible signification of\n\"_because_ ye know all things once for all.\" Their being already in\nfull possession of a knowledge of Old Testament history is the\nreason why St.\u00a0Jude need do no more than remind them of one or two\nparticulars which throw a terrible light upon the position of those\nwhose conduct is being discussed. That \"once\" here does not mean\n\"formerly,\" as the Authorized Version takes it, \"though ye _once knew_\nthis,\" is manifest to every one who knows the meaning of the participle\nand adverb here used (\u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be). Nor is there much doubt that both\nhere and in ver. 3 it does mean \"once for all.\" This Greek adverb,\nlike its Latin equivalent _semel_, is sometimes \"used of what is so\ndone as to be of perpetual validity and never need repetition.\" It is\ntwice so used in the Epistle to the Hebrews: \"For as touching those\nwho were _once_ enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift\" (vi.\u00a04);\n_i.e._ once for all enlightened, so that no second enlightenment is\npossible. And again, \"Because the worshippers, having been _once_\ncleansed, would have had no more conscience of sins\" (x.\u00a02). So also\nin 1\u00a0Peter: \"Because Christ also died for sins _once_\" (iii.\u00a018). The\nmeaning is similar in both the passages here (vv.\u00a03 and 5). The Gospel\nwas once for all delivered by the Apostles to the Church; for there\ncan be no second Gospel. And this Gospel Christians receive and know\nonce for all.\n\nDoubt has been raised as to the event or events to which St.\u00a0Jude\nrefers in the words \"afterward destroyed them that believed not.\"\nHofmann, Schott, and others, adopting the best-attested reading,\n\"_Jesus_, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward\ndestroyed them that believed not,\" interpret the latter clause of the\ndestruction of Jerusalem or of the overthrow of the Jewish nation. It\nis felt that this makes a very unnatural contrast with the deliverance\nof Israel from Pharaoh by the hand of Moses, and therefore \"saved a\npeople out of the land of Egypt\" has to be interpreted to mean \"the\nredemption from the bondage-house of the Law and of sin wrought in\nIsrael and for Israel by Christ's act of salvation\" (Schott, Erlangen,\n1863, p. 225). This is very forced and improbable. Let us hold by\nHooker's \"most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture,\nthat where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the\nletter is commonly the worst\" (_Eccl. Pol._ V. lix.\u00a02). The literal\nconstruction of \"saved a people out of the land of Egypt\" will\ncertainly stand here, and the words must be understood of the passage\nof the Red Sea and all that accompanied that event. This is the clause\nof which the meaning is plain, and it must be the interpreter of the\nclause of which the meaning is less plain: to work backwards from the\nlatter is singularly unreasonable. The \"saving\" being understood of\nthe deliverance of the Israelites from the tyranny of Pharaoh, the\n\"destroying\" is most naturally understood of the overthrow of these\nsame Israelites in the wilderness; not of any one catastrophe, such as\nfollowed the matter of Korah (Num. xvi.\u00a049) or of Baal-peor (xxv.),\nbut of the gradual destruction, during the forty years of wandering,\nof the rebellious and unbelieving, \"whose carcases fell in the\nwilderness. And to whom sware He that they should not enter into His\nrest, but to them that were disobedient? And we see that they were not\nable to enter in _because of unbelief_\" (Heb. iii.\u00a017-19). It is quite\nunnecessary to add to this, with Fronm\u00fcller, the Babylonish captivity,\nas if \"afterward\" or \"the second time\" (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd) referred to _two\ndestructions_. It refers to two Divine acts--one of mercy, and a\nsecond of judgment.\n\n\"And angels which kept not their own principality, but left their\nproper habitation, He hath kept in everlasting bonds.\" This is\nSt.\u00a0Jude's second instance of God's vengeance upon gross sin, and this\nand the next are common to both Epistles. For the destruction of the\nunbelieving Israelites 2\u00a0Peter has the Deluge. The Revised Version has\nseveral improvements here. It substitutes \"principality\" for \"first\nestate,\" in harmony with other passages, where the same word occurs\n(Rom. viii.\u00a038; Eph. iii.\u00a010; vi.\u00a012; Col. i.\u00a016; ii.\u00a010, 15), and\ninserts \"own\"--\"their _own_ principality\" (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd); thereby\nmarking the difference between \"own\" and \"proper\"--\"their _proper_\nhabitation\" (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd). Above all, it preserves St.\u00a0Jude's\nirony in the double use of the word \"kept\" (\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd): \"angels which\n_kept_ not their own principality.... He hath _kept_ in everlasting\nbonds;\" which is destroyed in the Authorized Version by the\nsubstitution of \"reserved\" for the second \"kept.\" The alteration of\n\"chains\" into \"bonds\" is of less moment; but it is worth while marking\nthe difference between two Greek words (\u1f05\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2), both of\nwhich are frequent in the New Testament, and of which the former is\nalways used in a literal sense (Mark v.\u00a03, 4; Luke viii.\u00a029; Acts\nxii.\u00a06, 7; etc.), and the other sometimes literally (Luke viii.\u00a029;\nActs xvi.\u00a026; xxiii.\u00a029; etc.), and sometimes metaphorically (Mark\nvii.\u00a035; Luke xiii.\u00a016; Philem.\u00a013). It is the latter which is used\nhere.\n\nIt may be regarded as certain that this passage does not refer to the\noriginal rebellion of the angels, and their fall from being heavenly\npowers to being spirits of evil and of darkness. Nor is it a _direct_\nreference to the Rabbinic interpretation of \"the sons of God saw the\ndaughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all\nthat they chose\" (Gen. vi.\u00a02, where the best texts of the Septuagint\nhave \"angels of God\" for \"sons of God\"). Much more probably it is a\nreference to a topic which is very prominent in the _Book of Enoch_,\nwhich, however, in this particular is based upon the common\ninterpretation of the passage in Genesis. A discussion of this most\ninteresting and perplexing writing is reserved for a later chapter. At\npresent it suffices to say that the work is a composite one, written\nat different times and by different authors, and that the allusions to\nit here, and the quotation from it in vv.\u00a014 and 15, are from the\nfirst portion of the _Book of Enoch_ (chapters i.-xxxvi.), which,\ntogether with the last portion (chapters lxxii.-cv.), may safely be\nconsidered as the original writing, and undoubtedly pre-Christian.\nWhether any of the book was composed in the Christian era is doubtful,\nand that any of it was written by a Christian is very doubtful indeed.\nHofmann, Philippi, and Weisse have not succeeded in persuading many\npeople that the whole work is of Christian origin. The portion of\nwhich St.\u00a0Jude makes use may, with a good deal of probability, be\nassigned to the latter part of the second century before Christ. A\nsketch of the section respecting the sin of the angels will throw much\nlight on the passage before us. A portion of it had long been known\nthrough two considerable extracts, which the Byzantine writer Georgius\nSyncellus (_c._ A.D.\u00a0800) makes from it in his _Chronographia_ (pp.\n20-23 and 40-42, Dindorf's ed., Bonn, 1829). The quotation in our\nEpistle and those made by Syncellus constituted all that was known of\nthe _Book of Enoch_ in Europe until 1773, when the English traveller\nBruce brought home three MSS. of an Ethiopic version of the whole\nwhich was still extant in the Abyssinian Church.\n\nThe section about the sin of the angels and their punishment\n(vii.-xxxvi.) begins very abruptly after a short introduction\n(i.-vi.), in which Enoch blesses the righteous, and states that he\nreceived a revelation from the angels in heaven. \"And it came to pass,\nwhen the sons of men had multiplied, that daughters were born to them,\nvery beautiful. And the angels, the sons of heaven, desired them, and\nwere led astray after them, and said to one another, Let us choose for\nourselves wives of the daughters of the men of the earth.\" Two hundred\nof them then made a conspiracy, and went down to the earth, and begat\nan offspring of giants. They imparted a knowledge of sorcery and many\nbaneful arts; and the corruption thus diffused, and the voracity and\nviolence of their offspring, produced the evils which preceded the\nDeluge. Then the sinful angels are sentenced by the Almighty, and\nEnoch is commissioned to make the sentence known to them. \"Then the\nLord said to me, Enoch, scribe of righteousness, go tell the watchers\nof heaven, _who have deserted the lofty sky, and their holy\neverlasting station_, who have been polluted with women, ... that on\nearth they shall never obtain peace and remission of sin.\" The fallen\nangels persuade Enoch to intercede for them; but his intercession is\nnot heard, and he is told to repeat the sentence which has been\npronounced upon them. The following particulars of their punishment\nare of interest. Az\u00e2z\u00eal (comp. Lev. xvi.\u00a026, R.V.), one of the\nringleaders, is to be _bound hand and foot_, thrown into a pit in the\nwilderness, and _covered with darkness_; there he is to remain, with\nhis face covered, _till the great day of judgment_, when he is to be\ncast into the fire. The others, after they have seen their offspring\nkill one another in mutual slaughter, are to be _bound for seventy\ngenerations underneath the earth, till the day of their judgment_,\nwhen they shall be thrown into the lowest depths of the fire, and be\n_shut up for ever_ (x.\u00a06-9, 15, 16). \"Judgment has been passed upon\nyou: your prayer shall not be granted you. From henceforth never shall\nyou ascend to heaven. He hath said that on the earth _He will bind\nyou, as long as the world endures_\" (xiv.\u00a02). And Enoch is afterwards\nshown their punishment in a vision. \"These are those of the stars\nwhich have transgressed the commandment of the most high God, and _are\nhere bound, until the infinite number of the days of their crimes be\ncompleted_.... Why art thou alarmed and amazed at this terrific place,\nat the sight of this place of suffering? This is _the prison of the\nangels; and here are they kept for ever_\" (xxi.\u00a03, 6).\n\nIt is specially worthy of remark that it is in these older portions of\nthe _Book of Enoch_ that we meet for the first time in Jewish\nliterature with the distinct conception of a general judgment. The\nidea is very frequent, and is expressed in a great variety of ways.\nThus, what St.\u00a0Jude calls \"the Judgment of the Great Day\" (\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2), a phrase which occurs nowhere else in the New\nTestament, is called in the _Book of Enoch_ \"the Great Day of\nJudgment\" (x.\u00a09), \"the Day of the Great Judgment\" (xciii.\u00a08;\nxcvii.\u00a015; civ.\u00a03), \"the Day of the Great Trouble\" (xcix.\u00a05), \"the\nGreat Day\" (xvi.\u00a02); \"the Great Judgment\" (xxii.\u00a05), \"the General\nJudgment\" (xxii.\u00a09).[119] St.\u00a0Jude of course need not have derived\nthis idea from the _Book of Enoch_; but the fact that it is so very\nfrequent there, especially in connexion with the sin of the impure\nangels, may have influenced him in writing the passage before us. At\nany rate all these numerous details will not leave us in much doubt as\nto the origin of St.\u00a0Jude's statement, \"angels which kept not their\nown principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in\neverlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.\"\nIt comes either directly from the _Book of Enoch_, or from a source of\nwhich both the writer of the book and St.\u00a0Jude make use.\n\nIt was \"in like manner with these\" angels that the inhabitants of\nSodom and Gomorrah sinned, going astray after unlawful and unnatural\nindulgences; and \"in like manner with these\" angels, they also \"are\nset forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.\"\nThe meaning is not quite clear, but apparently it is this, that the\nsinful angels are in prison awaiting the day of judgment, when they\nwill be cast into the lake of fire; and that the destruction of the\ncities of the plain by fire, and their perpetual submersion, are an\nexample of the eternal fire in which the angels will be submerged.\nPerhaps there is also the idea that under the Dead Sea volcanic fires\nare burning. It is quite possible to take \"of eternal fire\" after\n\"example\" instead of after \"punishment;\" and this rendering makes the\nstatement more in accordance with the actual facts: \"are set forth as\nan example of eternal fire, suffering punishment.\" But the two last\nwords come in rather awkwardly at the end of the sentence, and most\ncommentators decide against this construction (comp. 3 Macc. ii.\u00a05).\n\nThe three cases exhibit, not a climax, but great diversity, as regards\npersons, sin, and punishment. We have both Jews and Gentiles, and\nbetween them beings superior to both. The Israelites by unbelief\nrejected their promised home, and perished slowly in the wilderness.\nThe angels left their proper home, sinned grossly, and are in\nbanishment and in prison, awaiting still worse punishment. The men of\nSodom and Gomorrah sinned grossly in their home, and both they and it\nwere suddenly, horribly, and irrevocably destroyed. This great\ndiversity gives point to the moral. No matter who may be the sinners,\nor what the circumstances of the sin, outrageous offences, such as\nimpurity and rebellion, are certain of Divine chastisement.\n\nIf fallen angels are evil spirits actively compassing the ruin of\nsouls, how can fallen angels be \"kept in everlasting bonds unto the\njudgment of the great day\"? More than one answer might be given to\nthis question, but the reserve of Scripture on the subject seems to\nwarn us from unprofitable speculation. Even without Scripture the\nreality of spiritual powers of evil may be inferred from their\neffects. Scripture seems to tell us that some of these powers are\npersonal, and some not, that some are more free than others, and that\nall shall be defeated at last. That is enough for our comfort,\nwarning, and assurance. It consoles us to know that much of the evil\nwithin us is no part of ourselves, but comes from without. It makes us\nwary to know that such powers are contending against us. It gives us\nconfidence to know that even Satan and his hosts can be overcome by\nthose who resist steadfast in the faith.[120]\n\n[116] W. & H. point out\n\n that \u039f\u03a4\u0399\u039f = \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 might easily be corrupted\n into \u039f\u0399\u03a4\u0399\u0305\u03f9\u0305 = \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f30\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2,\n or into \u039f\u03a4\u0399\u039a\u0305\u03f9\u0305 = \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n(vol. ii., p. 106. See also Scrivener, 3rd ed., p. 656).\n\n[117] The Latin translation of Clement of Alexandria has the same\nreading: \"_Quoniam Dominus Deus semel populum de terra \u00c6gypti liberans\ndeinceps eos, qui non crediderunt, perdidit_.\"\n\n[118] W. S. Wood, _Problems in the N.T._ (Rivingtons, 1890), pp.\n161-164.\n\n[119] Stanton, _The Jewish and the Christian Messiah_ (T. and T.\nClark, 1886), pp. 139, 140. He seems, however, to be mistaken in\nsaying that \"the Judge is not the Messiah,\" but Jehovah. As in\nScripture, _both_ are represented as judging. \"Then the Lord of the\nspirits made to sit upon the throne of His glory the Elect One, who\nshall judge all the works of the holy.... And when He shall lift up\nHis countenance to judge their secret way in the word of the Name of\nthe Lord of spirits,\" etc. (lx.\u00a010-11. Comp. John v.\u00a022).\n\n[120] On the fall of the angels see Hooker, _Eccl. Pol._ I. iv.\u00a03, and\nV. Appendix i.\u00a028. For a modern and poetical rendering of what is\nstated in Gen. vi.\u00a01, 2, see Byron, _Heaven and Earth: a Mystery_.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXIV.\n\n _RAILING AT DIGNITIES. \"THE ASSUMPTION OF MOSES.\"\n ST. JUDE'S USE OF APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE._\n\n \"Yet in like manner these also in their dreamings defile the flesh,\n and set at nought dominion, and rail at dignities. But Michael the\n archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body\n of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment,[121] but\n said, The Lord rebuke thee. But these rail at whatsoever things they\n know not: and what they understand naturally, like the creatures\n without reason, in these things are they destroyed. Woe unto them!\n for they went in the way of Cain, and ran riotously in the error of\n Balaam for hire, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah.\"--ST. JUDE\n 8-12.\n\n\nSt.\u00a0Jude having given three terrible examples of the punishment of\ngross sin in Jews, Gentiles, and angels, proceeds to apply these\ninstances to the libertines who in his own day, by their scandalous\nconduct as Christians, were provoking God to punish them in like\nmanner; and the threefold description of their conduct here given\nseems to refer to the three instances just given, which are now taken\nin reverse order. Like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, these ungodly\nlibertines \"defile the flesh;\" like the \"angels which kept not their\nown principality,\" they \"set at nought dominion;\" and like the\nunbelieving and rebellious Israelites in the wilderness, they \"rail at\ndignities.\" In all three particulars they show themselves as\n\"dreamers\" (\u1f10\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9). They are like men who say and do\nmonstrous things in their sleep. They are deadened to all sense of\ndecency and duty, \"dreaming, lying down, loving to slumber\" (Isa.\nlvi.\u00a010, where the same word that we have here is used in the LXX.).\nThey are sunk in the torpor of sin (Rom. xiii.\u00a011). The Revisers have\ndone rightly in omitting the epithet \"filthy,\" in adding the word\n\"also,\" and in substituting \"in their dreamings\" for \"dreamers.\" The\nparticiple represented by \"in their dreamings\" does not belong to\n\"defile the flesh\" exclusively, but to the other two clauses as well;\nso that \"filthy\" is not even correct as an interpretation: it is quite\nunjustifiable as a rendering. There is no reason for suspecting that\ncertain Levitical pollutions are indicated. Seeing that \"in their\ndreamings\" they \"set at nought dominion, and rail at dignities,\"\ndreaming must not be understood of actual sleep. Moreover, St.\u00a0Jude\ndoes not say \"defile _their_ flesh,\" but \"defile the flesh\" (\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\n\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9), which includes more than their own bodies. He perhaps\nmeans that they pollute human nature, or even the whole animal world.\n\nLike the men of Sodom, these profligates \"defile the flesh.\" Like the\nangels who sold their birthright for base indulgences, they \"set at\nnought dominion.\" But it is by no means easy to determine what this\n\"dominion\" or \"lordship\" (\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1) signifies. Calvin and others\ninterpret this and \"dignities\" or \"glories\" (\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03c2) of the civil\npower: \"There is a contrast to be noticed, when he says that they\ndefiled or polluted the flesh, that is, that they degraded what was\nless excellent, and that yet they despised as disgraceful what is\ndeemed especially excellent among mankind. It appears from the second\nclause that they were seditious men, who sought anarchy, that, being\nloosed from the fear of the laws, they might sin more freely. But\nthese two things are nearly always connected, that they who abandon\nthemselves to iniquity do also wish to abolish all order. Though,\nindeed, their chief object is to be free from every yoke, it yet\nappears from the words of Jude that they were wont to speak insolently\nand reproachfully of magistrates, like the fanatics of the present\nday, who not only grumble because they are restrained by the authority\nof magistrates, but furiously declaim against all government, and say\nthat the power of the sword is profane and opposed to godliness; in\nshort, they superciliously reject from the Church of God all kings and\nall magistrates. 'Dignities,' or 'glories,' are orders or ranks\neminent in power or honour\" (Calvin's _Commentaries on the Catholic\nEpistles_, Eng. Tr., Edinburgh, 1855, p. 438). But if earthly rulers\nof any kind are meant by \"dominion\" and \"dignities,\" it is more\nprobable that St.\u00a0Jude is thinking of ecclesiastical officers; in\nwhich case the meaning would be that these libertines set Church\ndiscipline at defiance, and reviled the presbyters or bishops who\nrebuked them for their evil conduct.\n\nIt is, however, more probable that at least \"dominion,\" if not\n\"dignities,\" refers to unseen and supernatural powers. We must look\nbackwards to ver. 4, and forwards to ver. 10, for a key to the\ninterpretation. These profligates \"turn the grace of God into\nlasciviousness,\" and thus \"defile the flesh;\" and they \"deny our only\nMaster and Lord, Jesus Christ,\" and thus \"set at nought lordship.\"\nAgain, \"what they understand naturally, like the creatures without\nreason, in these things are they destroyed,\" _i.e._ they ruin\nthemselves, body and soul, by their carnal indulgences; while \"they\nrail at whatsoever things they know not,\" _i.e._ they speak with\nflippant irreverence respecting the invisible world, reviling angels,\nand perhaps mocking at Satan. We may, therefore, with some hesitation,\nbut with a fair amount of reason, interpret \"dominion,\" or \"lordship,\"\nof Christ or of God, and \"dignities,\" or \"glories,\" of angels,\nremembering that either or both of these may include Christ's\nministers and messengers on earth. One of the ways in which these\nungodly men denied Christ in their lives was by their contemptuous\ndisregard of the teaching of His Apostles.[122]\n\nIt is quite possible that in this particular also St.\u00a0Jude is under\nthe influence of the _Book of Enoch_. In it we read, \"Ye fulfil not\nthe commandments of the Lord; but ye transgress and _calumniate\ngreatness_\" (vi.\u00a04); and again, \"All who _utter with their mouths\nunbecoming language against God_, and _speak harsh things of His\nglory_, here they shall be collected\" (xxvi.\u00a02); and again, \"My eyes\nbeheld all the sinners, who _denied the Lord of glory_\" (xli.\u00a01). And\nwith this last expression should be compared, \"_The splendour of the\nGodhead_ shall illuminate them\" (i.\u00a08). But of course it does not\nfollow that because St.\u00a0Jude partly reproduces the language of this\nwriter, therefore he uses it with precisely the same meaning.\n\n\"But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed\nabout the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing\njudgment, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.\" The meaning of this\nillustration is obvious. The profane libertines allow themselves to\nspeak of \"dignities\" in a way which even an archangel did not venture\nto adopt in rebuking Satan. It is a very strong argument _\u00e0 fortiori_.\nConsequently, the fact that it was an evil angel against whom Michael\ndid not dare to rail by no means proves that it was evil angels\nagainst which the libertines did dare to rail. Rather the contrary may\nbe inferred. They use language of good angels which Michael would not\nuse of a bad one. That \"dignities,\" or \"glories,\" may include the\nfallen angels or evil spirits is perhaps possible; that it refers to\nthem exclusively is very improbable. The word itself is against this;\nfor \"glories\" is certainly a strange name to give to devils.\n\nBut a more interesting question lies before us as to the source from\nwhich St.\u00a0Jude derived the story about Michael the archangel\ncontending with the devil about the body of Moses. It is as\nunreasonable to suppose that he received a special revelation on the\nsubject as to suppose that St.\u00a0Paul received a special revelation\nrespecting the names of the Egyptian magicians (see on 2\u00a0Tim. iii.\u00a08\nin this series, _Pastoral Epistles_, pp. 379-83). St.\u00a0Jude refers to\nthe incident as something quite familiar to his readers; and this\ncould hardly have been the case if it had been specially revealed to\nhimself. Lardner supposes that the reference is to Zech. ii.\u00a01, 2.\nBut, excepting that the words, \"The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan,\" occur\nthere, the difference between the two incidents is immense. Neither\nMichael nor the body of Moses is mentioned in Zechariah. The cause of\nSatan's hostility is the consecration of Joshua the high priest. And\nit is the Lord, and not the angel, who rebukes the evil one. These\ndifferences are conclusive; they leave just the features which need\nexplanation still unexplained. We may safely decide that St.\u00a0Jude is\nnot alluding to anything contained in the Bible. More probably he is\nreferring to some well-known Jewish story respecting the death and\nburial of Moses--in other words, to apocryphal literature.\n\n\"So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab,\naccording to the word of the Lord. And He buried him in the valley in\nthe land of Moab over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his\nsepulchre unto this day\" (Deut. xxxiv.\u00a05, 6). These words excited the\ncuriosity of the Jews; and as history told them nothing beyond the\nstatement in Deuteronomy, they fell back upon imagination as a\nsubstitute, and the mysterious words of Scripture became a centre\nround which a series of legends in process of time clustered. The\n_Targum of Jonathan_ on the passage says that the grave of Moses was\nentrusted to the care of Michael the archangel. The _Midrash_ on the\nsame states that Sammael, chief of the evil spirits, was impatient for\nthe death of Moses. \"And he said, When will the longed-for moment come\nwhen Michael shall weep and I shall laugh? And at last the time came\nwhen Michael came to Sammael and said: Ah! cursed one! shall I weep\nwhile thou laughest? and he made answer in the words of Micah\n(vii.\u00a08), Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall\narise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light unto me.\" The\n_Midrash_ also contains another legend, in which the sin of the impure\nangels is mentioned in connexion with the death of Moses. The soul of\nMoses prays that it may not be taken from the body: \"Lord of the\nworld, the angels Asa and Asael lusted after daughters of men; but\nMoses, from the day that Thou appearedst unto him in the bush, led a\nlife of perpetual continence;\" the plea being that from so pure a body\nthe soul need not depart. Both Gabriel and Michael shrink from\nbringing the soul, and Sammael failed to obtain it. \"And Moses prayed,\nLord of the world, give not my soul over to the angel of death. And\nthere came a voice from heaven, Fear not, Moses; I will provide for\nthy burial. And Moses stood up and sanctified himself as do the\nSeraphim, and the Most High came down from heaven, and the three chief\nangels with Him. Michael prepared the bier, and Gabriel spread out the\nwinding-sheet.... And the Most High kissed him, and through that kiss\ntook his soul to Himself\" (Plumptre _in loco_).\n\nThese legends bring us a little nearer to the illustration used by\nSt.\u00a0Jude, for they bring Michael and the evil spirit into connexion\nwith what is related respecting the death and burial of Moses. But the\ncontest between Michael and Satan respecting the body is not there.\nOrigen tells us that this comes from an apocryphal book called _The\nAssumption_ or _The Ascension_ (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 or \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) _of Moses_:\n\"In Genesis the serpent is described as having seduced Eve, regarding\nwhom, in _The Assumption of Moses_ (a little treatise of which the\nApostle Jude makes mention in his Epistle), the archangel Michael,\nwhen disputing with the devil regarding the body of Moses, says that\nthe serpent, being inspired by the devil, was the cause of the\ntransgression of Adam and Eve\" (_De Princip._ III. ii. _sub init._).\nThe book was fairly well known in the early Church. Clement of\nAlexandria quotes it (_Strom._ VI. xv. _sub fin._); and in the Latin\ntranslation of the _Hypotyposeis_ his note on Jude\u00a09 is \"_Hic\nconfirmat Assumptionem Moysis_.\" Didymus of Alexandria says the same\nas Origen about St.\u00a0Jude's use of it, and censures those who made this\nan objection to the Epistle of Jude (_In Epist. Jud\u00e6 enarratio in\nGallandi Biblioth. Patr._ VI. 307). Evodius, Bishop of Uzala, one of\nAugustine's early friends (_Confess._ IX. viii.\u00a017; xii.\u00a031), in\nwriting to him, speaks of it as the _Mysteries (Secreta) of Moses_,\nand calls it a writing devoid of authority (Aug. _Ep._ clviii.\u00a06). It\nwas known in the second half of the fifth century to Gelasius of\nCyzicus, and in the second half of the eighth to Nicephorus of\nConstantinople, who, in his _Stichometria Sacrorum Librorum_, tells us\nthat it was about as long as the Apocalypse of St.\u00a0John. But from that\ntime we hear no more of it until 1861, when Ceriani published about a\nthird of it from a palimpsest in the Ambrosian Library at Milan\n(_Monumenta Sacra et Prof._ I. i., p. 55). This fragment contains the\npassage quoted by Gelasius, but most tantalizingly comes to an end\nbefore the death of Moses, so that we are still without the passage\nabout the contest between Michael and the devil respecting his body.\nNevertheless, we have no reason for doubting the statements of Origen\nand of Didymus that the book contained this incident, and that this is\nthe source of the illustration used by St.\u00a0Jude. Such evidence as we\nhave confirms the statements, and there is no evidence on the other\nside. We know that there were legends connecting Michael and the evil\none with the death of Moses. We know that _The Assumption of Moses_\ncontained similar material. Above all, we know that the incident\nmentioned by St.\u00a0Jude is not in the canonical Scriptures, and\ntherefore must have come from some apocryphal source, and that\nelsewhere in his Epistle St.\u00a0Jude makes use of apocryphal literature.\nWe are not, therefore, creating a difficulty by adopting the all but\ncertain conclusion that this apocryphal work is the source from which\nSt.\u00a0Jude draws. Even if we reject this highly probable conclusion, the\ndifficulty, such as it is, will still remain.\n\nThat _The Assumption of Moses_ was written before our Epistle is\nalmost universally admitted. Philippi is almost alone in thinking that\nits author was a Christian, and that he borrowed from St.\u00a0Jude. Ewald,\nDillmann, Drummond, Sch\u00fcrer, and Wiesler place it between B.C.\u00a04 (the\nyear of the war of Quintilius Varus, to which it almost certainly\nrefers) and A.D.\u00a06. Hilgenfeld, Merx, Fritzsche, and Lucius place it\nat different points between A.D.\u00a044 and 70. But the earlier date is\nthe more probable. The large fragment in Latin which we now possess\nwas evidently made from a Greek document, and Hilgenfeld has attempted\nto restore the Greek from the Latin. But this Greek document may\nitself have been a translation from the Aramaic. In either case\nSt.\u00a0Jude would be able to read it.[123]\n\nThat any true tradition on the subject should have been handed down\norally through fifteen centuries, \"_without leaving the slightest\ntrace in a single passage in the Old Testament_,\" is utterly\nimprobable. This hypothesis, and the still more violent supposition of\na special revelation made to St.\u00a0Jude, are devices prompted by a\nreverent spirit, but thoroughly uncritical and untenable, to avoid the\nunwelcome conclusion that an inspired writer has quoted legendary\nmaterial. Have we any right to assume that inspiration raises a writer\nto the intellectual position of a critical historian, with power to\ndiscriminate between legend and fact? St.\u00a0Jude probably believed the\nstory about the dispute between Michael and Satan to be true; but even\nif he knew it to be a myth, he might nevertheless readily use it as an\nillustrative argument, seeing that it was so familiar to his readers.\nIf an inspired writer were living now, would it be quite incredible\nthat he should make use of Dante's _Purgatory_, or Shakespeare's _King\nLear_? Inspiration certainly does not preserve those who possess it\nfrom imperfect grammar, and we cannot be certain that it preserves\nthem from other imperfections which have nothing to do with the truth\nthat saves souls. Besides which, it may be merely our prejudices which\nlead us to regard the use of legendary material as an imperfection.\nLet us reverently examine the features which inspired writings\nactually present to us, not hastily determine beforehand what\nproperties they _ought_ to possess. We not unnaturally fancy that when\nthe Holy Spirit inspires a person to write for the spiritual\ninstruction of men throughout all ages, He also preserves him from\nmaking mistakes as to the authenticity of writings of which he makes\nuse, or at least would preserve him from misleading others on such\npoints; but it does not follow that this natural expectation of ours\ncorresponds with the actual manner of the Spirit's working. \"We follow\na very unsafe method if we begin by deciding in what way it seems to\nus most fitting that God should guide His Church, and then try to\nwrest facts into conformity with our preconceptions.\"[124]\n\n[121] Dr. Field, in his most valuable _Otium Novicense_ (iii., pp.\n154, 155), argues strongly in favour of translating \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \"bring against him an accusation of blasphemy;\" and he\nquotes various passages to show that \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd may mean \"to\nbring an accusation against.\" But none of them have a genitive after\nthe \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, and the question still remains whether the genitive is\ndescriptive and may be treated as an adjective, or expresses the\nsubject-matter of the \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. That the former is right seems to be\nshown by the context (\u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd in vv.\u00a08 and 10); the libertines do\nto higher beings what an archangel did not dare to do to Satan; and\nalso by the parallel in 2\u00a0Peter ii.\u00a011 (\u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd). And on what\ngrounds would Michael not dare to charge Satan with blasphemy? That he\ndid not dare to rail at him is intelligible.\n\n[122] The variety of interpretation as regards these two expressions\nis remarkable. Some, as Beza, Calvin, Erasmus, and Grotius, interpret\nboth \"dominion\" and \"dignities\" of civil magistrates; others, as\nHammond, include ecclesiastical rulers; others, as Lumby, interpret\nboth of Apostles and elders, and through them Christ; others, as\nRitsch, apply \"dominion\" to God or Christ, and \"dignities\" to good\nangels. Wiesinger and Huther apply \"dominion\" to God or Christ, and\n\"dignities\" to bad angels. Alford, Bengel, Br\u00fcckner, and De Wette\nexplain both of good angels; while Schott apparently explains both of\nbad angels. \u0152cumenius is not quite alone in suggesting that\n\"dignities\" may mean the Old and New Testament; Plumptre would make\nthe word include both good and bad angels.\n\n[123] The Latin fragment has been several times published since\nCeriani made it known in 1861; by Hilgenfeld in 1866 and 1876; by\nVolkmar in 1867; Schmidt and Merx in 1868; and by Fritzsche in 1871. A\nvery full summary of literature on the subject is given in Sch\u00fcrer,\n_The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ_ (T. and T. Clark,\n1886), Div. II., vol. iii., pp. 80-83. See also Herzog, Plitt, and\nHauck (_Real-Encykl._, vol. xii. pp. 352, 353).\n\n[124] Salmon, _Introduction to the N.T._, 4th ed., Murray (1889), p. 528.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXV.\n\n _THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO CAIN:\n THE LIBERTINES AT THE LOVE-FEASTS.\n THE BOOK OF ENOCH._\n\n \"These are they who are [hidden] rocks in your Love-feasts when they\n feast with you, [shepherds] that without fear feed themselves, clouds\n without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit,\n twice dead, plucked up by the roots; wild waves of the sea, foaming\n out their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the blackness of\n darkness hath been reserved for ever.\n\n \"_But_ to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied,\n saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of His holy ones, to\n execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all\n their works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, and of\n all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against\n Him.\"--ST.\u00a0JUDE 12-15.\n\n\nSt.\u00a0Jude leaves off comparing the libertines with other sinners--Cain\nand the Sodomites, Balaam and the impure angels, Korah and the\nunbelieving Israelites--and begins an independent description of them.\nNevertheless, there is reason for believing that he has Cain, Balaam,\nand Korah in his mind in framing this new account of them. The\ndescription falls into three parts, of which this is the first. Each\nof the three parts begins in the same way: \"These are\" (\u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd). And each is balanced by something said on the other side,\nwhich is introduced with a \"But\" (\u03b4\u03ad). In the case before us the\n\"But\" introduces a warning given prophetically to these libertines by\nEnoch (vv. 14, 15). In the second case St.\u00a0Jude quotes a warning given\nprophetically to his readers by the Apostles (vv. 17, 18). In the\nthird he exhorts his readers himself (vv.\u00a020-23). This threefold\ndivision has been rather generally ignored. It is quite obliterated in\nthe Revised Version by the division of the paragraphs, and also by the\nsubstitution of an \"And\" for the first \"But:\" \"_And_ to these also\nEnoch prophesied.\" The Vulgate is right with _autem_ in all three\nplaces, followed by Wiclif with \"Forsothe\" in all three places. Luther\nis not only right in his rendering of the conjunction with _aber_ in\nall three places, but also in his division of the paragraphs. But\nsince Wiclif all English versions have obscured this threefold\ndescription of the ungodly with the three corresponding warnings or\nexhortations.[125]\n\n\"These are they who are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they\nfeast with you.\" The difference between this and the parallel passage\nin 2\u00a0Peter is of special interest here; for it looks as if whichever\nwriter used the work of the other remembered the sound rather than the\nsense. We have here \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2; but in 2\u00a0Peter\nii.\u00a013 \u03c3\u03c0\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 ... \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 (with \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 as a various reading,\nprobably taken from this passage). It is possible that there may be no\ndifference of meaning between \u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 and \u03c3\u03c0\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9. The former, which\nis St.\u00a0Jude's word, almost invariably means \"rocks,\" but in an Orphic\npoem of the fourth century means \"spots.\" The latter, which is used in\n2\u00a0Peter ii.\u00a013 and Eph. v.\u00a027, generally means \"spots,\" but sometimes\nmeans \"rocks.\" So that \"spots\" may be the right rendering in both\nEpistles, and \"rocks\" may be right in both. More probably, however, we\nshould understand \"spots\" in 2\u00a0Peter, and \"rocks\" here. The Revised\nVersion inserts \"hidden\" as an epithet--\"_hidden_ rocks in your\nlove-feasts\"--which is hardly justifiable, because the word seems to\nmean reefs over which the sea dashes, as distinct from rocks which are\nwholly covered (so in the _Anthologia Palatina_, ii.\u00a0390; and in a\nfragment of Sophocles the word has the epithet \"lofty,\" \u1f10\u03c6' \u1f51\u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9, and \"lofty hidden rocks\" would be almost a contradiction\nin terms). Moreover, \"hidden\" does not seem to be right even as an\ninterpretation; for these profligates were not at all hidden; they\nwere utterly notorious and scandalous. They made no secret of their\nmisconduct, but gloried in it and defended it. Yet this fact does not\nmake the name \"rocks,\" or \"reefs,\" inappropriate. A reef may be a very\ndangerous thing, although it is always visible. It may be impossible\nto avoid going near it; and proximity to such things is always\nperilous. So also with these ungodly men: St.\u00a0Jude's readers could not\nwholly avoid them, either in society or in the public services of the\nChurch, but their presence disturbed and polluted both. The whole\npurpose of the love-feasts was wrecked by these men. Like Cain, they\nturned the ordinances of religion into selfishness and sin.\n\nWe cannot doubt that when St.\u00a0Jude wrote the eucharist was still part\nof the agape or love-feast, as when St.\u00a0Paul wrote to the Corinthians\n(A.D.\u00a057, 58). It was still \"the Lord's _Supper_\" not merely in name,\nbut in fact (1\u00a0Cor. xi.\u00a017-34; Acts xx.\u00a07-11). It is almost certain\nthat when Ignatius wrote his Epistles (_c._ A.D.\u00a0112) the eucharist\nwas still united with the love-feast. He writes to the Church of\nSmyrna, \"It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to\nhold a love-feast\" (viii.). This must refer to the two sacraments, the\nadministration of which are the chief functions of the priestly\noffice. Ignatius cannot have meant that a love-feast apart from the\neucharist might not be held without the bishop. When Justin Martyr\nwrote his First Apology (_c._ A.D.\u00a0140) it is evident that the two had\nbeen separated; his description of the eucharist (lxv.-lxvii.) implies\nthat no love-feast accompanied it (see Lightfoot, _St.\u00a0Ignatius and\nSt.\u00a0Polycarp_, I., pp. 52, 387; II., p. 312: Macmillan, 1885). We may\nregard it, therefore, as certain that even if this Epistle be placed\nlate in the first century, St.\u00a0Jude is here referring to a state of\nthings very similar to that which St.\u00a0Paul rebukes in the Church of\nCorinth; the love-feast accompanied by the eucharist was profaned by\nthe shameless indulgence of these libertines.\n\nThe love-feast symbolized the brotherhood of Christians. It was a\nsimple meal, in which all met as equals, and the rich supplied the\nnecessities of the poor. Anything like excess was peculiarly out of\nplace, and it was the duty of the rich to see that the poorer members\nof the congregation were satisfied. But it would seem as if these\nprofligates (1) brought with them luxurious food, thus destroying the\nChristian simplicity of the meal; and (2) brought this, not for the\nbenefit of all, but for their own private enjoyment, thus destroying\nthe idea of Christian brotherhood and equality. There is nothing in\nthe word used for \"feasting with you\" (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9) which\nnecessarily implies revelry or excess, but in this connexion it\nimplies censure. To turn the love-feast into a banquet was wrong,\nhowever innocent a banquet might be in itself. We might translate the\nword \"when they feast _together_,\" instead of \"when they feast _with\nyou_;\" and this would imply that at the love-feast they kept to\nthemselves, and did not mix with their poorer brethren. This makes\ngood sense; but if this translation is adopted, we must beware of\ninterpreting it to mean that these libertines had become schismatics,\nand had set up a love-feast of their own. They could not be \"rocks in\nyour love-feasts\" if they did not attend the love-feasts.\n\nThere are two other uncertainties in these opening clauses--one of\nconstruction, and one of translation. (1) Ought we to take \"without\nfear\" with what precedes, or with what follows--\"when they feast with\nyou without fear,\" or \"that feed themselves without fear\"? As in ver.\n7, with regard to \"of eternal fire,\" we are unable to decide with\ncertainty. Both constructions make excellent sense, and nothing can be\nurged as being strongly in favour of either. English versions are\ndivided. The Rhemish has \"feasting together without fear.\" Purvey, the\nAuthorized, and the Revised take \"without fear\" with \"feeding\nthemselves.\" Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan aim at being as\nambiguous as the Greek; they place \"with out feare\" between the two\nclauses with a comma on each side of it. (2) Does \"feeding themselves\"\nmean that they fed themselves _instead of feeding the flock_? (Ezek.\nxxxiv.\u00a02, 8; Isa. lvi.\u00a011). If so, the Revisers give the right\ninterpretation with \"shepherds that without fear feed themselves;\" but\nthis is interpretation rather than translation. Or does it mean that\nthey fed themselves, _instead of waiting to be fed by the shepherds_?\nIf so, it is quite misleading to call them shepherds. As we have seen\nalready (p. 390), there is no reason for thinking that these\nprofligates set up as teachers or pastors. We shall be safer if we\nrender the Greek participle (\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) by a participle:\n\"pasturing themselves,\" or \"shepherding themselves.\" Lucifer, as Dr.\nSalmon points out, renders it _semetipsos regentes_, which shows that\nhe understood it in the latter sense. Yet this second view does not\nimply anything schismatical in their conduct, but merely that they\nwere selfish and disorderly. They kept their own good food, and\nconsumed it among themselves at the love-feast, instead of throwing it\ninto the common store, and allowing it to be distributed to all by the\nelders. With full recognition of the fact that there is much to be\nsaid for other views, the following rendering may be accepted as on\nthe whole preferable: \"These are they who are rocks in your\nlove-feasts, feasting together without fear, pasturing their own\nselves.\"\n\nIn what follows St.\u00a0Jude piles metaphor on metaphor and epithet on\nepithet, in the effort to express his indignation and abhorrence. But\nwe cannot say that \"no doubt also in the comparisons which he employs\nhe has an eye to the original intention of the love-feast.\" It is\nsomewhat forced to say that the love-feast \"was to have the blessing\nof the rain from heaven; it was meant to be a cause of much fruit in\nthe whole Christian community.\" But assuming that \"waterless clouds\"\nand \"fruitless trees\" may be made to refer to the love-feasts, what\nare we to make of \"wild waves\" and \"wandering stars\" in that\nconnexion? It is better to regard the subject of the love-feasts as\nended, and to take the similes which follow as quite independent.\nThese men are ostentatious, but they do no good. It was perhaps\nexpected that their admission to the Church would be a great gain to\nChristendom; but they are as disappointing as clouds that are carried\n_past_ (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9) by winds without giving any rain; and in the\nEast that is one of the most grievous among common disappointments.\n\nHow the framers of the Authorized Version came to perpetrate such a\ncontradiction in terms as \"trees whose fruit withereth, without\nfruit,\" it is not easy to see. No earlier English version is guilty of\nit; nor the Vulgate (_arbores autumnales, infructuos\u00e6_); nor Beza,\nwith whom Calvin agrees (_arbores emarcid\u00e6, infrugifer\u00e6_); nor Luther\n(_kahle unfruchtbare B\u00e4ume_). The Greek (\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac) means\nliterally \"autumn-withering trees;\" _i.e._ just at the time when fruit\nis expected they wither and are without fruit. The parable of the\nbarren fig-tree (Luke xiii.\u00a06-9) is perhaps in St.\u00a0Jude's mind. The\nepithets form a natural climax--withering in autumn, fruitless, twice\ndead, rooted up. These profligates were twice dead, because they had\nreturned after baptism to the death of sin: the end of such men is\nthat they shall be rooted out at the last (Ps. xxx.\u00a028; lii.\u00a05; Prov.\nii.\u00a022). When he calls them \"wild waves of the sea, foaming out their\nown shames,\" St.\u00a0Jude is perhaps thinking of the words of Isaiah: \"The\nwicked are like the troubled sea; for it cannot rest, and its waters\ncast up mire and dirt\" (lvii.\u00a020). But the wording of the Septuagint\nis utterly different from that which we have here; it is the thought\nthat is similar.\n\nWhat are we to understand by \"wandering stars\"? Not planets, nor\ncomets, neither of which either _seem_ to wander while one looks at\nthem, or _do_ wander, in St.\u00a0Jude's sense, as a matter of fact. Both\nhave their orbits, to which they keep with such regularity that their\nmovements can be accurately predicted; so that they are symbols rather\nof Christian lives than of the course of the ungodly. Much more\nprobably St.\u00a0Jude means \"falling stars,\" or \"shooting stars,\" which\nseem to leave their place in the heavens, where they are beautiful and\nuseful, and to wander away into the darkness, to the confusion and\ndismay of those who observe them. Thus understood, the simile forms a\nnatural transition to the prophecy of Enoch which follows. St.\u00a0Jude's\nthoughts have once more gone back to the fallen angels in the _Book of\nEnoch_. Angels, like stars, have a path to keep, and those who keep it\nnot are punished. \"I saw the winds which cause the orb of the sun and\nof all the stars to set.... I saw the path of the angels.... I\nperceived a place which had neither the firmament of heaven above it,\nnor the solid ground underneath it; neither was there water above it,\nnor anything on wing; but the spot was desolate. And there I saw seven\nstars, like great blazing mountains, and like spirits entreating me.\nThen the angel [Enoch's guide] said, This place, until the\nconsummation of heaven and earth, will be the prison of the stars and\nthe host of heaven. The stars which roll over fire are those which\ntransgressed the commandment of God\" (xviii.\u00a06, 7, 13-16). In another\nterrible place he sees stars bound together, and is told that these\nare \"the stars which have transgressed,\" and that \"this is the prison\nof the angels,\" in which \"they are kept for ever\" (xxi.\u00a02, 3, 5, 6).\nThese extracts make it highly probable that when St.\u00a0Jude compares the\nungodly to \"wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness hath\nbeen reserved for ever,\" he is thinking once more of the \"angels which\nleft their proper habitation,\" who are \"kept in everlasting bonds\nunder darkness unto the judgment of the great day\" (ver. 6). After\nthis return to the ideas contained in the _Book of Enoch_, the\nquotation of the prophecy comes quite naturally; and all the more so\nbecause, as Iren\u00e6us indicates, Enoch forms a splendid contrast to the\nfallen angels: they lost their heavenly habitation by displeasing God,\nwhereas he was taken up to heaven for pleasing Him. His words show\nthat he was acquainted with the _Book of Enoch_, and accepted it as\ntrustworthy: \"But Enoch also without circumcision, by pleasing God,\nalthough he was a man, discharged the office of ambassador to angels,\nand was translated, and is preserved even until now as a witness of\nthe just judgment of God: while angels by transgression fell to earth\nfor judgment; but a man by pleasing Him was translated for salvation\"\n(_H\u00e6r._ IV. xvi.\u00a02). Having compared the profligates to the stars, or\nangels, who fell from heaven to earth, St.\u00a0Jude passes on readily to\nquote the warning of one who was taken up from earth to heaven.\n\nAnd the way in which the prophecy is introduced makes us still more\nclear as to the source from which St.\u00a0Jude derived it: \"Enoch, _the\nseventh_ from Adam, prophesied.\" Nowhere in the Old Testament, and\nnowhere else in the New, is Enoch said to be \"the seventh from Adam.\"\nBut he is called \"the seventh\" in the _Book of Enoch_, where he is\nmade to say, \"I have been born the seventh in the first week\"\n(xcii.\u00a04), although in order to make seven both Adam and Enoch have to\nbe counted (xxxvii.\u00a01). The number seven is possibly symbolical,\nindicating perfection. Thus Dr. Westcott takes Enoch to be \"a type of\nperfected humanity\" (_Dict. of the Bible_). Yet it is also possible\nthat he is called \"the seventh\" in the _Book of Enoch_, and\nconsequently by St.\u00a0Jude, in order to mark the extreme antiquity of\nthe prophecy, or to distinguish him from other persons of the same\nname (Gen. xxv.\u00a04; xlvi.\u00a09).\n\nBut a careful comparison of the passage in question, as quoted by\nSt.\u00a0Jude, and as it stands in the translation of the _Book of Enoch_,\nis the chief means of determining the source of the quotation. This,\nhowever, cannot be made satisfactorily until we can place the Greek,\nof which the Ethiopic version of the _Book of Enoch_ is a translation,\nside by side with St.\u00a0Jude's Greek.\n\n ENOCH. ST. JUDE\n\n Behold, He cometh with ten Behold, the Lord came with ten\n thousands of His holy ones, to thousands of his holy ones to\n execute judgment upon them, execute judgment upon all,\n and to destroy the ungodly and to convict all the ungodly\n and reprove all the carnal [or, of their works of ungodliness\n and will destroy and convict which they have ungodly wrought,\n the ungodly with all flesh], _and of all the hard things which_\n for everything which the ungodly sinners _have spoken\n sinners and the ungodly have against Him_ (vv.\u00a014, 15).\n done and committed against Him\n (chap. ii.).\n\nIt will be observed that there is nothing in the _Book of Enoch_ to\ncorrespond with the saying about \"the hard things which sinners have\nspoken against God.\" This in itself is almost conclusive against the\nhypothesis, which on other grounds is not very probable, that some\nlater writer copied the prophecy as given by St.\u00a0Jude, and inserted it\ninto the _Book of Enoch_. If so, why did he not copy it exactly? Why\ndid he not only slightly vary the wording, but omit a rather important\nclause? The passage is very short, and a writer who was anxious to\nmake St.\u00a0Jude agree with the reputed prophecy would be likely to make\nthe agreement exact. On the other hand, if St.\u00a0Jude is quoting loosely\nfrom memory, or from a Greek or Aramaic original, of which the text\nvaried somewhat from the Ethiopic translation which has come down to\nus, everything is explained. He would be tenacious of the clause about\n\"hard things spoken against God,\" as a warning to those who \"set at\nnought dominion and rail at dignities.\" It is of course possible that\nboth the author of this book and St.\u00a0Jude independently make use of a\ntraditional saying attributed to Enoch. But seeing that the work was\nin existence when St.\u00a0Jude wrote, was probably well known to his\nreaders, and contains most of the passage which he quotes; and seeing\nthat elsewhere in his Epistle he seems to refer to other parts of the\nbook, far the more reasonable view is that he quotes directly from it.\nThe case therefore is parallel to that of the reference to _The\nAssumption of Moses_ in ver. 9. St.\u00a0Jude probably believed the\nprophecy to be a genuine prophecy of Enoch, and the writing in which\nit occurs to be a genuine revelation respecting the visible and\ninvisible world; but even if he knew its apocryphal character, its\nappositeness to the subject of which he is so full might easily lead\nhim to quote it to persons who would be familiar with it. We have no\nright to prejudge the question of fitness, and say that inspiration\nwould certainly preserve its instruments from wittingly or unwittingly\nmaking use of a fictitious apocalypse. Our business, as reverent and\ntherefore honest students, is to ascertain whether this writer does\nderive some of his material from the document which, after the lapse\nof so many centuries, was given back to us about a hundred and twenty\nyears ago. If on critical grounds we find ourselves compelled to\nbelieve that this document is the source from which St.\u00a0Jude draws,\nthen let us beware of setting our own preconceptions above the wisdom\nof God, who in this case, as in many more, has been pleased to employ\nan unexpected instrument, and has made a human fiction the means of\nproclaiming a Divine truth.\n\nIt remains to give some further account of the intensely interesting\nwriting which St.\u00a0Jude appears to have used. The Books of Daniel,\nEzekiel, and Zechariah gave to the Jews a love of visions,\nrevelations, and prophecies which at times was almost insatiable; and,\nwhen the gift of prophecy came to an end, the three centuries between\nMalachi and the Baptist, during which it seemed as if Jehovah had\ndeparted from His people, and \"answered no more, neither by dreams nor\nby prophets,\" appeared dreary and intolerable. What had been written\nby Moses and the Prophets did not satisfy. Fresh revelations were\ndesired; and the reality being absent, fiction attempted to stop the\ngap. Such writings as the _Book of Enoch_, _Assumption of Moses_,\n_Testament of Moses_, _Eldad and Modad_, _Apocalypse of Elijah_, etc.,\netc., were the result. This desire for prophecies and revelations\npassed over from Judaism into the Christian Church, and was quickened\nrather than satisfied by the Revelation of St.\u00a0John. During the first\ntwo centuries of the Christian era such literature continued to be\nproduced by Jews and Christians alike; and specimens of it still\nsurvive in the _Apocalypse of Baruch_ and the _Fourth Book of Ezra_ on\nthe Jewish side, and the _Shepherd of Hermas_ on the Christian; the\n_Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs_ being apparently a Jewish\noriginal with Christian interpolations. But in most cases only the\ntitles survive, and where the revelation or prophecy is attributed to\nan Old Testament character we are unable to decide whether the fiction\nwas of Jewish or of Christian origin.\n\nIt is strange that such a writing as the _Book of Enoch_ should have\nbeen allowed to disappear entirely from the West after the fourth\ncentury, and from the East after the eighth. The quotations in the\n_Chronographia_ of Georgius Syncellus, some portions of which are not\nfound in the recovered Ethiopic Version, are the last traces that we\nhave of it until early in the seventeenth century, when it was\nrumoured that it was extant in Abyssinia, and late in the eighteenth,\nwhen it was found there. The revelations which it professes to make\nrespecting judgment, heaven, and hell might have been expected to make\nit a special favourite with Christians from the fourth to the tenth\ncentury, during which period one of the commonest topics of\nspeculation was the end of the world. Moreover, there was the passage\nin Jude, with the notices in Barnabas, Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian, Clement of\nAlexandria, Origen, Jerome, and others, to keep the book from being\nforgotten. But it was generally believed that the end of the world\nwould be heralded by two great signs--the downfall of Rome, and the\ncoming of Antichrist. About these the _Book of Enoch_ contains no\nhint, and the absence of such material may have caused it to pass out\nof knowledge. Englishmen have the honour of giving it back to Europe.\nJames Bruce brought the Ethiopic translation from Abyssinia in 1773,\nand Archbishop Laurence published an English translation of it in\n1821, and an Ethiopic text in 1838. Since then the scholars who have\nedited it or commented on it have been almost exclusively Germans.[126]\n\nIt is generally acknowledged that the book is a composite one.\nProbably the original writer incorporated older materials, and his\nwork has probably been interpolated by later hands. Whether any of\nthese supposed interpolations are Christian is still debated; and the\nquestion scarcely admits of a decided answer. On the one hand, there\nare expressions which would come much more naturally from a Christian\nthan from a Jew; on the other, it is difficult to see why a Christian\nshould insert anything at all, if he did not insert what might teach\nothers Christian truth. Messianic passages abound; and in them the\nMessiah is called, again and again, \"the Son of man\" and \"the Elect\nOne;\" twice He is called \"the Anointed\" (xlvii.\u00a011; li.\u00a04), twice \"the\nRighteous One\" (xxxviii.\u00a02; lii.\u00a06; where Laurence translates\notherwise); once He is \"the Son of the offspring of the mother of the\nliving,\" _i.e._ Son of the son of Eve (lxi.\u00a010); and once the Lord\nspeaks of Him as \"My Son\" (civ.\u00a02). This Messiah is the Judge of men\nand angels, by the appointment of Jehovah. \"In those days will the\nearth give back that which has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will\ngive back that which has been entrusted to it, which it has received,\nand destruction (Abaddon) will give back what it owes.... And in those\ndays will the Elect One sit upon His throne, and all secrets of wisdom\nwill come forth from the thoughts of His mouth; for the Lord of\nspirits hath given it to Him, and hath glorified Him\" (l.\u00a01, 3). \"Then\nthe Lord of spirits made to sit upon the throne of His glory the Elect\nOne, who will judge all the works of the holy\" (lx.\u00a010, 11;\nlxviii.\u00a039). But this Messiah is not much more than a highly exalted\nangel. He is not the Word; he is not God. That this Son of man has\nalready lived upon the earth is not indicated. Of the name Jesus, the\nCrucifixion, the Resurrection, or the Ascension, there is not a trace.\nThere is no hint of baptism, or of the eucharist, or of the doctrine\nof the Trinity. In a word, everything distinctly Christian is absent,\neven from that section (xxxvii.-lxxi.) which makes the nearest\napproaches to Christian language, and which is probably a later\ninsertion. It is difficult to see what object a Christian could have\nin writing just this and no more. The fact that so many of the angels\nhave Hebrew names favours the view that the original was in Hebrew or\nAramaic, of which the Greek, from which the Ethiopic version is taken,\nwas only a translation. If so, this also is in favour of Jewish,\nrather than of Christian origin.\n\nThose who can should read the whole book in Laurence's translation, or\nstill better in Dillmann's. But the more accurately translated\nportions given in Westcott and in Stanton will give some idea of the\nwhole. The latter have been used in this chapter. The book is\nmanifestly the work of a man of the most earnest convictions, one who\nbelieves in God, and fears Him, and is appalled at the practical\ninfidelity and utter godlessness which he finds around him. On two\nthings he is ever insisting: (1) that God's rule extends everywhere,\nover angels and men, no less than over winds and stars; (2) that this\nrule is a moral one, for He abundantly rewards righteousness, and\nfearfully punishes sin. Nothing, therefore, could well be more in\nharmony with the spirit and purpose of St.\u00a0Jude, and it ought not to\nperplex us that he makes use of such a book.\n\nBut in any case it may reassure us to remember that, in spite of its\nbeing quoted _in_ Scripture, the Church has never been allowed to\nadmit it _as_ Scripture. The mind of Christendom has never wavered as\nto the real character of the _Book of Enoch_. It is one of the many\neccentricities of Tertullian that he upholds its authority; but his\nspecial pleading has misled no one else (_De Cultu Fem._ I. iii.).\nJustin Martyr apparently knew it (_Apol._ II. v.), but there is\nnothing to show that he accepted it as a genuine revelation. Origen\n(_Contra Cels._ V. liv.: comp. _In Numer. Homil._ xxviii.\u00a02; _In\nJoannem_, tom. vi., cap. xxv.: De la Rue, ii.\u00a0384; iv.\u00a0142) distinctly\nmarks it as uncanonical and of doubtful value; Augustine (_De Civ.\nDei_, XV. xxiii.\u00a04) and Jerome (_De Vir. Illustr._ iv.) reject it as\napocryphal; and soon after their time it seems to have disappeared\nfrom Western Christendom. As already stated, it is uncertain whether\nSt.\u00a0Jude was mistaken as to the true nature of the book: it is quite\ncertain that the Church has been preserved from being so.\n\nNOTE.--For a collection of parallels between the _Book of Enoch_ and\n2\u00a0Peter and Jude see the _New Testament Commentary for English\nReaders_, edited by Bishop Ellicott, vol. iii., pp. 518, 519\n(Cassells, 1879).\n\n[125] Purvey has \"But.... And.... But....\" Tyndale, Coverdale, Crammer,\nand the Genevan Version (following the reading of A) omit the\nconjunction altogether in the first place. It is the Rhemish Version\nwhich first introduces \"And\" into the first place; yet one might have\nexpected that it, being made direct from the Vulgate, would have been\ncorrect in this particular.\n\n[126] Hofmann, Gfr\u00f6rer, L\u00fctzelberger, L\u00fccke, Ewald, K\u00f6stlin,\nHilgenfeld, Weisse, Volkmar, Geiger, Langen, Sieffert, Philippi,\nGebhardt, Wieseler, and others, especially Hoffmann and Dillmann, who\nhave published complete translations with notes and explanations.\nDillmann's work (Leipzig, 1853) is still the standard work on the\nsubject, but is out of print. Schodde published an English translation\nwith notes at Andover, 1882; and the English reader will find much\ninformation in the articles by Westcott in the _Dict. of the Bible_\nand by Lipsius in the _Dict. of Chr. Biography_; also in Westcott's\n_Introduction to the Gospels_, pp. 73, 99-109, 7th ed.; in Sch\u00fcrer's\n_The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ_, Div. II., vol. iii.,\npp. 54-73; in Stanton's _The Jewish and the Christian Messiah_ (T. and\nT. Clark, 1886), pp. 44-64, 88-95, 139, 140, 170-75, 311-15, 332-35,\n347; and in Drummond's _The Jewish Messiah_, 1877, pp. 17-73. Murray's\n_Enoch Restitutus_ (Rivington, 1836) does not seem to be of much value.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXVI.\n\n _THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO BALAAM:\n IMPIOUS DISCONTENT AND GREED OF THE LIBERTINES.\n THE APOSTOLIC WARNING RESPECTING THEM._\n\n \"These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their lusts (and\n their mouth speaketh great swelling words), showing respect of\n persons for the sake of advantage.\n\n \"But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which have been spoken before\n by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they said to you,\n In the last time there shall be mockers, walking after their own\n ungodly lusts.\"--ST.\u00a0JUDE 16-18.\n\n\nThese words form the second part of the threefold description of the\nlibertines; and just as the first part was balanced by a prophetic\nwarning quoted from the _Book of Enoch_, so this part is balanced by a\nquotation of the prophetic warning given by the Apostles, to the\neffect that persons like these ungodly men would certainly arise. This\nsecond division more clearly corresponds to the case of Balaam\nmentioned in ver. 11 than the first division of the description\ncorresponds to the case of Cain. This will appear when we come to\nexamine the details.\n\n\"These are murmurers.\" For the second time St.\u00a0Jude points to the\nintruders who are disturbing the Church, and shows his readers another\ngroup of characteristics by which these dangerous persons, who\ndisgrace the name of Christian, may be known. This second group hangs\non closely to what immediately precedes. It seems to have been\nsuggested by the last words of the prophecy quoted from Enoch, \"the\nhard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.\" The way in\nwhich the libertines spoke hard things against God was by murmuring\nagainst His decrees and complaining of the dispensations of His\nProvidence. This is the exact meaning of the word which is rendered\n\"complainers\" (\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9), and which occurs nowhere else in the\nNew Testament; \"finding fault with their lot,\" _i.e._ discontented\nwith the condition of life which God had assigned to them, and not\nonly blaming Him for this, but for the moral restrictions which He had\nimposed upon them and upon all mankind. Men who \"walk after their\nlusts,\" and shape their course in accordance with these (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9), cannot be contented, for the means of\ngratifying the lusts are not always present, and the lusts themselves\nare insatiable: even when gratification is possible, it is only\ntemporary; the unruly desires are certain to revive and clamour once\nmore for satisfaction. This was notably the case with Balaam, whose\ngrasping cupidity chafed against the restraints which prevented it\nfrom being gratified. As Bishop Butler says of him, \"He wanted to do\nwhat he knew to be very wicked, and contrary to the express command of\nGod; he had inward checks and restraints, which he could not entirely\nget over; he therefore casts about for ways to reconcile this\nwickedness with his duty,\" (_Sermon_ vii.). From a somewhat different\npoint of view J. H. Newman says much the same thing of him: Balaam\n\"would have given the world to have got rid of his duties; and the\nquestion was, how to do so without violence\" (_Plain Sermons_,\nRivingtons, 1868, vol. iv., p. 28). Isaac Williams, who has a sermon\non the same subject, puts the matter in yet another way. Balaam \"knew\nwhat was holy and good, and it may be that he loved it also, but he\nloved riches more: his knowledge was with God; his will was with\nSatan.... He wished to proceed together with God and Mammon--God on\nhis lips, and Mammon in his heart\" (_The Characters of the Old\nTestament_, Rivingtons, 1869, pp. 128, 130). The way in which the\nlibertines seem to have set about the impossible task of getting rid\nof their duties and reconciling the service of God with the service of\nSatan appears to have been that of roundly declaring that Christian\nliberty included freedom to gratify one's desires: if it did not do\nso, it was an empty delusion. In this way they \"turned the grace of\nGod into lasciviousness\" (ver. 4), and \"their mouth spoke great\nswelling words.\" In the parallel passage in 2\u00a0Peter an explanation of\nthis kind is given of the \"great swelling words.\" By means of them\nthese evil men \"enticed others in the lusts of the flesh by\nlasciviousness, ... _promising them liberty_\" (2\u00a0Peter ii.\u00a018, 19).\nAccording to them, it was the magnificent privilege of Christians to\nbe freed from righteousness and become the slaves of sin. Iren\u00e6us\nattributes doctrine of this kind to Simon Magus and his followers,\nwho, \"as being free, live as they please; for men are saved through\nHis grace, and not through their own righteous acts. For righteous\nactions are not such in the nature of things, but accidentally\"\n(_H\u00e6r._ I. xxiii.\u00a03).\n\n\"Showing respect of persons for the sake of advantage.\" This, again,\nis exactly what Balaam did. He had regard to Balak and the princes\nwhom he sent as ambassadors; and he did this because he hoped to gain\nthe large reward which they were told to promise him if he would but\nexercise his prophetic power in solemnly cursing Israel. In like\nmanner these blatant profligates, who were loud in their complaints\nagainst the treatment which they received from Providence, and equally\nloud in protesting that the Gospel allowed them and others the licence\nwhich they desired, nevertheless became mean flatterers and parasites\nwhen there was any chance of getting anything from persons of wealth\nand distinction. This apparently incongruous combination of arrogant\nself-assertion with grovelling sycophancy is common enough in men\nwithout principle, as Calvin remarks. \"When there is no one to check\ntheir insolence, or when there is nothing which stands in their way,\ntheir pride is intolerable, so that they imperiously arrogate\neverything to themselves; but they meanly flatter those whom they\nfear, and from whom they expect some advantage.\" While they refuse\nsubmission where it is due, they give it where it is not due. They\nrebelliously reject the plain commands of God, and yet servilely\ncringe to the humours and caprices of their fellow-men.\n\n\"But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which have been spoken before\nby the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.\" The Revisers have done well\nto restore the \"ye\"--\"But _ye_, beloved\"--which was in all English\nversions previous to that of 1611, just as in ver. 20. In both cases\nthe pronoun is emphatic, and places the persons addressed in marked\ncontrast to the ungodly men against whom they are being warned.\n\"Whatever they may do, do not you be deceived by their arrogant\nlanguage and time-serving conduct, for these are the scoffing\nsensualists against whom you have already been warned beforehand by\nthe Apostles. Their behaviour is amazing, but it ought not to take you\nby surprise.\" St.\u00a0Jude evidently takes for granted that the Apostolic\nwarning which he quotes is well known to his readers. Such an appeal\nto the authority of the Apostles would certainly be more natural in\none who was himself not an Apostle, but it must not be regarded as\nquite decisive, as if St.\u00a0Jude had written \"how that they said to\n_us_.\" Other reasons, however, support the impression which this\npassage conveys, that the writer is not an Apostle (see pp. 372, 373).\nOn the other hand, there is nothing in these words to warrant the\nconclusion that the writer regards the Apostles as persons who lived\nlong ago, or who gave this warning long ago. All that is implied is\nthat before these ungodly men \"crept in privily\" into the Church,\nApostles had foretold that such persons would arise. \"In the last\ntime\" is not St.\u00a0Jude's expression, but theirs; and by it the Apostles\ncertainly did not mean an age remote from their own: the \"last time\"\nhad already begun when they wrote (see on 2\u00a0Tim. iii.\u00a01, 2, in _The\nPastoral Epistles_, in this series, pp. 377, 378; and comp. 1\u00a0John\nii.\u00a018; Heb. i.\u00a02; 1\u00a0Peter i.\u00a020).\n\n\"How that they said to you\" may mean \"how that they _used_ to say to\nyou\" (\u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd), and may refer to oral teaching; but we cannot\nbe at all certain of this. Still less can we be certain that, if\nwritten warnings are included or specially meant, the reference is to\n2\u00a0Peter iii.\u00a03: \"knowing this first, that in the last days mockers\nshall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts.\" Both passages\nmay have a common source, or that in 2\u00a0Peter may be modelled upon this\none. The word for \"mockers\" is the same in both (\u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9), and it\nis a very unusual word, not used by profane writers, nor anywhere else\nin the New Testament; in the Septuagint it occurs only once (Isa.\niii.\u00a04), and there apparently in the sense of \"childish persons.\" The\nAuthorized Version unfortunately obscures this close connexion between\nthe wording of 2\u00a0Peter iii.\u00a03, and that of this passage, by having\n\"scoffers\" in the one, and \"mockers\" in the other. The particular in\nwhich the two passages really differ must not pass without notice.\nSt.\u00a0Jude writes, \"walking after their own _ungodly_ lusts,\" or, more\nliterally, \"their own lusts _of ungodlinesses_\" (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd). Most\nprobably the genitive here is descriptive, as in James i.\u00a024 and\nii.\u00a04; and therefore the substitution of the adjective \"ungodly\" for\nit in the English versions is justifiable. But it is possible that\n\"lusts of ungodlinesses\" means that they lusted after impieties, and\ntherefore the rendering given in the margin of the Revised Version\nshould not be left unheeded. Wiclif, Purvey, and the Rhemish here\ndiffer from other English versions, being made from later texts of the\nVulgate, which read, \"_secundum desideria sua ambulantes in\nimpietatibus_ or _in impietate_,\" whereas the better text has\n_impietatum_. However we translate the genitive case, we may regard\nthe word as an echo of the prophecy quoted from the _Book of Enoch_,\nin which \"ungodly\" or \"ungodliness\" occurs with persistent iteration\n(ver. 15).\n\nThe fact that this expression (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd) occurs here, but not in\nthe parallel verse in 2\u00a0Peter, is an indication of a much more\nimportant difference between the two passages. In spite of the great\nsimilarity of wording, the meaning is very different. The mockers in\neach case mock at totally different things. In 2\u00a0Peter we are\nexpressly told that they scoffed at the belief that Christ was coming\nto judge the world. \"What has become of the promise of His coming?\nEverything goes on just as it has done for generations.\" There is not\na hint of any such notion here; on the contrary, it is implied that\nthese libertines mocked at God's dealings with themselves, and at the\nbelief that the Gospel did not give them full liberty to gratify their\nsensual desires. They were among those of whom it is written that\n\"fools make a mock at sin\" (Prov. xiv.\u00a09). By scoffing at things\nsacred, and ridiculing the notion that there is any harm in\nlicentiousness, or anything estimable in holiness, they created a\nmoral atmosphere in which men sinned with a light heart, because sin\nwas made to look as if it were a matter of no moment, a thing to be\nindulged in without anxiety or remorse. It would be more reasonable\nand less reprehensible to make a mock at carnage or pestilence, and\nteach men to go with a light heart into a desolating war or\nplague-stricken neighbourhood. In such cases experience of the\nmanifest horrors would soon cure the light-heartedness. But the\nhorrible nature of sin is not so manifest, and with regard to _that_\nexperience teaches its lesson more slowly. It is like a poisoning of\nthe blood rather than a wound in the flesh, and may have done\nincalculable mischief before any serious pain is felt, or any grave\nalarm excited. Hence it is quite easy for many to \"walk after their\nown ungodly lusts,\" and at the same time \"mock at sin\" and its\nconsequences. And then the converse of the proverb becomes true, and\n\"sin mocks at the fools\" that mocked at it--a meaning which the Hebrew\nmay very well have. In the margin of the Revised Version we read,\n\"Guilt mocketh at the foolish.\" As Delilah mocked at Samson, so does\nsin mock at those who have been taken captive by it. There is no folly\nequal to the foolhardiness of those who make light, either to\nthemselves or to others, of the deadly character of any form of sin.\nThey thereby save the tempter all trouble, and do his work themselves.\n\"His own iniquities shall take the wicked, and he shall be holden with\nthe cords of his sin. He shall die for lack of instruction; and in the\ngreatness of his folly he shall go astray\" (Prov. v.\u00a022, 23).\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXVII.\n\n _THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO KORAH: MAKING SEPARATIONS.\n EXHORTATION TO THE FAITHFUL TO BUILD UP THEMSELVES,\n AND THEN RESCUE OTHERS._\n\n \"These are they who make separations sensual, having not the Spirit.\n\n \"But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith,\n praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God,\n looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And\n on some have mercy, who are in doubt; and some save, snatching them\n out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear; hating even the\n garment spotted by the flesh.\"--ST.\u00a0JUDE 19-23.\n\n\nFor the third and last time St.\u00a0Jude points his finger at the ungodly\nintruders who are working such mischief in the Church, and gives\nanother triplet of characteristics by which they may be recognized.\n\n\"These are they who make separations.\" This is the first point; like\nKorah and his company, these men are separatists (\u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2).\nThey do not actually make a schism _from_ the Church, for they\nfrequent the love-feasts and profess membership; but they create a\nfaction _within_ it. Even in the public services of the Church they\nkeep aloof from the poorer members of the congregation. At the\nlove-feasts they feed themselves on the good things which they bring\nwith them, instead of handing them over to the ministers to be\ndistributed among all. And in society they care only for persons of\nrank and wealth, out of whom they hope to gain something. Worst of\nall, they claim to be specially enlightened members of the Church,\nhaving a more comprehensive knowledge of the nature of Christian\nliberty, while they are turning the fundamental principles of\nChristian life upside down. Hence, although they are not actual\nschismatics, who have gone out of the Church and set up a communion of\ntheir own, their tendencies are in that direction. They are, in short,\nmuch the same kind of people as those against whom St.\u00a0Paul warns his\nreaders in the Epistle to the Romans: \"Now I beseech you, brethren,\nmark them _which are causing the divisions_ and occasions of\nstumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away\nfrom them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ, but\n_their own belly_; and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile\nthe hearts of the innocent\" (xvi.\u00a017, 18). And again in the Epistle to\nthe Philippians: \"For many walk of whom I told you often, and now tell\nyou even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:\nwhose end is perdition, _whose god is the belly_, and whose glory is\nin their shame, who mind earthly things\" (iii.\u00a018, 19). A parallel to\nnearly every clause in these two descriptions might be found in the\naccount of the libertines given by St.\u00a0Jude. Indeed, the words in\nwhich Bishop Lightfoot sums up St.\u00a0Paul's description might be adopted\nverbatim as a summary of the description in our Epistle: \"They are\ndescribed as creating divisions and offences, as holding plausible\nlanguage, as professing to be wise beyond others, and yet not innocent\nin their wisdom.\" They are \"Antinomians, who refuse to conform to the\nCross, and live a life of self-indulgence.\" \"The unfettered liberty of\nwhich they boast, thus perverted, becomes their deepest degradation\"\n(_Philippians_, Notes on iii.\u00a018, 19).\n\nHooker, in his sermons on this passage, although he adopts the\ntranslation of Tyndale, continued by Cranmer and the Genevan Version,\n\"These are makers of sects,\" yet in his exposition follows the corrupt\nreading which misled the translators of 1611, \"These be they who\nseparate _themselves_\" (\u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2), \"themselves\"\nbeing absent from almost all the ancient MSS. and versions. He says,\n\"St.\u00a0Jude, to express the manner of their departure which by apostasy\nfell away from the faith of Christ, saith, 'They separated\nthemselves;' noting thereby that it was not constraint of others which\nforced them to depart; it was not infirmity and weakness in\nthemselves, it was not fear of persecution to come upon them, whereat\ntheir hearts did fail; it was not grief of torments, whereof they had\ntasted, and were not able any longer to endure them. No, they\nvoluntarily did separate themselves, with a fully settled and\naltogether determined purpose never to name the Lord Jesus any more,\nnor to have any fellowship with His saints, but to bend all their\ncounsel and all their strength to raze out their memorial from amongst\nthem\" (_Serm._ v.\u00a011). Here there is a double error in the quotation\nfrom St.\u00a0Jude, and therefore considerable error in the exposition of\nhis meaning. St.\u00a0Jude does not say that these libertines\n\"separat_ed_,\" but that they are \"those who _are_ separat_ing_,\"\n_i.e._ are habitually making separations or differences. He uses the\npresent participle, not the aorist or perfect. And, as already\nnoticed, he says nothing about separating _themselves_. So far from\nimplying that they had \"a settled and determined purpose never to name\nthe Lord Jesus any more, nor to have any fellowship with His saints,\"\nHe shows that these men had crept into the Church, and evidently\nintended to remain there, attending the love-feasts and polluting\nthem, while they put forward the \"freedom wherewith Christ had made\nthem free\" as a plea for their own licentiousness; thus \"turning the\ngrace of God into lasciviousness,\" and by their conduct denying the\nChrist in whom they professed to believe. Thus, though they did not\nformally leave the Church as heretics, schismatics, or apostates, yet\nthey had the heretical and schismatical temper, and were apostates in\ntheir manner of life. As Hooker says elsewhere, \"Many things exclude\nfrom the kingdom of God, although from the Church they separate not\"\n(_Eccl. Pol._ V. lxviii.\u00a06). These men had left the way of salvation\nto \"walk after their own lusts,\" but they had not separated from the\nChurch, into which they had surreptitiously obtained admission.\n\n\"Sensual\" (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af). This word has been already discussed in a\nprevious chapter, in the exposition of the passage where it occurs in\nthe Epistle of St.\u00a0James (iii.\u00a015: see pp. 200, 201). \"Sensual\"\npersons are those who live in the world of sense, and are ruled by\nhuman feeling and human reason. They stand not very much above the\ncarnal, and with them are opposed to the spiritual. In the triplet,\n_carnalis, animalis, spiritalis_, the second term is far more closely\nallied with the first than with the third. It is possible that the\nlibertines, in their travesty of the freedom conferred by the Gospel,\nmade a special claim to be \"spiritual\" persons, who were above the\nrestraints of the moral law. They may have held that to their exalted\nnatures the things of sense were morally indifferent, and might be\nindulged in without fear of loss or contamination; while they scoffed\nat those Christians who were on their guard against such things, and\ncalled such Christians _psychical_ or sensuous, because they were\ncareful about the things of sense. St.\u00a0Jude tells them that it is they\nwho are sensuous, and not spiritual at all.\n\n\"Not having the Spirit.\" The Revisers maintain this rendering, which\ndoes not appear in English versions until the influence of Beza and\nthe Genevan Version made itself felt. Calvin seems to adopt it; but\nLuther certainly does not (\"_die da keinen Geist haben_\"). It must be\nsupposed that the arguments in favour of it are very strong, seeing\nthat the alternative translation is not allowed a place in the margin\nof either Authorized or Revised Version, nor is recommended by the\nAmerican Committee. Nevertheless, the points in its favour are well\nworth considering. This alternative translation is, \"Having no spirit\"\n(Tyndale, Cranmer), _i.e._ no spiritual nature. \"Not having spirit\" is\nWiclif's rendering. This agrees very well with the context. St.\u00a0Jude\nhas just stigmatized the libertines as \"sensuous,\" or \"psychical.\" Of\nthe three elements in man's nature, body, soul, and spirit, they are\nruled by the two lower, while the third, which ought to be supreme, is\npersistently ignored. They had allowed the spiritual part of their\nbeing to become so bemired with self-indulgence and self-sufficiency,\nto be so much under the dominion of human emotion and reason, that it\nwas utterly inoperative and practically non-existent. Their power of\nspiritual insight into things heavenly, of laying hold of the\ninvisible world, and of entering into communion with God, was gone.\nThe Holy Spirit was not only absent, but His seat was overturned and\ndestroyed. The facts that \"spirit\" has neither article nor epithet in\nthe Greek, and that the negative is subjective, and not objective\n(\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2), are in favour of man's spirit being meant, and\nof this clause being an explanation of what precedes. These men are\nsensuous _because_ they have lost all spiritual power. It must not,\nhowever, be understood that the absence of article and epithet is any\nbarrier to the rendering, \"Having not the Spirit.\" Phil. ii.\u00a01 is\nproof of that (comp. Eph. ii.\u00a022; vi.\u00a018; Col. i.\u00a08). Nevertheless,\nsuch cases are comparatively rare. The usual expression for the Third\nPerson of the Holy Trinity is either \"the Spirit,\" or \"Holy Spirit,\"\nor \"the Holy Spirit,\" or \"the Spirit of God,\" or \"of the Lord,\" or \"of\nJesus Christ,\" or \"of truth,\" or \"of life,\" etc. Therefore, when we\nfind \"spirit\" without either article, epithet, or distinguishing\ngenitive, the probabilities are that the spirit of man, and not the\nSpirit of God, is intended.\n\nIt will be observed that the three independent descriptions of the\nlibertines, beginning with the words, \"These are,\" become shorter as\nthey go on. The first is two long verses (12, 13); the second is one\nlong verse (16); the third is one very short verse. It is as if the\nwriter were disgusted with the unpalatable subject which necessity had\ncompelled him to take in hand (ver. 3), and were hurrying through it\nto the more pleasing duty of exhorting those faithful Christians for\nwhose sake he has undertaken this painful task.\n\n\"But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith,\npraying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God,\nlooking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.\" As\nin ver. 17, the \"But _ye_, beloved\" (\u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03af) makes an\nemphatic contrast between those whom St.\u00a0Jude addresses and the\nsensuous and unspiritual men of whom he has been speaking. He exhorts his\nreaders to endeavour to keep themselves in favour with God by cultivating\nfaith, prayer, and hope; and in this exhortation the main purpose of the\nletter, as set forth in ver. 3, is fulfilled. The triplet of participles\n(\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2--\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9--\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9) must not be\nlost sight of, although the fact that the main verb (\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5) comes\nin the middle of them, instead of at the end, somewhat obscures the\ntriple construction.\n\nThe expression \"building up\" (\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd) is in the New Testament\nnever used of actual building, but always in the metaphorical sense of\nbelievers being united together so as to form a temple. In this temple\nChrist is sometimes regarded as the foundation (1\u00a0Cor. iii.\u00a011),\nsometimes as that which binds the structure together (Eph. ii.\u00a020;\nCol. ii.\u00a07). The notion of building up comes from the preposition\n(\u1f10\u03c0\u03af), one stone being placed upon another, so that upward progress\nis made. \"The faith\" here is probably the foundation on which the\nstructure is to rest; but it would be possible to translate \"_with_\nyour most holy faith,\" instead of \"_on_ your most holy faith;\" and in\nthat case the dative would, as in Col. ii.\u00a07, express the cement\nrather than the foundation. In any case \"the faith\" is not the\ninternal grace or virtue of faith, but, as both the participle and the\nadjective show, \"the faith which was once for all delivered unto the\nsaints\" (ver. 3). It is \"_your_ faith,\" because it has been thus\ndelivered to you; and it is \"most holy,\" in marked contrast to the\nvile and shifty doctrines which the libertines profess and uphold.\n\n\"Praying in the Holy Ghost.\" This is the best arrangement of the\nwords, although the Greek allows us to take \"in the Holy Ghost\" with\nthe previous clause, a rather clumsy division of the words, which is\nsanctioned by Luther, Beza, and the Rhemish Version: \"building\nyourselves upon our (_sic_) most holy faith, in the Holy Ghost,\npraying.\" The expression \"praying in the Holy Ghost\" occurs nowhere\nelse; but that is no reason why St.\u00a0Jude should not have used it here.\nIt means that we are to pray in the power and wisdom of the Spirit. In\norder that we may pray, and pray aright, He must move our hearts and\ndirect our petitions.\n\n\"Keep yourselves in the love of God.\" Not our love of God is meant,\nbut His love of us. This is rendered probable both by what immediately\nfollows--for \"the love of God\" should have a meaning similar to that\nof \"the mercy of Jesus Christ\"--and also by the opening address,\n\"beloved in God\" (ver. 1), which St.\u00a0Jude perhaps has in his mind; for\nthe whole of the verse before us is closely connected with the first\nverse of the Epistle. God's love is the region in which all Christians\nshould strive to abide, and it is by faith and prayer that this abode\nis secured. To be conscious of being beloved by God is one of the\ngreatest protections that the believer can possess.\n\n\"Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.\"\nThat mercy which He will show to all faithful Christians when He\nreturns as Judge at the last day. We may compare \"looking for and\nearnestly desiring the coming of the day of God\" (2\u00a0Peter iii.\u00a012).\nBoth in this life and in eternity it is mercy that we need and crave.\nThe Psalms are full of this thought, as a reference to the numerous\npassages in which the word mercy occurs will reveal: see especially\nPs. cxxx. And in connexion with this the concise statement respecting\nthe relations of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity to believers must\nnot be overlooked. By prayer in the power of the Holy Spirit we are\nkept in the love of the Father through the mercy of the Son. \"Unto\neternal life.\" It is not a matter of much moment whether we take these\nwords with \"keep yourselves,\" or with \"looking,\" or with \"mercy.\" The\nfirst seems to be the best arrangement, \"keep yourselves ... unto\neternal life;\" but in any case the eternal life is reached through the\nmercy of the Lord Jesus Christ. With a similar thought the author of\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews (ix.\u00a028) writes of Christ's Second Advent\nas an advent \"unto salvation\" (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd). The Divine purpose of\nboth Advents is mercy, and not judgment; but seeing that both Advents\nare met by some who refuse to believe and repent, judgment is\ninevitable.\n\n\"And on some have mercy, who are in doubt; and some save, snatching\nout of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear.\" In hardly any\nother passage, perhaps, does the Revised Version differ in so many\nparticulars from the Authorized. The main changes are the result of\nchanges in the Greek text, which here is in so corrupt a state that\nthe original cannot be restored with certainty. The readings adopted\nby the Revisers have the advantage of giving us another triple\ndivision, which St.\u00a0Jude is very likely to have made. This triple\ndivision is preserved in the Vulgate, and therefore in Wiclif and the\nRhemish Version. Our other translators, with Luther and Beza, not\nfinding it in the inferior Greek MSS. which they used, of course do\nnot give it.[127] With one possible exception, the text adopted by the\nRevisers seems to be the best that can be framed with our present\nevidence. It is doubtful whether we ought not to substitute \"convict\"\n(\u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5) for the first \"have mercy\" (\u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b5). This reading has\nvery powerful support (AC, the best cursives, Vulgate, Memphitic,\nArmenian, and Ethiopic), and is adopted by many critics. But it may\npossibly be an early correction of a still earlier corruption, and not\na restoration of the original reading. This is one of those passages\nabout which we must be content to remain in doubt as to what the\nauthor actually wrote (see above on ver. 5, p. 404).\n\nIn any case the writer is giving directions as to how to deal with two\nor three different classes of persons, who are in danger of being\nseduced by the libertines; and possibly the libertines themselves are\nincluded. We will assume that three classes are named. In the first we\nare confronted with an uncertainty of translation. The participle\nrendered \"who are in doubt\" (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2) may also mean \"while\nthey contend\" with you. Which meaning we prefer will depend partly\nupon the reading which we adopt for the imperative which governs the\naccusative. \"On some _have mercy_, when they are in _doubt_,\" makes\nvery harmonious sense; for earnest doubters, who are unable to make up\ntheir minds for or against the truth, are to be treated with great\ntenderness. Again, \"And some _convict_, when they _contend_ with you,\"\nmakes very harmonious sense; for it is those who are disposed to be\ncontentious that need to be refuted and convinced of their error. It\nis in favour of the latter version of the command that the verbs\nrendered \"convict\" and \"contend\" occur, _and in the same sense_, in\nthe earlier part of the Epistle (vv.\u00a09, 15). In either case that which\nis doubted or contended about is \"the faith once for all delivered\nunto the saints,\" on which believers are to \"build themselves up.\"\n\nThe second class are such as can still be rescued, but by strong\nmeasures. No hint, however, is given as to their characteristics; we\nare merely told that there are some who require to be taken with\ndecision, and perhaps even with violence, out of their perilous\nsurroundings, in order that they may be saved from destruction. We may\nperhaps think of those who, without being in doubt or inclined to\ndispute about the faith, are being carried away into licentiousness by\nintercourse with the libertines. The fire out of which they are to be\nsnatched is not the penal fire of the judgment to come, but the state\nof perdition in which they are now living. We seem to have here, as in\nver. 9, a reminiscence of Zechariah iii.\u00a01, where we read, \"Is not\nthis a brand plucked out of the fire?\" In Amos iv.\u00a011 we have the same\nfigure, and the context there agrees with the suggestion just made as\nto the kind of person indicated by St.\u00a0Jude: \"I have overthrown some\namong you, as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a\nbrand plucked out of the burning.\" There are some who need to be\nrescued in the way that the angels rescued Lot, with urgency and\nconstraint (Gen. xix.\u00a016, 17); and it is specially in reference to\ntemptations such as Lot had gone into that such urgency is needed.\n\nThe third class is one which must be treated with great\ncircumspection: \"and on some have mercy _with fear_; hating even the\ngarment spotted by the flesh.\" This does not mean, as Luther supposes,\nthat we must \"let them severely alone, and have nothing to do with\nthem,\" but that in dealing with evil so insidious and so infectious,\nwe must take care that we are not contaminated ourselves. It is quite\npossible to approach evil with good intentions, and then, through want\nof proper humility and caution, end in finding it fatally attractive.\nWe must carefully preserve abhorrence for all that is associated with\npollution. In the _defiled_ garment (comp. James iii.\u00a06, where the\nsame word is used) St.\u00a0Jude appears once more to have Zechariah\niii.\u00a01-3 in his mind; but the Greek of the LXX. is there quite\ndifferent (\u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 \u1fe5\u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac, instead of \u1f10\u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1). The\ngarment here mentioned is the _chiton_, or shirt, which came in\ncontact with the body, and would itself be rendered unclean if the\nbody were unclean. It therefore serves well as a symbol for that which\nhas become perilous through being closely connected with evil. But\nwhile the evil and that which has been contaminated by it are to be\nhated, compassion is to be shown to those who have fallen victims to\nit. To be _shown_, not merely _felt_, as is manifest from the word\nwhich St.\u00a0Jude uses (\u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u1fb7\u03bd, not \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd). The passages in which\nthis verb (or its more common form \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd) elsewhere occurs in the\nNew Testament prove that it means \"to _have_ mercy on, to succour and\nbring help to,\" and not merely \"to _feel_ pity for\" without doing\nanything to relieve the person pitied (Matt. ix.\u00a027; xv.\u00a022; xvii.\u00a015;\nxviii.\u00a033; xx.\u00a030; Mark x.\u00a047; Luke xvi.\u00a024; xvii.\u00a013; xviii.\u00a038;\nPhil. ii.\u00a027). It is specially used of God's showing mercy to those\nwho do not deserve it (Rom. ix.\u00a015, 16, 18; xi.\u00a032; 1\u00a0Cor. vii.\u00a025;\n2\u00a0Cor. iv.\u00a01; 1\u00a0Tim. i.\u00a013, 16; 1\u00a0Peter ii.\u00a010), and therefore fitly\nexpresses the sympathy which ought to be manifested by the faithful\ntowards the fallen. But in some cases this sympathy must be manifested\n_in fear_. It is by acting in the spirit of godly fear that love of\nthe sinner can be combined with hatred of the sin. Without it sympathy\nwith the sinner is too likely to turn into sympathy with the sin. To\nput it otherwise: All our efforts for the reformation of others must\nbe begun and continued with self-reformation; and therefore St.\u00a0Jude\ninsists on the necessity for spiritual progress and prayer, before\nadvising as to the treatment of the fallen. It is while we are\nearnestly detesting and contending against a particular sin in\nourselves that we can most safely and effectually deal with that sin\nin others.\n\nFinally, it must be noted as specially remarkable that St.\u00a0Jude, after\nall the strong language which he has used in describing the wickedness\nof those who are corrupting the Christian community, does _not_, in\nthis advice as to the different methods which are to be used in\ndealing with those who are going or have gone astray, recommend\ndenunciation. Not that denunciation is always wrong; in some cases it\nmay be necessary. But denunciation by itself commonly does more harm\nthan good; while other methods, which must be added in order to make\ndenunciation effectual, are often quite as efficacious when no\ndenunciation has been employed. It is quite possible to manifest one's\nabhorrence of \"the garment spotted with the flesh,\" without public or\nprivate abuse of those who are the authors of the defilement.\n\n[127] Nevertheless, Westcott and Hort reject the triple division, and\nadopt the text of B, \"which involves the incongruity that the first \u03bf\u1f55\u03c2\nmust be taken as a relative, and the first \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b5 as indicative. Some\nprimitive error evidently affects the passage\" (ii., p. 107). It is\ndifficult to believe that their text is right.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXVIII.\n\n _THE FINAL DOXOLOGY: PRAISE TO GOD,\n THE PROTECTOR OF HIS SERVANTS._\n\n \"Now unto Him that is able to guard you from stumbling, and to set\n you before the presence of His glory without blemish in exceeding\n joy, to the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be\n glory, majesty, dominion and power, before all time, and now, and for\n evermore.\" Amen.--ST.\u00a0JUDE 24, 25.\n\n\nFrom his severe and sombre warnings and exhortations St.\u00a0Jude turns in\njoyous and exulting confidence to Him who alone can make them\neffectual. He has spoken with sternness and horror of great wickedness\nwhich has been manifested both in the past and in the present, and of\nGod's terrible judgments upon it. He has exhorted his readers to\nbeware of it, and not to let their abhorrence of it grow less when\nthey are engaged in the merciful work of rescuing others from it. Now,\nin conclusion, he offers a fervent tribute of praise to Him who is a\nGod of love as well as of justice, and who is as able and ready to\nprotect those who cling to Him and serve Him as to punish those who\nmurmur and rebel against Him.\n\nThe doxologies at the end of the Epistle to the Romans and at the\nbeginning of the First Epistle to Timothy should be compared with this\none. The former is nearest to it in form; and it is from the doxology\nin Romans that the epithet \"wise,\" which the Authorized Version\nwrongly inserts both here and in 1\u00a0Tim. i.\u00a017, probably comes.\nDoxologies, modelled on those in the New Testament, became elastic in\nsome respects, and stereotyped in others. The formula \"to the only\nwise God\" was a common one, and hence scribes inserted the epithet,\nperhaps almost mechanically, in places where it was not found in the\noriginal. It is quite possible that St.\u00a0Jude knew the Epistle to the\nRomans, and his doxology, especially in its opening words, may be a\nconscious or unconscious imitation of it; for the Epistle to the\nRomans was written some years before the earliest date that can with\nany probability be assigned to this Epistle.\n\n\"To guard you from stumbling;\" which in two respects is more than \"to\nkeep you from falling.\" Firstly, \"guard\" preserves the idea of\n_protection_ against perils, both manifest and secret, more decidedly\nthan \"keep;\" and secondly, one may have many stumbles without any\nfalls, and therefore to be preserved from even stumbling implies a\nlarger measure of care on the part of the protector. But even \"to\nguard you from stumbling\" does not quite do justice to the Greek\n(\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2), nor is it easy to do so. \"Guard you so\nthat you are exempt from stumbling and never trip or make a false\nstep\" is the full meaning of the expression. The verb which is here\nnegatived is used by St.\u00a0James (ii.\u00a010): \"Whosoever shall keep the\nwhole law, and yet stumble (\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u1fc3) in one point, he is become\nguilty of all.\" The Vulgate lets go the metaphor of stumbling, and\ntranslates simply \"to preserve you without sin\" (_conservare sine\npeccato_). That which is impossible with men is possible with God, and\nthe Divine grace can protect Christians against their own frailty.\nChrist says of His sheep that they shall assuredly never perish, and\nthat no one, whether powers of evil or human seducers, can snatch them\nout of His hand (John x.\u00a028). Their wills are free, and they may will\nto leave Him; but if they determine to abide with Him they will be\nsafe.\n\n\"And to set you before the presence of His glory without blemish.\"\nThis is the blessed result of His protecting them from stumbling. The\nrevised translation, \"without blemish\" (\u1f00\u03bc\u03ce\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2), at first sight looks\nlike a needless and vexatious change from the \"faultless\" of the\nAuthorized Version, and a clumsy one, because it gives two English\nwords for one Greek word. But the change is a real improvement, for\nthe Greek word is a _sacrificial_ term, which \"faultless\" is not. It\nis frequently used of victims, which must be \"without blemish,\" in\norder to be suitable for offerings. It is not common in classical\nGreek, but frequent in the LXX. (Exod. xxix.\u00a01; Lev. i.\u00a03, 10;\nxxii.\u00a021-24; Num. vi.\u00a014; xix.\u00a02). In 1\u00a0Macc. iv.\u00a042 it is used of the\npriests, and so also in Philo (_De Merc. Mer._ i.; _De Agric._ xxix.:\nsee Lightfoot on \u03bc\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd: Clem. Rom. xli.). In the New Testament\nit is used sometimes of the sinlessness of Christ (Heb. ix.\u00a014;\n1\u00a0Peter i.\u00a019), sometimes of the ideal perfection of Christians (Eph.\ni.\u00a04; v.\u00a027; Phil. ii.\u00a015). In the Epistle to the Colossians St.\u00a0Paul\nhas almost the same idea as St.\u00a0Jude--\"to _present_ you holy and\n_without blemish_ and unreprovable _before Him_\" (i.\u00a022); and again in\nthe First Epistle to the Thessalonians--\"to the end He may stablish\nyour hearts unblameable in holiness before our God and Father, at the\ncoming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints\" (iii.\u00a013). \"Before the\npresence of His glory\" refers to the glory of God which shall be\nrevealed at the last day.\n\n\"In exceeding joy\" is a further consequence from the second point, as\nthe second from the first. To be protected against stumbling leads to\nbeing presented without blemish before the judgment-seat, and this is\nan occasion of intense delight. As St.\u00a0Peter puts it, \"Inasmuch as ye\nare partakers of Christ's sufferings, rejoice; that at the revelation\nof His glory also ye may rejoice with exceeding joy\" (1\u00a0Peter iv.\u00a013).\n\n\"To the only God our Saviour.\" St.\u00a0Paul, like St.\u00a0Jude, speaks of God\nthe Father as our Saviour. He is \"an Apostle of Christ Jesus according\nto the commandment of God our Saviour\" (1\u00a0Tim. i.\u00a01), and he says that\nintercession and thanksgiving for others \"is good and acceptable in\nthe sight of God our Saviour\" (ii.\u00a03). Still more fully he says that\n\"God our Saviour ... saved us ... through Jesus Christ our Saviour\n(Titus iii.\u00a04-6: comp. i.\u00a03; ii.\u00a010). The work of the Son is the work\nof the Father; and so in the Old Testament we have Jehovah spoken of\nas the Saviour and Redeemer of His people (Ps. cvi.\u00a021; Isa. xli.\u00a015,\n21; xlix.\u00a026; lx.\u00a016). And this is the meaning of the clause which\ntextual criticism has restored to us in this passage. God is our\nSaviour \"_through Jesus Christ our Lord_.\" Some take these words with\nwhat follows. \"To the only God be glory, majesty, dominion and power,\nthrough Jesus Christ our Lord;\" which makes excellent sense, and is in\nharmony with the doxology in 1\u00a0Peter iv.\u00a011, \"that in all things God\nmay be glorified through Jesus Christ.\" It is no strong objection to\nthis to urge that in that case St.\u00a0Jude would have reversed the order\nof the clauses (\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd). In the doxology at the end of the Epistle to the\nRomans (which St.\u00a0Jude _may_ have in his mind) \"through Jesus Christ\"\nprecedes \"be the glory,\" and yet cannot easily be taken with anything\nelse (omitting \u1fa7 as a probable corruption). The combination \"glory\nand dominion\" occurs in other doxologies (1\u00a0Peter iv.\u00a011; Rev. i.\u00a06;\nv.\u00a013); \"majesty\" and \"power\" do not occur in any. \"Majesty\" in the\nNew Testament is found in Hebrews i.\u00a03 and viii.\u00a01 only; but it occurs\nin the LXX. and in Clement of Rome (xvi.\u00a01). The doxology in 1\u00a0Chron.\nxxix.\u00a011 is specially worthy of notice. The word seems to have been\nused almost exclusively of the majesty of God, and the four words\ntogether sum up the Divine glory and omnipotence. It is a little\nremarkable that in this case St.\u00a0Jude abandons his favourite triplets,\nand gives four attributes rather than three. But he returns in a still\nmore remarkable way to his favourite arrangement in the concluding\nwords.\n\n\"Before all time, and now, and for evermore.\" Thus, in a very\ncomprehensive phrase, eternity is described. Throughout all time, and\nthroughout the ages which precede and follow it, these attributes\nbelong to God. Evil men in their dreamings may \"set at nought dominion\nand rail at glories,\" and their mouth may \"speak great swelling words\"\nabout their own superior knowledge and greater liberty, and may mock\nand scoff at those who will not follow them in \"walking after their\nown ungodly lusts.\" Nevertheless, ages before they were born, and ages\nafter they shall have vanished from the world which they are troubling\nby their presence, glory, majesty, dominion, and power belong to Him\nwho saves us, and would save even them, through Jesus Christ our Lord.\n\nThey _belong_ to Him. This seems to be the meaning rather than that\nthey are _ascribed_ to Him. No verb is given in the Greek; neither\n\"is,\" as in 1\u00a0Peter iv.\u00a011 (\u1fa7 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2), nor\n\"be\" (\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9), which in most doxologies may be understood. \"To Him\n_be_ glory _before all time_\" is scarcely sense, for our wishes cannot\ninfluence the past. \"To Him belongs glory before all time\" is the\nstatement of a simple fact.\n\nIt is those who know their own frailty and liability to sin; who know\nthe manifold temptations which surround them, and the terrible\nattractiveness which many of them can present; who know from past\nexperience what frequent and grievous falls are possible; that can\nbest understand the statement of fact which this doxology contains,\nand the significance of it. He who can guard such creatures as we are\nfrom stumbling, in such a world as this, must be the only God; must be\nHe who was, and is, and is to come; must possess throughout all time\nand all eternity the highest powers and glories which the heart of man\ncan conceive. The wonders of the material universe impress us in our\nmore solemn moments with feelings of awe, and reverence, and love for\nHim who is the Author of them all. How much more should the wonders of\nthe kingdom of heaven do so! Out of sinful man to make a saint is more\nthan to make a world out of nothing; and to keep sinful men from\nstumbling is more than to keep the stars in their courses. There is a\nfree and rebellious will to be won and retained in the one case,\nwhereas there is nothing but absolute and unresisting obedience in the\nother. The difference is that which is so beautifully expressed in the\n103rd and 104th Psalms. In the latter of these two exquisite songs of\npraise and thanksgiving Jehovah is praised as the Creator and\nRegulator of the world, in the former as the Pardoner and Preserver of\nHis servants. In the one case blessing and praise is offered to the\nLord--\n\n \"Who laid the foundations of the earth,\n That it should not be moved for ever.\n Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a vesture;\n The waters stood above the mountains.\n They went up by the mountains,\n They went down by the valleys,\n Unto the place which Thou hadst founded for them.\n Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over;\n That they turn not again to cover the earth.\n O Lord, how manifold are Thy works!\n In wisdom hast Thou made them all:\n The earth is full of Thy riches.\n Let the glory of the Lord endure for ever;\n Let the Lord rejoice in His works:\n Who looketh on the earth, and it trembleth;\n He toucheth the mountains, and they smoke.\"\n\n Ps. civ.\u00a05, 6, 8, 9, 24, 31, 32.\n\nBut in the other song the Lord is praised, not so much in relation to\nthe glorious universe which He creates and controls, but in relation\nto the spirits of men, whom He restores, and of angels, whom He\nretains, to willing obedience and service.\n\n \"Bless the Lord, O my soul,\n And forget not all His benefits:\n Who forgiveth all thine iniquities;\n Who healeth all thy diseases;\n Who redeemeth thy life from destruction;\n Who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies.\n He hath not dealt with us after our sins,\n Nor rewarded us after our iniquities.\n For as the heaven is high above the earth,\n So great is His mercy toward them that fear Him.\n As far as the east is from the west,\n So far hath He removed our transgressions from us.\n Bless the Lord, ye angels of His;\n Ye mighty in strength, that fulfil His word,\n Hearkening unto the voice of His word,\n Bless the Lord, all ye His hosts;\n Ye ministers of His, that do His pleasure.\"\n\n Ps. ciii.\u00a02, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21.\n\nIt is quite in harmony with such a strain as this that the joyous\ndoxology with which St.\u00a0Jude's stern letter suddenly ends is written.\nIts clauses lend themselves to that parallelism which distinguishes\nHebrew poetry, and they have not only the spirit, but the form, of a\nconcluding strophe of praise.\n\n \"Now unto Him that is able to guard you from stumbling,\n And to set you before the presence of His glory without blemish\n in exceeding joy,\n To the only God our Saviour,\n Through Jesus Christ our Lord,\n Glory, majesty, dominion and power,\n Before all time, and now, and for evermore. Amen.\"\n\nNOTE.--The \"Amen\" at the end of this Epistle, as at the end of Romans\nand 2\u00a0Peter, which like this close with a doxology, seems to be\ngenuine (comp. 1\u00a0Peter iv. II; v. II); but that at the end of 2\u00a0Peter\nis somewhat doubtful. In all other books of the New Testament,\nexcepting Galatians, the final \"Amen\" is probably spurious.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\nAbraham, the Friend of God, 160, 162.\n\nAbsolution, Forms of, 342.\n\nAcademy, 367.\n\n_Address to the Reader_, Translators', 119.\n\nAdultery, Spiritual, 227.\n\nAdvents of Christ, 278, 458.\n\n'\u00c6lius Gallus, 328.\n\nAgape, 428.\n\nAlbinus, 40.\n\nAlexander the Great, 163.\n\nAlford, 32, 399, 418.\n\nAlph\u00e6us, 27.\n\nAmasis, 173.\n\nAmen, 470.\n\nAmerican civil war, 235.\n\nAnanus, 40.\n\nAngels, Sinful, 408.\n\nAnointing the sick, 326.\n\nAntioch, Synod at, 369.\n\nAphraates, 22.\n\nApocrypha, 76, 145, 156, 204, 424.\n\nApostolic, Luther's view of, 23.\n\nAristotle, 67, 103, 156, 197.\n\nArrian, 182.\n\n_Assumption of Moses_, 422.\n\nAssumption of the Virgin, 384.\n\nAthanasius, 7, 16, 369.\n\nAugustine, 65, 98, 132, 207, 296, 300, 307, 334, 358, 369, 441.\n\nAuricular confession, 336, 340.\n\nAuthenticity of the Epistle of St.\u00a0James, 14; of St.\u00a0Jude, 365.\n\nAzazel, 411.\n\n\nBarnabas, Epistle of, 18, 23, 76.\n\nBaur, F. C., 138, 140.\n\nBede, 6, 8, 84, 103, 153, 172, 267, 268, 282, 285, 296, 331, 351.\n\nBellarmine, 339.\n\nBengel, 115, 285, 325, 418.\n\nBeyschlag, 60.\n\nBeza, 159, 222, 387, 418, 432, 454, 457.\n\nBias the sage, 173.\n\nBodenstein, 24.\n\nBritish Association, 346.\n\nBrother of the Lord, 28, 31, 374.\n\nBruce, 410.\n\nBr\u00fcckner, 60, 378, 390, 418.\n\nBuilding up, 456.\n\nButler, Archer, 383, 386.\n\nButler, Bishop, 99, 443.\n\n\nC\u00e6sar, Julius, 287.\n\nCajetan, 332, 336.\n\nCalendars, 31.\n\nCaligula, 349.\n\nCalvin, 222, 283, 319, 325, 360, 417, 432.\n\nCanonical, 2.\n\nCanonical Books, 17.\n\nCanonical Epistles, 1, 6.\n\nCarlyle, 166.\n\nCarpocrates, 389.\n\nCassian, 7.\n\nCassiodorus, 2, 285, 369.\n\nCatholic, 3.\n\nCatholic Epistles, 1, 10.\n\nCave, 6.\n\nCelsus, 328.\n\nCensuring, Love of, 251.\n\nCeriani, 422.\n\nChanning, 381.\n\nChrist's sayings in St.\u00a0James' Epistle, 100, 309.\n\nChristology of St.\u00a0James, 111.\n\nChrysostom, 292, 331, 338, 368.\n\nClement of Alexandria, 5, 21, 36, 76, 213, 307, 362, 369, 422.\n\nClement of Rome, 18, 20, 23, 160, 215, 245, 292, 295.\n\nClergy and laity, 324.\n\nClopas, 26, 27.\n\nConfession of sins, 336.\n\n_Confessions_ of St.\u00a0Augustine, 333.\n\nConjectural emendation, 405.\n\nConversation, 195.\n\nConverting sinners, 351, 357.\n\nCouncil of Hippo, 17.\n\n---- of Jerusalem, 35, 61.\n\n---- of Laodicea, 14, 17, 24.\n\n---- of Li\u00e8ge, 341.\n\n---- of Trent, 341.\n\nCovering sins, 351.\n\nCynics, 66, 315.\n\nCyprian, 368.\n\nCyrenaics, 265.\n\nCyril of Jerusalem, 7, 17.\n\n\nDate of St.\u00a0James' Epistle, 61.\n\n---- of St.\u00a0Jude's Epistle, 371, 375, 389.\n\n---- of the Book of Wisdom, 69, 75.\n\nDavidson, 45, 55, 112.\n\nDay of slaughter, 284.\n\nDefilement by the tongue, 177.\n\nDemons, 150.\n\nDenunciation, 181.\n\nDescriptive Genitive, 98, 108, 122, 447.\n\nDestruction of Jerusalem, 128, 276, 407.\n\nDeterminism, 93, 95.\n\nDevelopment of doctrine, 380.\n\nDevil, Personality of the, 150, 240.\n\nDe Wette, 378.\n\nDidymus of Alexandria, 369, 422.\n\nDillmann, 438, 440.\n\nDiognetus, 4.\n\nDispersion, Jews of the, 50, 53, 143.\n\nDisputed books, 2, 15, 366.\n\nD\u00f6llinger, 30, 31, 153, 273, 328, 400.\n\nDomitian, 324.\n\nDorner, 116, 390.\n\nDouay Version, 295.\n\nDouble-mindedness, 245.\n\nDoubtful readings, 281, 361, 391, 402.\n\nDoubtful renderings, 122, 174, 212, 213, 428, 430, 447.\n\nDoxologies, 466.\n\nDrummond, 423, 439.\n\n\nEbionism of St.\u00a0James, 83.\n\nEcclesiasticus, 69, 73, 109, 281.\n\n_Edinburgh Review_, 77.\n\nElders of the Church, 323.\n\nElijah's prayers, 344.\n\n_Enoch, Book of_, 409, 433, 437, 447.\n\nEnthusiasm of humanity, 231.\n\nEphrem Syrus, 370.\n\nEpicureans, 265, 283.\n\nErasmus, 222, 351, 353, 418.\n\nEssenes, 306.\n\nEucharist and Love-feast, 429.\n\nEusebius, 2, 14, 17, 162.\n\nEuthalius, 6.\n\nEvil-speaking, 259.\n\n_Expositor_, 98, 115.\n\nExtreme Unction, 326.\n\n\nFaith and works, 137, 143.\n\nFaith of Abraham, 156.\n\nFaith of the demons, 151.\n\nFaith of Rahab, 161.\n\nFarrar, F. W., 32, 70, 393, 399.\n\nFault-finding, Love of, 251.\n\nField, 415.\n\nFirst Prayer-Book of Edward VI., 333, 342.\n\nFree-will, 93.\n\nFriend of God, 160, 162.\n\nFronm\u00fcller, 399, 408.\n\n\nGelasius of Cyzicus, 422.\n\nGeneral Epistles, 5.\n\nGenevan Version, 372, 200, 454.\n\nGenitive, Characterizing, 98, 108, 122, 447.\n\nGentleman defined, 202.\n\nGeorgius Syncellus, 410, 438.\n\nGnosticism, 389.\n\nGreek Church, Forms of absolution in, 343.\n\nGregory Nazianzen, 268.\n\n_Guardian_, 333.\n\n\nHarnack, 20, 370.\n\nHarper, Jesuit, 385.\n\nHatch, 146, 256, 399.\n\nHearing without doing, 101.\n\nHefele, 14.\n\nHegesippus, 28, 36, 39, 374.\n\nHermas, 18, 20, 249.\n\nHerod the Great, 328.\n\nHexameter in St.\u00a0James' Epistle, 96.\n\nHilgenfeld, 49, 375, 399, 423.\n\nHippolytus, 20, 367.\n\nHoffmann, 438.\n\nHofmann, 399, 407, 410, 438.\n\nHolzmann, 60.\n\nHooker, 43, 65, 320, 339, 407, 452, 453.\n\nHornejus, 222.\n\nHutton, 95, 387.\n\n\nIgnatius, 3, 130, 212, 279, 429.\n\nInspiration, 298, 344, 405, 424.\n\nIntercession, 325, 342.\n\nIren\u00e6us, 20, 434, 438, 444.\n\n\nJames, The name, 25.\n\nJames of Alph\u00e6us, 27.\n\nJames the Just, 31, 36, 41, 47.\n\nJealousy, 198.\n\nJealousy, Divine, 234.\n\nJellett, 211.\n\nJeremy Taylor, 332.\n\nJerome, 7, 31, 366, 369.\n\nJerusalem, Destruction of, 128, 276, 407.\n\nJob, Character of the Book of, 297, 299.\n\n---- Coincidences with the Book of, 267, 281, 291.\n\nJohn, Coincidences with the Gospel of, 313.\n\nJosephus, 36, 39, 53, 221, 285, 349.\n\nJoy in temptation, 63.\n\nJudas not Iscariot, 372.\n\n---- of James, 372, 376.\n\nJudgment, Day of, 412.\n\nJulius C\u00e6sar, 287.\n\nJustin Martyr, 4, 130, 146, 429, 441.\n\n\nKeble, 101.\n\n\nLange, 285, 296, 399.\n\nLaodicea, Council of, 7, 14, 17, 24.\n\nLardner, 420.\n\nLast days, Meaning of the, 278.\n\nLateran Council, 341.\n\nLectionary, New, 76.\n\nLeo the Great, 340.\n\nLiddon, 116, 230.\n\nLight healing, 245.\n\nLightfoot, Bishop, 20, 32, 120, 367, 379, 429, 451.\n\n---- John, 77, 328.\n\nLincoln, President, 235.\n\nLove-feast, 428, 431.\n\nLucifer of Cagliari, 431.\n\nLuke, Coincidences with the Gospel of, 313.\n\nLuther, 23, 147, 159, 293, 427, 454, 457.\n\n\nMaking separations, 450.\n\n_Magnificat_, 236.\n\nMalchion, 370.\n\nManchester, Bishop of, 345.\n\nMansel, 392.\n\nMargoliouth, 79.\n\nMark, Coincidences with the Gospel of, 312.\n\nMartyrologies, 31.\n\nMatthew, Coincidences with the Gospel of, 310.\n\nMayor, J. B., 115.\n\nMessianic ideas in the _Book of Enoch_, 439.\n\nMetaphors of St.\u00a0James, 86, 88.\n\nMeyer, 32, 390.\n\nMidrash, 420.\n\nMocking at sin, 188, 448.\n\nMonica, 358.\n\nMoorhouse, Bishop, on prayers for rain, 345.\n\n_Moses, Assumption of_, 422.\n\nMuratorian Canon, 20, 367.\n\nMussus, 383.\n\n\nNature, Love of, 86, 231.\n\nNeander, 290, 325.\n\nNectarius, 340.\n\nNewman, J. H., 202, 266, 380, 383, 443.\n\nNicephorus, 422.\n\n\n\u0152cumenius, 285, 399, 418.\n\nOil, Use of, for the sick, 327, 331.\n\nOrigen, 5, 21, 307, 330, 337, 369, 372, 441.\n\n\nPaes, 105.\n\nPamphilus, 6, 7.\n\nPatience, Greek words for, 291.\n\n---- in criticism, 299.\n\n---- in waiting, 289.\n\nPattison, Mark, 208.\n\nPelagius, 307.\n\nPenitentiary presbyters, 340.\n\nPeshitto, 21, 30, 368.\n\nPeter, Coincidences with the Epistle of, 58, 85, 217, 256, 353.\n\nPetronius, 349.\n\nPhilip of Side, 325.\n\nPhilo, 52, 145.\n\nPlato, 67, 103, 218.\n\nPlumptre, 32, 349, 399.\n\nPlutarch, 162.\n\nPolycarp, 307.\n\nPositivism, 92, 94.\n\nPrayer for change of weather, 344.\n\nPredestination, 397.\n\nPresumption about the future, 262.\n\nProbabilism, 273.\n\nProculus Torpacion, 330.\n\nPublic confession of sins, 339.\n\nPunctuation, 91, 174, 220, 296, 334, 377.\n\nPurvey, 200, 212, 447.\n\n\nRabbi Simeon, 264.\n\nRahab, 20.\n\nReality of sin, 92.\n\nRemorse and free-will, 93.\n\nRenan, 122, 128, 371.\n\nResch, 56, 90, 233, 362.\n\nRespect of persons, 119, 134, 444.\n\nReuss, 141, 166, 390, 399.\n\nRevisers, Improvements made by the, 57, 80, 109, 114, 118, 119, 136,\n 151, 170, 175, 196, 226, 231, 335, 409, 445, 458, 465.\n\nRhemish Version, 80, 200, 292, 427, 430, 447, 457.\n\nRoman government in Palestine, 127.\n\nRomans, Coincidences with the Epistle to the, 57, 100, 272.\n\nRoyal law, 131.\n\n\nSalmon, 21, 50, 55, 69, 71, 139, 385, 425, 431.\n\nSarasa, 273.\n\nSarum Office, 342.\n\nSatan, Personality of, 150, 240.\n\nSchaff, 32, 399.\n\nSchott, 407, 418.\n\nSch\u00fcrer, 50, 423, 424, 439.\n\nSensual, Meaning of, in N.T., 200, 453.\n\nSeptimius Severus, 21, 330.\n\n_Sicarii_, 221.\n\nShadow of turning, 98.\n\nSham religion, 180, 192.\n\nSibylline oracles, 51.\n\n_Sinaiticus, Codex_, 5, 403.\n\nSlaughter, Day of, 284.\n\nSocrates, 340.\n\nSolidarity of the Divine Law, 132.\n\nSozomen, 340.\n\nStanton, 412, 439.\n\nStars, Wandering, 432.\n\nStier, 32, 199, 297, 325, 333, 399.\n\nStoicism, 66, 133, 315.\n\nStrauss, 381.\n\nStyle of St.\u00a0James, 62, 124.\n\nSuarez, 322.\n\nSubmission and penitence, 238, 246.\n\nSwearing, 302; when lawful, 306.\n\nSynagogue, Christian, 19, 118, 126.\n\nSyriac Version, 8, 21, 26, 30, 187, 368.\n\n\nTalkativeness, Perils of, 186.\n\nTaylor, Jeremy, 332.\n\nTeachers, responsibilities of, 167.\n\nTemper, 190.\n\nTemple, F., 189.\n\nTemptation, Joy in, 63.\n\n---- Source of, 90.\n\n---- not irresistible, 240, 243.\n\nTertullian, 307, 330, 337, 342, 368, 441.\n\nTestament of the Twelve Patriarchs, 249, 437.\n\nTheodore of Tarsus, 331.\n\nTischendorf, 7.\n\nTobit, 281, 295.\n\nTongue, Defilement by the, 177.\n\n---- The third, 187.\n\nToulouse, Council of, 341.\n\nTregelles, 7.\n\nTrench, 120.\n\nTrent, Council of, 341.\n\nTriplets in St.\u00a0Jude's Epistle, 396.\n\nTyndale, 200, 222.\n\n\nUnction, Extreme, 326.\n\nUnrecorded sayings of Christ, 56, 89, 249, 362.\n\n\nVerbal inspiration, 405.\n\n_Viaticum_, 332.\n\nVirginity, Perpetual, of Mary, 31.\n\nVulgate, Insertion in the, 5.\n\n\nWandering stars, 432.\n\nWeiss, 32, 70, 76, 399.\n\nWestcott, 4, 7, 17, 24, 434, 439, 458.\n\nWetstein, 296, 399.\n\nWiclif, 427, 447, 458.\n\nWiesinger, 399, 418.\n\nWieseler, 32.\n\nWilliams, Isaac, 444.\n\nWisdom, Book of, 69, 74, 287.\n\nWisdom from above, 205.\n\nWisdom from below, 194.\n\nWorld, Meaning of, in St.\u00a0James, 229.\n\nWorship and conduct, 317.\n\n---- and emotion, 315.\n\n---- and music, 320.\n\n\nZahn, 21, 70, 370.\n\nZealots, 198, 221, 277, 285.\n\n\n_Printed by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._\n\n\n\n\nBY THE SAME AUTHOR.\n\n_Sixth Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d._\n\nTHE PASTORAL EPISTLES.\n\nBy the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D.,\n\n_Master of University College, Durham._\n\n\n\"Dr. Plummer's name is a guarantee for sensible, scholarly work, and\nhis 'Pastoral Epistles' quite maintains its reputation.... It is an\nadmirable example of what popular theology ought to be--presuming a\nsomewhat high level of education and interest in its readers, and\nbuilt throughout upon sound erudition and sensible, devout, and\nwell-disciplined reflection.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n\"After a short statement of the grounds for believing in the Pauline\nauthorship of these Epistles, the writer takes some of the chief\nparagraphs of the text, explains their meaning, draws out their\nhistorical significance, and concludes with a practical application to\nmodern times of the truths contained in the paragraph. The treatment\nis throughout scholarlike, lucid, thoughtful.\"--_Guardian._\n\n\"The value of the expositions in themselves is much enhanced by the\nmode in which they are brought to bear on beliefs and practices of the\npresent age.\"--_Literary Churchman._\n\n\"Full of life and vigour.... No difficulty in the Epistles is evaded,\nrather are troublesome passages attacked with keener relish. Dr.\nPlummer has spared no pains on his task, and has produced what is\npractically the best commentary we have on these important\nEpistles.\"--_British Weekly._\n\n\"This volume preserves the reputation of its predecessors for being of\nhigh artistic merit, in the vividness with which it clothes doctrines\nand precepts, existing in abstract forms in the Epistles, with the\nconcrete realities of daily needs, brings them to change the metaphor\ninto full harmony with the symphonies of a holy life.\"--_Rock._\n\n\"The introductory chapter on the character and genuineness of the\nPastoral Epistles' is most masterly and conclusive.... The exposition\nis marked by sound and painstaking scholarship, sympathetic insight\ninto and careful analysis of the Apostle's thought.\"--_Nonconformist._\n\n\"The author of this work is already well known by his excellent\nvolumes on the Gospel and the Epistles of St.\u00a0John. Among other\nexcellencies in the new volume we may mention the first chapter of the\nexposition which discusses carefully and attractively the genuineness\nof the Epistles annotated.\"--_Methodist Tunes._\n\n\nLONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON.\n\n\n\n\nTHE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n_Crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d. each vol._\n\n\nFIRST SERIES.\n\n Colossians.\n By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D., D.Lit.\n\n St.\u00a0Mark.\n By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Derry.\n\n Genesis.\n By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n 1\u00a0Samuel.\n By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.\n\n 2\u00a0Samuel.\n By the same Author.\n\n Hebrews.\n By Principal T. C. EDWARDS, D.D.\n\n\nSECOND SERIES.\n\n Galatians.\n By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A., D.D.\n\n The Pastoral Epistles.\n By the Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.\n\n Isaiah I.--XXXIX.\n By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n The Book of Revelation.\n By Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.\n\n 1\u00a0Corinthians.\n By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D,\n\n The Epistles of St.\u00a0John.\n By the Most Rev. the Archbishop of Armagh.\n\n\nTHIRD SERIES.\n\n Judges and Ruth.\n By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n Jeremiah.\n By the Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.\n\n Isaiah XL.-LXVI.\n By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n St.\u00a0Matthew.\n By the Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.\n\n Exodus.\n By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Derry.\n\n St.\u00a0Luke.\n By the Rev. H. BURTON, M.A.\n\n\nFOURTH SERIES.\n\n Ecclesiastes.\n By the Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.\n\n St.\u00a0James and St.\u00a0Jude.\n By the Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.\n\n Proverbs.\n By the Rev. R. F. HORTON, D.D.\n\n Leviticus.\n By the Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.\n\n The Gospel of St.\u00a0John.\n By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n The Acts of the Apostles.\n By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n\nFIFTH SERIES.\n\n The Psalms.\n By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n 1 and 2\u00a0Thessalonians.\n By Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.\n\n The Book of Job.\n By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n Ephesians.\n By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A., D.D.\n\n The Gospel of St.\u00a0John.\n By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n The Acts of the Apostles.\n By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n\nSIXTH SERIES.\n\n 1\u00a0Kings.\n By the Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, F.R.S.\n\n Philippians.\n By Principal RAINY, D.D.\n\n Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.\n By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.\n\n Joshua.\n By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.\n\n The Psalms.\n By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n The Epistles of St.\u00a0Peter.\n By Prof. RAWSON LUMBY, D.D.\n\n\nSEVENTH SERIES.\n\n 2\u00a0Kings.\n By the Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, F.R.S.\n\n Romans.\n By the Right Rev. H. C. G. MOULE, D.D.\n\n The Books of Chronicles.\n By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, D.D., D.Lit.\n\n 2\u00a0Corinthians.\n By Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.\n\n Numbers.\n By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n The Psalms.\n By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. III.\n\n\nEIGHTH SERIES.\n\n Daniel.\n By the Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, F.R.S.\n\n The Book of Jeremiah.\n By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, D.D., D.Lit.\n\n Deuteronomy.\n By Prof. ANDREW HARPER, B.D.\n\n The Song of Solomon and Lamentations.\n By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.\n\n Ezekiel.\n By Prof. JOHN SKINNER, M.A.\n\n The Books of the Twelve Prophets.\n By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Two Vols\n\n\n\n\nLITTLE BOOKS ON RELIGION.\n\nEdited by Rev. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.\n\nCloth Elegant, 1_s._ 6_d._ each.\n\n\n Christ and the Future Life.\n By R. W. DALE, D.D., LL.D.\n\n The Seven Words from the Cross.\n By Rev. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.\n\n The Visions of a Prophet. Studies in Zechariah.\n By Rev. Professor MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n The Four Temperaments.\n By Rev. ALEXANDER WHYTE, D.D.\n\n The Upper Room.\n By Rev. JOHN WATSON, M.A., D.D. (Ian Maclaren).\n\n The Unity and Symmetry of the Bible.\n By Rev. Professor MONRO GIBSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n Gospel Questions and Answers.\n By Rev. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.\n\n Why be a Christian?\n By Rev. Professor MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n Four Psalms.\n By Rev. Professor G. A. SMITH, D.D.\n\n The Holy Father and the Living Christ.\n By Rev. PETER TAYLOR FORSYTH, D.D., Cambridge.\n\n Christian Perfection.\n By the same Author.\n\n From Strength to Strength.\n By Rev. J. H. JOWETT, M.A., of Carr's Lane Chapel, Birmingham.\n\n Restored Innocence.\n By Rev. R. J. CAMPBELL, B.A., Brighton.\n\n Aids to Belief.\n By the Right Rev. G. A. CHADWICK, D.D., Lord Bishop of Derry.\n\n The Print of the Nails.\n By T. H. DARLOW, M.A.\n\n The Four Gospels.\n By the Rev. R. H. FISHER, B.D.\n\n The Seven Deadly Sins.\n By the Rev. JAMES STALKER, M.A., D.D.\n\n\nLONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON.\n\n\n\n\nOUTLINES OF A PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.\n\nBased on Psychology and History.\n\nBy AUGUSTE SABATIER, Dean of the Faculty of Protestant Theology,\nParis. Authorised Translation by Rev. T. A. SEED. Crown 8vo cloth,\n7_s._ 6_d._\n\n\n\"This is a striking book.\"--_Literature._\n\n\"It contains matters of surpassing interest. The volume is an\nattractive one, and the translation well accomplished.\"--_The\nExpository Times._\n\n\"Seldom have we read any book with so much mental satisfaction and\nmoral delight.\"--_Methodist Times._\n\n\"It is a fascinating book. It quivers with the intense emotion of a\nfine spirit who has lived through the experience embodied in the\nbook.\"--_The Aberdeen Free Press._\n\n\n\n\nTHE PROVIDENTIAL ORDER OF THE WORLD.\n\nBy ALEXANDER BALMAIN BRUCE, D.D., Professor of Apologetics and New\nTestament Exegesis in the Free Church College, Glasgow. Crown 8vo,\ncloth, 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n\n\"The lectures are excellent literature, and will add to the reputation\nhe already enjoys as a scholar and theologian.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n\"We can cordially thank Professor Bruce for what deserves to be called\na noble book.\"--_Glasgow Herald._\n\n\"It is able in thought and clear in exposition; it shows a wide grasp\nof the subject, and a considerable acquaintance with all the varieties\nof philosophical speculation thereupon; it is tolerant, and its\nestimates of current thought are generally suggestive.\"--_Times._\n\n\n\n\nTHE MINISTRY OF THE HOLY GHOST.\n\nBy Rev. JOHN MORGAN, Viewforth Free Church, Edinburgh. Crown 8vo,\ncloth, 5_s._\n\n\n\"A most interesting work.... Many earnest Christians will find in\nthese pages the reflection of their own spiritual difficulties and\nanxieties.\"--_Record._\n\n\"A volume of good sound practical discourses.\"--_Methodist Times._\n\n\nLONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON.\n\n\n\n\n_WORKS BY THE RIGHT REV. HANDLEY C. G. MOULE, D.D.,_\n\n_LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM._\n\n\n\n\nTwenty-first Thousand. Fcap 8vo, 2_s._ 6_d._\n\nOUTLINES OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.\n\n_One of the Volumes of the_ THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR.\n\n\n\"Mr. Moule has attempted a very difficult task, and has at least\nsucceeded in condensing an immense mass of information into a small\ncompass. It is perhaps superfluous to say that his work is\ncharacterised by great reverence from the first page to the last. At\nevery point the reader feels that he is reading a statement of a\ntheology which is the life of the writer. In the more strictly\ntheological part the summary is, as a rule, arranged and expressed\nexcellently.\"--_Guardian._\n\n\n\n\nDR. MOULE'S COMMENTARIES ON ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES.\n\nCrown 8vo, cloth, 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n\nThe Epistle to the Romans.\n\n_In the_ EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n\"We do not hesitate to place it in the very front of the little group\nof volumes which are the best examples of this carefully edited work.\nIt would be pleasant to linger upon this commentary, upon the\nclearness with which the great evangelical doctrines of the Epistle\nare explained and enforced, upon the earnestness of its personal\nappeal, and the charm which often marks its language; but the\njudicious student of the New Testament will obtain the book for\nhimself.\"--_Record._\n\n\nCrown 8vo, cloth, 5_s._\n\nEphesian Studies.\n\n\nCrown 8vo, cloth, 5_s._\n\nPhilippian Studies.\n\nLessons in Faith and Love from St.\u00a0Paul's Epistles to the Philippians.\n\n\"Dr. Moule carefully translates and paraphrases each section of St.\nPaul's Epistle to the Philippians, and draws out the permanent lessons\nof faith and love which it contains; he has made a wise choice of the\nbook of the Bible on which to comment, and has treated it with\nwisdom and reverence.... It is a book to be pondered over in\nmeditation, and we think that those who so use it will find themselves\nrepaid.\"--_Guardian._\n\n\nCrown 8vo, cloth, 5_s._\n\nColossian Studies.\n\nLessons in Faith and Holiness from St.\u00a0Paul's Epistles to the\nColossians and Philemon.\n\n\"Dr. Moule has not only given to us a faithful and scholarly\ntranslation of St.\u00a0Paul's Epistles, but he has most carefully brought\nout the full teaching of faith and love in a series of beautiful\nmeditations altogether devotional. This is an invaluable addition to\nour devotional commentaries of St.\u00a0Paul's Epistles, and we trust that\nthe learned author may be led to continue his studies yet further in\nthis grand field of practical meditation, which not only enlightens\nthe human mind, but must deepen and quicken the spiritual life within\nus. The book is a marvel of cheapness.\"--_Church Bells._\n\n\nLONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON.","title":"The Expositor's Bible: The General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":145240}