chapter also there is a quotation from Josephus ascribing the calamities of the Jewish war to the guilt incurred by the murder of James. This, however, seems to be incorrectly quoted, as no such passage is now found in Josephus; though it is also referred to, as existing, by Origen, and others".

There is obviously much confusion and inaccuracy in the different accounts given by Eusebius of this Apostle. The improbability of some of the statements in the extract from Hegesippus has been remarked upon by different critics. These however are points, into which it is not necessary for me to enter. They are discussed with fairness by Lardner, who gives also large references to other authorities. Thus much may at all events be admitted, as clearly established-that St. James held the first place in the church at Jerusalem, having been formally elected to fill it-that he was held in general estimation on account of his great piety, humility, temperance, and strict observance of the duties, which his station imposed-that on these accounts he obtained the surname of "the Just"and that he suffered martyrdom in a tumult at Jerusalem about the year 62.

Now that there is no more especial mention of James in the gospels, and that no very peculiar character is attributed to him in them, of itself affords

6 Euseb. H. E. 1. ii. c. 23.

7 Supplement to the Credibility of the Gosp. Hist. c. xvi.

a presumption, that the qualities of his mind were not so strongly marked as those of some of the other Apostles. We should not therefore expect to find in his writings those characteristics, which we might look for in the respective works of St. Peter, St. John, or St. Paul; while the veneration attached to his name on account of the simple virtues of his life, mark out other qualities as distinguishing his conduct, and therefore probably to be recognised in his works.

It accords with what we have been able to collect of his habits and sentiments, that, if we were called upon to assign a character to the writings of St. James, we might describe them as the most purely and entirely practical of those of any of the Apostles. We do not find in them the close and pithy argument, or the deep and connected views of revelation, and of the dealings of God with man, which characterise the epistles of St. Paul. They do not exhibit the same high-toned feelings-the same delight in doctrinal mysteries, or breathe the full spirit of love, which pervades the writings of the beloved disciple. But they are remarkable for a plain unpretending simplicity-a contempt for worldly things; and a direct and undeviating attention to the practical duties of life, which suits well with the character of him, to whom they are attributed.

The head of the church at Jerusalem, he ad

dresses his epistle "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad"-an expression which probably comprehends the whole Jewish nation, whether Christians or not: for though much of the epistle can apply only to his Christian brethren, there are other passages which would seem rather to refer to the unconverted Jews; and it is not improbable that James, held, as he was, in high esteem by the whole nation, would address himself to all his brethren, "if by any means he might save some of them." Remarkable himself for the humility of his mind, he reproves with earnest sincerity the vanity of worldly pride and pomp1. Austere in his own habits, he rebukes with severity the vices and luxuries of the rich. He does not indulge in high speculations, but enforces plain rules. He dwells less on doctrinal truths than on the results they are to produce: less again on the inward state of the heart, which is the principle of religion, than on the outward conduct, which is its proof. He warns those whom he addresses to be "Doers of the Word, and not hearers only 3." "Pure religion," says he, "and undefiled before God and the Father is this; to visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." And in the same spirit is his exposure of the error of those,

9 St. James iv. 1 ; v. 1. 4. 6. 3 i. 22.

1 ii. 1-6.

2 V. 1-5.

4 i. 27.

who had abused to Antinomian licentiousness the free grace of God in the justification of sinners by faith in Christ 5.

The plain, simple, and practical character of this epistle has caused it sometimes to be undervalued by those, who delight more in the religious feelings and views, which can be indulged in vague speculation, and barren sensation, than in those which require to be brought to the test of practice in the every-day transactions of life. They again, who have imagined that St. James in correcting the errors, into which some had fallen by misapplying the language of St. Paul, intended to controvert the doctrine of justification by faith, as laid down by the latter Apostle, have on this account been prejudiced against it.

Thus Luther, in his zeal for the doctrine of justification by faith alone, or irritated by the application of a particular passage in support of two of the errors of the Church of Rome, has been led to speak slightingly of this epistle. But Luther,

5 ii. 14.

v. 14—16. adduced in support of the Romish Sacrament of extreme unction; and of the practice of auricular confession. The only passage in the common editions of Luther's works, in which he speaks slightingly of the epistle of St. James, is in the book "De Capt. Babyl.," where, with reference to the above passage, he says—“ Omitto, quod hanc epistolam non esse Apostoli Jacobi, nec Apostolico spiritu dignam, multi valde probabiliter asserant." The charge ordinarily brought against him of having called it an epistle of straw "strami

when thus led away by the heat of a warm temper, and a vehement style, cut himself off from deriving the support he should have done to his main views from this epistle in which the practical fruits of righteousness are so powerfully set forth. He, whose very war-cry was "optima pænitentia nova vita," should have hailed St. James as an auxiliary in his attack upon the system of religious fraud and moral delusion which it was his object to overthrow.

Let his error be our warning-a warning not to presume to judge Holy Writ from preconceived

66

neam," with other contemptuous epithets, is founded on one of the early prefaces to his German Bible; and as the words do not appear in any edition printed later than 1525, it may fairly be assumed, that Luther regretted the use of such language, though it does not follow from this, that he had changed his opinion with respect to the epistle. But it should be observed, that he never spoke of it absolutely, as an 'epistle of straw," but relatively. The words are “S. Jacobi epistolam non posse dignitate certare cum epistolis S. Petri et Pauli, sed epistolam stramineam esse, si cum illis comparetur." Now this is a very different thing from speaking of it, as contemptible in itself. The language is doubtless unjustifiable: but the fact of attributing higher importance to the truths revealed in one portion of Holy Writ, than to those contained in another, is perfectly compatible with the admission of the genuineness of both, and with respect for their inspired authority. St. Paul's epistle to the Romans is more important than that to Philemon. Had Luther contented himself with saying, that St. James' epistle did not appear to him of such consequence as those of St. Peter and St. Paul, we should probably have rather judged the comparison uncalled for, and therefore unsuitable, than denied its correctness, if compelled to make it.-[For the controversy respecting these expressions of Luther, see Bayles' Dict. Art. Luther.]