a new phase of this tendency to outward forms, and again the connexion between faith and life was rent asunder. Much which James says of this tendency in his day, might be applied to this case with equal propriety.

This question, whether James is here contending against a misapprehension of the Pauline doctrine, or has no reference whatever to it—is by no means necessarily connected with the question of the relation of Paul's teaching to that of James. James might have intended to oppose a misunderstanding of Paul's doctrine-nay, even the doctrine itself, if he had first met with it in this erroneous form, without previous understanding with Paul in regard to his object; and yet a perfect harmony might be shown to exist between the two methods of exhibiting truth, each serving as the complement of the other. For it may easily happen, when one man has formed—in accordance with his peculiar course of training, and the bearing of the counter-view which is before his mind—his own peculiar mode of conceiving and stating a truth; that the very opposition made to it by another, conceiving the same truth from a different point of view, may show their essential agreement; what was intended to counteract serving only to explain and complete. Thus a representation of Christian truths, even if called forth by opposition to the peculiarly Pauline form of doctrine, might have found place as a completing link, in that collection of writings containing the original pure revelation of Christian truth. Both these forms of conception and teaching might constitute parts of the same whole, as being mutually completive, in the one revelation of the Holy Spirit through different human

organs inspired by him. Their relation to each other must therefore be especially considered hereafter.

Now although it is possible that such a form of externalizing, as the one we have mentioned, might attach itself to the Pauline doctrine, and though, as we have seen, this was afterwards actually the case; the question still remains, whether we are justified in assuming this in regard to the particular Churches brought to our knowledge in this Epistle. It was in Churches like these, formed among Jews and exclusively of Jewish converts, that a perversion of the Pauline doctrine was most unlikely to arise; inasmuch as the Pauline stand-point was one with which they had nothing in common. The Pauline view of faith presupposes the strongly marked distinction between Law and Gospel, a doctrinal position opposed to legal righteousness, to the merit of one's own works. Opposition to the Jewish tendency to externals was the precise ground on which it planted itself; and where that tendency prevailed, a perverted form of this view could as little gain admission as the view itself.

But to resume our question: may not this particular error-the false idea of faith and over-estimation of mere faith-which James opposes, be also traced back to the same radical tendency? Let us only compare what precedes and what follows the discussion of this topic in the second chapter. It is preceded (chap. i.) by a rebuke of those who founded an imaginary claim on the mere hearing of the word, on the mere knowledge of it, without holding themselves bound to practise it; to which is added the rebuke of a mere fancied and seeming service of God. What now is this but that very same spirit of reliance on the external, which

manifests itself in a mere adherence to certain articles of faith-faith in the one true God, the Messiah-and on this ground alone claims to be righteous, without recognising the demands of this faith upon the life? As knowledge and practice are at war with each other, so are faith and life. A merely theoretical faith corresponds exactly to a merely theoretical knowledge. The same man, who satisfies himself with being able to discourse much of the law without obeying it, is also the one who makes a boast of his faith, without holding himself bound to the practice of that which faith requires. The same man who finds the essence of religion in certain external works, and claims to be a true worshipper of God merely on the ground of professing the true religion, is the one also who claims to be accounted righteous through a faith which produces no works. If we turn now to what follows (chap. iii.), we find that James is here rebuking those who were ever ready to exalt themselves into teachers of others; but who, by teaching what they did not practise, made themselves the more liable to condemnation. What then is this but that same radical tendency over again? And on what ground should we be justified in rending the intermediate passage from its connexion, and making it refer to something else, the explanation of which must be sought elsewhere than in this one radical tendency?

It is true, that in the manner of meeting these errors, which we will now further consider, James is distinguished in a peculiar way from Paul. It is the more practical man in contrast with the more systematic ; the man to whose wholly Jewish development, faith in Christ was superadded as the crown and completion, in contrast with him, whose faith in Christ took the form

of direct opposition to his earlier Jewish views, as the centre of a wholly new creation. Hence with James,

opposition to error takes more the form of single propositions and exhortations; with Paul it is a connected view, in which all proceeds from one central point. With James the reference to Christ appears only as one particular among others, a peculiarity especially objected to this Epistle, as if Christ were not to be found in it; while with Paul, on the contrary, the chief object is to exalt Christ, who is everywhere placed foremost, and is everywhere represented as the centre of the whole life, from whom all is derived, to whom all is referred. But yet, in these single propositions and admonitions of James, we are able to trace the higher unity lying at the basis; and can show that all have reference to Christ as the living centre, even though he is not expressly named. There may be a form of moral development, which receives its true light and its true significance through reference to him as its centre and source, although he is not expressly recognised by name; and his name may be often on the lips, while yet the whole inward character has formed itself without reference to him. In this light we must now endeavour to understand the controversial and admonitory passages of this Epistle.

The Churches to whom it was addressed consisted of rich and poor; and undoubtedly the latter were the more numerous class among the Christians. We know that the gospel everywhere, and especially among the Jews, found freer entrance with the poor and lowly than among the rich and powerful. Not that riches in themselves exclude from the kingdom of God, or necessarily form a hindrance to faith in the Gospel. When

Christ says, that it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God, he means such as he who gave occasion to these words; those to whom-though perhaps unconsciously the earthly is the highest good; whose treasure being on earth cannot, therefore, be in heaven; whose heart belongs to the earth where their treasure is, and is therefore far from that direction towards heaven, without which no one can ever share in its blessedness. Indeed he himself adds in the same connexion, that although the salvation of a rich man is impossible with men, i.e. by mere human means, yet with God all is possible. He would say by this, that divine help is needful, in order that riches may not prove a hindrance to the attainment of the kingdom of God. This then is the import of the words; not that riches in themselves are a hindrance to this object, but that misdirection of the affections into which the rich man more than others is liable to fall. The rich should be awakened to a consciousness of this, and should be incited by a sense of the difficulties inherent in his case, to apply to God for the strength which he needs ; that even while in possession of all earthly riches, he may still keep his treasure in heaven and his heart directed thither. In this Epistle itself we learn what is necessary to the rich for this purpose. Yet though riches are not, in themselves, a hindrance to participation in the kingdom of God, still it was often the case among the Jews, that the rich and mighty forgot in worldly enjoyments the higher wants of the inner man ; lost the fixed consciousness of dependence on him, whose power confers and disposes all; imagining that they possessed all things, they had no room left for the