Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 13.djvu/581

 JAMES 555 in &quot; circulation under the name of James,&quot; and lie quotes from it in another place (Works, xii. 129) as that of James, without any comment. Dionysius of Alexandria, who was at the head of the catechetical school there (245), quotes from the epistle. These are all the notices of the epistle on which dependence can be placed before the council of Laodicea (363), when it was included among the canonical books. But there seems no doubt that the words &quot; well known and recognized by most,&quot; used by Eusebius indicate that the epistle was by him regarded as a part of Scripture, for in other portions of his works he alludes to it as if he so esteemed it, and evidence of its recognition in the Syrian Church speaks strongly in favour of its authenticity. For that church was most likely to have the best knowledge concerning the origin and early circulation of the epistle. We can account for the slight extent to which it was known from the fact that it was addressed, by a bishop who never moved from his home, to one section only of the Christian church, and was not likely to gain such wide acceptance at first as the epistles of St Paul, whose missionary labours made his name ami his writings well known in different countries. Moreover, the tone of the epistle is practical and not doctrinal, and for this reason also it would be less likely to be noticed in the writings of the Christian fathers. Indeed, this feature of the epistle led Luther, who thought there was in it some contradiction to St Paul s teaching on the doctrine of justi fication by faith, to call it eine rechte stroherne Epistd (ed. of German N. T., 1522), &quot; a veritable epistle of straw.&quot; But language like this is due to the distorted way in which the great Reformer looked at the subject. His day called for prominence to be given to the Pauline view of justification. St James s day had different needs. The character of those for whom this epistle was intended and their special dangers are sufficient to account for the way in which St James emphasizes what St Paul would as stoutly have maintained in a like case, that &quot;faith without works is dead.&quot; The view given above, which dates the epistle before the rise of the Pauline controversy, has been ably maintained by many recent theologians, especially in Germany, in opposition to the Tubingen school. See Schneckenburger s Annotatio, 1832 ; Huther s Com- menhir, 1858, 3d ed. 1870 ; Neander, Pflanzung, 4th ed. 1847, p. 564 scq.; Ritschl, Altkath. Kirchc, 2d ed. 1857, p. 109 scq., and Rcclitf. und Vers ulm., 1874, ii. 277 scq. ; &quot;Weiss, Bib. Thcol. dcs N. T., Isted. 1863, 2d ed. 1873; Beyschlag in Stud, und Krit. , 1874, i.; Hofmann, Heilige Schrift, vii. 3, 1876. Other scholars, while defending the genuineness of the epistle, recognize in it dis tinct allusions to the Pauline theology, and so prefer a later date. So, for example, Ewald (Gcschichte, vi. 591 scq. ; Scndsch. ail d. Heb. u. Jakobos Rimdsch., 1870), who takes the epistle as directed against mistaken inferences from Paul s teaching. The Tiibingen school, on the other hand, regards the epistle as directly anti-Pauline, and at the same time denies that it is genuine. So Baur, Paulus, 2d ed. 1867, Anh. 2; Schwcgler, Nachap. Zcital, 1846, i. 413 scq. ; Hilgenfeld, Einl., 1875, and in Z. f. w. T., 1877, p. 87 scq.; Blom, Da Brief van Jacobus, Dort, 1869, and in Thcol. Tijdsch., 1872, p. 241 scq. See also Holtzmann in Schenkel s Bibcllcx., s.v. Jakobosbrief. &quot; The argument turns mainly on the interpretation of the doctrine of faith and works in chap. ii. 24, which formally at least is in direct opposition to Rom. iii. 28. In other words, Luther s difficulty is still the chief turning-point of the argument. Now it is certain that the antithesis between Paul and James is not really so sharp as it appears in the verses just cited, because the two do not attach the same meaning to the word &quot; faith.&quot; In fact, James s faith without works is not Paul s justifying faith, but the useless faith without love spoken of in 1 Cor. xiii. We have to deal with two types of doctrine using the same terms in different senses, so that it is not inconceivable that the two may really be capable of such reconciliation iu the practical Christian life as to make their divergences unimportant. But, say Baur and his school, there is no proof and great internal improbability that any type of doctrine existed before Paul, maintaining justification by faith alone, pre cisely in Pauline terms, and using the very illustrations of Abraham and Rahab which occur in the Pauline theology and the kindred epistle to the Hebrews. Starting with this difficulty, and indicating in detail the proofs of the author s familiarity with the peculiar ter minology of the great Pauline epistles, the Tiibingen school urge also that James ii, 5, i. 12 presuppose acquaintance with Rev. ii. 9, 10, and even that the allusion to Rahab (ii. 25) proves the author to have read Heb. xi. 31. Further, it is contended that the sup posed marks of an early date, in the condition of the churches addressed, are capable of another interpretation, and that the perse cution alluded to may be best understood of the time of Domitian. Finally, the language of the epistle is regarded as a proof that the date is not very early, and the author different from the thoroughly Hebrew figure of James as described by Hegesippus. The weight of these arguments is plainly very unequal, and the ultimate solu tion of the controversy must mainly be in the region of Biblical theology, where one side has often been tempted to minimize the difference between James and Paul, while the other has not done justice to the positive value of the teaching of our epistle, often speaking of it as a mere ineffective polemic against Paul by one who did not understand him. Compare further Alford, Gk. Test. ; Wordsworth, Gk. Test. ; Bishop Lightfoot s Essay on the Brethren of the Lord ; Davidson s Introduction to the N. Test. ; Plumptre, St James ; Semler. Paraphrasis Ep. Jacobi, 1781 ; Monod, Intro duction d Tep. de S. Jacques, 1846 ; &quot;Wiesinger, &quot; Der Brief des Jakobus,&quot; in Olsliausen s Bibclwcrk, 1854 ; Boon, DC Jacobi cpistolse, cum Siracidae libro com-enientia, 1860 ; Reuss, L Evitre de Jacques, 1878. (J. R. L.) JAMES I. (1394-1 437), king of Scotland, third son of Robert III. and of Annabella Drummond of Stobhall, was born at Dunfermline in 1394. A second son, John, did not survive infancy. David, duke of Rothesay, the eldest son, had died under suspicious circumstances while committed to the care of the king s brother the duke of Albany, to whom had also been delegated the virtual government of the kingdom ; and the king, in order to secure the safety of the surviving son, resolved in 1405 to place him under the protection of the king of France. The prince, however, on his way thither fell into the hands of the English, and Henry IV. determined not to admit him to ransom. On the death of his father, April 13, 1406, James became nominal sovereign, but, as he was still retained in captivity in England, the duke of Albany continued regent, and was succeeded, on his death in 1419, by his son Murdoch. At first James was confined in the Tower of London, but in 1407 he was removed to the castle of Nottingham, where he enjoyed as much liberty as was compatible with detention, and was treated in all respects by his governor, Sir John Pelham, as a member of the household. The physical and intellectual training begun at St Andrews under Bishop Wardlaw was completed by the most accomplished tutors, so that he not only attained to high proficiency in all kinds of manly sports, but reached perhaps a more varied and thorough culture than any of his contemporaries. His figure was not much if at all above the middle height, and, though thickset, was finely proportioned. His agility was no less remarkable than his strength ; he not only excelled in throwing the hammer and putting the stone, but in all kinds of athletic feats demand ing suppleness of limb and quickness of eye. As regards his intellectual attainments he is reputed to have been well acquainted with philosophy, and it is evident from his subsequent procedure as a sovereign that he had made a special study of jurisprudence; while, besides being a pro ficient in instrumental and vocal music, he cultivated the art of poetry with a success not surpassed by any previous English writers with the exception of his models Gower and Chaucer. Henry Y., on succeeding his father in 1413, removed James to close confinement in the Tower, but shortly afterwards took him to Windsor, and in 1417, with the view of detaching the Scotch auxiliaries from the French standard, invited him to accompany him in his expedition against France. From this time, and especially after the death of the duke of Albany in 1419, James was treated with much consideration; and, having given a pledge of his friendly intentions towards England by his marriage with Lady Jane Beaufort, February 2, 1424, he finally obtained his release in the end of March of the same year, the Scottish nation agreeing to pay a ransom of 40,000, in name of expenses for his maintenance while in captivity..