"Though this Epistle of St.
James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it anti regard it as a good
book, because it sets up no doctriile of men and and lays great stress
UP017 God's law. But to state my own opiilion about it, though without ,
injury to anyone, I consider that it is not the writing of any apostle. M?:
reasons are as follows:
"First: Flatly in contradiction to St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture
it ascribes righteousness to works and savs that Abraham was justified
by his worlcs in that he offered his son -1saac, though St. Paul, on
the contrary, teaches, in Romans 4 that Abraham was justified without works, by faith alone, before he offered his so11 ancl proves it by hloses in Genesis 15. Now, although this Epistle might be helped and a gloss be found for this work-righteousness, it cannot be defended against
a~l~lvintog works the saying of Moses in Genesis 15, which speaks only
of Abrahai-u's faith a d not of his works, as St. Paul shows in Romans 4.
'Inhis fault, therefore, leads to the conclusion that it is not the work of
ail!. npostlc.
"Second: Its purpose is to teach Christians, and in all its teach in^ it does not oncc mention the Passion, the Iiesurrcction, or the Spirit ok s t . The writer names Christ several times but he teaches nothing about Him and only speaks of cornmoll faith in God. Eut it is the duty of a true apostlc to preach about the foundation of faith, as He, I-Iimself
sa\.s, in John 15, 'Ye shall bear witness of me.' All the genuine sacred h d s agree in this that all of them preach Cbrist and deal . That is the true test hy which to judge all books when rve see whether thcy deal with Christ or not, since all the Scriptures show us Christ
(Romans 3 ) , and St. Paul is deternlined to know nothing but Christ (I
Corinthians 15). What docs not teach Christ is not apostolic even
tl~ough St. Peter or Paul taught it; again, what preaches Christ would
be apostolic even though Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod did it.
.........
"But this James does nothing more than to drive to the law and
its works; and he mixes the two up in such disorderly fashion that it
seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took some
sayings of the apostles' disciples and threw them thus on paper; or perhaps
they were written clown by someone else on the basis of his preaching.
He calls the law a 'law of liberty' though St. Paul calls it a law of
slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin (Galatians 3, Romans 7).
"Moreover, in chapter 5 he quotes the sayings of St. Peter, 'Love
covereth the multitude of sins' (I Peter 4) and, 'Humble yoursclves
under the hand of God' (1 Peter 5), and of St. Paul (Galatians 5),
'The Spirit lusteth against hatred,' and yet, in point of time, St. James
was put to dcath by Herod, in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems
that he came long after St. Peter and Paul.
"In a word, he wants to guard against those who relied on faith
without works and is unequal to the task in spirit, thougl~t and words,
and wrests the Scri and thereby resists Paul and all Scriptures
insisting on the law what the apostles accom-
Therefore I cannot put it among the chief
prevent anyone from putting it where
pleases; for there are many good sayings
in it."
