form of strife and faction.  It had been predicted by our Lord that the effect of this would be to chill the love of many of his visible followers and withdraw them from his service.  In truth the descriptions of these unworthy members of the Jewish Christian community which we find in this epistle, in the second of Peter, and in that of Jude, are but the realization, in most particulars, of the state of things foretold in the following remarkable words of the Saviour:  “And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.  And many false prophets shall arise and shall deceive many.  And because iniquity shall abound the love of many shall wax cold.  But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”  Matt. 24:10-13.

5.  For the genuineness and canonical authority of the present epistle we have a very important testimony in the Old Syriac version (Peshito), which represents the judgment of the Eastern churches where the epistle was originally circulated.  The remaining testimonies prior to the fourth century are scanty and some of them not very decisive.  They may be all seen in Davidson’s Introduction to the New Testament, and in the critical commentaries generally.

It cannot be reasonably doubted that the words of Irenaeus, “Abraham himself, without circumcision and without the observance of Sabbaths, believed in God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God” (Against Heresies, 4.30), refer to James 2:23.  Origen quotes the epistle as “current under the name of James,” and intimates that some did not acknowledge its apostolic authority.  But he elsewhere cites it as that of “James the Lord’s brother,” “the apostle James,” “the apostle,” and simply “James.”  See in Kirchhofer Quellensamlung, pp. 263, 264.  Eusebius reckons the epistle among the books that were “disputed, but known nevertheless to many.”  Hist.  Eccl., 3, 25.  Elsewhere he says:  “It is regarded as spurious; at least not many of the ancients have made mention of it.”  Hist.  Eccl., 2. 23.  But these words cannot be regarded as expressing Eusebius’ own opinion; for he himself quotes him as “the holy apostle,” and his words as “Scripture.”  See in Davidson’s Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 3, p. 336; Kirchhofer Quellensamlung, p. 264.

In the course of the fourth century the canonical authority of this epistle was gradually more and more acknowledged, and in the fifth its reception in the churches of both the East and the West became universal.

“This is just what we might expect:  a writing little known at first, obtains a more general circulation, and the knowledge of the writing and its reception go almost together.  The contents entirely befit the antiquity which the writing claims; no evidence could be given for rejecting it; it differs in its whole nature from the foolish and spurious writings put forth