bly a metaphor, as Rufinus translates
it,' propter regnum dei eunuchum'; see
Matt. six. 12and comp. Athenag. Suppl.
33, 34, Clem. Alex. Paed. iii. 4, p. 269,
Strom, iii. 1. p. 509 sq); rbv /uxpiv /wv
avBpurov (' my insignificance'; comp.
Rom. vi. 6 i ra\aibs rm&v duBpuros,
2 Cor. iv. 16 o j-|« iinuv oMponros, 1 Pet.
iii. 4 b Kpinrrbs rijt KapStas w/Bponros).
The whole passage is a very rude speci-
men of the florid 'Asiatio' style, which
even in its higher forms Cicero con-
demns as suited only to the ears of a
people wanting in polish and good taste
Orator, 25) and which is described by
another writer as Ko/xtiustjs Kalippvaypui-
rlas Kal Kevov yavpid/iaros KoX <pi\orinias
ivoiiid\ov ni<rr6s, Plut. Vit. Anton. 2;
see Bernhardy Griech. Litt. i. p. 465.
On the other hand it is possible—I think
not probable—that St John did wear
this decoration as an emblem of his
Christian privileges; noronght this view
to cause any offence, as inconsistent
with the spirituality of his character.
If in Christ the use of external symbols
is nothing, the avoidance of them is no-
thing also. But whether the statement
of Polycrates be metaphor or matter of
fact, its significance, as in the case of
the Paschal celebration, is to be learnt
from the Apostle's own language in the
Apocalypse, where not only is great
stress laid on the priesthood of the be-
lievers generally (i. 6, v. 10, xx. 6), bat
even the special privileges of the high-
priest are bestowed on the victorious
Christian (Rev. ii. 17, as explained by
Zilllig, Trench, and others: see Stanley
1. c. p. 285; comp. Justin Dial. 116
&pXiepatiKbv rb dXifSvbv T^roi ianibr
Tov 6eo0, and see below, p. 218). The
expression is a striking example of the
lingering power not of Ebionite tenets
but of Hebrew imagery.
1 See above, p. 64, note 3.
A lapse of more than thirty years spent in the midst of a The Gos
Gentile population will explain the contrasts of language and Epiistles
imagery between the Apocalypse and the later writings of St co"trasted
John, due allowance being made for the difference of subject1, pared with
theApocaThe language and colouring of the Gospel and Epistles are no lypse.
longer Hebrew; but so far as a Hebrew mind was capable of the transformation, Greek or rather Greco-Asiatic. The teaching of these latter writings it will be unnecessary to examine; for all, I believe, will allow their general agreement with the theology of St Paul; and it were a bold criticism which should discover in them any Ebionite tendencies. Only it seems to be often overlooked that the leading doctrinal ideas which they contain are anticipated in the Apocalypse. The passages which I have quoted from the latter relating to the divinity of Christ are a case in point: not only do they ascribe to our Lord the same majesty and power; but the very title 'the Word,' with which both the Gospel and the first Epistle open, is found here, though it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. On the other hand, if the Apocalypse seems to assign a certain prerogative to the Jews, this is expressed equally in the sayings of the Gospel that Christ 'came to his own' (i. 11), and that 'Salvation is of the Jews' (iv. 22), as it is involved also in St Paul's maxim 'to the Jew first and then to the Gentile.' It is indeed rather a historical fact than a theological dogma. The difference between the earlier and the later writings of St John is not in the fundamental conception of the Gospel, but in the subject and treatment and language. The Apocalypse is not Ebionite, unless the Gospel and Epistles are Ebionite also.
3. St James occupies a position very different from St St James r r' holds a
1 Owing to the difference of style, the Apocalypse. Writers of the Tumany critics have seen only the alterna- bingen school reject the Gospel and tive of denying the apostolic authorship Epistles but accept the Apocalypse, either of the Apocalypse or of the Gos- This book alone, if its apostolical aupel and Epistles. The considerations thorship is conceded, seems to me to urged in the text seem sufficient to furnish an ample refutation of thenmeet the difficulties, which are greatly peculiar views, increased if a late date is assigned to
Peter or St John. If his importance to the brotherhood of Jerusalem was greater than theirs, it was far less to the world at large. In a foregoing essay I have attempted to show that he was not one of the Twelve. This result seems to me to have much more than a critical interest. Only when we have learnt to regard his office as purely local, shall we appreciate the traditional notices of his life or estimate truly his position in the conflict between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Reasons A disbeliever in the Lord's mission to the very close of His
appoint- earthly life, he was convinced, it would seem, by the appearance "nt of the risen Jesus1. This interposition marked him out for some special work. Among a people who set a high value on advantages of race and blood, the Lord's brother would be more likely to win his way than a teacher who would claim no such connexion. In a state of religious feeling where scrupulous attention to outward forms was held to be a condition of favour with God, one who was a strict observer of the law, if not a rigid ascetic, might hope to obtain a hearing which would be denied to men of less austere lives and wider experiences. These considerations would lead to his selection as the ruler of the mother Church. The persecution of Herod which obliged the Twelve to seek safety in flight would naturally be the signal for the appointment of a resident head. At all events it is at this crisis that James appears for the first time with his presbytery in a position though not identical with, yet so far resembling, the 'bishop' of later times, that we may without much violence to language give him this title (Acts xii. 17, xxi. 18). His allegi- As the local representative then of the Church of the law. ' Circumcision we must consider him. To one holding this position the law must have worn a very different aspect from that which it wore to St Peter or St John or St Paul. While they were required to become 'all things to all men,' he was required only to be 'a Jew to the Jews.' No troublesome questions of conflicting duties, such as entangled St Peter at 1 See above, p. 17.
Antioch, need perplex him. Under the law he must live and die. His surname of the Just1 is a witness to his rigid observance of the Mosaic ritual. A remarkable notice in the Acts shows how he identified himself in all external usages with those 'many thousands of Jews which believed and were all zealous of the law' (xxi. 20). And a later tradition, somewhat distorted indeed but perhaps in this one point substantially true, related how by his rigid life and strict integrity he had won the respect of the whole Jewish people'.
A strict observer of the law he doubtless was; but whether The acto this he added a rigorous asceticism, may fairly be questioned. HegesipThe account to which I have just referred, the traditionpns preserved in Hegesippus, represents him as observing many formalities not enjoined in the Mosaic ritual. 'He was holy,' says the writer,'from his mother's womb. He drank no wine nor strong drink, neither did he eat flesh. No razor ever touched his head; he did not anoint himself with oil; he did not use the bath. He alone was allowed to enter into the holy place (ei? ra ayta). For he wore no wool, but only fine linen. And he would enter into the temple (vaov) alone, and be found there kneeling on his knees and asking forgiveness for the people, so that his knees grew hard like a camel's knees, because he was ever upon them worshipping God and asking forgiveness for the people.' There is much in this account not trustwhich cannot be true: the assigning to him a privilege which w° was confined to the high-priest alone, while it is entangled with the rest of the narrative, is plainly false, and can only have been started when a new generation had grown up which knew nothing of the temple services3. Moreover the account of his
1 In the account of Hegesippus, re- rigid lives: compare also Acts i. 23,
ferred to in the following note, 6 Sikouk xviii. 7, Col. iv. 11 (with the note).
'Justus' is used almost as a proper 3 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. ii.
name. Two later bishops of Jerusalem 23.
in the early part of the second century 3 It is perhaps to be explained like also bear the name 'Justus' (Euseb. the similar account of St John: see H. E. iv. 5), either in memory of their above, p. 121, note 1. Compare Stanpredecessor or in token of their own ley Apostolical Age p. 324. Epiphanius
testimony and death, which follows, not only contradicts the brief contemporary notice of Josephus1, but is in itself so melodramatic and so full of high improbabilities, that it must throw discredit on the whole context*.
(Haer. lxxviii. 14) makes the same statement of St James which Polycrates does of St John, rijaKov erl T?)s «0a
1 Josephus (Antiq. xx. 9. 1) relates that in the interregnum between the death of Festus and the arrival of Albinus, the high-priest Ananus the younger, who belonged to the sect of the Sadduoees (notorious for their severity in judicial matters), considering this a favourable opportunity niaSifei avviSpiov Kpirur, Kal rapayayuv els airrb rbv d.Se\<pbv 'Iriaov Toc \eyonivov Xpurrov, 'I<Uu/Sos ovofia aura, Kot ncas Iripovs, us rapavonriadmioy Katr/yoplav roir/ffiufcos rapiSuxe \evaBrjaoniyw$. This notice is wholly irreconcilable with the account of Hegesippus. Yet it is probable in itself (which the account of Hegesippus is not), and is such as Josephus might be expected to write if he alluded to the matter at all. His stolid silence about Christianity elsewhere cannot be owing to ignorance, for a sect which had been singled out years before he wrote as a mark for imperial vengeance at Rome must have been only too well known in Judsea. On the other hand, if the passage had been a Christian interpolation, the notice of James would have been more laudatory, as is actually the case in the spurious passage of Josephus read by Origen and Eusebius (II. E. ii. 23, see above, p. 68, note 2), but not found in existing copies. On these grounds I do not hesitate to prefer the account in Josephus to that of Hegesippus. This is the opinion of Neander (Planting I. p. 367, Eng. Trans.), of Ewald(Geschichte vi.p. 547), and of some few writers besides (so recently Qerlach Rdmiiche Statthalter
etc. p. 81, 1865): but the majority take the opposite view.
2 The account is briefly this. Certain of the seven sects being brought by the preaching of James to confess Christ, the whole Jewish people are alarmed. To counteract the spread of the new doctrine, the scribes and Pharisees request James, as a man of acknowledged probity, to 'persuade the multitude not to go astray concerning Jesus.' Inorder that he may do this to more effect, on the day of the Passover they place him on the pinnacle (irrepiyu>y) of the temple. Instead of denouncing Jesus however, he preaches Him. Finding thenmistake, the scribes and Pharisees throw him down from the height; and as he is not killed by the fall, they stone him. Finally he is despatched by a fuller's club, praying meanwhile for his murderers. The improbability of the narrative will appear in this outline, but it is much increased by the details. The points of resemblance with the portion of the Recognitions conjectured to be taken from the 'Ascents of James' (see above, p. 87) are striking, and recent writers have called attention to these as showing that the narrative of Hegesippus was derived from a similar source (Uhlhorn Clement, p. 367, Ritschl p. 226 sq). May we not go a step farther and hazard the conjecture that the story of the martyrdom, to which Hegesippus is indebted, was the grand jinak of these 'Ascents,' of which the earlier portions are preserved in the Recognitions? The Recognitions record how James with the Twelve refuted the Jewish sects: the account of Hegesippus makes the conversion of certain of these sects the starting-point of the persecution which
We are not therefore justified in laying much stress on this He was tradition. It is interesting as a phenomenon, but not trust- an ascetic, worthy as a history. Still it is possible that James may have been a Nazarite, may have been a strict ascetic. Such a representation perhaps some will view with impatience, as unworthy an Apostle of Christ. But this is unreasonable. Christian devotion does not assume the same outward garb in all persons, and at all times; not the same in James as in Paul; not the same in mediaeval as in protestant Christianity. In James, the Lord's brother, if this account be true, we have the prototype of those later saints, whose rigid life and formal devotion elicits, it may be, only the contempt of the world, but of whom nevertheless the world was not and is not worthy.
But to retrace our steps from this slippery path of tradition to St James firmer ground. The difference of position between St James part from and the other Apostles appears plainly in the narrative of the tjjeTwelve so-called Apostolic council in the Acts. It is Peter who Acts, proposes the emancipation of the Gentile converts from the law; James who suggests the restrictive clauses of the decree. It is
led to his martyrdom. In the Becog- from an Ebionite source, he has done
nitions James is represented ascending no more than Clement of Alexandria
the stairs which led up to the temple did after him (see above, p. 80), than
and addressing the people from these: Epiphanius, the scourge of heretics,
in Hegesippus he is placed on the pin- does repeatedly. The religious romance
nacle of the temple whence he delivers sterns to have been a favourite style of
his testimony. In the Recognitions he composition with the EsseneEbionites:
is thrown down the flight of steps and and in the lack of authentic informa
left as dead by his persecutors, but is tion relating to the Apostles, Catholic
taken up alive by the brethren; in writers eagerly and unsuspiciously ga
Hegesippus he is hurled from the still thered incidents from writings of which
loftier station, and this time his death they repudiated the doctrines. It is
is made sure. Thus the narrative of worthyof notice that though the Essena
Hegesippus seems to preserve the con- are named among the sects in Hege
summation of his testimony and his sippus, they are not mentioned in the
sufferings, as treated in this romance, Recognitions; and that, while the Re
the last of a series of 'Ascents,' the cognitions lay much stress on baptisms
first of these being embodied in the and washings (a cardinal doctrine of
Recognitions. Essene Ebionism), this feature entirely
If Hegesippus, himself no Ebionite, disappears in the account of James
has borrowed these incidents (whether given by Hegesippus. directly or indirectly, we cannot say)
and in the Catholic
Peter who echoes St Paul's sentiment that Jew and Gentile alike can hope to be saved only 'by the grace of the Lord Jesus'; James who speaks of Moses having them that preach him and being read in the synagogue every sabbath day. I cannot but regard this appropriateness of sentiment as a subsidiary proof of the authenticity of these speeches recorded by St Luke.
And the same distinction extends also to their own writings. St Peter and St John, with a larger sphere of action and wider obligations, necessarily took up a neutral position with regard to the law, now carefully observing it at Jerusalem, now relaxing their observance among the Gentile converts. To St James on the other hand, mixing only with those to whom the Mosaic ordinances were the rule of life, the word and the thing have a higher importance. The neutrality of the former is reflected in the silence which pervades their writings, where 'law' is not once mentioned1. The respect of the latter appears in his differential use of the term, which he employs almost as a synonyme for ' Gospel*.'
But while so using the term 'law,' he nowhere implies that the Mosaic ritual is identical with or even a necessary part of Christianity. On the contrary he distinguishes the new dispensation as the perfect law, the law of liberty (i. 25, ii. 12), thus tacitly implying imperfection and bondage in the old. He assumes indeed that his readers pay allegiance to the Mosaic law (ii. 9, 10, iv. 11), and he accepts this condition without commenting upon it. But the mere ritual has no value in his eyes. When he refers to the Mosaic law, he refers to its moral, not to its ceremonial ordinances (ii. 8—11). The external service of the religionist who puts no moral restraint on himself, who will not exert himself for others, is pronounced deceitful and vain. The external service, the outward garb, the very ritual, of Christianity is a life of purity and love and self-devotion1. What its true essence, its inmost spirit, may be, the writer does not say, but leaves this to be inferred.
Gospel a higher law.
1 As regards St John this is true only of the Epistles and the Apocalypse: in the Gospel the law is necessarily mentioned by way of narrative. In 1 Joh. iii. 4 it is said significantly
ij afiaprla iarlv ij avoida.. In St Peter neither Ybi<u>s nor &vo/da occurs.
s The words eiayyi\iov, eiayyi\lfcaBai, do not occur in St James.
Thus, though with St Paul the new dispensation is the St James negation of law, with St James the perfection of law, the ideas paui. underlying these contradictory forms of expression need not be essentially different. And this leads to the consideration of the language held by both Apostles on the subject of faith and works.
The real significance of St James's language, its true relation Faith and to the doctrine of St Paul, is determined by the view taken of the persons to whom the epistle is addressed. If it is intended to counteract any modification or perversion of St Paul's teaching, then there is, though not a plain contradiction, yet at all events a considerable divergency in the mode of dealing with the question by the two Apostles. I say the mode of dealing with the question, for antinomian inferences from his teaching are rebuked with even greater severity by St Paul himself than they are by St James*. If on the other hand the epistle is directed against an arrogant and barren orthodoxy, a Pharisaic self-satisfaction, to which the Churches of the Circumcision would be most exposed, then the case is considerably altered. The language of the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians at once suggests the former as the true account. But further consideration leads us to question our first rapid inference. Justification and faith seem to have been common terms, Abraham's faith a common example, in the Jewish schools". This fact, if allowed, counteracts the prima facie evidence on the other side, and leaves us free to judge from the tenour of the epistle itself. Now, since in this very passage St James mentions as the object of their vaunted faith, not the funda
1 James i. 26, 27. Coleridge directs New Testament and elsewhere, as the
attention to the meaning of 0pijo-*eia, 'oultus exterior,' see Trenoh Synon.
and the consequent bearing of the text, § xlviii.
in a well-known passage in Aids to * e.g. Rom. vi. 15—23, 1 Cor. vi.
Reflection, Introd. Aphor. 23. For the 9—20, Gal. v. 13 sq. signification of BpijaKela both in the 3 See Galatians, p. 164. 1 Rom. x. 9. who however considers that St James
mental fact of the Gospel 'Thou believest that God raised Christ from the dead1,' but the fundamental axiom of the law 'Thou believest that God is one2'; since moreover he elsewhere denounces the mere ritualist, telling him that his ritualism is nothing worth; since lastly the whole tone of the epistle recalls our Lord's denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees, and seems directed against a kindred spirit; it is reasonable to conclude that St James is denouncing not the moral aberrations of the professed disciple of St Paul (for with such he was not likely to be brought into close contact), but the self-complacent orthodoxy of the Pharisaic Christian, who, satisfied with the possession of a pure monotheism and vaunting his descent from Abraham, needed to be reminded not to neglect the still 'weightier matters' of a self-denying love. If this view be correct, the expressions of the two Apostles can hardly be compared, for they are speaking, as it were, a different language. But in either case we may acquiesce in the verdict of a recent able writer, more free than most men both from traditional and from reactionary prejudices, that in the teaching of the two Apostles 'there exists certainly a striking difference in the whole bent of mind, but no opposition of doctrine8.' Ebionite Thus the representation of St James in the canonical Scrip
smtations tures differs from its Ebionite counterpart as the true portrait
?f St from the caricature. The James of the Clementines could not
explained, have acquiesced in the apostolic decree, nor could he have held out the right hand of fellowship to St Paul. On the other hand, the Ebionite picture was not drawn entirely from imagination. A scrupulous observer of the law, perhaps a rigid ascetic, partly from temper and habit, partly from the requirements of his position, he might, without any very direct or conscious falsification, appear to interested partisans of a later age to represent their own tenets, from which he differed less in the external forms of worship than in the vital principles of religion. Moreover during his lifetime he was compromised by those with whom his office associated him. In all revolutionary periods, whether of political or religious history, the leaders of the movement have found themselves unable to control the extravagances of their bigoted and short-sighted followers: and this great crisis of all was certainly not exempt from the common rule. St Paul is constantly checking and rebuking the excesses of those who professed to honour his name and to adopt his teaching: if we cannot state this of St James with equal confidence, it is because the sources of information are scantier.
- ii. 19. Comp. Clem. Hom. iii. 6 sq. is writing against perversions of St 3 Bleek (Einl. in das N. T. p. 550), Paul's teaching.
Of the Judaizers who are denounced in St Paul's Epistles His relathis much is certain; that they exalted the authority of the tbe juja;. Apostles of the Circumcision: and that in some instances at zersleast, as members of the mother Church, they had direct relations with James the Lord's brother. But when we attempt to define these relations, we are lost in a maze of conjecture.
The Hebrew Christians whose arrival at Antioch caused the Antioch. rupture between the Jewish and Gentile converts are related to have 'come from James' (Gal. ii. 12). Did they bear any commission from him? If so, did it relate to independent matters, or to this very question of eating with the Gentiles? It seems most natural to interpret this notice by the parallel case of the Pharisaic brethren, who had before troubled this same Antiochene Church, 'going forth' from the Apostles and insisting on circumcision and the observance of the law, though they 'gave them no orders' (Acts xv. 24). But on the least favourable supposition it amounts to this, that St James, though he had sanctioned the emancipation of the Gentiles from the law, was hot prepared to welcome them as Israelites and admit them as such to full communion: that in fact he had not yet overcome scruples which even St Peter had only relinquished after many years and by a special revelation; in this, as in his recognition of Jesus as the Christ, moving more slowly than the Twelve.
Turning from Antioch to Galatia, we meet with Judaic Galatia. teachers who urged circumcision on the Gentile converts and,
as the best means of weakening the authority of St Paul, asserted for the Apostles of the Circumcision the exclusive right of dictating to the Church. How great an abuse was thus made of the names of the Three, I trust the foregoing account has shown: yet here again the observance of the law by the Apostles of the Circumcision, especially by St James, would furnish a plausible argument to men who were unscrupulous enough to turn the occasional concessions of St Paul himself to the same account. But we are led to ask, Did these false teachers belong to the mother Church? had they any relation with James? is it possible that they had ever been personal disciples of the Lord Himself? There are some faint indications that such was the case; and, remembering that there was a Judas among the Twelve, we cannot set aside this supposition as impossible. Corinth. In Corinth again we meet with false teachers of a similar
stamp; whose opinions are less marked indeed than those of St Paul's Galatian antagonists, but whose connexion with the mother Church is more clearly indicated. It is doubtless among those who said 'I am of Peter, and I of Christ,' amoDg the latter especially, that we are to seek the counterpart of the Galatian Judaizers1. To the latter class St Paul alludes again in the Second Epistle: these must have been the men who ' trusted to The two themselves that they were, of Christ' (x. 7), who invaded fiart1fis1ng another's sphere of labour and boasted of work which was ready to hand (x. 13—16), who were 'false apostles, crafty workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ' (xi. 13), who 'commended themselves* (x. 12, 18), who vaunted their pure Israelite descent (xi. 21—23). It is noteworthy that this party of extreme Judaizers call themselves by the name not of James, but of Christ. This may perhaps be taken as a token that his concessions to Gentile liberty had shaken their confidence in his fidelity to the law. The leaders of this extreme party would appear to have seen Christ in the flesh: hence their watchword 'I am of Christ'; hence also St Paul's counter-claim that 'he was of Christ' also, and his unwilling boast that he had himself had visions and revelations of the Lord in abundance (xii. 1 sq). On the other hand, of the party of Cephas no distinct features are preserved; but the passage itself implies that they differed from the extreme Judaizers, and we may therefore conjecture that they took up a middle position with regard to the law, similar to that which was occupied later by the Nazarenes. In claiming Cephas as the head of their party they had probably neither more nor less ground than their rivals who sheltered themselves under the names of Apollos and of Paul.
1 Several writers representing dif- interpreted. (2) The remonstrance im
ferent schools have agreed in denying mediately following (/uiUpiarai i Xpi
the existence of a ' Christ party.' Fos- aros) shows that the name of Christ,
sibly the word 'party' may be too which ought to be common to all, had
strong to describe what was rather a been made the badge of a party. (3)
sentiment than an organization. But In 2 Cor. x. 7 the words et T« rhroiBty
if admissible at all, I cannot see how, iavr$ Xpurrov dvai and the description
allowing that there were three parties, which follows gain force and definite
the existence of the fourth can be ques- ness on this supposition. There is in
tioned. For (1) the four watchwords fact more evidence for the existence of
are co-ordinated, and there is no indi- a party of Christ than there is of a
cation that i'-yi Si Xpurrov is to be party of Peter, isolated from the others and differently
Is it to these extreme Judaizers that St Paul alludes when Letters of he mentions 'certain persons' as 'needing letters of recommen- dation. dation to the Corinthians and of recommendation from them' (2 Cor. iii. 1)? If so, by whom were these letters to Corinth given? By some half-Judaic, half-Christian brotherhood of the dispersion? By the mother Church of Jerusalem? By any of the primitive disciples? By James the Lord's brother himself? It is wisest to confess plainly that the facts are too scanty to supply an answer. We may well be content to rest on the broad and direct statements in the Acts and Epistles, which declare the relations between St James and St Paul. A habit of suspicious interpretation, which neglects plain facts and dwells on doubtful allusions, is as unhealthy in theological criticism as in social life, and not more conducive to truth.
Such incidental notices then, though they throw much light Inferences on the practical difficulties and entanglements of his position, notices, reveal nothing or next to nothing of the true principles of
St James. Only so long as we picture to ourselves an ideal standard of obedience, where the will of the ruler is the law of the subject, will such notices cause us perplexity. But, whether this be a healthy condition for any society or not, it is very far from representing the state of Christendom in the apostolic ages. If the Church had been a religious machine, if the Apostles had possessed absolute control over its working, if the manifold passions of men had been for once annihilated, if there had been no place for misgiving, prejudice, treachery, hatred, superstition, then the picture would have been very different. But then also the history of the first ages of the Gospel would have had no lessons for us. As it is, we may well take courage from the study. However great may be the theological differences and religious animosities of our own time, they are far surpassed in magnitude by the distractions of an age which, closing our eyes to facts, we are apt to invest with an ideal excellence. In the early Church was fulfilled, in its inward dissensions no less than in its outward sufferings, the Master's sad warning that He came 'not to send peace on earth, but a sword.'