James
Epistola Catholica B. Jacobi ApostoliIntroductions
Enciclopedia Cattolica
The first of the seven catholic epistles (v.) of the New Testament.
There is no central theme, developed according to a logical division. The main ideas follow one another in this order: Ch. 1 "James, servant of Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes [living] in the diaspora [wishes] joy" — Rejoice in sorrow: ask God for this wisdom. — Temptation does not come from God, but from the passions; from God comes every good thing. — Listen to and practice the word of God. Ch. 2: Show no favoritism toward the rich. — Faith without works is dead. Ch. 3: Bridle the tongue. — True wisdom is charitable. Ch. 4: The cause of wars is the passions. Master them with charity and patience. — Avoid slander and reckless plans. Ch. 5: Woe to you, O rich, proud, unjust, vicious! — You who are oppressed, be patient, imitating the farmer, the prophets, Job. — Do not swear in vain. — Let the one who suffers pray. Let the one who is cheerful sing psalms. — Let the sick person call the presbyters, who will administer Extreme Unction (v.) to him. — Confess your sins. — Pray as the just do. — Convert sinners.
Haydock
The seven following Epistles have been called Catholic or general, not being addressed to any particular Church or person, if we except the Second and Third of St. John. They are called also Canonical, having been received by the Church as part of the canon of the New Testament, and as writings of divine authority. It is a matter of fact allowed by every one, that five of these epistles, to wit, this of St. James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John, that of St. Jude, as also the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John, were doubted of , and not received always and every where in the three first ages[centuries], till the canon and catalogue of Scripture books was examined by tradition, and determined by the authority of the Catholic Church, the supreme judge of all controversies in matters of faith and religion, according to the appointment of our Saviour, Christ, expressed in many places in the holy Scriptures. But I could never learn upon what grounds they who deny the Catholic Church and General Councils to be of an infallible authority, and who deny Christ's promises to guide his Church in all truth to the end of the world, can be certain which Scriptures or writings are canonical, and which are not. I could never understand what construction to put on the sixth of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England. We there meet with this declaration: In, or by the name of the holy Scripture, we understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. These I have mentioned were certainly for some time doubted of; they are still doubted of by some of the late reformers: Luther, the great doctor of the reformation, is not ashamed to say that this epistle of St. James is no better than straw, and unworthy of an apostle. These writings therefore, according to the said declaration, ought not to be accounted and received as canonical; and yet before the end of the said sixth article, it is again declared, that all the books of the Old and New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account canonical. And in all New Testaments of the Church of England, all these are received for canonical in the same manner as the four gospels, without any remark or advertisement to the contrary. --- The first of the seven epistles was written by St. James, surnamed the lesser, and James of Alpheus, (Matthew 10:3.) one of the twelve apostles, called the brother of our Lord, (Galatians 1:19.) who was made bishop of Jerusalem. His mother is thought to have been Mary, sister to the blessed Virgin Mary, and to have been married first to Alpheus, and afterwards to Cleophas; to have had four sons, James, Joseph, Simon, (or Simeon) and Jude, the author of the last of these epistles. All these four being cousins-german, are called brothers of our Lord, Matthew xiii. 55. How great a veneration the Jews themselves had for this apostle and bishop of Jerusalem, see not only Hegisippus apud Eusebius, lib. ii. hist. chap. 23. and St. Jerome de viris illustribus, also the same St. Jerome in Galatians 1:19. (tom. iv, p. 237, lib. 1. contra Jovin. tom. iv, part 2, p. 182.) but even Josephus, (lib. xxviii. Jewish Antiquities, chap. 8.) where he calls him the brother of Jesus, surnamed the Christ. This epistle was written about the year 62.[A.D. 62.] The chief contents are: 1. To shew that faith without good works will not save a man, as St. Augustine observed, lib. de fid. et oper. ch. IV.; 2. He exhorts them to patience, to beg true wisdom, and the divine grace; 3. He condemns the vices of the tongue; 4. He gives admonitions against pride, vanity, ambition, etc.; 5. To resist their disorderly lusts and desires, which are the occasions and causes of sin, and not Almighty God; 6. He publisheth the sacrament of anointing the sick with oil; 7. He recommends prayer, etc. St. Jerome, in a letter to Paulinus, (t. iv. part 2, p. 574.) recommends all these seven epistles in these words: James, Peter, John, and Jude, published seven epistles....both short and long, short in words, long as to the content; Jacobus, Petrus, Joannes, Judas, septem epistolas ediderunt....breves pariter et longas, breves in verbis, longas in sententiis. (Witham) --- St. Gregory of Nazianzus remarks, that the faithful were not agreed as to the number of these epistles; some admitted seven and some only three, viz. this of St. James, the first of St. John, and the first of St. Peter:iqt Katholikon Epistolon ∫ Tines men epta phasin, oi de treis monas ∫ Chrenai dechesthai ten Iakobou mian, ∫ Mian de Petrou, tente Ioannou mian. --- Naz. Carm. de Script. Canon. We shall state at the beginning of each epistle, the reason why they have been adopted into the canon of Scripture. (Calmet) --- The object of these epistles was, according to the remark of St. Augustine, to refute the rising errors of Simon Magus, the Nicolaites, and other such heretics, who abusing the liberty of the gospel, and perverting the meaning of St. Paul's words in his epistle to the Romans, pretended that faith alone, without good works, was sufficient for salvation; although St. Paul expressly requires Christians, a faith working by charity, (Galatians 5:6.; 1 Corinthians 13.) where he uses these emphatic words: "If I should have all faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (St. Augustine, lib. de fide et operibus, chap. 14. (Calmet) --- As to what regards the authenticity of St. James' epistle, although Luther with his usual boldness asserts that many with good reason denied this epistle to be canonical, and affirmed that it was unworthy the pen of an apostle, yet, admitting that some individuals in the first ages[centuries] of the Church doubted of its authority, we are nevertheless assured from certain monuments that it was always considered as sacred and inspired both by the Latin and Greek Churches. This is evident from the sixtieth canon of the council of Laodicea; from the forty-seventh of the council of Carthage, in 397; from Origen, hom. vii. in Josue; from St. Athanasius in synopsi, Epiphanius haeresi 76; from St. Jerome, ad Paulinum Epis.; from St. Augustine, lib. ii. de Doc. Chris. ch. VIII; from St. Gregory of Nazianzus, tom. iii, p. 98; from Amphilochus, apud St. Gregory of Nazainzus, tom. ii. p. 194; from Innocent I., Epis. ad Decentium; from Rufinus, Exposit. Symboli; and from Gelasius I., who in the fifth age[century], in a council of seventy bishops, at Rome, settled the canon of the genuine books of the holy Scripture, and distinguished them from what are spurious. (Cal. et Habert de Sacr. Ext. Un.) --- St. Jerome and St. Augustine quote frequently this epistle as the undoubted work of this apostle; and since their time, its authenticity has never been called in question by Catholics. It is believed St. James wrote this epistle in Greek, as he quotes the Scripture according to the version of the Septuagint, as in Chap. 4:6; and as this language was commonly spoken in the East by the dispersed Jews, to whom he wrote. His style is concise and sententious, like that of Solomon in his proverbs, and like the maxims of the Orientals even to the present day. (Calmet)
__________
Douay 1582/1609
THE ARGVMENT OF THE EPISTLE OF S. IAMES. 4 paragraphs
THIS Epistle (as the rest folovving) is directed specially, as S. Augustine saith, against the errour of only faith, vvhich some held at that time also, by misconstruing S. Paules vvordes. Yea not only that, but many other errours (vvhich then also vvere annexed vnto it, as they are novv) doth this Apostle here touche expresly.
He saith therfore, that not only faith, but also good vvorkes are necessarie: that not only faith, but also good vvorkes do iustifie: that they are actes of Religion, or seruice and vvorship of God: that to keepe al the commaundements of God, and so to abstaine from al mortal sinne, is not impossible, but necessarie: that God is not author of sinne, no not so much as of tentation to sinne: that vve must stay our selues from sinning, vvith feare of our death, of the Iudgement, of hel: and stirre our selues to doing of good, vvith our revvard that vve shall haue for it in heauen. These pointes of the Catholike faith he commendeth earnestly vnto vs, inueighing vehemently against them that teach the cōtrarie errors. Hovvbeit he doth vvithal admonish not to neglect such, but to seeke their conuersion, shevving them hovv meritorious a thing that is. Thus then he exhorteth generally to all good vvorkes, & dehorteth from al sinne. but yet also namely to certaine, & from certaine: as, from acception of persons, from detraction and rash iudging, from concupiscēce and loue of this vvorld, from svvearing: and, to praier, to almes, to humilitie, confession and penance: but most copiously to patience in persecution.
Novv, Vvhich Iames vvrote this epistle. vvho this Iames vvas: It is not be, vvhose feast the Church keepeth the 25 of Iulie, vvhich vvas S. Iohns brother, and vvhose martyrdom vve haue Act. 12. but he, vvhom the Church vvorshippeth the first of Maie, vvho is called Frater Domini, our lordes brother, and brother to Iude, and vvhich vvas the first Bishop of Hierusalem, of vvhom vve reade Act. 15 & 21. and also Gal. 2. of vvhose vvonderful austeritie and puritie of life, the Ecclesiasticall stories do report. Euseb. li. 2. c. •2. Hiero. in Catalogo.
Therfore as the old High-priest had povver and charge ouer the Ievves, not only in Hierusalem and Iurie, but also dispersed in other Countries (as vve vnderstand Act. 9. v. 1, & 2.) so S. Iames likevvise, being Bishop of Hierusalem, and hauing care not only of those Ievves vvith vvhom he vvas resident there in Iurie, I•. 1. but of al the rest also, vvriteth this Epistle, To the tvvelue tribes that are in dispersion. and in them, to al Christians vniuersally dispersed through the vvorld.
Continue reading 1 paragraph
Catholike Epistle.] The Protestants abhorre the vvord Catholike. The vvord Catholike though in the title of this Epistle & the rest folovving (called The Catholike Epistles) it be not vvholy in the same sense, as it is in the Creede: yet the Protestants so feare and abhorre the vvord altogether, that in some of their Bibles they leaue it cleane out, although it be in the Greeke, and in some they had rather translate ridiculously thus, The general Epistle &c. vvhereas these are famously knovven and specified in antiquitie, by the name of Catholike Epistles, Euseb. li. 2. hist. c. 22. for that they are vvritten to the vvhole Church, not to any peculiar people or person, as S. Paules are.
Cornely
8 19. — De epistola catholica B. Iacobi Apostol.
909. — I. D& EPISTOLAE AUCTORE. Eandem inscriptionem , quam Vulgata nostra latina ( « epistola catholica B. Iacob: Apostoli ») non pauci graeci codices atque syriaci exhibent!. Quoniam vero in N. T. inter Domini discipulos non unus dumtaxat nomen lacobi gessit, praeprimis inquiramus oportet, quis ex illis auctor sit epistolae, quae se ipsa ab « Iacobo, Dei et Domini N. Iesu Christi servo » scriptam esse testatur.
Continue reading 66 paragraphs
In Apostolorum catalogis, quos referunt Evangelia et Actus?, duo enumerantur Iacobi , alter Zebedaei filius et loannis Evangelistae frater, quem Herodes Agrippa a. 44. occidit, alter Alphaei filius. Praeter quos tertium in Scripturis inveniri censent non pauci, lacobum scilicet « fratrem Domini », quem « post Domini passionem ab Apostolis Terosolyvidi , nisi Iacobum fratrem Domini ». S. Paulus igitur lacobum fratrem Domini non tantum Apostolum vocat, sed illis quoque adnumerat, qui ante eum fuerunt Apostoli : iam vero illa in parte epistolae totus in eo est, ut genuinum et verum Apostolum sese esse demonstret, qui Evangelium , quod praedicat , neque acceperit neque didicerit ab homine, suamque a primitivis Apostolis, quos Dominus, quum in terris ageret, immediate vocaverat et docuerat, independentiam omnimodam adstruat ; nomen igitur Apostoli sensu stricto intelligit , neque Iacobi potius quam Barnabae vel aliorum discipulorum, quos lerosolymis vidit, mentionem fecisset, nisi ille inter Duodectm fuisset!. Si vero lacobus frater Domini unus ex Duodecim fuit, alius atque lacobus Alphaei esse non potest. Argumentum nostrum non parum ex loco parallelo Actuum corroboratur, in quo Paulus a Barnaba « ad Apostolos » adductus esse narratur?; praeter Petrum ergo alter Apostolus proprie dictus eo tempore lerosolymis adfuit, quem lacobum fratrem Domini fuisse docet epistola ad Galatas.
2. Alterum argumentum non minus certum ex modo loquendi S. Pauli et S. Lucae deducimus. Solent enim sacri scriptores, ut lectorum errorem praecaveant, homonymos Apostolos vel discipulos epitheto discernere?, Atqui S. Lucas, postquam Iacobum « fratrem Ioannis » ab Herode occisum esse narravit, tum eodem in capite tum in sequentibus alterum Iacobum sine ullo epithetocommemorat*; id quod certo non fecisset, si post Iacobi Maioris mortem alii duo Iacobi superstites fuissent. Eodem modo S. Paulus in primo suo itinere hierosolymitano se « Iacobum fratrem Domini » vidisse refert, quia illo tempore alter Iacobus Ioannis frater nondum erat occisus; sed immediate postea de tertio itinere hierosolymitano loquens « Iacobum » epitheto omisso nominat; lacobus Zebedaei enim sex annis antea martyrium subierat, nec ullus igitur pertimescendus erat error*.
3. Quibus duobus argumentis assertum nostrum satis iam stabilitum est; restat autem , ut ea, quae de Iacobo Alphaei et de Iacobo fratre Domini in Scripturis dicuntur, de eadem persona aptissime intelligi ostendamus.
a.) « Fratres Domini », lacobus, Ioseph (vel Ioses), Simon et fudas$, matrem habent Mariam?, quae ab Ioanne appellatur « soror matris Domini, Maria Clophae »1. e. Clophae uxor; mulieres enim secundum patrem non nominabantur, sed secundum maritum?. [am vero interpretes plerique Clophaeet Alphaei nomina eiusdem vocabuli hebraici "Don esse transcriptiones concedunt; hebraicum enim n, si vocabulum incepit, ab aliis durius, ab aliis lenius proferebatur; duriorem Galilaeorum pronunciationem recepit S. Ioannes, leniorem lerosolymitanorum conservarunt Synoptici'?. lacobus frater Domini filius igitur erat Alphaei atque Domini consobrinus, sive eius mater Maria fuerit vera B. Virginis soror, quod multis praeplacet, sive soror B. V. vocetur, quia eius maritus Alphaeus frater erat S. losephi, quod alii admittere malunt!!.
b.) In catalogis Apostolorum omnibus, si traditor omittitur, tres ultimos locos occupant lacobus Alphaei et Thaddaeus et Simon Chananaeus, vel lacobus Alphaei et Simon, qui vocatur Zelotes, et ludas lacobi. Quin Thaddaeus et Iudas Iacobi sint duo eiusdem Apostoli nomina, nemo dubitat; in collegio igitur apostolico tria habemus nomina, eaque semper coniuncta, quae « fratribus Domini » sunt propria. Num casui hoc adscribendum, annon potius dicendum est inter Apostolos tres « fratres Domini » fuisse? Nam Iudam Iacobi esse lacobi fratrem certum est; quoniam hoc nomine in primitiva Ecclesia Iudam cognitum fuisse, eius epistola docet : « Iudas lesu Christi servus, frater autem Iacobi » '?. Accedit autem, quod ultimis in locis tres « fratres Domini » recenseantur; consanguineis scilicet suis Dominus primos locos attribuere noluit, ne consanguinitati suae suam vocationem adscriberent?
c). Quod si quis aliis saltem Scripturae textibus « fratres Domini » omnes aut lacobum a collegio apostolico separari ex eoque excludi obiecerit, accurato singulorum locorum examine contrarium rectius demonsírari asserimus.
4.) Namque priorem ad Corinthios épistolam !? sententiae nostrae favere potius quam contradicere manifestum est. S. Paulus enim, si sibi idem licere asserit, quod « ceteris Apostolis et fratribus Domini et Cephae », aeque parum « fratres Domini » quam ipsum Cepham a collegio apostolico separat, e contra in eo plures « fratres Domini » fuisse clare docet, quia gradatione argumentationem suam corroborat. Etenim « mihi, inquit, idem facere licet, quod reliqui Apostoli, imo illi, qui inter Apostolos ob consanguinitatem suam dominicam maiore quadam dignitate pollent, atque ipse eorum princeps Petrus facere nefas non habent ». Neque iterum si Dominus « Jacobo et deinde Apostolis omnibus » visus esse dicitur, lacobus a collegio magis separatur, quam paucis versibus antea Petrus ab eo separatur, quando : « Dominus visus esse Cephae et post haec undecim » dicitur. Imo si ad sola verba, quibus usus est Paulus, quis attenderit, lacobum clarius et disertius, quam Petrum, Apostolis adnumerari concedet; quia enim dicit : £xevza. 902 "IaxóGo, evra oig &oo10Aot; &&6t, lacobum diserte nominat Apostolum 5,
8-) Neque Act. 1, 13. 1^, si Apostoli « unanimiter in oratione cum mulieribus et Maria matre lesu et fratribus eius » perseverasse,referuntur, zn collegio apostolico alii fratres Domini fuisse negantur. Praeter quatuor enim « fratres Domini » in Evangelio etiam « sorores Domini » commemorantur, quae quum Dominus cum matre et fratribus suis sedem in Capharnum transferret, in patria Nazareth remanserant, quia ibi maritos suos habebant!?. Quid igitur impedit, quominus losen « fratrem Domini », cuius nomen in catalogis apostolicis deest, et maritos « sororum Domini » ab Actuum auctore designari dicamus?
1-) Si quis autem ulterius progressus « fratres Domini » omnes (oi 40: Moo) in eum non credidisse 6 ideoque in Apostolorum coetu non fuisse contenderet, perfectam quidem fidem illis ab Ioanne abiudicari concederemus, at neque reliquorum Apostolorum neque Ioannis ipsius fidem ante Domini resurrectionem fuisse perfectam adderemus; quocirca ex hoc textu nihil prorsus deduci patet.
Ceterum ultimae duae obiectiones, si quid probarent, non tres, id quod nos tenemus, sed duos tantum ex fratribus Domini (Iacobum et Iudam), id quod aliis praeplacet, in Apostolorum coetu fuisse evincerent; inconcussum igitur manet, quod asseruimus, in Scripturis nihil inveniri, quod nos prohibeat, quominus lacobum Alphaei et Iacobum fratrem Domini unam eandemque personam esse dicamus, non deesse autem in Scripturis, quae eorum identitatem invicte demonstrent.
9. Luc. 8,3 "[udvva qovj Xouta éztzgórcoo "Hodbov. Matth. 1,6 «x tij; coo OSofov.
10. Duplex pronuntiatio literae 53 vocabulum inchoantis constat ex transcriptione septuaginta interpretum et Origenis. Propheta *3 ri ab Alexandrinis vocatur Arvatoc, e contra YI legitur Xacóáv (Gen. 11,31 etc) et probabiliter idem est oppidum, quod & Graecis et Romanis Kájiz: Carrae appellabatur (Cfr. Gesen. Thesaur. ling. hebr.
p. 528). Recte Field (Origenis Hexapl. Proleg. I. p. LXXII) : « 1 duplicis pronuntiationis est, cuius exemplum est vox noTn (lerem. 19,2), quae Senioribus z«pat0 sonat, Aquilae autem et ceteris dose(0. Exprimitur per 7 in oys(y pro Q'TIN (Symm. Is. 13,21) nec non in propriis nominibus Xáp, Xc6póv, Xappáv (Iosepho Adpavisu), saeplus vero per spiritum tantum, ut dy pro An (Ps. 117,27) » etc. Duplicem autem eiusdem literae gutturalis aut literae ad gutturales accedentis pronuntiationem non admodum raro invenimus : arabicam literam Qat (p) Syri hodie durissime pronuntiant, vicini autem Aegyptii lenissime, ut idem vocabulum abp (cor) Syris sonet qoib, Aegyptiis alb. — Contra identitatem nominum Klopae et Alphaei obiiciunt quidem multi (Cfr. ex recentissimis rationalistis Renan Les Évangiles. Paris 1877. p. 548 et ex catholicis Schegg 1. c. p. 53) KAez& esse nomen graecum contractum KAXrózatpos. At probe distinguenda sunt nomina KAXeózze (Luc. 24,18), quod idem est ac KA:ózatpoc, et KAozà; graecum KXMo- nunquam in KAo-, sed in KAsu- vel KAet- contrahitur (KAsó- Sauos, KXetc0cvi;). Ceterum cum H et permultis minusculis legere malo KAozi quam KXezi; libenter autem concedo Galilaeos nomen Chalpa vel forte Cholpa graecae pronuntiationi assimilasse. Si quis vero nominum Alphaei et Clopae identitatem pertinaciter negare voluerit, nihil obstat, quominus Alphaeum praeter nomen suum hebraicum etiam nomen graecum gessisse dicamus (Ioannes Marcus, Thomas Didymus, Saulus Paulus etc).
14. 1 Cor. 15,7 intelligendum esse Iacobum fratrem Domini omnes concedunt.
&. Nec certam quidem antiquae Ecclesiae de duobus tantum lacobis admittendis esse traditionem nec ex solis Patrum testimoniis certum argumentum deduci fatemur; at antiquitatis documenta nostrae magis quam oppositae sententiae favere asserimus.
8.) Namque maximi hac in quaestione ponderis est ecclesiae occidentalis persuasio , quae (id quod supra innuimus) nominibus Mazors et Minoris expressa ad medium saltem saeculum 2. ascendit. Nisi enim illo tempore, quo facta est antiqua versio latina, in Occidente communis fuisset opinio, duos dumtaxat in N. T. commemorari lacobos, interpres - graecum Mixgós comparativo Minor non reddidisset!". Eandem vero iuniorum quoque Patrum occidentalium fuisse sententiam S. Hreronymus nos docet, qui in suo contra Helvidium libello de quaestione nostra accurate et fuse disserit aliisque in suis operibus ad hanc explicationem lectores suos remittit 8.
b.) Cum occidentali consentit ecclesia alexandrina , cuius primus testis Clemens Alez. disertis verbis « duos fuisse Iacobos tradit, quorum alter cognomento lustus ex templi fastigio praecipitatus et a fullone fuste percussus interiit (Iacobus Alphaei, frater Domini), alter capite truncatus est (Iacobus Zebedaei) »!?. Verum quoniam verba haec ab Eusebio Clementis verbis addita dicuntur, quamvis id omni verisimilitudine carere arbitremur??, alterum eius testimonrum adscribamus, quod etsi minus sit disertum, rem tamen satis evincit. « Post Salvatoris, inquit, ascensionem Petrus, lacobus et loannes, quamquam Dominus illos ceteris praetulerat, de honoris gradu inter se non concertarunt, sed lacobum Iustum constituerunt episcopum hierosolymitanum ». Quo in loco, quum prior Iacobus sit Zebedaei filius, Clemens, si alterum Iacobum praeter Alphaei filium designare voluisset, sine ullo dubio id dixisset?!, Orzgeni quoque aliisque alexandrinae ecclesiae scriptoribus duos solos lacobos cognitos fuisse ex eo colligimus, quod epistolae nostrae auctorem Apostolum nominaverunt ?*.
c.) Ecclesiae palaestinensis quidem testimonia, quae omne dubium excludant, nobis conservata non sunt; at antiquiores eius testes nihil afferunt, quod iure nobis opponatur. Etenim nec Hegesippus nec Cyrillus Hier. unquam Iacobum, primum ecclesiae hierosolymitanae ecclesiae episcopum, ab Apostolorum coetu excludunt; e contra toto suo loquendi modo eum Apostolis videntur adnumerasse. Quod si enim Hegesippus lacobum una cum Apostolis episcopatum hierosolymitanum suscepisse refert (Sux3£y vat 9 «dv Dxkuciav pev& cv dmoctOAov Ó 9s). 99 09 Kupiov "Izx60c) non aliter loquitur quam S. Lucas, qui « Petrum et Apostolos » synedrio respondisse dicit (&xoxeiüsis ài Ilérgog xai oi ào010Aot £i««v) ; quare si Petrus collegio Apostolorum a Luca inseritur, certe [acobus ex illo collegio ab Hegesippo non excluditur?*. Atque S. Cyrillus quoque satis clare eum Apostolis adnumerat : « Animae tuae cave, inquit, ne quid unquam edas quod idolis oblatam est, nam de huiusmodi cibisnon mihi solum hoctempore, sed iam ipsis Apostolis et Iacobo huius ecclesiae episcopo olim studium et cura fuit : scribunt enim Apostoli et presbyteri omnibus gentibus catholicam epistolam » etc; iam vero $. Cyrillus lacobum, quem episcopum nominaverat , inter presbyteros scribentes non numeravit, siquidem medio saec. &. episcoporum et presbyterorum nomina iam diu fixum suum definitumque sensum habuerunt; unum igitur ex Apostolis scribentibus lacobum primum lerosolymorum episcopum fuisse censuit?. Neque obiiciatur fieri non potuisse, ut ecclesia hierosolymitana, si primus eius episcopus ex Apostolorum numero fuisset , secundum inter palaestinenses locum post caesareensem occuparet?», Satis enim compertum est eam solam ob causam saec. 9. et 3. postpositam esse caesariensi hierosolymitanam ecclesiam, quia lerosolymis destructis nova, quae in eius ruinis ab Hadriano fundata est, civitas nomine et re ab antiqua Urbe sancta distinguebatur; quare etiam ecclesia illa ethnicochristiana Aeliae Capitolinae eundem dignitatis gradum, quem iudaeochristiana ecclesia hierosolymitana primitus occupaverat, ante Concilium Nicaenum non obtinuit ?*,
Si Constitutiones apostolicas, de quarum antiquitate omnimoda cum certitudine non constat, omiserimus, Eusebius Caes. primus est testis, qui tres lacobos fuisse asserit?'; nescio vero an suspicari liceat eius in hac quaestione testimonium ab omni partium studio non esse vacuum ; eius enim aetate inter eius ecclesiam et inter hierosolymitanam de dignitatis gradu vigebat controversia. Sed quidquid est, antiquiora nostra testimonia iunioribus Eusebii aliorumque sententiis auctoritate sua non privantur ; traditionem igitur antiquam, etsi certum argumentum nobis non praebeat, nostrae sententiae de duobus solis lacobis admittendis favere iure nostro asserimus.
204. — Quae quum ita sint neque plures, quam duo, lacobi in primitiva Ecclesia claruerint, quaestio supra proposita, uter epistolae primae catholicae sit auctor, facillime solvitur. Quamvis enim pauci quidam codices latini et syriaci in subscriptione eam filio Zebedaei attribuant!, dubium non est quin lacobo Alphaei sit attribuenda. lacobo « fratri Domini » eam attribuit unanimis Patrum traditio; inscriptio autem, quae Evangelium iam late propagatum supponit , atque argumentum , quod sententias nonnullas paulinas ab Iudaeochristianis male intellectas fuisse ostendit, clare docent eam satis diu post Iacobi Maioris martyrium (a. &4.) esse scriptam.
Auctor igitur epistolae nostrae filius fuit Alphaei vel Clopae, quem Hegesippus fratrem S. Iosephi fuisse tradit, et Mariae, quam B. Virginis sororem appellat Ioannes; Domini ergo fuit consobrinus, ideoque eius frater est vocatus?, A puero eum severam Nasiraeorum vitam egisse auctor est Hegesippus : « Ab ipso matris utero sanctus fuit; nec vinum unquam bibit nec siceram ; ab animantium carnibus penitus abstinuit ; comam nunquam totondit ; neque ungebatur neque corpus balneo lavabat unquam. Soli ei in sanctum templi ingredi licebat, neque enim lanicio, sed linea tantum veste utebatur. In templum solus intrabat ibique flexis genibus pro peccatis populi Deum supplex orare conspiciebatur, adeo ut eius genua instar cameli occalluerint, quoniam assidue genibus incumbebat Deo pro salute populi vota faciens. Hic ergo ob singularem iustitiam cognominatus est Iustus et Oblias, quod munimentum populi et iustitiam designat, quemadmodum etiam prophetae de eo praedixerant »?.
Inter duodecim Apostolos electus a Domino post eius resurrectionem singulari apparitione dignus habitus est, quam commemoravit S. Paulus et quam suo modo narravit Evangelium secundum Hebraeos*. A Domino ipso, secundum Patrum testimonium, episcopus hierosolymitanus designatus est? atque in primitiva Ecclesia tanta gavisus est auctoritate , ut S. Paulus eum una cum Petro et Ioanne columnam Ecclesiae vocaverit eiusque suffragio permotum Concilium Apostolicum definitioni suae dogmaticae, qua Ethnicochristianos Lege non teneri edixit, praecepta quaedam disciplinaria addiderit$. Vix minore autem auctoritate penes Iudaeos non conversos gaudebat, a quibus ob accuratam Legis integrae observantiam nomine Iusti est insignitus. Qui populi favor odium principum ei attraxit; quare, postquam triginta annis ecclesiae hierosolomytanae praefuit, summus pontifex Ananus post Festi procuratoris mortem et ante Albini eius sucessoris adventum (i. e. medio fere an. 62.) « opportunum sibi tempus adesse ratus synedrio coacto Iacobum, fratrem illius lesu, qui dicebatur Christus, cum nonnullis aliis velut Legis violatae reos accusavit statimque lapidandos tradidit »7.
ita quidem F/. Iosephus, paullo aliter vero martyrium Iacobi narrat Hegesippus. Quo teste Iudaei, quum magnam populi partem neque paucos ex primoribus lacobi opera ac ministerio ad fidem in Christum adduci viderent, tumultuari coeperunt atque Apostolum ipsum rogaverunt, utin die paschatis coram universo populo quid de Iesu sentiendum esset ediceret; sperabant enim fore, ut a fide in Christum Iudaeos dehortaretur. Itaque eum in fastigium templi adduxerunt , ut ab omnibus conspici et audiri posset. Interrogatus autem, ut doceret quodnam sit ostium lesu* crucifixi, tam magnificum de Domino testimonium reddidit, ut multi in fide confirmati glorificarent lesum; qua de re irati scribae et pharisaei eum de fastigio templi praecipitaverunt, et quum non statim esset mortuus, lapidare eum inceperunt; unus autem ex eis fullo, arrepto fuste quo vestes exprimuntur, caput Iusti percussit, atque ita felici martyrio vitam finivit S. Apostolus.
a Ostium Iesu crucifizi i. e. summa doctrina de lesu crucifixo. Rabbini vocabulum N33 (ostium, porta) hoc sensu videntur usurpasse, quum tres libros thalmudicos, qui summam quandam rerum politicarum, civilium, forensium tradunt, portas appellarent. (Cfr. Buxtorf. Lex. rabb. s. v.); Arabibus quoque Bab (porta) est caput libri, summa rei alicuius.
finden wollen ». Imo vero nihil in eo invenitur, quod iure in dubium vocetur. Oblivioni non est dandum Hegesippum « in prima Apostolorum successione », i. e. Patrum apostolicorum tempore vixisse atque Iudaeochristianum palaestinensem fuisse. Neque temere Schegg quoque (1l. c. p. 13) Iosephum minus accurate, quam Hegesippum, rem retulisse censet. — De tempore, quo S. Iacobus passus est, Hegesippum et FI. Iosephum dissentire immerito a nonnullis asseritur. Hegesippi enim verba, quibus narrationem suam de Iacobi morte terminat : xal s08u; Obsazactavbg xoAtopxet aüroóg intelligenda non sunt de urbis obsidione per Titum inchoata, sed de initio belli iudaici (a. 66.); particula autem ó05g temporis intervallum quodcunque non excludit. Neque enim Hegesippus quidquam aliud exprimere voluit, nisi id, quod Origenes Fl. Iosepho attribuit, scilicet inter Iacobi occisionem, qua mensura Iudaeorum impleta est, et ultimum urbis excidium nexum adesse internum. Quapropter etiam Eusebius ipse, qui Hegesippi et Iosephi relationes nobis conservavit, contradictionem inter eas non invenit et in Chronico morti S. Iacobi annum 63. assignavit (M. 19,543).
205. — II. DUODECIM TRIBUBUS , QUAE SUNT IN DISPERSIONE, S. Iacobus literas suas inscripsit ideoque ansam dedit, ut alii quidem Iudaeis non conversis, alii Iudaeis omnibus sive conversis sive non conversis eas destinatas putarent!. Utramque vero sententiam erroneam esse non est ambigendum. Quod enim aliqui S. Matthaeum Evangelium suum Iudaeorum nondum conversorum gratia edidisse censuerint, id quidem non adeo est mirandum, siquidem primum Evangelium toto suo argumento satis aptum est, ut Iudaeos non conversos ad fidem attrahat; quem autem finem Apostolus Christi hac epistola inter Iudaeos infideles prosequi potuerit, nemo videt. Atque auctor ipse in inscriptione « Dei et Domini N. Iesu Christi servum » sese appellans solis Christianis se scribere satis clare docet, clarius vero idem ex reliqua epistola elucet. Illis enim scribit, quos Deus « verbo veritatis genuit », qui « fidem Domini N. Iesu Christi gloriae habent », super quos « bonum nomen invocatum est », qui secundum Domini adventum patienter exspectant etc ?. Quae tam clara et aperta sunt, ut quomodo aliquis de Iudaeis non conversis velut primis epistolae lectoribus cogitaverit, plane non intelligatur.
Iudaeochristianis igitur epistola est scripta et proxime quidem illis, qui extra Palaestinae fines degebant; id quod inscriptio docet «ai; 0ó- exa. quARig «ai, iv vj Outeropz. Iudaei enim, qui terram patriam permixti cum ethnicis incolebant, in « dispersione » non censebantur esse?. Quoniam autem extra Palaestinam ecclesiae, quae solis Iudaeis conversis constabant, probabiliter non inveniebantur (nulla enim talium ecclesiarum memoria ad nos pervenit), neque in tota epistola quidquam legitur, quod Iudaeochristianos solos ita respiciat , ut ethnicis conversis apte dici non potuerit, nihil arbitramur obstare, quominus eam, licet minus directe , omnibus Christianis extra Palaestinam degentibus scriptam asseramus. Non ignoramus quidem aliquos textus afferri, qui exclusis Ethnicochristianis solos Iudaeos conversos respicere dicuntur; eorum
206. — III. Quo TEMPORE et QUA OCCASIONE scripta sit, quoniam a Patribus nobis traditum non est, ex epistola ipsa, quantum eius fieri potest, temporumque apostolicorum ratione definiamus oportet. Quod difficultate sua non carere duae sententiae prorsus oppositae , quae adhuc defenduntur, satis demonstrant. Aliqui enim iam ante Concilium Apostolicum eam scriptam esse arbitrantur; longe plures vero diu postea versus finem vitae S. lacobum eam dedisse asserunt!; quibuscum ita consentimus, ut priorem opinionem vix ulla probabilitate gaudere sine haesitatione affirmemus.
Namque tota quaestio in eo est, utrum S. Iacobus, quum epistolam suam scriberet, illam ad Romanos cognoverit necne. Iamvero S. Augustinus asseruit omnes epistolas catholicas contra falsam opinionem ex nonnullis Pauli verbis male intellectis exortam, quae fidem sine operibus ullis iustificare hominem diceret, intentionem suam dirigere; omnes igitur catholicas plerisque paulinis, quae omnes post Concilium Apost. scriptae sunt, iuniores esse censuit. Atque revera non paucae in nostra praesertim leguntur phrases, quae paulinis ita correspondent, ut casui fortuito deberi non possit earum similitudo. S. Jacobus mentionem facit concupiscentiarum 7Gv ecpattuou.évoy iv Toi; u£tctv; eadem. imagine usus S. Paulus videt vàuov £v oi ué£Xeatw &vriatpneudy.evov T volu 700 vocc. Temerarium hominum iudicium uterque eodem prorsus modo reprimit; S. Jacobus : Eig icviv 6 vou.oirag xai xgvrAg 6 Quvijtvog coca: x«i dmoMéxv o0 Ob T si, Ó xpivov cv. mXáctv; S. Paulus : Xo sí &, 6 xpíwev &XXdvptov olxévzv... Ouvavtt yXp o xóptog cvzoat oj10v. Secundum
S. lacobum à qx «o0 xécpo £j cx o9 Oco0, secundum S. Paulum 7 gcovuu.x 76 ca0x5; £yUpz. ci; Ocóv etc?. Clarius autem, si fieri potest, alterutrius epistolae ab altera dependentia apparet ex celeberrimis illis textibus, in quibus Paulus et lacobus doctrinas sibi oppositas statuisse a nonnullis sunt crediti. « Videtis, inquit S. [acobus, quoniam ex operibus iustificatur homo, et non ex fide tantum ». Cui haec verba legenti illud paulnum non statim occurrit : « Arbitramur iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus Legis »? Num prioris verba non ita sunt comparata, ut alterius verba cognita supponant? Quod clarius apparet, si ad argumentum animum advertimus , quo uterque thesin suam stabilit; Abrahae enim exemplum uterque affert et uterque ex iisdem Scripturae verbis ratiocinatur : « Credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est illi ad iustitiam »3. Apostolos non re sed verbis dumtaxat dissentire, non veram Pauli doctrinam , sed perversam verborum eius interpretationem ab Iacobo negari, opus non est ut hoc loco iam demonstremus, quum id unum ostendere velimus, nostram epistolam post illam ad Romanos, quam cognitam supponit, esse scriptam. Frustra autem moderni interpretes, ut conclusionem nostram negent, ad disputandi rationem apostolico tempore inter ludaeos usitatam provocant : omnia, inquiunt, et singula eo tempore Scripturae verbis aut exemplis confirmabantur, Abraham vero et Rahab velut heroicae fidei exempla in omnium ore versabantur*. Licet enim Scripturas communem argumentorum fontem apostolico tempore fuisse libentissimi concedamus, quomodo alterum. quod asseritur, demonstretur, non videmus. Abraham et Rahab a Paulo et ab lacobo velut fidei exempla afferuntur; alios autem eadem illo tempore eodem modo attulisse , undenam constat , nisi quis forte S. Clementem Rom. aliosque Patres, qui exempla illa ex apostolicis literis desumserunt, contra nos citare stulte voluerit?
Confirmationis gratia illud quoque adde, inTacobi epistola talem ecclesiarum , quibus scribit, statum supponi, quem ante Conc. Apostolorum iam exstitisse nemo facile crediderit. Legantur illa, quae Apostolus de fide mortua, de pauperum despectu, de dignitatum ambitu etc monet : num quis haec in ecclesiis, quae vix erant exortae nec primae caritatis amittendae tempus habuerant, monenda iam fuisse sibi persuadebit?
Non igitur dubium est, quin nostra epistola post illam ad Romanos sit scripta; quoniam vero aliquod temporis intervallum requirebatur, ut Pauli epistola ecclesiis innotesceret perversasque explicationes provocaret, nostra ante a. 61. vix scribi potuit; anno autem 62. mortuum esse S. lacobum iam diximus; quapropter satis accurate origo eius videtur esse definita; exeunte a. 61. vel ineunte a. 62. eam scriptam esse censemus.
1. Inter catholicos vix ullum invenies, qui ante Conc. Apost. epistolam scriptam esse dixit, praeter Petr. Schegg( Iakobus der Br. d. Herrn u. sein Brief. 1883. II. p. 10), qui hanc opinionem adoptavit. Ex protestanticis eidem favent Schneckenburger Beitráge etc. p. 208; Thiersch. Apostol. Zeitalter. Ed. 2. 1858. p. 108 sq.; O. Ritschl Entsteh. d. altkath. Kirche. Ed. 2. 1857. p. 109 sqq.; B. Weiss Bibl. Theol Ed. 5. 1888. 8 41; Mangold in Bleek's Einl. 3. 1875. p. 632 n.; Beyschlag in Stud. n. Krit. 1874. p. 105 sqq.; Meyer- Huther - Beyschlag in Exeg. Hdb. XV. Ed. 3. 1870. p. 36; Ed. 5. 1888. p. 30 sq. aliique a Beyschl. (l. c.) allegati.
207. — Quod si scriptae epistolae tempus recte definivimus , ecclesiae quoque, quibus destinata fuit, accuratius iam definiri possunt. Antinomisticum enim illum errorem, qui sola fide contentus operibus bonis vacandum non esse docuit, apostolico tempore in ecclesiis Asiae Minoris late esse propagatum, ex reliquis epistolis catholicis elucet, neque explicatu est difficile, qua ratione in illis sit exortus. Namque continuum et frequens commercium, quod inter apostolicas ecclesias adfuisse Actus et epistolae paulinae testantur, effecit, ut Apostolorum scripta cito omnibus innotescerent; praesertim vero Asiae Min. fideles, qui per Paulum eiusque discipulos Evangelium acceperant, magno cum studio magistri sui epistolas conquisiverunt. At in epistolis illis « sunt quaedam intellectu difficilia, quae indocti et instabiles homines depravant ad suam ipsorum perditionem »!. Inter quae doctrinam de fidei operumque ad iustificationem relatione ab Apostolo toties repetitam et inculcatam non ultimum locum obtinere opinamur, quam nonnulli « homines non intelligentes putaverunt eum dicere sufficere homini fidem, etsi male vivat et opera bona non habeat »?. Ad quem errorem Iudaeochristianos magis quam ethnicos conversos inclinatos fuisse apostolici temporis ratio nos docet. Ex epistolis enim ad Romanos et Galatas satis clare elucet id, quod insequente saeculo S. Justinus disertis verbis tradidit, Iudaeos Hellenistas non paucos caeco modo Lege sua confisos et circumcisione sua contentos accuratam Legis observantiam neglexisse, « semet ipsos decipientes et dicentes, etiamsi peccatores essent, Deum tamen , dummodo illum cognoscerent, ipsis non esse imputaturum peccata »?, Qui error sane quam proxime ad illum accedit, quem S. lacobus in lectoribus suis impugnat. Iudaei igitur a Paulo audientes
« hominem iustificari per fidem sine operibus Legis », fidem ab Apostolo requisitam non aliam esse rati nisi sterilem illam persuasionem, qua eo usque contenti fuerant, obiectum dumtaxat illius persuasionis esse mutandum videntur putasse, ut iam non amplius in Messiam, qui venturus esset, sed in eum, qui advenisset, illis esset credendum, quoad reliqua autem pristinam suam vitam a tota Lege antiqua plane solutos se posse continuare. « Quoniam ergo haec opinio tunc fuerat exorta , aliae apostolicae epistolae Petri, loannis, Iacobi, Iudae, contra eam maxime dirigunt intentionem, ut vehementer adstruant fidem sine operibus non prodesse; sicut etiam ipse Paulus non qualemlibet fidem, qua in Deum creditur, sed eam salubrem planeque evangelicam definivit, cuius opera ex dilectione procedunt » *. Iam vero Petri, Ioannis, ludae epistolae, quae eundem hunc errorem impugnant , ecclesiis Asiae Min. erant destinatae; nostram igitur iisdem esse scriptam iure asseruimus.
Epistolas autem catholicas inter se comparantes facile animadvertimus errorem istum, quando a S. Iacobo impugnabatur, ad illum perversitatis gradum nondum pervenisse, quem reliqui Apostoli prae oculis habuerunt. Quapropter Iacobi epistolam reliquas tempore praecessisse recte statuimus; quam proxime secuta est Iudae epistola. Eius enim maiorem partem Petrus in alteram suam recepit simul alium errorem de Christo ad iudicium non venturo impugnans. Haereticos demum illos, contra quos S. loannes incarnationem et necessitatem observationis mandatorum defendit, ex eadem radice pullulasse certum quidem non est, sed valde probabile. Quare argumento, velut interno vinculo, omnes catholicae epistolae arcte inter se connectuntur (219).
208. — IV. DE ARGUMENTO ET DIVISIONE EPISTOLAE lAcoBt. Per fideles quosdam, ut videtur, qui ex Asia lerosolyma advenerant, de ecclesiarum asiaticarum statu certior factus S. Iacobus magno periculo, quod fidelibus ex falsa interpretatione doctrinae paulinae imminebat, statim occurrendum esse censuit, ne latius serpens error alias quoque ecclesias invaderet. Sed S. Paulus ipse, qui sine ullo dubio optimus suorum ipsius verborum interpres fuisset, illo tempore longe abfuit; biennio enim captivitatis Caesareae completo auctumno a. 61. Romam erat abductus, quam in urbem non nisi verno tempore a. 62. advenit; S. Petrus quoque, Apostolorum princeps et Ecclesiae caput, eodem tempore in Occidente, reliqui vero Apostoli plerique in diversis imperii provinciis videntur esse versati; quapropter qui errorem illum impugnaret , praeter lacobum, ecclesiae hierosolymitanae episcopum, nemo in urbe sancta adfuit. At nemo quoque, Paulum si exceperis, ad illum errorem, qui ludaeochristianis magis quam ethnicis conversis probabatur, refutandum lacobo erat aptior, quippe cuius auctoritas inter priores erat maxima.
Ut autem omne periculum averteretur, duo erant praestanda. Illisipsis enim argumentis, quae male intellecta ex epistolis paulinis ad novam haeresin suam stabiliendam afferebant novatores, doctrina de sola fide sterili hominem iustificante ita erat refellenda , ut Legis antiquae abrogatio in quaestionem iterum non revocaretur; atque simul reprimenda erat magisterii ambitio, qua neophyti nonnulli veloces ad docendum suamque iactantes sapientiam magistri aliorum esse volebant, antequam ipsi didicerant. Quae duo capita praecipuum constituunt epistolae nostrae argumentum, atque non stricta quidem illa et rigida demonstratione, qua Paulus uti solet, sed gravi illo ac sententioso dicendi genere, quo Ecclesiastici auctor excellit!, accurate evolvuntur. Attamen duo haec capita non ita tractavit Apostolus, ut alia quae erant monenda omitteret. Omnibus enim fere apostolicis epistolis e& Actibus edocemur, quot et quantas neophyti in omnibus fere ecclesiis ab Iudaeis infidelibus perferendas habuerint tribulationes et persecutiones; quare mirum non est, quod Iacobus quoque illos admonuerit, ut non tantum fortes sed etiam laeti omnia paterentur. Praeterea epistolae paulinae nos docent etiam primis fidéi temporibus non paucos abusus in coetibus sacris peragendis inter fideles viguisse, neque semper eam, quae requiritur, caritatem fraternam aliasque virtutes christianas floruisse : similia autem vitia in ecclesiis, quibus proxime epistolam suam destinavit Apostolus, obtinuisse ex eius monitis videmus.
Argumentum igitur epistolae, si integra spectatur, multiplex est et miscellaneum ; accedit autem, quod in singulis eius capitibus tractandis S. lacobus haud raro quasi ex abrupto ab uno ad alterum transeat et mox iterum ad prius revertatur; quare satis difficile est accuratam epistolae d?visionem indicare. Nihilominus tres partes praeter exordium (1,1-18) et epilogum (5, 19. 20) apte distinguimus?, in quarum prima (1,19-2, 26) necessitatem fidei, quae per caritatem operatur, adstruit, dum in altera (3,1- 4,129) neophytos a magisterii ambitione absterret, et in tertia (4,13-5,18) varia monita colligit. Nexum idearum in sequenti analysi indicare conabimur.
2. In tres quiderh partes etiam dividunt epistolam Card. Hugo et Lyranus, sed parum accurate. Prior: « In prima parte monet fugiendam esse concupiscentiam carnis per hoc, quodinvitatad tolerantiam tentationum (1,1-27), in secunda monetfugiendamsuperbiam vitae (2,1-3,26), in tertia dehortatur concupiscentiam oculorumsiveavaritiam » (4,1- 5,20). Alter : « in tractatu suo B. Iacobus informat credentes bene se habere primum respectu sui (1,3 - 27), secundo respectu proximi (2,1 - 4,3), tertio respectu Dei (4,4- 5,20). Ista tamen divisio non est sic praecisa, quoniam in una parte ponitur aliquid de pertinentibus ad alias et e converso, et hoc propter connexionem virtutum ». Mauduit (Analyse VIII. p. 237 sqq.) duas tantum partes distinguit, in quarum priore (t,3- 21) Apostolus fideles edoceat utilitatem persecutionum, originem boni et mali, ordinem in coetibus observandum; in altera 2,1-5,20 impugnet abusus in vita et doctrina (simoniam 2,1 -13, fidem sterilem 2,14-26, schismata 3,1 - 18, magna crimina 4,1- 5,20). Kilber (Analys. II. p. 519 sqq.) iterum tres habet : prior paraenetica (1,3 - 27) exhortatur ad constantiam in fide contra quascunque tribulationes, altera elenctica (2,1 - 5,6) reprehendit personarum acceptionem ín dignitatibus sacris, fidem sterilem, ambitum docendi, vitia generi humano communia, tertia isagogica (5,7 - 20) continet documenta pro diversis vitae conditionibus. Drach (Épitres cath. Paris 1873. p. 20 sq.) fere sequitur Mauduit (1,1 -27 trois importantes instructions sur les avantages des souffrances, sur l'origine des biens et des maux, sur les assemblées dans les lieux de la priére; 2,1-5,7 corrige les abus et redresse les erreurs etc); Bacuez (Manuel bibl. IV. p. 471 sqq.) e contra cum Kilber fere consentit; Bisping (Exeg. Handb. VIII. 1. 11 sqq.) quinque partes facit (Prüfung u. Versuchg. 1,1-18; der lebendige Glaube 1,18-2,26; die Lehrsucht. u. falsche Weisheit 3,1-18; Warng. vor weltl. Hochmuth u. Lásterrede 4,1-12; Warnungen, Drohungen, Ermahnungen (4,13-5,20); Kaulen (Einl. Ed. 3. 1893. p. 613 sq.) singula tantum argumenta enumerat.
I. Ab salutatione graeca (zatpev), qua in epistolae £nscriptione utitur (1,1), occasionem sumit Apostolus, ut in EXonDI0 Christianos ad tribulationes perferendas exhortetur (1,2- 18).
1. Laeti perferant tribulationes, quippe quae, si debito modo perferantur,
3. (Ut autem debito modo perferri possint, requiritur vera sapientia), quae si deest postulanda est a Deo precatione fiduciae plena; qui enim dubitans precatur, non exaudietur (4,5 - 8).
3. Vera autem sapientia in eo conspicitur, quod unusquisque sua sorte contentus sit; quocirca pauper glorietur in divitiis suis supranaturalibus, dives autem se humiliet ob divitias suas naturales, quae caducae sunt (4,9- 11).
4. Beatus igitur, qui debito modo tribulationes suffert, quibus ad coronam adducitur (1,12). Neve quis illis a Deo ad peccatum se incitari putet; Deus enim ad peccatum incitare non potest, sed peccandi incitamentum, quod in tribulationibus invenitur, totum a concupiscentia exoritur (1,13- 15); a Deo autem nobis non advenit nisi bonum, id quod satis nobis ipse demonstravit, quum ad novam vitam verbo veritatis suae nos generaret (1,16 - 18).
II. Ad PRIMAM PARTEM transiens Apostolus fidem requiri docet, quae per caritatem operatur (1,19- 2,96). 1. Verbo veritatis regeneratos dixerat Christianos; unde transitum sumens eos exhortatur, ut verbum hoc libenter et in mansuetudine audiant (1,19 - 24), simul autem recordentur auditionem non sufficere; sed ea quae audierunt facto etiam esse exercenda (1,22 -25). Atque ad singula nonnulla praecepta descendens
8). eum veram religionem non habere docet, qui linguam suam non refrenet (1,26), b). nec eum, qui caritatem erga orphanos et viduas negligat (1,27),
€.) nec eos, qui in coetibus suis sacris pauperes inter et divites distinctionem aliquam faciant (2,4-4); quod quam malum sit ut magis inculcet, hac agendi ratione illos opprobrio affici ostendit, quos primos Deus ad regnum suum vocavit, illos autem honorari, qui ob pauperum oppressionem honore sunt indigni (2,5-9).
Quae omnia, sicut reliqua quoque praecepta, singula observanda esse monet , quia is, qui in uno delinquat , omnium sit reus, quum omnium idem auctor sit Deus (2,10-13).
2. Post quam exhortationem ad omnium praeceptorum moralium observationem thema ipsum aggressus fidem sine operibus nihil prodesse demonstrat (2,14- 26).
a.) Quem in finem primo loco affert similitudinem : sicut nuda verba, quibus dives pauperi monstrat quid faciendum sit, ut in miseriis suis sublevetur, pauperi utilitatem non afferunt, ita fides, quae viam monstrat, si bona desunt opera, nihil prodest (2,15 - 18) ; b.) deinde daemones quoque fidem qualemcunque habere monet (2,19); c.) atque demum exemplis ex Scriptura allatis ostendit fidem sine operibus esse mortuam : Abrahami scilicet et Rahabae, quorum prior filio suo in sacrificium oblato, altera misericordia sua erga nuntios ostenderunt se fidem vivam habere (2,20- 25).
. 9. Quare hanc partem concludens asserere potest eodem modo, quo corpus sine spiritu, ita fidem sine operibus mortuam esse (2,26). III. In sECUNDA PARTE (3,1- 4,12) Christianos ab ambitione docendi absterret. 1. Thesin suam, ab ambitione docendi cavendum esse, postquam gravissimum argumentum , maius sc. iudicium, quod magistros exspectet, praemisit (3,1),
2. generali quadam consideratione de periculis confirmat, quae lingua afferre potest. ) a.) Etenim in multis quidem offendimus omnes, maxime autem in lingua. Quae, quamvis sit membrum parvum, tamen magna efficere potest; quemadmodum equus et navis re parva diriguntur et parva scintilla magnum incendium excitat, ita lingua totum hominem interdum maculat (3,2 - 6); b.) et quamvis sit debilis, homo tamen, qui feroces bestias domuit, ei domandae imparem se invenit (3,7. 8).
c.) At Christianus, qui lingua sua Deum glorificat, magis cavere debet, ne eodem membro homines ad perditionem adducat (3,9 -12).
3. Libido vero dicendi inter Christianos ex defectu verae sapientiae exoria.) ex eo, quod manifestare sese, si adesset, deberet bona conversatione et mansuetudine, non zelo amaro et contentioso (3,13 - 16), b.)ex proprietatibus verae sapientiae, quae in illis non inveniuntur (3,17. 48).
4. Demum qui ambitionis huius sint fructus docet, nimirum lites et dissensiones et multa peccata. Quorum fons sunt concupiscentiae, quibus blandiuntur magistri illi novi, qui ipsi, utpote amici mundi, inimici sunt Dei quibusque utpote superbis resistit Deus (4,1- 6). Quapropter omnes exhortatur, ut vera humilitate ad Deum accedant (4,1 - 10); atque hanc particulam concludit exhortatione, ut se invicem non velut legislatores et iudices diiudicent, quia solus Deus iudex sit et legislator (4,11. 12).
IV. In TERT!A PARTE (4,13 - 3,18) nonnulla monita specialia tradit.
1. Memores sint omnia omnino a Deo dependere; caveant igitur, ne superbi de suis rebus glorientur (4,13-17);
2. vehementer divites vituperat, qui divitiis suis abutuntur et pauperes opprimere non cessant (5,1 -6), pauperes vero consolatur atque ad patientiam exhortatur futuro praemio proposito (5,7 - 41);
3. quid de iuramento sit sentiendum, docet (3,12),
4. et quomodo homo aegrotus se gerere debeat (3,13); eos autem qui graviter aegrotant, exhortatur, ut sacramento sanctae unctionis muniri studeant (5,14. 15).
5. Demum omnibus orationis studium inculcat exemplo Eliae adducto, ut quid pia precatio valeat clarius cognoscant (5,16 - 18).
V. In EPiLoco (3,19. 20) praemium magnum illi esse repositum docens.
qui peccatorem converterit, omnibus indirecte insinuat, ut fratres suos errantes in viam veritatis reducere studeant.
210. — VI. Ultimo loco nE EPISTOLAE IACOBI AUTHENTIA ET CANONICI- TATE est disserendum. Eusebius inter *& dvrOeyópeva. quidem eam recenset, cur autem id fecerit ipse nos docet. Postquam enim ex Hegesippi et Iosephi operibus S. Iacobi [usti , fratris Domini et primi episcopi hierosolymitani, martyrium retulit, in hunc modum pergit : « Iacobi etiam epistola prima earum, quae catholicae vocantur, esse dicitur. Sciendum autem eam spuriam quidem haberi (&g voleserzc piv); non multi sane antiquiorum eius mentionem fecerunt, uti neque illius, quae Iudae dicitur et ipsa quoque una est ex septem catholicis; attamen scimus etiam has una cum reliquis in plerisque ecclesiis publice lectitari » (Gy.oe 9t iep.ev xai vajva paTà cv Aowrov £v. mAs(ovate 9edaptocteop.évag ixxAacíat). Ex quibus de epistolae origine apostolica quidem Eusebium dubitasse apparet, quia non multos scriptores invenerat, qui disertis verbis lacobum eius auctorem nominaverant, de canonicitate vero admittenda, quia pleraeque ecclesiae eam ad lectionem publicam cum reliquis Scripturis admiserant, illum non haesitasse !. Simili modo S. Hieronymus Eusebium secutus : « lacobus, qui appellatur frater Domini... unam scripsit epistolam , quae de septem catholicis est, quae et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine eius edita asseritur, licet paullatim tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem » : quibus verbis iterum apostolica quidem origo, sed non divina auctoritas eius addubitatur?. Plus mille annis post S. Hieronymi mortem Caietanus e& Erasmus eadem dubia repetierunt ipsi quoque de dignitate potius apostolica secundarii auctoris, quam de divina epistolae origine disputantes : « verum supervacaneum arbitror, inquit Erasmus, anxie de auctore digladiari ; rem potius amplectamur et Spiritum S. auctorem exosculemur » 3.
Priusquam de epistolae origine et auctoritate sententias acatholicorum exponamus, antiquissima quae de illa exstant testimonia colligamus. Gravissimum sine ullo dubio et apostolicae originis et inspirationis libelli nostri argumentum nobis praeberet prior S. Petri epistola, si omnimoda cum certitudine constaret, principem Apostolorum eam adhibuisse nonnullasque eius sententias usurpasse. Iam vero etsi non pauci interpretes id absolute affirment, atque revera in utraque epistola versus legantur, qui magnam inter se habeant similitudinem 5, argumentum hoc, quum omnem dubitationem non excludat, urgere nolumus. Ad Patres potius veniamus, inter quos S. Clementem Rom. ad nostram epistolam saepius allusisse tantum non omnes concedunt; a S. lacobo enim, ut videtur, edoctus Abrahae /idem operantem ter aíffert atque semel quidem ita, ut de epistolae nostrae usu dubitandi non sit locus : Tívog 4 Xpw müAoyÓn 6 mavAo "Apw 'A6padu.; obyi Owatocóvay axi dXíüüstav Oi mícTéGg vovíomc; 'lom&x pri mixodh(ctog ywcxov TÀ p£XXov mpoc/yero Üvcía. Quibuscum cfr. S. Iacobi verba :'A6paxu ó mwaTAp hp4v oUx 35 Épyow iduxauóUn Xvevéyxae 'loaàx tüv vióv aUToU imi TO fucixozíptov ?, Clariores autem et frequentiores allusiones in Hermae Pastore inveniuntur; quinque enim versiculos fere ad verbum ex epistola Iacobi desumsit, ad decem alios saltem respexisse dicendus est. Quamquam igitur in fragmento Muratoriano praetermitüitur, primitivam ecclesiam romanam in canone suo eam habuisse certum est. Quae certitudo non tollitur, si in reliquorum exeuntis saec. 2. Patrum occidentalium operibus testimonia prorsus indubia non reperimus; etenim S. Irenaeus saltem expressiones nonnullas habet, quae ex nostra epistola melius quam ex quacunque alia Scriptura explicantur, atque Tertulliano quoque eiusmodi phrases non plane desunt?. Irenaeum autem contra gnosticos disputantem in lacobi libello, qui integer fere in moribus corrigendis versatur, argumenta pauca iuvenisse clarum est.
Cornelius a Lapide
Preface 27 paragraphs
Three things must be premised here: first, concerning the authority of this Epistle; second, concerning its argument; third, concerning its author.
As to the first, Luther in this place cuts the Epistle of James from the Canon of Holy Scripture, and calls it straw-like, dry, and unworthy of an Apostle. His reason is that it, commending good works, is opposed to Luther's doctrine teaching that we are justified by faith alone, indeed to St. Paul, who teaches the same thing in Romans III, 28, as Luther says. Luther is followed by Brentius, Kemnitius, and the Magdeburg Centuriators, and indeed Erasmus in this place asserts that it does not have the odor of Apostolic gravity.
But it is certain that this Epistle is canonical and a genuine part of Holy Scripture. For the Councils cited a little before define this; the same is taught by the Fathers cited, and so here is the sense and consensus of the whole Church, as Judocus Coccius shows with many testimonies of the ancients and moderns in the Catholic Treasury, vol. I, book VI, page 713. To Luther's argument St. Augustine responds, in the book On Faith and Works, chapter XIV, that St. James, Peter, and John wrote their Epistles for this reason, lest anyone reading the Epistles of St. Paul, especially to the Romans, should think with Luther that faith alone suffices for salvation. They therefore explain Paul, and teach that he by faith does not exclude, but includes works flowing from faith, just as a tree does not exclude, but includes the fruits which it produces and bears. For this reason Calvin, book III of the Institutes, chapter XVII, §§ 11 and 12, and the Calvinists admit the Epistle of St. James as canonical. Therefore to Luther alone with his followers does it seem straw-like, and it is truly such, both because like straw set on fire it burns and overturns his straw-like faith, and because like burning straw it consumes and will consume eternally his blasphemous tongue, by which he deprives this Epistle of the Holy Spirit and ascribes it to the devil, the author of errors. See Bellarmine, book I On the Word of God, chapter XVIII, where he dissolves and refutes eight arguments which the Lutherans bring against this Epistle.
Moreover, in arranging the canonical Epistles in Bibles, the order of dignity has not been observed: for thus the Epistles of St. Peter ought to have been placed first, as being those of the Prince of the Apostles; but rather the order of time. The Epistle of St. James is therefore placed before the others, either because it was written first, or because it was first reported among the canonical Scriptures after his death. For James died six years before St. Peter, and thirty-eight years before St. John; for St. James died in the year of Christ 63, St. Peter in 69, St. John in 101. See the Chronology. Finally, if you regard their truth and authority, and the primary author, there is no order among them; but all are equal and the same. For all have canonical truth and authority, because all were dictated by the Holy Spirit.
As to the second point. The question is asked: what is the argument of this Epistle? I answer: Its scope and argument is, first, to encourage the faithful to constancy in the persecution which they suffered from Jews and Gentiles. For this is its opening: "Count it all joy, my brethren, when you shall fall into divers temptations;" and thereafter it graphically depicts the glory and majesty of unconquered patience. Second, to commend good works and the exercise of virtues, especially piety and charity. For since St. Paul in his epistle to the Romans and to the Galatians had so exalted the faith of Christ and depressed the works of the law, lest anyone should take this and extend it to the works of faith and charity, and thus rest idly in the faith and grace of Christ, he explains and teaches that the works of faith are required for merit and for salvation; especially because Simon Magus (whom in that age Luther, Calvin and their followers imitated) having seized an occasion from Paul openly taught that works are not required for salvation, and faith alone suffices. Hear concerning him St. Irenaeus, book I, chapter XX: "He taught," he says, "those who had hope in him and in Selene (his wife or concubine), that they should be free to do whatever they wish: for by his grace men are saved, but not by just works." This first heresy of the first heresiarch (whom Menander, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Eunomius, the Gnostics and very many others soon followed) the Apostles, namely Sts. Peter, James and John, immediately set about to overturn and refute in his very opening, both by word and by the writings of their Epistles. Third, because the same Simon taught the liberty of the flesh, just as Luther did, and therefore that Christians, being free from the law, could freely indulge the belly and lust; for faith alone suffices for salvation: James strongly resists him and teaches the contrary, namely the mortification of concupiscence, continence, abstinence, modesty; for the kingdom of heaven must be obtained through many labors, hardships, persecutions, and often through death and martyrdom. Thus by words, writings and deeds, against the flood of the liberty of the flesh flowing widely and overflowing, he sets up a most powerful barrier. For Simon Magus was a Samaritan, and he spread his errors in Samaria, which is near Jerusalem, and from there he derived them. Therefore St. James, as it were the Bishop of Jerusalem and Judaea, ought by pastoral duty to oppose him openly with all effort, as a wolf of his flock. He was therefore truly Jacob, that is, a shepherd of the faithful, a supplanter of the unfaithful. Hence his Epistle is a canon and rule of the Catholic faith and life. Among other things it teaches: first, that all evil arises from us, all good from God the Father of lights, and therefore it should be sought from him; second, it distinguishes Christian wisdom from worldly; third, that the world is opposed to Christ, and Christ to the world; fourth, that the desires of the soul must be mortified; fifth, that the ambition and prosperity of this life are vain and empty; sixth, that God will be the judge and avenger of crimes and criminals, and therefore the acceptance of persons and contempt of the poor must be avoided; seventh, that the friendship of God must be sought, but the world must be fled; eighth, that anxious solicitude about future things must be avoided, and one must rest in the paternal care and providence of God. Fourth, it gives illustrious examples of all virtues, especially faith, hope, religion, gentleness, simplicity and candor, beneficence and care of the poor, silence and the restraining of anger and the tongue, mutual charity and benevolence; avarice and oaths must be avoided, in tribulation one must patiently await the coming of God. Fifth, it ordains the sacred unction of the sick, likewise the study of prayer and psalmody, moreover sacred confession. Finally: "He who," it says, "shall convert a sinner from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins." From what has been said it is clear that this Epistle was written after the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans; since he wrote it in the year of Christ 58, it follows that after that year this was written by James, and consequently not long before the death and martyrdom which he suffered in the year of Christ 63. For, as St. Irenaeus says, book III, chapter I, the Apostles were wholly intent upon preaching, and therefore they began late to commit their teachings to writing.
Moreover, it might seem that this Epistle was written in Hebrew, inasmuch as it was written by the Hebrew James to Hebrews scattered throughout the world. Yet the more common opinion is that it was written in Greek, both because the Greek language was at that time common, even among Jews, especially those dispersed. Whence they used promiscuously the Greek version of the Septuagint equally as the Hebrew text of the Scriptures; and therefore Christ and the Apostles, indeed also Josephus and Philo, cite Moses and the Prophets according to the version of the Septuagint, not according to the Hebrew text. Then because James wrote this Epistle, although primarily to Jews, yet secondarily also to Gentiles, and thus to all ages: but the language of the Gentiles, spreading most widely, was Greek; finally because St. Athanasius in the Synopsis writes that the Gospel of St. Matthew was translated by St. James, certainly from Hebrew into Greek, as a more universal language. Therefore it seems that St. James wrote his Epistle in the same language, so that more might read and understand it. Thus St. Peter, St. John, St. Jude, St. Paul all wrote their epistles, except to the Hebrews and to the Romans, in Greek.
Many of the ancients have commented upon this Epistle. First, St. Augustine, but his Commentary on this is lost. Hear him, book II of the Retractations, chapter XXXII: "Among my works I found an exposition of the Epistle of the Apostle James, which upon reviewing I noticed were rather annotations of certain expositors of its passages, reduced into a book by the diligence of the brethren, who did not wish them to be in the margins of the codex. They therefore help somewhat, except that we did not have the Epistle itself, which we were reading when I dictated these things, carefully translated from the Greek." Second, Didymus of Alexandria, the teacher of St. Jerome, wrote a brief and learned Commentary on this Epistle and on the other Catholic Epistles. It is extant in volume VIII of the Library of the Holy Fathers. Third, there is extant on this Epistle a Catena of the Greek Fathers, namely of St. Dionysius, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Cyril, Theodoret and others, which John Felicianus translated into Latin. Fourth, the Venerable Bede. Fifth, Oecumenius. Sixth, Thomas, not Aquinas, nor the Angelic Doctor (for he was prior to Lyra: for he died in the year of the Lord 1274, whereas Lyra flourished in the year 1320. This Author, however, cites Lyra commenting on the First Epistle of St. Peter, chapter II, verse 19), but the Angelic Doctor not unlike the English in acuteness, or learning, or style, or profession (for he was of the Order of St. Dominic), but later than he: for he flourished in the year of the Lord 1400 according to the testimony of Sixtus Senensis in the Library. Among the more recent, very many have written scattered throughout, known to all, most recently and most accurately Balthasar Paes the Portuguese, Francis Fevardentius, Peter Stevartius, Gregory Primaticcius, who briefly but forcefully binds together and connects the sentences of St. James through syllogisms. From our Society, Father Alphonsus Salmeron, Benedict Justinianus, and John Lorinus. I shall follow all of these.
As to the third point. The question is asked, who is the author of this Epistle? Luther and Erasmus deny that it is St. James's; Cajetan doubts it. Yet the Councils already cited, as well as the Fathers, and the whole Church ascribe it to St. James. Wherefore it is of faith that it is St. James's. But it is doubtful which one's it is. For there were two Jameses among the Apostles, one the son of Zebedee, brother of St. John, killed by Herod, Acts chapter XII, verse 2, patron of Spain, who is surnamed the Greater. The other of Alphaeus, who was the brother of the Lord, Galatians I, 19, and by St. Mark, chapter XV, verse 40, is surnamed "the Lesser" (either by age, or by vocation, as our Lorinus wishes; or by stature, as Fevardentius wishes; or in some other respect), and was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Some Spaniards attribute this Epistle to James the son of Zebedee, such as Lucius Dexter in his Chronicle, where he asserts that St. James preached to Jews dispersed throughout Spain, and wrote this Epistle to them. He adds "which was the first writing of the New Testament, worthy of so great an Apostle." The same is found in the Arabic version and among the Mozarabes in the Liturgy, and in their patriarch St. Isidore, in the book On the Life and Death of the Saints, chapter LXXIII, whom he cites, and whose opinion our Gaspar Sanchez considers probable, tract. 3 On the Journey of St. James into Spain, chapter XII. The same is found in the Syriac version of Widmanstadius, which attributes this Epistle to St. James, who with St. Peter and St. John was present at the Transfiguration of Christ: but that was the son of Zebedee, not of Alphaeus. The same is held by Sixtus III the Pontiff, in the epistle On Evil Teachers, which is extant in volume V of the Library of the Holy Fathers. But, as the Doctors of Paris well note in the latest edition, Bellarmine, On Ecclesiastical Writers, Baronius and others, this Epistle is falsely ascribed to Sixtus III the Pontiff (which name deceived many learned men), when it is by some Pelagian. For he attributes all things to free will, and nothing to grace; he asserts that man can live without any sin, even the lightest. Finally the whole thing is full of the errors of the Pelagians.
But others, both ancient and modern writers, everywhere attribute this Epistle to St. James the son of Alphaeus, the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Thus St. Jerome in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, on James; Eusebius, book II of the History, chapter XXII or XXIII; St. Augustine in chapter II of the Epistle to the Galatians; St. Ambrose, book VII on Luke, chapter IX.
This James was the brother of Jude and Simon the Apostles, as is evident from the epistle of Jude, verse 1, and of Joseph the Just, who was set in place of St. Matthias by lot for the Apostolate, Acts I, 23; Matthew XIII, 55. He was the son of Alphaeus, who was called by another name Cleophas, and of Mary, who was named from her son James; from her husband, Cleophas: although some wish Cleophas to have been the father of Mary, and consequently the grandfather of James. For although some distinguish James the Apostle from the Bishop of Jerusalem, and make three Jameses, the first of Zebedee, the second of Alphaeus, the third the Bishop of Jerusalem, who was the author of this Epistle, as Epiphanius does, heresy 76, Dorotheus in the Synopsis, and as St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylactus insinuate, and Clement more clearly, book II of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapter LIX, St. Jerome, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Baronius and others refute this, and among them Francis Suarez, III part., vol. II, disp. V, sect. 4. Indeed the Council of Trent, session IV, where it asserts the author of this Epistle to be James the Apostle, refutes this, concerning which more in chapter I, verse 1.
Moreover, because, as St. Ambrose says, book II On Virginity, "the first eagerness for learning is the nobility of the teacher," this James was of wonderful holiness and wisdom. This is evident first from the fact that he was called the brother of the Lord, both because he was a kinsman of Christ, and because he was most like to Christ in manners, form and countenance, as testified by St. Ignatius, epistle 2 to John, and by Origen, book I Against Celsus, as if he had been the brother and twin of Christ. Wherefore it is necessary that James was of exceptional form and beauty. For such was the form of Christ, as testified by the Psalmist: "Fair in beauty above the sons of men," Psalm XLIV, 3. Again, from this it follows that James was most dear to Christ, the Apostles and Christians. For similarity, equally as virtue, is a conciliator of love and friendship. Epiphanius adds, heresy 70, that James was educated together with Christ from childhood. Hence he was surnamed the Just, from his exceptional justice and holiness, as testified by St. Jerome on Galatians I; Eusebius, book II of the History, chapter I; Chrysostom, homily 5 on Matthew; and Antiochus the monk, homily 72, who adds that this surname of the Just was given to him from his singular justice by the common suffrage of all. Whence he was surnamed by the Greek Fathers adelphotheos, that is, brother of God. Hence also some say that James, like John the Baptist and Jeremiah, was sanctified in the womb of his mother. Thus St. Epiphanius, heresy 29, Hegesippus in St. Jerome on James, and St. Antoninus, III part., vol. XXXI, chapter VIII, with whom let the credibility of this matter rest. Certainly his mother Mary, mother of James, most holy, translated from Jerusalem to Veroli in Italy, shines forth with many and great miracles, as the Roman Martyrology has it, on the 25th of May, and the Chronicles of Veroli.
Secondly, just as Christ was a minister of circumcision, as the Apostle says, Romans XV, 8, that is, he preached only to the Jews, as to a faithful nation, holy and chosen by God, to whom through the Prophets he had promised him as Messiah and Saviour: so also James, as it were the brother, successor and heir of Christ, was chosen and appointed by the same Apostles, by the command of Christ, as testified by Eusebius, book VII of the History, chapter XIV, at the end, to be Bishop of the holy city, namely Jerusalem, and Pastor of the Jews. Whence Hesychius in the oration which is extant in Photius in the Library, no. 833, calls James the chief leader of the new Jerusalem, the prince of priests, the head of the Apostles, shining forth in lamps, and most illustrious among the stars. Moreover, James was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter, John and James the brothers: thus Anacletus the Pontiff, epistle to the Bishops of Italy; and this the day after the death of St. Stephen, as Bede says in the Chronicle, namely on the 27th of December, in the year of Christ 34, so that, having exacerbated the minds of the Jews by the liberty and rebuke of St. Stephen, he might soften them by his kindness, modesty and gentleness; and he accomplished this so well that he sat peacefully in it as Bishop, and governed the Church for 29 years. James therefore succeeded Christ, as a brother to a brother, so that he might raise up seed for him, which should therefore bear the name of Christians, not Jacobites. Whence Christ himself, going to the Father, commended to him the children of the mother Church, as St. Jerome says in chapter I of the epistle to the Galatians.
Thirdly, St. Epiphanius, in heresy 78, asserts that his surname was commonly Oblias, that is, wall (some wrongly read gift) and protection; for which others read Ophilas, from עפל ophel, that is, citadel, a most lofty and fortified tower: such as was that of the temple, its summit nearly piercing the clouds, at the sight of whose peak those looking up grew dizzy in their eyes. Whence it was called in Hebrew Ophel, that is, mist, concerning which Josephus, lib. II of the Wars, cap. XVIII, and lib. VI, cap. VI, and lib. VII, cap. XIII. And the Poet: "Behold the rising masses dark in clouds, / And temples envious of the starry spheres." And this for two reasons: First, because St. James was most devoted to prayer, in which he was as it were caught up to heaven to God in the full ascent of his mind. Secondly, because by his prayer and sanctity he was as it were a citadel and protection, defending and upholding the whole Church and the entire Jewish people. Hence from frequent and continual prayer not only did he have callused knees, but also his forehead, inasmuch as he pressed it to the earth from profound humility and reverence, as St. Chrysostom testifies, hom. 3 in Matthew. St. Epiphanius testifies, in heresy 78, that St. James, pressed by great drought, lifting his hands to heaven, like another Moses, prayed to God, and soon obtained rain.
Fourthly, St. James was a Nazarite: whence he abstained from wine, meat, all living things, oil, baths, woolen garments and other luxuries. Thus Eusebius, Epiphanius and others cited. Epiphanius adds, in heresy 78, that he remained always a virgin, and thinks that he was the one who, leaving the linen cloth, fled naked at the time of Christ's passion: for which reason he held this opinion, because it is established that St. James was accustomed always to wear a linen cloth. He further relates that he was accustomed to walk with bare feet.
Fifthly, St. James was after St. Peter a pillar of the Church and of the faith, as St. Paul calls him, Galatians cap. II, 9, where also he asserts that he conferred his Gospel with him, "lest, he says, I should run in vain, or have run in vain." Whence Peter, freed from prison by an Angel, immediately sent word of this matter to James, Acts XII, 17. Hence also Jude writes and glories that he is the brother of James; and his mother, although she had several other sons and they were Apostles, is nevertheless called from the more worthy the mother of James, Mark XVI, 1.
Sixthly, St. James was the proper pastor and patron of the Jews. Whence in order to win them over to himself and lead them to Christ, he kept the law of Moses, although already dead, but not yet deadly; indeed he was even the author of Paul keeping the same law, so that he might make him acceptable to his Jews and win them over, and thus consult for the salvation of Paul, and for common peace and harmony, Acts XXI, 18.
Seventhly, Clement of Alexandria, lib. VII of the Hypotyposes, and from him Eusebius, lib. II of the History, cap. I, relate that Christ after his Ascension imparted a singular knowledge to James the Just, John and Peter, which they then communicated to the other Apostles, and these to the 70 disciples. Whence Rabanus, lib. On the Universe, cap. V, says that James by this Epistle pours immense clarity of knowledge into those reading it: for it embraces the whole perfection of Christian doctrine and life.
Eighthly, St. James was of so sublime and exemplary a life that he seemed to be a mirror and image of heaven and of the heavenly life, which Angels and Saints lead in Paradise. Hence day and night he conversed in prayer with God and Angels. Hence also the face and character of Christ shone forth in him as in a living antitype. Wherefore the faithful after Christ's ascension into heaven went eagerly from various provinces to Jerusalem for the sake of seeing St. James, so that in him they might see and behold Christ, on account of the wonderful likeness which he had with him in all things. Thus St. Ignatius, in his epistle to St. John the Evangelist (or whoever is the author: for many learned men think it is not by St. Ignatius), writes that he thinks of going to Jerusalem, so that he might see St. James as a living image of Christ. Hence also Judas, about to betray Christ to the Jews, gave them a sign of a kiss, so that by it they might recognize Christ, lest they seize James, who was most like to Christ, in his stead. Truly Plato in the Theaetetus: "To God, he says, nothing is more similar than when some one of men is most just. For in this true excellence of man consists."
Ninth, many of the ancients relate that it was granted to St. James to enter into the Holy of Holies, which according to the law of God, Leviticus xvi, 2, Hebrews ix, 7, was permitted to the High Priest alone, and that only once a year, namely on the feast of Expiation. This is related to have been granted to St. James by St. Jerome in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, in James; St. Epiphanius, heresy 29; Eusebius, book II of the History, chapter XXII or XXIII; Hegesippus, book V, and from these Nicephorus, Abdias and others. This seems incredible to many learned men, both because the Jews were most observant of their own law and rites, and because these same were the greatest enemies of Christ and Christians. But so great is the faith and authority of the Fathers whom I have already cited, that it is not permitted to contradict it. What then? The matter requires moderation, and it can be suggested that if we say that this was not permitted to St. James indiscriminately and commonly, but only in rare cases, as for example if lightning had struck the Holy of Holies; if by chance the Cherubim, the mercy seat or the ark had been damaged; if someone had violated the holy place: for just as Pilate placed a statue of Caesar in the city, and perhaps in the temple, as testified by Josephus, book II of the Jewish War, chapter VIII, so perhaps some Roman prefect or soldier, to gratify Caius Caligula the Emperor (who was hostile to the Jews, and from them, as from other nations, wished to be adored as God, and therefore ordered his image to be placed in the temple of Jerusalem, as is evident from Philo in the Legation to Caius), placed his statue in the Holy of Holies, etc. Then indeed, in order to purify and restore that which had been violated or mutilated, or to rescue it from the danger of fire and ruin, it was necessary to send into it a man of eminent dignity, holiness and wisdom, who might accomplish this, or report what needed to be done. But no one was more worthy than James, no one wiser, no one holier. Add to this that he himself was the proper Bishop and High Priest of Jerusalem, and as such was revered not only by Christians, but also by Jews, who loved and revered him as a father on account of his gentleness, holiness, charity, etc.; especially because he himself was an observer and guardian of the Jews and Judaism, as I said a little before. Indeed they far preferred him to their own High Priest Ananus and the like, who were either appointed by the Romans, or had purchased the high priesthood with money through simony, or administered it avariciously, impurely and unworthily. Finally, St. James, on account of his abstinence, prayer and zeal, seemed to be not so much a man as an angel, to whom alone the Jews thought the entrance into the Holy of Holies was rightfully due. And hence some, such as Salmeron here, are of the opinion that this was the cause of the martyrdom of St. James, namely that Ananus the High Priest, not bearing St. James as a partner and rival in the high priesthood, and grieving that he was preferred to him by the people, accused him as an overthrower of Judaism and a herald of Christ and Christianity, and prosecuted him as guilty of death before his own zealots of the Mosaic law. All this is confirmed by the testimony of Josephus, who attributes the destruction of Jerusalem made by Titus to the slaughter of St. James, book XX of the Antiquities, chapter XVI, as the same is attributed to it by St. Jerome in James, Eusebius, book II of the History, chapter XXII; Origen, book I Against Celsus; Isidore, book On the Life and Death of Saints, chapter LXXIX. From which you can easily gather how great was the holiness of St. James, as well as the opinion of his holiness and dignity among the Jews. So great is virtue, so great is the force of holiness, which wins over friends alike, and enemies.
Thus St. Francis Xavier by his holiness was a source of admiration to the Bonzes, although enemies of Christ, and even now is to the infidels in India, who call him the Holy Father and invoke him, and often through his intercession obtain health, life and other graces from God by miracle. Hear Turselinus in his Life, book II, chapter XI: "Commonly," he says, "he was called the Great Father. The King of Travancore issued an edict throughout his entire kingdom that all should obey the Great Father, as they would himself." The same author, chapter IX, relates that the Brahmans, although infidels, having heard the doctrine of Francis, embraced it, and extolled it with wonderful praises.
So also his disciple Gaspar Barzaeus, on account of his holiness, was venerated by the Saracens, sworn enemies of Christ, as if he were a prophet or an angel fallen from heaven. For they saluted him with knees bent to the ground, and they kissed his hand, indeed even his garment and the traces of his feet. They called him the son of Zacharias, as if another St. John the Baptist, and a great Caciz of the Christians; indeed even in the dead of night, with many torches they led him into his temple (they call it the Quran) with great retinue, and conducted him even to the highest place, and this in the sight and admiration of the whole city of Hormuz. And yet even with death proposed, lest anyone from another sect should enter, it is forbidden by Mahometan laws. But they thus excused Mahomet, saying that he did not wish to exclude so distinguished a man in virtue, says our Trigautius in his Life, book II, chapter XIV. In a similar manner the Jews explained the law; they said that it did not wish to comprehend St. James, a man of such eminent dignity and holiness. For on account of the supreme study of wisdom and piety, which he had cultivated assiduously throughout his life, he was considered most just by all, says Eusebius, book II of the History, chapter XXII. Whence also the people eagerly desired to touch the hem of his garment, says St. Jerome. Wherefore what St. Epiphanius asserts in the place already cited, that St. James was a priest of the old law, and therefore admitted to the Holy of Holies, is deservedly rejected by all others as false and as insufficient. For it was permitted to the High Priest alone to enter into the Holy of Holies. It is certain, however, that St. James was not an Aaronic High Priest. Finally, some think that the law in Leviticus xvi, 2, that no one should enter the Holy of Holies except the High Priest once a year, should be limited to the solemn entrance, namely when a divine matter was to be solemnly performed in the Holy of Holies: for after that time it was permitted to those who were distinguished in holiness, such as St. James was, to enter the Holy of Holies. They prove this from the fact that St. Evodius, successor of St. Peter in the chair of Antioch, according to Nicephorus, book II, chapter XX; Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople; George of Nicomedia, in the oration On the Offering of Mary; Andrew of Crete, On the Dormition of the Mother of God, relate that the Blessed Virgin was presented in the temple and dwelt in the inner sanctum and in the Holy of Holies. Thus our Christopher of Castro thinks in the History of the Mother of God, chapter III. But that law, Leviticus xvi, 2, does not seem to admit this limitation, as the Abulensian gravely teaches in that place; nor did the other virgins, among whom the Blessed Virgin dwelt, live in the Holy of Holies, but in the court at the entrance of the tabernacle, as it is said in Exodus xxxviii, 8, and 1 Kings ii, 22.
Tenth, St. James first celebrated the sacrifice of the Mass solemnly, as the sixth Synod indicates concerning consecration, distinction I, chapter James, and he prescribed the form and rite of celebrating it. There also exists the Mass of St. James, which is shown to be not of some apocryphal author, but of St. James himself, both from the sense and consent of the Doctors and the faithful in the Council of Trullo, and from Proclus, Archbishop of Constantinople in the Council of Ephesus, and from Cyril, likewise Bishop of Jerusalem, who in his fifth catechesis has five mystical orations received from the Mass of St. James: such as that which the priest would say aloud, Lift up your hearts; and those things concerning the immense glory of God which he was accustomed to say before the sacred mysteries; that he would say the same: Pray for the living and the dead; that the Deacon before the reception of the divine mysteries would cry out: Greet one another with a holy kiss, and would intone to those about to receive: Holy things to the holy, and the people would respond: One is holy; that the singers during the reception of the Holy Eucharist would sing that Psalm XXXIII: Taste and see that the Lord is sweet; and many other things of this kind. See Sixtus Senensis, book I of the Library, on James, and Claude Saincts, preface to the Liturgies, chapter VIII. Hence also St. Ignatius, in his epistle to Heron, says that St. Stephen was a Deacon of St. James, and ministered to him. The same Ignatius, epistle 5 to the Trallians: "But what are Deacons, he says, except imitators of angelic virtues? who exhibit a pure and blameless ministry to them (priests), as St. Stephen to the Blessed James, Timothy and Linus to Paul, Anacletus and Clement to Peter. Whoever therefore does not obey these is altogether impious and godless." Moreover St. Stephen served St. James, before he himself was created Bishop of Jerusalem. For he was created the day after the death of St. Stephen, namely on the 27th of December, as I said above from Bede. Once there existed, and still exists, a Gospel with the title of St. James, but spurious: for it was a pseudo-gospel. Thus Baronius.
Eleventh, St. James was present at the first Council of Jerusalem, and being Bishop of Jerusalem, he spoke first after St. Peter, namely that Christians are not bound by the law and the legal precepts of Moses, Acts xv, 13. Whence as an ornament of Episcopal dignity, St. James wore on his head a golden plate, as it were a badge both of the Pontificate and of the kingdom of Christ, in the manner of Melchizedech, "since the kingdom of David together with the Pontificate was transferred, and bestowed upon his servants, that is, upon the Pontiffs of the Catholic Church," says St. Epiphanius, heresy 29 and 78, and Jerome in James, and on Galatians II. For the Aaronic Pontiff with the cidaris, or tiara which he wore on his head, wore attached to it a golden plate on his forehead, on which was inscribed Holy to the Lord, so that it might be signified that he was the Pontiff of the most high and holy God. Thus also St. John the Apostle wore a golden plate in the manner of a crown, as Polycrates relates in Eusebius, lib. V of the History, cap. XXIII. That the other Apostles wore the same, and hence now Bishops wear a precious mitre, because they exercise a royal priesthood, as priests and kings of Christ, Cardinal Baronius holds, in the year of Christ 34, p. 263. Whence Eusebius, lib. X of the History, cap. IV, thus addresses Bishops: "Friends of God and priests, who are adorned with sacred power and the crown of heavenly glory, and with divine chrism, and finally with the sacerdotal stole of the Holy Spirit." Eusebius relates, lib. VII of the History, cap. XIV, that the chair of St. James was religiously preserved down to his own times. "Which," he says, "the Bishops who succeeded in order there esteem very highly." Whence it is clear that Christians carried it away from Jerusalem before the siege of Titus: otherwise indeed it would have been consumed with the rest in that conflagration, says Baronius, in the year of Christ 68, cap. LI.
Twelfth, St. James underwent a glorious martyrdom for Christ. Epiphanius, heresy 78, relates that St. James lived to a very advanced age, and died in the 96th year of his age, after the Ascension of Christ. But others variously relate that he was killed in the 7th year of Nero, which was in the year 63 from the Nativity of Christ, 29 from the Passion and Ascension, and consequently he presided over the Church of Jerusalem for that many years, namely 29 years. It scarcely seems credible that he was killed in the 96th year of his age. For thus when he was called by Christ to the apostolate, he would have been almost seventy years old. Who would believe that one so old was chosen for the labors of the Apostolate, especially since the other Apostles chosen by Christ were young men?
Moreover, Eusebius describes and recounts his life, death and martyrdom gravely and graphically in this manner from Clement of Alexandria and Hegesippus, lib. II of the History, cap. XXIII: "James, he says, was holy from his mother's womb; he drank neither wine nor strong drink, he abstained from the flesh of animals, a razor never touched his head, nor was his body anointed with oil or washed in baths. To him alone was it permitted to enter into the Holy of Holies; for he wore not woolen garments, but linen only. He was accustomed to enter the temple alone, and there, kneeling upon his knees, to seek pardon for the sins of the people: whose knees, because he so constantly bent them both to adore God with reverence and holiness, and to beseech pardon for the people by prayers, became hardened with calluses like those of a camel. Who, on account of his singular excellence in justice, found the name of the Just and Oblias (which in Latin can be said to mean the protection of the people, and justice), as the Prophets record of him. When therefore certain of the supporters of the seven sects scattered among the people, and declared by me in the History before, asked him what was the gate of Jesus, he answered that Jesus was the Saviour. Of their number some believed that Jesus was the Christ. But the aforesaid sects believed neither that there would be a resurrection of the flesh, nor that any would come who would render to each according to what he had done rightly or wrongly in life. Yet all who believed did so through the preaching and exhortation of James. Therefore, when many even of the leading men had embraced the faith, some of the Scribes, Pharisees and other Jews began to make a tumult and even to cry out, that almost the whole people thought Jesus to be the true Christ. Who also came to James and addressed him thus: We earnestly beseech thee, since the people, having placed faith in Jesus as if he were truly the Christ, have fallen into grave error, that thou wouldst turn them away from this opinion; and that thou wouldst also instruct all who have gathered today to celebrate the feast day of the Passover rightly and truly concerning Jesus, we beseech thee again and again: for all have faith in thee, and not we alone, but the whole multitude bears witness that thou art just, and that thou respectest not persons. Persuade therefore the people concerning Jesus, that they err not: for indeed the whole people and we all believe in thee. Therefore place thyself upon the pinnacle of the temple, that from that high place thou mayest be visible to all, and so thy words may be heard easily and without hindrance by the whole multitude. For on account of the feast of the Passover not only all the tribes of the Jews, but many also from the Gentiles had gathered. Wherefore the Scribes and Pharisees, whom we mentioned above, when James was placed upon the pinnacle of the temple, began to cry out and say: O Just one, to whom all of us ought rightly to give credence, since the people, imitating Jesus crucified, have gone astray, do thou therefore show us what is the gate of Jesus crucified. Who answered in a clear voice thus: Why do you question me concerning Jesus the Son of Man? He himself sits in heaven at the right hand of the great power and might of God, and shall come in the clouds of heaven. This express and public profession of Christ was the cause of his martyrdom, which was therefore evident and illustrious. For Eusebius adds: And when many were indeed persuaded, and on account of James's testimony were praising God to heaven and saying Hosanna to the Son of David, the Scribes and Pharisees began again to speak thus among themselves: Badly and unfortunately it has turned out, that this testimony should be attributed to Jesus by our doing. But let us go up the steps and cast him down headlong, that men being terrified thereby may give no credence to his doctrine. Then they began to cry out and say: O just one, thou also hast erred. In which the sacred words written in Wisdom were plainly fulfilled: Let us remove the just one from our midst, for he is troublesome to us and opposed to our works. Wherefore they shall eat the fruit of their own doings. Finally therefore the young men cast the Just one down headlong, and said among themselves, We ought to bury James the Just with stones. And since he, cast down the precipice, did not immediately die, but lifting his face upward and bending his knees said: I beseech thee, Lord Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do; they began to hurl stones at him, and as they continued to bury him with stones, one of the priests, of the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, who are commended by the testimony of Jeremiah, uttering his voice cried out earnestly: What are you doing? The Just one prays to God for you. Now the man who said this, Epiphanius reports to have been Simeon his nephew from his sister, the son of Cleophas.
Eusebius continues: "Yet one of those who was a fuller, seizing a club with which he was accustomed to press clothes, struck it upon the head of Justus; thus the blessed one lost his life, afflicted and tormented by the suffering of a happy martyrdom. In that place near the temple, where a small column inscribed with his name still remains, his body was committed to a tomb. This James was dear and an uncorrupted witness to both Jews and Greeks, that Jesus was truly the Christ. Not long after, Vespasian besieged Judea and reduced the Jews to servitude. With this remarkable agreement of Clement's History, Hegesippus explained it more fully and completely." Thus far Eusebius concerning the death of James from the accounts of these authors.
But as to his sepulcher, Jerome adds this: "His burial had a most well-known inscription up to the siege of Titus and the final one of Hadrian. Some of our people thought he was buried on the Mount of Olives; but their opinion is false." St. Jerome adds in James, from the Gospel according to the Hebrews: "The Lord, he says, when he had given the shroud to the servant of the priest, went to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord, until he should see him risen from the dead. And again shortly after: Bring, says the Lord, a table and bread; and immediately it is added: He took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to him: My brother, eat your bread, because the Son of Man has risen from those who sleep." Indeed, Adrichomius from Bredembach, Salignac, and others in the Description of Jerusalem, number 210, describes a cave in which James lay hidden fasting for three days during the Lord's passion, and adds: "For this reason the Lord also appeared to him alone here after his resurrection. In his honor Christians afterward erected a church in this place." But St. Augustine rejects this oath and fast of James, in book III of the Harmony of the Gospels, chapter XXV, and others, for this reason, that the appearance of Christ made to James, of which the Apostle speaks in I Corinthians xv, 7, occurred after the appearance made to five hundred brethren. For after that Paul adds: "Then he was seen by James." But that appearance of Christ made to five hundred brethren occurred long after the resurrection, to which James's fast could not naturally extend: unless you say that deinde signifies number, not order of appearances; so that it is the same as moreover, besides, as if to say Christ appeared to five hundred brethren, moreover and to James alone.
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.
Estius
Jacobum esse hujus Epistolae auctorem, ipsa loquitur in frontispicio; sed cujus sit Jacobi, cum ejus nominis duo fuerint Apostoli, alter Zebedaei filius et frater JoanniSj alter Alphaei filius et frater Judae, qui et Minor appellatus est; quibus nonnulli tertium addunt Jacobum, quem fratrem Domini fuisse volunt: id est, quod in quaestione versatur. Et quidem Jacobum, fratrem Joannis, auctorem esse hujus Epistolae, diserte negat Hieronymus scribens in cap. 1. Epist. ad Gal. Nec ullus interpretum affirmat, nisi quod versio Syriaca tribus Epistolis Catholicis (neque enim plures exhibet) praemittit haec verba: Tres Epistolae trium Apostolorum, ante quoium oculos Do~ minus noster se Irnnsfiguravit, id est Jacobi, Petri et Joannis. Id vero rejiciunt quidam hoc argumento, quia Jacobum hunc paulo post Domini resurrectionem Herodes occidit, Act. 12. At hi falluntur in temporum ratione. Nam juxta veram supputationem (de qua consule Baronium Tom. 1. Annal) reperiuntur intercessisse decem anni, phisminus, inter mortem Christi et martyrium hujus Jacobi. Quo tempore scriptam ab eo fuisse Epistolam aliquam ad fratres post Stephani necem dispersos, forte non videbitur absimile vero. Hanc enim dispersionem graves quidam expositores intelligunt eam, cujas in exordio Epistolae mentio est. Contigit autem illa dispersio, ut et B. Stcphaui lapidatio, anno primo post mortem Salvatoris, et proinde multo ante obitum Jacobi raeraorati.
Sed tamen haec non admodum suadent. Primum quia, sicut Irenaeus docet lib. 3. adversus haereses cap. 1., sero coeperunt Apostoli doctrinam suam literis consignare, principio intenti in praedicationem verbi, quemadmodum iis praeceperat Dominus, dicens: Praedicate Evangelium omni creaturae, Marc. ult. Deinde nec verisimile est, quamdiu Petrus Apostolorum princeps adhuc in Judaea agebat, alium quempiam ex Apostolis eam auctoritatem sibi sumpsisse, ut ad fratres per Judaeam dispersos Catholicam, id est universalem Epistolam scriberet. Accedit, quod haec Epistola, sicut et aliae Catholicae, dirigit intentionem, ut loquilur Augustinus ante citatu,s, contra opinionem eorum, qui fidem sine operibus sibi putabant ad salutem sufficere, ex quibusdam Epistolarum B. Pauli sententiis accepta occasione, et earum perversum intellectum corrigit. Atqui, vivente Jacobo, fratre Joannis, Paulus nondum gentibus praedicare coeperat, nedum Epistolas scribere. Quaenam vero dispersio in hac Epistola intelligatur, id suo loco dicemus.
Continue reading 4 paragraphs
Cum igitur ex his satis appareat, auctorem Epistolae non esss Jacobum, fratrem Joannis: superest, ut eam assignemus Jacobo Alpnaei, fratri Domini, et Jerosolymorum Episcopo, qui et Justi cognomen meruit, et a Paulo inter columnas nominatur, Gal. 2. Est enim unus idemque. Nam sententiam eorum, qui diversos faciunt, et per hoc tertium Jacobum introducunt, bene firmis rationibus evertimiis in exposition. Epist. ad. Gal. 1., ut nihil opus sit, hic ad ea quidquam adjicere.
Sed respondendumErasmo etCajetano, quorum ille in Annot., tam initio, quam in fine, hic autem in principio commentarii, vocant in dubium, sitne haec Epistola Jacobi Apostoli unius ex duodecim, aut etiam fratris Domini; propterea quod Hieronymus in catalogo de Jacobo, fratre Domini, agens, cum dixisset, eum unam scripsisse Epistolam, quae de septem Catholicis est, continuo eubjecit: Quae et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur, licet paulatim tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem. Verum non negat his verbis Hieronymus, neque dubitat, hanc Epistolam esse Jacobi, fratris Domini; sed cum prioribus verbis id plane affirmasset, adjunxit, quid alii nonnulli hac de re senserint; editam scilicet esse ab alio quodam sub illius nomine. Certe quid ipse Hieronymus senserit, satis etiam ex aliis locis manifestum est, in quibus ex hac Epistola sub nomine Jacobi Apostoli testimonia adducit, ut lib. 1. et 2. adveisus Pelag., et in comment. super Jes. 16. atque alibi. Nec usquam ambigue de Epistolae auctore locutus invenitur, ut interdum loquitur de auctore Epistolae ad Hebraeos.
Huc etiam facit, quod in Epistola Epiphanii ad Joannem Jerosolymitanum (quam Hieronymus ex Graeca Latinam fecit), cap. 4., Jacobus, hujus Epistolae scriptor, nunc Apostolus vocatur, nunc conjuncte simul Apostolus et frater Domini. Sed ajunt: Auctor ipse non se nominat Apostolum, nec fratrem Domini; sed tantum servum Jesu Christi. Respondeo: Nec Judas, qui nemine dubitante inter duodecim fuit, Apostolum se nominat, sed tantum Je.su Christi servum, et Jacobi fratrem. Quin nec Joannes usquam, nec Paulus in omnibus Epistolis Apostolum se scribit, sod interdum non aliud, quam servum Jesu Christi. Cur autem fratrem Domini non se nominet Jacobus, uti nec Judas, perspicua ratio est. Non enim Christum, sed se ipsos potius honorasse viderentur, si se scriberent fratres ejus, cujus erant Apostoli et servi; maxime quando id facerent in literis publicis, quas mittebant ad Ecclesias. Imo per hoc existimationem Christi Domini, cujus gloriae servire debebant, non parum mlnuerent; sicut faciebant cives ejus, quando dicebant: Nonne fratres ejus Jacobus et Simon, et Joseph et Judas? Matth. 13.
Porro sciendum de Jacobo, fi^atre Domini, multa ex Hegesippo, vetusto scriptore, narrari ab Eusebio lib. 2. hist. cap. 22. et Epiphanio haeresi 79. Quorum nonnulla etiam refert Hieronymus in catalogo; quae an omnia vera sint, non immerito quis dubitaverit, atquehaec praesertim, quod illi soli licitum erat ingredi Sancta sanctorum; quodque solus ingrediebatur templum; et qaod ad ejus judicium scribae et Pharisaei, Christianae religionis adversarii, retulerint quaestionem, quid de Jesu sentiendum esset; tamquam Jacobus ad id usque tempus non satis aperte ac libere Jesum Christum praedicasset, qui Jerosolymitanam Ecclesiam triginta jam annis rexerat. Quod de sanctissimo viro et Christi Apostolo sentire, perabsurdum videtur. Sed quoniam hujusmodi dubiorum explicatio majoris est operae, nec praesentis instituti, tantum hic nobis sufficiat admonuisee, quo studiosis ansam daremus inquirendi, quid ad ea responderi posset.
HANC EPISTOLAM ESSE CANONICAM SCIPTURAM 5 paragraphs
De hac Epistola fuisse aliquando dubitatum, an sacris libris esset annumeranda, jam intelleximus ex verbis Hieronymi supra citatis, in quibus dicitur, eam paulatim, tempore procedente, obtinuisse auctoritatem. Quod etiam ante eum testatus est Eusebius lib. 2. hist. cap. 22. Sic enim de ea Epistola scribit: Etsi a quibusdam tamquam aduUerina ac minime germana propterea judice^ tur, quod non adeo m.ulti ex veteribus illius Epistolae, sicut nec ejus, quae dicitur Judae, mentionem faciunt: tamen nos istas cum reliquis in quam plurimis Ecclesiis publice receptas approbatasque cognovimus. Haec ille. Ex quibus patet, eam dubitationem vel paucorum hominum, vel paucarum Ecclesiarum fuisse; quas tamen in communem aliarum Ecclesiarum sententiam convenisse, ex eo palam ostenditur, quod ab illo tempore et deinceps, nec uUa Ecclesia, nec ullus ecclesiasticus scriptor invenitur hac de re amplius haesitasse. Quin e contrario omnes indices librorum Scripturae sacrae, sive editi a Conciliis, tam generalibus, quam particularibus, atque etiam a Romanis Episcopis; sive ab aliis orthodoxis scriptoribus traditi, ut ab Athanasio, Gregorio Nazianzeno, Augustino, Cassiodoro, Isidoro, Damasceno, hanc Jacobi Epistolam suo nomine expressam et caeteris canonicis scripturis annumeratam exhibent. Quae probatio ad cortam fidem faciendam cuique Catholico sufficere debet.
Verum quia non defuerunt hoc saeculo, qui hujus Epistolae auctoritatem aut contemnerent, ut Martinus Lutherus cum nonnullis suis sequacibus. aat elevarent dubiamque redderent, ut Erasmus et Cajetanus: idcirco breviter ad argumenta, quae eos moverunt, est lespondendum. Lutherus Epistolam hanc ob id rejicit, quod hominem justificari doceat ex operibus, et non ex fide tantum, contra quam Paulus, ut ait, docuit in Epietolis ad Rom. et ad r4alat., justitiam statuens ex fide sine operibus. Hinc igitur eam nec Apostoli Jacobi esse censet, nec Apostolico spiritu dignam. Imo stramineam per contemptum aliquando vocavit et scripsit. Respondeo, Lutherum hujusmodi argumento non Epistolam hanc probare spuriam, sed se ipsum haereticum declarare, quia sincerae doctrinae in ea traditae usque adeo repugnet, ut propterea totam Epistolam abjiciat et condemnet. Quod ne facere cogeretur Calvinus, maluit, Epistola salva, doctrinam justitiae operum in ea contentam ad alium sensum detornuere. Sed nos veram conciliationem hujus doctrinae cum ea, quam Paulus tradidit, infra suo loco adferemus.
Secundo objiciuntLutherani,banc Epistolam, ut recte commendet opera, tamen, praeter morem Apostoli*cum, mutam esse de doctrina fiidei, et tantum de operibus concionari. Quibus respondeo, non opera tantum, sed et fidem hac Epistola luculente commendari; non sohim in eo, quod ad justiliam utrumque requirit, tam fidem, quam opera; verum etiam, dum ait cap. 1.: Voluntarie genuit nos verbo veritatis. Quae sententia, si qua alia, prorsus Apostolica est. Sen.sus enim est, quem eo loco plenius explicabimus: Gratis justificavit nos per fidem. Nec aliud vult, quum paulo post ait: Suscipite insitum verbum, quod potest salvare animas vestras. Sed et ilhid, quod dicit statim ab exordio Epistolae: Probatio fidei vestrae patientiam operatur; et mox: Postulet autem in fide, nihil haesitans; et cap. 5.: Oratio fidei salvabit infirmum j nonne manifestam continent fidei commendationem? Sed ideo magis occupatur in operibus commendandis, quod (ut ante diximus) adversus eos agat, qui neglectis operibus ex sola fide salutem sibi pollicebantur. Deinde, sicut ipse Calvinus respomletj non ab omnibus exigendum, ut idem argumentum tractent. Multa enim (exempli causa) inter Evangelium Joannis ct reliqua tria diversitas est; et tamen haec omnia aeque recipimus, ut a Dei spiritu profecta.
Porro Cajetanus ex salutatione sumit argumentum ad convellendam auctoritatem Epistolae: Quoniam, inquit, ealutatio tam pura est, ut nulli salutationi cujusquam alterius Apostolicae Epistolae conformis sit. Nam nihil Dei, nihil Jesu Christi, nihil gratiae, nihil pacis sonat, sed, profano more, salutem. Haec ille, verbis (quod sane mirum est) a Luthero mutuatis. Nam eadem paene Luthero Sixtus in Bibliotheca sacra attribuit. Ex iis autem colligit Cajetanus, minus certum reddi auctorem hujus Epistolae, et consequenter auctoritatem; sicut argnmentabatur de Epistola ad Hebraeos.
Ad argumentum vero hoc facilis est responsio. Non enim Apostoli semper eadem aut simili formula salutandi in suis Epistolis utebantur, atque interdum in ea re, ut in multis aliis, morem sequebantur vulgo receptum. Quod perspicuum est ex Epistola, quae habetur Act. 15., cujuri initium est: Apostoli et seniorei fratres his j qui sunt Antiochiae, et Syriae et Ciliciae, fratribus ex gentibus salutem. Quin potius haec s&lutationis in utraque Epistola similitudo suadet, ut praesentis Epistolae non alium Jacobum quaeramus auctorem, quam eum, quo suggerente memorata Epistola ad gentium Ecclesias ab Apostolis missa fuit, uti narratur eodem loco. Nec vero putandas est gratiam et pacem tacuisse, qui sa^ lutem nominavit. Nam salus Christiana omne bonum salutare comprehendit. Nec Apostolo necesse fuit, Deum et Jesum Christum cum verbo salutationis repetere, qui Dei et Jesu Christi servum se jam dixerat.
ARGUMENTUM HIJUS EPISTOLAE 4 paragraphs
Non simplex hujus Epistolae argumentum est, sed multiplicem ac miscellaneam continet doctrinam. Tametsi duo principaliter agere videtur: alterum, ut instruat eos, qui volebant aliorum esse magistri, veloces ad docendum et pronuntiandum, jactantes suam sapientiam, aut sapientiae inordinato modo studentes, et ad malos fines hoc suum studium referentes, ut ad g\oY\a.m, opes, voluptates, quod maxime patet ex cap. 4. Unde statim ab initio docet, unde petenda sapientia, monetque, lit malint esse discipuli, quam magistri, et deterret ab ambitione magisterii. Vitium enim hoc regnabat apud Judaeos, qui sibi scientiam legis vendicabant, et omnium volebant esse doctores, Rom. 2. Unde Judaeis fidelibus iHud vitium adhuc magna parte adhaerescebat.
Alterum, de quo jam in prolegomenis admonuimus, ut ofetendAt bonorum operum necessitatem, ne quis sibi de sola fide blandiatur, tamquam ea satis sit ad salutem, quemadmodum Simoniani, recentes tunc haeretici, docebant. Nam inter alias haereses Simonis eam fuisse, quod opera justa non sint ad salutem necessaria, testatur Irenaeus lib. 1. siii operis adversus haereses conscripti, cap. 20. De Nicolaitis etiam aliisque ejus aetatis haereticis, a quibus orti postea Gnostici, quam se totos voluptatibus carnis immerserint, ostendunt ea, quae idem Irenaeus, et post eum Epiphanius et Augustinus de haeresibus scripta reliquerunt.
Adversus hanc igitur pestem, quae in locis Judaeae ac Samariae, Simone auctore, jamdudum coeperat pullulare, et quam non parum adjuvabat perversus intellectus Epistolarum Pauli Apostoli, in quibus de gratuita per fidem justificatione disserit, praecipue suam intentionem dirigit Apostolus Jacobus, quemadmodum Augustinus docet verbis supra citatis ei lib. de fide et oper., nec non in praefat. suae enarr. in Psalm. 31. Agit Apostolus de ea re per totam Epistolam, commendans opera, sed speciatim cap. 1., ubi praecipit, ut sint factores verbi, et non auditores tantum, et quae sequuntur. Plenius autem atque expressius cap. 2. ab eo loco: Quid proderit, fratres mei, si fidem quis dicat se habere, opera nutem non habeat? et caetera usque ad finem capitia. Eodem pertinet illud cap. 4.: Scienti bonum facere, et non facienti, peccatum est illi,
Caeterum traduntur et alia saluberrima praecepta; cujusmodi sunt, retinendam in adversis patientiam, irae temperandum, personarum acceptionem vitandam, linguae vitia cavenda, reprimendas es3e pravas animi cupiditates, infirmos oratione et sacra unctione refocillandos, justorum preces plurimum valere apud Deum, aberrantes in viam revocandos, et id genus alia. Nec malo Cajetanus submonet, libri speciem potius esse, quam Epistolae; praesertim cum eam, quod in Epistolis f ere perpetuum, nuUa salutatio claudat. Verisimile est, scriptam esse Jerosolymis, in qua urbe Jacobus Episcopus erat, et fere continuo resedit. De tempore nihil certi habetar, nisi quod existimem, ab eo scriptam non mujto ante suum obitum, ut haberent Judaei fideles sui Apostoli et Episcopi doctrinam scripto consigngtam, qua etiam post ipsius mortem iustruerentur. Nam ad Judaeos scriptam esse, liquet ex ipso statim ejus exordio.