Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Argument
Three things must be set forth here in advance: first, concerning the authority of this Epistle; second, concerning its argument; third, concerning its author.
As to the first, Luther, in this place, cuts this Epistle of James off from the Canon of Sacred Scripture, and calls it strawy, dry, and unworthy of an Apostle. His reason is that, since it commends good works, it is opposed to Luther's own doctrine which teaches that we are justified by faith alone — indeed (Luther says) opposed to St. Paul, who teaches the same in Romans III, 28. Luther is followed by Brenz, Chemnitz, and the Magdeburg Centuriators; and even Erasmus in this place asserts that it does not have the savor of Apostolic gravity.
But it is of faith that this Epistle is Canonical, and a genuine part of the Sacred Scriptures. For the Councils cited a little earlier define this; the cited Fathers teach the same; and this therefore is the sense and consensus of the whole Church, as Judocus Coccius shows by many testimonies of ancient and recent writers in his Thesaurus Catholicus, vol. I, bk. VI, p. 713. To Luther's argument St. Augustine replies, in his book On Faith and Works, ch. XIV, that for this very reason SS. James, Peter, and John wrote their Epistles, lest anyone reading St. Paul's Epistles, especially that to the Romans, should suppose with Luther that faith alone suffices for salvation. They therefore explain Paul, and teach that he by faith does not exclude but includes the works flowing from faith, just as a tree does not exclude but includes the fruits which it bears and produces. Wherefore Calvin, in Bk. III of the Institutes, ch. XVII, §§ 11 and 12, and the Calvinists admit the Epistle of St. James as Canonical. To Luther alone, then, with his followers, it seems strawy — and truly such it is, both because, like kindled straw, it burns up and overthrows his strawy faith, and because like straw set on fire it burns up — and shall in eternity burn — his blasphemous tongue, by which he wrests this Epistle from the Holy Spirit and ascribes it to the devil, the author of errors. See Bellarmine, Bk. I, On the Word of God, ch. XVIII, where he resolves and refutes the eight arguments which the Lutherans bring against this Epistle.
Furthermore, in the placement of the Canonical Epistles in the Bibles, the order of dignity has not been kept: for in that case the Epistles of St. Peter, as the Prince of the Apostles, ought to have been put first; but rather the order of time. Therefore the Epistle of St. James is placed before the rest, either because it was written earlier, or because it was earlier received 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 Chronotaxis. Finally, if you consider their truth and authority and their primary author, there is no order among them, but all are equal and on a par. For all have canonical truth and authority, because all were dictated by the Holy Spirit.
As to the second. The question is asked: what is the argument of this Epistle? I answer: Its scope and argument is, first, to animate the faithful to constancy in the persecution which they were suffering from the Jews and Gentiles. For this is its exordium: "Count it all joy, brethren, when ye fall into divers temptations;" and from there onward it graphically depicts the glory and majesty of unconquered patience. Second, to commend good works and the exercise of the virtues, especially of piety and charity. For since St. Paul, in the Epistles 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 so should idly rest in the faith and grace of Christ — James explains and teaches that the works of faith are required for merit and for salvation; especially because Simon Magus (whom in this age Luther, Calvin, and their followers have followed) took occasion from Paul and openly taught that works are not required for salvation, but that faith alone suffices. Hear what St. Irenaeus says of him, Bk. I, ch. XX: "He taught," he says, "those who had their hope in him and in his Selene (his wife or harlot) to act as freemen in whatever they wished: for men, [he said], are saved according to his grace, but not according to just works." This first heresy of the first heresiarch (whom Menander, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Eunomius, the Gnostics, and many others soon followed) the Apostles — namely SS. Peter, James, and John — straightway in its very beginning set themselves to overthrow and refute, both by word and by their written Epistles. Third, because the same Simon taught the liberty of the flesh, just as Luther did, and that consequently Christians, being freed from the law, could freely give themselves up to the belly and to lust, since 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 is to be obtained by many labors, hardships, persecutions, and often by death and martyrdom. Therefore by words, writings, and deeds he sets a most powerful dyke against the flood of the flesh flowing forth and overflowing in liberty. For Simon Magus was a Samaritan, and was spreading his errors in Samaria, which is near to Jerusalem, and was thence carrying them across to it. Therefore by his pastoral office St. James, as Bishop of Jerusalem and Judaea, was bound openly and with every effort to set himself against him as the wolf of his own flock. He was therefore truly Jacob, that is, the pastor of the faithful, the supplanter of the unfaithful. Hence his Epistle is the canon and rule of Catholic faith and life. Among other things he teaches: first, that every evil arises from us, and every good from God the Father of lights, and is therefore to be sought from Him; second, he distinguishes Christian wisdom from worldly wisdom; third, that the world is opposed to Christ and Christ to the world; fourth, that the desires of the soul are to be mortified; fifth, that the ambition and prosperity of this life is vain and empty; sixth, that God will be the judge and avenger of crimes and criminals, and therefore that the respect of persons and contempt of the poor is to be guarded against; seventh, that the friendship of God is to be sought, and that of the world to be fled; eighth, that anxious solicitude about future things is to be avoided, and one is to rest in God's fatherly care and providence. Fourth, he gives illustrious instructions in all the virtues, especially in faith, hope, religion, meekness, simplicity and candor, beneficence and care of the poor, silence and the bridling of anger and tongue, mutual charity and benevolence; he teaches that avarice and swearing are to be fled, and that in tribulation God's coming is to be patiently awaited. Fifth, he sanctions the sacred anointing of the sick, likewise the practice of praying and singing psalms, and moreover sacred exomologesis (confession). Finally: "He who shall cause," he says, "a sinner to be converted 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 plain that this Epistle was written after St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans; and since he wrote that in the year of Christ 58, it follows that this was written by James after that year, and consequently not long before his death and martyrdom, which he himself underwent in the year of Christ 63. For, as St. Irenaeus says, Bk. III, ch. I, the Apostles were wholly intent upon preaching, and therefore began only late to commit their doctrines to writing.
Furthermore, it might seem that this Epistle was written in Hebrew, inasmuch as it was written by the Hebrew James to the Hebrews dispersed throughout the world. But the more common opinion is that it was written in Greek, both because the Greek language at that time was common — even among the Jews, especially the dispersed. Hence they themselves used the Greek Septuagint version indiscriminately along with the Hebrew text of the Scriptures; and so Christ and the Apostles, indeed Josephus and Philo, cite Moses and the Prophets according to the Septuagint version, not according to the Hebrew text. Also because James, although he wrote this Epistle primarily to the Jews, secondarily wrote it to the Gentiles, and so to all ages: but the language of the Gentiles, lying open most widely, was Greek; and finally because St. Athanasius in his Synopsis writes that the Gospel of St. Matthew was translated by St. James — assuredly from Hebrew into Greek, as the more universal idiom. Therefore in that same language St. James seems to have written His Epistle, that more might be able to read and understand it. So St. Peter, St. John, St. Jude, and St. Paul wrote all their epistles in Greek, except those to the Hebrews and to the Romans.
Many of the ancients have commented on this Epistle. First, St. Augustine — but his Commentary here has been lost. Hear him, Bk. II Retractations, ch. XXXII: "Among my opuscula I have found an exposition of the epistle of the Apostle James, on revising which I noticed that they were rather annotations of certain expositors on those passages of his, gathered into a book by the diligence of brethren, who would not have them in the front of the codex. They are therefore of some help, except that the epistle itself, which we were reading when I dictated these things, we did not have 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 Canonicals. It is in vol. VIII of the Bibliotheca SS. Patrum. Third, on this Epistle there exists a Catena of Greek Fathers, namely SS. Dionysius, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Nazianzen, Basil, Nyssen, Epiphanius, Cyril, Theodoret, and others, which John Felician translated into Latin. Fourth, Venerable Bede. Fifth, Oecumenius. Sixth, Thomas — not Aquinas, nor the Angelic Doctor (for he was earlier than Lyra: he died in the year of the Lord 1274, while Lyra flourished in 1320; but this Author cites Lyra when commenting on the First Epistle of St. Peter, ch. II, v. 19) — but a Doctor not unlike the Anglic Doctor, whether you consider acumen, doctrine, style, or profession (for he was of the Order of St. Dominic), yet later than him: for he flourished in the year of the Lord 1400, as Sixtus of Siena attests in his Bibliotheca. Of more recent writers, very many widely known have written; most recently and most exactly Balthasar Paes the Portuguese, Francis Feuardent, Peter Stewart, Gregory Primaticcio, who briefly but vigorously binds and connects the judgments 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 it to be St. James's; Cajetan doubts. But the Councils already cited, as well as the Fathers, and the whole Church ascribe it to St. James. Therefore it is of faith that it is St. James's. But the doubt is 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 ch. XII, 2), patron of Spain, who is surnamed the Greater. The other the son of Alphaeus, who is the brother of the Lord (Gal. I, 19), and by St. Mark (ch. XV, v. 40) is surnamed "the Less" (whether by age, or by calling, as our Lorinus holds; or by stature, as Fevardentius holds; 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 the Jews dispersed through Spain, and wrote this Epistle to them. He adds "it was the first Scripture of the New Testament, worthy of so great an Apostle." The Arabic version and the Mozarabs in the Liturgy hold the same, and their patriarch St. Isidore, in his book On the Life and Death of the Saints, ch. LXXIII, whom he cites, and whose opinion our Gaspar Sanchez judges probable, in tract. 3 On the Journey of St. James into Spain, ch. XII. The same is held by the Syriac version of Widmanstadius, which attributes this Epistle to St. James, who together with St. Peter and St. John was present at the Transfiguration of Christ: but that one was the son of Zebedee, not of Alphaeus. The same opinion is held by Pope Sixtus III, in the epistle On Bad Teachers, which is extant in vol. V of the Library of the Holy Fathers. But, as the Doctors of Paris rightly note in the same place in the last edition, and Bellarmine, On Ecclesiastical Writers, Baronius and others, this Epistle is falsely ascribed to Pope Sixtus III (a name that has deceived many learned men), since it is by some Pelagian. For he attributes everything to free will, and nothing to grace; he asserts that man can live without any sin, even the slightest. In short, the whole work teems with the errors of the Pelagians.
But others everywhere, both ancient and more recent, attribute this Epistle to St. James the son of Alphaeus, the first Bishop of Jerusalem. So St. Jerome in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, under James; Eusebius, bk. II of his History, ch. XXII or XXIII; St. Augustine on ch. II of the Epistle to the Galatians; St. Ambrose, bk. VII on Luke, ch. IX.
This James was the brother of Jude and Simon the Apostles, as is clear from the epistle of Jude, v. 1, and of Joseph Justus, who was set against St. Matthias in the lot for the Apostolate (Acts I, 23; Matt. XIII, 55). He was the son of Alphaeus, who by another name is called Cleophas, and of Mary, who was surnamed from her son the mother of James, and from her husband, the wife of Cleophas: although some hold that Cleophas was the father of Mary, and consequently the grandfather of James. For some distinguish James the Apostle from the Bishop of Jerusalem, and make three Jameses: first the son of Zebedee, second the son of Alphaeus, third the Bishop of Jerusalem, who would be the author of this Epistle, as Epiphanius does in heresy 76, Dorotheus in his Synopsis, and as is suggested by St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and more clearly by Clement, bk. II of the Apostolic Constitutions, ch. LIX. But this is refuted by St. Jerome, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Baronius and others, and from them by Francisco Suarez, part III, vol. II, disp. V, sect. 4. Indeed the Council of Trent, sess. IV, where it asserts the author of this Epistle to be James the Apostle, on which see more at ch. I, v. I.
Furthermore, since, as St. Ambrose says, bk. II On Virginity, "the first ardor for learning is the nobility of the teacher," this James was of marvelous sanctity and wisdom. This is clear 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 Christ in character, form and countenance, as St. Ignatius testifies in epist. 2 to John, and Origen, bk. I Against Celsus, as though he had been Christ's brother and twin. Therefore James must have been of remarkable form and beauty. For such was the form of Christ, as the Psalmist testifies: "Beautiful in form beyond the sons of men," Ps. XLIV, 3. Again from this it follows that James was very dear to Christ, the Apostles and the Christians. For likeness, as well as virtue, is a reconciler of love and friendship. Epiphanius adds, heresy 70, that James from boyhood was brought up together with Christ. Hence he was surnamed Justus, from his exceptional justice and holiness, as St. Jerome testifies on Galatians I; Eusebius, bk. II of his History, ch. I; Chrysostom, hom. 5 on Matthew; and the monk Antiochus, hom. 72, who adds that this surname Justus was given him for his singular justice by the common suffrages of all. Hence 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 his mother's womb. Thus St. Epiphanius, heresy 29, Hegesippus in St. Jerome on James, and St. Antoninus, III p., vol. XXXI, ch. VIII, with whom rests the credit of this matter. Certainly his mother, the most holy Mary of James, translated from Jerusalem to Veroli in Italy, shines with many great miracles, as the Roman Martyrology has it, on the 25th of May, and the Chronicles of Veroli.
Secondly, just as Christ was the minister of the circumcision, as the Apostle says (Rom. XV, 8) — that is, He preached only to the Jews, as a faithful people, holy and chosen by God, to whom He had through the Prophets promised this same Christ as Messiah and Savior: so also James, as it were Christ's brother, successor and heir, was from among all the Apostles, by their decree at Christ's command (as Eusebius testifies, bk. VII of his History, ch. XIV, at the end), chosen and constituted Bishop of the holy city, namely Jerusalem, and Pastor of the Jews. Hence Hesychius in an oration extant in Photius's Library, no. 833, calls James the supreme leader of the new Jerusalem, prince of priests, head of the Apostles, resplendent among lampstands, and most illustrious among the stars. Furthermore, James was instituted Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter, John and James the brethren: thus Pope Anacletus, in his epistle to the Bishops of Italy; and that on the day after the death of St. Stephen, says Bede in his Chronicle, namely on the 27th of December, in the year of Christ 34, so that by his kindness, modesty and gentleness he might soothe the minds of the Jews exasperated by the freedom and rebuke of St. Stephen; and he so accomplished this that he peacefully presided there as Bishop, and ruled the Church for 29 years. James therefore succeeded Christ as a brother to a brother, in order to raise up seed for Him, which would consequently bear the name of Christians, not of Jacobites. Hence Christ also, going to the Father, commended to him the sons of mother Church, says St. Jerome on ch. I of the epistle to the Galatians.
Thirdly, St. Epiphanius, in heresy 78, asserts that his surname was commonly Oblias, that is wall (some erroneously read munus, gift) and bulwark; for which others read Ophilas, from עפל ophel, that is citadel, a most lofty and fortified tower: such as was that of the Temple, with its top almost reaching into the clouds, so that those gazing at its summit had their eyes grow dim. Hence in Hebrew it is called Ophel, that is darkness, on which see Josephus, bk. II of the War, ch. XVIII, and bk. VI, ch. VI, and bk. VII, ch. XIII. And the Poet: Behold the masses rising into the dark clouds, And the temples that envy the starry orbs. And this is so first because St. James was most devoted to prayer, in which he was as it were caught up into heaven to God by a full ascent of the mind. Secondly, because by his prayer and holiness he was as it were a citadel and bulwark, protecting and defending the whole Church and the whole people of the Jews. Hence from frequent and continual prayer he had not only knees but also a forehead callused, since out of profound humility and reverence he pressed it to the ground, as St. Chrysostom testifies in hom. 3 on Matthew. St. Epiphanius testifies in heresy 78 that, when a great drought was pressing, St. James, lifting his hands to heaven, prayed to God like another Moses, and at once obtained rain.
Fourthly, St. James was a Nazarene: hence he abstained from wine, flesh, all animate things, oil, baths, woolen garments and other delights. So Eusebius, Epiphanius and the others cited. Epiphanius adds, in heresy 78, that he remained always a virgin, and thinks that this was the man who, leaving behind his linen cloth, fled naked at the time of Christ's passion: he formed this opinion because it is established that St. James was always accustomed to wear a linen sheet. He further records that he was accustomed to walk barefoot.
Fifthly, St. James was after St. Peter the pillar of the Church and of the faith, as St. Paul calls him, Gal. ch. II, 9, where he also asserts that he had conferred his Gospel with him, "lest I should run, he says, or had run, in vain." Hence Peter, freed from prison by the Angel, immediately sent news of the matter to James (Acts XII, 17). Hence too Jude writes and glories that he is the brother of James; and his mother, although she had several sons who were Apostles, is nevertheless called from the more worthy of them the mother of James (Mark XVI, 1).
Sixthly, St. James was the proper pastor and patron of the Jews. Hence in order to conciliate them to himself, and bring them over to Christ, he kept the Law of Moses, though already dead but not yet deadly; indeed he was the author of Paul's keeping the same, in order to make him acceptable to his Jews and to win them, and so to provide for Paul's safety and the common peace and concord (Acts XXI, 18).
Seventhly, Clement of Alexandria, bk. VII of the Hypotyposes, and from him Eusebius, bk. II of his History, ch. I, hand down that Christ after His Ascension imparted a certain singular knowledge to James the Just, John and Peter, which they then communicated to the other Apostles, and these to the 70 disciples. Hence Rabanus, in his book On the Universe, ch. V, says that James in this Epistle pours into its readers an immense brightness of knowledge: for it embraces every 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 the Angels and Saints lead in Paradise. Hence day and night in prayer he conversed with God and the Angels. Hence too Christ's countenance and character shone forth in him as in a living antitype. Wherefore the faithful, after Christ's ascension into heaven, vied with one another in coming from various provinces to Jerusalem to see St. James, that they might see and behold Christ in him, on account of the marvelous likeness he had to Him in all things. Thus St. Ignatius, in his epistle to St. John the Evangelist (or whoever the author is: for many learned men judge it not to be St. Ignatius's), writes that he is thinking of going to Jerusalem to see St. James as a living likeness of Christ. Hence too Judas, about to betray Christ to the Jews, gave them the sign of a kiss, that by it they might recognize Christ, lest in His place they should seize James as most like Christ. Truly Plato in the Theaetetus: "Nothing, he says, is more like to God than when someone among men is most just. For in this consists man's true excellence."
Ninthly, many of the ancients hand down that it was granted to St. James to enter into the Holy of Holies, which by the Law of God (Lev. XVI, 2; Heb. IX, 7) was lawful only for the High Priest, and that only once a year, namely on the Feast of Expiation. They hand down that this was granted to St. James: St. Jerome in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, under James; St. Epiphanius, heresy 29; Eusebius, bk. II of his History, ch. XXII or XXIII; Hegesippus, bk. V, and from them Nicephorus, Abdias and others. This seems incredible to many learned men, both because the Jews were most observant of their law and rites, and because these same were the greatest enemies of Christ and the Christians. But so great is the fidelity and authority of the Fathers I have just cited that it is not permitted to reject it. What then? The matter requires moderation, and may be reasonably maintained, if we say that this was permitted to St. James not commonly and habitually, but only in rare cases, as if for example a thunderbolt had fallen into the Holy of Holies; if by chance the Cherubim, the propitiatory or the ark had collapsed; if anyone had violated the holy place: for just as Pilate set up the statue of Caesar in the city, and perhaps in the temple, as Josephus testifies in bk. II On the War, ch. VIII, so perhaps too some Roman governor or soldier, in order to gratify the Emperor Caius Caligula (who was hostile to the Jews, and wished to be adored by them, as by the rest of the nations, as God, and therefore had ordered his image to be set up in the temple at Jerusalem, as is clear from Philo's embassy to Caius), set up his statue in the Holy of Holies, etc. For then, in order to purge and restore it from violation or mutilation, or to rescue it from the danger of fire and ruin, it was necessary to send into it a man of eminent dignity, sanctity and wisdom, who could either accomplish this or report what needed to be done. But none was worthier than James, none wiser, none holier. Add that he was himself the proper Bishop and High Priest of Jerusalem, and as such was venerated not only by the Christians but also by the Jews, who, on account of his gentleness, holiness, charity, etc., loved and revered him as a parent; especially because he was himself an observant and protector of the Jews and Judaism, as I said a little before. Indeed they far preferred him to their own High Priest Ananus and his like, who had either been intruded by the Romans, or simoniacally bought the pontificate with money, or administered it greedily, impurely and unworthily. Finally St. James, by his abstinence, prayer and zeal, seemed to be not so much a man as an angel, to whom alone the Jews thought entry into the Holy of Holies was rightly owed. And from this some, as Salmeron here, are of opinion that this was the cause of St. James's martyrdom, namely that the High Priest Ananus, not bearing St. James as a partner and rival in the pontificate, and grieving that he was preferred to himself by the people, summoned him as a subverter of Judaism and a herald of Christ and Christianity, and made him a capital defendant before his fellow zealots of the Mosaic law. All this is confirmed by the testimony of Josephus, who ascribes the destruction of Jerusalem accomplished by Titus to the slaying of St. James, in bk. XX of the Antiquities, ch. XVI, as do also St. Jerome on James, Eusebius, bk. II of his History, ch. XXII; Origen, bk. I Against Celsum; Isidore, in his book On the Life and Death of the Saints, ch. LXXIX. From these one may easily gather how great was St. James's sanctity, and how great the opinion of his sanctity and dignity among the Jews. So great is virtue, so great the power of holiness, which befriends friends and enemies alike.
Thus St. Francis Xavier by his holiness became an object of admiration to the Bonzes, though enemies of Christ, and is so even now to the infidels in India, who call him the Holy Father and invoke him, and often through his intercession obtain from God by miracle health, life and other graces. Hear Turselinus in his Life, bk. II, ch. XI: "He was commonly called the Great Father. The King of Travancore proclaimed throughout his whole realm that all should obey the Great Father just as themselves." The same author, ch. IX, recounts that the Brahmins, though infidels, having heard Francis's teaching, embraced it, and extolled it with marvelous praises.
So too his disciple Gaspar Barzaeus, on account of his sanctity, was venerated by the Saracens, sworn enemies of Christ, as if a prophet or angel fallen from heaven. For with their knees bent to the ground they would greet him, and would kiss his hand, indeed his garment and the prints of his feet. "They called him the son of Zechariah, as if another St. John the Baptist, and the great Caciz of the Christians: indeed at the dead of night they led him with many torches into their own temple (which they call the Koran) with a great retinue, and brought him to the very top, with the whole city of Hormuz looking on and marveling. And yet, even with death proposed for any from a foreign sect to enter, it is forbidden by Mohammedan laws. But they thus excused Mohammed, saying he would not have wished to exclude so eminent a man of virtue," says our Trigautius in his Life, bk. II, ch. XIV. In a similar way the Jews explained the law; that it would not have been the will to include St. James, a man of such exceptional dignity and sanctity. "For because of the supreme zeal for wisdom and piety which he had assiduously cultivated in his life, he was esteemed by all most just," says Eusebius, bk. II of his History, ch. XXII. Hence the people too eagerly desired to touch the fringes of his garment, says St. Jerome. Therefore the assertion of St. Epiphanius, in the place already cited, that St. James was a priest of the Old Law, and therefore was admitted into the Holy of Holies, is rightly rejected by all others as false and insufficient. For only the High Priest was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies. But it is established that St. James was not an Aaronic High Priest. Finally some are of opinion that the law in Lev. XVI, 2, that no one is to enter the Holy of Holies except the High Priest once a year, must be limited to the solemn entry, namely that in which the sacred service had to be solemnly performed in the Holy of Holies: for after that time it was lawful for those eminent in holiness, such as St. James was, to enter the Holy of Holies. They prove it from the fact that St. Evodius, successor of St. Peter in the See of Antioch, in Nicephorus, bk. II, ch. XX; Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople; George of Nicomedia, oration On the Presentation of Mary; Andrew of Crete, On the Dormition of the Mother of God, recount that the Blessed Virgin, when presented in the temple, dwelt in the inner sanctuary and in the Holy of Holies. So thinks our Christopher de Castro in his History of the Mother of God, ch. III. But that law in Lev. XVI, 2, does not seem to admit this limitation, as Abulensis solidly teaches in the same place; nor did the other virgins, among whom the Blessed Virgin lived, dwell in the Holy of Holies, but in the court at the door of the tabernacle, as is said in Exod. XXXVIII, 8, and 1 Kings II, 22.
Tenthly, St. James was the first to solemnly celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass, as the Sixth Synod indicates in De consecr., dist. I, ch. Jacobus, and He prescribed the form and rite for celebrating it. There also exists the Mass of St. James, which is not by some apocryphal writer but by St. James himself, as is clear both from the sense and consensus of the Doctors and faithful in the Trullan Council, from Proclus, Archbishop of Constantinople, in the Council of Ephesus, and from Cyril, likewise Bishop of Jerusalem, who in his fifth catechesis has mystagogical orations received from the Mass of St. James: such as that the priest should say in a loud voice, Sursum corda (Lift up your hearts); and what is wont to be prefaced about the immense glory of God before the sacred mysteries; that the same priest should say, Pray for the living and the dead; that the Deacon before the reception of the divine mysteries should call out, Greet one another with a holy kiss, and to those about to receive should chant, The holy things to the holy, and the people should answer, One is holy; that the cantors during the reception of the Holy Eucharist should sing together that of Ps. XXXIII: Taste and see, for sweet is the Lord; and many other such things. See Sixtus of Siena, bk. I of his Library, under James, and Claudius Sainctes, preface to the Liturgies, ch. VIII. Hence too St. Ignatius, in his epistle to Hero, says that St. Stephen was Deacon of St. James and ministered to him. The same Ignatius, in epist. 5 to the Trallians: "What indeed, he says, are Deacons but imitators of angelic virtues? who exhibit a pure and blameless ministry to them (the priests), as St. Stephen to blessed James, Timothy and Linus to Paul, Anacletus and Clement to Peter. Whoever therefore does not obey these is utterly atheist and impious." Now St. Stephen served St. James before he himself was made Bishop of Jerusalem. For he was made bishop the day after the death of St. Stephen, namely on the 27th of December, as I said above from Bede. There once existed, and even now exists, a Gospel under the title of St. James, but it is spurious: for it was a pseudo-gospel. So Baronius.
Eleventhly, St. James was present at the first Council of Jerusalem, and as Bishop of Jerusalem he was the first after St. Peter to give sentence, namely that Christians are not bound by the Law and the legal observances of Moses (Acts XV, 13). Hence as an ornament of His episcopal dignity, St. James wore on his head a golden plate, as the insignia both of the Pontificate and of the kingdom of Christ, after the manner of Melchizedek, "calling on Christ as one who has transferred the kingdom of David together with the Pontificate, and bestowed it on His servants, that is, on the Pontiffs of the Catholic Church," says St. Epiphanius, heresy 29 and 78, and Jerome on James, and on Gal. II. For the Aaronic High Priest, with the mitre or tiara which he wore on his head, bore on his forehead a golden plate fastened to it, on which was inscribed Holy to the Lord, to signify that he was Pontiff of the Most High and Most Holy God. So Polycrates in Eusebius, bk. V of his History, ch. XXIII, hands down that St. John the Apostle also wore a golden plate after the manner of a crown. Cardinal Baronius judges that the other Apostles wore the same, and that hence Bishops now wear a precious mitre, because they exercise a royal priesthood as kings and priests of Christ (year of Christ 34, p. 263). Hence Eusebius, bk. X of his History, ch. IV, thus addresses Bishops: "Friends of God and priests, who are adorned with the sacred robe and the crown of heavenly glory, with divine chrism, and finally with the priestly stole of the Holy Spirit." Eusebius records, bk. VII of his History, ch. XIV, that the chair of St. James was religiously preserved down to his own times. "Which, he says, the Bishops who succeeded there in order esteem very highly." From this it is clear that Christians removed it from Jerusalem before the siege of Titus: for otherwise it would have burned along with the rest, says Baronius, year of Christ 68, ch. LI.
Twelfthly, St. James underwent a glorious martyrdom for Christ. Epiphanius, in heresy 78, hands down that St. James lived to a decrepit old age, and died in the 96th year of his age, after the Ascension of Christ. But others everywhere hand down that he was killed in the 7th year of Nero, which was the 63rd from Christ's Nativity, the 29th from His Passion and Ascension, and consequently he had presided over the Church of Jerusalem for the same number, namely 29 years. It also seems scarcely credible that he was killed in the 96th year of his age. For thus when he was called to the Apostolate by Christ, he would have been almost seventy. Who would believe that one so old was chosen for Apostolic labors, especially since the rest of the Apostles were chosen by Christ as young men?
Furthermore, Eusebius gravely and graphically thus describes and recounts his life, death and martyrdom from Clement of Alexandria and Hegesippus, in bk. II of his History, ch. XXIII: "James, he says, was holy from his mother's womb, drank no wine or strong drink, abstained from the flesh of animals, his head was never shaved with a razor, nor was his body anointed with oil or washed with baths. To him alone was it permitted to enter into the Holy of Holies; for he wore garments not of wool but only of linen. He was accustomed to enter the temple alone, and there, with knees set on the ground, to ask pardon for the sins of the people: whose knees, because he so assiduously bowed both to adore God augustly and holily and to beg pardon for the people by prayers, became hardened with calluses contracted like a camel's. He, on account of the singular excellence of his justice, received the name Justus (the Just) and Oblias (which in Latin can be called the people's bulwark, and justice), as the Prophets record of him. When therefore some of the supporters of the seven sects scattered among the people, and described by me earlier in the History, asked him what was the door of Jesus, he answered that Jesus was the Savior. Of whose number some believed that Jesus was the Christ. But the aforesaid sects did not believe at all either that there would be a resurrection of the flesh, or that anyone would come to render to each one the reward for the things rightly or otherwise done in life. But as many as believed, believed by the preaching and exhortation of James. Therefore when very many even of the principal men had embraced the faith, some of the Scribes, Pharisees and the rest of the Jews began to be in tumult and even to clamor, because almost the whole people thought Jesus to be the true Christ. They also went to James, and addressed him thus: We earnestly beg you that, since the people, having put their faith in Jesus as if He were truly the Christ, has fallen into a grave error, you should call them away from this opinion; and we also implore you again and again to instruct rightly and truly about Jesus all those who today have gathered to celebrate the festal day of Passover: for we all give credit to you, and not only we, but also the whole multitude bears testimony that you are just, and that you do not respect persons. Persuade therefore the people about Jesus, lest they err: for both the whole people, and we all, believe you. For this reason place yourself upon the pinnacle of the temple, that from a higher place you may be visible to all, and your words may easily be heard without hindrance by the whole multitude. For on account of the festival of Passover not only all the tribes of the Jews, but also many of the Gentiles had gathered. Then the Scribes and Pharisees whom we have placed above, with James set upon the pinnacle of the temple, began to cry out and say: O Just one, to whom we all rightly owe our faith, since the people has erred by following the crucified Jesus, do you therefore show us what is the door of the crucified Jesus. He answered with a clear voice: Why do you ask Me about Jesus the Son of Man? He Himself sits in heaven at the right hand of the great power and majesty of God, and is to come in the clouds of heaven." This express and public profession of Christ was the cause of his martyrdom, which therefore was evident and illustrious. For Eusebius adds: "And when many were thoroughly persuaded, and on account of James's testimony lifted up praises to God to heaven, and were saying Hosanna to the son of David: the Scribes and Pharisees again first began to converse thus among themselves: Badly indeed and unhappily has it fallen out, that this testimony has been attributed to Jesus through our doing. Let us then go up the steps and cast him down headlong, that the people thereby thoroughly frightened may give no faith to his doctrine. Then let us cry out and say: Even the just one has erred. In which the sacred utterances written in Wisdom were plainly fulfilled: Let us take away the just one from our midst, since he is troublesome and inconvenient to us. Wherefore they shall eat the fruit of their works. At length therefore the young men hurled the Just one down, and said among themselves that James the Just had to be overwhelmed with stones. And since being cast down headlong he did not at once die, but with face raised upward and knees bent he said: I beseech You, Lord Father, give them pardon, for they know not what they do; they began to throw rocks at him, and as they continued to overwhelm him with stones, one of the priests, of the sons of Rechab, son of the Rechabim, who are commended by the testimony of Jeremiah, called out with raised voice and said: What are you doing? The Just one is praying to God for you." The man who said this was Simeon his nephew through his sister, son of Cleophas, as Epiphanius records.
Eusebius continues: "However one of them, who was a fuller, seizing the bar with which he was wont to press cloth, struck it on the head of the Just one; thus he lost his life, afflicted and stricken with the blessed and happy torment of martyrdom. In which place near the temple, where a small column inscribed with his name still remains, his body was committed to the tomb. This James was both to Jews and to Greeks a dear and incorruptible witness that Jesus was truly the Christ. Not long after, Vespasian besieged Judaea and reduced the Jews to servitude. Hegesippus has expounded more fully and amply these things wonderfully agreeing with Clement's History." Thus far Eusebius on the death of James from the said authors.
But as to his sepulcher, Jerome adds these things: "His burial had a most well-known monument right up to the siege of Titus, and the last by Hadrian. Some of our own thought him buried on the Mount of Olives; but their opinion is false." St. Jerome adds, in his article on James, from the Gospel according to the Hebrews: "The Lord, he says, when He had given the linen cloth 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 at which he had drunk the cup of the Lord, until he saw Him risen from the dead. And again a little later: Bring, said the Lord, a table and bread; and immediately is added: He took bread, and blessed and broke it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to him: My brother, eat your bread, for the Son of Man has risen from those who sleep." Adrichomius too, from Bredembachius, Saligniacus and others, in his Description of Jerusalem, no. 210, describes the cave in which James lay hidden fasting for the three days of the Lord's Passion, and adds: "Therefore the Lord also appeared to him here separately after His resurrection. In whose honor Christians afterwards erected a church in that place." But this oath and fast of James is rejected by St. Augustine, in bk. III On the Harmony of the Evangelists, ch. XXV, and others, on this ground, that the appearance of Christ to James, of which the Apostle speaks in 1 Cor. XV, 7, took place after the appearance to the five hundred brethren. For after that Paul adds: "Then He was seen by James." But that appearance of Christ to the five hundred brethren took place long after the resurrection, beyond which the fast of James could not naturally have been extended: unless you say that the deinde (then) signifies number, not the order of the appearances; so that it is the same as moreover, besides, as if to say: Christ appeared to the five hundred brethren, and besides also to James alone.