The Epistle of James.
The Epistle of James.
§ 279. At times there were likewise doubts in the Church about this Epistle. Eusebius, Hist. eccles., bk. 2, c. 23: “This Epistle, which is first among the catholic Epistles, is said to be the work of James. But one should note that it is not considered genuine (
), for not many of the ancients mention it, just as they also do not mention that Epistle which is entitled “of Jude,” though it, too, is one of the seven that are called ‘catholic.’ Nevertheless we know that these, along with the rest, are read publicly in many churches.” (In De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 18, arg. 3, Bellarmine accuses the historians of Magdeburg of lying for calling the Epistle of James “corrupt” from Eusebius. But look closely at the actual words of Eusebius and the entire matter will become quite clear.) The same Eusebius, in Hist., bk. 3, c. 22, after his enumeration of the canonical books of the New Testament of the first rank, adds: “But the following are the ones spoken against, though they are well-known to many: the Epistle that is attributed to James,” etc. Book 6, c. 12: “Clement of Alexandria has made detailed explanations of all of canonical Scripture in such a way that he has omitted not even those which are spoken against.” Chapter 13: “He is speaking about the catholic Epistles.” Jerome, Catal. illustr., on James: “James, the brother of the Lord, wrote a brief Epistle that belongs to the seven canonical Epistles. It is claimed to have been published by someone else under his name, though it gradually gained authority as time passed.” Cassiodorus, Div. lect., bk. 1, c. 8: “Clement of Alexandria declared that the Epistle of James was written in the Attic language, and we have had it translated into Latin.”
Of the more recent writers, Cajetan (commentary on this Epistle) says: “It is still not very certain whether this Epistle is by James, the brother of the Lord. The salutation placed here is so pure that it is not in conformity with the salutation of any other apostolic Epistle. You see, it says nothing of God, nothing of Jesus Christ, nothing of grace, nothing of peace. Instead, it gives a greeting in the secular fashion. Also, the author does not call himself an apostle but only a servant of Jesus Christ.” Erasmus, c. 1, Act., p. 199: “There has been some doubt about the Epistle of James.” On James 5, p. 523: “Regarding this Epistle, though filled with salutary precepts, there once was doubt as to whose work it was. Nowhere does it appear to report that apostolic majesty and gravity, nor as much Hebraism, as one might expect from James, who was bishop of Jerusalem.” St. Jerome (Catalog. script. eccles.) indicates on the basis of the authority of Hegesippus: “There were many disciples who had this name. Even he does not call himself an apostle in the title of the Epistle, though in our versions the cognomen ‘apostle’ has been added. With great agreement, however, the Greek versions cry out against this.” And later: “Although I shall do battle with no one over this issue, I approve of this Epistle and cherish it. I am surprised at this: that regarding these matters no one makes more hateful and more secure declarations than those who cannot even explain in what language it was written, Hebrew or Greek, or who translated it into Latin. Such a great man as Jerome had his doubts and prudently tells us what he thought. The less we understand, the more boldly we make our affirmation.” Luther writes (De capt. Babyl.): “Many make the probable claim that this Epistle is not James’s nor worthy of the apostolic spirit.” They are moved by two arguments: (1) From the style. James says that we are justified not only by faith but also by works, which seems to be opposed to Paul. (2) From the object. James makes no mention of Christ, nor of the Gospel.
—Campianus reproaches us with the charge that Luther called this Epistle “contentious, tumid, dry, of straw, and unworthy of the apostolic spirit” (Rat. 1). We respond. Certainly, in the first edition of his German Bible, in his preface to the Epistle of James,46 he writes: “In dignity it cannot compete with the Epistles of Peter and of Paul. Rather, it is an Epistle of straw if it is compared with those.” However: (1) Nowhere does he call it “contentious, tumid, dry.” (2) It is one thing to speak simply [
], another to speak comparatively [
]. (3) Those words have been omitted in later editions of the Bible. After 1526, Luther does not call it “of straw” in any edition of the Bible. (4) He rather holds the opposite position in those later editions, namely, that though the ancients rejected it, he nevertheless praises it and considers it useful and profitable.—
Dr. Lucas Osiander, preface [to this Epistle]: “The early Church had doubts about it not unjustly, for it mentions Christ’s name only twice nor does it teach us anything about His benefits, suffering, and merit. Furthermore, it contends that Abraham was not justified by faith alone. Finally, it calls the Church a ‘synagogue,’ which is foreign to the custom of the apostles.”
§ 280. Arguments to prove that this Epistle is apostolic, however, are not lacking. (1) Not only does it contain nothing unworthy of an apostle, but it also shows apostolic gravity and zeal in all things. (2) The Council of Laodicea and the third Council of Carthage quote it under James’s name. (3) The following give their testimony to it: Origen (homily 7 on Joshua), Epiphanius (Haeres. 76), Athanasius (Synopsis), Dionysius (De divin. nom., c. 4), Cyprian (Ad Novatianum), Jerome (Ad Paulinum), Augustine (Epistle 29 ad Hieron.; De doctr. Christ., bk. 2, c. 8), Rufinus (Exposit. symb.), Isidore (Etymolog., bk. 6, c. 1), the Damascene (Orth. fid., bk. 4, c. 18), and as many as published a catalog of the canonical books of the New Testament.
§ 281. These are the more significant arguments that are set forth for the opposite. (1) “The Syriac version attributes this Epistle to James, the son of Zebedee, the brother of John, for this is the way the inscription reads on the three Epistles, namely, of this one, of 1 Peter, and of 1 John. These three are the Epistles of the three apostles before whose eyes our Lord transfigured Himself, that is, James, Peter, and John. Yet that James was taken away from them by Herod at the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel (Acts 12:1). This Epistle seems to have been written a bit later, when the Gospel already had been preached among the nations among whom converted Jews had been scattered.” Some people respond that because ten years, more or less, intervened between the death of Christ and the martyrdom of James, it is likely that within that period James wrote this letter to his Jewish brethren who were scattered after the murder of Stephen. Obviously, they take this “dispersion” to mean the one mentioned at the beginning of this Epistle. However, because (as Irenaeus witnesses in Adv. haeres., bk. 3, c. 1) the apostles began to consign their instruction to writing late, because they were at first intent upon the preaching of the Word, and especially because this Epistle is directed against the opinion of those who were taking Paul’s instruction about faith alone justifying without works inaccurately, therefore it is not likely that this Epistle was written at that time when Paul had not yet begun to preach to the Gentiles nor yet to write his Epistles. Therefore it is more correct to attribute this Epistle to the other James, the son of Alphaeus, brother of Jude, otherwise called “the Less,” whose cognomen was “Oblias,” who later was bishop of the church at Jerusalem and whom Paul listed among “the pillars of the church” (Gal. 2:9). But Jerome points out (Adv. Helvid.) that that James was of the number of the twelve apostles and thus could have written a catholic Epistle. We must disagree, then, in this point from the Syriac version.
(2) “The author of this Epistle calls himself neither an apostle nor the brother of the Lord.” We respond. Paul, too, in his Epistle to the Philippians, both to the Thessalonians, and to Philemon does not call himself an apostle of Christ, but either a servant, which James does also, or he adds nothing. Likewise, John adds the name “apostle” in neither his Epistles nor the Apocalypse. But Jude, too, who was beyond all doubt in the number of the twelve apostles, does not call himself an apostle but only the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James. As to why neither Jude nor James calls himself a brother of the Lord, the explanation can be given that they could have appeared to have honored themselves rather than Christ if they had called themselves the brothers of Him whose apostles and servants they were, especially if they were to do this in public letters written to their churches. In the epistle of Epiphanius to John of Jerusalem, which Jerome translated from Greek to Latin, James, the author of this letter, is called in clear words sometimes an “apostle,” sometimes “the brother of the Lord.”
(3) “This Epistle seems to conflict with justification by faith.” We respond. In our article On Justification Through Faith [Commonplace XIX], § [191], we explained the genuine meaning of c. 2 in detail. Augustine, De fide et operibus, c. 14: “Because this idea had begun (that good works are not necessary), other apostolic Epistles—of Peter, John, James, and Jude—direct their thought particularly against this opinion, to affirm strongly that faith without works profits nothing, just as also Paul himself defined not just any faith by which one believes in God but that salutary and fully evangelical faith whose works proceed from love. And faith, he says, is something that works through love.”
(4) “The salutation is not similar to the apostolic salutation.” We respond. On the contrary, there is a similar salutation in Acts 15:23: “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: health [salus].” The apostles did not always use the same or a similar formula for greeting [salutandi] in their Epistles but would follow commonly accepted custom in this matter. One must not judge that the person who speaks the greeting [salus] has omitted grace and peace, because there is no place for true health [salus] without grace and peace.
(5) “It preaches neither Christ nor faith because it teaches nothing about the way to obtain salvation through faith in Christ.” We respond. On the contrary, it mentions Christ and faith several times: “Christ,” when he calls himself His servant (1:1); when he calls Him the “Lord of glory” (2:1); when he mentions His coming in judgment (5:7ff.); when he commands us to pray in His name (5:14); and “faith,” when he declares that “the testing of faith works patience” (1:3); when he teaches that “one must pray in faith” (1:6); when he teaches that, having grasped the word of truth by faith, we are born of God (1:18); when he orders us to “receive the implanted Word,” namely, by true faith (1:21); when he forbids us to have faith in our acceptance of persons (2:1), that is, he requires us to have the sort of faith that has true love connected to it, which does good to all without a distinction of persons; when he claims that “the rich in faith have been elected by God” (2:5); when he teaches that we must demonstrate true faith “through works and from works” (2:14ff.); and when he teaches that “the prayer of faith will save the sick” (5:15). Yet all these passages speak about the true and saving faith that grasps the promise of the grace of Christ set forth in the Gospel for righteousness and salvation. Moreover, the principal aim of this Epistle consists in refuting the false idea of those who were abusing the doctrine of gratuitous justification through faith to make it a license for the flesh. Therefore the author especially applied his instruction to this aim.
(6) “It calls the Law of the Old Testament ‘the law of liberty’ (1:25; 2:12), but Paul calls it ‘the law of slavery’ (Gal. 4:31).” We respond. In and of itself, the divine moral law is the law of liberty, but through accident,47 with respect to us, it is the law of slavery. Thus Stephen calls the Law in and of itself “living oracles” (Acts 7:38). Paul calls it through accident “the dispensation of death” (2 Cor. 3:7). Bellarmine responds: “James is speaking about the new law that at the same time offers grace and strength to perform what the Decalogue demands.” About this matter, we have explained in its own place what should be thought about it.
(7) “He calls the Church a ‘synagogue’ (2:2), which is a custom foreign to the apostles.” We respond. In Heb. 10:25 we have the expression 
[“meeting together”], drawn from Matt. 23:37: “How often have I wanted 
[“to gather together”] your children?” Some people refer to this the passage 2 Thess. 2:1, where the word 
is taken to mean the universal gathering of the devout on the Day of Judgment. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres., bk. 3, c. 6, p. 175: “Those who had received the adoption are the Church, for this is the synagogue of God, which God, that is, the Son Himself, has gathered through Himself.” Moreover, words related to 
(“congregation”) are attributed to the Christian people (Matt. 13:2; 18:20; John 11:52; 20:1; Acts 4:31; 11:26; 14:27; 15:6; 20:7).
(8) “The author of the Epistle gives testimonies from the Epistles of Peter and Paul. Therefore he was not one of the apostles but one of the disciples of the apostles.” We respond. In this Epistle, some statements similar to those that occur in the Epistles of Peter and Paul are found, but that is so far from diminishing its canonical authority that, on the contrary, it proves its authority. In Isa. 2:3 and Mic. 4:1, completely similar statements occur, yet no one doubts the canonical authority of these prophets.
(9) “Eusebius says in Hist., bk. 2, c. 23, that this Epistle has been corrupted.” We respond. He says this not with regard to canonical authority but only with regard to the author because, according to Jerome in Catal., on James: “It gradually obtained authority as time passed.” And from Eusebius himself one concludes that such a doubt was either of only a few people or a few churches.
§ 282. Therefore we deem that this Epistle is both canonical and apostolic; that it was written at Jerusalem, inasmuch as it is likely that James was bishop of the church at Jerusalem; that he wrote it not long before his blessed death so that the faithful Jews might have the instruction of their apostle and bishop sealed in writing, with which they would be instructed even after his death.
It consists of five chapters in which the faithful who already for a long time have been established in the instruction of Christ (1) are dissuaded from various vices unbefitting their profession of faith and (2) are, on the other hand, exhorted to the virtues worthy of their profession.