The Conclusion
In the ende of all, it is added, in the Greeke, and Siriacke copies, that this Epistle was written to the Galatians from Rome. Which post-script seemes to be erroneous and false: for first, there is not a tittle in the whole Epistle, that gius the least inkling that it should have been written from Rome: whereas in all the rest, which are written from there, Paul makes mention of his bonds, and imprisonment. Secondly, the varietie of copies argues the vncertentie of it, seeing in some copies it is said to have been sent from Ephesus, as Caietan and Hyperius affirme, in their Commentaries upon this place. Thirdly, Baronius (if his authoritie be of any waight in this case) affirms that it is not likely or credible that it was written from there. But, be it graunted that this post-script were true indeede; yet it is no part of Canonicall Scripture, as not being written by the Apostle, but added afterwards by the Scribes which copied out the Epistles. Neither is this onely true of post-scripts, but also of Inscriptions or Titles prefixed before Epistles, they are no part of holy writ. This may easily be proved in particular: for first, touching Post-scripts, the Greeke copies agree in this, that the first Epistle to the Corinthians, was written from Philippi, and sent by Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus, and Timotheus: when as it is certen, it was written from Ephesus. For first, chap. 16. 5. he says, He will come to them when he shall go through Macedonia. Therefore Paul was not then at Philippi, a chiefe citie in Macedonia. Secondly, in the 19 of the same chapter, he says, All the Churches of Asia salute you, which shewes plainly, that when Paul writ this Epistle, he was at Ephesus in Asia, not at Philippi in Europe. Thirdly, v. 8. he says, he will abide at Ephesus till Pentecost, therefore he was not then at Philippi. Fourthly, that it was written before the tumult in Ephesus raised by Demetrius and his complices, and so consequently before his comming to Philippi▪ as also that it was sent by Timotheus and Erastus, it is manifest, v. 10. of that chapter, being compared with Act. 19. v. 21, 22. Lastly, the Syriacke translatour agres with me, in affirming that it was written from Ephesus; and so does Baromius Annal. tom. 1. pag. 494. l. 39. Againe, the post-script of the 2. to the Corinthians, has it was written from Philippi of Macedonia, and sent by Titus and Luke: whereas the Rhemists (if we may give any credit to their testimonie, who elsewhere make titles part of the Canonicall scripture) say, it was written at Troas, as it is thought. And Baron. annal. [•]om. 1. pag. 590. l. 51. Antuerp▪ thinkes it was written at Nicopoli, upon this occasion, that in his former Epistle from Ephesus promising to come to thē as he passed through Macedonia, & cōming not, 1. Cor. 16. he does in this excuse himselfe, 2. Cor. 15, 16, 17. compared with the 2. Cor 7:5. Neither is it a good reason to prove that Titus carried this Epistle (as it is in the postscript) because Paul says, he sent Titus to them, and another with him. 2. Cor 8:18, 22. and 12. 18. for Paul speakes of Titus his comming to thē before that time: neither may it be thought that T[•]tus was sent the second time to them, considering that departing from Macedonia, and taking Titus with him, he left him in Creete. See Cesar Baron. annal. tom. 1. Antuerp. p. 591. l. 40. Besides, the Rhemists controll the subscription of the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, which has it thus, The first Epistle to the Thessalonians, written from Athens. For in their preface, they are bold to affirme, that it seems rather to have bin writtenat Corinth, then at Athens: and they give this reason of it, because after the sending of Timothie to Thessalonica, Paul and he meete not at Athens againe, but at Corinth. And Baronius affirms, that it seemes to have been written presently after that Sylas and Timotheus came to him to Corinth, out of Macedonia, by comparing Act 18:5. with 1. Thess 3:6. Annal. tom. 1. pag. 457. l. 1. And Emman[••]i Sa does censure the Syriacke postscript, which says it was sent from Athens by Timothie, seeing that Timothie was then absent. The like they affirme in the argument of the second Epistle: for albeit the Greeke postscript has it, that it was written from Athens, yet they rather thinke it was written from Corinth, where Paul aboad a yeare and sixe moneths, Act 18:11. because the title is like to the first Epistle, Paul and Sylvanus and Timotheus, &c. And Baronius says, that it should be written from Athens, impossibile estaffirmare; because it was written soone after the former, as may appeare by the inscription, Paul and Sylvanus and Timotheus, (they continuing together:) but the former was written from Corinth, (as has bin proved,) and therefore the latter: specially considering that Paul went from there from Athens, and aboad at Corinth a yeare and a halfe, and returned not backe againe to Athens, but went to Ephesus. Annal. tom. 1. pag. 457. l. 2[•].
Adde hereunto that whereas the postscript of the 1. to Timothie says it was written from L[•]odicea the chiefe Citie of Phrigia Pacaciana, the Rhemists notwithstanding in the argumen[•], affirme that it is vncerten where it was written: & though it be commonly said to have been written at L[•]odicca, yet it seems to be otherwise, because it is like he was neuer there, as may be gathered by the Epistle to the Colossians which was written at Rome in his last trouble▪ a little before his death: for Coloss. 2. 1. Paul seemes to insinuate that he was neuer at that Laodicea of Phrigia, neare to Colossos, and Hierapolis, and that they neuer saw his person. Besides, neither Pl[•]nie (who writ after Paul) nor any other ancient classique author, does make mention of Phrigia Pacaciana, so that it seems to have been so called long after Pauls discease: the first mention that is made of it (as some have obserued) being in the acts of the 5. Synode of Constantinop. Baronius is of opinion that it was written from Macedonia, Tom. 1. pag. 564. grounding his coniecture upon 1. Tim 1:3. as I besought you to abide at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia; so doe—The same does Athanasius affirme, in his Synopsis, and Theodoret in his preface upon that Epistle.
Againe, the subscription of the 2. to Timothie, that it was written from Rome to▪ Timothie the first Bishop elected of the church of Ephesus: cannot well stand as some thinke with that of S. Paul, 2. Timothie 4. 5. Doe the worke of an Euang[•]list, seeing that Euangelists were not tied to personall residencie, to abide in one place (as Bishops and pasters are) but were to goe from place to place, to confirme the Churches planted by the Apostles. But the discussing of this argument, whether Timothie were an Euangelist properly so called, and whether the same man could not be an Euangelist, and a bishop, requirs a longer discourse, then can be affoarded to this short treatise. Lastly, the postscript of the Epistle to T[•]tus, says it was written from Nicopolis of Macedonia: the deuisers of which assertion ground their opinion upon Titus 3. 12. where Paul says, be[•]iligent to come to me to Nicopolis, for I have determined there to winter: mistaking the text, for he says not, be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis▪ for I have determined here to winter (as being there alreadie) but I have determined there to winter. By which it is plaine that when Paul wrote to Titus, he was not at Nicopolis, (as the postscript affirms,) and so we see the text which they alleadge for them, maks most against them. And this is the judgment & reason of Baronius, Annal. tom. 1. pag. 575. l. 33. Antuerp. howsoeuer Claudius Espencaus shifts his fingers of it, and passes it ouer in silence.
Thus much concerning Subscriptions: a word or two touching Inscriptions or titles prefixed before Epistles. That these be no part of scripture written by the Apostles, but added to the Epistles by some others, it may appeare by these reasons. First generally, if titles were canonicall as well as the epistles themselues, the Fathers would neuer have doubted (as they did) whether Paul were the author of the epistle to the Ebrewes or not, seeing in all copies save one (as Beza has obserued) it bears his name: but some of them ascribe it to Barnabas, as Tertullian: others to Luke, as Jerome witnesss, others to Clement: Oecumenius infitls it only thus, The epistle to the Ebrewes, without adding the name of Paul or any other as the penner of it: and so Hentenius a papist does translate it out of Occumenius. Secondly, some epistles (as those seuen written by James, Peter, John, Iude) have vnfit titles prefixed before them, in that they are called sometime Canonicall, specially of the Latine church) and sometime Catholick (chiefly of the Greek church) neither of which were euer given them, by any Apostle, or Apostolique writer. For first touching the title Canonicall, it may seeme strange that this inscription should euer have been appropriated to them, which is common with them to the whole word of God: as though in them were contained a more perfect and absolute rule of doctrine and manners, of things to be believed and practised, then in the other bookes of holy writ; considering that sundrie Diuines (albeit erroniously I confesse) have been so farre from giving to them this preheminence above the rest of the bookes of Scripture, that they have altogether reiected them, as no part of Canonicall Scripture: by name the epistle of James, the 2. of Peter, the 2. and 3. of John, and that of Iude, of all which it was doubted in auncient time, as we see in Eusebius; and the Syrian church receius them not to this day, as being not in the Syriacke translation; and Caietan a popish writer, and the Lutherans at this present, reiect them, as may appeare by their writings. Secondly, that this inscription was added to these Epistles without sufficient ground, and warrant of reason, may appeare, in that no reason can be given why these seuen should be called Canonicall, rather then the Epistles of S. Paul, or that to the Ebrewes (whosoeuer was the penner thereof.) For whereas the ordinarie Glosse says, they are called Canonicall, because they were received into the Canon with the other epistles; by that reason they should be no more Canonicall then the rest, in fact, not of that authenticall, at least of that vndoubted authoritie the rest are of, seeing they hardly obtained to be registred in the Canon with the rest as Canonicall. Lastly, this title was neuer given to these Epistles by the Greek church (which was more auncient) but onely by the Latin church, as might be proved by manifold testimonies, if it were a thing necessarie to be stood upon. Neuerthelesse, howsoeur this inscription cannot be defended, yet it may be excused, and tollerated, as a title of distinction, to distinguish them from the other epistles. As we see the Iewes diuiding the olde testament into 4. parts: the first they called the law, or 5. bookes of Moses: the 2. the former prophets, viz Ioshua, Judges, 2. bookes of Samuel, 2. bookes of the Kings: the 3, the later prophets, as Esay, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, and the small prophets: the 4. they called Kethubim, which in English is as much as the scriptures, not as though those 11. bookes were more properly scripture then the Pentateuch of Moses, or the bookes of the former and later prophets: but onely for distinction sake they were so called. And they are tearmed of the 70. and of the Greeke church [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], that is, holy writts, not because they had a peculiar holines proper to them above other parts of Gods word, (seeing all scripture is equally given by divine inspiration) nor as though the amanuenses of these bookes were more holy then the other pen-men of the holy Ghost (in fact, contrarily it is doubted by some, of Salomon, who penned three of these bookes whether he were elected or reiected; whereas it is not doubted of the rest:) but onely (as I have alreadie said) to put a note of distinction between them and other bookes, in naming of them, as Hugo, de S. Uict. has well obserued.
In this sense this title Canonicall, may be given to these Epistles without danger: but if we shall vnderstand it in any other sense, we shall be so farre from being able to defend it, that we shall not be able to excuse it.
The second title which is given them, is, that they be called Catholic, which inscription is as unfit as the former: for they are so called (as some would have it,) because they were written, and directed to the whole Catholic Church, consisting both of Jews and Gentiles. But that is not true, seeing James chapter 1:1 directs his Epistle only to the 12 tribes that were dispersed, and not to the Gentiles. And Peter, who was an Apostle of circumcision, 1 Epistle 1:1, writes only to the strangers the Jews, that dwell here and there throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Others think they are termed Catholic, for that they were not sent to one man, or family, or city, or country: but generally to the whole body, company, and society of the Jews, wherever dispersed over the whole earth. But neither in this sense can they fitly, or truly be termed Catholic: forasmuch as two of these seven, namely the second and third of John, were written to particular persons, the one to the elect Lady, the other to [reconstructed: Gaius]. And by this reason the Epistle to Timothy, that to Titus, and Philemon, may be called Catholic, as well as these.
Again, be it granted, that they were all directed to all the Jews, yet I see not why the Epistle to the Hebrews, may not as well challenge this title to be called Catholic, as any of these seven, considering it was written to all the Jews, and only to the Jews.
Thirdly, others affirm them to be called Catholic, because they contain Catholic doctrine, such as appertains to all men generally, of what estate, place, condition, or calling so ever they be. But in this sense all Paul's Epistles may be called Catholic Epistles. For whatever is written, is written for our learning, that we through patience and consolation of the Scriptures might have hope (Romans 15:4).
Secondly, the word Catholic, is not so ancient: for Pacianus an ancient father, says, it was not used in the Apostles' days. His words are these: Sed sub Apostolis (enquies) nemo Catholicus vocabatur: esto, sic fuerit, vel illud indulge, cum post Apostolos, haereses extitissent, diversisque nominibus Columbam Dei atque reginam lacerare per partes, et scindere niterentur; nonne cognomen suum plebs Apostolica postulabat, quo incorrupti populi distingueret unitatem, ne intemeratam Dei virginem, error aliquorum per membra laceraret?: that is, But you will say, under the Apostles no man was called Catholic: well, be it so, yet admit this withal, when after the Apostles there were heresies, and men began to rend in pieces, and divide God's dove, and Queen, by sundry different names, did not the Apostolic people require their surnames, whereby they might distinguish the unity of the uncorrupt people, lest the error of some, should rend in sunder God's undefiled virgin? Where we see Pacianus does freely grant, that this surname Catholic was not in use in the time of the Apostles. Which testimony Baronius does notably dissemble, in showing the original of this name out of Pacianus; affirming, but not proving it to be as ancient as the Apostles. Now this error has not only befallen the Latin, and Greek copies, but the Syriac likewise, as may appear in the title prefixed before the most ancient Syriac translation, where we shall find these words, The 3 Epistles of the 3 Apostles before whose eyes our Lord was transfigured, James, Peter, John. In which inscription be couched 2 foul errors. First, in that this translator makes but 3 epistles of James, Peter, and John: whereas there are six, he omitting 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John (as also that of Jude) as no part of holy Scripture; and therefore the Syriac church (as I have already said) does not receive these Epistles into their Canon to this day. The second is, in that he affirms James before whom our Lord Christ was transfigured in mount Tabor, to be the author of this epistle. For, that James before whom Christ was transfigured in the mount, was James the son of Zebedee, and brother of John (Matthew 17:1): After six days, Jesus took Peter and James and John his brother, and brought them up into a high mountain, and was transfigured before them. Which James could not possibly be the writer of this epistle, for he was slain by king Herod long before the destruction of Jerusalem, and the dispersion of the 12 tribes (Acts 12:2): About that time Herod the king stretched forth his hand to vex certain of the Church: and he slew James the brother of John with the sword. Therefore James the author of this epistle, was James the son of Alphaeus. For to feign another James the brother of our Lord as some have done, is childish, seeing it is plain by sundry places of the New Testament that there were but two of that name mentioned in Scripture, James the son of Zebedee called James the greater; and James the son of Alphaeus, brother to Jude, called the lesser, and brother of our Lord.
GRATIAS TIBI DOMINE IESV.
