The Conclusion: Appendix on Subscriptions and Titles to the Epistles

The Conclusion [Appendix on Subscriptions and Titles to the Epistles] In the end of all, it is added, in the Greek and Syriac copies, that this epistle was "written to the Galatians from Rome." Which postscript seems to be erroneous and false. For first, there is not a title in the whole epistle that gives the least inkling that it should have been written from Rome. Whereas in all the rest, which are written from thence, Paul makes mention of his bonds and imprisonment.

Secondly, the variety of copies argues the uncertainty of it, seeing in some copies it is said to have been "sent from Ephesus," as Cajetan and Hyperius affirm in their commentaries upon this place. Thirdly,

Baronius (if his authority be of any weight in this case) affirms that it is not likely or credible that it was written from thence.2 But, be it granted that this postscript were true indeed, yet it is no part of canonical Scripture, as not being written by the apostle, but added afterwards by the scribes which copied out the epistles. Neither is this only true of postscripts, 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 the postscripts, the Greek 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 certain, it was written from Ephesus.

For first, he says, "He will come to them when he shall go through Macedonia" (1 Cor. 16:5). Therefore Paul was not then at Philippi, a chief city in Macedonia. Secondly, in the nineteenth of the same chapter he says, "All the churches of Asia salute you," which shows plainly that when Paul wrote this epistle, he was at Ephesus in Asia,

not at Philippi in Europe. Thirdly, verse 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 coming to Philippi—as also that it was sent by Timotheus and Erastus, it is manifest, verse 10 of that chapter, being compared with Acts 19:21–

22. Lastly, the Syriac translator agrees with me, in affirming that it was written from Ephesus; and so does Baronius (Annal. Tom. 1. pag. 494. l. 39).

Again, the postscript of the Second 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 testimony, who elsewhere make titles part of the canonical Scripture) say, it was

"written at Troas," as it is thought. And Baronius (Annal. Tom. I. pag.

590. l. 51. Antwerp.), thinks it was written at Nicopoli, upon this occasion, that in his former epistle from Ephesus, promising to come unto them as he passed through Macedonia, and coming not (1 Cor.

16), he does in this excuse himself (2 Cor. 1:15–17, compared with 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; 12:18). For Paul speaks of Titus's coming unto them before that time. Neither may it be thought that Titus was sent the second time unto them, considering that departing from Macedonia, and taking Titus with him, he left him in Crete (see Caesar Baronius, Annal. Tom. I.

Antwerp. p. 591. l. 40).

Besides, the Rhemists control 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 affirm that "it seemeth rather to have been written at Corinth,

than at Athens." And they give this reason of it, because after the sending of Timothy to Thessalonica, Paul and he meet not at Athens again, but at Corinth. And Baronius affirms that it seems to have been written presently after that Silas and Timotheus came to him to Corinth, out of Macedonia, by comparing Acts 18:5 with 1

Thessalonians 3:6 (Annal. Tom. I. pag. 457. l. 1). And Emmanuel Sa does censure the Syriac postscript, which says it was sent from Athens by Timothy, seeing that Timothy was then absent. The like they affirm in the argument of the second epistle, for albeit the Greek postscript has it, that it was written from Athens, yet they rather think it was written from Corinth, where Paul abode a year and six months (Acts 18:11), because the title is like unto the first epistle,

"Paul and Silvanus, and Timotheus," etc. And Baronius says, that it should be written from Athens, impossibile est affirmare, because it was written soon after the former, as may appear by the inscription,

Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus (they continuing together). But the former was written from Corinth (as has been proved), and therefore the latter—specially considering that Paul went from Athens, and abode at Corinth a year and a half, and returned not back again to Athens, but went to Ephesus (Annal. Tom. I. pag. 457. l. 28).

Add hereunto, that whereas the postscript of the first to Timothy says it was "written from Laodicea the chief city of Phrygia

Pacaciana," the Rhemists notwithstanding in the argument affirm that it is uncertain where it was written. And though it be commonly said to have been written at Laodicea, yet it seems to be otherwise, because it is like he was never 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 Paul seems to insinuate that he was never at that Laodicea of Phrygia, near to Colossos and Hierapolis, and that they never saw his person (Col. 2:1). Besides, neither Pliny (who writes after Paul) nor any other ancient classic

author does make mention of Phrygia Pacaciana, so that it seems to have been so called long after Paul's decease. The first mention that is made of it (as some have observed) being in the acts of the fifth

Synod of Constantinople. Baronius is of opinion that it was written from Macedonia (tom. I. pag. 54.), grounding his conjecture upon 1

Timothy 1:3, "As I besought thee to abide at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia; so do.…" The same does Athanasius affirm in his synopsis, and Theodoret in his preface upon that epistle.

Again, the subscription of the second to Timothy, that it was "written from Rome unto Timothy the first bishop elected of the church of Ephesus," cannot well stand, as some think, with that of St. Paul, "Do the work of an evangelist" (2 Tim. 4:5), seeing that evangelists were not tied to personal residency, to abide in one place (as bishops and pastors are), but were to go from place to place to confirm the churches planted by the apostles. But the discussing of this argument, whether Timothy were an evangelist properly so called, and whether the same man could not be an evangelist and a bishop, requires a longer discourse than can be afforded to this short treatise. Lastly, the postscript of the epistle to Titus says it was

"written from Nicopolis of Macedonia"—the devisers of which assertion ground their opinion upon Titus 3:12 where Paul says, "Be diligent 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 already), but I have determined there to winter. By which it is plain that when Paul wrote to Titus, he was not at Nicopolis (as the postscript affirms), and so we see the text which they allege for them makes most against them. And this is the judgment and reason of Baronius (Annal. Tom. I. pag. 575. l. 33. Antwerp). Howsoever

Claudius Espencaeus shifts his fingers of it and passes it over 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 appear by these reasons. First, generally, if titles were canonical as well as the epistles themselves, the fathers would never have doubted (as they did) whether Paul were the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews or not, seeing in all copies save one (as Beza has observed) it bears his name. But some of them ascribe it to Barnabas, as Tertullian. Others to Luke, as Jerome witnesses; others to Clement. Oecumenius entitles it only thus, The Epistle to the Hebrews, without adding the name of Paul or any other as the penner of it. And so Hentenius a papist does translate it out of Oecumenius.

Secondly, some epistles (as those seven written by James, Peter, John, Jude) have unfit titles prefixed before them, in that they are called sometime canonical (specially of the Latin church) and sometime catholic (chiefly of the Greek church). Neither of which were ever given them, by any apostle or apostolic writer.

For first, touching the title canonical, it may seem strange that this inscription should ever have been appropriated unto 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 practiced, than in the other books of Holy Writ; considering that sundry divines (albeit erroneously I confess) have been so far from giving unto them this preeminence above the rest of the books of Scripture, that they have altogether rejected them as no part of canonical Scripture—by name, the epistle of James, the Second of Peter, the Second and Third of John, and that of Jude, of all which it was doubted in ancient time, as we see in Eusebius; and the Syrian church receives them not to this

day as being not in the Syriac translation; and Cajetan, a popish writer, and the Lutherans at this present reject them, as may appear by their writings. Secondly, that this inscription was added to these epistles without sufficient ground and warrant of reason may appear in that no reason can be given why these seven should be called canonical, rather than the epistles of St. Paul, or that to the Hebrews

(whosoever was the penner thereof). For whereas the Ordinary Gloss says they are called canonical because they were received into the canon with the other epistles, by that reason they should be no more canonical than the rest, nay, not of that authentical, at last of that undoubted authority the rest are of, seeing they hardly obtained to be registered in the canon with the rest as canonical. Lastly, this title was never given to these epistles by the Greek church (which was more ancient), but only by the Latin church, as might be proved by manifold testimonies, if it were a thing necessary to be stood upon.

Nevertheless, howsoever this inscription cannot be defended, yet it may be excused and tolerated, as a title of distinction to distinguish them from the other epistles. As we see the Jews dividing the Old

Testament into four parts: the first they called the Law, or five books of Moses. The second the former prophets, viz. Joshua, Judges, two books of Samuel, two books of the Kings. The third the later prophets, as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the small prophets. The fourth they called Kethubim, which in English is as much as the Scriptures, not as though those eleven books were more properly

Scripture, than the Pentateuch of Moses, or the books of the former and later prophets, but only for distinction sake they were so called.

And they are termed of the Seventy and of the Greek church ἁγιαγράφα, that is, Holy Writ, not because they had a peculiar holiness proper to them above other parts of God's word (seeing all

Scripture is equally given by divine inspiration), nor as though the amanuenses of these books were more holy than the other penmen of the Holy Ghost (nay, contrarily it is doubted by some, of Solomon,

who penned three of these books, whether he were elected or rejected; whereas it is not doubted of the rest)—but only (as I have already said) to put a note of distinction betwixt them and other books, in naming of them, as Hugo de St. Victor has well observed.

In this sense this title canonical may be given to these epistles without danger: but if we shall understand it in any other sense, we shall be so far 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 directs his epistle only to the twelve tribes that were dispersed, and not to the Gentiles (James 1:1). And Peter, who was an apostle of circumcision writes only to the strangers, the Jews, that dwelt here and there throughout Pontus Galatia,

Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia (1 Peter 1:1). 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, or society of the Jews, wheresoever dispersed over the whole earth. But neither in this sense can they fitly or truly be termed catholic. For as much as two of these seven, viz. the Second and Third of John, were written to particular persons, the one to the elect lady, the other to 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 soever they be. But in this sense all

Paul's epistles may be called catholic epistles. "For whatsoever is written, is written for our learning, that we through patience and consolation of the Scriptures, might have hope" (Rom. 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 (inquies) nemo Catholicus vocabatur: esto, sic suerit, vel illud indulge, cum post apostolos haereses extitisset, 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 aliquerum per membra laceraret?9 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 Syrian translation, where we shall find these words,

"The three epistles of the three apostles, before whose eyes our Lord was transfigured, James, Peter, John." In which inscription be

couched two foul errors. First, in that this translator makes but three epistles of James, Peter, and John—whereas there are six, he omitting the Second of Peter, the Second and Third of 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 unto this day. The second is, in that he affirms James before whom our Savior 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. "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" (Matt. 17:1–2). Which James could not possibly be the penner of this epistle, for he was slain by King

Herod long before the destruction of Jerusalem, and the dispersion of the twelve tribes. "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" (Acts 12:1–2). Therefore James the author of this epistle was James the son of Alpheus. 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 Alpheus, brother to Jude, called the Lesser, and brother of our Lord.

GRATIAS TIBI DOMINE JESU.

-----

MONERGISM BOOKS

Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of Monergism Books. ePub, .mobi & .pdf Editions August 2020 Requests for information should be addressed to: Monergism Books, PO Box 491, West Linn,

OR 97068

↑ Back to top