There have been divers opinions in times past, not only touching the Authors name of this Epistle: but also even the Epistle it self hath bin received with much ado; and that very lately amongst them of the Latin churches. They had it in suspicion, as if it favoured the error of Novatus, touching the denial of pardon unto those which fell back again into sin: but when we shall come to those places where this matter is spoken of, we will show that this their suspicion was causeless. Now for mine own part, I do receive it without any difficulty at all amongst the Apostolical Epistles; and do make no doubt but that it came to pass by the craft and subtlety of the Devil, that there have been some heretofore which have endeavoured to out off this Epistle from the number of the Canonical Books. For there is no book in all the holy Scripture, which more clearly, or lively speaketh of the Priesthood of Christ: neither yet any which doth more highly extol the dignity, and virtue of his only Sacrifice, the which he hath offered up by his death: neither is there any book which handleth more fully, both the use and the abrogating of Ceremonies: In a word, none which instructeth us better, that Christ is the end of the Law. Let us not then by any means suffer that the Church of God and we with it, should be deprived of so great a benefit: but on the contrary, let us hold it fast, and carefully keep it. Now ⟨p. 2⟩we need not much busy our selves in standing to discuss who was the Author of it, some have thought that S. Paul was the Author of it; some others S. Luke; others Barnabas, and others Clement; as S. Hierome declareth. Although Eusebius in the sixth book of the Ecclesiastical history, maketh mention but of S. Luke and Clement. I know very well that since Chrysostoms time, it hath been wholly received of the Greeks amongst the Epistles of S. Paul: but the Latins were of another opinion, even amongst those which were nearest to the times of the Apostles. To speak what I think, I cannot believe that S. Paul was the Author of it. For there is no great likelihood, to say as some do, that he suppressed his name of set purpose, because it was odious and hateful among the Jews. And if this had been so, why then should he make mention of Timothy?
THere haue beene diuers opinions in times past, not onely touching the Authors name of this Epistle: but also euen the Epistle it self hath bin receiued with much adoe; and that very lately amongst them of the Latine churches. They had it in suspition, as if it fauoured the error of Nouatus, touching the deniall of pardon vnto those which fell backe againe into sinne: but when we shall come to those places where this matter is spoken of, we will shewe that this their suspition was causelesse. Nowe for mine owne part, I doe receiue it without any difficultie at all amongst the Apostolicall Epistles; and doe make no doubt but that it came to passe by the craft and subtiltie of the Diuell, that there haue beene some heretofore which haue indeauoured to out off this Epistle from the number of the Canonicall Bookes. For there is no booke in all the holy Scripture, which more clearely, or liuely speaketh of the Priesthood of Christ: neither yet any which doth more highly extoll the dignitie, and vertue of his onely Sacrifice, the which he hath offered vp by his death: neither is there any booke which handleth more fully, both the vse and the abrogating of Ceremonies: In a word, none which instructeth vs better, that Christ is the ende of the Lawe. Let vs not then by any means suffer that the Church of God and we with it, should be depriued of so great a benefit: but on the contrarie, let vs hold it fast, and carefully keepe it. Nowe ⟨p. 2⟩we neede not much busie our selues in standing to discusse who was the Author of it, some haue thought that S. Paul was the Author of it; some others S. Luke; others Barnabas, and others Clement; as S. Hierome declareth. Although Eusebius in the sixth booke of the Ecclesiasticall historie, maketh mention but of S. Luke and Clement. I know very well that since Chrysostoms time, it hath beene wholy receiued of the Greekes amongst the Epistles of S. Paul: but the Latines were of another opinion, euen amongst those which were neerest to the times of the Apostles. To speake what I thinke, I cannot beeleue that S. Paul was the Author of it. For there is no great likelihood, to say as some doe, that he suppressed his name of set purpose, because it was odious and hatefull among the Iewes. And if this had beene so, why then should he make mention of Timothy?
