Fulke.

Now concerning the second point, which is calling FULKE, of some books into controversy, or moving scruples about them, 11. to diminish their credit or authority, whether you be guilty of that crime rather than we, I have somewhat noted before. But with what evidence you are able to charge us, it cometh now to be considered: you will go no further than the epistle to the Hebrews2. You may be ashamed to have gone so far; for of all books of the New Testament, there is none that we might worse spare to confound your blasphemous heresies than that epistle, which is the very mall to beat into powder the abominable idol of your mass, and your sacrilegious priesthood serving to the same. Wherefore it is without all colour that you charge us to seek to diminish the credit of that epistle. But you "will not ask why we doubt of, or rather think it not to be St Paul's, because we will tell you, that it was once in doubt." If you acknowledge that the author of this epistle was once in question, you clear us of moving scruples about it, or calling it in question, which was your first charge. Let Eusebius, Jerome, and other ancient writers, Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 25. bear that blame, if it be blame-worthy to tell what other men's Hieronym. ad Dard. opinions have been in such a matter; some holding that it tom. 3. was written by St Luke, some by St Barnabas, some by St Clemens. But you must wit, if you will, that they which at this day doubt of the writer thereof, or else think it not of St Paul's penning, have other reasons to lead them, than

[The argument to "the Epistle to the Hebrewes," in the edition of the bible printed at Edinburgh, 1579, (which is a reprint of the Geneva bible of 1560,) commences thus, as indeed it does in the edition of 1557, and those printed by Barker, 1578, and 1582. "Forasmuche as divers, bothe of the Greke writers and Latine, witnesse, that the writer of this epistle for juste causes wolde not have his name knowen, it were curiosite of our parte to labour muche therein. For seeing the Spirit of God is the autor thereof, it diminisheth nothing the autoritie, althogh we knowe not with what penne he wrote it. Whether it were Paul (as it is not like), or Luke, or Barnabas, or Clement, or some other, his chiefe purpose is to persuade unto the Ebrewes, (whereby he principally meaneth them that abode at Jerusalem, and under them all the rest of the Jewes,) that Christ Jesus was not only the redemer, but also that at his comming all ceremonies must have an end," &c.

In Coverdale's bible, 1537, it bears the title of St Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews; in Matthew's bible, 1537; in Taverner's, 1539; in Day's bible, 1551; in the Bishops' bible, 1584, and in Cranmer's bible, 1562. The omis sion seems to be peculiar to the Anglo-Genevese Version.]

only because it was doubted of. For beside those reasons which they had, which of old time doubted of the writer thereof, as the diversity of the style, and inscription thereof, and manner of reasoning, they have also observed something out of the epistle itself, which seemeth to argue, that it was not written by St Paul: as that in the beginning of the 2nd chapter he saith, "The doctrine of salvation was confirmed to us by them that heard it, after it was first spoken by the Lord himself;" which seemeth to agree with the profession of St Luke in the beginning of his gospel; whereas St Paul denieth "that he learned his gospel of men, but only by revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal. i. 12. But of all them that doubt, or think it not to be St Paul's epistle, there is not one that doubteth of the authority thereof, but that it is equal with the epistle to the Romans, or the gospel of St In Isai. lib. John: although in the Latin church, as St Jerome' testifieth, it hath been doubted whether it were canonical.

3. cap. 6. in Evang. Matt. lib. 5. cap. 26.

The cause

[Nam et Paulus in epistola sua quæ scribitur ad Hebræos (licet de ea multi Latinorum dubitent).—Comment. Hieronymi in Matthæi cap. 26. Opera. Vol. iv. pp. 125, 126.

Ac primum solvenda est illa quæstio, quæ nobis objici potest: quare Apostolus Paulus cum Hebræis disputans non juxta Hebraicum, quod rectum esse cognoverat, sed juxta LXX. sit loquutus? Evangelistam Lucam tradunt veteres ecclesiæ tractatores medicinæ artis fuisse scientissimum; et magis Græcas literas scisse quam Hebræas. Unde et sermo ejus tam in Evangelio, quam in Actibus Apostolorum, id est, in utroque volumine comptior est, et secularem redolet eloquentiam ; magisque testimoniis Græcis utitur quam Hebræis. Matthæus autem et Johannes, quorum alter Hebræo, alter Græco sermone evangelia texuerunt, testimonia de Hebraico proferunt: ut est illud, Ex Ægypto vocavi filium meum. Et, Quoniam Nazareus vocabitur. Et, Flumina de ventre ejus fluent aquæ vivæ. Et, Videbunt in quem compunxerunt, et cetera his similia. Pauli quoque idcirco ad Hebræos Epistolæ contradicitur, quod ad Hebræos scribens utatur testimoniis quæ in Hebræis voluminibus non habentur. Quod si aliquis dixerit, Hebræos libros postea a Judæis esse falsatos, audiat Origenem quid in octavo volumine explanationum Isaiaæ huic respondeat quæstiunculæ, quod nunquam Dominus et Apostoli, qui cetera crimina arguunt in Scribis et Pharisæis, de hoc crimine quod erat maximum reticuissent. Sin autem dixerint, post adventum Domini Salvatoris et prædicationem Apostolorum libros Hebræos fuisse falsatos, cachinnum tenere non potero, ut Salvator et Evangelistæ et Apostoli ita testimonia protulerint, ut Judæi postea falsaturi erant.-Commentar. Hieronymi in Isaia Prophet. Lib. I. cap. 6. Opera. Vol. I. pp. 63, 64.]

seemeth to be the heresy of the Novatians, which abused a text out of the 6th chapter against remission of sins committed after grace received, which we shew was no sufficient cause to refuse so divine an epistle, seeing the apostle speaketh not of particular faults, which are common to the faithful oftentimes every day, but of an utter apostasy and falling clean away from the truth of the gospel once known and professed into an horrible contempt and persecuting of the same. But we must "make you a reasonable answer, why in the English bibles printed 1579 and 1580, we presume to leave out St Paul's name out of the very title of the said epistle; which name is in the Greek and Beza's Latin translation, which we profess to follow." I answer without any presumption, that that which is uncertain we spare to affirm. Example we have, not only that ancient Greek copy whereof Beza speaketh, which leaveth out the name of Paul, but also divers printed books in which that name is left out. Beside it is certain, that title was not of ancient time universally added. For St Jerome, in Catalogo scriptorum ecclesiast., after he hath recited all the epistles of St Paul, at length he cometh to this epistle, Epistola autem quæ fertur ad Hebræos, &c. But the epistle which is called unto the Hebrews, is not thought to be his, for the difference of the style and speech; but either written by Barnabas, as Tertullian' holdeth, or by Luke the Evangelist, as some men think, or by Clemens, that after was bishop of the Roman church, whom they say to have ordered and adorned the sentences of Paul in his own speech, or else truly, because Paul did write unto the Hebrews, and because of the envy of his name among them he cut off the title in the beginning of the salutation. These things considered, what need those tragical exclamations in so trifling a matter? "Doth not the title tell it is St Paul's? why strike they out St Paul's name? what an heretical peevishness is this!" For lack of good matter, you are driven to loud clamours against us; but I will even conclude in your own

[Exstat enim et Barnabæ titulus ad Hebræos, adeo satis auctoritatis viro, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentiæ tenore: Aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potestatem? Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabæ illo apocrypho pastore machorum.-Tertullian. de Pudicitia. Opera. p. 741. edit. Rigaltii, 1641. cap. 20. edit. Semler. Vol. iv. p. 427.]

MARTIN,

12.

FULKE,

12.

words: "I report me to all indifferent men of common sense, whether we do it to diminish the credit of the epistle," which of all St Paul's epistles we might least miss, when we come to dispute against your popish sacrifice and sacrificing priesthood; or whether you do not craftily move a scruple in the minds of simple persons, to make them doubt of the authority of that epistle, (whose double cannon-shot you are not able to bear when it is thundered out against you,) under colour that it is not of sound credit among ourselves, that use it against you; which of all the lies that ever Satan invented, and taught you to utter, is one of the most abominable.

Martin. I know very well that the authority of canonical scripture standeth not upon the certainty of the author; but yet to be Paul's or not Paul's, apostolical or not apostolical, maketh a great difference of credit and estimation. For what made St James' epistle doubted of sometime, or the second of St Peter, and the rest, but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those apostles? This Luther saw very well, when he denied St James' epistle to be James the apostle's writing. If titles of books be of no importance, then leave out Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, leave out Paul in his other epistles also, and you shall much pleasure the Manichees and other old heretics: and if the titles make no difference, urge no more the title of the Apocalypse, St John the Divine, as though it were not St John's the Evangelist, and you shall much displeasure some heretics now-a-days. Briefly, most certain it is, and they know it best by their own usual doings, that it is a principal way to the discredit of any book, to deny it to be that author's under whose name it hath been received.

Fulke. If you know so well that the authority of the canonical scripture standeth not upon the certainty of the author, as indeed it doth not-for the books of Judges, of Ruth, of Samuel the later, of the Kings, &c. who can certainly affirm by whom they were written?-with what forehead do you charge us to doubt of the authority of this epistle, because we report out of the ancient writers the uncertainty of the author, or leave out that title which is not certainly true? "But yet (you say) to be Paul's or not Paul's, apostolical or not apostolical, maketh great difference of credit and estimation." If by apostolical you mean, of apostolical spirit or authority, I agree to that you say of apostolical, or not apostolical. If you mean apostolical that only which was written by some apostle, you will make great difference of credit and estimation between the gospel of Mark, Luke, and the Acts of the

Apostles, from the gospels of Matthew and John. But which of us, I pray you, that thinketh that this epistle was not written by St Paul, once doubteth whether it be not of apostolical spirit and authority? Which is manifest by this, that both in preaching and writing we cite it thus, the Apostle to the Hebrews. And if it were written by St Luke, or by St Clement, which both were apostolic men, seeing it is out of controversy that it was written by the Spirit of God, it is doubtless apostolical, and differeth not in credit and estimation from those writings that are known certainly to have been written by the apostles. But I marvel greatly why you write, that to be Paul's or not Paul's maketh great difference of credit and estimation. Those epistles that are Peter's and John's are not Paul's; and yet I think there is no great difference of credit and estimation between them and Paul's. What you think, I know not; but you write very suspiciously. You ask what made St James' epistle, or the 2nd of Peter and the rest, to be sometimes doubted of, but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those apostles? Yes, something else, or else they doubted vainly of them, and without just cause, as I think they did. But when there were two apostles called James, he that doubteth whether the epistle was written by James the brother of John, and is persuaded it was written rather by James the son of Alpheus, doubteth nothing of the credit, authority, and estimation of the epistle. No more do we, which doubt whether the epistle to the Hebrews were written by St Paul, seeing we are persuaded it was written either by St Barnabas, or by St Luke, or by St Clement, as the ancient writers thought, or by some other of the apostles or evangelists; we make no question but that it is apostolical, and of equal authority with the rest of the holy scriptures. But Eusebius denied the epistle of St James, because he was persuaded that it was written by no apostle or apostolic man, and therefore saith plainly that it is a bastard or counterfeit; and so belike was Luther deceived, if ever he denied it, as you say he did. "But if titles of books be of no importance, (say you,) then leave out Matthew, Mark, John, and Paul in his other epistles." What need that, I pray you? Is there no difference between leaving out a title whereof there hath been great uncertainty and diversity in God's church, and which in some Greek copies both written 3

[FULKE.]