the Epistle of Barnabas or St. Clement it be supposed, that the reasoning is not always just, but is sometimes too allegorical, and sometimes founded upon mistakes in natural philosophy, yet it is certainly agreeable to the ways of reasoning, and the philosophy of that age; so that nothing of this kind could then be any hinderance to the reception of these Epistles.

CHAP. XXXIX.

The Epistle of Barnabas proved to be spurious: it was wrote by one originally a pagan. A remark on 1 Pet. iv. 3. It was wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem. Barnabas one of Christ's seventy disciples. Explication of John xxi. 21. and Matth. xvi. 18.

THE opinions both of the ancient and modern writers being thus proposed concerning the Epistle of Barnabas, I come now to offer to the reader my own observations and sentiments concerning it. All that is considerable will be fully discussed in a disquisition concerning the two following questions, viz.

(1.) Whether the Epistle of Barnabas be genuine.

(2.) What authority it claims, or ought to have in the church. (1.) Whether the Epistle of Barnabas be genuine; i. e. was written by that holy companion of the apostle, whose name it bears. It is evident by the citations of the former chapter, that most of the learned writers who have mentioned it, believed it was, and as such by their authority it has passed, and is received in the world at this time. But I confess, to me there is nothing can appear more improbable; and there are several arguments which induce me to believe, that Barnabas was not the author of this Epistle under his name; e. g.

Arg. I. This Epistle was written by one who was originally a Gentile, or pagan, and consequently was not written by Barnabas, who was originally a Jew. The latter part of the proposition, viz. that Barnabas was a Jew, is indisputable from those words in St. Luke's history of the Apostles' Acts, (ch. iv. 36.) And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, the Son of Consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, &c. His name, which

was Jewish, and his particular tribe being expressed, make it undeniable, that though he were born of parents who lived in Cyprus, (the Jews at that time being dispersed into all countries, and great multitudes of them being at Cyprus,) yet he was a proper Jew, and (as it seems) had his residence at Jerusalem, where very probably he had his education, as Paul also had, who was born at Tarsus. If then it can be proved, that the author of this Epistle was not a Jew, but a Gentile, it will be evident that Barnabas was not the author. Now there are several things in this Epistle, which I have observed, that seem to me clearly to evince this; as particularly,

66

1. Those words, ch. 16. m❝ Before that we were believers "on God, the tabernacle of our hearts was corrupt and impo"tent, and properly as a temple built with hands; for it was "full of idolatry; (or the worship of idols;) and a house of idolatry is a house of devils, because in it was done whatso"ever was contrary to God." Hence I observe, (1.) That there was a time when this author did not believe on the one God, but (2.) was a worshipper of idols and false gods; neither of which could ever have been said of one that was a Jew, and especially a Levite, but does most exactly suit the character of one who was formerly a pagan, and bred up in the idolatrous worship of false gods. The author of this Epistle was therefore a pagan originally, and consequently not Barnabas.

Bishop Fell, in his note on this place, takes notice of this argument, and would persuade us, that Barnabas speaks of himself and others as Jews, who were therefore called by him idolaters, because they did the things contrary to God. But this deserves no other answer, than that it is a plain evasion to serve a purpose. What he adds is more considerable, viz. that by this argument we may as well prove the author of the first Epistle of Peter to have been a Gentile too, because he reckons himself among idolaters, 1 Pet. iv. 3. where he says, For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries. This

';

seems considerable; but it is easily answered, if we consider that the true reading in the Greek of this place either should be úμïv, not hμïv, (i. e. the time past of your life may suffice you, &c. and not the time past of our life may suffice us,) as it is in several of the most ancient printed editions (e. g. the Complutensian printed A. D. MDXV. and that of Simon Colinæus printed at Paris in MDXLIII.) and manuscripts; or else, which is I believe the true reading, we should insert neither iμiv nor v; for neither of those words is in the ancient manuscripts or versions, or was read by the fathers in their copies. For proof of which, I need only refer the reader to Dr. Mill", who tells us, there is no such word in the Alexandrian manuscript, one of cardinal Barbarine's, that of Geneva, one of Magdalen college, Velesius's collation of sixteen manuscripts, nor in the old Vulgate, Syriac, or Æthiopic version, nor in the copies of Clemens Alexandrinus and Austin. From all which it is evident, St. Peter in this place does not enumerate himself with the Gentile idolaters; and consequently nothing can be concluded hence against my argument preceding, to prove that the author of this Epistle under the name of Barnabas was originally a Gentile, not a Jew.

2. I argue that the author of this Epistle was a Gentile, not a Jew, from the constant distinction or opposition which he makes between Jew and Gentile, always ranking himself among the latter sort. So, for instance, ch. 2. he cites Jer. vii. 22. Did I at all command your fathers, when they came out of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices? and applying it to the Jews, introduces it thus; Dicit Dominus ad illos; i. e. "The Lord speaketh to them :" immediately after he cites those words, Psalm li. 17. The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart God will not despise; and applying the words to the Gentiles, introduces them thus; Dicit nobis, i. e. " He speaketh to us." So again, ch. 3. he applies Isai. lvii. 4, 5. to the Jews," He speaketh to them;" but the following verses, ver. 6, 7, &c. he applies to the Gentiles,

n In 1 Pet. iv. 3. Besides the proof from the manuscripts and versions, I add, that it would have been very absurd for the apostle to have brought himself in by the word pv, when he so particularly addresses to them in the

second person in the preceding and following verses; and though our translators have inserted the word our before life, there is nothing to answer to it in the original.

66

❝ us."

"(i.

66

ge

and brings them in, "But to us he speaketh thus," &c. and thence concludes in these words, "We should not run as proselytes to their law." Ch. 4. he exhorts, according to the neral design of his Epistle, those to whom he writes, “not to be "like those who say that their covenant is ours," (he means the Nazarenes or Ebionites, against whom he writes, as is well observed by Menardus,) which cannot possibly mean any other, than that the Gentiles were included in the Mosaic covenant; and if so, it is plain the author by that expression shews that he was no Jew, as he does more fully when he adds, " Nay, "but it is our covenant" (only, which word is well added by the archbishop in his version,) sufficiently distinguishing himself thereby from the Jews. Again, ch. 5. of the things which are written, quædam ad populum Judæorum, quædam ad nos; some concern the people of the Jews, some concern Once more, ch. 8. "To us they are clear, but to them (i. e. the Jews) they are obscure." To omit any further citations and instances of this sort, in the judgment of any one unprejudiced, I cannot but think these are sufficient to shew the author of this Epistle was originally a Gentile, and never a Jew. Before I leave this head, I must observe, that in the fifth chapter of this Epistle we read, in the archbishop's translation, of Christ's appearing in the flesh, that "he might make good the "promises before given to our fathers;" which words are indeed a proof that the author of the Epistle was a Jew, because no one else could call the patriarchs and prophets our fathers. But the word our is supposititious, having nothing to answer it in the old Latin version, out of which the translation is made. But I suppose his grace was led into the mistake by the Greek translation of bishop Fell, which he has inserted in his edition, to supply the original Greek, and has printed in red letters; and in this place, for the Latin, parentibus promissum, has τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν προεπηγγελμένον: and though the Latin has the word parentibus, there can be no doubt but it means in general the fathers, and is translated from the Greek τаτρáσι, which is the word made use of in the Greek Testament to denote the patriarchs and prophets who lived before Christ's time. (See Acts xiii. 32. Rom. ix. 5. Heb. i. 1.) But barbarous translations were common with this old Latin interpreter.

3. That which further proves this author not to have been a Jew is, that there are no Hebraisms in his style; which was a thing almost impossible to have been avoided, had he been a Jew. How common Hebraisms are in the writings of the New Testament, is known to every one acquainted with these sort of studies; and how entirely destitute this Epistle under the name of Barnabas is of them, will be evident to every one who is a judge of the matter. I shall add no more on this head, but refer the reader to what I have said already, Vol. I. Ch. XIII. Prop. XII.

If then, as I have endeavoured to proye, the author of this Epistle was not a Jew, but a Gentile; it follows from what has been said, that it was not composed by Barnabas, but is spurious and supposititious.

Arg. II. That this Epistle is spurious, or not written by Barnabas, is probable, because it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. This argument is mentioned by archbishop Laud, La Moyne, and others to this purpose. The first mentioned expressly says, that Barnabas was dead before the destruction of Jerusalem°: which, though indeed it cannot certainly be demonstrated, is exceeding probable; for Barnabas was very early a disciple. If there be any credit to be given to antiquity, he was one of the seventy disciples, whom our Saviour himself sent forth to preach, (Luke x. 1.) So we find in Clemens AlexandrinusP, Eusebius 9, Epiphanius', and other ancient writers, whose positive testimony in this matter is, I think, beyond all exception, and has been only disputed by Bede, (in Act. iv.) who without any reason imagined, that St. Luke in the Acts said he was not converted till after our Lord's ascension. However this be, it is certain from Acts iv. 36, that immediately after our Lord's ascension he was among the disciples at Jerusalem: so that in the year of Christ 32 or 33 at least, Barnabas was a disciple of Christ. Now at this time, it was necessary that he should be above thirty years of age, none being before that time permitted to exercise any sacred office among the Jews; as neither John the Baptist nor

• Loquitur de excidio Hierosolymitano, quod post mortem Barnabæ accidit. Epist. ad Menard. præfix. edit. Cleric.

P Strom. 1. 2. p. 410.

q Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 12. et lib. 2.

C. I.

r Hæres. 19. §. 4.