4.) Idem Lib. de interpret. nomin. Hebraic. ex Epiftola

Barnabæ.

Abraham, pater videns popu- Abraham, i. e. a father seeing lum.

people.

Amalec, populus lingens, five Amalec, i. e. a people lapping,

populus brutus.

David, defiderabilis.

Eva, calamitas, aut certe vita.

or a brutish people.

David, i. e. defirable.

Eve, i. e. calamity, or it is

certainly life.

Ephraim, frugifer five uber- Ephraim, i. e. fruitful, or

Sina, menfura, mandatum, Sina, i. e. a measure, com

The Sentiments of modern Writers concerning the Epiftle of Barnabas, viz. Archbishop Ufher, Hugo Menardus, Archbishop Laud, Ifaac Voffius, Cotelerius, Bishop Fell, Dr. Bernard, Mr. Dodwell, Mr. Du Pin, Dr. Cave, Frederick Spanheim, Mr. Toland, the prefent Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Mill, Mr. Eachard, Dr. S. Clark, Mr. Whifton, Mr. Le Clerc, and Dr. Jenkin.

H

AVING thus produced all that I know, which is faid by the antients within my time, concerning the Epiftle of Barnabas, I proceed now to give the reader fome account of the fentiments of modern writers on the fame. And here,

as

as in other cafes, we fhall find them divided into various and differing opinions. I fhall recite them according to the order of time, in which they lived or wrote.

1. Archbishop USHER.

He was the first who undertook the publishing or printing this Epiftle in the world, in the year 1643; but by means of a great fire which happened that year, at Oxford, the printinghouse with all its furniture was deftroyed, and, among the reft, the manufcript copy of Barnabas, with all the Archbifhop's notes, and nothing faved, but only a few pages which were in the corrector's hands, which were procured of him by Dr. Bernard, and given by him to Bishop Fell, who published them in the preface to his edition of Barnabas at Oxford, 1685.

What this learned primate's opinion was concerning the author and authority of this Epiftle, is not (as Bishop Fell obferves) fully expreffed in any part of this Fragment; yet there are no contemptible evidences therein, that he efteemed it the work of fome unknown author, who wrote not long after the time of Barnabas, and that it was excluded from the Canon by the judgment of the univerfal Church; which never received any works afcribed to Barnabas.

2. HUGO MENARDUS ".

He was a Benedictine monk (or, which is the fame, of the order of St. Maurus), and prepared an edition of this Epiftle out of a Greek manufcript, which he had from Father Sirmond, and an antient Latin Verfion of it, which was found in a manuscript of the Abbey of Corbey, near a thousand years old; but he dying before he could publifh it, Father Don Luke d'Acherry printed it after his death at Paris, 1645. Me

nardus obferves, that it was justly esteemed to be Apocryphal by Eufebius, Jerome, &c. not only because it was uncertain whether this Epiftle was wrote by Barnabas, but because there are fome filly and inexcufable things in it. Nor does it at all prove to the contrary, that Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen have cited it without expressly mentioning that it was Apocryphal; because they have in like manner cited other books certainly Apocryphal; as The Book of Enoch, The Shepherd, The Traditions of Matthias, &c. The defign of it is, to prove against the Chriftian Jews (or Ebionites), that the law of Mofes was utterly abrogated, and not to be joined with Christianity.

3. Archbishop Laud2.

The fame Hugo Menardus, when he had prepared his edition of Barnabas, fent it over by the Lord Scudamore, English ambaffador at Paris, to Archbishop Laud, for his opinion and judgment of it; who returned him in anfwer, that though the Epiftle of Barnabas was old, it was fo far from being Canonical, in his opinion, that he believed it was not wrote by Barnabas, for the three following reafons.

1. Because the Numeral Divinity, as he calls it (viz. the proof of the Meffiah from the three letters I. H. T. which fignify one hundred and eighteen, the number of persons whom Abraham circumcifed; fee Ch. IX. of this Epiftle), looks very unlike the spirit or air of an Apostle.

2. Because he proves that the world will have its end in the year fix thousand; (because God was fix days in making it, and to every day a thousand years are allowed; for God fays, A thousand years are with him as one day). See Ch. XV.

3. Because he speaks exprefsly of the deftruction of Jerufalem. (See Ch. XVI.)

This letter was dated from Lambeth, July 31st, 1639, and communicated afterwards to Paulus Colomefius by Archbifhop Sancroft.

a Vid. Syllab. Epiftolar. edit. Patr. Apoftol. præfix. Epittol. 1. cui titulus Epiftola Reverendi in Chrifto Patris Will. Laudi, Archiep.

Cantuar. et totius Anglia Primatis ad Virum Clariff. Hugonem Menardum Monachum Benedictinum.

4. ISAAC

4. ISAAC VOSSIUS 2.

Before Archbishop Ufher had begun to print his edition of Ignatius's Epiftles at Oxford, 1643, to which he defigned to * have fubjoined Barnabas, if the great fire there had not prevented it, Voffius had formed a design of publishing the Epiftle of Barnabas from a Greek copy of Andreas Schottus, which was tranfcribed by Salmafius, and by him given to Voffius, and from the Latin copy of the Abbey of Corbey, which he had tranfcribed by Cordefius. But when he perceived the defign of Archbishop Ufher, at his request he gave him the use of his manuscripts, which he intended to have printed in the Oxford edition; but the fire destroying every thing belonging to it, he at length published himself the Epiftles of Ignatius, with the Epiftle of Barnabas annexed, from three manufcripts, viz. one out of the library at Florence, the other two from Rome. His opinion concerning the Epistle of Barnabas is, that it really is his compofure, because Clemens and Origen ascribe it to him; and although there be in it fome odd and ftrange interpretations of Scripture, which are scarce confiftent with the character of Barnabas, yet these are to be imputed to the ignorance and cuftoms of the primitive Christians; and though Eufebius and the later Greeks call it Apocryphal, that they only did so because of its mystical interpretations of Scripture; and that if a book is to be rejected which has been fometimes called Apocryphal, we must reject Paul's Epiftle to the Hebrews, the Epiftle of Jude, and that of Clemens to the Corinthians.

5. COTELERIUS.

This very learned French Clergyman has published together all the Apoftolick Fathers, viz. Barnabas, Hermes, Clemens, Ignatius, and Polycarp. His edition is moft correct, having had the help of feveral manufcripts, and is adorned

a Vid. ejus judicium de Barnab. Epift. edit. Cleric. præfix. et confer Præmonit. Jacob. Archiepif

cop. Armach. edit. Oxon. præfix.

See the Preface to his edition of the Apoftolick Fathers.,

with

with large and useful annotations. He published it in the year 1672. His opinion concerning the Epiftle of Barnabas is, that Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Jerome did believe it genuine; but for his own part thinks it incredible, that fo eminent an Apostle, a man full of the Holy Ghoft and faith (Acts xi. 24. and xiii. 2.), feparated by the Spirit to the work of the ministry with Paul, and his colleague, fhould be the author of fuch a work, in which are fo many forced allegories, improbable explications of Scripture, fables about animals, &c. He believes Origen and Jerome efteemed it not only genuine, but of the Canon; but that Clemens Alexandrinus, though he thought it the work of Barnabas, exposed and wrote against it.That it was certainly wrote after the deftruction of Jerufalem, and before the end of the second century, if not early therein. After all this he adds: The Epistle of Barnabas was by Origen and fome Churches efteemed Canonical; by Clemens Alexandrinus fometimes Canonical, fometimes not Canonical; by Eufebius dubious, spurious, cited by the antients, and among the better fort of Apocryphal; by Jerome Apocryphal, and not belonging to the Canon. He supposes it was wrote for the benefit of the Chriftianized Jews (i. e. the Ebionites), who were yet too tenacious and fond of their old Jewish rites and ceremonies.

6. Dr. FELL, Bishop of Oxford.

After all the former, he also published at Oxford an edition of the Epistle of Barnabas in the year 1685. It is evident that he, as feveral of our English divines have, chofe rather to deliver their fentiments of this and the other Apoftolick Fathers ambiguously, than clearly; fearing to own expressly what they feem to have been perfuaded of in their own minds, that these books ought to be treated with the same respect as feveral of the books of our prefent Canon. He fays concern

See the rife and progrefs of this edition of the Apoftolick Fathers, in a Letter of Steph. Baluzius to Emericus Bigotius, among the Letters prefixed by Le Clerc to his edition.

b So I call the editor of this edition, though his name be not prefixed, having heard he was the perfon, and finding it not obfcurely intimated by Dr. Mill, Proleg. in N. T. §. 1449 et 1497.