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.

or a brutish people. David, desiderabilis.

David, i. e. desirable. Eva, calamitas, aut certe vita. Eve, i.e. calamity, or it is

· certainly life. Ephraim, frugifer five uber- Ephraim, i. 6. fruitful, or tas.

- fruitfulness. Manasse, oblitus.

Manase, i. e. having forgot. Nahum, germen.

Nahum, i. e. a sprout. Rebecca, patientia.

Rebecca, i. e. patience. Sabbata, requies.

Sabbath, i. e. reft. Sion, fpecula.

Sian, i. e. a watch-tower. Sina, mensura, mandatum, Sina, i. e. a measure, comtentatio.

mand, or trial. Satan, adversarius, five præ- Satan, i. e. an adversary, a varicator. "


CHA P. XXXVIII. The Sentiments of modern Writers concerning the Epiftle of

Barnabas, viz. Archbishop Ujer, Hugo Menardus, Archbishop Laud, Ifaac Vofius, Cotelerius, Bishop Fell, Dr. Bernard, Mr. Dodwell, Mr. Du Pin, Dr. Cave, Frederick

Spanheim, Mr. Toland, the present Archbishop of Canterbury, i Dr. Mill, Mr. Eachard, Dr. S. Clark, Mr. Whifton, Mr.

Le Clerc, and Dr. Jenkin. . LEAVING thus produced all that I know, which is faid 11 by the antients within my time, concerning the Epistle of Barnabas, I proceed now to give the reader fome account of the sentiments of modern writers on the same. And here,


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

1. Archbishop Ushera. He was the first who undertook the publishing or printing this Epistle 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 destroyed, and, among the rest, the manuscript copy of Barnabas, with all the Archbishop's notes, and nothing saved, 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 Ox

ford, 1685. • What this learned primate's opinion was concerning the author and authority of this Epistle, is not (as Bishop Fell observes) fully expressed in any part of this Fragment; yet there are no contemptible evidences therein, that he esteemed it the work of some unknown author, who wrote not long after the time of Barnabas, and that it was excluded from the Canon by the judgment of the universal Church; which never received any works ascribed to Barnabas.

.' 2. Hugo MENARDUS b. He was a Benedictine monk (or, which is the same, of the order of St. Maurus), and prepared an edition of this Epistle out of a Greek manuscript, which he had from Father Sirmond, and an antient Latin Version of it, which was found in a manuscript of the Abbey of Corbey, near a thousand years old; but he dying before he could publish it, Father Don Luke d'Acherry printed it after his death at Paris, 16454, Me

a Præfat. edit. Oxon.

of most of the monastick discipline b Vid. Menard. judic. præfix. in the fixth century, &c. Vid. Spanhuic epiftolæ in Clerici edit. Pa heim. Hift. Eccl. Sec. vi. §. 13. p. trum Apostolic.

1147, 1148. c St. Maurus was one of the • Dupin's History of the Ca. disciples of Benedictus Nursinus, non, vol. ii. c. 6. §. 7. p. 133. the founder of this order, as indeed Ee 4

nardus nardus observes, that it was justly esteemed to be Apocryphal by Eusebius, Jerome, &c. not only because it was uncertain whether this Epistle was wrote by Barnabas, but because there are some silly and inexcusable 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, Gr. The design of it is, to prove against the Christian Jews (or Ebionites), that the law of Moses was utterly abrogated, and not to be joined with Christianity. 4. ISAAC VOSSIUS a. Before Archbishop Usher had begun to print his edition of Ignatius's Epistles at Oxford, 1643, to which he designed to have subjoined Barnabas, if the great fire there had not prevented it, Voffius had formed a design of publishing the Epic Atle of Barnabas from a Greek copy of Andreas Schottus, which was transcribed by Salmafius, and by him given to Voffius, and from the Latin copy of the Abbey of Corbey, which he had transcribed by Cordesius. But when he perceived the design of Archbishop Usher, 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 Epi. ftles of Ignatius, with the Epistle of Barnabas annexed, from three manuscripts, 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 composure, because Cle. mens and Origen afcribe it to him; and although there be in it some odd and strange interpretations of Scripture, which are scarce consistent with the character of Barnabas, yet these are to be imputed to the ignorance and customs of the primitive Christians; and though Eufebius and the later Greeķs 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 sometimes called Apocryphal, we must reject Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of Jude, and that of Clemens to the Corinthians.

3. Archbishop Laud'. The same Hugo Menardus, when he had prepared his edi. tion of Barnabas, fent it over by the Lord Scudamore, English ambassador at Paris, to Archbishop Laud, for his opinion and judgment of it; who returned him in answer, that though the Epistle of Barnabas was old, it was so far from being Canonical, in his opinion, that he believed it was not wrote by Bar. nabas, for the three following reasons.

I. 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 circumcised; see Ch. IX. of this Epistle), 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 six days in making it, and to every day a thousand years are allowed ; for God says, A thousand years are with him as one day). See Ch. XV.

3. Because he speaks expressly of the destruction of Jerufalemn. (See Ch. XVI.)

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

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

5. CoTeLeRIUS 6. This very learned French Clergyman has published together all the Apoftolick Fathers, viz. Barnabas, Hermes, Clemens, Ignatius, and Polycarp. His edition is most correct, having had the help of several manuscripts, and is adorned

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

cop. Armach. edit. Oxon. præfix.

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

with with large and useful annotations. He published it in the year 1672a. His opinion concerning the Epistle of Barnabas is, that Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Jerome did believe it genuine; but for his own part 'thinks it incredible, that so eminent an Apostle, a man full of the Holy Ghost and faith (Acts xi. 24. and xiii. 2.), feparated by the Spirit to the work of the ministry with Paul, and his colleague, should be the author of such a work, in which are fo many forced allegories, improbable explications of Scripture, fables about animals, &c. He believes Origen and Jerome esteemed 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 destruction of Jerusalem, and before the end of the second century, if not early therein. After all this he adds ; The Epiftle of Barnabas was by Origen and some Churches esteemed Canonical ; by Clemens Alexandrinus sometimes Canonical, sometimes not Canonical; by Eusebius 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 several of our English divines have, chose rather ta deliver their sentiments of this and the other Apoftolick Fathers ambiguously, than clearly; fearing to own expressly what they seem to have been persuaded of in their own minds, that these books ought to be treated with the same respect as several of the books of our present Canon. He says concern

a See the rise and progress of this edition of the Apoftolick Fa. thers, in a Letter of Steph. Baluzius to Emericus Bigotius, among the Letters prefixed by Le Clerc to his edition,

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


« 前へ次へ »