ing the Epistle of Barnabas, that whatever we suppose of it, we must at least own, that he was in all points orthodox, and one that closely imitated St. Paul: that its authority is not the less, because its author may not be certainly known, or because it lay for fome time obfcure; for this was the cafe of feveral of the books of the Canon: and that we are not to pretend to be able to make so good a judgment of its genuineness as Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, who lived in the next century, and afcribed it to Barnabas: that it did not continue to be read in the Churches as other Scriptures, only for the reason of its being obscure and mystical, which (says he) is the very case of some of the more obfcure parts of the Canon now: that its most forced and far-fetched allegories are borrowed from St. Paul's Epiftles, &c.

7. Dr. BERNARD,

Savilian Profeffor at Oxford,

He not only judges it genuine, but that it was in fo great efteem at Alexandria, as to be read from beginning to end in their Churches, as the Canonical Scriptures were; and this he supposes was done in that famous Church, because St. Mark, who was its founder, had been the affiftant and companion of Barnabas. See the Preface to his fhort notes on Barnabas at the end of the Oxford edition.

8. Mr. DODWELL.

He esteemed Barnabas, as well as Hermes, &c. to be undoubted writers of the first century, and whose works were publifhed before fome books of the prefent Canon, viz. the Epistle of Jude, and the writings of both the Johns.

9. DU PIN b.

The fubftance of what he fays is, that though the Church has not delivered to us the Epiftle of Barnabas as Canonical, yet we are not for that reason to reject it, but to look upon it as an Epiftle written by the Apostle Barnabas.

a Differt. 1. in Iren. §. 39.

b Hiftory of the Canon, vol. ii. c. 6. §. 7.

10. Dr.

10. Dr. CAVE".

He contends, that this Epiftle is the genuine Epistle of Barnabas, and answers the three arguments, which La Moyne has brought against its being written by Barnabas.

11. FREDERICK SPANHEIM ".

Concludes from the ftyle, defign, perpetual allegories, and odd expofitions of Scripture, that it has fcarce any thing of the fimplicity of the Apostolick age in it.

12. Mr. TOLAND.

Obferves, that the Epiftle of Barnabas, as well as Hermes and the other Apoftolick Fathers, are generally received in the Church of Rome, and by moft Proteftants; but those of the Church of England have particularly fignalized themselves in their defence, and by publishing the correcteft impreffions of them. The antients paid them the highest respect, and reckoned the first four especially (viz. Barnabas, Hermes, Polycarp, and Clemens Romanus), as good as any part of the New Testament. The Epistle of Barnabas is by Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen not only reckoned genuine, but cited as Scripture, &c. In another placed Mr. Toland is of opinion, that it is the easiest task in the world, next to that of fhewing the ignorance and fuperftition of the writers, to prove them all fpurious, and fraudulently impofed upon the credulous. And elfewhere, If they think them genuine, why do they not receive them into the Canon of Scriptures, fince they were the companions and followers of the Apofiles, as well as St. Mark and St. Luke?

13. Dr. WAKE, the present Archbishop of Canterbury.

In the year 1693, he obliged the world with a translation of the Apoftolick Fathers, Barnabas, Ignatius, Clement, Poly

a

carp, and Hermes, into English, together with the martyrdoms of Ignatius and Polycarp. To each of these he has prefixed a difcourfe concerning it, and after these added one chapter concerning the authority, and another concerning the usefulness of these apoftolick treatises (viz. Chap. X. and XI.) I have had occafion already to observe what his Grace's sentiments are concerning these pieces, and how he esteems them wrote by perfons endued with the extraordinary affistance of the Holy Spirit, and tells us, we ought therefore to look upon them as an authoritative declaration of the Gospel of Chrift: that the authors were inspired, and not only have not mistaken, but were not capable of mistaking the mind of the Apoftles, &c. This is to be efteemed as his Grace's opinion concerning Barnabas in particular: to which I fhall only add, that in his difcourfe on this Epiftle, Ch. VII. he endeavours to vindicate its genuineness against all objections that have been made to

it.

14. Dr. MILL.

Supposes the Epiftle of Barnabas written after the deftruction of Jerufalem; but not fo long after, but that the Epiftle of Jude, the three Epiftles of John, and the Revelation, were wrote after it was.

15. Mr. EACHARD.

That Barnabas wrote his Epiftle about the year 72, and though it was of great repute among the antients, and fometimes read in the Chriftian Churches, yet never was admitted into the Canon of the holy Scripture.-The frame and contexture of it is intricate and obscure to us, made up of uncouth allegories, with fome forced and improbable interpreta tions of Scripture.

16. Dr. S. CLARK.

The Epiftle of Barnabas is without all controverfy an an

a See the Differtation before the first volume, p. 5, 6.

Prolegom. in N. T. §. 144.
Ecclef. Hift. b. ii. c. 8, §. 2.

d Reflect. on Amyntor at the end of his Letters about the Immortality of the Soul. See p. 263, 269, 273, &c.

tient

tient work of the apoftolick age, being quoted by almost all the primitive Fathers: that there are internal arguments, drawn from the fimplicity of style and way of arguing used in these writings (viz. Barnabas, Hermes, &c.), agreeable to the custom of the age in which they are supposed to be written, from the conformity of the matter contained in them to the doctrine and difcipline of thofe times, &c. which afford-good reafon to believe these books to be genuine;-and though the Epiftle of Barnabas contain fome very strange and allegorical interpretations of Scripture, yet he that confiders how much that manner of interpretation was antiently in use among the Jews in their Targums, and how many important truths were that way conveyed, fo that the Apoftles themselves, in their arguings with the Jews, did often make use of it, as we fee in their uncontroverted writings, will rather choose modeftly to fufpend his judgment, than rafhly to upbraid this author with the terms of foolish and ridiculous :-that Barnabas and the other books are to have a proportionable veneration with those of the Canon; yet we have not the same evidence of their genuineness; there is something human, something of infirmity, fomething of fallibility in them.

17. Mr. WHISTON *

b

Places the Epiftle of Barnabas in his Catalogue of the Books of the New Teftament, and supposes it written A. D. 87, and elsewhere calls it a facred book of the New Teftament ; and in a late treatise written to exclude the Canticles from the Canon of the Old Testament, he calls Barnabas that prodigious allegorizer. See p. 30.

18. Mr. LE CLERC

Is for compounding the matter between all the former, by fuppofing that Barnabas indeed wrote a short and plain Epiftle, which was afterwards corrupted, and interpolated largely by fome perfon or other for his own private advantage.

Effay on the Constitutions, p.

17, 24.

Ibid. p. 36.

c Hift. Eccl. Sæcul. i. ad ann. Ixxi. §. 2. p. 474.

19. Dr.

19. Dr. JENKIN 2.

The genuine Epiftle of Barnabas, who is ftyled an Apostle, Acts xiii. 2. and xiv. 14. was never received but as Apocryphal (viz. because it was not known to be infpired). Upon all perfonal and human accounts, an Epiftle of St. Barnabas or St. Clement must have carried as much authority with it, as any thing under the name of St. Mark or St. Luke. If either in 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 philofophy, 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 hindrance to the reception of these Epiftles.

CHAP. XXXIX.

The Epifle of Barnabas proved to be fpurious: it was wrote by one originally a Pagan. A Remark on 1 Pet. iv. 3. It was wrote after the Deftruction of Jerufalem. Barnabas one of Chrift's Seventy Difciples. Explication of John xxi. 21. and Matth. xvi. 18.

TH

HE opinions both of the antient and modern writers being thus propofed concerning the Epiftle of Barnabas, I come now to offer to the reader my own obfervations and fentiments concerning it. All that is confiderable, will be fully difcuffed in a difquifition 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.

a Reasonableness and Certainty of the Christian Religion, vol. ii. c. 4. p. 92.

(1.) Whether