« 前へ次へ »
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 clofely imitated St. Paul : that its authority is not the less, because its author may not be certainly known, or because it lay for some time obscure; for this was the case 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 ascribed 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 obscure parts of the Canon now: that its most forced and far-fetched allegories are borrowed from St. Paul's Epistles, &c.
7. Dr. BERNARD,
Savilian Professor at Oxford, He not only judges it genuine, but that it was in so great esteem 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 assistant and companion of Barnabas. See the Preface to his short notes on Barnabas at the end of the Oxford edition.
8. Mr. Dodwella. He esteemed Barnabas, as well as Hermes, &c. to be undoubted writers of the first century, and whose works were published before some books of the present Canon, viz. the Epistle of Jude, and the writings of both the Johns.
9. Du PIN b... The substance of what he says is, that though the Church has not delivered to us the Epistle of Barnabas as Canonical, yet we are not for that reason to reject it, but to look upon it as an Epistle written by the Apostle Barnabas.
a Dissert. 1. in Iren. §. 39.
· 10. Dr.
10. Dr. CAVE He contends, that this Epistle 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 6. Concludes from the style, design, perpetual allegories, and odd expofitions of Scripture, that it has fcarce any thing of the fimplicity of the Apoftolick age in it.
12. Mr. TOLAND. Obferves, that the Epistle of Barnabas, as well as Hermes and the other Apoftolick Fathers, are generally received in the Church of Rome, and by moft Protestants; but those of the Church of England have particularly signalized themselves in their defence, and by publishing the correcteft impressions 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 place & Mr. Toland is of opinion, that it is the easiest task in the world, next to that of Thewing the ignorance and superstition of the writers, to prove them all fpurious, and fraudulently imposed upon the credulous. And elsewhere , 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 Apostles, 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 Apostolick Fathers, Barnabas, Ignatius, Clement, Poly
p. 11, 12.
a Hift. Liter. vol. i. in Barnab.
Hittcr. Christ. Sæcul. i. p. 570.
c Amyntor, p. 44.
Ibid. p. 47, 48.
carp, carp, and Hermes, into English, together with the martyrdoms of Ignatius and Polycarp. To each of these he has prefixed a discourse 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 occasion already a to observe what his Grace's sentiments are concerning these pieces, and how he esteems them wrote by perfons endued with the extraordinary assistance 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 esteemed as his Grace's opinion concerning Barnabas in particular : to which I shall only add, that in his discourse on this Epistle, Ch. VII. he endeavours to vindicate its genuineness against all objections that have been made to it. DUM, " 14. Dr. MILLb. Dr Marburg
.. Bol piros; Supposes the Epistle of Barnabas written after the destruction of Jerusalem; but not so long after, but that the Epistle, of Jude, the three Epistles 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 sometimes read in the Christian 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 some forced and improbable interpretas tions of Scripture.
16. Dr. S. CLARK d. The Epistle of Barnabas is without all controversy an anIII. tient work of the apostolick age, being quoted by almost all the primitive Fathers : that there are internal arguments, drawn from the fimplicity of style and way of arguing ufed 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 discipline of those times, &c. which afford-good reason to believe these books to be genuine;—and though the Epistle of Barnabas contain some 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, so that the Apostles themselves, in their arguings with the Jews, did often make use of it, as we see in their uncontroverted writings, will rather choose modestly to suspend 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, something of fallibility in them.
a See the Dissertation before the first volume, p. 5, 6.
o Prolegom. in N. T. §. 144. ç Ecclef. Hift. b. ii. c. 8, $. 2
dReflect. on Amyntor at the end of his Letters about the Immortality of the Soul. See p. 263, 269, 273, &c.
17. Mr. WHISTON, Places the Epistle of Barnabas in his Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament, and supposes it written A. D. 87, and elsewhere calls it a sacred book of the New Testament, 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'C Is for compounding the matter between all the former, by fuppofing that Barnabas indeed wrote a short and plain Epistle, which was afterwards corrupted, and interpolated largely by some person or other for his own private advantage.
a Essay on the Constitutions, p. 17, 24. · ó Ibid. p. 36.
• Hift. Eccl. Sæcul. i. ad ann. Ixxi. §. 2. p. 474.
The Epistle of Barnabas, &c.
19. Dr. JENKIN a.. The genuine Epistle of Barnabas, who is styled an Apostle, Acts xiii. 2. and xiv. 14. was never received but as Apocryphal (viz. because it was not known to be inspired). Upon all personal and human accounts, an Epistle 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 Epistles. .
CHA P. 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 antient and modern writers beT ing 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
a Reasonableness and Certainty of the Christian Religion, vol. i. c. 4, p. 92.