(1.) Whether the Epiftle 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 fuch by their authority it has paffed, and is received in the world at this time. But I confefs, to me there is nothing can appear more improbable; and there are feveral arguments which induce me to believe, that Barnabas was not the author of this Epiftle under his name; e. g.•

Arg. I. This Epiftle was written by one who was originally a Gentile, or Pagan, and confequently was not written by Barnabas, who was originally a Jew. The latter part of the proposition, viz. that Barnabas was a Jew, is indifputable from those words in St. Luke's Hiftory of the Apostles' Acts (Ch. iv. 36.), And Joses, who by the Apostles was furnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, The Son of Confolation), a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, &c. His name, which was Jewish, and his particular tribe being expreffed, 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 refidence at Jerufalem, where very probably he had his education, as Paul also had, who was born at Tarfus. If then it can be proved, that the author of this Epiftle was not a Jew, but a Gentile, it will be evident that Barnabas was not the author. Now there are several things in this Epiftle, which I have observed, that seem to me clearly to evince this; as particularly,

a

1. Those words, Ch. XVI. a Before that we were believers on God, the tabernacle of our hearts was corrupt and impotent, and properly as a temple built with hands; for it was full of

• Πρὸ τῶ ἡμᾶς πιςεῦσαι τῷ Θεῷ, ἦν ἡμῶν τὸ κατοικητήριον τῆς καρδίας φθαρτὸν καὶ ἄθενες, ὡς ἀληθῶς ναὸς οἰκοδομηλὸς διὰ χειρός· ὅτι ἦν πλήρης μὲν εἰδωλολατρείας, οἶκος εἰδωλολα

τρεία (legendum omnino είδωλολατρείας), ἦν οἶκος δαιμονίων, διὰ τὸ ποιεῖν ὅσα ἦν ἐναντία τῷ Θεῷ. Ch. χνί.

idolatry

idolatry (or the worship of idols); and a house of idolatry is a houfe of devils, because in it was done whatsoever was contrary to God. Hence I obferve, (1.) That there was a time when this author did not believe on the One God, but (2.) was a worshipper of idols and falfe Gods; neither of which could ever have been faid of one that was a Jew, and especially a Levite, but does most exactly fuit the character of one, who was formerly a Pagan, and bred up in the idolatrous worship of falfe Gods. The author of this Epiftle was therefore a Pagan originally, and consequently not Barnabas.

Bishop Fell, in his note on this place, takes notice of this argument, and would perfuade us, that Barnabas fpeaks of himself and others as Jews, who were therefore called by him idolaters, because they did the things contrary to God. But this deferves no other answer, than that it is a plain evasion to serve a purpose. What he adds is more confiderable, viz. that by this argument we may as well prove the author of the firft Epiftle of Peter to have been a Gentile too, because he reckons himself among idolaters, 1 Pet. iv. 3. where he fays, For the time paft of our life may fuffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lafciviousness, lufts, excess of ·wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries. This seems confiderable; but it is eafily answered, if we confider that the true reading in the Greek of this place either should be iμiv, not μì (i. e. the time past of your life may fuffice you, &c. and not the time past of our life may fuffice us), as it is in feveral of the most antient printed editions (e. g. the Complutenfian 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 fhould infert neither

nor ; for neither of thofe words is in the antient manuscripts or verfions, 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 fuch word in the Alexandrian

In 1 Pet. iv. 3. Befides the proof from the manufcripts and verfions, I add, that it would have VOL. II.

F f

been very abfurd for the Apoftle to have brought himself in by the word , when he fo particularly addreffes

andrian manuscript, one of Cardinal Barbarine's, that of Geneva, one of Magdalen College, Velefius's collation of fixteen manuscripts, nor in the old Vulgate, Syriack, or Æthiopick Verfion, nor in the copies of Clemens Alexandrinus and Auftin. From all which it is evident, St. Peter in this place does not enumerate himself with the Gentile idolaters; and confequently nothing can be concluded hence against my argument preceding, to prove that the author of this Epiftle under the name of Barnabas was originally a Gentile, not a Jew.

2. I argue that the author of this Epiftle was a Gentile, not a Jew, from the conflant diftinction or opposition which he makes between Jew and Gentile, always ranking himself among the latter fort. So, for inftance, Ch. II, he cites Jer. vii. 22. Did I at all command your fathers, when they came out of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings and facrifices? and applying it to the Jews, introduces it thus; Dicit Dominus ad illos; i. e. The Lord fpeaketh to them; immediately after he cites those words Pfal. li. 17. The facrifice of God is a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart God will not defpife; and applying the words to the Gentiles, introduces them thus; Dicit nobis, i. e. He fpeaketh to Us. So again, Ch. III. he applies Ifai. Ivii. 4, 5. to the Jews, he speaketh to Them; but the following verfes, ver. 6, 7, &c. he applies to the Gentiles, and brings them in, But to Us he fpeaketh thus, &c. and thence concludes in these words, We should not run as profelytes to Their law. Ch. IV. he exhorts, according to the general defign of his Epiftle, thofe to whom he writes, not to be like those who fay that Their covenant is Ours (he means the Nazarenes or Ebionites, against whom he writes, as is well obferved by Menardus), which cannot poffibly mean any other, than that the Gentiles were included in the Mofaick covenant; and if fo, it is plain the author by that expreffion fhews 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

dreffes to them in the fecend per fon in the preceding and following verfes; and though our tranflators

have inferted the word our before life, there is nothing to answer to it in the original.

in his Verfion), fufficiently diftinguishing himself thereby from the Jews. Again, Ch. V. of the things which are written, Quædam ad populum Judæorum, quædam ad nos; Some concern the people of the Jews, fome concern Us. Once more, Ch. VIII, To Us they are clear, but to Them (i. e. the Jews) they are obfcure. To omit any farther citations and inftances of this fort, in the judgment of any one unprejudiced, I cannot but think these are fufficient to fhew the author of this Epiftle was originally a Gentile, and never a Jew.

Before I leave this head, I muft obferve, that in the fifth chapter of this Epiftle we read, in the Archbishop's tranflation, of Chrift's appearing in the flesh, that he might make good the promifes before given to Our fathers; which words are indeed a proof, that the author of the Epiftle was a Jew, because no one else could call the Patriarchs and Prophets our fathers. But the word our is fuppofititious, having nothing to answer it in the old Latin Verfion, out of which the translation is made. But I fuppofe his Grace was led into the mistake by the Greek tranflation 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 promifum, 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 tranflated from the Greek wargaow, which is the word made use of in the Greek Teftament, to denote the Patriarchs and Prophets who lived before Chrift's time. (See Acts xiii. 32. Rom. ix. 5. Heb. i. r.) But barbarous tranflations were common with this old Latin interpreter.

3. That which farther proves this author not to have been a Jew, is, that there are no Hebraisms in his ftyle; which was a thing almoft impoffible to have been avoided, had he been a Jew. How common Hebraifms are in the writings of the New Testament, is known to every one acquainted with thefe fort of ftudies; and how entirely deftitute this Epiftle 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

Ff2

head,

head, but refer the reader to what I have faid already, Vol. I. Ch. XIII. Prop. XII.

If then, as I have endeavoured to prove, the author of this Epiftle was not a Jew, but a Gentile; it follows from what has been faid, that it was not compofed by Barnabas, but is fpurious and fuppofititious.

Arg. II. That this Epiftle is fpurious, or not written by Barnabas, is probable, because it was written after the deftruction of Jerufalem. This argument is mentioned by Archbifhop Laud, La Moyne, and others to this purpose. The firft mentioned exprefsly fays, that Barnabas was dead before the deftruction of Jerusalema: which, though indeed it cannot certainly be demonftrated, is exceeding probable; for Barnabas was very early'a difciple. If there be any credit to be given to antiquity, he was one of the feventy difciples, whom our Saviour himself fent forth to preach (Luke x. 1.). So we find in Clemens Alexandrinus, Eufebius, Epiphanius, and other antient writers, whofe pofitive teftimony 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 faid he was not converted till after our Lord's afcenfion. However this be, it is certain from Acts iv. 36. that immediately after our Lord's afcenfion he was among the difciples at Jerufalem: fo that in the year of Chrift xxxII. or XXXIII. at least, Barnabas was a disciple of Chrift. Now at this time, it was neceffary that he should be above thirty years of age, none being before that time permitted to exercise any facred office among the Jews; as neither John the Baptist, nor our Saviour, did before that age enter upon the exercife of their publick miniftry. For which reafons Irenæus (adv. Hæref. 1. 2. c. 39.) fpeaking of our Saviour's entrance upon the exercife of his miniftry after his

а

Loquitur de excidio Hierofolymitano, quod poft mortem Barnabæ accidit. Epift. ad Menard. præfix. édit. Cleric.

b Strom. 1. 2. p. 410.

Hift. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 12. et

lib. 2. c. I.

a Hæref. 19. §.4.

baptifm,