a

baptism, said, it was when he was thirty years old, and then magiftri ætatem perfectam habens, venit ad Jerufalem, ita ut ab omnibus jufte audiretur magifter: being arrived to the perfect age (or requifite age) of a master (or teacher), he went to Jerufalem, and fo was justly acknowledged by every one to be a mafter. This was founded upon a divine command, Num. iv. 3. That from thirty years old and upward, even until fifty years old, they (viz. the Levites) fhould enter into the hoft to do the work of the Tabernacle of the congregation; and the practice of David, who is faid (1 Chron. xxiii. 3.) to have numbered the Levites from thirty years old and upward. Unless therefore we will fuppofe our Saviour to have made a greater innovation in the customs of the Jews in the choice of his difciples, than he made himself when he entered upon his publick miniftry, we must fuppofe Barnabas at least thirty years old when Chrift chofe him, and very probably (confidering him a Levite, who had perhaps been fome time employed in that office) feveral years older, and equal in age at least to any one of the Apostles. Now the deftruction of Jerufalem was (as is agreed on all hands) juft feventy years after Chrift's birth, and this Epistle of Barnabas was certainly wrote after that; fo that if we fuppofe Barnabas to have been no more than thirty-five years of age when Chrift firft fent him (Luke x. 1.), and that he wrote his Epistle no more than five years after the deftruction of Jerufalem (both which are, confidering all circumftances, very modeft and reasonable fuppofitions), he must have wrote his Epiftle in his eightieth, or at least seventy-ninth year. But whereas no one of the Apoftles (except St. John) lived to, that age, but by one means or other much fooner fell into the hands of their enemies, it is at least improbable to suppose that Barnabas did, and confequently improbable that he was the author of this Epiftle wrote under his name.

That which confirms this matter is, that our Saviour speaks of it as fomething very fingular and extraordinary, that John

a Vid. Spanheim. Dub. Evang. tom. 2. Dub. 96. et Outram. de Sacrific. lib. 1. c. 7. §. 2, 3, &c.

fhould live fo long as the destruction of the city of Jerusalem (John xxi. 21, &c.), If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? By which coming of Chrift nothing else is meant, in the judgment of our beft expofitors and criticks, Medea, Lightfoot ", Hammond, Whitby d, Dr. Cave, &c. than his coming to the final overthrow and deftruction of Ferufalem; and many of the criticks have judged no way fo proper to expound that text, Matt. xvi. 28. Verily I fay unto you, there be fome standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they fee the Son of Man coming in his kingdom, as to refer it to John's furviving the deftruction of Jerufalem. If then Barnabas did not 'live till the deftruction of Jerufalem, he could not be the author of this Epiftle under his name, wherein that event is not only referred to, Ch. IV. but expressly mentioned more than once, Ch. XVI. where speaking of the Temple he faith, Διὰ γὰρ τὸ πολεμεῖν αὐτὲς καθηρέθη ὑπὸ τῶν ἐχθρῶν νῦν, It is now through their wars deftroyed by their enemies; then citing a prophecy, to fhew that city, temple, and people were to be given up, he adds, Καὶ ἐγένετο καθ ̓ ἃ ἐλάλησε ὁ Κύριθ, And it has come to pass according as the Lord fpake.

There is indeed one way of evading the force of this argument, viz. by fuppofing Barnabas to have wrote of the deftruction of Jerufalem by a spirit of prophecy, and by means of that spirit to have spoke of things yet to come, as being past. This, however abfurd, Menardus found neceffary to affert, as Archbishop Laud faith in his Letter to him, calling it a Petitio Principii. But as I can find nothing like this in Menardus's printed notes, I am apt to imagine he ftruck it out on account of the Archbishop's reflection. Upon the whole then we have good reafon to conclude this Epistle to be spurious, and not wrote by Barnabas the difciple of Chrift. I might here eafily collect many other arguments, whereby the fpurióufnefs of this Epiftle would be evinced; but I choose rather to omit them here, they being fuch as withal prove it

Apocryphal, and therefore more properly fall under our confideration on the fecond head; of which in the following chapter.

CHA P. XL.

The Epiftle of Barnabas proved to be Apocryphal: it is not in any of the antient Catalogues of facred Books: not cited by any of the Fathers as Scripture: Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen the only Fathers that have cited it: neither of them believed it Canonical: it was not read in the Affemblies of the primitive Chriftians.

WERE

ERE it not for the extravagantly high opinion which thofe have of this Epiftle, who contend for the genuineness of it, I fhould have been, apt to imagine I had done enough already, by proving it fpurious, to prove it Apocryphal. But because we are told, It was only reckoned Apocryphal, because of its myftical interpretations of Scripture; and that if a book be to be rejected, because it has been fometimes called Apocryphal, we must reject the Epistle to the Hebrews, and that of Jude (fee Voffius above, Ch. XXXVIII. Num. 4.): that it is in all points orthodox, and the author one that clofely imitated St. Paul: that it did not continue to be read in the Churches as other Scriptures, only for the reason of its being obfcure, which is the cafe of fome books of the Canon: that its forced and farfetched allegories are borrowed from St. Paul's Epiftles (as Bifhop Fell above, Num. 5.): that it is cited as Scripture (according to Mr. Toland, Num, 12.): that it was wrote by a perfon endued with the extraordinary assistance of the Spirit, and is to be looked upon as an authoritative declaration of the Gospel of Chrift, wrote by a person who was infpired, &c. (as the prefent Archbishop of Canterbury above, Num. 13.): that it is without all controverfy a work of the Apoftolick age, being quoted by almost all the primitive Fathers: that its ftyle and matter prove its genuine antiquity (as Dr. Clark, Num. 16.): that it

Ff4

is

is to be placed among the facred books of the New Testament (as Mr. Whiston, Num. 17.): because, I fay, we are told all this of this Epiftle, than which scarce any thing more can be faid of the books of the Canon, it is necessary that I do a little farther enquire into the authority of it: and this I shall do according to the feveral propofitions laid down for this purpofe in the first part of this work; and so shall have occafion to examine all, or most of the foregoing affertions in favour of this Epiftle. I come then,

(2.) To enquire, What authority the Epistle of Barnabas does claim, or ought to have, in the Church; i. e. whether it be Canonical, or not. And,

Arg. I..I argue that it is Apocryphal by Prop. IV. because it is not found in any of the catalogues of the facred books of the New Teftament made by the primitive Chriftians. This will be undeniably evident to any one, who will but caft his eye upon thofe catalogues which I have collected, Vol. I. Part I. Chap. VIII. He will fee that there is no mention of it either in the catalogue of Origen, Eufebius, Athanafius, the Council of Laodicea, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Philaftrius, Jerome, Ruffin, Austin, the third Council of Carthage, &c. and confequently must judge it Apocryphal. It is ftrange therefore Mr. Whifton fhould at last take upon him, to place it among the facred books of the New Teftament; and the more strange, fince it is not in the catalogue which is in the eighty-fifth Canon of the Apostles.

Arg., II. The Epiftle under the name of Barnabas is Apocryphal, because it is not cited in the writings of the primitive Chriftians as Scripture, Prop. V. Dr. Clark indeed (above, Ch. XXXVIII. Num. 16.) tells us, it is cited by almost all the primitive Fathers. But upon enquiry I find these almost all amount to no more than Clemens the mafter, and Origen the fcholar, at the fame town of Alexandria elsewhere it does not appear to have been so much known as to have been cited by any one Father, unless Jerome's tranflating a few Hebrew names, which are in it, into Latin, be fuch. But neither can

this be called Jerome's work; for it is only a tranflation of a book of Origen's out of Greek into Latin upon the fame subject. (See Dr. Cave Hift. Lit. t. 1. p. 83 et 224.) Indeed, Eufebius and Jerome elsewhere have mentioned it, but not so as to cite it, only to tell us it was Apocryphal, as I fhall fhew presently. Clemens of Alexandria therefore, and his fcholar Origen, are the only two Fathers we have to do with here; who, though indeed they have cited it, yet do not appear to have given it any of that authority which is now claimed for it, as indeed it was not in their power. But let it be obferved,

1. That neither of them have cited it as Scripture, or in the way which they ordinarily do the genuine Scriptures. The bare citation of a book by a Christian Father will not prove it Canonical, elfe would a thousand Pagan authors be of the Canon. Befides, the former volume will afford many inftances of books under Apoftolick names, cited by these and other Fathers, which they looked upon to be Apocryphal, as I have there proved. I know indeed Mr. Toland tells the world, that Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen not only reckoned the Epistle of Barnabas genuine, but cited it as Scripture: but this, as Mr. Richardfon well obferves, is not true in fact; They cite it, fays he, but under no fuch title.

2. It is certain that Origen, though he cites the Epistle of Barnabas, did not efteem it as any part of Canonical Scripture, because he left it out of his catalogue of facred and infpired writings, which we have laid together by Eufebius . It is evident therefore, that his fentiments of Barnabas were the fame as his fentiments of several of the Apocryphal books of the Old Teftament; which though he often cites, yet he entirely omits in his enumeration of the books of the Old Teftament, which is perfectly the fame with the present Canon d.

3. Suppose then that one Father (Clemens Alexandrinus) had too high an opinion of a book, are we to be governed in determining the Canon, by the private opinion of one fingle writer,

2

Amyntor, p. 44.

b Anfwer to Amyntor, p. 25. Hift. Ecck 1. 6, c. 25,

d Ibid. He omits James and "Jude, but owns them elsewhere.

contrary