contrary to the known fentiments of the whole primitive Church? Juftin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Athenagoras, Theophilus Antiochenus, those moft early writers, have made no mention of it; Eufebius and Jerome exprefsly reject it as Apocryphal. But Clemens of Alexandria cites it. Muft it therefore be genuine? Muft it therefore be Canonical, though all the world befides were ignorant of it? Muft a fingle prefbyter of Afia, who lived at least one hundred twenty-one years after the writing of this Epiftle (according to the time in which its patrons suppose it written, viz. A. D. LXXI.), and who might be easily imposed upon, judge for the whole Chriftian world? And must his quoting a book prove its authority, when it does not appear to have been received by one Chriftian writer befides, but on the contrary rejected as Apocryphal by every one who has mentioned it? I fhall add no more here, but repeat what I obferved Vol. I. Prop. V. that we are not to determine the authority of any book or books upon the credit of any one or two particular writers, but the whole body of the writers of the primitive Church. But,

4. There is no inconfiderable proof to be made out of the works of Clemens Alexandrinus himself, that he did not look upon this Epiftle as having any manner of authority, but on the contrary took the liberty to oppofe and contradict it, when he faw fit. One inftance will be sufficient. In Pædag. 1. 2. c. 10. p. 188. he cites the explication of Barnabas on that law of Mofes, Thou shalt not eat of the hyana 'nor the hare, i. e. not be like those animals in their lascivious qualities. He does not indeed name Barnabas, as in other places; but nothing can be more evident, than that he refers to the Epiftle of Barnabas, Ch. X. After which he adds, that though he doubted not but Moses designed a prohibition of adultery by prohibiting these animals, ἐ μὲν τὰ τῇδε ἐξηγήσει τῶν συμβολικῶς εἰρημένων συγκατίθεμαι, yet he could not agree with the fymbolical explication fome gave of the place, viz. that the hyæna changes its fex yearly, and is fometimes male, fometimes female, as Barnabas faith. After which he largely difputes against the fact. To me this looks like demonftration; fo that I fhall add no more, but what Cotelerius (to whom I owe this hint) obferves, Opus quad credit effe Barnabe

Barnaba impugnat-id nequaquam commififfet, fi ad Canonem pertinere fuiffet arbitratus ; i. e. Clemens opposes the Epiftle which he believed to be Barnabas's; which he would never have done, if he had thought it belonged to the Canon. Præf.

in Barnab.

Arg. III. The Epiftle under the name of Barnabas is Apocryphal by Prop. VI. because it was not read by the primitive Chriftians in their affemblies as the Word of God. I had scarce mentioned this argument, but that I find Dr. Bernard afferting, that it was read in the Churches, together with the Canonical Scriptures, from beginning to end. But of this he pretends to give no other evidence, than that the Hebrew names in it are interpreted by Origen, in his book De Interpretatione Hebraicorum Nominum, after he had interpreted the Hebrew names in the true Scriptures. But in answer to this I obferve, that this work of Origen is not extant itself, but only Jerome's tranflation of it, with what additions and alterations he thought fit: so that nothing hence can be concluded concerning its being read in Origen's time. And if we admit this argument as proof that it was read in Jerome's time, it happens very unluckily for the Doctor; that whereas he fays it was read inter Canonicas Scripturas, among the Canonical Scriptures, Jerome exprefsly says inter Apocryphas Scripturas legitur, it was read among the Apocryphal Scriptures. It is certain there were feveral pious books read in the antient Churches, which they did not look upon as Scripture (which were called Ecclefiaftical), nor were ever used as of any authority to prove articles of faith: the fame Churches who read them, looked upon them as Apocryphal: this we learn from Ruffin, Jerome himself, and others. So that if this Epiftle was read in Jerome's time, which is the firft that can be

pretended, it is plain it gains no credit thereby. On the other hand, Cyril, Bishop of Jerufalem 2, directing what books fhould be read in the Churches, recites thofe only which we now receive, and dehorts from the reading of any Apocryphal books. So alfo the Council of Laodicea, enumerating no books which are not in the prefent Canon, preffes the reading of them, and no other. So that if the Epiftle under the name of Barnabas was read in Jerome's time among the Apocry phal Scriptures, it was but in fome few Churches; for he lived near Cyril's time, if not in it, and in the time of the Council of Laodicea. We fee then with how little juftice we are told by Dr. Bernard, that it was read in the primitive Churches among the Canonical Scriptures; and by Bishop Fell, 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. Whereas the factis, that it does not appear to have been read in the Churches at all till the time of Jerome; and, if it was read then, it was only in fome few Churches, as an Apocryphal book. Apocryphal book. i did¶ md) Schub

Other Arguments to prove the Epistle of Barnabas to be Apocryphal: one Part contradicts another: it contains many notorious Falsehoods, and grofs Mistakes: ten Inftances pro

duced.

Arg. IV. THE Epiftle under the name of Barnabas is

Apocryphal by Prop. VII. because there feems to me a very manifeft contradiction in it, viz. that the author of the Epistle should in one place fay (viz. Ch, XV.) the world must necessarily last fix thousand years, because God

a Catech. IV. §. 22.

b Can. LIX. ad Concil. t. 1. p. nab. 1521,

Vid. utriufque Præfat. in Bar

made

made the world in fix days; and yet in another tells us (viz. Ch. XXI.), that the day was near at hand, in which all things fhould be destroyed, together with the wicked one. The Lord is near, and bis reward is with him. In the former place he fpake according to an old tradition of the Jews, which they ascribe to Elijah (see it at large out of the Talmud in Sixt. Senenf. Bibl. Sanct. lib. 5. annot. 190. p. 400. and in Petr. Galatin. de Arcan. Cathol. Verit. lib. 4. cap. 20, with the fentiments and comments of the Rabbins upon it), viz. that the world fhould last just fix thousand years, viz. two thousand years before the Law, two thousand years under the Law, and two thousand after the Law under the Meffiah: fo that, according to him, there were two thousand years, or one third part of the whole world's duration to come, before its deftruction would be. But in the latter place he fays, the day was at hand, in which all things (viz. the world and all that was in it) fhould be deftroyed: and this feems to be spoken according to the mistaken notion of fome early Chriftians, who concluded from Phil. iv. 5. Heb. x. 25. Jam. v. 3. 2 Pet. iv. 7, 8, &c. and fuch texts, that Chrift's coming was very near at hand. Grotius on Phil. iv. 5. intimates, that the Apostles themselves thought fo; which opinion of his Dr. Whitby (on the fame place) endeavours to confute. However this be, I fee no way of clearing our author from a notorious contradiction, and consequently must conclude his Epistle to be Apocryphal by Prop. VII.

Arg. V. The Epiftle under the name of Barnabas is Apocryphal by Prop. VIII. because it contains feveral things which are falfe. There are not many pages in the Epistle, but will afford us some proof of this. The Rabbinical stories, the allegorical interpretations of Scripture, &c. which we meet with every where in it, I look upon as fo many falfehoods; but because they are filly, fabulous, trifling, and ridiculous, I fhall therefore leave thefe to the next head, and make choice of fome other inftances of falfehood in this Epiftle; and among these I affign the following, viz.

1. Chap.

1. Chap. VI. he boafts of a fkill and wifdom given him by God to understand fecrets; and then adds, to compliment himself, For, faith the Prophet, who shall understand the hard fayings of the Lord, but he that is wife and understanding, and who loveth his Lord? But there are no fuch words in any of the prophets, or any other part of Scripture.

2. Ch. VII. to make out a type under the Law, of Christ's •having vinegar given him on the crofs to drink, he calls the Prophet to witness, and fays, All the priests, and they only, shall eat with vinegar the inwards (of the goat) not washed. But there is nothing like this in the Law of Mofes, or any of the Prophets. Cotelerius fupposes, the author took it out of some Apocryphal books, or rather from the Jewish traditions; as does alfo Menardus 2. I rather look upon it as a pious forgery and fraud, there being nothing of this fort known to have been among the Jewish customs, and this book, having feveral fuch frauds in it.

3. In the fame chapter, to make the scape-goat a type of Christ, he recites as a command of God, Doye all fpit upon it, and prick it, and put the scarlet wool upon its head, and so let it be fent forth to the wilderness; whereas there is no fuch precept any where in the Pentateuch, nor either of those circumftances of fpitting upon it, and piercing it, to be found in the Jewish writings; though I own that of putting scarlet wool upon the head of it, was an old cuftom among the Jews. See Dr. Prideaux's Connect. of the History of the Old and New Testament, Part II. Book I. in the beginning.

4. Chap. VIII. in making the heifer (Num. xix.) to be a type of Chrift, our author's fancy feems to grow more fruitful and luxuriant; because there was not enough in Mofes's inftitution to fuit his purpose, he adds,

1.) That certain men, guilty of the greatest fins, should bring the heifer.

2.) That young men should take up the ashes, and put them in veffels.