ページの画像
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

out of fome Jewish Apocryphal book now loft, as Cotelerius*, Dr. Bernard, and Bishop Pearfon fuppofe; or out of the books of the Sibyls, which is the ingenious, and not improbable conjecture of Bishop Fell; unless we will rather choose to fuppofe it a pious fraudulent fiction of his own brain: either of thefe will fufficiently prove the author guilty of falsehood and mistake in this place.

8. Of the fame fort is that in the fame chapter, where the author fays, The Holy Spirit put it into the heart of Mofes to make the fign of the cross, and of him that was to fuffer-That Mofes accordingly piled up armour upon armour on a rifing ground, &c. He refers to the history Exod. xvii, but the Scripture fays no more than that Mofes 17, i. e. lift up his hand, without any mention of the croffing them, or the piling of the armour. The text, fays Bishop Pearfon, affures us of no more, than that Mofes held up his hand, which might be without any fimilitude of a cross; and when both were lifted up by Aaron and Hur, the reprefentation is not certain. The matter of fact feems plainly to have been thus: Mofes for a time held up the rod of God, firft in one hand, and then in the other; till, both being weary, Aaron and Hur made him fit down, and stayed his hands; not that both hands, fays Mr. Pool, were erected and joined together, which was not a fit posture for one holding a rod in his hand, but that Mofes shifted the rod out of one hand into the other, when the former was weary; and that Aaron and Hur did each of them with both hands hold up that hand which was next to them fucceffively, that they alfo might relieve one the other.

9. Of the fame fort with the former is that towards the end of this twelfth chapter, where he says, What faith Mofes to Jefus the fon of Nane (Nun), when he gave him, being a prophet, that name only for this purpose, that all the people might perceive that the father had manifested all things concerning his Son Jefus to the fan of Nun. So then Mofes giving him that

[blocks in formation]

name, when he fent him to fpy out the land, faid, Take a book into thy hands, and write what the Lord faith, viz. that the fon of God fhall cut off by the roots all the house of Amalek in the last days. But there is nothing of this to be found in Scripture, viz. of the Son of God's deftroying Amalek; but the place which our author referred to, undoubtedly was that in the chapter where he had been allegorizing juft before, viz. Exod. xvii. 14. where God commands Mofes, and not Mofes commands Joshua (as it is in this fpurious Epiftle) to write the victory for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua; for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

10. The last mistake I shall mention in the author of this Epiftle, is in the end of the fame twelfth chapter, where, that he might find out a very express prediction of Chrift, he refers to Ifaiah xlv. 1. where, by a wilful and defigned mistake, he reads Kugi for Key. The text runs thus: Thus faith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, 1 wb, which the LXX. tranflate T Xpis u T Kúpy, and fo it is in all the Greek Verfions. But our author judged it to be to his purpose, and faw it to be a very eafy change, and therefore for T Xgir ma Kúgw, puts TX Kupiw; i. e. inftead of The Lord faid to my anointed Cyrus, he fets down, The Lord faid to my anointed the Lord, than which nothing can be a more notorious impofture. Nor is it to be faid, that we fhould in Barnabas read Kúpy and not Kugi; because not only the Latin tranflation has Domino for it, but if it had been fo, it would not have answered his defign in the citation, viz. to prove that Chrift was Lord.

Thus I have, in ten inftances, endeavoured to fhew the mistakes and falfehoods of this Epistle under the name of Barnabas; it were easy foon to instance in as máný more: but as I am weary, and fear the reader fhould be fo too, in dealing with fuch impertinencies, fo I cannot but think the

* Καὶ λέγει is not indeed in the 'Greek; but as there is dixit in the old Latin, and the fenfe requires

fuch a word, I have followed the Archbishop's Verfion, and inferted the words and faid.

Gg3

preceding

preceding inftances will be, to every unprejudiced examiner, a full proof that there are notorious falfehoods, defigned miftakes, and grofs blunders in this Epistle, and consequently that it is to be esteemed Apocryphal by Prop. VIII.

CHA P. XLII.

The Epistle of Barnabas proved Apocryphal, by Inftances of the trifling, filly Things which it contains.

Arg. VI.

THE Epiftle under the name of Barnabas is Apocryphal by Prep. IX. as it contains feveral things which are trifling and filly. To collect all the inftances of this fort, would be to transcribe a great part of the Epiftle; I fhall therefore felect only a few inftances out of many.

1. Chap. VI. he cites that place, Exod. xxxiii. 1. Enter ye into the good land, of which the Lord hath fworn to Abraham, and Ifaac, and Jacob, that he would give it you, &c. Now, fays he, what the Spiritual meaning of this is, learn, viz. Put your trust in Jefus, who shall be manifefted to you in the flesh; for man is the earth which fuffers, for man was made out of the fuperficies of the earth. He means (Menard. in loc.) that the land flowing with milk and honey is faith in Chrift, because Chrift took his human nature out of land or earth, as he was of the pofterity of Adam; and this earth (i. e. his human nature) fuffered.

2. Ch. VIII. The heifer (Num. xix.) he says, is Chrift; the men that brought it to be facrificed, were the Jews that crucified Chrift; the young men that sprinkled the afhes, are the Apostles and preachers of the Gospel: they were three, because there were but three patriarchs, Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob. The wool being put on a flick, denoted the kingdom of Jesus, which was founded upon the cross, which was wood.

3. Ch. IX. Abraham's circumcifing three hundred and eighteen, fhews, according to him, that he knew of Chrift and his crofs; for eighteen in Greek is denoted by I and H, the two first letters of the name Jefus; and three hundred is denoted by the letter T, which is the fign or form of the cross. With lefs probability (says Bishop Pearson) did they gather both the name of Jefus, and the cross of Christ, from the three hundred and eighteen fervants of Abraham, as if I H stood for Jefus, and T for the cross.—Such things may be applied, but prove not. The learned Rivet, who had not feen this trifling ftuff in Barnabas, obferved and ridicules it in Clemens Alexandrinus, and adds; This fpeculation has nothing folid in it, and is like most others of that fort, which do more damage to the intereft of Christianity among infidels, than those good men were aware of, who gave themselves the liberty to make quidlibet ex quolibet, every text speak all that they could fancy. The fame writer, a little after, tells us a piece of cabalism, or allegory of the Jews, upon the number of Abraham's fervants, viz. three hundred and eighteen; which I mention, because it is not much unlike, though I think it does not reach this of the pretended Barnabas. The name of Eliezer, Abraham's feward, according to the value of the Hebrew letters which compose it, makes three hundred and eighteen, thus:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

318

Now, fay the Jews, the numeral letters of s Eliezer mak

[blocks in formation]

ing just 318, the number of fervants which Abraham armed, we learn hence, that Abraham did the bufinefs, and got the victory with Eliezer alone, who was equal to all of them, and that he left the reft at home, because either their fins or fears made them unfit to go.

I cannot but add here, what Archbishop Laud faith on this head, viz. Numeralis illa theologia, five fcientia trium literarum I, H, T, (ut loquitur) mihi non placet. Nam etfi nefcius non fum fcriptores fatis antiquos et confultos, Tertullianum, Clementem Alexandrinum, Irenæum, et alios, in ea ludere aliquando, tamen non fapit fpiritum Apoftolicum: i. e. He is proving that this Epistle was not written by Barnabas, and gives this as a reafon, viz. "his numeral divinity, or knowledge of the three "letters (as he calls it) I, H, T, is what I cannot approve ; "for though I know that some antient and good writers (Ter"tullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenæus, and others) have "trifled in like manner fometimes, yet it does not look like "an Apoftolick spirit." Epift. ad Menard. præfix. Epift. Barnab. edit. Cleric.

4. Ch. X. Nothing can be more trifling than his affertions in this chapter, that Mofes did not defign to forbid the Ifraelites eating fuch and fuch animals, but had a spiritual meaning in each precept; which this author imagines he at length has found out, though every one of his explications are beyond Mofes's intention. I fhall instance only in two or three. Thou shalt not eat the hare, that fignifies thou shalt not be a lover of boys (or fodomite); for the hare every year multiplies the places of its conception, and as many years as it lives, fo many it has. Thou shalt not eat the hyana, that fignifies thou Shalt not be an adulterer, nor like fuch; for that creature every year changes its kind, and is sometimes male, fometimes female. He forbad the weafel, (Lev. xi. 29.) fignifying thereby, that they should not be like those who commit wickedness with their mouths by reafon of their uncleanness, nor join themselves to those impure women who commit wickedness with their mouths; for that animal conceives by its mouth. Thus happy is our author in his explications of the laws of Moses, which the Israelites, he fays, did not understand, because they took them in a literal

fense;

« 前へ次へ »