But how great fo ever the number may have been among the members of the Latin church, who afcribed this Epiftle to Barnabas, their affertions can be received only as private opinion, not as hiftorical evidence, because the report is wholly unknown to the most ancient Greek fathers. Neither Tertullian, nor Jerom has advanced any argument in its fupport, and therefore it is difficult at prefent to affign the caufe, which gave it birth. It is however not improbable, that the opinion took its rife in the following manner. Though the Epistle to the Hebrews was not received as a work of St. Paul, on account of the difference of its style, it was still held, as it justly deferves, in veneration, Clement of Rome, for inftance, having quoted from it whole paffages. But of a work, which we efteem, we always endeavour to discover the author, and if we cannot obtain certainty we have recourse to conjecture, and often affign to an anonymous work a name, which we think it deferves. Now between the Epistle to the Hebrews, and that which is called the Epiftle of Barnabas, notwithstanding their diffimilarity in other refpects, there is a resemblance in the felection of the materials, and fometimes in the choice of the words. The two Epiftles agree likewife in this refpect, that the author neither of the one, nor of the other, has mentioned his name at the beginning, though it was ufual in Greek Epiftles. Further, both of them abound with explana

tions

to Barnabas, or to Clement, did not mean, that these were only the fcribes, who wrote what St. Paul dictated. But I cannot fuppofe that this was their meaning. In the whole Epiftle there is no falutation either from Barnabas, or from Clement: we have no reason to fuppofe that Barnabas was with St. Paul when he was released from imprifonment: and, as Barnabas was not only the colleague of St. Paul, but likewife greatly his fenior, it is not probable that Barnabas was employed merely as an amanuenfis.

I here leave the queftion undecided, whether this Epiftle be genuine or not.

The Latin tranflation of the Epistle of Barnabas (for the two first chapters of the Greek are loft) begins thus, Avete filii et filiæ in nomine domini noftri Jefu Chrifti.

tions of paffages from the Old Teftament. It is therefore not at all extraordinary that both of thefe anonymous Epiftles have been afcribed to the fame author.

Yet notwithstanding thefe Epiftles in fome refpects agree, a more minute comparifon of them will fhew that they cannot well have been written by the fame author. As Barnabas however may ftill have written the one, if he did not write the other, we muft previously examine, whether the Epiftle, which is commonly called the Epiftle of Barnabas, be genuine. Eufebius refers it to the clafs of fpurious writings and I am inclined to accede to this opinion, though I will not decide on the fubject, because this would require an examination of all the arguments on both fides of the queftion. My chief reafon for thinking that Barnabas was not the author of the Epiftle, which goes under his name, is, not that it contains fome very extraordinary interpretations of the Old Teftament, though even thefe are in my opinion unworthy of Barnabas, but that it contains a paffage, which betrays fuch ignorance in regard to the Hebrew letters, as can hardly be expected from a Jewish teacher of Christianity, who had long refided in Jerufalem. Surely Barnabas must have known that Jefus was written in Hebrew yw, with y, and not , and that (which in fome Alphabets has the fhape of the cross) denoted, as a numeral, not 300, but 400. Yet there is a paffage in this Epiftle, which betrays an ignorance in both these refpects.

Noba. Hift. Ecclef. Lib. III. 25.

But

The paffage, which I mean is in § 7. where the author, speaking of the three hundred and eighteen fervants of Abraham, fays that the number 318 denotes Jefus and the Crofs. This he makes out in the following manner. Μάθετε της δεκαοκτώ πρωτος, είτα της τειακοσίες. Των γαρ δέκα και οκτω, Ιωτα δεκα, Ητα οκτω. Εχεις Ιησεν. Ότι δε Γαύρος εν τω Τ εμελλεν εχειν την χάριν, λεγει και τις τριακοσίες. αν τον μεν Ιησεν εν τοις δυσι жаннать, ка εν ένι τον σαυρων. words 1 tranflate thus. Note firit the 18, and then the 300. Of the 18, Jod is 10, and Heth is 8. Thus you have Jefus. And because the cross in the Tau was to obtain grace, he fays alfo 300. It is Evident therefore, that Jefus is denoted in two letters and the cross in

R 3

Δηλος

Thefe

one.'

But at prefent I will admit, for the fake of argument, that Barnabas was the author of the Epiftle, which goes by his name, which appears to have been the opinion of thofe members of the Latin church, who afferted that he was likewise the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. On this fuppofition a comparison of the two Epiftles will fhew, that Barnabas could not have written the Epiftle to the Hebrews. For the ftyle of the one is very different from that of the other, the Epiftle to the Hebrews being written in more elegant language, than the Epistle of Barnabas, though they often agree in fingle expreffions. This was not perceived by the Latin fathers, who were for the most part ignorant of Greek, or they would not have afcribed both Epiftles to the fame author. In fubftance the two Epiftles differ from each other still more, than in their language; for, though they in fome measure agree in the choice of the materials, as both of them explain many paffages from the Old Teftament, yet they difagree in the mode of treating those materials. Further, the ftrength of argumentation in the Epistle to the Hebrews, is greatly fuperior to that, which appears in the Epiftle of Barnabas: and it is hardly credible, that the very fame author, who difplayed fuch clofenefs of reasoning in the fifth, fixth, feventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth chapters of the former,

could

one.' I have interpreted this paffage aocording to the Hebrew alphabet, and not according to the Greck, to which a Jewish writer, who lived at Jerufalem, and wrote about the time of the deftruction of that city cannot be supposed to allude. By Hra therefore he underftood Heth, and alluded, not to the fecond letter in IHees, but to the last letter in the Hebrew word for Jefus, which he fuppofed was written not pw, but me, confounding and y, which was frequently done by the Samaritans and Galileans, because they pronounced both letters in the fame manner. Again his Tau is for the fame reason, not Greek but likewife oriental. It is true, that in the common Hebrew alphabet Tau is written n, which is not in the shape of a cross: but in the Phoenician and Samaritan alphabets Tau has the fhape of a crofs. Now this Tau he fays denotes 300, whereas every one, who has learnt only the first rudiments of Hebrew, knows that Tau, as a numeral denotes 400.-Now two fuch glaring mistakes as these cannot poffibly be afcribed to Barnabas, however weak his understanding may have been, and however abfurdly he may have reasoned on other occafions.

could ufe fuch weak and trifling arguments as occur throughout the latter. It is true that, if the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews proves, according to the common interpretation of it, Chrift's fuperiority to the angels from his divinity, and his divinity from paffages of the Old Testament, which have no relation to it: if in the fecond chapter the eighth pfalm is really quoted as a prophecy of Chrift: if further the inaccuracy of those paffages, in which I suspect that the tranflator has made mistakes', are to be ascribed, not to the tranflator, but to the author, the Epiftle to the Hebrews has likewife its weak parts. But whether the author be in fault, or not, these paffages are of a very different kind from the weak parts of the Epiftle of Barnabas. This dif ference the Latin fathers in general were unable to perceive: for the Old Teftament, which is quoted and explained in both Epiftles, they read not in the Hebrew, but (namely before the time of Jerom) in a wretched Latin tranflation of the Septuagint Greek verfion.

On the other hand, if it be granted, that Barnabas was not the author of the Epiftle, which goes by his name, the argument deduced from the diffimilarity of the style and the contents of the two Epiftles will ceafe to operate. The queftion therefore is; even on this ground, have we any reafon to believe that Barnabas wrote the Epiftle to the Hebrews? I think not; for, if he did, he wrote better Greek, and arranged his materials more clearly and methodically than St. Paul, an opinion which is not very confiftent with Acts xiv. 12. where St. Paul, then in company with Barnabas, is described as being the chief fpeaker. However, I think it unneceffary to argue any further on this ground, because it was not occupied by the Latin fathers, who at the same time, that they ascribed to Barnabas the Epistle to the Hebrews, believed him likewife to be the author of that, which commonly goes by his name.

See Sect. 13. of this chapter.

I

SECT. XVIII.

Of the canonical authority of the Epiftle to the Hebrews.

NOW come to the very important inquiry, whether the Epiftle to the Hebrews, under thefe circumftances, ought to be received as an infallible rule of faith, and placed among the canonical books of the New Teftament. That the ancients thought differently on this fubject, fome allowing it to be canonical, others not, appears from what has been faid in the preceding fections. But before we can determine this question, we must first agree on a criterion, by which the canonical authority of a book is to be judged. Now according to the principle, which I laid in the chapter on Infpirations, a canonical book of the New Teftament is a book written by an Apoftle. If then the Epiftle to the Hebrews was written by the Apoftle St. Paul, it is canonical. But if it was not written by an Apostle, it is not canonical; for, however excellent its contents may be, they alone will not oblige us to receive it, as a work infpired by the Deity.

In this light the fathers of the fecond and third centuries confidered the Epistle to the Hebrews.. Tertullian, though he highly approved of its contents, and found in them a fupport for his own fevere opinions, quotes it only as collateral evidence, and clearly distinguishes it from the apoftolic writings. Origin likewife doubted its canonical authority, for no other reafon, than because he was not convinced that St. Paul was the author, and certainly not, becaufe he had any objection to the doctrines, which it contains. This is evident from what he himself fays a few lines before the words, which I have quoted in the 15th feltion: τα νοήματα της επιςολης θαυ μασία εςι, και ο δευτερα των αποτολικων ὁμολογημένων γραμ μάτων, και τετο αν συμφήσαι είναι αληθες πας προσέχων τη AVAY WIEL TY ATоsоλinn. Noг, as far as I know, have any αναγνώσει τη αποςολική. of the fathers grounded their doubts on the doctrines of

Vol. I. Ch. iii. Sect. 2, 3.

this