icler proceeds: His prayer also, and how God was entreated of him, &c., behold they are written among the sayings of the Seers" or, as the margin correctly renders-"the sayings of Hosai ()" in which words the writer clearly refers to a distinct document.

(3) Isaiah's biography of Uzziah: "The rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the Prophet, the son of Amoz, write"-xxvi. 22; but which work was not, like Isaiah's history of Hezekiah, inserted in the "Book of the Kings.”—xxxii. 32.

Here, then, may be repeated the questions already proposed in Lecture ii. p. 55-Why do we not find in the Old Testament Canon the documents which have been enumerated in the preceding remarks? And again-Why do we not find placed on a par with the inspired writings, such works as the Book of Ecclesiasticus, and the other components of the Apocrypha, which, it is on all hands admitted, the Jewish Church never received as Canonical? Only one answer, I conceive, can be given to such questions, viz.: "That the collection of Sacred Books was defined under the Divine guidance, and closed at the Divine command" (see supra, p. 61).

* * *

It is unnecessary to enter here upon the modern phase of the question relating to the Apocrypha. Suffice it to say, that the Community which has exalted these writings to the dignity of Canonical Scripture, has, nevertheless, been compelled to place them in a lower rank than the Books acknowledged by all to be inspired. How a member of the Church of Rome can draw such a distinction, consistently with the Tridentine Decrees, it is needless to inquire: the agreement, however, of both Roman Catholics and Lutherans in their estimate of the Apocrypha is remarkable; -one party desiring to exalt the Apocrypha, the other to lower the authority of portions of the New Testament. Perrone-having quoted the Canon of Trent (Sess. iv.), in which both the Canonical and Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament are enumerated, and which concludes with these words: "Si quis libros ipsos cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in Ecclesia Catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri Vulgata Editione habentur pro Sacris et Canonicis non susceperit anathema sit" -proceeds to say: "Ex his porro tum Veteris tum Novi Test. libris alii dicuntur 'proto-canonici,' alii deutero-canonici' Libri 'proto canonici' Vet. Test., auctore Josepho Flavio, xxii. sunt; nempe omnes enumerati præter Baruch, Tobiam, Judith, Sapientiam, Ecclesiasticum, ac duos Machabæorum, qui serius in Canonem ab Ecclesia relati sunt, adeoque 'deutero-canonici' nuncupati. Libri 'proto-canonici' N. T., sunt pariter omnes recensiti, exceptis Epistola B. Pauli ad Hebræos, 2 Ep. B. Petri, duabus posterioribus S. Joannis, Ep. S. Jacobi, item Ep. S. Judæ, et Apocalypsi B. Joannis: ut nonnullas quorumdam librorum partes omittamus," (viz.: "quod attinet ad V. T., sunt hymnus trium puerorum, Dan. iii. 24-90; historia Susannæ, cap. xiii; ac destructio Beli et Draconis, cap. xiv.; septem postrema capita libri Esther, nempe a cap. x. 4 et xvi. 24. Quod vero spectat ad libros N. T., sunt (1) posteriores versiculi xvi. S. Marci, nempe a ver. 9 ad finem; (2) historia sudoris Christi sanguinei quæ legitur ap. S. Lucam cap. xxii. 43, 44; (3) historia mulieris adulteræ Joan. viii. 2-12")-Prælect Theol., t. ii. pars 2, p. 12.

cap.

*

*
*

Tholuck accepts this statement as follows: "Auf diese Weise bildets

sich auch unter den neutestamentlichen Schriften, wie unter den alttestamentlichen, der Unterschied aus zwischen kanonischen im engeren Sinne, und apokryphischen. Diesen letzteren Namen gebraucht Hieronymus geradezu von den Antilegomenen, und bezeichnet sie dadurch als solche, quæ Ecclesia legit ad ædificationem plebis,' welche aber die Kirche nicht gebraucht ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam.' Eben dieser Unterschied der neutestamentlichen Schriften ist nun auch von der lutherischen Kirche angenommen worden, welche ebenso im N. T., wie die katholische im A. T., 'libri proto-canonici,' und 'deutero-canonici' unterscheidet."-Der Br. an die Hebr., Einleitung, kap. vi., s. 86.

6

1

In concluding this subject an observation must be made with reference to the remark of Hug, quoted p. 59, note 1, to the effect that the primitive practice of publicly reading in the Christian assemblies the Books of the New Testament was the mark of distinction by which the Church formally declared its belief in their inspired authority. When such an argument is employed, we are of course to understand the practice of the Church, in general, as that to which the appeal is made: for it is well known that there were some exceptions to this principle. When it can be proved, however, that the use, in public worship, of any books which were not inspired was, at the utmost, only partial; and that, in the most remarkable case, such use can be at once accounted for from local causes; the argument for the inspiration of the Canonical Books only which is founded upon the general practice of the Church, is strengthened rather than diminished by the knowledge of such exceptions. Thus the Epistle of S. Clement of Rome, written in the name of the Roman Church to the Church of Corinth, was occasioned by a division which had arisen among the members of the latter, and which was healed by the wise admonitions of S. Clement. What more natural than that the Church of Corinth should continue publicly to read a document with which its history was so closely connected? Accordingly, S. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (circ. A.D. 170), wrote to Soter, bishop of Rome, informing him, among other matters, that it had been the practice of his Church, from the first, to read this Epistle. As Eusebius interprets his meaning:τῆς Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους μέμνηται ἐπιστολῆς, δηλῶν ἀνέκαθεν ἐξ ἀρχαίου ἔθους ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν αὐτῆς ποιεῖσθαι.—Hist. Eccl. iv. c. 23, p. 187. Considering the person by whom this Epistle had been written, we should rather feel surprise that the practice had not become universal (see supra, p. 57, &c.); but that it had not, we again learn from Eusebius, who, when desiring himself to express the great estimation in which S. Clement's Epistle was held, can say no more than that it was read ev πλείOTαiç Ekкλŋoíaιç (H. E., iii. c. 16, p. 108). The "Shepherd of Hermas," too, was held in the greatest veneration by so high an authority as S. Irenæus (cf. e. g. "Cont. Hær.," lib. iv. c. xx. p. 253); and yet, the Fragment of Muratori" expressly mentions it as a book which was not publicly read as Scripture:-see supra, p. 57, note. -see supra, p. 57, note. It is thus referred to by S. Athanasius:ἐν δὲ τῷ Ποιμένι γέγραπται· ἐπειδὴ καὶ τοῦτο καίτοι μὴ ὂν ἐκ τοῦ κανόνος προφέρουσι· πρῶτον κ. τ. λ. De Decr. Nic. Syn., t. i. p. 223.' The case of the Epistle of S. Barnabas has been considered already, p. 57, note 2.

1 Bishop Beveridge's assertion, therefore, as to the universal practice of reading

APPENDIX E.

THE EPISTLE OF S. BARNABAS.

(LECTURE II.—PAGE 58.)

OUR information, as to the personal history of S. Barnabas,' is very scanty. According to Acts, iv. 36, he was a "Levite of the country of Cyprus." Clemens Al. ("Strom." II. XX. p. 489) and Eusebius ("H. E.,” i. 12; ii. 1) tell us that he was one of the Seventy Disciples. This statement fully accords with the inspired historian's account of his early attachment to the Church, and zeal in its cause; for S. Barnabas was the first who "having land sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the Apostles' feet."-Acts, iv. 37. We next find him introducing the lately converted S. Paul to the Apostles (ix. 27); and subsequently journeying from Antioch "to Tarsus for to seek Saul" (xi. 25), whom he accompanied on his first mission as an Apostle (xiii). In consequence of the dispute respecting his kinsman "John, whose surname was Mark," he was for a time separated from S. Paul (xv. 36–39); and we learn from Gal. ii. 13, that S. Barnabas, in common with S. Peter, was led astray by the dissimulation of the Jews.

Referring to the early records of the Church, we learn further that an Epistle was generally received as proceeding from the pen of S. Barnabas, which is frequently quoted in the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen. Its existence is also mentioned by Eusebius, S. Jerome, and Nicephorus. For many centuries all knowledge of this Epistle was confined to such allusions. It was for the first time printed in 1643 by Archbishop Ussher, at Oxford; but the entire of this impression was destroyed during a great fire in that city. The first edition, therefore, actually published was that of Hugo Menardus, in 1645; and it was followed in the next year by another, edited by Is. Vossius. Ussher and Menardus were inclined to doubt the genuineness of this composition, which, on the other hand, Vossius defended: and thus the controversy on the subject commenced. This controversy is free from one difficulty, which, in such cases, is usually the most formidable: all parties admitting that, were we to confine ourselves to EXTERNAL EVIDENCE, there can be no doubt that S. Barnabas was the author. The manner in which early writers accepted this Epistle as the

these three writings in the Church is, I venture to think, unsupported by sufficient evidence. (See his "Codex Canonum," lib. II. cap. ix. § 11.)

1 Ullman ("Studien u. Kritiken," 1828, s. 378 ff.) identifies S. Barnabas with Barsabas (Acts, i. 23); on the grounds that the Peschito and some MSS., in Acts, i. 23, for 'Iwong read 'Iwons (who "was surnamed Barnabas”—-Acts, iv. 36); and that, for Bapoúßüç, Cod. D and the Ethiopian Version read Bapváßas. With this agrees the statement of Clemens Al. and Eusebius, that S. Barnabas was one of the Seventy; for Barsabas is described as having been an eye-witness of the Life of Christ. Although not elected into the place of Judas, he is called an Apostle (Acts, xiv. 4). How does it happen, also, that we hear no more of Barsabas? Cf. the curious statement of the "Recogn. S. Clementis" (ap. Coteler., t i. p. 507):"Post quem Barnabas, qui et Matthias, qui in locum Judæ subrogatus est Apos tolus," &c.

.

2 Even Ullman, who, in the essay alluded to, attempts in vain to weaken the external evidence admits: "Das Höchste, was wir den Verfechtern der Aechtheit

work of S. Barnabas, has been already pointed out (Lecture ii. p. 58, and p. 58, note 2); and so high an authority as Bishop Pearson can be appealed to as deciding "hanc Epistolam eandem esse quam veteres in manibus habuerunt.' Nor is this fact, that all external evidence is decisive in support of its genuineness, questioned by its leading opponent in modern times, the historian Neander, who does not, however, condescend to discuss this branch of the question. In his remarks on the most distinguished teachers of the Church, he writes :-"We must mention here, in the first place, Barnabas, the well-known companion of the Apostle Paul, if an Epistle really belonged to him, which was known in the second century, in the Church of Alexandria, under his name, and which bore the superscription of a Catholic Epistle. But we cannot possibly recognise in it the Barnabas who was worthy to be a companion of the apostolic labors of Paul, and who had received his name in the Church from the power of his inspired elocution (υἱὸς παρακλήσεως, υἱὸς προφητείας). There floats before us here a spirit altogether different from that of such an apostolic man. We here remark an educated Alexandrian Jew, who had gone over to Christianity; who, by his Alexandrian education, was prepared for a more spiritual apprehension of Christianity, but who laid too great stress upon an untenable Alexandrian, artificial Jewish, gnosis; who, in a mystical exposition, which plays upon the words of the Old Testament, and which seems to resemble the spirit of Philo rather than the spirit of Paul, or even of the Epistle to the Hebrews,-sought for special wisdom, and therein idly indulged himself." This statement of the case involves two assumptions, neither of which appears capable of support. (1) It is assumed, in the first place, that an Epistle proceeding from a companion of the Apostles, who, on certain occasions, was inspired in his preaching, must of necessity have been written under the influence of Inspiration. This assumption, however, is founded upon the twofold error, that the gift of Inspiration was permanent (in answer to which compare the Scriptural facts brought forward, p. 221, note '); and that Inspiration itself is of such a nature as the school of Schleiermacher has defined it to be (see also p. 34, and p. 219, note 1). (2) The second principle assumed by Neander, or, at least, by the majority of writers who agree with him in his argument against this Epistle, is that the system of allegorical exposition, which is there carried to such an extent, was unsuited alike to the age, and the object, of S. Barnabas, supposing him to have been the author. But both branches of this assumption also are again unfounded. That the principle of spiritually expounding the events and language of the Old Testament was not unsuited to the Apostolic age, we learn from the fact of the frequent adoption of such a system of interpretation by the New Testament writers zugeben, ist, dass der Brief, sofern wir bloss die Tradition [i. e. historical evidence], ins Auge fassen, von Barnabas seyn kann."-Loc. cit. s. 387.

2

1 "Minor Theol. Works"-"Lect. in Acta Apost. ii."-ed. Churton, vol. i. p. 335. As J. C. Rördam observes: "Unam eandemque esse Epistolam Barnabæ dubitari nequit; hoc enim satis probant loci ii, quos ex epistola Barnabæ laudarunt Patres ecclesiastici, qui verbo tenus in epistola nostra extant; quod neque inficias quisquam ivit præter Abr. Calovium, qui conjecturæ vento leviori obtemperans, Epistolæ hujus consarcinatorem fragmenta illa Barnabæ ex Clemente Alex. et Origene suo figmento in seruisse suspicatur."-De Authent. Ep. Barnabæ, Hafn. 1828. p. 9.

2 Allgem. Gesch. der christl. Kirche," B. i. s. 1133. 2te Aufl.

1

themselves (e. g. Gal. iv. 22, &c.; Rom. ix. 8; 2 Cor. iii. 13, &c.; Eph. v. 32; Heb. vii.; ix.; x. 1; xi. 19-cf. Lecture vii. p. 318, &c.): as well as from its use by S. Clement of Rome in his Epistle. Any objection, therefore, founded upon the exaggeration of this principle by S. Barnabas (an exaggeration which I am not prepared to deny), rests upon the assumption, already shown to be without foundation, that any composition of his must have been free from defects; i. e. that it must have been inspired. Equally untenable is the objection that an allegorical exposition of the Old Testament was not suited to the writer's object. The Epistle, as all critics (except Lardner,-Works, vol. ii. p. 19,-who thinks it was written to Gentiles) allow, was addressed to Jewish Christians; for whom the author was bound to prove that the "Old Testament was not contrary to the New." Accordingly, S. Barnabas argues (ch. i.-ix.), that, in the prophecies and types of the Old Testament sufficient is contained, relating to Christ and His death, to serve as the foundation of the New Covenant: and hence that the Jews cannot argue against Christianity from their own inspired writings. He then goes on to show that the Old Testament, as the Jews understood it, was but an external system; and, consequently, was to be done away by means of a system of internal religion which was to be perfected (cl. x.); that both Christian Baptism, and the manner of the Messiah's death, were predicted in the Old Testament (xi.; xii.); and therefore that not Jews but Christians are the people of the inheritance. From which it follows (ch. xiii.-xviii.) that neither was the Jewish Sabbath the true day of rest, but merely a type of the great Day of Rest at the end of the world; nor was the Temple of Jerusalem the true dwelling of God, for It is in the hearts of believers (Λαβόντες τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ ἐλπίσαντες ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου, ἐγενόμεθα καινοί, * διὸ ἐν τῷ κατοικητηρίῳ ἡμῶν ἀληθῶς ὁ Θεὸς κατοικεῖ ἐν ἡμῖν—c. xvi). From ch. xviii. to xxi., the contents of the Epistle are hortatory."

* *

It is to be added, that neither in the salutation nor elsewhere does the author name himself; nor does the Epistle appear to have had any title originally (see Wake's "Prel. Disc.," § 35):-facts which, coupled with the frequent citation of it by Clemens Al. as the production of S. Barna

1

1 E. g. his exposition of the "line of scarlet thread," given by the spies to Rahab (Josh. ii. 18; cf. Heb. xi. 31), as symbolizing "the Redemption by the Lord's Blood (ὅτι διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου λύτρωσις ἔσται)"Ep. ad Cor. c. xii. : :-see Rördam, loc. cit. pp. 33, 86.

*

2 See the essay by C. E. Francke in Rudelbach and Guerike's Journal for 1840, H. ii. s. 67 ff. In ch. xv., speaking of the Lord's rest on the Seventh Day (Gen. ii. 2); S. Barnabas says: 66 We are greatly deceived if we imagine that any one can now sanctify that day which God has made holy, without having a heart pure in all things. * He saith unto them. Your new moons and your sabbaths, I cannot bear them (Isai. i. 13);--the sabbaths, says He, which ye now keep, are not acceptable unto Me, but those which I have made; when resting from all things, I shall begin the Eighth Day, that is the beginning of the other world. For which cause we observe the eighth day with gladness, in which Jesus rose from the dead; and having manifested Himself to His Disciples, He ascended into Heaven (ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ φανερωθεὶς ἀνέβη εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς)” (“ Wake's transl) On this passage Rördam ingeniously observes: "Crediderim pæne, haud veri absimilem esse conjecturam, vestigium quoddam certæ cujusdam et universalis de ultimis Jesu fatis loquendi rationis, forsan Symboli Apostolici elementum in hoc loco inesse."—Loc. cit. p. 60.