This opinion, then, may be well rejected as a groundless guess, of an obscure, unknown original, and not tolerably confirmed either by
1 Eccles. Hist. lib. vi. cap. xxv. 2 Eccles. Hist. lib. vi. cap. xiii. 3 Grot. Pref. in Annot. ad Epist. ad Heb. * Hieron. Scrip. Eccles. in Paul. 5 Scrip. Eccles. in Clement. :
SECT. 3-5. | EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 69
testimony or circumstances of things. If we will forego a persua- sion established on so many important considerations, as we shall manifest this of St Paul’s being the author of this Epistle to be, and confirmed by so many testimonies, upon every arbitrary, ungrounded conjecture, we may be sure never to find rest in any thing that we are rightly persuaded of. But I shall add one consideration, that will cast this opinion of Grotius quite out of the limits of probabi- lity. By general consent, this Epistle was written whilst James was yet alive, and presided in the church of the Hebrews at Jeru- salem; and I shall afterwards prove it so to have been. What was his authority as an apostle, what his reputation in that church, is both known in general from the nature of his office, and in particular is intimated in the Scripture, Acts xii, 17, xv. 13; Gal. ii.9. These were the Hebrews whose instruction in this Epistle is principally intended ; and by their means that of their brethren in the eastern dispersion of them. Nov, is it reason to imagine that any one who was not an apostle, but only a scholar and follower of them, should be used to write unto that church, wherein so great an apostle, a “ pillar” among them, had his especial residence, and did actually preside; and that, in an argument of such huge importance, with reasons against a practice wherein they were all engaged, yea, that apostle himself, as appears, Gal. ii. 12? Were any one then alive of more esteem and reputation in the church than others, certainly he was the fittest to be used in this employment; and how well all things of this nature agree unto St Paul, we shall see afterwards,
5. Some have assigned the writing of this Epistle unto BARNABAS. Clemens, Origen, Eusebius, make no mention of him. Tertullian’ was the author of this opinion, and it is reported as his by Jerome? Philastrius® also remembers the report of it. And it is of late de- fended by Cameron* (as the former concerning Luke by Grotius); whose reasons for his conjecture are confuted with some sharpness by Spanheim,’ mindful, as it seems, of his father’s controversy with some of his scholars. The authority of Tertullian is the sole foundation of this opinion; but as the book wherein he mentions it was written in his paroxysm, when he uttered not that only unad- visedly, so he seems not to lay much weight on the Epistle itself, only preferring it unto the apocryphal Hermes: “ Receptior,” saith he, “apud ecclesias epistola Barnabz illo apocrypho Pastore Meechorum.” And we have showed that the Latin church was, for a time, somewhat unacquainted with this Epistle, so that it is no marvel if one of them should mistake its author. Grotius® would disprove this opinion from the dissimilitude of its style, and that
? Tertul. de Pudicit. cap. xx. ® Hieron. Cat. Scrip. in Paul. et Barnab. 3 Phi- lastr. Heer. 41. 4 Camero Que. in Epist. ad’ Heb. 5 Spank, de Auth. Epist. ad Heb. 6 Grot. Pref. Annot,.in Epist. ad Heb.
70 AUTHOR OF THE [EXERC. Iz
which goes under the name of Barnabas, which is corrupt and bar- barous. But there is little weight in that observation, that epistle being certainly spwrious, no way savouring the wisdom or spirit of him on whom it hath been vulgarly imposed. But yet, that it was that epistle which is cited by some of the ancients under the name of Barnabas, and not this unto the Hebrews, is well proved by Baronius,' from the names that Jerome” mentions out of that epistle, which are nowhere to be found in this to the Hebrews. But that epistle of Barnabas is an open fruit of that vanity, which prevailed in many about the third and fourth ages of the church, of per- sonating in their writings some apostolical persons; wherein they seldom or never kept any good decorum, as might easily be mani- fested in this particular instance. As to our present case, the reason before mentioned is of the same validity against this as [against] the other opinion concerning Luke; whereunto others of an equal evidence may be added. Barnabas was not an apostle, properly and strictly so called, nor had apostolical mission or authority; but rather seems to have been one of the seventy disciples, as Epiphanius affirms.’ And Eusebius, a person less credulous than he, acknowledging that a just and true catalogue of them could not be given, yet placeth Barnabas as the first of them concerning whom all agreed.* Much weight, in- deed, I shall not lay hereon, seeing it is evident that the catalogues, given us by the ancients of those disciples, are nothing but a rude collection of such names as they found in the books of the New Testament, applied without reason or testimony. But apostle he was none.
Many circumstances also concur to the removal of this conjecture. The Epistle was written in Italy, chap. xiii. 24, where it doth not appear that Barnabas ever was. The fabulous author, I confess, of the rhapsody called “The Recognitions of Clemens,” tells us that Barnabas went to Rome, taking Clemens along with him; and, re- turning into Judea, found St Peter at Ceesarea. But St Luke in the Acts gives us another account, both where Barnabas was and how he was employed, at the time intimated by him who knew nothing of those things; for whilst St Peter was at Caesarea, Acts x. 1, etc., Barnabas was at Jerusalem, Acts ix. 26, 27, being a little while » after sent to Antioch by the apostles, chap. xi. 22. Again, Timothy was the companion of the writer of this Epistle, Heb. xii. 23; a person, as far as appears, unknown unto Barnabas, being taken into St Paul’s society after their difference and separation, Acts xv. 37-39, xvi. 1-3. He had also been in bonds or imprisonment, Heb. x. 34, whereof we cannot at that time learn any thing concerning Barnabas, those of St Paul being known unto all. And, lastly, not long before the writing