1 Baron. Ann. Eccles. an. 51, n. 55. ? Hieron. de Nomin. Heb. 3 Epiphan, Heer. lib. i. cap. x. ¢ Euseb. Eccles, Hist. lib. i. cap. xiii.
SECT. 6, 7.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 71
of this Epistle, Barnabas was so far from that light into, and appre- hension of the nature, use, and expiration of Judaical rites herein expressed, that he was easily misled into a practical miscarriage in the observation of them, Gal. ii. 13; wherein although some (after Jerome’s fancy, that the difference between St Peter and St Paul was only in pretence’) have laboured to free St Peter and his companions on other grounds from any sinful failing,—as it should seem in a direct opposition unto the testimony of St Paul, affirming that xareyywowévos jy, in that particular “he was to be blamed” or condemned, ver. 11, not unlike him who hath written a justifica- tion of Aaron in his making the golden calf,’—yet that Barnabas was not come up unto any constancy in his practice about Mosaical insti- tutions is evident from the text. And shall we suppose that he who but a little before, upon the coming of some few brethren of the church of Jerusalem from St James, durst not avouch and abide by his own personal liberty, but deserted the use of it, not without some blamable dissimulation, ver. 13, should now, with so much autho- rity, write an Epistle unto that church with St James, and all the Hebrews in the world, concurring with them in judgment and prac- tice about that very thing wherein himself, out of respect unto them, had particularly miscarried? This certainly was rather the work of St Paul, whose light and constancy in the doctrine delivered in this Epistle, with his engagement in the defence of it above all the rest of the apostles, are known from the story of the Acts and his own other writings.
6. APOLLOS hath been thought by some to be the penman of this Epistle, and that because it answers the character given of him;? for it is said that he was “ an eloquent man, mighty in the Scriptures,” fervent in spirit, and one that “mightily convinced the Jews” out of the Scripture itself, Acts xviii. 24, 28,—all which things appear throughout this whole discourse. But this conjecture hath no coun- tenance from antiquity, no mention being made of any epistle writ- ten by Apollos, or of any thing else; so that he is not reckoned by Jerome amongst the ecclesiastical writers, nor by those who inter- polated that work with some fragments out of Sophronius. Nor is he reported, by Clemens, Origen, or Eusebius, to have been by any esteemed the author of this Epistle. However, I confess somewhat of moment might have been apprehended in the observation men- tioned, if the excellencies ascribed unto Apollos had been peculiar unto him; yea, had they not all of them been found in St Paul, and that in a manner and degree more eminent than in the other. But this being so, the ground of this conjecture is taken from under it.
7. Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, in the places forecited, mention
? Hieron. Hpist. ad August. et Com. in cap. ii. Epist. ad Gal.; Baron. Ann, Eccles, an. 65, n. 39-41. 2 Monceius de Vitul. Aur. 3 Luther on Gen. xlviii. 10,
72 AUTHOR OF THE [ EXERC. IL.
a report concerning some who ascribed this Epistle unto CLEMENS Romanus. None of them give any countenance unto it, or intimate any grounds of that supposition; only Jerome affirms that there is some similitude between the style of this Epistle and that of Clemens, which occasioned the suspicion of his translating it; whereof after- wards. Erasmus hath since taken up that report, and seems to give credit unto it; but hath not contributed any thing of reason or testi- mony unto its confirmation... A worthy, holy man was this Clemens, no doubt, and bishop of the church at Rome. But none of the an- cients of any learning or judgment ever laid weight on this conjec- ture. For what had he, who wasa convert from among the Gentiles, to do with the churches of the Hebrews? what authority had he to interpose himself in that which was their peculiar concernment? Whence may it appear that he had that skill in the nature, use, and end of Mosaical rites and institutions, which the writer of this Epistle discovers in himself? Neither doth that epistle of his to the church of Corinth, which is yet extant, though excellent in its kind, permit us to think that he wrote by divine inspiration. Besides, the author of this Epistle had a desire and purpose to go to the Hebrews; yea, he desires to be “restored” unto them, as one that had been with them before, chap. xii. 19, 23. But as it doth not appear that this Clemens was ever in Palestine, so what reason he should have to leave his own charge now to go thither, no man can imagine. And to end this needless debate, in that epistle which was truly his own, he makes use of the words and authority of this, as Eusebius long since observed.
8. Sixtus Senensis atfirms that the work whose author we inquire after was by some assigned unto TERTULLIAN.’ A fond and impious imagination, and such as no man of judgment or sobriety could ever fall into! This Epistle was famous in the churches before Tertullian was born ; is ascribed by himself unto Barnabas; and some passages in it are said by him to be corrupted by one Theodotus long befoye his time.*