Nevertheless, I think, it ought not to be received as facred fcripture, or admitted into the canon for these reasons.

1. It was not reckoned a book of authority, or a part of the rule of faith, by those ancient Chriftians, who have quoted it, and taken the greatest notice of it.

t

u

Clement of Alexandria has quoted this epiftle feveral times, but not as decifive, and by way of full proof, as we showed: nor is it fo quoted by " Origen; nor is the epiftle of Barnabas in any of Origen's catalogues of the books of scripture, which we ftill find in his works, or are taken notice of by Eufebius. By that ecclefiaftical hiftorian, in one place it is reckoned among spurious writings, that is, fuch as were generally rejected and fuppofed not to be a part of the New Teftament. At other times it is called by him a Controverted book, that is, not received by all.

у

b

Nor is this epiftle placed among facred fcriptures by following writers, who have given catalogues of the books of the New Testament. It is wanting, particularly, in the Feftal Epiftle of Athanafius, in the catalogue of Cyril of Jerufalem, of the council of Laodicea, of Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, f Amphilochius, and Jerom, Rufinus, the council of Carthage, and Auguftine. Nor has it been reckoned a part of canonical fcripture by later

writers.

2. Barnabas was not an apostle.

For he was not one of the twelve apoftles of Chrift: nor was he chosen in the room of Judas; nor is there in the Acts any account of his being chofen into the number of apostles, or appointed to be an apoftle by Chrift, as Paul was. What St. Luke fays of Barnabas is, that he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost, and of faith, Acts xi. 24. And in ch. xiii. 1. he is mentioned among prophets and teachers in the church of Antioch. But St. Luke speaks in the like manner of Stephen, of whom he fays, he was a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghoft, ch. vi. 5. full of faith

and power, ch. v. 8. full of the Holy Ghoft, ch. vii. 55. And all the feven were full of the Holy Ghost, and wisdom, ch. vi. 3.

That Barnabas was not an apoftle, I think, may be concluded from Gal. ii. 9. where Paul fays: And when James, and Cephas, and John, who feemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right band of fellowship. By grace I fuppofe St. Paul to mean the favour of the apoftlefhip. So Rom. i. 5. By whom we have received grace and apoftleship, that is, the favour of the apostlefhip. Ch. xii. 3. For I fay, through the grace given to me, meaning the efpecial favour of the apoftlefhip. And fee I Cor. xv. 10. Eph. iv. 7., compared with

ch. xv. 15.

ver. II.

If Barnabas had been an apoftle, in the fulleft sense of the word, St. Paul would not have faid in the above cited place from the second to the Galatians, when they perceived the grace given to me, but, when they perceived the grace given to: me, and Barnabas. And in the preceding part of the context, particularly, in ver. 7, 8. he twice fays me, where he would have faid us, if Barnabas had been an apostle; for he had been mentioned before, in ver. 1.

Indeed, in the Acts, where Paul and Barnabas are mentioned together, Barnabas is fometimes first named, as Acts xi. 30. xii. 25. xiii. 1. 2. and 7. xiv. 14. XV. 12. 25. which, I think, not at all ftrange, among perfons, who were not intent upon precedence: when too Barnabas was the elder in years and difcipleship. But in feveral other places Paul is first named, as in Acts xiii. 43. 46. xv. 2, 22, 35. of which no other reafon can be well assigned, befide that of Paul's apoftleship.

Moreover, wherever they travelled together, if there was an opportunity for difcourfing, Paul fpake. So at Paphos, in the island of Cyprus, Acts xiii. 6-12. And at Antioch in Pifidia, ch. xiii. 15, 16. See alfo ch. xiv. 12.

And that Paul was the principal perfon, appears from that early account, after they had been in Cyprus, ch. xiii. 13. Now when Paul and his company loofed from Paphos, they came to Perga, in Pamphylia.

However, there are fome texts, which must be confidered by us, as feeming to afford objections.

Acts xiv. 4. But the multitude of the city was divided. Part held with the Jews, and part with the apofles: that is, Paul and Barnabas, who were then at Iconium. And

afterwards,

afterwards, at Lyftra, ver. 14. Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard, ... Here Barnabas is ftyled an apostle, as well as Paul.

To which I anfwer, firft, Both being now together, and meeting with the like treatment, might be called apoftles; though only one of them was, properly, fo. Secondly, it is not unlikely, that Barnabas and Paul are here ftyled by St. Luke apostles, in regard to what had been done at Antioch, as related by him, ch. xii. 1-4. when by an exprefs order from heaven, they were fent forth from the church at Antioch, upon a fpecial commiffion, in which they were ftill employed. That defignation, however folemn, did not make either of them apoftles of Chrift in the highest fenfe. It was not the apoftolical, which is a general commiflion. But it was a particular commiffion, as appears from that whole hiftory, and from what is faid at the conclufion of the journey, which they had taken, Acts xiv. 26. And thence they failed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God, for the work, which they had fulfilled. Nevertheless, they are not unfitly called apoftles upon account of it. So 2 Cor. viii. 13. Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner, and fellow-helper concerning you: or our brethren be enquired of, they are the meffengers of the churches, literally, apostles of the churches, and the glory of Chrift. If thofe brethren, which had been appointed by the churches to go to Jerufalem, with the contributions, which had been made for the relief of the poor faints in Judea, might be called apoftles; there can be no doubt, but Paul and Barnabas might be called apoftles in regard to the work, to which they had been folemnly appointed by the church at Antioch.

Again 1 Cor. ix. 5, 6. Have we not power to lead about a fifter, a wife, as well as other apoftles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only, and Barnabas, kave not we power to forbear working 2.

Some may think, that Barnabas is here fuppofed to be an apostle. I answer, that, though Barnabas was not an apoftle properly, or equally. with himself, yet Paul, out of an affectionate refpect to his friend,' companion, and fellowlabourer, might be difpofed to mention him, upon this occafion, in the manner he has done. This is faid, fuppo

fing all before-mentioned to have been apoftles of Chrift, in the higheft fenfe. But, fecondly, it is not certain, that all, before-mentioned, were ftrictly apoftles. It feems to me more likely, that by the brethren of the Lord fome are intended, who were not apoftles. If fo, Paul might reafonably, and without offence, gratify his friendly difpofition and infert here the name of Barnabas, who had fhared with him many fatigues and difficulties in the service of the gofpel, though he was not an apostle.

I do not therefore difcern any good reason from the New Teftament, why Barnabas fhould be reckoned an apostle; but quite otherwise.

The fenfe of the primitive Chriftians is agreeable hereto. Few or none of them have thought Barnabas an apostle.

Clement of Alexandria has quoted Barnabas m five or fix times. Twice he calls him apoftle. In another place he calls him the apoftolic Barnabas, who was one of the feventy, and fellow-labourer of Paul. Thefe are the higheft characters, which he intended to give to Barnabas, and what he means, when he calls him apoftle, as is fully shown in the place juft referred to.

о

By Tertullian, as cited by us" formerly, Barnabas is plainly reckoned no more, than a companion of apostles. Eufebius, in a chapter concerning thofe who were difciples of Chrift, fays: The names of our Saviour's apof'tles are well known from the gofpels: but there is not 'where extant a catalogue of the feventy difciples. However, it is faid, that Barnabas was one of them, who is exprefsly mentioned in the acts, and in Paul's epiftle to the Galatians.' That learned writer therefore did not know, that Barnabas was an apoftle. In another place of the fame work, his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, he quotes a paffage from the feventh book of Clement's Inftitutions or Hypotopofes, where Barnabas is ftyled one of the feventy. In his Commentary upon Ifaiah Eufebius computes fourteen apof

tles, meaning the twelve, and Paul, added to them, and equal to them, and James the Lord's brother, bishop of Jerufalem, whom Eufebius did not think to be one of the twelve. Nor does he here fay, that he was equal to them, or Paul. However, from all thefe places we can be fully affured, that our learned ecclefiaftical hiftorian did not fo much as fufpect Barnabas to have been an apoftle, in the highest fenfe

of the word.

Jerom, in the article of Barnabas, in his book of Ecclefiaftical Writers, fays, he was ordained with Paul an apoftle of the gentiles.' But authors, who write in hafte, as Jerom often did, do not always exprefs themselves exactly and properly. Jerom did not think, that Barnabas was equally an apoftle with Paul. This may be concluded from what there follows: He wrote an epiftle for the edification of the church, which is read among the apocryphal fcriptures. If Barnabas had been an apoftle, ftriatly fpeaking, Jerom would not have faid, he wrote an epiftle for the edification of the church:' which any inan might do. Nor would his epiftle have been reckoned apocryphal, as Jerom here, and elsewhere" calls it. When Jerom fays, that Barnabas was ordained with Paul an apostle of the gentiles; it is likely, he refers to the hiftory in Acts xiii. 1-4. of which I have already faid all that is needful.

Theodoret, as formerly quoted, fays: The all-wife 'Deity committed the culture of a barren world to a few 'men, and thofe fishermen, and publicans, and one tent-. 'maker;' and to the like purpofe often: which fhows, that he did not reckon Barnabas an apoftle in the fulleft meaning of the word. If he had, he must have added, and one Levite.' The fame obfervation may be applied to Chryfoftom, who in his many paffages fhowing the wonderful progrefs of the gospel, often mentions the apoftles Peter, a fisherman, and Paul a tent-maker, but never Barnabas a Levite.

If then Barnabas was not an apoftle, an epiftle written by him cannot be received as canonical, or a part of the rule of faith forafmuch as no men, befide apoftles, have the privilege of writing epiftles, or other works, preceptive,