us into an incorruptible temple: he therefore that desires to be saved, looketh not unto the man, but unto him that dwelleth in him, and speaketh by him; being struck with wonder, forasmuch as he never heard him speaking such words out of his mouth, nor ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple that is built unto the

Lord."

That Barnabas, the companion and fellow-labourer of Paul, "the son of consolation," he whom the Scriptures have emphatically pronounced " a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and faith," is the author of this Epistle, we never for a moment can entertain-it is impossible :-but whilst we speak thus confidently on this point, there are many passages in the Epistle which convince us that it was written in the apostolical age, and very probably by some one who was acquainted with some of the Apostles. The author's name was Barnabas, but he was not the Barnabas of Scripture. The next generation added the title "Sancti Apostoli" to the simple name which they found appended to the Epistle; for the Christians were little disposed to leave any thing in uncertainty, that related to the apostolical age.

*

Barnabas," the son of consolation," has a much higher claim as a writer by the testimony of antiquity. Tertullian, without hesitation, asserts that he is the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; " nevertheless," says he, "I am willing over and above to allege the testimony of a companion of the Apostles, a fit person to shew, at the next remove, what was the sentiment of the masters. For there is an Epistle of Barnabas, inscribed to the Hebrews, written by a man of such authority, that Paul has placed him with himself in the same course of abstinence, or I only and Barnabas, have we not power to forbear working.' And certainly the Epistle of Barnabas (i. e. Hebrews) is more generally received by the Churches than the apocryphal Pastor of adulterers (that is Hermas), admonishing then his disciples leaving all first principles, rather to go on to perfection, and not to lay again the foundation of repentance from the works of the dead: for it is impossible, says he, for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift.' He who learned this from the Apostles and taught with the Apostles, never knew that a second repentance had been promised by the Apostles to an adulterer and a fornicator, for he excellently interprets the law, and shews its figures in the truth.”

With the peculiar opinions of Tertullian, as enunciated in this passage, we are not concerned; but it is obvious that he takes for granted, as a fact undisputed, that Barnabas was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; and this testimony, in the unsettled state of the controversy respecting the real author of that epistle, ought to carry with it no little weight. If it could be proved that Barnabas, indeed, did write the Epistle to the Hebrews, it would be a fact of deep interest to Christians, as we should, thereby, have an addition to the cloud of witnesses, who, through the Spirit, have testified to the glory of God revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. Considering, however, the accurate and laborious investigation which this question has received from learned men, both of the Roman Catholic and Protestant schools, and their manifest inability to place any decision beyond the reach of controversy, we must be content to take the Epistle to the Hebrews as an anonymous work, knowing assuredly, that whether Paul or Barnabas was the human writer, the divine instructor and original monitor was He who led all the Apostles out of the errors of nature into the revelations of grace.

66

Eusebius has ranked the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas amongst spurious works; amongst the disputed books," says he, "although they are well known and approved by many, is reputed that called the Epistle of James and Jude, also the second Epistle of Peter, and those called the second and third of John, whether they are of the Evangelist, or of some other of the same name. Among the spurous εv Toi voloiç must be numbered both the books called the Acts of Paul, and that called Pastor, and the Revelation of Peter. Besides these, the books called Depoμεvn the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the institutions of the

* Much might be said of the negative proof in favor of the high antiquity of this Epistle. It is not written for any specific object: there is no design in it, as there is in all the other numerous forgeries written so as to appear of this era. It is not directed against any heretics, or supposed heretics; it does not teach priestcraft in any form-it does not exalt bishops: in short, the author had chiefly one object in view-to plead against Jewish views, -an object peculiar to the apostolical age.

Apostles" iii. 25. Jerom classes it amongst the apocryphal * Scriptures. Origen and Clemens Alexandrinus quote it as genuine; the latter writer, indeed, refers to it more than once, and finds in it "a clear trace of that gnostic tradition" which he was anxious to establish, ηδη σαφέστερον γνωστικής παραδόσεως ίχνος παρατιθεμενος. The learned Cotelerius says, "that he more inclines to the opinion that the epistle was not written by the Apostle Barnabas." Basnage, Mosheim, Neander, Allman, and Hug, have declared against the Epistle; Cave, Rosenmüller, and Henke have taken the contrary side. Tillemont asks this pertinent question, “And truly, if the letter was written by St. Barnabas; how comes it that the Church, which honours this Saint as an Apostle, has not received it amongst the rank of sacred and canonical books?" The Epistles of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas have been omitted in the edition of the Apostolic Fathers, lately published by the University of Oxford.

The Epistle of Clemens to the Romans may be accepted as genuine without controversy; there is scarcely any doubt that it was written by Clemens, who had seen the Apostles, and perhaps had been familiarly acquainted with Paul and Peter. By the general testimony of ecclesiastical historians, he is believed to have been the same whom Paul mentions amongst his fellow-labourers, whose names are written in "the book of life." Scarcely any thing authentic can be stated either of his life or death; that he was one of the early bishops of the Roman Church is certain; but when he became a bishop, and when he died, cannot be exactly ascertained, owing to the contradictory assertions of tradition. As the papal question is implicated in the history of the first bishops of Rome, it may be instructive to see the confusion and uncertainty of the records relating to the immediate successors of Peter. Irenæus, (A. D. 180,) thus speaks of the bishops of Rome, in a passage well worthy our attention: "But since it would be very long in such a volume as this, to enumerate the succession of all the Churches, we will content ourselves with pointing out the Church of Rome (which is the greatest and most ancient, and is known by all men, and was founded and constituted by Peter and Paul), and that tradition which it possesses from the Apostles, and the faith that was announced or preached to men, through a succession of bishops reaching down to our day; and thus we confound all those who in any way, either through a wicked self-pleasing, or through vain glory or blindness, or bad sentiments, collect (traditions) other than they ought; for to this Church it behoves every Church to come, on account of the more powerful principality—propter potentiorem principalitatem—that is, all the faithful every where should come to that Church in which there has always been preserved by those who are everywhere (or Catholic) that tradition which is derived from the Apostles. The blessed Apostles, therefore, having founded and built up the Church of Rome, delivered the office of the superintendance-rns εLOKOTNÝ XEITOVPYLav— to Linus, of whom Paul makes mention in his epistle to Timothy; and to him succeeds Anencletus, and after him, the third place after the Apostles, Clemens obtains the superintendance (or episcopacy) who had seen the blessed Apostles, and had acted with them, and had yet in his ears the sound of their preaching, and their tradition before his eyes; and not he alone, for at that time, there were yet left many others who had been taught by the Apostles. Now in the time of this Clemens, no small dissension having arisen amongst the brethren at Corinth, the Church that was at Rome sent a most suitable epistle to the Corinthians, to reconcile them again in peace, and to renew them in their faith, and in that tradition which they had but recently received from the Apostles,—to this Clemens succeeded Evaristus," &c.

Eusebius agrees with this statement of Irenæus, asserting more than once that Linus was the first after Peter and Paul, that Anencletus succeeded Linus, and that Clemens followed Anencletus. But then Tertullian declares that Clement was ordained Bishop of Rome by Peter," Clementem a Petro ordinatum."-The Apostolical constitutions assert that Linus was ordained Bishop of Rome by Paul, whilst

* "Barnabas Cyprius, qui et Joseph Levites, cum Paulo gentium apostolus ordinatus suam ad edificationem ecclesiæ pertinentem epistolam composuit, quæ inter Apocryphas Scripturas legitur" (De Scrip. Eccles) and to the same effect in lib. xiii. Comment in Ezek. xliii. In another part of his works, however, Jerom has placed the Epistle of Barnabas amongst the books of the New Testament.

Jerom declares that he was ordained by Peter. Epiphanius says, that Peter and Paul, owing to the necessity imposed on them of leaving Rome, in order to preach the Gospel, left others to sustain the episcopal functions in their absence, and that Clemens was appointed by Peter to the care of the flock during their journeys. Ruffinus says, that Linus and Anencletus had this charge; and even Baronius agrees to this statement, only he remarks "that we must not say that they had a power equal to Peter." Bollandus places Linus, Anencletus, and Clemens together, an arrangement which probably approaches nearest to the truth; as it would not the least surprise us to hear that these three, together with others not recorded, were all bishops, or overseers, or elders of the Roman Church at the same time. Clemens perhaps outlived Linus and Anencletus; and thus was afterwards called their 66 successor." There is, however, another name in the succession, a certain Cletus, so that, according to Jerom and some others, Clemens was the fourth after the Apostles. In short, the arrangement of the "immediate successors of Peter" is a task attended with difficulties which the learned have never been able to surmount, though the most probable solution of the problem seems to be by placing the names of all the four together, and by supposing that all four were Bishops of Rome at the same time. Indeed there is strong proof in the expressions of some of those learned churchmen who have investigated this question, that they have purposely avoided this solution, because it militates with their theory of monarchical episcopacy.*

The dates of the death of Clemens, and of the epistle which he wrote on behalf of the church at Rome to the Church at Corinth, have been closely examined, but never yet settled. The difficulty of fixing the date of the epistle may be seen in the uncertainty of the time of his episcopacy. Bishop Pearson supposes that Clemens was Bishop of Rome from the year of our Lord 69 or 70 to the year 83; Pagi, that Clemens succeeded Linus in 61, and sat in the see of Rome till 77, when he abdicated, and died long after, a martyr, in the year 100. Archbishop Wake fixes the date between 64 and 70; Le Clerc, 79, Dodwell, 64. Du Pin and Tillemont think he was not Bishop till 91 or 93. Lardner fixes the date of the epistle A. D. 96.

The Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians has met with large commendations from the writers of antiquity: Eusebius denominates it a great and admirable epistle, and Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, about the year 170, testifies to the fact that the epistle was read in the Church of Corinth from ancient times; and other writers, that it was publicly read in other Christian Churches.

The Epistle commences with a high eulogy of the excellent order and spiritual comeliness of the Church at Corinth till distracted by late dissensions-Clemens then traces the origin of this dissension to envy; and by many examples, some of which scarcely illustrate his point, endeavours to show the evils resulting from envy, From envy he proceeds to repentance, by several examples urging this duty, and insinuating that the Corinthians should repent of what they had done. As a sort of encouragement to repentance, he next sets before them several examples of obedi ence, Enoch, Abraham, Lot, Rahab: on the example of Rahab he enlarges, and concludes this portion of his letter by admonitions to humility. The idea of humility then leads him on to expatiate on Christ as an example of humility, on which topic he quotes the whole of the 53rd chapter of Isaiah. He then returns to the theme of repentance, adducing David as a striking example, and quoting, as illustrative, the 51st Psalm, to the end of the 17th verse. Clemens then shows how God has in the works of creation established order and concord; and so, from the order of nature, and the harmony of its movements, he draws a metaphorical argument in favour of order and harmony amongst the Corinthians-he then inculcates faith in Christ, who, he intimates," will come quickly and not tarry." Without any apparent connection, he then goes on to the subject of the resurrection, of which he finds

* Dodwell and others have laid it down as a fixed canon, that the supposition of two or more bishops at one time in the same episcopacy cannot possibly be admitted; and Tillemont who, by the force of evidence, seems almost compelled to acknowledge that there was more than one bishop of Rome at this period, adds this characteristic comment: "Il est difficile, si cela est, qu' entre les fidèles, les uns, se rendant à l'autorité et au jugement de St. Pierre, les autres n'aient pas souhaité de demeurer sous ceux dont ils avaient dejà eprouvé la conduite."

proofs in the lying down of the night and the uprising of the morning; in the sowing of seed, its dissolution, and the sprouting forth of the plant-in the Phoenix, a wonderful bird of Arabia, of which he gravely narrates the whole legend: renewed exhortations to obedience, faith, and holiness follow. He states that we are justified by faith; but warns us not to give up our charity and good works; speaks with joy of the future prospect of glory-and exhorts the Corinthians to strive for the reward, and to put away all sinful passions, as by such means they will find Jesus Christ their High Priest and Defender. He teaches submission by reference to the gradations of rank and arrangements of discipline in an army, and requests the brethren to let all keep their proper place, according to their gifts, in the Church. A quotation of some length, but scarcely applicable to the subject, is then introduced from Job; after which he shows that the ordinances of the Mosaic worship were all regularly arranged, from which he draws an argument, by analogy, in favour of order and regularity amongst the Corinthians. This argument he enforces by reminding them that the Apostles, when they preached the Gospel in countries and cities, appointed bishops and deacons for those who should afterwards believe; which, he says, was not wonderful, seeing that even Moses had taken particular care to establish the Aaronical priesthood. From this he makes a deduction, that it could not be right in the Corinthians to eject their bishops or elders from their charge; and contrasts their violent conduct with the example of holy men of old. He then refers the Corinthians to Paul's first Epistle to the Church at Corinth, exhorts them to unity, sets forth the excellence of Christian charity, advises them to ask God's forgiveness, and not harden their hearts like Pharaoh, but to forgive one another after the example of Moses. He recommends those who have caused the dissension to withdraw from Corinth, and to go any whither for the sake of restoring peace, every place would be ready to receive them, seeing "that the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof." This suggestion he fortifies by examples of heathen kings and rulers, who, warned by oracles, sacrificed themselves for the public weal. Judith and Hesther he also adduces as instances of this patriotic spirit. After exhorting them to pray for those who have fallen into sin, and to submit themselves to their elders, he concludes the epistle with an affectionate and apostolical benediction.

That the author of this celebrated Epistle was a pious, humble-minded, and tenderhearted Christian there can be little doubt; but that he was deficient in judgment, and but ill qualified to pursue an argument with any thing like logical precision is equally apparent. The amiable man and the feeble-minded monitor, the pious elder and the weak reasoner, are apparent in every page; and though there are some detached passages of much beauty, yet the want of coherence and application, or rather the total irrelevancy of his best-written illustrations, only serve to render more conspicuous the author's lack of discernment. As proof of this criticism, we would draw attention to his exhortation to Christian harmony founded on the harmony observable in the works of creation: the passage in itself is really beautiful and eloquent, equal to some of the essays of the golden-mouthed Chrysostom; but seriously to press this metaphor in a question of church-discipline is surely injudicious, and exhibits a want of taste both in the rhetorician and the divine.

In a similar strain, in another part of the Epistle (xxxiii), he presses the necessity of good works, on the consideration that the Almighty himself worked good works in the creation; here he tells us in comely words, that God created the heavens, the water, the sea, and all creatures in them, and last of all, man the crown of his works; and then concludes in these words, "having therefore such an example, let us without delay fulfil his will, and with all our strength work the works of righteousness." He frequently calls in the aid of Heathen examples to press the doctrine he has in hand. "To those men who lived a godly life Dawg Torεvoaμevois were joined a great number of the elect, who having, through envy, undergone many contumelies and torments have become a most splendid example to us. Through envy, women, the Danaides and Dirce*, having been persecuted, and having suffered fierce and

* The Danaides and Dirce are omitted in the translations of Archbishop Wake and Mr. Chevalier, who followed the feelings of the learned Junius in adjudging these strange examples to be an interpolation. There is however no aut hority for the omission, beyond

horrid punishments, finished the course of their faith with firmness, and, though weak in body, have received a noble reward. Envy hath alienated wives from their husbands, and has changed what was once said by our Father Adam, This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.' Envy and contention have overthrown great cities and rooted up great nations.”—Again, towards the close of the Epistle (lv), "But that we may also bring forward examples of the Heathens, many kings and princes, in times of pestilence, being warned by oracles, gave themselves up to death, that they might by their own blood (or by the sacrifice of themselves) deliver the citizens. Many have forsaken their own cities that seditions might no longer continue; we know that many amongst ourselves (i. e. Christians) have given themselves up into bonds that they might ransom others."

Clemens here alludes to Edipus, Codrus, Lycurgus, M. Curtius, Scipio Africanus and other worthies of classical story; but thus to mingle Heathens and Christians as examples of righteousness could not be very instructive, and was little calculated to produce a beneficial effect.

The story of the Phoenix he thus applies. "Let us consider that wonderful sign (of the resurrection) which is seen in the Eastern regions, that is, in Arabia; there is à certain bird called a Phoenix, of this there is never but one at a time, and it lives five hundred years: and when the time of its dissolution draws near that it should die, it makes itself a nest of frankincense and myrrh and other spices, into which, when its time is fulfilled, it enters and dies, but its flesh putrifying, breeds a certain worm, which being nourished with the juice of the dead bird, brings forth feathers; and when it is grown to a perfect state, it takes up the nest in which the bones of its parent lie, and carries it from Arabia into Egypt, to a city called Heliopolis, and flying in open day, in the sight of all men, lays it upon the altar of the sun, and so returns from whence it came. The priests then search into the record of the time, and find that it returned precisely at the end of five hundred years.' ""* This pitiable instance of credulity, and of injudicious application requires no comment. The resurrection Clemens finds also in the change of day and night. "Day and night," says he “manifest a resurrection; the night lies down, and the day arises: again the day departs, and the night comes on.”—But enough of these puerilities, of which other specimens might be given.

This Epistle is, on the whole, a valuable addition to Church History: it shews the standing of believers in several important points. That the author of it was a Pope is asserted by all the Romanists, that he was a prelate is asserted by all the Episcopalians; and yet, throughout the Epistle, he does not, in one single instance, use the language of one who considered himself entitled to exercise lordship over the brethren. When his subject compels him to admonish the Corinthians of their reprehensible conduct, he generally speaks as one who thought it more his duty to entreat than to command those whom he was addressing; and even when he recommends the disturbers of the peace of the Church to repent and submit them

the sense of impropriety excited by the appearance of these classical names. If we were at liberty to make any change here we should place the Danaides and Dirce after the word "husbands" to make the example less offensive, and less inapplicable to the Heathen story. Clemens must have forgotten his classical reading when he quoted Dirce as a sort of martyr of virtue.

* Those who are curious to know the story of the Phoenix arising out of the flames may see it in the words of Jerom. "The Phoenix is a bird in India, and for five hundred years it loads itself with aromatics from Libanus, and so builds its nest. In the month Famenoth it indicats to the priest of Heliopolis what is about to happen. The priest heaps up the altar with small branches, and thither the Phoenix brings its aromatics, and places some amber on the altar. At the sun-rising the Phoenix moves its wings; but when the sun is in its high heat the amber catches fire, and thus the aromatics blaze up, and the Phoenix itself is consumed. On the next day a worm is produced out of the ashes; on the second day it puts forth wings, on the third it returns to its old form of a bird and so goes back again to its accustomed place."

The story is differently narrated in Herodotus ii. 73: the outline of the fable is the same, only it is curious to observe that whilst the Heathen historian introduces the romance with these words, "For my own part I give no faith to the story," the Christian Fathers, Clemens Romanus, Tertullian, Ambrose, Origen, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazienzen and others, believe it, and find in it a type of a Christian mystery.