Aut-har of the Gret. ?rafar, fame account ; but the inflanceswhichhe gives, rather argue a Coincidence of fome in annot. ad Words and Phrafes, than afimilitudeofStyle, which things are very different. Hierom Ept¡t. sd xeb' alto tellsus, that juxta o damvidetur e e Luca Evangeline, by fame it wac thought to be- Ecaorf.p,,,a written b Luke the Evaneli whichhe took fromClemens Origen and Euebius; £tc/efinPaul. y $ $ f only he mentions nothingofthefimilitudeofBytewiththat ofSt. Luke, but afterwardsin- forms us, that inhis Judgement there is a great Conformity in Style, between this Epiffle and that ofClemens Romanis. None of them acquaint us who were the Au- ser;p.Cc thors or Approvers of thisConjeîiure, not do they give any credit themfelves unto in defies/1. in Neither is there any Reafn of this Opinion reported by them , but only that inn- element. . mated by Clemens of the Agreement of theStyle with that of the Alin of the Apoffles, (whichyet is not allowedbyHierom ) whereon he doth not afcribe the Writing, but only the Tranfiation of it unto Luke. Gratins alone contends for him to be the Author of it, and that with this only Argument, that fundry words are ufed in the fame fenfe by-St. Luke and theWriter.ofthis Epilile. But that this Obfervation is of no moment fhall afterwardsbe declared. This Opinion then may bewell rejeCted as a groundlefs pelf of an obfcure un- knownOriginal, and not tolerably confirmed either by Tellimony or Circumftances of things. Ifwe willforego a Perfwafon eftablifhedon famany important Confiderations, as we (hall manifeft this ofSt. Pauls being the Author of thisEpiftle to be, and confir- med by fo many Teflimonies, upon every arbitrary ungrounded Conjellure, we may be lure never to find reft in any thing that we are rightly perfwaded of. But I (hall add one Confideration that will call this Opinion of Grotius quite out of the limitsof probability. By general Confent this Epiffle was written wkilft James was 'yet alive and prefided in the Church of the Hebrews atjerufalem ; , and I fhall afterwards prove it fo tohave been. What was his Authority as an Apofile, what his Reputation in thatChurch, is both known in general from the nature of his Office, and in,parti- cular is intimated in theScripture, Allsr5.13. óa1.2.9. Thefe were the Hebrews whofe inftrué}ion in this Epiffle is principally intended, and by their means, that of theirBrethren in the Eaffern Difßerftonof them. Now is it Reafon to imagine, that any one who was not an Apofile, but only a Scholar and Follower of them, fhould be. tiled towrite unto that Church, wherein fo great an Apofile , a Pillar. among them, had hisefpecial Refidence, and did adtually Prefide; and that in an Argument of fuch huge importance,with Reafons againft a praïlicewhereinthey were all ingaged; yea, that Apofilehimfelfas appears,Gala. la. Wereany one then alive ofmore ofteom and Reputa- . Clon to the Church than others,certainlyHewas the fitteft tobe ufed inthis employment; and how well all things of thisnature agree unto St. Paul we (hall fee afterwards. fc. 5. Some have affigned the Writingof thisEpiflleuntoBarnabas. Clemens, Origen, Eufebitts Tertul. de PH- make no mention ofhim. Tertullianwas the Author ofthis Opinion; and it isreported dicit. cap. zo. as his byHierom. Philafirius alfo remembers the report ofit. And it isofiate defended Hieron. sat. byCamero (as the former concerning Lukby Grating) whofe Reafens for his conje. Scri osasb. u. É ure are confuted withfome'fhax nefs b S anhemiva 'mindful as it fèems of his Fa- er Barnab. P Y P Pbitanr. :hers Controveifie with fomeof his Scholars. The Authority of Tertallian is the foie ne. 4'. foundationof this Opinion ; But asthe Bookwhereinhe mentions it was written in his Camera .anus. Paroxyfine, when he uttered not that only unadvifedly, fo he feems not to lay much in Pif, ad weight on theWile ile itfelt, onl referrin it unto the A oc bal Hermes; Rec tzar xeb. g PI Yp g P P ep Spenh.deeduth. faith he, apted EcclefiasEpiffola Barnabe illo Apocrypha paffore Mechorum. . And we have Epf/4 adxeb. mewed that the Latin Churchwasfor a time fomewhat unacquainted with this Epiffle, Grottue Pre¡, fo that it is no marvel if one ofthem Ihould miffak its Author. Gratins would di- Anne..in EP. add xb. f P rovethis Opinion from the di Î militude of its f le, and that which goes under the name of Barnabas, which is corrupt and barbarous. But there is little weightin that Baron. A!. Obfervation ; that Epiffle being certainly fparions, no way favouring the Wifdom Etclef.A.g or Spirit of him on whom it bath been vu/garb impofed. But yet that it was Hiuronros . de that Epiffle which is cited by Tome of the Antiems under the name of Barna- Namm. Hell. bas , and not this unto 'theHebrews, is well proved byBaronius from thenames that Hierom mentions out of that Epiffle, which areno whereto befound in this to the He- brews. 'But'that Epif leofBarnabas is an open fruit ofthat vanity which prevailed in many about the third and fourth Ages of the Church, of perfonating intheir Writings TomeApoffolical Perlons, wherein theyfeldom or never kept any good decdrum,as might ealily be manifefted in this particular inflame. As to our prefent Cafe, the Reafon be- fore mentioned, is of the famevalidity againft this, as the other Opinion 'concerning Luke whereunto others of an equal evidence may be added; Barnabas was not an Apofile,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=