"Speaking of the writers of this period, Dr. Priestly observes[7] 'The oldest work of the age, if it had been genuine, is that which goes by the name of _The epistle of Barnabas_. Whoever was the author of this epistle, it was probably written soon after the destruction of Jerusalem.--It abounds with interpretations of the Old Testament which discover more of imagination, than judgement.' By this you will perceive that the authority of this epistle is doubtful. I should also have gathered the same idea, from what Paley himself says, whose work I have examined, on this subject, since I wrote my last number. It might have been written at a much later period than what is supposed and palmed upon Barnabas; and therefore does not, as was supposed, absolutely prove that the gospel of Matthew was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. It seems that christians of a later period were in the habit of palming works upon their predecessors; or in other words, writing in their name. After speaking of the epistle of Clemens, Priestly observes (p. 301) there is extant another epistle ascribed to this Clemens, but it is evidently spurious, and was probably written in the middle of the third century. Several other writings were palmed upon him also, especially the _Apostolical Constitution_ and the _Clementine homilies_. The epistle of Barnabas, it seems, is first quoted by Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 194. This certainly gives room for my conjecture for aught which appears to the contrary, it might have been written a whole century after the days of the apostles. [Footnote 7: Ch. Hist. vol. i. p. 200.] "The next which Paley mentions is an epistle written by Clement, bishop of Rome. This is the same which Priestly calls _Clemens_. 'This epistle,' he says, 'was held in the highest esteem by all christians, and, like the scriptures, was publicly read in many churches.' In this epistle of _Clement_, you say, 'he quotes Matt. v. 7. xviii. 6.' But how does he quote those passages? Not as the writing of Matthew, but as the words of 'our Lord.' Although this therefore, as I have before suggested, is perfectly consistent with the supposed truth, it falls far short, in my mind, of proving that the gospel of Matthew, was written before this epistle. Clement or Clemens might have written this by tradition even if he had never seen the gospel of Matthew, or any other. It only proves that these words in the gospel and those in the epistle were indebted to the same original source, viz. the words of Jesus. I am not disposed to dispute, however, the genuineness of this epistle. 'It is an earnest dissuasive,' says Priestly, 'from the spirit of faction, which appeared in the church of Corinth, and which, indeed, was sufficiently conspicuous when Paul wrote his epistles.'