Literally, “the birth-day.” Footnote 447: Literally, “been athletes.” Footnote 448: Literally, “is alone remembered.” Footnote 449: Several additions are here made. One MS. has, “and the all-holy and life-giving Spirit;” while the old Latin version reads, “and the Holy Spirit, by whom we know all things.” Footnote 450: Literally, “having learned these things.” Footnote 451: Literally, “gift.” Footnote 452: The translation is here very doubtful. Wake renders the words μηνὸς ἱσταμένου, “of the _present_ month.” Footnote 453: Great obscurity hangs over the chronology here indicated. According to Usher, the Smyrnæans began the month Xanthicus on the 25th of March. But the seventh day before the Calends of May is the 25th of April. Some, therefore, read Ἀπριλλίων instead of Μαΐων. The great Sabbath is that before the passover. The “eighth hour” may correspond either to our 8 A.M. or 2 P.M. Footnote 454: Called before (chap. xii.) _Asiarch_. Footnote 455: Literally, “according as.” Footnote 456: What follows is, of course, no part of the original epistle. THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. INTRODUCTORY NOTICE. Nothing certain is known as to the author of the following epistle. The writer’s name is Barnabas, but scarcely any scholars now ascribe it to the illustrious friend and companion of St Paul. External and internal evidence here come into direct collision. The ancient writers who refer to this epistle unanimously attribute it to Barnabas the Levite, of Cyprus, who held such an honourable place in the infant church. Clement of Alexandria does so again and again (_Strom._ ii. 6, ii. 7, etc.). Origen describes it as “a catholic epistle” (_Cont. Cels._ i. 63), and seems to rank it among the sacred Scriptures (_Comm. in Rom._ i. 24). Other statements have been quoted from the fathers, to show that they held this to be an authentic production of the apostolic Barnabas; and certainly no other name is ever hinted at in Christian antiquity as that of the writer. But notwithstanding this, the internal evidence is now generally regarded as conclusive against this opinion. On perusing the epistle, the reader will be in circumstances to judge of this matter for himself. He will be led to consider whether the spirit and tone of the writing, as so decidedly opposed to all respect for Judaism—the numerous inaccuracies which it contains with respect to Mosaic enactments and observances—the absurd and trifling interpretations of Scripture which it suggests—and the many silly vaunts of superior knowledge in which its writer indulges—can possibly comport with its ascription to the fellow-labourer of St Paul. When it is remembered that no one ascribes the epistle to the apostolic Barnabas till the times of Clement of Alexandria, and that it is ranked by Eusebius among the “spurious” writings, which, however much known and read in the church, were never