that, in strict law, the offender ought to be followed into his own court, "ALTHOUGH, IN MOST PARTS, THE CUSTOM IS NOT TO DO So."* That circumstances subsequently overcame, in some measure, this reluctance, affords no argument in the matter we are now considering.

The judgment of a lay judge upon a clergyman, was altogether repudiated by the church at that period; and therefore, under no circumstances, was one clergyman to bring another before a lay judge.+

It is true that at an earlier period ecclesiastics had been sometimes appointed to the office of chief justice, but this was not the case in the latter part of the thirteenth century.

The disputes between the civil and ecclesiastical courts were at last terminated in 1285, by the statute of Circumspecte agatis, by which, as the reviewer says, Edward I. "defined the limits of temporal and spiritual jurisdiction." He adds what it is important to notice: "It imposes no additional burdens on the subject, and confers no coercive powers on the spiritual courts which they had not before." So far, then, he must allow, that the attorney-general is under a mistake in supposing that the tax (as he calls it) of church-rates was originally sanctioned in the reign of Edward I.; for if the spiritual courts had legally the power before to coerce parishioners to the payment of church-rates-as it is clear from Britton they had-the tax must have been sanctioned before; and the statute, imposing no new burthen, and giving no new powers to the ecclesiastical courts, when it ordered that they should not be interfered with in this matter, is clearly a recognition, by the legislature of the day, of church-rate as a customary tax, and one which the people were to be compelled to pay. But the reviewer will not even admit this, for he says

"It does not recognise, as Mr. Hale seems to suppose, the obligation of laymen to uphold churches, but by divesting refractory parishioners of their former remedy...... it left them exposed, without resource, to the severity of ecclesiastical censures, if in matters pertaining to the spiritual courts they were disobedient to ecclesiastical authority."-pp. 320, 321.

Now, if he means that it is not a PROOF that laymen were obliged, at the time when the statute was made, to pay church-rates by the common law of the land, that may be very true; but to say that it did not recognise the obligation of laymen to pay church-rates, for it ONLY left them to the severity of ecclesiastical censures if they did not do so, is to assert what is contrary to common sense. Would he venture to say, that if the legislature of the present day were to pass a law, enacting that the ecclesiastical courts should be at full liberty to punish all who would not pay church-rates, that that law would not be a legislative sanction to church-rates? Can he deny that such a law would prove that the legislature intended that people should be compelled to pay church-rates, and punished for neglect? That the power of punishing for neglect was given to the ecclesiastical

Si clericus laicum de rebus suis vel Ecclesiæ impetierit, et laicus res ipsas non ecclesiæ esse aut clerici sed suas proprias asseverat, debet de rigore juris ad forensem judicem trahi, cum actor forum rei sequi debeat; LICET IN PLERISQUE PARTIBUS ALITER DE CONSUETUDINE HABEATUR. (Decret. Gregor. lib. ii. tict. 25.)

↑ Synod. Exon. c. 30.

Wilk. ii. 148.

courts does not in the least affect the question of the obligation to church-rate being legislatively sanctioned by this statute. The object and intention of this statute, then, being evident-viz., to secure the payment of church-rates, by vindicating the authority of the ecclesiastical courts to punish those who refused them-is it to be regarded as of no avail in a court of common law, if from circumstances the spiritual courts have become unable to enforce the tax, the payment of which it was the great object of that law to secure?

The grand object, then, of all these statements of the reviewer is to uphold the doctrine of the attorney-general, that, in the present state of the ecclesiastical courts, if the parishioners "meet, and refuse to make a rate, there are no means by which a rate can be raised;" and thus that, according to Mr. Perceval, "rates up to this hour are a voluntary contribution on the part of the parish, to which, if they refuse, there is no earthly power to compel them." Now, I hope I may be excused if I prefer a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench to the opinion either of Sir John Campbell, Mr. Perceval, or the reviewer; and by that I am told, that the parishioners are "COMPELLABLE TO PUT THINGS IN DECENT ORDER," (Newson v. Bawldry, 1 Ann. Farresley, p. 69;)* and therefore I conclude, that the comparison of the power of the vestry with respect to church-rate-a rate customary from time immemorial, and the refusal of which was made punishable by a statute more than five centuries old-to the power of the House of Commons with respect to the supplies, is mere idle rodomontade, the produce either of party prejudice or of that want of information on the subject which, in one who undertakes to instruct others respecting it, and is attacking the interests of one of the most important institutions in the country, is in the highest degree reprehensible.

Not one of the grounds upon which the reviewer maintains (p. 322) that the custom of paying church-rates is a custom not cognizable by the common law is supported by the authorities he has quoted. Some of them, indeed, are direct proofs of the contrary to that which he has quoted them to prove. The custom has been in use from beyond the time of Richard I. That it was "contested," and "with the aid of prohibitions from the common law courts successfully resisted," there is no proof whatever, all that can be proved being, that the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts in the matter was "contested," and occasionally, through the usurped power of the civil courts, "successfully resisted." That it is not compulsory is in terms opposed to the decision, just quoted, of the Court of Queen's Bench.

His "conclusions," therefore, in page 325, with the exception of the last, are utterly unwarranted.

Let me advise this reviewer, before he again sits down to pen an article upon such a subject, to make himself a little better acquainted with the real nature and bearing of the authorities upon which he founds his conclusions. To write an article which, by loose paraphrases of its authorities, formed from a hasty and partial view of them, may give to false conclusions the air of truth, is no difficult

* See Hist. of Church Rates, p. 27.

matter; and unfortunately, such an article will often deceive most of its readers, who will not care to search after the ponderous tomes from which its authorities are derived, to ascertain how far they have been correctly cited, especially if their prejudices are enlisted on its side. But a triumph gained at the expense of truth will be but short lived. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, WILLIAM GOODE.

London, Feb. 15, 1838.

REMARKS ON THE EPISTLE OF SAINT BARNABAS.

To the Editor of the British Magazine.

Or all that collection of ancient writings which compose the works of what are called THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, the epistle of St. Barnabas is, perhaps, the most remarkable, in regard of the importance of the person to whom it is ascribed; the early period in which it appears to have been recognised as his; and the favour which it has met with in later times from some of our most acute and learned critics. Mr. Jeremiah Jones, however, in his laborious and useful work upon the canon of the New Testament, has endeavoured to shew that, so far from being the genuine production of the apostle whose name it bears, it is an Alexandrian forgery of the beginning of the second century, and has supported this opinion by some strong and, I think, convincing reasons. But, although I fully adopt his conclusion, yet truth obliges me to confess that I differ with him about one of his premises-viz., that the author was a Gentile: I think he was a Jew; and as, if my argument be good, it will complete his proof, by shewing that either supposition will lead to the same inference, I will take the liberty of stating it here, as briefly as possible. Its strength consists in these five propositions:

I. That the author was a Jew.

II. That, being a Jew, he made use solely of the Septuagint version. III. That his peculiar mystical exegesis of scripture is precisely similar to that of Philo, and the Alexandrian school.

IV. That those who first quoted and commended it were Alexandrians, and very warm admirers of that philosophical way (as it was thought) of interpreting scripture.

V. That the hypothesis of its being an Alexandrian forgery accounts for its ascription to St. Barnabas.

I. That the author was a Jew, I argue (as all good critics before Mr. Jones had done) from the deep acquaintance he shews, not only with the Old Testament, but with the Jewish traditions and apocryphal books. That the fact is so, the reader needs only to run his eye over the annotations of Menardus and Bishop Fell, in Le Clerc's edition, to be convinced. I will not burthen him, therefore, here with a repetition of them; but only add, that there is an instance of the same thing in a passage which I quote below for another purpose, Barnab. Epist. sect. ix. edit. Voss., where he makes the number of Abraham's trained servants the same as the number of those he circumcised; and this confusion has greatly perplexed the commentators. But the

source of it was this, that the Rabbins hold these to have been proselytes, trained up* in the knowledge of the true God; and the same they maintain to have been signified by the N in the 17th chapter. See Vossius upon Maimonides de Idololatr. cap. 1. sect. ix. Now, we know from Philo Judæus, Tepi Tus repiróuns, that the Alexandrians were great supporters of tradition; and it is notorious that apocryphal books were at this time highly valued by the philosophic school of Jews, and that the chief mint of such books was at Alexandria.

Such considerations as these inclined (as I said) all good critics before Mr. Jones to conclude that the author of this epistle was, at any rate, a Jew; but since he is very positive that the author himself says the contrary, it will be necessary to examine what he has alleged.

1. His first proof is derived from these words of Barnabas: "Before that we believed in God, the habitation of our hearts was corruptible and feeble, as a temple truly built with hands. For it was a house full of IDOLATRY, a house of devils; inasmuch as there was done in it every thing contrary unto God." Upon which he bids us remark that the Jews could not be said not to have believed in GoD, nor to have had IDOLATRY in their hearts. This objection Bishop Fell had anticipated by, 1st, quoting 1 Peter, iv. 3-a passage addressed by a Jew to Jews; 2nd, by observing that idolatry is not to be understood here literally of the worship of graven images, but of the practically adoring other objects besides God. On the learned prelate's first reply I shall not insist, because the reading which he relied on has been called in question; but I hope to shew presently that his second observation (however slighted by Mr. Jones) is the true answer to an objection, urged with too great precipitancy, and founded upon a mutilated extract. But, to take things in order, I say that the unconverted Jews might be truly affirmed not to have believed in God, inasmuch as they had not a saving faith in him, which could purify their hearts, (the very thing here treated of,) and did not believe in him as he revealed himself-i. e., in his Son. Nay, had Mr. Jones so much as looked at the beginning of this very section, he would have found the author himself explaining how the Jews might be affirmed not to have believed in God; for he says, ἔτι καὶ περὶ τοῦ Ναοῦ ἐρῶ ὑμῖν πῶς πλανώμενοι οἱ ταλαίπωροι ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν (fors. τὸν οἶκον†) ἤλπισαν καὶ ΟΥΚ EIII TON OEON, K. 7. A. This haste and inaccuracy, in so able and diligent a writer, I know not how to account for; more especially as the rest of his objection is but a repetition of the same blunder. For, let any one look at the whole section from which the place is taken, and he will see that the Pseudo-Barnabas is there treating of the heart as the true spiritual temple, which it becomes when God dwells there : ὁ Θεὸς κατοικεῖ ἐν ἡμῖν· πῶς; ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ τῆς πίστεως, ἡ κλῆσις αὐτοῦ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ἡ σοφία, κ. τ. λ. αὐτὸς ἐν ἡμῖν κατοικῶν ἀνοίγων ἡμῖν θυρας τοῦ ΝΑΟΥ, κ. τ. λ. p. 246, edit. Voss. Hence it is plain that, whenever any other master had possession there, it might

* Cf. Prov. 22: 6., train up a child, &c,

The very learned Father Lumper, in his Historia Sanctorum Patrum, vol. i. p. 178, conjectures oudos, and supports his conjecture with some ingenious criticism.

truly be called "a house full of idolatry, a house of devils." So St. Paul tells us that every covetous man is an idolator; and to the same purpose is our Saviour's parable of the relapsed demoniac; to which, I think, there is here a plain allusion. And that this is the true sense of the place appears still more plainly from the words immediately following "It was a house full of idolatry, a house of devils; inasmuch as there was done in it whatsoever was contrary to God." So the author of the homily de libero arbitrio, usually printed among the works of St. Basil, but which the Benedictine editor pronounces spurious, upon what appear to me very insufficient grounds, (Tom. ii. Præf. p. xxvi.)—οὔπω γεγόναμεν ΝΑΟΣ θεοῦ, καὶ οἰκητήριον πνεύματος ἁγίου, ἔτι γὰρ ἔσμεν ναὸς εἰδώλων, καὶ δοχεῖον πνευμάτων πονηρίας, Tom. ii. p. 614.* And so also an excellent modern author, who (most likely) was thinking very little of Barnabas at the time-"If, therefore, any Israelite desires to have this blessedness, this true Shechinah, dwelling in his heart, he must depart from pride and from all iniquity. He must cleanse the temple from all idols."--The Personality &c. of the Holy Spirit, by Rev. A. McCaul, D.D.

But, 2. Mr. Jones objects that this writer plainly draws a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, and always ranks himself among the latter: as, for instance, in sect. iv, where he says, "Scriptum est enim. de illo quædam ad populum Judæorum, quædam ad Nos."

To understand this, we must recollect what this author's doctrine is. He holds that the whole Jewish law is to be mystically understood as a system of moral precepts addressed to Christians-the spiritual Is. rael and this was the legitimate conclusion which a convert from the refined therapeutic school of Alexandria+ would draw from his old principles. For they held that the Mosaic code was only understood literally by the gross and carnal, but was meant to be taken spiritually by the perfect philosopher. In this way, as Philo tells us, they explained away the command to offer sacrifices: οὐ Ζῶα καταθυομένοι, ἀλλ' ἱεροπρέπεις τὰς ἑαυτῶν διανοίας κατασκευάζειν ἀξιοῦντες which, the reader needs not to be told, is precisely the theology of this epistle. Now, the only change which it was necessary to make in this system, in order to accommodate it to Christianity, was to put

Jortin (Remarks on E. H.) cites a passage of Valentinus, preserved by Clemens Alex. Strom. ii. p. 489, very similar to this. Book i. p. 212.

+ The reader will find much valuable information on the spirit and tenets of the Alexandrian Jews in Neander's Church History (Rose's Trans. vol. i.) and Dr. Burton's Bampton Lectures, Lect. iii. p. 65 to the end.

This disparagement of the literal sense of the Mosaic code soon made its way into the church. 66 Neque ethnici solum," says Spencer, "et Christiani aliquot illiterati, sed et PATRES nonnulli (quod fateri piget) legibus illis contumelias ingerunt." Prolegom. ad Tract. de Legg. Heb. c. iii. s. 1. So Origen in Levit. Hom. 5. "Hæc omnia (Præcepta de Sacrificiis) nisi alio sensu accipimus quam literæ textus ostendit, cum in ecclesiâ recitantur, obstaculum magis et subversionem Christianæ religionis quam rationem et edificationem præstabunt." This, however, was not the general opinion of the church, for Homil. 13, in Genesin, he complains thus: "Si ergo incipiam et ego veterum dicta discutere, et sensum in eis quærere spiritalem, si conatus fuero velamen legis amovere, et ostendere allegorica quæ scripta sunt, fodio quidem puteos, sed statim mihi movebunt calumnias AMICI LITERE-veritatem negantes stare nisi super terram.'