Nothing certain is kno\\-n as to the author of the follomng Epistle. The ^^Titer's name is Bar- nabas, 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 Amters who refer to this Epistle unanimously attribute it to Barnabas the Levite, of Cyprus, who held such an hon- ourable 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 " {Cofit. 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 Bar- nabas ; and certainly no other name is ever hinted at in Christian antiquity as that of the \vriter. But not\A'ithstanding this, the internal e\-idence 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 regarded as authoritative, little doubt can remain that the external evidence is of itself weak, and should not make us hesitate for a moment in refusing to ascribe this writing to Barnabas the Apostle.