there was no condemnation.[1] There was no trace of any full justification by faith, though, of course, Christ is owned as having come and having died as the Saviour, along with a mass of strange allegorical interpretations.
He calls Christianity a new law; we have a very meagre reference to His dying for the forgiveness of our sins (chap. v.), but he insists on the cross and water going together (chap. xi.), that is, baptism, putting their trust in the cross, descend into the water; we go down into the water full of sins and pollutions, but come up again bringing forth fruit.
He refers to the serpent of brass, but it is looking to Christ as able to give life. He says, too, as regards God’s dwelling in us, having received remission of our sins, and trusting in the name of the Lord, we are become renewed, being again created, as it were, from the beginning, wherefore God truly dwells in our house, that is, in us. But how does He dwell in us? the word of faith, the calling of His promise, the wisdom of His righteous judgments, &c., &c.
Now I have quoted all this because, while the epistle is so full of absurdities, that people have denied that it is of Barnabas, and one sees how one falls down a precipice after we leave inspiration, yet it has by far the most truth of any of these old writings. His attributing for-
- ↑ An expression which distinctly marks the difference between forgiveness by a sacrament and personal acceptance in Christ. The question arose, and was regularly debated, if sins could be forgiven afterwards; and in Hermas, already remission, and repentance afterwards, are distinguished; and in Tertullian, when Montanists contended against forgiving an adulterer, forgiveness by baptism was administrative and for the past; the acceptance of the person wholly a different thing, and never thought of.
