St. John therefore uses the term "Son of God" and "Christ," as synonymous, it is evident that he does not take them in the Jewish sense of these expressions, but in the sense, in which his Gnostic adversaries denied, that Jesus was the Christ. In short, I believe that the word Christ, as used by St. John, ch. v. 1-6. denotes not our Saviour's office, but his divine nature. To confute the Gnostics it

was necessary to argue with them in their own terms: but the word "Christ as used by the Gnostics, was not equivalent to the word Messiah, as used by the Jews, but denoted a divine nature, or, as they called it, an Æon.

St: John in several parts of this epistle speaks of persons, whom he calls the world." Now in modern sermons this appellation is commonly used to denote those, who, in the language of our theology, are not regenerate, But we can hardly explain St. John's meaning from our present use of this term. It appears to me rather that St. John used it, to denote the adversaries, against whom he wrote. For the Jews called the heathens in general the nations of the world: and the Gnostics might not improperly be called heathens, since they brought a system of heathenism into the church of Christ.

If this explanation be admitted, ch. iv. 4. may be paraphrased in the following manner: "God, who dwelleth among us, and sheweth his power by the wonderful works, which are the seal of the apostolic church, is greater than the God, who dwelleth among the Gnostics, and performeth no such wonderful works." According to this interpretation, & av rw noopw signifies, not the devil, as is generally supposed, but the pretended supreme being of the Gnostics, who was in fact a non-entity. The next verse likewise may be paraphrased: "They belong, not to the church, but to the heathens, for their doctrine is only an improved heathenism, and on that account the heathens listen to them." Again, ch. 4. 5. may be paraphrased thus. "Our victory over the heathens is our faith in the Son of God. We triumph, not by force, and persecution, or by the conversion of every unbeliever: but this is our triumph, that wę have the true faith of the Son of God."

The explanation which I have here given of the word xosμos, I κόσμος, do not mean to apply in every passage of this epistle: for I confine it to those places, in which St. John uses it to denote his ad

versaries.

7. The doctrines, which St. John has delivered in this epistle, he has not supported, either by arguments drawn from reason, or by quotations from the Old Testament: for neither of them were necessary, since the bare assertion of an apostle of Christ is sufficient authority. It is true, that in one respect this epistle has less energy than St. John's Gospel: because in his gospel he warrants his doctrines by the speeches of Christ. But then, on the other hand, .St. John declares in this epistle, ch. iii. 24.-iv. 4.-v. 14-16. that God sent his spirit to the apostolic church, and heard their prayers. And it is evident that St. John alludes to the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, and to the miraculous powers obtained by prayer. 8. The close of the epistle, "keep yourselves from idols," has no immediate connexion with the preceding discourse. I am

6

therefore in doubt, whether St. John meant to warn his readers against taking part in heathen sacrifices, which was allowed by those Gnostics, who are called Nicolaïtes in the Apocalypse; or whether he meant to describe the system of the Gnostics in general, as a sy、 stem of idolatry, which in fact it was.' Vol. iv, P. 401.

The importance of this extract we conceive will sufficiently. apologise for its length.

To this judicious detail our author subjoins, in his thirtyfirst chapter, a dissertation on the 1 John V. 7; which, commencing with previous remarks on the subject, proceeds to state five charges against the genuineness of the passage admitted by Bengel, and the authorities produced in its favour; whence he proceeds to show, that, as the Alogi did not reject the epistle, the disputed passage could not, in the second century, have been inserted in it. The reasons alleged for retaining this passage (in opposition to the evidence of manuscripts, fathers, and versions) being given, and followed by an inquiry into the manner of its first introduction into the Latin version, and afterwards into the printed editions of the Greek Testament, the dissertation is closed with proofs that Luther did not admit it into his German translation of the Bible.

After what PORSON, Pappelbaum, and MARSH, have since published on the subject, this controversy, we will pronounce, is for ever put to rest; unless stirred up, as in a late instance of a university preacher, ignorant of what had been so convincingly written; or by some orthodox bigot, from a zeal not according to knowledge."

Chapter the thirty-second is occupied with the two last Epistles of St. John. Their canonical authority is first examined; and being determined in the affirmative, their date is next sought, but, for want of decisive evidence from without or within, is left altogether undetermined. The address with which the Second Epistle begins, The elder to the elect lady (ExλEXTY Hygia) and her children,' offering an uncertainty, whether the epistle was written to a particular person, or to a whole church, the doubt is judiciously considered, and a decision is given in favour of the latter; leaving it, however, with this drawback, that the author could find no instance in which Exxλog, as belonging to zugia, is suppressed.

The contents and design of the Third Epistle are proposed: and it having been stated that

The object of the Third Epistle was to recommend to Caius, certain Christians, who were travelling to preach the Gospel to the heathens; and St. John wrote to Caius in particular, because his hospitality to the Christian brethren was already known, and St. John had reason to apprehend, that a former epistle, which he had ad

dressed to the community, of which Caius was a member, had produced little effect.' Vol. iv. P. 451.

-Michaëlis endeavours to ascertain who this Caius was.

Concluding with this attempt his disquisitions on the Epistles of St. John, our author proceeds to THE APOCALYPSE, attri buted also to him. Accordingly, the last chapter of his work begins with an introductory apology for the uncertainty he professes in respect to it; and, having adduced the testimonies of the earliest ecclesiastical writers, both for and against the authenticity of this book, the following inference is subjoined.

• Having examined the evidence for and against the Apocalypse, I must now propose the question: How is it possible, that this book, if really written by St. John the apostle, should have either been wholly unknown, or considered as a work of doubtful authority, in the very earliest ages of Christians? The other apostolical epistles are addressed only to single communities or churches: but the Apocalypse, according to its own contents, was expressly or dered by Christ himself, in a command to St. John the apostle, to be sent to seven churches: and not only these seven churches were in that part of Asia Minor, where Christianity was in the most flourishing situation, but one of them was Ephesus, where St. John spent the latter part of his life, and consequently where every work of St. John must have been perfectly well known. If St. John then had actually sent the Apocalypse to these seven churches, and that too, not as a private epistle, but as a Revelation made to him by Jesus Christ, one should suppose that its authenticity could not have been doubted, especially at a time when there were the best means of obtaining information, We cannot say, that the book was kept secret, or was concealed in the archives, lest the prophecies against Rome should draw a persecution on the Christians; for secrecy is contrary to the tenor of the book, and the author of it enjoins, that it should be both read and heard. Under these circumstances the authenticity of the Apocalypse appears to me very doubtful, and I cannot avoid entertaining a suspicion, that it is a spurious production, introduced probably into the world after the death of St. John.' Vol.iv, P. 486.

From this inference Michaëlis proceeds to collect the opinions of ecclesiastical writers who have lived since the time of Eusebius; and having concluded this research, sets himself to investigate the completion, or non-completion, of the prophecies which the Apocalypse contains, so far as the arguments afforded by them are in favour of, or against, its divinity;—whence he is led to inquire, Whether the contradictory explanations, hitherto given of the Apocalypse, ought to be ascribed to the book itself, or to a want of knowledge in its commentators? Following this inquiry with a series of remarks, the date

of the book is next sought. After having commended Lardner and Knittel on this subject, he enters on a discussion of the six different opinions advanced.

1. It has been asserted, that the Apocalypse was written in the reign of the emperor Claudius. 2. Others refer it to the reign of Nero. 3. Others leave it undetermined whether it was written under Claudius or Nero, but contend, that it was written before the reign of Domitian, and before the Jewish war. 4. According to the usual opinion, it was written in the reign of Domitian. 5. It has been referred to the reign of Trajan. 6. To that of Hadrian.' Vol. iv, P. 519.

Each of these having been investigated at large, he thus concludes.

Among these different opinions relative to the time when the Apocalypse was written, our choice must in a great measure depend on the opinion which we entertain of the work itself, whether we consider it as an inspired book, or regard it only as a human com position.

• If we consider the Apocalypse as a divine work, I think we must confine our choice to those dates which precede the commencement of the Jewish war: for thus only shall we be enabled to shew that its first prophecies were fulfilled in a short time. And I grant that if it is referred to the reign of Claudius, the explanation of it is still easier, than when it is referred to the reign of Nero: for the scarcity predicted, ch. vi. 6. is descriptive of that which took place in the time of Claudius.

If it be considered as a mere human invention, it may be either ascribed to Cerinthus, or attributed to some unknown writer, who lived between the time of Papias and that of Justin Martyr: in the latter case it might have been written in the reign of Hadrian. But if it be really a forgery, if it contains prophecies of the Jewish war made after the events themselves had taken place, we have reason to wonder, that the author did not prophesy more circumstantially, and that he appears so little acquainted with the events of that war." Vol. iv. P. 527.

The Greek style of the Apocalypse being next observed on, as is also the question, Whether it were originally written in Hebrew? the disquisition terminates with remarks on the doctrine which the Apocalypse really contains. The result of which is thus stated.

Thus much have I thought it necessary to say, rather historically than dogmatically concerning the doctrines delivered in the Apocalypse; because it is of importance to know, whether they contradict the other doctrines of the New Testament. I confess, that, during this inquiry, my belief in the divine authority of the Apocalypse has received no more confirmation, than it had before: and I must leave the decision of this important question to every man's pri vate judgement, Vol. iv. P. 544,

ART. X.-The Evidence for the Authenticity and divine Inspiration of the Apocalypse, stated; and vindicated from the Objections of the late Professor F. [it should have been 7.] D. Michaëlis : in Letters addressed to the Rev. Herbert Marsh, B. D. &c. 8vo. 35. served. Hatchard, 1802.

HAVING closed the preceding article with a succinct statement of the opinions entertained by Michaëlis concerning the Apocalypse, we subjoin an account of these letters, as a proper supplement to it.

The author begins, in the first of them, to assign the reasons for his writing and addressing himself particularly to Mr. Marsh.

This gentleman having published the work of Michaëlis with only a part of his own observations, and it not being probable, from Mr. Marsh's own account, that what he has further to add is soon likely to appear, the letter-writer, being a clergyman of the church of England,-which, with the generality of churches, has admitted the Apocalypse into its sacred canon,thinking it desirable that the misconceptions of the great Mi chaëlis on this important subject should be met without loss of time, advances this as an earlier, though not a perfect answer, with the hope of stimulating Mr. Marsh to countenance what is available in it, and to supply its defects.

It is my object to engage an author of your ability in a work of this kind, and at the same time to suggest to his consideration, observations which have occurred to me; some of which, I trust, may be made subservient to correct those notions, which have a tendency to exclude from the canon of sacred scripture, one of its most important and well-attested books. p. 3.

In prosecuting the design thus announced, the second letter exhibits the method to be pursued. Accordingly, the author states it as his purpose to review the evidence which has been adduced for the authenticity and divine inspiration of the Apocalypse, to add to it some further collections of his own, and, occasionally, to introduce remarks on those observations in the last chapter of Michaëlis's work which tend to invalidate this part of the sacred writings. As the evidence naturally divides itself into external and internal-the former comprising that which is derived from credible witnesses, from the early writers, and fathers of the church, while the latter results from a perusal of the book-the author thinks it necessary to keep these evidences apart, until they have been separately considered, and may be safely suffered to unite; as the most effectual means of preventing the operation of prejudice, and facilitating the production of truth. Premising then, in the opening of