Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

the third letter, that the external evidence for the authenticity, and divine inspiration of the Apocalypse is to be collected from the testimonies of those ancient writers who, living at the time nearest to its publication, appear, by their quotations or : allusions, to have received this book as sacred scripture, the author begins with stating-from the testimony of Irenæus, and other fathers of the church who preceded him; of Ignatius, of Hermes, of Polycarp ; of the epistle relating Polycarp's martyrdom; and of Papias-whatever occurs to his purpose.

[ocr errors]

، But to enable us to judge of the force of this evidence,' (our author judiciously observes) it is necessary to ascertain the time when the book was written. For, if it shall appear to have been written and published in the early period of the apostolic age, we may expect to find such testimonies concerning it from apostles, or from apostolical men. If, on the contrary, it can be proved to have been published only in the later times of that age, we shall not be entitled to expect this earlier notice of it.

6

Before, therefore, we proceed to examine the testimony of the writers by whom the Apocalypse is mentioned, we must ascertain the time* in which it was published. For if it were not published before the year 96 or 97 (as some critics aver) little or no notice could be taken of it by the writers of the first century; and, in, such case, a writer in the second century, particularly in the former part of it, becomes an evidence of great importance, which importance would be much diminished, by the supposition, that the book had been written in the earliest part of the apostolic age, that is, almost a whole century before the time of that author.

This previous inquiry is the more necessary, since, according to Michaelis, no less than six different opinions have been advanced, concerning the time when the Apocalypse was written; only one of which can be true.' P. .7.

In examining these opinions, the learned author irrefragably shows that the testimony of Irenæus, a competent and unexceptionable witness, determines the book to have been published toward the end of the reign of Domitian,' whose death happened in September A. D. 96; and that this conclusion is confirmed by its internal evidence.

Having ascertained the time in which the Apocalypse was written and which agrees with the attestation of Eusebius, who relates, in his Chronicle, that the apostle John was, in the year of Christ 96, banished to Patmos, where he had the revelation recorded in the Apocalypse, on which Irenæus commented our writer proceeds to review the external evidence which affects its authority, adding, in the fifth letter, to the witness before mentioned, the testimony of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, the churches of Gaul, Melito, Theophilus, Apollonius, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, and accompanying them with the annexed biographical chart, representing the times in which these writers flourished.

A Biographical Chart of Writers in the early Christian Church, who appear to have afforded Evidence in favor of the Apocalypse.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

The dotted line marks the year 97, when the Apocalypse was published. The lines under each name shew the year when the writer lived, to be measured upon the scale below. When the birth or death of a writer is uncertain, that uncertainty is expressed by dots before or after the line.'

P.

.38.

[ocr errors]

Having thus adduced the external evidence in favour of the Apocalypse, within the first century from its publication, the sixth letter exhibits the evidence which has been offered against the Apocalypse during this period, and, adverting to the rejection of it by Marcion and the Alogi, examines their objections so far as the external evidence is concerned, and very satisfactorily refutes them.

The seventh letter takes up the testimonies of Hippolytus and Origen, which had been purposely reserved for separate examination; and after considering the objections of Caius, Dionysius, and others before him, the author closes it with pertinent animadversions on the strictures of Michaëlis.

I shall now request my readers to review the biographical chart. They will there observe, that by the addition, which is made to the writers of the second century, by the testimonies of Hippolytus and Origen, the evidence is carried down one hundred and fifty years from the first publication of the Apocalypse. This evidence is abundant, (surprisingly so, considering the mysterious nature of the book); it is constant and uninterrupted. At no time does it depend upon any single testimony: many writers testify at the same period; and these witnesses are nearly all the great names of ecclesiastical antiquity. To their evidence, which is for the most part positive and express, no contradictory testimony of an external kind has been opposed. No one has alleged against the Apocalypse -such arguments as these. "It is not preserved in the archives of the Seven Asiatic Churches. The oldest persons in those cities have no knowledge of its having been sent thither: no one ever saw it during the life of John. It was introduced in such and such a year, but was contradicted as soon as it appeared."

Upon the whole, the candid examiner cannot but perceive, that the external evidence for the authenticity and divine inspiration of the Apocalypse is of preponderating weight; and that Michaëlis is - by no means justifiable in representing it, when placed in the scale against the contrary evidence, as suspended in equipoise. It is a - complete answer to the assertions of his third section, to affirm, (and we now see that we can truly affirm it,) that the authenticity of the book was never doubted by the church, during the first century after it was published.' P. 47..

The testimonies of Gregory of Neocæsarea, and Dionysius of Alexandria, are next adduced; the private opinion of the latter, and other writers in the same century, are noticed; as are those of Eusebius, with the fathers contemporary, and after him; and the eighth letter terminates with an account of the reception of the Apocalypse at the period of the Reformation.

The external evidence having been fully stated from the foregoing collection of testimonies, and a judicious estimate of them, the author proceeds to that, which is properly internal, as arising as well from the completion of its prophecies, as from

its correspondence in doctrine and imagery with other books of the New Testament. The objections of Michaëlis on these grounds are replied to; the true characters of beauty and sublimity, as exemplified in the work, are indicated, whence an argument is strongly stated; the Apocalypse is compared with other books of the same age pretending to a divine original, such as Hermes and the second book of Esdras; and objections derived from the obscurity of the Apocalypse are answered.

As the doubt concerning the author of the Apocalypse took its rise from the circumstance of Papias having mentioned two persons of the first century, named John-one the Evangelist, and the other a priest of the church of Ephesus, who both died in that city-our author, in his last letter, investigates the question, from the internal evidence afforded by the Apocalypse, whether or not St. John were its author. In this discusssion he adduces the opinion of Dr. Lardner and others, arranges the arguments of Dionysius of Alexandria, answers them, and Michaelis's objections; and after an inquiry, Whether John the Evangelist and John the Divine were understood by the ancients to be the same person? evinces, from a passage in the Apocalypse itself, that St. John was really the author.-This proof and the conclusion we subjoin.

In chap. i. 13, he who is ordered to write the book, beholds in the vision "one like unto the Son of Man.". Now, who but an eyewitness of our Lord's person upon earth, could pronounce, from the likeness, that it was he? St. John had lived familiarly with Jesus during his abode upon earth; and had seen him likewise in his glorified appearances, at his transfiguration, and after his resurrection. No other John had enjoyed this privilege. No other eye-witness of our Lord's person appears to have been living in this late period of the apostolical age, when the visions of the Apocalypse were seen.

We may, therefore, I trust, fairly conclude, that to the impregnable force of external evidence, which has been seen to protect the divine claims of the Apocalypse, a considerable acquisition of internal evidence may be added; or, at least, that this avenue, by which its overthrow has been so often attempted, is not so unguarded as its adversaries imagine.

• But the grand bulwark of its internal evidence has not yet been sufficiently explored. The diligence of future inquirers will, I trust, evince to the world, from a direct proof of the actual accomplishment of the Apocalyptical prophecies, that the work is from God.

In the mean time, we may trust for its protection to those forces stationed in the outworks, which it has been our present object to review. This review, sir, as I had reason to forewarn you, is far from being so complete as I could wish. Neither the time I can bestow upon it, nor the materials in my possession, nor the ability at my command, enable me to present it to you as a disquisition worthy of the subject.

Such as it is, it may perhaps be allowed to serve as a temporary prop to the authority of the Apocalypse, until, by the hand of some able architect, a firm and elegant colonnade shall be raised for its support.' r. 90.

(To be continued.)

ART. XI.-History of the Union of the Kingdoms of Great-Britain and Ireland; with an introductory Survey of Hibernian Affairs, traced from the Times of Celtic Colonisation. By Charles Coote, LL.D. 8vo. 10s. 6d. Boards. Kearsley. 1802.

THE union of Great-Britain and Ireland—a measure recommended by sound political knowledge and experience above a century ago-would not have been embraced by the British cabinet, nor adopted with (comparatively speaking) a slight opposition, on the part of the two nations, if recent circumstances had not too forcibly pointed out the necessity of such a measure for the safety of the empire. Ireland lay groaning under the yoke of an all-powerful aristocracy. Its inhabitants, divided into two great classes by religious differences, had, in consequence of a long series of oppression on the part of the minority, and a sense of ancient and inherent rights which was ever recurring to the minds of the majority, exhibited scenes of insubordination and insurrection which astonished the inhabitants of the sister kingdom, who, accustomed to the lenity of a milder government and the security of established laws, could scarcely imagine from what causes their fellow-subjects, under a constitution apparently similar, should be so addicted to tumult and disorder. The repeated instances of riot and outrage from White-boys, Orange-boys, and other classes of equal violence, were as repeatedly quelled by the exertions of power; but the source of the malady still lay unattended to; and it was deemed wise by the ruling faction to suffer temporary inconvenience and disorder, rather than submit to any change in the system, by which their enormous power might be de ranged. In such a doctrine the British cabinet was unfortunately led to acquiesce; and-although the volunteer army at the close of the American war excited some serious apprehensions, which were increased by the conduct of the Irish parliament, on the question of a regency, during the king's illness-nothing, perhaps, could have determined it to take the decisive and happy measure of a union, if a rebellion had not too clearly shown the disposition of the people, the incompe tency of the aristocratic faction to govern the country, and the CRIT. REV. Vol. 35. August, 1802.

2 H

« ElőzőTovább »