person in the Old Testament from the ascription to him of the attributes, the works, and the homage, which are peculiar to the Deity-and from those numerous and important relations, which he is affirmed in Scripture to sustain towards his holy and universal church, and towards each of its true members. "There are," to adopt the deliberate judgment of Griesbach, "so many arguments for the true Deity of Christ, that I see not how it can be called in question; the divine authority of Scripture being granted, and just rules of interpretation acknowledged. The exordium of Saint John's Gospel, in particular, is so perspicuous and above all exception, that it NEVER can be overturned by the daring attacks of interpreters and critics, and taken away from the defenders of the truth." a particular person to be intended, while others understand it figuratively, as of the church. The ancient commentators supposed it to be figurative, but most of the modern commentators and critics understand it literally, though they do not agree in their literal interpretation. Archbishop Newcome, Wakefield, Macknight, and the venerable translators of our authorized version, make ExT to be an adjective, and render the inscription "To the elect (or excellent, or chosen) Lady;" the Vulgate version, Calmet, and others, consider Ex to be a proper name, and translate it "To the Lady Electa;" J. B. Carpzov, Schleusner, and Rosenmüller take Kuz to be a proper name, and the Epistle to be addressed to Cyria, or Kyria, the Elect, and Michaelis conjectures Kuz to be an ellipsis of Kupa Exxx, which, among the ancient Greeks, signified an assembly of the people held at a stated time, and was held at Athens three times in every month; and that, since the sacred writers adopted the term Exx from its civil use among the Greeks, Kupia Exxx might here mean the stated assembly of the Christians, held every Sunday; and thus т xxxт up, with an understood, would I. Genuineness, authenticity, and date of these Epistles.-II. signify, "To the elect church or community which comes The second Epistle, to whom addressed.-III. Its scope.together on Sundays." He admits, however, that he knows IV. The third Epistle, to whom addressed.-V. Its scope. does not think that this explanation can be very easily esta not of any instance of such ellipsis; and Bishop Middleton -VI. Observations on this Epistle. blished. Of these various hypotheses, the most probable opinion is that which considers the Epistle as addressed to the Lady Electa, who is supposed to have been an eminent Christian matron: what confirms this opinion is, that the Greek article is absent, which would have been absolutely necessary if the inscription had been "To the elect Lady," or to "Kyria the Elect.' SECTION VI. ON THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN. 1. ALTHOUGH, in the fourth century, when Eusebius wrote his ecclesiastical history, these two Epistles were classed among the Arrus or books which were received by the majority of Christians (though some doubts were entertained by others respecting their authenticity), yet testimonies are not wanting to prove that they were both known and received as genuine productions of the apostle John. The second Epistle is cited by Irenæus, and received by Clement of Alexandria. Origen mentions all three Epistles, though he says that the second and third were not allowed to be genuine by all persons. Dionysius of Alexandria mentions them as being ascribed to St. John. The second Epistle was quoted by Alexander bishop of Alexandria; and all three Epistles were received by Athanasius, by Cyril of Jerusalem, by Epiphanius, Jerome (a few of whose contemporaries doubted the authenticity of these Epistles), Rufinus, and almost every subsequent writer of note. They are not, indeed, received in the Syrian churches; but the thoughts and style are so similar to those of the first Epistle, that almost all critics attribute them to the author of the first Epistle, namely, John; and they were, in all probability, written about the same time as that Epistle, viz. A. D. 68 or 69. Consequently these Epistles could not have been written by John the elder, a member of the Ephesian church, as some of the fathers, and also some modern critics, have imagined. Various reasons have been assigned why these two Epistles were not received earlier into the canon. Michaelis is disposed to think that doubt was excited concerning their genuineness by the address, in which the author neither calls himself John, nor assumes the title of an apostle, but simply names himself the "elder" (BUTE); as Saint Peter (1. ch. v. 1.) styles himself a "fellow elder" (σvμmper(Buteos), which title, after Peter's death, the apostle John might with great propriety assume, as being the only remaining apostle. It is, however, most probable that, being letters to private persons, they had for a considerable time been kept in the possession of the families to whom they were originally sent, and were not discovered till long after the apostle's decease, and after the death of the persons to whom they had been addressed. When first discovered, all the immediate vouchers for their genuineness were necessarily gone; and the church of Christ, ever on its guard against imposture, particularly in relation to writings professing to be the work of apostles, hesitated to receive them into the number of canonical Scriptures, until it was fully ascertained that they were divinely inspired. II. Considerable uncertainty prevails respecting the person to whom the second Epistle was addressed, some conjecturing 1 Atque sunt profecto tam multa et luculenta argumenta et Scripture loca, quibus vera Deitas Christo vindicatur, ut ego quidem intelligere vix possiin quomodo, concessa Scripturæ Sacræ divinâ auctoritate et adinissis justis interpretandi regulis, dogma hoc in dubium à quoquam vocari posse. In primis locus ille, Joh. i. 1, 2, 3., tam perspicuus est, atque omnibus exceptionibus major, ut neque interpretum, neque criticorum audacibus conatibus UNQUAM everti atque veritatis defensoribus eripi possit. Nov. Test. tom. ii. Præf. pp. viii. ix. Halæ, 1775. See the references to the above-named fathers in Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 584-586.; 4to. vol. ii. pp. 525, 526. III. The SECOND EPISTLE of John is an epitome of the first, and touches, in few words, on the same points. The "Lady Electa" is commended for her virtuous and religious education of her children; and is exhorted to abide in the doctrine of Christ, to persevere in the truth, and carefully to avoid the delusions of false teachers. But chiefly the apostle beseeches this Christian matron to practise the great and indispensable commandment of Christian love and charity. IV. The THIRD EPISTLE of John is addressed to a converted Gentile, a respectable member of some Christian church, called Caius; but who he was is extremely uncertain, as there are three persons of this name mentioned in the New Testament, viz. 1. Gaius of Corinth (1 Cor. i. 14.); whom Paul calls his "host, and the host of the whole church" (Rom. xvi. 23.); 2. Gaius, a native of Macedonia, who accompanied Paul, and spent some time with him at Ephesus (Acts xix. 29.); 3. Caius of Derbe (Acts xx. 4.), who also was a fellow-traveller of Paul. Michaelis and most modern critics suppose the person to whom this Epistle was addressed to be the Caius of Corinth, as hospitality was a leading feature in his character. His hospitable temper, particularly towards the ministers of the Gospel, is strongly marked in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth verses of this Epistle. V. The Scope of this Epistle is to commend his steadfastness in the faith and his general hospitality, especially to the ministers of Christ; to caution him against the ambitious and turbulent practices of Diotrephes, and to recommend Demetrius to his friendship; referring what he further had to say to a personal interview. VI. Commentators are by no means agreed who this Diotrephes was. Bede, Erasmus, Michaelis, and others, suppose him to have been the author of a new sect, and that, as he delivered false doctrines, he objected to those who propagated the true faith. Grotius, Le Clerc, and Beausobre imagined that he was a Gentile convert who would not receive Jewish Christians. But it is most probable that he was an ambitious elder or bishop in the church of which Gaius was a member, and that, having been converted from Judaism, he opposed the admission of the Gentiles, and set himself up as the head of a party in opposition to the apostles. If (as we suppose) the Gaius to whom this Epistle was addressed was the generous "host of the church at Corinth," it is possible that this Diotrephes might have been the leading opponent of Saint Paul in that city, whom he forbore to name out of delicacy, though he censured his conduct. 5. iv. 6., &c. Demetrius, who is so highly commended by the apostle in See 1 Cor. iii. 3 4 As the Syriac name Martha is of the same import as Kupa, Carpzov conjectured that this epistle was addressed to the sister of Lazarus, and that she changed her name from Martha to Kyria or Cyria, after the persea Dr. Mill, and after him Dr. Lardner, observe, that, of the thirteen verses cution of the church which followed the martyrdom of Stephen, for the composing the second Epistle, eight are to be found in the first either in security of her person. The conjecture is ingenious, but is not supported sense or in expression. by any authority. Epist. Cath. Septenarius, p. 185 this Epistle, is thought to have held some sacred office in the church of which Gaius was a member; but this opinion is rejected by Dr. Benson, because on that supposition Gaius must have known him so well, as to need no information concerning his character from the apostle. He therefore believed him to have been the bearer of this letter, and one of the brethren who went forth to preach to the Gentiles. With this conjecture Rosenmüller coincides. Calmet supposes that he was a member of the same church as Gaius, whose piety and hospitality he imitated. But whoever Demetrius was, his character and deportment were the reverse of the character and conduct of Diotrephes; for the apostle speaks of the former as having a good testimony from all men, and whose temper and behaviour were in every respect conformable to the precepts of the Gospel, and therefore Saint John recommends him as an example to Gaius, and the other members of the church to which he belonged.' SECTION VII. ON THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE. I. Account of the author.-II. Genuineness and authenticity. III. Date.-IV. Of the persons to whom this Epistle was addressed.-V. Its occasion and scope.-VI. Observations on its style. I. JUDE or Judas, who was surnamed Thaddeus and Lebbeus, and was also called the brother of our Lord (Matt. xiii. 55.), was the son of Alpheus, brother of James the Less, and one of the twelve apostles. We are not informed when or how he was called to the apostleship; and there is scarcely any mention of him in the New Testament, except in the different catalogues of the twelve apostles. The only particular incident related concerning Jude is to be found in John xiv. 21-23.; where we read that he addressed the following question to his Divine Master-Lord! how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Full of ideas of temporal grandeur and universal monarchy, he could not imagine how our Saviour could establish a kingdom without manifesting it to the world;-a proof how much this apostle was actuated by Jewish prejudices, and what delusive hopes he cherished, in common with all the other apostles, of soon beholding his Master erect a powerful and magnificent empire. the ancient catalogues of the sacred writings of the New Testament: it is asserted to be genuine by Clement of Alexandria, and is quoted as Jude's production by Tertullian, by Origen, and by the greater part of the ancients noticed by Eusebius. Independently of this external evidence, the genuineness of the Epistle of Jude is confirmed by the subjects discussed in it, which are in every respect suitable to the character of an apostle of Jesus Christ; for the writer's design was, to characterize and condemn the false teachers, who endeavoured in that age to make proselytes to their erroneous and dangerous tenets, to reprobate the impious doctrines which they taught for the sake of advantage, and to enforce the practice of holiness on all who professed the Gospel. In short, as Dr. Macknight most truly observes, there is no error taught, no evil practice enjoined, for the sake of which any impostor could be induced to impose a forgery of this kind upon the world. 66 With regard to the objection against the genuineness of this Epistle, which is derived from the supposed quotation by Jude of an apocryphal book of Enoch, it is to be observed, that the apostle, by quoting such book, gives it no authority. It was no canonical book of the Jews; and though such a book existed among them, and was apocryphal, yet it might contain some things that were true. Jude's quoting from it the prophecy under consideration would not lessen the authority of his Epistle, any more than Paul's quotations from the heathen poets Aratus (Acts xvii. 28.), Menander (1 Cor. xv. 33.), and Epimenides (Tit. i. 12.), have lessened the authority of the history of the Acts, and of that apostle's letters, where these quotations are found. The reason is (as Macknight most forcibly observes), if the things contained in these quotations were true in themselves, they might be mentioned by an inspired writer without giving authority to the poems from which they were cited. In like manner, if the prophecy ascribed to Enoch, concerning the future judg ment and punishment of the wicked, was agreeable to the other declarations of God respecting that event, Jude might cite it, because Enoch (who, like Noah, was a preacher of righteousness) might actually have delivered such a prophecy, though it is not recorded in the Old Testament; and because his quoting it did not establish the authority of the book whence he took it, if he took it from any book extant in his time. The preceding observations have been made on the supposition that the apostle did quote an apocryphal book of Enoch: but it has been remarked with equal force and truth, that it is incredible that Jude cited a book then extant, claiming to be the prophecies of Enoch: for, had it been genuine, the Divine Spirit would not surely have suffered his own word to be afterwards lost; and, had it been apocryphal, the inspired apostle would not have stamped it with his authority, and have declared it to have been the production of Enoch, the seventh from Adam.' Indeed, the language of Jude by no means implies that he quoted from any book whatever (a circumstance which most writers on this controverted subject have mistaken); and hence some persons have come to the highly improbable conclusion that the prophetic words attributed to Enoch were communicated to the apostle by immediate revelation. But this conclusion is not more improbable than it is unnecessary. There is yet another source, from which this insulated passage might have been derived. There is nothing to forbid, but much to establish, the supposition, that some hisdown by the uninspired authors of the Jewish nation. Altorical facts, omitted in the Hebrew Scriptures, were handed though it is true that, in the most ancient remains of Hebrew literature, history is so obscured by fable as to be altogether an uncertain guide, yet some truth doubtless exists in this Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 442-456. Lardner, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 584-607.; 4to. mass of fiction. This observation may be applied with vol. iii. pp. 425-437. Benson on the Catholic Epistles, pp. 663-680. Buddei Ecclesia Apostolica, pp. 314-316. Dr. Hales's Analysis of Chronology, vol. greater force to the Jewish records which existed in the ii. book ii. pp. 1150-1152. Bishop Middleton on the Greek Article, pp. 653 apostolic age. We know, indeed, from the highest authority, -656. (first edition.) Lampe, in Evang. Joannis, tom. i. pp. 111-115. Pritii, that the Jewish doctors of that period had made the word of Introd. in Nov. Test. pp. 109, 110. It is more certain that Jude was a married man, and had children; for God of none effect by their traditions;' but still their uninEusebius relates, on the authority of the ecclesiastical historian Hegesip-spired records must have contained some authentic narratives. pus (a converted Jew, who flourished in the second century), that the From such a source we may rationally suppose that Jude emperor Domitian, in a fit of jealousy, ordered inquiry to be made con gathered the traditional antediluvian prophecy of Enoch, cerning the posterity of David, on which occasion some of the grandchil dren of Jude were brought before him. The emperor, first asking them under the direction of that infallible Spirit, who preserved several questions respecting their profession and manner of life, which the inspired writers from error, and guided them into all was husbandry, next inquired concerning the kingdom of Christ, and when truth. it should appear? To this they replied, that it was a heavenly and spiritual, We conclude, therefore, that the apostle did NOT not a temporal kingdom; and that it would not be manifested till the end of quote from any book extant in his day purporting to have the world. Domitian, thus finding that they were mean persons and per- been written by Enoch."4 fectly harmless, dismissed them unbound, and by edict appeased the persecution which had been raised against the church. Hegesippus adds, that, on their release, the grandchildren of Jude afterwards presided over churches, both as being martyrs (more correctly confessors), and also as being allied to our Lord. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cc. 19 20 3 B As Jude continued with the rest of the apostles after our Lord's resurrection and ascension (Acts i. 13.), and was with them on the day of Pentecost (ii. 1.), it is not unreasonable to suppose, that after having received the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, he preached the Gospel for some time in Judæa, and performed miracles in the name of Christ. And as his life seems to have been prolonged, it is probable that he afterwards quitted Judæa, and preached the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles, in other countries. It has been said that he preached in Arabia, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia, and that he suffered martyrdom in the last mentioned country. The Syrians still claim him as their apostle; but we have no account of his travels upon which we can rely, and it may even be questioned whether he was a martyr.2 II. In the early ages of Christianity the Epistle of Jude was rejected by several persons, because the apocryphal books of Enoch, and of the Ascension of Moses, were sup posed to be quoted in it; and Michaelis has rejected it as spurious. We have, however, the most satisfactory evidences of the authenticity of this Epistle. It is found in all VOL. II. See the passages of the above-named writers in Dr. Lardner's Works. 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 613-618.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 440-443. 4 Christian Observer, July, 1829, vol. xxix. p. 417. inscribed to the Eastern churches, among whom the apostle had probably laboured. But, from the inscription, Drs. Lardner and Macknight, Bishop Tomline and Dr. A. Clarke, concur in thinking that it was written to all, without distinction, who had embraced the Gospel. The only reason, Dr. Macknight remarks, which has induced commentators to suppose that Jude wrote to the Jewish believers alone, is, that he makes use of arguments and examples taken from the sacred books of the Jews. But Paul, we have seen, followed the same course when writing to the Gentiles; and both apostles did so with propriety, not only because all who embraced the Gospel acknowledged the authority of the Jewish Scriptures, but also because it was of the greatest importance to make the Gentiles sensible that the Gospel was in perfect unison with the ancient revelation. The foregoing remarks apply with equal force to verse 9., | dispersion. Moldenhawer was of opinion, that it was in which the apostle is supposed to cite an apocryphal relation or tradition concerning the archangel Michael's disputing with Satan for the body of Moses. This is by some writers referred to a book called the " Assumption or Ascension of Christ," which in all probability was a forgery much later than the time of Jude; but Dr. Lardner thinks it much more credible that the apostle alludes to the vision in Zech. iii. 1-3.; and this opinion is adopted and elucidated by Dr. Macknight in his note on the verse in question. In further illustration of this verse, we may remark, that it was a Jewish maxim, that "it is not lawful for man to prefer ignominious reproaches, even against wicked spirits." Might not the apostle, then, have used it merely as a popular illus tration (without vouching for the fact) of that sober and wholesome doctrine, not to speak evil of dignities? from the example of the archangel, who did not venture to rail even at Satan, but meekly said, "The LORD rebuke thee!" The hypothesis, that Jude copied the prophecy of Enoch from the writings of Zoroaster (which some continental critics have imagined) is too absurd to deserve a serious refuta tion.1 III. The time and place, when and where this Epistle was written, are extremely uncertain. Dr. Mill fixes its date to the year 90, principally because the false teachers, whom Peter describes as yet to come, are mentioned by Jude as already come. But on a comparison of this Epistle with the second of Peter, there does not appear to be such a remarkable difference in their phraseology as will be sufficient to prove that Jude wrote his Epistle so long after Peter's second Epistle as Dr. Mill supposed: though it proves, as most crítics agree, that it was written after the latter. The very great coincidence in sentiment and style between these two | Epistles renders it likely that they were written about the same time; and, since we have seen that the second Epistle of Peter was in all probability written early in A. D. 65, we are induced with Lardner to place it towards the close of the same year, or perhaps in A. D. 66. Bishop Tomline, however, dates it in a. D. 70; Beausobre and L'Enfant, between A. D. 70 and 75; and Dodwell and Dr. Cave, in 71 or 72. IV. There is much diversity of opinion concerning the persons to whom this Epistle was addressed. Estius and Witsius were of opinion that Jude wrote to Christians every where, but especially to the converted Jews. Dr. Hammond thought that the Epistle was directed to Jewish Christians alone, and with the design of guarding them against the errors of the Gnostics. Dr. Benson also thought that it was written to Jewish believers, especially to those of the Western V. The design of this Epistle is, to guard believers against the false teachers who had begun to insinuate themselves into the Christian church; and to contend with the utmost earnestness and zeal for the true faith, against the dangerous tenets which they disseminated, resolving the whole of Christianity into a speculative belief and outward profession of the Gospel. And having thus cancelled the obligations of morality and personal holiness, they taught their disciples to live in all manner of licentiousness, and at the same time flattered them with the hope of divine favour, and of obtaining eternal life. The vile characters of these seducers are further shown, and their sentence is denounced; and the Epistle concludes with warnings, admonitions, and counsels to believers, how to persevere in faith and godliness themselves, and to rescue others from the snares of the false teachers. VI. There is very great similarity between the Epistle of Jude and the second chapter of Peter's second Epistle, in subject, style, vehemence, and holy indignation against impudence and lewdness, and against those who insidiously undermine chastity, purity, and sound principles. The expressions are remarkably strong, the language is animated, and the figures and comparisons are bold, apt, and striking. In the Epistle of Jude, particularly, there is an energy, a force, a grandeur of expression and style-an apparent labour for words and images, expressive enough to give the reader a just and adequate idea of the profligate characters he exposes; and the whole is admirably calculated to show how deeply the holy apostle was grieved at the scandalous immoralities of those who called themselves Christians, and with what fervour and courage he tore off the mask from these hypocrites, that the church and the world might see all the turpitude and deformity that lurked beneath it.3 CHAPTER V. ON THE REVELATION OF SAINT JOHN THE DIVINE. I. Title.-II. The Genuineness of this Book shown, 1. From external Evidence; 2. From internal Characters.-III. Its Date.-IV. Occasion and Scope.-V. Synopsis of its Contents.—VI. Observations on this Book. the island Patmos; and in 26. (the Codex Wakianus 1. a manuscript of the eleventh century, in the library of Christ's College, Oxford), it is Inc Xplore Arcanules dades 2 TOO DENY lawn, the Revelation of Jesus Christ given to John the Divine. In the Syriac Version, in Bishop Walton's Polyglott, it is entitled the Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the island [of] Patmos, into which he was thrown [or banished] by Nero Cæsar; and in the Arabic Version it is the Vision of John the Apostle and Evangelist, namely, the Apocalypse. None of these titles are of any authority; nor can any certain reason be assigned for giving the appellation of exos, or the Divine, to the apostle and evangelist John. I. THE first three verses of the Apocalypse form its TITLE; calypse... Harμa Tй mow whoare, which he beheld in but as this is inconvenient on account of its length, various shorter inscriptions are given in the Manuscripts and Ancient Versions. Thus, in C. or the Codex Ephrem it is termed Arronaufis Imavvou, the Revelation of John; in the Codex Coislinianus 199. (17. of Griesbach's notation) .... Tou Sexyou, of John the Divine; in B. a manuscript belonging to the monks of St. Basil at Rome (of the seventh century). was Evagyonotou, of John the Divine and Evangelist; in 42. (Codex Pio-Vaticanus 150., of the twelfth century), Αποκάλυψις Ιωάννου του αποστόλου και Ευαγγελιστον, the Revelation of John the Apostle and Evangelist; in 30. (Codex Guelpherbytanus XVI. 7. a manuscript of the twelfth or thirteenth century), Αποκάλυψις του αγίου και ενδοξότατου αποστόλου και ευαγ γελιστών, παρθένου ηγαπημενού, επιστήθιου Ιωάννου Θεολόγου, the Reve lation of the holy and most glorious apostle and evangelist, the beloved virgin who lay in the bosom [of Jesus Christ], John the Divine. In 16. (the Codex Uffenbachianus), it is the Apo The reader will find an interesting account of the different hypotheses which critics have entertained concerning the prophecy of Enoch, mentioned by Jude, in Laurmann's Collectanea, sive Notæ Criticæ et Commen tarius in Epistolam Judæ, pp. 137-173. 220-233. 8vo. Groninge, 1818. See also Calmet's Commentaire Littéral, tom. viii. pp. 1034-1040. II. It is a remarkable circumstance, that the authenticity of this book was very generally, if not universally, acknowledged during the first two centuries, and yet in the third century it To them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called........ Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the COMMON Salvation, &c. Jude 1. 3. vol. vi. pp. 619-627.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 443-447. Macknight's Preface to Jude. a Benson on the Catholic Epistles, pp. 437-448. Lardner's Works, Sv0. Blackwall's Sacred Classics, vol. 1. pp. 304, 305. Pritii Introd. in Nov. Test. pp. 110-117. Griesbach, and Dean Woodhouse, on Rev. i. 1. Pritii Introductio ad Lectionem Novi Testamenti, pp. 127, 128. may add the undisputed testimonies of Athenagoras, 12 Theophilus bishop of Hippolytus, who was a disciple of Irenæus, received the Apocalypse began to be questioned. This seems to have been occasioned by some absurd notions concerning the Millennium, which a few well meaning but fanciful expositors grounded on this book; which notions their opponents injudiciously and presumptuously endeavoured to discredit, by denying the authority of the book itself. So little, however, has this portion of Holy Writ suffered from the ordeal of criticism to which it has in consequence been subjected, that (as Sir Isaac Newton has long since remarked) there is no other book of the New Testament so strongly attested, or commented upon so early, as the Apocalypse. And Dr. Priestley (no mean judge of biblical questions where his peculiar creed was not concerned) has declared, that he thinks it impossible for any intelligent and candid person to peruse it without being struck, in the most forcible manner, with the peculiar dignity and sublimity of its composition, superior to that of any other writings what-acknowledged the Revelation to be the production of St. John, and has ever; so as to be convinced, that, considering the age in which it appeared, it could only have been written by a person divinely inspired. The numerous marks of genuine piety that occur through the whole book, will preclude the idea of imposition, in any person acquainted with human nature. It is likewise so suitable a continuation of the prophecies of Daniel, that the New Testament dispensation would have been incomplete without this prophetic book; for it has been the uniform plan of the divine proceedings to give a more distinct view of interesting future events, as the time of their accomplishment approached. Since, however, two eminent critics of later times have suspected this book to be spurious, and as their valuable writings are in the hands of almost every biblical student, it becomes necessary to examine the external and internal evidence for its genuineness. 1. The External Evidence for the authenticity and inspiration of the Apocalypse is to be collected from the same sources as the evidence for the other books of the New Testament, viz. from the testimonies of those ancient writers, who, living at a period near to its publication, appear by their quotations or allusions to have received it as a part of sacred Scripture. And this evidence is so abundant and explicit, that the only difficulty is how to comprise it within that short compass which the nature of the present work requires. (1.) Testimonies of Writers in the apostolic age. In the "Shepherd" or "Pastor" of Hermas (A. D. 100), there are several expressions so closely resembling the style and sentiments of the Apocalypse, as to render it more than probable that he had read and imitated this book. The reason why the Apocalypse and other books of the New Testament were not expressly cited by this father, is, that it was not suitable to his design; but the allusions to them sufficiently show the respect in which they were held.4 Ignatius (A. D. 107) is supposed by Michaelis to have passed over the Apocalypse in silence; but Dr. Woodhouse has produced three passages from the writings of that father, which have escaped the researches of the learned and accurate Dr. Lardner, and in which the verbal resemblance is so decisive, that it is impossible to conceive otherwise than that the Reve lation was known to and read by Ignatius. Polycarp also (A. D. 103) has cited the Apocalypse once in the only epis: tle of his that has come down to our times; and the pious and sublime prayer which this holy man uttered at the awful moment when the flames were about to be kindled around him, begins with the identical words of that it was received by Papias, A. D. 116. His writings, except a few frag. ments, are lost; but critics and commentators include him among the de the elders in Rev. xi. 17. There is likewise strong reason to believe cided witnesses in favour of the Apocalypse. (2.) Testimonies of Writers in the second century. Justin Martyr (A. D. 140) was acquainted with the Apocalypse, and received it as written by the apostle John; and it appears from the testimony of Jerome, that he also interpreted or wrote commentaries on some parts of this mystical book, though no work of this kind has come down to us. Among the works of Melito, bishop of Sardis (A. D. 177), was a commen. tary on the Apocalypse. It is also most distinctly quoted in the Epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons (A. D. 177), concerning the sufferings of their martyrs.10 Irenæus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul (A. D. 178), who in his younger days was acquainted with Polycarp, repeatedly quotes this book as "the Revelation of John the disciple of the Lord." Dr. Lardner remarks that his testimony is so strong and full, that he seems to put it beyond all question that it is the work of John the apostle and evangelist.11 To these we Dr. Priestley's Notes on Scripture, vol. iv. p. 574. The argument, briefly Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 52-65.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 311-313. Woodhouse, pp. 31-34. The testimony of Ignatius is, we think, most Ibid. pp. Ibid. pp. 38-43. where the evidence of Papias is vindicated against Michaelis. See also Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 113, 114.; 4to. vol. i. p. 340. Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 126. vol. vi. p. 628.; 4to. vol. i. p. 315. vol. iii. p. 417. • Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 147, 148.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 359, 360. 10 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 152, 153.; 4to. yol. i. p. 362. Woodhouse, pp. 46-48. 11 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 170.; 4to. vol. i. p. 372. The testimony of Irenæus is vindicated by Dr. Woodhouse, pp. 26-28. as the work of Saint John, and wrote two books in its defence; one in opposition to Caius, a writer of the second century, who is said to have ascribed the Revelation to Cerinthus, and the othei in opposition to the Alogi, who rejected the Gospel of Saint John as spurious. Origen, 13 to whose critical labours biblical literature is so deeply indebted, most explicitly cited it repeatedly in his works. More minute evidence than this it is not necessary to adduce, as those who oppose the genuineness of this book do not descend lower than the time of Origen. It may, however, be satisfacrea;19 by Cyprian and the African churches; by the presbyters and others tory to know that it was subsequently received by Gregory of Neo-Cæsa of the Western church; by various Latin authors whose history is ab stracted by Dr. Lardner; by the anonymous author of a work against the who wrote a commentary upon it; by the author of the poem against the Novations; by the Novatians themselves; by Commodian; by Victorinus, Marcionites; by Methodius, who also commented upon it; by the Manicheans; by the later Arnobius; by the Donatists; by Lactantius; and by the Arians.20 (4.) In the time of Eusebius (the former part of the fourth century) the Apocalypse was generally, though not universally, received; and therefore he classes it among the Arr, or contradicted books.21 · Yet it is worthy of remark, that these doubts originated solely in the supposed difference of style and manner from that of Saint John; and that the book, appears to have been able to produce any external evidence no one, however desirous he may have been to invalidate the authority of which might suit the purpose. without exception. Jerome, the most learned and diligent inquirer of that It was received after the time of Eusebius, by the Latin churches, almost century, pronounced most positively in its favour; and was followed uni versally by the fathers of the Western churches; and from him we leara be the authority of the ancients," that is, external evidence; and he the grounds upon which he received the Apocalypse, which he assigns to tells us, at the same time, that he does not follow "the fashion of his times" that fashion by which some of the Greek churches were induced to reject the Apocalypse. "This fashion of the times," Dr. Woodhouse justly remarks, seems to have consisted in a daring contempt of the testimonies of the ancient church, and a ready acquiescence in those arguments which were confidently drawn from internal evidence. Yet, notwithstanding this fashion, which appears to have had considerable prevalence in the Greek church, and perhaps to have influenced those eminent men, Cyril of Jerusalem and John Chrysostom (neither of whom appears to have quoted the Apocalypse), many of great name in the Greek church appear still to have received it; and, in the fourth century, it is supported by testimonies in this church from Athanasius, Basil, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzum."22 Upon the whole, though doubts were entertained concerning this book by many individuals of the Greek church after the time of Eusebius, and though we have no satisfactory the Syrian churches, yet, from the decisive evidence above information how early, or to what extent, it was received by adduced, we are authorized to affirm that the Apocalypse has been generally received in all ages. To borrow the eloquent sentiments of Dr. Woodhouse," We have seen its rise, as of a pure fountain, from the sacred rock of the apostolical church. We have traced it through the first century of its passage, flowing from one fair field to another, identified through them all, and every where the same. As it proceeded lower, we have seen attempts to obscure its sacred origin, to 12 Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 186.; 4to. vol. i. p. 381. 13 Ibid. 8vo, vol. ii. pp. 200, 201.; 4to. vol. i. p. 389. 14 Apollonius suffered martyrdom at Rome. His writings have perished; but Eusebius relates that he supported the Apocalypse by authorities taken from it. Hist. Eccl. lib. v. c. 18. fine, and c. 21. 15 Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 229, 230.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 404, 405. 16 Tertullian adv. Marcion, lib. iv. c. 5. De Monogam. c. 12. Sce Lardner, Svo. vol. ii. p. 277.; 4to. vol. i. p. 430. Woodhouse, p. 51. 17 Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 412.; 4to. vol. i. p. 502. 18 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 466, 467. 483.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 532, 533. 541 19 The testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria (A. D. 247) is here designedly omitted. He allowed the Apocalypse to be written by John; a holy and inspired apostolical man, but not the evangelist John; and he grounded his inference on some supposed differences in style. This subject is considered in pp. 380, 381. infra. 20 Lardner, 8vo. vol. vi. p. 629.; 4to. vol. iii. p. 448., where there are references to the former volumes of his works, containing the testimonies of the above cited fathers and others at length. Woodhouse, pp. 60-77. Lampe, Cominent. in Evangelium Joannis, tom. i. pp. 115–124. Pritii Introd. ad Nov. Test. p. 117. et seq. 21 The Apocalypse is omitted in the catalogues of canonical books formed by Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (A. D. 340.), and by the council of Laodicea (A. D. 364.), and in one or two other early catalogues of the Scriptures; but this omission was probably owing not to any suspicion concerning its authenticity or genuineness, but because its obscurity and mysteriousness were thought to render it less fit to be read publicly and generally. Bishop Tomline's Elements of Christian Theology, vol. i. p. 506. 22 Woodhouse, pp. 78-84. Lardner, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 630, 631.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 448, 449. arrest or divert its course, to lose it in the sands of antiquity, or bury it in the rubbish of the dark ages. We have seen these attempts repeated in our own times, and by a dexterous adversary. But it has at length arrived to us, such as it flowed forth at the beginning," In short, so far as external evidence can enable us to determine concerning this book, we may indubitably pronounce that it IS TO BE RECEIVED as "divine Scripture communicated to the church by John the apostle and evangelist." 2. We now proceed briefly to consider the Internal Evidence for the genuineness and divine authority of the Apocalypse. This we may reduce to three points; viz. 1. Its correspondence, in point of doctrine and of imagery, with other books of divine authority;-2. The sublimity of this book; and, 3. The coincidence of its style with the uncontested writings of John. (1.) The Apocalypse corresponds in doctrine and imagery with other books of divine authority. 1 are still extant.s How different are the language, character, and senti ments of these spurious productions! The fathers of the first centuries compared them at length, and rejected them all except this acknowledged work of Saint John; which they guarded with so sedulous a care as to preserve it, in the main, free from interpolations, while the genuine productions of Polycarp, Ignatius, and other apostolical men, are known to have suffered from the contact of profane pens. (3.) The style of the Apocalypse coincides with the style of the undisputed writings of Saint John. The proof of this depends upon a collation of passages: Wetstein and Dr. Lardner have both collected a great number of evidences, in which Gospel and first Epistle, and which are peculiar to this apostle. the same forms of expression occur in the Apocalypse as are found in his From their lists we have selected the following; more might easily b added, if we had room for their insertion.-Compare John i. 14. xiv. 6. 1 John v. 20. John xii. 27. DE Rev. iii. 7. 9. Rev. xxii. 14. Rev. xxii. 8. 10. 1 John ii. 13, 14. iv. 4. v. 5. John i. 29. John xviii. 26. iii. 17. John i. 1. John vii. 37. John vi. 36. 1 John i. 4. (Gr.) Though the doctrines of Christianity are by no means a principal subject of this book, yet, if we advert to the doctrines actually delivered in it, we shall find a perfect congruity with those delivered in the other apostolical writings. Michaelis has said, that "the true and eternal Godhead of Christ is certainly not taught so clearly in the Apocalypse as in Saint John's Gospel." To this Dr. Woodhouse replies,-Could he expect so clear an exposition from a prophecy which respects future events, as from a Gospel which the ancients have described as written principally with the view of setting forth the divine nature of Christ? But this divine nature is also set forth in the Apocalypse, and as clearly as the nature of the book, and as symbols can express it. Compare Rev. i. 11. iii. 21. v. 6-14. xix. 13. and xxii. 8. The description of the Millennium in the twentieth chapter, where the servants of Christ are seen raised from the dead to reign with him a thousand years, has been objected to, as introducing doctrines inconsistent with the purity enjoined in the Gospel. But the representation in question is no doctrine; it is a prediction delivered in a figurative style, and yet unfulfilled. The extravagant notions of the Chiliasts cannot with justice be charged upon the Apocalypse. The prophecy can only be ex In these passages the agreement both in style and expression plained in general terins; in due time we believe that it will be fulfilled, and is so great, that it is impossible to conceive how such striking in the mean time it must be received as the word of God, though we understand it not. It has also been objected by Dr. Less, that the triumph of the coincidences could exist in writings so different in their natures saints, upon the horrid punishment of their enemies (Rev. xix. 1-10. xxii. as the Gospel and first Epistle of John and the Apocalypse, if 8, 9.), is irreconcilable with the charitable spirit of the Gospel. But no such literal triumph was designed; the passage in question is the triumph they were not all the productions of one and the same author. of pure religion over idolatrous superstition and tyranny, represented But it has been objected, that there are differences in the style allegorically, at which every true believer must rejoice. Michaelis like of this book, which render it uncertain whether it was really wise has objected to other passages of the Apocalypse, as containing doc-written by the apostle. These objections were first started by trines repugnant to those delivered in the other parts of Scripture; but these passages, when fully examined, will be found to contain no doctrines, but figurative representations of future events. "We may, therefore, truly assert of the Apocalypse, that, fairly understood, it contains nothing which, either in point of doctrine, or in relation of events, past or to come, will be found to contradict any previous divine revelation. It accords with the divine counsels already revealed. It expands and reveals them more completely. We see the gradual flow of sacred prophecy (according to the true tenor of it, acknowledged by divines), first a fountain, then a rill, then, by the union of other divine streams, increasing in its course, till at length, by the accession of the prophetical waters of the New Testament, and, above all, by the acquisition of the apocalyptical succours, it becomes a noble river, enriching and adorning the Christian land."3 (2.) The sublimity of the ideas and imagery is another striking internal evidence of the genuineness and divine origin of the Apocalypse. These ideas and this imagery are such as are only to be found in the sacred Scriptures. "In the word of God there is a grandeur and majesty, independent of the accidents of language, consisting in the greatness and sublimity of the things revealed. Men of genius may catch some sparks of this heavenly fire; they may imitate it, and with considerable success: but no one is found so confident in this kind of strength, as to neglect the arts of composition. Mahomet was a man of superior genius; in writing his pretended revelation, he borrowed much from the sacred Scriptures; Compare also the Apocalypse with the apocryphal revelations ascribed to the apostles Peter, Paul, Thomas, and Stephen, some fragments of which Woodhouse, p. 87. The external evidence for the genuineness of this that Cerinthus could not have been the author of the Revelation. Dionysius of Alexandria, who contended that the Apocalypse was not the production of Saint John, and conjectured that it was written by John, an elder of the Ephesian church. His objections are six in number; and as some of them have been adopted by Michaelis, we shall briefly state and consider them. OBJECTION 1. The evangelist John has not named himself either in his Gospel or in his Catholic Epistles; but the writer of the Revelation names himself more than once. ANSWER. It was not the practice of the other evangelists to put their nanies to their Gospels; nor is any name prefixed to the Epistle to the Hebrews; yet these writings are universally received as genuine and allthentic. But though St. John has not named himself in his Gospel, yet he has there so described himself, that it is impossible not to know him; and with regard to the Epistles, the persons to whom they were sent could not be ignorant from whom they came. OBJECTION 2. Though the writer of the Revelation calls himself John, he has not shown us that he is the apostle of that Michaelis thinks that he ought at least to have made himself known by some such circumlocution as he had used in the Gospel-the disciple whom Jesus loved. name. ANSWER. "Such addition to the name of John was totally needless. He wrote to the seven churches, and from Patmos, in which island he expresses that he is suffering tribulation for the word of God and the testi inony of Jesus Christ.' All the churches knew that he was then suffering banishment in that island, and they knew the cause of it, for the word of God.' An Epistle containing the history of a heavenly vision, seen by John in the island of Patmos, required no other addition. What John would write John alone, without other addition or explanation, excepting the great John, John the apostle and president of all the churches? A pri vate person would have described himself by the addition of his father's name, according to the custom of the ancients. A bishop or presbyter would have added the name of his church; but John the apostle needed no such distinguishing mark or appellation. A fabricator of an Epistle, containing a revelation in Saint John's name, would perhaps have added his titles of 'Apostle of Jesus Christ,' &c., or would have introduced some circumlocution in imitation of those in his Gospel; but, from the expres sion as it now stands, we derive a much stronger evidence that it is the genuine work of Saint John."9 In the Codex Pseudepigraphus Novi Testamenti of Fabricius, and Mr. Wetstenii Nov. Test, tom. ii. p. 747. note. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol Saint Paul, in the opening of his Epistles, has used generally, not always, the term "Apostle;" but with him it was more necessary than with Saint John, who was confessedly such, having been numbered with the twelve. Saint Paul's right to the apostleship, having been established more privately, had been doubted by some, which leads him to say, "Am |