OBJECTION 3. The Revelation does not mention the Catholic | design of God was much otherwise. He gave this and the prophecies of Epistle, nor the Catholic Epistle the Revelation. ANSWER. It is not the practice of the sacred writers to quote themselves, or refer to their own works, unless they write more than one Epistle to the same churches or persons; in which case they mention such former Epistle. This, Dr. Lardner observes, is natural, and it is done by Saint Paul; but in his Epistle to the Romans he is totally silent concerning any of his former Epistles, though, at the time of writing it, he had written several. OBJECTION 4. There is a great resemblance in sentiment, manner, and expression between the Gospel and the first Epistle of Saint John; but the Revelation is altogether different, without any affinity or resemblance whatever. ANSWER. In the first place, if it were true that there was such a dif ference of style as Dionysius and (after him) Michaelis have asserted, it may be accounted for by the difference of subject. The style of history is not the style of an epistle or a prophecy. The style of history is simple; of an epistle, familiar; and that of prophecy is sublime; and such unquestionably is the style of the Revelation. But, secondly, this objec tion is contradicted by fact; and the proofs adduced in p. 380. will show that the coincidence between the Apocalypse and the undisputed Gospel and Epistle of Saint John is such, that they must have been written by one and the same author. ANSWER. This objection is founded on the mistaken idea that the writers of the New Testament wrote in Attic Greek; which, we have already seen, is not the case. The same grammatical irregularities which have been objected to in the Apocalypse are also observable in the Septuagint, as well as in the Gospels and other writings of the New Testament. But this dif ference of language may also be accounted for by the length of time which may have elapsed between the composing of these books; for it is not unlikely that one and the same person writing upon different arguments, and at a great distance of time, especially if he be one who does not frequently exercise his style, or write in the intermediate space, should have a very different manner in his several performances. Now the Gospel of Saint John, we have seen, was written about the year 97-that is, about sixty years after the events recorded in it. At such a distance of time, Dr. Wood house remarks, the mind is enabled to look back with composure, and to represent with serenity transactions which could not be narrated soon after they had happened, without warm and passionate expressions. It seems to be owing partly to this cause, that the evangelist is seen to relate in so cool a style, in the Gospel, those sufferings of his beloved Lord which he had witnessed, and which, if related by him immediately after the events had taken place, could not have been told otherwise than with emotion and indignation. But the Apocalypse was written by its author immediately after he had seen the vision; the impression on his mind had no time to cool; his expressions kept pace with his feelings, and his style became vivid and glowing. There is no necessity, therefore, for having recourse to the hypothesis of a Hebrew original, and of supposing our Greek text to be a version of it, as some critics have imagined; but which hypothesis is totally unsupported by the evidence of antiquity. OBJECTION 6. The book is so obscure as to be unintelligible, and is therefore improperly called a Revelation. This trifling objection, for such it is pronounced to be by Dr. Lardner, was first published by Dionysius, who represents it as being entertained by many persons in his time (the middle of the third century). In our time it has been adopted by Michaelis, who has laid much stress upon it; but this objection admits of the following simple and satisfactory. ANSWER. In the first place the author might with great propriety call that a revelation, which had been communicated to him in an extraordinary manner; though he had received it, and was to represent it, in a figurative and emblematical style. But, secondly, this revelation is often spoken of as a prophecy. (See Rev. i. 13. and xxii. 7. 10. 18, 19.) Now, it is the nature of prophecies to be obscure when delivered, and for some time after, even in the case of prophecies fulfilled; "because the language in which they are delivered is syinbolical, which, though governed by certain rules, and therefore attainable by the judicious among the learned, is neverthe less very liable to misconstruction in rash and unskilful hands. But prophecies, yet unfulfilled, are necessarily involved in deeper darkness, because the event is wanting to compare with the prediction, which of itself is designedly obscure. This same objection of obscurity will operate Testament, as against those of the Apocalypse; particularly the predictions as forcibly against many of the prophecies of the Old and of the New which appertain to the latter days. The book of Daniel, which has our Saviour's seal to it (Matt. xxiv. 15.), must be rejected with the Apocalypse, if it be a sufficient objection to it, that it is yet in many places obscure." A conclusion this, to which no Christian can or will give his assent. So far, however, is the obscurity of this prophecy from making against its genuineness, that it is, on the contrary, a strong internal proof of its authenticity and divine original: "for it is a part of this prophecy," Sir Isaac Newton well argues, "that it should not be understood before the last age of the world; and therefore it makes for the credit of the prophecy that it is not yet understood. The folly of interpreters," he justly con tinues, "has been, to foretell times and things by this prophecy, as if God designed to make them prophets. By this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the prophecy also into contempt. The not I an apostle ?" &c. (1 Cor. ix. 1.); and therefore he generally asserts himself, in his Epistles, to be an apostle. Saint John had no need to use the term: his authority as an apostle was undoubted: he therefore calls himself by an humbler title, "A brother and companion in tribulation:" so Saint James, although an apostle, mentions himself only as "A servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ." (James i. 1.) Woodhouse, p. 114. 1 See Vol. I. pp. 194-196. On the Nature of the New Testament Greek. a Woodhouse, p. 122. * See 2 Pet. i. 19. 1 Pet. i. 10-12. and Luke xxiv. 25-27. 32. 44-46. • Woodhouse, p. 103. the Old Testament, not to gratify men's curiosities, by enabling them to foreknow things, but that, after that they were fulfilled, they might be interpreted by the event, and his own providence, not the interpreter's, be then manifested thereby to the world. For the event of things, predicted many ages before, will then be a convincing argument that the world is governed by providence. For as the few and obscure prophecies concerning Christ's first coming were for setting up the Christian religion, which all nations have since corrupted; so the many and clear prophecies concerning the things to be done at Christ's second coming are not only long lost truth, and setting up a kingdom wherein dwells righteousness. for predicting, but also for effecting a recovery and re-establishment of the The event will prove the Apocalypse; and this prophecy, thus proved and the true religion, and establish it. There is already so much of the prounderstood, will open the old prophets, and altogether will make known phecy fulfilled, that as many as will take pains in this study may see sufficient instances of God's providence; but then the signal revolutions predicted by all the holy prophets will at once both turn men's eyes upon considering the predictions, and plainly interpret them. Till then we must content ourselves with interpreting what hath been already fulfilled."s Such are the most material objections that have been brought against the genuineness and divine authority of this portion of the New Testament. In addition to the very satisfactory answers above given, from the writings of pious and learned men, it were no difficult task to add numerous other considerations, all tending to show its divine original; but the preceding testimonies, both external and internal, will, we apprehend, be found abundantly sufficient to prove that the Apocalypse is the unquestionable production of the apostle and evangelist John, and of no other John who is mentioned by ecclesiastical writers. It consequently follows, that this book has an indubitable right to that place in the canon of sacred Scripture, which the ancient fathers of the church have assigned to it, and which the reformers in the Protestant churches have with mature deliberation confirmed. III. The TIME when this book was written is a subject that has much engaged the attention of the learned; and on this point not fewer than six opinions have been advanced. Four of these are of sufficient importance to be considered in this place. 1. It has been asserted that the Apocalypse was written in the reign of the emperor Claudius. Epiphanius is the only ancient father whose testimony has been adduced in behalf of this opinion; and he did not live till three hundred years later than St. John. Although this date is sanctioned by Grotius, who supposes that the visions of the book were seen at several times, and that they were afterwards joined together in one book; yet there are two very material objections against it. The first is, that there was no persecution of the Christians in the reign of Claudius, and consequently John's banishment to Patmos cannot be referred to that period. This emperor did, indeed, issue an edict for banishing the Jews from Rome, but it did not affect the Jews in the provinces, much less the Christians; and the governors had no authority to banish either Jews or Christians out of their provinces without an order from the emperor: besides, it does not appear that Saint John was at Ephesus during the reign of Claudius. The second objection to this date is founded on the circumstance, that the seven churches in Asia, to which the Apocalypse is addressed, did not exist so early as the reign of Claudius; for this fact cannot be reconciled with the history given of the first planting of Christianity in Asia Minor related in the Acts of the Apostles. 2. It has been maintained, on the authority of the subscription to the Syriac version of the Apocalypse, that Saint John wrote it in the island of Patmos, in the reign of the This emperor Nero, before the destruction of Jerusalem. opinion is adopted by Sir Isaac Newton; but it is untenable, middle of the sixth century, and the anonymous subscription for the Apocalypse was not translated into Syriac until the is of no force. Sir Isaac Newton's Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of Saint John, pp. 251-253. Lampe, Comment. in Evang. Joannis, tom. i. pp. 125-131. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 110-128.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 627-647. Michaelis, vol. iv. has considered at length and refuted, several minor objections of Michaelis 461-500.528-544. Dr. Woodhouse's Dissertation, pp. 89-141. Dr. W. pp. and Dr. Less, which want of room has compelled us to omit. Sir Isaac Newton endeavoured to support his hypothesis by alleging that the apostolic epistles contain quotations from the Apocalypse; and his hypothesis has recently been adopted by Dr. Tilloch in his "Dissertations" introductory to the study of this book. Dr. T., it must be acknowledged, has conducted his view of the subject with equal ingenuity and skill; but the arguments for the late date are decisive to the writer of these pages. The collection of verbally parallel passages, between the Apocalypse and the Epistles, it has been forcibly observed, " appear to prove that the apostles in general were well acquainted with the subjects, concerning which Saint John prophesied, but that they knew them by the influence of the same Holy Spirit which dictated them to St. John. The expressions in question, therefore, were common to all the inspired writers of the New Testament." Townsend's New Testament arranged in Chronological Order vol. ii. p. 653. 3. Another hypothesis makes this book to have been | Christian churches in Asia; and, secondly, and principally, written before the time of Domitian, and before the Jewish to reveal to him "the things which shall be hereafter," or war; but it does not determine whether it was in the reign the constitution and fates of the Christian church, through of Claudius, or in that of Nero. its several periods of propagation, corruption, and amend ment, from its beginning to its consummation in glory. "The prophecy of the Revelation," says Daubuz, "was designed as a standing monument to the church, to know what destinies attend it; and that, when men should suffer for the name of Christ, they might here find some consolation both for themselves and for the church-for themselves, by the prospect and certainty of a reward;-for the church, by the testimony that Christ never forsakes it, but will conquer at last.' 4. The most probable and generally received opinion is, that John was banished into Patmos towards the end of Domitian's reign, by virtue of his edicts for persecuting the Christians; and that he had the Revelations contained in the Apocalypse during his exile; though the book itself could not have been published until after the apostle's release and return to Ephesus. The unanimous voice of Christian antiquity attests that John was banished by the order of Domitian. Irenæus, Origen, and other early fathers, refer the apostle's exile to the latter part of Domitian's reign, and they concur in saying that he there received the Revelations described in the Apocalypse. Internal evidence likewise supports this conclusion. For, in the first three chapters of the Apocalypse, the seven Asiatic churches are described as being in that advanced and flourishing state of society and discipline, and to have undergone those changes in their faith and morals, which could not have taken place if they had not been planted for a considerable time. Thus, the church of Ephesus is censured for having left "her first love." That of Sardis "had a name to live, but was dead." The church of Laodicea had fallen into lukewarmness and indifference. Now the church of Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudian's reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A. D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith. (Eph. i. 15.) Further, it appears from the Revelation that the Nicolaitans formed a sect when this book was written, since they are expressly named: whereas they were only foretold in general terms by Saint Peter in his second Epistle, written A. D. 65, and in Saint Jude's Epistle, which was written about A. D. 65 or 66. It is also evident, from various passages of the Revelation, that there had been an open persecution in the provinces. John himself had been banished into Patmos for the testimony of Jesus. The church of Ephesus (or its bishop) is commended for its "labour and patience," which seems to imply persecution. This is still more evident in the following address to the church of Smyrna (Rev. ii. 9.),—“I know thy works and tribulation," Fra: which last word always denotes persecution in the New Testament, and is so explained in the following verse. Lastly, In Rev. ii. 13. mention is made of a martyr named Antipas, who was put to death at Pergamos. Though ancient ecclesiastical history gives us no information concerning this Antipas, yet it is certain, according to all the rules of language, that what is here said is to be understood literally, and not mystically, as some expositors have explained it. Since, therefore, the persecution, mentioned in the first three chapters of the Apocalypse, cannot relate to the time of Claudius, who did not persecute the Christians, nor to the time of Nero, whose persecution did not reach the provinces, it must necessarily be referred to Domitian, according to ecclesiastical tradition.1 Domitian's death is related to have happened in September, A. D. 96. The Christian exiles were then liberated, and John was permitted to return to Ephesus. As, however, the emperor's decease, and the permission to return, could not be known in Asia immediately, some time must intervene before the apostle could be at liberty either to write the Apocalypse at Ephesus,2 or to send it by messengers from Patmos. We conclude, therefore, with Dr. Mill, Le Clerc, Basnage, Dr. Lardner, Bishop Tomline, Dr. Woodhouse, and other eminent critics, in placing the Apocalypse in the year 96 or 97.3 IV. The OCCASION of writing the Apocalypse is sufficiently evident from the book itself. John, being in exile in the island of Patmos, is favoured with the appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ to him, and is repeatedly commanded to commit to writing the visions which he beheld. (See Rev. i. 11. 19. ii. 1. 8. 12. 18. iii. 1. 7. 14. xiv. 13. xix. 9. and xxi. 5.) The SCOPE or design of this book is twofold; first, generally to make known to the apostle "the things which are" (1. 19.), that is, the then present state of the 1 Beausobre et L'Enfant, Préface sur l'Apocalypse de Saint Jean, pp. 613, 614. 2 From the expression in Rev. i. 9. “I was in the Isle of Patmos," Dr. Woodhouse is of opinion that there seems to be internal evidence that the Revelation was written after Saint John had left Patmos. 3 Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 518-528. Lardner, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 633-638.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 450-453. Dr. Woodhouse's Dissertation, pp. 6-25. Pritii Introd. ad Nov. Test. pp. 126-132. V. The Apocalypse, therefore, consists of two principal divisions or parts; viz. After the title of the book. (i. 1-3.) PART I. contains à voi, the “things which are;" that is, the then present state of the church. SECT. 1. The Epistle of John to the seven churches, and his account of the appearance of the Lord Jesus with the symbols of his power, together with the commission given by him to the apostle, to write what he beholds. (i. 9—20.) SECT. 2. The Address or Epistle to the Church at Ephesus. (ii. 1-7.) SECT. 3. The Address or Epistle to the Church at Smyrna. (ii. 8—11.) SECT. 4. The Address or Epistle to the Church at Pergamos. (ii. 12-17.) SECT. 5. The Address or Epistle to the Church at Thyatira. (ii. 18-29.) SECT. 6. The Address or Epistle to the Church at Sardis. (iii. 1-6.) SECT. 7. The Address or Epistle to the Church at Philadel phia. (iii. 7-13.) SECT. 8. The Address or Epistle to the Church at Laodicea. (iii. 14-22.) The seven churches of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia, to which these Epistles were addressed, are supposed to have been planted by the apostle Paul and his assistants during their ministry. They lie nearly in an am Vitringa and other eminent commentators have supposed that the seven phitheatre, and are addressed according to their geographical positions Epistles to the Apocalyptic churches are prophetical of so many successive periods and states of the church, from the beginning of Christianity to the there does not appear to be sufficient evidence, and it is in fact contradicted consummation of all things. But for this opinion, Bishop Newton thinks, by the book of Revelation itself; for the last state of the church is here described as the most glorious of all, but in the last of these Epistles, that of Laodicea, the church is represented as "wretched and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." But though these Epistles have rather a literal than a mystical meaning, yet they contain excellent precepts and exhortations, commendations and reproofs, promises and threatenings, which are calculated to afford instruction to the universal church of Christ at all times. "Some churches," Dr. Hales remarks, "like those of Sardis, Thyatira, and Laodicea, are lukewarm and greatly corrupted; others in a mixed state, as those of Ephesus and Pergamos; and some still rich, or rather flourishing, and have not denied the faith of Christ, as Smyrna and Philadelphia. And the admonitions addressed to them-1. To repent and reform their ways;-2. To reject false apostles and corrupt doctrines:3. To retain their patience and steadfastness in the faith:-4. Under the penalty of having their lamps removed,' or their established churches extinguished-are equally addressed to all. 'He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches' in general.” (Rev. ii. 29. iii. 22.)♪ PART II. contains a Prophecy of as perne geves as, "the things which shall be hereafter," or the Future State of the Church through succeeding ages, from the time when the apostle beheld the apocalyptic visions to the Grand Consummation of all things. SECT. 1. The representation of the divine glory in heaven. (iv.) SECT. 3. The opening of the first six seals. (vi.) SECT. 5. The opening of the seventh seal, and the first six §i. The opening of the seventh seal, and the commission to the angel iii. The fifth trumpet and the first wo. (ix. 1—12.) $ iv. The sixth trumpet and the second wo. (ix. 13—21.) v. The first prophetical vision of the open little book, representing the different states of the Christian church to the end of the sixth trumpet, -the measuring of the temple, and the two witnesses. (x. 1—11. xi. 1-14.) • An account of the above-mentioned cities is given in the Historical and Geographical Index, in Vol. II. of the present work. Dr. Hales's Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. book ii. p. 1294. Bishop Newton's Dissertations, vol. ii. p. 167. SECT. 6. The sounding of the seventh trumpet-the vision of | tioned eminent critic and divine, who has most successfully the woman persecuted by the dragon, and of the wild beasts applied them to the exposition of the Apocalypse :from the sea and from the land. (ix. 15-19. xii. xiii.) SECT. 7. The vision of the Lamb and the hundred and fortyfour thousand elect on Mount Sion, and the proclamations or warnings. i. The Lamb on Mount Sion. (xiv. 1-5.) ii. The first angel proclaims. (xiv. 6, 7.) $ iii. The second angel proclaims. (xiv. 8.) § iv. The third angel proclaims. (xiv. 9-12.) 1. Compare the language, the symbols, and the predictions of the Apocalypse with those of former revelations; and admit only such interpretation as shall appear to have the sanction of this divine authority. 2. Unless the language and symbols of the Apocalypse should in particular passages direct, or evidently require, another mode of application, the predictions are to be applied to the progressive Sv. The blessedness of those who die in the Lord proclaimed. (xiv. 13.) church of Christ. § vi. The vision of the harvest and the vintage. (xiv. 14—20.) SECT. 8. contains the seven vials and the episode of the not a temporal but a spiritual kingdom;-not " a kingdom of this harlot of Babylon and her fall. §i. The vision preparatory to the seven vials. (xv. xvi. 1.) § ii. The pouring out of the seven vials. (xvi. 2—21.) § iii. The great harlot, or Babylon. (xvii.) Siv. The judgment of Babylon continued. (xviii.) Sv. Exultation in heaven over the fallen Babylon, and upon the approach of the New Jerusalem. (xix. 1—10.) SECT. 9. contains the grand conflict, the millennium, the conflict renewed, the judgment, and the new creation. (xix. 11-18.) §i. The appearance of the Lord with his followers, for battle and victory. ii. The conflict and victory over the beast and false prophet. (xix. 19-21.) iii. Satan bound, and the millennium. (xx. 1—6.) § iv. Satan loosed, deceives the nations, and is cast into the burning lake. (xx. 7-10.) § v. The general resurrection and final judgment. (xx. 11-15.) 3. The kingdom which is the subject of this prophetic book is world" (John xviii. 36.), not established by the means and apparatus of worldly pomp, not bearing the external ensigns of royalty; but governing the inward man, by possession of the ruling principles: the kingdom of God, says our Lord, is within you. (Luke xvii. 21.) The predictions relative to this kingdom, therefore, are to be spiritually interpreted. Wars, conquests, and revolutions, of vast extent and great political import, are not the object of the apocalyptical prophecies; unless they appear to have promoted or retarded in a considerable degree the real progress of the religion of Jesus Christ, whose proper reign is in the hearts and consciences of his subjects. "His reign is advanced, when Christian principles, when faith, and righteousness, and charity abound. It is retarded, when ignorance, impurity, idolatrous superstition, and wickedness prevail." 4. We are not to attempt the particular explanation of those SECT. 10. Description of the new Jerusalem. (xxi. xxii. 1—5.) prophecies which remain to be fulfilled.2 VI. No book has been more commented upon, or has given rise to a greater variety of interpretations, than the Apocalypse which has ever been accounted the most difficult portion of the New Testament. The figurative language in which the visions are delivered; the variety of symbols under which the events are presignified; the extent of the prophetical information, which appears to pervade all ages of the Christian church, afford little hope of its perfect elucidation, till a further process of time shall have ripened more of the events foretold in it, and have given safer scope to investigation. Referring the reader, therefore, to the works of Mede, Daubuz, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishops Newton and Hurd, Lowman, Faber, Dr. Hales, and others, who have attempted to illustrate these sublime and mysterious prophecies, and especially to the learned and pious labours of Dr. Woodhouse, we shall conclude this article with the following canons of interpretation, which have been proposed by the last-men 1 Brit. Crit. vol. xxix. p. 191. Rosenmüller (Scholia, vol. v. pp. 614-619.) and Dr. A. Clarke (Preface to the Revelation, pp. i-x.) have given an ab stract of various hypotheses relative to the interpretation of the Apocalypse, some of which are sufficiently extravagant. See also Cellérier's Introduction au Nouv. Test. pp. 497-501. and Hug's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 665-667. Although many parts of the Apocalypse are necessarily still future, yet enough is sufficiently clear to convey to us obscure to us, because they contain predictions of events the most important religious instruction. This book is to us precisely what the prophecies of the Old Testament were to the Jews, nor is it in any degree more inexplicable. "No prophecies in the Revelation can be more clouded with obscurity, than that a child should be born of a pure virginthat a mortal should not see corruption-that a person defor ever on the throne of David. Yet still the pious Jew spised and numbered among malefactors should be established preserved his faith entire amidst all these wonderful, and, the holy books in which they were contained, with revein appearance, contradictory intimations. He looked into rence; and with an eye of patient expectation waited for the consolation of Israel.' We, in the same manner, look up to these prophecies of the Apocalypse, for the full consummation of the great scheme of the Gospel; when Christianity shall finally prevail over all the corruptions of the world, and be universally established in its utmost purity." Dr. Woodhouse's translation of the Apocalypse, pp. xii.-xix. Many of the observations in Vol. 1. Part II. Chap. IV. Sect. I. are applicable to the interpretation of the Apocalypse. Gilpin's Exposition of the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 428. APPENDIX. No. I. ON THE SOURCES OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS Different Hypotheses stated.-II. Examination of the Hypothesis, that the Evangelists abridged or copied from each other.— III. Examination of the Hypothesis, that the Evangelists derived their information from a primary Greek or Hebrew Document.-IV. Examination of the Hypothesis, that they consulted several Documents.-V. And of the Hypothesis, that oral Tradition was the Source of the first three Gospels.-VI. That the only Document consulted by the first three Evangelists was the Preaching of our Saviour himself. I. THAT the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke should | materials for their Gospels. Busching was of opinion that contain so much verbal agreement, and yet that there should Matthew and Mark compiled from Luke. Saunier mainexist such striking differences as appear in the parallel ac-tains that the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, are counts of these three Evangelists when they relate the same authentic and independent narratives; that Mark made use discourses or transactions, is indeed a most remarkable cir- of those by Matthew and Luke; and that the passages, not cumstance. Hence several eminent writers have been induced to be found in either of these, were supplied by Peter, under to discuss this singular fact with great ability and equal whose direction he wrote. And, lastly, Janssens affirms ingenuity and although the testimonies which we have to that the agreement and disagreement between the Gospels the genuineness and authenticity of the Gospels, are so clear of Matthew and Mark are sufficiently accounted for, by sayand decisive, as to leave no doubt in the minds of private ing, after the ancient fathers, that Mark composed his Gospel Christians; yet, since various learned men have offered dif- after that of Matthew, and after the preaching of Peter.10 ferent hypotheses to account for, and explain, these pheno- Not to dwell upon the uncertainty of these various hypothe mena, the author would deem his labours very imperfect, if ses, all of which differ as to the point which was the original he suffered them to pass unnoticed. writer, and which of the evangelists were copyists or abridgers, the opinion which they respectively are designed to advocate is contradicted by the following weighty considerations: Four principal hypotheses have been offered, to account for these verbal similarities and occasional differences between the first three evangelists; viz. 1. That one or two of the Gospels were taken from another;-2. That all three were derived from some original document common to the evangelists;-3. That they were derived from detached narratives of part of the history of our Saviour, communicated by the apostles to the first converts to Christianity-and, 4. That they were derived from oral tradition. We shall briefly state the arguments that have been offered for and against these various hypotheses. 1. They could have no motive for copying from each other. others, when their narratives were known, they could not have "For, as each acknowledged the authority and veracity of the been so absurd as to repeat what had been already rightly told. Had they then written successively, with knowledge of each other's writings, it is probable, nay, it is almost certain, that each subsequent author would have set down only, or at least chiefly, what his predecessors had happened to omit. To repeat in substance, but in different words, what another had sufficiently told, might have been practised by writers who valued themselves upon their peculiar style of expression, or their own mode of compilation. But to copy the very words of another, whose account we do not mean to supersede, and to introduce them in the very same manner, is an idle and superfluous task, which no man in his senses would ever undertake." That the two evangelists, St. Mark and St. discourses of Christ pronounced, relate them nearly in the same words with those who were actually present, appears to me to prove that the narratives of all the witnesses perfectly agreed. same manner. The witnesses had all taken such care to rememThat what one wrote others had told, and each precisely in the ber, with minute exactness, the principal discourses of their Lord, and the occasions on which they were spoken, and were so often called upon to repeat them, in making and confirming converts to the faith, that a precision was obtained in relating these particulars, of which, if no other example occurs in the annals of the world, the reason is, because no other relators of facts and diswords and actions to relate; such frequent occasions to repeat them; or so many powerful reasons to relate them with the strictest accuracy, on every possible occasion. From this cause it naturally arose, that they who wrote as original witnesses, and they who wrote from the testimony of such witnesses, agreed, not only substantially, but almost verbally. The exact and literal truth, without alteration or embellishment, was equally delivered by them; as when several perfect mirrors reflect the same object, the images will be the same in form, at the first or second reflection."12 II. The FIRST and most commonly received opinion has been, that one or two of the first three evangelists had copied or abridged from the third, or one from the other two. Thus Vogel endeavoured to show that Mark made use of the Gospel of Luke, and that Matthew drew from Mark and Luke.' Grotius, Mill, Simon, Calmet, Wetstein, Wolfius, Drs. Owen and Harwood, and others, after Augustine, have as-Luke, who were not eye-witnesses of the facts, and heard not the serted that Mark was an epitomiser of Matthew. Griesbach2 and Dr. Townson3 have maintained that both Mark and Luke had seen and consulted the Gospel of Matthew. Hug has defended the opinion that Mark had before him the Gospel written by Matthew for the Jews dwelling in Palestine, and that Luke made use of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Seiler affirmed that Mark translated into Greek and enlarged the Syro-Chaldaic Gospel of Matthew; that this Syro-Chaldaic Gospel, enlarged in many places, either by Matthew himself, or by other men worthy of credit, was subsequently translated into Greek either by the evangelist or some other person; and that the Greek translator consulted the Gospel of Mark. Storr endeavoured to prove that the Gospel of Mark was the source whence Matthew and Luke derived 1 Vogel über die Entstehung der drey ersten Evangelien (on the Origin of the first Three Gospels), in Gabler's Journal für auserlesene Theologisch Literatur, band 1. stuck 1. p. 1. et seq. Griesbach, in Kuinöel's, Ruperti's, and Velthusen's Commentationes Theologicæ, tom. i. pp. 303. et seq. Griesbach's hypothesis was refuted by Koppe, in Pott's and Ruperti's Sylloge Commentationum Theologicarum, tom. i. pp. 55. et seq. Aintnon defended Griesbach's hypothesis, and also contended that Luke made use of the Greek version of St. Matthew's Gospel, which he corrected and enlarged. Dissertatio de Luca emendatore Matthæi. Erlangæ, 1805. 4to. 3 Discourses on the Four Gospels, Oxford, 1778, 4to.; or vol. i. of Dr. Townson's Works, pp. 1-273. Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, translated by Dr. Wait, vol. ii. pp. 73-83. 111-134. Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 152-185. Dr. Wait's translation having been executed from Hug's first edition, the learned translator of Dr. Schleiermacher's Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke has given an abstract of Hug's hypothesis from his second edition published in 1821. Introduction, pp. xcviii.-exv. Seiler, Dissertationes II. de tempore et ordine quibus tria Evangelia priora canonica scripta sunt. Erlange, 1805-6. 4to. VOL. II.-APP. 3 C courses were ever so situated. No other men ever had such ↑ Storr, Dissertatio de fonte Evangeliorum Matthæi et Lucæ, in Kuinöel's, 12 Nares's Veracity of the Evangelists, pp. 33-35 |