Oldalképek
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

may add the undisputed testimonies of Athenagoras, 12 Theophilus bishop of
and especially of Tertullian, who defends the authenticity of this book
Antioch (A.D. 181), 13 Apollonius (A.D. 186 or 187),14 Clement of Alexandria, 15.
against the heretic Marcion and his followers, by asserting its external evi-
dence. He appeals to the Asiatic churches, and assures us that "though
traced to its origin, will establish John to be its author." It also appears
Marcion rejects his (John's) Revelation, yet the succession of bishops,
from another part of his writings that this book was much read and gene-
rally received in the African churches of the second century,16
(3.) Among the testimonies of Writers in the third century,
those of Hippolytus Portuensis (A. D. 220) and Origen (A. D. 230)
are conspicuous.

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 seve. ral 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.

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 Revelation was known to and read by Ignatius. Polycarp also (A. D. 109) 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 the elders in Rev. xi. 17. There is likewise strong reason to believe 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 decided 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. To these we

Dr. Priestley's Notes on Scripture, vol. iv. p. 574. The argument, briefly
noticed by him, is prosecuted at length by Mr. Lowman in his Paraphrase
and Commentary on the Revelations, pp. x. et seq. Svo. edit.
2 Michaelis and Dr. Less.

Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 52-65.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 311-313.
Dr. Woodhouse thinks the evidence from Hermas not satisfactory.
Dissertation on the Apocalypse, pp. 35. et seq.

Woodhouse, pp. 31-34. The testimony of Ignatius is, we think, most
satisfactorily vindicated against the exceptions of Michaelis.
lbid. pp. 36-38.

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. 310.
Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 126. vol. vi. p. 628.; 4to. vol. i. p. 34S. vol. iii.

p. 417.
9 Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 147, 148.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 359, 360.

10 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 152, 153.; 4to. vol. 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 as cribed the Revelation to Cerinthus, and the other 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 satisfac rea;19 by Cyprian and the African churches; by the presbyters and others tory to know that it was subsequently received by Gregory of Neo-Cæsaof 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 Arya, 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 universally by the fathers of the Western churches; and from him we learn 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."2

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 information how early, or to what extent, it was received by the Syrian churches, yet, from the decisive evidence above 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, Svo. 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. See Lardner, Svo. vol. ii. p. 277.; 4to. vol. i. p. 430. Woodhouse, p. 51. 17 Lardner, Svo. 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. 217) 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.; 410. 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, toin. 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 Jerusalein (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, Svo. 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 ther books of divine authority.

Thongh 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 explained in general terins; in due time we believe that it will be fulfilled, and 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 saints, upon the horrid punishment of their enemies (Rev. xix. 1-10. xxii. 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 of pure religion over idolatrous superstition and tyranny, represented allegorically, at which every true believer must rejoice. Michaelis like wise has objected to other passages of the Apocalypse, as containing doc. 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."

(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; he attempted often, in imitation of them, to be simply sublime; but he did not trust to this only, he endeavoured to adorn his work with all the imposing charms of human eloquence and cultivated language; and he appealed to the perfection of his compositions as a proof of their divine original. Such an appeal would have little served his cause in a critical and enlightened age, which would expect far other internal proofs of divinity than those which result from elegant diction. The learned of such an age would reject a prophet appealing to a proof which has never been admitted with respect to former revelations; a prophet, who, both in doctrine, and in the relation of events, past and future, is seen to contradict, or add strange extravagant conceits to, the credible and well-attested revelations of former "There is nothing of this kind in the Apocalypse. Compare it with forged prophecies: many such have been written; some calculated to deceive, others only to amuse. These works, if they amaze us, as appearing to have been fulfilled, are commonly found to have been written after the events foretold, and to have a retrospective date which does not belong to them. But no one can show that the Apocalypse contains prophecies which were fulfilled before they were written."

times.

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 book is discussed at length by Hug. Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 630-653. 2 We may add. also, that the reality of Christ's sufferings is explicitly asserted (Rev. i. 5. and 7.) in conformity with the accounts of the evangelists, and the constant tenor of the New Testament. Whence it is evident that the Apocalypse could not have been written by the heresiarch Cerinthus (as some early writers have asserted), for he maintained that Christ did not suffer, but only Jesus. Michaelis (vol. iv. p. 469.) and Dr. Lardner (Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 111, 112.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 638, 639.) have both shown that Cerinthus could not have been the author of the Revelation. 3 Woodhouse. pp. 89 -96. 133. • Ibid. p. 99.

are still extant. How different are the language, character, and sentiments 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

[blocks in formation]

DE

Rev. iii. 7. Rev. iii. 7. 9. Rev. iii. 9. Rev. iii. 10. Rev. iii. 21. Rev. v. 6. 12. Rev. vi. 2. Rev. ix. 5. Rev. xii. 9. Rev. xix. 13. Rev. xxi. 6. . Rev. xxi. 27.

Rev. xxii. 14. Rev. xxii. 8. 10.

1 John ii. 13, 14. iv. 4. v. 5. John i. 29. 36.

John i. 29.

John xviii. 26. iii. 17.
John xii. 31.
John i. 1.
John vii. 37.

John vi. 36. 1 John i. 4. (Gr.)

In all which passages we have instances of neuter adjectives and participles put for masculines.

John i. 12. Eve, right.
John viii. 51, 52. 55. xiv. 23, 24.

In these passages the agreement both in style and expression is so great, that it is impossible to conceive how such striking coincidences could exist in writings so different in their natures as the Gospel and first Epistle of John and the Apocalypse, if they were not all the productions of one and the same author. But it has been objected, that there are differences in the style of this book, which render it uncertain whether it was really written by the apostle. These objections were first started by 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

names to their Gospels; nor is any name prefixed to the Epistle to the Hebrews; yet these writings are universally received as genuine and authentic. 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 name. 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.

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 testiinony 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. Jeremiah Jones's elaborate work on the New Testament. Woodhouse, p. 100.

Wetstenii Nov. Test. tom. ii. p. 747. note. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 121-123.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 643, 644. See also Dr. Jortin's Discourses on the Christian Religion, pp. 225, 226. note. See John xxi. 24. and other places.

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

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 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.

several.

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 suffi. cient 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

ANSWER. In the first place, if it were true that there was such a difference 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 sim-content ourselves with interpreting what hath been already fulfilled."'s ple; 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.

[blocks in formation]

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.6

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 grainmatical 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 difference 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 III. The TIME when this book was written is a subject exercise his style, or write in the intermediate space, should have a very that has much engaged the attention of the learned; and on different manner in his several performances. Now the Gospel of Saint this point not fewer than six opinions have been advanced. 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-Four of these are of sufficient importance to be considered in house remarks, the mind is enabled to look back with composure, and to this place. 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 symbolical, 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 as forcibly against many of the prophecies of the Old and of the New Testament, as against those of the Apocalypse; particularly the predictions 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 terin: 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.

3 See 2 Pet. i. 19. 1 Pet. i. 10-12. and Luke xxiv. 25-27. 32. 44-46. Woodhouse, p. 103.

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 emperor Nero, before the destruction of Jerusalem. This opinion is adopted by Sir Isaac Newton; but it is untenable, for the Apocalypse was not translated into Syriac until the middle of the sixth century, and the anonymous subscription is of no force.

Sir Isaac Newton's Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the
Apocalypse of Saint John, pp. 251-253.

Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 110-128.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 627-647. Michaelis, vol. iv.
Lampe, Coinment. in Evang. Joannis, tom. i. pp. 125-131. Lardner's
pp. 461-500. 528-544. Dr. Woodhouse's Dissertation, pp. 89-141. Dr. W.
has considered at length and refuted, several minor objections of Michaelis
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 cominon to all the inspired writers of the Now
Testament." Townsend's New Testament arranged in Chronologica: Or ler
vol. ii. p. 653.

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 difference 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 objection 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 OBJECTION 5. The Gospel and Epistle of John are written in correct and elegant Greek, but the writer of the Revelation discovers no accurate knowledge of that language: on the contrary, the Apocalypse abounds with barbarisms and

and the same author.

solecisms.

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 difference 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. Woodhouse 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 symbolical, 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."4 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 terin: 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. 2 Woodhouse, p. 122.

3 bee 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 suffi. cient 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.6

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 emperor Nero, before the destruction of Jerusalem. This 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.

Apocalypse of Saint John, pp. 251-253.
Sir Isaac Newton's Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the

Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 110-128.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 627-647. Michaelis, vol. iv. Lampe, Comment. in Evang. Joannis, tom. i. pp. 125-131. Lardner's pp. 461-500. 528-544. Dr. Woodhouse's Dissertation, pp. 89-141. Dr. W. has considered at length and refuted, several minor objections of Michaelis and Dr. Less, which want of room has compelled us to omit.

that the apostolic epistles contain quotations from the Apocalypse; and his Sir Isaac Newton endeavoured to support his hypothesis by alleging 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 Now Testament." Townsend's New Testament arranged in Chronologica: Or ler vol. ii. p. 653.

« ElőzőTovább »