dictory1 views of the same symbol, or for interpreters holding the same religious tenets, to place an interval of 1000 years more or less between their several interpretations.

Now before any argument in favour of the Neronic date can have weight, it must be shown that sufficient ground exists for receiving with diminished confidence the common opinion that the Revelation was seen by St. John in the reign of Domitian; and as the question of the date is not determined in Scripture, it will be necessary to examine the opinions of the early Christian Fathers upon this point.

The defenders of the Domitianic date rely chiefly on a passage of Irenæus, quoted verbatim by Eusebius in the 3rd and 5th books of his Ecclesiastical History:-"For had it been necessary that his name should be in open publication at the present time, it would have been mentioned by him, especially as being the one who saw the Apocalypse; for it is not so long ago since it was seen, but almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian." This statement of Irenæus is considerably weakened, if not shown utterly unworthy of credit, by a similar statement of the same writer, professedly derived from those who had received it from the Apostle John and the other Apostles, that Christ lived to be near fifty years of age. — (Con. Hær. lib. vi. cap. 26.)

If we add to this his belief in the absurd opinion of the Alexandrian Jews respecting the miraculous version of the LXX. (Eus. Eccles. Hist. v. 8.), and his adoption of the millennial views of Papias (Eus. Eccles. Hist. iii. 39.), it will be seen that no implicit reliance can be placed upon a writer guilty of

1 Luther asserted that the Beast, Rev. xvii., was the Pope. The Pope asserted that the Beast was Luther, and the false prophet Calvin. Luther said that the number of the Beast indicated by the numerals 666 was to be found in the name of the Pope. The Pope retaliated by finding the number of the Beast in the name of Luther.

"The common method of interpretation founded on the hypothesis that the book was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, is utterly destitute of certainty, and leaves every commentator to the luxuriance of his own fancy, as is sufficiently evident from what has been done already on this book.” Wetstein's Gr. Test. vol. ii. p. 889.

2 “ Εἰ δὲ ἔδει ἀναφανδὸν ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ κηρύττεσθαι τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ δι' ἐκείνον ἂν ἐῤῥέθη τοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν ἑωρακότος. Οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεῖς πρὸς τῷ τέλει Δομετ Tavoυ úрxñç."-Irenæus, in Hær. v. 30.; Eus. Eccles. Hist. iii. 18., v. 8.

such gross blunders, and that nothing is more probable than that he should have committed an error with regard to the date of the Apocalypse.

Eusebius', however, appears to have relied entirely on this passage of Irenæus as determining the time when the Apocalypse was seen, and to have drawn from it the conclusion that St. John saw the Apocalypse in the reign of Domitian. He says: "In this persecution it is handed down by tradition that the Apostle and Evangelist John, who was yet living, in consequence of his testimony to the Divine word, was condemned to dwell on the Island of Patmos ;" and then he quotes the passage of Irenæus before referred to as the source from whence this tradition sprang. This is of great consequence, because it serves to show, that the opinion of Eusebius is not independent testimony, but simply a repetition of the statement of Irenæus; and this observation is also applicable to the testimony of Jerome, who only reiterates the opinions of Irenæus and Eusebius.

This tradition is further supported by Victorinus, who asserts: "When John saw the Apocalypse, he was in the island of Patmos, banished by Cæsar Domitian." "Domitian being slain, John, dismissed from banishment, afterwards committed to writing this same Apocalypse which he had received from the Lord."

But Victorinus on Rev. iv. 14.4 says: "For he wrote

1 «Εν τούτῳ κατέχει λόγος τὸν ἀπόστολον ἅμα καὶ εὐαγγελιστὴν Ἰωάννην ἔτι τῷ βίῳ ἐνδιατρίβοντα, τῆς εἰς τὸν θεῖον λόγον ἕνεκα μαρτυρίας, Πάτ μον οἰκεῖν καταδικασθῆναι τὴν νῆσον, γράφων γέ τοι ὁ Εἰρηναῖος,” κ. τ. λ. Eus. Eccles. Hist. iii. 18. “Ενθα τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν ἑώρακεν, ὡς δηλοῖ Εἰρηvaioç."-Eus. Chronicon.

2 That Eusebius was not very careful in preserving the strict meaning of the authors quoted by him, may be proved from the circumstance that he renders the words of Tertullian "cum maxime Romæ orientem" (Tert. Apol. 5.) " then chiefy springing up at Rome,” by " ηνίκα μάλιστα ἐν 'Ρώμῃ τὴν ἀναToλǹν Tāσаν vπоrážaç,”—translated by Dr. Crusè "particularly then, when after subduing all the East, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome,”giving a totally different meaning from the original.

3 "Quando hoc vidit Johannes, erat in insulâ Patmos, in metallum damnatus, a Domitiano Cæsare." "Interfecto Domitiano, Johannes de metallo dimissus, sic postea tradidit hanc eandem quam acceperat a Domino Apocalypsin."-In Bib. Max. iii. p. 419.

4 "Nam Evangelium postea scripsit cum essent Valentinus, et Cerinthus, et Ebion, et cæteri scholæ Sathanæ diffusi per orbem, convenerunt ad illum de finitimis provinciis omnes, et compulerunt ut ipse testimonium conscriberet."

his Gospel afterwards, when Valentinus, and Cerinthus, and Ebion, and others of Satan's school, were scattered over the world: all from the neighbouring provinces came together to him, and compelled him also to write his Gospel." Yet Epiphanius1 declares, that John wrote his Gospel after the return from Patmos in the time of Claudius Cæsar, A. D. 54. A fragment of Hippolytus places the date of that Gospel A.D. 61, and Sir Isaac Newton, quoting from Caius, says that "Cerinthus lived so early that he resisted the Apostles at Jerusalem in or before the first year of Claudius, that is, 26 years before the death of Nero, and died before John." Victorinus is followed by Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, and others.

2

It appears then matter of fact that a tradition originated with Irenæus (a writer by no means infallible), which was subsequently propagated by successive ecclesiastical writers, who followed one another much on the same principle as the Chiliasts followed Papias on the question of the Millennium,-." He was the cause that by far the greater number of Church writers after

1 “ Μετὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς Πάτμου ἐπάνοδον, τὴν ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου γενομέ var Kairapos."-Epiphan. Hær. 51.

2 "Irenæus introduced an opinion that the Apocalypse was written in the time of Domitian; but then he also postponed the writing of some others of the sacred books, and was to place the Apocalypse after them. He might perhaps have heard from his master Polycarp that he had received this book from John about the time of Domitian's death; or indeed John might him. self at that time have made a new publication of it, from whence Irenæus might imagine it was then but newly written. Eusebius in his Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History follows Irenæus, but afterwards in his Evangelical Demonstrations he conjoins the banishment of John into Patmos with the deaths of Peter and Paul, and so do Tertullian and Pseudo-Prochorus as well as the first author, whoever he was, of that very ancient fable that John was put by Nero into a vessel of hot oil, and coming out unhurt, was banished by him into Patmos. Though this story be no more than a fiction, yet was it founded on a tradition of the first Churches, that John was banished into Patmos in the days of Nero. Epiphanius represents the Gospel of John as written in the time of Claudius, and the Apocalypse even before that of Nero.

"Arethas in the beginning of his Commentary quotes the opinion of Irenæus from Eusebius, but follows it not; for he afterwards affirms the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and that former commentators had expounded the Sixth Seal of that destruction. With the opinion of the first commentators agrees the tradition of the churches of Syria preserved to this day in the title of the Syriac version of the Apocalypse, which title is this, 'The Revelation which was made to John the Evangelist by God, in the island of Patmos, into which he was banished by Nero the Cæsar." — Sir I. Newton.

him held the like doctrine, pleading the antiquity of the man," (Eus. Eccles. Hist. iii. 39.), that the Apocalypse was seen by St. John in Patmos at the close of Domitian's reign.

The question arises was this tradition universally received; and if not, is there positive evidence to show that a contrary opinion was entertained even from the earliest times?

The first testimony which I shall adduce to show that the tradition of Irenæus was not universally adopted, is that of Epiphanius1, who says of St. John,-"Who prophesied in the time of Claudius (A.D. 54) .. the prophetic word according to the Apocalypse being disclosed."

In a fragment of an antient Latin writer2, attributed by some to Caius, it is found-" Paul, following the order of his predecessor John, wrote only to seven churches by name in similar order." In this passage John is called the predecessor of Paul, and Paul is said only to have written to seven churches by name, following the example of John, who wrote only to the seven churches of Asia. Now as Paul suffered martyrdom A.D. 68, this would place the date of the Apocalypse prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

The title of the Syriac version is "The Revelation which was made to John the Evangelist by God in the island of Patmos, into which he was banished by Nero the Cæsar.” Tertullian3 conjoins the banishment of John with the martyrdom of Peter and Paul at Rome, under Nero-"O happy Roman church, where Peter is deemed worthy to share the passion of the Lord, where Paul is beatified by the same death as John (the Baptist), where the Apostle John plunged into burning oil, escapes unhurt, and is condemned to banishment." Andreas1,

...

1 “ Προφητεύσαντος ἐν χρόνοις Κλαυδίου . . . . δεικνυμένου τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ̓Αποκάλυψιν λόγου προφητικοῦ.” Hær. 51.

2" Paulus, sequens prædecessoris sui Johannis ordinem, nonnisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat ordine tali."-Muratori, Antiq. Ital. iii. p. 854.

3 "Felix ecclesia Romana, ubi Petrus passioni Dominicæ adæquatur, ubi Paulus Johannis exitu coronatur, ubi Apostolus Johannes posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus, nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur."

4 Andreas and Arethas, the earliest commentators excepting a few fragments of Victorinus, whose interpretations have come down to us, not only expound the Apocalypse of the woes which fell upon the Jews, but declare that others had done so also. Arethas moreover shows that he was acquainted with the tradition of Irenæus, which he evidently considered incorrect. This is invaluable, because it shows that from early times the symbols of the Revelation

bishop of Cæsarea, in his Greek commentary on the Apocalypse, still extant, (c. vi. 16.) says, "John received this revelation under the reign of Vespasian." On Rev. vi. 12.: "There are not wanting those who apply this passage to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus." On Rev. vii. 2. he says: "Although these things happened in part to Jewish Christians, who escaped the evils inflicted on Jerusalem by the Romans, yet they more probably refer to Antichrist." Arethas, who succeeded Andreas, mentions the statement of Irenæus before alluded to; he says: "That John was banished to the isle of Patmos under Domitian, Eusebius alleges in his Chronicon." But on Rev. vi. 12. he affirms: "Some refer this to the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian, interpreting all tropically." On Rev. vii. 1.: "Here, then, were manifestly shown to the Evangelist that things were to befal the Jews in their war against the Romans, in the way of avenging the sufferings inflicted upon Christ." On Rev. vii. 4.: "When the Evangelist received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jews were involved was not yet inflicted by the Romans." To all this may be added the testimony of Origen1, upon which Moses Stuart, from whom this evidence is chiefly taken, lays great weight: "The King of the Romans, as tradition teaches, condemned John, who bare witness for the word of truth, to the island of Patmos. John, moreover, teaches us the things respecting his testimony, without saying who condemned him, when he utters these things in the Apocalypse." It must have been impossible for Origen, the greatest critical scholar of the first three centuries, not to have known the statement of Irenæus respecting the Domitianic date, and this makes his silence all the more marked. He mentions neither Nero nor Domitian. "The King of the Romans," he says, "condemned John to the isle of Patmos," and he remarks that St. John is silent respecting the author of his exile,—“ without saying who condemned him."

Even on the supposition that the evidence adduced for the

were applied to the closing scenes of the Jewish dispensation, and that the fable of the Pope and the scarlet lady is the myth of yesterday.

1 Ὁ δὲ Ῥωμαίων βασιλεὺς ὡς ἡ παράδοσις διδάσκει κατεδίκασε τὸν Ἰωάντην μαρτυροῦντα διὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγον εἰς Πάτμον τὴν νῆσον, διδάσκει δὲ τὰ περὶ τοῦ μαρτυρίου ἑαυτοῦ Ἰωάννης, μὴ λέγων τίς αὐτὸν κατεδίκασε, φάσκων ἐν τῇ ̓Αποκαλύψει ταῦτα.” — Opp. in Matt. iii.