that is holy, let him be holy still:' a passage quoted from the twenty-second chapter of the Revelation. Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, (about A. D. 181,) is said by Eusebius to have adduced proofs from this book, in a work, now lost, which he wrote against certain heretics. Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, (about A. D. 185,) often mentions the Revelation, and attributes it implicitly to John the apostle of the Lord. Clemens Alexandrinus (about A. D. 195) quotes it several times, and once in the following language: They shall sit on twenty-four thrones, judging the people, as John says in the Revelation.' Tertullian (about A. D. 200) refers to it frequently as the work of the same John who wrote the epistle universally ascribed to the apostle. In one place he says, ' Again, the apostle John describes, in the Apocalypse, a sharp two-edged sword coming out of the mouth of God.' In another passage, while opposing Marcion, a Gnostic heretic, who disowned several books of the New Testament and altered the rest, he observes, 'We have churches which are the disciples of John. For though Marcion rejects the Revelation, yet the succession of bishops, traced back to the beginning, will assure us that John is the author.' 6 "Thus far we find no indication that the genuineness of the book had ever been doubted in the regular churches; though, among the capricious and whimsical heretics of the Gnostic class, it had sometimes shared the fate of the rest of the New Testament. We now approach the period, however, when it appears to have been, for the first time, called in question by any of the orthodox Christians; and it may be well to take particular notice of the occasion. A gross idea had long prevailed, on the authority of the twentieth chapter of the Revelation, that the saints after being raised from the dead, were to reign with Christ a thousand years upon earth, enjoying all the sensual gratifications which nature could afford. The fanatical sect of Montanists had lately carried this notion to the utmost extravagance, and dwelt upon it as one of their favorite tenets. About A. D. 212, Caius, a Roman presbyter, attacked them; and for the purpose, it would seem, of depriving them of their principal evidence, attributed the Revelation to Cerinthus, a famous Gnostic, contemporary with St. John. Cerinthus,' said he, ' in some Revelations which he wrote in the name of a great apostle, imposes on us monstrous things, which he pretends were shown him by angels, saying that after the resurrection there shall be a terrestrial kingdom of Christ, and that men shall live again in Jerusalem, where they will enjoy sensual delights and pleasures, and spend a thousand years in nuptial entertainments. Such was the ground that Caius took with regard to the author of the Apocalypse. " His unsupported assertion, however, carries its own refutation on its very face. Who can suppose that a book written by the hated Cerinthus, whose name was never uttered by the orthodox Christians but with abhorrence, would, nevertheless, be received by them, and venerated as we have already seen that the Revelation actually was in the early church? If it be said that they never suspected its real origin; whence, then, we would ask, did Caius obtain his knowledge, after more than a century of profound silence? Indeed, his testimony seems to have weighed nothing with his contemporaries, nor with the immediately succeeding fathers, since they continued to quote the book as indisputably St. John's. Hippolytus (about A. D. 220) refers to it in the following significant connection, 'The Gospel and Apocalypse according to John.' The celebrated Origen, though a zealous opposer of the Millennarians, (A. D. 230-250,) received it without an intimation of doubt, and expressly ascribed it to 'John the son of Zebedee,' that is, the apostle. Cyprian (about A. D. 255) reckoned it among the books of sacred Scripture, without, however, designating the author's name. With these notices before us, we cannot mistake the reputation it still continued to maintain in the church, notwithstanding the impeach ment, to all appearance utterly unfounded, which Caius bad brought against it. " But soon after the death of Origen, it was again brought inte question, by a new endeavor to advance the doctrine of the Millennium on its authority. Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, published a very successful work in favor of that tenet, and adduced his proofs from the Apocalypse. The learned Dionysius of Alexandria (about A. D. 260) answered him, and took occasion to make some remarks concerning this book. Certain Christians, he observes, rejected it as the work of the heretic Cerinthus, who acknowledged no happiness except in carnal pleasures;1 but for himself, he durst not renounce it, since it was generally held in veneration. Its meaning, however, appeared to him undiscoverable, though he was persuaded it ought not to be interpreted in the gross literal sense. Nor could he believe that it was written by John the apostle, on account of the dissimilarity of its genius, thoughts, and style, from those of the evangelist; but he was inclined to suppose its author to have been another John, a presbyter, who, according to Papias, lived in Asia cotemporary with the evangelist, and whom he was willing to acknowledge an inspired man. Such was the conjecture of Dionysius. For some time, however, it seems to have made little impression; but the renown of his learning and talents, and his character as one of the principal bishops in Christendom, drew attention at length to his opinion, and gave it an influence which in the next century impaired the credit of the Apocalypse to a very sensible degree. Eusebius (about A. D. 330) hesitated whether to ascribe it to John the apostle, or to John the presbyter. Cyril of Jerusalem (about A. D. 350) seems not to have received it; and the Council of Laodicea (about A. D. 363) did not insert it in the catalogue of canonical books of Scripture. We need not trace its fortune further, but merely observe in general, that while it was rejected 1 Here Dionysius evidently alludes to Caius' rejection of the Apocalypse by some and doubted by others, especially among the Greeks, it was still received by far the larger part of the church. And from the tenor of the foregoing narrative, it will be seen at once that the hesitation which in a few instances arose with regard to its authenticity originated in polemical motives, and ought not therefore to impair in the least the historical evidence afforded by its general reception among the Christians previously to the year 200." 1 From the above it will be perceived that the weight of the historical testimony preponderates greatly in favor of the apostolical origin of the Apocalypse. It seems quite impossible to account for the testimonies quoted from the above-named Christian fathers, without supposing that it is a divine book, and that it was written by the apostle John. In giving the result of the historical testimony, Prof. Stuart says, "If we include in this what the book says of the author, as has been done above, we find a series of testimony and tradition, occasionally called in question, or opposed by few indeed, and but for a little time, until we come down to the latter part of the fourth century. Of the second century, Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Apollonius, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Tertullian, Irenæus, are leading witnesses. In the third, Methodius, Hippolytus, the Epistle of the Romish Clergy to Cyprian in 250, Victorinus Petavionensis, Commodianus, Cyprian, Origen, Nepos, all testify in its favor. In the fourth century, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Epherm Syrus, Athanasius, Didymus of Alexandria, Macarius, the Donatists, the Third Council at Carthage, Prudentius, Hilary, Ambrose, Philastrius, Ruffin, Jerome, Lactantius, Julius Firmicus Maternus, and Augustine, (if we may reckon him here,) all unite in their views in favor of the Apocalypse. Some of the eastern 1 Universalist Expositor, vol. iii., pp. 211-214. bishops, as we have seen, did not include it among the books to be publicly read." The same writer says again, "I would not indeed say, with Sir Isaac Newton, that I do not find any other book of the New Testament which is so strongly established, or which was written so early, (remarks on Revelation ;) but I may say, with Wetstein, that the Apocalypse from the primitive age was well known and received.' There are a number of books admitted into the New Testament canon, in respect to which less positive and less general evidence can be produced in behalf of them, than in favor of the Apocalypse. * * * Indeed, if the claim of the Apocalypse to be of apostolical origin and canonical be not admitted so far as traditionary history is concerned, one must abandon the admission of any New Testament book on this ground."2 III. We pass now to a brief examination of the internal evidence which may be quoted to show that the Apocalypse is of divine authority, and was written by the apostle John. There are certain considerations which are of a preliminary character, and to them we first invite the attention of the reader PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 1. We suppose there can be no doubt that the author of the Apocalypse was a Hebrew. The whole book bears a Hebrew stamp. The style is Hebrew; its allusions, tropes, metaphors, are all Hebrew. It bears as strongly the evidence of being written by a Hebrew as any other book in all the Bible. There are books unquestionably written by Paul, which do not so infallibly bear the Hebrew stamp as this. We esteem it unquestionable, then, that its author was a Hebrew. 2. It is equally unquestionable that he was a Christian. He everywhere confesses his allegiance to the Son of God. He entitles the book "The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave 1 Stuart on the Apocalypse, vol. i., p. 368. 2 Idem, p. 370. |