"Of the determinately and clearly". "Revelation," fays he, "the majority are even yet" (after all the inquiries that had been then made)" ftill in "doubt;" that is, they referved to themselves all decifive opinion on it, fince they knew not whether they should confider the book as genuine or fpurious. "Therefore," fays he, "he "who choofes, may place the Apocalypfe among the Homologoumena" (the univerfally acknowledged). For at that time the book had many zealous fupporters, who afferted its authenticity to be incontrovertible. Eufebius would not deprive thofe perfons of their opinion, but nevertheless reminds them, that it was contradictory to hiftory, for fome of the ancients had actually pronounced it spurious. (ETI TE P Hift. Ecclef. III. 24, 25, and 39. . III. 25. p. 119. See above, p. 159. Η Ιωαννα η Ιωάννα αποκαλυψις, ει φανείη, ην τινες ως εφην αθετεσιν, ετεροι δε εγκρίνεσι τοις ομο λογεμένοις.) Juftin Such are the evidences against the authenticity of this book, with which its divinity is infeparably connected. On the other fide, it is fupported by men of equal confequence. Martyr", in the paffage quoted above, to prove the doctrine of a Millennium, appeals to the Revelation of St. John the Apoftle. Irenæus, who lived for near the time of the Apoftles, and was also the scholar of Polycarp who had heard St. John himfelf", not only proves* the approaching deftruction of the Roman monarchy, the wickedness of t One of the most moderate and impartial opponent's of the authenticity of the Revelation of St. John is Michaelis, in his Introduction to the New Teftament. See the very learned and very accurate Mr, Marsh's tranf. vol. iv. p. 461. u See above, p. 103. w See above, p. 112. * Adverf. Hæref. V. 26-end, Antichrift, and the doctrine of a Millennium, from the Apocalypfe, but alfo exprefsly afferts, that it was written almost in his (Irenæus's) own time, by St. John the Apoftle; and appeals to manufcripts of this book, which were ancient and might be relied on, and which he had feen". Theophilus of Antioch, in one of his works now loft, had refuted erroneous doctrines by authorities from the Revelation of St. John; confequently, he thought it of divine infpiration. Clement of Alexandria likewife places it among the genuine and divine Scriptures. Tertullian, in proof of its divinity, y We cannot place Melito (fee above, p. 138) among the evidences, for we only know, that he had written a book on the Revelation of John. See above, p. 139. But what the tenor of his book was; whether he held this John to be the Apostle, or fome indifferent perfon; or, whether he received or rejected the book i we know not. z See above, 143. a See above, 125. See above, 132. appeals appeals to the evidence of the communities established by the Apostles themselves. And an authority of the greatest weight, Origen, the most learned of all the Chriftian teachers; who had fcrutinized the New Teftament on true principles of criticism; and who was an enemy to the doctrine of a Millennium, he places the Revelation more than once among the writings of St. John the Apoftle, and among the divine books of the New Teftament. Jerom, the most learned of the Latin Fathers, is of the fame opinion. He ftates that in his time, the latter part e See above, p. 155 f. He appears to affert even, that not a fingle one of the ancients had doubted its genuineness. (See above, p. 160. Note 1). But among the ancients, and especially among the fathers, we must not expect perfect logical precifion; confequently, we must not take the expreffion of Origen in its ftrict fenfe. If this were actually his meaning, he was without doubt in an error, as is proved by the information of Dyonyfius and Eufebius. Ep. ad Dardanum. of the fourth century, the Greek church rejected indeed this book, which was received by the Latin; but that he nevertheless efteemed it divine, because he relied rather on the credit of antiquity than on the custom of the times. Now as the Romish church even then (and still more fince the fixth century), had begun to be confidered the oracle of Chriftians, from that time therefore until the Reformation, the divinity of the Apocalypfe has fcarcely ever been further called in question', f See Lardner's Supplement, vol. iii. p. 356-364. of the first edition.-As well in refpect of learning, as alfo of impartiality, the late Chancellor Reufs of Tubiugen, and his fon in-law, Dr. Storr, are among the moft confiderable defenders of the Apocalypfe: the former, in his 'Defence of the Revelation of St. John, in anfwer to the objections of Dr. Semler, 1772, 8vo.; and the latter, in the New Apology for the Revelation of St. John,' Tubingen, 1783, in 8vo.The hiftory of the modern controverfies on this fubject may be feen, in Walch's Latest Hittory of Religion,' Part vii. p. 257, and following pages of the original, SECT. |