CHAPTER V.

ON THE REVELATION OF SAINT JOHN THE DIVINE. I. The Genuineness of this book shown, 1. From external evidence; 2. From internal characters.—II. Its date. — III. Occasion and scope.-IV. Synopsis of its contents.-V. Observations on this book.

I. IT is a remarkable circumstance, that the authenticity of this book was very generally, if not universally, acknowledged during the two first centuries, and yet in the third century it 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 criticisin 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 whatever; 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 antient 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

1 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, p. x. et seq. 8vo. edit.

2 Michaelis and Dr. Less.

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 several 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.2

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.3

Polycarp also (A. D. 108.) has cited the Apocalypse once in the only Epistle 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. 17.4 There is likewise strong reason to believe that it was received by Papias, a. D. 116.5

(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.6

Among the works of Melito bishop of Sardis (A. D. 177.), was a commentary 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.8 Irenæus bishop of Lyons in Gaul (A. D. 178), who in his younger days was ac quainted 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.9 To these we may add the undisputed testimonies of Athenagoras,10 Theophilus bishop of Antioch (A. D. 181),11 Apollonius (A. D. 186 or 187),12 Clement of Alexandria,13 and especially of Tertullian, who defends the authenticity of this book against the heretic Marcion and his followers, by asserting its external evidence. He appeals to the Asiatic churches, and assures us that "though Marcion rejects his (John's) Revelation, yet the succession of bishops, traced to its origin, will establish John to be its author." It also appears from another part of his writings that this book was much read and generally received in the African churches of the second century.14

1 Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 62-65.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 311-313.

2 Dr. Woodhouse thinks the evidence from Hermas not satisfactory. Dissertation on the Apocalypse, p. 35. et seq.

3 Ibid. pp. 31-34. The testimony of Ignatius is, we think, most satisfactorily vindicated against the exceptions of Michaelis,

4 Ibid. pp. 36-38.

5 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. 340.

6 Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 126. vol. vi. p. 623.; 4to. vol. i. p. 348. vol. iii. p. 417.

7 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 147, 148.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 359, 360.

8 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 152, 153.; 4to. vol. i. p. 362. Woodhouse, pp. 46-48. 9 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 170.; 4to. vol. i. p. 372. The testimony of Irenæus is vindicated by Dr. Woodhouse, pp. 26-28.

10 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 186.; 4to. vol. i. p. 381.

11 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 200, 201.; 4to. vol. i. p. 389.

12 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.

13 Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 229, 230.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 404, 405.

14 Tertullian adv. Marcion, lib. iv. c. 5. De Monogam, c. 12. See Lardner 8vo. vol. ii. p. 277.; 4to. vol. i. p. 430. Woodhouse, p. 51.

(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 as the work of Saint John, and wrote two books in its defence; one in opposition to Cains, a writer of the second century, who is said to have ascribed the Revelation to Cerinthus, and the other in opposition to the Alogi, who rejected the Gospel of Saint John as spurious. Origen,2 to whose critical labours biblical literature is so deeply indebted, most explicitly acknowledged the Revelation to be the produc tion of St. John, and has 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 satisfactory to know that it was subsequently received by Gregory of Neo-Casarea;3 by Cyprian and the African churches; by the presbyters and others of the Western church; by various Latin authors whose history is abstracted by Dr. Lardner; by the anonymous author of a work against the Novatians; by the Novatians themselves; by Commodian; by Victorinus, who wrote a commentary upon it; by the author of the poem against the Marcionites; by Methodius, who also commented upon it; by the Manicheans; by the later Arnobius; by the Domatists; by Lactantius; and by the Arians.4

(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 Avriλeyousva, or contradicted books.5

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 no one, however desirous he may have been to invalidate the authority of the book, appears to have been able to produce any external evidence which might suit the purpose.

:

It was received, after the time of Eusebius, by the Latin churches, almost without exception. Jerome, the most learned and diligent inquirer of that century, pronounced most positively in its favour; and was followed universally by the fathers of the Western churches and from him we learn the grounds upon which he received the Apocalypse, which he assigns to be "the authority of the antients," that is, external evidence; and he 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 antient 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 Gre gory of Nazianzum."6

1 Lardner, 8vo. vol. 2. p. 412.; 4to. vol. i. p. 502.

2 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 466, 467. 483.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 532, 533. 541.

3 The testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria (a. D. 247) is here designedly omitted. He allowed the Apocalypse to be written by John, a holy and inspired apos tolical man, but not the evangelist John; and he grounded his inference on some supposed differences in style. This subject is considered in pp. 479-481. infra. 4 Lardner, 8vo. vol. vi. p. 629.; 4to. 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, Comment. in Evangelium Joannis, tom. i. pp. 115-124. Pritii Introd. ad Nov. Test. p. 117. et seq.

5 The Apocalypse is omitted in the catalogues of canonical books formed by Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem (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 not owing 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.

6 Woodhouse, pp. 78-84. Lardner, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 630, 631.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 448, 449,

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 authorised 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 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:-3. The coincidence of its style with the uncontested writings of Saint John.

(1.) The Apocalypse corresponds in doctrine and imagery with other books of divine authority.

Though 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 antients 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. 8.2 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 terms; in due time we believe that it will be fulfilled, and in the meantime it must be received as the word of God, though we understand it not. It has also been objected by Dr. Less, that the tri1 Woodhouse, p. 87.

2 We may add also, that the reality of Christ's sufferings is explicitly asserted (Rev. i. 5. v. 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.

umph of the saints, upon the horrid punishment of their enemies (Rev. xix. 1—10. xxii. 8, 9.), is irreconcileable 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 likewise has objected to other passages of the Apocalypse, as containing doctrines 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, acknow ledged 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 apocalyp tical succours, it becomes a noble river, enriching and adorning the Christian land."1

(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 times.

:

"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."2 Compare also the Apocalypse with the apocryphal revelations ascribed to the apostles Peter, Paul, Thomas, and Stephen, some fragments of which are still extant.3 How different are the language, character, and sentiments of these spuri ous 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.4

(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 the same forms of expression occur in the Apocalype as are found in his Gospel and first Epistle, and which are peculiar to this apostle.

From their lists we have selected the following; more might easily be added, if we had room for their insertion

1 Woodhouse, pp. 89-96. 133.

Compare

John xii. 33. xviii. 37. xxi. 19.

2 Ibid. p. 99.

3 In the Codex Pseudepigraphus Novi Testamenti of Fabricius, and Mr. Jeremiah Jones's elaborate work on the New Testament. 4 Woodhouse, p. 100.