η Ιωαννα αποκαλυψις, ει φανείη, ην τινες ως εφην αθετεσιν, ετέροι 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 fo near the time of the Apoftles, and was alfo the fcholar of Polycarp who had heard St. John himself", not only proves the approaching deftruction of the Roman monarchy, the wickedness of

X

One of the most moderate and impartial opponents of the authenticity of the Revelation of St. John is Michaelis, in his Introduction to the New Testament. 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 almoft in his (Irenæus's) own time, by St. John the Apostle; 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 some indifferent perfon; or, whether he received or rejected the book; we know not.

z See above, 143.
a See above, 125.

b See above, 132.

appeals

appeals to the evidence of the communities established by the Apoftles 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 Testament. Jerom, the most learned of the Latin Fathers, is of the fame opinion. He ftates that in his time, the latter part

• 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 strict sense.

actually his meaning, he was without

If this were 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 cuftom of the times. Now as the Romish church even then (and ftill 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'.

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 Tubingen, 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. Semtér, 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 Lateft Hiftory of Religion," Part vii. p. 257, and following pages of the ori ginal.

SECT.

SECT. V.

The true Value and Credit of the Book:

THE foregoing obfervations on its contents and history, lead us to the following decifion on the book of Revelation. It is undoubtedly very old; it was known as early as the beginning of the fecond century after Chrift. But, it may be asked, what led so many and creditable men to receive it as an apoftolical and divine Scripture? To this it may be answered, that its author was called John; and this, as appears probable, was the caufe of its having been placed by thefe men among the divine Scriptures of the New Teftament; they mistook him for the Apostle of the fame name. Who he was, and where he lived, we know not: but the contents of the book clearly evince that he was a Chriftian teacher and a