ance of this early testimony. See the whole discussed at length in Stuart, pp. 250-254: Lücke, pp. 524-546: Hengstenberg, pp. 101116. I may be permitted to say, that both the last-mentioned Commentators have suffered themselves to be blinded as to the real worth of the evidence by their zeal to serve each his own hypothesis.

34. The Epistle of the churches of Lyons and Vienne to the churches of Asia and Phrygia concerning the persecution which befell them under Marcus Aurelius, A.D. 177, is preserved by Eusebius. The citations in it from the Apocalypse are unmistakeable. In speaking of the martyr Vettius Epagathus, they say," For he was and is a true martyr of Christ, following the Lamb whithersoever He goeth" (Rev. xiv. 4). They account for the rage of the Pagans against the Christians by its being the fulfilment of Rev. xxii. 11, "That the Scripture may be fulfilled,' He that is lawless, let him be lawless still, and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still." They call Christ "the faithful and true Witness," and, "the Firstborn from the dead," expressions manifestly taken from Rev. i. 5, iii. 14.

35. The testimony of Polycrates of Ephesus, in Euseb. H. E. v. 24, concerning the burial of St. John in Ephesus, has been pressed by Hengstenberg into the service of the canonicity of the Apocalypse, but is far too uncertain in meaning to be fairly introduced. See Hengstenberg, pp. 125-129.

36. Cyprian (about 250) repeatedly refers to the Apocalypse, and unhesitatingly treats it as part of Holy Scripture. He says, "chiefly when it is written, Remember whence thou hast fallen and repent,' Rev. ii. 5. He cites the Apocalypse as on a level with the Gospels: "By the trumpet of His Gospel the Lord excites us, saying, 'He that loveth father, &c.' . . . . and again,' Blessed are they that shall be persecuted, &c.' . . . and, 'To him that overcometh will I give to sit upon my throne, &c.,'" Rev. iii. 21. And similarly in several other places, given in my Greek Test.

6

37. Athanasius (died about 373) gives a list of the books of the sacred canon, dividing them into three classes: the first of these being the canonical, which are the sources of salvation: in which only is the true doctrine of religion declared, to which no man can add, and from which none can take away: the second ecclesiastical-such as may be read in the church for edification, but are not inspired: the third, apocryphal, written by heretics, and supposititious. In the first class he places the Apocalypse: and in his writings accordingly he refers to it frequently.

38. In Chrysostom's own works we have no comments on the Apocalypse, nor any distinct references to it as Scripture. That he was

See above, par. 20.

acquainted with it, plainly appears from such passages as that where in speaking of the heavenly city, he says, "Let us then notice its foundations, its gates composed of sapphire and pearls."

Suidas says, "Under the word 'John,' Chrysostom receives his three Epistles, and his Apocalypse."

39. I recur again to Jerome's testimony'. In his letter to Paulinus, he gives the whole sacred canon. And in including the Apocalypse in it, he remarks, "The Apocalypse of John has as many mysteries as words. I have said but little in proportion to the merit of the book. All praise is too little. In every word are hidden manifold wise senses." In his Commentary on Ps. cxlix. he says, "We read in the Apocalypse of John, which is read and received in the churches, for it is not reckoned among the apocryphal books, but among the canonical (ecclesiastical)."

In his Epistle to Dardanus we have the passage cited at length in the Introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, § i. par. 74, which

see.

40. It is hardly worth while to cite later and less important authorities on this side. They will be found enumerated in Stuart, Introduction, p. 276: Davidson, p. 545: and still more at length in Lücke, pp. 638 ff. Of the general tendency of later tradition I shall speak below, parr. 63 ff.

41. I now come to consider those ancient authorities which impugn the apostolicity and canonicity of the book.

42. First among these in point of time, though not of importance, are the Antimontanists or Alogi of the end of the second and beginning of the third century, who rejected the writings of St. John. "Men like these," says Epiphanius, “are not ashamed to be up in arms against the sayings of the holy John, trying whether they cannot overthrow the truth itself; . . . and against the Apocalypse they bring these wanton charges. Then follow their objections against the book, which are entirely of a subjective character: "What is the use to me of the Apocalypse of John, talking about seven angels and seven trumpets ?" and again, "There is no church of Christians in Thyatira. How then could he write to what never existed ?" &c. To these apparently Dionysius of Alexandria, presently to be cited, alludes, when he says, "Some of those before me have set at nought and pulled to pieces the book in every way, examining it through every chapter, and shewing it to be obscure and unintelligible. And they say that the title is false, for it is not John's, and is not even a revelation at all, seeing that it is covered with a heavy and thick cloud of obscurity; and that not only none of the Apostles, but not even of men of the Catholic church, was the writer of the composition; but Cerinthus, who established the heresy called by

7 See above, par. 25.

his name, put the name, wishing to gain credit for his own composition. For that this was a doctrine of his, that the kingdom of Christ should be on this earth: and being himself a gross person and altogether carnal, he denied that future blessedness would consist in things of this kind."

43. I have considered it important to quote this passage at length, as giving an account of the earliest opponents to the authenticity of the Apocalypse, and of the reason of their opposition. These Alogi have been very lightly passed over by Lücke (p. 582) and others, who are not willing that their procession of opponents to the apostolic authorship should be led by persons whose character is so little creditable. But the fair enquirer will not feel at liberty thus to exclude them. They were perhaps more outspoken and thorough, perhaps also less learned and cautious than those who follow: but their motives of opposition were of the same kind; and it is especially to be noted, as a weighty point in the evidence, that, being hostile to the authority of the writings commonly received as those of the Apostle John, they in their time conceived it necessary to destroy the credit of the Apocalypse as well as that of the Gospel.

44. The Roman presbyter Caius, a very learned man according to Eusebius, who lived in the Episcopate of Zephyrinus (i. e. 196—219), wrote a polemical dialogue against the Montanist Proclus, of which a fragment has been preserved by Eusebius speaking out still more plainly, and saying that Cerinthus forged revelations in the name of a great Apostle, and pretended them to have been received from an angel, saying that after the resurrection there would be a kingdom of Christ upon earth, and that the flesh would again dwell in Jerusalem, and be subject to lusts and pleasures: and that he being an enemy to the Scriptures of God, and wishing to deceive men, introduces a thousand years as the term of the marriage festivity.

45. Some have in vain endeavoured to persuade us that some other book is here meant, and not the Apocalypse of John. No such work is to be traced, though we have very full accounts of Cerinthus from Irenæus and Epiphanius: and neither the plural "revelations" (which is also used by Dionysius, as cited below, of our apocalyptic visions), nor the exaggerated account of the earthly Kingdom as promised (see the same in the objections of the Alogi as cited by Dionysius above) can have the least weight in inducing us to concur in such a supposition.

46. When Lücke sets aside Caius in the same category as the Alogi, as having equally little to do with ecclesiastical tradition, we cannot help seeing again the trick of a crafty partisan wishing to get rid of an awkward ally.

47. Undoubtedly the weightiest objector to the canonicity of the Apocalypse in early times is DIONYSIUS, the successor next but one to Origen in the presidency of the catechetical school of Alexandria, and

afterwards bishop of that see (A.D. 247). This worthy scholar of Origen remained ever attached to him, loving and honouring him: and wrote him a letter of consolation when he was thrown into prison in the Decian persecution. This Dionysius, as he himself tells us, had become a believer in the Gospel by a course of free investigation, and unbiassed examination of all known systems: and after his conversion, he remained true to this principle as a Christian and as a public teacher. He read and examined without bias all the writings of heretics, and did not reject them, until he was thoroughly acquainted with them, and was in a situation to confute them with valid arguments. While he was thus employed, one of the presbyters of his church warned him of the harm which his own soul might take by so much contact with their impure doctrines. Of this danger, he says, he was himself too conscious: but while pondering on what had been said to him he was determined in his course by a heavenly vision: and a voice distinctly said to him, "Read every thing that comes into thy hands: for thou art well able to judge and prove them all: indeed such was at the first the source of thine own faith." And, he says, "I received the vision as agreeing with the apostolic saying, which says to the strong, 'Be prudent moneychangers.'

48. The notices left us of Dionysius in the seventh book of Eusebius, entirely correspond with the above. And the judgment which he passes on the Apocalypse is characterized by sound discretion and moderation. I give it at length in the corresponding place in the Prolegomena to my Greek Testament.

49. The general sense of it is, that, while on the one hand he separates himself from those who disparaged the book and ascribed it to Cerinthus, on the other he distinctly repudiates all literal interpretations of it as impossible, and approaches the enquiry with a strong anti-millennial bias. This more especially appears, from a previous chapter of the same book of Eusebius, in which is detailed the proceeding of Dionysius with regard to the schism of Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, of millennial views.

50. With regard to the whole character of Dionysius's criticism, we may make the following remarks:

a) its negative portion rests upon grounds common to him and ourselves, and respecting which a writer in the third century, however much we may admire his free and able treatment of his subject, has no advantage at all over one who writes in the nineteenth. It is as open to us as it was to him, to judge of the phænomena and language of the Apocalypse as compared with the Gospel and Epistles of St. John.

b) the positive result of his argument, if fairly examined, is worth absolutely nothing. The writer to whom he ascribes the book, a second John who is reputed to have lived at Ephesus, is even to himself entirely

unknown: more unknown than Silvanus as a conjectural author of the Epistle to the Hebrews: more unknown than even Aquila. The very existence, in his mind, of the other John, who wrote the Apocalypse, depends on the very shadowy words, "Since they say that there were two tombs in Ephesus, and that each is said to belong to John."

51. And this latter consideration is very important. It shews us that at all events, the idea of John the Presbyter having written the Apocalypse was, in the middle of the third century, wholly unknown to ecclesiastical tradition in the church of Alexandria: or else we should never have found this seeking about and conjecturing on the matter.

52. I shall treat, further on, the question raised by this criticism of Dionysius as to the internal probability of the authorship by the Apostle John. At present I advance with notices of those who impugned or doubted it in ancient times.

53. And of those we next come to Eusebius of Cæsarea, the well-known ecclesiastical historian. His opinion on the question is wavering and undecided. Having asserted the genuineness of St. John's Gospel and First Epistle, and placed the other two Epistles among the disputed books, he proceeds, "But of the Apocalypse the character is among most men even now pulled both ways." But he professes that he will judge it by the testimonies of the ancients. Again in the next chapter, in giving a list of the universally received Scriptures, when he has mentioned the four Gospels and Acts and one Epistle of St. John and one of St. Peter, he says, "To these we may add, if it seem good, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we will give our opinion at the proper time." And a little below, when he is speaking of the spurious books, he says, "And besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem good, which some, as I said, reject, and others number among the books received."

54. In adducing the well-known passage of Papias, "If any one came who had been conversant with the ancients, I enquired of him the sayings of the ancients; what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip, or Thomas, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord, also what Aristion and John the presbyter, the disciples of the Lord, say," he says, "where it is worth while to notice that he twice enumerates the name of John, the former of which persons he ranges with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the Apostles, clearly meaning the Evangelist; but the other John he places with others outside the number of the Apostles, putting Aristion before him: and he plainly calls him presbyter. So that by this is shewn to be true the account of those who say that there were two of this name in Asia, and two tombs in Ephesus, and that each is to this day said to belong to John; and we are obliged to believe these persons. For it is likely that the second, unless any prefer the first, saw the Apocalypse current under the name of John."