The length allotted to this article will not allow the writer to notice the terms and phrases sup posed to be peculiar. This can only be done with success by him who takec a concordance to the Greek Testament in his hand, with the determina tion to test each example; along with a good syn tax of classical Greek, such as Bernhardy's. In this way he may see whether the alleged Hebra isms and anomalies have not their parallels in classical Greek.
(5) Doctrinal Views. But it is also affirmed that the doctrinal views and sentiments inculcated in the Apocalypse are quite different from those found in the Gospel. This may be freely allowed without any detriment to their identity of author ship. How slow the Germans are in learning that a difference in the exhibition of truths substan tially the same, is far from being a contradiction! A difference of subject in connection with a differ ent plan, demands correspondent dissimilarity of treatment. Besides, there must be a gradual de velopment of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God on earth. Sensuous expectations of the Messiah, such as are alleged to abound in the Apocalypse, may be perfectly consistent with the spirituality of his reign, though it appears to us that the representations so designated are figura tive, shadowing forth spiritual realities by means of outward objects.
But what is to be said of the pneumatological, demonological, and angelogical doctrines of the book? The object for which John's Gospel was primarily written did not lead Cie apostle to in troduce so many particulars regarding angels and evil spirits. The intervention of good and the malignant influence of evil spirits are clearly im plied in the Old Testament prophets, particularly in Zechariah and Daniel. It is therefore quite ac cordant with the prophetic, Hebraistic character of the Apocalypse, to make angelic agency a promi nent feature in the book. And that such agency is recognized in the Gospels, is apparent to the most cursory reader. The special object with which the fourth Gospel was written was different from that which prompted the composition of the Apocalypse, and therefore the subject matter of both is exceedingly diverse. But still there is no opposition in doctrine. The same doctrinal views lie at the foundation of all the representations contained in them. In the one, the Redeemer is depicted in his humble career on earth; in the other, in his triumphs as a king—or rather, in the victorious progress of his truth in the world, not withstanding all the efforts of Satan and wicked men to suppress it. As to a spirit of revenge in the Apocalyptic writer, it is not found. The in spired prophet was commissioned to pronounce woes and judgments as soon to befall the enemies of Christ, in consequence of their persevering, malignant efforts. As well might an evil disposi tion be attributed to the blessed Savior himself, in consequence of his denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees. The same John who wrote the Apocalypse says, in the second epistle, verse to, 'If there come any unto you and bring not this doc trine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed. It must ever strike the simple
reader of the Apocalypse as a positive ground for attributing the authorship to John the Apostle, that he styles himself THE servant of God by way of eminence, which none other at that time would have ventured to do; and that he employs the expression, I, John, after the manner of Daniel, as if he were the only prophet and person of the name. Nor can it be well believed that a disciple of the apostle, or any other individual, should have presumed to introduce John as the speaker, thus deceiving the readers. The apostle was well known to the Christians of his time, and especially to the Asiatic churches. He did not therefore think it necessary to say John the Apostle for the sake of distinguishing himself from any other. (Sec Ziillig's Die Off enbarung Johannis, Stutt gart, 1834, 8vo. p. 136.) To enter further into the allegations of such critics as deny, on the ground of internal diver sities between this writing and John's acknowl edged productions, that the apostle was the au thor, would be a work of supererogation. Even Eichhorn and l3ertholdt made 'natty good remarks in reply, although they did not take the position which they were warranted to assume.
(6) Weight of Argument in Favor of the Apostle. In view of the whole question, we are disposed to abide by the ancient opinion, that John the Apostle wrote the Apocalypse. Ecclesiastical tradition clearly favors this view ; while the in ternal grounds so carefully drawn out and earn estly urged by recent German critics, do not ap pear sufficiently strong to overturn it. When such grounds are soberly examined, after being divested of all the extravagance with which they are asso ciated; when the nature of the subjects discussed is seen to be such as the fourth Gospel does not present ; an impartial critic will probably rest in the opinion that both writings proceeded from the same author. And yet there are phenomena in the Apocalypse, as compared with John's gospel, which strike the reader's attention and induce suspicions of a different origin. It exhibits pe culiarities of language and of symbols, such as no other book exemplifies. In some respects it is unique. Hence an air of plausibility attaches to the arguments of recent German writers, although it is preposterous to look for a stereotyped uni formity in the writings of the same author. How different are the language and representations that characterize some of Paul's epistles, as com pared with others! Place, for example, the epis tle to the Ephesians by the side of that addressed to the Romans, and how dissimilar are their features! 7. Canonical Authority, Etc. The Alogi or Antimontanists in the second century, ascribed all John's writings, including the Apocalypse, to Cerinthus, as Epiphanius relates. It is obvious that no weight can be attached to these assertions. Caius of Rome, from opposition to Montanism, ventured to make the same statement, as we learn from Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii:28).