(1) Adverse E::ternal Testimony. His statement has given rise to much discussion, some affirming that the revelations spoken of by hint do not mean the present Apocalypse of John, but invented revelations bearing some re semblance to it. \Ve agree with Lucke and De \Vette in their view of the meaning, in opposition to Twells, Paulus, Hartwig, and Hug. They re fer it rightly to our present book. The 85th of the 'Apostolic Canons,' which are supposed to belong to the fourth century, does not mention the Apocalypse among the apostolic writings. In the 'constitutions' also, which probably origi nated in Syria and the adjacent regions, there is no notice of the book. It has been inferred, from the circumstance of the Apocalypse being wanting in the Peshito, that it did not belong to the canon of the Syrian church. It has also been thought that the theologians of the Antiochenian school, among whom are Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, omitted it out of the catalogue of canonical writings. But in re gard to the first, if we rely on the testimony of Suidas, he received the Apocalypse as divine; and as to Theodoret, there is no reason for as suming that he rejected it (Liicke, p. 348). Prob ably Theodore of Mopsuestia did not acknowl edge it as divine. It appears also to have been rejected by the theological school at Nisibis, which may be regarded as a continuation of the Antiochenian. Junilius does not mention it in his list of prophetic writings. Cyril of Jerusalem has omitted it in his Cateclieses; as also Gregory of Nazianzen, and the both canon of the Lao dicean Synod. Amphllochius of Iconium says that some regarded it as a divine production, but that others rejected it. Eusebius testimony re specting the Asiatics is that some rejected the Apocalypse, while others placed it among the acknowledged books. Euthalius, when dividing parts of the New Testament stichoinetrically, says nothing whatever of the book ; and Cosmas In dicopleustes excludes it from the list of the canon ical. In like manner Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century, appears to have placed it among the Antilegornena. The witnesses already quoted to remove the author ship front John the Apostle do not belong here, although many seem to have entertained the opinion of their present appropriateness.
(2) Controversy at the Reformation. At the time of the Reformation, the controversy respect ing the Apocalypse was revived. Erasmus speaks suspiciously concerning it, while Luther expresses himself very vehemently against it. 'There are various and abundant reasons,' says lie, 'why I regard this book as neither apostolical nor pro phetic. First, the apostles do not make use of visions, but prophesy in clear and plain language (as do Peter, Paul, and Christ also, in the Gos pel) ; for it is becoming the apostolic office to speak plainly, and without figure or vision, re specting Christ and his acts. Moreover, it seems to me far too arrogant for him to enjoin it upon his readers to regard this his own work as of more importance than any other sacred book, and to threaten that if any one shall take aught away from it, God will take away from him his part in the book of life (Rev. xxii :19). Besides, even were it a blessed thing to believe what is con tained in it, no man knows what that is. The book is believed in (and is really just the same to us) as though we had it not ; and many more valuable books exist for us to believe in. But let every man think of it as his spirit prompts him. My spirit cannot adapt itself to the production, and this is reason enough for me why I should not esteem it very highly.' This reasoning is manifestly so inconsequential, and the style of criticism so bold, as to render animadversion un necessary. The names of Haffenreffer, Hecr brand, and John Schroder are obscure, but they are all ranged against the book. With Semler a new opposition to it began. That distinguished critic was unfavorable to its authenticity. He was followed by Oeder, Merkel, Michaelis, Hein richs, Ewald, De \Vette, Schott, Bleek, Liicke, Neander, Credner, E. Reuss, Hit zig, Tinius, etc. It should, however, be dis tinctly observed, that most of these recent critics go no farther than to deny that John the Apostle was the writer ; which may certainly be done without impugning its indirectly apostolic author ity. They do not exclude it from the canon as a divinely inspired writing; although in attacking its direct apostolicity, some may imagine that they ruin its canonical credit.
8. Direct Argument for Canonicity. (1) Early Witnesses. \Ve shall now allude to the evidence in favor of its canonicity. The earliest witness for it is Papias, as we learn from An dreas and Arethas of Cappadocia, in their preface to Commentaries on the Apocalypse. According to these writers, Papias regarded it as an inspired book. It is true that Rettig (Studien and Kriti ken, 183t). followed by Lucke, has endeavored to weaken their testimony; but since the publication by Cramer, of an old scholion relating to the words of Andreas, it is indubitable that Papias's language refers to the present Apocalypse of John aliivernick's Lucubrationcs Critica. ad Apoc.
spcctantcs, Regiom. 1842, 8vo. No. I, p. 4, sq.). (a) Melito, Bishop of Sardis, one of the seven apocalyptic churches, wrote a work exclusively on this book. Eusebius thus speaks of his pro
duction (Hist. Eccles. iv :26) ; and concerning the devil and the apocalypse of Jahn. From these words Semler endeavors to show that the books concerning the devil and the Apocalypse were one and the same, a conclusion which, if it were valid, would go to weaken the testimony. But Melito calls it the Apocalypse of John, implying that he regarded it as such; for had he suspected the book, Eusebius would hardly have omitted that circumstance. (b) Jerome, in his catalogue of illustrious men, explicitly distinguishes two works, one respecting the devil, the other relative to the Apocalypse. (c) Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch (Euseb. iv :24), in his book against Her mogenes, drew many proofs and arguments from the Revelation ; so also Apollonius of Ephesus, according to the same ecclesiastical historian (verse 18). (d) The testimony of Irenmus is most important, because he was in early life ac quainted with Polycarp, who was John's disciple, and because he resided in Asia Minor, where John himself abode during the latter part of his life. In one place he says: 'It was seen no long time ago, but almost in our age, towards the end of Domitian's reign ;' while he frequently quotes it elsewhere as the Revelation of John, the dis ciple of the Lord. It is true that De Wette and Credner seek to cast suspicion on this father's testimony, because he states that it was written under Domitian, which they regard as incorrect; but this point shall be noticed hereafter. (e) To these may be added the testimony of the martyrs at Lyons, of Nepos (Euseb. vii :23), Methodius of Tyre, Didymus of Alexandria, Cyprian, Lac tantius, Augustine, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Jerome, Ephrem the Syr ian, Rufinus the presbyter, Isidore of Pelusium, Hilary of Poictou, Cyril of Alexandria. Arethas and Andreas of Cappadocia, and also of the Synod of Hippo, A. D. 393, canon 36, the Synod of To ledo, A. D. 633, the third council of Carthage, A. D. 397, Victorin of Pettaw in Pannonia, Dionysius the Areopagite, Sulpicius Severus, Joh. Damasce nes, CEcumenius, Amphilochius, Novatus and his followers, the Manichees, the Donatists, the Arians, the latter Arnobius, Rhaban Maurus, Isi dore of Spain, Commodian, and others. (f) It has been disputed whether Chrysostom rejected the book or not. The presumption is in favor of the latter, as Liicke candidly allows. A similar pre sumption may be admitted in the case of Theo doret, although nothing very decisive can be af firmed in relation to his opinion. Perhaps some may be inclined to dispute the testimony of Jerome in favor of the canonical authority, because he says in his annotations on the 149th Psalm, 'The Apocalypse which is read and received in the churches is not numbered among the apocryphal books, but the ecclesiastical.' In the strict sense of the term,' says Hug, 'an eccicsiastica scriptura is a book of only secondary rank. It is well known that a contemporary of Jerome divides the books of the Old and New Testament, together with those which make any pretensions to be such, into canonici, ecclesiastici, et apocryphi. Now if Jerome affixed the same meaning as this writer to the expression liber ecclesiasticus, we have here a very singular fact. (g) The Latins then placed this book in the second class among the disputed books. Thus it will have been as signed to each of the three classes. But Jerome does not attach to this word the strict significa tion which it bears with his contemporary ; for, in his Epistle to Dardanus, he says, "If the Latins do not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews among the canonical Scriptures, so, with equal freedom, the Greek churches do not receive John's Apoc alypse. I, however, acknowledge both, for I du not follow the custom of the times, but the au thority of older writers, who draw arguments from both, as being canonical and ecclesiastical writings, and not merely as apocryphal books are sometimes used." Here Jerome has so expressed himself, that we must believe he made no differ ence between canonical and ecclesiastical, and af fixed no stronger signification to the one than to the other' (Hug's Introd., translated by Fosdick, pp. 661-2). (h) It is also necessary to attend to the testimony of Ephrem definitely ascribing the Revelation to John, the Theologian, in connection with the fact of the book's absence from the Peshito, and from Ebedjesu's catalogue of the books of Scripture received by the Syrians. Cer tainly its absence from this ancient version does not prove its want of canonicity; else the same might be affirmed of John's two epistles, and that of Jude, none of which is found in the same ver sion. Probably the Peshito was made, not, as Lucke and others affirm, at the conclusion of the second or commencement of the third century, but in the first, before the Apocalypse was writ ten. (i) That the Syrian church did not reject the book may be inferred from the fact that the inscription of the current Syriac version assigns it to John the Evangelist. The witnesses already adduced for ascribing the authorship to John the Apostle also belong to the present place, since in attesting the apostolic, they equally uphold the divine origin of the book.