Tertullian uses it as an apostolic one, showing that Africa participated in the historical tradition which prevailed in other countries.
But the want of one witness during the ad cen tury appears suspicious at first sight—viz., the Syriac translation of the N. T. The Apocalypse is absent from the Peshito. Nor did this old ver sion admit the book afterwards ; though scholars in the Syrian church subsequently put it on a level with the other parts of the N. T. ; and another Syriac translation of the Apocalypse was made, which was never thought to be equal in authority to what the Peshito would have been considered had the latter existed. It is true that Hug and others suppose the Peshito to have had the book at first ; but this is incorrect. How, then, is the exclusion of the Apocalypse from this very ancient version to be accounted for ? Perhaps by this, that at the commencement of the 2d century when the Peshito was made, the Apocalypse had not found its way to Edessa, the birth-place of the version. It is certain that Theophilus of Antioch, at the end of the same century, accepted the book as apo stolic. In the 2d century, also, the Alogi ascribed the Apocalypse, as well as the other writings of John, to Cerinthus. Caius of Rome, from oppo sition to Montanism, ventured to make the same statement ; as a fragment of Proclus's, preserved by Eusebius, asserts : But Cerinthus, by means of revelations, which he pretended were written by a great apostle, falsely introduces wonderful things to us, as if they were showed to him by angels,'* etc. This passage has given rise to discussion ; some affirming that the revelations spoken of do not mean the present Apocalypse, but forged reve lations as a counterpart to it. We agree with Liicke, in opposition to Paulus and Hug, in refer ring it to the Apocalypse, not to fictitious revela tions.
Marcion and his followers excluded the book from their canon, and therefore they rejected its apostolic authorship. This arose from their pecu liar tenets, and is of no weight as evidence.
When we pass to the 3d century, the evidence for the apostolic authority of the book is most favourable. Clement of Alexandria ascribed it to John ; as did also Origen, notwithstanding his op position to millennarianism. Cyprian, Lactantius, and Methodius were of the same opinion. And Hippolytus of Ostia probably wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse directed against the Delontanists. But critical doubts began with Dionysius of Alex andria, owing, as it would seem, to doctrinal dis putes with the millennarian adherents of Nepos. This Father ascribed the work to John the pres byter, not to the apostle. His testimony has been so often and so muds insisted on, that it is necessary to adduce it at length. Some who were before us have utterly rejected and confuted this book, criticising every chapter, showing it to be throughout unintelligible and inconsistent ; adding, moreover, that the inscription is false, forasmuch as it is not John's ; nor is it a reve lation which is hidden under so obscure and thick a veil of ignorance ; and that not only no apostle, but not so much as any holy or ecclesiastical man was the author of this writing ; but that Cerinthus, founder of the heresy called after him Cerinthian, the better to recommend his own forgery, prefixed to it an honourable name. For this (they say) was one of his particular notions, that the kingdom of Christ should he earthly ; consisting of those things which he himself, a carnal and sensual man, most admired,—the pleasures of the belly and of con cupiscence ; that is, eating and drinking and mar riage ; and for the more decent procurement of these, feastings, and sacrifices, and slaughters of victims. But for my part, I dare not reject the book, since many of the brethren have it in high esteem ; but allowing it to be above my under standing, I suppose it to contain throughout some latent and wonderful meaning ; for though I do not understand it, I suspect there must be some profound sense in the words ; not measuring and judging these things by my own reason, but ascrib ing more to faith, I esteem them too sublime to be comprehended by me. Nor do I condemn what I have not been able to understand ; but I admire the more, because they are above my reach. . . . And having finished in a manner his prophecy, the prophet pronounceth those blessed that keep it, and also himself. For blessed is every one,' says he, that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book ; and I John, who saw and heard these things' (Rev. xxii. 7, 8). I do not deny then that his name is John, and that this is John's book, for I acknowledge it to be the work of some holy and divinely inspired person. Nevertheless, I cannot easily grant him to be the apostle the son of Zebe dee, brother of James, whose is the Gospel in scribed according to John, and the Catholic epistle ; for I conclude, from the manner of each, and the turn of expression, and from the conduct (or dis position) of the book, as we call it, that he is not the same person. For the Evangelist nowhere puts down his name, nor does he speak of himself either in the gospel or in the epistle.' Then a little after he says again : John nowhere speaks as con cerning himself nor as concerning another. But he who wrote the Revelation, immediately at the very beginning prefixeth his name : the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass. And he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John, who bare record of the word of God, and his testimony, the things which he saw' (Rev. i. 1, 2). And then he writes an epistle, John unto the seven churches in Asia. Grace be unto you and peace' (ver. 4). But the Evangelist has not prefixed his name, no, not to his catholic epistle ; but without any circumlocution begins with the mystery itself of the divine revelation, that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes' (1 John i. t). And for the like revelation the Lord pro
nounced Peter blessed, saying, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona ; for flesh and blood has not re vealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven' (Matt. xvi. 17). Nor yet in the second or third epistle ascribed to John, though, indeed, they are but short epistles, is the name of John prefixed ; for without any name he is called the elder. But this other person thought it not sufficient to name himself once and then proceed, but he repeats it again, 'I, John, who am your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle called Pat mos for the testimony of Jesus' (Rev. i. 9). And at the end he says, Blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book ; and I, John, who saw and heard these things' (ch. xxii. 7, 8). Therefore, that it was John who wrote these things, ought to be believed because he says so. But who he was is uncertain ; for he has not said, as in the gospel often, that he is the disciple whom the Lord loved ;' that he is he who leaned on his breast ;' nor the brother of James ; nor that he is one of them who saw and heard the Lord : whereas he would have mentioned some of these things if he had intended plainly to discover himself. Of these things he says not a word ; but he calls him self our brother and companion, and witness of Jesus,' and blessed,' because he saw and heard those revelations. And I suppose there were many of the same name with John the apostle, who for the love they bore to him, and because they admired and emulated him, and were ambitious of being beloved of the Lord like him, were desirous of having the same name : even as many also of the children of the faithful are called by the names of Paul and Peter. There is another John in the Acts of the Apostles, surnamed Mark, whom Paul and Barnabas took for their companion : concern ing whom it is again said, and they had John 1 for their minister' (Acts xiii. 5). But that he is the person who wrote this book, I would not affirm. But I think that he is another, one of them that belong to Asia ; since it is said that there are two tombs at Ephesus, each of them called John's tomb. And from the sentiments and words, and disposition of them, it is likely that he is different (from him that wrote the gospel and epistle). For the gospel and epistle have a mutual agreement, and begin alike. The one says, In the beginning was the word ;' the other, That which was from the beginning.' The former says, And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father.' The latter has the same with a slight variation : That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life. For the life was manifested.' He is uniform through out, and wanders not in the least from the points he proposed to himself, but prosecutes them in the same chapters and words, some of which we shall briefly observe : for whoever reads with attention will often find in both life ;' frequently ' light,' the avoiding of darkness;' oftentimes truth, grace, joy, the flesh and the blood of the Lord : judgment, forgiveness of sins, the love of God toward us, the commandment of love one toward another ; the judgment of this world, of the devil of antichrist • the promise of the Holy Spirit, the adoption of the sons of God, the faith constantly required of us, the Father and the Son,' every where. And, in short, throughout the gospel and epistle it is easy to observe one and the same char acter. But the Revelation is quite different and foreign from these, without any affinity or resem blance, not having so much as a syllable in com mon with them. Nor does the epistle (for I do not here insist on the gospel) mention or give any hint of the Revelation, nor the Revelation of the epistle. And yet Paul, in his epistles, has made some mention of his Revelations, though he never wrote them in a separate book. Besides, it is easy to observe the difference of the style of the gospel and the epistle from that of the Revelation ; for they are not only written correctly, according to the propriety of the Greek tongue, but with great elegance of phrase and argument, and the whole contexture of the discourse. So far are they from all barbarism or solecism, or idiotism of language, that nothing of the kind is to be found in them ; for he, as it seems, had each of those gifts, the Lord having bestowed upon him both these, know ledge and eloquence. As to the other, I will not deny that he saw the Revelation, or that he had received the gift of knowledge and prophecy. But I do not perceive in him an accurate acquaintance with the Greek language ; on the contrary, he uses barbarous idioms, and some solecisms, which it is necessary that I should now show particularly, for I do not write by way of ridicule ; let none think so. I simply intend to represent in a critical man ner the difference of these pieces.' Thus Dionysius bases his opinion on internal grounds—on style, language, and characteristic peculiarities—arguing from the differences of the fourth gospel and first epistle general of John, that the same person could not have written the Apocalypse also. His reasoning has a subjective value merely ; and is valid on the assumption that the gospel and first epistle proceeded from the apostle. But it has no worth as an independent historical testimony ; because it contradicts the cur rent of ecclesiastical tradition. When Dionysius appeals to some of his predecessors who utterly re jected the book, and thought that it should be excluded from the canon, he could only have alluded to the few who looked upon the production as the work of Cerinthus—to Gains, the Alogi, and other Antimontanists.