APOCALYPSE (from corexceAvvr-rw, I reveal) signifies in general Revelation ; but in particular, the Revelation of St John the Evangelist, or, according to the usual title of this book, the Divine—an appellation given to St John by Eusebius, on account of his superior knowledge of some sublime and mysterious points in divinity.
The learned are far from being agreed as to the date of the Apocalypse. Some authors of great name (Gm tius, Lightfoot, sir I. Newton, Hammond, &c.) have maintained that it was written previously to the destruc tion of Jerusalem. And were we certain that it contains a prophecy of that event, and of the circumstances with which it was accompanied, their opinion could not pos sibly be refuted. But as that is extremely doubtful, their opinion must rest on a different ground. They have, accordingly, had recourse to the evidence of Epi phanius. In this, however, they act a very preposterous part. For while they admit the testimony of Epiphanius, who lived at the end of the fourth century, who is al lowed to be frequently inaccurate in his statements, and in this very case has given but a vague and unsatisfactory account, they at the same time reject the clearest testi mony of antiquity, as communicated by Irenxus, who could not fail to know the current opinion of the second century, and to be perfectly well acquainted with the matter of fact itself. See Vitringa on the Apocalypse, where the inconsistency of Epiphanius is clearly pointed out. See also Lardner's ('red. of the Gosp. Hist. Mill's Proleg. and Wolf. Cur. Philol. tom. v. By these wri ters it seems to be distinctly and conclusively ascertain ed, that the apocalyptical vision took place in the latter part of Domitian's reign, and that the date of the book should be placed in the year 96 or 97.
The canonical authority of the Apocalypse has been disputed by several learned men, among whom are Lu ther and Michaelis. We think, however, that their ar guments arc wholly unfounded ; and that Mr Lowman was right, when he asserted, " that hardly any one book hath received more early, more authentic, or more sa tisfactory attestations." Dr Mill, in his Prolegomena, shews, that, in a very few years after its publication, was numbered among the apostolical writings, and re ceived, as a constituent part of scriptures, by almost all the churches that were at that time in existence. And. as witnesses of its authenticity, we can appeal to all the writers of any consequence during the second and be ginning of the third centuries : to Polycarp, Irenxus. Justin Martyr, Papius, Tertullian, and many others ; while, during the period mentioned, there was not a single father, or ecclesiastical writer, who ever ventured to deny that the Apocalypse was inspired, and that John the Evangelist was its author. About the year 210.
Caius, a presbyter of the church at Rome called it in question, insisting that it was the production of Corin thus ; merely, however, it would appear (see Mill. Pro leg.) to put an end to the controversy about the millen nium, which had occasioned a great deal of heat and controversy among the fathers. About forty years after wards, Dionysius of Alexandria maintained the same opinion, with the same view. His arguments arc to be found in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 7. c. 25. And a learned refutation of them may be seen in Mill. Proleg. 163, et seq. Marcion, also, the Alogi, and other heretics, de nied the divine authority of the Apocalypse ; but the as sertions of such persons cannot have any weight with those who are acquainted with their character and pecu liar tenets. Besides the works already referred to, the reader may consult Twell's Crit. Exam. of the New Test. f..7'e. part III. and especially \Voodhouse's Letters to Marsh on the Evid. for the ?uthent. and Div. Inspir. of the Apoc. in which the objections of Michaelis arc most ably and successfully repelled.
On a general view of the Apocalypse, we may be al lowed to say, that it is intended to predict the future con dition of the Christian church, both in prosperity and in adversity, to the end of the world. But when we endea vour to explain the particular prophecies of which it consists, we find ourselves quite bewildered and per plexed. Of these the ablest divines have differed widely in their interpretations ; and yet most commentators speak as decidedly as if they had the gift of prophecy, and found no difficulty in any part of the subject. They very much resemble the Scottish clergyman mentioned in Dr Moore's Travels, who was continually poring over the Apocalypse, and observed one day to a friend, that other people might read what they pleased, but that for his part he would always read what he understood best. We say this, however, not because we undervalue or would discourage the study of this book, but because dogmatism is both inconsistent with its mysterious na ture, and a great hindrance to the elucidation of its con tents. It is unquestionably very dark, though in many respects it is interesting and instructive. An eloquent preacher has well expressed its character, when he says, " L' Apocalypse qui est un des plus mortifians Ouvrages pour un Esprit avide de C011110;SSALICC et de Lumiere, est un des plus satisfaisans pour on Cceur avide de maximes et de precepts." Serm. de Saur. torn. xii.
There are many other Apocalypses besides that of St John, no fewer, indeed, than eleven or twelve—but they .ire, tor good reasons, excluded from the canon of scrip ture. For a concise account of them see Cahnet's Dict. in verb. and the writers there quoted. (-1-)