THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 2 . 2 . & 
 
 -S + Sa 
 
 V.\ 
 

 
 
 
 Return this book on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 University of Illinois Library 
 
 DHC 3 - 1958 
 
 HSR ~l 13 
 
 67 
 
 
 ' JUL 0 8 * 
 
 185 
 
 
 00 
 
 § 
 
 985 
 
 
 
 
 
 MAR 2 7| 
 
 wr 
 
 
 atti» 
 
 m 
 
 
 <JUL3: 
 
 L 2007 
 
 
 
 
 L161 — H41 
 
 - . 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 
 ' 
 
 https://archive.org/details/commentaryonapoc01 stuajP 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A 
 
 COMMENTARY 
 
 * V • - t 
 
 ON 
 
 HE APOCALYPS 
 
 BY 
 
 MOSES STUART, 
 
 PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 AT ANDOVER, MASS. 
 
 VOLUME I. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 WILEY AND PUTNAM. 
 1845 . 
 
[COPV-RIGHT SECURED.] 
 
a a- s 
 
 y & 
 
 . v-i 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 That the Apocalypse is a book replete with difficulties, not only for the 
 common reader but also for the critic and interpreter, no one will deny 
 who has earnestly applied himself to the study of it. The sources of dif- 
 ficulty, in respect to the prophetic part of it, are obvious, and may easily be 
 stated. The book is made up of one continued series of symbols, unac- 
 companied for the most part by such plain and explicit declarations with 
 regard to their meaning, as are generally to be found in like cases among 
 the prophetic writings of the Old Testament. The original and intelligent 
 readers of this book, beyond all reasonable doubt, could understand the 
 meaning of the writer ; else why should he address his work to them ? 
 Their acquaintance with the circle of things in which he moved, and their 
 familiarity with the objects to which he refers, superseded the use of all the 
 critical apparatus which we must now employ. 
 
 Not long, however, after the death of John, the Apocalypse appears to 
 have been regarded as a wonderful and mysterious book, and to have given 
 occasion to many strange and very discrepant interpretations. From that 
 time down to the present, a similar state of things has existed in regard to 
 the exposition of this work. And even with all the light which recent crit- 
 ical study has thrown upon the Scriptures in general, there yet remains, as 
 is generally confessed, not a little of obscurity resting upon the Apocalypse. 
 
 Must this state of things always continue ? This is a question of great 
 interest to those, who believe that the Apocalypse rightfully belongs to the 
 Canon of Scripture. Hitherto, scarcely any two original and independent 
 expositors have been agreed, in respect to some points very important in 
 their bearing upon the interpretation of the book. So long as the Apoca- 
 lypse is regarded principally as an epitome of civil and ecclesiastical his- 
 tory, this must continue to be the case. Different minds will make the ap- 
 plication of apocalyptic prophecies to different series of events, because 
 there is something in each to which more or less of these prophecies is 
 seemingly applicable. Such has always been the case, in past times, when- 
 ever this method of interpretation has been followed ; and why should any- 
 thing different from this be expected for the future ? The consequence 
 however has of course been, to create a kind of general distrust in the pub- 
 lic mind, with regard to every effort made in order to explain the book in 
 question. At a period somewhat early, the Apocalypse was excepted by 
 
iv 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 some of the churches from the Canon of books to*be publicly read for edi- 
 fication. And even after this exclusion ceased, it was still practically ab- 
 stained from, or disregarded, by the great mass of Christians, from a con- 
 sciousness that they were unable with any certainty to discover its true 
 .meaning, and from want of confidence in the expositions of it which had 
 already been given. 
 
 Such, I regret to say, is still the state *of things extensively, with regard 
 to the book of Revelation. Practically , the prophetic parts of it are almost, 
 if not entirely, excluded from the Scriptures. In spite of all which those 
 recent interpreters have done, who find in it an epitomized civil and eccle- 
 siastical history of ages remote from the time when it was written, confi- 
 dence in their expositions has been, and is, generally withheld. As it seems 
 to me, it must still continue to be withheld, so long as this method of in- 
 terpretation is pursued. 
 
 But is it necessary that this method should be still pursued, and thus the 
 book be virtually lost to the churches ? I would hope not. The Apoca- 
 lypse certainly breathes a precious, yea a most noble Christian spirit. In- 
 deed there are few, if any, of the books in the New Testament, which are 
 better adapted to animate and foster the spirit of primitive Christianity than 
 this, when it is rightly understood. It is the belief of this, which has indu- 
 ced me to bestow so much time and pains as the present work has cost me, 
 upon the exposition of it, 
 
 The ground on which I stand, or at least on which I aim to stand, is the 
 same that I would occupy, in case I should endeavour to prepare myself 
 for the interpretation of any or all other books of Scripture. I take it for 
 granted, that the writer had a present and immediate object in view, when 
 he wrote the book ; and of course I must regard him as having spoken in- 
 telligibly to those whom he addressed. In order to find out his meaning, I 
 have endeavoured to resort, as I would in all other cases, to the idiom ; to 
 the times in which the author lived ; to the events then passing or speedily 
 about to take place ; to the circumstances in which he and his readers were 
 placed, and which called forth his work ; to the adaptation of the book to 
 these circumstances ; and (in a word) to all that is local and belongs to the 
 times in which it was written, whether it be peculiarities in the mode of 
 expression, thought, reasoning, or feeling, or anything else which would in- 
 fluence an author’s style or manner of arranging his composition. My aim 
 has been to abide by this method of interpretation, throughout the work. 
 At the same time I have never forgotten, that the author is virtually a poet 
 and also a prophet ; for my belief is, that he is truly both, and therefore I 
 have aimed never to lose sight of either character. If now these principles 
 of interpretation, which I have admitted, and by which I have invariably 
 designed to be guided — principles from which no one can swerve without 
 the certainty of erring — if these are not right and just and well established, 
 
preface: 
 
 V 
 
 then I have only to say, that I have hitherto wholly mistaken the science of 
 interpretation, and have yet to learn its first aiid ^ constituent elements. 
 
 I am aware that such as have become attached to the methods of inter- 
 preting the Apocalypse that are most current in the English and American 
 churches, will probably, at least at first view, disagree with some of my re-; , 
 suits. I will not fifcd fault with them for this; but they will allow me tor' 
 entreat them to have patience with' me, and not to decide at once on diffi- 
 cult points, but to make the book of the Revelation a subject of thorough 
 and often repeated study. My own views, I mean such as I once had, have 
 been changed by such a course. When I began my official duties in my 
 present station, I had no other knowledge of the book, than what the read- 
 ing of bishop Newton on the Prophecies, and of others who were of the 
 like cast, had imparted to me. The Classes of Pupils under my instruction 
 soon began to importune me to give them some information respecting the 
 Apocalypse. I commenced the study of it, with a design to comply with 
 their request. I soon found myself, however, in pursuing the way of regu- 
 lar interpretation as applied to other books of Scripture, completely hedged 
 in ; and I felt at the same time that to pursue my former method of inter- 
 preting the book, would cast me inevitably upon the boundless ocean of 
 mere conjectural exposition. I frankly told my Pupils, therefore, that I knew 
 nothing respecting the book which could profit them, and that I could not 
 attempt to lecture upon it. After still further examination, I came to are- 
 solution, not to attempt the exegesis of the Apocalypse, until a period of ten 
 years had elapsed, which should be devoted, so far as my other duties would 
 permit, to the study of the Hebrew prophets. I kept my resolution. After 
 this period had passed, I began, with much caution, to say a few things, in 
 the Lecture-room, respecting the book in question. Every three years, 
 these Lectures, such as they were, I repeated, with some additions and al- 
 terations. In process of time I began to go through* the whole book. This 
 I have done several times ; and the present work is the result of these often 
 repeated and long continued labours. 
 
 I do not give this history of my undertaking, with a view to recommend 
 my work to the confidence of the Christian public. It must stand or fall 
 by its own merits. What I have now said, has been said rather in the way 
 of apology for having engaged in an undertaking so hazardous as that of 
 writing and publishing a Commentary on the Revelation. I have been led 
 along step by step to my present position, without having originally designed 
 to publish anything at all concerning the Apocalypse. 
 
 It will naturally be expected that I should state a few things, in regard to 
 the plan and manner of my work. 
 
 Most of the Introduction, although arranged first in order, and first 
 printed, was composed after the Commentary was completed. An obvious 
 reason for this, was the necessity of the knowledge acquired by exegesis, in 
 order to compose with any propriety the introductory part of the work. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Vl 
 
 My reasons for saying so much as I have respecting apochryphal Apoca- 
 lypses, are given in their appropriate place, and I hope they may satisfy my 
 readers. The value of these auxiliaries to exegesis and illustration, cannot 
 well be over-estimated. 
 
 By far the r severest task which 1 have had to perform, has been that of 
 discussing the objections against the apostolic origin lof the Revelation, 
 drawn from the style, manner, and diction of the book, and from the doc- 
 trines which it contains. This has cost me more time and labour than the 
 composition of the whole commentary. To state particularly the grounds 
 and reasons of this, would be inapposite here. I will merely say, that those 
 who have never performed such a task, cannot well have any adequate con- 
 ception of it. It is literally true, that in some cases the results of a month’s 
 labour, or even more, occupy only a page or two, as exhibited by me. How- 
 ever, there is some comfort in the reflection, that what is established by 
 appeal to facts, cannot well or speedily be overthrown. Q| 
 
 My design has been to compose a work which should aid, in a particu- 
 lar manner, the young interpreter, and also that class of readers, who, al- 
 though more advanced in life, have not enjoyed the requisite facilities and 
 advantages for the more thorough exegetical study of the Scriptures. On 
 this ground I have not felt at liberty to imitate the extreme brevity and 
 compression of some distinguished recent interpreters in Germany ; e. g. 
 De Wette in his Exegetical Manual for the JY. Testament, and Knobel in his 
 Exegetical Manual for Isaiah. Such books are designed mainly for those 
 already well versed in the business of interpretation. They are very ap- 
 propriate and desirable in their place, and within the sphere in which they 
 are intended to circulate. But much of my design, in the present case, 
 would have been defeated by such a method of composition. I have sought 
 to aid the learner, by laying before him, and explaining, so far as in my 
 power, grammatical phenomena of every kind, peculiarities of idiom, pe- 
 culiar views entertained in ancient times and specially by the Hebrew na- 
 tion, and generally whatever might contribute to lead him to a right and 
 full understanding of the author. On this ground, I have occasionally ad- 
 mitted into the body of the commentary, discussions or monograms on 
 subjects particularly obscure and difficult, e. g. on the two witnesses, Rev. 
 11:3 ; on Gog and Magog, 20: 8, etc. In other cases, where more ample 
 space and time were requisite for discussion in order to illustrate or con- 
 firm anything which the text presents to view or to which it adverts, I have 
 remitted the discussion to the end of the volume, and have thrown it there 
 into the form of an Excursus. If I am not misled by my own views and 
 judgment, most readers will feel as much interest in the discussions which 
 the Excursus exhibit, as they will in anything of mine which is contained 
 in the body of the work itself. It is impossible to do any adequate justice 
 to such a difficult book as the Apocalypse, without pursuing a course sub- 
 stantially like to this. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 VI 1 
 
 I have referred to my N. Test. Grammar, for the most part, in cases of 
 idiom and grammatical analysis. No merely classic Grammar, however 
 good, could answer my purpose ; and I have referred to my grammar of the 
 N. Testament idiom because I have supposed it to be more generally in 
 the possession of the readers of my present work, than any other. I have 
 no design of supporting myself in the Commentary, by my own authority in 
 the Grammar. The latter rests not on my authority, but on the basis of 
 N. Testament philology. The importance of explaining satisfactorily all 
 grammatical phenomena , I need not insist upon. 
 
 I do not know that the ideal of a commentary has, as yet, been proposed 
 and shown to have supreme and exclusive claims. All are willing to allow, 
 that there should be a difference between a popular commentary, and one 
 for literary readers. All should allow, that there may also be a difference 
 in the form and manner of such a work, when it is designed for the young 
 and comparatively inexperienced reader — inexperienced (I mean) in the 
 matter of sacred exegesis — and when it is intended only for readers of the 
 highest class. These last are better pleased with abridged and compressed 
 notes, and profited most by them in the main. But who has yet drawn the 
 boundaries, and shown how far a commentator should go, in the way not 
 only of vindicating his author, but of showing his conformity with other 
 sacred writers, and with the principles of Christian doctrine in general ? 
 Different men will decide very diversely on this point. A mere technical 
 interpreter will maintain with great earnestness, that all he has to do, is 
 simply to show what his author means, and not whether he agrees or dis- 
 agrees with others, nor whether he is in the right or the wrong. This is 
 true or not true, according to the construction put upon such a declaration. 
 Without pretending to decide the question in regard to the ideal of a per- 
 fect commentary, and without any design to speak lightly of views that 
 differ from my own, I think I may safely say, that the simple grammatico- 
 historical exegesis of an author is the great and leading business of an in- 
 terpreter — an indispensable condition in the performance of his proper 
 task. In other words, without performing this part of his task, he has no 
 fair claim to the title of a proper exegete. But what hinders one who de- 
 sires to render his work more interesting and useful than the mere perfor- 
 mance of such a task would do, from throwing into his composition re- 
 marks and considerations of an aesthetical or of a theological character ? 
 Is it not the proper business of a Christian interpreter, to point out the 
 true nature of Christian doctrine, as exhibited by his author, its harmony 
 with other scriptural writings, and its importance ? Should he not cast all 
 the light he can, on every subject pertaining to archaeology which will aid 
 the reader to understand the scriptural author on whom he comments ? I 
 do not acknowledge any demand on me — none founded on good reason — 
 to lose sight of aesthetics, theology, and everything else which is interesting, 
 in the mere pursuit of verbal emanation. A book written in such a spirit, 
 
Vlll 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 would be a very dry book to me, and promise to be of little profit to most read- 
 ers. I have aimed at another method of writing commentary ; and in this, 
 I have done to others, what I wish them to do to me. Those who have a 
 different taste, are in a land of liberty, and therefore may go their own 
 way ; why should they not let me go mine ? 
 
 Most heartily do I assent to the proposition, that party-feelings and party 
 theology should not be introduced into a commentary. I will not say that I 
 am wholly free from this blemish ; for others must judge of this. I can 
 most sincerely say, that I have desired and striven to be free. I have indeed a 
 conviction, on the great points of Christianity, which I neither can suppress 
 nor wish to conceal. Yet I do not think men are to be persuaded by mere 
 party or sectarian views and reasonings. It is not inconsistent with this, 
 however, for me to believe that it is a sacred interpreter’s duty to make his 
 book profitable for doctrine , as well as for the acquisition of a proper know- 
 ledge of saCred philology. How could I, with such a conviction, honestly 
 shun all reference to Christian doctrine, when animadverting on this and 
 that passage in the Apocalypse ? 
 
 Nothing can be plainer, than that brevity , to a certain extent, should cha- 
 racterize all the exhibitions of an interpreter. Sunt certi denique fines. But 
 a writer may be too brief to be intelligible to the mass of readers ; and he 
 may be so diffuse as to weary out the patience of all. There is a middle 
 path. I have aimed to follow it. In cases where I may seem not to have 
 done it, I have an apology which I deem it my duty here to offer. 
 
 My state of health, for some time past, has been such that I not only was 
 obliged to refrain from study, but for several months, I could not even bear 
 to hear the most common and ordinary reading. In this state it was a subject 
 of serious deliberation with me, whether I ought to set forward the publica- 
 tion of my work on the Apocalypse. In one sense it was finished ; i. e. I 
 had written on all the topics that I meant to discuss. I had also subjected 
 what I had written to one review, soon after the writing was performed. 
 But I had not sat down to a regular and continuous reading of the whole 
 work, without interruption, in order to make all those corrections which such 
 a reading would disclose to be desirable, not only as to words and phrases, 
 but as to everything which might be incongruous with unity of plan and 
 design, or at variance with congruity in all its subordinate parts. Any work 
 so extensive and of so difficult a nature as mine, needs such a revision ; 
 and that too, when all the faculties of the mind are in their full strength, 
 and can be leisurely brought to bear upon the task. It was impossible for 
 me, however, to perform this task in such a manner. I hesitated, therefore, 
 about sending my work to the press, as I have already stated. But friends 
 who were somewhat acquainted with what I had written, united in the opin- 
 ion that I ought to proceed. I did so ; but for several months my labour 
 was performed in expectation, from day to day, of being summoned away 
 from all the engagements of the present life, or at least of being rendered 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 ix 
 
 unable to perform any mental labour. What I could do in such a state, in 
 the way of correction, I have done. But there are portions of my work 
 that I should have compressed, had it been possible for me to do it. There 
 may be also some incongruities, at least in some things of minor impor- 
 tance, that have escaped me, while in such a state. The reader who feels 
 kindly, will be disposed to put the best construction upon them that he 
 can. I regret more than he can do, that I am obliged to make such an 
 apology. But it is my duty to bow in submission to Him, who directs all 
 things according to the counsel of his own will. 
 
 There may be some who will think, that under these disadvantages I 
 ought not to have ventured on the publication of my work. It may be so ; 
 but I sought the best counsel I could obtain, and have acted in conformity 
 with it. If the work were to be published at all, (and the public had been 
 given to understand, by some well-meaning but rather unwary friends* that 
 it would be), it was best that it should be accomplished so far as it might 
 be, while I could keep my eye upon it. I had much reason to expect, 
 that the time in which I could do this would not be long. 
 
 And now, as a kind Providence has spared my life to see the completion 
 of the printing, what am I to hope for, or to expect , from the publication of 
 my work ? 
 
 I hope for a patient hearing. I hope that the readers of the work will 
 make a thorough examination of the whole matter, before they decide that I 
 am in the wrong. I hope that all, who have never made the Hebrew pro- 
 phets and the figurative and symbolical representations of the Scriptures a 
 subject of special study and investigation, will be slow and cautious in de- 
 ciding what meaning should be attached to the symbols of the Apocalypse. 
 I hope that a lively fancy, or an expertness in guessing, will not be consid- 
 ered as the best helps to the exegesis of such a book. Heartily as I abhor 
 the mummery, and knavery, and superstition, and pollution, so wide-spread in 
 the Romish church, and much as I disapprove of all its hierarchical institu- 
 tions, I still hope that a mere spirit of opposition to Papal abominations will 
 not be regarded as the proper and authorized exponent of what John has 
 said respecting the beast and the false prophet. I hope that in respect to 
 this as well as other matters of difficulty in the Apocalypse, my readers will 
 not meet my expositions, merely with the accusation of departure from opin- 
 ions long current in the English and American churches. The proper 
 question is not, whether I have broached any opinions which seem new or 
 strange to this reader or to that, but whether what I have said will abide the 
 test of a hermeneutical trial. I hope that such readers as have been led 
 merely or principally by the conjectural interpretations of former days which 
 they have perused, will not feel that they are adequately prepared to pro- 
 nounce authoritatively a sentence of condemnation at once on the views 
 which I have advanced. I hope, also, in case they do, that I shall be ena- 
 bled to bear with a good degree of equanimity the censure of judges, either 
 
 A 
 
X 
 
 PREFACE, 
 
 few or many, who possess no other qualifications than these to decide upon 
 such matters. Ready as some may be to condemn, I must still cherish the 
 hope that due allowances will be made by most readers, for the great diffi- 
 culties which I have had to encounter, in the exposition of such a book as 
 the Apocalypse. That errors may be found in my work, I do not question. 
 To err is human. I claim no exemption from the common frailty, and only 
 hope that I may be forgiven, where my errors are discovered. I am con- 
 scious of no party-purposes in publishing my work. I have sought for truth 
 earnestly and sincerely on the present occasion, if I ever did or could do 
 so; and where I have failed to obtain it, I hope the mantle of charity and 
 kindness will be thrown over my failures. If the reader of my work gets 
 any assistance from it, which will help him better to understand the Scrip- 
 tures in any respect, he will be disposed to deal gently with me as to things 
 which he cannot approve, or with which he cannot agree. 
 
 As to what I expect ; my anticipations are not of a sanguine or overween* 
 ing cast. I know that after so long a period, in which darkness has brood- 
 ed over this book, it is not the work of one man, or even of one age, to 
 arrive at established conclusions in all matters that pertain to the Apoca- 
 lypse. Consequently I do not expect that my work will complete this task. 
 But I do expect, at least I hope, that if it should accomplish nothing more, 
 it may be the means of exciting more attention to the book of Revelation, 
 and of calling forth some new and more successful efforts for its interpre- 
 tation. Should what I have written be the means of calling forth little 
 else but animated opposition, there is hope, even in this, of arriving sooner 
 or later at something better than we have hitherto obtained. Should it 
 serve, in any good measure, to give somewhat of a new direction in our 
 churches to the method of studying the book, this may lead on to some im- 
 portant results, and I shall not have written in vain. 
 
 And now with a trembling hand and a heart full of solicitude, I commit 
 this work to the churches, and to the Great Head of them. Whatever im- 
 perfections it has, it is still the result of an effort to vindicate the wounded 
 honour of the Apocalypse, and to render the book once more, in all its 
 parts, intelligible and useful and edifying to well-meaning readers. Per- 
 haps I cannot reasonably expect to live long enough to vindicate such por- 
 tions of my work as may be assailed ; but so far as probability and truth 
 are on my side, there are others who will see that such is the case, and 
 who will so far defend what I have advanced. 
 
 Beyond this, I would hope for no defence. My only wish is, that the 
 churches may sooner or later come to regard the book in question in the 
 same manner as its primitive readers regarded it, and that it may once 
 more be placed before the churches in the same light in which its author 
 originally designed to place it. M. STUART. 
 
 Theological Seminary , I 
 Andover , Feb. 1845. ) 
 
CONTENTS OE YOL. I 
 
 § 1. General Remarks 
 
 § 2. Comparison of the Apocalypse with other scriptural prophe- 
 cies 
 
 § 3. Are similar views to be found among the heathen ? 
 
 § 4. Estimation of the apocalyptic style, at the time when the 
 
 Apocalypse was composed 
 
 § 5. Apocryphal Apocalypses which have perished 
 § 6. Apocryphal Revelations still extant . 
 
 (a) The Ascension of Isaiah . 
 
 ( b ) The book of Enoch 
 
 (c) Fourth book of Ezra . 
 
 ( d ) Sibylline Oracles 
 
 (e) Testament of the twelve Pa- 
 
 triarchs .... 
 
 40 
 
 50 
 
 74 
 
 87 
 
 107 
 
 (/) The Shepherd of Hermas . 
 \g) The apocryphal Apocalypse 
 of John .... 
 (h) General Remarks on all these 
 compositions 
 
 Page 
 
 9 
 
 11 
 
 26 
 
 31 
 
 37 
 
 40 
 
 113 
 
 122 
 
 124 
 
 § 7. Peculiar form and arrangement of the Apocalypse 
 
 (a) Trichotomy . 
 
 (b) Heptades 
 
 (c) Groups of four 
 
 (d) Groups of twelve 
 
 JYumerosity : 
 
 131 
 
 144 
 
 146 
 
 146 
 
 (e) Decades 
 
 (/) Parallelisms . . . . 
 
 (o-) General Remarks on JVume- 
 rosity 
 
 127 
 
 147 
 
 147 
 
 149 
 
 § 8. Is the Apocalypse a drama ? 150 
 
 § 9. Object of the book ........ 155 
 
 § 10. Economy of the Apocalypse, or manner of developing the plan 164 
 §11. Aesthetical character of the Apocalypse . . . .191 
 
 § 12. Hermeneutical principles applicable to the Apocalypse . . 197 
 
 § 13. Original readers of the Apocalypse, and their circumstances . 216 
 
 § 14. Original language of the Apocalypse ..... 228 
 
 §15. Peculiar characteristics of language and style in the Apocalypse 232 
 § 16. Place and time of writing the Apocalypse .... 257 
 
 § 17. Author of the Apocalypse ....... 283 
 
 I. Historical evidence in favour of the apostle John . 
 
 (1) Testimony of the book . 288 
 
 (2) Of Poly carp . . . 300 
 
 (3) Of Papias .... 302 
 
 (4) Of Justin Martyr . . 307 
 
 (5) Of Melito . . . . 311 
 
 (6) Theophilus of Antioch . 312 
 
 (7) Of Apollonius 
 
 (8) Oflrenaeus . . . . 
 
 (9) The Epistle of Vienne and 
 
 Lyons 
 
 (10) Clement of Alexandria 
 
 (11) OfTertullian 
 
 313 
 
 313 
 
 316 
 
 317 
 
 318 
 
xii 
 
 CONTENTS TO VOL. I. 
 
 (12) Other early witnesses . 320 
 
 (13) Of Hippolytus . . . 321 
 
 (14) Of Origen .... 322 
 
 (15) Of Nepos and Coracion . 324 
 
 (16) Of Cyprian .... 324 
 
 (17) OfVictorinus . . . 325 
 
 (18) Of Methodius ... 325 
 
 (19) Of Lactantius . . . 326 
 
 (20) Of Athanasius . . . 326 
 
 (21) Of Ephrem Syrus . . 327 
 
 (22) Of Hilary .... 328 
 
 (23) OfEpiphanius 
 
 (24) Of Basil 
 
 (25) Of Gregory Nazianzen 
 
 (26) Of Chrysostom . . * . 
 
 (27) Of Ambrose and others 
 
 (28) Of Ruffin, Synod of Hippo, 
 
 (29) Of Augustine 
 
 (30) Of Jerome .... 
 
 (31) Later testimonies . 
 
 II. Alleged testimony against John as the author. 
 
 (1 ) Opposition by the Alogi . 
 
 (2) By Caius the Presbyter . 
 
 (3) By Dionysius of Alexan- 
 
 dria 
 
 336 
 
 339 
 
 344 
 
 (4) Doubts of Eusebius 
 
 (5) Of later writers 
 
 (6) Omitted in the Old Syriac 
 
 Version 
 
 328 
 
 329 
 
 329 
 
 330 
 
 331 
 
 33 L 
 
 332 
 332 
 334 
 
 354 
 
 357 
 
 365 
 
 § 18. Result of historical testimony . . . . ' . . 368 
 
 § 19. Indirect and internal evidence against apostolic origin : Gene- 
 ral Remarks ........ 371 
 
 § 20. Principles which should guide us in judging of the style and 
 
 diction ......... 374 
 
 § 21. Examination of particular objections deduced from the diction, 
 
 style, and manner of the Apocalypse .... 377 
 
 Also from the doctrines and modes of thought . . . 392 
 
 § 22. Internal evidence in favour of the apostle John as author . 405 
 
 §23. Result .......... 411 
 
 § 24. Examination of the theory of authorship by Schott and Liicke 422 
 
 § 25. Unity of the Book ........ 427 
 
 § 26. Canonical rank and credit 437 
 
 § 27. Historical sketch of the Exegesis of the book . . . 450 
 
 § 28. Was the Apocalypse intended for the use of the church in 427 
 every age ?......... 475 
 
 § 29. Does the plan of the Apocalypse involve anachronism ? . . 484 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 Extracts from the Commentary of Victorinus . . . 491 
 
 Specimen of the Ascension of Isaiah .... 495 
 
 Specimens of the book of Enoch 499 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 § 1. General Remarks. 
 
 "Whatever difference of opinion may exist among interpreters of 
 the Apocalypse, in respect to the meaning which must be assigned to 
 particular portions of it, there can be but one opinion, as it would seem, 
 among intelligent and considerate readers, as to the general object or 
 design of this book. It lies upon the very face of the whole composition, 
 I mean the prophetic part of it, that the coming and completion of the 
 kingdom of God or of Christ , or in other words, the triumph of Chris- 
 tianity over all enemies and opposers , its universal prevalence in the 
 world for a long series of years , and its termination in an endless period 
 of glory and happiness, constitute the main theme of the writer, and is 
 indeed the almost exclusive subject of his contemplation. 
 
 The light, however, in which he has placed his subject, in order that 
 it may be viewed by others, must be carefully examined and considered 
 by the reader. The announcement of the triumphs which await the 
 Christian church, is not made, as it might have been had the writer so 
 pleased, by a simple categorical declaration. Christianity is in a man- 
 ner personified, and it appears on the scene of action, engaged in a con- 
 test with the powers of darkness so violent, that the struggle must evi- 
 dently end in the extermination or utter subjugation of one of the par- 
 ties. Successively one and another bitter and bloody enemy of the church 
 is overcome ; then follows a long period of peace and prosperity, during 
 which the influence of Christianity is so widely diffused, that no apparent 
 hostility disturbs it. After this the powers of darkness renew their as- 
 sault with exasperated malice and rage ; but the interposing hand of 
 heaven smites them down, and puts a final end to the contest. The 
 peaceful and universal reign of the Christian religion then succeeds, and 
 continues down to the final consummation of the Messianic kingdom on 
 earth, when the .resurrection and the judgment-day introduce a new and 
 perfect order of things, which is to continue through ages that have 
 no end. 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 GENERAL REMARKS. 
 
 Such is the simple and perspicuous outline of the Apocalypse. Like 
 all, or nearly all, particular prophecies of the Old Testament and of the 
 New, it has one, and but one, main object in view, to which all its vari- 
 ous representations are subordinate, and to which also the particulars of 
 each several part are more or less subservient. 
 
 Nothing could be more appropriate to the time and circumstances in 
 which the book before us was composed, than the theme which the wri- 
 ter has chosen. Christians on all sides were agitated by bitter and bloody 
 persecution. Many professed disciples of Christ were driven by fear, or 
 allured by the hope of favor and worldly good, to renounce their allegiance 
 to the Saviour ; while others abstracted themselves from his service and 
 shunned his followers, in order that they might avoid the horrors of per- 
 secution. The author of the Apocalypse possessed Christian sympathies 
 of too high and holy a nature, to look on such a scene without deep emo- 
 tion. To prevent an evil of so great magnitude, he was directed by the 
 Saviour to write the book of Revelation, and to publish it by sending it to 
 the seven churches of Asia. 
 
 The composition before us, then, seems to have been primarily occa- 
 sioned by the existing state of things ; and surely nothing could be more 
 appropriate or better adapted to the purposes for which it was originally 
 written. It is filled, from beginning to end, with encouragement and 
 admonition and consolation to all who were engaged in the great contest 
 then going on. Victory — victory — a final and universal and eternal vic- 
 tory of the church over all her enemies — is echoed at every pause ; and a 
 crown of glory is held forth by the God and Judge of all, as ready to be 
 placed on the martyr’s head, amid the joyful assembly of the first born 
 in heaven, the moment he falls in the battle which he is waging. A 
 most fearful end, moreover, awaits the enemies of the kingdom of God. 
 The worshippers of the idolatrous beast, the adherents of the false pro- 
 phet, yea, the beast himself and the prophet his coadjutor, with Satan and 
 all the powers of darkness, are finally cast into the lake that burns with 
 fire and brimstone, where the smoke of their torment ascends up forever 
 and ever, while they are suffering the agonies of the second death. 
 
 All that hope or fear can do, in the way of operating upon the minds 
 of men, to encourage them to persevere in a holy course of fife, and to 
 dissuade them from opposition to God and the purposes of his redeeming 
 grace, seems to be held forth by the Apocalypse. No book in all the 
 Bible can, on the whole and when rightly understood, be regarded as 
 exceeding it in respect to adaptedness for making impressions o£ such a 
 salutary nature. If the human mind can be affected (and who will deny 
 that it is most deeply affected ?) by hope and fear , the highest point to 
 which the agency of these principles can be carried, is attained by the 
 writer of the Revelation. 
 
GENERAL REMARKS. 
 
 11 
 
 Such powerful agencies, we may well say, were needed by Christians, 
 when banishment and blood were the order of the day, in respect to the 
 professed followers of a Saviour. Nor have such agencies ever, at any 
 period since that time, ceased to be highly important ; for, in every age, 
 the church and the world have been in strenuous opposition, if not in 
 actual contest. Even at the present hour, such a book as the Apoca- 
 lypse is greatly needed, in order to encourage the faith and hope of 
 Christians in regard to the prospects of the church, and to comfort them 
 under their various sufferings and discouragements. Above all, the 
 Apocalypse, when rightly understood, would be the Vade Mecum of such 
 as go forth to publish a Saviour’s name among the perishing heathen. 
 Surrounded by those who are servants of the powers of darkness, dis- 
 couraged perhaps by small success, and disheartened by the strength of 
 superstitions, and by the zeal for bloody or foolish rites and ceremonies 
 which pervades all around them, the faithful missionary may read with 
 tears of joy the precious promises so often held out in the book before 
 us — promises of the final and universal triumph of truth and love over 
 all the opposition of error and of malignity ; and when he lights upon 
 the soul-reviving assurances of the Saviour that “ he will surely come,” 
 his heart may respond, like that of the apocalyptic seer : “ Amen ; even 
 so ; Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly !” 
 
 § 2. Comparison of the Apocalypse with other scriptural prophecies of a 
 
 similar tenor . 
 
 In many respects the light and shade of the picture which the Apoca- 
 lypse presents, are peculiar to this book. No other part of Scripture, 
 where the same general theme is the subject of contemplation, minutely 
 resembles the Revelation as to form and method. Nowhere is the sub- 
 ject of the church’s triumphs pursued to such a length, and exhibited 
 with such continuity and fulness. Yet the same general theme, viz., the 
 final and universal triumph of truth and holiness over error and sin, is 
 by no means new or peculiar to the Apocalypse. Many other prophe- 
 cies relate to this subject, and predict the same issue of the struggle be- 
 tween the powers of light and darkness. 
 
 To these prophecies, however, belong, as has just been hinted, some 
 striking features of diversity , when compared with the Apocalypse, which 
 deserve particular consideration. Most of them are quite brief, present- 
 ing only in a few verses that which is expanded by the author of the 
 Apocalypse into almost an entire book. Most of them, moreover, pre- 
 sent the simple fact of triumph over all the enemies of the church, with- 
 out bringing into view any definite series or succession of triumphs. In 
 short, they stand related to the Apocalypse, much as the simple story, or 
 
12 
 
 COMPARISON OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 historic facts, that form the basis of an epic poem, stand related to the 
 poem itself, with all its machinery and with all the decorations that have 
 sprung from the glowing imagination of the poet. The kernel or nucleus 
 of the Apocalypse lies, indeed, enfolded in many a passage of the Old 
 Testament, and in not a few of the New ; but nowhere among all these 
 passages is any such full and ample development of the subject made, as 
 in the writing before us. Never before had such a full development 
 been so much needed. The time was now come, during the apostolic 
 age, when the kingdom of God was to be built up on its new and last 
 foundation, and when the fulfilment of all that the ancient Scriptures 
 contain respecting it, was about to commence. The writer of the Apoc- 
 alypse lived in the very midst of the contest that was going on, was him- 
 self a sufferer in it, and therefore took a deep interest in the theme which 
 was the main object of his book. Vivid feeling and powerful represen- 
 tation might be expected of him in circumstances like these ; and such 
 the Apocalypse everywhere exhibits. 
 
 The charge has indeed not unfrequently been made against this book, 
 that it is altogether unique , and that the genius of the whole New Testa- 
 ment stands in opposition to it, or at least is as widely distant from it as 
 possible. Even Luther, as we know, treated the Revelation with neg- 
 lect, at first, if not with scorn, because, as he averred, he could not find 
 Christ in it ; for, as he viewed the subject, Jesus Christ, and Christ as cru- 
 cijied , must be the main theme of all that belongs to a true gospel-book. 
 This is not the place to examine the allegations of Luther ; but thus 
 much may be said, without fear of contradiction by any intelligent read- 
 er of the present day, namely, that of all the books in the New Testa- 
 ment, Christ , as the beginning, middle, and end, appears most conspic- 
 uous in the Apocalypse. The peculiarity of manner in this book, i. e. 
 the peculiarity of style, diction, plan, and mode of representation — in a 
 word, of all which belongs simply to costume — I readily concede ; in- 
 deed, I have already alluded to it in the preceding remarks. But we 
 shall see in the sequel, that the fundamental truth or basis of the Apoc- 
 alypse is one which is a common theme of prophecy, both in the Old 
 Testament and in the New. In order to confirm this, we must pass in 
 brief review some of the evidence which lies before us. 
 
 I. Passages in the Old Testament. 
 
 (1) Gen. 3: 15. From the early origin of our race, immediately 
 after the fall of man, the prediction was uttered by his merciful Judge, 
 that 4 the Seed of the woman should bruise the Serpent’s head.’ I am 
 aware that some have rejected the idea of finding a predicted Messiah here. 
 But it seems to be plain, that the apostle, who (Rom. 16: 20) prays 
 that 4 the God of peace, would shortly bruise Satan under the feet of the 
 
WITH OTHER SCRIPTURAL PROPHECIES. 
 
 13 
 
 Romish Christians,’ understood the declaration in Gen. 3: 15 as a pre- 
 diction of the triumph of the church over the powers of darkness. 
 And in Rev. 12: 17, the dragon is represented as ‘going to make war 
 with the seed of the woman,’ with evident allusion to the declaration of 
 the same text. With such examples before us, why should we hesitate 
 to avow our persuasion, that the promise in Gen. 3: 15 pertains to the 
 Saviour and the church, and that it announces the same sentiment 
 which lies at the basis of the Apocalypse, namely that truth and love 
 shall at last come off victorious over falsehood and malignity. 
 
 (2) In Gen. 12: 3. 18: 18. 22: 18, are promises to Abraham, that 
 “ in him, or in his seed, all the nations of the earth should be blessed.” 
 In Gen. 17: 5 is a promise, that ‘he should become the father of many 
 nations.’ In Gen. 26: 4, the promise made to Abraham is renewed to 
 Isaac, who is told, that ‘ in his seed all the nations of the earth should be 
 blessed.’ If now we may allow Paul to be our expositor here, we 
 shall find that in Rom. iv. and in Gal. iii, he interprets the promises 
 made to Abraham as having reference to the Messiah , to the calling of the 
 Gentiles, and to the wide diffusion of the gospel among them. That 
 Abraham himself so understood them, seems to be highly probable from 
 what the Saviour says, “ Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, 
 and he saw it and was glad,” John 8: 56. Still we find nothing more ex- 
 plicitly predicted here, than that some one of Abraham’s posterity should 
 arise, who would be a blessing not only to the patriarch’s seed, but to 
 the Gentile world at large. When, how, or by what means all this was 
 to be accomplished, these early predictions do not of themselves inform 
 us. That Abraham, in consequence of them, looked forward to a Mes- 
 sianic day, when the triumphs of truth and love over the powers of 
 darkness and malignity should take place, we know. But how definite 
 his knowledge or expectation was, we have no sure means of determin- 
 ing. Be this as it may, the germ of the Apocalypse lies in the pro- 
 mises made to Abraham and his seed. 
 
 (3) The prophetic declaration of the dying Jacob, in respect to Ju- 
 dah, was, that “ the scepter should not depart from Judah, nor a law- 
 giver from between his feet, until Shiloh should come ; and to him 
 should the gathering of the people be Gen. 49 : 10. 
 
 It would be foreign to my purpose to enter into the critical disputes 
 about this passage. It is enough, that by general accord it is now ac- 
 knowledged, that ribi'd (from nVr) may mean either peace-maker, or tran- 
 quilitas. Even in the latter case, as Gesenius (Lex. s. v.) concedes, 
 the expectation of quiet is in and through the king Messiah , who is to 
 spring from Judah. Peace-maker , or Prince-of -peace, is a name highly 
 appropriate to the future king of the Jews, (comp. Is. 9:6); and to 
 those who believe that God made promises of a Messianic nature to 
 
14 
 
 COMPARISON OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 Abraham and to Isaac, it will not seem strange that they were also re- 
 newed to the dying Jacob. But there is still the same simple and ge- 
 neric idea at the basis of this promise, which forms the basis of the pre- 
 ceding ones, viz., that some one among the progeny of Judah should be 
 a blessing to the world at large : “ Unto him shall the gathering of the 
 people nations) be.” With this we may compare Is. 42: 4, where 
 it is said respecting the Elect Servant of God, that “ he shall not fail . . . 
 until he have set judgment in the earth, and made the isles to wait for 
 his law.” Haggai 2: 7 gives a like sense : “ I will shake all nations, 
 and the Desire of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with 
 my glory and many more passages might easily be quoted, of the 
 same tenor. The passage in Haggai shows what the disposition of the 
 nations shall be in respect to the Messiah ; for he is named their De- 
 sire. The passage in Isaiah shows the extent to which the nations will 
 be “gathered.” 
 
 (4) Passing by the historical books, in which some Messianic pre- 
 dictions may be found, e. g. 2 Sam. 7: 12 seq., let us proceed to the 
 book of Psalms. The second Psalm, with nearly all of the ancient in- 
 terpreters and most of the modern ones, we may regard as Messianic. 
 We have a special reason for so doing, inasmuch as Paul, in Acts 13: 
 33 and Heb. 1: 5, has expressly and plainly quoted it as being Messianic. 
 In this Psalm we are presented, first, with the combination of the 
 wicked against the person and dominion of their anointed King ; then 
 with the determination of him who “ sitteth in the heavens” that the 
 throne of this King should be established, and that all nations, even the 
 uttermost parts of the earth, should be given to him as a heritage. All 
 who continue to oppose his righteous dominion, will be dashed in pieces 
 as a potter’s vessel.’ Such then is to be the dominion and power of 
 the Anointed King ; his sway is to be universal, his power to “ put all 
 enemies under his feet” is irresistible. And such — to all intents and 
 purposes — -is the picture presented of this King in the Apocalypse. He 
 goes* forth “ conquering and to conquer.” He is “ King of kings and 
 Lord of lords and all who oppose themselves to his righteous and 
 lawful dominion are “ dashed in pieces as a potter’s vessel.” 
 
 But how different the mode of David and John, in presenting the 
 same great truth ! In Ps. ii, a few verses, couched in simple figurative 
 language, are employed to designate all which the writer intended to 
 say ; probably all that was present to his mind. But in the Apoca- 
 lypse, we have a protracted series of events, all represented to us by 
 symbols throughout. Yet if all which is here symbolized should be com- 
 bined together into one brief and general view, it could not be more 
 simply and happily presented, than it is in the second Psalm. 
 
 The reader will easily be able to make for himself, without any sug- 
 
WITH OTHER SCRIPTURAL PROPHECIES. 
 
 15 
 
 gestions from me, the like remarks on a large number of the Messianic 
 passages yet to be produced. I shall therefore deem it unnecessary for 
 me to repeat them. 
 
 (5) To Ps. viii. a Messianic sense is denied by many interpreters of 
 the present day. It would be out of place for me here to enter into a 
 critical vindication of the interpretation which I feel constrained to give 
 it, when I construe it as being Messianic. In so doing, I follow the 
 author of the epistle to the Hebrews (2: 6 — 9), who clearly makes 
 such an application of its sentiments. In this Psalm, again, the simple 
 generic idea of universal dominion stands prominent ; connected, as a 
 matter of course, with the supreme exaltation and glory of the person- 
 age thus exalted. In all respects the matter is substantially the same as 
 that in Ps. ii, while the costume is quite different, and the comminatory 
 part of Ps. ii. is here omitted. 
 
 (6) Ps. xxii. is another portion of Scripture, the Messianic sense of 
 which I cannot hesitate to acknowledge. I would not appeal to the 
 commencing words of it, as repeated by the dying Saviour upon the 
 cross, for satisfactory proof of this ; because he might have quoted a 
 pious sentiment from a Psalm not Messianic : but I may appeal to 
 Matt. 27: 39, 43 and to John 19: 24, for satisfactory proof that the 
 Evangelists regarded this Psalm as Messianic. Somewhat more than 
 half of the Psalm is occupied with describing the sufferings of the Mes- 
 siah. Verse 22 begins the note of joy and triumph. He who had 
 been a degraded sufferer, as to praise God in the midst of the congre- 
 gation for deliverance ; and this deliverance is to be proclaimed before 
 the world as a ground of trust and confidence in God. “ All the ends 
 of the world, too, will call it to mind and turn to the Lord, and all the 
 kindreds of the nations will worship before him.” . . “ The kingdom is the 
 Lord’s, and he is to govern among the nations.” ..“A people that is to 
 be born shall declare his righteousness.” Here again, the simple idea is, 
 that he who once was in a suffering and dying condition, shall become 
 the instrument of bringing all nations to serve and to praise the Lord ; 
 which latter idea is the same that is contained in Ps. ii. and viii, although 
 it is invested with a drapery quite different. 
 
 (7) Ps. xlv. One greater than David or Solomon appears to be here. 
 Unto the Son a part, at least, of the words of this Psalm are said by a 
 sacred writer to be addressed, Heb. 1:8; and well may we credit this, 
 when the nature of the Psalm is thoroughly examined. The writer 
 presents us with a view of a king, fair, eloquent, heroic, a wise and con- 
 descending and upright governor, and an irresistible conqueror of all his 
 enemies. His dominion is eternal ; and that all people may yield a 
 willing subjection to him, he becomes affianced to the daughter of a 
 foreign prince, and admits other foreign princesses among the retinue of 
 
16 
 
 COMPARISON OP THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 his court. Cheerful subjection to him is yielded, in prospect of the 
 blessings to be enjoyed. Here again is presented the same attitude of 
 things as in the Apocalypse. “ The arrows are sharp in the hearts of 
 the king’s enemies,” and “ the people fall beneath his terrible right arm.” 
 The image of the bride, the Lamb’s wife (Rev. 19: 7 — 9), seems to have 
 been suggested to the apocalyptic seer, by the royal espousals described 
 in the Psalm before us. Even the special idea at the close of the Ps. 
 (v. 16), viz. that the children of the bride are to be “ made princes in all 
 the earth,” is repeatedly brought before us in the Apocalypse, by the 
 declaration that Christians are to be made “ kings and priests unto God 
 see Rev. 1: 6. 5: 10. 20: 6, comp. 1 Pet. 2: 9. 
 
 (8) I cannot prove that Ps. lxxii. is Messianic ; but I may suggest, 
 that the contents seem to be appropriately applied when they are so in- 
 terpreted, and that what is said here is of higher import than belongs 
 to any ordinary king. Although it is not directly quoted and applied to 
 the Messiah in the New Testament, yet, with Rosenmueller, I must 
 think that a greater than David, Solomon, or any Jewish king, is to be 
 found here. The dominion of the Prince here described is to extend 
 “ from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth.” He will be 
 a merciful, just, and powerful king, vindicating the oppressed and helping 
 the poor and needy. In his days shall the earth yield a most abundant 
 increase ; its “ fruit shall wave like Lebanon and all nations shall pour 
 into his treasures their precious substance. “ His name shall endure as 
 long as the sun ... all nations shall call him blessed.” Here again is 
 the usual idea of universal dominion, with the accessory one of universal 
 and extraordinary fruitfulness of the earth. For the first time we find 
 this latter idea here introduced. Literally I do not suppose it is to be 
 interpreted, any more than other similar images in descriptions of this na- 
 ture. But the least which can be said, is, that it is a lively image of pros- 
 perity and happiness under the reign which is here predicted. 
 
 (9) Ps. cx. very much resembles the second Psalm in the tenor of its 
 contents, and has been very generally conceded to be Messianic. Matt. 
 22: 42 — 45. Acts 2: 34 — 26. 1 Cor. 15: 25, and Heb. 1: 13. 5: 6, 
 seem to leave no room for doubt, that the New Testament writers at any 
 rate regarded this Psalm as Messianic. Supreme exaltation and domin- 
 ion are here ascribed to a King, who is to be enthroned with God. His 
 enemies are all to be subdued and prostrated, by a contest which shall fill 
 many places with dead bodies, and wound the heads over many coun- 
 tries. A King and a Priest forever the conqueror is then to be made, 
 by the immutable oath of God. . The priesthood which is here ascribed 
 to this exalted king, seems to be the only point of difference between this 
 and Psalm ii. which needs to be mentioned. In other respects, there is 
 simply the idea of universal sway and of irresistible permanent power 
 
WITH OTHER SCRIPTURAL PROPHECIES. 
 
 17 
 
 and dominion presented to our view. That this glorious King is also to 
 be a Priest forever , is an accessory idea by no means to be overlooked. 
 The Apocalypse also presents us with a view of the Messiah, as having 
 made his followers “ kings and priests to God forever and ever,” by the 
 offering of his own blood in the capacity of our great high Priest. 
 
 (10) Passing by minor and controverted passages, let us next take a 
 view of what the Evangelical Prophet has said, in relation to the subject 
 before us. Is. 2: 2 — 4, (with which Mic. 4: 1 — 4 should be compared), 
 presents us with the simple idea, that the Lord’s house shall be exalted 
 high above all other places of worship, and that all nations shall go up 
 to pay their homage there, and to learn the laws and statutes of Jeho- 
 vah. When this shall come to pass, universal peace shall prevail, and 
 the nations learn war no more. This unites the two leading ideas in 
 Gen. 49: 10 and Ps. ii. Shiloh or Peace-maker is to come in the last 
 days, and the uttermost parts of the earth are to be given to him as a 
 heritage. The Messianic nature of this passage is admitted almost with- 
 out a question. 
 
 (11) Equally plain is the passage in Is. 9: 1 — 7. 1 Great light is to 
 be scattered over the nations who have been walking in darkness. The 
 rod of every oppressor is to be broken, the noise of battle to cease, gar- 
 ments rolled in blood no more to be seen ; while the Prince of peace, 
 whose name is Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the perpetual 
 Father or Guardian of his people, is to have a government of which 
 there shall be no end, and his throne to be established in judgment and 
 justice forever and ever.’ The tenor of this is the same with that of 
 Is. 2: 2 — 4, although the manner of the annunciation is quite diverse. 
 The leading idea in both these passages should be compared with those 
 views in the Apocalypse, which present the universality of Christ’s king- 
 dom, the peaceable reign, first of a thousand years, and then again of a 
 period after the enemies of the church, the hosts of Gog and Magog, are 
 destroyed. 
 
 (12) In Is. 11: 1 — 10, “ the Shoot from the stem of Jesse, the Branch 
 from his roots,” is to be endowed with every gift and grace which will 
 qualify him to judge with equity and to rule with wisdom and discretion. 
 A time of universal peace shall succeed, in which all, even the noxious 
 beasts and reptiles of the earth, are to lay aside their enmity, and live 
 in harmony with each other. “ The earth shall be filled with the know- 
 ledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” To the “ ensign” of 
 the people “ shall the Gentiles seek, and his dwelling-place shall be 
 glorious.” It is remarkable how frequently and with what ardour the 
 prophet Isaiah dwells on this view of the Messianic reign. Its unlimi- 
 ted extent and its undisturbed peace fill him with holy ecstasy. 
 
 (13) Is. 35: 1 — 10 presents us with a somewhat different picture. All 
 
 VOL. i. 3 
 
18 
 
 COMPARISON OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 tlie desolate and desert parts of the earth are to become fruitful. Zion 
 is to be saved from all her enemies. The eyes of the blind are to be 
 opened ; the ears of the deaf are to be unstopped ; the tongue of the 
 dumb to sing ; the lame man is to leap as a hart ; and a highway to the 
 house of God is to be made, over which no unclean person, and no rav- 
 enous beast, shall pass. “ The redeemed shall walk there, . . . and come 
 the ransomed of the Lord to Zion, with songs, and everlasting joy upon 
 their heads.” The idea of an extraordinary fruitfulness of the earth is 
 here presented in a manner like to that in Ps. lxxii. The freedom from 
 suffering and sorrow and sin, which mil prevail in the days of Zion’s 
 deliverance, is held up in a most cheering and vivid manner. 
 
 (14) With the controversy respecting the genuineness of Is. xl — lxvi, 
 I have nothing to do at present. My belief is, that, to say the least, no 
 proof that ought to satisfy us has yet been adduced, to show that these 
 chapters belong to a prophet who lived near the close of the Babylonish 
 exile. At all events, nothing can be more certain, than that the writers 
 of the New Testament appeal to these chapters as a genuine portion of 
 the Scriptures ; and equally plain it appears to be, that they appeal to 
 them as the production of Isaiah. Is. 42: 1 — 9 seems plainly to be Mes- 
 sianic, and is so applied in Matt. 12: 17 — 21. The prediction is, that 
 the elect servant of God shall, by his gentle and inoffensive demeanor, 
 bring forth judgment unto victory, proclaim it to the Gentiles, and make 
 the isles to wait for his law. He shall be “ for a covenant to the people, 
 for a light to the Gentiles,” and bring out the prisoners who are confined 
 in the darkness of dungeons. The Maker of heaven and earth declares 
 this, and will perform it. The universality of the influence of the 
 Prince of peace is plainly exhibited by this figurative representation. 
 
 (15) Is. 49: 1 — 12 presents us with nearly the same picture, although 
 drawn with somewhat different colours. The Servant of the Lord, al- 
 thpugh frustrated at first in his attempts to persuade Israel, will yet 
 bring back the remnant of them, and become a light to the Gentiles, 
 even unto the ends of the earth. He will be for “ a covenant of the 
 people,” and all nations, with their kings and princes, shall bow down 
 before him. In vs. 18 — 26 of the same chapter, a picture is presented 
 of the prosperity and enlargement of Zion. Her lost children are to be 
 restored ; the Gentiles are to bring them in, and kings are to become 
 nursing-fathers, and queens nursing-mothers, and all her enemies are to 
 be humbled. 
 
 (16) Is. 52: 7 — 15 presents another description of a like tenor. Good 
 tidings to Zion are published •; her God reigns ; the ends of the earth 
 are to see the salvation of God ; the Servant of the Lord will make 
 many nations to leap for joy, and kings will do him reverence. 
 
 (17) Is. 54: 1 — 5 represents Jerusalem as enlarging itself and break- 
 
WITH OTHER SCRIPTURAL PROPHECIES. 
 
 19 
 
 ing forth on the right hand and on the left ; as inheriting the Gentiles ; 
 as having her Maker for her husband, and the Holy One of Israel for 
 her Redeemer, who shall be called “ the God of the whole earth.” 
 
 (18) Is. 55: 1 — 5 invites all without distinction to come and buy wine 
 and milk without money and without price ; an everlasting covenant is 
 to be made with them, and the sure mercies of David to be given them. 
 The offspring of David is to be given as a leader and commander of the 
 people, and Zion is to call a nation whom she knew not, and nations 
 that knew not her are to run unto her. 
 
 (19) Is. 60: 1 — 22 exhibits a variegated and most beautiful picture of 
 the future prosperity and glory of the church. The Gentiles shall come 
 to her light, and kings to the brightness of her rising. All nations will 
 flock to her, and bring their freewill-offerings in abundance. Any who 
 refuse, shall be utterly laid waste. Universal peace and prosperity will 
 attend her ; wasting and destruction shall no more invade her ; her light 
 shall never be withdrawn ; mourning no more take place ; her people 
 shall be all righteous ; and her increase like that when one becomes a 
 thousand. The Lord will surely accomplish all this, in his time. 
 
 (20) Is. 65: 17 — 25. A new heavens and a new earth are to be 
 created. Jerusalem is to become a rejoicing, and her people a joy. In- 
 firmities, sorrows, and brevity of life, shall no more be experienced. 
 Long life, great prosperity, and undisturbed peace, shall be enjoyed. All 
 enmity, even among the beasts of the field, shall cease, and there shall 
 be nothing to hurt or offend in all the holy mountain of God. Ys. 19 — 
 24 represent Israel as gathered from among all the nations of the earth 
 and brought to Jerusalem. There shall pure worship be established, so 
 long as the new heavens and the new earth remain before the Lord, and 
 all flesh shall go up to worship there, from one new moon to another, 
 and from one sabbath to another. 
 
 The attentive reader must have already observed, in respect to these 
 predictions of “ the evangelical prophet,” that nearly all of them look be- 
 yond the redemption of the Jews , and include the Gentiles along with 
 them. It is a circumstance worthy of note on a critical account, inas- 
 much as it serves to show, that the same tenor of Messianic prophecy is 
 exhibited in the former part of the book of Isaiah, as is developed in the 
 latter part. All is expansive, catholic in the highest sense, truly evan- 
 gelical, and demonstrative of a benevolence commensurate with the wants 
 and woes of a perishing world. That the simple theme which lies at 
 the basis of all these predictions, is the future and universal prevalence of 
 true piety and religion, is evident from the fiyst perusal of them. IIow 
 exactly this accords with the main design of the Apocalypse, needs not 
 to be again asserted. 
 
 The general tenor of succeeding prophecies in the Old Testament, is 
 
20 
 
 COMPARISON OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 more Hebraistic or Jewish in its character. Foreign nations are less the 
 objects of the writers’ thoughts. To the wants and woes of the Jewish 
 nation, when they came into a state of exile and oppression, the pro- 
 phets of a later period more immediately address themselves. The Jews, 
 they predict, will be again brought back to their country, and restored 
 to the divine favour. The time is coming when they shall all turn to 
 God, with repentance for their past transgressions, and with full purpose 
 of new and evangelical obedience. 
 
 Much less frequent, also, are the Messianic prophecies in Jeremiah, 
 Ezekiel, and the other prophets who lived during the period of the exile, 
 than they are in the book of Isaiah. The sins and sorrows of the Jew- 
 ish nation seem to occupy almost the whole soul of the sympathizing, 
 consoling, warning seers, during that season of chastisement and distress. 
 
 (21) Jer. 23: 5 — 8. After the Jews have gathered in from their dis- 
 persion, the righteous Branch of David shall reign over them and pros- 
 per. He shall be called the Lord our Righteousness ; and in his days 
 shall Judah and Jerusalem be safe. 
 
 (22) Jer. 31: 27 — 37. The house of Israel and Judah shall be built 
 up, and they shall cease to bear the iniquity of their fathers. A new 
 covenant shall be made with them, different from the ancient one. God’s 
 law shall be written upon their hearts ; and all shall know him from the 
 least to the greatest. The Lord will be their God ; he will forgive all 
 their sins, and cast them off no more. This decree is perpetual as the 
 ordinances of the sun and of the moon. Comp. Heb. 8: 10 seq. 
 
 (23) Jer. 33: 13 — 26. Judea shall again be inhabited ; the Branch 
 of Righteousness, which is of David, shall thrive, and execute judgment 
 and justice in the land. Judah and Jerusalem shall be safe under his 
 protection ; his throne shall be perpetual. Pure offerings and holy 
 priests shall never be wanting. The seed of David and the priests shall 
 be multiplied as the stars of heaven. The covenant by which all this is 
 secured, is sure and lasting as that of day and night. 
 
 These are all the conspicuous prophecies in the book of Jeremiah, 
 that have a relation to the subject in question. The mere inspection of 
 these shows us, that they are confined to the part which the Jewish na- 
 tion will act, during the future period of the church’s prosperity and 
 splendour. 
 
 (24) Of the same tenor are all the prophecies in Ezekiel, with re- 
 gard to this subject. Ezek. 34: 23 — 31. One Shepherd shall be set 
 over Israel, viz. David the servant of God. He shall be their Prince. 
 They shall enjoy peace and safety. The earth shall yield abundant 
 increase. Neither the heathen nor beasts of prey shall any more annoy 
 them. The Plant of renown among them shall supply their wants, and 
 the Lord shall be their God. 
 
WITH OTHER SCRIPTURAL PROPHECIES. 
 
 21 
 
 (25) Ezek. 36: 24 — 38. From all countries shall the Jews be gath- 
 ered ; they shall be purified, and a new heart given to them. God will 
 give them his Spirit, and cause them to obey his laws. He will save 
 them from then* enemies, and from all the various evils which they had 
 so long suffered. They shall become true penitents, and their land, 
 which was a desolation, shall be like the garden of Eden. God will be 
 inquired of, in order that he may do all this for them ; and all the waste 
 places of Judea shall be restored. 
 
 (26) Ezek. 37: 21 — 28. The Jews shall all be gathered in, and be- 
 come one nation, and one King shall reign over them. They shall no 
 more return to the worship of idols. David shall be king over them, 
 and be their prince forever. They shall dwell in their own land, and 
 God will make an everlasting covenant with them, and be their God, 
 and they shall be his people. 
 
 (27) Ezek. 39: 20 — 28. The prediction in this passage refers evi- 
 dently to a more distant and subsequent period of the prosperity of the 
 church, i. e. a period which follows the great irruption made upon it by 
 Gog and Magog, whose forces are destroyed by divine interposition ; 
 comp. Rev. 20: 7 — 10. The amount of the prediction is, as before, that 
 the Jews should be gathered from all countries, become penitent, and 
 obtain mercy. God will pour out his Spirit abundantly upon them, and 
 he will never more hide Iris face from them. 
 
 Thus we perceive, that all the predictions in Ezekiel are of the same 
 tenor with those in Jeremiah, and have respect merely to the future lot 
 of the Jewish nation. 
 
 (28) The book of Daniel expands again into somewhat of the like 
 tenor with that of Isaiah, only it is more brief and more general. Dan. 
 2: 44. The God of heaven shall set up a kingdom, (after the days of 
 the four kingdoms symbolized by the image seen in Nebuchadnezzar’s 
 dream,) which shall break in pieces and destroy all other kingdoms, and 
 stand forever. 
 
 (29) Dan. 7: 13, 14, 27. To the Son of Man is given a kingdom, 
 and dominion, and glory. All nations will serve him ; and Iris dominion 
 is everlasting. The kingdom under the whole heaven is given to the peo- 
 ple of the saints of the most high God. 
 
 (30) Dan. 9: 24 — 27. This contains the famous passage respecting 
 the seventy weeks. But as no interpretation of this has yet been given, 
 so far as I know, which meets all the demands of critical exegesis, or 
 entirely satisfies the minds of . candid and enlightened inquirers, I will 
 not count upon this passage, on the present occasion. 
 
 (31) Dan. 12: 1 — 3. Great trouble, such as never before existed 
 among the Jewish nation, shall come upon them ; but the people of God 
 shall be delivered. Many that sleep in the dust shall arise. They that 
 
22 
 
 COMPARISON OP THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 be wise, and turn many to righteousness, shall shine as the brightness of 
 the firmament, and as the stars forever and ever.* 
 
 In the book of Daniel, then, the two predictions, which are sufficiently 
 plain to be here counted upon, are of the same tenor with those in Isa- 
 iah, and in the Apocalypse. Different are the representations of the 
 minor prophets in general. 
 
 (32) Hos. 3: 4, 5. The children of Israel shall be many days with- 
 out a prince, without sacrifices and ritual ceremonies, and afterwards 
 shall return and seek the Lord, and David their king, and fear the Lord 
 in the latter days. 
 
 (33) Joel 2: 28 — 32. God will pour out his Spirit on all flesh, even 
 all the different classes of men from the highest to the lowest, and will 
 exhibit astonishing signs of his presence and power. All that call upon 
 the name of the Lord shall be saved. 
 
 (34) Joel 3: 17 — 21. No strangers shall annoy or pollute God’s 
 holy mountain. The land shall flow with milk and wine ; while the 
 countries of all its enemies shall be laid waste. Jerusalem and Judah 
 shall have a permanent residence, and be made clean. This prediction 
 seems to compare well with Ezek. 39: 20 — 28, which relates to the times 
 that are subsequent to the invasion of Gog and Magog. It character- 
 izes the old age of the world, and therefore can be compared only with 
 the season which follows the tune of Gog and Magog, as mentioned in 
 Rev. 20: 8—10. 
 
 (35) Amos 9: 11 — 15. The tabernacle of David, which has fallen, 
 is to be raised up, and the breaches thereof repaired. A season of peace 
 and great plenty is to follow. The people of God are to be planted in 
 their own land, and to be no more disturbed. 
 
 (36) Hag. 2: 6, 7. Heaven and earth, the sea and the dry land, are 
 to be shaken. The Desire of all nations is to come, and fill the house 
 of the Lord with glory. 
 
 (37) Zech. 12: 10 — 14. Universal penitence and mourning is to take 
 place among the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. They 
 are to mourn over Him whom they have pierced. 
 
 (38) Zech. 14: 20, 21. Holiness to the Lord is to be inscribed on 
 
 * I hesitate whether this is to be put to the account of Messianic prophecies. 
 The certain object of it does not, as yet, seem to have been clearly and in all re- 
 spects satisfactorily made out. The resurrection here mentioned some have 
 thought to agree with that brought to view as preceding the Millennium, in Rev. 
 20: 4 — 6. But in the latter case, only Christians, or perhaps only Christian mar- 
 tyrs, appear to be the subjects of the first resurrection ; while in Dan. 12: 2, we 
 find some to be raised to everlasting life , and some to everlasting contempt ; i. e. 
 a general resurrection seems to be indicated here, while that in Rev. 20: 4 — 6 is, 
 to say the most, only partial. More light is needed in respect to both passages, 
 in order to obtain full and entire satisfaction. 
 
WITH OTHER SCRIPTURAL PROPHECIES. 
 
 23 
 
 everything which belongs to his house and to Jerusalem. The Ca- 
 naanites will no more dwell in the land. This prophecy seems to tally 
 with that in Ezek. 39: 20—28. Joel 3: 17—21. Rev. 20: 8—10, and 
 to relate to the times which are to follow the invasion by Gog and Ma- 
 gog. 
 
 (39) Mai. 4: 2 — 6. The Sun of righteousness will arise with healing 
 in his wings. Israel shall prosper, and the wicked be trodden down. 
 Elijah, the prophet, will come as the forerunner of the day of the Lord. 
 He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and of the chil- 
 dren to the fathers. 
 
 Such is the tenor of the predictions in the Old Testament, in relation 
 to the deeply interesting subject before us. I have not aimed at citing 
 them all ; and I have purposely omitted such as relate merely to the 
 'person of the Messiah ; because these had been fulfilled when the Apoc- 
 alypse was written, and could not be there introduced as predictions of 
 what was yet to come. Only such prophecies as have relation to the 
 universal spread of religion, whether among the Jews, or Gentiles, or 
 both, have a direct bearing on our subject. Of these the number is so 
 great, as to leave no room for well-grounded doubt in the mind, that 
 the pious Jews of former ages must have been filled with high expecta- 
 tions in regard to the Messianic period, and, like good old Simeon, must 
 have been waiting for the Consolation of Israel , or, like Abraham, they 
 must have seen the Saviour’s day afar off, and have been glad. 
 
 That some of the predictions cited above, as having relation to the 
 future extent and glory of the church, have been, and will be, interpre- 
 ted differently from what they are here supposed to mean, every reader 
 well versed in biblical interpretation will know without admonition. It 
 is a fact, moreover, that interpreters have not been wanting, who have 
 even denied that there is any such thing as real prediction, either in the 
 Old Testament or in the New ; and many such are now upon the stage. 
 But as my present concern is not with the dispute between Rationalists 
 and Believers in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, so I cannot 
 here enter into it, nor stop to vindicate my exegesis. It is enough for 
 my -present purpose to say, that I have made such an application of the 
 prophecies cited, as I believe to be well founded. At all events, the 
 same principles will apply to them as to the Apocalypse ; and if the one 
 is prophetic , the other also is so. The basis of both is evidently the 
 same, viz. the universal spread and triumph of true religion. The only 
 seeming exceptions here, are those prophecies which have respect only 
 to the future conversion and restoration of the whole Jewish people. 
 But I cannot regard what is said in this respect, as standing at all in 
 opposition to such predictions as the book of Isaiah contains. The 
 
24 
 
 COMPARISON OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 prophets who have spoken only of the restoration of the Jews, had their 
 reasons, doubtless, for so doing — reasons, one would think, connected 
 with the circumstances, the time, the place, the relations, in which they 
 uttered their respective predictions. It would not be safe to conclude, 
 that because only a reformation in part is expressly predicted in a par- 
 ticular passage, a universal one is intended to be denied. We can only 
 conclude from such a phenomenon, that for some good reason the pro- 
 phets, who uttered the partial predictions, proceeded at that time no fur- 
 ther. 
 
 On the whole, then, nothing can be plainer, in view of what has al- 
 ready been laid before the reader, than that the main subject of the Apoc- 
 alypse is not in the least degree a novel one. The costume ; the length 
 and connection of the several series of predictions ; the symbols unceas- 
 ingly employed ; the nature of these symbols in some respects ; the con- 
 nection which all hopes of the future reformation and salvation of a per- 
 ishing world have with the religion instituted by the Saviour of men ; 
 and the peculiar development of the kingdom of God in consequence of 
 this ; — all these are in the main new circumstances, it must be confessed, 
 and peculiar to the author of the Apocalypse. But these are matters 
 which are immediately connected with the style and peculiar situation 
 of the writer, and with the times in which he lived, and are not substan- 
 tially concerned with the main and fundamental design of his whole 
 composition. In substance , there is an entire unity between the Old 
 Testament prophecies and the Apocalypse, as to the future extent and 
 completion of the kingdom of God, or the reign of true piety and virtue. 
 A pious and intelligent Jew, or any sober person familiar with the writ- 
 ings of the Old Testament, could not overlook the identity of the main 
 object in both the cases that have just been named. 
 
 II. Passages in the New Testament. 
 
 But have the New Testament writers exhibited anything of the same 
 expectations ? Has the Saviour himself given any intimation that he 
 was sent to others, as well as “ to the lost sheep of the house of Israel ?” 
 The answer is not difficult ; for it is plain that one heart and soul, in re- 
 lation to the subject before us, pervade the writers of the New Testa- 
 ment and of the Old. 
 
 (40) Matt. 8: 11. When Jesus had healed the servant of a Roman 
 centurion, he is reported by the Evangelist to have marvelled at the 
 faith of this heathen man, and to have said : “ Many shall come from 
 the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Ja- 
 cob, in the kingdom of God.” In Luke 13: 29, the Evangelist adds : 
 “ From the north and the south,” as well as from the east and the west. 
 
WITH OTHER SCRIPTURAL PROPHECIES. 
 
 25 
 
 The obvious meaning is, that the heathen on all sides shall come and 
 participate in the blessings of the gospel.* 
 
 (41) In Matt. 28: 19, 20. Mark 16: 15, the disciples of Jesus are 
 commanded to go and teach all nations , to go and preach the gospel to 
 every creature . 
 
 (42) John 3: 16, 17, tells us, that God so loved the world , as to give 
 his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him should not perish, 
 but have everlasting life ; and that God sent his Son, in order that the 
 world through him might be saved. 
 
 (43) In John 10: 16 we are told by the Saviour, that he has other 
 sheep which are not of the Jewish fold ; that they must hear his voice ; 
 and that there will be one fold and one Shepherd. 
 
 (44) In John 12: 32 it is said, that when Jesus is lifted up, he will 
 draw all men unto him. 
 
 (45) John 17: 20, 21. Jesus prays not for his disciples only, but for 
 all who would believe on him through their word, that they all might be 
 one. 
 
 (46) In Acts 1: 8, the apostles are told by the Saviour, that they 
 should be witnesses for him, not only in Judea and Samaria, but in the 
 uttermost parts of the earth. 
 
 (47) In Acts 10: 34, 35, Peter declares, after a divine vision so in- 
 structing him, that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation 
 he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him. 
 
 (48) In Acts 15: 16, 17, James declares, that according to ancient 
 prophecy, the tabernacle of David is to be again built, that the residue 
 of men . . . and all the Gentiles might seek after the Lord. 
 
 (49) Acts 17: 30. God now commands all men, everywhere, to re- 
 pent. 
 
 (50) Acts 28: 28. The salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, and 
 they will listen to it. 
 
 (51) In the epistle to the Romans, the fact that salvation belongs 
 equally to the Jews and Gentiles is one of the main themes of discus- 
 sion. Comp. 1: 13 — 16. 3: 29, 30. 4: 16, 17. 5: 18 — 21. 10: 11 — 21. 
 In chap. 11: 25 — 32 are most specific declarations, that the Jews, with 
 the fulness of the Gentiles, will be brought in, and so all Israel shall be 
 saved. Here is the germ of the whole Apocalypse, or at least the same 
 kind of germ as that from which the Apocalypse sprung. 
 
 (52) Everywhere, in Paul, the like sentiments are to be found. It 
 would be superfluous to cite them. Let the reader compare Gal. 3: 
 7 9, also vs. 22 — 29. Eph. 1: 10. 2: 11 — 22, which is very full and 
 
 1 have purposely omitted Matt. xxiv. here ; because 1 have, in the sequel, 
 drawn it and the parallel passages in the other Evangelists more particularly into 
 comparison with the Apocalypse. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 COMPARISON WITH HEATHEN PREDICTIONS 
 
 express. See also Heb. 8: 8 — 13. Many other places of the like tenor 
 might easily be quoted. 
 
 (53) In 1 John 2: 2, he will find the beloved disciple echoing the sen- 
 timents of his Lord and Master, by declaring that Jesus Christ is the 
 propitiation for the sins of the whole world ; and again (4: 14), that the 
 Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 
 
 Many of the texts in the New Testament, to which I have now re- 
 ferred, do not indeed directly assert the universality of the actual spread 
 of the Gospel, but only the universality of its design. But that it will 
 ultimately be made to accomplish its design, yea, that it will fully ac- 
 complish it, who that confides in the promises of the Saviour will ven- 
 ture to doubt ? 
 
 We have then here the same idea everywhere presented, as that which 
 forms the basis of the Apocalypse, viz. the universality of the Christian 
 religion, and of course its final triumph over all the spirits of error and 
 all the powers of darkness. As this idea evidently pervades the plan of 
 redemption, so it also pervades the Scriptures which have revealed that 
 plan. The benevolence of God stands pledged for the accomplishment 
 of it. 
 
 § 3. Are views similar to these to be found among the heathen ? 
 
 We may answer this question in the affirmative, or in the negative, 
 according to the sense which we assign to the word similar, contained in 
 the title' of this section. If we mean to ask : Whether a Messiah, a Sa- 
 viour of men from the power and penalty of sin by the offering up of 
 his own body as an expiatory sacrifice, and thus procuring eternal re- 
 demption for sinful men, has been proclaimed by the heathen ; whether 
 the pure, spiritual, holy, catholic religion taught by him, and designed to be 
 spread among all nations in order to make them converts, and also to 
 produce its full influence upon them, has been published by the unen- 
 lightened heathen ; then the answer is plain. The Gospel, as contain- 
 ed in the Scriptures, old and new, but specially in the new — the Gospel 
 only makes such disclosures as these. The wisdom of God, as exhibi- 
 ted in this, was “ hidden from ages and from generations so that “ the 
 world by wisdom knew not God.” There is nothing among all the de- 
 velopments of unenlightened heathen, which has any tolerably strict 
 resemblance to the highly important truths that have just been men- 
 tioned. 
 
 But our inquiry may well be modified so as to express a view of this 
 subject which is more generic. We may refer, in our question, to the 
 simple wish or hope of future deliverance from evils such as the present 
 to which our race are exposed ; and then we may answer in the affirma^ 
 
OF A MILLENNIAL STATE. 
 
 27 
 
 tive, at least to a certain extent and within limits which are of a some- 
 what moderate compass. 
 
 There is in the breast of man a consciousness of dependence and of 
 ill desert, accompanied by a desire to propitiate the Being, or those Su- 
 perior Powers, on whom he feels himself to be dependent, and whom he 
 believes himself to have offended. Witness the expiatory sacrifices, the 
 penances, and all the ascetic rites and usages to which the heathen 
 world have in some form or other resorted. Every man of thought and 
 reflection is conscious of his own weakness and woes, and conscious also 
 that he is capable of enjoying something higher and nobler than that 
 which he now possessed and enjoys ; he therefore naturally, as a rational 
 being made in the image of God, looks forward with hope to something 
 better than what he now possesses. Evils are pressing constantly upon 
 him. From the moment in which he opens his eyes upon life to that in 
 which he closes them in death, they do not cease to urge him. To pain, 
 sickness, pestilence, hunger, thirst, the inclemency of the elements, the 
 changes of seasons, storms, tempests, earthquakes — to the loss of friends 
 and of estate, yea to innumerable other woes from without , he must be 
 continually exposed in his present state. From within his sufferings are 
 not less. His immortal mind is so connected with his bodily frame, that 
 almost every evil which assails the latter, must also affect the former. 
 And besides ; what a mass of inconsistencies does he find within himself! 
 So much wisdom linked with so much folly ; so much consideration 
 joined to so much rashness ; such exalted conceptions followed by such 
 low and groveling desires ; such lofty aspirations after something purer 
 and more satisfactory to the nature of the soul, and yet quickly followed 
 by a retinue of appetites that may degrade him below the brutes which 
 perish ! What a mystery, what an inexplicable enigma, is man when 
 viewed merely in such a light ! 
 
 There have been minds in every age and nation, which have reflected 
 on subjects such as these, and have, as it were instinctively, been led to 
 indulge hopes or expectations of deliverance at sojne future period, from 
 a condition in which such things must be suffered. But without light 
 from above, specially in regard to the mode and time of deliverance, re- 
 demption from such evils could scarcely be regarded as attainable ; and 
 all that could be argued in favour of believing in it was, that the benevo- 
 lence of the Godhead and the nature of man seem to require it. It would 
 follow, of course, that where the light of revelation had not been shed, con- 
 jecture in relation to this great subject would move in various directions, 
 and be guided very much by the circumstances of the individual who 
 indulged it. 
 
 As an example, however, of the manner in which the hopes or wishes 
 of a heathen could be expressed, in regard to some future deliverance 
 
28 
 
 COMPARISON WITH HEATHEN PREDICTIONS 
 
 from the evils of the present world, we may appeal to the fourth Eclogue 
 of Virgil, inscribed to the consul Pollio ; specially to the passage which 
 begins thus : 
 
 Ultima Cumaei venit jam carminis aetas ; 
 
 Magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo ; etc. 
 
 The passage is too familiar to need further quotation or description. 
 That Virgil has here copied from the ancient Cumaean Sibyl, and that 
 the composition before us contains a real Messianic prediction, is an 
 opinion at least as old as Lactantius (Instt. VII. 24), and Constantine the 
 Great (Orat. ad Sanct. in Euseb. Vita Constant, c. 19). In recent times, 
 Chandler, Whiston, Cudworth, and many others, have been of the like 
 persuasion ; and even Bishop Lowth (Lect. XXI. on Hebrew Poetry) 
 seems hardly able to refrain from the belief of a divine inspiration in 
 this beautiful piece of composition. I cannot but observe, however, that 
 it lies on the face of Virgil’s whole representation, that his poetic hopes 
 were limited merely to civil and social prosperity and happiness. How 
 different the whole tenor of this is, from the view presented by the 
 Apocalypse where all is moral and Christian , no sensible reader needs 
 to be informed. 
 
 But we may go further back than Virgil, and find among some remote 
 oriental nations the idea of a general dnoy.azdozaaig. The books of 
 Zoroaster, so long spoken of by Greek, Roman, and Christian writers, 
 before and after the birth of Christ, but known to them only by report, 
 have at last been in part rescued from their obscurity and brought be- 
 fore the world, in a translation by Anquetil du Perron of the last gene- 
 ration. Zoroaster, the far-famed author of these books, written in the 
 Zend language, i. e. the language of ancient Media, in all probability 
 flourished about the middle of the 6th century before Christ, a little be- 
 fore, or during, the reign of Darius Hystaspes. The sum of his dnoxa- 
 tdczacig, as exhibited in the Zend Avesta, and in the Bun Dehesh, 
 which is a commentary on it written some 1100 or 1200 years ago, I 
 will briefly state in a note, for the satisfaction of the reader.* 
 
 * Before all things existed Zeruane Akerene , i. e. Time irithout Limits , or endless 
 eternity ( ewige Ewigkeit , as Kleuker translates it). This infinite Being produced 
 two others, Ahriman and Oromasd. Both were good at first; but Ahriman fell 
 from his primitive holy state, and became essentially malignant. The Supreme 
 Being assigned to these two beings, who after the fall of Ahriman became rivals 
 and enemies of each other, a cycle of 12,000 years in which they were to act. 
 The first 3000 was assigned exclusively to Oromasd or Ormusd for predomi- 
 nance ; and in this period he created Feruers, i. e. the essences (like the Platonic 
 I'decu) of all beings. During the second 3000 years, Oromasd was employed in 
 creating all that is good, and Ahriman (in opposition to him) in creating all that 
 is bad. When Ormusd at length brought the race of man into existence, Ahri- 
 man, and the evil angels and genii whom he had created, entered into contest 
 
OF A MILLENNIAL STATE. 
 
 29 
 
 It would lead me aside from my present object, to dwell on the points 
 of resemblance between Zoroaster’s scheme of religion and that exhibit- 
 ed particularly in the latter part of the Apocalypse. It must be admit- 
 ted that there are some striking points of resemblance ; and some there 
 are, also, of difference equally striking. That Zoroaster makes his arto- 
 xazaazaaig universal and complete , springs necessarily from the nature 
 of his Dualism, and from the promise of Time without Limits to Ormusd, 
 at the commencement of the great cycle, that his triumph should at last 
 be certain and complete. John, in the Apocalypse, presents us with a 
 view of the final condition of the beast and false prophet, together with 
 Satan and his adherents, which is very different. The second death 
 which they are sentenced to undergo, admits of no restoration. If the 
 writer of the Apocalypse knew anything of the doctrines of the Zend- 
 Avesta, (which has of late been strenuously asserted), he has at least 
 taken the liberty often and widely to depart from them.* * But still, must 
 we say now that the author of the Apocalypse has, in common with the 
 heathen, merely adorned a general principle which is spontaneous as it 
 were to our nature, by inventing a sublime and beautiful allegory for 
 this purpose ? The attentive and judicious reader will hardly say this. 
 The difference between the moral hue of the Apocalypse, and that of 
 all the heathen fables which bear any general resemblance to parts of it, 
 is exceedingly great, and lies indeed upon the very face of the book. 
 
 It may not be out of place here to remark, that it is no objection to 
 the doctrine of one only living and true God as taught in the Scriptures, 
 that many of the heathen had exalted conceptions of the Divinity, which 
 
 with Ormusd and his good angels and genii ; the first aiming to corrupt and de- 
 stroy everything good, the last striving to defend and preserve it. This contest 
 continued in a doubtful state for the third period of 3000 years, sometimes Or- 
 musd and sometimes Ahriman prevailing. During the fourth or last period of 
 3000 years, Ahriman is to have the predominance, although opposition to him on 
 the part of Ormusd and all good beings is never to cease. At the end of this 
 period, when the great cycle is completed, comes the general dToxazdaraotg. 
 The dead are all to be raised and brought to judgment. The earth is to be burn- 
 ed up, and thus to be purified from all the, remains of evil which Ahriman and 
 his agents had mingled with it. A new heavens and a new earth is to come 
 forth from this conflagration of the old. The wicked, who had been the adhe- 
 rents and followers of Ahriman, are to be punished in a dreadful manner, along 
 with him, until finally all will become penitent, and the triumph of Ormusd be 
 universal and complete. 
 
 * The reader of the Classics, who has so often found in them descriptions or 
 references to the four ages, will naturally be led to inquire, whether there is not 
 some close affinity, as to origin, between them and the four great periods of Zoro- 
 aster. Many resemblances may easily be found. The great period, moreover, of 
 the 12,000 years — may not this correspond with Virgil's magni menses in Ec. IV, 
 and with the magnus annus of Servius, who comments on the passage in Virgil ? 
 More light will yet be thrown on some of these matters. 
 
so 
 
 COMPARISON WITH HEATHEN PREDICTIONS. 
 
 in some respects approached very near to those in the Bible. It is no 
 objection to scriptural morality, that Socrates, Plato, Xenophon, Plu- 
 tarch, Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, and many others, cherished not a few 
 right notions respecting morality. Nor is it any proof against the in- 
 spiration of the Scriptures, that many doctrines of natural theology, (so 
 to speak), are assumed by the sacred writers, instead of being formally 
 proved by them, or established by mere dint of authority. Even the 
 existence of the Godhead itself is everywhere assumed , and nowhere de- 
 monstrated by argument. 
 
 Why may we not say, then, that the hope which is strengthened and 
 made sure by the Apocalypse, the hope that the reign of sin and sorrow 
 will finally cease and the triumph of holiness and happiness be complete, 
 is not to be considered as merely and only a natural principle of the hu- 
 man heart adorned by ingenious fiction, and presented as such in this 
 book because such hope is congenial with our nature ? That it is con- 
 genial , may be fully conceded. But from the very fact, that there is 
 such a principle implanted in our breasts, I would argue, that the great 
 Author of our nature has caused such a book as the Apocalypse to be 
 written ; for by it the wants which spring from the natural desire of de- 
 liverance from evil may be fully satisfied. The book now presents a 
 consolation the need of which we feel. It is adapted to our case. And 
 how can this be turned into a legitimate argument against its high ori- 
 gin and authority ? 
 
 From a survey of the Scriptures in general, and of some prevalent 
 views in the heathen world, we now venture to say, that John has not 
 produced, in the Apocalypse, any important doctrine which is wholly 
 new or strange, and therefore incredible. His book cannot be rejected 
 on such a ground, by any intelligent or candid reader. The world was 
 filled with hopes, more or less distinct, of a nature like to those encour- 
 aged and rendered sure by the Apocalypse, at the time when this book 
 was written. It was doubtless no matter of surprise to the Christians 
 who were contemporary with the author, to find in the Revelation the 
 leading truths which it inculcates. Ages and generations had hoped and 
 sighed for deliverance from sin and sorrow. The work of John opened 
 and made bright the prospect of realizing what had so long been desi- 
 red. His style and manner, the costume of his book, many of his sym- 
 bols, his plan and mode of development, were in some respects new, 
 certainly very striking. But the churches of early times do not seem to 
 have thought that the Revelation was either so peculiar or so obscure, 
 that it ought to be rejected from a place among the sacred books. When 
 modern critics have thought and reasoned in this way, have they not 
 displayed some want of proper attention to the history of opinions that 
 belong to the early ages of Christianity ? 
 
APOCALYPTIC STYLE OF PROPHECY. 
 
 31 
 
 § 4. Estimation in which the apocalyptic style of prophecy was held , at 
 the time when the Revelation ivas composed. 
 
 Whoever reads with care the prophecies of the Old Testament re- 
 specting the Messianic reign, and the future prosperity and glory of the 
 church — such as have been offered to the view of the reader in a pre- 
 ceding section of this work — can scarcely fail to observe how gradually 
 the manner of them is changed, while the matter or substantial basis of 
 them remains still the same. Nothing can be more general and brief 
 than the first annunciations. “ The seed of the woman shall bruise the 
 serpent’s head.” “ Shiloh shall come, and unto him the gathering of 
 the people shall be.” “In Abraham’s seed, shall all the nations of 
 the earth be blessed.” Who the individual deliverer was to be ; what 
 his office or condition ; when or where he should make his appearance ; 
 by what means he was to become a blessing to all nations as well as to 
 the Jews ; all these and other things of a similar nature were held as 
 yet in reserve. It was only down so late as the time of David, when 
 the intimation was plainly given, that the expected Deliverer and King 
 would spring from his progeny. David, therefore, in prophetic antici- 
 pation of what was to take place, exhibited him before the public eye as 
 an all-powerful King, an irresistible Conqueror, whose reign would be 
 universal, and fill the earth with blessings. Other writers, of the same 
 age and of succeeding times, animated with the like spirit, re-echoed the 
 strains of this immortal bard, and widely proclaimed the victories of the 
 King of kings and Lord of lords. The 45th Psalm, the ninth chapter 
 of Isaiah, and other pieces of the like tenor, are striking examples of 
 what I have just stated. 
 
 Among all the earlier prophetic annunciations respecting the future 
 kingdom of heaven, however, none are to be found where symbol is em- 
 ployed in the manner in which Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and the au- 
 thor of the Apocalypse employ it. Figurative language is, indeed, 
 everywhere employed. From the very nature of the case, this was ab- 
 solutely necessary ; for how could an attractive picture of things in the 
 distant future be drawn, without borrowing the costume of the age in 
 which the prophetic author wrote ? How could he form a picture both 
 animated and striking, unless he addressed the imagination and fancy 
 through the medium of imagery or tropical language? The second 
 Psalm, the 45th Psalm, and most of the predictions in Isaiah, are nota- 
 te examples of what I here mean to designate. No part of the Scrip- 
 tures is more full of trope and imagery than these Messianic composi- 
 tions ; none requires more rhetorical discrimination and taste, in order 
 to make a correct interpretation. 
 
32 
 
 APOCALYPTIC STYLE OF PROPHECY. 
 
 But with all this abundance of metaphor and animated imagery, how 
 different still is the manner of these predictions, from the general tenor 
 of those contained in the book of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah ! I 
 do not now speak merely of the Messianic predictions in these books, 
 but of the general manner of the entire compositions of these prophets. 
 From the time of the captivity downwards, the taste of the Hebrew 
 writers in general seems to have undergone a great change. I know of 
 nothing more dissimilar in respect to style and method, than Isaiah, for 
 example, on the one side, and Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, Haggai, and 
 Malachi, on the other. Jeremiah is an example of a kind of interme- 
 diate tone between the two. But he was educated in Palestine, and 
 spent most of his life there. His style exhibits some points of surpass- 
 ing excellence, in regard to which he has not been outdone by any wri- 
 ter, perhaps never equalled. But his writings afford us only a few ex- 
 amples of the symbolic method of representation ; such as those of the 
 linen girdle, chap, xiii ; the potter and his marred work, chap, xviii ; 
 the potter’s earthen bottle, chap, xix ; the two baskets of figs, chap, xxiv ; 
 and the bonds and yoke put on his neck, chap, xxvii. In Isaiah, I find 
 but a single instance of a similar nature ; (unless indeed we add to this 
 the representation in chap, viii.) This is in chap, xx, where the pro- 
 phet is commanded “ to walk naked and barefoot for the space of three 
 years.” I do not understand this, however, as anything more than an 
 emblematic 'picture exhibited indeed in language, but not literally carried 
 through in action. Still, in its nature it is symbolic. In the same man- 
 ner I understand the symbolic transaction exhibited in Hosea i, ii. 
 Amos has one example of symbol also, in chap, viii, viz. a basket of 
 summer fruit. 
 
 Let the reader pass now from an attentive examination of these early 
 prophets, to the careful perusal of those who wrote during and after the 
 Babylonish exile. Ezekiel, from beginning to end, is almost an unbro- 
 ken series of symbolical representation. His preaching or prophesying 
 stands, in almost every case, connected intimately with representations 
 of such a nature. 
 
 The book of Daniel is, if we except a little of it which is occupied 
 with historic narrative, nothing but symbol from beginning to end. 
 Dreams, visions, sensible representations, in which that is acted out, in 
 view of the prophet, which he is to record as a prediction, constitute the 
 whole of his prophecies. In these respects, he is the exemplar of the 
 Apocalypse, whose author, although indeed no imitator in a servile sense 
 of any other writer, would seem still to have given a decided preference 
 to Daniel’s method of representation above that of other prophets. 
 
 The book of Zechariah, again, is one continuous strain of symbols, 
 until we reach chap, vii ; this, with chap, viii, resembles very much the 
 
APOCALYPTIC STYLE OF PROPHECY. 
 
 33 
 
 manner of Haggai and Malachi, his contemporaries. From the 9th chap, 
 to the end, the strain is indeed diverse ; so much so, that critics have 
 been and are still divided in opinion, whether this portion of the book 
 belongs to the same author who wrote the first half of the book. With- 
 out entering into this dispute, I would merely remark, that the subject 
 of the last part of the book is so very diverse from that of the first, that 
 we might reasonably expect a different mode of treating it. But, with 
 all the diversity between chap, ix— -xiv. and the rest of the book, still 
 chap xi. furnishes us with a notable example of teaching by the use of 
 symbol ; as marked, indeed, as any in the preceding part of the book. 
 
 In the brief compositions of Haggai and Malachi, symbol does not oc- 
 cur ; but both of their books are merely hortatory or admonitory , rather 
 than predictions respecting the future. 
 
 Here then are plain and palpable facts before us. A great change 
 took place in the prophetic style and method, from and after the date of 
 the Jewish captivity. Jeremiah presents this matter to us, in its tran- 
 sition-state ; which is what we might naturally expect. Ezekiel, who is 
 carried into a foreign country when young, fully adopts the method of 
 the prophets during and after the exile. The taste for this mode of 
 writing, introduced by such men as Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah, 
 seems to have been widely diffused among the Jews everywhere, and to 
 have come down, with augmented sway, to the apostolic age and the 
 times which immediately succeeded it. This we shall have abundant 
 opportunity to see, in the sequel. 
 
 In whatever way so great a change in the style of composition was 
 brought about among the Jewish prophets, yet the fact itself admits of 
 no denial or conceahnent. The taste of writers and readers certainly 
 underwent a great revolution. Did the influence of the Chaldees upon 
 the Jews effect this ? Or is it one of those things which supervene so 
 gradually, that a specific cause can hardly be assigned for it ? Is it, for 
 example, like the change in English style and taste, since the days of 
 Addison, Steele, and Pope ? 
 
 That theory of inspiration which makes men mere machines while un- 
 der its influence, responding to the touch of an invisible hand, as the lyre 
 does to the touch of its master, can hardly find admission here. Accord- 
 ing to this account of prophecy, here was in all respects the same author, 
 who guided Isaiah, and Hosea, and Amos, and Joel, and Micah. But 
 nothing can be more diverse than the manner in which he spoke by 
 them, and that in which he spoke during and after the exile. Can we 
 venture to suggest, that the taste of the divine Author himself became 
 changed in the course of time, in order that we may account for the 
 phenomenon before us ? The bare suggestion of such a thing makes us 
 instinctively revolt from it. Shall we not say, then, as Paul does, that 
 
 VOL. I. 5 
 
34 
 
 APOCALYPTIC STYLE OF PROPHECY. 
 
 “ the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets and inasmuch as 
 this is so, all the individualities of character, in each age, and in each 
 particular prophet, are of course fully developed? If facts may be per- 
 mitted to bear testimony on this occasion, (and why not ?) we must say, 
 that the latter supposition is probably true. Diversities greater, more 
 specific, more easily pointed out, and more characteristic of difference in 
 taste and cultivation, exist nowhere among Greek, Roman, or English 
 writers, than exist among the writers of the Old Testament prophecies. 
 
 If one wanted proof of the almost self-evident maxim, that when God 
 speaks to men he speaks more humano , he might find it in the facts before 
 us. Why does Ezekiel differ so much from Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, and 
 others of an earlier age ? Because, I would answer, his own personal 
 taste, and that of others whom he addresses, was exceedingly different 
 from the taste of former times. It matters not from what cause this dif- 
 ference sprung. As a fact it stands out in relief before us ; and we pro- 
 ceed in a correct manner, therefore, when we attribute to it all the in- 
 fluence that it would naturally have. 
 
 The question is of little or no moment here, which of the two methods 
 of writing now under consideration, is rhetorically to be preferred. In 
 the West, no doubt Isaiah would bear away the palm. But there is an 
 East as well as a West, in a world so large as ours ; and there cannot 
 be a shadow of doubt, that Ezekiel and Daniel would carry the prize in 
 all the eastern world. Much nearer to their taste do these authors ap- 
 proach, than the simple and sublime Isaiah. What rational objection 
 can be made, now, that a book, such as the Bible, intended for all the 
 nations of the earth, should exhibit on its pages such a variety of method 
 in composition, that every part of the world may find in it something 
 adapted to its own taste ? 
 
 What I have now said may serve to explain, and at the same time 
 defend, the style and manner of the Apocalypse, which so nearly, in 
 many respects, resembles that of the later Hebrew prophets. The taste 
 of the later prophets was widely extended and long continued among 
 the Jews. In its nature it is more truly oriental , than that of the ear- 
 lier prophets. As the greater portion of the Jews never returned from 
 exile, but remained in distant eastern countries, no wonder that they 
 continued to relish in a peculiar manner the symbolic method of wilting, 
 exhibited by the later prophets, and that this taste came down to the 
 time of the Saviour and his apostles. 
 
 It is enough to say, in the way of defending the style of the Apoca- 
 lypse, if such defence were needed, that John complied with the demands 
 of the time in which he lived with regard to this. And if it should be 
 said here, that the Saviour himself and Paul did not employ the symbolic 
 method in their predictions ; it should be remembered, that the prophetic 
 
APOCALYPTIC STYLE OF PROPHECY. 
 
 35 
 
 declarations of both are exceedingly brief, rarely comprising more than 
 a few sentences, and in declarations of such a character there is not room 
 for composition of such a nature aS John exhibits. But the reader 
 should also call to mind the exceedingly figurative, I might even say 
 symbolic , description of the Saviour’s coming to punish the Jews, as set 
 forth in Matt. xxiv. I would remind him, also, that every part of our 
 Saviour’s instructions is filled with parables and similitudes ; a method 
 of speaking altogether of the like nature with that of using symbol in 
 prophecy. 
 
 It will be admitted, on all hands, that it is important for an interpre- 
 ter of any particular book of Scriptures, to gain all the knowledge which 
 he can of the taste and manners of the age in which the author of that 
 book lived. Whoever was the author of the Apocalypse, there can be 
 no rational doubt that the book itself was written during the first cen- 
 tury of the Christian era. Was the author alone and peculiar in his 
 taste ? Was he so singular, so peculiar in the method of his composi- 
 tion, as to offend the feelings and taste of his contemporaries, and expose 
 his book to be charged by his readers with being extravagant and unin- 
 telligible ? So one would think from the charges which in recent times 
 have been often made against the book, and which are not without ex- 
 ample, even during and after the latter part of the third century. There 
 have not been wanting critics, indeed, such as they were, who have more 
 than intimated that the writer of the Apocalypse was a kind of enthu- 
 siastic visionary, agitated, when he wrote his book, by a species of mono- 
 mania springing from the troubles and persecutions of the times in which 
 he lived. It is thus that ignorance or misconception of the true nature 
 of this work can speak ; but it becomes those who have examined this 
 matter, to consider well whether there is any weight in allegations of 
 such a character. 
 
 My position is, that the taste and manner of the Apocalypse is the taste 
 and manner of the later Hebrew prophets, and of the age in which John 
 himself lived. The former part of this allegation has already been illus- 
 trated and confirmed. It remains to exhibit, if it can be done, the truth 
 of the latter. 
 
 Fortunately for my purpose, there are a number of compositions still 
 extant, which took their rise during the first century or near the close of 
 it, and which either lay claim to a prophetic character, or evidently ex- 
 hibit, in their style and method, an attempt to imitate the symbolic or 
 apocalyptic mode of writing. F rom these we can judge what the taste 
 and feelings of that period was , in regard to composition of this nature ; 
 for nothing can be plainer, than that writers, who were desirous of being 
 read, would not knowingly offend against the taste of the age in which 
 they lived. It is evident, indeed, from the first reading of the pieces in 
 
36 
 
 APOCRYPHAL APOCALYPSES 
 
 question, that the apocalyptic manner of writing was one which was con- 
 sidered as specially agreeable to the taste of the times, and one which 
 would easily find its way to popular favour. 
 
 In giving some account of the ancient apocalyptic literature, which is 
 of an apocryphal nature, for the purpose of illustrating the spirit of the 
 age in which John lived, I shall divide it into two classes ; viz. (1) Such 
 books as are not known to be extant at present, but which are mention- 
 ed by ancient writers. (2) Such works as, either in whole or in part, 
 in a translation or in their original language, have come down to us. 
 
 I have named all the books of this nature apocryphal ; and by this 
 designation I mean to characterize them, (1) As not belonging to the 
 Christian canon of sacred books ; and (2) As containing ungrounded 
 pretences to the spirit of prophecy, and exhibiting by their manner and 
 matter more or less of fanaticism, empty auguries, idle speculations, vain 
 boastings of revealed scientific knowledge, mere histories of the past 
 clothed in the garb of predictions , and assumptions of very extraordinary 
 communications made in a manner not only supernatural, but not unfre- 
 quently in a way that is extravagant, childish, and altogether incredible. 
 With all these is intermixed many fine moral and sometimes truly Chris- 
 tian sentiments, and many views of God and divine things which have 
 their origin in the Scriptures. It will be understood of course, that I do 
 not here undertake to characterize the works of the Hebrew prophets 
 named above, but only such later apocryphal books as we now have op- 
 portunity to examine. Other apocryphal works which have perished, 
 if we may judge from the few specimens of them that have been pre- 
 served, and from the fate itself which they have experienced, were for 
 the most part inferior to those which still remain. The virtuoso in an- 
 cient sacred literature is probably, therefore, the only person that now 
 suffers any serious inconvenience worth naming, from the loss to which 
 I refer. Still, the reader will remember, that a leading object before us 
 at present is to inquire, whether the age of John was an age productive 
 in an uncommon degree of compositions which were designed to be of an 
 apocalyptic nature ; and if so, whether there is anything strange in the 
 fact, that John has made use of that method of developing his prophetic 
 views which the Apocalypse exhibits ? 
 
 § 5. Apocryphal Apocalypses which are not known to he now extant . 
 
 It will be understood by the reader, that the great antiquity of all 
 these is not asserted ; because the means of investigating the question 
 of age, are not in all cases within our power. In general we may with 
 much probability believe them to have been the productions of quite an 
 early age of Christianity, although not, perhaps, of the first century. 
 
NOT NOW KNOWN TO BE EXTANT. 
 
 37 
 
 I shall simply recount such of these books as are known by their titles, 
 and refer the reader to authors where he will find some description of 
 them. 
 
 (1) The Apocalypse of Elijah. (2) The Apocalypse of Zephaniah 
 (Eoopoviov). (3) The Apocalypse of Zechariah. 
 
 These are all mentioned as books that have perished, in the Codex 
 Biblioth. Coisl. vel Seguir. ed. Montfaucon, p. 194. Jerome also men- 
 tions the first, Epist. 101, ad Pammach. From their titles we should 
 naturally suppose them to have been apocalyptic in the manner of some 
 of the Old Testament prophets. But we can make no certain conclusion. 
 
 (4) The Apocalypse of Adam. This is mentioned in Epiph. Haer. 
 31. 8, as being a Gnostic production. 
 
 (5) The Apocalypse of Abraham. Also mentioned by the same au- 
 thor, Haer. 39. 5, and attributed to the Sethites. It is called Abra- 
 ham , in Pseudo- Athanas. Synopsis Scrip. Sac. 
 
 (6) The Apocalypse of Moses. Mentioned by Syncellus, Chronogr. 
 p. 27, and supposed by him, and Cedrenus (comp. Histor. p. 3), to be 
 the same with the book entitled Xsnzi\ Mcoascog ysvsoig. 
 
 (7) The Prophecies of Hystaspes. This book must have been com- 
 posed very early, inasmuch as Justin Martyr (Apol. Maj. § 20) men- 
 tions it as according, in its matter, with the Sibylline oracles. It ap- 
 pears not only to have been well known among the early Christians, 
 but Clemens Alex. (Strom vi. 5) quotes from an apocryphal writing of 
 the apostle Paul , extant in his time but not particularly described by 
 him, a passage which shows in what estimation it was held by some. 
 The writer of that Apocrypha, Clement says, asserts that Paul not only 
 recommended the Sibylline oracles to the heathen, but also the work of 
 Hystaspes ; in which last work they might find (as he alleges), that 
 “ the Son of God is more gloriously and clearly described [than in the 
 Sibylline oracles], and also how that many kings will make war against 
 Christ, hating him and those who bear his name, and his faithful follow- 
 ers, and his patience, and his coming.” The book, therefore, would 
 seem to have been of Christian origin ; while at the same time it was, 
 according to the testimony of Lactantius (Inst. vii. 15. vii. 18), of a like 
 tenor with the Sibylline oracles, often approaching the manner of hea- 
 then predictions. The eschatology of Zoroaster, viz. that the world would 
 perish by fire, etc., appears to have been adopted by the author of the 
 book ; who probably, therefore, was some oriental Christian, or Jewish 
 Christian. Bleek (Theol. Zeitschrift. I. p. 146) supposes the apocry- 
 phal writing of Paul, mentioned above, to have been composed in the 
 first century. Of course, if this be correct, the book of Hystaspes 
 must be assigned to an early period. 
 
 (8) The Apocalypse of Peter. Eusebius (Hist. Ecc. III. 3. 25) 
 
88 
 
 APOCRYPHAL APOCALYPSES 
 
 makes mention of this, and ranks it with other writings of a similar na- 
 ture, which he explicitly declares to be spurious. But Clement of Al- 
 exandria, in one of his Hypotyposes, (which is now lost, but a fragment 
 of which is found in Euseb. Hist. Ecc. YI. 14), makes mention of the 
 Apocalypse of Peter, and ranks it with the doubted Epistles of Jude 
 and Barnabas. Before the time of Clement, Theodotus the Gnostic 
 had made free use of this Apocalypse ; and in his ’ExXoyal ix tcov ttqo- 
 cprjnx car Oeodorov, the same Clement has preserved some small speci- 
 mens of the Apocalypse in question. The tenor of these is that of 
 heavy denunciation, probably directed against the Jews. In accordance 
 with this view of the writing before us, Lactantius speaks in Inst. IY. 
 21, where he says that the praedicatio of Paul and of Peter at Rome 
 was reduced to writing, and then cites from this writing many severe 
 comminations against the Jews. It is doubtful, however, whether this 
 praedicatio here means the Anoxalvipig TIstqov ; although Grabe and 
 Schmidt maintain this. It may have been the KyQvyya IIetqov, to 
 which matter of this kind would not have been inappropriate. — But be 
 this as it may, the anonymous fragment on the Canon in Muratori (An- 
 tiq. Ital. Med. Aevi, III. 854), who wrote near the end of the second 
 century or at the beginning of the third, says : “ Apocalypsis [- 2 s=£t£ ?] 
 Johannis et Petri tanturn recipimus, quam quidam ex nostris legi in ec- 
 clesia nolunt.” This writer, then, places the Apocalypse of Peter in 
 the same rank with that of John ; and so Clement of Alexandria appears 
 to have done. Sozomen also states, that it was read iv ty ypsQcc zijg 
 TtaQaGXEvrjg, in some of the churches of Palestine, down to the fifth cen- 
 tury. It was in all probability, then, of Judaeo- Christian origin, and in 
 its tenor it was like many other productions of that period which had a 
 similar origin. The extent of the writing cannot be known with cer- 
 tainty. In the stichometria , i. e. measure or number of oriyoi, pertain- 
 ing to the various sacred and to some apocryphal books, given in Cotel. 
 Patt. Apostol. I. p. 7, 2070 orlyoi are assigned to it by one reading, 
 and by another 270. To the Apocalypse of John is assigned, in the 
 same place, 1200. 
 
 (9) The Apocalypse of Paul. This was founded on the passage in 
 2 Cor. 12: 2 — 4, respecting Paul’s rapture into the third heaven, and 
 it professes to reveal what was there said to him. It was probably the 
 same writing that was often cited in ancient times under the title of Ava- 
 panxov IJavXov. Augustine (Tract. 98 in Evang. Johannis) says, that 
 it was “ full of fables invented stultissima presumptione.” The Cainitae, 
 an anti- Jewish sect and a branch of the Ophitae, appear to have made 
 great use of this writing. Sozomen refers to it in Ecc. Hist. YII. 19 ; 
 as do Tliedoret and Theophylact in their commentaries on 2 Cor. 12: 
 2 — 4. Theodosius of Alexandria, of an uncertain age, in his work 
 
/ 
 
 NOT NOW KNOWN TO BE EXTANT. 39 
 
 ’EQam'jfiaza n sqi TTQoacpdiojv, speaks of it as being no work of Paul the 
 apostle, but of Paul of Samosata ; which last, however, seems to be 
 merely conjectural. 
 
 (10) Revelations of Cerinthus. A question much contested has 
 arisen, in modern times, respecting these Revelations. The question is, 
 whether a book bearing such a title in ancient times, and being the work 
 of Cerinthus, really existed; or, whether the Apocalypse of John was 
 so called by Caius, a presbyter at Rome (fl. A. D. 200), because he sup- 
 posed Cerinthus to have been the author. Caius was a zealous opposer 
 of the Montanists, who maintained extravagant views in respect to a 
 terrestrial Millennium ; and in a Dialogue written by him against the 
 Montanists, he says, as quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. 3. 28, “ Cerin- 
 thus, under the guise of revelations written by a distinguished apostle, 
 has, without regal'd to truth, introduced to us accounts of wonderful 
 things as shown to him by angels, affirming that after the resurrection 
 there will be an earthly kingdom of Christ, and that we shall be made 
 citizens of Jerusalem in our fleshly state, and there serve once more our 
 lusts and pleasures. And being an enemy to the Scriptures of God, 
 and wishing to mislead, he says there will be a thousand years of wed- 
 ding-feasts.” Does Caius here mean, that Cerinthus himself forged 
 revelations which resembled those of John, and prefixed the apostle’s 
 name to them in order to gain credit for them ? Or does he mean to 
 stigmatize the Apocalypse itself as a supposititious work, attributed to 
 John by Cerinthus, and unworthy of credit ? This is not the proper 
 place for a discussion of this question, as it will again come up for con- 
 sideration in the sequel. I will therefore simply remark here, that 
 Eusebius nowhere mentions a book of this nature which was written by 
 Cerinthus himself, although he says much of him, and is very particu- 
 lar in naming all works of such a kind which had come to his know- 
 ledge. Neither does Irenaeus nor Epiphanius make any mention of 
 such a work as belonging to Cerinthus. The probability seems rather 
 to be, that Caius, out of zeal against the Montanists and Cerinthus, who 
 were enthusiastic Millenarians, meant by this passage to disclaim the 
 Apocalypse of John because it seemed to him too much to favour their 
 cause. He of course attributed the book to some factitious source, and 
 maintained that deception was practised by Cerinthus in respect to it. 
 
 (11) The Apocalypse of Saint Thomas . Merely mentioned in the 
 Decretum Gelasianum de libris Apocryphis. Also, 
 
 (12) The Apocalypse of Stephen the Martyr. Sixtus Senensis, in 
 his Biblioth. Sac. II. p. 12, quotes a writing of Serapion of Thmuis 
 against tlie Manichees, as saying, that they held this Apocalypse in 
 high estimation. Nothing more is known respecting it. The Greek 
 original of Serapion remains as yet unpublished. 
 
40 
 
 APOCRYPHAL REVELATIONS STILL EXTANT. 
 
 Later Apocalypses in abundance might be named ; but this would 
 have no bearing on the object before us ; which is, merely to illustrate 
 the strong inclination of the early ages of Christianity toward writings 
 of this nature. We see what abundant gleanings have already been 
 made, from writings which are mostly of early origin, and perhaps all 
 of them ; but which have perished, through their extravagance or in- 
 significance. In regard to some others yet to be mentioned, we are 
 placed in a different position. We have them before us, and can ex- 
 amine and judge for ourselves respecting the nature and design of their 
 composition. I shall give the result of my examination as briefly as is 
 consistent with imparting the requisite information to those who may 
 have no access to the originals, and who wish for such an account of 
 them as will enable them to form some proper judgment of the books in 
 question.* 
 
 § 6. Apocryphal Revelations still extant. 
 
 These are (a) The Ascension of Isaiah the Prophet. ( b ) The Book 
 of Enoch, (c) The fourth Book of Ezra, (d ) The Sibylline Oracles. 
 (e) The Testament of the twelve Patriarchs. (/) The Shepherd of 
 Hernias, (g) The apocryphal Apocalypse of John. 
 
 (a) The Ascension of Isaiah the Prophet. 
 
 Such is the general title given to a singular book, of no small interest 
 to the critic who is concerned with Christian antiquities. Several of 
 the early Christian writers have referred to this production ; and some 
 have quoted a part of its contents in such a way, as to show that it was 
 originally written in Greek. From the sixth century, however, nearly 
 down to the present time, with the exception of only now and then a 
 solitary voice, a deep silence has reigned among ecclesiastical writers of 
 all classes respecting it ; and it is but a few years since, that the learned 
 counted it among the books which were irretrievably lost. Happily, a 
 little more than 20 years ago, Dr. Laurence, then Regius Professor of 
 Hebrew at Oxford, came into possession of an Aethiopic translation of 
 this work, which he procured from a bookseller in London, who had 
 purchased it among a parcel of miscellaneous books at auction, without 
 any knowledge as to whence it came or what it contained. In 1819 
 Dr. Laurence gave to the world the contents of it, in Aethiopic, and in 
 a Latin translation with notes, to which he subjoined an English version, 
 
 * For the substance of the preceding summary respecting the lost * 1 AnonaXvxfjsig, 
 
 I am indebted to the interesting work of F. Ltlcke, Einl. in die Off. Johan nis, I. 
 p. 44 seq. It is more complete and better arranged, than any other which I have 
 seen. 
 
§ 6. ASCENSION OF ISAIAII. 
 
 41 
 
 and a critical dissertation in tlie same language. Of the general fidelity 
 and ability of these critical labours, there is, I believe, no doubt among 
 those who are qualified to judge. 
 
 The general title of the book, Ascension of Isaiah , or (as Epiphanius 
 Haeres. 40 calls it) Jlvafianxov ’Egcilov, does not seem to be appropriate 
 to the whole composition. It is divided, by the nature of its contents 
 and by the mode in which it is written, into two parts ; the first of which 
 (chap, i — v.) is a kind of short biographical sketch of the prophet Isa- 
 iah ; and the second (chap, vi — xi.) contains an account of his ascent to 
 the upper heaven. There is a separate title for the second part, viz. 
 The Vision (ogaaig) which Isaiah the son of Amos saw , in the 20th 
 year of the reign of Hezekiah king of Judah. A brief view of the con- 
 tents of this peculiar and interesting piece, will not be unacceptable to 
 the reader who is not able to procure the book. It is, moreover, of some 
 importance to the accomplishment of the object which I have in view. 
 Its general similarity of form to the Apocalypse of John must, in many 
 respects, be evident to every intelligent reader. The tenor of the book 
 is as follows : 
 
 ‘ Hezekiah, in the 26th year of his reign, sent for his only son Manasseh, and 
 brought him before the prophet Isaiah and his son Josheb, in order that he might 
 deliver to him the truths, which he himself had received from the prophet, re- 
 specting eternal judgments, the torments of Gehenna that place of everlasting 
 punishment, the different orders of angels — and truths relating to the faith of the 
 Beloved [the Messiah], the destruction of the world, the clothing of the saints, 
 their departure and change, and the rejection and ascension of the Beloved. These 
 truths, [it is said], were seen in prophetic vision by Isaiah in the 20th year of 
 Hezekiah’s reign.’ [These subjects have respect to the contents of the second 
 part of the book entitled Vision or ‘'Opatw, viz. chap, vi — xi.] 
 
 4 Isaiah informs the king that his son will reject all these truths ; that Samael 
 [Satan] will take possession of him, and lead him to pervert many, and also to 
 the murder of the prophet himself. Hezekiah weeps, and determines to destroy 
 Manasseh; but the prophet forbids him.’ Ch. i. 
 
 4 After Hezekiah’s death, Berial [Belial = Satan] leads Manasseh into all man- 
 ner of wickedness, specially idolatry and the persecution of the faithful servants 
 of God. Isaiah, with other prophets, flees from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, and 
 they take up their abode on a desert mountain there, where they subsist on roots 
 and herbs. After two years, a false prophet by the name of Belkira, a Samaritan 
 residing at Bethlehem, discovering the place of Isaiah’s retreat, accuses him to 
 Manasseh as being guilty of blasphemy in asserting that he had seen God [Is. vi.], 
 also because he had called Jerusalem Sodom, and denounced her princes as people of 
 Gomorrha, [Is. 1: 10]. Manasseh sends and apprehends Isaiah; for Berial (who 
 dwelt in him) was greatly enraged on account of his prophecies respecting the 
 Beloved,’ [viz. those mentioned under chap, i.] 
 
 After narrating the apprehension of Isaiah, on account of the predic- 
 tions which he had before uttered concerning the Beloved, who would 
 come from the seventh heaven, take the form of man, be persecuted by 
 VOL. i. fi 
 
42 
 
 § 6. ASCENSION OF ISAIAII. 
 
 the Jews, and finally crucified “ in company with the workers of iniquity,” 
 the writer goes on to recite more particulars of the prophecy of Isaiah.” 
 
 ‘ The twelve apostles take offence, watchmen guard the sepulchre of the Be- 
 loved, angels descend to open it on the third day, the twelve disciples are com- 
 missioned to preach to all nations, the Holy Spirit is given and miracles become 
 frequent. Afterwards, however, disciples forsake the doctrine of the twelve apos- 
 tles respecting the second, advent of Christ , and contend much about the proximity of 
 his approach. There will be great defections in doctrine and practice, among 
 pastors, elders, and their flocks ; but few faithful teachers will be left, and a lying, 
 worldly, ambitious, avaricious spirit will prevail.’ [The reader will not fail to 
 notice how plainly these things characterize the time in which the writer must 
 have lived.] Chap. ii. iii. 
 
 ‘ When this period is completed, Berial will descend [viz. fiom the firmament 
 or upper regions of the atmosphere, in which the author supposes him to live], in 
 the form of an impious monarch, the murderer of his mother , the sovereign of the 
 world, [he means Nero who murdered his own mother], and he will persecute 
 and oppress all the disciples of the Beloved, claim divine honours, overturn all 
 the usual and established courses of things, be worshipped and served as God, 
 erect his image everywhere, and have power three years , seven months , and twenty- 
 seven days. Only a few believers will be left, waiting for the coming of their 
 Lord ; which shall take place after 332 days. Berial and his powers shall be 
 dragged into Gehenna , and the saints shall enjoy the rest provided for them in their 
 present bodily state. All the saints from heaven, in their heavenly clothing, shall 
 descend with the Lord, and dwell in this world ; while the saints, who had not 
 died, shall also be clothed in like manner with those who come from heaven, and, 
 after a time, leave their bodies here, in order to assume their heavenly station. 
 The universal wreck of the material world will follow ; and this will be the 
 forerunner of the general resurrection and the judgment. The ungodly shall 
 be devoured by fire which issues from the Beloved.’ Chap. iv. 
 
 The writer now breaks off from his account of Isaiah’s prophecy, and 
 refers us, for the remainder, to the Vision of Babylon ; by which I un- 
 derstand a part of the canonical Isaiah, viz. chap. xiii. xiv. xxi. He 
 evidently expects his readers to find there a type or exemplar of the 
 punishment of the second Babylon [Rome], with all its adherents. 
 
 Chap. v. contains an account of the final martyrdom of the prophet, ‘ who was 
 sawn asunder, through the influence of Berial, with a wooden saw. Belkira, the 
 Samaritan, and others stood by, now deriding his sufferings, and then endeavor- 
 ing to persuade him to recant what he had said against them. But he hearkened 
 not to their counsels, and died without a tear or a groan, calling upon the Holy 
 Spirit. All this was brought about by Samael [Satan], who was enraged because 
 of Isaiah’s prophecy respecting the Beloved, and also respecting the destruction of 
 Satan and his kingdom.’ 
 
 It cannot have escaped the reader’s notice, how entirely the general 
 tenor of the foregoing alleged predictions of Isaiah accord with the latter 
 part of the Apocalypse. But of this, more in the sequel. 
 
 Here ends the first part of the Ascension of Isaiah ; and, from its con- 
 tents, it might with much more propriety be named e%otiog or ptaQtvQiov 
 
§ 6. ASCENSION OF ISAIAH. 
 
 43 
 
 J Eaaiov . But it would seem, that some redactor who gave currency to 
 the work, affixed a general title, because the first part might be fairly 
 considered as nothing more than an introduction to the second. The 
 abstract of the ''Oqclgls must be very brief. 
 
 4 Isaiah, with his son Josheb, visits Hezekiab in the 20th year of his reign; 
 and thirty prophets, with many sons of the prophets, were also assembled on this 
 occasion, in order to listen to the distinguished seer. The voice of the Holy 
 Spirit [Vp TS] is soon heard, while Isaiah is talking with the king; and all fall 
 prostrate and worship. Isaiah remains in a trance, conversing with the Holy 
 Spirit. One of the glorious angels of the seventh heaven is sent, to conduct 
 Isaiah thither. When the rapture was accomplished, and the prophet restored to 
 the use of his bodily faculties again, he related the particulars of his ascension 
 to the king and some of his officers with the prophets.’ Chap. vi. 
 
 The vision during the rapture follows. 4 An angel exceedingly glorious ap- 
 pears to him, and informs him that he is sent to conduct him into the presence of 
 God and of the Beloved. First, they ascend to the firmament [the upper part of 
 the air, i. e. that which lies near the welkin or firmament]. There the prophet 
 sees Samael and all his powers engaged in fierce contest, and slaughter, and dia- 
 bolical deeds, doing things like to those which are done on earth.’ [Another 
 trait of Nero’s time]. 
 
 He then ascends above the first heaven or firmament, where he sees a throne 
 in the midst, with angels on the right and on the left, the former being far more 
 glorious than the latter, while all unite in praising Him who dwells in the seventh 
 heaven, and his Beloved. The second heaven repeats the same scene, but with 
 augmented splendour. Here the prophet prostrates himself in order to worship 
 Him who sits upon the throne ; but he is told by his conductor that it is only an 
 angel, and that he must reserve his worship for the seventh heaven ; [comp. Rev. 
 19: 10. 22: 9.] 
 
 4 In the third, the fourth, and the fifth heaven, the same scene is repeated ; the 
 throne in the midst, the angels on the right and left, and the gradually augment- 
 ing glory are all mentioned. In the third heaven, however, the commemoration 
 of things ceases, although the knowledge of them there exists. The glory of 
 the presiding angel in each of the five heavens, is greater than that of the angels 
 on the right and left. In the fifth heaven, the augmentation of glory is tripled 
 or quadrupled.’ Chap. vii. 
 
 4 The prophet is next conducted to the ether of the sixth heaven, where he 
 sees a throne and great splendour. The angel informs him, that he is to see much 
 greater glory, and that he is to return for a while to his mortal body, but after- 
 wards by a violent death to come to the seventh heaven, and assume the clothing 
 there laid up for him. In the sixth heaven, to which he is now conducted, he 
 sees no throne, no right nor left side differing in splendour ; all are alike splendid, 
 and 44 all invoke the Father , the Beloved the Christ , and the Holy Spirit , all with 
 united voice." Here the light is such as makes that of the five heavens appear as 
 darkness. The prophet prays for liberty to remain here and not return to the 
 earth ; but his request is not granted.’ Chap. viii. 
 
 4 He is next transported to the ether of the seventh heaven. There a voice sa- 
 lutes his ear, inquiring whither he would come who dwells among strangers. 
 Permission, however, is given by his 44 Lord God, the Lord Christ,” to ascend to 
 the seventh heaven. There are angels innumerable, and all the glorified saints 
 invested with their heavenly clothing, but not yet crowned or enthroned, nor to 
 
44 
 
 § 6. ASCENSION OP ISAIAH. 
 
 be so until after the humiliation, exaltation, and glorified state of the Beloved. 
 The beloved is to descend through all heavens, unknown to the angels as he 
 passes, because he assumes their respective forms, [chap. x. 20 seq.] ; he will 
 assume the form of man, be reputed as flesh, be crucified, rise from the dead on 
 the third day, and after 545 days ascend to glory, bringing many saints with him ; 
 and then shall thrones and crowns be given to them all. Books recording all that 
 is done on earth are here shown to the prophet, and clothing, crowns, and thrones 
 are pointed out, which are reserved for saints who are in future to come thith- 
 er. The Beloved here exhibits himself in surpassing glory. Angels and saints 
 worship him. He then assumes an angelic form ; they still repeat the worship. 
 Another glorious Being, the Angel of the Holy Spirit, of similar appearance, is 
 approached and worshipped, although he does not actually change his glory into 
 one like that of the angels. The prophet is bidden to worship him. Finally, the 
 Beloved, the angel of the Holy Spirit, and all the saints and angels, approach 
 and worship the Father.’ Chap. ix. 
 
 ‘ The prophet now hears praise and glorification transmitted from all the six 
 heavens below to Him who is in the seventh ; after which a voice proceeds from 
 the Father, commissioning the Beloved to descend through all the heavens, con- 
 cealed from the inhabitants of them. In passing through the domain of Samael, 
 he is even to assume the appearance of his angels [10: 11]. When the conquest 
 of all the powers of darkness shall have been achieved, then shall the Beloved 
 ascend to glory, and reign at the right hand of God.’ ‘ In obedience to this man- 
 date the Lord now descends through all heavens, accompanied by the prophet 
 and his conductor, and concealed from all those through the midst of whom he 
 passes. He even assimilates himself to the angels of Samael, as he passes through 
 the firmament where they dwell.’ Chap. x. 
 
 ‘ Next he becomes incarnate in the womb of Mary. The suspicions of Joseph, 
 his intention to divorce her, the interposition of an angel, the refraining from con- 
 jugal intercourse, and the miraculous birth of the Saviour, are all then narrated 
 as passing in vision before the prophet’s eyes. His youth, manhood, miracles, 
 public development, crucifixion, the sending forth of his apostles, and his ascen- 
 sion, are all briefly passed in review. Finally he ascends in his glory, and is seen 
 and worshipped in his ascent by all the worlds through which he passes, not ex- 
 cepting even that of Samael. In the seventh heaven, he takes his seat at the 
 right hand of the great Glory, and the Holy Spirit on the left hand.’ 
 
 ‘ Isaiah now returns to his mortal body, and relates to Ilezekiah and others 
 w T hat things he had seen, charging them not to make them public until a future 
 period. On account of this vision Samael hated Isaiah, and caused Manasseh to 
 saw him asunder.’ Chap. xi. 
 
 Such is the deeply interesting apocryphal book before us ; on which 
 it would be easier to write a little volume, than to compress into a few 
 paragraphs what is appropriate to be said on the present occasion. 
 
 Of the individual author of this piece we know nothing with certainty, 
 or even with probability. That he was a Christian , lies upon the face 
 of the whole composition ; that he was of Jewish lineage, is almost 
 equally plain, from his manifest acquaintance with the ancient Scriptures, 
 and with the Rabbinical traditions of the times. As an example of the 
 latter, w r e may appeal to the martyrology of Isaiah as related in chap. 
 5: 11, where the circumstance is mentioned of his being sawn asunder 
 
§ 6. ASCENSION OF ISAIAH. 
 
 45 
 
 (as Dr. Laurence has it) with a wooden saw . The meaning probably 
 is, as we should express it, with a wood-saw , i. e. a saw adapted to the 
 sawing of wood. Merely that he was sawn asunder, is the tradition 
 given in the Mishna (Tract. Jebam. IV. ad fin.) ; so too in Cod. Sanhed. 
 fol. 103. b; and in some other Jewish productions, early and late, as 
 well as in some of the earlier Christian fathers who make mention of 
 the same tradition. Paul is supposed by many to refer to the same, in 
 the STtQiG'&rjoav of Heb. 11: 37. 
 
 To recount the instances in which the author makes reference to Old 
 and New Testament declarations of facts and truths, would be to repeat 
 a considerable portion of the whole book ; although in no instance does 
 he formally quote either Testament, if perhaps we may except ch. viii. 
 11, where it is said of Isaiah in his earthly condition, that “ he had neither 
 perceived, nor ascended, nor understood the things” which were reveal- 
 ed to him in the upper world. The same turn of thought, and nearly 
 the same expression, may be found in Is. 64: 3, 4. But the whole tenor 
 of the work is most manifestly modelled after portions of the Old and 
 New Testaments. The rapture of Paul to the third heaven, (2 Cor. 
 xii.), is the model of the general costume of the book ; and in the exe- 
 cution of the author’s plan, the visions of God in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Dan- 
 iel, and the Apocalypse, are all laid under contribution. That he had 
 read the Apocalypse, seems to me almost beyond a doubt. E. g. Isaiah 
 says (Ascens. 8: 4) to his angel-conductor : “ What is this which I be- 
 hold, my Lord ? He replied : I am not thy Lord, but thine associate.” 
 Here it is very natural to suppose, that Eev. 22: 8, 9 or 19: 10 was be- 
 fore the author’s mind. On another occasion (7: 21 — 23) the prophet 
 falls down to worship the angel, who replies to him almost according to 
 the exact tenor of Rev. 19: 10, where John offers to worship his angel- 
 interpreter. The description of “ the impious monarch, the murderer of 
 his mother” (4: 2—12), seems so plainly to coincide, in all its leading 
 features, with that of the beast in Apoc. xiii, that the reader cannot 
 make a comparison between them without a conviction that one must be 
 the model of the other. 
 
 The leading sentiment which lies at the basis of the Apocalypse, and 
 which has already been exhibited above, is almost with equal plainness 
 brought to view in the Ascension of Isaiah. According to chap. 4: 
 13 seq., great defection in the church shall take place before the coming 
 of Christ ; but he will come with his angels, and u drag Berial and his 
 powers into Gehenna comp. Rev. 20: 1 — 3. Then will succeed a 
 time of rest to the pious ; comp. Rev. 20: 4 — 6. The saints in glory 
 will come with their heavenly splendour, and dwell with the saints on 
 earth, who will be clad like the glorified saints ; and after the season of rest 
 is past, they will be transferred to heaven (Ascens. IV. 16, 17). Then 
 
46 
 
 § 6. ASCENSION OF ISAIAH. 
 
 all worlds will be shaken by the indignation of the Lord, the resurrection 
 will take place, the judgment will follow, and a fire will consume all the 
 ungodly (4: 18). 
 
 From this passage it is plain, that the author of the apocryphal book 
 under examination was a Millenarian in the sense in which Papias and 
 many of the early Christians were, i. e. that he believed in Christ’s visi- 
 ble reign on earth, during the period of rest which he had appointed for 
 his church. 
 
 In another passage (9: 12 — 18), the writer refers to the state of saints 
 after their death and before the ascension of Christ, in a manner which 
 shows that he had the first portion of the Apocalypse (chap, iii — vii.) in 
 view. He speaks of the thrones, and crowns, and the heavenly clothing, 
 in a way like that of John in the Apocalypse 3: 4. 4: 4. 6: 11. 7: 9, 13 ; 
 one circumstance excepted, of which I shall say more in the sequel. 
 
 Gesenius (Einleit. in Jesaiam, p. 50) does not hesitate to say, that 
 i the main object of the writer of the Ascension is, to express his earnest 
 hope and expectation of the speedy coming of Christ, and of the splendid 
 triumph for the saints and martyrs which will ensue.’ That this doc- 
 trine is plainly contained in his book, the passages quoted above are suf- 
 ficient to show. But these passages are the principal ones to which ap- 
 peal can be made. Occasional and subordinate allusions to the same 
 topics are indeed not wanting in the Ascension ; but the plan of the wri- 
 ter is not simplex duntaxat et unum , like that of John in the Apocalypse. 
 The book of Daniel was probably before the eye of his mind, as well as 
 the Apocalypse ; and the special costume of the Ascension in general 
 approaches nearer to that of the Old Testament prophets, than to that of 
 the New. This seems to betray the author’s Jewish origin. 
 
 There are several limitations of times in this book which I cannot 
 forbear noticing, as some of them are apparently connected with the 
 time in which the book was written. In 9: 16, Christ’s continuance on 
 earth, after his resurrection and before his ascension, is said to be 545 
 days ; at least this is apparently the meaning of the passage. This is 
 so different from the forty days mentioned in Acts 1: 3, that no critic on 
 the Ascension has yet been able to find a solution of the difficulty. 
 Nitzsch, in some highly acute and critical remarks on the production be- 
 fore us, (Studien und Kritiken, III. p. 235), thinks it not improbable, 
 that the writer means to include not only the time of the Saviour’s so- 
 journ with his apostles, but also the period in which he was engaged in 
 subduing Samael and his angels who dwell in the upper atmosphere, 
 before the Conqueror ascended into the heavens themselves. In the to- 
 tal absence of satisfactory facts, we may consent at least to hear inge- 
 nious conjecture. 
 
 In chap. 4: 12, the writer assigns to the persecuting power of Nero 
 
§ 6. ASCENSION OF ISAIAII. 
 
 47 
 
 the time of three years, seven months, and twenty-seven days. The 
 burning of Home was on the 19th of June, A. D. 64. The persecution 
 set on foot by Nero against Christians, as the alleged authors of the con- 
 flagration, commenced probably in November of the same year. So 
 Mosheim (De Rebus, etc.), who alleges reasons apparently satisfactory. 
 Nero was destroyed on the 9th of June, A. D. 68. Counting back to 
 November in A. D. 64, we find a space of three years and seven months ; 
 and if the persecution began quite early in November, A. D. 64, there 
 will be some days over this time ; which seems to be a striking coinci- 
 dence. — But on the other hand, may not the writer have had in his eye 
 the period assigned to the great persecutor of the church mentioned in 
 Dan. 12: 12, viz. 1335 days ? If the years be reckoned at 365 days, and 
 three of the months at thirty, and four at thirty-one days, this will make 
 the identical period mentioned in the Ascension, with the exception 
 of only one day. It is difficult to decide in such a case, where either 
 method of reckoning would seem to be satisfactory. 
 
 In 4: 14 of the Ascension, it is said, “the Lord shall come with his 
 angels ... to drag Berial and his powers into Gehenna, after 332 days,” 
 viz. from the end of Nero’s reign as above described. Here is the por- 
 tion of time on which Laurence fixes as the period within which the 
 Ascension must have been written. After this period had elapsed, and 
 Christ had not come as was expected, the writer could not have ventured 
 on so bold an assertion. Of course, then, sometime during A. D. 69 
 must be the date to be assigned to the origin of the Ascension. 
 
 Yet with this, neither Gesenius, Bleek, Nitzsch, nor Liicke, appears to 
 be satisfied. They regard the numbers in this work as merely symboli- 
 cal , and are not, therefore, disposed to admit a literal construction. I 
 cannot but think that their criticism is doubtful. There are other cir- 
 cumstances in the book, which they do not seem to have noticed, that 
 fix the time of its composition to a very early age ; I should say, to the 
 first century. In 3: 21 seq. it is expressly stated, that great divisions 
 and troubles shall arise in the church “ upon the subject of his [Christ’s] 
 second advent .... and the proximity of his approach.” Paul’s second 
 epistle to the Thessalonians is a comment on tins. Every person well 
 acquainted with the early history of Christianity knows, that the latter 
 half of the first century gave rise to many opinions and controversies on 
 this subject, and that a very general expectation was indulged, for a 
 time, that Christ would appear in his glory before the generation then 
 living should pass away. Many of the German critics think they find 
 such expectations fully and often expressed in every part of the New 
 Testament. Now as all hopes of this nature must of course vanish with 
 the first century, so no disputes on the point, when Christ would come, 
 appear to have been seriously and extensively agitated after the close of 
 
48 
 
 § 6. ASCENSION OF ISAIAH. 
 
 the first century. The Millenarians of subsequent periods were particu- 
 larly concerned with the question of a visible reign ; not so much, whether 
 the reign would commence immediately after the death of Nero, or of 
 Domitian ; for that period was already passed. After the death of Nero, 
 then, and before the expectation of Christ’s speedy appearance was given 
 up, must, as seems to my mind, be the period fixed upon as the probable 
 date of the Ascension. 
 
 Gesenius objects to fixing upon an origin so early, that the doctrine 
 of the Trinity is too prominent in the book, to render it probable that 
 the Ascension could have been composed until a later period, when this 
 doctrine was more fully developed. Laurence, on the other hand, glo- 
 ries in having found in the book irrefutable evidence of the early exist- 
 ence, even in the apostolic age itself, of the doctrine of the Trinity ; Gen. 
 Remarks, p. Ill seq. I cannot accede to the opinion of either. In 
 Chap. 1: 7, the writer says, indeed : “ As God liveth ... as the Beloved 
 \_dyanrp6g = Christ] of my Lord liveth, as the Spirit . . . liveth.” Again 
 in 8: 18 he says : (( All [the angels] invoked the first, the Father, and 
 his Beloved the Christ, and the Holy Spirit, all with united voice.” In 
 9: 32 — 36, the Lord of glory [Christ] and the Holy Spirit are repre- 
 sented as objects of angelic worship ; and in 11: 32, 33, they are repre- 
 sented as gvv&qovoi with the Father. There are other passages, also, 
 of a similar tenor. But after all, in 9: 40 occurs a passage, which seems 
 to render doubtful the force of Laurence’s argument. It runs thus : 
 
 “ Then I saw that my Lord worshipped, and the angel of the Holy Spirit, 
 and they both of them together glorified God [the Father].” This 
 seems to develope at least the subordination-theory of the Trinity, and 
 probably, along with this, something of the emanation-system of the Gnos- 
 tics. The book is confessedly Gnostic, in some of its views respecting 
 the spiritual world ; and the doctrine of the Trinity, as here exhibited, 
 would not be much unlike that of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and many 
 others. I cannot doubt that the germ of the emanation-theory sprung 
 up in middle Asia, where the celebrated system of Zoroaster would give 
 immediate countenance to such speculations. A belief in one underived 
 Being, and two derived Ones, who have all the attributes of divinity ex- 
 cept self-existence and independence, was easily and obviously deducible 
 from Parsism, and seems to have tinctured the views of our author. At 
 all events, his doctrine of a Trinity is quite different from that in which 
 Athanasius believed, and from that which Dr. Laurence would admit. 
 
 Nor is this the only mark of our author’s eastern origin. There is 
 one circumstance, lightly passed over even by Nitzsch as well as by the 
 other critics, which would seem to indicate, somewhat plainly, the quar- 
 ter from which some of his speculations had been borrowed. In 7: 22 
 the angel tells Isaiah, that 4 his clothing is laid up . . . above all heavens,’ 
 
§ 6. ASCENSION OF ISAIAH. 
 
 49 
 
 i. e. in the seventh or uppermost heaven. Again, in 8: 14 the same 
 angel tells him, that 6 after the death of his body, he shall ascend to the 
 seventh heaven, and there assume his clothing, and there see other 
 clothings which are laid up and numbered.’ The same sentiment is re- 
 peated in chap. 9: 2, 18, 24, and 11: 40. In his General Remarks, p. 
 167 seq., Dr. Laurence traces this peculiarity to the Zohar, the most 
 ancient, as well as the most ample collection of Cabbalistical remains ; 
 and the passages which he adduces exhibit a similarity of conception in 
 regal’d to the heavenly clothing of the saints. But I apprehend the ori- 
 gin of this idea, in both productions, may be easily traced to a more an- 
 cient and very direct source. In the Zend Avesta, which seems to have 
 been written more than five centuries before the Christian era, among 
 the second order of angels (Izeds) are reckoned the Gahs, to whom 
 many supplications are directed (see Kleuker’s Zend Avesta, Izeshne, 
 Ha LH.) ; and one part of the office of the female Gahs is, to prepare 
 clothing and lay it up in Gorotman [heaven] for such as are the faithful 
 servants of Ormusd. With this the souls of the righteous will be cloth- 
 ed, after the resurrection ; see Kleuker’s Zend. A v. I. p. 142 ; also An- 
 hang. I. Th. I. p. 283. The costume of the Ascension and of the Zo- 
 har, in regard to this matter, seems to be kindred with that of Parsism ; 
 and this is well known to have influenced the speculations of the Kab- 
 balists and the Gnostics. 
 
 Another remarkable coincidence with the costume of the Apocalypse 
 deserves special mention. In Ascens. vii. 9 is a passage which represents 
 the prophet Isaiah, in his rapture, as passing the or firmament, i. e. 
 the upper region of the atmosphere or the apparent vicinity of the sun 
 and stars, and as there beholding Samael [Satan] and his angels in fierce 
 contention, and doing deeds of desperation. Who can refrain from call- 
 ing to mind Rev. 12: 7 — 9, where Michael and his angels are represent- 
 ed 1 as contending iv to) ovqclvo), i. e. in the first heaven or upper air, 
 against Satan and his angels? Or who can refrain from calling to 
 mind Paul’s iC prince of the power of the air [prince of aerial dominion], 
 who worketh in the children of disobedience ” (Eph. 2: 2), or “ the prin- 
 cipalities, and powers, and rulers of the darkness of this world [of this 
 benighted world], . . . spiritual wickedness in high places,” i. e. wicked 
 spirits in elevated, q. d. aerial places, Eph. 6: 12 ? That evil spirits 
 lived in the atmospheric region, was plainly a popular belief of the first 
 century, (see Exc. I. Yol. II.) ; and thence Berial and his powers are 
 to be “ dragged down to hell,” when the Lord shall come, according to 
 Ascens. 4: 14. Does not this serve to cast light on those passages of 
 the New Testament quoted above, and on others of the like tenor ? 
 
 I cannot suppress the remark, that chap. xi. of the Ascension appears 
 manifestly to be copied from the account of the nativity of the Saviour in 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 i 
 
50 
 
 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 Matt. 1: 18 — 25, and shows, if it be genuine, that in the first century 
 this was a part of the Gospels. I know of no good reason to doubt its 
 genuineness. The writer has, indeed, presented a wonderful birth, as 
 well as conception ; but this belongs to the manner of the book, and con- 
 stitutes one of its apocryphal traits. 
 
 On the whole, it is impossible to read this production with attention, 
 without feeling that one’s circle of acquaintance with oriental imagery is 
 enlarged thereby, and also with the opinions and speculations of curious 
 minds in the first age of Christianity. He is not to be envied as a 
 critic, who can peruse such a book without the most lively interest. 
 
 [The reader who wishes farther and more particular information, is referred to 
 the Ascensio Isaiae Vatis, a Ricardo Laurence, LL. D. Oxon. 1819; Gesenius 
 Einleit. in Esaiam, § 9, p. 45 seq. ; Lficke, Einleit. in Apoc. § 16, p. 125 seq. and 
 1. Nitzsch on two Fragments of the 5 Avaparixdv 3 Eoa'iov , in the Studien und 
 Kritiken, 111. p. 209 seq. The fragments were discovered by A. Maio, in the 
 Vatican library, and published in 1828 in his Nova Collectio Scriptt. Vet., Pars II. 
 p. 208. Nitzsch has exhibited these, and made, at the close of his communication, 
 some highly acute and critical remarks on the whole production. A Latin trans- 
 lation of the Vision or second part of the work, was mentioned by Sixtus Senen- 
 sis in his Biblioth. Sancta, Lib. II. p. 59, as printed at Venice under the title of 
 Visio Admirabilis Esaiae Prophetae ; which, after disappearing for a long time, 
 has at last been discovered in the library at Miinchen and at Copenhagen. In 
 this version, chap. xi. 2 — 21 of the Ethiopic version is wanting. The quotations 
 of this book by the fathers, may be found in Laurence’s General Remarks ; and a 
 brief account of them, both in Gesenius and LUcke.] 
 
 (b) The Book of Enoch. 
 
 Several circumstances conspire to throw more than ordinary interest 
 around this apocryphal production. From ancient times, it has been be- 
 lieved that Jude has made a quotation from it, in vs. 14, 15 of his brief 
 epistle. Some of the earliest fathers, moreover, have appealed to it even 
 in such a way, as to show that they regarded it as entitled to a rank 
 scarcely, if at all, inferior to that of an acknowledged canonical book. 
 
 In the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, one of the most respecta- 
 able of the apocryphal productions, and one which, beyond all reasona- 
 ble doubt, belongs to the latter part of the first century or to the begin- 
 ning of the second,* the book of Enoch is the subject of express appeal 
 and of citation no less than nine times, besides some other probable al- 
 lusions to it. The mode of appeal shows the weight of authority attach- 
 ed, by the writer of the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, to the book 
 now under examination. In Test, Sim. c, 5, he says : Ewqcmci iv 
 QctxiriQi yQacptjg ’Evcofc on, x. r. X. ; in Test. Lev. c. 10, xa&wg 7iEQi8%£i 
 fiifiXog ’Evco/ tov dixuiov ; and the like in c. 14, c. 16. Test. Dan. c, 5, 
 
 * So Nitzsch has satisfactorily shown, in his De Testamentis XII. Palriarcharujn , 
 Lib. Vet. Test. Pseudepigrapho, p. 17 seq. 
 
§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 51 
 
 Test. Jud. c. 18. Test. Zeb. c. 3. Nepht. c. 4. Benj. c. 9. In Test. Reub. 
 c. 5, there is a plain reference to that part of the book of Enoch, which 
 exhibits the seduction of women before the flood by some of the apos- 
 tate angels, viz. Enoch, ch. vii. viii. 
 
 The manner and object of these appeals leaves no room to doubt, that 
 the author of the Testaments regarded and cited the book of Enoch as 
 one of canonical authority, or, to say the least, as one whose decision, 
 or declaration, or prediction, was to be looked upon as credible and au- 
 thoritative. And inasmuch as the author of the Testaments has thus 
 quoted and alluded to the book of Enoch, near the close of the first cen- 
 tury or at the beginning of the second, it follows of course that the lat- 
 ter must have already been in circulation, and obtained credit among 
 the expected readers of the Testaments ; consequently we are bound, at 
 all events, to assign a period as early as the first century to the com- 
 position of the book of Enoch. 
 
 So Justin Martyr (Apol. Brev. p. 92, edit. ex. Cong. Sanct. Mauri) 
 exhibits a passage respecting the apostate angels, who seduced women 
 before the flood and in various ways corrupted the world, which passage 
 beyond all question is built on the book of Enoch, chap, vii — ix, although 
 he does not specifically name the book. Irenaeus refers to the punish- 
 ment of angels who thus sinned (Cont. Haeres. IV. 30, Massuet 16), and 
 speaks of Enoch as “conservatus usque nunc testis judicii Dei,” by 
 which he must mean that the words of Enoch, as contained in his so 
 named prophecy , are still preserved. Tertullian, in Lib. de Idol. c. 4 
 and 15, also in his De Cultu Fern. c. 10, appeals to Enoch, as “the an- 
 cient prophet Enoch,” and cites some things which he declares the Holy 
 Spirit to have announced by him. Again, in De Habitu Fern. c. 2. 3, 
 he argues at length in favour of the divine inspiration and authority of 
 the book ; on grounds, indeed, which will not abide the test of scrutiny, 
 but still he is evidently much in earnest, and accuses the Jews of having 
 rejected the authority of this book, because it contained certain things in 
 it respecting Christ. He also concedes, “ scripturam Enoch . . . non 
 recipi a quibusdam i. e. some Christians reject it, or do not admit it 
 into the canon of the sacred books. He declares, however, that it is a 
 profitable book for Christians ; and that we have warrant enough for 
 believing, that ‘ every writing adapted to edification is inspired of God,’ 
 [alluding to 2 Tim. 3: 16]. Finally, in order to settle the question of 
 authority, he adds : “ Accedit, quod Enoch apud Judam Apostolum tes- 
 timonium possidet.” 
 
 The book of Enoch (c. 97: 7, 8) is also cited by him in his De Idolo- 
 lat. c. 4, in almost exactly the same words that a literal Latin transla- 
 tion of the Ethiopjp copy of this book would exhibit. The general iden- 
 tity of the book of Enoch, as used by Tertullian, with that which lias 
 
52 
 
 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 come down to us through the medium of the Ethiopic, seems therefore 
 to be beyond any reasonable question. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria (c. A. D. 200), refers to the book of Enoch 
 and? quotes from it, (ExXoy. XQoep. pp. 801, 808, ed. Sylb. and in many 
 other places) ; but he expresses no opinion as to its authority. 
 
 Origen frequently refers to the book of Enoch ; e. g. Cont. Cels. p. 
 267, ed. Spencer ; 7ZEq\ ag/car, IV. cap. ult. et I. c. 3 ; Homil. 28 in 
 Num. XXXIV. In some of these passages he expressly disclaims all 
 canonical authority of the book ; but, out of deference to the opinion of 
 some who had a high regard for it, he says once, on an occasion of ap- 
 pealing to it : “If any one pleases to receive it as a sacred book in 
 Johann, p. 132, ed. Huet. 
 
 Jerome mentions the book, and calls it apocryphal ; Catal. Scriptt. 
 Eccl. c. 4. Comm, in Tit. i. Comm, in Psalm. 132: 3. Augustine 
 stands in the same position, rejecting as fabulous many of the legends 
 in the book of Enoch ; De Civ. Dei, XV. 23. XVIII. 38. 
 
 From the time of Augustine down to the ninth century little or noth- 
 ing appears to have been known or said of the book of Enoch. But, 
 near the beginning of this century, G. Syncellus, a monk of Constanti- 
 nople, wrote a Chronographia in Greek, in which he made very copious 
 extracts from that book. The first two of them include ch. vii — x. 15 ; 
 the other one begins with ch. xv. 8, and ends with ch. xvi. 1.* These 
 are so copious, and withal so much in conformity with the book of Enoch 
 which has come down to us through the medium of the Ethiopic, that 
 no doubt can remain as to the identity of the two works. 
 
 It seems to have been the prevailing opinion among the ancient Cliris- 
 tian fathers, that the apostle Jude, in vs. 14, 15 of his epistle, had quo- 
 ted a passage from the book of Enoch. Even those who condemn the 
 book as apocryphal, admit this, and endeavour to account for it in some 
 way satisfactory to their own minds. In modern times, an intense in- 
 terest has occasionally been awakened, in disputes about the canon of 
 the New Testament, respecting this alleged quotation of Jude. The 
 book of Enoch, therefore, had long been eagerly sought after and wished 
 for ; but in vain, until a recent traveller in Abyssinia discovered this cu- 
 rious relic there, in the Ethiopic language and incorporated by the 
 Abyssinians with their books of the Old Testament.! 
 
 * The reader will find these extracts in Dr. Laurence’s Book of Enoch , printed 
 at large in the Appendix. He will also find them in Syncellus, first edited by 
 Scaliger, and recently by Dindorf at Bonn, 2 Vol. 8vo. ; they are exhibited, like- 
 wise, in Fabricius Cod. Pseudepigr. V. Test. I. p. 179 seq. 
 
 t That traveller was James Bruce, well known to the English world by his five 
 volumes of Travels. He brought with him from Ethiopia or Abyssinia, three 
 copies of the book of Enoch ; one of which he gave to the Bodleian library at Ox- 
 
§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 53 
 
 Respecting the contents of the book thus introduced to the reader I 
 proceed to give some account, as briefly, however, as the nature of the 
 case will admit. It is no easy task, to give a synopsis of contents 
 which are so multifarious and diverse ; and withal, the difficulty is much 
 augmented by the want of unity in the book, by apparent transpositions 
 of several parts of it, and not improbably by the omission of some things 
 which once belonged to it. 
 
 The book begins, like those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets, 
 with a superscription, in which Enoch is first spoken of in the third person ; but 
 after a few lines the same personage goes on to speak in the first. “ The bless- 
 ing of Enoch upon the elect and righteous, who were to exist in the time of trouble , 
 rejecting all the wicked and the ungodly,’' is given in the inscription as the gene- 
 ral object of the whole book ; and this agrees tolerably well with the contents at 
 large. 
 
 In like manner as in the prophets, Daniel, Zechariah, and John, angels are 
 represented as the guides and interpreters of the seer. What he sees has, as he 
 avers, respect “ to a distant period,” i. e. to the days of the Messiah. 
 
 That which is so summarily hinted in the inscription, with respect to the gen- 
 
 ford, another to the royal library at Paris, and a third he kept for himself. From 
 the copy at Oxford, Dr. Laurence, late Regius Professor of Hebrew there, gave 
 to the world, in A. D. 1821, a translation into English, with Notes, and a Prelim- 
 inary Dissertation. From this a knowledge of the contents of the singular book 
 in question has been diffused over Europe. — De Sacy also made a translation into 
 Latin of a small part of the book, (from the copy in the Paris Library,) which he 
 published in the Mag. Encyc. I. p. 382 seq. In 1833, Prof. A. G. Hoffmann of 
 Jena translated the first half of Laurence’s English version into German, and 
 published it with exegetical notes. Hoffmann had no opportunity for consulting 
 the original, as to this part of his work. But subsequently to this, the celebrated 
 traveller, Dr. Rtlppell, brought another copy of the whole work from Abyssinia. 
 Furnished with this, Hoffmann made a version from the Ethiopic for Vol. II. of 
 his Commentary, in which he has, by his superior knowledge of the oriental lan- 
 guages, made many corrections of Laurence, (mostly minor ones), and expended 
 great labour upon the exegetical Notes. In an Excursus, he has reviewed a re- 
 cent work in England, by the Rev. Edward Murray, entitled Enoch restitutus , in 
 which the English author has endeavored to show, that the present book of Enoch 
 is fragmentary, being made up of several different writings, and that the book 
 quoted by Jude (vs. 14, 15) was a very different and much smaller book than the 
 present. The superior knowledge of the subject, which Hoffmann possessed, easi- 
 ly enabled him to show how unsafe in criticism, and also how illogical, the lead- 
 ing positions of Murray are. It needs something more than confident assumption 
 and unrestrained imagination, to criticise on an obscure work of antiquity. The 
 second Vol. of Hoffmann was published in 1838. Both volumes make 960 pages. 
 They are the fruit of widely extended and patient study, and generally satisfy the 
 mind of an inquirer, who seeks to understand the book of Enoch. On some points 
 of higher criticism, the commentator shows more attachment to previously 
 adopted views, than is satisfactory to an impartial reader ; sometimes (not often) 
 even cashiering the text, where it stands in his way. On some of these points, I 
 feel myself unable to accord with him ; but thanks are due to him for the light 
 that he has poured in upon this dark and neglected domain of sacred literature. 
 
54 
 
 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 eral design of the book, is, in the immediate sequel, more fully expressed : ‘ God 
 will hereafter reveal himself on earth ; all shall be filled with terror ; the earth 
 shall be burned up and all things in it perish ; but to the righteous peace and 
 mercy will be given, they shall all be blessed, and the glory of God shine upon 
 them.’ Then follows the passage (eh ii.) which is quoted in Jude, vs. 14, 15 ; to 
 which the attention of the reader will be particularly directed in the sequel. 
 
 The discerning reader will here find the same germ as in the Apoca- 
 lypse. Views like this are frequently repeated in the book of Enoch ; 
 which serves to show on what the mind of the writer was most intent, 
 and how much resemblance in some respects there is, between his prin- 
 cipal aim and that of John. Both wrote for the consolation of suffering 
 s'aints. 
 
 The writer goes on : ‘ All nature obeys, without transgressing, the ordinances 
 of God ; the stars, the seasons, the clouds, the trees, the rivers, and seas, all obey 
 their appropriate laws ; only the wicked disobey, and on them no peace shall come, 
 but eternal curses. To the righteous, however, shall be given light, peace, jo}% 
 wisdom, freedom from condemnation, long life, and everlasting happiness.’ Ch. 
 iii — vi. 
 
 Such, then, is the theme of the book proposed by the writer. He be- 
 gins his exhibition of the evidence, designed to establish his positions, 
 with an account of transactions before the flood, and during the days of 
 Enoch. 
 
 1 A number of angels (200 according to ch. 7: 7) become enamoured with some 
 of the daughters of men, and, by the persuasion of Samyaza their leader, they en- 
 ter into an agreement, sanctioned by oath on mount Hermon, to cohabit with 
 them. This agreement they execute, teaching their paramours, at the same time, 
 sorcery, divination, the arts of luxury and ornamental dress, and also of fabrica- 
 ting dyes, jewels, and instruments of war. These women, in the sequel, brought 
 forth giants 300 cubits high, who devoured all the productions of man 
 
 which were fitted for food, and then, at last, fell upon men themselves.’ Ch. vii. 
 viii. 
 
 ‘ The good guardian angels of men now make complaint to the Almighty, in 
 regard to these outrages and violations of the laws of men and angels. An angel 
 is immediately sent by the Most High to Noah, in order to tell him of the deluge 
 which should come upon the earth. Raphael is also commissioned to bind Aza- 
 ziel, one of the leading apostate angels, hand and foot, and cast him into darkness, 
 and into the desert of Dudael. The earth is to be punished for its wickedness, 
 but not utterly destroyed. Gabriel is commissioned to go and excite the giants, 
 the mongrel breed of angels and women, to mutual slaughter. Michael is com- 
 manded to go and seize Samyaza, with his apostate fellows, and bind them for 
 seventy generations under the earth, even to the day of judgment ; also to com- 
 plete the destruction of the giants.’ Ch. ix. x. 1 — 20. Then follows a description 
 of a kind of millennial state, which is to succeed the destruction of the wicked 
 (10: 21 — 29) ; ‘ righteousness and equity shall abound ; the saints will live each 
 to beget a thousand children : the earth will yield, in overflowing abundance, all 
 that ministers to want or luxury ; all men will be righteous, all worship God in 
 truth ; all crime will cease ; no more shall any deluge come ; and everything in 
 which men engage will be blessed.’ 
 
§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 55 
 
 Enoch is now commissioned by good angels, to go and announce to 
 the apostate angels their doom. This commission he executes, and they 
 all become terrified, and beseech him to intercede for them. He con- 
 sents, and writes down a memorial for them ; but while he is reading it, 
 he falls asleep, and is taught therein by a vision, that their doom admits 
 of no change. 
 
 The substance of that vision is as follows : 1 The prophet is caught up into hea- 
 ven, where he sees a spacious palace, surrounded by crystal walls and vibrating 
 flames of fire, and guarded by cherubim of fire. On a throne therein, which was 
 surrounded with flaming splendour, One great in glory sat, on whom even angels 
 could not look without being dazzled.’ Ch. xii — xiv. ‘ By the exalted Being on 
 this throne, Enoch is commanded to go and announce to the apostate angels their 
 doom. The crime which they have committed is against the laws of their spir- 
 itual nature, and admits of no pardon. The giants, their ill-begotten progeny, 
 shall beget only evil demons, who will commit all kinds of violence and oppres- 
 sion, and shall at last miserably perish by mutual slaughter. No mercy is to be 
 obtained for them. Their flesh is to perish before the judgment that is coming 
 upon them, and until the consummation of all things. No peace can ever be given 
 to apostate angels and their offspring.’ Ch. xv. xvi. 
 
 Thus concludes that part of the book which has special reference to 
 the case of the apostate angels ; and this may appropriately be named 
 the first part of the book of Enoch ; or, if a division of the whole be 
 made by books, (as it was in the days of Syncellus who quotes ix 
 h'ov 7 zq(qzov), this may be called the first book. 
 
 The second book extends from ch. xvii. to ch. xxxv. ‘ The prophet is eleva- 
 ted to the top of a lofty mountain in some distant region, whence he sees the trea- 
 sures of lightning and thunder, the fiery ocean in which the sun sets, and the 
 rivers of fire which empty into it; also the mountains of gloom whence winter 
 issues, the great abyss the source of all the streams of water, and the treasuries of 
 the winds which are agents in all the motions of the heavenly bodies. All these 
 were seen in the West.' Ch. xvii. xviii. 1 — 7. 
 
 ‘ Next the Seer passes to the South. Here are six mountains formed of resplen- 
 dent and precious stones, and blazing with fire. On the other side of them he 
 sees an extended desert, with a great lake, and fountains of water. Over these 
 fountains stood columns of fire, which moved up and down; over them was no 
 firmament, and under them no solid ground. Here seven stars were imprisoned, 
 which had transgressed the command of God, in respect to keeping their appoint- 
 ed movements. This is the place where the apostate angels appointed leaders in 
 the matter of their transgression; and afterwards the same angels led men astray, 
 into idolatry and other crimes, for which they shall be judged.’ Ch. xviii. xix. 
 
 ‘ Passing on nearer to this tremendous place, the Seer asks the ancrel, who ac- 
 companied hirn, to explain the ground of that severe punishment which the stars 
 suffered. The answer is, that they had transgressed their laws.’ Ch. xxi. 1 — 3. 
 
 The writer, like Origen and several of the early Fathers, believed 
 the stars to be animated, or at least to be under the direction of anima- 
 ted angelic beings. Hence the guilt with which they are charged. This 
 
56 
 
 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 seems to be mentioned by him, in order to inspire his readers with dread 
 of transgressing God’s holy laws. 
 
 ‘ Going thence the angel conducts him to a dreadful place, glittering with col- 
 umns of fire, which he declares to be “the prison of the [sinning] angels.” Ch. 
 xxi. 4 — 6. Thence he goes to Elysium or the region of the blessed, surrounded by 
 mighty walls of rock. Hither the souls of the dead, i. e. of all the righteous, will 
 come and dwell until the day of judgment. This place is divided into four spaces, 
 by a chasm between the first and second, water between the second and third, and 
 light between the third and fourth. So is it, also, with the souls of the wicked, 
 which, in their place (under ground), are separated until the judgment-day, when 
 they will be punished forever ; there is no escape from their prison.’ Chap. xxii. 
 
 ‘From this place the prophet is rapt into another, where he sees seven shining 
 mountains, adorned with precious stones, and with odoriferous trees, one of which 
 exceeded all the trees of Eden. The fruit of this tree will be given to the right- 
 eous after the judgment, and they will live forever by means of it, free from all 
 pain and sorrow. On the seventh of these mountains, overtopping all the rest, 
 the Lord of Glory will descend, when he shall visit the earth to reward the right- 
 eous. Chap. xxiv. Thence the prophet comes to the middle of the earth [Jeru- 
 salem], where he sees a holy mountain [Zion], with water on the eastern side 
 flowing to the south [the brook Kidron] ; also another mountain [that of Olives] 
 on the east. Water also ran from the west [from the fountain of Siloam], and 
 another mountain was on the south. Among these were vallies, and precipices 
 with trees ; also an accursed valley [viz. that of HinnomJ. Here blasphemers are 
 punished, and in the judgment they shall be made an example of retribution.’ 
 Ch. xxv. xxvi. 
 
 ‘ From this place the prophet is carried to a mountain in the desert [perhaps Si- 
 nai], full of trees, water, and cataracts ; thence to another place to the eastward 
 of this, which was full of choice, odoriferous, and medicinal trees; from this he 
 sees another place, with plenty of never failing water and goodly trees; then he 
 sees another mountain containing trees loaded with the most sweet-smelling fruit, 
 from which water flowed like nectar ; and on this another mountain full of trees 
 with fruit of surpassing odour.’ Chap, xxvii — xxx. 
 
 ‘ Thence, surveying “ the entrances of the north,” he perceived seven other 
 mountains, replete with new and odoriferous trees. Passing these, and going over 
 the Erythraean Sea [Gulf of Akaba?], far beyond it he beheld the garden of 
 righteousness [Eden], with trees numerous, large, fragrant, beautiful, and among 
 them the tree of knowledge , like a species of the tamarind tree. Raphael informs 
 him, that this was the tree of which his ancient progenitors ate. Ch. xxxi. 
 Thence he is conducted toward the extremities of the earth, where large beasts 
 and birds of various forms are seen ; and to the eastward of these he comes to the 
 ends of the earth and the heavens ; and there he sees the gates of heaven open, 
 whence issued all the stars, which, by the help of his guide, he numbered and re- 
 corded, together with their times and seasons. Thence he goes to the extremities 
 of the north, where he sees the gates whence issue the northern winds, cold, hail, 
 frost, dew, and rain. Thence he is taken to the gates at the western extremity ; 
 and thence to those of the south, from which issue dew, rain, and wind. Thence 
 he goes back again to the east, in order to review the courses of the stars.’ Ch. 
 xxxiv — xxxv. 
 
 Here begins a new vision, “ the vision of wisdom,” to be communi- 
 cated in 103 parables, [De Sacy reads three ; and only three are con- 
 
§ 6. BOOK OP ENOCH. 
 
 57 
 
 tained in the book]. It extends from ch. xxxvii. to ch. lxx, and con- 
 stitutes by far the most interesting and important part of the book, in- 
 asmuch as here the whole of the author’s Christology is displayed. The 
 usual appellation here of the divine Being, is Lord of spirits , which oc- 
 curs scores of times. 
 
 First parable. ‘The time of judgment and of the separation of the righteous 
 and wicked is coming, when endless woe will be to the wicked ; but peace and 
 happiness to the righteous. “ The holy and elect race ” shall descend from hea- 
 ven and dwell with men. The prophet is then taken up to heaven, and sees the 
 habitation of the saints with the angels. Their number is countless, and they 
 continually bless and praise God. He earnestly desires to remain there. My- 
 riads stand before the Lord of spirits; and on the four sides of him are four arch- 
 angels, who in different ways address him, praising him, and supplicating for suc- 
 cess in the discharge of the different tasks assigned them. Ch. xxxviii — xl. Af- 
 ter this the secret places of paradise are shown to Enoch, and there he sees the 
 receptacles of all the various agents in nature, thunder, wind, dew, hail, etc. ; 
 also of the moon with all her phases, and of the stars with all their phenomena. 
 These last shine with no changing or borrowed light.’ Ch. xli — xliv. 
 
 Parable the second. This parable specially exhibits the author’s 
 Christology. The title of the parable (ch. 45: 1) gives us to understand, 
 that it respects those “ who deny the name of the Lord of spirits, and 
 who will be judged and punished by the Elect One,” [the Messiah]. 
 
 ‘ The Elect One shall dwell in the midst of the righteous, changing the face of 
 heaven and earth ; excluding the wicked from them. The Ancient of Days will 
 give to the Elect One full power to subdue all opposition, to humble all kings and 
 princes who resist him, and expel the Lord of glory from their temples. — The 
 blood of the righteous shall be avenged ; the supplications of the holy ones on ac- 
 count of their blood, viz. that it may be avenged, will be heard. The Son of man 
 is invoked before the Lord of spirits, and was invoked before the creation of the sun 
 and stars. All shall worship him. The Elect One was with God before 
 the world was. The righteous will he protect; the wicked will he cast into 
 the fire. The glory and power of the Elect One are eternal ; he will judge secret 
 things.’ Ch. xlv — xlviii. 
 
 ‘ The saints shall live in glory ; the wicked be overwhelmed with evil ; but 
 space for repentance shall be given ; and those who do not repent shall never find 
 mercy. The earth and Hades shall deliver up their dead to be judged ; the right- 
 eous shall be separated from the wicked, and filled with joy and peace.’ Ch. xlix. 1. 
 
 ‘ Enoch is now transported once more to the West, by a whirlwind. There he 
 sees six mountains of different metals, all of which are to be appropriated to the 
 use of the Messiah, [comp. Is. 45: 9, “ I will give thee the treasures of darkness.”] 
 All of these shall dissolve at his coming, and no more use be made of them to 
 fabricate arms of opposition. Ch li. — A deep valley is also seen there by the pro- 
 phet, and all men bring their presents and offerings thither [to propitiate the Mes- 
 siah] ; but such as have filled their hands with iniquity and the fruits of rapacity 
 shall perish, while the righteous endure forever. There the angels of punishment 
 were preparing their deadly weapons to smite sinners, and to destroy kings and 
 the powerful ones of the earth ; but the righteous shall be relieved from the vexa- 
 tion of sinners. Ch. lii. Thence Enoch is brought to another part of the earth, 
 VOL. I. 8 
 
58 
 
 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 to a deep valley burning with fire, [the valley of Hinnom, see chap. xxvi]. To 
 this the kings and the mighty, who had been oppressors, are brought ; and here 
 they are bound with fetters of iron that have no weight;’ [comp, chains of dark- 
 ness, Jude v. 6. 2 Pet. 2: 4]. Ch. liii. 
 
 Here comes in a paragraph which seems like an interpolation, it being a de- 
 scription merely of the flood in Noah’s time. It extends from 53: 7 to 54: 5. ‘ Af- 
 ter this, the prophet sees in a valley, the sinning angels in chains, and also their 
 paramours and offspring, [the giants]. — Subsequent to this the princes of the Par- 
 thians and Medes shall come and remove kings, and tread upon the land of the 
 elect. Their course, however, shall be arrested ; but the people of the land will 
 be destroyed by mutual slaughter, and the mouth of Hades shall be much en- 
 larged. Ch. liv. After this Enoch sees another army of chariots coming upon 
 the wind, from the east, west, and south, [the invading Romans]. Their noise 
 shakes the whole earth. Ch. lv. 
 
 Third Parable. ‘Peace shall be to the saints, and God will be their ever- 
 lasting light. — The secrets of the lightning are* now shown to Enoch ; also of the 
 thunder; both when they are for a blessing and for a curse. Ch. lvi. lvii. In the 
 500th year of Enoch’s life the heavens and the earth shook violently, the Ancient 
 of Days was seen on his throne of glory, surrounded by myriads of angels; the 
 time of judgment and punishment, as well as of reward, comes ; to the righteous 
 Leviathan and Behemoth are given for their feast ; while the wicked are severely 
 punished. Ch. lviii. 
 
 ‘ Another angel now proceeds with the prophet, and discloses to him all the se- 
 crets of the agencies of nature, e. g. of the winds, moon, lightning, ebb and flow 
 of the sea, mist, rain, darkness, light, etc. Ch. lix. — Angels go to the north, with 
 measures for the righteous, that they may be brought to dwell with the elect, and 
 be able to measure or scan their portions and all the secrets of nature. All unite 
 to bless, praise, and glorify the Lord and his Elect One. The Cherubim, Sera- 
 phim, and Ophannim, and “all the angels of the Lords, viz. of the Elect One 
 and of the other Power, who was upon the earth over .the water on that day ,” 
 bless and praise him — all holy beings in the universe shall bless and praise the 
 Lord of spirits. Ch. lx. The Lord of spirits summons kings and princes to com- 
 prehend, if they can, his Elect One. He seats himself upon the throne of judg- 
 ment, and brings the ungodly to trial. Anguish will seize upon the wicked, when 
 they behold the Son of woman sitting on the throne of his glory. All shall glorify 
 “ Him who has dominion over all things, Him who was concealed,” viz. the Son 
 of man, “ who from the beginning existed in secret;” all the elect shall stand be- 
 fore him, all kings and princes fall down and worship him. “ They shall fix their 
 hopes on this Son of mart, and pray to him , and petition to him for mercy .” But all 
 the ungodly shall be dragged away to punishment, while the righteous shall be 
 made joyful before him, and dwell with the Son of man forever. The saints, who 
 have been raised from the earth , will be clothed with the garment of life. This 
 garment is with the Lord of spirits. Ch. lxi. Tyrant kings will then be punish- 
 ed, that rest may be given to the saints for a time. They shall praise God for the 
 rest thus given to them. Oppressors cannot find this rest. They are constrained 
 to acknowledge that God’s judgments are just. They shall be thrust out from 
 the presence of the Son of man. The apostate angels, who have seduced men, 
 will be punished by him.’ Ch. Ixii. lxiii. 
 
 Chs. lxiv — Ixvii. contain a vision of Noah respecting the flood ; which 
 is plainly interpolated here ; or at least inserted in a wrong place. It 
 
§ 6, BOOK OF ENOCH* 
 
 59 
 
 has respect to Enoch, only inasmuch as Noah repairs to him for the ex- 
 planation of things seen by the former in a vision. 
 
 ‘ In ch. lxviii. the names of twenty-one apostate angels are given, who were 
 active in misleading the others, and also their various characters and offences. 
 All shall be judged by the Son of man, and his word shall be all-powerful in pres- 
 ence of the Lord of spirits. — Here, it is said, ends the third parable ; but ch. lxix. 
 lxx. are plainly a continuation consisting of homogeneous matter. The prophet 
 sees the Son of man exalted by all on earth and in heaven. After being lifted up to 
 the heaven of heavens, Enoch there sees the pellucid and glittering palace of the 
 Ancient of Days, and also angels, archangels, and saints, worshipping before him. 
 He falls down and worships. He is commended and blessed, and a promise of 
 perpetual peace and happiness is made to him.’ Ch. Ixvii — lxx. 
 
 Chaps, lxxi — lxxxi. exhibit the author’s peculiar system of astrono- 
 my or astrology. They respect the sun, moon, winds, mountains of 
 frost, the parent-fountains of water, etc. ; and they treat of all the phe- 
 nomena and changes of these. They are a most singular exhibition of 
 ignorance in matters of science combined with a kind of acuteness, and of 
 ideas resulting merely from ocular inspection mixed with speculative 
 reasoning upon the nature of things. It would be a welcome contribu- 
 tion to the history of astronomy, if some such man as Ideler would be- 
 come a commentator upon this unique system of nature. No one with 
 acquisitions less than his, in this department of science, would be able, 
 I think, to unravel the intricacies of this section. Hoffman has done 
 much to clear up its obscurities, but not all which is desirable. In ch. 
 lxxxi. Enoch commands Methuselah his son to preserve with care all 
 which he has written down respecting these matters. 
 
 ‘ Other visions of Enoch are also communicated to Methuselah. He was pre- 
 monished, in vision, of the flood ; and his father Mahalaleel enjoined it upon him 
 to intercede for the earth. His prayer is accepted, in regard to a small remnant 
 of men.’ Ch. lvxxii. lxxxiii. 
 
 ‘ Another dream of Enoch discloses, under the imagery of black and white cows 
 and bulls, the history of Adam’s posterity ; of the apostate angels, as interming- 
 ling with them ; of the punishment of the antediluvians; of Noah’s ark, the flood, 
 etc., as related in the Scriptures. The history of Moses, Saul, David, Solomon, 
 etc., is continued under the symbol of sheep.' This is carried on, although in a 
 very obscure and unattractive manner, down to a period near the Christian era. 
 One can hardly recognize the author of the preceding part of the book in these 
 chapters. Some of these representations are not only obscure, but parts of them 
 are absolutely loathsome. Ch. lxxxiv — lxxxix. For the most part, however, HoflT- 
 mann has given satisfactory explanations. 
 
 Ch. xc. contains ‘ an address of Enoch to all his posterity, in which he gives 
 them moral warning and exhortation. Ch. xci. is made up of the like matter. 
 Ch. xcii — civ. contain addresses of Enoch to his children respecting “ the elect of 
 the world, the plants of righteousness.” A period of ten weeks is named, into 
 which the whole course of time is distributed. In the succession of these, the 
 author refers to the deluge, to Abraham, to the law, to the temple of Solomon, to 
 Elijah, to the Babylonish captivity, and to the corrupt Jews in their exile. The 
 
60 
 
 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 eighth week is one of righteousness in which judgment shall be executed upon 
 oppressors ; and in it the house of the great King shall be built up ; (which pro- 
 bably describes the Maccabaean period). In the ninth week the judgment of 
 righteousness shall be revealed, and the world prepared for destruction ; (a gene- 
 ric view of the Messianic period). On the seventh day of the tenth week, ever- 
 lasting judgment shall be executed on the apostate angels, and a new heaven and 
 a new earth appear. Who is capable of comprehending the works of God, or 
 who can count the number of the stars, etc. ?’ 
 
 Ch. xciii. contains an exhortation to righteousness, with a description and re- 
 proof of the ways of the wicked. Chaps, xciv — xcix. contain denunciations of 
 the wicked, and particularly of oppressors and persecutors. This is by far the 
 noblest moral part of the book, and approaches near the paraenetic strains of the 
 Old Testament prophets. It evidently flows from a mind deeply sympathizing 
 with the suffering and persecuted righteous. ‘ In the hands of the Most High 
 are all the elements, and all things ; who can resist him ? Ch. c. Who will 
 dare to murmur against him ? God will be terrible to the wicked ; the righteous, 
 after all their persecution and sufferings, will enjoy eternal peace. By a most 
 solemn oath, assurance is given of this. The sufferings of the righteous are de- 
 scribed. The righteous are exhorted to persevere, and repeated assurance of rich 
 reward is given. To them shall books be given, books of joy and great wisdom 
 — books in which they believe and rejoice, [New Testament?]. Enoch’s posteri- 
 ty shall instruct men in those days ; God and his Son will forever hold commu- 
 nion with them. Ch. cii — civ. In ch. cv. Enoch again reverts to the antediluvian 
 period, and tells us of the extraordinary appearance of Noah, when first born ; so 
 extraordinary that Lamech, his father, repaired to Enoch in order to know the 
 meaning of it. Enoch tells him that a flood is coming, and that his child [Noah] 
 is destined to survive it, because of his holy character.’ 
 
 ‘ Another book also Enoch wrote, respecting the latter days. Flaming fire will 
 consume all the ungodly and oppressors. But those who have laboured and suf- 
 fered in their bodies, and have loved God, renounced the world with its riches, 
 and given their bodies to torment , and been tried by the Lord, shall obtain a rich 
 reward.’ Ch. cv. 
 
 The whole work ends with a wish, that “ the benediction of Enoch’s 
 prayer, and the gift of his appointed period, may be with his beloved ; 
 Amen.” 
 
 It would not comport with my present object to pursue a critical ex- 
 amination of this book, in all its details. This would furnish matter for 
 a volume. But so far as this production has a bearing on the spirit of 
 the age in which it was written, and can be brought into comparison 
 with the Apocalypse, it well deserves a serious notice. A few remarks 
 must be made on (a) The place where the hook was written, (b) The 
 time when, (c) Its probable author, (d) On that part of its contents 
 which has respect to the sufferings of the righteous , and also to the f uture 
 period of their prosperity and glory. 
 
 (a) Place where the book was written. By this is meant, not the par- 
 ticular district or town wherein it was actually composed, but the coun- 
 try to which its author probably belonged. 
 
§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 61 
 
 There can be no good ground for hesitation, that its author was an 
 oriental man ; by which I here mean, a man not of western, but of mid- 
 dle Asia ; most probably of some part of the ancient Media, or of its 
 tributary provinces high up between the Caspian and the Black Seas. 
 In chap. 71: 18, 19, he speaks of the day as comprising eighteen parts, 
 twelve of which, at a certain time of the year, are light, and six dark ; 
 i. e. the day is sixteen hours long (as we express it), and the night eight 
 hours. This could never happen in Palestine ; inasmuch as the lati- 
 tude is too near the equator to admit of so much inequality. The coun- 
 try, where the days are exactly of the length here named, must be not 
 far from the 49th degree of latitude ; and of course, strictly considered, 
 the country must be high up, even above the Caspian and Euxine Seas. 
 But inasmuch as the author is describing the complete course of the sun, 
 and all the gradations of day and night which (so far as he knows) this 
 occasions, it is not necessary to suppose that he lived in the very place 
 where the day might be twice as long as the night, but only in such a 
 part of the world as that he would probably come to a knowledge of 
 such a fact. Ancient Media or Persia, where astrology flourished so 
 much and so long among the Magi, would therefore be the most proba- 
 ble region which we can assign to him. On the supposition that he was 
 a Hebrew, (of which there can be no doubt, as we shall see in the se- 
 quel), there is no difficulty in finding a home for him in that region. 
 So early as 721 B. C. the king of Assyria carried away a great portion 
 of the ten tribes into “the cities of the Medes,” 2 K. 17: 6. Among 
 those who assembled at the feast of Pentecost, soon after the resurrec- 
 tion of the Saviour, were “ Parthians, Medes and Elamites” [Persians], 
 most or all, no doubt, of Jewish origin. Many thousands of Jews, we 
 well know, were scattered over all parts of middle Asia, who had be- 
 come so attached to the countries whither they had been transported, 
 that they never returned from their exile, even after permission for re- 
 turn was given. 
 
 What makes much for the supposition now in question is, that 
 throughout the whole book, light, fire, splendour, radiance, are almost 
 everywhere made so conspicuous. This seems to indicate, that the au- 
 thor had been brought up in a country whose religion was Parsism. 
 One needs but to open the Zend-Avesta, in order to feel that the very 
 basis, and (one might almost say) a great portion of the essential ingre- 
 dients of Parsism, consist of light and splendour. Oromasd himself 
 seems to have been regarded by the Magi as being formed from Ur- 
 lickt , or (as we must express it in our own language) 'parent-light. One 
 circumstance in particular may be noted, where the author adverts to 
 views respecting the other world, which in all probability he had uncon- 
 sciously obtained from those who surrounded him. In 61: 18, he speaks 
 
62 
 
 § 6. BOOK OP ENOCH. 
 
 of the saints, after the resurrection, as being “ clothed with the garment 
 of life.” He then adds : “ That garment of life is with the Lord of 
 spirits, in whose presence your garment shall not wax old, nor your glo- 
 ry diminish.” The idea of ‘ garments being laid up or Jcept in heaven 
 for the clothing of the righteous,’ is familiar in the system of Zoroaster, 
 where the Gahs, (female Izeds or angels of the second order), are rep- 
 resented as employed in fabricating garments which are kept in store 
 for the righteous. Unconsciously the author seems to have intermin- 
 gled this peculiarity of Parsism with his own conceptions ; for the Scrip- 
 tures, which present us often with the idea of splendid costume as ap- 
 propriate to the righteous in a future world (Rev. 3: 4, 5, 18. 4: 4. 6: 11. 
 
 7: 9, 13), lack the peculiar trait to which I have just adverted. The 
 Ascension of Isaiah abounds in this peculiarity (see p. 49) ; and the 
 reader by consulting the passage referred to, will find the evidences of it 
 placed before him, with references also to the Zend-Avesta. In my re- 
 marks on the Ascension of Isaiah, in the paragraph to which reference 
 has just been made, I have stated my reasons for supposing, that the au- 
 thor of that work was a Hebrew of Middle Asia. The cast of the com- 
 position in the present case, in many respects, leads me to a like view 
 of the country of the author. I acknowledge that the ground is not en- 
 tirely certain ; for a writer of western Asia could exhibit the like traits. 
 No one of the circumstances mentioned would be sufficient of itself to 
 establish my position ; but a combination of them all leads me to the 
 feeling, that this position is probably correct. It seems probable, that 
 neither the author of Enoch nor of the Ascension of Isaiah would design- 
 edly introduce Parsism ; but if they were educated in a country where the 
 common idiom of the people had embodied it in their language and 
 modes of expression, it would be difficult to avoid some developments of 
 it. 
 
 Liicke suggests, that some things in the book favour the idea that it 
 was written in Egypt, p. 64. But I find nothing in it which leads to 
 this, unless it be its astronomical speculations ; which, however, may 
 quite as well be attributed to the East, as to Egypt. The habitual 
 reckoning of the year at 364 days, shows that the author belonged to a 0 
 country which is neither in extreme western Asia nor eastern Africa. 
 
 It remains as yet unknown whence this reckoning comes. The locali- 
 ties , in parts of the book, show beyond a doubt that the author was in 
 some degree familiar with the geography of Palestine ; e. g. in chap. 13: 
 
 8, 9, where Hermon, Dan, and Lebanon occur; in *25: 1 seq., where we 
 have the special localities of Jerusalem ; and in 31: 2, where the desert 
 [of Arabia] and the Erythraean Sea come before us. But all this makes 
 nothing against the eastern home of the writer ; inasmuch as more or 
 less of the pious Jews of all countries often visited Palestine, in order 
 to worship there. 
 
§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 63 
 
 (b) Time when the hook was written. Dr. Laurence thinks this can 
 be ascertained almost with exact certainty, from the nature of some of 
 its contents. The substance of his argument may be briefly stated. 
 (1) It must have been written before the epistle of Jude ; for Jude quotes 
 from it, and quotes in such a way as to show that he supposed his rea- 
 ders to be already familiar with the book. (2) It was written after the 
 book of Daniel ; because it often quotes from this book, and everywhere 
 shows a familiar acquaintance with it, and an effort to imitate it. Here 
 we have then, limits within which the book of Enoch must have been 
 composed. But, (3) From ch. lxxxiii. to ch. xc. is an allegorical his- 
 tory or picture of all the leading events recorded in the Old Testament 
 history. The people of Israel are represented as sheep ; and Saul, Da- 
 vid, and Solomon, are first distinctly alluded to as their shepherds. Af- 
 ter these it is said that seventy shepherds ruled over them. These are 
 distributed into three classes ; (a) Thirty-seven * kings of Judah and Is- 
 rael. Such is in fact the number, if we omit Zimri, deposed after seven 
 days ; Tibni, the rival of Omri, who can hardly be said to have actually at- 
 tained to sovereignty ; and Shallum, who reigned but one month ; all three 
 being of the ten tribes. To make out the number in question, then, we 
 must include the twenty kings of Judah and the seventeen kings of Israel. 
 (b) Twenty-three shepherds constitute the second class ; and these are 
 plainly the foreign kings of Babylon and Persia, and also the kings of 
 Macedonian origin both in Syria and Egypt ; viz. Babylonian 4, Persian 
 11, Macedonian 8, =23; see names in Laurence, p. XXVII. ( c ) 
 Twelve native Jewish princes, beginning with Mattathias, the father of 
 Judas Maccabaeus, and ending with Herod. Now inasmuch as no more 
 than twelve are comprised in this last class, Dr. Laurence concludes, 
 that the author must have lived and written during the time of Herod ; 
 otherwise he would have included in his list Herod’s three sons who 
 reigned after him, and among whom Herod’s dominions were divided, 
 and also Agrippa who reigned over the whole province of Judea. This 
 would have increased the numbers, under the third class, to sixteen ; or, 
 in case we begin the reckoning with Judas Maccabaeus, to fifteen. 
 
 This representation appears plausible, at first view. But a closer ex- 
 amination of it than Dr. Laurence has made, brings serious difficulties to 
 light, which he has overlooked. In ch. 89 : 25, the twelve shepherds or 
 princes, whom he reckons as native Jews, are spoken of in such a way, 
 as on the whole to render this mode of reckoning quite improbable. Ac- 
 cording to thi3 passage, an angel presents to the Lord “ the book of the 
 
 ” Dr. Laurence reads thirty-five , because the whole number added together 
 would make seventy-two instead of seventy. But there is no need of this change. 
 The number seventy is used symbolically ; and consequently a little more or less 
 will make no important difference. So Lucke and Hoffmann. 
 
64 
 
 § 6. BOOK OP ENOCH. 
 
 destruction which the last twelve shepherds wrought , and points out, be- 
 fore the Lord of the sheep, that they destroyed more than those who 
 preceded them.” So Laurence ; but Hoffman remarks, that Laurence 
 has omitted the demonstrative before twelve shepherds , and that the 
 Ethiopic obliges us to translate thus : Which those twelve shepherds 
 wrought. This gives an entire new turn to the whole passage, and 
 necessarily refers the shepherds to that class of which the writer had 
 been speaking ; and these are beyond all reasonable question, foreign 
 kings who had exercised dominion over Judea. On turning back to ch. 
 89: 7, we find twenty-three shepherds mentioned, who bore sway during 
 fifty-eight periods. The context in the sequel to this last passage, exhibits 
 a symbolical representation of the struggles of the Jews for their free- 
 dom, and of the oppression and attacks of foreign powers. It would seem, 
 then, that the fifty-eight periods extend from the time of the exile down to 
 the time when the more violent sufferings and struggles of the Jews be- 
 gan. This, if we follow Hartmann, must be the period of Antiochus HI. 
 or the Great, king of Syria, during whose reign Palestine was often a 
 theatre of war. The remaining periods to be completed, (in order to 
 make the round number 70), are the twelve under the twelve kings, 
 brought to view in Enoch 89: 25, and mentioned above. Following the 
 book of the Maccabees, Hartmann makes out twelve Syrian and Egyptian 
 kings, from this period down to the time when Simon was elected as the 
 Leader of the Jews, and was acknowledged and confirmed as king by 
 Demetrius Nicator, B. C. 142 ; Froelich. Annales, p. 72. 1 Macc. 13: 
 34 — 42. From that period onward, temporary invasions and subjection 
 excepted, the Jews were ruled by their own princes, until near the pe- 
 riod when the nation was subdued and scattered by the Romans. It is 
 easy, when viewed in such a light, to account for it why the author of 
 Enoch should say, that “ those last twelve shepherds destroyed more 
 than those who preceded them.” Antiochus Epiphanes is included 
 among the twelve ; and all the consequences that followed the struggle 
 so earnestly begun by him to destroy the Jews, are included. But to 
 apply this, as has been done by most, (and by myself in a former Re- 
 view of the book of Enoch, Bib. Repos. XV. p. 115 seq.), since the 
 publication of Laurence, to the native Jewish kings, is doing violence 
 to history, or else to the credit of the author of Enoch. This should 
 never be done, except in a case of absolute necessity. For particulars, 
 in vindication of the view given above, I must refer to Hartmann’s 
 Notes, on the passages of Enoch above cited. 
 
 In confirmation of this view, it should be mentioned, that the 'Sequel 
 to Enoch 89: 25 treats of the victories obtained by the Jews over foreign 
 oppressors and powers ; which were completed in the time of Simon. 
 Of course, if this view of the subject be correct, the argument of Lau- 
 
§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 65 
 
 rence, that the book of Enoch was written in the time of Herod, because 
 the list of twelve kings is concluded with him, is not well grounded. 
 It would seem that the list is concluded with Trypho or Demetrius, ri- 
 val chiefs, during whose contest Simon came to the crown of Judea, 
 which was made hereditary in him. 
 
 We find notices moreover, in the book of Enoch, of occurrences later 
 than this period. The passage to which I now refer, is in ch. 54: 9, 
 which speaks of “ the Chiefs of the East, among the Parthians and the 
 Medes,” as coming up and “ treading upon the land of the elect,” and of 
 their u removing kings and hurling them from their thrones in the se- 
 quel, however, they are represented as checked by “ the city of the 
 righteous.” These events are represented, also, in the book of Enoch, 
 as succeeded by civil war and destruction among the people of the Holy 
 Land. 
 
 The facts which correspond with this representation are, that the Par- 
 thians overran and subdued the whole of Syria, Tyre excepted, in B. C. 
 41 ; and in the following year they entered Judea, where Antigonus, 
 the last of the Asmonaean race of kings, was contending with Herod for 
 the sovereignty, drove out Herod, and placed Antigonus upon the throne. 
 Three years after this, Antigonus was displaced by the Romans, and 
 Herod established as king in his room. The civil wars and commotions 
 accompanying and following these events, are supposed to be what the 
 author aims to describe, in ch. 54: 10 — 12. At a period immediately 
 subsequent to this, Laurence, with whom Hoffmann (in Yol. I.) and 
 some others agree, places the composition of the book of Enoch. But in 
 Yol. H. Hoffmann, as we have seen, modifies this opinion. 
 
 So much is doubtless true, viz. that the composition must have been 
 later than these events. How much later ? is a question which these pas- > 
 sages do not seem at all to decide. Other passages, however, in my view, 
 direct us to a period considerably later than the one designated by Dr. 
 Laurence. There is no need of supposing, that the author continues 
 the history of kings in Palestine down to the day in which he lived. 
 With the reign of Simon begins the period of Jewish independence ; and 
 besides this, the number of seventy kings is already completed, up to 
 that period. Subsequently, the invasion of the Parthians, and of the 
 Romans (as it seems to me), is adverted to by the author. 
 
 In chap, lv, the prophet represents himself as seeing “ another army 
 of chariots, with men riding upon them, . . . coming from the east, the 
 west, and the south.” The whole earth trembles with the sound of 
 them, and 6 their noise is heard even to the extremities of earth and 
 heaven.’ I cannot well doubt, that the invasion of Palestine by Vespa- 
 sian is here designated. Laurence and Hoffmann refer it to the Roman 
 military interpositions in behalf of Herod ; but these seem to me alto- 
 
 vol. i. 9 
 
66 
 
 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 gether too brief and insignificant to give occasion to such high wrought 
 description as is here employed. Besides, this invasion seems to be re- 
 presented, by the writer, as introductory to the completion of the king- 
 dom of God. So the primitive Christians, it is well known, regarded 
 the Roman invasion under Vespasian. 
 
 In ch. 89: 29 seq., after the seventy shepherds had ceased to rule, they 
 are represented as being brought to judgment, with the apostate angels, 
 and thrust into an abyss of fire “ on the right of that house,” i. e. in the 
 valley of Hinnom. 4 Hither the blind sheep, i. e. the obdurate Jews, are 
 also brought. The ancient house is then immerged, save some of its 
 choice parts, (comp. Apoc. 11: 1, 2), and “the Lord of the sheep pro- 
 duces a new house, great, and loftier than the former, which he erects in 
 the place of the first which had been concealed,” (so Hartmann) ; and 
 all its pillars and ornaments are new. To this house all worshippers 
 from all parts of the earth come , and the Lord of the sheep rejoices with 
 great joy over them all.’ — I am not aware of any construction of this, 
 which is so reasonable as that which supposes it to mean the destruc- 
 tion of the temple by the Romans, and the building of the new and 
 spiritual one under the Christian dispensation, with the consequent in- 
 gathering of the Gentiles. The context does not permit us to suppose, 
 that the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar can be here meant. 
 
 Again, in ch. xcii. the author divides the whole period of the world’s 
 existence into ten weeks ; not of equal length, but marked by events or 
 persons peculiar to each. The first in his own (Enoch’s) age ; the se- 
 cond that of Noah and the flood ; the third of Abraham ; the fourth of 
 the Law ; the fifth of Solomon’s temple ; the sixth of Elijah, including 
 the Babylonish exile at its close ; the seventh is that of the corruption 
 of many Jews, exiles among the heathen, and the conspicuous piety of a 
 part of them ; the eighth is that of Judas Maccabaeus and the restora- 
 tion of Jewish worship and privileges (comp. 89: 26, 27) ; the ninth week 
 is destined ‘ to destroy the works of the ungodly, to reveal the judgment 
 of righteousness to the whole world, and to prepare the world for the 
 final judgment.’ On the seventh day of the tenth week, is to be the final 
 judgment, and a new heavens will then be formed, “ in which sin will 
 be no more named forever and ever.” 
 
 The names of the individuals who thus identify the respective weeks 
 or periods, as presented above, are indeed not given in the book of 
 Enoch ; but such language is employed as leaves no room to doubt as to 
 the first six periods ; and in my own apprehension, there is little or no 
 reason to doubt respecting the limits assigned to the others. In the 
 ninth or Messianic period the author seems to have lived. If this be 
 doubtful here, further evidence will serve to confirm it. 
 
 On grounds such as these Lucke inclines to the opinion, that the wri- 
 
§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 67 
 
 ter of the book of Enoch composed his work after the destruction of the 
 temple by the Romans, and at a period when the Gospel had been spread 
 among the Gentiles, p. 60 seq. 
 
 But I have, in a diligent and repeated perusal of the book, lighted up- 
 on passages besides these, which seem to indicate that the author lived 
 after the period when most of the New Testament books were already 
 written ; inasmuch as there are indications, satisfactory to me, that he 
 has not unfrequently referred to what they contain. It is difficult, per- 
 haps, to produce specific evidence enough concerning this to satisfy all 
 minds ; and I must cast myself, therefore, upon the tout ensemble of the 
 book, and appeal to the impression made upon such readers as have given 
 it a repeated and scrutinizing perusal. I can, however, specificate a 
 number of particulars, most of which seem in a good measure to have 
 been overlooked by Laurence, Hoffmann, and even by Liicke. 
 
 Ch. 38: 2, It would have been better for them, had they never been 
 born ; comp. Matt. 26: 24. Mark 14: 21. Ch. 46: 3, 4, The Son of man 
 . . . shall raise up kings and the mighty from their couches, and the 
 powerful from their thrones ... he shall hurl kings from their thrones 
 and their dominions . . . the countenance of the mighty shall be cast 
 down, filling them with confusion ; comp. Luke 1: 51, 52. Ch. 48 b: 3, 
 With him dwells the spirit of intellectual wisdom . . . and the spirit of 
 those who sleep in righteousness ; he [Christ] shall judge secret things ; 
 comp, the frequent idiom of the New Testament, where sleep is used for 
 death, and sleeping in Jesus for dying in the Christian faith ; comp, also, 
 Rom. 2: 16. Ch. 24: 3 seq., Enoch sees a tree among the mountains of 
 judgment, “goodly in aspect ... its leaf, flower, and bark never wither 
 . . . the sight of its fruit is delightful . . . the fruit of it shall be to the 
 elect [after the judgment] . . . the sweet odour shall enter into their 
 bones, and they shall live a long life comp. Apoc. 22: 2, 14. 2: 7. 
 
 In ch. xl, Enoch is represented as seeing countless myriads standing 
 before the throne of the Lord of spirits, and in particular four archangels 
 standing on the four sides of this throne, and severally and successively 
 addressing themselves to him who sat upon it. In Apoc. iv — vi, the 
 four Zoju are represented as occupying the same position. Inasmuch as 
 they are there presented as rational creatures joining in the worship of 
 God, our author would seem to have considered them as archangels. In 
 Rev. vi. the four Zojol are presented as successively speaking, in like 
 manner as in the book of Enoch. In ch. 47: 1 seq., the blood of the 
 righteous is said to “ ascend from the earth before the Lord of spirits . . . 
 that he would execute judgment, and that his patience may not endure 
 forever,” and thanks are given by all the powers of heaven, that this 
 supplication is accepted; comp. Rev. 6: 9 seq. 11: 16 — 18. Ch. 47: 3, 
 
 ‘ The book of the living is opened, in the presence of God comp. Rev. 
 
68 
 
 § 6. BOOK OP ENOCH. 
 
 20: 12. Ch. 48: 9, ‘ They [the persecuting wicked] shall burn hi the 
 presence of the righteous, and sink [into the great abyss] in the presence 
 of the holy ; comp. Rev. 14: 10. In 45: 4, 5, a new heavens and a new 
 earth are to be made for the dwelling of the righteous ; comp. Rev. 21: 
 1. Ch. 50: 1, ‘ The earth shall deliver up [for judgment] from her 
 womb, and Hades deliver up from hers that which it hath received, and 
 destruction [*pnnx, the abyss] shall restore that which it owes comp. 
 Rev. 20: 13. 
 
 When we attentively consider such passages as those just referred to 
 in the Apocalypse, must we not conclude, either that the writer of the 
 Apocalypse drew from the book of Enoch, or the author of the latter 
 book from John? To my own mind, John presents altogether the 
 strongest evidence of being the original; the author of the book of 
 Enoch appears to be the imitator. Ewald reverses this conclusion, 
 Comm, in Apoc. p. 9. 
 
 But we have not yet done with this subject. The Ghristology of the 
 book of Enoch bears almost incontestable evidence of New Testament, 
 or at least of Christian , origin. 
 
 In the moderate portion of the book which is directly Christological, 
 the name Elect or Elect One , as applied to the Messiah, occurs some 
 fifteen times ; comp. Luke 23: 35, and especially 1 Pet. 2: 4. Son of 
 man occurs, in the same portion of the book, at least sixteen times ; my 
 Son , in 104 5: 2 ; Messiah occurs 48: 11. 51: 4; Son of woman occurs 
 in 61: 9, where he is said to sit on the throne of his glory, comp. Gal. 
 4: 4, yevogevov lx yvvaixog. All this, specially the last, seems to be too 
 specific to be overlooked. But there is more still which exhibits the 
 Christian views of the author. In 48: 2, the Son of man is said to be 
 invoked before the Lord of spirits, and his name in presence of the An- 
 cient of Days. In 60: 10 seq. the Elect One is represented as ovv&qo- 
 vog with the Lord of spirits, and as worshipped by all the host of heaven. 
 In 61: 9, 10, the Son of woman is said to be seated on the throne of 
 glory, and all the kings and princes of the earth are represented as glo- 
 rifying him. 
 
 In 60: 13 is a passage which seems, according to Laurence’s version, 
 to recognize the doctrine of the Trinity, “ The Cherubim, the Seraphim, 
 and the Ophannim, [different orders of angels according to Jewish com- 
 putation], all the angels of power, and all the angels of the Lords , viz. of 
 the Elect One, and of the other Power who was upon earth over the water 
 on that day [alluding to Gen. 1:2]... shall glorify, praise, exalt, etc.” 
 This can hardly be taken for anything less than a development of trini- 
 tarian views ; at all events, of such views respecting the object of truly 
 divine worship as no uninspired Jew can be shown to have possessed, 
 until after the promulgation of Christianity. But Hoffmann translates : 
 
§ 6. BOOK OP ENOCH. 
 
 69 
 
 “ Angels of power and all angels of lordships [i. e. who are of superior 
 order], and the Elect and the other Powers, who were on earth over 
 the water in that day,” i. e. superior angels present and assisting at the 
 creation. This is ingenious ; but I doubt whether it expresses the mind 
 of the writer. 
 
 The New Testament insists much on the doctrine, that the Messiah is 
 to be the supreme and final judge of all men. So is it in the book of 
 Enoch, e. g. ch. 50: 3. 54: 5. 60: 10, 11. 61: 9. 68: 39, 40. On his 
 sentence depends the final destiny of all intelligent beings. Is not this 
 a peculiarity appropriate to the New Testament dispensation ? On the 
 Son of man, moreover, all kings, princes, etc., are said to fix their hopes, 
 to pray to him, and petition him for mercy, 61: 12, 13. And when one 
 reads (48: 5, 6), that “ the Elect and Concealed One existed in the 
 presence of the Lord of spirits, before the world was created and for- 
 ever ; [and that] in his presence he existed, and has revealed to saints 
 . . . the wisdom of the Lord of spirits,” how can he refrain from sup- 
 posing, that John 1: 1, 2, 18 was before the writer’s mind, and that he 
 has imitated even the very repetition which occurs in the Gospel of 
 John 1: 1, 2 ? 
 
 I may add, also, that the book appears to be full of allusions to the 
 persecution of the righteous and the martyrdoms which they suffered 
 during the primitive age. I cannot produce at length the passages, for 
 want of room ; but the reader may find some of them in 46: 6. 48: 4. 
 40: 5. 80: 11. 52: 4 — 7. 1: 7. 10: 18, 19. 48 a : 10. 62: 1 — 7. chaps, xciv. 
 — xcix. chaps, cii. ciii. 105: 23. Even these do not contain all the 
 passages of this nature which are in the book. Among those, however, 
 which I have here designated, are some which speak more particularly 
 of the peace and rest to be given to the righteous. The whole tenor of 
 the book is of such a cast, as to give special emphasis to such passages. 
 Let the reader turn to ch. 105: 23, near its close, where no doubt can 
 be lefOon his mind, that the writer has in view the same thing as John 
 had when he wrote Apoc. 12: 11 ; for he has used almost exactly the 
 same expressions. 
 
 The doctrine of the endless punishment of the wicked too is frequent- 
 ly and strongly asserted ; e. g. in 16: 5. 22: 14. 38: 6. 39: 2. 45: 2. 49: 
 4. 91: 3. 92: 16. 103: 5 ; so in several other passages. 
 
 It were easy to enlarge this view of coincidences in the book of Enoch 
 with the New Testament, or at all events with the doctrines of Christiani- 
 ty. How Dr. Laurence and Prof. Hoffmann could read all this attentive- 
 ly, and yet come to the conclusion that the author was a Jew who lived be- 
 fore the Christian era , I cannot well imagine. Like the Apocalypse, 
 from beginning to end the book is filled with threats to oppressors 
 and persecutors of the righteous. From beginning to end it is filled 
 
70 
 
 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 with matter of consolation and encouragement to the pious who are 
 suffering. It has not only a general, but even a close, resemblance to 
 the Apocalypse in this respect. But what was there in the state of the 
 Jews, under the Roman power and protection, which resembled the con- 
 dition here supposed ? Civil and political turmoils and parties there were 
 indeed ; but no particular persecution on account of religious opinions. 
 
 Then again how can such a Christology be accounted for in a mere 
 Jew, sunk in the gross darkness which immediately preceded the coming 
 of the Messiah ? Do we lack evidence, that the Jews of that day ex- 
 pected a mere temporal prince and conqueror for their Messiah ? Surely 
 we do not, if Targums and Talmuds, and Rabbinical productions, and 
 the New Testament itself, may be admitted to give testimony respect- 
 ing Jewish opinions. A Christology so spiritual as that of the book of 
 Enoch, which entirely omits all worldly splendour and glory and plainly 
 gives us a spiritual Messiah , and seemingly a doctrine of the Trinity 
 too (60: 13) ; a freedom, moreover, from Jewish partialities and He- 
 brew prejudices against other nations — all, all proclaim a Christian au- 
 thor. A Hebrew indeed he must have been ; as the numberless allu- 
 sions to the Old Testament and quotations from it, and names every- 
 where formed from the Hebrew, sufficiently show ; and also the orders 
 of angels which he names (60: 13), and the well known Rabbinic con- 
 ceit respecting the feast, at a future day, upon Behemoth and Leviathan 
 (58: 7, 8). But a mere Jew, with the common prejudices of his nation, 
 never would or could, as it seems to me, have written such a Christolo- 
 gy as the author of the book of Enoch has produced. He never could 
 have refrained from inveighing against the idolatrous , and exhibit- 
 ing the deep feeling of superiority over them and contempt for them, 
 which was universal among the mere Jews of that period. There is 
 but little, moreover, in the whole book which even inveighs against 
 idolatry ; and that little is not in such a way as to show a strong sensa- 
 tion of Jewish pride and contempt. On the contrary, the author has in 
 many places taken pains to show, that the Lord of spirits has prepared 
 to extend his mercy to all without distinction who will yield obedience 
 to his commands, and that he will greatly rejoice to bring all his wan- 
 dering sheep back to his fold. 
 
 The angelology of the book, and in general its demonology, can be 
 easily accounted for by the supposition, (which is altogether a probable 
 one), that its author was a Median or Persian, and that he was only an 
 occasional visiter in Palestine. Indeed, the Jews in general of that 
 period were but little, if any, removed from sentiments on this subject 
 like those in the book of Enoch. The excessive leaning of the book to 
 imagery borrowed from fire, light, and splendour, are perfectly natural 
 to one brought up in the midst of Parsism. The imperfect exhibition 
 
§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 71 
 
 of several important Christian doctrines, moreover, may be easily ac- 
 counted for on two grounds ; first, on the ground of the special design 
 of the book, for it was not intended to be a system of Christian doctrine ; 
 secondly, on the ground that the author was but a neophyte in the 
 Christian religion. 
 
 One remark more on the present condition of the book, should not be 
 suppressed. In many of its parts, it bears the most evident marks of 
 carelessness in transcribers. The transpositions plainly indicate this. 
 Almost equally plain is it, that the book has suffered some interpolations , 
 and some omissions. There are passages, (for an example of the latter), 
 which are quoted by some of the fathers, that are not to be found in 
 our present copy of this work. In the apocryphal writing entitled the 
 Testament of the twelve Patriarchs , an undoubted production of the first 
 century or of the beginning of the second, there occur, as has been sta- 
 ted, no less than ten quotations from the book of Enoch, all except one 
 appealing to him by name. In some of these are predictions of evil to 
 the Jews, and predictions of what would be done by them to the Mes- 
 siah and his followers, which would place the matter of Christian author- 
 ship beyond all question, in case we could fully fix upon them as real 
 extracts from this book. E. g. in Test. Levi, ch. 16, in Test. Nepht. 
 ch. 4, and in Test. Benj. ch. 9, are passages which render it impossible 
 to mistake the character of the writer. The only difficulty here is, that 
 we cannot with certainty tell exactly where the author of the Testa- 
 ments designed to conclude his quotations, inasmuch as his own accom- 
 panying words very much resemble, in their tenor, what is probably 
 quoted from the book of Enoch. On the whole, it seems probable that 
 the book of Enoch has been early tampered with by the Jews ; that 
 some of its obnoxious contents have been expunged or altered, and per- 
 haps some things of no great moment been added. 
 
 Liicke is decidedly of the opinion, that the book before us was writ- 
 ten during the latter half of the first century, Einleit. p. 60. Of the 
 same opinion is Dr. Nitzsch, in his De Test. XII. Patriarcharum, p. 17 
 seq. On p. 31 he remarks, that this book, cum aetate et ingenio , is not 
 much remote from the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs ; which 
 agrees with Liicke’s views as above stated. These writers are no ordi- 
 nary judges, in respect to such a subject. De Sacy and Ewald are also 
 of the same opinion, for substance, as to the age of the work. 
 
 (c) Probable author of the book. His person is unknown, and there 
 is nothing in the book which would lead us even to a conjecture as to 
 his name. We have already seen, that in all probability he was an 
 oriental man, a Jew, a Christian Jew ; and, we may add, probably a 
 neophyte in the Christian religion, who was but partially instructed, and 
 
72 § 6. BOOK OP ENOCH. 
 
 who had visited Palestine and there been converted, and there perse- 
 cuted. 
 
 (d) As to those contents of the book of Enoch which closely resem- 
 ble the Apocalypse, with regard to the persecution of the righteous, 
 and the certain prospect of future deliverance ; they are too numerous 
 to be recounted here. I have already adverted (on p. 69) to passages 
 which bring the sufferings of the pious to view. I must content myself, 
 at present, with merely referring the reader to some of the millennial* 
 passages contained in the book; e. g. Ch. 1: 6 — 8. 6: 9. 10: 21 — 29 
 (full statement). 38: 1 — 6. 39: 1. 45: 4 seq. 48: 10, 11. 49: 1. 50: 5. 
 51: 4. 52: 6, 7. 92: 15—18. 103: 1—12. 104: 1, 2. 105: 26, 27. Not 
 every passage here noted affords by itself satisfactory evidence of mil- 
 lennial views ; but when the whole are examined in their connections, 
 such views can hardly remain a matter of doubt. There is a leading 
 and prominent sympathy common to this writer and that of the Apoca- 
 lypse. 
 
 On the whole, one cannot wonder at the deep interest manifested in 
 the early ages of Christianity, in the production before us. Some parts of 
 it exhibit no small measure of lofty conception in regard to the Godhead 
 and the world of spirits. Throughout there is a deep tone of moral 
 feeling, and the close of the book seems almost worthy of a place in the 
 canon, among the comminatory parts of some of the prophets. A part 
 of the demonology of the book cannot find any credence at the present 
 day, among enlightened men ; but the early fathers found here only 
 what was congenial with their own speculations. The astronomical part 
 of the book shows the author to be, in all probability, one who was edu- 
 cated in the midst of the “p'lta of the oriental regions. A competent 
 interpreter might educe from it many things interesting to the history of 
 astronomical science. Indeed the book throughout is exceedingly rich 
 in the disclosure of the sympathies and the speculations, and also of the 
 modes of expression and thought, that were current in the first age of 
 Christianity. It throws fight on the angelology and demonology of the 
 New Testament ; on the current Christology of the first century ; and 
 on many things of a subordinate nature. It is worthy of much more at- 
 tention, in these respects, than it has hitherto received among critics. 
 
 Quotation by Jude. The reader, who has not access to the book, 
 will be pleased to see the passage which Jude is generally supposed to 
 have quoted, exhibited in such a way that he can make a comparison 
 for himself. I shall therefore subjoin it. 
 
 * I do not mean by millennial , that the period of a thousand years is expressly 
 designated in the book of Enoch ; but only the character of the millennial days is 
 intended to be designated by the word, as I employ it. 
 
§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 73 
 
 Jude, vs. 14 , 15 . Enoch, ch. ii. 
 
 Enoch, also, the seventh from Adam, 
 
 prophesied of these, saying: Behold, Behold, he [the Lord] cometh with 
 the Lord cometh with ten thousands of ten thousands of his saints, to execute 
 his saints, to execute judgment upon judgment upon them, and destroy the 
 all, and to convince all that are ungodly wicked, and reprove all the carnal for 
 among them of all their ungodly deeds, everything which the sinful and ungod- 
 which they have ungodly committed, ly have done, and committed against 
 and of all their hard speeches (pyiXrjQwv) him. 
 which ungodly sinners have spoken 
 against him. 
 
 The quotation of Jude, (if it be truly one), is evidently paraphrastic, 
 and such an one as would be made memoriter very naturally. The de- 
 signation, in Jude, of hard speeches (a xhqQwv) was probably occasioned 
 by the character of the times and the circumstances in which Jude wrote. 
 
 After all that has been said on the subject of this quotation, hardly 
 anything new can be added. De Sacy remarks upon it, that “ the au- 
 thor of the book of Enoch may have quoted from Jude, as well as Jude 
 from him.” To this Hoffmann objects, that 4 then the circumstance, 
 that Enoch the seventh from Adam prophesied , must have been interpo- 
 lated ; of which we have no proof.’ But this does not follow of neces- 
 sity. Jude and the author of the book of Enoch may have both quoted 
 from traditionary remains of ancient history ; like Paul’s allusion to 
 Jannes and Jambres, 2 Tim. 3: 8, or like Jude’s account of the contest 
 of Michael the archangel about the body of Moses, in v. 9 of his epis- 
 tle. The two passages are not so identical as to render quotation cer- 
 tain, either on the one side or on the other. Probable I must deem it 
 to be, that Jude has quoted the book of Enoch, because he seems, in 
 what he says of “ the angels who kept not their first estate, but left tlieir 
 habitation, and are reserved in chains of darkness,” to allude to the ac- 
 count of apostate angels as given in the book of Enoch. Beyond this I 
 should not deem it safe to go. That Jude assumes the truth of what 
 seems to be quoted, must be admitted ; but it is not of course untrue, or 
 fictitious, because it is found in the book of Enoch. Nor is the whole 
 book of Enoch any more vouched for in consequence of this quotation, 
 than are the poems of Aratus and Epimenides when Paul quotes them ; 
 see in Acts 17: 28 and Tit. 1: 12. 
 
 Original language of the book. This Lawrence supposes to 
 have been Hebrew , inasmuch as all the proper names are of Hebrew 
 origin ; the author was a Jew ; and the book of Zohar, the most ancient 
 of all the Cabbalistic books, appeals to the book of Enoch as authorita- 
 tive, which, it is thought, he would not do, in case the book had been 
 written in Greek , for that would show upon the very face of it that 
 Enoch could not have been the author. Hoffmann agrees with this 
 
 VOL. I. 10 
 
74 
 
 § 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 
 
 opinion ; De Sacy seems to doubt ; at any rate, Liicke does not regard 
 these arguments as convincing, p. 65 seq. ; and long ago, from the state 
 of the fragment quoted in G. Syncellus (see on p. 52), Heidegger, Wit- 
 sius, and Ilottinger, maintained a Greek original. On the supposition 
 that an oriental Jew composed it, it would be most probable that the 
 original language was Hebrew. But if it were, it must have been very 
 early translated ; for Jude, the author of the Testament of the twelve 
 Patriarchs, and Tertullian, manifestly appear to have read it in Greek, 
 and quoted it as such. The Ethiopic version, moreover, must doubt- 
 less have been made from a Greek copy ; for in 7: 8 it has Armonem 
 (beginning with (\ = fc$) derived doubtless from the Greek ’Efyiav, 
 and not from the Hebrew . So in 10: 24 elias (Gr. ilodag) is put 
 for oil ; 20: 7, ikisat probably for ixtadr, which seems to be the Greek 
 imitation of N&Sti , throne ; 30: 1, nekatro for the Greek vsxzagog. Be- 
 sides ; all the Scriptures quoted, as a general thing, are derived from the 
 Greek version of the Scriptures. 
 
 There remains more yet to be done for the illustration of this valua- 
 ble piece of antique , than has been done, even by Hoffmann who has 
 made a very laudable beginning. Would that some adequate and im- 
 partial connoisseur of antiquity might pay still more attention to a com- 
 mentary upon this production ! 
 
 As it relates to the Apocalypse, Ewald is the only commentator whom 
 I have seen, that has made use of the book of Enoch. He takes it for 
 granted that it was written before the Apocalypse, and so makes John 
 often an imitator of it. That the reverse of this is true, I cannot, after 
 repeated perusals of both books, entertain any question. Originality of 
 plan and execution lies on the face of the Apocalypse, on the symmetry 
 of its design, and the vivid freshness of its costume and modes ©f ex- 
 pression. Deeply imbued was the writer with a knowledge of the Old 
 Testament Scriptures ; most familiar in his mind were Ezekiel, Daniel, 
 and Zechariah ; but after all, the thoughts and words are strictly his 
 own. They everywhere receive the colouring of his own mind. It is 
 not so in the book of Enoch. 
 
 (c) Fourth Book of Ezra. 
 
 Such is the name now usually given to an apocryphal book of Ezra, 
 of early origin, in consequence of Jerome’s so naming the Latin version 
 of this book, which has in general been the only one in use among the 
 learned. In the Codex Coisl. of Montfaucon, p. 194, it is named (among 
 other apocryphal books) as "Eodga dnoy.akv\pig. The inscription of the 
 Latin version itself names it the second hook of Ezra ; at least the in- 
 scription to the version which comprises chaps, i. ii. xv. xvi. so names 
 
§ 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 
 
 75 
 
 it ; but these chapters, as we shall see in the sequel, are interpolations. 
 The Arabic and Ethiopic versions of this book, which begin with chap, 
 iii, both name it the first book of Ezra. This variety of names doubt- 
 less sprung merely from different modes of arranging and publishing the 
 several books, that bore the title of Ezra. The proper book of Ezra 
 was counted by Jerome as the first ; Nehemiah as the second ; the 
 Greek Ezra in the Septuagint version as the third ; and the book be- 
 fore us as the fourth. In some Mss., moreover, chap. xv. xvi. of the 
 fourth of Ezra are reckoned as a separate book, and called the fifth book 
 of Ezra.* 
 
 In the second century Clement of Alexandria quoted from a Greek 
 copy of this book ; so that we have an assurance in this, both of its early 
 origin and of the language in which Clement found it. See Strom. 3: 
 16, where a passage is quoted from Ez. 5: 35, and then Clement adds : 
 ’'Ecdr/ag 6 7ZQ0Cprj7rig Xtysi. There is little doubt that Clement regarded 
 the book as of good authority. Such was the case also with other fathers 
 of the church. Ambrose regarded it as an inspired book ; see, De Bono 
 Mortis, c. 10. 11, and Comm, ad Lucam 2: 21. Vigilantius appealed to 
 it, in the days of Jerome, in order to confirm a sentiment of his ; but 
 was severely rebuked by that veteran critic. Even in modern times 
 the book has had its advocates ; but the general sentiment, both in an- 
 cient and in modern times, has been strongly against its canonical claims. 
 
 The composition before us bears many marks of having been much 
 tampered with, by addition, by abscission, and also by imitation. Chap, 
 i. ii. and xv. xvi. are not only omitted in the Arabic and Ethiopic 
 copies of the book, but twelve out of thirteen Latin Mss. at Oxford also 
 omit them, so that no doubt can remain, on critical ground, that they 
 must be rejected. The tenor of them moreover is such, that they are in- 
 compatible with the older part of the work, viz. ch. iii — xiv. — Besides 
 this, the Arabic and Ethiopic copies insert large paragraphs, amounting 
 to a chapter in extent, after chap. 7: 35 in the published Latin copy. 
 In this case, however, the congruity of the portion inserted by these 
 versions, with the context, is a strong proof of its genuineness. 
 
 It has been maintained by some critics of name, that the book was 
 
 * The Greek original of this book has been supposed to be lost ; but sugges- 
 tions have recently been made, that it may probably be found in the library at 
 Paris ; see Thilo, Acta Thomae, Proleg. p. 82. At present we have the Latin 
 version, which is ancient ; the Ethiopic, made some time after the middle of the 
 fourth century, i. e. after Ethiopia was christianized ; and the Arabic version, the 
 age of which is uncertain. The Arabic version, in a Ms. of the Bodleian library 
 at Oxford, was translated into English by S. Ockley, and published by Whiston 
 in his Primitive Christianity , Vol. IV. The Ethiopic also has been translated 
 into Latin and English, and published by Dr. Laurence, of Oxford, in A. D. 1820, 
 one vol. 8vo. 
 
76 
 
 § 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 
 
 originally written in Hebrew . That the style everywhere Hebraizes, 
 as it now appears in the Latin version, is evident enough to every one 
 acquainted with the Hebrew idiom ; e. g. excedens excessit ; viventes 
 vivere ; proficiscens profectus sum ; numero numeravit ; odiens odisti, 
 etc. etc. very often repeated ; besides a great many phrases altogether 
 in the Hebrew manner of expression. But still, a Hebraizing Greek 
 writer might employ the like expressions, as the Septuagint often does ; 
 the evidence, therefore, of being written in Hebrew is somewhat dubious. 
 It rests rather upon conjecture than testimony. Greek the copy must 
 have been, which was quoted by Clement of Alexandria ; and the Latin 
 translation not unfrequently betrays a Greek original ; e. g. by such 
 words as pausa , plasma , plasmatio, romphaea , etc. 
 
 The interest that we have in this book, in regard to apocalyptic 
 matter, is but moderate. Only a small part of it is kindred in its form 
 to the Apocalypse, and still less bears any near relation to the specific 
 matter of the Revelation. There is, however, this general trait of re- 
 semblance to the Apocalypse in the fourth book of Ezra, viz. it proffers 
 consolation and hopes of better times to the suffering Jews ; and, as 
 the Latin text is now presented to us, it contains a few Messianic pas- 
 sages. Lucke has given the book an extensive examination, and be- 
 stowed much more labor and time upon it than on the book of Enoch. 
 It is of immeasurably less interest, however, to the critical reader ; and 
 instead of forty pages devoted by him to this book and twenty-five to 
 the book of Enoch, I would that the case had been reversed ; although 
 one can scarcely help following such a writer as Lucke with pleasure, 
 wherever he leads the way. 
 
 I proceed to a brief sketch of the contents of the book. Chap. i. and 
 ii, it will be remembered, are undoubtedly an interpolation. 
 
 Chap. i. begins by tracing the genealogy of Ezra back to Aaron. It contains 
 severe ‘ reproof of the Jews for all their departures from God, and recites at length, 
 in order to aggravate their guilt, the numerous interpositions of the divine Being 
 in their favour, during past ages. It declares that God will give their land to 
 another people, who will believe on him without signs, wonders, or prophets, i. e. 
 (as I understand the assertion), who will be converted by the instrumentalitj’- of 
 simple preaching. 
 
 Ch. ii. repeats the threats that God will cast them off, and scatter them among 
 the nations. God has selected a people to whom he will give up Jerusalem ; and 
 there, every kind of blessing shall await them. The tree of life shall flourish 
 there ; evil shall be eradicated ; the dead shall be raised from their graves to in- 
 crease the number of God’s people ; Isaiah and Jeremiah shall be sent to help 
 them ; twelve trees loaded with various fruits, as many fountains of milk and 
 honey, and seven mountains covered with lilies and roses, shall be provided for 
 their enjoyment. This is followed by hortatory matter ; and this again by prom- 
 ises. Ezra was commissioned in Horeb [like Moses] to warn the people, but they 
 reject him ; the Gentiles (gentes) are therefore invited to expect a Saviour, who 
 
§ 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 
 
 77 
 
 will come in fin&.saeculi [t*'K :i rt m-ihsa]; his followers shall be clothed with 
 splendid garments ; the number of them shall be complete. Ezra sees an innu- 
 merable multitude on mount Zion [comp. Rev. 14: 1], and among them a youth- 
 ful form of lofty stature [the Messiah] distributing crowns. Ezra inquires who 
 these are ; and he is told, that they are confessors of God’s name, who have de- 
 parted this life, and now are crowned, [comp. Rev. 7: 13 — 17] ; also that he who 
 distributes the crowns, is the Son of God whom they have confessed.’ 
 
 There can be no doubt that these two chapters came from the hand 
 of some Christian writer. The manner in which the Jews are rebuked, 
 the favour shown to the Gentiles, the evident imitations of the Apoca- 
 lypse, together with the Messianic matter contained in them, all indicate 
 the hand of a Christian writer. But as to the question : When were 
 these chapters added to the ancient and principal work ? we have no 
 certain information which will enable us to decide it. The paucity of 
 even Latin Mss. which contain them, shows that the addition must have 
 been modem. 
 
 Chap, iii — xiv. form a peculiar and connected whole. The burden 
 of the theme is, the distressed and desolate condition of the Jews, the 
 mourning and astonishment of Ezra over it, and the hope of a better 
 day in the sequel. If there are a few Messianic passages in this part 
 of the book, (the only part which is genuine and ancient), still they are 
 so few, and of such a nature, that it is doubtful whether they are not 
 interpolations. 
 
 Chap. iii. commences with the statement, that ‘ Ezra, in the 30th year after the 
 desolation of the holy city, was in Babylon, reflecting on the ruined state of his 
 country, and that he was filled with anxiety and distress, and also with perplexity, 
 on account of the treatment which it had received. He complains that God had 
 made Adam to be the common father of all nations, because he sinned and was 
 punished ; the whole world, also, was punished afterwards for sin, by the flood ; 
 and after this, when men became corrupted, God selected Abraham, made a cove- 
 nant with him accompanied by many promises, wrought many signs and wonders 
 for his posterity, who still, urged by an evil heart inherited from the transgressor 
 Adam, broke his laws and forfeited his favour, — and in consequence of all this the 
 holy city had been devoted to destruction. But why is Jerusalem thus dealt with, 
 while Babylon remains unpunished, which is a greater sinner still ? Other na- 
 tions have sinned more than Israel ; why should they be spared, and Israel de- 
 stroyed ?’ 
 
 Chap. iv. 1 The angel Uriel is sent to answer the questions of the complaining 
 seer. The angel asks him, (in order to show the folly of complaint by ignorant 
 man), to weigh the flames of fire, to measure the quantity of the wind, or to recall 
 the day they had then past. He does not ask about more recondite and myste- 
 rious matters, lest they might exceed the capacity of the complainant, but re- 
 specting things obvious and of continual occurrence. If Ezra cannot explain 
 them, how can he expect to explain the deep counsels of the Almighty? The 
 angel proposes a parable : The forest declared war against the sea, and would fain 
 march into it in order to assail it; vice versa , the sea joined issue, and desired to 
 roll in upon the forest; but neither could move from its place: so it is with the 
 
78 
 
 § 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 
 
 inhabitants of the earth, they cannot scale heaven, and possess themselves of its 
 secrets. — The seer still repeats his complaints respecting the severe and partial 
 treatment of Israel. The angel gives him to understand, that the transitory gene- 
 rations of the world are not capable of perceiving all the future good which is 
 promised to the just; that the evil heart derived from Adam still blinds and per- 
 verts them, and will do so until the time of harvest covies. The ingathering shall 
 then be great. [Is not this Messianic?] The souls of the just once inquired when 
 their harvest time would come ; the archangel Jeremiel told them, that when the 
 number of the wicked should be completed, God would bring about the time which 
 he had decreed. Nothing can prevent this. Ezra inquires, whether the past time 
 or the future is the most ? By similitudes the angel shows him that the past time 
 exceeds the future. 
 
 Chap. v. More corrupt times are yet to come. Then, after the third trumpet 
 shall sound, great changes are to take place, and strange events to happen, through- 
 out the world of nature. In the midst of all these, the unrighteousness and the 
 misery of men shall increase. Here the angel breaks off*, and commands a fast of 
 seven days. 
 
 At the beginning of this fast, the angel Salathiel comes to Ezra and strives to 
 console him. He refuses consolation, and proceeds with his fasting and prayer. 
 At the end of seven days he resumes his anxiety and complaints, that the one 
 chosen, beloved, favoured people of God should be treated with more severity than 
 the heathen. The angel again comes, and reproves his excessive grief. He asks 
 Ezra, whether he loves Israel more than God their Maker does ? He reminds him 
 that the subject respecting which he is so anxious, surpasses his comprehension ; 
 for he can neither number that which has not yet come, nor count the drops of 
 rain, nor revive the flowers that have withered, nor open the treasures of the 
 wind. Ezra wishes to know why things cannot be hastened and brought more 
 closely together, so that the promised good may more speedily come. The angel 
 tells him that the earth has its natural course, and so must all things else. In- 
 fants are not born of full stature ; the earth too is to have its old age.’ 
 
 Ch. vi. The angel continues : ‘ Before the creation of all the different objects 
 now belonging to the world, all things were determined. Ezra wishes to know 
 when the former age will end, and the latter one begin. The angel declines to 
 tell him. Ezra again asks to know the end of the signs which had been shown 
 him. He is commanded to listen without fear. A loud voice, as of many waters, 
 strikes his ear, and proclaims that the days are coming in which God will begin 
 to visit the earth, to punish the wicked, and bring to an end the humiliation of 
 Zion. Great changes and strange events shall then take place ; men shall destroy 
 each other, and those who survive shall see salvation and the end of the present 
 age. The hearts of men shall be changed evil shall cease ; truth and fidelity 
 shall flourish. More is promised to be disclosed, after another fast of seven days. 
 
 After this Ezra again commences his complaint. He recites what God had 
 done on the several days of creation; how he made Behemoth and Leviathan; 
 finally he pleads, that Adam was made, that a chosen people was selected from 
 his posterity, that other nations were regarded as nothing; but now, they lord it 
 over God’s people and destroy them. If the world was created for the chosen 
 people, why then do they not possess it ?* 
 
 Chap. vii. The angel again appears and tells Ezra, ‘ tha + the sea is immense, and 
 the entrace to it a narrow channel ; if this be not passed, how can one rule over 
 the sea? A city is built full of all good things; the entrance to it is narrow, be- 
 tween fire and water, yet who shall enjoy the good, that will not pass through the 
 
§ 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 
 
 79 
 
 dangerous entrance ? So this world is full of sorrow ; who shall enjoy the good 
 to come, that refuses the discipline which this occasions ? Ezra ought, therefore, 
 to cease from his complaints. The righteous will be amply rewarded ; the wicked 
 only suffer the just punishment of disobedience. The time of liberation is not 
 far distant. My Son Jesus shall be revealed, and those with him shall be made 
 glad in 400 years. — My Son the Christ shall die after this, and all who breathe, 
 and seven days shall primitive silence reign over all the earth. A new age shall 
 then come ; the earth shall give up the dead ; the judgment shall take place ; 
 truth, confidence, justice, rewards, shall follow, and sin forever cease. [Here the 
 addition in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions comes in, and in a manner altogether 
 consonant with the train of thought. The sequel presents a summary of it]. 
 Sinners shall be plunged into the bottomless abyss; and paradise shall appear in 
 all its glory. All the phenomena of nature will cease. A hebdomade of years is 
 the destined number of these things. Ezra replies, that those are happy indeed 
 who keep the commandments of God ; but alas ! how few of this character ! Broad 
 is the road which leads to destruction. The angel continues : God has created 
 two worlds. There are a few precious things, and many inferior ones. The pre- 
 cious things are the more highly prized, because of the latter ; God will rejoice 
 the more in his elect few. Ezra complains that we were made of clay which 
 could transgress, and endowed with reason. The brutes are better ofF who have 
 no abuse of reason to account for. As the wicked are to be raised from the dead 
 and punished, it would be better if they had never been made. The angel an- 
 swers, that those who are endowed with reason and freedom are justly held ac- 
 countable, for they have no excuse. 
 
 Ezra wishes to know, whether men go immediately after death to their retribu- 
 tion, or whether they are kept in a place of rest until the judgment day ? The 
 angel answers, that Ezra himself, being righteous, is safe ; that the souls of the 
 righteous go immediately into the presence of God ; that the wicked are confined 
 and kept for judgment. These shall mourn for seven reasons, which are given. 
 On the other hand, when the righteous come before God, they will rejoice for as 
 many reasons ; which are also given. They shall forever behold the divine glory, 
 and be happy in the presence of God. 
 
 Ezra wishes to know whether any time intervenes between death and retribu- 
 tion. The angel answers, that seven days are occupied by souls in making in- 
 spection of all things; then they enter their final abode. Ezra inquires, whether 
 intercession for departed spirits is lawful? The angel informs him that it is use- 
 less, for their doom is fixed. [Here the addition in the Arabic and Ethiopic ver- 
 sions ceases]. Ezra replies, that Abraham, Moses, Samuel, etc., interceded for 
 the wicked ; why may not he then intercede in the case supposed ? The answer 
 is, that the present is a time of probation; the future is the final end, and admits 
 of no change. Ezra still complains of the destiny of men, and says it would be 
 better had they never been made. It were better that there were no paradise, 
 than to see it and come short of it. The angel replies, that reward is offered to 
 the good ; which is all that ought to be required. Ezra is constrained at last to 
 acknowledge, that the long-suffering of God is great towards perishing sinners; 
 if it were not so, not a ten thousandth part of men could be saved.’ 
 
 Chap. viii. ‘The present world was made for many; the future one for few. 
 As the earth affords abundant material for potter's vessels, but not much from 
 which gold is extracted, so many are created, yet but few are saved. Ezra re- 
 plies, that God arranges and disposes of all things by his sovereign power; that 
 he kills and makes alive ; and consequently it would be easy for him to save all, 
 
80 
 
 § 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 
 
 especially his chosen people. For them he (Ezra) makes intercession, and prays 
 God to forgive their sins. The divine indignation should be turned against the 
 heathen, and not against his own chosen people. All men are sinners ; God 
 must not deal hardly with his people. The angel then reminds Ezra, that when 
 a multitude of seeds are sown, all do not spring up and grow; in like manner, all 
 men will not attain to eternal life. Ezra is assured that he is regarded with fa- 
 vour, and that his future happiness is certain. He is forbidden to urge the ques- 
 tion respecting those who perish. All had liberty as free agents ; they abused 
 that liberty, and therefore are deserving of punishment. Ezra wishes to know, 
 when the things signified will take place.’ 
 
 Chap. ix. x. The angel tells Ezra, that the final period of the world will be 
 preceded by great commotions of the natural elements and of nations. When 
 such beginnings take place, the consummation must follow. The ungrateful and 
 rebellious must be punished. Ezra ought not to inquire so much respecting these, 
 but rather respecting the salvation of the righteous. Ezra persists in his complaint, 
 that many perish while only a few are saved. The angel tells him that the many 
 perish, because they are produced for no important purpose ; but the few, God’s 
 chosen people, are like to a single choice grape on a large cluster. Here Ezra is 
 commanded to go into a field, Ardath [Arphad?] for seven days, yet not to fast, 
 but to live on the flowers. At the end of this period he again makes confession, 
 and intercedes for his people. Soon after this he sees a woman weeping and 
 mourning. He strives to comfort her ; but in vain. She tells him that for thirty 
 years she was barren. God then, in answer to her earnest prayers, gave her a 
 son. When he had grown up, on his wedding day he fell down dead. Great 
 mourning followed, and she fled into the field, where she is resolved to remain in- 
 consolable until death. Ezra reproves her, and bids her consider how much more 
 reason the country has to weep for its multitudes slain, and the land for its pro- 
 ductions destroyed. The woman refuses to return home. Ezra resumes his nar- 
 ration of the suffering and desolate condition of the land ; Jerusalem is destroyed, 
 the temple rifled of its holy things, the Levites gone into captivity, virgins are 
 ravished, infants, youth, strong and weak, are all destroyed together; and every- 
 thing is under the entire control of enemies who hate the Israelites. — The woman 
 then vanishes with a loud sound, and a city is seen in the place where she stood. 
 
 Uriel now comes to explain the vision. The woman is Zion. The thirty years 
 barrenness are the thirty years preceding the time of building the temple by Solo- 
 mon. His offering of oblations designates the son which was born. The nour- 
 ishing of this son was the inhabitation of Jerusalem. His sudden death means 
 the ruin of the city. Other visions are to be presented, if Ezra will remain another 
 day.’ 
 
 Chap. xi. xii. ‘ In a dream Ezra sees a great eagle, with twelve wings and three 
 heads. From her wings, expanded over all the earth, sprung other smaller wings 
 opposite to them, of which there were eight. These all vanish, one after another, 
 in various ways, until only one head is left. A lion then comes from the forest, 
 and addresses to the eagle words of severe reproof and threats, because of her ty- 
 rannical reign. The eagle vanishes before him. The seer awakes fatigued and 
 distressed with his dream. The angel appears in order to interpret it. The eagle 
 is the fourth beast in Daniel’s vision, i. e. the Roman empire. Twelve kings 
 [the twelve Caesars] shall reign over it, the second of which shall have the long- 
 est reign [Augustus]. The eight secondary wings are kings of short duration in 
 the Roman empire ;. [tributary and dependent kings over some of the provinces ?] 
 These perish at various times and in different ways. The lion is the Anointed 
 
§ 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 
 
 81 
 
 One, who will judge and condemn opposing enemies. He will liberate the peo- 
 ple of God, and make them happy until the time of the judgment. Ezra is com- 
 manded to write down all this, and deposite it in a secret place,' but secretly to 
 communicate these matters to the wise. He is commanded to wait seven days 
 more for other disclosures. 
 
 All the people now come to Ezra out of the city, and beseech him to return. 
 He comforts them, and bids them wait a few days, and then he will return to 
 them. 
 
 Chap. xiii. After seven days, a great wind arises on the sea, and Ezra beholds 
 a man surrounded by an innumerable multitude of heavenly beings. At his voice 
 all nature shudders. From the four winds of heaven a countless host assemble 
 to make war upon him. This man [the Messiah] raises up a great mountain and 
 takes his station upon it. His enemies are struck with terror ; he breathes forth 
 fire and consumes them. He now descends from the mountain, and is surround- 
 ed by a great multitude ; some are joyful and some sad. Ezra asks for the inter- 
 pretation of these things. The angel thus interprets: The man from the sea, is 
 he who will liberate the creature, [i. e. he is the Messiah]. The fire from his 
 mouth, indicates the destruction which is to take place at his coming. “ My Son 
 shall be revealed.” The nations will assemble to make war; he shall take his 
 stand on the mount Zion, which shall be raised up for the occasion. “ M y Son ” 
 shall reprove the nations for their iniquities, and shall destroy them. The peace- 
 ful multitude, gathered around him after this, are the ten tribes carried away cap- 
 tive by Salmanasar. He will prepare the way for their return, and those who are 
 left of the chosen nation will be protected. Inasmuch as the man ascended from 
 the depths of the sea; this shows that we cannot discern him or his, until the 
 time of his coming. Ezra is required to wait yet three days more. 
 
 Chap. xiv. A voice then speaks to him, and declares itself to be the same which 
 addressed Moses out of the burning bush. He is commanded to lay up in his 
 mind all which he had seen or heard. The end approaches. The world’s period 
 ♦is divided into twelve parts, [Ethiopic version reads ten , which is doubtless the 
 correct reading], ten and one half of which have passed away. Ezra is command- 
 ed to reprove his people, to put his house in order, and to live in the strenuous 
 performance of all his duty. The old age of the world will bring many evils with 
 it. Ezra is commanded to procure many tablets and five scribes. He then goes 
 to the people, admonishes them to live virtuously, and forbids them to seek him 
 for forty days. After this he goes with his scribes into the field again, and there 
 a voice commands him to drink from the chalice which is proffered to him. He 
 drinks, and is filled with understanding and wisdom. He dictates, and the scribes 
 write, during forty days. He is commanded to publish the books thus written ; 
 which (according to the Ethiopic and Arabic version) make ninety-four volumes.’ 
 
 [Here both the Arabic and Ethiopic versions come to a close, each adding an 
 epigraph. The epigraph of the Arabic version reckons the time of Ezra’s death, 
 and makes it A. M. 5025 — a mere fancy work of some transcriber]. 
 
 Chap. xv. xvi. These, which are not a part of the original work, continue the 
 speech which God is said to have commenced in chap. xiv. The substance of 
 them is comminatory. The world shall be filled with woe, because of its wicked- 
 ness. God will vindicate the just, and repay vengeance to their oppressors and 
 adversaries. The Arabians and Carmanians shall contend together. Many wars 
 in the north and east will succeed. All the elements will be in commotion. 
 Babylon will be attacked. Asia [Minor] the ally of Babylon will be smitten be- 
 cause of her persecutions. Egypt and Syria shall be joined with it. Every kind 
 VOL. I. 11 
 
82 
 
 § 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 
 
 of evil shall come upon these countries. The evils are particularized, and repeat- 
 ed at great length. God who created and governs all things, and brings about all 
 events, is able to accomplish all which he threatens. Sinners are exhorted to 
 cease from sin, specially from persecution; the elect of God have assurance that 
 they will be safe and happy, while the wicked will be sent to devouring fire.’ 
 [Written altogether in the spirit of many of the Sibylline Oracles]. 
 
 Thus ends this singular production. The writers who added the first 
 two and the last two chapters to the ancient work, were not very expert. 
 The matter and manner of these additions differ so widely from the origi- 
 nal book, that he must be dim-sighted indeed who does not perceive it. 
 
 I have already remarked, (p. 77), that the first two chapters are from 
 a Christian hand ; probably from the hand of a Gentile Christian. The 
 anti-Judaic tendency is very apparent. The reproaches against the in- 
 gratitude, perverseness, and rebellion of the Jews, are very severe. 
 Threats of entire excision, and assurances of the reception of the Gen- 
 tiles in the room of the Jews, are prominent features of the whole repre- 
 sentation. The references to the New Testament are plain and unde- 
 niable; e. g. in 1: 30, “I have gathered you as a hen [gathereth] her 
 chickens under her wings,” comp. Matt. 23: 37. So also in 2: 11 ; “I 
 will give to them [the favoured Gentiles] eternal habitations, which I 
 have before prepared for them,” comp. John 14: 2. Luke 16: 9; so 2: 
 12, “ The tree of life shall be theirs,” [lignum vitae = *p5], comp. 
 
 Rev. 22: 2 ; also 2: 40, “ Zion . . . shall enclose candidates tuos,” i. e. 
 those who are arrayed in splendid white robes, comp. Rev. 6: 11. 7: 13, 
 14. Again in 2: 42, “I saw on mount Zion a great multitude which no 
 one can number, praising God,” etc., comp. Rev. 14: 1 ; so in 2: 18, 19, 
 u twelve trees laden with various fruits” for the righteous, and as many 
 fountains of milk and honey, comp. Rev. 22: 1, 2. 
 
 In connection with this last passage in 2: 19, the writer adds: “[I 
 have prepared] seven immense mountains, having roses and lilies, in 
 which I will fill thy sons with joy.” In this last part the writer would 
 seem to have had in his mind the book of Enoch, ch. xxiv, where seven 
 mountains, covered with odoriferous trees, are presented as the place of 
 future paradise ; or perhaps both drew from some common source. When, 
 or by whom, these chapters were added, we have at present no means 
 of deciding. The Christian cast of them is undisguised ; and they seem 
 to have been prefixed in order to prepare the way for the profitable pe- 
 rusal of the older work which follows. 
 
 The last two chapters (xv. xvi.) are of a less specific character, and 
 must probably have come from a different hand. They are filled with 
 general denunciations against the nations of the earth, and are severely 
 comminatory, altogether, as has already been remarked, in the strain of 
 much that is found in the so-called Sibylline Oracles. The references 
 
§ 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 
 
 83 
 
 to New Testament views are, in some places, sufficiently plain ; e. g. 
 16: 29 compared with Matt. 24: 40, 41 ; 16: 42 — 45, compared with 1 
 Cor. 7: 29 — 31 ; 15: 8, 9 compared with Rev. 6: 9, 10. Indeed the 
 whole piece is a designed, although humble and unsuccessful, imitation 
 of Matt, xxiv, as Lucke has remarked, Einl. p. 99. The whole tenor 
 of this after-piece seems to indicate, that when it was written, there 
 were internal commotions in the Roman empire, and that foreign na- 
 tions were assailing it with violence. Lucke places it somewhere be- 
 tween A. D. 250 and 300. In the absence of all satisfactory diagnos- 
 tics of time, this conjecture may be allowed. 
 
 The ancient and main body of the work (ch. iii — xiv.) constitutes a 
 whole by itself. Its main object is plain and simple ; and tills is, to 
 comfort the people of God, i. e. the Jews, in their state of depression, 
 persecution, and exile, with the hope of future deliverance. So far 
 there is a resemblance to the Apocalypse ; although I do not perceive 
 any satisfactory evidence that the writer of this ancient work was ac- 
 quainted with the Apocalypse. All the action of the piece is managed 
 by the intervention of visions, dreams, and angel-interpreters ; and in 
 this respect, the ancient part of the book differs entirely from that of the 
 first two and last two chapters, which employ no means of such a nature. 
 
 The writer’s impatience of spirit, under the pressure of calamities 
 which had come upon his nation and himself, is, from first to last, a 
 prominent feature in the representation. The great problem is : How 
 can the more wicked heathen remain not only unpunished, but even lord 
 it over God’s heritage, while that heritage is subjected to every kind of 
 ignominy and vexation in a state of exile and oppression ? Ezra is so 
 disquieted at this, that he not only urges a solution of the difficulty, but 
 from beginning to end dwells upon the same theme, and repeats the 
 same questions ; so that, as Lucke has well observed, it needed an an- 
 gel’s patience to bear with his questions. 
 
 The general costume is a designed imitation of the books of Daniel 
 and Zechariah. But the matter is of such a nature as renders the ques- 
 tion a little difficult, after all, whether the writer was a Jew or a Chris- 
 tian. On the one side it is evident, that Jewish sympathies originated 
 the whole plan of the work. Indignation against foreign nations, the 
 oppressors of the Jews, and contempt and hatred of them, are everywhere 
 visible. The fable of Behemoth and Leviathan (6: 49 seq.) shows at 
 least a familiarity with Jewish conceits. In 13: 39, 40, the Messiah is 
 represented as collecting and bringing out of exile the ten tribes in As- 
 syria. Everywhere an anxiety is shown, to satisfy the Jews that their 
 present sufferings are to be attributed partly to their sins, and partly to 
 the character of the times, which are the old age, or the iron age, of the 
 world ; and that patient endurance will at last bring them out of their 
 sad condition. 
 
84 
 
 § 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 
 
 On the other hand, in 7: 28, as the text now stands, it is said: “ My 
 Son Jesus, with those who are with him* shall be revealed, etc. and 
 again in 7: 29, u After those [400] years, my Son the Christ shall die, 
 and all men who have breath.” We cannot suppose that any mere 
 Jew, after the commencement of the Christian era, would have writ- 
 ten in this manner ; and after this period the book was probably writ- 
 ten, as we shall see in the sequel. But neither the Arabic nor Ethiopic 
 versions have the word Jesus , but only Messiah ; which might be taken 
 by a Jew from Ps. ii. Besides, along with these seemingly Christian ele- 
 ments are intermingled clear Jewish ones at the same time. “ Those 
 who are with him, ” (in 7: 28), appears to refer to the common Jewish 
 expectation, that the ancient prophets were to accompany the Messiah, 
 whenever he should make his appearance. The fact that the Christ 
 is to die after 400 years, and all other men with him, shows the Rab- 
 binic conceit of two Messiahs, the Son of David and the Son of Joseph. 
 The latter was represented by the Jews as mortal and perishable. As 
 to the time during which the Messiah’s development would be made, it 
 was stated very differently by different writers, even among the ancient 
 Rabbins. The Tractatus Sanhedrin mentions seven different periods ; 
 the period of seventy years ; of three generations ; 365 years ; 7000 
 years ; so long as the world has lasted until the commencement of the 
 Messianic reign ; from the flood until the same period ; and 400 years. 
 The last period was vouched for by Rabbi Dusa, who says, that in Ps. 
 xc. it is written : “ Make us glad, according to the days in which we 
 have been afflicted ” ; which, he adds, was 400 years [in Egypt], Gen. 
 15; 13. 
 
 At any rate such views of the Messianic period are not Christian ; 
 for the Christians always represented a thousand years as the period of 
 the Messianic reign. Nor is the death of the Messiah, with that of all 
 men, just before the day of glory and the final judgment (see ch. 7: 29 
 — 35), at all consonant with early Christian views. We are compelled 
 then, by the essential elements in general of the work before us, to as- 
 cribe it to a Jewish origin ; and the special Christology of it, if there be 
 such, to an interpolating hand, such an one as added chap. i. ii. xv. xvi. 
 to the body of the work. 
 
 In that portion of the book which is added by the Arabic and Ethi- 
 opic versions, after 7: 35, the question is strongly urged upon the angel 
 by Ezra : Whether souls after death enter immediately upon their final 
 destiny ? The reply is affirmative ; with the exception, that they are 
 ■ permitted to wander over the universe for seven days after the death of 
 the body. There seems also to be a hint, in 7: 5i, of a separate abode 
 of the righteous after death. Yet neither of these is so peculiarly either 
 Jewish or Christian, that it can afford any good evidence of the partic- 
 ular religious views of the writer. 
 
§ 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 
 
 85 
 
 The vision of the woman in 9: 38 — 10: 60 reminds one, as Liicke 
 has remarked, of Rev. 12: 1 seq. Yet the explanation given by the angel 
 (10: 38 seq.) is very diverse from the matter of Rev. xii. Again, the 
 lion (11: 37 seq.) has some resemblance to the representation of John in 
 Rev. 5: 5 ; yet the chastisement inflicted by the lion [i. e. the Anointed 
 One] is of so general a nature (12: 31 — 35), that nothing more than 
 such Messianic views as a Jew might entertain, are necessarily to be 
 brought into the account. Again, the Messiah appears in chap, xiii ; 
 but while he destroys all his enemies by the fiery breath of his mouth, 
 and vindicates the cause of the just, still in 13: 40 the ten tribes are 
 brought to view as peculiar objects of his favor and protection. 
 
 On the whole we cannot well doubt that the work under examination 
 is of Jewish origin, and perhaps from a Jew belonging to the ten tribes, 
 but somewhat interpolated by Christian hands. How much it has suf- 
 fered in the way of interpolation and abscission, is plain enough from a 
 comparison of the Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic copies ; the former of 
 which differs widely indeed from the others ; but the latter two also 
 differ from each other in a great variety of places. The uncanonicol 
 character of the work has exposed it to be tampered with, even from 
 very early times. 
 
 As to the time in which the book was written, there seems to be 
 no satisfactory external evidence. It has been alleged, that Barnabas’ 
 Epistle, c. 12, quotes Ezra 5 : 5. The words of Barnabas are : xcu 
 Xsyei KvQiog , otav %vlov xou dvacTrj, xal oxav ix £vkov atgac- 
 
 vd<~rj ; the words of Ezra are : Et de ligno sanguis stillabit. The re- 
 semblance is plain ; but as to actual quotation it is quite uncertain; 
 and equally uncertain is a supposed reference to Ez. 2: 16, in Clemens 
 Rom. I. 50. Clement simply quotes Is. 26: 20. In the quotations 
 from Ezra, found in Ambrose De Bono Mortis c. X. XI. Comm, in 
 Luc. 2: 21 ; in Opus Imperf., in Matth. XX. Horn. 34 ; and in Jerome, 
 advers. Vigilantium and Ep. ad Domn. et Rogat., no aid is afforded to- 
 ward the solution of the question before us. Jerome speaks contemp- 
 tuously of the book, and avers that only heretics read it ; which, how- 
 ever, after what Clement of Alexandria has said of it, in Strom. III. 1 6, 
 attributing it to ''Eodqag 6 7TQoq)rjzrjg, must be understood with much 
 qualification. Ambrose also manifests as high a regard for it as Clem- 
 ent of Alexandria ; De Bono Mortis, cap. X. XI. 
 
 We must resort then to internal evidence. And here it is evident 
 from the tone, manner, and costume of the book, that it was written 
 after the period when Rabbinic conceits began to abound. The fable 
 of Behemoth and Leviathan ; the ninety-four books which Ezra wrote 
 (14: 44); the predicted proximity of the Messianic reign (4: 42); all sa- 
 vour of a date subsequent to the birth of Christ. But in particular, the 
 
86 
 
 6 §. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 
 
 vision in ch. 9: 38 — 10: 51, and the passage in ch. 3: 1, plainly and 
 explicitly avow the ruinous condition of Jerusalem (10: 48), and show 
 that the author must have lived after the destruction of that city by the 
 Romans. The destruction of it by Nebuchadnezzar is fairly out of 
 question, considering the other historical matter to which the book 
 everywhere adverts. 
 
 I see nothing against the supposition, that the author has given the 
 true date of his book, at the commencement of it in 3: 1. He says ‘ he 
 was in Babylon [Rome] in the 30th year of the ruin of the city,’ when 
 the series of his visions commenced ; consequently at the end of the 
 first century. In 12: 13 seq., the angel, in explaining the vision of the 
 eagle [the Roman empire] says, that ‘ twelve kings shall reign in it ; the 
 second of which [Augustus] shall reign longer than any one of the 
 twelve. And as to the number twelve , such a number would not proba- 
 bly be designated, if more or less than this number of Roman Emperors 
 had already reigned. We seem, then, to have good ground here for the 
 conclusion, that the book before us (which is plainly a continuous whole) 
 was written at the close of the first century ; and probably by some Jew 
 then in exile. 
 
 Whiston, H. Dodwell, Basnage, Fabricius, Corrodi, Storr, Kaiser, 
 and F. Liicke, suppose the book to have been written at the close of the 
 first century, or in the beginning of the second. Semler and Vogel 
 maintain that it was written before the Christian era ; and so does Dr. 
 Laurence,* in his edition of it translated from the Ethiopic Ms. at 
 Oxford, 1820. 8vo. Hartwig, in his Apologie , p. 241, sets it down to 
 A. D. 217. 
 
 The Messianic passages of the genuine book are not numerous. 
 They may be found in 4: 30 seq. 6: 25 seq. 7: 26 seq. 12: 32 seq. 13: 
 26 — 37. Among these are probably some Christian glosses, which 
 have crept into the text. Independently of these, I can perceive noth- 
 
 *Dr. Laurence, in order to make out the twelve kings, begins with the original 
 first seven kings of Rome, and then adds five others who aimed at dominion. 
 The long reign of the second is that of Numa Pompilius. The eight small wings 
 (11: 11) he represents as persons aiming at supreme command, e. g. Sulpitius the 
 tribune, Marius (major), Cinna, Marius (minor), Carbo, Sertorius, Lepidus, and 
 Antony. The three heads (11: 29 — 31) are Sylla, Pompey, and Caesar. The 
 learned author seems more confident than usual, in this reckoning. But it must 
 be remembered, that he has given to the book an origin which precedes the Chris- 
 tian era ; and such an exegesis seems expedient, in order to support this view. 
 A. F. Gfroerer, in an edition of the fourth book of Ezra (Stutgard 1840), assigns 
 with confidence the date of the book to A. D. 90, and applies, as I have done 
 above, the twelve wings to the twelve emperors in succession after Julius Caesar. 
 The eight smaller wings he applies to the eight princes and heads of parties in 
 Judea ; see. 165, Note. 
 
§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 87 
 
 ing which a Jew might not have written, during the first century of our 
 era. I might except, perhaps, the fact that the tone of the Messianic 
 representations is rather too remote for a mere Jew, from that which we 
 should expect from the carnal Jews of that period. It is of a spiritual 
 rather than of a temporal cast ; although the latter accasionally appears. 
 Yet all Jews, it may be, did not think or reason in the same manner in 
 respect to this subject ; and the experience which the Jewish nation had 
 gone through, at the end of the first century, might well have sobered 
 some of the worldly notions about the Messianic reign, which the Jews 
 in general entertained. 
 
 The reader, who designs to study thoroughly the Apocalypse, may be 
 assured that his time will not be lost in a diligent perusal of the fourth 
 book of Ezra. The costume given by the spirit of the age to books of 
 this nature ; a considerable number of the idioms of the New Testa- 
 ment ; the tone of feeling common among the Jews of the first century ; 
 and many other matters of no small interest to the interpreter and critic ; 
 are developed in this production, in such a way as tends much to famil- 
 iarize any one with things of this nature. And this is an end, the 
 attainment of which is worthy of strenuous effort. 
 
 [The reader will find the literature of the book, best of all, in Fabricius, Codex 
 Pseudepigraph. Tom. II. p. 174 seq.; also in Whiston’s Apost. Consitutt.; Dod- 
 well’s Dissertt. Cyprianicae, IV. ; Basnage Hist, de Juifs, VI. 2 ; Lee’s Dissertt. 
 theol., mathemat., physical, I. p. 13 seq. ; Semler, theolog. Briefe, erste Sami. p. 
 194 seq. ; Corrodi, Geschichte des Chiliasmus, I. § 7; Laurence, Book of Ezra 
 translated, etc. 1820. 8vo.; Gfroerer’s republication of this, Stutg. 1840 ; and Ltlcke, 
 Einleit. in die Offenbarung Johannis, 1832. 8vo.] 
 
 (d) The Sibylline Oracles. 
 
 The time has been, when the question respecting the origin and gen- 
 uineness of these Oracles excited great interest among the learned in 
 Europe. Of late this interest appears to have greatly subsided ; indeed 
 it has almost become extinct, as to any practical purpose. Formerly 
 the subject was much overrated ; in the not unnatural course of things 
 it has now come to be as much underrated. 
 
 In the meantime the diligent inquirer, who is solicitously seeking light, 
 from whatever quarter it may come, which may aid him to understand 
 the writings of the New Testament, will find himself well repaid for an 
 attentive reading of the Sibylline Oracles. They are, to be sure, as 
 they now lie before us, a heterogeneous mass of compositions. They 
 are all, moreover, in the form of Greek verse ; but they come from dif- 
 ferent hands, being made up by the contributions of heathen, Jewish, 
 and Christian writers, and they belong to different ages. They contain 
 some things which are doubtless older than the Christian era ; some 
 
88 
 
 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 which must have been composed during the first and second centuries ; 
 and some which must be assigned to a period after the close of the fourth 
 century. They have been put together into one mass, by some person 
 who lived subsequent to this period j who, in order to make out an ap- 
 pearance of unity or connection , has added here and there some passa- 
 ges for this purpose ; which, however, may generally be separated from 
 the original matter of the work, by the tenor of its composition and by 
 its incongruity with the context. 
 
 The reader, who has had no opportunity for an acquaintance with 
 this extraordinary book, which has now become rare through want of 
 interest in the public mind, and consequently a lack of editors, will not 
 be displeased with some account of it here, as it has a bearing on the 
 great subject, to the discussion of which the present work is devoted. 
 
 The time has been, in very early ages of Christianity, when many 
 leading Christian writers quoted such of the Sibylline oracles as were 
 then extant, with almost as much frequency and assurance as they did 
 the Scriptures themselves. Celsus, the great opposer of Christianity, 
 (about A. D. 150), derides the Christians for the frequent use they make 
 of them, and avers that they are plainly the productions, not of heathen 
 writers, but of Christians who have assumed the name of the Sibyl in 
 order to deceive. Athenagoras, Justin Martyr, Theophilus, and Cle- 
 ment of Alexandria, all appeal to them as the work of heathen prophet- 
 esses ; who, however, were inspired in like manner as the Hebrew pro- 
 phets, according to their opinion. They supposed, that God had thus 
 compelled even heathenism itself to bear testimony to the truth and im- 
 portance of revelation. 
 
 In the mean time, not all of the Christian fathers appear to have been 
 of the same opinion. Irenaeus, Cyprian, and others, do not appeal to 
 the Sibylline Oracles at all. Origen, when he comes to those objections 
 of Celsus which have respect to the Christian use of the Sibylline Ora- 
 cles, treats them in such a way as to show that he does not think much 
 of these Oracles. But in the fourth century again we find great stress 
 laid upon them. Eusebius, Lactantius, and Augustine frequently quote 
 them. Lactantius appears to have had almost a monomania respecting 
 their importance ; as he scarcely argues a single point without continu- 
 ally appealing to them. Eusebius and Augustine are more wary, inas- 
 much as they seem to feel the difficulty made by the assertion of the 
 heathen, that they were interpolated, if not wholly composed, by Chris- 
 tians. 
 
 In times subsequent to the age of Eusebius and Lactantius, we find Je- 
 rome, Optatus, Palladius, Sozomen, Junilius, and others, occasionally ap- 
 pealing to the Sibylline Oracles. But in most cases, the fathers in gene- 
 ral appealed to them only when arguing against the heathen in favour of 
 
§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 89 
 
 Christianity ; not in proof of the doctrines of the Christian religion in 
 general. Their view of them seems to have been, that they might be 
 employed, to a very important purpose, in the way of argumentum ad 
 hominem . Professing to be the productions of the heathen prophetesses, 
 Christians were ready to say to the heathen : Listen to what your own 
 diviners have declared ! Even those fathers, however, who declined to 
 rely on these Oracles, do not appear to have come out with any decided 
 declarations against their genuineness or importance. They were not 
 willing to reject aid in a good cause, let it come from what quarter it 
 might. If the whole composition were a fictitious matter, still they 
 deemed it as having a tendency to confirm that which was true and 
 good. 
 
 During the middle ages these Oracles went almost into desuetude ; 
 yet more from neglect than opposition. It was not until sometime after 
 the Reformation, that they were brought into special notice, and made, 
 at last, the theme of animated discussion. Betuleius, Castalio, Opso- 
 paus, Casaubon, Scaliger, J. Capell, Blondell, Manesius, Hornbeck, H. 
 Dodwell, G. J. Vossius, Cotelerius, J. March, E. Schmidt, Crasset, 
 Nehring, Whiston, Beveridge, J. Vossius, Grotius, J. Reiske, Simon, 
 Du Pin, Tentzel, Daubuz, Gallaeus, Ekhard, and others, engaged more 
 or less in this discussion, and on different sides of it, some defending the 
 genuineness of the books in question, and others assailing it and labour- 
 ing to destroy their credit. 
 
 Recently Prof. B. Thorlacius of Copenhagen has, after another long 
 cessation of interest in the subject, endeavoured to recall the attention of 
 the learned to the ancient work before us. In a Latin volume, publish- 
 ed in 1815 (Hafn. 8vo. pp. 172), he has subjected them to a more search- 
 ing operation of criticism than any which they had before received. Yet 
 still his undertaking was left in an unfinished state. In 1819 Prof. 
 Bleek, then a young student at Berlin, published an examination of 
 Thorlacius, and of the Sibylline Oracles themselves, which seems in 
 general to have satisfied the learned in regard to the subject. This 
 may be found in the Theologische Zeitschrift of ‘ Schleiermacher, de 
 Wette, and Liicke, Heft. I. II. I have been greatly assisted by it in 
 my investigations of the work under consideration, and cheerfully ex- 
 press my acknowledgments to Prof. Bleek. 
 
 The work as heretofore published, consists of eight books. Recently 
 A. Mai has discovered and published Lib. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. Books 
 IX. X. remain as yet undiscovered, or at least unpublished ; nor do we 
 know whether there are more than fourteen books. All the lately 
 discovered books bear evident marks, with a few exceptions, of late com- 
 position. To a late period, also, must be assigned the first two books, 
 with the exception of the proem to the first, which consists of ninty-four 
 
 VOL. I. 12 
 
90 
 
 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 lines. Of this proem I shall say a word in the sequel. I begin now 
 with the first book, as it stands in the usual Mss. of the Sibylline 
 Oracles. 
 
 It commences with a description of the creation of the world by the supreme 
 Being, modelled for the most part after the first chapter of Genesis. The crea- 
 tion and fall of man are related ; and then the biblical history is loosely followed 
 down to the period of the flood, and thence to the building of Babel. Here, in 
 order to keep up some semblance of heathen origin, the writer introduces the four 
 ages of Hesiod, and copies them in his description somewhat closely, with the 
 exception that he divides Hesiod’s third age into two, which, however, he does 
 not distinguish from each other with any good degree of precision. His fifth race 
 are the giants who immediately preceded the flood. Noah w’as an ex- 
 
 ception to the general character of this race. He is warned to build an ark. He 
 preaches to the people and warns them. Two of his sermons are given. He 
 predicts that Phrygia will be the place where the new development of the human 
 race will be made, after the destruction by the flood. But his hearers do not lis- 
 ten to him. The flood comes and destroys them all. At length the waters abate, 
 and Noah lands on the top of Ararat in Phrygia ! All which are in the ark go 
 forth, and a new and golden age of men begins, the sixth in order from the begin- 
 ning of the world. 
 
 Here the Sibyl, who feigns herself to be a daughter-in-law of Noah, congratu- 
 lates herself on her escape. She predicts a future Messiah, after some intervening 
 reigns. The men of the golden age, (the sixth if we reckon the whole, but only 
 the first if we count from the flood), peacefully pass into Hades, where they live 
 until the judgment; a race of Titans succeed, who undertake the building of Ba- 
 bel, that they may scale the heavens. These are destroyed ; and from these the 
 writer makes a leap down to the Messianic times, which he describes vfrith evi- 
 dent reference to the Gospel-history. The miracles, death, resurrection, and as- 
 cension of Christ are brought into view ; and finally the subjugation and disper- 
 sion of the Jews by the Romans. 
 
 Book II. is in some Mss. connected with Book I, and is evidently a continua- 
 tion of it. It commences with fearful commination of the “ seven hilled city.” 
 General distress and slaughter succeed, so that the human race become nearly 
 extinct. Those who remain will be preserved and greatly blessed. A crown of 
 glory will be held out to view, for all who will enter into the contest against sin, 
 and obtain the victory over it ; especially will the crown be given to martyrs. 
 
 Next follow ninety-three verses, taken almost verbatim from the Novd'tnv.av of 
 Pseudo-Phocylides, which are mere moral aphorisms or proverbs. They are an 
 unquestionable interpolation, and are found only in the Cod. Reg. They are in- 
 serted by Gallaeus (whose edition I use), after v. 55 of Book II. The connection 
 is interrupted by them, and it were better to omit them. 
 
 Verse 149 seq. the writer goes on to give an account of the disastrous times 
 which will precede the final judgment, in which war, famine, pestilence, etc., 
 will rage. The people of Israel will go to look up the ten tribes, and will per- 
 ish. Elijah will come from heaven. Fiery flames will consume all things, hea- 
 ven and earth and Hades. Then follows the summons of all souls to judgment, 
 by the angels; the resurrection of the body ; the judgment by the Eternal on his 
 throne and Christ on his right hand ; all will pass through the fires of the last 
 day ; the righteous to their purification, but the wicked to their final and eternal 
 ruin and misery; [an idea that savours strongly of the doctrine of purgatory]. 
 
§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 91 
 
 The Sibyl concludes by confession of sin, and earnest supplication that she may 
 obtain mercy in that tremendous day. 
 
 That these two books constitute one composition, coming from the 
 same hand, Bleek has rendered altogether probable. At the beginning 
 of Book I. the Sibyl declares that she intends to touch onnoGa nolv ya- 
 yovav , noGa x iorw, onoGGa rs fiaXkai sggeg&cu xoG^uq). This promise 
 is performed only in case we suppose that Books I. II. belong to the 
 same composition. That these books are of late composition, is clear 
 from the fact, that no writer quotes them until the fifth century. The 
 matter of them is such, that had Lactantius (for example) known any- 
 thing of them, he would not have failed to quote them largely ; espe- 
 cially in his book on eschatology, Instt. VII. 
 
 In the edition of Gallaeus, sixty-two verses are prefixed to Book III, which are 
 foreign to the Oracles. (In like manner this editor has prefixed eighty-four 
 verses, transcribed from Theophilus ad Autol., to Book I.) Of the sixty-two 
 verses, thirty-five are monotheistic simply, and evidently are a mere abridgment 
 of the eighty-four verses just mentioned, which bear the same character. The 
 remaining twenty-seven verses, (from a different hand), predict the advent of the 
 Messiah, the punishment of Rome when he again appears, and finally the last 
 judgment. 
 
 Book III. 1 — 30, as printed in Gallaeus, contains a description of 
 Belias [Beliar or Belial], who, with pretended miracles, will deceive 
 many and lead them astray ; after which comes the general judgment. 
 Probably this constituted originally one and the same piece with the 
 preceding twenty-seven lines ; but some lines have evidently been in- 
 terpolated. Bleek ascribes this part of the book to an Alexandrine 
 Jew, who lived about 40 B. C. 
 
 Book III. 35 — 99 exhibits a most singular production, beginning with a mythic 
 account of Babel, and ending with the fable of Saturn, Rhea, the Titans, Jupiter, 
 Neptune, and Pluto. From a heathen hand it must have come ; or else from one 
 which designedly imitated the manner of the heathen. It seems to be the oldest 
 piece in the whole work; and a part of it (the commencement) is quoted by Jo- 
 sephus, and also by Alexander Polyhistor (about 140 B. C.) ; so that it must be 
 nearly 200 years older than the Christian era. The reception of this into the 
 Sibylline Oracles, wears the appearance of having been made with design to es- 
 tablish their pretences to a heathen origin. 
 
 Book III. 100 — 133 contains a brief sketch of the Jewish empire under Solo- 
 mon ; then of the Greek domination, then of the Macedonian ; and lastly of the 
 Roman, which is to end with the seventh king of Egypt who is of Greek origin. 
 This must have been written by some Jew, at least some twenty or thirty years, 
 perhaps more, before the Christian era. — Verse 134 begins a new strain. The 
 writer designs to predict evils earlier and later. After comminations against va- 
 rious nations, he comes to the Jews. He relates the striking incidents of their 
 history, from their origin in Ur down to the Babylonish exile and the re-building 
 of the temple. — After this, with verse 233 commences a new strain of commina- 
 tion. Babylon is severely threatened because it had burned the house of God. 
 Egypt also will be destroyed ; and here the writer seems to allude plainly to the 
 
92 
 
 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 civil wars between Ptolemy Philometor and his brother Physcon, about 170-~-160 
 B. C. The land of Gog and Magog is next threatened ; which is placed in Ethio- 
 pia. Then follows Libyia and the regions of the West, which “have helped to 
 lay w T aste the house of God.” This last declaration seems to allude to the Ro- 
 mans ; and if so, it must be an interpolation, as the piece is evidently of a date 
 anterior to the Christian era, and from the hand of a Jew. — Verses 272 — 318 ex- 
 hibit another and somewhat different strain, although comminatory. Many towns 
 of Asia and Europe are named, which will be destroyed ; in which the author 
 makes several mistakes in his geography. Rome is also severely threatened, and 
 several of the Grecian islands. Then will succeed a prosperous and happy era, 
 both for Asia and Europe. The earth shall produce abundantly, and all the vir- 
 tues shall be predominant. — This is probably a mixed piece, extracted from differ- 
 ent writers before and after the Christian era. There is some good reason for 
 this conclusion, because vs. 289 — 318 wear the appearance of having come from a 
 Christian hand, from one who had felt the bitterness of Romish persecution and 
 sighed for deliverance. 
 
 The rest of this book, excepting merely twenty lines at the close, consists of a 
 series of pieces, loosely joined together by some connecting links, which are filled 
 with commination against almost all countries, but especially those belonging to the 
 empire of Rome, Greece, and Egypt — all of which, in their turn, more or less op- 
 pressed and vexed the Jews who lived in Palestine or in Egypt. Bleek thinks 
 that they must have been written by some Alexandrine Jew during the time of 
 the Maccabees, i e. somewhere about 170 — 160 B. C. 1 find only now and then 
 a passage which would seem to contradict this view; and such passages may in 
 all probability be ascribed to some interpolating Christian hand of a later period ; 
 for such an one must doubtless have added the last twenty lines of the book. 
 On the other hand, excepting the passages adverted to, everything seems to be 
 viewed and described with the feelings of a Jew, probably an Egyptian Jew, who 
 occasionally resents the wrongs done by the Romans and others to Egypt. 
 
 To liim who reads this book for the purpose of New Testament crit- 
 icism, those parts of it will have a special interest which relate to the 
 expected Messianic age. Frequently does the writer recur to this 
 theme, at the close of the different pieces which compose the book. 
 Always is the period, as described by him, preceded by wars and tumults 
 and distresses of various kinds. When these come to an end, the writer 
 expects the 44 Prince of peace ” to come and fill the earth with blessings. 
 The reader may find, in the proem to Book III, a passage of this na- 
 ture on p. 325 seq. (in the edition of Gallaeus who has not numbered 
 the lines), where it is said : 44 The holy king of all the earth shall come, 
 who shall wield the sceptre during all the ages of swiftly moving time.” 
 On p. 408 seq. is another Messianic passage, which, however, is prob- 
 ably from a later and a Christian hand : 4 The prince of peace is to come ; 
 all Asia and Europe to be happy ; all vices, hatred, injustice, wars, etc. 
 are to be done away, and every kind of evil.’ On p. 447 seq. is another 
 long Messianic passage probably from a Jew ; anu so the sequel. After 
 the wars of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Romans are described, the 
 writer again recurs to the Messianic period, p. 460 seq., in which 44 the 
 
§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 93 
 
 people of the great God ” [the Jews] shall be enriched with every 
 blessing. After they have been again attacked by enemies, God 
 will vindicate their cause again, destroy all their enemies, and introduce 
 “ the reign of peace,” p. 465 seq. Here the description of the happy 
 time which is to follow, is a protracted one ; and it is closed by a refer- 
 ence to the passage in Ezek. 39: 9 seq., where the armour of Gog and 
 Magog is to serve for a long time the purposes of fuel for all the inhabi- 
 tants of the land. 
 
 After exhortations and counsel once more addressed to the enemies 
 of God and of his people, the writer, (probably, as before, an Alexan- 
 drian Jew about 170 — 160 B. C.), relapses into his Messianic strain. I 
 had transcribed, and would fain give a specimen of his manner, (which 
 would also serve as an example of the manner in which the Jews of his 
 time thought and wrote respecting the Messianic period), for the grati- 
 fication of the reader who may not be able to procure or consult the book 
 itself. But my limits forbid. I can merely refer to a passage which 
 is somewhat above the ordinary level, beginning (in the edition of Gal- 
 laeus) on p. 473, 'Onnoxs xai xovxo , x. x. X., comprising vs. 686 — 746. 
 A part of this, however, I have translated as literally as I could, and 
 will subjoin it in a note below, that the reader, who has not the book 
 in question, may be enabled to see for himself the tenor of its compo- 
 sition.* 
 
 * “ And when this shall come to an end [viz. the things related in the preced- 
 ing context], the day of the Almighty, decreed in the beginning, shall come upon 
 good men. The productive earth shall yield its boundless store of best fruit for 
 mortals, of wheat, wine, and oil. Then [will he give] from above the delicious 
 drink of sweet honey, and trees, and the fruit of fruit-trees, and fat sheep, and 
 oxen, and the lambs of sheep, and the kids of goats; and he will make the sweet 
 fountains to burst forth with white milk. The cities, moreover, shall be full of 
 good things; and the fields shall be rich ; there shall be no more sword on the 
 earth, nor alarm of war, nor shall the earth any mere with heavy groans be sha- 
 ken. There shall be no war, nor drought upon the earth, nor famine, nor hail 
 threatening the fruits. There shall, besides this, be great peace through all the 
 world, and one king shall be the friend of another until the end of the age ; and 
 a common law for all the earth shall the Eternal in the starry heaven make per- 
 fect for men, as to whatever is done by bad men. For he only is God, and there 
 is no other. He will also burn with fire the cruel rage of men. 
 
 Earnestly intent in your breasts upon my opinions, avoid sinful worship ; serve 
 the Living One ; keep yourself from adultery and forbidden intercourse with 
 males ; nourish your own children, and do not destroy them. For the Eternal 
 will be angry with those who commit such sins. 
 
 Then will he set up a perpetual kingdom over all men, when he gives his holy 
 law to the pious ; to all has he promised to open the earth, and the gates of the 
 world of the blessed, every kind of joy ; also perpetual wisdom, and endless glad- 
 ness. From all the earth shall they bring frankincense and gifts to the house of 
 the great God ; nor shall there be any other house, where consultation shall be 
 
94 
 
 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 The particular view which has been given of the third book, will 
 serve to show the reader what the general strain and nature of the Sibyl- 
 line oracles are ; and moreover, it discloses what a real misch-masch 
 they are, as they have come down to us, heathen, Jewish, and Chris- 
 tian authors being all thrust together into the same piece, and merely 
 joined by some transition-verses which are from a later hand. These, 
 however, are often so unskilfully composed, that they can scarcely serve 
 to mislead even the uncritical reader. 
 
 Book IV. is plainly and undoubtedly from a Christian hand ; and if 
 we may judge from internal evidence, from some one who wrote soon 
 after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. 
 
 The Sibyl commences by declaring herself to be no prophetess of “ lying Phoe- 
 bus,” but of the “ great God, the creator of all things,” whose universal empire 
 she describes. Happy the men, she proceeds to say, who obey him ; miserable 
 will be all who practice the vices of the impious, especially false accusers and 
 persecutors. [This seems to refer to the cruel persecutions of Nero.] 
 
 The past and present period of the world, beginning from the flood, is divided 
 by the Sibyl into eleven ages; each of which is characterized by empires. To the 
 Assyrian is assigned six ; to the Median, two ; to the Persian, one ; to the Mace- 
 donian, one ; and the eleventh falls of course to the Romans. Daring this the 
 writer seems to have lived. War, pestilence, famine, earthquakes, etc., are, as 
 usual, threatened to many countries ; a famine of twenty years is assigned to 
 Egypt. Destruction in Sicily, from the volcanic overflowing of Etna, is describ- 
 ed at some length. The writer leaps hastily from one country to another, until 
 he comes down to the dominion of the Romans, on which he dwells longer. He 
 refers to the supposed flight of Nero into the East ; for so the belief of the pop- 
 ulace at Rome appears for a time to have been, at the period when Nero was 
 secretly assassinated. Thus the Sibyl : “ And then a king from Italy, energetic 
 in action, dark in his designs, perfidious, shall fly beyond the river Euphrates, 
 when he shall have committed the crime of the horrid murder of his mother, 
 and many other [crimes], confiding in his malignant power.” [This passage, and 
 
 made by men of a future age, but that which God has given to faithful men to 
 reverence. [By another reading : “ But they shall reverence the faithful man 
 whom God has given ; for mortals shall call him the Son of the great God;” 
 which, no doubt, is a Christian interpolation, but so it stands in the Greek text of 
 Gallaeus]. And all the paths of the field, and the rough shores, and the lofty 
 mountains, and the raging waves of the ocean, shall be safely travelled over and 
 sailed upon, in those days. The abundant peace of the good shall extend over 
 the earth. The prophets of the great God shall take away the sword; for they 
 shall be the judges and the just kings of mortals. Riches shall be lawfully ac- 
 quired among men. The dominion and the judgment of the great God shall be 
 the same, [i. e. both shall be universal]. . . . The wolves and the bears shall eat 
 grass together on the mountains, and the leopards shall feed with the kids. The 
 bears shall dwell in the same herd with the calves, and the carnivorous lion 
 shall eat straw at the stall, like the ox, and children, the very babes, shall lead 
 them in bands ; even the maimed shall be a terror on earth to the beasts, and dra- 
 gons shall repose by the side of infants, nor shall they harm them. The hand 
 of God shall be over them, etc.” 
 
§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 95 
 
 others of the like tenor, are supposed by most expositors, at present, to have an 
 important bearing on the exegesis of Rev. 17: 10, 11]. The Romans shall come 
 and lay waste “the broad fields of the Jews.” The overflowing of Vesuvius 
 under Titus (A. D. 79) appears to be next described ; and then the punishment 
 of the Romans, who shall experience the wrath of the God of heaven, because 
 they have destroyed the guiltless race of the pious [Christians]. “ Then shall also 
 come the contest of excited war, and the great fugitive from Rome [Nero], brand- 
 ishing his spear, and passing the Euphrates with many thousands of men.” [This 
 refers to the popular belief among early Christians, that Nero was to come from 
 the East, as Antichrist, and conquer Rome, and again persecute Christians ; a be- 
 lief which seems to have taken its rise from 2 Thess. 2: 3 seq., respecting the 
 man of sin , the son of perdition .] 
 
 Then follow several comminations against different places and countries ; after 
 these are fulfilled, great persecution is to arise ; the writer exhorts to penitence 
 and reformation, and concludes by giving assurance of the destruction of the 
 earth, of the resurrection, and of the general judgment. After this is to come 
 the millennial state upon earth. “ Again the friends of piety shall live on the 
 earth, God giving breath and life and support to all the pious. Most blessed the 
 man, who shall live at such a time !” 
 
 Several of the declamations against various countries and places, wear 
 the same appearance as the preceding heathen oracles of such a nature ; 
 and there is little room for doubt, that these were taken from heathen 
 compositions, and incorporated by the writer with his own, in order to 
 further the purposes of concealment. 
 
 Book V. This, like Book III. is made up of a great variety of 
 compositions. Verses 1 — 51, are from the hand of a Christian , and 
 probably a Christian Jew; for he gives a brief history of the Roman 
 emperors, down to Adrian, following throughout the plan of designat- 
 ing them by numerical quantities which the first letters of their names 
 respectively designate ; and when he comes to Vespasian, he calls him 
 EVGefit'cov oheirjQj i. e. the destroyer of the pious. This seems to exhibit 
 a strong Jewish sympathy. 
 
 There is nothing remarkable in this first piece, except that Nero, that “ Seivog 
 oepiS, the matricide,” is represented as returning after his supposed death, divid- 
 ing the narrow isthmus-water [the Bosphorus], and setting himself up for a god, 
 and thus coming to destruction ; comp. 2 Thess. 2: 3 seq. The writer doubtless 
 lived in the time of Trajan, whom he highly compliments, calling him 7 ravd(jiort 3 
 n avi^oye, Kvavo/air a. Probably the author lived in Egypt ; as internal evidence 
 shows. Verse 51, which refers to a later period, seems to be plainly an interpola- 
 tion. 
 
 Verses 52 — 259 constitute a series of oracles, probably composed or digested by 
 the same hand from which come the preceding verses. Verses 52—110 deplore 
 the fate of Memphis and of idolatrous Egypt. In the sequel Nero is represented 
 as laying waste Egypt and all the world, until a great king [the Messiah] appears, 
 and overthrows all kings ; after which comes the end of all things. Verses 
 111—178 are filled with comminations against Persia and the East, Asia Minor, 
 and the Grecian islands. This part seems to be heathen oracles taken into con- 
 nection with the writer’s own composition. The latter part (verses 137—178) 
 
96 
 
 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 relates to Nero, and repeats the usual story of his flying to the East, returning 
 thence with great force, and laying waste the world. Finally Rome, “ which has 
 destroyed the faithful saints of the Hebrews and the true temple, shall be brought 
 to utter desolation.” [Here the Jewish Christian appears.] From the vivid 
 manner in which the writer speaks of these things, it would seem that this piece 
 must have been composed not long after the destruction of Jerusalem. Verses 
 129 — 246 contain comminatory declamations against a multitude of countries, 
 and end again with the description of Nero’s return and the evils which he will 
 perpetrate. This is followed by a Messianic passage (verses 246 — 285), in which 
 “ the divine Jewish race ” are represented as inhabiting a city in mid-earth [the 
 centre of the world], which reaches even to Joppa. To this city Jesus, who was 
 crucified, shall return, and address to its inhabitants words of consolation and 
 peace. Verse 264 speaks of the Grecian empire over the East as ceasing ; which 
 seems to point to a time when at least that part of the piece now before us was 
 composed. But if it was composed before the Christian era, as Bleek supposes, 
 it has doubtless been interpolated. Verses 286 — 332 contain denunciations, as 
 usual, against a multitude of cities, and refers to a number of those in Asia 
 Minor as overthrown by earthquakes ; [which happened about A. D. 19, accord- 
 ing to Euseb. Chronicon]. It ends with praying for happiness to Judea, disting- 
 uished by blessings above all the earth. Probably, therefore, this was written 
 before the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 
 Verses 333 — 341 denounce Thrace, the Hellespont, Egypt, and several towns in 
 Asia Minor. They wear the appearance of heathen origin. Verses 342 — 385 de- 
 nounce Italy in severe terms. The luminaries of heaven shall withdraw their 
 splendour, and God will punish with unrelenting and awful severity, unless the 
 worship of idols shall be forsaken, and himself alone adored. Here again comes 
 in the man of sin , the son of -perdition. “ The matricide shall come fron$ the ends 
 of the earth [the regions beyond the Euphrates], the fugitive from notice, whet- 
 ting his sharp teeth, who shall destroy all the land, have universal dominion, and 
 devise everything with more cunning than all men. Her [Rome] by whom he 
 was destroyed [alluding to his assassination] he shall speedily seize upon, and 
 destroy many men, and princes of high rank. All shall he burn as he formerly 
 did in another condition.” [Whether the author means the burning of Rome, or 
 of Christians, or both, it is difficult to decide ; but the allusion is very significant.] 
 The writer then goes on with his description of the extent and horrors of the 
 war thus excited by Nero ; all the elements join at last in the onset of battle, and 
 contest will finally come to an end for want of victims. Then comes the reign of 
 peace, which however is here but briefly hinted. Here the piece might end, and 
 perhaps did once end ; but the echo of it is kept up by inserting a piece which is 
 probably from another hand ; verses 386 — 433. Warning is given against all the 
 vices prevalent at Rome. The perpetual fires of Vesta will be extinguished ; [the 
 temple of Vesta was burned when Nero set Rome on fire, A. D. 64]. “ The long- 
 
 beloved house was burned by thee [Rome], when I saw the second temple cast 
 down headlong, wrapped in flames by an impious hand [that of Titus] ; — the 
 house always flourishing, the temple dedicated to the service of God ; the object 
 of joy to the saints, evermore incorruptible, in soul and body the object of hope ; 
 neither will one inadvertently praise a god of contemptible earth, nor a stone has 
 any skilful artificer fitted superior to- those ; the gold of the world, the lure of 
 souls, is not worshipped ; but the great God, the parent of all who draw the 
 breath divinely imparted, do they honoi with sacrifices and sacred hecatombs 
 p. 623 seq. The writer proceeds to show how an acpavijs fiaoifevs xal avayvos 
 
§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 97 
 
 [Titus], with a great army, cast down the temple, and ranged through the holy 
 land ; an unexpected aijfia to mortals. Then comes “ the man from the heavenly 
 heights,” [the Messiah], who restores all things, subdues all enemies, rebuilds 
 “ the city beloved of God,” and makes it “ more splendid than stars, or sun, or 
 moon ; ” builds its tower so that it “ reaches to the clouds ; ” and finally, makes 
 it “ dc£av aiSiov d'sov, a most desirable spectacle, the East and West celebrate the 
 honour of God, nor shall evils any more come upon timid mortals.” All vices 
 shall cease. These are “ the last times of the saints, introduced by God, who 
 thunders on high, the maker of the greatest of all temples.” 
 
 Such are the interesting themes of verses 386 — 433. One scarcely 
 knows whether he should regard the author as a Jew or a Christian. 
 A Jewish Christian, with strong sympathies for his land, capital, and 
 worship, might have written the whole ; but there is nothing here which 
 a Jew might not have written, who merely cherished strong Messianic 
 hopes as to the future. The colouring seems on the whole, however, 
 to be more of the Jewish than of the Christian hue. I must therefore 
 suppose, that a Jew, not long after the destruction of Jerusalem, wrote 
 the piece before us. It is full of instruction as to the views, feelings, 
 hopes, and expectations of the Jews, at the period in which it was writ- 
 ten ; and in particular does it cast light on the popular expectations 
 respecting Nero ; which is an important circumstance, as we shall here- 
 after see. Bleek thinks the whole might have been written by a Chris- 
 tian, and that it may be allegorically interpreted as having respect to 
 the Christian church ; although, on the whole, he rather inclines to a dif- 
 ferent exegesis. It does not seem to me, that the allegorical interpre- 
 tation is here allowable. I must believe the piece to have been written 
 not long after the death of Nero, when the expectation of liis reappear- 
 ance was strong and general among the populace. 
 
 Verses 434 — 483 inveigh against Babylon, and many other places. Famine, 
 inundations, earthquakes, etc., are threatened to Asia and Europe. When, or by 
 whom, it was written, there is no satisfactory internal evidence. Verses 484 — 551 
 are threatenings directed against Egypt. Her gods shall perish. The priests 
 themselves will demand that the great God shall be worshipped, his honours be 
 restored, and his temple built. The Ethiopians shall invade the land, and destroy 
 the temple ; and then all the powers of heaven and all the stars shall contend 
 against them, precipitate themselves on the earth and burn it up ; so that the 
 heavens shall become dvaarlQog. Thus ends the book. 
 
 This last piece appears plainly to be from the hand of an Egyptian 
 Jew ; who seems to allude to the Jewish temple built at Leontopolis 
 about 150 B. C., and who probably wrote when this was, or was about 
 to be, destroyed. Nearer than this we cannot come to his age. 
 
 Book VI. This contains only twenty-eight verses ; and these are a 
 hymn to the Son of Grod, although it is clothed in a prophetic garb. 
 Lactantius quotes it ; but no Christian writer before him ; so that it 
 
 VOL. i. 13 
 
98 
 
 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 was probably written some time during the latter part of the third cen- 
 tury, or early in the fourth, by some Christian. 
 
 The writer celebrates the “ fxtyav viov, to whom the Most High has given a 
 throne.” His baptism, the descent of the Spirit as a dove, his office as teacher, 
 his miracles, are alluded to ; then follows a description of his universal dominion, 
 and of the peaceful state of the earth. Denunciation against the land of Sodom 
 [Judea, see Is. 1: 10] follows, which crowned the son of God with thorns, and 
 gave him gall to drink. “O most blessed cross!” the writer exclaims, “on 
 which ■d'sog was suspended. The earth shall not contain thee [dsoV], but thou 
 shalt see the heavenly temple, where the renewed and brightened face of the 
 Godhead shall shine.” 
 
 Book VII. Lactantius lias quoted verse 122 of this book (Instt. 
 VII. 16) ; but besides this, we find no other quotations among the an- 
 cient Christian writers. The book, as to most of its contents, is in all 
 probability from one and the same hand. Its author seems to have been 
 a Christian Jew, living some time during the latter half of the third 
 century. It is evidently full of interpolations ; and it also exhibits strong 
 evidence of having suffered excisions or defalcations. E. g. the very 
 first verse begins with "Eggt] ds tiqojz?] ttoI.emv ; which of course indi- 
 cates that there was once some preceding context. Verses 65 — 94 con- 
 tain a hymn of a Gnostic character, which was probably added, by a 
 later hand, to the original composition. 
 
 Denunciation is, as usual, the order of the day. Delos, Sicily, Cyprus, Phry- 
 gia, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Laodicea, are threatened with destruction in different 
 ways. Verses 23 — 34 contains a Messianic passage, which is obscure, and prob- 
 ably an interpolation. It introduces the ysvvrjd'ilg 6 [xzyag d'sug, as creating the 
 stars ; he will be king of all, and king of peace ; “ all shall be completed by the 
 Davidic house ; God has given him the throne, and angels sleep at his feet,” even 
 those who preside over fire, water, cities, and winds. The denunciatory strain is 
 now continued, after a dark passage (verses 35 — 49) out of which 1 can make no 
 tolerable sense. Ilium, Colophon, Thessalia, Corinth, Tyre, and Coele-Syria, are 
 all threatened. Then follows the Gnostico-Christological hymn, verses 65 — 94, 
 the matter of which is very curious. “ Unhappy,” says the writer addressing 
 some place or land (probably Judea), “ who didst not know thy God, who was 
 washed in the stream of Jordan, and on whom the Spirit lighted.” “ He was be- 
 fore the stars ; was made prince by the word of the Father and by the pure Spirit. 
 After his incarnation, he speedily left the earth to go to his Father’s house. In 
 heaven three towers are built for him, in which the foov . . . fjLTjTtqsg io'd'lal 
 dwell.” Then, after disclaiming ritual worship and sacrifices, the writer adds 
 this singular passage : “Thou, with all thy relatives, shalt take wild fowl, and 
 making supplication thou, shalt send them forth ; then directing thine eyes to 
 heaven, and pouring water upon the pure fire, thrice shalt thou exclaim : Father, 
 etc.” The matter of the prayer is then given ; but to me it is quite unintelligi- 
 ble, and, no doubt, it conceals the Gnostic ^dd'rj. The piece ends with exhorta- 
 tions to practise the Christian virtues. 
 
 After this, the general strain of the original piece is resumed. Sardinia, Myg- 
 donia, Celtiguae [Gauls], and finally Rome, Syria, and Thebes, are denounced. 
 
§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 99 
 
 Fire shall destroy the whole. Especially shall false prophets be punished, who 
 feign themselves to be Hebrews. To a time of general destruction shall succeed 
 the renovation of the earth, which shall spontaneously produce all that is needed, 
 and God shall dwell with men and*“teach them. 
 
 The remainder of the book (verses 145 — 15G) contains a confession of many 
 aggravated sins on the part of the Sibyl, even that of incest. It seems plainly to 
 be a mere imitation of the end of Book II., and therefore must have been written 
 after the end of the fourth ‘century. It is doubtless an interpolation here ; and a 
 miserable one too, for it places the Sibyl below the common order of prostitutes. 
 The object however is, to show that the piece is of heathen origin. 
 
 Book YI t I. This consists probably of many different pieces, but 
 so loosely and unskilfully put together, that it is very difficult, as Bleek 
 intimates, to decide whether it has one or twenty authors. 
 
 It commences with the declaration, that the Sibyl is going to disclose the wrath 
 of God against the whole world. All things shall be burned up. Avarice is the 
 great sin that occasions all evils ; it would exclude the poor from the world if it 
 could. Rome shall first fall. After thrice Jive kings Adrian shall succeed, who 
 will deify a boy [Antinous]. After him shall reign three, who live in the last 
 times.” [The writer doubtless means Antoninus Pius, and his two sons Marcus 
 and Lucius Verus.] The kings heap up riches, which “ the matricide fugitive, 
 coming from the ends of the earth, will distribute to all, and make Asia very 
 rich.” Nothing shall stand before him. Then the end of all things shall come 
 and the judgment of God. Rome : hall be plunged into a lake of fire and brim- 
 stone, and her wailings be heard by all. Then follows a picture of her miseries, 
 seemingly intended to resemble the wailings over Babylon in Rev.xviii. Verses 
 131 — 160 consist of one or more pieces relating to the same subject, viz., the 
 fall of Rome, and the victorious return and cruel excesses of Nero. “ No longer 
 shalt thou,” [queen of cities], says the Sibyl, “have empire over the fields of 
 fruitful Rome, when the ruler shall come from Asia with Mars. When this is 
 done he shall come with violence against the city” [Rome], verses 145 — 147. 
 Again : “From the Asiatic country shall he come in Trojan chariots, with vehement 
 indignation. Surveying all, he marches on, passing over the sea [the Hellespont]; 
 and then black blood shall accompany the great beast. The dog has produced a 
 lion, which will destroy the shepherds. [Q. Nero, at first only a tcvoip, has now 
 become a Xtojv ?] But they shall take away his sceptre, and he shall go down to 
 Hades.” [Comp. Rev. 17: 8, 11.] This whole piece wears the air of being com- 
 posed earlier than the preceding part of the book, which (verse 50 seq.) refers to 
 thrice jive kings of Rome, and particularly to Adrian, then again (65) to Antoninus 
 Pius and his two sons, Marcus and Lucius Verus. The ttoq&Joojv . . . 'EfiQaiujv 
 e&voe of verses 140, 141 must be either Titus or Adrian; I should incline to the 
 former, because the predictions respecting Nero’s return seem to be of such a 
 character as must have been current soon after his death. Verse 148 speaks of 
 948 years [i. e. A. U. C. = A. D. 194], as the time of Rome’s duration. But this 
 verse appears to me to be adscititious, being later than the surrounding context. 
 Verses 160 — 168 denounce Rhodes, Thebes, Rome, Delos, Samos, and Persia, in 
 the usual style. To this succeed two verses which seem to be Messianic : “ Then 
 shall a pure king reign over all the earth forever, raising the dead.” Verses 
 171 — 215 are a singular, and (to me in many places) unintelligible mixture. 
 Whose is the d'TjXvr tyrfi . . . xquvos . . . ovav ^aaiXr/idarijurjV ovei/ja/utvij 
 
100 
 
 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 1 wot not, unless it be the church under the symbol of a woman. A millennial 
 season is described as following this Hydros, after the resurrection from the dead. 
 
 Next follow thirty-four lines, which constitute an acrostic with the name *1?]- 
 oovs Xytioros [sic !] fooii vtos, oujrijy, oravyos- The matter of them has respect 
 to the final judgment and destruction of the world, the punishment of the wicked 
 and the joys of the pious. Lactantius has cited some of these verses ; but he in- 
 timates nothing respecting the acrostic in them. There can scarcely be a doubt, 
 therefore, that this part was composed after his time, by selecting here and there 
 a verse, altering some, and composing others. The piece has very little close 
 connection ; as we may well suppose. 
 
 Next follows a kind of historical account of the incarnation, miracles, sufferings, 
 death, and resurrection of Christ, with continual allusion to facts related in the 
 Gospels. Zion is called on to rejoice in her king, and to acknowledge avrov oov 
 ■d'suv, d~ 80 v viov iovra. Spiritual worship must she pay him. — After this all things 
 shall be destroyed ; and the particulars are given with an unusual degree of po- 
 etic spirit. God has revealed all his secrets to the Sibyl, (so she proceeds), and 
 she understands the nature and times of all things. She then extols the divine 
 unity, and denounces idolatry inveighing against its follies and its rites at length. 
 The moral virtues are next commended, and the rewards and punishments of the 
 judgment day propounded. With v. 429 a new strain seems to begin, which 
 must be assigned to quite a late period. The sovereign and creative power of God 
 is first celebrated. Then the incarnation of the Logos follows with the annun- 
 ciation of Gabriel, the rejoicing of heaven and earth at hi£ birth, the visit and 
 homage of the Magi and of the shepherds. Christians must offer pure and spirit- 
 ual worship to God, and never join in any of the rites of idols. In this piece, 
 v. 463 gives to the virgin Mary the appellation of rj aisl novyt] ; which shows that 
 it probably was not composed until after the fourth century ; for it was after that 
 period when the subject of Mary's perpetual virginity began to .be discussed. 
 Thus ends the eight books, which have, until recently, comprised all that was 
 known in modern times respecting the Sibylline Oracles. 
 
 Since the publication of Bleek’s critical examination of the eight books 
 of the Sibylline Oracles, A. Mai, in his Nova Collectio Scriptt. Yet. 
 III. p. 202 seq., has published Books XI — XIY, which he found in the 
 Libraries of Italy ; so that only Books IX. X. are now wanting, in order 
 to complete fourteen books of this most singular relic of antiquity. 
 As I have not been able to procure a copy of this work of Mai, and 
 therefore have had no opportunity to examine the remaining books of 
 the work before us, I shall here subjoin, in a note, a brief account of 
 the books recently discovered, as given by F. Lucke in his Introduction 
 to the Apocalypse, p. 1 22 seq.* 
 
 *“ The dryness and uniformity of tone, in a word, the whole manner of these 
 books, is the same as in the first eight. The religious and doctrinal elements, 
 however, are much less apparent. Book XI. contains a Sibylline representation 
 of Jewish, Grecian, Macedonian, Romish, and Egyptian history, from the flood 
 down to Julius Caesar. The tone is apparently Jewish. It resembles, in par- 
 ticular, that of Book III ; and in part it exhibits the same expressions and verses ; 
 e. g. v. 161 seq. respecting Homer, comp. Book III. v. 357 seq. ; v. 200 seq. 
 respecting Alexander the Great, comp. Book 111. v. 319 seq. As a whole, how- 
 
§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 101 
 
 I do not learn that any special aid is to be derived from these addi- 
 tional books, to the purposes of New Testament criticism and exegesis. 
 Bleek, it seems, has not deemed them to be of sufficient importance to 
 continue his Sibylline criticisms ; which he promised to do, in case there 
 should appear to be sufficient reason, when these latter books were pub- 
 lished. 
 
 A hasty or superficial reader may judge the time and pains bestowed 
 on such books as these, to be but illy laid out. I can assure him that 
 he is much in the wrong, and that the study of them helps to place one 
 in the ancient circle of thought, reasoning, and expression, among both 
 Jews and Christians, to which, in case he means to pursue critical studies, 
 it is of no spiall importance for him to attain. The Sibylline Oracles, 
 so far as I can judge, do not contain more than one or two seemingly 
 designed imitations of the Apocalypse. Book VIII. v. 104 seq. con- 
 tains a lament over Rome, evidently, as I think, designed to imitate 
 Rev. xviii. But in all the Messianic passages, and in all the millennial 
 ones, although there are of course many points of coincidence with the 
 Apocalypse, yet there does not seem to be any, or scarcely any, de- 
 
 ever, the character of the composition is somewhat different, sometimes more com- 
 pressed, at other times more diffuse ; in general the connection is more close. In 
 all probability it is a Jewish Alexandrine production, and of a date a little before 
 the Christian era. Or is it merely an imitation of such a production ? ” 
 
 “ Book XII, in its commencement, resembles the beginning of Book V. It 
 holds the same course. The series of Roman emperors, from Augustus down- 
 wards, is described in the Sibylline manner ; but under Augustus the appearance 
 of the Saviour is made the subject of special notice; which is not the case in 
 Book III. While in Book III. the account is brought down only to Adrian, in 
 Book XII. it is continued down to Alexander Severus, to whom it leaps from 
 Septimius Severus, [omitting Caracalla and Heliogabalus]. It is much mutilated 
 at the close; yet it is clear that it stops with Alexander Severus. Perhaps, in 
 accordance with the probable meaning of v. 287, which is somewhat obscure, it 
 was written in the year 222, after the death of Alexander Severus.” 
 
 “Book XIII. narrates, in a Sibylline manner, the wars, especially the oriental 
 wars, of the Romish empire, down to Valerian and Gallienus in the middle of the 
 third century. But with what emperor the narration commences, I am not able 
 to conjecture; perhaps with the time succeeding Alex. Severus. The central 
 point appears to be Egypt. The account of the mathematical fame of Bostra [in 
 Phenicia] v. 67 seq., is a remarkable circumstance.” 
 
 “ Book XIV. is obscure. The destruction of Rome, however, is a prominent 
 feature of it, v. 31 seq. ; then follows the rebuilding of the same, v. 125 seq. The 
 circumstance is noted, that Rome furnishes itself with provisions for one whole 
 year, in expectation of a long season of distress. The last of the Latin race of 
 emperors appears and passes away ; but after him comes a race of kings who con- 
 tinue a long time. The irruption of the northern hordes, and the fall of the wes- 
 tern Roman empire, stand prominent everywhere. The whole may probably have 
 been composed in the fifth century.” 
 
102 
 
 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 pendence of the one composition on the other. A coincidence, then, as 
 to matter or manner between the two writings, affords us, under such 
 circumstances, the more satisfactory testimony as to the modes of think- 
 ing and speaking on Messianic subjects, during the early ages of Chris- 
 tianity. More or less of illustration by means of the Sibylline Oracles, 
 in regard to difficult passages in the Apocalypse, or in respect to those 
 whose aesthetical character has been severely questioned, the reader will 
 find in the sequel of the present work. 
 
 There are moreover so many passages, in these Oracles, of a mil- 
 lennial character ; so many that describe the wrongs and sufferings of 
 those who were persecuted on account of their religion ; so many that 
 threaten destruction and ample retribution to heathen and cruel Rome ; 
 so many that have regal'd to the beast, the man of sin and the son of 
 perdition [Nero] ; so many that bring to view the future prosperity and 
 glory of the church ; that every judicious reader must perceive at once, 
 how near the prominent and principal subjects of these books come to 
 the all pervading subjects of the Apocalypse. How can it be, that the 
 one should not cast some light upon the matter and manner of the other ? 
 
 As a specimen now of what may be gathered from such a book as this, 
 to illustrate some peculiarities in the style of the Apocalypse, let us turn 
 our attention to Rev. 13: 18, where the name of the beast, which sym- 
 bolizes Rome, is said to designate the number 666, and to be aQid'iA.og 
 dvVQcbrtov, i. e. reckoned after the usual mode among men of counting 
 numbers. This has been put by some to the account of Cabbalism, in 
 the writer of the Apocalypse ; or it has even been regarded by others 
 as only a kind of childish trifling with so grave a subject. But that 
 such modes of designating names, which were not intended to be spoken 
 out directly and yet were designed to be made known to the reader, 
 were common in ancient times, appears plainly from the Sibylline Ora- 
 cles. E. g. in Book I. v. 141 seq. (p. 115), Jehovah, in addressing 
 Noah, is represented, instead of declaring his own name directly, as 
 propounding it in the following terms : 
 
 3 Evvta yod/xuar syoj, TSTQaovXXa^dg st[u, vost [is • 
 
 Ai TQsig ai nQMTai Svo yqd[i[iax iyovoiv stidaTij, 
 
 'll Xomr] §s loind, nal slolv dcpojva td nsvrs. 
 
 Tov Travrug § OQid’juov sxarovrdSsg siol Slg oxtoi, 
 
 Kal TQSig TQig dsxdSsg ovv y inrd. 
 
 That is : “ I have nine letters, and am of four syllables ; consider me ; 
 [i. e. reflect well what name corresponds with this]. The first three 
 [syllables] have each two letters ; the remaining one the rest [of the 
 letters]. Five of them are consonants. In respect to the whole num- 
 ber, it is twice 800, and three times three decades, with seven.” 
 
 It does not appear from the context, after all, what the name is, and 
 
§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 103 
 
 different names have been conjectured. The word avt'xqmrog ( unspeak- 
 able ) seems to correspond best to the description. This word has five 
 consonants ; the first three syllables have each two letters ; the number 
 amounts indeed only to 1696; but with the addition of a fiovag, i. e. 
 unity or one, the TTSQiexzixog, uTtonazaazazrAog, xcu 7iQO(jXd[*parog dqi&- 
 pog , i. e. the comprehensive, restorative, and helping number, (as the 
 Platonists and Pythagoreans call it), makes out the number in question. 
 The whole agrees entirely with the ancient notion, that the name of 
 Jehovah was ucpwvrjTog, (as Josephus says), and was known only to the 
 high-priest of the Jews. Jtvzxywvog is not indeed a common Greek 
 word ; but it is formed analogically, and corresponds so well, both in re- 
 spect to number and signification, with the intention of the Sibyllist, 
 that it does not seem to be improbable that this word was intended. So 
 Gallaeus, in a note upon the passage. 
 
 Again, in vs. 325 seq. (p. 177), the Sibyllist, having concluded the 
 account of the flood, and the return of its waters, predicts the coming of 
 the Messiah : “ Then the Son of the great God, clothed in flesh, shall 
 come to men, being made like to mortal men on the earth : 
 
 T&OGCfQa (pojvtjsvra tptQOJV, zd§* dtpiova tv avxoj 
 
 Jig govt dyyillojv , d.Qtd'fiov 3* olov t^ovojuijvoj. 
 
 *Oxto) yaq /uovddag, zoooag SexdSag ini xovxoig 
 ixaxovxaSag ouzo), dnioxoxoQotg dvd'Qwnoig 
 
 OilVOfia §7]lo )G£t.” 
 
 That is : “ Producing four vowels, and announcing doubly the con- 
 sonants, the whole number I will recount. His name shall designate to 
 unbelieving men eight monads [unities], so many decades added to 
 these, and also 800.” In other words : The name : JrjGovg has four 
 vowels, and one consonant which is doubled. In reckoning these, i = 
 10, rj = 8, (j = 200, o = 70, v = 400, g — 200 ; the whole sum = 888. 
 How much this resembles the 666 of Rev. 13: 18, is too plain to be in- 
 sisted on.* 
 
 In Book V. vs. 11 seq., the succession of Roman emperors down to 
 Adrian is marked, by referring to the numerical value of the first letter 
 in one of their leading names ; e. g. “ he whose name signifies twice ten 
 stands ak£he head of the series,” meaning Kuigolq, or Julius Caesar, where 
 K = 20. “ Next follows he whose name is the first of the alphabet,” 
 
 i. e. Augustus ; u then he whose name marks 300,” i. e. Tiberius ; “ then 
 he whose name marks 3,” i. e. raiog, i. e. Caius Caligula ; then K = 
 
 * The second clause, viz. rdd* diyonu iv aizo), diooovx dyytV.ojv, is a text 
 which I have formed from that of the Cod. Reg. and Puteanus. The common 
 text, xdd otfojva ov aiixd) dioodv dyyiXojv , is plainly corrupt, and yields no intel- 
 ligible meaning. The text a3 I have proposed it, makes some appropriate mean- 
 ing possible. 
 
104 
 
 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 30, i. e. KlavSiog, Claudius ; next N = 50, i. e. NrjQcov , Nero ; then 
 Galba, Otho, and Vitellius are not specifically named, but adverted to 
 as destroying each other; next comes Ovzonaaiavog , o = 70 ; then Ti- 
 rog, r — 300 ; then /lofuziavog, <5 = 4; Nerva, v = 50; Trajan, t = 
 300 ; then Adrian, “ who has the name of a sea” (the Adriatic). In his 
 reign the writer in all probability lived ; so that it could have been but 
 a little while after the Apocalypse was written, when this mode of de- 
 signation was employed. 
 
 Besides these, there is the acrostic piece, of which an account is given 
 on p. 100 above. 
 
 Now as none of these reckonings appear to be grounded at all on the 
 Apocalypse,* they serve, as independent testimony, to show what the 
 taste of the early ages of Christianity was, when matters of this nature 
 were to be designated in a prophetic way, and names were not intended 
 to be plainly and directly spoken. If there be any conceit in this, John 
 does not stand alone, at all events. I accede to the truth of the remark, 
 that the taste of our times is different ; but I am not aware, that in a 
 matter of so delicate a nature as that with which John was concerned in 
 the Apocalypse, i. e. in speaking of the Roman emperors under whose 
 dominion he lived, he could well have managed this business with more 
 caution and delicacy than he has done, provided that at the same time 
 he felt bound (as he doubtless did) to declare the whole truth so that it 
 might be understood. A heathen magistrate would be likely to read 
 Rev. 13: 18 with scorn or with disregard ; Christians would naturally 
 seek with deep interest for the meaning of the writer, and might find it 
 without much difficulty. See the Excursus on Rev. 13: 18, in Vol. II., 
 for further explanations. 
 
 Those who fully believe that when God speaks to men, he does it in 
 conformity with modes of thinking and speaking which belong to the 
 age and country in which they live, will find, in such a mode of desig- 
 nating names as the Sibylline Oracles present, evidences of the proba- 
 bility that John might have employed a similar method of speaking, and 
 have done so without giving any offence to the taste of his contempora- 
 
 * When I suggest, that none of the Sibylline Oracles appear to be grounded on 
 the book of Revelation, I speak only what the reading of them everywhere has 
 suggested to me, so far as the style and manner of the Apocalypse are concerned. 
 That the same doctrines , in many respects, are taught in both, is fully conceded ; 
 for some of the Sibyllists have drawn largely from the store of Christian doctrine. 
 But they do not present it in Apocalyptic colours. At least, I can see no attempt 
 at close imitation. There can be no doubt that the Apocalypse was extant, when 
 the above numerical descriptions were written ; and especially the two copied 
 from Book I , which is of later stamp. But still, there is no apparent attempt at 
 imitation. It appears to be rather the spirit of the times, than imitation of Rev. 13: 
 18, which prompted the efforts of the authors. 
 
* 
 
 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 105 
 
 ries. Above all may this be conceded to him, when the necessity for 
 speaking in a guarded manner was much more urgent on him, than it 
 was in any of the cases where such a method of designation is adopted 
 in the Sibylline Oracles. 
 
 The reader may now perceive, by an example of such a nature as is 
 produced above, how easy it is to suppose, that the Sibylline Oracles 
 may be profitable reading for an interpreter of the Apocalypse.* 
 
 The facts stated in the note below, serve to show how widely spread 
 were the original Sibylline Oracles, either real or pretended ; and also 
 how much credit was given to them at Rome, in preference to all other 
 oracular compositions. Viewed in this light we can account for it, that 
 the Jews of Egypt began early to imitate the Sibylline Oracles, in order 
 that they might gain a listening ear among the heathen to the mono- 
 theistic doctrines inculcated by their compositions. To the heathen, who 
 allowed the importance of Sibylline testimony, an appeal of this nature, 
 it was thought, would prove to be an argumentum ad hominem. With 
 what success this pious fraud was attended, we do not for certainty 
 know. It would seem at least to have made considerable impression ; 
 otherwise it would hardly have been resorted to so often as it was. 
 
 * I subjoin in a note, a few historical notices, which may serve to cast some 
 light on the rise of such a book as the Sibylline Oracles. Long before the Chris- 
 tian era, Oracles of the Sibyls were in circulation among the heathen. They ap- 
 pear to have had altogether the most credit among the Romans. The common 
 account of the Roman historians is, that a Sibyl of Cumae came to Tarquin the 
 second, and sold him three books of oracles, after destroying six which he had be- 
 fore twice refused to purchase ; that he paid a large price for them, and commit- 
 ted the custody of them to two priests of the patrician order, [duumviri sacrorum] ; 
 that they were deposited in the Capitol at Rome, and consulted only on public 
 occasions, and then with great solemnity; that in the civil war between Marius 
 and Sylla they were burnt, together with the Capitol, (about 82 B. C.) ; and that 
 after this, the Senate by a decree, caused search to be made throughout Italy and 
 Greece for Sibylline writings, great numbers of which were procured. It seems 
 highly probable, that many were forged, in these circumstances, in order to obtain 
 money for them from the Roman Senate. Cicero (de Divinat. II. 54) openly at- 
 tacks the credit of them ; and Augustus, (B. C. 21), when he came to the office 
 of the -aupreme Pontificate, after the death of the Consul, Lepidus, gave orders 
 for the collection of all Libri Fatidici throughout the empire ; in consequence of 
 which more than 2000 of them were collected. These he burned; and also many 
 of those deposited in the Capitol, which he judged to be worthless, (Sueton. Au- 
 gustus, cap. 31). Tiberius also burned many more. The Roman (Christian) em- 
 perors forbade them to be taken from the temple of Apollo Capitolinus. There 
 they were consulted, however, by the emperor Julian (A. D. 363), and in 399 
 they were burned by Stilico, agreeably to an order of the emperor Ilonorius. 
 
 Varro reckons no less than ten Sibyls, at his time ; (he was Cotemporary with 
 Julius Caesar, and dedicated his Libri Divinarum Rerum to him). The number has 
 been much disputed ; Plato speaks of but one ; Solinus and Pliny of three ; Aelian 
 of four ; the account of Varro has been generally admitted in modern times. 
 
 VOL. I. 14 
 
106 
 
 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 
 
 From Jews before the Christian era, and Jewish Christians after the 
 commencement of it, seems to have proceeded a large portion of the 
 whole mass of Sibylline Oracles. The contents of them show, that none 
 of them, as they now are, could have been the pure compositions of hea- 
 then writers ; unquestionably none of them belonged to the collection of 
 Sibylline writings at Rome ; unless, possibly, a few paragraphs or lines, 
 here and there, may have been inserted from copies of those Oracles 
 which were extant before the expurgation by Augustus. 
 
 No wonder, now, that in an age when pious frauds were so common, 
 and when Sibylline and other Oracles so abounded as they did in the 
 time of Augustus, that here and there a proselytist, whose imagination 
 was much more prominent than his judgment or integrity, should have 
 resorted to such means of accomplishing his end. That cunning in this 
 case, however, as in most others, defeated its own purposes, is plain 
 enough from the manner in which Celsus treats the compositions before 
 us. The whole fraud was evident enough to his sagacity ; and he ridi- 
 cules it and shows his contempt for it, in a manner that proves how ill- 
 adapted pious frauds are, in the end, to promote the cause of truth and 
 holiness. — I am aware, that some, e. g. Thorlacius, and several indivi- 
 duals before him, have defended the intentions of those who wrote the 
 Sibylline Oracles, and have merely placed them to the account of honest 
 and well-intended fictions. The study of them has satisfied me, that the 
 writers intended they should be taken as the actual productions of hea- 
 then Fatidicae , in order that heathen readers might be silenced when 
 Christian arguments were urged upon them, by an appeal to their own 
 admitted authorities. 
 
 Be this however as it may, it alters not the value of the books to us, 
 when searching for means of illustrating the productions of the first cen- 
 tury. The Sibylline Oracles, specially those which were composed by 
 Christians, exhibit the modes of thinking and speaking common at that 
 period, in regard to many highly important subjects. No intelligent 
 man can read them, who has an acquaintance w r ith the criticism and exe- 
 gesis of the New Testament books, without feeling that he is sensibly a 
 gainer by the labour bestowed upon them. But how any one can now 
 read them, and come to the conclusion that they were actual revelations 
 of the Godhead to the heathen, which have merely been interpolated by 
 Christians, I am not able to see. Yet Bishop Horseley did so ; and in 
 his posthumous Works is a defence of this position. Seldom have so 
 much talent and learning as this prelate possessed, been united with so 
 little critical taste, skill, and sound judgment. His predominant instinct 
 seems to have been a love of paradoxes. Why should the Sibylline 
 Oracles be viewed in a different light from that in which we place the 
 great mass of apocryphal books, which have come down from the early 
 
§ 6. TESTAMENTUM XII. PATRIARCH ARUM. 
 
 107 
 
 ages ? Some of these are superior, in point of taste and importance of 
 matter, to the Sibylline Oracles. 
 
 I am aware of what Thorlacius and others have said in praise of these 
 compositions. That now and then a few verses occur, or a paragraph, 
 which are well executed, and contain good doctrine, even noble senti- 
 ments, is certainly true. But the great mass of them is such dry, for- 
 mal, tumid, inanimate, and pedestrian verse, that I cannot but subscribe 
 to the judgment of Bleek, who thinks the book would seldom indeed 
 be looked at, were it not that there is so much material in it for critics. 
 
 [The editions of these Oracles are, (1) Of Betuleius, 1545, 8vo. (2) The same 
 with Castellio’s Lat. version, 1546. (3) Opsopaeus, 1589, 1599, and 1607, 8vo. 
 
 (4) Gallaeus, 1689, 4to. At the close of the last named edition, is a collection 
 (from Opsopaeus) of the most notable of the heathen Oracles, which have been 
 preserved in different authors of ancient times. The reading of these will satisfy 
 any one, how different is the tenor of such compositions from that of the Sibylline 
 Oracles which have just been examined. It is utterly vain to think of maintain- 
 ing their genuineness. — The best account of these Oracles, is that by Bleek in 
 Schleiermacher, etc., Zeitschrift, St. I. II. Thorlacius has published a Critique 
 on them, in his Libri Sibyllistarum 1815, 8vo. ; which, however, Bleek has near- 
 ly demolished. 
 
 If the reader wishes to pursue his investigations to a wider extent, he will find 
 ample discussions by Casaubon, Scaliger, Capell, Manesius, Hornbeck, J. C. Vos- 
 sius, Cotelerius, Marckius, Schmidt, Crasset, Nehring, Whiston, Beveridge, J. 
 Vossius, Grotius, Simon, Du Pin, Reiske, Tentzel, Daubuz, Ekhard, Gallaeus, 
 Heumann, Reinesius, Huet, Cave, Mosheim, Munscher, Corrodi (a vivid picture), 
 and Fabricius. To these may be added Schoel, in his Geschichte Griech. Lit., I. 
 p. 33 seq. ; also Thorlacius’ Conspectus Doctr. Christ, in Lib. Sib., in Miscellanea 
 Hafniensia, by Mtlnter, 1818, Tom. I. pp. 1 13 — 180. The reader will find exact and 
 ample references to the respective treatises of all these authors, in Bleek (ubi 
 supra), p. 130 seq. Never has the work of impartial criticism in respect to these 
 Oracles been thoroughly done, before the effort of Bleek ; and even he, wearied 
 of his work before it was finished, has not accomplished all that might be done.] 
 
 (e) Testamentum XII. Patriarcharum. 
 
 Dr. Nitzsch, in his De Testamentis XII. Patriarcharum , 1810, 4to., 
 has sliown, according to general concession and in a manner that will 
 not probably be controverted, that the work so entitled is a production of 
 the latter part of the first century, or of the beginning of the second. 
 I can scarcely hesitate, after an attentive study of the contents of the 
 Testaments, in expressing my belief that it was composed shortly after 
 the Apocalypse had obtained circulation. The references to the Apoca- 
 lypse are, in a few places, quite plain ; e. g. Testament Levi, 18, dwoeig 
 zoig uyimg yuyeiv ix zov ZvXov zrjg £(orjg, comp. Rev. 2: 7 ; Testament 
 Joseph 19 and Testament Naphtali 5, comp. Rev. 12: 1 — 6, (a woman 
 clothed with the sun, etc.). The references to the matter of the New 
 Testament history are somewhat numerous, and too plain to be mistaken. 
 
108 
 
 § 6. TESTAMENTUM XII. PATRIARCH ARUM. 
 
 The plan of this work seems to have been conceived, from the exam- 
 ples of counsel given on a death-bed by Jacob, Joseph, etc., as well as 
 from the farewell addresses of Moses, Joshua, and others. The twelve 
 patriarchs are successively introduced, as imparting to their posterity 
 their last advice, in respect to their future demeanor. Together with 
 the moral precepts which they are made to utter, is intermingled various 
 matter that has relation to future times ; and among the rest, a consid- 
 erable number of passages that have respect both to the Messiah and 
 the prosperity and triumph of his kingdom. Beyond all reasonable 
 question, the author was a Christian Jew. 
 
 The matter and manner of such a work, composed so early as the first 
 century, must be of interest to an interpreter of the sacred books, which 
 were composed at the same period, and by Jewish Christians. Spe- 
 cially do the Messianic passages, and those which respect the church, 
 deserve an attentive perusal and consideration. I shall be as brief in 
 my account of the matter of this production, as the nature of the case 
 will permit. 
 
 I. The Testament of Reuben. It is made up mainly of confession of sin 
 in the matter of Bilhah (Gen. 35: 22), and of Joseph (Gen. 37: 21 seq.) ; then 
 follow earnest exhortations to his descendants to avoid 'hncleanness. He warns 
 them, at the close, “ to hearken to the sons of Levi [the priests], until the com- 
 pletion of the time of the high priest, the Christ, whom the Lord has promised. 
 The Lord will bless Levi and Judah ; in him [i. e. in Judah, as 1 understand it], 
 the Lord hath chosen a fiaoiki's aioxvojv who shall reign over all people. In c. 
 2, 3, is a very curious piece of anthropology. “ The Lord created man with seven 
 spirits, constituents of his nature ; to these Beliar [Belial] has added seven spirits 
 of error. In each case is superadded an eighth spirit, to nvtv/ua rov in rvov, which 
 seems designed to modify the other spirits. Will this help to cast any light on 
 the beast who is the eighth king, mentioned in that dark passage of Rev. 17: 11 ? 
 
 II. Simeon. This is a sermon on envy, and the murderous consequences of it, 
 as exhibited by himself in the matter of Joseph. Toward the close the author 
 proceeds, in the manner of the Sibylline Oracles, to denounce Canaan, Amalek, 
 the Cappadocians, the Xsttcuoi , i. e. the Romans, and Ham [Egypt]. After their 
 destruction, “ the great God of Israel will make his appearance as a man, and 
 save the race of men. All the spirits of error shall be trodden down, and men 
 shall reign over evil spirits. Then shall I [Simeon] arise in gladness, etc. . . . 
 The Lord will raise up from Levi [one] as a high priest, and from Judah one as 
 a king, both God and man, [John the Baptist and Jesus Christ ?] So will he save 
 all men.” 
 
 III. Levi. This is the longest section of the whole, and it appears pretty plain- 
 ly, from the manner and matter of its contents, that the author belonged to this 
 tribe, and was zealous for its rights. In a dream he is rapt into heaven and then 
 passes through seven heavens, resembling in some respects those mentioned in 
 the Ascension of Isaiah. There he is told, that through him and Judah the 
 Lord will appear among men, saving among them ever}? race of men.” An ac- 
 count is given to him of each heaven. In the fifth are the interceding angels. . . . 
 “ When the rocks are rent, the sun extinguished, the waters dried up, fire shrink- 
 ing away and every creature troubled, when even the invisible spirits are melted, 
 
§ 6. TESTAMENTUM XII. PATRIARCHARUM. 
 
 109 
 
 and Hades itself despoiled, by the suffering of the Most High , men, still remaining 
 unbelievers, shall be punished c. 4. That is, because they do not believe in 
 the Saviour, they are punished. “ Levi is to be made a minister of God, until 
 the Lord shall visit all nations with the tender mercies of his Son forever.” Levi 
 is then told, that his posterity will aid in crucifying the son of God, and he is di- 
 rected to warn them ; c. 4. 
 
 The gates of the highest heaven are now opened to Levi, and he sees the Most 
 High upon his throne of glory, who says : “Levi, I have given the blessings of 
 the priesthood, until I shall come and dicell in the midst of Israel ;” [God made 
 manifest in the flesh.] He is then dismissed and commissioned to destroy She- 
 chem [Gen. xxxiv.], an account of which transaction he gives. After this he 
 sees [in a dream] seven men who severalty bestow on him the different parts of a 
 priest’s and a prophet’s costume, and then consecrate him to his office. After a 
 dark passage about the various classes of Levites, the seven [angels] tell him, 
 that “ a king will arise from Judah, who will institute a new priesthood, pattern- 
 ed so as to have respect to all nations.” In the meantime the priesthood and its 
 privileges are to be his. He is then instructed in its duties, by his grandfather 
 Isaac. He now warns his descendants, that he is innocent as to their future sin, 
 “ which they will commit in the end of the world (ini ovvTtXsia rotv aioh'OJV ), doing 
 wickedly toward the Saviour of the world, and deceiving Israel.” Jerusalem 
 will be destroyed, and the Jews dispersed among all the nations ; as the book of 
 Enoch the just predicts. The priests, at a future period, will become exceedingly 
 corrupt, and practice every kind of iniquity. The Jews shall be dispersed for 
 seventy weeks, as the book of Enoch predicts. “ The man who renovates the 
 law” will be slain by the wicked priests, who will be ignorant of his resurrection, 
 and know not that by their malignity they have brought innocent blood upon their 
 own heads. Because of this, their place shall be made desolate. The priesthood 
 is then divided into seven Jubilees, which are variously characterized ; after these 
 “ the Lord will raise up a priest, to whom all his word will be revealed ; who will 
 judge righteously ; his star shall arise, like that of a king; he shall wax great in 
 the world until his ascension ; he shall shine so as to scatter all darkness ; peace 
 shall be universal ; the heavens shall rejoice, the earth be glad ; the knowledge 
 of the Lord shall be poured out upon the earth, as the waters of the seas ; the 
 glorious angels of the presence of the Lord shall exult ; the heavens shall open, 
 and Holiness [i. e. the Holy Spirit] come down upon him, with the voice of the 
 Father. The glory of the Most High shall be uttered over him, and the spirit of 
 understanding and sanctification shall rest upon him. By water shall he bestow 
 the excellence of the Lord upon his sons in truth forever ... all sin shall cease 
 during his priesthood ; the wicked shall rest from evil, and the just shall rest in 
 him. He shall open the gates of paradise, and place there the sword that flamed 
 against Adam, and give his saints to eat of the tree of life, and the spirit of sanc- 
 tification shall be in them. Beliar shall be bound by him, and to his own children 
 power will be given to tread evil spirits under their feet.” 
 
 Such is the picture of the Messianic day. It is impossible not to ac- 
 knowledge here a Christian hand. We recognize also allusions to facts 
 recorded in the New Testament. With a decided Christian belief, how- 
 ever, the author of this work cherished also a decidedly Judaizing spirit, 
 and doubtless was one of those, who believed that the Mosaic rites were 
 still to be continued, even under the Messianic dipsensation. 
 
110 
 
 § 6. TESTAMENTUM XII. PATRIARCH ARUM. 
 
 IV. Judah. Much of this section is occupied with recounting his deeds of 
 valour and feats of animal strength in his early youth ; some of them indeed silly 
 enough, and others bordering quite too much on the wonderful. E. g. he took a 
 wild buffalo by the horns and swung him around his head ; he threw a stone 
 weighing sixty pounds at a giant king, and destroyed him, etc. Then family 
 matters and his incest with Thamar are related, which he attributes to having 
 drunk too much wine. “ Wine turns away the mind from truth, whets the ap- 
 petite of lust, and leads the eyes astray. The spirit of fornication employs wine 
 as its servant for pleasurable gratification ; and these two things take away all 
 manly power [this, at least, is sober preaching]. He warns his children against 
 wine which leads men “ to behave scandalously, to transgress without shame, 
 and even to glory in dishonourable things as though they were praiseworthy. . . . 
 There are four evil spirits in it, concupiscence, inflamed passions, luxury, and 
 base gain.” He has read in the book of Enoch that his posterity will do all man- 
 ner of evil. To him is given pre-eminence in earthly things ; to Levi, in heav- 
 enly ones. A king of his race is coming, who will restore all things, and reign 
 forever. Then follows a Messianic passage of the same tenor with that cited un- 
 der Testament Levi. At the close he says : “ Those who die in sorrow shall rise 
 in joy ; those who die in poverty did xvqiov , shall be made rich ; those who die in 
 want, shall be filled ; those in weakness, shall be made strong ; yea, those who 
 die did xvqiov shall awake from sleep in life? . . . All people shall glorify the Lord 
 forever.” Is not this a plain reference to the persecution and martyrdom of 
 Christians in the primitive age ? It casts light on similar exhortations and prom- 
 ises in the Apocalypse. 
 
 V. Issachar. This begins with a revolting account of Leah, Rachel, and Ja- 
 cob’s management of conjugal intercourse. Issachar was always industrious, tem- 
 perate, chaste, and successful in business. He is aware of the future defection 
 and vices of his posterity. He warns against ttiem. He has lived in the prac- 
 tice of all the moral virtues, and he commends them to his children. 
 
 VI. Zebulon. A homily on the laudable quality of sympathy for the distress- 
 ed. He commiserated Joseph, and helped to save his life. Gives a protracted 
 account of the sale of Joseph, and of transactions connected with it. Israel will 
 be divided into two kingdoms. “ After these things, the Light of righteousness, 
 the Lord himself, will arise, with healing and mercy in his wings. He will re- 
 deem all the captives of Beliar, and tread down every spirit of error, and turn all 
 nations to the emulation of him ; and ye shall see God in the form of man , [iteds 
 ivouQxl (pavrjQOid'tiq] . . . But they will still transgress, and will be rejected until 
 the time of consummation.” He [Issachar] will rise again ; but the wicked will 
 be subjected to eternal fire, and God will destroy them forever. 
 
 VII. 1)an. Homily on falsehood and anger. He has read in the book of 
 Enoch, that “ Satan will be their prince ; that he will lead the sons of Levi and 
 Judah astray ; . . . but the salvation of the Lord [the Saviour] shall come from 
 the tribe of Levi and Judah; he shall contend against Beliar and subdue him, 
 and turn the hearts of the disobedient to the Lord, and give eternal peace to all 
 who call upon him. . . . Beware of Satan and his angels ; draw near to God, and 
 to the angel who intercedes for you.” 
 
 VIII. Naphtali. Exhortation to beneficence. He has read in the book of 
 Enoch, that his posterity will commit the sins of Sodom; that they shall go into 
 exile ; then return, sin again, and again be thrust into exile, until “ the man who 
 works righteousness shall come, and show mercy to all afar otf and near. ” Two 
 dreams: Sun and moon he sees descending, and Levi and Judah take hold of 
 
§ 6. TESTAMENTUM XII. TATRIARCIIARUM. 
 
 Ill 
 
 them and are carried aloft, and become all-splendid. Again ; standing by the 
 sea with his father and brethren, he sees a ship approach, under full sail, without 
 any sailors. They enter the ship ; a great storm arises, and they effect their es- 
 cape in a way almost miraculous. These dreams, Jacob tells him, are to be full- 
 filled. ** Through Judah salvation to Israel will come. Through his sceptre 
 God will appear, dwelling among men on earth, and will save the race of Israel, 
 and gather the just from all nations.’' 
 
 IX. Gad. Homily on hatred ; exemplified by his demeanour toward Joseph. 
 “ From Levi and Judah shall arise the Saviour of Israel.” His posterity, he fore- 
 sees, will become very corrupt. 
 
 X. Asher. There are two spirits of evil and good. These lead the soul in op- 
 posite directions. Asher knows that his posterity will sin, and be scattered 
 among all the nations of the earth, “ until the Most High shall visit the earth, and, 
 coming as a man, eating and drinking with men, in quiet he shall crush the head 
 of the dragon. By water [baptism] shall he save Israel and all nations.” 
 
 XI. Joseph. Chap. 1 . gives an account of his sufferings and dangers, and also 
 of his relief and deliverances ; the manner is seemingly copied from the last part 
 of Matt. xxv. The author then details all the imaginary particulars of Joseph’s 
 temptation by the wife of Potiphar ; and in the sequel goes back to his history 
 from the time when his brethren sold him, down to the time when he became a 
 servant of Fotiphar. He then relates his own beneficence to his brethren, and 
 commends his example to his children. — A dream he had, in which he saw 
 twelve deer, nine of them were scattered [the tribes of Israel, exempting Levi] ; 
 afterwards the other three. He saw, that “ from Judah was produced a virgin, 
 having a robe of fine lin^n ; and from her came a spotless Lamb; and on his left 
 hand was the similitude of a lion, and all the beasts rushed with violence against 
 him [the Lamb], and the Lamb overcame them, and trode them down. Then an- 
 gels, and men, and all the earth, rejoiced over him . . . Honour Judah and Levi, 
 since from them shall spring the Lamb of God, saving by grace all the nations 
 and Israel. His kingdom is an eternal kingdom, which shall not pass away.” 
 
 XII. Benjamin. He exhorts his posterity to imitate the beneficence of Joseph. 
 If any one loves God and his neighbor, then Beliar, the spirit of the air , cannot 
 harm him. Jacob embraced Joseph and said : “ In respect to thee shall be fulfilled 
 the prophecy of heaven concerning the Lamb of God and Saviour of the world, 
 for he although spotless shall be delivered up for transgressors, and himself al- 
 though sinless shall die for sinners, by the blood of the covenant for the salvation 
 of Israel and of the Gentiles, and he shall destroy Beliar and his servants.” Ex- 
 hortation to moral virtues, specially to benevolence. From the book of Enoch he 
 knows that the sin of Sodom will be committed by his posterity. But“ the Lord 
 himself will take the kingdom, and the twelve tribes shall be gathered together, 
 and all the Gentiles, until the Most High shall send his salvation, by the visita- 
 tion of the Only-begotten. He shall enter into the first temple, and there the 
 Lord shall be despised, and shall be lifted up on wood [on the cross] ; and the 
 veil of the temple shall be rent, and the spirit shall descend upon the nations, like 
 fire that is poured out. Coming up from Hades, he shall ascend from earth to 
 heaven . . . We shall rise from the dead, and each worship on his sceptre the 
 king of the heavens, who appeared on earth in the form of humble man ; for as 
 many as believed on him while on earth, shall rejoice with him when all shall be 
 raised up, some to glory, and some to dishonour. And the Lord shall first of all 
 judge Israel, for their iniquity toward him, because they did not believe on God 
 the Redeemer who came in the flesh.” The section closes, as usual, with moral 
 admonition. 
 
112 
 
 § 6. TESTAMENTUM XII. PATRIARCH ARUM. 
 
 On a review of the contents of this book, one is surprised that it could 
 ever have been doubted, as it has been, whether a Christian was the 
 author. The uniformity of the Messianic predictions, near the close of 
 each Testament ; the circumstantiality of them, so evidently built on 
 evangelical history ; the undissembled reprobation of the wickedness of 
 the Jews, and the declaration of their punishment ; all combine to prove, 
 beyond any reasonable doubt, that the work came from a Christian hand. 
 Yet there are many passages which savour plainly of a Jewish feeling, 
 which was too strong to be repressed. But if we consider how strong 
 this feeling generally was in the breasts of Judaizing Christians, we can 
 have no difficulty in accounting for all the paragraphs of this nature 
 which the piece before us exhibits. Nothing is said here of the aboli- 
 tion of the Mosaic rites. The author was no zealous disciple of Paul. 
 And the manner in which he so often speaks of the Saviour as coming 
 from Judah and from Levi , evidently shows that the importance of Levi 
 was great in the writer’s view. It is somewhat difficult, perhaps, to 
 give any satisfactory account of this peculiarity in the twelve Testa- 
 ments. Whether the writer means, that Christ shall take the priest- 
 hood which was Levi’s, and continue it in a modified shape (as is plain- 
 ly intimated in Testament Judah) ; or whether (as is more probable) 
 he means to include John the Baptist, descended from a Levitical priest, 
 along with the Messiah ; it is somewhat difficult to determine. At all 
 events, the writer plainly shows himself to be of the tribe of Levi, and 
 that probably he had once been an officiating priest. 
 
 There is very little in the piece which resembles the costume of the 
 Apocalypse. In Testament Levi is an account of his rapture into hea- 
 ven ; in Testament Naphtali is an account of two dreams, one respect- 
 ing the descent of the sun and moon, and the other of a shipwreck ; in 
 Testament Joseph is a dream respecting the virgin and the Lamb of 
 God ; all of which resemble, in their costume , some parts of the Old 
 Testament ; but there is no angel-interpreter, as in the Apocalypse ; 
 nor any continued series of symbols or of imagery. All is simple, pro- 
 saic declaration, in which the writer scarcely strives to avoid a tiresome 
 repetition. 
 
 The moral tone of the whole piece is high. One cannot but feel, that 
 the writer was a man of ardent feelings in regard to this subject ; and 
 there is everywhere an air of great sincerity as well as ardour. Yet the 
 execution of the work developes but moderate talent ; and some of it, 
 e. g. in Testament Issachar and Joseph, is revolting to feelings of deli- 
 cacy. One can never well know what estimate to put on the beauties 
 of composition in the Apocalypse, until he has read other writings con- 
 temporary with it, and seen how others succeeded who attempted com- 
 positions on the subject of Christ’s appearance and kingdom. 
 
§ 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 
 
 113 
 
 No Millennium, in its appropriate sense, appears in the production 
 before us. The resurrection is repeatedly referred to ; but not in a way 
 that indicates with certainty a belief in a resurrection like that which 
 John calls the first , and which precedes the Millennium. Except with 
 regard to the moral virtues, there is a lack of definiteness and explicit- 
 ness concerning doctrines appropriately Christian. The writer was. evi- 
 dently a novice in Christianity. But the incarnation of the Most High 
 — God — Lord — is mentioned so often as to show that the writer’s views 
 on this subject were somewhat definite and developed. He is no advo- 
 cate of a tfeog devrsQog as having become incarnate. He is a full be- 
 liever, too, in the salvation of the Gentiles. 
 
 Let me add, that the Greek of this piece bears no small resemblance 
 to that of the New Testament, and may be read with much profit by one 
 who is seeking for means of explaining the Hebrew-Greek of the sacred 
 books. The style Hebraizes throughout ; and the grammatical anoma- 
 lies of it are nearly on a par with those in the Apocalypse, excepting 
 such as the poetic costume of the latter work occasioned. An attentive 
 and intelligent reader must needs be a gainer, by the study of such a 
 work as the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs. 
 
 The Latin translation in F abricius is poor indeed ; and any one who 
 reads it must often go to the Greek of the original, in order to make 
 sense of it. It is labour worse than lost to print such translations. 
 
 [The reader will find the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs in Fabricii Codex 
 Pseudepigraphus Vet. Test. I. p. 496 seq. The recent Critique by Nitzsch, named 
 on p. 107 above, is the most important. I regret that I was not able to obtain it 
 in due time for consultation. A book so much neglected as these Testaments, 
 and yet so full of interesting matter to the critical student, needs such an editor 
 as Nitzsch.] 
 
 (f) The Shepherd of Hermas. 
 
 I can scarcely doubt, that the reading of the Apocalypse suggested to 
 the writer of this book the form of his work. It consists of three parts 
 or books ; the first contains four Visions ; the second twelve Mandates ; 
 the third ten Similitudes. The visions and the similitudes contain some 
 things which respect the church, and may be compared in some respects 
 with the matter of the Apocalypse. Yet there is, on the whole, very 
 little that is appropriately apocalyptic in the work before us. 
 
 The Visions make the nearest approach to the Apocalypse. In the first, Her- 
 mas represents himself as becoming enamoured with a young woman at Rome, 
 who had formerly been a servant in his father’s house. While his mind was oc- 
 cupied with this subject he falls asleep, and the Spirit takes him through rough 
 and pathless ways, until he comes to a great plain. There, while praying, heaven 
 opens, and he sees the object of his affection advancing toward him, and hears 
 her accuse him of sinful desires. These he disclaims, and maintains that be cher- 
 
 VOL. I. 15 
 
114 
 
 § 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 
 
 ished only an honourable affection. She informs him that concupiscence in any 
 form or degree is a great sin, directs him to pray for forgiveness, and vanishes. 
 
 In grief and sadness he continues his prayer and meditation, and soon an aged 
 woman [the symbol of the church] appears, adorned with splendid vestments and 
 having a book in her hand. She reproves him for concupiscence ; but more es- 
 pecially for not governing and restraining his household. She then reads to him 
 from the book in her hand ; first, terrific matter ; then the following declarations 
 respecting the church : “ Behold ! the almighty God, who by his invisible power 
 and great intelligence has made the world, and by his counsel worthy of honour 
 has clothed the creation with beauty, and formed the heavens by his all-powerful 
 mandate, and founded the earth upon the waters, who has also established his ho- 
 ly church by his great power, and hath blessed it, behold, he will remove the hea- 
 vens and the mountains, the hills and the seas, that all things may be filled with 
 his elect ; so that he will fulfil the promise which he has made with much honour 
 and joy, should they observe the things which God has ordained, which they have 
 received with much faith.” 
 
 Four young men now appear and carry away the seat on which the aged wo- 
 man sat, to the east. She informs Hermas, that the terrible things which she 
 first read, are intended for apostates and heathen. Two men now appear, and 
 bear her away toward the seat that was carried to the east. 
 
 Vision II. A year after this, the Spirit bore away Hermas to the same place, 
 which was the scene of his former vision. Here he again sees the aged woman, 
 walking and reading her book. She gives it to him to be copied. As soon as 
 this work was finished, the book vanished. After fifteen days fasting and prayer, 
 the contents of the book are disclosed to him. They respect the sins of his wife 
 and children ; to whom he is to read the book in the way of reproof, lest they put 
 off repentance until it be too late. Hermas is bid to warn the church, that they 
 may persevere in obedience ; and specially that “ they may not yield to the great 
 pressure which is on them [persecution], nor deny him who is their life.” Then 
 follow exhortations to kindness, self-denial, and perseverance. 
 
 After this a youth appears to him in his sleep, and asks him, who that aged 
 woman was ? He answers : A Sibyl. The youth replies, that she is the church, 
 and that she appears old, because the church was constituted before the begin- 
 ning of the world. 
 
 The old woman again appears, and directs him to write two books ; one of them 
 he must send to Clement [Clemens Rom. bishop of Rome], the other to Grapte 
 [a supposed deaconess at Rome]. Clement must publish them abroad among the 
 churches ; Grapte must read them among the widows and orphans. 
 
 Vision III. After repeated fastings, the aged woman again appears and directs 
 him to go into a field. On repairing thither he sees a seat, but no person near it. 
 After praying, the woman again appears, with six young men. She directs them 
 to go and build ; while she seats Hermas on the left part of the settee, telling him 
 that the right hand part of it is reserved as the place of honour for martyrs, (illo- 
 rum est qui jam meruerunt Deum, et passi sunt causa nominis ejus), . . . “ who 
 have endured wild beasts, scourgings, imprisonment, the cross, for his name’s 
 sake.” She then directs his attention to a great tower, that was being built over 
 the water with splendid squared stones. The six youth were engaged in building 
 it, and were assisted by many thousands of others Some of the stones were 
 taken from the abyss, and were all exactly fitted ; some from the land, which 
 were partly used and partly rejected. Many stones lay around the tower which 
 were not employed, some of them being rough, some full of seams, some round or 
 
§ 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 
 
 115 
 
 ill fitted for building. Some were thrown away at a great distance, and rolled 
 into a desert place ; others rolled into the fire ; others came near to the water, 
 but could not enter it. — In the sequel the woman tells him, that the tower is built 
 on the water, because salvation is by water. The youths are angels preeminent; 
 the other assistants, angels of inferior order. The stones well squared and shin- 
 ing are apostles, bishops, teachers, and ministers, who have taught and ministered 
 well to the elect of God, and who have fallen asleep. As to the stones brought 
 from the land unhewed, only a part of them are accepted. Those employed in 
 the building are the new converts. Those that lie near the building unemployed, 
 are such as have sinned and are willing to do penance, [the Greek here, no doubt, 
 was fixTavotiv ] ; those thrown at a distance are reprobates. Such as are not put 
 into the building, never can be received when it is once completed. 
 
 In like manner, all the different kinds of stones which are rejected, are made 
 symbolical of different classes of sinners, which are described at length. Hermas 
 inquires, whether penitence will avail anything, for such as have been rejected ; 
 the answer is that it will, in case it takes place while they are undergoing their 
 chastisement, and before the days of punishment are completed. [The germ of 
 purgatory.] 
 
 Hermas then sees seven women around the tower. These, he is told, are the 
 seven Christian graces, faith, abstinence, simplicity, innocence, modesty, disci- 
 pline, charity. He then desires to know when the consummation of the building 
 will take place, and is told : “ Cito consummabitur.” This Hermas is enjoined 
 to publish. Then follows an exhortation to alms-giving and to mutual love and 
 a pacific spirit. 
 
 The six young men who superintended the building of the tower, now come 
 and take away the aged woman to the tower, while four others transport her seat 
 thither. As she was going, Hermas inquires why she had assumed three differ- 
 ent forms in her appearances to him ; first as an old and infirm woman through- 
 out ; secondly, with somewhat of a juvenile face ; thirdly as younger and with 
 a cheerful and smiling aspect. She explains this by telling him that when she 
 first appeared to him, all his graces were in a feeble and as it were superannuated 
 condition, which was symbolized by her appearance ; that when she next appeared, 
 with a younger visage, he was like to an aged person who renews his strength on 
 the hearing of good tidings, which Hermas had in like manner heard. Her third 
 appearance, which was still more youthful and vigorous, was a symbol of Hermas’ 
 state who had become more cheerful and vigorous, after fasting so much and 
 having so many revelations imparted to him. 
 
 Thus ends this chapter of visions ; which betrays great poverty of in- 
 tellect and imagination, with feeble conceptions and very little taste for 
 congruity of representation. It appears to me, also, that here are some 
 indices of a later period than the commencement of the second century ; 
 but of this I shall speak in the sequel. 
 
 Vision J V. Twenty days after his former vision, he goes into the solitary fields, 
 and there, after awhile, he sees first a great cloud of dust, and then, on nearer 
 approach, a huge monster like a whale, vomiting forth fiery locusts. It was 100 
 feet in length, and its head was like an urn, and its mouth as if it might swallow 
 up the city. Armed with faith Hermas comes near, and the monster only throws 
 out its tongue at him. Its head was striped with black, red, golden, and white. 
 Passing the monster, a virgin soon meets him splendidly adorned. This was the 
 
116 
 
 § 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 
 
 church. She assures Hermas that he had escaped the great beast, by putting 
 his trust in God, who only is able to deliver. This beast [imitated from the Apoc- 
 alypse xiii. seq.] was the symbol of “ oppression yet to come.” If the church 
 will prepare for it, and put her trust in God, she shall also escape. The four 
 colours are symbolical ; the black is this dark World ; the red means that the wick- 
 ed age must perish by blood and fire ; the golden , that some will, like gold that is 
 purified, come out from the fire when their dross shall be purged away ; the 
 white represents the world to come, when all shall be pure and clean. These 
 things Hermas is enjoined to publish ; and then the virgin disappears with a loud 
 sound. 
 
 Book II. This consists of Twelve Mandates , moral and paraenetic. The Angel 
 of Penitence appears to Hermas, in the habit of a traveller, and delivers these 
 mandates. They concern faith in God ; the avoiding of slander and the doing of 
 alms ; the shunning of falsehood and penitence on account of dissimulation ; the 
 dismission of an adulteress ; sadness of heart and patience ; the two angels of 
 good and of evil : the fear of God, and boldness against demons; turning away 
 from evil and doing good; persevering and confident prayer; a gloomy mind 
 which offends the Spirit ; the trial of spirits by observing their respective opera- 
 tions ; the desire of good and avoidance of evil, also the possibility of keeping 
 God’s commands, and exhortation not to fear the devil. 
 
 There is much of dry and empty repetition in many of them ; also 
 a leaning toward superstition in respect to angels and demons, and 
 in regard to the matter of penitence. The moral tone is in itself pure 
 and high ; but the views of the writer are narrow, and his manner very 
 unattractive. There is nothing here, except the machinery which the 
 writer employs, which contains any resemblance to the Apocalypse in 
 general, and scarcely any even to the hortatory epistles which stand at 
 the commencement of the book. 
 
 Book III. Similitudes. These exhibit the continued address of the angel 
 who delivered the Mandates. Similitude I. is a homily against avarice and lux- 
 ury, and an exhortation to charity. Similitude II. Hermas walks into the fields, 
 and sees a vine covering an elm-tree and loaded with fruit. The angel appears, 
 and tells him that the elm symbolizes the rich man, who is poor in good works; 
 the vine represents the poor man, who attaches himself to the rich, prays for him, 
 and thus procures for him many good things which he would not otherwise obtain. 
 Thus the poor and the rich unitedly bring forth more fruit than either would 
 alone. Similitude III. The angel shows him trees whose leaves had fallen off. 
 These, appearing like dead trees, resemble the just who mix with the world and 
 conform to them, and thus appear as if they were dead to spiritual things. Si- 
 militude IV. The angel shows him trees, a part of which are green and flourish- 
 ing, and a part of them dry. The former symbolize the righteous in a future 
 world ; the latter, the wicked who will be burned in the fire. 
 
 Similitude V. After fasting, Hermas retires to a mountain, and there the an- 
 gel again appears, and tells him that his external fasting is not a true and real 
 fast. That such a one consists in preserving the mind pure, and in cultivating 
 the spirit of obedience. The similitude employed in the sequel is that of a ser- 
 vant, commanded to keep a vine safely and hedge it about ; which he not only 
 did, but diligently cultivated it, by digging the earth around it, etc. When his 
 lord came, he not only rewarded him for doing what he had commanded, but also 
 
§ 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 
 
 117 
 
 for his additional care and efforts. So it will be with those who keep fasts, i. e. 
 truly keep them. [The germ of merit in works supererogatory]. Afterwards the 
 angel says, that the farm on which the vine is planted, represents the world ; the 
 son, the Holy Spirit ; the faithful servant, the Saviour ; the vine, his people ; the 
 hedge about it, his messengers, etc. 
 
 Similitude VI. The angel takes Hermas again into the fields, and shows him 
 a shepherd superbly clad, and exulting in his sporting flocks; this is the genius 
 of pleasure, etc. He then shows another, of a stern and severe look and demean- 
 or ; this is the angel of punishment. A part of the sheep, who are not irreclaim- 
 able, will be punished a year for each day of sin, and thus they will be reclaimed. 
 Similitude VII. Hermas goes into the field sad and dejected because of his suf- 
 ferings and those of his house. The angel again appears and admonishes him to 
 be patient; for he and his house have sinned. If he is patient, he will in the 
 end reap an ample reward, and also his house. He promises to procure some 
 remission of their sufferings from the angel of punishment. 
 
 Similitude VIII. This presents a curious symbol, which is carried out with a 
 minuteness of detail that becomes tedious, although it is not destitute of ingen- 
 uity. Hermas is shown a vast spreading willow under which all the elect of the 
 Lord are gathered. An angel cuts off small boughs or rods from it, and gives to 
 all who stand under it. The tree still remains undiminished in its magnitude. 
 After a time all the rods are demanded from each. Some of them were dry and 
 putrid as if worm-eaten ; others simply dry ; then half dry, half dry with incisions, 
 one half entirely dry, one third, two thirds, the mere end of the rod dry with 
 incisions, wholly dry ; then follow the rods wholly green ; some with additional 
 shoots and others with shoots loaded with fruit. This latter class, i. e. all who 
 have flourishing rods, aie all admitted into the tower, and clothed in splendid 
 white vestments. As to all others, whose rods were partially or wholly dry, the 
 angel orders their rod to be planted in a moist place ; in order to see whether they 
 will sprout again. In the sequel, all present their rods to him ; most of them 
 had acquired some virescence, but this was very different in degree. The re- 
 mainder of a long chapter is then occupied with describing the respective classes 
 of Christians to whom these rods belonged, and whose condition was symbolized 
 by the state of the rod. Some were dry and rotten, some dry, some half dry, 
 some simply virescent, some frondescent, some frutescent, etc. Each one is ad- 
 mitted to such a place in the tower, or on the walls around it, as the state of his 
 rod indicates that he ought to be. Those with rods wholly dry, or dry and rotten, 
 are excluded and sent away to punishment, there being no more place for repent- 
 ance. 
 
 The explanation of the angel is, that the willow tree means the law over all the 
 world ; those under its shade, believers ; the angel who superintended the rods, 
 etc., is Michael, the guardian angel of God’s people ; the rods are the law which 
 he has put into their hearts ; the presentation and examination of the rods, is the 
 final trial of men, etc. There is a little of the romantic about some parts of the 
 allegory, which make it a matter of more interest than is attached to most of this 
 writer’s similitudes. At the same time, the doctrine of agere penitentiam (do pe- 
 nance) is plainly to be found here in its initial state ; and the great importance of 
 performing this duty during probation, is exhibited by the whole process of set- 
 ting out the rods in moist land and waiting for their vegetation. 
 
 Similitude IX. Hermas is led to a high mountain of Arcadia, from which he 
 sees a great plain, surrounded by twelve mountains. These were, the first black, 
 the next smooth without vegetation, the third overrun with thorns and thistles, 
 
118 
 
 § 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 
 
 the fourth full of half-dried herbage, the fifth rough and with vegetation, the sixth 
 full of fissures with withering vegetation on their sides, the seventh covered with 
 flourishing vegetation, the eighth full of water-springs and brooks, the ninth dry 
 and full of serpents, the tenth full of lofty shade-trees, the eleventh full of fruit- 
 trees loaded with fruit, and the twelfth white and shining in a most splendid man- 
 ner. Hermas then sees a vast white rock in the plain, higher than any of the 
 mountains, with a newly carved gate-way. Twelve virgins stand as porters. 
 Six lofty men now appear, and call others to assist them, in building a tower over 
 this gate-way. The virgins help forward the work. Ten white stones are then 
 brought from the deep, and put into the tower ; then other twenty-five stones, 
 then thirty-five, then forty more, all from the deep. Next stones are brought 
 from the mountains around. Of these some remained of the same colour, and 
 some changed their colour; the former not being introduced through the gate by 
 the virgins, and not being homogeneous with the rest of the building, were re- 
 moved from the tower. The structure was reared in one day, but not completed. 
 The coming of the Lord of the tower is to be waited for, before it is completed. 
 He comes after a little time accompanied by all the builders, and examines all the 
 stones, and orders those which are unfit to be taken out of the building. Others 
 dug from a quarry in the plain, are put in their stead. Those which had been re- 
 jected were ordered to be fitted anew, so far as might be done. Many, on trial, 
 proved to be incapable of being fitted for the buildings. Twelve women, dressed 
 in black, beautiful in appearance, without girdles, and with bare shoulders, are 
 ordered to carry away the rejected stones to the mountains. Hermas is left in 
 the keeping of the porter-virgins, during a short absence of the angel-interpreter. 
 Soon he returns, and the explanation commences. 
 
 The great white rock is the Son of God; the new gate, his incarnate condi- 
 tion ; the builders are the angels ; none can enter the kingdom of God, except 
 through the new gate. The tower is the church ; the twelve virgins, the porters, 
 are the graces which the Spirit of Christ bestows ; the stones cast away are repro- 
 bates, and such as have greatly transgressed ; but if these last will repent, they 
 may be again received. The virgins are faith, abstinence, resolution, patience, etc. 
 The women in loose attire are perfidy, intemperance, unbelief, pleasure, etc. 
 The first ten stones put into the tower are the first age of Christianity ; the twenty 
 are the second : the thirty-five are prophets and ministers of the Lord ; the forty 
 the apostles and teachers of gospel-doctrines. The taking of the stones from the 
 water, denotes the efficacy of baptism as a preparation for the kingdom of heaven. 
 When the apostles were dead, they went and preached to those qui ante obierunt , 
 and gave to them this sign [baptism]. These come up from the water, vivi. [A 
 germ of Purgatory.] 
 
 Hermas then obtains an explanation of what is symbolized by the different 
 character and appearance of the twelve mountains around the plain. These de- 
 signate different classes of Christians, of hypocrites, reprobates, etc., which the 
 author particularizes even to great and tedious length. The twelfth mountain 
 only deserves particular remark. It is all white and shining ; a symbol of those 
 “ who believe without dissimulation, like infants, who will be more especially 
 honoured, . . . Ornnes enim infantes honorati sunt apud Dominum, et primi ha- 
 bentur.” [Such seems to have been the general feeling of the primitive age of 
 Christianity.] 
 
 There is very much of tedious and arid repetition in this ninth Similitude. The 
 imagination of the tower , as described in Vision III, seems to have haunted the 
 mind of the author with so much urgency, or at least filled it with so much de- 
 
§ 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 
 
 119 
 
 light, that he could not forbear the echo of it again in this place, with some va- 
 riations ; and he has prolonged the echo much beyond the original sound. 
 
 Similitude X. Exhortation agere poenitentiam. Hermas must exhort others 
 to do the same. The angel shepherd, i. e. tiie angel of penitence, will be sent to 
 dwell with him ; also the virgins, i. e. the Christian graces. If he perseveres and 
 keeps his house pure, then they will continue their abode with him. Kindness 
 and charity are to be exercised toward all. Hermas must do these things forth- 
 with, and diligently, lest the building of the tower should be completed and he 
 be excluded. 
 
 The intelligent reader will perceive at once, that there is very little 
 in the Shepherd of Hermas, which compares well with the Apocalypse, 
 excepting what may be named the machinery of the piece, i. e. the in- 
 tervention of angels, the frequent employment of symbols, and the warn- 
 ings and threatenings which have some resemblance in point of matter 
 to those in the epistles to the seven churches, Rev. ii. iii. But it is 
 highly profitable to read such a book as this of Hermas, were it for no 
 other purpose than to learn the immeasurable difference there is between 
 the Apocalypse and other productions of early ages, which are more or 
 less modelled after it. The barren imagination, the feeble conceptions, 
 the dry and aphoristic style, the repetitions so ofteSHterated, the childish 
 conceits, the monkish ascetics, of the Shepherd of Hermas — all place it 
 immeasurably below the work of John, and show how completely the 
 factitious efforts of early times to imitate him, failed in all important re- 
 spects. One needs but to survey the whole ground with his own eyes, 
 in order to be entirely convinced of the correctness of these remarks. 
 
 Undoubtedly some allowance is to be made for the Latin dress in 
 which the Shepherd is presented to us. The original was Greek, a few 
 passages of which have been preserved by quotation, and are presented 
 in the edition of Cotelerius I. p. 75 seq. The translation, like that of 
 Irenaeus, is in general a dead literality, (if I may be allowed the ex- 
 pression) ; and somewhat frequently it is obscure because the translator 
 does not seem to have fully understood the meaning of his original. 
 It seems to me also, that some of the version is tinctured with the reli- 
 gious views of the times when it was made. Thus yezavotm is render- 
 ed ay ere poenitentiam (to do penance), as we know from the examples 
 where the Greek text is preserved ; e. g. p. 97, idv \ir\ pezavo^oei, Lat. 
 si non poenitentiam egerit; p. 101, iva ?} yezdvoia avzwv xa&aQa yevrj- 
 zai, where the Latin is : Ut poenitentiam agant et poenitentia eorum 
 munda fieret ; p. 109, iiv de yezavorjC(oai xal dvavrjxpwGi, Lat. et cum 
 coeperint delictorum agere poenitentiam, tunc ascendunt in praecordia 
 eorum opera sua. Here the same spirit was operating, which has led 
 one part of the church in modern times to translate fiezavoeize by do 
 penance . Besides ; one needs only to compare the Greek passages with 
 the Latin, in order to see that, notwithstanding its literality, it has often 
 indulged in diffuse paraphrase. 
 
120 
 
 § 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 
 
 Independently however of any errors of translation, it lies upon the 
 face of the whole work, that it was written by an ascetic, who laid un- 
 due stress upon fasts and vigils, and had some superstitious views in re- 
 gard to other subjects. Thus (p. 70) sexual inclination seems to be re- 
 presented as being in itself a sin ; the tower (p. 7 9) built on the water 
 signifies, that u vita nostra per aquam salva facta est, et fiet apostles 
 and teachers “ have died and preached to those who were dead” plainly 
 said on p. 120 penitence may be attained to, after a first trial and re- 
 jection, i. e. may be obtained in purgatory, p. 80 ; offenders of a certain 
 class will be sent to another place, where they will repent, and then be 
 admitted into the tower [the heavenly church] after they have once 
 been excluded, p. 80, col. 2 ; omnis rogatio humilitate eget, jejuna ergo 
 et percipies a Domino quod postulas, i. e. the penance of fasting is pe- 
 culiarly grateful to God, p. 81. Celibacy, also, is earnestly recommend- 
 ed, p. 90 ; works of supererogation inculcated : Si autem praeter ea quae 
 mandavit Dominus, aliquid boni adjeceris, majorem dignitatem tibi con- 
 quires, et honoratio apud Dominum eris quam eras futurus, p. 106. 
 Besides these strong marks of a later age, Hermas speaks of “ apostles, 
 bishops, teachers, and ministers . . . who have taught, etc.” (p. 80) ; and 
 on p. 113 he characterizes one sort of offenders in the church, as having 
 “ contentionem de principatu et dignitate.” These and other things of 
 the like nature point, as it seems to me, very clearly to a later age than 
 the close of the first century, as the period when the Pastor of Hermas 
 was written. 
 
 Accordingly we find no notice of this work in Justin Martyr, who is 
 sufficiently prone to advert to works of this nature. But Irenaeus and 
 Tertullian and Clemens Alex, quote it, the latter oftentimes. Of these, 
 however, only Tertullian ascribes the authorship to Hermas. But Ori- 
 gen has often quoted it ; and in one place (Explanat. in Rom. 16: 14), 
 he says : “ I think the Hermas there mentioned [viz. in Rom. 16: 14] is 
 the writer of the book called Pastor ; which writing appears to me to be 
 very useful, and as I suppose, divinely inspired.” One would hardly 
 deem it possible for Origen to entertain such an opinion respecting a 
 performance like that before us, when he is usually quite cautious in re- 
 gard to apocryphal books. As an offset for this criticism, however, we 
 have the opinion of the author of the anonymous fragment on the Canon 
 in Muratori, who declares that “ Hermas, in the city of Rome, very 
 lately wrote the Pastor, Pius his brother being bishop of the Romish 
 church.” If this be correct, then was the book written about A. D. 
 150. Earlier than this, the internal evidence does not fairly permit 
 us to believe that it was composed. 
 
 That such a book should have gained the credit it did in ancient times, 
 must be owing more to its conformity to the fashion of the day, than to 
 
§ 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 
 
 121 
 
 its merits. Its ascetics are rigid and pure ; its symbolical character 
 commended it to Origen, who was much devoted to allegory, and to 
 whom the Canticles was the most precious part of all the Old Tes- 
 tament, for there he could sail, as Jerome says, “ cuin pleno velo.” 
 "With the Canon, however, it was rarely ranked. Tertullian speaks of 
 it with ineffable contempt, after he became a Montanist : “ Scriptura 
 Pastoris, quae sola in moechos amat,” de Pud. c. 10. Even Origen says, 
 more than once : Si cui tamen libellus ille recipiendus videtur ; Horn. 
 I. in Ps. 37. So in Horn. 8 in Num. So again : Libello Pastoris, qui 
 a nonnullis contemni videtur, Pliiloc. c. 1 ; and thus elsewhere. The 
 reader will find all the quotations of Hermas by the earlier fathers, in 
 Cotelerius, Patt. Apostol. I. p. 68 seq. How this could be deemed re - 
 vera utilis liber , as Jerome calls it (Catal. Script. Ecc. v. Hermas), can 
 be accounted for, as it seems to me, only in the way that I have already 
 suggested above. 
 
 In the mean time its excellence, or want of excellence, is not the 
 main question with us at present. Our object is, to find by the reading 
 of this book, what kind of views and taste was common at the time in 
 which it was written. The author, in Vision II. ad fin., plainly intends 
 to lead liis readers to suppose, that he lived in the time of Clement of 
 Rome, inasmuch as he mentions directions given to him by the angel, 
 to present Clement with a copy of the book which the aged woman had 
 bidden him to transcribe. I cannot but look on this as a designed effort 
 to conceal the true age of the author. Let any one come to the reading 
 of him, fresh from the perusal of works which really belong to the first 
 century, and he can entertain no doubts, at least it strikes me so, that 
 the work before us must be assigned to a later date. Bleek says that 
 he finds no evidence to satisfy his mind, that it is not among the earliest 
 productions. How can he have read it with scrutinizing attention ? F. 
 Liicke, on the other hand, (Einleit. in die Apoc. p. 142 seq.), assigns it 
 to the middle of the second century ; in which I fully concur. 
 
 [The reader will find most of the literature which he needs respecting Her- 
 mas, in Cotelerius. His Judicium de S. Herrnae Pastorc (Vol. 1. p. 73), however, 
 shows a strong leaning to traditional authority. He pronounces all the accusa- 
 tions brought against the work, to be founded frivolo aut nulio j undamento . So, 
 as a Romanist, he might think ; for purgatory, and penance, and celibacy, all find 
 their earliest supports in the Pastor. Resides the common judgment respecting 
 the work, contained in ecclesiastical histories, the reader will find a short cri- 
 tique in Ltlcke (Einl. p. 141 seq ) ; also in all the Bibliothecas of ancient ecclesi- 
 astical authors. The book needs a new editor, and a much more thorough sifting 
 than it has yet received.] 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 16 
 
122 
 
 § 6. APOCRYPHAL APOCALYPSE OF JOHN. 
 
 (g) The apocryphal Apocalypse of John. 
 
 An attempt to mend the work of John, even under his name and 
 with most evident plagiarism, could hardly have been expected. Yet in 
 an age when compositions of this nature abounded to an excessive de- 
 gree, such an attempt was made ; and it bears the title of Ji 7ToxdXvxpig 
 rov dylov dnoGrolov . . . : Icodvvov . 
 
 ~No ancient writer has mentioned this production, excepting Theodo- 
 sius, the grammarian as he is called. Of this writer we know but little. 
 He is supposed by some to have been a native of Alexandria, and to 
 have belonged to the corps of Byzantine grammarians. Some of his trea- 
 tises on grammar have been lately published ; but his age, and country 
 even, remain undecided. In his ’EQwrrjgara tzsqi rcov nQOG(pdicov he 
 says : “ Another apocalypse bears the name rov {teoloyov [an appella- 
 tion of John the author of the Apocalypse] ; but we do not say that it 
 belongs to him of the isle of Patmos. Mij ysvoirol For this is most 
 true and real [^dlrjd'SGrdri] sGr(v~] ; but we speak of one which is pseu- 
 donymous and belongs to a different author.”* The contents of this 
 production will show that it belongs to a late age, and is deserving of 
 very little consideration.! They are as follows : 
 
 John, after the ascension of Christ, goes to mount Tabor. There he prays, and 
 requests that it may be revealed to him, when Christ will come again on earth, 
 and what changes will ensue in consequence of his coming. 
 
 After seven days of prayer, a bright cloud takes him away toward heaven. He 
 hears a voice saying : “ Hear, holy John, and understand.” He then perceives 
 heaven opened, smells a most grateful perfume, and streams of light pour down 
 upon him. He then sees a book with seven seals, as thick as seven mountains, 
 and so long that no man could measure it. This is the book which concerns the 
 future. He desires to know its contents. These are disclosed : first there will 
 be an abundance of corn and wine ; then a scarcity. Then Antichrist will come, 
 in a fearful form. The heavens will be as brass ; there will be no dew, no rain, 
 cloud, or wind. Three years will Antichrist reign, and then Enoch and Elijah 
 will come to expose his deceit. But they will perish ; and all men with them. 
 The angels will then be sent to blow the trumpet and wake the dead to life. All 
 distinction of sex, rank, etc., will then cease. The angels will next be sent over 
 all the earth, to get together all that is valuable, theholy images , and vessels of the 
 
 * The reader will find an account of Theodosius, and of his published works, in 
 Schoell’s Geschichte d. Griech. Lit. III. p. 173. It is somewhat singular, that 
 this obscure writer should be the only one that seems to have noticed the apocry- 
 phal book in question. 
 
 t 1 have not the Auctarium Cod. Apoc. of Birch at hand, which contains the 
 only printed copy of this apocryphal work, in Fasc. I. p. 243 — 260; unless, in- 
 deed, Thilo has republished it in his Corpus of apocryphal productions. My ac- 
 count of the work, therefore, is taken from Ltlcke’s Einl. I. p. 146 seq. 
 
§ 6. APOCRYPHAL APOCALYPSE OF JOHN. 
 
 123 
 
 churches, the precious crucifixes , and the holy books. The Lord will take his scep- 
 tre in his hand, and all angels will fall prostrate, all human beings be elevated to 
 heaven. All the etil spirits, and Antichrist whom they aid, will be swept off the 
 eartli by clouds. The Lord will send the angels to burn up the earth and all that 
 is in it : and thus all will be purified. The earth will then say : lama young vir- 
 gin, and there is no sin in me. An angel will then appear and proclaim the coming 
 of the Lord. Heaven and earth will shake at the sound 5 the heavens will open, and 
 the new Jerusalem with delightful odour come down, adorned as a bride for her 
 husband. Then Christ will descend in majesty and pomp, with myriads of angels 
 and archangels, who bear his throne, and sing the ifisagion. The judgment will 
 follow. The seven seals of the great book will be opened. The opening of the 
 first will make the stars to fall ; of the second, will eclipse the sun ; of the third, 
 will melt down the heavens ; of the fourth, will make the moon to fall ; of the 
 fifth, will rend the earth in pieces; of the sixth, will bring Hades to destruction; 
 of the seventh, will dry up the sea. Then follows the judgment of the evil spirits 
 of Antichrist. They will be cast into outer darkness, into a gulf so deep, that a 
 heavy stone Would not reach the bottom in falling three years. Unbelieving 
 Greeks and heathen are next judged, and cast into Hades, [the writer forgets that 
 the opening of the sixth seal had destroyed Hades] ; then the Jews, who cruci- 
 fied the Saviour, will be cast into Tartarus. Those who bear the name of Chris- 
 tians will be separated, true Christians will be placed on the right hand of the 
 judge, and will shine in glory : hypocrites on the left hand, and be covered with 
 darkness. The faithful will then live in an earthly paradise, and angels with 
 them; and all evil and trouble and earthly vicissitudes will cease. 
 
 John is commanded to impart these things to faithful men, and not to cast his 
 pearls before swine. A cloud then brings him back to mount Tabor, and the 
 writer concludes with a doxology. 
 
 Is it not now one of the most extraordinary conceits that ever entered 
 the mind of man, that the genuine Apocalypse was to be bettered by such 
 a substitute as this ? Not a few compositions, however, of ancient times 
 exist, that can well claim a near affinity to this in point of style and 
 spirit. 
 
 Two or three circumstances fully settle the question as to the late- 
 ness of the age in which this must have been written. One is, the 
 mention of holy images and precious crucifixes ; which are known to 
 have been common and counted sacred in churches, only since the fourth 
 century. The writing also mentions narQictQ^ai as an order among 
 Christians ; but this designation did not come into use, until the fifth 
 century. 
 
 The writer appears to have confounded the Millennium of John with 
 the period which is to follow the general judgment ; and to be so much 
 of a \pv%ix6g in his conceptions, that an earthly paradise is the beau ideal 
 of his heaven. No wonder that his production obtained but very little 
 notice at any period. 
 
124 
 
 § 6. GENERAL REMARKS ON 
 
 (h) General Remarks on the preceding Apocryphal Compositions. 
 
 The reader must not mistake my design in the exhibition of these 
 relics of the early ages. Nothing can be further from my intention, 
 than to place them by the side of the Apocalypse of John, as possessing 
 similar value and authority. Indeed, I know of no more successful way 
 for any one to convince himself that the writer of the canonical Apoc- 
 alypse was entirely a different man from any of the authors of the fic- 
 titious Revelations — different not in his individual person merely, but 
 in his views, feelings, special objects aimed at, and conscious mastery of 
 all the subjects which he undertook to exhibit — than to read the apoc- 
 ryphal books which I have examined. Others may account for this 
 difference as they judge best ; but as to the actual difference in question, 
 I am ready to believe that no intelligent man, well acquainted with the 
 subject, will attempt to deny it. For myself I am persuaded, that the 
 spirit which animated the feelings and enlightened the mind of John, 
 was distinct from, and far superior to, the spirit which controlled the 
 feelings and views of the apocryphal writers in question. 
 
 Ewald, as has already been intimated, makes the supposition (p. 9), 
 that John has largely drawn from the book of Enoch. I have already 
 given the reasons why I cannot assent to this. All the apocryphal 
 works now before us, bear marks of a composition subsequent to, or in- 
 dependent of, the Apocalypse. And if I am asked, as it is natural I 
 should be, why then I have brought them to view and dwelt upon them 
 so long ; my answer is not difficult. They exibit the taste and the 
 usus loquendi of the age in which they were written. The simple fact, 
 that there are so many of these compositions at and near the close of the 
 first century, of itself shows the demand in which they stood among 
 Christians, and in some respects even among Jews. Why should this 
 form of composition be chosen, and resorted to by so many, if the pop- 
 ular demand were not such as to secure it some good degree of favora- 
 ble reception ? 
 
 If now we make the supposition, that the Apocalypse of John led the 
 way in compositions of an apocalyptic nature during the first century, 
 and gave to them a popularity which called forth other works in a some- 
 what similar style ; then it would follow of course, that the Apocalypse 
 must very early have been popular to a high degree, even so as to con- 
 trol the taste of the Christian community. But if this be doubted, then 
 we must still concede, that the taste of the day, whatever were the 
 causes of it, demanded works of such a cast. Whether this taste had 
 gradually arisen from the favorite study of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zecha- 
 riah, or whatever might have called it forth, nothing can be plainer, than 
 
APOCRYPHAL REVELATIONS. 
 
 125 
 
 that John wrote the Apocalypse in such a manner as was adapted to 
 meet the desires and wishes of the times in which he lived. He might 
 have communicated all the simple historical or didactic truth which he 
 has now taught, within the compass of a single chapter, by plain, pro- 
 saic, and direct propositions, without any allegory or continued sym- 
 bols. But if he had, it would neither have made so deep an impression 
 on the mind and memory of his readers, nor given them so much plea- 
 sure by its perusal. Why might he not prefer symbol, as well as the 
 writers of the 18th Psalm, of Is. xiv, and of many parts of Ezekiel, of 
 Daniel, and of Zechariah ? 
 
 When the reader is well aware of this general ground, he will see 
 more plainly the object I had in view, in dwelling upon the apocryphal 
 works that are contemporary, or nearly so, with the Apocalypse. The 
 general taste and feeling, in respect to works of this nature, are thus 
 illustrated. Nor is this by any means even the principal good to be de- 
 rived from a knowledge of such works. The usus loquendi of the day, 
 in regard to sacred tilings and symbols, as well as the costume of pre- 
 dictions respecting the future, has more or less of light cast upon them 
 by almost every page of an apocryphal work. Bombastic, declamatory, 
 and even puerile, as many of the Sibylline Oracles are, yet inasmuch as 
 they axe poetry, (which the Apocalypse also in its essence is), and some 
 of them precede and some synchronize with the Apocalypse, and others 
 follow it, they help much to show the spirit and feeling and taste of the 
 day, and cast light on many an idiom and mode of description which 
 John employs. 
 
 As an example in point, I may again refer to the description of the 
 beast, at the close of chap, xiii, where his number is said to be 666. This 
 has been called Cabbalistic, mystical, puerile, fanciful, and what not, by 
 some ancient and many recent writers. Yet we may show, (as I have 
 done above, p. 102 seq.), that the contemporaries of John did not re- 
 gard this subject in such a light ; yea, we may even venture to suggest, 
 that under the circumstances in which John wrote, some such method 
 of concealing partially the individual aim of the writer, was quite ex- 
 pedient. 
 
 There is another and most important influence, which the perusal of 
 such works as apocryphal revelations will almost insure. It is a fami- 
 liarity with style and imagery, such as pertain to apocalyptic writings. 
 A man who has never read any work kindred to the Apocalypse, may 
 naturally feel that many things are very peculiar and strange in it. lie 
 is led, insensibly perhaps, to feel that there is something visionary or 
 enthusiastic in the style of John, and begins after awhile to read him 
 with less respect than he reads Paul or Luke. But let him once steep 
 himself (if I may be allowed so to speak) in the usus loquendi and the 
 
126 
 
 § 6. APOCRYPHAL REVELATIONS. 
 
 favourite style of the day, what before appeared strange or fanciful, is 
 no longer capable of producing such an impression. The nearer he can 
 come to such a state of feeling and views as belonged to the contempo- 
 raries of John, the less will he find which is strange, or which excites sur- 
 prise, in the style and imagery of the Apocalypse. 
 
 The reader will permit me to refer to a familiar illustration. Noth- 
 ing can appear more strange, or enthusiastic and extravagant, to a calm 
 occidental man, than the language employed in the intercourse between 
 the higher and lower ranks in Persia. Yet by the time that one has 
 read through Sir John Malcolm’s Notes on Persia, Morier’s Hadji Baba 
 and Zohrab, and also Fraser’s Kuzzil Bash, (not much, if any, inferior 
 in characterizing to either of the preceding works), he begins to sit as 
 quietly under Persian compliments, and displays of titles, and professions 
 of warm devotedness, as he does under the ordinary modes of address 
 and professions of respect and obedience in our western world. Every- 
 thing of such a nature depends on the fashion of the times for its real 
 meaning, and of course on the proper light in which it is to be viewed. 
 The man who has never made the experiment, cannot well foretel 
 what effect it will produce upon his feelings, and even his criticisms, 
 with respect to any book of antiquity. It is — it must be — true, that 
 every book, when written by a man of sense who designs to instruct, is 
 and must be conformed to the spirit and the dialect of the times in which 
 it was written. Do we judge amiss then, when we say, that everything 
 which helps to acquire a familiarity with that spirit and that dialect, must 
 be useful in the explanation of any particular work ? This familiarity 
 may evidently be much improved, by reading the apocryphal revelations 
 in question. One sits down, after such a process, in company with the 
 Apocalypse, as with an acquaintance already more than half familiar to 
 him. 
 
 IIow exceedingly different such a slow and gradual process of gain- 
 ing a knowledge of the apocalyptic style and method is, from that which 
 judges of John’s meaning by a priori reasoning, determining what he 
 does mean by what they think he ought to mean, or by judging hastily 
 and lightly from mere appearances and first impressions, or from mysti- 
 cal and cabbalistic views — no one needs to be told who is a just and pro- 
 per judge of these matters. It surely is not every tyro, who can well 
 explain the Apocalypse. Well will it be, indeed, if solid scholarship 
 and several decades of study, can even begin to afford the requisite ex- 
 planations. It is the manner of the book which makes this difficulty— 
 the manner as viewed by us during our first impressions, and without 
 due preparation for reading it. It is not to be reasonably supposed, 
 that John’s contemporaries experienced the same difficulty. 
 
 To sum up all in a few words : John wrote in order to be read and 
 
§ 7. FORM OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 127 
 
 understood ; and therefore intelligent persons of his day might under- 
 stand him. If they did, it was by virtue of familiarity with language 
 and imagery such as he employed. Now whatever helps us to place 
 ourselves in a situation like to that of John’s original readers, helps us 
 to read his book intelligently. It follows of course, that the apocryphal 
 books, written at or near his time, which exhibit to us either the lan- 
 guage or the style and imagery of that period, must afford us important 
 aid in reading and understanding the Apocalypse. 
 
 All comparison of their value in respect to instruction, or in relation 
 to aesthetics, with that of the Apocalypse, will only serve to show their 
 insignificance, and the immeasurable superiority of the canonical Reve- 
 lation. But even for such a purpose, a comparison of them is of serious 
 importance. 
 
 § 7. Peculiar form and arrangement of the Apocalypse. 
 
 The considerations in regard to this subject which I design in this 
 place to bring to view, are, in several respects, only of a more general 
 nature. Minute particulars in which the Apocalypse differs, as to dic- 
 tion or the turn of thought, from other writings either canonical or un- 
 canonical, must be reserved for the detail of representation, either in the 
 Introduction or the Commentary. What will be here said has respect 
 to peculiar form and arrangement. 
 
 (1) When we institute a comparison between John and the ancient He- 
 brew prophets, there is one circumstance at the outset which immediately 
 commands our attention. No prophecy of the Old Testament is thrown 
 into the form of an epistle. Nearly all of the prophecies in the Hebrew 
 Scriptures have the form of an address , or (as we may say) of a sermon ; 
 and in nearly all there is mingled much of warning, reproof, exhorta- 
 tion, and the like. In this latter respect the Apocalypse bears indeed a 
 close resemblance ; for throughout the whole composition, the writer 
 gives a practical turn to everything which he introduces, and often ad- 
 monishes, warns, and encourages. But John is alone in addressing his 
 whole work to particular communities of the pious, prefixed by individual 
 epistles to the same. In these epistles he has developed the true state 
 of things among the churches of his day, and shown what was the real 
 condition of them which called forth the work before us. 
 
 As Lucke has well remarked, we must not regard the inscription of 
 his work to the seven churches of Asia, in the light of a mere dedica- 
 tion. It was not to procure favour and patronage for the Apocalypse, 
 that the writer adopted such a measure. The churches in question were 
 deeply concerned with the contents of the work. They were exposed 
 to the dangers and trials which it discloses, and to the apostasy against 
 
128 
 
 § 7 . PECULIARITIES OF FORM 
 
 which it so anxiously warns. No measure could be better adapted to 
 secure,. their attention to the book, than the one which John chose, viz. 
 that of addressing them individually by epistle. In the main body of 
 his work, he introduces warnings and admonitions which belong to all of 
 them in common. But in the epistles, he finds opportunity of saying 
 some things which are appropriate to the particular condition of each 
 church. So soon as he has done this, the epistolary form of the compo- 
 sition is abandoned, and the writer betakes himself to a method of repre- 
 sentation, which is free from any of the embarrassments that a continu- 
 ance of it might have occasioned. The transition however, in chap, iv, 
 is so easy and natural, that most readers scarcely notice it. This cir- 
 cumstance shows the tact of the writer ; and the whole plan of the work 
 shows, at all events, the independence of its author, and the originality 
 of his conceptions, notwithstanding the very numerous subordinate re- 
 semblances, in parts of the work, to passages in the Old Test. Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 When the prophetic part of the work is completed, the writer returns, 
 in chap. 22: 16 seq., to his direct address to the churches, and with strik- 
 ing effect. He leaves a deep impression on the reader of earnestness 
 and sincerity. 
 
 (2) So far as John has followed any model in the form of his work, 
 as it respects the use of symbols, he may be said to have conformed par- 
 ticularly to Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah. In his symbols he most of 
 all resembles Daniel ; in his angelic machinery , (so to speak), he resem- 
 bles both Daniel and Zechariah i — viii. Even these prophets, however, 
 less frequently employ agencies of this nature, than the writer of the 
 Apocalypse. 
 
 Nowhere in the Old Testament is there such an uninterrupted and 
 continuous employment of symbols , as in the Apocalypse. Nearly all the 
 prophets occasionally resort to this kind of composition. Yet it is un- 
 frequent, and usually very brief, everywhere except in the three pro- 
 phets already named. Even there, it is brief and interrupted, in com- 
 parison with what we find it to be in the book before us. In this the 
 symbols are so arranged, that one part necessarily runs into another, 
 and thus makes out a series of continuous and mutually related parts. 
 While a minute examination will disclose the continual variety which 
 the writer introduces in his light and shade, yet the great outlines of all 
 parts of the work are so drawn, as to show that a mutual relation to, 
 and dependence on, each other, is a matter of calculation and design. 
 I could no more bring myself to believe, that different writers composed 
 fragments of this book which were afterwards brought together by some 
 other hand, than I could believe that the different parts of a watch were 
 accidentally and independently invented, and were finally adjusted to- 
 
IN THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 129 
 
 gether by some person skilful in making compounds. The sequel will 
 cast further light on this part of our subject. 
 
 That John differs strikingly, in many respects, from most of the 
 earlier Hebrew prophets, will be felt by every discerning reader. Not 
 that the latter are wanting in figurative language, bold metaphors, glow- 
 ing comparisons, and in occasional symbols. But there is in them far 
 more of preaching than of prediction. For the' most part, also, they are 
 more concerned with the proximate than with the remote future ; and, 
 if we except Is. xl — lxvi, nearly all the pictures of the distant future 
 are but merely brief sketches. The peculiarity of Is. xl — lxvi. has been 
 urged against its early composition, and not without some show of reason, 
 if mere analogy were competent to decide such a question. John, how- 
 ever, not only uses figurative language and metaphor abundantly, but 
 he introduces symbols of such a nature, that a gradual development of 
 them is so made out as to carry on (if I may thus express it) the repre- 
 sentation of a long series of historic actions. In Daniel, indeed, we find 
 several pieces of a similar character ; but even here, the representations 
 are quite brief compared with those in the Apocalypse. 
 
 (3) In regard to the particular method of the disclosures made to 
 John, it differs somewhat from all others in the Scripture. It is not in 
 dreams or visions of the night. These in their nature wear the appear- 
 ance of something transitory and brief, if not of something in a degree 
 obscure. They do not seem to be appropriate for such a series of dis- 
 closures as John makes. It is not the mere fact, that Christianity will 
 triumph over all opposition, and fill the world with the fruits of its victo- 
 ries, which John discloses. The development of successive and stirring 
 events, is what he has also, in some degree, undertaken to make. Con- 
 sidered in this light, a mere passing dream or vision is not altogether 
 appropriate, as a method of disclosure. The prophet, in the present 
 case, falls into a waking holy ecstasy. He is at first overpowered by the 
 magnificence and splendour of the scene before him. But being strength- 
 ened and encouraged, he resumes the use of all his powers. The Chris- 
 tophany , in chap i — iii, takes place in Patmos, on earth ; but the suc- 
 ceeding visions are partly in heaven (4: 1 seq.), and partly on the sea- 
 shore (12: 18 or 13: 1), and partly in the wilderness (17: 3 seq.). In 
 the circumstance, that John in his ecstasy is rapt into the heavenly 
 world, he stands alone. No prophet before was introduced to a similar 
 scene, in such a way. Paul, indeed, was caught up into the third 
 heaven ; but he heard words “ which it was not lawful to utter,” 2 Cor. 
 12: 1 seq. John has uttered what he heard and saw. 
 
 There is something strikingly appropriate in all this. If John was 
 to be fitted to disclose what was contained in the heavenly book which 
 
 VOL. i. 17 
 
130 
 
 § 7. PECULIARITIES OF FORM 
 
 was sealed with seven seals, then the contents of this book must be in- 
 spected in an appropriate manner, and in one different from that which 
 was common in more ordinary disclosures. The tact of the writer, (if 
 indeed this circumstance were to be attributed to tact), would exhibit 
 itself here manifestly to great advantage. At all events, the whole thing 
 is very appropriately conducted and represented. The apocryphal pro- 
 ductions of the Ascension of Isaiah, and the fourth book of Ezra, the 
 Book of Enoch, and also the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs (c. 
 Levi), exhibit a similar rapture into heaven, copied, perhaps, more or 
 less directly from the Apocalypse, or at any rate resulting from the taste 
 which it had introduced, or fostered. Yet how faint are the impressions 
 made upon the reader, by these latter works ! How immeasurably in- 
 ferior to the lofty and thrilling exhibitions proffered to our view by the 
 Apocalyptist ! Whoever doubts the superior illumination of John’s 
 mind, when he wrote the Revelation, will do well to read the apocry- 
 phal works in question, and make the comparison. 
 
 (4) Thus far we have compared the Apocalypse, as to its epistolary 
 form, and as to the nature, frequency, and continuous series of its sym- 
 bols, with the Hebrew prophets of the Old Testament. We come now 
 to another development respecting the form of this book, of a somewhat 
 different nature. It has special respect to that part of the general idea 
 of form, which concerns the arrangement of the contents, or the order in 
 which the respective parts of composition are presented to us, and the 
 relation in which they stand to each other and to a common principle 
 of arrangement. 
 
 If I did not fear being taxed with an ambition to coin new words, I 
 might call a prominent principle of arrangement throughout the Apoca- 
 lypse, the principle of Numerosity. I must even do this, at the risk of 
 critical disapprobation. This word does not mean, as employed by me, 
 that the book consists of many or numerous parts ; for to designate this 
 idea, one might speak of its numerousness, which is an old word. I do not 
 mean moreover, by numerosity, to designate in this place the idea, that 
 the book is composed in poetic measure, which is often called numbers ; 
 although it is in reality modelled, in some degree and through most of 
 the work, after the Hebrew poetic parallelisms. What I wish to desig- 
 nate is simply this, viz., that the Apocalypse throughout, with scarcely 
 any exception, is so arranged, that either the number 3, or else 7, 4, 10, 
 12, and (if parallelism be counted) 2, control its modes of development, 
 i. e. the arrangement of its parts, greater and smaller, the grouping of its 
 objects, the assignment of attributes to them, the epexegetical clauses, 
 and the order of action main and subordinate. Above all, the number 
 three stands conspicuous in the whole plan, in all its parts considera- 
 ble or minute. Next to this stands the so-called sacred number seven ; 
 
IN THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 131 
 
 then four , then twelve, and lastly ten. Parallelism, as exhibited in He- 
 brew poetry, not of the strictest kind but of that which is more free 
 from rigid rule, reigns nearly everywhere. But I do not reckon this 
 as a part of the numerosity of the book. All critics are now agreed, 
 that the Apocalypse is poetic in its very genius and nature. It is not, 
 indeed, in Greek or Latin measure. But it is substantially of the same 
 nature with Hebrew poetry, as to its diction, its symbols, and the whole 
 round of its ideas. Yet few, if any, have undertaken to trace even the 
 evidences of Hebrew parallelism or stichometry in it ; and almost none 
 speak of its numerosity , with the exception of Ewald and Zullig, who 
 have disclosed some small part of it.* 
 
 That parallelism for substance reigns almost everywhere, (some ex- 
 ceptions we may find in all prophecy, even in Isaiah), needs no other 
 proof than an attentive perusal of the book by any one who Is familiar 
 with Hebrew poetry. The disjecta membra poetae are found on every 
 side, and in every quarter. It would be superfluous to make a formal 
 attempt to prove what lies open to noon-day inspection. Hereafter I 
 shall, however, exhibit a few specimens of the usual parallelisms of the 
 book. My present object is to produce evidence of the numerosity in 
 question throughout the Apocalypse. 
 
 (a) Trichotomy, or tripartite divisions and groups, in the Apocalypse. 
 
 (1) The first and leading division of this nature, (which however is 
 hardly artificial), is, (a) The Prologue, chap, i — iii. ( b ) The Visions 
 or main body of the work, iv — xxii. 5. ( c ) The Epilogue, 22: 6 — 21. 
 Each of these divisions exhibits trichotomy, moreover, in all its grada- 
 tions, throughout its appropriate subdivisions. 
 
 * The first of these, only in a few cases toward the close of the book ; the lat- 
 ter, more fully, but in many respects in a very inadequate and unsatisfactory way. 
 Zilllig’s book I have not ; but a copious review of it, (in Studien und Kritiken, 
 1842. Heft. III.), has given a disclosure of his views on the subject of numerosity. 
 This I read, however, only after all my own views were formed, and published 
 in paTt in a little pamphlet for the use of the class-room. Zullig, (Offenba- 
 rung Johannis, 2 vol. 8vo. 1834 — 40), has made seven the reigning number in the 
 Apocalypse, and almost entirely overlooked the immeasurably greater predomin- 
 ance of trichotomy, i. e. tripartite division, and triplex grouping of objects. His 
 views of the Apocalypse in general, I shall have occasion to speak of in the se- 
 quel. As it respects the subject of numerosity , the views which 1 develope orig- 
 inated entirely from often repeated study of the book, in order that 1 might write 
 a commentary upon it. I have frequently reviewed them, and made some altera- 
 tions and corrections. They are doubtless susceptible of still more, which would 
 be to their improvement. But one mind cannot do everything at once, specially 
 in such a great and complicated matter. At least, 1 feel that mine cannot. But 
 the public will now have an opportunity to examine and judge, how far I am cor- 
 rect in these views respecting the numerosity of the Apocalypse which I now 
 communicate. 
 
132 
 
 § 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 (2) The Prologue. After the title of the book, (which is joined 
 
 with a brief historical reference to its author and a commendation to the 
 notice and study of the reader), follows, (a) The dedication of the 
 work to the seven churches of Asia, 1: 4 — 8. ( b ) The Chris tophany, 
 
 or manifestation of Jesus to John, 1: 9 — 20. ( c ) The epistles to the 
 
 seven churches. 
 
 The portions a and b are too short, and too terse with descriptive 
 matter, to permit of subdivision ; but not so with the epistles. Each of 
 the latter is divided into three parts ; (a) A description of him who ad- 
 dresses the churches, by the mention of some of his attributes ; 2: 1. 
 2: 8. 2: 12. 2: 18. 3: 1. 3: 7. 3: 14. ( b ) Disclosure of the character- 
 
 istics of each church, with appropriate admonition or reproof ; (in the 
 sequel to each of the preceding texts quoted). ( c ) Each epistle closes 
 with excitement to obedience, rendered more urgent and efficacious by 
 promises of reward, or by threatenings. In these respects there is an 
 entire uniformity through the whole of the epistles. 
 
 (3) The Visions. In these, (iv — xxii. 5), there are three great 
 
 catastrophes , to which all else has reference and is adjusted, (a) That 
 of Sodom spiritually so-called, i. e. “ the place where our Lord was 
 crucified” or Jerusalem (11: 8), comprising chap, iv — xi. (b) That of 
 mystic Babylon (Rome), chap, xii — xx. 3. (c) That of Gog and Ma- 
 
 gog, chap. 20: 4 — 10. Each of these catastrophes has a prologue or 
 proem ; (a) Chap, iv, v. (b) Chap. xii. (c) Chap. 20: 4 — 7, where 
 the thousand years and the end of them stand as introductory to the 
 loosing of Satan and the invasion of Gog and Magog. 
 
 In each of the catastrophes, (the last excepted), there are three Mo- 
 rae or Episodes , which contain various matters more or less connected 
 with the main body of the Epopee, and which not only serve to intro- 
 duce variety into the composition and increase the interest of it, as well 
 as to deepen the impressions made upon the reader, but also to exhibit 
 the long suffering of God in waiting for sinners to repent. Some of 
 them, however, are devoted to strengthening the assurances, that the 
 wicked will be punished and the righteous rewarded. Episode I name 
 that which arrests the progress of the main action for any considerable 
 time, and diverts our attention to something which is but indirectly con- 
 nected with it. The first Catastrophe comprises three episodes ; 
 viz. ( a ) The sealing and safety of the 144,000 Jewish followers of the 
 Lamb, chap. vii. ( b ) The appearance of an angel, who gives assur- 
 ance of the speedy fall of the hostile power which wages war with 
 the saints, and commissions John to utter new predictions, when the 
 contents of the book with seven seals shall have all had their accom- 
 plishment, chap. x. (c) Preparation for the speedy consummation of 
 the catastrophe, by guarding the most holy place against destruction, 
 
§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 133 
 
 (a symbol that all of Judaism but its real spirituality is to be destroyed), 
 chap. 11: 1, 2 ; and also by the aggravated sins of persecutors against 
 the two martyr-witnesses, who make their appearance in order to ad- 
 monish and warn them, chap. 11: 3 — 14. The second Catastrophe 
 also comprises three episodes ; (a) Chap, xiv, which exhibits merely 
 symbols and assurances of the safety of the church, and of the over- 
 throw of the dragon, beast, and false prophet. ( b ) The explanatory in- 
 terlude, in chap. xvii. (c) Renewed assurances of Babylon’s utter ruin, 
 and anticipated lament over her by various classes of persons, chap, xviii. 
 
 The third Catastrophe belongs to the distant future ; and there- 
 fore, like all predictions of a similar nature in the Old Testament, is 
 brief, 20: 4 — 10. Everything connected with such a future, in chap, 
 xx — xxii, is also brief, with the single exception that the glories of the 
 heavenly city are enlarged upon by the writer ; most appropriately as 
 it respects the encouragement which he designs to give to Christians 
 under their disheartening circumstances. In such a case, i. e. when the 
 whole of the third catastrophe, even if we include its prologue, in real- 
 ity occupies only some seven verses, the usual trichotomy is necessarily 
 excluded. 
 
 Before we dismiss the Episodes under consideration, let us, while our 
 attention is directed to them, take a view of their internal arrangement. 
 As to the first catastrophe, the first episode in it (chap, vii.) may be dis- 
 tinguished into three several parts ; (a) Preparation for sealing the ser- 
 vants of God, 7: 1 — 3. ( h ) The sealing with the enumeration of those 
 
 to whom it was extended, 7: 4 — 8. (c) Rejoicing in heaven, with thanks- 
 giving, consequent upon this transaction, 7: 9 — 17. The second episode 
 (chap, x.) might be thus divided ; ( a ) The appearance of an angel, with 
 solemn assurances and tokens that the persecuting enemy are speedily 
 to be destroyed, and thus the predictions of the book with seven seals 
 to be accomplished, 10: 1 — 7. ( b ) John is furnished by the apgel with 
 
 a new book, for the sake of further development, and commanded to 
 eat it, i. e. eagerly to devour its contents, 10: 8 — 10. (c) A new com- 
 
 mission to continue his prophesying, and extend it to the great multitude 
 of nations, is given him. (Here nuliv TiQocpEievaai (10: 11) shows, that 
 the contents of the sealed book would be exhausted by the seventh trum- 
 pet). In this case, however, the trichotomy is less palpable than usual. 
 The third episode (11: 1 — 13) discloses the determination to preserve 
 the most holy and spiritual part of the ancient worship, notwithstanding 
 the wasting of Judea and Jerusalem ; and that the destruction about to 
 take place, will be greatly aggravated by the persecution of faithful wit- 
 nesses. It is divided thus : (a) Chap. 11: 1, 2, contains the directions 
 for preserving the best part of Judaism. ( b ) The persecution, death, 
 and resurrection, of the two witnesses, 11: 3 — 12. ( c ) The manifestation 
 
134 
 
 § 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 of further divine displeasure, with threatening of speedy and final de- 
 struction, 11: 13, 14. 
 
 The episodes in the second catastrophe are still more definitely tri- 
 chotomized. The first (ch. xiv.) exhibits, (a) The Lamb, with the 
 144,000 who had been sealed and saved under the first catastrophe, 
 (comp. chap, vii.) The whole spectacle is a visible and significant em- 
 blem and assurance of Christ’s power to save. The joy of the Saviour 
 in his faithful followers, and their notes of praise and thanksgiving, are 
 combined with the symbol, 14: 1 — 5. ( b ) Three angels successively 
 
 appear, and make proclamation, first, of the universal spread of the gos- 
 pel ; then of the fall of Babylon ; and thirdly, of the punishment of those 
 who belong to her, 14: 6 — 12. A voice from heaven sanctions this, by 
 assurance of the happiness secured to the righteous, 14: 13. (c) Sym- 
 
 bols are employed, in the third portion of chap, xiv, in order to express 
 Muth still greater intensity the assurance of the destruction of Babylon. 
 In the exhibition of these, three angels are successively introduced, 14: 
 14 — 20. The three angels are mentioned in vs. 15, 17, 18. The 
 opoiog vlco dv&QM7T0v, in v. 14, is doubtless the Saviour himself; comp. 
 Dan, 7: 13. In the second episode (chap, xvii.), we find, (a) Occur- 
 rences and phenomena preparatory to the disclosure about to be made, 
 17: 1 — 6. ( b ) Description of the beast with seven heads and ten horns, 
 
 17: 7 — 14. ( c ) Of the woman sitting over many waters, 17: 15 — 18. 
 
 The third episode (chap, xviii.) exhibits several trichotomies ; viz. (a) 
 Assurances of final and irremediable destruction to Babylon, so that all 
 the people of God are warned to remove far from her, 18: 1 — 8. (5) 
 
 Exhibition of the lamentation about to be sung over her, 18: 9 — 20. (c) 
 A striking and final symbol of her speedy and remediless overthrow, 
 18: 21 — 24. The second member of this trichotomy, viz. the lamenta- 
 tion, is again subdivided thus : (a) Lamentation by allied kings and 
 princes, 18: 9, 10. ( b ) By traders and merchants, 18: 11 — 16. ( c ) 
 
 By seamen and ship-owners, 18: 17 — 19 ; to which the author adds an 
 epiphonema of an opposite character, on the part of the redeemed, 18: 
 20. In each of the three parts, oval ! oval ! rj nohg rj psydhj, is re- 
 peated. In each, the closing sentence says : “ In one hour thy desola- 
 tion has come,” or uses words of the same import. 
 
 It is worthy of special remark here, also, that in the first and second 
 catastrophes, two episodes immediately precede the final consummation ; 
 e. g. in chap. x. xi, and in chap. xvii. xviii. The true nature of the 
 economy of the book cannot be seen in its proper light, without a care- 
 ful examination of all these adjustments and mutual relations of the au- 
 thor’s plan. Not only the unity of the piece is demonstrated by such an 
 arrangement, but the nature and progress of the action in the Epopee 
 are very significantly developed. The question, whether there is more 
 
§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 135 
 
 than one catastrophe, seems to be decided by the nature of the plan. 
 As to the third catastrophe, the brevity which the author adopts, pre- 
 cludes all artificial arrangement. 
 
 Having completed our view of the episodes, let us now go back to the 
 main action of the piece. 
 
 In the arrangement of this, the number seven is, if I may so express 
 it, the presiding genius. E. g. we have seven seals, seven trumpets with 
 their angels, and seven vials with their angels. Of course, so far as 
 this number has control, trichotomy must be either excluded, or be sub- 
 ordinate. The latter of these takes place. In each of the sevens, the 
 author makes two divisions ; first a tetrachotomy, i. e. a division into four 
 parts, and secondly a trichotomy , which comprises the remaining three. 
 To each of these groups is assigned its distinctive phenomena ; as we 
 shall see hereafter. 
 
 Relinquishing, at present, the further notice of the groups of sevens 
 and fours, we will follow the number three , through the parts of the 
 main action. The episodes have been already examined. 
 
 In the triplex group which is constituted by the last three of each of 
 the heptades or divisions by seven, we find, in nearly if not quite all the 
 cases, distinct and marked peculiarities. For example; in 6: 9 seq., 
 (where the fifth seal commences), there is plainly an entire new turn of 
 thought. The first four seals (6: 1 — 8) develope the formation of the 
 dreadful array commissioned against the persecuting power. All be- 
 longs most plainly to the constitution of one great army. But in the 
 group of three which follows, there is a regular and constant accession to 
 the action of the main plot. The martyrs point to their blood, and call 
 for vengeance. At the opening of the sixth seal, all heaven is roused 
 and prepares for the condign punishment of persecutors. Then comes 
 the episode (chap, vii.), which shows how the innocent will be put in a 
 state of safety. We then naturally expect the consummation ; for so 
 did all heaven, while they stood in awful silence, 8: 1. But the seventh 
 seal disparts, and divides the consummation into seven stages, signalized 
 by as many trumpets. Here again we have tetrachotomy and tricho- 
 tomy. The first group of four has reference to plagues that principally 
 concern the state of the earth ; which is divided into land, sea, rivers 
 and fountains, and the welkin above, making the contour of the visible 
 creation. The remaining group of three successively developes the lo- 
 custs, the horsemen from the Euphrates, and (after the episodes in x. 
 xi.), the final tremendous assault by thunder, lightning, hail, and earth- 
 quake ; viii — xi. We have yet a third series of sevens, in chap. xv. 
 xvi. ; (a circumstance in the arrangement which must not be forgotten). 
 Here is the like division into groups of four and three. The first four 
 vials have respect to the various portions of the world, viz. the earth, 
 
136 
 
 § 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 the sea, the rivers and fountains, and the ruling planet of the welkin 
 above. Then comes, with the last three, more direct attacks upon per- 
 secutors, 16: 10 — 21. The seat of the beast is affected ; the Euphrates 
 is dried up, in order to make a. way for foreign invaders ; and finally the 
 air is so affected by the seventh vial, that lightnings, thunders, and de- 
 structive hail follow, and an earthquake shatters the capital of the per- 
 secuting power. 
 
 From this review of the three series of sevens in the book, it is plain 
 that trichotomy, although it here acts a secondary, still acts a very con- 
 spicuous, part. The consummation of the catastrophes in each case, is 
 marked by trichotomy, and exhibits the most intense and destructive 
 measures on the part of the great Conqueror. 
 
 It remains still, that we take a view of the prologues or proems which 
 stand before those groups of seven which indicate directly an advance- 
 ment in the main action. Chap. iv. v. constitute the first proem ; and 
 one, I may add, of great solemnity and exquisite beauty and majesty. 
 Each of these chapters will be found, by minute investigation, to be ca- 
 pable of a division by trichotomy ; e. g. 4: 2, 3, the divine majesty ; 4: 
 4 — 7, the attendant ministers around the throne of God ; 4: 8 — 11, the 
 symphony of praise or worship. So in chap, v, the trichotomy is mark- 
 ed by xat sidov, vs. 1, 6, 9 ; in the first instance only is this phrase re- 
 peated for the sake of emphasis. But as these divisions are not strongly 
 marked, and slide easily and naturally into each other, I will not insist 
 on them in this initial proem. 
 
 The proem before the action under the seventh seal (8: 3 — 5), is very 
 short ; for here the action is not to be immediately consummated. In 
 like manner the proem before the last woe-trumpet (11: 15 — 18) is short ; 
 for two long episodes have just preceded. 
 
 As at the commencement of the first catastrophe, the proem is long 
 and very striking and solemn, (ch. iv. v.), so is it in the introduction to 
 the second catastrophe. As in the first, the theophany, the sealed book, 
 the Lamb, the attendant and reverent living creatures, elders, and an- 
 gels, excite the mind to high expectations in regard to the sequel ; so in 
 the second, (as the former scenes will not bear repetition), a different 
 but exalted theme is introduced, viz., the incarnation of Christ, the ma- 
 lignant efforts of Satan to destroy him, the defeat and degradation of 
 this enemy, and his consequent determination to seek revenge. All this 
 prepares the reader for a deep interest in the sequel ; which is not 
 disappointed. This second principal proem is almost as long as the first ; 
 and immediately after this, the main action in the second catastrophe 
 commences, and persecution and heathenism move furiously on. — But 
 we are now concerned only with the trichotomy of the prologue. This 
 is quite plain ; (a) The appearance, technogony, and dangers of the 
 
§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 137 
 
 woman clothed with the sun, and of her offspring, 12: 1 — 6. ( b ) The 
 
 war of Michael and his angels against the devil and his angels, in order 
 to repel the assaults of Satan, 12: 7 — 12. ( c ) The vindictive rage and 
 
 malice of Satan on account of his defeat, and his determination to per- 
 secute the church, 12: 13 — 17. 
 
 Before the consummation of the second catastrophe begins its final 
 movement, stands another prologue, serving merely to mark preparation 
 for the onset, chap. xv. This may be subdivided into (a) The pre- 
 sentation of the scenery appropriate to the occasion, 15: 1, 2. (b) The 
 
 song of anticipated victory, 15: 3, 4. ( c ) The commission of the seven 
 angels, charged to commence the work of overthrow, 15: 5 — 8. 
 
 Chap. xvi. exhibits the pouring out of all the seven vials, without any 
 delay or interposition. For this mode of proceeding the author seems 
 to have had good reason. The destruction of great Babylon, and of 
 the beast and false prophet, is not absolute and final. The idea seems 
 to have been, in the mind of the writer, that a country so almost bound- 
 less as the Roman empire, could not, with any manifest probability, be 
 supposed to be destroyed merely by shattering its great capital and other 
 large cities. The contest with the beast and false prophet would be of 
 longer duration than that under the first catastrophe, where the destruc- 
 tion of the great capital of a small country would involve the whole 
 countfy in ruin. Accordingly, in chap, xviii. xix. we find the contest 
 still continued, and finally completed. Since now the Roman empire is 
 the chosen symbol of the second hostile power, and of its wide domain, 
 has not the writer displayed great tact in the proprieties with which he 
 conducts, continues, and finally ends the contest ? And if the persecu- 
 tion of Christians by Pagans be symbolized by all this, surely there is 
 great propriety in not closing it by one great blow, like that in the first 
 catastrophe, 11: 15 — 19. If, moreover, there be a good foundation for 
 what I have now said, then the reason is apparent, wh j prologue should 
 be here omitted before the seventh vial. In reality the contest is finish- 
 ed in chap. 19: 11 seq., and before this final scene, we have a prologue 
 as usual. But in chap, xvi, while the great and decisive blow is struck, 
 at the pouring out of the last vial which makes a kind of catastrophe, 
 yet still it is not a wholly completed one. 
 
 In the proem in chap, xix, there are three divisions : (a) The shout 
 of anticipated victory, with praise to God on account of it, 19: 1 — 4. 
 (b) A renewal, by divine command, of the same, 19: 5 — 8. (e) As- 
 
 surances of the final happiness of saints and martyrs, 19: 9, 10. During 
 the first shouts of praise, dU.eXovi'a occurs three times. 
 
 Thus much for the prologues as connected with the main action or 
 the catastrophes. We have already seen, that the third and last catas- 
 trophe of necessity dispenses with them. 
 
 YOL. I. 18 
 
138 
 
 § 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 In regard to the final action in the second catastrophe, it remains to be 
 noticed, that here also is the usual trichotomy, (a) The marching 
 forth of the great Captain of salvation with his army, 19: 11 — 16. ( b ) 
 Invitation to all the ravenous beasts and birds to come to the approach- 
 ing slaughter, 19: 17, 18. (c) Final overthrow and destruction of the 
 
 enemy, 19: 19 — 21. Or rather, as Satan is leagued with this enemy, 
 this portion should include also chap. 20: 1 — 3, for this indicates his pun- 
 ishment, as well as that of the beast and false prophet, all of whom 
 were leagued together. 
 
 The third catastrophe, with its proem, 20: 4 — 10, as has been re- 
 marked, excludes trichotomy by its brevity. Yet the whole may be 
 divided into proem, the victory over Gog and Magog, and the final 
 punishment of Satan. The sequel of the book is rather an epipho- 
 nema than a part of the regular drama or Epopee ; and yet, so exquis- 
 itely is it imagined and adapted to the writer’s purpose, that we should 
 as willingly part with any portion of the book as with this. By no part 
 of it has the author presented higher moral excitement to his readers, 
 than by this. Indeed we should feel his plan in a measure to be in- 
 complete without it. 
 
 The remainder of the book, 20: 11 — 22: 5, exhibits, (a) The final 
 resurrection and judgment, 20: 11 — 13. ( b ) Hell, 20: 14, 15. (c) 
 
 Heaven, 21: 1 — 22: 5. On the appropriateness of enlarging oti this 
 last topic, I have already remarked, (p. 133 above.) 
 
 The epilogue, 22: 6 — 20, consists, (a) Of the address of the angel 
 to John, 22: 6 — 11. (b) The declarations of the Saviour respecting the 
 
 things predicted and the promises made, 22: 12 — 17. (c) The solemn 
 
 assurances of the writer of the book respecting the sacred and invio- 
 lable contents of it, 22: 18 — 20. The whole concludes with a bene- 
 diction. 
 
 Thus have we followed trichotomy through all parts of the book, from 
 the beginning to the end. The indelible stamp of one and the same 
 hand is on every part of the production. But all which has thus far 
 been exhibited, has reference only to larger portions of the book, con- 
 taining one or more paragraphs. We might stop with this as being suf- 
 ficient for our present purpose ; but in this place it will be most conven- 
 ient and proper to pursue the investigation of these trichotomies , as 
 exhibited in particular phrases and groups of objects , in all parts of the 
 booh 
 
 I shall present but few of these in extenso, limiting myself in this 
 respect merely to such as will serve for specimens of all the rest. The 
 only way in which the reader can satisfy himself, therefore, as to the 
 great mass of these minor trichotomies, will be to open his Greek Tes- 
 tament, and follow through the references which I shall give him. 
 
§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 139 
 
 Chap. 1 : 4, (in the description of God), ano 6 coV, xai 6 rjv, viai 6 8Q- 
 yoyevog. In 1: 4, 5, grace and peace are desired from the 6 cor, from 
 the seven spirits, and from Jesus Christ. In 1: 5, three attributives are 
 assigned to Jesus Christ. In 1: 5, 6, three things are mentioned which 
 he has done for us. 1: 8, three groups of attributives are assigned to 
 God, one of which is subdivided into three. 1: 17, three attributes ascri- 
 bed to Christ, o TZQwrog, 6 sayaTog, 6 £oor, (plainly belonging together). 
 1: 19, write three things ; (but perhaps a dai means, what they signify , 
 which would destroy the trichotomy.) 
 
 Chap. 2: 2, two groups of three each. 2: 3, three things done. 2: 5, 
 three to be done. 2: 9, three members in the epexegesis of tqya, (cases 
 like this often occur). 2: 14, Balaam did three things. 2: 20, Jezabel 
 does three things. 
 
 Chap. 3: 5, three parts in the reward. 3: 7, three different actions 
 ascribed to Christ. 3: 8, three good qualities of the church at Phila- 
 delphia. 3: 9, the false Jews will be made to do three things. 3: 12, 
 three names to be written upon him who conquers. 3: 14, three in the 
 group of attributives ascribed to Christ. 3: 17, three things which the 
 church says of itself. 3: 18, three things which the church must do. 
 
 Chap: 4: 4, three predicates of the twenty-four elders. 4: 5, light- 
 nings, voices, thunders, issue from the throne. 4: 8, three things predicat- 
 ed of the four living creatures — ayiog thrice repeated — three appellations 
 of God — three attributes ascribed to him ; (making four groups of three 
 in one verse). 4: 9, glory, honour, thanksgiving. 4: 10, the twenty- 
 four elders do three things. 4: 11, glory, honour, power. 
 
 Chap. 5: 3, heaven, earth, underworld. 5: 5, three designations of 
 Christ. 5: 6, in the midst of three things. 5: 11, round about three things. 
 
 Chap. 6: 2, three things ascribed to the conqueror. 6: 6, three things 
 attending the development of the third seal. 6: 12 — 14, two groups of 
 three each, the consequences of the opening of the sixth seal. The 
 second group, in verses 13, 14, is more composite than the first, inasmuch 
 as it comprises two comparisons for illustration. 
 
 Chap. 7: 1, three things on which the wind is not to blow. 7: 3, the 
 same. 7: 11, angels standing round three things. 7: 16, three evils 
 which the redeemed shall not suffer. 7: 17, three things which God 
 and the Lamb shall do for them. 
 
 Chap. 8: 5, three things which the angel did. 8: 7, three things 
 which took place — one third of the earth burned up, in three different 
 respects. 8: 8, one third of the sea ; and the like twice in verse 9, and 
 so in verse 10, 11, and 12, (five times in the last). 8: 13, three woes — 
 three angels to sound the last three woe-trumpets. 
 
 Chap. 9: 4, three things not to be hurt. 9: 15, one third part of men. 
 9: 17, three things predicated of the horsemen — also fire, smoke, and 
 
140 
 
 § 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 brimstone, from the mouths of the horses. 9: 18, three plagues destroy 
 one third part of men — by fire, smoke, and brimstone. 9: 20, twice 
 three predicates of sidwXu. 
 
 Chap. 10: 1, twice three predicates of the angel. 10: 6, God created 
 three things. 
 
 Chap. 11: 1, John ordered to measure three things. 11: 6, witnesses 
 can do three things. 11: 7, the beast will do three things. 11: 10, the 
 enemies of the witnesses will do three things. 11: 17, three attributives 
 of God. 11: 18, two groups of three each who are to be rewarded, viz. 
 servants, prophets, saints, and (poftovfxevoi, (jixqoi, fisyaloi . — three things 
 to be done, to judge, to give to his saints, to destroy the wicked. 
 
 Chap. 12: 1, three attributives of the woman. 12: 4, a third part of 
 the stars. 12: 9, the dragon is serpent, devil, and satan. 12: 10, sal- 
 vation, power, and reign of God. 12: 16, the earth did three things. 
 
 Chap. 13: 2, beast like to a panther, a bear, and a lion — the dragon 
 gives him three things. 13: 6, to blaspheme three things. V. 7, power 
 to do three things. 13: 16, three groups of antithetic or discrepant 
 classes of men. 
 
 Chap. 14: 2, voice from heaven like three things. 14: 3, new song 
 in presence of three things. 14: 4, three predicates of the redeemed. 
 14: 7, do homage to God in three ways. 14: 19, the angel did three 
 things. 
 
 Chap. 15: 2, the martyrs are conquerors over three things. 
 
 Chap. 16: 13, three unclean spirits out of the mouth of three different 
 beings. 16: 18, lightnings, voices, thunders, to be grouped together. 
 16: 19, Babylon cleft into three parts — cup of three qualifications to be 
 given her. 
 
 Chap. 17: 3, three attributives of the woman. 17: 4, three more at- 
 tributives. 17: 8, two groups of attributives, each three. 17: 11, three 
 more, in like manner. 17: 14, invited, select, faithful. 17: 17, God 
 has inclined them to do three things. 
 
 Chap. 18: 2, Babylon has become three things. 18: 6, do three things 
 to Babylon. 18: 7, Babylon claims to be three things. 18: 8, death, 
 mourning, famine, are to be grouped together. 18: 16, clothed with 
 three things — adorned with three. 18: 20, three classes of persons who 
 are to rejoice. 
 
 Chap. 19: 1, salvation, glory, power. 19: 7, let us do three things. 
 19: 18, two groups of three each, whose flesh is to be eaten, (the last 
 group bi-membral). 19: 19, three gathered together to make war. 
 
 Chap. 21: 1, three things have passed away. 21: 4, one leading 
 group of three, and one subordinate one. 21: 13, four times three gates. 
 21: 15, measure three things. 21: 16, length, breadth, height. 
 
 Chap. 22: 13, three groups of divine predicates. 22: 15, two groups 
 
§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 141 
 
 of three. 22: 16, root-shoot, offspring, morning-star. 22: 17, three 
 classes invited to respond and accept the offer made. 
 
 It is now time to make some remarks on these striking phenomena. 
 Not that trichotomy is the only kind of numerosity which belongs to the 
 Apocalypse ; for, as we shall see in the sequel, seven , four, twelve , and 
 ten , all have their respective claims. Yet the influence of these is far 
 inferior to the all-pervading influence of trichotomy, or triplicity of 
 grouping. 
 
 But whence these multiform and everywhere abounding triplicities in 
 the Apocalypse ? Was John deeply imbued, as not a few have asserted, 
 with the Cabbalistic art of making out the significancy of words by va- 
 rious modes of combining the numbers, which the letters of those words 
 might designate? That John attached meaning, and even by no means 
 unimportant significancy, to his triads, heptades, tetrades, and in some 
 few cases decades and duodecades, I am not about to deny, for how can 
 it be denied by any one who has minutely analyzed and scanned the 
 Apocalypse? But with the single exception of chap. 13: 18, (the num- 
 ber of the beast which is 666), he has made no near approach to the 
 mystical use of numbers by the Cabbalists ; and even there, as we shall 
 see in due time, he has not followed so much the Cabbalists, as a pre- 
 vailing fashion of the day.* There is no certain evidence, nor (as it 
 seems to me) any evidence even probable, that the Cabbalism of the 
 Rabbins had advanced beyond the mere germ, when the Revelation was 
 written. At all events, the manner in which John introduces his groups, 
 either in the larger or smaller parts of his work, in conformity with the 
 principles of numerosity , is something very different from the Gematria 
 of Cabbalism, as exhibited in the note below. 
 
 In the New Testament there is plainly nothing elsewhere, which re- 
 
 * The Cabbalists practised the interpretation of Scriptures by the use of numbers, 
 in three different ways: (1) By Gematria (syitam, ysoj/usrgia?), which means a 
 computation of the numerical value of letters in one or more words ; and then the 
 application of the same number to another word which is equivalent, i. e. of the 
 same numerical value. E. g. Gen. 49: 10, nia**, Shiloh will come = 358 in 
 
 numerical value ; and designates the same number; therefore, Shiloh will 
 
 come means the Messiah. (2) Kotarihon (yip^taia), in which single letters of a 
 particular word, or of different words, are made significant or the representatives 
 of other entire words; e. g. Gen. 1: 1, s’ns may be considered as designating as, 
 " 3 , (Son, Spirit, Father) ; and consequently s'na points us to the doctrine of 
 the Trinity. (3) Temura (syqfcta concealment) indicates an arbitrary transposi- 
 tion of the letters of any word so as to constitute another and different word ; e. g. 
 Gen. 1: 1, ir> l s?S , i3 transposed makes s^^tia, i- e. the month Tishri , or Septem- 
 ber ; which shows that the world was created in that month ! ! I need not say to 
 the intelligent and observing reader, that there is nothing in all the Apocalypse 
 which has any resemblance to either of these extravagant conceits. 
 
142 
 
 § 7 . NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 sembles in any considerable degree this trichotomy of the Apocalypse. 
 But did not John find his exemplar in the Old Testament ? I hesitate 
 not to believe that he did. And this can be easily pointed out. 
 
 In all the Old Testament there is but one extended piece, which we 
 can properly name an Epic or Epopee. That the book of Job consti- 
 tutes a poem of this nature, cannot well be denied. It exhibits the es- 
 sential features of an Epopee ; not of a character bellicose and highly 
 romantic by reason of adventures, like the Iliad and Aeneid, but of a 
 character moral and didactic, mingled indeed with incidents of a deeply 
 interesting nature. It has action — progressive action, and as much 
 unity as belongs to other epics. Its poetic fancy and spirit have never 
 been exceeded — might I not say, have scarcely if ever been equalled ? 
 And he, who would dispute against the application of the title Epopee 
 to it, would only busy himself with logomachies. A very circumscribed 
 definition of Epopee, might exclude the book of Job from a claim to this 
 title ; but what obliges us to regard the limits of the word as being so 
 narrow ? 
 
 In Ps. xviii, in Is. xiii. xiv, and also in Hab. iii, we have a kind of 
 miniature Epopee. But an epinikion or triumphal song is in reality 
 the proper title of each of these ; for it describes them with sufficient ac- 
 curacy. They differ much from the plan of the book of Job or of the 
 Apocalypse. 
 
 All the leading characteristics which have just been ascribed to the 
 book of Job, belong also to the Apocalypse. It is in its very nature 
 poetical. It has a unity of main design. It exhibits rapid, varied, and 
 wonderful action. It celebrates, indeed, not the triumphs of an Achil- 
 les, an Aeneas, or a Tancred, but the triumphs of Him who is King of 
 kings and Lord of lords. It is not the sacking of Ilium, nor the subju- 
 gation of an Italian province — nor merely the taking of Jerusalem, which 
 is described, but the conquest of a world, and the complete subjugation 
 of all the powers of darkness. It approaches much nearer than the book 
 of Job, to the us ual characteristics of a proper Epopee. 
 
 I have been obliged in some measure to digress, in order to prepare 
 the way for the sequel of my remarks on the form of the Apocalypse in 
 respect to trichotomy. As Job is the Epic of the Old Testament, and 
 the only one, so is the Apocalypse the Epic and the only one of the New. 
 Are these two works, now, which in this general respect have the like 
 character, similar to each other in regard to trichotomy f 
 
 To answer this question, it becomes necessary briefly to point out the 
 same peculiarity in the book of Job ; and this may be easily done. 
 
 The first grand division of it is into ( a ) Prologue. ( h ) The poem 
 proper, (c) Epilogue. Then (I.) The prologue is subdivided into ac- 
 counts, (a) Of Job’s prosperity. ( b ) Of his losses, (c) Of his sickness 
 
§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 143 
 
 and trials. Then (II.) The poem proper is divided into three leading 
 parts ; (a) The dispute of Job with his friends. ( b ) The address of 
 Eliliu, who proffers himself as umpire, (c) The closing address of Je- 
 hovah. Next, as to subordinate triplicities , we are presented with three 
 friends who come to console Job. These address him three times each, 
 (with only one exception, which will be noticed in the sequel). To 
 each of them he makes three replies, (abating one in relation to the ex- 
 ception noted). Finally, Job’s closing speeches are divided into three, 
 chap, xxvi — xxxi. As a substitute for Zophar’s third speech, Eliliu 
 breaks in, through his impatience, and makes an address ; and then he 
 makes three speeches for himself ; chap, xxxii — xxxvii. It would seem, 
 moreover, to lie upon the face of the whole matter, that the dispute was 
 carried on for three days, the three friends each once addressing Job on 
 each day, and Job making three replies. Last of all, God himself inter- 
 poses, and makes three addresses to Job and his friends ; chap, xxxviii 
 — xli. The epilogue closes the piece ; which consists, (a) Of Job’s jus- 
 tification. ( b ) Of his reconciliation with his friends, (c) Of his final 
 prosperity. 
 
 If now we look away from these trichotomies, which lie upon the face 
 of the book in general, and turn our attention to the individual addresses 
 of each speaker, we may easily find, in most of them, a triplex division 
 of contents. To begin with the first complaint of Job ; (a) The day of 
 his birth is beshrewed, 3: 1 — 10. ( b ) Earnest wishes that he had per- 
 ished in the womb, 3: 10 — 19. ( c ) Remonstrance against giving exist- 
 
 ence to the wretched, 3: 20 — 26. So in the speech of Eliphaz ; (a) 
 Gentle remonstrance against the excessive grief of Job, 4: 1 — 5. ( b ) 
 
 Intimations that the innocent are never involved in such calamities, 4: 
 G — 11. ( c ) A vision in confirmation of this sentiment, 4: 12 — 21. And 
 
 thus it is in many, or rather, in most of the speeches. In some, how- 
 ever, either the brevity or # the nature of the subject, or both, do not ad- 
 mit trichotomy. . Below this trichotomy of paragraphs , so to speak, we 
 seldom find triplicity in individual expressions. The rigid adherence to 
 parallelism , in the book of Job, necessarily excluded them. But not so 
 in the Apocalypse ; for we have seen, that from the beginning to the end 
 it is full of triplex individual groups.* 
 
 If it be said : All this is too artificial for us to think of applying it to 
 a book so sacred as the Scriptures ; the answer is not difficult. Artifi- 
 cial arrangement is not wanting in many parts of the Old Testament, 
 nor in some parts of the New, besides the Apocalypse. For example ; 
 
 * In respect to the trichotomy of the book of Job, 1 must acknowledge my ob- 
 ligation in part to the recent work of Koester upon this book. In the preface to 
 this work, the writer has disclosed his views in regard to triplicity ; but he takes 
 no notice of the Apocalypse in this respect. 
 
144 
 
 § 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 we have no less than seven alphabetic Psalms, i. e. Psalms in which 
 each line begins with a successive letter of the Alphabet in order, viz. 
 Ps. xxv. xxxiv. xxxvii. cxi. cxii. cxix. cxlv. Psalm cxix. has added 
 much to the artificial arrangement which prevails in the others, for in 
 this longest of all the Psalms, each letter of the alphabet introduces a 
 continuous series of eight verses, each line of which begins with the 
 same letter. Hence the names of the sections, Aleph , Beth , etc. In 
 Prov. 31: 10 seq., there is another alphabetic composition, like the usual 
 Psalms of this character. In the book of Lamentations, the whole com- 
 position is of this character. Chap. i. ii. iv. v. resemble in manner the 
 usual alphabetic Psalms ; while chap. iii. exhibits three successive lines 
 each beginning with the same letter, and so through the alphabet, mak- 
 ing sixty-six verses, instead of twenty-two as in the others. Here the 
 number three acts, of course, a conspicuous part. 
 
 In the New Testament we have the genealogy of Matthew divided 
 into three series of twice seven, i. e. fourteen. Peter’s vision, in Acts x, 
 was thrice repeated ; Peter denied Christ thrice ; Paul besought the 
 Lord thrice ; the master of the barren fig-tree came three years seeking 
 fruit, Luke 13: 7 ; a woman hid leaven in three measures of meal, Matt. 
 13: 33 ; and so three score is often employed. These examples, how- 
 ever, constitute a mere reference to a thing which is widely diffused. 
 But I need not exhibit, here, what every Concordance will easily supply. 
 
 Whatever now may be the ground or reason of all these triplicities, 
 the fact itself is one which admits of no question. I will concede, for 
 the sake of discussion, that some of the trichotomies which I have point- 
 ed out in the Apocalypse or in Job, may not stand the test of thorough 
 scrutiny, and that there is even something of the fanciful on my part in 
 them. Yet the most rigid scrutiny cannot detect anything of this na- 
 ture, in respect to the mass of them. They are so plain and palpable, 
 they lie so upon the very surface of the composition, that candour can do 
 no less than admit them. 
 
 The explanation or vindication of such a usage, both in the Old Tes- 
 tament and in the New, would be aside from our present object, which 
 is merely to exhibit an account of the actual form and arrangement of 
 the Apocalypse. That part of the subject which relates to the siynifi- 
 cancy of the number three, and also of the other numbers which perform 
 a conspicuous part in the Apocalypse, must be reserved for the Com- 
 mentary on particular passages, and the Excursus connected with it. 
 
 ( b ) Heptades, or divisions by seven, in the Apocalypse. 
 
 Beyond all question, next after three the number seven makes the 
 most conspicuous figure in the book before us. I must therefore briefly 
 exhibit its use, by the writer of this book. 
 
§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 145 
 
 I. In the larger divisions of the work. 
 
 (a) In the prologue, the seven epistles to the seven churches, (b) 
 In the main body of the work ; (1) The seven seals ; the breaking of 
 which corresponds to seven series of events, chap. v. seq. (2) The 
 seven trumpets, which grow out of the seventh seal ; which correspond 
 to a like series of final events in the first catastrophe, chap. viii. seq. 
 (3) In the second catastrophe we have the seven vials of the wrath of 
 God, corresponding to the like series of plagues. To the trumpets and 
 the vials are assigned seven angels, one respectively for each of them, 
 (c) The epilogue is too short to admit of heptades. 
 
 II. In the smaller divisions of the work and 'particular groups of per- 
 sons or objects. 
 
 Chap. 1: 4, the seven spirits before the throne. This idea is repeated, 
 or a similar one, in 4: o. 5: 6. 8: 2. 15: 1, 6. 16: 1. 17: 1. In 5: 6, to the 
 Lamb are ascribed seven horns and seven eyes. Seven churches are 
 addressed in 1: 4, 11, and virtually in the inscriptions to the seven epis- 
 tles, ii. seq. Chap. 1: 12, seven lamps, and so in 4: 5. In 1: 16, seven 
 stars. In 5: 12, seven attributives of God. In 6: 15, seven classes of 
 persons. 7: 12, (as before) seven attributives of God. 8: 3, seven trum- 
 pets. 10: 3, 4, seven thunders. 11: 13, seven thousand men perish. 
 12: 3, the dragon has seven heads. 13: 1, the beast with seven heads. 
 15: 8. 16: 1, seven angels with seven vials. 17: 9, 10, seven heads sig- 
 nify seven mountains and seven kings. 18: 13, seven groups of objects 
 here. 21: 9, seven angels, seven vials, seven last plagues. 
 
 It will be seen by this view of the heptades in the Apocalypse, that, 
 although they act an important part, and are employed in the grouping 
 of the greatest events and of the most considerable actors and things, 
 yet, on the whole, they are greatly inferior in respect to their frequency 
 to the triads which we have already examined. One needs, moreover, 
 merely to take up a Concordance of the. Old Testament, in order to 
 learn what a conspicuous part the number seven everywhere acts in the 
 Hebrew Scriptures. The idea of fulness or completion , designated by 
 seven symbolically employed, lies doubtless at the foundation of this 
 usage. But of this, more in another place. 
 
 Finally, as to the three and a half years, or its equivalent, forty-two 
 months or 1260 days, (11: 3, 9, 11. 12: 6, 14. 13: 5), they would 
 seem, at first view, to have their origin in the same period as developed 
 in the book of Daniel (7: 25. 12: 7) ; but in reality they probably are 
 derived from mere historical facts, rather than from any special sym- 
 bolical signification. I cannot regard them, as employed tropically, 
 merely because they are the half of seven. 
 
 VOL. i. 19 
 
146 
 
 § 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 (c) Tetrades, or groups of fours. 
 
 The larger divisions of the Apocalypse are not anywhere adjusted by 
 this number. It appears in but few cases, except in individual group- 
 ings. In three cases, however, it acts a part somewhat conspicuous ; 
 i. e. in the subdivisions of the seven seals, and the trumpets, and 
 vials. As these sevens are subdivided into two groups of four and three, 
 in some important respects distinct from each other, so the number four 
 is here concerned with a species of division in discourse. Elsewhere 
 four serves to denote an enlarged entirety of group. To explain the 
 ground of this symbolical meaning, belongs, as in the cases above, to 
 the sequel of this work. 
 
 The detail amounts to considerable. It first appears in the epexege- 
 sis of tQya, in 2: 19, viz. love, faith, ministry, patience. In 4: 6. 19: 4, 
 four living creatures uphold the throne of divine Majesty. 5: 9, tribe, 
 tongue, people, nation. 5: 13, heaven, earth, underworld, sea — blessing, 
 honour, glory, power. 7: 1, four angels — four corners of the earth — four 
 winds. 7: 9, nation, tribe, people, tongue. 8:5, voices, thunder, light- 
 ning, earthquake. 8:7, 9, 10, 12, four trumpets affect earth, sea, rivers 
 and fountains of water, and the sky above. 10: 11, prophesy before 
 people, nations, tongues, kings. 11: 9, as in 7: 9 above. 12: 9, four 
 groups of names for Satan. 12: 19, salvation, might, kingdom, author- 
 ity. 13:7, as in 7:9 above. 14: 6, the same. 14:7, heaven, earth, 
 sea, fountains. 17: 15, people, multitudes, nations, tongues. 17: 6, the 
 ten horns and the beast will do four things to the harlot. 18: 12, four 
 groups of Genitives following yogov — four of the like following oxevos. 
 18: 22, four classes of musicians. 21: 8, four groups of evil-doers to be 
 punished. 
 
 That four or a tetrade is symbolical of enlarged completeness , can hard- 
 ly escape the notice of any one who attentively peruses the passages to 
 which reference has just been made. That this number was among the 
 favorite ones of the author, is sufficiently clear from the frequency with 
 which it is employed. 
 
 ( d ) Duodecades, or groups of twelve. 
 
 These are not very frequent ; and the reason for their being employed, 
 in any case, seems to have an evident relation to the twelve tribes of Is- 
 rael. E. g. the twelve times twelve thousand sealed on their foreheads, 
 7: 4. So in 7: 5 — 8, the twelve thousand chosen out of each tribe. 14: 
 1, 3, mentions the same number. With reference to the twelve tribes, 
 we find the new Jerusalem having twelve foundation-rows of precious 
 stones, with the twelve apostles’ names on them, 21: 14. In 21: 16, the 
 compass of the new city is twelve thousand furlongs. 21: 21, the twelve 
 gates consist of twelve pearls. 22: 2, twelve fruit-harvests in a year. 
 
§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 147 
 
 (e) Decades, or groups of tens. 
 
 These are so few, that one can hardly put them to the account of spe- 
 cial design. E. g. 11: 13, the tenth part of the city fell. 12: 3, the 
 dragon with ten horns. 13: 1, the beast with the same. The latter is 
 brought to view again, in 17: 12, 16. In both cases, the model is to be 
 found in Dan. 7: 7 seq. 
 
 That ten is employed as a large, round, and complete number, having 
 a peculiar roundness and significancy among all the groups of numbers, 
 is sufficiently plain. The idea which it conveys, with its significancy 
 as symbol, seems to have been taken from the divisions of the hands 
 and feet. We might perhaps say, that it is apparently employed in the 
 Apocalypse for the sake of variety in symbol, rather than from any ne- 
 cessity. 
 
 ( f ) Parallelisms of the Apocalypse. 
 
 There remains only one topic more of this nature ; and this has re- 
 spect to the duads, i. e. the diGiiftoi or bimembral divisions of the Apoc- 
 alypse. 
 
 Every one acquainted with Hebrew poetry, knows well that paral- 
 lelism or bimembral divisions constitute its most prominent feature. 
 Next to this stand lofty, select, figurative language, frequency of meta- 
 phor, and allegorical representations. I will not say, that the diction 
 in the Apocalypse is in general as lofty and select as that of Isaiah ; but 
 I may truly say, that in frequency of metaphorical and figurative ex- 
 pression, and in the use of symbols, it exceeds any and all of the He- 
 brew prophets. The world of imagery in which it lives and moves, has 
 no complete parallel in the Scriptures. 
 
 Its poetic element, therefore, will not be disputed. But as to its 
 form — it has not indeed any claim to the feet or measure of heroic 
 verse in the Greek or Roman classics. But it has everywhere more or 
 less of the Hebrew parallelism thrown into its sentences. The writer, 
 however, does not seem to have aimed at this, as a special object to 
 which he had directed peculiar attention. As a Hebrew, and thoroughly 
 imbued as he certainly was with a knowledge of the Hebrew prophets, 
 (who for the most part are also poets), he has fallen, times without num- 
 ber, into a rythmus like that which they exhibit. 
 
 I pass by the seven epistles in the prologue to the book, because, 
 although many parallelisms might easily be produced from them, yet 
 this species of writing does not so naturally demand rythmus, as the 
 main body of the work. The first opening of the latter affords speci- 
 mens of John’s usual manner. Chap. 4: 2 seq. runs thus : 
 
148 
 
 § 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 And straightway I was in the spirit, 
 
 And lo ! a throne was set in heaven, 
 
 And one was sitting upon the throne, 
 
 And he who sat resembled a jasper and a sardius, 
 
 And a rainbow round the throne was like an emerald, 
 
 And round the throne were four and twenty thrones, 
 
 And on the thrones sat four and twenty elders, 
 
 •Being girt around with vestures of white, 
 
 And on their heads were golden crowns. 
 
 So again in the closing part of the first prelude : 
 
 And they sang a new song, saying : 
 
 Worthy art thou to take the book and open its seals, 
 
 For thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, 
 
 Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 
 
 And hast made us kings and priests to God, 
 
 And we shall reign upon the earth. 
 
 In the description of the 144,000, who had been sealed, 7: 14 seq., 
 we find the following passage : 
 
 These are they who come out of great distress, 
 
 Who have washed and cleansed their robes in the Lamb’s blood. 
 Because of this they are before God’s throne, 
 
 And day and night they serve him in his temple, 
 
 And he w T ho sitteth on the throne will pitch his tent over them, 
 
 They shall not hunger, neither shall they thirst, 
 
 Nor sun nor burning heat shall fall upon them, 
 
 For the Lamb on the midst of the throne shall feed them, 
 
 He shall lead them to fountains of living water, 
 
 And God shall wipe all tears from off their eyes. 
 
 So in 11: 17 seq. 
 
 We thank thee Lord God almighty, who art and wast, 
 
 That thou hast taken thy mighty power and dost reign, 
 
 The nations indeed were angry, but thine anger came, 
 
 The appointed time for the dead, to judge, and give reward 
 To thy servants, the prophets and the saints, 
 
 To those who fear thy name, both small and great, 
 
 And to destroy those who lay waste the land. 
 
 One more passage must suffice, 18: 4 seq. 
 
 Come out of her, my people, 
 
 That ye may not be made partakers of her sins, 
 
 Nor receive the plagues inflicted on her. 
 
 Give to her as she hath rendered to others ; 
 
 As her works deserve, double her double portion ; 
 
 As much as she has put on splendour and been luxurious. 
 
 So much of torment and of mourning give her ; 
 
 For in her heart she saith : 
 
§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 149 
 
 I sit as queen, and am no widow, 
 
 And never shall I see mourning. 
 
 Because of this, one day her plagues shall come upon her, 
 
 Death and mourning and pestilence, 
 
 And she with fire shall be entirely burned, 
 
 For the Lord God who judgeth her is mighty. 
 
 The reader will call to mind, that I have not said that the parallelism 
 here, and elsewhere in the Apocalypse, is altogether of the same per- 
 fect nature as that in Isaiah, Job, and many of the Psalms. But it is 
 not much removed from that of several of the prophets. It is not, 
 moreover, synonymous parallelism ; at most, it is but rarely so ; yet 
 neither is this essential to Hebrew poetry. That there is a kind of 
 rythmus in the structure of the sentences as above produced, no one 
 will venture to deny ; and what is true of the specimens produced, is 
 equally true of a multitude of other passages in the Apocalypse. It 
 were easy to swell the number of extracts ; but I forbear. I can only 
 assure the reader, that I have taken the specimens above quite at ran- 
 dom, and that he will find the like almost anywhere, in nearly all parts 
 of the book. 
 
 This is just what we should naturally expect. John wrote in Greek ; 
 and poetry, in the usual acceptation of the word in that language, de- 
 manded metre. But this was not compatible with his purpose. Nor is 
 it very likely he would strive, while writing in Greek, after a close and 
 exact imitation of the Hebrew poets. He has chosen a medium. He 
 has given us prose , indeed, in respect to form or costume, but prose in- 
 stinct with all the qualities of poetry. 
 
 ( g ) General Remarks on the numerosity of the Apocalypse. 
 
 If the preceding exhibition of this subject is correct and accordant 
 with the real state of facts, some important consequences as to inter- 
 pretation stand connected with it. Above all, the trichotomy of the 
 Apocalypse stands preeminent in this respect. It settles the question 
 whether there is more than one catastrophe in the book. This is a 
 great question. It decides, moreover, in regard to subordinate parts of 
 the book which are of the like tenor, how far they extend, and in many 
 cases whether they sustain a near relation to each other. It extends 
 itself to the interpunction of very many passages, deciding how the 
 writer grouped them in his own mind, and how we also should group 
 them, and consequently how we should distribute the interpunction. E. g. 
 in 12: 18, the usual printing is thus : dovvou piGdov roig dovXoig gov, roig 
 7ZQoq)fjzais y-ui roig ayioig y.cu roig cpofiovpsvoig to ovopci gov, roig pi- 
 XQoig xui roig peyaXoig. This is plainly wrong. There are two groups 
 of three each ; the first is the generic roig dovloig gov, with the epexe- 
 
150 
 
 § 8. IS THE APOCALYPSE A DRAMA ? 
 
 getical or specific TTQoeprjrcug and ayloig ; the second is the generic roig 
 cpopov[i£voig ro ovoya gov (corresponding plainly to xoig dovloig gov), 
 followed by the specific yixQotg and yeydloig. And so of not a few other 
 places in the book. In fact, the hasty reader, and even any one who 
 does not enter minutely upon the examination of the book, can scarcely 
 conjecture how much the smaller points of interpretation, as well as 
 not a few of the larger, are affected by the numerosity of the book. 
 
 That the numbers seven and four are also to be regarded in a similar 
 way, there can be no doubt, after the developments made above. But 
 these do not in any measure compare with the number three , in respect 
 to the frequency with which they modify the Apocalypse. 
 
 I know of no writer who has paid any very particular attention to the 
 traits of numerosity in the Apocalypse except Zullig. Not having seen 
 his work, as mentioned before, but only a copious review of it, I cannot 
 go into particulars. His plan, however, is so widely discrepant from 
 mine, that I have profited little or nothing by the view of it which I 
 have seen. Trichotomy , with him, scarcely acts any considerable part 
 
 in the arrangement ; and all the work down to chap, xx, he refers to the 
 destruction of Jerusalem only. The seven hills (17: 9) he finds in that 
 city ; the seven kings (17: 10) he also finds in Palestine ; and of three 
 catastrophes he knows nothing. I can only add here, that it is impossi- 
 ble for me to view the book in such a light as this. 
 
 I hope that I may, without subjecting myself to a charge of arrogance, 
 be permitted to say, that if the views above given respecting numeros- 
 ity are correct, then the study of the book, for the future, should be 
 carried on under auspices somewhat different from those which have 
 hitherto attended it. It is only an intimate knowledge of its relations, 
 and of the relative and mutual adjustment of all its parts, which can 
 ever lead to a true and satisfactory interpretation of the Apocalypse. 
 
 § 8. is the Apocalypse a Drama ?■ 
 
 This question properly belongs to the preceding category ; but I pre- 
 fer to arrange it separately, in order to avoid any confusion that might 
 arise from intermingling too many topics. Lucke has followed a similar 
 method, § 21. 
 
 Writers have not been wanting, who have ascribed to the Apocalypse 
 a dramatic form ; although I know of only one (Eichhorn), who has se- 
 riously attempted to illustrate and defend this idea. The older critics 
 and theologians paid but little attention to the rhetoric of the Apocalypse, 
 and seem not to have thought of labouring to vindicate it. Hence when 
 Oeder and Semler, of the last generation, assailed the book with great 
 violence, in respect to its style, diction, plan, and arrangement, the credit 
 
§ 8. IS THE APOCALYPSE A DRAMA ? 
 
 151 
 
 of it, for a number of years, was very low on the continent of Europe, 
 until Ilerder and Eichhorn arose to vindicate its claims to respect and 
 even to admiration. This they did with all but complete success ; and 
 this, at a still earlier period, Bossuet had in a good measure done, with- 
 in the circle of the Romish church. 
 
 So far back as 1018, David Paraeus, in his Commentary on the Reve- 
 lation, says, that 1 from ch. iv. onwards a dramatic form predominates, 
 and that one would not be 'far out of the way should he name the work 
 a drama propheticum.’ Ilis vindication of such a name is very brief. 
 
 ‘ The book exhibits,’ he says, ‘ a constant change and succession of ac- 
 tors, and also interpositions of a chorus ; and in this way it discloses, by 
 virtue of various exhibitions, things yet to come, and imbues the minds 
 of the spectators with many important truths.’ 
 
 But if this constitutes a drama , then several parts of Daniel, Zechariah, 
 Ezekiel, and of other Hebrew prophets and lyrical poets, are dramas ; 
 a proposition, which no one would now seriously think of defending. A 
 drama exhibits things by scenic action , not by historic pictures of things 
 seen in vision, as is the case with the Apocalypse. 
 
 In 1782, Ilartwig published his somewhat celebrated work, Apologie 
 d*r Apocalypse , in which he avows the opinion, that the Apocalypse is 
 a drama. In order to vindicate this he says, that ‘a drama is a piece 
 which is full of action, where person follows person and scene succeeds 
 scene.’ He divides the whole book into five acts, limited by change of 
 place, and shifting of scenes and of actors. But he has not attempted 
 a formal vindication of this ; and his work appears to have made but a 
 slight impression in respect to the particular now before us. 
 
 In 1791, the celebrated Eichhorn published his Commentarius in 
 Apocalypsin. In the preface to this he has introduced, explained, and 
 endeavoured to defend, the dramatic form of the Apocalypse. In 1811, 
 he published an Essay, De Judaeorum Re scenicd (Comments Soc. Gott. 
 recent. 1 1.), designed to vindicate his views, by showing that Herod the 
 Great and Herod Agrippa introduced theatrical representations at Jeru- 
 salem, Cesaraea, and Berytus, and consequently that the Jews could not 
 have been ignorant of dramatic compositions. In the same year, in his 
 Introduction to the New Testament (§ 188 seq.), he re-produced his 
 views respecting the dramatic form of the Apocalypse, and strove at 
 length to vindicate them. He exhibits, as he is wont to do, not a little 
 of ingenuity and eloquence, in favour of his peculiar opinion ; which, as 
 is not unfrequently the case, seems to have been the dearer to him, the 
 more it was neglected by others. I know of but one follower, who seems 
 everywhere to be his humble pedissequus , viz. F. A. L. Matthai, in his 
 Erkidrung der Offenbarung, 1828, Th. II. S. 2 ff. 
 
 Nothing more than a brief statement of Eichhom’s views relative to 
 
152 
 
 § 8. IS THE APOCALYPSE A DRAMA ? 
 
 the point before us, with a few remarks upon them, seems to be neces- 
 sary at the present time. He begins the proper drama with 4: 1, and 
 ends it with 21: 5. The leading parts of it he thus arranges : prelude, 
 4: 1—8: 5 ; Act L, 8: 6—12: 17 ; Act IL, 12: 18—20: 10 ; Act III, 
 20: 11 — 21: 5. The prelude contains an exhibition and arrangement 
 of the stage or theatre of action. The first act relates the siege and 
 taking of Jerusalem, and the victory over Judaism; and it is divided 
 into three scenes, with two exodes. It ends with a description of the 
 feeble condition of the Jewish church. The second act exhibits the 
 downfall of Rome, and the victory of Christianity over Heathenism ; and 
 it has two scenes and several exodes. The third act exhibits the new 
 Jerusalem and the everlasting happiness of a future life ; with which is 
 connected the resurrection of the dead and a general judgment. The 
 epilogue consists of the last sixteen verses of the book, viz. 21: 6 — 21. 
 
 The argument adduced by Eichhorn to prove the dramatic character 
 of the Apocalypse, is very brief. It is, moreover, as unsatisfactory as 
 brief. He appeals to Aristotle (Poet. c. 6) for a definition, and he re- 
 presents him as saying, that “ a drama is a series of events, out of which 
 happiness or misfortune springs.” Eichhorn, however, has not correctly 
 represented the entire views of the great master of definitions. Speak- 
 ing of tragedy, i. e. the drama, Aristotle says : “ It is an imitation of 
 action, and is performed by certain actors,” (Poet. 6. 5). Again : “ The 
 drama is ... an imitation of action, and of life, and of good fortune, and 
 of misfortune,” (ib. 6. 7). Once more : “ They [the tragic poets] do 
 not compose in order that they may imitate manners, but they form con- 
 ceptions of these in order that they may exhibit action ; for action ( ra 
 TZQuyfiara) and my thus are the end of tragedy,” i. e. of the drama, (ib.). 
 According to Eichhorn’s representations of Aristotle’s definition, the 
 drama would embrace every history of events that is extant, i. e. pro- 
 vided such events were concerned (as all in fact are) with the prosperity 
 or adversity of men. Any historic representation of a series of actions, 
 ending in good or evil, would, in accordance with such views, of course 
 be a drama. Not so the Stagyrite. He says, 6 there can be no drama 
 without six constituents, viz. fable, manners, words, thoughts, show, 
 song.’ The last of course includes the poetic nature of the piece. What 
 is set forth as reality in a drama, must, as we have seen above, be imi- 
 tated by actors ; and this imitation is what is called show , in the division 
 above. Not that the actual show (Jj oxpig) is essential to the nature of 
 the piece, (for the actual show or exhibition does not depend on the 
 author of the drama), but that the composition in its very nature must 
 be of a cast which is designed for exhibition, or adapted to it ; see 
 Arist. Poet. 6. 11. 
 
 Here then we take our stand ; and here we may settle the question 
 
§ 8. 19 TITE APOCALYPSE A DRAMA ? 
 
 153 
 
 at once. Was the Apocalypse written to be exhibited by actors on a 
 stage ? Is it adapted for such an exhibition ? Does it contain an imi- 
 tation of character, manners, or events, which is intended to be exhibi- 
 ted by imitation of actors ? This is the distinctive feature of drama ; 
 and without this, no other qualities can entitle a piece to this appella- 
 tion. 
 
 - No proof is needed, (except it be to read the book), that the Apoca- 
 lypse cannot be ranked under this category. The writer merely relates 
 wliat he saw in vision. Even what he saw in vision was not acted out, 
 in many respects. Symbols of wliat was to take place at some future 
 period, i. e. pictorial sketches of what would take, place, constitute the 
 frame-work of the Apocalypse. If a picture is a drama, then the Apoca- 
 lypse may possibly be called one ; but not otherwise. The dialogue i3 
 only so much as Thucydides, or Xenophon, or Livy, usually presents ; 
 it is a mere incidental matter, not a main constituent element of the 
 book. The Apocalypse is merely a narration or account of symbols 
 seen in a vision ; it is not the imitation of life, and manners, and action, 
 by agents who are to appear upon the stage. 
 
 Eichhom himself feels constrained to make so many exceptions to the 
 dramatical character of the Apocalypse, that he virtually exempts it 
 from this species of composition. ‘ In drama/ says he, i things that have 
 taken place are represented, but in the Apocalypse, things future ; else- 
 where words are employed, but here symbols ; elsewhere the drama it- 
 self is presented for our perusal, here is only a description of a drama 
 that was seen f Einleit. ins N. Testament, § 188. Of what use then, 
 we may well ask, is it to insist on such an appellation as drama , when 
 all the peculiar and characteristic qualities of this kind of composition 
 are wanting ? Dialogue is wanting ; living imitation by action is want- 
 ing ; the presence and inspection of spectators is wanting ; the narration 
 of past occurrences is almost entirely wanting ; and, in short, nothing 
 remains but the essential characteristics of all prophetic poetry, viz. fig- 
 ure, simile, symbol, and peculiar diction. 
 
 Nor is this strange whim of Eichhom’s altogether harmless. Pie tasks 
 John with misconceptions and faults, because he has introduced some 
 things into hi3 work which are inconsistent with the true nature of the 
 drama. For example : ‘ The seven epistles to the churches are a trans- 
 gression of this nature. The account of the woman clothed with the 
 sun and stars, and of her teknogony, are an offence against the laws of 
 dramatic criticism / Einleit. § 190. And more than all this; an ar- 
 rangement of the whole composition in such a manner as to correspond 
 in any tolerable manner to the form of a drama, must of necessity break 
 up many of the mutual relations of the piece, and substantially interfere 
 with its numerosity. But of this last quality, Eichhom had no concep- 
 
 YOL. i. 20 
 
154 
 
 § 8. IS THE APOCALYPSE A DRAMA ? 
 
 tion. He taxes John, indeed, with Cabbalism in respect to the seven 
 spirits, (1: 4) ; in regal’d to his description of the conqueror, (19: 12) ; 
 and in respect to the number of the beast, (13: 18) ; not one of which 
 passages, however, has he proved to have anything to do with real Cab- 
 balism. But his mind was of a peculiar cast. When it had seized any 
 conception, which seemed to bid fair to throw light on any dark pas- 
 sage of Scripture, he appears to have taken it for granted, that such 
 conception must have a good foundation, whether he could produce 
 vouchers for it or not. Hence it comes, perhaps, that his fame, once so 
 dominant in Germany, went down to the tomb, as one might almost say, 
 with the hand that penned his compositions. Recent criticism rarely 
 alludes to him, although in many respects it owes him much. 
 
 In a word, who that is versed in the history and criticism of the Scrip- 
 tures does not well know, that the Hebrews were utterly averse to the 
 study and imitation of foreign literature — specially of the Greek, which 
 had been forced in some measure upon them by Antiochus Epiphanes 
 and by the Roman power ? The two Herods did indeed introduce the 
 Greek drama into two or three cities in Palestine. But it was resorted to 
 mostly by foreigners, and was not frequently exhibited. The Jews, 
 (the heathenizing apostates only excepted), were utterly averse to for- 
 eign literature, and never instructed their children in it, except so far as 
 conversation-language was concerned. Josephus was obliged to learn it 
 by stealth. Nothing short of the terror inspired by the Herods, could 
 cause their dramas to be attended by Jewish spectators. Is it possible 
 to suppose, with the remotest probability, that John would endeavour to 
 imitate the Greek drama, in a book which he had so formally introduced 
 and commended to the churches ? The very face of the matter decides 
 against it. And besides all this, down to the present hour the taste of 
 nearly all Asiatics, the colonies of Greece only excepted, has never adopt- 
 ed or relished dramatic compositions. The Arabians, the Persians, the 
 Turks, and others, all have their rliapsodists and their story-tellers, and 
 are greatly attached to the amusements afforded by them ; but scenic 
 and dialogistic representations have never, to any extent, been adopted 
 by them. 
 
 Another error on the part of Eichhorn, and one of no small impor- 
 tance, stands connected with his dramatic view of the Apocalypse. It is 
 this, viz., that he everywhere considers the Revelation simply as a 
 mere literary production, which of course is arbitrary, and owes its ori- 
 gin simply to the imagination and fancy of the writer. This is decidedly 
 against all scriptural analogy. There is no other part of the New Tes- 
 tament, which does not obviously take its rise from the necessities or 
 the welfare of the churches. Moved by one or both of these, the Evan- 
 gelists, Paul, Peter, James, all come forward as writers. And does it 
 
§ 9. OBJECT OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 155 
 
 not lie upon the very face of the Apocalypse, from beginning to end, 
 that the distresses, persecutions, and dangers of the churches, urged, and 
 as it were compelled, the author to write ? With all the sublime visions 
 of the Apocalypse respecting the future, there is scarcely any sacred 
 book which is designed or adapted to have a more immediate, powerful, 
 and practical influence upon its readers. To him that overcometh , in 
 the great contest between the church and its persecutors, the crown of 
 triumph and of glory is everywhere held out. How then can we sup- 
 pose John to have sat down to a purely literary and imaginative effort, 
 like that of an author of a Greek drama ? How could he think of com- 
 mending himself to his Hebrew-christian readers, or even to his Gen- 
 tile converts, by an attempt to entertain them with a production cast in 
 the mould of a heathen drama? Well may we say with Liicke, in re- 
 spect to this matter : “ Everywhere [in the New Testament literature] 
 it is reality, practical ends, which excite to composition ; and the forms 
 of this are the usual and obvious ones, which strike our view at once. 
 All mere literary talent and acquisition is subordinate to the design of 
 edification, instruction, admonition. . . . How could any one so entirely 
 mistake the nature of the apostolical age! [So mistake it as Eichhorn 
 has done]. At a time when a whole world is born anew, amid a con- 
 test of hostile powers, something quite different from inventing new forms 
 of the drama occupies the mind. The views of Eichhorn, inasmuch as 
 they entirely disregard the historical condition of things, and utterly fail 
 to recognize the difference between ancient and modern times, cannot, 
 on this very account, be deemed correct.” Liicke, Einl. § 21. 
 
 § 9. Object of the booh. 
 
 The general object has already been briefly stated, at the commence- 
 ment of this Introduction, § 1. My present design is to explain more 
 fully and to defend the statement there made, and to pass in brief review 
 some of the leading schemes of interpretation which assign to the Apoca- 
 lypse a different object. 
 
 The final and complete triumph of Christianity over all opposition and 
 all enemies , and the temporal and eternal glory and happiness to which 
 this triumph leads the church , or still more briefly, as Liicke has stated 
 it, ‘ the coming and completion of the kingdom of GodJ is the generic 
 theme of the Revelation. To this grand central point all converges ; 
 for however numerous or diverse the subordinate parts of the book are, 
 they all sustain a relation more or less prominent to the main theme of 
 the work. 
 
 In making this statement, I refer merely to the grand theme itself of 
 the writer, and not to the practical ends which he undoubtedly had in 
 
156 
 
 § 9. OBJECT OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 view. The practical object to be attained by writing the book, is easily 
 distinguishable from the theme of the writer. Indeed, the main object 
 to be attained, and the theme of the book, stand related to each other 
 as final end and means. The end sought for was, to encourage, console, 
 and admonish Christians suffering under bitter and bloody persecution, 
 and sorely tempted to apostatize or to act a timid and doubting part. 
 On every page of the book is this enstamped. From the commence- 
 ment of the proem down to the completion of the epilogue, all is filled 
 with promise and encouragement to those who are engaged in arduous 
 and bloody strife. The tree of life, the paradise of God, a crown of 
 glory, regal and priestly elevation and honour, an exemption from the 
 second death, a place and citizenship in the new Jerusalem, white rai- 
 ment, even the splendid dazzling costume of the upper world, the ex- 
 ternal presence of God, exemption from hunger and thirst and cold and 
 heat and sickness and mourning, the perpetual care of the great Shep- 
 herd who shall feed his sheep and lead them to fountains of living water, 
 eternal rest from all trials and struggles and grievances — rest in that 
 world where they need not sun nor moon, because the glory of God 
 lightens it and the Lamb is its splendour — these, and the like, are the 
 objects of promise to the faithful combatant in the army of martyrs, 
 which are everywhere proffered in the Apocalypse. How insignificant 
 in comparison with these, are the laurels and crowns which applauding 
 nations can bestow, or all the fleeting glories and honours which the 
 world itself could proffer ! 
 
 Of the practical end to be • attained, therefore, there is no room for 
 doubt. I do not say that the writer had no other end in view but the 
 single one that has been stated. Which of all the sacred writers has 
 written a book as long, without designing to accomplish several pur- 
 poses ? But in the Apocalypse, as in the Gospels and in several of 
 Paul’s epistles, there is one main purpose that runs through the whole, 
 and modifies it, and makes everything subordinate to its leading design. 
 All the hortatory and monitory passages of the Revelation are true to 
 tills main design, and stamp the book with an inscription which is abso- 
 lutely indelible. 
 
 Liicke (§ 25) seems to call in question this view of the book. He 
 avers, that dei^cu xoig dovloig lt]oov Xqigzov d del ye,vt6 &ai iv 1 : 1 , 
 
 comp. 22: 6, proposes and adverts to instruction respecting the coming 
 and kingdom of Christ as a leading purpose. And beyond all doubt, such 
 instruction is the object of the main theme in itself considered. But why 
 was any theme chosen ? Why did the writer engage at all in the com- 
 position of the book ? This admits of no other answer that accords 
 with the practical tenor of the book, than the one which has already 
 been given ; and I call that the chief end of a book, to accomplish which 
 
§ 9 . OBJECT OP THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 157 
 
 the author was principally moved to write it. In a word, it seems plain 
 to me, from the whole tenor of the Apocalypse, that the writer chose 
 for his theme the certain triumph of Christianity over all its enemies, 
 and the glorious consummation of the struggle with the powers of dark- 
 ness, because this theme, above all which could be chosen, was best adapt- 
 ed to the purposes which the author had in view. It is a truly magnifi- 
 cent and soul-stirring theme. To do it justice, so as to make it impres- 
 sive in the measure which John desired, he must expand and adorn it, 
 he must present not a mere outline but a finished picture. Instruction 
 is of course the necessary result. What could there be of substantiality 
 and importance in the book, if it gave no instruction ? The more of 
 this, the more certain the author must be of fully and rationally accom- 
 plishing its design. The theme then may be very instructive , and yet 
 be chosen for a then present and urgent practical purpose. 
 
 When I speak of a purpose then immediately in view by the writer, 
 I do not mean to be understood as saying, that the book was adapted 
 only to the main and immediate purpose for which it was composed. 
 Like the Epistles to the Corinthians, or the Gospel of Luke, it was call- 
 ed into being by the exigencies of the times. But like them, also, it is 
 replete with instruction for all ages of the church, so long as any cir- 
 cumstances exist which resemble those that occasioned the composition 
 of it. Manente ratione , manet ipsa lex. So long as Christians have to 
 struggle against the world and the powers of darkness, so long the views 
 and admonitions and promises of the Apocalypse are needed. Indeed, 
 I cannot well believe that minds as enlightened as were those of the 
 apostles and writers of the New Testament, could ever suppose that the 
 writings which they produced were limited, in their influence and use- 
 fulness, merely to the generation in which they lived. Well may we 
 take the position, that while the main and original object of the Apoca- 
 lypse was to meet the exigencies of the time in which it was written, 
 and while the theme was peculiarly adapted to the accomplishment of 
 this end, still, a book duly composed in such circumstances and in order 
 to meet actual wants and woes, must present more or less which will 
 always be useful at every period of the world. The great combat with 
 sin, in some form or other, is never to cease while the probation of man 
 continues. Of course, then, the Apocalypse will always afford matter 
 of admonition and encouragement to Christians. 
 
 The view which has now been given of the original and main design 
 of the Apocalypse, and of the theme which was chosen by the writer 
 for the accomplishment of this design, is more important than most 
 readers may be prepared to consider it. The leading direction which 
 must be given to the exegesis of the book depends upon it, and several 
 questions of a critical nature, which are highly important, stand connected 
 
158 
 
 § 9 . OBJECT OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 with it. To adduce the evidences that the view in question is correct, 
 would be to recapitulate the whole contents of the Apocalypse. I 
 cannot at present occupy my own time, or that of the reader, with do- 
 ing this. I must content myself with simply saying, that the careful 
 perusal of the book, independently of any theory of interpretation, 
 first gave to me this view, and that this has been more and more con- 
 firmed by all subsequent study of it. I must request the reader who 
 has doubts in respect to it, to apply himself to the simple and contin- 
 uous perusal of the book, in order to ascertain what was the main and 
 immediate object of the writer. I anticipate with confidence, that he 
 will come to the same result to which I have come. 
 
 How much the object now before us has been overlooked by the older 
 commentators, needs no other evidence than the study of them. Let us 
 select the most favourite and popular stand-point of many theologians 
 and critics, and for a moment examine it. They assumed, that the great 
 object of John was to give an outline of church history down to the end 
 of the world. With this, of course, is intermingled a great deal of civil 
 history — the revolutions and changes of states and empires. The conse- 
 quence has been, that we are said to have, according to the various views 
 of expositors, either the history of the Jews and of the Romans in more 
 ancient times ; or the history of Rome during the decline and fall of 
 the Roman empire ; or the history of the middle ages principally, spe- 
 cially of the rise and spread of popery, with its persecutions and its 
 idolatry ; or, as others will, we have also the history of the Reformation, 
 of the various corruptions of the church by heretics, of the Roman 
 Catholic orders of monks, of the persecutions excited by them, of the 
 decline of the papal hierarchy with its final overthrow, and of the ulti- 
 mate triumph of pure Christianity over all error and opposition. Ac- 
 cording to some expositors, even the petty monarchies of modern Eu- 
 rope, and not a little of their individual history, is sketched out by John 
 in the Apocalypse, and many of the comparatively insignificant sects of 
 modern and even recent heretics are described. To views which are sub- 
 stantially these, or like to these, no less men than even Joseph Mede 
 and Campegius Vintringa have acceded. What might not be expected, 
 then, from men who seldom thought or examined for themselves ! 
 
 In respect to every attempt of this sort at expounding the great design 
 of the Apocalypse, much of doubt and difficulty must now arise in the 
 mind of a serious and candid inquirer, when he is once put upon the 
 track of simple historico-critical exegesis — along which track the science 
 of interpretation now bids us to move. Readily will such an one be 
 inclined to ask : What analogy is there in all the Scriptures for such a 
 method of prophecy ? Rarely are very distant future events made the 
 subject of prediction — never, unless indeed they stand closely connected 
 
§9. OBJECT OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 159 
 
 with the welfare of God’s chosen people. Almost everything that is 
 remote, is, in the Old Testament, brought to view merely because it has 
 some relation to Christ or his kingdom. And even here how brief, how- 
 general, how destitute of individual specification and minuteness, are 
 all predictions of this nature ! If the reader doubts this for a moment, 
 I must beg him to go back, and reperuse § 2. of this Introduction. 
 There can be no appeal from a pragmatic view of this subject; and 
 such an one is there given. 
 
 Well may the candid reader also ask : What is the object of the Scrip- 
 tures ? Civil history or religious ? If any one should say : ‘We have 
 such history in the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles 
 the answer would not be difficult. Is anything more plainly |mstamped 
 on the face of all these and the like books, than that they are mainly 
 the religious , and not merely the civil, history of the Hebrews ? They 
 are a species of 'preaching by facts ; while the prophecies (so called) 
 assume almost the usual form of homilies. When the future is at all 
 disclosed by the Hebrew prophets, it is for the sake of warning and ad- 
 monition, of rousing hope or exciting fear ; and all this, not in a merely 
 civil, but mainly in a religious respect. 
 
 What inducement, now, could John have to disclose by prediction, the 
 ecclesiastical history of the churches in distant ages ? Was this meeting 
 the wants, or alleviating the woes, or exciting the hopes of the church, 
 then bleeding at every pore under the monster Nero — merely to furnish 
 them with an abstract of the history of Popes and Jesuits, who would 
 five more than a thousand years after they were dead ? And what con- 
 solation could it be to the agonizing Christians of Nero’s day, to know 
 that ecclesiastical Rome and her adherents in the fourteenth and fifteenth 
 centuries would become corrupt beyond all example, and haughty also, and 
 blood-thirsty, while true religion would be nearly extinguished ? This 
 seems to be very ill-adapted to console the oppressed and anxious 
 Christian of the primitive times, who was fearful lest the light of salva- 
 tion might be extinguished by the blood of the martyrs. 
 
 In whatever light I view such a scheme of explanation or exegesis 
 of the main design of the Apocalypse, I am constrained to think it un- 
 grounded and improbable. It is not probable, that it was any object 
 with the holy prophets to gratify mere prurient curiosity about future 
 historic events — events connected only with civil or ecclesiastical his- 
 tory. What really useful purpose could this subserve ? I cannot — I 
 must not — regard the Apocalypse as in effect nothing more than a mere 
 Syllabus of History. Often have we heard it reiterated : ‘ Is it proba- 
 ble, that God would leave his church without a knowledge of what was 
 to happen to it in future ?’ To this question I should answer No, in one 
 respect, and Yes, in another. God has not left his church without a 
 
160 
 
 § 9 . OBJECT OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 vivid representation of its future and certain and universal triumph and 
 sway. This rests on foundations as firm as those of the throne of God 
 and the kingdom of his grace. The Apocalypse as it now is, interpre- 
 ted in the manner which has been above proposed, speaks all this in 
 language not to be misunderstood. Thus much, then, as to all that can 
 cheer and encourage Christians. But on the other hand, of what moral 
 use would it be, to gratify a prurient curiosity about all the minute events 
 connected with the history of the church down to the end of time ? In- 
 deed, it would be necessary to write ten thousand Apocalypses at least, 
 in order to present us in reality with such a history. But what would 
 these contribute towards moral suasion or religious impression and ad- 
 monition ? Nothing — yea, less than nothing ; for it would be an intol- 
 erable burden to the Christian church, to make or to print even an ab- 
 stract of them. It is indeed a degradation of the book of Revelation, 
 to turn it into a syllabus of mere worldly history. 
 
 The day has past by, as I would fain hope and trust, in which all at- 
 tempts to explain ancient writings, without regard to the circumstances 
 of the author, or of his friends, of the times in which he wrote, and of 
 the special object that induced liim to write, can meet with extensive 
 approbation or encouragement. All other books, the Old Testament 
 and most of the New not excepted, are explained in this way. Why 
 should the Apocalypse be treated as an exception to all other writings 
 in the world ? 
 
 If now, in addition to all this, we take into view the fact, that the 
 Revelation may be explained to much greater advantage, and much 
 more in consonance with the laws of exegesis and with the understand- 
 ing and reason of mankind, provided we give due attention to the cir- 
 cumstances and condition of the writer and of his fellow Christians, how 
 can we hesitate as to which of the methods of interpretation before us is 
 to be chosen ? Doubt, in this case, would spread corresponding doubt 
 and darkness over the whole Bible, provided the expositor were consis- 
 tent with himself in the application of such principles. 
 
 However confident, therefore, any particular persons may be in apply- 
 ing the symbols of the Apocalypse to distant events of church-history, 
 yet the time has passed by, in which confidence can be reposed by really 
 enlightened interpreters, who make this book an object of attentive 
 study, in merely imaginative and ever floating exegesis. Where is one 
 spot of terra jirma in its whole domain ? No two expositors belong- 
 ing to this class agree, unless where one is a mere satellite of another. 
 And why not ? Because their method of interpretation depends on 
 mere fancy, imagination, conjectural resemblances, or perhaps sectarian 
 views, and other such things, and therefore can neither secure unity nor 
 command respect. Witness the volumes without number of prophetical 
 
§ 9. OBJECT OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 161 
 
 op theological romances that have already been poured forth, under the 
 excitement and guidance of such views as I have now been characteriz- 
 ing. It is time — high time — for principle to take the place of fancy , 
 for exegetical proof to thrust out assumption , and for all men to call to 
 mind, that the apostles did not occupy themselves with writing conun- 
 drums and charades. They wrote to be read and understood by those to 
 whom they addressed themselves ; and if they were understood, it was 
 by virtue of explaining their writings in a manner which accorded with 
 the usual laws and principles of exegesis. These never could have 
 given birth to a scheme of interpretation, which divests the Apocalypse 
 of all present and proper regard to the churches, clothed as they then 
 were in sackcloth, groaning under oppression, and often bathed in their 
 own blood. To forget all this, and to engage oneself in the leisurely 
 and fanciful employment of sketching traits of historical events in dis- 
 tant future ages, and many of these merely civil events — is not appro- 
 priate work for the illustrious exile wandering on the barren and sea- 
 girt rocks of Patmos. 
 
 Not much better than this have those interpreters done, who have- 
 found in the Apocalypse little else but the Roman conquest of Judea and 
 Jerusalem, excepting the final erection of a new and spiritual kingdom. 
 So Hartwig, in his famous Apologie der Ojfenbarung. So, for substance, 
 Herder in his Mar an Atha ; so, in a large measure, Wetstein ; and so, 
 fully, Zullig in his recent work. Others of less note have done the 
 same. Yet nothing less than absolute violence can make Rev. xii — xix. 
 relate to Judea and Jerusalem. The great mass of commentators have 
 regarded, and do still regard, such an exegesis as impossible. 
 
 On the other hand, there are not wanting those who regard John as 
 having been altogether partial to the Jews, and as purposely exempting 
 Jerusalem from anything more than temporary and moderate chastise- 
 ment. Of this class is Ewald in his Commentary ; and here, in some 
 good measure, seem also to be found De Wette and Bleek. Heathen 
 Rome and its adherents are, with this class of critics, the great object of 
 the Apocalypse. But how can one well doubt, after reading chap. vii. 
 which shows what portion of the Jews are to be exempted from punish- 
 ment, and chap. xi. (specially v. 8) which shows, too specifically to ad- 
 mit of being explained away, that Jerusalem is to fall — how can he doubt, 
 that the persecuting Jews are the objects of the prophetic threatening ? 
 Let him moreover read Matt, xxiv, and then consider the striking sim- 
 ilarity between the tenor of this and that of Rev. vi — xi. ; and to all 
 this let him add the consideration, that no reference to Rome, at least 
 none that can be rendered probable, is to be found in the first eleven 
 chapters of the Apocalypse ; and then I do not see how he can in any 
 way render it probable, that merely heathen persecutors are the subjects 
 YOL. L 21 
 
162 
 
 § 9. OBJECT OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 of consideration and of commination in the Apocalypse. The principal 
 support of such an opinion is, that the Apocalyptist has not as fully and 
 plainly announced the destruction of Jerusalem in chap, xi, as he has 
 that of great Babylon in chap. xvi. xix. The fact, that it is less fully 
 and prominently announced, must indeed be conceded. But still, that 
 it is announced, and moreover that the very plan of the work necessa- 
 rily demands that it should be considered as taking place, I cannot, after 
 the most attentive and often repeated consideration of the subject, see 
 any good reason to doubt. But the special arguments in favour of this 
 position must be reserved for detail in the commentary. 
 
 While I entertain a distinct and vivid apprehension, that Judaism 
 and Heathenism are both brought upon the scene of action as the great 
 antagonists of Christianity, yet I cannot, after all, subscribe to the 
 statement of Eichhorn and many of his followers, viz. that “ the funda- 
 mental idea of the Apocalypse is, the victory of Christianity over Juda- 
 ism and Heathenism, and the establishment of the subsequent kingdom 
 of the Blessed;” Einleit. §187. This statement is too abstract and 
 merely theoretical, in the first place ; and in the second, it is defective 
 in some important respects. It is not simply and merely the ultimate 
 predominance of Christianity over all its enemies, or rather over Jewish 
 and Roman power, which is held up to view. It is Christianity as strug- 
 gling first, and for a long time, with bitter Jewish enemies, who are in 
 various ways weakened and ultimately destroyed ; then it is Christianity 
 struggling with the tremendous Roman power which governed the world 
 — yea carrying on a death-struggle for a long time and with agonies of- 
 ten repeated — until finally victory lights upon the standard of the cross ; 
 it is Christianity not in the abstract (so to speak), but in the concrete , 
 which John presents and holds up to our view, while she is bathed in 
 blood and wrapped in flames, and finally comes out from all like gold 
 from the fiery furnace. 
 
 Nor is this all. Eichhorn has entirely failed to discern the trichotomy 
 of the book. The two great enemies which he recognizes, are surely 
 not the only ones with which Christianity is called to contend. After a 
 long season of peace, prosperity, and wide diffusion, new enemies rise 
 up, and league together against her. The hosts of Gog and Magog, 
 from the ends of the earth and in numbers like the sands of the sea, 
 assemble and march against the holy metropolis of Christianity. Hea- 
 ven arrests them ere they have stricken any fatal blow, and they perish 
 in a summary and awful manner. Gog and Magog are an enemy and 
 an empire different from the Roman ; and this view involves the idea of 
 an opposition differing in some of its characteristics from either of the 
 others. But, being in the distant future, it is merely sketched and not 
 dwelt upon ; the apocalyptic view in this case being very brief, like all 
 other prophecies of a similar nature. 
 
§ 9 . OBJECT OF THE APOCALTrSE. 
 
 163 
 
 It is thus, that Christianity is presented not merely as struggling and 
 triumphant, but as struggling at different periods for a long succession of 
 time, and never fully and finally victorious until Satan is remitted to his 
 perpetual prison. It is, as the apostle Paul said of himself, Christianity 
 “ made a spectacle to angels and men,” in a great variety of attitudes, 
 and passing through trials and dangers which seem not only to threaten 
 it, but to have the power of destroying it. No hero of any epic poem 
 is anywhere presented on a theatre of such intense and long-continued 
 and agonizing action. But victory and a crown of unfading glory is 
 awarded, at last, by the King of kings and Lord of lords. No other 
 Epic can lay claim to higher, more intense, more varied, more constant, 
 more perilous, and finally to more successful action, than the Apocalypse 
 assigns to Christianity. 
 
 All this is so plain, and lies so upon the very face of the Revelation, 
 that it would have been seen and acknowledged ages ago, had not a 
 deep and all-pervading mystical exegesis led astray the Christian pub- 
 lic. If, (as was deemed not only allowable but expedient), the mystical 
 interpretation might be applied to the simple narratives and parables of 
 the Gospels, and to the Epistles of Paul and others, surely it might with 
 ten-fold reason be applied to a book so veiled and mysterious as the 
 Apocalypse seemed to be. The very form and nature of the book help- 
 ed to give currency and authority to such views ; and of course the 
 Apocalypse has been, in almost every age, as it were a mass of wax 
 mouldable at the will and fancy of every one who undertook to shape it. 
 The recent vindications of the claims of simple and artless exegesis, how- 
 ever, have gradually been producing their legitimate effect on the inter- 
 pretation of this book, and, as at least it is to be hoped, fancy-work and 
 conceit and visionary speculation have had their day, and are not much 
 longer to exercise their mischievous power. The Apocalypse is to be 
 judged of in like manner as any other symbolic Epopee. Poetry is to 
 be considered as poetry, and symbol as symbol ; unity of design is to 
 be expected and sought for ; and such a view of the book is to be taken, 
 as has a basis in the persuasion, that it was written for a then present 
 and important exigency, which existed when the author engaged in his 
 work. Like every other writer, John must be judged of in a sober and 
 rational way, and with constant reference to his intention, his circum- 
 stances, his idiom, and his primitive readers. From a judgment formed 
 in this way, the author of the book need not, if he were now living, feel 
 disposed to shrink. It cannot be otherwise than highly honourable to 
 his plan and designs, and also to his powers of execution. 
 
164 
 
 §10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 § 10. Economy of the Apocalypse , or manner in which the plan is 
 
 developed. 
 
 Much that belongs here has already been said, in disclosing the pecu- 
 liar forms of the book which result from its numerosity ; see § 7, partic- 
 ularly (a) seq. But before we proceed to the particular consideration 
 of the subject indicated by the inscription above, it may be proper to 
 say a word in respect to those, who regard the Apocalypse as being pro- 
 perly exempt from all investigation and criticism, which is of such a 
 nature as the inscription necessarily implies that stands at the head of 
 the present section. 
 
 Writers have not been wanting, and individuals are not still wanting, 
 who object to all critical and rhetorical analysis of the book before us, be- 
 cause it is a book divinely inspired. Kleuker (no mean critic, by the 
 way), says, in his defence of the Apocalypse against the theory of Eich- 
 hom, who regarded this book as a mere work of genius and fancy, that 
 1 we are not to bring invention and art into the account of its composition, 
 but rather an involuntary inspiration , which is independent of art, and 
 implies that the seer is transported out of himself;’ (Ursprung und 
 Zweck der Offenb. § 841). Hence he concludes, that the theory of Eich- 
 horn is destitute of any solid basis, and that we are not to seek for the 
 application of any of the rules of art to a book of such a character. Nor 
 does Kleuker stand alone in entertaining such views. There have been 
 and now are some, who consider it as a kind of profanation to subject 
 any scriptural book to a logical or rhetorical analysis. 
 
 What shall we say, then, to views like these ? So far as Eichhorn 
 is concerned, I should entirely agree with Kleuker in rejecting his su- 
 perficial view of the Apocalypse, and the ranking of it among works of 
 mere fancy and imagination. But to maintain that the book has no 
 plan, and no method in which that plan is carried into execution, be- 
 cause it is of divine origin, would be a most extravagant and incredible 
 paradox. Did not God make the human mind ? Has he not enstamp- 
 ed upon it the laws of logic and rhetoric, so that, in its higher develop- 
 ments, those laws are necessarily as well as spontaneously obeyed ? And 
 if God thus reveals himself in man who is made in his own image, will 
 he have no regard to all this in an external revelation ? Does the want 
 of logic and rhetoric prove anything to be of divine origin ? If not, then 
 the presence of them will not disprove the inspiration of the sacred 
 writers. 
 
 So far, moreover, as rhetorical development and the laws of aesthe- 
 tics are concerned, what rational man has been able to show, that bishop 
 Lowth’s noble work on Hebrew poetry is to be cast away, because he 
 
§ 10 . ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 165 
 
 has laboured to show the rhetorical and aesthetica! beauties of the Old 
 Testament poetry, and the art which is exhibited in the composition of 
 it ? Is not poetry in its very nature an art ? Are not its measure, and 
 rhythm, and parallelism, and peculiar idiom, and appropriate choice of 
 diction, connected with art ? And as to nearly one half of all the Old 
 Testament — is it not poetry ? 
 
 But what shall we say to the alphabetic Psalms, specially the 119th ; 
 to the alphabetic book of Lamentations; to the like composition in 
 Prov. xxxi. ? And even in the New Testament, what is to be said to 
 Matthew’s genealogy, where fourteens are artificially made, by the omis- 
 sion of many links in the chain of ancestors ? What can we say to 
 these and the like exhibitions in the Scriptures, except that when God 
 speaks to men, he speaks more humano ? He certainly speaks by men , 
 to men , and for men. He speaks then so as to be understood ; and of 
 course, the sacred writers employ language as others do, else they could 
 not be understood. Is it any derogation from the dignity and useful- 
 ness of the sacred writings, that they exhibit a great variety of compo- 
 sition, adapted to different tastes and capacities ? On the contrary, is it 
 not a striking evidence of God’s paternal kindness and condescension, 
 that he has adapted his instructions to all classes of men, who are to be 
 benefited by them ? 
 
 If now alphabetic compositions, adapted to help the memory of learn- 
 ers, have found their way into the Bible, and even a whole book of 
 Lamentations has taken such a form from the taste of the author or of 
 the age, why should the numerosity of the book of Job, or of the Apoc- 
 alypse, be objected to the composition ? It is certain, that numbers are 
 higher symbols, and more expressive, than mere alphabetic sequency of 
 words or of Gxiypi. It is even certain, that trichotomy has something in 
 its very nature which is pleasing, and adapted to arrest our attention. 
 Do not the latest and most popular schemes of philosophy itself resolve 
 themselves into a basis which implies trichotomy ? 
 
 But whether we consent or deny, in respect to this matter, change s 
 not, and cannot change, the state of fact. The fact is before every 
 reader’s eyes ; and he might as well deny that the sun shines in a mid- 
 day serene sky, as to deny that numerosity and alphabetic composition 
 belong to a part of the sacred books. 
 
 Here then is art ; not in the bad, but in the good sense of this word. 
 And if this be so, then we may investigate it, point it out, make it 
 known to readers, and call their attention to it. The sacred books were 
 composed in order to be read, studied, closely and thoroughly investi- 
 gated ; and the more this is done, to the more advantage will they ap- 
 pear. 
 
 Of all the theories respecting inspiration that have been broached, I 
 
166 
 
 § 10 . ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 know of none which appears to me further from the truth, than that 
 which makes the sacred writers mere automata , moved not at all by 
 their own power or choice, but by an irresistible power which super- 
 sedes the use of their own faculties. To affirm, as a well known writer 
 who now figures upon the stage in Germany has done, that “ when the 
 Spirit of God comes in, the soul of man goes out,” is to affirm that 
 soulless and rationless beings are more appropriate instruments of teach- 
 ing, than beings fully possessing souls and enlightened reason. It is 
 impossible to make the mass of thinking men, at the present time, be- 
 lieve in extravagances like this. 
 
 There is as much variety and difference, both in manner and matter, 
 among the sacred writings, as among Greek, Roman, or English clas- 
 sics. There is every possible evidence of variety of taste and talent 
 displayed in the works of scriptural writers. If any one should say that 
 Haggai or Malachi are on a par in aesthetics with Isaiah and Habakkuk, 
 am I to distrust my senses, my understanding, and my taste, in such a 
 manner as to believe this ? Nothing demands such a distrust ; and 
 even if I would exercise it, the laws of my nature forbid it, when I 
 read these books. Yet the actual instruction conveyed by the one or 
 the other, is equally authentic and credible. It is only the rhetorical or 
 aesthetical character of the books, which is so exceedingly diverse. 
 
 But where are we now ? These differences in the style of different 
 authors do actually exist ; artificial modes of composition, moreover, lie 
 before us in full view ; all the varieties of style which different tastes 
 and talents of men give rise to, are undeniable predicates of the sacred 
 books. And why should we not notice and examine these and the like 
 facts ? Why should we not point out characteristics which lie either 
 upon the face of the scriptural compositions, or which are more covertly 
 interwoven with the very texture of them, and need to be patiently and 
 carefully investigated ? God has not derogated from the authority or 
 dignity of his communications, by giving them an aesthetical character 
 which is varied so as to allure all ranks and conditions of men. He 
 has spoken to children as children ; to full grown men as such. The 
 Apocalypse, it cannot be doubted, is adapted roig did ri]v 8<giv rd aic- 
 xhyrrjQia ysyvfAvaofAs'vct e%ovoi 7iQog didxQiGiv xulov te xal xaxov. There 
 is elsewhere milk for babes ; but the Revelation is doubtless “ meat for 
 full grown men.” Does the book lose any of its value on this account ? 
 Far from it. Does not the great apostle to the Gentiles tell us, that he 
 preached Goyiav iv roig reXEioig, while he refrained from so doing among 
 others who had made but little progress in the knowledge of divine 
 things ? 1 Cor. ii. What he did in preaching other teachers might do 
 in writing. And if they have done it, (as surely they have), then we 
 may investigate any such writing, and point out its method, its logic, its 
 aesthetics, and in a word its whole literary character. 
 
§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 1G7 
 
 To scan the book by the mere technical rules of the logic or rhetoric 
 of the schools, would not, I readily acknowledge, be an appropriate ex- 
 ercise of criticism. It is not to be thus examined or judged of. Still 
 the Apocalypse is a composition which follows some laws of the human 
 mind. It would not be intelligible at all, if it did not ; and if it does, 
 it is the proper office of criticism to point out what laws it has followed, 
 and how far they may compare with the laws of composition as pre- 
 scribed by the schools. Our reception or rejection of the book as au- 
 thentic in matters of doctrine and duty, does not depend on the results of 
 such an investigation. Not that I think the Apocalypse has anything 
 to fear from such a scrutiny ; but be this as it may, the duty of a critic 
 to analyze and explain the structure and continuity of any sacred book, 
 is none the less because it is sacred. I may well repeat here what I 
 have already said above. When God speaks to men, he speaks more 
 humcmo. What bids us, then, to refrain from examining the plan and 
 economy of the Apocalypse, provided we do it with candour, with 
 sober scrutiny, and with that high respect which the nature of the work 
 and the character of its author demands ? To examine for the mere 
 purpose of condemning or carping, is a very different matter from ex- 
 amining for the purpose of acquiring instruction. 
 
 My examination of the Apocalypse has ended in the conviction, that 
 this book has the same claims, or as well-grounded claims, to be consid- 
 ered as the result of inspiration, as the other books of the New Testa- 
 ment. Its object, aim, and even the manner of its execution, will bear 
 comparison with any other work of the New Dispensation. If any are 
 surprised at a declaration like this, I can only say here, that I hope 
 fully to justify such a conclusion, before I have done with the examina- 
 tion of the work. But I do not apprehend that inspiration whatever 
 aid it gave a writer in the way of illumination and guidance, changed 
 the peculiarities of that writer’s style, or hindered the full and proper 
 exercise of his logical and rhetorical powers. The result of all my re- 
 searches into the nature of inspiration, is a full belief that its influence 
 is rather to be considered as resulting in a state than in an act. What 
 I mean is, that by inspiration the state or condition of him who is the 
 subject of it is affected ; his mind is enlightened respecting things proper 
 to be said, of which he was before totally or partially ignorant ; his 
 views and affections are elevated ; his powers of mind are in a degree 
 quickened and heightened ; things sensual and deluding and degrading 
 recede, and for the time being cease to annoy him ; and his judgment, 
 as to what he is to communicate, becomes not only more discerning, but 
 more sound and safe. The inspired John, for example, is the same in- 
 dividual as the uninspired John, and retains all the innocent peculiari- 
 ties of his character and habitudes ; but the inspired John is elevated, 
 
168 
 
 § 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 enlightened, quickened, keen of discernment even to such a degree that 
 future things can be seen from his elevated condition, and he is so guid- 
 ed by all the combinations of influence upon him that he will communi- 
 cate nothing but truth. Were I to choose a simile for illustration, I 
 should say, that the inspired man ascends an intellectual and moral emi- 
 nence so high, that his prospect widens almost without bounds, and what 
 is altogether hidden from ordinary men is more or less distinctly within 
 his view. 
 
 Such, in my view, is the state of a sacred writer, when he takes up 
 his pen for the instruction of the church. In this state, we may of 
 course expect from him truth, and nothing but truth. But in communi- 
 cating this, he does not lose his own proper characteristics either of 
 feeling or of style. Enough that he is guarded from error, that truths 
 beyond the reach of his natural powers are impressed upon his mind, and 
 that, in this state, each writer preserves and exhibits all the peculiari- 
 ties that naturally belong to him. One needs but to compare Paul and 
 John, Isaiah and Malachi, in order to feel that this, or something very 
 much like it, must be true. And if this be conceded, then it follows, 
 that whatever be the agency of the Spirit upon an inspired man, he is 
 still as really and truly a free agent in his inspired state as he was be- 
 fore. “ Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” And more 
 exactly to our purpose still : “ The spirits of the prophets are subject to 
 the prophets,” 1 Cor. 14: 32. If so, then “ the soul of man has [not] 
 gone out, when the Spirit of God comes in.” The diversities of style 
 and plan, throughout all the Scriptures, is evidence which cannot be set 
 aside, that this matter must be substantially as has now been stated. 
 
 On the other hand ; I have said that inspiration does not seem to be 
 an act. This is but an imperfect expression of my meaning, and needs 
 explanation. What I mean is, that an inspired writer is not the mere 
 passive instrument of the Spirit of God, mechanically writing, like an 
 amanuensis, only what is dictated to him verbatim et literatim. It is 
 impossible to reconcile Paul’s assertion with this. The differences in 
 style, diction, plan, and execution, among the sacred writers, can receive 
 no tolerable explanation on such a ground. Besides ; that the prophets 
 are not mere passive instruments, follows from the refusal of some of 
 them to exercise the prophetic gift. Jeremiah kept back ; Jonah re- 
 fused ; and others have done the like ; all of which is incompatible with 
 the idea of mere passive instrumentality. 
 
 In a word ; if John was to write an Apocalypse for the edification 
 and consolation of the churches, such a state of mind and feeling as fitted 
 him for this work, such an influence as enlightened what was dark, 
 guided where the path was dubious, withheld when a wandering step 
 was about to be taken, and bestowed the power of judging what and 
 
§ 10 . ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 169 
 
 how much the work should contain — is all that can be reasonably asked 
 for, and all that is needful. Higher certainty as to what was communi- 
 cated could be obtained in no other way that has yet been proposed. 
 
 We should add to all this, that the inspired writer was conscious of 
 being influenced by a power from above. I cannot stop to prove this 
 point ; but the repeated declarations of the Old Testament prophets, of 
 Paul also, and of John, show that such was the fact. 
 
 But it does not follow from all this, that the prophets could separate, by 
 their own consciousness when in such a state, the influence of the Spirit on 
 their minds from the action of their minds themselves. It is easy to illus- 
 trate what I mean. Those who are born again or regenerated , are not able 
 to distinguish the boundaries between the influence of the Spirit and the 
 action of their own minds. They have a distinct feeling and conviction 
 that their minds are in some way brought to a new state. Of this they are 
 conscious. But they are not able to point out a single thing which they 
 have felt or done, in which they were mere passive instruments and not 
 active agents. The Saviour has adverted to the mysterious action of 
 the Spirit in this case, and strongly asserted it. But as to the power of 
 any person to single out individual acts or feelings, and renounce from 
 distinct consciousness his active participation in them — that, it will be 
 conceded, is out of question. 
 
 Who then can draw the line of distinction between the voluntary and 
 involuntary parts which an inspired writer has acted, in the composition 
 of a book ? If we fix even upon the disclosures of the future, it would 
 be difficult for us to say, how far the elevation and illumination of our 
 minds might enable us to see into it, and to judge of it. We believe it 
 must be the influence of the Holy Spirit which brings the mind to such 
 a state ; but when the prophet is in this state, how far he acts and 
 speaks by virtue of his own proper agency, and how far as a mere pas- 
 sive instrument — who can define ? 
 
 It follows then from all this, that if we are to examine and judge at 
 all of any sacred writing, as to its plan and character, we must take it as 
 a whole. We cannot draw lines of distinction between one part and ano- 
 ther. The plan is a whole ; the execution of it consists of many subor- 
 dinate parts, all related to the general plan. There is no way, if we 
 examine at all, but to examine the whole. And what should hinder us 
 from inquiring, in what particular way it has pleased God to reveal cer- 
 tain truths to his church, and what are the methods for the accomplish- 
 ment of such an end which his wisdom has seen fit to sanction ? 
 
 The reader, if he duly weighs these considerations, will be prepared 
 more readily to proceed to an account of the economy of the Apoca- 
 lypse. He will not take offence at what is not designed to give offence, 
 nor consider it as profanation to inquire, in what way John has accom- 
 vol. i. 22 
 
170 § 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 plished the end he had in view. It may be, however, that the reader 
 will feel at a loss to know for what purpose all this seeming digression 
 has been indulged in ; if so, he will soon be able to solve his doubts. 
 
 In the composition of the Apocalypse there is a continuous series of 
 vision and symbol , from beginning to end. How much of all this is the 
 mere costume of the piece, depending on the pleasure of the writer who 
 is in the state already described ? Or how much is to be considered as 
 having a proper historical basis, i. e. as founded upon facts which are 
 narrated ? For example ; are the state of exile at Patmos, the day of 
 the vision, the Christophany, the rapture into heaven, the vision of God 
 and of surrounding angels, the sealed book, the Lamb, and other like 
 things, to be regarded as proper realities which are merely described ? 
 Or are all these to be considered as the mere costume with which the 
 mind of the writer has invested the piece, in order to render it attractive 
 and impressive ? 
 
 Examples may be adduced, that would seem to support an affirmative 
 answer to the last of these questions. If we peruse attentively the 18th 
 Psalm, we shall soon see that the picture there given of the descent of 
 the divine Majesty, of his bowing the heavens, shaking the earth, riding 
 upon a cherub, surrounding himself with dark clouds and lightning and 
 thunder, scattering the enemies of David by hail-stones and coals of fire, 
 laying bare the deepest abysses of the sea, and drawing the chosen king 
 out of many waters — that all this, is plainly costume. The simple truth 
 that lies under all these symbols, is, that God appeared for David, i. e. 
 manifested his favour towards him, oftentimes and in an extraordinary 
 manner, and delivered him from enemies and persecutors. So the in- 
 scription to the Psalm bids us to interpret it, and so vs. 17 — 20 plainly 
 and unequivocally declare that it must be interpreted. No one who well 
 understands the nature of poetry and the use of symbols will object to 
 this view ; and surely no one can regard all this as in any measure de- 
 rogatory to the dignity and truthfulness of the sacred writings. 
 
 Is the Apocalypse, now, only a more protracted series of symbols 
 which are of the like nature ? Are the visions themselves, and all the 
 objects of them, merely the drapery thrown around the body of truth 
 that lies within ? Do all these things depend merely on the judgment 
 and imagination of the writer, as to the manner in which he should so 
 develope the views which he entertained as to be most impressive and 
 attractive ? 
 
 Many would start back, perhaps, from such a result, fearing that it 
 would at once strip the Apocalypse of all claim to be considered as a 
 true revelation. Yet the 18th Psalm, and many other pieces of the like 
 nature, belong no less to the Scriptures, because they exhibit much that 
 is symbol, and which is consequently no more than costume. But if 
 
§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 171 
 
 there be symbol, let it be remembered that something must he symbol- 
 ized; if there be drapery or costume, there must be some person which 
 is invested with it. A passage of Scripture like Ps. 18: 6 — 16, is not 
 the less significant because it is made up of a series of symbols ; I might 
 truly say, that it is the more significant, because the impression made 
 by it is much more vivid than what could be made by plain and simple 
 prose. 
 
 Even so it might be with the Apocalypse. If it were all like so many 
 parables, or all clothed merely in the poetic garb which a vivid imagi- 
 nation had woven, it would not alter any important part of the instruc- 
 tion which it now conveys. All the change which would be made by 
 this mode of composition and its consequent exegesis would be, that the 
 circumstances which attend the composition of the work must not be 
 regarded as historic realities, but as merely imaginary conceptions for 
 the purpose of giving vivacity and interest to the piece, while the actual 
 doctrines inculcated, or disclosures made, would remain the same, 
 whether we assumed this mode of composition, or the one which takes 
 for granted, that many of the things stated and having a relation to the 
 main composition are founded in real fact. The book of Job, for exam- 
 ple, is equally significant as to its main objects, whether we suppose the 
 things related in the Prologue and Epilogue, to be facts or allegory. 
 Nothing taught by the poem itself, is in any measure changed by the 
 one assumption or the other. And such would plainly be the case in 
 respect to the Apocalypse, so far as a great portion of the work is con- 
 cerned, and in fact so far as appropriate Christian doctrine or disclosure 
 of the future is at §11 concerned. 
 
 With such views, I feel less interest in the question about the extent 
 of symbolical representation in the Apocalypse, than some writers have 
 done. We have a great mass of examples in the Hebrew prophets, 
 which would serve at once to show, that a writing loses nothing of sig- 
 nificance because it is made up of symbols. All parables, allegories, 
 and fables, are made up of symbols ; but surely they are not more des- 
 titute of meaning than plain, direct, simple speech. Nor would it dero- 
 gate from the Apocalypse, in respect to anything very important, were 
 we to suppose that all its modes of representation are merely symboli- 
 cal, its visions as well as its imagery. 
 
 Thus much to allay the fears of some, as to the credit of the book 
 when thus considered. But I should not do justice to my own convic- 
 tions, were I to stop here. After all that can be said in favour of such 
 a view, I am persuaded that it will not stand the test of a fair scrutiny. 
 
 No intelligent reader of the Apocalypse will deny, that there are 
 many and striking resemblances between the Old Testament prophets 
 and this book ; spe&ally must this be admitted in respect to the prophe- 
 
172 
 
 § 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 cies of Ezekiel and Daniel. But in these books repeated mention is 
 made of prophetic ecstasy, during which symbols expressive of many 
 and important truths were disclosed to the seer. Thus in Ezek. 1:1, 
 the writer “ sees the heavens opened, and beholds the visions of God.” 
 u The hand of the Lord is upon him,” 1: 3, and he falls upon his face, 
 like one deprived of the use of his bodily faculties, 1: 28. The hand of 
 the Lord is strong upon him, and conveys him [in spirit] to a great dis- 
 tance, 3: 12—14, 22. The like in 8: 1, 3, 7, 16. 11: 1, 5, 24. 37: 1. 
 40: 1, 2, 17, 24, 32, 35, etc. Altogether in the same way is the state- 
 ment in Dan. 7: 1. 8: 1, 2. The effect of this last vision is fainting and 
 sickness on the part of Daniel, Dan. 8: 27. So in Dan. 10: 8 — 10. 
 Comp, also Zech. 4: 1. The vision of Isaiah, chap. 6: 1 — 7, is of the 
 like tenor; Is. 8: 11 recognizes the same strong hand of the Lord that 
 is mentioned above. 
 
 If we turn now to the Apocalypse, we find there the same kind of 
 representations. John is in the spirit , 1: 10; he falls down like one 
 dead, 1: 17. In the spirit is he taken up into heaven, 4: 1, 2, and there 
 begins a series of visions which go through the whole book. Why now 
 should not this be regarded as matter of fact, as well as the vision of 
 Peter in Acts 10: 9 — 16, or the spiritual rapture of Paul, 2 Cor. 12: 
 1 — 41, or the vision of Stephen, Acts 7: 55, 56? I know of no good 
 reason why we should deny the actual existence of prophetic ecstasies, 
 unless indeed we are bound to deny all which is extraordinary or truly 
 prophetic. But to canvass such a question would lead us quite beyond 
 the limits appropriate to our present object. I can only say, that for 
 myself I do believe in the divine inspiration of the prophets ; and con- 
 sequently I see no good reason to deny that John was, as he affirms, in 
 the spirit on the Lord’s day. 
 
 Along with matters of fact I must also class the presence of John in 
 the isle of Patmos, the appearance of Christ to the eye of his mind while 
 in a state of ecstasy ; and along with these, the messages for substance 
 to be conveyed to the churches, and then the succession of symbolic 
 phenomena that follow. That he saw all these with his bodily eyes, the 
 Apocalypse not only does not assert, but even contradicts by the decla- 
 ration, that John was in a state of prophetic rapture or ecstasy. The 
 eye of the mind has sharper sight than that of the body ; and the visions 
 of the Apocalypse are by no means the less real visions, because they 
 were discernible only by the eye of the mind. 
 
 If any one is still disposed to maintain that all statements of this na- 
 ture belong merely to the drapery of prophecy, he would do well to tell 
 us, why the prophets, e. g. Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah, do, 
 at one time, state the circumstance of vision, dream, ecstasy, etc., and at 
 another do not ? If there was nothing different in one kind or mode of 
 
§ 10 . ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 173 
 
 revelation from that in another, why should any difference as to the 
 manner of it be at all pretended ? So far then as circumstances pre- 
 paratory to the vision of John, or the fact whether he really saw a vi- 
 sion, are concerned, we may and should regard the whole as a reality. 
 Neither of these pertain merely to the symbols of the book. 
 
 How much, then, which the book discloses in the visions, belongs to 
 reality ? What and how much is drapery , and what is person ? 
 
 A minute and circumstantial answer to these questions will not be 
 expected here, and is not needed. The great leading truths involve the 
 subordinate ones ; and it will therefore be enough to glance at them. 
 
 I would comprise within the design of the proem to the Apocalypse, 
 the instructions, consolations, and admonitions, intended for the Asiatic 
 churches. The form of the seven epistles belongs appropriately to John, 
 who has carried trichotomy through the whole, and followed in all of 
 them the same general model of arrangement. But the substance of the 
 instruction here communicated, I should not hesitate to ascribe to the 
 charge which he received in vision from the Great Head of the churches. 
 This is truly and faithfully conveyed or exhibited; but the drapery 
 receives its hue and its shape from the plastic hand which furnishes it. 
 
 Next, as to the first catastrophe . The destruction of Jerusalem, and 
 the fall of the Jewish persecuting power, are truths or facts about the 
 reality of which he can have no doubt, who reads Matt. xxiy. Mark xiii. 
 Luke xxi. The first part of the Apocalypse, chap, iv — xi., is occupied 
 with the same theme. The subordinate truths are, that the Jews will 
 be punished in a great variety of ways and by a series of protracted 
 judgments ; that most of them will become more obdurate and rebel- 
 lious, under the rebukes and judgments of heaven ; and finally, that 
 Christians will have warning and will escape from the general destruc- 
 tion. The certainty that the church will triumph in this rencontre, and 
 the encouragement which Christians have to persevere in their fidelity, 
 lies upon the face of all that is said within the limits of this first catas- 
 trophe. Such are the prominent and leading truths here taught ; and 
 all these are taught by a succession of splendid symbols, the like of which 
 is presented by no other book that belongs to the Scriptures. To inves- 
 tigate, classify, arrange, and explain these symbols, is a work of time, 
 and skill, and patience ; specially after all the darkness that has been 
 collected and thrown upon them. But I must believe it is still a feasi- 
 ble work, and that we are not obliged to wander in uncertainty, if our 
 course be shaped by the land-marks which the writer has himself set up. 
 
 The second catastrophe has an ample basis, as to the principal fact 
 which it discloses, in the Old Testament and in the New. To avoid 
 repetition here, I must request the reader to cast his eye once more 
 over the synoptical view of the Messianic kingdom, which is given in 
 
174 
 
 § 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 § 2. above ; where, especially in the predictions of Isaiah, he will find 
 ample proof that Gentiles , as well as Jews, are to be brought into sub- 
 jection to the Prince of Peace. And if Rev. xiii — xix. be compared, 
 as to its main subject, with 2 Thess. ii., is it not plain that Paul cherish- 
 ed the same general views as John ? What is said in 1 Cor. 15: 24 — 
 27, and in Rom. 11: 11 — 26, as well as many other passages in Paul’s 
 epistles, is of the same tenor. So the declarations of the Saviour in 
 John 12: 32, 10: 16, and elsewhere ; and of the like tenor is the com- 
 mand to go and teach all nations. But as to the subordinate parts of 
 this generic truth, it is plain that John assumes the fact, that the beast 
 and false prophet, combined with Satan, are more formidable and more 
 lasting and active enemies to Christianity, than those brought to view 
 under the first catastrophe. Hence he dwells upon them longer, al- 
 though the process of their punishment is less copiously described. 
 Justice in this case seems to be represented as executing in some re- 
 spects a more summary process ; perhaps on account of the greater 
 danger to the church from the heathen enemies ; perhaps because the 
 long suffering of God to the Jewish nation, as exhibited under the 
 first catastrophe, was intended by the writer to be more fully dis- 
 played. But the final consummation of the second catastrophe is 
 not so sudden and complete, as in the first one. Rev. xvi. shows 
 that the head-quarters of the enemy are invaded and overthrown, 
 so that he is greatly crippled. But the heathen Roman power was 
 widely diffused. The persecutions of Rome were long protracted. 
 Hence the mora or delay in the description of its final overthrow. 
 Chap. xvii. xviii. are episodes ; but chap. xix. commences with the threat, 
 and proceeds with the execution, of the final ruin of the power of the 
 beast, assembled as his forces were from all quarters of the empire. 
 
 No one, now, well versed in the use of symbols and prophetic im- 
 agery, will think in this case of seeking for individual, minute, his- 
 torical application of all that is exhibited in the symbols. The exhibi- 
 tion is so managed, that a consistency and concinnity is preserved 
 throughout, for the sake of verisimilitude and in order to give pleasure 
 to the reader. But no greater mistake can be made by the beholder of 
 a picture, than that he should convert back-ground into fore-ground. 
 What should we say, for example, of the critic on a well executed paint- 
 ing of the combat of Hector and Achilles, if he should aver, that the 
 main object of the painter was, to present the Scamander and the plains 
 of Troy, the distant forests, and the sky interspersed with clouds ? We 
 should say that he did not understand even the first elements of the art. 
 All circumstances of this nature, even the walls of Troy surmounted by 
 spectators among whom might be Priam and Hecuba and Andromache, 
 and beyond these the Grecian and Trojan chieftains and armies — all, 
 
§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 175 
 
 all these are mere back-ground of such a picture, subordinate entirely to 
 the main object, and serving only to make out a delightful verisimilitude. 
 So is it in the Apocalypse. The apparent action of the symbols is in 
 accordance with the nature of the symbols ; while the tout ensemble is 
 merely indicative of a great, a dangerous, a trying, and a long continued 
 contest, which ends at last in a complete overthrow of the heathen 
 power and all its coadjutors. 
 
 To make out, now, from such a generic representation by symbols, a 
 succinct and individual history of the battles, sieges, famine, and vari- 
 ous misfortunes, which overthrew the Roman power, would be doing 
 just as they have done who make out a whole history of the fall and 
 wickedness of man and of the scheme of redemption by a Saviour, from 
 the parable of the good Samaritan. One may, if he pleases, look with 
 complacency on the intention of the expositor who does this, but he can- 
 not respect his understanding, nor approve of his taste, nor trust himself 
 to such a guide. Why then should he admit an expositor to do that 
 with the Apocalypse, which he would elsewhere consider an abuse of 
 the sacred volume ? 
 
 As to limitations of time , in regard to the first and second catastro- 
 phes, in the first they seem to be somewhat clearly marked, as occupy- 
 ing three and a half years ; while in the second they are marked only 
 by the destruction of the particular head of the beast then raging against 
 the church, which also is to take place within the like period. Facts 
 correspond to these limitations in both cases. We cannot stop for the 
 proof of this here ; the reader will find it in another place. But the 
 jinale of the second catastrophe, viewing this matter in all its bearings, 
 is plainly represented as protracted to a more distant period. 
 
 When the enemies of Christianity throughout a great portion of the 
 world are thus subdued, it follows of course that a time of peace and pros- 
 perity to the church will ensue. Such is the picture in the Apocalypse 
 chap. xx. The representation is exceedingly brief, because the thing pre- 
 sented lies in the distant future ; and in this respect the analogy of the 
 prophecies in general is followed. But that such a period of prosperity and 
 extension of the Messiah’s kingdom was disclosed to the prophetic eye, 
 even under the Jewish dispensation, any one may see who will take 
 the trouble to review the prophecies adduced in § 2. above. 
 
 Yet there is one circumstance attending the introduction of this 
 period, that recent exegesis admits to be deducible from the text of chap, 
 xx, which is alleged to be entirely unique , and which therefore, it is 
 said, must be regarded as merely imaginary, or as belonging merely to 
 the poetic conception and excited imagination of the writer. It is that of 
 the first resurrection, Rev. 20: 5, 6. I am aware, indeed, that this has 
 often been asserted ; and moreover, that in consequence of such a view of 
 
176 
 
 § 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 what the passage would teach if it were literally interpreted, a majority of 
 commentators have deemed it necessary to give to the whole passage a 
 sense merely figurative. That there are some tropical expressions in it, 
 such as “ reigning with Christ,” and “ being priests unto God,” must, 
 no doubt, be plain to all. But these and the like occur in the midst of 
 simple prose, and constitute no good argument against the exegesis 
 which deduces from the whole passage the reality of a first resurrec- 
 tion ; see full references to such figurative passages in Comm, on Rev.l: 6. 
 
 After investigating this subject, moreover, I have doubts whether the 
 assertion is correct, that such a doctrine as that of the first resurrection 
 is nowhere else to be found in the Scriptures. What can Paul mean, 
 in Phil. 3: 8 — 11, when he represents himself as readily submitting to 
 every kind of self-denial and suffering, u if by any means he might 
 attain unto the resurrection of the dead ?” Of his resurrection at the 
 end of the world, when all without exception, even the wicked as well 
 as the good, will surely be raised, he could have no possible doubt. 
 What sense can this passage have then, if it represents him as labour- 
 ing and suffering merely in order to attain to a resurrection, and as 
 holding this up to view, by implication, as unattainable unless he should 
 arrive at a high degree of Christian perfection ? On the other hand ; let 
 us suppose a first resurrection to be appointed as a special reward of high 
 attainments in Christian virtue, (exactly as in Rev. 20: 4 — 6), and all 
 seems to be made plain and easy. Of a resurrection in a figurative 
 sense, i. e. of regeneration , Paul cannot be speaking ; for he had already 
 attained to that on the plains of Damascus. Of the like tenor with 
 this text, moreover, seems to be the implication in Luke 14: 14, where 
 the Saviour promises his disciples a sure reward for kindness to the 
 poor and the suffering, by the declaration : “ Thou shalt be recompensed 
 at the resurrection of the just.” Why the resurrection of the just ? 
 What special meaning can this have, unless it implies that there is a 
 resurrection, where the just only, and not the unjust, will be raised ? 
 This would agree entirely with the view in Rev. 20: 5, u But the rest 
 of the dead lived not again , until the 1000 years were finished/’ There 
 is the more reason to believe that such is the simple meaning of the 
 words in Luke 14: 14, inasmuch as two recent antipodes in theology 
 and criticism, Olshausen and De Wette, both agree in this exegesis. 
 There are other passages, also, which are considerable in respect to 
 number, that speak of the resurrection in respect to the righteous , and 
 make no mention of that of the wicked. Some of these, at least, are sus- 
 ceptible of the same interpretation as that given above. In particular, 
 what other satisfactory exegesis can we give to the CLTtaqyj] . . . eneua . . . 
 eh a of 1 Cor. 15: 23, 24, by which the apostle marks the respective 
 rdyga or order of each, and represents that which is at the end (telog) 
 as different from the rest ? 
 
§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 177 
 
 It is well known, I may add, that among the Jews the opinion was 
 quite common, that whenever the full development of the Messiah should 
 take place, there would be a resurrection of the just. They appear to 
 have deduced this opinion from Is. 2G: 19, (which no doubt describes 
 a resurrection of some kind) ; from Ezek. xxxvii. ; and from Dan. 12: 2. 
 That tliis opinion is very old among the Jewish Rabbins, is clear from 
 the fact, that their most ancient books speak to such a purpose. In the 
 Zohar( Genes.) we find, among many other things respecting the resurrec- 
 tion, the following: “ The Scripture says [Is. 26: 19], Thy dead shall 
 live ; they, namely, who are buried in the land of Israel. . . . Therefore 
 those bodies are raised up, viz., of the Israelites who are buried there, 
 but not the bodies of the idolatrous nations.” The reference is to the 
 period of the Messiah. Thus in another passage of the same work : 
 “ Our Rabbins have taught us, that in the times of the Messiah (‘iwh 
 Nib), the blessed God will restore to life the just, etc.,” Zoliar, Genes, 
 fol. 61. See full quotations in Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. II. p. 572, 574. 
 So Zoliar, Genes, fol. 73 : “ The world cannot be freed from its guilt, 
 until king Messiah shall come, and the blessed God shall raise up those 
 who sleep in the dust (commenting on the expression, he will swal- 
 low up death in victory , Is. 25: 8). The same comment is made in 
 Jalkuth Shimoni, I. fol. 188, and Shemoth Rabba, § 30. fol. 127. See 
 Schoettg. II. p. 167. To the same purpose speaks the Targum of Jon- 
 athan, as quoted by Wetstein on Rev. 20: 8 ; and Maimonides testifies 
 that the opinion of many Rabbins is the same, as quoted by Lightfoot 
 on John 6: 31. In fact, that the great mass of Jewish Rabbins have 
 believed and taught the doctrine of the resurrection of the just, in the 
 days of the Messiah’s development, there can be no doubt on the part of 
 him who has made any considerable investigation of this matter.* The 
 specific limitation of this to the commencement of the Millenium, seems 
 to be peculiar to John. 
 
 No one must understand me, however, as appealing to Rabbinic au- 
 thority in order to establish the doctrine of a first resurrection. All 
 that I design to accomplish by such an appeal is, to show that such a 
 doctrine was not a strange one to the Jews. We cannot say with cer- 
 tainty, that the book of Zohar is as ancient as the Apocalypse ; but the 
 prevailing opinion among critics seems now to be, that it belongs at 
 least to the early ages of the Christian era, although it has some interpo- 
 lations of a much later date. If so, it seems quite probable that when 
 
 * The reader who is desirous of pursuing this investigation still further, is re- 
 ferred to Corrodi, Geschichte des Chiliasmus, I. § 16, p. 345 seq. Stlskind Uber 
 die Judischen Begriffe, etc., in Flatt’s Magazin fUr Dogmatik und Moral, St. X. 
 p. 104 seq. De Wette, Bib. Dogmatik, § ‘203. § 304. § 188. Eisenmenger, Ent- 
 decktes Judenthum, Vol. II. cap. XVI. p.890 seq. 
 
 YOL. I. 23 
 
178 
 
 § 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 John proclaimed a first resurrection, he would be regarded by the men 
 of his time as free from any imputation of broaching novelties in this 
 respect. The laws of philology oblige me to suppose, that the Saviour 
 and Paul have both alluded to such a doctrine. That it has not been 
 made more 'prominent in the New Testament, is no decisive objection 
 against it. Where but in 1 Cor. 15: 24 — 28 have we an account of 
 Christ’s resignation of his kingly power? Where but in 1 Cor. 6: 2, 3, 
 are we told that “ saints shall judge the world, and judge angels ?” And 
 are these truths to be discarded, because they are no oftener brought to 
 view and insisted on ? On such ground, what must become of the au- 
 thority and infallibility of scriptural teaching ? Moreover it is obvious, 
 that the final resurrection, general judgment, and the consequent dis- 
 tribution of rewards and punishments, are things of higher moment and 
 deeper interest in many respects, than the resurrection of the just only 
 at the commencement of the Millennium ; which is a good reason for 
 more frequently insisting upon the former. Nor should it be forgotten, 
 that even the Old Testament contains some passages which may very 
 naturally be applied to the Messianic or first resurrection, e. g. Is. 26: 19. 
 
 If there be any good foundation for what has now been said, it fol- 
 lows, that so far as the first resurrection and the millennial period of 
 prosperity to the church are concerned, they are not to be regarded as 
 mere poetic conceptions, i. e. as the drapery only of the Apocalypse, 
 but as facts which the writer designed to bring to view in a most inter- 
 esting connection and relation. 
 
 In respect to the three verses (Rev. 20: 7 — 9) which bring to view 
 Gog and Magog, they plainly belong to the very distant future. 
 Nothing but general ideas can be gathered from them. That the millen- 
 nial period will not bring about the conversion of the whole human race 
 without exception, is evident from the very face of the entire statement. 
 That the enemies of Christianity, who will come forth to assault her at 
 the end of the thousand years, will be numerous, will come from the 
 remoter and hitherto inaccessible parts of the earth, and will be over- 
 thrown speedily and with terrible destruction, is decided by Rev. 20: 
 7 — 9. But this is all that we can gather from the text respecting the 
 matter. Gog and Magog are plainly symbolical names merely ; and 
 symbols also are the designations of the camp of the saints, and the be- 
 loved city, and probably the fire from God out of heaven. The facts 
 which lie at the basis, as I apprehend them, are such as have just been 
 stated. 
 
 As to the subjects of the remainder of the Apocalypse, it requires but 
 little more delay in order to accomplish our present general view. The 
 general judgment, hell, heaven, are to be found as described or 
 adverted to in all parts of the New Testament. The Saviour has plainly 
 
§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 179 
 
 enough declared all these; see John 5: 21 — 30. 14: 3. Matt. 25: 31 — 
 46, and many other passages ; and as to Paul and Peter, no quotations 
 need to be made. Even the final destruction of the world is not a 
 doctrine peculiar to the Apocalypse. Peter affirms it in plain words, 
 2 Pet. 3: 12, 13 ; and the new heavens and the new earth are not only 
 disclosed by him, but even by Isaiah in 65: 17. 66: 22. John has in- 
 deed adorned this last idea in a wonderful manner, in Rev. xxi. xxii. ; 
 but all this symbolical imagery is in perfect keeping with the tenor of the 
 Apocalypse, and much of it tallies well with Ezekiel, xl — xlviii. The 
 reality of new abodes for resurrection-saints, and resurrection-sinners 
 also, may well be argued from the new mode of existence on which 
 both classes enter. 
 
 My object thus far has been principally to show, that substantial facts 
 lie at the basis of the Apocalypse, and that this basis is not a mere im- 
 aginary or poetic conception. On this John has indeed erected a new 
 and splendid edifice, adorned in many ways, and especially with orna- 
 ments suited to the oriental taste. This is in keeping with the country 
 and the culture of the author. His Epopee, like most other produc- 
 tions that bear such a name, has its foundation in facts and truths which 
 are of high importance. We might even say of John’s work, that it is 
 founded on truths of the highest possible significance and importance, not 
 only to the churches then in being, but to those of every age and nation. 
 
 So far now as these are essentially concerned, imagination and poetic 
 fancy have nothing to do. The truths are assumed and declared plainly 
 and unequivocally. They constitute, if one may so express it, the 
 person. A secondary question, and one the next in order, is, What 
 constitutes the drapery or costume ? To the consideration of this 
 subject or question we must now proceed. 
 
 All symbol is of course drapery. It is the thing signifed which is 
 person ; but the way and manner of signifying it, when imagery and 
 symbols are employed, is merely the fashion of the costume. How has 
 John managed these ? What credit is due to him, if he be exhibited 
 on the theatre of aesthetics ? What rank does he hold as to fancy, and 
 imagination, and descriptive style, and arrangement, and skill in the 
 disposal of all the machinery (sit venia !) of the piece ? 
 
 A long and laboured account of these matters will not be expected 
 in this place. It belongs to the commentary to point out and disclose 
 particulars. But some general views of these subjects should find a place 
 here, nor are they by any means unimportant. 
 
 I pass the proem or prelude (i — ii.), with but few remarks. It will 
 be conceded, I trust, that the lonely isle of Patmos, the exile of the 
 writer because of his Christian fidelity, and the Lord’s day on which 
 the revelations are made, are all highly appropriate and interesting cir- 
 
180 
 
 § 10 . ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 cumstances, in respect to the visions which follow. The attention, in 
 such circumstances, must be undivided, fixed, solemn, deep. The 
 Christophany in chap. i. is confessedly a splendid and sublime exhibition. 
 The fact (in vision) is assumed. The manner of it serves to adorn, to 
 beautify, to impress. 
 
 The tone which pervades the epistles to the churches, the high spir- 
 ituality of the whole sentiment, the demands of sincere and entire devo- 
 tedness of heart and life, the reproof of faults which is at once both kind 
 and severe, the glorious promises in order to cheer on the martyrs who 
 were suffering for the truth, the rich variety of description in setting 
 forth the rewards to be obtained, the appropriate circumstances that are in 
 each case introduced, the regularity of the trichotomy tlirough the whole, 
 and yet the concealment of it so that few readers think of its existence 
 — these, and other things of the like nature, might all be mentioned as 
 characteristics of the epistles to the seven churches of Asia. 
 
 But let us proceed to the main work itself. The commencement of it 
 is in a style truly magnificent. Heaven is opened to the spiritual and 
 mental eye of the seer, and he is conveyed thither. On an exalted 
 throne there, sits One whose name is too awful, at the first view, to be 
 pronounced. Lightning, thunder, the archangels, the elders of the 
 church, the redeemed, and angels without number, surround the throne. 
 Four living creatures, capable of moving in any direction, and in an in- 
 stant of time, support it. The innumerable host of the world of fight 
 fall prostrate before him who is enthroned, with the deepest reverence, 
 and fill the heavens with ascriptions of praise and honour and glory. 
 
 I know of nothing that surpasses this, unless it be, that Is. vi. has at- 
 tained to more complete brevity. But who would lose a single circum- 
 stance which John has added? In truth, John has here combined the 
 several theophanies in Ezek. i, Is. vi, and Dan. vii, into one ; which still 
 is no imitation, but clearly the result of his own conceptions. 
 
 The object of the vision comes next into view. The future condi- 
 tion and prospects of the church, as yet one of the deep mysteries 
 of God, are to be disclosed. In the right hand of him that sitteth on the 
 throne appears a book, on whose pages these mysteries are inscribed — a 
 book sealed with seven seals. No one of all the heavenly host can open 
 and read it, or divine its meaning. The seer bursts into tears because it 
 cannot be perused. The Lamb of God next makes his appearance 
 within the inner circle around the throne. He advances and takes the 
 book. All heaven burst forth into a song of congratulation and joy. 
 Salvation and glory and victory are ascribed to the Lamb ; and this 
 song is echoed and reechoed to the most distant parts of the universe. 
 Chap. v. 
 
 The breaking of the seals, and the disclosure of what the book con- 
 
§ 10 . ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 181 
 
 tains, now follow in order. Is this by pictures or symbols drawn upon 
 the pages of the book, or by pictures in part, and partly by language ? 
 The latter seems the most probable, inasmuch as the book is described 
 as being yeyQapyi'vov soco&ev xal omo&ev. But be it in either of these 
 ways, disclosure is made, and the representation is exceedingly vivid. 
 A persecuting and powerful enemy of the church is to be arrested and 
 destroyed. Forthwith, therefore, a dread array appears, which is com- 
 petent to the execution of such a task. The breaking of the first seal 
 exhibits the leader of the army, with all the insignia of triumph around 
 him. The second discloses the symbol of an army glittering with the 
 instruments of slaughter. The third introduces into the train famine 
 with its ravages and distresses. The fourth brings up the rear of this 
 awful host with Death on his pale horse, and Hades, i. e. the spectre- 
 world, as following in his train in order to execute his will. 
 
 Such is the array commissioned against the persecuting enemies of 
 the church. All seems to be now ready for action. But first, this mar- 
 shalled host, drawn out for battle, are to be wrought up to the highest 
 pitch of excitement before the onset. The manner in which this is ac- 
 complished presents one of the most exquisite scenes to be found in any 
 writing, either sacred or profane. The bleeding martyrs who have al- 
 ready fallen are seen, at the opening of the fifth seal, lying at the foot 
 of the altar in heaven, as indicative of their having been the victims of 
 slaughter. There, with blood streaming around, they lift up their cry to 
 him ‘in whose sight the death of his saints is precious,’ and ask with 
 elevated voice how long the retributions of justice on their murderers 
 are to be delayed. Robes of glory are given to them, and they receive 
 assurance, that after a little season all will be accomplished which they 
 desire. A scene like this cannot be imagined to have been exhibited, 
 without supposing the army who were assembled to have been wrought 
 up to the highest pitch of excitement for the contest. The commanders 
 of great armies are wont to devise some rallying word or signal, at the 
 moment when the onset of battle is made. The ear has not yet ceased 
 to vibrate, nor the heart ceased from thrilling, with the signal hoisted at 
 the moment of attack on board the admiral-ship of him who led the van 
 in the greatest naval battle that was ever fought. That signal was : 
 England expects every man to do iiis duty. Every man did it, 
 and in a few hours the enemy were no more. But the sight of bleeding 
 martyrs at the foot of the altar on which they appeared to have been 
 sacrificed, was a more thrilling signal than even this. And with such a 
 sight the dread array commissioned by heaven was presented. Chap. vi. 
 
 We no longer wonder at the sequel. The sixth seal presents us with 
 new symbols of heaven’s righteous indignation against the persecutors. 
 The sun and moon are eclipsed. Falling stars fill the world with con- 
 
182 
 
 § 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 sternation. Earthquakes swallow up islands and overthrow mountains. 
 The inhabitants of the land to be smitten fly to rocks and precipices, to 
 hide themselves in their crevices and find security. All stand in fearful 
 expectation of their final doom. 6: 12 — 17. 
 
 Before that doom arrives, however, the faithful servants of God, who 
 are scattered through the land, must be rendered secure. The tempest, 
 which had shaken the earth to its centre, is stilled. Angels are now 
 commissioned to put a mark on the servants of God. Twelve thousand 
 of each and every tribe are sealed. Heaven is filled with joy at this, 
 and praise and thanksgiving burst forth from all around the throne of 
 God. Conspicuous among these are the martyrs, clothed in their re- 
 splendent robes. John inquires with deep interest respecting these ; 
 and he receives assurances, that every kind of blessing and happiness 
 awaits them. Chap. vii. 
 
 All seems now to be ready for consummation. The seventh and last 
 seal is about to be broken. The hosts of heaven stand, for a time, in 
 mute and fearful expectation. But instead of the speedy final execution 
 of justice, God’s mercy toward his once beloved and chosen people is 
 here disclosed. Still further opportunity is given them to repent. The 
 seventh seal introduces seven angels, each having a trumpet , which they 
 are to blow in regular succession. It is thus that the last seal becomes, 
 as to the execution of what it develops, disparted into seven different 
 portions, which must occupy some time in their appropriate disclosure. 
 
 Of these seven trumpets, there is a division into two classes, one of 
 four , and the other of three. The first four introduce various phenome- 
 na, which principally affect, in the way of injury, the earth, the sea, the 
 rivers and fountains of water, and the luminaries of the sky. The ene- 
 my are subjected, in this way, to various sufferings and distress, but as 
 yet only a few comparatively are destroyed. Chap. viii. 
 
 Not so with the last three woe-trumpets . The first of these brings 
 unnumbered legions of locusts from the bottomless pit, with the angel of 
 destruction at their head. These locusts are not of the ordinary kind. 
 They touch not the vegetation of the earth ; for they are commissioned 
 only to wound and torment men. Their teeth are sharp and terrible, 
 and their stings like those of scorpions. When these have fulfilled their 
 period, then follows the sounding of the sixth trumpet, and a host of 
 200,000,000 of horsemen advance from the East. It is not the number 
 only which fills us with astonishment, in this case ; it is specially the 
 qualities of the horses. The riders indeed are armed with panoply that 
 fills the beholder with terror ; but the horses themselves have mouths 
 like lions, and tails like the amphisbaena, i. e. capable of inflicting 
 wounds. Great multitudes are destroyed by such an invasion; yet 
 those who remain, still continue impenitent as before. Chap. ix. 
 
§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 183 
 
 If there be any part of the Apocalypse where the writer is exposed 
 to the charge of carrying his imagery to excess , it is certainly the one 
 now before us. The locusts and the horses are both objects of imagi- 
 nation merely, not actual existences. Natural locusts do not attack 
 men ; nor to horses belong teeth like those of lions, nor two heads like 
 the amphisbaena. Yet what shall we say ? Shall we assume, that in 
 a symbolical picture like that of John, everything must be a mere copy 
 of actual existences ? What writer of Epopee ever confined himself 
 within such limits ? In the book of Job even — does the war-horse there, 
 and behemoth, and the leviathan, play only actual and every-day parts ? 
 And if John be allowed to go beyond the bounds of real and actual ex- 
 istences, in order to adorn or render impressive his composition, why 
 may he not follow his imagination out, and present all the glowing pic- 
 tures which it portrays ? It is plain and well known, that locusts and 
 cavalry were the two greatest and most terrible scourges known in all 
 the East, at the time when John wrote. Why then may he not present 
 them here, in accordance with the genius of oriental poetry, endowed 
 with preternatural forms and armed with extraordinary powers ? To do 
 this, is no more than all epic poets have done. Yet the imagery even 
 of the destructive horses is not so entirely fanciful as one might at first 
 suppose. It is well known, that in the East, (as at the present day, 
 for example, among the Turcomans), horses are trained to attack with 
 their mouths and fore-feet, as also to repel with their hinder feet and 
 the swift motion of their tails. Fraser has presented this, in a manner 
 very picturesque, in that faithful and animated portrait of Turcomans 
 and Persians, which he has drawn in his Kuzzil Bash. And as to the 
 locusts , surely it required no great transformation, to turn them into 
 creatures like scorpions. It is an easy and obvious conception. 
 
 It should be noted here, moreover, in respect to the supposition that 
 the armies of locusts and horsemen were represented to John by 'paint- 
 ings, i. e. by the drawing of sketches upon the pages of the book with 
 seven seals, that this seems to be out of all reasonable question, inas- 
 much as it appears to be impossible ; and so of the thunders , and of 
 many other things that belong to the first catastrophe. The probability 
 appears to be, that John is to be regarded as only reading the descrip- 
 tion upon the leaves of the opened book, or as hearing it from his angel- 
 interpreter; just as he heard the number of the horsemen, Rev. 9: 16. 
 More probable still it seems to my own mind, that John saw, on the 
 leaves of the book, either certain symbols, or words, which suggested 
 ideas that led his own mind to form its conceptions of the locusts and of 
 the horsemen. Terrible sufferings and wide-spreading destruction are 
 plainly the matters of fact that lie at the basis of such a representation. 
 Of the representation itself, after the explanation just given, it is enough 
 
184 
 
 § 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 to say, that it is oriental — altogether oriental. And why should it not be 
 so, when it was written by an oriental man, and addressed originally to 
 oriental readers ? 
 
 But let us proceed with the writer’s further execution of his plan. 
 One woe-trumpet still remains ; and all which is to be done as prepara- 
 tory to this, must now be accomplished. 
 
 A resplendent and mighty angel takes his station upon the sea and 
 the land, as having power over both, and lifts up his hand to heaven, 
 and swears that delay shall he no longer , than until the time when the 
 last or seventh trumpet shall sound. Seven thunders confirm the sen- 
 tence passed. In the mean time, as the contents of the book with seven 
 seals will now soon be completed, John receives another book, and a 
 new commission , so as to extend his predictions to foreign kings and 
 nations. Chap. x. 
 
 The city “ where our Lord was crucified,” is about to be destroyed. 
 There was the temple of God ; and there, in former days he had dwelt. 
 The most holy place is therefore measured off for exemption from de- 
 struction ; i. e. the spiritual part of the ancient dispensation is still to 
 be preserved. And as the last and consummating act of wickedness on 
 the part of Jewish persecutors and unbelievers, God’s faithful witnesses, 
 the prophets, who preached Christ and performed many miracles, are 
 persecuted, slain, and exposed to all possible indignities. But heaven 
 saves and vindicates the cause of truth, and makes it triumphant. 
 
 All is now ready. The righteous are safe ; the holy of holies is safe ; 
 the Jewish people have consummated their wickedness and guilt. The 
 seventh and last trumpet sounds. The shouts of victory in heaven fill 
 the ears and occupy the mind of the Seer, and turn away his attention 
 from the sad spectacle of the overthrow of his beloved city and people. 
 Thunder and lightning and earthquake and hail complete the work of 
 destruction. The old dispensation comes to an end. The most holy 
 place is now thrown open ; and God, who could be nearly approached, 
 in former days, only once a year by the high priest, is henceforth ap- 
 proachable by all, at all times and in all places. 
 
 Thus ends the first catastrophe ; in which chap. vii. x. and xi. 1 — 14, 
 may be regarded as episodes , interwoven indeed with great skill into 
 the main theme of this catastrophe. Here is much exercise of imagin- 
 ation in the choice of symbols, great powers of description by vivid im- 
 pressive language and imagery, and great variety of action which ex- 
 cites a deep and fearful interest in the reader. Can any candid reader 
 deny merit to a piece executed in such a manner ? But of the aesthetics, 
 more in the sequel. 
 
 We come now to the second catastrophe. Here too, as in the first, is a 
 proem or prologue. It is not a Theophany, nor a Christophany in the 
 
§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 185 
 
 like sense with that in chap. i. It is however a symbolical representa- 
 tion of the Logos becoming incarnate. From the bosom of the church 
 he comes, as to his fleshly or mortal nature. Here, as often in the Old 
 Testament and many times in the New, the church is represented under 
 the emblem of a ivoman. It is not the church merely as Jewish, cer- 
 tainly not the church as Christian (which was subsequent), but the 
 church as beloved of God and always the object of his care and love, 
 which is symbolized as the mother of “ the Man-child who is to rule the 
 nations with an iron sceptre” (Rev. 12: 5). Like the bride in Ps. 45: 
 13, she is adorned with great splendour. Sun, moon, and stars unite in 
 shedding their glory around her. She is introduced as being pregnant 
 with the child who is to be the great King, and Satan is presented as 
 her violent and persecuting enemy. He stands ready to devour the 
 child at its birth. But the woman is protected by a watchful providence, 
 and flees into the wilderness where she finds an asylum from Satan’s ven- 
 geance. Chap. xii. 
 
 The history of Mary, the cruel designs of Herod when he massacred 
 the children at Bethlehem, and the flight of the infant Saviour’s parents 
 to Egypt, through the wilderness, must all have been floating before the 
 mind of the writer, when he drew this picture. His meaning is render- 
 ed too specific, by the declaration : “ She brought forth a son who is to 
 rule the nations with an iron sceptre” (Ps. 2: 9), to admit of any room 
 for doubt as to the general design of this proem to the second catas- 
 trophe. 
 
 Mere glances at the Saviour’s history are given. “ He is caught up 
 unto God ;” and Satan, full of rage, attempts to follow him into the 
 upper regions. But there Michael and his angels meet him in contest, 
 and thrust him and his legions down to the earth. Disappointed in his 
 hopes as to the great Head of the church, he now turns his enmity 
 against the other children of the woman, i. e. the members of the Chris- 
 tian church. 
 
 It is thus that the writer introduces us to the second great contest and 
 catastrophe. For the moment, his steps have been regressive. We 
 may now expect them to be progressive. 
 
 I cannot stop to remark here on the additional interest which the 
 writer thus throws around his theme, by pointing out the ground and 
 origin of Satan’s peculiar enmity against Christianity. It is as much 
 as to say : See what bitter and bloody persecutions the church is still 
 to expect ! 
 
 To constitute a complete association of inimical powers, two other 
 adversaries, in league with Satan and under his guidance, are next 
 brought upon the scene, and made to take an active and bitterly hostile 
 part. A beast rises from the sea, with seven heads and ten horns, (ein- 
 vol. i. 24 
 
186 
 
 § 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 blems of great power and of offensive attack), in which, are united all 
 the savage qualities of the most ferocious beasts. To him Satan gives 
 ample power, and through him receives much tribute of homage. This 
 beast is not only blasphemous against God, but it persecutes the saints 
 in every form, and with every kind of oppression both civil and religious. 
 All but the truly faithful are compelled to do it homage. 
 
 A second beast arises from the land, not armed with a power like that 
 of the first beast, but with craftiness and superstition and deep malig- 
 nity. All manner of deceit is practised in order to mislead the faithful, 
 and all manner of oppression and cruelty (by means of the power of 
 the first beast) in order to force them to do homage to idols. 
 
 The name of these deadly powers is not expressly given. It is in- 
 timated, however, at the close of the brief sketch which is given of 
 them, that the name of the principal beast, if computed in the usual 
 manner of reckoning letters for numbers, will amount to 666. The 
 reasons for speaking mystically here, I shall endeavour to give in the 
 Commentary on Rev. 13: 18, and the Excursus connected with it. 
 Chap. xiii. 
 
 Thus we have before us, Satan, the beast, and the false prophet or 
 second beast, j in combination against an apparently feeble Christian 
 church. How can it escape destruction, when the civil and sacerdotal 
 powers of the earth, and the prince of the spirits of darkness, are 
 leagued against it ? 
 
 No sooner, however, is all this fairly placed before the reader, than 
 he is led to a prospect of hope for the suffering church, notwithstanding 
 this combination of mighty and seemingly irresistible enemies against 
 her. The first signal or symbol which inspires hope, is the appearance 
 on mount Zion of the 144,000, who had been sealed in their forehead 
 and exempted from the dangers that awaited them in the Jewish land. 
 Not on mount Zion above, as many have supposed, but on mount Zion 
 below, once the central point of the Jewish church, and dangerous ground 
 for Christians. There stand the redeemed , while the sound of songs in 
 the heavenly world, uttered on their account, is heard by them — songs 
 which none but the faithful like themselves can understand. The fidelity 
 and the purity of these redeemed followers of the Lamb are eulogized in 
 sqch a manner, as strongly to invite others to an imitation of their virtues. 
 
 There seems, at first sight, to be a kind of voteqov tzqoteqov in the 
 plan here proposed. Nero began to persecute Christians in A. D. 64, 
 and was assassinated in A. D. 68 ; in 'which last year the Apocalypse 
 appears to have been written. But Jerusalem was not taken and destroy- 
 ed, until A. D. 70. How can John be supposed to have represented 
 the 144,000 as saved and redeemed, before the destruction of Jerusalem 
 which happened some two years after the time when he wrote ? 
 
§ 10 . ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 187 
 
 The answer to this is, that Christians were most fully warned by 
 Christ, (Matt. xxiv. and elsewhere), to flee to the mountains as soon as 
 the Roman army advanced upon Palestine. Doubtless the great body 
 of them did so. The invasion was early in A. D. G7 ; and it seems 
 quite probable, that ere John wrote the Apocalypse, the great body of 
 Christians had fled beyond the Jordan to Pella, and were safe. That 
 he presents them on mount Zion , belongs to the tact of the writer. He 
 presents them in vision merely to the eye of the beholder, as en- 
 tirely safe amid the most dangerous and powerful enemies of Christianity 
 in the holy land. The station that is assigned them in the vision, is a 
 symbol or pledge that they are safe, even in the very place where their 
 blood had so often and so profusely been shed. 
 
 Such then is the first and most significant symbol of the future victory 
 of the persecuted church. The second is triplex and is scarcely less 
 significant. Through mid-heaven a herald-angel flies, proclaiming that 
 the gospel will of a certainty be preached to every creature, and exhort- 
 ing to worship God alone, and not idols. A second angel proclaims the 
 fall of great Babylon. A third follows, and explicitly declares the 
 severe punishment of all who shall cleave to her and obey her. As an 
 epiphonema, a voice from heaven itself proclaims, on the other hand, the 
 peace and glory that await those who die in the Lord. 
 
 Thus the second symbol is presented by words or proclamations. The 
 third consists of a series of symbols by actions. The Redeemer ap- 
 pears seated on a shining cloud, with a sharp sickle in his hand. An 
 angel from the throne of the Eternal brings him a request to thrust in 
 the sickle and reap. This is done. A second angel from the t unple 
 in heaven appears, armed with a sharp weapon. A third angel from 
 the altar above brings a request, that he would thrust the weapon into 
 the vintage, and cut off the clusters. This is done, and they are cast 
 into a great wine-press, and blood flows out to the distance of a thousand 
 and six hundred furlongs. Chap. xiv. 
 
 Such then are the symbols of the future destiny of the persecuting 
 enemy. These being exhibited, immediate action follows. To seven 
 angels are committed seven vials filled with the wrath of God, in order 
 to discharge them upon the enemy. The song of anticipated victory 
 follows, Avhich is sung by the martyrs in heaven. The seven vials are 
 distributed, and dark clouds surround the throne of glory. As before 
 in respect to the trumpets, so here in respect to the vials ; they are di- 
 vided into classes of four and three. The vials are next successively 
 poured out upon the earth, the sea, the fountains and rivers of water, 
 and upon the sun, i. e. the heavens. The last three vials have a near 
 connection with the destruction of men. The fifth, poured upon the 
 seat of the beast, produces darkness upon the land, and grievous ulcera- 
 
188 
 
 § 10 . ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 tions upon men. The sixth, poured on the Euphrates, opens a way for 
 the armies of an invading enemy. The beast and his coadjutors assem- 
 ble their forces at Armageddon ; whose very name itself is indicative of 
 their overthrow. The seventh, poured on the atmosphere, the seat and 
 cause of storms and tempests, brings on lightning, thunder, earthquake, 
 and destructive hail. Babylon is shaken and disrupted, and becomes 
 like a mass of ruins ; as do also the other great cities of the allies con- 
 federate with her. Yet even plagues like these did not cure the mad- 
 ness of the church’s foes. Chap. xv. xvi. 
 
 The writer now provides, by the introduction of an episode, that the 
 reader shall be made more explicitly acquainted with the enemies that 
 have been assailed and defeated. In vision, John is rapt into the wil- 
 derness, where he sees a woman sitting upon a scarlet beast having 
 seven heads and ten horns. This is the symbol of the bloody and per- 
 secuting power that reigns over the nations ; and the woman is the great 
 city which is at the head of the dominion, who is drunk with the blood 
 of martyrs, and entices all the nations with her magic-cup of abomina- 
 tions. The characteristics are made out in view of the then reigning 
 emperor, Nero. Of him the soothsayers had predicted, that he would 
 be assassinated ; but also that he would recover from his wounds and go 
 into exile, from which he would return and resume his former power. 
 In accordance with the tenor of this report which was generally circu- 
 lated and believed, he is described by John, as “ the beast that was, and 
 is not, and will come up from the abyss and further, as ‘ being an 
 eighth , and yet one of the seven emperors of Rome.’ The description is, 
 no doubt, in some measure designedly enigmatical, in order to avoid the 
 imputation of a seditious attack upon the reigning power. But the 
 seven hills , symbolized by the seven heads of the beast ; and the seven 
 Icings also symbolized by the same heads, (one of which kings is yet to 
 come), seem to render certain the time when the Apocalypse was com- 
 posed, and the country and dominion to which the writer adverts. The 
 ten horns are symbols of allied and subordinate kings, who unite with 
 the beast in carrying on the persecution of the church. But these will 
 ultimately turn against the beast, and help to destroy it. Chap. xvii. 
 
 It is thus that John has fulfilled his very difficult and delicate task of 
 informing his readers what his principal aim was, in the second catas- 
 trophe. Complaint has sometimes been made, that the explanation is 
 darker than the symbols which precede it. This has apparently some 
 foundation ; for chap. xvii. may certainly be numbered among the most 
 difficult of all in the Apocalypse. Yet I cannot help thinking, that this 
 is to be attributed to two circumstances ; first, the distance of time, which 
 has rendered obscure to us the hints of the writer that were in all pro- 
 bability well understood at first ; and secondly, the extreme difficulty and 
 
§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 189 
 
 danger, both to the writer and readers, of speaking out plainly and di- 
 rectly. It would at once have been construed as a crimen laesae majes- 
 tatis, on the part of both. John would have been condemned for writ- 
 ing it, and his readers for approving of it. Hence the enigmatical ex- 
 pressions in chap, xvii, which only the initiated could well comprehend 
 and explain ; but which, when duly comprehended, seem to leave no 
 room for rational doubt as to the meaning of John. 
 
 The overthrow which great Babylon had experienced is followed, at 
 last, by her complete and final destruction. The people of God are 
 warned by a mighty angel to flee from her who has so long corrupted 
 the nations, because ample and final retribution is about to be made. In 
 anticipation of this, the Lament to be sung over her is introduced, as an 
 evidence how complete her destruction will be. It exhibits expressions 
 of wonder and horror, on the part of kings and merchants and seamen, 
 who had been connected with her and thrived in riches by their inter- 
 course with her. To put the final seal upon her doom, an angel pre- 
 sents the symbol of a huge mill-stone, elevated and cast into the depths 
 of the ocean, while he declares that such shall be her fate. Chap, xviii. 
 
 Forthwith the shout of anticipated final victory rings through all the 
 heavenly world ; which is thrice repeated. Immediately the King of 
 kings and Lord of lords appears at the head of the heavenly armies, and 
 marches forth to the great battle of God almighty. The rapacious beasts 
 and birds are summoned from every quarter to glut themselves on the 
 corpses of the slain. The armies meet. The beast and false prophet 
 are taken alive, and cast into the lake of fire and brimstone ; and Satan 
 is apprehended by a mighty angel, put in chains, and shut up in the 
 great abyss for a thousand years. Chap. xix. xx. 1 — 3. 
 
 Thus, ends the second catastrophe. The heathen powers, which had 
 so long and bitterly persecuted the church, are put down and wholly 
 subdued, and the church of God now enjoys a long season of prosperity 
 and peace, and diffuses itself over a great portion of the earth. 
 
 A sketch of this diffusion and prosperity (20: 4 — 6) forms a brief 
 proem to the third catastrophe ; thus varying the manner of the writer 
 on former occasions of the like nature. Yet here the distant future only 
 comes into view, and everything is executed by a simple outline. 
 
 Satan, being loosed at the end of the thousand years, brings up Gog 
 and Magog, in number like the sands of the sea, against the camp of 
 the saints and their beloved metropolis. Fire falls from heaven and 
 consumes the host of the enemy, and Satan is cast into the lake of fire 
 and brimstone ; 20: 7 — 10. 
 
 It is plain, that the writer’s main object has been completed antece- 
 dently to this last scene. Yet the trichotomy of the book, and the na- 
 ture of the case, both demanded a rounding off of the whole in such a 
 
190 
 
 § 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 way. The final triumphant — universally triumphant — position of the 
 church is thus exhibited ; and the reader’s mind would have been less 
 satisfied, had this been omitted. 
 
 I cannot doubt, when the nature of the case and the plan of the wri- 
 ter are considered, that an interval is to follow between the destruction 
 of the last enemies of the church and the end of the world — a long in- 
 terval, in which many sons and daughters will be born to the Lord Al- 
 mighty. It is in this way, and in this only, that we can conceive of the 
 entire fulfilment of the promise, that “ the seed of the woman should 
 bruise the serpent’s head.” In the Messianic portions of the Old Tes- 
 tament, any attentive reader will perceive numerous passages, where 
 similar intervals must beyond all doubt be supposed to exist, in order to 
 explain the phenomena when they are comprehensively viewed. The 
 old age of the world is doubtless to be peaceful and glorious, when 
 Satan and all his instruments of mischief shall cease to annoy the 
 church. 
 
 The final destiny of the church triumphant still remains ; and the 
 climactic course of the Epopee renders it inexpedient to omit this. Ac- 
 cordingly, the general resurrection and judgment are briefly introduced, 
 followed by a sketch of ultimate punishments and rewards. The former 
 are barely touched, but still they are touched with a master’s hand ; 20: 
 14, 15. The latter are dwelt upon with all the interest and rapture 
 which their nature and excellence demand. A new heaven and a new 
 earth appear. The new Jerusalem comes forth in all the splendour of 
 the upper world, a dwelling place fit for the habitation of God and his 
 saints. In describing its ornaments and glories, the writer follows close 
 in the steps of Ezekiel (xl — xlviii.) in some respects ; in others, he dif- 
 fers so much as to show that he was no mere imitator. A splendid de- 
 scription has he given us, and one adapted in all respects to excite in- 
 tense interest in the mind of the Christian reader. 
 
 An epilogue, in which the certainty of the things promised and pre- 
 dicted and the value and inviolability of the book are graphically set 
 forth, concludes the work. 
 
 I have called this work an Epopee, because it has all the leading quali- 
 ties of such a work — continued action of the deepest interest, wonderful 
 actors, great events, much display of imagination and fancy, poetry in 
 respect to its conceptions and diction, a general unity of design, and ca- 
 tastrophes of higher import and more thrilling interest than all the ca- 
 tastrophes of other epics united. It is useless to dispute about names ; 
 but I do not see how any one can show the impropriety of the name 
 that I have employed, merely from the fact that circumstantially the 
 Apocalypse differs from the Iliad, the Aeneid, or the Paradise Lost. I 
 allow that it is an Epopee sui generis , — a great moral Epopee — in which 
 
§ 11 . AESTHETICAL CHARACTER OF THE APOCALYPSE. 191 
 
 are celebrated, not the deeds of an Achilles or of an Aeneas with their 
 associates, but of the King of kings and Lord of lords with his angels 
 and saints. 
 
 § 11. Aesthetical character of the Apocalypse. 
 
 And now, what rhetorical judgment shall we pass upon the plan of 
 the writer and his execution of it ? I am well aware, that those who 
 have but one measure winch they can apply to all Epopees, and this a 
 measure that has been adjusted by the Iliad and the Aeneid, or by the 
 Paradise Lost, will find but a, moderate share of beauty and excellence 
 in the style and composition of the Apocalypse. But I take the liberty 
 boldly to protest against such a rule of judgment. It is neither equita- 
 ble nor liberal. Has there been no other standard of excellence ever 
 raised, except that which floats over the Iliad and the Aeneid ? I most 
 readily concede the aesthetic excellence of these productions, in their 
 own way. But other minds have thought, and felt, and composed with 
 excellence, besides those of Homer and Virgil. The Revelation of 
 John is indeed an oriental, and not an occidental, performance. It is 
 specially adapted, as we should naturally expect, to the taste of oriental 
 readers. But why should we not make all due allowance for this ? Isa- 
 iah is oriental too ; but who in all the West, or in any other region, has 
 reached the sublimity and beauty of his strains ? And should we not, 
 in deciding upon the execution of the plan of the Apocalypse and its 
 aesthetical merit, first make ourselves familiar with the feelings and 
 views and conceptions of the East? Common and impartial justice 
 would insist upon this. And when tried by an appropriate measure, 
 John need not shrink from a comparison with any other writer. 
 
 Who are his actors ? God ; Christ ; the blessed angels ; the spirits 
 of the just made perfect ; Satan and all the powers of darkness ; the 
 church on earth, labouring, suffering, contending, pouring out its martyr- 
 blood ; the cruel and persecuting Jews ; the atrocious Nero, that incar- 
 nate fiend, who swayed the empire of the world, bade nations lie pros- 
 trate at his feet, and trampled upon and tore limb from limb every fol- 
 lower of Christ with whom he could meet ; and finally, the innumerable 
 hosts of Gog and Magog from the ends of the earth, who encompass the 
 camp and city of the saints. 
 
 What is accomplished ? The subjugation and utter destruction of all 
 enemies — of the Jews — of the heathen Romish persecutors — of the 
 more distant and barbarous heathen. The little, persecuted, despised 
 church, commencing with scarcely more than could assemble in a moderate 
 house, extends, and extends, and waxes powerful, and becomes victori- 
 ous, until the world i3 filled with its triumphs and its peaceful dominion. 
 
192 
 
 §11. AESTHETIC AL CHARACTER 
 
 And what is the prize of the victors in such a contest ? Peace and 
 prosperity on earth, and thrones and crowns of glory in the world to 
 come. 
 
 In this great contest the weal or woe of all our race, even through 
 ages that have no end, is concerned. Never was such a contest ; never 
 such defeats on the one hand, nor such victories on the other, as the 
 Apocalypse exhibits. Its theme surpasses that of any and all other 
 epics, as much as the moral and spiritual nature of man rises above his 
 physical being, or the interests of eternity surpass those of time. 
 
 Such is the view, that a long acquaintance with the Apocalypse and 
 examinations of it often repeated, have led me to form. I cannot de- 
 cide for others ; but I may take' ‘it for granted, that they will not deny 
 to me the privilege of frankly giving my own opinion and the reasons 
 for it. 
 
 Nor am I alone in my aesthetical views of this book. Others who 
 have devoted much time to the study of it, have viewed it in a similar light. 
 Little more than sixty years ago, the credit of the Apocalypse among the 
 Protestant churches on the continent of Europe stood very low. Oeder 
 and Semler had attacked it with great violence, and even bitterness, 
 both in respect to its canonical authority and its style. As their neo- 
 logical views respecting the Scriptures generally, were soon extensively 
 adopted in Germany, the credit of the Apocalypse had sunk to such a 
 degree, that it was hardly deemed worthy of any strenuous effort in 
 order to explain it. 
 
 In this state of things Herder, who knew so well how to beautify and 
 adorn everything that interested him, took the book in hand. His 
 little volume which he called Maran Atha (the Lord will come) contains 
 a brief commentary on the Revelation, with a version ; and these are 
 followed by an Essay on the plan, the style, the idiom, and the author- 
 ship of the book, with remarks on its original and present use and value. 
 Nothing which Herder has written more fully displays his talents, than 
 this short piece. His soul was filled with the visions of the Apoca- 
 lyptist, and he has poured forth its ample streams in the Critique which 
 he has composed. 
 
 He speaks first of the language of the Hebrew prophets, after which 
 that of the Apocalypse is modelled. “ They have,” says he, “ all one 
 spirit, one design. One builds on another ; one explains another ; and 
 as gold have all been preserved. No imagery-language has remained 
 purer, or been better preserved ; none is in any measure so deeply im- 
 bedded in the genius of the people, its writings, and its idiom. Hebrew 
 poetry is as it were all symbol, imagery, holy and lofty diction. Even 
 the prose-writers and historians must needs speak in a tropical way, 
 because their language demands it ; still more must this be done by 
 
OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 193 
 
 teachers and prophets. No language loves and furnishes imagery like 
 this. Here a fiery glance, there a breathing full of the spirit of the 
 Lord. In this way speak the Old and New Testament ; and so speaks 
 the Apocalypse which contains the sum of both. It is an anile fable, 
 that a peculiar key belongs to it, or that the key is lost. Whoever 
 writes a book without an adequate key ? Specially, who writes such an 
 one for seven churches ? Did John attach a peculiar key to it, when 
 he sent it to them ? How did it look ? Who has seen it ? How came 
 it to be lost P Is it in the sea near Patmos, or in the Maeander ? 
 John writes a book for others — for many ; a book about whose contents 
 he was so seriously anxious, that he ^arrays curse upon curse against 
 any one who detracts from it, and blessing upon blessing for him who 
 reads, hears, and obeys it ; and yet this book is said to be an unintel- 
 ligible enigma, a kind of raving wholly sealed up, which no one except 
 its author can understand, and which even he himself perhaps did not 
 understand. Can anything be more absurd ? But if it was intelligible 
 to Christians of that day, why not to us who have the Old Testament, 
 and the written testimony of Jesus, and the history to which this book 
 has reference ? They lived amid the distresses of the times ; they 
 must needs wait for the fulfilment of what was predicted, and therefore 
 could look upon the contents of the book only in the dimness of the 
 future ; we live 1700 years after them, and in the most lucid era of his- 
 tory. Is the book fulfilled, (for it declares that its fulfilment will be 
 soon , quickly , without delay ), then history must show its fulfilment.” 
 Maran Atha, p. 240 seq. 
 
 Thus much in respect to the figurative language of the book and its 
 alleged obscurity. The author proceeds, in a variety of ways, to ex- 
 hibit and defend the diction and plan of the Apocalypse, with much in- 
 genuity and eloquence. In the sequel he remarks : “ According to the 
 date given in the Apocalypse itself, it was the earliest work of John. . . . 
 To me it seems, that the style partakes of the most manly youthful 
 vigour of his mind. The language is here and there unconformed to 
 grammatical rule. But who does not know that all the language of 
 prophecy is full of this daring strength — of this lofty contempt of formal 
 rules ? The gods do not speak like men ; for even the heathen, in the 
 way of art, imitated what was a higher nature in the prophets — in- 
 spiration.” 
 
 “ But leaving the province of Grammar . . . who is there that does 
 not feel the divine (&tiov) of this book ? Who does not even find the 
 book peculiar in this respect ? I know of more than one, who does not 
 pretend to any intimate knowledge of its contents, and certainly would 
 undergo no martyrdom in defence of them, who still finds what he does 
 understand to be beautiful, and the whole costume and series of the im- 
 vol. i. 25 
 
194 
 
 §11. AESTHETICAL CHARACTER 
 
 agery to be expanded and noble. Flower- wreaths from the poetry of 
 prophecy adorn the contents of this book, as fine linen does the bride, 
 as the heavenly cloud envelops the angel. Should I indulge myself in 
 the easy task of gathering parallel passages from the heathen poets, 
 the most powerful passages of imagery, either of Greeks or Romans, 
 when they speak of lustrations, consecrations, mysteries, theophanies, 
 and oracles, might be arrayed in the huge train of a victory-show. Yet 
 I have still to say : Here is a country, a town, a sanctuary cleansed by 
 fire. On this spot there shoots up, in the sacred councils of heaven, 
 the ark of the covenant, manna, the temple, white garments, the golden 
 branch of the tree of life, the tetradic number, the new inheritance, the 
 new mysterious Name, the Morning Star — all symbols of hidden and 
 mysterious things. The consecrated have passed through a sea of trial ; 
 they bear palm-branches in their hands ; within the inner sanctuary of 
 his temple, they sing a song which others cannot learn. . . . What 
 selection of scraps from foreign poets could come in here, in order to 
 give the book a tasteful aspect. It puts all extracts from others to shame. 
 The true diamond borrows not its lustre from false ones. The bride in 
 fine linen needs none of the purple patches of a courtesan gaudily 
 adorned.” Ib. p. 320 seq. 
 
 Thus Herder ; and in like strain has he said much more in his critical 
 dissertation. The man that wrote the Spirit of Hebrew Poetry , a book 
 unsurpassed as to the laying open of the nature and genius of the He- 
 brew language and poetry, was surely well qualified to form a judgment 
 of the merits of the Apocalypse as to style and manner. If he is want- 
 ing in the profoundness and tact of a first rate philological interpreter, 
 yet he possesses aesthetical power in no ordinary measure. 
 
 Herder’s work checked the current of obliquy against the Apocalypse. 
 Eichhorn’s Commentary , published a few years afterwards, turned the 
 current back the other way. I shall quote more sparingly from him, 
 because his work is better known and more accessible among us, being 
 written in Latin. In his prefatory Dissertation (p. 28) he says : “ In 
 adorning particular scenes and amplifying them with various and mani- 
 fold ornament, one can scarcely express himself adequately as to the 
 care, judgment, variety, abundance, and learning, which the author has 
 exhibited.” Speaking of the various agents introduced by the Apoc- 
 alyptist, he says : “ One cannot well entertain any doubt as to the fer- 
 tile and almost inexhaustible genius of the poet in devising, adorning, 
 polishing, and amplifying. In furnishing and adorning places and 
 scenes he exhibits, indeed, and converts to his own use, the rich trea- 
 sures gathered by the more ancient and the later Hebrew prophets and 
 writers, and an ample apparatus of things invented, ideal conceptions, 
 and imaginary views, which the genius of others had supplied ; yet he 
 
OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 195 
 
 has not merely exhibited them, he has exhibited them well and skilfully, 
 elegantly, strikingly, admirably, as became a poet endowed with large 
 gifts of intellect and genius and with well-regulated judgment. Nor is 
 even this all ; he has changed, elaborated, adorned, amplified, altered, 
 and dignified with much garnishing ; so that the style, adorned with 
 more art, moves on more ornate, elegant, and exquisite.” Ib. p. 30 seq. 
 Again, speaking of the writer’s choice of diction, he says : “ Nor is less 
 of care and refined judgment to be found in the poet, with respect to 
 choice of his words. The work, indeed, is prosaic as to form ; yet by 
 its commendable and wonderful simplicity, by its fictions or imaginary 
 scenes, by its abundance of imagery and phantasms, and by appropriate 
 things adapted to particular places or persons, or adjusted by special 
 numbers, the book approaches near to the poetic form of writing. . . . 
 With every kind of imagery, as with luminous spots, the writer has dis- 
 tinguished his work, so that in describing things he appears as novel, 
 unusual, and splendid. . . . But what is most worthy of note is, that in 
 the choice of words through the whole work he has employed such as 
 are most exquisite, most elegant, in every respect most accurately defin- 
 ed and circumscribed ; so that it is impossible to withhold one’s praise 
 for nicety of judgment and circumspection. . . . And since these things 
 are so, how can one help wondering, that our poet stands so ill with 
 many ? Even his name excites disgust. He is accused of being one 
 of those, whose minds are in a state of hallucination, and who are not 
 far from mania. But surely one who acts the part of a poet not only 
 with so much of genius and learning, but also of art, care, caution, and 
 sound judgment, will appear to all candid and skilful judges of these 
 matters, much more worthy of praise than of invidious and contemptu- 
 ous appellations. But as art has no hater except the ignoramus , so a 
 poet, who is so ingenious and learned and ornate, cannot have enemies 
 and despisers, unless they be those who are far removed from all due 
 perception of the ornate, the beautiful, the sublime, and the bold ; or, 
 being destitute of any judgment of their own, they merely follow others 
 who have pronounced sentence against the work, although their own 
 praecordia were never formed of the better clay.” Ib. p. 40 seq. 
 
 It cannot be said now of either Herder or Eichhorn, that they were 
 carried away by any superstitious regard for the mysterious, or that their 
 judgment was warped by any special reverence for the Apocalypse as a 
 sacred book. Herder indeed concedes inspiration to the writer ; but he 
 says somewhat more, probably, than he really means. So far as I can form 
 an estimate of his real views, the difference between John’s inspiration 
 and that of the heathen poets amounted in his estimation to this, viz., 
 that John treated of a subject pure and sacred in its nature, and which 
 concerned the true God and the Christian church, while they chose sub- 
 
196 § 11 . AESTHETICAL CHARACTER OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 jects of romance and fable as their theme, in connection with all the ex- 
 travagances and superstitions of polytheism. In respect to this matter, 
 however, Herder appears to have been variable in his feelings and views ; 
 but Eichhorn held out his opinions plainly and frankly to the view of 
 the world, and treated the Apocalypse everywhere as the mere offspring 
 of the poet’s genius and fancy. There were few men in Germany, for 
 the twenty-five years in which Eichhorn and Herder were in the zenith 
 of sacred criticism and of influence, that would have called in question 
 their aestlietical judgment ; I think there are few anywhere, even now, 
 that are entitled to call it in question. By general consent, the aes- 
 thetical merit of the Apocalypse is now placed on a lofty niche in the 
 temple of genius, and those who deny it such a position, are in a fair 
 way to be classed among that party which Eichhorn has described in 
 the last sentence of the extract from him that is given above. The 
 most laboured defence of the style and manner of the Apocalypse, may 
 be found in Eichhorn’s Einleitung to this book ; where, however, he at 
 the same time labours at length to support his view of its dramatical 
 character. With all his errors in respect to this point, he has inter- 
 mingled much that is true and striking with regard to the style of the 
 Apocalypse. 
 
 We might appeal to other and older witnesses, also, whose voice, 
 though heard long and widely in the Romish church, has as yet scarcely 
 been listened to in the Protestant world. Bossuet is a name which is 
 never mentioned without commanding respect for learning, taste, and 
 talent, among all competent judges. Bossuet has written a Commen- 
 tary on the Apocalypse, full indeed of Romanism, but containing many 
 a shrewd remark, and some fine openings in respect to the scope of the 
 author. Let us listen for a moment to him, as speaking in his Preface : 
 “ Those who have any taste for piety find peculiar attraction in the ad- 
 mirable Revelation of Saint John. The name of Jesus Christ, with 
 which John commences in the title, inspires one at the outset with holy 
 joy. . . . Everything corresponds with this excellent title. Notwith- 
 standing the profound depths of this divine book, one feels, in reading 
 it, an impression so sweet and altogether so sublime, of the majesty of 
 God ; ideas so lofty of the mystery of Jesus Christ appear ; a recogni- 
 tion of the people bought with his blood, is so lively ; the pictures of his 
 victories and of his dominion are so noble ; the songs which celebrate 
 the greatness of these are so wonderful ; that there is enough to ravish 
 all heaven and earth. . . . All the beauties of the Scriptures are concen- 
 trated in this book ; all that is most touching, most vivid, most majestic, 
 in the Law and in the Prophets, receives here a new splendour, and 
 passes again before our eyes, that we may be filled with the consolations 
 and the graces of all past ages. ... In fact, here we find again, in this 
 
§ 12 . HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES. 
 
 197 
 
 apostle [John], the spirit of all the prophets, and of all the men com- 
 missioned by God. He has received the spirit of Moses, in order to 
 sing the song of the new deliverance of the holy people, of a new ark, a 
 new tabernacle, a new temple, and a new altar of incense. He has re- 
 ceived the spirit of Isaiah and of Jeremiah, so as to describe the plagues 
 of the new Babylon, and to astonish the universe with the noise of its 
 fall. It is by the spirit of Daniel that he has disclosed to us the new 
 beast, i. e. the new empire which is the enemy and persecutor of the 
 saints, with its defeat and ruin. By the spirit of Ezekiel he has shown 
 us all the riches of the new temple, where God will be worshipped, i. e. 
 the riches of heaven and of the church. In fine, all the consolations, 
 all the promises, all the grace, and all the light of the divine books, are 
 united in this. All men inspired of God seem to have contributed for 
 it all which they possess of the rich and the magnificent, in order to 
 form the most beautiful picture of Jesus Christ which one can imagine ; 
 and we see nothing more clearly, than that he is truly the end of the 
 law, the reality of its symbols, the body of its shadows, and the soul of 
 its prophets.” 
 
 “ Nor must any one imagine, when Saint John brings forward all 
 this, that he is a mere imitator of the prophets, his predecessors. All 
 which he cites from them he elevates ; he even leads us to discover the 
 original itself of all the prophecies, which is none other than Jesus 
 Christ and his church. Borne onward by the same spirit which anima- 
 ted the prophets, he has penetrated their mind, he has defined their 
 meaning, he has revealed their mysteries, he has made the full glory of 
 Jesus Christ to diffuse its entire radiance.” Pref. p. 3 seq. 
 
 Bossuet, it will be perceived, has exhibited more of the Christian, 
 and less perhaps of the rhetorician, than Herder or Eichhorn. It is 
 well however to combine both, for the book before us unites them. 
 How Luther could ever have rejected the Apocalypse, and thrust it 
 from the canon, because, as he alleges, “it has no Christ in it,” is more 
 than we can well explain. The Romanist has, in respect to this mat- 
 ter, seen with much clearer vision than the Protestant. 
 
 §12. Hermeneutical Principles necessary to the proper interpretation of 
 
 the Apocalypse. 
 
 There is one plain and obvious question, which every interpreter of 
 the Apocalypse is bound to ask, viz. For what purpose was this book 
 written ? That is : "W as it written to be read and understood by those 
 to whom it was addressed ; or was it intended for an enigma, which no 
 Oedipus for centuries to come should be able to solve ? 
 
 If the work were one of mere play of imagination or fancy ; if the 
 
198 
 
 § 12 . HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES 
 
 writer designed merely to amuse his readers by the brilliancy of his 
 poetical conceptions, or to puzzle them with the ingenuity of conun- 
 drums ; if, in a word, his aim was merely to excite admiration, or won- 
 der, or to make his contemporaries stare at him on account of his sin- 
 gularity or his mysticism, like Goethe in his Faust ; then it would be of 
 little avail to speak of principles of interpretation. Interpretation , in 
 the sober and rational sense of the word, would be fairly out of ques- 
 tion. More than this also we might well say ; for we might truly affirm, 
 that the book would not be worth the trouble of a serious ^ffort to in- 
 terpret it. 
 
 To my own mind, however, it seems to be quite plain, that no great- 
 er injustice could be done to any book, than to consider the Apocalypse 
 in such a light. If there is any book in the New Testament that has 
 the aspect of sincerity, of earnestness, and of deep feeling ; of high spirit- 
 ual sympathy for the welfare of the church ; of glowing zeal for the in- 
 terests of the kingdom of God ; of unceasing and all pervading gratitude 
 to Christ, for what he has done and suffered to save our sinful race ; of 
 heart-felt solicitude for the constancy and spiritual fidelity of Christians ; 
 of trembling concern for such as are tempted to apostatize ; of confident 
 hope as to the final triumph of truth and righteousness ; and of unsha- 
 ken faith in the glories of the upper world, which are consequent upon 
 obtaining a mansion in the paradise of God — if there is any book that 
 belongs to the New Dispensation, on whose very face all these things 
 are enstamped in characters of light, the Apocalypse is that book. ‘ lie 
 that runneth may read ’ all this. And if this be true — denied it cannot 
 well be — then here is no book of mere fancies, no tissue of enigmas, no 
 mysticism designed only to amuse or perplex. No, not a real trace of 
 all this. The writer was in downright and most sober earnest, if ever 
 the world saw such a writer. On such subjects the sacred writers do 
 not trifle. They are serious ; gravely in earnest ; full of feeling ; car- 
 ried away (it may be) with their subject, and rapt into the world of 
 imagination, by a state of mind which is struggling for adequate ex- 
 pression and imagery, but which cannot find them so as to answer all 
 its purposes in the world of realities, and is therefore sometimes forced 
 beyond ordinary bounds in quest of them. Such is most palpably the 
 character of him who wrote the Apocalypse. To read the book, and 
 not to discover all this, not to see it diffused over every portion of it, 
 would be nothing less than to traverse the whole ground with a bandage 
 over one’s eyes, or to survey it all through a dark or discoloured me- 
 dium, which mars the beauty and vivid tints that are diffused over every 
 prospect. 
 
 Must we not say, then, that an interpreter should begin his exegesis 
 of the Apocalypse, with a deep and abiding conviction that he is en- 
 
APPLICABLE TO THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 199 
 
 gaged in a serious business, and that all jeaux d’ esprit arising from levity 
 of mind, or disrespectful views of the contents of the book, are equally 
 unbecoming and uncandid? The witticisms, or rather the meagre at- 
 tempts at witticism, which may be met with in Oeder, Corrodi, and 
 some others, disgust one not less by their want of good taste than by 
 their irreverence. Suppose any one should take Milton’s Paradise 
 Lost in hand, and find some expression or image in it which does not 
 agree with his own taste, and then should fall to jeering and scoffing at 
 the book or the author ; what should we say of him ? And yet here, in 
 the Apocalypse, is a higher theme than Milton’s, if higher there can be ; 
 and here is a book which treats of it, by presenting a series of symbols 
 such as never before were presented, in which God, and Christ, and good 
 angels, and spirits of darkness, and all that is good and bad on earth, 
 are actors, and are represented too as performing their respective parts 
 in an appropriate manner — and shall an interpreter undertake to jeer 
 and scoff? Such a picture needs only to be once looked at, in order to 
 make a proper estimate of it. 
 
 But to return ; the Apocalypse, we say, is a book that was 'written 
 for a serious purpose, for an immediate effect (not excluding a remoter 
 one), and for a highly important end. It was sent to the seven leading 
 churches of Asia Minor. Did the writer wish and expect them to un- 
 derstand it ? How can there be but one answer to this ? He did ex- 
 pect to encourage, console, admonish, and instruct them, and all others 
 likewise who in like circumstances should read it ; and if so, he of course 
 expected to be understood. 
 
 We might well ask, then, with Herder : ‘Was there a key sent with 
 the book, and has this been lost ? Was it thrown into the sea of Pat- 
 mos, or into the Maeander ?’ No ; no key was sent, and none was lost. 
 The primitive readers, I mean of course the men of intelligence among 
 them, could understand the book ; and were we for a short time in 
 their places, we might dispense with all the commentaries upon it, and 
 the theological romances which have grown out of it, that have made 
 their appearance from the time of John’s exile down to the present 
 . hour. 
 
 In their places, however, we cannot exactly put ourselves. Their 
 language is not ours. Their circle of objects, their imagery, their modes 
 of thinking, their culture, their circumstances, are and must be in some 
 measure foreign to us. All that remains is, by the aid of helps which 
 antiquity furnishes, to approximate as nearly to their situation as may 
 b • Ti e nearer we come, the more certain we are to understand the 
 Apocalypse. 
 
 As I have already had occasion to say, there are but two ways in 
 which any ancient writing, either sacred or profane, is now to be inter- 
 
200 
 
 §12. HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES 
 
 preted. The one is, by a use of the ordinary means of exegesis ; the 
 other, by supernatural aid, i. e. by inspiration. Who now lays claim to 
 the latter ? Some such there have been, and may be. But who allows 
 the right to such a claim ? Only enthusiasts and men that are misled. 
 We come then to the simple principle, that the Apocalypse, like all other 
 hoolcs, must he interpreted hy the aid of helps and principles like to those 
 which are employed in the interpretation of other hooks. Whatever 
 there is in it which is intelligible, must be understood in this way ; and 
 (may we not add ?) may be understood in this way. 
 
 To go into minutiae here, in respect to the interpretation of particular 
 passages, would be entirely beyond my present aim. My object is mere- 
 ly to give a brief sketch of radical principles, from which we cannot 
 depart without a certainty that we shall fall into error. 
 
 (1) It is now agreed, as has more than once been stated, that the 
 Apocalypse is a book of poetry. Not that it is rhythm, or composed in 
 heroic verse ; but still it is essentially, in its very mode of conception, 
 plan, and diction, a poetic work. Poetry is the characteristic of nearly 
 all Hebrew prophecy ; and why should not the Apocalypse, written by 
 a Hebrew, be poetic ? And if it be, all the rules and principles which 
 apply to the figurative language, the allegory, the symbol, the peculiar 
 diction of poetic prophecy, must be applied to the interpretation of the 
 Apocalypse. 
 
 (2) In connection with this stands another highly important consider- 
 ation. Oriental poetry and certainly the Hebrew, follows out the de- 
 tail of symbol and allegory, for the sake of verisimilitude and in order 
 to give vivacity to the representation, much beyond what we are accus- 
 tomed to do in the western world. How much, now, of this detail is to be 
 regarded as significant of sentiment, and as the exponent of instruction, 
 is a matter that of necessity must always be left to judgment and taste. 
 No exact technical rules can be laid down for the limitation of this mat- 
 ter. But the Apocalypse does not stand alone, in respect to its demands 
 for such a principle of interpretation. In nearly all the parables of the 
 Saviour, there is a necessity for the application of the same principle. 
 Take, for example, the parable of the good Samaritan. What is the 
 object ? To inculcate the love of benevolence toward our fellow beings, 
 whatever may be their relations to us, or however they may have been 
 viewed by our prejudices. What now are the circumstances in the 
 parable which answer the mere purpose of verisimilitude, and which we 
 are not to thrust into the fore-ground of the picture, when the painter 
 has placed them in the back-ground ? They are such as these ; the 
 direction of the man who travels, viz., from Jerusalem toward Jericho ; 
 his falling among thieves and being robbed ; the Samaritan’s setting 
 him on his own beast ; his bringing him to an inn ; his departure on 
 
APPLICABLE TO THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 201 
 
 the morrow ; his leaving two pence, etc. Not one of all these circum- 
 stances is essential to the gist of the parable, because each and all of 
 these particulars might be, or not be, i. e. might be exchanged for others, 
 and yet the traveller be presented as a poor sufferer and in need of 
 friendly aid. The great principle inculcated would be the same, if any 
 or all of the circumstances just mentioned had been omitted, or changed, 
 and the story liad consisted of a simple statement that might have been 
 made, perhaps, by a single sentence. But then, the beauty, the viva- 
 city, the verisimilitude, the impressiveness,' of the whole parable — what 
 would have become of these ? They would have been sacrificed. 
 
 So is it in regard to many circumstances in other parables of Jesus ; 
 and so is it everywhere in respect to the symbols and allegories of the 
 Hebrew prophets. So it must of course be in the Apocalypse, which 
 treads so closely in their steps. Of all the*qualifications needed by an 
 interpreter of this book, none stands more conspicuous, none can be 
 more needed, than the power of discriminating, with sound judgment 
 and good taste, between what is essential and primary, and what is 
 secondary and belongs merely to the congruity of the symbols. It is by 
 mixing and confounding these, and by mistaking the one for the other, 
 that nearly all the shipwrecks have been made, which have befallen 
 many of those who have embarked on this ocean. 
 
 It were easy to illustrate this by examples, but where should I begin, 
 or where end ? I may, however, specificate one or two cases, in order 
 to make the subject plain. In chap. vi. is a picture of a dread array, 
 marshalled against the enemies and persecutors of the church. The 
 latter are to be assailed with war and famine and pestilence, or at least 
 by the agents of destruction ; and their fall is certain. All this is shown 
 by successive symbols. A conqueror on a white horse, the symbol of 
 victory, leads the van. Then follows a red horse, the symbol of blood, 
 and his rider brandishes a drawn sword. Next comes a black horse, 
 the emblem of mourning and distress, and his rider is furnished with 
 balances, which are nicely to adjust by weight the necessaries of life ; 
 this indicates famine or scarcity of food. The rear is brought up by 
 the king of terrors, accompanied by ghosts from the world beneath. All 
 this is plainly one army, gathered for one purpose, and furnished for 
 the exercise of awful power. Blood, famine, and pestilence, i. e. the 
 means of destruction, are to waste the enemy. When or by whom , is 
 not the question here. A particular answer to these questions would be 
 detail, which would mar the outline-picture. It is one and a simple 
 picture, merely composed of parts which have a unity of design ; and 
 one cannot view it simply in this light, without an involuntary awe. 
 Yet what have some, and even most, interpreters done ? They have 
 assigned to the leader and conqueror one place and to his army another ; 
 vol. i. 26 
 
202 
 
 §12. HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES 
 
 they have imagined different countries, and even remote and separate 
 ages, as the where and the when of these f prophetic symbols. Famine 
 prevails in one country, pestilence in another, the wild beasts in another, 
 and war in another ; and all this, without any particular relation, or in- 
 deed any relation at all, to the speedy destruction of the enemy who are 
 before the eye of the seer. Can anything be more incongruous, more 
 palpably mistaken, more clearly in bad taste, more repugnant to the true 
 nature of the symbols employed? If a priori conceptions of what 
 John ought to reveal, had not taken the lead in such interpretations, 
 they never could have been devised. 
 
 Let us take another example from Rev. xiv. To any one who has 
 attentively studied and analyzed the contents of the Apocalypse, it must 
 be evident that chap. xiv. is episode. All which is intended by the 
 symbols there exhibited, is merely to indicate the certainty of victory 
 over the beast, the false prophet, and Satan their instigator or leader. 
 Hence the scene opens with exhibiting the Lamb, at the head of the 
 144,000 who had been sealed in their foreheads, and redeemed from 
 fierce and cruel persecutions — which redemption was a sure pledge of 
 power to save, and of faithfulness in performing promises. How dear 
 all faithful confessors are to the great Head of the church, is next shown 
 in few but very expressive words. Other symbols in the sequel, further 
 confirm what is intimated by this leading scene. An angel, flying 
 through mid-air, proclaims the universal spread of the gospel. Another 
 angel proclaims the fall of great Babylon. A third declares the dread- 
 ful end of all who partake in her idolatry. A voice from heaven re- 
 sponds, and declares the blessedness of all who shall be faithful martyrs 
 to the truth. What has thus been done, first by symbol and then by 
 proclamation, is, after the manner of the book, done as it were a third 
 time by the employment of new and different symbols. The earth 
 is represented as a great harvest-field speedily to be reaped, and then 
 as being reaped ; and finally, as presenting a vast vintage, the clusters 
 of which are cut off with the pruning-knife and gathered together. 
 These are cast into a wine-press, and a dark fluid, the symbol of blood, 
 flows out to a great distance. 
 
 Who now that attentively considers all this, does not perceive that 
 there is an entire unity of design in the whole chapter ? And this design 
 is neither more nor less than to give assurance, that the beast and all 
 his coadjutors are about to be destroyed. Well may the writer ex- 
 claim, as he does : “ Here is the patience of the saints ! ” That is, here 
 is abundant reason for the saints to be patient and submissive, for trials 
 and persecutions must abound ; but here is encouragement for them, 
 also, inasmuch as these trials will come to a speedy end. The downfall 
 of the persecuting power and of all its allies, is absolutely certain. 
 
APPLICABLE TO THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 203 
 
 What shall we say, now, to those interpreters, who seek for historical 
 events and facts, in remote ages, which are to be the fulfilment of these 
 so-called predictions ? What defence can be made for converting episode 
 into the main body of the work — for converting mere symbols of strong 
 assurance that the beast will be overcome, into representations of actual 
 battles, into pictures of veritable historical events ? No adequate de- 
 fence can be made for this proceeding, either at the bar of reason or of 
 taste. Nothing short of overlooking the true structure of the book and 
 the mutual relation of its parts, can lead an interpreter to such an exe- 
 gesis as this. Yet how often has this been done ! 
 
 Is it not just and proper, then, to insist that an interpreter of the Apoc- 
 alypse should liave^ a due regard to the nature of symbols, and learn, if 
 possible, how much of them belongs to the fore-ground, and how much 
 to the back-ground, of the picture ? The principle is too plain to be 
 called in question, and too important to be neglected. 
 
 (3) Scarcely if at all inferior in point of importance to either of 
 the preceding hermeneutical principles, as they respect the Apocalypse, 
 is the plain and obvious principle, that generic, and not specific and 
 individual , representations are to be sought for in the book before us. 
 
 No one principle of interpretation has been so often and so palpably 
 violated in the exegesis of the Apocalypse, as this. In all cases of the 
 like nature in the Old Testament, we find only generic pictures, (if I 
 may be allowed the expression), and not. minute drawings of individu- 
 alities. If the reader doubts this for a moment, let him turn back and 
 reperuse § 2. above, where a synoptical view of the Messianic prophe- 
 cies is given. Almost the only exception in all these, to the principle 
 of generic representation, is the single case where the sufferings and 
 death of Christ are depicted, as in Ps. xxii. and Is. liii. Why now 
 should the whole character of predictions, respecting the Christian 
 church, be entirely changed in the New Testament ; and in cases, too, 
 where the subject and object are the very same as in the Old ? How 
 can it be imagined that John, who follows everywhere so closely in the 
 steps of the Hebrew prophets, should so entirely depart from them in 
 regard to this particular ? There must be some good reason in order to 
 render this credible ; and such a reason has not yet been proffered. It 
 is the great and leading concerns of the church, and those only, which 
 are sketched in the Apocalypse. How could the writer, in the compass 
 of so few pages, undertake to detail all the minute events of future 
 ages, both those which belong to the church, and also to civil communi- 
 ties ? It was impossible. 
 
 If it be said, that still he may have sketched out some of the most 
 striking and prominent events with some good degree of individuality ; 
 where in the Apocalypse, I would ask, are such sketches to be found ? 
 
204 
 
 §12. HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES 
 
 Characteristics lie does indeed draw, occasionally, which may be indi- 
 vidually applied ; e. g. of the beast, and of the false prophet. But 
 when he comes to symbolize the downfall of these, all is in the most 
 general way ; as any one may see, who will read the 16 th and 19 th chap- 
 ters of the Revelation. 
 
 But a multitude of expositors are not content with finding even mi- 
 nute ecclesiastical matters in the Apocalypse. They must needs find 
 profane as well as sacred history. The Goths, the Vandals, the Huns, 
 petty kingdoms and states of remote ages, battles fought centuries after 
 John was dead ; local famine even, and pestilence, earthquakes, droughts, 
 volcanos, tornados, and other evils, at divers times and places ; are all 
 to be found in the pages of the Revelation. In short, the work is con- 
 verted into a syllabus of civil and natural history. 
 
 How now can a man of sober discretion, who has ever studied He- 
 brew prophecy, give ear to all this ? An expositor finds in Rev. vi, for 
 example, the description of a certain war, of a particular famine, or of a 
 pestilence, all of which took place centuries after the book was written. 
 On what ground does he defend this view ? On the ground that there 
 are things in the apocalyptic picture, which, in his opinion, tally well 
 with the subsequent events in question. Let it be so ; we will concede 
 that there are things which might tally, if the author’s design and the 
 context would permit us to make such an application. But if these do 
 not permit it, what shall we then say to interpretation so conducted ? 
 The misfortune in this case is, that what applies to this particular bat- 
 tle, or that famine, or pestilence, would apply equally well to every bat- 
 tle that has been fought, and every famine and pestilence that have laid 
 waste, from the days of John down to the present hour. Who then can 
 choose between all these conflicting claims ? If the author has assigned 
 neither time nor place , who can fix on these for him ? If he has, then 
 he alone is to be consulted, in order to know what battle, or famine, or 
 pestilence, he has alluded to. The context is the only arbiter, most 
 evidently, which can settle such questions. My belief is, that in a gene- 
 ral way the writer of the Apocalypse has settled them. And this is 
 enough. It is all that would be safe and profitable to the church ; it is 
 all that is needed for spiritual instruction and consolation. 
 
 I say for spiritual instruction ; and in so saying I mean to be under- 
 stood as designing to imply, that any other kind of instruction would be 
 inapposite to the occasion of writing such a book, and also to the design 
 of the author. Civil history ! And is the Apocalypse, then, a book for 
 the consultation of politicians, in regard to their schemes, and the proba- 
 ble success of them ? Does it tell them what kingdom will triumph, and 
 what will fall, in the contest of arms ? Is it a book written for such a 
 purpose as the heathen oracles were uttered ? Are men to resort to it, 
 
APPLICABLE TO THE APOCALTPSE. 
 
 205 
 
 in order to gratify their prurient curiosity about future events of a mere 
 worldly nature ? No ; this is all a dream. John was no chronicler of 
 civil events. He was no soothsayer, like those of Delos and of Delphos. 
 Such things, and such only, as relate to the spiritual welfare and pros- 
 perity of the church, are the objects of his prophetic vision. Whoever 
 finds mere civil history here, must make it from his own fancy and 
 imagination ; he cannot deduce it from the text of John in a truly phi- 
 lological manner. 
 
 Almost everything depends, in many parts of the Apocalypse, on the 
 observance of the canon of interpretation which we are now'discussing. 
 Yet there seem to be some minds, that are incapable of duly appreciat- 
 ing this canon. If one should tell them, that after all which is symbol- 
 ized in Rev. vi. respecting war, famine, and pestilence, (supposing the 
 persecuting Jews are the object of the prediction), it would be unneces- 
 sary to look for these events in a literal way, in order to find a fulfilment 
 of the prophecy, they would exclaim with strong emotion : 4 What ! Is 
 there no reality , then, to be looked for as associated with these predic- 
 tions in the way of fulfilment? Is not John converted into a mere for- 
 tune-teller by such a process as is here proposed ?’ Should one still add, 
 in the way of defending the general ground on which he stands in the 
 interpretation of prophetic symbols, that the overthrow and downfall of 
 the persecuting enemy is the substance of the prediction before us ; that 
 the way and manner in which this is accomplished cannot be of much 
 importance to the church, so long as the event itself is certain ; that the 
 symbols of war, and famine, and pestilence, are here employed, merely 
 because they are the usual instruments in destroying the power of hos- 
 tile nations ; that it is altogether natural and proper to employ them in 
 order to make a lively representation of the subject in hand ; and that if 
 some other power than the Roman had overrun and subjugated Pales- 
 tine, and put a complete stop to the persecutions there carried on, chap, 
 vi. of the Apocalypse would have been as truly fulfilled as it has now 
 been ; that if even other means than war and famine and pestilence had 
 accomplished the same ends, there would have been a virtual fulfilment 
 of the predictions ; and of course, that the generic idea of humbling, and 
 subduing, and disarming, and punishing the persecuting enemy, is all 
 that can be important to the church in the predictions before us — I say, 
 if all this were to be alleged in answer to him who seeks for and confi- 
 dently expects minute, specific, and individual events in prophecy, I see 
 not what answer he could give ; although it may be doubted whether all 
 this would bring conviction wfith it to his mind, specially in case he had 
 already pledged himself to a particular and favorite interpretation of a 
 very different tenor. I do not indeed, for myself, regard the symbols of 
 the Apocalypse in quite so abstract a light as this ; but if events had 
 
206 
 
 § 12 . HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES 
 
 shown them to be so, I should not feel the least difficulty with regard to 
 the real and substantial fulfilment of the prediction before us. 
 
 In my apprehension, it is from an abuse of the principle in question, 
 that most of the flagrant errors committed in the interpretation of the 
 Apocalypse have arisen, in modern times. The imagery and the sym- 
 bols of this book are mostly of such a generic nature, that there is no 
 difficulty in making them apply, if one is determined so to do, to almost 
 any leading events that have affected the church, either in more remote 
 ages or in more recent times. The characteristics for example of the 
 beast, although, when compared throughout and viewed collectively, they 
 cannot with any good degree of philological probability be applied to 
 any other than the heathen , Roman , persecuting power, will no doubt 
 apply, at least many of them, to the like ecclesiastical power in later 
 ages. The Protestant interpreter lays hold of this circumstance, and 
 with great zeal, and it may be with much sincerity and honesty of pur- 
 pose, applies it to the Pope and his persecuting allies and coadjutors. 
 How far the circumstance, that the description of the beast answers in 
 many particulars to him and his allies, and that some important advan- 
 tages in argument may accrue to the Protestant in consequence of mak- 
 ing such an application, may go in persuading him that this is a correct 
 mode of exegesis, and inducing him to adopt and urge it, is forcibly il- 
 lustrated by the case of Luther. This Reformer, when he published 
 his German translation of the New Testament, thrust the Apocalypse 
 from the canon, and printed it merely in the way of an Appendix , and 
 as an apocryphal book. His main reasons were, that the book was un- 
 intelligible, and that there was “ no Christ in it.” Subsequent critics, 
 more keen-sighted in exegesis than Luther, found, or thought that they 
 had found, good reason for applying John’s description of the beast to 
 the Pope and his adherents. As the contest waxed warmer, Luther 
 perceived the advantage of such an ally ; and it was not long before 
 consent was given to a reception of the Apocalypse. Thus the book 
 was restored to its place of honour at the close of the canon, and John 
 was converted into one of the most formidable assailants of the Romish 
 camp. 
 
 What now was done, on the other hand, by the opponents of Luther 
 and the Reformation ? They speedily found the beast in Luther, and 
 the false prophet in Calvin. They also discovered, that even the name 
 of the beast, as indicated by the number 666, was to be found in Lu- 
 ther’s original proper name. Arguments, such as they were, were not 
 lacking on the part of the Romanists. Feuardentius has given us a 
 specimen of them, in his note upon the famous passage in Irenaeus 
 (V. 30) respecting the name of the beast. 
 
 Who now has the better in such a contest ? The Romanists have ar- 
 
APPLICABLE TO THE APOCALYPSE, 
 
 207 
 
 rayed great learning on their side, as well as the Protestants. Which 
 of them shall we trust? My feelings would certainly lead me to side 
 with the Protestants ; and I doubt not that they have the better side in 
 the argument ; if indeed either side can be said to have the better, when 
 neither is in the right. In truth, the Romanists have so little of even 
 the show of argument in this case, that one can scarcely bring himself 
 to believe that they are in earnest. Neither Calvin nor Luther had do- 
 minion over the city of seven hills , nor were they engaged in promoting 
 idol-worship. How could they then be the beast and the false prophet f 
 But, on the other hand, nothing is more certain in all theJ^pocalypse, 
 than that a heathenish idolatrous power is described in Rev. xiii. seq., a 
 power that was then persecuting the church. If this point be not clear, 
 then must we absolutely despair of making anything clear, by exegesis, 
 out of the book before us. 
 
 I should have more to say on this subject, if this were the appropriate 
 place. As it is t not, I must content myself with merely observing, that 
 the view which I have taken of the Apocalypse in the preceding pages, 
 is one which will make a part of this book applicable in one sense to 
 papal Rome, or to any other power, which may lay violent hands upon 
 Christians, and contend against the progress of the gospel. What was 
 done on the part of heaven, at the time of John and speedily after, in 
 order to defend the truth and promote the extension of the Redeemer’s 
 kingdom, is the model of what will be done in all succeeding ages for 
 the like purpose. So far as the Pope and his adherents imitate the 
 original beast and false prophet, or so far as Protestants do what injures 
 the church, so far they come under sentence and condemnation like to 
 that which was pronounced upon the beast. The analogy of God’s 
 dealings with his true church renders it certain, that hindrances thrown 
 in the way of it, whatever they may be, will be removed. If* excision 
 of enemies becomes necessary, it will take place. The doom of all that 
 opposes itself to the progress of true religion, is sealed by the Apoca- 
 lypse. So far Protestants are plainly in the right. All that is want- 
 ing, then, to show that the downfall of Romanism is virtually foretold by 
 John, is to show that Romanism resembles the beast and the false pro- 
 phet. But when I say, that its downfall is virtually predicted in the 
 Apocalypse, I must not be understood as affirming, that John himself 
 had the papal hierarchy definitely in view, when he wrote this book. I 
 do not see any way in which this can be rendered exegetically probable. 
 John wrote to console and admonish and encourage the churches, then 
 bleeding at every pore under the glittering weapons of a blood-thirsty 
 tyrant. And what does he do in order to accomplish his purpose ? He 
 assures the churches that this dreadful contest is not always to continue. 
 Ere long victory will perch on the banners of the cross. The church 
 
208 
 
 § 12 . HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES 
 
 will not become extinct by all which tyrants can do, but will rise from, 
 its ruinous state, will expand, will fill the world with its triumphs, and 
 prostrate in the dust all who lift up a hand against it. To crown all, he 
 looks with a prophetic eye through the vista of distant ages, and sees 
 that the setting sun of the church militant, and the old age of tfie world 
 in which it dwells, will be glorious ; and finally, that the new Jerusalem 
 will be her abode through ages that have no end. Short indeed, and 
 mere outlines, are the descriptions of all that belongs to the distant fu- 
 ture. But they serve to finish the picture which John had begun, and 
 thus to complete the measure of consolation and encouragement which 
 he designed to administer. 
 
 How can we, then, when such a design and such a method of accom- 
 plishing it stand out with marked prominence in this picture — how can 
 we attribute to John a mere syllabus of the civil and ecclesiastical his- 
 tory of remote ages, a history of civil commotions and tumults, or the 
 mere description of literal famines and pestilences, of earthquakes and 
 of tempests ? In the name of all that is pertinent and congruous in 
 prophecy, I ask, what have these to do with the object which John had 
 before him ? Or are we, as some have slily hinted, to regard him as in 
 a state of hallucination when he wrote the Apocalypse ? Or if any 
 one alleges that some notice of the great apostasy in the church was 
 surely to be expected, then may I ask again : In what way could it 
 either console or encourage John’s readers, to be told that at some fu- 
 ture day a great part of the church would become heretical, or act the 
 part of apostates, and persecute and destroy true Christians as badly as 
 the heathen were then doing ? And is this consolatory to poor fainting 
 spirits, filled with dread lest the light of divine truth might be quenched 
 in the blood of its friends, and anxious for one ray of hope that the 
 church would yet rise and triumph over all its enemies ? It would in 
 fact seem not unlike some degree of hallucination, to engage in making 
 such disclosures, with the expectation of reviving the drooping spirits of 
 suffering Christians by them. It is out of reasonable question, then, 
 that we should take, and be able to support, such a view of this subject 
 as the popular exegesis demands. In truth, it requires us virtually to 
 set aside the idea, that John had in view any present, important, and 
 appropriate object in the writing of his book ; or if he had such an ob- 
 ject in view as appears to lie upon the face of that book, then, according 
 to the exegesis which we are controverting, he took the strangest course 
 imaginable in order to accomplish it, i. e. he wrote a syllabus of the 
 civil and ecclesiastical history of distant ages, the highest end of which, 
 in respect to those whom he addressed, could be only to gratify their 
 prurient historical curiosity. 
 
 Such a view of the book will not bear a sober examination. It is too 
 
APPLICABLE TO THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 209 
 
 improbable, incongruous, and inapposite to the necessities of the times. 
 A church bleeding at every pore, and ready to faint or to apostatize 
 — such a church addressed by a grave writer who has a superin- 
 tendence over its concerns — and merely or principally told what things 
 will happen in distant future ages, things civil, ecclesiastical, and even 
 appertaining to the natural world, most of which were to be developed 
 a thousand years or more after all the members of that church were 
 dead ! Nothing short of the most express testimony of John himself, 
 that he meant to address them in such a strain, ought to satisfy us that 
 he has done it. 
 
 What other book in all the Bible do we allow to be treated in this 
 way by interpreters ? Do we not insist, that they shall inquire with 
 great diligence and accurately investigate, what the special and appro- 
 priate object of each writer was ? And in respect to each separate part 
 of any book, not dependent on the rest, if such there be, is not the same 
 inquiry to be urged with all possible earnestness and diligence ? It is 
 even so. How can it be accounted for, then, that when we come to the 
 Apocalypse, every process of this nature should be dispensed with, and 
 we should betake ourselves to guessing on which of its many sides a 
 certain die must fall ? What has become, all at once, of the scope , the 
 circumstances , the immediate object , the exigencies , of the writer of this 
 book? Were there no such things? Or is the book a mere jeu d’ es- 
 prit, an effort to amuse, a romance full of enigmas designed to puzzle 
 the reader ? Away with all such ^urmises ! And away, too, I must in 
 sober earnest say, with all the expositions that are built upon them ! 
 It is a degradation of a divine book to treat it in such a manner. And 
 when we are called on to accede to any exposition of this book, which 
 is altogether reckless of the occasion, the object, and the immediate de- 
 sign of the writer, we are not permitted, by any proper regard to the 
 laws of hermeneutics, to listen to such an exposition. Why should we 
 set ourselves afloat upon a boundless ocean of conjecture and fancy, 
 without rudder or compass ? The demand to do so is unreasonable. 
 We are not bound in any sense, philological, exegetical, theological, or 
 reasonable, to listen to requisitions of this nature, much less to be guided 
 by them. 
 
 (4) There are some other subordinate considerations, which have a 
 bearing on the interpretation of the Apocalypse, that deserve a distinct 
 notice. 
 
 (a) The book, as we have seen, is a species of the Epopee — different, 
 in this respect, from any other prophetic book in the whole Scriptures, 
 and resembling in part, i. e. as to the method of its structure, the book 
 of Job, the Epopee of the Old Testament. We must, therefore, make 
 all the allowances which are due to such a method of composition. 
 vol. i. 27 
 
210 
 
 § 12 . HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES 
 
 Why should we not do here, what we do in all other cases ? An Epo- 
 pee may have, not to say must have, its episodes ; and if so, then we 
 may allow them to exist here, in case the composition indicates, (as I 
 cannot doubt it does), that they should be allowed. There is nothing 
 strained or artificial, in resorting to an exegesis founded on such a sup- 
 position or assumption. Have not the Iliad, the Aeneid, the Paradise 
 Lost, and other poems of the like nature, their episodes ? And more- 
 over, are not all critics ready to allow them ? Why then should it be 
 thought strange, that an interpreter of the Apocalypse should claim the 
 like concession for this book ? 
 
 ( b ) There is another circumstance of a kindred nature, which de- 
 serves notice in this connection. It is a fact, that although by far the 
 greatest portions of the Apocalypse are of a prophetic nature, and there- 
 fore have principal reference to the future, yet some of it must be re- 
 garded as regressive , i. e. as bringing before the mind what is already 
 past. Omitting smaller and mere circumstantial passages of this nature, 
 I would refer particularly to chap, xii, the whole of which, as appears 
 to me, must be looked upon in the light now stated. The writer is here 
 passing to a new theme — his second great catastrophe. In the arrange- 
 ment of his first catastrophe, he has presented us with a magnificent 
 proem — the theophany and the vision of the sealed book. To repeat 
 that theme again, at the commencement of his second catastrophe, would 
 not be a display of that sagacity which he has elsewhere so abundantly 
 manifested. He resorts, therefore, to a new subject. He is about to 
 introduce a combination of immeasurably the most powerful enemies of 
 the church that had yet appeared, who are very much embittered against 
 it. His proem casts light on the origin of their state of mind, and on 
 the source of the peculiar and malicious activity which was in operation 
 against Christianity. Satan, the great enemy of all good, who had 
 ruined the first Adam, had done his utmost to accomplish the destruc- 
 tion of the second. A jealous and cruel king is excited by him to de- 
 stroy all the children at Bethlehem, in order to cut off the infant Sa- 
 viour. The Apocalyptist, however, expressly notices only the agency 
 of Satan. The mother of the infant child flees to the wilderness, and 
 finds there a place of refuge. What is this but the flight of Mary with 
 her newly born child, before the massacre by Herod ? When this child 
 is “caught up to God,” Satan and his coadjutors follow him in their 
 rage, and assay to enter the upper regions in the pursuit. But Michael 
 and his angels come forth to battle against them, and they are defeated 
 and cast down to the earth. Stung with rage and disappointment, Sa- 
 tan, finding all efforts of this nature to be unavailing, falls to persecuting 
 the church with unrelenting fury. In this state of things commences 
 the combined action of Satan, the beast, and the false prophet ; which 
 
APPLICABLE TO TITE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 211 
 
 also is in part regressive , but mostly has respect either to the present, 
 or is prospective , i. e. it pertains to the then future. 
 
 In this way the writer of the Apocalypse has, with no little tact and 
 skill, introduced the actors in the second great catastrophe. Specific 
 names of persons or nations he does not give, at first ; but in the pro- 
 gress of the work, an episode (chap, xvii.) is devoted to the purposes 
 of disclosure. The whole representation taken together could hardly 
 fail to leave a correct impression on the mind of Christian readers then 
 living, as to the class of persecutors whom the writer meant to designate. 
 
 In circumstances like these, and for purposes such as have been 
 named, what objection, on the score of propriety and relevancy, can be 
 made against a proem, such as chap, xii, which is regressive f Is it not 
 the fact, that in nearly all the prophecies of the Old Testament, which 
 are of any considerable length, there is more or less of allusion to the 
 past, and recounting of it ? Surely this cannot be denied. Why then 
 should we refuse to John a liberty that we concede to other prophets ? 
 And above all, why should we deny him such a liberty, when his work 
 is far more extended and complicated, and more nicely arranged by the 
 rules of art, than any other single prophetic composition in all the Bi- 
 ble ? Reasonable criticism cannot well withhold its consent to such an 
 arrangement. 
 
 (c) The circumstance, that the last part of the book briefly adverts 
 to the very distant future, cannot be brought as an objection against 
 the views above exhibited, respecting the more immediate object of the 
 Apocalypse, and the urgent necessities of the times which called it into 
 being. 
 
 The critical reader of the Old Testament prophecies cannot fail 
 to call to mind, that a great number of them close with Messianic 
 views, that is, with prospects of the then distant future. This is, one 
 might almost say, the habitual order of Isaiah’s prophecies ; and not un- 
 frequently it is to be found elsewhere. But when John wrote, the Mes- 
 sianic age had begun. His distant future must therefore be of another 
 kind. It is not then the commencement, but the close, of the Messianic 
 period, which he has developed in the^concluding part of his work. In 
 so doing, it will be perceived that he has only followed the like path 
 with the prophets who had preceded him. To them the opening of the 
 Messianic period, and specially its full bloom in the Millennium, was 
 the highest part of the climax which the mind could then well reach. 
 Such a future condition of things, was an almost indescribable advance 
 beyond the state of things then present. With John, as with the older 
 prophets, the millennial state still belongs to the distant future, and is 
 arranged accordingly ; but the final rest of the people of God from all 
 the assaults of enemies, and the consummation of their happiness in the 
 
212 
 
 § 12. HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES 
 
 world of light and love, are advances beyond preceding prophets. Mere 
 hints concerning this are all that can be found in those early writers ; 
 but in the work of John a development is made, which, though brief 
 because it belongs to the distant future, is still like a picture which to 
 the eye of a beholder stands out, as it were, from the canvass. 
 
 But the reader would greatly mistake the matter, if he should suppose 
 for a moment, that all this is so arranged in order merely to follow the 
 example of the ancient prophets. The fact plainly is, that scarcely any- 
 thing in the Apocalypse, indeed we may say, nothing produces so much 
 excitement on a true-hearted reader, as the brief sketch which the wri- 
 ter has made of the distant future. It was to the poor, suffering, and 
 bleeding martyr, like the sun rising in all his splendor upon a region of 
 tempest and of darkness ; or like the same sun arising upon a benighted 
 mariner, who has been tossed upon the mountain-wave and driven by 
 fierce winds until the roar of breakers begins to be heard. The Apoca- 
 lypse places the harbour in full view, on which no storms of sorrow or 
 persecution ever beat. 
 
 Such are the general views which should be taken by an interpreter 
 of the Apocalypse, who expects to follow on in the path which its author 
 trod. He must go back, and think and feel and sympathize with the 
 author of the book and the Christians of his day. He must allow him 
 all the latitude, which poetry, symbol — long-continued symbol, protract- 
 ed beyond previous example — epopee, numerosity in the relative parts 
 of the book, and moreover the different circumstances in which the au- 
 thor wrote, can justly claim. More than this he need not do ; in order 
 to make the book appear intelligible and consistent. Less than this 
 would be apt to mislead the critic, and to present the book as full of in- 
 congruities, or at least of unintelligible representations. 
 
 ( d ) The times which are so frequently designated in chap, xi — xiii. 
 of the Apocalypse, might constitute a fruitful theme of disquisition, 
 among the topics which are important to be understood by an interpre- 
 ter. I shall here premise, however, only some general considerations ; 
 reserving a particular discussion of them for an Excursus on passages 
 where the designations of them occur. 
 
 It so happens, that the apparently mysterious designations of time, in 
 the passage to which reference has just been made, all occur, either lite- 
 rally or virtually, in the book of Daniel. Thus the forty and two months, 
 Rev. 11: 2. 13: 5; the 1260 days, Rev. 11: 3 and 12: 6; the time, 
 times, and half a time, Rev. 12: 14 — all of them = years or 1260 
 days — occur in the form of time , times , and a half or dividing of time , 
 in Dan. 7: 25 and 12: 7. Must the interpreter regard these designa- 
 tions, in the book before us, as literal or as symbolical ? 
 
 Most interpreters in Germany, of late, have leaned to the symbolical 
 
APPLICABLE TO THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 213 
 
 side ; as did Vitringa, in a more remote period. Lucke, in his Intro- 
 duction to the Apocalypse (§ 59), appealing to Matt. 24: 36 and Acts 
 1: 7, which declare that ‘the Father alone has the knowledge of times 
 and seasons in his power appealing also to the consideration, that no 
 fixed chronological dates are anywhere aimed at in the Apocalypse, from 
 which we can make out a reckoning of times with any accuracy ; then 
 goes on to say : “ These considerations decide fully in favour of the 
 hermeneutical position, that chronology in the Apocalypse, in accordance 
 with the design of the writer, acts only a very subordinate part, and 
 that the numbers in general must be regarded, and interpreted, merely 
 as prophetic symbols of general relations of time that cannot be com- 
 puted with any exactness.” p. 572. In like manner Ewald, Steudel, 
 Bleek, De Wette, and many others have decided, in regard to this mat- 
 ter. 
 
 On the other hand, since the days of Joseph Mede, most commenta- 
 tors in the English world have made each of the 1260 days to stand for 
 years , and striven to show when the period in each case commences, and 
 of course when it terminates. 
 
 This last opinion I have elsewhere examined,* and shall not go into 
 any discussion of it here. The leading considerations respecting it, I 
 would hope to present in an Excursus on the passages in Revelation 
 which are referred to above. I will only say, that of all the opinions 
 ever thrust upon the hermeneutics of prophecy, I know of none more 
 ungrounded or untenable than this. 
 
 In a different way, and more respectfully, I feel obliged to speak re- 
 specting the opinion of Lucke and others, in regard to the symbolical 
 designation or use of numbers in the Apocalypse. Such a use is made, 
 times almost without number, of seven, and three , and in some measure 
 of ten, and forty , and one thousand, in the Old Testament, and partly in 
 the New. But such a use cannot be called common or frequent, in re- 
 gard to any numbers excepting three, seven, and one thousand. We 
 have seen above, what part three and seven act in the form and struc- 
 ture of the relative parts of the Apocalypse, and in a multitude of its 
 subordinate groupings. 
 
 But in the case before us, none of these numbers are concerned. 
 There is no usus loquendi, therefore, in favour of the position taken by 
 Lucke, unless indeed he can make out something like this from Dan. 7: 
 25 and 12: 7. My conviction however is, that this cannot well be done. 
 The time , times, and half a time, in Daniel, manifestly apply in a literal 
 sense to the period in which Antiochus Epiphanes persecuted the Jews, 
 interrupted the temple-service, and profaned the sanctuary. Moreover, 
 the limitation of time is historically true and correct. If then a sym- 
 
 * In my little work entitled Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy. 
 
214 
 
 § 12. HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES 
 
 bolic use only is made by John of the period just named, it is peculiar 
 to himself, and not in the way of analogy. The passages respecting the 
 three and a half years of drought in the days of Elijah (James 5: 17. 
 Luke 4: 25), look somewhat as if this period had become a kind of 
 proverbial or symbolical one ; and probably such a usage in speech may 
 have been occasioned by Dan. 7: 25. 12: 7. But in the cases before us 
 in the Apocalypse, it is my belief that a just exposition of the passages 
 that are concerned with the designations of time, in this book, and a 
 proper investigation of ancient history, will show that the writer need 
 not be understood in any other way than in the usual and literal one. 
 If the events predicted in connection with these periods of time actually 
 took place, (minute accuracy of days in such a case is not to be expect- 
 ed or demanded), then what good objection can be made against the 
 literal exegesis of the designations in question ? None ; at least this 
 seems to be plain ; for what rule is more certain in hermeneutics, than 
 that every passage is to be literally interpreted, unless there is some 
 good and cogent reason why it cannot be ? If a literal interpretation 
 should make a sense frigid, inept, impossible, or highly improbable, then 
 it must be abandoned. But in the case before us, no one can contend 
 that any of these senses would be deduced from the text by a literal 
 interpretation. Consequently we are bound to follow it. And we are 
 the more specially bound to do so, because numbers employed in the 
 designations of time cannot, in any cases of usual occurrence, be regard- 
 ed as tropical, or as being employed only in the way of symbol. 
 
 In regard to a few of the cases where time is designated in the Apoc- 
 alypse, it seems plain that the mere literal signification is not to be rigidly 
 insisted on. For example; the church in Smyrna are told, that they 
 shall have tribulation ten days , Rev. 2: 10 ; where merely a very short 
 period is doubtless meant. The locusts that come up from the bottom- 
 less pit are to torment men five months , Rev. 9: 5 ; where the usual pe- 
 riod in which the natural locusts develope themselves is designated, 
 while the figurative sense of the whole passage is not limited in this 
 way, i. e. the figurative locusts are not restrained within that exact pe- 
 riod of development, but the writer merely signifies, that they, like the 
 natural locusts, are to have their full and appropriate development. The 
 three and a half days , in which the two witnesses lie dead in the streets 
 of the great city, Rev. 11: 11, seem to receive their limitation from the 
 ' three and a half years so frequently employed in chap, xi — xiii. It of 
 course designates but a very short period, one within which the corpses 
 of the slain would not putrefy and dissolve. An exact and literal de- 
 signation of time can hardly be supposed to be an object with the wri- 
 ter, in such cases as these. 
 
 The thousand years in chap. xx. is a case that might admit of some 
 
APPLICABLE TO THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 215 
 
 question. The frequent use of a thousand years for a period of time 
 long and in its nature indefinite, is so frequent in the Scriptures, that 
 one might easily rest satisfied with such a use in the case before us ; 
 for there would be good exegetical ground from general analogy. In 
 fact, little can be reasonably said against such an interpretation. After 
 all, however, there is room to doubt whether the writer does not mean 
 here, as in chap, xi — xiii, to be literally interpreted in regard to the de- 
 signation of time. My belief is, that the analogy of the book itself rather 
 demands a literal interpretation in this case ; but I do not think the ar- 
 gument from analogy is here a very forcible one. The instance of the 
 thousand years in Rev. xx, is in many respects not like the cases re- 
 specting time in Rev. xi — xiii. And even in regard to these latter 
 cases, it is scarcely necessary to add, that no one, who is well versed in 
 the interpretation of prophetic periods in general, and is especially con- 
 versant with the uses of the numbers three and seven in the Scriptures, 
 would think of being confined to the exactness of a day, or a week, or 
 even a month, in the designation of such periods as three and a half 
 years. This is half of the number seven ; and, as in all cases in which 
 such numbers are employed to designate time, from the very nature of 
 the thing nice regard to fractions of time cannot be reasonably ex- 
 pected. 
 
 This may suffice at present for the topic now before us. There is 
 some good reason, moreover, as I may with propriety suggest, for being 
 explicit and somewhat definite here. Every one who is conversant with 
 the history of apocalyptic interpretation for these last two centuries, must 
 well know what boundless conjectures have been indulged about the 
 times designated in the Apocalypse, and what airy speculations and phan- 
 tasies have been built upon them. It is time that they were brought to 
 an end. 
 
 (5) I close this view of the exegetical principles by which we must 
 be guided in the interpretation of the Apocalypse, by some general sug- 
 gestions, which are not indeed of a novel nature (for they are im- 
 plied in what has been said), but still are important and easily under- 
 stood, although they require experience and skill in order that a right 
 application of them should be made. These suggestions are, that while 
 all allow the Apocalypse to be a hook of symbols throughout, few have 
 preserved a happy medium in explaining them. There is a Scylla and 
 a Charybdis here. If, on the one hand, we resolve all into the mere 
 elements of Jewish civil history, and the primary triumphs of Chris- 
 tianity over Jewish unbelief and obstinacy, as many have done ; if we' 
 can find (with Eichhorn and Herder) the two witnesses in the two Jew- 
 ish high priests, and (with Zullig) the seven hills and seven kings 
 (of Rev. xvii.) in Jerusalem ; then we must make our way by mere 
 
216 § 13. ORIGINAL READERS OP THE APOCALYPSE, 
 
 force through many of the most important parts of the book, and never 
 can be satisfied that we have obeyed the dictates of hermeneutics. And 
 so with the scheme of interpretation which makes everything, or nearly 
 everything, in the book refer merely to the destruction of the heathen. 
 These two schemes are different and opposite methods of the like funda- 
 mental error. Another and not less important error, however, is, to gen- 
 eralize everything in the book to such an extent, that nothing of the con- 
 crete remains. The wars, the battles, the famines, etc., are not only ab- 
 stract, but the parties or agents concerned with them are also abstractions ; 
 and so, all vanishes away at last into thin air ; or if it be an object of vi- 
 sion at all, it is one which is seen only through a misty atmosphere, and 
 with great indistinctness. “ In medio tutissimus.” All symbol must 
 have something real for its basis. There must be historic facts, 
 and historic existences, concerned with such a series of symbols as are 
 here found. But individual and specific events, or details of invasions, 
 battles, famine, pestilence, and the like, we should not look for, because it 
 is not to the writer’s purpose to give them ; and above all it is not to his 
 purpose, to write the civil or natural history of remote ages. The wants 
 and woes of the times are a good and important guide to the interpreter, 
 in these cases of danger. Let him beware, and not make the book a 
 mere declamatory hariolation on the one hand, nor, on the other, injure 
 it by giving it a definiteness in respect to minute historical significancy, 
 which would destroy all reasonable ground of its having been useful to 
 the church in primitive times, and mar all prospect of its religious useful- 
 ness in after ages. 
 
 § 13. Original Readers of the Apocalypse , and their circumstances. 
 
 When Paul inscribes his Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Gala- 
 tians, Philippians, etc., no sober critic thinks of calling in question, 
 whether the respective churches which he addresses had a real exis- 
 tence, nor whether Paul meant that what he said in these cases should 
 be historically interpreted. It would be deemed quite a superfluous 
 labour, to undertake the formal task of vindicating such an interpre- 
 tation. 
 
 Why should not the same principles be applied to the Apocalypse, 
 which is introduced by epistles addressed to seven different churches, 
 and which purports to treat of matters deeply interesting to those 
 churches ? It is agreed on all hands, that when the Apocalypse was 
 written, there were Christian churches at Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, 
 Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. It is conceded that 
 John, (whether apostle or presbyter), who names himself as the author 
 of the book, lived at or near Ephesus about this period. Whoever he 
 
AND THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. 
 
 217 
 
 was, he must have been a man of conspicuous character and great in- 
 fluence. Such a book, if we have made a right estimate of it in the 
 preceding pages, never came from any ordinary hand or common-place 
 writer. At the beginning and the end of his work, he earnestly com- 
 mends it to the most solemn and diligent attention of the churches whom 
 he addresses, and guards carefully against any interpolations or abscis- 
 sions of it. All this looks like reality, and has at least the appearance 
 of much earnestness, and of deep interest in the welfare of the churches. 
 
 Would any simple-minded and unsophisticated reader ever think of 
 putting all this to the account of mere symbol, or of profound mysticism ? 
 Never, as it seems to me, would such a thought enter his mind. It is 
 only after the body of the work has been read, and many symbolic and 
 dark and difficult passages have been found there, that any reader begins 
 to devise some mystic exegesis for the prologue and epilogue of this book. 
 
 I shall merely glance at some of the efforts that have been made, to 
 put a mystical interpretation on the proem in question. It has become 
 unnecessary, at last, to canvass at any great length the extravagant posi- 
 tions that have been taken and defended with not a little zeal, in days 
 that are past. 
 
 The earliest commentator on the Apocalypse, whose work is extant, 
 is Victorinus, bishop of Petavio,* who deceased about A. D. 303, and 
 who therefore was a contemporary of Irenaeus. His work written in 
 Latin, although doubtless interpolated and changed here and there, still 
 preserves, as is more generally conceded, the great outlines of thought, 
 which it originally exhibited. On p. 415, Victorinus says : “ What 
 John addresses to one church, he addresses to all. Paul has first taught 
 us, that there are seven churches in the whole world, and that the seven 
 churches named mean the church catholic. That John might observe 
 the same method, he has not exceeded the number of seven churches.” 
 What Victorinus means in respect to Paul, is, that by writing to seven 
 churches, and only to seven, he has taught us that all the churches are 
 comprehended in this number ; and hence he deduces the principle, that 
 John, when he names seven churches, means, in the same way as Paul, 
 to comprise all the churches in the world. 
 
 In this view of the number seven , as thus employed by John, Tico- 
 nius Afer of the fourth century, and Arethas of Cappadocia who belong- 
 ed to the sixth, accord ; as many other interpreters in ancient and modern 
 times have also done. But still there is some variety of opinion among 
 interpreters of this class. The distinguished abbot Joachim (Cent. 12), 
 Grotius, Vitringa, and others, suppose the various states of the seven 
 churches in Asia, to designate the various conditions in which the 
 
 VOL. i. 
 
 See. in.Biblioth. Max. Patrum, Tom. III. p. 414 seq. 
 
 28 
 
218 § 13. ORIGINAL READERS OF THE APOCALYPSE, 
 
 church of Christ will successively be, down to the end of the world ; 
 see Vitr. in Apoc. p. 32. But even among those who defend this last 
 peculiar and mystic sense of the epistle to the seven churches, there is 
 not an entire concord of views. One class, for example, hold that the 
 interpretation is to be purely and solely mystical ; and these assign even 
 to the proper names employed in the epistles to the seven churches, a 
 mystical meaning. Thus ’Ada is said to mean elatio , a symbolical 
 designation for the race of man which is elevated ; "EepeGog means re- 
 mission, — acpeotg, and so means she tv ho has remitted her first love , etc. ; 
 iEyvQva means the excellent myrrh-perfume of the cross, etc. ; and thus 
 through the whole circle of the seven names. In this way, there is no 
 vestige left of any special relation of the Apocalypse to the churches of 
 Asia. But another class of the mystical interpreters, justly apprehend- 
 ing that such egregious trifling as this can never be rendered tolerable to 
 the community of critics, have conceded that there is a literal sense, 
 which ought not to be overlooked, in the addresses and inscriptions to 
 the churches ; while, as they aver, there is also a secondary and mys- 
 tical sense which is by far the more noble and excellent, inasmuch as it 
 has respect to the condition of the churches down to the end of time. 
 
 Yitringa has attempted to defend this last position at length, in his 
 Commentary on Rev. 1: 20. I deem it unnecessary to examine his 
 arguments at length in respect to this matter. Suffice it merely to sug- 
 gest a few hints. (1) The double sense which Yitringa assumes, is 
 wholly inadmissible, on any grounds of sober and rational exegesis. 
 (2) If the states of the church universal are represented by the seven 
 epistles, then are they inconsistent with each other, and even contradic- 
 tory. To avoid this, Yitringa assumes that they are successive. But 
 what is there elsewhere in all the Bible to show, that the church is suc- 
 cessively to put on the phases of character here indicated ; and specially, 
 to show that her last state, near the end of time, and after all her ene- 
 mies are conquered, will be like to that of the church at Laodicea? 
 The whole structure of such an edifice must be regarded as a mere cas- 
 tle in the air. It is indeed the offspring of nothing but imagination ; 
 for there is not one word in the prologue or epilogue of the Apocalypse, 
 adapted to establish any conclusions of this kind, or to favour the indul- 
 gence of such imaginations. The whole is mere gratuitous assumption ; 
 assumption, moreover, which in no sense whatever adds to the signifi- 
 cancy, the dignity, or the importance of the Apocalypse. John, when 
 he addressed the seven churches of Asia, expected, and might well ex- 
 pect, that what he said to those churches would apply and be profitable 
 to all other churches, just so far as the circumstances of other churches 
 should resemble those of the Christians in Asia. The case is of exactly 
 the same nature as that of Paul’s epistles. These are addressed to par- 
 
AND THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. 
 
 219 
 
 ticular churches ; they are adapted to their wants and woes, their errors 
 and their virtues, their dangers and their trials, their outward pressures 
 and their inward struggles. Of course, inasmuch as men, and Chris- 
 tians, are essentially the same in all ages, so the admonitions and in- 
 structions of Paul, with very few exceptions', will be useful, and in this 
 sense adapted, to all generations down to the end of time. Even so 
 with the Apocalyptic epistles. Consequently the mode of exegesis 
 which regards them as originally addressed to specific churches, does 
 not abate in any degree from the highest usefulness which can be as- 
 signed to them. No ground of interpretation which is firm, can make 
 them applicable and useful at all times and in all places, beyond the 
 line now drawn. None can make them more useful within that line, 
 than the one just proposed. Mysticism is quite out of place, in such a 
 matter as this. All there is about it, which has any appearance of the 
 mystical or the symbolical, is, that just seven churches, and no more, are 
 addressed. Other churches there were in that near neighbourhood. 
 There were churches at Colosse, at Magnesia, at Tralles ; doubtless 
 there were churches also at other places in the neighbourhood of all the 
 seven churches addressed ; but John has named only seven. Some 
 reason for this there was, beyond a doubt. It might be the fact, that 
 John was more acquainted with those seven churches, than with others. 
 It might be, that the seven were more considerable and numerous. It 
 might be, that they were in greater need of admonition, or encourage- 
 ment. Or, (what is far more probable still), seven, and only so many, 
 may have been named, because the sevenfold divisions and groups of 
 various kinds and of various objects, constitute a conspicuous feature in 
 the form of the Apocalypse throughout. It would even have been incon- 
 gruous with the rest of the book, had more than seven churches been 
 addressed. One has only to become familiar with the structure of the 
 book, and all necessity of argument in this case is superseded. Nothing 
 more is requisite than to suppose, that the number is limited to seven 
 merely for the sake of congruity ; and that so many, moreover, are ad- 
 dressed, in order that all the usual varieties of condition and character, 
 among the Christians of that time, should be brought under the writer’s 
 inspection and receive appropriate counsel from him. When Luke 
 wrote his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, although he did so in 
 particular for the sake of Theophilus, does any one suppose, that he de- 
 signed that his books should be confined within a circle so narrow ? Or 
 did Paul, when he wrote to the Romans, Corinthians, or others, design 
 or wish that his epistles should be confined within the limits of those re- 
 spective churches ? If such a thing may be imagined, it cannot well be 
 believed. Even so with John. There may be, there doubtless was, 
 good reason why his book should be peculiarly addressed to seven 
 
220 § 13. ORIGINAL READERS OF THE APOCALYPSE, 
 
 churches ; but there was and is good reason, why what he has written 
 should enure to the benefit of all the churches. 
 
 Mystical interpretation, then, is out of place here. The natural and 
 obvious sense of words is never to be departed from, when the meaning 
 is significant, congruous, accordant with historical facts, and worthy of 
 the cause of Christianity and of the writer. All these requisitions are 
 answered by the simple historical interpretation of proper names and 
 places, as exhibited in the inscriptions of John’s seven epistles. And 
 such being the case, further dispute in relation to the subject would 
 seem to be superfluous. 
 
 I pass on, then, to other topics ; but I must not pass, however, with- 
 out briefly adverting beforehand to the peculiar views of Herder and 
 Harenberg, who have distinguished themselves so much by writing upon 
 the Apocalypse. In particular, Herder refers everything, in the body 
 of the work, to the destruction of Judea and Jerusalem. But then 
 comes the problem : How could John address to seven churches in Asia , 
 what was intended for the churches of Judea $ His solution is curious. 
 He says, that 1 the sending of the book to Palestine was unnecessary, 
 because the discourse of our Saviour respecting the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem was well known there already ; and then the additional disclosures 
 in the Apocalypse respecting troubles and sufferings yet to come, would 
 have tormented and discouraged the churches there Maran Atha, p. 
 281 seq. One can scarcely credit the testimony of his eyes, when he 
 reads such a passage in Herder. So then, John’s attempt to write a 
 book in order to encourage, animate, and console Christians, was a fail- 
 ure ; and had it been sent to the place for which it was designed, would 
 have done more harm than good ! It follows of course, that John must 
 have been very poorly employed in writing it ; and moreover, he must 
 have been a very different sort of a writer, from the John whom Herder 
 has characterized as the author of the Apocalypse. 
 
 Harenberg also avers, that the Apocalypse was written for Hebrew 
 Christians at Jerusalem , and that all the leading parts of it have respect 
 only to Palestine. The book everywhere presupposes readers, he says, 
 who are acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, and with all the Jew- 
 ish rites, ceremonies, and Cabbala. And when the question forces itself 
 upon him : Why then did John address the seven churches of Asia ? 
 he has a most singular answer to give. ‘ The Jews of Asia,’ says he, 
 ‘had at Jerusalem separate schools and synagogues. The ground on 
 which these stood, was named Asia. The number of schools upon that 
 ground was seven ; and these bore, respectively, the names which ap- 
 pear in the inscriptions to the seven epistles ; like the English schools 
 at Rome, in the 8th century, which bore the names of the Heptarchy 
 Erklarung, etc., p. 67 seq. To refute this, no reader will now require. 
 
AND THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. 
 
 221 
 
 If men who have studied the Apocalypse so much as Herder and Ha- 
 renberg, and done so much to explain and vindicate it in various re- 
 spects, are driven to such conceits, in order to save their peculiar theory 
 respecting the interpretation of the book, it is enough to show that their 
 theory cannot be correct. Indeed it lies upon the face of the Apoca- 
 lypse, that, after the close of chap, xi, another power than that of the 
 Jews is concerned, and another country than that of Palestine. 
 
 In a word, neither the state of facts, nor the laws of interpretation, 
 require or even permit us to suppose, that the original readers to whom 
 the Apocalypse was addressed, were other and different from those who 
 are named in the inscription of the book. With all tender affection and 
 earnestness the writer greets them ; to them he commends the reading 
 and study of his book ; and on them he makes the most solemn injunc- 
 tion neither to add to nor detract from it. What good reason now can 
 any one give, for supposing all this to be a mere imaginary and sym- 
 bolic matter? John wrote for somebody; he had readers; and his 
 work itself assigns the place where he lived, and the near neighbourhood 
 of it, as the circle within which he first of all designed to exert an in- 
 fluence by writing his book. Can anything be more natural, more pro- 
 bable, more easy to be believed, than that the Apocalypse has given a 
 true account with respect to the original readers, and the places where 
 they lived ? 
 
 What is there, moreover, in the contents of the book, which prevents 
 our giving entire credit to the account which the Apocalypse itself ob- 
 viously appears to give of all these matters ? Will it be said, that the 
 Asiatic Jews had little concern with the persecutions or the destiny of 
 Judea ? This cannot be true. All the great cities of Asia Minor were 
 full of Jews. Many of these, even of the Christian party, went up to 
 the yearly feasts, because they still clave to the law of Moses. All had 
 much sympathy for the land of their fathers — i. e. for the holy land and 
 the holy temple. Personal annoyance of Hebrew Christians from 
 abroad, when they visited Palestine in the days of persecution, was in 
 all probability not an uncommon thing. At any rate, Hebrew Chris- 
 tians abroad must sympathize deeply with those in their native country, 
 who were the subjects of a bloody persecution. Asiatic Christians, 
 therefore, would be highly interested readers of the Apocalypse, and 
 particularly of that part of it which has respect to Palestine. If any 
 one, now, wdll reverse the case, and make the supposition, that the He- 
 brew Christians of Palestine are addressed ; then, on the same ground, 
 we might ask : What interest could they have in chap, xii — xix ? But 
 in neither case would this be anything more than a mere show of argu- 
 ment. We cannot suppose, with any probability, that John expected 
 or designed that his work should be limited only to one circle of readers. 
 
222 § 13. ORIGINAL READERS OF THE APOCALYPSE, 
 
 It must soon have been somewhat widely diffused, on account of the 
 deeply interesting subjects of which it treated ; so that whoever the 
 original readers were, it matters not, except merely as the question is 
 connected with historical criticism. In regard to this, however, the 
 question is one of great importance. If it can be shown that everything 
 of this nature, i. e. everything which respects the readers, or the place 
 or the time of the writing, is natural and probable, skepticism in regard 
 to the book becomes less and less excusable. 
 
 Yet one thing, it is said, is wanting in respect to the Asiatic churches. 
 The Apocalypse was written about A. D. 68, when persecution was in- 
 deed carried on at Rome with great fury ; but not in the 'provinces of 
 the Roman empire. Consequently there is only an apprehended or an- 
 ticipative persecution to be found in the Apocalypse, and the writer 
 merely fortifies his readers against the days of trial which he supposes 
 are coming. 
 
 Of late this opinion has become somewhat frequent. Neander, Lucke, 
 Gieseler, and others appear to favour it. But I cannot persuade my- 
 self that such a position is well-founded. The opinion that the perse- 
 cution began at Rome in A. D. 64, and that it spread and became gene- 
 ral in the provinces , was the prevailing opinion of antiquity. In mod- 
 ern times it has had strenuous and able defenders. Baldwin, in his 
 Comm, ad Edicta Imper. ; Launoius, in his Dissert, ad loc. Sulpit. 
 Severi ; Dodwell, in his Dissertt. Cypr. ; and Mosheim, in his Hist. Ecc ., 
 and also in his larger work De Rebus Christ, etc. ; as also many others, 
 defend the ancient opinion. This is not the place minutely to pursue a 
 historical investigation respecting it ; for the authors named, or at least 
 some of them, may be easily consulted. In the sequel, however, I shall 
 advert to a few passages of ancient testimony. What I would say here 
 is, that the evidences of a wide spread persecution of Christians, before 
 the fall of Jerusalem and among the Roman provinces, seems to be plain 
 and frequent, not only in the Apocalypse, but in the Epistles of the 
 New Testament. The Apocalypse commences with a statement, that 
 the writer is in exile at Patmos, “ on account of the word of God and 
 the testimony of Jesus Christ,” Rev. 1: 9. The church at Ephesus is 
 commended for its patience and endurance of evil, and a peculiar reward 
 is promised to him that overcometh in the great contest that is supposed 
 to be going on, 2: 3, 7. The church at Smyrna is spoken of as in a 
 suffering state, and as exposed to be cast into prison by Satan, 2: 10. 
 The church at Pergamos dwells where Satan has his seat, and has al- 
 ready witnessed the death of the faithful martyr Antipas, 2: 13. To 
 the church at Philadelphia the promise is made, that they shall be kept 
 in the hour of trial that is coming upon all the world , 3: 10. In every 
 case, the close of the epistle to each church contains a promise rep n- 
 
AND THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. 
 
 223 
 
 y.wvTt, to him who is victor, viz. in the great contest which was evidently 
 going on. All the writer’s earnest warnings, counsels, and encourage- 
 ments, appear to have their basis mainly in such a state of things. The 
 very structure and theme of the whole book indicates the same state. 
 What is all the struggle, and what are all the victories ? The strug- 
 gle is with persecutors; the victories are over the enemies and the 
 wasters of the church, first in Palestine, then through the Romish em- 
 pire. Accordingly the great army presented in chap, vi, is the symbol 
 of destruction to the persecutors of the church. This is made definitely 
 certain, by Rev. 6: 10, 11. Verse 11 indeed renders it certain, that 
 when the book was written, or at any rate when the vision was seen, 
 the persecution was then going on, and many more martyrs were still to 
 be made. This would decide against putting off the composition of the 
 book until after Nero’s death, in case it respects persecution out of Pa- 
 lestine ; for all agree, that persecution ceased immediately, in the Ro- 
 man empire, after the death of Nero. But here, persecution in Judea 
 is the theme of the writer. Chap. xi. represents a scene of persecution 
 in the very last stages of the war in Palestine ; for the writer evidently 
 means by this representation, to show the aggravated guilt of the Jews, 
 and how well they deserved the punishment inflicted upon them. In 
 chap, xii, Satan, having been foiled in his attempt to destroy the Sa- 
 viour, is exhibited as greatly enraged against Christians, and woe to the 
 inhabitants of the earth is predicted, by reason of his enmity. In chap, 
 xiii. we find Satan, the beast, and the false prophet, all combined to op- 
 press, persecute, and destroy Christians. Some of them are sent into 
 exile, and some are slain with the sword, 13: 10. I can scarcely doubt, 
 that in this passage John touches his own case, and threatens a violent 
 death to Nero because of his bloody persecutions. Rome is presented 
 in 17: 6, as “ drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of 
 the martyrs of Jesus.” And when her destruction comes, apostles and 
 prophets are called to rejoice that God hath avenged them on her — her 
 who had so long persecuted and destroyed the church. Interspersed 
 everywhere are passages, which show a deep feeling on the subject of 
 present and urgent persecution. The martyrs who remain steadfast un- 
 to death, or (as the writer expresses himself ) die in the Lord, are pro- 
 nounced peculiarly blessed, 14: 13. To crown all, the first resurrection, 
 the living and reigning with Christ a thousand years, is held out as the 
 peculiar reward of those, who are beheaded for the witness of Jesus and 
 for the word of God, 20: 4. And when the awful curse is brought to 
 view, which will rest on those that are excluded from the new Jerusa- 
 lem, the fearful and unconfidiny, i. e. those who have renounced Chris- 
 tianity in the day of trial by persecutions, are placed in the front rank 
 of the condemned, 21: 8. In fact, at the very outset, the writer, in 
 
224 § 13. ORIGINAL READERS OF THE APOCALYPSE, 
 
 stating his exile to Patmos, declares that he is an ddeXqjog in affliction, 
 and a avyxoivcovog in the same with those whom he addresses. In a 
 word ; Christians were suffering everywhere, at any rate in Asia Mi- 
 nor as well as at Rome. The whole manner and matter of the Apoca- 
 lypse, then, bears the most indelible marks of having originated ingruen- 
 ti persecutione, i. e. whilst persecution was raging. There is no room 
 for mistake in this matter. Of course, if written before the destruction 
 of Jerusalem, as it evidently was, it must have been written under Ne- 
 ro’s reign, i. e. before the persecution ceased ; for it did cease imme- 
 diately after his death. 
 
 When Peter wrote his first epistle to the regions of Asia Minor, in- 
 cluding some of the most distant ones, persecution was then and there 
 raging; as is plain from 1 Pet. 1: 6, 7. 2: 20, 21. 3: 14, 17. 4: 1, 7, 
 13—19. 5: 9. James, who seems to have addressed foreign Hebrew 
 Christians in general, begins with counsel to those who are subjected to 
 severe trials , 1: 2 — 4 ; and to this condition he afterwards adverts, 2: 6. 
 5: 6 — 11. Disclosures of a similar nature are not wanting in Paul’s 
 latest epistles ; e. g. the second to Timothy and the epistle to the He- 
 brews, chap. x. xii, (that is, allowing their genuineness), and in some 
 others. The persecutions elsewhere mentioned by Paul, are partial and 
 local, for they belong to earlier periods. 
 
 Such is the tenor of most of the later portions of the New Testament. 
 No wonder that Ewald, after adverting to the recent opinion that Ne- 
 ro’s persecution was limited to the city of Rome, says, in respect to its 
 general extension, especially in Asia Minor, that “ the proofs of it are 
 so manifest, ut quo jure dubitemus non appareat” p. 2. 
 
 The earlier Christian histories have perished, so that we cannot draw 
 from them directly any confirmation of the views that have now been 
 given. Eusebius (II. 25) has only a short paragraph on the persecu- 
 tion of Nero. He speaks of him as the enemy of the Christian reli- 
 gion, and the first of the Roman emperors who persecuted it ; and then 
 he describes the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter under Nero’s reign. 
 In his account of the persecution of Domitian (III. 17), he says that 
 this emperor was the follower of Nero in his hatred and persecution of 
 Christians, and that he was the second who persecuted the church. 
 Neither here, nor in the preceding account, does Eusebius give any ex- 
 press limitation to the persecutions of either emperor, but speaks of 
 both in the same general way. Sulpicius Severus, however, about A. D. 
 408, in his Historiae Sacrae (II. 28), speaks of Nero as first endeav- 
 ouring to extinguish the name of Christians. After relating the destruc- 
 tion of many at Nero’s command, by wild beasts, by crucifixion, and by 
 fire, he goes on to say, that “ the [Christian] religion was forbidden by 
 the enactment of laws (datis legibus) ; and, by edicts published (edictis 
 
AND THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. 
 
 225 
 
 propositis), it was lawful for no one openly to be a Christian,” (ib. 
 cap. 29). 
 
 It has been disputed, whether Nero did in fact issue any edicts of the 
 character here described. But we have a much earlier authority than 
 Sulpicius for this. “ Consulite commentarios vestros,” says Tertullian; 
 “illic reperietis primum Neronem in hanc [ Christianam] sectam, turn 
 maxime Romae orientem, Caesariano gladio ferocisse ; Apolog. adv. 
 Gentes, cap. V. Does not the word commentarios here plainly mean 
 the same thing as the edicts mentioned by Sulpicius ?* Orosius, who 
 was a contemporary of Jerome and Augustine and much respected by 
 them, (as was Sulpicius also), says in his Historiae (YU. 7) : [Nero] 
 “first persecuted Christians at Rome by torture and death, and he com- 
 manded that in all the provinces they should he tormented hy the like 
 persecution. He even laboured to extirpate the very name of Chris- 
 tians, and slew the apostles of Christ, Peter by crucifixion, and Paul by 
 the sword.” Indeed, nothing can be more probable than this account of 
 Orosius, confirmed by Tertullian and Sulpicius. The character of Ne- 
 ro is a good voucher for the possibility, or rather the probability, of such 
 
 * That iegibus and edictis mean the same thing, in the extract from Sulpicius 
 above, as commentarios in this passage of Tertullian, there is scarcely any room 
 for doubt. Both the words Edictum and Commentarii were used in a wide sense. 
 Among the Romans, the edict of the Praetor meant the system of rules which he 
 proclaimed, when entering on his office, as his guide in the administration of its 
 duties. In allusion to this, other magistrates called some of their proclamations 
 edicts ; so that the Roman historians speak of the edicts of kings, consuls, dicta- 
 tors, censors, tribunes, quaestors, etc. It is much the same with Commentarii. 
 At first this word meant memoirs of any individual; then it was used in the ex- 
 tended sense of memorabilia , and applied to short notes of a discourse, extracts 
 from any book, etc. Finally the Acta Publica , or public registers of the city, were 
 called commentarii. Livy speaks of the commentarii of king JNuma; and Cicero, 
 of the commentaries of kings, of Caesar, etc. ; evidently meaning ordinances, rules, 
 memoranda of things to be done, etc. In this way we may easily see how Nero 
 could persecute Christians without any formal law of the Senate to this purpose ; 
 (for we read of no such law on the part of the Senate, nor, of course, do we hear 
 anything of its repeal after the death of Nero). Nero was by office the supreme 
 Executive of the State. According to the Twelve Tables only the religio licita 
 was lawful for a Roman citizen, or any one dwelling in the Roman provinces. 
 Nero, therefore, by an edict as supreme minister of Justice, or by commentarii in 
 his notes for the use of executive officers, could wage a war of extermination 
 against Christians without any difficulty. But as such an edict or commentary 
 was merely and only personal, and belonged not to proper legislation but to the 
 Executive, his death would of course annul it, unless his successor chose to con- 
 tinue it. But as Galba did not wish to persecute Christians, the matter, already 
 become very odious by reason of the horrid cruelties that had been practised, was 
 dropped of course when he succeeded Nero. The deep silence of ecclesiastical 
 historians as to the manner in which this persecution of Nero commenced and 
 terminated, is my apology for this long note of explanation. 
 
 VOL. 1 . 29 
 
226 § 13. ORIGINAL READERS OF THE APOCALYPSE, 
 
 a measure. Moreover the war against Judea had everywhere roused 
 up the enmity of the heathen against the hated race of the Hebrews. 
 The Jews, in many places, were seditious and tumultuous. And as 
 they were, at that early period, confounded with the Christians by most 
 or all of the heathen nations, and had always been the objects of enmity 
 and scorn and contempt on the part of the heathen, nothing can be more 
 probable, than that the Roman provinces would follow the example of 
 the capital ; specially after the commencement of the Jewish war. In 
 addition to all this, Christianity was uncompromising with everything 
 pertaining to idolatry and polytheism. The heathen priests were, in 
 particular, exceedingly jealous of Christians, and much enraged against 
 them. Most graphically is this feature of the times depicted, by the 
 symbol of the second beast in Rev. xiii. If any one needs confirmation 
 of these declarations respecting the state of things in regard to the Jews, 
 he may consult Jahn’s Hebrew Commonwealth, § 135 seq. Jost, Ge- 
 schichte der Israeliten, II. p. 295 seq. 320 seq. 
 
 When all the considerations thus brought to view are combined, can 
 it be possible to doubt that the Apocalypse was written in “ troublous 
 times,” in the midst of furious persecution, and when Christianity greatly 
 needed encouragement, consolation, and admonition ? The whole book 
 bears throughout the stamp of such an impression. 
 
 Thus much for the state of things, which attended and occasioned the 
 writing of the Apocalypse. It is unnecessary for me, after having said 
 so much on this subject, to dwell upon the object to be aimed at , or the 
 end to be attained , in the writing of the Revelation. Already has this 
 topic been brought to view, and in some good degree anticipated, in 
 p. 155 seq. above. Only a few considerations more need to be added 
 here. 
 
 I may repeat here what I have already had occasion to say more 
 than once, viz. that to encourage, animate, confirm, and comfort Chris- 
 tians in a state of suffering and peril, must needs be conceded, by every 
 impartial reader of the Apocalypse, to be the prominent design of the 
 book. As the sole object, we are not obliged to represent it. John, 
 like other sacred writers, may have had more than one particular end 
 in view. He intended to instruct , as well as console and encourage. 
 He expected that the then urgent persecutions would not be the only 
 ones which Christians would be called to suffer. He has widened and 
 extended his views of the contest, toward the closing part of his book. 
 He has thus made the principles which it recognizes, applicable to all 
 times and places. The final, complete, and certain triumph of the 
 church is portrayed. All Christians of every period may take encour- 
 agement from this, and be consoled by it. But the distant future, as 
 before remarked, is presented in mere outlines. It is, as it were, the 
 
AND THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. 
 
 227 
 
 back ground of his picture, drawn in colours less vivid and strong. Yet 
 it is an integral part of it, and the picture would be incomplete without it. 
 
 Such a view of the writer’s design accounts easily for the prominence 
 which he has given to the then present and existing state of things. 
 He wrote specially for his avyxoivoovoi in affliction. He has given all 
 due attention to their case, and opened before them the vista, which 
 discloses the more distant and peaceful future of the church. But as 
 their then present situation called forth his work, it was to be expected 
 that the work should be mainly occupied with it. Hence the persecu- 
 ting powers of the Jews and of the Romans, with their respective fall 
 and ruin, present themselves before his vision until he has made a full 
 disclosure of their fearful destruction. 
 
 What respects the address only to seven churches by name, has al- 
 ready been the subject of remark. Be the main reason of this the 
 prominence of those churches, their dangerous condition, or John’s pe- 
 culiar relation to them and care for them, or be it that the number 
 seven is grounded merely on the heptades exhibited in the main part of 
 the book, it matters not. John doubtless had reasons for addressing 
 seven churches ; and it matters not to us what they were, so far as the 
 interpretation of the book is concerned. 
 
 That an address to so many churches, at such a period, would natu- 
 rally find its way among most or all of the churches, in similar circum- 
 stances, it is easy to suppose and is quite probable. Hence the circula- 
 tion of the book. The instruction to be drawn from it, when rightly 
 viewed, is applicable indeed to Christians at all times. But still, the 
 poetic costume of the work, and the difficulty in understanding some of 
 its symbols, may have early impeded in some measure the wide and rapid 
 diffusion of the Apocalypse. Hence the eastern Syrians had and have 
 it not in their Canon ; and some of the western Christians occasionally 
 doubted or denied its place in the Canon. But of this, more in its 
 appropriate place. 
 
 I will only add, that the special relations of John to the seven churches 
 of Asia developes itself so plainly in his mode of addressing those 
 churches, that it needs no confirmation. He must have been a man of 
 high consideration among them, and of much familiar acquaintance with 
 them, in order to entitle him to such a style of address and exhortation 
 as he employs. In the sequel, this consideration will be reverted to, 
 when we come to examine the question : Who wrote the Apocalypse ? 
 Is John an assumed name ? Does it mean John the Evangelist, or John 
 the Presbyter of Ephesus ? For the present, it suffices to have brought 
 into view the relation of the writer of the Apocalypse to the seven 
 churches, as one of the considerations connected with the inquiry re- 
 specting the original readers of the Apocalypse, and the design of the 
 work. 
 
228 
 
 § 14. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 § 14. Original Language of the Apocalypse. 
 
 The language in which the Apocalypse comes down to us from an- 
 tiquity, is Hebrew- Greek. The tradition of the churches has uniformly 
 been, that it was originally composed in this language. The most an- 
 cient witnesses in regard to this matter, speak of no other than an orig- 
 inal Greek text. The churches addressed in the Apocalypse, at any rate 
 the great mass of them, spoke Greek ; and probably by far the greater 
 number of Christians in them did not understand Hebrew. Even if we 
 should suppose that a majority of the seven churches were converted 
 Jews, it is not probable that the mass of the Jews in Asia read familiarly 
 and understood the Hebrew, or the Hebrew Aramaean, language. Why 
 then should John write in that language ? And particularly, if, as we 
 have good reason to believe, the Apocalypse was designed for circula- 
 tion among the persecuted churches, why should John have written 
 in a language that but few could read? External testimony, the encyc- 
 lical design of the composition, the language of the persons addressed, 
 all combine to render it entirely probable that John wrote in Hebrew- 
 Greek. 
 
 In such Greek the author must write, if he wrote in Greek at all. 
 That he was himself a Hebrew , every page of his writing testifies, 
 whether one looks at the matter or the manner. No writer in the New 
 Testament has, on the whole, displayed so much and so minute a knowl- 
 edge of the Hebrew prophets, as the writer of the Apocalypse. He 
 seems to have them wholly at his command. Instead of citing them 
 literally , as one is always prone to do when he feels that his knowledge 
 of them is imperfect and may lead him into mistake if he cites freely, 
 he has everywhere embodied Old Testament ideas in his composition, 
 without making, in any one instance, a mere literal quotation of a pas- 
 sage of any considerable length from the ancient Scriptures. Not a 
 single formula of quotation, such as Xsyei, paQZVQEi, yiygamai yag, 
 xa&cog ytyganrai, etc., anywhere occurs. So familiar are Old Testa- 
 ment ideas to the author, that he scarcely seems to be conscious that he 
 is citing them when they are produced by him. His manner of employ- 
 ing them seems to indicate, that they have been so often revolved in his 
 mind as to become a part of the stores which properly belong to it. 
 From these stores, as from his own conceptions, he draws whatever is 
 adapted to his purpose ; and he clothes all these ideas in his own lan- 
 guage, following closely neither the Hebrew nor the Greek Scriptures. 
 One might well doubt, whether he once opened the Old Testament for 
 the sake of copying a citation, during the composition of his book. 
 
 Such an evident familiarity with the Hebrew prophetic Scriptures, 
 
§ 14 . ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OP THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 229 
 
 and such entire freedom in the use of the ideas which they exhibit, 
 must be considered as evidence nearly or quite conclusive, that John 
 read easily and familiarly the Old Testament Hebrew. If John the 
 apostle was the author of this book, the high style of thinking and rea- 
 soning, which he has exhibited in his doctrinal Gospel, would plead 
 strongly in favour of the position that he -was well versed in the He- 
 brew Scriptures. Conceding that his vernacular tongue was Aramaean - 
 Hebrew, yet the ease with which one passes from this to the more an- 
 cient Hebrew, is very great, and it could cost a thinking man, like John, 
 but a few days of study, in order to read Hebrew with great ease. The 
 probability certainly is, considering the character of his parents, that he 
 was taught the Hebrew in his childhood. His occupation as a fisher- 
 man makes nothing against this. Was not Paul a tent-maker t 
 
 His Greek style, then, must be of the Hebrew cast; for, whoever 
 he was, he was a Hebrew by birth and education ; he was one by his 
 early religion. Assuming that the apostle John was the author of the 
 Apocalypse, we may further say, that when he wrote the book he had 
 recently come to Ephesus from Palestine, and his Hebraism would be 
 the more palpable on account of his limited practice, as yet, in speaking 
 and writing Greek. No book in all the New Testament is so Hebraistic 
 as the Revelation. I would not, however, put this merely to the ac- 
 count of John’s imperfect knowledge of the Greek at the time when the 
 book was written, (inasmuch as his choice of words and manner of com- 
 pounding them show no very limited or scanty knowledge of this 
 tongue) ; for my belief is, that it is mainly to be attributed to the writ- 
 er’s minute familiarity with the Hebrew prophets, whose modes of ex- 
 pression and peculiar idioms he often, and as it were unconsciously, im- 
 itates. In fact, the style of the Apocalypse wears the appearance of 
 having been conceived by a mind, which had incorporated with its own 
 stores those of the Hebrew prophets. How natural for the writer in 
 such a condition, to think and speak more Hebraico ! 
 
 It makes but little, then, for the position that the Apocalypse had a 
 Hebraeo-Aramaean original, that it is now full of Hebraisms. So is 
 Matthew, and Mark, and Luke even, full of Hebraisms ; so do Paul and 
 James and Peter abound in them. It is the common character of the 
 New Testament Greek. If the Apocalypse is more strongly tinctured 
 than any other book, it is because its style, manner of composition, and 
 frequent references to Old Testament prophets, make it more to resem- 
 ble an Old Testament production in its manner, than any other book of 
 the New Testament. The affinity between the Apocalypse and Daniel, 
 Ezekiel, and Zechariah, not to mention other prophets, is too plain to 
 admit of any denial. 
 
 The attempts to find any palpable proofs of a Hebrew original , in 
 
230 § 14. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 respect to the Apocalypse, are not of consideration enough to deserve a 
 serious notice. Bolten is the only critic of any name, who has defend- 
 ed such a position ; but his extravagance in assigning such an original to 
 all the New Testament books, is well known ; and long since has it 
 been proscribed by nearly if not quite all respectable critics. 
 
 It has been thought by some, that the number of Hebrew words, 
 which are employed in the Apocalypse, give some indication of a He- 
 brew original. But if we are to take them as now presented to us, 
 they are rather to be regarded as proofs of the contrary ; inasmuch as 
 the writer has himself taken pains to translate them for his readers. It 
 might be said, that this is the work of the translator. But why has he 
 limited himself to so narrow a circle, in retaining the original words, 
 if this be a matter referable only to his own judgment ? 
 
 It seems at first to be rather remarkable, that John should so often 
 have translated such words as a^rjr and Hazards', e. g. rai, d\ir\r, 1: 7. 
 22: 20 ; and d\ir>r — ah]{hr6g or mazus in 3: 14 ; Hazards — dtdfioXog 
 in 12: 9 and 20: 2. See also ^fiaddonr — Anollvwr in 9: 11. In 
 another case, viz. dXXr[kovia in 19: 1, 3, 4, 6, no translation is made. 
 All these words were as common, probably, in the primitive churches, 
 as they now are in ours, and consequently as well understood. Hfjujr 
 and aXbjXovia belong to the Jewish liturgy ; and Hazards and Jlftab- 
 dc or must have been frequent among Jewish Christians. But in some 
 of these cases, an intensity of meaning is given by the repetition in dif- 
 ferent languages. Nor is this usage at all uncommon in other New 
 Testament writings. Thus in John 1: 39, 42, 43: 9: 7 ; where the 
 word SQfirjrevezai is connected with a Greek translation. But in John 
 19: 13, 17, the word XsyEzai is so connected ; (comp. Rev. 12: 9, v.aXov ze- 
 ros’, 20: 2, iazi ; 9: 11, oropa «/£/)• To gather evidence, as some have 
 endeavoured to do, from the use of Hebrew words in the Apocalypse, 
 that the book has a different author from the Evangelist John, seems to 
 be uncritical. John’s Gospel exhibits the same usage, as may be seen 
 above ; and so does almost every part of the New Testament ; some- 
 times with an express notice of an interpretation (sQ^yrEV ofuror, [is - 
 {^EQ^rEvofiEror, zovz sazi, etc.), as in Matt. 1: 23. 27: 46. Mark 5: 41 
 (zah&d xovfii). 7: 34. 15: 22, 34. Acts 4: 36. 13: 8. Heb. 7: 2; some- 
 times without such notice, as afifid, 6 nazriQ , Mark 14: 36. Rom. 8: 15 ; 
 sometimes without either notice or translation, as 1 Cor. 16: 22, fiaQar 
 a&d ; and so of dfirjr in scores of cases. Whoever carefully examines 
 these cases, will find that no particular formula of introducing Hebrew 
 words is appropriate to any one writer ; for the same writer uses one 
 form in one place, and another in a different place. So it is with John, 
 in his Gospel; 1: 39, 42, 43. 9: 7 exhibit one form; 19: 13, 17 exhi- 
 bit another ; and in more than fifty cases d\ii\r is used without expla- 
 
§ 14 . ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 231 
 
 nation. So in the Apocalypse, 9: 11. 12: 9. 20: 2, there are formulas ; 
 in 1: 7. 22: 20. 19: 1, 3, 4, 6 there are none, and in the last four cases 
 no translation. And in this last way, dpt]v is frequently employed. To 
 say, with some recent critics, that because 8Qfir{vev£Tcu is employed in 
 John’s Gospel, and not in the Apocalypse, therefore the writer of the 
 two books must be different, is surely a very important conclusion drawn 
 from very inadequate and slender premises. Three out of four of the 
 cases in the Gospel are all in the same short paragraph, and are but 
 the mere repetition of the same formula as applied to different words in 
 the same way, (John 1: 39, 42, 43). Every one, who is well acquaint- 
 ed with the writings of John, must know that it is characteristic of him, 
 when a particular method of speaking is once introduced in a connected 
 paragraph, to carry on that modus through the paragraph, so often as 
 he has occasion to introduce the same idea. So is it with d\ir\v in John 
 iii ; so with several forms of expression in the last addresses of Jesus to 
 his disciples, chap, xiv — xvii ; so with the almost constant use of the 
 historic present tense, in 1: 15 ad fin., 13: 4 ad fin., and chap. xx. xxi. 
 In those portions of John’s Gospel last referred to, a great part of all the 
 historic present tenses in the book are contained. No weight, therefore, 
 can be justly attached to such an argument as that which we are ex- 
 amining. 
 
 As connected with the subject of the original language of the Apoca- 
 lypse, may be considered the question : What Scriptures did the writer 
 consult and quote ? The original Hebrew , or the Greek , i. e. the Sep - 
 tuagint ? 
 
 This is a question somewhat difficult. Often as the author of the 
 Apocalypse has for substance quoted the Old Testament — even more 
 often than it is quoted or alluded to in any other book of the New Tes- 
 tament — yet, as has already been said, he has not in a single instance 
 used the common formula of quotation. It is quite apparent, that his 
 quotations and allusions everywhere flow from his own full mind and 
 memory. They do not wear the appearance of being searched after for 
 the occasion, and then copied verbatim, but of being made from memory, 
 and of flowing from the spontaneous incorporation of Old Testament 
 ideas with his own, so that they receive their hue from his own method 
 of thought and expression. Hence the difficulty of settling the ques- 
 tion, whether he followed the Septuagint or the Hebrew. Safely may 
 we answer, that he has followed neither xazd noda. The ideas from 
 the Old Testament which he introduces, might have been drawn from 
 either. In Rev. 1: 7, he has manifestly departed from the Septuagint, 
 (which has xaicoQ^rjoavTo and not i^extvzi]ouv), and conformed more 
 closely to the Hebrew. So again in 2: 27, comp. Ps. 2: 9 in the Sep- 
 tuagint. In many other passages, there is a close approximation to 
 
232 § 15. PECULIARITIES OP LANGUAGE AND STYLE 
 
 modes of expression in the Septuagint, e. g. in 7: 9. 10: 11. 11: 9. 12: 
 14. 10: 5. 5: 5. 22: 16, and other passages, which the reader can readily 
 compare. Yet in these and all others, there is a freedom in the Apoca- 
 lypse from any exactness of copying, which renders it difficult, if not im- 
 possible, to say whether the writer had his mind principally upon the 
 Septuagint, or freely translated for himself, and employed an idiom 
 which approaches very near to that of the Septuagint. All the Greek 
 translations of the time were in the idiom of the Hebrew- Greek ; so 
 that this characteristic decides nothing for or against the use of the Sep- 
 tuagint by John. But the freedom of the citations shows one thing, at 
 least, viz. that John most probably wrote in Greek originally ; for a 
 mere translator of the Apocalypse into Greek would, have been likely to 
 consult and follow exactly the Septuagint version of Old Testament 
 passages. John himself could freely incorporate the sentiment of these 
 passages with his own method of thinking and expression, whether he 
 referred to them in Hebrew or in Greek. That he could do either, 
 there can be no reasonable question. The author of the Apocalypse 
 was verily “a Hebrew of the Hebrews.” No book in all the New 
 Testament, as has been said, bears so strong an impression of the He- 
 brew dialect as the Apocalypse. That the writer of this book was con- 
 versant with both the Septuagint and the original Hebrew, who can 
 doubt for a moment, that well considers the character of his book ? And 
 if John the Evangelist was the author, who can doubt that such a mind 
 as he evinces in his Gospel, would be familiar with both the Greek and 
 Hebrew Scriptures ? Yet neither this circumstance, nor any other that 
 has been mentioned, nor any within my knowledge, is sufficient abso- 
 lutely to decide the question, whether John quoted from the Hebrew or 
 from the Greek Scriptures. Nor is it of any serious importance. 
 Whichever he did, he is far enough from being a mere literal copyist. 
 
 § 15. Peculiar characteristics of the language and style of the Apoc- 
 alypse. 
 
 On account of these, the Apocalypse has often been attacked by those 
 who have been disposed to show this book but little favour. Even the 
 first formidable opponent, who called in question the apostolic origin of 
 this book, did not overlook the circumstance of its peculiar idioms. I 
 refer to Dionysius Alexandrinus (fl. 225), who thus expresses himself : 
 /hdlsxrov gtvioi l ecu ylcoaaav ovx ctypificot; ilbjviXovaav aviov ftXt7i(x) • 
 akX iduogaai giv fiaQpaQixoig xycogevov yai nov xcu aoloixi^ovra. That 
 is, * 1 perceive, indeed, that his dialect and language is not accurate 
 Greek ; [and not only so] but that he uses barbai'isms , and in some 
 places even solecisms quoted in Euseb. Ecc. Hist. VII. 25. Diony- 
 
IN TIIE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 233 
 
 sius had a favourite point to carry, when he endeavoured to gain credit 
 to these assertions ; and so have many who repeat them in modern 
 times, and urge them with great zeal upon the community. Still, there 
 is some specious foundation on which they are built ; and, with the in- 
 formation which is now abroad in relation to the idioms of the Greek 
 language, we can better come to some just determination in relation 
 to these allegations, than was feasible in ancient times, or even in mo- 
 dern, until the results of recent investigations were made known. The 
 older critics, who have found fault with the idiom of the Apocalypse, 
 have, for the most part, contented themselves with pointing out the dif- 
 ferences between ordinary prosaic Greek and that of the Revelation. 
 It requires, indeed, but a moderate share of acquaintance with the usual 
 classic Greek, in order to be able to point out what have been named, 
 (after the example of Dionysius), barbarisms and solecisms in the Apoc- 
 alypse. Even a tyro, who has but learned the ordinary rules of syntax, 
 can do this ; for departures from these are of frequent occurrence in the 
 Revelation. A more advanced state of acquaintance with Greek? 
 however, must lead one to conclude, that there are few, if any, of the 
 apparent anomalies in the Revelation, which may not be justified by 
 examples of the like kind, even among the more reputable Greek authors. 
 
 First of all it is proper to inquire, whether there are not metes and 
 bounds to the question before us, which must be well understood before 
 we can safely advance in our inquiries. It is no valid charge against 
 the Apocalypse, that, in common with all the New Testament books, 
 the Septuagint, and the earlier Greek fathers, it exhibits a Hebrew - 
 Greek idiom. How could we believe its author to have been a Hebrew , 
 if it did not ? And why should that which is common to all New Tes- 
 tament Greek, be made a matter of charge against the Apocalypse, or 
 be considered as belonging to its peculiarities ? Whatever there is in 
 it which merely belongs to the idiom in question, it is of course to be 
 exempted from an inquiry which has respect only to its peculiarities. 
 
 The general question being thus stated, it may be proper to premise 
 a few remarks, which may assist in judging of the peculiarities under 
 consideration. 
 
 I need only to advert here to the fact, that the Apocalypse is essen- 
 tially a poetic composition, in order to gain assent from every enlight- 
 ened critic, that all proper allowances should be made for this method of 
 writing. Every age and nation has a poetic dialect, in some respects 
 distinct from the common colloquial, or the usual prosaic, dialect. Who 
 does not know, that the dialects of Homer, Pindar, and other poets, in 
 Greek ; of Virgil, Juvenal, and others, in Latin ; of Milton, Shakspeare, 
 and others, in English ; have occasioned critics and grammarians an in- 
 finitude of labour and trouble ? Yet no one presumes to regard these 
 vol. i. 30 
 
234 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE 
 
 peculiarities of poety as a blemish upon the composition. Often have 
 they been appealed to, as eUP^iding beauty and force and attractive- 
 ness to the respective works in which they are found. If John’s work 
 is poetry in its very nature, (whether rhythm i. e. measure, or not, is 
 of no essential consequence), then why are we not naturally to expect 
 an idiom, which is more or less peculiar to the book ? Common critical 
 justice demands that we should make an allowance for this. 
 
 It is a matter of course, that we should concede to the author of a poet- 
 ic composition, (one truly so), an excited state of mind. Nothing can be 
 more evident than the existence of such a state, when the Apocalypse 
 was written. From beginning to end, it is filled with the most glowing 
 expressions both of feeling and of imagination. A writer in this state 
 does not stop to weigh his expressions in the scales of grammarians, 
 nor to polish his periods according to the dictates of rhetoricians. Paul 
 ■would hold but an indifferent place as a writer, if he were tried by the 
 technical rules of grammar and rhetoric. Critical justice does not de- 
 mand that either he, or the author of the Revelation, should be tried in 
 this manner. 
 
 One more remark I must make in this place. If John the apostle 
 wrote the Apocalypse, he wrote it, in all probability, soon after leaving 
 Palestine and going to Asia Minor. In the natural course of things, 
 this book, written under such circumstances, would bear more frequent 
 traces of Hebrew idiom than his later compositions, viz. the Gospel 
 and the Epistles. 
 
 Having premised these considerations, we may now proceed to exam- 
 ine the principal peculiarities of language or idiom, which are appealed 
 to as matter of accusation against the Apocalypse. 
 
 (1) ‘ Nouns which are in apposition or epexegetical, and also partici- 
 ples or adjectives which refer to or qualify a preceding noun, the wri- 
 ter has put into a different case from that of their antecedent noun ; 
 in doing thus he has violated one of the plainest rules of syntax.’ 
 
 Examples, to which appeal is made, are of such a nature as the fol- 
 lowing: Rev. 1: 5, dno ’IrjGov Xqigtov,o fidQivg 6 niGxbg, 6 tiqcqzozo- 
 xog ... 6 ctQycov, h. x. X. Rev. 5: 11, 12, you ijxovGa cpcovqv dyysXeov 
 . . . £c6(ov . . . 7iQtGfivxsQ( ov . . . Xtyovxeg. Rev. 14: 6, y.al sidov aXXov 
 dyysXov . . . Xt'ycov. Rev. 14: 12, vno\iEVT\ xmv ayicjv Igziv, ol xijqovv- 
 teg, etc. See also the like in 2: 20. 3: 12. 9: 14. 8: 9. 17: 4. 14: 14. 21: 12. 
 In these instances, the Nominative follows after an oblique case of its 
 antecedent, with which case the former ought ordinarily to agree. In 
 others there is a different order, although the principle is similar ; e. g. 
 Rev. 4: 4, idov, tlporog* . . . xa&rjfAEvog . . . iqig . . . '&qovoi . . . xul tiqeg- 
 fivx EQOvg xaftiftisrovg. Rev. 7: 9, eldov , xcu idov, oyXog . . . sGTcoTsg 
 neqifiepXqiJLSvovg, etc. See also 20: 4. 14: 14, for the like constructions. 
 
IN THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 235 
 
 Instead however of naming these and the like cases in the Apoca- 
 lypse solecisms or barbarisms , as has often been done ; or instead of 
 merely reckoning them as anacolutha, (which explains nothing) ; recent 
 grammarians have very justly put them to the account of rhetorical 
 method. The Nominative case naturally begins a sentence, and takes 
 the lead in demanding attention. Where a writer wishes to continue a 
 sentence once begun, by expository clauses which more fully define or 
 illustrate, he may, in case he begins them with any word, (noun, or 
 participle, or adjective), which would naturally be in apposition and in 
 the same case with the preceding word that is to be explained, choose 
 the Nominative case for the explanatory clause, whatever may be the 
 case of its antecedent. Such, the reader will at once perceive, is the 
 case with the first class of examples above exhibited. The Nominative 
 case of the expository clause throws it of course more into notice ; and 
 it is preferred, because the rhetorical effect is more sought after than 
 conformity to the technical rules of grammar. In particular, where a 
 participle stands at the head of the subordinate clause, the Nominative 
 may be chosen for it, because it is by usage equivalent, or nearly so, to 
 a verb in such cases, and therefore assumes the Nominative in order to 
 make this palpable. For illustration and confirmation, I need' only re- 
 fer to Bernhardy’s Syntax, p. 68 seq. Liicke, Einleit. in d. Offenb. 
 § 27, 4. Kiihner’s Gramm. § 508, 2, specially § 677 seq. Winer’s 
 New Testament Gramm. § 64, 2. The last writer has shown that the 
 New Testament is full of this idiom; and Kuhner, that the same is 
 very common in some of the best Greek classics. In both the New 
 Testament and in the classics, th o, participle is most frequently concern- 
 ed with this apparent anomaly ; and such is the case in respect to the 
 Apocalypse. It is needless, therefore, in respect to such a usage, fur- 
 ther to vindicate the writer of the Revelation. I will only subjoin two 
 or three examples from the classics, in the way of illustration. II. f, 
 395, AvdQOfJLUxrj, Qvyuzrjo . . . Heticovog , ’Hzlcov, og svaisv, etc. II. x, 437, 
 y.ahliorovg innovg i'fiov, rjde (isyiozovg * Xevxo zeyoi y.tovog, fteieiv A avtpoi- 
 6 tv ofioioi. Tliucyd. VIL 42, zolg X 'vQccxovaioig yaxanhr^ig . . . oqojv- 
 reg } etc. Thucyd. III. 36, edolgev avzoig . . . huyaXovvzsg. Xenophon, 
 Plato, Herodotus, Aeschylus, Euripides, and others, afford not a few 
 examples of the like kind. There is nothing even peculiar, then, to 
 the Apocalypse in the use of these rhetorical modes of speech. The 
 most that can be said is, that they are somewhat more frequent here, 
 than elsewhere in the New Testament ; but in this there is nothing 
 strange, when the nature of the book is once considered. One might 
 even say, that of course constructions of this nature are to be expected. 
 
 The second class of cases, above specified, belong to a somewhat dif- 
 ferent construction. In Rev. 4: 4, idov precedes ; in Rev. 20: 4, eldov ; 
 
236 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE 
 
 in 7: 9. 14: 14, aldov xai idov. In the construction of the three latter 
 cases, it seems clear that aldov is carried along in the writer’s mind, and 
 made to bear on the Accusative, where this is employed ; while the 
 Nominative cases in the same consecution are employed (as usual) after 
 idov. In Rev. 20: 4, this is plain in respect to aidov ; in 7: 9. 14: 14, 
 both constructions appear, viz. the Nominative after idov and the Accu- 
 sative after a idov ; and in 4: 4, although only idov is expressed, it is 
 evident that the writer mentally and very naturally supplied an aidov. 
 In mere common prose this would not be usual, and therefore would 
 not be expected ; in a composition like that of the Apocalypse, it is surely 
 nothing strange. In 13, 3, pW is doubtless governed by the aidov of 
 the preceding verse, which is mentally carried forward. 
 
 That constructions of such a nature as those just described were not 
 understood by the author of the Apocalypse, is a most improbable sup- 
 position. How comes it to pass, that he has exhibited so much know- 
 ledge, elsewhere, even of many of the nicer idioms of the Greek, and 
 yet was ignorant in regard to the true nature of constructions like those 
 above ? And the like remark might well be repeated, in respect to most 
 of the apparent anomalies which follow. 
 
 (2) A second charge of anomaly against the Apocalypse is, that 1 con- 
 cord as to number and gender is not duly observed .’ 
 
 For the most part, this charge has very little foundation. E. g. all 
 those cases of constructio ad sensum, which are found everywhere in the 
 New Testament, and in all good Greek authors, establish no good basis 
 for such a charge ; and such cases are 4: 8, £cooc . . . Xsyovzag, where the 
 living creatures are considered and spoken of as being rational; 5: 
 13, nav xzioga ... a .. . Xsyovzag, where the same remark applies to 
 the masculine participle ; 6: 9, rag \pvyag . . . Xsyovzag, where 'Wvyag 
 means men ; 8: 7, ydXa^a jtcu ttvq gsgiygsva iv aigazi, where gsgiygsva 
 follows the gender of the nearest antecedent, but the number is made 
 plural because it necessarily extends to two objects which were mixed 
 with the blood; 11: 15, cpooval . . . Xsyovzag, the writer’s mind is upon 
 the angels who speak ; 13: 3, 4, i&avgaasv oXt] r\ yij . . . xai TTQocexvvq- 
 oav . . . Xsyovzag, first a verb singular according with r\ yij , then a verb 
 plural because yij is a noun of multitude, then a participle masculine plu- 
 ral, because men are meant; 14: 3, yiliddag, oi rjyoQaGgt'voi, where ytX- 
 iddsg designates thousands of men ; 17: 16, zd dt'y.a xsQazu . . . xai zb 
 <&riQiov , ovzoi giGijaovaiv, where ovzoi is employed ad sensum , because 
 men are meant; 19: 1, oyXov noXXov . . . Xeyovzcov, where byXov is a 
 noun of multitude; 19: 14, za azQazavgaza . . . ijxoXov&ei . . . ivdedv- 
 gsvoi, etc., the first verb following the usual construction (in the singu- 
 lar) with the neuter plural, and the participle the constructio ad sensum. 
 
IX THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 237 
 
 Instances of this nature are to be found everywhere ; and they scarcely 
 need our particular attention. See and comp. Gen. 15: 1. 45: 1. (Sept). 
 
 Apparently more difficult or harsh is the construction in 4: 3. 
 
 . . . oyotog OQuaei, etc. But adjectives in -log, -ipog, -eiog, -aiog, are 
 often employed by the best Attic writers as having only two endings ; 
 and of course, ogoiog may be feminine. The author was at liberty to 
 take his choice; and in 4: 6. 9: 19. 18: 18 he has employed the usual 
 feminine form of this adjective, which shows that he was not ignorant of 
 it. See Passow, Lex. sub voce, and my N. Test. Gramm. § 32. 1. c. 
 W iner’s N. Test. Gramm. § 47. In Rev. 14: 19, rijv hjvbv . . . rov pz- 
 yav makes a difficulty. But here, as in the case above, the author had 
 his choice of genders ; for the Greek has both o and i) Xrjvog. In com- 
 mon prose it would be singular to join the masculine adjective with the 
 marked feminine r ?} v h]vbv ; but in a composition like that of the 
 Apocalypse, the usual technical rules of grammar are not to be rigor- 
 ously urged. It is clear, from 14: 20. 19: 15, that the author knew and 
 also recognized the feminine gender of Xtjvog. It would seem, therefore, 
 that he purposely wrote rov pz'yav in the case before us ; perhaps be- 
 cause the fivyog rov ftsov, which immediately precedes, was in his 
 mind and gave rise to the masculine adjective ; perhaps because he 
 meant to form an unusual construction which still was a lawful one. 
 The case in 19: 6, cpcovrjv oyXov . . . vddrwv . . . figovrcov . . . Xzyovrcov 
 is easy of solution. The participle Xsyovrcov refers not merely to $qov- 
 rcov (feminine), but to all of the antecedents. We might expect Xz'yov- 
 6civ , agreeing with cpcov/jv ; but this is not the usual method of John, 
 comp, cpcor/jv odXmyyog Xzyovar/g, 1: 10. 4: 1. Mere prose would attri- 
 bute the speaking to the voice ; poetic animation regards it as proceeding 
 from the persons or things which utter loud sounds. Those who have 
 overlooked this, have charged these last two passages with anomaly or 
 barbarism. Anomaly it may be, in the eye of a mere technical gram- 
 marian ; but can we be justly cramped by his narrow rules, in judging 
 of the Apocalypse ? What must we decide, on such ground, respecting 
 many a passage in Homer, Pindar, Thucydides, and even Plato ? 
 
 To the present category belongs the alleged anomalous use of number , 
 in connection with neuter plurals. The allegation against the Apoc- 
 alypse is, that ‘ it employs a plural verb in connection with these, while 
 the Greek idiom demands a verb in the singular ’ 
 
 But here we must remark, that the general rule thus laid down ad- 
 mits of many exceptions. When animated beings, which of course 
 have distinct individualities of being, are designated, the plural verb is 
 the more common usage after a neuter plural noun. So when plurality 
 of parts is a predominating idea of the noun, and specially when a nu- 
 meral qualifies it (which of course implies distinct parts), the plural 
 
238 
 
 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE 
 
 verb is often and even more usually employed after a neuter plural noun. 
 But there is no entire uniformity in these cases ; and exceptions may 
 be found even in the best Greek authors, and specially in the later ones. 
 Sometimes both usages appear in the same sentence. Has the Apoc- 
 alypse violated these principles ? 
 
 Facts will answer this question. As usual, the verb singular follows 
 the neuter plural, in 2: 27. 8: 3. 9: 10, 20. 13: 14. 14: 13. 17: 8. 18: 
 14. 21: 12 ; all of which cases differ in no respect from the more com- 
 mon classical usage. In several instances, however, the verb singular 
 stands connected with neuter plurals designating animated beings, viz. 
 in Rev. 1:5. 5: 13. 16: 14. 19: 14. But in each of these cases the 
 singular number seems to be employed, because the idea expressed is 
 rather designed to be collective than individualizing ; in which case the 
 more common usage would adopt the singular, in order merely to ex- 
 press totality rather than individuality. It is apparently on this ground, 
 that the neuter plural, even when connected with a numeral, sometimes 
 takes a verb in the singular, as e. g. in Rev. 20: 3, 5, 7, reXsaxfrj ra pha 
 87?], where the design of expressing totality is plain. On the contrary, 
 the plural verb is usual in the Apocalypse, when animated beings are 
 spoken of; e. g. 3: 4. 5: 6. 11: 13, 18. 15: 4. 16: 14. 18: 23. 21: 24. 
 So virtually in 4: 6, 8. 5: 14. 19: 21. Even the minute shade of express- 
 ing individuality , is observable in the usage of the Apocalypse ; e. g. 
 Rev. 1: 19, a eiai ; 3: 2, a eysXXov dno&avtiv, i. e. particular Christian 
 virtues; 8: 11, im-AQurdriaav, viz. various waters, see in verse 10; 15: 
 4, dixaicoyaia iyaveQcofrrjaav, viz. the seven last plagues, see verse 1; 
 20: 12, fiifiXia rivoi'^xt^aav, the many books of record for all the human 
 race ; 21: 4, rd TTQcdra dnrjXd'ov, viz. the former various objects of 
 heaven and earth. If there be in the Apocalypse any other plural verbs 
 joined with neuter plurals, I can only say, they have escaped my diligent 
 and often repeated investigation. 
 
 The result, in this case, is very different from what even recent critics 
 of name, e. g. Ewald and others, have represented it to be. In fact, we 
 are even surprised at the degree of conformity to the principles of clas- 
 sical usage. Some few cases there are, where the writer employs both 
 the singular and plural verb in the same sentence ; e. g. in 16: 14. 19: 
 14. But in this, too, there is no singularity; for we have the same in 
 John 10: 4, 5, 27. 1 Cor. 10: 11. 2 Peter 3: 10. 1 Sam. 9: 12 (Sept.). 
 II. |3, 135. Sometimes also the verb singular is employed, ih other 
 books of the New Testament, in case animated beings are spoken of, 
 e. g. John 10: 4, 16. 1 John 3: 10. Luke 8: 2. Mark 14: 27 ; some- 
 times the plural, John 10: 4, 5, 8, 12, 16. See also, Matt. 12: 21. Mark 
 5: 13. James 2: 19. Whoever wishes to see all these usages confirmed 
 by the Classics, may consult Winer, Gramm. § 47. 3. Kiihner, § 424. 
 
IN THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 239 
 
 Nor is there any stable foundation for the remark, of late often re- 
 peated, that the Apocalypse differs palpably from the Gospels and 
 Epistles of John, as to the usage in question. I have looked through 
 these books, and found in both of them some thirty instances of the 
 verb singular with a neuter plural, (and these are all that I have found 
 by a minute search) ; but not more than some three or four of these 
 designate animated beings, when the object is to individualize. In the 
 Gospel and Epistles, John follows common usage, as explained above. 
 In the Apocalypse, we find the same usages ; and so the idiom is of the 
 same nature in both. John in his Gospel, 10: 4, 5, 8, 12, 16, shows 
 that the plural was familiar to him, when animated beings were spoken 
 of. Any attempt to build on any discrepancy in usage, in regard to 
 this particular, the theory of diversity of authorship between the Apoc- 
 alypse and the books of John the apostle, is surely in vain. There is 
 no marked peculiarity, in this respect, in either of these books. Proto- 
 types in classic Greek, in all respects, may easily and everywhere be 
 found. 
 
 (3) ‘ The syntax of the verb and participle,’ it has often been al- 
 leged, 4 is frequently violated in the Apocalypse.’ 
 
 (a) ‘ The Present tense is put for the Praeter.’ This is indeed very 
 frequent ; but then this belongs to all the New Testament, and to all the 
 classic Greek writers. The historic Present , (as grammarians call it), 
 belongs of course to all animated narration ; and it is to be found un- 
 usually often, both in the Gospel of John and in the Apocalypse. In 
 reading through both these books, I have noted one hundred cases in 
 which it is employed in the Gospel, and forty cases in the Apocalypse. 
 Of the one hundred, however, some sixty-five belong merely to the 
 word Xeyet, singular or plural ; and a large portion of the others to 
 SQXStai and some other common verbs of motion. The numerous cases 
 of Itysi belong, almost entirely, to the frequent dialogues which the 
 Gospel exhibits. In the Apocalypse, but few dialogistic passages occur ; 
 and in these there is just about the same frequency of Itysi as in the 
 Gospel. As to other cases, I have noted thirty-five in the Gospel and 
 thirty in the Apocalypse, which exhibit a similarity of usage in both 
 that deserves special notice, inasmuch as they are some indication of the 
 same hand in both. For the rest, I would merely remark, that although 
 the historic Present is everywhere to be found in the New Testament, 
 yet nowhere is it employed with so much frequency as in the writings of 
 John. As the Hebrew has no appropriate form for the Present, this 
 must be put to the account of the Greek , and not of the Hebrew idiom. 
 
 (&) ‘ The Present is used for the Future.’ — It is so ; yet not in any 
 other manner than in other parts of the New Testament, excepting that, 
 from the nature of the composition which is prophetic, either the proxi - 
 
240 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE 
 
 mate future, or the certainty that the things described will take place, 
 naturally presents itself with greater frequency than in mere didactic 
 composition. Nothing is more usual, than to employ the Present tense 
 in order to express either of these ideas. Thus Matt. 26: 2, “ Ye know 
 that after two days is (yivezcu) the Passover, and the Son of Man is 
 betrayed {naqabibozai) in order to be crucified where the proximity 
 and the certainty of the events are strongly marked by the Present 
 tense. And so in cases more than can well be numbered. In a rhe- 
 torical view, this mode of expression is far more significant and intense 
 than the simple F uture. The thing to take place is designated as al- 
 ready happening or being accomplished. There is here no enallage of 
 the tenses, as grammarians are wont to call it, i. e. the use of one tense 
 for another by a sort of mistake or heedlessness ; but there is a designed 
 tropical use of the Present, in order to give vivacity and energy to the 
 expression.* 
 
 In perfect accordance with this idiom are our English expressions : 
 I am going abroad ; I am going to journey ; I am coming to see you 
 speedily , and the like. In the Greek and Latin classics, the same idiom 
 is altogether common ; see Winer, Gramm. § 41. 2, for examples and 
 references. Nor need we call it Hebraism , as Ewald does (Comm, 
 p. 39), when such a tropical Present is followed by a Future, in the 
 same construction. Virtually such a Present is a Future; and, of 
 course, the regular F uture may naturally follow in order. In most of 
 these cases, moreover, the tropical Present designates only preparatory 
 action, while the regular Future designates the action consequent upon 
 this, and really future in respect to it. Such a use of tenses needs no 
 apology and no defence. The Gospel of John presents us with the like 
 phenomena ; e. g. 14: 3, 18, 19, 30. 16: 16, 22, 25, al., in some of which 
 cases the Future even precedes the tropical Present. All this shows 
 how easy and familiar such a construction is. 
 
 (c) ‘ Anomalies in the use of the F uture occur in the Apocalypse.’ — 
 There is but one passage, however, where anything special and peculiar 
 in the use of the Future occurs. This is in Rev. 4: 9 seq., and runs 
 thus : xal ozav doiGovGi ra do^uv . . . 7T£Govvzai oi . . . ttqeg^vtsqoi 
 . . . xal TTQOGxvvrjaovGi . . . xou fialovGi, etc. Winer (Gramm. § 41. 6) 
 refers these Futures to the subsequent scenes of the like nature described 
 in the Apocalypse, e. g. 5: 8 — 14. 11: 16. 19: 4. But how could the 
 
 * In the Gospel of John such a use of the Present is very common ; e. g. 7: 33. 
 8: 14 bis, 21, 35. 9: 4. 12: 35. 13: 3, 33, 36. 14: 3, 4, 5, 7, 18, 19, 28 bis, 30. 16: 2, 
 16,22,25,28,32. 17:11,13. 21: 22, 23 bis, etc. These are only specimens. 
 1 John 2: 18. 4: 3 al. So in the Apocalypse ; e. g. 1: 7. 2: 5, 16, 22. 3: 9, 11. 
 11: 5, 6, 9, 10, 14. 13: 10. 14: 11 bis, 13 bis. 16: 15. 17: 11, 12, 13. 22: 7, 12, 20. 
 Here again is much uniformity of usage between the two writings. Almost all 
 the cases in question belong to such verbs as tQyoyat and vndyoj. 
 
IX THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 241 
 
 reader of the former passage be supposed to know what scenes were to 
 be presented in the sequel ? Much better is a solution to be found here, 
 on the ground of Hebrew idiom. The use of the Hebrew Future, iu 
 designating actions habitually or often repeated , is well known to every 
 intelligent reader of that language. Thus Job, who made sacrifices con- 
 tinually for his sons, is spoken of as ttss, so doing habitually , Job 
 1: 5. So 1 Sam. 1: 7, “Year after year h’©3£, did he do it.” Ewald 
 has a large number of examples, Gramm. § 278, § 289, 1st edit. The 
 usage is clear. In Rev. 4: 9 seq., we have a case of the same nature. 
 The Apocalyptist is painting a scene as it constantly or habitually is, 
 not merely what presents itself for the moment to his eye. This agrees 
 entirely with the Hebrew usage. The Greeks, in such a case, would 
 commonly use the Present in an aoristic sense, just as it is employed in 
 universal propositions. So should we do in English. But John, who 
 leans strongly to Hebraism, has here chosen the Future to express his 
 meaning. Nor is this case entirely peculiar. In Rom. 3: 30, dixaico- 
 gei designates the established method of forgiveness. In Luke 1: 37, 
 ddvrazrjGEt marks what belongs to all times. Even in classic Greek, 
 the Future is employed to designate repetition , but mostly in regard 
 to time future only ; see Kiihner, § 446. 2. The cases where refined 
 conversation employs it for the Present, in such words as povhtjGopcu, 
 i&sXyGGJj and the like, (Kiihner, § 446. 3), will not apply to Rev. 4: 
 9 seq. 
 
 (d) The charge, that ‘the Apocalypse employs anomalously the 
 Aorist for the Future,’ is hardly to be made out from ezeXeg&tj in 10: 7. 
 The writer means to say, that “ when the last trumpet shall sound, the 
 mystery of God is already completed” No Future could express this 
 with the same energy. It is not indeed an expression of regular tech- 
 nical grammar, but one which true rhetoric prompts. So in Rev. 15: 1, 
 “ Seven angels, having the seven last plagues, ozi iv avzaig izel&G&ri 
 6 {Ivpog zov &eov,” the idea plainly is, that they are called last, because, 
 when completed, the wrath of God is also completed at the same time. 
 The expression indicates the certainty and the full completion of the 
 thing designated. Perhaps EpaGi'lEVGag in 11: 17, belongs to the same 
 category. Nor is this use of the Aorist strange. Homer, Plato, Euripi- 
 des, Demosthenes, and others employ the Aorist, (and also the Perfect), 
 to designate with intensity the certainty of future events. Kiihner has 
 given abundance of examples to illustrate this, § 443, 2. The Aorist 
 is even more intensive than the Perfect for this purpose, inasmuch as it 
 denotes completed action in distinction from continuance, which the Per- 
 fect more appropriately attaches to itself as an adsignification. Vir- 
 tually do we find the same use of the Aorist in John 13: 31. 15: 6, 8. 
 Whatever difficulties may have existed among critics, in times past, 
 
 YOL. I. 31 
 
242 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE 
 
 with respect to such a usage, it would seem that there is now no more 
 occasion for them. 
 
 ( e ) Some other peculiarities in regard to verbs deserve a brief men- 
 tion. In Rev. 12: 7, occurs an unusual construction of the Infinitive: 
 u Michael and his angels zov TtoXafiijocu gtza zov dQay.ovzog.” Ewald 
 solves this Infinitive, by comparing it to the Hebrew Infinitive when it 
 is taken as a gerund ; and so he renders it here “ pugnandum, i. e. pug- 
 nare debebant.” But such is not the shade of meaning here. It is the 
 simple relation of what was seen in vision. Much more probable is the 
 solution that refers to the Hebrew Infinitive with b prefixed, which (with 
 or without FPti expressed) stands for a definite tense, i. e. for the Future 
 with its various meanings, and which may therefore be rendered in the 
 past, present, or future, pro exigentia loci. In Chaldee, also, such an 
 Infinitive is common ; as the book of DanieJ shows. See ample illus- 
 tration in Ges. Lehrgeb. §211. But in Rev. 11: 7, the context will 
 readily supply the verb zyzvezo or iyavorzo ; so that i ya'vovzo zov noXe- 
 prjoai = the Hebrew cn'^nb *pn, a mode of expression by no means un- 
 common in this language. The form of expression in the Apocalypse 
 is doubtless a singular one, in such a connection ; but in a work of such 
 a nature, are we not to look for some expressions of this kind ? Do not 
 Homer, and Pindar, and Thucydides, present constructions quite as 
 singular ? 
 
 For the rest, the Infinitive with zov before it, excepting when zov 
 marks it as a nomen verbale in the Genitive, is a rare occurrence, either 
 in John’s Gospel or in the Apocalypse. I have searched in vain for a 
 single instance, excepting Rev. 12: 7 ; but still there may be some that 
 have escaped my notice. Winer produces not one, in his numerous ex- 
 amples of the Infinitive with zov before it, Gramm. § 45, 4. This is 
 another remarkable point of resemblance between the two books. 
 
 Instances I have noticed of a peculiar use of the Perfect, siXycpa, in 
 Rev. 5: 7. 8: 5, viz. as a simple Aorist. Perhaps there is another in 
 3: 3, It is well known, that a difference among the best Greek writers 
 exists, in regard to the frequent use of the Perfect. Herodotus, for ex- 
 ample, abounds in it ; and among orators it is very common, inasmuch 
 as the past is thereby represented as standing in connection with the 
 time when they are speaking. It is exceedingly difficult to draw any 
 exact line in this case, inasmuch as the use of it often depends on the 
 mere subjective views of the writer or speaker. But in the instances 
 before us, the aoristic sense is so plain and as it were necessary, that 
 we can hardly bring tt'Xqye within the bounds of common classical usage. 
 In Rev. 2: 27. 11: 17, the writer shows that he understood the true and 
 distinctive nature of this Perfect. 
 
 (f) In respect to participles, it is said that ‘ the Apocalypse em- 
 
IN THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 243 
 
 ploys them in an absolute way, i. e. in the simple sense of a verb hav- 
 ing a finite tense ; and this in a manner and measure nowhere else to be 
 found.’ And there seems, indeed, to be some good foundation for this 
 remark. Instances of this nature may be found in Rev. 1: 16. 4: 5. 10: 
 2, 8. 14: 14. 19: 12, 13. 21: 12, 14, 19. Also 6: 2, 5 may be reckoned 
 here, but this is not necessary; but 4: 1, 6. 5: 6. 7: 9, usually reckoned 
 here, do not properly belong to this category, but have the usual attribu- 
 tive sense. In 16: 10, the participle has eyevero with it, which, how- 
 ever, here means became, and is not the proper helping verb for the 
 participle. The use of participles for verbs, when accompanied by the 
 definite verbal forms of eivai, specially the use of them for the Imper- 
 fect, is common to all the New Testament, and usual in good Greek 
 writers; Winer, §46. 9. Kuhner, §416. 4. So in John’s Gospel, 1: 
 28. 10: 40. 13: 23. 16: 24. 17: 23. 19: 11, 19. 20: 30; all of which, 
 however, belong to the third person, singular and plural, of the Perfect , 
 (which is common everywhere), excepting the first two. But in most 
 or all of these cases, the copula eivai is expressed ; whereas in the Apoca- 
 lypse it is omitted. It must be conceded, therefore, that, in respect to 
 this particular of participial usage, the Apocalypse differs from the other 
 New Testament books in general. But if we resort to the Hebrew and 
 Chaldee idiom we may easily find the prototype. In these, the partici- 
 ple is employed, times without number, for the definite tenses of the 
 verb, and often stands in the same construction with a verb which fol- 
 lows it; Gesen. Lelirgeb. § 214. In Hebrew, also, the verb rnn (to 
 be) may be employed with participles, as that is in Greek ; but this 
 construction is somewhat more rare. Hence we find the Apocalyptist 
 employing the Greek participle in the usual Hebrew manner, i. e. omit- 
 ting the copula or helping verb eivai. The deep Hebrew colouring of 
 the book serves both to explain and to excuse this. And even the 
 rapid transitions of thought, and the abrupt nature of the composition, 
 may serve to account for the omission of eivai, where a more sedate 
 condition of mind would perhaps have supplied it. Or it may be ac- 
 counted for on the ground of rhetorical brachylogy. Examples of the 
 like kind, where eivai is omitted, are not wanting in the Greek Clas- 
 sics ; see Kuhner, § 680. 
 
 Occasionally, moreover, we find in the Apocalypse a species of ana - 
 coluthon in the use of the participle, since it is followed by a finite verb 
 in the same construction ; e. g. Rev. 2: 20, “ Jezebel, tj Xeyovaa that she 
 is a prophetess, xai did a a net xtu nXava rovg epovg dovXovg” See 
 also 1: 5, 6, dyamovn . . . xcu Xovaavzi . . . xai stz o lya ev rjyag, 
 etc. ; 3: 7. 18: 17. But this anomaly , (if that wtfich is common to 
 Greek writers, and to all the New Testament, may be so called), is not 
 more frequent in the Apocalypse than elsewhere. In Hebrew this is 
 
244 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE 
 
 far from being an unusual construction, Gesen. Lehrg. § 216. 2; and 
 in the New Testament, it is almost everywhere to be found, Winer, 
 § 64, II. 2, b. It is no stranger even in the Classics ; see Winer ut 
 supra. 
 
 (4) There are other specialities of idiom in the Apocalypse, by which 
 it is somewhat distinguished from classic Greek. Yet very few of them 
 are peculiar merely to this book ; for they belong in general to the com- 
 mon Hebrew-Greek idiom of the New Testament. Thus, the dual 
 number is nowhere found in the Apocalypse ; but this is equally true of 
 all the New Testament. Even in classic Greek it is often dispensed 
 with, and particularly in the later Greek. 
 
 In classic Greek the Genitive of nouns, as well as of pronouns, is not 
 unfrequently prefixed to the governing noun, for the sake of emphasis ; 
 but this is less frequent in the New Testament, and particularly in the 
 Apocalypse. Perhaps the Hebrew idiom, (which always places the 
 Genitive after a governing noun), may have had some influence on this 
 usage. At all events, such a position of the Genitive before its govern- 
 ing noun is merely rhetorical. 
 
 In the Apocalypse there is, in several places, an unusual succession 
 of Genitives following each other without any intervening words ; e. g. 
 8: 13. 9: 9. 13: 8. 14: 8, 10. 16: 14. 19: 15. But there are instances 
 of the same nature in Paul, and in some passages of his writings even 
 more frequently than here ; see 2 Cor. 4: 4. Eph. 1: 6. 4: 13, and many 
 more examples of the same kind in Winer, § 30. 3. Note 1. At all 
 events, the Apocalyptist found examples enough of the like kind in He- 
 brew ; e. g. three Genitives in Job 12: 24. 20: 17. Gen. 47: 9. Is. 13: 
 4, al. ; and sometimes even four, as in Is. 10: 12. .1 Chron. 9: 13. Many 
 other examples may be found in Gesen. Lehrg. § 174. 3. Note 2. In 
 heathen writers the like may also be found ; although they rarely occur 
 with the same frequency. In most of the cases in the Apocalypse, as 
 also in Hebrew, one or more of such Genitives occupy the place and 
 have the meaning of adjectives ; which relieves, in some measure, the 
 seeming want of facility in expression, and also accounts for the accu- 
 mulation of so many words in the same case. 
 
 There is also a repetition, in the Apocalypse, of the same word in a 
 protracted sentence, whether preposition, pronoun (in the place of a 
 pronominal adjective), verb, or leading noun, which strikes one at first 
 as peculiar. E. g. Rev. 16: 13, “ Out of the mouth of the dragon, and 
 out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.” 
 So Rev. 5: 6, iv [u'gcq; 6: 12, iyevezo; 8: 12, to t qizov ; 12: 9, ifihrjd'Tj ; 
 13: 15, eixcov 'frtjQi'ov; 17: 6, ex zov cupazog ; 18: 22, 23, iv ool ezi ; 19: 
 6, cog (pcovrjv; 19: 18, od()xag (four times). The frequent repetition of 
 the verb, however, is rather rare. Instances like ido'&Tj in 13: 7, 14, 15, 
 
IN THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 245 
 
 xazzxdi ] in 8: 7, and some few others, may be easily explained on the 
 ground of rhetorical emphasis or intensity. In like manner the repeti- 
 tion of avzov and avzcov (in the room of pronominal adjectives) is not of 
 much frequency. Examples of avzov may be found in 13: 2. 14: 9 ; of 
 avzcov, in 6: 11. 9: 19, 21 (four times). 11: 9. 13: 16. 14: 13. 16: 11. 
 Other cases of apparent repetition belong not to this rubric, because they 
 are attached to separate objects to which one common pronoun (adjec- 
 tive) could not properly be applied. The cases above designated stand 
 on the basis of Hebrew usage, or at least of Old Testament rhetoric. 
 The Hebrew says, and must say: ‘vros*! 'TO 3, Ms sons and Ms daugM 
 ters, and not in the manner of oi viol xal &vyaz£Q£g avzov ; in the like 
 way the Apocalyptist expresses himself in the passages above. Yet the 
 repetition of the pronoun in some of these cases is rather for the sake of 
 intensity , than for any other purpose. 
 
 The repetition of the same ‘preposition before different nouns in the 
 same case and joined together, is more frequent in the Apocalypse than 
 in classic Greek, and rather distinguishable, with respect to frequency, 
 from the usual run of New Testament Greek ; see i> c in 15: 2, 8. 16: 
 13. 17: 6 ; ivcomov in 3: 5. 14: 3, 10 ; yeza in 19: 19 ; did in 20: 4. But 
 such cases as dno in 1: 4, 5, Eig in 1: 11, iv in 6: 8, and did in 1: 9. 12: 
 11, are not to be reckoned here, because they serve the purpose of spe- 
 cification and distinction ; see Winer, § 54. 7. Even in the Greek 
 classics a similar usage prevails, and for the like purpose. The repeti- 
 tion of prepositions in Hebrew , occasionally to a great length, is by no 
 means unfrequent; see 2 Sam. 1: 12. 2: 9. 3: 10. Hos. 1: 7. Is. 11: 11. 
 Still, I apprehend that most, if not all, the cases in the Apocalypse were 
 the effect of design on the part of the writer — a design to make each 
 part distinct. A similar repetition may be found in all parts of the New 
 Testament ; and the usage itself depends mostly on the subjective views 
 and feelings of the writer ; see Winer, ut supra . The contrary prac- 
 tice, i. e. the omission of the preposition before nouns in the same case 
 and connected, may be seen in 1: 9. 5: 9. 10: 11. 11: 9. 13: 7, al. 
 
 The allegation, that the Apocalypse more frequently inserts preposi- 
 tions before cases that might dispense with them, than any other New 
 Testament book, can hardly be established ; at least not in such a mea- 
 sure as to render prominent this difference of construction. When we 
 consider that the Hebrew has no Genitive and Dative cases after verbs, 
 except as they are made by the help of prepositions ; and also that a 
 strong Hebrew idiom plainly pervades the Apocalypse, (as indeed we 
 might naturally expect), there is nothing strange in the fact, that pre- 
 positions before these cases are more frequent than in the Classics, spe- 
 cially in the earlier ones. Yet examples may easily be found, and with 
 some frequency, of a different tenor. E. g. the Dative of manner, means, 
 
246 
 
 § 15. PECULIARITIES OP LANGUAGE AND STYLE 
 
 material, time, etc., without any preposition ; as in 5: 1, 12. 6: 10. 7: 2, 
 10. 8: 3, 4, 8, 13. 10: 3. 14: 18. 15: 2, 8. 17: 4. 18: 10, 16 bis, 19, 21. 
 19: 17. 21: 8, 16, 19. 22: 14. 
 
 Examples moreover almost without number may be found, where 
 the Dative is regularly employed after such verbs as signify to give, to 
 impart, to call to, to show, manifest, tell, belong to, etc., which occur 
 everywhere in the Apocalypse ; and besides these, many examples of 
 the Dative where other constructions might be employed, e. g. after 
 7iQoaxvvm in 4: 10. 5: 14. 7: 11. 11: 16. 13: 4 bis. 16: 2. 19: 4, 10 bis, 
 20. 20: 4. 22: 9 ; axoXov&eco, 14: 4, 9. 19: 14 ; XazQevco, 7: 15 ; gvj- 
 XOIVCQV8CO, 18: 4. For the rest, I have examined the whole book for the 
 purpose of putting to the test the alleged lack of the Dative case in the 
 Apocalypse ; and I find it employed as often as elsewhere in the New 
 Testament, where verbs are employed by the writer which admit of it. 
 Cases occur here, as elsewhere, in which the writer had his choice be- 
 tween the Dative and Accusative, and in which he preferred the latter ; 
 a trait of style not peculiar to him only, but found in all parts of the 
 New Testament, and in other Greek writings. In all this there is no- 
 thing peculiar. 
 
 In regard to the use of the Genitive case after verbs and participles, 
 instances after the manner of the Classics are not wanting ; e. g. Scogco 
 . . . tov ( idwa , 2: 17 ; yfyovia 6yftaX[JGjv, 4: 6, 8, and the like in 5: 8. 
 15: 7. 21: 9 ; iye^iiG&tj xanvov, 15: 8 ; yfyov fidelvy^dtcov, 17: 4 ; i]xov~ 
 gol svog, 6: 1, and the like in 6: 3, 5. 14: 13. 16: 1, 5, 7. 21: 3. It is 
 beyond a doubt, therefore, that the writer was acquainted with the clas- 
 sical use of this oblique case ; and it would seem, that when he has not 
 followed this use, he has either exercised a choice which was grammati- 
 cally within his power, or else he leaned to the Hebrew mode of con- 
 structing a sentence. The use of prepositions naturally makes language 
 more specific. Hence, throughout the New Testament, as also the later 
 Greek authors, we find this use very common, even in a multitude of 
 cases where the laws of grammar might dispense with it. That the 
 writer of the Apocalypse was not ignorant of even the nicer uses of the 
 Genitive, is plain from several constructions with which we meet ; e. g. 
 the Genitive of price or value , as drjvaQtov twice in 6: 6 ; of time ivhen , 
 as rjfxtQag xou vvxrog, 7: 15. 12: 10. 14: 14. 20: 10, an imitation of the 
 Hebrew d'*p . Once we have the length of time designated by the 
 Genitive, viz. drxa ^/jsqcov in Rev. 2: 10. But instances of such a na- 
 ture are not wanting in the Classics, and in other parts of the New Tes- 
 tament ; see my New Testament Grammar, § 100. 7, comp. § 106. 4. 
 
 The cases in which the Hebrew construction of verbs with their fol- 
 lowing cases is preferred to the grammatical and ordinary Greek one, 
 are almost none ; and what there are according to some of the critics, 
 
IN THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 247 
 
 seem to be of doubtful authority. Thus in 2: 14, edtdaGxe rq> Baku* ; 
 where, however, Wetstein, Vater, and Tittmann, employ the normal rov, 
 and Mill reads ev too Bukdx, i. e. in the history of Balak. But if we 
 adopt the reading tco BaXdx, we have Hebrew usage of a similar na- 
 ture ; e. g. b ‘tab , Job 21: 22, b rnitt , Deut. 33: 10. Hos. 10: 12 (bis) ; 
 although the Hebrew, like the Greek, usually prefers the Accusative af- 
 ter these verbs. Besides, too BaXdx may be here the Dativus commodi, 
 which is not unfrequently recognized in the Apocalypse ; for in Num. 
 22: 6 Balak says to Balaam : “ ’'Aqacai pot, curse for me this people, 
 etc.” Nor is the Dative of instrument here an impossible construction ; 
 for the meaning would then be, that Balaam employed Balak as his in- 
 strument in enticing the Israelites ; which sacred history confirms. 
 
 In like manner xqivsiv to aipa ex or dno t tvog, and ixdixafa co . ... ex 
 t tvog, 6: 10. 18: 20. 19: 2, is to be accounted for probably on the ground 
 of the Hebrew *73 D£3 or “ ( 73 dyn ; see Ges. Lex. in vv. AxoXov&eco pe- 
 Tci ztvog, 6: 8. 14: 13, need not be attributed to Hebraism ; for even 
 Lysias and Demosthenes express themselves occasionally in this way, 
 not only after dxoXov \Xeoj, but after other kindred verbs ; see Phrynicus, 
 edit. Lobeck, p. 353 seq. Nor is there any necessity of referring tiorjX- 
 ftev ev avzolg , in 11: 11, to the Hebrew s SIS, as Liicke does, p. 220. 
 There is a nice, but still a well known, idiom of the Greek, which per- 
 mits the Dative with ev, after verbs of motion , to be used in the same 
 sense as the Accusative with tig, because there is in such a case in fact 
 a constructio praegnans ; so in John 5: 4. Luke 7: 17. Rom. 5: 5. Matt. 
 10: 16, al. This is also quite frequent in the Classics ; see my N. Test. 
 Grammar, § 113. Note 2. Kuhner’s Gramm, § 621. a. b. Winer, § 54. 
 4. The word omitted, in such cases, is some verb which signifies to 
 dwell, remain in, take one’s station, etc., and the mode of expression is 
 of course brachy logical. 
 
 In a few cases a peculiar preposition follows certain verbs. E. g. Rev. 
 9: 20, 21. 16: 11, peravottv ex, instead of the Accusative. So in Acts 
 8: 22 with dno after this verb. Is not this an imitation of the Hebrew 
 IT - 1 • 
 
 Once we have such an expression as vixtnvzag ex t ov {XrjQiov. I re- 
 gard this as brachylogy, and equivalent to conquerors safe from the en- 
 counter with the beast = vixtnvzag [xal Gco^opivovg^ ex, etc. We meet 
 with it but once. 
 
 The phrase dvd tig txaatog, Rev. 21: 21, is, I believe, without any 
 parallel in the New Testament or in the classics. As a preposition dvd 
 governs the Accusative in prose, and usually the Dative in poetry. 
 Here, however, it is employed before the Nominative, and seems there- 
 fore to be used adverbially in order to designate the idea of distribution , 
 and to mean severally or separately ; comp. Luke 9: 3. Rev. 4: 8, for a 
 like shade of idea. 
 
248 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE 
 
 Some peculiar phraseology occurs in the Apocalypse, which belongs 
 rather to the aesthetical than to the grammatical department. E. g. Rev. 
 8: 13, “I heard an eagle flying . . . saying with a loud voice, etc.” The 
 meaning seems plainly to be : ‘I heard an angel eagle-winged, or tak- 
 ing an eagle-flight, saying, etc.’ The manner of expression is bold and 
 abrupt, but not too much so for the Apocalypse. Again in 9: 1, “ I 
 saw a star falling from heaven . . . and to him was given the key of the 
 bottomless pit, etc.” ; i. e. I saw an angel star-like or resplendent as a 
 star, etc. Rev. 16: 7, “ I heard the altar, saying : Yea, Lord God, 
 etc.,” i. e. a voice from the altar, or from the altar-angel, viz., the angel 
 who watched over the altar. These and the like expressions plainly 
 belong to the vivid and abrupt style of the Apocalypse, and to the glow- 
 ing imagery which pervades it. It is the poet on whom we are to criti- 
 cise, in such cases, and not the technical rhetorician and grammarian. 
 
 A peculiar division of the universe occurs in 8: 7 — 12. 14: 7, and the 
 like in 1 6: 2 — 8, viz. into heaven, earth, the sea, and fountains of water. 
 In the first and last cases, this is necessary to the writer, in order to 
 carry his plan into execution of dividing the trumpets and the vials into 
 classes of four and three ; and the passage in 14: 7 follows the same 
 analogy. The departure from the usual Hebrew division of heaven and 
 earth, or heaven and earth and seas, seems to be wholly occasioned by 
 the plan of the writer in arranging the subordinate parts of his work. 
 
 Like the Hebrews generally, the Apocalyptist often employs the No- 
 minative absolute ; e. g. 2 : 26. 3 : 12, 21. 6: 8. 7: 13. 17: 16. So in 
 Gospel 1: 12, 18, 27, 33. 3 : 32. 8 : 45. 15 : 2. Epistle, 2 : 27. 3: 17. 
 The Nominative followed by ovzog as subject of the verb, 3: 5. 17: 11, 
 is of a similar tenor. But both of these are common in all Hebrew- 
 Greek ; nor are they, particularly the first of them, strangers to the 
 Classics. See my Heb. Grammar, §§ 415 — 417. N. Test. Grammar, 
 § 97. 2. The Nominative form with a vocative meaning , as in 6: 10. 
 15: 3. 16: 7, al., is common not only to the New Testament, but even 
 to the Classics, as any good grammar will show; Matthiae, § 612. 
 Bernhardy, p. 67. 
 
 The repetition of a demonstrative pronoun, specially in relative clau- 
 ses of a sentence, is not unusual in the Apocalypse ; e. g. 7: 2, oig ido- 
 <i 9-rj avzoig ddrxijaai etc. ; 20: 8, cor 6 aQi&ybg avrcov u>g q appog etc. 
 Even adverbs are sometimes repeated in like manner ; as 12: 6, oitov 
 8 %ei ixsi ronov etc. ; 12: 14, onov TQsysTai ixsi etc. Other instances of 
 the former kind, see in 3: 8. 6: 4, 8. 7: 9. 17: 9. But in this there is 
 nothing peculiar to the Apocalypse, unless perhaps its frequency. Ex- 
 amples may be found in all parts of the New Testament ; in the Septu- 
 agint the usage is still more frequent, because its idiom is still more He- 
 braistic. But even the Classics are not strangers to the same verbosity, 
 
IN THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 249 
 
 (if it must be so named) ; and such writers as Xenophon and Cicero 
 have deemed it proper on some occasions to employ it. Proofs abun- 
 dant of all this may be seen in Winer’s Grammar, § 22. 4. The fre- 
 quency of it in the Apocalypse may be regarded as Hebraistic. Every 
 Hebrew scholar must call to mind the well known idiom of “im , as in 
 ib . . . Trx to whom, D'j . . . where, etc., (see Ges. Lehrgeb. § 197) ; 
 and also the pleonastic suffix-pronoun which is followed by the noun to 
 which it relates, as - nx sittjpni , she saw him — the child, Ex. 2: 6, 
 Ges. ubi sup. § 192. 2 seq. Like to this are the repetitions in question. 
 In the Apocalypse we can hardly put them to the account of intensity , 
 although they would seem to be appropriate for such a purpose, like our 
 English that-there, etc. But particularity of specification must at least 
 be allowed to them. 
 
 Similar to this usage is another, which repeats the demonstrative pro- 
 nouns after the subject or Nominative case has been already mentioned, 
 and inserts a pronoun relating to this same subject before the verb to 
 which that Nominative properly belongs ; and so with the other cases; e. g. 
 Matt. 24: 13, 6 vnopsivag eig zslog, ovzog ciootb/creT'ca. Matt. 6: 4. Mark 
 7: 15, al. saepe. So in Rev. 6: 4, rep xad-ryiEvcp . . . idod'rj avzcp la@Eiv 
 etc. 3: 5. 2: 17. But this usage is also to be found in the Classics, (see 
 Winer, § 23. 3) ; and the repetition in all such cases is made for the 
 sake of intensity or emphatic specification. See examples in Xen. Conv. 
 8. 33. Ages. 4. 4. 
 
 It has been alleged, that the Apocalypse employs the Accusative of 
 time contrary to good usage, i. e. that it employs the Accusative to de- 
 signate time when, and not merely duration of time. For proof of this 
 it is common to quote Rev. 3: 3, ov pij yvehg noiav copav ij£oj, etc. But 
 this is the only instance of this kind in the whole book. The common 
 usage, i. e. to designate duration of time, may be seen in 8: 1. 11: 2, 3, 
 6, 9. 12: 6, 14. 13: 5. 17: 10, 12. 20: 2, 4, 6. Moreover, cases like 
 
 that in Rev. 3: 3 may be found in the Classics ; see Kiihner, § 545. 
 Anm. 4. That time which is at the ultimate extent of his coming, is 
 here the prominent idea, and therefore the Accusative is allowable. So 
 in the Classics, we find vvxra, zrjv ianspav, rov op&pov, etc., in a sense 
 like that which the Genitive would have ; see Bernhardy, Synt. p. 116. 
 See, for the regular use of the Genitive in designating time, what is 
 said above, p. 245 seq. 
 
 A peculiar construction is found in the present text of Rev. 2: 13, 
 viz. tv rjfAtgaig iv aJg Avzinag , o papzvg pov 6 mazog, og UTZi-xzdvO'r] 
 nap vpdiv. It is impossible to make out a grammatical construction 
 from this as it now stands. It would seem that either h aig must be 
 omitted and Avzinag be written Aviina in the Genitive, or else og 
 must be dropped. That og has arisen from a duplication of the end- 
 
 VOL. i. 32 
 
250 
 
 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE 
 
 syllable of the preceding word, mczog, would seem altogether probable ; 
 more particularly so, as nothing like such a construction occurs any 
 where else in the Apocalypse. To read, as Lachmann does, Avzinag, 
 and omit sv aig before it, seems to make an absurd text. No writer in 
 possession of his senses could have written so. See Commentary on the 
 passage. 
 
 The manner in which two nouns are joined together by as, in like 
 manner as, as it were, etc., deserves a passing notice. In general the 
 noun after cog has the same case as the one before it; e. g. 1: 17, sttsou. 
 • • . (og vsxQog. 6: 12, 6 ijhog . . . ffkag cog ouxxog. 3: 3. 6: 11, 14. 9: 2. 
 10: 1, etc. So in the Accusative, as 2: 18, otyftaXyovg . . . cog cpkoya TtvQog. 
 2: 27. 9: 8, slyov ZQiyag cog TQiyag yvvaix tor. 9: 9. 12: 15. 14: 2. 18: 21, 
 al. But in 6: 1 , we have : . . . Isyovzog, cog cpcovrj ft Qovzijg , i. e. cog cpco- 
 vrj ft Qovzijg ks'ysi. But examples of elliptical construction with go? are 
 everywhere to be found, and in a great variety of cases ; see Lex. cog. 
 The Hebrew, moreover, forms a separate under sentence by words con- 
 nected with the 3 of mere similitude ; for, in such cases, brachylogy is 
 usual. There seems to be no special peculiarity in the Apocalypse in 
 regard to cog, when employed as above described. 
 
 After such an extended examination of those constructions in the 
 Apocalypse, which have been erroneously put by many to the account 
 of barbarism, solecism, or peculiarity of style, we may now come to 
 a few ’particulars, in which the style of this hook, or the manner of its 
 diction , differs from most, or all, of the other New Testament hooks. 
 
 This difference is limited principally to the conjunctive particles. 
 Throughout the Apocalypse, we find scarcely anything but xai as a 
 conjunctive, or even a transitive, particle. The 8s and ovv and zs and 
 yaQ of other New Testament books are scarcely to be found here. Ovv 
 we meet with only in the introduction or monitory part, viz. in 1: 19. 2: 
 5, 16. 3: 3. 3: 19, in all of which cases it is illative. In the same part, 
 also, we find 8s, transitive in 1: 14, and so in 14: 13. 19: 12; but dis- 
 junctive in 2: 5, 16, 24. 10: 2. 21: 8 ; not to be found elsewhere, (if I 
 have not overlooked it), excepting 8s in combination with other words, 
 such as ov8s, etc. We might naturally expect 8s in such transitions as 
 exist in 2: 8, 12, 18. 3: 1, 7, 14. 12: 7. 14: 8, 9, 13, 14. 16: 3, 4, 8, 10, 
 12, 17, etc. ; yet xca is employed in all these cases. Not only so, but 
 xai is employed in a great portion of the transitions even of the largest 
 kind, where a classic writer could hardly be expected to use it, and 
 where it is not very common in other New Testament books ; e. g. in 
 6: 1. 7: 1. 8: 1. 10: 1. 11: 1, 15. 12: 1. 13: 11. 14: 1, 6. 15: 1. 16: 1. 
 17: 1. 18: 1. 20: 1, 4. 21: 6. Even in John’s Gospel and Epistles such 
 cases fare not wanting; e. g. 1: 19. 2: 1. 4: 27, 46. 7: 1. 9: 1. Ep. 1: 
 5. 2: 20. 4: 21. In all this the Hebrew scholar will see a strong tinc^ 
 
IN THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 251 
 
 ture of Hebraism. Almost the only particle which connects sentences 
 larger or smaller in Hebrew, or clauses of sentences, is Vav, J . This 
 particle is not only employed to connect different words used in the 
 same construction, but in attaching clauses or words used in the way of 
 Hendiadys, or as epexegetical and explicative, or in the way of apodo- 
 sis, or between the members of a comparison ; moreover, also, between 
 parts of sentences, or whole sentences, adversative, antithetic, or dis- 
 junctive ; and so also Yav introduces causal clauses, or conclusive ones 
 
 = therefore ), or final or consecutive ones (showing the end or object). 
 See Ges. Lex. on 5 for examples of all these uses. It is not only em- 
 ployed in all this variety of ways, but it often stands even at the begin- 
 ning of a new book, in the Old Testament ; see Ex. 1:1. Lev. 1:1. 
 Josh. 1: 1. Judg. 1: 1. 1 Sam. 1: 1. 2 Sam. 1: 1. 1 K. 1: 1. 2 K. 1: 1. 
 Ezek. 1: 1. Ruth 1: 1. Est. 1: 1. Ezra 1: 1. 2 Chron. 1: 1. In such 
 cases, we can translate } only by merging it in the verb, when it is pre- 
 fixed to one, and regarding it as merely conversive ; or when it stands 
 before nouns or pronouns, as in Ex. 1: 1. 1 K. 1: 1. Ezra 1: 1, we are 
 obliged to suppose, that it is designed to indicate a connection with some 
 other book, which is regarded by the writer as properly preceding it ; or 
 else that it has been supplied as a mere connective with other books, by 
 the redactor of the Old Testament Scriptures. The reader, who is fa- 
 miliar with the Old Testament and specially with the Prophets, needs 
 not to be told, that other connectives of discourse, besides Vav, are 
 there but very sparingly employed. And similar to this is the usage in 
 the Apocalypse. 
 
 Ts is not to be found (in the corrected text) ; but this particle is em- 
 ployed only twice by Matthew ; not at all by Mark ; only once by John 
 in his Gospel and Epistles, almost never by Paul except in the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, and never by Peter. Luke is the only writer who is 
 familiar with its use ; and he employs it more than one hundred and 
 twenty times in the book of Acts. To a native Hebrew, who used al- 
 most nothing but his 1 as a connective, rt must have appeared in some 
 good measure as superfluous. The very unfrequent use of it in the New 
 Testament, is a pledge for the truth of this statement. 
 
 As to yaQ, it occurs in the Apocalypse some fifteen times, and mostly 
 in the simple causal sense. That it appears so seldom, is not in the 
 least strange ; for the Apocalypse is not a book of ratiocination , where 
 the connection between a fact or truth and its cause or ground, is often 
 to be expressed. Paul employs yaQ more than all the New Testament 
 writers besides, because his epistles are so often argumentative. It is 
 clear, however, that the use of yaQ was familiar to the writer of the 
 Apocalypse ; that it is employed so seldom, results merely from the 
 kind of composition, which is a constant succession of descriptions of 
 
252 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE 
 
 things seen in vision, and arranged in such a way that ydg is seldom 
 needed or even admissible. In the Gospel it occurs some sixty-three 
 times ; but here ratiocination is very frequent. 
 
 That, in respect to the use of dt and ovv as particles of division and 
 transition, the Apocalypse differs strikingly from the Gospel of John, 
 must be confessed. Ovv appears about 200 times in the Gospel ; yet 
 only once, however, in the first Epistle of John. /U also appears a 
 great number of times in the Gospel ; comparatively but seldom in the 
 first Epistle; in the Apocalypse, thrice as a continuative , 1: 14. 14: 13. 
 19: 12, and five times as a disjunctive , 2: 5, 16, 24. 10: 2. 21: 8. The 
 complexion of the Apocalypse is indeed altogether Hebraistic, in respect 
 to connectives , for y.ai is almost the only one employed ; and this falls in 
 naturally with the fact, that this book was written soon after John went 
 to Asia, while the Gospel was a later production. 
 
 As to those particles which belong peculiarly to ratiocinative discourse, 
 and are employed to designate logical dependence and connection, it is 
 of course perfectly natural, from the nature of the Apocalypse, that we 
 should seldom find them in it ; and equally natural that we should find 
 them frequently in John’s Gospel, a great part of which, as has been 
 stated, consists of argumentation in some form against the notions of the 
 Jews, or demonstration of the true principles of Christianity. Hence 
 STtei, dga, dga ovv , and the like, are not to be found at all in the Apoca- 
 lypse. : Ettei occurs, however, but twice in the Gospel of John, and not 
 once in his epistles ; and the other two particles not at all. 
 
 In fact, the structure of the sentences throughout the Apocalypse, 
 with scarcely any exception, is almost entirely of the same simple na- 
 ture as that which prevails in Hebrew. In this respect, the form of the 
 book is altogether like that of the Hebrew prophets. As a singular ex- 
 ception to this remark may be mentioned llev. 18: 11 — 13, where the 
 sentence is not only complex in its form, but it also varies its construc- 
 tion in a sudden and almost surprising manner. Yet why should this 
 be strange, in such an imvUiov as that chapter contains ? 
 
 It is proper to remark, before we take leave of the subject respecting 
 the manner in which sentences are joined together, connected, and con- 
 tinued, that a great number of them are introduced by idov ; about one 
 half of these with an accompanying xai, and the other half without it. 
 This is beyond all doubt a Hebraism ; and no one, who is acquainted 
 with Hebrew, can fail to have remarked the universal predominance of 
 hSii (= idov) in the Old Testament, specially in the prophecies. But 
 although, in a book like the Apocalypse, we should very naturally ex- 
 pect the attention of the reader to be often called upon by the use of 
 Idov , yet it is also common elsewhere ; for John has employed it some 
 five or six times in his Gospel, and Luke and Matthew times almost 
 
IN THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 253 
 
 without number. Paul uses it less frequently, as we should expect from 
 the tenor of his epistles ; and John does not exhibit it in his. It be- 
 longs, however, to Hebrew- Greek ; and the use of it can never seem 
 strange to a Hebrew reader. 
 
 Another equivalent method of calling attention, very often employed 
 in the Apocalypse, is xal eldov. Nothing can be more natural than this, 
 since the whole book is a succession of visions. A frequent particle in 
 the Apocalypse, moreover, is oze ; which is in like manner a favourite 
 particle in John’s Gospel, in clauses where a transition of the discourse 
 is made. Meza zavza in the same Gospel, and in the Apocalypse also, 
 is another and frequent formula of transition; see Rev. 4: 1. 7: 1, 9. 
 15: 5. 18: 1. 19: 1. 20: 3. 
 
 I have now brought before the reader, all that is usually alleged as 
 peculiarity , either as to diction or grammar, in the Apocalypse. We 
 have found, after a protracted examination, that very little indeed, if 
 anything, deserves the name either of barbarism or solecism. Nearly 
 all that is apparently irregular or unusual, we may vindicate by refer- 
 ences to classical or to Hebrew-Greek usage. It is only the greater fre- 
 quency of these things in the Apocalypse, to which any appeal can be 
 made for establishing the charge of peculiarity in this book. But this 
 charge may be satisfactorily rebutted, by asking the questions : Is not 
 the Apocalypse the production of an excited state of mind, and of the 
 most vivid feeling ? Is it not prophetic poetry ? 
 
 Grammarians and rhetoricians do not think it meet to find fault with 
 the Boeotian or Pindaric Schema in Doric writers. They allow Ho- 
 mer, Hesiod, and other poets, to take a thousand liberties also with the 
 customary forms of words, and in many respects even with the rules of 
 syntax ; and all this without supposing it to be any good evidence of 
 barbarism or solecism. Thucydides was no barbarian ; and yet he has 
 sinned against the ordinary technical rules of grammar, times almost 
 without number. Who ventures to rebuke him, or to call him by hard 
 names ? Yet the Apocalyptist has not found a like indulgence among 
 the critics. Eichhorn, for example, and Heinrichs, very kindly set 
 John right, where they suppose him to have gone wrong, and supply 
 (sometimes, but not always with success) the regular normal Greek, for 
 the benefit of the hesitating reader. With the like kindness, apologies 
 are frequently made, by them and others, for much of John’s phraseology, 
 which results, as they imagine, from his want of skill in Greek, or his 
 overweening attachment to Hebraism, or his Rabbinical notions in va- 
 rious respects, and the like. All this, if you please, may be well in- 
 tended ; but I am fully persuaded that it is quite unnecessary. The 
 more extensive any one’s knowledge of Greek idiom is, and specially of 
 
254 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE 
 
 the Hebrew- Greek, the less difficulty will he find with the diction and 
 syntax of the Apocalypse. 
 
 If John, the apostle, was the author of this book, an entire novice in 
 Greek he probably was not when he wrote it, nor even when he went 
 to Asia. It is more than probable, that the fishermen of the sea of 
 Galilee were acquainted, at least in some good measure, with common 
 colloquial Greek. The intercourse between that part of the country and 
 their heathen neighbours, many of whom were Greeks, must have been 
 very considerable. The very occupation of John must have early brought 
 him in contact with many of these ; and more or less of colloquial Greek 
 would naturally be learned. That it would be strongly tinctured with 
 the Hebrew idiom, there can be no rational doubt. The idea, that John 
 was unable to read a Greek book of an ordinary character, can scarcely 
 be rendered probable, even at the period when he first became a disci- 
 ple of Christ. Much less so afterwards. He was surely no ordinary 
 person; for the manner in which Jesus loved him, confided in him, and 
 distinguished him from the other disciples, is proof of high intelligence 
 as well as of moral worth. All this would go to show, that John was 
 not a mere tyro in Greek, when he wrote the Apocalypse. 
 
 Besides ; in the great mass of cases, the tenses of the Greek verbs 
 are used in strict accordance with the nicer doctrines of the Greek tense. 
 When departures from this take place, a good reason for them can be 
 given ; so that these departures even show a knowledge of the nicer 
 tropical use of the tenses. The modes are employed in an appropriate 
 manner. The Subjunctive regularly follows iva, (a rule which Paul, 
 no novice in Greek, does not always follow, see Gal. 4: 17. 1 Cor. 4: 
 6) ; and so is it also with otav, etc. If a Future tense is ever employed 
 in such cases, it is only where usage sanctions it. The historic Present 
 is, as we have seen, quite frequent in the Apocalypse, and is there, as 
 elsewhere, employed in order to promote the vivacity of the representa- 
 tion. We have seen above (p. 246), that the nicer uses of the Geni- 
 tive and Dative were by no means unknown to the writer. Atticism in 
 the use of the conjugate noun and verb, such as inav/jaTia'&rjoav . . . 
 y>av[ia, 16: 9, iftav/jccoa . . . ftavpa, 17: 6 , John was cognisant of ; or, 
 perhaps, we may attribute this to Hebraism. So the Attic augment r \ , 
 in 7jdvvu7o, 5: 3. 7: 9. 14: 3. 15: 8; the use of satrjxa as a Present 
 tense, 3: 20, al. saepe ; even the form sGrrjxeaav, third plural of Pluper- 
 fect, not usual in the New Testament, is employed in 7: 11, and in the 
 sense of an Imperfect, according to good Greek usage. No want of 
 skill, indeed, in the forms or the tenses of Greek verbs, can be fairly 
 charged upon the Apocalypse. Compound verbs are employed, as well 
 as simple ones ; and a fair proportion of them (as will be shown here- 
 
IN THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 255 
 
 after), and with the usual meaning, and the usual construction after 
 them. 
 
 Moreover, there are peculiarities of Hebrew-Greek in general, which 
 are often exhibited here. Thus we find the use of iva with the Sub- 
 junctive, instead of the Infinitive mode ; an idiom so common in John’s 
 Gospel, and not unfrequent elsewhere ; Rev. 2: 21. 3: 9. 6: 4, al. J4nb 
 is employed before nouns of measure, i. e. distance, Rev. 14: 20, dnb 
 atadioov , etc., in like manner as in John 11: 18. 21: 8, and also in the 
 later Greek classics. The somewhat unfrequent use, indeed, of cases 
 without prepositions, is obvious here ; but so it is in all parts of the New 
 Testament. Modes of expression like time, times, and half a time, 12: 
 14; day and night for the idea of continually, and the like idioms of the 
 Hebrew, we also find. 
 
 In the use of ov and y?j, in the use of ovds . . . ovds, ovts . . . ovzs ; 
 in the meanings and regimen assigned to prepositions, and generally in 
 the use of the particles so far as they are employed ; there is nothing 
 striking on the score of singularity in the Apocalypse. The compass of 
 the writer’s knowledge, which enabled him to distinguish and appro- 
 priately name all the precious stones which are adverted to in Rev. xxi, 
 must have been considerable. He appears to have been at no loss for 
 language to express his ideas. While an absolute and almost perfect 
 simplicity in the construction of sentences predominates everywhere in 
 his book, the writer still shows that he was capable of exhibiting a dif- 
 ferent arrangement; see Rev. 18: 11 — 13. 
 
 I am aware that the first impression of most readers is, that the 
 Apocalypse differs widely from all the other books of the New Testa- 
 ment, those of John not excepted. In some respects this impression is 
 correct. It is true, that in no other book do we find ourselves in the 
 midst of scenes like those presented here. But are we not bound, as 
 fair and candid investigators, to ask such questions as these : What 
 other book of the New Testament is one continuous series of prophecy ? 
 What other book is throughout substantially and essentially a book of 
 poetry ? What other book, from beginning to end, is filled with sym- 
 bols ? What book even of the Old Testament will compare with the 
 Apocalypse in this respect ? What other book in the New Testament 
 discloses continuous scenes of such a nature throughout, as the Apoca- 
 lypse opens to our view ? The germ of one part of the Apocalypse 
 (v — xi.) we may find, indeed, in Matt, xxiv, and in the corresponding 
 parts of Mark and Luke ; but even there, we find the Saviour also em- 
 ploying tropes and symbols in a degree quite unusual. The plan of the 
 Apocalypse makes one continuous series of symbols necessary in order 
 to accomplish the writer’s object. Shall we wonder, then, that he em- 
 ploys them ? The scenes, moreover, to which he introduces us, even at 
 
256 § 15 . PECULIARITIES OP LANGUAGE AND STYLE. 
 
 the very outset, imply of necessity that he is going to tread upon pre- 
 ternatural or supernatural ground. Some of his images are quite novel ; 
 at all events, the costume and the circumstances are novel. He is no 
 mere imitator anywhere. When he presents scenes, the prototypes of 
 which may be found in the Old Testament, he arrays them in his own 
 peculiar drapery, and places them in positions which satisfy his own 
 judgment and promote his own design. What wonder then, since he is 
 traversing a supernatural world, that he presents us with objects new, 
 strange, and different, from any within the domain of other writings in 
 the New Testament? The Apocalypse, designed for such an object as 
 it is, would be but a tame and spiritless book, were not this the case. 
 The vigour and activity of John’s imagination lead him of course to 
 present us with glowing pictures. Oriental taste discloses itself in these. 
 The locusts and the horsemen, for example, in chap, ix, are altogether 
 of an oriental cast. They bear the stamp of oriental excitement and 
 vivacity, and (I may add) of oriental taste for the marvellous. But 
 why should we allow to Arabian and Persian poets liberties to roam in 
 the wide and almost boundless field of imagination, and deny to John a 
 privilege granted freely to others ? 
 
 Put now all these considerations together, and then ask : Whether the 
 apparent novelty of the apocalyptic style is not to be ascribed mostly to 
 the circumstances that have been mentioned ? Is it not reasonable to 
 expect such a kind of book as the Apocalypse, from a highly imagina- 
 tive oriental man, himself a Hebrew, and having all the Hebrew pro- 
 phetic models before him ? The seeming strangeness or peculiarity of 
 the Apocalypse is the result of comparing other New Testament books 
 with it, and of not comparing the Old Testament prophecies, and the 
 oriental taste in matters of this nature. I do not wonder, indeed, at 
 the impression which most readers receive, in slightly studying the 
 Apocalypse ; but I do wonder, that critics and commentators have not 
 given more attention to the nature and circumstances of this book, and 
 have not furnished us with a better account of its imagery and its sym- 
 bols. 
 
 In a supernatural world, all — all — must be in a certain sense new. 
 Why should it be counted strange , that the writer has recognized this, 
 and made his actors and his scenes to comport with the world in which 
 they are found ? Could a man of talents and vivid imagination, and 
 (I may add) of genuine oriental taste, do otherwise in executing his 
 plan than John has done ? 
 
 I cannot resist the feeling that many of the objections which have 
 been made against the Apocalypse as a work of John the Evangelist, 
 have arisen from overlooking considerations of such a nature as those 
 now suggested. A writer moving in a supernatural world — or in a re- 
 
§16. PLACE OF WHITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 257 
 
 gion of trope and symbol and visions — is in a condition exceedingly dif- 
 ferent from that of the grave and simple historian, or of the didactic 
 reasorier and preacher. Let us really allow this now in its full latitude, 
 and we shall no longer be at a loss to account for the peculiar character- 
 istics of the language of the Apocalypse. 
 
 § 16. Place and Time of writing the Apocalypse. 
 
 The first of these inquiries is not of any serious importance, in re- 
 spect to the book which is the object of our present investigation. 
 Whether the Apocalypse was written at Patmos, at Ephesus, or at any 
 other particular place, is a question which when settled does not alter 
 its object or its contents ; and consequently it cannot be of essential 
 importance to any hermeneutical inquiries into the meaning of this 
 prophecy. Still, it belongs to the literature of the book to say some- 
 thing upon this topic ; and I must therefore briefly touch upon it. 
 
 1. The Place. 
 
 The writer of the Apocalypse would seem to have settled the ques- 
 tion in regard to the place where the apocalyptic visions were seen, by 
 his own declaration. 1 John , says he, your brother and companion in 
 affliction , . . . was in the isle called Patmos , on account of the word of 
 God , and the testimony of Jesus Christ , 1: 9. Plowever strange it may 
 seem, yet critics of great name have understood this declaration as only 
 a poetical fiction. Eichhorn, in his Introduction to the New Testament 
 (1810), says : “ The banishment of John to Patmos must be a mere 
 matter of imagination ; for otherwise, the author, by mingling historical 
 and unhistorical [i. e. unreal] circumstances, has presented us with a 
 hermaphrodite fiction, which no critical taste can justify. And a matter 
 of fiction it may be ; for real history nowhere says, that John was ban- 
 ished to Patmos ; and what ecclesiastical tradition says respecting this, 
 has no other source than the Apocalypse interpreted in an unpoetical 
 manner, which has substituted fact in the place of fiction Einleit. 
 II. 367. 
 
 Yet this same writer, in his commentary on the Apocalypse publish- 
 ed in 1791, says: “ That you should entertain doubts [respecting the 
 actual exile of John in Patmos], the testimony of Tertullian, Origen, 
 Eusebius, and Jerome, forbids ; unless you utterly abandon all credence 
 in those who are not our contemporaries, however probable the things 
 may be which they declare, and however constantly asserted by the 
 tradition of subsequent times. But this, [he very justly adds], would 
 be to give up all faith in ancient history Comm. p. 31 seq. Which 
 of these representations by Eichhorn best comports with sound crit- 
 vol. l 33 
 
258 
 
 §16. PLACE OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 icism, may be left, I venture to say, to the judgment of every impartial 
 man, who has any good degree of information and skill in matters of 
 higher criticism. 
 
 But aside from this ; what more reason is there to doubt that John 
 was in Patmos, when he saw the visions described in the Apocalypse, 
 than there is to doubt that Ezekiel was by the river Chebar, when 
 he saw the vision related in the first chapter of his work ? Or that 
 Daniel was in Shushan, in the palace, in the province of Elam (Dan. 
 8: 2), when he saw the vision of the ram and the he-goat? Does any 
 one doubt, that w r hat Hesiod says of his birth-place and emigration to 
 Boeotia, in his poem entitled Works and Days , is fact ? 1. 630 — 638. Or 
 that what Ovid says of his banishment to Tomi ; or what Phaedrus 
 says of himself, in his Fables ; or Martial, in his Epigrams ; or Horace, 
 in his Epistles ; is matter of fact ? And is there any better reason for 
 regarding what John says of his being in Patmos, during his apocalyp- 
 tic vision, as fiction and not as fact ? 
 
 If Patmos be merely a fictitious place, why should John select it ? 
 Why did he not rather choose Sinai, or Carmel, or Hermon, or the 
 Mount of Transfiguration where he had before seen Moses and Elijah 
 from the heavenly world conversing with Jesus ? These were conse- 
 crated spots, as one would naturally suppose, and therefore they w r ould 
 most readily occur to his mind, as appropriate places for a revelation. 
 Why choose a Grecian islet, not once named elsewhere in all the sacred 
 books, and scarcely twice or thrice by all the ancient writers of the 
 heathen world ? 
 
 ‘ But ’ says Eichhorn, ‘ banishment was the penalty for making pros- 
 elytes to the Christian religion, in those times ; and Patmos was a very 
 appropriate place for exile. John, therefore, imagines that had been 
 done to him, which was so commonly done to Christians who were his 
 contemporaries ; and thus he places himself in the most complete soli- 
 tude, a condition most of all appropriate to such visions as the Apoca- 
 lypse relates ; ’ Einleit. § 190. 
 
 But could not John place himself as much in solitude upon Sinai, or 
 Carmel where Elijah saw the visions of God, or upon the Mount of 
 Transfiguration ? What is this, but an unsatisfactory reason for a fan- 
 ciful theory ? 
 
 There is another circumstance which confirms the impression, that 
 Patmos was the real, and not a fictitious, place of the apocalyptic vis- 
 ions. The writer says, first of all, that he was ‘ a brother of those 
 whom he addressed, and a companion (ovyxoivwog, participator) in the 
 affliction and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ ; ’ thus intimating, 
 that when he writes, his condition was one of suffering, like to that of 
 the persons whom he addressed. Not only so, but he intimates that he 
 
§16. PLACE OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 259 
 
 ^►hns been placed in such circumstances by reason of, or on account of, 
 the vjord of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, dice zbv loyov zov 
 ‘&EOV, xcu did zijv yaQZVQi'av ’J/jaov Xqigzov, 1: 9. He not only gives 
 his readers, then, a view of his own distressed condition, but he tells 
 them why he had been brought into it, viz. 4 on account of his adherence 
 to and promulgation of the Gospel.’ So we must understand and trans- 
 late this passage ; for in 6: 9, the writer speaks of the slain, lying at the 
 foot of the altar in heaven, as slaughtered did zbv loyov zov &eov xcu 
 dice zijv fiaqzvQiav i}v tryov, i. e. because of their steadfast adherence to 
 the word of God as exhibited in the Gospel ; and in 20: 4, he speaks 
 again of the martyrs who had been slain did ztjv yaQzvQi'av Iijoov xal 
 did zbv Xoyov zov Osov. These passages show at the same time the idiom 
 of the Apocalypse, and the true meaning of the writer when he employs 
 such phraseology. In these two passages, he can mean only and mere- 
 ly, that the martyrdom referred to, in both cases, was occasioned by 
 previous adherence to the Christian faith and perseverance in defending 
 and propagating it. In like manner, John was iv Jllifjti at Patmos, be- 
 cause he had pursued the like course. And this view of the subject, the 
 common and classical use of did serves to confirm, did with the Ac- 
 cusative is not employed to designate future purpose or object in view, 
 but stands before nouns which indicate past causes or grounds why any- 
 thing is, or is done. It marks the relation of reason or cause on ac- 
 count of which anything is, or is done, as one already extant, and not 
 that of purpose, object, or end, yet to be pursued. Clearly and certain- 
 ly, then, in 1: 9 it is employed in such a way and for such a purpose. 
 Now if we assume, that the presence of the writer at Patmos is only 
 ideal, according to Eichhorn and others, then we must bring out the 
 following sentiment : 4 1 was in a spiritual ecstasy, and so imagined my- 
 self as being at Patmos, because I had persevered in defending and 
 propagating the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ;’ and 
 moreover : 4 1 was iv JXiWei, because of a merely ideal transfer thither.’ 
 Does John, or would any man of sense, write thus ? 
 
 Liicke (Stud, und Krit. IX. p. 600) has given another turn to 1: 9, 
 viz. 4 John was transported to Patmos, in order that he might receive 
 the Revelation there, or be made the subject of apocalyptic visions 
 there.’ Why this was necessary, or specially useful, to John as the 
 subject of divine communications, he does not tell us. But he feels that 
 did before the Accusative stands somewhat in the way of such an exe- 
 gesis, inasmuch as it purports that John went, or was sent, to Patmos 
 on account of some cause or ground antecedently existing, and not merely 
 for the accomplishment of some end yet future. Yet he says even this 
 difficulty may be removed ; and he appeals to did in Rom. 4: 25 and 
 Phil. 2: 30, as marking the relation of a future end to be accomplished. 
 
260 
 
 §16. PLACE OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 But in this appeal he cannot be sustained. In Rom. 4: 25, Paul says 
 of Christ : “ Who died 8ia xd 7raQa7Txcogaxa rjfMov, and rose Sid xrjv 
 dixaicociv vfJ-Mv.” As mere facts or actual occurrences, both the offences 
 and the justification were indeed future at the time of Christ’s death ; 
 but as motives or grounds , or in other words as things already regarded 
 as certain in the counsels of God, and now about to take place, they 
 were fully in the mind of Christ before his death and resurrection. 
 They were the moving causes of his sufferings. In Phil. 2: 30, there 
 is still less ground to sustain the appeal. Paul says of Epaphroditus : 
 “ did to sgyov xov Xqigxov gs%Qi xtavdzov ijyyiGS, on account of the work 
 of Christ he drew near to death which, by the aid of the clause ttuqu- 
 fiohEwdgevog xrj tpvyrj (this immediately follows), we may well explain 
 as meaning, that the work of Christ which he had before performed, 
 brought Epaphroditus into the danger in question. Nor is there any 
 passage in the New Testament, that I have found, which will fairly sus- 
 tain the sense here given by Lucke to did ; nor will he find any instance 
 of such a nature allowed either by Winer in Gramm. § 53. c. 8ia, or by 
 Kiihner in Gramm. § 605. II. bid. Besides this philological difficulty, 
 one might well ask : Why should John speak of himself as iv xtXixpei 
 and ovyxoivcovog with others, in reference to his being sent to Patmos 
 in order to receive a revelation there ? Everything in the whole pas- 
 sage is unnatural, when it is viewed in such a light ; and neither gram- 
 mar nor congruity allows us so to explain it. 
 
 That John, then, was at Patmos, and was there as an exile, when he 
 saw the apocalyptic visions, there remains no good reason to doubt. 
 And so the united voice of antiquity declares. Whether this union of 
 the ancient fathers depends on any other testimony, except what John 
 himself has given in 1: 9, we do not and cannot know, unless some new 
 evidence respecting this matter should hereafter be presented. Enough, 
 if it has been shown what the proper meaning of John’s words is. 
 
 The opinion advanced by some critics, that 8id xov Xoyov tfeov, etc. 
 implies that John went to Patmos for the sake of preaching the Gospel, 
 is liable to two objections, viz. first that 8id cannot be so applied to a 
 future object or purpose ; secondly, that a little rocky islet, with scarcely 
 any inhabitants, and almost entirely a desert, was not a probable place 
 of resort for a missionary, while millions around him in Asia Minor were 
 yet heathen. The supposition scarcely merits serious notice. 
 
 But another question has been connected with the place of vision , 
 viz. that which respects the place of the actual composition or the wri- 
 ting out of the Apocalypse. In general the earlier Christian fathers 
 do not speak definitely in respect to this. Eusebius, in his Chronicon 
 on the 14th year of Domitian’s reign, says of John : Eig Tlaxpov eSoqi- 
 £excu * sv&a xryv Jdnoxd\v\piv ecoQuxev, ojg 8tjXoi EiQrjvuiug. Both Ire- 
 
§16. PLACE OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 261 
 
 naeus and Eusebius, then, speak only in general terms, viz. they speak 
 only of John as having seen the visions at Patmos. In another passage 
 of Eusebius, (Ecc. Hist. III. 28), he speaks of John’s banishment, and 
 also quotes from Irenaeus a passage which applies the verb icoQu&t] 
 ( seeing the visions) only to the Author of the Apocalypse. Origen, ap- 
 pealing to Rev. 1: 9, says of John : *Eoixe xrjv curoxaXvxpiv iv xy vrjacp 
 ze&eoj Q axsvca, he seems to have seen the Apocalypse in the island [of 
 Patmos]. Yictorinus in his Latin Comm, (about A. D. 300), still ex- 
 tant in a somewhat mutilated state, makes or alludes to a distinction, 
 perhaps, between John’s seeing the apocalyptic visions, and writing them 
 down. He first states, that John was in metallum damnatus , i. e. con- 
 demned to the mines in Patmos by Domitian ; he then says, that he 
 there vidit Apocalypsin ; and then, being released after the death of 
 Domitian, sic postea tradidit hanc eandam quam acceperat a Domino 
 Apocalypsin ; Bib. Max. Pat. III. p. 419. Liicke translates tradidit by 
 niedergeschrieben , i. e. wrote down ; which it does not necessarily mean, 
 but only to transmit or deliver over to another. Yictorinus says, that 
 this traditio is what is meant in Rev. 10: 11, where the angel says to 
 John : Aei as ndXiv 7TQoq)TjXEvaai. So far as I can see, this leaves the 
 question still undetermined, where the original writing down was per- 
 formed. Arethas, indeed, (Comm, in Rev. vii. in Opp. oecum. p. 713 
 seq. and Bib. Max. Pat. IX.) states, that John wrote at Ephesus. But 
 a writer of the seventh century, or late in the sixth, could have had 
 nothing more than hearsay, in relation to this matter. Jerome, at the 
 close of the 4th century, says of John : “ In Patmos insulam relegatus, 
 scripsit Apocalypsin Catal. Y. 
 
 On the whole, it does not appear that in ancient times the question 
 was urged and discussed, whether John wrote down his visions at the 
 time when he saw them, or sometime afterwards ; and consequently we 
 can get no satisfactory answer to this question from the ancient fathers. 
 We must resort, then, either to the nature of the case, or to the internal 
 evidence contained in the book itself. 
 
 As to the nature of the case, we do not know enough of the particu- 
 lars respecting John’s residence in Patmos and his return from that 
 place, or of the length of time that intervened between his visions and 
 the period of his return, to decide as to the probability of his performing 
 the task of writing after his return to Ephesus. The form of speaking 
 in 1: 9, 10, will not decide this, viz. iyevopyv iv zfj vrjacp . . . iysvbpijv iv 
 nvEvyaxi . . . y.al yxovaa, etc. We cannot suppose John to have writ- 
 ten down the account of any vision, until after the vision had taken 
 place. It would be a matter of course, in giving an account of it, to 
 speak of the place where it happened, and to speak of it as past, i. e. to 
 employ an Aorist or Praeterite tense, as in the passages above desig- 
 
262 
 
 §16. PLACE OP WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 nated. Whether he wrote after his return to Ephesus, or immediately 
 or soon after the vision had taken place, he would naturally speak as he 
 has here spoken. Guerike, in his Fortgesetz. Beitr. p. 70, has not satis- 
 fied me of the contrary. 
 
 But there are internal evidences in the book itself, which render it 
 probable that the act of writing, if not simultaneous with the visions, 
 (which cannot well be deemed probable), was at least not long deferred. 
 In 10: 4, the writer tells us, that when he heard the seven thunders ut- 
 ter their voice, he immediately prepared himself to write down what 
 they had uttered, sgtllov yguyeiv, the proximate future. A voice from 
 heaven, however, forbade him to disclose it. This shows, quite plainly, 
 that he intermingled the writing with the visions, i. e. that the disclo- 
 sures, which are many and diverse, are followed from time to time with 
 the act, on the part of the Apocalyptist, of writing them down. In the 
 like way, as it seems to me, are we to interpret the commands to write, 
 in 14: 13. 19: 9, 21: 5. If any one should say, that a command to 
 write down the particular things there disclosed, involves the idea that 
 other things were not then written, and that there was no command to 
 write those other things, I apprehend the o filming yQaipeig eig fiifiliov, 
 in 1: 11, must be regarded as a refutation of this. And although this 
 passage may possibly be considered as merely referring to the seven 
 epistles to the seven churches of Asia, or at most as merely a command 
 to write at some time, which might be sooner or later, yet 10: 4, would 
 help to correct an exegesis of this nature, and render the supposition of 
 a successive seeing of visions and writing them down quite probable. 
 
 It is hardly worthy a passing notice, that some have objected to the 
 supposition of writing down the Apocalypse at Patmos, that John, in 
 exile at such a place, cannot well be imagined to have possessed the 
 requisite materials for writing. But had not Ovid such materials at 
 Tomi ? Was not Patmos very near the Asian shore, and at a small 
 distance from Ephesus itself, where John had so many friends and de- 
 voted followers ? What could be easier than for him to be secretly sup- 
 plied with the materials for writing, and thus maintaining a correspon- 
 dence with the churches over whom he had watched ? What obliges us 
 moreover to suppose, that he was not allowed to take such materials 
 with him ? The Romans had two forms of exile ; the one was depor- 
 tatio , i. e. perpetual banishment to a certain place, with loss of rights 
 and property ; the other was relegatio , which might be a temporary or 
 perpetual banishment, without being deprived of property or other civil 
 rights. Who can show us, that the exile of John was not one of the 
 latter class ? Such was that of Ovid, as may be seen in his Trist. II. 
 135 seq. ; and Tertullian twice applies relegatur to the banishment of 
 John, Apol. 5. De Praesc. Haeret. c. 36 ; and Jerome does the same. 
 
§16. TIME OF TOUTING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 263 
 
 Finally, the congruity of the epistles to the churches, when consider- 
 ed as coming from one removed at a distance, is much more evident and 
 satisfactory ; specially as it respects the church at Ephesus. I do not 
 say that John, while living at Ephesus, could not have addressed an 
 epistle to the church there. But this may be said, viz., that we find no 
 example of such a thing in any other of the New Testament epistles, 
 and such a transaction wears in itself an air of improbability. It is 
 more probable that the communication was from Patmos. The writer 
 speaks of himself as an exile, or at any rate as being iv fiXiipsi, at the 
 time when he wrote. He addresses the seven churches as being perse- 
 cuted and oppressed, 2: 10, 13. 3: 10, al. How could this be the case, 
 
 if Nero were already dead, and he returned from exile in consequence 
 of this ? Would not the churehes also have experienced the like deliv- 
 erance ? The probability of John’s having written at Patmos amounts 
 to almost a certainty, when all these things are joined together and 
 placed in a clear light. 
 
 II. At what Time was the Apocalypse written ? 
 
 A much more serious question than either of those which we have 
 just discussed, and one about which very different and even opposite 
 opinions have been formed and maintained, by critics of high standing. 
 A majority of the older critics have been inclined to adopt the opinion 
 of Irenaeus, viz., that it was written during the reign of Domitian, i. e. 
 during the last part of the first century, or in A. D. 95 or 96. Most of 
 the recent commentators and critics have called this opinion in question, 
 and placed the composition of the book at an earlier period, viz. before 
 the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 
 The opinion of the ancient Christian fathers seems to rest mainly up- 
 on the declaration of Irenaeus, in Haeres. Y. 30, who lived at the close 
 of the second century, and who is the first writer that we know of, who 
 has said anything expressly on the point now before us. The declara- 
 tion alluded to runs thus : Ovds yag tiqo nolXov yQovov tcoQU&r] \jj slno- 
 x ctlvipig], dXkd oyedov ini irjg gyezigag ysvedg, ngog rep tiXei rijg Ao- 
 gETiuvov doyjjg, i. e. ‘ the Apocalypse was seen, not long ago, but almost 
 in our generation, near the end of Domitian’s reign.’ These words of 
 Irenaeus are cited verbatim by Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. III. 18, and V. 8. 
 See also HI. 23. III. 20 ad fin. Jerome (Catal. V.) has combined the 
 account of Eusebius, particularly the passage in his Chronicon on the 
 14th year of Domitian (quoted above on p. 260), with that of Irenaeus, 
 and says : “ Quarto decimo fgitur anno, secundam post Neronem perse- 
 cutionem movente Domitiano, in Patmos insulam relegatus [Johannes], 
 scripsit Apocalypsin.” Eusebius (Hist. Ecc. III. 23) quotes a passage 
 from the Quis Salvus Dives of Clemens Alexandrinus (§ 42), which 
 
264 
 
 §16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 runs thus : ’Enstds jocq, tov tvquvvov reh.virjcjavrog, dno Trig IIuTfiov 
 Trig vrjdov psrijl&ev sig ttjv "Ecpsoov, etc. The tyrant here meant is pro- 
 bably Domitian ; at least, although he is not named by Clement, it is 
 clear that Eusebius so understood the matter. Tertullian has also been 
 supposed by some, to be of the like opinion. His words run thus : 
 “ Tentaverat et Domitianus, portio Neronis de crudelitate ; sed qua et 
 homo, facile coeptum repressit, restitutis etiam quos relegaverat Apo- 
 loget. c. 5. In the preceding context he speaks of Nero’s persecution, 
 and in the words quoted he seems to intimate, that Domitian soon re- 
 laxed from his persecution, and recalled those whom he had banished. 
 But Eusebius (Ecc. Hist. III. 20), although he cites this passage of 
 Tertullian, states that only restoration of the exiles took place after the 
 death of Domitian, and by a decree of the Senate. Eusebius then adds, 
 that ‘ according to tradition, John returned from Patmos at that period, 
 and resumed his abode at Ephesus.’ How Eusebius understood Ter- 
 tullian, seems to be clear ; but the words of Tertullian himself leave the 
 matter in doubt, and nothing certain can be drawn from them in respect 
 to John. In another passage he says : “ Ubi [sc. Romae] apostolus Jo- 
 hannes, posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in in- 
 sulam relegatur.” Nothing here, or in the context, decides whether he 
 regarded this as happening under Nero or Domitian. 
 
 Origen, when he speaks of John’s banishment, merely says that 1 6 
 ( PcofA,ai'cov fiaculsvg condemned him to it,’ without saying anything which 
 would decide whether he meant Nero or Domitian ; Orig. in Matt. Opp. 
 ed. de la Rue, III. p. 720. 
 
 Yictorinus, whose Latin Commentary on the Apocalypse has already 
 been mentioned, when commenting on Rev. 10: 11, says: “ Quando 
 hoc [Apocalypsin] vidit Johannes, erat in insula Patmos, in metallum 
 damnatus a Domitiano Caesare.” A little after: “Interfecto Domi- 
 tiano . . . Johannes, de metallo dimissus, sic postea tradidit hanc eandam 
 quam acceperat a Domino Apocalypsin in Bib. Max. III. p. 419. 
 Again, on p. 420 : “ Intelligi oportet tempus quo scriptura Apocalypsis 
 edita est ; quoniam tunc erat Caesar Domitianus . . . Unus extat, sub 
 quo scribitur Apocalypsis, Domitianus scilicet.” 
 
 Sulpicius Severus and Orosius, both contemporaries with Augustine, 
 exhibit the like view of the time when the Apocalypse was written. 
 Thus Sulpicius : “ Domitianus . . . persecutus est Christianos, quo tem- 
 pore Joannem Apostolum in Pathmum relegavit ; — ubi ille . . . librum 
 sacrae Apocalypsis . . . conscriptum edidit Hist. Sac. Lib. II, in Bib. 
 Max. Pat. VI. p. 144 E. So Orosius : “ Domitianus . . . persecutio- 
 nem in Christianos . . . imperavit ; quo tempore etiam . . . Johannes 
 Apostolus in Pathmum relegatus fuit Lib. VII. ubi supra, p. 436 H. 
 
 It is needless to produce more quotations. The like sentiment may 
 
§16. TIME OF WHITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 265 
 
 be found in Gregorius Turonensis (Cent. VI.), I. 24; Isidorus Hispa- 
 lensis (Cent. VII.), cap. 73 in Johannem ; Marianus Scotus also says: 
 “ Sub Domitiano Johannes ... in Patmum insulara relegatus, Apoca- 
 lypsin vidit.” The opinion of Jerome has already been stated above, 
 in connection with that of Eusebius. 
 
 To the many Latin writers, already adduced, might be added several 
 more Greek ones. The book De XII. Apostolis, attributed to Hippolytus, 
 makes mention of ’Icodwyg . . . vno /Hofiszidvov . . . UgoQiG&stg iv Tldr- 
 ficp, iv y . . . A TtoxdXvUuv i&edaazo ; in Opp. Hippol. App. p. 30. ed. 
 Fabr. Of the same purport is a passage from the Martyrium Timothei, 
 produced by Photius in Codex 254. So also Suidas under the word 
 Aofxiziavog. The last two writers belong to Cent. XI. 
 
 It is plain, then, that an ancient tradition existed, and was propagated 
 through succeeding ages, that the Apocalypse was written near the close 
 of Domitian’s reign, i. e. about A. D. 95, for Domitian died in Septem- 
 ber of 96. When such a report commenced we are unable to say ; but 
 Irenaeus is the first writer, so far as we know, who has recorded it. 
 And although the eojQa&y, in the passage of Irenaeus (quoted above on 
 p. 263) has been differently interpreted by different critics, (e. g. the 
 ancient Latin translator of Irenaeus renders it visum est, viz. the beast ; 
 Wetstein applies the verb to John himself ; Storr, to the name of the 
 beast), yet I cannot think that any other Nominative than A7ZoxdXv\pig 
 can be fairly supplied here. So most of the ancients clearly understood 
 the matter ; and we may well acquiesce in their judgment, for it is sup- 
 ported by the obvious principles of interpretation. 
 
 If there were nothing else of a different tenor to be found respecting 
 the question before us, we should feel obliged to concede, that the opin- 
 ion is no longer to be controverted, which fixes upon the latter part of 
 Domitian’s reign as the period when the Apocalypse was composed. 
 But we know that the voice of antiquity is not uniform, in relation to 
 this subject. Epiphanius, speaking of John, says that “ he wrote his 
 Gospel, i uezd zyv avzov dno zijg ndz^ov indvodov, zyv im KXavdiov 
 ye.vofu'vrjv KaiaccQog” i. e. he places John’s banishment and return 
 under the reign of Claudius, when the Jews were banished from Rome ; 
 edit. Colon, p. 434, Haer. 51. Again, speaking of John he says : ttqo- 
 < iprjzevGuvzog iv /Qovoig Klavfiiov . . . dEixvvfievov zov uazd tyv Ano- 
 xdXvxpiv Xoyov 7ZQoq)yziy.ov, i. e. ‘ who prophesied in the time of Clau- 
 dius . . . the prophetic word according to the Apocalypse being disclo- 
 sed.’ This opinion of Epiphanius stands alone, among the ancients. 
 From what source he drew it, it is difficult to conjecture, unless indeed, 
 (as seems quite probable), he supposed John’s banishment to Patmos to 
 stand connected with the banishment of the Jews from Rome by Clau- 
 dius, A. D. 54. Acts 18: 2. Yet as this decree of exile respected only 
 
 vol. i. 34 
 
266 
 
 §16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 the city of Rome , and had regard to Jews and not to Christians in gene- 
 ral, it would seem to have no bearing on the case. We must dismiss 
 this matter, therefore, merely with the remark, that no good grounds of 
 Epiphanius’ opinion are given, nor can any be well imagined. It would 
 seem that it must have been some vague rumour, which this (oftentimes 
 uncritical) father had heard, and which he has reported in the passage 
 before us ; or else he must have drawn his own conclusion from the ban- 
 ishment abovementioned. Better ground has another report, which may 
 be here and there found among the ancients, viz., that John wrote the 
 Apocalypse during banishment to Patmos under the reign of Nero. 
 From A. D. 64 to the time of his death (in June A. D. 68), Nero car- 
 ried on a furious persecution against Christians, and banishment was a 
 very common thing under the Roman government. It might therefore 
 have been inflicted upon John, the leading teacher of Christianity at 
 Ephesus, the capital of Asia Minor. 
 
 The earliest notice of such an opinion may be found in a Fragment 
 of an ancient Latin writing, (probably about A. D. 196), first published 
 by Muratori in his Antiq. Ital. III. p. 854, and attributed by many (yet 
 without good reason) to the presbyter Caius. C. F. Schmid has copied 
 it into his Offenbarung Johannis, p. 101 seq. The work contains a kind 
 of a catalogue of the New Testament Scriptures ; and among other 
 things it says : “ Paulus, sequens praedecessoris sui Johannis ordinem, 
 nonnisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat ordine tali.” John, then, in 
 the first place, was Paul’s predecessor , according to this writer ; next, as 
 John has written only to seven churches by name, in the Apocalypse, 
 Paul, following his example, wrote only to the same number by name ; 
 and thirdly, as the consequence of this, Paul must of course have had 
 the example of John in his eye. Now as Paul suffered martyrdom un- 
 der Nero, who died in A. D. 68, it follows that John, according to the 
 author of this Fragment, must have written the Apocalypse before that 
 period ; how long before, the Fragment does not intimate. 
 
 Thus much for this incondite composition, on which, as it seems to 
 me, no great reliance can be placed for anything of serious importance. 
 It may, however, be regarded as conveying the common impression of 
 that part of the church where the author lived, that Paul, as a writer of 
 seven epistles, was preceded by John, who wrote to the seven churches 
 of Asia M nor. 
 
 The passage in Tertullian, which is quoted on p. 264 above, is applied 
 by Newton to the banishment of John by Nero. But it contains no 
 certain evidence respecting the time when banishment took place. It is 
 true, indeed, that there is a passage in Jerome, which seems directly to 
 assert, that Tertullian meant to convey the idea, that what happened to 
 John was during the life of Nero. In Advers. Jovin. I. 26, Jerome 
 
§16. TIME OP WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 267 
 
 says : “ Refert autem Tertullianus, quod a Nerone missus in ferventis 
 olei dolum, purior et vegetior exiverit quam intraverit.” But imme- 
 diately before this passage, he speaks of John as exiled by Domitian . 
 How, it has been asked, could he thus contradict himself, in the same 
 breath ? To avoid this it has been proposed to read Pomae , instead of 
 a Nerone . But all Mss. and editions are against it. Nor do I appre- 
 hend that Jerome’s credit for consistency is much jeoparded by the 
 passage in question, as it now stands. When Jerome says a Nerone , 
 he is only giving his views of what Tertullian had said, and not his own 
 opinion. Jerome’s view of Tertullian’s opinion may be correct. Be- 
 sides, Tertullian does not here speak of John’s exile. 
 
 In the Syriac version of the Apocalypse, the title page declares, that 
 it was written in Patmos , lohither John was sent by Nero Caesar. But 
 the value of this testimony is somewhat weakened by the fact, that the 
 old Peshito or Syriac version of the second century, has never com- 
 prised the Apocalypse. The version of this book which now appears in 
 our Syriac New Testament, was copied in the East by Caspar, whose 
 residence was in western Asia ; from him it came into the hands of 
 Scaliger the younger ; thence to the library of Leyden ; and there it 
 was copied, and then published by L. de Dieu, in 1627. From this 
 edition, the Syriac Apocalypse in the London and Paris Polyglots was 
 taken. It is somewhat doubtful whether this version of the Apocalypse 
 belongs to the so-called Philoxenian version, which was made about 
 A. D. 508. It would rather seem, however, that there was a version of 
 the Apocalypse into Syriac earlier than the Philoxenian ; for Eplirem 
 Syrus, in his Commentaries (century IV.), often appeals to the Apoca- 
 lypse ; and it is generally supposed that he did not understand Greek, 
 and therefore must have read it in Syriac ; see Hug’s Introd. § 65. If 
 this view is correct, then does the inscription mentioned above acquire 
 additional importance. It becomes an early, as well as a plain, testi- 
 mony respecting the current opinion in the East, with regard to the 
 time when the Apocalypse was written. 
 
 Andreas, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, (of an uncertain age, but 
 probably near the commencement of the sixth century), in his Greek 
 Commentary on the Apocalypse which is still extant, says, in liis re- 
 marks on Rev. 6: 12, that there are not wanting those who apply this 
 passage to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus ; but at the 
 same time he gives his own opinion, that it is rather to be applied to the 
 coming of Antichrist, etc. Again on Rev. 7: 1 he says : “ These things 
 are referred by some to those sufferings which were inflicted by the 
 Romans upon the Jews but he gives his opinion again, that they may 
 with more propriety be referred to the coming of Antichrist. And so 
 (on Rev. 7: 2) he also says: ‘Although these things happened in part 
 
268 § 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 to Jewish Christians, who escaped the evils inflicted on Jerusalem by 
 the Romans, yet they more probably refer to Antichrist,’ etc. ; in which 
 there appears to be somewhat of inconsistency, or at least of adopting a 
 double meaning* 
 
 It is plain, then, from what Andreas says in these passages, that in 
 his time there was one class of interpreters, who referred a part of the 
 Apocalypse to the destruction of Jerusalem, and of course believed that 
 this book was composed before that event took place. 
 
 Arethas, the successor of Andreas in office, who lived near the mid- 
 die of the sixth century, has also left behind him a Greek commentary 
 on the Apocalypse, which consists of little more than extracts from An- 
 dreas and other expositors. In his remarks on Rev. 1: 9 he says : 
 “ That John was banished to the isle of Patmos under Domitian, Eu- 
 sebius alleges in his Chronicon.” He does not appear to give his own 
 opinion here. On Rev. 6: 12 he says : 4 Some refer this to the siege of 
 Jerusalem by Vespasian, interpreting all tropically.’ He then cites from 
 Andreas, in order to show that many referred it to the time of Anti- 
 christ. But on Rev. 7: 1, he appears to speak out his own opinion: 
 44 Here then were manifestly shown to the Evangelist what things were 
 to befall the Jews , in their war against the Romans , in the way of aveng- 
 ing the sufferings inflicted upon Christ.” After averring that Josephus’ 
 history accords with the fulfilment of these predictions, he further re- 
 marks, that “ these things will still more evidently happen, near the 
 coming of Antichrist.” Nothing is plainer, here, than that Arethas ad- 
 mitted a double sense of prophecy ; and in accordance with this he might 
 consistently find two fulfilments of a prediction, as he seems to have done. 
 Still, in order to do this, he must have supposed the Apocalypse to have 
 been composed before the destruction of Jerusalem. But he is even 
 more explicit still on Rev. 7: 4, where he says: “When the Evange- 
 list received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jews were in- 
 volved, was not yet inflicted by the Romans.” There can be no doubt, 
 therefore, what his own view was, of the time in which the Apocalypse 
 must have been written. When Lucke (p. 409) speaks of him, in re- 
 ference to these passages, as confused and contradictory , he could hardly 
 have adverted sufficiently to the fact, that in the seemingly contradic- 
 tory passages, Arethas only cites the opinion of others. What Arethas 
 says on Rev. xi. would rather afford some occasion for the remark of 
 Lucke. 
 
 Berthold cites the Martyrium Timothei as exhibiting evidence of an 
 opinion among the ancients, that John was banished to Patmos under 
 the reign of Nero ; Berth. Einleit. IV. p. 1831. The purport of what 
 this document says, is, that 4 under Nero’s reign John made a voyage to 
 sea, where some accidents befel him.’ But this work is so fabulous, 
 
§ 16 . TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 269 
 
 and of such an uncertain age, that no serious reliance can be placed 
 upon it. 
 
 The Synopsis de Vita et Morte Prophetarum, ascribed to Dorotheus 
 bishop of Tyre, but probably not mitten until the sixth century, as- 
 cribes John’s exile to Trajan ; but it states only, that he wrote his Gos- 
 pel at that time, and mentions that others fixed upon Domitian’s reign 
 for these events. The author does not seem to pretend, that he has 
 any certain knowledge ; and the whole document is of little worth. Bib. 
 Max. III. p. 426. 
 
 Berthold (ubi supra) appeals to the Ckromcon Alexandrinum , in or- 
 der to confirm the idea, that John returned from Patmos at the com- 
 mencement of Vespasian’s reign. But this work was written after A. D. 
 630, (down to which it brings its chronology). Moreover, the Chroni- 
 con has merely copied Jerome’s opinion, and sets John’s return in 96, 
 under Nerva who succeeded Domitian. Besides, the Chronicon is contra- 
 dictory of itself. On Olymp. 212 it makes his banishment to have hap- 
 pened in A. D. 78 ; and on Olymp. 218 it fixes it in the thirteenth year 
 of Domitian, i. e. A. D. 94. Afterwards it says, that the time of John’s 
 exile was fifteen years ; and yet it avers, that he was restored in the 
 first year of Nerva, A. D. 96. It need not be said, after this exhibi- 
 tion, that the writer has thrown together all sorts of opinions, without 
 any investigation of them, and that he had none of his own, or none 
 which was worth any regard. It is useless to appeal to such documents. 
 
 It remains only to mention Theophylact (Cent. XI.), who says, in 
 Pref. to Comm, in Evang. Johannis: ’Ev II dr pep zrj vtjacp i'^ogiazog 
 dtazeXdjv, pezu ZQtdxovza 8vo ezy zrjg zov xqiozov dvaXyipewg, i. e. 
 ‘ when he [John] lived an exile in the island of Patmos, 32 years after 
 the ascension of Christ.’ This would be A. D. 65, and under the reisrn 
 of Nero. 
 
 Such is the state of ancient testimony respecting the point now before 
 us. It is divided mainly between the time of Domitian and that of Ne- 
 ro. Some solitary conjectures about the time of Claudius and of Tra- 
 jan we find ; but they are not entitled to any serious notice. 
 
 If now the number of the witnesses were the only thing which should 
 control our judgment in relation to the question proposed, we must, so 
 far as external evidence is concerned, yield the palm to those who fix 
 upon the time of Domitian. But a careful examination of this matter 
 shows, that the whole concatenation of witnesses in favour of this posi- 
 tion hangs upon the testimony of Irenaeus, and their evidence is little 
 more than a mere repetition of what he has said. Eusebius and Jerome 
 most plainly depend on him ; and others seem to have had in view his 
 authority, or else that of Eusebius. The manner and form of the testi- 
 mony plainly show this. In such a case, the concatenation of witnesses 
 
270 
 
 §16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 goes to prove how widely the tradition mentioned by Irenaeus had 
 spread, rather than to establish the degree of credit which it deserved. 
 
 I have other remarks to make on this subject ; but many of them I 
 shall defer until we have examined the internal evidence, which the 
 Apocalypse exhibits respecting the time when it was composed. For 
 the present I would add, that the diversity of opinion, which, as it seems, 
 existed among the ancients relative to the time of composition, can well 
 be accounted for only on the ground, that the conclusions respecting it 
 were rather the result of constructive exegesis, than of definite historical 
 tradition. John was banished to Patmos, on account of his adherence 
 to and propagation of the Christian religion. So the ancients in mass 
 understood Rev. 1: 9 to mean. But this passage does not say when this 
 happened. Of course, so far as this is concerned, there was room for a 
 variety of suppositions. History discloses that the Jews, under the 
 reign of Claudius, (probably in A. D. 54), were banished from Rome, 
 Acts 18: 2. In the early stage of Christianity, Christians and Jews 
 were often confounded by the Romans ; and Suetonius (Claudius, cap. 
 25) seems to attribute their banishment to Christianity, when he says, 
 that the Jews were tumultuantes Chresto [Christo ?] impulsore. Epi- 
 phanius fixes upon that period, as we have already seen, p. 265 above ; 
 and Grotius, Hammond, and Storr, labour to support this view. Again ; 
 it is certain that Nero persecuted Christianity for some three and a half 
 years, and John was at Ephesus at least during a part of this period, 
 viz. between A. D. 64 and 68. Consequently he might have been ban- 
 ished at that time, and have written the Apocalypse at Patmos ; and 
 this was supposed to be the case by some, as we have seen above. Once 
 more ; Domitian persecuted Christians for some time, and banished many 
 of them. John was living at the period of this persecution also, and 
 might have been banished. That such was the case, Irenaeus, and 
 many after him, believed ; as we have already seen, pp. 263 seq. above. 
 So far as Rev. 1: 9 is concerned, there is nothing in it which contradicts 
 either of these suppositions ; certainly neither of the last two. Readers 
 of the Apocalypse, in ancient times, who were not intent upon searching 
 out the internal evidence throughout the book respecting the time of its 
 composition, but expected the announcement of this merely at the out- 
 set, if anywhere, might easily be led to form different opinions as to the 
 time referred to in 1: 9 ; and these opinions would of course be affected 
 by their views of the meaning of the book. If it was viewed as in part 
 a prediction respecting the destruction of Jerusalem, then of course the 
 composition of the book would be looked upon as having taken place an- 
 terior to that event ; if, however, all the former part of the work was 
 referred merely to the coming of Antichrist, or to any event of the times 
 that followed the first century, then the era of Domitian might be fixed 
 
§16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 271 
 
 upon, without any apprehension of difficulty. But even this latter class 
 of interpreters were divided. Hegesippus (in Euseb. Hist. Ecc. III. 19. 
 20), and possibly Tertullian (Apol. c. 5), seem to suppose the return of 
 John from Patmos to have happened during Domitian’s lifetime. Eu- 
 sebius (Chron. in ann. 14 Domit.) supposes it to have taken place under 
 Nerva, after Domitian’s death ; and with him Clemens Alex, and Je- 
 rome appear to coincide, see p. 263 above. Victorinus (see p. 264 
 above) has added another circumstance, viz. in metallum damnatus , i. e. 
 condemned to the mines (?) in Patmos. All this variety of opinion 
 makes strongly against any uniform and certain historical tradition with 
 regard to the subject before us. We have seen, also, that the Synopsis 
 attributed to Dorotheus (p. 264 above) fixes even upon the time of Tra- 
 jan for the exile of the apostle ; on what ground, it would be difficult to 
 say. 
 
 That John was banished to Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse there, 
 or at least saw the vision there, seems to be a fact plainly and explicitly 
 vouched for in Rev. 1: 9 ; and I know of no good reason for disbeliev- 
 ing this. On this point, all the opinions of antiquity, discrepant in other 
 respects, fully agree. So much John himsolf says in this passage, and 
 no more. Whether other facts of his book do not imply something 
 more definite, is another question yet to be investigated. But it is plain, 
 that the ancient writers did not look into the book at large for the chro- 
 nology of the composition. Beyond the testimony of John himself, 
 there is such a diversity of views, as serves to show that mere floating 
 reports and surmises were the basis of these views. Were not this the 
 case, how could there have been so great a variety of opinions about a 
 simple matter of fact ? 
 
 That this is a correct view of the subject, seems to me to be strongly 
 supported by the passage of Origen, to which allusion has already been 
 made on p. 264 above. Mark his words : O ds Pmyaioov ftaodevg, cog 
 
 7j 7ZUOudoOig dlduGXEl, XCt7EdlXCtGE 70V 7 COUVV7]V (XaQTVQOVVZU dice 70V 7fjg 
 ukrftEiag Xoyov eiq Hu7yov 7ryv vijoov diduGXEi di 7u tzeqI 7ov gaQ7V- 
 qiov EUV70V ’Jcouvvyg, yrj le'ycov rig aviov xa7EdixaGE (pdoxoov iv 7y 
 ^noxalvipsi 7av7a [1: 9]. Kal eoixe 7r\v ^noxahvipiv iv 7rj vtfoip 
 7 E&sojQTjyJvai. Opp. in Matt. iii. p. 720, de la Rue. That is : i The 
 King of the Romans, as tradition teaches, condemned John, who bore 
 testimony, on account of the word of truth, to the isle of Patmos. 
 John, moreover, teaches us things respecting his testimony [or martyr- 
 dom], without saying who condemned him when he utters these things 
 in the Apocalypse. lie seems also to have seen the Apocalypse [i. e. 
 the visions of the Apocalypse] in the island.’ This remarkable pas- 
 sage deserves special notice. We cannot suppose Origen to have been 
 ignorant of what Irenaeus had said, in V. 30 ; see p. 263 above. Yet 
 
272 
 
 § 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 Origen does not at all refer to Irenaeus, as exhibiting anything deci- 
 sive with regard to which Roman emperor it was who banished John. 
 He does not even appeal to tradition, as according with the report of 
 Irenaeus. Moreover he notes expressly, that John has not himself de- 
 cided this matter in the Apocalypse, firj Xeycov tig avtov xatedixaae. If 
 now he regarded the opinion of Irenaeus as decisive in relation to this 
 subject, how could he have failed, on such an occasion, of appealing to 
 it ? It is evident that he refrains from giving an opinion himself, on 
 the point in question, because John has omitted to decide it in the pas- 
 sage referred to, viz. 1: 9. If now he had considered tradition as de- 
 ciding it, would he not naturally have said so ? We cannot well come 
 to any other conclusion here, than that Origen knew of no way in 
 which this matter could be determined; since he viewed John as 
 having passed it by in Rev. 1: 9. Such an opinion from such a man as 
 Origen, the greatest critical scholar of the first three centuries, is enti- 
 tled to very serious consideration ; and I do not perceive how we are to 
 draw less from it than the conclusion, that Origen did not regard the 
 question respecting the time when the Apocalypse was written, as set- 
 tled by anything within his knowledge. 
 
 That Irenaeus himself possessed any other knowledge, in relation to 
 the time when the Apocalypse was composed, than what he drew from 
 the exegesis of Rev. 1: 9, may well be doubted. But on this point 
 more will be said, after we have taken a view of the internal evidences 
 of the book itself. 
 
 I. The Seven Epistles. Whoever reads them with attention, will 
 easily perceive that there is developed in them a state of the churches 
 in various respects different from that which is disclosed in the earlier 
 epistles of Paul. Scarcely, if at all, in any of these epistles, is a state 
 of active persecution developed, which proceeded, or could proceed, to 
 the destruction of life and the confiscation of property. In some of them, 
 e. g. 2 Thess. ch. i., we see indeed that a bitter hostility towards Chris- 
 tians is indicated ; but it seems to proceed from those who not improba- 
 bly were superstitious and unbelieving Jews. Occasional references else- 
 where are also to be found, of more or less of opposition on the part of the 
 world, whether Jews or Gentiles, against Christianity. Nothing could 
 be more natural or probable than this. But of persecution unto impri- 
 sonment, banishment, and death, Paul scarcely speaks, until his own 
 life was put in peril, after the Neronian persecution began. 
 
 How different in the epistles prefixed to the Apocalypse ! The first 
 annunciation of the coming of Christ, Rev. 1: 7, is accompanied with 
 the declaration, that “ they who pierced him shall see him, and all the 
 tribes of the land shall wail because of him.” Who then were they 
 that 'pierced him ? Were they not the Jews ? If the Romans took any 
 
§16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 273 
 
 part in doing this, it was a merely ministerial and subordinate part. 
 The Jews were the instigators and the proper authors of the deed. 
 
 Here then, on the very front of the book, is exhibited a title-page, as 
 it were, indicative of a conspicuous part of the contents of the work. 
 The punishment of the unbelieving and persecuting Jews must follow 
 the comma- 0 f the Lord ; and this it is one leading object of the book to 
 illustrate and confirm. If so, then the 'prediction must have preceded 
 the event predicted. 
 
 But apart from this leading hint respecting the design of the book, 
 the seven epistles contain intimations throughout, more or less direct, 
 that an active state of persecution was going on when the epistles were 
 written. This has already been somewhat fully developed on pp. 222 
 seq. above, and need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say, that 
 the very mold in which all these epistles were cast, is plainly indicative 
 of the circumstances in which they were written. They were circum- 
 stances of peculiar trial. A great contest w r as going on. Some of the 
 churches had swerved from the fervor of their first love ; in others, her- 
 esies had risen up ; in some, wicked seducers were playing their part. 
 These churches, moreover, seem to have had regular officers, and to 
 have been orderly constituted. The dyyeXog by.hjolag is everywhere 
 addressed, at first ; but through him the whole body of the church are 
 admonished and encouraged. 
 
 Several of these churches, perhaps most of them, had been planted by 
 Paul ; but they had been built up and nourished, as it would seem, by 
 John. When Paul addressed the church at Ephesus, the state of things 
 was plainly quite different from what the letter to the same church indi- 
 cates, -when John wrote. Some seven or eight years probably had in- 
 tervened, between Paul’s letter and the epistle of John ; a time suffi- 
 cient to account for any of the changes which seem to have taken place. 
 The person who addresses the seven churches, plainly regards himself 
 as connected with them all, and as having the superintendence of all. 
 He considers himself as entitled to utter threatenings, or promises of re- 
 ward ; to command discipline, or to insist on patience and obedience. 
 In a word, all this seems well to chime in with the view of the ancients, 
 viz., that John, some time before the destruction of Jerusalem, came to 
 Ephesus and dwelt there, and went out thence on missionary excursions 
 into the regions round about that city. 
 
 All this, indeed, may be true of the churches and of John’s relation 
 to them, in the time of Domitian, some quarter of a century later ; and 
 so the argument is not conclusive. But all this moreover may be true, 
 respecting the Asiatic churches in Nero’s time. There is no improba- 
 bility in it, but the contrary ; so that the objections which have been 
 made to the early composition of the Apocalypse, on the ground that 
 vol. i. 35 
 
274 
 
 §16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 the condition of the seven Asiatic churches in Nero’s time does not corres- 
 pond to the tenor of the seven epistles to them, has no good foundation. 
 
 II. In Rev. 6: 9, 10, we are presented with a view of martyrs alrea- 
 dy slain in the cause of Christ, crying for retribution upon their perse- 
 cutors. Their petition is favourably received ; but they are bidden to 
 “ wait a little time, until their fellow servants and brethren, who were 
 to he slain as they had been , should complete their number,” v. 11. Lucke 
 and Ewald assign the reign of Galba, (the last half of A. D. 68), as the 
 period in which the Apocalypse was written. But it is a fact, in respect 
 to which the voice of antiquity is but one, that the persecution begun by 
 Nero ceased with his death, (June 9th, A. D. 68). How then could 
 such a view as this be held out by the writer of the Apocalypse, after 
 the persecution was already suspended, or rather, after it had ended ? 
 If it be said, that the interval between Nero’s death and the time when 
 the news of it reached Ephesus, or Patmos, may still be selected, as the 
 one in which the Apocalypse was written ; this answer will hardly meet 
 the case. But very few days could elapse before it must be known at 
 Ephesus. In less than twenty-seven days the news had reached Alex- 
 andria in Egypt, and brought out an edict there in which Galba was ac- 
 knowledged as emperor ; see Rhein. Musaeum fiir Philol. etc. II. p. 68. 
 Lucke, p. 253. In less than half of that time must the news have reached 
 Ephesus ; and that John, if then at Patmos, would have been forthwith 
 advertised by his friends, cannot reasonably be doubted. This is one, 
 among several reasons, why the time of writing the Apocalypse cannot 
 be deferred until after the death of Nero and the suspension of persecu- 
 tion under Galba ; for persecution was evidently raging when the Apo- 
 calypse was written. At all events, such a passage as the one before 
 us puts at rest the supposition, that the Apocalypse was composed under 
 the reign of Claudius. No martyrs were then made among Christians, 
 certainly none that we know of, by the banishment of the Jews from 
 Rome in A. D. 54. 
 
 But there are evidences still more direct, in the Apocalypse, of its 
 composition before the destruction of Jerusalem. In chap. vii. we have 
 an account of the sealing in the forehead of 144,000 selected from the 
 tribes of Israel , who were to be exempted from the impending destruc- 
 tion. Why from the twelve tribes of Israel ? Because the destruction 
 threatened, in connection with this event, was to overtake Judea. If 
 not, why should Jewish Christians alone be here mentioned and selected ? 
 
 III. Again in chap. xi. we have an account of John’s commission to 
 measure the inner temple, the altar, and the worshippers, while the outer 
 part is given up to destruction by the Gentiles. How could such a com- 
 mand be supposed, in this case, if the temple had already been entirely 
 destroyed, as it was by the Romans ? The transaction is indeed wholly 
 
§16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 275 
 
 symbolical, and indicates that all which is outward and ceremonial of 
 Judaism is to be destroyed, while all that is inward and spiritual is to 
 be preserved. But, although allusions to the temple might be made 
 after its destruction, yet allusions to the altar and worshippers, in the 
 manner here presented, cannot be deemed probable, some twenty-five 
 years after the destruction of the whole. 
 
 If Herder, Eichhorn, and Heinrichs, are correct, in supposing that 
 the two witnesses of Rev. 11: 3 seq. are meant to symbolize the high 
 priests, Ananus and Jesus, who were slain by a faction in Jerusalem, 
 then, of course, must the composition of the Apocalypse, if it be pro- 
 phetic, precede the destruction of Jerusalem. But as these two witnes- 
 ses are indubitably recognized as Christians , (paQZVGi pov, v. 3), we 
 cannot attach any weight to such an argument. 
 
 In Rev. 11: 8, the dead bodies of the witnesses are said to “lie in 
 the street of the great city which is called spiritually Sodom and Egypt, 
 where our Lord was crucified.” Sodom, and Egypt are names which 
 very significantly describe the glaring vices and the oppression of the 
 great city. But this is not specific enough for the writer. The place 
 where our Lord was crucified , he adds, in order to preclude mistake. 
 Here then is Jerusalem still surviving, active, hostile, persecuting to 
 death the Christian martyrs. This same city it is, which in the sequel 
 meets with the overthrow as predicted in vs. 13 — 19. How can we 
 avoid the conclusion, then, that Jerusalem was the city threatened ; and 
 of course that the prediction was written before the event ? 
 
 What Guerike (Fortgesetzte Beitrage, etc., p. 71 seq.) has objected 
 to such a view of Rev. v — xi, seems to me quite inconclusive. He 
 alleges, that a ‘ new Jerusalem, could not be spoken of, as it is in 21: 1 
 seq., provided the old city were still remaining.’ But why not ? Has 
 not John predicted the destruction of the old Jerusalem in chap, xi ? 
 And if so, then why not predict a new and more glorious city in its 
 place, which would be the metropolis of the new spiritual kingdom ? He 
 alleges also, that 4 the destruction of the literal Jerusalem is not, after 
 all, to be regarded as foretold in the Apocalypse, but everything said 
 in chap. xi. is to be regarded merely as symbolical.’ Very well : sym- 
 bolical then let it be, as to the general tenor of it. But there must be 
 some reality which is the basis of symbol, and of which symbol is the 
 representative. What then is the reality which lies at the basis of the 
 symbolical names, Sodom and Egypt ? The writer himself has told us ; 
 for he says that these names stand for “ the place where our Lord was 
 crucified.” And was that place a literal or a figurative Jerusalem ? In 
 a word ; the whole of Guerike’s objection to such a view of the meaning 
 of the passage in Rev. xi. as has been given above, depends on his ex- 
 egesis of Rev. v — xi. But an exegesis, which, like his, excludes a 
 
276 § 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 reference to Palestine in this part of the book, must be in the face of 
 all the rules of interpretation that we apply to other books. If there be 
 anything certain in the principles of hermeneutics, it is certain that 
 they decide in favour of a reference to Judea and its capital in Rev. 
 vi — xi. The very fact, moreover, that the destruction of Jerusalem 
 (chap, xi) is depicted in such outlines and mere sketches, shows that 
 it was then future, when the book was written. It is out of all question, 
 except by mere violence, to give a different interpretation to this part of 
 the Apocalypse. And to a view like this, in respect to the interpreta- 
 tion of the book, Lucke gives his assent ; Einleit. p. 267 seq. 
 
 IV. Rev. xvii. professedly undertakes to explain the symbols of 
 the beast, introduced at the commencement of the second catastrophe in 
 the Apocalypse, chap. 13: 1 seq. The last verse of this chapter leaves 
 no room for mistake as to the application of the symbol. The woman 
 sitting upon the beast means “the great city which hath dominion over 
 the kings of the earth.” When John wrote the Apocalypse, no city 
 but Rome could be thought of as corresponding to this description. Be- 
 sides, in v. 9 the seven heads of the beast are said to symbolize “ the 
 seven hills on which the woman sitteth,” i. e. the seven hills on which 
 Rome was built, the septicollis Roma of the Latin writers. There is 
 no room for mistake here. And as little room, it seems to me, is there 
 for mistake, in another part of the same explanatory chapter, viz. v. 
 10. Here it is said, that the seven heads of the beast also symbolize 
 seven kings , viz. of Rome. The writer proceeds : “Five are fallen ; 
 one is ; the other has not yet come, but when he shall come, Jie will re- 
 main but for a short time.” That the Roman emperors were usually 
 styled fiaoikeig, by the Greeks, needs no proof. That the line or suc- 
 cession of emperors is here meant, and not the primitive kings of Rome, 
 is certain from the connection of the five with the one who is, and the 
 one who is to come. We have only to reckon then the succession of 
 emperors, and we must arrive with certainty at the reign under which 
 the Apocalypse was written. If we begin with Julius Caesar, it stands 
 thus : Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius ; these make up 
 the five who have fallen. Of course the Apocalypse was written dur- 
 ing the reign of Nero, who is the sixth. If, with some critics (Ewald, 
 Lucke, and some others), we commence with Augustus, then the Apo- 
 calypse was written during the short reign of Galba, who succeeded 
 Nero. That the first mode of reckoning is the proper one, I shall en- 
 deavor fully to show in the Commentary on Rev. 13: 3 and 17: 10, and 
 in the Excursus connected with these passages. At most, only an oc- 
 casional beginning of the count with Augustus can be shown, in the 
 classic authors. The almost universal usage is against it. The pro- 
 bability on other grounds is against Ewald and Lucke. Every part of 
 
§16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 277 
 
 the Apocalypse shows, as we have seen, that persecution was raging 
 and instant, when the book was written. But this could not be true, 
 at most, but a few days after Nero’s death. Besides ; when the writer 
 adverts to the shortness of time in which the seventh king would reign, 
 (which fits Galba especially, as he reigned but seven months), why, in 
 case he wrote during the reign of Galba, should he wholly overlook the 
 shortness of his reign, and advert in this respect merely to the succeed- 
 ing reign of Otho ? There is moreover, as it seems to me, a plain ref- 
 erence in Rev. 13: 10, to the future death of Nero, as well as to his then 
 present cruelties : “If any one sends into exile, he shall go into exile : 
 if any one kills with the sword, he shall be slain with the sword. Here 
 is the faith and patience of the saints i. e. present circumstances call 
 on them to exercise faith in the preceding declaration and in the prom- 
 ises of God, and patience under their sufferings. All this is very ap- 
 posite to the time of Nero ; but hardly to that of Galba. 
 
 Liicke seems to have been led to adopt his opinion in respect to the 
 time of .Galba, principally by Rev. 17: 8, 11, in which it is said of the 
 beast : i { v, xcu ovy. son, xai miQsaivu. The ovx sari seems to say, that 
 he who is spoken of, is no longer living. But I cannot regard this 
 matter in such a light. Nothing is more common in the predictions of 
 the prophets, than the use of the Praeter and the Present, in order to 
 designate future things. John seems simply to mean, that the beast 
 first exists as king, then disappears or dies, and afterwards (as was 
 generally supposed and had been predicted by the fiaviug) will reap- 
 pear. If ovx sGtiv obliges us to suppose that Nero was already dead, 
 then why does not avzog oydoog ion, in v. 11, oblige us to suppose 
 that Nero had already reappeared and become the eighth emperor ? 
 And still further ; why must we not interpret the xal eig amnletav imu- 
 yei as indicating, that Nero, having already reappeared, is now soon to 
 go to destruction a second time ? It cannot be, that from such forms of 
 expression as these, under such circumstances, the actual chronology of 
 events is to be settled. The writer means simply to say, that the beast 
 symbolizes one of whom it might be said : “ He was, and is not, and 
 will reappear.” 
 
 I might also add here, that the manner in which John speaks of the 
 beast in Rev. xiii. seq., sometimes using this symbol generically for the 
 Roman sovereignty, and sometimes specifically for the reigning empe- 
 ror, indicates that in the latter case Nero is meant. To whom besides 
 can 13: 3 (the deadly wound and the healing) be applied? Who but 
 Nero was the violent persecutor of the church at that period, in the 
 Roman empire ? It is the destruction of this beast which John pre- 
 dicts ; and from the manner in which he does it, it would seem that this 
 beast must have then been living. We cannot indeed rationally sup- 
 
278 
 
 §16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 pose John to have believed the heathen predictions, that Nero would 
 rise from the dead and actually reappear as emperor. The most that 
 we can reasonably suppose, is an allusion to the common report, and in 
 this way to give a hint as to the individual who is meant to be designa- 
 ted by the beast. In short, the more I reflect on these circumstances, 
 the more am I compelled to believe, that John wrote his book pending 
 the Neronian persecution. 
 
 For further illustration of these difficult passages, I must refer the 
 reader to the Commentary and Excursus, as mentioned above. My 
 present purpose is a limited one, viz., merely to get at the internal evi- 
 dence of the time when the book must have been written. Whether 
 Liieke and Ewald are in the right, when they begin the reckoning of 
 the emperors with Augustus, or whether those who begin it with Julius 
 Caesar are more correct, will make only a few months of difference, at 
 the most, as to the time in which the Apocalypse was written. In 
 either case, it must have been composed before the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem. 
 
 If Abauzit and Herder are right in their exegesis, which assigns all 
 that is said in chap, vi — xix, to prediction respecting Judea , then of 
 course must the Apocalypse have been composed before Palestine was 
 overrun and Jerusalem destroyed by the Romans. But it is not possi- 
 ble to vindicate such an exegesis of Rev. xiii — xix, without aban- 
 doning some of the main principles of interpretation ; and, of course, I 
 shall not attempt to build any argument on grounds such as they assume. 
 
 Eichhorn (Einleit. § 157), and after him Bleek (Zeitsehrift, etc., II. 
 p. 251), assume that Vespasian is the sixth emperor; under whom, of 
 course, the Apocalypse was written. Consequently, they begin with 
 Augustus, and omit Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. But at all events the 
 omission of these three emperors is without any good authority. For 
 although, from the shortness and turbulent nature of their reign, Sueto- 
 nius speaks of the occurrences under them as a rebellio trium principum 
 (in Vesp. 1), yet the same historian regularly includes them, in their 
 proper place, among the twelve Caesars whose lives he writes ; and Ta- 
 citus in like manner gives a somewhat detailed account of their sove- 
 reignties, Hist. Lib. 1. seq. How can we rest a critical decision on 
 grounds so arbitrary as the assumption in question ? 
 
 Finally, it is not unimportant to remark, that the Apocalypse contains 
 frequent declarations, at the beginning and at the close, that the things 
 predicted therein will speedily take place. Of course it is reasonable, to 
 interpret these declarations as having respect at least to the main body 
 and leading part of the book. Yet it is not necessary to apply them to 
 such brief passages as those in chap. xx. seq., which show, by their very 
 nature* that the fulfilment of them iv tu^si is out of question. Now un- 
 
§16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 279 
 
 less the main part of the work before us was fulfilled iv tdyei, the decla- 
 rations in question can hardly be deemed correct. See Rev. 1: 1. 11: 
 14. 22: 7, 12, 20 ; comp. 2: 16. 3: 11. To what events then can we rea- 
 sonably assign the declarations in Rev. vi — xix, if the destruction of 
 Judea and the fall of persecuting Rome be not included ? And if they 
 are, then the Apocalypse must have been written previous to these 
 events. 
 
 Having thus completed our view of the internal evidence of the 
 Apocalypse respecting the time of its composition, it may be proper 
 briefly to notice some objections of Guerike, drawn from this source, 
 against the earlier composition of the work. In his Fortgesetzte Bei- 
 trage (p. 81 seq.), he endeavours to show, that a longer time would be 
 requisite, in order to bring the seven churches to the state which the 
 apocalyptic epistles develops, than could have elapsed between their 
 first conversion under Paul and his associates, and the year A. D. 68 
 or 69. But besides the fact, that we do not know when several of the 
 churches mentioned in the Apocalypse were first formed, I do not per- 
 ceive any force in the allegations of Guerike. F rom seven to ten years 
 is enough for any change of original character in the churches ; at 
 least for any such change as the seven epistles indicate. It has indeed 
 been alleged, that the sects of the Nicolai tans and others mentioned in 
 two of these epistles, could not have been formed and matured so early. 
 But it is now generally conceded, and so even by Guerike himself, that 
 the names given to the heretical persons mentioned in Rev. ii. iii. are 
 not proper names, but merely symbolical ones. Of course, it is not ne- 
 cessary to suppose the existence of organized sects, having such dis- 
 tinctive names. Persons, who acted like Balaam of old and enticed 
 others to idolatry and its associate vice fornication, there may have 
 been in some of the seven churches ; and in fact it seems clear, that 
 such there were. 
 
 Guerike objects, moreover, to the earlier date of the Apocalypse, that 
 ‘ the Gospel and Epistles could not have been composed until after the 
 year 70; and if the Apocalypse was written before this, it seems won- 
 derful to him, that John should have made no reference to it in his 
 other and later books.’ But is not the argument quite as valid, when 
 turned the other way : If John wrote the Apocalypse after his Gospel 
 and Epistles, is it not strange that he did not refer to them ? Guerike 
 labours, indeed, to show that the Apocalypse does refer to those other 
 books ; but what is the nature of his argument ? Mere similarity of 
 sentiment. That anything like a direct quotation or recognition of the 
 Gospel or Epistles, is contained in the Apocalypse, he has not at all 
 made out ; nor can it be made out. 
 
 Still more unfortunate is Guerike’s argument from the comparative 
 
280 § 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 style of the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John. The former, (and so 
 the Epistles), is not unaptly conformed to the Greek idiom ; the latter, 
 he says, is full of Hebraisms, and the like. How came this ? ‘ John/ 
 
 says he, ‘ wrote his Gospel in Ephesus or its neighbourhood, when in 
 the midst of his intercourse with Greeks. But he was at Patmos so 
 long, and moreover in such extreme old age, that he forgot his better 
 Greek style, and relapsed to his former Hebraistic diction and method.’ 
 It will not be required of me, to show the improbability of such a sup- 
 position. John’s exile, whether under Nero or Domitian, could not 
 have been long ; for neither persecution lasted lopger than about three 
 and a half years. And would a man forget a language which he had 
 spoken for half a century, if not more, during that period ? Not to 
 mention, that the few persons at Patmos, with whom John could have 
 intercourse, were probably Greeks. 
 
 Much more probable is the reverse of all this. If John wrote the 
 Apocalypse not long after he came to Asia Minor, it is quite probable 
 that his Greek was then strongly tinctured with Hebraism ; and such is 
 the style of the Apocalypse. On the other hand, if he did not write 
 his Gospel and Epistles until some ten or twelve years after this, there 
 was room for him to become more conformed to the Greek idiom ; as in 
 fact he appears to be, in his Gospel and Epistles. The natural order 
 of things is thus preserved ; and the probability is clearly on its side. 
 
 When Guerike suggests (p. 87 seq. ut sup.), that ‘the Apocalypse 
 must probably have been written after the Gospel, because it has given 
 so much fuller views of the expansion and development of the kingdom 
 of God I cannot perceive the force of his reasoning. The Gospel of 
 John professes to adduce evidence that Jesus is the Christ , John 20: 30, 
 31 ; the Apocalypse professedly teaches the certainty, that the kingdom 
 of God will fully come. Must an author depart from his particular de- 
 sign in one book, in order to repeat the things which he has said in 
 another ? 
 
 The suggestion has often been made, that the fiery phantasy or lively 
 imagination everywhere exhibited in the Apocalypse, can with more 
 probability be predicted of John at some sixty years of age, than at 
 eighty-five or ninety. And speaking of this subject more humano, the 
 suggestion seems to be well founded. But Guerike (p. 94) insists that 
 ‘ this is nothing to the purpose, inasmuch as John was inspired .’ But 
 has he never read, that “ the spirit of the prophets is subject to the pro- 
 phets V Does he not know, that the inspired writers exhibit as much 
 diversity of character, in respect to style, as any other authors ? And 
 all these traits of style, moreover, are in all cases in conformity with 
 their condition and acquirements. 
 
 In fact, so little can be made out of considerations like these, that we 
 
§16. TIME OF WRITING- THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 281 
 
 need not be surprised to find that after all, Guerike, and the older wri- 
 ters who have maintained the later composition of the Apocalypse, de- 
 pend most upon the testimony of Irenaeus and other ancient fathers, for 
 the establishment of their position. What these witnesses have said, 
 has already been exhibited above, pp. 263 seq. But no testimony, 
 circumstanced as this is, can well establish such a point. The internal 
 evidence of any writing which is not supposititious, must always out- 
 weigh testimony of such a nature, provided such evidence is sufficiently 
 plain and ample. And the appeal may be made to every impartial rea- 
 der, after the light which recent criticism has cast on this subject, 
 whether the evidence in the Apocalypse of its being composed anterior 
 to the destruction of Jerusalem, is not sufficiently plain and ample. 
 What book in the New Testament has as many diagnostic passages in 
 respect to time as this ? We cannot safely, in the face of all these, 
 give credit to the mere opinion of Irenaeus, that the Apocalypse was 
 composed in the reign of Domitian. 
 
 I say this, with full recognition of the weight and value of Irenaeus’s 
 testimony, as to any matters of fact with which he was acquainted, or 
 as to the common tradition of the churches. But in view of what 
 Origen has said (see p. 264 above), how can we well suppose, that the 
 opinion of Irenaeus, as recorded in Cont. Haeres. V. 30, was formed in 
 any other way, than by his own interpretation of Rev. 1:9? Is it rea- 
 sonable to suppose, that a man of Origen’s stamp, who had an insatiable 
 curiosity about the sacred books, who spent many years in Palestine, 
 and who moreover flourished but a few years after Irenaeus, would have 
 been unacquainted with an early tradition, (if such there was), respect- 
 ing the time when the Apocalypse was written ? And yet he does not 
 allude to such a thing. Irenaeus might be very honest, and doubtless even 
 was so, in his opinion about the time when John saw his visions. Ire- 
 naeus, moreover, as he himself tells us, was acquainted when a youth, 
 with Polycarp, a disciple of John. In his epistle to Florinus, (Euseb. 
 Hist. Ecc. V. 20), he says, that mug <av he saw Polycarp and listened 
 to his discourses. Irenaeus was born about A. D. 100, and did not 
 write his book Cont. Haeres. or his epistle to Florinus, until he was 
 some seventy-five or eighty years of age. Is it wonderful that he should 
 have even made a slip in his memory, as to the time of John’s exile, 
 which happened a century before ? Indeed, who can tell us whether 
 Polycarp said anything to him on the subject of the time when the 
 Apocalypse was written ? Or if he did, whether the particular date was 
 regarded as an object of importance by him ? The time intervening 
 between Nero’s persecution and Domitian’s, is only some twenty-seven 
 or twenty-eight years. Banishment of Christians doubtless took place 
 under both. There were no monthly or yearly chronicles of such mat- 
 yol. i. 36 
 
282 
 
 §16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 ters published in those days. There was even no common and general 
 era to which dates were referred. John lived through both persecu- 
 tions. He may have been banished during both. It is not at all im- 
 probable that he was, considering his authority and influence at Ephe- 
 sus, the Roman capital of Asia Minor. Of course it was easy, a cen- 
 tury afterwards, to confound the two periods, as to such events as might 
 have happened under either. The most lively and impressive recollec- 
 tions of Irenaeus’s times, would be those of the nearest persecution. It 
 was easy and natural for Irenaeus, then, to attribute to the latter the 
 writing of the Apocalypse, provided no certain tradition had fixed it 
 earlier. Irenaeus was at Lyons when he wrote his book on Heresies ; 
 and this was far away from the centre of early ecclesiastical traditions. 
 Without impeaching, then, his character or his credit, we may still be- 
 lieve that his exegesis of Rev. 1: 9 was not correct. We can scarcely 
 be authorized to attribute to him any nice critical investigations in re- 
 spect to the Apocalypse. The opinions which he gives, in some pas- 
 sages of his works, respecting the meaning of that book, forbid us to do 
 so. Salva fide, then, we may suppose him in this case to have been 
 honest, but mistaken in his opinion. 
 
 After the view of ancient testimony which has been given above, it is 
 almost superfluous to repeat, that all succeeding writers hang upon Ire- 
 naeus as their support. The testimony in respect to the matter before 
 us is evidently successive and dependent , not coetaneous and indepen- 
 dent. We may safely follow then the plain and unequivocal evidences 
 of the time when the Apocalypse was written, which are contained 
 within the book itself, and have already been exhibited in the preceding 
 pages. No other evidence can do away the force of the author’s own 
 declarations.* 
 
 * It was only after a great portion of the present section was in type, and some 
 of it struck off', that Guerike’s Introduction to the New Testament (1843) came 
 into my hands ; which, so far as he is concerned in the present discussion, would, 
 if 1 had been able earlier to consult the book, have superseded any answer to his 
 objections. In his new work, he has fully retracted his former opinions in respect 
 to the Lime when the Apocalypse was written; see pp. 283 seq., specially Note 4 
 on pp. 285 seq., and also pp 531 seq. In these passages the subject of the time 
 is summarily, but well and ably, discussed. In particular, there is one thing in 
 his Note above referred to which is new , and if well grounded, gives an entirely 
 new shape to the testimony of Irenaeus, which is cited above on p. 263, and which 
 seems to have been the principal support of the opinion adopted by so many of 
 the ancient fathers, and hitherto by most of the churches in modern times, viz. 
 the opinion that John wrote the Apocalypse during the reign of Domitian. Gue- 
 rike suggests, that when Irenaeus says, “ that the Apocalypse was seen not long 
 ago, but almost in our generation, ttqos toj rtket, rijg Jopsnavov oiQyrjg " th.it the 
 adjective Jopsvtavov , (for adjective it may be, and if so, it is one which is generis 
 communis , and not the proper name of Domitian), belongs, in accordance with 
 
§ 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 283 
 
 § 17. Author of the Apocalypse. 
 
 If a solicitous inquirer in respect to the authorship of the Apocalypse 
 should consult only the recent leading critics in Germany respecting 
 
 the Greek formations, to the name Domitius , and not to Domitian which would 
 make an adjective of the form Jouiriavir.og. If it were a proper name, he say 3 
 it should be written rov Joytridvov. Now Nero’s name was Domitius Nero, and 
 not Domitianus, which is the name of the later emperor. It follows of course 
 that Irenaeus himself has testified to the fact, that the Apocalypse Was written in 
 the time of Domitius Nero. Thus read and understood, all accords with the in- 
 ternal testimony of the Apocalypse itself. 
 
 The conjecture is very ingenious ; or, if we must rank it higher, the criticism 
 is acute and discriminating. The usual fact is, that the nouns ending in - vog , 
 form adjectives by ~r/.og f in order to avoid the repetition of the -vog. But still 1 
 have some doubts respecting this matter, which arise from the fact, that several 
 of the Greek fathers, and many of the Latin ones who understood Greek, do not 
 appear to have thought here of any other than Domitian, the twelfth Caesar. It 
 was easy, indeed, to fall into such a mistake, if it be one, on account of the near 
 resemblance of the two names. But the leading reason which induces me to 
 doubt, is, the very unusual appellation of Domitius for Nero. Could Irenaeus 
 help feeling that his readers might be misled, by such a use of Jo/xtridvov, in 
 case he meant Xe.ro ? This seems to me rather improbable. As to the phrase, 
 “ almost in our generation,” I feel no difficulty about that. Irenaeus was born 
 near the beginning of the second century, and he might say of the Apocalypse, 
 that “ it was seen almost in his generation,” whether it was seen in Nero’s time 
 (A. D. 68), or in the time of Domitian. But at all events, Guerike’s new work 
 testifies to his candour and diligence in researches of this nature ; and when we 
 consider how strenuous and unflinching he had been, both in his Beitrage and 
 Fortgesetzte Beitrage, in maintaining the late composition of the Apocalypse, it 
 must be regarded as notable testimony to the strength of the critical evidence in 
 favour of the early origin of the Apocalypse, that so ardent a mind as that of Gue- 
 rike has been led, by a more ample study of the subject, to a most full and unre- 
 served retraction of his former views. And such would be the case, as I am fully 
 persuaded, with every candid mind that now believes in the late origin of the 
 book, should investigation be made as ample and as fair-minded as that made by 
 Guerike. If he is in the right, in his criticism on the word Jo/uindvov, past 
 opinions in respect to it present one of the most singular cases of long continued 
 and ofl-repeated philological error, which has ever come to my knowledge. 
 
 Having been unexpectedly called, by the reading of Guerike’s work, to a re- 
 view of the subject of ancient testimony respecting the Apocalypse, I take the 
 liberty in this Note, to suggest a few considerations, in the way of addition to or 
 correction of what has been said above. The thoughts that I intend to express, 
 were suggested by the reading of Guerike. 
 
 In citing the testimony of Clement of Alexandria (p. 264 above), 1 have con- 
 ceded that Clement probably meant Domitian , when he speaks of the tyrant ( tv - 
 qdvvov) as dying, and of John’s subsequent return to Ephesus. I now doubt 
 whether this was his meaning ; first, because Nero above all other Roman empe- 
 rors bore the name of ri'yavvog, among Christians of the early ages ; and second- 
 
284 
 
 §17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 this matter, he would scarcely suppose that there is any ground for be- 
 lieving that John the Evangelist and Apostle composed this book. More 
 than half a century since, Oeder, Semler, Corrodi, and others, not only 
 called in question the genuineness of the book, but heaped reproach and 
 contempt upon it. Michaelis, moreover, and others doubted, whether 
 the authorship of the apostle John is capable of being satisfactorily prov- 
 ed. But this was nothing new. Luther and others of his time enter- 
 tained similar doubts ; and even in the third century Dionysius of Alex- 
 andria, and in the fourth Eusebius of Caesarea, were skeptical in regard 
 to the point in question. 
 
 The works of Herder and Eichhorn on the Apocalypse served, as we 
 have already seen, to rescue this book from the neglect and aesthetical 
 disgrace into which Oeder, Semler, and Corrodi had brought it, in Ger- 
 many. But even some of those who have contributed not a little to vin- 
 dicate the rhetorical honours of the book, are by no means favourable to 
 its apostolic origin. The confidence with which some writers speak on 
 this latter subject, is deserving of particular notice. “ In New Testa- 
 ment criticism,” £ays De Wette, “ nothing stands so firm, as that the 
 apostle John, if he be the writer of the Gospel and the first Epistle, did 
 not write the Apocalypse ; or, if the latter be his work, that he is not 
 the author of the former Einleit. ins N. Test. § 189. So Ewald : 
 
 ly, because Clement, in connection with relating the return of John to Ephesus, 
 tells the story of John’s journeying hastily, on horseback and on foot, in pursuit 
 of a young prodigal. This could hardly be expected of a man some ninety-five 
 years old. But if his return was at the close of Nero’s life, there is nothing im- 
 probable in the story. 
 
 Again, on p. 264, 1 have conceded that the passages cited from Tertullian do 
 not decide what emperor was reigning, when John wrote the Apocalypse. I 
 have cited, in one case, only part of a passage, without adverting at the time to 
 the bearing which the rest of the passage would have upon the part cited, I now 
 give the whole : “ Felix ecclesia [Romana] . . . ubi Petrus passioni dominicae 
 adaequatur; ubi Paulus Johannis [Bapt.] exitu coronatur; ubi apostolus Johan- 
 nes, posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam relega- 
 tur.” Now it strikes me, that Tertullian plainly means to class Peter, Paul, and 
 John together, as having suffered at nearly the same time and under the same 
 emperor. I concede that this is not a construction absolutely necessary ; but I 
 submit it to the candid, whether it is not the most probable. 
 
 If the preceding remarks are well founded, then Clement and Tertullian are to 
 be ranked with those fathers, who ascribe the Apocalypse to the time of Nero, or 
 to a period immediately afterwards. To the like purpose Guerike expresses him- 
 self, in a Note on p. 286. 
 
 Let me be indulged in one other remark. If the Gospel of John was written 
 some eight or ten years after the Apocalypse, (and this is not only probable but 
 almost certain), how can John be supposed to have written it ten years after the 
 reign of Domitian, i. e. when he was some 105 years old ? It is not impossible, 1 
 concede ; but is it not altogether improbable ? 
 
§ 17 . AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE* 
 
 285 
 
 “ That the Apocalvpse was not written by the same author who com- 
 posed the Gospel and epistles, is clear as the light of the sun, (in aprico 
 positum est”), Comm. p. 76. And to the same purpose F. Liicke, 
 whose Introduction has been these some years before the public, but 
 without any accompanying Commentary : “ Either all criticism of the 
 New Testament canon is but idle sport,” says he, “ or the result, viz. 
 that the author of John’s Gospel and first Epistle cannot be the author 
 of the Apocalypse, stands immovably fast in Studien und Kritiken, 
 II. p. 319. A still later writer, Credner (Einleit. § 267), speaks with 
 no less confidence : “ Between the author of the Apocalypse and the 
 apostle John there exists a diversity so deeply pervading, that even to 
 the mere supposition, that the Gospel and first Epistle were the produc- 
 tions of the same mind, when it had attained to higher spiritual pro- 
 gress, which at an earlier period could have composed the Apocalypse, 
 no place can be given, since it would be altogether unnatural and inad- 
 missible.” 
 
 These are confident words, as all must admit. They come, moreo- 
 ver, from men of diverse theological sympathies and views — from men 
 also who, it must be admitted, are highly distinguished for their ac- 
 quaintance with the science of biblical criticism. Not only so, but we find 
 other critics of great name, such as Bleek and Schott, to be in accord- 
 ance 'with them ; not to mention many others now living in Germany. 
 It would seem to be a kind of desperate undertaking, therefore, to defend 
 an opinion against the united voice of so many distinguished critics, dif- 
 fering widely in theological views, but harmoniously combining in their 
 critical judgment concerning the Apocalypse ; and there are doubtless 
 some, who will even deem an undertaking of this nature rash or pre- 
 sumptuous. Yet, after an examination successively renewed through 
 many years, I have never been able to satisfy myself, that what has 
 been the common belief of the churches in all ages respecting the au- 
 thorship of the Apocalypse, is not sustained by more and better grounds 
 than any other opinion. I admit very fully and freely, that there are 
 some difficulties arising from the style and manner of the Apocalypse, 
 which lie in the way of attributing the book to John the apostle. It has 
 been an object with me, to shut neither my eyes nor my ears against 
 anything of this nature, or against any portion of internal evidence which 
 might undermine the common opinion of the churches. Whether I have 
 been the whole round of examination, those well qualified to judge can 
 decide, when they have perused the sequel of this discussion. I have 
 come back from the long-continued and often repeated pursuit of evi- 
 dence in relation to the point before us, with the persuasion, that the ar- 
 gument from the testimony of the ancient Christian fathers is strongly 
 on the side of the common opinion ; and that the argument from the 
 
286 
 
 § 17 . AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 style and manner of the book, or (in other words) the internal evidence, 
 is not of sufficient strength to settle the question against the authorship 
 of the apostle. In fact, although I find some peculiarities of style in the 
 Apocalypse, which are, at first view, strikingly and almost strangely dis- 
 crepant from the usual manner of John’s Gospel and Epistles, yet there 
 are still remaining so many features of resemblance, and, as to some 
 prominent traits, of striking resemblance, that if the latter do not pre- 
 ponderate in the scale of critical judgment, they at least do very nearly 
 hold the scales in equilibrio. Whether I have any just ground for pro- 
 nouncing such a critical sentence, must be disclosed, and at least accord- 
 ing to my own persuasion will be disclosed, in the discussion that fol- 
 lows. I hope at least to furnish the reader with materials for forming 
 his own judgment, and do not expect or wish him to rely upon mine. 
 
 I think it can be satisfactorily shown to a mind wholly unprejudiced and 
 not preoccupied by some favorite views, that many of the words and 
 phrases adduced from the Apocalypse, in order to show the discrepancy 
 between this book and the other writings of John, are chosen with but 
 little fairness and discrimination ; that many others, if fully conceded, 
 do not establish the conclusion which is based upon them ; and that 
 most of the striking points of discrepancy can be naturally accounted for, 
 by proper views of the peculiar nature of the Apocalypse, and of the pe- 
 culiar condition of John when he composed it. 
 
 I make no appeal to the common views and belief of the Christian 
 churches, in later ages, in order to sustain myself. I shall not attempt 
 to decry those who differ from me in opinion as heretics or neologists ; 
 nor be eager to seize occasion to express astonishment at their views 
 and grief at their presumption. This mode of discussion presents 
 nothing attractive to a sincere and modest inquirer after truth. It would 
 at least be out of place, on the present occasion. Those who are well 
 acquainted with the critical writings of such men as De Wette, Bleek, 
 Ewald, Credner, Schott, Liicke, and Neander, must doubtless know, 
 that they cannot have united in denying the apostolical origin of the 
 Apocalypse, from any common sympathy in theological views, nor from 
 any favouritism, on the part of some of them, towards neology. The 
 real state of the fact is, that there are so many apparent difficulties in 
 the way of giving credit to the alleged apostolic origin of the Apoca- 
 lypse, that it may easily be believed by even a fair minded critic, who 
 should proceed only a moderate length in the examination of the ques- 
 tion of authorship, that grounds are not wanting to persuade one to 
 doubt or disbelieve such an origin. Indeed, we know that such is the 
 state of the case. My own mind, if I may be permitted to speak of 
 myself, has in the different stages of examination, gone through a pro- 
 cess of this sort to a certain extent. I have indeed never positively dis- 
 
§17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 287 
 
 believed the apostolical origin of the book ; but I have, in certain states 
 of knowledge and certain stages of inquiry, been compelled to hold my- 
 self in suspense, and wait for more light. Examinations, often and 
 even painfully protracted, have generally brought me nearer to the com- 
 monly received opinion ; until, at last, I feel compelled to believe, that 
 “ they who be for it, are stronger than they who be against it.” I do 
 not pretend to absolute certainty ; for that would be idle in such a case, 
 and on such a point as the one before us. Yet I am satisfactorily per- 
 suaded, that the arguments against the Joliannean origin of the book, 
 are not adequate to overthrow it. In saying thus much, I have at least 
 taken a less confident position than De Wette and others, as exhibited 
 in the above extracts made from them. If I cannot show, with some 
 good degree of probability, that they have not sufficient reasons for such 
 confident assertions, then I will abate even from the present tone of my 
 own much less confident positions. 
 
 To those who feel, that all doubt in respect to the apostolic origin of 
 tiie Apocalypse must be a doubt as to its canonical authority and its 
 credibility, it may be proper here to say, that apostolical origin is not the 
 only or exclusive qualification of a canonical New Testament book. 
 Mark and Luke were not apostles. It would be difficult to make out, 
 with entire certainty, that the James and Jude, who wrote epistles bear- 
 ing their name, belong to this category. It is possible, then, that the 
 Apocalypse may be a canonical book, and worthy of credit, although 
 written by some other person than the apostle John. If the presbyter 
 John, whom Papias testifies to be “ a disciple of the Lord,” (in Euseb. 
 Hist. Ecc. III. 39), were the John named in the Apocalypse (1: 1, 4, 9. 
 22: 8), it is quite possible that the book might sustain the place which 
 it occupies ; although, perhaps, with some degree of abatement in the 
 minds of some, as to the confidence which they repose in it. The hon- 
 our and credit of the book are not wholly compromitted by the ques- 
 tion respecting its author. And since this is plainly the case, we need 
 not consider doubts in relation to this subject as being altogether and 
 purely of a heretical character. I do not say, that doubts expressed as 
 Oeder, Semler, Corrodi, and some others have expressed them, do not 
 fairly belong to this category ; for many of them are unreasonable and 
 contemptuous. But we should call to mind that a Dionysius, a Eusebius, 
 a Luther, a Schott, a Neander, and a Liicke, not to mention others, have 
 doubted ; and against these the accusation of contempt, or of under- 
 valuing the sacred books in general, could not well be brought. 
 
 I make these remarks, not for the sake of showing that it is a matter 
 of indifference whether a man believes or rejects the apostolic origin of 
 the Apocalypse. Far from this. But I would fain present the true 
 nature and importance of the question before us, and not attribute to it 
 
288 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 an importance beyond what intrinsically belongs to it. That the sub- 
 stantial credit of the Revelation is not in reality at stake by reason of 
 such a question, seems to me plain and evident. It is more a critical , 
 than a theological question. Yet it is one which is not by any means 
 destitute of interest. I must confess, and I suppose that many will 
 sympathize with me here, that the Apocalypse would not in all respects 
 address itself to my feelings with the same interest as it now does, if I 
 supposed any other man than he “ who leaned on Jesus’ bosom” wrote 
 it. I know of no John, and no Christian author of the primitive age, 
 who seems to me to have been so well adapted to write it, as the affec- 
 tionate friend, the beloved disciple, the speculative theologian, the 
 strongly feeling and imaginative individual, who has developed his traits 
 in the Gospel and Epistles of John. And this is a good reason for 
 special interest in a composition from his hand. Yet if the book be 
 properly placed in the Canon, although composed by another man, its 
 real authority or credibility is not substantially the less, because John 
 did not compose it. 
 
 We may advance, then,, to the examination of the question before us, 
 without envy and without reproach. It is our main design candidly and 
 honestly to find out and sift the evidence which is accessible. 
 
 This evidence one might divide into two classes, viz., external and 
 internal. But this is not altogether a convenient division, for it seems to 
 exclude the historical testimony of the book itself. A better one, for 
 our present purpose, would be into historical or direct, and indi- 
 rect. In the direct evidence I mean to comprise all historical testi- 
 mony to the fact, that John the apostle was the author of the Apoca- 
 lypse, whether this be in the way of direct assertion, or by declarations 
 which fairly imply the fact. By indirect evidence, I mean all such as 
 results from the nature of the diction, style, or sentiments of the Apoca- 
 lypse, and seems to bear testimony, that the author of this book was also 
 the author of the Gospel and Epistles which bear the name of John. 
 In following out such a division, we are permitted, first, to adduce the de- 
 clarations of the book itself respecting its author , then the testimony of the 
 early Christian fathers , as belonging to the first class of evidence ; we 
 shall then come, in order, to examine the style , the diction , and the doc- 
 trines of the Apocalypse , in relation to the authorship of the book. 
 
 I. Direct or historical evidence that the apostle John was 
 the author of the Apocalypse. 
 
 (1) The writer of the book states, in I: 1, 4, 9 and 22: 8, that his 
 name is John. 
 
 This statement does not appear to me, (as some have maintained), to 
 
§ 17. TESTIMONY OF THE BOOK. 
 
 289 
 
 wear the appearance of special effort to make known himself as the au- 
 thor, and thus to savour of a consciousness, that the genuineness of his 
 production might be suspected. ‘ Who,’ it has been asked, ‘ but a sup- 
 posititious writer, would take care to name himself in four places? 
 This savours,’ it is added, 1 of a consciousness that his claims will be 
 suspected, and of a determination to foreclose all avenues to doubt re- 
 specting the authorship of the book.’ 
 
 My impression is different. The first exhibition of the name of 
 John , is in the general superscription of the book, which merely makes 
 known the person to whom the revelation was made. This could not 
 well be avoided, unless the general inscription had been wholly omit- 
 ted. But where among all the books of prophecy in the Old Tes- 
 tament, is there any analogy for such an omission ? The book of La- 
 mentations omits all superscription ; but not so the prophecy of the same 
 author. Always is the statement made to whom the word of the Lord, 
 as a prophecy, came ; and in conformity with this, we should of course 
 expect to find the Apocalypse. The second case in which John’s name 
 is introduced, is in the address to the seven churches of Asia. It could 
 not be avoided here, unless the author designed his work to be anony- 
 mous, which plainly he did not intend. The third instance (1: 9) oc- 
 curs in connection with his history of the Christophany at Patmos, and 
 his commission to address the seven churches. Here it is employed in 
 order to assure his readers, that the revelation was made to himself in 
 propria persona, not to some other person. 6 He who writes what fol- 
 lows (he means to say) is the very person who saw and heard, in a 
 state of spiritual ecstasy, all which he has written down.’ If John were 
 an apostle, this annunciation would be the more important, because it 
 would give additional weight to his writings, in the view of those whom 
 he addressed. The same consideration appears to occasion the final 
 exhibition of his name, at the close of the book, when his prophecy is 
 finished, viz. in 22: 8. It has struck me with great force, that the sub- 
 scription in the Gospel of John, 21: 24, is altogether of the same tenor 
 as the one before us. Thus in John 21: 24, the writer, after he had 
 related certain things which Jesus had said respecting himself, goes on 
 thus to describe himself : Ovzog bgziv 6 ya&qzijg 6 paQzvQwv tieqI zov- 
 twv xut yndxpag zavzct. In Rev. 22: 8, the writer says : xuyio Iwdvvrjg 
 6 uy.ovcov y.at fiMnow zavzu. That he had been in the act of writing 
 the book, when this was said, is plain from the sequel : y.ul keysi poi • 
 Mrj (jqiQaytGrjg zovg h'ryovg zijg TZQoepqzet'ug zov fiiftllov zov zov. 
 The manner and object of both these subscriptions is evidently very 
 much the same. They differ only so far as the diverse nature of the 
 Apocalypse required a difference ; puqzvqwv, which is appropriate in 
 YOL. i. 37 
 
290 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 the Gospel, becoming dxovcov xcu fiksmov in the Apocalypse, on account 
 of its addresses and visions. 
 
 If now the Apocalypse was composed by some person in the way of 
 forgery , would a forger or impostor have left the name of John without 
 some further designation of his person, so as to make sure for the cre- 
 dit of his book that he was an apostle ? Probably he would not. Had 
 he designed that his own book should be put to the credit of John, he 
 would have placed the matter beyond all ordinary question, by the man- 
 ner of his assurances concerning the author. The point which he knew 
 would be doubted and called in question, he would have taken care to 
 fortify as strongly as possible. But this he has not done. John is 
 there, indeed, but we do not find John the apostle , nor John the beloved 
 disciple , nor John on whose bosom Jesus leaned. 
 
 But it appears from a fragment of Papias, (in Euseb. Ecc. Hist. III. 
 39), that there was a John of some note in Asia Minor, who was a 
 TZQsafivzsQog and a pad'yzyg Kvqi'ov , and a contemporary in part with 
 John the Apostle. Dionysius of Alexandria, and after him Eusebius, 
 and since him not a few others, have thought it not improbable, that 
 the Apocalpyse might be ascribed to John the presbyter. May not the 
 John mentioned in the Apocalypse, then, be intended to designate this 
 individual, and the book itself be no forgery, although not written by 
 the apostle, but a work from the hand of one who has given his true 
 name ? 
 
 The possibility of this cannot, indeed, be well denied. That such 
 a man lived in Asia Minor, {where, I have not been able to ascertain 
 with certainty), partly in the time of John, that he was one of Christ’s 
 disciples, and perhaps that he was a presbyter in some church of Asia, 
 seem to be facts that cannot reasonably be questioned, although some 
 of them cannot be certainly established. Eusebius (Hist. Ecc. III. 39) 
 has preserved a passage from the book of Papias, entitled loyicov xvqiu- 
 y.wv sgyyyaig, which is designed, in the way of introduction, to show the 
 sources from which Papias drew his narratives. It runs thus : El 8s 
 ttov xal TiaQyy.olov&yxcog Tig roTg TTQsafivzsQOig sl&oi, zovg zwv nQSofiv- 
 tsqojv dvsxQivov loyovg • ti JivbQtag, y ti Hszoog slnsv, y xi d>ihinnog, 
 i\ tl Qcopag, y Juxcafiog, y ti Ic ouvvyg, y Maz&uiog, y Tig szsQog tcov tov 
 Kvqiov pufryTcov, cits Aqigtiwv xai 6 TTQSofivTSQog / co a vvyg, oi 
 tov xvgiov padyzcu, XsyovGiv ; i. e. ‘ When I met with any one who 
 was a follower of the elders, I inquired after the words of the elders ; 
 what Andrew, or what Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas, or 
 James, or what John, or Matthew, or [what] any other of the disciples 
 of the Lord, such as Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the 
 Lord, say/ Eusebius reasons from these words, (in the context ut su- 
 pra), in order to show that Papias was not himself an avzyxoov, a hear- 
 
§17. TESTIMONY OF THE BOOK. 
 
 291 
 
 er in person, of the apostles ; and Irenaeus (cont. Haeres. Y. 33. 3, 4) 
 seems to draw from them a contrary conclusion ; and hence great con- 
 fusion about their meaning has taken place among many subsequent and 
 even recent writers. But leaving this, for the present, let us simply 
 advert to the testimony which respects the presbyter or elder John. 
 Guerike lias recently defended the position, that there is but one John 
 mentioned here ; Beitrage zur Einleit, etc., p. 4 seq. He contends, also, 
 that there is no subsequent testimony which can be relied on, that there 
 was a presbyter of the name of John, at Ephesus, in the days of the 
 apostle John. I cannot assent, however, to his views respecting the 
 testimony of Papias, whom he regards as having adverted only to one 
 John, whose name is merely repeated along with that of Aristion, be- 
 cause, as he thinks, these two were the only persons named with whom 
 Papias had a personal acquaintance. The most attentive consideration 
 of this disputed passage in Papias, which I have been able to give it, 
 has satisfied me in respect to the following particulars ; (1) That the 
 class of persons (apostles) as far as Matthew inclusively, were men who 
 were dead at the time when Papias wrote. Hence he refers to them 
 in the Praeter tense, slnsv, had said, and to himself as collecting what 
 they had said, by the aid of others who had been conversant with them. 
 (2) He refers to his obtaining the declarations of the presbyter John 
 and Aristion in the like way, but he speaks of them as then living — 
 Is'yovGiv. Eusebius and others speak of this last clause as intimating 
 Papias’ personal acquaintance with John the presbyter and Aristion ; 
 but whatever may have been the fact, the grammatical construction of 
 the passage will admit of no such interpretation. Of this latter opinion 
 is Rettig also, Stud, und Krit. IV. p. 773. But (3) I cannot reason 
 from all this as Eusebius does, i. e. I cannot draw from it the conclu- 
 sion, that Papias means to say here that he had no personal acquaint- 
 ance with the apostles ; for in the context which immediately precedes 
 the passage before us, the same Papias says : Ov yaQ zoig zd nolld 
 Xt'yovciv eyatnov, coonsQ ol nollol , dXXd zoig z dlti&ij 8i8aGxovGiv * ov 
 8s zoig zdg dXXozqiag svzoXdg yvrjfiovsvoGtr, dXXd zoig zdg nu(>d zov 
 y.vry'ov z\\ niGzsi StSoys'vag you an avzijg naQuyivoysvag iijg dXrjd'siag' 
 i. e. ‘ I took no pleasure in those who speak much, as many do, but in 
 those who teach the truth ; nor in those who tell of strange precepts, 
 but in those [who tell] of things from the Lord presented to our faith, 
 and proceeding from truth itself,’ viz. from Christ the author of truth. 
 But to whom does all this refer ? Plainly to those of whom he had just 
 been speaking thus : Ov/. oxvrjoco 8s goi xal oGa nozs naQct zwv nQSoftv- 
 zsoojv xc&Xwg syaJov xai xaXwg syvrynovsvGa GvyxazazaZai zoig SQfis- 
 vsicag , 8ia@e(i(uovytvog vnsQ avzcov dXrj&eiav, i. e. ‘I shall not regret 
 relating to thee, with explanations, whatsoever things I formerly learned 
 
292 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 well from the Elders , and have well remembered, thus confirming the 
 truth respecting them Euseb. H. Ecc. III. 39. How Eusebius, in rea- 
 soning upon the sequel to this passage, could so entirely overlook the pas- 
 sage itself as he has done, it would be difficult to explain. But nothing 
 can be clearer, (4) Than that Papias here declares, the whole passage 
 being taken together, first of all, his own personal inquiries of the elders ; 
 then, secondly, his inquiries of others who had been conversant with 
 them. That elders , in this case, means the apostles and their associates, 
 is clear from the explanation in the sequel, where Papias mentions An- 
 drew, Peter, etc., as belonging to this class. The very manner of the 
 transition to a description of the second mode of inquiry practised by 
 him, shows that the writer is proposing another and different mode 
 from that first described : El ds rtov xcu TWQijxoXovih'jxcog rig rolg tzqsg- 
 (ivrsQotg sX&oi, etc. This decides the point, (against the opinion of 
 Eusebius), that Papias was a disciple or hearer of at least some of the 
 apostles ; and of course that the declaration of Irenaeus (Haer. Y. 30. 
 3, 4), viz. “ Papias belonged to those 7tQ£G^vr£Q0i, qui Joannem discipu- 
 lum Domini viderunt,” and again, flam'ag : Icodvvov per uxovGrrjg, IJo- 
 Xvxuqtiov dt szaiQog , is to be fully credited. In fact the very nature of 
 the case speaks loudly for this view of the matter. Papias was in part 
 a contemporary with John the apostle : he was the intimate friend of 
 Polycarp, whom all agree to have been a personal attendant upon John ; 
 and he lived, and probably was born, in Hierapolis, which was in the 
 near neighbourhood of Colosse and Laodicea, all of which places were 
 doubtless within the sphere of John’s apostolic labours. Then the in- 
 satiable curiosity of Papias with regard to apostolic traditions, would of 
 course have led him to resort to John, when at Laodicea, and specially 
 to make his acquaintance in case he came to Hierapolis, which we can 
 hardly imagine he failed to do. It is agreed, among the ancients, that 
 Papias was for a long time bishop of Hierapolis ; and it is well known, 
 that in the early ages of Christianity men were seldom promoted to the 
 office of a bishop, unless they were advanced in age. (Hence the title 
 7TQ8G@VT£Qot). It is probable, moreover, that Papias died a martyr in 
 A. D. 164, (see Rettig in Stud, und Krit. IV. p. 766 seq.), and he 
 might, therefore, have lived some twenty or more years within the first 
 century ; as Polycarp did, who became a martyr at eighty-six years of 
 age. All these considerations serve to show, that Papias was a hearer 
 of John the apostle ; and with this also to show, that his testimony re- 
 specting another John, whom he calls 7TQ8G^vr£Qog, is not to be readily 
 set aside. I do not see how we can avoid the conclusion, that Papias 
 was knowing either personally or through others, to the existence of 
 such a person as John the presbyter, in Asia Minor, at the time when 
 he lived and wrote. 
 
§ 17 . TESTIMONY OF THE BOOK. 
 
 293 
 
 But conceding this, wliat was the character and standing of this se- 
 cond John ? II()e6pvT£Qog Papias calls him ; but is this a name of of- 
 fice, or of age ? For it may be applied to either. I am inclined, (with 
 Credner, Einl. p. 697, and Rettig. ut sup. p. 773), to believe that here 
 it is not a name of office, but merely of age ; and that this second John 
 was called the elder, either in respect to his coming into Asia before 
 John the apostle, or, it may be, because he was older than some other 
 John. The order of the words favours this, viz. 6 7iQ£6pvz£()og Jwdv- 
 vqg ; whereas, had the name of office been here meant, Jcodvv^g 6 7TQeG- 
 fivz£Qog would have been the usual and natural arrangement. This 
 frees the passage, moreover, from serious difficulties. In the first part 
 of it, the persons named seem to be ranked as official tiq£G^vt£qoi ; 
 and if 7iQ£o^vz£Qog in the last clause is a name of office, then John in this 
 clause is placed under the same category as the others. It seems to me 
 altogether probable, that such was not the writer’s intention. Both 
 Aristion and the John in question were simply fjia&rjzal Kvoiov. 
 
 It seems to be doubtful, then, whether the John here named is any 
 more a 'presbyter, than the Aristion with whom he is associated. It 
 would appear probable, moreover, that although as a disciple (yaxhjzyg) 
 of Christ this John was entitled to some distinction, and so Papias made 
 inquiries of him, yet he could not have been a person whose character 
 was very conspicuous in the churches, nor one who did much by which 
 he would be afterwards remembered. Certain it is, that with the pas- 
 sage from Papias which makes honourable mention of him, and the de- 
 claration of Eusebius, that Papias in his book frequently appealed to 
 him as his authority for particular statements, (Hist. Ecc. III. 39), we 
 have nothing else in all antiquity which is any more than vague report 
 or surmise concerning him. Eusebius (ubi supra) mentions a report, 
 in his day, that “ there had been two Johns in Asia, dvo z£ iv ’Eysaq) 
 ysviaftai [Avrjpaza' xal ixdzsqov Jwdvvov hi vvv hiysaOai, i. e. and 
 that there were two sepulchral monuments in Ephesus, each of which 
 bears the name of John” Dionysius of Alexandria (first half of Cent. 
 III.), in his famous antichiliastic work, n eft Enayyeliwv, (Euseb. Ecc. 
 Hist. VII. 25), after rejecting the notion that John Mark (Acts 13: 13) 
 was the author of the Apocalypse, says of the second John : "AXkov di 
 ziva oipcu zojv iv stout yevopivwv, inti xal dvo qxxarv iv ’Ecpiaop yevio- 
 ftai [ivryiaza, xal ixazsQov Jwdvvov XiyeG&ui ; i. e. ‘ I think [the au- 
 thor of the Apocalypse] to be another, and one of those [two Johns] 
 who were in Asia, since, as they say, there are two sepulchral monu- 
 ments in Ephesus, each of which bears the name of John.’ These are 
 the very words which Eusebius has quoted in the passage above cited. 
 Eusebius’ authority then, plainly, was Dionysius ; and the authority of 
 Dionysius was — cpa’oiv, i. e. a vague traditional report. Jerome (near 
 
294 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 A. D. 400) refers to this same report. In his Catal. Scriptt. c. 18, he 
 speaks of Papias as enumerating two Johns ; in c. 9, he speaks of an 
 alterum sepulchrum being shown at Ephesus, besides that of the apostle 
 John ; which, in the sequel, he qualifies by saying : “ Et nonnulli pu- 
 tant duas memorias ejusdem Johannis evangelistae esse all of which 
 plainly shows how feeble and indistinct this tradition was. Cosmas In- 
 dicopleustes (Cent. VI.) in Topog. Christ. VII. p. 292, adverts to the 
 report of two monuments in Eusebius ; and this closes the circle of tes- 
 timony to the second John. How narrow this circle is, appears very 
 plainly from facts. Justin Martyr, Melito, Theophilus of Antioch, 
 Apollonius, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and 
 other later Christian fathers, say nothing of the second John. Even 
 the Alogi, who opposed the Montanists and with them the Apocalypse, 
 asserted that Cerinthus was the author of this book, and not the second 
 John. The like did the presbyter Caius, at Rome, about A. D. 200. 
 How could all this have taken place, had there been any good founda- 
 tion for the surmise of Dionysius and Eusebius, viz. that the second 
 John was the author of the Apocalypse ? In truth it was mere guessing , 
 on the part of Dionysius ; from whom Eusebius borrowed his conjec- 
 ture. Dionysius (Euseb. VII. 25) concedes that “ the Apocalypse must 
 have been written by some person whose name was John.'” But from 
 the style and manner of the book, when compared with the Gospel and 
 Epistles of John the apostle, he concludes, that it could not have been 
 written by the latter. Some other John, then, must be found. He finds 
 one in the report (cpuGiv), that “ there were two monuments in Ephe- 
 sus, inscribed with the name of John.” This fell in with the strong 
 bent of his inclination, when he wrote his book tisqI Evayysh'cov against 
 the Millenarian bishop, Nepos, who leaned upon the Apocalypse, and 
 who, relying upon its declarations, confidently urged them in his own 
 favour. To diminish from the weight of this authority, was the evident 
 object of Dionysius, and so, although w r ith much caution, he decried 
 the value of the Apocalypse. But let it be noted, that he does not even 
 attempt to say, that tradition assigned the authorship of the Apocalypse 
 to the second John. He appeals to tradition only to show, that there 
 were two Johns at Ephesus ; and then he conjectures, that the second 
 John might have written the book. And this is all which Eusebius has 
 to say respecting this matter. He plainly had nothing else to relate 
 concerning it, except what he found in Dionysius. Equally plain is it, 
 that such a conjecture in regard to the authorship of the Apocalypse 
 never had any considerable circulation in the primitive ages of Chris- 
 tianity. It is echoed, or adverted to, from no other quarter. The se- 
 cond John, if an actual personage (which I do not deny), was an ob- 
 scure one, in whom succeeding times neither felt nor manifested any 
 
§ 17. TESTIMONY OF THE BOOK. 
 
 295 
 
 special interest. The manner in which Jerome speaks of the subject, 
 (see above), shows very plainly what a mere floating rumour he con- 
 sidered the whole affair to be. 
 
 We have now come to a point, from which we may take a more defi- 
 nite view of our subject. How can we reasonably suppose the second 
 John to have been the author of the Apocalypse ? 
 
 I can scarcely expect contradiction, after all that has recently been 
 written concerning the Apocalypse, when I aver that no ordinary man 
 could have composed this book. The rhetorical worth and eminence of 
 the book are happily no longer subjects of denial or doubt ; at least this 
 is true in respect to the great mass of critics on the sacred writings. A 
 man deeply versed in the Old Testament prophets, the writer of the 
 Apocalypse must have been. The truth of this statement shines forth 
 from every page, and is one of the most prominent features of the whole 
 work. A man of considerable information in other respects, also, the 
 author must have been. Witness so many names of the precious stones 
 so fitly chosen, and many other names of a variety of objects in the 
 Apocalypse. A Hebrew — yea a Hebrew of the Hebrews — the author 
 must certainly have been. The whole book is evidently made up of 
 Hebrew thoughts clothed in Greek costume. Nor is this all. The 
 author must have stood on a lofty preeminence among the churches of 
 Asia, in order to entitle him to address them in the style which the first 
 three chapters of the book exhibit. He must have been a preacher and 
 teacher among them, and most intimately acquainted with their circum- 
 stances and their condition both spiritual and temporal. He evidently 
 bore a strong attachment to them, like that of a father to his children. 
 He claims authority to rebuke and chasten, also to order discipline and 
 demand reformation. He even insists upon some excommunications. 
 In a word, all which a general and spiritual Inioxonog or imazdzTjg can 
 be supposed to feel, speak, and do, he considers as belonging to himself 
 in relation to the churches of Asia. 
 
 Viewing the matter in this light, is it not strange that the second 
 John should ever have been thought of as the author of the Apocalypse ? 
 He may indeed have been a Hebrew, and possibly well versed in the 
 Hebrew Scriptures. F or aught we know, he may have even been a 
 man of some learning also ; but where was his authority in all the Asia- 
 tic churches ? And what do we know of him, from the testimony of 
 antiquity, that distinguishes him from the great mass of common men 
 and common characters, excepting that he was a fiu&rjzijg Kvqlov, and 
 perhaps one of the seventy disciples ; although this last is not very pro- 
 bable ? Could a man that was capable of writing the Apocalypse, and 
 who felt free to address the leading churches of hither Asia as the au- 
 thor of the Apocalypse has done, remain in obscurity, and scarcely be 
 
296 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 thought of or anywhere mentioned ? Things of such a nature are not 
 wont to take place in such a way. On the very face of the whole mat- 
 ter, therefore, it is an improbability that the second John wrote the 
 Apocalypse. One might as well think of attributing Virgil’s Aeneis 
 to a Codrus, or the Paradise Lost to Sir Richard Blackmore. 
 
 Was there any other John, then, who was conspicuous at an early 
 period in Asia Minor, except John the apostle ? We know of none. 
 Dionysius and Eusebius themselves knew of none ; for had they known 
 anything of such a person, with their feelings and persuasion respecting 
 the Apocalypse, they would surely have pointed him out. But some- 
 body must be the author of the book ; some person whose name was John 
 must have written it, for it is no book of an impostor. It must have 
 been written at the time when John the apostle was in Asia. The in- 
 ternal evidence, as to time, is conclusive on this point. Who wrote 
 it must have been known to the seven churches. The John who ad- 
 dressed them could be no fictitious personage. How could his book 
 have been received and accredited at all, had such been the fact ? John 
 the apostle, at all events, was on the ground when the book was written ; 
 and, if it were a forgery, he must have exposed it. Every Christian, 
 at that time and place, must have known which John was banished to 
 Patmos, and of course by which John the churches were addressed. To 
 say the least, moreover, no obscure individual could have had the celeb- 
 rity, which the author of the book must have had in order to free him 
 from the charge of presumption and unbecoming obtrusiveness. All 
 the churches are supposed to know him as it were equally ; all to be 
 under obligation to obey him. Had there been any other John than 
 the apostle, in that region, who was in circumstances like these, how is 
 it possible that we should not have heard something more concerning 
 him ? 
 
 The force of these considerations is greatly increased, by a historical 
 circumstance not yet mentioned. An earlier father than Dionysius of 
 Alexandria was Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, who lived in the latter 
 part of Cent. II. An epistle of his to Victor bishop of Rome and to the 
 church there, on the subject of the paschal controversy, is preserved in 
 Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. V. 24. In defence of his own opinion, Polycrates 
 appeals to the like sentiment on the part of the leading and distinguished 
 characters in the church of Asia Minor, viz. to John the apostle, Poly- 
 carp, Thraseas, Sagaris, Papirius, Melito, etc. But not a word con- 
 cerning the second John. If such a man had been in authority and had 
 written the Apocalypse, could he have been omitted here ? If tradition 
 even, in early times, had ever attributed this book to him, Dionysius 
 and Eusebius would surely not have neglected to tell us so, and Caius 
 and the Alogi would not have resorted to Cerinthus as the author of the 
 
§ 17. TESTIMONY OF THE BOOK. 297 
 
 Apocalypse, in order to avoid the credit given to the book by the name 
 of John the apostle. 
 
 To all these considerations we may add, that the revelation made to 
 John, (Rev. 1:1), imports of course that this John was some very con- 
 spicuous and distinguished character. Is any other person than an 
 apostle probable ? I cannot accede, indeed, to the view which Guerike 
 and others have taken of Rev. 1: 2, as declaring that the John of the 
 Apocalypse is the author of the Gospel which bears the same name. A 
 comparison of this passage with Rev. 1: 9. 6: 9. 20: 4, will show that 
 no sound argument of this nature can be derived from the turn of ex- 
 pression in Rev. 1: 2, for such a purpose. At most, it merely points out 
 the John of the Apocalypse as the preacher or teacher of the word of God 
 and of the Gospel of Christ. What John it was that had borne this 
 character among the seven churches, must have been well known at 
 that time. Besides all this, the Gospel was written later than the Apoc- 
 alypse. Rev. 1: 9 merely defines or further designates the person of 
 the author. That John, the author, was one of the nQoepriTui, is clear 
 moreover from Rev. 22: 9. Why was anything more than this neces- 
 sary ? To say of himself, that he was John the beloved disciple, or the 
 disciple who leaned on the bosom of Jesus , or John the apostle, was quite 
 superfluous, when writing to the seven churches. All this they must 
 have well known. Nor was John a man who was prone to obtrude on 
 others such claims, when they were not indispensable to some important 
 end. 
 
 It strikes me, that any other writer of the Apocalypse than the John 
 of that day, unless he was an impostor, would naturally have described 
 himself so as to guard against all mistake. In common honesty he was 
 bound to do this. And when we are asked by any critic with a look of 
 skepticism : Why did not John, if he were the apostle, say so ? we may 
 well reply : Why did not John the second or presbyter, if indeed he 
 were the author, say who he was, and leave no room for his readers to 
 commit a mistake ? As things are, all is well. The author of the book 
 had no suspicion that he would be mistaken for another ; and so he took 
 no pains to guard against this. The John of Asia Minor was the only 
 man of that day and that region, who was honestly entitled to write in 
 this manner. 
 
 Lucke, who generally writes in a spirit of moderation and candour, 
 has, as we have seen above, expressed a most unqualified negative, up- 
 on the question of the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse. The same 
 author, however, has admitted 1‘ully, that no valid claims can be made 
 out for the second John at Ephesus. He gives up even all pretences to 
 conjecture who the author was. His general conclusion is (p. 390 seq.), 
 that John the apostle may have had the visions related in the Apoca- 
 yol. i. 38 
 
298 
 
 § 17 . AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 lypse ; that he probably spoke of them in the circle of the Asiatic 
 churches ; that some gifted man there heard him, and undertook to 
 write them down ; that in so doing he has mingled his own conceptions 
 with those of John ; that the apostle, when he saw the writing, (for he 
 allows that he probably must have seen it), finding that it did not sub- 
 stantially disagree with his own doctrinal views, or with those of Paul, 
 suffered it to circulate without remarks, at least without opposition ; and 
 that all this might happen, because, as he avers, the primitive Christians 
 were much more concerned about the matter of a writing, viz. whether 
 it was truly Christian or not, than they were respecting the author of it. 
 He acknowledges with much candour, that he has no data on which to 
 build all this, but he thinks that some such supposition is necessary, in 
 order to reconcile the apparent difficulties that exist as to the composi- 
 tion of the book in question. 
 
 But with all due respect for the opinion of so learned and candid a 
 writer, I would ask, whether some of the leading assumptions, in this 
 case, are not opposed to the actual state of things in the early Christian 
 church ? In what way, for example, is it to be proved, that the early 
 church did not much concern itself about the authors of works’ on reli- 
 gious topics ? How comes it, that amid the flood of very early writings, 
 most of which have perished, only the few New Testament books were 
 selected and fixed upon as genuine ? How many of all the New Tes- 
 tament books have other than an apostle for their author ? Only Mark 
 and Luke’s compositions. But why were these admitted to a place in 
 the Canon ? Is not antiquity agreed in the tradition, that the Gospel of 
 Mark was overseen or superintended by Peter, and that of Luke by 
 Paul ? As to the Epistles of James and Jude, they were doubtless re- 
 garded, by the most of Christians, as the productions of apostolic men. 
 Why was such a line as this drawn, in regard to books on religious top- 
 ics, unless the churches were solicitous about the authors , as well as the 
 matter of them ? The history of the New Testament canon speaks 
 loudly against such an assumption as that of Lucke. And if he can 
 point out this Christian father or that, (as he may), who enlarged his 
 own canon beyond our present one, yet it was merely an individual 
 opinion rather than a general one, as the very boundaries or extent of 
 the New Testament canon shows. Matter of fact , therefore, stands de- 
 cidedly against Lucke’s assumption. 
 
 But if this assumption falls, it brings down his whole building along 
 with it. How could John be indifferent to the setting of his own name 
 to a composition which did not belong to him ? Must not a thousand 
 questions have been asked by others of him, in relation to such an ex- 
 traordinary book ? And if he answered them truly, (can we suppose 
 he did not ? ) then the imposture, or the fiction (if this is a better word), 
 
§ 17 . TESTIMONY OF THE BOOK. 
 
 293 
 
 must have been evident to all. Could the very churches under his own 
 personal care, have been indifferent to the use of his name, in such a 
 case ? Specially could those churches have acquiesced, who are severe- 
 ly rebuked in the Apocalypse ? Then, moreover, what honest and de- 
 cent man would have ventured upon such a bold experiment under the 
 very eye of the apostle himself? What could he expect for his book 
 which made pretences so lofty, when all of them could be exposed by a 
 single word from John ? Why, if he reduced to writing John’s repre- 
 sentations of his visions at Patinos — why did he not submit the compo- 
 sition to John, and tell his readers that he had done so ? A most ad- 
 venturous task he undertook, full surely, viz. to ‘mix the apostle’s con- 
 ceptions with his own,’ in relation to such subjects as are here treated 
 of. But no — this is quite improbable, if not indeed altogether impos- 
 sible. If such had been the case, the style of the composition must 
 have betrayed the hand of the fictitious writer. It is out of question, 
 that any writer should so commingle his own with that of another, in 
 such a book of high wrought poetry as the Apocalypse, and yet not be- 
 tray any diversity in plan or style. Yet in- all the Bible there is not a 
 book that is more uniform in style, or more compacted and dove-tailed 
 together than the Apocalypse. I doubt whether there is one, of the same 
 length, which does not exhibit more diversity of style than this book. 
 Such are its idiomatic peculiarities, that even the disjecta membra bear 
 the stamp of the main body. If there ever was a book that had but 
 one author, the Apocalypse has an irresistible claim to be considered as 
 such a book. 
 
 Then how comes it, that neither a Dionysius, nor a Caius, nor a Euse- 
 bius, was able to find out anything respecting such a fiction ? Would not 
 the Alogi, too, have hunted it out ? IIow comes it that the great mass 
 of ancient Christian fathers speak and think of John the apostle only 
 as the author of the Apocalypse, (we shall see this to be the fact), and 
 how can it be, that no report of a composition of the book like that sup- 
 posed by Liicke, or by Dionysius, ever had any currency in ancient 
 times ? In short, in whatever direction we turn, objections start up as 
 thick and as menacing, as the armed men from the teeth which were 
 sown by Cadmus. Sooner would I embrace the hypothesis, that either 
 John Mark, or John the presbyter, was the author, than believe such a 
 fiction as Liicke proposes. How could all this take place, under the 
 very eye of the apostle John, and among the Christians specially com- 
 mitted to his care ? 
 
 One word on the idea of an impostor's having composed the book ; 
 for more than a word is not needed. If there be any book in all the 
 Scriptures, which bears unequivocal marks of a most serious and ear- 
 nest state of mind, the Apocalypse must be regarded as such a book, 
 
300 
 
 §17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 by every impartial and feeling reader. A deeper tone of earnestness 
 never pervaded any writing. What could an impostor have in view, 
 by composing such a book ? How could he expect the Asiatic Christians 
 to receive it ? How could he suppose, that John would not at once 
 overthrow its credit ? Was it fame that the impostor courted ? How 
 could he obtain it, where detection of his imposture was certain ? Was 
 it personal honour or gain that he sought for ? How could he obtain 
 either, so long as he kept himself concealed and was unknown ? In 
 fact, the allegation of imposture may be made, for it has been, by heated 
 and indiscreet disputants ; but it is not deserving of any special notice. 
 The spirit — the all pervading Christian spirit of the Apocalypse, is a 
 sufficient answer to any allegation of this kind that can be made. 
 
 Finally, it lies upon the face of this whole matter, that whoever in 
 fact wrote the book, he meant to attribute it to the apostle John. Dio- 
 nysius and Eusebius excepted, the ancients thought and spoke of no 
 other John, in relation to the Apocalypse. Even Dionysius, however, 
 with all his feeling of opposition to Chiliasm, which was mainly ground- 
 ed by its advocates on the Apocalypse, did not venture even to suggest, 
 that tradition had ascribed the work to John the presbyter. It is merely 
 a conjecture of his own, built on the testimony of Papias respecting a 
 second John at Ephesus. Eusebius, as we have seen, merely repeats 
 his conjecture ; and this, too, without even putting so much stress upon 
 it as Dionysius does. The question, then, as it respects the assertions 
 of the Apocalypse itself concerning John as its author, is reduced to nar- 
 row limits. It is simply this : Is any other John, except the apostle, 
 likely to have written and published such a book as the Apocalypse, at 
 the time and place in which it was published, and under the circum- 
 stances that must have attended the publication ? And the answer to 
 this question may well be submitted to the judgment of every impartial 
 critic, who is well informed in matters of Christian antiquity. There 
 is, indeed, no work of antiquity about which doubts may not be raised 
 and suggested. The Iliad, the Eneid, and nearly all the classical writ- 
 ings of Greece and Rome, have been assailed by doubts ; and many of 
 these, moreover, are not lacking as to zeal or ingenuity. But these 
 writings still hold their place. If the Apocalypse has not a similar 
 right to claim John as its author, it is not because its own declarations or 
 external testimony are wanting. 
 
 ( 2 ) Testimony of Polycarp. 
 
 That Polycarp was in part contemporary with the apostle John, and 
 that he was constituted a bishop of Smyrna by him or by some of the 
 apostles, is generally conceded, and is directly testified by Irenaeus, a 
 disciple of his, in his book Contra Haer. III. 4. See also the same in 
 
§ 17. TESTIMONY OF POLYCARP. 
 
 SOI 
 
 Euseb. IV. 14. The celebrity of his character needs no illustration 
 here. The time of his martyrdom and death is not certain. The 
 Chronicon Paschale names 1G3 ; Eusebius 1G7, Usher 169, and Pear- 
 son 147. The last seems in some respects to be the more probable date, 
 inasmuch as eighty-six (the age at which he suffered martyrdom), would 
 make him to be only thirty-two years in A. D. 98, when John probably 
 died ; while the other dates would make him less than twenty. If he 
 was made bishop by John, it is hardly probable that he could have been 
 much younger than thirty-two. 
 
 We have only one relic of his writings still extant, viz. his epistle to 
 the Philippians. Besides this, we have (in Euseb. IV. 15) an epistle 
 of the church at Smyrna to the churches in Pontus, giving a copious 
 narration of the martyrdom of Polycarp. In these there is no allusion 
 to the Apocalypse. But nothing for or against the Apocalypse as a 
 work of John, or as existing at all, can be drawn from this circumstance. 
 All that is necessary to be said, is, that Polycarp, or his friends, had no 
 occasion to speak of the Apocalypse, in their communications still ex- 
 tant. Is it any good argument against the existence of this or that Old 
 Testament book and its canonical authority, that Paul or Peter, James 
 or John, has not quoted it in their epistles ? 
 
 Meanwhile many of the friends of the apostolic origin of the Apoca- 
 lypse have urged the indirect testimony of Polycarp to such an origin, 
 in the following manner : ‘ As Polycarp was the personal friend and 
 attendant of John, so was Irenaeus of Polycarp. Now Irenaeus, every 
 where and on all occasions, testifies his full belief in the apostolic origin 
 of the Apocalypse. Could he have done so, if Polycarp had not be- 
 lieved the same ? And must not Polycarp have certainly known what 
 was the fact, in regard to the authorship of the Apocalypse ?’ 
 
 All this, to say the least, looks probable and natural. One can in- 
 deed scarcely conceive of a persuasion, so deep and radical as that of 
 Irenaeus certainly was, and yet suppose that Polycarp doubted the apos- 
 tolic origin of the Apocalypse. In his remarks on Rev. 13: 18 (the 
 number of the beast), Irenaeus speaks of the testimony to the reading 
 yfeg as being delivered by ixeivwv tcov xut oxpiv zov Jwdvvrjv scoQaxo- 
 rc ov, Lib. V. 30. 1. Is not Poly carp included among these? And if 
 not, does not the testimony necessarily imply, that some of the personal 
 acquaintances of John had ascertained from him , what the reading in 
 question was, and had told Irenaeus ? And wh y from him ? Plainly, 
 as the direct implication is, because he, being the author of the book, 
 could speak with certainty. There is no other probable ground for 
 making such an appeal. And it is difficult to resist the impression from 
 all this, that Polycarp believed and asserted the apostolic origin of the 
 Apocalypse ; although this does not, and cannot, amount to a certainty. 
 
302 
 
 §17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 Yet whoever reads the extract from Irenaeus’ epistle to Florinus, (in 
 Euseb. Y. 20), will be so deeply impressed with the enthusiastic rever- 
 ence of Irenaeus for Polycarp, that lie can scarcely suppose the latter 
 to have disbelieved the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, while the 
 former so often and so strongly asserts it. To conclude with Liicke, 
 that because Irenaeus has erred in regard to the time in which the 
 Apocalypse was written, he might also err as to the author of the 
 book, seems not to be satisfactory. The possibility , indeed, who will 
 deny ? But still, the two cases are far from being alike. Two perse- 
 cutions of Christians took place during the life of John. Under both 
 banishment took place. The persecutions happened a century or more 
 before Irenaeus wrote his book. It is quite probable, that, being a 
 youth (naig c or), he did not make special inquiry respecting the 
 time , when the book was written. The persecution of Domitian he was 
 best acquainted with. The internal evidence of the book against a late 
 composition, he had not studied or learned to appreciate. John, it may 
 be and is even probable, suffered a second banishment. But be this as 
 it may, it seems quite probable, that Irenaeus made out his opinion re- 
 specting the date of the Apocalypse, from what is contained in Rev. 1: 
 9, and not from testimony. If indeed he made out his opinion about 
 the author in the same way, this would only serve to show what impres- 
 sion the declaration of the Apocalypse concerning John had made on 
 the churches. The question of authorship , on which, as the ancients 
 viewed the subject, was suspended the credit of the book, is in its very 
 nature different from the question respecting time. In circumstances 
 like these, the natural impression on the whole is, that Poly carp’s be- 
 lief wms like that of Irenaeus, in respect to the Apocalypse. Is it pro- 
 bable that the latter w r ould venture, on such a point, to differ from the 
 former ? Is it probable that he did not know the opinion of the former, 
 in respect to the authorship of the Apocalypse ? 
 
 (3) Testimony of Papias. 
 
 On this subject it is unnecessary for me to dwell very long. I have 
 already examined the question, whether Papias was probably a hearer 
 of John, or of any of the apostles. Irenaeus directly asserts that he 
 was, in Haeres. V. 33 ; Eusebius, in III. 39 reasons against it, as we 
 have seen (p. 290 seq. above), from the words of Papias himself. But is 
 it not evident, that Eusebius’ exegesis is faulty ? He had strong preju- 
 dices against Papias as a Millenarian, and looked upon him as an en- 
 thusiast. Be it that he was right in his opinion, so far as this point was 
 concerned, this does not establish the correctness of his exegesis. And 
 other sources of knowledge, which would show that Papias was not a 
 hearer of John, he does not pretend to have. With Irenaeus the case 
 
§ 17. TESTIMONY OF PAPIAS. 
 
 303 
 
 seems to be different. That Papias was the intimate friend ( sruiQog ) 
 of Polycarp, is asserted by Irenaeus in V. 33, and admitted by Eusebius 
 in Ecc. Hist. III. 39. Is it probable, then, that Irenaeus, the enthusi- 
 astic admirer of Polycarp, was mistaken on a point so plain and obvious 
 as this, viz., whether Papias, the intimate friend of Polycarp, was ac- 
 quainted with John, with whom, it is admitted, Polycarp himself was 
 familiar ? I cannot well conceive, that Irenaeus’ testimony in this case 
 does not outweigh the mere constructive argument which Eusebius has 
 drawn from the text of a passage in Papias. Jerome, who was no Mil- 
 lenarian, does not reason in this way. Although in his Catalogus 
 (s. v. Papias), he translates the very passage of Papias on which Euse- 
 bius builds his argument, still he says : “ Papias, Johannis auditor , Hie- 
 ropolitanus in Asia episcopus.” He repeats this in his Ep. ad Theodo- 
 ranv (IV. p. 581), where he says: “ Refert Irenaeus ... et Papiae 
 auditoris evangelistae Johannis discipulus, etc.” That Irenaeus was a 
 disciple of Papias, and the latter a hearer of John, is here asserted by 
 Jerome. Whence he obtained it, i. e. whether by report or inference 
 from written testimonies, I know not. I do not find this circumstance 
 elsewhere mentioned ; but, considering the intimacy between Polycarp 
 and Papias, the assertion of Jerome seems quite probable. 
 
 Thus much for the personal relations of Papias. Now as to his tes- 
 timony. We have already seen, that the passage in Euseb. III. 39 does 
 itself contain an intimation, that Papias was a personal inquirer of the 
 apostles, p. 291 seq. above. We have extracts from the Xoyicov xvqicmgjv 
 i^yytjatg of this writer, in Eusebius, in Irenaeus, in Jerome, and in the 
 Commentary of Andreas bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (Cent. V.) ; 
 so that there can be no doubt of Papias’ work being well known an- 
 ciently, and long circulated. But none of these extracts speak directly 
 to the point of John’s authorship. Yet it is most abundantly evident, 
 that Papias was a warm defender, if not the father, of the Millenarian 
 doctrine of the early ages. On what did he build this ? Whence did 
 such views originate ? Sender, Corrodi, and others, have said, that it 
 originated from earlier Rabbinic speculation and phantasies still circu- 
 lating among the converted Jews ; and Corrodi has laboured with great 
 skill and ingenuity to prove this. But what is the evidence ? I do not 
 find anything more than surmises, which are built upon productions sub- 
 sequent to the origin of the Apocalypse. Irenaeus, in the very passage 
 which he cites from Papias respecting the millennial period (Y. 33), 
 speaks of him as “ having seen John the disciple of the Lord.” IIow 
 can we understand him as meaning to imply less, than that Papias 
 claimed the sanction of John for his view of the Millennium ? 1 do not 
 
 say that he has, or makes, any claim to the personal sanction of John 
 in conversation, but to the authority of John as exhibited in the Apoc- 
 alypse. 
 
304 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 If now it can be shown, that Papias was acquainted with the Apoca- 
 lypse, and regarded it as a divine book, it would seem sufficiently pro- 
 bable, that he drew his Chiliasm from that book. The commentaries 
 of Andreas, and of his successor Arethas, make this sufficiently sure ; 
 as we shall see in the sequel. But in the mean time, it seems to me 
 altogether probable, that Eusebius himself has given the same opinion. 
 In Ecc. Hist. III. 39, he says : “ Even this same writer [Papias] sets 
 forth things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, viz. certain 
 strange parables [i. e. such as are not contained in the Gospels] of the 
 Saviour, and doctrines of his, and certain other fabulous things. Among 
 these he also declares, that there will be a certain Chiliad of years after 
 the resurrection from the dead, when the kingdom of Christ will be es- 
 tablished visibly [(jcoyazrxoog, bodily , i. e. materially] on this earth. 
 xcu ijyovycu, rag dnoGtoXixkg naQab&dpEvov dtyyrjaeig, vnolafieiv, za 
 iv vnobFiyyaoi nQog avzojv pvGnxmg UQryisva firj cvvscoQaxoza. 2?cpo- 
 dQa yaQ zoi ayixQog cov zbv vovv, od? civ ix zc or avzov Xoyoov ZExyrjQdyE- 
 vov eiTteiv , cpaivezcu, i. e. which [Chiliad and earthly kingdom] I sup- 
 pose he admitted, because he misunderstood the apostolic di.rjy^GEig, not 
 perceiving that the things declared in the documents [copies of the 
 Scriptures] were mystically spoken by them [by the apostles]. For he 
 appears to have been a man of very moderate capacity, as one might 
 affirm from the testimony of his own words.” Eusebius then adds : 
 u Still he appears to have been the cause of the like opinion among most 
 ecclesiastics, who allege the great antiquity of the man.” Now in this 
 passage, Eusebius distinguishes two sources of Papias’ opinions, the one 
 is unwritten tradition , and the other is apostolical diyyrjGEig. From this 
 latter source comes Papias’ view of the Millennium. But how ? By 
 interpreting literally what is said yvozixwg. Where else but in the 
 Apocalypse did Papias find dtyyyaeig of this nature, limiting the period 
 to a Chiliad of years ? Plainly nowhere. But observe that Eusebius 
 says, at the same time, that the dnjyrjGsig from which Papias drew his 
 Millennial views, were dnoazohxug. If so, then Papias looked upon 
 the Apocalypse as the work of John the apostle ; for it is not even pre- 
 tended that any other apostle was ever thought of by the ancients as the 
 author of the Apocalypse. 
 
 So far as it respects our present view of Papias’s testimony, it mat- 
 ters not whether he had been a hearer of John or not. I should prefer 
 to believe, if I could make it consistent with what Irenaeus says, that 
 he was not ; for how could he get such views of the Millennium as he 
 has developed, from intercourse with the apostle himself? But that 
 Eusebius himself means to concede, that he drew them from writings 
 regarded by Papias as apostolical, although he did this by a wrong exe- 
 gesis, seems to lie upon the face of the above passage. Did not Papias, 
 then, regard the Apocalypse as an apostolical book ? 
 
§ 17. TESTIMONY OF PAPIAS. 
 
 305 
 
 But he was GCpodQa GfuxQog rov vovv. True, such was the judgment 
 of Eusebius ; but in what respect ? Only as it regarded the interpreta- 
 tion of the figurative language of prophecy, Eusebius himself being 
 judge. In III. 36 he says: “ Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, dvijQ rd 
 ndvza on yaXiGza Xoyiwzarog, xai zrjg yQacpijg Eidrjywv ; i. e. a man in 
 all respects most learned [or eloquent], and skilled in the Scriptures.” 
 Valesius, indeed, in a note on this passage, says that several Mss. of 
 Eusebius omit this latter clause. But this savours of emendation. The 
 clause looks like a contradiction of what is said afterwards in III. 39, 
 as quoted above ; and Papias was in no good odour with the Antimil- 
 lenarians. Yet in reality there is no contradiction, as viewed by Euse- 
 bius. He denies to Papias the talent requisite to interpret the mystical 
 prophecies in an appropriate manner, because he interprets them lite- 
 rally or (HOfianxwg. And with good reason. Yet he might be a man 
 of many other attainments, and most probably was. How else can the 
 influence which Eusebius himself ascribes to him be well accounted for ? 
 
 Thus much for Eusebius’s view of Papias and his opinions. At a 
 later period we find testimony still more explicit. The book of Papias 
 survived the 5th century, and probably a considerably longer period. 
 Near the close of this century, however, Andreas, bishop of Caesarea, 
 wrote a Commentary on the Apocalypse, which is still extant. In the 
 Preface to this he says : IIsqi ytvzoi rov xfEonvEVGzov rrjg fiffiXov 7Teqiz- 
 rov [iTjXVVEiv rov Xoyov rjyovfie&a, rcov ^axaQiarv, fQrjyoQt'ov (pryii rov 
 'freoXoyov, xai Kvqi'XXov, tzqogezi ds xai rojv dgycaor/pcov, TIan7ziov, ' Jq j /- 
 vatov, Me&odiov xai InnoXirov ravzri riQOGfiaQZVQOvvzcov ro d^iomarov ; 
 i. e. ‘ in regard now to the inspiration of the book, we think it superflu- 
 ous to extend our discourse, inasmuch as the blessed, Gregory the fteo- 
 Xoyog I mean, and Cyril, and moreover the more ancient [writers], Pa- 
 pias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, bear testimony to the credi- 
 bility of this [book].’ In nearly the same words throughout, does Are- 
 thas, the successor of Andreas, (fl. in the early part of Cent. VI.), bear 
 the like testimony. It is evident that both commentators possessed and 
 consulted the Aoyimv xvQiaxwv ’EhrjyrjGEig of Papias. 
 
 The credibility of these witnesses no one will pretend to impeach. 
 Particularly as it respects Papias ; it is evident that they had no mille- 
 narian sympathy with him, and were not led by partiality in this re- 
 spect to appeal to him ; for both of them (Comm, on Rev. xx.) reject 
 all carnal views of the Millennium. That Andreas actually made use 
 of the work of Papias, is clear from the fact, that he appeals to Papias 
 by name, and cites two distinct passages from him, in his Commentary 
 on Rev. 12: 7. It does not follow, that he cites from a Commentary of 
 Papias on the Apocalypse ; for, although such a work has been ascribed 
 to him by some, yet neither Eusebius, nor any of the ancient writers 
 vol. i. 39 
 
306 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 appeal to any such production of Papias. The passages cited concern 
 merely the agency of angels, and may well have been in the book of 
 Papias already named. 
 
 What then is it to which Papias bears witness, in the view of An- 
 dreas and Arethas ? It is the d'eonvev xjtov of the Apocalypse, i. e. its 
 inspiration. But in the view of these commentators throughout, who 
 has any claim to be the author of an inspired book ? Plainly none but 
 apostles, and those who wrote under their eye, and as it were by their 
 dictation. Liicke apparently concedes this, p. 270 ; and yet afterwards 
 he seems to take it back, p. 271. At least, he thinks it quite possible, 
 that Papias, although he knew the book was not of apostolic origin, 
 might still have regarded it as inspired. But if Papias’s account of 
 himself, given on p. 290 seq. above, is correct, it would seem very plain, 
 that he cared little for any traditions or Stiiyrjaetg which did not come 
 from the apostles. Even Aristion and the presbyter John are appealed 
 to only as reporters of apostolic sayings ; at least, the proper exegesis 
 of Papias so decides the matter. This makes against the view of Liicke. 
 It looks much as if Papias did not credit even dirjyrjGEig or naQudoGeig, 
 unless he could trace them to an apostolic origin. Deceived he might 
 have been, and doubtless was, as to the origin of some of his yyrjosig ; 
 but the principle of reception remained steadfast. How can it be said, 
 then, with any good degree of probability, that Papias might easily ad- 
 mit the inspiration of the Apocalypse, although he did not hold the 
 book to be apostolic ? If he insisted on such authority even for his 
 ifyyrjGEtg, would he be satisfied with less for a book of divine authority ? 
 Will Lucke tell us how — with such a facile faith as he ascribes to Pa- 
 pias and the age in which he lived — how it came about that the New 
 Testament should be made up, at last, only of apostolic writings — apos- 
 tolic in the immediate and proper sense, or in an equivalent one ? This 
 fact makes against his view of Papias’ facile faith. Mistaken Papias 
 might be, in a matter of criticism and taste ; but if he was — as Irenaeus 
 and Jerome assert, and as the time and circumstances in which he lived 
 go to show — a hearer of John and an intimate friend of Polycarp, (yea, 
 and a teacher of Irenaeus also), how could he well mistake about a point 
 of so deep interest to him as a Millenarian, viz. Who wrote the Apoca- 
 lypse ? The supposition seems not to be entitled to credit, when all 
 these circumstances are fully weighed. 
 
 ‘ But,’ it is alleged, ‘ Andreas was mistaken as to the belief of Gre- 
 gory [of Nazianzen] and Cyril [of Alexandria] in the apostolic origin 
 of the Apocalypse. Why may he not have been mistaken, also, in his 
 opinion respecting Papias ?’ The possibility of this, no one will deny ; 
 the probability is another question. But that he was mistaken as to 
 Cyril, is far from being correct ; and that Gregory Nazianzen rejected 
 
§17. TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 307 
 
 the Apocalypse, is a proposition which cannot well be established, as we 
 shall see in due time. As to Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, 
 there can be no doubt that Andreas is in the right. The views which 
 he ascribes to Papias, then, stand fairly unimpeached. 
 
 ‘ But how could Eusebius have passed over such an acknowledgment, 
 on the part of Papias, of the authority of the Apocalypse, when he so 
 carefully cites his testimony, and that of others, to the other books of 
 the New Testament ? Eusebius must surely have read him, in order to 
 obtain his testimony in general ; and why has he failed to report it on 
 this point ?’ 
 
 That Eusebius read the work of Papias, I am not about to deny. But 
 Eusebius had a strong dislike of everything that pertained to Chiliasm, 
 and a strong distaste for Papias’ visionary turn of mind. That he read 
 him with a less scrutinizing eye, in such passages as pertained to Chili- 
 asm, it is not unnatural to suppose, because of his distaste for them. 
 At all events, we may ask questions equally difficult to be answered on 
 the other side, viz., How could Irenaeus have so mistaken the character of 
 Papias, and his relation to Polycarp and to John ? How could Jerome 
 have so mistaken the same ? How could Andreas and Arethas, wffio 
 appeal to Papias, and evidently had his work in their hands, have so 
 mistaken his views ? It is much easier to suppose, that Eusebius com- 
 mitted some oversight in this matter, than it is to dispose of all this tes- 
 timony, and of all the probabilities that arise from the time, place, and 
 circumstances, in which Papias lived. 
 
 On the whole, if certainty is not attained here, reasonable probabili- 
 ty, and that in no small degree, seems to be the result of our investiga- 
 tion. I must think that the staunch Millenarian, Papias, drew his 
 views from a defective interpretation of the Apocalypse, and that in re- 
 sorting to it for those views, he regarded it as the work of John, and as 
 being of apostolical authority. Nor can I think, that Eusebius and the 
 other writers named above contradict each other, as to testimony about 
 matters of fact. The former made up his opinion merely from his in- 
 terpretation of a passage in Papias, and, as we have reason to believe, 
 made it up erroneously ; the latter either drew from other sources, or 
 else took a different and more correct view of the meaning of Papias. 
 In this case, their exegesis would be discrepant from that of Eusebius ; 
 but the testimony of the two parties as to facts , does not stand in mutual 
 opposition. 
 
 (4) Testimony of Justin Martyr. 
 
 This father was born at Neapolis or Sichem in Samaria ; was of 
 Greek origin ; was in part contemporary with Polycarp and Papias, 
 and flourished as a writer about 140 — 160. He was first a heathen phi- 
 
308 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 losopher ; and after his conversion to Christianity, about 132, he tra- 
 velled in Egypt, Italy, and Asia Minor. Ephesus, among other places, 
 was his abode for some time. Endowed with a bold and inquiring mind, 
 it could scarcely be supposed, that he would not make inquiries there 
 respecting the life and works of the apostle John. Eusebius avers, that 
 the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew was held at Ephesus ; by which he 
 seems to suppose, that the work of Justin, so entitled, is only a narrative 
 of what actually took place. The authenticity of this work was some 
 time since called in question, by the effervescence of skeptical criticism. 
 But Muenscher’s defence of it has set the question at rest. If it had not, 
 the recent discussion of Semisch must do so. The work of Justin was 
 written about 140 ; and therefore during the life of Poly carp, Papias, 
 and Irenaeus. 
 
 Justin is labouring (c. 80, 81) to establish the doctrine of Chiliasm ; 
 to which he seems to have been a real convert. After citing various 
 passages in confirmation of it from the Jewish Scriptures, he appeals to 
 the testimony of New Testament Scriptures in the following words : 
 “ Kal ineidt] xcu nag igiiv dvt]Q 7ig, cp ovoga ’l(odvvi]g, sig uov dnoG- 
 roX (ov Tov Xqkjtov , iv JlnoxaXvxpEi yevopfarj avzcp, yiXia fat] Ttotijaeiv iv 
 'ifQOVGuXtjp 7 ovg rco i]pE7EQ(p X()(G7(p 7T(,G7EVGaV7£g 7TQOE(pT]7£VGE, XCU 
 f/€7cc 7av7a 7t]v xa&oXrxt]v x at ( gvveXovzi epavai) aicoviuv ogoxXvfiadov 
 dfia. ndvzcnv dvaG7aGiv yerrjGEGflcu xal xqi’glv i. e. Moreover, since 
 even among us a certain man, John by name, one of the apostles of 
 Christ, in the Revelation made to him, prophesied that those who be- 
 lieve in our Messiah should spend a thousand years in Jerusalem, and 
 after this (to speak briefly) that there should be a general and perpetual 
 resurrection and judgment of all at the same time.” That Justin, how- 
 ever, did not regard this Chiliad as one of mere worldly pleasure, is 
 clear from the sequel, in which he goes on to show, that the declaration 
 of Christ, (Luke 20: 35, 36), viz., ‘ In the resurrection, they shall nei- 
 ther marry nor be given in marriage, but be like the angels,’ confirms 
 the account in the Apocalypse. 
 
 That John the apostle wrote the Apocalypse, and that this is a book 
 of divine authority or inspired, lies upon the very face of this declara- 
 tion too obviously to need any comment. 
 
 That those who impugn the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, should 
 endeavour to do away the force of such a pointed and seemingly irre- 
 sistible testimony as this, was to be expected. Accordingly, from the 
 time of Abauzit downwards, there have not been wanting men, who 
 remind us of the enthusiam and credulity of Justin-— of his belief in fa- 
 bles, in the wonderful rise of the Septuagint \ersion, and the like; 
 moreover, of his spiritualizing exegesis, etc. To all this, however, there 
 is one plain and simple answer : A man may be an erroneous interpret- 
 
§17. TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 309 
 
 er of the words of Scripture, or credulous as to alleged wonders, while 
 his testimony to a simple fact , which has nothing of the wonderful in it, 
 may be very upright and worthy of all credit. That John the apostle, 
 and not some other man, wrote the book of Revelation, has nothing of 
 the wonderful in it. It would be much more wonderful, if any other 
 man of that day and in Asia Minor wrote it ; for there are things in it, 
 which would seem strange if attributed to any other man than such an 
 one as the apostle. All such objections, then, on the part of Abauzit, 
 Oeder, Semler, and their followers, we may dismiss, without an effort 
 to refute them. 
 
 Attempts of a different nature, less disingenuous, but in my appre- 
 hension not more successful, have recently been made in order to re- 
 but the testimony of Justin. Rettig has denied the genuineness of the 
 clause, eig mov dnoazoXcov rov Xqixjtov ; Ueber die Zeugniss fur die 
 Aechtheit, etc. Leip. 1829. On what ground? No Mss. omit it. 
 The passage was in Justin, when Eusebius wrote his Ecc. History. In 
 IV. 18 Eusebius says, in so many words : “ He [Justin] mentions the 
 Apocalypse of John, and says expressly (aacpwg), that it belongs to the 
 apostle.” Eusebius then goes on to show in what high credit Justin’s 
 work stood among the early Christians. That the phrase in question 
 was ever wanting in Justin, there is not the slightest evidence. Rettig 
 says, indeed, that the strangeness of the phraseology renders it altogeth- 
 er suspicious. But the force of this remark I do not feel. Justin is 
 speaking to a Jew ; to one unacquainted, as it would seem, with the 
 books of Christians ; else why should he detail to him the whole com- 
 pass, as it were, of the evangelical history ? Justin had been appeal- 
 ing to Old Testament passages. He now makes the transition to a 
 part of the New Testament. In so doing he says : “ A certain man 
 among us [Christians], John by name, one of the apostles of Christ , 
 prophesied, etc.” Justin means to say, that the prophecy now to be 
 cited came from an authentic source, and therefore he says : One of the 
 apostles of Christ. Why is this any more strange than the clause : 
 “ There was a man sent from God, John by name, etc.” in John 1: 5 ? 
 In speaking to Trypho of Peter, Justin (c. 108) says: “ He [Christ] 
 named one of his disciples Peter , who was formerly called Simon.” Is 
 not this of the same tenor with the other passages ? In fact, all is so 
 natural here, that not to suppose some such mode of address would be 
 strange. Accordingly Rettig has found few, if any, who sympathize 
 with him in this matter. Schott, Liicke, Credner, all decide against 
 him. 
 
 But Liicke comes to a conclusion respecting Justin’s testimony, 
 which would seem to deprive it mainly of any value. ‘ Justin,’ he says, 
 < was not a disciple of the apostle, or of apostolical men like Polycarp 
 
310 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 and others. We do not know, (he further says), that he made inquiry 
 of any of them, therefore, in respect to the authorship of the Apoca- 
 lypse ; and it does not follow, because he was in Ephesus, that he there 
 made any investigations respecting this matter. He might have drawn 
 his inferences about authorship, then, from the book itself, and so his 
 testimony would merely depend on his exegetical conclusions, and 
 therefore could not be decisive.’ 
 
 One could hardly expect this strain of reasoning from such a writer 
 as Li'icke. Elsewhere, and in regard to other books, the testimony of 
 the fathers respecting them rests on two grounds ; (1) Direct quotation 
 of them as sacred books. (2) Allegations that they were written by 
 this or that individual. Sometimes tradition is appealed to in these 
 cases, and sometimes it is not. The very nature of the case decides, 
 that it must always be implied ; for on what else can the opinion of 
 writers after about A. D. 160 rest, except on such a basis ? Now in the 
 case before us, Justin unites for substance both of these modes of appeal. 
 He cites as authoritative the matter of a passage in the Apocalypse ; 
 and he states the fact, that the Revelation was made to John the 
 apostle, and that he uttered it, TtQotcptjievae. And is it rational to sup- 
 pose, that such an inquiring and enthusiastic mind as Justin’s, while he 
 was at Ephesus, would have remained idle and indifferent to the ques- 
 tion : Who wrote the Apocalypse ? Above all, since Justin was a 
 Gkiliast , would he have remained indifferent to the inquiry : Whether 
 the Apocalypse, in his view the principal support of Chiliasm, was a 
 book on which reliance might be placed ? His Chiliasm would of itself 
 have given him a more than usual interest in this question. And at Ephe- 
 sus, and not long after John’s death too, when many who had been per- 
 sonally acquainted with him, must have been still living, he had all pos- 
 sible opportunity for inquiry of the most direct and decisive nature. Is 
 there any ground for such a turn as Lilcke gives to this matter ? If 
 there is, then all the testimony of antiquity can be rendered suspicious, 
 or be virtually annulled. On every ground, whether that of intelli- 
 gence, of the spirit of inquiry, of credibility as to matters within his 
 reach, and of opportunity in the case before us, Justin stands fast as an 
 unimpeachable and credible witness. 
 
 One singular circumstance in respect to Justin should be noticed here, 
 before we proceed to other testimony. It has been supposed by many, 
 that he wrote a Commentary on the Apocalypse. This is founded on a 
 strange clause, which appears in Jerome’s Catalogus, (c. 9) : “ In the 
 14th year of Domitian, who, after Nero, carried on the second persecu- 
 tion, John, being banished to the isle of Patmos, wrote the Apocalypse ; 
 quam interpretantur Justinus Martyr et Irenaeus.” The same Jerome, 
 in his Chronicon says : Quam Irenaeus interpretatur. But in his Cat- 
 
§ 17 . TESTIMONY OF MELITO. 
 
 311 
 
 alogus, under the titles Jiistin and Irenaeus , he makes mention of no 
 such work as executed by either of these fathers. None was known to 
 the ancients ; at least, no mention is made of any such. The manu- 
 scripts give us no aid in getting rid of the clause in question ; and many 
 conjectures have been made in respect to its meaning. I cannot help 
 believing, with Liicke, that the original Greek in Eusebius’ Chronicon, 
 from which Jerome drew in writing his own Chronicon, affords an ade- 
 quate solution of the matter. Eusebius is speaking of John’s visions 
 being seen at Patmos ; and he adds : gh* dtjoi EiQi]vaio v, as Irenaeus 
 shows or testifies. In some moment of haste or oversight, as it would 
 seem, Jerome rendered drfioi by interpretatur. This done, the quam 
 was adopted of course, instead of ut = the of Eusebius. Sophronius, 
 the Greek*?nterpreter of Jerome, (see in edit. Fabr.), has translated Je- 
 rome’s interpretatur by [lezi-Cf oaoe, i. e. metaphrased. What this means 
 here, it would be difficult to say. It is evident that no investigation of 
 the matter itself was made, either by Jerome or Sophronius. The error 
 once committed in the Chronicon, is transferred to the Catalogus, where 
 Justin , as well as Irenaeus, is said to be an interpreter of the Apoca- 
 lypse. It is a pity, that so many theories about Justin’s Commentary 
 on the Apocalypse should have been made from such materials. But 
 all this has no immediate relation to the testimony of Justin. 
 
 That this father has, in his writings now extant, appealed to the 
 Apocalypse but once, need not seem strange. It is enough to suggest, 
 that he found no occasion to do so more than once. There are other 
 books of Scripture to which he has not appealed at all ; but this makes 
 nothing against them. Justin seldom appeals directly to New Tes- 
 tament books, except where he wishes to illustrate something in the his- 
 tory of Christ or the apostles ; and then, he rarely appeals to them by 
 name. The Apocalypse, from its very nature, had little to do with the 
 subject of his Apologies or of his Dialogue. 
 
 On the whole, even if we allow any weight to the suggestions of 
 Liicke concerning the uncertain value of Justin’s testimony, it must be 
 conceded at all events, that Justin believed the Apocalypse to be the 
 apostle John’s work, because common report so represented it. Can 
 common report, now, on this subject among Christians at Ephesus, and 
 so short a time after the death of John, leave us any good room for 
 doubt as to its correctness ? And how can we even suppose that Jus- 
 tin was not acquainted with it ? 
 
 (5) Testimony of Melito bishop of Sardis. 
 
 Melito was a contemporary of Justin, and bishop of one of the church- 
 es to which one of the apocalyptic epistles is addressed. He was a 
 man greatly distinguished for learning and piety ; so much so, that Ter- 
 
312 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 tullian, as Jerome asserts (Catal. 24), says, that Christians were wont 
 to name him a prophet. He was, moreover, unusually inquisitive re- 
 specting the sacred books. At the request of Onesimus, he made ex- 
 tracts from the Scriptures respecting the Messianic prophecies; he 
 also made out, for the same individual, a complete list of the Old Tes- 
 tament canon, which is still extant in Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. IV. 26. The 
 testimony of such a man respecting the Apocalypse, is not only very 
 desirable, but, if accessible, must be of great weight. 
 
 He has given, however, no list of the New Testament writings ; for 
 in his time, they were scarcely brought into one combined volume. 
 Eusebius, after mentioning the titles of various books which Melito had 
 written, adds to these the following declaration : xal ra tieqi rov fiiafio- 
 hov, xcu xrjg ’yinoxukvxpEwg Jwdvvov, 4: 26. Critics are not agreed, 
 whether this is the title of one book or of two. In the meantime, Je- 
 rome (Catal. 24) clearly understands the passage as the title of two 
 books ; for he renders it thus : “ De diabolo librum unum, de Apocalypsi 
 Joannis librum unum.” Had Eusebius repeated tieqI before the latter 
 clause of his expression, it would have clearly meant what Jerome sup- 
 poses it to mean. But Jerome may have seen the books themselves, 
 and thus obtained a certain knowledge. 
 
 In the meantime, whether two books or one be meant, the substance 
 of the testimony is the same. Now as Eusebius, who doubted whether 
 the Apocalypse was an apostolic work, was always on the watch for 
 anything which might sustain his doubts, it cannot be reasonably sup- 
 posed that the John here named was, in his view, any other than John 
 the apostle. Had there fairly been room for a surmise that John the 
 presbyter was meant, he would surely not have failed to note it, for it 
 would have been quite sufficient to sustain his doubts. The voice of 
 nearly all antiquity, which never speaks of any other John than the 
 apostle, is entirely against John the presbyter here ; and this Eusebius 
 has candidly admitted, by his silence in respect to the subject. 
 
 Melito, then, a learned, curious, and critical inquirer, bishop of one 
 of the churches addressed in the Apocalypse, and belonging to the next 
 generation after the apostle John, wrote a commentary, or at least a 
 treatise, on the Apocalypse. Would he have done this, if he had not 
 regarded the book as genuine, apostolic, and inspired ? The probability 
 is against such a supposition. 
 
 (6) Testimony of Theophilus bishop of Antioch. 
 
 This writer flourished about 169 — 180. Some of his writings still 
 remain, viz. Libri III. ad Autolycum. He appears to have been a man 
 of some distinction. u He wrote a book,” says Eusebius (Ecc. Hist. 
 IV. 24), “ against the heresy of Hermogenes, iv (p ix Trjg Jinoxalv- 
 
§ 17. TESTIMONY OF APOLLONIUS AND IRENAEUS. 313 
 
 xl’scog 3 Icoavvov xsyoqzcu fiaQTVQiaig. I need not repeat the remarks 
 already made on the nature of such an appeal. That John the apostle 
 is here meant, and that the testimony of the Apocalypse was cited by 
 Theophilus as Scripture, is quite plain, and was doubtless felt to be so 
 by Eusebius ; who certainly reports the matter with great ingenuous- 
 ness. 
 
 A passage in the ad Autol. II. 28, dcaycov ds xou dndxcov xulelrcu, 
 viz. Satan, has been supposed to refer to Rev. 12: 9. It may be so ; 
 but the imitation is not exact enough to render it certain. 
 
 (7) Testimony of Apollonius. 
 
 This person was a distinguished writer of Asia Minor, near the close 
 of Cent. II. He wrote a book against the Montanists, from which Eu- 
 sebius makes long extracts, Ecc. Hist. Y. 18. This historian also notes 
 concerning Apollonius and his book : Ktjn^zcu ds xa\ [laQTVQtaig duo 
 zijg \ Icoavvov (i7Zoxalv\l’£G)g, i. e. ‘ he employs testimony from the Apo- 
 calypse of John.’ What John is meant, is shown by the next clause : 
 “ And he relates that a dead person was raised by this same John, 
 through divine power.” The apostolic power of working miracles is 
 hereby plainly supposed. Eusebius evidently thinks of no other John 
 than the apostle. 
 
 (8) Testimony of Irenaeus bishop of Lyons. 
 
 Irenaeus was among the most renowned of the early fathers, on ac- 
 count of his learning, his steadfastness, and his zeal for the truth. He 
 appears to have been born not far from the beginning of Cent. II., pro- 
 bably at Smyrna; and when a youth (jiulg cov — iv 7iQ(6zr( ijhxia, Euseb. 
 Y. 20. Iren. Cont. Haer. III. 3), he was a hearer of Poly carp, and, as 
 Jerome avers (epist. ad Theodoram), also a disciple of Papias. It is 
 not improbable that he went to Rome with Polycarp, who went thither 
 in order to compose the Easter controversy when Anicetus was bishop 
 of that city. We find him afterwards at Lyons in France, first a pres- 
 byter, and then a bishop after the death of Pothinus. When or why 
 this transfer of abode took place, we have no certain means of deter- 
 mining. It must have been when he was about seventy years of age, 
 that he became a bishop. He wrote his great work, Contra Haereses , 
 after this. His martyrdom in extreme old age has been asserted ; but 
 the writers of Cent. III. do not appear to have any knowledge of such 
 an event. 
 
 The importance of his testimony needs no illustration ; and this tes- 
 timony we have in sufficient abundance. I will give some leading pas^- 
 sages, which will serve at once to explain and confirm the others ; after 
 YOL. i. 4(/ 
 
314 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 which I shall merely give references to other passages, in order to avoid 
 unnecessary repetition of the same views. 
 
 In Cont. Haeres. IV. 20. 11, he cites at length Rev. 1: 12 — 16, and 
 prefaces it by saying: “Joannes Domini discipulus in Apocalypsi sa- 
 cerdotalem et gloriosum regni ejus videns adventum, inquit,” etc. In 
 Y. 26 he says : 44 Significavit Joannes Domini discipulus in Apocalypsi, 
 etc.” quoting Rev. 17: 12 seq. The same in IV. 30. 4. The like in 
 IV. 21: 3. Y. 35. 2. Y. 36. 3. In Y. 30, the whole strain of argument 
 and representation is based upon the idea, that John the apostle wrote 
 the Apocalypse. In Euseb. Y. 8 and III. 18, there is a full recogni- 
 tion of some of these testimonies. And that no other John, than the 
 author of the Gospel, is the pa&rjtTjg tov xvqiov who is so often men- 
 tioned by Irenaeus, none can doubt, who are familiar with the writings 
 of this father. Of any other John than this, in the apostolic ages, he 
 knows, or at least says, nothing. And although he never speaks of 
 John by calling him the evangelist or apostle , but names him John the 
 disciple or simply John ; yet he has given us the key to unlock his 
 meaning in these cases with certainty; for in III. 1, he says : 44 Postea 
 Johannes, discipulus Domini, et ipse edidit Evangelium.” In Y. 30 is 
 a passage, before adverted to, which speaks too plainly to be misunder- 
 stood. Irenaeus introduces the passage respecting the number of the 
 beast, which is found in Rev. 13: 18. Instead of 666, he says that 
 some copies of his time read 616. 4 The former,’ he goes on to say, 
 
 4 is found iv tzuoi anovSaioig xcu ao^aioig dvziyQciqioig , i. e. in all cor- 
 rect and ancient Codices.’ It follows, then, that in the very next gen- 
 eration after the death of John, a difference of copies had already taken 
 place in regard to this number, and that one class of Mss. had already 
 become ancient, in the estimation of Irenaeus. This shows, then, not 
 only the circulation of the Apocalypse among the churches, but its very 
 early circulation ; and, if the Mss. of the Apocalypse in Irenaeus’ neigh- 
 borhood be here meant, it shows its wide circulation. Nor is this all. 
 Irenaeus tells how the true reading may be still further ascertained : 
 Muqzvqovvt cjv aviMv sxeivcnv tcjv xaz oipiv tov : Icodvvijv scooaxorojv, 
 i. e. 4 Those very persons bear testimony to it, who have seen John 
 face to face.’ What John ? A subsequent passage (§ 3) tells us : 
 44 For if it [the name of the beast] ought to be openly declared at the 
 present time, di ixelvov av sqqs&i] tov hcu ttjv Jlnoxdlvxpiv scoQaxozog, 
 i. e. then it would have been spoken by him who saw the Apocalypse.” 
 The John in question, then, is he who saw the apocalyptic vision, who, 
 as he has spoken out other things in his book, would have spoken out 
 the mysterious name in question, if it had been proper to do so ; and 
 this is the same John who was seen by those that bore testimony to the 
 correct reading, i. e. 666. This concatenation is inevitable ; and it set- 
 
§ 17. TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS. 
 
 315 
 
 ties the question, who wrote the Apocalypse, so far as the opinion of 
 Irenaeus is concerned. 
 
 Liicke, however, finds two difficulties in respect to the testimony of 
 Irenaeus ; 4 first, we do not know on what grounds this father formed 
 his opinion, i. e. whether he merely followed the current supposition of 
 the day, that the apostle John wrote the book, or whether he made in- 
 quiry of such men as Polycarp and Papias ; and secondly, Irenaeus has 
 erred in respect to the time when the book was written, and why may 
 he not have erred, too, as to its author ?’ But does not Irenaeus, in the 
 passage just cited above, show that he had not been negligent in appeal- 
 ing to the personal acquaintances of John ? Does not the nature of 
 the case speak for itself, when he tells us with what enthusiasm he 
 heard Polycarp, in his youth, and how deeply every word he said was 
 engraven upon his memory ? See in Euseb. V. 20. How could a man 
 capable of writing the Contra Haereses , have been so grossly negligent 
 of his opportunities of acquiring information ? I know well, indeed, 
 that all this is possible ; but is it probable ? Does it accord well with 
 what we know of Irenaeus ? And if the testimony to other books of 
 the New Testament is to be scanned by such rules as are applied to 
 this case, is there a single book which can stand ? Not one. Should 
 we not do now in the present case, what we must justify in other cases ? 
 And if so, we need not ask for any more. 
 
 As to the second allegation of Liicke, viz. that Irenaeus has erred re- 
 specting the time when the Apocalypse was written, and so is not to be 
 looked upon as a trust-worthy witness ; one might reply in Liicke’s own 
 words, when he is defending the passage in Justin, cited above, from the 
 like assault : “ Whoever errs once, or even many times, does not there- 
 fore err always, and at all times,” p. 277. But setting aside this just 
 remark, some other considerations deserve our notice. I have already 
 given above (pp. 281, 282), what I suppose to be a natural and proba- 
 ble solution of the cause of Irenaeus’s error. The point of time when 
 the Apocalypse was written, could not have been regarded as an essen- 
 tial one, at the period when this writer lived ; John survived two perse- 
 cutions ; these were only some twenty-five years apart ; banishment 
 probably accompanied both ; the last of them preceded, by about a cen- 
 tury, the time when Irenaeus wrote ; and unless Irenaeus, in his youth, 
 had fastened upon the point of time as a matter of critical inquiry, he 
 might, in the sequel, make out his opinion merely from the book itself 
 as it lay before him. There can scarcely be a well-grounded doubt 
 that he did so ; anjl consequently we have an opinion here which is de- 
 pendent on his exegesis. It is unnecessary to say to those who are 
 well acquainted with Irenaeus, that his interpretations were not always 
 under the control of sound hermeneutical principles. Not a little of his 
 
316 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 exegesis is uncritical ; and some of it is absolutely repulsive, by reason 
 of its visionary phantasies and conceits. But the point whether the 
 Apocalypse was an apostolic and accredited book, was a very different 
 matter. Let any one turn to the index of Scripture quotations in Mas- 
 suet’s edition of Irenaeus, and see with what frequency he has quoted 
 the Apocalypse. The bare inspection will convince him how deeply 
 Irenaeus reverenced the book in question. We know well, also, that 
 he did so, because he regarded it as the production of the apostle John.* 
 
 On the whole, if the matter before us were one of mere critical skill 
 and judgment, I am ready to confess, that we could not depend much 
 on the opinion of Irenaeus, who sometimes errs egregiously in this re- 
 spect. But as it is, or at least as it was in his time, a mere matter of 
 historical inquiry ; as he was familiar with the personal friends of John ; 
 as, at all events, he must know the common and prevalent views of the 
 churches in respect to the authorship of the Apocalypse ; we may fairly 
 repose a good degree of confidence in his representations that have a 
 bearing upon the point in question. 
 
 (9) Testimony of the epistle of Vienne and Lyons. 
 
 The epistle in question was written by the churches just mentioned, 
 i. e. in their name, during the persecution under Marcus Aurelius, about 
 177. It was addressed to the churches in Asia Minor and Phrygia. 
 Eusebius has inserted it at length, in his Hist. Ecc. V. 1. 
 
 Concerning Yettius Epagathus it says, that “he was a genuine disci- 
 ple of Christ, uxoXov&cov 7(p UQn'q) onov dv V7zdyrj which last phrase 
 is found in Rev. 14: 4. (p. 156, edit. Yales). In the same epistle (p. 159), 
 it is said of the aged Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, when taken before the 
 tribunal which was to condemn him, that o>^ avzov ovzog rov ygiarov, 
 anedldov zv t v xulrjv paQTVQt'av, i. e. ‘ as if he were Christ himself, he 
 gave a good testimony alluding probably to Rev. 1: 5 or 3: 14. On 
 p. 165 may be found another probable quotation, in the same epistle, 
 from Rev. 22: 11 ; iva ^ yQcccpr] nhjQwd'ij 6 dvopog uvopqodico hi, xai 
 6 dlnaiog dixaim-dtfr co hi. Possibly, in the second instance above, 
 1 Tim. 6: 13 may have been in the mind of the writer; and in the third, 
 Dan. 12: 10. But the passages in the Apocalypse are both nearer to 
 the expressions in the epistle of the churches, than to those last named. 
 
 Not improbably Irenaeus himself wrote the epistle in question. If so, 
 
 * I give a list of passages quoted, many of which are quite long, and embrace 
 even a whole paragraph ; Rev. 1: 12 seq., p. 256 in Massuet’s edition. 1: 15, p. 
 244. 1: 17, 18, p. 256. 3: 7, p. 253. 4: 7, p. 190. 5: 6, p. 256. • 6: 2, p. 258. 11: 19, 
 p. 252. 12: 2 seq. (nearly the whole chapter), p. 326. 17: 8, p. 330. 17: 12 seq., p. 
 323. 19: 11 seq., p. 256. 19: 20, p. 326. 20: 6, p. 334. 20: 11 seq., p. 336. 21: 1 seq., 
 p. 336. 21: 3, p. 252. 20: 5, 6, p. 336. 
 
§17. TESTIMONY OF CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS. 
 
 317 
 
 it would add nothing important to the list of testimony. But even on 
 this ground, it would serve to show the usual familiarity of the churches 
 with the Apocalypse, and the credit in which it was held. The pas- 
 sages in question do not, indeed, speak directly of John as the author of 
 the Apocalypse, but they do speak as if the clauses quoted were con- 
 sidered as belonging to the Scriptures. 
 
 (10) Clement of Alexandria. 
 
 This celebrated writer flourished at Alexandria, from 192 to near 220. 
 Although many of his writings are extant, still the references in them 
 to the Apocalypse are not frequent. 
 
 There is no good ground for doubt, from anything which is found in 
 his works, that he received and admitted the Apocalypse as a work of 
 John the apostle. Tims in Strom. IV. 4 he says, when speaking of 
 the righteous man, that “ he shall sit among the twenty-four thrones, 
 judging the people, cog cprjow iv zfj JinoxaXvxbu 'Jcodvvrfi the like in 
 Strom. VI. Referring to the white robe mentioned in Dan. 7: 9, he 
 says, that Christ was seen in vision as having a like robe ; and then he 
 adds : xal r\ AnoxdXvxpig qirjoi * EiSov rug xpvydg rwv psfMQTVQijxotcov 
 vnoxcirco r ov ^voiaotijoiov, xai idod'rj ixdu yzcp ozohrj Xevxrj • which 
 plainly comes from Rev. 6: 9, 11, p. 201, Wirceb. edit. On p. 528 he 
 quotes, with an eiqtjtou yao, Rev. 22: 12. Another passage (from p. 
 207) has frequently been quoted and relied upon, as vouching for the 
 apostolic testimony of the Apocalypse, viz. “ And the twelve gates of 
 the heavenly city, like the twelve precious stones [Rev. 21: 19 seq.J, 
 we regard as indicating the excellence of the grace of apostolic declara- 
 tion.” I conceive the idea of this passage to be, that the twelve pre- 
 cious stones are an emblem of the messages of grace delivereaby the 
 twelve apostles. If this is correct, it exempts the passage from the class 
 of direct testimonies to the origin of the Apocalypse, and places it only 
 among those passages, which show that it was a book, to which Clement 
 made most respectful appeal. ' 
 
 Merkel, indeed, ranks Clement among the opposers of the Apoca- 
 lypse, because, as he avers, ‘ he cites the Apocalypse without adding 
 anything to show its authenticity.’ But so does he also cite the Gospel, 
 and first epistle of John; e. g. Paed. III. 13, xui avrog ihaopog ion 
 71EQI tojv apaQncov ryimv [1 John 2: 2], cog cprjoiv 6 : /couvvrjg . So in 
 Strom. II. So, too, Clement often cites Paul and Peter, without nam- 
 ing them apostles . Nothing can be established from the mere manner 
 of quotation. Clement also cites many apocryphal books, and some- 
 times even calls them yyacpr]. But so any pious writing, which circula- 
 ted among the churches of the primitive age, was called ; while frfiXicc 
 was appropriated to the Scriptures as such. It is the kind of authority 
 
318 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 which Clement attributes to the books, rather than his manner of quo- 
 tation, which is to be considered in relation to the case before us. And 
 in respect to this, I see nothing to show that he did not quote the 
 Apocalypse in the highest sense. When he attributes the work to 
 John, there can be no reasonable ground to doubt, that he meant John 
 the apostle. 
 
 (11) Testimony of Tertullian. 
 
 This animated and often truly eloquent writer flourished at Carthage, 
 about 199 — 220. He was born in that city, and bred up in the study 
 of the Latin and Greek languages, of philosophy and the Roman law, 
 and possessed extensive information. He was somewhat enthusiastic 
 in his feelings, and, in the latter part of his life, inclined to the defence of 
 the Montanists. Of this sect more must be said in the sequel. Suffice 
 it to say here, that they were strenuous assertors of Chiliasm. It has 
 been said, in order to detract from the weight of Tertullian’ s testimony, 
 that his Montanism influenced him in deciding so strongly in favour of 
 the Apocalypse. But we shall see, that in this respect his opinion 
 was the same before he became a Montanist as afterwards. 
 
 The declarations of Tertullian are so frequent and plain, that no 
 doubt can possibly remain as to his belief. Thus, in Advers. Marcio- 
 nem, III. 14, he says: “Nam et apostolus Joannes in Apocalypsi en- 
 sem describit ex ore Dei prodeuntem, bis acutum, praeacutum, etc.” 
 i. e. he refers to Rev. 1:16. Again (ib. § 24), speaking of the New 
 Jerusalem, he says : “ Ilanc et Ezekiel novit, et apostolus Joannes vi- 
 dit;” Rev. 21: 2. In De Pudicitia, cap. 19, he speaks of the senti- 
 ments of Paul and John, and in so doing he quotes largely from the 
 Apocalypse, as containing the expression of John’s views. In De Re- 
 surrect. c. 25, he appeals to Rev. 6: 9, respecting the souls of the mar- 
 tyrs as asking for retribution on the persecutors of the church, and also 
 to various other passages in the Apocalypse, and cites them as Scrip- 
 ture. In c. 27 of the same, he speaks of the mention of the saints’ 
 vestments in the Scriptures , and then cites Rev. 14: 4 as an instance, 
 and calls it Apocalypsis Johannis. De Anima c. 8, he says : “ Sic 
 Joannes in Spiritu Dei factus, animas martyrum conspicit viz. as 
 related in Rev. 6: 9. In c. 9 of the same treatise, he speaks of John 
 as having the spirit of prophecy. In Praescriptt. Haeret. c. 46, he 
 speaks of the heresy of the Nicolaitans as condemned in the Apocalypse , 
 by the 7nost weighty authority of the sentence of the Lord , quoting Rev. 
 2: 6. In Advers. Judaeos c. 9, he speaks of Babylon as exhibiting a 
 figure of the Roman city, apud Joannem nostrum ; by which, of course, 
 he means the apostle John, and adverts to Rev. xvii. In De Corona 
 Militis, c. 13, he says : “ From the inhabitation of that Babylon we are 
 
§ 17. TESTIMONY OF TERTULLIAN. 
 
 319 
 
 removed, in Apocalypsi Joannis see Rev. 18: 4. In c. 15 of the 
 same treatise, he says : “ Nam et reges nos Deo et Patri suo fecit 
 Christus Jesus;” Rev. 1: 6. 
 
 It were easy to adduce many more passages of the like nature ; but 
 it is superfluous. Everywhere in Tertullian, in his writings before and 
 after his Montanism, he refers to the Apocalypse as Scripture, and as 
 the work of John ; and of John the apostle , too, for he knows nothing of 
 any other John in the primitive age. Once he merely adverts to the 
 fact, that Marcion declined to admit the authority of the book ; Advers. 
 Marc. IV. 5. But he seems not to think his denial worth controversy ; 
 and apparently so from the feeling, that he thought there could be no 
 danger from such an unreasonable proposition. If there had been any 
 controversy of this kind, when he wrote his books against Marcion, 
 which seemed in any degree threatening to the credit of the Apocalypse, 
 Tertullian was one of the last men not to have noticed it and entered 
 warmly into it. It is evident that he never thought of serious opposi- 
 tion to the book, unless when he viewed the matter simply in reference 
 to Marcion. Some opposition did arise on the part of the Alogi in Asia 
 Minor, in his day ; but his book (de Ecstasi) in defence of the Montan- 
 ists has perished, and we know not what he may have said there concern- 
 ing the Apocalypse. He speaks of this book in all his works now ex- 
 tant, as one about which the church had decided. 
 
 As to the weight of Tertullian’s testimony, nothing more need be 
 said, than that it shows what the general opinion of the churches was, 
 at the time when he lived. This ojnnion of necessity rested on earlier 
 tradition. The once living witnesses, the apostolic men, were all dead. 
 But Tertullian, in his argument against heretics, everywhere urges 
 with much strenuousness the uniform traditionary doctrines and views 
 of the churches. We have no room for supposing, in respect to the 
 point before us, that he did not accord with the all but universal opinion 
 of the Christian church. The Alogi of his day he could not regard as 
 seriously disturbing the harmony of this opinion, since they went the 
 extravagant length of rejecting all the writings of John. Lucke sug- 
 gests, by way of parrying the force of Tertullian’s testimony, that ‘we 
 cannot conclude from the state and manner of it, that there were, at that 
 time, no objections against the Apocalypse of a historical nature, nor 
 that Tertullian put the tradition which he held, to a thorough test of 
 examination.’ It is true, indeed, we cannot vouch for it, that Tertullian 
 knew everything about the history of the New Testament Canon, nor 
 that he made scrupulous and critical examinations of tradition. But 
 how many of all the Christian fathers are there, for whom we can give 
 such vouchers? We must go down even to Origen and Jerome for 
 critical examinations ; unless indeed we recognize Melito as having 
 
320 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 performed such a task. Yet what had Origen and Jerome to rely upon, 
 except the tradition of the churches and ecclesiastical men ? So far as 
 mere matter of fact is concerned, e. g. whether this or that tradition ex- 
 isted and to what extent, Tertullian is a creditable witness ; as credible, 
 for aught I can see, as they. He was not an ignorant nor an obscure 
 man. He knew extensively what had been done, and was doing, among 
 Christians ; and when he testifies in the manner in which he has, re- 
 specting the Apocalypse, I see no good reason why his testimony is not 
 valid. It does not, and cannot prove directly anti in an apodictic way, 
 that John wrote the Apocalypse ; but it shows that the churches as a 
 body, about a century after his death, believed that he wrote it, and at- 
 tributed it to him. And this is all which Tertullian, or any subsequent 
 writer, can be considered as proving. 
 
 (12) Other early witnesses. 
 
 It seems quite probable that the early Latin version which Jerome 
 corrected and amended, was made in the second century. Augustine 
 speaks of the old Latin versions as being made primis Jidei temporibus , 
 Doctr. Christ. II. 11. Cassiodorus (Instt. div. Litt. II. p. 516), speak- 
 ing of the ancient form of the Vulgate, reckons up the number and order 
 of the New Testament books comprised in it, and mentions Apocalypsis 
 Johannis as the last. 
 
 The Shepherd of Hermas is appealed to by Lardner and C. F. 
 Schmid, as containing passages built upon the Apocalypse ; but I 
 cannot recognize, in any of them, a sufficient similarity to authorize us 
 to count upon them. See in Schmidii Hist. Ant. Can. p. 298. 
 
 C. F. Schmid, (Offenbarung Johannis, pp. 238 seq.), has also ap- 
 pealed to the Recognitions of Clement in favour of the Apocalypse ; 
 moreover, to the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs ; but in neither 
 case do the passages produced by him bear any certain evidence of 
 apocalyptic origin. Mere resemblance is not identity. 
 
 The Latin Fragment of some writer, who must have lived not far 
 from A. D. 200, published by Muratori in his Antiq. Ital. (III. p. 854), 
 beyond all question acknowledges the apostolic origin of the Apocalyse. 
 Of this book the author speaks thus : “ Apocalypsis etiam Johannis et 
 Petri tantum recipimus, quam quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia no- 
 lunt ; i. e. as to the Apocalypse of John and Peter, we admit only 
 [them] ; which [last] some of ours are unwilling to have read in the 
 church.” Before this, the same Fragment says, respecting John : “Et 
 Johannes enim in Apocalypsi licet septem ecclesiis scribat, tamen omni- 
 bus dicit, etc.” Vide Schmid’s Offenb. etc. p. 101 seq. 
 
§ 17. TESTIMONY OF HIPPOLYTUS. 
 
 321 
 
 (13) Hippolytus, so-called bishop of Portus Romanus. 
 
 That there was a bishop of this name, who was the author of nume- 
 rous writings somewhat distinguished, is clear not only from the testi- 
 mony of Eusebius and Jerome, but in the year 1551 a statue of him 
 was dug up at Rome, filled with various inscriptions, and among tnem a 
 catalogue of his works; see in the preface to Fabricius’ edition of the 
 works of Hippolytus. Eusebius and Jerome, it would seem, were igno- 
 rant of his place of residence. Zonaras, Nicephorus, and Gr. Syncellus, 
 name Portus Romanus. This some have placed in Arabia ; some in 
 Africa ; others at Ostia near Rome. The influence which this bishop 
 had at Rome, and the fact that his statue was found there, make the last 
 conjecture altogether the more probable one. So the Chronicon Pas- 
 cliale : imaxonog zov xalovfit'vov floor ov, nXrfiiov zijg Pcofiyg. He was 
 a contemporary of Origen, and is said by Photius (Cod. 121) to have 
 been a disciple of Irenaeus. 
 
 There can be no ground of doubt, that he held to the divine authority 
 of the Apocalypse, nor that he maintained its Johannean origin. Had 
 this been otherwise, Eusebius, or some of the ancients, would scarcely 
 have failed to detect it, and to say something concerning it. But we 
 need not rely merely upon this. In the work of Hippolytus De Antichris- 
 to, § 36, he says, “ He [John], when he was in the isle of Patmos, oQci 
 dnoxalvipiv iivazrjQimv (pQixzdjv, i. e. sees the Revelation of awful mys- 
 teries, declaring which he abundantly instructs others. Tell me, bless- 
 ed John, apostle and disciple of the Lord, what thou didst see and hear 
 respecting Babylon.” Immediately he recites the whole of Rev. xvii. 
 and xviii. as exhibiting the testimony of the apostle. Again, in § 47, he 
 cites several verses from Rev. xi., introducing them with Xsyei ’ Jtodvvrjg . 
 In § 48, prefaced by Xtysi yaQ s fwdvvrfi , he cites the last half of Rev. 
 xiii. In § 50 he cites Rev. 13: 18, introducing it with l.t'yei yap 6 71 qo- 
 (prjzrjg xui dnoozoXog. In § 60, he cites a large portion of Rev. xii., 
 premising ’Iwdvvtjg (ptjoi In § 65, he quotes Rev. 20: 6, and assigns 
 the words to John ; and again he quotes Rev. 22: 15, with a 7c odvvrjg 
 Xt'yei. He adverts, in § 6, to Rev. 5: 5 ; and in § 29, to Rev. 17: 9. 
 
 There can be no good ground to doubt the genuineness of this work. 
 Jerome names it among the works of Hippolytus, Catal. 61 ; and Pho- 
 tius also mentions it as one of the books of Hippolytus which he had 
 read. The matter and manner speak for its genuineness. Moreover, 
 a large fragment of Hippolytus Cont. Noetum exhibits the same views 
 respecting the Apocalypse. In § 15 of this fragment, he speaks of what 
 John says in the Apocalypse, and quotes several verses from Rev. vi. 
 Opp. Ilippol. p. 241, edit. Fabric. 
 
 Besides all this, Hippolytus wrote a work 7 ieql zov yard ’fcodvvyv ev- 
 VOL. i. 41 
 
322 
 
 §17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 ayysh'ov nut dnoxcdvipscog, as appears from Jerome (Catal. 61), and 
 from the inscription on his statue found at Rome. Probably this was 
 a Commentary ; and on this ground it was appealed to by Andreas and 
 Arethas, at the beginning of their Commentaries. Possibly it was a 
 defence of the books of John against the attacks of the Alogi. But the 
 fact that Hippolytus wrote many commentaries, as Jerome testifies, 
 (who also names many of them, Catal. 61), renders it more probable 
 that the work in question was a Commentary. His work De Antichris- 
 to , from which the citations above are taken, is, indeed, little else than 
 a Commentary on Daniel and John. Asseman (Bib. Orient. III. p. 15) 
 produces the words of Ebed Jesu, asserting that “ Hippolytus wrote a 
 defence of the Apocalypse of John the apostle and evangelist.” 
 
 Considered as the pupil of Irenaeus (Photius Cod. 121), and as the 
 author of many Commentaries on various books of Scripture, and of 
 other learned works ; taking also into view the fact respecting the sta- 
 tue , erected to his memory as a token of high respect ; we must regard 
 the zeal of Hippolytus for the Apocalypse as good evidence of a strong 
 conviction of the apostolic authority of the book. There is only one 
 intervening link, moreover, bet ween him and the contemporaries of John 
 himself. Hippolytus may, like all the writers of his day, have been but 
 an indifferent expositor of the symbols and tropes of the prophetic books ; 
 but this does not prejudice his testimony as to the main fact before us. 
 Doubt has indeed been suggested, whether his De Anpichristo is genu- 
 ine. But Mill, who seems to doubt all the other works published as 
 his, inclines to concede its genuineness ; Prol. in Nov. Test. The 
 great body of the learned have admitted it. Besides, Andreas (on Rev. 
 13: 1. 12: 18, and 17: 10) appeals to this work. On the whole, it must 
 be reckless criticism that can scornfully set it aside. The strength of 
 Hippolytus’ conviction is a thing that ought to be noted. There is no 
 proof that he was inclined to Montanism, so that he might be partial to 
 the book on this ground. His intimacy with Origen forbids this suppo- 
 sition. His views, therefore, may be considered as the result of exami- 
 nation and of the influence of the times upon him. We cannot well 
 suppose that he wrote a Commentary on the Apocalypse, or a treatise 
 in defence of it, and yet did not examine at all the question respecting 
 the authorship of the book. 
 
 (14) Testimony of Origen. 
 
 Whatever may be said in respect to any individual of the preceding 
 witnesses, in the way of derogating from his testimony, there is at least 
 no room for anything of this nature in regard to Origen. No one of all 
 the Christian fathers had so much of zeal purely critical as Origen, and 
 none pushed studies of this nature so far. He closed his astonishing 
 and useful labours near the middle of the third century, having lived to 
 
§17. TESTIMONY OF ORIGEN. 
 
 323 
 
 a good old age. He was, at all events, no Millenarian, and could not 
 have been influenced by any sectarian views of this sort in his judgment 
 respecting the Apocalypse. His testimony, therefore, has all the im- 
 portance attached to it, which was possible at the time in which he liv- 
 ed ; for he made researches respecting the Canon of both the Old Tes- 
 tament and the New, such as had not before been made, and in many 
 respects with peculiar advantages. He was born and educated at Alex- 
 andria, where Clement of Alexandria was his religious teacher, and 
 Ammonius Saccas, (as some have supposed, but without good evidence), 
 his master in philosophy and rhetoric. He lived many years in Pales- 
 tine. And to all his other qualifications he added that of a considerable 
 knowledge of the Hebrew. 
 
 It would be useless to extract a large number of passages from his 
 writings, in order to illustrate and confirm his testimony. Some two or 
 three will suffice ; with references to others, which may be consulted if 
 the reader pleases. 
 
 Eusebius (Hist. Ecc. VI. 25) has presented one from Origen’s Ex- 
 position of the Gospel of Matthew, in which this great critic has given 
 the Canon of the New Testament, according to the result of his inves- 
 tigations. What is to our present purpose runs as follows : “ What 
 
 shall be said of him who leaned on the bosom of Jesus, viz. John ? 
 He has left us one Gospel, confessing that he could compose so many, 
 that the world could not contain them ; and he, moreover , wrote also the 
 Apocalypse, being commanded to keep silence and not write what the 
 seven thunders uttered.” In his Commentary on John, Origen says : 
 (prjG'ir ovv tv 7 rj yinoxaXvxyti 6 xov Ztfitdulov ’Jojdvvijg, i. e. ‘ John, the 
 son of Zebedee says, in the Apocalypse.’ Again, in Commentary in 
 Matthew, he says : “ The king of the Romans, as tradition teaches, 
 condemned John, who bore testimony on account of the word of truth, 
 to the island of Patmos. John, moreover, teaches what concerns his 
 testimony, not saying who condemned him ; for he speaks thus in the 
 Apocalypse : ’Eyoi ’Jcoctvvqg, 6 dStXcpog vpcov, xal ovyxoivwvog iv xrj 
 x. r. X. [Rev. 1:9].... xai some x \v J/ttoxdXvxf'tv tv xrj vrjacp 
 xtxXmQijy.tvat, i. e. and he seems t6 have seen the Apocalypse in the 
 island,” pp. 300, 303, edit. Wirceb. Other passages to the like purpose 
 may be found in Opp. I. pp. 34, 58, 755. II. pp. 169, 347, 473, 525, 
 632. III. pp. 60, 63, 75, 105, 405, 406, 408, 555, 719, 720, 867, 869, 
 909, 947, 961. Nor are these all. 
 
 One circumstance respecting Origen deserves well to be noted. In 
 all the numerous instances in which he has mentioned and quoted the 
 Apocalypse, not one word escapes him, to signify that there is any 
 ground of doubt respecting its genuineness. How comes this ? So he 
 does not, in respect to the epistle to the Hebrews. While he is per- 
 
324 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 suaded that it is Pauline , he still lets us know that there were difficul- 
 ties in respect to this question. But not so, in regard to the Apocalpyse. 
 And yet he must have known of the opposition made to John’s Gospel 
 and Apocalypse, on the part of the Alogi, if not (to the latter) on the 
 part of Caius at Rome. But not a word escapes him concerning them. 
 Liicke himself concedes (p. 315), that he has said nothing of any doubts ; 
 and this because he probably regarded them as too insignificant to be 
 mentioned. It must have been for some such reason ; for Origen was 
 not the man to conceal difficulties which are formidable in their appear- 
 ance. The Alogi, although they made some noise and bustle in their 
 day, were, as we shall see in the sequel, too limited in their numbers 
 and too circumscribed in their influence to be noticed by Origen, as it 
 concerns the matter before us. He sympathized with them, indeed, in 
 respect to opposition against Montanism ; but he did not, like them, re- 
 ject the Apocalypse of John. 
 
 The facts just stated may serve, perhaps, to cast some doubt on the 
 alleged opposition of Caius to the Apocalypse of John. How could 
 Origen fail to notice the opinion of so considerable a man ? But of 
 this, more in the sequel. 
 
 (15) Testimony of Nepos and Coracion. 
 
 These persons were officers in the church, and lived in Egypt, near 
 the middle of the third century. Nepos was a strong Millenarian, and 
 Coracion joined him, and even outdid him, in exalting the Apocalypse 
 at the expense of the other sacred books. Nepos wrote a book against 
 the Allegorists , and in defence of his Millenarian views ; in which he 
 everywhere appeals to the Apocalypse in support of them. This book 
 gave rise to another in opposition to it, on the part of Dionysius of Al- 
 exandria, who seems to have been the first respectable opponent of the 
 apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, unless indeed it can be shown that 
 Caius of Rome was an opposer. Dionysius himself attributes to Ne- 
 pos great zeal, activity, and learning in sacred things. He might after 
 all have been but a poor interpreter of the prophecies, as in fact he 
 seems to have been ; but this is not important to the question, whether 
 he admitted the divine authority of the Apocalypse and its apostolic 
 origin. Of the latter there can be no doubt. 
 
 (16) Cyprian, bishop of Carthage. 
 
 This eloquent man was first a heathen teacher of rhetoric, and late 
 in life was converted to the Christian faith, about 246. There can be 
 no doubt in regard to his views of the Apocalypse. In Opp. p. 368 he 
 says : “ In Apocalypsi, angelus Johanni volenti adorare se resistit, et 
 
§ 17 . TESTIMONY OF VICTORINUS AND METHODIUS. 325 
 
 dicit: Vide ne feceris, etc.,” quoting Rev. 22: 8. Again, in Opp. p. 
 176 he says: u Aquas namque populos significare, in Apocalypsi scrip - 
 tura divina declarat, dicens : Aquae etc.,” quoting Rev. 17: 15. Ap- 
 peals to the Apocalypse as a part of Scripture he often makes ; e. g. 
 Opp. pp. 59, 354, 400, 402, 403, 408, 410, 424, 425, 427, 430, etc. 
 
 What the opinion at Rome was, in his time, is manifest from an epis- 
 tle written to him by several presbyters and deacons there ; in which 
 Rev. 3: 21 is cited “ quasi quadam tuba Evangelii.’ Cyp. Opp. pp. 58 
 — 61. In pp. 476 seq. is a letter to Novatian, composed probably by 
 some unknown person, in which repeated appeals are made to the 
 Apocalypse as Scripture, and as being the work of John. E. g. (p. 47 9) : 
 “Item in eadem Apocalypsi, hoc quoque Johannes dicit sibi revelatum: 
 Vidi, inquit, thronum magnum, etc,” quoting Rev. 20: 11. 
 
 (17) Victorinus of Pettan or Petavionensis. 
 
 This writer, who was bishop of Pettau in Upper Pannonia, perished 
 as a martyr in the persecution under Diocletian, A. D. 303. Among 
 other works, he wrote a Commentary on the Apocalypse, in Latin ; 
 which may be found in Biblioth. Max. Patt. Yol. III. The genuine- 
 ness of this has been called in question by some ; but there is no suffi- 
 cient reason for doubt, as to the great body of the work. Such passages 
 in it as favoured Chiliasm, (for Victorinus seems to have been a Chi- 
 liast), are changed, or omitted, and others inserted in their room. Yet 
 the work of expurgation does not appear to have been complete ; for 
 (p. 415) we find this clause : “ In Judea, ubi omnes sancti conventuri 
 sunt , et Dominum suum adoraturi,” etc. 
 
 On Rev. 10: 4 he says : “ Sed quia dicit se scripturum fuisse, Johan- 
 nes, quanta loquuta fuissent tonitrua . . . vetatur scribere, sed relinquere 
 ea signata, qui erat apostolus ,” etc. On 10: 11 he says : “ quando hoc 
 vidit Johannes, erat in insula Patmo . . . Ibi ergo vidit Apocalypsin . . . 
 Postea tradidit hanc eandem, quam acceperat a Domino, Apocalypsin.” 
 The Commentary itself is a pledge for the writer’s opinion as to the au- 
 thority and importance of the book. 
 
 There is, moreover, a Latin poem against Marcion, printed with Ter- 
 tullian’s works, which Tillemont thinks was composed by Victorinus, 
 and which frequently alludes to the Apocalypse, and ascribes it to John. 
 
 (18) Methodius, bishop of Olympus in Lycia. 
 
 This is one of the writers (fl. 290), whom Andreas mentions as testi- 
 fying to the divine inspiration of the Apocalypse ; see p. 305 above. 
 The works of this father are mostly lost. Combefisius has, however, 
 rescued some of them from oblivion, and these may be found in Biblioth. 
 Max. III. p. 675 seq. In his Convivium Virginum , Orat. V. ad fin., it 
 
326 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 is said : “ Sicut ut Johannes significavit, incensum, quod in vialis 24 
 Seniorum erat, orationes sanctorum esse dicens.” Rev. 5: 8. Again, 
 p. 698, D , he says : “ Nec partem habebimus, secundum Joannem, in 
 resurrectione prima;” Rev. 20: 5. In his De Resurrectione, p. 711, he 
 says : “ Christus primogenitus mortuorum prophetico apostolicoque prae- 
 conio celebratur.” Schmidius gives other passages, (OfFenb. Johan, p. 
 310), but these are sufficient. Jerome calls his book (De Resurrec- 
 tione) opus egregium. (Catal.). 
 
 (19) Lactantius of Firmium. 
 
 He belongs to the first quarter of the fourth century. He was an 
 eminent teacher and example of eloquence, and has been commonly de- 
 nominated the Christian Cicero. He was a zealous Chiliast, and of 
 course, as we may naturally suppose, built on the Apocalypse as his 
 foundation. But he very seldom quotes it, or indeed any other book of 
 Scripture. After the prolonged representation which he gives of the 
 millennial state, at the close of Instt. Lib. VII, he assigns a reason why 
 he omits the quotation of the Scripture : “ Haec sunt quae a prophetis 
 futura dicuntur ; quorum testimonia et verba ponere, opus non esse duxi, 
 quoniam esset infinitum.” Cap. 25. In Epit. c. 42, speaking of Christ 
 he says : “ Hujus noinen nulli est notum, nisi ipsi et Patri, sicut docet 
 Joannes in Revelatione Rev. 19: 12. In Instt. VII. 10, he plainly 
 alludes to Rev. 21: 8. Comp. Instt. II. 12, and see Epit. c. 72. His 
 taste was as singular as his belief in respect to the Millennium. Instead 
 of quoting the Scriptures, he everywhere and on all occasions interlards 
 his discourses excessively with extracts from the putid Sibylline Ora- 
 cles ; which seem to have been as much an object of his wonder and 
 reverence as the Scriptures. But in this respect we must regard him 
 as employing his rhetorical art. That he makes such appeals for the 
 sake of the heathen, and either as an argumentum ad hominem or ad 
 captandum , seems very evident. Hence the Scriptures are but a se- 
 condary source of appeal, for him ; and it is very difficult to say, where 
 the boundaries between books canonical and uncanonical lay, as viewed 
 by his mind. That he enlarged the usual canon , may have been true ; 
 and the appeal now made to him is principally to show, that in adopting 
 the Apocalypse, he only did what was commonly done by the churches 
 in his day. 
 
 (20) Athanasius of Alexandria. 
 
 This distinguished man, although then a youth, was present at the 
 famous Council of Nice, and gave great assistance to those who opposed 
 Arius. He was made bishop of Alexandria in 326, and died about 373. 
 Among the numerous writings which he has left behind him, there is 
 
§ 17. TESTIMONY OF EPHREM SYRUS. 
 
 327 
 
 an important fragment of an imazoXy soQTaanxy (Opp. Tom. II.), 
 which contains a list of the canon of the Old and New Testament. He 
 divides the religious books, which were then before the church, into 
 three classes, viz. (1) Canonical, which, he says, “are the source 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.” Among 
 these he places the Apocalypse. (2) Ecclesiastical , i. e. such as may be 
 read in the church for spiritual edification, but are not inspired. (3) 
 Apocryphal , i. e. such as are supposititious, written by heretics, etc., 
 and are adapted to mislead. Besides this full and unquestionable re- 
 cognition of the Apocalypse, he elsewhere quotes and refers to the book ; 
 e. g. Cont. Arian. Orat. I. p. 415. Orat. II. p. 491. Orat. IV. p. 639. 
 Ep. H. ad Serap. p. 684, etc. 
 
 It may be of some importance to note here, that this division of the 
 Scriptures into three distinctly marked classes, does not correspond 
 with the varying and inconstant divisions of Eusebius. But Origen 
 alludes to a like division, and indeed he seems to have introduced it, 
 viz. yvijGiou (fii'fiXot), toft at, fuxzai. The first were the inspired ca- 
 nonical books ; the second corresponded with the apocryphal of Atha- 
 nasius ; the third contained good things mixed with some errors, and 
 hence were called fuxzai. Athanasius (epist. ad Rufinum) recognizes 
 this distinction ; and in it Rufin himself concurs. Yet in the mouth of 
 other and subsequent writers, the word apocryphal has occasionally 
 quite a different meaning, viz. dark, obscure , enigmatical, mysterious , 
 and the like ; and finally, as such books of Scripture, e. g. the Apoca- 
 lypse, were not usually read in the churches for edification, apocryphal 
 came to mean, such books as through the difficulty of their contents re- 
 mained as it were concealed in private hands, not being produced in the 
 public assemblies. In this last sense, Gregory of Nyssa says : yxovoa 
 70V evayytXiGzov ’Jcourvov it axoxQVCpoig . . . Xiyovzog, etc., acknow- 
 ledging the Evangelist as the author, but ranking the book among those 
 not publicly read. 
 
 (21) Ephrem Syrus of Edessa or Nisibe. 
 
 This most copious -writer flourished at the close of the third quarter 
 of Cent IY. The common opinion is, that he was unacquainted with 
 the Greek language. He wrote, in the Syriac, commentaries, essays, 
 hymns, etc. Inasmuch as the Peshito or old Syriac version was want- 
 ing in respect to the Apocalypse, and the Philoxenian version was not 
 made until a later period, it has been said and asserted by J. D. Mi- 
 chaelis and others, that Ephrem nowhere cites or refers to this book. 
 Schmidius, after Hassenkamp, and recently Lengerke, have shown this 
 to be erroneous. E. g. Opp. Syr. II. p. 332, he says ; “ John, in his 
 
328 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 Revelation , saw a great, wonderful, divinely written book, sealed with 
 seven seals, etc.” Rev. 5: 1. Ib. III. p. 636 : “ Terror will seize upon 
 Death, and he will give up all whom he has devoured . . . and they 
 whom the sea has swallowed up, will be awaked and rise again Rev. 
 20: 13. In Opp. Graec. (translation) I. p. 39, he says : “ The heaven 
 is rolled up like a scroll ; the stars fall down like the leaves of the fig- 
 tree ; the sun and moon are darkened Rev. 6: 12 — 14. Ib. II. p. 53 : 
 “ As John has foreshown, saying : I saw a great white throne, etc. 
 Rev. 20: 11. In Opp. Graec. II. p. 194. p. 252, he quotes Rev. 4: 8. Im- 
 mediately after he says : “ As John the 'O'eoXoyog declared, saying : Be- 
 hold he cometh in the clouds, etc.,” quoting Rev. 1:7. In Opp. Graec. 
 III. p. 190, he attacks the Chiliasts, and makes a kind of synopsis of the 
 Apocalypse. It should be noted, that the Greek volumes of Ephrem 
 are translations in which a part of his works is preserved, and not the 
 originals composed by himself. It seems very clear, then, that in some 
 way the Apocalypse was known to Ephrem, either through the medium of 
 a Syriac translation which was before him, or else by the aid of some 
 friend who understood the Greek. At all events, Ephrem does not 
 seem to have been at all bound, as to the extent of his Canon, by the 
 limits of the Peshito as it has come down to us. Must not the Apoca- 
 lypse, then, in his time, have been circulated among the Syrian church- 
 es, and regarded as canonical ? How, otherwise, could he appeal to it 
 in writing for the public ? 
 
 (22) Hilary of Poictiers. 
 
 lie flourished at the same time with Ephrem Syrus. He has left 
 behind him XII. books on the Trinity, commentaries on Matthew and 
 the Psalms, and other works. In the Paris edition (1693) of his 
 works, p. 226, he says : “ Sanctus Johannes testatur,” quoting Rev. 
 22:2. Again on p. 891 : “Et, ex familiaritate Domini, revelatione 
 coelestium mysteriorum dignus Johannes.” 
 
 (23) Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus. 
 
 He flourished at the same period as the two preceding writers, and 
 left numerous works, many of which still survive. In his Haeres. 77, 
 be says : “ It is manifest, that it is written concerning the thousand 
 years in the Apocalypse of John, and that the book is accredited among 
 most persons and among the pious.” In Haer. 51, he contends warmly 
 against the Alogi, because they rejected the Gospel of John and his 
 Apocalypse. In p. 457, he calls John “ one of the holy apostles”, and 
 says that ‘ he has imparted of his holy gift, in presenting us with his 
 Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse.’ In Haer. 25, he combats the Nico- 
 
§ 17. TESTIMONY OP BASIL AND GREGORY. 329 
 
 laitans with words cited from Rev. 2: 6, and says that ‘ the Apocalypse 
 is of holy John.’ There can be no possible doubt as to his opinion. 
 
 (24) Basil, surnamed the Great. 
 
 He was eontempory with the three last named writers, and was great- 
 ly distinguished for his eloquence and his attainments. His works are 
 very numerous. In Opp. I. p. 249. p. 282, he quotes the Apocalypse 
 as being the work of the Evangelist John. Arethas, in his Commenta- 
 ry, (init. cent. VI), speaks of Basil as vouching for the ftsoTivsvGtov of 
 the Apocalypse. These passages decide what rank the father in ques- 
 tion assigned to the book before us, and who was regarded by him as 
 the author. 
 
 (25) Gregory of Nazianzen. 
 
 This celebrated and most eloquent man, who was properly the bish- 
 op of Sasima in Cappadocia, flourished during the last half of the fourth 
 century. Jerome calls him preceptor mens ; Catal. 117. His testimo- 
 ny in respect to the Apocalypse has been cited both for and against it. 
 It needs a little delay to examine this matter. It is quite clear, that in 
 some passages of his works, Gregory refers to the Apocalypse as a part 
 of Scripture ; e. g. Opp. I. p. 573, he cites verbatim Rev. 1: 8, 6 oov, 
 xcu 6 rjv, y.al 6 EQ/ogevog, etc. Again, in I. p. 516, speaking of angels 
 as presiding over the churches, he adds : eo£ ’Jwdvvrjg diddaxei gs did 
 rijg ^noxalvipecog, etc. ; Rev. 1: 20. He seems to have understood in 
 a literal way the angel of the church at Ephesus, Smyrna, etc. In 
 addition to this, we have seen (p. 305 above), that both Andreas and 
 Arethas testify to Gregory’s belief in the inspiration of the Apocalypse 
 and its apostolic origin also ; for their manner of speaking involves this. 
 And such being the case, how can we^well doubt their statement ? An- 
 dreas was a contemporary of Gregory, and lived in the same province 
 of Cappadocia, viz. at Caesarea, the capital of the province. Arethas 
 probably succeeded him. It would seem that they must have known 
 the views of Gregory. 
 
 Yet in Opp. Gregorii n. p. 98, in some verses by this father respect- 
 ing “the genuine books of the inspired Scripture,” after reciting all the 
 scriptural books down to the Apocalypse, he omits that, and adds : nd- 
 aag eysig. Ei ti 8e tovtojv ixrog, ovv. iv yrgaioig * i. e. ‘ Thou hast all ; 
 if there be any besides these, they belong not to the genuine.’ I see no 
 way, now, to solve this difhculty or to reconcile Gregory with himself, 
 but to suppose that the Apocalypse is counted by Gregory as dnoxQvyrj 
 x or gvGTixr], and so is not inserted in his catalogue of books to be read 
 in the churches. I have already cited a passage from Gregory of Nyssa, 
 who was the youngest brother of Basil and contemporary of Gregory 
 
 YOL. i. 42 
 
330 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 Nazianzen, which speaks of the Apocalypse in such a manner as to 
 cast some light, perhaps, on this difficulty. In his Opp. II. p. 44, he 
 says : jjxovoa zov Evayyehazov ’Icoavvyg, iv d/zoy.Qvcporg tzqos zovg zoiov- 
 zovg di aivfygazog Xsyovzog • . . . ocpslov rja&a \pvyQog ij Qaiog, etc. ; 
 i. e. I have heard the Evangelist John enigmatically saying to such per- 
 sons in his hidden or concealed [works] ... I would thou wert either 
 cold or hot, etc. ; Rev. 3: 15. But this same writer, although he here 
 speaks of the Apocalypse as being iv unoxQvcpoig, in his life of Ephrem, 
 III. p. 601, calls the Apocalypse i] zalsvzcu'a zrjg yccQizog ftt'fiXog, i. e. 
 the last book of grace, or, in other words, the last of the New Testa- 
 ment books, thus clearly acknowledging its canonical authority. Dio- 
 nysius the Areopagite, (so-called, but belonging probably to the latter 
 part of Cent. IV.) ,0pp. I. p. 246, 247, calls the Apocalypse zqv xQvcpi- 
 av yau [JivGzrATjv inoxpiav zov zd)v ya{h]zd)v dyemryiov you ftaGnsoiov, 
 i. e. the hidden and mystical vision of the beloved and inspired one of the 
 disciples. Comp, with this, Epiphan. Haeres. LI. 3. p. 423. Philas- 
 trius of Brixia, the friend of Ambrose, (ad fin. Cent. IV.), in his work 
 De Haeresihus , c. 88, exhibits a catalogue of canonical books, which, 
 and which only, can be read in the churches. In this he omits the epis- 
 tle to the Hebrews, and also the Apocalypse. Yet in cap. 60 he de- 
 clares explicitly, that “ those men are heretics who do not receive the 
 Apocalypse, and that they have no understanding of the excellence and 
 dignity of this writing.” In c. 88, the same writer speaks of Scripturae 
 absconditae , i. e. apocryphal Scriptures , of which he further says : 
 “ Quae etsi legi debent morum causa a perfectis, non ab omnibus legi 
 debent.” Such then was apparently the nature of the distinction made, 
 at this time, between the New Testament books for public reading, and 
 those which were reserved for private perusal. Gregory’s catalogue of 
 Scriptural books, then, may be regarded as comprising the former ; 
 while, at the same time, like Philastrius and others, he still admits the 
 divine authority of the Apocalypse, as a work of the apostle John. In- 
 deed, the quotations made from him in a preceding paragraph do not 
 seem to leave us at liberty to draw any other conclusion, unless we 
 charge him with downright contradiction ; and this, in circumstances 
 like these, can hardly be done with fairness. 
 
 (26) Chrysostom. 
 
 Chrysostom flourished during the last quarter of the fourth century 
 and in the beginning of the fifth. His works which remain are very 
 copious ; and his character is too well known to need any description, 
 here. He has left no discourses upon the Apocalypse ; although he 
 has written homilies on a large portion of the New Testament. But in 
 his day, the eastern churches rarely made any public use of the Apoc- 
 
TESTIMONY OF AMBROSE AND OTHERS. 
 
 331 
 
 alypse ; as has been already stated above. Yet Chrysostom, in Horn. 
 I. in Matth., has plainly and indubitably referred to the Apocalypse 21 • 
 15—21, and drawn largely from it in his description of the heavenly 
 city. References will also be found, to Rev. 20: 11. 19: 14. 5: 11. 20: 
 *14. 12: 9. Accordingly, Suidas, under the title ’Icodvvqg, says of Chry- 
 sostom : /jtjEtai ds 6 XQvaoGTogog xcu rag smotoXdg avzov [viz. of 
 John] rag iQEig, xal tt{V Jl rt o x d X v \p i v. 
 
 (27) Ambrose, Tichonius, Julius Firmicus Maternus, and Philastrius. 
 
 Ambrose of Milan (ob. 397) beyond all doubt admitted the authority 
 of the Apocalypse. One need only refer to his De Virgin, in., and 
 his De Penitentia, cap. 9, for conclusive evidence of this. 
 
 Tichonius of Africa, the Donatist, (fl. c. 390), wrote a Commentary 
 on the Apocalypse, and expounded the first resurrection mentioned in 
 Rev. xx, as meaning regeneration. Of him Gennadius (De Vir. Illust. 
 c. 18) says: “ Exposuit et Apocalypsin Joannis ex integro, nihil in ea 
 carnale, sed totum intelligens spiritale.” 
 
 Julius Firmicus Maternus flourished about 340, under Constantine and 
 Constans. In his work still extant, entitled De Errore profan. Religio- 
 num, c. 20, 25, he clearly acknowledges the Apocalypse as a part of 
 Scripture, by appealing to it, and calling it sancta Revelatio. 
 
 Philastrius Brixiensis flourished about 380, and was the particular 
 friend of Ambrose. He wrote a book on Heresies. His testimony is 
 given under that of Gregory of Nazianzen above. 
 
 (28) Ruffinus; the Synod of Hippo ; and the third and fifth Council at Carthage. 
 
 Ruffinus was a contemporary of Philastrius, and is well known for 
 his translations of Origen, and his contest with Jerome. In his Expo- 
 sitio Symboli, etc., c. 37, he cites “the Apocalypse of John” as an in- 
 tegral part of the New Testament Canon. 
 
 The Council of Hippo, A. D. 393, speak out fully and most explicitly 
 in Canon XXXVI, in favour of the Apocalypse as of divine and canon- 
 ical authority; Mansi, Nov. Collect. Concil. III. p. 924. 
 
 The third Council of Carthage was held in 397. Can. XLVII. 
 speaks of the Apocalypse in the same manner as the Council of Hippo. 
 In both cases, probably out of deference to the church at Rome, it is 
 added, at the close of the catalogue of canonical books : “ De confir- 
 mando isto canone transmarina [i. e. Romana] ecclesia consulatur.” 
 
 A few years after this, A. D. 419, was held th z fifth Council at Car- 
 thage ; and Can. XXIX. of this Council reckons the Apocalypse in the 
 same manner among the divine Scriptures, and in the like way directs 
 the matter to be referred to Boniface, the bishop of Rome, for confirma- 
 tion. In this case the Council add, at the close of the 29th Canon : 
 
332 
 
 § 17. AUTHOR OP THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 “ Quia et a Patribus ita accepimus in ecclesia legendum,” i. e. we have 
 received from the fathers, that these books [viz. all that had been men- 
 tioned] are to be read in the church. But in this catalogue we find also 
 Solomon, Tobias, Judith, and Maccabees. The only value of this tes- 
 timony, in the present case, is, that it speaks to the point of the general 
 reception of the Apocalypse, at that period, as a divine book. 
 
 That the references to the church at Rome are not grounded on any 
 doubt whether Rome would confirm the Canon proposed, seems to be 
 clear from an epistle written by Innocent, bishop of Rome, in 405, to 
 Exuperius the bishop of Toulouse, in which is a catalogue of the ca- 
 nonical books, agreeing with that of the fifth Council of Carthage. Of 
 course “ the Apocalypse of John ” is included in the Canon ; Mansi, ut 
 sup. III. p. 1041. 
 
 (29) Augustine, bishop of Hippo. 
 
 At the time when the Councils of Hippo and Carthage above men- 
 tioned were held, Augustine flourished. Pie took an active part in 
 them, and doubtless exercised an important influence. His opinion re- 
 specting the Apocalypse is subject to no manner of doubt. Everywhere 
 in his writings, he appeals to it as a genuine and canonical book. He 
 often cites it thus: “Joannes apostolus in Apoealypsi,” Epist. 118; 
 “Joannes Evangelista, in eo libro qui dicitur Apocalypsis,” De Civit. 
 Dei, XX. 7 ; “In Apoealypsi ipsius Joannis, cujus est hoc Evange- 
 lium,” De Pecc. Mer. I. 27. 
 
 (30) Jerome. 
 
 Of the knowledge and critical merits of this father nothing needs to 
 be said here. In all antiquity no one was his equal, as to a critical 
 knowledge of the Scriptures. Plis acquaintance with Greek and He- 
 brew is known to all readers ; and the Latin Vulgate, with his notes 
 on the Old and New Testament, stands as an indelible monument of 
 his acquisitions and his diligence. 
 
 To quote all that Jerome has said of the Apocalypse, would be su- 
 perfluous. Two or three passages make the matter as clear as a hun- 
 dred would. His letter to Paulinus gives in full the canon of the Old 
 and New Testaments; Opp. IV. p. 571 — 574. In this he expressly 
 includes the Apocalypse ; and concerning this he says : “ Apocalypsis 
 Joannis tot habet sacramenta, quot verba. Parum dixi pro merito vo- 
 luminis. Laus omnis inferior est. In verbis singulis multiplices latent 
 intelligentiae.” In Vol. IV. p. 168, 169, he speaks of “ Johannes et 
 apostolus, et evangelista, et propheta. Apostolus , quia scripsit ad eccle- 
 sias ut magister ; Evangelista , quia librum Evangelii condidit . . . Pro- 
 pheta , vidit enim in Patmos insula, in quam fuerat a Domitiano principe 
 
§17. TESTIMONY OF JEROME. 
 
 333 
 
 ob Domini martyrium relegatus, Apocalypsin, infinita futurorum myste- 
 ria continentem.” In his Comm, on Ps. cxlix., he says : “ Legimus 
 in Apocalypsi Joannis, quae in ecclesiis legitur et recipitur, neque enim 
 inter apocryplias scripturas habetur, sed inter ecclesiasticas, etc.” 
 
 These passages put it beyond all doubt, that Jerome fully and unhesi- 
 tatingly regarded the Apocalypse as a work of the apostle John. The 
 last quotation also contains an intimation, that Jerome was aware of 
 some opposition to the Apocalypse, and of some doubt about its canoni- 
 cal authority ; but that, in spite of this, neither he, nor the churches in 
 that quarter of the empire where he lived, cherished any doubts in re- 
 spect to the subject. In his Epist. ad Dardanum we find a passage, 
 which adverts more plainly to some doubts and difficulties among the 
 oriental churches of his time, with regard to the Apocalypse. It runs 
 thus : “ Quod si earn [viz. the Epistle to the Hebrews] Latinorum con- 
 suetudo non recipit inter Scripturas canonicas, nec Graecorum quidem 
 ecclesiae Apocalypsin eadem libertate suscipiunt ; et tamen nos utram - 
 que suscipimus , nequaquam hujus temporis consuetudinem, sed veterum 
 scriptorum auctoritatem sequentes, etc.” Here it is plain, that he was 
 aware of the backwardness of some of the Greek churches, in admitting 
 the Apocalypse to the honours which it enjoyed in the West. It is 
 plain, moreover, that he regards this backwardness of the eastern 
 churches as a thing recently brought into vogue ; for he speaks of him- 
 self and others around him, as veterum scriptorum auctoritates sequentes 
 in receiving the Apocalypse. 
 
 On the whole, the conviction of Jerome, a highly critical investigator, 
 yea the master-critic of all antiquity, was an intelligent and an undoubt- 
 ing one. All that Dionysius of Alexandria had said against the apos- 
 tolic origin of the Apocalypse, and all that Eusebius had recorded, was 
 before him, and he was most extensively informed as to the opinion of 
 the churches in different regions. Yet all this does not appear to have 
 produced the least hesitancy in his mind, as to what he ought to believe 
 respecting the apostolic origin and authority of the Revelation. 
 
 Liicke, however, in remarking on the testimony of Augustine and Je- 
 rome, expresses himself thus : “ One perceives that their judgment did 
 not rest on any historical criticism , but solely and only on the authority 
 of usage” But I hardly know how to explain this. What does it mean 
 when Jerome says : “ Nos [Apocalypsin] recipimus . . . veterum scrip- 
 torum auctoritatem sequentes ?” What other sources of reliance could 
 Jerome have? It was not, he says, the custom of his times which he 
 followed, but the authority of the ancient writers. I am not aware what 
 conclusions historical criticism could make, apart from this authority, or 
 independently of it. To say that Jerome did not investigate as a critic, 
 but merely as an implicit believer in tradition, would be to say what 
 
334 
 
 § 17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 neither his character nor his works would confirm. Historical criticism 
 must build with the materials which history supplies ; and this, as Je- 
 rome explicitly assures us, was the manner in which he built. 
 
 (31) Later Testimonies. 
 
 It is of little consequence to pursue the investigation of testimony 
 lower down than the beginning of the fifth century, whither we have 
 now brought it. It is confessed, on all hands, that the authority of Je- 
 rome and Augustine procured for the Apocalypse a reception all but 
 universal, in after ages. Sulpitius Severus, Gelasius with seventy bish- 
 ops assembled at Rome in 47 4, (if indeed his Decretum de Libris recip. 
 et non recip. is genuine), Innocent I., Primasius, Cassiodorus, the Sy- 
 nod of Toledo in 633, Isiodorus of Seville about 630, Nilus, Isidore of 
 Pelusium, Cyrill of Alexandria, probably Theodoret (he refers to the 
 Apocalypse in several cases), Andreas of Caesarea, Arethas, the fourth 
 Council at Constantinople, Jacob of Edessa, Johannes Damascenus, and 
 finally Theophylact, all receive the Apocalypse as a divine book, and as 
 the work of John the apostle ; for where this is not expressly said, it is 
 implied by the reception of it in the circumstances in which they were. 
 Whoever wishes to pursue these testimonies, may find them in Schmid’s 
 Offenbar. Johannis, § 43 seq., and also in Lardner. A brief reference 
 to most of them may be found likewise in Lucke, p. 343 seq. 
 
 Thus much for the direct or historical testimony respecting the au- 
 thorship of the Apocalypse. If this stood alone, and there were no tes- 
 timony, or at least no seeming testimony, of an opposite nature, no one 
 conversant with these matters could well hesitate for a moment, to ad- 
 mit that John the apostle was the author of the book. But there are 
 evidences of some variety of opinion, in ancient times, respecting the 
 authorship of the Apocalypse ; and some of them may be traced as far 
 back as the latter part of the second century. Candour demands of us, 
 that the witnesses on both sides of the question should be heard. 
 
 II. Examination of alleged direct testimony against the 
 
 APOSTOLIC ORIGIN OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 We meet with nothing of the kind which deserves the name of testi- 
 mony, until nearly a century after the death of the apostle John. The 
 testimony of Justin, which has been canvassed above, appears to have 
 been in accordance with the prevailing, if not the universal, views of the 
 church, at a very early period ; and when Irenaeus and Tertullian come 
 to speak, no possible doubt can remain as to the views which they ex- 
 press. Tertullian, indeed, in the latter part of his life, became a Mon- 
 tanist ; and this has been looked upon by some, as the principal induce- 
 
§17. VIEWS OF MARCION. 
 
 335 
 
 ment for him to receive so heartily the Apocalypse, because it was re- 
 garded as the main support of the leading doctrine of the Montanists, 
 viz., the visible and millennial reign of Christ on earth. But no trace 
 has yet been found in Tertullian’s writings, that he ever thought differ- 
 ently, at different periods of his life, on the subject of the Apocalypse. 
 It is merely true, that, as was quite natural, his writings after he be- 
 came a Montanist, more frequently than his other compositions, refer to 
 the book in question ; e. g. his De Pudicitia ; De Resurrect. Carnis ; 
 De Anima ; Cont. Marckmem, etc. Indeed, the very fact that the Mon- 
 tanists made their appeal to a book, already in general, if not universal- 
 ly, considered as a part of the New Testament Scriptures, is the only 
 ground on which we can suppose Tertullian to have been persuaded to 
 join them, or at least an indispensable condition. Had they appealed to 
 some Apocalypse of Peter or of Paul, for example, such was the strong 
 antipathy of Tertullian to all fictitious productions of the like nature, 
 that we cannot for a moment suppose that he would have listened to 
 them. 
 
 Once, and once only, does Tertullian make mention of any opposition 
 to the Apocalypse. He is arguing vehemently against the innovations 
 of Marcion, who mutilated the Gospel of Luke. He lays down the po- 
 sition, that, as to the New Testament Scriptures, what is most ancient 
 is true and genuine, and only that. He appeals to the Gospels and 
 Epistles, as sanctioned by Peter and Paul. He then says : Habemus 
 et Johannis alumnas ecclesias. Nam, si Apocalypsin ejus Marcion re - 
 spuit, ordo tamen episcoporum ad originem recensus, in Johannem sta- 
 bit autorem ; Cont. Marc. IV. 5. Lucke (p. 301) thinks that the last 
 clause here refers only to John as the founder of the alumnas ecclesias , 
 i. e. of the seven Asiatic churches ; and he taxes Schott with error, be- 
 cause he looks upon Tertullian as here claiming ancient tradition in fa- 
 vour of the Apocalypse. But Lucke himself must, after all, be in the 
 wrong here. Tertullian, in the whole preceding context, is defending 
 the antiquity of the sacred books. When he mentions Marcion’s re- 
 jection of the Apocalypse, he at once vindicates the antiquity of this, by 
 appealing to John, the author of it, as the first bishop of the seven 
 Asiatic churches. He then goes on, in the same way, to show that the 
 canonical Gospel of Luke is genuine, because all the churches had re- 
 ceived it from the beginning. I cannot, therefore, have a doubt that 
 Lucke has here mistaken the meaning of Tertullian. The passage, 
 moreover, in the connection in which it stands, is one of the most direct 
 and forcible among all the ancient testimonies, with respect to the his- 
 torical evidence by which the authorship of the apostle John is sup- 
 ported. 
 
 Of the doubts of Marcion, Tertullian says not another word. Of 
 
336 
 
 §17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 course he looked upon them as insignificant, and unworthy of further 
 notice. Had there been doubts that were spreading, and patronized, 
 and thus dangerous to the church or to a part of the Scriptures, Ter- 
 tullian is the last man who would have kept silence. 
 
 (1) Opposition to the Apocalypse by the Alogi. 
 
 But there were some doubts about the Apocalypse in Tertullian’s 
 day, that arose from another quarter. They took their rise, as we shall 
 see in the sequel, from opposition to Montanism. 
 
 Not long after the middle of the second century, Montanus, an ob- 
 scure but zealous and enthusiastic man, and possessed in a more than 
 ordinary degree, as it would seem, of the talent of popular persuasion, 
 made his development at Pepuza, a town of Phrygia. He made pre- 
 tences to prophetic ecstasy, and declared that he was the Comforter or 
 Paraclete, whom Christ had promised to guide and further instruct his 
 disciples. He seems to have regarded the Paraclete as some individual 
 person or man, on whom the Holy Ghost would shower down his gifts 
 in an extraordinary manner. The leading and peculiar doctrines of his 
 system were, the personal and millennial reign of Christ on earth ; rigor- 
 ous asceticism as to fasts, celibacy, contempt of the world, etc. ; and 
 perpetual exclusion from the church of all who were guilty of inconti- 
 nence, murder, and idolatry. By his zeal and activity, and probably, 
 moreover, by a good degree of eloquence, he soon won over a consider- 
 able party in Asia Minor. The only distinguished man that we know 
 of, who joined this party, was Tertullian. He wrote a book in their 
 defence ; which is lost. The sect, however, must have been considera- 
 ble ; for so late as A. D. 530 and 532, we find laws of Justinian passed 
 against them, Cod. I. tit. V. 1. 18 — 21. 
 
 At Thyatira, the Montanists met with great success. Only a small 
 party remained, who were opposed to them. By degrees, as the con- 
 test grew warm, this minority separated themselves from the Monta- 
 nists, and went all lengths in opposition to them. At the same time, 
 the churches in general became so adverse to the presumptuous claims 
 and extravagances of Montanus, that he and his party were excluded 
 from their communion. Tertullian complains vehemently, that the 
 bishop of Rome had been persuaded by Praxeas to withdraw all favour 
 from them ; Cont. Prax. c. 1. It should be noted, however, that it was 
 not on the ground of their denying any of the usual doctrines of the 
 church, that the Montanists were excommunicated, but on the ground of 
 their extravagances and their presumptuous claims. 
 
 The dispute at Thyatira did not stop even here. Not content with 
 opposing the Montanists by arguing from the usual Scriptures, the ad- 
 verse party went on to deny the canonical authority and genuineness of 
 
§ 17 . VIEWS OP THE ALOGI. 
 
 337 
 
 the Gospel of John and of the Apocalypse. Montanus supported his 
 claim to be the Paraclete by the first of these books, and his doctrine 
 of the Millennium by the second. His adversaries took the shortest 
 way to rebut his views, viz. that of rejecting the books of Scripture to 
 which his appeals were principally made. 
 
 The fact that they did reject these books, is testified by Philastrius 
 (Haeres. 60), Epiplianius (Haeres. 51 and 54), Johan. Damascenus 
 (Haeres. 51), and Augustine (Haeres. 30). In consequence of this de- 
 nial, Epiphanius, in his account of them, gives them the name of JlXoym, 
 Alogi. The party does not seem to have had even a separate name, be- 
 fore his day, (fl. 375) ; nor does it appear to have ever been considerable 
 enough to attract much notice. Eusebius, so watchful to point out here- 
 sies or commotions in the church, says not one word of them ; and the 
 authors above named, (almost 200 years after the rise of the Alogi), 
 have given but a very meagre and unsatisfactory account of them. It 
 seems almost certain, that if they had ever spread themselves much be- 
 yond Thyatira and its near neighbourhood, that Eusebius must have 
 known and noticed them, as he has done other sects. Nor could they 
 have lasted long as a party ; for this would have surely brought them 
 into more notice. No person is even named as the leader of this sect ; 
 and it seems clear, from all these circumstances, that it never could have 
 been anything more than a mere temporary party, occasioned by the 
 dispute with the Montanists at Thyatira. 
 
 It is necessary to bring before our minds the facts that have just been 
 related, in order to form a proper judgment respecting the rejection of 
 the Apocalypse by the Alogi. Philastrius and Epiphanius, the two 
 original sources from which everything is derived that respects the Alo- 
 gi, have neither of them given any reasons or grounds of a historical or 
 critical nature, why they rejected the Gospel and Apocalypse of John. 
 In the absence historically of all reasons of this kind, we are left merely 
 to form an opinion from the nature of the case. Nor is it difficult to 
 satisfy our minds, in regard to this. The dispute ran high, and both 
 parties were violent and embittered. The Montanists leaned upon the 
 two books of John. Not able, probably, to meet their antagonists on 
 exegetical ground and refute them, the Alogi, tacitly yielding to the-ex- 
 egesis of the Montanists, drew the conclusion that the books which con- 
 tained such sentiments could not be divine, and of course could not be 
 composed by an apostle- Nothing is more natural than this. . IIow of- 
 ten has the same thing happened in other ages and in different places ! 
 The leading Reformer had a warm dispute with the Romanists on the 
 subject of justification by faith alone. They appealed with all confi- 
 dence to the epistle of James, as deciding against him. He, unable to 
 overthrow their exegesis, rejected the book itself, and called it, in the 
 VOL. i. 43 
 
338 
 
 § 17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 way of contempt, epistola straminea. Yet he admitted New Testament 
 books into his Canon, which have less historical evidence in their favour 
 than this. Many a book, in the New Testament and in the Old also, 
 has been ejected from the canon, or denied a place there, by individuals, 
 or by parties, to whose sentiments it appeared to be particularly hostile. 
 It is the easiest way to dispose of arguments that make against us, by 
 such a summary process. 
 
 Inasmuch now as Eusebius does not even allude to the Alogi, nor 
 either he or Dionysius of Alexandria refer to them, or to any other sect, 
 as doubting the apostolical origin of the Apocalypse on historical grounds ; 
 inasmuch as the nature of the case explains the ground of opposition by 
 the Alogi ; and specially since no teacher or literary man, so far as we 
 know, ever appeared among the Alogi, who could adequately investi- 
 gate matters of this kind ; it would seem that the opposition of the Alo- 
 gi to the Apocalypse cannot be regarded as having any weight in the 
 scale of criticism. Dionysius, in alluding probably to the Alogi (in 
 Euseb. Hist. Ecc. VII. 25), states merely that they complained of the 
 Apocalypse as being dark, enigmatical, unintelligible, and unreasonable. 
 But all these are mere subjective reasons, and belong to their understand- 
 ing and judgment, rather than to the book itself. Epiphanius alludes 
 to similar reasons ; some of which he assays to refute. No one can 
 doubt, who knows the opposition of Dionysius to the Apocalypse, that 
 he would have proffered historical reasons for the doubts of the Alogi, 
 in case he had found them in his day. But inasmuch as he does not, 
 we must believe that he did not find them. 
 
 Candour seems to demand, then, that we should subscribe to what 
 Liicke says, at the close of his examination of this matter : “ It is clear 
 as the light, that the Alogi rejected the Apocalypse, not on any historical 
 ground . . . but only and simply because of their exegetical ignorance of 
 it, and from lack of being well informed in matters pertaining to polem- 
 ical theology p. 306. And inasmuch as they attributed John’s works 
 to Cerinthus, we may well say, with Liicke, “ With better exegetical 
 information, and some taste for poetry, they would not have interpreted 
 the Apocalypse in so literal and lifeless a manner as to find it destitute 
 of meaning ; still less would they have found in it the Chiliasm of Ce- 
 rinthus, which even the most superficial perusal can hardly find there- 
 in p. 306. It is indeed very evident, that party spirit and the heat of 
 contest led them on, and that they were guided neither by taste, nor 
 learning, nor sound judgment. Otherwise, how could they have rejected 
 the Gospel of John, as well as the Apocalypse ? It cannot be supposed 
 that this was on the ground of any historical evidence against it. Their 
 judgment, in the one case, had its basis on the same ground as in the 
 other, viz., their party feelings. It is plain, that the Montanists must 
 
§ 17. REJECTION OF THE APOCALYPSE BY CAIUS. 
 
 339 
 
 have held both books to be the work of the apostle John, and as such 
 have appealed to them ; otherwise they would not have been disclaimed 
 by the Alogi as his. And this is another evidence, what the views of 
 the church in general were, at that period, in respect to these books ; for 
 the Montanists were not accused of any departures from the common 
 Faith, in regard to matters of this kind. 
 
 (2) Rejection of the Apocalypse by Caius, a Presbyter at Rome. 
 
 Three several times Eusebius makes mention of this individual. In 
 Ecc. Hist. n. 25, he introduces him as living at the time of Zephyrinus 
 bishop of Rome, (i. e. at the commencement of Cent. III.), and as hav- 
 ing written a book against Proclus, an advocate of the Montanists, and 
 given some testimony about the burying-place of Peter and Paul. On 
 this occasion he calls him ixxXeGiuozixbg avrjQ ; which shows that he 
 belonged to the church catholic, and was in good standing there. In VI. 
 20. he mentions him again as the author of a diaXoyog against Proclus, 
 in which he inveighs against the authors of new [fictitious] Scriptures, 
 and reckons only thirteen epistles of Paul. On this occasion, Eusebius 
 calls him Xoyicozazog, most eloquent ; and he intimates, that he (Eusebi- 
 us) himself had read his Dialogue , ijXde ds eig rgiag . . . diaXoyog, etc. 
 The third passage, (which is put in the last place here because of its 
 present importance), is in III. 28. Eusebius had been speaking of the 
 Ebionites, and now goes on to notice the heresy of Cerinthus. Among 
 other things, he relates what Caius says of him, in the Dialogue against 
 the Montanist Proclus, already mentioned above ; which is as follows : 
 Tavzcc 7iec)\ avzov yQucpei * u4XXa xui KrjQtv&og, 6, di d7ioxaXv\})Ecov 
 cog vnb dnoazbXov geyuXov yeygaggevcov, zszQuXoyiag rguv cog di dyyi- 
 Xcov avzcg dedeiygtvag ipEvdbfiEvog i7iei6ayei, Xtycov * Meza zrjv dvdaza- 
 civ ineiynov ehai zb fiaaiXeiov zov Xqkttov, xal ndXiv im&vglaig xcu 
 rjdovaig iv ‘ leQOvaaX-tjfji zrjv oaQxa TtoXizsvogsvrjv dovXsveiv. Kcu ix&Qog 
 vnaQycov zaig yqacpaig zov Veov ccQid'fibv yiliovzaezlag iv yagop ioQzrjg 
 tfiXcov nXavciv Xiyei yiveoftat. That is : ‘ He [Caius] writes thus re- 
 specting him : Moreover Cerinthus, also, by revelations as if written by 
 a great apostle, in a lying manner introduces to us narrations of wonder- 
 ful things as shown to him by angels, saying, that after the resurrection 
 the kingdom of Christ will be earthly, and that the flesh, living in Jeru- 
 salem, will again serve lusts and pleasures. And being an enemy to the 
 divine Scriptures, and wishing- to mislead, he says that a thousand years 
 will be spent in wedding feasts.’ 
 
 This is the celebrated passage on which so much has been said and 
 # written during the last seventy-five years. To canvass all that has been 
 said, would be wearisome and to little purpose. Let us see what are 
 
340 
 
 § 17 . DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 th e facts in regard to this passage, the writer of it, and the design that 
 he must have had in view. 
 
 We have seen, that the Dialogue of Caius was in the hands of Euse- 
 bius, and that he has quoted from it. The design of it is explicitly 
 stated also. Caius is writing in opposition to Proclus, a strenuous ad- 
 vocate of Montanism. That the Montanists appealed, in regard to their 
 millennial views, to the Apocalypse of John, there can be no doubt. 
 The dispute between them and the Alogi, is ample proof of this. It 
 was for this reason, that the Alogi denied the genuineness of the Apoca- 
 lypse. They also attributed the book to Cerinthus ; as they did also 
 the Gospel of John. Caius, so far as the Millennium is concerned, is 
 acting the same part as the Alogi. Was there, then, an Apocalypse 
 forged by Cerinthus, which was extant in that day, and to which Caius 
 here adverts ? Or was the Apocalypse of John interpolated by Cerin- 
 thus, and rejected with scorn by Caius ? Or did Caius reject the Apoca- 
 lypse itself of John, as appealed to by his opponent ? 
 
 Each of these positions has been assumed and defended, by writers 
 of no small ability. For each more or less may be said, with some 
 plausibility. But as facts are, there seems to me but one conclusion 
 which will abide a critical trial. Caius, as it would seem, intends to 
 put down the authority appealed to by the Montanists. And what was 
 this ? Most probably, not any fictitious work of Cerinthus, nor any 
 work of John interpolated by him. There is not a word in Eusebius or 
 in any other ancient writer, not in Irenaeus or in Epiphanius, about 
 such a work of Cerinthus ; much less about the reliance of the Monta- 
 nists on such a work, unless what the Alogi have said, and Caius, and 
 Dionysius (of whom in the sequel), is to be taken as evidence of it. 
 Tertullian, a Montanist, makes no appeals of such a nature ; nor could 
 he, in consistence with his well known views about Scripture. If now 
 we suppose that the Apocalypse of John was the book appealed to by 
 Proclus, then the declarations of Caius, if correct, would cut the nerve 
 of Proclus’ argument*; for the tenor of Caius’ argument for such a pur- 
 pose would be this : ‘ Your opinion is supported only by a book which 
 sprung from a heretic, and therefore weighs nothing.’ But on the sup- 
 position that the Montanists appealed merely to a well known fictitious 
 Apocalypse, why did Caius introduce the case of Cerinthus ? It might 
 be said, indeed, that it was in the way of illustration ; i. e. it was as 
 much as to say : You are doing just what Cerinthus did, viz. appealing 
 to false Revelations. Nor can the appositeness of this reply be denied, 
 in case the Apocalypse in question was fictitious. Yet the similarity of 
 Caius’ arguing to that of the Alogi, as before exhibited, seems to be so 
 obvious, that one is naturally inclined to believe, that he must have had 
 the same Apocalypse in view ; and more especially as he lived at the 
 
§ 17. REJECTION OF THE APOCALYPSE BY CAIUS. 341 
 
 same time with the Alogi. How could Proclus, who appealed to the 
 Apocalypse of John , have been confuted by Caius, in case Caius did 
 not mean to say, that the Apocalypse to which his opponent appealed 
 was fictitious, but merely that Cerinthus composed a certain fictitious 
 Apocalypse, which had no direct relation to the present one ? This 
 question seems to me, in connection with the facts before stated, well 
 nigh to settle the controversy about the meaning of Caius. Must he 
 not have meant, that the book to which Proclus appealed was composed 
 by Cerinthus, and therefore unworthy of credit ? But Proclus surely 
 appealed to an Apocalypse, which he supposed to be the work of John. 
 Must it not be this work, then, of which Caius affirmed, that it was com- 
 posed by Cerinthus ? This seems, at least, to be the more probable 
 state of the case. Yet there are some grounds of doubt ; and these 
 must be stated. 
 
 (1) The simple reading of the passage in Eusebius, as produced 
 above, makes naturally the impression, that Caius accuses Cerinthus of 
 forging a book of revelations, which set forth his extravagant and sen- 
 sual notions respecting the Millennium ; and that, in order to gain cre- 
 dit, he affixed to this production the name of a great apostle , i. e. of 
 John, who most probably must be meant. Were it not for the circum- 
 stances and the object of the dispute with Proclus, which seem to de- 
 mand the understanding of the authority to which the latter appeals ; 
 and were it not that no writer of antiquity, if we make the exception 
 above noted, has hinted at such a fictitious or interpolated work of 
 Cerinthus ; we should at once give to the passage such an interpreta- 
 tion. But these considerations stand in the way of so doing. 
 
 (2) The title itself as given by Caius , — dnoxaXvxpsig plural, not 
 dnoxdXvxpig — would seem to indicate a work different from that of John. 
 Eusebius always refers to the Apocalypse by the noun singular, Jlnoxd- 
 Xvipig ; and this seems to strengthen the consideration. But if we re- 
 gard the dnoxaXvxptig of Caius as referring to the contents of the Apoca- 
 lypse, which consist of many visions or revelations, and not to the title, 
 this difficulty seems to vanish. Indeed, Eusebius has quoted a passage 
 from Dionysius of Alexandria, in which the Apocalypse is spoken of in 
 such a way, and by the use of the plural dnoxaXvxpeig. It runs thus : 
 “ [The author] calls himself our brother and companion, and a witness 
 of Jesus, and blessed ini rrj ft so, xal dxorj r cor a n o x a Xv \p i w v, on 
 account of the seeing and hearing of the revelations.” In a like way 
 Caius may have used dnoxaXvgjeig, in the passage under considera- 
 tion. 
 
 (3) 4 The Chiliasm which Caius attributes to the Revelations in 
 question, is entirely diverse from that which John has really taught. 
 Must not the book, then, have been diverse from that of John ?’ Cer- 
 
342 
 
 § 17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 tainly, I reply, in case we may suppose that Caius gave it a fair and 
 enlightened exegesis. But what is the ground for supposing that he 
 did ? Did not the Alogi interpret the Apocalypse in the like sensuous 
 manner? Did not even Dionysius the same? Had not Eusebius mis- 
 givings about the Apocalypse, on a like ground ? Did not Justin, Ire- 
 naeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, yea all the early Christian fathers who 
 were Millenarians in the grosser sense, interpret in the like way? 
 Nothing is plainer, than that the fathers transferred to the millennial pe- 
 riod many of the prophecies of Isaiah and others respecting it, in a kind 
 of literal manner. Everywhere we find traces of this. Can it be any 
 matter of surprise, then, that Caius does the like ? In fact we are not, 
 as I apprehend, to regard the gloss put upon the Apocalypse in this 
 case by Caius, as the result of sober investigation on his own part. He 
 takes the exegesis of Proclus, which was doubtless grossly material or 
 sensuous, and charges it upon the book to which Proclus appealed. In 
 such circumstances, it matters little what the book actually means in 
 the view of an enlightened and dispassionate interpreter ; it is enough for 
 Caius, that he takes his opponent at his word, and so rejects the authen- 
 ticity of the book. At that time, who had led the way to a more sober 
 interpretation ? 
 
 (4) Theodoret (Fab. Haeret. II. 3) speaks in such a way of Cerin- 
 thus, as seems to imply, that he had forged an Apocalypse for the pro- 
 motion of his own designs. His words run thus : KijQiv&og xal unoxa- 
 Xvxpetg Tivag a ) g avr 6 g D'eaadgevog snldtaaro, xcu dneiX wv u- 
 vojv didaoxah'ag avve&ijxe, xal rov xvqiov rgv fiaaileiav scpijoav Iniynov 
 eceoftou, etc. ; i. e. 6 Cerinthus forged certain revelations, as if he him- 
 self had seen them , and added descriptions of certain terrible things (lit. 
 doctrines of certain threatenings), and declares that the kingdom of the 
 Lord will be established on earth,’ etc. The sequel, in Theodoret, 
 merely repeats, with some variations, what is contained in the passage 
 of Caius about the Millennium, as quoted above from Eusebius. If 
 now it could be ascertained, that Theodoret had himself seen the J4.noxa- 
 Ivipeig of Cerinthus, this passage would settle the question, that there 
 was a book of that name forged by Cerinthus ; for, as we see, Theodo- 
 ret speaks of the Revelations as being seen by Cerinthus himself. So 
 much is clear, viz. that Theodoret understood Caius as speaking to this 
 purpose. The mistake, if there is one, seems to be made in regard to 
 the clause avicp dedeiygsvag, in the passage from Caius. As it now 
 stands, avrq) refers to the great apostle ; but if Theodoret read avzco, 
 then it would refer to Cerinthus. Hence, probably, his go 4,* aviog &ea- 
 oagevog, referring to Cerinthus. Nor is it clear what the dneilcov tivcov 
 didavxah'ag ovve&rjxe means. Does it refer to the threatenings at the 
 end of the Apocalypse ; or to the terrible threatenings in the body of 
 
§ 17 . REJECTION OF THE APOCALYPSE BY CAIUS. 343 
 
 the work, (omitted in Caius’ description as quoted by Eusebius) ; or to 
 another book, full of threats, composed by Cerinthus ? We have no 
 means of deciding positively. Yet the whole of Theodoret’s descrip- 
 tion is such, as to make the impression distinctly on my mind, that he 
 merely copies from Eusebius, with some comments and variations of his 
 own. What Eusebius or Caius has left uncertain, he represents as 
 certain, viz. that Cerinthus himself saw, or represents himself as seeing, 
 the revelations in liis book. Eusebius leaves this dubious, very possi- 
 bly because he doubted himself what Caius meant to say respecting it. 
 Had the former ever seen such a forged book of Cerinthus, or heard of 
 it in a credible way, how could he have failed to give us some hint of 
 it ? Caius’ book had come down to him ; but not a word of the work 
 of Cerinthus. 
 
 On the whole, after all that has been done to make this matter clear, 
 some doubt must rest upon it. The ground of all the doubt is the 
 want of explicitness in the statements of Caius and Eusebius. There is 
 nothing in the case which renders absurd the position, that Caius meant 
 to refer to a supposititious work of Cerinthus himself. It may be, that 
 Caius means simply to compare the doings and opinions of Cerinthus 
 with those of Proclus. But when he speaks of razQaXoyiag rj [iiv . . . 
 i psvdopavog Inaodya, who can be meant by rjpiv but the church catho- 
 lic ? And how could Cerinthus’ work be spoken of as introduced to 
 the church catholic ? Lucke thinks this to be a decisive circumstance 
 in regard to the work spoken of, and that it can refer only to the Apoc- 
 alypse of John. But this is giving more emphasis to rjfiiv . . . anaiaayai 
 than necessarily belongs to them. The attempt to introduce, the effort 
 to introduce, the design to palm, the forged work upon the church catho- 
 lic, might be, and naturally would be, described in the same way. 
 
 We have no alternative, then, but to leave this matter in some uncer- 
 tainty. If zeal or effort could have fully settled it, it had long ago been 
 settled. But there is, as has been said, a want of explicitness in the 
 sources to which we must appeal, that forbids us to assume a confident 
 position. My own mind preponderates in favour of the view, that Caius 
 aims at that Apocalypse to which Proclus appeals for confirmation of 
 his views ; and, consequently, that he means to take away the support 
 of Proclus, by showing that his authority is supposititious. 
 
 Why Cerinthus is hit upon as the author of the forged book, is a 
 question that we cannot with certainty answer ; but the principal reason 
 seems to be, that Cerinthus was not only a Millenarian, but probably 
 the leading author or defender of very early Chiliasm, i. e. of the Chi- 
 liasm which was of the grosser and sensual kind. Moreover Cerinthus 
 was a heretic, a man of some talent, and the author of many new and 
 strange opinions. There was, as it would seem, no general tradition 
 
344 
 
 § 17 . DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 among the ancient churches, that Cerinthus wrote an Apocalypse. 
 Caius most probably, then, must have argued by drawing conclusions 
 from the similarity of Cerinthus’ millenarian opinions and those of Pro- 
 clus. 
 
 On the other hand ; had Caius known and studied the opinions of 
 Cerinthus, as they have come down to us, he could never have thought 
 of him as the author of the Apocalypse ; so exceedingly diverse are the 
 views of this book, in many respects, from those of the heretic in ques- 
 tion. Por example ; that the world was created by an Aeon ; that this 
 Aeon was the God of the Jews, and not the supreme God ; that Jesus 
 was merely a natural man, with whom the Logos was united at baptism, 
 but forsook at his crucifixion ; that the laws of Moses must be observed 
 by Christians, etc. ; are things wholly incompatible with the Apocalypse. 
 Had Caius known of these opinions, (and why should he not?), how 
 could he attribute the Revelation of John to Cerinthus ? In fact, the 
 more we examine the judgment of Caius in this matter, on the supposi- 
 tion that he aims at the Apocalypse of John, the less respect must we 
 feel for his critical opinion and for his exegesis. 
 
 And now, how much can be made of Caius’ assertions, supposing, for 
 the sake of argument, that they are aimed at the Apocalypse of John ? 
 Little, or nothing, most certainly. For what is the ground of them? 
 Merely and only his antipathy to Chiliasm. John could not have writ- 
 ten a book, which teaches carnal Chiliasm ; and therefore Cerinthus, 
 who taught such a doctrine, must have written it. Such seems to be the 
 logic that he employs. His own subjective theological views and judg- 
 ment are plainly the basis of his opinion. There is no appeal to testi- 
 mony, tradition, or the opinions of the churches. Most plainly, there- 
 fore, he argues in the same way as the Alogi ; although there is no evi- 
 dence that he extended his conclusions to the Gospel of John, as they 
 did. The result, then, is hardly worth the labour necessary to obtain it. 
 It can make nothing against the Apocalypse, at all events. A judg- 
 ment made up in such a way, and for such a reason, has very little 
 claim to our respect or consideration. The fact, that he palms a car- 
 nal Millennium upon the Apocalypse, is enough to show how little he 
 understood the book, and indeed how little he had studied it. Had not 
 so much been made of his testimony, as a witness against the Apoca- 
 lypse, it would be but a waste of words to discuss it at so great length. 
 
 (3) Testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria. 
 
 In many respects Dionysius was a distinguished man, and he appears 
 to have enjoyed a high reputation among his contemporaries. He was 
 a pupil of Origen, and outlived him only eleven years. He became 
 
§17. VIEWS OF DIONYSIUS. 
 
 345 
 
 bishop of Alexandria in 248, and died in 265. A number of his works 
 are still extant ; but many have perished. Fragments, however, of 
 most of his lost works are scattered through the volumes of the later 
 Fathers ; and a long extract is preserved in Eusebius, from a work of 
 his, in two books, entitled moi inayyskiwv, which has relation to the 
 subject before us. 
 
 The occasion of this last named work must be briefly stated. Nepos, 
 an Egyptian bishop in the district of Arsinoe, a man apparently of ar- 
 dent piety and considerable talent, but somewhat enthusiastic, became a 
 strenuous advocate of the literal Millennium, i. e. of the earthly reign 
 and kingdom of Christ. Origen, so distinguished for his critical know- 
 ledge of the Scriptures, had before this avowed his belief in the spirit- 
 ual sense of the Apocalypse, and consequently had found no difficulty 
 in the supposition that John wrote the book. But Nepos rejected this 
 mode of interpretation ; and in a work entitled sXeyyog akhjyoQiot cor 
 (confutation of the allegorists), he maintained with great warmth the 
 literal reign of Christ on earth. It would seem, from what Eusebius 
 says of Nepos’ work, that his views approached very near to those of 
 the Montanists, in respect to the nature of this reign, i. e. that they 
 were inclined toward sensual gratifications too much to satisfy the more 
 enlightened and spiritual minded. 
 
 Nepos raised up a large party in his favour, in the neighbourhood of 
 his residence. After his death, Coracion, his follower, kept up the ex- 
 citement, and even increased it ; so that a number of churches with- 
 drew themselves from connection with the mother-church at Alexan- 
 dria. Dionysius (about 255) proposed a conference for the purpose of 
 mutual explanation and argument. It was accepted ; and this distin- 
 guished man, by his ability and good temper, succeeded in satisfying 
 Coracion and his friends that they were in an error. Thus the matter 
 ended. But Dionysius, in order to prevent the recurrence of the like 
 strife, soon after wrote a work in two books, entitled, as has been men- 
 tioned, ntQi snayyehav. In the first book he contends against the opin- 
 ion of Nepos ; in the second, he gives his own views of the Apocalypse. 
 From these, as exhibited by Eusebius (in Ecc. Hist. VII. 24. 25), I 
 shall now make some extracts. 
 
 After preparing the w r ay for the expression of his own views, by 
 speaking in a kind and brotherly manner of Nepos and his adher- 
 ents, and after giving some reasons why he deems it important to un- 
 dertake a refutation of his writings, particularly because some had even 
 substituted the work of Nepos in the place of the Old and New Testa- 
 ment Scriptures, he appeals, in respect to the Apocalypse, (on which 
 Nepos and his party wholly depended, and the credit of which, it would 
 seem, Dionysius therefore felt it to be important to shake), first of all, 
 vol. i. 44 
 
346 
 
 §17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 to wliat some of the ancients thought and said in regard to that book. 
 His appeal runs thus : 
 
 “ Some of those before us have rejected and gainsay ed the book en- 
 tirely, examining in detail chapter by chapter, and showing it to be des- 
 titute of knowledge and reason. The very inscription, they aver, is 
 false ; for John is not the author. It contains, moreover, no revelation ; 
 for it is covered with a strong and thick veil of ignorance. The author 
 of this writing, also, was not only none of the apostles, but he did not 
 even belong to the saints or ecclesiastical men. On the other hand, 
 Cerinthus, he from whom the heresy was derived which is called after 
 his name, gave to this his own work a name that was venerable [i. e. of 
 John], in order to obtain credit for it. For this is the purport of his 
 doctrine, that the kingdom of Christ will be earthly, that it will consist 
 altogether of those things of which he, with his animal and entirely car- 
 nal appetites, was desirous, and of which he dreamed, viz. of the grati- 
 fication of the appetite, and specially of impure desire, i. e. in meats, 
 and drinks, and weddings, and (as means by which such desires might 
 be more creditably gratified) in feasts, and sacrifices, and the slaughter 
 of sacred victims.” VII. 25. 
 
 Such is the statement of Dionysius respecting the opinion of riveg . . . 
 rcov tzqo rjncov. Who were they ? He names no one ; but still it seems 
 almost certain that he refers to the Alogi and to Caius. At all events, 
 the opinions of the riveg which are mentioned, tally well with the opin- 
 ions of those just named. The millennial kingdom of the riveg is earth- 
 ly and sensual ; the Apocalypse is obscure and unintelligible, etc. ; just 
 what the Alogi and Caius affirmed. Then again, it was not John, but 
 Cerinthus who wrote the book ; the very same thing that was affirmed 
 by them. If Dionysius did not mean by riveg . . . rcov ttqo cov , the 
 Alogi and Caius, he must at least have meant such as cherished the 
 same opinions which they advocated. 
 
 But what were the objections of the riveg to the Apocalypse ? Mere- 
 ly those which we have already canvassed, viz., such as were urged by 
 the Alogi and Caius, and were merely and wholly of a subjective nature. 
 From a false exegesis of the book they drew conclusions against its 
 apostolical origin, and ascribed it to Cerinthus. Of course these objec- 
 tions do not weigh a grain of sand in the balance of just criticism. 
 
 But has Dionysius no knowledge of more weighty objections to the 
 Apocalypse among the ancients ? None. Most surely he would have 
 produced them if he had. Could he but have appealed to ancient tra- 
 dition, i. e. to historical testimony, in favour of his position, it was im- 
 possible that he should have failed to perceive its superior importance 
 and cogency ; and of course he would have placed it in the front of all 
 his arguments. But not a word of all this. He can only allege, that 
 
§ 17. VIEWS OF DIONYSIUS. 
 
 347 
 
 some of the ancients rejected the Apocalypse because of its obscurity, 
 and because it taught (as they supposed) an earthly and carnal Millen- 
 nium. Most clearly, then, Dionysius knew of no historical testimony 
 against the Apocalypse. It could not well have escaped an intelligent 
 pupil and friend of Origen, if there was any such testimony at that time. 
 Of all the men of that day Origen would be the most likely to know it ; 
 but in all his works, he has never even intimated that a doubt of the 
 genuineness of the Apocalypse was entertained by the churches. He 
 speaks of this book, with the same certainty that he does of the Gospel 
 of John. (See pp. 323 seq. above). 
 
 That Dionysius meant to refer to the Alogi and to Caius , is the more 
 probable from the mode of expression, ttvsg . . . rwv 7 tqo rjgcov. This 
 indicates, that they belonged to the church catholic or orthodox, and 
 were not heretics. Tiveg . . . ttqo rgioiv is as much as to say, i some 
 who belonged to our church in days that are past.’ He might have re- 
 ferred to the Marcionites, and to some other of the Gnostics, as reject- 
 ing the Apocalypse ; but Dionysius well knew that such a reference 
 would have no force. It would have produced an effect contrary to what 
 he intended. So he only speaks of rlvsg . . . rwv ngo rgimv. Neither 
 the Alogi nor Caius were outcasts of the church, but regular members. 
 The former are reckoned heretics by some of the subsequent fathers, 
 because they rejected the books of John. But when they did so, they 
 did not, so far as we know, lose their standing at the time in the church. 
 
 Thus far, then, we have found among the churches, before the time of 
 Dionysius, not a single testimony against the Apocalypse of a historical 
 nature. Dionysius himself, we are quite certain, found nothing of this 
 kind among them. But, inasmuch as we know that he still doubted 
 the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, on what grounds did he rest his 
 doubts ? On history or testimony as to facts, or only on subjective 
 views and on reasoning from the manner and matter of the book ? We 
 must admit him to speak for himself. 
 
 In the sequel of the passage already cited from him, he declares that 
 he durst not venture upon the rejection of the book (the Apocalypse), 
 because many brethren have a high regard for it. He then proceeds thus : 
 “ But admitting that the comprehension of it is beyond my own under- 
 standing, I suppose there is some hidden and mysterious meaning 
 throughout in its contents. For even though I do not understand it, 
 still I suppose some deeper sense is couched in the words. Not measur- 
 ing or judging these things by my own reason, but assigning more to 
 faith, I attribute to it things higher than can be comprehended by me. 
 I do not reject those things which I cannot comprehend ; but they are 
 more the objects of my wonder, because I do not perceive them.” 
 
 It is easy to see, that Dionysius does not mean to revolt the Millena- 
 
348 
 
 § 17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 rians by a direct attack upon the book. He covers up, as it were, its 
 supposed faults ; and while he cautiously and warily suggests that it is 
 unintelligible, he still seems to be willing to put this to the account of 
 sacred mysteries. 
 
 In the sequel, says Eusebius, he goes through the whole work, show- 
 ing that the literal sense is impossible. He then adds : “ The prophet, 
 having completed his whole prophecy, so to speak, congratulates both 
 those who hold it fast, and also himself ; for, Happy, says he, is every 
 one who holds fast the words of the prophecy of this book, and I John, 
 also, who saw and heard it.” He then proceeds : 
 
 “ That the author was called John, and that this composition is John’s, 
 I do not deny. I agree that it belongs to some holy and inspired man. 
 I could not indeed concede that he was the apostle , the son of Zebedee , the 
 brother of James , to whom belongs the Gospel according to John , and the 
 catholic Epistle. For I argue from the respective character of both writ- 
 ings, and from the kind of diction, and from the economy of the said 
 book [the Apocalypse], that it is not his. . For the evangelist nowhere 
 inserts his own name, nor proclaims himself, neither in his Gospel nor 
 in his Epistle. . . . John nowhere speaks of himself in the first person, 
 nor in the third person ; but the author of the Apocalypse immediately 
 names himself in the outset: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, etc. . . . 
 which he signified ... to his servant John, etc. . . . Then he inscribes 
 his epistle thus : John to the seven churches which are in Asia, Grace 
 and Peace ; [1: 4]. Moreover the evangelist did not prefix his name 
 to his catholic epistle. . . . But the author of the Apocalypse did not 
 deem it sufficient to name himself once, and then to declare what fol- 
 lows, but he again repeats: I John your brother, etc. [1: 9]. Besides 
 this, at the close he has again expressed himself thus. ... I John, who 
 saw and heard these things [22: 8]. That John was the writer of this 
 booh , is to be believed on the ground of his own affirmation ; but what 
 John this was, is not clear. For he does not say of himself, as often- 
 times in the Gospel, that he was the beloved disciple of the Lord, or 
 the brother of James, or an eye and ear witness of the Lord. Had he 
 designed clearly to disclose himself, he would have said some of these 
 things. Yet there is nothing of this ; but he has called himself our 
 brother and companion, and a witness of Jesus, and blessed because of 
 his seeing and hearing the revelation. 
 
 u I suppose, moreover, that there are many of the same name with 
 John the apostle, who because of their love toward him, and wonder, 
 and emulation, and desire to be beloved of the Lord as he was, have 
 given themselves the same name. In the like way, many a one among 
 the children of the faithful is called Paul, and Peter. And besides this, 
 there is another John in the Acts of the Apostles, surnamed Mark, whom 
 
§ 17. VIEWS OF DIONYSIUS. 
 
 349 
 
 Barnabas and Paul took with them, concerning whom it is said : 4 They 
 had John for their minister.’ Whether this is the person who wrote 
 [the Apocalypse], I could not say ; for it is not written, that he came 
 with them into Asia. On the contrary, it is said : 4 Paul and those 
 with him, loosing from Paphos, came to Perga of Pampliylia; but 
 John, departing from them, returned to Jerusalem [Acts 13: 13]. 
 
 “ My belief is , that another John , among those who lived in Asia , was 
 the author ; inasmuch as the report is, that there are two sepulchral mon- 
 uments in Ephesus , each of which bears the name of John. 
 
 44 Moreover, from the thoughts and the words and the arrangement of 
 them, this one [the author of the Apocalypse] may with probability be 
 supposed to be different from that one [John the apostle]. For the 
 Gospel and the Epistle harmonize well together, and they commence in 
 the same manner. That says : In the beginning was the Word; this 
 says : That which was from the beginning. That says : The Word be- 
 came flesh, etc. ; this exhibits the same things with slight changes : What 
 we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, etc. . . . He remains 
 consistent with himself, and never relinquishes his purpose. 
 
 44 By the same leading thoughts and words he presents his views 
 through the whole ; examples of which we will now briefly produce. The 
 careful reader will frequently find in each [viz. in the Gospel and the 
 Epistle], life, light, chasing away the darkness ; and continually occurs 
 truth, grace, flesh and blood of the Lord, judgment, forgiveness of sins, 
 the love of God toiuard us, the commandment that we should love one 
 another , that we should keep all the commandments, accusation of the 
 world, of the devil, of antichrist, the promise of the Holy Spirit, adoption 
 by God as sons, entire faith required of us, everywhere the. Father 
 and the Son. In general, it is easy for those who distinguish traits, to 
 see one and the same colouring both in the Gospel and in the Epistle. 
 But the Apocalypse is exceedingly different, and quite foreign from 
 this, neither touching nor even hardly approaching any of these things, 
 nor having, so to speak, one syllable in common with them. Nor does 
 the Epistle make any mention of the Apocalypse or reference to it, (for 
 I omit the Gospel), nor the Apocalypse of the Epistle. Yet Paul, in 
 his Epistles, makes mention even of his unwritten revelations. 
 
 44 There is also a discrepancy between the language of the Gospel and 
 Epistle, compared with that of the Apocalypse. Those are written not 
 only without offence against the Greek idiom, but are most eloquent in 
 their diction, modes of reasoning, and arrangement of expressions. We 
 are far from finding in them any barbarism, or solecism, or any peculiar 
 idiom. For the writer, as it seems, possessed by the grace of the Lord 
 both gifts, viz. that of knowledge and of utterance. I will not deny, in- 
 deed, that the author of the Apocalypse saw a revelation, and received 
 
350 
 
 § 17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 knowledge and the gift of prophecy ; but I perceive that his diction and 
 idiom is not accurate Greek , and that he uses barbarous expressions and 
 solecisms. It is unnecessary at present to cull out these ; for it is not 
 for the purpose of scoffing, (let no one suppose it), that I have said these 
 things, but only in the way of examining the want of resemblance be- 
 tween those writings.” (Euseb. Hist. Ecc. VII. 25.) 
 
 I have thus exhibited the testimony of Dionysius at full length, so 
 far as anything important to our question is concerned. Our inquiry 
 now is : What is the amount of this testimony ? 
 
 (1) Then, it is plain and clear, that Dionysius, while he recites the 
 opinion of rives . . . rwv 7 tqo ijficov, and doubtless means, by so doing, to 
 intimate that objections against the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse 
 are not altogether new and strange, still does not harmonize in opinion 
 respecting the authorship of this book with those persons to whose views 
 he adverts. He has no apprehension that Cerinthus was the author of 
 the Apocalypse. How could he entertain such an opinion, in view of 
 what the church in general had believed respecting the book, and know- 
 ing, as he did, in what estimation Cerinthus was held, and what senti- 
 ments he had taught and defended — so incompatible with those of the 
 Apocalypse ? On the contrary, he doubts not that John was the author ; 
 probably, as he thinks, John the presbyter, but not John the apostle. 
 He explicitly declares his belief in the inspiration of the writer ; and 
 therefore he must have regarded the book as properly sacred. Its mys- 
 terious tenor even, he does not bring forward as an objection to it, but 
 with seeming reverence he wonders at that which surpasses his under- 
 standing. The ancients, to whom he refers as rejecting the work, 
 made its mysterious manner and style a matter of objection and reproach. 
 Dionysius, therefore, expressly exempts himself from harmonizing with 
 them, either as to this objection, or as to their supposed author of the 
 book. But, 
 
 (2) What then was his object, in expressing his doubts about the 
 apostolic origin of the book ? Clearly it must have had reference to the 
 opinions of the Montanists respecting it, whose sentiments he so strong- 
 ly opposed. They believed the book to have been written by the apostle 
 John ; and they too, for such were the current views of the times, regarded 
 an apostolic origin, directly or indirectly, as being necessary to the high- 
 est authority of a book. It is plain, that this lies at the basis of Diony- 
 sius’ argument. If he could show that the book was not written by the 
 apostle John, then he would seem to abate in some degree the confidence 
 that the Montanists reposed in it. To represent Dionysius as having 
 no regard to this in his Critique , as some have recently done in order 
 to give the more weight to his opinion, seems to me quite aside from the 
 proper mark. Did the ancients, then, write critical reviews in such an 
 
§17. VIEWS OF DIONYSIUS. 
 
 351 
 
 abstract way as they are written in modern times ? Dionysius doubted, 
 honestly as we may believe, the apostolic origin and authority of the 
 book ; but, as he says himself, he would not reject it from the Canon, 
 because so many were zealously attached to it. So he has steered a 
 kind of middle course. He speaks respectfully of the book ; does not 
 even find fault with its mysteries ; allows the inspiration of the author ; 
 — and yet, he endeavours to undermine its real authority and influence ; 
 at least what he has said would do this at that time, in case it were fully 
 admitted. He had a difficult part to act, and warily has he performed it. 
 
 (3) As to the rest ; his own objections are mainly drawn from the 
 diction, style, and manner of the book ; the subjects ' treated of are but 
 partially taken into the account. So far as his conjecture respecting 
 John the presbyter as the author is concerned, I have discussed the sub- 
 ject in pp. 293 seq. above ; and in pp. 289 seq. I have also discussed 
 the objection founded on the frequent mention of the author’s name in 
 the Apocalypse, and the omission of it in the Gospel and Epistles. All 
 the other arguments of Dionysius, drawn from the diction, the dialect, 
 and the nature of the subjects introduced, etc., will be discussed in the se- 
 quel, and need not be introduced here with particularity. It must be 
 acknowledged, that eccclesiastical antiquity presents us with few speci- 
 mens indeed of more acute criticism than Dionysius exhibits. It shows 
 with what attention he had read the works of John, and what powers 
 of discrimination he possessed. But modern criticism has gone so far 
 beyond this, that it would hardly be worth our while here to canvass at 
 length the^objections of Dionysius by themselves. He presents scarcely 
 a tithe of the objections that now lie before us. 
 
 A few general remarks only it may be proper to make, at present, 
 before we dismiss this witness. The accusation which the good father 
 brings against the style of the Apocalypse, viz. that it is not Hellenic , 
 and that it exhibits barbarisms and solecisms, is now somewhat better 
 understood than it was in his day. Recent investigations have shown 
 triumphantly, that there are not more than some two or three grammat- 
 ical constructions in the whole book, if indeed so many, that cannot be 
 vindicated by examples from even the better Grecian classics. The 
 Commentary will show this ; and I may be permitted to refer the reader 
 to § 15 in the preceding pages, where the whole subject is discussed. 
 That John does not conform altogether to classic#usage in his style, is 
 true ; and the same is true of all the New Testament writers — true of 
 John’s Gospel and Epistles, the judgment of Dionysius to the contrary 
 notwithstanding. They all write Hebrew- Greek. The thoughts and 
 mode of exhibiting and arranging them, the imagery, the circle of 
 movement — all, all is Hebrew. Only the words are Greek. If the 
 Apocalypse Hebraizes more than any other New Testament book, (and 
 
352 § 17 . DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 this I cheerfully concede), so it should do, and must do, written under 
 such circumstances as it was, and following the Hebrew models before 
 the writer’s mind. And as Dionysius had no knowledge of Hebrew, 
 and was comparatively but little familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, it 
 is no wonder that he puts so much to the account of barbarism and poor 
 Greek. He should however, as it seems to me, have been somewhat 
 more modest on this point ; at least we may think so, in case we are 
 permitted to judge of his skill to criticise on Greek style, by the man- 
 ner in which he himself writes Greek. Few of the Fathers are more 
 Alexandrine ; few present more harsh, difficult, and in some cases even 
 doubtful, constructions than himself. The Apocalypse, at all events, 
 need not shrink from comparison with his Greek. 
 
 The rest of his objections arise from the words and thoughts current 
 in the Gospel and Epistle of John, but not to be found, as he says, in 
 the Apocalypse. On this I merely remark, at present, that I do not 
 see why a writer, who treats, at different times, of subjects almost en- 
 tirely dissimilar, should always employ the same words or thoughts. I 
 do not see why poetry and symbol may not have their appropriate cos- 
 tume. None but a merely mechanical writer always moves in the same 
 circle. And beyond all this, Dionysius has greatly magnified the dis- 
 crepancies between the Apocalypse and the other works of John. He 
 has left wholly out of account the many, and (where the subjects admit) 
 striking resemblances between them. He seems to have been far more 
 intent on finding discrepancies, than on finding resemblances. Tho- 
 rough criticism must attend to both. » 
 
 Lucke takes it for granted, and so Kleuker also seems to decide, that 
 Dionysius had, or could find, no good historical reasons for assigning the 
 Apocalypse to the apostle John ; and consequently that there were none 
 in his time. But is not this making a conclusion much wider than the pre- 
 mises ? Who was Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Cyprian, 
 Methodius, and others, at or near the same period ? And if little critical 
 skill is to be attributed to some of these writers, what shall be said of Ori- 
 gen, who never once intimates that any doubts were extant about the au- 
 thorship of the Apocalypse ? Did he believe without any reason for it ? 
 He was no Millenarian. He held to nothing special that would lead 
 him particularly to favour the Apocalypse. On what ground did he 
 undoubtingly receiv<? it ? 
 
 Dionysius did not publish his work, or engage in his dispute with the 
 Millenarians, until after the death of Origen. Consequently Origen 
 could not know of the difficulties which the former had with the book. 
 Origen doubtless knew that there had been some who rejected it ; but 
 he does not deem their objections of importance enough to be mention- 
 ed. Why now should so much importance be attached to Dionysius’ 
 
§ 17. TESTIMONY OF DIONYSIUS. 
 
 353 
 
 views, who was engaged in a warm dispute, and all of whose difficulties 
 are subjective and not historical ? What good reason is there for regard- 
 ing his opinion as outweighing that of his teacher and of all his contem- 
 poraries ? That a warm dispute may influence the opinion of an hon- 
 est, talented, and even enlightened man, is sufficiently plain from Lu- 
 ther’s judgment about the epistola straminea. Why should we feel any 
 surprise, that Dionysius, apprehending that he could produce some spe- 
 cious reasons, judged it meet by the use of them to undermine, or at 
 least to lessen, the authority to which his antagonists appealed ? The 
 softness of his manner is certainly worthy of all commendation ; but it 
 may well be doubted, I think, whether he ever would have thought of 
 assailing the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, if he had never heard 
 of Nepos’ book, and never engaged in dispute with his followers. 
 
 Thus far, then, we have not a particle of historic testimony against the 
 apostolic origin of the Apocalypse ; and thus far we have pointed, and di- 
 rect, and often repeated testimony in its favour. And when it is alleged, 
 in order to rebut this, that we do not know whether one and another of 
 the fathers, who testify in its favour, derive their opinion from mere 
 hearsay, or from critical examination, I confess I do not well understand 
 what to make of this. What book of the New Testament is there, of 
 which the very same thing may not be said ? Yea, of which it has not 
 been said ? In what particular way the fathers of the second and follow- 
 ing centuries obtained their information and made up their minds, we 
 have no means of ascertaining. One thing, however, is certain. After 
 the first century, all information becomes traditional, except that which 
 the New Testament books themselves contain. The fragments of some 
 other writers during that period may indeed be consulted ; but they do 
 not, and cannot, speak much in relation to such a subject. Beyond these, 
 from Justin Martyr onward, opinion must have been traditional. But a 
 general, an all but universal tradition, constant, invariable, is the best and 
 the main evidence we have of the genuineness of many of the most im- 
 portant ancient writings. I cannot perceive the fairness, then, or even the 
 relevancy of remarks of this nature, in respect to such men as Justin Mar- 
 tyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and others. If there be anything im- 
 portant in such allegations, then there is that in them which will shake 
 the basis on which rests the genuineness of all the New Testament books. 
 What one of them is there, that has not been doubted by some ? And 
 how can its real authenticity be established, if we may scatter over all 
 the testimony in its favour the mists of doubt and uncertainty ? There 
 is scarcely one of the whole, which has more confident and unequivocal 
 testimony in its favour than the Apocalypse. And if this testimony is 
 unworthy of credit, then where at last shall we land, in pursuing such a 
 course, except at the metropolis of universal doubt and skepticism ? 
 
 vol. i. 45 
 
354 
 
 § 17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 Beyond Dionysius in the third century, and onward in the fourth, we 
 cannot expect to find anything more than a mere repetition of what 
 had gone before. No new facts could be developed ; and we meet with 
 no new views, which are worth particular discussion. But still, for the 
 satisfaction of the reader, and for the sake of fully holding up both sides 
 of the question, the doubts of others after the time of Dionysius must 
 be produced. 
 
 (4) Opinion of Eusebius. 
 
 I shall not commence an account of this, as C. F. Schmid does, by 
 an attack on the character and credit of Eusebius as a critic. That he 
 had more historical than philological knowledge, is indeed plain enough. 
 But this is equally plain of most of the fathers. I cannot think that 
 any man of candour can well sit down to a general reading of Eusebius, 
 without giving him great credit for candour also, and likewise for sin- 
 cerity, and in general for sobriety. There is nothing in him which 
 shows that he was an enthusiast, except perhaps on the point of mar- 
 tyrdom. It has sometimes struck me, that Eusebius would have given 
 up the Apocalypse as uncanonical, had he not seen in it so much of 
 Christian zeal and special regard for the honour and reward of martyrs. 
 
 He has spoken of the Apocalypse in several places ; but always in- 
 decisively. We can easily discern, however, the real state of his mind, 
 notwithstanding his apparent indecision. Thus in Ecc. Hist. III. 24, 
 in speaking of the Evangelists, he mentions the Apocalypse, in connec- 
 tion with the apostle John, in the following manner : T^g 5’ Jinoxu- 
 hvipEcog iqi exuzeqov zzi vvv 7taQet zoig noXkoig 7tZQizXxEZcu rj do£a' d[icog 
 yz [Ayr ix zijg zwv uoyaiav {lUQZVQiag zv olxztq ) xaiQCp zryv znixQiaiv 8 z%e- 
 tcu xcd. avzrj , i. e. ‘ The opinion respecting the Apocalypse is even at 
 present fluctuating. However, at some appropriate time we will pass 
 our judgment upon it, as it respects the testimony of the ancients.’ 
 
 Nothing then is here decided. But in the next chapter (III. 25), 
 after speaking of acknowledged books of the Acts and Epistles, he 
 goes on to say : “To these may be added, if it seem good (ei yavEi't]), 
 the Apocalypse of John ; concerning which we shall set forth past 
 opinions, in due time. These [the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse] are 
 among the opoloyovfjzvot, i. e. the universally acknowledged [books].” 
 He then goes on to mention several books that are among the avzils- 
 yofiEVOi; i. e. those which are denied or gainsayed, and immediately 
 subjoins : “ And moreover, as I said, the Apocalypse of John [may be 
 added], if it seem good (ei cpavEiij), which, as I have remarked, some 
 reject, but others reckon it among the acknowledged books.” 
 
 Here then we have, I apprehend, a true picture of the mind of Eu- 
 sebius. He is not clear enough in his own views to make the imxQiaiv 
 
§ 17. VIEWS OP EUSEBIUS, 
 
 355 
 
 V 
 
 which he had promised in the preceding chapter. He merely leaves the 
 reader to take his choice ; intimating, at the same time, that precedent 
 is not wanting for either side of the question. But what the precedent 
 is ; who they are that believe or disbelieve ; how many of either side ; 
 when, where ; — of all this, not a word here. In another passage, as we 
 shall see, he has in part redeemed his promise, by giving the opinion of 
 some who preceded him against the Apocalypse ; although even here he 
 does not give us the promised imxQiGig. We will examine it, after one 
 or two more extracts. 
 
 In III. 39, Eusebius treats of Papias and his works. In the "E^yrjaig 
 of this latter writer, Eusebius says that he speaks of several apostles, 
 among whom is John the evangelist ; “ Then,” says Eusebius, “ making 
 a distinction in his narration, he arranges another John with other per- 
 sons who do not belong to the number of the apostles, placing before 
 him a certain Aristion ; and he expressly names him [this John] the 
 presbyter. So that in this way it seems to be shown, that a true story 
 is told by those, who say that there were two persons in Asia who were 
 called by the same name ; and moreover, that there are two sepulchral 
 monuments at Ephesus, each of which bears the name of John. To 
 this one ought to give heed ; for it is probable that the second [John], 
 unless one should insist on the first, saw the apocalyptic vision which 
 bears the name of John.” 
 
 Still vacillating. Ei yij rig i&t'loi rov ttqwtov. But what if one 
 should prefer the first John ? Why then he may suit himself, as Eu- 
 sebius would seem to say, and leave others to have their choice. Quite 
 an accommodation to a certain class of minds ! 
 
 In VII. 25, he treats specially and at some length of the Apocalypse. 
 The reader expects of course, that he will here redeem his promise 
 made in III. 24. But all which he does is to give an extract from 
 Dionysius’ work (already above exhibited), which work adverts to the 
 opinions of those who had lived before him, and also gives the opinion 
 of the author. It is unnecessary again to repeat the words of Diony- 
 sius here. Eusebius has however added no im'xQiGtg, even in this last 
 passage; still practising the same reserve. Yet from the manner in 
 which he cites and occasionally comments on Dionysius, it is plain 
 enough that his critical judgment was inclined to take part with him. 
 He could not well solve the doubts which Dionysius had raised. Be- 
 sides ; he was a strong Antimillenarian, and as the Chiliasts had made 
 the Apocalypse their principal authority, from Papias down to the time 
 of Eusebius, he probably felt less regret at parting with this book, than 
 he would at parting with almost any other book of the New Testament. 
 Still, he had great respect for Origen and many others, who, as he knew, 
 had fully admitted the authenticity of the book. He was very reluc- 
 
356 
 
 §17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 tant, also, as Dionysius seems to have been, to hurt the feelings of the 
 great mass of Christians, who beyond all doubt regarded the apostle 
 John as its author. Hence the apparent vacillation of his opinion. 
 The truth seems to be, that his critical judgment inclined him toward the 
 views of Dionysius, while his feelings and his respect for others car- 
 ried him in an opposite direction. 
 
 When he is speaking without reference to matters of criticism, he 
 speaks as nearly all other writers of his time do, i. e. he refers to the 
 Apocalypse as a divine book and as the work of the apostle John. E. g. 
 in Ecc. Hist. III. 29, he is speaking of the heresy of the Nicolaitans, 
 and says, among other things, that “the Apocalypse of John makes 
 mention of it, rjg dij xcu i] xov ' /ojuvvov AnoxdXvxpig fivTjgovsvti.” In 
 Yit. Const. III. 33, he speaks of Jerusalem as built anew by Constan- 
 tine, and says, that “ this is perhaps that new Jerusalem celebrated in 
 the prophetic writings ; in respect to which long discourses pronounce in- 
 numerable eulogies, speaking prophetically by the divine Spirit.” There 
 can be no good ground to doubt, in the first case, that John there means 
 the apostle ; nor in the second, that Eusebius refers to the description of 
 the new Jerusalem in the Apocalypse. 
 
 In his Demonstrat. Evangelicae (p. 386 ed. Colon.), speaking of 
 Christ he says, that “ he did not come to seal up prophetic vision ; for 
 he, of old, opened and disclosed the dark and sealed prophecies, remov- 
 ing the seals put on them, giving to his disciples the meaning of the di- 
 vine Scriptures ; whence it is said : Lo ! the Lion of the tribe of Judah 
 hath overcome, and he hath opened the seals put upon the book ; accord- 
 ing to the Apocalypse of John.” 
 
 In III. 18, Ecc. Hist, he is speaking of the banishment of the apostle 
 John to Patmos ; and, in connection with a reference to a passage in 
 Irenaeus about the mysterious number 666, he speaks of it as “ sv xrj 
 3 Icodvvov Xeyogt'vrj Anoxalvxpu, in the Revelation called John's .” Once 
 more, in his Chronicon (p. 208 edit. Seal.), he speaks of John’s banish- 
 ment to Patmos, and adds : J 'Evd~a xtjv AnoxdXvifJiv ecoQaxev, cog drjloi 
 EiQrjvalog, i. e. ‘ where he saw the apocalyptic vision, as Irenaeus shows.’ 
 By here employing the word d/fol instead of cptjal, he evidently implies 
 an assent to what Irenaeus declares ; although at other times he doubt- 
 ed what he here yields. 
 
 The reader will call to mind, that the testimony of Eusebius, if such 
 it may be called, is a full half century after that of Dionysius. In the 
 early part of the fourth century, (the period in which Eusebius flourish- 
 ed), we hear no more of doubts from others than Eusebius, about the 
 apostolic origin of the Apocalypse. Victorinus of Petavium, Pamphilus 
 of Caesarea (Apol. pro. Orig., Orig. Opp. IV. p. 39, 40), Methodius of 
 Olympus, Lactantius, Tichonius, Commodian, Athanasius, and others 
 
§ 17. VIEWS OF LATER WRITERS. 
 
 357 
 
 who lived at or very near the period of Eusebius, speak but one lan- 
 guage. The doubts of Eusebius himself never amounted, as we have 
 seen, to anything like a full and assured persuasion. Neither Eusebius 
 nor Dionysius, although both believed in the spiritual exegesis, i. e. the 
 tropical meaning of many Scriptures, appears to have been sufficiently 
 expert, in the application of the principle, to remove the difficulties they 
 had about Chiliasm. Their opposition to this seems plainly to have had 
 an influence on their opinion about the book, to which the Chiliasts prin- 
 cipally appealed. But Origen, Methodius, and others, found no embar- 
 rassment here. And generally — may we not even say universally ? — - 
 at this period, when the Montanist party had become small and had but 
 little influence ; when, moreover, the question of Chiliasm had ceased 
 to excite any special interest in the churches, inasmuch as the battle had 
 been fought and won in Egypt by the party opposed to it, and the 
 churches in general had finally deemed it best to let every one think for 
 himself in respect to this matter ; all opposition to the Apocalypse either 
 ceased, or became quite inactive and indifferent. Eusebius, who was 
 employed in looking up the history of by-gone ages, seems to stand soli- 
 tary and unsupported at his time by any of the writers now extant, in 
 regard to difficulties about the origin of the book before us. 
 
 (5) Later doubts concerning the Apocalypse. 
 
 Although during the lifetime of Eusebius we find no distinguished 
 writer participating in his doubts, yet at a subsequent period, during the 
 latter half of the fourth century, there appears, in parts of the oriental 
 church, to have been scruples in regard to this book, which in some ca- 
 ses amounted well nigh if not entirely to such a pitch, as to occasion an 
 effort to exclude it from the Canon. It is necessary briefly to advert to 
 these, in order to render our canonical history of this book more com- 
 plete. 
 
 The leading men of this period, viz. Athanasius, Ephrem Syrus, Hi- 
 lary of Poictiers, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzen, Ambrose of Mi- 
 lan, Chrysostom, Philastrius Brixiensis, Ruffinus, Basil, probably Gre- 
 gory of Nyssa, the Council of Hippo 393, and of Carthage 397, all 
 speak in favour of the Apocalypse ; and nearly all of them in language 
 so decided, as to admit of no possible doubt as to their opinion. But 
 some exceptions from these have been made and confidently urged ; and 
 candour demands that some proper notice should be taken of this. 
 
 Gregory of Nazianzen composed a piece in verse, which exhibits a 
 catalogue of the canonical Scriptures ; Opp. II. p. 98. In this he omits 
 the Apocalypse. The passage may be seen, by referring back to § 17. 
 I. No. 25 above ; where the subject itself of the like omissions, at this 
 period, is discussed at length, and the bearing of such occurrences ex- 
 
358 
 
 § 17 . DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 amined, in reference to the point before us. A comparison of Nos. 20 
 and 25 (ib.) will place before the reader the principal part of what I 
 could wish to say on the present occasion, and it need not be repeated 
 here. It seems indeed quite plain, that in many places in the East, in 
 order to guard against Montanism and Chiliasm, the bishops omitted to 
 read the Apocalypse in public, and withdrew the book from the number 
 of those which were commonly circulated. It is in view of this, that 
 Gregory of Nyssa speaks of the Apocalypse as being iv anoxQvcpoig, 
 (see p. 330 above) ; while he still calls it, in another place (ib.), rj t8- 
 Xevzata zrjg yaQizog fi'fiXog, clearly acknowledging its authenticity here, 
 as he does its apostolic origin in the preceding passage to which I have 
 just referred. In like manner the so-called Dionysius the Areopagite, 
 (a writer probably of this late period), calls the Apocalypse zrjv xQvcpiav 
 xai yvGzixrjr 87 Zo\piuv, i. e. the hidden and mystical vision ; see p. 330 
 above. But above all, the case of Philastrius of Brixia (fl. 380) illus- 
 trates this whole matter. In his book De Haeres. c. 88, he exhibits a 
 list of the books to be read in the churches, omitting both the epistle to 
 the Hebrews and the Apocalypse. Yet in the same work (c. 60), he 
 says expressly that “ they are heretics, who do not receive the Gospel 
 of John and his Apocalypse.” Again in c. 88, he speaks of “ Scripturae 
 absconditae, which ought to be read by advanced Christians, but not by 
 all see p. 330 above, for the more complete exhibition of this matter. 
 
 In these examples, now, we see very plainly the prevailing tendency 
 and fashion of the oriental churches in regard to this matter. Hence it 
 came about, that so few copies of the Apocalypse are to be found, even 
 in after times, in the Mss. of the Greek and oriental churches. Mill has 
 stated a fact in regard to this, which ought here to be particularly no- 
 ticed. He says : “ The Apocalypse was joined neither with the volume 
 of the Gospels or of the Epistles ; but, as a prophetic book consisting of 
 matter entirely different from the others, it stood by itself. Hence that 
 ancient distinction of the New Testament into loyict Evayyeh'cov, JinoG- 
 zoXwv, xcu JlnoxuXvxpig” Millii Proleg. No. 226. We know, more- 
 over, that there were three different ways of classifying the books of the 
 New Testament, which prevailed more or less among the ancients, and 
 specially in the 4th century. The first method has reference merely to 
 public use and reading, as just stated above. It calls those canonical 
 which are thus read ; and others not read, although admitted to be di- 
 vine, are anoxQvcpoL The second held all the canonical books to be in- 
 spired, but no others ; and of course might be, and was, a larger canon 
 than the first. Apocryphal, with this class, was equivalent to spurious. 
 So Athanasius, Sophronius, Jerome, and others. A third party had re- 
 ference only to the supposed critical judgment of the church, i. e. of a 
 majority of the church, and decided the character of a book on this 
 
§17. VIEWS OF LATER WRITERS. 
 
 359 
 
 ground. Eusebius seems to have belonged to this class ; and Amphilo- 
 chus, also, in some verses to be mentioned in the sequel. (See C. F. 
 Schmid’s OfFenbar. Johannis, §§ 27, 28 seq.). Hence it is very plain, 
 that no certain conclusion from this or that passage, in relation to the 
 subject before us, can be well and accurately drawn, without an inquiry 
 into the mode of classification which the writer adopts, and some proper 
 investigation of the ground and object of his judgment. To apply the 
 word dnoxQvyoi undistinguishingly to the designation of certain books, 
 at this period, in the same sense in which it was afterwards used, and is 
 now employed among us, would be to betray a want of knowledge in re- 
 gard to the usages of the fourth century, in particular of the latter half 
 of it. 
 
 In respect to Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Philastrius, 
 enough has been said in the preceding paragraphs, and on pages 329, 
 330 above, to show that a proper distinction between the books for pub- 
 lic and ordinary reading, and those which, as Philastrius says, “ legi 
 debent morum causa a perfectis, non ab omnibus legi debent” (p. 330 
 above), will easily and naturally account for the omission of the Apoca- 
 lypse in catalogues of canonical books designed for common and public 
 use. In regard to Gregory of Nazianzen and Philastrius, it is not pos- 
 sible to admit any other explanation than the one given, without mak- 
 ing them grossly inconsistent with themselves and even contradictory. 
 Gregory of Nyssa has made the meaning and explanation of unoxQvcpoiy 
 in that quarter of the church where most doubt seems to have prevailed 
 respecting the Apocalypse, so plain and intelligible, that I do not see 
 any good room for hesitation. Let us see, now, whether the same prin- 
 ciple which must be here admitted, is not applicable to other cases, in 
 which the writers are appealed to as doubting or denying the apostolic 
 origin and authority of the Apocalypse. 
 
 The 60th (59 ?) Canon of the Council of Laodicea in Phrygia, A. D. 
 363 (367 ?), has been a standing authority among those who doubt the 
 apostolic origin of the Apocalypse. This was but a small Council, and 
 it was held in a region where doubts seem to have been more common 
 than elsewhere. The genuineness of this 60th Canon was called in 
 question by Spittler, and its credit, for a while, was given up by most 
 critics. But Bickell (Stud, und Krit. 1830, p. 591 seq.) seems to have 
 rendered the matter somewhat doubtful, and to have left it in this posi- 
 tion. Without going at all here into the question of its genuineness, 
 (for the discussion of which there is no room), I will concede, that the 
 60th Canon, i. e. the one in question, omits the Apocalypse in the cata- 
 logue of the sacred books ; just as Gregory Nazianzen and Philastrius 
 omit it. But does this decide, that the bishops convened in this Coun- 
 cil rejected the Revelation as a spurious book? Surely not, under 
 
360 
 
 § 17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 such circumstances as have been described. And indeed there is some- 
 thing more to be said in this case, that may serve to cast further light 
 upon it. The Council of Constantinople in 692 admits the Canon of 
 books named by the Council of Laodicea, and also that named by the 
 Council of Carthage in 397. Now the latter unequivocally admits the 
 Apocalypse as a divine book. In what manner, then, did the bishops 
 at Constantinople reconcile their admission of both Canons ? There 
 seems to be no explanation of this so probable, as the one which allows, 
 that, while the Council of Laodicea do not include the Apocalypse in 
 their public canon, they still are not to be understood as casting away 
 the book. Another circumstance favours this supposition. No subse- 
 quent ecclesiastical writer appeals to the Council of Laodicea as authori- 
 ty for neglecting the Apocalypse ; and in the Arabic version of the 
 60th Canon, the Apocalypse is named among the canonical books, as it 
 is in some of the Latin versions. More especially may we be disposed 
 not to be bound by the Council of Laodicea, inasmuch as it includes 
 Baruch and the epistle of Jeremiah among the canonical books of the 
 Old Testament. 
 
 In like manner the so-called Canons of the Apostles, (a supposititious 
 work of the latter part of Cent. IV.), are appealed to as omitting the 
 Apocalypse. In Canon 76 (85), we have a list of sacred books which 
 does indeed omit it ; but it hiserts Judith, three books of the Maccabees, 
 and two epistles of Clement. This circumstance stamps its character. 
 The whole work is itself a fiction ; and the omission of the Apocalypse 
 shows, that it must have probably originated at the time, when it was 
 not uncommon to omit this book in canons for public use. S6e in 
 Co tel. Pat. Apostol. I. p. 429 seq. 
 
 Amphilochus, bishop of Iconium (fl. 380), an intimate friend of Basil 
 and of Gregory Nazianzen, wrote some Iambics addressed to Seleucus, 
 which are printed in Opp. Greg. Nazianz. II. p. 194 seq., and have, by 
 some, been attributed to Gregory. The verses in question contain a 
 catalogue of the canonical books ; and of the Apocalypse they speak in 
 the following manner : Trjv d’ JlTioxulvxpiv rrjv ' Icouvvov nakiv Tfvsg 
 psv iyy.QLvovGiv, oi nleiovg ds ys No&ov hiyovciv, i. e. ‘some admit 
 moreover the Apocalypse of John, but most persons say it is spurious/ 
 The friend of Gregory has seemingly gone much further than Gregory 
 himself, who, in his catalogue, merely passes the book in silence, al- 
 though he elsewhere plainly recognizes it as a book of authority. Am- 
 philochus, as it would seem, must in all probability have rejected it. 
 On what grounds — we are left entirely to conjecture. Possibly he 
 doubted of it for reasons like to those which Dionysius has given, the 
 force of which Eusebius seems so much to have felt. 
 
 One more writer of this class, of some active eminence in his time, 
 
§17. VIEWS OF LATER WRITERS. 
 
 361 
 
 (flor. 360, f 386), is Cyrill of Jerusalem. In his Catecheses, (Cat. IY. 
 36), he exhibits a catalogue of the canonical books, and omits the 
 Apocalypse. At the close of his list he says : ra 8s XoiTza navTct s%<x j 
 xsia&co iv devTSQCp, i. e. ‘ let all the remaining [books] be placed with- 
 out among the secondary ones.’ Liicke (p. 335) thinks this is decisive, 
 that Cyrill absolutely rejected as spurious the Apocalypse ; and particu- 
 larly because he does not elsewhere quote from this book. But this last 
 circumstance is not decisive. His works are not numerous ; and in 
 general his Catecheses are not of such a nature as would lead him to 
 quote this book. It was for a long time denied that Chrysostom had 
 made any use of the Apocalypse ; but this at last is amply established, 
 although his use of it is very unfrequent. But Cyrill, an ardent man, 
 may well be supposed, in composing catechetical i. e. doctrinal instruc- 
 tions, not to have had occasion to cite the Apocalypse often, if at all, 
 even in case he believed in its authenticity. Montanism still existed in 
 the East, and Chiliasm, (which of course accompanied Montanism but 
 also existed independent of it), had taken root in many places and main- 
 tained its ground ; as may be seen in the works of Lactantius and oth- 
 ers in the fourth century. What Cyrill says of Antichrist, and of anoth- 
 er head of the dragon, (Cat. XV. 12 seq. and 27), must be admitted, to 
 say the least, to refer to the Apocalypse as a well known book. But 
 what he says of the period of three and a half years, the appointed time 
 of Antichrist, where he remarks : ovx a7T0XQvq)Cx)v XsyofJisv, alX ix 
 rov A art ft (ib. 13), looks very much like declining to appeal to the 
 Apocalypse for confirmation of his views about this period. Still it is 
 not quite certain that we ought to give it this interpretation ; for he 
 may have chosen the books publicly read as preferable authority for 
 those whom he addressed, while he regarded the Apocalypse as among 
 the dnoxQvyoi, in the same way as did Gregory of Nyssa, Philastrius, 
 and Gregory Nazianzen. Positive evidence of rejection cannot be 
 found in him, or at least has not yet been produced. Besides, let any 
 one read through Cat. XV. and he will see, that while Cyrill, in con- 
 formity with his directions about the Canon in Cat. IV. 36, declines 
 openly to cite the Apocalypse, yet he has borrowed its language in some 
 cases beyond all question ; e. g. Cat. XV. 13, where he says of the 
 fourth beast, aviog oydoog pcujihsvosi, which can be found only in Rev. 
 17: 11, and is so peculiar as to make the quotation certain. So Cat. 
 XV. 22 looks altogether like being modified by Rev. 1: 7, although 
 the quotation may be from Zech. 12: 10 — 12. In the same place, we 
 have an expression which the enemies of Christ will utter : nov (pvyco- 
 fiev dno 7 iqqgumov trjg OQyft gov ; — almost an exact copy of Rev. 6: 16, 
 but possibly based upon Nah. 1: 6. The index to Cyrilli Opp. Omn. 
 
 VOL. i. 46 
 
362 
 
 § 17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 pp. 437, 440 will show the certainty that Cyrill has not unfrequently, 
 sub rosa, referred to this book. 
 
 Thus it would appear, on the whole, that during the last half of the 
 fourth century, there was a shyness among many of the eastern bishops 
 in respect to the Apocalypse, even in some cases where the other dvti- 
 Xeyopevoi, viz. James, 2 Peter, 2d and 3d John, were admitted ; e. g. as 
 in the case of Cyrill of Jerusalem, of the Council at Laodicea (363), of 
 the author of the Apostolical Canons, and of others. Jerome, who liv- 
 ed many years in Palestine and must have known the state of things, 
 testifies to this, in some remarks which he makes on the epistle to the 
 Hebrews. “ If,” says he, “ the usage of the Latins does not receive it 
 [the epistle to the Hebrews] among the canonical Scriptures, nec Grae- 
 corum quidem ecclesiae Apocalypsin eodem libertate suscipiunt , i. e. nei- 
 ther, by the same liberty, do the churches of the Greeks receive the 
 Apocalypse."* He then goes on to remark, that contrary to recent usage 
 (liujus temporis), and following the authority of the ancient writers, he 
 receives both. It is quite plain from this, that he was acquainted with 
 the state of things at this period among the oriental churches, as it has 
 been set forth in the preceding pages. There can be no rational doubt, 
 that there was a great variety of shades of opinion among those church- 
 es. Some men were in the hesitating and vacillating state of Eusebius ; 
 others, not improbably, may have declined to acknowledge John the 
 apostle as the author, in the manner of Dionysius. Others may have 
 rejected it from their canon ; of which, however, there is nt> positive 
 evidence, in case we take canonical in the sense of Jerome, i. e. as 
 meaning an inspired book. Nothing is more likely than all this, if we 
 contemplate the state of things as exhibited above, in connection with 
 the declaration of Jerome. 
 
 Let us now follow on, somewhat further, this state of things among 
 the oriental churches. But before we do this, it is proper to advert to 
 the fact, that the Greek churches were far from being unanimous , in 
 regard to the doubts and difficulties which have just been laid before 
 the reader. We have seen above, under No. I., that Athanasius, Basil 
 the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Ephrem Syrus (con- 
 nected with the eastern Asiatic churches), Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and 
 others, had no hesitation about appealing to the Apocalypse as a divine 
 book ; although, from the nature of its contents, most of them appeal to 
 it but seldom. Chrysostom, for example, has written no Homilies upon 
 it ; and seldom is it made the basis of any sort of discourse by others. 
 Most writers seem to have felt doubts about the meaning of various 
 parts of the book ; and while this was the case, it would naturally be 
 left out of view, in the same way as the Canticles are, at the present 
 time, by most of our public teachers. It is not difficult, therefore, to ac- 
 
§17. VIEWS OF LATER WRITERS. 
 
 363 
 
 count for the general silence of the oriental churches, at this period, in 
 regard to a book so mysterious, and the subject of doubt to a Eusebius 
 and a Dionysius. The use which the Moutanists and all the Chiliasts 
 made of it, was also a ground, as we may reasonably believe, for keep- 
 ing it back in some measure from the churches, and for omitting it, as 
 we have seen, in the list of Scriptures to be publicly read. 
 
 A state of things like this could not be expected to come speedily to 
 an end. We are able to obtain, however, but rather an imperfect view 
 of the succeeding century, in respect to the question before us. As a 
 matter of critical interest, indeed, it would not be of any serious avail 
 either for or against the Apocalypse. What has so late an age to do 
 with the furnishing of evidence that can be relied upon, in regard to 
 either side of the question ? It is more a matter of literary curiosity, 
 to follow further the history of the Apocalypse, than of any importance 
 in a critical respect. 
 
 The testimony of various writers belonging to the Greek church at 
 this period has already been adverted to, in p. 357 above. There is 
 not the least doubt of the most full and ample recognition of the Apoca- 
 lypse by Cyrill of Alexandria, De Adorat. VI. p. 188 ; by Nilus of 
 Constantinople, De Orat. 69. 75, 76; Isidore of Pelusium, Epist. II. 
 175. I. 188. I. 13; Andreas of Caesarea in Cappadocia (seep. 305 
 above), who wrote a Commentary on the book, which is the oldest we 
 have excepting that of Yictorinus ; Arethas, probably his successor, 
 who also wrote a Commentary on the Apocalypse, and most fully ad- 
 mitted its claims, although he refers (in the introduction) to some who 
 had doubted them. 
 
 How Theodore of Mopsuestia, who seems of late to have come into 
 high repute, decided in respect to the Apocalypse, we do not know. 
 Lucke (p. 347) thinks it probable that he was adverse to it, because he 
 rejected the epistle of James, and withal was not favourably inclined to 
 the Antilegomeni. Theodoret of Antioch, the commentator, wrote upon 
 Daniel and many other books ; yet only two or three references have 
 been found in him to the Apocalypse. From these, nothing against the 
 Apocalypse can be made out, but rather in favour of it. Yet the fact 
 of his silence, (much like that of Chrysostom), shows that whatever his 
 views were of the Apocalypse, he did not choose to make it an object of 
 frequent and familiar reference. This would not prove that he had 
 doubts about the authorship of the book ; but only that he regarded it 
 as mysterious and difficult of explication ; just as Chrysostom seems to 
 have done, whose opinion of its genuineness is clear and certain. As a 
 general thing, the Antiochian school and region, at that period, i. e. after 
 350 and so into the next century, were little inclined to bring forward 
 the Apocalypse. Hence they produced no commentaries or homilies 
 
364 
 
 §17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 upon it. It can hardly be doubted, therefore, that this book was at 
 least regarded by the leading men of that region, as less useful than 
 most other sacred books. 
 
 Cosmas Indicopleustes, (an Alexandrian of Cent. VI.), does not re- 
 fer to the Apocalypse, in his Topog. Christ. ; although it would seem 
 that he had inducements to do so, in book VII. respecting the duration 
 of the heavens. The Synod of Trulla (692) received the Canon of La- 
 odicea (363) which omits the Apocalypse ; the Canones Apostolicae do 
 the same (p. 360 above) ; while, at the same time, the Canons of the 
 African Synods, at the fclose of the fifth and beginning of the sixth cen- 
 tury, all include the Apocalypse. Much has been said upon these oc- 
 currences, and conclusions have been drawn from them both for and 
 against the Apocalypse. But we have seen that the matter in respect 
 to the Council of Laodicea is doubtful ; and of course it is doubtful what 
 was done at Trulla. Whether it was oversight or design in the Synod, 
 as to the omission of the Apocalypse, (supposing them to have omitted 
 it), it would be difficult to say. If it was design , it would seem proba- 
 ble, that the members of the Council of Trulla meant to leave the re- 
 ception or omission of the Apocalypse to the judgment of the respective 
 churches or bishops. In the like way did the Synod at Nice in 787 
 decide. 
 
 In the eighth century, Johannes Damascenus fully admitted the 
 Apocalypse ; while Nicephorus, of the ninth, adheres to the Synod of 
 Laodicea, i. e. omits it. In periods after this, individual^ and books 
 may be met with, here and there, which seem to express doubts about 
 the Apocalypse ; but the general current was undoubtedly in its favour. 
 
 Let us now return from this view of the Greek church, followed down 
 to a period far beyond any critical importance, back to the western 
 church and see whether any opposition was there made to the Apoca- 
 lypse. And here all is clear. After the fourth century began, all the 
 writers of influence move in one direction. Thus Hilary, Ambrose, 
 Tic.onius, Julius Firmicus Maternus, Philastrius, the Synod of Hippo 
 (393), the third Synod of Carthage (397), Innocent bishop of Rome, 
 Augustine, Jerome, Sulpicius Severus, Gelasius Papa, and still later, 
 Primasius, Junilius Africanus, the Synod of Toledo — all these and 
 many others, decide without any doubt or hesitation for the Apocalypse. 
 And although some of those here named advert to doubts, (e. g. the two 
 last named), yet no weight appears to be attached to them. In the 
 eighth and ninth centuries, here and there a case of doubt may be found 
 in the western churches ; but such cases seem to have been so local and 
 temporary as to produce no influence in checking the mighty current, 
 all of which, in this region, ran in one direction. 
 
 Turn we now to the Syrian churches, the eastern part of which 
 
§ 17. VIEWS OF LATER WRITERS. 
 
 365 
 
 may be separated from the oriental Greek churches as not speaking the 
 same language. It is now generally acknowledged, that the Pesliito or 
 first Syriac Version of the New Testament was probably made in the 
 second century, or at least early in the third. Ewald places it still ear- 
 lier (Apoc. p. 60), as do some others ; while a different class assign it 
 to a later period than that just named ; but the most probable statement 
 seems to be that which I have made. It has often been urged, and is 
 still urged, as an unanswerable argument against the Apocalypse, that it 
 is omitted in the Peshito, and has continued to be so in the Mss. copies, 
 down to the present hour. 
 
 If this objection be conclusive, then it extends in like manner to the 
 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, and the epistle of Jude, which are all omitted. 
 
 The Syrian churches have ever cherished a high veneration for this 
 version ; as indeed they had reason to do, on account of its excellence. 
 But when they attribute it even to the apostolic age, as they often do, 
 we may admire their zeal rather than their critical judgment. The 
 first certain traces of its use are in Ephrem Syrus’ Commentaries, who 
 flourished in the latter part of Cent. IV, at the same period with those 
 Greek fathers brought to view above, who had doubts and difficulties 
 about the Apocalypse. With these, it is clear, Ephrem did not sympa- 
 thize, as his works abundantly prove; see under § 17. I. No. 21 above. 
 From some source in Syriac it is clear that he must have obtained his 
 references to the Apocalypse ; for it seems to be certain, that he did 
 not himself understand the Greek; see Sozom. Hist. Ecc. III. 16. 
 Theod. Hist. Ecc. IV. 29. Hug’s Introd. I. § 65, p. 205. Yet he re- 
 fers familiarly to the Apocalypse, as though his readers would have no 
 more question about it, than they would about his reference to other 
 books of Scripture. This fact is one of much importance. To account 
 for it Eichhorn and Hug resort to the supposition, that the Peshito 
 originally contained the Apocalypse ; and that afterwards, in conse- 
 quence of the doubts in the Greek churches about this book, and because 
 it was not read in the churches, it was omitted. Kolthoff (Apoc. Vin- 
 dic. p. 27) seems to favour the same opinion. But, with Liicke (p. 320), 
 I must regard this as improbable. It may easily and readily be sup- 
 posed, that the Lectionaries would omit it ; but that all the copies should 
 have agreed in this, considering the high value set upon the version, can 
 hardly be deemed probable. Be this however as it may, the facts re- 
 main. Ephrem quotes the Apocalypse, and not unfrequently. He 
 quotes it unhesitatingly as a divine and acknowledged book. Whence 
 did he obtain these views of it ? The manner in which he quotes it 
 shows, that there must have been a Syriac version before him. It shows 
 also that this was well known to his readers, for whom his writings are 
 intended. Were this otherwise, he must have said something concern- 
 
366 
 
 § 17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR 
 
 ing the matter. When , and by whom , was this version made ? These 
 are questions that we cannot answer. It must have been made for some 
 time, in order to gain such a currency and confidence ; and the fact that 
 Ephrem appeals to the book in such a manner, is good security for the 
 reputation of the Apocalypse itself in that quarter of the church. If 
 Ephrem did so, would not others do the same among the Syrian church- 
 es ? The Syrian churches entertained the highest respect for him. 
 They even named him prophet and interpreter of the divine word. His 
 works were many of them soon translated into Greek ; and Jerome as- 
 sures us (IV. p. 126), that such was his reputation, that ‘in some of the 
 churches his books were publicly read, after the lection of the Scrip- 
 tures.’ Probably these were his Commentaries, on the passages of 
 Scripture that were read. All this shows a state of things far from be- 
 ing unfavourable to the Apocalypse, in that quarter of the church ; it 
 shows also, that there must have been a Syriac version of this book at 
 that time in use. 
 
 ‘ But the Peshito does not contain it. What but the rejection of the 
 divine authority of the book can account for this ?’ 
 
 The problem may be solved in various ways. The person who made 
 the Peshito version, doubtless made it, in the first instance, for public 
 use in the churches. Such was the immediate purpose for which nearly 
 all the primitive versions of the New Testament were made ; see Augus- 
 ti, Denkwiird. VI. p. 118. An indubitable proof that such was the case 
 with the Peshito, is, that it exhibits a pretty complete notation of the 
 Anagnosmata which belong only to public use. The translator may 
 have designed only to furnish the churches with such a book. Or he 
 may have died and left his work unfinished. And besides these sup- 
 positions, there is still another and an important attitude of the case. 
 It is a well known fact, and now generally conceded, that the New Tes- 
 tament, as a whole , did not assume its present form until the latter part 
 of the second century, i. e. it was not collected into one body, and re- 
 garded as one work, before this period. How easy now to suppose, that 
 the author of the Peshito Version did not obtain a complete copy, but 
 only a church-copy , i. e. a Lectionary. Mill, in speaking of the custom 
 of the early ages in respect to the copies of the New Testament says : 
 “ Neque Apocalypsis vel Evangelico vel Epistolico Codici juncta erat ; 
 sed, tanquam Propheticus Liber, diversi prorsus a reliquis argumenti, 
 seorsim incedebat ; unde vetus ilia distinctio librorum N. Test., in 
 Evayyeh'cov, JItzootoIcov, xat ^TToxalvxpecog Xoyia, apud Origenem, 
 Comm, in Matt. p. 220.” We have seen already, among the Greek 
 churches, extensive evidences of such a practice. The state of Mss. 
 which have come down to us, shows that such usages prevailed. Who 
 does not know, that very few copies of the Apocalypse have yet been 
 
§17. VIEWS OF LATER WRITERS. 
 
 367 
 
 found, and how much behind the other books, as to a correct text, this 
 book still remains ? There are so many phenomena of this kind, that 
 we cannot be mistaken in supposing, that even where the Apocalypse 
 was fully admitted as a sacred book, it was comparatively but little used 
 and little copied. Even the Philoxenian version, made in 508 by Poly- 
 carp at the request of Philoxenus, and corrected in 616 by Thomas of 
 Ileraclea, although it originally embraced the Apocalypse, as it is con- 
 ceded, is still rarely to be found associated with this book in the Mss. 
 Thus the best exemplar of White, in his Yersio Philox., did not con- 
 tain the Apocalypse; Pref. p. 22. The three Syriac Mss. in the 
 Royal Library at Paris, although derived from the Jacobites who ad- 
 mit the Apocalypse even in their public lections, do not contain this 
 book ; Schmid’s Offenbarung, p. 161. Moses Mardenus, sent to Europe 
 by Ignatius patriarch of Antioch in 1552, in order to get the Syriac 
 New Testament printed, brought no Ms. containing the Apocalypse ; 
 while, at the same time, he assured those who inquired of him, that 
 the Apocalypse, and the Epistles, which are omitted in the Peshito, 
 were regarded by the Syrians as divine. Afterwards he sent a copy of 
 these books to Europe, which was printed by Lud. de Dieu, and has 
 been followed by the Polyglots and the common Syriac New Testa- 
 ments. But down to the present time it does not seem to be settled, 
 whether the copy of the Apocalypse in question belonged to the Phi- 
 loxenian version, or was derived from another source ; for Mardenus 
 did not give the source from which he derived his copy. 
 
 It would seem, then, that even the Philoxenian, as well as the Pe- 
 shito, is usually found without the Apocalypse ; and yet we know that 
 the Jacobites and others who admit this, do not reject the authority of 
 the Apocalypse. In such a state of things, we cannot make much out 
 of the omission of the Apocalypse in the Peshito ; for all the copies of 
 which we know anything, are later than the period when Ephrem lived. 
 That the ancient eastern Syrian church rejected the Apocalypse from, 
 the Canon, there is no good evidence whatever. That the very ancient 
 western Syrian church admitted its claims, is clear from the views of 
 Theophilus of Antioch; see p. 312 above. From the manner in which 
 Ephrem treats the book, the evidence is conclusive that in his time it 
 was fully credited. Even more than this it seems necessary to suppose. 
 How could he speak as he does about it, had he known that it was 
 doubted, or newly admitted, or held in a vacillating position by his 
 church ? Lucke himself acknowledges, that nothing of any conse- 
 quence against the book can be made out from the circumstance of its 
 omission in the Peshito ; Einl. p. 321. There is not a shadow of doubt, 
 moreover, that when the Philoxenian Version was made, the Apocalypse 
 was admitted as canonical by the Syrian churches. And if the Apoc- 
 
368 
 
 § 18. RESULT OF HISTORICAL TESTIMONY. 
 
 alypse attached to the editions of our printed Syriac Testaments, is still 
 older than the Philoxenian Version, (a thing quite credible), the point 
 is equally clear in regard to the credit of the book at the time when 
 that older version was made ; for its title attributes the work to John, at 
 the time when he was banished by Nero to Patmos. 
 
 Thus have we taken a survey of the Greek, the Latin, and the Sy- 
 rian churches, in search of objections against the authenticity of the 
 Apocalypse. And what, and how much, have we found ? The 
 answer to these questions requires separate and distinct notice. 
 
 § 18. Result of historical testimony. 
 
 If we include in this what the book says of the author, as has been 
 done above, we find a series of testimony and tradition, occasionally 
 called in question or opposed by few indeed, and but for a little time, 
 until we come down to the latter part of the fourth century. Of the 
 second century, Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Apollonius, 
 Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, the Testament of 
 the XII. Patriarchs, Tertullian, Irenaeus, are leading witnesses. In 
 the third, Methodius, Ilippolytus, the Epistle of the Romish Clergy 
 to Cyprian in 250, Victorinus Petavionensis, Commodianus, Cyprian, 
 Origen, Nepos, all testify in its favour. In the fourth century, Basil, 
 Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, 
 Ephrem Syrus, Athanasius, Didymus of Alexandria, Macarius, the 
 Donatists, the third council at Carthage, Prudentius, Hilary, Ambrose. 
 Philastrius, Ruffin, Jerome, Lactantius, Julius Firmicus Maternus, and 
 Augustine (if we may reckon him here), all unite in their views in 
 favour of the Apocalypse. Some of the eastern bishops, as we have 
 seen, did not include it among the books to be publicly read. 
 
 To go further than this is needless, and indeed useless in this place. 
 
 ' What is there then to set in opposition to this general, not to say uni- 
 versal, current of opinion, both early and late ? First we have the op- 
 position of the Alogi, in the second century, on ground confessedly of 
 party feelings and subjective views. Then conies Caius of Rome, whose 
 views have been so fully discussed, and whose opposition to the true 
 Apocalypse remains still a matter somewhat in the dark ; but if it was 
 real, it was only on subjective grounds and not historical ones, inasmuch 
 as he was involved in sharp dispute with the Montanists. Then, near 
 the middle of the third century, we have Dionysius of Alexandria, who 
 merely rejects the apostolic origin but not the divine authority of the 
 book, and gives no historical reasons for his opinion, inasmuch as he ar- 
 gues merely from the style and diction of the book. We next come, in 
 the fourth century, to Eusebius, whose mind vacillated in regard to the 
 
§ 18. RESULT OF HISTORICAL TESTIMONY. 
 
 369 
 
 question of genuineness, and appears to have remained undecided. But 
 in the latter part of this century, and in the Greek church of Asia Mi- 
 nor and some other places, we find a few persons like Cyrill, with 
 whom Amphilochus may be classed, who cautiously abstained from ap- 
 pealing to the Apocalypse ; and several of the fathers, who did not in- 
 clude it in the Canon of books to be publicly read. The Council of 
 Laodicea may perhaps be reckoned here ; if indeed, (which is quite 
 doubtful), the 60th Canon of the Council is genuine ; (See p. 359 above, 
 and Theol. Stud, und Krit. 1830, p. 591 seq.) After this period, we 
 find only here and there a solitary voice raised against the Apocalypse, 
 until, at length, the reception became universal, or all but universal. 
 Modern times have waked up the spirit of controversy about it again, 
 and the battle is not yet ended. 
 
 Now what is there in the nature and manner of this opposition in an- 
 cient times, which should lead us to reject the Apocalypse ? It has, 
 one may say, undivided and unquestioned sway, down to the time of 
 Dionysius. There is nothing in all the opposition which would excite 
 a serious doubt in the mind of any candid and critical investigator. Di- 
 onysius neither raises nor suggests any historical grounds of doubt. His 
 other grounds remain to be further examined. Whatever doubt might 
 arise, or did arise, another century later, was not originated, so far as 
 we know, by any historical evidence ; for such evidence there is not, 
 and no appeal is made to it. What reason is there, then, that we should 
 not give credit to traditionary testimony, so early, so uniform, so long 
 continued ? 
 
 Lucke, when he comes to sum up the whole, concedes, that the exe- 
 getical phenomena of the book and the tradition of the churches unite 
 in favour of it. He suggests only, in abatement of this, that from the 
 third century there was a division of opinion among the churches about 
 the origin and authority of the Apocalypse. How much this amounts 
 to, the reader has now had opportunity of seeing and examining. 
 
 But why does not Liicke admit, then, the apostolic origin of the book ? 
 Because, as he avers, there is no proof that the witnesses made thorough 
 investigation of the matter or subjected it to real critical inquiry. “ Their 
 opinion,” says he (p. 357), “ is no wahres Wissen (true knowledge), 
 but only a Mosses Meinen (bare supposition)”. As I have before remark- 
 ed (p. 353 above), I cannot conceive on what basis such a statement 
 rests. What I mean is, that the same requisition which he here makes, 
 would leave every book in the New Testament destitute of valid sup- 
 port. None of the witnesses were there to see the actual writing of any 
 book. Of course that had no true knowledge, in the sense which he 
 seems to insist on. None of them have any testimony different in na- 
 ture or kind from that of the Apocalypse. Besides ; did not Irenaeus 
 vol. i. 47 
 
370 
 
 § 18. RESULT OF HISTORICAL TESTIMONY. 
 
 receive testimony from the personal friends of John ? Was Origen no 
 critical investigator ? Was Jerome no critic? Too late, indeed, for 
 the highest purposes of historical criticism, did the latter live ; but not 
 the former. And even Irenaeus — does he not tell us, in regard to the 
 wonderful number of the beast, i. e. 666, that he had compared copies — 
 ancient and recent copies — in which he found this number; while 616 
 was only in the more recent Mss. ? In the days of Irenaeus, then, the 
 Apocalypse had been so long in circulation, that the Mss. were already 
 classed as ancient and modern . The early credit of the book seems to 
 be well established from this. And indeed, if the credit due to the 
 Apocalypse is to be decided only on such grounds as Lucke here as- 
 sumes, there is not a book of the New Testament that will stand before 
 the like process and principles of decision. Surely the Gospel and 
 Epistles of John must fall before them. 
 
 Lucke himself is candid enough to admit, that the arguments against 
 the Apocalypse on historical grounds amount to nothing serious. He 
 therefore feels obliged to resort to the internal evidences which make 
 against it, and which he deems sufficient. With all the concessions, 
 however, which he makes in respect to the weakness of the arguments 
 from historical facts against the book, he still does not attribute any de- 
 cisive weight to the external testimony in favour of it. But 1 do not 
 perceive in what way my mind can be brought into this position. I 
 would not say indeed, with Sir Isaac Newton, that “ I do not find any 
 other book of the New Testament which is so strongly established, or 
 which was written upon so early,” (Rem. on Rev.) ; but I may say, 
 with Wetstein, that ‘ the Apocalypse from the primitive age was well 
 known and received.’ There are a number of books admitted into the 
 New Testament Canon, in respect to which less positive and less gene- 
 ral evidence can be produced in behalf of them, than in favour of the 
 Apocalypse. Lucke himself admits some other writings of John on his- 
 torical grounds less satisfactory. 
 
 Indeed, if the claim of the Apocalypse to be of apostolic origin and 
 canonical, be not admitted, so far as traditionary history is concerned, 
 one must abandon the admission of any New Testament book on this 
 ground. Where is one that has not had its opposers and gainsayers and 
 doubters, in ages that are past ? If now all these are to be chronicled, 
 and summed up, and brought in competition with the mighty over- 
 whelming stream of testimony in the church catholic, in the Latin, 
 Greek, and Syrian churches, where is the end of dispute and of doubt ? 
 And when are we ever to arrive at stable ground, and occupy it, in re- 
 gard to such a matter ? There is no end to skepticism of this sort, pro- 
 vided every breath of opposition is to kindle it into life. 
 
 It is only in the last half of the fourth century that we find anything 
 
§19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 
 
 371 
 
 like an extensive state of doubting or hesitation in regard to the Apoca- 
 lypse ; and this was principally among some of the churches in the coun- 
 tries of Asia Minor. But of this doubt, we know not whether it per- 
 tained merely to the question of apostolical origin, like the doubt of 
 Dionysius, or whether the inspiration itself of the book was called in 
 question. The practice of withholding some books from public lection, 
 or from common use — an ancient custom among the Jews as to Cohe- 
 leth and Canticles — makes the omission of the Apocalypse in the lists 
 of sacred books, at that time and in that quarter, a circumstance on 
 which little or no dependence can be placed for evidence against the au- 
 thenticity of the book. 
 
 One thing seems quite certain ; which is, that if the alleged peculiari- 
 ties of style and diction in the Apocalypse had not awakened doubts or 
 suspicion, no one would have ever thought of attributing any deficiency 
 to the historical evidence in favour of the book. And as the whole mat- 
 ter now stands, the appeal may be made with confidence to all intelli- 
 gent and candid critics in these matters, whether the historical evidence 
 in favour of its apostolic origin is not so far satisfactory as to be quite 
 conclusive, unless the internal phenomena of the book are such as to 
 render it impossible for impartial judges ^to acquiesce in the apparent de- 
 cision of historical testimony. 
 
 § 19. General Remarks on the alleged indirect testimony against the 
 apostolic origin of the Apocalypse. 
 
 According to the division of the subject made near the commencement 
 of § 17, this category includes the objections against the apostolic origin 
 of the Apocalypse , which are drawn from its style , its sentiments , or its 
 diction. The peculiar structure of sentences or phrases, unusual regi- 
 men of words, apparent solecisms or barbarisms, a diction different from 
 that of John in his Gospel and Epistle, a different use of particles, or of 
 participles, or of the tenses of verbs, etc., and a different circle of ideas, 
 as well as a discrepancy in doctrines — these, and other things connected 
 with them, have been of late appealed to with an entire confidence, that 
 the argument drawn from them against the apostolic origin of the Apoc- 
 alypse is unanswerable. We have already seen what some of the lead- 
 ing German critics of the present day have said in respect to this mat- 
 ter, p. 284 seq. above. It is difficult to find more confident assertions 
 and conclusions, in any part of the domain of criticism, than they have 
 made in relation to the Apocalypse. The ground on which assertions 
 so confident rest, ought at least to be very firm and solid ; for nothing 
 less than this can justify declarations of such a character. 
 
 A portion of the allegations against the Apocalypse to which I have 
 
372 
 
 §19. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 just adverted, and which pertain to the idiom of the book in various re- 
 spects, I have already examined at sufficient length in § 15, inasmuch 
 as these things stand connected with the aesthetical and linguistic cha- 
 racter of the book. But it still remains, to notice many other particu- 
 lars which could not there be appropriately considered. 
 
 In entering upon such a field, where there is so much that is arbitra- 
 ry and subjective, so much that depends on taste, imagination, maturity 
 or immaturity of judgment, nice discernment (or the reverse) as to 
 points of similarity and dissimilarity, and on the views which different 
 men may have of what is evidence of homogeneousness of authorship or 
 of the contrary, it is impossible not to feel a degree of embarrassment 
 and reluctance. And this is not a little increased, by looking back upon 
 the history of internal criticism for some time past. The old Testament 
 and the New have both experienced a large measure of arbitrary cri- 
 tique. A full history of criticism in respect to it, would be replete with 
 warning and instruction to bold and confident adventurers. The Pen- 
 tateuch, and specially the book of Deuteronomy, has been characterized 
 in a manner directly opposite, by writers of high renown. So has it 
 fared with the book of Job; specially with the speeches of Elihu, the 
 prologue, and epilogue. Isaiah has come in for a full share of the like 
 criticism. The most discrepant and directly opposite opinions have been 
 formed and proclaimed respecting the last twenty-six chapters of this 
 book, and various other portions of it, both as to the style and diction. 
 So it is with the book of Zechariah, and some others. But not to insist 
 on these, if we come to the New Testament, we shall find the same dis- 
 crepancies. Matthew has been rejected by Schulz and others as an un- 
 worthy and incredible document. The Gospel of John has been reject- 
 ed by Eckermann, J. E. C. Schmidt, Vogel, Plorst, Bretschneider, and 
 others. De Wette doubts whether Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles ; 
 as do some others. He also doubts the first epistle of Peter, and the epis- 
 tle to the Ephesians. The 2 Thess. he thinks is interpolated ; as does 
 Schmidt also. Lange, Cludius, Bretschneider, and others, doubt whether 
 the first epistle of John is genuine. Schleiermacher calls in question the 
 first epistle to Timothy. Eichhorn and De Wette argue against the 
 credit of all the pastoral epistles. And in almost all these cases, reliance 
 is placed almost entirely on the internal evidences of discrepancy in 
 style, i. e. on this as judged of by the respective writers. Bretschneider 
 represents the factitious author of John’s Gospel as concealing his 
 (John’s) name, that he might seem to be the more sincere to the reader 
 and not appear to be fraudulent in his design (p. 112 Prob.) ; while (on 
 p. 223) he speaks of there being men in the church who would detect 
 and expose the fraud. Schleiermacher, on 1 Timothy, declares that 
 “ all the epistles of Paul exceed this in expression while Eichhorn, 
 
AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 
 
 373 
 
 on directly opposite ground, rejects the Pauline origin of the pastoral 
 epistles, “ because they are adorned with a perspicuity, a concinnity, 
 and an elegance, which is wanting in the Pauline epistles.” 
 
 These are but mere specimens of what might easily be produced, even 
 to the satiety of the reader. In regard to the book before us, we need 
 only to refer to such men as Sender, Oeder, Corrodi, and their follow- 
 ers, for specimens (I had almost said) of every kind of ignominy and re- 
 proach respecting it ; while, on the other hand, such men as Bossuet, 
 Herder, Eichhorn, and even Ewald and Liicke, unite, as we have seen, 
 in extolling the aesthetical beauties and merits of the Apocalypse. And 
 so the book has fared in regard to its alleged peculiar idioms and diction. 
 One class of critics has magnified and even exaggerated everything of 
 this sort, which can in any way be made plausible ; while another has 
 found no more departures from the Johannean style in the Gospel and 
 Epistles than the different nature of the subjects treated of, and the kind 
 of composition employed, would naturally demand. Where is the end 
 of all this ? What arbiter possesses authority to step in and decide be- 
 tween the parties ? Doubtless there is none, who can authoritatively 
 decide. Appeals to councils or popes, to archbishops or bishops, to 
 clergymen or laymen, on the ground of authority , one can no longer ex- 
 pect will be heard, even if they should be made. It is too late. No- 
 thing but the hard-earned fruits of study wrought into a convincing 
 shape of critical argumentation, can now bring this dispute to a close. 
 Even this, no one man, nor any one generation, can reasonably expect 
 to achieve. The subjects of examination are many of them so tenuous 
 and difficult, the judgment demanded in respect to them is so nice and 
 discriminating, the knowledge requisite to judge must be so extensive 
 and critical, that all which any man can expect now to do, is to make 
 some contribution toward bringing the subject to a close. At some fu- 
 ture period, I doubt not, the whole matter will be placed in such a posi- 
 tion, that critical impartiality and fairness cannot refuse their assent. 
 But such ground can be ultimately won, only by persevering efforts in 
 the study and criticism of the Apocalypse. 
 
 Considerations of this nature may serve to dampen the ardour of 
 some enthusiastic minds, who expect that they shall be able to make all 
 men see as they themselves do. Feeling no doubts, and perceiving no 
 good reason to doubt, they cannot understand how anything short of in- 
 fidel skepticism can take the liberty to differ from them. I would not 
 disturb this happy confidence — happy if in the right. But, for myself, 
 I do not enter on that part of the discussion now before us, with any 
 overweening expectations. For reasons already stated, we see how in- 
 telligent and inquiring men may differ. This difference in regard to 
 the Apocalypse has, as my examination has led me to believe, been 
 
374 
 
 § 20. PRINCIPLES TO BE REGARDED 
 
 greatly augmented by personal feelings, and doctrinal views, and the 
 fashionable criticism of the day. Nor is this remark to be limited to 
 any one party. Some of the advocates of the Apocalypse have, at 
 times, employed but sorry reasoning in its defence. Moreover, it has 
 often been assailed with a spirit, which, acting consistently with itself, 
 would cover with midnight darkness the genuineness of every ancient 
 book. Let us try, in our course, to impinge neither upon Scylla nor 
 Charybdis. If all be not won, something perhaps may be gained ; and 
 every step that is fairly taken in advance, brings us somewhat nearer the 
 desired goal. 
 
 Before proceeding to a particular examination of the internal phe- 
 nomena of the Apocalypse, and comparing its style and diction with 
 those of John’s other books, it is proper to make some general remarks 
 on the principles by which our judgment ought to be guided on this oc- 
 casion. I do not expect to advance any positions which are new and 
 strange, and thus to appeal to the credulity rather than to the under- 
 standing of the reader. But it is proper to place before him some land- 
 marks by which I shall endeavour to steer my course, in order that he 
 may see whether a safe and judicious course is taken to arrive at the 
 end proposed. 
 
 § 20. Principles to be regarded in judging of the style and diction of the 
 
 Apocalypse. 
 
 (1) It is now agreed on all hands, among intelligent critics, that the 
 Apocalypse, as has more than once been said, is essentially a book of 
 prophetic poetry. Nearly all the prophecy of the Old Testament 
 is Hebrew poetry ; and even that which is not strictly so, retains much 
 of the spirit, manner, and diction of poetry. The Hebrew has even a 
 kind of poetic dialect ; i. e. there are some words, forms of speech, 
 forms of suffix pronouns, constructions after verbs, uses of the article, 
 and other like things*, which are appropriate and peculiar to the poetic 
 dialect. Besides this, the whole circle of imagery, trope, symbol, im- 
 passioned language, breviloquence, ellipsis, and the like, is widely dif- 
 ferent in poetry from that of common prose. No experienced reader 
 needs one word for proof of these propositions. They are as true also 
 of the Greek, Latin, and English poetry, as they are of the Hebrew. 
 Gray in his Pindaric Odes, in his Elegy on a Country Church-yard, 
 and in his familiar Letters, is scarcely the same man. Of course the 
 like is true, in a good degree, of Pope, or Dryden, or Thompson, or 
 Akenside, or any other distinguished man. Some differ much more 
 from themselves in prose, when they write poetry, than others do. No 
 exact limits can be assigned to a thing of this nature. But it must be 
 
IN JUDGING OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 
 
 375 
 
 true, that in the higher walks of poetry, the imaginative, the symbolic, 
 the exhibition of pictures before the reader rather than descriptions of 
 things, must always make a decided difference between this and prose, 
 both in the circle of language and of thought. We should call a writer 
 of poetry very unskilful and inept, should this fail to be the case. 
 
 If now the author of the Apocalypse be the same man who wrote the 
 Gospel and Epistles, he had at least an entirely different task to per- 
 form in these two cases. The first is prediction, poetic description of 
 the future by means of continual symbols, or prophetic visions in which 
 all disclosure is made by symbol. The latter books are didactic dis- 
 courses, dialogistic controversy, simple historical narrative, and simple 
 practical exhortations to love and harmony and piety, with warnings 
 against the spirit of error which was beginning to develope itself. The 
 latter, too, were written when no fiery persecution was going on, no 
 peril of life and liberty and property was instant. But the Apocalypse 
 was written in the very furnace of affliction, heated beyond its usual in- 
 tensity. Everything — the personal state of the writer, his relations, 
 his solicitudes, his object in writing, were all of a different tenor from 
 those in the Gospel and Epistles. 
 
 In a writer of any skill, power, and compass of mind, who possesses 
 any good degree of versatility or choice of expression, there must of 
 necessity be some striking discrepancies as to manner , on occasions so 
 very different. It is not merely just to allow it, but in a man of such 
 sympathies as John possessed, inclined to the doctrinal, the speculative, 
 the affectionate, the highly sympathetic, we should of course expect that 
 such differences must take place. Qualities such as these cannot be 
 denied to the author of the Gospel and Epistles ; and why may they 
 not have developed themselves in the way in which they appear in the 
 Apocalypse ? It is only on the ground that John is supposed to have 
 been incapable of forming but one mold for his productions, that the 
 power of writing the Apocalypse can be denied him. 
 
 (2) It seems altogether probable, or indeed quite certain, from inter- 
 nal evidence, that the Apocalypse was written soon after John left 
 Palestine and went to Ephesus. Liicke supposes a ten years’ residence 
 of John in Asia, before the Apocalypse was written, p. 364. But the 
 notices which we have of him show, that he did not act as a missionary 
 abroad, until near the time when Jerusalem was destroyed ; see Dane- 
 mann, Verfasser der Offenb. p. 3 seq. 1841. When the Apocalypse 
 was written, in A. D. G8 or 69, he was then still fresh in the Hebrew 
 idiom. He was deeply conversant with the Hebrew prophets. This 
 must be true of the man who wrote the Apocalypse ; and it is altogether 
 probable that John was at all events a man of this cast. The models 
 of the Apocalypse are all to be found in the Old Testament. Many 
 
376 
 
 § 20. PRINCIPLES TO BE REGARDED 
 
 things in Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and some others, reappear 
 in some respects, but still cast into a new form, in this book. How 
 could the idiom be otherwise than strongly Hebraistic ? And if John 
 had recently gone to Ephesus, the Greek which he as yet spoke or 
 wrote, must be altogether of the Hebraistic cast. I say this, because I 
 cannot bring myself to doubt, that he did speak this language in Pales- 
 tine. It must be such of course, as he had learned and spoken in that 
 country. Some ten or twelve years after this, when he wrote his 
 Gospel and Epistles, what wonder that he should have attained to a 
 style in many respects discrepant from that of the Apocalypse ? And 
 more especially so, since those productions were of a tenor so entirely 
 different from that of the Apocalypse. John was doubtless an apt and 
 ready learner ; and a few years’ residence among those who used Greek 
 in all their oral communications and books, must have made a very sen- 
 sible difference in his circle of Greek words and his facility of employ- 
 ing them. Specially must this be true of the particles , i. e. the prepo- 
 sitions and conjunctions, which, in the Greek, are the nicest and most 
 difficult part of all the language, and the very last thing to which, in all 
 their tenuous and distinctive relations, a foreigner ever attains. Ac- 
 cordingly, the most striking peculiarities of the Apocalypse have relation 
 to these. It is but fair, in judging of the idioms of this book, that a 
 matter like this should be fully taken into the account. 
 
 (3) More distinctly than has yet been done, should the difference of 
 subjects treated of in the Apocalypse be brought into view. It is not 
 merely the poetry of this book, with its concomitant tropes and sym- 
 bols, and glances into the invisible world, and machinery of angels and 
 devils and terrific monsters, and the like, which differs from the prose 
 of the Gospel and Epistles, but the subjects themselves which are de- 
 signed to be presented in the Apocalypse, the great contest between all 
 that is good and all that is evil, the various efforts of the struggling 
 parties alternately successful and unsuccessful for a season, the symboli- 
 co-historic picture as it were of this contest down to the time of the 
 final and complete victory of the church, the grounds of encouragement 
 and triumph to the bleeding martyrs in view of this — these and the like 
 make such a wide discrepancy between the Apocalypse and the didactic 
 and the hortative in the Gospel and Epistles of John, that one can 
 hardly place these books side by side, with the expectation of finding 
 anything more than general traits of similarity, where the nature of the 
 case and the subjects treated of will permit. 
 
 (4) It is agreed on all hands, that the New Testament exhibits a He- 
 brew-Greek style throughout. From what has already been stated re- 
 specting John and the time when the Apocalypse was written, it is alto- 
 gether to be expected that the Apocalypse will strongly dev elope this. 
 
IN JUDGING OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 
 
 377 
 
 It is enough to show that the idioms of the Apocalypse are Hellenistic , 
 to render it possible or probable that they may have been employed by 
 John the apostle. How can we demand that such a writer should run 
 all his expressions, in respect to matters so discrepant, in one and the 
 same mold ? It is enough, then, to show of any word, or expression, 
 or construction in syntax, that it is of the Hebrew-Greek ; or, at all 
 events, to show that it is not an unusual one in this idiom. I do not in- 
 deed mean to aver, that there might not be some modes of expression, 
 even in this, so foreign to the idiom of John in his Gospel, as to afford 
 satisfactory proof of authorship not apostolic in respect to the Apoca- 
 lypse. But what I would say is, that cases of this nature must be clear- 
 ly marked , and placed in a strong light so as to be prominent and strik- 
 ing, before we can decide by virtue of them against the current testimo- 
 ny of ecclesiastical antiquity. 
 
 § 21. Particular examination of objections drawn from the style , 
 diction , etc., of the Apocalypse. 
 
 I. Words and phrases in John, but not in the Apocalypse. 
 
 Before I proceed to notice these in detail, it is proper to remark, that 
 Ewald, Liicke, Schott, Bretschneider, and Credner,* are the writers 
 whom I have in view ; and among these, Liicke is the principal one, 
 because his work, if not the most recent of all, is the most extensive and 
 able. Most of the objections and difficulties to be canvassed are com- 
 mon to all these writers, and are crowded by them into a small compass. 
 I do not deem it worth the trouble to assign the specific passage and 
 author from which each and every objection advanced is taken. Most 
 of them are the same in all the writers named ; and all of them may be 
 easily and readily found by any reader who wishes to find them. I 
 merely reserve the right of occasionally designating something that is 
 peculiar or specially important, by referring it distinctly to the source 
 from which it comes. 
 
 (1) ‘ The Gospel and Epistle of John not unfrequently employ the 
 genuine Greek particles nuvzoze, TKanoze, ovStnozs, ovStTzoo, while they 
 are wholly omitted in the Apocalypse.’ 
 
 This statement is far from being precise in some of its aspects. E. g. 
 (a) navzoze is not frequent in any New Testament writer but Paul. 
 Matthew and Mark exhibit it only twice respectively, and both in the 
 same sentence as spoken by Christ, Matt. 26: 11. Mark 14: 7. Luke 
 
 * Ewald, Comm, in Apoc. § 9. Lttcke, Einleit. etc. § 38 seq. Schott, Isagoge, 
 § 116. Bretschneider, ProbabiliA, etc. § 28 seq. Credner, Einleit. in das N. Test. 
 § 266 . 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 48 
 
378 
 
 §21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 but twice in his Gospel, and not at all in the Acts. John employs it 
 seven times in his Gospel, but not once in his Epistle.* The probable 
 reason why it was not used in the Apocalypse, seems to be, that it was 
 not needed. The same is true of the Acts, and 1st John ; which are 
 not spurious because TzavroTS is wanting. ( b ) zzcotzoz? is rare even in 
 the classics, except after a negative particle. It is almost an entire 
 stranger to the New Testament. Luke employs it once ; John, four 
 times in his Gospel, and once in his Epistle. This is all ; and of course 
 nothing can be made of this, (c) OvdtTzors is employed by John in his 
 Gospel and Epistle but once (Gosp. 7: 46), and plainly is far enough 
 from being a favourite particle in the New Testament Greek. Paul 
 uses it once, or if we include the Epistle to the Hebrews, only three 
 times. The classical writers employ it principally for the never of the 
 past. The Apocalyptist has no occasion for this ; and the never of the 
 future he makes by the ovx sit so common in the New Testament Greek, 
 because it corresponds well with the Hebrew Tis ab . See in Apoc. 
 10: 6. 18: 14—23. 21: 1—4 at, and in Gosp. 14: 30. 16: 10, 21, 25. 
 17: 11. 21: 6 al. Yet the Epistle of John does not exhibit it. Noth- 
 ing can be argued for or against the genuineness of a book, in reference 
 to ovdtTTOTS thus conditioned. ( d ) ovdtzzco is almost a total stranger to 
 the New Testament ; John’s Gospel thrice, Paul once, Luke once. 
 This is the never of the past , and the Apocalyptist has no occasion for it. 
 
 (2) ‘ Ka&cog is frequent in the Gospel and Epistle, but not employed 
 at all in the Apocalypse.’ — This is true, and somewhat striking. Yet 
 among the most Hebraizing writers, I observe that xa&cog is quite un- 
 frequent ; e. g. Matt, three times, Mark seven ; even Luke makes but a 
 moderate use of it, specially in the Acts. The particle cog, (differing 
 little if any from xu&ojg in most cases), corresponds more nearly and 
 simply with the Hebrew *]3 , 3 ; and so it is used, times almost without 
 number, in every part of the New Testament, and everywhere in the 
 Apocalypse, where the sense of as, in like manner as, etc., is required. 
 The later use of naitoog by John, in his Gospel and Epistle, shows a 
 habit, when he wrote these, of employing the rounder and fuller ex- 
 pression instead of the simple cog ; which one may easily suppose to 
 have been acquired by longer usage in Greek. The difference in usage 
 I have acknowledged to be striking, and one naturally adapted to excite 
 inquiry or doubt ; but it is not characteristic enough, nor important 
 
 * The reader is desired to take notice, that in the inquiry about style and dic- 
 tion, most writers have of late omitted to take into view the 2d and 3d of John ; 
 and so I shall do here, for they are so brief, that they cannot affect the main re- 
 sult. The first Epistle was, in ancient times, almost, universally acknowledged 
 as John’s ; and so we may the more readily refer to it in this discussion about the 
 genuineness of another Johannean writing, 
 
AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 
 
 379 
 
 enough, to decide the great question before us, or even to afford much 
 aid for this purpose. KctOwg yeyQUTzrai is used some thirteen times in 
 Paul’s Epistle to the Romans ; and only some three or four times else- 
 where in all his writings. Ka&cog is not in 2 Tim., Tit., Philem., 
 James, Jude. In 1 Tim. and 1 Pet. only once each ; in 2 Thess. twice. 
 It is impossible to put dependence on a matter like this, when and 
 y.u\}(6g may be in most cases indifferently employed; in others, the lat- 
 ter is more appropriate in ratiocination, and so might the more easily be 
 chosen in the Gospel of John. 
 
 (3) ( fig in the sense of when is frequent in the Gospel, but not in 
 the Apocalypse.’ — The fact must be admitted. Yet it is less striking 
 and conclusive, than it at first appears to be. John employs it not in 
 the sense of when in his Epistle. Paul uses it in this sense in some 
 Epistles, but not at all in others. Matthew and Mark, the Hebraizing 
 evangelists, never employ cus, 1 in the sense of ichen. In the Apocalypse, 
 there is scarcely occasion to express this idea ; and when there is, there 
 are so many ways of doing it, by participles with such an adsignifica- 
 tion, and other various modes of expression, that nothing special can be 
 made out of it. It seems quite probable, as in the case of Matthew and 
 Mark, that the Hebraistic style did not early and easily adopt this se- 
 condary sense of 
 
 (4) ‘ Mtv and (aevtoi are wanting in the Apocalypse. John employs 
 them both.’ — Yet Liicke is candid enough to say (p. 365), that ‘these 
 particles are in their nature so syntactical , that in a composition like the 
 Apocalypse they might be wanting, even if John was the author.’ This 
 is the more credible, in fact, since John, in all his Gospel, has ys'v but 
 thrice, and not at all in his Epistle. As to ysvzoi, it is found five times 
 in John’s Gospel, but not in his Epistle, nor but thrice more in all the 
 New Testament. However common ysv may be elsewhere, to John it 
 is a kind of stranger ; and (u'vzoi is so to the New Testament Greek in 
 general. 
 
 (5) ( The conjunctive and transitive particles de, ovv, te, yaQ, are very 
 unfrequent in the Apocalypse, although common in John.’ — For the 
 full discussion of this matter, and the peculiar use of xcu in the room of 
 some of them, the reader is referred back to § 15, p.. 250 seq. All of 
 them excepting te appear in the Apocalypse, so that the writer was not 
 a stranger to them. But the use of xai, in a manner like that of the 
 Proteus ) of the Hebrews (as it has been called), in the strongly He- 
 braizing style of the Apocalypse, has rendered the use of the other con- 
 junctives and transitives unfrequent ; see ib. 
 
 (6) ‘ The Gospel and Epistle are rich in antithetic parallels, gene- 
 rally united by d/.hd ; but the Apocalypse has them not, at least in this 
 form.’ — And why ? Plainly because it is not ratiocinative and didactic, 
 
380 
 
 §21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 like those books. Yet aXXd is no stranger in the Apocalypse ; see 2: 4, 
 6, 9, 14, 20. 3: 9. 9: 5. 10: 7, 9. 17: 12. 20: 6. In the epistles to the 
 churches, which approach nearer the other works of John in their tenor, 
 we have in proportion as frequent use of aXXd as in John elsewhere. 
 And as to the kind of antithesis to which Liicke refers as being want- 
 ing, see in 2: 9. 3: 9. 9: 5. 10: 7. 20: 6— a full proportion of cases. Be- 
 sides, aXXd is not very frequent in the Epistle of John. Nothing im- 
 portant can be made of this. 
 
 (7) ‘ In John, ftedogcu and xhoooso) are favourite words of John, for 
 
 seeing , while the Apocalypse employs ogdco and fiksmo.’ — A part of this 
 statement is quite aside from the fact. John employs oquco, (mostly in 
 the Perf.) some twenty-seven times ; the Apocalypse only three. Again 
 John employs @Xe71co sixteen times, and the Apocalypse the same num- 
 ber. These two verbs, then, are common ground altogether. As to 
 ftf-dogai, John uses it only ten times in the Gospel and Epistle, in all 
 which cases it implies a continued inspection and contemplation. It is 
 not in the Apocalypse. And as to d'ecoQsm, it is somewhat frequent in 
 the Gospel, but occurs only once in the Epistle. It occurs, moreover, in 
 Apoc. 11: 11, 12. The only one of these verbs then about which any- 
 thing can be said to our present purpose is '0'sdogai. In the Apoca- 
 lypse the writer had his choice between this verb and pXsnw. The 
 latter means to direct one’s vision toward anything, and is more appro- 
 priate, in the designation of such rapidly passing visions, than fttdouai 
 would be, employed as John elsewhere employs it. As to the favourite 
 icoQana of John, in his Gospel, the use of the Perfect tense, which car- 
 ries along with it the idea of an abiding action, would be inappropriate 
 to the apocalyptic visions. The common Preterite of the Apocalyptist 
 is eidov, when he describes the perception of a vision or spectacle that 
 had passed before his view, — an appropriate word. And in his Gospel, 
 John employs the same word in the like sense immeasurably oftener 
 than any other verb, or than all other verbs, of seeing. Amid such a 
 variety as the Greek language furnishes, why should it be deemed 
 strange, that d'Eaogai is omitted in the Apocalypse ? Liicke remarks, 
 as a peculiarity of the Apocalypse, that Eidov (4: 1) is used without an 
 object after it. But is there not the same usage in Gosp. 1: 40? Be- 
 sides in 4: 1, it is plainly = iiSrt} which is so common a phrase of 
 
 transition in Hebrew. It is unnecessary to say more. 
 
 (8) ‘’EQydfeGO-ai in Rev. 18: 17 has an entirely different sense from 
 that in John.’ — But this is not a well grounded objection. This verb 
 may be used, and is used, either absolutely or with an Accusative. In 
 the Gospel 6: 27, 28. 9: 4, (and frequently elsewhere), the Accusative 
 stands after it, as in Rev. 18: 17. And as to the meaning here — is it 
 not familiar and good Greek usage to say, EQyd&a&cu yijv — {XdXaaaav, 
 
AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 
 
 381 
 
 and the like ? And what is there singular in it, that John should em- 
 ploy so familiar an expression ? 
 
 (9) The objection from frqfiata, in Rev. 17: 17, viz. that John no 
 where employs the plural of this word, is rendered nugatory by the re- 
 moval of the reading ; which now is oi koyoi. 
 
 (10) ‘ ’ (hoove (o is used in the Gospel more than twelve times; only 
 once in the Apocalypse ;’ Liieke p. 367. — Ans. Just twelve times in 
 the Gospel ; and in nearly every case it means to call by name in order 
 to summon one’s attention. In the Gospel, John has frequent occasion 
 for this meaning; in the Apocalypse he has not. In 14: 18 it occurs in 
 its original sense* to make a sound ; in the like sense, Gosp. 13: 38. 
 18: 27. It is not to be found in the Epistle. 
 
 (11) ‘ Mevei is frequent in John, and but once (17: 10) in the Apoca- 
 lypse.’ — Ans. This is true ; but it is enough to say, that John has not 
 occasion for the verb in the Apocalypse, and therefore does not employ 
 it. In the Gospel and Epistle it is employed in nearly all cases to de- 
 signate the abiding influence of the Spirit in Christians, or the persever- 
 ance of Christians in love and faith. The different sense which Liieke 
 assigns to peivai in Apoc. 17: 10, I do not perceive. Is not the sense 
 of abiding , or continuing , common to John’s Gospel and Epistle, and is 
 not the same the sense of geivai in Rev. 17: 10 ? 
 
 (12) 'Ev eh at. and that ev Tin are frequent in John ; but not in the 
 Apocalypse.’ — Ans. This is true of the latter expression ; the former 
 occurs but a few times. These are formulas of expression which are 
 employed in the discussion of spiritual unity — the unity of God and 
 Christ, the union of Christ and his disciples, or of the disciples with 
 each other. The ev Tin may be well compared with the ev xvq(o) so 
 common in Paul. The tenor of the Apocalypse does not lead to the 
 employment of such abstract expressions. Still, comp, ev nvevpun in 
 Rev. 4: 2. 21: 10, and ev xvQicp 14: 13. This last is of the same nature 
 as those above. 
 
 (13) ‘ Jflrfidog and TTaooTjcia are common in John ; but not in the 
 Apocalypse.’— Arcs. dkffoog appears but once in the Epistle, and not at 
 all in the Apocalypse. In the Gospel eleven times. It is a word of 
 asseveration in grave reasoning and declarations, and can be expected 
 only in oratorical and didactic discourse. As to TzaoQtjaia, I do not see 
 where, in the Apocalypse, there was any place for it, in the sense which 
 John attaches to it ; or if there is, why should a writer be limited to the 
 choice of only one mode of expression ? 
 
 (14) Schott alleges that ‘ vipovaOcu and do^d^eijO’ai, applied to 
 Christ glorified, are wanting in the Apocalypse.’— Arcs. The former 
 verb is used by John only in his Gospel ; and there it is applied only 
 to Christ elevated on the cross ; and even this phraseology seems to 
 
382 
 
 §21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 have come from a comparison with the lifting up of the serpent in the 
 wilderness; see 3: 14. 8: 28. 12: 32, 34. The Apocalypse has no oc- 
 casion for this. As to do^a&a&cu in John’s Gospel, in all that is pe- 
 culiar it is applied to the future glorification of Christ, and is employed 
 principally by Christ himself in reference to that event as a confirma- 
 tion and consummation of his Messiahship. The Apocalypse every- 
 where exhibits Jesus in the attitude of having already attained this 
 station, and as acting in it. The state itself, in comparison with his 
 humiliation, is not the subject of discussion, but only of occasional re- 
 ference, as Rev. 1: 18. Ao^d^oj is no stranger to the Apocalypse, in its 
 usual sense ; 15: 4. 18: 7. But both the verbs in question are wanting 
 in the Epistle of John. Is that any argument against its genuineness ? 
 
 (15) ‘ Such words as £o orj aconog, cpcog, oxozia, dlij&tia, odog, &vQa, 
 applied to Christian doctrine and to Christ himself, do not occur in the 
 Apocalypse.’ — Ans. This is true for the most part ; but the ready an- 
 swer is, that no discussions of such a kind as would call for these terms, 
 employed in this way, occur in the Apocalypse. For aicaviov the writer 
 employs the stronger tig zovg alcovag iwv c/.igjvcov ; but tvayythov alco- 
 nov occurs in 14: 6. The Epistle of John has no uiojviog, although 
 it is very frequent in his Gospel. The use of odog, as applied to Christ 
 in the Gospel, is purely accidental and occasional, and happens but 
 once, 14: 4 — 6. To the figurative and Hebraistic sense of the word, 
 the Apocalypse is no stranger, 15: 3. So of &vQa, as applied to Christ 
 figuratively ; there is merely one passage, viz. Gosp. 10: 1 — 7. It 
 occurs not in the Epistle. Nothing can be made out of these words, 
 thus occasionally employed, and merely so. 
 
 (16) ‘JtnolXviu is frequent in John ; but not in the Apocalypse.’ — 
 Ans. The Apocalypse has another mode, a more poetical one, of de- 
 signating future misery, viz. the lake of fire and brimstone. And John 
 himself does not seem to have had any partiality for the word in ques- 
 tion, as it does not occur in his Epistle. In the Gospel it belongs to the • 
 Saviour’s discourses, and was somewhat often employed by him. 
 
 (17) 1 The apocalyptic names of the evil spirit are 6 Xcixavdg, 6 
 di&Bolog, or 6 8qux mv 6 gtyag, and the like ; while the Gospel has 
 cHqxcov tov xoGgov, 6 $ jovijQog, etc.’ — Ans. Aiafiolog is in the Apoca- 
 lypse five times, in the Gospel and Epistle seven. Xaxavdg is in the 
 Gosp. 13: 27 : in the Apocalypse oftener because of the Hebrew idiom. 
 As to TtovijQog for Satan, it is not once used in the Gospel ; and it might 
 well be omitted in the Apocalypse, which, from the nature of the book, 
 has so many figurative names for Satan. As to 6 dgycov tov xocgov, 
 it occurs three times in the last address of Jesus to his disciples, and 
 belongs only to him ; neither the Epistle nor the Apocalypse has it. O 
 8qcm cov is plainly a poetic Hebraistic appellation. 
 
AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 
 
 383 
 
 (18) 4 Koauog in the sense of wicked men , so common in John, and 
 sometimes with other nouns combined, such as doy cov tov xo6gov, o(o- 
 TijQ tov y.oagov, etc., does not appear in the Apocalypse.’ — Ans. As to 
 aQ/cov, etc., see above ; cco zijQ tov y.oagov occurs only in the Gosp. 4: 
 42, and then it is the language of the Samaritan woman. In respect to 
 y 06 uog, the world of men , specially the world of wicked or sinful men , 
 the Apocalypse does not employ it. Fij is the word for proper world, 
 and occasionally oixovfisvrj. But the designations of the wicked are 
 selected in such a way as best to accord with the nature of the scenic 
 representations of the book, viz. such as r« eO vr\, oi riQoaxvvovvTeg to 
 '& 1 JQIOV, and the like, with dmoroi , tioqvoi, eidojXoXdrQai, etc. ; all in 
 better harmony with the vivid representations here. The xoagog of 
 John is not peculiar to him alone. Paul employs the word in the like 
 sense. But still, it is a peculiar favourite of the Gospel and Epistle of 
 John. 
 
 (19) 4 Such expressions as to Ttvsvfjia Ttjg dXrj&st'ag, 6 TtaodxbjTog, 6 
 uvTi'yj)(6Tog, o Mjevazr^g, 6 nXdvog , are foreign to the Apocalypse, and 
 familiar to John.’ — Ans. As to the first, no passage occurs in the Apoca- 
 lypse apposite to the introduction of it. 0 77aody.Xt]iog, in its peculiar 
 sense, is found only in the Gospel ; for in the Epistle 2: 1 it has a dif- 
 ferent meaning. '0 dvTr/QiCTog is found only in the Epistle ; and o 
 nXdvog neither in the Gospel, Epistle, or Apocalypse, but only 2 John 
 v. 7. Fevdog is common to the Epistle and Apocalypse ; \psv8sig 
 occurs twice in the Apocalypse in the like sense with \pev6zr t g. Why 
 should the same form of a word be always adopted by a writer? 
 
 (20) ‘"EQyea-frai eig tov xoogov , ysvvrj&rjvai ex fteov, Tsxva tov ftsov, 
 TTOietv TTjV db'j&nav, and moTsvew, are common to John, and wanting 
 in the Apocalypse.’ — Ans. In nearly every case in which tQ/todai eig 
 tov xocfiov is found in the Gospel or Epistle, it relates to Christ’s first 
 advent and incarnation ; a subject not treated of in the Apocalypse. 
 As to yevvrft^vai ix xXtov, it occurs but onCe in the Gospel ; and it be- 
 longs to a subject not treated of in the Apocalypse. Ttxva fltov occurs 
 only twice in the Gospel, in connection with the preceding phraseology. 
 In a like manner is tsxvu employed in the Apoc. 2: 23, i. e. in a figu- 
 rative or tropical sense. As to tzoisiv Fryv uhfottuv, it occurs but once 
 in the Gospel and once in the Epistle. But tuctevmv is everywhere to 
 be found in the Gospel and Epistle, but not in the Apocalypse. The 
 obvious reason is, that the Gospel was written in order to persuade men 
 to believe ; and the Epistle to guard them against deceivers and to con- 
 firm their belief. The Apocalypse treats of Christians amidst the fires 
 of persecution ; and instead of a simple discussion of faith or belief it 
 uses, in reference to continued fidelity, the tropical language of conquer- 
 ing , abiding steadfast , following the Lamb , coming out of tribulation , 
 
384 
 
 §21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 cleansing the garments of saints in the blood of the Lamb. A variety 
 of other poetical diction, also, adapted to the tenor of the book, is em- 
 ployed throughout. 
 
 (21) ‘John uses ids, but the Apocalypse idov.’ — Ans. The latter 
 occurs five times in the Gospel. Both ids and idov are common to 
 Hellenistic Greek ; while idov — iiSin , has immeasurably the preference 
 in usage. It is more Hebraistic; which of course agrees with the 
 genius of the Apocalypse. Moreover, sq^ov xal i'ds is in the Apoc. 6: 
 1, 3, 5, 7, (just as in Gosp. 1: 40, 47), according to the text of Gries- 
 bach and Scholz. If admitted, it makes out a striking parallel. 
 
 (22) ‘ Tldhv and raqaaosiv are common to the Gospel and Epistle, 
 but not to the Apocalypse.’ — Ans. IJdhv is no stranger to the Apoca- 
 lypse ; see 10: 8, 11. It is not employed oftener because it is not 
 needed. As to zayaGGco, it is not found in the Epistle, nor in the 
 Apocalypse ; and plainly because it is not needed. The Apocalypse 
 employs more vivid language to describe agitations, griefs, and torments, 
 such as fiaoavi^ co, xazaxavopai, sgspoco, diacp&siQco, dnoxzsivw, and the 
 like. 
 
 (23) ‘ Phrases such as slvai ex zov ftsov — ex zov diafioXov — ex zov 
 xoagov, belong to John, and not to the Apocalypse.’ Bretsch. — Ans. If 
 the writer means that ex is not employed in the Apocalypse to desig- 
 nate the relation of belonging or appertaining to, associated with, and 
 the like, he is greatly mistaken ; see in Rev. 5: 5, 9. 7: 4 — 9 (fourteen 
 times). 11: 9. 17: 1, 11. 22: 21 al. Such a use is familiar even. But 
 if Bretschneider means that these particular formulae or combinations 
 of words are not employed in the Apocalypse, that may be conceded 
 without any advantage to the cause which he advocates. Why should 
 a writer always repeat the same forms of words and ideas, specially 
 when his subjects are exceedingly diverse ? And when Bretschneider 
 adds to this list the phrase slvai ovv XQiozcp as peculiar to John, and 
 wanting in the Apocalypse, I know not where to find it. John uses 
 gvv but twice in the Gospel and Epistle ; and then, not as here stated. 
 
 (24) ‘ In the Apocalypse we have puQzvQsiv with the Accusative after 
 it ; in John, it is followed by tisqi zivog and sometimes zm ;’ Bretsch. 
 — Ans. In the Gospel and Epistle we have the construction with the 
 Accusative after this verb; e. g. Gosp. 3: 32. 5: 32. 19: 35. Epis. 1: 2. 
 5: 10. For the rest, the Apocalypse employs the verb but three times, 
 and then only with a direct object, which of course is the Accusative. 
 The Dative after gaQzvQeoo is very rare, e. g. 5: 33. 18: 37, and then is 
 a Dativus commodi. 
 
 (25) ‘ When gaQZVQia has a Genitive after it, such as ftsov, %qigzov, 
 etc., it is always a Genitive auctoris in the Gospel and Epistle ; in the 
 Apocalypse, the Genitive designates the object of testimony.’ So Bret- 
 
AGAIXST APOSTOLIC OPIGIN. 
 
 385 
 
 schneider, who refers for proof to Apoc. 6: 9. 12: 11, 17. 19: 10, and 
 1: 9. — But in 6: 9 there is no such formula. In 12: 11, avzojv is Geni- 
 tive of agent or author instead of object. So in 12: 17 in respect to 
 ’IrjGov; comp, ftsov in the preceding clause. In 19: 10 the same is the 
 case ; and in 1:9 it is also the same, comp. Q-eov in the preceding clause. 
 Surely this objection does not well accord with Prohabilia , the title of 
 Bretschneider’s book. 
 
 (26) ‘ 5 ExewOi ,* is very common in John ; but it is scarcely employed 
 in the Apocalypse.’ Ewald, p. 67. — Am. This is so ; but this is easily 
 accounted for. The Hebrew son = avzog and ovzog , but not ixsivog. 
 Hence the Septuagint have not employed the latter more than three or 
 four times. So with the Hebraizing style of the Apocalypse. Yet in 
 Rev. 9: 6. 11: 13. 16: 14, ixsivog is employed ; showing that the writer 
 was no stranger to the word. 
 
 (27) 6 The Gospel uses It]oo6o).v[m ; the Apocalypse 'IrjQovryaliju.’ 
 Ewald. — Ans. Both forms are common to the New Testament ; e. g. 
 Luke employs both interchangeably and very often. The form in the 
 Apocalypse is more Hebraistic, and occurs only three times. 
 
 (28) 4 A/.ov (o with the Genitive after it is usual in the Gospel, but 
 not to be found in the Apocalypse.’ Ewald, p. 70. — Ans. This is a great 
 mistake; see Genitive after dxov oj in Apoc. 6: 1, 3, 5. 14: 13. 16: 1, 
 5, 7. 21: 3. On the other hand, the Accusative after this verb is no 
 stranger to John; e. g. Gosp. 3: 8, 5: 24. 7: 40. 8: 26, 40, 43, 47. 14: 
 2.4 al. Both books in common admit both constructions, and nearly in 
 a like proportion. 
 
 (29) 4 Composite verbs are much more frequent in John, than in the 
 Apocalypse ;’ Ewald, p. 67. — Ans. I have been through the whole 
 Greek Concordance, in order to see whether this is correct, and find it 
 to be so far from being so, that even the contrary position, viz. that the 
 Apocalypse makes the more frequent use of them, is nearer the truth. 
 E. g. (1) Verbs common to both; U7io6zt).).(o, dvayivcooxco, rxxsvrm, 
 smGTQtyco, ixmoevco , motnazm, dnoxruv go, ovvzQi'fi co, rzeQipdXlco, 7 Tqog- 
 xvvs'co, tgtQyouat, xazufiaivco, Gvgfiovltvw, aiGtoyopai, dvapuivo), xd(h]- 
 pai, dnznyopou, xazacpdyco, ixfidlho, dtp it] pi, xaztjyoQSCo, ovvdyco, d7zo&- 
 vtjGxco, v7zdyco, exyt'co, imzi&rjpi. In many of these cases, some of these 
 verbs are very frequent respectively in one book, and not in the other ; 
 and this about in equal proportion. If there be any difference, it seems 
 rather to be in favour of greater frequency in the Apocalypse. But (2) 
 The Apocalypse has a large class of such words, not found in the Gos- 
 pel or Epistle ; e. g. f vdvw, 7Z8Qi^(ovvvpi, xazoixecQ, pezavotoj, i^aXeiq pea, 
 tyyoicx), xazaaepo ctyi^u ) , txdrxtco, dvuTzavco, dnoyooQiXopar, xazaxaico, 
 diacp&EiocQ, tm&vptw, ivdvoj, tzeqi^ojvvviu, dTzocptpoj, avyxotvcovtco , dno- 
 didcopi, tmyQucpcQ, imzi&t]iu. (3) On the other hand, in the Gospel 
 
 VOL. i. 49 
 
386 
 
 § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 and Epistle, are dvayysXXco, 7taQaXa[Afidvco, owe oyoyiai, ETttfidXXco, j <ara- 
 Xafiftdvrn, ityyrjOfiai, dnoy,Qivopai, dnuyys'XXco, xartyco, [lEzafiuivco, dva- 
 71 ( 717 ( 0 , dviGTijfii. On the whole, the composite verbs are more predomi- 
 nant in the Apocalypse ; and specially so if it be compared with the 
 Epistle. So much for assertions made at hazard, and without investi- 
 gation. 
 
 (30) ‘ John frequently employs the simple ei, which is never used in 
 the Apocalypse;’ Credner, p. 730. — Ans. The simple si in conditional 
 propositions is indeed wanting in the Apocalypse ; but so are the sim- 
 ple conditional propositions. Such an el belongs to didactic argumenta- 
 tion. But si ds \ir\ may be found in 2: 5, 16; si firj in six places; si' 
 ug in seven more ; and lav pi] = si dv prj, and lav = si dv, in eight 
 more. 
 
 Such is the list of words and phrases found, as is alleged, in John 
 but not in the Apocalypse. That some of the instances of discrepancy 
 alleged are striking, I no not feel disposed to deny. If they were found 
 in writings attributed to the same author, when writing on the same or 
 on nearly related subjects, they would certainly throw serious difficulties 
 in the way of maintaining sameness of authorship. As it is, while I 
 feel the full force of the allegations made respecting them, I cannot 
 think a conclusion can be safely drawn from them against the apostolic 
 origin of the Apocalypse. We shall see, in the sequel, that there is no 
 considerable epistle of Paul, which by a like process may not be wrested 
 from him ; e. g. the first Epistle to the Corinthians. We shall also see, 
 that while there are so many discrepances of diction and phraseology 
 between John’s Gospel and Epistle and the Apocalypse, and even more 
 which are to be added in the following section, yet there are also points 
 of resemblance so numerous, that we could scarcely expect more, con- 
 sidering the peculiar nature of the book before us. 
 
 II. Words, phrases, etc., in the Apocalypse, but not in John. 
 
 (31) 6 John employs no such titles as tj aQyrj zrjg xrioEcog tov {Xeov, 
 7tQ(OT07oy,og tiov vexqcov, 6 aQycov Ttov ftaailsfov rijg yijg, in respect to 
 Christ. These are peculiar to the Apocalypse.’ — Ans. The two first of 
 these occur but once. Should we argue that the epistle to the Colos- 
 sians is not Paul’s, because in it he calls Christ eixcov tov &eov tov 
 doQUTov (1: 15), which he nowhere else employs ? As to uq/cqv, etc., 
 the very phraseology is Johannean. Does not John employ dgy cov tov 
 xog/aov several times to designate Satan, the prince of evil ? And 
 might he not use dqyiov in the Apocalypse, in a different connection, to 
 denote the supreme ruler over all ? 
 
 (32) 1 Oixovfie'vT] is used only in the Apocalypse.’ — Ans. True ; and 
 it is scarcely to be found in the New Testament, excepting iff Luke’s 
 
AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 
 
 387 
 
 writings. But the very fact of its unfrequency, while it is still quite 
 easily accounted for, makes it not at all inapposite for the Apocalypse. 
 Why should peculiar diction be denied to such a book ? Yet even here, 
 it is found but three times. Paul employs it in his Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans ; but not elsewhere. Can any critical argument be built upon this, 
 against his other epistles ? 
 
 (33) ‘ Eysiv zip (xaQTVQiav, VTtopovrj, hoyog rtjg VTZOfiovrjg, belong only 
 to the Apocalypse.’ — Ans. The first of these expressions is used in 
 Rev. 6: 9. 12: 17. 19: 10, respecting the martyrs who held fast the truth 
 of the Gospel. And this and the other expressions are all peculiarly 
 appropriate to the subject matter of the Apocalypse, and therefore are 
 of course employed. The last expression occurs but once. 
 
 (34) 1 Kquteiv zip didayip — to ovofia , are not found in John.’ — Ans. 
 Nor in the Apocalypse, save in one passage, 2: 13- — 15 ; which are the 
 words of Christ. But didaytj xttov — yoiazov, is common in John. The 
 phraseology savours of his usage. 
 
 (35) ‘ The Apocalypse exhibits 6 ftsog o TzavzoxQazcoQ, and 6 y.vqiog 
 6 &tbg 6 tzuvzoxquzcoq ; which John has not.’ — Ans. These are mere 
 transcripts of the Hebrew appellations mib bx, nixns ^hbx rrrn . They 
 are altogether in place, in the Apocalypse. And when Lucke here re- 
 marks, that ftsog xcu Tzazijo (1: 6) is like Paul’s usage, and not like 
 John’s which omits the y.ai, he appeals only to 2 John v. 3 for proof of 
 the latter. How can anything be made of this? Paul himself in 
 Gal. 1: 1 omits y.ai in this connection, and in 1: 3 inserts it. And when 
 Bretschneider alleges, that the Alpha and Omega of the Apocalypse is 
 nowhere else found, it is enough to say, that this is purely Hebraistic, 
 and is merely a figurative manner of expressing “j’niiiO ‘r2x“i . Are 
 the designations of the Godhead in 1 Tim. 1: 17 found anywhere else 
 in Paul, or indeed in the New Testament ? 
 
 (36) ‘ Jihr[fhvog in the Apocalypse means faithful ; in John it means 
 only true , genuine, in opposition to false or pretended.’ — Ans. But what 
 else except faithful, veracious, can uArftivog in Gosp. 7: 28 mean ; and 
 specially in 19: 35, which is clear ? In the Apocalypse the word an- 
 swers to the Hebrew ; and as God is so often appealed to as keep- 
 ing his promises, faithful or veracious is a peculiarly appropriate mean- 
 ing. Besides, the very application of the word to God is Johannean 
 exclusively, and the argument lies in favour of the apostolic origin of 
 the Apocalypse, rather than against it, by reason of this adjective so 
 employed. 
 
 (37) ‘ ’ JGyvQog is common in the Apocalypse, but not in John.’ — Ans. 
 It is found in 1 John 2: 14. Elsewhere John has no occasion to char- 
 acterize personal might. In the Apocalypse it is applied to God, and 
 to angels, for such a purpose ; like the Hebrew ““pax, validus. 
 
388 
 
 §21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 (38) ‘ The Evangelist loves the historic Present ; to the Apocalypse 
 this is foreign Liicke p. 366. — Ans. There is no good foundation for 
 this criticism. I have looked the Gospel and Apocalypse both care- 
 fully through, in order to see whether this is correct. I find one hun- 
 dred cases of historic Present in the Gospel and forty in the Apoca- 
 lypse. Of the one hundred, at least some sixty-five belong merely to 
 the word Isyei. constantly occuring in dialogistic representation, and 
 scarcely employed in such representation in a praeterite way ; and most 
 of the other remaining thirty-five cases belong to sQyszai, or some like 
 verb of motion. Making due allowance for this, there is no difference 
 worthy of notice between the two books, in regard to this matter. Be- 
 sides, the Epistle has scarcely a specimen of this idiom ; and for an ob- 
 vious reason. See the remarks in § 15 p. 239 seq. above ; where the 
 subject is more fully discussed. 
 
 (39) ‘ The Gospel often begins sentences without a copula, either by 
 the historic Present or the Praeterite ; the Apocalypse has not a trace 
 of such a usage Liicke ut sup.-— Ans. The usage in question is in- 
 deed very common in the Gospel and Epistle. Yet if the reader will 
 open the Apocalypse, and read the first three chapters whose subject- 
 matter approaches nearer than the rest of the book to the writings just 
 named, he will find the asyndic construction of sentences as frequent as 
 in John. It may be found elsewhere also ; e. g. Apoc. 11: 4, 6. 17: 8, 
 10, 13, 14 al. In respect to the visions of the book, the use of xai is 
 very striking as to conformity with the Hebrew. But on this subject 
 I have already remarked ; see § 15 p. 250 seq. above. 
 
 (40) ‘ In the Apocalypse the peculiar idiom of ovxog . . . ha does not 
 occur, which is so frequent in the Gospel and Epistle.’ Liicke, p. 366. — * 
 Ans. Including avxrj , ovzot, zovzo, xavxa, with ha after them, one finds 
 some twenty cases in the Gospel and Epistle. In Rev. 11: 6, we find 
 the same idiom. But the nature of the representations in the Apoca- 
 lypse^which are rapid and brief, does not require, nor even bear, the exe- 
 getical and in some measure repetitious structure of ovxog . . . iva, and 
 the like. The difference in this respect is certainly notable ; but the 
 nature of the composition seems not only to admit, but rather to demand, 
 such a difference. 
 
 (41) ‘In the Gospel, attraction of the relative pronoun is very fre- 
 quent ; in the Apocalypse it is nowhere found Liicke, p. 365. — The 
 answer is, that in the Gospel I have, with a search extending through 
 the whole, found attraction only in 2: 22. 4: 50. 7: 31, 39. 15: 20. 17: 5. 
 21: 10. In the Epistle only twice. On the other hand, the Apoc. 1: 
 20 presents us with (ov eU*g, a clear case, (onl> Lachmann preferring 
 ovg ) ; and in 18: 6, q> ixtQUoe is a case about which no doubt exists. 
 Neither part of Liicke’ s position seems then to be correct. Besides, as 
 
AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN* 
 
 389 
 
 this usage is one of special idiom, we could hardly expect its frequency 
 in the Apocalypse. The Hebraizing Matthew and Mark never exhibit 
 attraction, one only case in Mark 7: 13 excepted. 
 
 (42) ‘ The Genitive absolute is wanting in the Apocalypse, but is fre- 
 quent in John ;’ Liicke ut sup. — Ans. In the Gospel I find some fifteen 
 cases of this Genitive ; but in the Epistle none at all. On the other 
 hand, fiXenov nov in Rev. 17: 8 I take to be in the Genitive absolute. 
 The want of this structure in the Epistle is no sound argument against 
 its genuineness. Such constructions* and specially the frequency of 
 them, depend very much on the nature of the composition. 
 
 (43) ‘ No iv rovnp . . . bn in the Apocalypse, while it is very fre- 
 quent in John ib. p. 366. — Ans. I find but four cases of this in the 
 Gospel, while in the Epistle there are ten. The formula is employed in 
 cases where peculiar specification or exemplification, in order to be very 
 explicit, is aimed at ; and nearly always in grave reasoning or argumen- 
 tation. Hence the Epistle has so much of it ; while the Apocalypse, a 
 very different book, has none. The composition of the latter is in- 
 deed quite of a diverse tenor, in many respects, from that of the Epistle. 
 
 (44) ‘ The Apocalypse has no oil before direct quotation, while this 
 is frequent in John.’ ib. p. 366. — Ans. As to direct or formal quotation 
 from Scripture, the Apocalypse never makes it ; see p. 231 above. In 
 respect to reciting the words of any person, the usage is variable in the 
 Gospel. Frequently on is inserted before the words directly quoted ; 
 e. g. 1: 20, 32. 4: 42. 6: 14 al. saepe. But not unfrequently on is 
 omitted, e. g. in 1: 15, 21, 22, 23. 6: 65. 7: 12, 28, 37, 40, 41. 19: 12, 
 24, 28, 37. 20: 21, 22. Some of these, indeed, exhibit the Imperative 
 mode, before which on cannot well stand. But there are cases enough 
 to show, that John’s usage, as in the case of other New Testament 
 writers, is very variable in regard to the point in question. In cases 
 where a speaker recites his own words, or delivers his own opinion, and 
 this follows either Xiyu or sine, there is a great number of instances 
 with on, and almost as many without it. The usage is altogether va- 
 riable in John’s Gospel, in regard to this matter. In the Epistle sel- 
 dom indeed do we find occasion for such a construction. In the Apoca- 
 lypse 07i is employed before words cited, when the construction favours 
 it ; see 3: 17. In almost all the cases here of this nature, either a 
 Dative of person follows Xt'yei, which naturally excludes on, (the same 
 in John) ; or else the Imperative, or Imperative in an Optative sense, 
 is employed ; or the Vocative follows ; all of which of course exclude 
 on. The cases where it might be employed, and is omitted, are but 
 few ; my reckoning makes them only some ten or twelve. Add to all 
 this, that the Hebrew tck and irxb rarely admit “»3 = bn after them. 
 In good Greek, bn may be and is employed or omitted ad libitum scrip - 
 
390 
 
 § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 tons, before direct quotations ; although the insertion is less usual. I 
 am persuaded that nothing can be made of this matter ; for the Epistle 
 of John varies greatly and almost as strikingly from the Gospel, in re- 
 spect to the frequency and the manner of employing on. 
 
 (45) ‘ When Hebrew words are translated, John exhibits iQpevEveiai, 
 and the like, before the translation ; which is not found in his Apoca- 
 lypse ib. — The answer to this has already been given on p. 230 seq. 
 above. We may also well say here, that Hebrew poetry does not stop 
 to explain with all the minuteness of prose. 
 
 (46) ‘ The conjunction of both affirmative and negative forms in de- 
 claring a thing, is wanting in the Apocalypse, while it is frequent in 
 John.’ — Ans. Such forms are not wanting in the Apocalypse ; e. g. 2: 13. 
 3: 8, 9, 16, 17. 18: 14. Comp, also the like turns of expression in 2: 2. 
 9: 6. 10: 9. 11: 5. Even Schott himself appeals to this particular as 
 an evidence of similarity between John and the Apocalypse. How 
 differently such matters may strike different minds, when in certain at- 
 titudes ! 
 
 (47) Ewald says, “ that in John the relative praepositive is frequently 
 separated from the noun to which it belongs, as in Gosp. 12: 18, 37, 
 which is not the case in the Apocalypse,” p. 68. Th e frequency of this 
 I cannot find. It is a thing in itself so small, and so purely accidental, 
 or at least depending on concomitant matter which requires a particular 
 position, that nothing can be made out of it worthy of note. And the 
 same may be said of Ewald’s alleged separation of words coherent, such 
 as noun and adjective or participle, verb and its object, and the like. 
 There is no difference that is striking or worthy of note. The like dis- 
 crepancy may be found between the Gospel and the Epistle, or between 
 different portions of the same Gospel. The Hebrew simplicity of con- 
 structing sentences in the Apocalypse, is sufficient to account for any- 
 thing of this nature. 
 
 (48) ‘ Smaller clauses by a usus bene Graecus, thrown in by way of 
 explanation, and which might make a kind of parenthesis, are frequent 
 in John, but alien from the Apocalypse Ewald, p. 68. — Ans. So far 
 is this from being the case, that we often meet with such exegetical or 
 descriptive clauses ; e. g. Rev. 2: 9, 24. 3: 9. 4: 9. 5: 5, 8. 8: 3. 9: 17. 
 11: 5, 16. 16: 14. 18: 15. 19: 8, 10. 21: 25. In nearly all these cases, 
 an editor, who is fond of inserting parentheses, might find a place for 
 them ; while in several, they are absolutely demanded. In searching 
 the whole Gospel of John through, I have not found any greater fre- 
 quency, in proportion, of such epexegetical and descriptive clauses ; 
 while in the Epistle they are much rarer, there being but very few cases. 
 
 (49) ‘ John uses a participle preparatory , i. e. designating subordinate 
 action, very frequently in connection with the main verb which is to fol- 
 
AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 
 
 391 
 
 low ; while the participial construction of such a nature is rarely to be 
 found in the Apocalypse.’ — Ans. The answer to this I have been able 
 fully to make out only by the very laborious process of reading the Gos- 
 pel, Epistle, and Apocalypse carefully through, and noting all the ex- 
 amples of this nature. The result may be given in a few words. The 
 participle preparatory , in the stricter sense, is seldom to be found in the 
 Apocalypse, while it is somewhat frequent in the Gospel, but not to be 
 found at all in the Epistle. So easily may this construction vary, being 
 entirely dependent on the kind of discourse. Historical narrative, which 
 continually gives us views of actions which were connected one with 
 another, and where one was preparatory to another, may admit, or 
 rather may require, the participial construction now before us ; while 
 such discourse as the Epistle in the main excludes it, for an obvious 
 reason. In the Apocalypse the series of prophetic vision is presented 
 as mere emblerri, and compound, connected, preparatory action in these, 
 in the stricter sense of these words, is rarely to be found. Rarely are 
 two immediately successive verbs exhibited, and where they are, the 
 action is not subordinate but co-ordinate. On the other hand, where 
 subordinate action is exhibited, the participial construction is familiar to 
 the Apocalypse ; e. g. specially in Xt'ywv, )Jyovrsg, equivalent to y.al 
 sleys, y.ai eleyov, etc., as in 5: 9. 6: 10. 7: 2, 10, 11, 13. 11: 1, 16. 12: 
 2. 13: 4, 14. 14: 8, 9, 15, 18. 15: 3. 16: 17. 17: 1. 18: 2, 9 and 10, 15, 
 18, 21. 19: 4, 5, 17. 21: 9. Some of these hardly differ from the usual 
 participial construction ; but most of them naturally take the place 
 of a second verb subordinate, as stated above, the real grammatical prin- 
 ciple of the construction being the same as the usual one, i. e. they stand 
 in the place of a verb, and supersede its use. I do not place this com- 
 mon usage in the Apocalypse entirely on the same basis with that in 
 the Gospel, because it is easy to perceive some difference in the nature 
 of the thing. But in the Apocalypse, there is a use of the participle 
 which approaches nearer to a common Hebrew and Chaldee idiom, viz. 
 the employment of it as a verb, without special reference to a prepara- 
 tory and subordinate relation ; e. g. Apoc. 1: 16 (bis). 4: 5. 6: 2. 7: 4. 
 10:2, 8. 17: 4. 19: 12, 13. In John’s Gospel and Epistle are a con- 
 siderable number of cases, where the Part, is employed as a verb, by 
 the aid of eifd expressed. In the cases above noted in the Apocalypse, 
 fiijut is omitted. This is nothing strange, considering the rapid and ab- 
 rupt style of the Apocalypse, and bringing into the account, moreover, 
 that this is very common in Hebrew and Chaldee. The book of Dan- 
 iel, for example, is full of this idiom. At all events, inasmuch as the 
 * preparatory participle, in the strict sense, is not to be found in the Epis- 
 tle, we cannot argue against the Johannean origin of the Apocalypse 
 because it is not employed there in all its classic extent. For the rest, 
 
392 
 
 § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 the participle as nomen agentis is frequent in the Apocalypse, and also 
 as an attributive both to agent and object. Undoubtedly the full freedom, 
 of the Gospel in some respects, as to the use of the Part., is not to be 
 found here ; still, the Gospel itself, as I have had occasion to notice in 
 the course of my investigation, employs two successive verbs in some 
 scores of cases, where a participle might have been used for one of 
 them. I do not perceive on the whole, when we consider the entire ab- 
 sence of the participial usage in question in the epistle of John, that 
 much can be made out of this case, against the apostolic origin of the 
 Revelation. It was an easy matter to make the objection under exam- 
 ination, from a slight reading of the Apocalypse ; but a reply to it found- 
 ed on facts, must needs cost, as it has, a protracted and most toilsome 
 investigation. 
 
 The reader will easily perceive, that the classification which has been 
 made above of the objections to the Apocalypse, unde* Nos. I. II., is 
 but very general and loose ; for a number of the particulars under each 
 category, might with equal propriety have been arranged under the 
 other. Indeed, so miscellaneous are the objections that strict classifica- 
 tion is scarcely feasible ; nor would any important end be gained by at- 
 taining to it. The main point is, to bring the objections fairly before 
 the mind, and properly to consider them. 
 
 There remains still a somewhat large class of objections, on which 
 much stress has been laid by some ; and these must pass in review be- 
 fore us. I shall rank them, although they are quite miscellaneous, un- 
 der the following head ; viz. 
 
 III. Objections deduced from different modes of representation and thought, and 
 
 from different views, which are presented in John and in the Apocalypse. 
 
 Liicke does not pretend to deny, that John may have been Evange- 
 list, Letter-writer, and Prophet or Poet, in the course of his apostolic 
 life. The talent requisite for acting with success in each of these de- 
 partments, he would not regard as an impossibility or an improbability. 
 But still, conceding this, he cannot satisfy himself how John, acting in 
 any one of these various departments, should have appeared so different 
 from John acting in the other. In particular he appeals, 
 
 (50) To the Epistle of John and the Epistles to the seven churches 
 of Asia, between which, he seems to feel, a fair comparison may be in- 
 stituted. ‘ The whole tone,’ he says, ‘ of the apocalyptic epistles is en- 
 tirely different from the epistles of John. Here (in the Apocalypse) 
 we meet with no ctyamjToi, no isxvia gov, and the like ; no repetition of 
 the main thought, nor movement in a kind of circle ; which are peculiar • 
 to John. Both epistles have to deal with heretics and opposers ; yet 
 how entirely different the mode of treating them ! In John, everything 
 
AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 
 
 393 
 
 is referred to love, and faith, and communion with God and Christ and 
 with each other ; and by such a spirit, all opposition is to be met and 
 all victories achieved. In the Apocalypse, there is strong and positive 
 blame and severe threatening. The tone is imperative, and magisterial, 
 instead of being gentle and hortatory.’ 
 
 The picture here drawn may be somewhat overcharged in colouring ; 
 yet I think no one can read the epistles to the seven churches, without 
 feeling that there is a manifest discrepancy between the tone and man- 
 ner of them and the epistle, or epistles, of John. I am not disposed to 
 set aside or even diminish this discrepancy ; for the occasion of writing 
 the seven epistles, the manner in which they are evidently formed, and 
 in fact the real author of them, all allow, not to say demand, a discrep- 
 ancy of manner. Here is a proem to an epic, (if I may so name the 
 book), written in the same spirit as the book itself. The artificial form 
 of the composition is manifest at once ; and all seven of the epistles are 
 conformed to one and the same model. I do not mean, that the matter 
 of all is the same, but that the arrangement of the parts of each epistle, 
 or in other words its form , is throughout fashioned after one model. 
 Each epistle begins with describing the authority and some glorious at- 
 tribute of the Redeemer ; each sets before us a review of the works of 
 the church addressed ; and each concludes with promises, or threaten- 
 ings, or both, as the nature of the case demands. Now here is most 
 palpable triplicity or trichotomy , in accordance with the general struc- 
 ture of the book. Nearly all the epistles, moreover, are of about the 
 same length. Nothing can be more certain, then, than that the struc- 
 ture of them is artificial, and that it is conformed to the triplicities of 
 the book throughout. The very tone and manner in which every one 
 of the epistles begins and ends, demonstrate this. And to all this we 
 must add, that from the very nature of the case here presented, it is 
 Christ who here addresses the churches, while John is the mere instru- 
 ment. On the ground of inspiration , (which is the one that I stand 
 upon), there is no difficulty in this. A difference of manner, then, is 
 naturally to be expected. There is no proper place here for the mere 
 usual and social and complaisant uyu7zrjTof, rexvia pov, and the like. It 
 was not decorous for the great and glorious Head of the Church, in his 
 majestatic state, to assume the language and mien of a humble apostle 
 and mere fellow- Christian. Cuique suum. Even if John were not in- 
 spired, and still possessed talent to compose such a book as the one be- 
 fore us, he had talent and judgment enough to make the direct addresses 
 of Christ himself, in such peculiar circumstances, somewhat different 
 from the usual and familiar style of his own writings. Yet in the seven 
 epistles, with all their discrepancies, there is as thorough a manifesta- 
 tion of love, pity, compassionate tenderness, zeal for truth, and hatred of 
 vol. i. 50 
 
394 
 
 § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 error and immorality, as can anywhere be found. The manner of ex- 
 pressing these things in the Epistle of John, is indeed different ; but the 
 cast of sentiment, after all, is substantially the same. Add to this, that 
 the Johannean ia tQya pervades the whole of the apocalyptic epistles ; 
 and even the favourite ovv of John, and the alia tovzo on (2: 6), are 
 here employed. Vogel even assigns the epistles, on account of their 
 alleged discrepancy from the rest of the book in respect to style, to a 
 different author. While I regard this opinion, as to difference of author- 
 ship, as utterly unfounded, yet that there is a somewhat striking dis- 
 crepancy of style and manner, must be evident to every one, as seems 
 to me, from attentive perusal. But then again, there are so many re- 
 semblances to the rest of the Apocalypse as entirely to overbalance 
 this. 
 
 (51) ‘ In the Apocalypse, the writer has shown that his mind is fraught 
 with a knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures, and to them he has 
 everywhere appealed, not directly but indirectly. In the Gospel and 
 Epistle but little of this appears. The writer of the Apocalypse, while 
 handling the themes of the Gospel, would have more frequently appealed 
 to the Old Testament.’ Liicke, p. 376. 
 
 The Apocalypse is undoubtedly built, as to its modes of representa- 
 tion, on the Old Testament prophets. Hence the very frequent incor- 
 poration of their symbols, and modes of representation, with the matter 
 of the Apocalypse. On the other hand, the difference between the Gos- 
 pel and Epistle, as to referring to the Old Testament, is as great as be- 
 tween the Apocalypse and the Gospel. Scarcely any use of the Old 
 Testament is to be found in the Epistle ; while in the Gospel it is by 
 no means rare. A matter of this kind must depend altogether on cir- 
 cumstances and the nature of the composition. The like is true of the 
 different epistles of Paul. What right can we have to assume, that John 
 always moved, and must move, in one and the same circle, repeating 
 over and over what he had once said, and always in the same words 
 and phrases ? Nothing that we know of him can justly entitle us to 
 such an opinion. 
 
 (52) ‘ The Gospel and Apocalypse present views so entirely different 
 from each other, as to the naQOvaia or advent of Christ, that the same 
 person could not have been the author of them both. In John’s Gospel 
 and Epistle, the advent is regarded altogether as a moral and spiritual 
 matter, as a silent and secret change to take place in the minds of men, 
 and not as a visible and tangible thing. In the Apocalypse, the appeal 
 is to the sensible, the visible, the external ; and even if we do not in- 
 terpret the book after the gross manner of Papias or Montanus, yet the 
 external development of Christ’s kingdom is the predominant idea of the 
 Apocalypse.’ 
 
AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 
 
 395 
 
 So Liicke and others; and they urge this matter very strenuously. 
 Liicke concedes, that the nctQovcia is fully disclosed in the Gospel and 
 Epistle ;* but still it is altogether nvevfianxmg. ‘ How could the same 
 John,’ he asks, i who heard and recorded the spiritual discourses of Je- 
 sus in respect to his coming, while these were still in his mind, have 
 given such a representation as is presented by the Apocalypse ?’ 
 
 The difference of manner is indeed somewhat striking. But how 
 could it be otherwise ? The one is all poetry, symbol, a world of sacred 
 vision and ideal representation ; the other, plain matter of didactic dis- 
 course, in which the true nature of the Redeemer’s kingdom as spirit- 
 ual and moral is plainly taught. Still the Apocalypse is neither more 
 nor less than the full completion of Christ’s own representation, as con- 
 tained in Matt. xxiv. and parallel passages, and is clearly of the same 
 nature. And, in my apprehension, it would be just as proper to charge 
 inconsistency upon the Saviour himself, in the representations of his 
 advent as related by John in his Gospel and as exhibited in the pas- 
 sages of the other evangelists just referred to, as it would to allege in- 
 consistency between the Apocalypse and the discourses of Christ in 
 John. How can continued and perpetual symbol appear otherwise than 
 as representing sensible things, if we examine it only partially and curso- 
 rily ? How many parables of the Saviour respecting his coming and 
 kingdom might be interpreted in the same way ? And if so, then they 
 would seem to be contrary to the tenor of others, and to his declaration 
 that “ the kingdom of God cometh not with observation.” The whole 
 objection is built on an exegesis of the Apocalypse which is not tenable. 
 The visible and tangible and sensible is no more at the basis of this 
 work, than it is at the basis of the parables, or of Christ’s kingdom as 
 set forth in Matt. xxiv. There are indeed sensible things concomitant 
 with the naQOVoia ; and these the Apocalypse has portrayed ; while the 
 Gospel and Epistle enter into few or no particulars of this kind. That 
 a kingdom — a reign — a coming — in the Gospel is one thing, and in 
 the Apocalypse substantially another, no one can make out except by a 
 strained and partial exegesis. Will Liicke affirm, that the Apocalypse 
 teaches the visible presence and reign of Christ on earth ? He has not 
 ventured on this. But if not, why then is not the basis of all the sym- 
 bol in the Apocalypse the same as in the didactic representations of the 
 Gospel and the Epistle, viz. the ultimate moral and spiritual reign of 
 gospel principles among all nations ? It is an idea very common to the 
 Gospel and Epistle of John, and more frequent than elsewhere in the 
 New Testament, Paul’s writings excepted, that the salvation of the 
 Gospel is designed for the whole world — for all men. What else is 
 
 * He concedes it on the ground of Gosp. 14: 1 — 3, 23. 16: 7 seq., 15 seq. 17: 24. 
 3: 18—21. 5: 21—29. 12: 31, 32, 46, 47. 16: 33. 1 John 2: 18 seq. 4: 1 seq. 
 
396 
 
 § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 the Apocalypse, but the symbolical and as it were visible representation 
 of this ? The Apocalypse and Gospel are not more discrepant, in re- 
 spect to the views which they present, than Christ in the parables of 
 Matthew and Luke, is discrepant from the Christ of John. More full, 
 minute, complete representation, when it becomes (as in the Apocalypse) 
 the main object of a work, must differ in many respects from mere obiter 
 dicta in a plain and didactic manner. Yet why should they be deemed 
 inconsistent with each other ? Is there anything in the Apocalypse, 
 which, due allowance for symbol and trope and poetry being made, is 
 inconsistent with the views of the TiaQOvoia in the Gospel and Epistle ? 
 I do not find it. Are not the i'oog of Gosp. 21: 22 seq., and the 
 
 otuv yuveQco&rj and iv T^nvLQOVoia avzov of Ep. 2: 28, and the ct%Qis ov 
 uv rfeo) of Rev. 2: 25, all of the same cast ? And if so, do they not 
 serve as the key to the other representations ? 
 
 If to the allegation, that the Apocalypse is only a full and completed 
 view of the hints in Matt. xxiv. respecting the coming and kingdom of 
 Christ, one should object that in Matthew and other evangelists that 
 coming is placed only in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 and not with the conquest of heathen enemies, while the Apocalypse 
 fully displays the latter ; I would readily concede the fact, that no more 
 than the destruction of Jerusalem is fully presented in the picture by 
 the evangelists. But in the Apoc. vi — xi., is not the same picture again 
 presented ? Plainly it is. But then, in this latter work, inasmuch as 
 new enemies and persecutors of the church had appeared, who had 
 not made their appearance when Christ predicted the downfall of Je- 
 rusalem, it was greatly to the writer’s purpose to extend his views of the 
 triumphs of the cross beyond the boundaries of Judea. The Saviour 
 spoke of what was immediately before him and around him ; the Apoc- 
 alyptist does not contradict this, and is not even at variance with it, 
 because he has extended his views to other enemies of the church be- 
 sides the Jews. 
 
 (53) ‘ The Antichrist of John and of the Apocalypse are altogether 
 different. The latter is a worldly prince, who possesses worldly power 
 and malignity, and persecutes and destroys. The former is an errorist 
 in religion, teaches false principles, and is given to lying and deceit. 
 This opposition is moral , and not physical.’ So Liicke, p. 383. 
 
 But are not in fact the Antichrist of the Epistle and of the Apoca- 
 lypse, (so to speak), quite different personages ? The Antichrist of the 
 Epistle is evidently some one or many apostatizing Christians ; 
 
 ££rjl&ov, dll’ ovx rjaav ej r\\i ojv, Epis. 2: 19. The opposers of religion 
 in the Apocalypse are the unbelieving and persecuting Jews and hea- 
 then. Why should not the former be portrayed as errorists in doctrine, 
 and the latter as enemies in external measures, i. e. in persecution and 
 
AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 
 
 397 
 
 violence ? The adversary in the Apocalypse is like the avftQwnog trig 
 apaQziag, 6 dvTixsiptvog, 6 dropog, of Paul, in 2 Thess. ii. Liicke 
 seems to have wholly overlooked the fact, that John’s Antichrists in his 
 Epistle are apostates , while the enemy in the Apocalypse is the unbe- 
 lieving and persecuting Jew or Heathen. Let it be remembered, too, 
 that much as John, in his Gospel, speaks of opposition to gospel truth, 
 he never once employs there the word dvri^Qiatog. It was plainly no 
 particular favorite with him. 
 
 (54) 6 The Apocalypse teaches a two-fold resurrection ; the first, of 
 the saints at the beginning of the Millennium ; the second, of all men 
 at the final consummation and general judgment. The Gospel also 
 teaches a two-fold resurrection (5: 21 seq.), but the first simply moral 
 and spiritual. How can representations so different belong to one and 
 the same writer ?’ Liicke p. 384. 
 
 My first remark, in reply to this, is, that the representation in Gosp. 
 5: 21 seq. belongs entirely to Christ ; and, if it be so that a merely 
 moral change is here taught, I see no more difficulty in the Saviour’s 
 adopting this mode of representation, than there was of Paul’s saying : 
 “ You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” But 
 Liicke’s objection depends entirely on the exegesis which he gives to 
 this passage, and which I cannot but regard as altogether improbable, 
 not to say impossible. First, John nowhere else, to say the least, em- 
 ploys this Pauline phraseology, in order to indicate a moral and spirit- 
 ual change. With him it is “ Born of God, born of the Spirit, born 
 again.” It is therefore against all Johannean analogy to interpret 
 Gosp. 5: 21 seq. in the manner of Liicke. Then the text itself declares 
 the resurrection brought about by Christ, as the resurrection of “ all 
 who are iv zoig fivrjpeioig ” — of the good to everlasting life, and of the 
 evil to perpetual condemnation, (v. 29). How can a mere moral and 
 spiritual resurrrection be the one in question here, when the good do not 
 need it, and the wicked do not attain to it ? The resurrection of the 
 wicked here, is not their moral emendation , but in order that they 
 should be judged and punished. How can this mean their moral regen- 
 eration ? And if it does, how can they still be condemned and punish- 
 ed ? It is impossible to support such an exegesis. — Thus much for the 
 first resurrection said to be taught in the Gospel of John. This Gos- 
 pel teaches plainly the general resurrection only. As to the Apocalypse, 
 I do not well see how we can avoid the exegetical conclusion, that a 
 first and second resurrection is there taught. But I do not take this to 
 be a doctrine new and singular, at the time of John. I shall not, how- 
 ever, go into a discussion of this question here, because I have consid- 
 ered it at some length in § 10, pp. 175 seq. above, and touched upon it 
 also in Excursus YI. on Rev. 20: 4 — 8 ; to which I would refer the 
 
398 
 
 §21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 reader. It would seem that Jesus himself, and Paul, have at least in- 
 timated the like doctrine ; and that traces of it may even be found in 
 the Old Testament, and among the early Jewish Rabbins. But even 
 supposing that the writer of the Apocalypse has taught what is nowhere 
 else taught in the New Testament ; how would this be any more a va- 
 lid argument against the Johannean authorship of the book, than it is 
 against the Pauline origin of 1 Cor., that in this epistle only is taught 
 the giving up by Christ of the mediatorial kingdom at the final consum- 
 mation of all things, and the subjection of the Son to the Father, 1 Cor. 
 15: 24 — 28 ; and also, that the saints shall judge the world, and judge 
 angels, 1 Cor. 6: 2, 3 ? Arguments of this nature can prove nothing as 
 to authorship. Does Paul teach the same identical things, and only the 
 same, in all his epistles ? Has John exhibited no doctrines in his Gos- 
 pel, which are not in his Epistle ? In his Gospel, it is indeed only the 
 final and general resurrection and judgment that is introduced ; but the 
 plan of the Apocalypse, and the development of the Millennium, de- 
 manded other corresponding developments not made before. 
 
 (55) 1 In John, belief brings peace and happiness forthwith. Faith 
 gives a present title to all desirable good, and the reward commences 
 without delay. In the Apocalypse, all the Christian life is contest 
 and struggle and suffering. No happiness is to be expected in the pres- 
 ent life, but only in the life to come ; and then principally as the re- 
 ward of fidelity amid persecutions. How can two representations so 
 different proceed from the same pen ?’ Liicke p. 385 seq. 
 
 In the Gospel and Epistle there is indeed peace and joy promised to 
 all believers. The power of true Christianity to bestow these, is repre- 
 sented in a very attractive and forcible manner. The discussion of 
 these topics, however, is here general. No matters that are peculiarly 
 local and temporary are generally regarded, in passages of this nature. 
 But still, is there not an abundance of other passages, -which shows the 
 disciples that they will be subjected to persecution and sufferings on ac- 
 count of their attachment to their Lord and Master, and which also for- 
 tifies their minds against the fear of these, and comforts them with the as- 
 surances of Christ’s presence and the aid of his Spirit ? He must read 
 with eyes half-closed, who does not often meet with these ; e. g. Gosp. 
 15: 18 seq. 16: 20 seq., 33. In the Epistle, the frequently recurring 
 expression of overcoming the world implies the contest of Christians 
 with evil men and with sin. In the Apocalypse, every important cir- 
 cumstance stands on a different footing from that of the simple doctrinal 
 instruction of the Gospel. The writer addresses Christians amidst the 
 fires of persecution. He does not promise them ease, quiet, personal 
 safety, in these circumstances. He knows, and assures them, that per- 
 secution is to rage still longer, Rev. 6: 11. Hence, very naturally, he 
 
AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 
 
 399 
 
 directs tlie eye of faith principally to the rewards beyond the grave. 
 Nothing can be more ample or alluring than these, as exhibited by him. 
 Even a part in the first resurrection seems, as he has presented it, to be 
 consequent upon steadfastness in the time of trial. Is there no differ- 
 ence, then, between teaching in a generic way the present and future 
 rewards of Christianity as things that belong appropriately to it, and 
 teaching the doctrine of rewards as appropriate to those who are hurried 
 to the prison-house, the rack, the gibbet, and the stake ? It will not be 
 contended however, after all, that there is any important difference be- 
 tween John and the Apocalypse, as to the general idea of a future glo- 
 rious and immortal life for all true believers. Yet the tropical repre- 
 sentations of the Apocalypse in relation to this are more vivid, and at- 
 tractive, and persuasive, than those in the Gospel ; evidently so in con- 
 sequence of proceeding from a more excited state of mind. But that 
 the Apocalypse excludes ideas of internal peace and joy in the present 
 world, as the result of belief or faith, is not for a moment to be supposed, 
 by any one who reads the seven epistles, or the subsequent descriptions 
 of the servants of God who are sealed in their foreheads. In a word, 
 the Apocalypse has made, on the whole, such representations of the 
 Christian’s reward as were best adapted to the circumstances of those 
 who were addressed. What hinders us from supposing, that John had 
 a nice sense of to tiqstiov on occasions of this nature, and that he adapt- 
 ed his encouragements to the nature of the case ? 
 
 (56) ‘ In the mode of conceiving and representing some of the lead- 
 ing ideas of the Apocalypse and of the Gospel, there is a great diversity. 
 The evangelist exhibits a kind of Christian Gnosis. In this spirit the 
 prologue to the Gospel is written ; and the Logos is the life and light 
 of the world, and all revelations of the Godhead are through and by him. 
 How different the Apocalypse ! Here Rabbinic lore and artifice are 
 apparent. God appears as a seven-fold spirit. God in the Gospel is 
 the Father of Christ, and the Father and Friend of men ; in the Apoc- 
 alypse, he is supreme Regent, and governs with justice and vengeance 
 rather than with love. The Apocalypse has no Paraclete , and no Christ 
 as ocoTtjQ tov hog^iov.’ Lucke, p. 386 seq. 
 
 Is it not enough to say, as to the Gnosis, that the Apocalypse is not 
 designed to be didactic, in the like manner as the Gospel ? John’s 
 Gnosis, if it must so be called, is appropriate in his prologue to a book 
 which exhibits a history of the Logos incarnate. But is there not the 
 same Logos in the Apocalypse? 19: 13. And has any other writer of 
 the New Testament such a recognition as this ? To speculate on the 
 Logos-doctrine in the Apocalypse, was out of question. And in regard 
 to the various and diverse attitudes in which God and Christ and the 
 Holy Spirit are said to be exhibited, this is in part to be acknowledged. 
 
400 
 
 §21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 But at the same time, what can be more evident than that the Apoca- 
 lypse, which is a picture of the great contest between the powers of 
 darkness and the great Head of the Church, should, as it does, almost 
 everywhere exhibit God and Christ as supreme and omnipotent and ir- 
 resistible ? In -the war that is waged, the attitude of the leaders of the 
 adverse parties is that of commanders and warriors. The Gospel and 
 Epistle of John do not exhibit the contest in such a manner, nor place 
 it in the same light. Here God and Christ are usually represented as 
 judging and making moral retribution. After all, the thing substan- 
 tially aimed at and accomplished in both writings is the same, viz. moral 
 retribution. But the costume of poetry and symbol demands a very dif- 
 ferent mode of presenting the ideas in question. That God appears 
 rather in the attitude of dispensing justice , in the Apocalypse, than of 
 exhibiting love , is, as we have seen, a remark of Lucke. But why 
 should he not appear in this way, when the very theme of the Apoca- 
 lypse is the subjugation of the enemies of Christianity? But is there no 
 love to his people, even in all this ? Nay, I may well ask : Are there 
 any more attractive pictures, in all the Bible, of the love and pity and 
 tender mercy of God to the obedient, than are to be found in the Apoc- 
 alypse ? 
 
 In respect to the Paraclete , there is only one passage in John where 
 this peculiar form of presenting to view the aid of the Holy Spirit is ex- 
 hibited. The doctrine of the influences of the Holy Spirit, however, 
 runs through the Apocalypse, and is abundantly taught. Here, as in 
 John, the Spirit “ guides to all truth he is the author of all prophecy, 
 of all revelation to the servants of God. Here, as in the Gospel, the 
 Spirit is ascribed to God and to Christ; Rev. 1: 4. 3: 1. 5: 6. 22: 6. 
 Gosp. 14: 16, 25. 15: 26. 16: 7, 14. And as to the septiform Spirit, 
 which Lucke attributes to the Apocalypse, I do not find it in Rev. 1: 4. 
 4: 5. 5: 6, as he represents. I find only the seven ministering spirits 
 or archangels before the throne of God ; a Jewish mode of representing 
 this subject, which is at least as old as the book of Tobit (12: 15), and 
 probably goes much farther back. I take the use of seven in such cases 
 to be, as it often is, merely a symbolical method of presenting the idea 
 of completion or perfection. The almost numberless instances of the 
 like kind in the Bible, no one can overlook. I do not call this Rabbini- 
 cal, but Jewish. It is no proof of Rabbinism, (for the Rabbins make 
 ten Sephiroth, not seven), but of familiarity with the Jewish custom of 
 symbolizing certain ideas by the use of certain numbers. 
 
 (57) The closing suggestions of the preceding paragraph naturally 
 bring us to another objection, briefly touched upon by Liicke, but urged 
 and exemplified by Ewald, p. 35 seq. This is, that ‘ the Apocalypse 
 approaches much nearer the Cabbalistic lore than any other New Tes- 
 
AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 
 
 401 
 
 lament book. "Whatever it has respecting angels, demons, Satan, and 
 the like, bears this stamp ; and a species of the Cabbalistic Gematria 
 even is disclosed in Rev. 13: 18, and Cabbalism in 2: 17, and 21: 1 — 
 22: 5, i. e. in the description of the New Jerusalem.’ To this Liicke 
 adds, that ‘ while he concedes that angels are not foreign to John’s circle 
 of ideas, yet, in his Gospel, they appear only as performing offices of a 
 moral and spiritual nature,’ p. 387 seq. 
 
 I cannot enter here upon an exposition of the general angelology of 
 the Scriptures, but must refer the reader to Exc. I. on Rev. 1: 4. From 
 this it is very plain, that John has done no more in the Apocalypse, 
 than to employ the angels in offices assigned and conceded to them in 
 the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. That they constitute a part of 
 the supernatural machinery (sit venia !) of his moral epic, is plainly 
 true. The frequency with which they appear, and the parts assigned 
 to them, are all in accordance with that general sentiment concerning 
 them, which the author Qf the Epistle to the Hebrews has uttered in 
 1:14: “ Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to 
 them who are the heirs of salvation ?” In the great contest which the 
 Apocalyptist represents, how could it be that angels should not bear a 
 conspicuous part, in opposition to the spirits of darkness? One may 
 call this Hebraistic or Jewish , if he pleases ; but in it there is nothing 
 which gives just occasion for naming it Cabbalistic , or even Rabbinic 
 in a technical sense. And when Liicke remarks, that 1 the Gospel of 
 John employs angels only on moral and spiritual errands, while the 
 Apocalypse makes them preside over the elements and the phenomena 
 of nature ;’ one might admit this, and yet appeal from his conclusion. 
 John in his Gospel employs angelic agents, if I may so express it, when- 
 ever and wherever the case demands. In the Apocalypse he has done 
 no more. There is no case in the Apocalypse of their interposition, 
 which is not justified by analogy in the Hebrew Scriptures. But is 
 an admission of what Liicke suggests, respecting John’s Gospel, to be 
 made with propriety ? ‘ The angels of God ascending and descending 
 
 upon the Son of Man, (1: 52) ; the multitude supposing that an angel 
 had spoken to Jesus, (12: 29) ; the two angels clothed in white, and 
 sitting at the head and feet of Jesus, (20: 12) ; and above all, the angel 
 at the pool of Bethesda,’ (5: 2 — 7) ; show that the idea of such agents 
 was familiar to John. But in particular, the last case mentioned above 
 harmonizes in the very thing which Liicke regards as peculiar to the 
 Apocalypse, viz. in respect to angelic control over the material ele- 
 ments. I know indeed that Liicke affirms the last clause of v. 3 and 
 the whole of v. 4 to be plainly spurious ; and so he easily avoids the 
 force of the argument. But how comes it, that neither Laclimann nor 
 Hahn marks this passage as being doubtful or even suspicious ? How 
 
 VOL. i. 51 
 
402 
 
 §21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 is it that no critical editor of note so marks it, except Griesbach and 
 Knapp ? Plainly because the evidence, even on the score of Mss. 
 and Versions, is decidedly in its favour, and because v. 7 would be 
 unintelligible, not to say wholly unmeaning, without the controverted 
 passage. I consider this case on the whole to be so plain, that no rea- 
 sonable doubt can be entertained respecting it. And such being the 
 case, the doctrine of angelology in the two books of John is so much of 
 the same hue, even as to the speciality in question, as to afford rather a 
 presumption in favour of sameness as to authorship than of diversity. 
 The greater frequency of angelic phenomena in the Apocalypse, is to 
 be ascribed to the peculiar nature of the book. 
 
 In respect to Rev. 1:4. 2: 17. 13: 18. 20: 1 seq. being appropriately 
 Cabbalistic ; there is nothing in them, which decides in favour of this. 
 The seven spirits I have already remarked upon above. For 2: 17 I 
 must refer the reader to the Commentary. It expresses a purely Jew- 
 ish conception, very vivid, however, and truly poetic. The Rabbins 
 have indeed told many putid stories about the manna that was laid up 
 in the first temple ; but what is there in Rev. 2: 17 which allies it to 
 them ? It is merely a poetico-symbolic representation. In respect to 
 13: 18, I must also refer to the Commentary and the Excursus connect- 
 ed with it. It is there shown, that the passage is quite foreign to the 
 Cabbalistic Gematria; see also p. 141 above. Even Ewald himself, in 
 his commentary, concedes this, or at least he doubts whether it can be put 
 to the account of Gematria. As to chap. xx. seq., which exhibits a pic- 
 ture of the New Jerusalem, I find no more Rabbinism or Cabbalism in it, 
 than I do in Ezek. xl. seq., after which it is most plainly modelled, although 
 still far from being a slavish copy of it. Everything Jewish or He- 
 brew is not therefore Rabbinic or Cabbalistic. It is indeed true, that 
 the Apocalypse makes an almost surprising use of the numbers three 
 and seven, throughout the book. We have seen its trichotomy or tri- 
 plicity , in all its parts great and small; see § 7 above, p. 131 seq. Its 
 heptades are also very numerous ; ib. p. 144. But the use of neither of 
 these numbers belongs to Cabbalism exclusively. The book of Job is 
 triplex throughout. The number seven occurs in a symbolical or trop- 
 ical sense almost everywhere in the Old Testament and the New. It 
 is the kind of use only, in respect to these numbers, which distinctly 
 marks Cabbalism ; and this is not found in the Apocalypse. In truth, 
 one needs to resort only to Hebrew usages and modes of speech and con- 
 ception, in order to explain the phraseology of the Apocalypse. Why 
 then should this be called Rabbinic or Cabbalistic ? Many things, indeed, 
 which are merely Hebrew or Jewish, appear in the works of Rabbins ; 
 but this does not give one the liberty of naming them Cabbalistic. 
 
 (58) As negative evidence agains the apostolic origin of the Apoca- 
 
AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 
 
 403 
 
 lypse, Ewald (p. 76) says, that ‘the author does not call himself the 
 apostle John , but only a worshipper of Christ .’ 
 
 But has he called himself the apostle John , in his Gospel or Epistle ? 
 There were other Johns in his time ; why did he not distinguish him- 
 self from them in this way ? Yet, it seems, he did not. But when the 
 writer of the Apocalypse tells his readers, that he was the John who was 
 in exile at Patmos, and addresses the Asiatic churches as their spiritual 
 Overseer, had he any further need of effort to disclose who was meant ? 
 
 (59) ‘ In Rev. 18 : 20, the saints and apostles and prophets are called 
 upon to exult over fallen Babylon ; they are called upon as being in 
 heaven ; and the apostles are so spoken of as if the writer did not belong 
 to their number.’ Ewald ut supra. 
 
 But this cannot amount to much. First, there is nothing in the pas- 
 sage, which makes it clear that the writer considers all of the apostles 
 as already in heaven, any more than he does all of the saints and pro- 
 phets who are named with them. Indeed, heaven may here mean merely 
 the blessed angels and the saints who had already died in the Lord ; 
 while the others are addressed as yet on earth. Then, secondly, as to 
 naming the apostles collectively, as if the author were not of their num- 
 ber, does not Paul the same in Eph. 2: 20, and yet without any design 
 to exclude himself? 
 
 (CO) Ewald says, that it would be incompatible with the modesty of 
 John to speak as the Apocalypse does in 21: 14, of “ twelve foundation 
 stones [of the new Jerusalem], on which the twelve names of the twelve 
 apostles of the Lamb were inscribed.” Yet Paul speaks of the church 
 (ut sup.) as “ built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets ; an 
 idea like to that which the Apocalypse brings to view. Paul is sure, 
 that he shall “ receive a crown of glory, which the Lord the righteous 
 Judge will give him.” He asserts that he is “ an ambassador of God 
 also that he is “ a wise master builder” of the gospel-edifice, 1 Cor. 3: 
 10 ; and John says of himself, in his Gospel, that he was “ the disciple on 
 whose bosom Jesus leaned — the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Can any 
 one justly tax Paul or John with vanity on this account, or with acting 
 contrary to the spirit of modesty ? What shall we say of Paul’s rap- 
 ture into the third heaven, and of his being taught directly and person- 
 ally by the Saviour ? In all cases of this nature, there is much to be 
 attributed to the consciousness of the individual in respect to his high 
 office and privilege, the assertion of which is not made in the way of 
 boasting, but for very different purposes. 
 
 Liicke thinks that the word twelve sounds strange in the mouth of 
 John, inasmuch as Paul would be thereby excluded. But is it not the 
 case, that the apostles are named twelve (John 20: 24), even after the 
 death of Judas, and before Paul became an apostle ? The word twelve 
 
404 
 
 § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 in reference to them became technical ; and whether there was one apos- 
 tle more or less, would make no difference as to employing that word in 
 such a sense. For the rest, the number twelve in Rev. 21: 14 was 
 plainly necessary, in order to correspond with the other parts of the de- 
 scription. The apostle Paul would not have supposed himself to be 
 slighted, I trust, by this portion of the Apocalypse. The generic nature 
 of the idea, like that of apostles in Eph. 2: 20, seems to me sufficiently 
 palpable, and to relieve the whole thing from any serious difficulty. 
 
 Thus have I gone through with the objections to the apostolic origin 
 of the Apocalypse adduced by Liicke ; and also noticed some others on 
 which he has not thought proper to rely. One or two more, adduced 
 by respectable writers, may deserve some notice. 
 
 (61) ‘ The Apocalypse represents the government of the world as 
 about to be given to the Messiah, 11: 15 seq. ; while heretofore it had 
 been exercised by angels as the agents, Rev. 1: 4. 3: 1. 5: 6. 16: 13. 
 12: 7 — 9. John exhibits nothing of this nature in his Gospel.’ 
 
 Thus Schott, p. 481. As to supreme power belonging to the Son or 
 the Messiah, nothing can be more explicit than John ; see Gosp. 5: 22 
 — 27. 17: 2. 3: 35. In this respect there is the most entire harmony 
 between the Gospel and Apocalypse. Schott must therefore mean only, 
 that angelic agency is not so represented in the Gospel as in the Apoca- 
 lypse. On this I have already spoken above. I must however protest 
 here against making the Apocalypse represent angels as governing the 
 world in the higher sense. The Apocalypse ever and always regards 
 them as mere subordinates and instruments. The seven spirits of God, 
 which are of the highest order, and (so to speak) his presence-angels , are 
 presented in the Apocalypse (8: 2) as standing before his throne, i. e. 
 in the attitude of waiting and obedient servants, ready to receive and 
 execute his commands. And to Christ, let it be noted also, is the pos- 
 session or dominion of the same seven spirits assigned, Rev. 3: 1. I see 
 nothing in the Apocalypse which assigns a rank to angels different from 
 that assigned to them in the Gospel; see and comp. Rev. 19: 10. 22: 9. 
 5: 11—14. 
 
 (62) ‘ The Apocalypse assigns dignity to Christ as the Son of David , 
 (3: 7. 5: 5. 22: 16) ; while John assigns it to him as the Logos.’ 
 
 So Schott, ib. But without any good reason. All three of the pas- 
 sages referred to merely contain quotations from Old Testament pro- 
 phecy, (Is. 22: 22. 11: 1), and their design is, to describe Christ as the 
 true and predicted Messiah. But the Apocalypse abounds in other rea- 
 sons than this, why Christ is constituted Lord, and is the object of wor- 
 ship, and why he has uncontrollable supremacy ; as we shall see in the 
 sequel. As to the Logos ; only one passage in the Gospel (1: 1 — 18) 
 exhibits this appellation, while the Apocalypse ascribes to him the same 
 
AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 
 
 405 
 
 appellation and the same rank, 19: 13. Indeed the attitude in which, 
 in several respects, Christ is placed, in the Gospel and in the Apoca- 
 lypse, and the attributes and works ascribed to him in both, constitute 
 a leading and striking trait of resemblance between the two books ; as 
 we shall soon see. v 
 
 Other objections have been made to the apostolic origin of the Apoc- 
 alypse, by Corrodi, Oeder, Semler, and some other writers, who harmo- 
 nized with them in their contempt for this book. But they are of such 
 a character, that neither Schott, Ewald, Liicke, or Credner, have thought 
 it best to rely on them, or even to adduce them. It will not, therefore, 
 be deemed necessary that I should discuss them here. All that is re- 
 lied upon, at present, has already been adduced. 
 
 I might now proceed to give a summary or result of this discussion 
 respecting the internal evidence of the Apocalypse in regard to author- 
 ship ; but there is another part of the testimony which is yet to be heard. 
 Both sides must be examined , before we make up our opinion. Internal 
 testimony in favour of the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse is not 
 wanting ; and this remains to be heard. 
 
 § 22. Internal evidence in favour of John as the author. 
 
 Such is the peculiar nature of the Apocalypse — a series of emblems 
 or symbols from beginning to end — such the personages, scenes, occur- 
 rences, places, etc., which pass in review or under the inspection of the 
 prophetic seer, that we find ourselves, in fact, transferred to a world 
 which is new and in many respects strange. How was it possible, in 
 writing such a book on such a plan, that the diction, the phraseology, 
 the ideas, the scenery, and in a word the whole contour of the book, 
 should not be very diverse from such a work as the didactic Gospel of 
 John ; a great part of which is either doctrinal discussion, or else mat- 
 ter of a paranaetic nature ? In respect to a writer of any talent — any 
 distinguished original powers of mind and imagination — one might easily 
 decide a priori that there must be many discrepancies between two 
 such performances. We have seen that there are many. Some of 
 them, certainly, are striking ; and if the object and design of the Gospel 
 and the Apocalypse were of the same nature, we could hardly account 
 for it, that the same writer should differ so much from himself. As it 
 is, these discrepancies are less striking. We expect many of them, 
 when we see how closely the Apocalyptist has followed in the train of 
 the Hebrew prophets. Others we might not expect, which however 
 have analogies in the different works of Paul and Luke. Considera- 
 tions like these serve to abate, in some measure, the strength of the first 
 impressions, which are made on us by the consideration of merely the 
 
406 
 
 § 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR 
 
 discrepancies between the diction and views of the Gospel and Apoca- 
 lypse. But this is not all. There remains some positive internal evi- 
 dence, in the Apocalypse, of its being Johannean, at least some that ap- 
 pears to be of such a character, which has not yet been developed, and 
 to the exposition of which we would now advance. 
 
 I begin with the diction and phraseology ; after that, the senti- 
 ments or views of the writer will come under consideration. 
 
 (1) One of the most striking traits of resemblance is presented by 
 the fact, that the favorite fiao7VQt'co and gaQTVQia of the Gospel, in the 
 sense of declaration respecting the Saviour and his mediatorial work, 
 public profession and declaration of belief in him, is so common in the 
 Apocalypse. Thus in the Gosp., 1: 7, 19. 3: 11, 32, 33. 5: 31 — 36. 
 8: 13, 14. 18: 35. 21: 24. Epist. 5: 9 (tris), 10, 11, al. Comp. Rev. 
 1: 2, 9. 6: 9. 12: 11, 17. 19: 10. 20: 4. 22: 18, 20. Most striking are 
 these last two verses compared with Gosp. 21: 24. One can hardly re- 
 frain from the feeling, that the same hand must have penned both pas- 
 sages. And this the more, because out of John’s works, there is scarce- 
 ly any usage of this peculiar and appropriate kind to be found. Liicke 
 merely observes, in answer to this, that gagrvQia /. Xqigtov is not 
 found in the Gospel. But is it not virtually and plainly in Gosp. 3: 11. 
 5: 31, 32. 8: 13, 14? 
 
 (2) The use of vixav in the sense of overcoming the evil and oppo- 
 sition and enmity of the world, with the implication of remaining faith- 
 ful and active in the Christian cause, is peculiar to John and to the 
 Apocalypse ; comp. Gosp. 16: 33. Epist. 2: 13, 14. 4: 4. 5: 4, 5. Apoc. 
 2: 7, 11, 17, 26. 3: 5, 12, 21. 12: 11. 15: 2. 21: 7. Besides these ex- 
 amples, Rom. 12: 21 affords the only instance of the kind in the New 
 Testament. This peculiarity, so frequent, seems to be almost as strik- 
 ing as the one above. It is not a thing which belongs to common Hel- 
 lenism, and therefore it affords the stronger evidence of sameness of 
 authorship. 
 
 (3) "Owig, in the sense of human visage , is to be found only in Gosp. 
 11: 44 and Rev. 1: 16. No other New Testament writer employs it. 
 
 (4) Tijneiv rov Xoyov is frequent in John’s Gospel and Epistle ; the 
 same occurs often in the Apocalypse. I do not include in this the 
 phrase ttjqsiv rag ivroXdg , which is the common property of Hellenistic 
 Greek, modelled after the Hebrew idiom. But rrjouv rov Xoyov belongs 
 only to John. So rtjQsiv in, Gosp. 17: 15 and Apoc. 3: 10; elsewhere 
 not. 
 
 (5) Xxrjvovv is used in Gosp. 1: 14 and Apoc. 7: 15. 12: 12. 13: 6. 
 21: 3. Elsewhere it is not found. Although in the Gospel it is pre- 
 dicated of the Logos, yet the idea of the verb is the same as in the 
 Apocalypse. 
 
OF JOHN AS THE AUTHOR. 
 
 407 
 
 (6) Xcpdzzsiv is employed in Epist. 3: 12 (bis) ; also in Rev. 5: 6. 
 9: 12. 6: 4, 9. 13: 3, 8. 18: 24. Found nowhere else. 
 
 (7) "Eyeiv fitQOg is used in Gosp. 13: 8 and in Apoc. 20: 5. That in 
 the first case it is followed by \iszd and the Genitive, and in the second 
 by iv and the Dative, does not affect the peculiarity of the idiom, as 
 Lucke supposes. This consists in the formula itself, eyeiv fisgog. The 
 manner of the sequel is dictated by the nature of the sentiment. 
 
 (8) rieoiTzazeiv gezd zivog, Gosp. G: 66. Apoc. 3: 4. — XcpoayiXsiv, 
 Gosp. 3: 33. 6. 27 in the sense of confirmed, authenticated ; like to this, 
 but applied to the persons of men, in Apoc. vii. ; not merely and sim- 
 ply marked, as Lucke translates it. 
 
 (9) Jindgzi, Gosp. 1: 52. 13: 19. 14: 7. Rev. 14: 13. Elsewhere 
 only in Matthew. The verb deixvvw or fitixvvpu occurs with unusual 
 frequency in the Gospel and Apocalypse. But this is common property. 
 — Ffigaiozi in Rev. 9: 11. 16: 16. Gosp. 5: 2. 19: 13. 17: 20. Else- 
 where not found. — Ko7zid(o in the sense of fatigue, Rev. 2: 3. Gosp. 
 4: 6. Not elsewhere in this sense, excepting perhaps Matt. 1 1 : 28. 
 
 (10) Aultiv gezd zivog, Gosp. 4: 27. 9: 37. 14: 30. Rev. 1: 12. 4: 
 1. 10: 8. 17: 1. 21: 9, 15. Elsewhere not, excepting once in Mark 
 6: 50. IJQoaxvvtiv is said by Kolthoff (Joan. Apoc. Yindic. p. 114), 
 to be constructed both with the Accusative and Dative only in Gospel 
 and Apocalypse ; elsewhere only with the Dative. But Luke 4: 8. 
 24: 52, exhibits the Accusative. Elsewhere it is with the Dative. The 
 frequent exchange of these cases, however, in the Gospel and Apoc- 
 alypse, is notable . — Ovguvog in the Gospel and Apocalypse has almost 
 constantly the article, in all circumstances ; less frequently elsewhere. 
 The like remark may be made as to 6 Xgiazog. And 6 xvgiog rjpKov 
 7 tjoovg Xgiazog, so common in Paul, occurs not in any part of John. 
 
 (11) Kvqie, av oidag , Gosp. 21: 15 — 17 tris. Rev. 7: 14. — Atzs- 
 xQi&q foycjv, Gosp. 1: 26. 10: 33. Rev. 7: 13. The peculiarity is, 
 that John never in such cases employs u7ZoxQi&eig, the participle. 
 
 (12) The failure of certain words so common in the New Testament, 
 throughout the writings in question, is rather striking ; e. g. of gezdvoia, 
 yhvva. On the other hand, the frequent use of cpcog, cpomXw, 36%a, 
 cpaiva, and the like, in a tropical sense, in the Gospel, Epistle, and 
 Apocalypse, shows a similarity of colouring in the style. The compar- 
 ison of Christ with the bridegroom , in Gosp. 3: 29 should be placed by 
 the side of Rev. 19: 7. 21: 2. 22: 17 ; not so much on account of the 
 general relation indicated by it, which is frequent in the Scripture, as 
 the diction. There is a similarity, also, between the mode of expres- 
 sion in Rev. 3: 20, and Gosp. 10: 27. 10: 1. 14: 23. So of the water 
 of life, Rev. 22: 17. 21: 6, and Gosp. 7: 37. 4: 10. Comp, also Gosp. 
 4: 14. Rev. 22: 1. So of hungering and thirsting , Rev. 7: 16. Gosp. 
 
408 
 
 § 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR 
 
 6: 35. So a tropical sense for the word ^EQurgog, Rev. 14: 15. Gosp. 
 4: 35, (differently applied, but still tropical) ; apnElog, Rev. 14: 18. 
 Gosp. 16: 1, is common to both books, although applied also in a differ- 
 ent way, as it easily might be. The image of cup, for suffering, trial, 
 Gosp. 18: 11, is very common in the Apocalypse. The image of Christ 
 as a shepherd, Gosp. 10: 1 seq., is presented in Rev. 7: 17, noipavei xal 
 odrjyrjaei. 
 
 (13) Striking is the use of Lamb as applied to the Saviour, Gosp. 1: 
 29, 36. In the Apocalypse some twenty-five times. Nowhere else in 
 the New Testament is this employed, except twice in quoting from Is. 
 53: 7. John employs the form agvog, but is familiar also with the other 
 form, (iqviov, 21: 15 ; the Apocalypse uses only the neuter form, d(>viov. 
 But the meaning is the same. The phrase or appellation originated in 
 the expiatory death and innocent character of Christ, and seems to be 
 employed so often in the Apocalypse in order to keep this in view. 
 
 (14) Met a ravza, for the most part as a mere formula of transition, 
 equivalent or nearly so to 8e, ovv, is a striking feature of resemblance be- 
 tween the Apocalypse and Gospel; e. g. Gosp. 3: 22. 5: 1, 14. 6: 1. 
 7:1. 13:7. 19:38. 21: 1. Apoc. 1: 19. 4:1. 7:1,9. 9:12. 15:5. 18:1. 
 19: 1. 20:3. Luke occasionally employs the same formula; but not 
 with the frequency that is common to the two books just named. The 
 Gospel also employs \iEza zovzo, in three or four instances, in the same 
 sense as gsza ravza. Of course we might expect to find in the Gospel 
 a greater variety of usage in respect to the particles, or words equiva- 
 lent to them, than in the Apocalypse, which is thoroughly pervaded by 
 the Hebrew element. 
 
 (15) The Apocalypse frequently employs Hebrew words, and then 
 adds a Greek explanation of them ; which John also does in his Gos- 
 pel. E. g. Rev. 3: 14. 9: 11. 12: 9. 20: 2. 22: 20. Gosp. 1: 39, 42, 43. 
 9:7. 19:13,17. This is occasionally done elsewhere ; but the frequen- 
 cy in these books is a circumstance worthy of note. 
 
 (16) rgdcpEiv, followed by eig before the noun signifying the object 
 on which the writing is made, is peculiar to the Apocalypse and Gospel ; 
 e. g. Apoc. 1: 11. Gosp. 8: 6, 8. This is such a speciality in construc- 
 tion as merits particular notice ; elsewhere the Dative with iv is em- 
 ployed to designate the like relation, e. g. 1 Cor. 5: 9. 
 
 (17) That the doctrine of perseverance is common to both writings, 
 may readily be supposed. It is not merely because it is found in both, 
 that I reason in favour of sameness of authorship ; but because the mode 
 in part of expressing the sentiment, even when mingled with a highly 
 figurative context, in the Apocalypse, bears a resemblance to John’s 
 method. Thus Rev. 3: 12, ov prj i^s'hd-ri hi, may be compared with 
 
OF JOHN AS THE AUTHOR. 
 
 409 
 
 Ep. 2: 19, where s&jX&ov l| iyiwv is said of heretics. Gosp. 6: 37. comp. 
 10: 28, 29. 
 
 (18) The use of Gijyafvco in Gosp. 12: 33. 18: 32. 21: 19, and in 
 Apoc. 1:1, may deserve a passing notice, inasmuch as the word is found 
 but twice elsewhere in the New Testament, viz. Acts 11: 28. 25: 27. 
 
 (19) The neuter gender is used to express rational beings, in Gosp. 
 6: 37, 39. 17: 2, 10. So XTiGya in Rev. 5: 13 al. ; ndv, 21: 27. 
 
 (20) If did with Acc. as indicative of means, instrumentality, is to be 
 admitted in the New Testament, (and I think it must be), it would seem 
 to be confined to the writings of John ; at least other cases are some- 
 what doubtful. See Apoc. 12: 11, dux to atpa and did top loyov ; 13: 
 14, did t d GiyieTa. Gosp. 6: 57. But even in these cases, the instru- 
 mental sense is doubted by some. See Win. Gramm. § 53. c. 
 
 (21) John, Gosp. 19: 34 — 37, has given an account of piercing the 
 Saviour’s side with a spear ; and he only has given it. To this he ap- 
 plies the prediction in Zech. 12: 10, “They shall look on him whom 
 *njW ? they have pierced .” John renders this last Hebrew word by i^s- 
 xt'vTtjGctv, while the Seventy have av{d wv xarcaQpriGavzo ; having pro- 
 bably read the Heb. by an easy mistake, of and "i . Aquila, Sym- 
 machus, and Theodotion, all translate by HgEXEvzijGav ; but they were 
 posterior to the Apocalypse and Gospel. Apoc. 1: 7 exhibits the same 
 version as in the Gospel. As this version must be the effect of translat- 
 ing de novo , it looks much like the same hand in both passages. Ewald, 
 in order to avoid the force of this, suggests that the Septuagint may 
 have once read i^exevzrjGav, and been afterwards altered ; also that two 
 different persons might have hit upon the same translation. Either of 
 these cases is possible ; but the first is wholly improbable. And inas- 
 much as John is the only Evangelist who gives an account of piercing 
 the side of the Saviour, and who applies the passage in Zechariah to 
 this occurrence, it looks very much like the same hand in both passages, 
 and like the same mind appreciating the circumstance of the wounded 
 side in the same way. On Ewald’s ground, I do not see how the Sept. 
 Version can ever be appealed to in such cases. The different construc- 
 tions in the Gospel and Apocalypse, oxpEzcu eig ov and oxpEzai sig avzov , 
 in connection with i^EXEvzrjGav, are occasioned merely by the construc- 
 tion of the respective sentences in which they stand, and make nothing 
 in favour of different translators. 
 
 We come now to those traits which might be ranged under the cate- 
 gory of doctrinal. It is my principal object to bring into view those 
 things which have respect to the character and work of the Redeemer ; 
 for most of what there is in the book, which is of a special doctrinal na- 
 ture, has reference more or less to the great Head of the church, who 
 leads on his armies to victory. 
 
 YOL. i. 52 
 
410 § 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 (22) The appellation Xoyog, as distinctive of person, occurs only in the 
 Gospel, Epistle, and Apocalypse. Thus Gosp. 1: 1, 14. Ep. 1:1. 5: 7. 
 Apoc. 19:13. When Lucke says, that ‘John nowhere names Christ 
 Xoyog lov fteov, as the Apocalypse does ; might not one reply and say : 
 John nowhere says Xoyog rijg Jo orjg except in Ep. 1: 1, and is it there- 
 fore to be argued that John the evangelist did not write the Epistle ? 
 The truth is, that no other writer of the New Testament uses at all the 
 personal appellative in question ; and it seems to be purely Johannean. 
 That as an appellation of a person, it has the like sense in the Gospel, 
 Epistle, and Apocalypse, there can be no room for doubt. In the Gos- 
 pel, John attaches to it various considerations, some of them of a specu- 
 lative, high, and mysterious nature. But in the Apocalypse, the nature 
 of the case does not permit him to theologize. The circumstance of such 
 a usage is entitled to our special consideration. 
 
 (23) The Christology of the Apocalypse, in respect to the dependence 
 of the Saviour on God the Father for his doctrines and instructions, is 
 strikingly in unison with that of John. In Rev. 1:1, the revelation of 
 Jesus Christ is asserted to be that which God gave him, in order that he 
 might teach it to others. Let the reader now compare Gosp. 17: 7, 8. 
 5: 19, 20. 7: 16. 8: 28. 12: 49. 14: 10, and he will see how exactly this 
 shade of meaning agrees in both books. Elsewhere in the New Testa- 
 ment different modes of expressing this relation may be found ; but they 
 are unfrequent, and wanting in the special resemblance here indicated. 
 
 (24) The views of the Gospel and Apocalypse respecting the dignity 
 and glory of the Saviour, are of the same cast, each elevating him to the 
 highest degree. Thus in the Gosp. 1: 1 — 18. 5: 20 — 29. 6: 62. 8: 54 
 — 58. 10: 28 — 30. 12: 41. 17: 1 — 5. Comp. Rev. 1: 5 seq. 3: 21. 5: 6 
 —13. 7: 17. 11: 15. 12: 5. 14: 1. 19:10—13. 21: 23. 22: 13—16. In 
 2: 17 the implication is, that his name is equivalent to njitj, 
 
 (25) That Christ is a Saviour for all the human race, Jews and Gen- 
 tiles, is an idea frequent in John and in the Apocalypse, Gosp. 3: 16. 
 10: 16. 11: 51, 52. 12: 32. Ep. 2: 2. 4: 14. Apoc. 5: 9. 7: 9. 21: 25, 
 26. 22: 2. This doctrine is common in the writings of Paul ; but the 
 shape of it in the books above named, is different from that in Paul’s 
 Epistles. 
 
 (26) The omniscience of Christ is often alluded to both in the Gos- 
 pel and in the Apocalypse, Gosp. 1: 49. 2: 24, 25. 4: 17, 18. 6: 61, 64, 
 70. 13: 1, 11, 18, 21. 16: 29, 30. 21: 17. Apoc. 1: 1. 2: 2, 9, 13, 19, 
 23. 3: 1. 8: 15. Why Bretschneider and Schott should say, that the 
 Apocalypse represents Christ only as knowing the sQya, the external 
 works, of men,- while the Gospel represents him as searching the heart, 
 I know not. Rev. 2: 23 says : “ All the churches shall know, that I 
 [ Christ] am he who searches the reins and the hearts, and I will give to 
 
§ 23. RESULT. 
 
 411 
 
 every one of you according to your works.” Besides, sgya is not to be 
 taken in the limited sense of external works merely. It includes the 
 character of those works ; which can be estimated only by a knowledge 
 of the state of mind that accompanied them. 
 
 (27) The piacular death of Christ is a doctrine which pervades the 
 Gospel, Epistle, and Apocalypse, and in a similar way. As examples 
 I refer only to a few cases. Gosp. 1: 29, 36. 3: 16. 6: 51. 10: 15, 18. 
 Ep. 1: 7. 2:2. 4: 10. Apoc. 1: 5. 5: 9. 7: 14. 12: 11. 14: 4. This doc- 
 trine is indeed taught by nearly all the writers of the New Testament ; 
 but the form in which it is elsewhere developed, differs somewhat from 
 the Johann ean. 
 
 It were easy to extend the comparison that we have been making to 
 many other particulars both of language and of doctrine. This has in- 
 deed been already done by Schulze, Donker Curdus, and others. But 
 I have not much confidence in arguments of this nature, when pushed 
 beyond moderate limits. In fact, a considerable portion of the argu- 
 ments of such a kind, if indeed they may be called arguments, which are 
 employed either in assailing or defending the apostolic origin of the 
 Apocalypse, weigh but little in the estimation of those who are familiar 
 with topics of such a nature. The reasons for such a judgment upon 
 the case I shall give in the sequel, when we come to the inquiry : What 
 is the result of the internal evidence ? To this we are now ready to 
 come ; asking the liberty, however, before the answer is specifically 
 made out, of premising various considerations of which we ought to take 
 cognizance, and which should have their proper influence in making up 
 our minds as to the final result. 
 
 § 23. Result. 
 
 And now what says critical judgment and conscience ? A 
 question differently answered, as it appears, by different persons. In- 
 deed, such is the case before us, that we can hardly expect unanimity 
 among critics at present. In Germany, as one might almost conclude 
 from a survey of the late writers, they seem to be .approaching to an 
 agreement in opinion, that the Apocalypse is not to be attributed to 
 John the Evangelist. Yet very recently a number of writers here and 
 there have come forward in vindication of its Johannean origin. How 
 the question is and will be decided, would seem in many cases to stand 
 intimately connected with a kind of general judgment concerning the 
 Apocalypse, which is based upon its mysterious form and contents, and 
 upon preconceived notions of its obscurity and inutility to the church, 
 rather than on any profound critical examination of the whole matter. 
 
 Such was notoriously the judgment of Luther. In his Preface to the 
 
412 
 
 § 23. RESULT. 
 
 Apocalypse, which he at first printed as an apocryphal book, he says $ 
 “ More than one thing presents itself in this book, as a reason why I 
 deem it to be neither apostolical nor prophetic. First, and most of all, 
 that the apostles do not concern themselves with visions, but prophesy 
 in plain and unadorned words ; as Peter, Paul, and Christ in the Gos- 
 pel, do ; for it belongs to the apostolic office, clearly and without simile 
 or vision to speak respecting Christ and his work. Moreover, there is 
 no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who is 
 through and through occupied with visions ; so that I almost imagine to 
 myself a fourth book of Ezra before me, and certainly can find no rea- 
 son for believing that it [the Apocalypse] was composed by the influence 
 of the Holy Spirit.” — After suggesting some objections to the claims 
 which the Apocalypse makes for itself, he proceeds : “ Let every one 
 make up his opinion respecting it [the Apocalypse], as he judges best. 
 My mind cannot adapt itself to the book, and it is reason enough for me 
 not to prize it very highly, that Christ is neither taught nor acknow- 
 ledged in it ; which is the great business of an apostle.” 
 
 This last reason of Luther is, as I have before remarked, the most 
 extraordinary of all ; for if there be any book in the New Testament, 
 which is all Christ , from beginning to end, that book is the Apocalypse. 
 His coming, his kingdom, his triumph over all enemies, his protection 
 of his suffering people, his atoning blood, its universal efficacy, his ma- 
 jesty, his omniscience, his omnipotence, his judgment of the world, his 
 magnificent preparation for the future blessedness of the saints — in a 
 word, his coming in all its glory and excellence, with all its present and 
 future results — these are the themes, the constant unchanging themes, 
 of the Apocalypse. Are his enemies brought upon the scene of action ? 
 It is but to display his power and glory in subduing and humbling them. 
 Is the world of light and love opened to his faithful followers ? It is he 
 who has opened it ; he “ who has redeemed them to God by his blood, 
 out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation ; he who has 
 made them kings and priests unto God forever and ever.” 
 
 To say, moreover, that there are no visions in the Gospels, in Peter, 
 and in Paul, sounds strangely in our ears. Follow Peter in the book 
 of Acts; and see what he says in 2 Pet. 1: 18 seq. Follow Paul, also, 
 in the book of Acts ; and consult him in 2 Cor. xii. Brief, indeed, are 
 the accounts of trances and visions, and not protracted like those in the 
 Apocalypse. But who can show the impossibility, or the improbability, 
 of a book mainly or purely prophetic , in the New Testament ? And if 
 so, why is not the costume to be prophetic ? When Luther says, that 
 ‘ no prophet even of the Old Testament so indulges in visions as the 
 author of the Apocalypse,’ is this correct, when applied to Dan. vii — xii, 
 i. e. the prophetic part of the book ? And is not Ezekiel an almost un- 
 
§ 23 . RESULT. 
 
 413 
 
 interrupted series of visions ? And so of Zech. i — vi. The “ plain and 
 unadorned words,” which Luther insists on as characteristic of the apos- 
 tles’ teaching, and also of the Saviour’s, if meant to exclude tropical lan- 
 guage, and parable, and similitude, is a mistake sufficiently obvious. 
 Such a continuous series of symbols cannot, indeed, be found in any 
 other book of the New Testament ; but what other book is prophetic ? 
 
 That Luther afterwards modified his opinion, in the progress of his 
 controversy with “ the scarlet beast,” is well known. But his opinion, 
 as an affair of criticism , is hardly to be spoken of here. Nothing can 
 be more evident, than that he had not well studied the book which he 
 condemns ; for otherwise he could not have so misconceived of its con- 
 tents. I mention his case here again, merely because it casts light on 
 the grounds on which the sentence of condemnation, in respect to the 
 book before us, sometimes rests. Luther is not alone in forming a judg- 
 ment of this character, and on like grounds. 
 
 In quite recent times, the Apocalypse has received but a small share 
 of critical attention in Germany. In England and America, nearly all 
 the writers upon it have assumed more the character of prophets than 
 of critics. They make it a syllabus of universal history , civil and ec- 
 clesiastical ; and each finds the corresponding events, according to fancy 
 or traditional exegesis. There is, of course, no end to diversity of 
 opinion, and no basis on which any one theory can be firmly built. So 
 much have a priori views, and traditional views of one kind and another, 
 guided the decision of most writers in regard to the supposed contents 
 of the book, and also in respect to the origin and authority of the book 
 itself. 
 
 It scarcely need be said, that we are to guard ourselves against every- 
 thing of this kind, when we come to make up our final judgment re- 
 specting the origin and character of the book before us. Whether the 
 book may stand or fall, can be decided, and ought to be decided, on no 
 other ground than that of argument and reason such as sound criticism 
 can approve. Our prejudices, our theology, our apprehensions of the 
 unprofitableness, or even of the evil tendency of the mysterious and the 
 undefined which seem to pervade the Apocalypse, ought not to control 
 our judgment, whether the apostle John wrote the book. The evidence 
 does not depend on our subjective feelings, but on objective facts and 
 testimony. 
 
 Thus much will be conceded by every impartial and critical inquirer. 
 But how shall all be brought to pass the same sentence in respect to the 
 weight of internal and external evidence ? This is a matter which, at 
 present, seems to be beyond the reach of any one. But while I doubt 
 not, that many will not accede to the opinion which I have formed re- 
 specting the authorship of the Apocalypse, it will not be out of place 
 
414 
 
 § 23. RESULT. 
 
 for me to suggest some specific grounds or reasons, why I think that 
 less dependence is to be placed on the internal evidence, conditioned as 
 it now is, than most of the recent critical investigators are wont to put 
 upon it. 
 
 (1) There is no man of talent, who has a ready flow of words at his 
 
 command, and employs himself with any frequency in writing, who 
 will always confine himself to the same round of diction and phraseolo- 
 gy, even when expressing the same thoughts. Occasionally his per- 
 sonal idiom (if I may so speak) will make its appearance. There are 
 some general qualities of style also, such as perspicuity, energy, brevity 
 of expression, and the opposite qualities, which will, for the most part, 
 extend themselves to the writings in general of any individual ; quali- 
 ties that often result more from personal feeling, than from any influence 
 of mere education over one’s style. As a general principle, the traits of 
 one piece of composition will develope themselves in another which is 
 from the same hand, provided the pieces are written nearly at the same 
 time, in like circumstances, and on kindred topics. But how numer- 
 ous are the examples, both in poetry and prose, of persons who have 
 written some one or more pieces with great spirit and power, and who 
 have never, before or afterwards, achieved anything in the way of 
 composition that will bear comparison with those pieces, either in re- 
 spect to matter or manner ? The diversity in this respect is exceedingly 
 great. There are men, who form their habits of expression even in 
 early youth, and cleave to them everywhere and at all times through life. 
 There are others, who not only change very much at different periods 
 of life and practice, but who are so influenced by reading and thinking, 
 that they are always changing their style in some degree. No univer- 
 sal maxim can be laid down, in respect to mutability of style. Exam- 
 ples in abundance can easily be produced, seemingly adequate to estab- 
 lish opposite conclusions in respect to this subject. This ought to teach 
 us caution as to relying upon any uniform and established principle in 
 relation to this matter. Uniformity , even as a general thing, cannot 
 
 well be established. 
 
 (2) If such uniformity might be established as a general principle in 
 respect to prose, or in regard to poetry, i. e. in respect to each particu- 
 lar kind of composition by itself considered, yet it would prove little or 
 nothing in respect to the different compositions of poetry and prose. A 
 man of small talent and very limited resources might write poetry and 
 prose, indeed, in very nearly the same way. Of his poetry it might be 
 said : Nisi pede differt , sermo merits* All his productions, in such a 
 case, might have one and the same stamp, easily recognized and almost 
 surely distinguished. But was John a man of this character ? Does 
 the speculative and doctrinal character of his Gospel develope a mere or- 
 
§23. RESULT. 
 
 415 
 
 dinary and common-place thinker ? Or does the very frequent use of 
 metaphor and trope in this book, show him to have been a man of slug- 
 gish or barren imagination ? Methinks the man on whose bosom Jesus 
 leaned , and whom Jesus loved , must have had some rare and striking 
 qualities. And who so fit a person as hef to entrust with the deeply in- 
 teresting disclosures of the Apocalypse ? 
 
 It is a conceded point, as has often been mentioned, that the Apoca- 
 lypse is virtually a book of poetry — of prophetic Hebrew poetry, in 
 regard to its costume. As we have already seen, no book in the New 
 Testament has so much Hebraism in it, or leans so much on the Old 
 Testament, in respect to its form and manner, as the Apocalypse. 
 Such being notoriously the fact, does it not follow, almost as a matter of 
 course, that this book must differ, in a great variety of respects, from a 
 book of didactic discourses, or a plain and familiar epistle of caution, 
 warning, and exhortation ? To suppose that John must exhibit the 
 same thoughts, phrases, and words, in each of these very diverse com- 
 positions, is to suppose him to have been a very common-place writer, 
 and very dull in his apprehension of things, or of the proper manner of 
 representing them. In fact, the diversity of style, in such a case, 
 would depend on several things, viz., on the different degrees of excite- 
 ment in the writer’s mind, on the different Circumstances in which he 
 was placed when he wrote, or the difference of his theme, and on the 
 taste and talent of the writer. I do not mean to exclude the idea of 
 inspiration. I believe and admit it. But nothing is more certain, at 
 the same time, than that the sacred writers both of the Old Testament 
 and of the New, have all developed their own respective personal traits 
 and talents as conspicuously as the Latin, Greek, or English writers 
 have done. Inspiration does not subdue or conceal all that is personal 
 and characteristic. I might perhaps even say, that it serves to bring it 
 out more prominently to view. We need not hesitate, therefore, to 
 speak of the diverse traits of John’s writings, as being the natural re- 
 sult of the diverse compositions, and of the different circumstances in 
 which they were written, as well as of the probably different periods of 
 time when they were undertaken. I know of no argument against 
 this mode of reasoning, which would not banish from the Bible all dis- 
 tinction of style, and reduce all its very various compositions to one and 
 the same standard as to their aesthetical character. 
 
 I am aware that Lucke has more than once cautioned us not to rely 
 on any difference of time , (which would amount to anything in the way 
 of affecting the style of John), between the writing of the Apocalypse 
 and of the Gospel and Epistle. Yet the probability of considerable 
 difference, I hardly think can be reasonably denied ; and the progress 
 of John, as to familiarity with the Greek, ad interim , must have been 
 
416 § 23. RESULT. 
 
 considerable. All these things are at least to be taken into view, in 
 making our final estimate. 
 
 (3) There is not, as I verily believe, a single Epistle of Paul, which 
 might not be rejected from the canon for want of genuineness, in case 
 the arguments against it might be made out in the same way as they 
 are against the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse. We will take for 
 example one of the least controverted of all the Pauline epistles, viz. 
 the first Epistle to the Corinthians. For the purpose of illustrating my 
 meaning, I must crave the liberty merely to touch upon some of the ar- 
 guments, which might be brought forward against the genuineness of 
 this undoubted epistle. 
 
 (a) ‘ It is a most extraordinary affair, and yet matter of fact, that 
 there are, in this epistle of only sixteen chapters (many of which are 
 short), no less than 230 anal* ley opera, i. e. words never found in any 
 other of Paul’s epistles. How was it possible that the same writer 
 should have so far departed from the usual circle of his diction, within 
 bounds so narrow ?’ — This mode of argumentation is not indeed formal- 
 ly brought forward, at present, in respect to the Apocalypse, but it is 
 virtually so, when appeal is made to so many words found in the Apoca- 
 lypse, and not in the Gospel and Epistle. Such an appeal can prove 
 nothing ; or if it does, it proves a great deal too much. E. g. in the 
 brief epistle to the Philippians may be found fifty-four anal jf Xey opera ; 
 in Galatians, fifty-seven ; in Ephesians and Colossians, one hundred and 
 forty-three ; in 1 Timothy, eighty-one ; in 2 Timothy, sixty-three ; in 
 Titus, sixty -four, etc. (See Note in Kolthoflf, p. 110). And so it must 
 be with every writer, who has anything to say which he has not said 
 before. Paul and John fairly belong, in my apprehension, to this class 
 of writers. But, 
 
 ( b ) I have been through the first Epistle to the Corinthians seriatim , 
 and sought out all the words and phrases and thoughts which are pecu- 
 liar to this epistle ; and such a list of them have I found and made, that 
 one could at first scarcely believe the result, and yet believe that the 
 epistle belongs to Paul, provided the mode of reasoning in question be 
 adopted. I will not repeat here, what I have elsewhere (Comm, on 
 Heb. p. 219 seq. edit. 2) submitted to public view. But there is not a 
 chapter, in which one cannot find either words or phrases nowhere else 
 employed by Paul, or else phraseology which expresses an idea that he 
 has signified in a different way in his other writings. Such words and 
 phrases not only amount to some scores, but to several hundreds. There 
 is scarcely a case of phraseology in the Apocalypse, which is appealed 
 to in order to disprove its apostolic origin, the like of which is not re- 
 peatedly to be found in the epistle before us. If the reader has any 
 doubt of this, I must refer him, for the solution of his doubt, to the ex- 
 
§ 23 . RESULT. 
 
 417 
 
 hibition of words and phrases which is made in the work above referred 
 to. Indeed the instances are so numerous, that it would be out of place 
 to repeat them here. At all events, the facts just stated cannot be call- 
 ed in question by any one, who will thoroughly attend to and examine 
 the subject. Then, 
 
 (c) 1 On the score of doctrine , there is still more objection to be made 
 to the Pauline origin of this epistle. First the absence of favourite 
 Pauline subjects of discussion is striking. What is there here of the 
 great question about justification by faith without the deeds of law ? 
 What respecting the vanity and folly and presumption of Judaizing 
 teachers ? What of the worthlessness of Jewish rites and ceremonies? 
 What of the equal rights of Jews and Gentiles in the Gospel- Church ? 
 Then, secondly, we find the discussion of many topics here, which are 
 not elsewhere touched upon. The subject of spiritual gifts, although 
 elsewhere adverted to, is nowhere placed in such a light as here. Then 
 comes the marriage relation, which must have presented the like ques- 
 tions in other churches, but of which Paul says nothing like what is 
 said in this epistle. Where has this apostle given such minute direc- 
 tions about the dress, demeanor, and rights of women, as are in the first 
 to the Corinthians ? Where has he discoursed, in the like way, upon the 
 Lord’s Supper ; on the support of preachers ; and on the comparative 
 influence of faith, hope, and love ? Where has he said anything about 
 the resurrection of the dead, in such a peculiar manner as he has dis- 
 cussed this subject in 1 Cor. xv. ? Where else has he intimated any- 
 thing about being baptized for the dead ? 1 Cor. 15 : 29. Above all, 
 where has he or any other sacred writer, said anything about the subjec- 
 tion of the Son to the Father , at the final consummation of all things, like 
 to that which is said in 1 Cor. 15: 24 — 28 ? Where has either Paul, or 
 any other sacred writer, elsewhere taught that the saints will judge the 
 world , and will judge angels , as is taught in 1 Cor. 6: 1 — 3 ? Where, in 
 Paul’s epistles, is a first and second resurrection taught ; as it seems 
 plainly to be in 1 Cor. 15 : 23, 24?’ (Comp. dnaQ/fi . . . ’insita . . . shot, 
 as noting distinct and successive events in their order ; and see De 
 Wette’s Comm, in loc.). 
 
 Such is the array of objections which lie upon the face of the first 
 epistle to the Corinthians. And this list might easily be swelled out to 
 a much greater extent, if a doubter in the genuineness of this epistle 
 should feel so disposed toward it, as Corrodi, Oeder, Sender, and many 
 others, have done toward the Apocalypse. Nothing is easier than to 
 get up such questions, and bring forward such difficulties. Every an- 
 cient or modern writing is exposed to them. And if, in themselves, 
 they were sufficient to determine the question of genuineness, we should 
 vol. i. 53 
 
418 
 
 § 23. RESULT. 
 
 have but few genuine writings in all antiquity, among authors who have 
 written much and on a variety of subjects. 
 
 It is not my impression, that a man of so much candour as Liicke 
 seems to possess, means to write in such a spirit as Corrodi and Sem- 
 ler. But having taken his position with so full assurance (see p. 285), 
 he cannot but feel an interest to press into his service all that can well 
 be employed in such a way. For example ; when he comes (p. 369 
 seq.) to review the words and phrases in the Apocalypse, which are 
 alleged to be like others in John, he lays hold of the most minute cir- 
 cumstances of construction in the context in order to make out a differ- 
 ence, even in cases where this construction was required by the nature 
 of the enunciation. The same process applied to the first epistle to the 
 Corinthians would make an enormous list of discrepancies from Paul 
 elsewhere. In fact it is my full persuasion, after having gone through 
 such a minute and laborious process of comparison, that the internal evi- 
 dence against the genuineness of the first to the Corinthians is decidedly 
 greater, whether we refer to diction and phraseology or to doctrine, than 
 the like evidence in the Apocalypse is, against its apostolic origin. Any 
 man who holds these two writings in the balance, if he decides against 
 either on the ground of internal evidence, must decide against both. 
 
 Yet Liicke, Ewald, Schott, De Wette, Credner, and others, all assign 
 the first Ep. to Corinthians to Paul. Why ? Because of the external 
 evidence, and because there are many resemblances, after all, to the style 
 and sentiments of Paul, scattered throughout the epistle. They are 
 satisfied that Paul, in treating of subjects diverse from those which are 
 discussed in his other epistles, must have had occasion for different 
 words and different modes of expression. They allow this liberty. If 
 now they do this, and if they justly allow it ; and allow it in respect to 
 a mere prosaic epistle, called forth by the exigencies of the church to 
 whom it is addressed, and thus resembling in its occasion the other epis- 
 tles of Paul ; how can they refuse to prophetic poetry, modelled closely 
 after that of the Hebrews, the like liberty of discrepancy from other 
 prosaic compositions, as to diction and phraseology, and as to the circle of 
 ideas and subjects introduced to the reader’s consideration ? A fortiori 
 such a liberty of differing from prosaic composition must be conceded to 
 the writer of such a book. I would ask for no more than any man, 
 who has well studied the subject in regard to the first Ep. to Corinthians, 
 will feel bound to concede, in order to maintain the genuineness of 
 that epistle. 
 
 We may safely and readily admit, that there are some, or (if it be 
 insisted on) many discrepancies of diction and phraseology, and differ^ 
 ences as to doctrines developed, between the Apocalypse and the two 
 books of John. Yet how all this is to prove that John did not write 
 
§ 23 . RESULT. 
 
 419 
 
 the Apocalypse, I do not see. Is it so, that Luke did not write the 
 Acts of the Apostles, because there are so many words and phrases in 
 it, which are not in his Gospel ? And specially, because in Acts the 
 development of doctrines, both in respect to manner and matter, differs 
 so much from that in the Gospel ? Such reasoning, then, proves too 
 much. It leaves us no safe harbour or place in which we may anchor 
 our ship. We must put out to sea, and be contented to be forever toss- 
 ing there, without coming to anchoring ground or to a harbour. 
 
 But I shall be asked : ‘ Whether there is not such a thing, after all, 
 as discrepancy of diction and style, which is so great as to be decisive 
 against sameness of authorship?’ Undoubtedly there is. And yet, 
 there are many cases of this nature, where a cautious man will be slow 
 to decide on such a ground. Who does not know, as has already been 
 intimated, the contradictory and confident judgments that have been pro- 
 claimed respecting the book of Deuteronomy ; the prologue and epi- 
 logue of Job and the speeches of Elihu ; many of the Psalms ; almost 
 one half of Isaiah ; the larger portion of Zechariah ; the first two chap- 
 ters of Matthew; the 21st chapter of John; the epistle to the Ephe- 
 sians ; the pastoral epistles of Paul ; the epistle to the Hebrews, and 
 many other parts of the sacred books ? Did not Wolf persuade half of 
 Europe, a few years since, that many parts of the Iliad were spurious, 
 and came from hands much later than Homer’s ? There is no end of 
 this, and the like. Any author of talent, who has any variety in his 
 thoughts, diction, and phraseology, always exposes himself to a charge 
 of the like kind. And there are charges enough before the world, which 
 are of such a nature as should teach us great caution and wariness in 
 respect to deciding upon such grounds. It is not, it cannot be, an easy 
 thing to determine how much a writer may differ from his former self, 
 when he takes up a new theme, and is himself placed in circumstances 
 that are altogether peculiar. Writers of some eminence in criticism 
 could be easily named, who have distinguished, for example, the first 
 chapter of Isaiah into three different compositions, and seem even to 
 doubt whether they are to be attributed to the same author. And so of 
 many other compositions in the Old Testament and in the New. Vo- 
 gel, for example, assigns different portions of the Apocalypse to differ- 
 ent authors. In particular, he finds such a diversity from the rest of the 
 book in the epistles to the seven churches, that he cannot imagine they 
 came from the same hand as the remainder of the Apocalypse. Bleek 
 assigns chap, xii — xxi. to a period different from that of the preceding 
 part of the book. But Schott and Ewald and Liicke all regard such 
 views as destitute of any probability. How now can the subjective 
 feelings and taste of different men constitute a standard on which we 
 can rely ? It does not follow, indeed, that there is no true taste, because 
 
420 
 
 § 23 . RESULT. 
 
 there is so often a false one ; no true judgment and criticism, because 
 haste and rashness so often usurp their place. But it does follow, that, 
 taught by examples of this kind almost without number, we should pro- 
 ceed slowly and moderately and cautiously in such matters ; specially 
 when we are in opposition to all historical and traditionary evidence. 
 Who does not know, that the book of Ecclesiastes, for example, has not 
 only been assigned to some author much later than Solomon, but that 
 it has been set down by many deep into Rabbinic times, on the alleged 
 ground of its Chaldeo-Habbinic style. Yet very recently Herzfeld has 
 shown, that only some half a dozen words in it have any claim to be so 
 ranked ; and even some of these have a doubtful claim of this nature. 
 That Solomon wrote it, is not indeed probable, on many grounds. Yet 
 the diction and phraseology are much less decisive of this, than has 
 been supposed by many for these some sixty or seventy years. The 
 simple truth is, that first impressions on such subjects are not to be 
 much relied upon. It needs a wide acquaintance with diction and 
 phraseology, with the circle of common language and what is peculiar 
 to this or that author, to decide with any just claim to credence and re- 
 spect. Many and many a judgment of this kind is passed, without the 
 patient and careful and protracted examination which is requisite. How 
 can we trust to such decisions ? 
 
 I allow with all readiness, that no one can read through the Gospel 
 and Epistle of John continuously, and then read the Apocalypse, with- 
 out a distinct and somewhat strong feeling of discrepance between the 
 manner of these books. The Apocalypse introduces him into a world 
 entirely new. Vision and symbol and trope and supernatural agents 
 are everywhere to be seen, and little else besides them can be found. 
 This difference of position, and of theme, and of object, is not at first 
 fully appreciated. We refer the striking discrepancy rather to the man- 
 ner of the writer himself than to his theme. By degrees, however, we 
 may begin to bring this into the account. We perceive the Hebrew 
 idiom everywhere — the close following in the steps of Daniel, and Eze- 
 kiel, and Zechariah. We begin, at least we should begin, to make all 
 due allowance for this. Finally we come to passages and expressions 
 which will, here and there, compare well with John’s Gospel or Epistle. 
 We even find some very striking resemblances, such as the fiaQTVQia, 
 the d^ivog, and others. We find that the discrepancies , on further ex- 
 amination, have been greatly magnified ; that they have been pushed to 
 an excess, which, if we might argue in the same way, would destroy the 
 evidence of genuineness as to any one of Paul’s epistles. We find the 
 writer cooped up, by such rules of criticism, into bounds so narrow, that 
 differences in the modes of expression or diction, in relation to the same 
 subjects, are not allowed him. He is constrained to tread the same 
 
§ 23 . RESULT. 
 
 421 
 
 rounds — to grind in the same mill the same grain, and always to produce 
 the same identical quality of flour. Such is the result of arguing con- 
 fidently in the way that many have lately done, from internal evidence 
 of diction and of style, against the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse. 
 
 And now, once more : What says critical conscience and judgment ? 
 
 I cannot speak for others. Mine says, that the arguments from sim- 
 ilitude of diction, phraseology, and thought, in the Apocalypse, all due 
 allowances being made for the very different nature of the composition, 
 go as far, or nearly as far, toward rendering sameness of authorship pro- 
 bable, as the arguments of the like nature from the discrepancies go to 
 show a diversity of authorship. I do not say that the latter are not 
 more numerous, if we take them as they have been adduced and relied 
 upon. But have we not seen, in the course of the preceding examina- 
 tion, how many of them are without any solid basis ? I repeat it, that 
 no epistle of Paul can stand such a process. Why then should we rely 
 upon it with so much confidence here ? 
 
 But allowing that there is an apparent balance in favour of diversity 
 of authorship, so far as diction and style are concerned ; is it not, at all 
 events, a small balance ? Is not the simplicity of the construction of 
 sentences throughout the Gospel, Epistle, and Apocalypse, a striking 
 evidence in favour of the probability of the same authorship ? It will 
 not be seriously contended, that all the great features of Christian doc- 
 trine are not the same in both books. Nor will the possibility, that 
 John may have been evangelist, a writer of epistles, and a prophet or 
 poet, be called in question by reasonable men. The particular affection 
 which Jesus manifested toward him, is evidence that he possessed strik- 
 ing qualities ; and he may, therefore, have been called to act in different 
 and important offices. 
 
 In a word ; I deem the internal evidence, on which so much reliance 
 is placed, as of quite too dubious a nature to be entitled to full confi- 
 dence. Considered in and by itself, and without any reference to the 
 historical testimony, I should regard it as undecisive ; although my mind 
 might be perplexed by it. But when we take into the account, what is 
 really matter of fact, that in all antiquity there is not a trace of any re- 
 liable historical testimony against the Johannean origin of the Apoca- 
 lypse ; how are we to set aside all this, the best and surest kind of evi- 
 dence, and decide against the apostolic origin merely on the ground of 
 a supposed balance in favour of such a decision, from the internal evi- 
 dence of diction and phraseology and course of thought ? I cannot so 
 decide, without giving up the Pauline origin of 1 Ep. to the Corinthians. 
 There is a number of books in the New Testament canon, which have 
 less decisive evidence in their favour than the Apocalypse. There are 
 few indeed that have more or even as much historical evidence. Let 
 
422 
 
 §24. EXAMINATION OF OTHER VIEWS 
 
 us be consistent. We must either accede to the apostolic origin of the 
 Apocalypse, or show good reason why we do not. The alleged discre- 
 pancies of style, etc., do not, on the whole, seem to me to amount to 
 such a reason. 
 
 With all the evidence that is before me from, history , and all from dic- 
 tion , style , and course of thought , I feel compelled to believe , that the 
 BALANCE IS DECIDEDLY IN FAVOUR OF AN APOSTOLIC ORIGIN* 
 
 § 24. Brief examination of other views respecting authorship. 
 
 We have seen that the Alogi, in the second century, and probably 
 Caius, attributed the Apocalypse to Cerinthus. But to say nothing of 
 the religious views of Cerinthus, so entirely at variance with much that is 
 in the Apocalypse, there ii not the remotest probability that the churches 
 of Asia, omitting the mention of others, would have received a book from 
 Cerinthus, and consented to regard it as the work of John the apostle. 
 One may say what he pleases about the number of apocryphal books 
 in the early periods of the church, and the facility with which a few of 
 them found admission to some of the churches, yet the state of the New 
 Testament canon shows, that reasoning founded on such allegations can- 
 not have much force in the case before us. Where is the book in the 
 New Testament, that was not deemed apostolical , either directly or indi- 
 rectly ? By indirect apostolical books, I mean such books as those of 
 Mark and Luke. The authors of these were apostolical men ; and so 
 the ancients named them. Yet totally improbable as the allegation is, 
 that Cerinthus wrote the Apocalypse, in recent times we find an Oeder, 
 a Semler, a Stroth, a Merkel, a Corrodi, and others, admitting and de- 
 fending it. But this mode of criticism has now gone by, and no further 
 effort is needed in order to refute it. See pp. 336 seq, and 339 seq. 
 above, respecting the Alogi and Caius. 
 
 Others, in recent times, because the author of the Apocalypse is, in 
 many of the Mss., named OtoXoyog in the inscription to the book, have 
 made the supposition, that the John who wrote the book, was some per- 
 son otherwise unknown to us, but who, by his title, is distinguished from 
 John the apostle. But this title is of suspicious authority, and at all 
 events originated in the church long after the Apocalypse was written ; 
 and when applied to the author of the Apocalypse, it was meant merely 
 to designate John as proposing and vindicating the doctrine of the Oebg 
 X oyog. Ballenstedt, the author of the supposition before us, never made, 
 so far as I can learn, any converts of eminence to his opinion. 
 
 Others, in ancient and modern times, have assigned the Apocalypse 
 to John the presbyter at Ephesus ; who is mentioned by Papias, as one 
 from whom he obtained material for his Exegesis. Dionysius of Alex- 
 
RESPECTING AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 423 
 
 andria conjectured that this John might have written the Apocalypse, 
 but he did not affirm it. Eusebius, in his perplexity about the author 
 of the book, suggests the same idea ; Bleek, De Wette, Paulus, Cred- 
 ner and others, have leaned the same way. (See in Cred. Einleit. p. 
 733). But this has already been amply discussed in § 17 ; and no re- 
 petition of such a discussion is here needed. The more I reflect on this 
 opinion, the more improbable and uncertain it seems to be. Liicke and 
 Schott have not ventured to adopt it. 
 
 It is a matter of some interest to inquire, what these last named and 
 more sober men, as well as much better informed in matters pertaining 
 to the Apocalypse, have thought and said in respect to the authorship of 
 the book. Schott (p. 484 Isag.) has given us his view in a few words. 
 In substance it is as follows : ‘ John, while at Patmos, had visions of 
 such a nature as the Apocalypse relates. These he afterwards wrote 
 down, for his own use , in the Aramaean-Hebrew of the times. Some 
 one of the disciples and friends of John, being permitted to read this re- 
 cord, translated it into Greek, making such additions to it, and such ar- 
 rangements of its contents, as gave the book its present artificial shape. 
 At the same time, the new editor expanded many of the thoughts and 
 descriptions, so as to please his own judgment or fancy. The book thus 
 constituted, was substantially John’s ; but th z form and manner and dic- 
 tion often differed from those of John, as exhibited in his Greek works. 
 In this way we may account both for the discrepancies between the 
 Apocalypse and John, and also for the similitudes. The latter are tru- 
 ly Johannean ; and the former owe their peculiarities to the Greek edi- 
 tor of the work.’ 
 
 Thus Schott, with all the gravity becoming the occasion. And now 
 the proof ? Not a trace of such an opinion can be found on record. 
 No ancient critic ever dreamed of such an origin of the book. Not a 
 hint can be found that the Apocalypse ever was written in Hebrew. 
 The internal evidence is strongly against it. The whole then is mere 
 conjecture. Can this guide us in a matter like the present ? 
 
 1 But,’ says Schott, ‘ the internal evidence is so against John the evan- 
 gelist as author, that almost any supposition is as probable as this ; and 
 the one in question is not an unnatural one, while it seemingly reconciles 
 all the discrepancies that now exist. Why is not a supposition, which 
 brings about harmony among so many discords, altogether probable and 
 worthy of reception ?’ 
 
 My answer would be, that it reconciles only a small part of the dis- 
 cords. How does it reconcile the historic testimony in favour of the apos- 
 tle John, which is so uniform during the first three centuries, and which 
 must be more worthy of reliance than any other, although the possibility 
 of mistake be admitted ? And the discords — are not a great proportion 
 
424 
 
 § 24. EXAMINATION OF OTHER VIEWS 
 
 of them dependent merely on the mode of reasoning from diction and 
 style ? And has not this mode plainly admitted and adopted much that 
 is inconclusive and unsatisfactory ? How then can we receive and ad- 
 mit a most important conclusion in criticism, without other evidence than 
 that which rests on such a basis ? More might easily be said ; but I re- 
 serve it for the sequel, in which Liicke’s similar hypothesis will come 
 before us for examination. 
 
 Liicke presents the subject in a manner circumstantially different. 
 He does not suppose John to have committed anything of his visions 
 to writing. But 4 John related them, on his return from Patmos, to some 
 of the Asiatic churches ; as Paul told of his to the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 
 xi. Some intelligent friend and disciple of John reduced this narration 
 to writing, preserving in many cases the Johannean style and manner, 
 and in other cases employing his own. Hence the diversity and resem- 
 blances. Both are accounted for on such a ground.’ 
 
 Candidly he says, at the close of his exposition : “ To be sure this is 
 only a hypothesis, for the support of which all traces of historical tes- 
 timony are wanting;” p. 391. But he goes on to say in its defence, 
 that it reconciles all the contradictory phenomena of the book. Then, 
 in the next place, we have other apocryphal works of the early times, 
 which were composed in a like way, i. e. by prefixing apostolic names 
 to them. He suggests that no one has yet shown, that the book of Dan- 
 iel and 2 Peter do not belong to the same category. He tells us, that 
 the early Christians thought much more of the subject-matter of a book, 
 than they did about the author. The Apocalypse appeared to be from 
 an authentic source ; it addressed itself originally to the exigencies of 
 the times ; and it came into favour in these circumstances, without any 
 definite critical inquiries. 
 
 But why then — if books were so easily admitted into the Canon of 
 the New Testament — why were not the book of Enoch, the Testa- 
 ment of the twelve Patriarchs, the fourth of Ezra, the Epistle of Clem- 
 ent of Rome, and other early books of a similar kind, admitted into the 
 Canon ? If the answer be, that some did admit them, yet the reply is 
 at hand. By the great mass of Christians in the church catholic, they 
 were not admitted. They were sometimes read for edification ; but not 
 as proper Scripture. The New Testament, in regard to this matter, 
 speaks for itself. It speaks not less by its narrow limits as to the num- 
 ber of authors, than it does by the matter which it contains. Where are 
 the conceits, the superstitions, the silly narrations, the puerilities of the 
 apocryphal books, to be found in the New Testament ? The difference 
 between the two classes is exceedingly great. It has often seemed to 
 me, while reading the apocryphal books, that they bear on their very 
 face the stamp of condemnation. I can hardly imagine a more effect- 
 
RESPECTING AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 425 
 
 ual way of convincing one’s self of the marked superiority of the New 
 Testament, than to read and diligently compare with it the early apoc- 
 ryphal books. What was it, now, that occasioned a difference so strik- 
 ing ? And how came the churches to fix upon the canonical books, and 
 to dismiss the others from all competition with them ? I can perceive 
 only one way of answering these questions. Tertullian and Irenaeus 
 have indeed so often answered them, and brought out to view the prin- 
 ciples of the early church as to canonical books, that any other answer 
 is unnecessary. 
 
 But there are other difficulties in the way of admitting Liicke’s hypo- 
 thesis ; difficulties to which he has indeed adverted (p. 393 seq.), but 
 which he has not satisfactorily removed. We have seen that the Apoc- 
 alypse must in all probability have been composed about A. D. 68, i. e. 
 some thirty years before the death of the apostle John. We know, also, 
 that the churches in Asia Minor, addressed in the Apocalypse, were 
 within the circle of John’s evangelical labours. We can have no rea- 
 sonable doubt, that the Apocalypse was first published and read by the 
 churches to whom it was addressed. The epistles and book itself pur- 
 port to be from the pen of a John in banishment at Patmos — from a 
 John who had the care and supervision of the churches addressed by 
 him. It is impossible that the alleged writer of the book should not 
 have been well known to the Asiatic churches of that time. If the 
 Apocalypse was published among them either before or after the return 
 from exile in Patmos, in either case, when John had returned and re- 
 sumed his usual active labours among these same churches, could any- 
 thing have been easier than for them to inquire and ascertain, whether 
 the book addressed and commended to them was really apostolic or not ? 
 It was instinctive to make such inquiries. The churches were solemnly 
 addressed, warned, reproved, and commanded ; the book was commend- 
 ed to their perusal, by the promise of blessings to the diligent and care- 
 ful reader, and the threat of curses to the negligent one, and to every 
 one who should venture to tamper with its contents. How could the 
 churches do less than inquire, whether there was any good foundation 
 for all this, and what their obligations in reality were in respect to the 
 book? Inquiry in this case must terminate in certain knowledge. 
 There was no room for conjectural opinion. 
 
 Have we then one word, from any of these churches, of doubt re- 
 specting the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse ? Not one. Papias, 
 near the close of the first century, had plainly read the book, and made 
 it the basis of his millennial opinions. Andreas and Aretlias assure us, 
 that Papias regarded it as the work of John ; and the very use he made 
 of it serves to confirm this. Papias was indeed a great lover of anec- 
 dote, and had a taste for the marvellous. But the extracts which Eu- 
 vol. i. 54 
 
426 
 
 § 24 . EXAMINATION OF OTHER VIEWS. 
 
 sebius has given us from his 'Etr/yijaeig show, that he was aware of the 
 pains necessary to distinguish true from false reports. Eusebius him- 
 self, although he avers that Papias is OfUKQog rov vovv as to his millen- 
 nial credulity, calls him “ loyiwtaTog and well skilled in the Scriptures.” 
 It is not to be supposed that the bishop of Hierapolis, who was with- 
 in the circle of John’s supervision, had a different opinion about the 
 author of the Apocalypse from that of the churches addressed. Such 
 a supposition would be utterly improbable. In a word ; the churches 
 addressed in the manner of the Apocalypse, and having opportunity to 
 know by what authority, must have inquired and known who it was 
 that addressed them. Report — tradition — from them downwards 
 through all the early ages, lias assigned the Apocalypse to the apostle 
 John. 
 
 Then, if we even put this construction aside, how are we to account 
 for it, that any man within the circle of John’s official duties, should 
 venture to assume his name and use his authority ? If the book was 
 honestly written by another John, why has he not told us who he was, 
 so as to be distinguished from the great apostle ? If another John were 
 the author, how could such a tradition spring up among the very church- 
 es addressed, and be perpetuated, that John the evangelist wrote the 
 Apocalypse ? If he did not — how could any other man be rash enough 
 to suppose that he could escape detection ? If John the apostle neither 
 wrote the book, nor procured another to write it, could any other per- 
 son believe that he himself had authority sufficient among the Asiatic 
 churches, to induce them to receive the book as authoritative, while it 
 was known to be factitious ? And then as to the apostle John — could 
 it be that he would suffer an imposition of this kind to be practised upon 
 the churches under his care, when it was in his power at any moment 
 to expose it ? If we say, as some have done : ‘ The leading thoughts 
 and visions were substantially his, because he had entertained them ; 
 and what was superadded was not inconsistent with his views and feel- 
 ings, and so he let it pass in silence this argument is spoiled by the 
 question : Is this the way of openness and sincerity and integrity ? 
 Why should John encourage others to act a concealed and borrowed 
 part, in so important a matter ? Why did not John, if he meant to pub- 
 lish by another hand, himself superintend the performance, and thus 
 sanction the whole ? How could it be expected that a fictitious book, 
 of such high claims, and whose contents were professedly so important, 
 would gain currency in a region where it was perfectly easy to learn its 
 genetic history ? I do not say that such things as Liicke supposes to 
 have taken place, were impossible ; but how can I say less, than that 
 they are altogether improbable f 
 
 Liicke has suggested, that if it could only be shown that the Apoca- 
 
§ 25. UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 427 
 
 Iypse was written after the death of John, then the whole hypothesis 
 which he has proposed could be easily maintained. In this way he 
 thinks that John xxi. was added, after the death of the Evangelist. 
 But we need not discuss this ; for Liicke has no doubt that the Apoca- 
 lypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. So, if the Apoca- 
 lypse came from another hand than that of the apostle, it must have 
 been some thirty years before his death, during which period all the 
 churches of that region might at any time know who wrote the book, 
 and to what authority it was entitled. Nothing can be more certain, 
 than that the holy earnestness and sincerity everywhere developed in 
 the book, are real and not assumed. I cannot conceive of a fictitious 
 writer of that day, who could preserve such a tone and manner through- 
 out. Nor can I imagine how the dishonesty of employing the apostle’s 
 credit to sanction and render current his work, could have been ap- 
 proved by John, or passed by in silence. The whole matter is attend- 
 ed with too many improbabilities to have claim on our confidence. The 
 problem — if it even be such — that John the apostle wrote the Apoca- 
 lypse, with all its difficulties about diction and phraseology, is quite 
 easy and simple to my mind, in comparison with such a problem as that 
 of Schott and Liicke. 
 
 §25. Unity of the book ; different Opinions examined. 
 
 Grotius, so far as I can ascertain, was the first to suggest that the 
 Apocalypse is a series of visions, written successively, and at periods 
 somewhat distant from each other. Pie grounds this opinion on the dif- 
 ferent accounts we have, in ancient times, of the period of John’s exile, 
 viz., under Claudius, Nero, and Domitian ; and also the different places 
 at which it is said to have been written, viz., Patmos and Ephesus. 
 He assumes the equal credibility of these accounts, and supposes, in 
 order to reconcile all difficulties, that all of them are true, and that John, 
 at different times in exile, may have written some portions of the Apoca- 
 lypse at each time, or soon after ; and that some of it may have been 
 written at Patmos, and some at Ephesus. All this seems to him to be 
 confirmed by the internal divisions of the Apocalypse, e. g. 1: 9. 4: 1. 
 14: 1, etc. The first eleven chapters, he thinks, must have been writ- 
 ten before the destruction of Jerusalem. The last part, specially from 
 chap. xv. onward, must have been written at the time of Vespasian, and 
 Titus, and Domitian. To make out this, he begins the list of the seven 
 kings, mentioned in Rev. 17: 10, with Claudius, because this, according 
 to Epiphanius, is the first date of John’s exile. He divides the whole 
 book into some ten different compositions. 
 
 That the Apocalypse was all written in one day, or at a single sitting, 
 
428 
 
 § 25. UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE, 
 
 no one will reasonably suppose. But that the book is a mere collection 
 of different visions, written at periods widely separated from each other, 
 cannot well be credited by any one who examines the unity of its plan, 
 and the mutual correspondence of its respective parts. Above all, if 
 the idea of trichotomy in it be admitted, (see § 7 above), the hypothesis 
 of Grotius is entirely inadmissible. The general unity of the book is 
 an indispensable ingredient. 
 
 Various as the reports of antiquity are about the time and place of 
 writing the Apocalypse, yet no ancient writer has given a hint that the 
 book was composed at different times. And as to the book itself, there 
 are indeed many transitions in it, in turning from the consideration of 
 one object to another. The most remarkable is at the close of chap. xi. 
 Yet the book gives no intimation of anything more than a mere suc- 
 cession of visions, a succession being necessary to the distinctness of 
 each ; it intimates nothing of long intervals of time between them. It 
 is enough to say, that the nature of the plan requires sequency or suc- 
 cession of revelations ; but there is nothing in the book which might not 
 have been written as well in A. D. 68, and within a short period, as 
 afterwards. Grotius’ manner of reckoning the kings or emperors is 
 wholly gratuitous, and indeed unnatural. There must be some obvious 
 starting point for such a reckoning ; and what so obvious as that of the 
 first emperor? The hypothesis of Grotius does not, indeed, call in 
 question the unity of authorship , but only the unity of time as to the 
 composition, and, almost of course, the unity of general design in the 
 book. Few, however, have adopted the hypothesis in question; and 
 in the present state of criticism in respect to the book, still fewer will 
 be disposed to adopt it. There is nothing in the Apocalypse which 
 urges upon us the belief that it is miscellaneous. The book is of a 
 stamp so uniform throughout, as would seem to forbid the admission of 
 such a view. Compositions of different periods, and on different occa- 
 sions, could not be made so to chime together as do those of the Apoca- 
 lypse. This will be further illustrated in the sequel. 
 
 Vogel, in his VII. Commentationes Apocalypticae, has gone be- 
 yond Grotius. He not only supposes that the Apocalypse was written 
 at different periods, but by different persons. That portion of the 
 Apocalypse included in 1: 9 — 3: 22, i. e. the seven epistles, he thinks 
 was written some years after chap, iv — xi, and probably by the same 
 hand, although he affirms the style of the epistles to be purer Greek. 
 John the apostle, he supposes, may have written these parts of the book, 
 while Rev. 1: 1 — 8 and xii — xxii. were written at a later period and by 
 another person, i. e. by John the presbyter. 
 
 All these suppositions are built on alleged intervals of time between 
 the writing of different parts of the book, and on the assumed discrep- 
 
DIFFERENT OPINIONS EXAMINED. 
 
 429 
 
 ancies of style. I shall merely glance at some of the leading alle- 
 gations. 
 
 ‘ Chap, iv — xi. must have been written before the persecution of Ne- 
 ro, for no allusion is made in it to heathen persecutions.’ — But conced- 
 ing this last assertion, it would only be conceding that the author, who 
 first follows out the Jewish persecution (iv — xi.), and then the heathen 
 one (xii — xix.), has not intermingled them. Why should he? Yet if 
 any one will read carefully chaps, vi. vii, he will find more than one im- 
 plication, that persecution exists out of Judea as well as in it. Yogel 
 thinks that the author of Rev. iv — xi. must be a different person from 
 the author of xii — xxii, because the former gives no intimation of Christ’s 
 future earthly kingdom. If he means by this, a visible terrestrial reign 
 of Christ on earth, as I presume he does, I find this disclosed as little in 
 the second part of the Apocalypse as in the first. All depends on Vo- 
 gel’s exegesis. But apart from this ; why should the author of the 
 Apocalypse mention or allude to everything in the first part of his book, 
 which he has brought forward in the last part ? Will any one demand, 
 that he should merely repeat in the second part what he has said in the 
 first? But more than all, is there not in Rev. 11: 15 an express re- 
 cognition of Christ’s kingdom and reign ? Yea, a recognition of the 
 same kind of kingdom and reign which chap. xx. describes ? And does 
 not chap. 5: 10 make a reference to the same kingdom— one which is 
 not to be mistaken? And does not Rev. 11: 17, 18, exhibit the same 
 sentiment? Nothing can be more unfounded than this objection of Vo- 
 gel. The kingdom to be set up is so evidently the same throughout 
 the book, that this very circumstance is one of the arguments in favour 
 of its unity. 
 
 When Vogel, in order to carry his point, suggests, that there is a 
 great difference of style between chap, iv — xi. and the remainder of the 
 book ; that the former exhibits a truly poetical spirit, while the latter 
 shows great indigence and even poverty of thought ; that the former ex- 
 hibits appropriate order and congruity, while the latter brings to view 
 much that is inappropriate, makes useless repetitions, and presents ima- 
 gery revolting to the taste ; it is quite plain, that all this depends on his 
 subjective feelings and taste. Where, in the second part of the Apoca- 
 lypse, is there anything that approaches so near the incredible and the 
 monstrous, as the locusts and the horsemen in chap. ix. of the first part ? 
 As to the rest, it seems quite plain to me, that there is, in the latter 
 part, an advance upon the variety of expression and imagery in the 
 first part. Conformity to the author’s general plan has, indeed, occasion- 
 ed some considerable resemblance between the description of the events 
 that follow the sounding of the trumpets (viii.), and of those that suc- 
 ceed the pouring out of the vials (xvi.). But in many other respects 
 
430 
 
 § 25. UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE, 
 
 there is a great variety of representation ; see xiv. xvii. xviii. xix. 
 Even Vogel himself is obliged to confess, that he cannot point out any 
 striking differences between the style of the two main parts of the Apoca- 
 lypse. And in fact one may well say, that if there ever was evidence 
 of one and the same hand, which might be gathered from the tone and 
 manner of different parts of any composition, that evidence is strikingly 
 exhibited here. A difference of objects presented to the mind, and 
 the completion of a regular plan, must of course bring new and varying 
 subjects before the writer’s mind ; and this seems to be all on which 
 there is any room to build the alleged discrepancies. But this is a basis 
 quite too narrow to sustain them. How easy it would be to prove that 
 the Epistle to the Romans, or the first Epistle to the Corinthians, was 
 written by different persons — how easy, I mean, on just such grounds 
 as Vogel assumes — every one who reads them critically must see. 
 
 In order to confirm his view, Vogel appeals to the alleged fact, that 
 the last part of the Apocalypse often imitates chap, iv — xi. ; and this 
 imitation he makes out from the plain and frequent connection between 
 the two parts of the book, and the mutual allusions that exist. But how 
 such a connection can prove a difference of authorship, one cannot well 
 see. Could not the same author — would he not — connect the different 
 parts of his work by allusions to what had preceded, and by assuming it, 
 at proper times, as the basis of further remark, or the subject of further 
 explication ? And this is the amount of all that John has done. In de- 
 veloping the progress of the final plagues, under the seven trumpets and 
 under the seven vials, he moves in a similar circle in mahy respects, 
 and yet is circumstantially diverse. I cannot discern any of the affec- 
 tation of an imitator, in the latter part of the book. On the contrary, 
 it seems plain to me, that the freedom of thought and expression is even 
 more ample and complete than in the former part. 
 
 In a word, nearly the whole of Vogel’s objections to the unity of the 
 .Apocalypse rests upon his exegesis and his subjective taste and judg- 
 ment about style. I cannot resist the impression, that in neither of these 
 respects is he a safe model, or entitled to much distinction. His Dis- 
 sertations, which were seven years in a course of composition and pub- 
 lication, have not attracted much notice ; and they bid fair to be soon 
 forgotten. Bleek, in his Dissertation on the Apocalypse (Theol. Zeit- 
 schrift von Schleiermacher, etc.), and Liicke (Einleit. p. 429 seq.), have 
 minutely examined the particulars of Vogel’s arguments, and shown 
 them to be without force. It is unnecessary to be minute here. The 
 positive argument in favour of unity will be presented in the sequel ; 
 and if this is well founded, such objections fall to the ground of course. 
 
 Bleek (Diss. above referred to) after all his criticism on Vogel, has as- 
 sumed ground which seems not to be any more inviting than that of the 
 
DIFFERENT OPINIONS EXAMINED. 
 
 431 
 
 author'whom lie has examined. He assumes, in the first place, that Rev. 
 17: 10 points to Vespasian as the then reigning emperor ; and of course 
 that chaps, xii — xxii. were written after the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 Chap, iv — xi., he maintains at the same time, were written before the 
 destruction of that city. Of course, although he attributes both parts of 
 the book to the same author, yet he supposes a considerable interval of 
 time to elapse between the writing of the two parts. 
 
 But all this depends entirely on his exegesis of Rev. 17: 10. In or- 
 der to make out that Vespasian is the reigning emperor at that time, he 
 omits Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, in his list of emperors. I must refer 
 the reader to the Commentary and Excursus on this passage, for confu- 
 tation of this exegesis. Liicke has also confuted it sufficiently, Einleit. 
 p. 252 seq. 
 
 But Bleek has ventured to take a bolder step. He calls our attention 
 to the striking transition at the end of chap. xi. — a transition to a state 
 of things entirely new. Hitherto Christ in his glorified state only had 
 been exhibited ; but now the writer goes back and begins with his na- 
 tivity, the persecution of him, and his ascension to glory. There must 
 have been some strong reason for such a regressive step. And what was 
 it ? Bleek answers this question in a way that one w v ould scarcely ex- 
 pect. He suggests that the writer composed iv — xi. antecedently to the 
 destruction of Jerusalem ; that the seventh and last trumpet, as it was 
 at first and originally described, was followed by the coming of Christ 
 and the complete establishment of his kingdom. With such a descrip- 
 tion this first portion of the present book, as he thinks, originally ended. 
 But time passed on ; Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Jewish nation 
 crushed ; and still the kingdom of Christ did not come. The author, 
 perceiving this, abscinded the closing part of chap, xi, which respected 
 the coming and kingdom of Christ, and commenced de novo his second 
 part with the heathen enemies of the church, whose destruction was yet 
 future. So the last and larger part of the Apocalypse took its rise at a 
 later period than the first ; and it arose from the efforts to correct what 
 had been a mistake in the original close of the first part. 
 
 In all this, however, there is so much of mere hypothesis, yea, so 
 much of improbable hypothesis, that one is perplexed to know in what 
 way he can most advantageously canvass the subject. Bleek has over- 
 looked the substantial fact, that there are three catastrophes in the book ; 
 that the first series of events has a proem (chap. iv. v.) ; that the second 
 series, in conformity with this plan, has also a proem (chap, xii.) ; while 
 the third, which respects distant future events (chap, xx.), and is ex- 
 ceedingly brief, necessarily dispenses in the main with this. It is plain 
 that the author designed to set forth to view, in the latter part of his 
 book, the grounds of Satan’s particular rage against Christians, and of 
 
432 
 
 § 25 . UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE, 
 
 his efforts to excite bitter persecution among the heathen against them. 
 In order to do this, he introduces a sketch of Satan’s combats and de- 
 feats with and by the author of the new religion. What could be more 
 apposite as a proem, than matter of this kind ? The author meant to 
 set before the reader the grounds of the long protracted, bitter, and 
 bloody war that was excited among the heathen against Christianity, 
 which, with its progress and termination, constitutes the second catas- 
 trophe. By the proem (chap, xii.), he has made the transition from the 
 first to the second catastrophe very plain and palpable. He doubtless in- 
 tended to do this. But to determine how he could do it successfully and 
 with relevant matter, demanded the exercise of both taste and judgment. 
 Has he done amiss ? Is not chap. xii. a rapid and beautiful sketch of 
 the first beginnings of the Christian religion ? Is there no designed con- 
 gruity between the exhibition of Satan here, and in the sequel of the 
 discourse ? As the beasts from the sea and from the land are both but 
 instruments in the hands of Satan, and are influenced by his bitter ma- 
 lignity, why not exhibit the causes and special grounds of that malignity ? 
 And particularly so, since an exhibition of the protection vouchsafed to 
 the woman “ clothed with the sun,” and to the man-child “ who should 
 rule the nations,” was cheering and full of hope for all who were suffer- 
 ing from persecution. 
 
 I might object, that Bleek’s supposition degrades the Apocalypse, and 
 sets down its author in the rank of mere soothsayers. What less than 
 this is it, to represent him as finding that he had made a prediction in 
 language too definite, and which did not well correspond with actual 
 events, and then as trying his hand a second time, and making sure to 
 be sufficiently indefinite to escape detection, or at any rate putting off 
 fulfilment so long that his credit could not suffer during his life time ? 
 I know not how to reconcile the tone, and tenor, and earnestness, and 
 sincerity, and deep reverence for God and Christ and for all that is holy 
 and pure, everywhere manifested in the Apocalypse, with such a part as 
 Bleek supposes the author of this book to have acted. With my views 
 of chap. iv. v. and xii, as mere proems to the two leading parts of the 
 book, I find no difficulty in the transition itself, or in the nature of it, at 
 the beginning of chap. xii. 
 
 From these differing views about the time and manner in which the 
 Apocalypse was originated, let us now turn to the consideration of the 
 evidences of its Unity. If these are satisfactory, they will be a sufficient 
 answer to all the different hypotheses. 
 
 (1) Were I to follow the simple persuasion of my own mind, in pre- 
 senting these evidences, I should rank, as first of all, the characteristics 
 of style and idiom ; for these are in all respects substantially the same 
 throughout the booh. 
 
INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF IT. 
 
 433 
 
 I am aware that the reply to this will be, that what I allege is a mat- 
 ter of taste and judgment, and not a simple matter of fact ; and that 
 if I cast myself upon these, I must of course permit others to judge 
 for themselves on the same grounds. I know well that they have 
 in fact done so, and have decided differently. But still I must ap- 
 peal from this judgment ; and I am ready to make the appeal to every 
 unprejudiced man on earth, who has no favourite theory to maintain, 
 and who is competent to make an appropriate investigation, whether 
 there is any book in the Old Testament or the New, that is even so 
 strongly marked with a style peculiar to itself, and uniform throughout, 
 as the Apocalypse. Perhaps we might except the Gospel and Epistle 
 of John. There is a Hebraism lying upon the face of the whole Apoca- 
 lypse, a similarity (yet not a mere imitation) to the Old Testament 
 prophets ; a universal fulness of symbol and trope, even in communicat- 
 ing the most common ideas ; a remarkable simplicity and strait-forward- 
 ness in the construction of sentences ; a similar use of particles such as 
 xai, etc., and a similar omission of certain ones usual elsewhere, such as 
 ovv and ds ; the like transitions in discourse by a \iezd zavza and a sim- 
 ple xai ; a like omission of all exact notation of time when the visions 
 took place ; the same solemn, deep, earnest tone of discourse, whether in 
 describing, or promising, or threatening ; the same apparent consciousness 
 of certainty as to all which is said, and the utterance of all with confi- 
 dence that it cannot be gainsayed ; the same claim of authority to speak 
 with full assurance ; the like vivid alternations of light and shade ; the 
 like rapid transitions, seemingly abrupt and without preparation — all 
 these and more of the like kind, develope themselves in every part of 
 the book. This is not opinion but fact — fact which no attentive and 
 discerning reader will now venture to deny. But to all this must be 
 added, (and it is an important part of the evidence in question), that 
 there is a sameness of idiom throughout the book. I need not re-produce 
 the evidence of this. The reader may find it fully exhibited in § 15 
 above, where the object is to produce and explain the characteristic idi- 
 oms of the Apocalypse. As it is quite plain, that these idioms are scat- 
 tered with a somewhat equal hand throughout the whole book, we may 
 well ask : How can it be rationally supposed, that different writers would 
 have agreed in these peculiarities, many of which are very minute, and 
 escape any but the closest observation ? To suppose this would be un- 
 natural and improbable. We are not therefore at liberty to make such 
 a supposition, unless some absolute necessity should compel us to do it. 
 But who can show us any such necessity ? If I may speak my own 
 convictions in relation to the style of the Apocalypse, I should say, that 
 I have never read a book, the style and idiom of which bear stronger 
 marks of unity of authorship than those of the one in question. 
 vol. i. 55 
 
434 
 
 § 25. UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE, 
 
 But this, it will be said, is of avail only against such men as Yogel, 
 who assume different authors ; but not against the theories of Grotius 
 and Bleek, who only suppose different periods’ of time, and those of some 
 length, to have intervened between the different parts of the book. I 
 concede that what has thus far been said, goes mainly to show unity of 
 authorship only, not unity of time. But there are evidences of the lat- 
 ter, which seem to me so satisfactory that I know not how we can well 
 withhold our assent. 
 
 (2) The different parts of the Apocalypse mutually refer to each oth- 
 er ; and in such a way, and so often, that the natural conclusion is, that 
 they are parts of one whole, originally designed as a whole, and exe- 
 cuted in a manner correspondent with the design. 
 
 I begin with the Epistles to the churches, as connected with the other 
 parts of the book. These are naturally the most distinct of any part ; 
 and if a foreign hand is disclosed by any portion of the book, it might 
 naturally be sought here. The part which apparently commences this 
 portion of the Apocalypse, is chap. 1: 9 ; the end of it is 3: 22. While 
 most of the introductory sentences in each epistle have a direct reference 
 to the description of Christ in 1: 11 — 16, thus plainly connecting with 
 the epistles the paragraph in 1: 9 — 20, yet there is one epistle which 
 plainly refers to 1: 5 in the general introduction; see and comp. 3: 14. 
 I should add to this, the reference in 3: 1 to the seven spirits which are 
 mentioned in 1: 4. The proleptic references in the epistles to the main 
 body of the book, (for we must regard them as proleptic or anticipative 
 if we begin the comparison with the epistles), are numerous ; e. g. the 
 second death, 2: 11, comp. 20: 14. 21: 8 ; the sharp sword from the Sa- 
 viour’s mouth, 2: 16, comp. 19: 15, 21 ; the new name understood only 
 by the Saviour, 2: 17. 3: 12, comp. 19: 12 ; reward according to works, 
 2: 23, comp. 20: 12, 13; the king Messiah ruling with a rod of iron, 2: 
 27, comp. 12: 5. 19: 15; the morning star, 2: 28, comp. 22: 16; com- 
 ing as a thief, 3: 3, comp. 16: 15 ; white robes of the saints, 3: 4, 18, 
 comp. 4: 4. 6: 11. 7: 9, 13; book of life, 3: 5, comp. 20: 12. 21: 27 ; I 
 come quickly, 3: 11, comp. 1: 3. 22: 7, 12. 
 
 It will be a more easy and obvious way of making this comparison, if 
 the reader should reverse the order of the references ; and then, sup- 
 posing the epistles to have been written before chaps, iv — xxii, consider 
 the mutual relations and parallelisms as arising from a reference to the 
 epistles made subsequently, and when the writer was in the progress of 
 composing the work. The great point aimed at is, to show that the re- 
 lations and dependencies of one part on another are so numerous, as to 
 imply a unity of plan and execution. 
 
 Let us proceed from the epistles to the seven churches, to the second 
 great division of the Apocalypse, viz. chap, iv — xi. Does this stand inti- 
 mately connected with the preceding and following parts of the book ? 
 
INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF IT. 
 
 435 
 
 The very outset necessarily involves connection with a preceding 
 part, viz. get a xuvxci Eidov x. x. X., after this or after these things. 
 And what are the things ? Surely those which the preceding vision 
 and context embraces, viz. 1: 9 — 3: 22. So it would seem altogether 
 probable, that the epistolary part of the Apocalypse was actually writ- 
 ten first. At any rate, the writer had the design that it should appear* 
 to have been so written. But further. The first voice mentioned in 
 4: 1 refers plainly to 1: 10. Ib. the things that must be hereafter must 
 be referred to 1: 19. In 4: 2, I was in the Spirit, comp. 1: 10. 21: 10 ; 
 out of the throne were lightnings, thunderings, and voices, 4: 5. 8: 5, 
 comp. 16: 18; seven spirits of God, 4: 5. 5: G, comp. 1: 4; sea of glass 
 before the throne, 4: 6, comp. 15: 2 ; which was, and is, and is to come, 
 4: 8, comp. 1: 4; he who liveth forever and ever, 4: 9. 5: 14, comp. 1: 
 18 ; the QiXct, root-shoot of David, 5: 5, comp. 22: 16 ; sung a new song, 
 5: 9, comp. 14: 3 ; every kindred and tongue and people and nation, 6: 
 9. 7: 9. 11: 9, comp. 14: 6; made us kings and priests to God, 5: 6, 
 comp. 20: 6; in 19: 4, the four beasts and twenty-four elders plainly re- 
 fer to 4: 4, 6. 5: 14 ; the conqueror on a white horse, 6: 2, comp. 19: 11 ; 
 the crown on the head of the conqueror, 6: 2, comp. 14: 14; those who 
 are slain for the word of God and the testimony which they held fast, 
 6: 9, comp. 20: 4. 19: 10 ; a great earthquake after opening the sixth 
 seal, 6: 12, the like after the seventh trumpet, 16: 18; every island and 
 mountain moved from its place, 6: 14, comp. 16: 20 ; the great day of 
 wrath, 6: 17, and (which is equivalent) the great day of God Almighty, 
 1G: 14; God shall dwell among his people, 7: 15, comp. 21: 4; God 
 shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, 7: 17, comp. 21: 4; the sea 
 turned into blood, 8: 8, comp. 16: 3; the star falls on the rivers and 
 fountains, 8: 10, comp. 16: 3, where the vial is poured on the same ; the 
 bottomless pit as the habitation of all that is noisome and destructive, 9: 
 2 seq., comp. 17: 8; the angels of destruction at the river Euphrates, 
 9: 14, comp. 16: 12 ; sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, 9: 21, 
 comp. 22: 15 ; who made heaven and earth and the sea, 10: 6, comp. 
 14: 7 ; time no longer, after sounding the seventh trumpet, 10: 6, comp. 
 16: 17, where is the same as to seventh vial; forty and two months, 
 11: 2, 3, comp. 12: 6, 14. 13: 5; the beast from the bottomless pit, 11: 
 7, comp. 17: 8, and also 13: 1, 11, where in each case the beast comes 
 from the abyss below ; the kingdoms of the world become the kingdom 
 of God and Christ, 11: 15, comp. 12: 10 ; small and great that fear his 
 name, 11: 18, comp. 19: 5 ; the temple of God in heaven opened, 11: 19, 
 comp. 15: 5, 8 ; great hail, 11: 19, comp. 16: 21. 
 
 Such is the obvious connection, as to phraseology and mode of repre- 
 sentation, of chap, iv — xi. with the other parts of the Apocalypse. I 
 need only to add a few cases more from chap, xii — xxii. of reference to 
 
436 
 
 § 25. UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 the first part of the Apocalypse ; which were not included in the com- 
 parison of that part with the rest of the book, as made on p. 434 above. 
 Such are the following: The voice of many waters, 14: 2. 19: 6, comp. 
 1: 15 ; appearance of Jesus like to the Son of man, 12: 14, comp. 1: 13 ; 
 the seven angels, 15: 7, comp. 1: 4; which art, and wast, and shall be, 
 16: 5, comp. 1: 4, 8 ; coming as a thief — walking naked, 16: 15, comp. 
 3: 4, 18 ; eyes like a flame of fire, 19: 12, comp. 1: 14. 2: 18 ; holy 
 city coming down from God, 21: 2, comp. 3: 12 ; iv nvavpan, 21: 10. 
 17: 3, comp. 1: 10; the tree of life, 22: 2, comp. 2: 7 ; name written 
 upon the saints, 22: 4. 14: 1, comp. 3: 12 ; I am Alpha and Omega, 21: 
 6. 22: 13, comp. 1: 8, 11. 
 
 I am aware that this list might be easily augmented. But I do not 
 wish to urge all the minutiae of resemblances. The similarity is ample, 
 as now exhibited. And although I am apprehensive that it may be 
 objected to some of the examples, that they are merely the common 
 property of sacred language and imagery, and so might be used by any 
 writer who was of a religious cast of mind ; yet, in nearly all the cases 
 presented, there is either a peculiarity in the modus of the representa- 
 tion, or in the connection in which it stands, that makes a resemblance 
 too plain to be denied between the different parts of the Apocalypse. 
 What can we say to such cases as the Alpha and Omega, is and was 
 and is to come, tree of life, and many others peculiar to the Apocalypse, 
 and found in all parts of it ? The same mind must have produced a 
 composition so entirely of the like tenor, idiom, and peculiarities through- 
 out. 
 
 I know it may be said, that some friend of John, who greatly approv- 
 ed of his style, imitated him as closely as he could, and did this of set 
 purpose ; and so it comes about, as Vogel assumes, that the last part of 
 the Apocalypse bears so strong a general resemblance to the preceding 
 parts. But I cannot assume the fact of mere imitation, in this case, 
 without some proof, or without some good degree of probability. There 
 is no urgent reason from any quarter, why we should admit a variety 
 of authorship ; and the regular gradation and development of the book 
 show that the whole was composed in consequence of a plan, and in 
 conformity with it. I can never persuade myself, that a book of such 
 extraordinary earnestness and sincerity as the Apocalypse could have 
 been written by a mere imitator, who aimed at imposing on the world 
 by coining forward in the name of another. 
 
 But I must go one step further. If the structure of the Apocalypse, 
 as developed in § 7 above, is well founded and matter of fact, and tri- 
 chotomy or triplicity pervades the plan of the book in general, and then of 
 all its subordinate parts, then is it absolutely certain that the book is 
 from one and the same mind and hand. The unity of the general plan 
 
§26. CANONICAL RANK AND CREDIT. 
 
 437 
 
 is perfectly consistent with the triplicity of the parts ; while the com- 
 plete triplicity, on the other hand, becomes essential to the general unity. 
 Who could deem it possible, that another hand, different from that of 
 the original author, should interfere and carry out a plan so artificial 
 and so nicely adjusted in all its relative parts ? The thing is out of all 
 question. 
 
 We may reasonably settle down in the conclusion, then, that whoever 
 wrote the leading part of the book, viz. chapters iv — xi., must have 
 written the other parts. Whether John the apostle, or the presbyter, or 
 the theologue (if we may reckon him a distinct person), wrote the 
 book, the same mind and hand must have executed the whole. No one 
 in all antiquity ever suspected that the book belonged to different au- 
 thors. Nor was there, nor is there, any good reason to suspect it. 
 
 Nor can we deem the supposition much more probable, that long in- 
 tervals of time took place between the composition of the different parts 
 of the book, admitting that it is all the work of one and the same man. 
 The plan is too much connected, interwoven, dove-tailed together (if I 
 may so speak), and the impressions and phrases and idioms, in all the 
 different parts of the book, bear too striking a resemblance to each other, 
 to permit its being rendered probable, that the author suspended his 
 work, during the execution of it, beyond the short periods of intermission 
 that are necessary in the composition of every work of any considerable 
 magnitude. The same general state — the same fervid glow — of mind 
 and imagination is plainly exhibited in all parts of the Apocalypse. 
 
 § 26 . Canonical rank and credit of the Apocalypse. 
 
 It is a matter of course, that all who have attributed the Apocalypse 
 to the apostle John, have ranked it among those books which are of 
 the highest authority, or, in other words, have placed it on a level, as to 
 its authority, with the Gospels and Epistles in general of the New 
 Testament. Such as have come to the conviction which the writer of 
 these sheets has expressed and assayed to defend in the preceding pages, 
 can have no hesitation to admit the Apocalypse among the authentic 
 records of the New Dispensation. Such as doubt respecting the gen- 
 uineness or the apostolic origin of the book, will of course assign to it 
 a lower place. But there may be a variety of opinion and feeling 
 among such persons, in regard to the proper place of this book. Those 
 in ancient and in modern times who have assailed the book with con- 
 tumely and contempt, e. g. the Alogi and perhaps Caius anciently, and 
 Oeder, Corrodi, and others like them recently, have of course ranked 
 the Revelation among the mere figments of apocryphal productions, 
 and regarded it as worthy of no credit. But there has been, even from 
 
438 
 
 §26. CANONICAL RANK AND CREDIT 
 
 early times, and still is, a class of men who have doubts about the real 
 Johannean origin of the Apocalypse, and yet have not ventured to cast 
 the book out of the canon, but have been inclined to regard it as a kind 
 of deufero-canonical book ; to which one might appeal, however, with 
 entire confidence, only when he found it in accordance with the other 
 books of the New Testament. It is the object of the present section, 
 to give some brief historic notices of the canonical credit attached to 
 the Apocalypse, which have not already been included in the view 
 that has been taken of the state of opinion among the ancients or mod- 
 erns, and also to make some suggestions relative to the subject of the 
 canonicity of the book, which could not well be introduced into the pre- 
 ceding historical investigations. 
 
 Lucke (p. 449 seq.) remarks, that we have no very definite informa- 
 tion in what light the canonical authority of the Apocalypse was re- 
 garded by Justin, Irenaeus, etc. ; and that in general, at that period 
 (Cent. II.), no definite and precise ideas were entertained about the na- 
 ture of canonical authority. The writers of that day, he says, quote 
 apocryphal as well as canonical books, and often in the same manner ; 
 so that it becomes difficult for us to say Iioav they always regarded the 
 one and the other. 
 
 I cannot help feeling, that there is something unfair in the manner 
 and even matter of this representation. Is it not true, that Justin, and 
 Irenaeus, and Tertullian, beyond all question regarded the Apocalypse 
 as the work of John the apostle, and therefore as a divine book ? It 
 surely is ; as the reader may see by recurring to the preceding pages. 
 What more is necessary to determine the rank which the book held in 
 their view ? What more could be said of any other book of the New 
 Testament ? If now they quote other books than the present canoni- 
 cal ones of the New Testament, this is only what is done every day by 
 religious writers of the present time, who admit the highest claims of 
 the New Testament books. Why might not the writers of the second 
 century quote other religious books than those of the present New Tes- 
 tament ? The fair question is : Did they assert or claim, that the other 
 books which they quoted were inspired or apostolic ? Where are the 
 declarations of this kind ? Nay more : Where is the distinction in 
 
 this respect more prominent and stringent, than in Tertullian and Ire- 
 naeus ? The formal and scientific discussion of canonicity had not in- 
 deed then commenced ; but the substantial thing aimed at or accom- 
 plished by such a discussion, was already recognized by these writers. 
 The very existence of the New Testament canon, in the definite shape 
 which it assumed at the close of the second century, is full proof of the 
 correctness of this statement ; at all events in regard to the church at 
 large. And as to the quotation of apocryphal books, how little of this 
 
OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 439 
 
 there is in Clement of Rome, Justin, Tertullian, and Irenaeus, must be 
 obvious to every attentive reader. 
 
 When Lucke complains, that there was no scientific investigation of 
 the canonical credit of the Apocalypse in the second century, or in the 
 early ages (p. 447 seq.), and draws the inference that we can learn noth- 
 ing certain or to be relied upon from the testimony of those times ; I am 
 constrained once more to ask : How does the Apocalypse, in this respect, 
 differ from any other book of the New Testament? Is it not even con- 
 troverted, at present, whether Justin cites the proper Gospels at all? 
 And where in Irenaeus and Tertullian are evidences of any higher, and 
 more direct, and more critical nature, in respect to any of the books of 
 the New Testament, than there are in respect to the Apocalypse ? 
 They all stand on the same level. If the Apocalypse falls, on this 
 ground, then all the other books must fall with it. Lucke has never yet 
 shown, even by a single word, that the cases of these two different parts 
 of the New Testament rest upon a different basis. He admits, however, 
 that the opposition of the Alogi and of Caius, in the second century, to 
 the Apocalypse, arose from no critical examination, but from mere reli- 
 gious prejudice ; which, indeed, is plain enough. 
 
 With Origen begins the second period of the canonical history. Here 
 is no room to aver, that there was no critical examination. Origen was 
 confessedly the greatest critic, save one, among all the Christian fathers. 
 He divided the books claiming to be sacred, into three classes, viz. yvi\- 
 oiu, vofta, and gr/.ru . The first comprises those which are undoubted- 
 
 ly genuine ; the second, the spurious ; the third, either the controverted 
 or the doubtf ul ones. To the last class he assigns the Epistle of Jude, 
 
 2 John, 3 John, the Shepherd of Hernias, and the Epistle of Barnabas. 
 Now, since he makes no mention of the Apocalypse as ranking with 
 these, it is quite certain, as we have seen (p. 323 seq.), that he regard- 
 ed the Apocalypse as belonging to the yvrjoia or genuine books. What 
 more can Lucke ask for, than this testimony of Origen as to his own 
 and the general opinion and belief of the churches at that period ? 
 
 Subsequent to this, what was the state of opinion has already been 
 amply exhibited in the preceding pages. Dionysius of Alexandria, the 
 pupil of Origen, doubted, as we have seen, the apostolic origin of the 
 Apocalypse, but not its divine inspiration or canonical credit ; as he ex- 
 plicitly assures us. Eusebius, moved by his critical doubts and by his 
 opposition to Chiliasm, remained in a state of oscillation. In his De- 
 mon strationes Evang. he cites the Apocalpyse in the usual w r ay, as a 
 divine book, (see p. 35 C above) ; in his Ilist. Ecc. he states grounds for 
 doubt, and seems disposed to class the book among the avnXeyogsva, 
 while he still hesitates to do so, on account of the strong feeling among 
 the churches in its favour. Among several of the fathers in Asia Minor 
 
440 
 
 §26. CANONICAL RANK AND CREDIT 
 
 of the fourth century, the Apocalypse appears, in some respects at least, 
 to have stood in the back-ground. They were opposed to Chiliasm, 
 specially in the form of Montanism ; and the Apocalypse was regarded 
 as the main authority of those who held to such opinions. Moreover 
 the book was acknowledged by all to be obscure and difficult of interpre- 
 tation. Hence it became a usage, somewhat extensive in the eastern 
 region, to exclude this book from the catalogue of those which were to 
 be publicly read ; as we have seen in the cases of Gregory of Nazian- 
 zen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Philastrius, pp. 329 seq. Nothing certain 
 about the inspiration or divine authority of the Apocalypse can be argued 
 from its omission in such a catalogue ; as is plain from the discussion in 
 the pages to which I have just referred. It seems probable that Cyrill 
 of Jerusalem, and some others of his day, thought of the Apocalypse 
 much as Luther did, at the early period of the Reformation. But this 
 state of things among the churches appears to have been temporary and 
 local. The region of the Montanists is the region where it mainly pre- 
 vailed ; and as to the time of its continuance, the days of Andreas, and 
 Arethas, and of the Philoxenian Version, all show that there was speed- 
 ily a contrary state of things. In fact nothing can be more certain, than 
 that the authority of Jerome, and Augustine, and their compeers, in the 
 western portion of the churches, speedily became triumphant through 
 almost the whole of Christendom. Since the first half of the fifth cen- 
 tury, only now and then a solitary voice has been raised against the 
 Apocalypse, either in the way of doubt or of opposition. The mass of 
 Christendom have regarded the question as settled, and have felt no in- 
 terest to renew the discussion. Now and then, some individual who had 
 closely studied the account which Eusebius gives of the canonical books, 
 and canvassed the arguments of Dionysius, or of some others, against 
 the Apocalypse, ventured to assume a doubting posture. There is al- 
 ways, among men of nearly every age, a class of minds who are more 
 moved by doubts, than by arguments in favour of anything. Sometimes 
 vanity or the desire of distinction from the common herd moves to this ; 
 at other times, a mind bursting the bonds of mere traditional belief will 
 be attracted by things of this nature, and will pursue them with uncom- 
 mon avidity. But whatever it might be that rfloved the very few doubt- 
 ers about the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, through all the dark ages 
 of monkery and superstition, it is quite certain, that none of them ever 
 had influence enough to alter the general state of belief among the 
 churches. Down to the time of Erasmus and Luther, the book in ques- 
 tion held its rank in the canon among other books of the New Testa- 
 ment ; although it was not publicly read in the same manner and mea- 
 sure as the other books. But this we must regard as almost a matter of 
 course, when the contents of the book are taken into view. 
 
OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 441 
 
 Erasmus, in the first edition of his Greek Testament, has inserted, 
 in his Remarks on the Apocalypse, some intimations of doubt among 
 the Greek churches of ancient times respecting it, as testified by Je- 
 rome ; see p. 333 above. (Eras. Nov. Test. 1516, but much more fully 
 in edit. 1527). Erasmus himself thinks it strange, that the writer t)f 
 the Apocalypse so often mentions his own name, contrary to the usage 
 of John. Paul, he significantly suggests, relates his visions (2 Cor. 
 xii.) with great modesty. Besides, the title to the book is ’Iwdivvrjg 
 & eoloy og. The difference of style, he further suggests, is also great 
 between John’s Gospel and the Apocalypse. All this, he says, makes 
 him doubt about the apostolic origin of the book ; “ unless indeed the 
 general consent of the Christian world should be in favour of it, or es- 
 pecially the authority of the church defend it, if indeed the church 
 should determine in its favour.” So Erasmus was much in the same 
 plight with Eusebius ; critical arguments seemed to invite him one way, 
 and the voice of the church another. He then goes oil to relate the 
 doubts of Dionysius of Alexandria, of Eusebius, of Caius the Roman 
 presbyter, etc. ; and he concludes with naming several of the fathers 
 who were its strenuous defenders, but who were strong Chiliasts. All 
 this is merely a masked battery for assault. Finally he comes out with 
 the conclusion, that the book being made up of visions and allegories, 
 cannot be so profitable as some others ; and in order to soften down 
 this, he suggests that even among precious jewels, one kind of gold may 
 be much more pure and valuable than another. All of this shows in 
 reality his secret doubts ; it shows also how timid he was in venturing 
 to say anything, which would call in question the usual and established 
 opinions of the Romish church. 
 
 The opinion of Luther, expressed in the preface to his German 
 translation of the New Testament printed in 1522, has already been 
 cited at some length, on pp. 412 seq. above. Luther was, as we should 
 expect, open and avowed to all the world, as to his sentiments concern- 
 ing the Apocalypse ; and in this respect he differed greatly from Eras- 
 mus. But his doubts did not extend merely to the Revelation. The 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, and of Jude, also shared in his 
 doubts ; and they were printed by Luther merely as an appendix to his 
 version of the New Testament, and without number or page. This 
 arrangement by which these four books were excluded from the canon, 
 was continued, in the Lutheran editions of the Bible, down to the be- 
 ginning of the 17th century. In some cases they were even printed 
 with the title of Apocrypha . The strict followers of Luther, for a long 
 time, and in fact even down to the middle of the 17th century, refrained 
 from appealing to them as canonical. They virtually classed them 
 with the avz they 6 per cc of Eusebius. Gradually they came to be regard- 
 YOL. I. 56 
 
442 
 
 §26. CANONICAL RANK AND CREDIT 
 
 eel as deutero-canonical. Texts might be cited from them to illustrate 
 and confirm other passages from the canonical books, but not to estab- 
 lish any doctrine which was not elsewhere taught. It is a comparatively 
 recent thing, among the Lutheran theologians, to refer to these suspect- 
 ed books in the same manner as to others. But since the criticism 
 which is quite recent, has virtually and extensively given up the idea 
 of inspiration, the once suspected books would seem to be entitled to as 
 good, or very nearly as good, a rank as the others, and the appeal to 
 them without any particular distinction has become quite general. 
 Among those, however, whether in the Lutheran church or elsewhere, 
 who believed in the inspiration of all the books in the present New 
 Testament canon, it was not to be expected that any such distinction as 
 Luther and the earlier Lutherans made, could be kept up when appeal 
 was made to the New Testament Scriptures. The authority of all the 
 books in it was, as we shall soon see, regarded as being for substance 
 the same. 
 
 Luther himself grew milder in his judgment respecting the Apoca- 
 lypse, when he found a Gommentarius on this book, which had been 
 written a century before, and which represented the Pope as antichrist. 
 The Reformer reprinted that Commentary, with a preface of his own. 
 In this preface he states, that the Apocalypse may belong to that class 
 of prophecies which are concerned merely with symbols and figures, 
 and which are hinted at in Acts 2: 17, in the quotation made by Peter 
 from the book of Joel. Still, even here he does not retract his own per- 
 sonal doubts ; but he leaves the matter of admitting the Apocalypse en- 
 tirely free to others. 
 
 It is somewhat singular, that at this very period, (the second quarter 
 of the 16th century), the leading and most influential persons concerned 
 with the reformation in Switzerland, adopted views respecting the Apoc- 
 alypse much like those of Luther. At the conference between the Ro- 
 manists and the Reformers, at Bern in 1528, Zuingle refused to admit 
 proof-texts from the Apocalypse, “ because it was not a biblical book,” 
 i. e. not a canonical one; (Werke. II. Abth. 1. p. 169 seq.). In this 
 he was joined by Oecolampadius and Bucer, who were present ; none 
 of them regarding the Apocalypse as authoritative. But this state of 
 feeling does not seem to have been propagated in the Reformed or Cal- 
 vinistic churches. Calvin, Beza, and their successors, admitted fully 
 and readily the canonical and apostolical authority of the book in ques- 
 tion. Hence it has always been recognized as such, in all the Creeds 
 of the so called Reformed churches. This was a point, therefore, in 
 which the Reformed churches stood opposed to or distinguished from the 
 Lutheran, during the latter half of the sixteenth century, and for some 
 time afterwards. 
 
OP THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 443 
 
 Even in the Lutheran church, however, there were some distinguish- 
 ed men, so early as the sixteenth century, who were favourably inclined 
 to the Apocalypse. Melancthon himself did not sympathize with Lu- 
 ther on this point; and Francis Lambert and Chytraeus openly defend- 
 ed the apostolic origin of the book. But in the second quarter of the 
 17th century, the famous theologian, John Gerhard, in his Uber ior Ex - 
 positio respecting the holy Scriptures, took the ground that the Apoca- 
 lypse was deutero-canonital ; by which he meant merely that the pro- 
 fessed authorship had been doubted by some. But its divine authority 
 was not represented by him as being dependent on this circumstance. 
 The great learning and influence of this writer brought the Apocalypse 
 gradually into credit among the Lutheran churches, after that period, 
 down to the time when the progress of recent criticism awakened new 
 doubts and undermined, in the view of a large portion of the German 
 critics, not only the apostolical origin of the Apocalypse, but the inspi- 
 ration of all the books of Scripture, and consequently their absolute and 
 decisive authority. The main test or evidence of authority seems now 
 to be this, viz., whatever agrees with our reason and understanding, 
 may be regarded as obligatory ; and whatever does not, is to be regard- 
 ed as indicative only of the feelings, views, or prejudices of the writer, and 
 we are not bound by it. 
 
 The history of this new revolution in the Lutheran churches (for it 
 is mostly confined as yet to them), might well occupy a little volume, 
 replete with critical interest. But it would be aside from my purpose to 
 do anything more than merely advert to a few of its prominent fea- 
 tures. 
 
 It is rather remarkable, that the first movement in the last war against 
 the Apocalypse, was made in England. A New Version of the Greek 
 Testament, author unknown, was published in London, in 1729, accom- 
 panied by Notes. In these the translator attacks even with bitterness 
 the credit of the Apocalypse, relying principally for his support on the 
 criticisms of Dionysius of Alexandria. This publication was followed, 
 in 1730, by a Discourse Historical and Critical on the Revelation ; in 
 which almost everything that could render the credit of the book doubt- 
 ful, is suggested and urged with much adroitness. It turned out in the 
 end, that this was an English translation of the celebrated Firmin Abau- 
 zit’s Discours historique sur V Apocalypse, (f 1767). Abauzit was an 
 intimate friend of Bayle and Newton. At the request of an English 
 friend, William Burnet, he wrote the Discourse, and sent it to him ; and 
 by him, perhaps, it was translated into English ; for the name of the 
 translator is not given. This book is generally regarded as marking the 
 commencement of a new period, in the criticism of the Apocalypse. It 
 called forth from Dr. Leonard Twells, in his Critical Examination (Part 
 
444 
 
 §26. CANONICAL RANK AND CREDIT 
 
 III.) of the New Testament in Greek and English, a vindication of the 
 Revelation ; — a vindication, the worth of which is even now generally ac- 
 knowledged. It was soon afterwards translated by Wolf into Latin, and 
 inserted in his Curae Philologicae in Nov. Test. With this work of 
 T wells, the controversy at that time seems to have subsided in England, 
 T wells being generally regarded as victorious in the contest. 
 
 About the middle of the 18th century, attention to the critical study 
 and literature of the Scriptures began to take a new turn, and to shoot 
 up with fresh life, in several of the Universities of Germany. At this 
 period, the Free Investigation of the so-called Revelation hy John , was 
 written by Oeder, and published after his death by Sender, with addi- 
 tional notes. It is a small book, replete with evidences of great zeal 
 against the Apocalypse, and exhibits in some respects no ordinary de- 
 gree of acuteness. Oeder and his learned editor appear, however, to 
 have no perception of any aesthetical merit in the Apocalypse. They 
 put to its account all the extravagant commentaries that have been writ- 
 ten upon it, and express themselves, in view of these, with all imagina- 
 ble contempt ; while neither of them was qualified by his taste or turn 
 of mind duly to appreciate, much less to explain, a book of such a na- 
 ture as that of the Revelation. The extravagance of maintaining that 
 Cerinthus was the author of the Apocalypse, as well as the general 
 spirit of the Free Investigation, prevented the favourable reception of 
 the work in question, except among the school of Semler. Still, the 
 book became the means of rousing up a spirit of inquiry into the criti- 
 cal history of the canon in general, as well as of the Apocalypse, which 
 * has not yet ceased, but is becoming more and more animated, even at 
 the present period. 
 
 Semler was soon opposed by several writers of high character. Reuss 
 of Tubingen published his De Auctore Apocalypseos, Tub. 1767 ; 
 and afterwards, in 1772, an edition in German with additional strictures 
 on a defence made by Semler, which Reuss entitled Vertheidigung der 
 Offenbarung Johannis. About the same time, C. F. Schmid, at Witten- 
 burg, published his Ob die Offenbar. Johannis ein echtes gottliches 
 Buch sey? and also his Historia antiqua et Vindicatio Canonis, 1775. 
 Both of these are filled with the fruits of great learning and research ; 
 although at times the author’s zeal gets the better of his judgment and 
 good temper. In 1773, Knittelof Wolfenbfittel also published his Bei- 
 trage zur Kritik uber Johan. Offenbarung. All of these were able 
 works, and roused up Semler and his adherents to make strenuous op- 
 position. Still, the contest, for the most part, was managed with a good 
 degree of decency and moderation. The consequence of it, moreover, 
 has not been unimportant ; for the questions raised about the Apoca- 
 
OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 445 
 
 lypse have since then been better understood and more fully discussed, 
 than they were or had been previous to this period. 
 
 Among those who distinguished themselves in the controversy that 
 followed this commencement of the war, may be mentioned Corrodi in 
 his Geschichte des Chiliasmus, and Merkel in his Histor. crit. Aufkla- 
 rung der Streitigkeit, etc. ; both of whom entertained, for the most part, 
 the same views as Semler ; while Storr in his Neue Apologie der 
 OfFenbarung, and Hartwig in his Apologie der Apokalypse wider falschen 
 Tadel und falschen Lob, strenuously and ably defended the genuineness 
 of the Revelation. All these books were published between 1780—85 ; 
 a full proof of the deep interest excited by the Semlerian controversy. 
 
 Since that period, every Introduction to the critical history of the 
 New Testament has of course discussed the question of the apostolic 
 origin of the Apocalypse. Michaelis interested himself much in it ; 
 but in his Introduction he finally takes the position of Eusebius, or per- 
 haps of Dionysius. He had a Mss. copy of Abauzit’s Discours in his 
 hands, and evidently was much influenced by it. Then, as a Lutheran, 
 he might follow in the steps of the great Reformer and of the early 
 Lutherans. Herder and Eichhorn, by their distinguished Commenta- 
 ries on the Apocalypse, made an effectual vindication of its aesthetic 
 merits, and placed the book in an attitude before the public mind, which 
 writers like Storr and Hartwig could not well portray. It seemed, for 
 awhile, as if the contest was to subside and the churches settle down 
 again in their former belief, but with more enlightened views of the na- 
 ture of the Apocalypse. But the adventurous spirit of recent criticism 
 is rarely able to settle down in what has already been believed, in case 
 there is any good room for even a moderate measure of doubt, or any 
 difficulty which cannot be wholly removed. We find, therefore, a for- 
 midable host of critics arranged on either side of the question about 
 apostolic origin ; most of them developing their views in formal Intro- 
 ductions to the New Testament, or in Commentaries upon the Apoca- 
 lypse. Against the apostolic origin are Heinrichs, Bretsclmeider, 
 Bleek, De Wette, Ewald, Schott, Liicke, Credner, and others ; for it 
 are Ilaenlein, Schmidt, Kleuker, Herder, Hug, Eichhorn, Feilmoser, 
 Lange, Bertholdt, Guerike, Kolthoff, Danemann, and others. When 
 Liicke published his Introduction to the Apocalypse (1832), the ma- 
 jority, as he states, held fast the Johannean origin. Among the critical 
 portion of the German public, this would seem, at the present, no longer 
 to be the case. Liicke’s work has itself done much toward leading the 
 minds of the learned to an opposite conclusion. There is a moderation 
 in his book, a general fairness of reasoning, a sobriety, an apparent ab- 
 sence of prejudice and party feeling, an extent and depth of learning, 
 which can nowhere and at no time fail to win respect and more or less 
 
446 
 
 §26. CANONICAL RANK AND CREDIT 
 
 of confidence. Among the great mass, even of critics, who have never 
 studied deeply and thoroughly the literature of the Apocalypse, and the 
 nature of the book, it is no wonder that such a work as Liicke’s should 
 be regarded as entitled to great deference. In a question so difficult as 
 that respecting the author of the book, it is more pleasant and easy to 
 be guided, than to make the efforts which are adequate to render oneself 
 able to think independently. Hence, with De Wette and Bleek and 
 Schott and Ewald and Credner to aid the cause for which Liicke pleads, 
 no wonder that Germany, at the present time, is again on the high 
 road toward the positions of Semler ; although several of his most rash 
 and extravagant positions would be generally rejected. Semler’s aes- 
 thetical views, for example, and Oeder’s opinion that Gerinthus wrote 
 the Apocalypse, will probably find few if any advocates hereafter. 
 
 It is not to be understood, from this statement, that no learned advo- 
 cates of the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse can now be found in Ger- 
 many. This would be remote from the truth ; for several recent dis- 
 cussions of this subject have appeared, which support the Johannean 
 or apostolic origin. Yet the majority of critics who seem to bear sway 
 in Germany, would appear to side with Li) eke. 
 
 In England and in this country, the question before us has not been 
 mooted for this long time. At least no serious effort, from a respectable 
 quarter, has been made in regard to the critical history of the Apoca- 
 lypse. In both countries, we have books almost without number, which 
 tell us what dynasties, or civil events, or wars, or political and religious 
 changes, the Apocalypse has predicted — the offspring, in some cases, of 
 respectable learning and perhaps of warm piety ; in other cases, of mere 
 ignorance of the true manner and matter of biblical prophecy ; and in 
 some, of adventurous enthusiasm and rank prejudice and overweening 
 self-conceit. Any and every man, even those who could not read a word 
 of Greek or Hebrew, has felt at liberty to speculate and to write upon 
 this book, and to lay before the world the fruit of his crude and incon- 
 gruous speculations. The Apocalypse would seem, as viewed by them, 
 to have been written in order to make men prophets, rather than to be 
 written by a prophet and submitted to sober readers for exposition. 
 Scarcely any five years have passed, now for a long time, in which 
 some work of the character just described has not made its appearance, 
 in England or America. But most works of this nature never come to 
 a second edition. They have been unlucky enough, it may be, to fix 
 on the destruction of Antichrist (the Pope), or on the commencement 
 of the Millennium, at a period which is now gone by ; and so of course 
 the book vanishes along with the time. Such has now been the fate of 
 Bengel’s famous work on the Apocalypse, which cost him some twenty 
 years of labour, and which for a long time was much talked about both 
 
OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 447 
 
 on the continent of Europe and in England. But Bengel found his 
 grand period of consummation in A. D. 1836; and this alas! has passed 
 by, without any noticeable changes of the world either in a civil or reli- 
 gious respect. So have fallen many other like works, in England and 
 in this country, entitled to immeasurably less respect than Bengel’s ; 
 and so the remainder of this class of works, which have made the Apoca- 
 lypse a mere Syllabus of civil and ecclesiastical history, are destined to 
 fall. A few years more will sweep away all the baseless fabrics which 
 they have erected. 
 
 Deeply is it to be regretted, that instead of radical investigation of the 
 literature and exegesis of the Apocalypse, by the rules of criticism and 
 philology adopted in all other cases, the English and American writers 
 have, for the most part, expended their time and talents in making out 
 some ingenious and fine-spun theory about the beast and false prophet, 
 and about the time of their development and destruction, which amounts, 
 and never can amount, to nothing more than a kind of specious hariola- 
 tion or vaticination. Time has already demonstrated this respecting a 
 large class of books composed by writers of this cast ; and there is no 
 presumption in saying, that the rest of them are ere long to sink into 
 oblivion in the same way. There must be some ground in language, in 
 the nature of the occasion, in the historical circumstances of the times, 
 and in the general nature of the composition, on which any interpreta- 
 tion can find a permanent resting place. There must be some other 
 menstruum in which difficulties can be solved, besides the Pope, and the 
 1260 days turned into years, and Mohammed, and the Saracens, and 
 Buonaparte. 
 
 I have said nothing, as yet, of the critical history of the Apocalypse 
 in the Romish church, since the Reformation. Nothing more need be 
 said, than that about the middle of the 16th century the Council of Trent 
 explicitly admitted the Apocalypse as a divine book and of Johannean 
 origin, and sanctioned it accordingly. In that church, and, by a reflex 
 influence, in the Greek churches, no one of any note, so far as I know, 
 has appeared since, who openly calls this in question. 
 
 The present posture of the canonical credit or authority of the Apoca- 
 lypse, is easily deduced from these premises. Excepting a class of 
 critics in Germany, and some few elsewhere, this book is regarded as 
 apostolic and authoritative by the Christian world in general. 
 
 Lucke himself, notwithstanding his decided rejection of the Johan- 
 nean origin of the Apocalypse, does not propose to eject the book from 
 the canon. A book fully canonical, he thinks, must have an apostle for 
 its author ; and this must be known with certainty. But as this would 
 make only a narrow circle to move in, he proposes the admission of 
 some other books, of secondary, and of course not of the highest, au- 
 
448 
 
 § 26. CANONICAL BANK AND CREDIT 
 
 thority, which may serve to explain and confirm the canonical books. 
 Such are the books composed by the companions and fellow-labourers 
 of the apostles, who, from their intimate connection with them, must 
 have understood their views and feelings ; e. g. the books of Mark and 
 Luke, and perhaps the epistles of James, Jude, and possibly some others. 
 It is essential that these books of the secondary order do not contradict 
 the apostolic ones, and that the writers of them be known. But in case 
 the writers are not known, Lucke proposes to class the books with the 
 avnleyofiEva of Eusebius, or the pixta of Origen. He would not re- 
 fuse them a place in the canon, unless they are at variance with, or con- 
 tradict, the books of the first rank. — Then they must be deemed apoc- 
 ryphal. Their proper office is, to explain and confirm the books of the 
 first rank ; but no doctrine can be built on what only these deutero-ca- 
 nonical books contain. 
 
 In this latter sense, he reckons the Apocalypse among the canonical 
 books. The book, as he supposes, ‘ was undoubtedly written in the 
 apostolic age, and sprung from actual circumstances then existing. It 
 came, at all events, from some warm friend of the apostles and of Chris- 
 tianity. Its form is no decisive objection to it, although it differs in this 
 respect from other New Testament books. It finds analogies in the 
 Jewish Scriptures. Nor can it be properly decided a priori , that no 
 book of the New Testament is to have & prophetic form.’ It must sure- 
 ly be admitted, I would moreover suggest, by every reader of taste 
 and discernment, that the Apocalypse differs widely from all the apoc- 
 ryphal compositions of that period, which exhibit attempts at a sim- 
 ilar method of composition ; e. g. the Book of Enoch, the Ascension of 
 Isaiah, the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, the fourth of Ezra, and 
 the like. What has made such a wide and striking difference ? If he 
 be not an apostle who wrote the Apocalypse, must he not have been an 
 apostolical man ? 
 
 Finally, Lucke canvasses the objections raised by Oeder against the 
 Apocalypse, on the score of doctrine , and comes to the conclusion, that 
 most of them are groundless, and others insignificant. For example; 
 Oeder objected, that ‘ only the Apocalypse developes a regular progress 
 and full completion of the kingdom of God whereas the New Testa- 
 ment throughout exhibits here and there the same views ; comp. Matt, 
 xxiv. xxv. 13:36 — 50. Rom. xi. 2 Thess. ii. al. To this consideration 
 I should add, that the Old Testament is replete with predictions of the 
 like nature ; comp, the view in § 2 above. The terrestrial reign of 
 Christ, and the thousand years are also adduced as indicative of novelty 
 and peculiarity of doctrine in the Apocalypse. The first of these objec- 
 tions depends, of course, merely on the mode of exegesis, and is subjec- 
 tive ; the second differs from other views respecting the kingdom of 
 
OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 449 
 
 Christ in the New Testament, only in the apparent limitation of time. 
 But is one thousand , in this case, anything more than the figurative ex- 
 pression of a long period ? As to the first resurrection, at Christ’s com- 
 ing (Rev. 20: 4 — 6), which is also objected against the Apocalypse, in 
 case we adopt the literal exegesis of the passage, we may still say that 
 even this has been found, at last, to have analogies in other parts of the 
 New Testament, and probably in the Old; see § 10, p. 175 seq. above. 
 The assertion that Christ is substantially represented in a different man- 
 ner, in the Apocalypse and the other books of the New Testament, is 
 plainly and palpably erroneous ; and is so, whether one regards his de- 
 pendence as expressed in Rev. 1: 1, or his supremacy and his equality 
 with Him that sitteth on the throne, as in 4: 4, 5, 8 seq. 5: 1 — 7, 8 — 14, 
 etc. ; for the like representations may be elsewhere found in the New 
 Testament, and found in abundance ; see Comm, on Rev. 1: 1, and on 
 the other passages. The idea that believers will be kings and priests to 
 God, so often recurring in the Apocalypse, is frequent also in other parts 
 of Scripture, both in the New and Old Testaments ; see Comm, on 1:6. 
 This cannot be urged, therefore, against the Apocalypse. 
 
 These, and more like to these, are the allegations of Oeder and others 
 against the Apocalypse ; by which they would fain prove, that it is no 
 more than an apocryphal book. Liicke himself repels all these and the 
 like charges, and settles down in the conclusion, that the Apocalypse 
 should be admitted into our canon ; but only as a book of the third class, 
 i. e. as one of Antilegomena. The ground of this in his view is, that 
 the author of the book is unknown . 
 
 If such were my persuasion, I might perhaps pursue the same course 
 of deduction from the facts supposed to be true. But as I am fully per- 
 suaded, that, all things considered, the evidence is much stronger in fa- 
 vour of the apostolic origin than against it, so I must assign to the Apoc- 
 alypse a place among Lucke’s first class of canonical books. I have 
 never yet been able, in any satisfactory way, to account for the early 
 and uniform tradition with respect to the author of the Apocalypse, on 
 any other ground than by supposing it to be founded on a matter of 
 fact. The book sprung from Asia Minor, where John resided and 
 acted ; it appeared during his life time ; it was addressed to churches 
 with which he was conversant, and who must have known what writings 
 were his ; to churches friendly to him and zealous for his honour ; to 
 churches rebuked by the writer, and who wquld receive such reproof 
 and admonition only from some one highly respected. Why then was 
 not the forgery — or if one must employ softer words — the factitious com- 
 position, of the Apocalypse exposed ? Nothing could have been easier 
 than to expose it. And when the book makes such high claims to credit 
 and reception — how could the seven churches lend an ear to all this, as 
 vol. i. 57 
 
450 
 
 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE 
 
 well as to its rebukes, unless they believed that all came from proper 
 authority ? I do not say that the factitious composition was impossible, 
 but I cannot refrain from the conviction that it is highly improbable. 
 
 The result is plain. Those who believe with me, that the evidence 
 on the whole is strong in favour of the position, that John the apostle 
 wrote the Revelation, must of course regard this work as belonging to 
 the books fully and in the highest sense canonical. In it I find no doc- 
 trines that are wholly unique or absolutely new, but only new modifica- 
 tions, or additional views, in various respects, of doctrines elsewhere 
 taught. 
 
 § 27. Historical sketch of the Exegesis of the book. 
 
 I make no adventurous assertion when I say, that there was a time, 
 when the Apocalypse was read and rightly understood by the more in- 
 telligent class of readers. I can form no conception of an undertaking 
 by a sensible man in sober earnest, to write a book which would be un- 
 intelligible to those to whom it is addressed. What object could he have 
 in view ? Supposing him to be, as I have said, in sober earnest, he of 
 course would wish to impart his feelings and views to others, with whom 
 he acted and for whom he sympathized. But how could he do this, in 
 case he wrote in a manner unintelligible 1 
 
 The original readers of the Apocalypse, then, it would seem nearly if 
 not quite certain, understood the Apocalypse. I do not mean to say 
 that all Christians belonging to the seven churches of Asia understood 
 it. The nature of the book — it being a series of symbols with a great 
 abundance of tropical diction — would of course elevate it above the rea- 
 dy understanding of the ignorant and the uninstructed in the Scriptures. 
 It requires some experience and taste and a portion of critical discern- 
 ment, to read at any time such a book as the Apocalypse in an intelligent 
 manner. But this belongs to the Apocalypse in common with all, or at 
 any rate with most, of the prophetic books. The books of Isaiah, Eze- 
 kiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and indeed nearly all of the Hebrew prophets, 
 made similar demands upon readers. The Paradise Lost of Milton, and 
 many other poetical works in our language, may indeed be read by all 
 who can read English, and many things in them can be understood and 
 appreciated in a good measure, even by the middle and lower classes of 
 readers. But to comprehend the whole — the plan, the execution of it, 
 the diction, the allusions to classic and other lore, the tropical expres- 
 sions, and other things of a like nature — this lies within the province of 
 only a few. 
 
 Something like to this, must we suppose the case to have been with 
 the Apocalypse and its original readers. It is not a book of simple his- 
 tory and plain didactics. It is poetic in its very nature ; and its poetry 
 
EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 451 
 
 belongs to that class which is the most difficult of all to be understood 
 and rightly appreciated, except bv readers who are familiar with the 
 Hebrew prophetic idiom. None can doubt or deny, that it is deeply 
 tinctured with Hebrew colouring. Of course it is not to be fully under- 
 stood and fully appreciated, except by such as have attained to some 
 good degree of familiarity with this colouring. 
 
 Let me not be misunderstood, I do not say, that there are not very ma- 
 ny things in this book, which every reader of common sense can peruse 
 and understand, and by which he may be profited. Plainly there are. 
 The great Christian virtues which it inculcates, of warm attachment to 
 the Christian religion, of unshaken fidelity to it, of persevering confi- 
 dence in its promises, of awful dread of its threatenings, of patience and 
 quiet submission under persecution, of holy resolution to suffer and even 
 die rather than forsake the cause of Christ, of ardent love to Christian 
 brethren and sympathy with them — all these virtues are plainly and ob- 
 viously commended by every part of the book, and the commendation 
 and enforcement of them cannot be mistaken by any candid reader. 
 But beyond the great and obvious ends of the book, there lies, under its 
 abounding and magnificent drapery, many an idea which can be fully 
 understood and appreciated, either in respect to its limits, true shape, or 
 aesthetical value, only by the more informed reader. 
 
 Some such readers John must have had, among all the churches whom 
 he addressed. In them all were doubtless more or less of those who 
 were native Hebrews. John then could reasonably count upon being 
 understood by some, who belonged to those churches which were ad- 
 dressed ; and this was all that could be expected in regard to such a 
 composition as the Apocalypse, and indeed all that was necessary. Such 
 readers could explain the book to others. 
 
 Thus much the very nature of the case teaches us. We cannot, in- 
 deed, make out the history of apocalyptic exegesis in the apostolic age, 
 i. e. during the first century, from any written documents ; for such we do 
 not possess. We only know, that very soon after this age, readers of 
 the Apocalypse began to explain some parts of it in such a literal man- 
 ner, as to throw in the way great obstacles to the reception of the book 
 as canonical. 
 
 It seems more than probable, that Papias drew his millennial views 
 from the Apocalypse, i. e. he gave to chap. 20: 2 — 4 a literal sense, and 
 maintained a literal terrestrial reign of Christ and the saints. But how- 
 ever this may be, it is clear enough that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and 
 Tertullian, interpreted the Apocalypse, in regard to this matter, in a way 
 which was substantially literal. The two former regarded the descrip- 
 tions of the thousand years’ reign on earth, of the first resurrection of 
 the dead, of the new Jerusalem, of Antichrist, etc., as designed to be 
 
452 
 
 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE 
 
 literally interpreted in order to elicit the true meaning of the Apoca- 
 lypse ; and they combined also with the various predictions of this nature, 
 in the second portion of the Apocalypse, various prophecies of the Old 
 Testament, in particular many of those in the book of Isaiah. Whoev- 
 er wishes to see the manner in which those fathers represent these sub- 
 jects, and how they argue, may consult Justin, Dial, cum Tryphone, c. 
 81, and Irenaeus, Contra Haeres. V. c. 25 — 36. The latter is not des- 
 titute of some fine remarks, although he manifests occasionally much 
 credulity and very fanciful modes of interpretation. Justin has said but 
 little in relation to this subject ; but that little shows that all the Chris- 
 tians of his day were not Chiliasts, in the sense in which he was. 
 
 As to Tertullian, the reader will find passages that give his views in 
 his De Cultu Fern. 12 seq. Contra Marc. III. 14. 24. De Corona Mil. 
 c. 15. Adv. Judaeos, c. 9. De Resurrect. Carnis, c. 26. More spirit, 
 life, and aesthetical discernment, will be found in him than in Justin 
 and Irenaeus. He had, with all his peculiar Latinity, a turn of mind 
 essentially poetical and oratorical. His main book on the reign of 
 Christ, viz. his De Spe Fidelium, to which he himself appeals for a full 
 exposition of his views, is lost beyond the hope of recovery. It would 
 be a book of great interest to the history of exegesis. Tertullian was a 
 Chiliast. Of course, as a Montanist he would be one. But probably 
 he would have been one without Montanism. He has developed his 
 views sufficiently for us to see, that while he has more of the elements 
 of taste and spirit and eloquence than Irenaeus or Justin, yet he seems 
 to have differed from them only in his manner of interpreting particular 
 texts. His general scheme of exegesis elicited from the Apocalypse 
 the same leading ideas, that are advanced by those two writers. 
 
 All that we have, however, in the works of these fathers, gives us 
 nothing more than a few of their opinions respecting the Apocalypse ; 
 and these are only of the most generic kind. They comprise in the 
 main, also, only such views as are deduced from the latter part of the 
 Apocalypse. How they disposed of chap, iv — xii, we do not know with 
 any certainty. 
 
 The general interpretation which the Montanists also gave to the lat- 
 ter portion of the Apocalypse, is quite plain from the extravagance of 
 their Chiliasm. No doubt these so-called heretics have been but par- 
 tially represented to us, by those who were opposed to them. Had we 
 Tertullian’ s defence of them, we should be better able to understand 
 their true position. As it is, we must content ourselves with the know- 
 ledge, that they gave to some leading parts of the Apocalypse, respect- 
 ing the coming and kingdom of Christ, a literal sense ; perhaps a more 
 extravagant one than Justin, Irenaeus, or other fathers gave, who were 
 Chiliasts. Yet scarcely anything could be more extravagant, than some 
 portion of Irenaeus’ views. 
 
EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 453 
 
 Near the commencement of the third century, Hippolytus, bishop of 
 Portus Romanus, and a pupil of Irenaeus (as Photius asserts), wrote, 
 as Jerome declares, a commentary on the Apocalypse, as well as on 
 many other portions of Scripture. Andreas and Arethas quote his 
 commentary on the Apocalypse ; but the book is lost, and we know of 
 Hippolytus’ opinions only through the medium of these quotations, and 
 by what he has said in his book concerning Antichrist. Antichrist is, 
 with him, the grand solution of the leading problems in Daniel and in 
 the Apocalypse. The fourth beast in Daniel and the first in Apoc. xiii. 
 are regarded as one and the same, and Antichrist is the antitype, and 
 the grand agent who plays all the important parts. As a specimen of 
 his mode of handling symbol and trope, we may advert to his remarks 
 on Rev. 12: 1 seq. ‘ The woman is the church ; the sun w T hich encom- 
 passes her means the word of God ; the moon under her feet indicates 
 that her splendour is celestial ; the crown of twelve stars indicates the 
 twelve apostles ; the woes of parturiency show that the church at all 
 times is bringing forth the word of God, which suffers persecution by 
 the world, etc.’ In the sequel he says, that ‘ by the two eagles’ wings, 
 given to the woman in order to aid her flight, we are to understand a 
 belief in Christ, who on the cross spread out his two hands like wings, 
 for a protection to his followers.’ These will show the reader at once 
 the position of the commentator. Curious indeed the commentary must 
 have been, which came from such a hand as is here developed. Ex un- 
 gue — leonem ! 
 
 Hitherto all in the exegesis of the Apocalypse is fluctuating, arbi- 
 trary, and of course uncertain. No idea of any regular plan and con- 
 nection throughout this book, seems to have suggested itself to the minds 
 of the writers of that day. But let us turn for a moment to the Alex- 
 andrine School, and see what they did in regard to the interpretation of 
 the Apocalypse. 
 
 Origen would have had no difficulty with this book. He had none as 
 to its canonical authority. His mode of allegorizing would easily have 
 enabled him to steer through the most difficult parts of the Apocalypse, 
 without embarrassment. He could at any time resort to his favourite 
 anagoge , i. e. transcendental or spiritualizing exegesis, and go through 
 all obstacles. That he was entirely hostile to Chiliasm in the grosser 
 sense, is well known ; and the same is true of the other Alexandrine 
 fathers in general. But he has left no Commentary behind him on the 
 Apocalypse, although he seems to have had one in view ; see Tract. 
 30 in Matt. It was easy for him, and Dionysius, and others of the 
 African School who opposed Montanism and Chiliasm, to disembarrass 
 themselves at any time of all trouble about particular passages in the 
 Apocalypse. That they did so, at least that Origen did, there is no 
 
454 
 
 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE 
 
 doubt. But of the particular manner in which this was done, we have 
 no specific account. 
 
 As yet, we have lighted upon nothing now extant but fragments , in 
 respect to the exegesis of the Apocalypse. We come at last to an en- 
 tire work, devoted to the explanation of this book ; imperfect indeed, 
 and doubtless interpolated and altered to a considerable extent, but still 
 preserving such lineaments as will serve to give us an idea, how such a 
 book as the Apocalypse was managed by expositors, near the close of 
 the third century or at the beginning of the fourth. 
 
 Victorinus, bishop of Petavium in Pannonia, who died as a mar- 
 tyr about 303, wrote a commentary in Latin upon the Revelation, 
 which, nominally at least, is still extant. But doubts have arisen 
 among critics, how far this can be regarded as genuine. Jerome (Ca- 
 tal. Scriptt. c. 18) testifies of Victorinus, that he was a Chiliast, and 
 had interpreted the Apocalypse accordingly. But the Commentary 
 now before us says, respecting the millennial period : “ Ergo audiendi 
 non sunt, qui mille annorum regnum terrenum esse eonfirmant; qui 
 cum Cerintho haeretico faciunt.” In fact, the exposition given of the 
 whole passage respecting the reign of a thousand years, although it is 
 extremely arbitrary and indeed a mere conceit, yet shows that the wri- 
 ter was far enough from understanding the Apocalypse here in a literal 
 sense. Besides this, the commentary appeals once to the epitome of 
 ecclesiastical history by Theqflorus, which was written in the 6th cen- 
 tury ; see in Biblioth. Maxima, III. p. 417. B., in which volume the 
 whole commentary may be found. These are palpable evidences of in- 
 terpolation at least, if indeed the whole work be not supposititious. 
 That it is not, however, is strongly my impression, from frequent con- 
 sultation of it. It presents some internal evidence of being composed 
 in the Latin church, and not far from the period assigned to it. It 
 makes no reference to the Epistle to the Hebrews, which at that period 
 was doubted by some of the Latin church, (see p. 415, in the reckon- 
 ing of Paul’s epistles) ; it adverts to Nero’s reappearance as Antichrist, 
 (p. 420 D., see also my remarks and Excursus on Rev. 13: 3) ; it al- 
 ludes to the Romish Senate as persecuting the church (p. 420 H.), all 
 of which seems to favour the early composition of the work. In fact, 
 there is one passage in it, which seems to have escaped the diligence of 
 emendators, viz. — “in Judaea, ubi omnes sancti conventuri sunt, et 
 Dominum suum adoraturi,” (p. 415, D.) ; which favours the character 
 given of the book by Jerome, i. e. that it was Ghiliastic. The whole 
 contour of the book corresponds well, in one respect, with what Cassio- 
 dorus (fl. 514) says of it, viz., that it undertook to explain only some of 
 the most difficult passages. Putting all these considerations together, 
 it would seem probable, that what Ambrosius Ansbertus (fl. 750) says 
 
EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 455 
 
 in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, respecting the work of Victori- 
 ous, is true : “ Among the Latins, Victorinus first commented upon 
 the Apocalypse. Jerome has followed on in his foot-steps ; expunging 
 certain things which the author literally interpreted, and adding some 
 things of his own, he formed the whole into one book Bib. Max. XIII. 
 p. 404, E. Probably it is for this reason, that Jerome never wrote 
 any other commentary on the Apocalypse. Passages now in the work 
 of Victorinus, which are later than Jerome’s time, may have come from 
 marginal annotations of later readers ; and this is the more credible, 
 because there are but few of this nature. 
 
 On the whole, we may admit that for substance we have before us a 
 work of Victorinus ; but still one which has been spiritualized by Je- 
 rome, who was much devoted to Origen’s views of interpretation with 
 respect to the difficult parts of the Scriptures. But the reader can 
 scarcely form an idea of the execution of this work, without reading for 
 himself. Everything is merely miscellaneous. No plan of the whole 
 work is sought after, or even conceived of; no effort to get at the cir- 
 cumstances and relation of the writer of the Apocalypse and his times, 
 and bring them to bear on the explanation of the book. The work is ex- 
 ceedingly brief; the whole Commentary occupying less than seven folio 
 pages in the Bibliotheca. Grammatical and philological intrepretation 
 are out of question ; and the symbols are explained in the most arbitra- 
 ry manner. Those that resemble each other, are regarded as mere 
 repetitions of the same subject, although in a manner somewhat differ- 
 ent ; and so the writer oscillates from one position to another, very 
 much as fancy would seem to dictate. No one can even think of gain- 
 ing any exegetical satisfaction of consequence, from any portion of the 
 work. Barren of appropriate ideas, and full of conceits, it can serve 
 little other purpose than to remind one, at what a low ebb the science 
 of interpretation stood, when Victorinus wrote this book. Yet it must 
 not be supposed that there is nothing good to be found in his Com- 
 mentary. Now and then a remark the reader will meet with, which is 
 happily expressed and even striking. 
 
 We have seen how matters stood in respect to the Apocalypse, in the 
 Greek churches after the time of Eusebius. It seems to have been 
 generally withdrawn from the books that were to be publicly read in the 
 churches ; and by consequence, to have been withdrawn from particular 
 attention, among the interpreters of the Scripture. Hence we find a 
 Chrysostom and a Theodoret omitting it in their exegetical writings. 
 Origen had promised a Commentary, but did not live to complete one. 
 We find nothing of this nature among the Greeks, until we come down 
 to the latter part of the fifth century, when we meet with a work, which 
 is a kind of a continuous exegesis of the whole Apocalypse, written in 
 
456 
 
 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE 
 
 Greek by Andreas, bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia. It is much of 
 the like cast with the commentary of Victorinus, excepting that it is 
 fuller, somewhat more sober, and has a little more of connection. Still 
 we might well name it Miscellaneous Remarks. He refers occasionally 
 to what other writers have said, respecting the book itself, or of certain 
 passages in it, viz., Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Methodius, Epiphanius, and 
 Gregory Nazianzen. But he seems to have had no full commentary on 
 the book before him. Like Origen, he makes a three fold sense, as oc- 
 casion.seems to demand, viz. a literal, a tropological or moral, and an 
 anagogical i. e. spiritual or transcendental, which last alludes to or ex- 
 hibits the mysteries of the future and of eternal life under the veil 
 of symbols. When one of these methods of interpretation will not 
 satisfy the writer, he resorts to another ; so that between them all, he is 
 sure to find some solution of difficulties. As to times in the Apocalypse, 
 although the book proclaims that the period of fulfilment is iyyvg, yet 
 with God a thousand years are as one day, and vice versa ; so, of course, 
 no embarrassment can come upon his exposition from this quarter. The 
 temple in Rev. 11: 1 seq. he regards as the temple of the Christian 
 church ; 11: 13 he regards as relating to a remote future; and chapter 
 xii. with the sequel of the book, he regards as parts of what the seventh 
 trumpet betokens. The number 666 he thinks will be certainly known 
 only at the future appearance of Antichrist; 17: 10 he applies to hea- 
 then Rome, the seven kings are seven Roman emperors, the seven heads 
 and hills are seven monarchies of the world, of which that of heathen 
 Rome (when the Apocalypse was written) was the sixth, the seventh 
 began with Constantine, and the eighth will be that of Antichrist. He 
 refers 16: 19 to Jerusalem; and the division of the city into three parts 
 he refers to the population of the city, which consisted of Jews, Samari- 
 tans, and Christians. He is hostile to grosser Chiliasm, and refers the 
 thousand years to the abundance and fulness of the knowledge of 
 God, which, after one thousand years from the birth of Christ, will 
 everywhere be diffused. These hints may suffice to characterize the 
 work. No regard is paid to any regular plan of the book, and very 
 little to the circumstances of the writer and the events of the times. 
 Nor must the reader expect anything of a philological cast, like that 
 which characterizes the commentaries of the present day. Yet it is a 
 more respectable work than that of Yictorinus. But in vain will one 
 search for connection and consistency in it, or for any light except that 
 which a sensible man might throw upon the Apocalypse from conjecture. 
 It is evident that he had not, in general, even tradition to guide his in- 
 terpretations. But he is somewhat modest and diffident in proposing 
 them, and does not appear in the light of a confident enthusiast. 
 
 Arethas, a successor of Andreas, and in the same bishopric, wrote 
 
EXEGESIS OF TIIE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 457 
 
 a still more copious commentary on the Apocalypse, and in the same 
 style. He treads closely in the steps of his predecessor, and epitomizes 
 him in some places, while he enlarges in others. Yet he is not destitute 
 of independence of opinion. lie gives some hints, here and there, of 
 different views ; and more than once seems to intimate that Rev. iv — 
 xi. applies to the Jews and Jerusalem, although he would not exclude 
 an ultimate reference to Antichrist. Here and there, too, he intersperses 
 grammatical remarks, which are not without value. 
 
 It is singular that these two works should have made their appear- 
 ance in that region of the church, where the Apocalypse had most fall- 
 en into desuetude. It would seem that the very object of the bishops 
 before us, was again to bring the book into the notice and esteem of the 
 churches, by endeavouring to render it more intelligible. And with their 
 efforts appear to have ceased the labours of the Greek churches upon 
 the Apocalypse. Oecumenius is thought by Montfaucon (Bib. Cois. 
 fol. 277 seq.), to have written a Greek Catena on this book. The like 
 is also said of Andreas of Crete, (Montf. Pal. Graec. fol. 231). But if 
 they did write upon the Apocalypse, we have not their works ; and the 
 fact itself is uncertain. 
 
 In the Latin churches, where the Apocalypse maintained its ground, 
 we should have expected from Jerome or Augustine some explanations 
 of the book in question. But, excepting Jerome’s remodelling of Victo- 
 rinus, we have nothing more than occasional notices ; e. g. in Augustine, 
 De Civit. Dei. XX. 7 — 17. Jerome, we know, has said that the 
 Apocalypse has as many mysteries as worck, and that particular words 
 have a manifold meaning; Ep. 53 ad Paulinum, § 8. He intimates, 
 that Rev. 11: 2 cannot mean the literal Jerusalem, because that had 
 been destroyed when the book was written ; the present world there- 
 fore must be meant, which is to be renewed and restored to a paradisaical 
 state. We know then, in general, how Jerome would have interpreted 
 such a book. 
 
 Ticonius, the Donatist, a contemporary with Jerome and Augustine, 
 wrote an Expositio of the Apocalypse. The work itself has perished ; 
 but from the testimony of others, it appears that he rejected all histor- 
 ical exegesis, and applied anagoge to every part of the book which ap- 
 peared to be mysterious. Hence he obtained, of course, only general 
 and undefined results, the offspring of conjecture or imagination. 
 
 Cassiodokus, about the middle of the sixth century, wrote brief ex- 
 plications, or Complexiones (as he calls them), of the Apocalypse. He 
 follows in the track of Ticonius ; to whom, indeed, he refers his readers 
 for fuller information. Of the same character is the work of his con- 
 temporary, PniMASius, bishop of Utica, who declines all historical con- 
 nection in the Apocalypse, and all special historical relation. Chap. xi. 
 YOL. i. 58 
 
458 
 
 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE 
 
 and xvii, for example, relate only to the state of the world in general, 
 under the image of Jerusalem and of Rome. Beda and Ambrosius 
 Ansbertus, of the eighth century, merely repeat what had been before 
 said, in the like style. Beda is particularly partial to Ticonius. He 
 makes no attempt to find a plan and connection in the Apocalypse, but 
 assumes a parallelism of visions in several parts, and thus confounds the 
 whole. Ansbertus (f 7 67) occasionally seeks for the grammatical 
 sense. He seems first to have noted, that the Apocalypse is occasion- 
 ally regressive. But his maxim, that the true and full sense of prophe- 
 cy must be typical and mysterious , must of course mislead him. In 
 commenting he is exceedingly arbitrary, sometimes passing from species 
 to genus, and then from genus to species. The consequence is, that he 
 has strangely commingled mystical, allegorical, and dogmatical meanings. 
 He has drawn largely upon his predecessors, especially upon Primasius ; 
 and, on the whole, has made no important advances upon those who had 
 preceded him. 
 
 Looking back from the close of the eighth century upon what had 
 been done by commentators in the way of explaining the Apocalypse, 
 we find that no real and solid advances were made. The great truth, 
 that Christ’s kingdom would come, and that all the enemies of the 
 church would be subdued, was indeed evident to all the expositors. But 
 how to dispose of all the imagery and symbols ; how to unfold the book 
 in a grammatical, rhetorical, or historical respect ; how to lay open the 
 plan of the work, to point out its unity, its progress, and its mutual con- 
 nection ; in a word, how to»appeal to the circumstances of the writer, of 
 the churches addressed, or of the actors in the scenes who are presented 
 by symbols — all this surpassed the exegetical knowledge of the times. 
 Of course it was impossible but that attempts to explain, without a pro- 
 per regard to all these things, must turn out to be failures. 
 
 From this period on to the dawning of the Reformation, the darkest 
 part of the dark ages, no one conversant with the history of the times 
 will expect anything important in the way of exegesis. The theology 
 of the Schoolmen did indeed, in their way, make some advances during 
 this period. Speculative theologians, of great acuteness in some in- 
 stances, were not wanting. But whatever of commentary on the Apoc- 
 alypse appeared, it was for the most part only a repetition of what had 
 already been said, or the suggestion of something more of the same 
 tenor and in the like way. The reader who wishes for an enlarged cat- 
 alogue of interpreters of the Apocalypse, at this period, may find one in 
 Liicke, p. 613 seq. I deem it unnecessary to repeat it here, as it is 
 rather a matter of mere literary curiosity than of exegetical interest. 
 Instead of this, I would merely suggest the two leading principles which 
 
EXEGESIS OP THE APOCALYrSE. 
 
 459 
 
 guided most of the commentators of this period ; in accordance with 
 what Liicke has suggested, p. 514 seq. 
 
 (1) The position of Andreas, that the thousand years of chap. xx. 
 must be counted from the first institution of the Christian church, which 
 in itself was the first resurrection, was generally admitted. Of course 
 the writers who preceded A. D. 1000, and who adopted such views, 
 were looking with great anxiety to the events that would immediately 
 follow the arrival of this period. Antichrist was then to reappear (Gog 
 and Magog were regarded as symbols of him), and the end of the world 
 was speedily to follow. As the period drew near, great excitement 
 naturally prevailed in regard to it ; not unlike to that which has several 
 times existed among a limited class of enthusiastic men, in Europe and 
 this country, with respect to the end of the famous period of 1260 years. 
 But when the thousand years had gone by, and things remained in statu 
 quo , of course the tone of commentary was changed. The thousand 
 years now began to be viewed as a large and indefinite period, the like 
 to which could be found in other parts of Scripture ; so that no one 
 could venture to predict the exact time of their end. This of course 
 gave some check to the development of enthusiasm respecting the Apoc- 
 alypse ; but it did not remedy the other difficulties that lay in the way 
 of a proper exposition of the book. 
 
 (2) So late as the 13 th century began the far more important and in- 
 fluential error of regarding the Apocalypse as a kind of nucleus or sylla- 
 bus of ecclesiastical and civil history, down to the end of the world. 
 “ Prophecy,” says Liicke with much force, “ appeared to be the com- 
 pass which the divine Spirit had given to the church, on her voyage 
 over the wide sea of time, in order that she might at any moment deter- 
 mine where she was, how long she must still maintain her contest, and 
 w r hither she should direct her course.” The seven churches of Asia 
 came to be reckoned as symbols of so many different states of the church 
 general ; and the latter presented to the view of Romish expositors a 
 symbol of the Romish church, as affected by various events and pheno- 
 mena, during the whole period of her state as the church militant. The 
 anti-christian power, in the Apocalypse, was specially recognized in the 
 Saracens, and Mohammed was pointed out as the false prophet. The 
 number of the beast (666) was applied to the duration of the Moham- 
 medan power ; and pope Innocent III. was able to rouse up nearly all 
 the churches of Europe, and enlist them in a Crusade, by virtue of an 
 appeal to them on such a ground. 
 
 On like grounds, the various heresies, (as the Romish church named 
 all opposition to itself), were regarded as having also been included and 
 predicted under the symbol of the false prophet. There never could be 
 any difficulty to an ingenious man, in pointing out many resemblances 
 
460 
 
 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE 
 
 between the prediction and the events or persons supposed to be pre- 
 dicted. Boundless scope was given to imagination, conjecture, witty 
 applications of certain expressions in the Apocalypse, and in a word to 
 everything but a truly historico-exegetical mode of exposition. With 
 deep regret I am compelled to add, that while the application of the 
 symbols in the Apocalypse has been greatly changed, in many respects, 
 from that which the Romish expositors maintained, yet the principle 
 itself which led to the making of the book a mere syllabus of civil and 
 ecclesiastical history, has been transferred unimpaired to the Protestant 
 church, and remains, down to the present hour, as the current one in 
 England and in America. But the beast and the false prophet have 
 been applied in a manner very different from that which the inventors 
 of such an exegesis intended ; for they are now applied, by most Pro- 
 testants, to the corrupt Romish church itself and to her false teachers. 
 It is thus that a wrong begun in order to injure others, not unfrequently 
 comes down upon the heads of its inventors and perpetrators. 
 
 In the Romish church itself commentators have not been wholly want- 
 ing, who have made offensive applications of the Apocalypse to its cor- 
 ruptions. Such an one was the abbot Joachim, who in his Admiranda 
 Expositio Apocalypseos has given a new and peculiar turn to several 
 things. He divides the world into three states, viz. that of the Father, 
 which continued till the coming of Christ ; secondly that of the Son, 
 which was to last until the Millennium ; thirdly that of the Spirit, which 
 is to be the great sabbatical period of the world. So far as I have been 
 able to trace the matter, he is the first who made out of 1260 days, in 
 Rev. 11: 3, as many years , during which the State of the Son was to 
 continue. These years he regarded as then about coming to an end, 
 (fl. cent. XII.), and he urged with great earnestness a reformation upon 
 the churches. His book was not aimed against the pope directly ; but 
 when the latter quarrelled with the Franciscans, to which order Joachim 
 belonged, it would seem that they did not scruple to insert passages in 
 Joachim’s book, which bore very hardly upon popery. 
 
 Other enemies of the Romish church, the Waldenses, the Wicliffites, 
 the Hussites, and others, did not fail to take the hint thus offered to 
 them. Rome, which had so long been endeavouring, by its exposition 
 of the Apocalypse, to put down first the Saracens, then all heretical 
 opposers of its own dogmas, now experienced in her turn a retribution 
 of the same nature. It was not difficult to satisfy such as groaned under 
 the Romish papal yoke, that Rev. xiii — xviii. might, with great pro- 
 priety, be applied to superstitious and tyrannizing and persecuting 
 Rome. 
 
 But did the Reformation itself introduce any new method of interpre- 
 ting the Apocalypse, on grounds independent of party feeling, and sup- 
 
EXEGESIS OP THE ArOCALYrSE. 
 
 461 
 
 ported by the essential and now generally acknowledged principles of 
 liistorico-philological exegesis ? 
 
 It laid the foundation for such an exegesis, by substantially adopting 
 it in the interpretation of the historical and doctrinal books of Scripture. 
 In the latter, the application was easy and obvious. But we have seen, 
 that not only Luther and his early followers slighted the Apocalypse, 
 but that such was the case with Zuingle and his friends. After the 
 credit of the Apocalypse began to revive and was generally established 
 among Protestants, more attention began to be given to the Revelation. 
 Yet the difficulty was still very great. Even the Hebrew prophets were 
 not, at that period, recognized as proper poets. How could the nature 
 of prophetic symbol, trope, and generally of the prophetic style, be well 
 understood at such a period ? And if they were not, how could it be 
 expected that the Apocalypse would be interpreted in accordance with 
 enlightened principles of criticism ? In some respects this is doubtless 
 the most difficult of all the prophetic books ; and while exegesis was in 
 such an undefined state as at this period, it could not well be explained 
 from the stand-point which the more recent interpretation of the sacred 
 books has assumed. The temptation to make out a meaning from the 
 Apocalypse, which would be appropriate to party and sectarian pur- 
 poses, was very great ; and for a long time, few resisted this temptation. 
 Meanings directly opposite, defended by adverse parties, would of course 
 be the result of such methods of interpretation. Every interpretation 
 not grounded on proper historico-exegetical principles simply, must be 
 variable and shifting from side to side. Yet even to the present hour 
 there are many expositors of the Apocalypse, who do not appear to have 
 any adequate apprehension of this, and who endeavour to supply the 
 lack of principle by confidence of assertion. 
 
 Early in the sixteenth century, Erasmus and Laurentius Valla 
 in their commentaries, aimed only at explaining occasionally the sense 
 of words in the Apocalypse. Erasmus, as we have seen, had doubts 
 about the apostolical origin of the book; and neither lie nor Valla pre- 
 tended to know the meaning of it. 
 
 We have seen how decidedly Luther rejected it at first; and also 
 how he gradually yielded to giving it some authority, on account of the 
 antipapistical use which could easily be made of it. In 1528 he found 
 and republished the famous and anonymous Commentarius, written one 
 hundred years before his time, which applied the predictions of the Apoc- 
 alypse to the papacy. Einally, in 1534, Luther himself published some 
 comments on the Revelation ; which partook in a large measure of the 
 spirit of the age. He assumed that the Apocalypse was an epitome of 
 church-history ; and then, at his pleasure, searched for events here and 
 there, which he thought would accord with the apocalyptic descriptions. 
 
462 
 
 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE 
 
 For example, the little book in Rev. 10: 10, which was bitter and sweet 
 to John, he applies to the papacy with its great spiritual pretences. The 
 thousand years, chap, xx, he dates from the time when the Apocalypse 
 was written, and extends it to the time of Gregory VII ; and then he 
 reckons the 666 in 13: 18, as so many years from that time, during 
 which the anti-christian papacy will continue. Gog and Magog, he says, 
 mean the Turks and the red (?) Jews ; and he expects the last judg- 
 ment to follow closely the appearance of these. Finally, he suggests 
 that the Apocalypse may be used for the consolation of Christians in 
 times of persecution and distress, and also for a warning against the in- 
 troduction of dangerous and offensive errors into the church. 
 
 This work of Luther became a kind of general model for succeeding 
 expositors in the Protestant churches. Down even to the present hour, 
 the idea of regarding the Apocalypse as a compendium of ecclesiastical 
 and civil history, has been eagerly grasped at, and solicitously retained, 
 among far the greater mass of Protestant expositors. It has been kept 
 up by the same circumstances which introduced it, viz., the opposition of 
 Protestants to the Romish church and the papacy, and the ease with 
 which certain portions of the Apocalypse may be applied to them. The 
 fact that some portions of Rev. xii — xix. are altogether incompatible 
 with the idea of any but a heathen and truly idolatrous power which is 
 opposed to the church, is entirely overlooked, by reason of the many 
 traits of apparent resemblance to the corrupt Romish church, which can 
 be traced without much effort in the remainder. 
 
 The general principle of considering the Apocalypse as a compendium 
 of history, foreshadowed by symbol, prevailed not only among the Luthe- 
 ran, but also among the Reformed churches. To this there are but few ex- 
 ceptions among the Protestant commentators of those times. Such men, 
 for example, as Beza and Camerarius, move very cautiously in respect 
 to the Apocalypse, and limit themselves mostly to the explanation of 
 words and tropes. The 'practical uses of the book were not so widely 
 missed as its general meaning. Consolation amid trials, warning, re- 
 proof, above all the repulse of the papal claims, and the glorious hopes 
 of the future, were deduced from the Apocalypse, and were proclaimed 
 in the pulpit and from the press. The long continued and vigorous con- 
 test with the papacy gradually drew the attention of the Lutheran di- 
 vines more and more to the Apocalypse, and reconciled them to it, be- 
 cause they could so easily convert it into a magazine of armour, which 
 might be employed in attacking the papal enemy, or in defending them- 
 selves. 
 
 It may easily be supposed, that while all was thus floating and uncer- 
 tain, while every one was at liberty to select facts from history which 
 he might bring into union with the predictions of the Apocalypse, a great 
 
EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYFSE. 
 
 463 
 
 variety of particular modes of explanation would arise. Sucli was the 
 state of the case. One, for example, dated the 1000 years from the birth 
 of Christ ; another from his death ; a third from the establishment of a 
 Christian church ; a fourth from Constantine the Great, etc. Of course, 
 these considered the prediction of a Millennium as already fulfilled, hut 
 only in a spiritual sense ; while some few looked forward to a terres- 
 trial reign of Christ, at some future period. So long as the times of the 
 Apocalypse remained undefined and unfixed, everything of course must 
 be in a floating state, when such a mode of interpretation is adopted. 
 The new heavens and new earth and new Jerusalem were more gene- 
 rally referred to a future state of blessedness. 
 
 It must of course be a result of applying Rev. xiii — xix. to the papacy , 
 that the 1000 years were considered as still future. In general a spirit- 
 ual view was taken of the meaning of the passage respecting this pe- 
 riod, and the gross Chiliasm of ancient times was repelled with much 
 positiveness. 
 
 Toward the end of the sixteenth century, Joseph Scaliger made 
 the declaration, that he understood the Apocalypse as far as the end of 
 the seven woes ; beyond this, he could not settle the question, whether it 
 belonged to the past or the future. Later than the time of saying this, 
 he seems to have had doubts about the apostolic origin of the book. It 
 was he that uttered the famous declaration respecting Calvin, who did 
 not comment upon the book of Revelation, which has been so often re- 
 peated, and is still often addressed to those who undertake to explain 
 the Apocalypse, viz., “ Calvinus sapit, quod in Apocalypsin non scripsit.” 
 
 It might of course be expected, that the Romish church would not be 
 idle, while the Protestant interpreters were so busy in applying the beast 
 and the false prophet of the Apocalypse to the papacy. Cardinal Bel- 
 larmin especially undertook to show that the Antichrist of the Apoca- 
 lypse was yet to come; De Rom. Pontif. III. 3. The Spanish Jesuit 
 Ribeira (t 1591), in his commentary on the Apocalypse (1591), aims, 
 however, more at illustrating the grammatical and historical sense of the 
 book, and seems shy of adopting a mystical sense. The strain of his 
 work is more impartial than was common at that period. 
 
 Near the commencement of the seventeenth century (1614), the Span- 
 ish Jesuit Ludovicus ab Alcassar published his Vestiyatio arcani 
 Sensus in Apocalypsi ; a performance distinguished by one remarkable 
 feature, which was then new. He declared the Apocalypse to be a 
 continuous and connected work, making regular advancement from be- 
 ginning to end, as parts of one general plan in the mind of the writer. 
 In conformity with this he brought out a result which has been of great 
 importance to succeeding commentators. Rev. v — xi., he thinks, ap- 
 plies to the Jewish enemies of the Christian church ; xi — xix. to hea- 
 
464 
 
 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE 
 
 then Rome and carnal and worldly powers ; xx — xxii. to the final 
 conquests to be made by the church, and also to its rest, and its ulti- 
 mate glorification. This view of the contents of the book had been 
 merely hinted before, by Hentenius, in the Preface to his Latin Version 
 of Arethas, Par. 1547. 8vo. ; and by Salmeron in his Praeludia in 
 Apoc. But no one had ever developed this idea fully, and endeavoured 
 to illustrate and enforce it, in such a way as Alcassar. He applies chap, 
 xiii — xix. of course only to heathen Rome ; and finds the fulfilment in 
 its conversion to Christianity. Although he puts the time of composing 
 the Apocalypse down to the exile of John under Domitian, yet he still 
 applies chap, v — xi. to the Jews, and of course regards the book as part- 
 ly embracing the past. 
 
 It might be expected, that a commentary which thus freed the Rom- 
 ish church from the assaults of Protestants, would be popular among the 
 advocates of the papacy. Alcassar met, of course, with general appro- 
 bation and reception among the Romish community. 
 
 In 1618, Dayid Paraeus, a man of distinguished erudition among 
 the Protestants, published a Commentary on the Apocalypse, which was 
 designed to oppose the views of Alcassar, and to defend the application 
 of chap, xiii — xix. to the papacy. Grammatical and archaeological in- 
 vestigations, moreover, were not neglected by him. It was peculiar to 
 him, that he first advanced and defended the idea, that the Apocalypse 
 is in the form of a drama ; an idea wdiich Eichhorn has taken great 
 pains to defend and adorn. But although Paraeus was in an error here, 
 yet the internal investigation of the plan of the book was greatly promo- 
 ted, by thus bringing before the minds of readers questions of this na- 
 ture. But antipapistic commentary found its acme in the exegetical 
 work of Hoe yon Honegg (1610 — 1640), which was so violent, that 
 even most Protestants declared it to be “ Classicum belli sacri contra 
 Pontificios,” and deemed it extravagant ; while others of a more enthu- 
 siastic temperament praised it very highly. 
 
 From this time forward, one particular explanation of the Apocalypse 
 gave place to another, in constant succession. There was no general 
 agreement as to the beginning and end of periods, or of the modes of 
 reckoning them. Days were made into years by some ; and prophetic 
 days, months, and years, were distinguished from civil ones. What 
 helped to increase the confusion was, that Daniel and Ezekiel were 
 brought into parallelism with the Apocalypse, and even Canticles was 
 appealed to by some, for the like purpose. Each one, as is usual, found 
 all others who differed from him to be arbitrary in their exegesis ; and 
 they more than suspected him of the same. 
 
 In 1627, Joseph Mede published his famous Claris Apocalyptica , 
 which has been so often appealed to by almost all subsequent English 
 
EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 4G5 
 
 writers on the Apocalypse. The peculiarity of his scheme is, that all 
 the leading events in the book are made to be synchronistic or contem- 
 poraneous. The hint was taken from the forty-two months in Rev. xi. 
 and xiii. Having fixed on sameness of time for the events in vi — xi, 
 and xiii — xix., of course the exposition must be conformed to this. Ac- 
 cordingly, the seven seals upon the book written within and without 
 (5: 1). are symbols of so many successive states of the Roman empire, 
 from the time of Vespasian. The seven trumpets only serve to explain 
 the complex import of the seventh seal ; and the correspondences *o 
 these he finds in the continued history of the Roman empire. As the 
 last part of the book is synchronistic , it must of course be explained in a 
 manner conformed to this. Nothing, indeed, can be more arbitrary, than 
 his whole treatment of his subject, notwithstanding the good degree of 
 learning which he has displayed. His views were soon called in ques- 
 tion ; and he defended them with zeal and much sincerity. They were 
 at last fundamentally overthrown by Vitringa, in his Anacrisis Apoca- 
 lypseos, published in 1705, pp. 230 seq. (See a more particular view of 
 Mede’s book, in Comm. Introduct. to chap. vi. seq.) The main position 
 of synchronism in the different portions of the book, is most palpably 
 against the whole tenor of the book, which, with some trifling exceptions, 
 is progressive in its plan. 
 
 In the sequel, some interpreters fell upon the old t plan of supposing 
 that the seven epistles to the seven churches were symbolic of the seven 
 successive periods or states of the churches ; and the rest of the book 
 was of course made subservient to this. Some regarded the several 
 heptades of the book as synchronistic ; others, as successive. Of course 
 every kind of exegesis and of artifice was resorted to, in order to make 
 out a probability for each one’s interpretation. Finally, Cocceius and 
 his followers undertook to establish dogmatically the period-system. 
 Soon, however, Witsius and Johannes Markius made efforts to op- 
 pose and refute his opinions. But the latter, in his Commentarius, has 
 adopted the principle of repetition of the same things, in the Apocalypse, 
 instead of a progressive development ; and so the whole book is of course 
 brought into confusion. 
 
 About the middle of the 17th century, appeared the Commentary of 
 Grotius. That philological, historical, and archaeological explanations 
 of the language would be found in him, was of course to be expected by 
 all who knew him. But he went further. He adopted, for substance, 
 the outlines of Alcassar’s views. The persecuting Jews, and persecu- 
 ting heathen Rome, were the main objects of chapter iv — xix ; then 
 the flourishing state of the church. Yet he hit upon some peculiarities 
 which will not bear examination. For example ; the thousand years 
 began with Constantine’s edict in favour of Christianity, A. D. 311; 
 vol. i. 59 
 
466 
 
 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE 
 
 the end of these, in the 14th century, was when the Ottoman power and 
 Mohammedans broke into Asia Minor and Greece. These of course 
 were the Gog and Magog of the Apocalypse. But notwithstanding 
 some things of this nature, Grotius has given many a good hint, and 
 made not a few fine remarks on the language of the Apocalypse. On 
 the whole, he helped to prepare the way for further and better efforts in 
 regard to this book. 
 
 The theological sentiments among the reigning part of Protestants, 
 at this period, hindered the favourable reception of Grotius’ work ; but 
 more particularly were Protestants displeased with him, for interpreting 
 the Apocalypse as though its main aim was not against the papacy. 
 Few ventured, for a long time, to follow him in this respect. Among 
 these few, were Hammond and Le Clerc ; neither of whom, for sev- 
 eral reasons, found general favour among Protestants. In various par- 
 ticulars, with regard to the application of some smaller portions of the 
 Apocalypse, these two writers differed from Grotius and from each other. 
 But the main scheme was the same. 
 
 In 1696, Petersen, by his Geheimnisse der heilig. Offenbarung geojf- 
 net,*e tc., attempted to revive the old idea of a terrestrial reign of Christ 
 on earth. But this met with very vigorous opposition. Even the sober 
 and excellent P. J. Spener, (who admitted the antipapal exegesis, but 
 believed that the Apocalypse has revealed the future conversion of the 
 Jews and the final overthrow of Antichrist), on account of his suspected 
 leaning toward the Millenarians, found but little favour as to his apo- 
 calyptic labours. 
 
 Among the Romanists, in 1690 appeared the famous work of J. B. 
 Bossuet, entitled V Apocalypse avec une Explication. The talents, 
 profound learning, flowing and popular style, and winning address, of 
 this celebrated writer, all contributed to procure extensive favour for his 
 work among the adherents to the Romish hierarchy. His general plan 
 is this. The history of the church is divided into three periods ; the 
 sorrows of the church are comprised in Rev. v — xix ; the dominion of 
 the church, in 20: 1 — 10 ; the period of its last trial is comprised in the 
 remainder ; and this last trial is immediately followed by the general 
 resurrection and the judgment. The final glorification of the church 
 completes the whole. The first period, chapter v — xix, he divides be- 
 tween the Jewish enemies of the church, v — xi, and heathen Romish 
 enemies, xii — xix. The two witnesses in chapter xi, are Christian 
 martyrs. From this chapter onward, he concentrates all in the perse- 
 cution of the church under Diocletian ; in whose name he finds 666 
 concealed. It is obvious, therefore, that there must be much in the ex- 
 ecution of his plan which savours of the arbitrary. But there is so 
 much talent and tact displayed, in the manner or exhibiting the writer’s 
 
EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 467 
 
 views, and there are so many fine thoughts developed in the work, and 
 so much of skilful defence of the papacy, which still does not assume 
 the form of defence or at least of polemics, that no one can wonder at 
 the celebrity which this book of Bossuet speedily obtained, and which it 
 has hitherto maintained, in the Romish church. It is a book which may 
 be read with profit by any well informed reader, even at the present 
 time. The occasional extravagances of it, to call them nothing more, 
 need not prevent this. That such can be found, may easily be shown. 
 The locusts in chapter 9: 1 seq., Bossuet represents as symbolizing the 
 heretics of the ancient church ; and the end of the 1000 years in 
 chapter xx. he refers to the appearance of the Turks in Europe and to 
 the breaking out of the Lutheran heresy ! One can hardly suspect that 
 this is anything more than a mere piece of waggery, in such a man as 
 Bossuet. 
 
 But few Romish commentators have written on the Apocalypse since 
 the time of Bossuet. These, however, have all trodden in his foot-steps ; 
 and his work remains as a kind of regulative among Papists, in respect 
 to their views of the Revelation. 
 
 A few years after Bossuet’s work was published, (in 1705), appeared 
 the great work of Campegius Vitringa, entitled Ana-crisis Apokalyp- 
 seos. In appropriate learning, in patient and extensive research, in a 
 wide-spread knowledge of Hebrew, Rabbinic, Greek, and ancient and 
 modern history, he excelled all his predecessors, and probably all his 
 followers. Vitringa did not reject philological, archaeological, or histori- 
 cal sources, in explaining the Apocalypse. He made diligent and ex- 
 tensive use of all ; and his book remains, even down to the present 
 time, a rich store-house of information in these respects— one which has 
 not yet been exhausted. Vitringa was dissatisfied with Grotius and 
 with Bossuet. He wrote partly in opposition to both. But his system 
 of interpretation is, in one leading respect, like that of most Protestants 
 who had preceded him. Corrupted Christian Rome is, with him, a 
 leading object in the Apocalypse. But he embraces pagan Rome also. 
 His general view of the book is curious. Excepting a short prologue 
 and epilogue, the work is thus divided : The first part, 1: 9 — 3: 22, in- 
 dicates, by the seven epistles, etc., the seven different periods or inter- 
 nal states of the churches, down to the end of time ; 4: 1 — 22: 3 exhib- 
 its the external condition and circumstances of the church ; the remain- 
 der shows the state, of the church in both these respects. Then as to 
 the second portion of the Apocalypse, 4: 1 — 22: 3, it is subdivided into 
 three visions, viz. 4: 2 — 8: 1. 8: 2 — 11: 19, and 12: 1 — 22: 3. The 
 first of these exhibits the external state of the church from the time of 
 Trajan down to the end of the world ; the second depicts Rome, hea- 
 then and Christian, under the image of Jerusalem ; the third is Rome 
 
468 
 
 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE 
 
 antichristian, its contest, its fall, etc. It is unnecessary to give a fuller 
 view of his scheme here ; and in order to avoid repetition, I refrain 
 from it. The reader will find such a view in the Introduction to chap, 
 vi. in the Commentary. 
 
 While we readily concede, then, to Vitringa more learning, ability, 
 and even tact in some respects, than to any of his predecessors, it is still 
 clear, that from the very nature of his plan he must launch widely into 
 the field of boundless conjecture. His supposed repetitions of ‘the same 
 topics, without any regular order ; his symbolical views of the seven 
 epistles ; his separation of the internal and external history of the 
 churches ; his mixture of pagan Rome and apostate Christian Rome ; 
 his application of death on the pale horse to the Saracens and the 
 Turks ; of the fifth seal to the Waldenses and Albigenses and other 
 modern martyrs ; of the sixth seal either to the destruction of the Jew- 
 ish Commonwealth, or the political changes under Constantine, or the 
 commotions in Europe at the time of the Reformation, or to the destruc- 
 tion of Antichrist, (a rare specimen of guessing) ; his separating of the 
 seven trumpets entirely from their connection with the seventh seal ; 
 his allegation that the half-hour’s silence in heaven indicates a long-con- 
 tinued (?) and peaceful and happy state of the church ; these, and many 
 more of the like things of which his book is full, show that this great 
 man was making his way hither and thither, with large and unintermit- 
 ted steps indeed, but often by twilight, and always without any certain 
 compass to guide him. He had, one may concede, a plan of his own, 
 and Was true enough to that. But although - many commentators who 
 preceded him said more extravagant things than he, yet few if any have 
 on the whole developed a more arbitrary plan. His book may still be 
 consulted with profit. But in recent times, I should doubt whether any 
 can be found who are his real followers. His work is one of the most 
 laboured of all his performances ; but it is unlucky in its plan. In one 
 respect he differs widely from a large mass of Protestant commentators. 
 He has no apprehension, that by the designation of times in the Apoca- 
 lypse, any specific chronology is intended. On 11: 2, 3 he remarks, 
 that the notation of time is only an Old Testament analogy, and that 
 what is meant by it is, that the time of persecution is one that is defi- 
 nitely fixed by God, and cannot exceed its bounds. “ Would that oth- 
 ers had been equally prudent in regard to this matter !” exclaims Liicke ; 
 and I can heartily unite with him. 
 
 Vitringa, from his weight of character, found a ready hearing among 
 Protestants. His book, although very large, went through three edi- 
 tions in less than twenty years. Yet, in the sequel, some began again 
 to revive the discussions about the definite limitation of times in the 
 Apocalypse. William Whiston, at Cambridge, mathematician and 
 
EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 469 
 
 theologian, went in great earnest into this subject. He showed, as he 
 believed, from the book of Daniel, that a prophetic day must mean a 
 year. In his Essay on the Revelation (1706), he assigned the return 
 and coming of Christ to the year 1715. When this time had passed, 
 without any tokens of fulfilment, he renewed his calculations, and brought 
 out 1766. But as he died in 1752, he had no opportunity to correct, 
 for a third time, the dates which he had twice brought out with a kind 
 of mathematical assurance. But the experiment has been renewed 
 nearly every five or ten years since, in the English world, and in the 
 United States. This very year, we, in this country, have passed the 
 boundary assigned by a large number of enthusiastic men, for the com- 
 ing of the Lord. But all this avails nothing with individuals of an en- 
 thusiastic stamp. As soon as one period has disappointed their calcu- 
 lations, they commence de novo with a determination to find another. 
 Generally the last period on which they fix, is beyond their probable 
 natural life. In this way they avoid the vexation of another disap- 
 pointment. 
 
 Among others, at this period, who speculated largely upon the desig- 
 nations of time in the Apocalypse, was a follower of Cocceius, Anthony 
 Dries sen. His Meditationes , so far as I know, may claim the credit of 
 the discovery, that the thousand years of chap. xx. mean a period each 
 day of which is a year or 360 days ; so that the millennial period is to 
 comprise 360,000 years. Followers here and there he has had ; par- 
 ticularly in England and America. 
 
 In 1740 J. Albert Bengel published his famous work on the 
 Apocalypse, Erklarten Offenbarung Johannis. The designation of time 
 is the leading object. Merits the work has of a distinguished exegetical 
 order. The author was one of the most learned, sober, and expert exe- 
 getes of his time ; and everywhere does he manifest piety and an amia- 
 ble spirit. Some twenty years did he spend principally on apocalyptic 
 study; and with special reference to fixing specifically the times of ful- 
 filment. His calculations I shall not attempt to detail. The grand key 
 is* 666, in 13: 18. The 42 months of the same chapter are, he thinks, 
 of equal extent; so that each prophetic month is equal to 15f- years, 
 and a prophetic day to half a year. With these assumed elements he 
 finally brought out 1836 as the culmination-point — the grand crisis — of 
 the great events predicted in the Apocalypse. He speaks modestly, but 
 yet with entire assurance that there is no error in his calculation. But 
 still he provides for the possibility of failure ; and says, that in such a 
 case, one must apply himself diligently to find out the source of the er- 
 ror that has been committed. We have passed 1836, and without any 
 suspicion of a crisis in the affairs of the church or the world. Of course 
 we now know what to think of Bengel’s scheme. But the exhibition of 
 
470 
 
 § 27 . HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE 
 
 such a strange mixture of piety, humility, philological acuteness, tact, 
 sound judgment in some respects, and other good qualities, with enthu- 
 siasm, mistaken principles as to scriptural designations of time, caprice 
 even in making out the relations of these to each other, confidence in 
 the certainty of his calculations, and deep interest in the successful re- 
 ception of them, can be presented, I believe, by few other books that 
 ever were written. Pity that so valuable a life should be thus wasted ! 
 
 Bengel found favour with some ; and a part of his apocalyptic works 
 were translated into English, and some into Danish. But he was also 
 opposed by some ; specially by J. G. Pfeiffer, in his Neuer Versuch , 
 1788. Yet he had many defenders, here and there ; and even down to 
 the present time his work has not ceased, now and then, to be brought 
 before the public as worthy of their attention. 
 
 The great mass of the religious public became, at last, wearied out 
 with the extravagances and the errors of apocalyptic interpreters. This 
 prepared the way for Abauzit, in his Essay on the Apocalypse (see p. 
 443 above), to broach the idea, that the whole book relates to the de- 
 struction of Judea and Jerusalem. His starting point was, that the 
 book itself declares that all which it predicts would take place speedily. 
 Hence Rome, in chap, xiii — xix. points figuratively to Jerusalem. Chap, 
 xxi. xxii. relate to the extension of the church, after the destruction of 
 the Jews. 
 
 The same ground was substantially adopted by Wetstein, in his 
 edition of the New Testament. Chap. xii. and seq. he refers to civil 
 wars in Italy. The 1000 years dwindle down to 50, from Domitian’s 
 death down to the end of the Jewish war under Adrian. Gog and Ma- 
 gog are found in Barchocheba and his rebellion ; and the heavenly Je- 
 rusalem is only a type of the happy state of the church on earth, which 
 will finally take place. (See fuller development in Commentary, Intro- 
 duction to chap. vi.). In point of extravagance of application, and ar- 
 bitrary suppositions, scarcely any one can exceed what Wetstein has 
 exhibited. 
 
 Wolfius, in his Gurae Philoloyicae, collects and criticises upon what 
 others have said ; but in passages of difficulty he withholds his own 
 judgment. 
 
 Harenberg, in his Erlcldrung , concentrates the mass of the book up- 
 on Jerusalem and Palestine. But from chap, xix, he supposes it goes 
 on to the end of all things. His object was, to unite the older and the 
 more recent method of interpreting the book. But his paradoxical as- 
 sumptions are so many, that the sober reader, although the author is a 
 sensible man, becomes disinclined toward adopting such interpretations. 
 
 Semler, who attacked so violently the canonical credit of the book, 
 has given only generalities as to interpretation. He speaks of it as sym- 
 
EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 471 
 
 bolizing changes, calamities, portentous signs, etc. ; and also great pros- 
 perity and happiness to the church ; but he did not put an estimate on 
 the book, which would lead him to make much effort for the interpreta- 
 tion of it. 
 
 Soon after Semler had made war upon the Apocalypse, and it was 
 threatened with exclusion from the Canon in Germany, Herder pub- 
 lished his Maran Atha or Book of the Coming of the Lord, 1779. With 
 all his exquisite and cultivated taste, Herder was not distinguished for 
 ability as a mere exegete or interpreter. On the score of grammatical 
 and historical interpretation, not much ground was won by him for the 
 Apocalypse. But in regard to the rhetorical character of the book and 
 on the score of aesthetics, Herder’s work was really the commencement 
 of a new era. Never had the Apocalypse a more enthusiastic and de- 
 voted interpreter. Never before was the nature of its poetic representa- 
 tions so fully and finely unfolded. The man who wrote that peculiar book, 
 the Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, must needs be qualified in respect to taste 
 and aesthedcal skill to make a right estimate of the Apocalypse. Her- 
 der’s work is all soul and animation, through and through. It is easy to 
 see, that the commentator entered upon his work and accomplished it 
 with the highest degree of interest and pleasure. The vivid pictures 
 and glowing language which he presented to his readers, served to cre- 
 ate more interest in the Apocalypse, and to procure more favour with 
 the public for it, than all the ponderous folios and quartos which had be- 
 fore been published. Nor has the aesthetical judgment of the public 
 been materially changed, since Herder gave it a new direction. 
 
 Regarded simply as a book of critical exegesis, Herder’s work can- 
 not well be said to claim a high place. He adopted Abauzit’s stand- 
 point, and makes everything important in the book relate to the Jewish 
 history. This is a fundamental error, and must of course substantially 
 affect the character of the exegesis. But there is so much of ingenuity 
 and of eloquence, there are such bursts of feeling and flow of heart, in 
 all that Herder says, that his book remains, down to the present hour, 
 with all its errors in interpretation, the most attractive and delightful 
 work that has yet been written upon the Apocalypse. In particular, the 
 skill which he manifests, in showing that “it is a book for all hearts and 
 for all times ” (p. 257 seq.), and so is one of an important practical 
 character, has not been surpassed, perhaps not equalled, by any other 
 writer. And although he seems to move in a narrow circle, as to the 
 meaning of the book, limiting it so generally to the Jews, yet he makes 
 God’s dealings with them, and with his church at that period, symboli- 
 cal of the circumstances of the church in every age. The kingdom of 
 Christ will ever be victorious over all its enemies. 
 
 Hartwig followed Herder, and wrote three volumes on the Apoca- 
 
472 
 
 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE 
 
 lypse, full of learning and the fruits of labour. In his Apology for the 
 Apocalypse against mistaken Blame and mistaken Praise , he laboriously 
 defends the genuineness of the book ; but in his Commentary, he fol- 
 lows on in the track of Herder. In one respect he differs from him, 
 and accords with Paraeus, viz., that the form of the Apocalypse is dra- 
 matic . Herder’s oriental taste secured him against this ; but in this re- 
 spect, Hartwig was lacking. 
 
 IIerrenschneider, in his Tentamen Apocalapseos illustrandae , 
 (1786), a work distinguished for its discrimination and ability, found in 
 the Apocalypse the overthrow of Judaism and of Heathenism, and the 
 universal triumph of the church. This was so ably defended by him, 
 that Eichhorn, in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, seems to have 
 made him a model, in regard to general plan. This last work, publish- 
 ed in 1791, gave entire new life to apocalyptic study, and for some 
 twenty-five or thirty years seems to have had almost an entire predom- 
 inance in Germany. It is Eichhorn’ s ablest work ; and although it 
 does not exhibit such ardour and intensity of interest as Herder’s book, 
 yet as a work of philology and real explanation of words and phrases, 
 it far exceeds Herder’s work. It is indeed the first work which seems 
 to have taken fully the position, that everything in the Apocalypse is to 
 be illustrated in the same way, as in any other work of a similar na- 
 ture in the Old Testament. The learning and taste of the author ena- 
 bled him to exhibit many a happy and striking illustration of words and 
 phrases and imagery. He has given an interest to the book, in this re- 
 spect, which none before him had done. Herder outdid him in glow 
 and eloquence ; but Eichhorn is not wanting in taste, and is highly re- 
 spectable in this work for his philology. 
 
 The main features of his exegesis have already been indicated. Sub- 
 stantially they agree with the general tenor of the book. But in the 
 detail, there are some extravagances which will not now find favour. 
 E. g. in 11: 2 seq., Eichhorn finds the two witnesses to be the two Jew- 
 ish high priests, Ananus and Jesus, murdered by the Zealots ; while 
 nothing can be clearer, than that the writer produces them as Christian 
 witnesses, roig gaQzvoi gov. But Herder had committed the same 
 error ; and the real meaning in this case is so difficult, that a mistake is 
 not to be thought strange. Eichhorn’s work was found fault with by 
 some, and in my apprehension with good reason, because it places the 
 whole composition of the Apocalypse, on the ground of a mere exercise 
 of the inventive powers of poetic imagination. I do not perceive why 
 more than this may not be admitted ; unless indeed, we deny that in- 
 spiration is a reality. I am aware, to be sure, that very many do deny 
 this. But, while I cannot agree with them, I still admit that the Apoca- 
 lypse, as to its form , has all the indicia of art and rhetorical disposition 
 
EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 473 
 
 or arrangement. What objection can there be to admitting, that when 
 God speaks to men, he speaks more humano ? The alphabetic Psalms, 
 especially Ps. cxix, Prov. xxxi, the book of Lamentations, and many 
 portions of the prophets, afford striking exhibitions of the truth of this. I 
 do not and cannot regard Eichhorn as a believer in Christianity, in the 
 sense in which those are who admit the inspired authority of the Scrip- 
 ture. But I can see no objection to accepting thankfully whatever aid 
 he has proffered, in order to illustrate the words, phrases, and imagery 
 of the Apocalypse. We need not depend on him for our theology. 
 
 Heinrichs, in his Apocalypsis lllustrata, has added very little to what 
 Eichhorn and Herder had already exhibited ; while, now and then, he 
 indulges in some peculiar extravagances. Other commentators, such 
 as Lange, Hagen, Lindemann, Matthai, etc., are of little significance. 
 The Commentary of Ewald however, (1828), deserves a very differ- 
 ent character. The book is small, but full of thought and illustration. 
 Being a philologist of much higher acquisitions than most of those who 
 had preceded him in writing upon this book, he has brought all his He- 
 brew learning to bear upon it, and often with signal advantage. The 
 outlines of his general plan are these : (1) The day of vengeance on the 
 enemies of the church, or of Christ’s coming, is near, chap, iv — vii ; 
 vengeance begins and progresses, 8: 1 — 11: 14; vengeance is comple- 
 ted, 8: 15 — 22: 5. So he makes no catastrophe at the end of chap, xi, 
 and even represents the author as sparing Jerusalem out of partiality 
 for his own kindred. The artificial arrangement of the book he fully 
 sees, in respect to its heptades, and in regard to some of its triads. But 
 the latter he has only here and there noticed, omitting to bring into 
 view the three great catastrophes ; the three heptades symbolic of 
 punishment, i. e. the seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven vials ; and 
 also most of the triplicities , which, in every part of the book small and 
 great, everywhere develope themselves. . Ewald’s critical skepticism is 
 too well known to expect from him any acknowledgment of the divine 
 authority of the book, or of real prediction in it. With him, it is of the 
 same order as the Pollio of Virgil, i. e. the expression of the earnest 
 wishes and hopes of a warm-hearted but enthusiastic Christian ; who, 
 in all probability, believed himself to have been aided by the Spirit of 
 God in the composition of the book. We are not bound to follow him 
 here ; but we may acknowledge with thankfulness many an important 
 philological suggestion, many an illustration made fully satisfactory, and 
 many an exegetical error of preceding interpreters corrected. 
 
 Other recent writers on the Apocalypse, in Germany, scarcely de- 
 serve notice. Of the enthusiastic Bengelian order was M. F. Sender, 
 Jung Stilling, Typke, Gerken, Opitz, Leutwein, Ruble von Lilienstern, 
 Sander, etc. The last wrote in 1829, and he finds that the commence- 
 vol. i. 60 
 
474 
 
 § 27. EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 ment of the Millennium will be in 1847. He has a little the advantage 
 
 © 
 
 of the recent Millenarians of our own country, who placed it first in 
 1842 ; then in 1848 ; next in April, and then in October, of 1844 ; and 
 who now conclude, that we ought to live in daily expectation of it until 
 it comes. A more recent work on the Apocalypse by Zullig, of which 
 I have only seen an ample review, has excited some attention in Ger- 
 many. But from the extravagance of some of its positions, I should 
 not think that it could possibly acquire and maintain a good reputation. 
 
 Lucke, who has written so large and able a book in the way of In- 
 troduction to the Apocalypse, has not yet published a Commentary. 
 Whenever he does, the public have reason to believe that some acces- 
 sion will be made to the exegetical ground already won for the Apoca- 
 lypse. 
 
 In the English world, nearly everything has moved on in accordance 
 with the older Protestant views, viz. that the beast and false prophet 
 are symbols of the Romish papal church. Bishop Newton on the 
 Prophecies is a book too well known to need description here. Since 
 the present century came in, some of the leading works in England are 
 the following: Whitaker, on the Revelation, 1802; Galloway, Brief 
 Commentaries on Revelation, 1802 ; Woodhouse, on the Apocalypse, 
 1805 ; Holmes’ Revelation of St. John, 1815, 2 vol. ; A. Fuller’s Ex- 
 pository Discourses, 1815 ; W. Cunningham, Dissertation on the Seals 
 and Trumpets, 1817 ; Gauntlett’s Exposition of Revelation, 1821 ; 
 Tilloch’s Dissertations, 1823 ; Culbertson’s Lectures, 1826, 2 vol. ; 
 Croly’s Apocalypse, 1827 ; Woodhouse on the Apocalypse, 1828 ; 
 Hutcheson’s Guide to the Study of Revelation, 1828 ; The Apocalypse 
 explained (anon.), 1829 ; W. Jones’ Lectures on the Apocalypse, 1829 ; 
 E. Irving’s Lectures on Revelation, 1829 ; Addis’ Heaven opened, or 
 the visions of Daniel and John explained, 1829. 
 
 In our own country books designed to be explanatory of the Apoca- 
 lypse are not wanting. Kinne, Smith, Prof. Bush, and others, have 
 published on this subject. But as their works are well known to read- 
 ers here, it is unnecessary to characterize them. 
 
 Thus have I given a brief sketch of what has been done in past times, 
 in relation to the Apocalypse. That the book has suffered more than 
 any one in the Bible, from extravagant and arbitrary exegesis, no one will 
 deny who is acquainted with its exegetical history. It is to be hoped that 
 some progress may be made in these days of exegetical study, toward a 
 firmer and more satisfactory mode of interpretation. What possible sat- 
 isfaction, indeed, can ever be felt by a rational man, in any interpreta- 
 tion which rests upon mere surmise or fancy ? And such must ever be 
 all those interpretations, which result from considering the book as a 
 mere compendium of civil and ecclesiastical history. But this has been 
 
§ 28. APOCALYPSE DESIGNED FOR GENERAL USE. 
 
 475 
 
 practised so long, and Protestant feeling is so deeply enlisted against the 
 Romish church, that the chance of substituting a better method of exege- 
 sis speedily, is probably but small. Yet it must come at last. It will 
 come, whether we choose or refuse. The radical principles of herme- 
 neutics are every year gaining ground ; and inasmuch as they are found- 
 ed in reason and common sense, they must sooner or later become tri- 
 umphant.* 
 
 § 28. Is the Apocalypse designed and adapted for the use of the Christian 
 church in every age f 
 
 This question must be somewhat strictly defined, before a satisfactory 
 answer to it can well be made out. 
 
 There are some parts of the Scriptures, which, in one sense, have 
 ceased to be specially useful to the church, as now existing under the 
 Christian dispensation. We might select, for example, the architectu- 
 ral directions for building the tabernacle, and the history of its construc- 
 tion in accordance with them, as contained in the book of Exodus. We 
 might advert to many parts of the Pentateuch, occupied entirely with the 
 minute detail of rites and forms under the Levitical priesthood. We 
 might mention many long and minute catalogues of persons and places, 
 such as the book of Joshua, the first of Chronicles, and also the books 
 of Ezra and Nehemiah exhibit ; we might even include many portions 
 of individual history, and the accounts of some apparently unimportant 
 transactions, in the book of Genesis, and in some other books ; and per- 
 haps it would not be too much to add, that some of the prophecies re- 
 specting small and comparatively insignificant nations, bordering upon 
 the Jews, who have long been blotted from the face of the earth, and in 
 whose destiny we can now have no definite interest, are no longer of 
 
 * It is proper that I should acknowledge explicitly, in this place, my obligations 
 to Prof. Lilcke for the matter furnished me in his luminous and well arranged 
 History of the Interpretation of the Apocalypse , contained in his Einleitung pp. 
 420 seq. In particular, with respect to several of the works which are character- 
 ized in the sketch contained in the present Section, I have been obliged to depend 
 solely on him, because I could not procure a sight of the books in question. But 
 the more important ones have been within my reach ; and what I have said of 
 them is principally the result of my own examination, although this substantially 
 agrees, for the most part, with the views which he has suggested. The value to 
 the reader of what is said, will not be changed by this statement; but it is incum- 
 bent on me to acknowledge my sources, where I have drawn directly from them, 
 for I do not like to incur a just charge of plagiarism. Throughout this work, it 
 has been my constant endeavour to see with my own eyes, and to think for myself, 
 whenever circumstances rendered it possible. But in a case like that under con- 
 sideration, where works are characterized to which I could not procure access, I 
 have of course been obliged to depend on others. 
 
476 
 
 § 28 . APOCALYPSE DESIGNED FOR 
 
 special moral benefit to the church of Christ. For if the subject should 
 be viewed in the simple light in which this question would present it, 
 viz., What moral and spiritual edification is now derivable from such 
 portions of Scripture ? it would seem that such an opinion might be made 
 up without much difficulty, inasmuch as the moral and spiritual instruc- 
 tion of such parts of Scripture can be made out by no direct and natural 
 method of interpretation. We must resort to what is called spiritualiz- 
 ing, i. e. we must assign a vnovoia, or secret and mystic sense, to the 
 words of the sacred writers in order to educe from such parts of the Bi- 
 ble the instruction now under consideration. But such a resort is of it- 
 self a confession, that a moral and spiritual meaning cannot be given to 
 those parts of the Bible that have just been named, unless the usual and 
 obvious laws of interpretation are abandoned. 
 
 If the question should now be urged : Why then were such writings 
 permitted to be comprised in the Holy Scriptures ? it is not so difficult to 
 give an answer, as some who urge it might imagine. To the church of 
 God as formerly constituted, and embodied in the Jewish nation, all these 
 matters were connected with considerations of no small importance. 
 Everything respecting the tabernacle, the priesthood, the Mosaic ritual, 
 the genealogies of the tribes and families, even the private history of 
 the ancient patriarchs, was civilly, socially, or religiously important. Be- 
 cause that tabernacle, ritual, divisions of tribes and corresponding inheri- 
 tances, and even individual interest in some of the ancient patriarchs have 
 passed away, through the lapse of some thousands of years and the in- 
 troduction of a new dispensation, how does or can it follow, that the 
 things named were not in former times a matter of concern and interest 
 to the Jewish nation and church as God’s chosen people ? 
 
 Then, moreover, we need not stop even here. When we now come 
 to examine the genuineness of the Old Testament writings, in order to 
 satisfy our minds whether they were actually written by Jews, as they 
 purport to have been, and whether they were received by the Jewish 
 nation, and looked upon as authentic, and reverenced as such, every par- 
 ticular that I have named above, that may now be regarded as in a 
 good measure destitute of direct moral and spiritual instruction for us ? 
 and as superseded in a certain sense by the Gospel, plainly acts an im- 
 portant part ; for it gives testimony which cannot well be set aside or 
 overlooked, that the Hebrew Scriptures are the genuine productions of 
 Jewish writers. Every minute personal history, even every special list 
 of the pieces of furniture for the tabernacle, or specific account of rites 
 and forms, and every catalogue of names either of persons or places, 
 goes to establish the verisimilitude of the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole, 
 and to show that they are no work of fiction executed by an impostor. 
 
 Placed in this light, then, our question assumes entirely a new atti- 
 
THE CHURCH IN EVERY AGE. 
 
 477 
 
 tude ; and if we should now be asked, whether those parts of the Old 
 Testament that have been named as destitute in one respect of moral 
 and spiritual instruction adapted to us, are not even of high importance 
 in another respect, as contributing to the credibility of the sacred books 
 in general, and helping to establish their authenticity — if, I say, this 
 question should be now repeated, we may unhesitatingly assume, that 
 all Scripture is profitable. And if some parts are not directly “ doc- 
 trine, or correction, or reproof,” they at least serve to confirm those 
 parts of the Bible which teach doctrine and administer reproof. 
 
 Paul has given us a very simple, and (I may add) a very instructive, 
 exhibition of the uses to which Old Testament history may now be 
 put. Speaking of what came upon the Jews, during their journey 
 through the wilderness, he says : “ Now all these things happened unto 
 them for ensamples, and they are written for our admonition , upon 
 whom the ends of the world are come,” 1 Cor. 10: 11. And again, 
 when speaking of their punishments : “ Now these things were exam- 
 ples for us, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also 
 lusted,” 1 Cor. 10: 6. 
 
 The simple principle which lies at the basis of all is, that as God is 
 always the same, and the relations which men sustain toward him are 
 always substantially the same ; so, what he did in one age, or at one 
 time, and to one nation, in order to encourage virtue and holiness, or to 
 restrain vice and impiety, he will in substance always do, everywhere 
 and to all nations. In the manner of his proceedings there may be, and 
 is, some diversity. The matter , as to rewards and punishments, as to re- 
 quirements and prohibitions, is and must be always for substance the 
 same. 
 
 So then the ancient Scriptures may after all profit us ; even what was 
 local, and particular, and temporary, and what can never in all respects 
 be repeated or occur again, may sometimes be of no small importance 
 to us at the present day. We may at least learn instructive history 
 from it. We may regard it as a record of God’s providential, or of his 
 retributive dealings ; and from these we may learn something both in 
 respect to his nature and his will. 
 
 In saying these things, I have had my eye continually upon the 
 Apocalypse. Here is a book, which, if I have rightly unfolded its aim, 
 contains things that relate to the past, the present, and the future. If 
 we should say now that all which respects the destruction of the Jewish 
 persecuting power can no longer be a matter of any interest to us ; 
 what is this but to say, that from the past we can gather no lessons of 
 importance in respect to the future ; or that we can discover no ground 
 of encouragement, by the fact that God has fulfilled one prediction, that 
 he will fulfil another ? But this we cannot well say, as reasonable and 
 
478 
 
 § 28. APOCALYPSE DESIGNED FOR 
 
 sober men : and therefore, when the matter is viewed in this light, there 
 can be no difficulty made with the Apocalypse, or serious objection 
 raised against it, because some part of it was specially local and tem- 
 porary. 
 
 But there is another light in which the matter may be placed, that is 
 attended with more apparent difficulty. The book, it may be said, has 
 respect to 'persecuting Jews , persecuting Pagan Rome , and Gog and 
 Magog (enemies yet unknown) ; and to all appearance, it pertains only 
 to these. If this be so, of what general use can it be to the church of 
 God, at the present day, and throughout the world ? 
 
 Several answers may be given to this question, all of which seem to 
 have some good foundation. 
 
 (1) It is not certain, that the second catastrophe, in th efull extent of 
 its meaning, has yet taken place. Persecuting Rome, exerting her de- 
 structive power through pagan emperors, is indeed fallen. The nation 
 and the government, as they existed in ancient times, are no more. But 
 all the consequences of their past existence and actions, have not yet 
 ceased ; nor is it certain that the distant parts of the empire, distant in 
 the sense of the Apocalypse, have yet come to the great battle of Ar- 
 mageddon. And if this be the case, the church lias still a deep interest 
 in the matter of the Apocalypse. 
 
 Besides, the 1000 years of peace and rest are yet future. The defeat 
 of Gog and Magog is still to come. The latter days of peace and glory 
 are yet to ensue. And how can all this be matter of little or no interest 
 to the church at any period ? But, 
 
 (2) There is another and different view not yet taken, and which is 
 the principal one at which I aim in the present discussion. What has 
 been said already, has been designed merely as a preparation for this 
 part of our discussion. 
 
 I regard the Apocalypse as containing matter, which is a rvnog of all 
 which is to happen in respect to the church. I regard the whole book as 
 particular illustration of a general principle — of a generic truth. My 
 reasons for this may now be briefly stated. 
 
 With the apostle Paul we may safely aver, that “ Christ must reign, 
 until all enemies be put under his feet 1 Cor. 15: 25. It is true, it 
 must be true, that God has made him to be “ King of kings and Lord 
 of lords.” 
 
 Let us suppose, now, that this truth was distinctly in the mind of 
 John, who wrote the Apocalypse ; and doubtless such was the fact. In 
 what way, I ask, could he exhibit this truth to the church in the most 
 interesting and attractive form ? Might he not have taught it simply, 
 and by a single sentence have given assurance of it to the world, and 
 have left the matter there ? 
 
THE CHURCH IN EVERT AGE. 
 
 479 
 
 Doubtless it was in bis power so to do. It was also in the power of 
 David, when he designed to celebrate the deliverance which he had ex- 
 perienced from the hand of Saul and from the hand of all his enemies, 
 to have said this in so many simple words, and then to have closed his 
 lips in silence. But he has not chosen this method of representing a 
 truth so deeply interesting to himself and others. He has given us, 
 therefore, that sublime and beautiful symbolic representation contained 
 in the 18th Psalm ; a piece of composition for which thanks will be 
 given to him as long as taste and a power of appreciating the beautiful 
 shall remain in the world. 
 
 It was in the power of Isaiah to announce that great Babylon would 
 fall, by the hand of Cyrus and the united hosts of Media and Persia. 
 He might have simply said this, and refrained from any further declara- 
 tion. But he has not done so. He has given us the approach of the 
 enemy, the onset of battle, the song of victory, and the final prostration 
 and degradation of the great city with its haughty and hostile monarch. 
 The 13th and 14th chapters of his book will be read with wonder and 
 delight, so long as readers of feeling and taste are to be found. 
 
 David and other inspired writers might have simply said, as in the 
 book of Genesis, that “ the seed of the woman should bruise the ser- 
 pent’s head or that ‘ Shiloh would come, and unto him would the 
 gathering of the people be and then have rolled up and sealed the 
 prophetic scroll. But the.se writers have not so done. Witness the 
 2nd, the 16th, the 45th, the 110th, and other Psalms, and many glow- 
 ing descriptions in Isaiah, and the other prophets, of the like nature. 
 No one will deny the additional interest which has thus been conferred 
 on the subject of their prophecies. No one will wish a word to be de- 
 tracted, from all the vivid symbols and glowing descriptions which they 
 have presented us. 
 
 Besides this, we should particularly note, when David, for example, 
 brings to view the future king, the Messiah, he invests him with the 
 costume of oriental kings, i. e. with such as it was at the time when he 
 wrote. So too the sons of Korah, in that exquisitely beautiful Psalm, 
 numbered the forty-fifth. There we find, first of all, the beauty of the 
 king’s person described ; then his eloquence is brought to view ; next 
 his invincible power and skill in war ; his victories on every side ; his 
 triumphs ; and finally, his retinue of captives, the daughters of foreign 
 kings, and the nuptials which follow. All is in perfect keeping with the 
 time in which the author lived, and with the country in which he wrote. 
 
 The application of this, now, to the subject before us is easy and ob- 
 vious. The theme of the New Testament prophet is the triumph of the 
 church over its enemies and opposers, the universal extension of the 
 Redeemer’s kingdom, and its final consummation in glory. What course 
 
480 
 
 § 28 . APOCALYPSE DESIGNED FOR 
 
 should the writer take in order best to accomplish his object? He is 
 called to the special consideration of this theme, by the circumstances 
 of the times in which he lived. Himself an exile under the reign of Ne- 
 ro ; the church bleeding at every pore ; harassed by enemies without 
 and germinating heresies within ; apostasies taking place ; timid Chris- 
 tians wavering, and the faint-hearted ready to despond ; how shall these 
 evils be arrested ? How shall the desponding be cheered, the doubting 
 be confirmed, the bleeding martyrs be made triumphant in death, and 
 the great and glorious work of converting the world to the Christian 
 faith move on, amid circumstances like these ? The obvious answer is, 
 by opening upon the world the bright and cheering prospects which 
 Christianity has before it, and showing all who become the disciples of 
 Jesus, that the cause in which they are engaged will surely triumph 
 over its persecutors and enemies, and the whole earth be yet filled with 
 the glory of the Lord. 
 
 But how shall this be done ? Must he write a treatise* which will 
 exhibit a minute history of the church, in all her external relations 
 dow r n to the end of time ? Such a composition would be ill adapted to 
 the then pressing wants of the church, and to the times in which he 
 lived. It must be of vast extent, of course voluminous, unwieldy, and 
 expensive. It could be purchased by few ; it could be thoroughly read, 
 only by a still smaller number. It would then necessarily fail of ac- 
 complishing the objects of its author, in such a manner as he both wish- 
 ed and intended. 
 
 Another course, therefore, must be taken. And this was obviously 
 the one which he has chosen. The evils then pressing upon the church 
 must be considered, and the end to which they would come be fully 
 brought to view. Embittered Jews, on the one hand, had assailed the 
 Christian church from its first beginnings ; on the other the overwhelm- 
 ing power of Rome had begun to bear upon it. Christians needed as- 
 surance that both these enemies would in due time cease to persecute, 
 and that they would become the victims of divine justice and indignation. 
 Assurances that such would be the case, were evidently adapted to answer 
 the special purposes which called forth the composition of the Apoca- 
 lypse. Those in whose time it was written, i. e. all who gave credit to 
 the writing, must be enabled to see, that the church could not be extin- 
 guished by all its enemies, and that it was steadily advancing toward 
 final and certain triumph. 
 
 But v r hat of after ages, when the power of the Jews, and of pagan 
 Rome should become extinct ? Would they have any interest in the 
 Apocalypse? Was it a book which w r ould live until the world should 
 be no more, and be for the comfort, the confirmation, the admonition, 
 and the encouragement of Christians in every age ? 
 
THE CHURCH IN EVERY AGE. 
 
 481 
 
 This brings us to the very gist of the writer’s plan. The then pre- 
 sent circumstances of the church he had in view ; for of this we cannot 
 doubt. And so did Paul, when, for example, he wrote his first epistle 
 to the Corinthians, have in view their peculiar circumstances and condi- 
 tion. It is impossible to explain this epistle on any other ground. But 
 is there nothing in it, which is of ‘present advantage to us ? None will 
 deny this. All the decisions of Paul in respect to disputed or difficult 
 questions ; all his precepts, admonitions, threatenings, encouragements, 
 promises, doctrines — all is just as applicable to us, and to all succeeding 
 ages, as it was to the Corinthian Christians, after we have simply abated 
 their peculiar circumstances. So far as our condition and circumstances 
 and duties are like theirs, just so far what Paul said to them belongs to 
 us. Manente ratione, manet ipsa lex. And thus may we fairly reason, 
 in respect to all the books of the New Testament. 
 
 Let us examine the bearing of the principle here brought to view, 
 upon the Apocalypse. In every age the church has had, and will have, 
 its trials. Jewish or Homan persecution, indeed, will not always rage. 
 But there are other trials. The carnal mind is always enmity against 
 God ; and always it will, in some shape or other, display that enmity. 
 There have been, there will be, cold, doubting, hesitating, apostatizing 
 professors of the Christian religion. Is there no instruction, admoni- 
 tion, comfort, hope, to be derived from the Apocalypse, in respect to 
 matters such as these ? There is ; at least there may be, provided the 
 book be rightly understood. 
 
 In a word, is it rational to suppose that such a writer as John be- 
 lieved, that all the evils which the church would experience, would 
 arise from the Jews, the pagan emperors of Home, and from Gog and 
 Magog ? I trust not. ‘ But why then has he not brought other ene- 
 mies to view ?’ This, I answer, would be to compose a work so exten- 
 sive that few would copy, purchase, or read it, in case a minute and 
 circumstantial history of the church, in all its relations and down to the 
 end of time, should have been undertaken. John, therefore, did what 
 discretion and sound judgment prompted him to do. He has embodied, 
 illustrated, and confirmed, a principle in his work, of which the church 
 may and should avail itself, at all times and in all places. It is the 
 simple principle, that Christ will reign until all enemies are put under 
 his feet. But in the illustration and confirmation of this, he has select- 
 ed as examples or specimens, the evils which pressed upon the Chris- 
 tians to whom his work was particularly addressed. How does the 
 principle of composition in this case, then, differ from that which David 
 and other prophets adopt, when they portray the future king Messiah, 
 in the costume of kings who lived at the time when they wrote ? Pre- 
 sent circumstances were seized upon, in order to convey to their con- 
 
 vol. i. 61 
 
482 
 
 § 28 . APOCALYPSE DESIGNED FOR 
 
 temporaries ideas of future things and persons. Could they have been 
 well understood, in case they had adopted a principle of composition 
 different from this ? 
 
 Has not John taught us, that in the subjugation of the greater and 
 more violent enemies, we have an assurance that all other enemies will 
 be subdued ? Will lie who goes forth, conquering and to conquer, leave 
 his work undone, or half done ? Has he no opponents but Jews and 
 heathen Rome? Will he have none in future but Gog and Magog? 
 Surely if he subdues one enemy, because he is mischievous and danger- 
 ous to the church, he will subdue another of the same temper and char- 
 acter. He will not save the church from the sword, and leave it to 
 perish by famine and treachery. He will not subdue and destroy one 
 enemy, and give up those who have been redeemed by his blood to the 
 fatal power of another. 
 
 Considerations of this nature illustrate and confirm what I mean, 
 when I say, that the writer of the Apocalypse has established important 
 and universal principles, respecting the Redeemer’s government and his 
 protection of the church. What he has repeatedly done, for her pro- 
 tection and defence, for her extension and confirmation, he will again 
 do, and continue to do, down to the end of the world. If not, then has 
 he shed his blood in vain ; at least it has been poured out to accomplish 
 but a narrow and very limited good. Must we adopt a view of our 
 subject that will lead to such a conclusion ? 
 
 When we are asked, then, whether apostate Christian Rome is in- 
 cluded in the design of the Apocalypse ; and whether Mohammedism is 
 included in the same ; and whether all the heresies of every age are 
 also included in it ; our answer may be : Not primarily and imme- 
 diately ; but still in reality all these, and everything else be it what, 
 where, or when it may, which is opposed to Christianity, is included by 
 implication in the Apocalypse. In other words, a principle is estab- 
 lished in this book, which embraces all enemies of every kind and name. 
 Why should God save his church from one enemy, and give it up to 
 be laid waste and destroyed by another ? 
 
 As I may reason from the epistles to the Corinthians, that the prin- 
 ciples established by Paul there, in reference to the particular state and 
 difficulties of that church, are available at all times and in all places ; 
 so in the case before us I may say with the same propriety : It is made 
 certain by the Apocalypse, that Christ will reign , until he shall have 
 put all enemies under his feet. 
 
 With such views as these of the book before us, we may well spare 
 all the efforts made to convert the Apocalypse into a Syllabus of his- 
 tory. We need not look for the Pope, or the French revolution, or the 
 Turks, or the Chinese, in it, as being distinctly within the vision of the 
 
THE CHURCH IN EVERY AGE. 
 
 483 
 
 prophetic seer. He saw distinctly the enemies then pressing on the 
 church. In describing their fall and ruin, he gives a sample of what 
 must take place in respect to all other enemies and persecutors of the 
 church, of every form and age. This is enough. All the great moral 
 and spiritual purposes of the book are answered by this. The church 
 does not need a minute history of all the external relations in which it 
 will ever stand, in order to be comforted, and warned, and instructed. 
 Enough, when we know that it will come off victorious, at last, from 
 every struggle. Enough that all things will assuredly be put under the 
 feet of its leader, and that it is marching to ultimate triumph and glory. 
 
 All this is accomplished by the book before us ; accomplished, we 
 may say, in a most admirable and impressive manner. As I have 
 before said, so I say again, that I know of no book in all the Scriptures 
 which contains matter adapted to higher moral excitement than the 
 Apocalypse. Is there any one, which even reaches a point so high in 
 this respect? 
 
 Such is the view that I would take of the writer’s plan and object. 
 Such the manner in which he has accomplished his design. Can those, 
 who think that thus interpreted he seems to have said and done too 
 little, tell us where he could have stopped, had he gone on to predict 
 individually all the events of interest and importance which were to 
 befall the church down to the end of time ? What a book his must have 
 been ! How very few could be entitled to the blessedness of those who 
 read and understand the Revelation ! 
 
 If any one still doubts, whether the position is true that has now been 
 taken in reference to the plan of the Apocalypse, viz., the establish- 
 ment of a general principle by particular illustration ; it would be easy 
 to show him, that such is frequently the manner of the Scriptures, in 
 other cases than those already mentioned. Take for example the text 
 in Rev. 21: 8, “ The fearful and unconfiding, and abominable, and 
 murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, 
 shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone.” 
 Are these then the only classes of sinners who will be sent to the lake ? 
 Surely but a small part of them ; but then these are named by the 
 writer as falling more immediately within the scope of his book, and 
 they are proffered as a sample of all who have the like spirit. 
 
 Take another case from the writings of Paul. In the first chapter of 
 his epistle to the Romans he gives a list of the vices practised among 
 the Gentiles, on account of which they fell under the just sentence of 
 the divine law. But are the vices there named all of which the Gen- 
 tiles were guilty, and do no others bring upon offenders the condemna- 
 tion of the law ? This question is not a difficult one, and there can be 
 but one answer to it ; and this it is not necessary to repeat. 
 
484 
 
 §29. DOES THE PLAN OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 So in the case before us. When John holds up to view the Jewish 
 power, the Roman pagan power, and that of Gog and Magog, as des- 
 troyed by the all conquering might of the Great Head of the church, 
 shall we doubt whether his conquests will be extended to any other 
 enemy, or to all other enemies ? What good reason is there to doubt 
 it ? And why should not the same principle of interpretation be adopt- 
 ed here, as in the cases that I have just recited ? 
 
 I am aware how widely different this view of the book is, from that 
 taken by those who make it a mere compendium of history. But from 
 them I am constrained to differ. If the Revelation does not bear the 
 most incontestible marks of reference to events passing when it was 
 composed, I know of no book in the Bible which does. And while I 
 believe this, it is impossible to reconcile it with a scheme of interpreta- 
 tion, which converts the book into an abridgement of history. 
 
 In regard to the third catastrophe of the book, or the invasion of Gog 
 and Magog, the first inspection of the matter will show us how differ- 
 ently the writer proceeds, when he comes to the very distant future, 
 with which no passing events of the then present stood connected. 
 Here all is brief, rapid, general. A mere glance at the greatest events 
 is given, after the millennial day. The transitions are indeed so rapid 
 here, that the writer has not stopped even to note them by the usual 
 particles of transition. His manner is brief and abrupt, like that of the 
 Hebrew prophets in similar cases. He did not intend to gratify a pru- 
 rient curiosity, which solicitously pries into all things future, and scarce- 
 ly brings itself calmly to trust in God as ordering all events. He says 
 enough, however, to elevate the hopes of the Christian, to animate his 
 efforts, and to guard him against all doubt and despondency. F urther 
 he need not go ; his work was not intended to make prophets , but only 
 to guide and cheer humble inquirers after duty. We cannot well hesi- 
 tate to say, that to this simple and all-important end it is well adapted. 
 
 § 29. .Does the plan of the Apocalypse involve an Anachronism ? 
 
 Of course this question is to be understood as having reference to 
 such a plan of the book as has been exhibited by me, in the preceding 
 pages, and also in the Commentary which follows. The writer of the 
 Apocalypse may be free from any well-grounded charge of anachro- 
 nism, and yet the plan which I have supposed him to pursue, be liable 
 to a charge of this nature. If such be the case, the probability that I 
 have mistaken the economy of his work, would be somewhat strong ; 
 for anachronism , certainly the grosser kind of it, would hardly be com- 
 patible with what I deem to be the aesthetical character of the Apoca- 
 lypse. 
 
INVOLVE AN ANACHRONISM ? 
 
 485 
 
 I do not make this last remark, because I suppose that either unity 
 of time, or regular chronological sequency of events, is essential to an 
 Epopee. If this were the case, not a few compositions of this nature 
 would have but a dubious claim to the rank in which they are now 
 placed. But still, there is something in itself revolting to an enlighten- 
 ed taste, in anachronism or parachronism. We are always better satis- 
 fied with a composition, which exhibits congruities of time and place. 
 Ignorance of the real sequency of events, which one undertakes to re- 
 late or to symbolize, detracts from our confidence in the intelligence and 
 taste of a writer. And where ignorance cannot even be suspected, a 
 disregard to such sequency abates not a little of the satisfaction that we 
 otherwise feel, in the perusal of any work. 
 
 Supposing now that 1 have given a correct account of the economy 
 of the Apocalypse, the question may be fairly asked : Could a charge 
 of anachronism upon this book be well supported ? Or in other words : 
 Is it an objection to the plan of the book, as represented by me, that it 
 is justly chargeable with anachronism ? 
 
 It may not be inapposite to state, in a few words, the reason why I 
 introduce and discuss this question, at the close of this volume. A 
 friend, in whose judgment I place much confidence, and with whom I 
 was conversing on the subject of the Apocalypse, after I had given him 
 a sketch of my views respecting the economy of the book, and specially 
 of what I have named the first and second catastrophe , suggested a dif- 
 ficulty in respect to my plan, which he thought might be raised on the 
 score of anachronism. That difficulty has its basis in the following par- 
 ticulars. 1 The fall of Jerusalem was in August, A. D. 70. The Jew- 
 ish war commenced early in the Spring of A. D. 67 ; and therefore 
 lasted about three years and a half. Nero began to persecute Chris- 
 tians after the burning of Rome, according to the best accounts in the 
 latter part of Nov. A. D. 64. This emperor was assassinated on the 
 9th of June, A. D. 68 ; and after his death the persecution of Chris- 
 tians immediately ceased. It had lasted about three years and a half 
 Out of these facts an objection to the plan of interpretation proposed in 
 my work might be elicited. This plan seems to represent the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem (the first catastrophe), as antecedent to the persecu- 
 tion by Nero, at least as antecedent to his death ; while in fact Nero 
 began to persecute in A. D. 64, and died two years and two months be- 
 fore the capture and destruction of Jerusalem. 
 
 6 And besides this, I have represented the woman clothed with the sun 
 (in chap, xii.), as the symbol of the church or people of God ; and her 
 flight to the wilderness, in order to find an asylum from the persecuting 
 power of the dragon, as the occasion or ground of Satan’s attack upon 
 Christians who lived abroad in foreign countries. How could this be 
 
486 
 
 § 29. DOES THE PLAN OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 the cause of Satan’s stirring up persecution against Christians in the 
 Roman provinces, when that persecution began in A. D. 64, and Chris- 
 tians did not flee from Judea to Pella until at least the year 67 or 68 ?’ 
 Such are the difficulties which struck the mind of my friend ; and, at 
 first view, they may seem also to others to involve an anachronism in 
 the plan of the Apocalypse which is represented in my work. But these 
 seeming difficulties, when suggested, were not new to me. My own 
 mind had frequently been occupied with them, until I had become sat- 
 isfied that they are more apparent than real. I have touched upon 
 them more than once, both in the introduction to the Apocalypse and in 
 the commentary. I might perhaps remit the reader to what is there 
 said, without any further remark ; but as it is not unlikely, that the 
 minds of some of my readers may be embarrassed with the same diffi- 
 culties which have been stated above, I have thought it expedient to 
 canvass the subject here, (inasmuch as the printing of this volume re- 
 mains yet uncompleted), a little more at length than I have elsewhere 
 done, and thus to incur the hazard of being taxed with repetition, rather 
 than of having it said that I have sought to shun the difficulty in ques- 
 tion. 
 
 First then, as to the general question of sequency in regard to the 
 first and second catastrophe. 
 
 The Apocalyptist does not represent the second catastrophe as com- 
 mencing after the first had ended. His description of the second catas- 
 trophe does indeed commence after he has concluded his description of 
 the first. But he does not make, nor have I represented him as mak- 
 ing, the second catastrophe to spring out of the termination of the first. 
 On the contrary, chap, xii, as I have endeavoured to show, is regressive. 
 It comprises events coeval with the first rise of Christianity. I have no 
 doubt that the writer takes this step, in order to make a palpable dis- 
 tinction between the first and second catastrophe. The second arises 
 from the combined malignity of the dragon, the beast from the sea, and 
 the false prophet. 
 
 In a work like that of the Apocalypse, there must be symmetry and 
 concinnity. John has begun with the Jewish persecuting power, for a 
 very plain reason. That power persecuted more than thirty years be- 
 fore the Roman government commenced its war upon Christians. The 
 oldest enemy, as well as the most obstinate and persevering, must natu- 
 rally be taken first. When once upon the tapis, the picture must be 
 finished before the painter could begin another. Nothing could have 
 been more incongruous, considering the general plan of John, than to 
 intermingle the first and second catastrophes, in the descriptions which 
 he has given. 
 
 Thus much order and the nature of the case plainly demand. And 
 
INVOLVE AN ANACHRONISM P 
 
 487 
 
 what more has John done, in the case before us ? If he had made the 
 rise of the second catastrophe dependent on the close of the first, then it 
 would be easy to show that anachronism would be involved. But as 
 he plainly has not done this, what reason is there that he should not be 
 at liberty to go on with the description of Jewish persecutors and their 
 fall, until he has completed all which he might desire to say respecting 
 them ? Nothing is said by the Apocalyptist, which involves the idea 
 that Nero’s persecution or death was subsequent to the destruction of the 
 holy city. The writer has indeed connected the first of these with the 
 disappointment, rage, and malice of Satan, and the bitter enmity of his 
 coadjutors ; but he has not made the heathen persecution to depend at 
 all on the fall of Jerusalem, or on the desolation of Judea. 
 
 Thus much for the general question of sequency in respect to the 
 first and second catastrophe. "We come now to the more particular 
 question, in regard to the flight of the woman to the wilderness, as an 
 alleged reason for Satan’s beginning a persecution in foreign countries. 
 
 Nero began his persecution near the close of A. D. 64. Early in 
 A. D. 67 the Jewish war began. Nero lived a little short of eighteen 
 months after this last event. On the supposition that John wrote the 
 Apocalypse a short time before the death of the tyrant, there might 
 have been some sixteen or more months of war against Judea, when the 
 book of Revelation was composed. There was opportunity then for the 
 author of it to know what effects the war had produced, and what it was 
 likely to produce, upon Christianity in Palestine, and what would be 
 the probable, or rather the certain, end of the war. 
 
 Two circumstances in respect to this position of affairs deserve our 
 special notice here. The first is, that our Saviour had frequently and 
 solemnly admonished his disciples respecting such a war, and plainly 
 and definitely predicted the issue of the contest, Matt. xxiv. At the 
 same time, he had strictly charged them to flee from the country, when- 
 ever the Roman invasion should take place. Can there be any reason- 
 able doubt that Christians in general obeyed this injunction? Even 
 the prudence of an intelligent man would lead him to flee from the 
 scene of such an invasion. What rational ground of hope could there 
 be, that Palestine could resist the mighty power which governed the 
 world, and crushed nations numerous and warlike at its pleasure ? It 
 was plainly a case of desperation. Nor was there any well-grounded 
 hope of truce or peace, between parties so exasperated as the Romans 
 and Jews were. What else could Christians do, but to flee from the 
 country ? On every ground we may presume that this was speedily 
 done, after Vespasian had marched his overwhelming army into the re- 
 gion of Galilee, early in the Spring of A. D. 67. 
 
 Thus it is plain, that Satan’s disappointment, described by John, had 
 
488 
 
 § 29. DOES THE PLAN OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 an earlier date than the fall of Jerusalem, or the death of Nero. So far 
 as he was concerned with the persecution of the church abroad , he put 
 forth his strenuous efforts before the Apocalypse was written, and be- 
 fore the fall of Nero. 
 
 One other circumstance deserves particular consideration. It was 
 some time after Nero began to persecute Christians (Nov. A. D. 64), 
 before the contagion of his example spread among the provinces. It 
 was an unusual thing for Romans to persecute on account of religion ; 
 and Nero moreover was generally disliked. Indeed, it can hardly be 
 supposed to be probable, that the general persecution of Christians in 
 great earnest began before the Jewish war had commenced. Then, it 
 seems obvious that it would spread rapidly. The heathen generally, 
 at that period, confounded, as is well known, Jews and Christians. In 
 this state of things, a war with Judea would make all Jews, and of 
 course Christians, to be everywhere suspected, and cause them to be 
 watched and maligned. Combining the war against Judea with Nero’s 
 example in persecuting Christians at Rome, all the provinces, that 
 wished to court the emperor’s favour, would be led to persecute the 
 disciples of Christ with severity, under such circumstances. It is to 
 this aggravated assault on the church of Christ to which the Apocalyp- 
 tist has adverted, when he mentions Satan as quitting the pursuit of the 
 woman who had fled to the wilderness, and going away to persecute 
 the rest of her seed , Rev. 12: 17. John regards this aggravation of per- 
 secuting violence, as occurring after the Jewish war had begun, and 
 after the flight of Christians to Pella, and Satan’s consequent disap- 
 pointment. Is he not true to history, and to the nature of the case ? 
 
 One other circumstance demands notice, in order to free the plan, 
 which I have supposed the author to pursue, from all imputation and 
 appearance of anachronism. It is a fact, at least I cannot doubt that 
 it is a fact, that Nero’s death took place soon after the Apocalypse was 
 written, and some two years before the fall of Jerusalem. How now, it 
 may be asked, can it be consistent for this fall to be arranged and 
 spoken of as happening before the death of Nero ? 
 
 The answer to this objection, however, is not very difficult. In the 
 first place, the Jewish persecution had raged for a whole generation, 
 before that of Nero commenced. Of course John must needs take up 
 this first. When once taken up, the catastrophe that ensued must of 
 course be completed. It was imposible to make this part of the work 
 teres atque rotundus, without following such a plan. 
 
 Then, in the second place, it should be noted, (as has already been 
 said), that the second catastrophe is not made to depend on the first. 
 It is not regarded or treated as a mere consequent of it. The Neronic 
 persecution does indeed become aggravated and general, after the defeat 
 
INVOLVE AN ANACHRONISM ? 
 
 489 
 
 of Satan in Palestine, by the retreat of Christians to Pella. But there 
 is no anachronism, no vcjtfqop ttqoteqov , in this, as vve have already 
 seen above ; for this retreat took place some time before Nero’s death. 
 
 In the third place, it should be called to mind here, that while the 
 beast then persecuting the church was to fall in three years and six 
 months, (which as a matter of fact actually took place), yet the great 
 contest, although it was suspended by his fall, and peace was restored 
 for a quarter of a century to the church, was not then finally completed. 
 Hence, after great Babylon is brought to a ruinous state by the out- 
 pouring of the seven vials, as described in chap, xvi, we have still a 
 renewal and prolongation of the contest in chap, xviii. xix. Final 
 ruin of the persecuting power comes in the sequel ; but the delays are 
 different from those in the first catastrophe. The case was different. 
 Rome long continued to be the mistress of the world. But the Jewish 
 national power, broken by the invasion of the Romans, has never since 
 been renewed, at least for any time worth considering. Their existence as 
 a separate national community, ceased with the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 Now we may suppose all this to have been foreseen by the prophetic 
 eye of John. Hence, after the catastrophe in chap, xi, we hear no 
 more of the Jewish persecutors. Not so after the catastrophe in re- 
 spect to this beast, in chap. xvi. The contest did not fully and finally 
 end with Nero. That particular beast was permitted only to complete 
 his 1260 days or forty-two months. But since the beast, considered as a 
 generic symbol, designates the imperial power of Rome, so that power, 
 which survived the fall of Nero, might be supposed to renew, and did 
 renew, the persecution. John’s main object, no doubt, was the perse- 
 cution then raging under Nero. But with this he associated more dis- 
 tant views of subsequent persecuting emperors. Hence the theme 
 commences as it were de novo, in chap, xviii. 1 seq. 
 
 It is this difference between the circumstances of the two catastrophes, 
 which occasioned so much diversity in the mode of treating them. It 
 was this which obliged John to place the death of Nero under the 
 second catastrophe, although it occurred before the first was completed. 
 The subsequent persecutions, however, on which he has also cast his 
 prophetic eye, followed long after the fall of Jerusalem ; and the 
 arrangement which the author has made of the whole connected series 
 of heathen Romish persecutions, is the only one that he could with 
 propriety make. There is, therefore, no anachronism — no real vcteqov 
 ttooteqov as viewed by an aesthetical reader — in the plan which the 
 Apocalypse exhibits. 
 
 The main difficulty as to the second catastrophe is, that the reader is 
 prone to interpret the symbol of the beast in one uniform manner, i. e. 
 to make it everywhere generic, or to regard it as always denoting the 
 v,ol. i. 62 
 
490 
 
 § 29 . ANACHRONISM IN THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 imperial power in the aggregate. This latter meaning of the symbol is 
 in reality less frequent than the specific one, particularly in chap xiii. 
 and xvii. We should call to mind, that the beast has seven heads ; that 
 one of these is wounded and recovers ; that it is the then reigning power, 
 called the beast, which persecutes, and which claims divine honours, 
 and the like. Now the symbol of the beast cannot designate, in such 
 cases, a mere generic and abstract idea, i. e. that of imperial power, but 
 an individual and concrete and specific power. For the time being, 
 he is the embodyment of the imperial power ; and therefore the word 
 '&r i QLOv may well be applied to him without any scruple. 
 
 This variable usage of the word beast , by John, has been noticed by 
 Ewald, Liicke, and others, of late ; but the earlier critics do not seem 
 to have attended to it. The want of such an attention, and of a right 
 understanding of John’s real usus loquendi in regard to this word, has 
 been the fruitful source of many and serious mistakes and errors in the 
 interpretation of his book. It is time that a matter so plain were better 
 understood. 
 
 On the whole, I do not see that John could have made a better 
 arrangement of his materials than he has made. The charge of anach- 
 ronism has surely no solid basis, when the objects which he designed 
 to accomplish are all taken into view, and the poetic nature and dis- 
 position of the work are well considered. An unpractised or an inex- 
 pert reader may for a moment be perplexed, perhaps, with some ap- 
 parent parachronisms ; but surely the intelligent and practised and can- 
 did exegete will not think of sustaining the charge of chronical offences 
 against the author of the Apocalypse. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM VICTORINUS. 
 
 [I embrace the opportunity which is afforded me, at the close of this volume, 
 in consequence of having printed so much in small type, of presenting the reader 
 some specimens of the oldest Commentary on the Apocalypse that is known to 
 be extant, viz. that of Victorinus. A particular account of this writer and mar- 
 tyr under the Diocletian persecution (t 303), may be found in p. 454 seq. above. 
 It appears that the genuineness of the work has been doubted by some critics of 
 name. That additions and interpolations have been made, there can be no doubt, 
 see p. 454. But I am quite persuaded, that the substance of the work is now as 
 we have it from the hand of Jerome who edited it, and who commends the sound 
 thought of the writer, although he admits his Latin style to be faulty. It seems 
 that a friend of Jerome (Anatolius), had urged him to edit this work of Victori- 
 nus. In the preface to it he states to that friend what he had done in the prose- 
 cution of his task. He thus expresses himself : “ Inasmuch as you by letters have 
 entreated me [to edit the work], I was unwilling to put it off. But lest J should 
 treat your request with too little respect, 1 looked over the books of the older 
 writers, and what I have found in their commentaries, 1 have associated with 
 the labours of Victorinus. From lota onward [from chap. x. ?], what he regarded 
 as literal , and whatever from the beginning of the work to the sign of the cross 
 has been vitiated by unskilful writers, I have corrected. Thence to the end of 
 the volume, know that things have been added. It is yours now to investigate, 
 and to approve of what may please you. If it may please the Lord to give us life 
 and health, my turn of mind, particularly in this volume, will occasion you much 
 severe labour, Anatoli carissime .” So then, it is out of all question to draw metes 
 and bounds, between what Jerome has added and corrected , and what he has not. 
 But the style, after all, is in general so diverse from that of Jerome, that 1 cannot 
 persuade myself that he has gone into extensive changes. 
 
 For the rest, I have selected the remarks of the commentator on some of the 
 more difficult parts of the Apocalypse, and have limited myself to these. I be- 
 gin with remarks on Apoc. xi.j 
 
 Et dabo duobus testibus meis , et praedicabunt amicti cilicio dies mille cclx. id 
 est, triennium et menses sex, hoc enim faciunt menses quadraginta duo. 
 Est ergo illorum praedicatio triennium, et menses sex, et regnum Anti- 
 christ! alterum tantum. De ore illorum Prophetarurn exire ignem contra 
 adversaries potestatem verbi dici. Orrines enim plagae quotquot futurae 
 sunt ab Angelis, in eorum voce mittuntur. Multi putant eum Ileliam esse, 
 aut Helisaeum, aut Moysen : sed utrique mortui sunt : Hieremiae autem 
 mors non invenitur, quia omnes veteres nostri tradiderunt ilium esse Hiere- 
 
492 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM VICTORINUS. 
 
 miam. Nam et ipsum verbum quod factum est ad eum, testificatur ei di= 
 cens, Prius quam Jigurarem te in ventre , cognovi te : et prius quam de vulva 
 procederes, sandificavi te : et prophetam in gentibus posui te. In gentibus au- 
 tem proplieta non fuit, et ideo verbum Dei verax necesse habet quod pro- 
 misit exhiberet ut in gentibus propheta sit. Hos duos candelabra duo et 
 duas olivas ideo nominavi, ut si in alio legens non intellexisti, hie intelligas. 
 In Zacharia enim uno ex duodecim prophetis scriptum est, Hi sunt duae 
 olivae, et duo candelabra, qui in conspectu Domini terrae stant, id est, sunt 
 in paradiso. Hos ergo oportet interfici ab Antichristo post multas plagas 
 saeculo infixas : quern dicit ascendisse bestiam de abysso. De abysso au- 
 tem eum ascensurum, multa testimonia enim nobis in hoc capitulo contra- 
 henda sunt. Ait enim Ezechiel, Ecce Assur, cypressus in monte Libano. 
 Assur deprimens cypressos excelsas, ramosas, id est populos multos in 
 monte Libano. Regnum regnorum, id est, Romanorum. Formosus in 
 germinibus, id est, fortis in exercitibus. Aqua, inquit, nutriet eum, id est, 
 multa millia hominum subjecta erunt illi. Et abyssus hausit ilium, id est, 
 ructavit eum. Nam et Esaias pene iisdem verbis loquitur. Fuisse autem 
 eum jam in regno Romanorum, et fuisse inter Caesares, et Paulus Aposto- 
 lus contestatur : ait enim ad Thessalonicenses, Qui nunc tenet , teneat, donee 
 de medio fiat : et tunc apparebit iniquus ille, cuius est adventus secundum ejfica- 
 ciam SathaneE in signis et portentis mendacibus. Et ut scirent ilium venturum 
 inquit, tunc erat princeps, adjecit, Arcanum, inquit, malitiae jam oritur. Sed 
 non sua virtute nee patris suscitatur, sed Dei jussu. Quare ergo Paulus 
 idem dicit? Idcirco quod non receperunt amorem Dei, mittet eis Deus 
 spiritum erroris, ut omnes persuadeantur mendacio, qui non sunt persuasi 
 veritate ; et Esaias, ait : Sustinentibus lucem iilis tenebrae ortae sunt. 
 
 Hos ergo prophetas ab eodem interfici manifestat Apocalypsis, et quarta 
 die resurgere, ne quis Domino aequalis inveniatur. Sodomam autem et 
 iEgyptum dicit Hierosolymam. Dictus populi persecutor id efficiet. Dili- 
 genter ergo et cum summa solicitudine sequi oportet Propheticam praedi- 
 cationem, Ct intelligere quoniam spiritus ex parte praedicit et praeposterat, 
 et cum praecucurrerit usque ad novissimum, rursus tempora superiora re- 
 perit, et quoniam quod facturus est semel, aliquoties quasi factum ostendit: 
 quod nisi intelligas aliquoties quasi ut factum, aliquoties ut futurum, in 
 grandi caligine inveniri. Ergo interpretatio sequentium dictorum ea mon- 
 strabit, ut non ordine lectionis, sed rationis intelligatur. Apertum est tern- 
 plum Dei, quod est in coelo : Apertio est Domini nostri. Templum enim 
 Dei filius ejus est, ipse ait, Solvite templum hoc , et in tribus diebus excitabo 
 illud, et dicentibus Judaeis Quadraginta et sex annis edificatum est templum 
 istud, Evangelista inquit, ille dicebat de templo corporis sui. Area testamenti, 
 Evangelii praedicatio, et indulgentia delictorum, et omnia bona quae cum 
 illo advenerint, ilia dicit aperuisse. 
 
 Mulier autem amicta Sole, et Luna sub pedibus suis, habens coronam 
 duodecim stellarum, parturiens in doloribus suis, antiqua Ecclesia est pa- 
 trurn et Prophetarum, et sanctorum Apostolorum, quae gemitus et tormenta 
 habuit desiderii sui usquequo fructum ex plebe sua secundum carnem olim 
 promissum sibi videret Christum ea ipsa gente corpus sumpsisse. Sole au- 
 tem amicta; speciem resurrection is significat, et gloriain repromissionis, 
 Luna vero casus sanctorum eorporum, et debitum mortis, quo deficere nun- 
 quam potest. Nam quemadmodum minuitur vita, sic et augetur : Nec in 
 totum extincta est spes dormientium, ut quidam putant: sed habent in te- 
 
EXTRACTS FROM VICTORINUS. 
 
 493 
 
 nebris lucem sicut Luna. Corona stellarum duodecim chorum patrum sig- 
 niiicat secundum carnem nativitatis: ex quibus erat Christus carnem sump* 
 turns. Draco roseus stans et expectans ut cum peperisset filium, devora- 
 ret eum, diabolus et angelus refuga scilicet, qui omnium hominum interi- 
 tum per mortem aequalem posse esse opinabatur. Sed qui de semine na- 
 tus non erat, nihil morti debebat, propter quod nec devorare eum potuit, id 
 est, in morte retinere. In tertia enim die resurrexit; denique, et priusquam 
 pateretur, tentare eum accessit, tanquam hominem. Sed cum invenisset 
 non ilium esse quern putabat, discessit, inquit, ab illo ad tempus. Hunc 
 dicit raptum ad solium Dei, et nos legimus in Actibus Apostolorum quem- 
 adinodum loquens cum discipulis suis, raptus est in coelos. Virga ferrea, 
 gladius persecutionis. Omnes recessisse de locis suis, id est, quod boni 
 movebuntur, persecutionem fugientes. 
 
 Quatuor Angeli per quatuor angulos terrae, sive quatuor vend trans Eu- 
 phratem fluvium, gentes sunt quatuor, quia omni genti a Deo deputatus est 
 Angelus, sicut dicit, Statuit eos super numeros Angelorum Dei, donee sanc- 
 torum compleatur numerus, suos non egrediuntur terminos, quia in novis- 
 simo cum Antichristo venient. Quod autem dicit, turba multa ex omni 
 tribu, credentibus electorum numerum ostendit, qui per sanguinem agni 
 baptismo purgati, suasstolas fecerunt Candidas, servantes gratiam quam ac- 
 ceperunt. Septimo autem sigillo silentium fit in coelo semihora. Semihora 
 initium estquietis aeternae, sed partem intellexit, quia interruptio eadem per 
 ordinem repetit. Nam si esset juge silentium, hie finis narrandi fieret. An- 
 gelum autem ascendentem ab oriente solum, Helium Prophetam dicit, qui 
 anticipaturus est tempora Antichristi, ad restituendas Ecclesias et stabilien- 
 das a magna et intoierabili persecutione. Haec in apertione librorum vete- 
 ris Testament! et novi praedicata legimus. Ait enim Dominus per Mala- 
 chiam : Ecce ego mittam vobis Helium Thesbitem convertere cor da patrvm ad 
 fdios , et cor hominis ad proximum suum, id est, ad Christum per poenitentiam 
 convertere corda patrum ad filios, secundum tempus vocationis Judaeos ad 
 sequentis populi fidem revocare. Ideo ostendit etiam numerum ex Judaeis 
 crediturum, et ex gentibus magna m multitudinem. 
 
 Mitti etiam in coelum orationes Ecclesiae ab Angelo, et suscipi illas, et 
 contra iram efFundi, et scopari regnum Antichristi per Angelos sanctos in 
 Evangelio legimus. Ait enim : Orate ne inddatis in tentationem. Erit enhn 
 angustia magna, qualis non fait ab origine mundi. Et nisi abbreviasset Do- 
 minus dies illos, non esset salva omnis caro. Hos ergo Archangelos malos 
 septem ad percutiendum Antichristum rnittit. Nam et ipse ita dixit : Tunc 
 mittet filius hominis nuncios suos , et colligent eledos ejus de quatuor angulis 
 venti u, finibus ejus usque ad fines ejus ; et ante ait per Prophetam : Tunc erit 
 pax terrae vesirae, cum surrexerint in ea septem pastores , et octo morsus hominum , 
 et indagabunt Assur, hoc est, Antichristum, in fossa JVembrot in damnatione di- 
 aboli. Ecclesiae specie similiter conunoti fuerint custodes domus. Ipse 
 autem in parabola ad Apostolos sic ait, cum venissent ad eum operarii, et 
 dixissent, Domine, nonne bonum semen seminasti in agro ? Unde ergo ibi 
 lolium ? respondit eis, Inimicus homo hoc fecit, cui dixerunt, Vis imus, et 
 eradicamus illud ? qui ait: Non, sed sinite utraque crescere usque ad mes- 
 sem, et in temporem messis dicam messoribus, colligere lolium, et facere 
 manipulos, et cremari igni aeterno : triticum autem coliigere in horrea mea. 
 Hos messores et pastores et operarios hie Apocalypsis ostendit esse Ange- 
 los. 
 
494 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM VICTORIOUS. 
 
 Tuba autem verburn est potestatis, et licet repetat per phialas, non quasi 
 bis factum dicit, sed quoniam semel futurum est quod est decretum a Deo 
 ut fiat, ideo bis dicitur. Quicquid igitur in tubis minus dixit, hinc in phia- 
 lis est. Nec aspiciendus est ordo dictorum, quoniam saepe Spiritus sanc- 
 tus ubi ad novissimi temporis finem percurrerit, rursus ad eadem tempora 
 redit, et supplet ea quae minus dixit. Nec requirendus est ordo in Apoca- 
 lypsi, sed intellectus. 
 
 [What follows is very miscellaneous and loose. I omit it, and pass on to more 
 interesting matter, respecting the beast from the sea and the land.] 
 
 Et vidi de mari bestiam ascendentem similem pardo. Regnum illius 
 temporis Antichristi cum varietate gentium, et populum commixtum signi- 
 ficat. Pedes tanquam vasis fortis, et spurcissimae bestiae. Duces, pedes 
 ejus dixit. Os ejus tanquam ora leonum, inquit, est, id est ad sanguinem 
 armatum. Os enim ejus, visio illius est, et lingua quae ad nihilum pro- 
 cessura est nisi ad sanguinem effundendum. Capita septem montes sunt 
 in quibus mulier sedet, id est, civitas Romana. Et reges septem sunt, quin- 
 que ceciderunt : unus est : alius nondum venit : et cum venerit, brevi tem- 
 pore erit. Et bestia quam vidisti, de septem est : et octava est. Intel ligi 
 oportet tempos quo scriptura Apocalypsis edita est, quoniam tunc erat Cae- 
 sar Domitianus. Ante ilium autem fuerat Titus frater illius, et Yespasia- 
 nus pater, Galba, Otho, et Vitellius. Hi sunt quinque qui ceciderunt: 
 unus extat, sub quo scribitur Apocalypsis, Domitianus scilicet. Alius non- 
 dum venit, Nervam dixit. Et cum venerit, brevi tempore erit. Biennium 
 enim non implevit. Et bestia quam vidisti, inquit, de septem est: quoniam 
 ante istos reges Nero regnavit. Et octava est, ait: modo cum ilia advene- 
 rit, computans loco octavo. Et quoniam in illo est consummatio, adjecit, In 
 interitum vadit. Nam decern reges accepisse regalem potestatem, cum ille 
 moverit ab oriente, aut mittitur ab urbe Roma cum exercitibus suis. Haec 
 cornua decern et decern diademata Daniel ostendit, et tria eradicari de 
 prioribus, hoc est, tres duces primarios ab Anticbristo interfici. Caeteros 
 septem dare illi honorem, et consilium, et potestatem, de quibus ait, Hi 
 odient meretricem, urbem scilicet, dicit, Et carnes ejus comburent igni. 
 Unum autem de capitibus occisum in morte, et plaga mortis ejus curata est, 
 Neronem dicit. Constat enim, dum insequeretur eum equitatus missus a 
 senatu, ipsum sibi gulam succidisse, Hunc ergo suscitatum Deus mittet re- 
 gem dignum dignis, et Christum qualem meruerunt Judaei. Et quoniam 
 aliud nomen allaturus est, aliam etiam vitam instituturus ut sic eum tan- 
 quam Christum excipiant Judaei. Ait enim Daniel, Desideria mulierum 
 non cognoscet, cum prius fuerit impurissimus : et nullum Deum patrum 
 cognosced Non enim seducere populum poterit circuncisionis, nisi legis 
 vendicator. Denique et sanctos non ad idola colenda revocaturus est, sed 
 ad circuncisionem colendam, si quos potuerit seducere. Ita demum faciet 
 ut Christus ab eis appelletur. De inferno autem ilium surgere, et superius 
 diximus, verbo 1 saiae : Aqua nutriet ilium : et abyssus auxit ilium. Qui ta- 
 men licet nomine mutato, et actu immutato veniet, ait spiritus : Numerus 
 ejus nomen hominis est, et numerus ejus sexcenti sexaginta sex. Cum 
 attulerit ad literam Graecam, hunc numerum explebit. AI. N. L. T. CCC. 
 F. V. M. L. X. L. O. L. XX. CCC. I. III. EVN. LCC. N. V. III. P. CIX. 
 K. XXOLXX. CC. 
 
ASCENSION OF ISAIAH I EXTRACTS. 
 
 495 
 
 Aliam bestiam subeuntem de terra magna, falsum prophetam dicit, qui 
 facturus est signa et portenta mendacia ante ilium in conspectu horninum. 
 Habentem cornua quasi agni, id est, speciem justi hominis: loquentem 
 quasi draco, loquetur autem diaboli malitia plenus. Hie euim facturus est 
 ut ignis de coelo descendat: sed in conspectu horninum. Haec magi per 
 angelos refugas et hodie faciunt. Faciet etiam ut imago aurea Antichristo 
 in templo Hierosolymis ponatur, et intret angelus refuga, et inde voces et 
 sortes reddat. Faciet etiam hie ipse ut accipiant servi et liberi notam in 
 frontibus aut in manibus dextris numerum nominis ejus, ne quis emat vel 
 vendat. Aspernationem autem et exacerbationem Daniel ante praedixerat. 
 
 [I add the passage respecting the Millennium, which will show, indeed, that 
 Victorinus (a full Millenarian like Papias andNepos) has been transformed. But 
 what a strange transformation. One is ready to exclaim : Could Jerome, then, 
 write such stuff as this, and expect any one to respect his opinion ? I would hope 
 that, after all, this does not belong to him.] 
 
 Omnes animae gentium congregabuntur ad judicium. Nam mille anno- 
 rum regnum non arbitror esse terminum. Aut si ita sentiendum est, com- 
 pletus annis mille regnare desinunt. Sed ut mei sensus capacitas sentit 
 proferri, quoniam denarius numerus decalogum significat, centenarius vir- 
 ginitatis corouam ostendit. Qui enim virginitatis integrum servaverit pro- 
 positum, et decalogi fideliter praecepta impleverit, et contra impuros mores 
 vel impuras cogitationes intra cordis cubiculum vigilaverit, ne dominentur 
 ei : iste vere sacerdos est Christi, et millenarium numerum perficiens, inte- 
 gre creditur regnare cum Christo, et apud eum recte ligatus est diabolus. 
 Qui vitiis et dogmatibus haereticorum irretitus est, in eo solutus est diabo- 
 lus. Sed quia completis mille annis dicit eum solvi, completo perfectorum 
 sanctorum numero, in quibus corpore et corde virginitas regnat, adveniente 
 abominandi adventu ? multi ab eo, amore terrenorum seducti supplantabun- 
 tur, et simul cum eo ingredientur stagnum, et post modicum tellus reddet 
 sanctorum qui dudum quieverant corpora,' immortale cum aeterno rege 
 suscipientes regnum : quos non solum corpore virgineo, sed et lingua et 
 cogitatione exultaturos cum agno demonstrat. 
 
 SPECIMEN OF THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH. 
 
 [A full account of this interesting relic of antiquity, the reader will find above, 
 p. 40 seq. The summary of contents there given, will impart a just view of the 
 general tenor of the book. I have thought it would be grateful to those of my 
 readers who have had no opportunity to peruse the work as published by Dr. 
 Laurence, to see a specimen of it in the writer’s own manner. I shall give that 
 part of the ‘'Ogaoig, which commences with the seventh chapter of the work, but 
 in the Vision proper would be reckoned the second ; see p. 42 seq. above. This 
 gives an account of his rapture through the seven heavens, into the presence of 
 God.] 
 
 Chap. VII. (1) The vision, then, which Isaiah saw, he told to Hezekiah, 
 to Josheb his son, to Micah, and to the other prophets. (2) It happened, 
 
496 
 
 ASCENSION OF ISAIAH : EXTRACTS. 
 
 he said, when I prophesied, according to what you have heard, that I be- 
 held a glorious angel, whose glory was not like that of the angels I had 
 been accustomed to behold, but he possessed a glory and office so great, 
 that I am unable to express it. (3) I saw him when he seized me by my 
 hand, and I said, “ Who art thou ? What is thy name ? And whither 
 wilt thou cause me to ascend ?” For the power of conversing with him 
 was granted to me. (4) He replied : “ When I have taken thee up, and 
 shown thee the vision, which I have been sent to show thee, thou shalt 
 instantly understand who I am ; but my name thou shalt not know ; (5) 
 (For it is necessary that thou shouldest return into thy mortal body), but 
 thou shalt perceive whether I shall cause thee to ascend, because for this 
 purpose have I been sent to thee.” (6) Then I rejoiced to hear him speak 
 mildly to me. (7) He said, “ Dost thou rejoice, because I speak mildly to 
 thee?” He added, “Him who magnified me, shalt thou behold, as mildly 
 and tranquilly he converses with thee. (8) And the Father of him, who 
 magnifies me, shalt thou behold ; for from the seventh heaven was I sent 
 in all these things to illuminate thee.” 
 
 (9) We then ascended into the firmament, I and he, where I beheld 
 Samael and his powers. Great slaughter was perpetrated by him, and 
 diabolical deeds, while each contended one against another. (10) For as it 
 is above, so is it below, because a similitude of that which takes place in 
 the firmament, exists also here on earth. (11) I said to the angel, “What 
 is this contention ?” (12) He answered : “ Thus has it been from the foun- 
 dation of the world, and this slaughter will continue, until he, whom thou 
 shalt behold, shall come and put an end to it.” (13) Afterwards he caused 
 me to ascend above the firmament into heaven ; (14) Where I beheld a 
 throne in the midst, and angels both upon the right hand and upon the left. 
 (15) Nor were any like the angels, standing on the right hand ; for those 
 standing on the right hand possessed a very great degree of splendor. 
 And they all glorified with one voice, (the throne being in the midst), glori- 
 fying the same object. After them likewise those upon the left hand, but 
 their voice was not as the voice of those upon the right hand, nor was their 
 splendor as the splendor of the others. (16) Then I inquired of the angel, 
 who was conducting me, saying : “ To whom is this glorifying addressed ?” 
 (17) He replied : “ To the Glory of the seventh heaven, to him who in the 
 holy world causes blindness, and to his Beloved, from whom I have been 
 sent to thee, thither is it addressed.” 
 
 (18) Again he took me up into the second heaven, the height of which 
 was as the height from the earth to heaven and the firmament. (19) The 
 first heaven was distinguished by a right side and a left, by a throne in the 
 midst, and by the splendor of angels. These things also were in the 
 second heaven ; but he who sat upon the throne in the second heaven pos- 
 sessed a glory greater than all. (20) Abundant indeed was the glory of 
 the second heaven ; but the splendor of the angels there resembled not that 
 of those, who were in the first heaven. (21) Then I fell on my face to 
 worship him who sat upon the throne ; but the angel, my conductor, did 
 not suffer me, saying: “Worship not, neither the angel, nor the throne of 
 him, who is of the sixth heaven, from whence I have been sent to conduct 
 thee, before I tell thee to worship in the seventh heaven. (22) For above 
 all the heavens and their angels thy throne is placed, thy cloathing, and 
 thy crown, which thou shalt thyself behold. (23) And rejoice with great 
 
ASCENSION OF ISAIAH : EXTRACTS. 
 
 497 
 
 joy; for those, who love the Most High and his Beloved, shall, at the end 
 of their lives, by the angel of the Holy Spirit, ascend thither.” 
 
 (24) Then he took me up into the third heaven, where in like manner I 
 beheld those, who were upon the right hand and upon the left, and where 
 also a throne was in the midst, and one sitting upon it, but no record of 
 this world was there commemorated. (25) And I said to the angel, who 
 was with me : “ Because the splendor before me will be changing, while I 
 ascend through the different heavens, because there is here no knowledge 
 of the world, vain would prove the attempt to commemorate it.” (26) He 
 answered me, saying : “ No commemoration takes place on account of its 
 irksomeness. Nothing however is concealed which is here transacted.” 
 (27) I then wished to be informed how, if not commemorated, it became 
 known. He answered me saying : “ When into the seventh heaven, from 
 whence I was sent, I have caused thee to ascend, into that, which is above 
 these, immediately shalt thou understand, that there is nothing concealed 
 from the thrones, and those, who dwell in the heavens, nor from the an- 
 gels ; and that the splendor, with which they shine, and the glory of him, 
 who sits upon the throne, is greater, as well as the glory of the angels upon 
 the right and upon the left hand more excellent, than that of the heaven, 
 which is under them.” 
 
 (28) Again he took me up into the fourth heaven, the height of which 
 from the third was greater than from the earth to the firmament. (29) 
 There again I saw angels, upon the right hand and upon the left, and one 
 sitting upon a throne in the midst, and there likewise they glorified. (30) 
 There too the splendor and glory of the angels on the right hand exceeded 
 that of those on the left. (31) Again also the glory of him, who was sitting 
 on the throne, exceeded that of the angels who were upon the right hand, 
 as their glory also exceeded that of those, who were below them. 
 
 (32) Then he took me up into the fifth heaven. (33) Where again I per- 
 ceived that the angels upon the right and the left side, as well as he, who 
 sat upon the throne, possessed a greater glory than those of the fourth 
 heaven. (34) The glory also of those, who were upon the right side, sur- 
 passed that of those, who were upon the left, from a triple to a fourfold 
 proportion. (35) While the glory of him, who was upon the throne, ex- 
 ceeded that of the angels, who were upon the right side ; (36) As their 
 glory possessed a greater degree of splendor, than that of the angels in the 
 fourth heaven. (37) Then I glorified him, whom no one names, the potent 
 Being, who dwells in the heavens, whose name has never been revealed to 
 any mortal, him who thus transmits glory from heaven to heaven, who 
 augments the splendor of the angels, and renders still more brilliant that of 
 him, who sits upon the throne. 
 
 Chap. VIII. (1) Moreover he took me up into the ether of the sixth 
 heaven, where, immediately as I ascended, I saw an effulgence, which I 
 had not perceived in the fifth heaven. (2) The angels existed in great 
 glory. (3) A holy splendor and a throne was also there. (4) Then I said 
 to the angel, who was conducting me, “ What is this, which I behold, my 
 Lord ?” (5) He replied : “ I am not thy Lord, but thy associate.” (6) I 
 
 further inquired of him, saying, “Are there then no associates of angels?” 
 (7) He said: “Yes; of the sixth heaven and above, in which from this 
 time there is neither a left side, nor a throne placed in the midst ; but it is 
 connected with the potency of the seventh heaven, where dwells he, who 
 VOL i. 63 
 
498 
 
 ASCENSION OF ISAIAH : EXTRACTS. 
 
 is never named, and his Elect, whose name is unrevealed, nor are all the 
 heavens capable of discovering it. (8) For he alone it is, whose voice all 
 the heavens and the thrones obey. I therefore have received power, and 
 been sent to bring thee up here, that thou mightest behold this splendor ; 
 
 (9) That thou mightest see the Lord of all these heavens and these thrones ; 
 
 (10) Who shall nevertheless be changed, until he assume your form and 
 your similitude. (11) Wherefore I say unto thee, Isaiah ; because into thy 
 mortal body that which is human must return, that, which has neither per- 
 ceived, nor ascended, nor understood the things which thou hast under- 
 stood ; (12) That, what thou shalt be, thou shalt behold, for thou shalt 
 participate in the lot of the Lord ; by the portion of a tree shalt thou come 
 here, and thence is derived the potency of the sixth heaven and of the 
 ether. (13) Then I greatly magnified my Lord, because by the same kind 
 of death which shall happen to him, I shall be transported to heaven. 
 (14) He continued: “Hear further this from thy fellow servant. When 
 from an alien body by the angel of the Spirit thou hast ascended hither, 
 then shalt thou assume the cloathing, which thou shalt behold ; and other 
 numbered, laid up, cloathings shalt thou see. (15) Then also shalt thou be 
 equal to the angels of the seventh heaven.” 
 
 (16) He now took me up into the sixth heaven, where there was neither 
 a left side, nor a throne in the midst, but all were alike in their appearance, 
 and their splendor was equal. (17) And permission being given me, I 
 glorified, I with them and that angel, and our glorifying was like theirs. 
 (18) There all invoked the first, the Father, and his Beloved the Christ, 
 and the Holy Spirit, all with united voice. (19) But their voice was not 
 like that of the angels, which were in the five heavens. (20) Nor alike was 
 then* utterance, but a different voice, as well as a more copious effusion of 
 light was there. (21 ) Then, while I continued in the sixth heaven, I re- 
 garded as darkness the brilliancy, which I had seen in the five heavens ; 
 (22) Rejoicing and glorifying him, who had thus graciously bestowed light 
 on those, who wait in expectation of his promise. (23) And I supplicated 
 the angel who was conducting me, that from this time forward I might not 
 return into a world of mortality. (24) Wherefore be assured, O Hezekiah, 
 Josheb my son, and Micah, that great darkness is here, darkness indeed 
 great. (25) Now the angel, who was conducting me, knew what I thought, 
 and he said : “If in this light thou hast rejoiced, how much more wilt thou 
 rejoice in the seventh heaven, from whence I have been sent to thee, when 
 thou shalt behold the light, where the Lord is, and his Beloved, who will 
 hereafter be called in the world the Son. (26) For he who is to exist in a 
 corruptible world has not yet been revealed ; nor the cloathing, the thrones, 
 and the crowns, which are reserved for the saints, for those, who shall 
 believe in that Lord, in him, who will descend in your form ; since there 
 the light is great and wonderful. (27) With respect however to thy return- 
 ing into the body no more, understand that the days are not accomplished 
 for thy coming here.” (28) Hearing this, I became sorrowful, but he said, 
 “ Grieve not.” 
 
 Chap. IX. (1) Then he raised me into the ether of the seventh heaven. 
 Moreover I heard a voice, exclaiming: “Whither would he ascend who 
 dwells among “ strangers ?” I feared and trembled. (2) It spoke of me. 
 And while I trembled, behold, from the same place another voice was 
 uttered, which said, “ Let holy Isaiah be permitted to ascend hither, for 
 
BOOK OF ENOCH : SPECIMENS. 
 
 499 
 
 here is his cloathing.” (3) Then I inquired of the angel who was with 
 me, and said : “ Who is he that prohibited me ? and who he that favoured 
 my ascent ?” (4) The angel answered: “He who prohibited thee is he, 
 who dwells above the splendor of the sixth heaven. (5) And he who turn- 
 ed thee back again is thy Lord God, the Lord Christ, who will be called in 
 the world, Jesus ; but his name it is impossible to understand, until he has 
 ascended from mortality.” 
 
 (6) He then took me up into the seventh heaven, where I beheld a 
 miraculous light and angels innumerable. (6) There also I saw all the 
 saints from Adam : (8) Holy Abel, and every other saint. (9) There too 
 I beheld Enoch, and all coeval with him, who were without the cloathing 
 of the flesh : I viewed them in their heavenly cloathing, resembling the 
 angels, who were standing there in great splendor. (10) Nevertheless they 
 sat not upon their thrones, nor were splendid crowns upon their heads. 
 (11) Then I inquired of the angel, who was with me, how it happened, that 
 they had assumed their cloathings but not their thrones and crowns. (12) 
 He said : “ Crowns and thrones of glory they have not yet received, but 
 they shall understand and know what their thrones, and what their crowns 
 shall be, after the beloved has descended in the form, in which thou shalt 
 see him descend. (13) For the Lord shall descend into the world in the 
 latter days, and after his descent shall be called Christ. He shall take your 
 form, be reputed flesh, and shall be man. (14) Then shall the God of the 
 world be revealed by his Son. Yet will they lay their hands upon him, 
 and suspend him on a tree, not knowing who he is. (15) In like manner 
 also shall his descent, as thou wilt perceive, be concealed from the heavens, 
 through which he shall pass altogether unknown. (16) But after he has 
 escaped from the angel of death, on the third day he shall rise again, and 
 continue in the world five hundred and forty-five days. (17) And many 
 also of the saints shall ascend with him, whose spirits shall not receive 
 their cloathing, until the Lord Christ shall ascend himself, and with him 
 shall they ascend. (18) Then therefore shall they assume their cloathing, 
 and thrones, and crowns, when he shall have ascended into the seventh 
 heaven.” 
 
 SPECIMENS OF THE BOOK OF ENOCH. 
 
 [A full account of this production may be found above, p. 50 seq. 1 select 
 those parts which exhibit in a peculiar manner the Christology of the author ; be- 
 ginning with chap, xlv.] 
 
 Chap. XLV. (1) Parable the second, respecting those who deny the name 
 of the habitation of the holy ones, and of the Lord of spirits. (2) Heaven 
 they shall not ascend, nor shall they come on the earth. This shall be the 
 portion of sinners, who deny the name of the Lord of spirits, and who are 
 thus reserved for the day of punishment and of affliction. (3) In that day 
 shall the Elect one sit upon a throne of glory ; and shall choose their con- 
 ditions and countless habitations, (while their spirits within them shall bo 
 
500 
 
 BOOK OF ENOCH : SPECIMENS. 
 
 strengthened, when they behold my Elect one,) shall choose them for those 
 who have fled for protection to my holy and glorious name. (4) In that 
 day I will cause my Elect one to dwell in the midst of them ; will change 
 the face of heaven; will bless it, and illuminate it for ever. (5) I will also 
 change the face of the earth ; will bless it ; and cause those whom I have 
 elected to dwell upon it. But those who have committed sin and iniquity 
 shall not inhabit it ; for I have marked their proceedings. My righteous 
 ones will I satisfy with peace, placing them before me ; but the condemna- 
 tion of sinners shall draw, near, that I may destroy them from the face of 
 the earth. 
 
 Chap. XLVI. (1) There I beheld the Ancient of days, whose head was 
 like white wool, and with him another, whose countenance resembled that 
 of man. His countenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy 
 angels. Then I inquired of one of the angels, who went with me, and who 
 showed me every secret thing, concerning this Son of man ; who He was ; 
 whence He was ; and why He accompanied the Ancient of days. (2) He 
 answered and said to me : This is the Son of man, to whom righteousness 
 belongs ; with whom righteousness has dwelt ; and who will reveal all the 
 treasures of that which is concealed ; for the Lord of spirits has chosen 
 Him ; and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in ever- 
 lasting uprightness. (3) This Son of man, whom thou beholdest, shall raise 
 up kings and the mighty from their couches, and the powerful from their 
 thrones ; shall loosen the bridles of the powerful, and break in pieces the 
 teeth of sinners. (4) He shall hurl kings from their thrones and their do- 
 minions ; because they will not exalt and praise Him, nor humble them- 
 selves before Him , by whom their kingdoms were granted to them. The 
 countenance likewise of the mighty shall He cast down, filling them with 
 confusion. Darkness shall be their habitation, and worms shall be their 
 bed ; nor from that their bed shall they hope to be again raised, because 
 they exalted not the name of the Lord of spirits. (5) They shall condemn 
 the stars of heaven, shall lift up their hands against the Most High, shall 
 tread upon and inhabit the earth, exhibiting all their works of iniquity, 
 even their works of iniquity. Their strength shall be in their riches, and 
 their faith in the gods whom they have formed with their own hands. 
 They shall deny the name of the Lord of spirits, and shall expel Him from 
 the temples, in which they assemble ; (6) And with Him the faithful, who 
 suffer in the name of the Lord of spirits. 
 
 Chap. XL VII. (1) In that day the prayer of the holy and the righteous, 
 and the blood of the righteous, shall ascend from the earth into the pres- 
 ence of the Lord of spirits. (2) In that day shall the holy ones assemble, 
 who dwell above the heavens, and with united voice petition, supplicate, 
 praise, laud, and bless the name of the Lord of spirits, on account of the 
 blood of the righteous which has been shed ; that the prayer of the right- 
 eous may not be intermitted before the Lord of spirits ; that for them He 
 would execute judgment ; and that his patience may not endure for ever. 
 (3) At that time I beheld the Ancient of days, while He sat upon the throne 
 of his glory, while the book of the living was opened in his presence, and 
 while all the powers which were above the heavens stood around and be- 
 fore Him. (4) Then were the hearts of the saints full of joy, because the 
 consummation of righteousness was arrived, the supplication of the saints 
 heard, and the blood of the righteous appreciated by the Lord of spirits. 
 
BOOK OF ENOCH : SPECIMENS. 
 
 501 
 
 Chap. XLVIII. ( 1 ) In that place I beheld a fountain of righteousness, 
 which never failed, encircled by many springs of wisdom. Of these all the 
 thirsty drank, and were filled with wisdom, having their habitation with 
 the righteous, the elect, and the holy. (2) In that hour was this Son of man 
 invoked before the Lord of spirits, and his name in the presence of the 
 Ancient of days. (3) Before the sun and the signs were created, before the 
 stars of heaven were formed, his name was invoked in the presence of the ^ 
 Lord of spirits. A support shall He be for the righteous and the holy to 
 lean upon, without falling ; and he shall be the light of nations. (4) He 
 shall be the hope of those whose hearts are troubled. All, who dwell on 
 earth, shall fall down and worship before him; shall bless and glorify Him, 
 and sing praises to the name of the Lord of spirits. (5) Therefore the 
 Elect and the Concealed one existed in His presence, before the world was 
 created, and for ever. (6) In His presence he existed , and has revealed to 
 the saints and to the righteous the wisdom of the Lord of spirits; for he 
 has preserved the lot of the righteous, because they have hated and reject- 
 ed this world of iniquity, and have detested all its works and ways, in the 
 name of the Lord of spirits. (7) For in His name shall they be preserved; 
 and His will shall be their life. In those days shall the kings of the earth 
 and the mighty men, who have gained the world by their achievements, be- 
 come humble in countenance. (8) For in the day of their anxiety and 
 trouble their souls shall not be saved ; and they shall be in subjection to 
 those whom I have chosen. (9) I will cast them like hay into the fire, and 
 like lead into the water. Thus shall they burn in the presence of the 
 righteous, and sink in the presence of the holy ; nor shall a tenth part of 
 them be found. (10) But in the day of their trouble, the world shall obtain 
 tranquillity. (11) In His presence shall they fall, and not be raised up 
 again ; nor shall there be any one to take them out of His hands, and to 
 lift them up : for they have denied the Lord of spirits, and His Messiah. 
 The name of the Lord of spirits shall be blessed. 
 
 Chap. XLVIII. (1) Wisdom is poured forth like water, and glory fails 
 not before Him for ever and ever; for potent is He in all the secrets of 
 righteousness. (2) But iniquity passes away like a shadow, and possesses 
 not a fixed station : for the Elect one stands before the Lord of spirits ; and 
 His glory is for ever and ever ; and His power from generation to genera- 
 tion. (3) With Him dwells the spirit of intellectual wisdom, the spirit of 
 instruction and of power, and the spirit of those who sleep in righteous- 
 ness ; He shall judge secret things. (4) Nor shall any be able to utter a 
 single word before Him ; for the Elect one is in the presence of the Lord 
 of spirits, according to his own pleasure. 
 
 Chap. XLIX. (1) In those days the saints and the chosen shall undergo 
 a change. The light of day shall rest upon them ; and the splendor and 
 glory of the saints shall be changed. (2) In the day of trouble evil shall be 
 heaped up upon sinners ; but the righteous shall triumph in the name of 
 the Lord of spirits. (3) Others shall be made to see, that they must repent, 
 and forsake the works of their hands ; and that glory awaits them not in 
 the presence of the Lord of spirits ; yet that by his name they may he saved. 
 The Lord of spirits will have compassion on them ; for great is his mercy; 
 and righteousness is in his judgment, and in the presence of his glory ; nor 
 in his judgment shall iniquity stand. He who repents not before Him shall 
 perish. (4) Henceforward I will not have mercy on them, saith the Lord 
 of spirits. 
 
502 
 
 BOOK OF ENOCH : SPECIMENS. 
 
 Chap. L. (1) In those days shall the earth deliver up from her womb, 
 and hell deliver up from hers, that which it has received ; and destruction 
 shall restore that which it owes. (2) He shall select the righteous and holy 
 from among them ; for the day of their salvation has approached. (3) And 
 in those days shall the Elect one sit upon his throne, while every secret of 
 intellectual wisdom shall proceed from his mouth ; for the Lord of spirits 
 has gifted and glorified him. (4) In those days the mountains shall skip 
 like rams, and the hills shall leap like young sheep satiated with milk ; and 
 all the righteous shall become angels in heaven. (5) Their countenance 
 shall be bright with joy ; for in those days shall the Elect one be exalted. 
 The earth shall rejoice ; the righteous shall inhabit it, and the elect pos- 
 sess it. 
 
 Chap. LXL (1) Thus the Lord commanded the kings, the princes, the 
 exalted, and those who dwell on earth, saying : Open your eyes, and lift up 
 your horns, if you are capable of comprehending the Elect one. (2) The 
 Lord of spirits sat upon the throne of his glory. (3) And the spirit of 
 righteousness was poured out over him. (4) The word of his mouth shall 
 destroy all the sinners and all the ungodly, who shall perish at his pres- 
 ence. (5) In that day shall all the kings, the princes, the exalted, and those 
 who possess the earth, stand up, behold, and perceive, that He is sitting on 
 the throne of his glory; that before him the saints shall be judged in right- 
 eousness ; (6) And that nothing, which shall be spoken before Him, shall 
 be spoken in vain. (7) Trouble shall come upon them, as upon a woman 
 in travail, whose labour is severe, when her child comes to the mouth of 
 the womb, and she finds it difficult to bring forth. (8) One portion of them 
 shall look upon another. They shall be astonished, and shall humble their 
 countenance ; (9) And trouble shall seize them, when they shall behold this 
 Son of woman sitting upon the throne of his glory. (10) Then shall the 
 kings, the princes, and all who possess the earth, glorify Him who has do- 
 minion over all things, Him who was concealed ; for from the beginning 
 the Son of man existed in secret, whom the Most High preserved in the 
 presence of his power, and revealed to the elect. (11) He shall sow the 
 congregation of the saints, and of the elect ; and all the elect shall stand 
 before Him in that day. (12) All the kings, the princes, the exalted, and 
 those who rule over the earth, shall fall down on their faces before Him, 
 and shall worship Him. (13) They shall fix their hopes on this Son of 
 man, shall pray to Him, and petition Him for mercy. (14) Then shall the 
 Lord of spirits hasten to expel them from his presence. Their faces shall 
 be full of confusion, and their faces shall darkness cover. The angels shall 
 take them to punishment, that vengeance may be inflicted on those who 
 have oppressed his children and his elect. And they shall become an exam- 
 ple to the saints and to his elect. Through them shall these be made joy- 
 ful ; for the anger of the Lord of spirits shall rest upon them. (15) Then the 
 sword of the Lord of spirits shall be drunk with their blood ; but the 
 saints and elect shall be safe in that day ; nor the face of the sinners and 
 the ungodly shall they thenceforwards behold. (16) The Lord of spirits 
 shall remain over them: (17) And with this Son of man shall they dwell, 
 eat, lie down, and rise up, for ever and ever. (18) The saints and the elect 
 have arisen from the earth, have left off to depress their countenances, and 
 have been clothed with the garment of life. That garment of life is with 
 
BOOK OF ENOCH : SPECIMENS. 
 
 503 
 
 the Lord of spirits in whose presence your garment shall not wax old, nor 
 shall your glory diminish. 
 
 [I cannot forbear to insert a portion of the author’s astronomical revelations ; 
 for they must at least amuse the reader much, if they do not instruct him. Thus 
 they run :] 
 
 Chap. LXXI. (1) The book of the revolutions of the luminaries of hea- 
 ven, according to their respective classes, their respective powers, their re- 
 spective periods, their respective names, the places where they commence 
 their progress, and their respective months, which Uriel, the holy angel who 
 was with me, explained to me ; he who conducts them. The whole ac- 
 count of them, according to every year of the world for ever, until a new 
 work shall be effected, which will be eternal. 
 
 (2) This is the first law of the luminaries. The sun and the light arrive 
 at the gates of heaven, which are on the east, and on the west of it at the 
 western gates of heaven. (3) I beheld the gates whence the sun goes forth ; 
 and the gates where the sun sets ; (4) In which gates also the moon rises 
 and sets ; and I beheld the conductors of the stars, among those who pre- 
 cede them ; six gates were at the rising, and six at the setting of the sun. 
 (5) All these respectively, one after another, are on a level ; and numerous 
 windows are on the right and on the left sides of those gates. 
 
 (6) First proceeds forth that great luminary, which is called the sun ; the 
 orb of which is as the orb of heaven, the whole of it being replete with 
 splendid and flaming fire. (7) Its chariot, where it ascends, the wind blows. 
 (8) The sun sets in heaven, and, returning by the north, to proceed towards 
 the east, is conducted so as to enter by that gate, and illuminate the face of 
 heaven. (9) In the same manner it goes forth in the first month by a great 
 gate. (10) It goes forth through the fourth of those six gates, which are at 
 the rising of the sun. (11) And in the fourth gate, through which the sun 
 with the moon proceeds, in the first part of it, there are twelve open win- 
 dows ; from which issues out a flame, when they are opened at their pro- 
 per periods. (12) When the sun rises in heaven, it goes forth through this 
 fourth gate thirty days, and by the fourth gate in the west of heaven on a 
 level with it descends. (13) During that period the day is lengthened from 
 the day, and the night curtailed from the night for thirty days. And then 
 the day is longer by two parts than the night. (14) The day is precisely 
 ten parts, and the night is eight 
 
 (15) The sun goes forth through this fourth gate, and sets in it, and turns 
 to the fifth gate during thirty days ; after which it proceeds from, and sets 
 in, the fifth gate. (16) Then the day becomes lengthened by a second por- 
 tion, so that it is eleven parts ; while the night becomes shortened, and is 
 "only seven parts. (17) The sun now returns to the east, entering into the 
 sixth gate, and rising and setting in the sixth gate thirty-one days, on ac- 
 count of its signs. (18) At that period the day is longer than the night, be- 
 ing twice as long as the night; and becomes twelve parts ; (19) But the 
 night is shortened, and becomes six parts. Then the sun rises up, that the 
 day may be shortened, and the night lengthened. (20) And the sun returns 
 towards the east, entering into the sixth gate, where it rises and sets for 
 thirty days. (21) When that period is completed, the day becomes short- 
 ened precisely one part, so that it is eleven parts, while the night is seven 
 parts. (22) Then the sun goes from the west, from that sixth gate, and 
 
i04 
 
 BOOK OF ENOCH : SPECIMENS. 
 
 proceeds eastwards, rising in the fifth gate for thirty days, and setting again 
 westwards in the fifth gate of the west. (23) At that period the day be- , 
 comes shortened two parts ; and is ten parts, while the night is eight parts. 
 
 (24) Then the sun goes from the fifth gate, as it sets in the fifth gate of 
 the west ; and rises in the fourth gate for thirty-one days, on account of its 
 signs, setting in the west. (25) At that period the day is made equal with 
 the night; and, being equal with it, the night becomes nine parts, and the 
 day nine parts. (26) Then the sun goes from that gate, as it sets in the 
 west ; and returning to the east proceeds by the third gate for thirty days, 
 se.ttfng in the west ;it*fche third gate. (27) At that period the night is length- 
 ened from the day during thirty mornings, and the day is curtailed from 
 the day during thirty days ; the night being ten parts precisely, and the day 
 eight parts. (28) The sun now goes from the third gate, as it sets in the 
 third gate in the west ; but returning to the east, it proceeds by the second 
 gate of the east for thirty days. (29) In like manner also it sets in the se- 
 cond gate in the west of heaven. (30) At that period the night is eleven 
 parts, and the day seven parts. (31) Then the sun goes at that time from 
 the second gate, as it sets in the second gate in the west ; but returns to the 
 east, proceeding by the first gate, for thirty-one days. (32) And sets in the 
 west in the first gate. (33) At that period the night is lengthened as much 
 again as the day. (34) It is twelve parts precisely, while the day is six 
 parts. (35) The sun has thus completed its beginnings, and a second time 
 goes round from these beginnings. 
 
 [The writer goes on at much greater length with the gun, and then brings into 
 view the moon and stars, in respect to which his feyelations are equally wonder- 
 ful. It is one of the most curious mixtures of fancy and conceit on the one hand, 
 and of half scientific and accurate observation of the oourse of the heavenly bod- 
 ies on the other, which can anywhere be found.] 
 

 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' ' * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

<