⚫ and his perfecution did not commence till near the end ' of his reign.'

Concerning his abode in Asia, we have,' fays Dr. Lardner, divers teftimonies of good credit.' Among others, he mentions Irenæus and Polycrates. Irenæus', in two places of his work against herefies, both cited by Eufebius, fays, that John the apoftle lived in Afia till the time of Trajan, who fucceeded Nerva in the year of Chrift 98.-Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, about 196, is an unexceptionable witness, that John was bu⚫ried in that city 10.'

St. John the apostle,' I am now quoting from Leonard Twells, was a Jew by birth, and though he had the gift of tongues, like the rest of the apostles, fo that ' he could and did write Greek; yet it is plain, that in ⚫his gospel and epistles penned in that language, he re⚫tains the Hebrew and the Syriack idiom. This is fo 'well known and fo generally allowed, as to make all particular proof needlefs: if therefore the style of the Revelations had been different in this refpect; if the

expreffion had been always or even generally pure 'Greek; if no footsteps had remained of Hebrew idioms 'therein, it would have afforded juft matter of fufpicion, 'that John the apostle and evangelift was not the author 'thereof. But the Revelation is free from this objec'tion; for there are found in it as many, and perhaps "more hebraisms, than in any other book of the New 'Teftament whatever 11

It may be seen in Lardner, that the reception of the

? Iren, adv. Hær. 1. 2. c. 22; et l. 3. c. 3. Irenæus, according to the computation of Dodwell, was born as early as the year 97. Diff. Irena. 3. fe&t. 4,

10 Lardner's Works, vol. VI. p. 169, 633.

11 Crit. Exam. of the New Teft. part III. p. 10.

book

book of Revelation was not peculiar to the catholic and orthodox Chriftians. Of the writings of the fectaries, little comparatively is preferved; yet evidence exists, that it was received by the Donatifts, the Novatians, and the Manichees.

That in the fourth and fifth centuries its genuineness was, however, doubted, and even denied, by fome, needs excite no furprize. For this fatisfactory reasons may be affigned. It is to be partly attributed to this prophetical book being at that time in a great degree unintelligible; and partly to the prevalence of the doctrine of the Millennium, which, as then taught, was altogether wild and incredible, 2. That this was really to be found in the apocalypfe, fome were ready too lightly to admit; in confequence a degree of difcredit was inconfiderately attached by some to the prophecy itself; and it will, without hesitation, be admitted, that had this doctrine, as then represented, been in truth inseparable from the book of Revelation, the fober inquirer would have been authorized in concluding, that the latter could not be authentic and divine.

It is proper to add, that Dionyfius, bishop of Alexandria, about the middle of the third century, though he ventured not to deny, that the apocalypse was a genuine work of an inspired perfon, or that such person was named John, yet endeavoured to fhew, that he was not John, the son of Zebedee and the brother of James, who wrote the three epistles and the gospel, but another, who flourished in the fame age, and bore the same name. But St. John, fays bishop Hallifax, has faid enough to "point out, without any uncertainty, who he was,

14

mos 13, for the fake of his religion,,; a calamity, 'which, by the confent of all the ecclefiaftical historians, confeffedly happened to our evangelift.' As to the diversity of phrase and sentiment, in the Revelation and the other writings of St. John, it has been fatisfactorily 'proved, that this difference is not near fo great as Dio'nyfius would reprefent it; no greater than what may fairly be accounted for from the difference of subject; and particular inftances have been alleged, in which 'there is a remarkable coincidence both of ideas and words, which are peculiar to this apostle, and no where ' used by any other writer of the New Teftament 15.' In like manner the judicious Jortin obferves, that be'fides ancient teftimony, there is also internal reason to conclude, that the gospel and the Revelation are the 'work of the fame author 1 16'

Against the apocalypse it has been farther objected, that it is not to be found in certain lifts of the books of scriptures, published in the fourth and fifth centuries. But this circumftance, fays bishop Hallifax, will not occa. 'fion any difficulty, when you are told, that the exprefs defign of those lifts was to enumerate such parts of the ⚫ facred code as were proper to be read in public, for the edification of Chriftian affemblies; for which the ge⚫neral obfcurity of the apocalypfe, and the small concern 'it feemed to have with the ftate of the church in those days, rendered it unfit1?.?

I have stated that, in the primitive ages, the meaning

13 Rev. i. 9.

14 To the fame purpose Leonard Twells. This circumftance not

only agrees with the history of John the evangelist, but is also peculiar to him, and marks him out as effectually, as if he had been expressly fo 'called.' On the Rev. p. 24.

15 P. 205.

16 See his Difc, on the Tr. of the Chr. Rel. p. 209.

17 P. 208.

of

of the greater part of the apocalypfe was inacceffible to inquiry. Yet we learn from ecclefiaftical hiftory, that Melito, who in the year 177 presented an apology in behalf of the Chriftians to the emperor Marcus Antoninus; that Hippolytus, who flourished about the year 220; that Victorinus, who lived fomewhat nearer the conclufion of the third century; that Andrew of Cefarea, who is placed by Cave at the year 500; that Caf. fiodorius, whom the fame writer places at the year 514; and that Arethas, who, as he conceives, flourished about the year 540, all compofed commentaries on the Revelation 18. This fact may feem to demand explanation. How, it may be asked, did it happen, that these writers, and doubtless others whofe names have not been tranfmitted to us, engaged in so arduous, and, it might be added, in fo hopeless a task, as, at that time, to explain the unaccomplished predictions of fo dark a book as the apocalypfe, though most of them had before their eyes the miscarriages of their predeceffors? I reply, that this is to be accounted for only upon the fuppofition, that the evidence of its authenticity was decifive and unquestionable. When, however, they failed, notwithstanding all their efforts, of coming to any probable conclufions refpecting the greater part of its contents, it is furely not to be wondered, that at length it began to be studied with lefs frequency, and by many was treated with neglect.

Leonard Twells difcuffes, through the space of almost 200 pages, the arguments on the authenticity of the apocalypfe, and declares, that either it is a genuine piece, ' or nothing in antiquity is fo1.' Accordingly the Ro

18 See Lardner's Credib.

6

man

19 P. 36. So well authenticated is the apocalypfe, fays Mr. Tayler (the author of Ben Mordecai's Apology) that if we give it up, we must likewife give up all the other books of the New Teftament. Thoughts on the

Grand

man Catholics venture not to dispute its authority, adverse as it is to their interests.

I conclude the chapter with a short citation from Vitringa. There is nothing grand and furpaffing in the 'prophecies of antecedent times, which has not been ga'thered together by the Holy Spirit into these visions ;' and this complexion of the book is, he declares, a most 'fure criterion of its divine original 20.'

Grand Apoftacy, p. 71. 'No book of fcripture,' fays Dr. Creffener, has had a more exprefs and unexceptionable tradition of its apoftolical ' authority.' Dem. of the Prot. Appl. of the Apoc. Introd.

20 P. 20.

CHAPTER IV.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE APOCALYPSE.

OWEVER undoubted may be the genuineness of the apocalypfe, however decifive may be the evidence of its having been inspired by the God of heaven, by whatever heights of fublimity it may be characterized; many are disposed to affert, that it deferves not to be ftudied; because its commentators, on many points, have a wide diversity of opinion. But it surely does not hence follow, that their applications of it to particular events are altogether to be neglected; it does not hence follow, that valuable discoveries and encouraging hopes may not be

1 The learned Dr. Creffener, fpeaking of those who have interpreted the apocalypse, says, they do almost as generally agree about the first 'grounds of the interpretation of these vifions, as about other books of feripture.' Dem. of the Prot. Appl, of the Apoc. Introd.

derived