written by St. John the Apoftle, and his arguments are of great weight: but this point being once proved, the canonical authority of the Apocalypfe muft totter of itself. For though it thould be granted, that the author of it was not an impoftor, but that he was a refpectable man, and had no intention to deceive, yet what fecurity can we have, that he was not deceived himself, and that he was not hurried away by the force of his own imagination. I accede therefore, to the opinion of Lardner, who fays, that Dionyfius undoubtedly knew what he was doing, and that it was not without reason, that he took so much pains to fhew, that the Apocalypfe was not written by an Apoftle. On the other hand, the reasons, which Dionyfius affigns for his not venturing to reject the Apocalypfe, are wholly devoid of importance. One of them is, because many of his brethren highly efteemed it:' but this is a motive of mere delicacy, and may be a reason why an author fhould not openly reject a book, left his brethren fhould be offended, but it affords no ground of private conviction. His other reafon is ftill more extraordinary, namely, that he was unable to explain the Apocalypfe, and therefore could not reject it, but muft admire it the more, the lefs he understood it. Now I grant, that a book containing prophecies is not immediately to be rejected, merely because we do not understand it: for the fault may lie with us, and a prophecy may be unintelligible till it is fulfilled. But when the question is in agitation, whether a book, which lays claim to prophecy, ought to be received or not, the circumftance, that we do not understand it, cannot poffibly afford a pofitive argument for its reception. For at that rate every obfcure fanatical compofition of the prefent age, fuch as Oettinger's terreftrial and celeftial philofophy, would be intitled to the appellation of a divine work. Dionyfius's own words, in which he affigns the two preceding reasons, are as follow. I will not however venture to reject the Apocalypfe, because many of the brethren highly efteem it. On the contrary, I appre hend, hend, that this book furpaffes my comprehenfion, and that it is full of mysterious things. And as I do not understand it, I fuppofe, that the words have a certain hidden meaning, which I do not pretend to measure, or to judge according to my capacity; but I behold them in faith as things above my comprehenfion. I do not reject what I do not comprehend, but admire it the more the lefs I understand it.' Now I have not the leaft doubt, that, if any modern writer should affign these reasons, and thefe reafons only, for not rejecting the Apocalypfe, every man would immediately conclude, that in reality he did not believe it. Much more then are we warranted to draw this inference of one of the ancient fathers, who were accuftomed to argue, as it is called, fecundum oeconomiam: and d'At obferves, in his above-mentioned Difcours fur l'Apocalypfe, that even Athanafius has taken notice of this œconomical mode of argumentation in Dionyfius. All that we can fay then of the fentiments of Dionyfius, is, that they were a medium between the opinion of those, who afcribed the Apocalypfe to St. John the Apostle, and the opinion of thofe, who declared it to be a forgery of Cerinthus. That it was not written by St. John, he pofitively afferts; and that he did not in his heart believe it to be a divine work, is at leaft highly probable, though I grant that in one inftance, namely, in an Epiftle to Hermammon, he quotes a paffage of it as fulfilled in the reign of Valerian. But whatever was the opinion of Dionyfius in refpect to the Apocalypfe, we must recollect that his reafons for not afcribing it to St. John are not hiftorical, but critical; confequently their importance depends, not on the antiquity of the writer who affigned them, but merely on their own internal ftrength. Further, fince Dionyfius z Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. Lib. VII. c. 10. a On this account I referve them for the fection, in which I fhall examine the language of the Apocalypfe. nyfius has quoted no hiftorical evidence, or testimony of any more ancient writer against the Apocalypfe, this circumstance is in fome measure in its favour. For, if it were not written by St. John, we have reason to wonder, that neither Dionyfius, nor his predeceffors, neither the Alogi, nor Caius fhould have alleged against a work, fuppofed to have been firft ufhered into the world about the year 120, any arguments like the following it is not preferved in the archives of the feven Afiatic churches: the oldeft perfons in those cities have no knowledge of its having been fent thither: no one ever faw it during the life of John: it was introduced in fuch and fuch a year, but was contradicted as foon as it appeared. Arguments like thefe would have at once determined the queftion in difpute: but fince we meet with no fuch arguments in the writings of the ancient adverfaries of the Apocalypfe, its very adversaries have given it, I will not fay a decifive advantage, but certainly an advantage, which merits confideration. After the age of Dionyfius, the number of ecclefiaftical writers, who quote the Apocalypfe as a divine work, especially the members of the Latin church, begins to increase. But as they are of lefs importance than the more ancient writers, and I have little or nothing to remark on their quotations, I fhall content myself with barely mentioning their names, and referring to Lardner, by whom their quotations are collected. According to Lardner then the Apocalypfe is quoted by Cyprian, by the anonymous author of a work against the Novatians, by the Novatians themfelves, by Commodian, by Victorinus, who was a very zealous advocate for the doctrine The advantage is for two reafons not decifive: first, because only a few extracts from the writings of the ancient adversaries of the Apocalypfe are now extant, the writings themselves being loft: and fecondly, because the ancient advocates of the Apocalypfe have likewife not alleged any historical arguments in its defence. • See Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel Hiftory, Part II. Vol. II. P. 777, 778. d Ib. p. 812. f Ib. p. 127. e. P. II. Vol. III. p. 100. 1 doctrine of the Millennium, and likewife wrote an Expofition of the Apocalypfe, by Methodius", the Manicheans', Arnobius*, the Donatifts, and by Lactantius", who was a contemporary of Eufebius, but by no means equal to him in a critical inquiry like the prefent. On the Manicheans however I muft make one remark, because Beaufobre and Lardner are of different opinions in respect to their reception of the Apocalypfe. The reafon affigned by Lardner for his opinion, that the Manicheans received the Apocalypfe as a canonical book, is that their adverfaries fometimes confuted them by quotations from it. Beaufobre" on the contrary contends that the Manicheans could not have received the Apocalypfe, because, when their fect was founded, it had not been tranflated into Syriac, and Manes, the founder of their fect, whofe native language was Syriac or Chaldee, did not understand Greek. But though I grant that the Syriac verfion of the Apocalypfe, which we have at present, was made long after the time of Manes, it is poffible that a ftill more ancient verfion of it exifted, from which perhaps Ephrem quoted: and in this more ancient verfion, Manes, who was born in the year 240, might have read the Apocalypfe, though it made no part of the Syrian Vulgate. Further, as it is faid that Hippolytus, the moft ancient advocate of the Apocalypfe, was bishop of Aden in Arabia, and as Scythian, the predeceffor of Manes, was a native Arabian, it must appear ftill lefs improbable, that the Manicheans were acquainted with the Apocalypfe. On the other hand, if they received it merely in confequence of the defence of Hippolytus, their reception of it can hardly be alleged as an additional proof of its divinity. We now return to Eufebius, with whofe opinion I began this fection: but I much doubt, whether all the evidence, h Ib. p. 256, 257. k P. II. Vol. IV. p. 53. m. Ib. p. 183. + Ib. Ib. p. 233. Hiftoire des Manichéens, L. I. Ch. v. § 3. evidence, which we have examined has brought us a step nearer to the decifion of the main question, than we were, when we fet out, or whether we are better able to form a determinate opinion, than Eufebius. That Origen, notwithstanding his diflike to the doctrine of the Millennium, received the Apocalypse as canonical, is a circumftance greatly in its favour; but that Papias, the father of the Millennarians, knew nothing of it, is a circumftance, which operates at least as ftrongly against it. And upon the whole, when we place in one fcale the few, but important writers, who either knew nothing of it or rejected it, and in the other fcale the more numerous but less important writers, who received it, the balance will remain in the fame equipoife, in which Eufebius himself appears to have regarded it. HA SECT. III. Inference deduced from the preceding fection. AVING examined the evidence for and against the Apocalypfe, I muft now propofe the question; How is it poffible, that this book, if really written by St. John the Apostle, fhould have either been wholly unknown, or confidered as a work of doubtful authority, in the very earliest ages of Chriftians? The other Apof tolical Epiftles are addreffed only to fingle communities or churches: but the Apocalypfe, according to its own contents, was exprefsly ordered by Chrift himfelf, in a command to St. John the Apoftle, to be fent to feven churches and not only thefe feven churches were in that part of Afia Minor, where Chriftianity was in the moft flourishing fituation, but one of them was Ephefus, where St. John spent the latter part of his life, and con sequently |