EPISTLES OF JAMES, PETER, JUDE, AND JOHN. 145

called in question by some in ancient as well as modern times, ought to be considered as undoubted. One strong evidence that it was thus received by early Christians, may be derived from the old Syriac version of the New Testament; which, while it leaves out several other books, contains this

It seems not to have been as well known in the Western churches as most other books of Scripture; but learned men have observed, that Clement of Rome has quoted it no less than four times; and it is also quoted by Ignatius in his genuine Epistle to the Ephesians; and we have already shown, that it was received as the writing of the Apostle James, by Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome.

The first Epistle of Peter has ever been considered authentic, and has been cited by Clement of Rome, Polycarp, the Martyrs of Lyons, Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, Papias, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. The only matter of doubt respecting this Epistle is, what place we are to understand by Babylon, where Peter was when he wrote. On this subject, there are three opinions; the first, that by this name a place in Egypt is signified; the second, that Babylon in Assyria, properly so called, is meant; and the third, which is generally maintained by the Romanists, and some Protestants, is, that Rome is here called Babylon. Eusebius and Jerome understood that this Epistle was written from Rome.

the

The time of this Epistle being written was probably about year of our Lord, 65 or 66.

The date of the Epistle of Jude, may as well be placed about the same period as at any other time, for we have no documents which can guide us to any certain decision. The objection to the Canonical authority of this Epistle, derived from the author's having quoted the Apocryphal book of Enoch, is of no validity; for the fact is, that Jude makes no mention of any book, but only of a prophecy, and there is no evidence that the Apocryphal book of Enoch was then in existence; but if he did quote a truth from such a book, it argues no more against his inspiration, than Paul's quoting Epimenides does, against his being an inspired man.

The three Epistles of John were probably written about the year 96 or 97. It has commonly been supposed that the Apocalypse was the last written book of the New Testament; but Townsend insists, that the three Epistles of John were last written. See Townsend's New Testament, vol. ii.

K

HERMAS gives many indications of having read the Revelation; for he often imitates John's description of the New Je rusalem, and sometimes borrows his very words. He speaks of the Book of Life, and of those whose names are written in it. He speaks also of the Saints, whom he saw, being clothed in garments white as snow.

PAPIAS also, doubtless, had seen the book of Revelation; for some of his opinions were founded on a too literal interpretation of certain prophecies of this book. But neither Papias nor Hermas expressly cite the Revelation.

JUSTIN MARTYR is the first who gives explicit testimony to the Apocalypse. His words are, "And a man from among us, by name John, one of the Apostles of Christ, in the Revelation made to him, has prophesied, that the believers in our Christ shall live a thousand years in Jerusalem; and after that shall be the general, and indeed eternal resurrection, and judgment of all men together."

In the Epistle of the Church at Lyons and Vienne, in France, which was written about the year of our Lord one hundred and eighty, there is one passage cited from the book of Revelation: "For he was indeed a genuine Disciple of Christ, following the Lamb whithersoever he goes.""

IRENEUS expressly quotes the Revelation, and ascribes it to John the Apostle. And in one place, he says, "It (the Revelation) was seen no long time ago, in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian." And, in the passage preserved by Eusebius, he speaks of the exact and ancient copies of this book; which, he says, "was confirmed likewise by the concurring testimony of those who had seen John."

THEOPHILUS of Antioch also, as we are assured by Eusebius, cited testimonies from the Apocalypse of John, in his book against Hermogenés. And in his works which are extant, there is one passage which shows that he was acquainted with the Revelation This Eve," says he, "because she was deceived by the serpent-the evil demon, who is also

called Satan, who then spoke to her by the serpent-does not cease to accuse: this demon is also called the Dragon."

The Revelation of John is often quoted by CLEMENT of Alexandria. In one passage, he says, " Such an one, though here on earth he be not honoured with the first seat, shall sit upon the four-and-twenty thrones, judging the people, as John says in the Revelation." in the Revelation." That Clement believed it to be the work of the Apostle John, is manifest, because in another place, he expressly cites a passage, " As the words of an Apostle;" and we have just seen that he ascribes the work to John.

TERTULLIAN cites many things from the Revelation of John; and he seems to have entertained no doubt of its being the writing of the Apostle John, as will appear by a few quotation.s John, in his Apocalypse, is commanded to correct those who ate" things sacrificed to idols, and commit fornication." Again, "The Apostle John, in the Apocalypse, describes a sharp two-edged sword coming out of the mouth of God.""We have churches, disciples of John, for though Marcion rejects his Revelation, the succession of bishops, traced to the original, will assure us, that John is the author." And in another place he has a long quotation from the book of Revelation.

HIPPOLYTUS, who lived in the third century, and had great celebrity, both in the Eastern and Western churches, received the Revelation as, without doubt, the production of the Apostle John. Indeed, he seems to have written a comment on this book; for Jerome, in the list of his works, mentions one "On the Revelation."

Hippolytus was held in so high esteem, that a noble monument was erected to him in the city of Rome, which after lying for a long time buried, was dug up near that city, A.D. 1551. His name, indeed, is not now on the monument, but it contains a catalogue of his works, several of which have the same titles as those ascribed to Hippolytus by Jerome and Eusebius, together with others not mentioned by them; among which, is one " Of the Gospel of John, and the Revelation." ORIGEN calls the writer of the Apocalypse, " Evangelist and Apostle;" and on account of the predictions which it contains, " Prophet" also. In his book against Celsus, he mentions," John's Revelation and divers other books of Scripture."

66

It was Origen's intention to write a commentary on this book, but whether he ever carried his purpose into execution, is unknown. Nothing of the kind has reached our times.

DIONYSIUS of Alexandria, who lived about the middle of the third century, and was one of the most learned men of his time, has entered into a more particular discussion of the Canonical authority of the book of Revelation than any other ancient author. From what has been said by him, we learn on what account it was that this book, after having been universally received by the earlier Fathers, fell, with some, into a certain degree of discredit. About this time, the Chiliasts or Millennarians, who held that Christ would reign visibly on earth with his Saints for a thousand years, during which period, all manner of earthly and sensible pleasures would be enjoyed, made their appearance. This opinion they derived from a literal interpretation of some passages in the book of Revelation; and as their error was very repugnant to the feelings of most of the Fathers, they were led to doubt of the authority, or to disparage the value, of the book from which it was derived.

The first rise of the Millennarians, of the grosser kind, seems to have been in the district of Arsinoe, in Egypt; where one Nepos composed several works in defence of their doctrine; particularly a book "Against the Allegorists." Dionysius took much pains with these errorists, and entered with them into a free and candid discussion of their opinions, and of the true meaning of the book of Revelation; and had the satisfaction to reclaim a number of them from their erroneous opinions. His own opinion of the Revelation he gives at large, and informs us, that some, who lived before his time, had utterly rejected this book, and ascribed it to Cerinthus; but, for his own part, he professes to believe, that it was written by an inspired man, whose name was John, but a different person from the Apostle of that name; for which opinion he assigns several reasons, but none of much weight. His principal reason is, that the language of this book is different from that of the Apostle John, in his other writings. To which Lardner judiciously answers, that supposing this to be the fact, it will not prove the point, for the style of prophecy is very different from the epistolary, or historical style. But this laborious and learned collector of facts, denies that there is such a difference of style, as to lay a foundation for this opinion; and in confirmation of his own opinion, he descends to particulars, and shows, that there are some striking points of resemblance between the language of the Apocalypse and the acknowledged writings of the Apostle John.

The opinion of those persons who believed it to be the work

of Cerinthus, is utterly without foundation; for this book contains opinions expressly contrary to those maintained by this heretic; and even on the subject of the Millennium, his views did not coincide with those expressed in the Revelation.

CAIUS seems to have been the only ancient author who attributed this book to Cerinthus ; and to him Dionysius probably referred, when he spoke of some before his time, who held this opinion.

CYPRIAN, bishop of Carthage, received the book of Revelation, as of Canonical authority, as appears by the manner in which he quotes it. "Hear," says he, "in the Revelation, the voice of thy Lord, reproving such men as these, 'Thou sayest I am rich and increased in goods, and have need of nothing, and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.”*

Again, "So in the Holy Scriptures, by which the Lord would have us to be instructed and warned, is the harlot city described."

Finally, "That waters signify people, the divine Scriptures show, in the Revelation."

VICTORINUS, who lived towards the close of the third century, often cites the book of Revelation, and ascribes it to John the Apostle.

That LACTANTIUS received this book, is manifest, because he has written much respecting the future destinies of the church, which is founded on the prophecies which it contains.

Until the fourth century, then, it appears that the Revelation was almost universally received; not a writer of any credit calls it in question; and but one hesitates about ascribing it to John the Apostle; but even he held it to be written by an inspired man. But about the beginning of the fourth century, it began to fall into discredit with some, on account of the mysterious nature of its contents, and the encouragement which it was supposed to give to the Chiliasts. Therefore, Eusebius of Cesarea, after giving a list of such books as were universally received, adds, "After these, if it be thought fit, may be placed the Revelation of John, concerning which we shall observe the different opinions, at a proper time." And again, "There are, concerning this book, different opinions."

This is the first doubt expressed by any respectable writer, concerning the Canonical authority of this book; and Eusebius did not reject it, but would have it placed next after those which were received with universal consent.

* Rev. iii, 17.