"Chrysostom also receives his [John's] three epistles and the Apocalypse."

Epiphanius, who lived near the close of the fourth century, speaking of John as of one of the apostles, says, "He has imparted of his holy gift in presenting us with his Gospel, epistles, and Apocalypse." Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, (395-430,) received the Apocalypse as canonical. He cites it as follows: "The Apostle John in the Apocalypse;" "John the Evangelist in the book which is called Apocalypse." Ambrose of Milan, near the close of the fourth century, received the Apocalypse.

Jerome, who was the greatest biblical scholar of the early Church, a cotemporary of Augustine, received the Apocalypse without hesitancy. He says: "John was an apostle, an evangelist, and a prophet; he was an apostle, because he wrote to the Church as a master; an evangelist, because he prepared the book of the Gospel; a prophet, for he saw in the Isle of Patmos to which he had been banished by the emperor Domitian, on account of the testimony he bore to the truththe Apocalypse." Hilarius, Bishop of Poictiers, in Aquitania, in the middle of the fourth century, received the Apocalypse as the work of the Apostle John.

The Apocalypse was recognized as a canonical book by the two councils of Northern Africa, held near the close of the fourth century. The judgment of these councils respecting the Apocalypse was reaffirmed by the Council of Carthage in the year 419. In the canons of the Council of Laodicea, held near the middle of the fourth century, the Apocalypse is omitted. This was, however, a small council.

Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, in the first half of the fifth century, speaking of the Apocalypse, says: "The wise John composed for us the book of Revelation, which has also been honored by the suffrages of the fathers." By the phrase oopòs σοφὸς "Iwávvns," wise John, he could mean the Apostle John only.

It is a well established fact that the first Syriac version of the New Testament, the Peshito, did not contain the Apocalypse. This version was most probably made in the latter part of the second century, or in the beginning of the third, and it may seem strange that it did not include the Apocalypse, especially as we know that this book was almost universally received when the version was made. It is possible

that the translation was made by a violent opponent of Montanism and the Chiliasts in general, and he may have feared that the translation of the book would introduce the fanaticism of these people into the Syrian Churches; just as Ulphilas, the Bishop of the Goths, omitted from his translation the Book of Kings, that he might not infuse into his people a warlike spirit. Hengstenberg contends that the Peshito version could not have been made until after the middle of the third century, when the doubts of Dionysius of Alexandria, respecting the Apocalypse, had begun to produce their fruits. He thinks, also, that the version is too elegant* to have been produced so early, and that the most flourishing period of Syrian literature begins in the fourth century. But Ephraem of Edessa, the prophet of the Syrians, who died 376, speaks of the Syriac version as "our translation," and he explains some words in it that had already become obsolete, which shows the version must have been made a considerable length of time before his age. And why may not the Syriac version have been made during the last part of the second century, if Bardesanes could at that time compose hymns in Syriac?

But the Apocalypse appears to have obtained an authority in the Syrian Church in the fourth century, since Ephraem of Edessa quotes it; and as it is generally supposed that he did not understand Greek, it would seem that he had a version in Syriac. Assemani says in his Biblioth. Orient., p. 141: "In this language [Syriac] the holy doctor [Ephraem] quotes the Apocalypse of John as canonical Scripture,† to which I have called attention for this purpose, that the judgment of the most ancient Syrians concerning the authority of this book might be known."

Let us in the next place examine the book itself to ascertain what testimony it furnishes respecting its author. "The

one.

*It is by no means certain that the original Peshito version was an elegant A few years ago, Cureton brought from the East a manuscript containing in Syriac, in the Estrangelo character, fragments of the Gospels more ancient than any manuscript hitherto known. We borrowed a copy of these fragments from our friend Dr. M'Culloh, and began a comparison between them and Bagster's edition of the Peshito, and soon became convinced that the latter is a more elegant version than the fragments, though substantially the same.

In hoc sermone citat S. Doctor Apocalypsin Joannistan quam canonicam Scripturam, etc.

Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John, who bare record of the word of God and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, of all things that he saw. John to the seven Churches," etc. In verse 9 of first chapter John's abode in Patmos is said to be, "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ," which certainly refers to the witness he bore to the truth of Christianity, as an eye-witness of the sufferings and glory of Christ. In the words, "his servant John, who bare testimony to the word of God," etc., we think there is a designation of the Apostle John. And who but an apostle would take it upon himself to address the Churches in Asia in such an authoritative tone, to chasten and rebuke them? Could John the Presbyter of Ephesus, to whom some have been pleased to ascribe the book, be expected during the lifetime of John to do this? But little, indeed, is known of this John; certainly nothing to indicate such a position as the author of this book must have held. In x, 11, John says: "And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many people, and nations, and tongues, and kings." This language seems to us to indicate the sphere of an apostle, not that of such an insignificant man as John the Presbyter, whose very existence some have doubted. Nor would these words be so appropriate, if addressed to John four or five years before the close of his life, as they would be in the time of Nero, when John had thirty years or more to live.

It is true that the name of the Apostle John is not found either in the Gospel or in the Epistles as their author. Yet in the Gospel, John xxi, 24, we have the remark: "This is the disciple that testifieth of these things and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true." This passage, in the connection in which it stands, asserts the author of the fourth Gospel to be John. Prophets and the writers of epistles insert their names in their works; the writers of history, both in the Old and in the New Testament, do not; the apparent exceptions being John in his Gospel, to which we have just referred, and the absence of his name in his epistles. The Epistle to the Hebrews, being anonymous, is another exception. We should, therefore, look for the name of the author

in the Apocalypse because it is both epistolary and prophetic.

We have already remarked, in our observations upon the linguistic character of the Apocalypse, that its Greek is more Hebraistic, and the construction more irregular than in the other books of the New Testament. Its style differs greatly from that of the Gospel and Epistles of John. On these grounds the apostolic origin of the book has been denied by a number of very able critics. "The difference of language," says Lücke, “in the Apocalypse and in the other writings of John in the New Testament is so great, of such an individual and mental character, in short, a difference of original genius of language in the similar use of the New Testament Greek, so that even if we could grant that John's stock of words was not foreign to the author of the Apocalypse, nevertheless the identity of its author with that of the Gospel and Epistles, especially of the first Epistle, can in no way be maintained, but the contrary is in the highest degree probable."-Page 680. Again: "If all critical experience and rules in such questions do not deceive us, then it is as firmly established that the evangelist and the author of the Apocalypse are two different Johns, as it is established in a very similar problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the Apostle Paul did not write it."-Page 745.

Neander remarks: "We cannot acknowledge the Apocalypse as the work of the apostle," (John,) and after discussing the question, whether it was not written by John the Presbyter of Ephesus, he says: "It is, then, more probable that the author, a disciple of John, by some circumstance unknown to us, having devoted himself to write on a subject which he had received mediately or immediately from the apostle, thought himself justified [!] in introducing John as the speaker."*

On the other hand, Gieseler, who is inferior to neither of these men in learning and critical ability, remarks: "I cannot, however, bring myself to refuse to the Apostle John the authorship of this book. The author designates himself as the apostle; the oldest witnesses declare him to be so. Had the book been forged in his name thirty years before his death, he would certainly have contradicted it, and this contradiction

* Hist. of Plant. and Train. Chr. Ch., vol. i, pp. 396, 397.

would have reached us through Irenæus from the school of John's disciples. On the contrary, the later contradictions of the apostolic origin proceed from doctrinal prepossessions alone. The internal difference in language and mode of thought between the Apocalypse which John, whose education was essentially Hebrew, and his Christianity Jewish Christian of the Palestinian character, wrote, and the Gospel and epistles which he had composed after an abode of from twenty to thirty years among the Greeks, is a necessary consequence of the different relations in which the writer was placed, so that the opposite would excite suspicion. There is much at the same time that is cognate, proving continuousness of culture in the same author."* Hengstenberg and Stuart likewise adhere to the apostolic origin of the book.

To determine the time of the composition of a work can frequently be done with certainty, but to determine the authorship from the style is frequently impossible. We think, however, that similarity of style is a stronger proof of identity than a difference of style is of diversity of authorship. The same man does not always write in the same style. It is true we expect from the same man a similarity of style when writing on the same or similar subjects. But when the subjects are different, and when many years have intervened between the times of the respective compositions, and when the surroundings of the writer have changed, we would naturally expect a change of style. Between the times of the composition of the Apocalypse and of the Gospel and the Epistles of John, as we have already seen, twenty or thirty years intervened.

But this is not all. The Apocalypse is a prophetic book. The visions are of the grandest and of the most terrible character. It is impossible in this ecstatic state not to speak and write in a lofty and symbolic style. The human spirit labors to give utterance to its magnificent conceptions, language is taxed to its utmost, and the mind, excited to the highest degree of tension, spurns the ordinary rules of grammar and seizes upon whatever will express its deep emotions. In this way, perhaps, we may account for the fact that the prophet Ezekiel is careless in his grammatical forms. He had more vis

* Church History, page 97.