fequently where every work of St. John muft have been perfectly well known. If St. John then had actually fent the Apocalypfe to thefe feven churches, and that too, not as a private Epiftle, but as a Revelation made to him by Jefus Chrift, one fhould fuppofe that its authenticity could not have been doubted, especially at a time, when there were the best means of obtaining information. We cannot fay that the book was kept fecret, or was concealed in the archives, left the prophecies against Rome fhould draw a perfecution on the Chriftians; for fecrecy is contrary to the tenor of the book, and the author of it enjoins that it should be both read and heard. Under thefe circumstances the authenticity of the Apocalypfe appears to me very doubtful, and I cannot avoid entertaining a fufpicion, that it is a fpurious production, introduced probably into the world after the death of St. John. SECT. IV. Of the opinions of ecclefiaftical writers who lived fince the time of Eufebius. E USEBIUS, who was in poffeflion of almost all the information, which has been communicated in the preceding fections, remained, as we have feen, in doubt. Some centuries later, thefe doubts confiderably abated,. especially among the members of the Latin church, who at laft received the Apocalypfe almoft unanimoufly. Here we may juftly afk: What new difcoveries were made by the church of Rome precifely in the ages of ignorance and barbarifm, which enabled it to fee clearly what remained obfcure to Eufebius? We cannot fuppofe • Ch. i. 3. that that the members of this church had access to ancient documents, which were unknown to Eufebius: nor is it credible that they had fo much more critical fagacity, as to enable them from the documents and evidence, which they had in common with Eufebius, to draw a decifive inference, where he remained in doubt, and to detect a truth, to which he was unable to penetrate. I admit that cafes may occur, in which later and even less enlightened ages may be better able to determine, whether a book which lays claim to prophecy, be really a divine: work, or not, than former and more enlightened ages, becaufe the fulfilling of prophecies affords the best proof of their being divine, and this can be known only to pofterity. But then the prophecies must be fo clear and determinate, as to leave no room for doubt that they really relate to the events to which they are referred. Now this is fo far from being the cafe in regard to the Apocalypfe, that to this very day the commentators are: not agreed as to its meaning: and the events, which proteftants fuppofe are predicted in it, could never enter into the imagination of the members of the Latin church,: when they admitted it into the canon, As it would be ufelefs to enumerate all the later wri ters, who have either received or rejected the Apocalypfe, fince the time of its compofition is fo far removed from the ages in which they lived, that they cannot be con fidered as evidence, I thall merely refer to the writings. of Lardner. That most of the later Latin fathers received the Apocalypfe has been already obferved: 1 will proceed therefore at prefent to examine what was faid by the Greek writers after the time of Eufebius, from whom we may reafonably expect more fatisfactory. information relative to a book addreffed to feven churches in Afia Minor. Epiphanius, who on account of the diligence which he bestowed on ecclefiaftical hiftory, deferves to be mentioned the first after Eufebius, though he had neither the fame caim judgment, nor the fame critical penetration, received the Apocalypfe, and defended it, in his fifty fifty-first Herefy, against the Alogi, who rejected both the Apocalypfe and St. John's Golpel. But Epiphanius himself does not appear to have been fo thoroughly perfuaded of the divinity of the former, as he was of the divinity of the latter: for he fays, that, if the Alogi received the Gospel of St. John, he would afcribe their rejection of the Apocalypfe to their caution not to admit an apocryphal book ". Now, when we confider that this declaration was made by a writer, who was at other times accustomed to fpeak in rather ungentle terms. against heretics, his defence of the Apocalypfe as a divine book must appear fomewhat inconfiftent with fo dubious an opinion refpecting thofe who rejected it. In the catalogue of facred writings annexed to the canons of the council of Laodicea, which was held in the year 363, the Apocalypfe is totally omitted. Now, if this catalogue be genuine, it is very unfavourable to the Apocalypfe, because one of the apocalyptical Epiftles is addreffed to the bishop of Laodicea, and therefore a council of bishops affembled in that city may be fuppofed to be competent judges of the queftion, whether the Apocalypfe was feat by St. John to the bishop of Laodicea, or not. But Profeffor Spittler has, as I think, very clearly fhewn, that the whole of the fixteenth canon, which contains this catalogue is a forgery: and therefore this catalogue cannot be alleged in future as evidence against the Apocalypfe. Cyril of Jerufalem, who was bishop of that city from the year 350 to 386, not only omitted the Apocalypfe in his catalogue of canonical writings, but concluded this catalogue by warning every one not to read even in his own houfe the books which he had omitted, as being books not read in the church'. And he himself, in the very place where he treats of the doctrine relative to Antichrift, The words of Epiphanias have been already quoted in this volume, Ch. xxxi. Sect. 4. See his Critical Inquiry into the fixteenth canon of the council of Laodicea,' published at Bremen in 1777. Lardner, P. II. Vot. VIII. p. 270. Antichrift, appeals to the book of Daniel, to Matth. xxiv., and 2 Theff. ii., without even naming the Apocalypfe'. Gregory of Nazianzen is of great importance in the prefent inquiry, not fo much on his own account, as on account of an inference which may be drawn from him in respect to Papias. Gregory in his metrical catalogue of canonical writings mentions the feven Catholic Epiftles, including therefore even thofe of which the authenticity had been called in queftion. Yet he wholly omits the Apocalypfe: and concludes his catalogue by laying, that the books, which he has not mentioned are fpurious. But notwithstanding this, Andrew of Caefarea in the preface to his Expofition of the Apocalypfe has mentioned Gregory among the advocates for the Apocalypfe. If Andrew then has made fo grofs a mistake in reipect to Gregory, his affertion that Papias likewife was an advocate for the Apocalypfe is entitled to no credit: and we may infer from the arguments advanced in the fecond fection of this chapter, that Papias neither quoted nor even knew of the Apocalypfe. How ftrongly this operates against the Apocalypfe has been already noticed in its proper place. On the other hand, though Gregory has rejected the Apocalypfe from his catalogue of canonical books, yet according to Lardner he has quoted it in two inftances. Since therefore it may be doubted, whether Andrew was fo grofsly mistaken in refpect to Gregory, and confequently whether he made a fimilar mistake in refpect to Papias, I will rather leave the queftion undecided, that every man may draw the inference which he thinks the best. Gregory of Nyffa places the Apocalypfe among the apocryphal writings". Amphilochius, who was bishop of Iconium about the year 370, fays in his metrical catalogue of canonical books, Some afcribe the Apocalypfe to St. John, but moft perfons confider it as fpurious. In fact, it was almost 6 Lardner, P. II. Vol. VIII. p. 274. u lb. p. 157. × Ib. p. 148. almoft univerfally confidered as fuch by the members of the Greek church at the end of the fourth century. Hence Jerom, in an Epistle to Dardanus, fays that the Greek church rejected the Apocalypfe with the fame freedom as the Latin church rejected the Epiftle to the Hebrews, though he himself regarded the rejection of both of them as an innovation, which he difapproved": and Junilius, an African bifhop of the fixth century, fays, cæterum de Johannis Apocalypfi apud Orientales admodum dubitatur.' The authority of the Apocalypfe therefore, instead of gaining, loft ground among the Greeks and Lardner acknowledges, not only that the two celebrated Greek commentators, Chryfoftom in the fourth, and Theophylact in the eleventh century, have not quoted it in a fingle inftance, but that Nicephorus, Patriarch of Conftantinople, about the year 806 expressly rejected it. All the Greek writers however, after the time of Eufebius did not reject it: for Cyril of Alexandria fpeaks of it in doubtful terms, and Athanafius, Dionyfius falfely called the Areopagite, Andrew of Cæfarea, Aretas, Ecumenius, and Nicephorus Callifti, received it. Before I close the catalogue of Greek authorities for the Apocalypfe, I muft fay a few words relative to the Greek manufcripts. Some of them contain the Apocalypfe alone. Now from fuch manufcripts we are not authorised to conclude, that at the time when they were written, this book was received as canonical in the Greek church of which the copyift was a member: nor does even the title, or fubfcription, in which the Apocalypfe is afcribed to St. John the Evangelift prove any thing, fince in the copies of fpurious, as well as of genuine works Quod fi eam (fcil. epift. ad Hebræos) Latinorum confuetudo non recipit inter fcripturas canonicas, nec Græcorum ecclefiæ Apocalypfin eadem libertate fufcipiant, et tamen nos utramque fufcipimus, nequaquam hujus temporis confuetudinem, fed veterum auctoritatem fequentes. Hieronymi Opp. Tom. Ii. p. 608. z La.dner, Vol. XI. p. 298. • Vol. X, p. 340. Vol. XI. 249. 252. 428. |