probable, that both these writers should, by mere accident, have mentioned the death of Peter and Paul, and John's banishment together, without having any reference whatever to the same period.

Other early writers have also followed Irenæus; but as they refer to him, or to Eusebius who copied him, they are in fact the same authority, and therefore to quote what they say would be encroaching unnecessarily on the time of the reader.

66

66

Epiphanius twice names the reign of Claudius, as that during which the Apocalypse was written. In his fifty-first Heresy he speaks thus: "after "his (John's) return from Patmos, under the Emperor Claudius ;" and afterwards he says, "when John prophesied in the days of the Emperor Claudius, while he was in the island of "Patmos." Lardner quotes, with approbation, the opinion of Blondel (who alleges that, "as Epiphanius is singular, he ought not be regard"ed,") and adds, in two or three pages after, "one would think Sir Isaac Newton had little "reason to mention Epiphanius, when he does "not follow him." But we might with equal justice say, "one would think Lardner had but "little reason to mention either Epiphanius or "Sir Isaac Newton, when he does not follow "either of them :" for Sir Isaac in quoting Epi

phanius is showing that, though many have followed the opinion of Irenæus, as expressed in our present copies, the testimony of antiquity, for a date so late as that of Domitian, is not so uniform as some would have it be believed: Nor is the argument drawn from numbers, against the testimony of one historian, so conclusive as Lardner and others have imagined; for if a thousand should report the testimony of Irenæus, it is still but one testimony, and would only show that they preferred his authority, while Epiphanius followed some other now lost. But in fact Epiphanius is not "singular" in following some other authority than that of Irenæus. The commentator Arethas, who quotes Irenæus' opinion, ( does not follow it. In his explanation of the sixth seal he applies it to the destruction of Jerusalem; and he does so expressly on the authority of preceding interpreters. Lardner's ob-) jection, that "Arethas seems to have been of "opinion that things which had come to pass

long before might be represented in the Reve

"lation," does not apply to the case before us: for Arethas says, and Lardner has himself quoted the words, that "The destruction caused "by the Romans had not fallen upon the Jews, "when the evangelist received these (Apocalyp"tic) instructions. Nor was he at Jerusalem, "but in Ionia, where is Ephesus: for he stayed

"at Jerusalem no more than fourteen years

them.

And, after the death of our Lord's mother, he "left Judea, and went to Ephesus, as tradition "says: where also, as is said, he had the Reve"lation of future things." These words are quoted by Lardner for the purpose of assailing "How can we rely (says he) on a writer "of the sixth century for these particulars; that "John did not stay at Jerusalem more than "fourteen years, that he left Judea upon the "death of our Lord's mother, and then went to Ephesus: when we can evidently perceive "from the history in the Acts, that in the four"teenth year after our Lord's ascension, there

were no Christian converts at Ephesus: and "that the church at Ephesus was not founded "by St. Paul till several years afterwards? What "avails it to refer to such passages as these?"What avails it! To show that there were other traditions besides that derived from Irenæus, and that some preferred them to his. Nor is the fact that others, before Arethas, believed the Revelation to have been given prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, set aside or even weakened by his running into the same sentence other traditions, which might appear incredible to Lardner, or which might even be false. Arethas was not an original commentator, but exhibited a synopsis of what had been advanced by An

drew of Cæsarea (who lived about the year 500) and others; and this very Andrew quotes, in his commentary, the same application of a passage in the Apocalypse to the destruction of Jerusalem, though he rejects it himself. The testimony of Arethas is offered-not as having authority, merely because it is his, but-as evidence, that the opinion which he delivers, was held by other commentators before his time. Michaelis remarks that "we know of no commentators be"fore him but Andrew of Cæsarea, and Hippo"litus, who lived at the end of the second "century." This, however, it must be allowed is no proof that his authority was Hippolitus: it might have been one later;-but, it is also possible that it might have been one earlier; for though Michaelis has here overlooked the fact, the Apocalypse was the subject of a treatise written by Melito, Bishop of Sardis, in the early part of the second century, of which nothing remains but its title, which is preserved in Eusebius.' I stop not to examine the other facts, which Lardner thinks cannot be true; for, if false, it does not follow that the simple fact, of early commentators having held the opinion, that the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, must also be false-any

Hist. Eccles. iv. 26.

more than it will follow, if it can be proved that Irenæus is wrong, in ascribing the book to the reign of Domitian, that, therefore, his authority is to be questioned on all other points.-But why, after quoting the words of Arethas, has Lardner repeated them, with amplification? Arethas does not say that, on the death of our Lord's mother John left Judea and THEN went to Ephesus; but that, after that event he left Judea and went to Ephesus. It might be some time after. But what has Ephesus to do with the question? it is not at Could John by no possibility have visited Patlike the mos, "for the word of God," or to preach the gosada pel, till after he had taken up his residence at Ephesus?

I mean not, however, to enter into the question, of how long John stayed at Jerusalem? for it is possible, though that city might for a long time be his usual place of residence, that, like the other This is Can Unect Apostles, he sometimes travelled, preaching the Maaf glad news of salvation. Luke's history is conMayin fined chiefly to the travels of Paul, which accounts sufficiently for his recording nothing respecting those of John. It is therefore a mere assumption, that John could not be in Patmos before the reign of Domitian, and that he was banished to that island. Could it even be proved, that he was actually banished to Patmos by that Emperor, this would be no proof