evident that the deftruction of Babylon, and of the beaft, was to take place before the commencement of the millennium.

2. To the fecond clafs belong thofe commentaries, which confine the prophecies of the Apocalypfe to the three first centuries, at leaft fuch as relate to perfecution and punishment; for the happy Millennium may, according to thefe commentaries, be made to commence with the converfion of Conftantine the Great.

The objection grounded on ch. i. 3. and on the Millennium, may be made likewife to the commentaries of this clafs.

3. A third class of commentators find in the Apocalypfe nothing but the deftruction of Jerufalem, and the flight of the Chriftians from that city to Pella before the commencement of the fiege. This interpretation has been fupported by Harenberg, in his Expofition of the Apocalypfe, published in 1759: and, in order to avoid the objection, that a prophecy relating only to Jerufalem was not a proper work to be dedicated to feven churches in Afia Minor, he contends that the feven churches mentioned in the Apocalypfe denoted feven fynagogues in Jerufalem, which were called the fyna gogue of Ephefus, the fynagogue of Smyrna, of Laodicea, &c. because they were refpectively built by the inhabitants of those cities, who frequented Jerufalem. Now as, according to this interpretation, the prophecies were fulfilled in a fhort time, agreeably to ch. i. 3, I fhould be disposed to adopt it, if difficulties of another kind did not prefent themselves as obftacles to it's reception. To mention only one: That great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth,' mentioned ch. xvii. 18. can hardly denote Jerufalem; for it clearly characterises Rome, and is, as it were, the name of that great capital.

Laftly, if the Apocalypfe were explained without previously fuppofing that it was a divine work, an interpretation might be made of a totally different turn from any of the preceding. In this cafe, as it is not taken

for granted, that the Apocalypfe contains prophecies, which have been really fulfilled, we fhould have to inquire, not what events in hiftory had refemblance to vifions in the Apocalypfe, but merely what the author of this work propofed to himself in the defcription of the vifions, what events he himself fuppofed would happen, and what expectations the readers of this work, in the age when it was written, probably formed from it. But this is an inquiry, which I have never inftituted, and therefore I cannot fay, what would be the refult,

FR

SECT.

IX.

of the time when the Apocalypfe was written.

ROM what has been already faid in the fixth fection of this chapter, it appears, that the question, at what time the Apocalypfe was written, very materially concerns the queftion, whether it be a divine work. For if its first prophecies relate to the deftruction of Jerufalem, it must have been written before the Jewish war: but if the author of it wrote after the Jewith war, and, as is commonly supposed, in the reign of Domitian, the fixth chapter of the Apocalypfe canhot poffibly predict the deftruction of Jerufalem, and in this cafe I do not fee Bow we can vindicate the affurance given in ch. 1. 3. the time is at hand,' and, ch. xxii, 20.

he that teftifieth these things, faith, Surely I come quickly, Amen." If the Apocalypfe was written before the deftruction of Jerufalem, this coming of Chrift may bé understood of his coming to judge Jerufalem, to which the expreffion, till I come,' ufed in St. John's Gospel, ch. xxi. 22. likewife refers. On the other hand, if the Apocalypfe was written in the reign of Do

mitian,

mitian, the coming of Chrift admits of no other expla nation than his coming to judge the world, or at least to put an end to the reign of the beast, and to establish his thousand years kingdom. But in the course of seventeen hundred years, neither of thefe events has taken place and to affert that the term 'quickly' is confiftent with fo long a duration, because feventeen centuries is nothing in comparison of God's eternity, is a mere fubterfuge, in which the love of truth is facrificed to the fupport of a pre-affumed opinion.

As Lardner has already given a very full and very excellent examination of the queftion, when the Apocalypfe was written, it is the lefs neceffary for me to be diffufe on this fubject: and on two points I may refer the reader entirely to Lardner, namely, the examination of the fentiments of those ancient writers, who on the authority of Irenæus affert, that the Apocalypfe was written in the reign of Domitian, and the investigation of Newton's hypothefis, which refers it to a much earlier period. Knittel likewife in his Criticifms on the Revelation of St. John,' has admirably written on this fub ject, and has introduced much new matter, which is of importance in eftimating the various opinions, which have been maintained in refpect to the time, when the Apocalypfe was, written.

Six different opinions have been advanced. 1. It has been afferted, that the Apocalypfe was written in the reign of the Emperor Claudius. 2. Others refer it to the reign of Nero. 3. Others leave it undetermined whether it was written under Claudius or Nero, but contend, that it was written before the reign of Domitian, and before the Jewish war. 4. According to the ufual opinion, it was written in the reign of Domitian. 5. It has been referred to the reign of Trajan. 6. To that of Hadrian.

1. The opinion, that the Apocalypfe was written în the reign of Claudius, has no other teftimony in its favour

↳ Vol. ix. § 5.

than

than that of Epiphanius, who in his fifty firft herefy ufes the expreffion after his (St. John's) return from Patmos under the Emperor Claudius,' and prefently after says, when St. John prophefied in the days of the Emperor Claudius, while he was in the island of Patmos.'

To this fingle teftimony of a writer, who lived three hundred years later than St. John, two very material objections have been made. In the first place, no traces are to be discovered of any perfecution of the Chriftians in the reign of Claudius: for though he commanded the Jews to quit Rome, yet this command did not affect the Jews who lived out of Italy, and still less the Chriftians. Confequently the banishment of St. John to the island of Patmos, can hardly be referred to the reign of Claudius. Secondly, that the feven flourishing Chriftian communities at Ephefus, Smyrna, &c. to which the Apocalypfe is addreffed, exifted fo early as the reign of Claudius, is an opinion not eafy to be reconciled with the hiftory, which is given in the Acts of the Apostles, of the first planting of Chriftianity in Afia Minor. Befides, it is hardly credible, that St. John refided at Ephefus, (from which place it is pre-fuppofed that he was fent into banishment) fo early as the time of Claudius for the account given, Acts xix. of St. Paul's ftay and conduct at Ephefus, manifeftly implies that no Apostle had already founded and governed a Chriftian church there. And when St. Paul left the place, the Ephefians had no bishop: for in an Epiftle to Timothy written for that purpose, he gave orders to regulate the church at Ephefus, and to ordain bishops.. This argument may perhaps be ftrengthened by obferving that the fecond apocalyptical Epiftle ch. ii. 1. is addreffed to the angel of the church of Ephefus, that is, as is commonly understood to the bishop of that church. It has been doubted however, whether the expreffion. afyελos Ins sxxλnσias, used in the Apocalypfe, really denotes the bishop of the church: and I remember to have read in

• See Lardner, Vol. I, p. 356.

an

an English periodical publication, a fhort effay by an anonymous author, in which this expreffion is rendered by Meffenger of the church,' the author being of opinion, that the feven churches, to which the feven Epiftles in the Apocalypfe are addreffed, had fent meffengers to St. John, while he was in banishment in the ifland of Patmos. But as each of these Epiftles is addreffed τῳ αγγελῳ της εκκλησίας, the word αίγελος cannot denote a meffenger fent to St. John, for with fuch a perfon, the Apostle had a verbal communication, and was therefore under no neceffity of writing to him.

2. The fecond opinion, that St. John was banished to Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypfe there, in the reign of the Emperor Nero, is not liable to the objections, which are made to the preceding opinion. It has however only one evidence in its favour: and this evidence, as Lardner obferves, is not only without name, but without date. I mean the fubfcription to the Syriac verfion of the Apocalypfe, which is: The Revelation, which was made by God to John the Evangelift in the island of Patmos, whither he was banished by the Em peror Nero.'

But fince the Syriac verfion of the Apocalypfe is now known to be a part of the Philoxenian verfion, which was made by Polycarp at the beginning of the fixth century, and afterwards corrected by Thomas of Harkel, the fubfcription to it cannot be faid to be wholly andnymous, and it may be regarded as the evidence of a writer, who lived in the beginning of the fixth century. If the fame fubfcription was annexed to the more ancient version of the Apocalypfe, used by Ephrem and the Manichees, it might be called indeed anonymous, but then its importance would be increased on another account, by its being fo much more ancient.

The opinion that the Apocalypfe was written in the reign of Nero has been ftrongly supported by Newton, and Harenberg, whofe arguments have been ably examined

Supplement, Vol. I. p. 374

* See this Introduction, Vol. II, ch. vii. fect. xi.