Page:Lives of the apostles of Jesus Christ (1836).djvu/351



were certain whether he wrote for or against the authenticity of the work. Probably he was for it, since he calls it "the Apocalypse of John," in the title of his treatise, and the silence of Eusebius about the opinion of Melito may fairly be construed as showing that he did not write against it. Irenaeus, (A. D. 178,) who in his younger days was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple and personal friend of John, often quotes this book as "the Revelation of John, the disciple of the Lord." And in another place, he says, "It was seen not long ago, almost in our own age, at the end of the reign of Domitian." This is the most direct and valuable kind of testimony which the writings of the Fathers can furnish on any point in apostolic history; for Irenaeus here speaks from personal knowledge, and, as will be hereafter shown, throws great light on the darkest passage in the Apocalypse, by what he had heard from those persons who had seen John himself, face to face, and who heard these things from his own lips. Theophilus of Antioch, (A. D. 181,)—Clemens of Alexandria, (A. D. 194,—Tertullian of Carthage, (A. D. 200,)—Apollonius of Ephesus, (A. D. 211,)—Hippolytus of Italy, (A. D. 220,)—Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea, (A. D. 230,)—all received and quoted it as a work of John the apostle, and some testify very fully as to the character of the evidence of its authenticity, received from their predecessors and from the contemporaries of John.

But from about the middle of the third century, it fell under great suspicion of being the production of some person different from the apostle John. Having been quoted by Cerinthus and his disciples, (a set of Gnostical heretics, in the first century,) in support of their views, it was, by some of their opponents, pronounced to be a fabrication of Cerinthus himself. At this later period, however, it suffered a much more general condemnation; but though denied by some to be an apostolic work, it was still almost universally granted to be inspired. Dionysius of Alexandria, (A. D. 250,) in a book against the Millenarians, who rested their notions upon the millenial passages of this revelation, has endeavored to make the Apocalypse useless to them in support of their heresy. This he has done by referring to the authority of some of his predecessors, who rejected it on account of its maintaining Cerinthian doctrines, This objection however, has been ably refuted by modern writers, especially by Michaelis and Hug, both of whom, distinctly show that there are many passages in the Revelation, so perfectly opposite to the doctrines of Cerinthus, that he could never have written the book, although he may have been willing to quote from it such passages as accorded with his notions about a sensual millenium,—as he could in this way meet those, who did take the book for an inspired writing.

Dionysius himself, however, does not pretend to adopt this view of the authorship of it, but rather thinks that it was the work of John the presbyter, who lived in Ephesus in the age of John the apostle, and had probably been confounded with him by the early Fathers. This John is certainly spoken of by Papias, (A. D. 120,) who knew personally both him and the apostle; but Papias has left nothing on the Apocalypse, as the work of either of them. (The substance of the whole argument of Dionysius is very elaborately given and reviewed, by both Michaelis and Hug.) After this bold attack, the apostolic character of the work seems to have received much injury among most of the eastern Fathers, and was generally rejected by both the Syrian and Greek churches, having no place in their New Testament canon. Eusebius, (A. D. 315,) who gives the first list of the writings of the New Testament, that is known, divides all books which had ever been offered as apostolical, into three classes,—the universally acknowledged, ([Greek: homologoumena] homologoumena,)—the disputed, ([Greek: antilegomena] antilegomena,)—and the spurious, ([Greek: notha] notha.) In the first class, he puts all now received into the New Testament, except the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistles of James and Jude, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, and the Revelation. These exceptions he puts into the second, or disputed class, along with sundry writings now universally considered apocryphal. Eusebius says also, "It is likely that the Revelation was seen by John the presbyter, if not by John the apostle."—Cyril of Jerusalem, (A. D. 348,) in his catalogue of the Scriptures, does not allow this a place. Epiphanius of Salamis, in Cyprus, (A. D. 368,) though himself receiving it as of apostolic origin, acknowledged that others in his time rejected it. The council of Laodicea, (A. D. 363,) sitting in the seat of one of the seven churches, did not give the Revelation a place among the sacred writings of the New Testament, though their list includes all others now received. Gregory, of Nazianzus, in Cappadocia, (A. D. 370,) gives a catalogue of the canonical scriptures, but excludes the Revelation. Amphilochius, of Iconium, in Lycaonia, (A. D. 370,) in mentioning the canonical scriptures, says, "The Revelation of