« AnteriorContinuar »
431, that city is mentioned as the burial place of John the Theologus, which agrees with the account of the ancients, that John the Evangelist was buried there*. Andreas Cesariensis commenting on Rev. xvii. quotes the Evangelist John by the title of The. ologust; and, although the same title was applied by Andreas and others, to Gregory Nazianzen, and to other able defenders of the Theologic doctrine, yet John the Evangelist was ó Oroloyos nat' stoxny, the Divine, and no other John appears to have had this title. So we may be assured, that, at whatever rime this title was prefixed to the Apocalypse, he who prefixed it, intended by it John the Evangelist; who was well known, and celebrated in the fourth and succeeding centuries, by this appellation.
Having thus afforded some answer to the objec. tions urged from internal evidence against the au. thenticity of the Apocalypse, I shall conclude with adding a positive evidence in favour of the notion generally received, that it was written by St. John. :
In chap. i. 13, he who is ordered to write the book, beholds in the vision one like unto the Son of man.” Now, who but an eye-witness of our Lord's person upon earth, could pronounce, from the *}* likeness, that it was he ? St. John had lived familiarly with Jesus during his abode upon earth; and had seen him likewise in his glorified appearances, at his transfiguration, and after his resurrection. No other John had enjoyed this privilege. No other eye-witness of our Lord's person appears to have been living in this late period of the apostolical age, when the visionis of the Apocalypse were seen..
We may, therefore, I trust, fairly conclude, that to the impregnable force of external evidence, which has been seen to protect the divine claims of the * Euseb. H. E. lib. iii. c. 1. 20.
Commenting on chap. iii. 21. he calls John todoyos xaut Bzoylns usos. And on 1 Joh. v. 8. he says, xata Toy todoyoy.
imagiators will prvidence ; fall be showane ; and, thibt
ve it to main liter the ben
Apocalypse, a considerable acquisition of internal evidence may be added; or at least, that this avenue by which its overthrow has been so often attempted, is not so unguarded as its adversaries imagine. And the future labours of judicious commentators will probably add a continual accession to this weight of evidence ; for every prediction of this prophetical book, which shall be shown to be clearly accomplished, will prove it to be divine; and, this being proved, there will then remain little or no doubt but that it proceeded from the pen of the beloved Apostle, to whom the early Fathers of the Church uniformly ascribe it. · I shall conclude with examining the pretensions of the Apocalypse by the rules laid down even by Michaelis himself, whereby to determine whether a scriptural book be authentic or spurious*.
I. Were doubts entertained, from the first appearance of the Apocalypse in the world, whether it proceeded from the pen of St. John ? • To this we are now enabled to answer, (see chap. iii. iv. v. of this Dissertation,) that no such doubts
appear upon record in the true Church, during the « important period of one hundred years after its pub
lication; but that all the ecclesiastical writers of that time who speak of its author, attribute it uniformly to St. John. If any persons held a contrary opinion, they were heretics, who appear to have assigned no plausible ground for their notions.
II. Did the friends or disciples of the supposed author deny it to be his?
Answer. There is no such denial from Polycarp, Papias, Ignatius, &c. who appear all to have received it as divine Scripture. (See chap. iii. of this Dissertation.)
III. Did a long series of years elapse after the death of St. John, in which the book was unknown,
* Introduction to N. Test. chap. ii, sect. 3. p. 27. &c.,
and in which it must unavoidably have been mentioned and quoted, had it really existed ?
Answer. No such period did elapse. Michaelis himself has allowed, that this book, even if forged and spurious, existed before the year 120, that is, within twenty-three years of the time which we have shown to be that of its publication ; but even in this period we have seen it quoted and acknowledged, as appears probable, by the Apostolical Fathers. (See chap. ii. and v.)
IV. Is the style of the Apocalypse different from that of St. John in his other writings?
Answer. It cannot be denied that there is some difference, but it is a difference which admits of a reasonable explanation, as may be seen in the former part of this chapter.
V. Are events recorded, which happened later than the time of St. John ?
Answer. No such events are recorded. Nor, we may add, are any events predicted, which occurred before the time when the book appears to have been written ; which is a case happening to pretended prophecies, (See chap. viii.) • VI. Are opinions advanced in the Apocalypse, which contradict those which St. John is known to have maintained in his writings?
Answer. The theology which it contains is found to be precisely that of St. John in his other writings; and the wild opinions of the Chiliasts, though they had probably their origin from a passage of this book, are to be attributed only to the rash interpretation of it by these visionaries. (See chap. viii.)
Thus, bringing this prophetical book to the test proposed by Michaelis, by the most successful opponent of its claims to a divine origin, we shall be obliged to confess its indubitable right to that place in the canon of sacred Scripture, which the ancient
Vol. IV.-No. VI. ES
Fathers of the Church assigned to it, and which the reformers in the Protestant Churches have with ma. ture deliberation confirmed.
FOR THE CHRISTIAN'S MAGAZINE.
THE DOCTRINE OF GOOD WORKS.
Titus iii. 8. This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that
thou constantly affirm, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works : these things are good and profitable unto men.
(Concluded from page 255.) I HE view we have given of the doctrine of good works, though opposed by multitudes, is to be found in the confessions of inost of the Protestant Churches. We proceed to furnish our readers with some extracts in proof of this assertion; after which, we shall conclude our inquiry with some remarks which flow from the subject.
We begin with the latter confession of Helvetia. In chapter 16, it is said, “ We therefore condemn all those which do contemn good works and talk idly, that they are needless, and not to be regarded. Nevertheless, as was said before, we do not think that we are saved by good works, or that they are so necessary to salvation, that no man was ever saved without them. For we are saved by grace, and by the kindness of Christ alone. Works do necessarily proceed from faith: but salvation is improperly attributed to them, and properly ascribed to grace. The words of the Apostle, in Rom. xi. are worthy of notice; “ If by grace, then is it no more of works : otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."
In the 7th chapter of the Confession of Bohemia, we are taught " why, and to what purpose, or end, such good works as pertain to Christian godliness ought to be done :" to wit, not in this respect, that men by these works should obtain justification, or salvation and remission of sins. For Christ saith, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say we are unprofitable servants. And Paul also saith, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Wherewith, also, agree the words of David, when he prayeth, Lord.“ enter not into judgment with thy servant ; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.” But Christians must do good works, that by them their faith may be approved ; for good works are certain evidences, signs, and testimonies of a lively faith, which is hidden in the heart ; and fruits of the same, by which the tree is known to be good or bad. Also, that by them they may make their calling sure, and preserve it, by guarding against sin,” &c.
Similar to this, is the doctrine taught in the former confession of Helvetia, and that of Basil.
In article 22, of the Confession of the Reformed Church in France, it is explicitly avowed, “ that the good works which we do by his Spirit, (i. e. God's,) are never accounted to us for righteousness, nor can we merit by them, that God should take us for his children, because we should be always tossed with doubts and disquiets, if our consciences did not repose themselves upon that satisfaction, by which Jesus Christ hath purchased us for himself.”
Equally explicit is the language used in the Confes. sion of Faith of the Reformed Dutch Church, art. 24, and in the Heidelberg Catechism, 32 Lord's day,
Q. and A. 86. . ..The Church of England, in the 12th article of her articles, thus expresses her faith on this subject: