spiration of the Apocalypse; to add thereto some collections of my own; and occasionally to remark on those observations of Michaelis*, which tend to invalidate it.

This evidence divides itself into external and internal. The external is that which is derived from credible witnesses, from the early writers and fathers of the church. The internal is, that which results from a perusal of the book.

Michaelis appears to me an unfair reporter of the external evidence for the Apocalypse. He seems to have approached it with prejudice; a prejudice occasioned by the opinion which he had previously formed concerning its internal evidence. For, it appears from passages of his chapter on the Apocalypse, that he considered the prophecies of this book, as still remaining dark and unexplained. He professes that he does not understand them; he declares himself dissatisfied with the attempts of other writers to show their meaning and completion; and he esteems the contradictions of these interpreters to be more unfavourable to the pretensions of the Apocalypse, than even those ancient testimonies, that external evidence, to which he attributes no preponderance in its favour. Now, as they who appear to themselves to have discovered, in the completion of the Apocalyptic prophecies, certain proof of its divine origin, (for a series of prophecy, punctually fulfilled, must be divine,) will be disposed to examine the external evidence with a prepossession in its favour; so he, who, by examining the internal evidence, has formed an opinion unfavourable to its pretensions, will enter upon the examination of its external evidence with that kind of prejudice, which is visible in the writings of this learned divine.

But, in our examination of the external evidence, we ought, so far as human infirmity may permit, to be free from any partiality; and to lay aside, for a season, our previous conceptions of the weight of its internal evidence. The two species of evidence, external and internal, should be kept apart; they should not be suffered to incorporate or interfere; each should be considered at first with reference to itself only. After which separate examination, they may usefully and properly be brought together, and be allowed their due influence upon each other.

Such appears the proper method of proceeding in this in

In the last chapter of his Introduction of the New Testament, to the pages of which, as published by Mr. Marsh, the figures at the bottom of these pages will be found to refer.

quiry, so as to lead to a fair and just conclusion. This method has not been usually pursued. The writers, who have presented us with the two kinds of evidence, have not kept them apart. When they treat, for instance, of the external evidence adduced by Dionysius of Alexandria; when they state how far it appears, from his writings, that he considered the Apocalypse as an inspired book, delivered down to his time as such by the early Fathers of the Church; they moreover produce, and under the same head, the criticisms of this writer on the style and manner of the book; which consideration belongs to the subject of internal evidence.

In the following pages, it will be my endeavour to keep these two species of evidence apart, until they have been separately considered, and may safely be suffered to unite. This method, so far as it can be followed, will tend to prevent the operation of prejudice, and to facilitate the production of truth.

I shall proceed, first, to the consideration of the external evidence.

CHAP. II.

OF THE TIME WHEN THE APOCALYPSE APPEARS TO HAVE

BEEN WRITTEN AND PUBLISHED.

THE external evidence, for the authenticity and

divine inspiration of the Apocalypse, is to be collected from the testimonies of those ancient writers, who, living at a period near to its publication, appear, by their quotations or allusions, to have received it as a book of sacred Scripture. This was the test by which the primitive church was accustomed to determine the claims of all writings pretending to divine authority. All such writings were rejected, as appeared not to have been received by the orthodox Christians of the preceding ages*.

But to enable us to judge of the force of this evidence, as affecting any particular book, it is necessary to ascertain the time when the book was written. For if it shall appear to have been written and pub

* Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 3.

lished in the early period of the apostolic age, we may expect to find testimonies concerning it, from apostles, or from apostolical men*. If, on the contrary, it can be proved to have been published only in the latter times of that age, we shall not be entitled to expect this earlier notice of it.

Before, therefore, we proceed to examine the testimony of the writers by whom the Apocalypse is mentioned, it will be useful to ascertain the time in which it was published. For if it were not published before the year 96 or 97, (as some critics have pronounced,) little or no notice could be taken of it by the writers of the first century; and, in such case, a writer in the second century, especially in the former part of it, be comes an evidence of great importance; which importance would be much diminished, by the supposition, that the book had been written in the earliest part of the apostolic age, that is, almost a whole century before the time of that author.

This previous inquiry is the more necessary, since, according to Michaelis, no less than six different opinions have been advanced, concerning the time when the Apocalypse was written; only one of which can be true.

In examining these opinions, I shall endeavour to be concise. I shall freely use the arguments of Michaelis, where I can see reason to agree with him; but, where I am obliged to dissent, it will be necessary to take a larger compass,

I. The earliest date assigned to the Apocalypse is in the reign of the Emperor Claudius. This opinion rests on the single testimony of Epiphanius, a credu

* Apostolical men, in the acceptation of the Fathers, were those who had been personally instructed by apostles; and the apostolic age is that, which extends from before the middle of the first century, when the Apostles began to write, to the close of that century, when St. John, the last surviving apostle, died.-Irenæus et Clem. Alexand. apud Euseb. H. E. lib. iii. c. 23.

lous and inaccurate writer*, who lived about three hundred years later than St. John the apostle, to whom he ascribes this prophetical book.

This external evidence, weak in itself, is not only unsupported, but contradicted, by every argument which can be derived from internal evidencef. For, first, it appears from the evidence of the book itself, (chap. 1st, 2d, 3d,) that it was written at a time when the Asiatic Christians had been suffering persecution, even unto death; John himself, the writer, was in banishment, "for the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus, in the Isle of Patmos," when he saw the visions. But no traces of such persecution can be discovered in the times of Claudius. Nero, says the unanimous voice of history, was the first Emperor who persecuted the Christians, and enacted laws against them. Claudius, indeed, commanded the Jews to quit Rome, but this command could not affect the Jews in Asia, much less the Christians there.

* See his character, as given by Dupin and by Jortin.Rem. Eccl. Hist. iv. 115. And his gross mistakes on ecclesiastical history are recounted by Spanheim, in his introduction to Eccl. Hist. Sæc. iv. p. 425.

†The reader may, perhaps, begin to think, that I am already transgressing the rule, so lately proposed, to prevent the intermixture of internal with external evidence. That rule shall be scrupulously observed, when we proceed to examine the evidences for the authenticity of the book. But we are now engaged in a previous question, which must be determined before we can judge of the main object of inquiry. And in determining the several steps of this previous question, it is necessary to adduce both kinds of evidence. Still they shall be kept apart, and each come in its order.

Hence St. John is called a Martyr, by Polycrates-Apud Euseb. E. H. lib. iii. c. 31.

§ Tacitus, Annal. lib. xv. c. 44. Suetonius, Vit. Neronis, cap. xvi. Tertulliani Apolog. Sulp. Sev. Hist. lib. ii. 39. P. Oras. vii. c. 7. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 25. Mosheim, H. E. Cent. 1. part 1:

2dly. There is no appearance or probability that the seven churches, or communities of Christians, addressed by their Saviour in the Apocalypse, had existence so early as in the reign of Claudius; much less that they were in that established and flourishing state, which is described or inferred in this his address to them. For Claudius died in the year 54, some years before the Apostle Paul is supposed, by the best critics, to have written his Epistle to the Ephesians, and his First to Timothy. But, from these Epistles we collect, that the Church of Ephesus was then in an infantine and unsettled state. Bishops were then first appointed there by St. Paul's order*, But at the time when the Apocalypse was written, Ephesus, and her sister churches, appear to have been in a settled, and even flourishing state; which could only be the work of time. There is, in the address of our Lord to them, a reference to their former conduct. Ephesus is represented as having forsaken her former love, or charity; Sardis as having acquired a name, or reputation, which she had also forfeited; Laodicea as become lukewarm, or indifferent. Now, changes of this kind, in a whole body of Christians, must be gradual, and the production of many yearst. Colosse and Hierapolis were churches of note in St. Paul's time‡; but they are not mentioned in the Apocalypse, although they were situated in the same region of proconsular Asia, to which it was addressed. They were probably become of less im

* See this proved by Michaelis, in his observations on the 1st Epistle to Timothy.

+ See more on this subject, in Vitringa, in Apoc. 1, 2, and L'Enfant and Beausobre's Preface to the Apoc.; also, Lardner's Supplement to the Cred. Gosp. Hist. ch. xxii. where passages from these books are quoted.

Acts iv. 13.