trace allusions to the Apocalypse; but others maintain that these allusions are very doubtful.

In the second century we find the following testimonies: Andreas of Cappadocia (5th century) asserts that it was received as an inspired writing by Papias (A.D. 110); Justin Martyr (140) expressly attributes it to the Apostle John; it is quoted in the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons (177); Melito (177) wrote a commentary upon it; Irenæus (178) ascribes it to John the disciple of our Lord; it is included in the Canon of Muratori; and Eusebius informs us that Theophilus of Antioch (180), and Apollonius (192), quoted it as a book of authority in their controversies with heretics.

In the first half of the third century we find it quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian. In fact, as Sir Isaac Newton has observed, there is no other book of the N. T. so strongly attested or commented on so early as the Apocalypse.

2. The internal evidences are:

a. The style of the book resembles that of the undisputed writings of St. John.

b. The writer addresses the seven Churches of Asia with an air of authority, such as might have been expected in Epistles written by an Apostle to Churches over which he had actually presided.

c. The peculiar dignity and sublimity of the work shows that it was written by an inspired Apostle.

2. The external arguments against the Apostolic authorship of the book are the following:

a. It was rejected by Marcion, and by the Alogi, who ascribed it (as they did all the writings of St. John) to Cerinthus. Caius of Rome (2nd century) held the same opinion.

b. Dionysius of Alexandria (3rd century) ascribed it to John the Presbyter. It is now generally admitted, on the authority of Papias, Eusebius, and Jerome, that such a person actually existed; that he was contemporary with John the Apostle; that he is called by Papias, a disciple of our Lord; and that he, as well as the Apostle, resided and was buried at Ephesus.

The opinion of Dionysius has been adopted by some modern critics.

c. Eusebius, although he says that it was received by many in his time as written by the Apostle, appears to have entertained doubts concerning the authorship.

d. It is omitted in the Peshito; it is not named in the list of canonical books given by Cyril, nor in that of the Council of Laodicea; Jerome, who received it himself, says that it was rejected by the Greek Churches; it was not acknowledged by Euthalius and some of the other postNicene Fathers. To these objections it may be replied that the Alogi and Caius probably rejected the book from opposition to Montanism; that Eusebius and other Fathers doubted about it from opposition to Millennarianism, and because they were to some extent influenced by the criticism of Dionysius; that owing to its obscurity it was not publicly read in the Churches, and was therefore omitted in some catalogues of the N. T. Scriptures; that it was received by Ephrem, and is included in the later Syriac version, whence we may infer that it was acknowledged by the Syrian Church in the fourth century; that it was recognized as canonical by the third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397); that several of the Greek Fathers received it; and finally, that the opposing authorities cannot be weighed in the scale against the consentient testimony of almost every Christian Father the time of Origen.

up to

The objections of Dionysius did not depend on external evidence, but on internal argument. They have been adopted and enlarged by modern writers, and have been satisfactorily refuted by Davidson and other eminent critics.

The most important of these internal arguments against the Apostolic authorship are the following:

a. The writer calls himself John, whereas the Apostle does not name himself in his Gospel or his Epistles.

Answer. None of the other Evangelists name themselves in their Gospels, nor does St. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but in the prophetical books of the O. T. the writers generally prefix their names to their productions, and accordingly St. John has done the same in the Apocalypse.

b. The book differs in style and manner from St. John's Gospel and Epistles.

Answer. The difference of subject accounts for such difference of style as does exist between these writings. But the extent of this difference has been greatly exaggerated; and on the other hand, many points of resemblance may be adduced to prove that they were written by the same person. c. The Gospel and Epistles are written in tolerably pure Greek, whereas the Apocalypse abounds in the harshest Hebraisms and solecisms.

Answer. Some think that the book was originally written

in Hebrew and afterwards translated into Greek, but there is no external evidence in favour of this opinion. Others account for the difference by alleging that the Apocalypse was written many years before the Gospel and Epistles, and that the author acquired a command of the Greek language in the interval. But it is possible that St. John may have intentionally adopted the manner of Daniel and Ezekiel in his prophetic writing. Numerous Hebraisms occur also in the Gospel. Winer asserts that for most of these anomalies, analogous examples may be found in the Greek writers, with this difference alone, that they do not follow one another so frequently as in the Apocalypse.

For an account of St. John, see above, Art. 159.

309. Canonicity. The canonical authority of the book follows directly from its Apostolic authorship.

310. Time, place, and language. St. John expressly declares that he beheld the visions which are recorded in the Apocalypse, in the Island of Patmos, and it is generally admitted that the book was written there; but some suppose that it was written at Ephesus, after he had left Patmos.

The time when it was written has been a question of much dispute.

Epiphanius assigns it to the reign of Claudius. But the seven Churches in Asia were not founded so early as the reign of Claudius, nor was there under that Emperor any persecution of the Christians which might account for the Apostle's banishment to Patmos.

Others, on the authority of Theophylact, Hippolytus, and the later Syriac Version, assign it to the reign of Nero; but the general opinion is that it was written in the reign of Domitian, about A.D. 96; and this hypothesis is confirmed by the authority of Irenæus, Eusebius, Jerome, and other Fathers.

Internal arguments have been brought forward in favour both of the Neronic and Domitianic dates. The reader will find them stated at full length in Davidson's Introduction, but they do not appear to be conclusive in favour of either hypothesis.

One or two German critics have maintained that it was written in Aramaic; but all ancient writers agree that it was written in Greek.

John beholds the Divine glory.

The vision of the book with seven seals
The opening of the seven seals .

The sounding of the seven trumpets

The vision of the woman and the red dragon
The vision of the beast with seven heads
The vision of the Lamb on Mount Sion, the proclama-
tions of the three angels, the vision of the harvest
and the vintage

The vision preparatory to the seven vials

The pouring out of the seven vials

The woman of Babylon, and her punishment

The marriage of the Lamb, and the appearance of the
Lord with his armies

The destruction of the beast and the false prophet
Satan bound for a thousand years

The first resurrection

vi. to viii. 6

viii. 7 to xi.

xii.

xiii.

.

xiv.

XV.

xvi.

Satan loosed, deceives the nations, and is cast into the

burning lake.

The general resurrection, and final judgment

The vision of the heavenly Jerusalem

Conclusion

xvii. xviii.

xix. 1-18

312. Schemes of Interpretation. There have been so many discordant theories concerning the interpretation of the Apocalyptic prophecies, that we can only refer our readers to the work which gives the clearest account of them, namely, Dr. C. Maitland's Apostolic School of Prophetic Interpretation.

The Præterists assert that these prophecies were fulfilled in the first ages of Christianity; they are not, however, agreed as to the events in which the completion is to be found. Among the advocates of this school are Grotius, Hammond, Bossuet, Calmet, Wetstein, Professor Lee, &c.

The Futurists are divided by Dr. Davidson into simple Futurists and extreme Futurists. The former, such as De Burgh and Dr. S. R, Maitland, think that the first three chapters relate to actual Churches existing in Asia Minor in the days of the writer, while the remaining prophecies are yet unfulfilled; the latter maintain that the whole of the book, including the description of the seven Churches, refers to what is still future.

The Continuous expositors, among whom may be enumerated Faber, Birks, Elliot, and many other eminent modern writers, think that the book contains a prophetic history of the continuous fortunes of the Church and of the world, from the time of the Revelation being given to the end of all

things; and that many of the prophecies have been accom plished, but that others are yet unfulfilled.

The Mystics see in the Apocalypse nothing else than a highly coloured picture of the Christian's life.

But perhaps the question which most divides present erpositors is whether, in the Apocalypse, a Day means a day

or a year.

Those who take a prophetic day to be equivalent to an historical year adopt the continuous scheme of interpretation, and suppose the Apocalypse to be a regular prophetic history of the World, from the time of St. John to the Second Advent. They vary however very much as to the explana tion of those prophecies which they consider to have been fulfilled.

They ground their theory of a prophetic day meaning an historical year on the supposed facility it gives for interpreting the Apocalypse. They quote also Numbers xiv. 31. Ezekiel iv. 6, and Daniel ix. 24.

On the other hand, those expositors who think that a day in prophecy means only an ordinary day, argue that there is not a single instance in the Bible "in which a prediction containing a set time has been fulfilled in any other measure of time:" that such a system of interpretation was unknown to the Early Church, and that the Year-Day expositors are not agreed as to the explanations of the various prophecies: that in Numbers xiv. 34, and Ezekiel iv. 6, a day is put for a day and a year for a year; and in Daniel ix. 24 no measure of time is expressed; the Hebrew being merely seventy sevens [A. V. weeks], which may mean sevens of years as supplied in the Septuagint.

Dr. C. Maitland shows what the first followers of the Apostles had learned concerning the Apocalyptic symbols. and argues that, as they derived their teachings from the inspired Apostles, we are not at liberty to discard the received opinion of the Early Church; and that a great part of the Apocalypse is as yet unfulfilled.

For a summary of what the Early Church held, we must refer our readers to his work.