CHA P. XXXIII.

OF THE APOCALYPSE,

SECT. I.

Previous apology for the author's uncertainty, in respect to the Apocalypfe.

And

I the mot difficult and the most doubtful boome COME now to an important, but at the fame time whole New Teftament. The various queftions, which here present themfelves for examination, whether they relate to the ftyle of the Apocalypfe, or the year in which it was published, or the qualifications, which every man must neceffarily poffefs, who attempts to expound it, depend entirely on the main queftion, whether it is a genuine work of St. John the Evangelift, or not. on the main queftion I candidly confefs, that I have not been able to obtain that certainty, which I have obtained in respect to other books of the New Testament: confequently I fhall be frequently obliged to fpeak of the dependent questions in a manner merely conditional and hypothetical. In the whole of this inquiry therefore I will accompany the reader as far as I think we can go with fafety I will point out to him likewife all the profpects, which lie before him: but when we are arrived at the place, where the path divides, I fhall think proper to halt, and leave it to his own choice to take that road, which appears to him the best.

As it is not improbable, that this cautious method of proceeding will give offence to fome of my readers, I muft plead in my behalf the example of Luther, who thought and acted precifely in the fame manner. His fentiments on this fubject are delivered, not in an occafional differtation on the Apocalypfe, but in the preface

'to

to his German translation of it, a translation designed not merely for the learned, but for the illiterate, and even for children. In the preface In the preface prefixed to that edition, which was printed in 1522, he expreffed himself in very strong terms: but in that which he printed in 1534, he ufed milder and lefs decifive expreffions. Still however he declared, he was not convinced that the Apocalypfe was canonical, and recommended the interpretation of it to thofe, who were more enlightened than himfelf. If Luther then, the author of our reformation,

In this preface he fays: In this book of the Revelation of St. John, I leave it to every man to judge for himfelf: I will bind no man to my fancy or opinion: I'fay only what I feel. Not one thing only fails in this book, fo that I hold it neither for apoftolical, nor prophetical. Firft and chiefly, the Apoftles do not prophefy in visions, but in clear and plain words, as St. Peter, St. Paul, and Chrift in the Gofpel do: it is moreover the Apostle's duty to speak of Chrift and his actions in a fimple way, not in figures and vifions. Alfo no prophet of the Old Teftament, much lefs of the New, has fo treated throughout his whole book of nothing but vifions: fo that I put it almoft in the fame rank with the fourth book of Efdras, and cannot any way find that it was dictated by the Holy Ghoft. Befides, I think it too much, that in his own book, more than in any other of the holy books, which are of much greater importance, he commands and threatens, that, if any man fhall take away from the words of this book, God fhall take away his part out of the book of life; and moreover declares, that he who keepeth the words of this book, fhall be bleffed, though no one is able to understand what they are, much lefs to keep them also there are much nobler books, the words of which we have to keep. In former times likewife many of the fathers rejected this book, though St. Jerom talks in high words, and fays it is above all praise, and that there is much mystery therein. Laftly, let every one think of it what his own fpirit fuggefts. My fpirit can make nothing out of this book; and I have reafon enough not to efteem it highly, fince Chrift is not taught in it, which an Apoftle is above all things bound to do, as he fays, Acts i. ye fhall be my witneffes. Therefore I abide by the books which teach Chrift clearly and purely.'

n In the preface to the edition printed in 1534. he divides prophe cies into three claffes,, the third of which contains vifions, without explanations of them, and of thefe he fays: As long as a prophecy remains unexplained and has no determinate interpretation, it is a hidden filent prophecy, and is deftitute of the advantages, which it ought to afford to Chriftians. This has hitherto happened to the Apocalypfe: for though many have made the attempt, no one to the

present

459 tion, thought and acted in this manner, and the divines of the two laft centuries ftill continued, without incurring the charge of herefy, to print Luther's preface to the Apocalypfe, in the editions of the German Bible of which they had the fuperintendence, furely no one of the prefent age ought to cenfure a writer for the avowal of fimilar doubts. Should it be objected, that what was excufable in Luther would be inexcufable in a modern divine, fince more light has been thrown on the fubject than there had been in the fixteenth century, I would afk in what this light confifts. If it confifts in newly discovered teftimonies of the ancients, they are rather unfavourable to the caufe: for the canon of the Syrian church, which was not known in Europe, when Luther wrote, decides against it. On the other hand, if this light confifts in a more clear and determinate explanation of the prophecies contained in the Apocalypfe, which later commentators have been able to make out by the aid of history, I would venture to appeal to a fynod of the latest and most zealous interpreters of it, fuch as Vitringa, Lange, Oporin, Heumann, and Bengel," names which are free from all fufpicion, and I have not the leaft doubt that at every interpretation, which I pronounced unfatisfactory, I thould have at leaft three voices out of the five in my favour. At all events they would never be unanimous against me, in the places where I declared that I was unable to perceive the new light, which is fuppofed to have been thrown on the fubject fince the time of Luther.

I admit that Luther uses too harsh expreffions, where he fpeaks of the Epiftle of St. James, though in a preface

prefent day has brought any thing certain out of it, but several have made incoherent ftuff out of their own brain. On account of these uncertain interpretations, and hidden fenfes we have hitherto left it to itfelf, especially fince fome of the ancient fathers believed that it was not written by the Apoftle, as is related in Lib. III. Hift. Ecclef, In this uncertainty we for our part ftill let it remain: but do not prevent others from taking it to be the work of St. John the Apostle, if they choofe. And because I should be glad to fee a certain interpretation of it, I will afford to other and higher fpirits occafion to reflect,"

preface not defigned for Chriftians of every denomination: but his opinion of the Apocalypfe is delivered in terms of the utmost diffidence, which are well worthy of imitation. And this is fo much the more laudable as the Apocalypfe is a book, which Luther's oppofition to the church of Rome must have rendered highly acceptable to him, unless he had thought impartially and had refused to facrifice his own doubts to polemical confiderations.

Before I proceed in this inquiry, I think proper to acknowledge, that in the following introduction to the Apocalypfe I have derived feveral important remarks from a treatife, which was communicated to me in manuscript, bearing the following title, Difcours hiftorique et critique fur l'Apocalypfe par Mr, d' A-t°. The author of this treatife is indeed fometimes too fevere in his cenfure of the fathers, and conducts the controversy in a tone, which is too fatirical: yet it cannot be denied that the objections, which he has made to the Apocalypfe, are of great importance. I have likewife made ufe of a compofition delivered to me by one of my former pupils, when he quitted the univerfity, whofe name however I have not the liberty to mention, containing various doubts refpecting the Apocalypfe, with a requeft that, if poffible, I would remove them. In the removal of fome of them I have been fuccessful, though not in the removal of them all: but, as notice will be taken of them in the following fections, perhaps other critics will be able to answer what lies not within within my power.

Mr. D' Abaugit, Public Librarian at Geneva,

SECT.

Teftimonies of the earliest ecclefiaftical writers, both for and against the Apocalypfe.

USEBIUS, whom I mention firft, because he is the principal ancient writer, who has collected accounts of the Canon, expreffes himself, after having mentioned the unquestionable books of the New Teftament, namely the four Gofpels, the Acts of the Apoftles, the Epiftles of St. Paul, the first Epiftle of St. Peter, and the first Epiftle of St. John, in the following manner with respect to the Apocalypfe. To these may be added, if one chooses, the Revelation of St. John, on which I fhall mention the opinions of the ancients in their proper places. And thefe are the Homologoumena".' He afterwards adds a lift of the fpurious books (vola) of the New Teftament, as the Hiftory of Paul, the Shepherd, the Revelation of Peter, &c. which he distinguishes from an intermediate clafs containing books of only doubtful authority: and this class of spurious books he clofes with the following words. Further, if one chooses, the Revelation of St. John, which, as I have faid, fome reject, others reckon among the Homologoumena. It appears then, that Eufebius, after all his inquiries into the Canon, had not been able to discover any thing decifive in refpect to the Apocalypfe, and confequently remained in doubt. But there is another paffage in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory', where he feems to deliver his own opinion, and in which he comes more to the point. In this paffage, after having fhewn from the writings

P Hift. Eccles. Lib. III. cap. 25.

The whole paffage, which is fomewhat obfcure, I have already quoted at length in Vol. III. ch. iv. fect. 9. of this Introduction.

Lib. III. cap. 39.