b Mr. Lowman supposes, St. John to have had his visions in the isle of Patmos in the year 95. But Mr. Wetstein favours the opinion of those, who have argued, that the Revelation was written before the Jewish war. He moreover says, that if the Revelation was written before that war, it is likely, that the events of that time should be foretold in it. To which I answer, that though some interpreters have applied some things in this book to those times, I cannot say, whether they have done it rightly, or not, because I do not understand the Revelation. But to me it seems, that though this book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, there was no necessity, that it should be foretold here: because our blessed Lord had in his own preaching at divers times spoken very plainly, and intelligibly, concerning the calamities coming upon the Jewish people in general, and the city and temple of Jerusalem, in particular. And his plain predictions, and symbolical prefigurations of those events, were recorded by no less than three historians and evangelists, before the war in Judea broke out. e Grotius, who, as formerly seen, placeth this book in the reign of Claudius, was of opinion, that the visions of this book were seen at several times, and afterwards joined together in one book, in like manner as the visions and prophecies of some of the prophets of the Old Testa ment. Concerning this opinion it is not proper for me to dispute, though there appears not any foundation for it in the book itself, as Vitringa has observed. But that the book of the Revelation, in its present form, sent as an epistle to the seven churches of Asia, ch. i. ver. 4. was not composed and published before the reign of Domitian, appears to me very probable from the general, and almost universally concurring testimony of the ancients, and from some things in the book itself. Now therefore I shall transcribe a part of Lenfant's and Beausobre's preface to the Revela. tion, at the same time referring to Vitringa in the margin, who has many like thoughts. dicere maluit. At Justinus, et Irenæus, eo antiquiores, et qui cum Joannis discipulis versati erant, Apostolo hoc opus tribuerunt. Similiter, cum medio seculo iii. Nepos, in Ægypto Episcopus, Chiliastarum deliria eodem libro tueretur, Dionysius Alexandrinus eâdem de causâ Joanni eum abjudicavit. Sed aliter senserant, quicumque Apocalypseos antea mentionem fecerant, excepto Caio, quos sequuti etiam posteri omnes ad unum. -Multo fide dignior Irenæus, qui passim hunc librum, quasi Joannis Apostoli, ad testimonium vocat, et diserte. lib. v. c. 30. Neque enim ante multum tempus visa est, sed ferme nostrâ ætate, sub finem imperii Domitiani.' Quæ ejus verba Græca habet Eusebius. 1. 5. c. 8. J. Cleric. H. E. An. 96. num. v. See the scheme and order of the prophecies in the book of the Revelation, which is prefixed to his paraphrase. Nos quidem, omnibus expensis, cum iis facimus, qui statuunt, Apocalypsin ante bellum Judaïcum fuisse scriptum. Wetst. N. T. tom. II. p. 746. m. Quæstio est non levis momenti, cum vera Apocalypseos interpretatio maximam partem inde pendeat. Si enim scripta est ante bellum Judaïcum, et bella civilia in Italiâ; nullo modo probabile est, tantam rerum conversionem omnino præteriri atque negligi potuisse. Sin autem post illos motus compositos scripta est, probabilior erit eorum sententia, qui eventus in Apocalypsi prædictos in seculorum sequentium historia quærendos existimant. Id. ib. d Lightfootus in genere censet, Apocalypsin hanc editam esse ante novissirnum Hierosolymorum excidium. Et certe si Joannes hanc Revelationem vere a Christo Jesu accepisset sub Claudio, magnâ cum specie negari non posset doctissimis his viris, quædam sigillorum visa' ad fata Judaïsmi non adeo incommode applicari posse. Sed obstant graves rationes, quæ nos in hanc sententiam ire vetant. Vitring. in Apoc. cap. i. ver. 2. p. 7. Vid. et in cap. vi. ver. 1, 2. p. 101-105. e See before, p. 222. Et mitte septem ecclesiis. Nempe hujus visi descripNempe hujus visi descriptionem. Neque ad cætera hujus libri pertinet. Diversa visa diversis temporibus Joanni obtigere, ut et Prophetis aliis. Grot. ad Apoc. cap. i. 11. Post absolutum Visum, monita salutaria continens ad septem episcopos et ecclesias-sequuntur Visa alia, quæ diversis temporibus Apostolo obtigere, et postea in unum volumen redacta sunt; quod et in prophetiis aliis evenit, sæpe etiam non annotato temporis discrimine, sed dato intelligi ex iis quæ loco quoque continentur. Pertinent autem hæc Visa ad res Judæorum usque ad finem capitis undecimi; deinde ad res Romanorum, usque ad finem capitis vicessimi; deinde ad statum florentissimum Ecclesiæ Christianæ ad finem usque, &c. Ejusdem Annot. ad cap. iv. init. Vid. et ejus Commentatio ad loca quæd. N. T. &c. citat. in hujus Supplementi volumine prinio, p. 176. Et vero Grotius et Hammondus ipsi causam suam produnt, ubi posteriorem Apocalypseos partem sub Vespasiano Ephesi scriptam concedunt. Quis enim illos docuit, Visa Joannis in Apocalypsi hoc modo distinguere, et diversa illis et tam longe dissita assignare tam tempora quam loca? Nullum indicium, nulla significatio illius rei in ipsâ Apocalypsi exstat. Contra dicitur Joannes, quæ vidit, vidisse in insula Patmo.' Vitr. ib. p. 11, 12. "Preface sur l' Apoc. de S. Jean. p. 613, 614. i Primo dubium non est, quin, si testimoniis Veterum res conficienda sit, communis antiquæ ecclesiæ traditio, firmata auctoritate Irenæi, hic multum præponderet testimonio Epiphanii. Irenæus enim temporibus Joannis Apostoli propior fuit, tamquam qui eodem adhuc seculo cum Joanne vixerit, et traditionem nobis retulit suâ ætate communem, et omnibus notissimam. Sed, quod plus etiam momenti causæ nostræ addit, non nititur nostra hæc sententia de tempore scriptæ Apocalypsis solâ traditione Veterum. Potest illa ex ipso hoc libro, etiam absque ullâ traditione veteris ecclesiæ, demonstrari. Quare secundo observari velim, ex ipsâ Apocalypsi evidentissimas adduci posse probationes, ex quibus evincatur, hunc librum non utique sub Claudio, sed omnino post Claudii et Neronis tempora, quinimo sub Domitiano, demum in lucem editum esse. Quo tempore scripta est Apocalypsis, ecclesiæ jam per Asiam inferiorem in celeberrimis locis non tantum erant fundatæ et constabilitæ, sed jamdudum fundatæ et stabilitæ Having quoted Irenæus, Origen, Eusebius, and divers other ancients, placing St. John's banishment in Patmos in the latter part of the reign of Domitian, and saying, that he there saw the Revelation, they say: To these uncontestible witnesses it is needless to add a long list of others, of all ages, and of the same sentiment: to whom the authority of Epiphanius is by no • means comparable.' And then they go on: We must add to so constant a tradition other • reasons, which farther shew, that the Revelation was not written, till after Claudius, and Nero. • It appears from the book itself, that there had been already churches for a considerable space • of time in Asia: forasmuch as St. John in the name of Christ reproves faults, that happen not but after a while. The church of Ephesus "had left her first love." That of Sardis" had a name to live, but was dead." The church of Laodicea was fallen into lukewarmness and indifference. But the church of Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by St. Paul, before the last years of Claudius. When in 61, or 62, St. Paul wrote to them from Rome, instead of reproving their want of love, he commends their love and faith, ch. i. 15. 2. It appears from the Revelation, that the Nicolaitans made a sect, when this book was written, since they are • expressly named: whereas they were only foretold, and described in general terms by St. Peter in his second epistle, written after the year sixty, and in St. Jude's about the time of the • destruction of Jerusalem by Vespasian. 3. It is evident, from divers places of the Revelation, that there had been an open persecution in the provinces. St. Jolm himself had been banished into Patmos for the testimony of Jesus. The church of Ephesus, or its bishop, is commended for their " labour and patience," which seems to imply persecution. This is still more manifest in the words directed to the church of Smyrna, ch. ii. 9. “I know thy works and tribulation.” For the original word always denotes persecution, in the scriptures of the New Testament: as it is also explained in the following verse. In the thirteenth verse of the same chapter is mention made of a martyr, named Antipas, put to death at Pergamus. Though ancient ecclesiastical history gives us no information concerning this Antipas, it is nevertheless certain, that according to all the rules of language, what is here said, ought to be understood literally.—All that has been now observed concerning the persecution, of which mention is made in the first chapters of the Revelation, cannot relate to the time of Claudius, who did not persecute the fuisse supponuntur. Redarguuntur enim pleræque a Domino . Nec abnegâsti fidem meam, ne quidem in diebus, quibus Antipas, testis meus fidelis, atextavby, occisus est. Supponunt hæc manifeste, tempore editæ Apocalypsis Gentiles jam cœpisse in Christianos sævire, et ipsam etiam mortem pœnæ loco illis quandoque solennibus judiciis irrogâsse. Id vero hactenus non liquet factum esse imperante Claudio. Nero, postquam humanitatem exuisset, sanguinem Christianum primus bibit; Romæ tamen, magis quam in provinciis. Post Neronem Domitianus, ultimis imperii sui, idem tentavit. Ad quas postremas Domitiani persecutiones in his locis haud dubie alluditur. Neronis enim illam persecutionem in provinciis Romani Imperii æque ac Romæ arsisse, nec liquet, nec probabile est. Ad Domitiani itaque persecutionem hic manifeste alluditur. Quod argumento est, Apocalypsin hanc sub ipso editam esse. Ejusdem hujus Domitianæi temporis manifestum habemus characterem in Joanne. Dicit enim exerte, se accepisse hanc revelationem a Domino Jesu, cum ob confessionem veritatis evangelicæ ageret in insulâ Patmo.' Vocatque se Christianorum, illo tempore afflictorum, socium in afflictione, regno, et patiente exspectatione Jesu Christi.' Fuit igitur Joannes in exilio,' causâ veritatis relegatus in insulam Patmon. Id vero quo modo acciderit sub Claudio? Illum enim in Christianos in provinciis aut exilio aut cæde sævîsse, nullibi legitur. Domitiani igitur hic, et nullius alius Imperatoris character est. Nero enim Christianos capitali supplicio Romæ affecit: sed Domitianus plures exilio, paucos morte punivit, ut certi testes sunt Dio et Eusebius, et pluribus prosecuutus est Dodwellus. Diss. xi. De Pauc. Mart. sect. xvii. Quid cessamus itaque, tam evidentibus probationibus convicti, fidem adhibere traditioni Veterum apud Irenæum? Vitring, in Apoc. cap. i. ver. 2. p. 9-11. Christians, nor to the time of Nero, whose persecution did not reach the provinces. And there'fore it must relate to Domitian, according to ecclesiastical tradition.' The visions therefore here recorded, and the publication of them in this book, must be assigned, so far as I can see, to the years of Christ 95, and 96, or 97. CHAP. XXIII. THE ORDER OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. III. The Order I. Their Order in ancient Authors. II. General Observations upon their Order. of the several Parts of the N. T. 1. The Gospels. 2. The Acts. 3. St. Paul's Epistles in general. 4. Their Order severally. 5. Of placing them in the Order of Time. 6. The Order of the Catholic Epistles. 7. The Revelation. 1. IN shewing the order of the books of the New Testament, I begin with a passage of Eusebius, in a chapter, which is entitled 'Concerning the divine scriptures, which are universally received, and those which are not such.' But,' says he, it will be proper to enumerate here in a summary way the books of the New Testament, which have been already mentioned. And in the first place are to be ranked the sacred four gospels. Then the book of the Acts of the apostles. After that are to be reckoned the epistles of Paul. In the next place, that called the first epistle of John, and the [first] epistle of Peter, are to be esteemed authentic. After these is to be placed, if it be thought fit, the Revelation of John, about which we shall observe the different opinions at a proper season. Of the controverted, but yet well known [or approved by the most, or many] are that called the epistle of James, and that of Jude, and the second of Peter, and the second and third of John: whether they are written by the evangelist, or by • another of that name.' formerly. And here This passage, as my readers may well remember, was transcribed by us the order is very observable: the four gospels, the Acts, St. Paul's epistles, the two catholic epistles of St. John, and St. Peter, which were universally received, and then the books that were controverted, that is, not received by all, though by many. The same order seems to have been followed by that ancient writer Irenæus. For in the third book of his works against heretics, where he is confuting the Valentinians, he in several chapters argues from the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Then in the twelfth chapter of that book, he largely quotes the book of the Acts. After which he considers the authority of the apostle Paul, and quotes both him and Peter. In the festal epistle of Athanasius, the books of the New Testament are enumerated in this order. The four gospels, the Acts of the apostles, the seven catholic epistles, the fourteen They stand exactly in the same order inf epistles of the apostle Paul, and the Revelation.' the Synopsis ascribed to him, though not composed till more than a hundred years after his time. The same is the order of our Alexandrian manuscript. So likewise in Cyril of Jerusalem : the four gospels, the Acts of the apostles, seven catholic epistles, and the fourteen epistles of • the apostle Paul.' He omits the Revelation. The same is the order of the catalogue of the council of Laodicea, omitting also the Revelation. So likewise in the catalogue of John. Damascenus: the four gospels, the Acts of the apostles, the catholic epistles, fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul, and the Revelation.' The same is the order of Leontius. And in the Syrian catalogues as given by " Ebedjesu: the four gospels, the Acts, three catholic epistles, and the fourteen epistles of Paul.' Rufinus's order is the gospels, the Acts, Paul's epistles, the catholic epistles, and the Reve - Περί των ὁμολογεμένων θείων γραφων, και των μη τοιέτων. H. E. 1. 3. cap. 25. b της καινῆς διαθήκης γράφας. d Iren. 1. 3. cap. ix. x. xi. c Vol. ii. p. 369, 370. * See Vol. ii. p. 400. 8 This Vol. p. 45. i P. 415. 1 P. 77. P. 404. This Vol. p. 80. a с •lation.' The same order is in the catalogue of the third council of Carthage. In Gregory Nazianzen also the four gospels, the Acts, the fourteen epistles of Paul, the catholic epistles.' The Revelation is wanting. The same order is in the catalogue of Amphilochius, with the Revelation at the end, mentioned as doubtful. In the Stichometry also of Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, about the year 806, the four gospels, the Acts, Paul's fourteen epistles, and the seven catholic epistles.' That is the order of Eusebius, and probably of Irenæus likewise, as before shewn, consequently, the most ancient. It is also the order which is now generally received. And to me it appears to be the best. с In Epiphanius the books of the New Testament are enumerated in this order: the four sacred gospels, the fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul, the Acts of the apostles, the seven catholic epistles, and the Revelation.' I imagine that this must have been the order of Euthalius. For he is supposed to have first published an edition of Paul's epistles, and afterwards an edition of the Acts, and the catholic epistles, about the year 490. In his prologue to the Acts of the apostles, addressed to Athanasius, then bishop of Alexandria, he says:having & formerly divided the epistles of Paul into sections, I have now done the like in the book of the Acts, and the seven catholic 'epistles.' Hence I am led to argue that this was his order: Paul's epistles, the Acts, and the catholic epistles. Jerom's order, in his letter to Paulinus, is the four gospels, St. Paul's epistles, the Acts, the catholic epistles, and the Revelation.' Which is very agreeable to the order of Epiphanius, and also of Euthalius, if I understand him aright. But in Jerom's work of the interpretation of Hebrew names the order is thus: the gospels, the Acts of the apostles, the seven catholic epistles, the fourteen epistles of Paul, and the Revelation.' In [the letter to Læta the order is, the gospels, the Acts, and the epistles of the apostles.' i Augustine varies. In his work of the Christian Doctrine, the scriptures of the New Testament are rehearsed in this manner: The four books of the gospels, fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul, the seven catholic epistles, the Acts of the apostles in one book, and the Revela⚫tion of John in one book." In another work: the gospels," the epistles of apostles [meaning Paul's epistles, and the catholic epistles] the Acts of the apostles, and the Revelation of John." In one of his works he quotes texts from the books of the New Testament in this order: first" from the gospels, next from several of the catholic epistles, then from almost all the epistles of Paul, after that from the Revelation, and lastly from the Acts of the apostles. In the catalogue of Innocent the first, bishop of Rome, this order is observable: the four gospels, St. Paul's fourteen epistles, seven catholic epistles, the Acts, and the Revelation.' Isidore of Seville, in his several works, has three or four catalogues of the books of the New Testament. In all of them we see this order: first, the gospels, then the epistles of the apostle Paul, then the catholic epistles, after them the Acts, and then the Revelation.' There were according to him, two parts or divisions of the New Testament, one called the gospels or the evangelists, the other the apostles or the epistles. And in this last part the book of the Acts was placed. The same is the order in the Complexions or short commentaries of Cassiodorius: they are upon St. Paul's epistles, the catholic epistles, the Acts of the apostles, and the Revelation. The three writers, alleged in this last paragraph, agree very much with Augustine in the two passages first cited from him in the preceding paragraph. г Chrysostom's order in the Synopsis ascribed to him, as formerly observed, is very singular: the fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul, the four gospels, the book of the Acts, and three catholic epistles.' The catalogue of Gelasius also is particular for the place of the Revelation. For he enume a rates the books in this order: the four gospels, the Acts, St. Paul's fourteen epistles, the • Revelation, and the catholic epistles.' I suppose I ought not to omit the order of the books in the 85th apostolical canon, as it is called, which is this. The four gospels, Paul's fourteen epistles, seven catholic epistles, two epistles of Clement, the Constitutions, the Acts of the apostles.' I shall transcribe nothing more of this kind. They who are desirous to see more examples, may consult the alphabetical table at the end of the last volume, in that article, "The New Testament." Here is enough to be a foundation for such remarks as are proper to be made,. relating to this point. II. It is obvious to remark upon what we have now seen, that in the several ages of Christianity, and in several parts of the world, there has been some variety in the disposition of the books of the New Testament, in two particulars especially. For in some catalogues St. Paul's. epistles precede the catholic epistles, in others they follow them. And the book of the Acts is. sometimes placed next after the gospels, in other catalogues it follows all the epistles. с Dr. Mill, who, in his Prolegomena, has an article concerning the order of the books of the New Testament, with regard to the first particular, the placing in divers catalogues the catholic epistles before St. Paul's, says, that possibly the Christians of those times supposed them to deserve precedence, because they were not directed to one church, or person only, as St.. Paul's are, but to Christians in general, and many churches scattered over the world. Some might also think the catholic epistles entitled to precedence, because they were written by those who were apostles before Paul, and had accompanied our Lord in his personal ministry here on earth.' Mill likewise argues, that this was the most ancient order, because it is that of the Alexandrian, and some other ancient manuscripts. But I do not think that to be full proof. For Eusebius is older, and his order is the same as ours. The same order is in the catalogues of Rufin, the council of Carthage, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, and divers others, very probably older than any manuscripts now in being. And in many other writers likewise of great antiquity, St. Paul's epistles precede the catholic epistles. Whereby I am induced to think this must have been the most ancient order. The reason why the book of the Acts was sometimes placed after all the epistles, some may think was because it was not so generally received as the gospels, the thirteen epistles of Paul, and some of the catholic epistles. Mr. Wetstein hints at that reason. But I rather think, that by some it was judged proper, that the epistles of apostles should immediately follow the gospels, containing the history of our Lord himself: and that the history of the apostles, and of their preaching, written by an apostolical man, should not precede, but rather follow their writings. For by Eusebius, as we have seen, the book of the Acts of the apostles is reckoned among scriptures universally acknowledged by catholic Christians. It is so considered likewise by Origen. And indeed, that this has been all along an universally acknowledged sacred book. of the New Testament, appears from our collections from every age of Christianity from the beginning. See " Acts of the apostles" in the alphabetical table of matters at the end of the last volume. e Mr. Wetstein' argues from the 85th Apostolical Canon, where the Acts of the apostles are mentioned last. To which I answer, first, that the age, when those canons were composed, is uncertain. And secondly, that order may have been there chosen out of a regard to the common rules of modesty. For it is thus: the gospels, Paul's epistles, the catholic epistles, two epistles of Clement, the Constitutions, and the Acts of us the apostles.' When a man took upon himself the character of the apostles, and expressed himself in that manner, it was. This Vol. p. 42. b Vol. ii. p. 440. In epistolarum quidem dispositione variatum est. In antiquissimis quos habemus manuscriptis, etiam Alexandrino nostro, Paulinis præmissæ sunt Catholicæ; eo quod hæ Judæis per orbem quaquaversum dispersis, adeoque pluribus ecclesiis, inscriptæ sint; illæ vero singulis sive ecclesiis, sive etiam hominibus. Ne dicam, quod in isthac dispositione rationem forsan habuerint dignitatis Apostolorum, a quibus scriptæ sunt; ut nempe Apostoli Judæorum, iique jam ab initio electi a Domino, ac cum eo per omne ministerii ipsius tempus versati, præponerentur Paulo, Apostolo Gentium, ac cui no h |