תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][merged small]

OF THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE RESPECTING

TIE QUESTION, WHETHER THE APOCALYPSE
WAS WRITTEN BY ST. JOIN. DR. LARD-
NER'S OPINION; OPINIONS OF OTHERS. AR-
GUMENTS OF DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA
UNDER FIVE HEADS; ANSWERS THERETO,
AND TO THE OBJECTIONS OF MICHAELIS.
INQUIRY WHETHER JOHN THE EVANGELIST,
AND JOHN THE DIVINE, WERE BY THE AN-
CIENTS ACCOUNTED THE SAME PERSON. EVI-

DENCE FROM A PASSAGE IN THE BOOK THAT
IT WAS WRITTEN BY ST. JOHN. RECAPITU-
LATION AND CONCLUSION.

The nest, and, I believe, the only subject
remaining to be considered is, whether, if we
admit the Apocalypse to be an inspired book,
we are also to receive it as the writing of John,
the Apostle and Evangelist.

We have already seen it expressly declared to
be such, by unexceptionable witnesses, who
lived in or near to the times when it was first
received by the Seven Churches; who had ample
means of information; and were interested to
know from whom the Churches had received it.

Such

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Such were Justin Martyr, Irenæus the disciple of Polycarp, Tertullian, Origen, and others who preceded them. This external evidence appeared of such preponderating weight to the candid and judicious Lardner, (who entertained no prejudice in favour of the Apocalypse, which he appears to have little studied or understood*) as to have drawn from him this conclusion, twice repeated; “ It may be questioned, whether the

exceptions founded on the difference of style, " and such like things, or any other criticisms “ whatever, can be sufficient to create a doubt

concerning the author of this book, which was “ owned for a writing of John, the Apostle and

Evangelist, before the times of Dionysius and “ Caius, and, so far as we know, before the most

early of those who disputed its genuineness t."

But it is a part of our proposed plan to consider these exceptions and criticisms. They arose in the third century, and are detailed in the writings of Dionysius of Alexandria ; and the objections are by him placed in so strong a light, that little has been added to them by subsequent crities. The answers to them that I have seen are those by Mill, in his Prolegomena to the New Testament; by Bishop Gibson, in his Pastoral Letters ; by Blackwall, in his Sacred Classics; which, with those of other writers,

* Supplement, vol. iii. p. 372.
+ Cred. Gosp. Hist. vol. iv. p.733. Supplement, vol. iii.

[ocr errors]

P. 364.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

have been abridged and presented to the public,
with useful additions, by Lardner, in his Cre-
dibility of the Gospel History*. I shall state the
objections of Dionysius, as reduced by Lardner
to five heads t. I shall subjoin to them, in a
short

compass, such answers as appear to me to
have been satisfactorily produced, or I shall sub-
stitute others; and I shall note occasionally
those objections of Michaelis, which have not
yet been answered.

I. The Evangelist John has not named himself, " in his Gospel, nor his catholic Epistle ; but the writer of the Revelation nameth himself more " than once.'

This argument appears to me to stand on very weak and untenable foundations : yet Michaelis has thought proper to repeat it. Is it possible for us to know, at this distance of time, with no historical information on the subject, what special or private reasons, then existing, occasioned an apostolic writer, either to disclose or conceal his name? Thus far the answer is general: but let us enter more particularly into the charge. 1. “ The Apostle who put his name “ to the Apocalypse, has omitted to do so to * the Gospel.But was it usual for the Evangelists to put their names to their Gospels ? Is any other Gospel published with the name of its

[merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors]

* Art. Dionysius of Alexandria.
+ Part I. vol. iv. p 730.
I P. 534.

author?

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

author ? Not one. It was not the apostolic practice: yet John, of all the Evangelists, approaches nearest to a disclosure of his name; he discloses by various circumlocutions, that be, the Apostle John, wrote that Gospel; and this we know, from what he has delivered to us by such circumlocution, as clearly, as if he had expressly written his name*. 2, “

But though " this answer may be satisfactory respecting St. “ John's Gospel, can we defend by it the same “ omission in his Epistles?” An epistle, indeed, generally requires the name of its author to be inserted ; and for that reason, among others, the name of John is inserted in the Apocalypse', which is written in the form of an cpistle. Yet there may be exceptions to this general rule; and we see such ovidently in the Epistle to the Hebrews, wbich is written without a naine. But the omission, if suchi, in the three Epistles of St. John, need not be sheltered under this precedent. We may otherwise account satisfactorily for their being published without his name,

The two last Epistles are short letters, familiarly addressed to individuals t; and the writer calls himself, not by the name of Johy, but by the appellation of the Elder, by which he was probably as well known, in the familiar confce

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

* Jobn xxi. 20, &c. xix. 26. xiii. 23, &c. † Sce Michaelis, Introd. ch. xxxii. sect. fi.

renec

[ocr errors]

rence which he held with these his correspondents,
as if he had written his name John. He was, in-
deed, at the time he wrote these Epistles, the
Elder of the Christian Church, not only far ad-
vanced in years, but the sole survivor of all his
apostolic brethren. Such an appellation, in a
private letter to an individual, amounts to the
same as the writer's name.

But what shall we say to the omission of
his name in the First Epistle? Michaelis shall
assist us to clear up this difficulty. He pro-
nounces this writing of St. John to be “ a trea-
" tise rather than an Epistle,” and, therefore,
says he, it has neither the name of the writer in
the beginning, nor the usual salutations at the
end*. Therefore, in all these writings of our
Apostle, the insertion of his name appears to
have been unnecessary; in the Gospel, because
such had not been the practice of the other
Evangelists ; in the treatise, because in that like-
wise it would have been informal ; in the two
familiar Epistles, because another well-known
appellation supplied its place. But in the Apo-
calypse, which is written in the epistolary form,
pot to any individual, but to seven Christian com-
munities, and is commanded, by Him who gave the
Revelation, to be written and addressed to themt,
the Apostle could not do otherwise than prefix

See his arguments at large, vol. iv, ch. xxx. sect, ii. B. 400,
401.
+ Ch. i. v. 11.

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
« הקודםהמשך »