« הקודםהמשך »
it is to be expected that his narration would have been strongly and unquestionably tinged with the imagery and appropriate expressions of this sublime book*. If, then, Hermas wrote before he could see the Apocalypse, his silence is no evidence against its authenticity : but it is an additional proof, to be classed with those of the preceding chapter, that the Apocalypse was not published till late in Domitian's reign.
POLYCARP has not been cited as an evidence in the question before us. He is reported, by Irenæus, to have written many epistles. But only one of these is come down to us. And this is so replete with practical exhortations, that there is little reason to expect in it any quotations from this mystical book. We have, however, other reasons to conclude, that Polycarp received the Apocalypse as divine Scripture; because it was so received by Irenæus, his Auditor, who appeals to him and the Asiatic Churches, over one of which Polycarp presided, for the truth of his doctrines. This apostolical man suffered martyrdom, about seventy years after the Apocalypse had been published. An account of this event is given in an interesting Epistle written from the Church of Smyrna, over which Polycarp had presided. In this
This seems to be the case in the Apocryphal Esdras. Compare 2 Esdras, ii. 49.--47. with Rev. vii. 9. Also, vi. 17. SI. 58. V. 4. vii. 57. 58. ix. 38. x. 37. xi. 5. 09.
Epistle, Epistle, part of which is reported by Eusebius*, there seem to be some allusions to the Apocalypse, which have escaped observation. And if the Apocalypse was received by the Church of Smyrna at the time of Polycarp's death, there can be no doubt but it was received by him, their Bishop and Instructor.
In Rev. i. 15.
In the Epistle,
XXI aegayupos ey xauira wa upep.syoko
That the writer did not use the word χαλκολιβανος,
, may be accounted for, by his having in view, at the same time, another passage of Scripture, 1 Peter, i. 7. where the Apostle compares the suffering Christians to “ Gold tried by the fire ;" but why did he, after having used the word gold, omit the dae wupos dous pašou?ve of St. Peter, to substitute xv napevą to upWLEYou ? why? but because he was led to it by this passage of the Apocalypse ? besides in Rev. iii. 18. we read also χρυσίον σεπυρωμενον εκ συρος. .
The pious and sublime prayer of Polycarp, at the awful moment when the fire was about to be lighted under him, begins with these words, Κυριε, ο Θεος, και σαντοκράωρ. They are the identical words in the prayer of the Elders, Rev. xi. 17. Kupis, ó ©:05, ó wayorpołwp. • H. E. lib. iv. o, 15.
From these instances perhaps some confirmation is derived, that Polycarp, and bis disciples of the Church of Smyrna, received the Apocalypse.
Papias belongs likewise to the apostolical age, and is said to have been an Auditor of St. Jobo*. This Father is asserted by Andreas, Bishop of Cæsarea, who wrote in the fifth century, to have given his testimony to the Apocalypse t; and is classed by this writer in the list of those who are well known to have testified in its favour; with Irenæus, Methodius, and lIippolitus. What writings of Papias had descended to the time of Andreas, we do not know; but to us there have come down only a few very short fragments preserved by Eusebiust. In these we have no mention of the Apocalypse. They treat of other subjects; of the Gospels chiefly. And to two only, of the four Gospels, has Papias given evidence. Yet no one has doubted, for this reason, whether Papias received the other two. Yet, as Papias was then treating on the Gospels, . it is stronger evidence against St. John's Gospel, that he did not mention that Gospel, than that he omitted to mention his Apocalypse. The same is the case with the quotations of Papias, from the Epistles of the New Testament. It is said by Eusebius, that Papias quoted from
• Irenæus, lib. v. 33.
v. 33. Euseb. H, E. lib. iii. c. 59. + Proleg. ad Apoc. # H. C. lib. iii. 39.
the First Epistle of Peter and the First of John, and no other of the epistles are mentioned as quoted by him. Yet no notion has thence been entertained, that he rejected the other Epistles of the Sacred Canon. " He confirms these " which he has mentioned,” says Lardner *; “ without prejudicing the rest."
Upon the same footing stands his silence concerning the Apocalypse. And this silence, in these short fragments of his works, would be no evidence against it, even if we had no assurance that he received it as holy writ. But such assurance we have, from Andreas of Cæsareat:
Michaelis collects, from some espressions of Eusebius, that Papias had no where cleared up
* Cred. Gosp. Hist. art. Papias.
+ Michaelis is willing to suppose (p. 466) that Andreas had to proof of what he asserts, and that he concluded Papias to be án evidence in favour of the Apocalypse, inerely because Papias was a Millenariarr. This is, at most, a conjecture, for the support of which he refers us to what is afterwards said by him of Andreas, when he comes to speak of Gregory of Nazianzum. When we turn to that passage (page 490) which is designed to invalidate the testimony of Andreas by this argument, " that he “who had falsely represented Gregory, as an evidence for the
A pocalypse, may be supposed to have done the same concern
ing Papias ;” we find tliat, even by the admission of Michaelis, Gregory has quoted the Apocalypse in two passages of his writings. Which quotations will be found (when we come to examine Gregory's evidence) more than sufficient to counterbalance the circumstance of the Apocalypse not being mentioned in his Metrical Catalogue. Michaelis, at last, lcaves the question undecided. And so the testimony of Andreas remains unimpeached by him. Papias appears also by the testiinony of And. Cæs. to have commented on the Apocalypse ; 27 dežews on the text. See cap. xxxiv, Serm. xii. of And. Cæs. I P. 464.
the important question, “ whether John the Pres“ byter, who also lived at Ephesus, was the writer “ of the Apocalypse." But how can we expect such determination from Papias, when it appears that the question was never agitated in his time? Eusebius himself, in the fourth century, first started it. Dionysius of Alexandria, in the century preceding, had mentioned some other John as, perhaps, the author of the book; but even he does not mention John the Presbyter. Nor is there any evidence that it was ascribed to any other than to John the Apostle, by any orthodox writer of the Church, during the first century of its appearance in the world. The Alogi, a sect of heretics, ascribed it to Cerinthus; but no one of the orthodos, before the third century, (as far as we know) assigned to it any other than John the Evangelist. That Papias, therefore, never entered into the merits of this question, is of no disservice to the Apocalypse. On the contrary, that little is said by him, and by the ancient Fathers, concerning the writer of the Apocalypse, shews, that no doubts arose, in the early times, concerning the person who wrote it. All, who have spoken upon the question, have asserted John the Evangelist to be its author; and they were not contradicted.
But that the Apocalypse was unknown to Papias, our author attempts also to prove from another passage of Eusebius*; who, having
* Lib. iii, C. 39.