Dionysius of Alexandria, who wrote about the middle of the third century, says, "Some, before our times*, have utterly rejected this book ;" and he has been thought to intend Caius, an ecclesiastical man at Romet, who certainly ascribed some Apocalypse, and not improbably our Apocalypse, (though this matter has been much doubted,) to the heretic Cerinthust. But whatever may be determined concerning the opinions of Caius, it seems clear, that before Dionysius wrote, that is, in the former part of the third century, some persons in the Christian Church had begun to doubt concerning the authenticity of the Apocalypse; to question whether it were the production of St. John, or of any apostolical, or even pious man; and to ascribe it, as the Alogi had done before them, to Cerinthus§. But it does not appear that they alleged any external evidence in support of these extraordinary opinions. They rested them on the basis of internal evidence only. "The A"pocalypse," said they, "is obscure, unintelligible, and in"consistent, and improperly entitled a revelation. It au❝thorizes notions of an impure, terrestrial millennium, un"worthy of an Apostle of Christ. But Cerinthus adopted "such notions, and to propagate them the more successfully, "he wrote the Apocalypse, and prefixed to it the honourable "name of John.” All the arguments here used, excepting the affirmation that Cerinthus is the author, (which has no proof whatever to support it¶,) will be observed to rest on internal evidence, and therefore, belong not to this present inquiry. In a futurechapter they will be examined. But I mention them in this place, because they prevailed in the times of Hippolitus and Origen, whose testimony is now to be adduced. These two learned men had the opportunity of knowing and of considering all the arguments, which these novel objectors had alleged against the authenticity of the Apocalypse. We shall see what influence they had on the minds of these able divines. HIPPOLITUS flourished early in the third century**, and Tires who spear. Euseb. lib. vii. c. 25. So Eusebius calls him, H. E. lib. ii. c. 25. Michaelis has chosen to place these objectors in the second century, but on no solid ground of evidence; for the first objector, of whom we have any account, is Caius, and the earliest time assigned to him is A. D. 210. Cave. Hist. Lit. art. Caius. Euseb. H. E. lib. vii. c. 24. See this affirmation perfectly refuted by our author, p. 469. ** One work of his is shown to have 222 for its date. See Lardner, art. Tippolitus. have been written, says Michaelis, before the times of Justin Martyr, before the year 120*; that is, very near to the time when the ancients believed the Apocalypse, if genuine, to have been written. A fabricator so circumstanced cannot be supposed capable of so gross a mistake; and if such a mistake had been made, we should have heard of it from other, and earlier, objectors than these Alogi; and any fabricator of the Apocalypse must be supposed to have known, better than they, what Churches existed in Asia Proper, in the reign of Domitian. Persons who make use of such absurd arguments, and no other, deserve little attention. I may have bestowed upon them too much; but it seemed necessary to examine, in all its appearances, the only external evidence which seems to have been alleged against the Apoc. alypse, during the first century after its publication. CHAP. VI. THE OF ALEXAN THE TESTIMONIES OF HIPPOLITUS AND OF ORIGEN : I NOW proceed to consider the external testimony which is obtained from HIPPOLITUS and ORIGEN, two great names in the ancient Christian world, and both highly favourable to the divine authority of the Apocalypse. They have already had their place in the Biographical Chart, for reasons which have been already assigned. But I have kept apart the examination of their evidence, because I wished my readers to consider separately "the cloud of witnesses," who supported the authenticity of the Apocalypse during its first century, in the times before any objection was made to it by any of those members of the Church, who observed the pure faith, and the pure canon of Scripture. In the times of Hippolitus and of Origen, a notion seems to have been adopted by some persons in the true Church, that the Apocalypse was not, what it pretended to be, the production of an Apostle. * P. 466. Dionysius of Alexandria, who wrote about the middle of the third century, says, " Some, before our times*, have utterly rejected this book;" and he has been thought to intend Caius, an ecclesiastical man at Romet, who certainly ascribed some Apocalypse, and not improbably our Apocalypse, (though this matter has been much doubted,) to the heretic Cerinthus. But whatever may be determined concerning the opinions of Caius, it seems clear, that before Dionysius wrote, that is, in the former part of the third century, some persons in the Christian Church had begun to doubt concerning the authenticity of the Apocalypse; to question whether it were the production of St. John, or of any apostolical, or even pious man; and to ascribe it, as the Alogi had done before them, to Cerinthus§. But it does not appear that they alleged any external evidence in support of these extraordinary opinions. They rested them on the basis of internal evidence only. "The A"pocalypse," said they, "is obscure, unintelligible, and in"consistent, and improperly entitled a revelation. It au"thorizes notions of an impure, terrestrial millennium, un"worthy of an Apostle of Christ. But Cerinthus adopted "such notions, and to propagate them the more successfully, "he wrote the Apocalypse, and prefixed to it the honourable “name of John.” All the arguments here used, excepting the affirmation that Cerinthus is the author, (which has no proof whatever to support it¶,) will be observed to rest on internal evidence, and therefore, belong not to this present inquiry. In a futurechapter they will be examined. But I mention them in this place, because they prevailed in the times of Hippolitus and Origen, whose testimony is now to be adduced. These two learned men had the opportunity of knowing and of considering all the arguments, which these novel objectors had alleged against the authenticity of the Apocalypse. We shall see what influence they had on the minds of these able divines. HIPPOLITUS flourished early in the third century**, and Τινες προ ήμων. Euseb. lib. vii. c. 25. So Eusebius calls him, H. E. lib. ii. c. 25. + Michaelis has chosen to place these objectors in the second century, but on no solid ground of evidence; for the first objector, of whom we have any account, is Caius, and the earliest time assigned to him is A. D. 210. Cave. Hist. Lit. art. Caius. Euseb. H. E. lib. vii. c. 24. See this affirmation perfectly refuted by our author, p. 469. ** One work of his is shown to have 222 for its date. See Lardner, art. Hippolitus. probably lived and taught during a considerable part of the second: for he was an instructor of Origen, who was set over the Catechetical school in Alexandria, in the year 202. He had been the disciple of Irenæus: and, probably, was a Greek by birth, for he wrote in Greek, and not improbably in the eastern parts of the Christian world, where his writings were long held in the highest esteem*. He is in all respects as credible a witness, as the times in which he lived could produce. He received the Apocalypse as the work of St. John, the Apostle and disciple of the Lord t. Michaelis admits his evidence, and attributes to his influence and exertions, much support of the Apocalypse ‡. He could produce no new external evidence in its favour, but he probably appealed to, and arranged that evidence which had gone before, and endeavoured to take away, in some measure, a popular objection to the book, by explaining parts of it; thus rendering it less obscure§. His studies qualified him for this office; for, as Michaelis observes, he commented on other prophecies. His genuine works, except a few fragments, appear not to have come down to us, but they were read both in Greek and in Syriac for many ages. it appears, by the evidence of Jerome and Ebed-jesu, that one, if not two of his books were written in defence of the Apocalypse. Michaelis is inclined to believe that he left two works on this subject, one in answer to Caius, the other against the Alogi. He says nothing which tends to invalidate the evidence of Hippolitus in favour of the Apocalypse, but much to confirm it. And ORIGEN was born in the year 184 or 185, and lived to his 70th year. Of all the ancient fathers, he is generally acknowledged to have been the most acute, the most diligent, the most learned. And he applied these superior qualifications to the study of the holy Scriptures. He studied them critically, with all that investigation of their evidences, and of the authenticity of the books and of the text, which is now become a voluminous part of theological studies. He was in a great degree the Father of Biblical learning. Such * P. 479. See the testimonies as collected by Lardner, who says, that "the testimony of Hippolitus is so clear in this respect, that no question can be made "about it." Cred. G. H. art. Hippolitus. # P. 478. What remains of Hippolitus in this kind, is to be seen in the Commen. tary of Andreas Cæsariensis on the Apocalypse, who professes to to have followed him. P. 479. a man could not be ignorant of the objections urged by Caius and others, against the authenticity of the Apocalypse. He was inclined to allow all the weight of their popular argument against it, which was, that it encouraged the Millenarians for Origen was a decided Anti-millenarian. He appears likewise to have felt the full force of another of their objections. He acknowledged and was distressed by the dark veil, which appeared to him to "envelope the unspeak"able mysteries of the Apocalypse." But these objections, whatever other influence they might have in the mind of Origen, did not induce him to reject the book. He received it readily and implicitly. He quotes it frequently as "the "work of the Apostle John, of the author of the Gospel of "John, of the Son of Zebedee, of him who leaned on the "bosom of Jesust." But to what shall we ascribe this decided conclusion of Origen, so hostile to his own prepossessions? To what, but to the irresistible weight of external evidence, which obliged him to acknowledge the Apocalypse as the undoubted production of John the Apostle? No one, who has taken into consideration the weight of this evidence, (even as it now appears to us,) and the superior qualifications of this learned and inquisitive Father to judge of it, can ascribe the testimony, which we derive from Origen, to any other cause. And every candid person must be surprised and sorry at the cavilling questions advanced by Michaelist, by which he endeavours to represent the well-considered and respectable evidence of Origen, as depending solely on the authority of his master Hippolitus, or, (which is still more extraordinary,) to be the result of that duplicity, which our author attributes, (unjustly, as we shall endeavour to prove,) to Dionysius§. But from other passages it appears, that Michaelis felt the force of Origen's testimony respecting the Apocalypse. In these he acknowledges it to be "greatly in its favour**;" and See a fragment of Origen, preserved in his works, and quoted by Lardner, art. Origen. Euseb. H. E. lib. vi. c. 25. Orig. Hom. in lib. Jer.; Com. in Joh. Com. in Mat. p. 417; Cont. Celsum, lib. vi. + P. 480. P. 14; § Nothing can be more express and positive than the testimony of Origen ; even in his last work, his book against Celsus, when he had probably seen the objections of Dionysius. For Dionysius wrote probably before the rage of persecution came on in 250, which pursued him almost to his death, in 264; but Origen wrote his last work in 252, the year before he died: but whether or not Origen lived to see this book of Dionysius, he was doubtless acquainted with the arguments which it contains, respecting the authenticity of the Apocalypse, for they had then been many years current in the world. ** P. 486. |