not only received the Revelation as the work of the apostle John, but appears to have written a commentary on the book, as is manifest by the monument of this father, dug up in the city of Rome, in the year 1551. His name, it is true, is effaced from this monument, but it contains a catalogue of all the works ascribed to him by Eusebius and Jerome, and some not mentioned by them, among which is one 'of the Gospel of John, and the Revelation."

Origen, who was well acquainted with the Revelation, denominates the author, "Evangelist and Apostle," and on account of the predictions which it contains, "a prophet" also. Origen declared his purpose to write a commentary on this book; but if he carried his purpose into execution, the work has not reached our times, nor is there any mention of it by ecclesiastical writers who came after him.

But Dionysius of Alexandria, one of the most learned men of the age, has furnished more informa tion respecting the canonical authority of this book than any other person. It is from him we learn the fact referred to above, that it was on account of the use made of this book by the Chiliasts or Millenarians that it fell into partial and temporary discredit. These errorists were numerous in the district of Arsinoe, in Egypt, where Dionysius visited them, and took great pains to reclaim them from their errors, and his efforts were not ineffectual, for he had the pleasure of seeing many of them return to the orthodox faith. He inforins us, that before his time, many rejected this book altogether, and ascribed it to Cerinthus, the heretic. He professes for himself to believe, that the Revelation was an inspired book, and written by a man whose name was John, but a different person from the apostle John. The only reason which he assigns for this peculiar opinion is, the difference of the style from that of the apostle in his other works. In answer to which, the judicious Lardner remarks, that supposing the alleged differ ence to exist, it will not prove that the apostle John

is not the writer, because the style of prophecy is altogether different from that of historical narrative, and equally so, from the epistolary style. But this learned and accurate writer denies that there is such a difference of style, as to furnish any solid reason for this objection; and in confirmation of his opinion, he descends to particulars, and shows, that there are some striking points of resemblance between the language of the Apocalypse, and the acknowledged writings of the apostle John.*

Cyprian received the book of Revelation as of canonical authority, as will appear by the following citations from it. "Hear in the Revelation, the voice of thy Lord reproving such men as these: Thou sayest, I am rich and increased in goods, and have need of nothing, and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked."" Again: "So in the Holy Scriptures, by which the Lord would have us to be instructed and warned, is the harlot city described." "That waters signify people, the divine Scriptures show in the Revelation."t

That Lactantius received this book is evident from all his writings; especially those in which he attempts from its predictions to foretell "the future destinies of the Church." Victorinus also, who lived towards the close of the third century, often quotes this book, and ascribes it to John the apostle.§

Thus it appears, that until the beginning of the fourth century, the book of Revelation was universally received as canonical; and only one man expresses any doubt about the apostle John being the author; and he ascribes it to another John, a disciple of our Lord, who also was an inspired man. And although it now fell into some neglect and discredit, yet no man of any authority in the Church, went so far as to reject it altogether. Eusebius, after giving

* Lardner, Vol. I. c. xliii. p. 633.

+ Ibid. Vol. II. p. 26, 27.

↑ Ibid. Vol. II. c. lxiv. p. 292.

§ Ibid. Vol. II. p. 290.

a catalogue of the other books, says, "After these, if it be thought fit, may be placed the REVELATION, concerning which there are different opinions."

Athanasius gives the following testimony: "Domitian in the fourteenth year of his reign, raising the second persecution after Nero, John was banished into the isle of Patmos, when he wrote the Revelation which Irenæus and Justin Martyr explain."* Augustine received the Revelation, and frequently quotes it. He also ascribed it to the same John who wrote the gospel and epistles. Jerome translated it into Latin with the other books of the New Testament. The evidence of the canonical authority of this prophetic vision is therefore as strong as that of any book in the New Testament; and the time is coming when the seals which have so long closed up its meaning shall be broken, and the Apocalypse will appear indeed to be a wonderful Revelation of events of the greatest importance, which are now future. The study of this portion of sacred Scripture should not be discouraged; for as the great wheel of Providence revolves, the mystic page will become more and more illuminated, and the events predicted will be so clearly developed, that all who are endued with spiritual understanding will clearly see, by the developments which will take place, that the sealed book is opened, and that the purposes of God to wards his Church are in the progress of full and rapid accomplishment; even "the things that are, and the things which shall be hereafter."t

* Lardner, Vol. I. 401.

† Rev. i. 19.

CHAPTER XXIII.

RECAPITULATION OF EVIDENCE ON THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

THE subject of the canon of the New Testament may properly be concluded by a few general remarks.

1. The constitution of the canon of the New Testament did not require the judgment or sanction of any council, synod, or church, except as they might be witnesses that the books were written by men who were known to be inspired. Every book written by an apostle had a right to a place in the canon as soon as published. The sacred books were therefore canonical before they were collected together into a volume. One of Paul's epistles, as soon as received by the Church to which it was sent, had as much authority as it ever could have, and possessed this authority, if that Church were not at the time in possession of any other book. The canon was constituted, or compiled, when the last inspired volume was published. And as the apostle John undoubtedly survived the other apostles, and wrote last, when he produced his last writing, whichever it might be, the canon was closed. And as this must have been prior to his death, so it may be said with certainty, that the canon of the New Testament was completed before the death of John. And as all the books were in circulation while he was living, the Church could enjoy the unspeakable privilege of having his infalli ble opinion respecting any and all of these books. This will sufficiently account for the universai consent with which these books were received .n every part of the Church. As he gave his sanction to the other three gospels, so doubtless he would do to the whole sacred canon. Accordingly, we find no controversy in the early ages of the Church, respecting the canon Doubt was entertained by some respect

ing a few of those books now in the canon, which resulted in a general acquiescence in their claims. after the subject was impartially examined; but res pecting all other books there was a unanimous consent. This leads to the remark.

VINE

2. That the writings of the apostles were from the beginning carefully distinguished from all other books. They were denominated, "SCRIPTURE,” diSCRIPTURE-INSPIRED WRITINGS-THE GOSPELS--THE APOSTLES-ORACLES OF THE LORD-DIVINE FOUNTAINS, &c., &c. The fathers were not too credulous in regard to this matter, but used all care to search into the claims of such books as professed to be from the apostles.

3. These books, when written, did not lie in obscurity, but were publicly read in the churches; and were sought with avidity by the people, and read with veneration, not only by the learned but by common Christians; for the idea of locking up the holy Scriptures from the people seems to have occurred to no one. That these canonical books were thus read in the churches may be proved by the testimony of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius, Cyprian, and Augustine; and no other books received the same veneration and attention-none others were spoken of as SCRIPTURE -as inspired. When any other pieces were read in public for instruction, the fathers were pointedly careful to distinguish these from the canonical books.

4. In all the controversies which arose in the Church, these books were appealed to by all parties, as decisive authority, unless we except some of the very worst heretics, who, to maintain their opinions, mutilated the Scriptures, and rejected such as plainly condemned their impious tenets. But most of the neretics endeavoured to maintain their opinious by the writings of the New Testament. This was the case in regard to the Valentinians, the Montanists. the Sabellians, the Artemonites, the Arians, the Peagians, and the Priscillianists. None of these called n question the aur hority of the sacred books.