says the apostle; "We know him; we are in him." He has already twice recognised the Father as "the "True One:" and there seems to be no necessity, nor even propriety, for subjoining the clause under consideration.

7. But the reference of the argument to the Lord Jesus is very different. The connexion of sentiment is this: It is HE that has given us this unspeakable blessing, this knowledge of the True One: he has come, he has been manifested in the flesh, for that very purpose: yea, our holy and happy union with the True One is, in fact, our union by the living principle of religion, with the Saviour himself: him we have before declared to be "the Eternal Life," and to him we look with gratitude and joy, saying, "THIS is the True God!" 18 And it is not merely Monotheism, but Christianity, the revelation of the Son of God, which is opposed to idolatry.

Thus it appears to my own mind, that the more strictly we analyze this paragraph, the more closely we attend to the nature and sequence of its sentiments, the more carefully we enter into its spirit and argument; the more we find the evidence to preponderate in favour of the latter interpretation.

18 Seiler was a very careful interpreter, and far from being inclined to forced or doubtful applications. He understands the reference to be to Jesus Christ, and renders the clause, "This is the True God and the source of eternal life." Grössre Erbauungsbuch, vol. xvii. p. 446. Lücke takes the other side of the question, in his Comment. on the Epistles of John; but I think his arguments have been anticipated in the remarks submitted above.

SECT. III.

EVIDENCE FROM THE BOOK OF THE REVELATION.

Divine authority of the Revelation.-I. The greatest blessings attributed to Christ, as their Author.-II. Ascriptions of honour to Christ.—Reasons for regarding those ascriptions as expressing a proper adoration.-Objections of Dr. Carpenter and the Calm Inquirer.-III. Divine supremacy and efficiency attributed to Christ.-IV. Various properties and acts affirmed of Christ, which imply divine perfections. i. Dominion over the minds and moral condition of men. ii. Penetration of the thoughts and real characters of men.-Objections of the Calm Inquirer. iii. Agency of Christ in his churches. iv. Supremacy over the created universe. v. Perfection of power and wisdom. vi. Being the cause of heavenly happiness. vii. Unfolding of futurity.

As a general resort from all argument in favour of the preexistence and Deity of Christ, from this book, Mr. Belsham provided himself with the assertion, repeatedly introduced; "That the authenticity of the book is doubtful: no doctrine therefore is to be admitted upon this evidence, which is not clearly to be proved from other undisputed Scriptures." If the assertion were granted, I cannot think that this is the most logical conclusion from it. Instead of sitting down in such a careless scepticism, our duty would be to address ourselves vigorously to the investigation of the matter, in order to arrive at a rational satisfaction on one side or the other.

During the last fifty years, while, in our country, there has been a great degree of inattention to this question and the subordinate inquiries which it in1 Pages 371, 183, 270

1

2

cludes, the Biblical critics of the continent have employed upon it prodigious exertions of labour, learning, and acuteness. That the difficulties are great, they have abundantly shown. But, if we were even so oppressed by those difficulties as to surrender the testimonies, so clearly pronounced, of Justin the Martyr, who lived within one life-time from the death of the Apostle John, and of Irenæus, whose instructor in Christianity was one of the hearers and personal friends of John; the book would not be deprived of its value, as a genuine document of the apostolic age, the work of a disciple of Christ who was a native of Judæa, deeply versed in the sacred literature of his country, a man of the highest piety and fidelity, and perfectly competent to give evidence upon the faith of the true Church of Christ in its native seat and its primitive period. The name John was common among the Jews of Palestine, as is manifest from the New Testament; and there was a John, usually surnamed the presbyter, who was an immediate disciple of Jesus Christ, who is said also (though there is some obscurity about the evidence) to have closed his life at Ephesus, and to whom one of the most learned and candid of the fathers, Dionysius of Alexandria, in the third century, was inclined to ascribe this Book of Revelation and Eusebius apparently was of the same opinion. If, then, we were to admit the evidence of

3

2 See Note [A], at the end of this Section.

3 The accounts which we have of John the Presbyter, have descended from Papias, in citations preserved by Irenæus and Eusebius. Papias affirms that he had availed himself of every opportunity to derive the most exact information concerning Christianity, by interrogating persons who had received their religious knowledge from the apostles, seven of whom he mentions by name; and he finishes

the Apostle John's being the writer of the book, not to be decisive, it would still remain as an invaluable memorial of the sufferings of the first Christians, and of their faith, character, and consolation. But it appears to me impossible for any man, who is a judge of moral principles, to think that the author, whoever

the list by adding, "Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord." This excited Eusebius to introduce what he had been able to learn concerning this John; which was merely that he lived in the Proconsular Asia, and that his tomb was traditionally affirmed to be at Ephesus. Eusebius then says, "It is probable that the second, though some may perhaps think the first [i. e. the apostle], saw the Revelation which is circulated under the name of John." Euseb. H. E. lib. iii. сар. 39.

Papias reckons him among the disciples of the Lord;' an expression which denominates those who personally knew Jesus and attended upon his teachings, but were not of the number of the selected Twelve. As Papias lived in the Lesser Asia, he must have known the Presbyter John. If this John was actually an immediate disciple of Jesus, probably one of the Seventy, he could hardly have been a native of the Lesser Asia; but we must suppose him to have been a native of Palestine, who, on the breaking out of the Jewish war, fled into Asia. Probably he was one of the attendants of the Evangelist John, when he went into Asia, and fixed his final and constant residence at Ephesus. It appears most reasonable to look for this presbyter John in that city, if, with Eusebius, we venture to assign to him one of the two monuments which had been erected in Ephesus to two persons of the name of John. And why should we not do so? To the account of this presbyter John given in the writings of Papias, Eusebius adds that there were other narratives of two christian teachers living at Ephesus, [in the first century,] each of whom bore the name of John. Thus it may be admitted as certain that, at the same time with the Evangelist John, another eminent Christian teacher of the same name lived in the Lesser Asia, and was a presbyter, probably in the church at Ephesus. But, so long as the Evangelist lived, it is out of all doubt that he presided over the church at Ephesus: it therefore appears that the other John obtained the dignity of presbyter upon the death of the Evangelist John." Bertholdt's Einleitung, vol. v. p. 2633.

he may have been, was a forger and deceiver. The high and holy internal characters of the book make it impossible for me to imagine that its author could have been any other than a man of the utmost integrity and sincerity; and therefore entitled to be fully credited, in his declarations of the DIVINE origin of the disclosures, warnings, precepts, promises, and threatenings, which he delivers. I must also acknowledge my opinion that the ablest of the critics referred to, appear to have been either indisposed or unable to give a sufficient attention to the system for the interpretation of this book, which, as to its fundamental principles, has been maintained by Mede, Vitringa, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Lowman, Snodgrass, Woodhouse, and more recent investigators. Those German critics almost universally explain the whole book, as referring to events which were taking place at the time; respecting either Jerusalem and Judæa, or the cruelty and tyranny of the Roman power against the Christians, particularly under Nero and their knowledge of any system of interpretation which regards the book as a series of prophetic visions reaching to the end of time, seems to have been derived from authors who were not fit specimens of judgment and sobriety. It is in vain to allege the endless differences of commentators, as a reason for rejecting, not only the discordant opinions themselves, but the basis on which they all professedly stand: for, whatever differences in minor details may exist, the judicious authors whom I have mentioned, and others like them, are sufficiently agreed upon the few great principles which are the stamina of the anti-papal interpretation. Though far from the imaginations of