Apostle, because presently after, Jacob adds, that this relates to the Roman Empire, as the Holy Ghost has taught by the bishop and martyr Hippolytus, where he explains the Revelation made to John, who fpeaks the word of God.' But this argument is in my opinion by no means fatisfactory: for the expreffion John who fpeaks the words of God' denotes nothing more than Johannes theologus, as Affeman has rightly tranflated it. But whether Johannes theologus was the fame perfon as Johannes apoftolus, is a queftion on which the ancients were divided: and they who received the Apocalypfe as a facred book, but denied that St. John the Apostle was the author of it, carefully obferved this diftinction. Befides, if Jacob had really meant St. John the Apostle, he would hardly have called him, as in the firft of the preceding quotations, by fo indeterminate a title, as that of one of the faints.' That the Syrians of the Neftorian party received likewife the Apocalypfe in the eighth century, appears from an ancient monument, which was dug up at Sanxuen in the Chinese province of Xenfi in the year 1625. This monument has two infcriptions, the one in Chinese characters, the other in Syriac, from which it appears that it was erected in the year of the Greeks 1092, that is, in the year of Chrift 781: at which period, as well as fome centuries later, was a very numerous colony of Neftorian Syrians in China, who regularly received their bishops from the Neftorian Patriarch. And on this monument mention is made of the New Teftament as containing twenty-feven books: confequently the Apocalypfe muft have been included in the number. It was formerly fufpected to have been a forgery of the Jefuits; but Haffencamp has in my opinion fatisfactorily fhown that the monument is really ancient and genuine". Dionyfius See 7, of his remarks, where the hiftory of this remarkable monument is related, and so much of its infcription quoted as is neceflary for the prefent. Dionyfius Barfalibæus, a celebrated Monophyfite bishop of Amida at the end of the eleventh century, wrote an Expofition of the Apocalypfe, as Haffencamp has shown from Pococke's preface to his edition of the Syriac verfion of the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, the fecond and third Epiftles of St. John, and the Epistle of St. Jude. And this is further confirmed by Affeman, Bibl. Orient. Tom. II. p. 210. On the other hand, Gregorius Barhebræus, or, as he is likewife called Abulpharagius, who was Primate of all the Monophyfites of the Eaft in the thirteenth century", and was by far the most learned of all the Syrian writers, appears, as Affeman has obferved, to have rejected the Apocalypfe for where he speaks of it in his Nomocanon, he does nothing more than quote the opinion of Dionyfius of Alexandria, and in the following words: "The Apocalypfe, which bears the name of the Apostle John, is not his work, but the work either of Cerinthus, who taught that there would be eating and drinking upon earth after the refurrection, or of another John; for two perfons of the name of John lie buried in Ephesus.' The Monophyfites or Jacobites therefore did not receive the Apocalypfe unanimously. Ebedjefu, Metropolitan of Armenia, who died in the year 1318, has in his catalogue of the facred books, which compose the New Teftament, entirely omitted the Apocalypfe, though he afterwards takes notice of the work, which Hippolytus had written in its defence. Affeman relates alfo, that neither the Jacobites nor the Neftorians read the Apocalypfe in their churches, and ■ He died in the year 1286. • Bibl. Orient, Tom. III. P. I. p. 15. not. 5. that P Haffencamp replies, p. 17, that the paffage quoted from Dionyfius is ambiguous, and that Dionyfius may poffibly mean fome Apocalypfe different from that which is in our canon. Whether he does, or does not, I leave the reader to determine. • Affemani Bibl. Orient. Tom. III. P. I. p. 3. not, 3. 2 lb. p. 12. that it is not contained in their manufcripts of the New Teftament. He adds, however, that this is no certain proof that the Neftorians wholly rejected the Apocalypfe, fince it may arife merely from the circumftance, that it is not contained in the Syrian Vulgate. Of the Maronite Syrians it is unneceffary to mention that they receive the Apocalypfe for as they acknowledge the fupremacy of the Pope, they of courfe can reject no book which has been canonized by the church of Rome. The Egyptian Chriftians likewife receive the Apocalypfe. I now come to the opinion of the Lutheran church, which, though it is much too modern, to be of any weight in determining the main queftion, is in other refpects of importance to thofe who are members of the church. Luther, though accuftomed from his childhood to confider the Apocalypfe, as one of the canonical books of the New Teftament, rejected it in pofitive terms in the preface to his edition of 1522. This preface Luther afterwards omitted, and in the later editions fubftituted a preface', in which he expreffed himself in lefs decifive terms, and left it to others, who, he fays, were better qualified than himself, to determine whether it merited a place in the facred canon, or not. It does not appear that Luther difcovered new arguments in favour of the Apocalypfe after he had written the first preface; at least a comparison of the two prefaces affords. no reason to think fo. He was probably influenced by the fame motives as thofe which were avowed by Dionyfius of Alexandria": and, as the Apocalypfe was highly efteemed by the generality of his brethren, who, like himfelf had renounced the church of Rome, he would not abfolutely reject it, but fubftituted a dubious for a more decifive tone, that he might give the lefs offence to An extract from this preface has been already given in the first fection of this chapter. An extract from this preface likewife has been given. in the fame fection. to the reft of his party. Who the perfons were, on whofe account in particular Luther altered his preface, I do not know: and I wifh that the records of our reformation were more clofely examined with a view to this fubject. In general however we may affert as an indifputable fact, that almoft all the profelytes to Luther's doctrine had been accustomed from their childhood to confider the Apocalypfe as a prophetical book, and that the Francifcans in particular, many of whom embraced Lutheranifm, had begun fo carly as the thirteenth century to teach the doctrine, that the enemy of the faints, foretold in the Apocalypfe, was the Pope. But, whatever alterations Luther thought proper to make in his original preface, he deviated only fo far from it, that he left the matter in doubt: nor do I know of any paffage in any of his works, in which he has given it as his opinion, that the Apocalypfe was canonical. Our Symbolic books likewife leave the question undecided. It is true, that at the beginning of the Formula Concordiæ, the prophetical and apoftolical writings of the Old and New Teftament are commanded to be believed, and to be received as the only rule of faith: but fince it is a matter of doubt, whether the Apocalypfe was written by an Apoftle or not, and this very doubt is expreffed in the preface prefixed to it in our Lutheran Bibles, it is evident that the Formula Concordiæ enjoins no rule in regard to its reception. Should any one object that the authors of the Formula Concordiæ meant by the term apoftolical writings,' fuch writings as the ancient councils had declared canonical, I would anfwer that even in that cafe the term does not neceffarily include the Apocalypfe, because the ancient councils were not unanimous in respect to its canonical authority. The council of Laodicea itself may be here alleged as an inftance: for, though the fixtieth canon of this council has lately been called in queftion, yet at that time when the For mula Concordiae was drawn up, no one had the leat doubt of its authenticity. Further, the Apocalypfe is not once quoted in the Formula Concordiæ, as every onc one will find on confulting the index annexed to it in Rechenberg's edition. When therefore the greater part of the Lutheran divines refer the Apocalypfe, without doubt or fcruple, to the clafs of canonical writings of the New Teflament, this is the refult only of private opinion, and not of any decifion made by the church. For the Lutheran church, as a law-giving body, has enacted no decree, which enjoins a belief in the Apocalypfe: and therefore, if any of its members fhould doubt, or even deny the authenticity of the Apocalypfe, it would be highly unjust to accufe them of heterodoxy. On the contrary, if it were allowable to argue from inferences, which may be drawn from the Symbolic books, the authority of the Apocalypfe would be rather diminished than increased for in the Symbolic books the doctrine of the Millennium is exprefsly condemned, and yet the Apocalypfe, if we explain it literally, certainly contains this doctrine, But as it would be unfair to argue either on the one fide or on the other, where nothing is exprefsly determined, we must rest satisfied that our Symbolic books, like Luther's laft preface, leave the decifion of the question to every man's private judgment. SECT. V. Of the completion or non-completion of the prophecies contained in the Apocalypfe, confidered in respect to the arguments which they afford in favour of, or against its divinity. T HOUGH the teftimonies of the ancients must decide the question, whether a book afcribed to any particular perfon, was really written by that perfon or not, yet when a book lays claim to prophecy, and the 113 queftion |