Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

Apostle, because presently after, Jacob adds, that this relates to the Roman Empire, as the Holy Ghoft 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 person as Johannes apoftolus, is a question 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 observed 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 bithops from the Neftorian Patriarch. And on this monument mention is made of the New Teftament, as containing twenty-feven books: confequently the Apocalypse must 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 fhewn that the monument is really ancient and genuine".

Dionyfius

m See § 7. of his Remarks, where the hiftory of this remarkable monument is related, and fo much of its infcription quoted, as is ne. ceffary for the prefent purpose.

[merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Dionyfius Barfalibæus, a celebrated Monophyfite bishop of Amida at the end of the eleventh century, wrote an Expofition of the Apocalypfe, as Haffencamp has fhewn 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 Affemani 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 at Ephesus.' The Monophyfites or Jacobites therefore did not receive the Apocalypfe unanimously.

[ocr errors]

Ebedjefu, Metropolitan of Armenia, who died in the year 1318, has in his catalogue of the facred books, which compofe 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

Haffencamp replies p. 17. that the paffage quoted from Dionyfius is ambiguous, and that Dionyfius may poffibly mean fome Apocalypse different from that which is in our canon. Whether he does, or does not, I leave the reader to determine.

1 Affemani Bibl. Orient. Tom. III. P. I.

• Ib. p. 12.

P. 3. Not. 3..

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 arise 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 respects of importance to thofe, who are members of this church. Luther, though accustomed from his childhood to confider the Apocalypfe, as one of the canonical books of the New Teftament, rejected it in positive 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. not appear that Luther discovered new arguments in favour of the Apocalypfe after he had written the firft preface; at least a comparison of the two prefaces affords no reason to think fo. He was probably influenced by the fame motives, as those which were avowed by Dionyfius of Alexandria": and, as the Apocalypfe was highly efteemed by the generality of his brethren, who, like himself had renounced the church of Rome, he would not abfolutely reject it, but substituted a dubious for a more decifive tone, that he might give the lefs offence

It does

to

s An extract from this preface has been already given in the firft fection of this chapter.

An extract from this preface likewife has been given in the fame fection.

u Sect. 2. of this chapter.

1

[ocr errors]

to the rest of his party. Who the perfons were, on whofe account in particular Luther altered his preface, I do not know: and I wish that the records of our reformation were more closely examined with a view to this fubject. In general however we may affert as an indifputable fact, that almost all the profelytes to Luther's doctrine had been accuftomed from their childhood to confider the Apocalypfe as a prophetical book, and that the Franciscans in particular, many of whom embraced Lutheranifm, had begun fo early 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 Apostle 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 answer that even in that cafe the term does not neceffarily include the Apocalypfe, because the ancient councils were not unanimous in refpect to its canonical authority. The council of Laodicea itself may be here alleged as an instance: for, though the fixtieth canon of this council has lately been called in question, yet at that time when the For mula Concordiæ was drawn up, no one had the leaft doubt of its authenticity. Further, the Apocalypfe is not once quoted in the Formula Concordiæ, as every

[ocr errors]

one

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 Teftament, 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 expresfly 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 reft fatisfied that our Symbolic books, like Luther's laft preface, leave the decifion of the queftion to every man's private judgement. ་

SECT. V.

Of the completion or non-completion of the prophecies contained in the Apocalypfe, confidered in refpect to the arguments, which they afford in favour of, or against its divinity.

TH

HOUGH the teftimonies of the ancients must decide the question, whether a book, afcribed to any particular person, was really written by that perfon or not, yet when a book lays claim to prophecy, and the

[blocks in formation]
« ZurückWeiter »