APOCALYPSE. 



APOCALYPSE. 



(Marc. 4, 6.) 



It it very important that the spiritualising Origen not only mentions 

 the Apocalypse aa being written by John ('Comment, in Ev. Joannis,' 

 L I iinimstssfih, torn. i. lib. 6), but says very decidedly in his Com- 

 mentary, that John, who reclined on the breast of Jesus, wrote the 

 Apocalypse. Origen classified the books then used by Christians into 

 genuine, spurious, and of uncertain authority, and numbers the 

 Apocalypse among the genuine canonical books. 



Origen was the greatest biblical critic of the 3rd century; and it 

 is an important fact that, in investigating the canonical limits of the 

 New Testament, he did not meet, either in the schools of Alexandria, 

 or in his numerous theological peregrinations, with any sufficient 

 reason for doubting the apostolical authority of the Apocalypse. In 

 spite of opposition from a sect called the Alogi, who asserted that 

 the Apocalypse was an unintelligible and irrational fabrication of 

 Cerinthus, It maintained its authority to the middle of the 3rd century 

 in churches far distant from each other, and it was used in theological 

 researches and f rliiMtifl transactions as a holy writing of the 

 spcetle St. John. But the Syrian national church, which was esta- 

 blished either at the conclusion of the 2nd or the beginning of the 

 3rd century, omitted in the Peshito the second and third epistles of 

 John, tb second of Peter, the epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse. 

 These parts were added to the Syrian New Testament in or after 

 the 6th century. But Theophilus of Antioch in the 2nd, and Ephraem 

 Syrus in the 4th century, quote the Apocalypse, and ascribe it to 

 John. Hence we perceive that the Apocalypse, although wanting in 

 the Peshito, was recognised among the theologians of the Syrian 

 church. (Compare ' Leugerke de Ephraemi Syri Arto Hermeneutica,' 

 p. 5-8.) 



During the 4th century the Apocalypse was used in the oriental 

 church by Athanasius, Basilius Magnus, Gregorius Nyssenus, Didytnus, 

 Ephraem Syrus, and others. But Cyrillus of Jerusalem, who died 

 A.D. 886, in his fourth Catechesia, advises his catechumens to read 

 only those writings of both TestamenU which were received by the 

 church, and to neglect the apocryphal publications. Cyrillus gives 

 a list of these canonical writings, in which the Apocalypse is omitted. 

 But his fifteenth CatechesU seems to contain allusions to the apoca- 

 lyptical phraseology. 



The canon of the synod of Laodicea, which was held about A.D. 303, 

 reject* the Apocalypse from the ecclesiastical canon ; and so likewise 

 the eighty-fifth of the apostolical canons, which belong, perhaps, to the 

 4th century. 



Oregorius Nazianzenus says, in his verses on the genuine books of 

 the inspired Scripture, after having mentioned all the other books of 

 the New Testament except the Apocalypae, " Thou hast them all If 

 there is another besides these, it belongs not to the genuine." But 

 the same Oregorius quotes, in his other writings, the Apocalypse as if 

 he considered it genuine, and he is mentioned by Andreas and Aretha* 

 among those who recognised its inspiration and canonical character. 

 Therefore, it U probable that the Apocalypse was reserved to the use 

 of the clergy, who, remembering the Montanistic abuses, endeavoured 

 to get the Apocalypse out of the hands of the laity without denying 

 iu genuineness. By this conjecture an apparent contradiction is 

 I ... l 



The general ecclesiastical tradition as to the aixwtolical origin of 

 the Apocalypse continued uninterrupted to the middle of the third 

 century, except by the opposition of the Alogi. But Dionysius, a 

 disciple of Origen and bishop of Alexandria, who died A.D. 265, 

 though be admitted the Apocalypse to be above his comprehension 

 and the work of an inspired man, gave various reasons for sup- 

 posing it not to be written by the apostle John. These reasons were 

 subsequently reproduced in substance by Erasmus, as we shall pre- 

 sently mention ; and indeed, every later opposer baa repeated the same 

 argument*. 



The synod of Toledo, A.D. 633, speaks of " many who do not receive 

 the authority of the Apocalypse, and despise it so much, that they do 

 not preach it in the church of God ;" but with these despiseni the 

 synod makes short work, saying, "the Authority of many coun.il-. 

 and the decrees of the Roman bishops, prescribe that it is of John the 

 Evangelist, and appoint that it is to be received among the Divine 

 books." " If, henceforth, any one does not receive it, or does not 

 preach from it between Easter and Pentecost, at the time of mass, be 

 shall have the sentence of excommunication." (Harduin, ' Act. Con.' 

 torn. iii. 684.) 



The synod indicates the then prevailing opinion, which continued 

 undisturbed during the middle ages. Isidorus of Seville, who died 

 086, described in his work, ' De Offlciui Eccleeissticis,' the New Testa- 

 ment canon exactly a* the church considered it henceforth to )- 

 established and cloned. According to Isidonis, the Apocalypse con- 

 cludes, as bring truly apostolical, the whole canon. But it is remark- 

 able, that the ' Decretum Aquisgranense,' by Charlemagne, A.D. 789, 

 cap. 20, decrees, that according to the synod of Laodicea, only canoni- 

 cal writings should be read in the church. The canon of Laodioea is 

 a.Ur.1. in wlm-h the Apocalypse omitted. Corpus Juris Oerm.' 

 I W.lter, torn. ii. p. 1, p. 77, seq. Hut it appears from Augusti's 



' Denkwitrdigkeiten aus der Christlichen Archaologie.' b. vi. p. 1 13, Ac., 

 that the Apocalypse continued to be publicly read in the Western 

 church. 



During the middle ages, the anticatholic sects, as well as orthodox 

 divines, appealed to the canonical authority of the Apocalypae, although 

 they differed widely in it* interpretation ; but with the Reformation 

 bean another period in the history of the Apocalypse. 



Erasmus (' lu Aimt;iti<>nil>us in Novum Testameutum,' 1516) re- 

 minded his contomporariee of the former doubts, and repeated tli.-m 

 more fully in the edition of 1527. He states that from the till.-, 

 'Johannes Theologus,' the frequent repetition of John's name, the 

 difference of style, and the manner in which the author iaks of hi* 

 own visions less modestly than Paul r- ''or. xii. 1, seq.) who relates 

 them as if they happened to another. , mi^ht feel inclined to ascribe 

 the Revelations not to John the Evangelist, if the general consent, and 

 especially the authority of the church, hod not already settled its 

 genuineness. Nevertheless he relates, apparently with predilection, 

 the opinion* <>i" Dionysiua, and the uncertainty of Eusebius whether it 

 belonged to the Hoiuologoumena (the admitted), or the Antilegomena 

 (the disputed). 



What Erasmus had cautiously whispered into the ears of the learned 

 Carlstadt and Luther proclaimed boldly to the people. Carlst.ii It. in 

 his book, ' Welche Biicher Biblisch seint.' l.VJu, p. 4, ilivides the New 

 Testament into three classes, the last of which contains the Epistle to 

 the Hebrews, the two Epistles of Peter, the three Epistles of John, i ! 

 Epistle of Jude, and the Apocaly]>se ; and he adds, that, among all 

 books of the third order, the Apocalypse is the least valuable, because, 

 he says, it was not received in the days of Hieronyuius by all Chris- 

 tians ; secondly, the title is not Apocalypsis of John the Apostle, but 

 of John the Theologian. Thirdly, its style and manner differ from 

 those of John the Apostle. " But," says Carlstadt, " 1 will this and 

 the other books of the third order not reject, but only point out the 

 difference." In the preface to the Apocalypse, in the first edit 

 his Gorman Testament, A.D. 1522, Luther writes : " In this book of 

 the Revelation I leave every one to his own opinion, and I will bind 

 none by my view and conclusion. I say only what I feel. In this 

 book more than one thing is wanting, go that I consider it to be 

 neither apostolical nor prophetical. Kirnt, the Apostles deal not in 

 visions, but prophesy in clear and dry words, as do Peter, Paul, and 

 Christ himself in the Gospel. It befits the apostolic office to speak 

 clearly, without imagery, about Christ and his doing. But there U no 

 prophet in the Old Testament, much less in the New, who no entirely 

 deals in vision* and imagery; HO that I deem it only equal to ih,- 

 fourth book of Ezra, and indeed cannot perceive that it wa dictated 

 by the Holy Ghost. 



" It appears too much that the author should recommend his own in 

 preference to other holy books, which are much morv important, and 

 that he commands and threatens God would take from him \\ !> 

 would take anything from the Apocalypse ; and again, that they 

 should be blessed who keep what is written therein, although nobody 

 knows what it is, much less can he keep it, and it U just as much as if 

 we had it not. There are also many nobler books which we have to 

 keep. Many of the fathers have in former days rejected this ; and 

 although St. Hieronymus, with high sounding words, asserts that it is 

 beyond all praise, and contains as many secrets as words ; he cannot 

 prove it, and various passages of his praise are too mild (nam. l\ . 

 towards this book). Finally, everybody may think of it what hi- . u 

 spirit permits him (what be pleases). My spirit cannot accommodate, 

 itself to this book, and it is sufficient cause for me not highly to esteem 

 it, that Christ is neither taught nor known in it, which. Itct'ore all 

 things, an apostle ought to do, because he says (Acts i.), ' Ye shall be 

 my witnesses.' Therefore I adhere to those books which give me 

 Christ clearly and purely." This preface of Luther was repeated in all 

 editions until A.D. li:U. 



The opinions of the reformer influenced the Lutheran theology 

 during the sixteenth century so much, that it became habitual to 

 divide the New Testament into canonical and apocryphal books. To 

 the canonical books only was ascribed an absolute authority in matters 

 of faith ; and the Apocrypha, to which the Apocalypse was referred, 

 were considered as subsidiary sources of information. (Compan Oeder, 

 ' Christlioh freye Unterauchung,' pp. Cl, 313 ; Hartwig's ' Apologie .!< r 

 A|K>kalypn,' th. iii. pp. 35, 48 ; Storr's ' Neue Apologif.' p. 7. d seq. ; 

 and especially Bleek'n ' Einleitung in den Brief an die Hebraer,' p. 

 44,Ac.) 



In the disputation at Bern, A.D. 1528, one of the Roman Catholic 

 interlocutors declared that the Apocalypse was written by Kt. John, 

 and that wherever the Christian church caused the biblical !><> 

 be printed, the Apocalypse was among them; but Zwingli rr|.li,il. it 

 could not be proved historically that the Apocalypse was written by 

 the Evangelist. Another Human Catholic interlocutor complaini-d 

 that the Protestants would not admit the testimonies from the books 

 of Tol.it. Baruch, Maccabees, and of the Apocalypse : to whom Oeco- 

 latupadiiw and Zwingli replied, that the Protestant* did not abso- 

 lutely reject the Apocrypha, but they could not admit their authority 

 in the im|>ortant matter of faith, and tin y had not been generally 

 received by the old church. (See Zwingli'x ' Werkc von Si-huler und 

 S.-lmlthu..' '2 b. i. Abth. pp. 87, 16, &c.) Thus it appears that 

 Zwiiigli, Oecolarapadius, anil Bucer, who was present at the dispute- 



