of the Spirit of God, in imparting inspiration to the mind of the apostle John. Much of the matter collected in the first volume is intended to sustain his sentiments on these points. With their claims to our confidence we are not particularly concerned, but take occasion to remark, that we regard some of his positions untenable, his statement and exposition of others inconsistent and contradictory. Has Professor Stuart any good logical ground for assigning the origin of the Apocalypse to the close of Nero's reign, A. D. 68? In prosecuting an argument in support of this view, it may rightfully be demanded, that the falsity of the commonly received date should be exposed, and that satisfactory reasons be adduced in favor of the earlier date. Under any circumstances this course would be indispensable, but much more so where a large part of the entire exposition mole ruit sud-at once falls, if it be not established. Archdeacon Woodhouse very justly remarks, that, if the Apocalypse shall appear to have been written and published in the early period of the apostolic age, we may expect to find testimonies concerning it, from those who had been personally instructed by apostles. The apostolic age dates from before the middle of the first century, when the apostles began to write, to the close of that century when John, the last of them, died. We are not to assume that it was published either early or late in this period, and reason accordingly but if we shall find that external evidence assigns its origin to the latter period of that age, we shall not be justified in expecting or demanding earlier notice of it. Different opinions have been entertained as to the date of John's writing the Apocalypse. The reader will find them stated by Michaelis. The earliest date is assigned to the reign of the Emperor Claudius, and that solely on the authority of Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, in the latter part of the fourth century. Mosheim says of his work describing the different sects of Christians, that it contains many defects and misrepresentations, arising from the credulity and ignorance of the author." Dr. Murdock says "his learning was great, his judgment rash, and his credulity and mistakes very abundant." His character is given by Dupin and by Jortin2 to the same effect. Spanheim, in his Introduction to Ecclesiastical History,3 has given an account of his gross mistakes. The book of "the Acts of the Apostles," and the apostolical epistles, cover the period of the reign of Claudius, which lasted from A. D. 41 to 54. No traces of such a persecution as that referred to in the Apocalypse, at the period of its writing, can be discovered in the days of Claudius. Nero was the first emperor who persecuted Christians, and enacted laws against them. Nor is there 1 Murdock's Tr. of Mosheim, Vol. i., pp. 242, 243. Rem. Eccles. Hist., iv., 115. 3 Sec. iv., p. 425. 4 Annal. Tac., Lib. xv., c. 44. the least probability that the seven churches of Asia, addressed by Christ in the Apocalypse, had even been organized as early as the reign of Claudius. Yet this opinion, so utterly devoid of evidence, was maintained by the learned Grotius, who has indeed given it all its consequence. The common, and for a long period, uniform belief in the church, as to the date of the Apocalypse, assigns it to the close of the reign of Domitian, A. D. 95 or 96. A strenuous attempt has of late been made to prove that its origin is to be dated toward the close of the reign of Nero, A. D. 68. No other opinion is deserving of attention. In one or other of these dates lies the truth. Prof. Stuart concedes, that "if the number of the witnesses were the only thing which should control our judgment in relation to the question proposed, we must, so far as external evidence is concerned, yield the palm to those who fix upon the time of Domitian." Yet he thinks that the value of the testimony is not equal to that which may be adduced in favor of its being written in the time of Nero. The "catena of external evidence starts with the testimony of Irenæus." His testimony, however, he sets aside as the mere "opinion" of that father. Consequently, the first link being broken, the entire chain of patristic testimony as to its date, falls to the ground. There is a very summary way of getting rid of the external evidence, to say the least; but let us examine whether it be merely "the opinion" of Irenæus, or something demanding more respect. I. The language of Irenæus does not intimate a mere opinion on his part, but asserts a fact. As an opinion, it would certainly be entitled to respect; certainly much more so than the opinions of those who had not half the opportunities he had, for forming a correct judgment. The following is the passage in full, as given by Eusebius with his introductory remark. Professor Stuart has quoted but the last sentence of Irenæus. Γραφων γε τοι ὁ Ειρηναίος περί της ψηφε της κατα τον Αντιχριστον προσηγορίας φερομένης, εν τη Ιωαννα λεγομενη Αποκαλύψει, αυταις συλ λαβαις εν πεμπτῳ των προς τας αιρεσεις ταυτα περι τε Ιωάννε φησιν. E δε εδει αναφανδον εν τω νυν καιρῷ κηρύττεσθαι τό νομα τετο, δι' εκείνε αν ερρέθη τε και την Αποκαλυψιν έωρακοτος· ουδε γαρ προ πολλές χρονο έωραθη, αλλα σχεδον επι της ημετερας γενεάς, προς το τέλος της Δομιτιανό αρ χης. "Irenæus truly writing concerning the calculation taken from the epithet of Antichrist, in the aforesaid Revelation of John, speaks concerning John, in the following manner, in his fifth book against the heresies. If, however, it was necessary openly at this time to proclaim this same name (i. e. Antichrist), it would have been spoken by him that had even seen the revelation; for it was not long since seen, but almost in this our own generation, at the 1 Hist. Eccles., iii., 18. close of Domitian's reign." If any language CAN assert a fact this does. There is nothing whatever here which intimates that it was a mere "opinion" he entertained on the subject. For, II. Irenæus does not only assert it as a fact, that John saw the Revelation during the reign of Domitian, but states it as one about which there was no doubt-one admitted on all hands and requiring no proof. He speaks precisely as we should, in reference to a well known and undisputed fact. We say now as matter of fact, of the work of A. M'Leod, D.D., of New York, on the Apocalypse, that it was not long since written, but almost in this our own generation, during the war with Great Britain, near the close of the Presidency of James Madison. A learned critic, if an equal occasion served, might hereafter just as unceremoniously set aside this our direct testimony with regard to a matter of fact, as Professor Stuart has done that of Irenæus, by saying it is only our "opinion!" This will not do. Its absurdity is too apparent. III. Still further: Irenæus states the fact for the purpose of proving another, and a very different, thing, viz. the propriety of not designating by name the Antichrist. His argument is: "It is unnecessary for us to proclaim Antichrist by name, for if it had been necessary, it would have been done by the author of the Apocalypse, who wrote that book so very near our own time, almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian's reign." Here, he assumes the date of its origin as a thing unquestioned, and founds his argument on it, which derives all its force from the circumstance of its being fact. Had it been the mere "opinion" of Irenæus there would have been no point, propriety, or force at all in his argument. This evidence of the allusive kind, is better proof as to the correctness of the date mentioned, than even the simple historical statement of Irenæus on the subject. A fact assumed in argument as one unquestioned, can never be correctly styled an "opinion." IV. So far from its being the mere "opinion" of Irenæus, it has been, from the very beginning, regarded and quoted as his testimony, or assertion, of a matter of historical verity. So Eusebius evidently understood it. He has, in three other and different places, quoted or referred to this passage of Irenæus, as testimony to matter of historical verity. So Jerome and others have understood it. Even Professor Stuart himself is constrained to change his style in relation to it, and in one place to call it "testimony." "The whole concatenation of witnesses in favor of this position," says he, "viz. that John saw the Revelation during the reign of Domitian, hangs upon the testimony of Irenæus."2 Both the language and the style of the passage entitle it to be so designated. He is still further constrained to admit, that this concatenation of witnesses goes to prove how widely the tradition mentioned by 2 Com. i., p. 269. 1 Hist. Eccles. iii., 23, 20, and v., 8. Irenæus had spread. Thus has he given three versions of it. It is at one time Irenæus's "testimony," at another his report of a "tradition," and at a third his "opinion." A little more precision in a matter so grave as the impeachment of the credibility of an author, might certainly be expected; especially, inasmuch as the character and range of evidence will be materially affected by the question to be determined,-whether it is his own testimony, or his statement of a tradition, or his opinion. It has already been seen, that there is nothing in the language, or style, or in the occasion and circumstances of its delivery, that proves it to have been a mere "opinion," which Irenæus had formed on grounds known only to himself, but which, by the weight of his authority, had gained respect and currency in antiquity. This is Prof. Stuart's" constructive exegesis" of Irenæus, but unfortunately without any attempt to justify it from an analysis of its style and language. The utmost that can be said of the course he has pursued towards this Father, is, that he has advocated a mere hypothesis for the purpose, more successfully, of impeaching his credibility. Common minds are apt to confound between the opinions and the testimony of a witness; but in a matter of so much importance as the impeachment of a whole chain of witnesses, it is of consequence to discriminate. We think it is impossible, on any fair pretext, to set aside, in this way the testimony of Irenæus. If it be not worthy of credit, let it be at once impeached. Should his testimony here be shown to have been his "opinion" merely, on a subject as to which he had neither sufficient means of knowledge, nor capacity and opportunity for investigation, it will go far to invalidate it. But if this cannot be done, it must stand, and continue, as it has done for centuries, to command deserved respect and confidence. Having, therefore, shown that the passage from Irenæus is not the expression of a mere "opinion," but testimony or reference to an admitted historical fact, we proceed to examine whether the considerations adduced by Prof. Stuart, evidently, though not avowedly, to impeach the credibility of Irenæus, do actually invalidate the evidence he has furnished, that John wrote the Apocalypse during the reign of Domitian. And here, as it is important we should know something about the character and reputation of the witness whose testimony is impeached, we may inquire into, V. His general character as a man, a Christian, and a historian. 1. Dr. Murdock says of him, that "he was an ardent and sincere Christian, and a discreet and amiable man. He possessed considerable learning and influence, but his mind does not appear to have been one of the highest order. " Yet did he Yet did he possess mind enough to command the respect of his contemporaries. Mosheim, speaking of the schism in relation to the observance of Easter, 1 Murdock's Mosheim, vol. i., p. 120, n. 5. says that "the progress of it was checked by Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, in letters wisely composed." Eusebius has occasion to quote from him, or to refer to him as authority, frequently, and he does it always with respect and confidence. There is nothing on record to impeach his credibility in point of veracity, or his competency in point of judgment, in relation to matters of current and admitted historical fact. The only thing that tends to abate our respect for him is, that Eusebius, speaking of his treatise on the Ogdoad, or number eight, says that in that book he also shows that he was the first that received "the original succession from the Apostles." What Eusebius means to teach that, Irenæus precisely understood by this, we are at a loss to determine; for certain it is that the language of the former on this subject does not imply anything more than the regular chain of persons settled as bishops or pastors in particular churches, as at Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and elsewhere-not the high, exclusive pretensions to the only valid ordination made by prelatists. Irenæus may have been the first who collected historical information on the subject, and gave a list of the different pastors successively settled in the churches in Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and other places, from the days of the Apostles; which would only commend his diligence and care as a historian, and by no means impeach his credibility. Be this as it may, we cannot see ground sufficient to reject his testimony. His character, as a credible and competent witness, cannot be successfully impeached. Murdock does indeed say, that "as an interpreter of Scripture, he was too fond of tracing analogies, and as a theologian, few of the moderns will account him entirely correct in principle, or perfectly conclusive in his reasonings." All this may be, and yet not affect in the least degree the credibility of his testimony as to the historical fact, that John wrote the Apocalypse during the reign of Domitian. For neither his allegorical interpretation of Scripture, nor his theological peculiarities, nor even his high-church predilections, if he had any, can be shown to have any bearing on the point under consideration, which possibly might influence his judgment as a historian. Eusebius says explicitly of him, that " he may surely be regarded as worthy of all credit."4 Archdeacon Woodhouse bears the following testimony in relation to him. "Irenæus was born, according to his own account (as his words have been generally understood), in the age immediately succeeding that in which the visions of the Apocalypse were seen. The learned Dodwell has taken pains to show, that he was born in the year 97, the very year in which the Apocalypse will appear to have been published. But there is reason to suppose that he has fixed the birth of this father about ten years too 1 Murdock's Mosheim, vol. i., p. 136. 2 Eccles. Hist., 1. v., c. 20. |