soon,1

He was a Greek by birth, as his name and language import, and probably an Asiatic Greek, for he was an auditor of Polycarp, who was bishop of Smyrna, one of the seven churches, and who had been the auditor of St. John the apostle. He was in his own character, the most learned, pious, prudent, and venerable prelate of the age in which he lived."2

2. We remark, however, in the next place, that we have the most pointed and satisfactory testimony as to his qualifications, and opportunities for obtaining correct information on this very subject. Eusebius quotes from his epistle to Florinus, in which Irenæus speaks of the accuracy of his recollection of what occurred when he was yet a boy, appealing to Florinus's own knowledge of the same. "I remember," says he, "the events of those times much better than those of more recent occurrence. As the studies of our youth, growing with our mind, unite with it so firmly, that I can tell also the very place where the blessed Polycarp was accustomed to sit and discourse; and also his entrances, his walks, the complexion of his life, and the form of his body, and his conversations with the people, and his familiar intercourse with John, as he was accustomed to tell, as also his familiarity with those that had seen the Lord. How, also, he used to relate their discourses, and what things he had heard from them concerning the Lord."3

Polycarp was a contemporary of the apostle John, very probably ordained by him to his office, and survived him many years, having suffered martyrdom A.D. 167, and lived a contemporary of Irenæus for half a century. The church of Lyons, of which Irenæus was pastor, was a daughter of that of Smyrna, among whom Polycarp lived and suffered martyrdom. There were abundant opportunities, therefore, for Irenæus to obtain authentic information relative to John. That he sought it, and preserved it carefully, he has, in his epistle to Florinus, apprised us. "These things by the mercy of God," says he, referring to what he learned from Polycarp, "and the opportunity then afforded me, I attentively heard, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart; and these same facts I am always in the habit, by the grace of God, to recall faithfully to mind."5

To call the testimony of Irenæus, therefore, under such circumstances, an "opinion," is inadmissible. He lived too near the days of John, and had access to the most authentic source of information, John's own familiar friend, to be dismissed so unceremoniously from the stand.

3. It does not appear that Irenæus was of a credulous turn of mind, so as to make him adopt hastily ill-founded and vague tradi

1 See Grabe's Proleg. ad Irenæum.

2 Woodhouse's Diss. on the Div. Orig. of the Apoc., pp. 15, 16.

3 Euseb. Eccl. Hist., 1. v., c. 20.

5 Euseb. Eccl. Hist., 1. v.,

c. 20.

4 Milner's Eccl. Hist., vol. i., p. 260.

tions. That he was not indifferent to the character of evidence, but, on the contrary, careful to investigate the authority he had for believing what he stated, is proved to be the fact, in his disquisition on the name and number of Antichrist. For he declares, not only the time when the Apocalypse was written, but speaks of exact and ancient copies of the book then existing, showing that he had carefully collated manuscript editions, and conversed with those who had seen John himself. "These things being thus, and this number (of Antichrist) being in all the most exact and ancient copies, and they who saw John, attesting the same thing," &c. Under such circumstances it is altogether gratuitous to reject his testimony, either on the ground of incompetency, or of being destitute of the qualification and opportunities for know. ledge, wont to be demanded in a witness. Both the form of his testimony, and the facts he has recited relative to his knowledge of Polycarp, John's disciple, his intercourse with him, and his scrupulous care to determine the accuracy of manuscript copies of the Apocalypse, prove, that he speaks, not of his "opinion," but of what he had carefully ascertained to be historically matter of fact. We are surprised, therefore, that Prof. Stuart should have allowed himself to insinuate such an impeachment of the credibility of Irenæus as the following: "That Irenæus himself possessed any other knowledge, in relation to the time when the Apocalypse was composed, than what he drew from the exegesis of Rev. 1: 9, may well be doubted." 2 Prof. Stuart has himself done this very thing; but there is not the shadow of proof that Irenæus inferred the date from his own exegesis. It is a refinement of modern criticism, unknown altogether in the days of Irenæus. We quote again Archdeacon Woodhouse on the claims of this Father to our confidence: "When Irenæus speaks upon such subjects as concern the external evidences of the church, he appeals, for a confirmation of the truth of what he has advanced, to Polycarp and to others, who, he says, had seen the apostle John. He appeals also to the Asiatic churches, in which he appears to have been educated. When removed from Asia to Gaul, where, upon the martyrdom of Pothinus, he became bishop of Lyons, he kept up a correspondence with the brethren of the Asiatic churches, from whom he would continue to receive the most genuine information then to be obtained concerning the Apocalypse." Having, therefore, had frequent and easy opportunities of access to the autograph of John's epistles to the seven churches, and having actually and carefully investigated,

1 We have not access to Irenæus's work on Heresies above referred to, but give his words as quoted by the Rev. E. B. Elliott, in his Hora Apocalypticæ, vol. i., p. 23, a work which we must take the liberty to say, merits the attention of every biblical student, as well for its critical and historical learning, as for its clear exposition of Apocalyptical symbols, and which we hope will soon be given to the public in an Ameri can edition.

2 Com., vol. i., p. 272.

3 Iren., lib. iii., v. 8. Euseb., lib. iv., v. 20.

under such circumstances, the most authentic copies of the Apocalypse, well may the archdeacon say, "Here then is a witness, far surpassing in authority and credibility, any that has hitherto been produced." It is no easy or slight affair to set aside such testimony. But we remark, that,

VI. The process of argument adopted by Prof. Stuart to impeach the credibility of Irenæus, is by no means conclusive or satisfactory. He gives, somewhat at length, and very ingeniously, the evidence commonly adduced in favor of John's having written the Apocalypse during the latter part of the reign of Domitian. He first quotes Irenæus; refers to Eusebius's quotation or reference to him; then cites Jerome's statement, that it was during the 14th year of Domitian John was banished to Patmos; then gives Eusebius's quotation, from Clemens Alexandrinus, and from Tertullian, admitting that the former was understood by the historian to affirm, that the banishment of John took place during the reign of Domitian, thinking nevertheless it may be doubted, and intimating, that there is nothing in Clement's language which decides whether he meant Nero or Domitian. Origen's testimony, too, he regards in the same light. He quotes also Victorinus, Sulpicius, Severus, and Orosius, contemporaries of Augustine, and refers to Gregorius Turonensis, Cent. iv. Isidorus Hispalensis, Cent. vii., and Marianus Scotus, Hippolytus, Photius, and Suidas. "It is plain then," says he, "that an ancient tradition existed, and was propagated through succeeding ages, that the Apocalypse was written near the close of Domitian's reign."2 "If there were nothing else," he adds, "of a different tenor to be found respecting the question before us, we should be obliged to concede that the opinion is no longer to be controverted, which fixes upon the latter part of Domitian's reign as the period when the Apocalypse was composed." It is therefore very important to invalidate this testimony. But how is this attempted?

1. An assertion is made which is well calculated to mislead. To the above apparently candid review of the testimony, in favor of dating the origin of the Apocalypse within Domitian's reign, as given by Prof. Stuart, it is added, “But we know that the voice of antiquity is not uniform in relation to this subject." This phrase," the voice of antiquity," is very vague. It behoves us, in a question of this sort, to determine its precise import. If by the voice of antiquity is meant the testimony of Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and the fathers of the first three centuries, then it is a very important fact for us to bear in mind. For, in canvassing that testimony, if we should find it to be discrepant, it might indeed lead us to distrust the tradition which dates the origin of the Apocalypse under Domitian. But this is not the fact. That testimony is ! Woodhouse's Rev. of St. John, pp. 17, 18. 3 Stuart's Com. on Rev., vi., p. 265. 2 Com., v. i., p. 265.

specific and direct-also uniform, unbroken, unequivocal, undisputed and unsuspected. And it occurs precisely during that period of antiquity lying nearest to, and reaching almost from, the very days of John for three centuries down. Not a shade of doubt, not a note of discord supervenes till the days of Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, in the latter part of the fourth century. "The voice of antiquity" afterwards possesses not equal authority.

2. The next attempt to invalidate this testimony is by a virtual assumption that this uniform, unbroken, undisputed chain of evidence rests wholly on the opinion" of Irenæus. "A majority," says Prof. Stuart, " of the older critics have been inclined to adopt the opinion of Irenæus." It is not the fact that this chain of evidence rests wholly, nor is it correct to say mainly, on "the declaration" of Irenæus, which expression Prof. Stuart elsewhere uses for his "opinion." For there is other testimony than that of Irenæus, and independent of him, to the same effect. Nor can it be proved that even Eusebius and Victorinus, Severus and Orosius, rest their judgment exclusively on the declaration of Irenæus, without having had other, and to them, satisfactory evidence, of the fact, which they did not detail. It is mere conjecture at best, that they rested their conviction wholly on Irenæus's testimony. To assert it as fact that they did, is to take for granted what is not conceded, and cannot be proved; so that logically, the attempt to invalidate this chain of evidence, fails.

3. The third attempt is by neutralizing the force of that testimony which dates nearest to the days of Irenæus. This is done by assuming that it is wholly dependent on him. But there is nothing in the form of that testimony which renders this allowable. The assumption is altogether gratuitous.

Clemens Alexandrinus, for example, a contemporary of Irenæus, is as much entitled to credit, as an original, independent witness to the date of the Apocalypse. He was born anterior to Irenæus, A.D., 39, and is very explicit in his Quis Dives Salvetur. Eneide γαρ τοῦ τυράννου τελευτησαντος, ἀπὸ τῆς Πάτμου της νήσου μετῆλθεν εἰς τὴν "Egedov, &c. "After the death of the tyrant, he (John) returned Εφεσόν, to Ephesus from the island Patmos." To this testimony it is objected that he does not name the tyrant. But it can be shown by circumstances affording the highest presumption, that he could not have meant Nero, and none other than Domitian. Prof. Stuart himself admits, that "the tyrant here meant is probably Domitian; at least, although he is not named by Clement, it is clear that Eusebius so understood the matter."3

Eusebius's judgment in the matter, certainly, deserves more respect than that of later authors. But, independent of this, there is internal evidence of the highest probability that his judgment

1 Stuart's Com., vol. i., p. 263. 3 Stuart's Com., vol. i., p. 264.

2 Euseb. Eccl. Hist., I. iii., c. 23.

was correct.

In the story which Clement relates concerning the young robber, whom the apostle John had been instrumental in converting, and in relating which the above quotation occurs, the apostle is represented as being, at the time referred to, an infirm old man. This John might well be called after the death of Domitian, being then at least 80 years old; but could not during the reign of Nero, being then but 50, or at furthest, 60. For, says Mr. Elliott, he is generally supposed to be younger than our Lord. The traditionary reports of his age at the time of his death, all tend to that conclusion. (So Jerome adv. Jovin., Lib. i., of his age when first called by Christ, "Ut autem sciamus tunc fuisse puerum manifestissime decent ecclesiasticæ historiæ.") And Nero's persecution broke out A. D. 64, and ended A. D. 68, with his death.

This circumstance vindicates the correctness of Eusebius's judgment as to Clement's meaning. His language is explicit. "About this time also, the beloved disciple of Jesus, John the apostle and evangelist, still surviving, governed the churches in Asia, after his return from exile on the island, and the death of Domitian.2 Clement's testimony, as quoted by Eusebius, is taken from his discourse entitled, "What rich man is saved." It seems to be a very poor pretext, that the name of Domitian not being mentioned by Clement, his testimony is therefore undeserving of respect. For, the quotation is made by Eusebius for a specific purpose, which did not lead him to be particular on this point; and yet it seems evident, from the use of the definite article in the quotation, that "the tyrant" had been previously named by Clement, or in some other way accurately designated. The plain and most natural view of the matter is, that the tyrant referred to by Clement being distinctly affirmed by Eusebius to be Domitian, and Eusebius having cited Clement as a witness in a particular case, the historian had given the name of Domitian as the tyrant meant by Clement on some sufficient ground which he at the time underderstood, but has not stated; so that it is inadmissible to suppose, without directly impeaching Eusebius's judgment, for which there is no shadow of warrant whatever, he misunderstood the meaning of Clement, whose language he quoted. Prof. Stuart has not even attempted to show that Clement meant any other tyrant than Domitian, or that Eusebius was mistaken.

Sir Isaac Newton has indeed virtually done this; for he has endeavored to draw a conclusion from Clement's narrative of the young robber reclaimed by the apostle John, in favor of the very date for which Prof. Stuart contends. "Chrysostom saith that the young robber continued their captive a long time. At length John returning to that city, and hearing what was done, rode to the thief; and when he, out of reverence to his old master, fled, John 1 Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol. i., p. 34. • Euseb. Eccl. Hist., 1. iii., c. 23.