صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

quotes or alludes to more than six.

But shall we affirm, that Ignatius rejected two of the Gospels, and fourteen other books of canonical scripture, because no evident allusion to them appears in his hasty epistles ? Michaelis hinıself, so questioned, could not have consistently made such an affirmation; for he tells us in a passage of his work, on a similar occasion, that “it is no objection to the New Testament if it is so seldom cited by the apostolic fathers; and even could any one of them be produced, who had not made a single reference to these writings, it would prove as little against their authenticity, as St. Paul's never having quoted the Epistles of St. Peter, or the Gospels of St. Matthew or St. Luke.' But if this holds good, as applied to the scriptures in general, it is peculiarly applicable to a book of mysterious prophecy, and of so late publication as the Apocalypse. This will be esteemed a sufficient answer, if it should be thought that Ignatius “ has passed over the Apocalypse in silence.” But, from a careful perusal of his epistles, I am inclined to an opposite opinion; and will lay before my readers three passages, in which this Father seems to have referred to the Apocalypse.

Ignat. ad Rom. ad fin.

Εν υπομονη Ιησου Χριστου. The text of the Apocalypse is here taken from the approved edition of Griesbach ; and it is a confirmation to be added to his supports of this text, that it was thus read by Ignatius. This expression, though the idea be quite scriptural, is to be found, I believe, in no other passage of the New Testament, but in this of the Apocalypse only.

Ignat. ad Ephes. sect. 3.

Rev. i. 9.

Εν υπομενη Ιησου Χριστου.

Rev. xxi. 2.
Την πολιν την άγιαν απο του Θεου
Ητοιμασμενην ως νυμφην
Κεκοσμημενην τω ανδρι αυτης.

Λιθοι ναου πατρος
Ητοιμασμενοι εις οικοδομης Θεου--κατα παντα
Κεκοσμημενοι εντολαις Ιησου Χριστου.

Here the use of the word Κεκοσμημενοι, following So immediately after the words ητοιμασμενοι and θεου, and with such connexion of thought and of imagery, affords reason to suppose, that Ignatius had seen this passage of the Apocalypse. Ignatius appears to me to conument on St. John, referring this passage to the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, where the same images are used, and by a comparison with which it is best explained. A better illustration cannot be given of κεκοσμημενην τω ανδρι αυτης, than in these parallel words of Ignatius, , κεκοσμημενην εντολαις Ιησου Χριστου. The one is the mystical expression, the other is its meaning when disrobed of the figurative dress.

REV. xxi. 3.
Και αυτοι λαοι αυτου εσονται, και αυτος

ο Θεος
Εσται μετ' αυτων, Θεος αυτων.

Ignat. ad Ephes. sect. 15.
Ινα ωμεν αυτου ναοι (fors. λαοι) και αυτος
Η εν ημιν, Θεος ημων.

λαον και



και έσονται

Both these passages seem to have reference to 2 Cor. V. 16. και εσομαι αυτων ο θεος, και αυτοι εσονται μοι λαος, which is taken from Lev. ΧΧVi. 12. και εσομαι υμων θεος, και υμείς εσεσθε μοι λαος: or from Jer. XXXi. 33. και εσομαι αυτοις εις θεον, και αυτοι εσονται μοι εις or Jer. Xxxii. 38. και εσονται μοι εις λαον, και εγω εσομαι αυτοις εις θεον; or from Ezek. XXXvii. 23. μοι εις λαον, και εγω κυριος εσομαι αυτοις εις θεον.

I have produced all these passages to show in what degree Ignatius can be supposed to quote from, or allude to each. The expression, in the first part of the sentence, may be taken from any or all of them, as well as from this passage in the Apocalypse. But the peculiar turn and form of the latter clause is only to be found here. And I think it

probable that Ignatius would not have relinquished the form observed in the other quotations for this mode of expression, which is very peculiar, if he had not seen and remembered it in the Apocalypse. They are, indeed, the very same words; only with that grammatical alteration which was necessary to fit them to the circumstances; that is, to the application which Ignatius makes of them to himself, and his readers.

The next writer, from whom Michaelis in vain attempts to extract evidence in support of his views of this question, is the old Syriac translator. But it is clearly shown by the learned annotator upon Michaelis's Introduction, that the Syriac version cannot be proved to be of this early date, since the first notice of it is by Ephrem, who wrote in in the fourth century. It cannot, therefore, be admitted as an evidence belonging to these early Christian times.

HERMAS, or the writer bearing that name, is not mentioned by Michaelis. But Lardner has produced some passages from this book, from which he is inclined to think that Hermas had seen and imitated the Apocalypse. They do not appear to me in this light, nor can we expect it; for Hermas wrote in the first century; Lardner says, towards the end of it; some mention the year 75, others 92 :- and as the book was written at Rome, it is not likely that the author of it could have seen the Apocalypse, which began to be circulated in Asia only. in 97. If, then, Hermas wrote before he could see the Apocalypse, his silence is no evidence against its authenticity; but it may be taken, 'as a proof additional, that the Apocalypse was not published before the date now assigned to it.

POLYCARP has not been cited as an evidence in the question before us. He is reported by Irenæus to have written many epistles, only one of which has come down to our times. This is so replete with practical exhortations, that there is little reason to expect in it quotations from a mystical book. We

I Vol. ii. ch. 7. sect. 6.

have, however, other reasons for concluding that Polycarp received the Apocalypse'as of divine authority; because Irenæus, who so received it, constantly appeals to him and the Asiatic Churches, over one of which Polycarp presided,—for the truth of his assertions. This apostolical man suffered martyrdom, about seventy years after the Apocalypse had been published. An interesting account of this is given in an epistle written from the Church of Smyrna, over which he had presided. In this epistle, part of which is reported by Eusebius, there seem to be some allusions to the Apocalypse, which have hitherto escaped cbservation; and if the Apocalypse was received by the Church of Smyrna at the time of Polycarp's death, as of divine authority, there can be no doubt but that it was so received by him, their aged bishop and instructor.

The body of the suffering martyr is

represented, Ομοιοι χαλκολιβανω ώς εν καμινω πεπυρ- Ουκ ώς σαρξ καιομενη, αλλ' ώς χρυσος και

[ocr errors]

In Rev. i. 15.
The fect of the Son of Man are



αργυρος εν καμινη πυρωμενοι.

That the writer did not use the word χαλκολιβανος, may be accounted for, by his having in view, at the same time, another passage of Scripture, 1 Peter, i. 7, where the apostle compares the suffering Christians to “gold tried by the fire.” But why did

. he, after having used the word gold, omit the dia mupos

πυρος dokiua.ouevov of St. Peter, to substitute xv kapivo πυρωμενοι ?

Why? But because he was led to it by this passage of the Apocalypse ? Besides, in Rev. iii. 18, we read also xpvolov TETTUPWMEVOV Ek Tupoç.

The pious and sublime prayer Polycarp, at the awful moment when the fire was about to be lighted under him, begins with these words : Kuple, ó Oxoc, ο παντοκράτωρ. They are the identical words in the ó

1 Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. c. 15.




prayer of the Elders, Rev. xi. 17. Κυριε, ο θεος, ο

8 παντοκράτωρ.

From these instances, some additional confirmation may be derived, that Polycarp, and his disciples of the Church of Smyrna, received the Apocalypse.

Papias belongs also to the apostolical age, and is said to have been an auditor of St. John. He is asserted by Andreas, bishop of Cæsarea in the fifth century, to have given his testimony to the Apocalypse, and is classed by this writer in the list of those who have undoubtedly testified in its favour, with Irenæus, Methodius, and Hippolitus. What writings of Papias had come down to the time of Andreas, we know not; we have only a few short fragments preserved by Eusebius, In these there is no mention of the Apocalypse : they treat of other subjects, of the Gospels chiefly; and to two only of the four Gospels has Papias given any evidence. But no one has hence inferred that he rejected them. Yet, as his writings have reference to the Gospels, the evidence of those neglected by him is more affected by his silence, than that of the Apocalypse, which formed no part of his subject. The same is the case with the quotations from the Epistles of the New Testament by Papias. According to Eusebius, he has left quotations from only two of them, the first of St. Peter, and the first of St. John. Yet no one has supposed that he rejected the other Epistles of the sacred canon. firms these which he has mentioned,” says Lardner, “ without prejudicing the rest.”

Upon the same footing stands his silence concern

6. He con

1 Irenæus, lib. v. 33. Eusebius, H, E. lib. iii. c. 29. 2 Proleg. ad Apoc. 3 H. E. lib. iii. c. 39. 4 Cred. Gosp. Hist. art. Papias.

« السابقةمتابعة »