of the original records of christianity," Hänlein's Introduction,2 Griesinger's Introduction,3 and Eichhorn's Introduction.1

The principal internal evidences stated in these works, in favour of the genuineness of the Apocalypse, are the following: 1. This book must have been written in the apostolical age; -because, the description of the seven churches supposes an existing contest between Christianity and Judaism, and an oppression of the Christians by the Jews; consequently it involves a historical fact, which occurred only in the apostolic age. It likewise contains no traces of the destruction of Jerusalem, as a past event.

2. The historical interest and physiological fidelity with which it is penned, militate against the suspicion of its being supposititious. This is peculiarly applicable to the addresses to the angels of the seven churches, chap. I-III; in which the writer could not have had his eye on fictitious characters and circumstances.

This argument holds good against the hypothesis, that the seven apocalyptical epistles are a mere poetic fiction. Eichhorn, sup. cit. p. 391, 403.

3. The apostle John here characterises himself:

In chap. I. 12, he professes to be John; and declares that he was an eye-witness, and an ear-witness, of the history of Je

In chap. I. 9, he professes to have been banished to the isle of Patmos, for being a minister of Christ; and this is precisely what we are told concerning the apostle John, by the unanimous tradition of the ancient church.

4. The style of the Apocalypse resembles that of the Gos

1 Vol. I. p. 379-439.

3

p. 232-242.

2 Part. I. 20. P. 196-211.

4 Sup. cit. 191, 196-296.

5 Eichhorn, sup. cit. 438.

pel and epistles of John, both in regard to the ideas and the phraseology. The reader may consult Schultze on the character and merits of John as a writer.1

The internal evidence against the Apocalypse, is derived

1. From the supposed obscurity and offensiveness of its contents, as well as from the doctrinal errors, contradictions &c, which some have imagined they could discover in it. This objection may be confronted by a correct explanation of the book, and by doctrinal arguments.

But this

2. From the difference between the Apocalypse and other writings of John, in regard to matter and manner. diversity is accounted for, by the following considerations:

The Apocalypse was written earlier, than the Gospel and epistles of John. It was composed during the reign of Claudius or Nero, according to the "Apology for the Revelation," $ 14.

Again, the difference in the nature of the subjects, necessarily led the writer to different methods of handling them.

The book of Revelation is written in imitation of the Hebrew prophets. It is on this principle, that Eichhorn accounts for the author's prefixing his name to the book; which is not the case with the Gospels and epistles. But in historical works also, it was not customary for the writer to prefix his name; as the example of the other three Gospels evinces. The first epistle of John is rather a dissertation than a letter.

Inferential remark on all the preceding Illustrations of this

paragraph.

The discussion embraced in the five preceding Illustrations, clearly evinces the inaccuracy of the statement of Kleuker,3

1 Published Leipsic, 1803. p. 294 &c. 376 &c. 442.

See also Eichhorn, sup. cit. p.

2 Sup. cit. p. 438.

3 In his work "On the Origin and Object of the Revelation of John," published at Hamburg, 1800.

and which he presents as the result of an investigation of the testimony of antiquity: "That in the second and third centuries, no certain information could be found, respecting the author of the Apocalypse."

ILLUSTRATION 6.

View of the evidence for the genuineness of the epistle to the Hebrews.

The arguments, which prove the Epistle to the Hebrews to be a production of the Apostle Paul, are the following:

I. The earliest writers of the Greek church, received the epistle to the Hebrews as a production of Paul.

Jerome, a man of much erudition and extensive reading, appeals to the testimony of all ancient Greek writers, in the following words, extracted from his letter to Dardanus, § 3: “It is to be remarked, that this epistle, which is addressed to the Hebrews, was received as a production of the apostle Paul not only by the oriental churches, but by all the Greek ecclesiastical writers; although the greater part of us ascribe it either to Barnabas or Clemens :" and further on: "Nevertheless I receive it as genuine, not influenced by the prevailing opinion of the present day, but guided by the authority of the ancient writers." The word plerique, (plerique nostrorum,) must refer to christians in the Latin church; and not to Eastern christians, with whom they are contrasted. See the Introduction to the epistle to the Hebrews, page 27, note.

2

Eusebius, in his history, says: "The fourteen epistles of Paul are before the public, and well known; but it should not

1 "Illud nostris dicendum est, hanc epistolam, quae inscribitur ad Hebræos, non solum ab ecclesiis orientis, sed ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis Græci sermonis scriptoribus, quasi Pauli apostoli suscipi, licet plerique eam vel Barnabæ, vel Clementis arbitrantur ;" and farther on, "Nos eam suscipimus nequaquam hujus temporis consuetudinem, sed veterum scriptorum auctoritatem sequentes."

2 See also Hug's Introd. p. 317, 319.

be forgotten, that some have rejected the epistle to the Hebrews, alleging that it was not received by the church of Rome as a production of Paul."-Thus also Origen speaks 2 of persons who could not consistently admit the validity of arguments brought from the epistle to the Hebrews, if they followed the authority of those who rejected it, αθετούντων την εлoтоληv.-It does not follow, that the rives of Eusebius, were writers; but even if they were, they did not appeal to older Greek writers, but only to the Roman church.3 "This word tives indicates merely an exception to the general opinion of the the Greeks, there being some who were influenced by respect or prepossession for the Romans and this exception is itself a proof, that the Greek church at large acknowledged this epistle as a production of the apostle Paul, according to the well known principle, exceptio firmat regulam."4 "The fact, that the Arians were the first in the Greek churches, whom history taxes with denying Paul to be the author of this epistle, adds no ordinary degree of weight to the declarations of Eusebius; and recommends his character, as a historian whom no predilection for a party could betray into a departure from historical truth."

Origen says: "It was not without cause, that the ancients regarded this as an epistle of Paul."5 His own opinion was, that the ideas are those of Paul, though not the style. therefore does not determine who the author was: tus (says he) ὁ γραψας την επιστολην, το αληθες θεος οιδεν, i. e. who it was

He

1 του Παυλου προδηλοι και σαφεις αἱ δεκατέσσαρες (επιστολαι) οτι γεμην τινες ήθετηκασι την προς ἑβραιους, προς της Ρομαιων εκκλησίας ως μη Παυλου ουσαν αυτην αντιλεγεσθαι φησαντες, ου δικαιον αγνοειν. Ε. Η. III. 3.

2 Ep. ad Africanum, 9. Comment. in Matt. 23: 37.

3 Introd. to Heb. 2. comp. Hug. p. 317.

4 Hug. sup. cit. p. 320.

5 ουκ εικη οἱ αρχαιοι ανδρες ως Παυλου αυτην ταυτην την επιστολήν) παραδεδώκασι. Euseb. Η. Ε. VI. 25.

Had he been ac

that wrote this epistle, God only knows. quainted with any testimony against the genuineness of this epistle, he would not have failed to mention it.1

The hypotheses of Clemens of Alexandria and of Pantænus, concerning this epistle, seem to presuppose the voice of history to be that Paul was its author. "The remark," says Hug, "was made in Alexandria, at an early day, that the style of the epistle to the Hebrews was strikingly diverse from that of the other writings of Paul. But although this observation appeared to lead directly to the idea of a different author, no one dared to deny that it was a production of this Apostle. So firm was their conviction of Paul's being its author, that apparently strong arguments to the contrary, could not shake their belief." Clemens Alexandrinus attempted to account for this difference between the style of this epistle, and that of the other writings of Paul, by supposing that Paul wrote the epistle in Hebrew, and that it was translated into Greek by Luke, to whose Acts of the apostles its style bore much resemblance.3 The same writer accounts for Paul's neglecting to give a superscription to this epistle, by supposing it to be a measure of precaution, which the apostle adopted in order that the Jews might not be deterred from reading the epistle, by any thing repulsive in its commencement; for the Jews were prejudiced against him as being an apostle of the Gentiles. Pantænus attributes the omission to the modesty of Paul, which would not permit him, an apostle of the gentiles, to prefix his name to an epistle which was addressed to Jewish christians, who had heard the voice of the Saviour himself.4

Stephanus Gobarus, in Photii Biblioth. Cod. 232, does indeed say; "Irenaeus and his abbreviator Hippolytus, (who may both

1 See the "Introd. to the Ep. to the Heb." § 4. Tüb. gelehrte anzeigen, sup. cit. p. 454 &c.

3 Euseb. H. E. VI. 14.

P. XVII-XXIII, and 2 Sup. cit. p. 318.

4 Euseb. sup. cit.