These expressions, as seems to me, lead us to think, that the epistle was designed for the use of all in general, who had embraced the Christian religion. And if St. Jude writes to the same people, to whom St. Peter wrote, that is a farther argument for this supposition. For that St. Peter wrote to all Christians in general, in the countries named at the beginning of his first epistle, was shewn formerly.

IV. We now come to the last point, the time of writing this epistle. Here I shall observe the opinions of several.

b

Dr. Benson's opinion is, that this epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, 'a few weeks, or months, after the second epistle of St. Peter: forasmuch as the state of things, 'as represented in both these epistles, is very much the same.'

Mill's conjecture is, that this epistle was written about the year of Christ 90. But, as he says, there are no clear evidences of the exact time when it was written.

d

Dodwell, whom Cave follows, argues, that this epistle was written soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, in the year 71, or 72. But the reasonings of those learned men are far from being conclusive.

Lenfant and Beausobre were of opinion, that this epistle may be placed with great probability between the year 70, and the year 75.

Witsius thinks it was written in this apostle's old age, and in the last age of the apostles of Christ, and when few, or perhaps none of them, were living, besides St. John.

To the like purpose Estius.

Ecumenius in his note upon ver. 17, 18, of this epistle.

i

"Remember the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: that they told you there should be mockers in the last time."- Meaning,' says he, by Peter in his second epistle, and by Paul in almost all his epistles. Hence it is evident, that he wrote late, after the decease of the 'apostles.'

If St. Jude referred here to St. Peter's second epistle, it must be allowed that he had seen it, and wrote after St. Peter: which indeed is the opinion of many. So Ecumenius appears to have thought. So also says Estius. Dr. Benson expresseth himself after this manner: 'that' it seems highly probable, that St. Jude had seen and read the second epistle of St. Peter. For there are found in St. Jude several similar passages, not only to those in the second chapter of 'the second of St. Peter, but also in the other parts of that epistle.'

Nevertheless, I must still say, this appears to me doubtful. For it seems very unlikely that St. Jude should write so similar an epistle if he had seen St. Peter's. In that case St. Jude would not have thought it needful for him to write at all. If he had formed a design of writing, and had met with an epistle of one of the apostles, very suitable to his own thoughts and intentions, I think he would have forborne to write.

Indeed the great agreement in subject and design between these two epistles affords a strong argument that they were written about the same time. As therefore I have placed the second epistle of St. Peter in the year 64, I am induced to place this epistle of St. Jude in the same year, or soon after, in 65 or 66. For there was exactly the same state of things in the Christian church, or in some part of it, when both these epistles were written.

I do not insist upon the expression, "in the last time," which is in ver. 18. Some would understand thereby the last period of the Jewish state and constitution, immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. But I cannot interpret the phrase, "the last time," in Jude, or

risque jam ante vitâ defunctis, ut Petro et Paulo, et Jacobo. Nam Joannes adhuc supererat. Est. ad Jud. ver. 17.

ί ίπο των αποςόλων των ύπο Πετρω εν τη δεύτερα επισολη, και ύπο Παύλο εν πάση σχεδόν επισολη. Εκ τότε δε δηλον, ότι εσχατον μετα το παρελθειν τες αποςολος, έγραψε Taura. cum. T. II. p. 633. D.

k Convenit argumentum hujus epistolæ cum iis, quæ B. Petrus scribit in secundâ epistola, præsertim capite 2, et initio tertii. Nam quæ hic scribuntur, adeo cum illis similia sunt, et hujus auctor S. Judas eam non solum legisse videatur, verum etiam, partim contrahendo, partim extendendo, partim isdem vocibus et sententiis utendo, imitatus fuisset. Est. argum. Vid. eund. ad ver. epistolæ 17. Preface to St. Jude, sect iii.

"the last days," in St. Peter iii. 3, in so limited a sense. I think that thereby must be meant the days of the Messiah, or the late ages of the world.

However, undoubtedly, that exhortation, ver. 17 and 18. "But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before by the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ: that they told you there should be mockers in the last time:" do imply, as Witsius and Estius observe, that it was then the last age of the apostles: when several of them had left the world, and few of them were still surviving. Which well suits the date before mentioned, the year 64, or 65, or 66.

When St. Jude adviseth the Christians to recollect," and be mindful of the words of the apostles of Christ," he may intend their preaching, which these Christians had heard, or the writings of apostles, which they had read, and had in their hands. Such discourses of St. Paul may be seen recorded in Acts xx. 29, 30. And he writes to the like purpose 1 Tim. iv. 1-5, and 2 Tim. iii. and iv. They who suppose that St. Jude had seen and read the second epistle of St. Peter, must think that he refers also to 2 Pet. ch. iii. 1—5.

There are some other expressions in this epistle which may deserve to be here taken notice of by us. Ver. 3. "It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you, that you should earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints." and ver. 5. "I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this." These expressions seem to imply, that now some considerable time had passed, since the whole scheme of the Christian doctrine had been published to the world, and since the persons to whom the apostle is writing were first instructed in it.

Upon the whole, as before said, this epistle might be written in the year of Christ 64, or 65, or 66.

CHAP. XXII.

THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.

I. Its Genuineness shewn from Testimony. II. From internal Characters. III. Its Time.

I. WE

E are now come to the last book of the New Testament, the Revelation: about which there have been different sentiments among Christians, many receiving it as the writing of John, the apostle and evangelist, others ascribing it to John a presbyter, others to Cerinthus, and some rejecting it, without knowing to whom it should be ascribed.

I shall therefore here rehearse the testimony of ancient Christians, as it ariseth in several ages.

It is probable that Hermas had read the book of the Revelation, and imitated it. He has many things resembling it, Vol. i. p. 311-313. It is referred to by the martyrs at Lyons, p. 362. There is reason to think it was received by Papias, p. 337-340. Justin martyr, about the year 140, was acquainted with this book, and received it, as written by the apostle John. For in his dialogue with Trypho he expressly says: And a man from among us, by name John, one of the apostles of Christ, in the revelation made to him, has prophesied, that the believers in our Christ ⚫ shall live a thousand years in Jerusalem, and after that shall be the general, and, in a word, the • eternal resurrection and judgment of all together,' p. 347. To this very passage we suppose Eusebius to refer in his ecclesiastical history, when giving an account of Justin's works, he observes to this purpose: he also mentions the Revelation of John, expressly calling it the apostle's.' See the same page, note P. Among the works of Melito, bishop of Sardis, one of the seven churches of Asia, about the year 177, Eusebius mentions one, entitled, Of the Reve⚫lation of John,' p. 359. It is very probable, that Melito ascribed this book to the apostle of that name, and esteemed it a book of canonical authority. Irenæus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul, about 178, who in his younger days was acquainted with Polycarp, often quotes this book, 'as the Revelation of John, the disciple of the Lord,' p. 371. And in one place he says: It was

* seen not long ago, but almost in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian.' Ibid. And see p. 364.

Theophilus was bishop of Antioch about 181. Eusebius speaking of a work of his against the heresy of Hermogenes, says, he therein made use of testimonies, or quoted passages, from John's Apocalypse,' Vol. i. p. 383. The book of the Revelation is several times quoted by Clement of Alexandria, who flourished about 194, and once in this manner: Such an one, though here on earth he is not honoured with the first seat, shall sit upon the four and twenty thrones judging the people, as John says in the Revelation.' p. 404. Tertullian, about the year 200, often quotes the Revelation, and supposeth it to have been written by St. John, the same who wrote the first epistle of John, universally received, p. 430. Again; the apostle John in the Apocalypse describes "a sharp two-edged sword coming out of the mouth of God," p. 430. p. 430. He also says, We have churches, that are disciples of John. For though Marcion rejects the Revelation, the succession of bishops, traced to the original, will assure us, that John is the author:' ibid. by John, undoubtedly, meaning the apostle.

From Eusebius we learn, that Apollonius, who wrote against the Montanists about the year 211, quoted the Revelation, p. 480. By Caius, about the year 212, it was ascribed to Cerinthus, p. 484, 485. It was received by Hippolytus, about the year 220, p. 502, 503, and by Origen about 230, p. 532, 533. It is often quoted by him. He seems not to have had any doubt about its genuineness. In his commentary upon St. John's gospel, he speaks of it in this manner: Therefore John, the son of Zebedee, says in the Revelation,' p. 541. See also p. 542, and 574.

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, about the year 247, or somewhat later, wrote a book against the Millenarians, in which he allows the Revelation to be written by John, a holy and divinely inspired man. But he says, he cannot easily grant him to be the apostle, the son of Zebedee, whose is the gospel according to John, and the catholic epistle,' p. 635. He rather thinks it may be the work of John, an elder, who also lived at Ephesus, in Asia, as well as the apostle, p. 636. See likewise p. 647, 648, 649. Moreover, it appears from a conference, which Dionysius had with some Millenarians, that the Revelation was about the year 240, and before, received by Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, and by many others in that country, p. 614, 633, 634, and that it was in great reputation, p. 647, 648. It was received by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, about 248, and by the church of Rome in his time, Vol. ii. p. 26, 27, and by divers Latin authors, whose history is written in the second volume of this work. As may be seen in the alphabetical Table of principal matters, in the article of the Revelation.

The Revelation was received by Novatus and his followers, p. 64, 65, and by divers other authors, whose history is written in that volume.

It is also probable that it was received by the Manichees, p. 216.

It was received by Lactantius, p. 288, and by the Donatists, p. 301, by the latter Arnobius, about 460, p. 257, and by the Arians, p. 309.

In the time of Eusebius, in the former part of the fourth century, it was not received by all. And therefore it is reckoned by him among contradicted books, p. 369, 370. Nevertheless it was generally received, p. 373 and 384. Eusebius himself seems to have hesitated about it. For he says, It is likely that the Revelation was seen by John the elder, if not by John the apostle,' p. 384. It may be reckoned probable, that the critical argument of Dionysius of Alexandria, was of great weight with him, and others of that time. See p. 385, 386. The Revelation was received by Athanasius, p. 400, 401, and by Epiphanius, p. 417, 419. But we also learn from him, that it was not received by all in his time, p. 419. It is not in the catalogue of Cyril of Jerusalem, about 348, and seems not to have been received by him, p. 409-411. It is also wanting in the catalogue of the council of Laodicea, about 363, p. 415. Nevertheless I do not think it can be thence concluded that this book was rejected by the bishops of that council. Their design seems to have been to mention by name those books only which should be publicly read. And they might be of opinion that upon account of its obscurity, it should not be publicly read, though it was of sacred authority. And some may be of opinion, that this observation should likewise be applied to Cyril's catalogue just taken

notice of.

The Revelation is not in Gregory Nazianzen's catalogue, p. 470. Nevertheless it seems

to have been received by him, Vol. ii. p. 470. It is in the catalogue of Amphilochius. But he says, it was not received by all, p. 473. It is also omitted in Ebedjesu's catalogue of the books of scripture received by the Syrians, p. 488; nor is it in the ancient Syriac version, p. 489.

It was received by Jerom, Vol. v. p. 548, 549, 553, 555. But he says, it was rejected by the Greek Christians, p. 558. It was received by Rufin, p. 573, by the third council of Carthage in 397, p. 575, and by Augustine, p. 579, 588. But it was not received by all in his time, p. 588. It is never quoted by Chrysostom, and, probably, was not received by him, p. 607. It is in the catalogue of Dionysius, called the Areopagite, about 490, Vol. iii. p. 41. It is in the Alexandrian manuscript, p. 45, 46. It was received by Sulpicius Severus, about 401, Vol. ii. p. 622, and by J. Damascenus, in this Vol. p. 80, and by Ecumenius, p. 85, and by many other authors, whose history is written in this volume. Andrew, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, at the end of the fifth century, p. 43, and Arethas, bishop of the same place in the sixth century, wrote commentaries upon it, p. 56. But it was not received by Severian, bishop of Gabala, Vol. ii. p. 620; nor, as it seems, by Theodoret, Vol. iii. p. 12.

Upon the whole it appears, that this book has been generally received in all ages: though some have doubted of it, or rejected it, particularly the Syrians, and some other Christians in the east. However, for more particulars, see St. John, and the Revelation, in the alphabetical table, which is in the last volume of this work.

It may not be improper for me here to remind my readers of the sentiments of divers learned moderns concerning this book, which were put together in Vol. i. p. 646, 649, after having largely represented the criticisms of Caius, and Dionysius of Alexandria, in the third century, upon the style of this book, and of the other writings ascribed to St. John. Where also is proposed this observation, p. 649: It may be. questioned whether their exceptions, founded in the difference of style, and such like things, or any other criticisms whatever, can be sufficient to 'create a doubt concerning the author of this book: which was owned for a writing of John, the apostle and evangelist, before the times of Dionysius and Caius, and so far as we know, before the most early of those who disputed its genuineness.'

II. Having thus represented the external evidence of the genuineness of the book of the Revelation, or of its being written by St. John, I should proceed to consider the internal evidence. But I need not enlarge here, because the objections taken from the style, and some other particulars, were stated and considered in the first volume, in the article of Dionysius, above named, bishop of Alexandria.

I now intend therefore only to take notice of a few things, of principal note, which learned men insist upon, as arguments, that the Revelation has the same author with the gospel and epistles, that go under the name of the apostle and evangelist John.

1. Ch. i. ver. 1. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass. And he sent, and signified it by his angel, unto his servant John."

Hence it is argued, that John styles himself the "servant of Christ," in a sense not common to all believers, but peculiar to those who are especially employed by him. So Paul, and other apostles, call themselves "servants of God, and of Christ." Particularly Rom. i. 8. "Paul a servant of Jesus Christ." James i. 1. "James a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Pet. i. 1. "Simon Peter, a servant, and an apostle of Jesus Christ." Jude v. 1. "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ." So Moses is called "the servant of God." Numb. xii. 7, and Heb. iii. 2. And in like manner divers of the prophets. And in this very book, ch. x. 7, is the expression: "as he has declared unto his servants the prophets."

This observation may be of some weight for shewing that the writer is an apostle. And it is not decisive. And in the same verse, whence this argument is taken, the phrase is used in its general sense. "Which God gave unto him to shew unto his servants."

2. Ver. 2. "Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw."

Some suppose the writer herein to refer to the written gospel of St. John, and to say that he had already "borne testimony concerning the word of God, and Jesus Christ." But, as formerly observed, these words may be understood of this very book, the Revelation, and the things a Sed esse se inter notabiles Christi Jesu ministros,' quos omnes sub œconomiâ vetere, et Paulus, et alii Apostoli sub ad Ecclesiam suam docendam, regendain, et curandam ad- œconomiâ novâ, vocantur servi Dei. Vitring. in Apoc. hibebat.Hoc sensu Moses, David, Jesaïas et Prophetæ ↳ Sec Vol. i. p. 642. 3 M

VOL. III.

cap. i. 1.

contained in it. The writer says here very properly, at the beginning, and by way of preface, that he had performed his office in this book, having therein faithfully recorded the word of God, which he had received from Jesus Christ.

a

For certain, if these words did clearly refer to a written gospel, they would be decisive. But they are allowed to be ambiguous, and other senses have been given of them. By some they have been understood to contain a declaration, that the writer had already borne witness to Jesus Christ before magistrates. Moreover, I think, that if St. John had intended to manifest himself in this introduction, he would have more plainly characterized himself in several parts of this book than he has done.

This observation therefore appears to me to be of small moment for determining who the writer is.

3. Farther, it is argued, in favour of the genuineness of this book, that there are in it many instances of conformity, both of sentiment and expression, between the Revelation and the ' uncontested writings of St. John.'

Divers such coincidences, or instances of agreement, were taken notice of formerly, and remarks were made upon them, Vol. i. p. 643–646. That which is at p. 645, appears to me, as striking, as any. I shall therefore enlarge upon it here. Our Saviour says to his disciples John xvi. 33. "Be of good cheer. I have overcome the world.". Christian firmness under trials is several times represented by "overcoming," or "overcoming the world," or "overcoming the wicked one," in St. John's first epistle, ch. ii. 13, 14, iv. 4. v. 4, 5.. And it is language peculiar to St. John, being in no other books of the New Testament. And our Lord says, Rev. iii. 21. “ To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Compare ch. ii. 7, 11, 17, 26. iii. 5, 12, 21. and xxi. 7.

с

III. Concerning the time of writing this book, I need not now say much, having before shewn, in the history of St. John, that it is the general testimony of ancient authors, that St. John was banished into Patmos, in the time of Domitian, in the latter part of his reign, and restored by his successor Nerva. But the book could not be published till after St. John's release and return to Ephesus in Asia.

As Domitian died in 96, and his persecution did not commence till near the end of his reign, the Revelation seems to be fitly dated in the year 95, or 96.

d

Mill placeth the Revelation in the year of Christ 96, and the last year of the emperor Domitian. At first he supposed that the Revelation was written in Patmos. But afterwards he altered his mind, and thought it was not written until after his return to Ephesus from Patmos. He builds upon the words of Rev. i. 9. If so, I apprehend, it might not be published before the year 97, or at the soonest, near the end of the year 96.

Basnage placeth the Revelation in the year of Christ 96.

Le Clerc & likewise, who readily admits the genuineness of this book, speaks of it at the same year.

* Ver. 2. Qui testatus est sermonem Dei, et testimonium J. C. et quæ vidit.'] Duplici modo hæc accipi possunt, vel Joannem confessionem veritatis solennem coram tribunali Præfecti Asiæ Romani edidisse, ob quam ipse missus fuerit in exilium; vel ipsum, evangelio a se edito, solenne de Christo, ejusque dictis et gestis edidisse testimonium. Priore sensu Vox μaprupe scriptoribus Græcis posterioris temporis receptissima est, et manifeste etiam sumitur a Paulo, 1 Tim. vi. 13 -Veni igitur ultro in illam sententiam, quæ hæc Joannis verba refert ad Evangelium non prædicatum tantum a Joanne solenniter, sed et scriptis confirmatum.Quæ si sane sit hujus loci interpretatio, certo simul testabitur de illius auctore, Joanne Apostolo, ac proinde de libri hujus divinitate, et summâ auctoritate. Vitring. in Apoc. cap. i. ver. 2.

See before, p. 222–226.

< Eodem ordine septem istæ Asiæ civitates enumerantur, quo ex Patmo insulâ adiri debebant. Wetsten. in Apoc. i. 11. tom. II. p. 750.

Paucis post conscriptas has epistolas annis, exorta est Christianorum persecutio sub Domitiano.- -In insulâ vero