point until every antichristian power is overthrown, and the consummation is reached in the New Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven, and the new heaven and the new earth. Such an exposition will show, for example, a most remarkable coincidence between the first six seals, viewed as premonitions of the great catastrophe, and the signs of this catastrophe as foretold by our Saviour (Matt. xxiv., Luke xxi.). And so striking an instance of Scripture interpreting Scripture ought not perhaps to have been omitted in that cumulative proof involved in the very nature of the question under consideration. No INTERNAL EVIDENCE FAVOURING THE LATER DATE. So clear is the internal evidence in favour of the earlier date of the Apocalypse. And no evidence can be drawn from any part of the book favouring the later date so commonly assigned to it. Some, it is true, have thought they had found internal marks inconsistent with the earlier date in the state of the seven churches in Asia, as inferred from the special epistles addressed to them contained in the Apocalypse. With a considerable degree of certainty, considering the inherent difficulty which belongs to the chronology of the Acts, taking the Claudian decree 2 in A.D. 51 (requiring Jews to leave Rome) as the starting point, we learn that Christianity was first introduced at Ephesus in A. D. 53 or 54, and that near the close of the last named year there had been gathered there, under the labours of Paul, Aquila and Priscilla, and Apollos, a church, “the men," or male members, of which numbered twelve.3 If we suppose that John wrote the Apocalypse somewhere between A.D. 64 and A.D. 68, these churches had been in existence at least some ten or twelve years, a sufficient length of time, considering that most of them no doubt were converts from heathenism, for them to have undergone all the changes to be inferred from these epistles. The church of Smyrna is represented as troubled with false apostles. The church of Pergamos had such as held the doctrine of Balaam. The church of Thyatira had some who suffered the woman Jezebel to teach and seduce the people. And so on. Only the church of Philadelphia had nothing laid to her charge. But we find in the Epistles of the other apostles the churches in general, which were no older, troubled with precisely the same evils. See Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians, passim, and his Second Epistle to Timothy, in which he sorely complains of some who were called Christians, and mentions several who were of the churches of Asia: Demas, Alexander, 1 See Dissertation in Woodhouse's Apocalypse Translated. 2 Acts xviii. 2. 3 Acts xviii., xix. Hermogenes, and Philetus. Peter wrote against those who held the doctrine of Balaam. Jude did the same. Lardner assigns Jude's Epistle to A.D. 64 or 65. But the exhortations of Paul in his Epistle to one of these seven churches, that of Ephesus, to put away from them bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour, evil speaking, malice, and even stealing, as much imply a departure from their first love as the exhortations in the epistle to them in the Apocalypse imply such a departure. And Paul, in writing to Timothy in his First Epistle, beseeches him to abide at Ephesus. And for what purpose? That he might charge some that they teach no other doctrine; and he speaks of some as having swerved from sound doctrine, and turned aside to vain jangling (1 Tim. i. 6). There is nothing in any of the epistles to the seven churches which indicates a more serious charge. Instead of these epistles affording any internal evidence unfavourable to the earlier date claimed for the Apocalypse, it has already been shown that there are features about them wholly inconsistent with referring the book to a date so late as the time of Domitian. MAIN GROUND IN SUPPORT OF THE LATER DATE. With all this clear evidence from the book itself in favour of an early date, it may be asked how it has happened that so many have accepted, or seemed to take for granted, the later date. It has been supposed the external testimony required it. Irenæus, who lived so near the apostolic age, has been interpreted as declaring that the Apocalypse was seen by John near the end of the reign of Domitian. The passage occurs in a chapter of his work against heresies, the object of which is to show that nothing should be affirmed rashly in interpreting the number 666, in the passage Rev. xiii. 18, inasmuch as it may be made to agree with so many names. He has been understood in this connection as recording his opinion that the Revelation was seen near the end of Domitian's reign. The passage is as follows: 'Hμeis oйv oùк aπOKIVỒUVEVOμεν περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ ̓Αντιχρίστου, ἀποφαινόμενοι βεβαιωτικῶς εἰ γὰρ ἔδει ἀναφανδὸν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ κηρύττεσθαι τούνομα αὐτοῦ, δὲ ἐκείνον ἂν εῤῥέθη τοῦ καὶ τὴν ̓Αποκάλυψιν ἑωρακότος· Οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεῖς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομετιανοῦ ἀρχῆς. “ In regard to the name of Antichrist, we do not therefore run the risk of speaking pòsitively; for, if it were necessary at present to proclaim distinctly his name, it would have been done by him who also saw the Apocalypse; for it is not a long time ago [he, or John himself] was seen, but almost in our generation near the end of the reign of Domitian." 1 Written, according to Wieseler, A.D. 61 or 62, Chronol., p. 455. It will be observed that wpán has no nominative expressed. If 'Amoκávis is to be supplied, then it is evident that the testimony of Irenæus is that the Revelation was seen near the end of the reign of Domitian. But if 'Iwávvŋs is taken as the subject, then Irenæus simply says: "For it was not a long time ago he was seen, but almost in our day, near the end of the reign of Domitian." And of course his authority cannot be adduced in support of the later date, as the assertion that John was seen, that is, was alive, near the close of Domitian's reign, does not by any means prove that this book was written at that time. It is admitted that the application of this verb to the man who had seen the vision appears somewhat unusual; and that it is used just above in the active voice, of the vision itself, which makes the transition to the seer somewhat sudden. But in the beginning of the chapter Irenæus, beyond all doubt, applies the same verb to John himself. His words are: Εν πᾶσι τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τούτου κειμένου, καὶ μαρτυρούντων αὐτῶν ἐκείνων τῶν κατ ̓ ὄψιν τὸν Ἰωάννην έωρακότων, κ.τ.λ. “In all the best and oldest manuscripts this number is found, and those themselves seeing John in the face bear testimony," etc.; that is, in favour of the reading 666, in opposition to the other reading 616. Again, the scope of the entire passage is to assign a reason why it was not necessary, at the time Irenæus wrote, for it certainly to be known who was pointed out by the number "Six hundred threescore and six." He argues that if this knowledge had been important at that time it would have been communicated by the writer of the Apocalypse, who lived so near their own time that he might almost be said to be of their generation. There was therefore really no ambiguity to be avoided, requiring him to use the name of John or the personal pronoun as the subject of cwpán, the verb of sight. The scope requires this nominative and no other. There was, moreover, something about John, considering his great age, and the deep interest which the Church had in him as surviving apostle, which makes the verb wpán peculiarly appropriate. To say of one "he was seen," meaning thereby he was alive at a certain time, might seem unusual, whether in Greek or English, as applied to an ordinary man. When we consider, however, how much would be thought of seeing this most aged apostle who had seen the Lord, there is nothing unnatural in the use of such an expression. In fact this verb is applied to him in precisely the same sense in the beginning of the chapter. Wetstein understood John to be the nominative of wpáðŋ. The ancient translator of Irenæus renders it visum est; i.e., Tò Optov the beast was seen; so also Storr. Guericke, in his "Introduction to the |