The Canonical Authority of the Seven Catholic Epistles, and of the Book of Revelation
Why these epistles received the denomination ol Catholic, various reasons have been assigned: hut none of them are very satisfactory. Some have said that they were so called, because they contained the one Catholic doctrine which was communicated to the Churches, and delivered to the apostles by our Saviour, and which might be read by the universal Church. But surely this furnished no reason for distinctive appellation of those seven epistles, since the same may be said of all the other canonical epistles.
Others allege, that they received this name because they were not addressed to particular Churches or individuals, like the epistles of Paul, but to the Catholic Church. But this statement is not correct; for several of them are addressed to particular persons.
The opinion of Dr. Hammond and Dr. Macknighi is, that this appellation was at first given to the first epistle of Peter and first of John, which were addressed to Christians generally, and were universally received. On which last account they suppcse thai they were originally called Catholic, to distinguish Uieni from such ls wert not universally receved,
«o6 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
oiu, af ei awhile, the other five being iiriiTeisally received also, were included under the sane name.
The first epistle of Peter and the first of John, .appear to have been circulated and known at a very early period. The apostolic fathers, Ignatius, Poly carp and Papias, cite passages from them, without however, indicating the source whence they »vere derived.
Justin Martyr quotes a passage which is no where else found, but in the second epistle of Peter.
Diagnetus has several passages taken from the firsl e])istle of Peter and the first of Join;.
Irenaeus cites from Peter the following: “Whom having not seen ye love,” which he expressly refers to Peter. He also cites the second of Peter, and first and second of John. Several texts are also quoted by this father from the epistle of James, but without mentioning his name.*
Clement of Alexandria quotes the first epistle ot Peter often; the second sometimes; and also the epistle of Jude.
Tertullian often cites the first epistle of John, and in one instance, that of Jude; but has no quotations from the others.
Origen has gi^en a satisfactory testimony to the epistle of Jame, and refers to it in the following manner: “For though it be called faith, if it be without works it is dead, as we read in the epistle ascribed to James.” And in the Latin translation of his works, by Rufin, this epistle is quoted as divine SCRIPTURE, and is referred to “James, the apostle, and brother of our Lord.” This learned father often cites passages from the first of Peter; but not from the second, except in his I^atin works, the originals of which are lost. In his book against Celsus, he says, “as it is said by Peter, Ye as lively stones are built up a spiritual house.” And again, “Peter in his Catl’.olic epistle, says, ’ put to death in the liesh, but q lickened in the spirit.’” His testimony in favour of Jude is also strong. “Jude,” says h
Lrnl. Vol. Ill p. 415
EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANirr. 2S7
“^fOte .-.n epistle of few lines indeed, but fu.l of powerful words and heavenly grace; who, at the beginning, says, *Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, ana brother of James.’”
Cjprian has copious citations from the first epistle of John, and first of Peter; but he maiies no mention of the others.
Eusebius has a peculiar opinion respecting the epistle of James; he admits that il was written by James, a disciple of Christ, but not by the apostle James, yet in another place he cites the words, “Is any among you afflicted, let him pray; is any merry, let him sing psalms; as the sacred apostle says.” But he is not consistent with himself, for where he distributes the books into classes, he places James among the supposititous, or such as were not canoni- 3al. The testimony which he gives in his history is important. “One epistle of Peter, called his first, iss universally received. This the presbyters of ancient times have quoted in their writings, as undoubtedly genuine; but that called his second epistle, we havt been informed, has not been received into the Testament; nevertheless, it, appearing to many to be useful, has been carefully studied with the other Scriptures.”* And in another passage, “That called the first of John, and the first of Peter, are to be esteemed authentic. Of the controverted, yet well known and approved by the most, are, that called the epistle of James, that of Jude, and the second and third of John, whether they were written by the evango.ist or another.”
Athanasius quotes the epistle of James as the work of the apostle of that name; and cites also passages from the first and second of Peter, from the fi’st anc second of John, and also from Jude.
Jerome gives the following full testimony to the epistle of James: “James called the Lord’s brother, surnamed Justus, as some think the son of Joseph by a former wife, but as I think, rather the son of Mary the sister of our Lord’s mother, mentioned by
Lard. Vol. III. c. xix. n. 415.
898 TiVIDENtKS OF CH.UsriANlTY
John in his gospel. Soon after our Lord’s pas&ioi] he was ordained bishop of Jerusalem, and wrote one epistle, which is among the seven Catholic epistlp.s; which too Las been said to be published by another in his name, but gradually, in process of time, it has gained authority. This is he of whom Paul writes in his epistle to the Galatians, and who is often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles; and someiimes, in the ‘gospels according to the Hebrews,’ lately translated by me into Greek and I^atin.” Augustine received all the Catholic epistles. He quotes that of James, as the production of the apostle of that name. Both the epistles of Peter are often cited by him; also the three epistles of John; and he quotes Jude, and calls him an apostle.
In the works of Ephrem, the Syrian, who lived and wrote voluminously in the fourth century, there are found express quotations from the epistle of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, and from Jude, as well as abundant citations from first Peter, and first John; so that he received as SCRIPTURE, the whole seven Catholic epistles.
The book of Revelation, for a season, fell into considerable discredit in the ancient Church; principally on account of the support which it seemed to give to the extravagant doctrines of the Millenarians; and it is not found in a number of the ancient catalogues. But another reason why it was permitted to lie in obscurity was, the deeply mysterious nature of its contents; on which account, it was not commonly read in the Churches. And some modern writers have ventured to question its right to a place in the sacred canon. But when its evidence comes to be examined, it is found, that so far as early testimony goes, it is not inferior to that of any other book in •,he New Testament.
Both Hermas and Papias appear to have been acquainted with this book; as the former imitates several of its descriptions, and makes repeated mention of the “book of life,” and of those, whose names are written in it; and the latter seems to have deri
KVIDENCES OK CH tlSTl ANITY. 299
ved iioinc of his opinions fr on. a too literal translation of some things in this book.
But Justin Martyr is the first who makes explicit mention of the Revelation. His words are, “And -i man from among us, by name John, one of the apostles of Christ, in the Revek ion made to him, has prophesied that the believers in our Christ shal! I’ve a thousand years at Jerusalem, and after that snail be the general and indeed eternal resurrection and judgment of all men together.”*
In the epistle of the Church of Lyons and Vienne, in France, which was written before the close of the second century, there is found an evident quotation from this book:” For he was indeed a genuine disciple of Christ, following the Lamb, whithersoever he goethP
Irenaeus expressly quotes the Revelation, and ascribes it to John the apostle. “The visions in this Dook,” he says, “were seen no long time before, at the end of the reign of Domitian.”t And in a passage preserved by Eusebius, he speaks of “the exact and ancient copies of this book, which were confirmed, likewise, by the concurring testimony of those who had seen John.”
Theophilus of Antioch, as we are assured by Eusebius, cited testimonies from the Apocalypse, in his work against Hermogenes. This book is also quoted by Clement of Alexandria. In one passage, he says, “Such a one, though here en earth he be not much honoured with the first seat, shall ‘sit upon the twenty-four thrones,’ judging the people, as John says in the Revelation.”:y: In another place, he cites from it as the work of an apostle. Tertullian also quoted many things from the Apocalypse; and seems to have entertained no doubt of its being the work of the apostle John.
Hippolytus, of the third century, who had great celebrity, both in the eastern and western Church,
* Lard. ^’ol. III. c. xxii. p. 447 t Latd VoJ. III. lf. 449
Ibid. p. 448.
not only received the Revelation as the work of the apostle John, but appears to have written a commentary on the book, as is manifest by the monument of this father, dug up in the city of Rome, in the year 1551. His name, it is true, is effaced from this monument, but it contains a catalogue of all the works as’-’’>pd to him by Eusebius and Jerome, and some not mentioned by them, among which is one of the Gospel of John and the Revelation.’’^
Origen, who was well acquainted with the Revelation, denominates the author, “Evangelist and Apostle,” and on account of the predictions which it contains, “a prophet” also. Origen declared his purpose to write a commentary on this book; but if he carried his purpose into execution, the work has not reached our times, nor is there any mention of it by ecclesiastical writers who came after him.
But Dionysius of Alexandria, one ol the most learned men of the age, has furnished more information respecting the canonical authority of this book than any other person. It is from him we learn the fact referred to above, that it was on account of the use made of this book by the Chiliasts or Millenarians that it fell into partial and temporary discredit. These errorists were numerous in the district of Arsinoe, in Egypt, where Dionysius visited them, and took great pains to reclaim them from their errors, and his efforts were not meffectual, for he had the pleasure of seeing maa7 of them return to the orthodox faith. He info’uis us, that before his time, many rejected this book altogether, and ascribed it to Cerinthus, the heretic. He professes for himself to believe, that the Revelation was an inspired book, and written by a man whose name was John, but a different person from the afostle John. The only reason which he assigns for this peculiar opinion is. the difference of the style from that of the apostle in his other works. In answer to which, the judicious Lardner remarks, that supposing the alleged differ 9nce to exist, it wil not prove that the apostle John is not the writer, because the style of prophecy is altogether different from that of historical narrative, and equally so, from the epistolary style. But this learned and accurate writer denies that there is such a difference of style, as to furnish any solid reason for this objection; and in confirmation of his opinion, he descends to particulars, and shows, that there are some striking points of resemblance between the language of the Apocalypse, and the acknowledged writings of the apostle John.*
Cyprian received the book of Revelation as of canonical authority, as will appear by the following citations from it. “Hear in the Revelation, the voice of thy Lord reproving such men as these: ‘Thou sayest, I am rich and increased in goods, and have need of nothing, and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.’” Again: “Sd in the Holy Scriptures, by which the Lord would have us to be instructed and warned, is the harlot city described.” “That waters signify people, the divine Scriptures show in the Revelation.”!
That Lactantius received this book is evident from all his writings; especially those in which he attempts from its predictions to foretell “the future destinies of the Church.”t Victorinus also, who lived towards the close of the third century, often quotes this book, and ascribes it to John the apostle.§
Thus it appears, that until the beginning of the fourth century, the book of Revelation was universally received as canonical; and only one man expresses any doubt about the apostle John being the author; and he ascribes it to another John, a disciple of our Lord, who also was an inspired man. And although it now fell into some neglect and discredit, yet no man of any authority in the Church, went so far as to reject it altogether. Eusebius, after giving
* Lardner, Vol. I. c. xliii. p. 633.
t Ibid. Vol. II. p. 26, 27.
t Ibid. Vol. II. c. lxiv. p. 292.
§ Ibid. Vol. II p. 290.
a catalogue of the other books, says, “After these, if it be thought fit, may be placed the Revelation, concerning which there are difFerent opinions.”
Athanasius gives the following testimony: “Domitian in the fourteenth year of his reign, raising the second persecution after Nero, John was banished into the isle of Patmos, when he wrote the Revelation which Irenaeus and Justin JMartyr explain.”*
Augustine received the Revelation, and fret[uently quotes it. He also ascribed it to the same John who wrote the gospel and epistles. Jerome translated it into Latin with the other books of the New Testament. The evidence of the canonical authority of this prophetic vision is therefore as strong as that of any book in the New Testament; and the time is coming when the seals which have so long closed up its meaning shall be broken, and the Apocalypse will appear indeed to be a wonderful Revelation of events of the greatest importance, which are now future. The study of this portion of sacred Scripture should not be discouraged; for as the great wheel of Providence revolves, the mystic page will become more and more illuminated, and the events predicted will be so clearly developed, that all who are endued with spiritual understanding will clearly see, by the developments which will take place, that the sealed book is opened, and that the purposes of God towards his Church are in the progress of full and rapid accomplishment; even “the things that are, Rnd the things which shall be hereafter.”!
Lardner, Vol. II. 401. t R«v. i. 19.
KVIDENCES :F CHKISTIANITY. ‘^03