E in the Apocalypse because it is both epistolary and prophetic. We have already remarked, in our observations upon the linguistic character of the Apocalypse, that its Greek is more Hebraistic, and the construction more irregular than in the other books of the New Testament. Its style differs greatly from that of the Gospel and Epistles of John. On these grounds the apostolic origin of the book has been denied by a number of very able critics. "The difference of language,' says Lücke, "in the Apocalypse and in the other writings of John in the New Testament is so great, of such an individual and mental character, in short, a difference of original genius of language in the similar use of the New Testament Greek, so that even if we could grant that John's stock of words was not foreign to the author of the Apocalypse, nevertheless the identity of its author with that of the Gospel and Epistles, especially of the first Epistle, can in no way be maintained, but the contrary is in the highest degree probable."-Page 680. Again: "If all critical experience and rules in such questions do not deceive us, then it is as firmly established that the evangelist and the author of the Apocalypse are two different Johns, as it is established in a very similar problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the Apostle Paul did not write it."-Page 745. Neander remarks: "We cannot acknowledge the Apocalypse as the work of the apostle," (John,) and after discussing the question, whether it was not written by John the Presbyter of Ephesus, he says: "It is, then, more probable that the author, a disciple of John, by some circumstance unknown to us, having devoted himself to write on a subject which he had received mediately or immediately from the apostle, thought himself justified [!] in introducing John as the speaker.”* On the other hand, Gieseler, who is inferior to neither of these men in learning and critical ability, remarks: "I cannot, however, bring myself to refuse to the Apostle John the authorship of this book. The author designates himself as the apostle; the oldest witnesses declare him to be so. Had the book been forged in his name thirty years before his death, he would certainly have contradicted it, and this contradiction * Hist. of Plant. and Train. Chr. Ch., vol. i, pp. 396, 397. would have reached us through Irenæus from the school of John's disciples. On the contrary, the later contradictions of the apostolic origin proceed from doctrinal prepossessions alone. The internal difference in language and mode of thought between the Apocalypse which John, whose education was essentially Hebrew, and his Christianity Jewish Christian of the Palestinian character, wrote, and the Gospel and epistles which he had composed after an abode of from twenty to thirty years among the Greeks, is a necessary consequence of the different relations in which the.writer was placed, so that the opposite would excite suspicion. There is much at the same time that is cognate, proving continuousness of culture in the same author."* Hengstenberg and Stuart likewise adhere to the apostolic origin of the book. To determine the time of the composition of a work can frequently be done with certainty, but to determine the authorship from the style is frequently impossible. We think, however, that similarity of style is a stronger proof of identity than a difference of style is of diversity of authorship. The same man does not always write in the same style. It is true we expect from the same man a similarity of style when writing on the same or similar subjects. But when the subjects are different, and when many years have intervened between the times of the respective compositions, and when the surroundings of the writer have changed, we would naturally expect a change of style. Between the times of the composition of the Apocalypse and of the Gospel and the Epistles of John, as we have already seen, twenty or thirty years intervened. But this is not all. The Apocalypse is a prophetic book. The visions are of the grandest and of the most terrible character. It is impossible in this ecstatic state not to speak and write in a lofty and symbolic style. The human spirit labors to give utterance to its magnificent conceptions, language is taxed to its utmost, and the mind, excited to the highest degree of tension, spurns the ordinary rules of grammar and seizes upon whatever will express its deep emotions. In this way, perhaps, we may account for the fact that the prophet Ezekiel is careless in his grammatical forms. He had more vis *Church History, page 97. ions than any other prophet, and was more in the ecstatic state. And it must be borne in mind that John wrote in the very midst of his awful visions. Had years elapsed before he wrote them down, the style and language would perhaps have been different. But notwithstanding the difference of style between the Apocalypse and the Gospel and Epistles of John, we shall find upon a close scrutiny of the Apocalypse a great deal that is decidedly Johannean, and which may, after all, render the apostolic origin of the book highly probable from internal evidence. The verb vvκặv,* to conquer, to overcome, occurs in the Apocalypse sixteen times; in the first Epistle of John six times; in the Gospel of John once; in all the rest of the New Testament but four times. This is remarkable. The word duvíov, lamb, occurs twenty-eight times in the Apocalypse; it is found once in John's Gospel, and nowhere else; but the word duvós, lamb, occurs twice in John's Gospel, and twice in all the rest of the New Testament, and one of these is a quotation from the Old Testament which the Ethiopian Eunuch was reading. Maprvpía, testimony, occurs fourteen times in John's Gospel, eight times in his epistles, and nine times in the Apocalypse; in all the rest of the New Testament seven times. The verb dipav, to thirst, is used in a spiritual sense, once in Matthew's Gospel, three times in John's Gospel, and twice in the Apocalypse. In a physical sense, but twice in all the epistles. Compare John vii, 37, "If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink," with Rev. xxii, 17: "And let him that is athirst come and take the water of life freely." There is no other passage in the New Testament like these two.. Compare the following passage, in which the author of the Apocalypse speaks of himself, "Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ," etc., i, 2, with John xxi, 24, where the author also speaks of himself: "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things and wrote these things." "And he was clothed with a garment dipped in blood, and his name is called, The Word of God." Christ is nowhere in the New Testament called the Word of God, except in the writings of John. In Hebrews iv, 12, "For the word of God is quick and powerful," etc., the reference is not * In this examination we use the Greek Concordance of Schmid. to the personal word Christ, but to divine truth in its allsearching power. "Behold I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Rev. iii, 20. With this compare John xiv, 24: "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him." "Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood." Rev. i, 5. There is no passage in the New Testament that so strikingly resembles this as 1 John i, 7: "The blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin." Nor can it be urged with any force against the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse that its tone is not of that mild type which we should expect from the loving John who dwells in the Gospel so much upon the love of Christ, rarely upon his sterner attributes. The occasion of his writing was different. In the Gospel he discusses the profound internal relations existing between Christ and his Father and between Christ and his followers. All the discourses of our Lord that bear upon this subject he gives in their fullness. These were the rays of divine truth that he perfectly reflected, while the other evangelists reflected different rays. When John wrote the Apocalypse it was a time of bitter persecution. The world in its most destructive form was arrayed against Christianity. The sword was drawn against it. To meet this terrible enemy, Christ is represented as a mighty conqueror, before whom every foe is prostrated and the power of the world brought to naught. Nor let it be said that this last description of Christ's character is inconsistent with the first, nor that John in these different circumstances is inconsistent with himself; for souls the most amiable and the most loving are frequently the most severe when once aroused. The divine goodness itself when it has been repeatedly spurned becomes implacable; and our Saviour in the very midst of discourses full of benevolence and goodness declares, “Upon whomsoever this stone [himself] shall fall, it will grind him to powder." Is there anything at variance with John's character in the terrible descriptions of the divine judgments which he gives in the Apocalypse? In the Gospel of John it is said: "The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth: they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." v, 28, 29. But if the addresses to the seven Churches are the real words of Christ, if the visions are not the offspring of John's imagination, then we should expect in the Apocalypse a different presentation of divine truth from what John himself might have given. Very different was the case when he wrote the Gospel; from the multitude of Christ's discourses and acts he could select those that best suited his taste, and fill up what had been left incomplete in Christ's, character by the other evangelists. In the Apocalypse he delivers all the messages to the Churches; he is ordered to write what he sees. But little room is here left for the display of his subjectivity. In conclusion, who but an apostle could have written the sublime book? We cannot suppose that the presbyter John was capable of it. John the apostle, if we are to judge from the Gospel he wrote, was competent to the task. His appreciation and appropriation of the profound discourses of Christ shows his mental power. Minds that make use of symbols and imagery are often incapable of deep and philosophical reflection; but profound intellects can, if they wish, employ bold imagery and striking symbols. ART. V.-THE GREAT ELECTION. THE greatest battle ever fought among men was waged in this country, in the Presidential contest of eighteen hundred and sixty-four. Over millions of square miles the combatants contended. Three thousand miles, from ocean to ocean, the line of battle stretched. Three millions of soldiers were in the field. The gage of battle was equally grand. Not only the life of a nation, but the life of humanity, hung trembling in the balance of the hour. Milton's imagination is of the sublimest order; yet his description of the war in heaven excels not the plain statements of the actual events that have transpired in America to-day. Were he living at this hour and in this land, |