"But in that which he printed in 1534, he used milder and less decisive expressions.
In the preface to this later edition, he divides prophecies into three classes,
the third of which contains visions, without explanations of them; and of
these he says: 'As long as a prophecy remains unexplained and has no determinate
interpretation, it is a hidden silent prophecy, and is destitute of the advantages which
it ought to afford to Christians. This has hitherto happened to the Apocalypse: for
though many have made the attempt, no one to the present day, has brought any
thing certain out of it, but several have made incoherent stuff out of their own brain.
On account of these uncertain interpretations, and hidden senses, we have hitherto
left it to itself, especially since some of the ancient Fathers believed that it was not
written by the apostle, as is related in Lib. III. Hist. Eccles. In this uncertainty we,
for our part, still let it remain: but do not prevent others from taking it to be the work
of St. John the apostle, if they choose. And because I should be glad to see a certain
interpretation of it, I will afford to other and higher spirits occasion to reflect.'
"Still however, he declared he was not convinced that the Apocalypse was canonical, and recommended the interpretation of it to those who were more enlightened than himself. If Luther then, the author of our reformation, thought and acted in this manner, and the divines of the last two centuries still continued, without the charge of heresy, to print Luther's preface to the Apocalypse, in the editions of the German Bible of which they had the superintendence, surely no one of the present age ought to censure a writer for the avowal of similar doubts. Should it be objected that what was excusable in Luther would be inexcusable in a modern divine, since more light has been thrown on the subject than there had been in the sixteenth century, I would ask in what this light consists. If it consists in newly discovered testimonies of the ancients, they are rather unfavorable to the cause; for the canon of the Syrian church, which was not known in Europe when Luther wrote, decides against it. On the other hand, if this light consists in a more clear and determinate explanation of the prophecies contained in the Apocalypse, which later commentators have been able to make out, by the aid of history, I would venture to appeal to a synod of the latest and most zealous interpreters of it, such as Vitringa, Lange, Oporin, Heumann, and Bengel, names which are free from all suspicion; and I have not the least doubt, that at every interpretation which I pronounced unsatisfactory, I should have at least three voices out of the five in my favor. At all events they would never be unanimous against me, in the places where I declared that I was unable to perceive the new light, which is supposed to have been thrown on the subject since the time of Luther.
"I admit that Luther uses too harsh expressions, where he speaks of the epistle of St. James, though in a preface not designed for Christians of every denomination: but his opinion of the Apocalypse is delivered in terms of the utmost diffidence, which are well worthy of imitation. And this is so much the more laudable, as the Apocalypse is a book, which Luther's opposition to the church of Rome must have rendered highly acceptable to him, unless he had thought impartially, and had refused to sacrifice his own doubts to polemical considerations."
To pretend to decide with certainty on a point, which Martin Luther boldly denied, and which John David Michaelis modestly doubted, implies neither superior knowledge of the truth, nor a more holy reverence for it; but rather marks a mere presumptuous self-confidence, and an ignorant bigotry, arising from the prejudices of education. Yet from the deep researches of the latter of these writers, and of other exegetical theologians since, much may be drawn to support the view taken in the text of this Life of John, which is accordant with the common notion of its authorship. The quotation just given, however, is valuable as inculcating the propriety of hesitation and moderation in pronouncing upon results.
The testimony of the Fathers, on the authenticity of the Apocalypse as a work of John, the apostle, may be very briefly alluded to here. The full details of this important evidence may be found by the scholar in J. D. Michaelis's Introd. to the N. T. (Vol. IV. c. xxxiii. § 2.) Hug's do. (Vol. II. § 176.) Lardner's Credibility of Gosp. Hist. (Supp. chap. 22.) Fabricii Bibliotheca Graeca. (Harles's 4to. edit, with Keil's, Kuinoel's, Gurlitt's, and Heyne's notes, vol. IV. pp. 786-795, corresp. vol. III. pp. 146-149, of the first edition.) Lampe, Prolegomena in Joan.
Justin Martyr (A. D. 140,) is the first who mentions this book. He says, "A man among us, named John, one of the apostles of Christ, has, in a revelation which was made to him, prophesied," &c. Melito (A. D. 177.) is quoted by Eusebius and by Jerome, as having written a treatise on the Revelation. He was bishop of Sardis, one of the seven churches, and his testimony would be therefore highly valuable, if it
