Apocalypsis A briefe and learned commentarie vpon the reuelation of Saint Iohn the apostle and euangelist, applyed vnto the history of the Catholicke and Christian Church. Written in Latine by M. Francis Iunius Doctor of Diuinitie, and professor in the Vniuersitie of Heidelberge: And translated into English for the benefit of those that vnderstand not the Latine.

¶ I HAVE NOT THOVGHT GOOD TO PVT forth any such thing as yet, vpon the Reuelation, as I haue vpon the former bookes: notwithstanding I liked well to set downe in the meane sea∣son that, that I wrote a fewe yeeres since, concerning the authoritie of this booke. And this is it.

BEcause some men haue of long time doubted of the authoritie of this booke, I will in fewe wordes confute those argumentes, which are commonly brought to thu pur∣pose, and after shewe mine owne opinion, and what I thinke. And I will recite the ar∣guments in such order, as Erasmus hath paynfully and diligently gathered them toge∣ther: whose iudgement seemeth to mee so vncertaine in this point (as it is also in many other) that no man can readily tell what opinion he was of, saue that after much a doe, he seemeth to bende this way, that hee is of opinion, that this booke is of some authori∣tie, though not of so good as the rest of the bookes are which we receiue without any gaine∣saying. Therefore let vs heare what hee sayth. Hierome witnesseth, sayth he, that the Grecians in his time did not receiue the Reuelation. Dorotheus Byshoppe of Tyrus, and a Martyr, in his abbridgement of liues recordeth that John wrote his Gospell in the Ile of Patmos, but maketh no mention of this booke. Athanasius a Grecian in his catalogue doeth not say that this is Johns worke. Dionysius of Alexandria, as Eusebius reporteth his wordes, in the seuenth booke of his Ecclesiasticall historie, thinketh that this booke was written of some other John, who was a godly man. Eusebius him selfe so citeth this booke in diuers places of his historie, that hee doeth not flatly vouch it to be Iohns: but alleageth one Caius that was a good Christian in the fourth booke of his historie, who sayeth it was written of one Cerinthus an heretike. Let this bee the first argument which I answere in this sort. If we weigh the reasons that moued those men to reiect this booke, then wee shall see howe vndeseruedly they did it. Againe as some did reiect it, so did the most part receiue it: in so much that Epiphanius recko∣neth them amongst heretikes that did reiect it: as for Iustine the philosopher, and Irene Byshoppe of Lions which were both martyrs, and did not onely allowe it, but also wrote commentaries vpon it, I will not speake of them. As for that that is alledged of Doro∣theus, it is to no great purpose, for that he is thought to reiect it, because hee spake not of it. As touching Athanasius, Erasmus him selfe witnesseth that it is doubtfull whe∣ther that worke be his or no. Concerning Dionysius wee will weigh by and by what hee sayeth, when wee come to consider of his reasons. As for Catus (what man so euer hee was) hee is easily to be refuted euen by Dionysius his wordes in the third booke of the Ec∣clesiasticall historie. As for Eusebius I make no account of him, for there are none lear∣ned, but finde want of iudgement in him. Nowe let vs come to the other argument. Hierome writeth (sayth he) that certaine very well learned men found great fault and spake sharply against the whole matter of this booke, as though there were nothing in it worthie the grauitie of an Apostle, but onely a common historie of things shadowed with certaine darke figures and hard kinde of speaches. And moreouer that in the ve∣ry sentences them selues there was nothing that becommed the grauitie of an Apostle. Which I answere in this sort: What learned men so euer these were, they are greatly to be blamed, in that they durst be so bolde to speake euill of that booke, which no doubt is very short, if those things be excepted, which are translated worde for worde out of the Prophetes. Basil, Gregorie, Cyril, Epiphanius, Irene, Hippolite, as Aretas wit∣nesseth, were not of this iudgement, which thought not onely as Dionysius of Alexan∣dria did, that some godly man wrote this booke, but also plainely vouched it to be Iohn the Apostle, which no doubt they would neuer haue done, if they had found no resem∣blance

of the grauitie of an Apostle in it. And whether of these shall J count for the better learned? whether these men, which haue giuen recorde both of their singular god∣linesse, and excellent learning by publishing many workes, or those men rather, whose onely names are scarcely heard of: and the reasons they vse, giue sufficient proofe howe learned they were? They say there appeared no grauitie in this writer, and yet he hath taken euery what almost worde for worde out of the Prophets: they say he hath put downe a common historie. But howe can that be, seeing (a fewe things onely ex∣cept) he maketh no relation of things past, but foretelleth things to come? And therefore they doe not onely not speake that, that is trueth, but not so much as any piece or resem∣blance of trueth.

Nowe let vs come to the third argument: Hee is very curious (sayth one) in set∣ting downe his owne name, as though he should indite an obligation, and not write a booke, which is not onely not vsed of any of the Apostles, but is also vnaccustomed of him selfe: for in his Gospel where he entreateth a great deale more modest matters, then these are, he neuer nameth himselfe, but onely pointeth it out by some such markes as these, the disciple whome Jesus loued. And Paul when he is enforced to speake of his Re∣uelations, setteth out the matter vnder an other mans person. And yet this man, while he describeth the secrete conference which he had with Angels, hath neuer done with these kinde of wordes, I Iohn. This reason mooued Dionysius of Alexandria to thinke, that some other man wrote this booke. But what weake, and slender coniectures are these? litle did these good men consider, that it was one thing to write an historie, and an other to set downe a prophecie: for the trueth of an historie hangeth not so much vp∣on the credite of the writer, as vpon other circumstances, but a prophecie: because it foretelleth things to come, standeth vpon the authoritie of him that reueileth it, and his that preacheth it, so that it is of necessitte to giue vs to vnderstande, both from whence that forewarning came, and who reueiled it, and who wrote it. Whereupon we see, that not onely in the beginning of prophecies, but also almost in euery vision, there is nothing so curiously set downe as the Name of God who spake it, and the name of the Prophet who wrote it: Take for example, onely the Prophet Ieremie, who maketh mention of his name, at the least an hundred times. And so was it requisite for him to doe, that hee might not seeme to seeke lurking corners to hide him selfe in as the false prophets did. And what? doe we not finde from the seuenth Chapter of Daniel, that almost in euery verse hee repeateth his owne name, and sayth, I Daniel? And howe oft doeth Esay re∣peate these wordes, Esay the sonne of Amos? But Iohn did not so in his Gospell. J graunt: for he wrote an historie, wherein that befell him, which befell to none other of the disciples: for hee was occasioned to speake many things of himselfe. Nay, Paul also did not so: In deede hee did not so, in any place where he handled not his visions pur∣posely, but whensoeuer hee voucheth the excellencie of his ministerie, howe boldly and howe magnifically doeth hee call himselfe that Paul which was appointed to bee an Apostle, not of men, nor by men, but by Iesus Christ? And howe? when hee repor∣teth those his great combates, doeth hee take vpon him anothers man person? Nay let vs goe further: Iohns name is not to bee found (vnlesse I be deceiued in my reckoning) aboue fiue times in all this worke: and those wordes (I Iohn) but onely thrise, to wit, chap. 1. verse 9. and yet with an explication added to it, which may suffice aboundant∣ly to put away all suspition of pride: and againe, chap. 21. verse 2. and chap. 22. verse 8. in both which places hee reporteth onely simply what he sawe, to the ende, that no man might doubt of the trueth of his prophecie. Therefore, to make an ende of this reason in fewe wordes, that argument which Dionysius maketh, is not onely vaine, but also argueth want of skill, and is in deede very slanderous: nay, I may say more, and say true∣ly (without any malice to any as the Lorde is witnesse) that this was too vnaduisedly

spoken, where hee sayeth, that the Euangelist is as curious in his often repeating of, I Iohn, as if he had bene writing an obligation, and no booke.

Nowe to the fourth Argument: In all the Greeke copies that I haue seene, saith he, it was not intituled the Reuelation of Iohn the Euangelist, but, of Iohn the diuine, which is sufficient to prooue it was Iohn the Euangelist: for all that are learned knowe that he was by excellencie, and by a prerogatiue as it were, called by this name The Diuine, of all the olde writers, because neuer man wrote so plainely and diuinely of the diuinitie of Christ as he did. As for the other Iohn, who I thinke was a counterfaite, was not cal∣led by this excellent name Diuine, but an Elder.

Nowe for the vnlikenes of his stile, and speach, which that Dionysius of Alexan∣dria prooueth by three reasons as Nicephorus recordeth, Eccle. lib. 6. cap. 23. first by the whole course and nature of his wordes, secondly, that whereas the Gospell and Catho∣like Epistle of Iohn, agree in very many pointes, this booke hath not one worke like. Lastly, because Iohn had an excellent gift of speach, but this man is very clownish, bar∣barous, and tripped oft in his language. To the first I answere, that in so diuers a mat∣ter, it is no maruaile, to see so diuers a kinde of stile: for in the historie of the Gospell, and in the Epistles, though he spake as he was mooued by the holy Ghost, yet he spake what his minde led him: and here he is but the writer of such things as hee heard and were deliuered him: In the other he somewhat maketh report of the historie, and some∣time teacheth, but in this he speaketh of things to come, and in such order of wordes as he is appointed: And shall we maruaile then that hee vseth not one selfe same kinde of sentences? Nay, what writer was there euer that was tied so short? are not many things deliuered to him in the very wordes of the olde Prophets, euen in the same that Ezechiel, Daniel, Zacharie, Esai, and other spake withall, by the direction of the selfe same Spirit, which spake the selfe same in them in olde time? And therefore it is no mar∣uaile that he vseth not so refined a kinde of speach, as happely they would desire, seeing he swarueth neither in speache, nor in characters, from the Prophets which wrote in the Hebrewe tongue: and therefore there is lesse cause of suspicion that it shoulde be any counterfeite worke slily crept into the Church.

Nowe remaineth the last Argument, which seemeth to charge him that hee fauou∣reth the heresie of the Chiliastes, whereupon diuers thought that Cerinthus made this booke and fathered it vpon some of the Apostles. But for mine owne part, though I graunt that the Chiliastes haue abused many testimonies out of this booke, yet I can not yeelde to that, and thinke that some heretikes should make it, vnlesse some man he able to shewe mee, that those places can not sitly he taken in any other sense: or els what booke is there, that we may receiue? And that those places are otherwise to be taken, diuers learned men haue shewed long agoe: so that the like hath be fallen this booke as did to the Epistle to the Hebrewes, which some man reiected very obstinately, be∣cause it seemed to make for the Nouatians: where as in deede they ought rather to haue accused their owne ignorance. Moreouer, seeing Cerinthus had many other mad and wicked opinions, as that, hee denied that God made the worlde, and taught that Christ was borne of Marie, and Ioseph, as all other men are borne, and maketh Christ, and Iesus two distinct persons: howe commeth it to passe that hee sprinkled none of this Foule holy water amongst the rest in this booke? But he was so farre from so doing, that contrariwise there may be diuers arguments taken out of this booke against those errours: so that it may appeare by this one reason, that Cerinthus was not the authour of this booke. And againe, where as hee speaketh of the thousand yeeres, hee mentioneth no one iote of those things, which Cerinthus so impudently chattred of. For where is there any mention of that ryote which Ceriathus talketh of? where is that cating? drinking? where are those marriages and pastimes? where are the sacrifices and holy dayes

which should be kept at Hierusalem? Therefore this is a vaine and a foolish argument. And seeing these things are so, though I would not steffely stand in contention forthe au∣thours name, yet I rather iudge it to be Iohn the Apostle, then any other mans: For be∣sides that it appeareth to be very aunctent, and the learnedst and the godliest of the olde Fathers doubt not, but it was Iohns.

These coniectures also leade me to thinke so: for that I finde none of those dayes to whome either prophecies so full of maiestie, or so honourable a name of a diuine, may be ascribed: and moreouer, that it sauoureth of the worthinesse and excellencie of an Apostle, to write to the Churches of Asia, and not to one Church: Lasily, because those thinges which are here spoken of Patmos, agree wholy with that which the olde Fathers haue written with one consent, concerning Johns bantshment. And yet notwithstanding if it may be lawfull to coniecture by the kiude of speach it selfe, I would thinke it to be no mans sooner then Markes, who was also called Iohn: hee is so like not onely in wordes, but also in diuers kindes of speach, to the Gospell of Saint Marke, in so much that these two bookes haue almost one kinde of character. As for the booke it selfe, though I confesse that these mysteries are as yet very darke to me, yet notwithstan∣ding, seeing there appeareth in all partes of it a great maiestie of the spirite of pro∣phecie, and the very steppes and sentences, yea and the wordes of the olde Prphets, see∣ing there are to be found in it manifest and mightie testimonies, both of the Diuini∣ete of Christ, and also of our redemption: And last of all, seeing that part of those things are most manifestly come to passe, which were foretolde by him, as those things which hee spake of the destruction of the Churches of Asia, and of the kingdome of the whore, which sitteth vpon seuen billes, I am perswaded and thinke that the holy Ghosts mea∣ning was to heape vp together, in this most precious booke, all such things, as by the fore∣warning of the olde Prophets remained to be fulfilled after the comming of Christ: and added also a fewe things, as hee thought expedient for vs. I graunt they are very darke, but that is no strange thing in the Prophets writings, as especially in Ezechiels. But this is our fault, because we take not diligent heede to things, but ouerslip those iudge∣ments of Gods prouidence, which dayly are to be seene in his gouerning of the Church, by hauing our hearts too much set vpon our owne priuate affaires. To be short, the Lorde knoweth what, and howe farre it is expedient for vs to knowe, and therefore in times past, he so disposed the light of his Prophets, as for his infinite wisedome he sawe it would bee profitable for his Church. And therefore godly men haue to searche and wade in these mysteries with feare and reuerence, so farre forth, as lawful∣ly and profitably they may: and let all men reuerence the myste∣ries of God, which are comprehended in this booke, whether they knowe them, or knowe them not, rather then as many doe, either mocke at them, or defile them with their fantasticall com∣mentaries.