A16102:21
Apocalypsis A brief and learned commentary upon the revelation of Saint John the apostle…Apocalypsis A briefe and learned commentarie vpon the reuelation of Saint Iohn the apostle…
Apocalypsis A brief and learned commentary upon the revelation of Saint John the apostle and evangelist, applied unto the history of the Catholic and Christian Church. Written in Latin by M. Francis Junius Doctor of Divinity, and professor in the University of Heidelberg: And translated into English for the benefit of those that understand not the Latin.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.
London: printed by Richard Field for Robert Dexter, 1592
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Because some men have of long time doubted of the authority of this book, I will in few words confute those arguments, which are commonly brought to thu purpose, and after show mine own opinion, and what I think. And I will recite the arguments in such order, as Erasmus hath painfully and diligently gathered them together: whose judgement seemeth to me so uncertain in this point (as it is also in many other) that no man can readily tell what opinion he was of, save that after much a doe, he seemeth to bend this way, that he is of opinion, that this book is of some authority, though not of so good as the rest of the books are which we receive without any gainsaying. Therefore let us hear what he saith. Hierome witnesseth, saith he, that the Grecians in his time did not receive the Revelation. Dorotheus Bishop of Tyre, and a Martyr, in his abridgement of lives recordeth that John wrote his Gospel in the Isle of Patmos, but maketh no mention of this book. Athanasius a Grecian in his catalogue doeth not say that this is Johns work. Dionysius of Alexandria, as Eusebius reporteth his words, in the seventh book of his Ecclesiastical history, thinketh that this book was written of some other John, who was a godly man. Eusebius him self so citeth this book in divers places of his history, that he doeth not flatly vouch it to be Johns: but allegeth one Caius that was a good Christian in the fourth book of his history, who sayeth it was written of one Cerinthus an heretic. Let this be the first argument which I answer in this sort. If we weigh the reasons that moved those men to reject this book, then we shall see how undeservedly they did it. Again as some did reject it, so did the most part receive it: in so much that Epiphanius reckoneth them amongst heretics that did reject it: as for Justine the philosopher, and Irene Bishop of Lions which were both martyrs, and did not only allow it, but also wrote commentaries upon it, I will not speak of them. As for that that is alleged of Dorotheus, it is to no great purpose, for that he is thought to reject it, because he spake not of it. As touching Athanasius, Erasmus him self witnesseth that it is doubtful whether that work be his or no. Concerning Dionysius we will weigh by and by what he sayeth, when we come to consider of his reasons.
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 purpose, and after shewe mine owne opinion, and what I thinke. And I will recite the arguments in such order, as Erasmus hath paynfully and diligently gathered them together: 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 authoritie, though not of so good as the rest of the bookes are which we receiue without any gainesaying. 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 reckoneth 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 Dorotheus, 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 whether 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.