It was known to Papias, to Melito bishop of Sardis, and to Theophilus of Antioch; is quoted as a part of Scripture by the churches of Vienne and Lyons in the last quarter of the second century; and is expressly ascribed to the apostle John by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, the Muratorian canon, Hippolytus, Origen, Jerome, etc.  The testimonies may be seen in Davidson’s Introduction to the New Test., in Alford, and in the other works already frequently referred to.  Eusebius, after giving a list of the acknowledged books, adds:  “After these should be placed, if it be thought proper, the Revelation of John, concerning which we shall give the opinions at the proper time.”  Then, at the end of a list of the disputed and rejected books he adds:  “And moreover, as I said, the Revelation of John, if it be thought proper, which some, as I said, reject, but others reckon among the acknowledged books” (Hist.  Eccl., 3. 25); and again, after mentioning with approbation the account of those who said that there were at Ephesus two who bore the name of John (John the apostle, and the so-called presbyter John), he adds:  “For it is probable that the second, if any one be not willing to allow that it was the first, saw the Revelation current under the name of John” (Hist.  Eccl., 3. 39).  Those who denied the apostolic authorship of the book generally referred it to this latter, John the presbyter.  So Dionysius of Alexandria and others.  But for this they adduced no historic proof.  Their arguments were drawn wholly from considerations relating to its internal character, especially in the case of some, its supposed millenarian views.  Upon any fair principle of judging, we must concede that the apostolic authorship of this book is sustained by a mass of ancient testimony not rebutted by any contrary testimony which rests on a historic basis.

2.  In modern, as in ancient times, the main arguments against the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse have been drawn from its internal character, especially as contrasted with that of the fourth gospel and the first epistle of John.  On this ground the assaults upon the book have been many and strong, and they have been met with vigorous resistance.  To review the arguments on both sides would exceed our limits.  Many of them, moreover, presuppose a knowledge of the original languages of both the Old and the New Testament.  We can only indicate some considerations of a general nature.

(1.) No valid argument against the apostolic authorship of this book can be drawn from the fact that the writer specifies his name in the introduction and elsewhere.  Chaps. 1:1, 4, 9; 21:2; 22:8.  It may surprise us that the man who studiously avoids mentioning his name in the fourth gospel, and who describes himself in his second and third epistles as “the elder,” should here directly introduce his name at the