beginning and in the progress of the book.  But for this difference he may have had a good reason, whether we can discover it or not.  The direct command, addressed to him personally, that he should write down his visions and send them to the seven churches of Asia would seem to imply the propriety, if not the necessity, of his connecting his own name with the record of them.  He addressed the churches immediately and authoritatively in the name of the risen and glorified Saviour.  What more natural and proper than that he should inform them directly who he was that had received this heavenly message.

(2.) The doctrinal views of the Apocalypse afford no argument against its apostolic authorship.  The writer, it is true, moves to a great extent in a new and peculiar sphere of truth; but there is nothing in it contradictory to the teachings of John’s gospel and epistles.  On the contrary, the great central truths that relate to Christ’s person and office are in perfect harmony with those teachings.

(3.) The spirit of the Apocalypse is not contradictory to that of the gospel and epistles.  A writer in Alexander’s Kitto says:  “Quiet contemplation has full scope in the evangelist; mildness and love find utterance in affectionate discourse.  But the spirit of the apocalyptist is stern and revengeful, with cutting reproofs, calls to repentance, commands and threatenings.”  The answer to all this is that, just as the human body has bones and muscles as well as fluids and soft tissues, so the mediatorial government of Christ has a stern as well as a mild side; and that the very nature of the visions contained in the apocalypse gives prominence to this side.

(4.) The main objections are based on diversity of style and diction.  Notwithstanding all the true points of resemblance in this respect that have been adduced by various writers, the difference between the Apocalypse, on the one hand, and the gospel and epistles of John, on the other, is very striking.  But here we must take into account, first of all, the great difference in the subject-matter, which naturally brings a corresponding difference of language.  Next, the difference in the mode of divine communication.  The gospel and epistles were written under that constant tranquil illumination of the Holy Spirit which all the apostles enjoyed.  The subject-matter of the Apocalypse was given in direct vision—­much of it, moreover, through the medium of oral address.  To one who believes in the reality of the revelations here recorded it is vain that an opponent urge the difference in style between the first epistle of John and the epistles to the seven churches of Asia; since these latter are expressed in the very words of Christ.  Inseparably connected with the peculiar mode of revelation in the Apocalypse are the peculiar mental state and circumstances in which the apostle wrote.  He composed the