g 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 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 argu