As there has been much controversy concerning the authenticity of this book; and as it was rejected by many for a considerable time, and, when generally acknowledged, was received cautiously by the Church; it will be well to examine the testimony by which its authenticity is supported, and the arguments by which its claim to a place in the sacred canon is vindicated. Before, therefore, I produce my own sentiments, I shall beg leave to lay before the reader those of Dr. Lardner, who has treated the subject with much judgment.

“We are now come to the last book of the New Testament, the Revelation; about which there have been different sentiments among Christians; many receiving it as the writing of John the apostle and evangelist, others ascribing it to John a presbyter, others to Cerinthus, and some rejecting it, without knowing to whom it should be ascribed. I shall therefore here rehearse the testimony of ancient Christians, as it arises in several ages.

“It is probable that Hermas read the book of the Revelation, and imitated it; he has many things resembling it. It is referred to by the martyrs at Lyons. There is reason to think it was received by Papias. Justin Martyr, about the year 140, was acquainted with this book, and received it as written by the Apostle John; for, in his dialogue with Trypho, he expressly says: ‘A man from among us, by name John, one of the apostles of Christ, in the revelation made to him, has prophesied that the believers in our Christ shall live a thousand years in Jerusalem; and after that shall be the general, and, in a word, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all together.’ To this passage we suppose Eusebius to refer in his ecclesiastical history, when giving an account of Justin’s works, he observes to this purpose. He also mentions the Revelation of John, expressly calling it the apostle’s. Among the works of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, one of the seven Churches of Asia, about the year 177, Eusebius mentions one entitled, ‘Of the Revelation of John.’ It is very probable that Melito ascribed this book to the apostle of that name, and esteemed it of canonical authority. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul, about A.D. 178, who in his younger days was acquainted with Polycarp, often quotes this book as the Revelation of John, the apostle of the Lord. And in one place he says: ‘It was seen not long ago, but almost in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian.’

“Theophilus was bishop of Antioch about 181. Eusebius, speaking of a work of his against the heresy of Hermogenes, says: ‘He therein made use of testimonies, or quoted passages, from John’s Apocalypse.’ The book of the Revelation is several times quoted by Clement of Alexandria, who flourished about 194; and once in this manner: ‘Such a one, though here on earth he is not honored with the first seat, shall sit upon the four and twenty thrones judging the people, as John says in the Revelation.’ Tertullian, about the year 200, often quotes the Revelation, and supposes it to have been written by St. John, the same who wrote the First Epistle of John, universally received: ‘Again, the Apostle John describes, in the Apocalypse, a sharp two-edged sword coming out of the mouth of God.’ He also says: ‘We have Churches that are the disciples of John. For though Marcion rejects the Revelation, the succession of bishops, traced to the original, will assure us that John is the author:’ by John undoubtedly meaning the apostle.

“From Eusebius we learn that Apollonius, who wrote against the Montanists about 211, quoted the Revelation. By Caius, about 212, it was ascribed to Cerinthus: it was received by Hippolytus about 220, and by Origen about 230. It is often quoted by him. He seems not to have had any doubt about its genuineness. In his Commentary upon St. John’s gospel, he speaks of it in this manner: ‘Therefore John, the son of Zebedee, says in the Revelation.’ Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, about 247, or somewhat later, wrote a book against the Millenarians, in which he allows the Revelation to be written by John, a holy and divinely inspired man. But he says, ‘He cannot easily grant him to be the apostle, the son of Zebedee, whose is the gospel according to John, and the catholic epistle.’ He rather thinks it may be the work of John an elder, who also lived at Ephesus in Asia, as well as the apostle. It also appears, from a conference which Dionysius had with some Millenarians, that the Revelation was, about 240 and before, received by Nepus, an Egyptian bishop, and by many others in that country; and that it was in great reputation. It was received by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, about 248, and by the Church of Rome in his time, and by many Latin authors. The Revelation was received by Novatus and his followers, and by various other authors. It is also probable that it was received by the Manichees. It was received by Lactantius, and by the Donatists; by the latter Arnobius about 460, and by the Arians.

“In the time of Eusebius, in the former part of the fourth century, it was by some not received at all; and therefore it is reckoned by him among contradicted books. Nevertheless, it was generally received. Eusebius himself seems to have hesitated about it, for he says: ‘It is likely the Revelation was seen by John the elder, if not by John the apostle.’ It may be reckoned probable that the critical argument of Dionysius of Alexandria was of great weight with him and others of that time. The Revelation was received by Athanasius, and by Epiphanius; but we also learn from him that it was not received by all in his time. It is not in the catalogue of Cyril of Jerusalem, and seems not to have been received by him. It is also wanting in the catalogue of the Council of Laodicea, about 363.

“The Revelation is not in Gregory Nazianzen’s catalogue; however, it seems to have been received by him. It is in the catalogue of Amphilochius; but he says it was not received by all. It is also omitted in Ebedjesus’ catalogue of the books of Scripture received by the Syrians; nor is it in the ancient Syriac version.

“It was received by Jerome; but he says it was rejected by the Greek Christians. It was received by Rufin, by the third Council of Carthage, and by Augustine, but it was not received by all in his time. It is never quoted by Chrysostom, and probably was not received by him. It is in the catalogue of Dionysius, called the Areopagite, about 490. It is in the Alexandrian MS. It was received by Sulpicius Severus about 401; and by J. Damascenus, and by OEcumenius, and by many other authors. Andrew, bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, at the end of the fifth century, and Arethas, bishop of the same place, in the sixth century, wrote commentaries upon it. But it was not received by Severian, bishop of Gabala; nor, as it seems, by Theodoret. Upon the whole, it appears that this book has been generally received in all ages, though some have doubted of it, and rejected it; particularly the Syrians, and some other Christians in the east.

“Having thus represented the external evidence of the genuineness of the Book of the Revelation, or of its being written by St. John, I should proceed to consider the internal evidence. But I need not enlarge here, but merely take notice of a few things of principal note, which learned men insist upon as arguments that the Revelation has the same author with the gospel and epistles that go under the name of the Evangelist and Apostle John. Revelation 1:1: ‘The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servant things which must shortly come to pass. And he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.’

“Hence it is argued, that John styles himself the servant of Christ, in a sense not common to all believers, but peculiarly to those who are especially employed by him. So Paul and other apostles call themselves servants of God and of Christ. Particularly Romans 1:1: ‘Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ.’ James 1:1: ‘James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.’ 2 Peter 1:1: ‘Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ.’ Jude 1: ‘Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ.’ So Moses is called ‘the servant of God,’ Numbers 12:7; and Hebrews 3:2; and in like manner many of the prophets. And in this very book, Revelation 10:7, is the expression, ‘as he has declared unto his servants, the prophets.’

“This observation may be of some weight for showing that the writer is an apostle, but it is not decisive; and in the same verse, whence this argument is taken, the phrase is used in its general sense: ‘Which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants.’ Revelation 1:2: ‘Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.’

“Some suppose the writer here refers to the written gospel of St. John, and should be understood to say that he had already borne testimony concerning the word of God, and of Jesus Christ. But these words may be understood of this very book, the Revelation, and the things contained in it. The writer says here, very properly at the beginning, and by way of preface, that he had performed his office in this book, having faithfully recorded in it the word of God which he had received from Jesus Christ. Certainly, if these words did clearly refer to a written gospel, they would be decisive; but they are allowed to be ambiguous, and other senses have been given of them. By some they have been understood to contain a declaration that the writer had already borne witness to Jesus Christ before magistrates. Moreover, I think that, if St. John had intended to manifest himself in this introduction, he would more plainly have characterized himself in several parts of this book than he has done. This observation therefore appears to me to be of small moment for determining who the writer is.

“Farther, it is argued, in favor of the genuineness of this book, that there are in it many instances of conformity, both of sentiment and expression, between the Revelation and the uncontested writings of St. John. Our Savior says to his disciples, John 16:33: ‘Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.’ Christian firmness under trials is several times represented by overcoming, overcoming the world, or overcoming the wicked one, in St. John’s First Epistle, 1 John 2:13, 14; 4:4; 5:4, 5. And it is language peculiar to St. John, being in no other books of the New Testament. And our Lord says, Revelation 3:21: ‘To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with the in my throne; even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Compare Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 21:7.

“Concerning the time of writing this book, I need not now say much. It is the general testimony of ancient authors that St. John was banished into Patmos in the time of Domitian, in the latter part of his reign, and restored by his successor Nerva. But the book could not be published till after John’s release and return to Ephesus in Asia. As Domitian died in 96, and his persecution did not commence till near the end of his reign, the Revelation seems to be fitly dated in the year 95 or 96. Mill places the Revelation in the year of Christ 96, and the last year of the Emperor Domitian. At first he supposed that the Revelation was written at Patmos; but afterwards he altered his mind, and thought it was not written till after his return to Ephesus. He builds his opinion upon the words of Revelation

1:9. If so, I apprehend it might not be published before the year 97; or, at the soonest, near the end of 96. Basnage places the Revelation in 96.

Leviticus Clerc, likewise, who readily admits the genuineness of this book, speaks of it in the same year. Mr. Lowman supposes St. John to have had his visions in the Isle of Patmos, in 95; but Mr. Wetstein favors the opinion of those who have argued that the Revelation was written before the Jewish war. He also says that, if the Revelation was written before that war, it is likely that the events of that time should be foretold in it; to which I answer, that though some interpreters have applied some things in this book to those times, I cannot say whether they have done it rightly or not, because I do not understand the Revelation. But, to me, it seems that though this book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, there was no necessity that it should be foretold here; because our blessed Lord had, in his own preaching, frequently spoken very plainly and intelligibly concerning the calamities coming upon the Jewish people in general, and the city and temple of Jerusalem in particular; and his plain predictions and symbolical prefigurations of those events were recorded by no less than three historians and evangelists before the war in Judea broke out.

“Grotius, who places this book in the reign of Claudius, was of opinion that the visions of this book were seen at different times, and afterwards joined together in one book, in the same way as the visions and prophecies of some of the prophets of the Old Testament.

“Concerning this opinion it is not proper for me to dispute: though there appears not any foundation for it in the book itself, as Vitringa has observed. But that the Book of the Revelation in its present form, sent as an epistle to the seven Churches of Asia, Revelation 1:4, was not composed and published before the reign of Domitian, appears to me very probable, from the general and almost universally concurring testimony of the ancients, and from some things in the book itself.

“I shall now transcribe a part of L’Enfant’s and Beausobre’s Preface to the Revelation, at the same time referring to Vitringa, who has many like thoughts:—

“Having quoted Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and various other writers, placing St. John’s banishment at Patmos in the latter part of the reign of Domitian, and saying, that he there saw the Revelation, they say: ‘To these incontestable witnesses it is needless to add a long list of others of all ages, and of the same sentiment, to whom the authority of Epiphanius is by no means comparable.’ And they go on: ‘We must add to so constant a tradition other reasons which farther show that the Revelation was not written till after Claudius and Nero. It appears from the book itself that there had been already Churches for a considerable space of time in Asia; forasmuch as St. John, in the name of Christ, reproves faults that happen not but after a while. The Church of Ephesus had left her first love. That of Sardis had a name to live, but was dead. The Church of Laodicea was fallen into lukewarmness and indifference. But the Church of Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by St. Paul before the last years of Claudius. When in 61 or 62, St. Paul wrote to them from Rome, instead of reproving their want of love, he commends their love and faith, Ephesians 1:15. It appears from the Revelation that the Nicolaitans made a sect when this book was written, since they are expressly named; whereas they were only foretold and described in general terms by St. Peter, in his second epistle, written after the year 60, and in St. Jude, about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Vespasian. It is evident from many places of the Revelation that there had been an open persecution in the provinces; St. John himself had been banished to the Isle of Patmos for the testimony of Jesus. The Church of Ephesus, or its bishops, is commended for their labor and patience, which seems to imply persecution. This is still more clear in the words directed to the Church of Smyrna, Revelation 2:9: I know thy works and tribulation. For the original word always denotes persecution in the scriptures of the New Testament, as it is also explained in the following verse. In the thirteenth verse of the same chapter mention is made of a martyr named Antipas, put to death at Pergamus. Though ancient ecclesiastical history gives us no information concerning this Antipas, it is nevertheless certain that, according to all the rules of language, what is here said must be understood literally. All that has been now observed concerning the persecution, of which mention is made in the first chapters of the Revelation, cannot relate to the time of Claudius, who did not persecute the Christians; nor to the time of Nero, whose persecution did not reach the provinces; and therefore it must relate to Domitian, according to ecclesiastical tradition.’

“The visions therefore here recorded, and the publication of them in this book, must be assigned, as far as I can see, to the years of Christ 95, and 96, or 97.”

The reasoning of Dr. Lardner, relative to the date of this book, is by no means satisfactory to many other critics, who consider it to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem; and in this opinion they are supported by the most respectable testimonies among the ancients, though the contrary was the more general opinion. Epiphanius says, that John was banished to Patmos by Claudius Caesar; this would bring back the date to about A.D. 50. Andreas, (bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, about A.D. 500,) in his comment on this book, chap. vi. 16, says: “John received this Revelation under the reign of Vespasian.” This date also might place it before the final overthrow of the Jewish state; though Vespasian reigned to A.D. 79. The inscription to this book, in the Syrian version, first published by Deuteronomy Dieu, in 1627, and, afterwards in the London Polyglot, is the following: “The Revelation which God made to John the evangelist, in the island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero Caesar.” This places it before the year of our Lord 69, and consequently before the destruction of Jerusalem. Of this opinion are many eminent writers, and among them Hentenius, Harduin, Grotius, Lightfoot, Hammond, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Wetstein, and others.

If the date could be settled, it would be of the utmost consequence to the right interpretation of the book; but, amidst so many conflicting opinions, this is almost hopeless.

Dr. Lardner has given several proofs, from internal evidence, that the Revelation is the work of St. John; as there are found in it the same forms of expression which are found in his gospel and epistles, and which are peculiar to this apostle. Wetstein gives a collection, which the reader may examine at his leisure. E. g. compare:

Revelation 1:1. with John 12:33; 18:37; 21:19. Revelation 1:5. “ 1 John 1:7. Revelation 1:7. “ John 19:37. Revelation 1:9. “ 1 John 5:10. Revelation 2:10. “ John 20:27. Revelation 2:17. “ John 6:32. Revelation 3:4. “ John 6:66. Revelation 3:7, 9. “ John 15:20; 17:8; 1 John 2:5. Revelation 3:9. “ John 11:27. Revelation 3:10. “ John 12:27. Revelation 3:21. “ 1 John 2:13, 14; 4:4; 5:5. Revelation 6:12. “ John 1:29. Revelation 9:5. “ John 18:26; 3:17. Revelation 12:9. “ John 12:31. Revelation 19:13. “ John 1:1. Revelation 21:6. “ John 7:37. Revelation 22:8, 10. “ John 7:51-53; 14:23, 24.

Dr. Lardner has considered several of these, with the addition of other resemblances, in his account of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, in A.D. 247, in the third volume of his works, pages 121-126. This mode of proof, as it applies to most of the above references, is not entirely satisfactory.

Dionysius argues that the style of the Revelation is totally different from that of John in his acknowledged writings; and it seems strange to me that this should be contested by any man of learning. Nothing more simple and unadorned than the narrative of St. John in his GOSPEL; nothing more plain and natural than his EPISTLES; but the REVELATION, on the contrary, is figurative, rhetorical, labored, and elevated to the highest degree. All that can be said here on this subject is, that if the Spirit of God choose to inspire the words and style, as well as the matter, of his communications, he may choose what variety he pleases; and speak at different times, and in divers manners, to the same person. This, however, is not his usual way.

For other matters relative to this subject I must refer to the following preface, and to the writers quoted above.