(2) Justin Martyr (circ. A. D. 140) says it was written by “a certain man whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ”. This testimony is within fifty years of the later date assigned to the book, and seventy‐ five years of the earlier one, and is therefore of special importance; and there is no hesitancy in affirming that the author was “one of the apostles of Christ”. (3) According to Eusebius, Melito, Bp. of Sardis (circ. A. D. 170), wrote a lost work on “the Revelation of John”; also two other bishops, Theophilus of Antioch, and Appolonius of Ephesus (both before the close of the second century), cited from it in their writings. (4) In a letter from the churches of Lyons and Vienne (circ. A. D. 177) the Revelation is cited, and is described as “sacred Scripture”. (5) Irenæus (circ. A. D. 180) defends its apostolic authority, and asserts frequently and positively that the Apocalypse was written by “John, a disciple of the Lord”. (6) Clement of Alexandria (circ. A. D. 200) refers to the four and twenty elders with an explanatory clause, “as John says in the Apocalypse”. (7) Tertullian (circ. A. D. 200) cites it frequently, ascribing it to John the Apostle, and attests its recognition in Africa. (8) The Canon of Muratori (circ. 200) includes it without question, and says, “John in the Apocalypse, though he writes to the Seven Churches, yet says to all, &c,” and the context shows that the reference is to the Apostle. (9) Hippolytus (circ. A. D. 210) wrote on “the Gospel and Apocalypse of John”; and he also cites the Apocalypse as a Scripture authority against Caius. After this time its canonicity was regarded as established by the Western Church. (10) Origen (circ. A. D. 250), the pupil of Clement of Alexandria, and the first textual critic of the New Testament, whose knowledge of the opinion and usage in different parts of the church was very wide, knows of no doubts concerning the Apocalypse, but quotes it as the recognized composition of the Apostle and Evangelist. The authority of the Apocalypse was not, however, destined to remain unquestioned, though its apostolic authorship and canonical right were practically unchallenged until toward the end of the second century—and in fact it was generally received by the church until the middle of the third century—but subsequently both of these were questioned, viz:— (1) Marcion, the so‐called “Heretic” (circ. A. D. 150), rejected it in forming his Canon because of its apparently Jewish character, and not because he did not regard it as genuine. This, however, did not represent a church view, and had little influence on opinion outside of his own sect. (2) Dionysius of Alexandria (circ. A. D. 247) argues that it is not by the Apostle, though he does not reject the book. With him the question is mainly one of authorship, and not of canonicity.