( 22 )

Such a one is ordinarily and sufficiently distin-guished by his bare Name, and needs no Addition.Thus when we read that Cicero did or spake anyThing, it gives us no confuse Idea. For we pre-sently conceive it to be the Orator of that Name,and neither his Brother Quintus Cicero , nor hisSon Marcus . But when a Person inferior to othersof the same Name is mentioned, common Per-spicuity requires an additional Title to preventMistake*. Since therefore throughout the Apo-calypse, the Person that saw the Visions and com-mitted them to Writing is barely styled John, itis obvious thence to imagine, that none but Johnthe Apostle and Evangelist was meant by thatName. I do not fay that this is Demonstration :But it is such a Proof, as concludes with a goodDegree of Probability; and gives the Apostle aTitle to that Piece, of which nothing can dispos-sess him, but good Evidence from Testimony, orsome internal Argument, that shews an utter In-consistency, in supposing him the Author thereof.But since neither of these can be had ; since ‘Te-stimony is for us, and no mtrinsick Proof against us,we have reason to infer from the indefinite Men-tion of John in the Revelations as Author of thatBook, that it is rightly ascribed to St. John theEvangelist.

Secondly, The Author of the Revelations wasone who had born Record of the Wird of God ,and of the ‘Testimony of Jesus , and of the Thing

* Thus when the Ancients mention another John, Contem-porary with the Apostle but inferior to him and a Prejlyter ofEfhesus, they still distinguish him by the Title of o wjeo-oi 'ts&uor the Elder.

which