Dr. Davidson says that one hundred of the later, cursive, MSS. contain it. Among these the more interesting is the Codex Leicestrensis, so called from the town, Leicester, to the council of which it belongs, which was written probably about the fourteenth century. In this codex, however, the Apocalypse is defective, extending only to the middle of ch. xix. Another is the codex known as No. 38 of the Apocalypse (Cod. Vat. 579), which is of "peculiar merit for the close adherence to ancient authorities which it displays," and which was written about the thirteenth century, and in which the Apocalypse is complete. The third is the Codex Montfortianus, so called from Dr. Montfort, one of its more recent possessors, in which the Apocalypse is evidently copied from Cod. Leicestrensis, and the chief value of which, consequently, is the supplying of the portions which are deficient in the original from which it was transcribed. This codex exhibits the work of three, or perhaps even more, copyists, and the date assigned to the copy of the Apocalypse is about the sixteenth century.

Passing to the Versions in which the Apocalypse is found, Dr. Tregelles says "there exists no MS. simply containing the old Latin (Ante-Hieronymian) version: the citations of Primasius in a great measure supply the want of such a copy, as they comprise the greater part of that book." The Primasius here referred to is he of A drumentum, who flourished in the sixth century, and who wrote, among other works, a "Mystical exposition of the Apocalypse," based, as it would appear, on the old Latin version, rather than on that which had been prepared by Jerome, which last named had to encounter long-continued and bitter jealousy and violent opposition. It was not until the end of the sixth century, nearly two hundred years after Jerome's valuable recension was made, that his version, the Vulgate, had thoroughly established itself in the West. As might be expected, the Apocalypse is found in many of the older MSS. of the Latin Vulgate. Neither the Apocalypse, the Catholic Epistles, nor the history of the woman taken in adultery, John viii. 1-11, is found in the Peshito, the early Syriac version. It is questionable whether the Apocalypse was contained in the Philoxenian Syriac, written about 508 A.D., or whether it was embodied in the recension of this version made by Thomas of Harkel, a century later. The earliest Syriac version of the Apocalypse now known is a copy made by " Caspar from the land of the Indians," about 1580 A.D., and which, it is supposed by Dr. Davidson and some others, may probably have been copied from the recension of Thomas

of Harkel. On this point, however, Alder, Tregelles, and others assert the negative. All that can here be said is that the ablest crities are not agreed. They all concur in ascribing to this version very little critical value. No fragments of either of the three Egyptian versions containing the Apocalypse have come down to us. The same must be said as to the Gothic version, and also as to the early Armenian, that made in the middle of the seventeenth century being, of course, a mere echo of the Latin. The early Æthiopic version, in the dialect of Axum, is equally barren for the critical student of the Apocalypse. The Arabic versions are too modern to afford any valuable help. My object in mentioning these facts is to show that very great importance, in a critical point of view, must attach to the two ancient codices which are cited below.

The absence of many ancient documents containing this book may prevent critics from disputing the text, but it need not at all affect our conviction that the book rightly forms a portion of the inspired Word of God. Even on the ground of external evidence alone the proof is sufficient to satisfy any thoughtful mind. As Sir Isaac Newton remarked, there is no other book of the New Testament so strongly attested, or commented on so early. The attacks made upon it in the fourth century, and in later times by Michaelis and Dr. Less on critical grounds, have been quite unable to shake the reverence with which it is properly regarded. Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito, Irenæus, Theophilus of Antioch, Appollonius, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, in the second century either quote, refer to, comment upon, or speak of this book as undoubtedly inspired. The churches of Sardis, Smyrna, Laodicea, and Ephesus, four of the seven churches therein referred to, certainly held the book to be a portion of the Word of God; for it is interesting to notice that this evidence of the second century is intimately connected with these four churches,-Papias being bishop of Hierapolis, near Laodicea; Justin Martyr cites the book in his disputation with Trypho held at Ephesus (A.D. 140), Melito was bishop of Sardis (A.D. 177), and he wrote a commentary on the book, and Irenæus, the bishop of Lyons in Gaul (A.D. 178) was personally acquainted with Polycarp, the discipline of John, and bishop of Smyrna, and he repeatedly quotes this book as "the Revelation of John, the disciple of the Lord."

In the third century, Origen, Hippolytus, the disciple of Irenæus, Cyprian and the African churches, the presbyters of the Western Church, a string of Latin authors cited by Dr. Lardner, the Novatians, an

anonymous writer against the Novatians, Commodian, Victorinus, the writer of a poem against the Marcionites, Methodius, the Manicheans, the later Arnobius, the Donatists, Lactantius, and the Arians all accepted the book as a part of the Scriptures. Some quoted, some commented on, all received it. In the fourth century, Jerome and the Fathers of the Western Churches universally accepted it: it is supported, says Dr. Woodhouse, by testimonies from Athanasius, Basil, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzen, all eminent Fathers of the Greek Church, among which there were, however, a few who rejected "the authority of the ancients," and denied or questioned the canonicity of the book. “The Apocalypse," says Bishop Tomline, "is omitted in the catalogues of canonical books formed by Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (A.D. 340), and by the council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), and in one or two other early catalogues of the Scriptures; but this omission was probably owing, not to any suspicion concerning its authenticity or genuineness, but because its obscurity and mysteriousness were thought to render it less fit to be read publicly and generally.” Dr. Horne and Tregelles, however, find another, and perhaps more probable, reason, viz., the discussions which sprang up in Egypt in the end of the third century relative to the Millennium, &c., which were grounded on this book; "which notions the opponents injudiciously and presumptuously endeavoured to discredit, by denying the authority of the book itself." In any case, the doubts of a few in the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth centuries can in no wise outbalance the mass of evidence furnished by the previous centuries of its acceptance.

To the external evidence in favour of the authority of the Apocalypse may justly be added the name of Swedenborg, in the eighteenth century, who, from different, and indeed higher grounds than any of the Fathers, has set to his seal on the book, as containing a serial and orderly spiritual sense, capable of being interpreted by the Science of Correspondences, and thus as being inspired. The testimony of Swedenborg adds an interesting and a most important confirmation to the weight of external evidence, which, however, I must regard as amply sufficient, even without it, to justify belief.

In the list which follows I only cite the "various reading" with the authority, as in the list on the Gospels, leaving the reader to refer to the Authorized Version, and also to compare with E. S. as he renders each passage in A.E., and A.R.

THE APOCALYPSE.