( 35 )

so the Reading I contend for seems very unlikesuch a Note: Because 6no7ri»<rxg therein has a ve-ry uncommon Acceptation, for which ReasonxixpriKxs seems to have stood originally over a-gainst it in the Margin , by way of Explanation :From whence, as Dr. Mills also thinks, it was acLength, by Mistake of Transcribers, taken intothe Text.

And thus I have made it appear, that the Au-thor of the Revelations agrees with St. John theEvangelist, not only in peculiar Sentiments, butalso in Idioms of Language, which, of all internalProofs, argues the strongest for the Genuineness ofBooks. For minute Agreements in Phrase andConjlruBion are seldom attended to by Readers,and therefore, of all other Likenesses, are leastcopied by hnpojlors and Forgers of spurious Pieces.The gross Features are oft taken by Counterfeits ,but the little Proprieties pass unobserved: TheyI are Marks providentially designed for the Distin-j ction of Fruth from Forgery.

I Upon the whole theref ore, the Apocalypse is as-I cribed to St. John the Apostle and Evangelist, onI the same or rather better Grounds, than the ge-| nerality of ancient Writings are to their respectivei Authors. Is it not therefore extreme Partialityi in the Unbelievers to reject the former, and yet| admit the Genuineness of the latter ? But such is! the unreasonable Temper of the Men we have todeal withal. Causes determined fifteen hundred! Years ago are now called to a new Hearing, and1 no Length of Time is sufficient to prescribe in! favour of Canonical Writings. But the Provi-; denes of God , under all these Hardships, has

F z supplied