laiM&mi W'^- >^n.v . % ;'^-. ^;^= hkl -^ i4 '^ mi' " \^^ J^''^^"'! Y ':^,' $»■ — ^$ .._. LIBRARY OF THK UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. Received _ . Septenxher^ i88 6. Accessions No. :^ % ^ ^^ Shelf No. 4) 4^ C8* ^O Digitized* by the Internet Arciiive in 2007 witii funding from l\4icrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.ofg/details/dissertationsintOOtillrich DISSERTATIONS INTRODUCTORY TO THE STUDY AND RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF THE LANGUAGE, STRUCTURE, AND CONTENTS THE APOCALYPSE, Knowlege shall be. increased. Daniel. LONDON : PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR, BY A. J. VALPY, RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET ; AND SOLD BY LONGMA^f , HURST, REES, ORME, AND BROWN ; HARDING, MAYOR, AND LEPARD; OGLE AND DUNCAN ; SHERWOOD AND JONES; T. AND G. UNDERWOOD; • T. boys; and H. FISHER. 1823. 1^ 6' ■z.&^:z.^f~ CONTENTS. DISSERTATION THE FIRST. Page. On the Opinions delivered hy Ecclesiastical Writers, respecting the Date of the Apocalypse 1 § 1. Of traditionary Testimony respecting the Date of the Apocalypse . . .6 § 2. Of the Arguments for a late Date, founded on the supposed State of the Asiatic Churches, when the Apocalypse was written . .15 § 3. Other Arguments, which have been adduced for and against a late Date to the Apocalypse, considered . . . . 37 Conclusion . . .43 DISSERTATION THE SECOND. On the Evidence furnished hy the Epistles in the New Testament, respecting the time when the Apo- calypse was written . . .48 § 1 . Of Allusions to the Apocalypse found in the Epis- tle to the Hebrews . . .50 § 2. Of Allusions to the Apocalypse found in the Epistles of Peter . . . 59 § 3. Of Evidence furnished by Paul's Epistle to Ti- mothy, respecting the Date of the Apocalypse 73 § 4. Of Allusions to the Apocalypse found in the Epis- tle to the Ephesians . , , 7S §5. Of Allusions to the Apocalypse found in the Epistle to the Philippians . • . 82 § 6. Of Evidence respecting the Date of the Apoca- lypse furnished by the Epistle to the Colos- sians » . . . 88 iv CONTENTS. Page. § 7. Of Evidence furnished by the Epistle to the Romans . . . . 94 § 8. Of Evidence furnished by the Epistles to the Corinthians . . . . 99 § 9. The Apocalypse quoted in the Epistle of James 1 04 § 10. Does the Epistle to the Galatians furnish any Evidence of its being of a later Date than the Apocalypse 1 . . . .105 §11. Of Evidence furnished by the Epistles to the Thessalonians . . . .110 § 12. Of Evidence furnished by the Epistles of John, as to the priority of the Apocalypse . 122 § 13. Respecting the Epistles to Titus and Philemon, and the Epistle of Jude . • 125 § 14. Of the Sealed Book which has been opened by the Apocalypse . . .126 Conclusion . . . 138 DISSERTATION THE THIRD. On the Language and Structure of the Apocalypse. § 1. Of the Verbal Language . . .141 § 2. Of Symbolical or Hieroglyphical Language . 160 § 3. Of the Structure of the Apocalypse. . .172 Conclusion . . . . 187 DISSERTATION THE FOURTH. On various Names by which the Creator of the Universe is designated in the ScriptureSy and the proper mode of translating them . . .190 § 1 . Of certain Attributive Nouns employed in the Old Testament to designate the Deity . . I91 § 2. Of the Attributives or Epithets, b^ij [JSZ], ^h^^ or r^'b^ [Eloah], and DN'l^K [Elohim], com- monly rendered "God** in the English Trans- lations of the Hebrew Scriptures . .195 CONTENTS. V Page. § 3. Of the manner in which the word D^»7^H [Elo- him] should be rendered in translating the Old Testament . . .218 Conclusion . . . U2S DISSERTATION THE FIFTH. On the Hebrew name Jehovah [H^rP] and the Greek ex- pression KYPI02 6 OEOI [Kyrios /AcTheos], commonly rendered ** the LoRD God" , 228 Conclusion . . 246 DISSERTATION THE SIXTH. On certain Combinations of 6QE6l[THE0MyiiV0TE^T] and KYPI02 [Lord] with other nouns of per- sonal description, which are found in the Epis- tles in the New Testament , . . .251 Conclusion . . .301 DISSERTATION THE SEVENTH. On certain Combinations of Nouns of personal descrip' tion, which are found in the Apocalypse . 304 § 1. Of Definitions and Explanations of Terms, furnished by the Writer of the Apocalypse . . 306 §2. Of the Junction of Attributive Nouns with Sym- bolical Terms, and particularly with to apviov. The Lamb . ... 312 § 3. Of the Lamb in the midst of the Throne .317 § 4. Of the Throne, the /CaMeiwewos, or Sitting One, — and the Book concerning the Right Hand of the Kathlmenos . . .323 § 5. Of the Scene of the Vision . . . 338 § 6. Particulars respecting the Kathemenos, or Sitting One .... 354 ^ 7. Of the manner in which certain passages, where common Attributive Nouns are found joined to the Symbolical name " The Lamb," should be rendered in English, that they may exhibit the true sense of the Greek Text . . 36o Conclusi©n . . . 374 Abbreviations sometimes used in the following Pages. G. V. Common Version of the Scriptures. Gr. Greek. Heb. Hebrew, MS. Manuscript. MSS. Manuscripts. V. Verse. V. also verse : but when preceded by Ch. or the name of one of the books of Scripture then it means Chapter fifth. ERRATA. Page 3 line 5, read Nicolaitans. 39 — 3, /or V. 17. read Ch. iii. 17. 89 — 4, for V. 13. read verse 13. 91 __ 13, /or V. 15. read Ch. i. 15. 103 — 13, read Revelation, 118 — 5, read Newcome. 127 — 6, read Revelation. — — 13, read Thessalonica. 179 — 3, h^ore Revelation insert the. 245 — 12, erase the turned commas at the beginning of the line, 247 — 14, insert a ] after [Mat. xix. 17. ADVERTISEMENT. About forty years have elapsed since the attention of the Author of these Dissertations was first turned to the Reve- lation ; and the contents of that wonderful book have, ever since, much occupied his thoughts. For some years, like many other persons, he received implicitly, the dicta of those critics who charge the original with solecisms ; but, in his endeavors to gain from translations, and from authors who had written on the subject, some knowlege of the meaning of the prophecy, he found it necessary, occasionally, to have recourse to the original, and, after some time, with such a result, in one or two instances, as led him to question the propriety of submitting, without a rigid enquiry, to the de- cision of those who impute grammatical improprieties to the amanuensis of the Apocalypse. That the book might con- tain some Hebrew idioms, and also peculiar modes of con- struction, appeared to him not improbable ; but the more he considered the subject the more reasonable, at length, it ap- peared to him, to believe it possible that critics might be mistaken, than that a work, written by an Apostle, — by one endowed with the gift of tongues, and writing under Divine inspiration^ — should abound in anomalies. Vin ADVERTISEMENT. Persuaded that he has discovered the nature of those pe- culiarities in the composition of the Apocalypse, which have perplexed men of incomparably higher attainments, and have led to the erroneous opinion, so generally entertained, res- pecting its style, he thinks that he but performs a duty to his fellow christians in giving publicity to that discovery ; and the more so as, from the precarious state of his health, it is very probable that he may not live to finish a larger work, — devoted to the elucidation of the Apocalypse — with which he has been many years occupied : — but whether that work shall ever see the light or not, it is hoped that the other topics, connected with the subject, introduced into this volume, may also prove serviceable to persons engaged in the same pursuit. Wherever the author has felt himself obhged, in the sub- joined pages, to express his dissent from the opinions of previous writers, he hopes that he will be found not to have treated any one with personal disrespect. Should his lan- guage, in any instance, exhibit such a semblance, he begs to disavow the intention ; for he can truly affirm, that he is grateful to every laborer who has preceded him in these in- quiries. Differing, as he does, from received opinions, respecting the style of the Apocalypse, the author is aware that he exposes himself to criticism : but if dispensed with candour it shall be an excellent oil which shall not bt^ak his head ; for none will rejoice more than himself in the correction of any error into which he may have fallen ; that truth, from whatever quarter it may come, may alone have that influ- ence, which the interests of literature, of religion, and of society so uuiversally deserve, and so imperiously demand. DISSERTATION THE FIRST. ON THE OPINIONS DELIVERED BY ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS RESPECTING THE DATE OF THE APO- CALYPSE. JL o ascertain the true date of the Apocalypse is, as will be shown hereafter, a subject of much greater importance than at first view most peo- ple may imagine. Critics are by no means agreed as to the time when it was written : in- deed they differ so widely, that some make it one of the earliest, while others make it the last published book of the New Testament. Gro-_ tins and Sir Isaac Newton ascribe it to tjie / reign of Claudius or of Nero. Mill, Lardner, Bengelius, Woodhouse and some other able critics contend that it was written in the reign of Domitian, A. D. 96 or 97. Michaelis believes A 2 On the Date of the Apocalypse. that it was written in the reign of Claudius,' who died A. D. 54. and appeals to Sir Isaac Newton, " that prodigy of learning," whose ar- guments in favor of an early date he considers as generally unexceptionable, (excepting those drawn from allusions to the Revelation, alleged to be found in the first Epistle of Peter, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews.) " I have so high " an opinion (says he) of the divine under- " standing of Newton, that I cannot flatter my- " self with having discovered a proof in his " positions which was undiscovered by him. " It is therefore with some diffidence that I lay ** before my readers some additional arguments " for his opinion, that the Revelation was writ- " ten so early as in the time of Claudius or "Nero." His additional arguments are: — 1. That when the Apocalypse was written, the governors of the church were still called Angels, a name nowhere else applied to them in the New Testament or in the writings of the primi- tive fathers. In the Epistles they are called Bishops [sTrla-KOTroil' " Is it probable (says he) " that John would choose to be singular in ** calling those Angels [ayysXo/], who had, by " custom, obtained a different title ? May we ' Introductory Lectures 1761. 4to. p. 389. But in his 4th Edition (Marsh's Translation 1793. 8vo. Vol. 4.) he seems to hesitate, whether to ascribe it to the reign of Claudius or that of his successor Nero. On the Date of the Apocalypse. 3 **not then conclude, that his Revelation was ** written before the title of Bishops was in " use ?"' — 2. That the Revelation mentions no heresy as flourishing at that time, except only the sect of the Nicolastans : " this sect ex- ** isted long before Cerinthus, and as John wrote ** his Epistle and his Gospel against Cerinthus, " between the years 65 and 68, the Revelation ** must have been written considerably earlier." His third argument he rests on what is said respecting Christ coming quickly ^ (ch. xxii, 20) which he considers as not having reference to the second coming of Christ to the general Judgment, but to the judgment impending over Jerusalem : alleging that John so uses the phrase in his Gospel (ch. xxi, 22); that therefore, it seems probable, the same sense was intended in the Revelation ; and that, ** consequently, ^* the Revelation must have been written before " the destruction of Jerusalem." — Of all the ar- guments adduced by Newton, none appears more cogent to Michaelis than that which is drawn from the Hebrew style of the Revelation; from which the former concludes, that John ' Michaelis is mistaken in his belief, that the term Angel ir> applied to the Presbyters in the Apocalypse only. It is^ Presby tejcSr and not spiritual beings, who gjce. alluded to % ^.^ ^,1^^ tliaFterjn in the Epistle to the Cplossians ii. 18. He is right, hdwever7in his general conclusion. The title of Bishop had come into general use long before the year ^6. 4 On the Date of the u^pocalj/pse, must have written the book shortly after he left Palestine, because his style, in a later part of his life, was pure and fluent Greek. Bishop Newton also thinks it more probable that John was banished to Patmos in the time of Nero, than in that of Domitian. Like Mi- chaelis he rests his opinion chiefly on the evi- dence adduced by the great Newton, to whom he refers both in his text and notes. The style appears to him an unanswerable argument that the book was written soon after John had come out of Judea. He not only (contrary to the opinion of Michaelis on this point) considers the allusions to the Revelation in the Epistles of Peter, and in Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, to which Sir Isaac had referred, as being correct, but answers a possible objection, * that St. John * might borrow from St. Peter and St. Paul, as ' well as St. Peter and St. Paul from St. John:' — "If you will consider (says he) and compare " the passages together, you will find sufficient " reason to be convinced that St. Peter's and " St. Paul's are the copies, and St. John's the " original." Lardner, on the contrary, opposes the argu- ments drawn by Sir Isaac Newton from the bearing of ancient testimony ; and, taking it for granted that John had been banished, concludes, that he and other exiles did not return from On the Date of the Apocalypse, 5 their banishment until after the death of Domi- ^ tian, (who died in 96); which is the opinion of i Basnage, and hkewise of Cellarius and others ; / and that the Revelation was written in the year \ 95, 96, or 97. From the best examination that I have been able to give to this question, I have arrived at a different conclusion from those who contend for a late date for the Apocalypse. I think with Grotius,and with Michaelis, (if that continued to be his opinion,) that it was written in the time of Claudius ; — -or, at all events, not later than the reign of Nero, as maintained by Sir Isaac New- ton, Bishop Newton, and others. Before submitting to the reader the evidence on which 1 have come to this conclusion, I shall state briefly the substance of Ecclesiastical tra- dition, respecting the time at w^hich the Apo- calypse was written ; — and, secondly, the argu- ments which have been drawn from the sup- posed state of the Asiatic churches, w^ith a view to the settlement of this question. On the Date of the Jpocalypae. [Dissert. 1 § 1. Of traditionary Testimony respecting the Date of the Apocalypse. f The opinion that the Apocalypse was written j in the time of Domitian, was introduced by Ire^^^ / naeus ; and, indeed, independent of the fact, that such is his testimony, all the other argu- ments that have been offered, for so late a date, may be considered as mere assumptions, resting on no conclusive evidence. Against the correct- ness of Irenaeus it is alleged, that he postponed the dates of some other books, and, therefore, it is not impossible that he might be mistaken respecting the date of this, which he chose to place after them. Sir Isaac Newton thinks that he " might perhaps have heard from his master " Polycarp, that he had received this book from ^* John about the time of Doraitian's death ; or, " indeed, that John might himself at that time " have made a new publication of it, whence " Irenaeus might imagine it was then but newly " written." If, however, there be any error in Irenaeus, it is more likely that his work has suf- fered from the attempts of transcribers to make their copy conform to their own ideas of histori- cal truth, than that there could be any new publication of a work already given to the churches. It has been suggested; and from the Sec. 1 .] On the Date of the Apocalj/pse. 7 facts to be submitted to the reader respecting the early date of the Apocalypse, the idea seems ; to be not void of all probabihty ; '* that as the I ** naaie of Nero, before he was declared Caesar J ** and successor to Claudius, was Domitius, ^ " possibly Irenaeus might have so written it ; / ** and that, by some fatality, this name was ;. ** lengthened to Domitianus — the difference be- " ing only two letters.'" Eusebius follows Irenseus in his Chronicle and Ecclesiastical history, but in his Evangelical De- monstrations he says, "James, the Lord's brother, " was stoned, Peter was crucified at Rome with " his head downward, and Paul was beheaded, " and John banished into an island." That is, as. Sir Isaac understands him, '* he conjoins th " banishment of John into Patmos, with the \ ". deaths of Peter and Paul," which happened in the reign of Nero. To which Lardner answers ;( " he (Eusebius) does not say that all these things ) ** happened in the time of one and the same i, " Emperor — he is only enumerating persons who *' suffered." Sir Isaac remarks that Tertullian also conjoins these events. " True (says Lard- ner), " but he does not say that all happened in " the same reign." — Some, however, may think it not a little remarkable, if not extremely im- ' Bachniair on the Revelation. 8 On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. 1 . probable, that both these writers should, by mere accident, have mentioned the death of Peter and Paul, and John's banishment to- gether, without having any reference whatever to the same period. Other early writers have also followed Ire- nseus; but as they refer to him, or to Eusebius who copied him, they are in fact the same au- thority, and therefore to quote what they say would be encroaching unnecessarily on the time of the reader. Egiphanius twice names the reign of Claudius, .lus that during which the Apocalypse was written. In hi^Jifty-Jirst Heresy he speaks thus : " after "his (John's) return from Patmos, under the Em- peror Claudius ;" and afterwards he says, ^* when John prophesied in the days of the Em- peror Claudius, while he was in the island of " Patmos." Lardner quotes, with approbation, the opinion of Blondel (who alleges that, " as " Epiphanius is singular, he ought not be regard- "ed,") and adds, in two or three pages after, " one would think Sir Isaac Newton had little " reason to mention Epiphanius, when he does **not follow him." But we might with equal justice say, " one would think Lardner had but " little reason to mention either Epiphanius or " Sir Isaac Newton, when he does not follow " either of them :" for Sir Isaac in quoting Epi- Sec. 1.] On the Date of the Apocalypse, 9 phanius is showing that, though many have fol- lowed the opinion of Irenaeus, as expressed in our present copies, the testimony of antiquity, for a date so late as that of Domitian, is not so uniform as some would have it be believed : Nor is the argument drawn from numbers, against the testi- mony of one historian, so conclusive as Lardner and others have imagined ; for if a thousand should report the testimony of Irenaeus, it is still but one testimony, and would only show that they preferred his authority, while Epiphanius followed some other now lost. But in fact Epiphanius is not " singular" in following some other authority than that of Irenaeus. The com- j mentator Arethas, who quotes Irenaeus' opinion, ( does not follow it. In his explanation of the) sixth seal he applies it to the destruction of Je-( ^>/ rusalem ; and he does so expressly on the au-/ thority of preceding interpreters. Lardner's ob-) jection, that " Arethas seems to have been of " opinion that things which had come to pass \ " long before might be represented in the Reve- / "lation," does not apply to the case before us: ^ for Arethas says, and Lardner has himself/ quoted the words, that " The destruction caused \ " by the Romans had not fallen upon the Jews, ! " when the evangelist received these (Apocalyp- / " tic) instructions. Nor was he at Jerusalem, j " but in Ionia, where is Ephesus : for he stayed I 10 On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 1. / ** at Jerusalem no more than fourteen years — ' " And, after the death of our Lord's mother, he " left Judea, and went to Ephesus, as tradition ( " says : where also, as is said, he had the Reve- "lation of future things." These words are quoted by Lardner for the purpose of assailing \ them. " How can we rely (says he) on a writer ** of the sixth century for these particulars ; that "John did not stay at Jerusalem more than " fourteen years, that he left Judea upon the " death of our Lord's mother, and then went to \ " Ephesus : when we can evidently perceive " from the history in the Acts, that in the four- "teenth year after our Lord's ascension, there ** were no Christian converts at Ephesus : and ** that the church at Ephesus was not founded ** by St. Paul till several years afterwards ? What ( ," avails it to refer to such passages as these ?" — What avails it ! To show that there were other traditions besides that derived from Irenaeus, and that some preferred them to his. Nor is the fact that others, before Arethas, believed the Revelation to have been given prior to the de- struction of Jerusalem, set aside or even weak- ened by his running into the same sentence other traditions, which might appear incredible to ^ Lardner, or which might even be false. Arethas was not an original commentator, but exhibited a synopsis of what had been advanced by An- ( Seel.] OntheDateoftheJpocal^se. 11 drew of CaBsarea (who lived about the year 500) ^ and others ; and this very Andrew quotes, in his / commentary, the same appHcation of a passage in the Apocalypse to the destruction of Jerusa- lem, though he rejects it himself. The testimony of Arethas is offered — not as having authority, merely because it is his, but — as evidence, that the opinion which he delivers, was held by other commentators before his time. Michaelis re- marks that " we know of no commentators be- "fore him but Andrew of Caesarea, and Hippo- \ ^ "litus, who lived at the end of the second j " century." This, however, it must be allowed / is no proof that his authority was Hippolitus : \ it might have been one later ; — but, it is also / possible that it might have been one earlier ; for though Michaelis has here overlooked the fact, the Apocalypse was the subject of a treatise written by Melito, Bishop of Sardis, in the early part of the second century, of which no- thing remains but its title, which is preserved in Eusebius.' I stop not to examine the other facts, which Lardner thinks cannot be true ; for, if false, it does not follow that the simple fact, of early commentators having held the opinion, that the Apocalypse was written before the de- struction of Jerusalem, must also be false — any * Hist. Eccles. iv. 26. 12 On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 1. moi-e than it will follow, if it can be proved that Irenaeus is wrong, in ascribing the book to the reign of Domitian, that, therefore, his authority is to be questioned on all other points. — But why, after quoting the words of Arethas, has Lardner repeated them, with amplification? Arethas does not say that, on the death of our Lord's mother John left Judea and then went to Ephesus ; but that, after that event he left Judea and went to Ephesus. It might be some time after. But what has Ephesus to do with the question ? -^^ . ^^^^Pould John by no possibility have visited Pat- 4^/''^4^ mos, "/or the word of God" or to preach the gos- 0. *:iZUt^*^ V^i ^^ ^f'^^r h^ ^^^ taken up his residence at *^*'^y^^|;Ephesus?>^ fT^w /^J^: I mean not, however, to enter into the question, 't^^^^^&t how long John stayed at Jerusalem? for it is pos- £;jJLw i^.<'sible, though that city might for a long time be ir*^^j^^^ his usual place of residence, that, like the other fh^tW^^ Apostles, he sometimes travelled, preaching the ^^^-\ ^^ glad news of salvation. Luke's history is con- j/^^^'J fined chiefly to the travels of Paul, which ac- ^w^ 4«»^ * counts sufficiently for his recording nothing re- J^i^ZT^Vspecting those of John. It is therefore a mere *5^^" assumption, that John could not be in Patmos before the reign of Domitian, and that he was banished to that island. Could it even be proved, that he was actually banished to Pat- mos by that Emperor, this would be no proof Sec. 1.] Oil the Date of the Apocalypse, 13 whatever, that he had not been there before. Nay, more ; he must have been in that island long before, if the evidence, to be submitted hereafter to the reader, be well founded. The title of the Sjriac version of the Apoca- lypse has also been offered as an evidence for a date prior to the reign of Domitian. It runs thus : " The Revelation which was made to John " the Evangelist^ by God, in the island of Patmos, " into which he was banished by Nero the Casarr To this evidence it is objected that the Apoca- lypse was not in the first Syriac Version, which was made very early. This may be true ; but ( it is equally true that Ephrem the Syrian, who / lived about the year 370, several times quotes \ the Apocalypse in his sermons, which yields a strong argument (though not a positive proof^ ^ that a translation must then have been in ex- / istence, and known to the members of the Syriaa congregations. But even had no translation existed prior to the Philoxenian version, which was made in the year 508, the argument remains, that the tradition of the Syrian churches ascribed the Apocalypse to the days of Nero; and the presumption is, that the Greek manuscripts whence they made their version exhibited the above title. I will not detain the reader longer on Eccle- siastical traditions respecting the time at which 14 On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. 1. the Apocalypse was written. (Those who wish for farther information on this subject should consult Lardner, who has collected the whole with great labor ; also Michaelis' Introduction r^IV V ?/' ' to the New Testament.) But it should be con- /stantly recollected, that, however numerous the \ authors are, who ascribe it to the end of Dorci- / tian s reign, the testimony of all of them may be I resolved into that of one individual, whom they I copied, namely Irenaeus ; that another tradition placed the date in the reign of Nero ; and ano- Ither in that of Claudius : and hence it follows, that the true date, if it can be settled, must be ascertained on some other evidence. That is, their conflicting testimonies must, if possible, be tried by some standard on which reliance may be placed, to ascertain which of them should be received as true. It may be proper, however, to examine another argument against an early date, brought forward by Vitringa, also by Len- fant and Beausobre in their preface to the Reve- lation, and quoted with approbation by Lardner; and this shall be attempted in the next section. I pass unnoticed a fourth tradition, which says that John was banished to Patmos in the reign of Trajan; and a fifth, which places his banishment in that of Hadrian ; as both these necessarily pre-suppose that the Apocalypse was not written by the apostle John — a question Sec. 2.] On the Date of the Apocalypse. 15 which has been so well treated of by Newton, Lardner, Woodhouse, and other British Critics, to say nothing of foreigners, that it does not de- serve another moment's consideration. §2. Of the Arguments for a late J^ate^ founded on the supposed State of the Asiatic Churches when the Apocalypse was written, Micha^Hs^all uding^ tP- tJie„testirn ony of Ept>| ph aniu s, who twice states the Apocalypse to / have been written in the reign of Claudius,/ says : — " To this single testimony of a writer \ " who lived three hundred years later than St-Y " John, two very material objections have been ** made. [He means by Blondel, Lardner, and ** others.] In the first place no traces are to be " discovered of any persecution of the Christians /* in the reign of Claudius : for though he com- " manded the Jews to quit Rome, yet this com- " mand did not affect the Jews who lived out ** of Italy, and still less the Christians." This argument — often advanced by those who contend for a late date to the Apocalypse — as- sumes, as not to be questioned, that John's visit to Patmos was by compulsion, in consequence of persecution ; but he himself does not say so ; he only states that he was there, ha tov Xoyov row flffou, "/or the tvord of God'' — words which, taken \ IQ On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 1 . in their strict and proper sense, do not convey that idea ; and shall we be content, on a ques- tion of this kind, to receive the traditions of men who would have us believe, without giving their authority, that John was cast by order of Nero or of Domitian into a vessel of boiling oil, and came out unhurt ? Michaelis thus states the second objection that had been made [viz. by Vitringa, Lenfant and Beausobre, and Lardner] : " That the seven ** flourishing Christian communities at Ephesus, ** Smyrna, &c. existed so early as the reign of ** Claudius, is an opinion not easy to be recon- " ciled with the history given, in the Acts of the ** Apostles, of the first planting of Christianity " in Asia Minor. Besides it is hardly possible ** that St. John resided at Ephesus, from which " place it is pre-supposed that he was sent into " banishment, so early as the time of Claudius : " for the account given, Acts xix, of St. Paul's " stay and conduct at Ephesus, manifestly im- " plies that no apostle had already founded and " governed a church there. And when St. Paul " left the place, the Ephesians had no Bishop : " for, in an Epistle to Timothy, written for that " purpose, he gave orders to regulate the church " at Ephesus, and to ordain bishops. This ar- " gument (he adds) may perhaps be strengthened " by observing, that the second Apocalyptical Sec. 2.] On the Date of the Apocalypte. 17 " Epistle, ch. ii. 1, is addressed to the angel of ** the church of Ephesus, that is, as is commonly " understood, to the bishop." The objection just stated rests on mere as- sumptions and on false facts. It is j&rst assumed that John was banished to Patmos ; secondly, that he resided at Ephesus before his banishment; thirdly, that he could not have been in Patmos but in consequence of such banishment; fourthly, that there was no bishop (or elder) at Ephesus when Paul left that city; because, fifthly, an epistle was written to Timothy to ordain bishops there. Now it is singular enough, that so many facts should be assumed, without offering proof of the truth of any one of them : no, nor can any one of them be proved. We learn from the 18th chapter of the Acts, that when Paul left Athens he came to Corinth, and found there a certain Jew named Aquila ; and that this was in the reign of Claudius, — a fact which deserves particular notice ; for the decree of Claudius, which commanded all Jews to depart from Rome, and which was the cause of Aquila and his wife Priscilla leaving Italy and proceeding to Corinth (Acts xviii. 1, 2), was issued in the eleventh year of that Emperor's reign, answering to A. D. 51. We also learn from the Acts of the Apostles, that his stay at Corinth was one year and six months in all, (for the account of B ^ib On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 1. the insurrection which dragged^ Paul before Gallio is only episodical,) and that immediately after this he sailed into Syria, with Priscilla and Aquila, and came to Ephesus, where he left them; but not till after he had himself entered into the Synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. Here we are made acquainted with the fact that the Apos- tle Paul himself had been preaching at Ephesus, some time before the events that are recorded in ch. xix. had taken place. How long this was I will not presume to decide positively : but thence he sailed to Cesarea (on his way to Jeru- salem), after which he went down to Antioch, where he spent some time, and afterwards went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in or- der, strengthening the disciples. With these facts staring Michaelis in the face, it is difficult to imagine what could have led him to express himself as he has done in the foregoing quotation, when he says, that " the account given Acts xix. "of Paul's stay and conduct at Ephesus, mani- "festly implies that no Apostle had already "founded and governed a church there; and " that when St. Paul left the place the Ephe- ** sians had no bishop." It is impossible to ac- count for this inaccurate statement, but by as- cribing it to mere inadvertence and haste. Paul's visit to Ephesus, spoken of in Acts xix, was in fact his second visit to that city. When this ^ :r.^^ ¥^ Sec. 2.] On the Date of the Apocalypse. 19 Apostle quitted Ephesus, after his first visit, he had left Aquila and Priscilla there ; who of course did not remain idle, as we see by the care they took to instruct Apoilos. But even had we not been informed that an Apostle had been at Ephesus, — and that Apostle Paul him- self, before the visit mentioned in xix. 1, — the inference of Michaelis would be inadmissible; the presence of an Apostle not being necessary to the founding of a Church of Christ: fop wherever men are congregated in his name» should there be only two or three of them, there is he in the midst of them (Mat. xviii. 20). When Paul came to Ephesus (Acts xix), instead of meeting no Christian converts he found disciples there (v. 1), and congregated together too — that is, they were a Christian church. The male members then amounted to twelve (v. 7) : and they were a '^Jloiaishing Christian community** also, if we may judge from their being thought worthy to receive the miraculous gifts conferred by the Holy Spirit; of which visible manifesta- tion of the divine power they had not even heard till Paul now visited them. When arrived at Ephesus this second time, he continued his visits to the Synagogue for three months, reasoning with the Jews concerning the reign of God ; after which he separated the disciples — that is, organised them as a complete church — and continued at 20 On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. 1. Ephesus two years longer, disputing daily in the school of Tyrannus; so that all they that DWELT IN Asia heard the word of the Lord. Paul himself, then, was the founder of the churches in Asia, as he was of a great number of other Gentile churches, and this too chiefly in the reign of Claudius, Michaelis's statement — and others have stated the same thing — that in his first epistle to Timothy, " he gave orders to him " to regulate the church at Ephesus, and to ordain " bishops,'' is not warranted by any thing in that Epistle. Such an order is indeed stated re- specting Titus, when left in Crete (Tit. i. 5) ; but the reason for Timothy being desired to abide, on some occasion, at Ephesus, is expressly stated to have been, that he might charge them to maintain the doctrine delivered to them by Paul (1 Tim. i. 3), in opposition to the fooleries of the Judaizing teachers ; who began to trou- ble the churches almost as soon as they were established. The instructions given to Timothy (and by means of the Epistle addressed to him, / to all Christian churches^ in all ages), respecting ( the character that ought to be found in persons ) appointed to be bishops, offers no evidence \^ that this was written with an eye to his appoint- ) ing them for the first time at Ephesus. Timothy was in fact an Evangelist, and was often sent by Paul to assist in arranging matters in different ( ( Sec. 2.] On the Date of the Apocalypse, 2 1 churches, as may be seen in the Acts and in the \ Epistles ; and it was necessary that he should , kriozo how to conduct himself among GocCs family A the church of the living God (1 Tim. iii. 15), in / what he was to teach them, respecting the cha- racters that were to be appointed office-bearers / in the churches, as well as in every thing re- specting the common faith. I mean not to con- tend that Paul established a church at Ephesus on the first occasion on which he visited that city (Acts xviii. 19) ; or that the disciples whom he found there, on his second visit, (xix. 1), were in perfect church order ; for I think the contrary is fairly inferable from the history : but I am decidedly of opinion that the notice taken of his ^^ separating the disciples" (v. 9), is a plain inti- mation, that they were then put into an organised state, as a church of Christ. This event took place two years before the riot of the shrine- makers ; which happened just at the time that he had purposed to pass through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem (v. 21). It would be of importance if the precise date could be ascer- tained ; but as this is not indispensably neces- sary to the present inquiry, I shall only briefly notice, that chronologers have, in my opinion, generally allowed too great an interval between the period of Paul's departure from Athens (ch. xviii. 1), and his dep^Lrture from Ephesus to go in- ^ On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. I. to Macedonia (ch. xx. 1). The time that his jour- ney from Athens to Corinth would occupy, could not be long. His whole stay at Corinth was eighteen months (xxviii. 11). The ''good whiky" of V. 18, has been by some considered not merely as subsequent to his appearance before Gallio, as was really the case, but as subsequent to the ''year and six months' of v. 11, which is certainly not the fact. The " insurrection^'' though mentioned after the length of his stay of ** a year and six months,'" happened '' a good while'' before the expiration of that term, which was the whole duration of his stay there : it is particularly noticed in the history, seemingly for the purpose of accounting for the quiet in which the Apostle was allowed to remain so long in that city. The unbelieving Jews here, as in other places, endeavoured to harass him with law proceedings, and carried him before Gallio; who finding that his accusers could lay no moral turpitude or breach of public law to his charge, did not even call on Paul for his defence, but sent them out of court with a reprimand. He would not allow "a question of words and names' to be construed into a civil offence and a breach of the laws. Tn this, though it is com- mon with many, in their ill-judged declama- tions, to cry out against *' profane Gallios," he acted the part of an upright magistrate. Sec. 2.] On the Date of the Apocalypse, 25 Pauls departure from Corinth was in the early part of the year, as is evident from the purpose of his journey being named : he wished by all means to keep the approaching passover at Jerusor lein, V. 21. After being at Jerusalem he went to Antioch, where he spent some time, and then went over Galatia and Phrygia, and having thus passed through the upper coasts, came again to Ephesus (xix. 1). How long he stayed at Antioch after he had gone from Cesarea to Jerusalem and come thence to Antioch, is not stated, nor how long he was in passing through Galatia and Phrygia ; but it seems obvious enough that all this was within a few months, for his journey was not intended to be lengthened, as is plain from his leaving Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus, with a promise that he would return again (v. 21). Having returned accordingly, his whole stay there on this second visit was, as has been noticed, three months (xix. 8.) and two years (v. 9) : nor d id any farther time elapse before his de- parture for Macedonia; for the particulars related respecting the *cagabo7id exorcists, the burning of foolish magical books, and the pretendedly reli- gious uproar of Demetrius and his fellow crafts- men, though related after the duration of Paul's stay, belong to the same period. And, therefore, the whole time intervening between Paul's depar- ture from Athens, and his subsequent departure 24 On the Date of the Apocalj/pse, [Dissert. 1. from Ephesus, could hardly exceed fow years^ if it were even so much. The Bible chronology places Paul's visit to Corinth in A. D. 54, — Macknight, Hales, and some others, with more reason, in the year 51. If to this date we add two of the above four years, this will bring us to the year 53, as that in which the believing Ephe- sians were put into full church order by Paul himself; — so that it is not impossible that, be- fore the death of Claudius, this church might have so failed in love as to deserve the reproof given in Rev. ii. 1. — " What !" an objector may say, ** while Paul himself was residing at Ephe- " sus ? for, if his visit to Corinth was not earlier ** than the year 51, he must have been in that ** city when the Apocalyptic Epistle was sent " to the Ephesians — if sent in the reign of Clau- •* dius." And why should this be impossible ? Did not the conduct of all the churches, very soon after they were established, call for re- proof? — and were they not reproved in the different Epistles of the New Testament, by the Apostles who founded them ? — This naturally leads to the examination of another, and, indeed, what those who employ the argument consider as the principal objection against an early date to the Apocalypse : — ** It appears," say they, *' from the book it- " self, that there had been ah-eady churches for Sec. 2.] On the Date of the Apocalypse. 25 " a considerable time in Asia : for as much as " St. John, in the name of Christ, reproaches " 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 become lukewarm^ In brief, it has been objected that the state of the churches in Asia, in the reign of Nero, was different from that described in the second and third chapter of the Apocalypse ; and, therefore, the Revelation could not have been delivered to John so early as that reign, and still less in that of his predecessor. To this it has been answered, *' What the state of the churches was " in the reign of Nero, can best be decided from " the writings of the Apostles ; for all their " epistles were written during the reigns of Clau- " Dius and Nero The state of the churches " as described in the Revelation is as follows : "The church of Ephesus is commended for " her sufferings for the name of Christ, for her " patience, for her unweariness in tribulation. She " would not bear the wicked, and discovered those ** that xvere false apostles ; she hated the Nico- " laitans, whom the Lord hated also ; but is •• charged with having departed from love and " charity, and is therefore called unto repentance. *• — ^The church of Smyrna was pure, only pes- •* tered with false apostles. — The church of Per- 26 On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. K " gamos [field fast the name of Christ and his faith " but] had such as held the doctrine of Balaam, " seducing the people to eat such things as were " sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication; ** and had also such as adhered to the doctrine of " the Nicolaitans. — The church of Thyatira is " praised [for charity, service, faith, patience, and " good works~],h\\t at the same time there was fault " found with some of the congregation, for sufTer- " ing the woman Jezebel to teach and seduce ** the people to fornication, and to eat things "sacrificed to idols. — The church of Sardis is ** greatly reproved, for having the name of being " Christians while spiritually dead ; [but even ** in her there were afeiv names who had not de- ^^ filed their garments'^. — The church of Phila- " delphia was pure, and nothing laid to her " charge. — The church of Laodicea was found " lukewarm. " If we read the Epistles of the Apostles, we " find the churches in general pestered with all " these evils. St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians " about eating those things which were sacrificed to " idols; St. Peter writes against those that held " the doctrine of Balaam, St. Jude did the same. "St. James, greatly incensed against those whose " faith was mere wo7'ds, and their deeds wicked, " means the Nicolaitans, who afterwards took " upon themselves the proud name of Gnostics, Sec. 2.] On the Date of the Apocalypse. 27 ** that is, of wise men. And the false apostles ** made their appearance every where, and were " complained of by all the Apostles. Love and " charity slackened in many churches ; witness " ch. xiii. of the 2d Epist. to the Corinthians^ and "the whole 1^^ Epistle of John The " 2d Epistle of Paul to Timothy, who was ** then bishop of Ephesiis, which was wrote in ** the year 67 is full of complaints against ** wicked Christians; and he mentions the names "of several of them, who were of the churches " of Asia — Demas, Alexander thesmith,HER- " MOGENES, Philetus, and others These " evils were all in the churches when the Apos- " ties wrote their epistles ; and they were all " wrote d uring the reigns of Claudius and Nero. " Who then will say, that the state of the churches "in Asia, in the reign of Nero, was different " from that described in the Revelation ?"' Tlie objection to an early date, founded on the state of tlie churches in Asia at the time when the Apocalypse was written, and which has been met in the manner just quoted j has since been urged by Mr. Wood house (in his Disserta- tion prefixed to * The Apocalypse Translated') as strenuously as if it had never been before pro- posed or answered. As he is the last writer, I '*tiift\tMr ' Bachmair on the Revelation. 28 On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. 1 . believe, who has taken a part in this controversy, his reasoning — for he has produced no new facts — shall be briefly examined. V ** There is (says he) no appearance or proba- ** bility that the seven churches had exist- " ence so early as in the reign of Claudius ; ** much less that they were in that established ** and flourishing state, which is described or " inferred in the Saviour's address to them. For " Claudius died in the year 54, some years be- •* fore the Apostle Paul is supposed, by the ** best critics, to have written his Epistle to the ** Ephesians, and his first to Timothy. But *' from these Epistles we collect, that the church ** of Ephesus was then in an infantine and un- ** settled state. Bishops were then first ap- ** pointed there by St. Paul's order. But at "the time when the Apocalypse was written, " Ephesus, and her sister churches, appear to " have been in a settled, and even flourishing " state ; which could only be the work of time. " There is, in the address of our Lord to them, " a reference to their former conduct. Ephesus " is represented as having forsaken her former ** love, or charity ; Sardis as having acquired a '* name, or reputation, which she had also for- " feited ; Laodicea as become lukewarm, or in- *• different. Now changes of this kind, in a whole " body of Christians, must be gradual, and the Sec. 2.] On the Date of the Apocalypse. SQ " production of many years. Colosse and Hie- ** rapolis were churches of note in St. Paul's " time ; but they are not mentioned in the Apo- ** calypse, although they were situated in the " same region of Proconsular Asia, to which it " was addressed. They were probably become " of less importance. All these changes require ** a lapse of time; and we necessarily infer, that ** such had taken place between the publication " of St. Paul's epistles and of the Apocalypse." (p. 9). " From the time of Claudius to the end of ** Nero's reign, we count only fourteen years. "The date of the First Epistle to Timothy is " placed, by Michaelis, about ten years before ** Nero's death ; by Fabricius, Mill, and ** other able critics, much later. The Epistle to " the Ephesians has certainly a later date. So *' that it may still be doubted whether changes *' which appear to have taken place in the " churches of Lesser Asia, between the date of ** these epistles and that of the Apocalypse, could *' well be brought about in so short a period of " time, as must be allotted to them, if we sup- " pose the Apocalypse to be written in the time of ** Nero. But suppose this argument not to be ** insisted upon, to what will the concession *' amount ? The question in favor of the Apo- ** calypse having been written in Nero's reign> so On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 1, " will gain no internal evidence positively in its ''favorr (p. 13.) Afterwards the same argument is thus repeated : " In the three first [first three] chapters of the " Apocalypse, the churches of Asia are described *' as being in that advanced and flourishing state " of society and discipline reasonably to be ex- ** pected ; and to have undergone those changes *' in their faith and morals, which might have ** taken place in the time intervening between *' the publication of St. Paul's Epistles and the *' concluding years of Domitian." (p. 24.) I will not attempt to discover what may be the precise ideas meant to be conveyed by this author, when he employs the terms, *^ established ** and flourishing state," — '* settled and evenflou- " rishing state," — "infantine and unsettled state," " — churches of note," — "churches of less im- *' portance," — " advanced and flourishing state " of society and discipline," as applied to these churches; because they are relative terms, and he has given us no clew by which to discover the standard to which he refers them. The same re- mark applies, with equal force, to the indefinite way in which he speaks of time. His general in- ference, however, is intelligible; and it will be suf- ficient to show that it cannot be admitted. — His whole argument may be reduced to this — " The " churches of Christ could not, so early as the Sec. 2.] On the Date of the Apocalypse, SI " reign of Nero, depart in any measure from any "of the institutions or doctrines delivered to them " by the Apostles." Why not so early ? Why should it be less possible that the seven churches in Asia, mentioned in the Apocalypse, should fall into errors and evil practices, than for those churches which are reproved in the epistles addressed to them for similar departures from the truth, before the death of Nero ? " Changes ** of this kind, in a whole body of Christians, " must," says Mr. Woodhouse, " be gradual, "and the production oi many years,'' — That is, before the death of Nero a sufficient number of years had not elapsed for such changes ; — yet we see like changes in other churches, in the life-time of Paul, who died before Nero ! May it not be asked too, why Mr. Woodhouse ex- tends our Lord's censures to the " whole body,^* marking the words also in Italics, to give them greater force? Our Lord in fact commends them for many things ; but the change, to suit Mr. Woodhouse's argument, must be one that would require ** many years," and therefore the whole body of the believers in Asia must be ca- lumniated. — " Many years /" How many would this writer think sufficient for the establishment of Christianity in the world ? Few or none of the Apostles, who effected this stupendous work, except John, survived Nero. 9S On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. 1 . " Colosse and Hierapolis," says Mr. Wood- house, *' were churches of note in St. Paul's ;5 " time ; but they are not mentioned in the Apo- " calypse They were probably become of "less importance." Can no other reason be assigned for these Asiatic churches not being mentioned in the Apocalypse ? How could they be named in a book written before they had ex- istence ? There were but seven churches in Asia at the time when the Revelation was given. The words ra7g stttol sxK7ir}(rlaig, raig h t^ ^Aa-la — to the seven chui'ches, to the [churches] in Asia (Rev, i. 4), by the common construction and usage of / the Greek, incUides every church in the district ^ tf t named.' They are enumerated in the 1 1th verse ; ^^^^ and, in the 20th, the seven stars are declared to be tjwL^ayysXoi rwv stttol e>cx7ir}(n(ijv — the Angels of the seven churches. These passages prove that the Apocalypse was written before there was a church at Colosse or at Hierapolis ; for Mr. Woodhouse has not ventured to state that these churches had ceased to exist at the date he as- signs to the Apocalypse. As to these churches having ** probably be- *' come of less importance," Mr. Woodhouse must have been inconsiderate at the moment when he suggested this, as a reason for their not being named in the Apocalypse ; for he cannot surely believe, that the great shepherd and bishop rfe Sec. 2.] On the Date of the Apocaij/ps^, S9 of souls, looks on his churches with the same kind of eye with which the bishops of Anti- christian churches look at theirs — disregarding any of them because of their insignificance ! He acts far otherwise. Wherever there are even so few as two or three congregated in his name, to ob- serve his ordinances, thei^e is he in the midst of them, of however little importance such a congre- gation may be held in the estimation of those worldly churches which some people would per- haps describe as in '* a settled and flourishing state." That the Asiatic churches could not, so early as the reign of Nero, exhibit the character ascribed to them in the Apocalypse, is a mere assump- tion ; for we have seen that other churches were equally censurable, at the time at which the dif- ferent epistles, addressed to them, were written. Let us apply the same mode of enquiry into cha- racter, to the Asiatic churches, by examining the only Apostolic Epistle which we have, addressed, to one of the Apocalyptic churches: I mean that sent to the saints at Ephesus, Paul, in his Epistle to the Ephesians (ch. iii. 17, 19), prays that Christ may dwell in their hearts by faith, that, being rooted and grounded in LOVE, they might knoxv the love of Christ, ivhich excelleth knowlege of any other kind. The 34 On the Date of the Apocali/pse, [Dissert. I. Apostle was ever earnest, in his prayers, that all the churches might increase and abound in love yet more and more ; but in his subsequent ex- hortation he more than insinuates a reason for his particular anxiety, on this point, respecting the Ephesians: — " I the prisoner of the Lord be- " seech you to walk worthy of your callings with all " lowliness and meekness, with LONG SUFFER- " ING, FORBEARING (or bearing with) ONE '* ANOTHER IN LOVE ; earnestly endeavour- ** ing to PRESERVE the unity of the spirit '' IN THE BOND OF VEP^CE—one body and " one spirit' (iv. 1 — 4). Does he not here plainly intimate, that they were now exhibiting a tem- per and conduct very different from that spirit of love by which Christians ought to be charac- terised ? He goes on, in the fourth chapter, to remind them of the design of all Christ's gifts to the church, namely, the edification and per- fecting of the body of Christ, " that we may no " longer be children, tossed like waves, and carried " about by every wind of doctrine, but speaks '^ing the truth in love may grow upiJito Christ " the head This I say therefore and charge '^ you in the Lord, that ye no longer walk as other ^* gentiles loalk, in the vanity of their mind " Put away lying, and speak every man truth to his " neighbour : for we are members one of another. Sec. 2.] On the Date of the Apocalypse, 3S " ARE YE ANGRY ! AND WITHOUT " SIN ?V[iQipossible]. Let not the sun go down " upon your wrath, nor [thus by your anger] give ^^place to the devil Let no corrupt communi-- " cation proceed out of your mouth and grieve ** not THE Holy Spirit of God Let all ** BITTERNESS, and WRATH, and AN- "GER, and CLAMOR, and EVIL SPEAK- "ING be PUT AWAY FROM YOU, and ''all MALICE: and BE YE KIND one to ''another, TENDER-HEARTED, FORGIV- '* ING one another, even as God for Christ's " sake hath forgiven you. Be ye therefore imita- " tors of God as dear children, a?id WALK IN " LOVE as Christ hath loved us, and hath given "himself for us" (iv. v). A departure from their " first love," is plainly inferable from the whole of this exhorta- tion ; nor can we longer doubt, that such a change in the conduct of some of the members of this church, as Mr. Woodhouse, and those whom he follows, maintain could not possibly take place before the reign of Domitian, had actually oc- curred before the date of this Epistle (A. D. 61 ' ** Be ye angry and sin not,'' is vi'orse than nonsense : ^Opyi^eade, Kai /x>) ajxapraveTe ; should be rendered interro- gatively. The second person plural of the present impera- tive and of the present indicative having the same ortho- graphy perhaps contributed to this error. S6 On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 1. according to the best critics); and, so far, their argument for a late date to the Apocalypse is un- founded. That they should have entirely over- looked the strong reproofs of the apostle to this church — reproofs which fix upon it the same character ascribed to it in the Apocalypse — is surprising; and it is still more surprising that Mr. Woodhouse should so strenuously maintain, and expand the argument, in the face of this direct testimony of Paul, that this church had actually turned from her Jirst love, before he wrote this epistle. The reproof to this church, in the Apocalypse, runs thus : ** I have against thee that thy love [ot^aTrrjv], « THY FIRST [love], THOU HAST LEFT" [or for- saken]. Rev. ii. 4. Paul, writing to Timothy, says : — " / besought thee to abide at Ephesus that thou ** mightest charge some that they teach no other " doctrine. Now the end [or design] of this charge " is LOVE [ayarij], out of a pure heart, and of a ** good conscience, and of faith unfeigned ; from "WHICH SOME HAVING SWERVED, "HAVE TURNED ASIDE TO VAIN ''JANGLING." iTim. i. 5. From this it appears not only possible, that the church at Ephesus could depart from her first lovej so early as the time of Nero, but most certain Sec. S.] On the Date of the Apocalypse. S7 that this church had actually then swelled from \ it and turned aside. The whole argument, there- fore, for a late date for the Apocalypse, drawn from the alleged state of the churches when the Revelation was written, falls to the ground ; far \ here we have a church — ^one of the seven Apo* / calyptic churches too — reproved for the very fault laid to her charge in the Apocalypse, and that more than thirty years before the date which % those who ascribe the book to the reign of Do- 5 mitian would give to this prophecy. § 3. Other Arguments^ which have been adduced for and against a late date to the Apocalypse^ con- sidered. Another argument has been suggested for a late date to the Apocalypse, which may be briefly noticed. Laodicea was overthrown by an earth- quake in the year of Rome 813 (A. D. 60), and the persecution under Nero began in the year of Rome 817 (A. D. 64). " It is not probable " (says Lord Hales') that St. John would have ** addressed the Laodiceans as he does at ver. " I7(ch. iii) had their city been ruined about *^Jive years before. This may contribute to sup- ' Sir D. Dalyrniple's Inquiry into the secondary Causes assigned by Gibbon for the Rapid Growth of Christianity, p. 41 . note. 38 On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 1. " port the very ancient tradition, that the Apo- " calypse was published under the persecution " by Domitian." His Lordship seems to have understood the verse referred to, literally ; as meaning temporal riches — an increase of worldly goods ; or why should he have offered in contrast, the ruined state of the city, after being visited by an earthquake ? But assuredly the language is here figurative. The Laodiceans believed themselves rich in spiritual attainments. This is abundantly evident, from the nature of the remedy held out to them for the removal of the delusion under which they were laboring: " Buy " of me, &c. that thou may est be rich — that thy na- " kedness do not appear ; and anoint thine eyes that ** thou mayst see :" that is, " that thou mayst see " thine own wretchedness, poverty and nakedness I — " how much thou hast mistaken thy true charac- "ter!" — His Lordship cannot mean, that there was not time, in five years, to collect a church in the formerly ruined but then renovating city. Could this possibly be his meaning, it might be answered, that, " as there could be no church "in Laodicea from A. D. 60 to A. D. 64, there- " fore the Apocalypse must have been written, not " only before the Neronian persecution, but before " the destruction of that city in the year 60." — And such I take to have been indeed the fact ; though not for the reason just now suggested. |K'- itt; Sec. 3.] On the Date of the Apocalypse, 39 Sir David Dalrymple is, in general, such a close reasoner, that his remark occasions the more surprise : for if we take the passage in v. 1 7 as meaning, literally, the good things of the present life, and therefore allow that, in five years, they could not have acquired riches and wealth to boast of; why pass on to the reign of Domitian, to allow them time to get i^ick and increased in goods ; when, by only going back a few years, we should reach the period in which Laodicea pos- sessed the accumulated wealth of generations, undiminished by the calamity of the earthquake? Of the traditions respecting John one yet re- mains to be noticed, and which by some has been considered as demonstrative that his visit to Patmos — no matter how occasioned — and consequently his publication of the Apocalypse, must have been long prior to the period assumed by those who ascribe the book to the reign of Domitian. Eusebius (lib. iii. c. 23) relates out of Clemens Alexandrinus, that John, " some " time after his return to Ephesus out of the Isle " of Patmos" [notice the statement — '* after his " return from Patmos"] " being requested, visited ) " the countries adjoining, partly to consecrate K " bishops — partly to organise new churches," &c. ^ In this tour he committed a hopeful young man to the care of a certain bishop, who hereupon 40 On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. 1. received him into his house, brought him up, educated, instructed, and at length baptised him. The young man, it is stated, was for a time so diligent and serviceable that his master distin- guished him by some kind of apparel as one of his family. In process of time, however, he be- came remarkably dissolute, perniciously asso- ciating himself with some idle, wicked and vi- cious young men of his own age, who first intro- duced him to bad company, and then induced him to steal and rob in the night. In a word (for it would occupy room unnecessarily to quote the whole passage from Eusebius), he became at length the captain of a gang of thieves and rob- bers who infested a neighbouring mountain and were the terror of all the country: and, saith Chrysostom, " he continued their captain a ** long time." ' John, some time after, coming again to the church, to whose bishop he had committed the care of the young man, enquired after him, and being informed what had happened, called for a horse, and rode immediately to the place where he consorted with his associates : and when, out of reverence to his old master, the young man fled on seeing him, John pursued and overtook the fugitive, reclaimed and restored him to the church, &c. &c. * Chrysost. ad Theodorum lapsum. Sec. 3.] On the Date of the Apocalypse, 41 This is a story of many years ; but between i the death of Domitian and that of John there / ^^ were but two years and a half. In his lat- ^J^^O^ ter years too, John was so very weak and in- 2£*2J^ firm that with difficulty he could be carried to "L^i^.^ i church, where he could hardly speak a few words u^^^ to the people.* The inference seems obvious. y-jL^ 4^^ His return from Patraos, after which the circum- / stances related respecting the young man are stated to have happened, must be referred to some earlier period than the reign of Domitian. For John died near 100 years old, and it seems physically impossible that, in his latter years, he could have mounted a horse and rode briskly after a young robber, even were we to suppose that he survived Domitian for a period long enough to have allowed these events to intervene before his own death. The opmion that the Apocalypse was written ^ very early is, to use the words of Sir Isaac New- ton,* *' confirmed by the many false Apocalypses, ** as those of Peter, Paul, Thomas, Stephen, " Elias and Cerinthus, written in imitation of ** the true one. For as the many false Gospels, ** false Acts, and false Epistles were occasioned *' by true ones ; and the writing many false * Hieroii. in Epist. ad Galat. I. iii. c. 6. *Observ. upon Dan. and Apoc. p. 238. 42 On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 1. ** Apocalypses, and ascribing them to apostles " and prophets, argues that there was a true apos- *' tolic one in great request with the first Chris- ** tians : so this true one may well be supposed ** to have been written early, that there may be ** room in the Apostolic age for the writing of so '* many false ones afterwards, and fathering them '* upon Peter, Paul, Thomas, and others, who ** were dead before John. Caius, who wascon- ** temporary with Tertullian, tells us that Ce- *' rinthus wrote his Revelations as a great apostle, ** and pretended the visions were shown him by '' Angels, asserting a millenium of carnal plea- '* sures at Jerusalem after the resurrection ; ' so ** that his Apocalypse w^as plainly written in ** imitation of John's : and yet he lived so early, *' that he resisted the apostles at Jerusalem in ** or before the first year of Claudius,* that is, ** twenty-six years before the death of Nero, and " died before John."' This argument, which must strike every im- partial mind, as very powerful and conclusive against a late date, is generally passed over, without notice, by those who refer the book to the reign of Domitian ; but silence will not set it aside. Cerinthus, who wrote a false Apoca- ' Apud Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 1. iii. c. 28. Edit. Valesii. * Epiphan. Haeres. 28. ^ Hieron. adv. Lucif. On the Date of the Apocalypse. 4S lypse, borrowing, altering and corrupting pas- sages from the genuine one, having died before John, it is impossible that John's Apocalypse could have been written so late as the time of the persecution by Domitian. CONCLUSION. The inference drawn from the state of the Asiatic churches at the time when the Apoca- lypse was written, as necessarily presupposing that a considerable time must have passed before there could be any such departure from the pri- mitive faith and discipline as to call for the re- proofs given to these churches, in the epistles addressed to them respectively in the Apoca- lypse, rests, as we have seen, on no tenable ground, and is indeed opposed by the evidence of facts. All the Epistles of Paul, James and Peter were written before the death of Nero. Before they were written, sufficient time had elapsed to introduce, among the different churches, addressed in these epistles, deviations from the purity and obedience required from Christians, and they are reproved accordingly; and yet it has been attempted to be argued, that, among the churches in Asia, no such defections could take place in the same period ! Such an 44 On the Date of the Apocalypse* [Dissert. 1. argument carries its confutation along with it, to every one disposed to look at plain matters of fact. — And why was all this labor undertaken ? Why were the Christians in Asia to be calum- niated beyond the words of the text? Why were the virtues and graces for which they w^ere praised by ** him who searches the hearts'" to be put out of sight ? — Only for the purpose of sup- r porting the tradition delivered by Irenaeus for a late date to the Apocalypse, in opposition to other ancient traditions which assigned to it a much earlier origin. I say, only for the purpose of supporting his single testimony ; for we have / no other for the late date, however many subse- \ quent writers may have repeated the statement, / all of them having done so on his authority. Epiphanius, as we have seen, twice names the , reign of Claudius as that during which the Apo- / calypse was written : Arethas also, who was not ignorant of Irenseus's statement (for he quotes ) it), says, on the authority of other interpreters, / ^ that the sixth seal had its accomplishment in :> the destruction of Jerusalem, and of course those / whom he followed held that the book was writ- / ten some time before that period. And that Are- thas did not speak without authority, however much Lardner and others might think they had ^ a right to hold him cheap, is proved by the title On the Date of the Apocalypse. 45 to the Syriac version of the Apocalypse; for the ^ churches in Syria could not be ignorant of the \ date ascribed to this book by Irenaeus, and yet they state, in their title, that the Revelation .was given to John in the reign otNierp, — an evident / proof that at least they had among them tradi- \ tions to that effect, if not Greek manuscripts bear- / ing the same title. — But on this I will not longer \ detain the reader. All that I aim at at present, is to show, that the historical evidence for a late date to the book, is by no means so con- clusive as some have contended : and, indeed, when examined dispassionately, the weight of evidence would rather appear to be on the other side. In one word : — neither Ecclesiastical tradi- tion ; nor the state of the churches in Asia, when the Apocalyptic Epistles were addressed to them ; nor any thing recorded in history re- specting their secular condition, furnishes any evidence that may be relied on, that the Book of the Revelation was written so late as the reign of Domitian. But it may be asked, "What possible dif- " ference can it make, whether the Apocalypse ** was written at an early or late period of the ** apostolic ministration ?" At first sight this subject may appear of trivial importance ; and 46 On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. 1. indeed, if the book were really written late, and an opinion should, notwithstanding, be taken up, that it was written early, it may be granted that this mistake could not be followed by any injurious consequences. The case, however, is far otherwise, if the book was written early, and if, in opposition to this fact, a belief shall be en- tertained that it was written towards the close of John's life, who survived all the other apos- tles; for, being a direct revelation from the Head of the church, if written in the reign of Claudius, or early in that of his successor Nero, it must be considered as having been given for the in- struction of the apostles themselves, as well as of the other members of Christ's body ; and, if so, it must have been often the subject of their me- ditations; and, not unfrequently, its topics would furnish matter for allusion in their oral addresses, and, most probably, also in their epistles to the churches. — Such, a priori, might be expected as one of the natural consequences of the book having been written very early; but if, con- trary to fact, it shall be believed that it was not communicated to the churches, till after all the Epistles of the New Testament, it is obvious tjiat this very belief will, and must, operate to cause Christians to overlook entirely any al- lusions that may be found (if there be any such) On the Date of the Apocalypse, 47 in these Epistles, to the Apocalypse; and con- sequently, however numerous such allusions, quotations, or references to the Apocalypse in the Epistles of the New Testament may actually be, they must, under such a belief, elude all ob- servation, and be thus deprived of that elucida- tion which they would receive by reference to their prototype in the Revelation. It is evi- dent then, that, if the book was the first, or one of the first written of the New Testament, the Christian church may suffer a real detriment by holding a directly contrary opinion ; and there- fore some pains should be taken to ascertain, precisely, how the fact stands. If passages can be found in the epistles and in the Apocalypse which the one must have copied from the other — and such it is certain may be found, as will be shown in the next dissertation — it will then only remain to ascertain which is the copy ; and this it is believed will not be difficult, if the rules of sound criticism be closely adhered to. DISSERTATION THE SECOND. ON THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE EPISTLES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, RESPECTING THE TIME WHEN THE APOCALYPSE WAS WRITTEN. JHaving, in the preceding dissertation, be- stowed on Ecclesiastical tradition, and the in- ferences thence drawn, repecting the period at which the Apocalypse was written, and also on the arguments founded on the supposed state of the churches at the period when the Revelation was given, as much notice as they seem to de- serve ; and shown that the whole reasoning, in favor of a late date, rests on unfounded as- sumptions, partly unsupported and partly con- tradicted by the real facts, I now proceed to enquire whether the writings of the Apostles furnish any internal evidence of their having been written later than the Apocalypse. If it can be shown that, when they wrote, they had On the Date of the Apocalypse. 49 the Apocalypse in their hands, this evidence will completely decide, which of the ecclesiastical traditions, respecting the time at which this pro- phecy was written, is best entitled to credit : or rather, it will entirely discard tradition, as un- worthy of regard. It was noticed in the preceding dissertation, that this was one of the proofs suggested by Sir Isaac Newton for an early date to the Apoca- lypse ; and that Bishop Newton was satis- tied that the allusions to this prophecy, pointed out by Sir Isaac, in the Epistles of Peter, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, were conclusive. It were to be wished that the Bishop had given the public the particulars of his investigation, instead of the mere result ; as a man of his learn- ing would, no doubt, have done the subject more justice than it can receive from the individual who now presumes to pursue the inquiry. Mi- chaelis, too, professes to have examined the al- lusions pointed out by Sir Isaac, but the result gave him no conviction. If, however, his inquiry was as superficial, and his decision as dogmati- cal, on this point, as on some others connected with the Apocalypse, his memory will suffer nothing from the suppression of the reasons which left him in doubt. What I particularly allude to is his statement, that — "The true and eternal *' Godhead of Christ is certainly not taught in D 60 On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. 2. " the Apocalypse so clearly as in St. John's " Gospel." — This shows that, with all his criti- cal skill, Michael is could not rightly read the Apocalypse. In no book of the New Testament is the doctrine more explicitly declared than in the Revelation. Nay, more : were it necessary to say, that it is more clearly taught in any one book, than another, the Revelation is that book. In examining the question before us, I shall, for the sake of perspicuity, lay before the reader the result furnished by an inspection of each of the Epistles, in separate sections. § 1 . Of allusions to the Apocalypse, found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, As Sir Isaac Newton was, I believe, the first who suggested this kind of evidence ; and as those who have controverted his historical testi- monies, have, generally, passed over without notice all that he has advanced respecting scrip- tural proofs — the best of all evidence, — I shall enter on this inquiry by laying before the reader, in the first place, the observations offered by that great man, on the allusions to the Apocalypse, that are to be found in the Epistle to the He- brews. ** The Apocalypse seems to be alluded to ** (says he) in the Epistles of Peter and that to ** the Hebrews; and, therefore, to have been writ- Sec. 1.] On the Date of the Apocali/pse, 51 ** ten before them. Such allusions, in the Epistle " to the Hebrews, I take to be, the discourse con- ** cerning the High Priest in the heavenly Taher- " nacle, who is both Priest and King, as was " Melchizedec ; and those concerning the Word ^^ of God, with the sharp two-edged sxvord ; the " Rev. xiii. 8. * Rev. xxi. ^ Rev. i. 6. and v. 10. ♦Rev. XX. 6. 5 Rev. XX. 4, 12. * Revvxvii. ^ Dan. viii. 15, 16, 27. and xii. 8, 9. Sec. 2.] On the Date of the Apocalypse^ ^ ** pretation from their prophet John, but to " study the prophecies themselves. This is'.the •* substance of what Peter says in the first " Chapter, and then, in the second, he proceeds ** to describe, out of this swe word of Prophecijy " how there should be false prophets or false " teachers^ (expressed collectively in the Apoca- " lypse by the name of the false Prophet); who ** should bring in damnable heresies, even denying " the Lord that bought them, which is the cha- ** racter of Antichrist : and many, saith he, shall ^^follmv their lusts ;^ they that dwell on the earth* " shall be deceived by the false prophet, and be " made drunk with the wine of the whore's for- " nication, by reasofi of whom the way of truth ** shall be blasphemed; for the Beast is full of " blasphemy :' and through covetousness shall they *^ with feigned words make merchandise of you; for ** these are the merchants of the earth j"^ who " trade with the great whore, and their merchan- " dise is all things of price, with the bodies and *• souls of men :^ whose judgment linger eth " not, and their damnation slumbereth not,^ but " shall surely come upon them at the last day " suddenly, as the flood upon the old world, and *' fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomoi^- * dreXyems in many of the best Mss. ^ Rev. xiii. 7, 12. ^ Rev. xiii. 1, 5, 6. * Rev. xviii. U, 15, 23. 5 Rev. xviii. 12, 13. ^ Rev. xix. 20. 6fi 0;i ths Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 2. ** rka, when the just shall be delivered' like " Lot; for the Lord knozveth how to deliver the " ^o^/j/ out of temptations, and to reserve the ** unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished, ** in the lake of fire ; hut chiefly them that walk " after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, being " made drunk with the wine of the whore's " fornication ;* who despise dominion, and are not " afraid to blaspheme glories; for the beast opened ** his mouth against God to blaspheme his name ** and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in ** heaven.' These, as natural brute beasts, the " ten-horned beast, and two-horned beast or " false prophet, made to be taken and destroyed, in ** the lake of fire, blaspheme the things they un- *' derstand not: — ihey count it pleasure to riot in " the day time .... sporting themselves while " they feast with you, having eyes full of an aduU ** tress [[jLoix^Til^os]: for the kingdoms of the " beast live deliciously with the great whore, " and the nations are made drunk with the wine " of her fornication. They are gone astray, fol- " lowing the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who ** loved the wages of unrighteousness, the false pro- " phet who taught Balac to cast a stumbling- " block before the children of Israel.^ These * Rev. xxi. 3, 4. * Rev.ix.21. xvii. 2. ^ Rev. xiii. 6. * Rev. ii. 14. Sec. 2.] On the Date of the Apocalypse, 63 ** are not fountains of living water, but wells with- " out water clouds that are carried with a *• tempest, &c. Thus does the author of this " Epistle spend all the second chapter in des- " cribing the qualities of the Apocalyptic beasts " and false prophet : and then, in the third he **goes on to describe their destruction more " fully, and the future kingdom. He saith, that " because the coming of Christ should be long *• deferred, they should scoff, saying, where is the '' promise of his coming ? Then he describes the " sudden coming of the day of the Lord upon " them, as a thief in the night, which is the Apo- '* calyptic phrase ; and the millenium or thousaiid " years, which are with God hut as a day; the '^passing away of the old hea^cens and earth, by a ** conflagration in the lake of fire, and our looking ''^ for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth " righteousness r " Peter seems also to call Rome Babylon, as " well with respect to the war made upon Judea, '* and the approaching captivity, like that under ** old Babylon, as with respect to that name in ** the Apocalypse : and in writing to the strangers ** scattered throughout Pontus,[Galatia, Cappadocia^ " Asia and Bithynia, he seems to intimate that " they were the strangers newly scattered by *' the Roman wars ; for those were the only *' strangers there belonging to his care.'* , 64- On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 2. " By the companions of Peter, mentioned in " his first Epistle, we may know that he wrote ** from Rome; and the antients generally agree, " that in this Epistle he understood Rome by '* Babylon^ The reader will have noticed, that Sir Isaac, in reference to the allusions to the Apocalypse, found in the first Epistle of Peter, says, " These " indeed are obscure allusions." To me they appear far otherwise, and I hope I shall make them appear very obvious to the reader ; for the apostle, immediately after the benediction with which he begins the Epistle, (Ch. i.) blesses " God, even the father of our Lord Jesvs Christ, ** who, accordiJig to his great mercy, hath begotten ** us again to a lively hope through the resurrection "o/* Jesus Christ Jrom the dead, to an inherit- *' ance incofTuptible, and undefded, and unfading, ** reserved in heaven for us, who are guarded by " the power of God, through faith unto salvation, ** prepared to be revealed in the last time.'' The inheritance here spoken of is said to be incor- ruptible — for ** thei^e shall be 7io more deaiK' in that inheritance which is described in Rev. xxi.; and those who are made partakers of life, through the resurrection of Christ, are " raised " in incorruption' (1 Cor. xv. 42), having " part ** in the first resurrection' (Rev. xx. 6.). — The Apostle having brought to their recollection the Sec. 2.3 On the Date of the Apocalypse. ©5 " abundant mercy" of God in giving thetn this lively, or living, hope, respecting the salvation to be fully consummated " in the last time,'' pro- ceeds to exhort them to rejoice in the prospect before them, in spite of the afflictions brought on them by their profession; to love the Lord, and, believing in him, to rejoice, with joy un- speakable and full of glory, receiving the end of their faith, the salvation of their souls. The ex- hortation which he gives them deserves particu- lar attention, in our present inquiry, because of the basis on which he makes it to rest. The sixth and seventh verses are thus rendered in the common version : ** Wherein ye greatly re- ^^joice, though now for a season (if need he) ye " are in heaviness through manifold temptations; " that the trial of your faith, being much moi^e ** precious than of gold which perisheth, though it " be tried with fire, might be found unto praise, ** and honor, and glory, at the appearing of Jesus " Christ'' This version fails, however, in giving the true sense of the original. The passage should be thus rendered, — *' In which" [fast time, viz., for the pronoun is masculine, as is the time, but the salvation is feminine] — " in which " [last time] exult ye (though for a short time, *' since it is necessary, suffering sorrozo by divers " trials, that the proving of your faith, more precious ** than of gold whichperisheth, though proved by fire, 66 On the Date of the Jpocalypse, [Dissert. 2, " may be found unto praise^ and honor, and glory) h ** d'7roKa'K(t^uIy](rouXpi(rTo'u, through ihe Apocalypse ^'o/" Jesus CHRisT:"thatis, the Apocalypse being the cause of, or furnishing the cause for the ex- ultation, by what is therein stated respecting the last time; for all the intermediate words are evidently a parenthesis, as I have marked them. The sense is : — though now suffering sorrow by divers trials, this being necessary for the trial of your faith, &c., rejoice greatly in the things brought to your knowlege, respecting the last time, in (by or through) the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ. Here then we have the book of the Revelation referred to by the very title which John himself has given it in Rev. i. 1. . // - That the foregoing presents the real sense of the passage will appear still more manifestly by attending to the remaining part of the Apostle's exhortation in the same chapter. Having re- minded those whom he addresses of the hope of life to which they were begotten by the resurrec- tion of Christ, and of the incorruptible, unfading inheritance connected with the future life, and which was prepared to be reixaled in the last time; and having exhorted them in reference to the hope afforded them respecting the salvation to be consummated in the last time, to exult through the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ — he pro- ceeds thus : ^* Whom having not seen, ye love ;" or Sec. 2 J On the Date of the ApocaCypse. 67 rather (for the orthography of the second person plural of the present indicative and imperative is the same) " Whom not having seen, love ye [that is, continue to love, notwithstanding the many trials to which your faith exposes you] ; in whom, '* though not noxo seeing him, yet believing, rejoice ye ** with joy unspeakable and full of glory; receiving " the endof your faith — the salvation of your souls. " Of which salvation the prophets have enquired " and searched diligently,''' &c. Considering the circumstances in which these believers were placed, ** suffering sorrow by divers trials,'" it certainly appears more natural to view the Apostle as exhorting them not to be moved away from their hope, but to continue to love the Lord and to rejoice in him, than as predicat- ing these qualities respecting those whom he addresses. Dr. Macknight has, as I have done, rendered ayaXXiao-fie, in verse 6, in the impera- tive ; and he has — as indeed have all the Trans- lators — with the common version, also rendered the verbs in ver. 13. in the imperative, " Gird ''up'' — ''be sober" — *' hope (ye):" why then should the intermediate verbs *' Love ye' — " re- "joiceye," which have the orthography proper to the imperative, have been rendered in a different mood, when the whole is one exhortation, only momentarily suspended, to inform those who are addressed, of the desire which the Prophets 68 On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. 2. had to understand what the Spirit of Christy speaking by therriy did signify when it testified before- hand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow ? The 13th verse, in which the exhortation is resumed, is so striking as only to require to be exhibited in a true version to prove the general correctness of all the passages, alluded to by Sir Isaac Newton, as having reference to the Apocalypse. It is thus rendered in the common version (and indeed all the translations I have met with give the same sense) : " Wherefore gird " up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to " the end, for the grace that is to be brought untoyou " at the revelation of Jesus Christ,'" This version, so far as respects the first three verbs is, as has been noticed above, quite correct ; but that it does not, throughout, convey the true sense of the original a very little consideration will de- monstrate. The word Upon the children of " disobedience,'' — substituting *'^wratli' for destruc- tion in the lake of fire ; or, rather, having in his eye tj vj/^e^a t% 0^7% the day of wrath (Rev. vi. 17), when this destruction will come upon the wicked. — He tells them that they knew already the things of which he was treating — that is, they had in their hands some record, to the effect which he states, namely one which did not merely denounce punishment to such characters, but which directly excluded them from the in- heritance secured for the righteous. It is this asso- ciation of ideas and his commentary on the word " idolaters' that determines the particular source of the Apostle's admonition in this passage. From this Epistle we learn also the same fact that is so plainly stated in the first Epistle to Timothy. The Ephesians had not only failed in Christian love, the only crime for which this church was censured in the Apocalypse [see the remarks on the character of this church in the preceding dissertation] but they were now suf- I 80 On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert.2. fering among them false teachers, as is directly stated in the first Epistle to Timothy. It would appear they had been led into this by the respect they paid to those calling themselves teachers (of some description or other) ; relaxing in that vigilance and circumspection which led them, at a prior period, when the Apocalyptic epistle was sent to them, to examine the pretensions of all who came in that character, even if they as- sumed the title of Apostles. Paul reminds them of the end for which the head of the Church had sent forth Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pas- tors and teachers, in order to prepare the (other) saints for the work of the inmistry, that the body of Christ (viz. the church) might be built up; and all attain to the unity of the faith — even of the knowlege of the son of God, to a perfect man — the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, Ephes. iv. 11 — 13. — In the 14th verse we learn the cause of this address — " That we may no Ion- *^ger be children tossed about with every wind of doc- ** trine by the sleight of men, — cunning craftiness ^'whereby they lie in wait to deceive T — plainly inti- mating that had they, as at first, tried the pre- tensions of these crafty deceivers, comparing their doctrine with that delivered by the Apos- tles, they would, as then, have found them liars (Rev. ii. 2). When the Apocalypse was written we are informed, by one who could not be mis- Sec. 4 J On the Dat€ of the Apocalypse, 81 taken, that this church, instead of permitting among them teachers of false doctrine, could not bear them zvho were evil : — and the inevitable in- ference is, that, the Ephesians not being charge- able with this when the Apocalypse was written, Paul's Epistle to them must have been penned subsequently. It is believed by many that Paul's first Epis- tle to Timothy, who, according to tradition, was one of the Elders at Ephesus, was written be- fore this Epistle to the Ephesians. That Epistle, as has been shown, was written after the Apo- calypse; a circumstance which tends to confirm the accuracy of the allusions which have been pointed out. In fact the Epistle to Timothy may be considered as one to the church in which he was a bishop ; and the obvious inference from all that has been stated is, that Paul was urged, by the Apocalyptic address to this church, respecting her failure in love, and what he had learnt of the farther defection of some of her members from the way of truth, to leave Timo- thy at Ephesus, for the purpose of restoring her to her former purity. 851 On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 2. § 5. Of Allusions to the Apocalypse found in the Epistle to the Philippians, In the second chapter of this Epistle there is a most remarkable passage, which, as bearing on the question now under discussion, deserves par- ticular attention. The Apostle, speaking of the amazing condescension and humility of Christ Jesus, in making himself of no reputation, taking on him the form of a servant, and the likeness of men, and submitting to death, says, in verses 9, 10, 11, " Wherefore God also hath highly exalted " him, and given him a name which is above every " name; that at the name q/" Jesus every knee should " hoxv, of things in heaven and things in earth, and " things under the earth, and that every tongue should " confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of ** God the Father,'' So runs the authorised version; but, for "^ name,'' which is the reading of the common Greek text, the best manuscripts read TO ovoj^a, " the Name ;" — a mode of speech which instantly suggests the question, What name? and the text not only furnishes the answer, to uTrsp TToiv ovo[jLa, " the one that is above every name ;" but states the design or purpose, for which ^'the Name' was given, viz. ha h tS ovo/tar/ 'Jryerou, Trav yovu xa^-^ sTroupauioov xou eTriy&ioiv xou xoLTOLy- iovlwv, " in order that at the name of Jesus Sec. 5.] On the Date of the Apocalypse, 83 ** ecery knee should bend, of heavenly, and earthly, " and subterrene (cresLtmesy Have we not in the words just quoted the ttolv xr/o-jaa hu rip oupavw, xol) stt) TTJg 7%, xa) uttoxoltco rrjg yr]g, ** evej^y area- " ture xvhich is in heaven, and on earth, and under " the earth,'' which are ascribed to the Lamb, as his property, in Rev. v. 13. V But what is " THE Name above every name,''' which is given to Jesus Christ, in order that he should be thus worshipped ? " The name above every name'' is the name JEHOVAH : and therefore the Apostle proceeds, — " and every tongue should " confess on Kipiog *Ir}(roijg Xpia-rog, THAT Jesus ** Christ is JE HOVAH (common version Zor^), " to the glory of God the Father" In this passage there appears to be a reference, in the first place, to Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. " Behold the days come, saith "Jehovah, when I will raise up unto David a ^* righteous branch, and a King shall reign and " prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in * In the common version — indeed in all the versions that I have examined — these creatures are made to ascribe to the Lamb the blessing and honor, &c. at the end of ver. 13 ; but the Greek text speaks otherwise. These creatures, as well as the power and riches, &c. of ver. 12, are enumerated among the things which the Lamb is worthy to receive. Those who speak in ver. 13 are still the ** many angels " round about the throne ;" but there is an ellipsis in the verse. 84 On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 2. " the earth : in his days Juclah shall be saved, and " Israel shall dwell securely: and this is his name by " xvhich he shall be called, JEHOVAH OUR " RIGHTEOUSNESS." It was thus predict- ed that THE Messiah should be called *' JE- " HOVAH ;" and Paul says that to him is given '' THE Name which is above every name,'^ I — " The Name,'' was among the Jews a very usual / substitute for " JEHOVAH," both in speaking and writing ; and when this term was used, it \ was always understood to mean JEHOVAH. ) The Book of Ikkarim., cited by Buxtorf under / the article nw, (Jehovah) in reference to \ this very passage, says, " The scripture calls the ' ''name of the Messiah, 'JEHOVAH OUR *^ RIGHTEOUSNESS,' to intimate that he " will be a mediatorial God ; by whose hand j ** we shall obtain justification from THE / ** NAME ; wherefore it calls him by the name ' " of THE NAME." The Jews held it unlaw- ful to utter the word JEHOVAH, and for that name substituted Adonai (as is still their prac- tice) when reading the scriptures ; but, in com- ments or disquisitions, it was often necessary that they should make known, in some way, that the word rVSsV occurred in the text, and in such cases they employed " The Name" as the substitute, sometimes adding, as Paul does in addressing the Philippians, ** which is above every Sec. 5.] On the Date of the Apocalypse, 85 " name.'" Nor is it any objection to this view, that the Jews were superstitiously scrupulous in employing * The 'Name' instead of 'JEHO- VAH,' and therefore it is not to be supposed that Paul would, on any occasion, adopt the same mode of speech ; for this was a man- ner of speaking acknowledged by the Old Tes- tament scriptures, as may be seen in Levit. xxiv. 11, where mention is made of the son of an Israelitish woman who " blasphemed The Name " and cursed/' and also in v. 16, where it is com- manded that every man who *' blasphemeth The " Name shall be put to deaths In both of these verses our Translators have added, as a supple- ment, " of the Lord," but in the Hebrew " The " Name" alone is used. It was, probably, from this passage that Paul (as well as the Rabbins) took this mode of expression, and, having so used it here, I am led to conclude, — when he says, *' arid every tongue should confess on Kipiog *Iri ?a>^^, whose names " [are] in the book of life," The book of which the Apostle speaks is t«> 0<3x/a> Trig ^wijs toO ap- viou " the book of life of the Lamb," Rev. xxi. 27. Indeed " The book of life" is a term so perfectly Apocalyptical (see ch. iii. 5. xiii. 8. xvii. 8. xx. 12, 15. xxii. 19.) that, excepting this passage in the Epistle to the Philippians, it is found only in the Revelation. Can we doubt then whence Paul took the expression, especially wUen we find him, in other epistles, frequently quoting, or directly alluding to, the Apocalypse ? 88 On the Date of the Jpocalypse, [Dissert. 2r § 6. Of Evidence respecting the Date of the Apocalypse furnished by the Epistle to the Colos- sians. The Epistle to the Colossians presents such a torrent of internal evidence, of its having been written later than the Apocalypse, that it is wonderful critics should not have perceived it ; nor can this be accounted for, but from the power of prejudice and prepossession. The basis of the Apostle's topics, arguments and illustrations, in his address to this Asiatic church, are wholly Apocalyptical. In Ch. i. 12. he gives 'thanks to the Father, *' who hath made us meet to be partakers toO xk-f^pw) "tcoi/ oiylwv h rep (pwr), OF THE INHERITANCE "OF THE SAINTS IN THE light:" — having in his eye what is declared in Rev. ch. xxi. : ** He " that overcometh, xXTj^oj/o/^Tja-s/ ttolvtol shall in- " herit all things." (v. 7). This inheritance is represented under the symbol of a city — the New Jerusalem. This city hath no need of the sun, or of the moon, to shine therein ; ^for the " glory of THE OMNIPOTENT, even the light "(literally the lamp) thereof, THE LAMB, en- " LIGHTENS it : and the nations of them who are " saved shall walk in rm ^mri aurrjg the light " thereof" (v. 23, 2-4). No night shall be there^ Sec. 6.] On the Date of the Apocalypse, 89 nor any need of a lamp, or of sun-light ; because "JEHOVAH, the OMNIPOTENT, (fmnfi lir' aitTous WILL ENLIGHTEN THEM:" (Rev. xxii. 5). V. 13. " Who hath delivered us from e^ova-las toD " a-xoToos THE POWER OF THE DARKNESS, and " hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear son ;" — The saints having an inheritance in the light, are, of course, delivered from darkness ; but the Apostle presses the contrast: — they are deli- vered from the kingdom of the beast, which has become sa-TcorcoiJLsni darkened (Rev. xvi. 10), and now belong '* to the kingdom of God's dear son; " — (yea, they shall reign for ever and ever. ^' Rev. xxii. 5.) For the convenience of comparison the following corresponding passages are placed in opposite columns : COLOSSIANS. APOCALYPSE. I. 14 Through whom we I. 5 To him who AaveTHE redemption, throAgh hath washed us from our sins his hlood^ (the forgiveness of in his own blood, v. 9 hast sins), redeemed us to God by thy blood, ' The words, " Through his blood" — bia rev atfiaros av- Tov, are absent from some of the early versions and seven of the antient MSS., and have been thrown from the text into the margin by Griesbach. Some Critics think they were transcribed here from Ephes. i. 7. But in fact they found their way into both Epistles, from the Apocalypse being in 90 On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. 2. 16 For J)y him were created IV. 11 For thou hast crea- all things, those in the hea- ted all things. venSy and those on the earth; X. 6 who created the hea- the visible and the invisible ; ven and the things in it; also whether thrones, or dominions, the earth and the things in it, or principalities, or powers : likewise the sea and the things all things were created hy him therein, and for him : 17 And he is before all IV. 11 Yea as they were things, and by him all things made, so also they exist by consist : thy will. 18 And he is the head of I. 5 From Jesus Christ .. . the body, the church ; who . , , the first-born from the is Chief [or Prince, 'APXH], dead,and the Chief [or Fr'mce, the first-born from the dead, "APXIIN] of the Kings of the that in all things he might be earth. first [or Chief]. In Ch. ii. 9, 10. we read, ** In him dwelleth " all THE FULNESS OF THE GoDHEAD BODILY ; " and ye are made complete by him who is the head of " all PRINCIPALITY \^APXHX Princeship or Go- " vernment] and Power'' That is : to him belongs Power, in all its forms and attributes, with all the glory that attaches thereto. When the the mind of the writer when he penned them. The way in which " the forgiveness of sins" is introduced, probably led to their rejection by some early transcriber, who did not perceive that the latter, words are explanatory of the redemp- tion through his blood — literally through the blood of him, who is the image of the invisible God, — •** the forgiveness of sins*' being read in parenthesis. Sec. 6.] On the Date of the Apocalypse. 9 1 reader shall have weighed what is stated in the Fifth Dissertation, respecting the radical sense of the word flso^ ITheos] commonly rendered God, he will probably feel no difficulty in admitting that the power, glory, &c. ascribed to the Lamb, in the fifth chapter from the 12th verse to the end, and in other parts of the Apocalypse, ex- plain fully what is meant by the fulness t% flso- TfiTos {Theotetos) of the Godhead, dwelling in him bodily. In this place I need only remark that, in the Apocalypse, the radical sense of Theos is Pozver; and that, in the passage before us, Paul having (in v. 15) stated Christ Jesus to be the image of the invisible God — that is, the image of the Invisible Power, informs them here, that the bodily manifestation of this Power had its fulness in his person ; which is precisely the same truth stated in other words. The recurrence of the article, generally omit- ted by translators, in this passage, is too striking to be passed without notice : ^* the inheritance,"' — " the light,'' — " the darkness" — " the re- " demption,'' &c. refer emphatically, to matters not now laid before the Colossians for the first time, but with which they were already made acquainted, by him who is the head of all *AP' XHS (Arches), e\en by the'' APXflN (Archoon) himself. Is it possible to read, with any atten- 99/ On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. 2. lion, such passages as have been quoted, — recol- lecting, at the same time, that they are found in an address to an Asiatic churchy in fellowship witli the church at Laodicea, which is also com- manded to read this Epistle, — and not to perceive the basis on which the Apostle rests his address, and bespeaks, as it were, the particular atten- tion of those to whom he writes ? That the similarity observable in the con- trasted passages is no way casual, depending on unwarrantable translation, will appear by comparing the texts as exhibited in the origi- nal : — COLOSSIANS. APOCALYPSE. I. 14 'Ev ^ c'xpjjiev TTiv aTTO' I. 5 r^ Xovaav- XiJrpwo-tv, Sta rov alfiaros av- ri f/fids utto rwv afxapTi&v fjfjiwy rov, Trjv ^(fteffiv twv afjiapTi&v kv t^ atfiari avrov V. 9 OTt ea^dyrjs, Kal y/yo- paaas ry 0e^ fifids kv r^ aifxa- tL (tov I. 16 "Only aurw eKriaQri IV. 11 otl av cKriaas^ rd rd TraPTa, Td kv Tois ovpavdis TravTa, KOI rd em Tfjs yfjsj rd bpard X. 6 os cKTiae tov ovpavov KoX rd aupara rd irdv- koX rd kv avrw, koX tyiv yfjv Kal ra 8i* avrov Kat els avrov eKricr- rd kv avry, Kal r^v ^aXaaaav rac KaX rd kit avry I. 17 avrosktrri'KpoTravrwv, IV. 11 Kal Big. ro ^iXrifid Kal rd TTCLvra kv avr^ avvka- aov -^aav, Kal eKrlffdricrav rrjKe' I. 18 OS eoTiv 'APXH irpioro' I, 5 aTro 'Irjarov Xpicrov .... Sec. 6.] On the Date of the Apocalypse. 93 TOKOS CK TWV VEKpCiP, IVU ye- ... 6 irptjJTOTOKOS €K Tbiv VC- vrp-at kv Trdaiv avTOs irpuiTevtav. KptHy, Kai 6 "APXflN tcHp /3a- aiXiiav rfjs y^s. These coincidences are too striking to require any acuteness to detect the resemblance, or ar- gument to establish their correspondence ; and too numerous to leave any reasonable doubt as to the cause. Several of the contrasted passages are nearly verbatim, or quite so; and where there is a verbal difference, as in Col. i. 17. and Rev. iv. 11. the sentiment is so precisely similar and so peculiarly marked in the copy, as to render its source not less conspicuous than if the iden- tical words of the Apocalypse had been quoted. That the latter is the primitive record is mani- fest from Paul amplifying, in verse 16, what he takes from Rev. iv. 11. and x. 6., telling the Co- lossians that the " all things," created by THE SON OF God, include the visible and the in- visible, whether thrones, or dominions, &c. &c. In cases like this. Critics find so little difficulty, that a bare statement is sufficient to command their assent : to enlarge on the fact would, therefore, be a waste of time. — Nor is this the only fact of the kind presented in Paul's Epistle to the Colossians. In the third chapter he makes the same use of the 21st chapter of the Apoca- lypse that he does when writing to the Ephe- sians; reminding them that when Christ our 94 On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 2. life shall appear, they shall appear with him in glory ^ and enjoy the things that are above, where Christ sitteth on the Right-hand of God ; and therefore he exhorts them, [from Rev, xxi. 8.] to mortify their members that are upon the earth; telling them that covetousness is idolatry : — that is, he performs the office of an Exposi- tor, showing them that idolatry includes comt- ousness, as one of the crimes for which tJ opyr^ roD 0eoy THE WRATH OF GoD cometh on the children of disobedience; evidently alluding to tJ opyri rou dpvlox} THE WRATH OF THE LaMB, ReV. vi. 16. After what has been stated I should think it next to impossible that any one, whose judg- ment is not absolutely blinded by prejudice, could longer doubt that the Epistle to the Co- lossi ans was written after the Apocalypse. § 7. Of Evidence furnished by the Epistle to the Romans. The Epistle to the Romans presents striking internal evidence of having been written after the Apocalypse. Several passages in this Epis- tle are literal quotations from that book, incor- porated into the argument of the Apostle, in his address to the saints at Rome. He gives a double reason (ch. i.) for his not being ashamed of the Gospel of Christ — first '^ for therein is Sec. Y.] On the Date of the Apocalypse, g$ the righteousness of God revealed,'' by which alone believers are justified and "Iwe by faith ;' glorious news, ''/or," secondly, '^ the wrath of ** God is revealed from heaven" — or rather, as the passage, from its peculiar turn of expression, strikes the author, — " Apocalypsed is the wrath '* of God from heaven'' — 'ATroKci'kxiTrrsTOLi opyr\ 0£oO OLTT oupavou, — against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. The Apostle having used the same word, aTroxaXyTrera/, in the 17th Terse, as to what was apocalypsed in the gospel respecting the righteousness of God, as bringing life to those who believe, recollects, as it were, the converse of his proposition, as having been Apocalypsed in the prophecy of John, denoun- cing a special revelation of wrath against the ungodly. I must not be understood to employ here the term " Apocalypsed" as a proper English word : it is used only for the purpose of con- veying to the reader the way in which the Greek term is used ; and I am the more confirmed in this view from the words that occur in chapter ii. 5. which are thus rendered in the common version : *' But, after thy hardness and impenitent " heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against " the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous ^'judgment of God." The latter part of the verse is that to which I would call particular attention, — treasurest up unto thyself opyriv Iv 96 On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. 2. r\li>^pcL opyrjg xa) dwoKcCKxi'iffsaig \xoLi\ hxaioxpitrlag Totj 0£oO. By reference to Mill's and Griesbach's editions it will be seen that many manuscripts, antient versions and commentators insert xa) before hxaioxpia-iag, consequently making riij.kpa to govern all the three nouns which follow. The words may be then rendered — " wrath ** against the day (/wrath, and of the Apoca- " LYPSE, and of the righteous judgment of *' God" — each of these three terms being employ- ed to designate the same day or period. Though Griesbach has not admitted the second xai into his text, there is good reason for believing that it formed a part of the original autograph ; for it may be easily seen that a transcriber, not per- ceiving that a book was here referred to by name, would find little difficulty in rejecting it as not only superfluous, but, according to his view, as injuring the sense : but it is impossible to assign any good reason why a transcriber should have here inserted xa), if he did not find it in his copy : — in a word nothing could (in my opinion) have induced him to retain it, but a strong sense of the duty imposed upon him to adhere strictly to his exemplar. '' The day ofwratK' — " the day ^* of the righteous judgment of God," is the day to which every thing treated of in the Apoca- lypse has reference, and therefore the Apostle here calls it, emphatically as it were, *' the day Sec. 7.] On the Date of the Apocalypse^ ^ " of the Apocalypse,'^' — in the sixth chapter of which book, v. 17, it is called i^ -^fjLspoL ^* pLsyaT^a rrjg opyrjg, '' the great day of the wrath'' of the Lamb. That this is the fact^ is rendered more evident from the concluding words of the pas- sage under consideration — hxaioxpia-iag rou 6sou, ^^ of the righteous judgment of Gob" — in which words we have a very singular, but obvious, allusion to Rev. xix. 2. — ^** True and hlxoLion ou " K^lasis auTou righteous his judgments;" for Paul actually forms a compound (hxaioxpitrtag) from the words Uxoholi and xpiasig, and for the pro- noun a^oO puts the noun itself, tou Oeov : nor can his expression be taken otherwise than as such a direct allusion; for his next words, " 0^ a7roSa)(rei exaVro) xara ra egya aurou, who will *' render to every one according to his works," are evidently taken from these words in Rev. xxii. 12. *' otTToSouva* £X0L(rT(p (og to epyov aurou strrai — " to give to every one according as his work shall " he" In Rev. xx. 12 we also meet with the words " xotTOL TOL spy a auTwv, according to their *' works;" and in v. 13, we find sxourrog xara tol epyoL auToiv, where it deserves perhaps to be noted, that several manuscripts for auroliv have the singular pronoun auroS, as exhibited by Paul in the passage before us. There is another passage in this Epistle (xiv. 10) which may possibly have allusion to the 98 On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 2. Apocalypse. I only say, possibly ; for had I not met with the preceding passages, which ap- pear plainly to have been derived from that pro- phecy, I should hardly have considered this as bearing on the question. In the passage referred to, the Apostle exhorts the believing Romans not to judge or set at nought a brother, "ybr," adds he, " we shall all stand before the judgment" ** seat [or tribunal, rw ^tip^oltC] of Christ'' — Has this no allusion to the " great xvhite seat'' of Rev. XX. 11? It is true that there 6pivos is employed, and here ^rjixa: in the Apocalypse, however, the purpose of the seat or throne is explained in the context, but here the Apostle avoids that necessity by employing a word which includes its use in itself, and, by prefixing the article, he evidently alludes to something well known to the church. That the Apostle was in the habit of alluding to the Apocalypse, with reference to the day of judgment, we have seen already in this Epistle, in what he says respecting the day of wrath — the day of the Apocalypse — the day of the righteous judgment of God ; and we shall see other references of the same kind in the Epistles which we have yet to examine. If in these it shall be found that he uses similar expressions to that employed in this passage, but so amplified as to furnish strong evidence that he had the Apocalypse in his eye, then, I think, it will not Sec. 8.] On the Date of the Jpocal^pse. 99 be unreasonable to consider as a certainty what I have only yet been stating as probable, namely, that when here speaking of the judgment-seat, he is expressly referring to the great white seat, be- fore which the dead shall be judged, every man ac- cording to his works, — as he does in 2 Cor. v. 10; of which in its place. § 8. Of Evidence furnished by the Epistles to the Corinthians. The first Epistle to the Corinthians, supposed by Critics to have been written in the year bQ or 57, exhibits, in the 15th Chapter, an evidence of its posteriority to the Apocalypse, so con- clusive, that it must appear, when pointed out, very surprising that Critics could possibly have missed the sense of the Apostle. In the Apocalypse the future time is divided into periods marked out by Trumpets, under the sounding of each of which, respectively, certain events are predicted. In Ch. x. 6. 7 we are taught that time shall continue only to the days of the voice of the seventh Angel, or the last of these seven trumpets: and, in Ch. xi. 15-18, that when the seventh angel sounds, then is come the time of the dead that they should be judged; and that the saints shall then be rewarded. In thq iOO On the Date of the Apocalypse* [Dissert. ^. 20th Chapter this reward is explained as being connected with a resurrection from the dead :-^ *' Blessed and holy is he that hath part in thejirst " resurrection,'' Some of the Corinthians had misunderstood, and misapplied, the things thus taught respect- ing ** the Resurrection,'' — probably taking the expression as something figurative, and saying, " there is no [real or literal] resurrection,'' The Apostle first corrects their mistaken views, showing that, at Christ's coming, the resurrec- tion of believers shall be as true and real as was the resurrection of Christ himself, who was " thejirst fruits;' and that, when this shall be, " then Cometh the end," (as taught iti the Apoca- lypse) : after stating this he dwells on the sub- ject, answers questions which some might put, respecting the manner of the resurrection, and the body to be given to the dead, and in ver. 51, 52 addresses them thus : ** Behold I show you a " secret ; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be " changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, "^^ THE LAST TRUMPET; /dr the trum- ^^ pet shall sound ; and the dead shall be raised in- ** corruptible : and tve shall be changed." The Apostle, by the manner of his expression, when he introduces the Trumpet, shows that, so far as respects it, he was speaking of something with which they were already acquainted ; for Sec. 8.] On the Date of the Apocalypse. 101 he not only introduces the term *' last,' but also employs the article — t^ sarp^arv) a-oLkiriyyiy *' THE " last trumpet ;" and no trumpet had previously been mentioned in the Epistle. The mystery then, or secret, of which he speaks, respects, not the trumpet, but the sudden change to be passed on the saints who shall be alive at Christ's second coming. They shall then un- dergo a change similar to that which the dead have experienced or shall experience, with this difference only, that it shall be, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. The mention of the trumpet is merely casual, to point out to the Corinthians the period at which this shall take place :— it shall be, at THE LAST TRUM- PET. Had they not, before, heard of ''the ''last trumpet y' Paul's reference to it, with the Article, would have been unintelligible: but I shall rather question the judgment of those per- sons who ascribe barbarisms to the inspired Apostle, than believe that he writes nonsense. The trumpet of which he speaks is THE LAST of the Apocalyptic trumpets; for in the text quoted, we have — "the trumpet" — "the last trumpet*' — " the sounding of the last trumpet" — an explana^ tion of a secret respecting an event that is to take place " at the last trumpet^ What farther iden- tity would the most obtuse mind require, as de-» monstrative of the source whence the Apostle draws his argument as to the period of the 102 On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 2. change of which he speaks ? I venture to say more: — ^Those who can look at such passages and yet question the source, must be but little ac- quainted with the modes of quotation used by the Apostolical and evangelical writers. — " The ** LAST trumpet,'' is an expression without mean- ing but as taken in relation to prior trumpets. The change of which the Apostle speaks was not to take place at the sounding oithe First trumpet y or of any of the first six trumpets ; but at the sounding of the seventh, — the last trumpet mentioned in the Apocalypse. To explain this passage in the Epistle to the Corinthians, as some have done, by " a great noise, to be made " at Christ's descent, called the trumpet of " God," and to tell us that, " after the righteous " are raised, the trumpet shall sound a second ** TIME ; on which account it is called here the last " trumpet, during the sounding of which, the " righteous who are alive on the earth, shall be " changed," is to darken counsel bywords void of knowledge. It is to give us pure unmixed non- sense, (for even very good scholars sometimes fall into this) instead of words that are in them- selves so plain as to need, one would think, no explanation whatever. The first Epistle having been written later than the Apocalypse, of course so must the second, which was still later. The direct allusions to Sec. 8.] On the Date of the Apocalypse, 103 the Revelation in the second, are not, however, numerous. The lOth verse of Ch. v., " We ** must all appear before the judgment-seat of " Christy that every one may receive the things done " in his body, according to what he hath done^whether ^^ good or bad,'' — has evidently a reference to thq GREAT WHITE SEAT of himfrom whoscfacc the heaven and the earth flee away, when the dead^ small and great, shall ^e judged by the things wiitten in the books, every man according to his works. Rev. xx, 11, 13. In this passage, as in Rom. xiv. 10, he employs for the Qpovos of the Revelations a term importing in itself the use to which the seat is applied, and also with the ?j' tide— To3 /STjjaaro^; and, besides employing the article, he points out the principle on which the judgment will proceed, in such a manner as to inform those to whom he writes, respecting the contents of the books out of which the dead are to he judged, — namely, that they record what every one hath done in the body, whether good or BAD. In 2 Cor. xi. 15, speaking oi false Apostles^ deceitful workers — ministers of Satan transformed as the ministers of righteousness — he says, their end shall be, xutol tol spy a auTwu, *' according to " t heir wo7^ks/' which words are a verbal quotation from Rev. xx. 12 and 13, and therefore may be held as establishing the fact that, in ch. v. 10 104 On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. 2, of this Epistle, he had the same passage of the Apocalypse in his mind. § 9. The Apocalypse quoted in the Epistle of James. As another proof of the early date of the Apocalypse the Epistle of James to the believ- ing Jews, scattered abroad by the Roman wars, may be quoted. He reminds them that *' the " man is blessed who endureth temptation: for *' when he is tried, he shall receive tov '*r 12S4 Oti the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 2. In consequence of this developement the churches knew well what was meant by these terms, employed by Paul and John in their epis- tles, and which, no doubt, would often occur in their oral addresses in the congregations. John having written his Epistles later than Paul, and Paul, as has been shown, later than the Apocalypse, it was not necessary to my argument, that I should at all examine John's Epistles ; but John's reference to THE Antichinst, as rising out of, or rather, in the church itself, — a fact first made known by the opening of that book, con- cerning which he zvept much, fearing that no one might ever be able to explain it, — furnishes incon- trovertible evidence that he wrote his Epistles later than the Apocalypse. This argument, however, depends on a fact of which the proof has not yet been submitted to the reader — that the book of Daniel is the book sealed with seven seals, which was opened or ex- plained by the Lion of the tribe of Judah, in the Apocalypse. The evidence of this fact shall, however, be laid before the reader, after I shall have offered such remarks as may be called for on the few remaining Epistles yet to be noticed, and which will be confined to the next section. Sec. IS J 0/1 the Date of the Apocalypse. 125 §13. Respecting the Epistles to Titus and Phile- mon, and the Epistle ofjude. In these, the only remaining epistles, I do not find any thing that may, with certainty, be considered as derived directly from the Apoca- lypse. In that to Titus the only expression that has the resemblance of an allusion to that prophecy is in ch. ii. 13. 14. — *' Expecting the blessed hope, ^^ yea the appearing of the glory of the great ** God even our Saviour Jesus Christ." — This ** appearing of the glory'' is coincident with the sounding of the seventh angel, when Christ will take to him his great power, and reign for ever — This is the period when he will give reward unto his servants, Rev. xi. 15 — 18. Yea, God shall then wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor any more paiti. They are therefore expecting this blessed hope of the appearing of this glory of our Saviour. Any allusion to the Apocalypse could not be expected in such an epistle as that to Philemon, which is merely a short letter commending One- simus, now become a Christian, to the kind re- gards of his master, to whom he had, before, been an unprofitable servant. 196 On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. 2. The Epistle by Jude refers to words, spoken by Apostles before he wrote his epistle (ver. 17), by which he may be conceived to refer particu- larly to the Epistles of Peter, for he alludes to the same facts respecting mockers and apostates: but however this may be, it is generally believed that, excepting the epistles of John, none of the epistles were written so late as his. It is sufficient to say, respecting these epistles, that having been written after others which I have endeavoured to show contain allusions to the Apocalypse, they must, if my arguments have been well founded, be of a later date than that prophecy. § 14. Of the sealed Book which has been opened by the Apocalypse, I had occasion in the 11th and 12th sections of this Dissertation to employ an argument drawn from the circumstance of both Paul and John, and I may also add Peter, having spoken very clearly of certain particulars detailed in the pro- phet Daniel. The sum of the argument may be stated in few words. These particulars were among the things that were closed up and sealed in the Book of Daniel — and they were to remain so sealed up till the time of the end. The ques- Sec. 14.] On the Date of the Apocalypse. 127 tion then is simply this : Whence did these wri- ters derive their knowlege ? Certainly not from Daniel himself; for if his book could be thus read and explained, it could not be called a sealed book ; and if this be the sealed book spoken of in the Revelations, how came John to weep on the supposition that no one would be found able to open, that is to explain, the book ? If, until this was effected by the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, it remained a sealed book to John, how could it be open to Peter and Paul ? and not only to them but to the churches, having been explained by Paul to the believers in Thessalo- nia both orally and by letter ; and by Peter to the believers scattered as strangers throughout FontuSy Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia ! What ! an open book to such multitudes and yet a closed book to John ! Yet this must be the fact, if John did not write the Apocalypse till the year 96 or 97, as some strenuously con- tend. Nay more strange still ; John must have forgotten his former knowlege by the time he wrote his vision ; for it is allowed, even by the most strenuous contenders for so late a date, that John's first Epistle was written about the year 80 1 — But the cogency of this reasoning de- pends on another fact : Was the sealed book which John saw opened in his vision, the book of the Prophet Daniel ? If we attend carefully to 128 On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert, 2. the description which John gives of this book we shall easily ascertain this point from the cha- racter and marks which he has recorded re- specting it. 1. The book was written inside and outside. Its being written on the outside, evidently imports, that a part of the writing was visible ; that is, the book was already in the possession of the church, and partly intelligible ; and if we attend to what passed when the Lamb who was slain, but now liveth, took the book into his hand to open it, we shall discover a part of the writing itself, for it became the subject of the song of those around the throne, *' Thou hast made us " unto our God Kings ajid Priests, and we shall *' reign on the earths However dark the other parts of the book were, this was one thing which could be plainly read in it, that a time was coming in which the saints shall possess the kingdom ; (Dan. vii. 25.) when the rule and dominion and the great- ness of the kingdojn under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom (v. 27)^ Thus it appears that the^book from which they took their song was that of the Prophet Daniel, 2. It was a " sealed book'' Here we have a very particular and explicit description by which the book is ascertained to be that of Daniel, be- Sec. 13.] On the Date of the Apocalypse. 129 yond all possibility of cavil. Daniel was com- manded to shut up the words and seal the book of his visions. He alone, of all the prophets of God, received such a command ; and, of all the books in the hands of the church, his is the only one which we find so shut up and sealed. 3. The book was not only sealed, but " sealed " with seven seals'' It could by no means be opened till one qualified to give the interpreta- tion should come and explain it. The seals being seven in number, show how perfectly the meaning was hid, " seven" in Scripture lan- guage denoting what is complete and perfect.' But we are not in the present instance left to take such a general signification of the term " seven." As DanieFs was the only sealed book in the hands of the church, so we find that cha- racter given to it in no less than four places of that prophet, viz. ch. viii. 26, ch. ix. 24, ch. xii. 4, and again in the latter chapter, at the 9th verse : and it is not a little remarkable that the number of times which the vision — the pro- phet — the words— the bookj are shutf closed up, or ' The reason for this sense of the term, which is quite common in the Hebrew scriptures, is evidently this : the root, jj^m, besides meaning seven, means also to satisfy^ to Jill, to have enough, to complete ; — hence to do a thing seven times is to do it perfectly. I ISO On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. Q. sealedy in these places, amounts exactly to seven, as follows : I. *' Shut thou up the Vision^ (viii. 26.) II. " Seventy weeks are determined to seal up the Vision,'' (ix. 24.) III. " Seventy weeks are determined to seal up the Prophet,'' (ix. 24.) IV. Shut up the Words to the time of the end." (xii. 4). V. ** Seal the Book to the time of the end." (xii. 4.) VI. " The words are closed up till the time of the end." (xii. 9.) VII. " The words are sealed till the time of the end." (xii. 9.) 4. The book was complete : both the inside and outside of the roll or book was covered with writing. So the expression in the original de- notes. That is, there was no room left for ad- ditions. And it is not a little remarkable that the explanation of this book given by the Lion OF THE Tribe of Judah, shows that it contain- ed a prophecy of the purposes of God, respect- ing his church and the reign of the Messiah, so complete and perfect, that nothing could be added to it. The removal of the seals from the book of Daniel was all that was wanted to put the church in possession of this knowledge. 5. We learn from Daniel himself how long the Sec. 13.] On the Date of the Apocalypse. 131 book was to remain sealed. This sealing or shutting up was to continue for certain weeks : that is, as we find by the context (chap, ix.) till the time of Messiah the Prince — till he should make an end of sin — [sin-offerings, for so the word signifies]— by the one offering of himself (Heb. X. 12, 14); or in other words, till cm end should be put to the sacrifices offered under the law : and we find the same thing intimated twice afterwards (Dan. chap, xii.) by the expression '*the time of the end,'' — that is, the time of Christ, whose coming put an end to the Mosaic institutions. The book then that was opened in the Apocalypse, had its seals loosed at a period answerable to the prediction respecting the time in which Daniel's prophecies were to be opened ; and, the fulfilment answering to the prediction, the evidence becomes complete, that the Prophet Daniel was the book that was thus opened. The inference from all this is obvious. The writers of the Apostolic Epistles have, in various parts of their writings, spoken of some of the sealed things of Daniel, without any veil or mys- tery whatever : on the contrary, they speak of them as well known, even to those to whom they address their Epistles ; — as for example, — " yourselves know perfectly, that tfie day of the ** Lord so Cometh as a thief in the night" — Paul in his first Epistle to the Thessalonians, 132 On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 2. V. 2 ; and again in his second Epistle ii. 5, " Re- ** member ye not, that when I was with you, I told " you these things f — What things ? Things re- specting ** the man of sin, the son of perdition, ** who opposeth and exalt eth himself above all that " is called God, or that is worshipped; so that hQ *^ as a godsitteth in the temple of God shoxving him- " self that heisa god,'' ver. 3, 4 : now the body or community here personified as the son of perdi- tion, is the very king of whom Daniel predicted, ** he shall do according to his will, and magnify ** himself above every god, and speak marvellous ** thiiigs against the God of gods,'' &c. Dan. xi. 36 ; and the things respecting this man of sin and the manner of his destruction were among those that were sealed up — ** But thou Daniel, " shut up the zvords, and seal the book, to the time " of the end," ch. xii. 4, This being the fact, the sealed book must have been opened before Paul wrote his Epistles ; or, in other words, the Apocalypse had been given to the churches be- fore that time, which was the point to be proved ; for it is plain, from John's words, that up to the period when he saw the seals removed, neither Peter nor Paul, nor any one in heaven or on earth, or under the earth, had been ^^ found worthy to open •* the book, nor to inspect it," Rev. v. 4 ; — an as- sertion which would not be true, had Paul writ- ten his Epistles before that time. Sec. 13.] On the Date of the Jpocak/pse. 133 While on this subject I shall take the oppor- tunity to offer a few farther observations by no means foreign to the ultimate intention of the present publication. If the Book of Daniel was to continue sealed till the time of the end of the Jewish dispensation — if no human powers, however ingeniously exerted, could unfold or explain the sealed parts till the Messiah should give the true meaning of them — how should it be possible that, by following Jewish interpre- tations, the Christian Church should ever attain a right understanding of their import? Need we wonder, then, that Commentators should miss their aim, when, treading in the steps of the Jewish Doctors, they continue to consider Je- rusalem as the holy city — the temple as the sanc- tuary — the Jewish High Priest as the Prince of the Host — Antiochus Epiphanes as the polluter of the sanctuary, the taker away of the daily [ser- vice], the author^ofthe transgression of desolation ; and the Roman armies under Titus, as those in- tended by the destroyer of the city and the sanctu- ary ? Ought we not rather to be surprised that they could ever think it possible that light should be expected on this subject from those who have " eyes, but see not, and ears but hear not unto ** this day I' (Rom. xi. 8); or that they could overlook the numerous intimations given in the Scriptures respecting the substitution of another 134 On the Date of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 2. tabernacle — another sanctuary, or holy place — another holy city, for those which existed under the Jewis dispensation ? Of little avail will it be to admit these truths generally, if we do not follow them to all their consequences. " The Priesthood being changed ** (Heb. vii. 12), there is made, of necessity, a ** change also of the law" and of every thing con- nected with it. The first covenant had a worldly sanctuary (Heb. ix. 1), and in this a place called, by eminence, *' the holiest of all," (ver. 3), into which the High Priest entered alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people (ver. 7) : the Holy Spirit signifying that the way into the true holiest of all, was not made manifest while the first taber- nacle was standing, which was only a figure for the time then present, until the time of the refor- mation by Christ. Now, if the Mosaic institu- tions were to continue only till the time of the reformation by Christ, and if Jerusalem, the temple, &c. had no other sanctity than the legal holiness derived from these institutions, is it not absurd in those who call themselves Christians, to continue, with blind Jewish predilection, to apply to that " Jerusalem, which is in bondage ** with her children,'' (Gal. iv. 25), events which were to happen subsequently to the coming of Him, to whom Moses and all the Prophets bore Sec. 13.] On the Date of the Apocalypse, 135 witness, as the end of the law ? — Have we not " a High Priest who is set on the right hand of the " Throne of the Majesty of the Heavens; a Minister '' of thesA^CTVARY and of the trve tabernacle " which the Lord pitched, and not manf\lleh, viii. 1, 2.) Hath not Christ come a High Priest of good things by a greater and more perfect taber- nacle than the one made with hands ? (Heb. ix. 1 1). He hath not entered into " the holy places "made with hands, the figures of the truCy but ** into Heaven itself" (xi. 24.) Instead of the Jerusalem which is in bondage, have we not the Jerusalem which is above, and free? (Gal. iv. 26.) In one word — Has not the time come in which the true worshippers worship the Father in the Spirit and Truth of all the figurative in- stitutions of Moses (John iv. 23), being free from all bondage to the former weak, beggarly, world- ly elements or rudiments ? (Gal. iv. 3, 9.) From these few observations, it is evident that things spoken of the city, the sanctuary, the sacri- fice, the oblation, &c. and referring to periods subsequent to the anointing of the Most Holy (Dan. ix. 24), have no relation to the city which formerly was called holy, or to the worldly sanc- tuary and to the ritual of Moses. They are mere adaptations of old terms to the time of the New Testament dispensation. As to the term " Prince of the Host,'' it never 1S6 On the Date of the Apocaljipse. [Dissert. 2. was applied, in the Scriptures, nor any similar term, to the Jewish High Priest ; and to make such an application of it is not only arbitrary, but contrary to the express plan and tenor of both the Old Dispensation and the New. This is a point of some moment, but it will not re- quire many words to set it in a clear light. — Both of them were to have a High Priest, and (not to insist here on other characteristic diffe- rences), there was to be this distinguishing cir- cumstance between the two^ — the Priests under the law could only be of the tribe of Levi, and could have none of the prerogatives of Royalty, which belonged to another tribe, that of Judah. The New Dispensation, on the contrary, has a Regal High Priest — ** a High Priest after the " order of Melchisedec^ (Heb. vii.) who was King of Salem, and also Priest of the Most High God. — The Christian Church has a great High Priest, who is passed into the Heavens, Jesus the Son of God (Heb. iv. 14), whom God hath constituted both Lord (ruler, king, prince), and Christ (Acts ii. 36), agreeably to what had been before prophesied of him, " I have anointed ** my King upon Zion, the hill of my Holiness." He is the Prince of the Host — it is the name which he carries on his vesture and on his thigh — *' King of Kings and Lord of Lords" (Rev. xix. 16); for '' the host,'' in Daniel, as will be Sec. 13.] On the Date of the Apocalypse. 137 proved in its proper place, means the Kings of the Earth, and particularly the Kingdoms of Europe — the body, or proper territory of Daniels fourth beast. But if Christ be the Prince of the Host, Antiochus Epiphanes can by no possibility be the one who made himself his equal, cast down his sanctuary, and took away the daily [service] (Dan. viii. II); nor can the ** Sanctuary,'' and " Daily' alluded to, be the daily sacrifice, and the Temple at Jerusalem ; and the whole of the fabric, that has been reared by the numerous commentators and expositors who have gone upon this system, must fall to the ground. But to return — As the book of Daniel is the sealed book that was opened in the days of John, it follows that the same relation subsists between the wri- tings of these two Prophets, as between a lock and its key. They are adapted to each other, and, if we would understand the words that were closed up and sealed till the time of the end, we must use them together ; attending at the same time to what has been written upon the same subject by other Prophets and Apostles — for all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is pro- Jitablefor instruction (2 Tim. iii. 16). If we wish to profit by them, we must take the result which they may offer, even if it should reprove and censure what we may have been taught to re- 138 On the Date of the Apocalypse, [Dissert. 2. spect and venerate. If we hearken to the re- proof, we shall find that the same Scriptures also point out what is necessary to be attended to for the correction of those things which they con- demn, and give ample imtrtcction in every thing that regards our faith and practice. Instead of following the Jewish and antichristian interpre- tations of the Book of Daniel, which have been the principal causes that have prevented him from being understood, let us carefully attend to the explanation that has been given of this Prophet by " the faithful and true wit- " NESS," as recorded in the Apocalypse; in which the seals are removed from that book ; the time for which the vision, and the Prophet who saw it, were to continue sealed, having ex- pired. CONCLUSION. The Apocalypse being, as I persuade myself has been proved, quoted in every Epistle in which the subjects treated of could possibly admit of it, it follows, that this Prophecy was delivered before these Epistles were written ; nor is this a matter of trivial import, as viewed in con- nexion with rightly understanding the New Testament record. The very knowlege of the fact serves to account for many expressions On the Date of the Apocaltfpse, 1^ which seem abrupt, and as it were insulated, in the Epistles ; and their import, for that very rea- son, not always very apparent. The quotations, in fact, often carry with them the supposition, that the reader will consult the context, in the book whence they are taken ; for it would have been contrary to that plan of brevity which seems purposely to have been made to pervade the New Testament, to swell it out by large quotations from either the Old Testament Pro- phets or the Apocalypse. It is admitted onfall hands, that when the Law or any of the Pro- phets is quoted, it is often indispensable that the context of the quoted words should be exa- mined ; and now that it is known to be no less certain, that the Apocalypse is in like manner quoted by the writers of the Apostolic Epistles, the propriety and necessity of attending to that book will be held to be equally indispensable. I am well aware that, the circumstance of quotations from the Apocalypse being found in the Epistles of the New Testament having been scarcely even suspected, many may be disposed to question the fact entirely. Let such persons first take due pains to examine the alleged quo- tations. In the examination they may, perhaps, find reason to reject, as not sufficiently evident, some of the instances that have been offered ; but I humbly apprehend that no person, ac- quainted with the antient modes of quotation 140 On the Date of the Apocah/pse. [Dissert. 2. and reference, will be able to reject them all ; and such is the nature of this evidence, that if but a single instance, out of the many that have been offered, shall be found to be, indisputably, a quotation from, or an allusion or reference to, the Apocalypse, the argument for an early date will remain unimpaired, and the fact incontro- vertible, that the book was written at least as early as the reign of Nero, or more probably that of his predecessor, I have supposed it possible that some of the alleged instances of quotation may be thought not sufficiently obvious to allow of their admis- sion ; but, on the other hand, I have to state, what I doubt not will be the result^ a sufficiency being found to establish the general inference — and one indisputable quotation is as effectual for this as fifty would be — that other passages will be found, by those who turn their attention to this subject, which the author has not no- ticed ; for it would be singular indeed if, in such an inquiry, none should have escaped his search. The issue I doubt not will be, that, on this sub- ject, much will yet be discovered by the dili- gence of future enquirers ; nor will its impor- tant uses, in illustrating those passages in which such allusions are found in the Epistles, escape the attention of such as study the scriptures with an earnest desire to comprehend their true meaning. DISSERTATION THE THIRD. ON THE LANGUAGE AND STRUCTURE OF THE APOCALYPSE. § 1. Of the Verbal Language, Xn reading the New Testament it should be constantly recollected that, though written in Greek, it is a record of doctrines and precepts delivered originally in Hebrew, or in a dialect of that language, and of events which had been predicted in the Hebrew scriptures ; and also, that the principal speakers and actors were Jews. No new terms were invented ; nor could this be necessary, in showing that what was now transacted was simply a fulfilment of Old Testa- ment prophecies. It follows, that, in the Greek scriptures, (and this applies to the Septuagint translation so far as it gives a correct version of the Hebrew), other ideas, or shades of mean- 142 On the Verbal Language [Dissert. 3. ing, attach to many words, than could be con- nected with them, as used by the heathen wri- ters. To explain them only by Greek usage, would, on many occasions, be to exclude, in a great degree, the real subject which they are em- ployed to ehicidate. The Apostles and Evan- gelists, however, when exhibiting Jewish usages and ceremonies, and scripture theology, in a new garb, did not arbitrarily impose upon words, meanings foreign to their radical sense : analo- gy was strictly regarded. They did what good writers are obliged to do every day, — they ex- tended the primary sense, so modified as to ex- press or embrace, the new idea, taking care to maintain that [uniformity of use, in the new ap- plication, which should remove ambiguity and uncertainty. It should be also recollected that, already, a language was, as it were, prepared for the pen- men of the New Testament, as to the greater portion of the terms; for the Jews who were spread over the Roman Empire, and, particular- ly, throughout Egypt and the whole extent of the Greek provinces, were in the habit of using the Septuagint. Indeed but few of these Jews, excepting their learned men, could speak a word of Hebrew ; and, but for this version, they must have sunk into a state of the greatest ignorance, respecting the history and religion of their Sec. 1.] of the Apocalypse. 143 forefathers." It is not surprising, therefore, that they should have considered the making of this ' Even in Judea the Hellenists made use of the Greek tongue ; and, as noticed by Lightfoot (Vol. 1 . p. 330), there are in the Gemarists several passages respecting the Greek language. — "In Megillah fol. 71, col. 2, they say thus. There is a tradition from Ben Kaphra^ God shall enlarge Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem. The Babylonian Gemara on the same Treatise, fol. 9, col. 2, re- solves us, what tongue of Japhet is meant ; for having spo- ken, all along before, of the excellency and dignity of the Greek tongue, it concludes Dtt^ »Vni«l «n» nD» ^tt^ imsv The very beauty of Japhet shall be in the tents of Shem, — Our men first named, say further thus : Rabbi Jonathan of Beth Gubrin saith. There are four languages brave for the world to use, and they are these : The Vulgar, the Roman, the Syriac, and the Hebrew, and some add the Assyrian. Now the question is. What Tongue he means by the Vulgar? Reason will name the Greek as soon as any ; and Midras Tilin makes it plain that this is meant ; for fol. 25, col. 4, speaking of this very passage, [but alleging it in somewhat different terms,] he nameth the Greek, which is not here named. Observe then that the Hebrews call the Greek the Vulgar Tongue. They proceed, ibid. col. 3. It is a tradi- tion. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, In books they permitted not, that they should write, but only in Greek, They searched, and found, that the Law cannot be interpre- ted completely but only in Greek. One once expounded to them in Syriac, out of the Greek. R. Jeremiah in the name of R. Chaijah ben Ba saith, Aquila the proselite interpreted the Law, before R. Eliezer and before R. Joshua. And they extolled him and said. Thou art fairer than the children of i44 On the Verbal Language [Dissert. 3. translation a great blessing, and commemorated the event by an annual festival, which continued to be observed for some time after the Chris- tian era.' As these Jews were acquainted with men. And the same Talmud in Saiah, fol. 21, col. 2, hath this record : Rabbi Levi went to Casarea, and heard them pnD»J1^« rott^t'np rehearsing their Phylacteries Hellenis- TICE, or, in the Greek Tongue." — In a word : the conquests of Alexander served to establish the Greek language every where. ' In such authority was the Septuagiht version held among the Hellenist Jews that, for a time, it was read in their syna- gogues instead of the Hebrew ; and such were the unquali- fied praises they bestowed on it, that the Christians received it, not as a mere version, but as a second divine original, believing that the translators were inspired persons. It was early translated into Latin, and became the text book of the Western, as well as of the Eastern, churches. It was the only copy of the Old Testament Scriptures they generally used ; and the only one they appealed to in all their con- troversies, particularly with the Jews, employing it most advantageously in confuting those from whom they had re- ceived it ; proving to them from it, by the most irrefragable arguments, that their expected Messiah must have already come, in the person of Jesus Christ. This circumstance at length led the Jews to have it in abhorrence, and a national annual fast was instituted to deplore the same event which they had before commemorated by a solemn festival; so that, by the end of the first century, it was expelled from every synagogue. The Hebrew, however, had become so completely a dead language, not only to the Hellenists, but to the Jews generally, that they could obtain no knowlege Sec. 1.] of the Apocalypse. 145 the law, only through the medium of a Greek version, a necessity was laid upon their teachers to address them in the Greek tongue. Thus the idiomatic changes, necessary to make this a fit language for the diffusion of a religion originat- ing in Judea, had already been effected, before the Evangelists and Apostles began to write. The formation of this peculiar idiom (for the Greek of the New Testament can neither be called ^ distinct language, nor even a dialect, in the strict sense of these terras) has been pro- ductive of benefits which have never been duly of their Scriptures but through the medium of a translation, and therefore to supply the place of the Septuagint a new Greek version was made, about the year 129, hy Aquila of Pontus, first a convert from Paganism to Christianity and then a proselyte to Judaism. His version, which is now lost, is reported to have been very obscure. Of course another was called for, and that of Theodotion made its ap- pearance about the year 184. This writer, who had been a disciple of Tatian, then a Marcionite, and lastly a Jew, re- tained as much of the Septuagint version as suited his pur- pose, but altered, added or retrenched to make it conform to such Hebrew Manuscripts as the Jews put into his hands. The Jews of course were well pleased with this version, and the Christians were not offended because it so much resem- bled the Septuagint. Besides these versions there was another by Symmachus, (first a Samaritan, then a Jew, then a Chris- tian, and lastly an Ebionite) made about the end of the second century ; also translations by others of particular books of the Old Testament. K 'X40 On the Verbal Language [Dissert. 3. appreciated. Its peculiarity consists in express- ing Hebrew phrases in Greek words ; and by its establishment the Greek and Hebrew scrip- tures have been rendered mutual expositors of each other. An acquaintance, therefore, with what has been called Hellenistic Greek, but, more properly, the Greek of the Synagogue, is of great importance in the study of the Old Testament Scriptures ; and, on the other hand, the peculiar idiom of the New can best be ac- quired by an intimate acquaintance with the Hebrew phraseology: nor can the most tho- rough knowlege of the language of the Greek classics supply the want of this ; for some of the words, in the Greek scriptures, are used in senses in which they never occur in profane au- thors, and which, as remarked by Dr. Campbell,' *' can be learnt only from the extent of signifi^ ** cation given to some Hebrew or Chaldaic '* word, corresponding to the Greek in its pri- ** mitive and most ordinary sense." These facts apply to the Scriptures generally, but, in a special manner to the Apocalypse. In this book the peculiar idiom alluded to is, in some respects, more prominent than in the other Writings of the Greek scriptures ; nor could it be otherwise ; for, as has been shown, in the Dis- ■( ' ■ ' Prelim, Dissert, p. 23. Seel.] of the Apocalypse. 147 sertation immediately preceding, it was the first written book of the New Testament, The dispersion of the Jews throughout the Greek Empire, the Septuagint translation, ami the public addresses of the Elders to the Greek Jews in their Synagogues, had, as intimated, aU ready effected certain idiomatic changes on the Greek employed in teaching the Law of Moses and expounding the Old Testament Scriptures ; but these only embraced, and could only era- brace, ideas connected with Judaism. More was wanted to adapt it for the general diffu- sion of the religion of Jesus. Hitherto unin- spired men had used their best endeavours to clothe Hebrew phraseology in the garb of ano- ther language : but in the Apocalypse we have it under a Divine sanction, and adapted to (he Christian dispensation. So far, therefore, as con* cerns language, the Apocalypse may be consi- dered as an initiatory or elementary xvork, — as the Rudiments of the New Testament Greek ; and hence the number of Hebraisms, and peculiar forms of speech, which pervade this book : for a rigid adherence to what may be called the technical phraseologj^, is inseparable from the nature of an elementary work, and more espe- cially, when a large portion of it has been be- fore in use in another language — and that lan- guage the one in which all the Prophecies were 1^8 On the Verbal Language [Dissert. 3. written, to which the Apostles were to appeal when proclaiming the glad news, that the promise made to the fat hers was fulfilled by God in the re- surrection of J Esvs from the dead. Many have laboured to prove, that the entire phraseology of the New Testament is perfectly consonant to the usage of the Greek historians, philosophers and poets ; but in this attempt they have shown a zeal without knowkge. The forma- tion of the idiom of which I have been speaking was indispensable ; and this idiom pervades the New Testament, but especially the Apocalypse. The assertion, however, of some men, that the Greek scriptures abound in lingual inaccuracies, does not appear to me to be well founded. In those portions which I have had occasion par- ticularly to examine, I have found the converse to be so invariably true, as to lead me to con- clude, that a stronger proof cannot be given by any person, that he has not made himself ac- quainted with the New Testament idiom, than his venturing to charge the sacred penmen with violations of grammar. In fact they under- stood the grammar of the language better than those who quarrel with them ; or, which comes to the same point, their adherence to the rules of grammar is so rigid as to repel every assault, and to place the acquirements of the critic, who majies the attack, in a very questionable point Seel.] of the Apocali/pse. 149 of view. — How do such men generally proceed ? They meet with some supposed violation, — they substitute the idea or mode of speech which they conceive to be intended : — they read on and presently meet with something which does not harmonise with the imposed sense ; and a new violence is then committed, to prevent ob- scurity. The text again resists this : the Critic, never questioning his own judgment, blunders on, till he has lost the sense entirely : and then, instead of retracing his steps, or even trying what would be the result of allowing the author to speak in his own language, charges him with solecisms and violations of grammar. In offering these remarks nothing can be far- ther from my mind than a personal allusion to individuals. Indeed it would be unjust to charge any, who, to the best of their ability, have la- boured to explain the sacred pages, with having wilfully employed other than legitimate means to make out the sense. The points which I would establish are simply these : that, to ad- mit any proposed sense, resting on a supposed violation of language in the author, is highly injudicious, in as much as it tends to set farther inquiry at rest; that it is dangerous, because we may thereby receive, as revealed truth, what is a mere human fiction ; that it is, in every case, safer to remain ignorant of the true, than to re- ceive a false sense ; and, in a word, when the 150 On the Verbal Language [Dissert. 3. assumed sense implies a violation of the rules of grammar, on the part of the inspired penman, that no other evidence is wanted to prove, that the critic, or translator, has missed the meaning of the passage. And I am persuaded that, till this shall be received and acted upon, as an invaria- ble rule, we never shall obtain any thing like a correct version of the Scriptures. In translating the Apocalypse if the verbal sense be not given correctly, the version will, of necessity, mislead. Every one sees that the book is difficult ; and every one may see too, that this was designed by the Revealer. It was not intended that it should, as it were, counteract its own predictions : — its enemies were to be left to act as if it had never been written. One principal cause of the difficulty of the book is, the mode of expression, which at first sight appears quite easy, and the translation obvious, even to a school-boy ; but a close examination shows the Greek intricate, and the translation false, as not agreeing with the na- ture of the Greek expression, or of the Hebrew phrase of which it is often the representative. — In the same chapter and in the same recital un- expected changes of tenses and cases are fre- quently obvious in the original. This fact is undeniable: but, if we disregard them, we throw away one of the principal means employed, in this prophecy, to guide the reader to the sense. SeCr^Kj^^ of the Apomlypse, 151 This subject is important ; and it may prove use- ful, before we advance any farther, to illustrate it by a short reference. John writes in several characters: nor does he ever deviate from the style proper to each in its place. The Revelation was given TO SHOW to God's servants, things which were shortly to come to pass : — and the things seen were to be WRITTEN in a book, andsent to the seven congregations : that is, the things SHOWN, were to be accompanied with snch a detail of the circumstances of the vision, as might enable the reader to " hear," that is, to understand " the WORDS OF THE PROPHECY." Accordingly, on some occasions, John records, simply, as a His- torian, what he saw or heard ; and on others he becomes, as it were, the E.vhibitor, calling upon the reader to see, which in the sense of the Greek term, ISoi [ecce], signifies also to hear, when the attention is called to sounds or words. The transition from the one style to the other is always sudden, and in some places frequent, but should be constantly regarded. Sometimes when he drops the participial mode of speech, (that usu- ally employed when he introduces the servants of the Omnipotent to behold the vision,) it is for the purpose of explanation ; which, of necessity, requires another form of expression : — in on6 word, on such occasions he adopts the language proper to an Expositor, Thus, in the fourth 152 On the Verbal Language [Dissert. 3. chapter, the first words, ** after these things I " looked,''' are historical. He then calls upon the reader, — " Behold ! an entrance, set open, " in the heaven ! also [behold, i, e. hear'\ the ** mice' — What voice ? He suspends the exhibi- tion, till he informs the reader — not a new voice now speaking for the first time, but " The for- ** mer one which I heard, as of a trumpet, speaking " with me'' Throw these explanatory words into a parenthesis, then the sense is, " Hear the " voice saying, * ascend,^ " &c. Having quoted the words of ** the voice," his language again be- comes historical, — " Immediately I was inspired;" and, having nothing more to communicate on this point, he again calls the reader to behold, along with himself, the vision : " Behold a " throne placed in the heaven, — and one sitting on " the throne" — " likewise a rainboxo" — " also twenty ^* four seats," &c. — and thus he goes on, till, hav- ing invited him to behold " seven lamps of fire •* burning before the throne" he again changes his mode of speech to perform the office of Ex- positor, saying — " These are [or represent, or "symbolise,] the seven spirits of the Om^ipo- ** TENT," — words which may be thrown into pa- renthesis; for he instantly resumes the language of the Exhibitor, — " Behold, before the throne, as " it were a sea of glass," &c. Nor do these embrace all the peculiarities ne- cessary to be attended to in the diction of the Sec. 1.] oftheApocalj/pse. loS Apocalypse. Sometimes it is prospective, in- forming the reader of something to be witnessed, at some particular part of the future exhibition. Thus in the fourth chapter, from the ninth verse to the end, it is intimated that, when the animals shall give glory, &cc. to the one sitting (not who sal) on the throne, Ihen the twenty-four elders will prostrate themselves, &c., yea will adore the one living to eternity, and zvill cast their crowns be- fore the throne, &c. — which has reference to the adoration paid to the Lamb in subsequent parts of the vision, as in chap. v. 11. to the end, ch. vii. 10 to 13.,— ch. xi. 16. &c. — And sometimes he introduces a title, as it were, of contents to follow : as in ch. viii. 5. where, after the Angel casts fire on the earth, he prepares the reader to expect voices, and thundering and light- nijigs and an earthquake, or, rather, a concussion — viz. the voices of the trumpets of ch. viii. and ix. and xi. 15. — the thunders of ch. x. — the earth- quake of ch. xi. 13. On other occasions he is retrospective, (a fact which has been entirely overlooked by Exposi- tors) and gives the reader a summary of what has been exhibited ; as he does immediately after the foregoing particulars, adding, at the end of ch. xi., " thus the sanctuary of God [not " temple as in our common version] was opened " in the heaven, and there was seen in his sanctuary '* the ark of his testament ;" — alluding to the door- 154 On the Verbal Language [Dissert. S. way set open in ch. iv. 1, which enabled John to see the throne^ i, e, the mercy seat, which was over the ark of the testimony : — " thus there were " lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an *' earthquake ;" viz. those alluded to at the end of the last paragraph above. And again in ch. xvi. 18. the same recapitulation occurs, with additions, namely the great earthquake of xi. 13, and the division of the city into three parts, viz. the th7*ee unclean spirits or professions of xvi. 13. But, on such occasions, translators have generally made John express himself in such a manner as to convert his recapitulations into fresh matter of prophecy, or of vision ; and hence much of the obscurity in which this prophecy has been buried by commentators. On these occasions, how- ever, the blame imputable to the translators is not always that of actually changing the author's mode of speech, but, often the injudicious man- ner in which they translate the conjunction xa), making it, almost invariably, a copulative, *^ and /' whereas, not only in the Apocalypse, but very often throughout the New Testament, it represents the i vau, or the ^D chi, of the He- brew, which demand, according to the exigency of the context, or the scope of the passage, a variety of expressions in English, as even, also, yea, moreover, likewise, again ; then, therefore ; when, where, there; yet, but, so, thus; for, &c. &c. True it is that the varying complexion of Sec. 1.] of the Apocalypse. 155 these Hebrew conjunctions has been as little re* garded in the translation of the Old Testament as of the conjunction xal in the New; but it is equally true, that where there is obscurity in the version, it may often be ascribed to this very cir- cumstance. — Let not the common reader, how^ ever, take up the idea, that our Translators paid no attention to the various conjunctions required by the idiom of our language to make it express the varying significations of xai ; for the contra- ry is the fact : they have frequently, and with great judgment, rendered this conjunction by — » eveuy yea, moreover, also, though, but, or, nor^ namely, therefore, hence, so, &c. &c. But time has discovered, that our public version might be improved, by a still more minute attention to this small but important word, which is of such frequent recurrence as to enter several times into almost every verse of the Bible. One important particular respecting the style deserves to be noticed. The Hebrew nouns, like those in our own language, not admitting inflection in the oblique cases, the Amanuensis of the Apocalypse, when representing certain Hebrew epithets in a Greek garb, especially those of them which had not yet obtained pro- per representatives in the Greek language, ex- hibits them without inflection : that is, as a* linguist would say, in the nominative case ; as in. the fifth verse of the first chapter, o [xaprvg 6 vi*: 156 On the Verbal Language [Dissert. Si trroSf ** the faithful witness,'' &c. This answers a singular purpose in this book, though hitherto unnoticed. Whenever the Greek reader meets with a nominative where, according to his ideas of Greek usage, he ought to find a genitive, a dative, or an accusative, the first thing which he ought to suspect is, that the Amanuensis is expressing some Hebrew noun (probably an epithet or title) ; for, without attending to this, he will sometimes miss the sense himself, and, if writing for others, will mislead them. On other occasions, if this occurs among words which John is writing from the mouth of some speaker, it will, with proper attention, be gene- rally found, that they form no part of the words of that speaker ; but are a parenthetical expla- nation by John himself, — and, therefore, deserv- ing to be particularly noticed, — as in ch. iii. 14. where the words last quoted 6 [xapTug b Tna-Tog, " the faithful witness'' are introduced after " The Amen." In this place they are not the words of him who calls himself *^ The Amen," but the words of John, defining the meaning of the indeclinable Hebrew noun pK (Amen) when thus used as a name or title. Sometimes this supposed anomaly is found in his own narrative : when this is the case, it is for the same purpose as when it occurs in the speech of another ; — it is there a parenthetical expla- nation, and serves to intimate, that this is not to Seel.] of the Apocalypse. J 57 be considered as new additional matter, but as a repetition, explanation, or amplification of something immediately preceding, as in ch. \%, 14. where, after ** the sixth Angela' the Greek reads o l;^a)i/ r^v (rakvriyyoL, " the one having the ** trumpet ;" which are words added by John to prevent the words " sixth AngeF from being ap- plied to any other than the Angel intended. Let the Critic only make himself acquainted with these peculiarities, if they may be so called, in the style of the Apocalypse, and so far will he be from charging the writer with barbarisms, that he will wonder at the perspicuity and pre- cision (the perfection of all language) which flow from John's use of the nominative, and which could not, by any other means, have been at- tained, without a sacrifice of brevity, and often of energy. In one word, the writer of the Apo- calypse, whom some Critics charge with igno- rance of the common rules of grammar, so far from being careless in his style, exhibits what, in an uninspired writer, would be called, great so- licitude to prevent the possibility of his language being misunderstood. He not only, on differ- lent occasions, gives a key to explain the sym- bol which he employs, but actually performs the oflSce of a philologist, by giving precise defini- tions of the most important terms which occur in the book, as in ch. i. 8. iii. 14, &c. (See the Fifth dissertation.) 158 On the Ferbal Language [Dissert* 3, In the use of the prepositions John is so rigid that unless a translator attends to them with great care, noting the case with which they are put in construction, he will often fail to express the sense of the original. In no point have translators failed more essentially than in this; giving a kind of school-boy version, which, in many instances, conjures up a false picture to the mind. Take the following as an instance : jETSov liri r^v he^ioLV rou xaQrjiJLeuou stt) tolJ dpovoo ^i^Titou (ch. V. 1.) Here the first stt) is joined with an accusa- tive, in which situation it never, in any instance, expresses position on or in place, — any thing rest- ing in situ; yet all the versions have rendered these words thus : " J saw IN the right hand of ♦* him that sat on the throne a book.'" Now the fact is — ^John did not see, nor does he say that he saw, a book in any hand whatever, either right or left. Had he meant to say so, he would, when employing the preposition iTiy have put the noun in the genitive. He tells us that he saw a book on or concerning a certain subject or topic ; and informs us what this subject was ; namely, " the right hand of the one sitting upon ** the throne*^' Consequently " the right hand " must not be taken in its proper sense, but in some other to which the Scripture is not a stranger. In one word, a little enquiry will satisfy the reader, that he here employs the expression commonly used in the Old Testament for power: Sec, 1.} of the Apocalypse, 159 — he saw a treatise or work which had for its principal topic, the vower of the one sitting upon the throne. In fact, the text presents a strong Hebrew figure of speech, which escapes entirely the notice of the reader, when the preposition is wrongly translated. It may be proper to state here, for the informa- tion of the mere English reader, that the Greeks had not the number of prepositions which are found in modern languages ; but though, in this respect, their language was not so rich as some oi these, yet in resources for varying the shades of expression, required in composition and dis- course, they were by no means deficient. With us this is often effected by changing the preposi- tion : with them it was frequently effected by changing the case of the noun with which the preposition was put in construction, — the same preposition with the same noun, but in different cases, expressing quite different senses. It is, however, but too true, that translators, in gene- ral, have paid no attention whatever to this> but have satisfied themselves with making out a bungling sense, — often quite false. But in jus- tice it should be mentioned, that, when the re* ceived version was made, but little was known respecting the nature and character of the Greek prepositions ; and, therefore, great precision can- jiot be expected from the translators of that pe- riod : but how comes it that, in recent versions, fl60 On Symholkal or [Dissert. 3. no advantage has been taken of the discoveries that have since been made in this branch of learning ? On the verbal language of the Apocalypse the foregoing remarks may suffice for the present : but, before proceeding farther, it may be useful that vfe make ourselves a little acquainted with the nature of symbols or hieroglyphics, with which the book abounds; as, without some knowlege of i\\\^ particular language^ it never will be possible to come to any satisfactory conclu- sion, respecting the sense of many of the pas- sages in this prophecy. § 2. (y Symbolical or Hieroglyphical Language, ^ No person can doubt that a large portion of I the Apocalypse is delivered in Symbols, or in the /language of Symbols. Indeed in the very first \ verse of the book we are informed that the things fflf {communicated were symbolised (ea-i^^avev), to I John; that is, made known by symbols, or signi- ficant signs : for this is the proper sense of the verb (rrjfjLaivo), in contradistinction to what is de- clared in common speech. As, then, the things exhibited to the prophet were symbols, and as, whenever any Angel (that is, Messenger) is intro- duced as conversing with him, it is for the pur- pose of calling his attention to these symbols, or to inform him of something respecting them, Sec. 2.] Hieroglt/phical Language. 16 1 it is highly necessary that Christians should make themselves as well acquainted as possible with this mode of writing or communicating infor- mation. To enter fully into this subject would require more time and space than can now be given to it: but a few general observations, in this place, may tend to facilitate future enquiries. All primitive languages are highly figurative,..^- and they are so from necessity. Men must pos- sess ideas before they seek words to express them ; and, when new ones are produced, mak- ing use of the language they possess, they are obliged to have recourse to such natural objects around them as are known, or supposed, to pos- sess qualities or properties, in some way resem- bling the idea they wish to comnjunicate. Hence*, the language of metaphor, which uses such ex- pressions as these : God is my rock — my for^ tress — my high tower — my shield — and, the horn of my salvation. In such modes of speech, the fitness of the figure is manifest, and occasions no j ambiguity ; but the original paucity of language ' introduced another form, which, from its very nature, seems to have been prior even to the use n of metaphors — I mean the symboUcal language ^^ in which the figure employed is not used as an \ adjunct, expressive of some property, quality, or/ function of the object or subject named along \ with it, but put in place of the object itself. L 162 On Symholical or [Dissert. 3. The origin of this mode of writing seems ob- vious. Oral language being antecedent to any kind of writing, the first attempts at the latter could be nothing but rude efforts to represent to the eye a draft or outline of the object described ; as, the picture of a lion when that animal was to be expressed, and that of a man when a man was the subject : but as qualities as well as objects were required to be also conveyed by the writing, and as in oral language these could only be ex- pressed by figures drawn from sensible objects, the same method was necessarily employed in graphic attempts, and hence any particular animal vi^as employed, not only to represent the animal itself, but as a substitute for some other object, to which one or more of the qualities proper to that animal were ascribed. Thus, a lion, by common / consent, signified a man strong and powerful — a ' . king; and hence such an expression as this — ^Hhe I *Uion of the Tribe of Judah,"i.e. the king who had his descent from that tribe ; for even after lan- guages became more copious, and could furnish many terms proper for expressing abstract ideas, the old method continued, and was blended with oral language, and with literal writing, which v was much later than the symbolic. Strange as this method of writing appears to the moderns, it was brought to such perfection as to possess powers of expression far beyond Sec. 2.] Hitroglyphical Language. 163 what can now be easily conceived. This is plain from the number of synonymous symbols that are known to have been employed in it ; nor is it difficult, in some instances, to see in what manner they were derived. Every department of nature furnished objects that were fitted, in some way, for the purpose : hence, to express a king, they \ were not confined to the brute creation ; what- ever was the chief of its kind became, or by com- , mon consent might have become, a legitimate symbol of a monarch ; as, the Eagle, which was so employed, because conceived to possess the first rank among the feathered tribes. Again, as a king's power to subdue his enemies depends on the strength of his kingdom, and as animals / with horns are, ceteris paribus, stronger than those who have none, horns are put for kingdoms ; and, kings having the direction of the national force, the same symbol is, by metonymy, put for kings. In like manner, the firmament, to use the/ ancient term, being elevated above the earth, and esteemed more splendid and glorious than terrestrial objects, was employed to symbolise the most elevated ranks among men ; and as, among the planets, the sun possesses incompara- bly the highest lustre, it became the symbol of supreme power, while the stars were made sym- bols of those possessing authority subordinate to the supreme. 164 On Symbolical or [Dissert. S. Among the Egyptians this kind of writing was carried to the highest degree of perfection ; those traditions and mysteries, which were thought of sufficient importance to be handed down to their successors, were engraven on the pyramids, the walls of their temples, and other works of art, and hence the name hieroglyphic^ from two Greek words Uplg holy, and y7^(i(^eiv to engrave. The oldest writings which the corroding tooth of time has suffered to reach us, and particularly the prophetic books of the Scriptures, abound in hieroglyphical language ; nor can particular parts of them be understood, correctly, without a knowlege of this species of writing. Indeed those, whose peculiar duty it is to devote their labours to the elucidation of such writings, ought to make the symbolic language an object of par- ticular study, that they may not only be able to ascertain the general signification of symbols, as such, but those legitimate shades and modi- fications of meaning, which result from their va- ried associations. In such an investigation it should not, for a moment, be forgotten, that each symbol has a precise and determinate meaning; and that, until this be ascertained, with respect to any one specified, it will be absolutely impossible to settle its peculiar signification, in combinations Sec. 2.] Hieroglyphical Language, 1 65 which necessarily affect the features, though not the radical sense of the symbol. — But I shall perhaps make myself more quickly understood by an example. The sun, as has already been noticed, was, * among the ancients, the legitimate symbol of supreme power, and the stars of subordinate autho- rity, A careless reasoner will be apt instantly / to conclude, that when the sun is put for the su- preme ruler, the moon must symbolise the queen; and he will not fail to recollect, in support of his opinion, that in Joseph's dream the sun symbo- lised the father, the moon the mother, and the stars the sons. In the case of a family these symbols could, with no kind of propriety, be taken in any other sense ; but it is quite other- wise in respect to a kingdom or empire ; and it is so from that necessity which determines the fit- ness of things. The hieroglyphic of the lumina- ries embraces a totality, which must not be vio- lated, in any case to which it may be applied ; the moon, therefore, cannot signify the wife of the sovereign, or it would follow, that a kingdom cannot exist without a queen, as well as a king. In fact the sun does not symbolise the sovereignty i as a male, or as any thing but the supreme power ; ' whether vested in a male, in a female, or in a / plurality of persons. A queen, then, if supreme^ ^ may be symbolised by the sun : in this case what 166 On Symbolical or [Dissert. S. would become of the moon? Consider, the. 9pm- poimd.sypibol, and then the parts of^fne eem- ple« fnaGlme to which it is applied. If the sun symbolise the sovereignty, and the stars inferior magistrates, what else remains of the political fabric to be symbolised ? Only the subjects; for a queen, considered as the spouse of the king, is not necessary to the existence of an empire; and, therefore, cannot be embraced by any portion of a symbol that is to be so applied, except as one of the subjects. By what argument, then, can it be shown, that, in the symbol of the luminaries, the moon is applied with equal propriety to a man's wife when a family, as to the people when a kingdom, is intended ? By a very obvious analogy : the man's wife is symbolised, not as a wife, but as a subject ; for such is the order ap- pointed by the Supreme Ruler of the universe,' ( an order from which the inhabitants of the East, /the parents of hieroglyphics, have not deviated \ even to the present time. ) It is deserving of notice, that the ancient as- / trologers, in solving political questions, seem to N have been guided entirely by symbolic indica- 1 tions. They always considered the sun as re- ( presenting the government or ruling power, and * Gen. iii. 16. 1 Cor. ii. 3. and xiv. 34. 1 Pet. iii. 5. Ephes. T. 24. Sec. 2.] Uieroglyphical Language, l67 the moon as symbolising the people or subjects ; but in domestic questions, as in Joseph's dream, the sun represented the husband, and the moon the wife, because subject to him. And here it may be remarked, for the analogy is striking, that Artemidorus states, that, a lamp-stand symbolises a wife,^ for which he assigns this reason :* that, as a lamp, or the light thereof, signifies the master of the house, because he superintends it ; so the lamp- stand signifies his wife, over whom he rules and presides. As an example of apparent change, — for the change is only in appearance, — which a symbol receives in its meaning, from a change of circum- stances, I shall exhibit one drawn from the heavens. Stars sometimes symbolise, not infe- rior magistrates, but kings. In this case more than one king is spoken of, or the Ruler of the universe is alluded to in the context: if the for- mer, as there is but one sun in our system, he is necessarily excluded, where a plurality of kings is the subject, and therefore other luminaries are substituted ; if the latter, the sun symbolising the King of Kings, the powers ordained by him are represented by stars. In the remark that has just been made, the reader will easily perceive one of the steps, by which ignorance deified the sun. In hieroglyphical language the Deity is • Lib. i. cap. 76. * Cap. 80. l68 On Symbolical or [Dissert. 3. " the sun of righteousness,'' — that is, the righteous king, ruler or governor. The object I have in view, in offering these remarks, is, not to give, at present, an explana- r tion of particular symbols, but, to press upon \ the reader the necessity of distinguishing with #^ / care between metaphors and symbols. In hiero- V glyphical language it is not left to fancy, or to ] sagacity, to attach to a symbol any signification which the reader may imagine would have been more appropriate than that assigned to it by the /ancients; for in elucidating such writings our i business is not now to make a language, but to ( read one already made ; and we might as well re- fuse to assign to any word in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, its known and admitted sense, from a con- ceit that a more expressive word might have been formed, to convey that idea, as quarrel with the meaning of a hieroglyphic, because, in our judg- ment, a more appropriate one might have been formed. But this is, in fact, the line of con- r duct that has been followed by the greater part of the expositors of prophecies. They have confounded symbols with metaphors ; and, be- cause the figures employed in the latter, accord- ing to their various combinations, admit of various significations, have used the freedom to assign meanings to the former, not recognised by the ancients, and therefore inadmissible. (, Sec. 2.] Hieroglyphical Language. 169 Where symbols are employed it is the duty of an expositor, instead of resorting to fancy, to employ industry ; not to make, but to find out the admitted sense. In Daniel and John many, of the symbols they employ are explained ; the meaning of others may be found in other pro- phecies ; and where these fail, recourse must be had to profane authors. Nor is there more dan- ger in seeking the meaning of a symbol in such works, than in ascertaining the sense of any word in the New Testament, by comparing the best Greek writers with each other and with the Sep- tuagint. By following this method it can hardly be doubted that the true and genuine significa- tion of every one of the symbols they employ may be satisfactorily ascertained. It may not be in the power of any single individual to ac- complish this desirable object. Where he can- not, by his industry, discover the meaning of any particular hieroglyphic, instead of showing himself ingenious, let him be ingenuous and con- fess his want of success, and we may hope that others, from sources which he may not have had an opportunity of consulting, will sooner or later supply the deficiency. On the sources whence useful information may be derived on this subject, I cannot do bet- ter than ofler a quotation from Bishop Hurd, who expresses himself thus : 170 On Symbolical or [Dissert. 3. '* Much of the Egyptian hieroglyphic, on " which the prophetic style was fashioned, may " be learned from many ancient records and ^* monuments still subsisting ; and from innu- " merable hints and passages scattered through " the Greek antiquaries and historians, which " have been carefully collected and compared " by learned men. ** The pagan superstitions of every form and *' species, which were either derived from Egypt, " or conducted on hieroglyphic notions, have ^* been of singular use in commenting on the ** Jewish prophets. Their omens, augury, and "judicial astrology, seem to have proceeded " on symbolic principles ; the mystery being " only this, that such objects as in the hierogly- '* phic pictures were made the symbols of cer- " tain ideas, were considered as omens of the *' things themselves " But of all the pagan superstitions, that ** which is known by the name of oneirocriticsj " or the art of interpreting dreams, is most di- *' rectly to our purpose. There is a curious " treatise on this subject, which bears the name "ofAcHMET, an Arabian wTiter ; and another " by Artemidorus, an Ephesian, who lived '* about the end of the first century. In the ** former of these collections (for both works are " compiled out of preceding and veri/ ancient Sec. 2.] Hieroglyphical Language . 171 ** writers) Ihe manner of interpreting- dreams ac- ** cording to the use of the oriental nations is ** delivered ; as the rules, which the Grecian " diviners followed, are deduced in the other. " For, light and frivolous as this art was, it " is not to be supposed that it was taken up at " hazard, or could be conducted without rules. ** But the rules, by which both the " Greek and oriental diviners justified their in- " terpretations, appear to have been formed on " symbolic principles So that the pro- " phetic style, which is all over painted with " hieroglyphic imagery, receives an evident il- ** lustration from these two works " Nor is any sanction, in the mean time, given ** to the pagan practice of divining by " dreams. For though the same symbols be in- " terpreted in the same manner, yet the prophecy " doth not depend on the interpretation, but on ** the inspiration of the dream It follows, ** that the rules, which the ancient diviners ob- " served in explaining symbolic dreams, may be ** safely and justly applied to the interpretation " of symbolic prophecies."* To these remarks of the learned Bishop, I shall only add, that considerable help may be obtained from Pieriuss work on Egyptian hiero- ' Hurd, Serra. ix. 172 On the Structure of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 3. glyphics, and particularly from the work that goes by the name of HorapoUo, There is also a modern work on this subject, which may be consulted with advantage, Lancaster^ Si[m' boUcal Dictionary ; but he should be received with caution, having, in many instances, like Daubuz whom he follows, fallen into the com- mon blunder of commentators, that of con- founding tropes, figures, and metaphors with symbols. _ § 3. Of the Structure of the Apocalypse, Though the subject of this section has been in some measure embraced in the two preceding sections, there is still room for some farther ob- servations. One point in particular, respecting the structure of this remarkable prophecy, de- serves great attention. A considerable portion of the particulars detailed by John, was not, as has been generally imagined, exhibited to him in dramatic action, — if, on such a subject, I may employ such a term. On the contrary, many of the things, which he states himself to have seen in the vision, were brought to his view, pre- cisely as he intimates in the first verse of the first chapter (see § 2) : — they were symbolised to him : they were symbolical y^epresentations, such as he describes ; — that is, pictures of some kind. Sec. 3.] On the Structure of the Apocalypse. 175 contained in a book, which was unrolled before him. Had translators properly attended to the circumstance, that, in this part of the prophecy, especially from the beginning of the sixth to the end of the ninth chapter, John, besides describing the other circumstances of the vision, gives a detailed account of things, circumstan- ces, and actions, seen by him in pictorial re- presentations, in the unsealed roll it self ^ they would, perhaps, have succeeded better in attain- ing the author's sense; and many of the sudden changes in moods and tenses which occur, and M^hich hasty critics have presumed to stigmatise as arbitrary, capricious, and not to be account- ed for, would have been seen to be perfectly ap- propriate, and absolutely required by the very nature of the detail. It is the more surprising that recent expositors should have so generally overlooked the circum- stance of the sealed book or roll, of which the Apocalypse treats, exhibiting, when opened, a series of symbolical pictures ; as the fact had oc- curred to Mr. Harmer, and had been stated by him in his very useful work on Oriental customs. His words are : " St. John evidently supposes " paintings, or drawings, in that volume which " he saw in the visions of God, and which was ** sealed with seven seals ; the first figure being " that of a man on a white horse, with a bow 174 On the Structure of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 3. *' in his hand," &c. : and further on, after speak- ing of two manuscripts of the Pentateuch, adorned with paintings, — " Such a book, it " seems, was that St. John saw in a vision." — Had commentators taken this view of the sym- bols described by John, it would have tended very much to obviate some of the difficulties they have met with in their attempts to explain the Apocalypse. \^ Having already had occasion to show, in the Second Dissertation, § 14, that these symbolical pictures had reference to the book of Daniel as a sealed book, the meaning of which was thereby explained to John, and through him to the Christian church, it is not necessary that I should here dwell long on this part of the struc- ture of the prophecy. One observation, how- ever, presents itself. Some commentators, mis- ^ taking entirely the nature and object of the \ sealed book, conceive the Apocalypse to be " di- " vided into two main branches ; the former a ** sealed book, containing seven seals, or sealed " and hidden prophecies ; and the latter an open / " codicil, containing several open and clear \ " ones," — thus actually converting what, John / plainly teaches, was done for the opening and j explaining of a book that was formerly sealed, S into the formation of a new sealed book, con- / taining '' seven sealed and hidden prophecies I" ( Sec. 3.] On the Structure of the Apocalypse, 175 To treat the Apocalypse thus, is to lock it up. If these prophecies be indeed sealed, vain must be every attempt to explain them. This notion has been taken up from an idea that " the book" of ch. V. ** sealed with seven seals,' must be different from the " little open book'' of ch. x. 2. But had those who have embraced this opinion attended to the Greek text, they would have seen that the expression used in the latter imports, that the book there spoken of is one ** that had been ** opened" (ave(pyixivQv), plainly intimating that, before " having been opened," — which is the correct sense of the Greek, — it had been a sealed book ; and that, having been so opened, by the removal of the seals, as detailed in the preceding chapters, it has been explained in such a manner that it may now be understood : and, accordingly, John was commanded to eat the book (ch. x. 9), that is, properly to consider and digest its contents, that he might be able to prophecy still farther respecting peoples, and na- tions, and tongues, and many kings, or kingdoms. Nor does the circumstance of its being called *' a little book" (^i^Xaplhov) in ch. x, at all alter the case ; for this only serves to describe still farther the " book" (gigx/ov) of ch, v, informing the reader that the one alluded to — the one " that had been opened," by removing the seals from it, is not a large volume ; — a fact which is 176 On the Structure of the Apocalypse. [Dissert, S. correctly true respecting the book of Daniel, and particularly the sealed parts of his prophecy. Every notion then, of such a structure as that '^ which has just been alluded to, should be re- ' jected, as quite foreign to the nature and design of the Apocalypse. Another opinion which has been very gene- rally entertained respecting the Apocalypse, should also be noticed in this place ; namely, that system which considers the book as being composed of seven seals , all of which, in their order, embrace distinct and successive periods; to each of which certain events are supposed to correspond, as its individual contents ; and to the last, in particular, is appropriated, as its contents, seven trumpets ; all of which, conse- quently, are subsequent to the first six seals, and also represent so many distinct periods in suc- cession. The seventh trumpet also, like the seventh seal, is, in this system, divided into seven distinct and successive periods, for the pouring out of seven vials of wrath, all of which are sub- sequent to the first six trumpets. — All this is laid down '^ for the sake of method !" and it is held, by those who conceive this to be the struc- ture of the book, to be a sufficient reason for rejecting any proposed explanation, that it would " introduce confusion into this order." In imita- tion of the savage policy of Procrustes, what- \ Sec. 3.] On the Structure of the Apocalypse, i77 ever in the book is too short for this bed is stretched to its length, and every thing too long is cut down to the standard. — Such is the me- thod, with a few variations, which has been fol- lowed to explain the visions of John, only be- cause such is the order in which he narrates them. As one means for ascertaining whether such a method of procedure is at all calculated to elicit the true sense, let us, for a few moments, apply a similar mode of interpretation to the visions of Daniel, and see what would be the result. Upon the principles laid down by such commentators for explaining the Apoca- lypse in the manner just stated, we must proceed thus: — Daniel's Great Image, composed of four metals, represents so many kingdoms in succes- sion. Another kingdom — the kingdom of the God of Heaven, represented by a stone cut out without hands, is then to be established, which is to destroy all other kingdoms, and endure for ever. But here, by kingdoms, we must not understand kingdoms, but the rule and dominion of the pagan priests; for we find subsequently to this period, four other kingdoms mentioned by DANiEL,^^^,^gj^^ and which he represents hy four great beasts, the ■■■■ l-fi^ last of which has ten horns, which signify ten . ^^ L kingdoms more in succession. — These are fol* *^^v^';1; lowed by a little horn, or king, who performs M 178 On the Structure of the Apomlypse. [Dissert. 3. prodigies of wickedness, till at length the judg- ment sits, and sovereignty is given to the people of the saints of the Most High, vi^hose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. But " order and method require' that we here limit the import of the word *' everlasting ;' for we find, after this period, two empires represented by a Ram and a he-Goat — the latter of which is followed by ^L I four other kingdoms, out of one of which comes .LA*\ ^&^i^-^L. ^^^^^^ horn, no way inferior in wicked- ness to the one before mentioned. This new little horn must be explained, (no matter how, for order and method require it,) by the prophecy of the seventy weeks ; and in the last of these weeks we must expect the Kings of the North and South to appear, the last of whom will be de- stroyed when Michael shall stand up for Daniel's people ! This is Daniel's order of narration, and therefore, such must be the method followed to explain him. — What would be thought of the Expositor, who should propose such a series of absurdities ! Some recent Expositors have absolutely main- ( tained that, by the " little horn,''' twice seen in ^% /vision by Daniel, two different Powers are pre- I dieted — an Eastern and a Western Antichrist; — because, among other reasons, the opinion that = they are one, " renders Daniel liable to the \ charge of unvarying repetition!" But, singular Sec. 3.] On the Structure of the Jpocalj/pse. 179 as it may appear to these Expositors, the lead- ing sealed truths in Daniel, and open truths in Revelation, have respect only to two important facts — the reign of Christ, and the reign of Antichrist^ — the punishment and destruction of the latter, and the triumph of the former. Both Daniel and John are chargeable with repetitions, but not " unvarying repetition." Often, how- ever, as they have repeated the same facts, it would appear that they have not done so often enough to prevent men from indulging in fancy and hunting for variety. However plausible and ingenious any exposi- a tion of the Revelation may appear, if it proposes any thing that has not a direct reference to the contents of the sealed book of Daniel, as the plain and obvious sense of what was shut up and closed till the time of the end, it must be / rejected by those who wish to hear the rvords of this prophecy ; for only by attention to the voice , of *' THE FAITHFUL AND TRUE WiTNESS," in ^ opposition to the comments and glosses of those who substitute darkness for light, can a right understanding of the book that he has opened, and of the Revelation by which he has opened it, be obtained. To me it appears impossible, that the true sense can be elicited, by any system which would ascribe to the book such a struc- ture as necessarily to require, that the parts of 180 On ihg Structure of the Apocalypse. [Dissert. 3. . each series of symbols shall be considered as \ following each other in chronological order, / each individual part having its commencement when the events of the part immediately prece- ding have had their accomplishment; and each whole series, in like manner, having its com- mencement only after the particulars of the pre- ceding series have been consummated. Con- [ formably to this system, it is quite common with V commentators to consider the Rider of the first \ seal as having not only gone forth, but finished his whole course, before the Rider of the second : seal is suffered to commence his journey ; and ' in like manner to give to the third a prescribed duration subsequent in time to the second, and terminating when the fourth is sent out, &c. And thus it follows, as a necessary consequence of this mode of procedure, that the Riders, respec- ^♦tively, have finished their entire course, and I ceased to have any existence long before the events of the first trumpet have even their com- mencement. The absurdities that would follow ; from a similar mode of interpretation applied to Daniel, are apparent enough. Why then should / it be held possible to render the Apocalypse in- telligible by such a process ? To particularize all the varied modifications of these systems, which have been offered in elucidation of the Apocalypse, would be a waste Sec. 3.] On the Structure of the Apocalj/pse, 181, of time. Suffice it therefore to say, that though the Revelation may be considered as having been all communicated on the same Lord's day, and therefore, as a whole, may, for convenience, be called one vision, being, as a whole, one Revela- tion, yet it is evident, that the particulars exhibit- ed, or communicated, to John, did not follow each other without any intermission ; for this is plainly intimated in the prophecy itself. Thus in the fourth chapter the Apostle states that he heard the same voice that had spoken to him before^ even the great voice " as of a trumpet, ^^ quoting his own words from Cli, i. 10. On the occasioi^ to which he alludes he had noted that he wajs ** inspired on the Lord's day ;" and now, on hear- i^J^^- ing the same voice again address him, he says, " Immediately I became in^[red,'' — plainly inti^ mating that there had been a suspension of the inspiration, or, in other words, an interval, how- ever short it may have been, between the former exhibition and that which he proceeds to de- scribe in the chapter referred to. That the Apocalypse does present several dis- tinct details of events, which coincide in point of time, has been perceived by many; and, ac- cordingly, various expositors have endeavoured, some with more and some with less success, to ascertain the various synchronisms to be found in it, and the different events detailed under pact 182 On the Structure of the Apocalypse. [Dilssert. 3. respectively, but which ultimately resolve them- selves into one series, filling up the prophetic history, as one whole, reaching to the end of time. \^ To determine the respective boundaries of the distinct insulated visions, or exhibitions, of which the Apocalypse is composed, is difficult; not from want of precision in the prophecy — for it is a Revelation — but from the peculiar structure of the book ; and it is to be feared, that some of these boundaries have not yet been set- tled with accuracy, notwithstanding the merito- rious labors of different critics and expositors. What others have failed in, it would be presump- tuous in the present writer to assert he has been able to accomplish ; but, without pretending to speak with confidence, he thinks, that the gene- ral contents of the Apocalypse may be briefly enumerated in the following summary. 1. The title and introduction of the amanu- ensis John, followed by a short notice of the place where the visions were seen, the circum- stances with which they were introduced, and the commandment given to him to write the things he might see, in a book, and to send the book to the seven churches in Asia. (Ch. i.) ^ 2. Seven epistles addressed to the seven churches respectively. (Ch. ii. and iii.) 3. John's description of the heave?i (whatever Sec. 3.] On the Structure of the Apocalypse. 133 that was) into which he was, in vision, admitted, [see Dissert. 7. § 5.]; a description of the one sitting upon the throne in the heaven, and of the opening of the first six seals of a certain sealed book. (Ch. iv. to vi. inclusive.) See Dis- sert. 2. § 14.— And here let it be observed, that ^"-^ the prophetic history embraced by the first six^' ^als, reaches to the ^^ great earthquake,'' (vi. 12. by which all the enemies of Christ's K.i"§* [tf^/r,] strong, powerful, is applied to the most excellent or best of its kind, whether men or brutes, as, " the chiefest of the herdmen^^ 1 Sam. i. 15; " mighty men,''' Lam. i. 15; "strong bulUr Ps. xxii. 12. It is also em- ployed to designate the most excellent of all beings, "The mighty one of Israel,'' Isai. i. 24; "The mighty one of Jacob,'' Isai. xlix, 26; and so in other places : — ^nor have the Trans- lators any where rendered this word " God,'' though in three places, Gen. xlix. 24, Psal. cxxxii. 2, and 5, they have, improperly, added the word God to the word mighty, — putting " Mighty God" for" mighty one." IliJ \tzur], to bind up, enclose, encompass, for security — hence bulwarks, fortresses, places na- turally strong, as a rock, for defence or protec- tion, is applied, figuratively, to whatever per- forms this office, and so to him who is the rock of Ages, Isai. xxvi. 4; ''Jehovah is my defence, yea, my powerful one, the rock of my refuge," Ps. xciv. 22 ; " He only is my rock," Ps, Ixii. 2. 6; 19^ On the Names by which Uie Creator [Dissert. 4. ^* Lead me to the rock that is higher than 7," Ps. Ixi. 2. In many passages this term is employed to designate the Creator; and in all of them, ex- cept two, the Translators have endeavoured to give the sense of the word. In Isai. xliv. 8. they have rendered it *' GodJ' — '* Is there a God besides me? yea, there is no God." But this is not only inaccurate and tame, but obscures the sense. Jehovah had been encouraging his people against/e^r, and the words here spoken furnish the reason why they should confide in him. They ought to be rendered thus : *' Is there one power- ful above me ? Yea, there is no Rock (or strong hold), none have I known J' The other passage is in Hab. i. 12. where they translate the word by, ** O mighty God'' — But on the margin they have given the right word, " Rock,'' in both of these passages. Another term, 'O'b^ [Elioun'], The Supreme, is frequently employed to designate Jehovah; and wherever it occurs, the Translators have adopted some appropriate English word to express the sense ; as in 2 Sam. xxii. 14," The Most High uttered his voice;" and in Psal. i. 14, ** Pay thy vows to The Most High." This term was com- mon with the worshippers of the true God, even among the inhabitants of Canaan, in the days of Abraham, as we see in Gen. xiv. 20. *' Bless- ed be ]vb^ *?« " [El Elioun], which should be Sec. I.] is designated in the Scriptures. IQS rendered " the powerful supreme,** or "the MOST HIGH POWER." We learn from Philo-Biblius that the same epithet prevailed among the Phcenicians. Speak- ing of their gods, he says, xoltol rourovg yivsrai r\g 'EAIOTN xa.7^o6[jLsvog, " among them there is a " certain owecrtZ/e^ELIOUN." — Itis exceedingly probable, that this epithet was carried along with ^all the patriarchal families so far back as the time of their first separation from the parent stock after the flood, when sent to colonise the diffe- rent portions allotted to them. The Greeks, who, no doubt, obtained it from the Phcenicians, express it in their own language by ti-^KTrog, which is a literal translation of Ti^'?^, and is sometimes employed in the New Testament to express the same Hebrew word ; as in Luke i. 32, 35, 76. That this terra was common among the Greeks is plain, from the exclamation of the damsel possessed of a spirit of divination at Philippi : " These men are the servants of the most high " God,'' ToO 6sou Tou i\I//(rTou, Acts xvi. 17: and, indeed, we find it was the most usual epithet upon their votive tablets ; and, what is at least remarkable, most commonly in the singular num- ber, as may be seen on those brought from Athens by Lord Elgin, now deposited in the British Museum. — Judging by Rammohun Roys Translation of the Abridgment of the Vedant, **the N 194 On the Names hy which the Creator [Dissert. 4. supreme" is one of the most common epithets employed in the ancient " holy books" of the Brahmins. The end he had in translating the " Resolution of all the Veds' into the Hindostanee and Bengalee languages, he states to have been, to convince his own countrymen " that the unity " of God, and absurdity of idolatry, are evident- " )y pointed out by their own scriptures." In this work God is designated in different places by the following epithets : " The Omnipresent — the All-powerful — the Almighty — the Creator — the Eternal being;' but the most common is " the Supreme Being,'' which is employed perhaps ten times for once that any of the others occur. The term nt^ [Shaddai], The All-sufficient, com- pounded of t:^ (i. e. ni^^K) " who," and n, '' suffici- ency," or *' sufficient" according as it is used in the abstract, or in the concrete sense, is often applied as a title to him whose bountiful good- ness sustains the universe. It has been gene- rally translated " The Almighty" Our Trans- lators have never rendered it *' God" Dl lRam\ " the High " — m)y\ [ Venishal, " and lofty one," Isai. Ivii. 15; na:i ^O^D nn:i [Goboah Tnegnel Goboah], " Higher than the' Highest," or rather, as on their margin, " High above the High," Eccl v. 8; bm [Gadol], ''Great;" Nni^ [Nora\ " Reverend," or " Terrible;" tmp VKa- doshX " the Holy One;" w^\> [Kadsho], *' His S^c. 2.] ^- is designated in the Scriptures. 19^ Holiness;'' i^iKii [Gono], ''His Excellency,'' ox '*His Highness," sometimes translated ''His Majesty;" iniD [Tubo], " His Goodness;" and other attribu- tive nouns, frequently employed as titles of power and dignity, to designate him who is the greatest and the best of beings, have never been rendered " God" by our Translators. They have fre- quently, it is true, translated the three last as adjectives, in some passages in which they are employed as appellatives, and so far they have failed in giving the precise sense ; but still they have made it manifest, that they did not, in trans- lating these and other Hebrew epithets that might be mentioned, conceive themselves at liberty to substitute the sense of another radix for the one in the text before them ; which makes it the more surprising that they should have done otherwise with the words which it is proposed now to examine. ^ 2. 0/the Attributives or Epithets ^^ [E/], ^'?^^ or n'j'^J^. lEloah\ and Q^i^^*. [Elohim], commonly rendered " God" in the English translations of the Hebrew. Scriptures, These attributive nouns, which are all the same in their radical sense, have, in the Septuagint version, been generally, though not invariably, 19(^ On the Names hy which the Creator [Dissert. 4. rendered by deog [Theos], or o Qsls, by which, in particular, they commonly translate DNl'^K [Elo- him']. The inspired penmen of the New Testament, when quoting the Hebrew Scriptures, translate Elohim by 6sos [Theos], also by o ^dg : as in Rom. iii. 18. " There is no fear fleoO (Hebrew U^rh^, Ps. xxxvi. 1.) before their eyes;'' and in Heb. i. 9. ** Gody thy Gody' h figo^, o Seog o-ou (Hebrew D'TT^K TH^K, Psal. xl. 7). / Throughout the Old Testament, the words I ^K lEl\ ni^K \_Eloah\ and U^rh^ [ElohimX and / throughout the New, the word Seog iTheos\ are, ( in all the English versions, with less propriety \ than is at first apparent, uniformly translated i" God;'' and this without any regard being paid to the presence or absence of the emphatic n [Hel in the one, or of the Article in the other. The word " Gody" though now used with us as a proper name, in the language of our forefathers /^/^ meant good. Is this the real sense of Elohim? \ If not, the word God is not a translation of, but / a substitute for, the Hebrew term. — Let us briefly ( examine this point. Some etymologists contend that *f>'^, or rS^^^ [Eloah^y (for these are the same word) ; and also U'ribik [Elohimly and consequently ^i^^^. [ElohiX which differ only in form, being used only when in regimine ; are derivatives : others, that they 'n Sec. 2.] is designated in the Scriptures, 197 are compounds : and some maintain, that even ^^ [El] is a derivative. ' According to Hutchinson and his followers, U^nbi^ [Elohim] is derived from r6^* [meaning n'jlj AlaK\ to swear, to curse. They maintain that. m^K [Eloah] means, ** The accursed one" — " the " second person in the Trinity, the Son of God, " who was made a curse for us" They make D\1^K [Elohini] a plural — " The denouncers of a ** curse : a name (says Parkhurst) usually given " to the ever-blessed Trinity, by which they " represent themselves as under the obligation " of an oath to perform certain conditions ; and " as having denounced a curse upon all men and ** devils who do not conform to them." To this derivation Michaelis, with great rea- son, objects, that it is more natural to conceive the verb rh^ [Alah, he sware] as designating the one who has affirmed by b^ [Ell, than as being itself a root. There are other and strong reasons against such a derivation. The Hutchinsonians assume rvbii [Eloah] to be a participle passive, " accursed,"" — ^but, as remarked by Dr. Sharp," there is no participle passive ofnbii [Alah] to be met with in all the bible ; and, as observed by another learned writer. Dr. Hales,* ** the word * Sharp's Works, Vol. iv. p. 37. * Dissert, on the principal Prophecies, p. 154. i/J*^-c> 198 On the Names hy which the Creator [Dissert. 4. " m^J* [Eloah], in the «ense * accursed' does not ** once occur throughout the whole Hebrew ** Scriptures, though often employed as a name V " of the Deity." And, farther, it may be re- marked, that if Elohim mean those who are '' under the obligation of an oath,' then it will fol- low, that the witnesses in a court of law, and all who take oaths of office, are in fact Elohim. And, farther, in opposition to the Hutchinsonian doc- trine, it may be remarked, that those who perform whatever obligation they come under by an oath, are, in the very nature of things, exempted from the punishment, or penalty, or execration ; for this can only fall on him who violates his en- gagement. But who would be so hardy as to predicate this of the Holy One who fulfilled all righteousness ? — of him who suffered, the just for THE UNJUST, when he bare our sins in his own body on the tree. Because of this death he is said to have been ** made a curse for us;' and the Apostle, to prevent himself from being misun- derstood, immediately adds, '^ for it is written, ** Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree'' The curse denounced against sin was death: Christ i d-v a^^tJied |;hat he might redeem us from this curse, and •^^^^^^ the species of death which he suffered was that -^itui^Uiwhich the law called accursed. The Apostle is uj&.^ -^ here explainins^ law phrases, which have no rela- »/idXI^^^^^ to the etymological derivation of a name. Sec. 2.] is designated in the Scriptures. 199 It is a perversion, an absolute abuse of Scripture language, to apply the term *' accursed,'' to the Son of God. " No one speaking by the Spirit of " God calleth Jesus accursed'' [1 Cor. xii. 3]. By him, who is the first born from the dead, all THINGS WERE CREATED [Col. i. 16. 18] ; and THE CREATOR is BLESSED FOR EVER, [Rom. i. 25.}— Jesus Christ, THE BLESSED and only potentate [1 Tim. vi. 15], GOD BLES- SED FOR EVER [Rom. ix. 5]. Even were rrhi^ [Eloah], allowed to be a deri- vative from nbi^ \_Alah], it might be, not from the verb in Kal, but, from the Hiphtl conjugation, and so would signify those who adjure or cause others to swear, and not those who swear or bind themselves by the oath. Accordingly, some, before Hutchinson, held Tvhi^ [Eloah], to mean a Judge, deriving the word from n^KH, the Hiphil of tlbi^ [Alahl Despairing to find the root in the Hebrew, ^ some etymologists have had recourse to the Ara- bic, originally the same language as that spoken ^ by the common parent of Isaac and Ishmael, ( in which the Deity is designated by Alah, and, with the prefixed article, Alalah, — by contrac- tion, Allah. Michaelis adopts the Arabic verb Alah as the root, in the sense of benefacere ali- ; cui — benevolus fuit, from the Arabic noun Ali *'good:' 200 On the Names by which the Creator [Dissert. 4. Dr. Geddes would prefer the noun Ali itself, if he could derive n)bi^ [EloaJi] from any single root. In this case he would call b't^ [E/] not the root, but the abbreviation of rb^ {Alah] and D''n'?K [^Elohini] : but he hesitates whether to prefer this etymon, or the first compound one to be no- ticed hereafter. Latterly, the learned Dr. A. Clark, asserting that the root of Elo him *' does not appear in the " Hebrew bible," has derived the word from the Arabic root ** Alaha, he worshipped, adored, ^* zvas struck with astonishment, fear or terror;'' — " hence iLAHON,/e^7% veneration:" — True; but shall we add, " hence also the object of religious ^^ fear, the Deity?''' Is not Alaha an epithet more applicable to the worshipper than to the wor- shipped ? A priori, it is not very reasonable to suppose that the Hebrew scriptures do not exhibit, in its simplest form, the name, or epithet, by which the Creator was originally designated : and it is still less credible, that he can have a name de- rived from the acts or passions of creatures, who derive their powers, — their very existence, from himself. Were it even undeniable that his name imported ^//e o^'ec^ of fear or terror, it would not follow that the noun was derived from the verb ; for the converse is the order of Nature, Sec. 2.] is designated in the Scriptures. 201 though Lexicographers have too generally in- verted the process. It has been somewhere remarked by Sir Wil- liam Jones, that probably the elements of all the sciences may be found in the scriptures. This is strictly true respecting language. According to Moses, " Ada7n gave names to all cattle, arid ** to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the *^ field"" — " Whatever Adam cal.l.e'd every living " creature, that became its name," — and this before he had a companion of his own species with whom he could converse. The commence- ment of speech was with nouns, — [On this sub- ject see Dr. Hales, Dissert, vi. On the Primi- five Names of the Deity, ~\ We shall see, hereafter, that the Penman of the Apocalypse has defined the sense in which 6 flso^ is to be understood in his prophecy, and, consequently, throughout the New Testament. None of the foregoing modes of derivation yield a sense agreeing with his definition ; and, for this reason, none of them can be received as exhibiting the true etymology of Elohim, Let us now briefly examine whether such phi- lologists as make the word a compound, have been more successful than those who hold it to be a derivative. The greater part of the former admit Vm [Et\ to be one of the elements of which D\1^K [Elohim] 202 On the Names hy which the Creator [Dissert. 4. is compounded ; and it is, therefore, necessary, before proceeding farther, that the meaning of that word should be known. That ^^? \_El\ in the abstract, means strength, power, and, in the concrete sense. Powerful, is certain. Accordingly, wherever the word occurs as an abstract, our own Translators have, gene- rally, rendered it by Strength, Might, or Power; and had they retained this leading sense, wher- ever they found this word in any of its forms, they would have given much energy to their ver- sion, in many places where it is exceedingly tame. In one place (Neh. v. 5.), the translators of the Septuagint version have rendered the word by houufjLiS' Our translators have very properly followed them in that passage, employing the term power; but wherever the word occurs as an attributive noun — ** The Powerful one," or *' The Strong one,'' they have for bi^ [£/] given " God" in their version; disregarding too the em- phatic n [HeX when it occurs as a prefix, except in a few places where they exhibit, " the GodJ' It is true that for ^^? [£/] the Seventy have often exhibited 6 ^sog [the Theos], substituting one of the Greek names of the Creator for this Hebrew name, in place of a translation ; but frequently they have well rendered the word by /o-;^y^o^, as in 2 Sam. xxii. 32, where our translators have used the word *' God,'' to the evident injury of Sec. 2.] is designated in the Scripturesi^ /v . SOS the sense. The next verse commences with the same word, with the emphatic H [He] prefixed, which the Seventy, as in various other places, have rendered 6 lX, ** The tremendous great one/' — and some have proposed bi^ and D^n ** The God of the waters.'' The learned Jew Abarbanel makes D^n^K [Elo- hini] or >r6i^ [Elohi] a compound of bi^ [El] and two letters (viz. the rr and ^) taken from the name mrp IJehovah], He compounds m'?^* [Eloah] in the same way, borrowing m from the sacred name. He considers both words as nouns singular. Against this etymon it has been objected, that " if U^rhi^ comprehends bii and 7nn\ God and ** Jehovah, such phrases as D^rr^Kmn'* and W^rhii " rriiT, the former of which frequently occurs, ** are mere tautologies." The objector (Geddes) would not have hazarded this assertion, had he actually translated these words. Is there any tautology in the expression (which will be shown hereafter to be a true version) " The Eternal Omnipotent?" The idolatrous nations called the image which they worshipped, their mighty one — their Elohim ; but they no more conceived the image to be eternal than the Roman Catholics do theirs. Had they called the idol eternal, the worms, which, by their ravages, obliged them, from time to time, to renew it, would have given them the lie. — But a more powerful objection may be urged against this composition of the word : — The name Jehovah is never applied to ^06 On the Names by which the Creator [Dissert. 4. any but the Creator of Heaven and Earth ;' but the term Elohim is not only applied to the Cre- ator, but to false gods, to inanimate objects, and to men : as " Baal-zebub, ynp^ ni^k, god of Ek- row," 2 Kings i. 2. " Entreat the Lord that there be no more mighty (Heb. Elohim) thunderingsj'' Exod. ix. 28: " With great (Heb. Elohim) wrestlings,'' Gen. xxx. 8 : " // was a very great (Heb. Elohim) trembling,'' 1 Sam. 14.15 : ''Nineveh was AN EXCEEDING GREAT czYj/" (Heb. a city GREAT TO Elohim) Jon. iii. 3. In these, and other passages similarly rendered, our Transla- tors have shown, very plainly, what they con- ceived to be the radical sense of the word Elo- him, though they have in so many places ren- dered it *' God." — That letters should have been ■ It ought not to be concealed that some have maintained the contrary. Kimchi on 1 Sam. xxvi. 12. *' sleep from Jeho- ** vah was fallen upon them," asserts that the thing which the Scripture wishes to magnify it joins to the name (meaning Jehovah) of God : that is, he would, as Buxtorf proposes, for " Sopor Domini'^ translate *^ sopor gravissimus.^' For Arhofes JDomini (trees of Jehovah) Buxtorf also proposes " arbores maximce " or excelcissimce. But Kimchi's idea can- not be admitted. It is easy to see its source. Observing that the word Elohim was not applied exclusively to the Creator, and not viewing it in its proper light, as a mere attributive noun, but as a proper name, on Psal. Ixv. 9« be says " the word Elohim is a surname for any thing great or admirable :" — and hence, probably, his hasty inference that tlie name Jehovah might also be so applied. Sec. 2.] is designated in the Scriptures. 207 borroxved from the sacred name to form a term applicable to such objects as the foregoing, is not very probable, whatever may be their iden- tity. That the word Elohim is frequently applied to men, is evident from the following, and from other passages that might be quoted : — " Thou *' artamiGiiTY [Heb, ElohimlPrincey'' Gen. xxiii. 6 : " The cause of both parties shall come before the " Judges [D^"l^N^], and zvhom the judges shall " condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour,'' Exod. xxii. 9. In the 28th verse of the chapter just referred to, our Translators exhibit a remarkable inadvertency : — " Thou shall not revile the " GODS " lElohim], They should have rendered the word here as they had done in the context. In certain cases the people were to be carried before the judges, and in this verse they are commanded to reverence their decision — ** not to revile the Judges, or curse the rulers" — But what sense can possibly be attached here to the word ** gods f* The Israelites had but one God; and as to the gods of the nations, they were com- manded to destroy the names of' them every where. Deut. xii. 3. In like manner in 1 Sam. xxviii. 13. they have translated the word " Gods'' where they ought to have rendered it " Judge." They make the woman of Endor see *' gods ascending" though she herself says it was an old man covered 208 On the Names by which the Creator [Dissert. 4. with a mantle. By the dress (the mantle) she knew his office ; that he was a judge. The word Elohim is also eqa ployed to desig- nate the great and powerful among the children of men, in contradistinction to the common herd of mankind ; precisely as we use " high and low," — " great and small," and similar expressions ; as in Judges ix. 13, " the vine said unto them, " shouldl leave my wine which cheer eth god \^\o\)m\\ " and man'' — or, more correctly, *' gods and men'' *' — and go to he promoted over the trees?" And here it may be noticed, in passing, that to igno- rance of this mode of expression being used in Hebrew must be ascribed the various absurd opinions which have obtained, respecting the meaning of Gen. ch. vi. concerning the " sons of Gody' — read the sons of the mighty^ or powerful^ • — taking to them the daughters of men — '* all *' whom they chose;" — a passage which merely intimates the state of violence and rapine that prevailed before the flood, when the powerful seized, by force, whatever women they fancied from the families of the lower orders ! — If I mis- take not, we have the same mode of expression in Luke ii. 52, where Jesus is said to have *' in- " creased in favour with God and man." Dr. Hales, in the work before alluded to, maintains, " that the elementary terms of all lan- ** guages are, naturally, nouns, and, necessarily, Sec. 2.] U designated in the Scriptures^ 209 *' monosyllables, as being easiest of pronuncia- " tion ;*' and concludes, " from analogy, that " the simplest of the divine names, b^ [El] and " '"^^ [Jah], are the most ancient of all : the vene- '* rable parents — !?«, of m^i^ [Eloah] and O^nbl^ " [Elohim'] — and *^, of mrv [Jehovah], formed ** from their respective roots by additional syl- " lables, or by composition ; according to the " usual progress of language." As bi^ [El], in the abstract sense, denotes poze;er, and in the concrete, poxoerful, he considers the term, when applied to the Deity, as meaning Powerful. This must also be the radical sense of m*?H lEloah] ; for in the expression, " Who is God [i. e. powerful], save Jehovah ? " which occurs in 2 Sam. xxii. 32, and in Psal. xviii. 31 — in the former place *'God'' is express- ed by bi^ ; in the latter by m'?^^. From the ex- pression *' Is there a God [rrhi^'] beside me? *' Iknow not any,'' (Isai. xliv. 8), Dr. Hales con- cludes (I think rightly) that this form of the word is intensitive. The word D'tV^K, employed as a name of the Creator, he considers as a noun singular, and as meaning. The Omnipotent or Sovereign. Of these various modes of composition some may be considered as more fanciful than solid ; but they all agree in making bi^ the principal (> > 210 (hi the Names hi/ which the Creator [Dissert. 4. element of D^n^K, and that this term expresses Power, one of the glorious attributes of Jeho- vah. That those who hold ** Power'' to be the lead- ing idea in the epithet Elohim are right ; and that Dr. Hales, in particular, has given the true de- finition of this name, as applied to Jehovah ; I hope to establish on an authority which, notwith- standing his deep researches, has escaped his notice, and which none will presume to contro- vert, — that of the amanuensis of ^^e Faithful and True Witness, Let us now attend for a few moment^ to ano- ther dispute which has occupied the attention of the learned. Is D'»^'?^* [EMim] a singular, or is it a plural. Noun? Some maintain that this word is always plural ; others allow that this is the plural form, but maintain that, nevertheless, the word is always singular when applied to the Creator ; and some assert that it never is a plural — that often, where our Translators have rendered it in the plural, they have destroyed the sense ; and, where the sense conveyed in the original embraces plura- lity, that this does not depend on the form of the word, or what is called its plural termina- tion LD^], but on the construction in which the word is found : — for example, that ''above all GODS," thoua^h the true sense of the Hebrew, is Sec. 2.] is des ignated in the Scriptures, ^1 1 not a strict translation, which ought to be, ** above every god." Those who hold the first opinion are chiefly the followers of Hutchinson ; the greater num- ber of sober critics maintain the second ; Mr. Bellamy, a recent translator, advocates the third. Dr. Geddes ' puts the question, and answers it, thus : " Do the plural forms U^rhi^ and M^i^ ** denote a plurality of persons, when applied " to the One true God ? — No ; not any more *' than W'Tili^ denotes a plurality of Lords, D"'K"m ** and >K")1 a plurality of Creatoi^Sy D'^iS) and ^^S) a '' plurality oi faces, or am a plurality o^ lives .^ — " It is truly strange that such a notion should " have ever been entertained : and, indeed, it is ** only a modern notion, of the same age with *^ scholastic theology. The Christian Fathers ' Critical Remarks, Vol, 1. p. 8. * However absurd it may appear, the followers of Hutch- inson actually maintain (though Geddes does not notice it) several of these words to be plurals, and would therefore translate Eccl. xii. 1. thus: "Remember thy Creator^'' They will have it, that God breathed into Adam's nostrils ** the breath of lives : i. e. animal and intellectual :" but they have forgot to tell us what sort of lives the animals which went two and two uito the ark possessed (Gen. vii. 1 5.) ; nor have they explained what plurality of lives is id- tended by o»»n D>b (Levit. xix. 17.), which our translators have rendered ** running water." 212 On the Barnes hy which the Creator [Dissert. 4# " of the Church, who were eager enough to dis- " cover, in the Old Testament, proofs of a Tri- ** nity, never dreamed of seeking one in D''nV>*." But Geddes, by not marking the word ^^ persons' in his statement, has not half exposed the absurd position of Hutchinson, which, when analyzed, not only maintains that dtt'pk [Elohim], is the plural of the Hebrew noun m'?^ [Eloah\ but that, in English, '^persons' is the plural of the noun ^^Godr Plurality of any noun multiplies only that noun ; and therefore, if Elohim must always be understood as a plural, we must, in the very first verse of the Bible, read, " In the beginnings Gods created the heaven and the earth;'' — a mode of speech which could only lead to polytheism. But the original prohibits such a translation, for the verb J^"12 is in the third person singular, he created, and therefore its nominative, Elohim, must be a noun singular. Of the noun " God,'' the plural can only be " Gods ;" — it cannot be " per- sons," the singular of which noun is, and can only be, '^person," How,inthenameof common sense, can the doctrine of the Trinity be inherent in a term applied, as we have seen, to heathen idols, to magistrates and great men, to excessive thun- der, wrestling, and trembling, and to the magni- tude of a city ? V That Elohim, when applied to the Creator, is a noun singular, we have seen from the first Sec. 2.] is designated in the Scriptures. 213 verse of the Old Testament. In the first chapter alone the word occurs upwards of thirty times as a nominative to verbs singular. In £xod. iii. 5. we meet with the wordj^n^K four times, and DTf^^Nrr once : " I ajnEijOm of t hi/ fat her, Elohi of Abrahanij EhOHi of Isaac, and Ehoui of Jacob. And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon THE Elohi M. That Elohi and Elohim are here nouns singular we know on an authority not to be controverted — that of the inspired Evange- lists, re-quoting our Lord's quotation from Ex- odus. Matthew (xxii. 32.) and Mark (xii. 26.) employ, in their translation, the nominative sin- gular 6 Ssog ; Luke also (xx. 37.) employs the sin- gular ; but having brought in the word after a verb, he, necessarily, puts it in the accusative, tqv Osov, It may be proper to remark, generally, for the sake of those who have no knowlege of the ori- ginal, that the inspired penmen, here and in other places, were not put under any necessity, by the nature of the language in which they were writing, to employ the singular ; for this noun has its regular plural in Greek : and accordingly they have used the plural form on various occa- sions. And this, naturally, leads to another remark, that, on the same high authority which has been adduced to prove that the word Elohim is a noun singular, when applied to Jehovah, it may be stated, that it is sometimes used as a 214 On the Names hy which the Creator [Dissert. 4, noun plural when applied to idols, and often so when applied to men. Thus we read in Acts vii. 40., where Exod. xxxii. 1. is quoted : ''Make us 6soug [the accusative plural] to go before us'' — in the Hebrew " Make for us D^'^'?J*." So also, in John x. 34., ''I said ye are Qso)" [nom. plural], is given as the translation into Greek of the He- brew w ord a^rbi^ [Ps. Ixxxii. 6.] ; and in the next verse in John we have an example of the same word Elohim being used both as a singular and ; as a plural noun — for we must not forget that ' the following sentence, given to us in Greek by the Evangelist, was originally delivered in He- brew, — " If he called them Qsoug, Trpog ovg 6 Xoyog " Tou Geou eyivsTo, GODS to whom the word of Goi> y came,'' &c. Here Qeovg, gods, represents, as we have just seen, Elohim; and the words o X0705 ToO ©sou are put for U^nbi^ 121 [dabar Elohim'], It is therefore not true, as maintained by Mr. I Bellamy, that Elohim is always a noun sin- gular. Will the authority of the penmen of the New Testament, for the sense of terms employed by \ the. prophets in the Old, be questioned, by any who have a right to be heard in this controversy ? Certainly not. In no one instance have they ; given a plural translation of Elohim, when ap- I plied to THE Supreme Being; nor have they ^ ever employed a plural noun as a name to Sec. 2.] is designated in the Scriptures. 215 designate the Omnipotent in any of their discourses. It is, therefore, not true, that Elohim, as applied to the Creator, expresses either a phirality of gods or a pluraHty of persons. It is true, however, as we have seen, that the same inspired writers do sometimes render this Hebrew word by a plural Greek noun; but, unfortunately for the Hutchinso- mans, only in instances in which it cannot, by any possibility, be referred, directly or indirectly, to the Supreme Being. Could this be the \ case, if what they maintain respecting this name were true ? Assuredly not. Another reason then must exist, for its being used as a plural, than that for which they contend : and this reason may be seen in the etymological sense of the term. When found in construction with verbs, participles, and pronouns singular, it ascribes, collectively, to an individual, whatever it can in- clude or express, without any limitation, except- ing what arises from the nature and fitness of things: thus, applied to inanimate objects, as a mountain, it includes magnitude in all its dimen*- sions, but, necessarily, excludes every thing con» nected with active agency ; applied to a city, it embraces not only magnitude but population, and whatever constitutes power and greatness in euch a community ; applied to a man, — a judge, for instance — it ascribes to him every power fil6 On the Names by which the Creator [Dissert. 4. proper to his office; or, more correctly, the powers of the office, rather than any thing proper to the man himself, are contemplated by the speaker, — precisely as we speak of the powers of any ruler among ourselves, whether of the head of the legislative and judicial powers, or of a subordinate magistrate. The extent of the sig- nification of the word Elohim is measured only by the nature, the quality and character of the object so denominated, and. consequently, when applied to Jehovah, it attributes to him the possession of power in a superlative degree — every species of power — powers unlimited^ whe- ther mighty force, or strength, — authority, lord- ship, or dominion. These, and such attributes, constitute the only plurality that, properly, be- longs to the word, when employed as a name of that Being who is, emphatically, The Power- ful or Mighty One ; and who is so, not at some particular period only, but ever so ; — The Omnipotent, — The Ever-Powerful, — The All-Powerful. This the idolaters affirmed of their deities. They called them their Elohim — iheiv all-powerful i^xoiecioY^'^ and when more than one of these is spoken of, the word is then put in construction with verbs and participles plural. In fine — whenever the word Elohim oc- curs, it is subjected to the exigencies of gram- matical speech, as similar nouns are, in all Ian- Sec. 2.] is designated in the Scriptures. 217 guages whose structures do not admit of inflec- tion: for example, in our own language, the terms which express the sense of this very word Elohim, as Mighty— Powerful— Strong : whether such terms are, on any occasion, employed as singulars or as pluralsy depends entirely on the construction in which they are found. But though it be true, that the word Elohim is not a term that can, legitimately, be urged in support of the doctrine of the Trinity ; and that none of the early Christian writers, or Fathers, as they are called, ever appealed to the plurality alleged to be expressed in this term, as furnishing evi- dence of the truth of the doctrine, the opposers of the divinity of Christ can gain nothing by the concession ; for the term Elohim is, itself, and also its Greek representative Theos, applied di- rectly, in various parts of the Divine record, to the Messiah. This will be shown in its pro- per place; and this, it will be allowed, furnishes a more powerful evidence, of the proper divinity of Christ, than whatever can be drawn by in- ference from any kind of plurality embraced by the term Elohim. 218 On the Names />y which the Creator [Dissert. 4. § S. Of the manner in which the word D^'l'^J*. [Elohim] should be rendered, in translating the Old Testament, From what has been stated it is manifest, that the attributive noun Elohim means Power ; and hence. it must be equally evident, that, to render this term in English by the word God [that is, goodX is to substitute one attribute for another ; and which cannot, in every case, be done, with- out sometimes obscuring the sense of the origi- nal. Innumerable instances of the truth of this might be adduced, were it necessary; but a few will suffice, which occur very early in the Old Testament. In the common version we read, (. 1 1 . " The earth was corrupt before THE Om- "nipotent." In Ch. xx. 17. it occurs both with and without the n: ''So Abraham prayed Sec. S.] is designated in the Scriptures. 22 1> ''to THE Omnipotent: then Omnipotence *' healed Abimelech'' In the history of Joseph we have also examples of the presence and absence of the rr. " Joseph answered Pharaoh^ " saying. It is not in me : Omnipotence [D^n^i*] *' will give Pharaoh an ansxver of peace'' (xli. 16.) " 2%e dream of Pharaoh is one : The Omnipo- " tent [DM^? words be verified, and ye shall not die." (xlii. 18 — 20.) The words of Joseph are striking. To impress them with the belief that he himself feared Jehovah, he not only prefixes the article 222 On the Names hy which the Creator [Dissert. 4. n to D^1^^*, but the particle iiN, composed of the first and last letters of the Hebrew Alphabet, (represented in the Apocalypse by the first and last letter of the Greek Alphabet, A and 12, the Alpha and the Omega,) He wishes to impress upon their minds the truth of what he had said — " This doy and ye shall not ** die ;'' for he who says so ''fears,'' not a pre- tended Mighty one, but " The very Omnipo- tent." In the most pathetic scene, where he makes himself known to his brethren, the use of the prefix again occurs—" Be not grieved ** that ye soldme hither :for Omnipotence [DM'^kI ''did send me before you to preserve life "yea Omnipotence sent me before to preserve "you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives " by a great deliverance. So now it was not you "that sent me hither, but THE Omnipotent "[DTl'^i^n] Haste you to my father, and say " unto him, Thus saith thy son Joseph, Omnipo- " TENCE [D'Tt'^W hath made me lord of all Egypt ; " come down unto me, tarry not'' (xlv. 5 — 9.) It may be useful here to present another pas-' sage, calculated to show the energy that attaches to the word Elohim, when rendered according to its true import; and especially when the prefixed n is duly regarded : and this is the more necessary, as the Greek article should have the same attention paid to it, whenever it occurs, Sec. 3.] ?V designated in the Scriptures. «223 though hitherto not sufficiently regarded by Translators. In the contest between Elijah and the pro- phets of Baal (1 Kings, xviii.) the whole ques- tion was, Whether JEHOVAH or Baal was en- titled to be acknowleged, and, consequently, worshipped, as The Omnipotent ? but in the Com- mon Version the sense is given so weakly, by ly^rhl^ being rendered God, and gods, that but few readers will perceive it. — The people being assembled, Elijah addresses them thus: t;. 2!. " How long halt ye between two persuasions ? ** If Jehovah be the All-Powerful One '' [D\-f'?i^n], follozv after him : but if Baal, follmv ** after him. But the people answered him not ^' a wordr In v. 23. he proposes that the priests of Baal should prepare a heifer for an offering, but apply no fire to the wood, and that he would do the same, — adding, (r. 24.) ** Then call ye on the name of your All-Pow- ** ERFUL One [DD'»rT*?N], and I will call on the name '' of JEHOVAH: and it shall be that the All- ** Powerful One [D^'^^^<^], who answereth injiTe^ ** he is The All-Povi^erful [D^n^KH]. Then cm- '' sxvered all the people and said. The proposal is ''good. (v. 25.) Then Elijah said to the prophets " of Baal, Choose you one heifer for yourselves, and ''prepare it first ; for ye are many : then call ye ''on the name of your All-Powerful One 224 On the Names hy which the Creator [ Dissert. 4. " [DDM^i*], but apply nojire'' The prophets having in vain invoked him whom they taught the people to worship as omnipotent, when noon came " Elijah derided them, and said, Cry with '^ loud voice: for he 2> All-Powerful [DM^i*]; " but he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a ^^ journey : perhaps he is asleep and must be roused'' When the time of evening sacrifice had arrived, EHjah restored thealtar of jEH0VAH,taking twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes : and, having prepared his sacrifice, and caused it and the wood to be drenched, till the water filled also a trench made around the altar, he said, (t;. 36.) ''O JEHOVAH,— Abraham's, Isaac's, " and Israel's All- Powerful One [>n^K] ! to-day **make knozvn in Israel that thou art All-Pow- ** ERFUL [DM'^K], and that I am thy servant, and by ** thy command have declared all these words. Hear " me, O JEHO VA H, hear me, that this people may **know, that thou JEHOVAH art the Omnipo- ** TENT [DTT^KH], and that thou hast turned their ** heart back again. Then f re of JEHO VAHde- ** scended and consumed the offering, and all the wood, " also the entire stones, with the dust, and the very ** water which was in the trench. And when all the ** people beheld this, then they fell on their faces and **said, JEHOVAH himself is the All-Power- ** FUL One [D^r6i^rr]! JEHOVAH is the All- ** Powerful [DNn^Kn]!" Sec. 3.] in designated in the Scriptures. 225 Many other passages might be adduced to establish and illustrate the fact for which the above have been quoted ; but the author per- suades himself that these will be deemed quite sufficient to satisfy every attentive reader. CONCLUSION. Prom the preceding remarks it is evident, that the Hebrew term Elohim is not a Proper Name, but an Attributive Noun ; that it means, when employed personally, in its highest sense, The Omnipotent, the All-Powerful, the All- Mighty, — attributing to the Creator, thereby indicated, every species of power, — powers un- limited, whether might, fo7xe, or strength, — authority, lordship, or dominion ; and that, in its lower sense, when applied to men, it means Kings, Judges, Magistrates, Ruling Powers, in whatever manner their power may have been acquired, attributing to them those powers which suit them, respectively, in the light in which they are contemplated. And hence it follows, — the import of this Hebrew Attributive Noun being' Power, and not Goodness, — that the word God, which, in the language of our forefathers, meant Good, is not a proper translation of, but only a substitute for, the Hebrew noun Elohim, But if the circumstances in which our early Translators p 22(J On the Names hy which the Creator [ Dissert. 4. were placed be duly considered, it will appear evident, that they ought not to be charged with want of fidelity in rendering the Hebrew word Elohim by the word God. In fact they could hardly have done otherwise. When the gospel was first preached to our forefathers, the text employed was the Latin Vulgate; and, of course, all that the preachers would aim at would be to find a proper term to indicate — not the philolo- gical meaning of the word Elokiniy or of Deus, its Latin substitute, but — the Great Being thereby intended ; and as Deus was the term most com- monly employed, in their text book, to desig- nate the Creator, they would, most naturally, adopt for their Translation the term (or name) most commonly employed for that purpose in the language of their auditors. Thus the word God being already in use, as a name of the Deity, long before any of the English Translators commenced their labours, they could hardly do otherwise than adopt it; especially when it is recollected that, with them, it is not likely it should even become a question, Whether the term in the original was an Attributive or a Proper Name ? And farther, — from all that has been stated, respecting the meanings which attach to the word Elohim^ and to its Greek representative Theos, it is not unreasonable to conclude that,^ Sec. 3.] is designated in the Scriptures, 227 possibly, in the Apocalypse, as well as in the other New Testament writings, the latter term may be found employed with the same latitude that Elohim is in the Old Testament ; that is, applied to earthly ruling powers as well as to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. This has not, hitherto, been even suspected, but is not, on that account, the less likely to be true ; for the words whereby Theos has been trans- lated, in the different European versions, being every where considered in the light of Proper Names, this circumstance could not but operate to prevent readers, generally, from ever starting a question on the subject. DISSERTATION THE FIFTH, ON THE HEBREW NAME JEHOVAH [nin»], AND THE GREEK EXPRESSION KTPI02 6 ©EOS, [KYRIOS the THEOS], COMMONLY RENDERED " THE LORD GOD^ JL HE subject which we now proceed to examine is one of the greatest importance. It has been not merely suspected, but, I may say, admitted, by some of the most learned and judicious Bi- blical Critics, that the words, o wv, xai 6 ^v, xai epxoixevog, in Rev. i. 4. and other parts of the Apocalypse, rendered in the Common Version, " Which is, and which was, and which is to come," are given by John, as a periphrasis for rvn^ [Je- hovah] ; but it has never (so far as I have been able to discover) been hitherto even suspected, that, in some of the passages, he actually employs these terms as a definition, — defining thereby the sense in which he uses the word Kit- ptos IKyrios], when he employs this Greek word to represent the Hebrew name Jehovah. The Dissert. 5.] On the Hebrew HW, S^c, 229 fact, however, is so; and it is so obvious, and, at the same time, so strongly marked in the record, that it will not fail to strike every Greek reader, the moment the evidence is point- ed out, with as much surprize as it did the author when he was first led to perceive it, that it should so long have escaped observation. Nor is it less surprizing that the Amanuensis of the Apocalypse should, as hinted in the Fourth Dissertation [p. 201 above], have also given a definition of the sense in which Seos [Theos] is used by him, and, consequently, by the other writers of the New Testament, when employed to represent the Hebrew word Elohim (com- monly rendered " Go^"in the English Bible); and that this also should have escaped the no- tice of the learned. We have seen (in the last Dissertation) that, in the New Testament, the word ©so^ [Theos] repre- sents the Hebrew attributive noun Elohim : it is that by which the Evangelists and Apostles translate Elohim^ when quoting the Prophets. And we have also seen that this Hebrew term means The Omnipotent, or All-Powerful. Let it be also kept in recollection, that the word K\)piog iKyrios\ when applied to the Supreme, in the New Testament, often represents the He- brew word 7WT\^ [Jehovah]: thus in IVIat. iii. 3, Mark i. t3, Luke iii. 4, John i. 23, " Prepare ye S50 On the Hebrew m.T, [Dissert, a. T71U 68oy Kuplotj the way of Jehovah" (Isai. xl. 3, mmm); in Mat. iv. 7, Luke iv. 12, "Thou shalt not tempt Kipm rh Geiv o-oy, C. V. The Lord thy God (Deut. vi. 14, DD'^n^K nw-Jni<) ; and so in many other places : it follows, then, that, whatever be the sense that attaches to the name Jehovah in the Old Testament, the word Kipiog, when representing that name, must be understood in the same sense in the New. These things being premised, let us attend to the words employed by the Apostle in Rev. i. 8, Kvptog 6 060$, (ov, xa) 6 7}U, xa) 6 sp^6[xsvogy o vavToxpoLTCDp. The words Kipiog 6 Osog here re- present the Hebrew words D\1*7K mn"' [Jehovah Elohini], The meaning of Elohim we have seen, as indicated by its Radix. The meaning of the word nw [Jehovah] may be ascertained by its etymology. It is compounded of the past, the present, and the future time of the Hebrew verb of existence T])T} IHavah] ; viz. the present par- ticiple iVr, followed by the perfect tense n^, and preceded by .^ lyodX the sign of the future, forming together the word miT [Jehovah] ; which, there- fore, expresses attributes that belong only to HIM who is " without beginning of days or end of years^ — present, fast, 2iXv^ future existence. But this is precisely what is affirmed by the three terms which follow Kdpiog o Biog, in the passage Dissert. 5.] and the Greek Kvgio^ 6 Bios. ^5i before us, namely, o [Jehovah,] will show. Some hold n> to be a simple root, as Kimchi, Buxtorf, Pagninus, Hales, &c. ; others, as Coc- ceius, Vitringa, Robertson (James) deduce TV from HK^ to be loveli/, fair, admirable ; the British Critic (1802) adopts the same derivation, and would render this word, " All-glorious'' or " All- " adorable ;" Hutchinson, Parkhurst, Bates and some others derive TV from the verb rrn to be, by dropping the first n; and Geddes, with some lexicographers, considers it as a mere abbrevia- tion of mn\ Dr. Hales, less happy in his inquiries into the meaning of this term than into that of Elohim, takes the leading idea of TV Jah to be sameness, or immutability , — an idea which is in- deed included in the term, but which does not fully express its meaning. The great majority of critics and lexicogra- phers place TVTV under mn, or under mn, which has the same sense, all agreeing that these roots express existence ; but they differ as to the for- mation of the word. Some content themselves with referring to the root, without entering into its composition ; others, as Bates and some of the Hutchinson school, form the word from mn, with a formative *^ iyod^ prefixed, and consider it as meaning " he that is;' Hutchinson himself makes it a compound of TV and mn the participle Be- 2S8^ On the Hebreiv TV)T}\ [Dissert. 5. noni of the root mrr, as does also The British Critic ; Parkhurst thinks that " Mr. Hutchinson " is right in making this divine name a compound " of rp the Essence, and the participle mn existing, " subsisting ;" Geddes and some others consider mrP as merely the third person future (rPH"') of the verb n\l with the middle ^ iyod] changed to a 1 \vau\ to give the verb the semblance of a noun. Hales, who considers 7\T\'^ as the imme- diate descendant of rv, takes the leading idea of the word Jehovah to be '* oneness or unity,'" — a sense as foreign from it as trinity is from the word Elohim. Though the great majority of these and other philologists are agreed in opinion, that " E^vist- ** ence,'' or '* Being,'' is the prominent idea ex- pressed in the word Jehovah, only some of them contend that ''futurationl'SiS Bp. Pearson expresses himself] is essential to the name''' The Jewish writers, both antient and modem (I believe none of them write otherwise), maintain that this word includes not only the 'past and the present, but also ih^ future. Thus Aben Ezra on Isai. xlii. 8, " I am JEHOVAH, that " IS my name," says : " this is the proper name " of God, signifying Essence, i. e. existing from " Eternity to Eternity." Rabbi Bechi on Exod. folio Qb, Col. 4. says, " in the name JEHOVAH " are comprehended three times, the preterite. Dissert. 5.] and the Greek Kvpios o Bsog. ^9^ '' the present, and the future, as is known to all.'' The book entitled niiJD ^DO^D, folio 31, speaking of God the Creator says, ** as he is the first ** without beginning, and last without end, so his " name testifies three existences, or differences of " his existence, the present nin, the preterite n^J^, ** and the future nw, which are the letters of ** his name m»T." The differences which have existed among critics, respecting the meaning of the word Je- hovah, demonstrate, that the use of this Hebrew word, in books written in Greek, would not have answered the end gained, by John's having em- ployed a Greek term and having defined the sense in which he uses that term. The two lan- guages having different alphabets presented also an impediment to the introduction of Hebrew letters in the Greek text, the extent of which 1ms been actually exemplified in the fate of such copies of the Septuagint as made the attempt; the word n^TV which is read from right to left having, as already noticed, been converted by transcribers into the unmeaning word rani (Pipi) read from left to right. It is easy to see a reason why K6piog and o Gsog were employed, in the New Testament writings, for the words mrp and D'>^^^^ of the Hebrew Scriptures. The latter had been trans- lated into Greek ; and, in the Septuagint version. 240 Oti the Hebrew T^YS^ [Dissert. 5. which was in the hands of all the Jews scattered throughout the Roman, but especially through- out Egypt and all parts of the Greek, Empire, Kipiog had, as already noticed, been adopted as the translation for Jehovah, and 6|^ for Elohim. There was therefore a great cblti^l?- nience in employing the same terms in the New, that appeared in the version of the Old, Testa- ment in common use, and which was about to become general, in the hands of the Christian Church. But the Greek terms, so employed, not expressing, or by length of time having ceased to express fully, the sense of the Hebrew words for which they had become substitutes, it was necessary (for we cannot possibly conceive its being done without a reason) that their true meaning — the genuine sense in which they are used by the Apostles and Evangelists — should be accurately defined. This, we have just seen, has actually been done in the Apocalypse, — the first written (as I believe, and think I have proved, in the Second Dissertation) of all the Greek scriptures. But whatever reasons might exist for the Greek version of " Jehovah" and " Eloh'wi,'' accompanied, as has been shown, with proper definitions of their sense, no tenable argument can be advanced for adopting, in translations into other languages, expressions or names which do not convey the sense of these terms. Dissert. 5.] and the expression Kupiog 6 Oeo?. 241 It is self-evident that, in translating from the He« brew, its precise sense should be transferred into the version ; and as it is equally evident that, had the Apostles written in Hebrew, instead of Greek, the same Hebrew attributive nouns or names which are applied to the Creator, in the Old, would have been retained in the New Testa- ment; it follows that, in translating the Greek Scriptures, that sense should be given, in the version, which belongs to the Hebrew word of which any Greek term is a known represen- tative, that the translation of the whole Record (for to us the Old and New Testaments are an entire record) may present that uniformity of diction which would have pervaded the whole in the original, had both parts been written in the same language. We have seen already from the composition of the word Elohim, and from John's definition of its representative o Bzlg [the Theos\ that both of these, when applied to the Deity, should be rendered in a close English version by the Omnipotent — the All-Poxverful — the All-Mighti/, or some equivalent expression. When Oehg oc- curs without the article, then the abstract — Om- nipotence — employed as an appellation — may be adopted with advantage ; for in the New Tes- tament the article is used with as much preci- sion as the Hebrew prefix n is in the Old : and, Q 242 On the Name iTin\ [Dissert. 5. as, in the Old Testament, care should be taken to distinguish between the Creator and the Creatures to which the term Elohim is applied ; so, in the New, equal attention should be ex- erted to ascertain when the term Theos is ap- plied to others than to Jehovah; for it fre- quently represents Ruling Powers^ inferior to the Great Supreme, — though always relatively Su- preme — ^^Supreme as to the place or class with which the term is found associated : exhibiting, in this respect, as in every other, the precise characteristics of the attributive noun Elohim. But how should Kiptog be rendered in English, when it represents the word Jehovah? To employ such a periphrasis as John has given in his definition, *' The Being, and The He Was, *^and The Coming One," (which is a literal translation of the Greek) would not only be in- convenient, but, by suspending, too long, the current of the address or narrative, as the case might be, would often take from its energy. Inconvenient as this might be, if our language did not furnish a term, or terms, fitted to convey the entire meaning of the word in a more con- densed form, it would be better that we should submit to it, than adopt one that would change the sense. But, happily, we have a term in our language, which, by use, has been made to embrace, pretty fully, the sense of John's defini- Dissert. 5.] and the expression Kvpio; 6 Sbo;, 243 tion,— I mean the word ETERNAL. The Professors of Geneva have, in their French ver- sion, employed VEternel for the word Jehovak in the Old Testament, probably from the com- position of this term in the original. How much is it to be regretted, that the same term has not yet been adopted for Kyrios [Kw^/o^], in the New. Should Translators hesitate still to adopt "The Eternal," at all events the word Lord should be rejected as not expressing at all the sense of the Original : the word " Jeho- vah" had better — its sense being defined — be transferred into the version for the Hebrew name mns and also for Kipiogj wherever the latter occurs as the representative of that term. But where Kupiog represents Adonai, there lord^ or master, or some similar title, should occupy its place in the translation. Having before shown that the substitution of the word God for the Hebrew word Elohi?n, in a version, tends often to obscure the sense, and to take from the energy of the translation, I need not occupy much of the readers time in showing what, a priori, must be manifest, — that the same consequences flow from the substitution of that word for 9sog. No proposition, which carries its reason in the original enunciation, should ever be translated in such phrase, as to require a mental process, however short, to ren- 244 On the Name niHS [Dissert, 5. der the sense obvious to the reader. Proposi- tions which carry in them the character of a truism, lose in perspicuity when any of their terms are changed into others which yield the truth only as an inference from the nature of the terms that have been substituted. For example ; Mat. xix. 26. (C. V.) " With men this is im- " possible ; but with God all things are possible,'' Though the process be short, yet a process does take place in the mind, when it assents to the truth of this proposition : — *' Why are all things "possible with God?" — "Because God pos- ^' sesses all power." But were the proposition translated conformably to the sense which at- taches to Elohim, and, according to John, to Theos, the translation would exhibit, on its face, the truth of the proposition, Trapa, hi 6s(S sravra Sovara, " But with Omnipotence all things are ** possible" In Romans i. 16. the Apostle says, " lam not " ashamed of the joyful news I'/or it is the power " of Omnipotence [esoi;, C. V. of God] unto salva- " tion to every one that believeth,'' How could he be ashamed, when the glad tidings he proclaimed was the power employed by Omnipotence for the salvation of believers ? * Evoyy^Xtov, C. V. gospel. In translating tlie scriptures every expression that requires tliat the unlearned should ask its meaning, ought to be avoided. Dissert. 5J] and the expression Kupios o Beoi. 245 In Matthew xii. 28. the argument is greatly weakened, if not nearly put out of sight, by the word OsQu being rendered God, which has led, as is often the case where any leading term is not understood, and is in consequence mistrans- lated, to the mistranslation of another word, viz. we6[AaTi. In the Common Version, and, indeed, with slight variations, in all the trans- lations, the passage is thus rendered : " Bui '' if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, ^' then the kingdom of God is come unto you." " By giving to the noun 6so5 a sense agree- ing with the definition of Theos, exhibited by the amanuensis of the Divine Author of the Apocalypse, the verse would read thus : " But ^^ifby the breath of Omnipotence [0eoO, with- "out the article] least forth the demons, then is " thekingdom of the Omnipotent [toD©£ou] conw *^unto you.'' — As if he had said — "Since ray "mere word is all powerful, manifested in the ex- " pulsion of these demons, you have evidence " before you, that the kingdom of the All-Pow- " ERFUL One, — the kingdom of the Messiah, — is " come." In Luke, where this part of our Lord's history is recorded, the argument is the same, though the language be a little different. (Ch. xi. 20.) *' But if with the finger of Omnipo- " tence / cast forth these demons, then is the ** kingdom o/' the Omnipotent come unto you ;" 246 On the Name tVni, [Dissert. 5. but here SaxruXo), finger, is substituted for xvfu- jiuxTj, ^Irity in Matthew, — a plain proof that this word does not in Mat. xii. 28. mean the Holy Spirit. CONCLUSION. It cannot be necessary that I should detain the reader longer on this subject. Indeed I am fearful that I may already have tried his pa- tience: but where innovations, and these not slight, are proposed, on long-established usages, it would be unreasonable to expect the concur- rence of the wise, without offering sufficient evidence to convince the judicious and candid enquirer after truth, that they ought to be adopted ; and in detailing the evidence it is dif- ficult to apply a precise measuring line. Those, however, who, by their previous pursuits and ac- quirements, have found themselves able to out- run the author in his argument, will be the most ready to pardon any apparent prolixity ; knowing, by experience, how difficult it is to gain access to some minds, even when a subject has been placed in every possible point of view. In the Fourth Dissertation it was proved that the Hebrew word ElohimmeBXisPower — Patverful —and, when employed to designate the Creator* Dissert. 5.] and the expremon Kugiog 6 ©lo; . 247' THE Omnipotent or All-powerful. In the Greek Scriptures, when the Hebrew Scriptures are quoted, the word Elohim is rendered Theos; and it has been shown, in the present Dissertation, that the writer of the Apocalypse has not left his readers merely to infer that the word Theos, when applied to the Creator, must have the same meaning as Elohim, but has, in ex- press language, defined it to mean TravroxpaTcop — that is, The Omnipotent. In translating, it is not correct to substitute the meaning of one attributive noun for that of another. Were this allowable, the word God — that is good — if understood as an attributive,, would be unexceptionable as applied to that being who is emphatically the Good one [Mat. xix. 17. ; but goodness and power — two distinct attri- butes — are never confounded in the original^ and in truth cannot, on every occasion, be sub- stituted the one for the other, in a translation, without doing injury to the sentiment, and ob- scuring, less or more, the sense of the passage. Of this several instances were given in theFourtli Dissertation, respecting the Hebrew term ren- dered God in our English version ; and similar instances have been adduced, in this Disserta- tion, respecting passages in the New Testament in which Theos has been rendered by the same English term ; and many more might be added. 248 On the Name n*)n% [Dissert. 5» were it deemed necessary, to establish a fact which is incontrovertible. But this naturally gives rise to a very important question : — Since the fact is as has just been stated, that, by substituting *^ God'' for *' The Omnipotent" the sense is frequently obscured or weakened, would it be proper, wherever the former term is employed to represent Elohim or Theos, to sub- stitute for it the proper version — namely '* The " Omnipotent,'" or some equivalent English term ? — ^At first view many might be inclined to an- swer this question in the affirmative : but various reasons — and some of them very powerful^ — ■ might be adduced to show, that, however desi- rable it might have been, that the proper trans- lation should have been given in our early ver- sions and never departed from ; and that though some important changes may be indispensable, it would not now be advisable to make one so ex- tensive as this would prove on the English Scriptures, and indeed on the English language, in every thing that regards our modes of speech on subjects connected with theology. — From the word God we have several derivatives and compounds for which it would be difficult to find substitutes, namely Godhead, godly, godli- nessy God'Uke, god-ward; and, even were substi- tutes found, it would not, on many occasions, be possible for the present generation to employ Dissert. 5.] and the expression Kupios h esoj. S49 them — especially in devotional exercises, from the suspension to the current of thought to which the hunting, as it were, for the new terms, would give rise in the mind. — And, besides, as to the Version generally, it may be asserted that, in many instances, the sense is declared as accu- rately by employing the word God as it would be by the proper translation of the Hebrew or Greek term being substituted — namely in all those passages in which an Attributive noun is employed in the original only for the purpose of designating the individual intended. For ex- ample — the sense is the same, whether we read " Jeh(yoah spake unto Abraham," or " the Lord ** spake" — " The Omnipotent spake," or " God " spake unto Abraham :" — in such cases, there- fore, no change is called for ; but wherever a false sense is imposed on the text by employ- uig " God'' as a proper name, the translation ought to be altered so as to make it convey the precise sense of the original. In our idiom the Article is never prefixed to proper names ; and in the Greek scriptures, the word Theos which represents the Hebrew term Elohim (which is not a proper name) appears much oftener with the article than alone. Inattention to the rules of the Greek language respecting the Article, in sentences where two Attributive nouns occur, has, in various instances, occasioned the two to be 250 On the Name rDH^, Sfc. [Dissert. 5. considered as indicating two distinct persons, where the text actually speaks only of one. Of all the errors resulting from the substitution of a Name for an Attribute, these are the most impor- tant and call most loudly for correction: — But this part of the subject shall be considered more particularly in a distinct Dissertation. [See Dis- sert. VI.] — In the mean time let it be constantly kept in recollection that the amanuensis of the Apocalypse has actually defined the meaning of the words Kyrios ho Theos [Kvpios 6 Gsos], which are of such frequent recurrence in the Greek scriptures ; for, assuredly, this would not have been done, were it not of infinite importance that, in whatever construction either of these words may be found, they should be rigidly subjected to the grammatical regimen of the Greek language, that the true import of the ori- ginal may be elicited and made apparent in the translation. DISSERTATION THE SIXTH, ON CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF 6 eE02, [THE OMNI- POTENT] AND KTPI02 [LORD] WITH OTHER NOUNS OF PERSONAL DESCRIPTION, WHICH ARE FOUND IN THE EPISTLES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Jl HE reader may not, at first sight, perceive what possible relation this Dissertation can have with our general subject ; but it is hoped that one or two considerations will show the necessity of introducing it. We have seen that the Apo- calypse is quoted in the epistles of the New Testament ; that is, that the Writers, sometimes, employed it as their text book ; and hence it is reasonable to infer that (excluding from our present consideration symbolical and figurative language,) they will, when using common modes of speech, be found employing similar modes of diction. Now in the Apocalypse the Name K6pio$y that is Jehovah, is not only associated with Otogy but the title Kvptost that is, Adonai or Lord, 25£ On certain combinations of [Dissert. 6, is found joined with other Attributive Nouns, precisely as in the Epistles ; and, so far as these only are concerned, the sentences in which they occur are to be construed by the same rules, and ought to be translated in a similar manner. So that, till something is determined respecting these rules, we are not in a condition to proceed, with that precision which the subject absolutely demands, in our enquiry into the meaning of the Apocalypse. The reason just stated for dis- cussing the topics which form the subject of this dissertation, is strengthened by another con- sideration. Various passages in which the com- binations occur, which we are about to consider, have been translated in a manner which not only obscures the meaning of the original, but absolutely imposes upon the text a false sense ; and that too on subjects of the first importance. This fact has been so fully established by others who have preceded me, that, on this point, little is required, but, only to endeavour not to do them injustice, in the use which I shall make of their labors ; and in pursuing this object I shall, as far as I am able, endeavour to treat it in such a manner, as to enable the common reader to un- derstand it sufficiently to arm him against the effects of distortions imposed on the text by modes of translation, which set all the rules of the language at defiance. Disiert. 6.] 6 aeoj and Kupto^. %^$ It is but too well known that, unhappily, different sentiments are entertained among men respecting the Divinity of the Messiah. I speak not now of professed deists, but of those who call themselves Christians ; who admit the authority of the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and practice ; and who, notwithstanding, are directly opposed to each other on this doc- trine. To what should this be principally attri- buted ? To the darkness of the Scriptures ? or to the veil cast over these lively oracles by mis- translations ? Few, it is hoped, will seriously maintain that the Divine Record — the only in- strument employed by God to enlighten mankind — can, possibly, itself be dark. True it is, that mankind are, naturally, so ignorant, and have their minds so pre-occupied with falsehood and error, that it is exceedingly difficult to have their prejudices removed ; but this is very generally admitted, both by those who assert, and by those who deny, the Divinity of the Messiah ; and it is also very generally allowed by both, that who- ever be in error, the cause must lie somewhere else than in the writings of the inspired penmen. It is but too common, on questions of this kind, for those who differ, boldly to charge each other with wilful perversion of the scriptures, and a studied suppression of evidence. This is, however, a mode of procedure unworthy of the cause of 254 On certain combinations of [Dissert. 6. truth, and no way suited to enlighten and con- vince either those who bring the charge, or those against whom it is made : nor can the cause of truth be any way weakened, by admitting, in argument, that the opposing party is as honestly in search of it as those who deem them to be in error. It is true, that individuals may be found engaged in this controversy who have some other aim than a simple maintenance of truth ; but it is equally true, that this species of dis- honesty may be found not exclusively on one side of the question : nor, in a fairly-conducted argument, should it be assumed that those we oppose are ever found wilfully employing other than legitimate weapons. To the issue it is not necessary that the adversary should be proved dishonest : it is quite sufficient that his armour be shown to be not battle-proof; but this can only be done by using such weapons against him, and in such a manner, as may ultimately leave him defenceless. It is admitted on all hands that the points in difference, among those who call themselves Christians, can be settled only by an appeal to the Holy Scriptures : and, indeed, all profess to draw their peculiar tenets from the inspired volume. Do these divine records teach opposite and contradictory doctrines? Who will pre- sume to affirm this, and yet call themselves Dissert. 6.] 6 eeo; and Kvpiog, 255 Christians ? The cause, then, of the differences which exist can only be attributed to the pre- possessions and prejudices of the individuals, no matter how acquired ; or to ambiguities in trans- lations, when these are followed ; or, — which comes to the same thing, — to ignorance, in a greater or less degree, of the idiom and construc- tion of the original text. Indeed to the latter may be attributed the greater part of the ambi- guities of the different versions ; and the strong prejudices which occupy the minds of many, may be attributed to the direct, or indirect effect, produced by mistranslations. It is, then, of the greatest importance that the genuine sense of the original, in those passages which occasion the principal differences, should be fully ascer- tained, so that all ambiguity, whether arising from difference of idiom, the phraseology em- ployed, or the mode of construction, may be re- moved, by a strict adherence to the rules of the language in which the original is written, and a close and rigid examination of the modes of speech employed by the writers. Some notice has been taken (in the preceding Dissertations) of certain Nouns employed by the inspired penmen to designate the Creator of the Universe. It has been shown that the terms of most frequent recurrence, namely Kyrios (Ku^66 On certain combinations of [Dissert. 6. such a language, even among- unlettered barba- rians ; and shall such an absurdity be predicated of the Greek tongue ! It is admitted on all hands that the expres- sion 6 flso^ xai TraTTip, [the God and Father] has reference to one individual, and cannot possibly mean two. Here, of the two Attributive Nouns, joined by the copulative xa), only the first has the Article prefixed. Nor is it denied by any that Tou dsou scol) Trarqog, and rto Qsip xal wuTpif the same words, but in other cases, also refer only to one. In a word, whatever the Attribu- tive Nouns may be that are thus circumstanced, ihey always refer to the same person, as in the expression, *' The grace toO Kopioo xa) XcoTriposy ** of THE Lord and Saviour :" in which expres- sion the two Attributives " Lord" and " Sa- viour" mean the same individual. Grammarians need not be told that though the individual intended by the Attributive or Attributives employed in any sentence of this kind, may, as is also often the case when Pro- nouns are used, be rendered sufficiently obvious by the context, yet cautious writers, to prevent the possibility of a mistake, often name the in- dividual to whom they are applying them ; but others, besides learned men, are deeply inter- ested in this subject, and, for their sakes, it is desirable, that this point should be stated in as Dissert. 6\] 6 Btog and Kufio^. 267 familiar a way as possible : — Let it be noticed, then, as an example, that, though the reader may perhaps know what individual is meant by the words, *' the Lord and Saviour^'' yet the words themselves do not declare it, — the know- lege of the fact is, in every case of this kind, derived from some other source. As a perverse and illegitimate mode of rea- soning is sometimes employed to evade the conclusion which this law of the Greek lan- guage establishes respecting some important passages of the New Testament, it is necessary that it should be exposed ; and the more so as some, who use it, seem not even to suspect the possibility of obstructing the entrance of light into their own minds. The Controversialist often keeps himself in ignorance, by assuming that his views are correct, and consistent with truth ; and, instead of measuring them by the Scriptures, decides what must be the meaning of a text, by applying to it his preconceived opinions : — *' the Apostle (says he) cannot mcari'' this, or that, (as the case may be) " and, there- fore, his language must not be so undei^stoodT But to speak thus is to beg the very point at issue. How can his meaning be known but from the language he employs ? If an individual has any other way of acquiring a knowledge of divine truths than from the Scriptures, let him say so at 268 On certain combinations of [Dissert. 6. once and hold his own opinions ; but, if he pro- fess to draw his information from these lively oracles, he is bound to abide by their decision, in the plain and obvious sense which they yield, without any evasion whatever ; and if he refuse to do so, he denies their authority wholly, how- ever much he may persuade himself to the con- trary : for, in this case, though he may hold some of the things taught in the Scriptures, it is, because they agree with his decision, and not, because he has therein learnt them. Keeping this in our recollection let us attend a little to the modes of speech employed in the Greek Scriptures. Will a mere amplification of such an expres- sion as Tou Kuplou xai HwTrlpos (literally, of the Lord and Saviouk) alter its application? No person who has the slightest knowlege of lan- guage will affirm this to be possible. Suppose that the writer had added, to the foregoing, these w^ords, og sxriars tou ou^olvov, tcol) rrjU yrjVy " who created the heaven and the earth ;" would it not be evident that he still spoke of the same individual, and that the latter words were added to prevent the reader from applying the words " Lord and Saviour" to any other than the one intended. But, instead of such ampli- fications, it is much more usual to write at once the name of the person, to prevent all mistake. In illustrating this case I shall put it in strong Dissert. 6.] 6 Ssog and Kvpiog, terras, that tlie unlearned reader may the better be able to see where the fallacy lies in the mode of reasoning which is often employed to evade a legitimate inference. Let us suppose that in place of the above amplification, namely, ** who created the heaven and the earth,'' the writer had substituted Ailg [Jupiter], making the whole read, "o/" the Lord and Saviour, Jupiter ;' could he be understood to affirm any thing else but that Jupiter is the Lord and Saviour ? Would it be any answer to say that, because this cannot be truly affirmed of Jupiter, the author could not possibly make such an assertion ; when the question is not, Whether it be true or false, that Jupiter is the Lord and Saviour ? but. Whether this be, or not, the meaning of the author's words? Such indeed would be their meaning, and all that could be said would be, that the author had declared what was untrue. But, for Alls, let *j7jo-ot> Xpia-Toij be substituted, making the whole read, " of the Lord a72d Saviour, Jesus Christ," and then the truth of the expression will be, that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Sa- viour ; and the obvious sense will be admitted by all, though the sentence differs no way from the former, excepting only in having the Attri- butes applied to a different name. We meet with these very words in 2 Pet. ii. 20. " Through the knowlege tou Ku^iou xa) SojTrjpog 'Jtjctou Xpi(rTou ^70 On certain combinations of [ Dissert. 6, of the Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ." No one doubts that Peter here declares Jesus Christ to be the Lord and Saviour ; bat had he written Jiog instead of '/tjo-ou XpKrrou, it is equally certain that he would have made the same affirmation of Jupiter ; otherwise there is nothing certain in Language. In the same epistle Ch. i. v. 11, we meet with the words — ** into the everlasting kingdom tou Kuplou i^fxcSv xol) X^rrjpog *l7} 0SOIJ xat Kipiou 'Irifrou Xpi(rTov, xa) ToiV exT^sxraav ayyeXcov &c. rendered in our Common Version, " I charge (thee) before God, and the Lord Jesus " Christ, and the elect angels," &c. but more cor- rectly by Mr. Sharp — " before Jesus Christ, the God and Lord, and (before) the elect angels," &c. — referring "God" and "Lord" to the same person, Jesus Christ. If we follow the Greek order of the words, the passage will read thus : 294 On certain combinations of [Dissert. 6. " I charge (thee) before the God ^w^ Lord, Jesus " Christy and (he^ove) the elect angels." 5. — 2 Tim. iv. 1. Ivuiinov roy ©soO xai rou Koptou *l7i(rou Xpia-Tou — rendered in the Com- mon Version, " before God and the Lord Jesus Christ ;" — but according to Mr. Sharp, follow- ing some Manuscripts which do not exhibit the Article after the copulative xa), *^ before the God and Lord, Jesus Christ^ 6. — James i. 1. 7axa>/3o^, 0goy Koi Kuploo 'IrifToo XpiG'Tou ^ouTiog, The above six are the only other places in the New Testament in which the words K6piQ$ 'Ir}(rovg XpKTTos occur without the Article. The 1st and 2d of these passages we shall see noticed hereafter by the objector himself: and the 6th (James i. 1 ,), not exhibiting the article before Oeou, may be dismissed entirely from our present consideration. The 3d is the passage 2 Thess. i. 12., the proper meaning of which is disputed, on account of Kopiog 'IrjG-oiJs XpKrros being, as alleged, a common title of our Lord. In the 4th some manuscripts and early ver- sions omit KuptoUf which, of course, would ex- clude the passage from the application of the Rule. '*The received reading may, however, ** be the true one," says the author of The Doc- Dissert. 6.] 6 Seog and Kugios. QQ5 trine of the Greek Article ; but, even if admitted, he acknowleges that still he would object to the conclusion furnished by the Rule, on the same ground that he objects to a similar interpretation of 2 Thess. i. 12. Of the 5th passage (2 Tim. iv. 1.) the read- ings of some Manuscripts differ considerably. " There is," in Bishop Middleton's opinion, " so little authority for omitting the Article before " KvpiQDy which however must be done before " this text can be subjected to the rule," that he expresses surprise at Mr. Sharp having adduced it as an example. But, even if the Manuscripts could be considered as warranting the reading preferred by Mr. Sharp, he would urge the ob- jection before stated, — that, " Kipiog 'Iricrovs Xpitr- '* Tog being a common title of our Lord, there is *' no absolute necessity for detaching Koplou from " *l7j(roij XpKTToij in order to couple it with ©sow." — In one word, — independently entirely of any thing that might be urged from diversity of read- ings, this is his real objection. He objects not to the rule, — for he himself has produced, from the Greek Classical writers, irrefragable evi- dence of its indubitable certainty, — but to this and the two preceding passages (the only texts in which the words tow ©sou xa) Kuploo 'Jijo-oD XpKTToij occur) being interpreted according to the absolute requirement of the Rule: and the proof 29<5 On certain combinations of [Dissert. 6. he requires that they may be so interpreted is, "that in the form K6pios*L Xp., so frequently " occurring in the N. T., Kvpiog commonly is to ** be separated from the Proper Name in order " to be joined with some preceding Attributive : " and this proof, [says he] I fear cannot be ob- " tained ;" — a mode of expression (the word ** commonly'' being printed too in Italics) not easy to be accounted for, from so distinguished a scholar ; since it is hard?y credible that it could be unknown to him, that there are no other passages in the New Testament in which any preceding Attributive is so circumstanced that Kopios might be separated from 'IrjTov^ Xpia-Tog to be joined with it. Indeed accumulations of Attri- butives, except when two or more, united, form the only proper title of the individual of whom they are predicated, occur but rarely in compo- sitions of any kind : thus, for instance, the ex- pression, ^* Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christy'' which most people, without previous examina- tion, would expect to meet with very frequently, does not occur above twice or thrice in the New Testament. *'That Kvpios is commonly subject to the " Rule," Bp. Middleton allows [p. 553] ; and in proof that this Attributive may, to use his own mode of expression, " be separated from the ** Proper Name," in order to be coupled with Dissert. 6.] o Omj and Kygioj. 297 0iog, when the latter occurs as the preceding Attributive, he refers to two "unquestionable " instances" produced by Dr. Wordsworth : " the " one from Gregory of Nyssa, 6 Se Bsog tj/acov xal " Kvqiog 'L Xp, woLpoLKOL'kaiVy &c. ; and another " from the Scholiast on J ude, quoted by Mat- ** thai N. T. vol. vi. p. 235. These examples " [says his Lordship] prove, I think, that Ky^s/o^ " may be disjoined from '/tjct. Xpicrrog, and be ** identified with a preceding Attributive: but," — notice the words that follow — " that Kipiog " may be detached from 'Itjo-. Xp. was already " probable from 1 Cor. viii. 6. xa) elg Kvpiog 'Jtj- *' a-oiig Xpia-Tog, and also from Philipp. ii. 11." — These are two (the 1st and 2d) of the above six passages ; and in these he allows that separation^ objected to with respect to the others, is, at least, probable. But why, in applying the Rule to a passage like 2 Thess. i; 12. is Kipiag said to be, " sepa- rated from the Proper name?" In such cases there is not a separation from the Proper Name, but an addition made to the prefix ; nor, when thus enlarged, do the words become less a title of our Lord than they were before. " Our " Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ,'' and ** Our God '^ and Lord, Jesus Christ,'* are, in every sense, titles as proper to him, as *' Our Lord, Jesus Christ." — The latter, however, we are told, " is a common 298 On certain combinations of [Dissert. 6. •* title of Christ." Can the greater frequency of this title be, with any propriety, held a good rea- son for denying him others when given to him by the writers of the New Testament ? Certainly not. It is quite obvious that, had the writer, in this passage, intended two persons, he could have put his meaning beyond all doubt by pre- fixing the Article to Koploit as well as to 0go3. There was nothing in the nature or use of this title to prevent him, for in other passages we find him employing it with the Article, as in Rqm. xiii. 14. and 1 Cor. xvi. 22. tov Kvpiov 'j7}(rovuXpKrToUf ** THE LoRD Jesus Christ;" and, surely, it is begging too much to suppose that where he meant to express two he should, not- withstanding, employ that construction which the rules of the language require for only one person. This consideration seems to have .been pressing itself on the mind of the learned au- thor while stating his objection ; for, after re- marking that " Kvpios *l7j(rovs Xpicrros collectively " is a title of our Lord familiar to the Writers *' of the Epistles," and that " in the present *' passage [2 Thess. i. 12.] there is no necessity for *' detaching Koploo from 'Jtjo-oD Xpia-roij to couple ** it with 0cotl," he proceeds thus ; " It is true " that we find also *0 Kupios 'Iricrovs Xpia-ros as in ** Rom. xiii. 14. and 1 Cor. xvi. 22., though in *' both those places some MSS. after Kipioi^ add Dissert. 6.] o Osoj and Kugios. sgg ** T^fjLwv, which would make the Article neces- " sary. Admitting, however, the title to have " been sometimes "O Kvpiog 7. Xp., still such is " the ambiguity, that we shall not be obliged to ** apply the Canon." From this manner of speaking one would imagine that Rom. xiii. 14. and 1 Cor. xvi. 22. were almost the only passages in which this title occurs with the Ar- ticle ; but it is so found also in Acts xi. 17. ; xv. 11. ; xvi. 13. ; xxviii. 31. ; 1 Cor. xvi. 22. 23. ; 2 Cor. xiii. 14. ; and 2 Tim. iv. 22. Of some of these there are different manuscript readings, but they are sufficiently numerous to show that it was no uncommon thing to prefix the Article to this title. The reader will also have remarked that his Lordship, in the words last quoted, mentions the effect that would be produced by the presence of the Possessive Pronoun i^fjuSv ; — that this ** would make the Article necessary." The fact being so, it deserves the more notice, that, gene- rally speaking, the Writers of the New Testa- ment have preferred this way of expressing the title, namely, o Kdpias r^i^wv '/TjeroD^ Xpioro^, (C. V. Our Lord Jesus Christ; literally, " The Lord of ** us, Jesus Christy') to any other that has been noticed. It occurs about fifty times : that is, they have most commonly used that form which makes the Article indispensable. This renders 300 On certain combinations of [Dissert. 6. it the more evident that, when they adopted an- other form which excludes the Article, (as in the passage which has given rise to this digression), they did it for the express purpose of giving to their words that sense which such construction demands. Bishop Middleton, as I have before had occa- sion to notice, has " shown that the Article as " used originally, and even by later writers, was *' no other than the Pronoun ;" and that it " al- " ways indicates the subintellection of the Par- " ticiple of Existence, when that Participle is ** not expressed or otherwise implied ;" for ex- ample, — " 'O auTip must signify, He or the Male, " being, or assumed to be a man." Thus, accord- ing to the Doctrine laid down by his Lordship, 2 Thess. i. 12., when the Participle of Existence is supplied, must and can only be rendered, (when translated literally) ^'According to the ** grace of Him \being or] "who is the God of us and " Lord, Jesus Christ'' — With this result before us one may wonder how it could ever be made a question, Whether the Greek embraced one or two persons? which is just the same thing as to doubt Whether " Him " be singular or plural ? — Whether the English words " Him who is our " God and Lord, Jesus Christ,'' mean one or more than one person f " The Rule," as we have seen remarked by Bp. Middleton, " both as it re- Dissert. 6.] 6 Otos and Kvpio$. 301 " spects diversity and identity, has been observed *♦ by the sacred Writers ; and" we may again ask, with himself, " Where is the instance in " which it has been violated ?" CONCLUSION. In the passages that have been examined (not including 1 Tim. v. 21. and 2Tim. iv. 1., the readings of which are disputed) the name JE- SUS stands connected with o Xpia-rog (the Christ, Messiah, or Anointed), with HcoTrjp (Sa- viour), with Kvpiog (sometimes Lord, sometimes JEHOVAH), and with o* Oelg (God, or the Omnipotent), in such a manner, that all of these Nouns are applied to him as names or ti- tles : — in 2 Pet. ii. 10. we have " the Lord and ** Saviour, Jesus Christ ;" in 2 Pet. i. 1. "The *' God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ;" in Tit. ii. 13. '* The great God and Saviour of " us, Jesus Christ ;" in Eph. v. 5. " the King- *' dom of the Messiah and God" (i. e. of him who is the Messiah and God — or the Christ and God—or the Anointed and God); and in 2 Thess. i. 12. " our God andhoRD, Jesus Christ." In none of these instances can the Nouns, thus as- sociated, relate to any other person than the one named, — Jesus Christ, — according to the re- gular rules of the language, and the invariable 30^ On certain combinations of [Dissert. 6. usage of those writers whose native tongue was the Greek. Dr. Wordsworth says (p. 132.) *' I " have observed more, I am persuaded, than a " thousand instances of the form o Xpia-Tog xa\ " 0so^(Ephes. V. 5.); some hundreds of instances " of the form oixsyag Osog xa) Xooriip (Tit. ii. 13.); ** and not fewer than several thousands of the " form Osos xai ScoTrip (2 Pet. i. 1.); while in no *' single case have I seen (when the sense could ** be determined) any one of them used but only " of one person." In addition to what we have seen declared by the Inspired Penmen of the Epistles of the New Testament, respecting the Divinity of our Lord, I shall only add, that I have purposely avoided noticing other passages in which the same doc- trine is taught, only because in these the more common modes of construction are followed in the original, and Translators in general have found no difficulty in rendering them correctly into the respective languages in which they have delivered themselves. I may also notice, in passing, that, in many places in the New Testa- ment, where 0sog (God) stands alone, and is therefore commonly understood to mean God the Father, the term, when the context is properly understood, will be found to have reference not to The Father but to our God and Lord Jesus Christ, Dissert. 6.] 6 Bsog and Kugiog. 303 I should next proceed to examine some of the passages in the Apocalypse, which, when rightly translated, teach the same doctrine that we have seen established in the Epistles ; but as these, and matters connected with them, will necessa- rily occupy a considerable space, it is thought better that they should form the subject-matter of a separate Dissertation. DISSERTATION THE SEVENTH. ON CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF NOUNS OF PERSONAL DESCRIPTION, WHICH ARE FOUND IN THE APOCA- LYPSE. J.T has already been noticed (in Dissert, iii. §. 1.) that, by means of the Septuagint translation, a Greco- Hebrean idiom — the same that was employed by the Elders among the Greek Jews, in teaching the law of Moses and expounding the Prophets, — had been established and per- petuated, and with which it is indispensably necessary that biblical students who apply themselves to the original should make them- selves well acquainted ; and that, in the Apoca- lypse in particular, we have this idiom, under a divine sanction, and adapted to the Christian dispensation. But there are other circumstances connected with the Apocalypse in reference to this idiom, that call for particular attention, because, at first sight, they seem to stand at variance with the rules of the Greek language. On account of the Hebraisms (as they are called) which abound in this book, some critics Dissert. 7-] On combinations of Personal Nouns, S^c. 305 have assigned it a Hebrew Original. This I have no doubt is the fact ; but not in the sense in which they use the term. They conceive the Greek to be a translation from a Hebrew manuscript. I consider the Greek, on the con- trary, to be the original writing, but, as is evi- dent from the book throughout, to be, never- theless, in a great measure, a real translation : that is, I conceive the language used in the Vision to have been the Hebrew ; and the fact is, I think, proved, by the Hebrew terms which occur in the book, and to which the Amanuen- sis has frequently thought it necessary to add an explanation; and, therefore, in committing the things seen and heard to writing, and doing this in the Greek language, he was necessarily obliged to perform the office of a translator. In either case the inference is the same ; — that those peculiarities which mark the Greek of the Synagogue should be found to abound in the Apocalypse. The following causes also have contributed not a little to perplex critics, and therefore demand particular attention : — First. — Effects produced by the introduc- tion of Definitions, and of translations or ex- planations of terms, employed in the narrative ; and — Secondly, — The employment of Hieroglyphical u sod On combinations of Personal ^ouns [Dissert. 7. or Symbolical terms, of personal description, in some other way than as Attributive Nouns. To these, and some other particulars con- nected with our present subject, it may be well to devote distinct Sections. ^ 1. Of Definitions and explanations of terms furnished by the Writer of the Apocalypse, Of the introduction of Definitions I have already had occasion to take some notice in Dissertation iii. § 1., and more particularly when treating of the name Jehovah in Disser- tation V. But it is necessary that we should here bestow some farther attention upon this subject, as the change of construction with which these Definitions and explanations are accom- panied, has led Critics, who were not aware of their existence and use, to charge the inspired penman with violations of grammar. In Rev. i. 4. John wishes the benediction of grace and peace to the seven Churches in Asia, octto toD 6 wu xa) b ^v xaio 6pxo[j.svog, — rendered in the Common Version, '^ From him which is, and which was, and which is to corned The Greek reader will at once perceive that the Preposition oltto, which never governs any Case but the Genitive, after being here followed by an Article in the Geni- tive, is followed by three Articles in the Nomi- Sec. 1 .] found in the Apocalypse. 307 native case; and this will perhaps strike him with the more surprize from seeing that the next words, xal rm stttu Trusu^arwVy ^' and from the seven spirits,'' follow the usual Greek construc- tion : but his surprize will lessen when he reflects (see Dissert, v.) that 6 wu xa) b rju xai 6 sp^^ofjLsvog, represent here the indeclinable Hebrew Noun mns Jehovah. The Hebrew not admitting, like the Greek, inflection in the oblique cases, the Writer puts these defining terms in what a Gre- cian would call the Nominative, should he over- look the care which John has taken to intimate, that they are to be taken as a Genitive, by his prefixing to them the article toO in the Genitive case. That these terms are employed as a De- finition is quite evident in Rev. i. 8., as already pointed out in the Fifth Dissertation. Nor is the passage in Rev. i. 8. the only one in which the Apostle has given this Definition. In iv. 8. we meet with " Holi/, holy, holy KTPIOS the THEOS" to which John immediately adds the same definition (only giving that o^ Gels first) ** 77?e Omnipotent, the. He Was, and The Being, and the Coming One,'' I translate the words as literally as possible, to show that all the Apostle intends is, to express the past, pre- sent, and future times of the Verb of existence mrr as noticed above. In ch. xi. 17. we meet with these words : *' We thank thee, K6pii b Osog b 306 0?i comhinations of Personal Nouns [Dissert. 7. " vavTQHparmpf o cov xa) o ^v," in which again all the words after Gsog are a definition, and should be read in parenthesis : and here it is remarkable that the whole term mn^ seems not to have been employed, (for, as already stated, it is evident that all the dialogue of the Apocalyptic vision was in Hebrew,) but only mn [Hovak], the ^ [yodX the sign of the future, being left out, because the time of Christ's second coming is anticipated : for, when he shall have come, he will no longer be apxo[J>svog, the Coming One : accordingly this term is omitted in the definition in this place, and also in xvi. 5. where it again occurs. But another reason, not yet assigned, calls for farther notice respecting such definitions. In all the versions the terms which, in Rev. i. 8., follow ^* I am the Alpha and the Omega saith Kipios 6eoj," are rendered as additional titles, appropriated to himself by the Alpha and the Omega, but which, in the form in which they appear, if considered as titles, would involve an anomaly; for these terms, by the interposed Conjunctions and Articles, would express three individuals. This diflSculty is got over, to be sure, by referring to the Verb, saith (yiiysi), which is in the singular ; but this is to compromise the grammar of the Writer, where there is no neces- sity; for the words are not those of the previous Speaker, but of John^ performing the office of a Sec. 1.] Joundin the Apocal^/pse, 309 philologist, and are not intended to be taken in construction with the Verb. But will not the saooe objection lie against the terms 6 dv xou o rjv Hoi hpxofji'evosy considered as those of John, as would when considered as those of the Alpha and the Omega ? No ; for John does not apply them to a person, but lo the name of a person, which is quite another thing ; and his definition simply affirms three distinct propositions, as being included in the name Kipiog, when this Noun is employed to represent the Hebrew name Jeho- vah, any one of which, independent of either of the others, may be asserted as involved in the term, which he simply declares has this threefold meaning: The Being, that is, He who has being in himself, who is being in the abstract, and therefore the cause of being to every thing that has existence; also, the He Was, that is, the being of whom alone it can be affirmed that he always was — always had exist- ence — without a beginning ; and The Coming One, He who is without end of days. The third proposition however includes another idea: — " the Coming One'' has reference, in particular, to what the Omnipotent has made known respect- ing himself, that he will come to judge the world. Instances of this kind occur frequently in the Apocalypse, that is, words put in the Nomina- tive, where, from the intention of the Writer not 510 On comhinations of Personal Nouns [ Dissert. 7 . having been understood by critics, they have objected to their accuracy in a grammatical point of view, insisting that they should have been put in another Case. Thus in the 5th verse of the first chapter we read xa) olto '/Tjerou XpKTTouy [xaprvg o iriG-Tog, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness: here the Nouns *i7j)i/), — the Writer instantly gives a Greek translation of the Hebrew term, adding o [xaprvs oTna-ros, there- by intimating that, wherever he uses this Greek expression, he speaks of him who, in the Old Testament scriptures, is called " The Amen :" it is owing to a similar cause that the words which follow these in the text, namely o Trpw TQToxos 6 oip)(^u)v, the First-born from the dead, and The Prince (or Ruler), are also found in the Nominative. The Apostle here applies other two indeclinable Hebrew Nouns to Jesus Sec. 1.] found in the Jpocali/pse, 311 Christ, viz. tidi [bcchor] and ^vb^ [elioun], thus informing the reader that these epithets, applied to the Messiah in Psal. Ixxxix. 27, belong to Jesus Christ — or, in other words, that he alone is the MessiaA; and by the other words which he introduces, — '* from the ^e«6?,"— explaining the sense in which he is called " the first-horn^'' in the Psalm from which John takes the epithet. In the Common Version the supplement " my' alters the sense of the proposition, which is, " / '* will make (or constitute) him First-Born, [1 ** will constitute him] Elioun {the Most High),'' or,according to John's translation, **thePrince " (or Ruler) over the kings of the earths But these and similar definitions, translations, and explanations, introduced into his work by the Writer of the Apocalypse, shall not be insisted on farther at present, as they necessarily must come into discussion in another work (should the au- thor be blessed with health sufficient to enable him to finish it), to which the present volume is intended as a prelude. Enough, however, has been said to prove that they involve no violation of Grammar. Had they been put into that form of construction for which critics have in vain been looking, the whole sentence in which any of them occur would have conveyed a different sense from that intended by the writer, and the church would have lost that important instruc- 312 On combinations of Personal Nouns [ Dissert. 7 . tion which these, and such like, definitions, and explanations, were intended to communicate. It may be remarked respecting these defini- tions and explanations, that, generally, their ex- istence being once known, they are easily disco- vered, being commonly put in the Nominative case, and so glaring that this very circumstance led to the idea that the book is written in barba- rous Greek ; but let the Greek reader, wherever he finds these " barbarisms," pass them and proceed till he comes to words in proper con- struction with those which preceded them. He will then find that he has got the writer's entire sense ; the intervening terms being merely pa- renthetical : and when these supposed intruders are not followed by words in construction with those that went before, they are to be considered as in some way explanatory of some of the preceding terms that were found in proper con- struction. § 2. Of the junction of Attributive Nouns with Symbolical terms, — and particularly with to apviavy The Lamb. The second particular which has contributed, not a little, to perplex translators, and, conse- quently, to obscure their versions, is the frequent employment of Hieroglyphical or Symbolical Sec. 2.] found in the Apocalypse, 3 L3 epithets in the Apocalypse, not as Attributive Nouns, but in some other way : as, for example, TO apviov, The Lamb. The first place in which this Noun occurs in the Apocalypse is in ch. v. 6., " and 1 saw in the midst of the throne and of the *^four animals and in the midst of the Elders, dp- " viov, A Lamb," &c. Here, conformably to the rules of the language, this Noun appears with* out the Article, being its first introduction. In the case of any particular lamb, the recurrence of the same lamb would require the article, and it would of necessity be subjected to the rules that apply generally to common Nouns ; but when, on the recurrence of this very term, we find that it is not used in its proper but in some other sense, though we may expect to find it pre- ceded by the Article, to intimate that the Lamb intended is the same that had been mentioned before, we must first enquire in what sense the term is employed before we can decide how far it is to be considered, in other respects, under the dominion of the rules that apply to Nouns used in their common and proper acceptation, or to Attributives personified. Now it so happens that throughout the Apocalypse the Noun dpvm (excepting in one instance ch. xiii. 11. presenting no difficulty) is never employed as a common Noun, or even as an Attributive, in the common acceptation of these terms. It is always em- 314 On combinations of Personal Nouns [Dissert. 7. ployed as a Pi^oper Name, and that in a manner too which puts it out of the common rules ; at Jeast I know of no similar examples, nor do I know where they could be found, unless some work could be pointed out composed on the same principles as the Apocalypse. The singu- larity arises from the blended use of common and of Hieroglyphical language, and preserving the proprieties of each throughout. In Rev. v. 6. a Hieroglyphical or Symbolical Lamb is seen in the midst of a symbolical throne (or seat) and of four symbolical animals; and whenever mention is afterwards made of this Lamb, it is, according to rule, invariably preceded by the Article,' to show that this and no other lamb is alluded to ; and is at the same time used as a Proper Name, as already noticed,, but with this peculia- rity, that it is a Hieroglyphical F roper Name, Now it is easy to conceive that, were the whole language of the Vision Hieroglyphical, this cir- cumstance would produce no alteration what- ever in the construction of the sentences, how- ever much it might affect the sense or the inter- pretation : but the case is otherwise ; for, in the same sentences, common Attributive Nouns, ' The common Greek Text presents an exception in ch. xiv. 1., but the best Mss. and the ancient versions read to apviov—^the lAimh; and Grie|bach and other critics here admit the Article into the text. Sec. 2.] foundinthe Jpocalj/pse, 315 and having their usual application, are found blended with, or united to, Hieroglyphical terms ; and if we fetter the terms of two dis- tinct languages by the same rules that would govern them if they both belonged to one, it is not only possible, but absolutely certain, that we shall sometimes not only miss the sense, but entirely pervert it. This Hieroglyphical Proper Name is often pre- ceded by Attributive Nouns, and joined to them by the common Copulative xa); and, always having the Article, as well as the Attributives, translators have generally rendered the passages in which these combinations are found, in such a manner as to make the Attributives represent one individual and the proper name another; pre- cisely as they would have been called to do had the latter been also an Attributive. Thus the words, lj XoiTYlptoL TO) 0£lS TJjU.COl/ TO) XOLdrUXSVCO STtII rou Qpovou xa) t(d dpvt(p (vii. 10) are rendered in the authorised version, ** Salvation to our God ** which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamhy making the Theos, who sits on the throne, one person, and the Lamb another person ; and yet the intention of the writer (as will be proved hereafter) is quite different : his meaning, when properly understood, is this ; "• The salvation be to ** THE MIGHTY ONE of US [OV, tO OUr God] (who ** is) the one sitting upon the throne, and (who is) 3l6 On combinations of Personal Nouns [Dissert. 7. " THE Lamb.'' The mistake originates, not from the presence of the Article before d§v/«>, (for by no rule of the language could it be ex- cluded) but, from the Translator's treating this Noun as an Attributive, the Conjunction xa) being present, which (were this Noun an Attri- butive) would have referred it to some other per- son than the Theos. Once taking up the idea that two persons were spoken of, there was no difficulty in making this appear certain in the translation, by inserting the preposition " unto'' (unto the Lamb), which was no more required, though the Noun be in the dative case, than be- fore the second dative r

alpa Kelrai €tc\ rrjs THU ; the difference of case governed, expressing distinctly the difference of acceptation meant ; even suppose the verbs were not expressed. For, ctti rr)v y})v, by itself, would show that motion upon, that is, pro- gressive motion pointing upon, was meant ; and, eTrt rfjs yffs, rest upon, or, situation upon; but not interchangeably, enl ry yy ; if only rest, or situation, was meant, and nothing further. For, when, besides the two cases appropriated to express motion or rest in general, a Greek preposition governs a third case, it then expresses some one particular, and remarkable mode of the general signification. Thus, cttJ, with the third case, the dative, expresses close upon; either in place or in S-ect. 4.] found in the Apocal^/pse. 331 I have no doubt that some of the difficulties which oppose the right understanding of this book, are to be ascribed to the temerity with which early transcribers and critics presumed to alter the text, to make it speak, according to their ideas, better Greek. Where the manu- scripts present various readings I am much in- time ; that is, next-hehind, or next-after ; for example : knl ifioi, when meant of place, signifies next-behind me ; when meant of time, next-after me. So, 'YOO, answering pre- cisely to the English preposition under, with the accu- sative expresses motion under ; that is, motion tending un- der, or coming under ; with the genitive, rest, or situation, under. The hall is running under the table ; ?/ a(palpa kvXIv- berat vtto rt)v rpdwe^ay. The ball is lying under the tuble, viro rr^s rpaTre^rjs. 'YIIO likewise governs the dative, and then it expresses such particular modes of under, as we would express by saying, protected under, subject under, directed under ; as, vtto ry^ va^, under the protection of the temple ; vtto r^ /3afft\e7, subject under the king To give one instance more. EID and FIPOS both signify to ; but, with this difference : els signifies motion to, and that only ; therefore governs only the accusative ; irpos, on the contrary, never signifies motion to ; but expresses any other kind of relation to ; being of the most general and extensive meaning of all the Greek prepositions, and answering to the English expressions, relating to, with relation to, with respect to ; and it governs the accusative, in this its principal and primary signification ; but it governs also the dative, and then it sig- nifies those particular relations to, which we express in English by the words close to, or at ; or, by the words united to, joined to, added to.'' 332 On combinations of Personal Nouns [Dissert. 7. clined to believe, with Bengel and Michaelis, that what may at first sight appear the smoother reading, is more to be suspected as the corrup- tion, than that which may seem more uncouth ; for it is easy, in almost every such case, to see an inducement operating to produce the former, when no satisfactory reason can be assigned for any change of the text to produce the latter. Very particular attention should therefore be paid to the various readings in the Apocalypse ; and here I shall notice one connected with the subject before us. In this chapter (the 5th), after the Lamb takes the book, the animals and elders fall down before the Lamb, and sing a new song; and an innumerable company of angels around the throne, and the animals and the elders (and consequently around the sitting one) are then heard saying, ^'Worthy is the Lamb that was " sacrificed to receive power,'' &c. — ** blessing, and ** honor andpowerbe to the one sitting upon « THE THRONE," — xai Tip apuio), — C. V. " and ** UNTO THE Lamb," — a mode of expression which, as hitherto understood, refers to two per- sons, — the sitting 07ie, and the Lamb; and in the Common Version this is marked, as strongly as possible, by introducing the preposition " unto'' In the Alexandrian MS., one of those which have preserved the true reading in the 7th verse, this passage appears without the conjunction Sec. 4.] found m the Apocalypse. 333 xai : it reads thus, to) xa6r)[j.ip(o Itt) too Spivou rm dpvl(p, " to the one sitting on the throne, the " Lamb,''' — -making the sitting one and the Lamb one person. Two of the Sclavonian Codices collated by Dobrowski also reject the xa) ; and, did all the MSS. read thus, it would be impos- sible for the most fastidious opposers of the Apocalyptic Greek to evade the inference. But though there may be instances in which, from internal evidence, the reading of a solitary ma- nuscript might be justified against an host of Codices reading differently, it would be rash to conclude, on the authority of those that reject the xa) in this instance, that the reading is spu- rious ; since, in all the other places where the same words occur, the Alexandrian exhibits the xou, like the generality of manuscripts and early versions ; and though it be possible that, in all the passages, the xai has been interpolated, to mark the diversity conceived to be taught in the early part of the 7th chapter — and certain, that, could this interpolation be proved, it would tend very much to shorten the present enquiry — yet it seems by no means probable that in all the pas- sages, in so many codices as have been collated, such numerous interpolations could have been effected, without any escaping, except two or three, and these only in one of the passages. It seems then more reasonable to conclude that, in 334 On comhinalions of Personal Nouns [Dissert. 7. this instance, the Alexandrian MS. presents a corrupt reading ; and that, possibly, we owe the corruption to some individual who, knowing the Hebrew idiom, imagined that the presence of the xa) might induce a belief of two persons being spoken of, when, he knew, from the con- text, that but one could be in the mind of the writer. And if we owe the error (for both read- ings cannot be right) to any idea of this kind operating on the mind of a transcriber, it is pos- sible that his intended remedy involved an im- propriety, not quite obvious at first view, but which a little consideration may render evident; for it strikes me that by placing " the Katheme- '* nos' in immediate concord with " the Lamb^^ the latter would be represented as sitting, which is a posture altogether inconsistent with the pro- priety of the symbol, — a point strictly attended to by the writer throughout the whole of this prophecy. And this naturally leads me to offer a few observations respecting the language em- ployed when Jesus Christ, in reference to the throne, is spoken of in the character of The Lamb ; for in this character he is never said to sit; no, nor to stand, on the throne, in the proper acceptation of these terms; though, from the words dpviov la-rifiTios cog iJ ^^PX^ xa) to "tIxo^, The Alpha and the Omega, the Sec. 6.] found in the Jpocalypse, Sbo "First and the Last, the Beginning and "THE End." I have no doubt thatthe speaker in this passage is the same that speaks in v. 16., namely Jesus Christ; but as commentators are not agreed on this point, I shall not take it for granted, but will establish the fact by evidence. All that I remark at present is, that, whoever may be the person, he is " The A and the 12,' — he is '*The First and the Last," — he is "TheBeginning and the End." In Ch. xxi. 5, 6. the Sitt'mg one (o xa^rj^svog) declares, respecting himself, that he is, to A «a« TO /}, 7] dpxTj xa) TO reXog, ^^ The Alpha and the Omega, The Beginning and the E?id.'' From this we learn that he who is called The Alpha and THE Omega, The Beginning and the End, is The Kathemenos (the Sitting One), and con- sequently that the one sitting on the THRONE is the speaker in the passage quoted fromCh.xxii. 13. But who is this individual? — We obtain an answer to this question, by at- tending to what is said by him who addresses the church in Smyrna (Ch. ii. 8.),—" These " things saith 6 irpwrog xou 6 ?V;^aTo^, The First " AND The Last." It has already been proved that the Epistles to the Seven Ciiurches were dictated by Jesus Christ, or, as expressed in the verse from which we have just been quoting, him " xvho became dead Imt Uveth'' Here he 356 On combinations of Personal Nouns [Dissert. 7. informs us that he is the individual called "The First and The Last;" but he who is so called is also The Beginning and The End, (xxii. 12.) and The Alpha and The Omega ; and, as we have seen, in the para- graph immediately preceding, also the Ka- THEMENOS, Or THE ONE WHO SITTETH UPON THE THRONE : and it has also been shown that the same Jesus, who dictated the Epistles, is also called The Root of David — The Off- spring OF David — and The Lamb. Thus it is proved that the individual who, in the character or office of the Ratifier, or Confirmer of the Covenant, is called " The Lamb in the midst of the throne,'' is, under some other aspect or in some other character, called "The sitting one, upon the throne'' What this other character is, the reader who has attended to what has been stated in these dissertations, will already have antici- pated. The Priest after the order of Melchizedec must be king as well as priest — a king upon his throne. We have seen that Jesus Christ, The Son OF God, who is The One sitting upon the throne and The Lamb, is to A aou to /2, " The Alpha and the Omega." Let us attend then to what the Alpha and Omega himself saith in Rev. i. 8. — 'Eyd el[JLi to A xa) to /2, Xeyst K6pio$ o Gils — " /a^i the Alpha and the Omega, saith Sec. 6.] found in the Apocalj/pse. 357 THE Lord God, " or, saith THE GOD JEHO- VAH :" not an inferior god, — one of the " Gods many and Lords many,'' — but the Creator of the Universe : for Kupiog o Osog represent here (as has been shown) the Hebrew epithet miT DM^K, Jehovah Elohim, I need hardly remind the Greek reader that the common Greek text is here corrupt, presenting 6 Kvpiog, for Kipiog o Osog, which is the true reading, as is proved not only by the best Mss., and by the antient ver- sions, and commentators, but by internal evidence furnished by the text itself; the words that follow, namely 6 oJv, xol) o r^v, xai o ep^^ifjisvog, " The Being, and The He Was, and The Coming one," being, as has been already shown, a definition of the name Kiptog, when put for Jehovah, and the next word, 6 wavToxpircop, "THE Omnipotent," a definition of 6 Gsog when employed to represent Elohim ; which shows that o Bsog has been dropt from the com- mon Greek, and o inserted before K6piog. Indeed we have this point put beyond all doubt, by what is stated in Ch. iv. 8., " They cease not day nor night, saying — * Holy, holy, holy Kupiog 6 Osog'"(C, V. Lord God), but, according to John's definition of these words, o TravroxpoLTcop, the omnipotent (i. e. Elohim), 6r}vxa) 6 dv xai 6 sp^opi.svog^ the He Was, a7id the Being, and the Coming one (i. e. Jehovah). In the latter passage the order 358 On combinations of Personal Nouns [Dissert. 7. of the definitions is changed, that of o Bsog being put before that of o Kvpiog, but this no way alters the meaning or intention of the Writer ; and as the terms in both refer to the same individual, he who is called the Alpha and the Omega in Ch. i. 8. is the same to whom the ascription of praise is given in Ch. iv. 8. : and, observe, the ascription to Jehovah Elohim is, in v, 9., declared to be addressed no xaOrjixiva), to the sitting one upon the throne, I might have shortened this argument, could I, without laying myself open to the cavils of objectors, have followed the common Greek text in Ch. i. 8., which, after the words " lam the Alpha and the Omega,'' adds, '* the Begintiing and the End ;" but many Manuscripts are without the latter words ; and different critics have consi- dered them as an interpolation, as also the first clause of v. 11., ** / am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,'' I thought it better, therefore, though necessarily by a more circuit- ous process, to prove the application of these titles, to the individual whom they indicate, by passages, the authenticity of which is admitted by critics ; and the more so, as by pursuing this method the evidence is equally conclusive, and leaves no room for those exceptions which might be taken against deductions founded on disputed passages. Sec. 6.] found in the Apocaltfpse. 369 To sum up the whole in few words : — Jehov a h Elohim (C. V. the Lord God), he ^^ which was, and is, and is to come,''' ch. iv. 8., is " the sitting ONE up07i the throne, who livelh for ever and ever,'* ch. iv. 9, 10. : — He " xvhich is, and which was, and which is to come,'' is the Alpha and the Omega ch. i. 8. : — in ch. xxi. 6. the Alpha and the Omega (who is THE SITTING ONE upoH the tkronc in ch. xxi. 5.) is called the Beginning and the End ; and the Speaker in ch. xxii. 12., who is the Beginning and the End, is also the First and the Last, and the Alpha and the Omega ; and in Ch. ii, 8. the one who dictated the epistles to the churches declares himself to be *' the First and the Last," 2iVi^ siheveiove the Alpha and the Omega, This personage, we have seen, was no other than Jesus Christ : Jesus Christ then, who is the one sitting upon the throne, is the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega, Jehovah the Omnipotent (C. V. THE Lord God) : and it has before been proved, that the same Jesus, the Root of David (Ch. xxii. 16.) is the Lamb, who prevailed to open the sealed book ; and hence it follows, that *' the Sitting one on the throne," and ** the Lamb in the midst of the throne," are only different descrip- tions of the same person, Jesus Christ, who, by the Record before us, is proved to be, JEHO- VAH THE OMNIPOTENT. SGO On combinations of Personal Nouns {Dissert. 7. § 7. Of the manner in which certain passages where common Attributive Nowu are found joined to the Symbolical name^ **The Lamb," should be rendered in English, that they may exhibit the true sense of the Greek text. The Reader must have perceived, that the ob- ject in view in this Dissertation is, to ascertain, with precision, the manner in which certain names and Attributive Nouns of personal de- scription, and their combinations, in the Apoca- lypse, should be rendered in a version, so as to convey, in the translation, the precise sense of the writer. For this purpose it became necessa- ry, that the true sense of Kdpiog o Beog should be accurately understood ; and this expression, as has been shown (Dissert, v.,) had been defined by the amanuensis of the Apocalypse himself, though hitherto overlooked. It was also neces- sary that the manner in which Attributive Nouns are combined in the Greek language, when re- ferring to one individual, should be ascertained, — a desideratum which we have seen (Dissert, vi.) had been completely supplied by the labors of Mr. Sharp, Dr. Wordsworth, and Bishop Middleton. And, as Attributive Nouns are found, in the Apocalypse, combined, not only with Attribu- tives, but, with Symbolical terms, and particu- larly with the Hieroglyphical Proper Name, Sec. 7.] found in the Apocalypse. 36 1 " The Lamb," it became also indispensable, that we should ascertain, with precision, to what person or persons this Proper Name, and these Attributives, are applied — and this from the Book itself — as, otherwise, the same uncertainty would still remain which has operated to ob- scure, in the versions, the sense of the Writer ; a consequence not to be avoided, if names and attributes predicated of a plurality, be applied to one individual ; or, on the contrary, if predi- cated only of one person they be applied to a plurality. The latter we have seen is the error into which translators have generally fallen, from (as it would appear) their treating the Hieroglyphical Proper Name, the Lamb, as if it were a com- mon Attributive Noun ; and hence, as already noticed, they have always rendered such pas- sages as Rev. vii. 10., in a manner that makes the writer speak of two persons, when in fact he is only speaking of one — " The salvation be to our ** God [who is] the Sitting one on the throne, ** and [who is] THE Lamb," — words which are usually rendered, " Salvation be to our God who sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.'' The latter method of rendering makes the Theos (God) and the Kathemenos one person, and the Lamb another person ; but we have seen that the Kathemenos is Jesus Christ, the Alpha and the 36^ On comhinatiorts of Fersonal Nouns [Dissert. 7. Omega; that the Alpha and the Omega is Jeho- vah THE Theos ; that ^^e Alpha and the Omega, is also the First and the Last, the one who dictated the epistles to the churches, namely Jesus Christ, who is the Root of David, the Lamb in the midst of the throne : the former is therefore the proper rendering of this and all similar pas- sages ; for all these titles and appellations be- long to the same individual, and to apply them otherwise, their identity having been proved, is to impose upon the Writer a meaning not only foreign to his sense, but which makes him con- tradict himself. 1 am not disposed to deny that such expressions as ex roO Q^ouou rot) ©sou xal Tm a^v/ou, ch. xxii. 1. (C. V. out of the throne of God a?2d of the Lamb) have, at first sight, very much an appearance of two persons being meant ; and, undoubtedly, were rou dpvlou (the Lamb) an Attributive as well as rou ©sou, in this case, by the rules respecting the Article and the Conjunction, they would indicate two, namely, the Theos and the Lamb ; but we have seen that the Theos, and the Lamb, are terms which indicate the same individual ; and we have seen that Theos (God) is an Attributive, but that the Lamb is a Proper Name — and that too of a different lan- guage, the Hieroglyphical — and for this reason, if for no other, these terms do not come within the rules. By the evidence that has been adduced. Sec. 7.] found in the Jpocalypse. 363 they both refer to one person, and therefore can- nott without error, be represented as two ; and one of the terms being a Proper Name, while the other is an Attributive, they come not within the rules, as already said ; and therefore this, and similar expressions, must be taken as predi- cating two distinct things, respecting the one person in the mind of the Writer — He who is the Omnipotent, and who is the Lamb. The words quoted speak only oi one throne — a single seat — and therefore but one person can be intended. There seems to be another peculiarity in the expression : by the order of the words it is " the ^etf^ o/'^/ieTHEOs"— he sits on it, — but we may conceive it to be the Lamb's seat in another point of view, — namely, his property^ being the Theos, — though, in his character of the Lamb, he is not said to sit on but to be in the midst of the throne, — and it may be, that the necessity of not violating the propriety of the symbol was what dictated to the writer this form of con- struction, predicating by two distinct proposi- tions, interposing the Conjunction between them, what might have been made evident, as to iden- tity, by placing the terms in apposition, without the xai interposed ; but in this case, as already stated, the Lamb would have been said to sit on the throne, an affirmation which the Writer seems carefully to avoid, when speaking of S54 On combinations of Personal Nouns [Dissert. 7. Jesus Christ in this character. From these considerations the reader will see that it is im- possible to render these words directly into English, so as to leave no ambiguity, without in- troducing expletives. The sense, as to identity merely, would be perspicuously given by render- ing xa), even — " out of the throne of God, even of the Lamb ;" and, in xxii. 1. this mode of render- ing has been resorted to by Scarlet, the only translator, of all I have seen, who appears to have perceived the identity of the person in- dicated by the two terms here employed (yet in other places he has made them two) : but though this translation yields the required identity (re- quired, because John applies these and the other epithets that have been mentioned, to the same individual) it is liable to the objection already stated — that of making the Lamb to sit, as THE Lamb, which John seems to guard against. By putting in the expletives, *' who is,'' this is avoided ; but, notwithstanding, the other method falls in so much more smoothly with the idiom of the English language, that, on the whole, I am inclined to prefer it, provided the reader be once warned, that by rendering tcu) " even,'' he is not to understand the Lamb as being thereby represented, in that character, as sit- ting. This being kept in mind, let us see what a different aspect some other striking passages Sec. 7.] Jound in the Apocalypse, S65 in this book will exhibit from what they do as commonly translated, if we render them, as we are bound to do, so as to preserve the same identity which was in the mind of the Writer, as to the personage to which they refer. We have seen already that the Kathemenos on the throne, and the Lamb in the midst of the throfie, in Ch. v., indicate the same person, but in dif- ferent characters. In v. 13., for, " Blessing and honour and glory and power be unto him that sit- teth upon the throne and (xaX) unto the Lamb,'* as in all the English translations, read " Bless- ing,'' &c. " be to the Sitting one on the throne, even the Lamb'' — 1 hope I shall not be understood as meaning to object to the words, " unto him that sitteth upon the throne ;' for I have no such intention, as these words really express the true sensef of the original. All I intend by preferring- at present, " the Sitting one on the throne," is to keep in the mind of the reader that in this and all similar passages, the Greek presents the term xadr}[jt,sifog, to which, as a term of frequent recur- rence, we have been obliged to pay particular at- tention, being really employed as an Attributive. In ch. vi. 15, 16. ''the Kings of the earth, and the great men," &c. say to the mountains and rocks, " Fall on us and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne [the Kathemenos on the throne] and from the wrath of the Lamb" — ■ 366 On combinations of Personal Nouns [Dissert. 7. read " even (xoiTjfrom the wrath of the Lamb : for the g7^eat day of his wrath is come,'' The Kathemenos, and the Lamb, as has been so often repeated (for repetition is necessary on a point which has been so little attended to), refer to the same individual, the Messiah — *' He shallspeak " to them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore dis* ^^ pleasure Be wise now therefore, O ye Kings: ** be instructed, ye judges of the earth Kiss the **SoN, lest he be angry, and ye perish : when his ** wrath is kindled but a little, blessed are all they " that put their trust in him,'' Psal. ii. The passage in Rev. vii. 10. has been already noticed — " Salvation be to our God, the Kathe- menos (the Sitting one) on the throne, even the Lamb" — " unto the LamV is quite improper, as the Greek has here no Preposition. In v. 11. the angels, &c. worship the Omnipotent (C. V. God), meaning still the same person ; and so throughout the whole chapter, the terms being changed to answer the exigency of the context, or to suit the character in which the Writer ex- hibits the personage to whom he applies the terms 6 Bsos, the Omnipotent (i. e. God), — rl dpvlov the Lamb, — the throne of the Omni- potent, — the Kathemenos on the throne — THE Lamb in the midst of the throne. In Ch. xiv. those who sing the new song *' are those following the Lamb wheresoever hegoeth'' — Sec. 7.] found in the Apocalypse. 367 •* they are ajlrst-fruit to the Omnipotent, {koI) even the Lamb,'' v, 4. The Lamb is here the Omnipotent one, (C. V. God), and so wher-* ever such combinations occur as o Ozlg xai to apvidv ; the sense being, as above, — him who is the Omnipotent (or God), and who is the Lamb. — To examine minutely all the passages in which these terms occur, and have been ren- dered in such a manner as to exhibit two per*- sons, where but one was in the mind of the Wri- ter, would occupy much time, for the context affected by this mistake is, in some instances, extensive. To prosecute the enquiry farther is however not necessary, for, in one word, if the identity of the terms employed by John be kept in recollection it will be found that, in no single passage, do they indicate more than one person. But before dropping the subject we ought, at least, to attend to one most important passage to which but little justice has been rendered by the majority of translators, — perhaps full justice by none. — Ch. xxi. 22. Ka) volov oitx sISov sv awryj' o yap Kitptog 0SQg TravroHpOLTcop vaog auTrjg *E2!TIy xa) TO a^viQV, 23. Ka) tJ TToT^ig ow ^pslav syii tou riKiou ouS^ rr^g sabaoth, " hosts,'' or " armiesj' is often joined to Jehovah and to Jehovah Elohim ; and if he take the trouble to examine the Septuagint he will find that the Hebrew term sabaoth, when translated (for in that version it is often retained untranslated, and expressed in Greek characters) is commonly rendered TravroTipircop, Thus the words "Tbi^ TDTP iy)i^y2 Jehovah Elohi sabaoth, Amos iii. 13.; iv. 13.; V. 14, 15, 16, 27, &c. usually translated *' the Lord, the God of hosts" are, in the Septua- gint, rendered, Kdpiog 6 G^og 6 9rayrox/>aTtt)p,— -the precise words used by John in the passage be- fore us: and, therefore, if it be desirable that a uniformity of diction should, where the expres- sion is identical, pervade the translations of the Old and the New Testament, the words of John in this place, and those of the Prophet Amos, ought to be rendered in the same manner ; for there can be no doubt that John is here express- ing, in a Greek translation, this Old Testament name of the Creator ; and so also in Rev. xv. 3. ; xvi. 7., and xix. 6., — the only places in which Trav- ToxpuTcop is found along with Kipiog (Jehovah), exceptingCh.1.8., iv.8.,andxi. 17., where, as has been seen, it is introduced in definitions. It ap- pears also in Ch. xvi. 14., and xix. 15., along with the Noun Osog ; and in both of these, the double term seems obviously to mean what John, had he Sec. 7.] found in the Apocalypae. 37 1 been writing in Hebrew, would have expressed by Elohi sahaoth, " God of hosts," for, in both, the context has relation to armed hosts. This term, except in one other place, is found only iu the Apocalypse, a book evidently cast in a He- brew mould. The other passage in which it occurs, in the Greek Scriptures, is 2 Cor. vi. 18, where it is joined to Kipiog ; and where, I doubt not, the expression, in any Hebrew translation of the epistle, ought to be Jehovah sabaoth: indeed Paul seems to have had the Apocalypse full in his mind when he wrote this passage, as may be seen by comparing the context with Rev. xxi. 3., and xviii. 4. The 23d verse of Ch. xxi. is thus rendered in the common version : ''And the city had no need ''of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it ; for " the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb (is) "the light thereof;'' — the word " is,'' in the last clause, being a supplement, and so printed. All the versions introduce either "is," or "was," in the last clause, some marking the substantive verb as a supplement, but others omitting to do so. The great majority of them, like the com- mon version, read, "glory o/'GoJ;" butTindale, Coverdale, Cranmer, and the Catholic version of C . N., in closer harmony with the scope of the passage, " the brightness of God," and Scar- let, " the splendour ofGod/' and o 7\,6xuo$ is by some rendered " the light," and by others, more 372 On combinations of Personal Nomis [Dissert. 7- properly, " the Lamp" In all the versions the supplied substantive verb " is,'' or " was,'' tends to hide the sense, converting the concluding clause into an independent and distinct propo- sition ; whereas, in the text it is connected with the verb singular l(paiT/o-ej/, enlightens: that is, 7i6)^vos auTvjg TO dpvlov, literally, " the Lamp of her, the Lamb," is that which enlightens her (the city) : — there is but one enlightener, and, there- fore, " the splendour of the Omnipotent" (or God) which ^'enlightens her," drnd^UheLampofher, the Lamb," 2iYeequ\\3\ent terms, both referring to the one source of the light by which the city is illuminated, and consequently indicating one person. To remove every ambiguity the con- junction xa) should be taken in the sense of the Hebrew copulative i (van), which frequently re- quires to be rendered even, to make the sentence fall in with the English idiom. The verse when literally' rendered, in the order of the Greek, reads thus : *^ and the city hath no need of ** the sun or of the moon to shine in her (prit);for ** the splendour (or brighttiess) of the Omnipo- *' TENT enlightens her, even the lamp of her (or it), " THE Lamb." The argument need not be carried farther, for the purpose for which it was undertaken ; namely, to ascertain, how the Names and Attri- butive Nouns, which are found combined toge- ther in the Apocalypse should be translated, so Sec. 7.] found in the Apocalypse. ST^ as to prevent the possibility of the reader apply- ing them to any other person than the one to whom they are applied in the Greek text. The collateral points which the enquiry has brought under review, though of great importance, have not been dwelt on longer than was necessary for the purpose for which they were adduced ; these not being the direct object of the investi- gation. I am not aware of a single objection that may, for a moment, be urged against any part of the general argument, except, perhaps, the reference to Ch. xxi. 5, 6., where " the Ka- thSmenos on the throjie' calls himself " the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End'' — The objection that may be started is : that the Kathemenos there spoken of may be different from the Katheme?ios sitting on " the throne set in the heaven ;" for the throne of Ch. xxi. 5. may be the ^* great white throne'' of Ch. xx. 11. This objection, however, would come with an ill grace from those who have hitherto held, that the Ka- themenos of both of these thrones is the same individual ; though they never contemplated Jesus Christ as being the one upon either throne. But it so happens that, in our chain of argument, many of the links are double, and this is one of these. Let the objector take it out, if so inclined, and still the chain will re- main unbroken ; for *' The First and the Last," 374 On combinations of Personal Nouns [Dissert. 7. Ch. ii. 8., is the one who dictated the Epistles to the Churches, namely Jesus Christ ; and ** the First and the Last" is " the Alpha and the Omega' Ch. xxi. Cj. and xxii. 13.; and " the Alpha and the Omega" is Kipiog o 0£o^, Jehovah Elohim, (C. V. the Lord God) Ch. i. 8. andiv. 8., who is the Kathemenos Ch. iv. 10. It is impossible to evade the conclusion: — the Kathemenos {the Sitting one), on both thrones, is the same individual, Jehovah Elohim [the Eternal Omnipotent], the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, Jesus Christ; who appeared in the midst of the Golden Lamp-stands ; who, in the Sanctuary, dictated the Epistles to the seven Churches ; who is the Root and the Offspring of David, the Lamb in the midst of the throne: — the same individual who hath declared, that *' He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father.'' The Conclusion. The author is fearful that he may have failed to express himself with that perspicuity and energy of which, from the premises, the general argument was susceptible ; but in whatever stronger light it might, in abler hands, have been placed, he holds the general conclusion io be completely established : for, after a truth has Dissert. 7.] found in the Apocalypse, did been demonstrated, there is no room left for " modest diffidence" on the point. With such a torrent of evidence, all furnished by the Apoca- lypse itself, that JESUS CHRIST is JEHO- VAH, THE OMNIPOTENT, what shall we say of a critic of considerable eminence, who has asserted, that ** the true and eternal Godhead **of Christ is certainly not taught so clearly in '* the Apocalypse, as in St. John's Gospel? " It cannot be more clearly taught than in this book ; and though John, as an inspired writer, — one taught personally by his Master while on earth, and enlightened by the Holy Spirit after his ascension — had no need to apply to the Apoca- lypse for information respecting the Godhead of Christ, in writing his Gospel, — and indeed the very nature of the history therein delivered (the life and death of Christ) precluded refer- ence to the Apocalypse, in the course of the narrative, — it is not a little surprizing that, in the very outset of his Gospel, declaring this God- head, he begins by using an Apocalyptic ex- pression (as is indeed noticed by the critic al- luded to) — a title applied to the Messiah in the Revelation ; and which he instantly follows up by other expressions which evidently show that the phraseology of that book was full in his mind. — ^In Rev. xix. 11. John sees the rider on the xvhite horse (the same who wegit forth con- 376 On combinations of Personal Nouns [Dissert, 7. quering and to cmiqutr in Ch. vi. 2.) returning as victor, bearing many crowns, who is called Faithful and True, who has *' eyes as aflame of fire^ V, 12., ^^ and his name is called {v. 13., 6 'MOrO^, the LOGOS) the WORD OF GOD." We have seen already that he ^^ whose eyes are as aflame of flre,' Ch. i. 14., is, Jesus Christ, whom John saw in the likeness of a son of man, i. e. in human nature, and who said to John " / "^3f77iTHE FIRST AND THE I. AST, and the Living '* one; I became dead, but behold living I am to Eter- *^nity,'' — the same who, in Ch. iv. 8., is called Xu- pio^S 0eo^, JEHOVAH THE OMNIPOTENT, and to whom are ascribed *' the glory and honor and power," — " because," say the worshippers, " thou hast created all things, and as they were made, so also, they e.vist by thy will, " Ch. iv. 11. — Now what does John say in his Gospel ? — " In " thebeginning was iT^e WORD, [6 AOrOX] and the " WORD waswithGoD,andGoB was ^Ae WORD ^^ , .. .all things were made by him, and without hi?n " was 7iot any thing made that was made .... and the ** WORD was made flesh [appeared in human na- " ture'] and dwelt among us." But — not to detain the reader, — with this torrent of evidence before us, — how much ought we to commiserate the blindness of those who persist in denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and, in derogation of his high characters, continue to call him "« Dissert. 7.] found in the Apocalypse. 377 mere mmi' — ^^ nothing but a man' — '^ simple hu- man nature ?'^ Either the Apocalypse speaks falsely, or they are in error ! Some of them in- deed may be inclined to give up the book en- tirely, — to deny its divine authority ; but if they have dispassionately attended to what has been advanced in these dissertations, they will have perceived that they must be prepared, if they insist on this, to go a great deal farther ; for in the Epistles of the New Testament the divine authority of this book is acknowledged, by the quotations made from it by their respective wri- ters, as has been shown (Dissert. II.), and, con- sequently the Epistles must also be given up ! Before closing this dissertation I beg to re- peat that, respecting the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, established by this enquiry, I cannot but ascribe the darkness that has been imputed to the Apocalypse, on this point, prin- cipally to the wrong interpretation put on the 1st verse of the fifth chapter, — an interpreta- tion entirely contrary to the usage of the Greek language, when the Preposition stt) governs an Accusative, and by which misinterpretation the strong, but common, Hebraism for fower was taken, in its literal sense, for the right hand of a person. This misconception led to the interpo- lation of TO ^i^'Km {the hook) in verse 7. ; and having thus made the text to speak of two per- 2b 378 On combinations of Personal Nouns [Dissert. 7. sons where the Writer had but one in his mind, it is no wonder that bold critics should in other places, which presented a glaring contradic- tion to this, have ventured to expunge words from the text. To this cause I cannot avoid ascribing the various readings presented by the MSS. in Ch. i. verses 8. and II.; the words dpxri 7ca) TeT^ogy 'Hhe Beginning and the End,' in the former, and *Eym s\[jli to A xat to /2, o wpwros Tccti h strxoLTog, ^' I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First andthe Z^f^^" in the latter verse, being absent from many MSS. I have no doubt that these words are a genuine part of the text. The ex- clusion however must have been effected very early, for the majority of the manuscripts which omit them in the one verse, are the same that exclude them in the other; which shows that they must have had the same early mutilated prototype. The only thing that surprizes me is, thatthe words, " 1 am the Alpha and the Omega^ in V, 8. should, in every known Codex, have escaped the pruning hook of bold emendators. But in this verse it is possible the critic might think the speaker different from him who speaks in verse 11, though, as we have seen, the speaker is the same in both. Whatever led to the ex- clusion, the record has been watched over by its divine author in such a manner that the gene- ral doctrines of the Apocalypse have been pre- Dissert. 7-3 found in the Apocal served entire, and no way impaired. This, has been shown, is so truly the fact, that the evidence stands complete, without the aid of the words excluded from these verses being re- quired, even to strengthen it. What motive could any one have to interpolate these verses ? It is impossible to assign one. Will it be said, that, possibly, he did it to establish, or assist in maintaining, a certain doctrine ? This we have seen was not necessary, for the doctrine alluded to pervades the record, and is fully established without the help of the. disputed words. But, on the other hand, it is easy to see a motive which might operate to cause a mutilation of these verses. I hope I shall not be understood as insinuating that these texts were wilfully cor- rupted, to serve a purpose ; for the person who first altered them might have been very honest (however imprudent), and might have expunged the words on the idea that he was correcting an error of some former transcriber, in the copy before him. But freedoms have been used with the text, for the original autograph of the seven copies furnished to the seven churches, could not differ, but the MSS. now in existence do differ ; and this difference 1 ascribe to the cause already assigned, — an idea that, in Ch. v. the SITTING ONE OH the throne, and the Lamb in the midst of the throne, were distinct persons ; for he 380 On comhinationsy S^c, [Dissert. 7. must be a careless reader indeed who cannot see that the Lamb is Jesus Christ, and that he is the speaker in Ch. i. 11., and if the first clause of this verse were left in, he would at once have been declared to be the person also that speaks in the 8th verse of the same chapter, and who is the Sittiiig one oi Ch. iv. 8, 9.^ — mak- ing Jesus Christ, who is the Lamb, to be also the Kathemenos, contrary to the idea before taken up, that the Lamb of Ch. v. who is Jesus Christ, was there represented as a different person from the Kathemenos. The scribe therefore who first presumed to expunge the disputed words in the 8th and 1 Ith verses of Ch. i. (for I cannot but attribute the difference, in these instances, to exclusion rather than in- terpolation), might be strongly persuaded, that he was restoring the text to its primitive purity. But how^ever this may be, respecting these pas- sages, the fact established by a close examina- tion of the structure and language of the Apo- calypse will never be overturned ; that our Lord, Jesus Christ, the root of David, the Lamb in the midst of the throne, is, JEHOVAH ELO- HIM SABAOTH, THE LORD GOD OF HOSTS : to him be eternal power and glory. Amen. FINIS. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY BERKELEY Return to desk from which borrowed. This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. tr- /j UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA UBRARY Ct637lo rwf^ I* v: ^* *!! ¥:^ ^./j'tv^ ^ v'^V v^-r V ,^i^/% ;^»\li *! )i'i|^^,^y,. :;, i'^i ^^" .r.v ., M :M H' '^' ;%.^. v^^. ^■N^'^yi[;f\VV ; -Cvy;^; V f -'c^i.^L'Mli- >v\) im r^ n: V ' C ^ t'"^ w^.^ ^ ri,'a. ^ .;4 : well w ^/h^