with only a slight and unimportant on the earth ; the omission or two. "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. basis of the Apostle's topics, arguments and illustrations, in his address to this Asiatic church, are wholly Apocalyptical. The In ch. i, 12, he gives "thanks to the 'Father, who hath made us meet to be partakers τε κληρου των άγιων εν τῳ pwr, of THE inheritance of the saints in THE light"-having in his eye what is declared in Rev. ch. xxi: "He that over• cometh κληρονομήσει παντα 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, enlightens it; ' and the nations of them who are saved 'shall walk in Towri aurns the light τῳ φωτι αυτης thereof." (v. 23, 24.) No night shall be there, nor any need of a lamp, or of sun-light; because "JEHOVAH, the OMNIPOTENT, φωτιει επ' αυτους will enlighten them." (Rev. xxii, 5.) v. 13. "Who hath delivered us from • εξουσίας τε σκοτες 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 delivered from the kingdom of the beast, which has become εσκοτωμένη 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 columus : X. 6 who created the heaven and the things in it; visible and the invisible; whether thrones, or domi- also the earth and nions, or princi- the things in it, palities, or powers: likewise the sea and all things were the things therein. created by him and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist: 18 And he is the head of the body, the Church; who is Chief [or Prince, APXH], the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might be first [or Chief]. IV. 11 Yea as they were made, so also they exist by thy will. I. 5 From Jesus Christ. Christ.... the first born from the dead, and the Chief [or Prince, ΑΡΧΩΝ] of the kings of the earth. 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 [APXH princeship or government] and power." That is: to him belongs POWER, in all its forms and attributes, with all the glory that attaches thereto. When the reader shall have weighed what is stated in the Fifth Dissertation, respecting the radical sense of the word Oεos [Theos] 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, explain fully what is meant by the fulness τῆς θεότητος (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 Power; 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 omitted by translators, in this passage, is too striking to be passed without notice: "the inheritance," -"the light,”—" the darkness," "the redemption," &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 TILLOCH ON THE APOCALYPSE. ΑΡΧΗΣ (Arches even by the ΑΡΧΩΝ (Archoon) himself. Is it possible to read, with any attention, such passages as have been quoted,-recollecting, at the same time, that they are found in an address to an Asiatic Church, in fellowship with the Church at Laodicea, which is also commanded to read this Epistle,-and not to perceive the basis on which the Apostle rests his address, and bespeaks, as it were, the particular attention of those to whom he writes? These coincidences are too striking to require any acuteness to detect the resemblance, or argument 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 identical words of the Apocalypse had been quoted. That the Apocalypse is the primitive record is manifest from Paul amplifying, in v. 16, what he takes from Rev. iv, 11, and x, 6; telling the Colossians that the "all things," created by the Son of God, inTHE SON GOD, clude the visible and the invisible, whether In cases thrones, or dominions, &c. &c. 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. 4 In the third chapter he makes the same use of the 21st chapter of the Apocalypse, that he does when writing to the Ephesians; reminding them, that "when Christ our 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 της heritance, the light, &c.) does not appear to be managed with consistency. In the ninth section the author quotes TOV στεφανον Tns Swns" the crown of life," from James i, 12, and Rev. ii, 9, 10; and insists, that, from the expression being literally the same in both instances, it is an incontestable proof, that the Epistle of James was written subsequently to the Apocalypse. Here however he is silent about the definite article occurring in both; whereas, according to his argument concerning the Epistle to the Colossians, the article ought to be in the Epistle of James, but not in the Apocalypse. How then, we ask, does John come by the article? To what crown does he refer? Secondly, we can see nothing in the parallel passages, which the Author quotes from Colossians, but such a generalized similarity of meaning, as by no means proves an intentional reference from the one to the other. Had Paul had the Apocalypse before him as his exemplar, or, were this the work he referred to when he says of his Gospel, "I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation δι αποκαλύψεως of Jesus Christ, we say, we might expect him to quote more literally ; as he does when he cites from the other Scriptures. But had Paul the same sentiments as John expressed them, (from Rev. xxi, 8,) "to mortify verbatim, it would not necessarily their members that are upon the earth ;" telling them that covetousness is idolatry: that is, he performs the office of an expositor, showing them that idolatry includes covetousness, as one of the crimes for which open тe Ose "the wrath of opyn God cometh on the children of disobedience;" evidently alluding to 78 apvis the wrath of the Lamb. vi, 16." P. 88. Rev. The argument drawn in the above passage from the reference to the use of the definite article (the in follow that Paul had copied John. Were their writings merely human, such an inference might be insisted on with some propriety; but as they are the dictate of the Holy Spirit, what should prevent the Spirit from teaching the same truth to two or more individuals? What can be more striking than the resemblance between the narrative of the institution of the Lord's Supper, given by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi, 23-25; 220 and the account of the same circumstance in Matthew, Mark and Luke? The variations between Paul and Luke are not so great as between Matthew and Luke: and yet we are assured by St. Paul, that he did not copy his account, but received it immediately of the Lord. II. We pass on now to consider the verbal language of the Apocalypse. This portion of Scripture has often been charged, by those acquainted with the original, with defectiveness in grammar and style: if the Reader has been thus inclined to think he will be startled to find, that the Author advances it, as his deliberate opinion, that the Apocalypse is the most carefully and grammatically written of any book of the New Testament, insomuch that it was intended to fix and determine the signification of many Greek words in the sacred Writings. We must acknowledge ourselves indebted to the Author in this respect; and so far as we are enabled to form a judgement, we are disposed to agree in his general position, as to the correctness of the language of the Apocalypse: but the absence in the writings of St. Paul of such Hebraisms as are instanced in St. John, and so ably commented on by Dr. Tilloch, make us still more disposed to reject the particular application of the subject to the question of priority of date. Concerning the former point, the Author sets out with asserting, that there is a more intimate connexion between the Greek of the New Testament (and especially of the Apocalypse) and the Hebrew, than is ordinarily imagined. He says: "In 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 lan guage, 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 Testament 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 meaning, attach to many words, than could be connected with them, as used by the heathen writers. To explain them only be to exclude, in a great degree, the real by Greek usage, would, on many occasions, subject which they are employed to elucidate. The Apostles and Evangelists, 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 analogy was strictly regarded. They did what good writers are obliged to do every day, they extended the primary sense, so modified as to express or embrace the new idea, taking care to maintain that uniformity of use, in the new application, which should remove ambiguity and uncertainty." P. 141. He proceeds to maintain, that the general use of the Septuagint, the dispersion of the Jews throughout the Greek empire, and the practice which had obtained among the Elders of addressing the Hellenistic Jews in their Synagogues, and expounding the Old Testament in Greek, had already effected certain idiomatic changes in the language, arising from the necessity of expressing Hebrew ideas in Greek words, and thus in many instances amplifying the ideas associated with those words; and that at last the Apocalypse became the elementary work, in which the religion of Jesus was to be diffused to the world; which circumstance is to account for the prevalence of Hebrew idiom in it. Respecting translations of the Apocalypse, the Author considers, that every attempt to produce a liberal or free translation of it must fail in giving the true sense. "When a translator (he says) undertakes a free version, he assumes that he understands his author perfectly,-not only his facts and statements generally, but his sentiments, and every phrase or expression he employs-so as to be able to transfuse his very mind and soul into the translation: but who can affirm that he so understands the Apocalypse? The translator who is desirous to make the unlearned acquainted with its real contents should aim at a version as servilely literal as possible, however uncouth it may appear.' We concur in the principle here advanced, which we are disposed to extend to the whole of the New Testament; but we must confess that there are immense difficulties to be overcome in the application of it. Of these difficulties the work before us affords an illustration; for if we understand the Author, we have noticed several instances in which we consider that the translation he suggests of particular passages would necessarily lead to the subversion of his own principle. For example, at page 153 he asserts that St. John is often retrospective; (a fact which he considers has been entirely overlooked by expositors ;) and having quoted some instances in which this is the case, (e. g. chap. xi, 19, xvi, 18; &c.) but the sense of which has been obscured by translating the conjunction kau as the copulative" and," he goes on to observe that it should be variously rendered, according to the context, by the words even, also, yea, moreover, likewise, again; then, therefore; when, where, there; yet, but, so, thus, for, &c. &c. Now really, if a translator has to chuse his meaning out of such an abundance as this, he must still assume, that he understands his Author perfectly. It happens, that this conjunction is variously translated in the New Testament; and yet the translators, who presumed they understood their subject, rendered the word in these ; instances by and;" whereas the Author would have given the word some other interpretation: so that after all it appears to be a case in which the talent of the expositor, not of the translator, is called into exercise. The great desideratum is first of all to retrench the great exuberance of meanings which have been imagined to be included in various words; and the consequence of which has been to attach so much uncertainty to language, as often entirely to weaken and set aside the authority of God's word. Some men are no sooner pressed with a passage of Scripture which they dislike, than, affecting an air of criticism, they insist upon the possibility of a particle requiring some different rendering from what is given, and thus all becomes doubt and uncertainty. The student who desires to consult the original finds, that instead of ascending up thereby nearer to the mind of the Spirit, he is more tortured by the ingenuity of man, and in greater perplexity, than he was before. Let such a one for instance open Schleusner's Greek Lexicon at this same word kaι. How is he to steer his course through nine columns of interpretation, in which no less than thirty four significations are distinguished, with an intimation at the end that there are aliæ significationes hujus particulæ ! Unskilled as every learner must be, he nevertheless is immediately compelled to exercise the functions of a commentator; for it is impossible to determine, whenever the word occurs, which meaning to chuse, and to have the mind upon the alias significationes, without launching forth into a sea of conjectural criticism. To come however to the application of the Author's principles to the verbal language of the Apocalypse ; having shewn in the 4th Disserta tion, by a learned and to us convincing series of arguments, that the abstract meaning of the word ELOHIM, one of the names of the Deity, is power;-that it consequently signifies THE OMNIPOTENT, and is rendered in the Septuagint most commonly by o eos though sometimes & Ioxypos; in the 5th Dissertation he continues: "We have seen that, in the New Testament, the word Osos (Theos) represents Oɛog 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 Kupioç (Kyrios), when applied to THE SUPREME, in the New Testament, often represents the Hebrew word 7 (JEHOVAH) : as in Matt. iii, 3, Mark i, 3, Luke iii, 4, John i, 23, Prepare ye την όδον Κυριο the way of JEHOVAH;" (Is. xl, 3, 777) in Mat. iv, 7, Luke iv, 12, "Thou shalt not tempt Κυριον τον Θεον σου ;-in the Common Version, "THE LORD thy God;" : את יהוה אלהוכם,4 ,but in Deut. vi 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 Kupios, 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, Κυριος ὁ Θεός, ὁ ων, και ην, και ερχόμενος, ὁ παντοκρατωρ. The words Κυριος ὁ Θεος here represent Jehovah יהוה אלהום the Hebrew words Elohim. The meaning of Elohim we have seen, as indicated by its radix. The meaning of the word 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 (havah ;) viz. the present participle 1, followed by the perfect tense, and preceded by the sign of the future, forming together the word ; which therefore expresses attributes that belong only to him who is "without beginning of days or end of years,”—present, past, and future existence. But this is precisely what is affirmed by the three terms which follow Kuping & Oɛoç, in the passage before us, namely, ὁ ων, και ὁ ην, και ερχόμενος, יהוה "THE BEING, and THE HE WAS, and THE COMING ONE." The common version gives the sense of the Greek pretty correctly, "which is, and which was, and which is to come;" but the facts connected with the present inquiry demand, that the translation should be given as literally as possible, however uncouth it may sound here employed by John present a translato the English ear. In fact the words tion into Greek of the three parts of the Hebrew verb, which enter into the composition of the word [JEHOVAH]. But Kupioç (Kyrios) here stands for JEHOVAH: Why then are these terms added?-To inform the reader of the fact,-to place it beyond the possibility of contradiction. John writing in Greek, and using the Greek term Kupios, for the Hebrew term ην, και , instantly gives in Greek a definition of the sense in which the former is to be taken, when representing that name which belongs only to THE SUPREME. These words thenό ων, και ¿ ερχο μɛvos—are no part of those spoken by Him who says, in the first clause of the verse Εγω ειμι το Α και το Ω, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,"—words which John informs us were spoken by Kupios o Oɛos; (that is, by Jehovah Elohim ;) Θεός but are explanatory terms added by the writer, (writing however under Divine guidance,) defining, as already said, the sense in which the term Κυριος, which he had just applied to Him who calls himself the Alpha and the Omega, is to be understood when employed as a name of the Deity. Having thus defined Kupios, he instantly defines also ò eɛoç (the Theos, commonly translated God,) adding o παντοκρατωρ, that is, THE OMNIPOTENT;' which, as has been shown, is the meaning of the word Elohim, when applied to the Supreme in the Hebrew Scriptures. In proof of this observe farther, that John's first three defining terms (ὁ ων—ό ην—ό ερχομενος are joined together by the copulative kaι introduced before and also after the middle term ; but having finished his definition of Kvpios, between which and the attributive noun ɛoc there is no conjunction, (nor could there be, as they represent the words Jehovah Elohim, which are not joined by any copula,) so neither does he employ one to introduce his definition, ó TavTOkрaтwρ.-Nor is it possible to assign any κρατωρ. other reason for the absense of the conjunction ka before the last term; for had the terms employed in these two definitions been merely additional epithets, as they |