all which is done by the professed disciples of Christ. Comp. also Rev. 3: 5. Mark 8: 38. Luke 9: 26. 12: 8, where a similar idea is found. In a light somewhat different, indeed, the Apocalyptist presents them, viz., as the dispensers of divine blessings to the churches. But this is altogether a scriptural idea. What he says then is this, viz., It is his fervent desire that the blessings of grace and peace may be bestowed on the seven churches of Asia - blessings which Jehovah dispenses, by his presence-angels, and by the Mediator the Lord Jesus Christ. The definite and specific part which each is to perform in this dispensation of blessings, the writer does not designate; nor was it to his purpose so to do. Enough that this was already understood by his readers; and surely he addressed them as if he supposed them to be acquainted with the subject in general. In fact, an act of direct homage or worship is not necessarily involved in such wishes as the Apocalyptist here expresses. They amount simply to this, viz., that he fervently hopes for and desires the bestowment of important blessings on the seven churches of Asia, on the part of those superior guardians of the churches who are primarily and principally concerned with the bestowment of them. If one should say to an ambassador, appointed to a foreign court: "I heartily wish you a favourable reception from the King and his Counsellors," this would not assert, nor even imply, an equality between the two parties named. Neither does the inclusion of guardian angels in the wish which accompanies the salutation of the author before us, imply that he makes them equal to God and Christ, or the proper object of religious worship.

For a more extended view of the angelology of the Scriptures, and of the Apocalypse where angels act so conspicuous a part, I must refer the reader to Excursus I. at the close of this work; and in respect to the use of the number seven, in this case, I must refer him to Excursus II, where he will find the symbolical use of numbers somewhat fully discussed.

Jehovah will

'Incov, the Saviour,, contracted from save. Xotorov, the anointed One, Unctus, referring to the ceremony of consecration to the office of king or priest by anointing. In the New Testament it refers, as it would seem, specially to the office of king or zúgios; in accordance with the usage in Ps. 2: 2, 6. It is this office or dignity, which is the predominant theme of the Messianie Psalms, e. g. Ps. ii. viii. xlv. cx. etc. Also of Dan. 7: 13, 14, and many other passages. Here Χριστοῦ stands connected with πρωτότοκος and ❝ozov, both indicative of supremacy, i. e. the Saviour, the Anointed One, means the lawfully constituted supreme Lord and King.

O μágrvę o zisrós, the faithful witness, i. e. one on whose testimony entire reliance may be placed. Iltozós, faithful, worthy of credit, to be

confided in. Mágrvs, not martyr in the modern sense, although in fact Christ might be called a martyr to the truth, but here, in reference to v. 2, μάorvs means one who gives testimony, one who declares or makes disclosures; see on Euagrúoroɛ under v. 2. What the writer means is, that Jesus Christ, who discloses or testifies the things contained in the Revelation which follows, is worthy of all credit. Ewald applies notós specially to the keeping of the promises made in the Apocalypse; but this is surely a singular mode of construing zorós here, for it plainly qualifies udorvs, and uάorvs means one who declares or discloses. For what other purpose can noτós be designed, except to signify that what the witness declares is worthy of credit or confidence?

Inasmuch as ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός is here in apposition with I. Χριστ Tou, we might expect the Genitive instead of the Nominative case. Eichhorn says that the present construction is contra linguae Graecae analogiam; but that it is by no means unfrequent, may be seen by consulting Vol. I. § 15. 1. N. Test. Gramm. § 97. 5. Bernhardy's Syntax, p. 68 See also Kühner's Gramm. § 508. 2. Eichhorn in order to rectify the writer's Greek, proposes ős έoziv ó μágzvs insead of the present text; which at least is unnecessary.

seq.

Ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν. The vulgate text has ex here ; but without due authority of Mss. It is indeed a more facile reading, and is exhibited by Paul in Col. 1: 18, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν. The only question of difficulty is, whether the writer means to say, that of all who had died Christ is the most distinguised, i. e. the leader or chief; or whether he means to say, that he is first and preeminent among all who are raised, or are to be raised, from the dead, or, in other words, that he takes the lead in the resurrection and precedes all others in point of rank. The mere form of the expression would favour the former sense; and for such a use of лowróτozos one might compare Rom. 8: 29, and also Heb. 12: 23 where it is applied to the preeminence of the church in general. For the latter meaning we may appeal to Col. 1: 18, and to the usage of avάoracis in connection with vɛzoor as a Gen. following it. Thus we have avάoracis ex vezqov in Luke 20: 35. Acts 4: 2. 17: 31; but áráoracis vexpov in Matt. 22: 31. Acts 17: 32. 24: 21. 26: 23. Rom. 1: 4. 1 Cor. 15: 12, 13, 21, 42. Heb. 6: 2; and both formulas are used substantially in the same sense. Indeed there can scarcely be any doubt, that the writer has here in view an exhibition of Christ as a risen and living Saviour, who has already led the way in that glorious resurrection on which the sequel of the book so much insists. Compare the like shade of thought in Rev. 2: 8, ὃς ἐγένετο νεκρός, καὶ ἔζησε. Το Paul 1 Cor. 15: 20, "Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become ἀπαρχή τῶν κεκοιμημένων.” Απαρχή is employed by Paul in the same sense as лowτóτоzos by John; with the exception, that there is in now

Tóroxos a metaphorical meaning which refers to birth, i. e. to such a restoration of life as may be compared with a birth. So in Rev. 20: 4, 5, also in 2: 8, Cáo is repeatedly applied to reviviscence. John then means to say, that Christ is the first of all the dead, on whom a resurrectionlife (sit venia!) had been bestowed, and that among all such he holds and will hold the preeminence; just as primogeniture among the Hebrews designated, at the same time, priority of birth and priority of privilege. And if any one should object, that the Old Testament Scripture and the New present us with several cases of resurrection antecedent to that of Christ, this objection would be of no validity; for in those cases individuals were raised only to another natural terrestrial life, and they must again be subject to death; whereas death had no more dominion over the risen Saviour... 'for in that he lived, he lived unto God,' Rom. 6: 9, 10. So he was in fact ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων, and πρωτότοκος ExQur, the first who enjoyed the privilege of a resurrection to eternal glory, and at the same time was invested with all the rights of primogeniture, i. e. was constituted leader, άoxov, of all who would thus be raised from the dead.

Ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς. Here ἄρχων designates the head, leader, the first in rank, or him who rules over other kings that have a name like his own, but not power like his; comp. Rev. 17: 14. 19: 16, ßasihεὺς βασιλέων καὶ κύριος κυρίων ; also Ps. ii. xlv. cx. Is. 9: 6, 7. Eph. 1: 22. 4:15. Phil. 2: 9—11. Col. 1: 15-18. Heb. 1: 2, 3. In our text the kings of the earth are named, because a contest with them is disclosed in the sequel of the book, and the victory and supremacy over them are exhibited.

Such are the predicates of the Saviour, whose victories are the theme of the book. The mention of such qualities naturally calls forth a doxology directed to the glorious personage who possesses them.

(6) To him who loveth us, and has washed us from our sins in his own blood, and made us a kingdom [i. e. kings], priests unto God even his Father-to him be glory and dominion forever and ever, Amen!

The division of verses in the vulgate text is palpably wrong here. Verse 6 should begin as I have marked it; for so the sense clearly indicates.-'Ayanov, pres. Part., instead of άyanýσavrı in the vulgate text, which is without good authority, and does not give so full and emphatic a sense as ἀγαπώντι.

Aovoari, in several Codd., and in some of high authority, (also in the Syriac Version), is read lúoarti, freed, redeemed. The sense is good; but the present reading, lovcarti, (from love to wash, purify, cleanse), is more vivid here, and more in conformity with the Hebrew idiom. Thus in Ps. 51: 4, ", wash me, i. e. cleanse me, from mine ini

quity. So Ps. 51: 9, and to the same purpose Heb. 10: 22, ¿ójarrisμένοι . . . . ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς, purified from an evil conscience. The primary and literal meaning of λovoavrı, I have retained in the version, in order to present the exact image of the original. The usual Jewish rite of purification by blood, however, was performed by sprinkling, not by bathing in it. The writer employs Lovsart to designate the abundant or ample purification made by the blood of Christ. As to the efficacy of this blood to purify from sin, comp. the more literal expression in 1 John 1: 7. Heb. 9: 14. 1 Pet. 1: 18, 19, and dлelovouode in 1 Cor. 6: 11. See also Rev. 5: 9. Eph. 1: 7. Col. 1: 14, et al. All the ancient sacrifices, offered in accordance with the Levitical rites, could avail no more than to remove external and ceremonial impurity, and procure temporal pardon. The blood of Christ accomplishes that which they prefigured; see and comp. Heb. 9: 6-10: 14.

Anò rov áuagrior, from the impurity, turpitude of sin, and so (by consequence) from its penalty. Thus in Matt. 1: 21, "Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτίων αυτῶν,” i. e. from the power and penalty of their sins. That the blood of Christ shed upon the cross has a purifying and redeeming efficacy-is a truth which constitutes the very essence and peculiarity of Christianity, in distinction from doctrines taught by other religions; many of which doctrines, specially respecting moral and social duties, are substantially like to those of a similar nature in the gospel. That which makes Christianity what it is a peculiar religion-finds its nucleus in the truth here developed.

Kai Ezoiyger... faoikelar, kingship, i. e. kings, the abstract being put for the concrete, as in a multitude of cases elsewhere in the Scriptures. In respect to the grammatical construction of the clause, it is evident that ποιήσαντι-like ἀγαπῶντι and λούσαντι —would be the normal form. But participles in Hebrew and Greek often commence a sentence, which is continued by a verb in a succeeding clause. This is a species of the oratio variata; N. Test. Gramm. § 196. Heb. Gramm. § 564. In the later Hebrew this construction abounds peculiarly, e. g. in the book of Daniel; and so also in the later Greek.-Baoilɛíar has been introduced instead of the vulgate Basikeis, into the critical editions of the New Testament, and is supported by such a weight of external testimony, that it is difficult to decline the admittance of it. Still in Rev. 5: 10, we find without contradiction or variation, καὶ ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ἡμε ŵr Bascheīs zai ienis, giving the same sense in more facile Greek. But as an offset to this, one may appeal to Ex. 19: 6, where God says respecting the Hebrews: "Ye shall be unto me, a kingdom of priests"; which the Septuagint have rendered pacíλewv iegátevμa, a royal priesthood, and so also Peter, in 1 Pet. 2: 9. This version is defended by Storr (N. Apol. p. 414), and some others; and although

Ewald (in loc.) denies the correctness of such a version, it may be defended by the idiom of the Hebrew, which not unfrequently employs the first of two nouns in the construct state as an adjective, as well as the latter of them (which is most common), Heb. Gramm. § 440. b. If the present critical reading, puoleiur, itgeis, is correct, then has John given a literal translation of the Hebrew words in Ex. 19: 6, construing each word as grammatically independent of the other, or at least not regarding them as in the construct state. In such a case iɛɛis is to be considered as epexegetical; and the sense of the passage then would be: He has constituted us a kingly order, the members of which are all like priests, i. e. holy and consecrated to the service of God, and in possession of an elevated dignity.' The sense indeed must be substantially the same, whether the vulgate or the critical reading be adopted. The writer means to say, that those who are loved by the Saviour, and have been cleansed by his blood, have been elevated to a high and holy state, like that of kings and priests. That the language is tropical, needs scarcely to be suggested; for if all Christians are actually kings, who then are their subjects? And if all are actually priests, where and for whom do they perform hieratic rites? As the literal sense, then, is out of all question, the figurative one becomes a matter of necessity; and such a sense is the one which has already been suggested. If a distinction is to be made between the words kings and priests, in passages of this nature, (and it is not difficult to make one), then we must regard kings as designating the high elevation of Christians, and also the abundance and honours (in a spiritual sense) bestowed upon them; while the appellation priests designates their peculiar consecration to God and their holiness of character, and also implies a claim of veneration as due to them. All this is plain to any one, who duly considers the nature of the terms employed and the writer's design in selecting them. Other parts of the Scriptures, also, afford abundant evidence of such a usus loquendi among the Jews. Let the reader carefully compare Is. 61: 6. 1 Pet. 2: 5. Rev. 5: 10. 20: 6, as to iepeis. Then as to Basikeis, comp. Ps. 49: 14, "The upright shall have dominion." Dan. 7: 22, 27. Matt. 19: 28. Luke 22: 29, 30. 1 Cor. 6: 2, 3. 2 Tim. 2: 12. Rev. 2: Literal we may suppose such phrases to be, only when we come to the conclusion, that all the language employed by the Scriptures respecting God and heaven, must be literally interpreted. And if the writer in the present case meant, as he doubtless did, to express himself strongly respecting the honour, dignity, and privileges of saints, what more appropriate language could he employ, than that which he has selected? Kings merely would not mean enough. Elevation, dignity, power, splendour, and abundance, might indeed be included in this idea; but to add priests, in order to designate holiness of character and

26, 27. 3: 21.