of a multitude en masse, who are associated together as a nation, an army, etc., in distinction from duos, the people as freemen assembled in the forum, etc. Here it designates a larger mass of people than is signified by the preceding words.-E0vos, the people in a still wider extent, a large nation. In Hebrew, usually means the Hebrew nation, and or the Gentile nations. The four words conjoined here designate nations of every kind, from the smallest to the greatest; and of course imply that redemption has been extended to Gentile as well as Jew.

Καὶ ἐποίησας κ. τ. λ., see on 1: 6.Καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Who shall reign? Answer: The redeemed of every tribe, etc. How shall they reign? The answer is not given here; but it is implied in Rev. 11: 17. 20: 4-6. Comp. 2: 26, 27. 3: 21. 1 Cor. 6: 2, 3. Matt. 19: 28. Is it a visible reign on earth, i. e. a reign of those who themselves dwell on the earth; or is it a participation in the glories and exaltation of the Redeemer, when his kingdom shall become universal? Probably the latter; see on Rev. 20: 4-6.

One difficulty still remains. In v. 9 we have rógasas... ýμãs, us, first pers. plural; in v. 10 we have (according to the corrected text), καὶ ἐποίησας αὐτούς, them, third pers. plural: and so again, βασιλεύσουo, third pers. plural. The vulgate text reads quas for avrovs, and ἡμᾶς αὐτούς, βασιλεύομεν for βασιλεύσουσιν, thus preserving the first pers. plural throughout. But the weight of authority seems to be against this; and it is rejected in the late critical editions. Thus constituted, there appears to be a serious discrepancy between v. 9 and v. 10, scarcely consistent with the supposition that the same speakers utter both. Ewald, being unable to solve the difficulty, proposes to expunge the nuus of v. 9, and to read: ἠγόρασας . . . ἐκ πάσης φυλής κ. τ. λ., i. e. thou hast redeemed... [some] of every tribe, etc. This is not an impossible sense; for Ex (like of the Hebrews) is frequently used in such a way in the N. Testament, see Lex. ix, 3. h. But still, as there is no authority thus to change the text, it is better to choose some other method, if we may do so, of solving the difficulty. The quas of v. 9 evidently includes all Christians, at least all in heaven; for the twenty-four elders, and only they, could not surely belong to every tribe and tongue. If the text then, as it now stands, be correct, we must suppose that the first person plural is dropped at the end of v. 9, and that aurous in v. 10 is referred by the speakers to quins, rhwoons, x. 7. 2.; i. e. thou hast made every tribe, etc., to be kings and priests. Of course the meaning must be limited to such as were, or were to be, actually redeemed; we must not apply it numerically to every individual of each tribe. The sentiment then is, that Christians of all nations shall yet reign on the earth or over the earth; a sentiment like to that in other passages referred to above.

There is still another method of solving the difficulties of the amended text, which I have not found in any of the commentaries. It is that of responsive praise. In Ps. xxiv. there is a plain example of the like composition; so also in Is. 6: 1-3. If now in the present case we suppose the first clause in v. 9-" Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof "-to be sung by both the Coa and the elders; then the following clause, to the end of v. 9, by the elders alone; then v. 10 by the Coa again as a response; in this way all difficulty vanishes. I do not aver that such was the intention of the writer; but surely there is nothing improbable in it, either from the nature of the case, or when compared with other examples. Besides; in v. 11, there is an echo of the praise begun; and in v. 13 this is reëchoed again by a still greater multitude. There is no critical heresy, therefore, in such a view of the case; although I have no serious difficulty with the preceding solution.

(11) And I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and of the living creatures, and of the elders; and their number was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

Kúzky rov povou. Plainly the intention of the writer is, that we should regard the great multitude of angels, as standing around the throne in a circle external to that of the twenty-four elders; who are also said to sit round the throne, 4: 4. The redeemed, then, who are comprehended with the twenty-four elders, (for these are the leaders or representatives of the redeemed), stand next to the presence-angels; and the many angels are ranged beyond these, i. e. in the outer circle. Can any incongruity be objected to this view of the writer? I think not. "Are they [the angels] not ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to the heirs of salvation? Heb. 1: 14. "Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" 1 Cor. 6: 3. For angels no redeeming blood has been shed, Heb. 2: 16, 17. Why then may we not rationally suppose that the redeemed will enjoy a high preeminence, since they have been ransomed at such an infinite expense?

As to the number of the angels here, it is plainly taken from Dan. 7: 10, "Thousand thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him." But in our text, the order of the numbers is reversed. It is plain enough that these numbers are thus repeated, in order to designate the idea of countless number, or at least of an exceedingly great one. The general chorus that follows, is contained in the next verse.

(12) Saying with a loud voice: Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and might, and honour, and glory, and blessing. Λέγοντες agrees with ὁ ἀριθμός a noun of multitude, or with μυριάδες and χιλιάδες by a constructio ad sensum as to gender.—Λαβεῖν τὴν

dúvajur z. 7. 2. Is the meaning, that he is worthy of having all these virtues and gifts bestowed upon him? Or is it, that he is worthy of being praised as possessing them, or worthy of having them ascribed to him by all intelligent and rational beings? Doubtless the latter; for already did he possess the attributes named. As possessing them, he is the object of adoration and praise.-Ihoutov means, that the abundance of all things is in his possession and at his disposal.-Avvaμv here designates his official power or authority.-Zogíav, his power to discern the best ends, and to choose the best means in order to accomplish them. -Toxir, his ability to accomplish all which he undertakes.—Tiny zai Sósar zai evhoríar are not qualities or attributes of the Messiah, but stand connected more properly with laßev in its ordinary sense. The meaning is, that Christ is worthy to receive honour, and glory or praise, and blessing, as ascribed to him and proffered to him by his creatures.

The offering of such an ascription to the Redeemer, (the particulars of which constitute the perfect number seven), is an expression of the highest adoration which language can designate. Well does Ewald say: "Angelorum . . . conclamatio, augustam et vere divinam Messiae tanti numinis majestatem praeconiis justis prosequens." And again: "In doxologia (v. 12), Messias divinarum virtutum et laudum decore dignissimus praedicatur." Eichhorn, in reference to the passage before us, says: "Excurrit in laudes Messiae, divisam cum Deo majestatem et imperium habentis."*

* Eichhorn, and also his follower and imitator, Heinrichs, both attribute the number seven here, i. e. the seven predicates which belong to the Lamb, to the Jewish Cabbala respecting the Sephiroth. I cannot admit this as probable; (1) Because there is no proof whatever, and indeed no probability, that the Cabbalists are of as ancient origin as the Christian era. (2) Even if they were, the doctrine of the Sephiroth does not well apply here. They were ten in number; and although it is alleged, that these were subdivided into seven and three, yet this classification does not subserve our present purpose. The superior Sephiroth were the eternal, the crown, and nori. e. oogia; the inferior were might, majesty, etc. Eichhorn says that God was praised in two ways, either by a triad or a heptade of attributes being ascribed to him. By a triad ; e. g. "Thine is the kingdom, and power, and glory," Matt. 6: 13, [if this be not genuine, it is at least ancient]; and so (he might have added), in Is. 6: 3, "Holy, holy, holy;" Rev. 4: 11, "Glory, and honour, and power;" Rev. 4: 8, "Holy, holy, holy; Lord, God, Almighty; which was, and is, and is to come," (where we have three times three); Rev. 4: 9, "Glory, honour, and thanksgiving." By a heptade; e. g. Rev. 7: 12, where we have the same doxology as in the text before us, with the exception that the order of the words differs, and that louros in the text before us is omitted there, and suzaqioria substituted in its place. So, again, in 1 Chron. 29: 11, 12, it is said that even a decade is found, corresponding to the whole number of the Sephiroth, and subdivided into seven and three. But whoever will carefully examine that passage, will find no decade, nor even heptade, but merely irregular orqóço, first of five simple members, then of three composite ones, then

(13) And every creature which is in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and those which are in the sea, even all which are in thein, heard I saying: To Him who sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honour, and glory and power, for ever and ever.

Kríoua, lit. created things; but nouns in -ua are very common in the N. Testament, and not unfrequently resemble, in meaning, those formed in -619. The neuter gender is sometimes used to designate persons or agents; e. g. in John 17: 2, 21. 2 Thess. 2: 6. 1 Cor. 1: 27, 28. Heb. 7: 7. 1 John 5: 4 al.; see N. Test. Gramm. § 95. 3. Here, plainly, intelligent agents are designated; for this the nature of the case de

mands.

'Enì rys valdoons, on or in the sea? The answer depends on the meaning of xríoua. If this word here designates angels, who preside over the elements, (e. g. in the text-inì ns ns... ènì rūs Dalάoons), then on or over is the proper translation. We might so render the particle iní here, in both cases; but it must be with some doubt, whether we should be in the right. In Eisenmenger's Judenthum Entdeckt. I. p. 805 and II. p. seq. 374 seq., the reader may find the Jewish notions respecting angels, as sent into all the different parts three of a mixed nature, and then two couplets, the one simple and the other composite. All this supposed evidence then of Cabbalism for centuries before the Apocalypse was written, appears to be without any real support, and belongs only to the conceptions of those who make such allegations as we have now examined.

But supposing Cabbalism to have existed at the time when the Apocalypse was written, yet there is internal evidence in the case before us, that the writer has not made his appeal to it. Instead of selecting exclusively either the superior Sephiroth (three), or the inferior (seven), he has taken some of both. Thus his oopia belongs to the superior order of Sephiroth. All of Eichhorn's imagination, then, that John chose the seven inferior Sephiroth, as appropriate to a veòs devTEQOS, appears to be ungrounded; for he has inade no such choice. And even if he had, what proof of a deòs devrepos could result from such a doxology, in the present case, when the same doxology (one word only excepted) is ascribed to Je in Rev. 7: 12? not to speak of the passage in 1 Chron. 29: 11, 12, which exhibits for substance the same particular predicates. Could John, as a cabbalizing Jew, have thus confounded superior and inferior Sephiroth, and thus made a mixture revolting to the feelings of all Cabbalists? This, to say the least, seems to be very improbable. Indeed the very face of the matter vouches for the fact, that John had no concern with Cabbalism, in the passage before us. It proves just the contrary of what it is adduced to prove, by Eichhorn and Heinrichs. As to Ewald, he holds his peace here.

What have we here then? A DOXOLOGY, in which all heaven unite, framed so as to be made the most significant possible by comprising the number seven, and applied directly to the LAMB, in the same manner as the same doxology is applied to God in Rev. 7: 12. What else could the sacred writer expect, but that equal glory and honour should be paid to both, by his readers? If not, he has done the utmost in his power to lead them into a mistake.

of the world, to preside over nations, individuals, elements, productions of the earth, etc. For earlier and better evidence of this notion among the Jews, the reader may consult the Exc. (I.) connected with Rev. 1: 4, under the head of Good Angels, Nos. 3. 5. Assuming such a basis, the meaning will be: All the angels, in every part of the universe, commissioned to preside over all its various elements-land and sea and under-world-heard I saying,' etc. That rational beings are meant the writer shows, by quitting the neuter gender—zzíoμa . . . å . . . zamand adopting the masculine, viz. πάντας . . . λέγοντας, a constructio ad sensum. The sense of the whole would then be of the following tenor: The four living creatures and the elders lead the choir; the angels in heaven encircling them echo the song; the angels in all parts of the universe-in earth and sea and under-world—on their missions of love and duty, reëcho it back to the throne of God.' A sublime and truly awful scene!

If now any one is not satisfied with this view, (one to which Ewald gives his assent), then he can explain xríoua in a poetic manner; as when the Psalmist calls on the floods to clap their hands, and fire, hail, snow, vapour, and stormy wind, etc., to praise the Lord; or as when Isaiah calls on the heavens to listen, and the earth to give ear. The whole creation echo back the song to the throne of God, the song of praise, whose notes loud and deep reach its utmost bounds. Poetically understood, there is no important objection to be made to this; and many will give this the preference. I am rather inclined, however, to the preceding exegesis, from the views which I am persuaded were entertained by the Jews of that period respecting angels, and which are countenanced (not to say confirmed) by the Scriptures; as may be seen in the Excursus above named.

In which ever of these ways we interpret the passage, there is no room for an interpretation which makes it designate a numerical and literal all. The meaning here must be, either that of guardian angels in all parts of the universe, or the poetic one of the universe as a whole, without making or intending to make individual distinctions which are here uncalled for. In either case, human beings in general are not specified at all, even if we suppose them, in the latter case, to be included. If any one is disposed to press the literal and rigid sense of the word all, then how can he exclude the material objects of the creation? And why should it be pressed here, except for sectarian purposes, any more than when the Evangelists say, that "all Judea and all the region round about Jordan, went to John and were baptized by him?" Matt. 3: 5, 6. Mark 1: 5. Does this all include the sick, the aged, every female, all children, and all unbelievers too in religion? And so of a multitude of texts everywhere to be found in the Bible.

Plainly the