OTOS, "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 generally found, that they form no part of the words of that speaker; but are a parenthetical explanation by John himself,-and, therefore, deserving to be particularly noticed,-as in ch. iii. 14. where the words last quoted ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς, "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 (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 explanation, and serves to intimate, that this is not to

be considered as new additional matter, but as a repetition, explanation, or amplification of something immediately preceding, as in ch. ix. 14. where, after "the sixth Angel," the Greek reads ὁ ἔχων τὴν σάλπιγγα, “ the one having the "trumpet;" which are words added by John to prevent the words "sixth Angel" from being applied 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 precision (the perfection of all language) which flow from John's use of the nominative, and which could not, by any other means, have been attained, without a sacrifice of brevity, and often of energy. In one word, the writer of the Apocalypse, whom some Critics charge with ignorance of the common rules of grammar, so far from being careless in his style, exhibits what, in an uninspired writer, would be called, great solicitude to prevent the possibility of his language being misunderstood. He not only, on different occasions, gives a key to explain the symbol which he employs, but actually performs the office 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.)

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: Eldov ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιὰν τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου βιβλίον (ch. v. 1.) Here the first l is joined with an accusative, in which situation it never, in any instance, expresses position on or in place,—any thing resting in situ; yet all the versions have rendered these words thus: "I 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 ì, 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 Scriptureis 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:

-he saw a treatise or work which had for its principal topic, the POWER 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 of these, yet in resources for varying the shades of expression, required in composition and discourse, they were by no means deficient. With us this is often effected by changing the preposition: 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 justice 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 not be expected from the translators of that period: but how comes it that, in recent versions,

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 we make ourselves a little acquainted with the nature of symbols or hieroglyphics, with which the book abounds; as, without some knowlege of this particular language, it never will be possible to come to any satisfactory conclusion, respecting the sense of many of the pas sages in this prophecy.

§2. Of Symbolical or Hieroglyphical Language,

No person can doubt that a large portion of 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 communicated were symbolised (rμavev), to John; that is, made known by symbols, or significant signs for this is the proper sense of the verb onuaíva, in contradistinction to what is declared in common speech. As, then, the things exhibited to the prophet were symbols, and as, whenever any Angel (that is, Messenger) is introduced as conversing with him, it is for the purpose of calling his attention to these symbols, or to inform him of something respecting them,