SECT. XI.

Whether the Apocalypfe was originally written in Hebrew.

COME commentators have fuppofed that the Apocalypfe was originally written in Hebrew, and that our Greek text is only a tranflation. Now it cannot be denied, that the mode of writing is quite oriental: but fince the teftimony of no ancient writer can be produced in favour of the opinion that it was written originally in Hebrew, and its oriental ftyle may be eafily explained on the fuppofition, that the author of it was a Hebrew by birth, and though, in his native language, he wrote in Greek, to which he was lefs accuftomed, the notion of a Hebrew original appears to be without foundation.

But that I may not be unjust to an opinion which I do not think proper to adopt, I will obferve that one might allege in favour of it feveral various readings, which have the appearance of being different tranflations of the fame Hebrew word. For inftance, inftead of the very improbable reading δυο μυριάδες μυριάδων (two hun dred millions) ch. ix. 16, several manufcripts have, as I think more properly, mugiades mugiador, which is an indeterminate expreffion, and nothing more than an hyperbole, denoting a very great number in general. Here if the Hebrew word cu had been used in the original, it might have been taken by one perfon for the plural and rendered μυριάδες μυριάδων, by another for the dual and rendered δυο μυριάδες, μυριάδων, in the fame manner as 7, Pf. lxviii. 18, is by fome explained two myriads.'-Instead of xai xeyer poi, ch. x. II, nine MSS. quoted by Wetstein, to which may be added the Wolfenbüttel MS. have και λεγεσι μοι. There may be

The reafon why I confider this reading as very improbable is affigned in the Orient. Bib. Vol. VIII. p. 158, 159.

be two different tranflations of the Hebrew,, one tranflator rendering literally, the other taking 8 imperfonally in the fenfe of one fays,' or they fay,' in which manner the word is frequently used by modern rabbins. Instead of xxтox8vras, ch. xiv. 6, the Complutenfion edition, fixteen MSS. quoted by Wetstein, the Wolfenbüttel MS. Origen, Andrew, Arethas, and the Vulgate, have xanuevas. Thefe two readings may be different tranflations of the Hebrew W.

However fuch examples are by no means fufficient to prove a pofition, which is wholly unfupported by hif torical evidence. For thefe variations may be eafily explained on other fuppofitions: the laft variation, for inftance xanes, which is a harsh Hebraism, is probably the genuine reading, and xaToixatas, added in the margin as an explanation of it, was afterwards in fome manufcripts inferted in the text.

SECT. XII.

Remarks on the doctrine delivered in the Apocalypfe.

L

、

UTHER in his preface to the Apocalypfe prefixed to the edition, which was printed in 1522, objects, that Chrift was not taught in the Apocalypfe, which an Apoftle is above all things bound to do, fince Chrift himself fays, Acts i, Ye fhall be my witnesses.' Now this objection, delivered in fuch general terms, is, I think, without foundation: and I cannot conceive how Luther could fay, that Chrift is not taught in a book, in which fo frequent mention is made, and that too in very affecting terms, of our redemption by Chrift's blood and death. But the true and eternal Godhead of Chrift is certainly not taught in the Apocalypse so clearly as in St. John's Gofpel, though the author

4

fpeaks

speaks in enthufiaftic language of the greatness of Chrift's miniftry, and the glory communicated to his human nature. At the very beginning of the book Chrift is placed after the feven fpirits, who ftand near the throne of God: nor is he ever called God, or the creator of the world, throughout the whole work. Even the form under which Chrift appears, ch. i. 13-15, is, with only a few alterations, borrowed from Dan. x. 5, 6, where is given the defcription of an angel. It is true, that Chrift is called Aoyos T ☺ex, ch. xix. 13, but this appellation is not decifive, for it appears from the antithefes, which St. John in the beginning of his Gofpel makes against Cerinthus, that even falfe teachers could give to Chrift the title of • Word of God,' without acknowledging, that he was God himself. And on account of this very appellation ufed ch. xix. 13, the fufpicion arofe, that Cerinthus was the author of the Apocalypfe, because it is used by no other of the facred writers than St. John, but was the common appellation of Chrift's divine nature among the Gnoftics. St. John in his Gospel was under the neceffity of retaining this expreffion, because he makes antithefes against the Gnoftics: but in the Apocalypfe no fuch motive could have taken place, and if this book was written in the time of Nero, before the breaking out of the Cerinthian herefy, and long before St. John's Gofpel was written, it is difficult to comprehend how St. John, at fo early a period, came to apply the appellation of Word of God' to Chrift's divine nature. Further, it is true, that Chrift is called in the Apocalypfe, ch. i. 17, the firft and the last :' and this expreffion, if taken in the fame fenfe, as that in which it is used, Ifaiah xli. 4. xliv. 6. xlviii. 12, may denote Chrift's eternal Godhead. Yet it is not abfolutely decifive: for the meaning of ch. i. 17, may be, Fear not, I am the firft (whom thou knewest as mortal), and the laft (whom thou now 'feeft immortal), ftill the fame, whom thou kneweft from the beginning.' The fame explanation may be given of ch. ii. 8, where

the

the expreffionthe first and the laft' again occurs and is ufed in connexion with Chrift's refurrection from the dead. On the other hand, in ch. ix. 11, where the words are lefs dubious, æg x тeλos, is a fpurious addition.

In the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypfe is delivered an extraordinary doctrine relative to an heavenly mother, who bare in heaven a child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. This is a doctrine which is taught in no other part of the Bible: but it refembles what was taught by feveral heretics, concerning the mother of life, who bare the firft heavenly man, that is, the heavenly Jefus. And as, according to their doctrine, the prince of darkness devours a part of the armour of the firft man, fo in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypfe, the dragon endeavours to devour the new born child, who is caught up to God and his throne, as the first man was according to the heretics. The 15th verse resembles likewife what the heretics fay of the drowned Jefus, with only this difference, that what they faid of Jefus is here faid of the mother. The whole of this chapter may be explained indeed in such a manner, as to remove all offence: yet it is difficult to read it, without thinking of certain cabalistic, Gnoftic, and what in later ages were Manichean doctrines, especially if one has examined what Beaufobre has written in his Hiftoire des Manichéens, Liv. VI. ch. 3. Liv. VIII. ch. 4.

The feven spirits of God, from whom a falutation is fent, ch. i. 4, and who are placed before Chrift himself, create likewise a difficulty, which commentators endeavour to remove by faying, that nothing more is meant than the fingle perfon of the Holy Ghoft: but as the Jews really fpeak of feven archangels, who had access to the throne of God, the feven fpirits before the throne of God, mentioned ch. i. 4, can hardly be interpreted of the Holy Ghoft. One may imagine, that infpiration is afcribed to these feven fpirits, and that hence they are called in the Apocalypfe, not angels, but fpirits. The image of the feven lamps, under which

they

they are reprefented, ch. iv. 5, is very fuitable to this notion: and the expreffion he hath the seven spirits of Ged,' ch. ii. 1, may denote the highest degree of infpiration. But the most important paffage is, ch. xxii. 6, according to the reading, Kupios Osos TWY TO VEUμάτων των προφητών απέσειλε τον αγγελον αυτό, where feveral fpirits are mentioned, who infpired the prophets, and one of them appears to be the fpirit who fhewed to the author of the Apocalypfe the principal vifions.

In no book of the New Teftament is fo frequent mention made of angels as in the Apocalypfe, in which they appear to be appropriated to particular countries. and elements. This however may be confidered as mere imagery, and explained according to the principles laid down in the fixth fection of this chapter. The worshipping of angels is clearly forbidden in the Apocalypfe: but in ch. viii. 2, 3, a high facerdotal office is affigned to an angel, which we are accuftomed to affign only to our Redeemer.

The doctrine of the Millennium is that which created the greatest number of adverfaries to the Apocalypfe in the early ages of Chriftianity, and excited the fufpicion that it was a forgery of Cerinthus, They were particularly difpleafed with the reprefentation, that after the refurrection of the dead a worldly kingdom fhould be established on earth for a thousand years. Even to us this doctrine appears ftrange and incredible: but to the ancient fathers, who, agreeably to the commonly received philofophy in those days, derived all fin from the grofs particles of matter of which the body is compofed, it neceffarily gave more offence. if in this kingdom marriages were to be celebrated, and feftivals held, which however is not exprefsly afferted in the Apocalypfe, all thofe fathers, who declaimed against bodily pleafures, and regarded the state of celibacy as a ftate of holinefs, of courfe difapproved of the life to be led in this kingdom, as being, according to their. notions, much too fenfual, even if the marriages and feftivals were confined wholly to thofe, who

And

fhould