^^^ PRINCETON. N. J. ^ Library of Br, A. A. Hodge. Presented. Division Section,,, Ntimber ..:E>.S..:Z.6^5 .„.Sr.,.C..b.(C. THE REVELATION OF JOHN ITS OWN INTEEPRETER IN VIRTUE OF THE DOUBLE VEESIOK" IN WHICH IT IS DELIVERED. BY JOHN COCHRAN. NEW YORK : D. APPLETON (t COMPANY, 443 & 445 BROADWAY. 1860, Entered, according to Act of Congress, in tho year 1S60, by JOHN F. TROW, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. PEEFACE. If the author succeeds in presenting to the Chris- tian world for its decision the question, whether the prophecy of the Revelation be double or not, he will regard his labors as eminently successfal. He believes this question will be answered in the affirmative; and its answer in the affirmative will be a matter of no small consequence. That its bearing on the in- terpretation of the book will be productive of the best results, is apparent to every one. If John has delivered his prophecy in two versions, containing each two sets of symbols precisely correspondent in significance, the prophet is evidently, to a very great extent, his own interpreter. That he is the best of all interpreters, few will doubt. The question itself as to the existence of a Double Yeksion is evidently one which lies at the very threshhold of the interpretation of the book ; and as it now asks for a fair hearing, it will certainly receive it from those — and ought not the number to comprehend all Christians — who are in- terested in " the sayings of the prophecy of this book." CONTENTS SECTION I. FIRST REPEESEXTATIOX OF THE ALLEGORY. CHAPTER I. Page Literal, Figurative, and Symbolical Language, , , , . 1 CHAPTER 11. The Difference between Allegory and Figure, .... 6 CHAPTER III. Allegorical or Symbolical Language is Enigmatical, . . .24 CHAPTER lY. Unity of Idea a Fundamental Principle of the Allegory, . . 3*7 Table of Parables, 49 CHAPTER Y.- Relations of the SymboHc Language to a Prophetic Allegory, . 50 CHAPTER YI. Definitiveness of the Sense of the Prophetic Allegory, . . 81 VI CONTENTS. CHAPTER Yll. Page The first Step to understand a Prophetic Allegory, is to under- stand the first Representation, 106 CHAPTER VIII. Law of Unity of Design, 115 CHAPTER IX. Law of the Double Allegory, 124 CHAPTER X. Law of the Quaternal Structure, or the Fourfold Form, . . 137 CHAPTER XL The double Allegory of the Revelation, exhibiting Unity of Design and Quaternal Structure, 145 SECTIO]^ II. SECOl^D REPEESENTATIOK OF THE ALLEGORY. CHAPTER L Key to the Second and Real Sense of a Prophetic Allegory, . 181 CHAPTER IL Circumstances connected with the delivery of the Allegory, which tend to suggest the Second Sense, 184 CHAPTER III. Special Feature in the Structure of the Prophecy, . . . 194 The compound Symbol the Four and Twenty Elders and the Four Living-creatures, 196 Office of the Living-creatures as Heralds of the Subject, . 215 CONTENTS. Vll CHAPTER IV. PAGE Partial Developments of the Second Sense in the form of Inter- pretations rendered, ... .... 2-13 CHAPTER V. The Symbol Satan, 253 COKCLUSIOK The Double Allegory in its Second and Real Sense, or Plan and Design of the Revelation, 302 Chart of the Prophecy, 351 Synoptical View of the Interpretation, 353 SECTION I. FIRST REPRESENTATION OF THE ALLEGORY. CHAPTER I. LITERAL, FIGTJRATIYE, AND SYMBOLICAL LANGUAGE. The transmission of ideas from one mind to another is made through the medium of signs. Signs are of two kinds : thej are simple or complex, direct or in- direct. A simple or direct sign is that which stands for the idea to be communicated simply, and which transmits this directly to the mind. The words of language taken in their literal acceptation are signs of this kind. These signs are all constructed npon the basis of a presumed identity subsisting between the sign and the idea to be communicated. Language, to be literally taken, consists of these direct signs. It is found, however, by experience that signs of this description are altogether incompetent to convey the multitudinous and multiform ideas of the human mind. These may be reckoned in millions ; direct signs can at the most be numbered in thousands. Accordingly the mind has devised another expedient 1 2 LITEEAL, riGUrvATIVE, AND for tlie transmission of ideas. It presses ideas them- selves into the service, and causes one idea to stand for another. Here is a complex or indirect sign, and of these, figurative or ideographic language consists. To illustrate the mental process at work in the construction of these indirect or complex signs, take the following example : I wish to convey to the mind of a man who had never witnessed the sight, the idea of a ship moving through the water. I feel conscious that there are no direct signs, that is, that language in its literal acceptation is incompetent to transmit the conception from my own mind to his with fulness and fidelity. I find, however, that by the substitution of another idea for the one I would convey, I can accomplish it. I substitute for the idea, of a ship mov- ing through the ocean, the idea of a plough moving through a field, and tell him " the ship ploughed the sea." Through the medium of this indirect sign I convey to him the idea desired with infinitely greater facility and infinitely greater precision than I could have done by any direct sign or by employing any number of them. ITow, in the above instance, the process of mind in the construction of the indirect sign, is a double one ; there are two ideas concerned in the operation ; there is the idea of the ploughing of the land and the idea of the ploughing of the sea. The sign is thus a complex sign, and the operation which the mind 23er- forms in arriving at the thing signified, is a complex operation. The signs of literal language are simple ; of figurative language, double. SYMBOLICAL LANGUAGE. 3 A sign can never be a medium of commmiication, unless it represent tlie same idea as that desired to be communicated. The basis, therefore, on which all signs rest, whether these be literal or figurative, is identity. The sign represents the same thing as tliat whicli is signified. But the literal sign does this directly ; an ideographic sign does it indirectly^ and through the medium of a complex operation which the mind has to perform. This operation it has to make ere it arrives at the thing signified. It has to proceed to the identity which every sign must establish between itself and the thino; signified by a somewhat circuitous route — by the route, namely, of analogy. One idea is taken to represent another, not because it is the same, but because it is like this other. But in every analogy there is an element of identity. It is on this that the truth of the indirect sign rests. There is at the same time, however, an element of difference, which is either comparatively great or small. Hence arises a complex operation. If this difference, which subsists between the one idea and the other be not correctly subtracted, an untrue idea will be transmitted. Let it be supposed, for ex- ample, that in the instance of figurative language which we have above quoted, no account is taken of the actual difference between a ship and a plough, and land and water ; a conception altogether erroneous will be formed. Let the difference be taken into ac- count and the identity which really exists be founded upon, and the true idea will be presented to the mind intended to be expressed, which was, that the ship 4: LITERAL, FIGURATIVE, AND moves tlirongli tlie sea in the same manner as the plough through the land, subtracting the difference between ship and plough, sea and land. In the pro- duction of the figure there is always a process of com- parison involved. If this is not duly performed, the figure in its true significancy is not understood. The basis of indirect signs or figurative language, is then analogy. The analogy, however, must be so stated that it resolves itself into an identity, else the sign were no sign. !N"ow as ideas of analogy may be mul- tiplied to an almost infinite extent, the amount of in- direct signs or figurative language placed at the dis- posal of the mind for the transmission of its ideas, may nearly be regarded as boundless. The mind, by lay- ing hold on ideas to convey ideas, obtains a capital in signs which is inexhaustible. These two species of signs constituting literal and figurative language, are used for the same object. They are employed to convey ideas from one mind to another with as much clearness, fidelity, and rapidity, as possible. When literal language fails in accom- plishing this result, the boundless resources of figu- rative language are called into requisition. But there is a third language employed in Scrip- ture, the object of which is entirely different from tliis. This is the allegoric, or symbolic, language. The object of this is not to convey ideas from mind to mind with rapid clearness, but to convey them with slow clearness. It employs, like figurative language, ideographic signs, but with this difference, that it presents to the SYMBOLICAL LANGUAGE. 5 mind only one-lialf the double sign, leaving the mind to snp])ly for itself the other half by a process of search. It is designed undoubtedly to be understood, and for this end it is constructed with extreme pre- cision and deiiniteness, but its precision and definite- ness are concealed. It behoves us to scan this peculiar language closely, for it is in it that the prophecy of the Reve- lation is cast. CIIAPTEE II. THE DIFFEKENCE BETWEEN ALLEGOKY AND FIGUKE. The symbolic language, or, as it may be called, the enigmatical language of Scripture, is a 'peculiar hind of ideograpliic language, which may be regarded as the generic term. Like figurative, the symbolic contains signs which represent one idea by another. The difference between them lies in the difference between allegory and figure. It will be necessary, accordingly, to define these two kinds of ideographic signs with precision, in order to obtain a clear con- ception of what symbolic or allegoric is, as compared with figurative or metaphorical language. It is apparent, from what has been already said, that in the construction of the complex or indirect signs which compose ideographic language, there is a double process involved. The idea desired to be communicated is transferred to the mind through tlie medium of another^ and the communication is effect- ed through a double operation. It is accordingly necessary, in order to obtain a perfect transfusion of thought, that both the ideas concerned in the process be appreliended. JSTow one of these ideas may jDrop- erly be called the pictui'ing idea ; the other may be termed the pictured. ALLEGORY AND FIGURE. To elucidate this let us take the following ex- am])le : wlieii Christ says, " I am tlie door," the door taken literally is the j^ictnring idea, and the door understood figuratively, is the pictured idea. To understand Christ's meaning fully, we must thorough- ly comprehend what a door means in the literal or picturing sense, and what it signifies in the figura- tive or pictured sense. Now it is in their different relationship to this du- plex representation, that the real difference lies be- tween allegory and figure. Allegory has only to do with the first part of the representation made ; figure has to do with both. The allegor}^ in the strict sense of the term, expresses nothing more than the first, or picturing idea, or set of ideas, as it may be. It pre- sents this to the mind for its contemplation. It thus, in the above instance, simply places the first idea, '' the door," before the mind, without drawing the connection between it and the second idea, " Christ." The former idea is no doubt designed to bring out the second, but it is no part of the allegory to perform this development ; on the contrary, it is its part to conceal it, either wholly or partially. The figure, on the other hand, presents both to the mind at once, but its chief purpose is to bring out into strong relief the second, or pictured, or in other words, the real idea. Thus the words of Christ already quoted are not allegorical. They form a figure, because, when Christ affirms that he is the door, the pictured, or second idea, is clearly developed. The mind rests not in the first representation, but presses forward to the second, 8 ALLEGOEY A^D FIGUKE. whicli presents to it the idea that the door is an image or picture of Christ. On the other hand, the parable itself of which these words constitute part of the inter2)retation, affords an example of the allegory in its nearly pure state ; John x. 1 — 5. The picture, which is as con- cise as it is beautiful, is fully drawn out of a sheep- fold and a door to it, which picture is designed to convey to the mind the idea that Christ is the only Saviour. The first representation is here developed in an extended form ; it is kept apart from the second, which lies wholly concealed from view, and it forms what may be regarded as a perfect allegory. The Jews were unable to discover the real sense of this parable or allegory ; that is, they were unable to develop for themselves the second idea, which it was designed to picture forth. Christ makes the de- velopment for them, and in doing this, in the words *' I am the door," he reduces the allegory to a figure. He conducts them from the first to the second repre- sentation, and by constructing the bridge of con- nection between the two, he converts the allegory into a figure. An allegory accordingly may be defined to be an unapplied and uninterpreted figure ; a figure to be an applied and interpreted allegory. Every allegory may be made a figure, and is designed ultimately to become one ; every figure may be made an allegory by withholding the second idea. It follows from the distinction which has been above developed between allegory and figure, that ALLEGOEY AND FIGURE. 9 the etymologj of tlie T^'orcl allegory, wliicli comes from the Greek aWTjyopevco^ to sjyeah othcrioise^ ex- presses its meaning with perfect correctness. When a person speaks in allegory, he speaks otherwise than he means, becanse he presents one first representa- tion to the mind, whicli is designed indeed to bring ont a second and real sense ; but this is not apparent nntil the second representation is developed. This essential part of the sign is kept out of view by the allegory either wholly or in j^ai't, for its office is to sjyeah otherioise. The figure, on the other hand, presents this second representation to the mind at once for its contemplation, because its characteristic is to develop all that it means. A figure conse- quently needs no interpretation ; an allegory always requires one. AYe thus see that while allegory and figure are both ideographic signs and are convertible into each other, they are very difi'erent. An allegory reveals only one of the two ideas which are necessary to the construction of the sign, while the figure reveals both. An allegory is thus a cryptogramic sign, while a figure has all the openness of the signs of literal lan- guage. An allegory is the rude or fundamental form of the sign, and that form to which every figure is reduced, when it is analyzed. "When we probe a figure to the bottom, we necessarily resolve it into the two ideas of which it consists, and we subject each of these to a distinct examination. We here find the allegory. Thus when we analyze the figure which has been taken for an example, " the ship ploughs 1* 10 ALLEGOKY AND FIGURE. the sea,'' we separate the two ideas of whicli it con- sists, and we find them to be these : a i:>lough moves over the land, a ship moves through the waters. The expression of the first of these two ideas, apart and by itself, is the allegory, which is here short and un- extended ; the combination of both in the words the shi]? ploughs the sea is the figure. The allegory is thus the basis of the figure ; the figure is the full development of the allegory. The allegory is the elemental form. It is as much the basis of all figu- rative language as the syllogism is of reasoning. This is the real distinction which exists between those ideograpliic signs which, on the one hand, are called allegories, parables, types, and symbols ; and on the other, figure, metaphor, and trope. The grand distinction between the two classes lies in this, tliat the first express a first representation, containing within it a second, which second is either concealed or siibordinate. The allegory^ distinctively, expresses the first representation in the form of feigned objects^ connected together either by a natural relationship or by a certain plot developed which binds them together ; the parable expresses the first representa- tion in the form of a feigned narrative ; the type in the form of a real historical object or event. The sym- bol is the subordinate part of the sign when its con- stitution is complex. Thus in the allegory of Joseph's dream. Gen. xxxvii. 9, the sun, moon, and eleven stars are symbols. These signs, allegory, parable, type, and symbol, are all distinguished by the com- mon characteristic of developing the first of those ALLEGORY AXD FIGURE. 11 two ideas, wliicli compose the ideograpliic sign, and of making it, if not the exchisive, at least the predominant idea developed, while they withhold either entirely or to a great extent, the second idea. The figure or metajJiwr' employs Qi\hQY feigned or real objects^ or feigned or real actions^ to express the Becond idea, which second is fnlly developed and brought out, and holds the prominent i:)lace in the constitution of the sign. Of necessity the figure must be short, for were it long the first representation would then naturally assume the predominance, and the sign would lose the character of a figure and merge into the allegoric form. A trope is a figure which has passed into a current phrase. These signs, whether allegoric or figurative, are frequently classed under the general designation of figurative language. This expression is not correct. A better would be ideograpJdc language, which ex- presses the character of the language as being a lan- guage of ideas. This again, as w^e see, manifests the grand subdivision into allegoric signs on the one hand, the characteristic of w^hich is to fully develop the first idea, and figurative on the other, the char- acteristic of which is to fully develop the second. Other distinctions are not of equal importance to this. This is of great importance, for it really constitutes these two descriptions of signs two distinct languages, inasmuch as the signs of the one are secret and of the other open. The term ideographic, as we see, thor- oughly expresses the nature of this language thus subdivided. It is a language of ideas. These ideas 12 ALLEGOEY AND FIGURE. are indeed expressed in words, but these words in all cases hold a second idea witliin them, distinct from the first, which they convey literally, and which second idea is in this case alone the organ of com- munication. The literal language in wljich the first representation is conveyed, has no sense apart from the second representation, which it w^as intended to suggest and develop. This is then a language in which ideas are really the sig7is. As the ideas of the human mind are infinite, so are the signs. Here, then, is a language in which the mind can express itself in its own element, and wdiich is boundless as itself — boundless as the sea, and it may be added, clear, briglit, and sparkling as its waters. It is a language which may be wrought by the aid of com- paratively few arbitrary signs. It is the language of savage nations, for the reason that they have few of these; it is the language of polished nations, because they have many ideas. In the figurative form it is clear, bright, and sparkling ; in the allegoric, it is secret, dark, and profound. From the distinction wdiich has been drawn be- tween allegory and figure, the following points ot diflference naturally follow, and in regard to the former, we observe — 1^^. That allegories contain as little admixture as possible of language to be taken literally. There is in general no more of this, than so much as is requi- site to connect the difiPerent parts of the allegory to- gether. The great object held to view is to place a representation before the mind which may be contem- ALLEGORY AND FIGUEE. 13 plated singly and apart from all other ideas. Hence the admixture of foreign elements is avoided in every well-constructed allegory. The more purely allegori- cal the language is the better. The literal language employed in it is commonly separable with ease and exactness. It generally strikes the mind with obvi- ousness as being of the nature of machinery for con- necting the allegory or ornament for adorning it. 2d. That it is the tendency of an allegory to be long. In every allegory the mind is called upon to contemplate a single representation developing one train of ideas. The mind is summoned away to pur- sue one line of thought. It naturally appears unlit- ting to exact this sacrifice from it for a short allegory. At the same time, both in the construction and ap- prehension of an allegory, the mind being confined to one line of thought and being in itself unresting, naturally runs on spontaneously in the extension of the allegory. It is the natural tendency of an alle- gory to lengthen itself. 3cZ. That all allegories are problems to be solved by the understanding, and that at the conclusion of every one the question must arise, to be answer- ed, What does this signify ? If this question has been answered, that is, if it has been developed, the alle- gory is no longer such, strictly so called, but it is a figure. It is such, at least, so far as the development of the second sense is concerned. In every allegory the mind is called upon to look at a single pictorial representation, and to contemplate this apart from every thing else, even from the application itself. It 14: ALLEGORY AND FIGHKE. onglit to bo so delivered, that the application is an act of the mind, second and distinct, which follows, and is not contemporaneous with the first represen- tation. ^tli. Tliat the allegory, from the circn*mstance of its withholding the second representation, is free from that dbsioTtlity of statement which always marks the figure. It is perfectly rational in its statement ; it draws a first representation, and permits a second to be developed therefrom and its sense discovered. But it does not state that the one representation is the other, which is an absurdity, and which the figure does ; at least it is not its principle to do this. oth. That allegories are not addressed in the first instance, at least, to the feelings ; they are designed solely to exercise and inform the understanding. Whatever is intended to make its way to the heart and to excite the emotions, is necessarily conveyed and applied with rapidity. The very circumstance of calling a halt is adverse to emotional excitement. But every allegory does this ; it brings the mind to a stand-still for the time being, and summons it to pause, to look at and contemplate the representation, and, more than this, to contemplate it apart from all other associations, except those purely intellectual ones which its solution demands. It calls upon the mind to divest itself of its feelings, and to contem- plate the one representation made, that it may under- stand it. It leads the mind then, for the time being, into the region of pure contemplation. For the reason last mentioned, the allegory is em- ALLEGOKY AND FIGURE. 16 ployed witli great effect to convey trutlis of an un- palatable nature to the niincl which it might not re- ceive except in this form. Salutary medicine may be conveyed into the system under its wise disguise. It is also serviceable for conveying truths in an ele- mental form, and partially to the mind when it is not capable of bearing them in all their fulness. With a beneficent regard at once to the obstinacy of his enemies and the spiritual deficiencies of his disciples, the Saviour of the world frequently had recourse to this mode of instruction. He often succeeded by an allegory in impressing on the minds of the "Jews truths which, except under this form, might have aroused their worst prejudices and passions. Men will listen patiently to an allegory simply for the rea- son that they do not understand its real meaning. Tlie truth then steals in unperceived with its armor wrapped under the mantle of the allegory, and it is in the heart of the citadel before its presence is de- tected, when it displays itself with power and some- times in an appalling manner. Thus David was smote with a full apprehension of his guilt through the allegory delivered to him by the prophet l^athan. The Hebrew king calmly and unconsciously contem- plated his iniquity in the form of an allegory, and it was only when the words came to him, as they did with irresistible power, ''Thou art the man," that he perceived that he had passed sentence on himself witli the cool deliberation and integrity of an un- biassed judge. AVhen the Eoman populace were roused to fuiy for want of bread, Shakespeare reprc- 16 ALLEGORY AND FIGITEE. sents tlie orator setting before their minds tlie folly of their measures, and conveying to them instruc- tion on a profound political problem under the form of the allegory of " the stomach and the members of the body." To this the infuriated multitude listened patiently, because they did not perceive the drift of it. On the other hand it is to be noted : 1st. Tliat in the expression of a figure there is as much admixture of language to be taken literally as is compatible witli the preservation of it. The rea- son of this is obvious. The discovery of the second representation — the application is here the main ob- ject, and as it is language taken literally that eftects this, its presence is necessary. The more there is of language to be taken literally, consistently with the preservation of the figure, the more developed and the more perfect the figure becomes. 2d. That it is the tendency of a figure to be short. In the figure it is the application which is mainly sought after. But every extension of the figurative language has a certain tendency to withdraw the mind from the apj^lication ; there is consequently a natural desire to shorten it. While the law of self- preservation leads an allegory to be long, for it is by its extension that it lives, the same law leads a figure to be short. By every expansion the figure incurs the risk of ceasing its existence as a figure and of be- coming an allegory. By the extension, the mind is withdrawn from . the second representation, which is the stronghold of the figure, to the first representa- ALLEGORY AND FIGURE. ' 17 tioii, wliicli is the stronghold of the allegory. If tlie extension is permitted to go on to too great a lengtli, tliere is danger that the mind may become entirely occupied by the first representation — to ail intents and purposes, therefore, possessed by the allegory to the exclusion of the figure. As an allegorj^ avoids shortness as a cause of dissolution, for at its termina- tion the application comes and it ceases, a figure for the same reason avoids length. By over-shortness the allegory practically becomes a figure, and by over-length the figure practically becomes an alle- gory. If short, the mind engages itself with the double representation and the figure lives. If long, the mind is carried away with the first representa- tion, and the allegory lives. The excellence of an allegory cceteris paribus lies in its length ; that of a figure in its shortness. The former is all the higher if it fills a book ; the latter is restricted to a condition of brevity, and may be expressed in a word. Zd. That figures are not intended to undergo any process of solution, but to be instinctively and instan- taneously apprehended. There is no second repre- sentation to be divined. In every figure there are two pictures placed before the mind at once, the second of which thoroughly explains the first. ^tli. That it is an invariable mark of a figure, that it makes a statement of an absurdity ; it asserts that the one representation, although difi"erent, is the other. Thus it asserts, that Christ is " a door," or is " a vine," w^iich is absurd. This it does through its 18 AJLLEGORY AND FIGITRE. anxiety to develop the second sense as concisely as possible. It lias been above mentioned, that the two ideas which compose an ideographic sign are related to each other, not on the ground of identity, but of analogy. The figure states, that these ideas are the same, wlbich is always absurd. The truth lies in the resemblance which they bear to each other. The mind has always important deductions to make from the statement of the hgure. It has a process of com- parison to perform, separating the elements of agree- ment and of difference which obtain between the two ideas ; it tlien founds upon tlie real analogy which it discovers. The more cibsunl the statement is, the bolder the figure is. The figure, however, owes no small amount of its attractiveness to this very feature. The mind rejoices to find in the seeming absurdity projyriety and triitJi. The structure of the allegory is, in this respect, more scientific. 6^/i. That figures are well adapted for working on the feelings. By the instantaneous and vivid appli- cation of the subject w^hich they make to the mind, by the light and force which they instantaneously car- ry wdth them, they are powerful instruments in the hands of all those Avho would stir the emotions. They present to the mind the whole subject to be apprehended with fulness and vividness. They are serviceable instruments in the hands of orators who would rouse the feelings, and they are employed for this end with great mastery and power by the He- brew prophets. It is worthy of observation, that it rarely occurs ALLEGORY AND FIGUKE. 19 that an allegory is to be found in the perfectly pure state according to the above definition ; the second, or real sense, which it is the characteristic of the alle- gory to conceal, is generally in a greater or less de- gree developed. We should do wrong, however, to call it, on this account, a figure, even although a very considerable development of the second sense were made. To determine in a given case what is alle- gory and what is figure it is necessary to determine whether the composition has more of the quality of tlie one or of the other. This will decide the ques- tion whether it is to be ranked as allegory or as figure. If the first representation is predominant, and the second sense, though partially developed, is still really subordinate, the composition is justly to be re- garded as an allegory. If, on the other hand, the second sense is the main and predominant one, it is to be held a figure. It has been disputed whether the parable of the vine, John xv., is to be regard- ed as an allegory or a figure. The first represen- tation is here, however, presented to the mind in a much stronger degree than the second, which is only partially developed. It is accordingly to be properly considered as an allegory. It seldom occurs, however, that these two kinds of composition approach each other so closely as to render a discrimination between them a matter of any difficulty when the above definition is held in view. The predominance of the first or of the second representation is a sufficiently significant criterion. From the points of contrast which have been 20 ALLEGORY AND FIGTJKE. stated above, and which are sufficiently obvious, it appears tliat there is a very considerable difference between an allegory and a figure. Tlie former is es- sentially a secret, and, to a certain extent, crypto- grammic art of communication, partaking of the na- ture of the hieroglyphic ; while this element of se- crecy does not at all inhere in the figure. It follows, as a consequence, that there is a great difference be- tween allegoric and figurative language, or, between that wdiich delivers an allegory and that which de- livers a figure. But the symbolic language of the prophets is allegorical as the interpretations show. It follows that there is a great difference between symbolical and figurative language. Unfortunately for a legitimate and valid interpre- tation of the Revelation this essential difference has been overlooked by the great mass of commentators, if not all, who have written on the book. They have regarded it as if it were written in figurative lan- guage, and as if the same method of explication were to be applied to it as to the writings of the figurative prophets. Probably more errors of interpretation have flowed from this source than from any other. A recent writer makes the following remarks on this subject, which has not yet hitherto, as we con- ceive, been developed with the requisite clearness and precision. The important bearing of it, how- ever, on a right interpretation of prophetical lan- guage, can hardly be over-estimated : • " Before proceeding to the interpretation of alle- ALLEGORY AND FIGURE. 21 goiy, it will be expedient to inquire into tlie nature of the figure so termed. The word has been used in various senses, and with great vagueness. Some- times it is said to denote a continued metaphor. Thus Cicero says, ' When several kindred metaphors succeed one another, they alter the form of a compo- sition ; for which reason a succession of this kind is called by the Greeks an allegory ; and properly, in respect to the etymology of the word ; but Aristotle, instead of considering it as a new species of figure, has more judiciously comprised such modes of expres- sion under the general appellation of metaphors.'* In like manner Dr. Blair writes, ' An allegory may be regarded as a continued metaphor.' Those who take this view of it, find it difficult, or rather impos- sible, to define where the one terminates and the other begins. Some confine metaphor to a word, and refer whatever exceeds this to the head of alle- gory. This makes the latter include one or more sentiments. Sometimes the allegory is made a dis- tinct species, having within itself a congruity and completeness unlike a number of tropes put together. Lowth enumerates three forms of allegory, f but their limits are not well marked. It appears to us, that some confusion would be avoided by attaching the same meaning to the term allegory wherever it oc- curs, and thus separating it more exactly from other figures. In allegory, as in metaphor, two things are * De Oratore. t Lecture X. On the Sacred Poetry of the HelreiDS, 22 ALLEGORY AND FIGURE. presented to view ; but yet there is considerable dif- ference between both tropes. 'The term allegory, according to its original and proper meaning, denotes a representation of one thing, which is intended to excite the representation of another thing. Every allegory, therefore, must be subjected to a two-fold examination : we must first examine the immediate representation, and then consider what other repre- sentation it was intended to excite. Now, in most allegories, the immediate representation is made in the form of a narrative ; and since it is the object of an allegory to convey a moral, not an historic truth, the narrative itself is commonly fictitious. The im- mediate representation is of no further value, tlian as it leads to the ultimate representation. It is the ap- plication, or the moral, of the allegory which consti- tutes its worth. " ' Since, then, an allegory comprehends two. dis- tinct representations, the interpretation of an allegory must comprehend two distinct operations. The first of them relates to the immediate representation ; the second to the ultimate representation.' * " Tlie metaphor always asserts or imagines that one object is another. Thus ' Judah is a lion's whelp,' (Gen. xlix. 9 ;) 'I am the true vine,' (John xv. 1.) On the contrary, allegory never aflirms that one thing is another, which is in truth an absurdity. "f — Sa- * Marsli's Lectures on the Interpretations of tlie Bihle. pp. 343, 344. t See A Treatise on the Figures of Speech. By Alexander ALLEGOKT AND FIGUKE. 23 (yred Ilermeneutlcs DevelojKcl and Aj)plied, i&e. By Samuel Davidson^ LL.D, Dr. Blair observes : " The only material difference between metaphor or figure and allegory, (besides the one being short and the other long,) is, that a meta- phor always explains itself by the words that are con- nected with it in their proper and natural meaning." Mr. Webster, in liis Dictionary, gives a very clear and correct definition of allegory, thus : " A figura- tive sentence or discourse in which the principal sub- ject is described by another resembling it in its prop- erties and circumstances. The principal subject is thus kept out of view, and we are left to collect the intentions of tlie writer, or speaker, by the resem- blance of the secondary to the primary subject. Al- legory is in words what hieroglyphics are in paint- ing."' Carson, A. K Dublin, 1826. 12mo, pp. 51, 52. This acute writer has expounded the nature of an allegory much more cor- rectly than Lord Kames, Dr. Blair, or Dr. Campbell. CHAPTEE ni. ALLEGORIC OR SYMBOLIC LAITGUAGE IS ENIGMATICAL. It has been -stated above, that towards the com- prehension of an ideographic sign there is a complex operation of the mind necessary. Every such sign, be it allegory or figure, has for its basis two ideas or tw^o representations, which must be compared to- gether ere the true value of the sign be ascertained. The allegory, it has been shown, concerns itself with the first of these, leaving the mind to make out for itself the second ; the figure or metaphor, on the other hand, combines both ideas, ex]3resses them both, and mingles both representations. It is at this point that symbolic and figurative language diverge from each other, and diverge very w^idely. Figurative language makes a hasty incur- sion on the ideographic ground, and having plucked a flower there, it speedily returns to the beaten track of literal language, from wdience to make another in- cursion at a subsequent time, and at a different point. Allegorical or symbolic language, having once left the literal track, pursues its independent path on the ideographic domain, settles upon it, turns agricul- turist, takes in fields, cultivates them and sows seedj SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE ENIGMATICAL. 25 which after many days ripens and yields a harvest, which the understanding must reap with its sharp sickle. In a word, it abides on the ideographic ground and never leaves it. It results from this dif- ference, that all allegorical and symbolic writing re- quires interpretation ; it must be translated from its ideographic into literal language ; the something else which its pictorial representation adumbrates must be discovered — in a word, the second picture must be painted by the mind itself, for it is not painted in the allegor} . With figurative or metaphoric language this is not necessary, it being the distinctive charac- teristic of this species of composition that it explains itself ; if an}^ portion of enigma adheres to it, it is to this extent faulty ; it professes to deliver to the mind the second or explanatory representation ; if it fails to do this, it is to that extent defective. It is the ex- cellence of a figure to be clear. On the other hand, it may be said that it is the beauty of an allegory to be dark. It may justly take to itself the words of Solomon's bride, and say, "I am hlack hut comely!''^ It is essentially a cry]3to- grammic writing. It presents to the mind only the first representation. Of necessity, it contains an enigma ; the question must arise. What does this sig- nify ? what is the second and ultimate representation in wliich the real sense lies? When Christ said, *' He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber," John x. 1, he spoke allegorically and also enigmatically. He presented to the mind a pic- 2 26 SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE -ENIGMATICAL. ture of a slieepfold witli a door to it, and thieves and robbers climbing up some other way. By this alle- gorical representation he designed to convey a second representation. What was it ? The Pharisees were unable to discover it, and Christ laid it bare before their minds, showing them that the sheepfold repre- sents the kingdom of God, that he is the only way of entrance into it, and that all that attempt to pass into it, except through him, are thieves and robbers. He thus delivered an allegory and an enigma, for the solution of which they were incompetent, and which he solved for them. It is the discovery of the second representation, which contains the real meaning, that invests an allegory with all its value. We have been hitherto pressing the importance of the first picture. We have done this for the reason, that the allegory con- sists in the presentation of it, and that in this restric- tion to the first picture lies the difference between allegory and figure. The allegory is, however, value- less without the second representation also. This contains the idea or ideas to be communicated. The first is the mere vehicle, which, till the living agent of the second sense is yoked to it, is motionless and useless. It is, to use another image, the external casket which must be broken or penetrated to obtain the jewel of the second sense within. Now the first picture may be a mere creature of the imagination, or it may be a copy of historical facts. It is of no essential moment which of these it is ; as used by the allegory, it is not designed to ex- SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE ENIGMATICAL. 27 press any reality. It is a mere phantasm ; it is a picture painted only to develop a second in wliicli the real sense lies. The discovery and development of this second picture is always more or less a diffi- culty and enigma. It is, however, a necessity. The allegory is without value until it is discovered and fully developed. An allegory may be regarded as more or less enigmatical, according to the proportions in which the three following elements prevail in it : 1^^. The inaptitude of the first to suggest the second representation. 2<:?. The complexity of the allegory if its plan be unknown. dd. The allegoric element being in excess. It is in the Jirst of these elements that the strength of the enigma lies. If there be nothing at all in the first representation to suggest the second, the allegory may remain forever an unsolved enigma, the second sense of which is known alone to its constructor. Until the second picture arises to view, it is plainly impossible to institute that comparison between it and the first, by which alone the one is known to be a representation of the other, and in virtue of the cor- respondence between which we discover the truth and meaning of the allegory. When Christ said to the Jews, " destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again," there was nothing in these words to suggest to their minds the second picture, his crucifixion, his remaining in the state of the dead for three days and his resurrection thereafter. The 28 SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE ENIGMATICAL. allegory is here extremely simple. Had there existed in it the slightest key by which the second picture might have been unlocked and exhibited to their minds, the Jews could not have failed in realizing the meaning of the allegory. This key, however, was w\anting ; they saw no trace whatever of the second picture, and the w^ords of the Redeemer were to them without sense. The inaptitude of the first representation to con- tribute the second, may arise from two causes : 1st From the want of any clue conducting from the first to the second. 2d. From the fact that the second picture contains an unknown reality / a reality the existence of which was previously unknown to the mind. In reference to the first of these causes which hinder the first representation from suggesting the second, it is to be observed that it is seldom prevalent to the full extent. Most allegories do afford intima- tion of some kind or another of such a nature as to lead the mind to the second representation. Some spring is almost always touched, calculated to awaken that train of associations which when pursued con- ducts to it. Thus in the short allegory already refer- red to, " He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber;" the w^ord "sheepfold" in the connection in which it stands may be regarded as affording such a clue. It is an efficient key to all who are aware that Christ applies the image of sheep to his people. His people being his sheep, it is only the SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE ENIGMATICAL. 29 perception of a natural relationship to see in the sheepfold his church or kingdom. This being known, the rest of the allegory is with ease applied. The Pharisees whom he addressed were nnable to employ this key, and they w^ere unable to apprehend his meaning. All such intimations may be regarded in the light of germinal developments of the second picture. The clue being given it simply requires mental activity in the detection of analogies, to bring the second representation out into view. The sym- bolic j)rophecies contain many such keys which are in the highest degree important towards the elimina- tion of the meaning. The second cause which prevents the second and concealed picture from emerging, lies in the fact that it contains an unknown reality. The j)resence of this cause offers a great obstacle to the interpretation. The greater number of the allegories delivered by the Saviour developed unknown spiritual realities, and hence the inability of his hearers to understand them. All prophetical allegories of unfulfilled events are subjected to this obscuring cause. They contain the rex^resentation of realities that are unknown, for the events which they foreshadow are future, and there- fore unknown. When Christ said to the Jews, " de- stroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again," they would have had little difficulty in com- prehending the allegory, had they known the future facts of his crucifixion and rising from the dead after three days. Hence the difficulty of interpreting all symbolic prophecies before their fulfilment. This 30 SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE ENIGMATICAL. cause of difficulty naturally ceases when tlie events have transpired. The second element which increases the enigmatical character of an allegory, is its complexity and length, provided the plan which holds its parts in relation- ship together be undiscovered. A short and simple allegory may be easily interpreted, if the slightest clue be had to its meaning. It is not so with one that is long and complex. Here part of the meaning may be well known, and that of the remainder may be shrouded in profound darkness. This will be the case if the continuity of arrangement which leads from the known to the unknown be undiscovered. If this be known the complexity and length of the alle- gory will have the opposite eff'ect ; they will conduce to the discovery and especially to the establishment of the meaning, for the continuity will be a chain with a greater number of links. It seems unnecessary to prove that a long and complex allegory must have a definite plan. To suppose it without this is as great an absurdity as to suppose an architectural building without any arrangement of the stones which com- pose it. It would be about as idle to prove that it must possess it as to show that a sentence must have construction. The sense of words can only be known by their relations to each other; the sense of an allegory can only be known by the relationship of its parts to one another. A few words may be intel- ligible without arrangement. It is impossible that a great number of them can. A short allegory requires no plan ; a long one demands it, for without it it can SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE ENIGMATICAL. 31 neither cohere nor exist at all as an intelligible com- j)osition. It is indubitable that a main caus6 which has hitherto prevented the true and satisfactory interj^re- tation of the Revelation (and the true interpretation will always be satisfactory to the mind) lies in the length and complexity of the prophecy, and the ig- norance which has prevailed on the part of inter- preters of its plan, and consequently of the due arrangement of its parts, and their relationships to each other. These are matters absolutely indispen- sable to the comprehension of any long and complex allegory. That the Revelation is an allegory is cer- tain ; that it is, comparatively speaking, long and complex, is also certain ; that its plan has hitherto been unknown, is equally certain. Accordingly one principal barrier to its interpretation has hitherto been in existence. Until this be removed, its inter- pretation cannot be accomplished. Many parts of the book may be, and doubtless have been, truly interpreted. But these interpretations are compara- tively valueless, so far as conviction is concerned. Without the plan of the allegory they can never have the seal of certainty attached to them. That demon- strative evidence is wanting which the knowledge of the plan can alone yield. Dr. Adam Clarke, in the Preface to his Com- mentary on the Revelation^ after specifying the various systems of interpretations which have been maintain- ed, makes the following remarks : — " My readers 32 SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE ENIGMATICAL. may naturally expect that I sliould either give a decided preference to some one of the opinions stated above, or produce one of my own : I can do neither ; nor can I pretend to explain the book ; I do not un- derstand it ; and in the things which concern so sub- lime and awful a subject, I dare not, as my predeces- sors, indulge in conjectures. I have read elaborate works on the subject, and each seemed right till another was examined : I am satisfied that no certain inode of interpreting the prophecies of this book has yet been found out; and I will not add another monument to the littleness or folly of the human mind by endeavoring to strike out a new course. I repeat it, I do not understand the book ; and I am satisfied that not one who has written on the subject, knows any thing more of it than myself: I should, perhaps, except J. E. Clarke, who has written on the number of the beast. His interpretation amounts nearly to demonstration ; but that is but a small part of the difficulties of the Apocalypse. A conjecture concerning the design of the book may be safely in- dulged ; thus, then, it has struck me that the book of the Apocalypse may be considered as a Pkophet con- tinued in the church of God, uttering predictions relative to all times, which have their successive ful- filment as ages roll on ; and thus it stands in the Christian church in the place of the succession of PEOPHETS in the JcAvish church ; and by this especial economy prophecy is still continued, is always speak- ing ; and yet a succession of prophets is rendered un- necessary," The Pr. accordingly fully recognized SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE ENIGMATICAL. 33 the perfect intelligibility of the prophecy, although, as he thinks, the certain mode^ or, as he expresses himself in another place, the key to the interpreta- tion has not been discovered, even so late as his time, 1830. The plan of the allegory is the key to the prophecy. But thirdly^ that which in a very great degree tends to enhance the enigmatical quality of an alle- gory, is the circumstance of its being in excess. If almost every part of the representation is impreg- nated with a second sense, the interpretation is ren- dered more difficult, not in the same but in an in- creased ratio, because the allegory is rendered pro- portionably perplexed. In this respect the allegories of Scripture present a great diversity. In all a con- siderable portion of the language is of the nature of machinery for setting forth and connecting the differ- ent parts of the imagery. In most of the parables the greater part of the narration has no second sense at all. Many things are introduced by way of ornament and to render the narration more pleasing, which are devoid of a second sense. The parable above quoted displays the allegoric element in a stronger degree than is usual. "He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." Here there are few words that do not contain a second sense. The allegory may be regarded then as here in excess. The parable of the vine shows likewise the alle- goric element strongly developed. In the parable 2* 34: SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE ENIGMATICAL. of the prodigal son, and many others, it is the sa- lient points alone of the narration which bear a sec- ond sense. But it is in tlie symbolic prophecies that we see the allegoric element prevailing in its full intensity and power. In these the allegory is in great excess. In some almost ev^ery word has a double sense. Here we see the natural relations of objects to one another, which otherwise are for the most part observed, sa- crificed to develop the hidden meaning. In these prophecies, indeed, the allegorical element assumes a totally new form, and coins for itself a language which is peculiar to itself. This language is at once the fruit of the allegory's being in excess, and at the same time the remedy to the difficulty occasioned thereby. So thoroughly allegoric is the prophecy, that it speaks an allegoric language. The* words in which the predictions are couched bear the sense that is cur- rent in the hieroglyphic language native to the sym- bolic prophets. The difficulty of interpretation which arises from the allegory's being in excess then, is probably more than counterbalanced by the presence of this language. The parable is to be interpreted solely by the allegory which it develops ; the sym- bolic prophecy is to be interpreted by the allegory and by the hieroglyphic language. This language has definite significations fixed by interpretations ren- dered in Scripture. The symbolic prophecy then stands on a vantage ground. The allegory, it is true, is excessive, but the prophecy is furnished with a language which, if it does not altogether disclose, at SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE ENIGMATICAL. 35 least confirms and ratifies the second sense. It will be necessary to treat separately of the relations of this special language to the prophetic allegory, as its bearing on the sense of the prophecy is in the highest degree important. JSTow the Revelation develops in a strong degree three of the above-mentioned features of enigma: 1^;^. It contains the allegory in excess. 2r7. It is distinguished by length and complexity. Sd. It has contained unknown realities. The key to the solution of the first of these feat- ures, is the knowdedge of the hieroglyphic language. This principle of solution is in our hands, for the in- terpretations rendered in Scripture, leave no doubt in regard to the signification of the terms employed in it. E'evertheless, these significations have a certain latitude and generalness in them which it requires the kno^wledge of the allegory and its plan to reduce to precision. The key to the solution of the second element of enigma will lie in the discovery of the ^:>^<:m of the prophecy which resolves its comj)lexity into sim- plicity. This has hitherto been an insuj^erable bar- rier to the comprehension, but more especially to the demonstration of the sense of the Revelation. It is no small part of the aim at least of the present work to develop the real plan of the prophecy. The solution of the third enigmatical feature lies in the fact, that almost all the predictions of the book, as is generally admitted, have been fulfilled. They have thus passed from the state of imhiown to that 36 SYMBOLIC LANGUAaE ENIGMATICAL. of Icnown realities, and hence tins cause of obscurity has nearly ceased. It is the second of these features which alone pre- sents to the interpreter any real difficulty. The plan is the desideratum still wanting to fix the true bear- ings of the prophecy, and to invest its hieroglyphic language with that precision which it is calculated to yield, and the whole prophecy with that demonstra- tive evidence which it is designed to carry with it. CHAPTER IV. UXITT OF IDEA A FUNDAMENTAL PEINCIPLE OF THE ALLEGORY. But ill tlie midst of the darkness of enigma " light ariseth." The allegory contains within itself a globe of luminous power, which requires only to be kindled to display, if not all the detail^ of the embossment on this opaque sign, at least the general design of it. This illuminative power which the allegory contains within itself, and which is its true lamp, is unity of idea. This being apprehended the sense of the alle- gory is known. This principle is inherent in every ideographic sign, whether it be called by the name of allegory or parable, type or symbol, figure or metaphor. Each of these is one sign : one sign of an idea ; there hence belongs to each a unity of idea. They each may in- deed be the sign of many ideas, thoughts, or concep- tions, but these must be associated and combined together, so as to constitute unity in the group, inas- much as they are represented by but one sign. Hence allegories are pervaded, however long they may be, by unity of idea. All writers on rhetoric from Aristotle downwards, 38 UNITY OF THE ALLEGORY. blame the admixture of two ideas in the same figure. Quinctilian says, "We must be particularly careful to end with the same kind of metaphor with which we hav^e begun. Some, when they begin the figure with a tempest, conclude with a conflagration, which forms a shameful inconsistency." Unity of conception, however, which is an indis- pensable element in every w^ell-constructed figure, is essential to the existence of an allegory. It is the breath of its vitality, without which it cannot live. Without it the figure may exist in a perfectly healthy, although in a deformed state. Two ideas that are different may cohere in a figure without destroying its sense, although thej mar its beauty. The confu- sion which naturally arises from this source, is in tlie figure corrected by the explanation in literal lan- guage, always appended to it. Thus when Shake- speare speaks of taking ai^nis against a sea of troubles, his meaning is perfectly well understood from the literal context. But were an allegory constructed with two leading ideas in it, so diverse as these repre- sent, it would be an incomprehensible chaos. The mere imagery, indeed, might be expanded into an allegory, but upon one condition alone, that it is bound together by unity of idea in the subject. Without this binding principle it would inevitably fall to pieces. The allegories of Scripture all manifest this feature of unity of idea. The ideas developed in them are all connected together by a chain of association, the links of which are perfect and unbroken. Unity of conception is the centi*al principle which presides over UNITY OF THE ALLEGOKY. 39 the group of ideas, however numerous they may be. Thus how perfect is the unity which prevails iu that beautiful allegory in Ps. Ixxx. 8 — 16 : "Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out tlie heathen and planted it. Thou pre- paredst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land. The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars. She sent out her bouglis unto the sea, and her branches unto the river. Wh}^ hast thou then broken down her hedges, so that all they which pass by the way do pluck her? The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it. Eetufn, we beseech thee, O God of hosts : look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine ; and the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that thou madest strong for thyself. It is burnt with fire, it is cut down ; they perish at the rebuke of thy countenance." And of that in John xv. 1 — 6 : " I am the true vine, and my Father is the hus- bandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away : and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine : no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine : ye are the branches : He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit : for without me ye can do nothing. 4:0 UNITY OF THE ALLEGORY. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." All the parables delivered by the Saviour exem- plify the principle. In the symbolic prophecies it is equally visible. It is apparent whether we take the short allegories of Joseph's and Pharaoh's dreams, (Gen. xxxvii. and xli.,) or the more extended allegories of Daniel's prophecies of the Image and the Four Beasts, ch. ii. and vii. In these prophecies its exhibition is made in a more formaL manner than in the parables, as will be apparent on a comparison between the two. Unity of idea is here developed in the form of the composition as well as in the subject of it. The two following prophecies, besides displaying unity of idea in the form and subject, make a special development of the principle itself. Thus the two predictions in Dan. vii., and in Zech. vi., w^iich are certainly to be held the very highest specimens of the symbolic art in the Old Testament, if we except Dan. ii., and which may therefore be appealed to with the great- est security, consecrate and embalm the principle itself, not alone by putting it in practice, but by em- bodying it in a special representation. They repre- sent the origination of the subject in one source. Nothing could more strongly evidence unity of con- ception than this. The subject is represented to have one origin. It is of necessity one. It has the unity of the plant or the tree which springs from a common root. XJOTTT OF THE ALLEGORY. 4:1 The Revelation displays the principle in an emi- nent degree, although its existence has been sadly overlooked by the greater number of commentators upon it. The most learned among these have not scrupled to violate all regard to the principle by rep- resenting it as delivered in two books, " the seven- sealed " and '^ the little book." It is all delivered in one seven-sealed book, a feature in the re2:)resentation which stamps it with unity. The origination of the subject is made from a common source by the inter- vention of the four living creatures — a representation which again impresses it with unity ; unity of con- ception characterizes its structure and its plan. I^o composition can manifest unity of plan and of plot more thoroughly than it does, as will be seen upon examination. The burden displays unity. It is the triumph of the kingdom of God over the last of the world-dominions, the Roman. This is the one glo- rious theme which sounds through all the chords of the majestic prophetic lyre. It is evident that the discovery of this unity is a main key to the sense of the allegory, whatever it be. It is the sole key by which we can decipher the par- ables. All the subordinate signs are here determin- able by a reference to that unity of idea which sus- tains the composition, and which is to it what the backbone is to the animal. It is certainly the most important key to the interpretation of a symbolic prophecy which has essentially the same nature as the parable, and which displays unity of idea in matter and form. Here, as well as in the parable, unity of 42 • tnsriTY of the allegoet. idea determines tlie application of the principal as well as tlie subordinate symbols. Let us try the effect of this key of explanation on any of these prophecies —it will be found a most efficient one. Let the two allegories in Joseph's dreams be taken as examples. The one idea of JosepNs exaltation will determine the senses of all the symbols, sun, moon, stars, and sheaves of corn, with sufficient exactness. Take the allegory which' Joseph interpreted to the imprisoned butler : " And the chief butler told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, Li my dream, behold, a vine was before me : And in the vine were three branches : and it was as though it budded, and her blossoms shot forth; and the clusters thereof brought ripe grapes : and Pharaoh's cup was in my hand : and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand." — Gen. xl. 9—11. The one idea of the tiUler'^s release will explain all the symbols here. Or the following one of the baker : " When the chief baker saw that the interpre- tation was good, he said unto Joseph, I also was in my dream, and behold, I had three white baskets on my head : and in the uppermost basket there was of all manner of bake meats for Pharaoh : and the birds did eat them out of the basket upon my head." —Gen. xL 16, 17. The one idea of the haher^s execution will here also determine the significations of the separate symbols. UNITY OF THE ALLEGORY. 4:3 The same powerful solvent will resolve the mystery of every symbolic prophecy in the Old Testament. Thus " the relation of the kingdom of God to tlie four great world-dominions," is the one idea which will unlock the mystery of Daniel's twofold prophecy, eh. ii. and vii. " The existence of the four world- empires," is the one idea which will solve Zechariah's prophecy of the Four Chariots, ch. vi. The restora- tion of the Jews is the key to all this prophet's pre- dictions contained in ch. i. But, if this principle be so powerful, why—it may be asked — is it not eflective to solve the profound mystery which still inheres in the Eevelation ? Tlie answer to this question is at hand — it has never been applied. It will effectually solve this mystery too, as well as all other allegoric mysteries, provided it be adhered to ; it will not, if it be departed from, nor will it, unless the true idea be assumed and apj^liecl. And it is not reasonable to expect success otherwise. !N"ow, we hesitate not to say, that if the relation of the fourth world-dominion to the Jcingdom of God be taken as the One Idea of the allegory, and rigidly adhered to in the interpretation, it will j^ut to flight, as will the light of a sunbeam, all that Cimmerian darkness which has hitherto involved the prophecy. The prophecy will stand forth thereafter and forever in a robe of light. This idea has, indeed, been gen- erally admitted to be the main one, but it has not been admitted to be the sole one. Here a fatal error has been committed, for the value of the idea in so far as its oneness is concerned, which is its sole value. 4:4: UNITY OF THE ALLEGORY. is vitiated by the comjDromise, and the unity of the allegory is, in consequence, destroyed. The princi- ple cannot be said to have been adhered to or applied in any proper sense, when Paganism is read in the book, when Arianism is found in it, or Mohamme- danism, or infidelity, or Popery, (and not the Papa- cy,) or when the resurrection is discerned to be in it, or such things as the general judgment of all men, heaven, and hell, are read therein, or when, perhaps, more fatal in its effects on the book, the Devil or Sa- tan is found in it. The resurrection and the final judgment, the heavenly state, and the total destruc- tion of Satan, which is supposed to be represented in eh. XX., can have no bearing whatever on that 07ie idea which pervades the prophecy, and which is es- sentially a political idea, viz., the triumph of the kingdom of God over the fourth world-dominion. The matters above enumerated, and many more of a similar kind which have passed current as interpreta- tions, thoroughly destroy the unity of idea of the allegor}^ This becomes like a vessel broken into pieces. These pieces may hold some drops of water, but not more than to toy with the palate, to stimu- late, — not to quench the thirst. The capacity of the prophetic vessel to hold the living waters of truth is forever destroyed by the rupture of its unity. When such subjects as the above are admitted into the book, when mere symbols are held to be interpretations which conflict with every conception of the allegory's unity, this principle cannot be said to have been ap- plied to it in any sense as a key of explication, nor to ■UNTTY OF THE ALLEGOEY. 45 have had its real virtues tested in any respect. The interpretation itself has not had justice done to it. That light which enters every allegory, and which must enter this one, too, by the great window of " unity of idea," has been rigorously excluded from this great allegoric pile, and its mystic chambers have therefore been, if not dark, yet dim — scarcely, indeed, lighted up with a "dim religious splendor." The consequence has been, that the most pains-taking industry has not been able to decipher the hiero- glyphics on its walls. But the symbolic prophecies have a second and independent instrument of illumination in the sym- bolic language. The terms of this organized lan- guage, for it is such, unquestionably, throw no small light on the real sense of the prophecy which is ex- pressed in it. But then again, these hieroglyphics acquire their chief precision, their definiteness, and certainly all their demonstrative force, from the per- ception of the unity of the allegory. These hiero- glyphic signs, it may with certainty be affirmed, are destitute of at least one-half their power when this imity is not discovered. The following comparison, or rather contrast, for such it is, w^ill at once show the relative importance of the former element of in- terpretation above the other. Consider the parables. How demonstratively fixed is the sense of a parable, solely in virtue of this unity. It is from this quarter that it derives all its light. It has no fixed senses to lean upon at all. How unsatisfactory, on the other hand, has the sense of the Eevelation been, destitute 46 UNITY OF THE ALLEGORY. of this principle of illumination, notwithstanding the known senses of the greater number of its hiero- glyphics ! Unity of idea, then, we perceive, is an essential principle of the allegory. It is to the allegory what the key-stone is to the arch. Without this funda- mental principle, an allegory is no sign — it is an un- completed arch — it is no bridge of communication at all. With it, it is a real sign, a solid arch, a safe and reliable bridge in every respect — a bridge, also, which has been traversed, in the olden times, more than now- adays, by many a vehicle laden with gold. Many a broad and deep-running stream has it bridged over, and afforded a secure transit across it. But, as a bridge, it is useless unless the arch be complete — un- less it exhibit a perfect unity. We annex to this chapter a table of a few of the parables delivered by the . Saviour. They form the groundwork and reveal the principles of the pro- phetic allegories ; they therefore may be consulted with advantage to know the constitution of the other. The table also shows the partial formation, under the parable, of those hieroglyphics in it which have here no other key but unity of idea. The prophetic hiero- glyphics have another exponent in the known senses of these signs. The one is sufficient to explain the parable ; both are, however, requisite to the explica- tion of the prophetic allegory, which is a much more complicated piece of work than the parable. The former, it is also to be observed, develops unity of conception, both in the subject of the allegory and in UNITY OF THE ALLEGOET. 47 the form in wliicli it is cast. The principle is tliiis more highly and more artistically developed. At the same time, its existence is sometimes not a little diffi- cult to descry in consequence of a violation which the symbolic prophets sometimes make in the unity of the imagery. The use of a sign which is diflerent but synonymous makes an apparent violation of unity of idea. If we consider, however, that the images are here the signs, the mere change of an image does not in reality violate the unity more than the use of a dif- ferent but synonymous word violates the unity of a sentence. This variety of imagery has undoubtedly been an obstacle to the interpretation of the Revela- tion. This is a book which is peculiarly rich in synonymous hieroglyphics, it literally swarms with them ; when these signs which are synonymous, are looked upon as anti-synonymous, new ideas are re- garded as developed. Infringements, in consequence, are attributed to the prophet of the main and funda- mental principle of conception. But it is altogether a false conclusion to draw, that because the prophet uses a different image or hieroglyphic, he develops a different idea, and violates the chain of unity. He cannot do this, and it is not rational to suppose that he does it. If he did, he would destroy the intelligi- bility of his composition. This apparent violation of unity of conception results from the fact, that he writes in an organized language, the signs of which have definite senses. When he uses a synonymous sign, he is no more changing his idea, than an author, when he uses a synonymous word. This violation of 48 UNITY OF THE ALLEGORY. the unity of the imagery cannot, liowever, take place in the parable, for here the senses of its subordinate hieroglyphics are fixed by the perfect unity which characterizes the first representation, and they de- pend upon this unity for all their significance. Here, accordingly, an infringement of this unity cannot take place. It must be admitted, then, that this uni- ty of idea is a more ready explicator of a parable, because it is, for the above reason, more jpercejptible. The chain of the imagery lifts the chain of idea. It is, however, as efficient an explicator of the prophetic allegory, because it is to it equally indispensable. It is, however, more difficult to be found. TABLE OF PARABLES.* THE PARABLE. HIEKOGLTPU, OR FIRST SENSE. ANTITYPE, OR SECOND SENSE. TiTv Sower The sower, £^"**' ,;, ^ Matt luU 3-8 and 18-23. The field, The world. The seed, The fruit, The Vine, ....... John XV. 1-8. The Leaven, Matt. xiii. 33. Growing Seet>, . Mark iv. 2t^-29. The Laborers, . . Matt. XX. 1-16. The Good Samaritan, Luke X. 25-37. The Relentless Servant, Matt, xviii. 21-35. The gospeL Holiness. The vine, The husbandman, &,c.. The meal, The woman, The seed, The husbandman, Householders, Laborers, Day, The traveller,. . . The thieves, &c. Christ. The Father, &c. The heart. The Holy Spirit. The truth. (Not symbolic, or but par- tially.) Christ. Believers. Life-time. Man. The trials of life, &e. The Two Sons, . . . Matt. xxi. 28-32. The Great Supper, Luke xiv. 15-24. The king: The servants, &c. The father, The first son, The second son, The householder, . . The supper The first invited,... Second invitation,. Third invitation. God. Men, &c. God. Publican. Pharisees. Christ. Salvation, Jews "bidden.'' Gentiles " bidden." The entire Pa^an world. Highway, &c Th( most abandoned. Light of the "VTorld, Matt. V. 14 ' ^ ,j The Tares in the Wheat.! The field Matt. xiii. 24-30, 36-43. The Vineyard.; Matt. xii. 33, 34. The world, &c Mankind, &c. The householder, The vineyard, The husbandmen, Householder's absence, . The Mustard Seed, Matt. xiii. 31. 32. The Drag-Net, Matt. xiii. 47-50. The Absent King, . Luke xix. 11-27. Servants sent, The son, Cast out and slain, . . . The lord's coming,. . . The vineyard let out, . The mustard seed, . . . The Net, The visible cburcli. God. His kingdom. The Jewish nation. Period from Moses to the destruction of Jerusalem. Succession of prophets. Christ. Christ slain. The Koman army. The Gentile churches bo- come ascendant. Christ's Church. The Gospel. Vl!^!"^^:: :::::::: i^t'S;^ to the judgment * Kirk on the Parables. CHAPTEE y. RELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE TO A PKOPHETIC ALLEGOEY. The relations between symbolic or liieroglypbic language and prophetic allegory are so close, that it is a matter of no essential moment to determine which stands to the other in the relation of canse and effect, that is, whether the hieroglyph produced the allegory or the allegory the hieroglyph. It is sufficient that, as we now lind them, they are indissolubly combined. There is no prophetic allegory without the hieroglyph, and there is no prophetic hieroglyphic language with- out allegory. A hieroglyph, or symbol, is a sign which repre- sents one idea, which idea again represents another. Thus a mountain stands for a kingdom, or the idea of a mountain stands for the idea of a kingdom. In general the word hieroglyph is aj^plied to these signs when they are painted and exposed to the eye, as in the Egyptian hieroglyphics. It is clear, however, that it is of no material consequence whether '' the mountain" be painted, or expressed by the word mountain, that is, given in language to be literally RELATIONS OF THE SYI^nJOLIC LANGUAGE. 61 taken. It is, in either case, a hieroglyph, which, whether painted, prononncecl, or w^ritten, although standing for a mountain in the first sense, stands in the second and real sense for a dominion. The writing in ideographic signs, or hieroglyph- ics, unquestionably preceded the invention of let- ters. At first, then, it was, and was designed to be, SLii ope7i language. When the alphabet came to be used, it fell into desuetude generally. It then became the sacred and secret language of the Egyptian priests, in which they expressed the hidden mysteries of their religion. It was chosen by the Spirit of God, doubt- less for wise ends, as the vehicle for conveying his prophetic revelations — being a mode of writing in which the signs have a sense at once secret and defi- nite. It is indubitable that the ancient hieroglyphics of the Egyptians, and also those of the Hebrew j^rophets, derived their origin from certain natural resemblances which held between one idea and another, and there- fore that they had the same basis as ordinary figura- tive or metaphoric language. Thus a mountain, which is a vast object, and which towers above and commands the territory that lies around its base, bears a natural resemblance to a kingdom or dominion. Accordingly this very hieroglyph is frequently incor- porated into the figurative language of the prophets. Isaiah says, speaking of the future universal suprem- acy of the kingdom of God, " And it shall come to I pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house (the kingdom of the Lord) shall be established 52 RELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. in the top of the mountains, (elevated above all king- doms,) and shall be exalted above the hills, (the lesser kingdoms ;) and all nations shall flow imto it." Is. ii. 2. Between allegory and hieroglyph there is no real difference, except that the former always contains a whole and complete representation, while the latter is frequently used to express a part of one. They are ideographic signs, containing a second sense, which is not developed. Every allegory may be regarded as a great hieroglyph, containing more or fewer hiero- glyphs under it. These signs are sometimes expressed, as has been observed, in painting, instead of being written or spoken. This is a mode of notation entirely german to their nature 2i'S> 2^icto7'ial signs. An allegor}^ of considerable length may be the sign and the hieroglyph of scarcely more than a single idea. This may be called a simple allegory. Such is the parable or allegory of the good Samaritan. The principal part of the representation is here to be accepted in its literal sense, and there is but one main hieroglyph in it, the occult idea, which the allegory, taken as a whole, represents. This may be expressed to be, "True benevolence contrasted with hypocritical religion." The greater number of the parables of Christ come less or more under the head of allegories of this kind. The greater portion of the representa- tion has nothing beyond the first and literal sense, the second sense is either entirely, or to a very great extent, excluded from the subordinate parts, and lies mainly in the representation taken as a whole. There EELATI0N3 OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. 63 are others again in wliicli the first representation is not wholly, or even chiefij, to be accepted literal 1}^, but which contain hieroglyphs subordinate to the main hieroglyph of the allegory. Of this kind the parable of the vine is an example. It is, b}^ the ex- planation which accompanies it, reduced to the estate of a fio'iire as it stands on the record. For the sake of illustration we shall express it in the strict form of the allegor}^ : " There is a vine and there is a hus- bandman ; and every branch in this vine that bear- etli not fruit, the husbandman taketh away ; and every branch that beareth fruit, the husbandman j)urgeth, that it may bring forth more fruit." Here there are several subordinate hieroglyphs : the vine is a hieroglypli of Christ ;^ the husbandman, of the Father ; the branches, of Christ's nominal disciples ; the fruit, of the good works which his true disciples do, &c. The hieroglyph which the allegorj-, taken as a whole, contains, may be expressed as " The union of Christ with the good members of his kingdom and the excision of the bad." To this necessarily the sub- ordinate hieroglyphs stand in the closest relationship, and the sense which they bear is in each case fixed by a reference to that of the main and leading hiero- glyph which the allegory forms as a whole. Every allegory, then, is a great hieroglyph in itself. When the allegorical element is in excess, it becomes the constructor of many subordinate hieroglyphs. It is thus apparent that as soon as we begin to allegorize, we begin to form a hieroglyphic language. In general, however, this language is created only for 5-i RELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. the occasion. Its signs have no fixed and definite senses external to the particular allegory in which they are employed. But when we come to look at the prophetic alle- gories, we find this hieroglyphical element formed into a language regularly organized. Definite sig- nifications are attached to the hieroglyphic signs by a system of interpretations rendered, which consti- tute a species of lexicon, while the whole army of signs is placed under the discipline of laws resting npon the groundwork of precedent. This is a new feature. These allegories also show the hieroglyphic ele- ment developed in a much stronger degree than in the parables. Thus the prophecies of the Image of Daniel, ch. ii., and of the Four Beasts of the same prophet, ch. vii., are intensely allegoric :. they are full of hieroglyphs, as we learn from the interpretations. This character of them is readily discernible from the violation done to the naturalness of the representa- tion. This is a feature which never takes place where the allegoric element is weak. It results from an ex- cess of the hieroglyphic element, which compromises more or less the congruity and connection of the various parts of the representation. How smoothly and naturally flow the parables, in which the allegory is not strong, and whicli are never strained to bear a second sense. How incongruous and perplexed, in comparison, is the composition of a symbolic proph- ecy. The greater part of the representation is here pregnant with enigma and a second sense. This KELATIONS OF THE SYIMBOLIC LANGUAGE. 55 feature materially enhances tlie difficulty of interpre- tation. On the other hand, the task of decipherment is facilitated, and its result confirmed, by the fixed and definite significations attached to the hieroglyphic signs. The sense of these rests on a double basis of proof. It rests first on that of interpretations render- ed, investing each sign with a definite signification ; and it rests, secondly, on the basis of that relationship which the subordinate hieroglyph necessarily bears to that great IIierogly]3h which is constituted by the allegory as a whole. Take the following example: We know from Daniel that a Beast with horns on it is the symbol of a great empire. Such a beast occurs in the Revelation, in the form of the Ten-horned Dragon, and of the Ten-horned Beast. Both of these beasts are necessarily symbols of empires. But of what empires? The unity of idea, which we have proved to be an essential principle of the allegory, answers this question. K the allegory's unity of idea is the " relationship of the fourth dominion of the world to the kingdom of God," then the Dragon and the Beast are necessarily symbols of the Boman domin- ion, for this is the fourth. The general signification of the hieroglyphic sign is thus twice proved, while its imrticidar application is fixed demonstratively by that unity of idea which is inherent in the allegory. The same argument will fix the signification of the Horsemen of the First Four Seals. The interpre- tation of the Four Chariots of Zechariah, cli. vi., which determines them to be dominions, proves the 56 RELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. correspondent symbol, the Four Cavalry-men of the Revelation, as the Horsemen may with propriety be called, to be dominions likewise. What the chariot was in war when Zechariah wrote, the cavalry-man was in war when John wrote. The symbols, if not identical, are strictly analogous. The general sense of both is in a hieroglyphic language necessarily the same. If the First Horseman represents the king- dom of God, which can hardly be disputed, then the unity of idea which prevails in the allegory neces- sitates the conclusion that the three other horsemen are symbols of E-oman dominions. The allegory's unity, accordingly, is an elucidator of no despicable or insignificant power. It is plainly an interpreter of the first rank — it may, with propriety, be called the presiding genius of interpretation. There is no instrument so powerful as this is, in unlocking the mystery of an allegory. But it is an instrument which has not yet been applied to any extent to the Revelation. Can the interpretation, then, of this book, be said to have been yet properly entered upon ? The signification of the subordinate hieroglyphs, then, in a prophetic allegory, is in each case subject- ed to the operation of a double index and check. The effect of this twofold instrument, for such it is, in at once pointing out and demonstrating, in restraining and confirming, the particular sense of an individual symbol, is self-evident. The interpreted sense must stand in agreement at once with the well-known sense of the hieroglyph, and at the same time with that which is derivative from that unity of idea which is EELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. 57 a fundamental principle and an inalienable pre- rogative of the allegory. It is indeed a prerogative of^'which the Kevelation has been deprived, but not "vvith justice. The hieroglyphic language of Scripture, then, m virtue of the 'interpretations rendered of it, and the restraining influence of the allegory in which it ap- pears, may justly be regarded as possessing, if not the precision," all, nay more, than the definiteness of literal language. In respect of its first element of strength, its in- terpreted character, it is indeed nothing more than literal language written in ciplier, and it is unqnes- tionably no less definite. It consists of literal words, the significations of which are inverted, so as to form out of these a new and independent language, as dif- ferent from literal as one spoken tongue is from another. Its signs are to be regarded in much the same light as the signs of a cypher alphabet. Snch an alphabet does not begin with the letter a, but it begins, say, for example, with the letter m, which stands for a, n standing for I, and so on. Such an alphabet contains signs quite as definite in their sig- nifications as the common one. It is an incomprehen- sible code of signs, however, to all those who are not in possession of the key to its cipher. In respect to the prophetic hieroglyphics, Scripture has furmshed ns with a suflicient key. Whatever reason we may have to accuse our own inactivity in the application which we make of it, we certainly have no reason to question, on the mere ground of the divergence of 58 RELATIONS OF THE STIMBOLIC LANGUAGE. these signs from those of literal language, their right to be held a mode of commmiication perfectly intel- ligible. This language possesses a second element of strength, in the unity of the subject expressed in it — an element peculiar to itself as a cipher language. This character of the hieroglyphic as a cipher lan- guage^ is of the highest importance : because, in virtue of this quality, it possesses all the definiteness which the signs of literal language possess ; and in virtue of it, it is another language, and requires translation. In this respect it is widely different from what is called figurative language, or what is, wdth greater propriety of expression, denominated language con- taining figures. This has no real claim to be reck- oned a language distinct from literal, although we have considered it as such on the ground of its con- sisting of ideographic signs. Let us compare, or rather contrast, the hiero- glyjMc, whicii is another language distinct from literal, with this figurative language, which is really not another language, distinct from it, but which is combined and identified with it. This practical com- bination and amalgamation of figurative with literal language, is amply proved by the circumstance of its requiring no translation. Were it in any practical sense distinct from the latter, it w^ould stand in need of interpretation, which it never does. The development of this contrast will have the most important bearing on the interpretation of the Revelation. A recent writer remarks : " When we reflect on RELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. 59 the number and talents of the men who have at- tempted to illustrate the visions of St. John, and the great discordance of opinions, it would seem as if there tnust he something radically wrong, some fatal error^ at the "cery foundation of all their systems of explanation, which is one great cause of the mistakes and confusion that appear to pervade them all. What this is, deserves to he maturely considered^ It can hardljbe questioned that snch a fatal error exists. Now it appears to ns that this fatal error, which must lie at the foundation of all systems of in- terpretation hitherto pursued, mainly is the attempt to explain the book on the basis of figurative lan- guage. In a few subsequent remarks we shall call attention to the positive absurdity involved in such an attempt. In the mean time let us notice the nega- tive disadvantages of pursuing such a course. The interpretation is deprived by it of the following ele- ments of exp>lication, which are unfolded in the sym- bolic language of Scripture, but of which there is not a trace in its figurative language : l^ii^. Unity of idea in the composition. 2cZ. The origination of the subject from a common source. ?>d. Eeduplication or doubling of the revelation made. ^tli. Structure of the representation in the quater- nal form. These four instruments of explication are clearly derivative from hieroglyphic Scripture, as will be shown afterwards, but not one of them has yet been 60 RELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. applied, so far as we know, to the book of E-evelation. Why ? because they have no existence in the figura- tive prophets. They are developed, however, by the symbolic prophets. Unfortunately, no right distinc- tion has been drawn between these two very different species of prophets, and the Hevelation, which be- longs to the latter class, has never yet had the true principles of symbolic writing applied to it. IS'ow, if the four principles above mentioned are fundamen- tal to the art of symbolical writing, which will be shown, they certainly are followed by John, and the application of them is certainly requisite to the inter- pretation of his book. But when we examine these principles more nar- rowly, we find them to be of such magnitude, that the want of them may fairly be characterized as that fatal error in interpretation of which the above writer speaks. If the principles are important, and if they have not been applied, it is very evident that a fatal error, or, at least, a fatal omission, has been committed ; and an omission here is equivalent to an error, since it leads to error. How important are these principles? The first two express unity of conception in the subject and its composition ; here is one great source of light, which sends its beams from first to last of the composition. The influence of the third principle is scarcely in- ferior ; this subject, which is one^ is ticice unfolded. Have we failed to see its unity of idea, that main key, in the first development ? it may be apprehended in the second. Have we missed it in the second ? it may EELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. 61 be discovered in the first. Have we seen it in both versions ? the result is confirmed and demonstrated by the reduplication. Are we perplexed by some insol- uble detail in the first version ? the corresponding part of the second copy may resolve the difliculty. As we proceed in our exposition we are, through it, at all times accompanied at once by a guide and a corrector. Will any one dispute that the douhle ver- sion is a powerful principle of interpretation ? yet it has not yet been applied to the Kevelation. Why ? •without doubt chiefly because this book has been con- ceived to be written in figurative language, and figura- tive language contains no such principle. The fourth is also one of great value. However long and intri- cate the composition may be, it puts into our hands an efiicient clue to its plan and design. The subject which is marked witli unity will, according to it, exhibit a fourfold division, and the actors in the ])lot developed will be four in number. However multi- farious the representations may be, there is here a principle of order and arrangement second alone to that which is furnished by the double vei'sion. Neither has this principle been applied to the Reve- lation. On what ground ? Unquestionably on the same which has been already stated. The quaternal form of representation is a principle of symbolic and not at all of figurative writing. But the principles of the latter have been applied to the Revelation, which belong to the former. Is there not here an error of such a magnitude as to be fatal to any inter- pretation of the book which is subjected to it? 62 RELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. Let ns closelj scan tins symbolic or allegoric lan- guage, which is so essentially different from figura- tive. "When we speak of allegoric language we mean that w^hich the allegory naturally forms under the governing and plastic power of that great principle of unity of idea which is the central principle of the allegory itself; the parables have no other than this allegoric language, thus simply formed to sustain their meaning. When w^e speak of symbolical or hiero- glyphic language, we mean this same language reduced to an organized system through the interpretations rendered of it in Scripture, and employed in this or- ganized form as the vehicle of prophecy. This lan- guage has two expository principles. 1st. The allegory, with unity of idea characteriz- ing it, and 2cl. The definite significations of the hieroglyphs as fixed in Scripture. These two principles must act in unison and lend mutual aid in fixing the sense of each hieroglj^ph. A symbol and a hieroglyph we regard as the same. The allegory itself, expressing unity of idea, may thus be regarded as one great hieroglyph, containing subordi- nate hieroglyphs under it. These bear independent badges of authority, but they acknowledge the su- preme power of the allegorj^'s unity of idea. Sucli w^e believe to be the organization of the j)rophetic symbolic language, and it has every claim to be re- garded a more perfect organization than ever came from the hand of man. E"othing can surpass it^ in KELATIOXS OF THE SY^klBOLIC LANGUAGE. 63 affixing not only a definite, but a demonstrative signi- fication to the sign. But what is that wliicli is called figurative or metaplioric language ? The difi'erence between this and the above lies in that which holds between alle- gory and figure. This is a very obvious conclusion, since the former language is the medium of an alle- gory, and the latter is the medium of a figure. It is only necessary, then, in order to distinguish betw^een these two 'media of conwiunication^ which we have denominated by the name of languages for the want of a better term, to observe the difference between allegory and figure. AYhat is the difference ? We have already ascertained it. It has been seen that the former is a close or shut ideographic sign reserv- ing, hiding, and concealing the second sense. The latter is an open ideographic sign, developing the second as well as the first sense, explaining itself, concealing nothing, and, in this respect, not diflering at all from any of the signs of literal language, since there is, in every case, a reduction to the literal sense. It is in virtue of this quality of secrecy which it pos- sesses, tliat the symbolic is another language which re- quires a translation into the literal idiom; it is in virtue of this quality of ojyenness, that the figurative is not another language, and it requires no translation. In the former an inversion is made of ordinary words and phrases, so as to form out of these a new and secret language — secret because the inverted words express but the one-half of their true meaning ; in the latter an inversion is also made — the first half of 64: EELATIONS OF THE STI^IBOLIC LANGUAGE. the sign is developed, wliich makes tlie inversion ; but a re-inversion is also made — the second half of tlie sign is developed, which undoes the inversion. The inversion is thus practically disannulled, and the result is that no new language is formed differing from the literal. If the re-inversion, that is, the ex- planation, is not fully made, the figurative language is bad. The symbolic or hieroglyphic, then, is an occult language demanding interpretation ; figurative is al- ready interpreted, is clear and at once intelligible. The one is a language within itself, as difi'erent from literal lano^uao^e as Hebrew is from Greek. It con- tains in it words bearing an ideographic sense, which is dilferent from the literal, and this real sense is not developed in it ; at least, it is neither the princij^le nor is it the practice of tlie language to afford this development. Figurative language consists of words bearing also an ideograpliic sense distinct from the literal, but the figurative words are, in all cases, translated from their literal to their real sense by the context. They are to be regarded as quotations from another language, the translation of which is ap- pended. The one, then, is an oj?e}i language, the other is a shut. The two languages, then, are, in this respect, wide as the poles asunder, for it is the purpose of the one to express the true meaning, and it is the design of the other to conceal it. If a hieroglyph is not dark, that is, if it tells all its meaning, it is no hiero- glyph ; if a figure is not clear, that is, if it does not tell all its meaning, it is unfaithful to its own nature RELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. 65 and constitution. From this distinction there results a wide diiierence between the constitution of hiero- glyphs and figures, viewed as signs. Figures or metaphors cannot, like hieroglyphs, be regarcfcd as of the nature of fixed signs at all ; they are created for a particular occasion, and they evanish with it ; their significations are necessarily shifting and various' and dependent on the context. Hieroglyphic signs form an independent language, and in virtue of tlfeir doing this, they necessarily bear fixed significa- tions. They are also amenable to those laws founded in the character of the mind itself, to which every human language, that stands on an independent basis, must be subjected. They accordingly have theircode of laws bv which they are governed ; figures are not amenable\o any laws, not even to the fundamental one of ^tnity of idea, which the figure may violate without, at least, any peril to its existence, although the violation will always mar its beauty. ^ There is only one condition which this sign must fulfil ; it must be 'at once intelligiUe ; but this is the very condition which the hieroglyph must avoid. It is perfectly obvious from what has been said, that the signification of a figure or metaphor, (for these words are synonymous,) cannot be taken in any safe or reliable sense as the exponent of a hieroglyph or a symbol, which may also be used synonymously. It is very true that the significations of both do fre- quently accord— an accordance which is sufficient- ly natural, inasmuch as they are both ideographic siijns, the basis of which is the natural resemblances 66 RELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. of things. On the ground of tliis general agreement, a probable conclusion may be drawn from tli-e known sense of a figure to the unknown sense of a hieroglyph. On the other hand, the sense is not unfrequently at variance, while in all cases the signification of the figure is, as above said, indefinite, and subject to tlie context. There is always an important latitude at- tachable to its sense. It is not a sign bearing a fixed and stereotj'ped signification ; it is simply a picture drawn for the purpose of illustrating the subject in hand, and, as a sign, has no real validity beyond this. But when the sense of a prophetic hieroglyph or symbol is known through an ex]3ress interpretation rendered in Scripture, there is a positive certainty that the same sense will attach to it wherever it ap- pears ; at least, there is as great a certainty to this efi'ect, as that the sense of a word, in common lan- guage, will remain unchanged. The symbolic is, as it has been seen, a language distinct within itself, con- structed by the inversion of the w^ords of ordinary speech ; being a distinct and independent language, its signs ai-e necessai-ily unchangeable, and that law, which is fundamental to every language, prevails in it, that the same sign bears the same signification. The figurative is not, in any sense, such a language ; there is not the slightest necessity, accordingly, that its signs should bear unchangeable significations. The distinction above drawn is a highly important one, for it sweeps away, at once, the whole of figura- tive language as a basis of interpretation for the sym- bolic. The two are essentially different, and, accord- RELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. 67 ingl}^, the one can be no proper exponent of tlie other. It is perfectly obvious, then, from what has been said, that the interpretations rendered in Scripture, and the known senses attached to the hierogl^^phics by the prophets who employ them, as signs of that distinct and independent language which they con- stitute, can alone form the groundwork of a valid in- terpretation of the Eevelation. This book is written in hieroglyphic, and not in figurative language, as the structure and materials of the whole composition show, and as the interpretation in ch. xvii. conclu- sively proves. If written in figurative language, it cannot be considered as any thing else than an incom- prehensible rhapsody and a farrago of imagery, very ill-assorted. It is impossible to regard it in any other light but this. Such it has long been held by infidels to be. Alas ! that Christians should have labored with untiring efiorts, to prove that it was nothing better, and to bring its interpretation into the merited contempt of all men of sound understanding. But could any other result follow from the course which has been pursued ? This course develops the very same absurdity as would be incurred in the attempt, could the attempt be conceived to be made, to inter- pret a Greek book by the aid of a Hebrew lexicon. The Kevelation is written in hieroglyphic language, and its interpretation is striven to be accomplished by figurative and even literal language. The result is only that which might naturally have been ex- pected — the interpretations are legion in number, and 68 RELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. thej are worthless in value. The ]3rophecy itself is thus placed in the unfortunate condition of a book which is not written in any. language : for the lan- guage in which it actually is written has been dis- solved in the menstruum of another, and is, therefore, totally annihilated. It is fortunate that there are some who have not carried out this mode of interpre- tation to its fall extent, that through them a cor- rective has been partially administered, and some grains of truth have been saved from destruction. It is not saying too much, to affirm, that the sense of the Kevelation would have been at the present day infinitely more clear, if not a single citation had been made from figurative Scripture. Had interpreters confined themselves to the strictly hieroglyphic writ- ings of the Bible in their endeavors to elucidate it, Ave might still have seen a variety of application in regard to details, but we should have seen but one main and general sense. Even the applications them- selves, had this course been followed, would have been necessarily limited within a comparatively small compass. Commentators on this book may be divided into two great classes. The first consists of those w4io apply the prophecy to real events in the world's his- tory, extending over a long period of time. These accept, as the foundation-stone of their system of in- terpretation, the hieroglyphic basis that a day stands for a year. This is the pole-star of their interpreta- tion. At the head of this School stands Joseph Mede, who may be looked upon as the first and great EELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. 69 apostle of tlie hieroglyphic mode of interpretation. He has been succeeded by a long list of learned and, for the most part, judicious followers, who, it may with certainty be affirmed, have alone thrown any real light on the meaning of the book. These are sometimes called historizers^ because they apply the prophecy to historical events. The second class are those who either spiritualize it, or who apply it to events occurring within a short space of time ; both of these latter parties equally rejecting the hiero- glyphic basis of a day for a year and all hieroglyphic basis of interpretation w^hatever, and assuming the figurative and also the literal language of Scripture as their chief guides in exposition. It is only neces- sary to refer to the works of these last to recognize the total inadmissibility of their principles, if they can be called such. Their works form the most in- comprehensible medley, which perhaps the world has ever witnessed, no single commentator agreeing with another in any essential point. This sacred prophecy hovers in their hands between inanity on the one hand and absurdity on the other. Mr. Moses Stuart, a man of a most accomplished and acute intellect, has rendered an interpretation, giving to the book a meaning so jejune and absurd that, were it true, of which there is no proof except that which lies in the fact that it is Mr. Stuart's conception of it, would furnish evidence sufficient to exclude the Apoc- alypse from the canon of inspiration altogether. He regards the author much more as a poet^ as he calls him, than as 2^ projphet ; he views him much more in 70 RELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. the liglit of a maJcer than a messenger^ and if we take Mr. Stuart's word for it, his poetry is sublime and his prophecy is ridiculous. Mr. Hengstenberg's interpreta- tion steers clear of the absurdities which overload Mr. Stuart's, but he, on the other hand, subjects the book to a still, which effectuaHy evaporates meaning from it altosrether. The metaphoric flowers are distilled and an essence is formed from them having none of the invigorating qualities of the " water of life." Mr. Lee subjects the metaphorical imagery, as it is as- sumed to be, likewise to a powerful alembic, and makes it a sort of lohite steam^ which hangs over the destruction of Jerusalem. It must be acknowledged, however, that this school, for the most part, make the book rather than absurd, inane and em/pty^ which is equally disastrous to its claims to be held a work of divine revelation. How indeed can a book have any other character, which is supposed to be written al- most wholly in figurative language ? It is, in their hands, like the tree which is full of leaves and has no fruit. But it is often said, and said with some plausi- bility, the first class of interpreters who accept the hieroglyj^hic basis, and who find the antitypes of the symbols in the facts of history, afibrd such various interpretations of the book as to cast a strong sus- picion on the soundness of the foundation on which they erect superstructures so transient, so many and so various in design, as those whicli they exhibit. This observation has an apparent truth ; nevertheless, in the great outlines of interpretation they are uni- RELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGrAGE. 71 versally agreed. This accordance speaks well for tlieir principles. But whence, it may still be insisted on, comes the variety? In the true interpretation there can exist no variety at all, and. the existence of this feature is an evidence that their interpretation is not true. Is ow to this objection an answer may readily be returned ; two causes have been in opera- tion sufficient to account for it. These are, first, that figurative language has been admitted in conjunction with the hieroglyphic as a basis of interpretation. The hieroglyphic must be made the sole basis ; the conjunction of the figurative with it compromises its virtue. The second is, that the hieroglyphic element has not been sufficiently wrought so as to make out the TderoglypJdc jplan and design of the work. Here is the grand cause of variety of interpretation. It is alone when the unity of idea which pervades the allegory is apprehended, that one interpretation can be put upon it. It is this unity of idea which stamps each separate symbol with a fixed and demonstrative sense, and prevents the possibility of its being divert- ed from it. This unity has hardly been sought for ; has certainly not been found — hence variety of inter- pretation. The diijplication of the allegory is another principle which the hieroglyphic element yields up, and which has not yet been used in interpretation. It is only second to the above in restraining variety of interpretation and affixing one demonstrative sense to the prophecy. The prophetic allegory, according to a fundamental law of its constitution, which will be pointed out, is one in subject and twofold in repre- 72 RELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. sentation. The two yersions are therefore indices and correctives of each other. These important prin- ciples having been unapplied, it cannot be said with justice that the hieroglyphic basis has as yet been properly laid. Unquestionably, then, the great pest of a right in- terpretation of the Kevelation, has hitherto been the non-recognition of the essential difference between symbol and figure^ and the ajDplication to it of figu- rative language as an exponent of its meaning. This is an evil influence under which all interpreters of the book have more or less labored. This has been disastrous in two respects. It has first of all loosened the fixed senses of the symbols, by bringing the signs of another language to expound them. This is a serious evil. It is an evil which involves a principle of interpretation as absurd as it is ruinous. Who would think of turning up a German Lexicon to ascertain the sense of a Greek word ? The natural relationship of languages might lend some small aid to the investigator who took this strange route, but undoubtedly the German Lexicon would afford an insecure basis for the sense of the Greek term. Why, then, has recourse been had to a process so unsatisfactory in the intepretation of the Eevelation ? Such a mode being followed, is it at all wonderful that interpretation has failed ? The symbolic language is certainly as different from literal as Greek is from German, and there is at least as wide a difference between figurative and the sym- bolic, as there is between one dialect of a spoken EELATIONS OF THE SYI^rBOLIG LANGUAGE. 73 tongue than another. Surely no one will deny that tliere does exist a fundamental distinction between figure and allegory ; that though they are both ideo- graphic signs, they are essentially different ; that the one is an ojyen and the other is a shut sign ; that the language constituted by the one class of signs pos- sesses no organization, as a language, distinct from literal, and that that which the other forms has such an organization. A figure, then, has nothing whatever to do in fixing the sense of a sign in another lan- guage. As long as such a course is pursued, it may with certainty be afi&rmed, that there never will be any sound interpretation of the Revelation rendered. The figurative writings of Scripture must be resigned as a basis of interpretation altogether. In a subordi- nate capacity they may be employed, just as the literal parts of Scripture may be used, since the Bible is all the effluence of one Divine Mind, and is per- vaded by one design. But as a preliminary, and pre- dominant to any application of these, the grand out- lines of the sense must be fixed by hieroglyphic laws and the senses of the symbols. When figurative lan- guage appears as the exponent of an allegory, and appears w4th authority, it comes only with the sword of the invader and the claim of the usurper. Its sceptre is the symbol of universal anarchy. It can only lend any real aid to the interpretation as an auxiliary entirely subordinate — as a servant, and not as a master ; it may always be cited in evidence as a confirmatory witness of the true sense, but it can 4 Y4: EELATIONS OF THE SY:ME0LIC LANGUAGE. never be a|)pealed to as a judge. Its testimony is valuable when it is in unison with that of the liiero- glyphic sense. It is an ideographic sign ; as such it has something germane in it to the nature of the allegory. But its signification is so little fixed and definite, on the contrary, so shifting and various, that as a basis of interpretation, it must be in the last de- gree treacherous. A well-chosen and well-shapen met- aphor is at all times a sign beautiful, impressive, and forcible ; none will dispute its significance and value ; but it is a sign purely ephemeral ; its existence ter- minates with the occasion for which it has been used. It is clear and even brilliant in the context in which it stands, fresh and glistering like 'the tree-leaf wet with dew and quivering in the sun and breeze. When extracted from the context and when it is made the exponent of a hieroglyph, it is like the same leaf plucked from the parent stem — it is a dead and %cithered thing. Its analysis may throw some light on the genus of the hieroglyph, but none whatever on its individuality. But a second evil, perhaps a greater, has resulted from the course which has been followed. By pros- ecuting figurative language, the attention of inter- preters has been diverted from that field of inquiry — hieroglyphic or symbolic composition — where alone satisfactory results are to be reaped. The laws of this species of writing have not been studied. Commen- tators, pursuing figures and metaphors, through all the thousand resemblances which they disclose, with events supposed to be foreshadowed — metaphors ne- RELATIONS OF THE ST:M330LIC LANGUAGE. 75 cessarily liglit in substance and at the mercy of every Avind, have spent tlieir breath in vain. They have followed phantoms and obtained no result ; we mean no result from this pursuit ; but an evil more to be deplored than this merely idle sport, or, to give it a less opprobrious and a more dignified name, this sacred game ; they have neglected that really valuable standing corn and grain which waits only the sickle to be thrust into it to be reaped, and which, now that the prophecy is fulfilled, is ripe for the harvest. Their labors, by having been misdirected, have been wasted and frittered away. The prophecy itself has been undervalued, and \hQ good which it is calculated to yield has not been obtained. Its interpretation has been reduced to a species of contempt, bordering on a bye- word and a proverb, and there are some who are even audacious enough to affirm, that the work of the Divine Mind is deficient in intelligence. Why is this ? We have already pointed out causes suffi- cient to account for the failure of its interpretation. •The hieroglyphic language which conveys the proph- ecy, its laws and its signs have not been studied, nor in the interpretation has it been exclusively had re- course to. It has been mixed with foreign elements which tend to neutralize its power. Here, in this hie- roglyphic language, in its laws and government, there is alone the mine wdiich contains the golden ore of prophetic truth in this case. This mine has still to be worked, for the earth has hardly been scraped from oflf it. Here is to be found the metal in which the everlasting types of the Eevelation are cast. The 76 EELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. revelations of this book are not conveyed in flowery figure or fragile metaj)lior, the very profusion and splendor of which, as they fill its pages, did its language consist of these and not something better, w^ould conclusively prove the vanity and emptiness of its contents. Its prophetic communications are made in signs of a very difi'erent nature — signs that are mystic but fraught with a deep intelligence, that are dark but which centuries make more clear. Its communications are written with '' a pen of iron and with lead in the rock for ever." It is necessary to study this iro7i writing^ to know its cryptogrammic, its apparently uncouth but yet beautifully distinct, its mystic but yet definite signs, forming that won- drous vehicle of divine prophecy which conceals and discloses its meaning ; which hides it now but reveals it wdien the suns of centuries have rolled away, and the things which it foretold have been finished. Yerily this is no metaplioric tongue which is suit- able for present use. This is the deep-mouthed tongue of future ages — it speaks to-day but it is heard to-inorvow — its articulations roll over centuries, and these echo them back — it is mystic, profound, sublime — it is difi'erent from all other tongues. It is the tongue of Symbolic Prophecy, that messenger of the divinity^ that shoots ahead of Time with her roll closed, returns, and flies alongside of him with her roll extended. Mr. Stuart's basis of interpretation may be learned from the following passage which occurs in the preface to his Commentary. KELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. T7 He says : " I take it for granted, that the writer had a present and iminediate object in view when he wrote the book ; and, of course, I must regard him as having spoken intelHgibly to those whom he addressed." To the 'postulate^ contained in this astounding statement, Mr. Stuart makes frequent appeal in the course of his Commentary, and grounds his main argument upon it. Yet Mr. Stuart's prin- ciple of interpretation is a milch greater mystery than the book it assumes to interpret. For here is a book addressed to seven populous churches, which was quite intelligible to them, but the meaning of which was buried in their graves. The writers in the first ages of Christianity, not only knew nothing of the meaning, but they were not even aware of the fact, that it had ever been intelhgible. Irenseus, who enjoyed the friendship of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the prophet himself, not only had no trace of this meaning, but he had never heard that it had been once in- telligible. He, and all who write upon it ia the early ages of Christianity, evidently regard it as having ever been a most mys- terious book. Yet, according to Mr. Stuart, its meaning was well known to the seven churches of Asia. Here is a mystery which, were it a fact, might rank among the most extraordinary of mira- cles. The seven churches must have had a power of secrecy such as never was possessed before or since their time. But why were they bound to this secrecy, for they must be conceived as having been bound to it, and admitting that they kept the secret with the inviolability due to an oath, how is it to be accounted for, that the fact itself of their being in possession of it, did not ooze out to the other churches, and thus trickle down the stream of time ? These are mysteries which form the Ijasis of Mr. Stuart's interpre- tation, and they are mysteries much more inexplicable than any which the book contains. It contains, let it be admitted, myste- rious signs^ but here is a mysterious fact^ or at least a supposed fact, made, too, a basis of interpretation, of which fact the mys- tery is so intense, that its existence may be fairly questioned. Of course Mr. Stuart's interpretation, which rests upon this assumed fact, falls with, it. His commentary is nevertheless valuable for 78 RELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. the great learning and acute discrimination, within a certain ra- dius, which it displays. He makes no distinction between sym- bolic and figurative language, except in regard to style. On this subject he has the following remarks : '•' Among all the earlier prophetic annunciations respecting the future kingdom of heaven, however, none are to be found where symbol is employed in the manner in which Ezekiel, Daniel, Zech- ariah, and the author of the Apocalypse employ it. Figurative language is, indeed, everywhere employed. From the very nature of the case, this was absolutely necessary ; for how could an at- tractive picture of things in the distant future be drawn, without borrowing the costume of the age in which the prophetic author wrote ? How could he form a picture both animated and strik- ing, unless he addressed the imagination and fancy through the medium of imagery or tropical language ? The 2d Psalm, the 45th Psalm, and most of the predictions in Isaiah, are notable examples of what I here mean to designate. No part of the Scrip- tures is more full of trope and imagery than these Messianic com- positions ; none requires more rhetorical discrimination and taste, in order to make a correct interpretation. '• But with all this abundance of metaphor and animated im- agery, how diiiferent still is the manner of these predictions, from the general tenor of those contained in the book of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah ! I do not now speak merely of the Mes- sianic predictions in these books, but of the general manner of the entire compositions of these prophets. From the time of the cap- tivity downwards, the taste of the Hebrew writers in general seems to have undergone a great change. I know of nothing more dissimilar in respect to style and method, than Isaiah, for example, on the one side, and Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, Ilaggai, and Malachi, on the other. Jeremiah is an example of a kind of intermediate tone between the two. But he was educated in Palestine, and spent most of his life there. His style exhibits some points of surpassing excellence, in regard to which he has not been outdone by any writer, perhaps never equalled. But his writings afford us only a few examples of the symbolic method of KELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. 79 representation; such as those of the linen g,rdlc, eh- xn.., he Ztcr and his barred work, ch. xviii. ; the potter's earthen bottle ch Kix ; the two baskets of figs, ch. xxiv. ; and the bond^ and yoke pu on his neck, ch. xxvii. In Isaiah, I find but a smgle m- ttce o a similar nature ; (unless indeed .-e add to th.s the rep- "n ation in eh. viii.) This is in ch. xx., ^here the prophet . commanded "to ^alk naked and barefoot for the space of three 3" I do not understand this, however, as any thmg more than an emUcmatic picture exhibited indeed in language, but not My n-ied through in action. Still, in its nature U.s sym- bo ic In the sa,ne manner I understand the symbohc transac- tion exhibited in Hosea i. ii. Amos has one example of symbol also in chap, viii-, viz., a basket of summer frmt. "rettheread;r pass now from an attentive exammat.on of the^e early prophets, to the careful perusal of those who wrote durin ' nd aft'er the Babylonish exile. Ezekiel from begmmng to end, is almost an unbroken series of symbohcal representation. Hi! poaching or prophesying stands, in almost every case, con- nected intimately with representations of such a nature " The book of Daniel is, if we except a little of .t which is oc cupied with historic narrative, nothing Ut .y,nlol from begmn ng to end. Dreams, visions, sensible representations, m which that : acted out, in 'view of the prophet which he is to recor'i - a prediction, constitute the whole of his prophecies. In these re speets he is the exemplar of the Apocalypse, whose author al- lugh indeed no imitator in a servile sense of any other wr^e would seem still to have given a decided preference to Daniel s method of representation above that of other prophets. "The book of Zechariah, again, is one continuous strain of symbols, until we reach ch. vii. ; this, with ch. viii., resembles very much the manner of Haggai and Malachi, his contemporaries "Here then are plain and palpable /««te before us. A great change took place in the prophetic style and method, from ami after the date of the Jewish captivity. Jeremiah presents th » matter to us, in its transition-state; which is what we might naturally expect. Ezekiel, who is carried into a foreign country 80 RELATIONS OF THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE. when young, fully adopts the method of the prophets during and after the exile. The taste for this mode of writing, introduced by such men as Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah, seems to have been widely diffused among the Jews everywhere, and to have come down, with augmented sway, to the apostolic age and the times which immediately succeeded it." These observations, and some others of a similar kind, by no means exhaust the subject, and give a view of prophecy which is scarcely compatible with any rational conception of its inspi- ration. CHAPTEK YI. DEFIXITEXES3 OF THE SEXSE OF THE PEOPHETIC ALLEGOKY. OuK object lias been hitherto to show that the hieroglyphic language in whicli the Ee^'ehition is couched is a distinct language ; is a language within itself; can only be interpreted by itself, and that nothing but confusion can arise from explications draAvn from that which is another and a different language. It has been our object to contrast it with figura- tive language, and to show that while this is clear^ it is clarlt. To exhibit this essentially dark quality of it may be thought to have been a supererogatory task, since the Kevelation which is composed in it is still obscure, after the lapse of eighteen centuries. But what is the main reason of this ? '^hy? that the at- tempt, which must be vain, has been made to illumi- nate it by submitting it to the effects of a clear lan- guage, whicli is, however, another; the result has been, that its darkness has been rendered more intense, and made more profound. It is possible to strike sparks of fire by bringing two hard bodies into con- tact ; but the eflect will hardly be produced if the ex- 4* 82 DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGOEY. periment be tried between a bard and a soft body. It is as rational to expect tbat a clear language will explicate a dark. This cryptogrammic language then ought to be its own interpreter. By assiduous labor it may be made to yield sparks of fire, and it cajanot be questioned that the light which has as yet emanated from the hieroglyphic language has arisen from scin- tillations struck from itself. But this language, though at first dark, contains within itself the elements of light ; it is designed after- wards to he clear ^ and for this object it is constructed with precision and armed with definiteness. We have already considered two 23rinciples wdiich tend to give it this definite power. The first of these is the unity of the allegory. We have also alluded already to two other most important features of the prophetic allegory, as it is developed in Scripture, which tend in no small degree to extract the real sense from the obscurity of enigma, and to confirm it with demonstrative power when it is eliminated. These are, on the one hand, tlie du- plication of the allegory, and, on the other, that nota- ble feature of it which consists in its structure with four subjects in it^ forming nevertheless a unity in the group. The first of these, the double version, has the same effect in clearing and confirming the sense, which two copies, in different tongues, of one and the same document expressed in literal language necessarily exert on the interpretation of the sense, however dark and obscure, however involved and perplexed the phraseology of either tongue may be. DEFmiTENESS OF THE ALLEGOEY. 83 It is obvious that tlie comparison instituted between the two copies of the document, necessarily possesses a signal effect in explicating the meaning. The other principle, that of the quaternal structure of the allegory, has the virtue of arranging and simplifying the materials of it and reducing these to order, sym- metry and system. In a long allegory, such as the Kevelation, it is evident that it is a principle in the highest degree efficacious to this end and to the expli- cation of the sense. These four grand principles of explication, which the prophetic allegory as developed in Scripture con- tains within itself, may justly be held sufficient to •solve its enigma, however obstinate this may be, and to invest the meaning which the solution gives with demonstrative power. The very obstinacy and diffi- culty of interpretation become thus the guarantee of the true meaning. Literal prophecy is easily under- stood, when the words in which it is expressed are un- derstood, for this possesses no demonstrative power. Symbolic i)i'opliecy is difficult of interpretation for the very reason that it possesses a demonstrative power which approaches the mathematical. Its sense is enclosed and fortified by a fourfold wall, which re- quires to be stormed ere the town which they enclose can be taken. But the town which these walls fortify is a valuable stronghold of the truth which is at pres- ent in the hands of the enemy, and which must be taken. . Prophecy delivered in literal language is ex- tremely precise. Prophecy delivered in figurative 84: DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. language is also precise in its announcements, pro- vided the line of demarcation be truly drawn between what is really figurative and what is literal. Pro- phecy delivered in symbol, while it is much more general in its announcements than that which is ex- pressed in literal language, has a sense more fixed and definite. A prophetic allegory is a scientific structure ; the parallelisms between the imagery and the events it predicts, especially if it be long and complex, may be reduced to a species of mathemati- cal demonstration. While it is incapable of yielding the minuteness and precision, it may thus be justly held to render a sense more fixed, definite, than even literal language. This is incapable of any kind of demonstrative proof. It rests on the mere usus lo- quendi^ which is always liable to change ; and thus its sense may undergo a revolution by the corruption of a word or by the faulty transcription of a single letter. Prophetic allegory on the other hand, is inde- pendent of any such contingencies ; and when once written it may be regarded as imperishable. The mutation of a letter, or even of a word, cannot se- riously afi'ect it; because it is written not in mere words, but in the living characters of idea and of thought^ which are eternal. It lives then equally through the fall of empires and of tongues, and it is after the lapse of thousands of ages, as long indeed as the objects which are its signs and the intellect itself endure, capable of the same mathematical de- monstration as on the day when its sense was proved by its fulfilment. Its sense is inherent in it, although DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. 85 it may have been TTnkno^Yn to the prophet himself who penned it, and although the ages that imme- diately followed him may not have discovered it. It is destined one day to spring forth like the morning light from the night of darkness, in which it has en- veloped itself, and to shine with the lustre of the full- orbed day — at a time when no suspicion can be cast on the purity of its testimony. It waits wi'h pa- tience till this moment has arrived ; it appears in its robe of light, when the events which it foretold have rolled away into the past, and it proclaims with a living voice, '' I predicted these ; read the revelation which I made, it is clear and intelligible." Every sound understanding must admit that it is this ; while the tongue of the infidel is forever sealed in silence, who would reply, " these predictions produced them- selves, and they wrought out their own accomplish- ment." This they could not have done, for they have not been understood. Its disguise is thus as wise as its revelations are miraculous. It is in virtue of its concealed definiteness alone that symbolic prophecy becomes, when it ceases to be a prophet, an everlast- ing and ^miinpeachahle witness^ the truth of whose testimony the metaphysical power of no Hume may impugn, nor the wit of any Voltaire strike, and which time cannot sensibly impair. And this testimony, which enshrines a miracle within it — a miracle that is endowed with a youngness liable neither to taint nor to age, is delivered in a universal language, which is elevated above the strife and the vicissitudes of human tongues, for its signs are not words but ideas^ 86 DEFESriTENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. adapted to all times and suitable for all nations, whether these be garnished with the spoils of intel- lect and civilization, or whether they be merely scrap- ing a scant existence on the outskirts of the world. These features of allegorical composition fill the mind with high cnnceptions at once of the intrinsic worth and the sublimity of it. At the same time they attest the wisdom of that 'divine mind that selected this imperishable vehicle to convey to humanity at once the undying lessons of a pure and holy morality, cal- culated to guide it for ever on the way of truth, and the roll of prophecy, which supplies these with the miimpeachable warrant of insj)iration. While the demonstrative power which symbolic composition possesses, yields definiteness and fixity to tlie sense, the organized language which it possesses gives it, to a great extent, ^:>r^m2(9?i. The formation of its hieroglyphic signs into a regularly organized language, supplies it to a great extent with that quality of precision which the signs of literal language pos- sess. The signs which it has, form, in truth, nothing less than a literal language in ci]?he7\ At the same time the signs being in their nature ideographic, and in consequence germane to the allegory itself, are capable of combining and assimilating with it to an extent that gives it a surprising j^liancy and flexibility. An allegory, the signs of which derive their whole significance from itself, is caj^able of delivering moral and 8j)iritual lessons w^ith suflicient exactitude of ex- pression. But such an allegory, it is plain, could only convey an impression oi facts ^ general in the highest DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. 87 degree. An allegory, however, wliicli is composed in signs regularly organized and disciplined into a language, possesses a tenfold precision and definite- ness. The hieroglyphical material is by this expedient rendered soft and pliant, and capable of affording an impression of bare facts. It can make revelations of future events with comparative distinctness. An element of literality is superadded to it, for each of these signs has a sense absolutely definite as much as a word in language literally taken. The basis on which their signification rests is not analogy, but identity. They do not represent certain things be- cause they are like these, (although tlie analogy may be held as the foundation of the sense,) but because it is OjTlntrarily fixed that they should represent them. Thus a "beast," a " mountain," "a wind," the "sun," just as much stand for a dominion as the words in literal language "kingdom," "dominion," "state," or " empire." If any one doubts this let him consult the interpretations of the prophets which constitute a lexicon of these hieroglyphics. He wall find the value of every principal sign recorded there with pre- cision, while from the principal signs the sense of the subordinate *Is naturally and necessarily to be de- duced. The main object accomplished by this or- ganization of the hieroglyphics into a language is, that the prophecy which is couched in them has increased definiteness as well as increased precision. It still wants the concise and close exactitude of literal lan- guage, its laconic brevity and searching precision. In place of these, however, it has in a higher degree 88 DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGOET. another quality wliicli is even more valuable. It has a certainty of sense superior to that which the other possesses. The certainty of a symbolic prophecy is the result not alone of precedent and established custom, which are good guarantees in all cases of the meaning, and on which the intimations of literal lan- guage rest w^ith perfect security : it has this guaran- tee, also, but it is not its chief one. The basis of its certainty is, that sure rock of demonstrative reasoning wdiich mathematical truth selects as the foundation on which she builds those impregnable problems of hers that can afford equally to laugh at scej)ticism and to contemn sophistry. It is on this rock, too, that symbolic prophecy builds her revelations which, although problematic, are true. The fact that a mathematical problem is dark and incomprehensible, throws not the slightest imputation on its truth and certainty. The Principia of Newton are dark in the estimation of most minds, because they are not understood ; yet they contain truths that are certain. The Revelation then may be dark and yet its meaning may be certain ; and it must be this, else it contained not a Divine revelation. Does it, then, like the Principia of the phildfeopher, take a master mind to fathom it, and is it to such alone clear, and its sense to such alone certain ? By no means ; it has doubtless been designed by its Divine and beneficent author for the poor as well as the rich in mental wealth, for the child as well as the man in wisdom. Nay, its essentially pictorial character shows its final destiny to be that of extreme simplicity DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. 89 and perspicuoiisness. Its darkness hitherto, arises not at all from any inherent incapacity of the human mind to understand it, but simply from the fact that the certainty and clearness of its sense have been de- pendent on causes not in operation ; its certainty and clearness, arise from causes which it has taken cen- turies to evolve and bring into action. Such are the principles of its interpretation, which for centuries have not been discovered, the plan of its structui-e, which has not been known, and above all, the fulfil- ment of its predictions ; the fact that its realities were unknown, has above all invested it with ob- scurity. The causes, then, which ultimately yield to it certainty of sense and perspicuousness of expression subserve, by their hitherto non-action, the design^ of God who evidently framed it by his Spirit, to be first a darlc, and afterwards a dear revelation. Herem is the Divine wisdom magnified, who has constructed a revelation designed to proclaim to all time the agency, but not to obstruct the course of his provi- dence. This power of demonstrating its own meaning, which an allegoric prophecy contains within itself, arises from the combination of the three following elements in it ; 1st. The known general senses of its hieroglyphic signs, as ascertained by interpretations rendered in Scripture. 'Id. The \\\o^YXi particidar senses of these, as fixed by the unity of design which pervades and the du- plication which is made of the allegory. 90 DEFINITENESS OF THE AELEGOKY. Sd. The correspondence between the significa- tions of the signs thus absolutely fixed and the known realities which the allegory foreshadows, that is, the events w^hicli it j^redicts. When the conditions represented by these three elements are fulfilled, the result is a demonstration of the highest order, and evidently such as inspiration alone can afiford, for it is a ])ro])liecy with sense de- Quonstrated. It is to be observed that in the fulfilment of the above conditions there are two separate and distinct demonstrations of the sense. The sense is demon- strated first of all by the correspondence which is proved to subsist between the significations of the signs, determined by interpretations rendered in Scripture, and the significations of these fixed by the allegory's unity of conception and design, the sense being farther checked by the reduplication of the allegory, as also, it may be added, by the exhibition twice over of its quaternary. This is one demonstra- tion, and it is amply sufiicient to establish the sense. In the above elements there is room for the evolution of a complicated design in plot and structure, which is much more than sufiicient to attach a demonstra- tive sense to the symbols. It is such an evidence as is more than would be demanded in the case of an allegory which represented an unknown reality, or which made an announcement, the positive truth of which could not be subjected to a test. But the pro- phetic allegory contains a representation of realities of a very certain character, namely, events. Here DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. 91 comes tlie searching and trying test, and wlien ful- filled the second grand demonstration. Tlie significa- tions of the signs, with all the manifestation of j)lot and design wliich they disclose, which, in a long and complex allegory such as the Eevelation, is great, stand in correspondence with a series of events in history, and are registered and checked off one after another by those events. Here is a demonstration of sense which ho composition, except the iyro])lietiG allegory, can yield. It is a demonstration only to be found within the compass of inspiration. The sense of the signs is here demonstrated, first of all by the combined powers of the language and the alle- gory which work out this result. The demonstrated sense is a second time demonstrated, and in a much more powerful manner, by a series of events happen- ing which respond and answer to the intimations of the signs thus determined. Here is a demonstration at which science and mathematics must fall prostrate. I^either the one nor the other in their loftiest flights ever conceived the execution of such a j)roblem as this. It is a demonstration which can only exist, and which does exist in the pages of inspiration. It is exhibited in the Revelation in its highest jDerfection. But all the three elements above mentioned are requisite to this demonstration. But of the three only two have as yet been in operation, and even these have not been brought to bear on the gigantic problem which really still remains unsolved, with in- tegrity and with full intensity of effect. We refer to the firSt and the last. The second has hardly been 92 DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. put in requisition at all. Yet it is indispensably re- quisite to the demonstration, because it is by it, in combination with the first, that the significations of the signs are fixed Avith a definiteness and precision, that is absolute. "Without the presence of this essen- tial element the sense can only be determined, gene- rally. The interpretations of the hieroglyphic lan- guage rendered in one part of Scripture, are com- petent alone to contribute the general^ and by no means the jparticular sense of symbols in another. It is the allegory itself, with its perceived unity of de- sign, at once in internal subject and in outward form, with the realized exhibition of these a second time in the reduplication of the allegory, and again with the apprehended quaternal structure of it repeated, which moulds the whole composition in unity of form. It is alone upon the recognition in all its parts of this great phenomenon of design, which a complicated prophetic allegory displays, that demonstration can be founded. It is alone upon the sure and stable foundation of 2i fixed sense^ that the massive and pon- derous superstructure of demonstration can be built. It is the vainest folly to attempt to raise this mag- nificent pile on the loose sand of figurative language, as has been shown. It is also vain to try to rear it on the tougher material of the hieroglyphic language itself. The second element above mentioned must be combined with it. It is alone the complication of design displayed in the allegory w^hich sheathes every symbol in it with a sense that is not only fixed but demonstrative. When this result is obtained, there DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. 93 arises not only one demonstration, bnt two. It is perfectly evident tliat a demonstration cannot really exist where the sense of the symbol is determinable by the event which this symbol predicts. The reason- ing is here conducted in the form of the circle, which, although beautiful in the works of fancy, is a form that is outlawed in reasoning. The strength of demon- stration lies alone in the fact that the sense is fixed independently of the event. This being done, the one demonstration which can alone be reached by this method, becomes instantly a twofold one. The allegory demonstratively interprets itself — this is one demonstration ; and the events demonstratively inter- pret the allegory — this is a second. But the demonstration which, when properly made, is not only perfect, bnt twofold, is altogether imperfect when the second step of it is not performed ; and it is vitiated by the reasoning in a circle above referred to. There exists in the absence of the second element of demonstration, the want of a solid founda- tion on which to build ; the senses are loose and in- determinable. There is an important hiatus in the argument ; there is a yawning chasm which consists in the merely general sense of the signs, down which profound chasm, and up the steep ascent of which, commentators may have been seen for centuries ven- turing with audacity, scrambling with toil, now ob- taining some valuable results, but not one of them succeeding to reach the frowning opposite height. The senses of the symbols without the second element, which is absolutely requisite to the demonstration, 94 DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. are merely general ; accordingly they may be applied to a great variety of events. They have accordingly no fixed, and, therefore, no real significance. All commentators who have written on the book of Revelation, without exception, have been content to woriv with the first and the last of these elements of demonstration. They have even held them in them- selves to be demonstrative. This they truly are in regard to certain portions of the prophecy ; portions that furnish a minutise of detail sufiicient to constitute in itself demonstrative evidence. The portraiture of the two Beasts in ch. xiii., may be justly held to afi'ord evidence of this description, and some other parts of the book. But this is far from being the case with a considerable part of it. The portraitures are general, and have no fixed significancy apart from the allegory in which they are contained. They are loose stones not ^^et compacted into the edifice. The two elements alone are by no means sufiicient to furnish forth a demonstration of a great 2)ortion of the prophecy, and, what is most important, of the whole of it. The demonstration of it can hardly, in strict truth, be said to be made until the whole of it is proven; and it is questionable if even the demon- stration of the parts of it which have been made, are entitled to rank as such until the sense of the whole is proved and demonstrated. Various means have been had recourse to in order to supply this lack of demonstrative evidence, and in crossing this chasm we have indicated to obtain a sure footing, and various expedients have been used DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. 95 to traverse this wide gulf wliicli yawns between the partially known and the absolutely certain. A strong and exact parallelism has been made out be- tween the sign and a certain suj)posed event. A parallelism so close and exact is shown to exist, as to afford demonstrative evidence, it is thought, that the event is signified by the sign. But the evidence is not always to this effect, for frequently not one, but m'any of such coincidences are to be found. Still this is the process, being the only practical one, which is resorted to, and it opens a wide field for ingenuity and ratiocination. A device has recently been intro- duced to heighten, as it is considered, the argument. The works of a historian who goes over much of the same ground occupied by the prophecy, and who deals largely in metaphors, we refer especially to Gibbon, have been ransacked, in order to detect a coincidence between his figurative language and the symbolic language of the Eevelation. This can liardly be regarded as more than one of the idle sports in which commentators on this book indulge. Of what value is such a coincidence ? It can be of none whatever, as well on account of its sheer commonness and indefiniteness, as for another reason. It must have been either accidental or designed. If acci- dental, it is of no account, and if designed, then in- spiration must have been present, which can hardly be imagined. This may be regarded as a dernier re- sort to increase the probability, and the last expiring effort of the mind to clutch certainty. Upon the^ system followed, the sole excellency of one commen- 96 DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. tator over another lies in the superior adjustment of the scale of probabilities, so as to obtain a superior probability in the whole for the scheme of events which he supposes the prophecy to predict. But such a probability, however high it may reach, is still un- satisfactory ; it is not what the mind longs for and reasonably demands in this case : it is certainty, oh- solute certainty. ISTow how is this chasm, which really yawns be- tween probability and certainty — this chasm which separates the imperfectly Icnown from absolutely cer- tain and demonstrative truth — to be crossed. It is alone to be passed by bringing the second element in the demonstration, as stated above, into play. This chasm cannot be crossed by being descended into, for a host of commentators have been lost in it. They have been seen boldly leaping into the abyss of the general sense of the symbols. Some have descended deeper than others into this spacious chasm, and have been lost forever to view. A few have preserved a precarious foothold, but it is needless to say that none have reached the beetling opposite side. This is a chasm which must be bridged over, for it is not only dangerous, but it is in the nature of things impossible to cross it otherwise. A bridge ? But who will con- struct the bridge ? The Spirit of the living God will do this — ^has done it. A bridge exists, although it has been invisible. The way to it lies through the Old Testament Scriptures. In these ancient writings there is revealed a code of laws to which the prophetic alle- gory is subjected, dating as far back as the time of DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. 97 Moses, which invests its signs with those demonstra- tively fixed senses of which we are in quest, and which are necessary to complete the demonstration. The demonstration may now be accomplished. The inter- preter, standing on this bridge, which though light and airy is strong as adamant, occupies a most command- ing position, and beholds before him the most magni- ficent panorama which has ever spread itself out to the intellectual eye of man. What does he behold ? He sees, on the one hand, the once mysterious signs of God's prophecy arise, beaming with the light of intel- ligence and burning with demonstrative power ; on the other, he sees the events of the world's history, marshalled in order, and extending their distinct outlines and mighty forms, and answering them back. Here he sees at once a demonstration / a 7'eve- lation^ a prophecT/, and a history. The demonstration here, which, as has been shown, is in truth twofold, lies then in the fact that the sense of the prophecy is demonstrated, independently of the event, by the allegory and its language combined ; and that, thus fixed and demonstrated, it is a second time proved to be right by the event, and accordingly is a second time demonstrated. The sense, then, is twice proved, and it is in the second proof that the truth of the prophecy is involved. But if the middle step of the threefold process of demonstration be not performed, there is not even one demonstration ob- tained. On the contrary, there is the chasm of which we have just spoken. It is only when the three con- ditions are fulfilled that a demonstration is the result, 6 98 DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGOET. and tlien it is a double one. In tlie second and last of tliese, which is infinitely the more powerful of the two, since history, with her long array of stubborn facts, forms an element of it, the truth of the sense and of the prophecy itself, is proved in the same breath. The announcement is then made in a tone of such ineffable clearness, matchless articulation, and piercing power, as proves it to be the utterance of heaven. When these three elements at once of elucidation and of demonstration, which they are, have been brought to bear on the w^ork of interpretation, it will then be seen how clear, how definite, and how certain the meaning of the j^rophecy is. There will, then, be no ground for complaint, that the Revelation is unin- telligible ; it will be the most intelligible of all writ- ings. Let ns, for the sake of example, and in order to see the efi'ect of the combination of the three elements in the demonstration, as stated above, take a single symbol from the book, and subject its application to the threefold test which these afi'ord. An experiment or two of this kind will show what a strength of demonstrative power resides in the prophecy. Let ns take the Whore, whose mystical name is Babylon, for an example. We know that the Harlot is a symbol which can only stand for a false church, for the reason that we know certainly the bride^ who is called the Lamb's wife, Rev. xxi. 9, stands for the true church. Of necessity the harlot stands for the false church. Let it be granted that it is at first DEFTNITENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. 99 doubtful what particular church it is which is thus signified. It will not be at all doubtful when a few criteria are applied to the symbols, because it will then be seen that only one church can answer these. Thus the church signified must be one whicli has its seat at a city known in history by the characteristic of being built on seven hills, from whence the church signified " reigneth over the kings of the earth." See Kev., xvii. It must be one in combination with a great temporal power which reigned at the same city, as appears from the description. This city must exhibit, in the course of its history, seven distinct forms of government, to which seven this said tem- poral power forms the eighth. This temporal power must hold a supremacy over a number of kingdoms, which, let it be admitted, is either ten literally, or symbolically in the sense of a great number. This supremacy is of such a nature that the kingdoms, although acknowledging it, carry on their own gov- ernment, since the horns which symbolize them are represented as bearing crowns. All that is said of the Harlot, and there is much said of her, must correspond with the known history of the church to which the symbol is applied. All that is said of the False Prophet must likewise correspond with the history of this church, for the False ProjDhet is a synonymous symbol. Still further, (and here the tests to which the symbol must be subjected multiply to an enormous ex- tent,) all that is said of the Two-horned Beast, which is another synonymous symbol, and of which there is a long and very minute description, containing some 100 DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. very searching tests, amongst others a number to fix the name, must correspond with the history of the church to which the Whore has been applied. This correspondence between symbolic imagery and events must again stand in unison with the ]3articulars in the long and minute description which is rendered of the Ten-horned Beast, which stands a second time for that temporal j)ower with which the church in ques- tion is in combination. Still further, all that is said of these two Beasts, and the application made of them, must not jar, but be in perfect harmony with all that is said of the Great Red Dragon and the application given to it ; for this is the symbol of a j^ower that ruled in the very same city prior to the time of these two, but which was ejected from it, and which, in that other part of the world to which it was driven, associated itself with those two in persecuting a church distinguished by its moral and spiritual purity. "What is said of the 1260 years' duration of the efflorescent power of these three political powers, must be found verified in their history. But more ; all that is said of the Seven Trumpets, in which there are long and minute descriptions, must tally with the events to which they are applied, which events must tally again with the history of these three, because these trumpets represent judgments in war upon that three-fold dominion which is associated with that seven- hilled city to which they trace their power. But farther ; every thing that is said of the Seven Yials, which are judgments on these j)Owers, must stand in correspondence with the history of these three, while DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGOKT. 101 the fulfilment of the Seven Yials mnst be recognized in a series of events, the whole of which must be col- located within a comparatively short space of time, since they are the Seven Last Plagues, and all ^ of which must respond in every respect to the symboli- cal imagery. But farther; the first of these Yials must be shown to fall out coincidently with the ter- mination of the 1260 years, as that prophecy has been applied, and the other six must follow in regular order and succession. Finally ; all this cor- respondence which has by no means been developed, but has been merely hinted at, must stand in perfect unison and harmony with the representations made of these three powers in the second, third, and fourth seals, as they are first represer^ted and described. It can hardly be denied that an amount of evidence may be thus adduced for the signification and ap- plication of the Whore, which is nothing short of mathematical proof. The propliecy, in virtue of the unity of conception which marks its plan, contributes light from every quarter of it, and hence a multitude of rays converge and meet on the head of this Whore, revealing her in light, with a demonstrative and at the same time a condemning and consuming coinci- dence. It matters little whicli symbol we take uj) ; every one must run nearly the same gauntlet. Is it the Fifth Trumpet, which has been applied to the inva- sions of the Saracens ? It must first of all be found that the minute symbolical description of the judg- ment predicted, which is necessaril}^, from the char- 102 DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGOEY. acter of tlie symbol emplo^^ed a judgment in war, has been truly realized in the invasions of the Saracens, and this test itself certainly no other CA^ent in history will fulfil. But this, important as it is, is a mere fractional part of the proof to which the application of this trumpet must be subjected. Yet this proof has been held by many to be demonstrative ; and in- asmuch a^ the description is minute, and it contains a chronical test, it is worthy of being so ranked. But there must. have been an event preceding that pre- dicted, which responds to the imagery of the Fourth Trumpet ; an event preceding that again which responds to the imagery of the Third Trumpet ; an event preceding that which responds to the symboli- cal picture under the. Second ; and an event which responds in like manner to that of the First. The fulfilment of the Fifth Trumpet must thus stand fifth in order of such a series of events. But this is not all ; it has to be followed by another great warlike invasion, which must be of such a character that it responds to the imagery of the Sixth Trumpet. The imagery here is of a still more minute and searching kind than even that of the Fifth Trumpet, and it con- tains like that also a chronical test. But the Trumpet in question must be followed again second in order by a judgment, which exhausts the terms of the Seventh Trumpet, which predicts events of such a kind and such magnitude, that they cannot be con- ceived to happen twice in the history of the world. Let any one attempt to calculate the chance that there is after all these tests are exhausted of a wrong ap- DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. 103 plication having been made of the Fifth Trumpet to the Saracenic invasion. He will doubtless find it to be infinitesimally small. But this is a mere portion of the proof by which the application of the Fifth Trum- pet to the Saracenic invasion is fortified. The event to which this trumpet is applied, must also be suc- ceeded by a series of seven events, happening in regular order and procession, corresponding to the" descriptions' under the Seven Yials, w^hich events must be such as are congregated within a cornparatively short space of time ; for tliese vials are the Seven Last Plagues, a circumstance which, as it restricts the ap- plication, increases in a corresponding ratio the de- monstrative power which the parallelism between the imagery and the events afi'ords. But the first of these Yials must be shown to have had its fulfilment in an event, which happened coincidently with the termination of a period proved to have had its com- mencement J 260 years previously. This is a most exacting test. The first Yial must not only be the first of seven judgments following in quick succession, but it must happen precisely 1260 years distant from a certain well-marked event, which must fulfil the test of being tlie opening of the 1260 years ; and which event is the establishment of that temporal dominion which, as has been seen above, is in com- bination with the spiritual power symbolized by the Harlot. But this is but a j)ortion, and only a small portion of the proof which fixes the true application of the Fifth Trumpet, for we have not yet entered the great current of demonstration which is running 104 DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. in the body of tlie prophecy, and which is derived from the minute descriptions rendered in it of the dominions it contains, and of the events predicted in it in connection with the history of these dominions. With all of these, with the whole prophecy, in fact, the Fifth Trumpet must stand in connection, and in undisturbed harmony and correspondence. Take any Trumx^et it must stand the same test, or any Vial, or any symbol whatever in the book, they must all stand the same test. "Will any one venture to say, or can any one with justice maintain, that a symbol which has passed through an ordeal such as this, is not rightly applied, or that the application of it is not a demonstration of the highest rank and order. This demonstrative power rests first in the fixity of the sense of the symbols ; and secondly, in the fact that this being clear and definite, the application of a single symbol involves in its train the application of all the symbols in the book. It might be considered sufiicient, and it has long been held such, to show that the imagery of the Fifth Trumpet responds to the Saracenic invasion, or that the symbolical picture under the Fourth Vial answers to the devastating power of the French Empire when its destinies were w^ielded by ^Napoleon I. Bat this strict correspondence of the symbolical imagery with the event is, as we see, but a very small part indeed of the real demonstrative evidence, if, in some cases, it can be called such. The symbolical representation made must not only stand in exact correspondence with the application given to it, but the symbolical DEFINITENESS OF THE ALLEGORY. 105 imagery of the whole book must be in harmony with the particular application. This results from that effi- cient manner in which all the parts of the prophecy are dove-tailed and welded into each other, in virtue of its unity of purpose and design. It is thus quite impossible to prove the application of any single sym- bol, without bringing the whole imagery of the book, charged with the utmost weight of demonstrative- power, to sustain the proof of it. "What a marA^el- lous instance of the divine wisdom is here exhibited ? A prophecy is delivered, wrapt in all the secrets of enigma, dark, dubious, uncertain of meaning at the first, but which, in the end, when ages have elapsed, and, after its fulfilment is accomplished, stands forth clad in an angelic vesture of demonstration, before which the distinctness of literal language must hide its head abashed. She, although made too the hand- maid of the Deity, belongs to the race of mortals ; this one is of purely celestial birth. She speaks — and speaks demonstrations. These may be rivalled, not surpassed by that other " daughter of the skies " that at midnight chases the stars in their courses and writes down in algebraic signs the secrets of the heavens. The one sweeps the boundless fields of air ; the other the vast abyss of the future. Both use se- cret signs ; and both demonstrate. CHAPTEE YII. THE FIRST STEP TO UNDERSTAND A PROPHETIC ALLEGORY IS TO UNDERSTAND THE FIRST REPRESENTATION. Having tlms, as we conceive, sufficiently consider- ed the dark side of the allegory, and having only indi- cated one principle of light, let ns now turn to the process which must be employed to illuminate the opacity which it has, and to bring out its clear, bright, and lustrous side, for it has this, too. To understand the second or real sense of an alle- gory, it is absolutely necessary to understand the first representation. This is the foundation of the second or real sense. If we do not understand the first sense, it is certain we shall never understand the second. To understand the first or immediate representa- tion of an allegory delivered in words, two things are requisite. It is necessary \st. To imderstand the words ; and 2cZ. To understand the subject which these words bring before the mind in their literal acceptation, which is the first sense. In respect to the Revelation, the words are Greek, and of these we have, in the common version, a trans- THE FIEST EEPKESENTATION. 107 lation, which is, to all important purposes, correct and faithful, with the two following exceptions. The first is the mistranslation of ra recra-apa ^coa, which is mistranslated in the common version by " The Four Beasts." The rendering here ought to be The four living creatures^ as is universally admitted. This translation brings before the mind a proper con- ception of w^hat is meant, and associates the symbol with the living creatures of Ezekiel, and also with the cherubim elsewhere mentioned. The second . mistranslation is that of the Greek word a/3i/o-o-o?, which is improperly rendered in the common version " bottomless pit." This ought to be the alnjss of the sea. The bottomless pit is calculated to convey to the mind an erroneous idea of the meaning, and to associate it with the pit of hell, with which the word in the original has no com- munity wdiatever. It imports the ahyss^ and is the etymon of our English word. It is employed in the book as a synonym. For ^dXacra-a^ another word, which, in the original, signifies simply the sea, that the two expressions are in the original text perfectly synonymous, is evident from the circumstance alone that the Ten-horned Beast, which is said to have arisen out of "the sea," Rev. xiii. 1, is afterwards called, Rev. xvii. 9, the beast that shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, i. e. the abyss. The " sea " or the " abyss of the sea " would be a correct rendering in the latter case. But, in the second place, besides understanding the w^ords, we must also understand wdiat the repre- 108 THE FIRST REPRESENTATION. sentation is which these words make. It might, at first, be conceived that the full understanding of the sense of the words of necessity involves the under- standing of the subject which these words present. In most cases, such a comprehension of the meaning would infallibly follow. It is to be borne in mind, however, that allegories are endowed with a second sense, which is moreover the main one, which always exerts an important influence on the tenor of the first representation. The weaker that the allegoric or enigmatical element is, the less this influence is felt. In most of the parables delivered by Christ himself, the first representation is easily understood, and is distinguished by great congruity, smoothness, and easi- ness of apprehension. It consists, for the most part, of a simple narrative, one or two of the salient points alone of wJiich contain an allegoric sense. The same may be said of all those allegories of Scripture, of which the second sense is a moral or spiritual truth. But with the prophetic it is very difl'erent. The enigmat- ical element is here developed in a state of excess which tends greatly to obscure and cloud the first representation. To predict the intractable events of history the allegory is strained, and, even to a certain extent, distorted, and to attain increased definiteness, a hieroglyphic language is employed, which is more devoted to the second than to the first sense. The consequence is that the first representation of a pro- phetic allegory sufl'ers in point of naturalness and obviousness of meaning. It is no matter which of the prophetic allegories we take up, we find it pervaded THE FIRST KEPEESENTATION. 109 by a certain unnaturalness and incongruity in the first representation. Is it the short allegory in Zech. eh. i. ? Here four horns are rei^resented as scattering Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem, while four carpenters are represented to come and fray them. How can four horns, apart from living animals as they are rep- resented, be conceived to exist as agents, which they are here said to be ? The idea is an unnatural and fantastic one. But the first sense is here entirely subjected to, and is sacrificed for, the second. The prophet u^s four horns as a symbol of dominion, and he has much more in view the second sense of dominion than the first of horns. In like manner, the reflection naturally arises in regard to the prediction delivered to Pharaoh : how is it conceivable that seven lean kine should eat up seven fat kine, or, more monstrous still, that seven thin ears of corn shonld eat up seven good ears. This distortion and meagreness of sense in the first representation is apt to dispose the mind to the supposition, that that whicli is so devoid of meaning in the first representation is destitute of it in the second representation likewise. Here, however, the mind would draw a very erroneous conclusion. It is just in the proportion that the first sense is weak, poor and frivolous, that the second is a strong, rich, and solid one. It is in virtue of the poorness and meagreness of the first representation that the second is charged with meaning. But here also. Scripture herself comes to our help, as she does in the hieroglyphic language, with which she clothes the allegory, giving it thereby increased pre- 110 THE FIKST KEPEESENTATION". cision and definiteness. While it is impossible to save the first sense, for this is sacrificed to the second, she constructs for the prophetic allegory certain laws, which, in a great degree, redeem the first representa- tion from Tinnaturalness and irrationality, by infusing into it the principles of order and congruity of ar- rangement, and make it entirely useful, in a practical respect, for conveying the second sense, which is its object. These, at the same time render it, however long, perplexed and involved, as is the case in the Revelation, sufficiently intelligible. Thes« laws are : 1^^. Tlie law of unity of design; 2<^. The law of reduj)lication ; Sd. And the law of the quaternal structure. According to the first of these laws, perfect unity of design prevails throughout the allegorical compo- sition, and gives it at once symmetry and coherence. This feature, which characterizes the composition, is only a natural result of that unity of conception, which, as we have shown, is a fundamental principle of the allegory itself. The high importance of this law towards the following out and the unravelling of the thread of the first representation, as well as of the second, is sufficiently apparent. According to the second law, the allegory appears a second time in a new dress of imagery. This du- plication affords a powerful instrument for the appre- hension of its true relations. It has this effect, not only in virtue of the repetition by fresh imagery, but by reason of the comparison which may be instituted between the two allegories, and the consequent check THE FIRST REPRESENTATION. Ill thereby afforded to erroneous conceptions of meaning, wliicli might, and would very naturally, result, had there been but one, with a weak first sense. This law is found to prevail in almost every instance of regu- larly constructed symbolic composition in Scripture. The existence of two allegories, with one second sense, affords most effectual aid to the interpreter. It has evidently a similar effect in the elucidation of the allegorical text, only greater in degree, as the ex- istence of a double copy of a document composed in two different languages has in clearing up the diffi- culty in the sense of it. The third of the laws we have mentioned, the law of the quaternal structure, or the law in virtue of which the principal agents or actors in the allegory, are four in number, has a very powerful influence in reducing its complexity. However long and com- plex the allegory may be, it introduces into it an effective principle of order and system. It affords, even in a greater degree than the two other laws, a key by which to discover and a touchstone by which to test the plan of the allegory. The three laws in comhination may be regarded as thoroughly essential at once to the discovery and to the confirmation of the plan of the allegory. It is here that their chief value lies. But without the plan the interpreter can only survey a few outside stones of the building ; he can render no explanation of the interior parts of the edifice. Xo real advancement whatever can be made in the interpretation of an allegory, imtil its_^Z<:m be discovered, tested, and ap-' 112 THE FIEST EEPEESENTATION. plied. It is this which unfolds the relations of its parts in the first representation. It is this also which irre- vocably fixes their destiny in the second and real representation. JN'ow these laws are very plainly developed in the prophecies of the Old Testament, and they form, as will be shown, striking features of its symbolical repre- sentation. Yet it cannot be said that their bearing upon the Old Testament prophecies is of much value. These are for the most part interpreted, and where they are not, the allegory is in itself short, and the imagery necessarily void of complexity, so that, what- ever necessity there may be for the interpretation of its sense, there is little need for any methodical ar- rangement of its constituents. On what account, then, have these laws been developed so systematically as they have been ; for they have been systematically developed ? The answer is obvious — for the sake of the Revelation for which they are imperatively demanded. This prophecy is of such extreme length, and 80 excessively complex in comparison with all the others, that it stands pre-eminently in need of precisely such principles as those above referred to, for the arrangement of its multifarious visions, and for the reduction of its complexity into that state of simplicity^ which is unquestionably, in a long array of ideographic signs, as here, the first and indispen- sable step to comprehension. These principles of interpretation, so far as we are aware, have not yet been brought to bear on the Revelation. THE FIKST REPRESENTATION. 113 Even the most eminent commentators wlio have expressly written long treatises on it, make no scruple of violating the law of unity of design, by represent- ing it as delivered, not in 07ie " seven-sealed book," but in this, with the addition of " the little book," (ch. X. 2,) in the form of an appendix, which is plainly a conception of such a species of ^atcMoor'k as to set the laAV utterly at defiance. Is a symbolic prophet, the intelligibility of whose composition rests, without doubt, entirely on the plan and design which charac- terize it, to be supposed to have made so faulty and defective an arrangement of his matter, that it was necessary to add an appendix ? An appendix, from its nature, presupposes a deficiency of plan. How then can it be supposed to exist in a work which is based on plan? And how palpable a violation is there here, of one of the main laws of symbolic writ- ing ! We make no reference to the violation of this principle in other respects, of which almost all com- mentaries are full. Tlie above is probably the most flagrant violation of it, and is sufficient to show that the principle has been absolutely contemned. There is not any interpreter that we know of, that has recognized the law of the douUe allegory. This, so far as we know, is an idea that is now mooted the first time for the last eighteen hundred years. Now if there be two allegories, and not one, and if there has been supposed to be one instead of two, it is perfectly obvious, that an interpretation upon a theory so fundamentally wrong, is a sheer impossi- bility. At the same time, commentators have not 114 THE FIKST KEPEESENTATIOIT. availed themselves of one of the most effective means of illumination which was in their power. This, how- ever, may fairly be considered as a damage of minor consequence, in comparison with the other. A total absence of light is certainly in this case better than a false light. As for the quaternal striccture^ we do not suppose that it has been conceived of by any interpreter as a law of symbolic prophecy ; and apparently it has not even been recognized as a feature of it. It certainly has never been applied to the arrangement of the matter and to the apprehension of the plan and design of the Eevelation. ]^ow if these laws have a sure foundation in sym- bolic writing, as will be shown, it is obvious that all complaints of the darkness and uncertainty of the prophecy, are as yet premature and groundless. CHAPTEK YHI. LAW OF UNITY t>F DESIGN. This law of symbolic composition, natm-ally results from that principle of " unity of idea," wliicli, it has been shown, is an essential and fundamental principle of the allegory. It is indispensable to the intelli- gibility of symbolic representation, and there is not a single instance of an infringement of it. 1^0 epic, tale, or composition of any sort develops this principle more highly than these prophecies do. Each of them forms what the Germans call " ein abgeschlossenes ganze," which may be translated literally into the somewhat uncouth English of a shut- off whole. Each is a whole complete in itself; all foreign elements, every thing that is not essentially connected with the main plot and design, is excluded, while unity of j)lan and design knits the several parts of the composition together in symmetry of form and affinity of relationship, and impresses upon the whole the stamp of a perfect unity. The Cosmos of the material creation displays this unity of design ; the whole revelation which God has made to man, and which has not improperly been 116 LAW OF UNITY OF DESIGN. denominated His second creation within the universe of mind^ displays it, and every symbolic comjDosition which is part of this creation, is thoroughly impregnat- ed with it. It not only accords with the unity of God's whole design, as it is manifested in His Word ; it ex- hibits for itself a separate and independent unity. It is a miniaiure unity within a larger imity. This oneness of plan and design is indeed the '^;^to? element of the symholiG prophecy. It is absolutely requisite for its existence, not alone as an inspired revelation, but even as a legible and intelligible communication. It will be sufficient to throw a glance on one or two of the prophecies of Daniel and Zechariah, to see how perfect is the unity of design which characterizes the compositions of these prophets — specimens of composition, which it is acknowledged by all, must be principally held in view in the interpretation of the Revelation. This book is undoubtedly expressly grounded upon them, not only as to style^ but as to actual subject. The prophecy of Daniel, ch. vii., shows the preva- lence of this principle in its structure and composi- tion. The prophet here predicts concerning four em- pires represented under the form of Four Beasts. He traces the history of these from their rise in the sea^ which gives them origin, to their dreadful end in the hviYmug flame. He keeps them separate and distinct from the power which procures their destruction. He exhibits also the principle of an introduction which, be it observed, is an evident mark of unity of design. It necessarily impresses upon the work to which it is LAW OF UNITY OF DESIGN". 117 prefixed the character of oneness. The introduction he prefixes is the folloAving : Four winds strive to- gether on the great sea, and, as a result of the tem- pest thus occasioned, four beasts arise, lifting them- selves up among the swelling billows, or, as may be conceived, vomited forth upon the shore by their fury. These Avinds which perform this agency, con- stitute no part of the prophecy, as appears from the interpretation of it. Here there occurs no allusion to the winds. Nor can this representation be conceived to form any part of the prediction. The winds indi- vidually are plainly incapable of representing par- ticular subjects. They cannot be described, nor can they therefore bear any individual signification.^ The " four winds " are simply employed, as is evi- dent, to constitute an exordium or introduction to the prophecy, and to afford a representation of the origin of the subjects of it. In this introduction, which may be regarded as undeveloped and little more than in the germ, compared with the introductions of John, who, however, undoubtedly models his longer and more elaborate specimens upon this germ, there is a plain manifestation of unity of design. The root is here displayed to which the subject of the pro- phecy are traced. They have a common origin, and they are introduced. Unity of design is thus im- printed on the prophecy twice, by the representation made by the introduction and b}^ the origin. This germinal introduction develops nnity, as well as beauty of design, both in the first and second sense of the allegory. 118 LAW OF UNITY OF DESIG^-. These monsters of the deep arise out of no calm and iinpertm'bed sea. It takes the tempest, formed by four winds, which meet in collision and lash the sea into foam and fury, to bring these monsters of the deep up from the abyss. They are monsters, and in tumult they arise from the depths of ocean. The same unity as well as beauty of design is apparent in the second sense. Four winds are all the winds of heaven, according as the ancient He- brews reckoned them, for they counted only four points of the compass. As a wind, a moving force in the natural heavens, is a symbol of a dominion, a moving power in the political firmament, the four winds constitute a fitting symbol of the full idea of dominion. They are a suitable symbol of dominion in the abstract or general. The number four is in har- mony with and is an evidence of this appropriation of the symbol. In Scripture four is the number of dominion. There is accordingly the representation made of dominion in the full form evolving four con- crete dominions. Dominion, tlien, is the source from whence the subject takes its rise, and the subject flows on in one stream from this source in undisturbed unity. The four dominions of which it consists are, with beautiful consistency of design, represented as evolved from dominion. The corresponding, or second version of the same prophecy, ch. ii., wants the feature of an introduc- tion, the composite symbol employed, a standing hnage^ not admitting of it in any natural or aesthetic manner. The conception, however, of unity in the LAW OF UNITY OF DESIGN. 119 subject, is just as distinctly expressed in the combi- nation of the symbols of the four dominions into one image, the different parts of the body of which, form- ed of different substances, represent them individ- ually, while the whole image places them before the mind in composite unity. The destroying agent is represented in consistency with unity of design, as a stone taken unquarried from the mountains, which falls upon and breaks into pieces this image. In the prophecy of Zechariah, ch. vi., there is an even more striking exemplification of the same law of unity of design, than in that of Daniel, ch. vii. Here the prophet excludes the destroying agent, the kingdom of God, of whose dominion, nevertheless, he predicts in other places from the representation alto- gether, and confines himself strictly to the four sub- jects whose origin he depicts. He opens his prophecy with an introduction. This is conceived in the same spirit, and exhibits the same features as that of Daniel, ch. vii. Four chariots are represented to issue from between two mountains of brass. These mountains form no jDart of the prophecy, as appears from the interpretation, which makes no allusion to them. They are simply placed on the picture for the purpose of affording an original to the chariots which are seen issuing forth from between them. The pic- torial and the symbolical ideas as here expressed, are the same as in Daniel. Two mountains constitute a perfect image for the purposes of the prophet, forming the valley from which the chariots are represented to issue forth. This conception gives unity as well as 120 LAW OF UNITY OF DESIGN. beauty of design to the pictorial representation. The same features are observable in the picture view- ed symbolically. The second, or real meaning of mountain, is like that of wind, dominion. In two mountains, then, which form, as it has been seen, a perfect image for the purposes of the prophet, there is a representation of dominion in the full or perfect form. The force of the representation then is, four dominions in the concrete have their origin in do- minion in the abstract or general. Dominion in the general evolves from its womb four dominions in the concrete. There is thus impressed on the prophecy unity of design, both by the fact itself of the intro- duction, and the sense which this introduction bears, assigning, namely an original by the whole subject. To these, many instances of the same kind might be added. But those above, which are taken from the highest specimens of the art of Scriptural symbolic painting, are sufficient to show the prevalence of the principle of unity of design in it. To tlie meaning of the symbolic prophecies, there could be no key apart from the exhibition of this prin- ciple in their structure and composition. Every alle- gory consists of a certain number of parts, which have no meaning separately, and which derive all their real sense from the perception of that design, in accordance with which the framer disposed them so as to form one nnited, harmonious, and thoroughly con- sistent whole. In some cases this design is at once apparent ; in others, it must be sought for. The inter- preter frequently finds the parts of the composition LAW OF UNITY OF DESIGN. 121 disjointed and '"separate, void of apparent design, and consequently void of meaning ; in the same state, indeed, in which the allegory of the Revelation is generally conceived to be. He is bound to search after a unity of design, which may bring all the dis- jointed parts into harmony, consistency, and oneness of purpose and design ; he cannot tail to find such a plan, and when he lias found it, then, but not till then, is he in a position to interpret the piece. He then can say : " See you have now the meaning, for you see the design of the author, and consequently you appre- hend his meaning ; in his design lies his meaning ; the parts are fitted into that whole, which according to the scheme in his mind, they were intended to form : the design of each several part, and by conse- quence its meaning is developed in the discovery thus made of the design, and meaning of the whole. This rightly describes the case. The design of the whole being perceived, the design of the ]3arts neces- sarily follows. When this is done, the meaning of the allegory must be received, and it is received as established, nay, as demonstrated. The mind seeks for no further evidence. The design of the piece being perceived, the meaning is clearly demonstrated, and the more extended and more complicated the de- sign is, the greater and the higher the demonstration necessarily is. This demonstration may justly be said to reach its highest point in the Eevelation, the design of which is profound and the complexity great. It is through a virtual recognition of this principle, as at once the key and the proof of an allegory, that 6 122 LAW OF UNITY OF DESIGN. the interpretation of these in Scripture, as soon as they are submitted to the mind, act upon it with the force of demonstration. In these the parts of the prophecy are so interpreted as in their combination to constitute a unity in the whole, the perception of which renders the meaning self-evident. Let us take an example. The dreams of the chief butler and baker of Pharaoh, as told to Joseph, are instances of simple symbolic composition. The interpretation given by Joseph affords an example of the irresistible conviction produced upon the mind when the perfect unity of design which pervades the compositions is disclosed to it. It seeks for no farther evidence ; it sees at once this Tmist be the meaning, and appre- hends, in the discovered unity of design and the rela- tions it establishes, a demonstration. Such is the force which the sense of a well-sustained allegory always exerts upon the mind. It speaks to it with the force of intuition. It does this whenever the unity of its design has been unfolded to the mind. It is then felt that the design of the author has been apprehended, and the irresistible conviction immedi- ately follows that his meaning is known. The con- viction here is essentially of the same kind as that which arises when the design of words has been ap- prehended. The basis of this conclusion is the dis- covery of design ; but in an allegory this is always inseparable from unity. It thus appears that unity of design is a funda- mental principle which must exist, and does exist, in all symbolic composition. We have called it a laWy LAW OF UNITY OF DESIGN. 123 but it is evidently more of the nature of a j^rinGijple^ and admits of no exceptions. It is inherent in all symbolic compositions, and must exist in the Revela- tion. It has not hitherto been found in it ; it is there- fore still to be discovered in it. CHAPTER IX. THE LAW OF THE DOUBLE ALLEGOET. By an allegory in tlie double form, is meant an allegory in wliicli there are two first representations, separate and distinct from eacli other, both of which convey one and the same second sense. Of an allegory of this kind, the parable delivered by Christ in John x. affords an example, although the difference is very slight between the two versions. It is twofold, or there are two parables with one and the same second sense. The first is thus delivered : " He that entereth not by the door into the sheep- fold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." — Y. 1. This is one parable or one-half of the twofold parable or allegory. The interpretation of it is given thus : " I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers : but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door : by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy ; I am come that they LAW OF THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 125 might have life, and that thej might have it more abundantly."— Ys. 7-10. The parable in the second form runs thus : " He that entereth in by the door, is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth ; and the sheep hear his voice ; and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he put- teth forth his own slieep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him : for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him ; for they know not the voice of strangers." — Ys. 2-5. And the interpretation of it is : " I am the good shepherd : the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hire- ling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the slieep, and fleeth ; and the wolf catcheth them, and scatter- eth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sJieej)-) and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father : and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold : them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice ; and there shall be one fold, and one sheplierd. There- fore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I. have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." — Ys. 11-18. 126 LAW OF THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. In tlie first, the Saviour compares himself to the door of the sheepfold, and in the second to the shepherd. It is unreasonable to expect a perfect correspond- ence between the two versions of snch an allegory. Two allegories perfectly alike are inconceivable. As there must, of necessity, be some points of difference in the first representation of the one, compared with the other, the second sense will naturally undergo a partial modification. It is sufficient that the second sense is essentially the same. The prophetic allegories, for the most part, ex- hibit this feature of doubla representation. The pro- phecy of Daniel regarding the four empires of the world is delivered in the form of a double allegory. In the first, which was pictured before the mental eye of l^ebuchadnezzar, lost by him, but recovered and interpreted by Daniel, ch. ii. 29-45, there is a repre- sentation of a great Image, consisting of Four Metals, broken to pieces by a stone, cut out without hands, which stone, after destroying the image, becomes a mountain and fills the w^hole earth. Here is one al- legory. The same prophecy is redelivered in the form of another to Daniel himself, ch. vii. In this, the representation is made of Four Beasts, which are described from their rise in the sea till their end in the burning flame, when the kingdom " is given to the people of the saints of the Most High," or when, in the words of the interpretation of the first allegory, '' the God of Heaven shall set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed." Each of these allegories, contain- ing distinct and totally difi'erent first representations, LAW OF THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 127 develops, as the interpretations sliow, the same second sense. One prophecy is delivered which respects the four great world-empires, tlie destruction of these and the establishment, on their ruins, of God's universal kingdom. In Zechariah, ch. i., there occurs the following example of one prediction delivered in two allego- ries, or, as it may be called, a double allegory. In the one, the prophet sees a horseman upon a red horse, standing among the myrtle trees, which is fol- lowed by red horses, speckled and white. This is one allegorical picture, which, as appears from the context, predicts the restoration of the Jews. This is followed by a second, in which " four horns " appear, which are said to have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem, and "four carpenters," which come to cast out the horns of the Gen tiles " which lifted up their horn over the land of Judah to scatter it." There is thus the same prediction delivered in this twofold and reduplicating form which the structure of the compo- sition manifests, as the partial interj^retations rendered and the context show. In the first allegory, the Jewish restoration is not ]-epresented with equal fulness, but it is distinctly unfolded in the words, to be taken liter- ally, which immediately follow. " Then the angel of the Lord answered and said, O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indigna- tion these threescore and ten years ? And the Lord answered the angel that talked with me with good words and comfortable words. So the angel that 128 LAW OF THE DOUBLE ALLEGOEY. communed with me said unto me, Cry tliou, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts : I am jealous for Jeru- salem and for Zion with a great jealousy. And I am very sore displeased with the heathen that are at ease : for I was but a little displeased, and they helped for- ward the affliction. Therefore thus saith the Lord ; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies ; my house shall be bnilt in it, saith the Lord of hosts ; and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem. Cry yet, saying. Thus saith the Lord of hosts : My cities through prosperity shall yet be spread abroad ; and the Lord shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem." — Ys. 12-17. In the second allegoric pic- ture, which, in this case, immediately follows the first, the restoration is brought out in strong and lively colors by the representation of four carpenters or huilders fraying the four horns that scattered Judah. The meaning of both is explained. It is apparent that, with two totally different first senses, the second sense is the same. The prediction is a manifest ex- ample of double allegorical representation. The prophecy of the four chariots, ch. vi., may be regarded as delivered only in the form of a single al- legory. It is, however, the onlj^ example of the kind which occurs in the thoroughly symbolic prophecies of the Old Testament. We exclude from present con- sideration Daniel's prophecy, ch. viii., for a reason which will be afterwards stated. Yet, even here, the nucleus of a second allegory may be discovered in the interpretation. This says, "These are the four spirits of the heavens (or, better, as the marginal read- LAW OF THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 129 ing has it, these are the four winds of the heavens) which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth." The angel here delivers the interpretation in the form of a new representation of " four winds of the heavens," which words cannot possibly be un- derstood literally, and which may therefore be re- garded as forming at least the nucleus of a new alle- gory. It is true the angel immediately lays the sym- bol aside, and takes up the former one of the chariots and horses, or rather, of the horses, for he makes no allusion to the chariots. But, in his words from vs. 5 to 8, he, in every respect, redelivers the prediction, stating it ^vith greater detail. This, be it observed, is not an unusual feature of the repetition. See ch. i., Dan. ii. and vii., and Gen. xxxvii. 6-9. Whether this be accepted as a case of double representation or not, it is unquestionable that the whole of the angel's an- swer to the question of Zechariah, " What are these, my lord ? " is couched in hieroglyphic language, and forms, in effect, a second and more full symbolical representation. Had the angel followed out the sym- bol of " the winds," instead of reverting to the horses, his words would really have formed the second alle- gory. It is obvious, that the winds cannot be de- scribed or individualized, and, it may be concluded with sufficient pi'obability, that for this reason the symbol was laid aside. As it is, this instance is to be held a redelivery, or a double version, with the same allegory, while there is a partial development of a second. What is to be regarded as the first regularly con- 6* 130 LAW OF THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. stnicted symbolic prophecy in sacred writ exhibits the form of a double allegory. The earliest specimen of the art, that which, in respect of antiquity, stands at the head of the list, and is the forerunner of suc- cessors extending through a long series of ages, ex- hibits the double form. The antiquity of this exam- ple, as well as of another, to which reference will immediately be made, is im23ortant, inasmuch as it shows that duplication is a fundamental principle, and not a mere after-development of the art. We re- fer to the prophecy delivered to the youthful Joseph, regarding his future greatness. Joseph tells to his brethren his first dream thus : " For behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose, and also stood upright ; and behold, your sheaves stood round about, and made obeisance to my sheaf." — Gen. xxxvii. T. He dreams a second dream, and relates it thus : " Behold, I have dreamed a dream more : and behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me." — v. 9. Here, in the two allegories, with a slight addition in the second, 07ie prediction is delivered, viz., that of Joseph's exaltation in worldl}^ rank above his kin- dred. It forms a very neat and compact specimen of the double allegory ; in the first version of it, the sheaves of corn do obeisance to Joseph's sheaf; in the second, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars, perform to him obeisance. It is one prophecy de- livered in two sets of symbols, which have a totally LAW OF TKE DOUBLE ALLEGOKY. 131 different first sense, but of wliicli the second sense is precisely the same. The above examples, which comprehend almost the whole of the fully developed and regularly con- structed symbolic prophecies of the Old Testament, with two exceptions, one of which enforces the rule, and which will both be considered presently, may be regarded as sufficient to establish the conclusion, that the normal form of a symbolic prophecy is two first representations hearing one second sense. If the prophecy of the four chariots of Zechariah be regarded as constructed in the single form, it will simply be an exception to the rule. The prophecy of IJaniel, ch. viii., is necessarily excluded from the operation of the law, for a special reason, which will be stated immediately. But the following prediction, which, on account of its very important bearing on the law, we have re- served to the end of the catalogue, is not only an emi- nent example of its operation, but it may be regarded as laying down the law itself while it states the rea- sons for it. There is thus the law established by a series of precedents, and there is also a distinct enun- ciation and promulgation of it. The prediction in question, is that delivered to Pharaoh, concerning tlie seven years' famine in Egypt. It is delivered in two dream-allegories to Pharaoh. The Egyptian king re- lates the first thus : " In my dream, behold, I stood upon the bank of the river ; And behold, there came up out of the river seven kine, fat-fleshed, and well-favoured ; and they 132 LAW OF THE DOUBLE ALLEGOET. fed in a meadow: And behold, seven other kine came up after them, poor, and very ill-favoured, and lean-tleshed, such as I never saw in all the land of Egypt for badness : And the lean and the ill-favoured kine did eat up the first seven fat kine : And when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them ; but they were still ill-favoured, as at the beginning. So I awoke." — Gen. xli. 17- 21. He relates the second thus : " And I saw in my dream, and behold, seven ears came up in one stalk, full and good : And behold, seven ears, withered, thin, and blasted with the east wind, sprung up after them: And the thin ears devoured the seven good ears." — vs. 22-24. Upon hearing this account of his dreams, " Joseph said unto Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh is one," that is, as is plainly the meaning, the two dreams of Pharaoh have one second or real sense, and consti- tute one divine revelation. The sense is very evi- dently this. But what follows has a most important bearing upon the subject in hand: " God hath showed Pharaoh what he is about to do." The connection of the words plainly shows the meaning to be, that a double representation with one sense, is a sign of a divine communication. This, however, is still more plainly stated in the words, with which Joseph con- cludes his interpretation of this twofold allegory, sub- mitted to the mental eye of Pharaoh, where a farther reason for the douhleness is added. He there says : " And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh LAW OF THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 133 twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass." — v. 32. The two statements lay down the law upon the subject in terms which appear to be very express, that the douhle- ness of symbolical representation is a sign of two things, which are, first, the certainty of the events predicted happening ; and, secondly, their shortly happening. The latter element, indeed, that of the sjjecdiness of the fulfilment, is not insisted on, since it is but once mentioned ; the certainty that the pre- diction will be fulfilled is insisted on. It is singly stated in the first instance ; it is re-stated, and it is evidently the main thing prefigured, by the sign of reduplication. Now, as it must be held, that all the predictions of God are certain of being fulfilled, it follows that the full and perfect form of a symbolic prophecy is the double form, since this form is the sign of certainty. It follows evidently, also, that a symbolic prophecy, delivered in the single form, wants the sign of a divine communication. Had the above prophecy been delivered to Pharaoh in the form of a single allegory, it is plain that Joseph could not have said, " God hath showed Pharaoh what he is about to do," since he grounds this statement upon the doubleness of the dream. Doubleness of repre- sentation is asserted to be the sign of two qualities in a prediction, certainty and speediness of fulfilment. No prediction of God can want the former ; it may, however, want the latter. In this case, but in this case alone, the sign would evidently be inappropriate and out of place. Here its absence may not only be 134: LAW OF THE DOrBLE ALLEGOKY. regarded as jnstijSable, but it may be looked upon as demanded, on tlie ground that the prophecy does not contain one of the two things of which " doubleness " is the sign, to wit, sjpeediness of fulfilment. There is but one symbolic prediction of Scripture, the fulfilment of which is referred to a distant date. This is that which appears in Daniel, ch. viii. With regard to this, the interpreting angel, at various 23oints, insists that it shall be late in the accomplish- ment. This prediction exhibits no trace of double representation. It is delivered strictly in the form of a single allegory. It is true, it is re-delivered in chaps, xi. and xii., but it is not couched there in the allegoric form; there is no double allegoric repre- sentation of it, which alone could give it the character of a reduplicated allegory. The absence here of the second allegory is suffi- ciently accounted for, by the reason that the prophecy is " for many days," while doubleness, that is, as must be understood, doubleness in the allegorical repre- sentation, is stated by Joseph to be a sign of events that will shortly come to pass. It might have double- ness, indeed, on the ground of its being the sign of certainty of fulfilment ; but it is clear it is better without it, in order to preserve the perspicuity of the sign. The law is thus expressly stated, and the operation of it is proved by many examples. We find that almost all the symbolic prophecies bear that sign, of being communications from God, which lies in the doubleness of representation. The duplication, how- LAW OF THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 135 ever, is a sign of speediness as well as certainty of fullilment. There is a manifest conlirmation of the law in this respect also, in the very exception, inas- mnch as the single S3anbolic prophecy of Scripture, which bears on the record the affirmation that the fullilment will be late, and " at the time of the end," V. IT, is destitute of the feature of reduplication. It may be considered a legitimate conclusion from the above that every regularly constructed symbolic prophecy will manifest reduplication and display a double allegory, provided it be free from the state- ment that it will be late of fulfilment. It may, in- deed, be late of fulfilment, but it ought to be free from a statement to this effect, in which case the reduplication in it will be solely the sign of certainty. It may be regarded as certain that if it contains the affirmation in it that the events will shortly come to pass, it will bear the sign of this feature of its events, which is reduplication. If it wants the presence of this sign, it is plainly imperfect in form. But the Revelation is a regularly constructed symbolic prophecy, and, as is universally admitted, is the highest specimen of the art of writing to which it belongs. The events of which it predicts are " certainly established by God," and it is affirmed of them with frequent repetition, that they will " shortly come to pass," (i. 1, 3,) etc. It is the only prophecy, witli the exception of the above, which enunciated the reasons of the law, that makes a formal state- ment in regard to the events shortly coming to pass. It thus contains in the highest degree the two 136 LAW of" the double allegoet. qualities, of whicli donbleness is the sign. Can it be held that it contains the two things signihed, and that it is destitute of the sign itself? This is an inference which cannot be made. The unity of de- sign in form, as well as in subject, which is known to prevail, and which must prevail in s/mbolic compo- sition, forbids the supposition that a fundamental law is contravened, and that the signification of a sign, which is well established, is overthrown. A conclu- sion so ruinous to the consistenc}^ and intelligibility of symbolic composition cannot be held. As a proph- ecy, the Revelation is more addicted to forms than all the others, as is universally admitted. But the forms which it observes are those of symbolic Scrip- ture, among which the reduplication of the allegory holds not only a prominent place, but the highest place of all. It is a legitimate, nay, a necessary conclusion, then, that the prophecy of John bears that signet of divinity attached to it, which consists in the duplica- tion of the allegory, and that, the events predicted in it being such as will shortly come to pass, it has the authoritative sign of this quality of its events, which sign is redi(/plication. If the Revelation does not de- liver a double allegory, it clearly is not only imjMV- fect^ but positively anomalous in form. This is a conclusion not to be drawn. CHAPTEE X. THE LAW OF THE QUATEENAL STKUCTrEE, OR THE rOUKFOLD FOKM. The symbolic prophets construct tlieir allegories with a group of four figures, or with four agents or actors in their plot, which plot, although in the Rev- elation complicated, is, for the most part, a simple one. This is a nearly universal feature of symboHc composition. It is not of essential moment to know the rationale of it ; it may be held sufficient to rec- ognize the fact of its existence. The reason, how- ever, on which it is grounded, aj)pears to be the fol- lowing : The natural heaven stands in symbolic concejDtion for what is called, to use an expression borrowed from its own style of representation, the 2>olitiGal fir- mnatnent. The winds, the moving forces in the natural heaven, are four in number, as they were reckoned by the Hebrews. Now as the natural heaven has four agents, for the winds are its agents, it is only maintaining the consistency of the image to represent the political heaven with four active powers in it. This fourfold division of the powers of the natural heavens is, without doubt, the funda- 138 LAW OF THE FOUEFOLD FORM. meutal fact iq^on wliicli the qiiaternal structure of tlie prophetic allegory is based. In Zechariah, ch. vi., we find a direct reference to the winds in this sense of agents, not, however, in the natural but in the political world. In his prediction of the Four Chariots, ch. vi., which unquestionably represent the four great, world-empires of Daniel, the angel interpreting the chariots by another symbol, says : " These are the four spirits {i. e.^ winds, for the Hebrew word nn signifies either ' wind ' or ' sj^irit,' and the sense here certainly requires winds) of the heaven which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth," that is in efi'ect, for the mean- ing can be nothing else : these are the four dominions of the political world which exist under the provi- dence of God and fulfil his purposes, even as the winds move and blow upon the earth. It is a matter well worthy of attention that the same symbol which is employed to close this prophecy of Zechariah is emploj^ed to o]?en the precisely corresponding one of Daniel, ch. vii. This prophet says : " I saw in my vision by night, and behold the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another," vs. 1, 2. The two prophecies thus describe, in so far as the symbol is concerned, a perfect circle, the one prophecy commencing and the other ter- minating with the same s3^mbol, wliich correspond- ence, on the ground of that unity of conception which j)ervades symbolic composition, may justly be held to be evidence of their unity in subject. This circle, LAW OF THE FOTJEFOLD FOEM. 139 whicli is thus performed by the common symbol, may also be lielcl to enclose and to consecrate foiii\ the central point in the representation, as the spe- cial number of dominion^ since this is the subject here in hand. There can be little doubt, indeed, that one, if not the sole reason, for this association, which is a very marked one throughout Scripture, of '' four" with dominion, lies in the fact, that the winds of the heaven are/bz^r. Daniel casts his two prophecies or rather his double proj^hecy of the Four Empires in the fourfold form, chs. ii. and vii. It cannot be said that this quaternal structure whicli he has given to it, rests on the fact that the empires are four. The number of the do- minions is in truth ^yq. Yet he constructs his prophecy with a four-fold group in it, and he keeps the fifth dominion separate and distinct from iliQ four. He thus preserves the quaternal form. It cannot be said that this disposition of his subject is made for the reason that the fifth dominion is of a difierent character from the preceding four ; that it- is the kingdom of God, while the four are world-dominions. John, who is also a prophet of God, and with whom this reason, had it really existed, must have weighed, represents dominions that are antagonistic and hostile to the Kingdom of God with the very same kind of symbols and combined with it in the same group. Thus he represents the false ecclesiastical dominion of his book by a wliore^ the true church by a woman, the false church by a false jyrophet, the true church by two witnesses, the false church by a two-horned wild 140 LAW OF THE FOUEFOLD FOEM. heast^ the true clinrch by a laiiib^ the false church by the city Babylon^ the true church by the New Jeru- salem^ and the kingdom of God triumphant, claiming and achieving universal temporal authority on earth, in accordance with Dan. vii. 27, by a horseman on a white horse ; he gains a complete victory over three enemies, whom he casts into a lake of fire ; these are rejDresented by the second, third, and fourth horsemen^ and by the dragon^ least, and false prophet. It is evident, then, that John mixes up the kingdom of God with the world-dominions. It thus appears that Daniel's modelling his prophecy in the fourfold form cannot arise from the fact that his dominions are four, for they are really five. Yet he so manages his representation of the five by placing the fifth, which he does not even name XXiq fifth, externally to the fourfold group, that he preserves in efifect the fourfold structure of his prophecy. We can hardly regard this handling of his subject in any other light than as evidence that the fourfold is the normal form of representing the subject. The structure of his prophec}'', as we find it, appears totally inexplicable, except on the ground of a rigid adherence on his part to the.quaternal as the normal mode of represen- tation. Zechariah, however, gives a more striking exem- plification of Quaternal Structure in his prophecy, eh. vi., above referred to, and which we have every reason to regard as delivering the same prediction as that of Daniel just considered. He constructs his prediction in such a way that not a breath of sus- LAW OF THE FOUEFOLD FOKM. 141 picion can be cast on the purity of its qnaternal form. He confines liis allegory to four chariots, and predicts solely of the four great world-empires. He excludes the kingdom of God from the representation which he here makes altogether, although he predicts largely of this kingdom in other places. Why does he leave it out of the representation here ? It will be difficult to find any other reason for his doing this, and it is to be presumed that he had a reason, except that the fourfold is the normal form of representation. In the double allegory which Zechariah delivers in ch. i., he displays the quaternal form twice over, although there appears to be no other reason for his adoption of this form except that it is the normal one. It is true, that in the first allegory the horses are not enumerated, and their number can only be inferred. Still, the conclusion is a legitimate one, that the qua- ternal number is preserved here also, since in the second copy of the prediction which he delivers below it is found. "We shall not, for this reason, however, found any argument upon it. But in the second alle- gory which follows, we find the fourfold structure in a distinct form accompanied by the reduplication of it. The political joower hostile to the kingdom of God is represented by four horns ^ and the Jewish nation by four carjyenters^ and the one quaternary is placed in opposition to the other, the first representing the enemy of the kingdom of God oppressing it, by en- deavoring to prevent the restoration of the Jews, as the interpretation clearly shows, v. 19, and the second rep- resenting this kingdom triumphing over the hostility. 142 LAW OF THE FOUEFOLD FORM. "What reason can there be here for determining the representation of the hostile power as fourfold^ and the Jewish nation as fourfold^ except that which is founded in the prevalence of the law of the quater- nary ? The quaternary, it is true, is a double one, but this results from the nature of the prediction. The dominions of which the prophet had to predict were two in number. Had he represented these in a sin- gle form, he would have violated the law of the qua- ternal structure ; had he represented each of them by the number 2, he would have still broken it ; by rep- resenting them by 4, he preserves the quaternal prin- ciple entire and unbroken. The operation of the law, then, is, in this prophecy, not only very distinctly perceptible, but, as it appears, its influence has ac- tually wrested the representation into the quaternal form. The prophecy of Daniel, ch. viii., exhibits a double quaternary likewise. The symbols here are eight horns, which are thus made up, 2 horns upon the ram, 1 upon the he-goat, 4 which spring up out of it, and a little one which makes the eighth. It can hardly be said that the subject has determined this number ; we are much rather justified in saying, that the num- her^ on the ground of its prevalence, has determined the sicbject, and that the dominions predicted of are eight, because eight forms a double quaternary. A glance thrown upon the Revelation will be suf- ficient to discover the prevalence of the quaternary in it. Thus the four living creatures call npon the prophet to " Come and see " four horsemen, ch. vi. LAW OF THE FOUEFOLD FORM. 143 As tliese are tlie only representations wliicli he is specially invited to " Come and see," there is strong evidence derived from this circumstance, that these horsemen constitute the fourfold group of the whole prophecy. In chs. xii. and xiii. there is a second fourfold group which, on the ground of the omission of the special formula of invitation, as well as the identity of the second sense, is to be held a duplicate group to the above. There is thus a double por- traiture with four in each. Again, the plan or plot of the prophetical piece shows likewise four actors in it. Three enemies, during the course of it, oppress the future victor ; and three enemies against one are " gathered together to the battle of that great day of God Almighty." The final catastrophe, as well as the opening and the course of the prophecy, manifests a fourfold group. The proj)hecy opens with a horse- man on a white horse, with three horsemen, who are to be presumed to be his antagonists, ch. vi. ; it closes with a horseman on a white horse, casting a beast, false prophet, ch. xix. 20, and a dragon, ch. xx. 10, into a lake of fire, which three, both on the ground of unity of design and identity in the second sense, are to be held symbols synonymous with the three horsemen with which the conqueror is associated at the commencement. The above instances comprise all the larger and fully developed specimens of symbolic painting. The contemplation of these symbolical pictures shows that the disposition of the subject in a group of four is a law of the prophetic allegory, which is of, 144: LAW OF THE FOTIRFOLD FORM. universal observance, and which is not departed from unless it be to double the quaternary, which is only to exemplify the principle of representation in another way. The presentation of the subject, then, in a four- fold groujp^ is evidently a fundamental and estab- lished law of symbolical composition, as manifestly appears from the rigid adherence of the prophets to this form of representation. The number Four sways and determines the symbolic prophet in the arrangement of his materials and the structure of his piece, to such an extent, that he never departs from it. CHAPTER XI. THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY OF THE EEVELATION, EXHIBITING UNITY OF DESIGN AND QUATERNAL STRUCTURE. It will be out of place to submit here any part of that proof which, as we conceive, demonstrates that the Revelation contains a double allegory, that is, two first representations developing the same subject in the second sense, or, in other words, two versions of the same subject, which is here a prophecy, each of which versions is couched in diflerent but strictly synonymous symbols. This belongs to a difi'erent branch of the subject, which would require to be treated of in a separate volume. At present, we confine ourselves to a plain state- ment of the twofold allegory. IS'evertheless, we found upon the simplicity of the representation itself in the double form as a strong reason in favor of the reality of the double version. It may justly be regarded as a thing impossible to occur that, in any allegory, but more especially in any symbolic allegory, two first representations should be educible, distinguished in either by at once uni- formity and simplicity of design, which representa- tions are yet not reduplications of each other. It 7 146 THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. may reasonably be held impossible that a phenome- non such as this can ever occur. If the present statement then exhibits a double representation or a twofold allegory, displaying at once simplicity and identity of plan and design in either form, the mani- festation of those features may justly be held to be evidence that the representations displaying the same design contain the same sense. We leave out of view at present the fact that the two sets of symbols into which the analysis of the prophecy resolves it, dis- cover, when tested by hieroglyphic interpretations, a perfect identity of signification. This identity would be evidence of reduplication were there no plan, for if two sets of signs are synonymous, the commu- nication which they make is certainly doubled. But there is a plan developed twice over which, if there be not reduplication, may justly be regarded as a phe- nomenon such as in a work of the length, complexity, and intricacy of the Revelation cannot be conceived to occur. The existence, then, in an allegorical com- position of one plan twice developed is, in itself, evi- dence of the DOUBLE ALLEGORY. It may also be added that the circumstance that a plan is found twice de- velojyed is evidence that there is in truth such a plan itself, since it is hardly possible to conceive that there should be two plans which are the same, and which yet do not exist. If one plan is found in a book, it is much, and the discovery of it is strong evidence for its truth, since a satisfactory plan for a book can hardly be invented. But if two ^lans, which are the same^ are found in it, the evidence in favor of the reality THE DOUBLE ALLEGOET. 147 of this plan is infinitely more than doubled. One fair plan might possibly be educible, but the discovery of two snch plans may jnstly be held a thing alto- gether impossible. But the evidence will be rendered even still higher if there be ground to presume, as is the case with the Eevelation, that the author does really give two plans. The evidence will be farther heightened if we add that unity of design and the quaternal structure must be found displayed in both the plans. The discover}^ of a plan, then, is an evidence of its existence, since a plan can hardly be invented. But the discovery of two jolans which are the same for one work, more especially with the con- ditions above-stated attached to them, may be re- garded as demonstrative evidence for the reality of this double plan, since it must be held as sheerly im- possible to invent it. Another reason for the double allegory we shall premise before proceeding to the statement of it. The prophecy of the Kevelation is delivered, as we assume, which may be very safely done, in One Seven-Sealed Book, the pictures in which, which sometimes pass from the purely pictorial state into the form of representations acted before the mind of the prophet, constitute the predictioDs. This contain- ment of it in one Seven-Sealed Book clearly evidences its U7iity. But in the exhibition of the pictures of this book there is a division : a " silence about the space of half an hour," ch. viii. 1, divides the picto- rial representations, which come under the seventh seal, from those of the six preceding ones. Here, 14:8 THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. tlien, is a division in that which is one, which is im- possible. Impossible it is on any other supposition, excepting that the one set of representations are re- duplications, thus identical and thus 07ie with the other. This is an evidence for a double allegory which it will be difficult to set aside. The prophecy is rep- resented as 07ie and also as divided and twofold, there being one division in it, two things which are incon- sistent with each other, absurd and impossible. But there is neither inconsistency nor impossibility on the theory of a double allegory. The double allegory thus solves an inconsistency and impossibility which must be solved. It alone does this, for there is plainly no other supposition that can do it. This is a feature very much in favor of the double allegory. The prophecy then is delivered, in consonance with the reason just stated, in two allegories, each bearing the same second sense and each making the same revelation, one of which allegories precedes, while the other follows the " silence in heaven about the space of half an hour," which silence divides not the prophecy, it being one, but simply the representa- tions of it, making these representations, and not the prophecy, which is one, twofold. Let us examine the two allegories thus disposed, as they are before and after " the silence," and endeavor to perceive that identity which there is ground to conceive exists, or rather let us endeavor to discover if there be any difterence between them. This will be difficult. However, before entering on the analysis of the THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 149 first allegory, we shall first note a peculiar feature it exhibits. This peculiar feature it has, and which dis- tinguishes it from the second allegory, is the introduc- tion of four principal figures in it, by the Four Living creatures who call upon John to " come and see " these figures. As this is a formulary which is visi- ble nowhere else in the book, the conclusion natu- rally to be drawn is, that the whole subject of tlie prophecy is here developed, and that all the other pictures which John is not called upon to " come and see '' bear a subordinate relation to these. Else why is the prophet called upon to look upon these pictures, and not the others ? After " the silence," there is a second fourfold group, ch. xii.-xiii., which John is not called upon to look at. For what reason ? and •there must be some reason. Vie are not only author- ized, but we are called upon by every sound principle of hermeneutics, to suppose there is. It will be difii' cult to find any other reason, except that the second group is a reduplication of the first. This sufficiently accounts for it that the formula which is used in the one case is in the other omitted. It is particularly to be observed that, while in the interpretation of an al- legory no stress ought to be laid on mere phraseology, it is difierent where objects or actions are described. Tliese, and not the words (the words are only valuable as they indicate these), are the true signs of the alle- gory. Just as in the interpretation of a writing, we are not at liberty to assume that a word is meaning- less, neither is it allowable, or rather it is much less allowable, in the interpretation of an allegory to as- 150 THE DOUBLE ALLEGOEY. sume that an action is without meaning, since an ac- tion, nnlike a 'word, is a cumbrous sign which cannot with justice be held as employed without a purpose. Here is an action, an important action, performed by a highly important symbol. It has a meaning. What is it? It will be ygyj difficult to find any other meaning except that the introduction of the wdiole subject of the prophecy is here made by the four living creatures. Accordingly, the second qua- ternal group in chs. vii. and xiii., consisting of the Woman, the Dragon, and the Two Beasts, must be held to be reduplications of this group, since the whole subject of the prophecy is developed by the four living creatures. • The first four seals of the Seven-Sealed Book, as they are opened in order by the Lamb, display to the* eyes of the prophet a fourfold group of Four Horse- men. The two remaining seals, the fifth and sixth, describe simply events. There are, accordingly, no more than four figures exhibited before " the silence," that is, in the first allegory, which figures are the Four Horsemen. What is the plot or design develop- ed in it? Every allegory has, as has been shown, necessarily one such. The first Horseman, the rider upon the White Horse, is described as a conqueror. It follows the other three are the combatants whom he conquers, for otherwise there were no design in the representa- tion at all, which is absurd and impossible. But the victorious Horseman of the group is a conqueror in the highest degree, for it is said of him that he goes THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 151 forth " conquering and to conquer," wliicli is a He- brew idiom for conquering eminently, the 2)hraseology expressing simply the Hebrew superlative form. It is a rational conclusion that this victor, who is de- scribed as a victor in the highest degree, not only overcomes, but that he exthyates the three combat- ants with which he is associated. This is the more to be held, since the first allegory ends with a scene representing not only victory, ^vhich, on the ground of unity of design, must be held to be his victory, but perfect and everlasting peace and security, which presupposes the destruction of all his enemies, ch. vii. 9-17. Such is the fourfold group introduced by the four living creatures, and the interpretation wdiich is at once naturally and rationally to be formed of the ex- hibition made of them. The first four seals, then, simply contain a representation of four agents or actors, of whom one is a victor, from which circum- stance a contest is to be inferred. The two following seals describe events. A regard to design, which the interpreter is not only authorized but alwavs under oblioiation to assume in the work he interprets, necessitates the conclusion that these events bear reference to the fourfold group which the prophet has just described. If not, the actors are described without events, which is plainly absurd and an inference not to be drawn. Accordingly, the conclusion is a necessary one, that the events of these two seals are the events in which the actors above-described are concerned. 152 THE DOUBLE ALLEGOEY. The fifth seal exhibits a scene of oppression, but it is an oppression which is to be avenged, and is to end in victory, for of the oppressed, it is said, "White robes (the emblems of victory, for the proper sym- bolic force of white throughout the book is victory) were given unto every one of them ; and it was said nnto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow-servants also, and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be ful- filled." Ch. vi. 11. That the church militant is described under this seal, there can be no doubt. But we have nothing to do at present with the second sense. We are restricted to the first representation. Here is a representation of the oppressed, described as " the souls of them that were slain," clothed with white robes, emblems of future victory, and whose cause is to be avenged. Who can these be, but those for whom the Conquering Horseman stands ? Tliey cannot be the conquered, for they are destined to ultimate victory. They cannot be other conquerors, for such a supposition conflicts with unity of design, in the prophetical piece. They are, accordingly, the final Conqueror ; and his oppression for a season, which is stated to be limited, (v. 11,) and which in the second allegory is defined to be 1260 symbol- ical days, is here represented. ISTow every victory presupposes a combat, and to every combat there are necessarily two sides. Accordingly, to the full development of the subject, as displayed in the first four seals, there is necessary the representation of the temporary defeat of the final Conqueror. That the THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 153 snbject is a combat, appears, as has been stated, from the fact that Four Horsemen are described, one of whom is a victor. An exhibition of 'the contest mi- der this aspect of the temporary depression of the final Conqueror, apjDears to be absohitely requisite to the real development of the subject, which is a contest. It is certain, that in no other way can the com- bat, which is not described in the first four seals, be at all portrayed, eitlier with a regard to consistency or harmony of design. In keeping with neither, can the prophet bring the Four Horsemen a second time on the scene of representation. This would have the efl'ect of making the representation ushered in by the Four Living-creatures an imperfect one. But the contest is not developed in the First Four Seals ; it is merely indicated. It has, therefore, still to be devel- oped, for if not, then is the exhibition of the Four Horsemen, and the victory of the first, a mere idle pageant, which cannot be supposed. This develop- ment is made in the fifth seal, to the extent of show- ing one phase of the contest. The battle is described as going against the final conqueror, and he is op- pressed for a season by his adversaries, who triumph over him, and trample him under foot. But though laboring under a defeat, he is assured of ultimate victory. Such is the force of the representation of the fifth seal. But in the following seal a reversal takes place in the respective position of the belligerents, and the contest exhibits a very different phase. This seal opens with an exhibition of vengeance : 154: THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. " The kings of tlie eartli, and tlie great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid 'themselves in the dens and in the. rocks of the moun- tains ; and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on US, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb." — Rev. vi. 15, 16. What vengeance is this? Unquestionably that which was promised under the previous seal. But it is final vengeance, for t^e great day of his wrath is come, V. 17. Whose wrath ? Undoubtedly that of the Conqueror, who is now going forth " conquering and to conquer." A regard to unity of design in the composition, which the interpreter is not permitted to violate, as well, it may be added, as a regard to de- sign, connection, and sense in the composition at all, demands this conclusion. The two seals taken together, then, as they ought to be, develop that combat and victory which is the subject really inherent, although not developed, in the exhibition of Four Horsemen, one of which is a Victor. The first four seals, which sim23ly place a group of combatants on the canvas, are incomplete and unfinished representations, w^ithout the presence of the fifth and sixth seals ; these last are equally in- complete and unfinished, w^ithout the presence of the first. The whole, taken together, alone form a com- plete composition. But this victory of the Conqueror has a phase different from the avenging aspect it displays in THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 155 respect of his adversaries. This is represented in the remaining part oi the seal. We have thus far seen the Conqneror marshalled ■with his Four Antagonists in the First Four Seals. AVe have seen him pass through a temporary defeat in the Fifth Seal, and we have seen him taking ven- geance on his adversaries and achieving his victory in the opening vision of the Sixth Seal. A tempest is the image employed to represent this consumma- tion. Terrible is this victory to his adversaries, but it has another and a more gracious side, which is presented in the second vision of the same seal. A multitude, which is expressed by 12 multiplied into 12 in thousands — therefore a vast multitude — is sealed, that is, is unharmed, by the strokes delivered in the achievement of this victory, and is redeemed and saved by it. The great day of the wrath of the Lamb has come, as is said in v. 17 of the preceding chapter, but a mighty multitude is sealed, so that the fury of his avengrng power passes over them unscathed. T]ie representation here is similar in strain with that expressed in the following passage of Isaiah : " Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee : hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For, behold, the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their miquity : the earth also shall disclose her blood, and ^hall no more cover her slain." — ch. xxvi. 20, 21. " In that day the Lord, with his sore, and great, 156 THE DOUBLE ALLEGOKY. and strong sword, shall punisli leviathan the pierc- ing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent ; and he shall slaj the dragon that is in the sea. In that day sing ye nnto her, A vineyard of red wine. I the Lord do keep it ; I will water it every moment : lest any hurt it, I will keep it night and day. Fury is not in me : who would set the briers and thoi'ns against me in battle ? I would go through them, I would burn them together. Or let him take hold of m}^ strength, that he may make peace with me ; and he shall make peace with me. He shall cause them that come of Jacob to take root : Israel shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit." — ch. xxvii. 1-6. Tlie third vision, ch. vii. 8-17, represents the peace, security, and felicity, described in the above glowing language of the figurative prophet, which prevail in the territories of the great Conqueror, after all his enemies are destroyed. The white robes of the multitude, and the palms, emblems of victory, in their hands, forcibly recall to the mind the victory represented under the First Seal, which is now to be regarded as w^on. Here the first allegory ends, and it displays, so far as its structure and composition is concerned, all that can be demanded in the first ver- sion of a symbolic prophecy ; it displays unity of design and the quaternal structure. It is here worthy of observation that it is a matter of no essential moment that the imagery is changed, that the temporary depression of the victor is depicted under the form of a sacrifice^ and his vengeance taken THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 157 on Lis adversaries under the form of a tempest. Such a cliange of imagery is common in sym])olical com position, and cannot be Iield as making any compro- mise \vha ever of its unity of idea or of design. This rapid transition from one to another and different image still representing the same idea, is a marked feature of the Revelation. It is a chai-acteristic of the prophet to disregard the connection of imagery entirely. An equally abrupt and disconnected tran- sition from one to another image, as is here displayed, occurs for example in the symbol, the False Prophet. Tlie False Prophet is nowhere in the book described, and yet he is cast into the Lake of Fire which, if he is not elsewhere described, is absurd, and is evidence that he is described under some other symbol; on the other hand, the Harlot and the Two-horned Beast are fully described as enemies of the Conqueror, and yet they are not cast into the Lake of Fire, wdiich, if they are not thrown into it in another form, is equally absurd. It is evident that the three symbols are per- fectly synonymous. The prophet, however, passes rapidly from the one to the other without the slight- est intimation of change. Hence the False Prophet is with perfect consistency represented as punished and destroyed by being cast into the Lake of Fire, but then he has been fully depicted and a full length portraiture of his character and doings has been rendered under the synonymous symbols of the Whore and the Two-horned Beast. These two latter, also, have justice executed upon them, for they are cast into the Lake of Fire under the form of the False 158 THE DOIJBLE ALLEGOET. Prophet. A transition from one image to another is not any infringement of unity of idea or of design. If synonymous words are permitted in tlie case of common language, why not synonymous hieroglyphic signs in a symbolic writing ? If the synonymes do not destroy the unity in the one case, neither do 'they in the other. It is of great importance to note, that the symbolic prophets by no means make it a principle of their writing to preserve this kind of unity, which is a mere unity in expression, because by looking for it and calculating on it we are apt to be misled. Probably the most of commentators have been misled by this very circumstance, else it is not very easy to see why they should have so much neglected and dis- regarded unity of design in the composition they were interpreting as they have done. Seeing the prophet passing rapidly from one image to another, they ap- pear to have fancied that he was following no design at all. Nearly all the interpretations which have been rendered of tlie first six seals, and they are very many, for no part of the book has been subject to such a variety, have been grounded on a total ignor- ing on the part of commentators of all design here. Neither the introduction by the living creatures nor the disposition of the seals one to another have been held to aiford evidence of design in the composition. Seeing the prophet pass from a contest, or at least from that which indicates a contest, to a sacrifice, and from a sacrifice to a tempest, they, as it appears, have supposed that the apostle had cast away the wings of the symbolic prophet altogether, without which he THE DOTJBLE ALLEGOEY. 159 never could raise himself from tlie ground and out- strip, as lie does, the flight of time, and that he is treading the mere pedestrian pathway of the annalist who follows no design at all, except that which the mere position of his facts in the order of time furnish. Nothing, accordingly, can be more indefinite, not to say jejune and absurd, as they mostly are, than the applications made of these seals. Commentators begin in a certain indolent and indifferent manner, and apply them to such events, which are of a very various and piebald character, as are nearest hand the time of the prophet, regarding no design at all in the disposition of the symbolical pictures excepting that of the annalist. But the arrangement of the an- nalist is not his but that of the facts themselves, and such as cannot be held worthy of the name of design. According to the chronicle principle of arrangement, the first seal comes first, the second, second, the third, third, and so on to the seventh. The Trumpets then follow, but these and the remainder of the prophecy cannot be disposed of by this principle. It is, ac- cordingly, good for nothing, for it breaks down and leaves the interpreter at a stand still ere he is lialf through with the book. That the prophet pre- fers the order of time and that he has arranged some parts of his book upon this principle, as for example the Trumpets and the Yials, is a reasonable supposi- tion, and is one supported by evidence, the evidence of a really satisfactory application of these symbols. But that he is guided by no other principle of ar- rangement excepting this, is impossible, because there 160 THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. is in such a simple principle of arrangement nothing worthy of the name of design. But without design John is no symbolic prophet, and without a design which is profound, his long and complex prophecy were destitute of all definite meaniug, and in every proper sense of the word unintelligible. The ignoring of design in the interpretation is an error of the first magnitude. Design, however, has here been entirely ignored, for the plan of the annal- ist can never be held to be a design for an allegory. This circumstance accounts for the nnsatisfactoriness of all the interpretations rendered of this part of the book. It is design which gives to the pictures of the prophet their fixed and definite meaning. If the prophet writes without design, his pictures, which are for the most part general, can have no real sense. If the interpreter explains without the apprehension of this design, his interpretation can have no value, for rival interpretations will follow his in swift suc- cession. But design here has not been apprehended, hence this part of the book cannot be said to have been interpreted. But it is no evidence of the want of design that it has not been apprehended. ISTor is it any evidence of the want of design that the design does not lie in the connection of the imagery. The prophet himself furnishes us with evidence that his design lies deeper than this mere superficiality ; for this were nothing more than a design in mere ex- pression ; the design which he follows is not a design manifesting itself in the mere vehicle of expression. There being no design in this latter respect in the THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 161 First Six Seals, as is apparent, it must be that other and more recondite design which lie lbllo^YS — the de- sign in tlie subject. The case stands thns : He mnst manifest design, in order to be intelligible, either in snbject or in expression. It is not his principle to manifest it in expression nor does he do it here, in expression, as is evident : the conclnsion follows, he mnst manifest it in subject, since he must do it in one way or the other. It will be difficult, we believe, to discover any other design in the subject than that which has been above stated, and when we reject, as the prophet intimates we should reject, the mere con- catenation of the imagery, it is very plainly dis- coverable, and it is a design which the expression itself develops with sufficient clearness^ provided the due bearings of the symbolical pictures one on the other are sufficiently regarded. The very fact itself that in the interpretation of the First Six Seals there has existed such endless variety and such nncertainty, naturally inclines the mind to the supposition that there has been a fatal error committed in the interpretation of this part of the book. The assumption, very unwarrantably made, that the prophet follows no deeper design than that of the mere annalist, and, as a consequence, that this part of the book is merely the commencement and not the whole first version of his prophecy, form toge- ther a combined error of such gigantic magnitude as is perfectly sufficient to account for the total failure of the interpretation of these Seals. A pause intervenes between the first and second 162 THE DOUBLE ALLEGOKY. allegories, or the first and second versions. " A silence in heaven about the space of half an hour," ch. viii. 1, takes place, during which all representation is sus- pended. This silence is full of significance. Before we enter on the consideration of the second allegory, divided from the first by this panse, it may be requisite to make a single preliminary observation. We have already taken notice of one feature which serves wisely without doubt to cloud and to conceal the prophet's design. This is the change of imagery. The practice of this change is in unison with the spirit of his writing, and eminently subserves the main ob- ject of it. It is dark, enigmatical, cryptogrammic ; its professed object is to conceal the meaning. The prophet, with*this object in view, inverts the words of ordinary language and uses them, attaching totally difi'erent senses to them. This he does to conceal the meaning of his language. He employs a change of imagery, as we have seen, and it is a verj^ efifectual method to conceal his design. If he preserved the same image throughout, his design would be very easily apparent ; but he does not do this ; he changes his imagery perpetually, and thus waylays his reader, or rather his searcher, in the pursuit, not insidiously but wisely, and tasks his utmost intellectual efiTorts to follow him. !N^o sooner has the latter approached him, it may be, in one image, than the prophet has abandoned it and has taken up a totall}^ difi'erent one, so that the connection of one part of his plan with another is apparently dissolved, and the thread of his design is made nearly undiscoverable. This is doubt- THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 163 less perplexing, but he warns him that this is his method of writing : he stirs him up to the exercise of wisdom, chs. viii. 18, xvii. 9, to find out his real meaning, while, moreover, a blessing is specially attached to "him tliat keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book," ch. xxii. 9, which, from the professedly enigmatical character, may reasonably be held to have reference chiefly to the keeping of them before the mind for contemplation, meditation, and solution. But the reduplication of the prophecy is evidently a condition in the representation which stands in open hostility with this design of his. The natural and necessary effect of reduplication is not at all to deep- en and increase the enigma, but on the contrary, to resolve it. Let an enigma, no matter how profound and dark it may be, be only constructed in two dif- ferent forms; let it be repeated with a change, it will plainly run by this duplication a much more than double risk of discovery and detection. By adopting reduplication then the prophet obviously imperils the secrecy of his prophecy. Eeduplication is, however, the authoritative sign and pledge of a divine revelation of the future (Gen. xli. 32) in that symbolical language in which the prophet writes, and it accordingly behooves him not to withhold from his prophetic work the recognized and formal sign of its divine origin. This is one reason which may be re- garded as imposing upon him the absolute necessity of reduplication. But at the same time that this feature endangers the secrecy it heightens in a pro- 164: THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. portional degree the definiteness and the ultimate se- curity of the meaning. This is an object of no small moment. These are two important purposes accom- plished by it, which may be regarded as sufficiently powerful inducements to determine the prophet to reduplicate, no matter how hazardous it may be. AYe make no account here of the fact that reduplica- tion is a law of his art. But there is need, more es- pecially in a work of the length of his, of the utmost circumspection in the method of performing it. We have already observed how his design has been veiled even in the first short version, by the change of imagery which he employs. The design nevertheless unfolds itself in symmetry. This exhi- bition of design he has made in the first version — we mean design in respect to the arrangement of his materials. It is accordingly sufficient for his whole work. If he has given the arrangement of his sub- ject matter once^ it is all that is requisite — perhaps more than can be demanded. This he has done. He has risked the discovery of the contents by boldly prefixing to his prophecy a Table of Contents, in which light the first version is to be viewed. And this risk he has run quite successfully, for liis Table of Contents has not been discovered during the long and prying search of 1800 years. Indeed the very boldness of the design has been the pledge of success, for who would think of looking into one of the symbolic prophecies of Scripture, dark and enig- matical as they are, for that element of perspicuity and plainness, a tal)le of contents ! His very audaci- THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 165 tj lias here saved him. But having provided his prophecy with this mstmiment of ordei\ lie is enabled to relax his order in his second version. Here he employs a departure from order to veil his design. He veils by it the design of reduplication; and he veils by it his whole design. He involves and per- plexes the arrangement in such a manner as effect- ually to conceal the fact that reduplication exists. His first version is short and general, for it is simply a Table of Contents ; his second version is long and full of matter : there is therefore no correspondence between the two copies in size. There is here then a cause at once of mystery and of plainness ; of mys- tery, that the two versions are disproportionate ; of plainness, that the one is an Index. He has thus made his prophecy mysterious by delivering it in two versions so disproportionately formed, that they appear as one ; he has made it plain by prefixing to it a Table of Contents. He has thus eminently ful- filled the conditions of symbolic writing, which is de- signed to be at once excessively darh and excessively dear. There is a profound wisdom in this. But, although the prophet has discarded design, in respect of the arrangement of his materials in the second version he has not rejected it to any such degree that it should form a complete medley and a chaos. Order still prevails in it, and may be said to be pre- dominant in it. The Fourfold Group are not at the beginning indeed, and in their natural position, as in the first version; but they still occupy the central position in the piece, and they appear in the same 166 THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. order and succession as in the first version. The judgments, which are in the sixth and last seal of the first version, are placed at the beginning of the sec- ond, which is an inversion of order; but these trum- pets of judgment are bio war 'in a regular succession, wdiicli is uninterrupted except by what may be re- garded simply as the episode of ch. x.-xi. 14. The re- mainder of the second version contains nothing more than a recapitulation of the two final seals of the first version. The first four seals then are found in the centre of the second version ; a portion of the sixth seal begins it, and the remainder of what is coiv tained in the fifth and sixth seals is redelivered in that portion of the prophecy wdiich follows ch. xiii. There is thus, after all, no great departure from the unity of arrangement. But let it be supposed there was not a vestige of uniformity of arrangement discoverable between the first and second versions. If the analysis of the con- tents showed that the subject in both was the same, this in itself would justly be held to be conclusive evidence of the fact of reduplication. But when we analyze the multifarious materials of the second ver- sion, it is found that they resolve themselves into that wdiich, in a less developed and more elementary form, is contained in the first. Let us, as the prophet has done, depart from the order of arrangement, and begin the analysis wdtli the Fourfold Group, wdiicli is introduced by the Four Living creatures, stands at the head of the first ver- sion, occupies the centre of the second, and which evi- THE DOUBLE ALLBGOET. 167 dently is the main and grand constituent of the whole pi'ophecy. This group we j^erceive in chs. vii. and xiii. in the figures of the Woman, the Dragon, the Ten- horned and the Two-liorned Beasts, — symbols corre- spondent in signification in the first sense they bear, and answering in order to the Four Horsemen of the first four seals. In the crown on the head of the Wo- man we recognize the crown of the Conqueror of the first seal : in her persecution and flight into the wil- derness for 1260 days we perceive the reduplication of the representation made under the fifth seal, when the Conqueror sustains a temporary defeat. Her mar- riage, which is announced at the end of the book, ch. xxi. 2, 9, is but an exhibition under a new image of the yictory of the combating and conquering Horseman, for a glorious marriage is to the pure and chaste Wo- man what victory is to the warlike and combating Horseman. Her blissful wedlock-state represented by the glory of the 'New Jerusalem, where the symbol, a woman^ passes into the synonymous one of a city, is in every respect correspondent with the represen- tation of the state of triumph and felicity in the do- minions of the Conqueror described in ch. vii. 9-17. Tracing the history of the Woman, then, we find nothing but the Conqueror under another form. The same design is pursued, and the same idea is devel- oped under both the symbols. But the identification may be still more closely made, through the medium of a symbol, which is combined with the Woman. This is her son. Here we again observe, that total disre- gard of the naturalness and the congruity of the repre- 168 THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. sentation, wliicli is not an infrequent characteristic of symbolic prophecy. It is equally nnnatiiral and in- congruous that a pure and chaste woman, which this woman is represented to be, should bear a son with- out marriage, as, for example, that ears of corn should devour other ears. Gen. xli. 24, or that horns apart from living animals should pursue carpenters. Zech. i. 19. Symbolic prophecy, scorns all such restraint and tramples down all such absurdities. It is a characteristic of the writing ; the interpreter is only required to conform himself to it. But there is here nothing more in effect than a mutation of the symbol. The woman passes into another — or rather she is redu- plicated in another symbol. She appears in her son simply in another form. In this son, then, whom she bears, and in whose history the same idea and design is developed, we behold the future Conqueror himself as he appears going forth on his victorious career un- der the First Seal ; for this offspring is a man-child who shall "rule all nations with a rod of iron." — Ch. xi. 5. In other parts of the book, and in other symbols besides these — for the book teems with synonymous s^^mbols — we recognize the Conqueror. We see him, in ch. xix. 11-21, represented by the same symbol — a Horseman on a White Horse, as under the first seal ; we recognize him in another form, that of Michael, who fights with and overcomes the Dragon, ch. xii. 7, in the Lamb upon Mount Zion, ch. xiv., and else- where. But a leading synonymous sign under which he appears, and in which aloiie his history is fully developed, is the Woman passing through the vale. THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 169 or the wilderness of persecution, to the ultimate tri- umph of a glorious marriage, when this symbol itself passes into tlie correspondent one of the city^ the ISTew Jerusalem. In this the defeat and final victory of the Conqueror are depicted. The other symbols are to be regarded as variations performed on the lead- ing theme. It is to be remembered that the second is the reduplicating version, and the perfect one con- tained in the Seventh and perfect Seal. It abounds with repetitions of the subject, and with rehearsals of it under fresh imagery. It is the reduplicating the full and the perfect version. There are, accordingly, many synonymous signs in it for the Conqueror. The Woman is the chief of these. The Dragon is the second symbol of the Fourfold Group in the second version. His color is red, cor- respondent with that of the Red Horse of the Second Seal. It is the only instance in which the color is mentioned in the second quarternary ; and it develops the correspondence. Nevertheless, the colors of the other members of the group may legitimately be in- ferred to be the same as in the first quaternary, for the prevailing color of the "Woman, clothed with beaming light, and with the sun, is certainly to be in- ferred to be white, and the color thus to stand in unison with the white of the White Horse. The Ten- horned sea-monster is to be inferred to be llach^ the color of the real monsters of the deep, and tlierefore to correspond with that of the Black Horse; the Two- horned land beast to be j9(2/^, like some of tlie most savage land animals, and therefore the color to be 8 170 THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. the same as that of the Pale Horse. This corre- spondence may be inferred, although it cannot be proved. If we follow the history of the Dragon, we see the history of one of the combatants of the conquering Horseman. We find him cast from heaven to earth by Michael, ch. xii. T, who is a synony- mous symbol for the Conqueror. We find him per- secuting the Woman, ch. xii. 13, likewise a synony- mous symbol : he is therefore waging war against the Conqueror: he is described as forming a con- federacy against him in conjunction with his allies, the Beast and the False Prophet, ch. xvi. 13, 11 : he is bound for a season, and restrained from action, but •is loosed from his prison, when he makes a final onset against the Conqueror, which ends in his being taken and destroyed, by being cast into a lake of fire and brimstone, ch. xx. He is accordingly one of the three antagonists who are represented! in the first Four Seals as entering into combat with the Con- queror of the book, and he answers in the second version to the Eed Horse and Eider of the first ver- sion. The Ten-horned Beast is the third member of this fourfold group we are examining. He is an asso- ciate and an ally of the Dragon, having, as appears from ch. xiii. 4, the same " worshippers : " he makes war on, and persecutes what, on the above ground, as well as for the reason that the length of the pe- riod is precisely the same, must be understood to be the same power as the Dragon, the period of his continuation and making war on the saints, being THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 171 forty-two months, cli. xiii. 5-7, wliicli is the same as the 1260 days of the Dragon's persecution : he is a member of the threefold confederacy which is formed against the Conqueror previous to the final battle : ch. xvi. 13, 14 : his presence in this final battle is described, ch. xix» 19, 20, when he is taken captive and cast into " a lake of fire, burning Avith brimstone." He is evidently, then, a second of the three combatants. The Two-horned Beast is the last member of the Quaternary. He is an associate of the Dragon, for he " speaks like " one, ch. xiii. 2, and " he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him," v. 12, who, as it has been shown, is an ally of the Dragon. He is accordingly in alliance with the Dragon and in comhinatioii with the Ten-horned Beast. As these have been shown to be two combatants of the Con- queror, he is necessarily the third. His complete identification with the Ten-horned Beast, as merely another j^Aa^^ of him, is shown in various parts of his portraiture, as it is rendered in ch. xiii. 11-18. But the real amalgamation of the two is more vividly por- trayed, and is allegorically represented by the com- bination of the two in one compound symbol, viz., a Ten-horned Beast and a Whore riding on it, which is done in ch. xvii. In ch. xiii. they are repre- sented as they existed during the period of the 1260 days, when the conflict of war went in their favor and victory, for a temporary season, perched upon their standards. In ch. xvii. they appear when this pe- riod of temporary triumph has ended and when they 172 THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. are driven into the wilderness, in which they are now seen, v. 3 — the wilderness, an image bearing the sense of defeat in respect to the contest, and in which the Woman had sojourned during the period in which their cause had had the ascendency. The wiklerness, as it respects the four combatants, is evidently a cor- respondent image for defeat in a coinbat. When the Drao-on drives the Woman into the wilderness he then must be understood as overcoming the Con- queror, if we hold in view unity of design in the structure of the prophetical piece, as we are bound to do ; when the Woman flees into the wilderness for 1260 days, the victor is defeated by the three combatants who contend with him, and the defeat lasts for the period thus measured out ; when the Beast and the Whore are in the w^ilderness, in which there is water, the Beast being a sea-monster, ch. xvii. 1, 3, victory reverts to the side of the final Conqueror, and they, in their turn, are defeated. This image, however, is not used in the latter reference in respect of the Dragon — the correspondent expression applied to him is his being chained in the bottomless pit, or, as the translation should be, the abyss of the sea^ for a season. The reason for this probably is, his identification as a symbol with the dragon of the waters, while the rea- son for the wilderness, in the same sense, being em- ployed in respect of the Beast and the Whore, may be held to be to place the Whore and the retribution inflicted on her in stronger contrast with the chaste Woman that was persecuted and forced to flee into the wilderness. The same idea, however, is prose- THE DOUBLE ALLEGOKY. 173 ciitecl tliroiighoiit the representation made, whether by the same or by a change of imagery, which idea is the development of the relations of the fonr actors of the prophetical piece or combatants as they appear in the first fonr seals, one to another. The shifting and changing of imagery, the nse of synonymous symbols, does not affect, as has been already shown, the nnity of design nor tlie nnity of idea, which, if we would understand an allegorical prophecy, mnst be steadily kept in view. The symbol, the Two-horned Beast, which has al- ready been once changed in the second version into the Whore, undergoes a farther transmutation and passes into the False Prophet, which last is retained to the end. The change of the two single figures, the Ten- horned and the Two-horned Beasts, into the one com- posite one of the Ten-horned Beast and the Whore riding on it, was made probably for the purpose of representing the close combination and real unity of these two actors, which is developed in words in ch. xiii., and which, in ch. xvii., is represented b}'- their combination in a compound symbol. The transmuta- tion of the Whore into the new and undescribed symbol, the False Prophet, on the occasion of the final conflict, as the j^i'eparations for it are described, ch. xvii. 13, 1^, and as it is in part detailed, ch. xix. 11-21, may be held to have been done for the sake of making a full display of the three enemies of the Conqueror on the great and decisive battle-field. Thus, the Whore, who is in herself no proper com- batant and could not well be represented going un- 1T4 THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. armed and on foot to battle, is dropped. The Two- horned Beast is not taken up again, because, as may be supposed, this beast had only two horns like a lamb, ch. xiii. 11, and therefore was unable to fight. A fresh symbol is invented, the False Prophet, who goes into battle in the capacity of chaplain to the host, which, though it be only represented by the Dragon and the Beast, consists, as we learn from ch. xvi. 14, of " the kings of the earth and the whole world," that is, the whole world under their infi.uence and represented by these. It is to be observed that, with a due regard to the second sense, the prophet could not properly put arms into the hands of the third combatant, because this combatant stands for an ecclesiastical powder. The above may be held to be reasons accounting for the transition made by the prophet from the Two-horned Beast to the Whore, and from the latter to the False Prophet. Bat the interpreter is neither bound to find reasons nor the prophet to act upon any, in this regard, because it is the principle of the latter to change his imagery. He is therefore at liberty to alter it without reason. It is a mode of representation which he displays with great versatility and profusion throughout his whole book. It is full, from beginning to end, of symbols that are synonymous. With these he can pursue his unity of design just as well as with symbols that are identical. The conflict, however, is the main design which this great symbolical painting displays, and though there are many scenes and figures on its canvass they are all illustrative of the one idea which a war and THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 175 victory embody. The prophecy opens with the ex- hibition of a Conqueror and three antagonists in one group of Four Horsemen, to which the prophet's special attention is called by the Four Living-crea- tures. Tlie first version ends with a magnificent display of triumph and victory. The second version opens with the trumpets of war. "War and a contest form, if not the sole, the leading thread of connec- tion throughout its complex and multifarious visions. Here the development is clearly made that it is to a decisive and final battle that events tend. Three ene- mies, as in the first version, are marshalled against the single Conqueror, who are here the Dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet. The Conqueror him- self appears as the same Horseman on the White Horse, with which the first version and the prophecy itself opened, as if to mark the unity of idea and of design which pervades it. If the single Conqueror is the same, this of itself may be held evidence that his enemies are the same. This Conqueror, in the second version, overcomes, takes captive, and casts into a lake of fire burning with brimstone his three enemies, the Beast, the False Prophet, and the Dragon. This consummation of vengeance has its counterpart in the first version in the tempest, under the Sixth Seal. The war is finished by the destruction of the enemy. Glor}^, peace, and everlasting felicity are the rewards of this victory. These are described in glowing terms at the close of the Sixth Seal, and in the same and even more glowing language at the close of the Seventh and perfect Seal, chs. xxi. and xxii. The 176 THE DOUBLE ALLEGOKY. same victory then of one Conqneror over three an- tagonists is the tlieme of that part of the prophecy which precedes and of that part which succeeds "the silence in heaven about the space of half an hour," and which thns contains t^^o allegories, displaying the same unity of conception. In the first allegory or version, which is as we have called it and not without reason a Table of Con- tents to the second, the subject is merely sketched. The four combatants in the contest are displayed in the first four seals resting as it were upon their arms ; the shock of battle is undepicted. The events of the contest are described in merely general terms in the two following seals. The fifth seal descri1)es the events as being adverse to the Conqueror. The sixth peal represents them as destructive to his enemies and victory-bringing to himself; with the emblems of which victory and the triumph that follows it the first version closes. The second allegory may be searched with the utmost scrutiny ; nothing more than this subject will be found in it. The fourfold group appears here not as before in the form of Four Horsemen, but in the form of a "Woman, a Dragon, a" Ten-horned Beast, and a Two- horned Beast, which are described in chs. xii. and xiii. at much greater length and with more detail than the correspondent portraitures are given in the first version. They are also seen not simply at rest, as there, but engaged in action. The first of this group is expressed throughout this version by several symbols which are synony- THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 177 mons, and the principal of wliicli are Michael, ch. xii. 7, the Conqueror on the White Horse, ch. xix. 11, which is the same as in the first version ; the Two Witnesses, ch. xi. 3 ; the Lamb upon Mount Zion, ch. xiv. 1, and the New Jerusalem, chs. xxi. xxii. The second, the Dragon, appears nnder the sy- nonymous names of Satan, the Devil, the old serpent, and the accuser of the brethren. The Beast stands alone and in a bad eminence as the Beast — the only designation applied to him. The Ten-horned Beast is transmogrified into the Whore and the city Babylon of chs. xvii. and xviii., and the False Prophet of ch. xvi. 13, xix. 20. The strictly synonymous nature of these various names or designations may be demonstrated from the identity of signification which they bear in the second sense. But it may also be proved even in the first sense on the two grounds, at once, of nnity, and of consistency of design in the piece. Such are the four agents in the second version. They evidently reduplicate the quaternal group of the first. The character of the events described throughout this version is the same as in the first. They resolve themselves into these two grand branches, marked in the first version by being placed, the one, under the fifth, the other, nnder the sixth seal. The one of these divisions comprehends the depression of the Con- queror and the temporary triumph of liis adversaries ; the other, the victory of the Conqueror, and the final destruction of his enemies. The reduplication of the fifth seal of the first 178 THE DOUBLE ALLEGOET. Yersion appears in the second, on the one hand, in the flight of the Woman into the wilderness for 1260 days, ch. xii. 6, and in the prophesying of the Two 'Witnesses in sackcloth, for this period, ch. xi. 3 ; and, on the other, in the persecution of the Dragon for 1260 days, ch. xii. 14, and the continuing (to make war on the saints) of the Beast, (all whose power the Two-horned Beast exerciseth, ch. xiii. 12,) for 42 months which is 1260 days, ch. xiii. 5, and also in the treading under foot by the Gentiles of the holy city for 42 months, ch. xi. 2. The Sixth Seal, w^hich is longer than the other in the first version, receives in the second a proportion- ally long recapitulation. The chief remaining part of this version is almost entirely devoted to the re- capitulation of this seal. It opens with judgment. In the second version the judgments on the three enemies who fought and for a season opj^ressed the Conqueror, are represented by Seven Trumpets, the last of which completes their destruction, chs. viii., xi. This seventh and last Trumpet is what is to be understood as having its special counterpart in the Tempest of the Sixth Seal ; but in the first version all the judgments are to be regarded as comprehended in the representation made of this last, which is to be looked upon there as the representative of the whole. The Seventh Trumpet is subdivided into Seven Yials or Seven Last Plagues of judgment. This subdivision presents a description of the particular events which mark the last judg- ment, chs. XV., xvi. The desperate condition of the three enemies THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. 179 during the period of the judgment is described in reference to two of them by the representation of the Beast and the Whore in the wilderness, ch. xvii. 3. The condition of the Dragon during this period is described bj his being cliained in the bottomless pit or abyss for the extravagant period of 1000 years! The contest in its intensity lasts for 1260 days, and as an episode in it the Dragon is chained for 1000 years ! This is one of those absurdities which, as has been already referred to, more or less characterize the first representation of a prophetic allegory. It looks on the first sense as a mere phantasm and disfigures it at its pleasure. The absurdity here, however, is not greater, by no means so great, as tliat involved in the concep- tion that a lamb should take a book and open the seven seals of it, ch. vi., or that a water-Dragon should be seen in the sky, ch. xii. Symbolic pro- phecy delights in such extravagances ; she excels all orators in the boldness of her figures. The second sense shows that this period, wdth such audacity of statement made so extravagantly long, is, in truth, in com2:)arison of the 1260 days, an incomparably short period. Such is the miserable condition of the three ene- mies as they are subjected to the strokes of that ven- geance and judgment promised to the persecuted under the fifth seal, or, to use the imagery of the sixth seal, as they are lying under the awful tempest in the great day of the wrath of the Lamb ; and which, in the second allegory, reappears in another form in the efi^usion of Seven Golden Yials full of the wrath of God. 180 THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY. The final consummation occurs in the Seventh and last Vial and while the last notes of the Seventh Trum- pet are sounding. The Beast and the False Prophet are taken captive and cast by the great Conqueror into a lake of fire, ch. xix. 20 ; the city, Babylon, falls, whicli is a rehearsal in part of the above, ch. xviii. ; the Dragon is cast into the same lake of fire and brimstone in which " the Beast and the False Prophet are," ch. xx. 10. Such is the destiny of those three enemies that presumed to measure swords with the great victor, who, in the first seal, is seen unfurling his auspicious ensign and going forth " conquering and to conquer." He achieves a hard-wrought vic- tory ; in this achievement we see the design of the work and the unity of its design exemplified. The victorious course of the Conqueror, as he in- flicts the judgments above-described, after the long period of his depression has passed away, during which he succumbed to his enemies, is more particu- larly represented in ch. xix., while it is elsewhere re- ferred to. Such is the recapitulation in the second allegory of the Tempest of the sixtli seal. But the sixth seal depicts also the triumph of the victor in glowing language, ch. vii. 9-17. This triumph is described in still more vivid colors in the representation which ends the seventh seal and closes the second allegory, chs. xxi., xxii. There is, then, in the Revelation, a double alle- gory exhibiting in each form of it unity of design, and displaying a fourfold group in each. SECTION II. SECOND REPRESENTATION OF THE ALLEGORY. CHAPTEE I. KEY TO TPIE SECOND AND REAL SENSE OF A PEOPHETIC ALLEGORY. It has been seen there is a vast difference between figurative and allegorical language. The former presents no enigma, for it combines the two mental pictures which compose and complete the figurative representation made, and explains itself. It is rare, accordingly, that an interpretation is formally ren- dered of this kind of writing ; if there is, the figure is really a fragmentary allegory. Scripture affords, however, many interpretations of allegories, especially'' of the allegorical propliecies. They were requisite ; an allegory is an enigma : it contains, but it witholds, if not entirely, to a great extent, the second picture. They were peculiarly necessary in respect to the alle- gorical prophecies. These are couched in hieroglyph- ical signs organized into a language. The sense of 182 KEY TO THE SECOND SENSE. tlie signs of this language required to be cleiimtely fixed. It is immaterial to our present purpose to ascertain the origin of these hieroglyphical signs. They are probably remains of that anuient hieroglyphic mode of writing which certainly preceded the invention of the alphabet, and which, having passed out of general use, were enigmatical and suitable as vehicles for the delivery of prophecy. Eor this they were eminently suitable, inasmuch as they combined definiteness with concealment of meaning. It is enough to know that they are used by the symbolic prophets, that sucli interpretations are rendered of them in Scripture as to leave no doubt in regard to the signification of the greater part of them, and that they form a language, wliich, although it bears a certain analogy to ordinary figurative language, is still essentially difi'erent from it. It is obvious from what has been said in the pre- ceding pages that the interpretation of an allegory consists in nothing more and nothing less than the discovery of that second picture which it conceals from view, but which it bears, and in which its real sense lies. In regard to a prophetic allegory the following means contribute to this end : 1^^. Circumstances connected with the delivery of the allegory which tend to suggest its second sense. 2d. Peculiarities in the structure of the allegory which have the same efi'ect. Zd. Partial developments which it makes of the second j)icture. KEY TO THE SECOND SENSE. 183 4:th. The laws of symbolic representation. Mh. The symbols. These means are all valuable, and of snch a nature that, when brought to bear in their full force, they can scarcely fail to compass the solution of the problem. The limits of the present work forbid us from attempt- ing any thing more than the application of the three first. These means, however, will be destitute of any effectual result if the first representation be not apprehended. The fact that this condition has not been fulfilled in respect of the Revelation, and that the first representation which it makes has not hith- erto been understood, appears to us to have been the grand barrier in the way of its successful interpreta- tion. It is perfectly clear, for example, that if the allegory has been regarded as one, while there are two, no advance could ever be made in the interpre- tation of the whole book, no matter how efiicient the above means of elucidation may be. The second sense would stubbornly refuse to discover itself in the absence of the first. But if the allegory be twofold, and the two first representations which it makes have been apprehended, we are then on the ti^ach at least wdiicli conducts to the successful issue. We have made the elementary step and w^e are in a position to bring tlie above means of interpretation to bear on the solution of the problem with their full and legiti- mate effect. "We have laid the foundation upon which the superstructure of the second sense may possibly be reared, and without which it can never be reared. CHAPTEK 11. CIKCUMSTANCES CONNECTED WITH THE DELIVERY OF THE ALLEGOKY, WHICH TEND TO SUGGEST THE SECOND SENSE. It Hsnally occurs that there are certain circura- st-ances connected with the delivery of an allegory, which have a tendency to point out the second and real sense of it. Let us take, for example, the alle- gorical dreams of the butler and baker, interpreted by Joseph in the Egyptian prison : ^' And the chief butler told his dream to Joseph, and said unto him, In my dream, behold, a vine was before me ; and in the vine were three branches : and it was as though it budded, and her blossoms shot forth ; and the clusters thereof brought ripe grapes : and Pharaoh's cup was in my hand ; and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand." — Gen. xl. 9-11. " When the chief baker saw that the interpreta- tion was good, he said unto Joseph, I also was in my dream, and behold, I had three white baskets on my head: And in the uppermost basket there was all SUGGESTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES. 185 manner of bake-meats for Pharaoh ; and the birds did eat them out of the basket upon my head.— ch. xk 16, IT. The second sense of these allegories, it is apparent, is naturally suggested by the circumstances in which they were delivered, viz., in prison, by a butler and baker, lying under the king's displeasure. These cir- cumstances together, it may be, with others not re- corded, were sufficient to awaken the mind of Joseph, who was endowed with a superior wisdom by God, to the real sense. The parable of the good Samaritan, delivered by Christ, in answer to the question. Who is my neigh- bor? is likewise an obvious illustration in point. The second sense is plainly perceptible here, from the circumstance that the allegory is an answer to the above question. ]N'ow there are some circumstances connected with the delivery of the Kevelation, which throw a very considerable light on the real sense of its double allegory. Of these the most prominent are, 1st. The title. M. The revealing angel. 3cl The dedication of the book to the seven churches. Let us collect from these in order, the light they are calculated to yield. Firstly, in regard to the title, it is given as " The Eevelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants, things which must shortly come to pass." Rev. i. 1. It is apparent, 186 SUGGESTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES. from these words, that the allegory is a prophecy of events^ "svhicli it is natural to infer concern the servants of God. This then determines the nature of the alle- gory ; it does not foreshadow dgctrines or spiritual truths, but " things to come to pass," i. e. as is natu- rally to be understood, it predicts events about to take place in the world's history ; it has obviously to do with facts, and not with the ijrincijples of action. It does not move, then , in any transcendental region, but it shoots forward on that plain matter of fact track upon which history is afterwards to follow it with slow and measured steps. It predicts events to happen, the decree of which is registered in heaven, " things which must come to pass." But they are said shortly to come to pass ; a qual- ification which has been a great stuinbling-block to many an interpreter, and also to many an ordinary reader. It has been this in two respects. In the first place, the prophecy has generally been applied to events which do not shortly come to pass, which seems to be a contradiction of the title. In the second place, the coming of the Son of Man to judgment, is, as appears from many parts of the book, -obviously the main event predicted, and yet this is not an event of which it could be said with truth, that it " must shortly come to pass." The title thus stands, apparently in contradiction with tlie great mass of commentators wlio have written on the book, and who apply it to events which do not shortly come to pass, and it stands in contradiction with itself, if the literal sense of the words be taken, for the princij)al SUGGESTIVE CIECITMSTANCES. 187 event predicted is the coming of the Son of man in judgment, which did not sliortly come to pass. The expUmation whicli is rendered of this apparent con- tradiction, viz., that the meaning is, tliat some of the events will shortly come to pass, or that the train of events predicted will begin shortly to move on^ is to many minds not a satisfactory one. It cannot be denied that a certain violation is done to the natural import of language by this explanation. Still it is by no means a violation of truth, for it is sufficient for the correctness of the statement, that some of the events do shortly come to pass. Yet the natural inference is, that this shortly coming to pass is a characteristic of the events, and as such it is not truly a characteristic. If the expression is taken as a simple statement, involving no characteristic, then the explanation is a perfectly satisfactory one. It is sufficient for truth, that some of the events shortly came to pass. If the expression be regarded as neces- sarily containing in it a characteristic of the events which the natural sense of the language implies, then the explanation is not a satisfactory one. It appears to us that a better solution of this diffi- culty may be rendered in this manner. This is essen- tially a symbolical book, and although there are ex- pressions in it to be literally taken, it is only where they cannot bear a symbolical sense. The law of the book is the symbolical sense. Even where literal language in the most absolute manner might be ex- pected, that is, in the case of a formal interjDretation rendered, wx find even here a symbolical meaning 188 SUGGESTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES. attaclied to the words of the interpretation. It is evidently not the intention of the author tliat his expressions should be measured by the plumb-line of literal exactness. If this rule is to be a2:)plied, what sense is to be gathered from "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things wliich shall be hereafter." Ch. i. 19. Does not the prophet here mean to convey symboli- cally the idea of the perfectness of his prophecy, by presenting the idea of absolute time, past, present, and future, rather than to give a literal definition of the relative position in respect to time of the sights which he saw ? The symbolical conception here evi- dently moulds and governs the literal phraseology, which is comparatively vapid and meaningless in its purely literal acceptation. In the same manner it may be held, that in the expression " things which must shortly come to pass," the prophet has a special regard to the fact, that his prophecy is a double one, and that duplication is a sign attaclied by the Spirit of God to predictions of events which shortly come to pass. Gen. xli. 32. The conclusion is certainly a legitimate one, that, since in the words " the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter," the prophet expresses the ]}eTfeGtness of his ^^rophec}^, he intimates in the words " things wliich must shortly come to pass," the duplication of it. In this view of his words, which is founded on the analogy drawn from his own expression, these words will naturally rather express the duplication, than serve to express SUGGESTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES. 189 tlie actual speediness of the fulfilment of tlie events. As tlie one clause clearly develops no more than the perfectness of the prophecy, so the other may be Iield to express nothing more than the duplication of it. But there is another consideration which entirely overthrows the literal acceptation of the language in this case. As a general rule, God speaks to man more Jiumaiio, else He would not be understood. This is undoubtedly His reason for so speaking. But if it can be shown that he designs not to be understood, then an exceptional case is opened up for the sense of lan- guage, and we are then at liberty to judge it not more humano^ but more divmo. This is unquestionably that mode of speaking which belongs to the Deity and the other is simply an accommodation to the necessities of the creature. Now of God's relations to time, we are more than once advised in the book. He is " the Lord which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty : " He is " He that liveth and was dead ; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen." Ch. i. 8, 18. In regard to the mode in which periods of time are contemplated by him, we are told, in another part of Scripture, that " one day is with the Lord as a tliousand years, and a thousand* years as one day." It is obvious, then, that if there is ground to believe that the present forms an exceptional case in which He is to be held as speaking more divino, the expression " things which must shortly come to pass," cannot convey any idea to the mind of man, in so far as the question of time is concerned, nor 190 SUGGESTIVE CIECTJMSTANCES. could tliej have been designed to do it. But if the coming of tlie Son of man to judgment is the prin- cipal event of the prophecy, which cannot be denied, then no revelation can be made in regard to the time of its falfilment, since in this case the prophecy mainly concerns an event which, by a positive affir- mation of Scripture, is excluded from the ken of man. Matt. xxiv. 36. It may be said there are definite measurements of time in the prophecy. Unquestion- ably there are, but these have been shrouded in as much secrecy as that which we hold attaches to these words. They have been couched in symbols, unintelligible till after the revelations made were ful- filled. Accordingly, in consequence of tlie nature of the siohject of the prophecy, all characterization of it as being of " things which must shortly come to pass," is excluded, and the Spirit of God is to be held as using these w^ords more divino^ in an exceptional w^ay, demanded by the nature of the case. It is, indeed, sufficiently clear, that the prophecy can make no revelation in regard to a matter wdiich is excluded in another part of Scripture from revelation. But if these w^ords are to be taken literally, they do make such a revelation. Their literal sense, accordingly, must be 'rejected on this ground. They therefore must have a symbolic sense, since they must have some meaning ; and it is not easy to see what other symbolic sense they can have, except that of express- ing that the prophec}'" is a double one. Duplication is a sign of events shortly coming to pass. Gen. xli. 32. The sign and the thing signified necessarily cor- SUGGESTIVE CIECIJMSTANCES. 191 respond, and are convertible. Their relative positions may be changed, and the thing signified by the sign in one case, may become the sign itself in another. If dnplication is descriptive of events shortly coming to pass, the attribution of events shortly coming to pass, may be equally descriptive of reduplication. The words, then, may be understood as simply con- veying the sense that the prophecy is a double one, just as the words above referred to convey the sense that it is aj?6?yt^8it. 268 THE SY^IBOL SATAN. portant sign to the same rank which the other sym- bols of the book possess, and it will bring the book into conformitj with itself and other Scripture. Firstly, ihen, we have to observe that tlie inter- pretations rendered in Scripture are, for the most part, couched in language which has always some portion of the symbolic elem.ent in it. On some oc- casions this element pervades it entirely. Of this, the most notable instance is the answer of the angel to the cpiestion of Zechariah, eh. vi., " What are these, my lord?" And the angel answered and said unto me, " These are the four spirits (or winds) of the heavens which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth." Here it is clear that one sjanbol is explained, not in language to be taken literally, but by another. In the interpretation of the Four Beasts of Daniel they are said to be four kings, ch. vii. 17, which is not true in the literal sense, as we see from ver. 23, and the corresponding prophecy, ch. ii., for kingdoms are meant. The same occurs in this book, ch. xvii. 10. The seven kings are neither kings nor kingdoms in the literal sense, as is admitted by nearly all commentators, nor is the last verse of the interpretation to be taken in a purely literal sense ; or, at least, a second mystical sense is not excluded from it. In Zechariah, chs. iv. and v., there are sev- eral interpretations rendered to the prophet wdiicli are all couched in language highly symbolic and mys- tical. The evidence from Scripture, then, is plainly against, and not in favor, of accepting even a formal interpretation in the purely literal sense. THE SYMBOL SATAN. 269 But secondly, there is no foundation for supposing tliat the words form an interpretation, or that tliere is here any suspension of symbolic representation. We are not under any necessity of proving this position ; we are at liberty to assume it, tlie prophecy being symbolic, and the symbolic sense being tliat which is natural and germane to it. The language employed is such as would be used were the symbol undergo- ing, at the Jiands of the prophet, an expansion and variation. lie is changing the symbol — the Dragon — into that of Satan. lie has already introduced Michael, who is certainly a symbolic personage, which in itself is evidence that Satan is symbolic. Con- sistency in the representation is promoted by making the antagonist of that which Michael symbolizes, also a personage ; with this view the prophet employs Sa- tan instead of the Draf^on. But, on the other hand, that Satan is an interpre- tation, is an assumption vrhich requires proof Of this position we have not seen evidence advanced, ex- cepting that wliich lies in a loud and long vocifera- tion, re-echoed by one commentator after another, that the prophecy plainly states that the Dragon is Satan. But tliis vociferation, is no argument to the effect that the prophet means that the Dragon is Satan. It is a mere begging of the question. In an ordinary document, such an ex})licit statement would be sufficient evidence of the meaning, but in an alle- goric and sj'mbolic work, the language, plain though it be, looks the other way. The very fact tliat the prophet gives us to understand ])lainly that the 270 THE sy:mbol sat an. Dragon is Satan, and that Satan is the arch enemy of mankind, is the strongest proof which he could give tliat the Dragon is not Satan, tlie arcli enemy, since he writes an allegory, the fundamental prin- ciple of wliich is to sj)eah otherwise. It is indeed difficult for the reader to get rid of tlie plain and obvious sense of language in the perusal of a work ot this description, and it requires wisdom to be con- tinually on the watch for the hidden sense, which is really meant. The principle of the language in which the prophet writes, is to invert the common and ordinary sense of words, and appl}^ to them significa- tions wliich are quite different. It requires pains to follow him in this process of inversion, but it must be done if we would understand him. Had the prophet not used the terms Satan, the devil, the deceiver, tlie serpent, at all, we should then have had ground to say, that Satan the spirit, might have been meant. Having used them, the really legitimate inference is, that Satan is not designed. Those who urge that the pro2)liet plainly states the Dragon to* be Satan the spirit, forget the character of the w^riting. This requires us to draw from a direct statement an op- posite conclusion from that which is valid in common discourse. Here we are to assume the plain sense of language and prove, if necessary, an occult meaning. In allegoric composition, the opposite principle pre- vails. We are here under obligation to assume the hidden sense, and if necessary to prove the literal. This principle must be carried out with the whole book of Eevelation, all of which must be understood to be THE SYMBOL SATAN. 271 symbolic, except that which is proved incapaLle of yielding a symbolic sense, and which, therefore, must be literal. But it has not been proved that a symbolic sense does not properly here lie. It has been assumed, on the contrary, on the ground simply of the plainness of the language, that Satan is designed. The contrary conclusion is evidently the legitimate one. The more plainly that the idea of Satan the spirit is developed, the more we are to believe that Satan is not meant, and the more we ought to be animated to search for the hidden and occult meaning, which, according to the law of the book, lies concealed under the plain and obvious language. In this search the prophet helps us by connecting the symbol Satan with that of the Dragon, which he had previously described. This, there is ground to believe, and not Satan, is really the explanatory and interpretory symbol, and of the seven Leads and ten horns of it there is a formal interpre- tation rendered in ch. xvii. From this interpreta- tion, we deduce that a great political empire is pre- figured by the Dragon and Satan, and that these are strictly synonymous symbols. There is accordingly much better reason for saying, that the Dragon is the interpretation of Satan, than that Satan explains the Dragon, since of the seven heads and ten horns we have an unquestionable interpretation. This inter- pretation, wliich is certain, entirely conflicts with the idea that Satan is an inter2)retation. Tlie principle is to be held steadily in view throughout the interpretation of the book that the symbolic prophet has really divested himself of the 272 THE SYMBOL SATAN. power of speaking plainly. He lias given his readers to understand he does not s])eak plainly. How then can he ever speak plainly ? It is sheerly impossible that he ever can, and just in proportion to the plain- ness of his speech, are we hound, on his own prin- ciples, to look for a hidden meaning. The only occa- sion upon which this law can be held suspended, is when he renders a formal interpretation of his lan- guage in such a manner as to show that he has laid aside his disguised mode of speaking, and has adopted that which is common and usual ; but even liere it it has been shown he preserves a certain mystical air in keeping with the general style of his work, and even interpretations must be scrutinized. But in the general current of his work, and where he gives no in- timation that he ceases to speak allegorically, he must be held to write in a purely symbolic style ; if lie did not do so, he would neccssarilv be unintelbVible. If I u CD he wrote now symbolically and now literally, lie would violate the contract he has made with his readers, and would require himself to be present to explain his work, and tell us what he means to be literal and what symbolic. Accordingly, by no plainness of speech whatever, can the symbolic prophet ever convince his readers that he is speaking plainly, nor is there the slightest evidence that any symbolic prophet of Scrip- ture attempts to do this. He leaves the explanation of his meaning, not to ideas of plain speaking, but to those laws of s}' mbolic writing which evolve and dem- onstrate the hidden meaning. When John, therefore, asserts Satan to be the old serpent, called the Devil, THE SYIMBOL SATAN. 273 the accuser of the brethren and the deceived', and describes the arch enemy of man in language, the plainness of which cannot be mistaken, he is only assuring us with the greater emphasis, that he means something diflerent from Satan. For what reason? For the reason that he writes an allegory, and he has pledged himself to sjyeak otherwise. It is a fundamental law of that kind of composi- tion in which the prophet delivers his prophecy and upon which its intelligibility is based, that every word is to be received as a symbol from which a right and proper symbolic sense can be in harmony with the laws of the language and the sense developed educed. This last condition is a proviso which extends to every writing, for that can never be held to be meaning which yields no sense. Accordingly, if a word taken symbolically makes nonsense, it is clear it is not a symbol. This is a test, the application of which is simple, and it is an efficient one. In the prophecy there is a vast number of words which are to be taken in their literal signification. Such are those which are required in the machinery of the allegory for setting it up and for the disposal of its parts, for attaching the symbols and describing the relations which they bear one to another, and also for explain- ing, in several instances, the second sense. But tlie principle upon which the separation of these words from the true symbolic signs of the prophecy is to be made, is clear and well-defined. It is this. Every word is to be held symbolic until it refuses, upon a rigorous categorical interrogation, to give an intelli- 12* 274 THE SYMBOL SATAN. giblo sense as such. Then, bul not till then, is the word to be rejected as a symbol, and then, but clear- ly not till then, is it to be placed to the account of literal phraseology. The plainness of the language, then, and the ob- viousness of its sense afford not the slightest argu- ment that an interpretation is here designed. But this is the sole argument which is, or which it is possible to advance, that the w^ords in question convey an in- terpretation, and it is baseless. Accordingly, that an interpretation is here designed is a sheer assumption. It is an assumption characterized by its audacity, for, on the ground of obviousness^ it would set up the sense in a book wdiicli is mystical. It is mischievous, for it threatens to stab the language and the allegory at once. But let us now turn to the evidence wdiich estab- lishes the proposition that this is not an interpretation. It has been seen that there is nothing to prove it such ; accordingly^ for want of this evidence it falls to the ground as an interpretation ; there are, however, strong reasons for concluding that it constitutes part of the symbolic text of the prophet. There is no formula of interpretation here employed : no angel-interpreter speaks : there is nothing in the lan- guage to indicate that the prophet has changed his enigmatical style and that he is using the words of plain speech: it necessarily follows he is still to be held as speaking enigmatically. The construction of his sentence imports likewise that he is engaged in making a transition from one symbol to another that THE SYMBOL SATAN. 275 is perfectly synonymous; lie intimates that lie is doing this, not by saying that the Dragon is Satan, for then we might suppose an interpretation; but by coupling the names together in one set of what is really nothing more nor less than so many aliases ! " And the Great Dragon," he says, "was cast out!" alias "the old serpent," alias "the Devil," alias "Sa- tan." Such is the legitimate construction to be put upon his language. Passing from the Dragon to the correspondent symbol, Satan, his synonyme, he ne- cessarily uses language in consistency wnth the new symbol which he has adopted, such as " deceiving the whole world " and " deceiving the nations ; " but such phraseology can be no more held to imply Satan than the name itself. The most conclusive argu- ments, however, that no interpretation is meant by the words in question, are to be derived \st. From the extreme plainness of the w^ords themselves. ^d. From their peculiar position ; and 3rl From their frequent repetition. In regard to the first of these elements in the lan- guage, we observe that when an interpretation is really rendered, it is never fully rendered ; there still remains something to be discovered. This element of partial secrecy adheres more or less to all the in- terpretations of symbolic Scripture. Daniel gives an intepretation of the prophecy of the four beasts, in ch. vii., but he leaves us to infer what empires they prefigure, and he leaves us to infer that the first three do not stand for kings, as he states them to be, but 276 THE SYMBOL SATAN. kingdoms or empires. The interpretation wliicli he renders in chap. viii. is distinguished by nnusnal plain- ness of speech ; but even here the language is not all to be taken in its strictly literal sense. John him- self, certainly, preserves a mystical air in his interpre- tation in ch. xvii., although his meaning is sufficiently intelligible at first sight. But yet he does not express- ly^ name the Roman power, as he is supposed to name Satan here ; nor are the seven and the ten kings of which he speaks, and which he likewise does not name, to be taken in the strictly literal sense. Yet tliis is a distinct and formal interpretation, delivered by the angel, and there is something in it still to discover. But Satan is all too plainly spoken of in the passage in question, to be regarded as interpre- tatory, for there is absolutely nothing left to discover. The prophet strives to make the idea of Satan as plain and obvious as language can possibly make it, which is evidence that he is still speaking enigmatically, for were he speaking as he really means, he would still speak somewhat darkly. Secondly, the rule in regard to an interpretation, is to render it at the end of the discourse ; but this rule is here infringed. John sets out with the men- tion of Satan almost at the outset. He hastens with a zeal and promptitude in the highest degree sus23icious, to tell the meaning of his symbol. In doing this he acts in a manner diametrically opposed to the usual practice and to the fundamental principle of symbolic writings which is to exercise the understanding of the reader in the discovery of the sense. With this view THE SYMBOL SATAN. 277 even interpretations are merely suggestive, while they are invariably rendered at the end of the dis- course. The position then of the passage is adverse to its interpretatory character. But thirdly, in no case is an interpretation ren- dered more than once ; this is justly regarded as suf- ficient. But John delivers this interpretation several times in ch. xii. He has occasion to mention the Drao-on asrain in ch. xx., and he hastens to tell us that he means by it " that old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan," information which he had already several times repeated ; and lest we should not be sure of it even yet, he repeats it several times more. Kow why this enthusiasm of interpretation in this single instance, when the prophet is everywhere else so ex- tremely reserved and chary in the dispensation of light ? In the whole book he draws upon the intelli- gence of his reader, to which he makes a frequent appeal, advising him of the fact, that wisdom is neces- sary to discover his real meaning, and that he is not to understand him in the plain and obvious sense of lan2"uaa-e, and the effect of this admonition extends even to an express interpretation. But all at once the prophet lays aside every shred of his allegoric dress, for what reason it is impossible to see, and assumes, not an ingenuity, as he is wont to do, but a gross stupidity on tlie part of his readers, a stupidity so gross, that he requires to tell them the same thing in plain language, in language so plain, that a child cannot mistake it, over and over again. The pro- cedure of John is so unaccountable and anomalous, 278 THE SYMBOL SATAN. if this be an interpretation, that on this ground alone we must reject the very idea of its being such, and hold that the prophet, when he is speaking of Satan, is still speaking in enigma. It is only thus that the prophecy can be delivered from that which must be regarded as a blemish of the first magnitude in an enigmatical work, a garrulousiiess of interpretation. These are strong, possibly unanswerable argu- ments, against the regarding this passage in the light of an interpretation. But let us apply to it as we ought to do, and as we must do the fundamental law of the book above referred to, the law, namely, that every thing is to be regarded as symbol wliich will bear a right symbolic sense. This is plainly a law as fundamental to the interpretation of this book, as the law is to that of language generally, that every thing is to be taken literally which will bear a literal acceptation. Now it w^ill be found, that applying this law, a sense arises for Satan, which is thus a symbol, in eminent harmony vrith the whole tenor of the composition, as well as with the spirit of ScrijD- tural symbolic writing generally, and a sense wliich redeems the interpretation from all that irrationality which attaches to it, if Satan the spirit is understood. This sense is to accept Satan as a synonymous symbol with the Dragon. By Michael the kingdom of God is unquestionably signified, for it is not the Son of Man personally who is here meant, as must be con- fessed by every one, and nothing else but this king- dom can be prefigured by his name. Michael, he who is like to God, is used then as a symbol of the THE SYMBOL SATAN. 279 kingdom of God. Satan, on tlie other hand, the enemy of God, is used to designate the enemy of his kingdom. What more natural and more proper, than that Satan, the arch enemy of God, should be taken to represent the main and principal form of that dominion, the Eoman, which, according to symbolical prophecy, is the arcli enemy of His kingdom, in a book, part of which is certainly known to be political in its texture, and the whole of which must, on the ground of that unity of design which is essential to it, be held to be such. What, on the other hand, more improper than that Michael should be a symbol and Satan should not ; that the heaven from which Michael casts Satan should be symbolical, and Satan himself should not. We see in the application of this sym- bol to the great political enemy of the kingdom of God, the Eoman dominion, and to the last, for the Dragon or Satan is the last that is destroyed, an indi- cation of that unity of design and conception which pervades the whole word of God. This consideration itself will afford an argument to fix the sense of the symbol.- The first prediction that was delivered, is to the effect, that the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head. Gen. iii. 15 ; the last that closes the whole volume of inspiration, is the destruction of the serpent as the symbol of the Eoman dominion, when the victory of the Son of Man is complete, and when, in the words of Daniel, " there is given him dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him : his domin- ion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass 280 THE SYIVIBOL SATAN. away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed," cli. vii. 14. This is unquestionably the end at least of symbolic prophecy. Of what victory is this that Daniel speaks ? Is it not of the victory of the Son of Man over the fourth great world-dominion, which is the Koman ? And is not the same victory the burden of the Revelation ? Few will deny this. The whole book bears evidence that it is. What more natural, then, and more fitting, than that John should symbolize a step towards the achievement of it by a victory of Michael over Satan, ch. xii., and the consummation of it by the casting of Satan into the lake of fire, ch. xx. There is the strongest evidence that the prophecy of Daniel, so far as it respects the fourth world-dominion, is identical with that of John. If tlie former prophet makes no refer- ence to Satan the spirit, on what ground is it to be held that Jolm introduces into l)is prophecy a sub- ject so foreign to that of Daniel, and to every other part of his own ? ^ay, liow can he prophesy of Satan tlie spirit and deliver an intelligible prophecy at all ? But it is a law with liim, Avhich he rigidly adheres to, simply to develop and to originate neitlier a new sub- ject nor a new image, of which the germ at least is not to be found in the preceding prophets. He de- velops, but he originates nothing, so far as is known, neither in style nor in subject. Where is the germ of Satan the spirit in the elder prophecies ? They all bear reference to the political world, as their interpre- tations prove. These prophets neither do, nor could they predict of Satan the spirit, for by introducing an THE SYMBOL SATAN. 281 element so foreign to their subject, tlley^YOllld destroy the language in which they write, and make tlieir compositions incomprehensible. Who can tell where Satan manifests himself, and where he does" not? How can his presence be avouched by a hieroglyphic symbol ? Of great political dominions and events in the world's liistory, these signs can give an intelli- gible account. But how can they register the doings of such a spirit as Satan? The subject is as totally ignored as it is alien to their whole cast of imagery and conception. Plow stands the argument, then ? it stands, thus far, in tliis way : 16-^^. There is not a particle of evidence that Satan is an interpretation of the Dragon ; it necessarily fol- lows that the language is part of the symbolic text, and accordingly is to be accepted as enigmatical. 2(1. There are irrefragable arguments which prove that Satan is not an interpretation of the Dragon. M. There is evidence derived from the language and the representation made that Satan is asynonyme of the Dragon. The manner in which the prophet uses either designation throughout his prophecy, em- ploying them interchangeably, which he does, is in harmony with this latter conclusion, and of itself al- most necessitates it. These arguments show, that whatever be meant, Satan is not meant. But let us now proceed to prove that the true in- terpretation of the symbol is tlie Koman Empire, independently of any amalgamation of it with its Bynonyme, the Dragon. This will be important; it 282 THE SYMBOL SATAN. will fix the sense of Satan, independently of the Dragon, and it will likewise confirm the application which is made of the Dragon. In one of tlie Old Testament prophecies, models for the Revelation, Satan is employed as a symbol for a political enemy of the kingdom of God in the times therein referred to. There is an exhibition of unity of design in the spirit of God's eniploying the symbol in tlie same sense in John, which atibrds a sound basis for argumentation. It is well known that John founds on past events in the history of the church, as types of the times of which he speaks. The imagery of the vials is drawn to a great extent from the plagues of Egypt, tlie delivery of the church from Egyptian bondage, being typical of that deliver- ance of the church from Koman thraldom, which the seven last plagues or vials efi'ect. The Seven Trum- pets are founded upon the siege of Jericho by Joshua, the trumpets on this occasion being blown seven days successively, until the hostile city fell. The fall of Jericho is typical of the fall of the last great enemy of the church, which the seven trumpets of the Heve- lation, symbolical of seven great judgments, efi'ect. The deliv^erance of the Jews from Babylonish captivity, and their resurrection to a state of national existence in Palestine, are predicted by Ezek., ch. xxxvii., under the figure of a resurrection. This restoration after- w^ards came to pass. It is assumed by John, as typi- cal of the great resurrection of the church from Roman captivity, when the saints of the Most High take the kingdom, as predicted by Daniel and by THE SYIkrBOL SATAN. 283 John, and one of the representations of this consum- mation made by John, is founded on the figure used by Ezekiel, Rev. xx. 5. Now in predicting this restoration of the Jews, the antitype of the grand consummation predicted by John, the prophet Zecha- riah emphiys the very same symbol which the prophet of the Kevelation here makes use of, viz., Satan. Zechariah represents Joshua, the high priest, standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right liand to resist him, ch. iii. Is Satan literal here? Certainly not, for Joshua is not literal. Joshua is the emblem of his nation, and Satan is unquestionably the symbol of the Baby- lonish power or its immediate successor, resisting the return of the Jews to Judea, and their establishment there as an independent nation. A further and a spiritual sense has been attached to this prediction ; but without calling this in question here, this is its primary sense, as v. 2 and the strictly analo- gous prophecy in ch. i., the import of which cannot be mistaken, clearly shows. The burden of these predictions in their primary significance, is the revi- vification of the Jews to a full and prosperous state of national existence ; and that this is their primary meaning, many indications of the second sense scat- tered throughout them sufficiently prove. Zechariah then employs Satan, which he uses as a symbol to represent the Babylonish dominion. John is doing nothing more than maintaining his principle of repre- sentation, to which throughout the book he is true, of selecting his imagery from the preceding prophets, 284: THE SYMBOL SATAN. and of applj^ing it in a striking, analogous manner, when he nses Satan to symbolize the Roman domin- ions, or the Koman empire, a power which occnpies to the kingdom of God in the distant times referred to by him, the same relative position which the Eabylonish power occupied to it in the times spoken of by Zechariah. It is thus obvious, that unity of conception throughout the works of tlie authors who wrote in it, which is necessary to the existence of the symbolic language as a vehicle of intelligible communication, is maintained by the application of Satan in the Eevelation to the Roman dominion ; but it is violated by every other application wliich is made of the symbol, and its language is reduced to a state of paralysis. If the one prophet of God nses the symbol to designate a political dominion, does not tlie other prophet of God do the same ? Conimon sense demands tlie conclusion that he does, and let it ever be remembered that common sense is an excellent exponent of the sense of Scripture; well- established precedent enforces the conclusion ; the science of interpretation corroborates it, for if John uses his signs differently from Zechariah, the truth and virtue of symbolic representation are forever lost. This is one passage which may justly be held to ^x tlie sense of the sj^inbol. The conclusion is a legitimate, nay, a necessary one, that as Zechariah employs Satan for the political adversarj^ hindering the restoi'ation, John emploj^s it for the political ad- versary hindering the final victory of God's kingdom, of which the restoration was a type. But there is THE SYIVESOL SATAN. 285 another passage of Zecliariah ; and another for this prophet affords three authorities to fix the sense of the svinboL An express association is constructed by him connecting Satan with the political enemy of the kingdom of God, whicli he had immediately in view. He delivers a prediction in regard to the restoration of the Jews in ch. i. The horses, of which he there speaks, v. 8, that stood among the myrtle trees that were in the bottom, plainly symbolize the political antagonist of the Jews that hindered their restoration. That they represent this power is evi- dent from the words of the interceding angel, in vs. 12 and 15, where he describes them as the " heathen that helped forward the affliction," and from a com- parison of ver. 11, with ver. 15. Of these horses bear- ing this significancy, it is said, " These are they whom the Lord hath sent to walk to and fro through the earth ;" and again they said, " We have walked to and fro through tlie earth, and behold all the earth sitteth still and is at rest," vs. 10, 11. Xow " walking to and fro," is, in Scriptural conception, eminently a char- acteristic of Satan, as is evident from other passages, but more particularly from that in Job, where Satan applies it to himself, in the words, " And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou ? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it," ch. i. 7. We here find then an association of the characteristic of Satan, to wit, 'Svalking to and fro," with this " heathen that helped forward the afflic- THE SYMBOL SATAN. tion," and in the application of the same symbol in John to the great dominions that helped forward the affliction in the times to which he refers, and hin- dered the glorions result of which the restoration of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity is typical ; we see another manifestation of that unity of design which the Spirit of God manifests in the use of that imagery with which he clothes his predictions, and which unity of design is the chief key to their meaning, and at the same time the guarantee of it. Observing, then, this association of Satan with the power which hindered the restoration of the Jews in the times spoken of by Zechariah, we are under obli- gation to apply the symbol in John to a power which occupies a similar relation to the kingdom of God in the times to which he refers, which power we know from Daniel to be the fourth dominion of the world, the Roman. This is thus evidence from another part of Scripture for the true interpretation of the symbol. But, in a third j^rediction delivered b}^ the same prophet, we find the association above referred to connected with the same branch of the Roman do- minion, of which there is the strongest internal evi- dence that the Dragon or Satan of the Revelation is the symbol, viz., the Imperial. Zechariah, in ch. vi., redelivers the prophecy of Daniel concerning the four world-dominions, prefiguring them under the form of Four Chariots. The essential oneness of these predic- tions is admitted by most commentators, and cannot reasonably be denied. In respect of the red horses of the first chariot the prophecy observes silence, for the THE SYMBOL SATAN. 2S7 Babylonian empire, wliicli was the first, had ah-eady passed away. It had, therefore, ceased to he a sub- ject of prediction. Of the bhick horses of tlie second, and the wliite horses of the third, the prophet says that they "go forth into the north country," ver. 6. The prophecy being a symbolic one, we are bound to take these words symbolically, provided they yield a good sense as such. Now they do this, and conse- quently we are required to understand them symboli- cally. The north, the region from whence blow cold blustering winds, is the natural and Scriptural em- blem of judgment (Is. xvi. 31, xli. 25 ; Pro v. xxv. 23), while the south, the region of soft balmy winds, is the natural and Scriptural emblem of prosperity. — Job xxxvi. IT ; Ps. cxxvi. 4. The horses of the sec- ond and third chariot are said to go forth into the north country, that is, the dominions which they pre- figure, go forth into judgment. The second world- empire, the Medo- Persian, was at this time flourish- ing; the third, the Greek, flourished after it; but both these dominions were speedily brought to judg- ment, and passed away. That this is at once the sense and the fulfilment of the predictions, is evident from the commentary which appears on them in v. 8. It is there said, " Behold these that go toward the north country have quieted my spirit in the north country :" the meaning of which can alone be, that the domin- ions which have passed to judgment have quieted the judicial spirit of the Lord. The idea is a common one throughout the Scriptures, that the Lord is ap- peased, and his Sj^irit is quieted by the judgment in- 288 THE SYMBOL SATAN. ilicted on his enemies. The world-empires are his and his kingdom's enemies, and he is here said to be ap- peased by the judgment of the second and third. But it is with the fourth chariot and its horses that w^e liave particularly to do, this being the symbol which, as it stands for the fourth world-empire, unquestionably has a close connection w^ith the subject of the Keve- lation. Now Zechariah divides the empire prefigured by tliis chariot into two branches, which branches he symbolizes by the two sets of horses in the chariot. This, it is to be noted, is the sole chariot which con- tains such a division in respect of its horses. These liorses move off in diiferent directions, leaving it rather obscure what becomes of tlie cliariot, so little does prophetic allegory care about the mere vehicle. ]^ev- ertheless, there are commentators who are vevy solici- tous on such points as this, and who are not satisfied nnless they know every thing, and can make an allegory square with the second sense to a hair's breadth, which is impossible ; and wdiich the Spirit of God himself does not do. The tw^o sets of horses necessarily rep- resent two great divisions of the Roman dominion, inasmuch as they form a division of the fourth chariot which stands for the Roman dominion. Such a two- fold division is a very marked one in history. This dominion cannot, with an approach to correctness, be portrayed except as twofold. Its history manifests the two great divisions of the Empire and the Papacy. The former of these has existed from the days of John up till 1806, when it was formally dissolved. The latter has held a steady sceptre of dominion upon the THE SYMBOL SATAN. Koman earth since the sixth centuiy. What Zecha- riah predicts, then, of the fourth dominion has been fulfilled : the Roman dominion exhibits in history two grand divisions, which can alone be held to be the two mentioned. Of the grisled horses the prophet says, that they go forth toward the south country. The south country is the emblem of prosperity, the north being the emblem of judgment. What then is here predicted, is, that one of these divisions shall be an eminently prosperous dominion. But the Pa- pacy has been such a dominion, for its history has ex- hibited a longer and a more unbroken tract of pros- perity than has fallen to the lot of any political power on record. Prosperity has been a historical character- istic of the Papacy in the highest degree, and it is that applied to it in the prophecy. Is there any do- minion, since the time of Zechariah, which can vie with it in the possession of this notable characteristic ; certainly there is none. The Papacy is par excellence the pros_perous dominion of history. It is, moreover, the dominion for which the long period of 1260 yeai*s prosperity and dominancy has been chalked out in Daniel and in the Pevelation, and this may be con- ceived had regard to in this prediction likewise. The characteristic establishes the identity of the dominion predicted of by the three prophets. The prediction regarding the grisled horses (the color of which may justly be held to indicate a many-peopled dominion, (compare Rev. xiii. 7, S, and xvii. 15-18, and the populousness of the Papal Empire) is then fulfilled in the Papacy. The grisled horses standing for the 13 290 THE SYMBOL SATAN. Papal division, it necessarily follows that the bay stand for the Imperial, since this is the only other historical division of that dominion for which the fourth chariot stands and which exhibits a twofold division. What is said of these horses is worthy of close attention, inasmuch as it will throw an impor- tant light on the symbol we are discussing. It is said of them, " And the bay went forth, and sought' to go, that they might walk to and fro through the earth ; and he said, get you hence, walk to and fro through the earth. So they walked to and fro through the earth," v. T. Now there is here an asso- ciation three times (developed, doubtlessly for the sake of emphasis, with Satan, whose characteristic, as it has been seen, is to " walk to and fro " through the earth. The characteristic of Satan is here ap- plied — and applied in a very marked manner — to the Eoman Imperial power. Accordingly, in the se- lection of the symbol Satan in the Kevelation, it is a legitimate conclusion, that regard has been had to an association already established. An association of Satan with the Empire is made in Zechariah ; it is reasonable to conclude, that the Satan of the Eevela- tion is associated with the same Empire, since John must be held to predict of it. But the w^ords, while they excite an association which identifies " the bay horses " of Zechariah wdth the "Satan " of John, convey a prediction ; this is their main purpose and design. It is here prophesied that the division of the Roman dominion, symbolized by " the bay horses," should be distinguished by the THE SYMBOL SATAN. 291 characteristic of walking to and fro through the earth ; that is, should be a dominion characterized in history by the change of its locality, and its peculiarly va- grant condition, if the expression may be allowed. It will be difficult to establish any other sense for tlie words except this. Now this feature of vagrancy or itineracy is to be found developed in the highest de- gree in the history of the Roman Empire. As the Papacy has been pre-eminently the jprosperoiis^ so it has been peculiarly the vagrant dominion of his- tory. Before the fall of the Empire in Italy, and its subsequent transfer to Germany, the Emperors manifested a frequent, and in rulers very unusual, desire to change the seat of government. Dio- cletian removed it to l^icomedia, and Milan, and Con- stantine to Constantinople.* During the existence of the Empire in Germany, it has been essentially an ambulatory or itinerant dominion, walking at the death of each Emperor through the various King- doms of Europe, canvassing and seeking for a wearer of its crown, while the exact position of its power at an}^ given time has been a problem of ver}^ difficult solution. It has been pre-eminently, in fact, the do- minion which has walked to and fro through the earth, and so very strangely developed has been this char- * Livy gives an eloquent and lively speech of Camillus in op- position to a design of removing the seat of government from Rome to Veil. Julius Caesar was reproached with the intention of removing the capital from Rome to Ilium or Alexandria. The third ode of the third book of Horace was composed, it has been thought, to divert Augustus from a similar design. See Gibbon. 292 THE SYMBOL SATAN. acteristic of it, that it could bj no means be consid- ered over emphatic in the jDrophecy, to mark it by a threefold announcement. In the words, " And the bay went forth and sought to go, that they might walk to and fro through the earth," reference, it may be held, is made to the disposition of the Emperors to change the locality of the government. The sig- nal and compulsory change of locality, which took place when it was cast out of Italy and thrown upon Germany, which, in the opinion of many judicious commentators, is the event predicted in the symboli- cal casting of the Dragon or Satan out of heaven upon the earth, as described in the vision in which the passage, directly in question, occurs, may proper- ly be considered as intimated in the words, " Get you hence, walk to and fro through the earth." These words sound very like the announcement of the fiat of the Almighty driving the Empire out of Italy, and causing it to assume its perambulatory life in Germany. Indeed, it is not easy to see to what other event in history, and to what other dominion the pre- diction thus delivered is applicable. When it is con- sidered, moreover, that we are authorized upon the strictest and soundest rules of interpretation, to ap- ply no less than three predictions to this event — the dethronement of the Emperor in Italy, viz., the pre- diction delivered in the fourth trumpet. Rev. viii. 12, that of Rev. xii. 9, and the one now in question, there lies here strong evidence for coming to the conclusion that the event in which three separate predictions find a realization, in harmony with the various con- THE SYMBOL SATAX. 293 ditions to be fulfilled in each, is tlie event predicted by these three predictions, and also, that if three predictions can be shown to be fulfilled in one event, these three predictions constitute one prophecy. This great revolution cannot be regarded an event unlike- ly to be three times predicted, since it is a signal characteristic of Scriptural prophecy to repeat its 2:)redictions. The fall of the Empire at Rome, and its transfer to Germany, is, beyond doubt, the greatest revolution which has taken place in the history of the world, since the Christian era, and it is the one which has been attended with the most momentous consequences. It paved the way for the rise of the Papacy, a power which has exercised greater influ- ence upon the affairs of modern Europe than any other which has appeared on this theatre. It enabled a Ger- man King to array himself in the cast-off" Imperial vestments, and to exercise an authority over vassal States through the authority of the Roman name and Empire. It called forth from the abyss which it made in the centre of Europe, the two great powers, the Pope and the Emperor, which have led the desti- nies of the modern Roman world. In a word, it was the event which broke up the Roman dominion, the fourth of the world, into that twofold form in which w^e find it represented in Daniel, in Zechariah, and in John, as there is the plainest evidence, and as it has existed in history. "We make no reference here to the prediction of Paul concerning the same great revolution, because it is couched in literal language, 2 Thess. i. 3-12. But the relation of the Empire as 294: THE STI^IBOL SATAK. the power that letted or hindered the rise of the sub- sequent Papacy is there very distinctly brought out, and affords evidence to confirm the application. Nor do we refer to the allusion made to this same great event in Revelation, by John himself, ch. xiii. 2, where it is said that the Beast, which can alone be interpreted to be the Papacy, entered into " the pow- er, seat, and great authority " of the Dragon, which seat must be inferred to be the vacated Imperial seat, for it was into this that the Papacy entered. To ap- ply this passage to its occupation of the seat at Rome of fallen Paganism, is wholly untenable. There is no authority for the application of a symbolic pro- phecy to an ism of any kind : if there were, the lan- guage could, by no possibility, sustain the load of isms that might be put upon it by the fancy of man, to which free rein is thus given. The field chalked out for the symbols by Scriptural authority (all else is fancy, and idle conjecture), is that of very great, nay, the very greatest of all political dominions and events in the history of the world. This is a limited sj)here; the objects in this world, upon which history j)ours its clear and steady beams are well defined ; and the hieroglyx3hics can master it, and can be de- finite upon it. .But isms and ities et hoc genus omne, are legion in number, unsubstantial and airy in form ; they are but Protean ghosts, and the hieroglyphics cannot seize them. They abstain from them, and there is not the slightest evidence that they touch them. Whenever one hears an ism or an ity pre- dicted of in the Revelation, he may be certain the THE SYMBOL SATAN. 295 interpretation is false ; the language is incompetent to describe such a thing. Symbolic prophecy is conse- crated (by some thought desecrated) to the political field alone. Within this, which, if we take the in- terpretations of Scripture as our guide, is its only sphere; it is definite, intelligible, and subject to laws which determine its sense, and invest its announce- ments with the force of demonstration ; pushed be- yond this, it is shadowy, indefinite, and totally unin- telligible. It becomes, then, instead of the oracle of divine truth, the m^re toyish trumpet-piece of com- mentators, the sound of whose blasts, however, are sometimes wofully loud, as in " The Great Tribula- tion," but at the same time wofully uncertain. Un- questionably, if Satan, the Spirit, be in the Kevela- tion, a very shrill blast may be sent forth by the trumpeter, provided he can play well. But Satan is not there, and tlie note is a false one. All the va- riations performed on this note are likewise false, such as the resurrection of the martyrs in the literal sense, their reign with Christ for a thousand literal years, the assault of Gog and Magog when this period is finished, the living of the immortals and the dying of the mortals together on this earth, the conflagra- tion of the world, the general resurrection, and the final judgment of all men ; none of which subjects are spoken of in the Revelation, except as symbols of something different ; these are themes, baseless, then, which, employed by a performer endowed with strong lungs, make an ear-splitting and awful music, but containing, as Paul says, no "distinction in the 296 THE SYMBOL SATAN. sounds ; " it is not certainly known wliat is so tremen- dously " piped." The argument, then, that Satan the Spirit is not meant in this passage, and that it contains nothing which conflicts with the interpretation in ch. xvii., may be summed up in the following terms : In the first place, the sole argument which is or which can be advanced that the passage conveys an interpretation, is a fallacy. The obvious meaning, according to the principle on wdiich the book is written, is not the real one ; it i« the hidden and oc- cult which is the real sense. It can scarcely be questioned that it is a legitimate deduction from this premise which itself is indisputable, that the more obvious a meaning is the more certain, it is that it is not the true one, except in the case of an interpreta- tion being rendered, which is here the matter to be proved. There is not any symbol in the book, of which it can be said -with truth that the real meaning is obvious. The prophecy is constructed witli such system, that there is no real meaning in it wliich is not enigmatical. On what ground, then, are we au- thorized to take the obvious meaning in the case of Satan ? It is in vain to say that it is on account of its extreme obviousness, for this is only an enforce- ment of the reason why w^e should not take it. In common discourse, it is a sound rule that the more plainly a man speaks the more we are bound to believe him in the plain sense of his words. It is evidently an equally valid rule, that in enigmatical discourse, the more plainly he speaks the less we are bound to THE SYMBOL SATAN. 29Y believe liim in the plain sense. Kow John parades Satan, the Spirit, before our eyes in the most con- spicuous and flaring colors ; this is the very strongest evidence he could give us that Satan is not meant by him. In the second place, while there is not a particle of proof that Satan is designed, there is strong evi- dence for the conclusion that he is not designed, and that the language is symbolical. There is no formula of interpretation employed which can alone suspend the law applicable to the whole book, ancj which bears that it is to be read symbolically. There is nothing whatever to show that the prophet is not passing, as he does on several other occasions, from on symbol to another that is strictly synonymous — from the Dragon to the correspondent one of Satan. There is nothing to indicate that he has ceased to speak allegorically. The mere want of evidence to this efi'ect is evidence in favor of the contrary position that he continues to allegorize^ since it is only the presence of evidence which can suspend the applica- tion of the law. There is thus a total want of evi- dence for the one position which in itself is evidence in favor of the other. On the other hand, there is positive evidence that an interpretation is not de- signed, because if there were, there is such a plain- speaking and frequent repetition, as to render the in- terpretation an anomaly such as cannot be conceived to exist. In the third place, if Satan is meant, the proph- ecy exhibits the gross inconsistency in represen- 13* 298 THE SYLIBOL SATAI^^. tation, of marking a political dominion with the characteristic of seven heads and ten horns, ch. xvii., and of attaching the same characteristic to a spirit, ch. xii. This is such a total reversal of all the prin- ciples of hieroglyphic writing, that on this ground alone Satan cannot be held to be designed. In the fourth place, if Satan is meant, then one of the principal actors in the book is generic, itself sufficiently inconceivable, and comprehends other two actors under it, namely, the beast and the whore, for these must be understood to act under the in- fluence of Satan. Of such a comprehension, which if Satan is the Spirit must exist, there is not the slightest trace in the book. The Dragon, the Beast, and the Whore, the three actors, appear of perfectly equal standing. There is no intimation that the Dragon leads the two latter on, or that he holds any pre-eminence over them, such as that which Satan must be conceived to hold relatively to two political powers acting under his influence. Such a relation- ship must have been expressed had the Dragon been intended to represent Satan the Spirit ; and the non- development of it is evidence to the contrary. At the same time the relationships actually developed between the three symbols, are precisely such as are correspondent with the application of them to the Ro- man Empire, Papacy, and the Church. It is plainly contrary to the true relation of things, to represent Satan on the same level and in alliance as the Dragon is represented, ch. xvi. 13, 14, with two political powers. Again, the Dragon, the Beast and the False THE SYMBOL SATAIN". 2^ prophet, (or the AVhore,) are described as gathering their forces to a final battle, ch. xvi. 14. But if the Dragon be Satan, the Spirit, the representation made is inept, for the Dragon is contradistinguished from the other two, and yet being Satan, he necessarily comprehends them both. The representation of the prophet is thus made to contain the absurdity which woukl lie in the statement, were any one foolish enough to make it, " Germany, Austria, and Prussia levied war against France," which is a statement plainly absurd. The interpreter is not at liberty to attach a meaning to the work he is deciphering, which makes it speak a language that is inept and ridiculous. In the fifth place, if Satan is to be taken literally and the Dragon symbolically, the language and the allegory in which the prophecy is couched are at once destroyed. The language is annihilated by the subversion of its fundamental law that it is symboli- cal ; if it is partly literal and partly symbolical, it is destroyed as a vehicle of intelligible communication, since there is nothing in it to determine w^iat is literal and what is symbolic. It is destroyed in another respect, likewise ; for a foreign element a spiritual one is introduced in it, which unfastens it from the mooring it has in the symbolic language of the Old Testament. The lexicon which it has is thus committed to the fiames, and the book of universal nature is opened up to expound a few simple hiero- glyphic signs, which thus become the sport of imagi- nation, but cease to exist as definite and intelligible 300 THE SYMBOL SATAN. signs. The same blow inflicts on the allegory's unity a fatal stab, so that the life of the prophecy is taken in one and the same assault. These are consequences so disastrous that the interpreter is no more at liberty to apply an interpretation which incurs them, than the physician is licensed to administer a poison. Sixthly and lastly ; the true interpretation of the symbol is given in Scripture itself, which applies it to the Koman Empire. Two predictions of Zechariah not only authorize but necessitate the application of the symbol to the Roman dominion ; a third points out the Imperial to be that division of it with which Satan is associated. This association is made in that very language in wdiich the prophet writes, and its authority, accordingly, in fixing the sense of the sym- bol, is in itself sufficient, while in the absence of every other it is absolute. There is thus nothing in this celebrated passage which has been made the war-cry of commentators for ages in their onslaught on the sense of the proph- ecy, to conflict with the interpretation in ch. xvii. It gives no key whatever to the sense ; it expresses a mystery ; but this mystery is solved in another part of Scripture. Instead of a key, this passage literally taken is a firebrand, which is more consistently in the hand of the enemy than the ally. It is in truth a firebrand which, when applied to the temple, wraps it in a desperate cloud of smoke, besmirches its pillars, and conceals its proportions from view. The true key is to be found in Zechariah. The authority hence derived, attaches to this symbol of the prophecy the THE SY^IBOL SATAN. 301 same strictly political sense wliich all the other sym- bols in it bear. This authority speaks the language of the angel Avhich is the language of truth. Out of Zechariah, then, there breaks forth a light from the divine source of light, in the radiance of which the prophetic temple reveals itself in the proportions of exquisite symmetry, of magnificent but classical beauty. It contains within it an oracle that speaks forth the destiny of Man, of Empires, and of Nations, but not of Satan. co:n"clusiok THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY IN ITS SECOND AND REAL SENSE, OK PLAN AND DESIGN OF THE REVELATION. "We understand, or, at least, we believe we under- stand now tlie first representation which the Eevela- tion makes. It is a very essential point. This first representation contains two allegories instead of one, or two versions of the prophecy instead of one, as it has hitherto been holden to contain. It has been seen that this twofold representation is a law of symbolic prophecy, which law we are bound to believe the Kevelation follows. It has been seen farther that when it is applied to the prophecy, a plan arises for it which is at once extremely simple and extremely beautiful — in itself evidence of the double version. It has been seen that the plan of the prophet is to give a short first version containing a synopsis or table of contents to a longer, full, and complete ver- sion. This second version he delivers in the seventh or perfect seal ; the one version he, or, to speak more correctly, the S^Dirit of God, divides from the other by " a silence in heaven about the space of half an hour " — a clear and palpable expression of the division, which has such an effect, and which can have no other. PLAN AND DESIGN. 303 It lias been seen, moreover, that a fourfold represen- tation of the subject is a law of symbolic art. This law, as well as that of reduplication, is clearly followed in the Revelation. There are, upon an analysis of its contents, no more than four subjects discoverable in it. These comprehend a Conqueror and three antagonists, whom the former defeats and destroys by casting into a lake of fire. These combatants are simply exhibited to view in the first version ; they are here placed on the canvas comparatively in a state of nou-action, noth- ing more tlian their features and general character being expressed. The detail of the contest is afi'orded in the more complete and perfect second version. In the first, however, this subject is introduced once for all, and with the view doubtless of expressing the perfect unity of it by a solemn invitation addressed by the Living-creatures to the prophet to " come and see " its components as they are displayed under the first four seals. The reduplication is pointed out by " a silence in heaven about the space of half an hour," ch. viii. 1., a measured pause and suspension of the representations made to John, which, in such a com- position as this, must have some meaning, and which can have no other except that of dividing the proph- ecy, which itself is one^ into two versions. The other important feature, that of the quaternal structure, is pointed out by the corresponding and otherwise inex- plicable peculiarity in the structure of the prophecy above described, the invitation addressed by tlie Liv- ing-creatures to the prophet to " come and see " four pictures. This, like the '' silence," is a peculiar fea- 304 PLAN AND DESIGN. ture in the cliaracter of tlie representations made, which, in this allegorical work, must bear a sense ; it is impossible to assign to it any other meaning except that these pictures thus introduced constitute all the subjects of the prophecy. The one feature is inex- plicable, except by reduplication, and it points it out ; the other is inexplicable, except by the quater- nal structure, and it likewise points it out. If the quaternal structure of the prophecy is proved, it in- volves the proof of the reduplication ; if the redu- plication is proved, it involves the quaternal struc- ture. Each feature, however, is proved by itself, and the truth of each rests upon an independent basis, while the proof of the one contributes strength to the other. These features are laws of symbolic com- position which it must be held the prophet follows. His following them is not only a condition, the fulfil- ment of which is to be anticipated ; it is to be de- manded of him. We are authorized to say if he does not, that, not fulfilling the laws of his art, he does not write intelligibly. The prophet is prompt to the call, for he informs us that he has written reduplication and the quaternal structure in shining letters over his work. He has drawn a division right across his prophecy so flaring that the eye of the blind might almost see it ; he has indicated the quaternal structure by a device which is as conspicuous as it is expres- sive. At the same time the recognition of the fulfil- ment of these laws by the prophet brings out a unity of design for his whole book which is only the carry- ing out of the first and fundamental principle of sym- PLAN AND DESIGN. 305 bolic writing, to wit, the principle of unity of concep- tion. The prophet, then, has implemented all the laws of his art in the structure of his performance. He has given to the interpreter the pledge that he has been true to its principles, and he points him to these laws as the main key to decipher his meaning. He writes so that we can both trust him and under- stand him. The application of these laws is neces- sary to understand his first representation. The appre- hension of this is an indispensable step to the appre- hension of the second. If we understand this first representation, we are then, but not till then, at liberty to proceed to the interpretation of the second and real sense of his prophecy. The means of interpretation, which we have de- veloped in the preceding pages, will not enable us to do more than give a sketch of the general design of that second representation which the prophecy re- flects from its first. The laws of the symbolic lan- guage, and the application of the symbols to histori- cal events, can alone determine the details of this second representation, l^evertheless the sketching of the general outline of it may justly be held to be the first work to be perform^ed in the development of the second sense. It is as necessary for the inter- preter of a symbolic prophecy to complete this sketch as it is for the painter to draw a rough outline of the picture he is about to paint. Without a sketch of the prophet's design in his hand the interpreter can no more know where to place a particular symbol, upon which he may lay his hand, than the architect with- 306 PLAN Amy design. out the plan of the building how to set a stone in the building he is erecting. The means of interpretation already discussed are, however, quite sufficient to enable us to give this general sketch of the prophet's x^lan and design, which may be justly considered the pioneer of the interpretation. It is a sketch quite as necessary for him as the chart is to the navigator. The means al- ready discussed put this into our hands, and for this end to employ any farther means of interpretation would only overload the plan. The generals must be carefully ascertained ere the particulars be conde- scended upon. If this outline be truly sketched, if the interpreter's plan and design be a faithful reflex of the prophet's plan and design, the filling in of the details into this j)lan will be afterwards a matter of comparative facility, and it may be added, of cer- tainty. The knowledge of the prophet's plan and design is indeed the fortress of the whole interj^reta- tion. In possession of this, the position of the inter- preter may truly be held impregnable. He has at his command an artillery of demonstration sufficient to sweep before it every assailant. But the means of interpretation already considered are sufficient to afford this plan ; they develop it fully. The application of the two in reserve, powerful as they are, we mean the symbolic laws, and the sym- bols, will at present interfere with its simplicity and will eventually only corroborate it; they w^ill dem- onstrate it, and that in a most effective manner by the completion of all the details. But the plan itself PL4N AND DESIGN. 307 can rest, and should be made to appear to rest on an independent basis. It is competent to stand on its own merits; the evidence on which it is founded, it is perfectly conceivable, may indeed be of such a na- ture that it can be affirmed of it with truth, this 'iivust be the plan, no matter what the particulars or what the details may be. The allegation may be truly made, that it is impossible they should conflict with the plan. On such evidence as this we believe the plan developed for the Revelation in the preceding pages does rest. It rests on such evidence that it is impossible to conceive that the particulars should not agree with it. Let us glance for a moment at the evidence ; we shall see its strength. It rests, first of all, on the fundamental laws of that kind of composi- tion in which the j)rophet writes, the violation of which is impossible, since he would then cease to be intelligible. It rests farther on certain leading characters which the prophet has inscribed on his work ; for, in truth, the outlines of the j)lan in question are all afforded by the prophet himself. Are they not ? The reduplication is certainly sketched by the " silence ; " the quaternal structure by the " Come and See," of the living-creatures; the unity of the prophecy by its comprehension in one seven-sealed book ; the victory of the kingdom of God is sounded forth by the animating strains addressed to the seven churches to press on to the mark of victory ; the Ro- man dominion is proclaimed to be the enemy by the interpretation in ch. xvii., which conclusively shows that three combatants are Roman, which are all the 308 PLAN AND DESIGN. ' combatants. These are certainly the essential fea- tures of the plan and design ; it is into these that all the particulars and details of the prophecy must be filled in and dovetailed. But to suppose that these details will not fit into the general design is as incon- ceivable as that the bones of a skeleton should not fit in to that skeleton to which they belong, or that the assemblage of all the parts of a whole should not constitute that whole itself. This is the conspicuous excellence which the dem- onstration of symbolic prophecy exhibits. Every position in it rests on its own independent basis. Thus reduplication rests upon its own foundation, the quaternal structure upon its basis ; unity of design rests upon its own pillars, but all these mutually cor- roborate and demonstrate each other, and form to- gether a structure which sets skepticism at scorn. The plan likewise rests upon its own basis, but the harmony of the details of this plan and the correspon- dence of all these with the events of history prove it a second time, and this time with a force of demon- stration which it is alone within the compass of in- spiration to yield. Well assured, then, of the soundness of the plan, both because it is founded in the laws of symbolic composition, which John must observe, and which there is evidence that he does observe, and because it is the plan, the outlines of which are drawn by the hand of the prophet himself, we proceed to state the general features of it. " The Eevelation of Jesus Christ which God gave PLAN AND DESIGN. 309 unto him," is in the introductory vision as described in ch. iv. and v., represented to be delivered in one seven-sealed book IVom the right hand of God on the throne, to the Lamb, who receives it to open the seals of it. The unity of the prophecy is here expressed. The seven seals the Lamb opens in unbroken succes- sion, and displays the sights eliminated to the pro- phet without suspension, until the seventh seal is broken, when " a silence about the space of half an hour" takes place, dividing the representations of the seventh seal from those of the six preceding seals. The double version of the prophecy is thus indicated, for the prophecy, which is undivided in itself, is di- vided in representation ! The four living-creatures call the prophet's attention to the four pictures of the first four seals. The quaternal structure is here in- dicated, and the unity of the subject in a fourfold form is proclaimed. On the ground of the analogy constituted by this introduction with those of Daniel vii. 2, and Zech. vi. 1, the four subjects introduced and originated are necessarily political dominions of the first magnitude in the history of the world, reck- oned from the date of the proj^hecy up till the point of time at which symbolic prophecy terminates, namely, the destruction of the fourth dominion of the world, i. e., the Roman, and the establishment on its ruins of that dominion of the saints, w^hich runs the race with this for the supremacy of the world, and eventually wins the prize. The four greatest do- minions within this space of time are thus declared to constitute the whole subject of the prophecy. The 310 PLAN AND DESIGN. origination of the subject from a common source, which is eflfected by this introduction, involves the same conclusion. In this subject there is an extremely small field chalked out for the application of the whole imagery of the prophecy; the symbolic signs are of an ex- tremely simple nature ; the subjects to which they are applicable, though grand, are likewise simple ; it neither requires any stretch of ingenuity nor learning to fix, what are the four greatest dominions in the world's history within the time designed. If it be admitted that the kingdom of God is one of these great dominions, which can hardly be gainsaid by any one who reads his Bible or studies histor}^, and that the greatest ecclesiastical dominion within the time specified is another, which, also, is a proposition which can hardly be disputed, the recognition of the four dominions is very easily eifected. The kingdom of God, the Koman Empire, the Papacy as a temporal power, and the Eomish Church as a strictly ecclesias- tical dominion, are necessarily the four in question. Tliere are certainly no two temporal dominions within the time that will vie with the Eoman Empire and Papacy, in respect of greatness, if influence and ex- tent of duration be considered which, in this regard, are the true measures of greatness. The Pomish Church, on the other hand, stands alone and unrivalled as the giant ecclesiastical dominion of the period ; its very pre-eminence convicts it to be the Whore, with- out any farther characteristic ; the garment of worldly PLAK AND DESIGN. 311 grandeur is the criminal's garb in which it uncon- scionsly passes on to judgment. By the use of a single means of interpretation, then, by the application, namely, of that special feature in tlie structure of the prophecy, which con- sists in the introduction and origination of the sub- ject by the four living-creatures, the whole subject of the prophecy in its great divisions may be deter- mined. The same introduction gives a key by which its design may be predicated. But the suggestive circumstances attending the delivery of the prophecy reveal the same subject. It is the Revelation of Jesus Christ. According to Scripture Christ fulfils three offices, those of prophet, priest and king. But the first two of these he fully exhausted during his career on earth; the kingly crown he rejected at this period, but he reserved it to the future, as is evident from the words which he addressed to Pilate, saying to him, " now is my king- dom not from hence," John, ch. xviii. 36, in the qualifying now, clearly reserving it to that future era at which, according to prophecy, it should be deliver- ed to him. The Revelation then cannot respect the two first offices, for it is a prophecy, and these are past ; it must respect the last of the three, his kingly office, which is future. The tenor of the book bears witness to this conclusion ; the letters to the seven churches corroborate it, for in each of them they are animated to strive to obtain this kingship, wliich is not only Christ's, but theirs, their destiny being to become " kings and priests unto God," and " reign on 312 PLAN AND DESIGN. the earth." But this kingship, the attainment of which, Loth for Christ and his followers, is the grand burden of the Revelation, is, according to Daniel, reversionary to them upon the destruction of the fourth w^orld-dominion, which is the Roman. The destruction of this dominion, on the other hand, is procured by the efforts of the saints, as is evident from Daniel, ch. ii., where the stone cut out without hands, wdiich symbolizes their kingdom, smites the image which prefigures the Roman dominion, and destroys the latter. It necessarily follows, that the relations of the kingdom of God to the Roman do- minion will be one subject of the Revelation. But it follows that it will be the sole subject, because, ac- cording to Daniel, it is the sole obstacle in the way of that consummation which is predicted. The sug- gestive circumstances, then, attending the delivery of the prophecy, likewise determine the sole subject of the Revelation to be the relations of the kingdom of God to the fourth dominion of the world. But the interpretation in ch. xvii. not only en- forces, but gives demonstrative effect to the conclusion thus arrived at. According to it the seven heads of the Beast prefigure a Roman dominion, while the ten horns have the same import, as appears from the interpretation, as well as from the circumstance that they are found on the fourth beast of Daniel, which is interpreted to stand for the fourth dominion, which is the Roman. But the Dragon has likewise seven heads and ten horns, so that it also stands for a Roman dominion. But there is an ecclesiastical do- PLAN AND DESIGN 313 minion in the book, wliicli is in combination with one of these, so that three dominions are Roman. The kingdom of God, however, makes the fourth dominion of the book. It necessarily follows, then, that as there are only four dominions in it, this kingdom and three Roman dominions constitute the whole sub- ject of it. Such is the subject determined by the three means of interpretation to which reference has been made. Let us follow the prophet's handling of it in the two versions of which his prophecy has been shown to consist. Taking up the first version, which is delivered in chapters vi. and vii., we find that it contains the repre- sentation of four dominions. These appear under the symbols of the four horses and riders of the first four seals. This is that quaternal group which symbolic prophecy manifests in its representations of political dominions, which these symbols must be interpreted to be, on the ground, as has been shown, of the manner in which they are introduced. They do not represent the state of an empire, much less of the church, for a given time, an application which has been frequently but very erroneously given to them. The analogy between Daniel and Zechariah referred to, discoverable in the mode of their introduction, deter- mines these four horses, with their riders, to represent four separate and distinct dominions alone in all their entirety, and in the whole extent of their duration, subsequent to the date of the prophecy. The analogy observable in the introduction, as well as the origina- 14 314 PLAN AND DESIGN. tion made of the subject, involves this conclusion. They also necessitate the conclusion that these four dominions are all the dominions which the prophecy concerns. In the four equestrian figures, then, of the first four seals, we have a representation of the four do- minions which the prophecy predicts concerning ; one of these is a conquering dominion, and the three others are three defeated antagonists, as well from the representation here made, as because the whole plot of the prophecy, as more minutely developed in the second version, turns upon the victory of a conqueror who wars with three antagonists, who suffers under and is oppressed by them for 42 months, or 1260 symbolical days, but who gains a final victory over them, who takes two of them under the form of the Beast and the False Prophet, and casts them into a lake of fire and brimstone, and who seizes the third, the Dragon, and casts him likewise into a lake of fire and brimstone. The prophet then places on his canvas here the four combatants in that war, the description of w^hich forms the burden of his prophecy. They are here represented as going forth to the contest with their weapons; the last having no weapon, for a reason that has been already mentioned, namely, that it is an ecclesiastical power. The representations of the four dominions here made are not so minute and particular, are not accom- panied with the same detail, nor are the portraitures so distinct as the corresponding representations in the second version of the prophecy. The portraitures in % PLAK AOT) DESIGN. 315 chs. xii. and xiii. are in the . highest degree graphic and distinct. Here there can be no doubt that the Woman clothed with the sun stands for the kingdom of God, that the great red, seven-headed, ten-horned Dragon stands for the Roman Empire — that the seven-headed ten-horned Beast stands for the Pa- pacy, as a temporal power, and the Two-horned Beast represents the Eomish Church. Still the delineations, here are sufficiently distinct in themselves, and they may legitimately be shown to indicate these do- minions with absolute precision and exactness, even without any reference at all to the second version. Such are the four dominions here displayed as they enter the lists prepared to wrestle for the prize, the dominion of the world. It is a contest in which one combatant is opposed to three, as the representation under the four seals itself imports, where a single victor is ranged with three antagonists, as the rela- tion^ of the living-creatures to the respective com- batants show, and as the whole tenor of the prophecy throughout establishes. The fifth and sixth, the remaining seals of the first version, represent the general character of the events predicted in reference to the four dominions, of which the representation has been made in the foregoing seals. The fifth seal, under the symbolization of the souls of the saints under the altar, calling for ven- geance for their shed blood, prefigures the character of these events 07i the one side as being persecutions of the church by its enemies, and its oppression by them for an appointed time, which period of time in 316 PLAN AND DESIGN. the second version is .defined exactly to be 1260 years. The vision here disclosed may be legitimately applied to the greatest act of persecution inflicted on the church ; this act, however, is to be regarded here as the representative at the same time of the whole. This seal then predicts the persecution of the church, and holds out the prospect of triumph. The sixth seal represents the character of the events of the prophecy on the other side as being judg- ments on the enemies of the church and its final victory. The judgments are represented under the symbolical image of a mighty tempest, which, properly speaking, prefigures the last judgment, but is to be understood here as representing all the judgments; a tempest, convulsing all the material universe ; as a result of this judgment the political firmament departs away as a scroll w^hen it is rolled together, every state and kingdom of the Roman world — the world subjected to this judgment — reels in its foundations and falls, for the firmament itself departs away, while those who had enjoyed power and pre-eminence in it are hurled from their places, and scattered like leaves from the tempest-beaten fig-tree. The security of the kingdom of God during this ordeal of judgment is represented by the sealing of the 12 tribes of Israel, described in ch. vii. 1-8. This tempest of judgment has overwhelmed the power of the Roman enemy ; the kingdom of God reigns trumphant upon the de- struction of its mighty adversary as the final and ever- lasting dominion on earth. This glorious consumma- tion is described in that magnificent vision which PLAN AND DESIGN. 317 closes ell. vii.j the representations of the six seals and the first version of the prophecy. The application above made of the visions of the fifth and sixth seals to the relationship of the kingdom of God to the Eoman dominion, is necessitated bv a regard to the representations of the first four seals, and nnity and consistency of design in the prophetical composition. The seventh seal is broken, and with the breaking of this seal which, by the arrangement made, is un- divided from the previous six, as it should be, since the prophecy delivered in the seven-sealed book is one revelation, the first and comparatively short de- livery of it ends. At this point in the review of the plan and design of the prophecy, let us pause for a moment and direct our attention to a portion, at least, of the internal evidence which presents itself of the Double Ver- sion. This will not be a work of superfluity. If the prophecy is twice delivered, it is essential to the in- terpretation to know it; it is indeed impossible to advance a step in the interpretation without having decided the question whether it is single or double ; and if it is twice delivered, we are then in possession of a commentary better than all others, since it is from the prophet's own hand. With this object in view, we shall now call attention to the weighty Internal Evidence of Eeduplication, which is furnished by the following facts : 1st. The " silence in heaven about the space of half an hour," ch. viii. 1. 318 PLAN AND DESIGN. 2<^. The peculiar and anomalous position of this pause, which is after the breaking of a seal. Zd. The circumstance that the subject is ended at this pause, and tliat what follows the pause is a repe- tition of it. Aitli, The address of the living-creatures to John to " Come and see " the representations of the first four seals. htli. The perfectness and Scriptural character of the plan of the prophecy which reduplication de- livers. The first, the " silence in heaven about the space of half an hour," is a notable fact in the delivery of the prophecy. It must have a meaning. What is it ? This is a question which judicious commentators have declined answering, and to which the foolish have given foolish answers. Keduplication answers it at once. This is the division between the first and the second versions of the prophecy. This is a plau- sible answer ; let us see if it is as sound as it is plau- sible. It is the design of the prophecy, as has been already shown and proved on the ground of unity in its design, to deliver itself in a series of pictures con- tained within a seven-sealed book. Now wdiatever is not contained in this seven-sealed book cannot con- sistently, with this design, be regarded as forming any part of the prophecy. It is the design to deliver the prophetic revelations in pictures on the seven- sealed book ; in the silence there is no picture, con- sequently there is no prophecy. Yet, although not prophetical, it is a main and striking feature of a PLAN AND DESIGN. 319 prophetical book ; it is such a pause as cannot have been made without design, and cannot be regarded as without meaning. It is not prophetical, but yet it must have meaning. What is it? Kowtliere can be but two meanings attached to it when its prophetical character is discarded, as it must be, to one or other of which we must have resort. It will be difficult to conceive of any other except two. One of these is that which is to be found in many commentaries, to wit, that it gives an air of dignity to the seven trum- pets which follow. It is held tliat a suspension of representation for half an hour has been inserted here to impress the mind with the importance and awful- ness of what is predicted imder the seven trumpets. This is one meaning, if it can be called a meaning ; it is much more a device. The other meaning, and it is reall}^ such, is that it forms a division of the prophecy into two parts, which parts are two ver- sions. 'Now let us consider if the first meaning be tenable ; if it be not tenable, the other will necessarily follow. The first miglit be more tenable than it is if there were any other pause in the book of a similar kind, in virtue of which it might support itself on the ground of an analogy draw^n between them. Thus if there were a silence, say of one hour's duration, before the representation of the four great dominions of the book, or any great dominions represented in it, or if there were a pause of a quarter of an hour, or Bome other definitely measured space of time to be found in it, but there is nothing of the kind. It can- not be held, then, as any thing else but an anomaly of 820 PLAN AND DESIGN. a very strange character that there should be a pause of about half an hour's duration before the trumpets. "Why should the trumjoets have this special honor, which is not accorded to any other vision in the book ? But the sense itself attributed is highly objectionable. Does not such a mode of impressing the mind Avith dignity descend to the level of puerility ? It is such a device as might be conceived to be adopted by a raree-showman, exhibiting a spectacle to boys. It is a device known to have been practised on men by certain monarchs, who have caused their subjects to wait upon their presence for precisely that length of time which they held to be commensurate with their exalted majesty. But it appears to us that such a device as this is beneath the simple dignity of this great symbolic work, and that on this ground alone it is untenable. But besides this, there is no ground for saying that the silence gives dignity to the trumpets, for if it gives dignity at all, it gives dignity not alone to the trumpets, but to all that follows it. There is nothing which divides the trumpets from the remain- der of the representations of the book ; there is no subsequent pause. The shadow of dignity, then, must be conceived to pass from the silence itself on to the end of the book, seeing that its eifect is un- broken. If it gives dignity to any thing at all, then, it gives dignity to the representations of the seventh seal, for these are what follow it. This is one mean- ing ; it is barely tenable, and if tenable at all, it is reconcilable with regarding the pause as an adver- tisement of the second and more perfect version of PLAN AND DESIGN. 321 the prophecy in the seventh seaL Bnt the other meaning will stand on its own merits ; it is not a jejnne device, but is masculine sense. According to it the " silence " is the mark of division between tlie first and the second versions of the prophecy. This sense is simple and good. It is, moreover, impossible to deprive the pause of this meaning, even if we could find another, for every pause necessarily forms a division. Let the mind do as it w^ill, it cannot separate the idea of a division from a pause measured out to the extent of about the space of half an hour in a series of continuous representations. This mode of forming a division is recognized by the propliet himself, who divides the representations of his proph- ecy one from another, by giving us to understand, as he does on many occasions, that a lapse of time occurred between them. He plainly, then, recog- nizes the principle of marking a division of represen- tation by the division of time, although he nowhere divides by a definite period excepting here. We find also this principle of marking a division recognized and operative in the double symbolic prophecies. The one version is divided from the other by a lapse of time. The prediction regarding Joseph's future greatness is delivered twice to him in two sets of symbols, and with an interval between each representa- tion, of what, as appears from the narrative, was a day at least. Gen. xxxvii. 5-11. An interval is also marked in the double dream of Pharaoh, for Pharaoh aAvoke, slept, and " dreamed the second time," Gen. xli. 4 and 5. In the double prediction of Daniel, chs. ii. 14* 322 PLAN AND DESIGN. and vii., there occurs an interval of a very long period, for the first version of the prophecy is delivered under one monarch, and the second under another. It is not only then the natural and necessary effect of an interval of time to form a division, but it is, as is apparent, the method adopted in Scripture to form it. When it is said, then, tliat " the silence in heaven about the space of half an hour " has the meaning, or let it be rather said, has the effect of giving dignity to the representations, this, which is nearly void of meaning, is also fanciful and destitute of support from any part of Scripture, or from any mode of representation followed in it. But when we say, on the other hand, that its meaning is to form a division, this, it is obvious, is an interpretation which is based on a principle of representation developed in Scrip- ture. According to Scripture an interval in the rep- resentation divides. We appear then shut up to the conclusion, that the silence in heaven for about the space of "half an hour" forms a division of the prophecy into two grand 2:>arts. But it cannot divide the 2)i*ophecy itself, for according to the title it is one ; it is " the Eevelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him." Here is a paradox, but reduplication explains the seeming paradox, and it alone explains it. How strong an argument is there here for redupli- cation ! We see an explication of this paradoxical division of what is really one in the dream of Pha- raoh, wdiich is analogical with the Revelation in this respect of containing a division in it, and being yet one. This dream is twofold and one. Joseph, after TLAN AND DESIGN. 323 having lieard Pharaoli relate his two dreams, says : " The dream of Pharaoh is one," and on this ground he adds, as being the guarantee of the certainty of its fulfihnent, " God hath showed Pharaoh what he is about to do." l^ow the Kevelation of John is, in consequence of the division formed by " the silence," equally twofold, and, by the title, is equally one as is the prophecy of Pharaoh one and two-fold. The in- terpreter of this book then ought to interpret in the same manner as Joseph. What does Joseph do? Joseph says, " The seven good kine are seven years ; and the seven good ears are seven years ; the dream is one." The interpreter of the Kevelation, seeing that a division prevails in this prophecy analogical to that which prevails in that of Pharaoh, is bound to walk in the footsteps of Joseph, and say " the four Horsemen in the first four seals are four dominions," and the Woman and three Beasts, in chs. xii. and xiii., are four dominions ; " the vision is one." And in the same way as Joseph proceeds with the remaining part of Pharaoh's prophecj^, giving to the double representation the same sense, so ought he to do with tlie remainder of the Revelation. Instead of revolt- ing against this authority, he has cause of thankful- ness that he has such authority, and he ought with zeal to apply the key w^iich the double version fur- nishes. There is between the two cases nothing to disturb the analogy. Pharaoh's prophecy indeed was deliv- ered during the night; John's during the day; Pha- raoh's was in a dream ; John's in a vision ; Pharaoh 324 PLAN AND DESIGN. awoke, slept, and dreamed the second time ; John ex- perienced a " silence for about the space of half an hour," during which he saw nothing. These circum- stances cannot be regarded as disturbing the analogy, nor can they affect the principle of interpretation to be applied. It cannot be objected that there is this discrepancy between the two cases, that the time is measured in John's prophecy, while in Pharaoh's it is not measured. This difference is accounted for by the difference in the nature of the two compositions. John's is a vision ; Pharaoh's is a dream. The divi- sion is expressed with reference in both cases to the peculiar circumstances under which the prophecy is delivered. Pharaoh, who is in his bed, dreams, awakes, and dreams a second time ; John, who is in heaven, sees visions, experiences a suspension of them for about the space of half an hour, and sees visions a second time. Such differences as these can neither affect the analogy nor the principle of interpretation founded on it. The main features in both instances are the same. Both are predictions delivered by God to man ; both are predictions which are divided into two, and are yet one. It would indeed appear that John had expressly modelled the reduplication of his prophecy after this example in Genesis. It is certain, that in no other two prophecies of Scripture is one- ness of prediction accom]3anied by division so strong- ly developed, and in no other two is the shortness of time in the fulfilment of the events placed in such strong relief. Is it not a legitimate conclusion, that this shortness of time in the fulfilment, which is^ by no PLAN AND DESIGN. 325 means a cliaracteristic of the events of tlie Kevela- tion, lias been set in its place to lead the mind to the analogy in the structure of the two predictions ? It is not easy to account for the insistence of the short- ness in the fulfilment of the Eevelation, except that this is an indication of its reduplicating character. Secondly, the position of the pause exhibits an anomaly which reduplication can only explain. The position of the pause after the breaking of the seventh seal is anomalous, and even unnatural. The seals are broken for the very purpose of showing the represen- tations to John, as is evident from the transaction which takes place under the first four seals. AVhen the first seal is broken the first living-creature invites John to " Come and see" the representation of the seal ; and this formality is observed up to the fourth seal inclusive. When the fifth and sixth seals are broken, he is immediately shown the representations they contain. Without doubt we are to understand this. He writes down faithfully, it must be held, ac- cording to the command given to him, all that occurs, and he certainly would have noticed any interrup- tion, had it taken place. But upon the breaking of the seventh seal the order of things is changed, and he is shown nothing at all. A seal is broken, and instead of a vision a silence ensues. Now John was exceedingly desirous of looking into the contents of the seven-sealed book. In the opening vision, op- pressed with the poignancy of his feeling, and with the infirmity of a man, he wept much, because it ap- peared that no man was found worthy to open and to 326 PLAN- AND DESIGN. read the book, neither to look thereon. From these words it is plain, that in his mind, opening and look- ing thereon is a natural connection, and it may also be concluded, that the opening of the book has no value in his eyes without looking thereon. The. latter is evidently the main object ; the former he certainly regards as the mere instrumentality to it. Why then is there this tantalization of John, for without a valid reason such it is. Why is the seventh seal opened, and the representations of it not shown to the prophet ? This is a question which must be answered. Are they kept back by reason of their superior dignity ? This has been discussed. The opposite course is fol- lowed in the first four seals, the first of which displays the representations of the great Conqueror and his combatants, and to look upon which he is immediate- ly invited. ISTor can it be supposed that he was car- ried up to heaven to be subjected to a system of moral training, and to have his patience tried without any object at all. Why then was John, the servant of God, subjected to this afiliction in heaven, temporary and comparatively slight though it be, yet still such a tantalization inflicted on the prophet, and such a departure from the usual order, as must be accounted for ? In one word, on what ground is the unnatural, unartistical, unreasonable, and ungracious course fol- lowed, for all such it is, unless a valid reason can be assigned for it, of breaking open a seal and thereon suspending the representation ? Eednplication an- swers this question at once, solves the whole difiiculty and removes the ungraciousness. It tells us that the PLAN AND DESIGN. 327 pause is in the only place in wliicli it could stand, consistently, with its own existence. There is not any point in the prophecy from beginning to end, in w^hich a "silence" indicating reduplication could be placed, except the position where it stands. Could it be placed in the middle of the third seal ? This evidently could not be done for several reasons. Could it be placed immediately before the breaking of the seventh seal ? N'either could this be done, for in this case the seven-sealed book were divided, which is contrary to the title which affirms the prophecy to be one, and therefore indivisible. It could not be in- serted, then, anywhere betwixt the seals. But after the representations of the seventh seal began no struc- tural division could be formed. There is, according- ly, no place in the whole prophecy in which it can consistently stand, except the place in which it does stand. There it has meaning; everywhere else it would either have no meaning or a wrong one. The prophecy is one, and it is therefore necessary that all the seven seals of the seven-sealed book which con- tains it should be broken in one undisturbed and con- tinuous series. This is done. The prophecy, how- ever, being double in representation, it is necessary that a division clearly indicating this should be con- structed in it. This is done by the suspension of rep- resentation immediateh^ after the breakino^ of the seventh seal for a period "about the space of half an hour." This pause divides the representations of the seventh seal from those of the previous six, but at the same time preserves the unity of tlie prophecy 328 PLAN AND DESIGN. unbroken. ]N"owhere else could tins design have been accomplished. If reduplication then lies in the design, the strange position of the pause is ac- countable ; if not, the position of the silence is totally inexplicable. It is in the place in which it ought not to stand, that is after the breaking of a seal, an oper- ation which is performed for the very purpose of showing the representations to the prophet. Here a seal is broken, and the representation is suspended. There is no meaning in such a course excepting one^ which is that this suspension is a sign of reduplica- tion. "Without reduplication then the position of the pause is an anomaly and a blemish on the fair design of the work. It is a thing not only destitute of in- telligence, but it conflicts with consistency of repre- sentation. But with reduplication this blemish turns into a beauty. This dark spot at once blazes up with light and becomes a gem of the first order ; it sparkles in the diadem of the prophecy, brightly with intelli- gence, and it radiates its design, which is one and re- duplicati7ig. The position of the pause becomes, when- ever reduplication is admitted, a surpassing excellence. Are we to accept this solution, or are we to leave the problem unsolved ? Why should we turn aw^ay from reduplication, speaking thus eloquently ? Is not the interpreter guilty of a breach of trust, who abstracts from the diadem of the prophecy this lustrous gem, and who leaves in its vacant place a hollow f Thirdly; the prophecy develops its whole subject twice, once before the pause, and once after it. It w^ere, of course, of no moment w^hatever to prove PLAN AND DESIGN. that tlie true meaning of the silence " about the space of half an hour," was a division of the prophecy into two versions, if it did not stand precisely betwixt the two. Bat it does this. The whole subject is devel- oped, once before the pause, and a second time after it. The pause occupies a position at the end of the first version and at the beginning of the second. It is accordingly in the position in which it ought to stand. Tliis indeed is no argument in favor of re- duplication ; but it is indispensable to the argument derived from the "silence." The silence is simply an indicator of something which exists. But the fact that the subject of the prophecy is twice delivered, while it is indispensable to every other argument, may stand alone. It proves reduplication itself. It is con- ceivable that reduplication might exist in the proph- ecy without any formal indication of its existence at all. It might be in it without any formal advertise- ment of it. But a formal advertisement shows that it is there. If a valid witness proves that a man is in being, this is much ; but if the man himself appears, this is much higher evidence. ITow reduplication appears. It has been already seen how it manifests its presence in the first representation. Tliere are two distinct allegories, having a meeting-point in a prime symbol, which is common to botli, the Horse- man on the wliite horse. He is the Conqueror-hero of the first allegory, where he is ranged with three combatants ; the representation of his glorious victory ends the first allegory. He is the Conqueror-hero of the second allegory, in which in its details the com- 330 PLAN AND DESIGN. bat is depicted with changeful imagery, and with variety of design, but in the main by a conquering Horseman overcoming, taking captive, and casting into a lake of fire and brimstone three enemies. These in the second allegory, are the Dragon, Beast, and False Prophet ; in the first, the Horsemen on the red, black, and pale horses. The glorious triumph of the Concjueror ends the second allegory as it does the first. The first representation is double ; it follows that the second representation is double likewise. Let us test it, and see if there are two allegories in the second sense, as well as in the first ; and this time let us begin with the dividing silence, and trace the representation which precedes it backwards. If the end of the supposed first version is the same as the end of the second, there will be presumptive proof that the beginning and middle are the same. This will be all the stronger by reason of the law of unity of design which prevails in symbolic composition. It is true that commentators, who have a particular theory of the book to support, take a very difi'erent view of that magnificent vision, representing the l^alm-bearing multitude in heaven, which closes chap, vii., from what general readers do. Many of them apply it to the establishment of the Christian religion under Constantine. But we believe there is not a single dispassionate and unprejudiced reader of the book who has no particular theory of interpreta- tion to support, who will come to any other conclu- sion, but that this vision has the same meaning, and represents the same grand consummation, whatever TLAN AND DESIGN. 331 it be, wliicli the vision of the new heavens and the new earth, at the end of the book, does. The import of the imagery is so palpably the same, that this con- clusion irresistibly forces itself npon the mind. But the close of the book represents, as is admitted by all, the final and everlasting triumph of the kingdom of God. The closing vision of the sixth seal makes the same representation, as is esddent from the character of the imagery, and likewise from the events which precede the described triumph. It makes no matter in regard to the present argument, w^hat the real meaning of these symbolical representations is, whe- ther they describe the future state of the church in heaven or on earth. It is clear to every dispassion- ate reader, so evidently identical is the sense of the imagery, that they represent the same thing. It is the saints, freed from warfare and from all evil, in a state of blessedness, which is represented in both places. The end of the sixth seal then is the same as the end of the seventh. The beginning of the sixth seal rep- resents the judgments in the great day of the wrath of the Lamb, as appears from ch. vi. IT, which secure that triumph of the church described in the two visions just considered. These judgments precede the triumph in the sixth seal ; they precede the triumph also in the seventh seal, for, as is evident from the description, the same judgments take uj) a considerable portion of the latter part of this seal. The fifth seal rejDresents the persecutions and afflic- tions of the church ; they are also described in the seventh seal at greater length. These comprehend 332 PLAN AND DESIGN. all the events represented in the first version. They concern the persecution of the church, the judgments on its enemies, and its own final triumph. ]^ow search as we msLj the seventh seal, we shall not detect a single event which does not belong to one or othei* of these two categories. The events then predicted in the fifth and sixth seals are of the same character, while, in a concise and representative form, they com- prehend those which appear in the seventh seaL "What precedes and what follows the pause, then, makes the same development, so far as the character of the events is concerned. How do these divisions of the prophecy stand in regard to the actors devel- oped in them ? In the first part, there are four of these represented nnder the first four seals. In the seventh seal there are only the four represented in chs. xii. and xiii., two of which are re-described in ch. xvii., and all of which four are represented as taking part in the events developed in the seventh seal. Are these actors the same, or are they difi*erent ? Ee- fore and after the pause, it is equally a Conqueror and three combatants which appear. That the Con- queror described under the first seal is the same as the Conqueror described under the seventh seal, is evident, because the sign is the same in both j^laces, namely, a Horseman on a white horse, and because it is a fundamental law of language, of the symbolic as well as every other, that the same sign bears the same signification. This is evidence which would be admitted in any work, but which is much more ad- missible in a symbolic composition, to the effect, that PLAN AND DESIGN. 333 his three comhatants are the same. But there is farther evidence. The group represents a Conqueror and his three antagonists ; but the combat is not rep- resented here. It must be represented elsewhere. There is, however, a combat detailed between a con- queror on a white horse and three antagonists, described after the pause, and it is the only combat which is described in the book. It is then the com- bat in which the actors here described engage, for this combat must be represented somewhere in the book, seeing that it would be absurd to suppose these figures were placed on the canvas without any object at all, and it is nowhere else represented. Accord- ingly, the Horseman on the white horse with his three antagonists of the seventh seal, are the conquer- ing Horseman with his three antagonists of the first four seals. How stands the argument then ? The conquering Horseman is the same both before and after the pause, and this identity in a symbolic work, of which unity of design is a fundamental law, in- volves the identity of his combatants. But the con- quering Horseman of the seventh seal, as well as of the first four seals, is the kingdom of God, for this is the sole conquering dominion developed in the book. But his three enemies in the seventh seal, the Dragon, Beast, and False prophet, are Eoman enemies, as the seven heads and ten horns on the Dragon and Beast, and the combination of the dominion represented by the False prophet, or Whore, or Two-horned Beast, with that represented by the Beast, prove. As his three enemies of the first Four seals are the same, it 334 PLAN AND DESIGN. follows tliey are Koman powers. The actors, there- fore, both before and after the pause, are the same in the second sense, being the kingdom of God and three Eoman dominions. Accordingly the two allegories deliver a prediction regarding the same events and the same dominions. Fourthlj ; the address of the four living-creatm-es to John, to " Come and see " the representations of the first four seals, involves reduplication. This invi- tation on the part of the four living-creatures to Come and see the pictures of the first four seals, plainly elevates these pictures to a platform of importance above all others in the seven-sealed book. It has, no doubt, been hitherto held, that this invitation is de- livered without any meaning at all. But this non- attribution of meaning presupposes a deficiency in the interpretation, because there is not one thing in the book of which it can be afiirmed in a stronger degree, that it ought to have a meaning, than just this very thing. What is the seven-sealed book ? It is a book of pictures : four living-creatures, a heavenly emblem conspicuous in the introductory vision, call attention to four pictures in it. If this has no mean- ing, it may as well be said that the pictures are also without meaning. If part of the book has no mean-- ing, the whole may have no meaning. If, on the other hand, it is shown that this invitation has much sense, it will afi'ord evidence that the pictures have much sense. If part of the book has a deep meaning, it is presumptive evidence that the whole has a deep meaning. If a child calls attention to a particular PLAN AND DESIGN. 335 painting, the painting may be insignificant ; but if a man of intelligence calls attention to it, it may be held certain that it has significance. If the portico of a building is ill-built, it is probable that the edifice is ill-built; but if the portico shows the master-hand, it is probable that the building will display it. Kow we have no right to assume that this part of the prophet's work is void of meaning, and is a mere non- entity ; on the contrary, we not only have the right, but we are under obligation to assume that it is well executed, and that it has a meaning. If it has a meaning, as we are under the necessity of assuming that it has, what is it ? It can only have one of two. These living-creatures either point to the figures of the first four seals, because the subjects represented by them are of superior importance to others in the book, or because they are all the subjects in it. It wnll be difiicult to conjecture any other meaning. 'No^v the first is a supposed meaning, which is unten- able. The four subjects developed in chs. xii. andxiii. are at least of equal importance ; they are described at much greater length, and they are surrounded with emblems expressive of at least equal importance and significance. They are then at least equally im- portant, while they cannot be more, so that it is not true that the living-creatures call attention to these subjects, because they are of superior importance. We are forced then to take the other alternative, and to conclude that they call attention to the representa- tions of the first four seals, because they comprehend all the actors in the prophecy, the representations 336 PLAN AND DESIGN. developing iictors, and that the representations of actors which appear in chs. xii. and xiii., and which can neither be inferior nor superior, are merely re- duplications of these. But that this is the signification to be attached to the invitation of the four living-creatures, namely, that they develop all the subjects of the prophecy, may be j)roved in another way. The introduction, for the invitation being special has in it all the force of an introduction, is, as has been shown, modelled on that made in Daniel's prophecy, ch. vii., of the four beasts by the four winds. In Daniel's pro2)hecy the four winds contend on the great sea, and four beasts arise. In the Revelation four living-creatures say Come and see four pictures in the seven-sealed book. The mode of representation is strictly analo- gical. But as four winds, constituting a compound symbol, bear the same signification as four living- creatures, constituting a compound symbol, the intro- duction, is as strong a case of analogy as can well be conceived. We therefore must conclude that as the four winds of Daniel introduce all the dominions of his prediction, so the four living-creatures of John introduce all the dominions of his. The introduction of John being modelled, as it plainly is, after that of Daniel, it is necessarily, like Daniel's, an introduction which introduces all the subjects of the prophecy. The origination which is j)erformed in this introduc- tion of the subject from a common source, involves the same conclusion. If the whole subject of the Revelation is originated in the first four seals, then PLAN AND DESIGN. 33T all the actors in the prophecy are developed in these seals. It necessarily follows that the actors described in chs. xii. and xiii. are the same, because they cannot be different. Another reason which points in the same direction may be drawn from the non-introduc- tion of the figures described in chs. xii. and xiii. Why are those figures not introduced? They are as much principal subjects, and equally instrumental in the development of the plot of the prophetical piece, as the figures of the four seals which are introduced. On what ground are these equally important agents not introduced ? Unity of design demands their in- troduction. Why are they not introduced ? JSTo other answer can be returned to this question, ex- cepting that they are the same, and the impossibility of accounting for their non-introduction in any other way is evidence that they are the same. Now there are but four agents before the pause and four agents after it, and they are the same. But the agents being the same, the events before and after the pause are necessarily the same ; for if not, there are two prophe- cies, which is contrary to the title in ch. i. 1. The agents and the events being the same, both before and after the pause, it follows that the one part of the prophecy is a reduplication of the other. The fifth and last reason we shall here assign in favor of reduplication, is one which, if it stood alone, might justly be considered sufficient in itself to prove it, and in a profane work would undoubtedly be regard- ed sufficient to establish it. It is, that by the way of reduplication we obtain a plan for the prophecy 15 338 PLAK AND DESIGN. simple and beautiful, and strictly in accordance with Scriptural models. She tells us: The prophecy of the Kevelation is one with a double version. Its unity is expressed by its being contained in one seven- sealed book, in the seven seals of which there is no division. The doubleness of its version is expressed by the " silence in heaven about the space of half an hour," dividing the representations of the seventh seal from those of the six preceding, thus forming a first version of what precedes, and a second version of what follows. The first version is short, simple, and regular, and more of the nature of an index of contents to the second and larger version. The second is long, complex, and irregular, delivering the prophecy with great fulness and with great detail. The method by which the prophet has arranged his subject may be best learned from the first version ; the details of his subject may be best ascertained from the second. We see that the structure of the prophecy is in the quaternal form, and that its predictions con- cern Four Dominions. This structure is pointed out to us by the living- creatures who invite us to " Come and see " the Four Dominions which the prophecy con- cerns. These are displayed in the pictures under the first four seals. Four equestrians represent them. They are described by a few characteristics, simply but grandly. The. representations of the two follow- ing seals indicate the character of the events. The fifth seal describes them on the one side as being persecutions of the church. The sixth seal describes them on the other side as being judgments on the PLAN AND DESIGN. 339 enemies and victory of the clmrcli. Sucli is the out- line of the subject, the detail of which is filled in by the representations of the seventh seal, which form the second version. 'Now this plan is admirable for its simplicity, beauty, and perfect unity of design, as also for its Scriptural character — qualities which evi- dence it to be the plan of the prophet ; and reduplica- tion gives it. This delivery of the plan is very much in favor of reduplication. Eeduplication gives us what all the wise men have not been able to discover. It does not require to be added that there is no plan as yet discovered, which will vie in unity and beauty of design with this one that reduplication presents. These we conceive are strong reasons for coming to the conclusion that the vision of John, like the dream of Pharaoh, Gen. xli., has been " doubled unto him twice." What a powerful key does this redu- plication put into the hand of the interpreter ! What a guarantee does it afford to the right application of the prophecy ! John, upon this view of his book, is liis own commentator, and all other commentators sink into insignificance beside the prophet himself. The burden of the prophecy delivered in the first six seals is evident, and it is simple. It is the contest of the kingdom of God with three dominions, w^iich, on several grounds apart from the symbolic delinea- tions, must be concluded to be Roman dominions ; the oppression of this kingdom by these three hostile powers for an appointed season ; the judgment and destruction of these hostile powers, and the complete triumph of the kingdom of God as the sn]3reme and 340 PLAN AKD DESIGN. V everlasting dominion of the world. This burden is equally divided between the six seals. The first four exhibit the combating dominions ; the fifth, the king- dom of God succumbing under the power of its ene- mies ; tlie sixth, the enemy judged and destroyed, and the complete triumph of this the finally victorious do- minion. The burden naturally ends here and must end here, for the eye of prophecy does not pierce beyond this great consummation. The plan and design of the prophet, then, as exhibited in this first version, is ex- tremely simple. It comprehends nothing more than Four Dominions, the War waged between these, and the destruction of three of them, and the Yictoey and everlasting triumph of one of them. It develops six subjects ; each seal contains one ; the six seals are a table of contents to the seventh seal ; the representa- tions of this seal, as will be seen, observing the same plan and design, re-deliver this burden and nothing more, in a more expanded form. The burden is a ver}^ ancient one ; it dates from paradise. Gen. iii. 15 ; it was formally delivered by Daniel, chs. ii. and vii., and it is caught up by the last prophet of God, the prophet of the Revelation, who, in a full, a loftier, a richer, and a more varied strain than Daniel, pre- dicts the bruising of the serpent's head by the seed of the woman, and the eventual triumph and gloiry on earth, after a hard-won victory over the fourth dominion of the world, of the Kingdom of the Son of Man. Such is the first version of John's prophecy ; a detailed development of the same grand subject is presented in the second. PLAN AND DESIGN. 34:1 The silence at length ends, and the celestial panorama rolls on once more and attracts the intense and wrapt gaze of the seer. But changed is the scenery from visions of glory, blessedness, and peace to the crashing trumpets of war. Seven dreadfully- sounding trumpets are blowm ; calamity and woe come at their bidding ; destruction is piled on destruc- tion, nntil the final catastrophe is reached. But the catastrophe is that of the preceding seal, Avhich ushered in the triumph at its close. It is in vain to enquire why the prophet has departed from the order he has hitherto observed. Perhaps the accumulation of judgments is here entered on, to present a vivid contrast to the immediately foregoing scene of triumph, peace, and bliss. Perhaps the association of the half hour's silence with the silence of incense-offering in the temple-worship, suggests the array of judgments. Whatever be the reason of the change, nothing can be more certain than that the prophet discards the arrangement he has hitherto followed. The change of order, however, is not any evidence of change of subject. It is simply an evidence of that versatility in representation which characterizes the Pevelation. Having concisely developed his system of handling the subject before the pause, he seems after it to abandon himself wholly to fulness of representation, and to give a free reign to versatility — to allow the horses to bear the chariot at will. But although his order is changed he is still orderly — nay very orderlj^, for now he divides and subdivides. Before li^ was general ; he now becomes particular. He displays 842 PLAN AND DESIGN. his regard to order by setting the fourfold group the conspicuous body in the first version in the centre of the second in the very same succession ; he defines the restricted subjection of the conquering dominion and the rage of the enemy depicted under the fifth seal to be for 1260 years ; he divides the judgments of the sixth seal into seven trumj^ets, symbols of judgments in war, and the last of these he has sub- divided into seven vials, affording the details of the seventh and final judgment, while through the whole of the multifarious visions which crowd this version he moves steadily onwards to the same grand climax to which, in the epistles, he strove to rouse the seven churches — the climax of victory, and he ends the two versions with the same sublime strains which equally closes the sixth and the seventh seal. Let us, how- ever, take the key of arrangement which he has fur- nished in that part of the prophecy which precedes the pause at the end of the sixth seal ; we shall find it effectual in reducing the complexity of the visions of the seventh seal. Let our eye look for and catch the fourfold group, for it is round this centre that the events of this lofty, spirit-stirring, and heaven-born epic revolve. Here it is in ch. vii. and xiii. The kingdom of God is first in the series, as be- fore. The Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, represents this kingdom, as is universally admitted, and as is self-evident. She be- come^ afterwards the bride, the Lamb's wife, ch. xxi. 9. She is sadly persecuted for a season, and is PLAN AND DESIGN. 3^8. obliged to flee into the wilderness, wliere slie sojourns for 1260 days. This, a day standing for a year in symbolic prophecy, prefigures the oppression of the kingdom of God under the Homan dominion, fj-om the year A. D. 533, when the Papal power was first founded, till A. D. 1793, when the first of the seven vials of the last judgment began its course, and this power was driven into the wilderness of judgment, in which it is exhibited, with its whorish associate, in chap. xvii. 3. But the woman, with the glorious in- signia of the sun, moon, and crown of stars, bears a man-child, who is " to rule all nations with a rod of iron," ver. 5. This is that Conqueror, for who else can he be, who appeared in the first seal, going forth " conquering and to conquer." The kingdom of God, then, is here represented under a double symbol, and exhibited nnder the two phases which it presents throughout the book, of militant and triumphant. The woman, who flees into the wilderness, represents it as suflering ; the man-child, " caught up unto God and to his throne," as finally victorious. The Roman empire, the first enemy in the order of time, and represented under the first four seals by the Horseman on the red horse, succeeds the repre- sentation of the kingdom of God, and appears under the form of a great red Dragon, having seven heads and ten horns. The seven heads, keeping in view the interpretation in ch. xvii. 9, prove it to be a Roman dominion, while the ten horns identify it with the fourth beast of Daniel, which stands for the fourth empire of the world, which is the Roman. It is here 844: PLAN AND DESIGN. represented as endeavoring the destruction, in its in- fancy, of that dominion which is destined to be finally victorious. But the victory of this is sure, for the child is " caught up unto God and to his throne." Christianity, in its judicial aspect, represented by Michael, assails it in the form of four tremendous invasions of the Northern barbarous nations, symbol- ized b}^ the first four trumpets, which eject it out of the Italian heaven, a. d. 476, and cast it out upon the provincial German earth. Loud shouts of tri- umph resound from the heavenly chorus, vs. 10-12, and celebrate the victory won by the kingdom of God, which has driven its enemy from its seat of power and pre-eminence at Home. The Empire driven from the Italian and metropolitan heaven^ per- secutes the church on the German and provincial earth. The church flees into the wilderness during 1260 years ; the Dragon's persecution, however, is not said to last for this period, the truth being, that the Empire was, during about 300 years of this time, in a state of suspension. All reference to this suspension of its existence, is here omitted, but it is formally represented under the fourth trumpet, which likewise prefigures this, the greatest and most signal revolution in modern history. The Papacy follows the Empire in the representa- tion under the form of the Beast, which is said to have entered into the power, seat, and great authority of the Dragon, cli. xiii. 2. If the Dragon be the Empire, this characteristic alone determines the Beast to be the Papacy, for certainly, no other dominion, PLAN AND DESIGN. 345 except the Papal, entered into tlie power, seat, and great authority of the Empire. The interpretation in chap. xvii. demonstrates the Beast there, which is the same with that here described, to be the Papacy, as has been shown by many commentators. Its described character as a Eoman temporal dominion, the eighth and last in order, in combination with a great eccle- siastical dominion, and lasting for 1260 years, ch. xiii. 5, is demonstrative evidence to this effect. The ecclesiastical dominion, in combination with the above, makes the fourth member of the group, and is the same as that prefigured by the Horseman on the pale horse, who has no insignia of authority. Its ecclesiastical character is here represented, not by its having ten horns, the emblems of Koman temporal power, but by its having two horns, ver. 11, like the lamb, Christ, who in his sacrificial character abjured temporal government, saying, " My kingdom is not of this world," John, xviii. 36. In ch. xviii. its eccle- siastical nature is represented by the character of the symbol, a xcliove^ while it is the dominion which ap- pears in various places of the book as the false "projpli- et^ which is necessarily the sign of an ecclesiastical dominion. Its combination with the dominion above described, is plainly aifirmed in the words, " And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him," ver. 12. These words are only applicable to the Papacy as the head of a temporal and spiritual Em- pire. In ch. xvii., the combination of the two domin- ions is symbolized by their union in one compound symbol, a Beast, and a Whore riding on it. 15* 346 pla:n^ and design. Tins compound symbol is said to last for forty and two months, ver. 5, wliicli, reckoning tliirty days to a month, and a day for a year, in conformity with the interpretation in Scripture (Numb. xiv. 34, Ezek. iv. 6), are 1260 years. This period commenced with the publication of the edict of the Emperor Justinian, A. D. 533, whose code has been the law for modern Europe, which edict founded the spiritual and tem- poral, but more especially the spiritual power of the Pope, and ended with the year a. d. 1793, when the French revolution broke out, which introduced to the world a new era, fatal at once to tyranny and super- stitution, began the course of the seven vials, or the lasts plagues, and drove the Papacy, temporal and spiritual, into that wilderness of judgment in which it is exhibited in ch. xvii. This period, accordingly, is fixed by an event correspondent with the terms of the prophecy, both at its commencement and close, and may be regarded as demonstratively proved. Such are the four dominions as they are repre- sented by the Four Horsemen of the first version. The fifth seal represents the oppression and afflic- tion of the church. The time is there stated to be appointed (ch. vi. 11), but it is not defined. This is done in the full version under the perfect seal. The church is predicted to he subjected to persecution and oppression for 1260 years, by the representation made of the Woman's fieeing into the w^ilderness for 1260 days, ch. xii. 6, 14, and by the Two Witnesses pro- phesying in sackcloth, ch. xi. 3. The same predic- tion is delivered in respect of the oi^pressing enemy PLAN AND DESIGN. 3tl:7 in cli. xiii. 5, in regard to the Beast, where it is said that "power was given unto him to continue for forty and two months," and in ch. xi. 2, where it is said in respect of the holy city, the symbol of the kingdom of God, that " it is given unto the Gentiles," and they shall '^ tread it under foot forty and two months." This period, which defines the continuance of the subjugation of the kingdom of God under Ro- man power, occupies a prominent position in the sec- ond version. The church's affliction lasts during the reign of Imperial and Papal power ; this reign ends with the commencement of the pouring out of the last vials. The object of these is, as clearly appears from ch. xv., to deliver the church and destroy its enemies. The church's affliction and the power of the enemy, naturally and necessarily end when these begin. The sixth seal opens with the judgments on the enemies of the kingdom of God. Ln the seventh seal tliese are formally arranged under Seven Trumpets, the last of which is subdivided into Seven Yials. The first four trumpets comprehend the four great invasions of the barbarians, the last of which dissolved the Roman Empire in Italy, a. d. 476, the temporary eclipse of whose power, between the fall of the Em- pire in Italy and its reconstitution in Germany by Charlemagne, a. d. 800, is vividly represented by the fourth trumpet. The fifth trumpet symbolizes the invasions of the Saracens, and the sixth that of the Turks. The seventh trumpet represents the war which the Son of Man in person wages against the Roman 348 PLAN AND DESIGN. dominions. This trumpet is divided into seven vials. The first of these was poured out in the French revo- lution of 1793; the last, probably, in 1848, and it is to be held as now running its course. The final judg- ments are represented in other places of the seventh seal. In ch. xix. 11-21, the destruction of the Papacy and the Eomish church are predicted, under the figure of the casting of the Beast and the False Prophet into the lake of fire ; and in ch. xx, the destruction of the Empire, after its subjection to a series of judgments symbolized by a chaining in the bottomless pit for 1,000 years, which in this symbolical prophecy is ne- cessarily a symbolical period, and here stands for a comparatively short space of time, is foretold. The sixth seal closes with the triumph of the kingdom of God ; the seventh ends with the same triumph. This great and glorious consummation is represented in various places, but more particularly in the sublime vision which closes the prophecy in ch. xxi. and xxii. The plan of the Kevelation, then, is in strict ac- cordance with symbolic models ; it is reduplicating and quaternal. Its subject is also symbolic, for it is that which forms the burden of Daniel and Zecha- ri all's prophecies, the relations of the kingdom of God to the fourth dominion of the world. Daniel and Zechariah divide this dominion into two branches, which, by Daniel, are described as contemporaneously existing, and involved in one and the same ruin. These can only be the Imperial division of the Roman power, represented in Dan. ch. vii. by the fourth beast PLAN AND DESIGN. 34:9 itself, as it existed first in Italy and thereafter in Germany, and the Papacy, a small temporal power symbolized by the little horn on the beast that " had a look more stout than his fellows," that spake " great words against the Most High," that wore out the saints of the Most High, and that subdued them under him for 1260 years. John describes these two divisions, also, but adds the strictly ecclesiastical phase of this dominion, by which he completes his quaternary, and gives a full representation of the sub- ject. This dominion, this last stronghold of tyranny and superstition on the earth, is predicted to be destroyed, and a glorious kingdom to occupy its place, which is to endure through endless ages. Symbolic prophecy knows no destruction of the material world ; it concerns itself solely with the political. This shall be destroyed and a new one created. The kingdom of the saints is the new heavens and the new earth, which is to be set up on eternal foundations. When this glorious work is accomplished, righteousness and truth will walk the earth in majesty and in triumph ; they will sit down upon thrones, and place the nations under blissful sceptres ; joy and peace, flapping their radiant wings, will sally forth and hover stationary over a world emancipated and redeemed. This is the burden of the song which the prophet sings in mystic, but not in inarticulate, in sublime and immortal strains. He sings the praise of virtue. He celebrates her victory in the great Olympic race, the stadium of which is the world, for about 2,000 years ; the compet- itors in the race, giant world-powers ; the goal the end 350 PLAK AND DESIGN. of the age. Yirtue wins the prize in the contest ; she binds upon her brows imperishable laurels ; she sits down on an eternal throne, and she wears the crown of empire forever. But the song is a prophecy. The race is still to be run when the prophet assumes the lyre ; yet he describes its changes and its vicissitudes with the accuracy of an historian. Within the sacred precinct of the Kevelation, Poetry, Prophecy, and History may be seen to join hand in hand, and to talk words together; a group that have never been seen together except on the summit of inspiration. SYXOPTICAL VIEW OF THE IKTEEPKE- TATIO^". The two mam and distinctive features, in so far as the form of the proj^hecy is concerned, of the inter- pretation of the Revelation submitted in the foregoing pages, may be stated as follows : 1,9^. The prophecy is delivered in a double ver- sion. (See under Prop. 3d.) It is unnecessary to state how valuable this principle is to the elimination of the meaning. The one version occupies the place of an interpreter to the other, and the prophecy to a certain extent, mterjyreU itself. 2d. The prophecy is constructed in the quaterxal FORM. (See under Prop. 4th.) By the aid of this principle, the various pictures of the seven-sealed book may be ranged under four headings. We are thus enabled to institute a comparison between them ; light is thrown on what is dark, and confusion resolves itself into order. So far as we are aware, these principles have not yet been applied to the Book of Revelations, and if they are true and necessary to the right interpreta- tion, is it at all wonderful that this has not yet been rendered ? S54: SYNOPTICAL VIEW. It appears to us that these two principles go far to unlock the chambers of imagery of tlr's sublime prophecy. Under their application the prophecy exhibits an admirable sim/plicity combined with an exquisite symmetry in all its parts. Perhaps in the end it will be found that the loise conception and de- sign manifested in the book are yet more astonishing than the splendor of its imagery. Rivalling the highest poetry, does it exhibit all the exactitude of ^ mathematical science in its design and structure ? If so, and there is no reason to doubt that it does this, it forms a wonderful instance of the wisdom and goodness of God, who has thus delivered to His people a book to guide and cheer their path by the figures of a glowing imagery, which, in the end, resolve themselves into problems of demonstrable certainty and of prophetic import, attesting at once the divinity of His Word and His government of the world. As a HELP or key to the understanding of the book, we beg to submit and prove the following propositions. PROPOSITIONS : 1st Prop. — The Book of Pevelations is a prophecy written in the symholical language of 8cri2?ture^ which language is one and uniform, as the interpretations rendered in Scripture show it to be. 2d Prop. — It is a prophecy distinguished by unity of design. This is evident from its being contained in a seven-sealed book (ch. v. 1), the pictures of which constitute the prophecy (ch. vi. — viii. 1), and it SYNOPTICAL VIEW. 355 maj also be concluded on tlie ground that the other symbolical prophecies of Scripture manifest this principle (Dan. ch. ii., vii., viii. Zech. vi.) 3d Pkop. — It exhibits the feature of Tedii]plicatio7i^ or it contains a double version of itself, for the follow- ing reasons : Firstly, because this also is a feature of symbolical representation, as is evident from Gen. xli. 32, where the principle is distinctly enunciated, and from its being displayed by Daniel in his great prophecy regarding the four great empires of the world (ch. ii., ch. vii.) and elsewhere, and secondly, because the book itself plainly shows it — a first ver- sion terminating at ch. vii. 1 — for the whole subject of the prophecy there takes end, and is repeated in the remaining portion of the book, and " a silence in heaven about the sj)ace of half an hour '■ occurring at this place (ch. viii. 1), which silence is not explicable except on the ground that it divides a first version from a second. 4:th Prop. — It is constructed in the form of a Quaternary, or it presents its subject in a fourfold group, because it is the practice of the symbolic prophets to construct their prophecies in this form (Dan. ii., vii. Zech. vi.), and because the four beasts or livino;-creatures announce or introduce four sub- jects (ch. vi. 1-8), contained in the representations of the first four seals, wliich four subjects, from this special introduction, are to be held on the ground of miity of design (Prop. 2), as well as of the analogy of Dan. ch. vii., to be all the subjects which the prophecy predicts concerning. This proposition is 356 SYNOPTICAL VIEW. also a corollary from the preceding one, for if the prophecy has a double version, it contains no more than four subjects, no more than four being in the first version, which must be held to end with ch. vii. 5th Pkop. — It is a prophecy regarding political dominions and events only; Firstly^ because the sym- bolic language in which it is couched, on a legitimate explication of its meaning derived from Scripture, only bears this reference. Secondly^ because the four beasts or living-creatures introduce the four subjects which the prophecy concerns (Prop. 4) in a manner precisely similar to the four winds of Daniel ch. vii. 2, and the whole structure of the prophecy exhibits an analogy both in manner and matter to the prophecy of Daniel ch. ii. and vii., which is entirely political in its bearing. Thirdly^ because there is an inter- pretation rendered in the book (ch. xvii. ^-18), which is entirely political, and which interpretation must be held an example to be followed ; and Fourthly ^ it being certain \h.2X parts of the pro]3hecy are political, a regard to unity of design (Prop. 2) necessitates the conclusion that it is all political. 6th Prop. — The political dominions and events fredicted of are all of the first magnitude^ because the symbolic prophecies of Scripture are restricted to dominions and events of this kind (Dan. passim Zech.), and because the burden of the prophecy as is undeni- able is to i^redict the triumph of the Kingdom of God over certain worldly dominions which must be great, because it is only such which can enter the lists with it for that universal empire which is its destiny. SYNOrXICAL VIEW. 357 Ttli Pkop. — Of the four dominions wliicli the pro- phecy concerns (Prop. 4), three are Itoman^ and one is the Kingdom of God^ which latter clause of the proposition requires no proof. Three dominions are to be held Roman for the following reasons : 1st. It is acknowledged that the iron and clay of the Image (Dan. ch. ii. 40 — 43) and the fourth Beast (Dan. ch. vii. 23 — 25), as is evident from the interpretations, stand for the Roman dominion. It is also generally acknowledged that the fourth chariot of Zechariah ch. vi. 6, 7, stands for this dominion, likewise. The appli- cation which has been made of these prophecies in the above sense may be regarded as a certain ti*uth. It is known that the prophet of the Revelation follows these prophets, as well in the selection of his imagery as his subject while there is no ground to suppose that he departs from them in any respect. For this reason, it is to be held that he predicts only of the Roman dominion as the antagonist of the Kingdom of God — Daniel and Zechariah, whom he follows, not recog- nizing any other. 2d. Daniel predicts of the Roman dominion in two branches, at the crisis of the estab- lishment of the Kingdom of God in the world, which two branches are represented by the beast itself and by the little horn (Dan. ch. vii. 23—26). The prophet of the Revelation predicts of the same crisis, and must therefore predict of the Roman dominion in two branches at least, for his prophecy is more enlarged than that of Daniel ; but a third dominion mentioned by him is in combination with one of the others (Ch. 'xiii., xvii.), so that three dominions are Roman, which, 358 SYNOPTICAL VIEW. with the Kingdom of God, the fourth, are all the dominions in the book (Prop. 4th). 2d. Ten horns are symbols apj^Iied by Daniel to certain divisions of the Roman power (Dan. ch. vii. 24). Two of the dominions in the Revelations have this characteristic attached to them (Ch. xii. 3, xiii. 1), on which account they are to be held to be Roman, and a third is in combination with one of them (Ch. xiii.,xvii), so that three are Roman. 4th. Seven heads are interpreted to be seven mountains, an unmistakable sign of Rome, which no sophistry can evade ; and this sign is ap- plied to two of the dominions by the interpreting angel, so that two are necessarily Roman (Ch. xvii. 9) ; but the same sign is attached to a third dominion represented by the dragon (Ch. xii. 3), so that three are Roman, which, with the Kingdom of God, are all the dominions in the book (Prop. 4th). 8th Pkop. — ^\\^jplan of the prophecy is to deliver itself in the form of pictures in a seven-sealed book (Comp. ch. i. 1 : v. 1, 7 ; vi. — viii. 1), in a double version, the first being separated from the second by a silence in heaven about the space of half an hour (Ch. viii. 1). 9th Pkop. — Th^iolot developed by the pictures of the seven-sealed book is the Wak waged by the King- dom OF God against the Roman Dominion in its three forms, viz: Imperial, Papal, and Ecclesiastical. This plot is developed in an indicial and synoptical manner by the representations as follows in the SYNOPTICAL TIEW. 359 FIRST VERSION. FIRST SEAL. Ch. vi. 1, 2. UBt f orse anb giber. j^iit^bom of (§ab, SECOND SEAL. Ch. vi. 3, 4. gcb f orse anb ^liber. gomait (Bmpirf. THIRD SEAL. Ch. vi. .5, 6. ^Isch f orse anb gibw:. gomatt |apacg. FOURTH SEAL. Ch. vi. 7, 8. gale fcrsc aitb giber. gomisb C^urc^. FIFTH SEAL. Ch. vi. 9-11. Souls of the Martyrs under Oppression of the Kingdom of THE Altar, God for an appointed season, which in the second version is defined to be 1260 years, and Promise of final vengeance and victory to its downtrodden and persecuted cause. SIXTH SEAL. Ch. vi. 12— vii. 17. First Pakt. A Violent Tempest. Judgments on the Roman Ene- MY, as represented in the second, ^ third, and fourth seals, Imperlil, Papal, and Ecclesiastical. 360 synoptical view. Second Part. Sealing of the Tribes of Is- Security of the Kingdom op BAEL, God during the Judgments. Third Part. Scene of Peace, Happiness, Triumph of the Kingdom op AND Glory. God as the Everlasting Dominion on earth, when in the words of Daniel, vii. 27. " And the king- dom and dominion, and the great- ness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all do- minions shall serve and obey him." SECOND VERSION. FIRST SEAL REDUPLICATED. Ch. xii. Wiommx, S^Ije llingbom of (^oin* SECOND SEAL REDUPLICATED. Ch. xii. gragoiT. S^^c '^ammi Empire. THIRD SEAL REDUPLICATED. Ch. xiii. FOURTH SEAL REDUPLICATED. , Ch. xiii. SYNOPTICAL VIEW. 361 FIFTH SEAL REDUPLICATED. Flight of the "Woman into the Wilderness for 1260 days, ch. xii. Prophesying of the Two Wit- nesses in Sackcloth, for 1260 days, chap. xi. Oppression op the Kingdom op God for 1260 Years. SIXTH SEAL REDUPLICATED. FiKST Pakt. Seten Trumpets, ch. viii. — xi. Seven Vials, ch. xvi. Ten-horned Beast and Whore IN Wilderness, ch. xvii. Cast- ing of Beast and False Prophet INTO LAKE OF FIRE, ch. xix. CAST- ING OF THE Dragon into Bottom- less Pit and Lake op Fire, ch. xx. Fall of Babylon, ch. xviii. Judgments on the Koman Do- minion, Imperial, Papal, and Ec- clesiastical. Destruction of the Roman Do- minion, Imperial, Papal, and Ecclesiastical. Second Paet. Visions op ch. xiv. and xv. Security op the Church op Protection of the Woman, ch. God. xii. 6, 14, and of the Two Wit- nesses, ch. xi. 4, 5. Third Part. The New Heaven, and New Earth, and the New Jerusalem, ch. xxi. and xxii. Final Triumph and Establish- ment op the Kingdom of God on Earth.