Page images
PDF
EPUB

are others again in which the first representation is not wholly, or even chiefly, to be accepted literally, 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, by the explanation which accompanies it, reduced to the state of a figure as it stands on the record. For the sake of illustration we shall express it in the strict form of the allegory: "There is a vine and there is a husbandman; and every branch in this vine that beareth not fruit, the husbandman taketh away; and every branch that beareth fruit, the husbandman purgeth, that it may bring forth more fruit." Here there are several subordinate hieroglyphs: the vine is a hieroglyph 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 allegory, 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 subordinate 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 hieroglyph 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

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 allegories, we find this hieroglyphical element formed into a language regularly organized. Definite significations are attached to the hieroglyphic signs by a system of interpretations rendered, which constitute a species of lexicon, while the whole army of signs is placed under the discipline of laws resting upon the groundwork of precedent. This is a new feature.

These allegories also show the hieroglyphic element 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 representation. This is a feature which never takes place where the allegoric element is weak. It results from an excess 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 which are never strained to bear a second sense. How incongruous and perplexed, in comparison, is the composition of a symbolic prophecy. The greater part of the representation is here pregnant with enigma and a second sense. This

feature materially enhances the difficulty of interpretation.

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 rendered, 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 Hieroglyph 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. If 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 Roman dominion, for this is the fourth. The general signification of the hieroglyphic sign is thus twice proved, while its particular 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 interpretation of the Four Chariots of Zechariah, ch. vi., which determines them to be dominions, proves the

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 If the First Horseman represents the kingdom of God, which can hardly be disputed, then the unity of idea which prevails in the allegory necessitates the conclusion that the three other horsemen

same.

are symbols of Roman 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 subjected 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

a fundamental principle and an inalienable prerogative of the allegory. It is indeed a prerogative of which the Revelation has been deprived, but not with justice.

The hieroglyphic language of Scripture, then, in virtue of the interpretations rendered of it, and the restraining influence of the allegory in which it appears, 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 interpreted character, it is indeed nothing more than literal language written in cipher, and it is unquestionably 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 different 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. Such 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 b, and so on. Such an alphabet contains signs quite as definite in their significations as the common one. It is an incomprehensible 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 furnished us with a sufficient 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

« PreviousContinue »