these signs from those of literal language, their right to be held a mode of communication perfectly intelligible. 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 language, 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, with greater propriety of expression, denominated language containing figures. This has no real claim to be reckoned a language distinct from literal, although we have considered it as such on the ground of its consisting of ideographic signs.

Let us compare, or rather contrast, the hieroglyphic, which 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 combination 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 would 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

the number and talents of the men who have attempted to illustrate the visions of St. John, and the great discordance of opinions, it would seem as if there must be something radically wrong, some fatal error, at the very 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 be maturely considered."

It can hardly be questioned that such a fatal error exists. Now it appears to us that this fatal error, which must lie at the foundation of all systems of interpretation hitherto pursued, mainly is the attempt to explain the book on the basis of figurative language. 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 negative disadvantages of pursuing such a course. The interpretation is deprived by it of the following elements of explication, which are unfolded in the symbolic language of Scripture, but of which there is not a trace in its figurative language:

1st. Unity of idea in the composition.

2d. The origination of the subject from a common

source.

3d. Reduplication or doubling of the revelation made.

4th. Structure of the representation in the quaternal 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

applied, so far as we know, to the book of Revelation. Why? because they have no existence in the figurative prophets. They are developed, however, by the symbolic prophets. Unfortunately, no right distinction has been drawn between these two very different species of prophets, and the Revelation, which belongs to the latter class, has never yet had the true principles of symbolic writing applied to it. Now, if the four principles above mentioned are fundamental 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 interpretation of his book.

But when we examine these principles more narrowly, 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 inferior; this subject, which is one, is twice 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

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 insoluble detail in the first version? the corresponding part of the second copy may resolve the difficulty. 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 double version is a powerful principle of interpretation? yet it has not yet been applied to the Revelation. Why? without doubt chiefly because this book has been conceived to be written in figurative language, and figurative 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 efficient clue to its plan and design. The subject which is marked with unity will, according to it, exhibit a fourfold division, and the actors in the plot developed will be four in number. However multifarious the representations may be, there is here a principle of order and arrangement second alone to that which is furnished by the double version. Neither has this principle been applied to the Revelation. 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 interpretation of the book which is subjected to it?

Let us closely scan this symbolic or allegoric language, which is so essentially different from figurative.

When we speak of allegoric language we mean that which 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 we speak of symbolical or hieroglyphic language, we mean this same language reduced to an organized system through the interpretations rendered of it in Scripture, and employed in this organized form as the vehicle of prophecy. This language has two expository principles.

1st. The allegory, with unity of idea characterizing it, and

2d. 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 hieroglyph. 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 subordinate hieroglyphs under it. These bear independent badges of authority, but they acknowledge the supreme power of the allegory's unity of idea. Such we believe to be the organization of the prophetic symbolic language, and it has every claim to be regarded a more perfect organization than ever came from the hand of man. Nothing can surpass it in