they are worthless in value. The prophecy itself is thus placed in the unfortunate condition of a book which is not written in any language: for the language in which it actually is written has been dissolved 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 interpretation to its full extent, that through them a corrective 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 Revelation 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 writings of the Bible in their endeavors to elucidate it, we 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 themselves, 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 who apply the prophecy to real events in the world's history, extending over a long period of time. These accept, as the foundation-stone of their system of interpretation, the hieroglyphic basis that a day stands for a year. This is the pole-star of their interpretaAt the head of this school stands Joseph Mede, who may be looked upon as the first and great tion. apostle of the 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 hieroglyphic basis of a day for a year and all hieroglyphic basis of interpretation whatever, and assuming the figurative and also the literal language of Scripture as their chief guides in exposition. It is only necessary 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 incomprehensible 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 Apocalypse from the canon of inspiration altogether. He regards the author much more as a poet, as he calls him, than as a prophet; he views him much more in the light of a maker 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 interpretation steers clear of the absurdities which overload Mr. Stuart's, but he, on the other hand, subjects the book to a still, which effectually evaporates meaning from it altogether. 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 assumed to be, likewise to a powerful alembic, and makes it a sort of white 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 empty, 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 almost 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 plausibility, the first class of interpreters who accept the hieroglyphic basis, and who find the antitypes of the symbols in the facts of history, afford such various interpretations of the book as to cast a strong suspicion on the soundness of the foundation on which they erect superstructures so transient, so many and so various in design, as those which they exhibit. This observation has an apparent truth; nevertheless, in the great outlines of interpretation they are uni versally agreed. This accordance speaks well for their 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. Now to this objection an answer may readily be returned; two causes have been in operation 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 hieroglyphic plan 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 diverted from it. This unity has hardly been sought for; has certainly not been found-hence variety of interpretation. The duplication 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 sentation. The two versions are therefore indices and correctives of each other. These important principles 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 interpretation of the Revelation, has hitherto been the non-recognition of the essential difference between symbol and figure, and the application to it of figurative 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 Revelation? 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 symbolic, as there is between one dialect of a spoken |