Page images
PDF
EPUB

tongue than another. Surely no one will deny that there does exist a fundamental distinction between figure and allegory; that though they are both ideographic signs, they are essentially different; that the one is an open and the other is a shut sign; that the language constituted by the one class of signs possesses 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 language.

As long as such a course is pursued, it may with certainty be affirmed, 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 subordinate 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 pervaded by one design. But as a preliminary, and predominant to any application of these, the grand outlines of the sense must be fixed by hieroglyphic laws and the senses of the symbols. When figurative language appears as the exponent of an allegory, and appears with 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

never be appealed to as a judge. Its testimony is valuable when it is in unison with that of the hieroglyphic 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 degree treacherous. A well-chosen and well-shapen metaphor 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 terminates 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 withered 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 prosecuting figurative language, the attention of interpreters has been diverted from that field of inquiryhieroglyphic or symbolic composition-where alone satisfactory results are to be reaped. The laws of this species of writing have not been studied. Commentators, pursuing figures and metaphors, through all the thousand resemblances which they disclose, with events supposed to be foreshadowed-metaphors ne

cessarily light in substance and at the mercy of every wind, have spent their 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 the 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 sufficient to account for the failure of its interpretation. The hieroglyphic language which conveys the prophecy, its laws and its signs have not been studied, nor in the interpretation has it been exclusively had recourse to. It has been mixed with foreign elements which tend to neutralize its power. Here, in this hieroglyphic language, in its laws and government, there is alone the mine which 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 off it. Here is to be found the metal in which the everlasting types of the Revelation are cast. The

revelations of this book are not conveyed in flowery figure or fragile metaphor, the very profusion and splendor of which, as they fill its pages, did its language consist of these and not something better, would conclusively prove the vanity and emptiness of its contents. Its prophetic communications are made in signs of a very different 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 iron writing, to know its cryptogrammic, its apparently uncouth but yet beautifully distinct, its mystic but yet definite signs, forming that wondrous vehicle of divine prophecy which conceals and discloses its meaning; which hides it now but reveals it when the suns of centuries have rolled away, and the things which it foretold have been finished. Verily this is no metaphoric tongue which is suitable for present use. This is the deep-mouthed tongue of future ages-it speaks to-day but it is heard to-morrow-its articulations roll over centuries, and these echo them back-it is mystic, profound, sublime -it is different 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.

He says: "I take it for granted, that the writer had a present and immediate object in view when he wrote the book; and, of course, I must regard him as having spoken intelligibly 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 principle of interpretation is a much 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 intelligible. Irenæus, 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 intelligible. He, and all who write upon it in the early ages of Christianity, evidently regard it as having ever been a most mysterious 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 miracles. 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 basis of Mr. Stuart's interpretation, and they are mysteries much more inexplicable than any which the book contains. It contains, let it be admitted, mysterious signs, but here is a mysterious fact, or at least a supposed fact, made, too, a basis of interpretation, of which fact the mystery 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

« PreviousContinue »