arises not only one demonstration, but two. It is perfectly evident that a demonstration cannot really exist where the sense of the symbol is determinable by the event which this symbol predicts. The reasoning 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 demonstration 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 interpret the allegory-this is a second.

But the demonstration which, when properly made, is not only perfect, but 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 foundation on which to build; the senses are loose and indeterminable. 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 venturing with audacity, scrambling with toil, now obtaining 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,

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 work with the first and the last of these elements of demonstration. They have even held them in themselves to be demonstrative. This they truly are in regard to certain portions of the prophecy; portions that furnish a minutiæ of detail sufficient to constitute in itself demonstrative evidence. The portraiture of the two Beasts in ch. xiii., may be justly held to afford 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 yet compacted into the edifice. The two elements alone are by no means sufficient to furnish forth a demonstration of a great portion 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 demonstration 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

to traverse this wide gulf which yawns between the partially known and the absolutely certain. A strong and exact parallelism has been made out between the sign and a certain supposed 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 many 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 introduced 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 Revelation. This can hardly 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 accidental, it is of no account, and if designed, then inspiration must have been present, which can hardly be imagined. This may be regarded as a dernier resort 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

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 unsatisfactory; it is not what the mind longs for and reasonably demands in this case: it is certainty, absolute certainty.

Now how is this chasm, which really yawns between probability and certainty-this chasm which separates the imperfectly known from absolutely certain 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 construct 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 allegory is subjected, dating as far back as the time of

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 interpreter, standing on this bridge, which though light and airy is strong as adamant, occupies a most commanding position, and beholds before him the most magnificent 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 intelligence 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 revelation, a prophecy, 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 obtained. On the contrary, there is the chasm of which we have just spoken. It is only when the three conditions are fulfilled that a demonstration is the result,