it was to render the prophecies dark and obscure, and each of these again into several other distinct is very unsatisfactory. This could have been heads of inquiry. From such a distribution and effected without the adoption of symbols, even arrangement of the several parts of a work, no supposing such signs to be necessarily obscure, inconvenience will arise, if the author but diswhich they are not: besides which, it may be re-tinctly mark the limits of each, and properly admarked, that the symbols employed are sometimes just the whole in the general history. The reader immediately and fully explained; as in Daniel's vision of the ram and he-goat, &c. 2 The truth seems to be, that the peculiar character of symbolic language afforded to those who employed it, the means of communicating just so much information as they were desirous to give, respecting any object of which they were treating; and the information communicated through such a medium became universally and permanently intelligible. Thus, if a collection of waters was the symbol of a concourse of people, and it were desired to express some commotion, generally, without specifying the particular kingdom or nation in which it was to occur, this might be done by depicting the sea as in a state of turbulent agitation. But if the design were to mark out the country where such a tumult was to take place, that could also be effected, by selecting as the symbol that river or sea by which the country was characterized; as the Nile in Egypt, the Jordan in Palestine, or the Euphrates in Turkey. In either case the symbol would be perfectly intelligible, to the full extent designed by the person who employed it. of such a work will very naturally pass from the one to the other, carrying back his mind to the common epoch, at the beginning of each of the respective divisions. It is not so, however, in symbolical or pictorial representations. writer employing these be desirous to place before the mind of his reader the leading occurrences in a state, throughout the entire period of its history, he will be compelled, by the principles of the science, sometimes to represent distant events as existing at the same period of time, as in Daniel's vision of the great image, and that of the four beasts; and at other times, to employ a successive series of symbols to denote occurrences that are strictly synchronical, as in the book of Revelation. And however skilful and cautious he may be, it will be found impracticable to mark the boundaries of time, and the transition from one event to another, with as much strength and clearness as is done in verbal description or narration. Hence it is that expositors differ so materially in their views of the structure of the Apocalyptic visions. Those persons who have paid but little attention to the principles upon which symbolic language is constructed, and are but partially acquainted with the rules by which these pictorial representations are conducted, fall into the error of conceiving that the parts of each series of symbols should be considered as following each other in chronological order, each individual part having its commencement when the events of the part immediately preceding have had their accom 3. But there is another thing relative to the employment of symbols in prophetic Scripture, which may not be passed over without notice; we mean what may not improperly be designated their chronology. In verbal description there is no difficulty in properly adjusting the several occurrences which pass under review, and assigning to each one of them its respective order in the series, and its particular epoch in the general his-plishment; and each whole series, in like manner, tory. So, also, if it be desired to trace and delineate the effects of any particular principle or transaction on different states of society, or communities of persons, a speaker or writer may do so with the greatest facility, passing from one state to the other in regular succession, and without the remotest probability of misleading his hearers or readers. Thus we have historical works extant in which the authors have, in successive chapters or sections, narrated the history of the community to which their writings appertained, in its social, its civil, and its political state; each of which topics has been again divided into separate branches: then has followed a review of ecclesiastical matters, synchronizing with the events embraced in the former sections of the work; which review has, perhaps, been divided into the internal and external affairs of the church, having its commencement only after the particulars of the preceding series have been consummated. The absurdities which have resulted from this mode of interpretation, have been rendered sufficiently apparent in some treatises on prophetic Scripture. To avoid this evil, particular attention must be paid to the nature of the symbols adopted, the links by which they are connected together, the scenes and agents employed, and the homogeneity of the respective facts when grouped as a whole. IV. Upon the nature of symbolic language, particularly with reference to its intelligibility and permanency, we cannot do better than adopt the remarks of Dr. Johnson, of Holywood, the design of which is to show the propriety with which this species of writing is employed in prophetic Scripture. "Alphabetical characters and words," he observes, "are not natural, but only arbitrary signs, and therefore may and do change with the changes of time and of men. But hieroglyphics and symbols are either pictures of things actually existing, or of ideas which these things naturally excite; and therefore not arbitrary, but natural signs, fixed and permanent as the things themselves. For the same reasons, the symbolical is an universal language. Every alphabetical language is local and changeable; for instance, the Greek, the Latin, the Italian, the Spanish, the French, the English languages, were or are, each the language of a particular district or territory, and are altogether unintelligible to the illiterate inhabitants of any other district; and they have all undergone such changes, that the language of one period is scarcely intelligible to the inhabitants of the same country in another period of time. Since, then, the prophecies are intended for all countries and ages, the symbolical language, being universal and unchangeable, must for such a purpose be the best adapted." * thing that has been said on the nature of symbols, that every person is competent to their interpretation. The discordant sentiments maintained by writers on prophecy would, in itself, refute such a notion, though they will by no means prove, as some have alleged, that symbolic language is incapable of expressing any thing with precision. In this, as in verbal language, there are numerous shades and modifications of meaning, resulting from the varied associations of the symbols; and therefore the principles upon which such arrangements and associations are made, require to be investigated, and familiarized to the mind. 1. “In such an investigation," as Dr. Tilloch has judiciously remarked, "it should not, for a moment, be forgotten, that each symbol has a precise and determinate meaning; and that, until this be ascertained, with respect to any one specified, it will be absolutely impossible to settle its peculiar signification, in combinations which necessarily affect the features, though not the radical sense, of the symbol. But an example will render this much plainer. V. These remarks will, it is to be hoped, fully dispose of the charge of vagueness and unintelligibility which has been preferred against symbolic language. But there is another consideration in favour of its use in the Bible, that ought not to be overlooked; namely, its prevalency in the East, at all times, but especially at the time when the Hebrew prophecies were promulgated. The very genius of the Oriental languages, indeed, is to represent abstract ideas by sensible images; and in nothing, perhaps, was this so fully developed as in the religious systems of the East. "What, then, was more natural,” asks Bishop Hurd, "than that a style of expression which was employed in the theology of the eastern world, in its poetry, its philosophy, and all the sublimer forms of composition; what wonder that this customary, this authorized, this admired strain of language, should be that in which the sacred writers conveyed their highest and most important revelations to mankind?" † VI. It is not to be inferred, however, from any as a male, or as any thing but the supreme power ; 2. "The sun was, among the ancients, a legitimate symbol of supreme power; and the stars, of subordinate authority. A careless reasoner will be apt instantly to conclude, that when the sun is put for the supreme ruler, the moon must symbolize the queen; and he will not fail to recollect, in support of his opinion, that in Joseph's dream the sun symbolized the father, the moon the mother, and the stars the sons. In the case of a family, these symbols could with no kind of propriety be taken in any other sense; but it is quite otherwise in respect to a kingdom or empire; and it is so from that necessity which determines the fitness of things. The hieroglyphic of the luminaries embraces a totality, which must not be violated in any case to which it may be applied; the moon, therefore, cannot signify the wife of the sovereign, or it would follow that a kingdom cannot exist without a queen as well as a king. In fact, the sun does not symbolize the sovereignty Comment. on the Revelation, Introd. p. 5. We have a striking example of the superiority of symbolical over alphabetical writing, for the purpose of universal instruction, in the Chinese language, which is the accurate medium of thought throughout the nations of that vast empire, entirely independent of the varieties of speech existing among them. Thus, Dr. Morrison has stated, that the European geometry and astronomy of the fifteenth century, with the logarithmic tables of Napier, being translated into the Chinese language, are by that one translation, instead of fifteen, which would otherwise be required, rendered legible to 300,000,000 of human beings! See Critica Biblica, vol. iv. p. 133. + Discourses on Prophecy, vol. ii. p. 87. whether vested in a male, in a female, or in a plurality of persons. A queen then, if supreme, may be symbolized by the sun; but in this case, what would become of the moon? If we consider the compound symbol, and then the parts of the complex machine to which it is applied, all will be plain." ‡ 3. It is very remarkable, however, that the writer who made this observation, so just in itself, and of such great importance in the interpretation Tilloch on the Apocalypse, Dissert. 3, sect. 2. of symbolic language, should so far have failed in its application, as to interpret the moon of the subjects of a state; an interpretation which violates the homogeneity of the compound symbol, and destroys the principle of analogy on which every thing in this species of language depends. Each of the symbols supposed is itself a ruling power, and cannot, therefore, represent the people, who are the ruled, and who are to be sought on the earth, or in the lower ranks, and not in the heatens, or the exalted ones. In this, almost all commentators of eminence agree; and Achmet, an Arabian writer, in his Oneirocritica, which relates to an art founded on symbolic principles, says, as translated by Dr. Lancaster, that according to the Indians, Persians, and Egyptians, the sun is invariably interpreted of the king or supreme power; the moon, of him who is next in power; and the stars, of men of nobility and opulence, and those | who in every place live nearest to the king. 4. As an example of the apparent change which a symbol receives in its meaning, from a change of circumstances, Dr. Tilloch exhibits the following one, also drawn from the heavens. Stars sometimes symbolize, not inferior magistrates, but kings, which seems contradictory to what we have said. But the change is only in appearance, and the principles on which the language is founded are by no means violated, as will be evident from the following remark. Wherever stars are used to symbolize kings, it will be found that more than one king is spoken of, or that the Ruler of the universe is alluded to in the context; if the former, as there is but one sun in our system, he is necessarily excluded where a plurality of kings is the subject, and, therefore, other luminaries are substituted; if the latter, the sun symbolizing the King of kings, the powers ordained by him are represented by stars. The principle, therefore, is precisely the same, and could not have been preserved by any other method. VII. From what has been said, it will be evident that there is the greatest necessity for distinguishing between metaphors and symbols. In hieroglyphical language," remarks the writer whom we have just quoted, "it is not left to fancy, or to sagacity, to attach to a symbol any signification which the reader may imagine would | have been more appropriate than that assigned to it by the ancients; for in elucidating such writings, our business is not now to make a language, but to read one already made; and we might as well refuse to assign to any word in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, its known and admitted sense, from a conceit that a more expressive word might have been formed to convey that idea, as quarrel with the meaning of a symbol, because, in our judg [PART I. ment, a more appropriate one might have been formed. Where symbols are employed, it is our duty, instead of resorting to fancy, to employ industry; not to make, but to find out, the admitted sense. In Daniel and John, many of the symbols they employ are explained; the meaning of others may be found in other prophecies; and where these fail, recourse must be had to profane authors. Nor is there more danger in seeking the meaning of a symbol in such works, than in ascertaining the sense of any word in the New Testament, by comparing the best Greek writers with each other and with the Septuagint. By following this method, it can hardly be doubted that the true and genuine signification of every one of the symbols the sacred writers employ may be satisfactorily ascertained. It may not be in the power of any single individual to accomplish this desirable object. Where he cannot, by his in dustry, discover the meaning of any particular symbol, instead of showing himself ingenious, let him be ingenuous, and confess his want of success; and we may hope that others, from sources which he may not have had an opportunity of consulting, will sooner or later supply the deficiency." VIII. The following rules for the particular application of the general signification of symbols, and for the better understanding of the prophetic style, will assist the student in his inquiries into this subject. They are collected from the Preliminary Discourse, in Lancaster's Abridgement of Daubuz on the Revelation of St. John; a work which it is now extremely difficult to meet with. 1. The scene of action, the actor, and sufferer, determine the sense of all the accidents described in any general vision, or part of a vision where new ones appear. The meaning of this rule may be explained from what is observed even in common discourse. It is evident, when once the general or appellative terms are fixed to a particular signification, by some pronoun, proper name, demonstrative article, or even the time, place, or circumstance, that then they lose their general signification in all the following discourse, though the determining words or particles be not applied to each single term afterwards. Thus, if Britain be the fixed subject of the discourse, if we proceed to speak of the king, lords, commons, clergy, church, courts, laws, and the like, all which are general terms, as being common with us to several countries, though we do not at every one of them add the restriction, yet it is certain that we do it tacitly; and thus all our discourse must be determined by the first mention of its subject; and that, even though we * Tilloch, ubi supra. should not use the terms common in the country to denote those matters, but others analogical, and used in other countries. It is plain that we have settled the true notion of them by the first restriction. This is the very key of all discourse, and must consequently be so in the Revelation, which is written in a discursive method; so that the signification of the symbols is to be particularly applied by a careful and constant observation of this rule. It has been observed, as an excellence in Virgil, that he never describes the appearance of the day; but does it with such a description as suits the work of the day. The like is done throughout this prophecy. No actor or scene appears in it, but we may thereby immediately discover what action is to be performed. So that the rule is of universal use, and, as being so, is constantly observed by the Oneirocritics, who, agreeably to symbolical principles, not only suit their interpretations to the general object, but also to the condition of the party receiving the dream, as its proper scene or subject. And, indeed, when there is a multiplicity of incidents, which are all to be reduced into one system, what guide can we have, or what method take, but by considering the actor and scene first, and when these two are determined, to bring all the rest to suit with them? Hence, we find these writers explaining the symbols in different manners, according to the different conditions and circumstances of men. Kings, private men, and women, receive always different interpretations, but in proportion to their condition the same. And the same dream, seen by the same person at any long distance of time, denotes different things, proportionably to a difference of circumstances. From what has now been said, we must infer, in expounding the Revelation, that although we have the same symbols over and over again, we must, nevertheless, in every particular case refer them to the immediate scenes and actors from whence they proceed, and to which they are related; and by consequence, restrain their general signification to the particular case in which they are employed. Thus, the sun, moon, and stars are used in the visions of the seals, the trumpets, the sign of the woman in travail, and the vials; yet they must be there interpreted of things vastly different and opposed, though at the same time, in proportion to their different cases, really analogous. In short, there is nothing insignificant, or for the sake of decoration only, in the Book of Revelation; and, therefore, 2. The apparatus or decorations of the visions are of great use, being of the nature of such sorts of prologues as erplain, by way of introduction, the subject of the whole action. They fix the scene, describe the actors, and thereby determine the whole system of the actions, and by consequence the interpretation. They must hence be carefully observed. 3. Invisible beings, and even conceptions of the mind, as collective notions are reckoned, are represented by such visible shapes or figures as are borrowed from some of those visible adjuncts that either attend continually, or may at any time have attended, the invisible object, so that they may absolutely determine it to be that object designed, and no other. Thus, the eternal Father, who is invisible, is not represented in the revelation by any likeness (for none can be made of him), but by those visible adjuncts which he showed once to the Israelites, or left them the pattern of in the tabernacle; He himself, and his government, being only represented by his throne, with some other circumstances. So the Son, the Word of God, who in respect of his divine nature is invisible, is sented like a lamb, and like the Son of Man, from such adjuncts to his divine person as have once rendered him visible to mankind. In like manner, the Holy Spirit, who is invisible, is set forth by seven archangels collectively taken, as being his constant attendants, and consequently adjuncts, denoting his presence and efficacy. He is also represented by seven great torches or lights; because his visible appearance has been under the similitude of visible fires or lights which fell on the apostles. repre 4. When a kingdom or empire is to be represented throughout its whole extent and duration, the entire picture of it is given as if all the parts were existing at the same time. Thus, the great image in Daniel appears all of one piece, though the parts of it are found by the interpretation to have existed one after another. So the four great beasts came out of the sea, and seem to have been seen all at once, though in the explanation they are plainly successive. 5. In bodies politic and continual, where there is found a collection of individuals of different denominations, that is said in general of the whole, which is true of the principal and greatest part. And when these bodies are considered from their beginning to their end, that may be said of them in general, which is true of them during the greatest part of their time, or when they were in their most flourishing state. From whence it is reasonable to infer, that in the name or symbol, notice is chiefly taken of the axun or eminent point of things, which serves to give them their denominations. For as, in a picture, the principal part of the object, and that intended to excite in the spectator the greatest attention, is placed in the fairest light, and its chief part the most exposed | From this use of the repetition several pasto view, the rest being by shadows insensibly sages in Scripture may be explained; as Job xl. 5. withdrawn from the eye; so it is the way of the For the like reason, in the trial of jealousy Revelation, in setting forth matters under one (Numb. v. 22), the suspected wife is commanded general extent and duration, to give the whole but to confirm the adjuration, by saying Amen TWICE; one name to express it symbolically. which is the usual form of our Saviour to confirm his doctrine; and is also conformable to the style of the Hebrew language, in which repetitions of the same word are marks of certainty; as Gen. ii. 17, "dying, thou shalt die,”—that is, thou shalt most certainly die ;-and Exod. iii. 7, "seeing, I. saw," and the like. Indeed, such repetitions of an emphatic word are frequently employed for the purpose of expressing things of great concern. 8. In all symbolical propositions, the persons of the substantive verb, as, I am," “thou art,” “is,” "are," whether expressed or understood, are the copulatives showing the relation between the type and the antitype. Thus, in Gen. xl. 12, “the three branches are three days;" instead of "the three branches signify three days." So in our Saviour's parables, which are a species of symbolical description, we find the same style; as in Luke viii. 11, "The seed is the word of God." * 6. When the things to be prophesied of are to be considered in several views, there is a change of the symbols. The reason for this is, that the visions being represented by symbols which must bear a certain analogy to each other, and carry throughout a certain decorum, it is not possible that the same train of symbols should represent all the various circumstances of the church and its enemies; and therefore many symbols may be used to denote the same thing in different respects-what was before treated of succinctly, being enlarged upon and more fully demonstrated. The Book of Revelation is not written in the way of annalists, who, being obliged to reduce all matters to a chronological series, only relate briefly what happens every year, without enlarging upon the causes of the events, and omitting for the most part the consequences; but in the way of the more judicious historians, who endeavour to give a full account of every matter as they take it in hand, in order to make a complete system of the whole; interposing digressions, and then returning to the principal matters, by giving such hints and transitions as suffice to let us understand to what they belong, and how, as to point of time, they come in or end with the rest. Upon this account, there are frequent transitions, in which the prophet seems to cast the eyes of his inspired sight upon different objects, which being thus seen one after another, the particles expressive of them may seem to imply a posteriority in a matter which may be synchronical, and even may have its origin higher than that whose description preceded it in the account. 7. The repetition of a prophecy, vision, or dream, signifies the certainty and speedy accomplishment of an event of more special concern and remarkable eminence. Thus, in the explanation of Pharaoh's two dreams, at the same time, concerning the years of plenty and of famine, the latter is affirmed to be a confirmation of the former, to show the certainty of the event," for that the dream (says Joseph) was doubled unto Pharaoh twice, is because the thing is established by God, and God will bring it to pass," Gen. xli. 32. Agreeably to this, Artemidorus makes the repetition of a dream to be the mark of an event of great moment; and among the heathen soothsayers it was a constant maxim, that an omen or symbol to the same purpose, prefigured the certainty of the event. 66 9. In symbolical rites, it is usual to ascribe an effect to the symbol by which it was represented; as if the symbol or type were the efficient cause. Thus, Moses smote the waters of the Egyptian river, as if he gave a wound, to turn them to blood; and the waters were thereupon turned into blood. In like manner, a prophet, or interpreter of dreams, may be said to save and to kill, when he predicts the safety or death of any; as Joseph did of the chief butler and chief baker, in Gen. xli. 13; "Me," says the butler, "he restored unto mine office, and him he hanged." Thus, Artemidorus says, the symbol makes the party do or suffer what is signified by it. See Lev. xiii., passim ; Matt. xviii. 18, &c. 10. During the prophetical ecstasy, the actions and words of a prophet are symbolical, as is rightly observed by Irenæus, lib. iv. c. 37. Thus, in 1 Kings xx. 37, one of the prophets commanding a man to smite him, the man refused. Now, this refusal was morally good, upon the supposition that the thing enjoined was not commanded by the Holy Spirit. But this being the case, it was an ill refusal, and the man upon that account was slain by a lion. other man, who obeyed the commandment, by striking the prophet so that he wounded him, did well; because that action served to the intention of the prophet, whose stroke symbolically repre The * See further examples, in CARPENTER'S " Examination of Scripture Difficulties," pp. 301, 302. |