Part 12

4. Lastly, the chief difficulty of all lies in a circumstance, not much observed by interpreters, and, from the nature of it, not _observable_, till after the event; I mean, in _a mixed use of the plain and figured style_: so that the prophetic descriptions are sometimes _literal_, even when they appear most figurative; and sometimes, again, they are highly _figurative_, when they appear most plain. An instance of _literal_ expression, under the mask of figurative, occurs in the prophet Nahum, who predicts the overthrow of Nineveh in these words—_With an over-running flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof_, [Nahum i. 8.] An _over-running flood_, is the hieroglyphic symbol of _desolation by a victorious enemy_: and in this highly figurative sense, an interpreter of the prophecy would, in all likelihood, understand the expression. But the event shewed the sense to be literal; that city being taken, as we know from history, by means of an _inundation_. Of _figurative_ expression, under the form of literal, take the following instance from a prophecy, of Christ himself; who says to the Jews, _Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days_, [John i. 19.] It was natural enough for the Jews to understand our Lord as speaking of the _temple_ at Jerusalem; the rather, as this term had not been, and, I think, could, not be, applied, to any person, before Jesus: to _Him_, it might be so applied; and we know that _he spake of the temple of his body_, [ver. 21.]

The same equivocal use was, sometimes, purposely made of _proverbial expressions_, as learned men have observed[162].

I omit many other causes of obscurity in the prophecies; such as the seeming incredibility, sometimes, of the things predicted—the undefined chronology and geography—the intricacy of the method—and many other considerations. But you will collect from these brief hints, respecting the _expression_ only, that, though the symbolic language be reducible to rule, and therefore, in the main, sufficiently intelligible, yet that there is room enough for the introduction of so much obscurity into the prophetic writings, as may answer the ends of the inspirer, and conceal the full meaning of them from the most sagacious interpreter, till it be revealed, in due time, by the event.

Or, if it be thought that such difficulties as the event removes, are not, in their own nature, invincible, before it happens, it is still to be considered, that the giver of the prophecy is, by supposition, divine; and as he, therefore, foresaw, in framing the texture of it, that such difficulties would, in fact, be invincible, they served the purpose of a designed concealment just as well, as if, in nature, they were. Whence the conclusion is still the same, That the prophetic style might be the cover of impenetrable obscurities in a prophecy, before its completion, and yet the terms of it be clearly explicable on established rules; the event only enabling the expositor more skilfully and properly to apply those rules.

IV. To conclude this subject; It will now be acknowledged, that the suspicions which have been taken up against the prophetic way of writing, as if it were vague, illusory, or unintelligible, are utterly without foundation. The style of the prophets was the known, authorized style of their age and country, in all writings especially, of a sacred or solemn character; and is even yet in use with a great part of mankind. It further appears, that, as it was understood by those to whom it was addressed, so the principles, on which it was formed, are discoverable by many obvious methods, and may be applied, with success, to the interpretation of it, at this day.

The prophetic style is, then, a _sober and reasonable_ mode of expression. But this is not all. We may, even, discern the _expediency_, I had almost said, the _necessity_, of this style, considered as the _medium_, or vehicle of prophetic inspiration.

For we have seen, that the scheme of scriptural prophecy extends through all time; and is so contrived as to adumbrate future and more illustrious events, in preceding and less important transactions: a circumstance, which shews the harmony and connexion of the whole scheme, and is not imitable by any human art, or forethought whatsoever. But now a figurative style is so proper to that end, that we scarcely conceive how it could be accomplished by any other. For thus the expression conforms, at once, to the type, and antitype: it is, as it were, a robe of state, for the one; and only, the ordinary, accustomed dress of the other: as we may see from the prophecies, which _immediately_ respect the restoration of the Jews from their ancient captivities, and, _ultimately_, their final triumphant return from their present dispersion—from the prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, which prefigure, at the same time, the day of judgment—from those concerning the first coming of Christ, which, also, set forth his reign with the saints on earth, and even the glories of his heavenly kingdom—and in a multitude of other instances.

These successive, and so different, schemes of Providence could only be signified _together_ in a mode of language, that contracted, or enlarged itself, as the occasion required. But such is the singular property of a symbolic style. For none but this, hath fold and drapery enough, if I may so speak, to invest the _greater_ subjects; while yet (so complying is the texture of this expression) it readily adapts itself to the _less considerable_, which it ennobles only, and not disfigures. The difference is, that what is a metaphor in the former case, becomes an hyperbole in the latter. And this double use of the same symbol, is the true account of such figures as are thought most extravagant in the description of the prophets.

We see, then, in every view, how reasonable, how expedient, how divine, the symbolic style is, in such writings as the prophetic. So that if any be disposed, in our days, to take up the complaint of the text, and to up-braid the prophets by asking, _Do they not speak Parables?_ We may now take courage to answer, Yes: but _parables_, which, as dark as they are accounted to be, may be well understood; and, what is more, _parables_, which are so expressed, as to carry an evidence in themselves that they _are_ what they assume to be, of divine inspiration.

SERMON X.

THE STYLE AND METHOD OF THE APOCALYPSE.

EZEKIEL xx. 49.

—_They say of me, Doth he not speak Parables?_

All the prophecies of the Old and New Testament are written in _parables_; that is, in highly figurative terms; which yet, on examination, have appeared to be explicable on certain fixed and rational grounds of criticism.

So far, therefore, as any prejudice may have been entertained against the prophecies concerning Antichrist, as if the language of them were too abstruse or fanciful to be understood, enough hath been already said to shew, that it is not well founded.

It must, however, be confessed, that the book of _Revelations_[163], which contains the most, and the chief prophecies on the subject of Antichrist, is of a deeper and more mysterious contrivance, than any other of the prophetic writings. Whence, our next step, in this inquiry, must be, To trace the CAUSES of that peculiar obscurity; and to suggest, as we go along, the MEANS, by which it hath been, or may be, removed.

The _causes_, are to be sought in the STYLE, and the METHOD, of that book. I say nothing of the _subject_; for, though the _things predicted_ may darken a prophecy, unfulfilled, the _event_ will shew what they are; and it is not necessary, that we should anxiously inquire into the meaning of a prophecy, till it be accomplished.

I. _First_, then, the STYLE of the Revelations (for I mean not to consider it, with regard to the Greek tongue, in which it is composed, or, to the Hebrew idiom, with which it is coloured) The _style_, I say, being symbolical, like that of the other prophecies, must, in general, be explained on the same principles, that is, must be equally intelligible, in both. Yet, if we attend nicely to the style of this prophecy, some difference will be found, in _the choice of the symbols_, and in _the continuity of the symbolic form_.

1. To explain my meaning, on the first article, I must observe, That, though the prophetic style abounds in _hieroglyphic_ symbols, properly so called, yet the Israelites, when they adopted that style, did not confine themselves to the old Egyptian stock of symbols; but, working on the same ground of analogy, superadded many others, which their own circumstances and observations suggested to them. Their divine ritual, their civil customs, their marvellous history, and even the face and aspect of their country, afforded infinite materials for the construction of fresh symbols: and these, when they came into common use, their prophets freely and largely employed. Thus, _incense_, from the religious use of it in the Mosaical service, denotes _prayer_, or _mental adoration_[164]—_to tread a wine-press_, from their custom of pressing grapes, signifies _destruction, attended with great slaughter_[165]—_to give water in the wilderness_, in allusion to the miraculous supply of that element, during the passage of the Israelites through the wilderness to the holy land, is the emblem of _unexpected relief in distress_[166];—and, to mention no more, a _forest_, such as Lebanon, abounding in lofty cedars, represents a _great city, with its flourishing ranks of inhabitants_[167]; just as, a _mountain_, from the situation of the Jewish temple on mount Moria, is made to stand for the _Christian Church_[168].

Now, though the symbols of this class be occasionally dispersed through the old prophets, yet they are more frequent, and much thicker sown, in the Revelations: so that to a reader, not well versed in the Jewish story and customs, this difference may add something to the obscurity of the book.

If you ask the _reason_ of this difference, it is plainly this. The scene of the apocalyptic visions is laid, not only in Judæa, but in the temple at Jerusalem; whence the imagery is, of course, taken. It was natural for the writer to draw his allusions from Jewish objects, and especially from the ceremonial of the temple-service. Besides, the declared scope of the prophecy being to predict the fortunes of the Christian church, what so proper as to do this under the cover of Jewish ideas; the law itself, as we have before seen, and as St. Paul expressly tells us, having been so contrived, as to present the _shadow_ of that future dispensation?

This then (and for the reason assigned) is ONE distinguishing character of the Apocalyptic style. But the difficulty of interpretation, arising from it, cannot be considerable; or, if it be, may be overcome by an obvious method, by a careful study of the Jewish history and law.

2. The OTHER mark of distinction, which I observed in the style of this book, is the _continuity_ of the symbolic manner. Parables are frequent, indeed, in the old prophets, but interspersed with many passages of history, and have very often their explanation annexed. This great parable of St. John is, throughout, carried on in its own proper form, without any such interruption, and, except in _one_ instance[169], without any express interpretation of the parabolic terms.

Now, the prophecy, no doubt, must be considerably obscured by this circumstance. But then let it be considered, that we have proportionable _means_ of understanding it. For, if the symbols be continued, they are still but the _same_[170], as had been before in use with the elder prophets; whose writings, therefore, are the proper and the certain key of the _Revelations_.

From these distinctive characters, then, of the Apocalyptic style[171], nothing more can be inferred, than the necessity of studying _the Law, and the Prophets_, in order to understand the language of this last and most mysterious revelation. And what is more natural, nay what can be thought more divine, than that, in a system, composed of two dependent dispensations, the study of the former should be made necessary to the comprehension of the latter; and that the very uniformity of style and colouring, in the two sets of prophecies, should admonish us of the intimate connexion, which each has with the other, to the end that we might the better conceive the meaning, and fathom the depth, of the divine councils in _both_?

But, without speculating further on the final purposes of this Judaical and Symbolical character, so strongly impressed on the Apocalypse, it must evidently appear that the difficulties of interpretation, occasioned by it, are not invincible; nay, that, to an attentive and rightly prepared interpreter, they will be scarce any difficulties at all[172].

I proceed, then,

II. To the SECOND, and more considerable cause of the obscurities, found in this prophecy, the METHOD, in which it is composed.

The other prophecies have, doubtless, their difficulties, arising from the abrupt manner, in which, agreeably to the Oriental genius, they are delivered: But then, being short and unconnected with each other, the apparent disorder of those prophecies, has rarely any sensible effect in preventing the right application of them. The case is different with the prophecies, contained in this book. For, having been all delivered at once, and respecting a series of events, which were to come to pass successively in the history of the Christian Church, it is reasonable to expect that some certain and determinable method should be observed in the delivery of them; and the true secret of that method, whatever it be, must be investigated, before we can, with success, apply any single prophecy to its proper subject.

The _first_, and most obvious expectation of a reader is, that the events predicted in this prophecy should follow each other in the order of the prophecy itself, or that the series of the visions should mark out and determine the succession of the subjects, to which they relate. But there is reason to think, on the face of the prophecy, that this method is not observed.

A _second_ conclusion would, then, be hastily taken up, that there is no regular method at all in these visions, but that each is to be applied singly, and without any reference to the rest, to such events as it might be found, in some tolerable degree, to suit: And then it is plain, that fancy would have too much scope afforded her in the interpretation of these visions, to produce any firm and settled conviction, that they were rightly and properly applied. Yet, as this idea of the Apocalypse would favour the laziness, the precipitancy, the presumption, and, very often, the malignity of the human mind, it is no wonder that it should be readily and eagerly embraced. And, in fact, it was to this pre-conceived notion of a general disorder in the texture of these prophecies, that the little progress, which, for many ages, had been made in the exposition of them, is chiefly to be ascribed.

But then, _lastly_, if neither the order of the prophecy be that of the events, nor a total disorder in the construction of it can be reasonably allowed, the question is, By what _rules_ was it composed, and on what ideas of _method_ is it to be explained?

This question, as obvious as it seems, was not presently asked; and, when it was asked, not easily answered. The clear light, indeed, which the Reformation had let in on some parts bf this prophecy, and a spirit of inquiry, which sprung up with the revival of Letters, excited a general attention to this mysterious book. But, as each interpreter brought his own hypothesis along with him, the perplexities of it were not lessened, but increased by so many discordant schemes of interpretation: And the issue of much elaborate inquiry was, that the book itself was disgraced by the fruitless efforts of its commentators, and on the point of being given up, as utterly impenetrable, when a sublime Genius arose, in the beginning of the last century, and surprised the learned world with that great desideratum, _A Key to the Revelations_.

This extraordinary person was, JOSEPH MEDE: of whose character it may not be improper to give a slight sketch, before I lay before you the substance of his discoveries.

HE was a candid, sincere man; disinterested, and unambitious; of no faction in religion or government (both which began in his time to be overrun with factions) but solely devoted to the love of truth, and to the investigation of it. His learning was vast, but well chosen and well digested; and his understanding, in no common degree, strong and capacious.

With these qualities of the head and heart, he came to the study of the prophecies, and especially of the Revelations: But, with so little _bigotry_ for the scheme of interpretation concerning Antichrist, that, as he tells us himself, _he had even conceived some prejudice against it_[173]: And, what is stranger still in a man of his inventive genius, with so little _enthusiasm_ in his temper for _any_ scheme of interpretation whatsoever, that, when he had made his great discovery, he was in no haste to publish it to the world[174]; and, when at length he did this, he was still less in haste to apply it, that is, to shew its important use in explaining the Apocalyptic visions[175]. Cool, deliberate, and severe, in forming his judgments, he was so far from being obsequious to the fancies of other men, that he was determined only, by the last degree of evidence, to acquiesce in any conclusions of his own[176].

In short, with no _vanity_ to indulge, (for he was superior to this last infirmity of ingenious men[177])—with no _interest_ in view (for the interest of Churchmen lay at that time, as he well understood, in a different quarter[178])—with no _spleen_ to gratify (for even neglect and solitude could not engender this unmanly vice in him[179])—with no oblique purposes, I say, which so often mislead the pens of other writers, but with the single, unmixed love of truth, he dedicated his great talents to the study of the prophetic Scriptures, and was able to unfold, in the MANNER I am now to represent to you, this mysterious prophecy of the Revelations.

He had observed, that the miscarriage of former interpreters had been owing, chiefly, to a vain desire of finding their own sense in this prophecy, rather than the sense of the prophet. Laying aside, then, all hypotheses whatsoever, he sate down to the book itself, and resolved to know nothing more of it, than what the frame and texture of its composition might clearly reveal to him. He considered the whole, as a naked recital of facts, literally expressed; and not as a prophetic scheme, mystically represented. In this way of inquiry, he discerned, that several parts of the history, whatever their secret and involved meaning might be, were _homogeneous_, and _contemporary_; that is, they related to the same subject, and were comprised within the same period; and this, though they were not connected in the order of the narration, but lay dispersed in different quarters of it. These several sets of historical passages (or, of _Visions_, to speak in the language of the book itself) he carefully analyzed and compared; shewed, from circumstances, not imagined, but found, in the history, their mutual relation and correspondency; and established his conclusions, as he went along, not in a loose way of popular conjecture, but in the strictest forms of Geometric reasoning. The coincident histories, thus classed and scrutinized, he distinguished by the name of SYNCHRONISMS; and gave them to the learned world, in this severe scientific form, without further comment or illustration, under the title of CLAVIS APOCALYPTICA, or A KEY TO THE REVELATIONS.

In considering this discovery, which did so much honour to the profound genius and accurate investigation of its author, one clearly perceives how it serves to the end proposed.

_First_, it appears that the order of the Visions is not that of the events; in other words, that the prophecy is not to be so explained, as if the events, predicted in it, followed each other in the same train as the Visions. For the _facts_, which constitute the scheme or fable of the prophecy, literally and historically considered, do not succeed to each other in that train; therefore the _events_, whatever they may be, which those facts adumbrate, most certainly cannot.

_Secondly_, it appears what the true, or chronological order of the Visions, is; namely, that, which the nature and connexion of the things transacted in them, points out and declares. So that, if the real time of any one Vision can be shewn, the relative time of the rest may be easily settled. For (to quote Mr. Mede’s own words) _such Visions as contemporate with that already ascertained, are of course to be applied to the same times; while such as, in the order of the story, precede that Vision, are to be referred to preceding events, and those, which follow it, are in like manner to be explained of subsequent transactions_[180].

By this means, the whole plan or method of the Apocalypse will be laid down. The several synchronical prophecies will thus fall in their proper places; and there will be no doubt of the relative situation, which each holds in the general system.

_Thirdly_, as we now see the true order of the prophecies (though for the wisest reasons, no doubt, the order, in which they are delivered, be sometimes different) so it is to be observed, that the knowledge of this order is a great restraint on the fancy of an expositor; who is not now at liberty to apply the prophecies to events of any time, to which they appear to suit, but to events only falling within that time, to which they belong in the course of this pre-determined method. And if to this restriction, which of itself is considerable, we add _another_, which arises from the necessity of applying, not one, but many prophecies (which are, thus, shewn to synchronize with each other) to the _same_ time, we can hardly conceive how an interpretation should keep clear of these impediments, and make its way through so many interfering checks, unless it be the _true_ one. Just as when a Lock (to take the author’s allusion) is composed of many, and intricate wards, the _Key_, that turns easily within them, and opens the Lock, can only be that which properly belongs to it.

After all, it may be difficult, I know, to convey a distinct idea of the uses, to which this synchronal method serves, to those who have not read, and even studied, Mr. Mede’s work. But the sum of the matter is this, That the order of the events and of the Visions is _not_ the same—that the _true_ order of the events, is to be sought in certain characters, not fancied at pleasure, but inserted, in the Visions themselves—and, lastly, that the whole book of the Revelations being thus resolvable into a particular determinate order, in which the several sets of synchronal prophecies regularly succeed to each other, no exposition of this book can be admitted, that does not refer every single prophecy to its true place in the system, and provide at the same time that no violence be done to any other prophecies, which synchronize with it.

And thus much concerning the TRUE ORDER of the Apocalypse; deduced, you see, from no precarious hypothetic reasonings, but from notes and characters, inclosed in that book; that is, from intrinsic arguments, which have their evidence in themselves, and conclude alike on every supposition.