lation xi. there is an evident prolepsis: verse 7 describing "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit, as making war on the two witnesses;" whereas we have no account of any wild beast (Spicy) till chapter xiii. and not of the beast of the bottomless pit, till chapter xvii.* Verses 6 and 14 of Rev. xii. when compared, show the former to be a prolepsis; for there it is said, the woman "fled into the wilderness;" whereas in verse 14 she receives two wings of an eagle "that she might fly into the wilderness." Many portions of Rev. xvii. partake of the same character; and the whole of that chapter, and of the remaining chapters (and probably portions of former chapters) appear to be an appendix, in which particular subjects of the previous delineation are painted out, as it were, more in detail.

4. A few further observations appear necessary, in the conclusion of this chapter, concerning the alleged obscurity of prophecy.

There is a danger, as has been already intimated, in going to an extreme, and concluding obscurity to exist where none is intended; and likewise in supposing that it exists to a greater degree than it does where it really is intended. Much of the imagined obscurity exists in ourselves, and not in the prophecy; the medium through which we view divine things is often so darkened and so distorted by carnal prejudices, as entirely to prevent us from recognising the truth, though it be placed before us in the clearest and most undisguised language. What, for instance, could be more plain than those predictions of our Saviour, so often repeated to his disciples, of his future sufferings, and which he desired them to let sink down into their ears? Take this for example:-"The Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men." This is spoken openly, without any parable or figure, and yet "they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not." (Luke ix. 44, 45.) And thus it happens now, that in matters equally plain, men fancy some obscure or allegorical sense, merely because the obvious sense shocks and contradicts their pre-conceived notions of what it ought to be.

In regard to the tropes, metaphors, and symbols, likewise, of Scripture, some persons seem to conclude of them, that there can be no fixed and settled rule for their interpretation; but that they were left to the taste and imagination of the prophet, independent of any control from the Spirit, and are conse

* Some indeed have considered the beasts, mentioned in chapter vi. 8. to have a reference to the ten and two-horned beasts; in which case the beasts there, would be mentioned in the way of anticipation. But they are called "beasts of the earth," whereas there is only one beast of the earth afterwards described; the others are from the sea, and from the bottomless pit.

VOL. II.-10

quently, in many instances, superfluous embellishments, or words used in the looseness and with the latitude of poetical figures. This is not only a great mistake, but it contains in it likewise a most dangerous principle. For if we are left at liberty, in the perusal of the word of God, to lower the terms in which the mind of the Spirit is conveyed to us, and to conclude that one jot or tittle can be superfluous, where are we to draw the line? It must, in that case, not only have been left to the taste and style of the prophets, but it must likewise be left to the taste and style of every reader; so that the amount of significancy and of literal accuracy in every part of the Scriptures will depend upon the imagination and notions of every man, thus making it to each individual of "private interpretation." With regard to tropes and figurative expressions, we have seen already that they are often explained; and with regard to symbols, we have seen that in some instances they may be viewed from their frequent and familiar use, as only tropical expressions. In these instances it is evident, that, however they may serve to embellish, they are like the polished corners of the temple, which add strength and compactness to the edifice likewise. And as respects the other symbols or hieroglyphics of Scripture, Bishop Hurd has justly observed, that they are "not vague uncertain things, but fixed and constant analogies, determinable in their own nature, or from the steady use that was made of them;" (Vol. ii. p. 90.) and I doubt not but that they may be reduced to as certain principles of interpretation, as the generality of words, in any language. Whilst however it must be contended that prophecy is not that dark and unintelligible thing which many are disposed to conclude of it; but, on the contrary, that it is rather to be viewed as a "light shining in a dark place," in order to dispel the darkness; (2 Peter i. 19.) it seems to be going quite as much into the extreme to insist, that there is no obscurity in prophecy whatsoever: and this they do indirectly assert, who allege that it can be at once understood, and its meaning determined. Enough has been already brought forward to prove, that there are at least certain peculiarities and idioms, contained in the very structure of prophecy, which must serve to obscure it in a measure to the superficial reader; and this affords one proof, if there be no other, that the patience and diligence of the wise in heart must be exercised in the careful consideration and investigation of these things. Nor has any thing like the whole been brought forward of what might be adduced relative to this point alone. Bishop Chandler has observed, in regard to the genius of the Hebrew original of the prophecies, "that many things are there left, to be supplied

by the quickness of the reader's apprehension, which are with us expressed by proper words and repetitions; particles disjunctive and adversative, significative marks of connection, and of transition from one subject to another are often omitted; dialogues are carried on, objections answered, and comparisons made, without notice in the discourse."* These things may, indeed, be determined by careful observation, from the context, or by a comparison of the doubtful place with parallel ones; but it is absurd to suppose the meaning in all cases to be so plain as that the poor man, and "he that occupieth the place of the unlearned," shall be equally enabled with the learned to discover. The education, habits, associations, and, in numerous instances, the intellectual deficiences of multitudes in the humbler classes, disqualify them from making such observations of themselves. They may be enabled with tolerable acuteness and good sense to perceive the existence and propriety of such things, when pointed out to them by others; but for the discovery, they must lean upon those "helps" in the Church, which God has ever raised up, and appointed for this purpose, not only as regards prophecy, but the general doctrines of divine revelation likewise. (1 Cor. xii. 28.) What poor man, for example, can determine a question of criticism for himself? They are indeed dependent, in every line they read of God's word, upon the learned: for they must rely upon the translation given to them; and if that be incorrect, they have no means of rectifying it but by resorting to other learned men, on whose testimony they must again be dependent.

But there are likewise obscurities which prove and exercise the understanding of the most learned and intelligent. It must be evident to any one who will consider the character of the greater portion of the prophecies of Daniel and St. John, that the general style and structure of them is different from that of most other prophecies; and so likewise are large portions of the prophet Zechariah, and much of Ezekiel. Notwithstanding the sentences of interpretation occasionally inserted in St. John, or given at greater length in Daniel, they still do not convey a meaning to the reader so obvious, as that the prophecy can be at once comprehended, without diligent and careful investigation and comparison.

It is clearly the purpose of God, that, in some instances, prophecies should not be understood until the time of the end: of this we have the direct testimony of God himself, in Dan.

* Defence of Christianity from the prophecies. Introduction, page 11. + This is, nevertheless, what has been concluded by the writer in the Investigator before alluded to, signed Trinitarius.

xii. 4. 9. It may be questioned also, in regard to the matters here said to be "sealed up," whether at the time of the end the wise shall be enabled to look back, and to see that they have been previously fulfilled; or if at the time when the said prophecy is about to be fulfilled, the meaning of it shall be first opened to the church. But in either case, there must be a something in the terms of the prophecy calculated to raise doubt and hesitation, as to the precise interpretation to be given them, or the special application to be made of them; otherwise I see no reason why Daniel should not have understood it at the time, just as well as the generation which is destined to understand it. Let us suppose, for example, that when Daniel hears "the time, times, and a half" declared, (chap. xii. 7,) in regard to which it is, apparently, that he says, "I heard, but I understood not," that he doubted whether he was to understand three years and a half, according to the measure and meaning of a time in reference to Nebuchadnezzar, (see chap. iv. 24;) or whether he was to understand the time here symbolically, according to the direction given in one instance to his contemporary Ezekiel, (chap. iv. 6;) this alone would create that precise degree of hesitation in the mind, which would prevent him from deciding with positiveness on the meaning of the prophecy. I insist not that this was the cause of Daniel's want of understanding it, though it appears to me not improbable: it is instanced only in the way of illustration of those obscurities, which were probably designed to rest upon portions of the prophetic word.*

Nor does it appear that a prophecy, if it be delivered under circumstances, or in language, calculated to cast a veil of obscurity over it, must necessarily be understood, even when fulfilled, or in course of fulfilment, with such clearness and force of demonstration, as to excite a general conviction of one only signification. It is plainly declared that "none of the wicked shall understand:" but if the circumstances were to be such as must produce general conviction, then the meaning must be as obvious to the wicked as to the righteous. It seems, however, to be one method whereby the Lord takes the wise of this world in their own craftiness, that whilst they are despising what appears to them only foolishness, they are often themselves unconsciously helping forward the fulfilment. (Compare Acts iii. 17, 18. and 1 Cor. ii. 8.) Neither, I take it, will a prophecy that is couched in symbol appear so clear to the wise after its fulfilment, as to come home to them with

* Psalm cii. 18. and 1 Peter i. 10–12, appear to refer to prophecies intended to be understood by the generation for which they were especially delivered, and not to have been understood by that generation which first enjoyed them.

the same degree of conviction, as if it were in the undisguised language of history; and it is calculated to prevent that unanimity on this subject among the wise, if we incautiously lead them to expect too much in this respect from prophecy. When it is said that the four beasts of Daniel vii. are four kingdoms, it still needs much skill in the interpretation of prophecy, to apply all the various minutiæ of those symbols to demonstrate the kingdoms intended; and in the instance of the Little Horn of the same vision, there will always be a latitude of application arising from the obscurity of the symbol itself, and from the likeness which some of the features of it that are described bear to various powers which have already appeared.

A passage in Bishop Sherlock's Dissertations on Prophecy, places the last-mentioned point in a clear point of view. "It will be asked, How comes it to pass, that many of the prophecies are still dark and obscure, and that it requires much learning and sagacity, to show even now the connexion between some prophecies and the events? In answer to this question, we must observe, that the obscurity of prophecy does not arise from hence, that it is a relation or description of something FUTURE; for it is as easy to speak of things future, plainly and intelligibly, as it is of things past or present. The same language serves in both cases with little variation. He who says, The river will overflow its banks next year, speaks as plainly as he who says, It did overflow its banks last year. It is not therefore of the nature of prophecy to be obscure; for it may easily be made as plain as history, when he who gives it thinks fit. On the other hand, a figurative and dark description of a future event will be figurative and dark still, even when the event happens, and consequently will have all the obscurity of a figuratively dark description, as well after as before the event. You may observe, then, that the most literal prophecies have received the greatest confirmation and the most light from the event: for the difficulty, in this case, not lying in the darkness or obscurity of the expression, but in the seeming impossibility of the thing foretold, such seeming impossibility the event fully clears: but no event can make a figurative or metaphorical expression to be a plain or a literal one. I have said thus much to show what sort of clearness and evidence we ought to expect from prophecies after their accomplishment. It is a great prejudice against this argument [from prophecy] when men come to it expecting more from it than it will yield. This they are led to by hearing it often said, that prophecy, however dark and obscure at first, grows wonderfully plain in the accomplishment: which in some