in all, because the figurative manner is thought ornamental, when it
is no longer necessary; and because the necessity of it is only, if at
all, removed by long use and habit in abstract speculation: a degree
of refinement, to which the orientals, and the Jews especially, never
attained. And therefore in their languages, very long
—_Manserunt, hodieque manent vestigia ruris._
Thus far we may go in accounting for the figured style of the east,
from general principles. But this is by no means the whole of the case.
For
2. We are to reflect, that, before an alphabet was invented, and what
we call literary writing was formed into an art, men had no way to
record their conceptions, or to convey them to others at a distance,
but by setting down the figures and shapes of such things, as were the
objects of their contemplation. Hence, the way of writing in _picture_,
was as universal, and almost as early, as the way of speaking in
_metaphor_; and from the same reason, the necessity of the thing.
In process of time, and through many successive improvements, this
rude and simple mode of _picture-writing_ was succeeded by that of
_symbols_, or was enlarged at least, and enriched by it. By symbols,
I mean certain representative marks, rather than express pictures;
or if pictures, such as were at the same time _characters_, and,
besides presenting to the eye the resemblance of a particular object,
suggested a general idea to the mind. As, when a _horn_ was made to
denote _strength_, an _eye and scepter_, _majesty_, and in numberless
such instances; where the picture was not drawn to express merely
the thing itself, but something else, which was, or was conceived
to be, analogous to it. This more complex and ingenious form of
picture-writing was much practised by the Egyptians, and is that which
we know by the name of HIEROGLYPHICS.
Indeed, these _symbolic characters_ were likely, in a course of
successive refinements, to pass into characters by _institution_: and
have, in fact, undergone that change among the Chinese: and it might be
expected that _both_ would be laid aside by any people that should come
to be acquainted with the far more convenient and expeditious method
of alphabetic writing. But the event, in some instances, hath been
different. The Chinese adhere to their _characters_, though from their
late intercourse with the European nations, one cannot but suppose,
that the knowledge of _letters_ has been conveyed to them: and the
Egyptians, through all the extent of their long subsisting and highly
polished empire, retained their _hieroglyphics_, notwithstanding their
invention and use of an _alphabet_.
Their inducement to this practice might be, the pleasure they took
in a mode of writing, which gratified their inventive curiosity in
looking into the natures and analogies of things; or, it might be a
strain of policy in them to secrete by this means, their more important
discoveries from the vulgar; or, vanity might put them on raising the
value of their knowledge by wrapping it up in a vehicle, so amusing at
the same time, and mysterious.
What account soever be given of it, the fact is, that the Egyptians
cultivated the hieroglyphic species of writing, with peculiar
diligence; while the antiquity, the splendor, the fame of that mighty
kingdom excited a veneration for it, in the rest of the world. Hence it
came to pass, that the learning of those times, which was spread from
Egypt, as from its center, took a strong tincture of the hieroglyphic
spirit. The East was wholly infected by it; so that it became the pride
of its wise men to try the reach of each other’s capacity by questions
conceived and proposed in this form. Even the Greeks, in much later
ages, caught the manner of symbolizing their conceptions from Egypt;
and either drew their mythology from that quarter, or dressed it out in
the old Egyptian garb. But the Israelites, especially, who had their
breeding in that country, at the time when the hieroglyphic learning
was at its height, carried this treasure with them, among their other
_spoils_, into the land of Canaan. And, though it be credible that
their great Law-giver interdicted the use of hieroglyphic characters,
yet the ideas of them were deeply imprinted on their minds, and came
out, on every occasion, in those symbols and emblems, with which, under
the names of _riddles_, _parables_, and _dark sayings_, their writings
are so curiously variegated and imbossed.
This then is the true and proper account of that peculiar style, which
looks so strangely, and to those, who do not advert to this original of
it, perhaps so fantastically, in the writings of the prophets. And what
more natural, than that a mode of expression, which was so well known,
so commonly practised, and so much revered; which was effected by the
wittiest, nay, by the wisest men of those times; which was employed in
the theology of the Eastern world, in its poetry, its philosophy, and
all the sublimer forms of composition; What wonder, I say, 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?
Nor let any man take offence at the condescension of the divine
Inspirer, as though he degraded himself, by his compliance with the
humours and fancies of those to whom his inspirations were addressed.
For let him reflect, that in what form of words soever it shall please
God to communicate himself to man, it must still be in a way, that
implies the utmost, indeed the same, condescension to our weaknesses
and infirmities; nay, that immediate inspiration itself, though coming
through no medium of language, is of necessity to be accommodated to
our methods of perceiving and understanding, how imperfect soever they
are.
Besides, if external revelation be possible, it must be given in
some one mode of speech or writing, in preference to others. And,
if we consider how ancient, how general, how widely diffused, this
symbolic style has been, and still is, in the world; how necessary it
is to rude nations, and how taking with the most refined; how large
a proportion of the globe this practice had over-run before, and at
the time of writing the prophecies, and what vast regions of the South
and East, not yet professing the faith, but hereafter, as we presume,
to be enlightened by it, the same practice, at this day, overspreads;
when we consider all this, we shall cease perhaps to admire, that the
style in question was adopted, rather than any other; or we shall only
admire the divine goodness and wisdom of its Author, who had contrived
beforehand, in the very form of this revelation, what may possibly
help to bring on and facilitate the reception of it. Certainly, it may
become us, on such an occasion, to enlarge our ideas a little; and not
to conclude hastily and peremptorily that, when a general blessing was
intended by Providence, the mode of conveying it should be instituted
singly with an eye to our local notions and confined prejudices, and
with no regard to the more prevailing sentiments and expectations of
mankind.
In the mean time, it is past a doubt that the hieroglyphic style was
predominant in the ancient world; in Judæa, particularly, from the
times of Moses to the coming of Christ. There was indeed a degree of
obscurity in it, so far at least as to furnish the Jews, who had no
mind to listen to their Prophets, with a pretence of not understanding
them (as we see from the complaint brought against the prophet Ezekiel
in the text, _Doth he not speak Parables?_) yet still, it cannot be
denied, _That this mode of writing was of common and approved use in
the ages, when the prophecies were delivered, and among the people, to
whom they were addressed_.
Our FIRST proposition is then reasonably made out; and so much of
the SECOND, as affirms that the prophetic style _is constructed
on such principles as make it the subject of just criticism and
rational interpretation_. For it was constructed, as we have seen, on
the symbolic principles of the hieroglyphics; which were not vague
uncertain things; but fixed and constant analogies, determinable in
their own nature, or from the steady use that was made of them. And a
language, formed on such principles, may be reasonably interpreted upon
them. So that what remains is only to shew, that there _are_ means, by
which this abstruse language may become intelligible to us, at this day.
II. That there are such means, you will easily collect, without
requiring me to come to a detail on so immense a subject, from the
following considerations.
1. Some light may be expected to arise from the study of the prophecies
themselves. For the same symbols, or figures, recur frequently in
those writings: and, by comparing one passage with another; the darker
prophecies with the more perspicuous; the unfulfilled, with such as
have been completed; and those which have their explanation annexed to
them, with those that have not; by this course of inquiry, I say, there
is no doubt but some considerable progress may be made in fixing the
true and proper meaning of this mysterious language.
2. Very much of the Egyptian hieroglyphics, on which, as we have seen,
the prophetic style was fashioned, may be learned from many ancient
records and monuments, still subsisting; and from innumerable hints and
passages, scattered through the Greek antiquaries and historians, which
have been carefully collected and compared by learned men.
3. The Pagan superstitions of every form and species, which were either
derived from Egypt, or conducted on hieroglyphic notions, have been
of singular use in commenting on the Jewish prophets. Their Omens,
Augury, and Judicial Astrology seem to have proceeded on symbolic
principles; the mystery being only this, That such objects, as in the
hieroglyphic pictures, were made the symbols of certain ideas, were
considered as omens of the things themselves. Thus, the figure of a
_horse_, being the symbol of prosperity and success in arms, when a
_head_ of this animal was found in laying the foundations of Carthage,
the Soothsayers concluded, that the character of that state would be
warlike, and its fortune prosperous: or, thus again, because the _sun_
was the common emblem of a King, or supreme governor in any state,
an _eclipse_ of this luminary was thought to indicate the ruin, or
diminution, at least, of his power and fortune; and the superstition is
not quite extinct at this day[154].
But, of all the Pagan superstitions, that which is known by the name of
_Oneirocritics_, or the art of interpreting dreams, is most directly to
our purpose. There is a curious treatise on this subject, which bears
the name of Achmet, an Arabian writer; and another by Artemidorus,
an Ephesian, who lived about the end of the first century[155]. In
the former of these collections (for both works are compiled out of
preceding and very ancient writers) the manner of interpreting dreams,
according to the use of the Oriental nations, is delivered; as the
rules, which the Græcian diviners followed, are deduced in the other.
For, light and frivolous as this art was, it is not to be supposed
that it was taken up at hazard, or could be conducted without rule;
an arbitrary or capricious interpretation of dreams, considered as
a mode of divination, being too gross an insult on the common sense
of mankind[156]. But the rules, by which both the Greek and Oriental
diviners justified their interpretations, appear to have been formed
on symbolic principles, that is, on the very same ideas of analogy, by
which the Egyptian hieroglyphics (now grown venerable, and even sacred)
were explained. So that the prophetic style, which is all over painted
with hieroglyphic imagery, receives an evident illustration from these
two works.
I have said, that this superstition was _more immediately to our
purpose, than any other_. For some of the more important prophecies are
delivered in the way of dreams; and therefore, without doubt, the rules
for interpreting the symbols presented to the mind of the prophet in
these inspired dreams, were the very same with those, that were laid
down in the Gentile Oneirocritics. The conclusion, I know, may appear
bold and hazardous. But you will reflect that there is really nothing
more strange in applying this mode of interpretation to _dreams_,
than to any other species of prophecy; to visions, for instance, or
parables, or even, in general, to any part of the prophetic style.
The compliance, on the part of the inspirer, is the same on every
supposition; and only shews that, when the Deity thinks fit to reveal
himself to men, he does it in a way that is suitable to their ideas and
apprehensions. Nor is any sanction, in the mean time, given, by this
accommodation of himself, to the pagan practice of divining by dreams.
For, though the same symbols be interpreted in the same manner, yet the
_prophecy_ doth not depend on the interpretation, but the inspiration
of the dream. A casual dream, thus interpreted, is only a dream
still; the received sense of the symbols, represented in it, no way
inferring the completion of it. But when the Almighty sends the dream,
the symbols are of another consideration, and not only signify, but
_predict_, an event.
Now, if men will mistake a _barely significant emblem_, for _a
prophetic inspiration_, the fault is in themselves, and not in the use
of the common emblems; which may be the vehicle of a true prophecy,
though craft or superstition take occasion from them to _divine
lies_[157]. It follows, that the rules, which the ancient diviners
observed in explaining symbolic dreams, may be safely and justly
applied to the interpretation of symbolic prophecies, and especially to
such of them as were delivered in the form of dreams.
4. It is lastly to be observed, that not only the Arabic and other
Oriental writers, but even the Greek and Latin poets, may contribute
very much to the exposition of the ancient prophets. For these poets
abound in strong metaphors and glowing images, which were either copied
from the symbolic language of the East, or invented on the same
principles of analogy as prevailed in the Egyptian hieroglyphics. So
that many expressions, which seem dark and strange in the writings of
the Jewish prophets, may be clearly illustrated and familiarized to us,
even from classic usage and example.
And now from these several sources; that is, from _the scriptures
themselves_—from the still _subsisting monuments of Egyptian
hieroglyphics_—from _the Gentile ceremonies and superstitions_—and
from _the greater works of genius and fancy, transmitted to us both
from the Eastern and Western poets_—such a vocabulary of the prophetic
terms and symbols may be, nay hath been[158], drawn up, as serves to
determine the sense of them in the same manner, as any common art or
language is explained by its own proper key, or dictionary; and there
is, in truth, no more difficulty in fixing the import of the prophetic
style, than of any other language or technical phraseology whatsoever.
III. But, if the case be so clear, you may now be tempted to ask, “What
then becomes of the obscurity, in which the prophecies are said to be
involved; and in particular, how comes it to pass, that they may not be
as well explained, before the completion, as after it[159]; which yet
is constantly denied by writers on this subject, and, even, by your own
principles, cannot be supposed?”
To this objection, I shall not reply by saying, That the style of
the prophets, though intelligible, yet requires much practice in the
interpreter to unfold its meaning; for that is the case of many other
arts and sciences, which yet are generally understood: nor, that the
symbolic terms are frequently capable of several senses, which must
needs perplex the interpretation; for there is no common language, in
which the plainest words do not frequently admit the same difference of
construction, which yet creates no great difficulty to those who attend
closely to the scope of a writer: I shall not therefore, I say, amuse
you with these evasive answers, but reply, directly to the purpose of
your inquiry, by observing,
“That there are several methods, or, if you will, artifices, by which
the inspired writers, under the cover of a symbolic expression, and
sometimes even without it, might effectually conceal their meaning,
before the completion of a prophecy, though the language, in which they
write, be clearly explicable on fixed and stated rules.”
1. When the prophecy is of remote events, the _subject_ is frequently
not announced, or announced only in general terms. Thus, an
_earthquake_ is described—a _mountain_ is said to be thrown down—a
_star_, to fall from heaven; and so in numberless other instances.
Now, an earthquake, in hieroglyphic language, denotes a _revolution
in government_; a mountain is the symbol of a _kingdom_, or _capital
city_; a star, of _a prince_, or _great man_: but of _what_ government,
of _what_ kingdom, of _what_ prince, the prophet speaks, we are not
told, and are frequently unable to find out, till a full coincidence of
all circumstances, in the event, discloses the secret.
2. The prophetic terms are not only figurative, but sometimes, and
in no common degree, hyperbolical (of which the reason will be given
hereafter), so that nothing but the event can determine the true
size and value of them. This seems to have been the case of those
prophecies in the Old Testament, which describe the tranquillity and
felicity of Christ’s kingdom; and may possibly be the case of those
prophecies in the New, which respect the Millennium.
3. It being the genius of the prophetic style to be ænigmatical, this
cast is sometimes purposely given to it, even when the expression is
most plain and direct. Thus Jeremiah prophesies of Zedekiah, king of
Judah, _that he should be delivered into the hands of the king of
Babylon, that his eyes should behold the eyes of the king of Babylon,
and that he should go to Babylon_[160]. Ezekiel, prophesying of the
same prince, says, _that he should go to Babylon, but that he should
not see it, though he should die there_[161]. Now Josephus tells us,
that the apparent inconsistency of these two prophecies determined
Zedekiah to believe neither of them. Yet both were strictly and
punctually fulfilled.
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.