will be necessary for us to pause and make inquiry concerning the nature
of the language employed in its prophecies and concerning the mode of
its interpretation. It will be seen at a glance that it is wholly unlike
the common language of life; and it will be useless for us to undertake
to ascertain its signification unless we understand perfectly the
principles upon which it is founded.

The question may be asked, "Is the language intelligible at all?"
Considering the variety of interpretations placed upon it by expositors
and the opinions generally held respecting it, we might conclude that it
is not. The majority of the people look upon these prophecies as "a mass
of unintelligible enigmas," and are ready to tell the student of
Revelation that this book "either finds or leaves a man mad." But are we
to look upon its language as being applied at a venture, without any
definite rule, capable of every variety of meaning, so that we can never
be quite _sure_ that we have its correct interpretation?

Commentators generally unite in attaching a definite meaning to certain
symbols, and they tell us that these can not be applied otherwise
without violating their nature. They may not give us their reasons for
thus applying them (in fact, they generally do not), yet it is evidently
assumed that such reasons do exist. Now, if reasons actually exist why a
definite signification must be applied to the symbol in the one case,
why do they not exist in another case, and in all cases? If any law
exists in the case at all, it is a uniform one, for a law that does not
possess uniformity is no law; otherwise, it would be an unintelligible
revelation, and the only possible thing left for us to do would be to
attempt to solve it like a riddle--guess it out. It would be as if the
writer were to use words with every variety of meaning peculiarly his
own attached, without informing the reader what signification to give