3. The method of doing this is by giving a rapid glance at the great events of history, bearing on the church in all coming times, till it should be triumphant; or by sketching a bold _outline_ of the principal things that would serve to endanger the church, and the principal divine interpositions in behalf of the church, until its triumph should be secured upon the earth. This _might_ have been done by direct statement, or by plain and positive assertion, as it was by many of the prophets; but the end, in this case, would be better secured by a glance at future history, in such a way, that while the great fact of the final triumph of the gospel would be kept before the church, there might be furnished a clear demonstration, in the end, of the divine origin and inspiration of the book itself. This latter object, indeed, would have been _in fact_ accomplished by a plain declaration, but it would be _best_ {lii} accomplished by such _details_ as would show that the whole course of events was comprehended by the Holy Spirit――the real author of the whole. A general view of these details may be seen, according to the principles which I have adopted in the interpretation of the work, in the Analysis at the close of the Introduction, § V. 4. The method in which this is mainly done in this book is by _pictures_ or _symbols_; for, above all the other books in the Bible, the Apocalypse is characterized by this method of representation, and it may eminently be called a book of symbols. It is this which has made it appear to be so obscure; and this particularly which has given occasion for so great a variety in the methods of interpreting it――for there is no kind of representation that furnishes occasion for so much fanciful interpretation as that of symbolical writing. The true principle of interpreting symbolical language has been hitherto little understood, and consequently every writer has indulged his own fancy in affixing such a meaning to the symbol as he chose. The result has been, that there has been no generally admitted principle of interpretation respecting this book, and that the variety of conjectures indulged, and the wild and vain theories advanced, have produced the impression that the book is not susceptible of a plain and sensible exposition. A very common belief is, that symbolical language must, from the nature of the case, be obscure and unintelligible, and that a book, written in the manner of the Apocalypse, must always be liable to the wild vagaries of imagination which have been so commonly exhibited in the attempts to explain this book. These considerations make it proper to offer a few remarks here about the nature of symbolical language, and on the question whether a book written in that language is necessarily unintelligible, or incapable of a plausible interpretation.