they very regularly fabricate their interpretations of dreams accordingly. Thus, because poverty of language had anciently produced such a figurative mode of expression, heaven, from its exalted situation, having been made the symbol or hieroglyphic of supreme regal power; if a king dreamed that he ascended into heaven, the ancient Indians and Persians and Egyptians, as we learn from Achmetes, interpreted his dream to signify, that he would obtain the preeminence over all other kings'. And thus, an earthquake being, very naturally, for the same reason, made a symbol of a political revolution; if a king dreamed that his capital or his country was shaken by an earthquake, his dream, according to the same writer, was explained to portend the harassing of his dominions by external or internal violence 2.

Such is the principle, on which is built the figurative language of prophecy. Like the ancient hieroglyphics, and like those non-alphabetic characters which are derived from them, it is a language of ideas rather than of words. It speaks by pictures quite as much as by sounds: and, through the medium of those pictures rather than through the medium of a laboured verbal definition, it sets forth, with equal ease and precision, the nature and relation of the matters predicted. Nor is there any thing in this circumstance, either strange in itself,

'Achmet. Oniroc. c. 162.

2 Achmet. Oniroc. c. 162. See also Artemid. Oniroc. lib. ii. c. 46.

or derogatory to the all-wise spirit of prophecy. There is nothing strange; because such language is the natural language of man in the primitive state of society: there is nothing derogatory to the blessed Spirit; because, when God deigns to converse with man, he must use the language of man. In fact, it was not without abundant reason, that this ancient phraseology was chosen as the vehicle of prophecy, rather than the unfigured language of highly cultivated nations. The Scriptures, in their ultimate use, were not designed for this people or for that people in particular, but for the whole world. Hence it was meet, that their predictions should be couched in what may be termed an universal language. But the only universal language in existence is the language of hieroglyphics. To understand this character, we have not the least occasion to understand the spoken language of the nation which uses it. Those, for instance, who have learned the import of the character employed by the Chinese, can read their books without understanding a syllable of their spoken language: because this character, not being alphabetic, is the representative not of words but of things. A particular mark denotes a dog: but the idea, which it conveys, is that of the animal itself, not of the animal's name. Hence, if an Englishman and a Chinese both agree to use this conventional mark, they will understand each other's writing, though they will not understand each other's speech. Let the conventional mark be extended to the whole world; and we have forthwith a written

universal language. A Jew may call the animal, represented by that mark, Caleb; a Greek, Cyon; a Latin, Canis; a Frenchman, Chien; and an Englishman, Dog: but, wherever the written mark occurs, the idea of the same animal will be presented to the mind of each person, though in speaking every one may call it by a different name1. Since the language of hieroglyphics then is the sole universal language, it was made with very good reason, rather than naked unfigured language, the vehicle of prophecy.

In the use of this language there is by no means that obscurity and uncertainty, which some halfinfidel objectors would pretend. Persons of such a stamp take up the prophecies of Daniel and St, John, which are almost throughout a continued hieroglyphic: and, because they encounter a variety of monstrous symbols, they hastily exclaim, that the whole is unintelligible. They might just as reasonably throw aside a Chinese inscription, as incapable of being decyphered. Without a key, neither can be understood: but, when the key is procured, the book will very readily be opened. Now the key to the scriptural hieroglyphics is furnished by Scripture itself: and, when the import of each hieroglyphic is thus ascertained, there is little difficulty in

Our common numerical cyphers, so far as they extend, form an universal language: for the figures, 1 or 2 or 3, convey the same ideas to each person that uses them, by whatever different names the numbers themselves may be called.

2 See Warburton's Div. Leg. book iv. sect. 4.,

translating (as it were) an hieroglyphical prophecy into the unfigured phraseology of modern language. Both the elements and the principle of exposition will be very much the same as those, on which the ancient onirocritics rested their system of interpretation. Thus, when once it is known that a wildbeast is the symbol of an idolatrous and persecuting Empire, and when the Empire intended has been satisfactorily ascertained; it matters not, whether this deed or that deed be verbally ascribed to the Empire or symbolically ascribed to the wild-beast. Either mode of speech is equally intelligible: for, whatever is predicated of the hieroglyphic, is predicated of the Empire which the hieroglyphic represents. Daniel, for instance, expressly tells us, that the ram and the he-goat, which make so conspicuous a figure in one of his visions, are the MedoPersian Empire and the Grecian Empire. Where, then, is the difficulty of understanding this hieroglyphical prophecy? And who does not see, just as plainly as if the unfigured language of history had been employed, that the overthrow of the ram by the he-goat means the overthrow of the Medo-Persian Empire by the Grecian? The only difference, between the language of words and the language of symbols, is this: in the former, words are the signs of things; in the latter, hieroglyphics are the signs of things. When the import of a word is ascertained, we learn the thing denoted by that word: when the import of an hieroglyphic is ascertained, we learn the thing denoted by that hieroglyphic.

In either case, the elements of the language must be first learned: but, when that has been accomplished, the rest will follow of course, whether the language in question be verbal or hieroglyphical.

There is indeed so close a parallel between verbal language and hieroglyphical language, that the one may very well serve to illustrate the other.

In verbal language, words are the signs of things. Different words, however, are frequently used in all languages to express nearly the same thing; whence they are termed synonyms: and the use of them, so far from making a language obscure, renders it more copious and consequently more beautiful. But, in some instances, the matter is precisely reversed: and the same word is used to express different things. Whenever this occurs, a degree of obscurity, which is a manifest defect in a language, is necessarily introduced and the obscurity is greater or less, both according as the same word represents a greater or a less number of different things, and in proportion as its context enables us less or more to ascertain the precise meaning designed to be annexed to it in any particular passage.

Let us analogically apply these remarks to the symbolical language of prophecy.

If various symbols be used to represent the same thing, we shall be in no danger of mistaking the prophet's meaning, provided only we can ascertain the import of each individual symbol: because such variety will only serve to heighten the beauty of the