Star.
London, England, 1809-08-30 00:00:00

hoppers] is the same,**" is equally unitappy. Br
this loose method of interpretation we ought in RCM
xiii. I. to substitute camels for " the sand Me sea,"
upon which JOHN stood ; for in the very verse quoted
from Judges, we are told that their camels were as
the sand of the sea for multitude. These two in-
ferences rest on precisely the same foundation—
and when taken together shew, in a striking manner,
the absurdity of the practice, which is but too com-
mon among commentators, quoting words indepen-
dent of their context, to give the semblance of scrip-
ture authority to their own dicta. In the prophecy
under consideration locusts are not used as a term of
comparison : it is not said, that a body of men—an
army, numerous as locusts, came out of the smoke of the
pit, hut that Locusrs came out of the smoke--beings signi-
fied by this symbol or hieroglyphic. Who or what these
are that arc designated by this term, we shall soon
discover. It may be useful, however, previously to
offer here a few remarks on the nature of hieroglyphi-
cal language.
All primitive languages are highly figurative, and
they are so from necessity. Men must possess ideas
before they seek words to express them, and when
new ones are produced, making use of the language
they possess, they are obliged to have recourse to
such natural objects around them as are known,
or supposed to possess qualities or properties in
some way resembling the idea they wish to com-
municate. Hence the language of metaphor, which
uses such expressions as these : GOD is-
my rOC..—my
fortrets—my high tolurr—my shield—and, the horn of
my salvation. In such modes of speech, the fitness
of the figure is manifest, and occasions no ambiguity;
but the original paucity of language introduced ano-
ther form, which, from its very nature, seems to have
been prior even to the use of metaphors—l mean the
symbolical language ; in which the figure employed is
not used as an adjunct, expressive of some property,
quality, or function of the object or subject named
along with it, but put in place of the oliject or subject
itself. The origin of this mode of writing seems ob-
vi Nis. Oral language being antecedent to any kind of
writing, the first attempts at the latter could be no-
thing but rude efforts to represent to the eye a draft
or outline of the object described ; as, the picture of
a lion when that animal was to he expressed, and that
of a man when a man was to be described : but as
moral qualities as well as physical objects were requi-
red to be also conveyed by the writing, and as in oral
language these could only be expressed by figures
drawn from sensible objects, the same method was ne-
cessarily employed in graphic attempts, and hence a
lion (or any other figure) was employed, not only to re.
present theanimalitself,but asasubstitute for some other
object, to which one or more of the qualities proper
to the lion were ascribed. Thus, a lion, by common
consent, signified a man strong and powerful—a king,
and hence such an expression as this—" the lion of the
Tribe of Judah," i. e. the king who had his descent
from that tribe ; for even after languages became
more copious, and could furnish many terms proper
for expressing abstract ideas, the old method conti-
nued, and was blended with oral language, and with
literal writings, which was much later than the sym-
bolic.

Strange as this method ofwriting appears to the mo-
derns, it was brought to such perfection as to possess
powers of expression far beyond what can now be
easily conceived. This is plain from the number of
synonimous symbols that are known to have been
employed in it ; nor is it difficult in some instances to
sez, in what manner they were derived. Every de-
partment of nature furnished objects that were fitted
for the purpose : hence, to express a king, they were
not confined to the brute creation—whatever was the
chief of its kind became, or by common consent might
have become, a legitimate symbol of a monarch ; as,
the Eagle, which was so employed, because conceived
to possess the first rank among the feathered tribes.
Again, as a king's power to subdue his enemies de-
pends on the strength of his kingdom, and as animals
witll horns are, eeteris fiaritus, stronger than those who
have none, horns are put for lit/grim: ; and, kings
having the direction of the national force, the same
A ymbol is, by metonymy, put for kings. In like
manner, the firmament, to use the ancient term, being
elevated above the earth, and esteemed more splendid
and glorious than terrestrial objects, was employed
to symbolize the most elevated ranks among men ;
and as, among the planets, the sun possesses incompa-
rably the highest lustre, it became the symbol of su:
prone power, while the stars were made symbols of
those possessing authority subordinate to the supreme.
Among the Egyptians this kind of writing was
carried to the highest degree of perfection ; those tra-
ditions and mysteries which were thought of sufficient
importance to be handed down t 3 their successors,
were engraven on the pyramids, the walls of their
temples, and other works of art, and hence the name
hieroglyphic, from two Greek words iefsc holy, and
y›.:qt..; to engrave. In the true spirit .of priest-craft,
this was continued long after the invention of literal
writing, to impress the vulgar with an idea that their
teachers were possessed of the most mysterious know-
ledge—knowledge not attainable by other men ;
whereas the whole mystery lay in this veil with which
their language was covered.
But, not to detain the Reader longer with this di-
fression, which, however, was necessary, I shall only
arther remark, that in the language of which I have
been speaking, each symbol has a precise and dee.
minate meaning, and it is not left to fancy or to sa-
gacity to attach to it any signification which the ,
Reader may imagine would have been more appro- 1
priate than that which was assigned to it by the an- i
tients ; for our business is not now se male a language,
but to read one already made, and we might as well re-
fuse to assign to any word in Hebrew, Greek or Latin,
its known and admitted sense, from a conceit that a
more expressive word might have been formed to con-
vey that idea, as quarrel with the meaning of a hiero-
glyphic because in our judgment a more appropriate
one might have been formed. But this is in fact the
line of conduct that has been followed by the greater
part of expositors. They have confounded symbols
with metaphors; and because the figures employed in
the latter, according to their various combinations,
admit of various significations, have used the freedom
to assign to the former; meanings not recognised by
the ancients, and therefore inadmissible. Where sym-
bols are employed it is the duty of an expositor, in-
stead of resorting to fancy, to employ industry ; not
to mule, but to find cut the admitted sense. In Daniel and
John many of the symbols they employ are explained;
•• Ntwretes Dksert. Vol. 111. p. Wk.