etc. The key to its interpretation is the celebrated inscription at Behistun, cut upon the face of a high rock three hundred feet above its base, and recording a portion of the history of Darius. It is written in the cuneiform characters, in three languages—Median, Persian, and Assyrian.

I do not wish to be understood as implying that the symbolical language of Scripture is identical with the hieroglyphics of ancient monuments. There may be different kinds of symbolic representations; but they are not arbitrary, as is spoken language, and can not be arbitrarily applied; a fixed law governs them all.

Now, the book of Revelation is made up of this symbolic language. It is not, however, confined to this book alone. There are many instances of it to be found elsewhere in the sacred volume, and in many cases it is explained by inspiration itself, thus giving us a reliable key to the whole. Joseph's dream of the eleven sheaves that made obeisance to his sheaf was of this description (Gen. 37:7, 8), and his eleven brethren were angered, because its meaning was apparent—that they should be humbled before him. Also, his dream of the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars (verses 9, 10) was understood to signify the subjection of the entire family unto him, which was actually fulfilled after Joseph's exaltation in Egypt. The chief butler's dream of the vine with three branches bearing grapes, which he took and pressed into the king's cup, was interpretated by Joseph as signifying the butler's restoration in three days to his former position of cup-bearer to the king; while the chief baker's dream of the three baskets upon his head, out of which the birds ate, was interpretated as signifying his execution in the same length of time. Gen. 40. Pharaoh's dream of the seven fat kine and the seven lean kine, also of the seven full ears and the seven thin ears, signified seven years of plenty and seven years of famine. Gen. 41.

Again, the four divisions of King Nebuchadnezzar's wonderful image was explained by Daniel as signifying four universal monarchies and the ten toes as signifying the ten minor kingdoms which grew out of the fourth; while the stone that was cut out of the mountain without human intervention he interpreted as signifying the divine kingdom of God. Dan. 2. The two-horned ram of Daniel's vision (chap. 8), according to the explanation of the angel, symbolized the Medo-Persian empire, its two horns signifying the two dynasties of allied kings that composed it. The he-goat signified the Greco-Macedonian empire; his great horn, its first mighty king; and the four horns that replaced the great one when broken represented four kings under whom the empire would eventually be divided into as many parts. In the Apocalypse itself we have a number of symbols divinely interpreted, "The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches." "The seven candle-sticks which thou sawest are the seven churches." "The ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings." "The waters which thou sawest ... are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." "The woman which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth," etc.

It will be seen that the great underlying principle or law upon which symbolic language is based is ANALOGY. An object is chosen to represent not itself, but something of analagous character.

Webster defines symbol as follows: "The sign or representation of any moral thing by the images or properties of natural things. Thus, a lion is the symbol of courage; the lamb is the symbol of meekness or patience." Home, in his Introduction to the Study of the Bible, says: "By symbols we mean certain representative marks, rather than express pictures; or, if pictures, such as were at the 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, analagous to it." The main idea, then, as expressed in the foregoing definitions, is the representation of an object, not by a picture of itself, but by something analagous, such as the exhibition of moral qualities by images drawn from nature. But the use of symbols is not confined to the representation of moral subjects alone. Anything may be symbolized to which a corresponding analagous object can be found.

To establish the principle of analogy here laid down, it will be necessary to refer only to a few of the numerous examples of divinely interpreted symbols in the Scriptures. Any one can readily perceive the analogy between the seven fat kine of Pharaoh's dream and as many years of plenty; so, also, with the seven full, healthy ears that grew up on seven stalks. Likewise, the analogy between the seven thin kine and as many years of famine, and the seven thin, blasted ears that represented the same thing, is apparent. One fat kine or one full ear would symbolize one year of plenty, when crops were abundant; while seven would represent as many distinct seasons of prosperity, etc. Kine do not represent kine, but something analagous. The beasts of Daniel's visions do not represent animals like themselves, or a multitude of such animals, but something of analagous disposition. The analogy between a wild, ferocious beast, stamping upon or devouring everything within its reach, and a cruel, persecuting, tyrannical government is apparent. A horn does not signify a horn, but some great power, such as a dynasty of kings or rulers; and what the horn is to the animal in manifesting its desolating disposition, kings and rulers are to an empire in executing the persecuting or oppressive principles of the body politic. A pure, chaste virgin is used to symbolize the true church of God; whereas a corrupt harlot is chosen to represent an apostate church, and fornication her idolatrous worship.

Although this principle is worthy of further elucidation, yet enough has been said to firmly establish the point that symbolic language is founded upon analogy. It is also clear that, whenever we attach a literal signification to a symbolic object, we immediately destroy entirely its use as a symbol. So we may accept it as one established landmark in the interpretation of the Apocalypse, that every symbol, regardless of the department from which it is taken—whether from the material universe, the animal kingdom, human life or the heavenly realm—stands as the representative, not of itself, but of some other object of analagous character not found in the same department from which it is drawn.

This develops another important fact worthy of attention. If the great law of symbolic language is based upon analogy, it is clear to a demonstration that the symbols employed must be definitely applied. They can not be arbitrary, as the words composing our spoken language are. There is nothing in the nature of the thing to prevent our calling a horse an elephant, provided we had only agreed universally to adopt that designation of the animal referred to (arbitrary sounds can be arbitrarily applied); but we violate nature when we attempt to make a ferocious tiger the symbol of an innocent child, or represent a blood-thirsty tyrant by the symbol of a lamb. A disgusting, polluted harlot may be the proper symbol of an apostate church, but of the pure, holy church of God—never. A proper correspondence must be kept up. We must follow nature strictly.

Symbols are drawn from every department—from animate and inanimate creation, from animal life and human