accuracy those hierographical representations.[1] This of itself is
sufficient to establish the point that definiteness can be attached to
the use and the interpretation of carefully-selected symbols, when the
principles that governed their original selection are discovered.

[Footnote 1: The systems of hieroglyphical writing employed by various
nations have, for the most part, remained unintelligible until a key of
their interpretation was discovered. In 1799 M. Bouchard, a French
captain of engineers, while digging intrenchments on the site of an old
temple near the Rosetta mouth of the Nile, unearthed a black stone
containing a trilingual inscription in hieroglyphics, demotic
characters, and Greek. The last paragraph of the Greek inscription
stated that two translations, one in the sacred and the other in the
popular Egyptian language, would be found adjacent; hence this
celebrated stone has afforded European scholars a key to the language
and writing of the ancient Egyptians. The cuneiform writing of the
Babylonians and Persians remained a mystery also until modern times, but
great progress has now been made in the deciphering of thousands of
inscribed clay tablets, cylinders, prisms, 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.