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 life, from the visible universe
below and the heavenly world above, and also from some objects of fancy
to which there is no corresponding object in existence, such as Daniel's
four-headed beast, or the one in the Revelator's vision with seven heads
and ten horns; but in the selection of the same a proper correspondence
of quality is kept up. The symbols that are chosen to set forth the
great spiritual affairs of the church are such as are in themselves
nobler than those selected to describe the political affairs of kings
and empires, because in the divine estimation the church is of