« PreviousContinue »
and is emblematic of that divine light of life, which enlightens every man that cometh into the world : but the parching heat of its rays is used in the parables of Christ to express the fiery trial of persecution and tribulation for the Truth's sake.
With the same variety of allusion, and without any danger of impropriety or confusion in the language of the Scripture, the Lion, considered as an hungry and blood-thirsty beast of Prey, is an image of the Devil
, who as a roaring lion walketh abcut seeking whom he may devour. But in regard to his Strength, Power, Generosity, and the majesty of his countenance, he is highly expressive of the Regal Character, and is therefore assumed to denote the Power and Majesty of Christ himself, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Rev. v. 5. David, in his Elegy on the death of Saul , and Jonathan, recounts it as an honour to them in their capacity of warriors, that they were swifter than Eagles, they were stronger than Lions: and the allusion cannot be thought to interfere with the Levitical distinction; for eagles and lions are not separated from the clean animals for their strength or their swiftness abstractedly considered, but for the ferocity which applies these excellent properties indiscriminately to the purposes of contention, rapine, and bloodshed. The dog is an unclean animal with many unclean properties; but for his vigilance *, fidelity, and sagacity, he surpasses all other creatures, and becomes a proper assistant to the shepherd; in which capacity the Prophet Isaiah, chap. lvi. 10. alludes to him as an example to the ministers of God's word, whose office it is to guard the flock from the incur
* -Nunquam, custodibus illis,
Nocturnum stubulis furem, incursusque luporum,
sions of the wolf: for they who give no warning of the enemies of the Church are reproached as dumb dogs that cannot bark; a name which in modern times has been accommodated by men of heat and zeal to what bishop Latimer calls unpreaching Prelates.
The instance, which of all others seems most opposite to the established order of the Animals in the Law, is that representation of the blessed and the cursed at the day of judgment in Matt. xxv. 32, &c. under the figures of Sheep and Goats. · But the difficulty of this similitude is removed by the manner in which it is introduced. It does not proceed on the ground of any specific differences between Sheep and Goats, (though the sheep in respect of its colour, and its good qualities will be allowed the preference) but on the act of separating one party from the other he shall separate them one from another, as a Shepherd divideth the sheep from the Goats. If this grand division is illustrated by the act of a Shepherd, no division under the direction of a Shepherd can be agreeable to nature, but of such cattle as are committed to the charge of a Shepherd. If Wolves or Swine had been assumed instead of Goats, the contrast between the animals might have appeared more striking, but the act of separating them could not have been attributed to a Shepherd; by whose Office Christ was pleased on many occasions to signify his own as the Saviour, Judge, and Ruler of his people.
IV. In my reflections on the learning of the Egyptians, at p. 68. I have followed the general opinion in supposing them to have practised three different sorts of writing, and have given the account in the words of Maximus. But this matter having been
considered more attentively by a learned friend, for whose judgment and erudition I have the highest respect, I shall offer his sentiments to the Reader in his own words.
“ You have a quotation from Maximus's “ Preface to Horapollo, to shew there were three “ sorts of writing among the Egyptians. Above
twenty years ago I had a particular occasion to " search into the truth of this assertion, and could “ find no grounds for it, though it is asserted by 5. Diodorus Siculus, Lib. iii. and by Clemens Alex
andrinus, Lib. v. p. 555. Edit. Paris. 1629. The
Inscriptions on the Tables of Isis, the Obelisks, " and the breasts of the Mommies, are all in Hiero
glyphics, and we have no footsteps of any other sort of writing till after the times of Alexander
the Great, when the Greek Alphabet was first in“ troduced under the Ptolemies, from whence it is
supposed the Coptic took its rise. I know not the
age of Maximus, but should think him to be far “ later than Diodorus Siculus, who is himself by no
means ancient enough to attest a fact at least 500 years older than himself, without some concurrent evidence.' There is not the least
hie“ ratic writing remaining in any old Author. The
inscriptions on the Obelisks given us by Tacitus
(Annal. 1. ii. p. 42. edit. fol. Basil. 1519) and by “ Ammianus Marcellinus (l. xvii. p. 145. edit. Gryph. “ 1552) shew the Hieroglyphic to have been the
common Character of the country before they had
an Alphabet; for it is not likely they would have “ chosen to have locked up the praises of a vain glo" rious King in Mystic figures known only to a few,
when the visible design of those very maguificent monuments was to display the honour of their Kings and the Glory of their Country. Marcel
“ linus judiciously calls these symbolic figures the be
ginning of knowledge. Formarum autem innumeras notas, Hieroglyphicas appellatas, quas ei undique ri
demus, incisas initialis sapientiæ vetus insignivit au" toritas.
We have no good authority to introduce « another sort of writing among the Egyptians but
the Hieroglyphic and the Greek. Had there been a
third, certainly some footsteps would have re“ mained besides the ipse dixit of Diodorus, from “ whom it is probable Clemens and Maximus bor" rowed it."
Marimus is a modern Greek writer. He calls himself bishop of Cythera, an island between Candy and the Morea, now called Cerigo. There is a second Letter from him addressed to the person of Hoeschelius the Editor of Horapollo, and it is dated, as his Preface is, in the year 1595. His account is therefore of no value, but for the remarks intermixt with it.
V. My subject led me naturally at p. 68. to reflect on the moral use of the Animals in the Fables of Æsop; and that again hath since led me to enquire after the original of those fables. But the dissention among authors is so great concerning this matter, that nothing certain can be determined. Quintilian ascribes them to Hesiod as the first author; Phædrus speaks of Æsopus luctor. As to the conjecture of Sale, translator of the Koran, and Bayle, that they are to be ascribed to Lokman, an eastern fabulist, and that there was no such person as Æsop, it is of little credit. Fabricius, in his Bibliotheca Greca, an author of good repute, does indeed express a doubt whether the Fables under the name of Æsop were written by him. Upon the whole it seems most probable, that Planudes was the conipiler, and that the Collection is miscellaneous, the greater part of them having Æsop for
their author. The matter of them shews that they were not all of the same age or country. The fable of the For and the Grapes must be Oriental, because it is not known that any European foxes eat grapes; though it hath always been observed of the foxes of. Palestine. Having occasion lately to mention this circumstance, I was informed on the authority of a gentleman of Observation, who has spent some years abroad, that the dogs in the Madeiras are all confined under a very severe penalty upon the owners, during the season when the vineyards are in fruit, because they devour the grapes: which is, to me at least, a new article of Natural History.
VI. I ought to make some Apology for having des rived the name of Nimrod, p. 22. from mp3 a word which signifies a Leopard. The Learned Mr. Bryant, in some part of his work, supposes it to come from the to rebel; and another Gentleman, who has a critical knowledge of the Hebrew, has objected to my Etymology, being of the same opinion with Mr. Bryant. I must confess also that the Lexicons are against me. What I have to answer is this; that the word, if interpreted a rebel, is not grammatical: it should then
If it is taken in the sense I plead for, it must be deemed a quadriliteral word, and as such compounded of a double radix. If the latter root begins with the consonant which terminates the first root, it is the custom of the language to drop one of them, and leave four letters instead of five. By this rule, the two roots are us a leopard, and not or 7 to domineer: of which senses both are equally pertinent when applied to the Character of Nimrod.
.מריר or מורר lhave been