logical prophecy, that while the spies represented the nation, a day should represent a year. Now the difference between a type and a symbol lies in this point only, that a type is a real, and a symbol an unreal or ideal, representative of a real object. In the type, the spies, who were real persons, represented the whole nation; and the forty days of their search, a real period, represented the real time of the stay in the wilderness. In the visions of Daniel or St. John the ten-horned beast, or the sun-clothed woman, unreal figures, represent an empire, or the Church of Christ; and twelve hundred and sixty days, or forty-two months, an unreal period grammatically suggested, represent the true period designed, of as many years. The analogy, therefore, contained in this Scripture history, is precise and complete. It supplies us, from the lips of the All-wise God himself, with a distinct scale, by which to interpret every prophetic period which bears the internal marks of a suggestive character, as a miniature representation of some larger period.

2. A reply to this argument has been attempted by several authors, as Mr. Tyso, Dr. Todd, Mr. Maitland, Wagenseil, and Bengelius. Their remarks are so much alike, that it is needless to classify them minutely.

(1). First, it is objected (Eluc., p. 73), that in this case the prophecy is first given in years, and great stress is laid on the observation. But this is futile in the highest degree. The passage is adduced as a divine key to elucidate others which bear marks of a secret sense, not visible on their surface, the nature of which must be determined from other sources. And it is objected, that the key is not as obscure as the passages which it is to unfold. Surely nothing can be more irrelevant than such reasoning.

Q 2

(2). Next, it is said that in Daniel there is no intimation that days are put for years, as there is in the text before us (Eluc., p. 66). This is the former objection, with its parts reversed. It is first argued that the key is not as difficult as the cipher; and next, that the cipher is not as plain as the key. It is clear, however, that such a direct statement would have defeated the very end for which the periods are supposed to have been expressed in this peculiar form.

(3). Further, Mr. Maitland and Dr. Todd quote the argument of Wagenseil, to refute the assertion of Sir John Marsham-dies pro anno sumi potest, juxta propheticam loquendi morem. But the whole of the reasoning, as Mr. Faber has shown, is wide of the real question; which relates, not to the grammatical sense of the word, but to the representative power of the thing. The closing remark in the extract virtually yields all that is maintained-dies ad annum significandum phyzice, ut ita loquar, adhibitur, non grammatice. Now for physically, an obscure phrase, let us in Numbers put typically, and in Daniel symbolically; and this becomes. the exact opinion of the Protestant interpreters.

3. The objections are, however, more fully stated by Mr. Maitland in his "First Enquiry," and his reply to Mr. Cuninghame. The nature of the argument is so easily obscured, that it is desirable to examine these objections in detail. Mr. Maitland reasons as follows:

(1). "I am quite at a loss to understand how passages, where it is declared and explained that a certain number of natural days were appointed to represent or prefigure the like number of natural years, should be called an express warrant for the mode of reckoning which translates the word day by the English word year. In Numbers and in Ezekiel the phrase is a day for a year, a

day for a year—a mode of expression which leaves no doubt of the writer's meaning, and which absolutely requires yom and shanah to be taken in their literal sense for natural days and years. If the days during which the Israelites searched the land had been natural years, and the years which they were to wander prophetic years as they are called, each consisting of three hundred and sixty natural years, the analogy would be good and the warrant express; but what colour is here given to our interpreting a day or year otherwise than literally?" (Enq., p. 20).

These remarks imply a strange misconception of the theory opposed: for its essential character lies in maintaining, not a direct change in the ordinary meaning of the terms, but a process of analogical suggestion, by which a shorter period represents a longer; the context or other circumstances having first led us to suspect a hidden sense, and the passage in Numbers forming the key to its precise character. The reasoning, then, is completely irrelevant, and does not touch the real question in debate.

(2). The real point of the objection is, however, more visible in the following extract, taken from the other pamphlet:

"When my opponent says, 'If the beasts were not literal, but symbolical, must we not suppose that the days were not literal, but symbolical?' The proper answer, I believe, is" What days? When you speak of the beasts I know what you mean, for you admit that Daniel saw certain beasts; but when you speak of "the days," I know not what days you refer to, for your system admits of no days: you take (if I may so speak) the word “goat" to mean the thing "goat," and the thing "goat" to represent the thing "king;" but you take the

word “day," not to represent the thing “day,” but at once to represent the thing "year." And this is precisely the point which distinguishes this case from that of Ezekiel, which has been so often brought forward as parallel to it.' The whole matter lies in this, that the one is a case of representing, the other of interpreting.

"A goat, not the word goat, represented a king. A day, that is, the word day, is interpreted to mean a year.

“In Ezekiel, a real day, not the word day, represented a real year. In the Apocalypse it is a mere interpretation of the word day, to mean a year, without any pretence that certain real days represented certain real years" (Reply, &c., pp. 106-108).

The contrast which it is sought to establish in these paragraphs, however plausible it may seem, vanishes on elose examination.

«A

"It is admitted that Daniel saw certain beasts.” goat, and not the word goat, represented a king." Was it then a real goat, or were they real beasts? No one admits this, or ever once dreamed of such a view, neither Mr. Maitland himself, nor his opponents. The goat and the beasts were unreal. They were images before the eye of the prophet in the night vision, but had no answering external reality.

Again, "your system (it is said) admits of no days; you take the word day, not to represent the thing day, but at once to represent the thing year." Now this assertion must be understood either mentally, of the process of thought, or externally, of their historical reality. If taken in the former sense, it is manifestly untrue. The very expression, the year-day system; the fact that so large a number of writers maintain the literal period to be the real meaning; the analogies to which the advocates of the year-day appeal-all prove alike that

the word day is interpreted of the thing day, and the thing day is then viewed as representing the thing year.

But the assertion, perhaps, is meant in the latter sense; and the days are affirmed to have no external and historical reality. The reply is self-evident, that exactly the same is true of the goat and the beasts. These, too, have no external historical reality. When and where were they born, and when did they die? or to what natural species did the ten-horned beast belong? Clearly they had no other than a mental existence. There is thus an exact parallel in the two cases, and not, as Mr. Maitland argues, a total contrast. The beasts were conceptions visually suggested to the eye of the prophet, and nothing more; and days, the in like manner, were conceptions suggested by the words of the vision to his ear. The only difference is in the sense by which the mental image is conveyed; for it is plain that a day, when used as a symbol, must be mentioned, and could not appear visibly to the eye.

The only reply to this argument of any apparent weight must be the allegation that the days, &c., occur in the interpretation of the visions, and not among the symbols themselves. But in the dates of the Apocalypse the exact reverse is true; they all occur imbedded in the midst of the symbols. The verses Dan. xii. 11, 12, are the only case to which the remark applies; and these are introduced by a double notice that they have a hidden meaning. "The words are closed and sealed till the time of the end." "None of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand."

Let us suppose, for illustration, that a merchant, leaving his family, should put in their hands a note of instruction for their guidance, to be opened and read after his departure, and closing with such words as these: “You will not understand what I tell you for some time