If “G.H.L.” were to send his statement of evidence as to the seventy weeks of Daniel, the editor might be enabled to form a better judgment whether its publication would tend to profit. But, he cannot for a moment allow that to deny symbols in the prophecies is a help to understanding them. In his opinion, it is as erroneous as the opposite theory, which deities any part to be literal. The truth is, that in almost all the prophets there is a mixture of figures with ordinary language; which to a really simple mind, occasions no insurmountable difficulty. The source of mistake as to scripture lies in the truths communicated, far more than in the words which convey them. Again, he thinks that it is piffle to gainsay the fact that symbols are the rule, the language of every day the exception, in a large part of Daniel and the revelation. None have done more harm than men like Tyso, who, overlooking this in their zeal for letter, have propounded the grossest absurdities (e.g., that the locusts of Rev. 9. Are “literal insects, bred in the smoke of the bottomless pit, as insects are, commonly, in a blight;” or that the woman in Rev. 12, is some pious and excellent woman, perhaps a queen.") symbols, figures, plain language, all occur, here and there. One theorist, according to the character of his mind sees nothing but figure; another reads nothing but letter. Real wisdom bows to what God gives and as he gives it; accepts and seeks to understand all that he reveals, whatever the form. Verbal inspiration has nothing to do with the matter. Has not God been pleased to use both symbol and language, and the words of daily life; to assume that all is literal is to close one's eyes to facts, which need no further evidence for such as can see
If “G. H. L.” merely raises a question as to a particular prophecy, such as the seventy weeks, the case is altered. By all. means let him prove, if he can, that years are not intended. Only let him be aware of the delusion, that those who argue for the letter everywhere are the only true and faithful expositors of Scripture. A symbol, if clearly and certainly understood, is quite as determinate as any other mode of expression. It is a mere misconception that the language of symbol is necessarily vague and inconclusive. The vision of the beasts in Dan. 7 is as clearly symbolic as the angel's narrative in chap. xi., is literal; yet the difference of view even now about the willful king far exceeds that which has ever existed touching the four imperial powers. “G. H. L.” seems to think there can be no doubt that we are all wrong in regarding Rome as the fourth Gentile empire; but here, at least, unanimity is against him, and he had not literal language, but symbol; so that, on his own principle, he should not be too confident.
Further, the Editor would remind “G. H. L.,” that those who profess to be literal interpreters exhibit a very large amount of conflict and inconsistencies in their schemes, and that the mystical school can scarcely be said to surpass in monstrous explanations what has emanated in our own day from their antagonists. The argument founded on diversity of opinions is a fallacy; if true, it would be destructive, almost equally, of both parties.