passages where this principle of _miniature symbolization_ is adopted, there is a strong presumption in favour of the Year-day theory, or some theory suitably extending the times. Dr. Maitland has attempted to dislodge his antagonists from this intrenchment. His argument is subtle, and must have been deemed triumphant, for it is repeated and praised as a master-stroke by almost every subsequent writer on the same side. Allowing even that symbols of time might be expected in symbolic predictions, along with symbols of events, he denies that a day can in any way be regarded as the symbol of a year. It is not, he argues, a symbol at all. We give the argument in his own words, premising only that the advocates of the Year-day principle, as we shall by and by see, appeal to Ezek. iv. 4‒9 in proof of it:――“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’s, 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.”[16] The pith of the argument seems to lie in this, that while, in Daniel, kingdoms are represented by certain _visible_ symbols――beasts, namely――there is no _visible_ symbol of a year. We may _interpret_ a day of a year, but we cannot say a day _symbolizes_ a year. The objector appears to have been met, in the first instance, by the alleged difficulty of symbolizing times in a visible way; but the case of Pharaoh and his officers was at once appealed to, in whose dreams three years are represented by three branches and three baskets; and seven years by seven kine, and seven ears of corn.[17] A writer in the _Investigator_ rejoined, that _large_ numbers, such as the 1260 or 2300, could not easily be represented in the same way; a statement which seems so very simple and obvious, that we cannot but wonder it should have elicited such a burst of indignation as this: “What! shall it be affirmed that he who called up a vision in which seven kine symbolized seven years, could not employ visible and equally intelligible representations of 1260 years? This were to limit the power of the Almighty, by arrogantly assuming, that though he presented a _few years_ by outward pictures to the eye, He could not, with equal facility, and like intelligibleness to men, have painted _a much larger number_ by external emblems. We refer the writer in the _Investigator_ to Rev.