Although this principle is worthy of further elucidation, yet enough has been said to firmly establish the point that symbolic language is founded upon analogy. It is also clear that, whenever we attach a literal signification to a symbolic object, we immediately destroy entirely its use as a symbol. So we may accept it as one established landmark in the interpretation of the Apocalypse, that every symbol, 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.