Symbols are drawn from every department—­from animate and inanimate creation, from animal life and human life, from the visible universe below and the heavenly world above, and also from some objects of fancy to which there is no corresponding object in existence, such as Daniel’s four-headed beast, or the one in the Revelator’s vision with seven heads and ten horns; but in the selection of the same a proper correspondence of quality is kept up.  The symbols that are chosen to set forth the great spiritual affairs of the church are such as are in themselves nobler than those selected to describe the political affairs of kings and empires, because in the divine estimation the church is of infinitely greater importance and occupies a more honorable position than worldly kingdoms.  Thus, a beautiful virgin bride is chosen to represent the church of God; whereas a great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns is chosen to symbolize the Pagan Roman empire.  The glorious body of God’s reformers is set forth under the symbol of an angel from heaven, with his face as the sun, his feet as pillars of fire, and a rainbow upon his head; whereas the Saracen warriors of Mahomet are locusts upon the earth, with stings of scorpions.  The department of human and angelic life is chosen to set forth the spiritual affairs of the church, while the department of nature and of animal life represents the political affairs of nations.  To this general rule, there is at least one exception.  Certain things connected with God’s chosen people under the old dispensation are considered proper symbols to represent similar things or events in the New Testament dispensation, without special regard to the department from which they are drawn.  Thus, the temple, altar, incense, candlesticks, holy city, etc., of the former age, though not taken from the department of human or angelic life, are, nevertheless, clearly used to represent affairs of the church, the analogy in the case being apparent because of their former prominence as connected with the Lord’s covenant people.

Again, when the symbol selected is that of a living, active, intelligent agent, it represents an analagous intelligent agent.  Likewise, the actions of the former plainly denote analagous actions in the latter, and the effects produced by the actions of the symbolic agent signify analagous effects produced by the actions of the agent symbolized.  To make it clearer:  agents symbolize agents, actions symbolize actions, and effects symbolize effects.  If this be not true—­if agents can symbolize actions and effects as well as agents, or if actions can symbolize agents and effects—­then all is an inextricable maze of confusion, and well may we repeat the words uttered by a certain minister to the writer, “The book should have been called Mystification, not Revelation.”