my mind, a character of lameness, though the proposal may be very loud. In those who boast most of the simplicity of interpretations, I have observed most glaring contradictions and inaccuracies. Thus the effort to prove this defilement to be purely Jewish, the defilement of the temple in Jerusalem, has this unfortunate inconsistency in it, that the gist of that point is, that the temple is itself defiled; here, that by God’s special care it is not, but is preserved; and what can we say of simplicity or accuracy here?
With regard to the denial of symbols, and the assertion that it is so literal a book, it seems to me equally untenable. Thus, when the third part of the sun was smitten, the day shone not for a third part of it; but this was not what would have followed in any literal sense, and a little investigation into detail will shew that much of what has been recently said on the subject will not bear examination.
There is another point which the advocates of literalism[1] and crisis often insist on, which deserves
- ↑ The application of Old Testament allusions or prophecies in the sense in which they are used there, seems to me to be equally untenable; they are borrowed thence to be applied to heavenly subjects, just as in the case of Jerusalem; so the analogy holds
