things signified, and this was as obvious and intelligible a figure as calling a picture of the king by his name. He continues: "I allow that the explanation given by Protestants is satisfactory; but it is deduced from a minute comparison of the words in question with forms of expression used in Scripture, and especially by Christ Himself on other occasions. No writer would have arbitrarily and unnecessarily cast in his reader's way, a difficulty, which, to say the least, it required research and erudition to clear up."

Here then it is granted, that to arrive at the Protestant interpretation, it requires erudition and research; consequently that it is not the simple, obvious meaning which these words present. When you say, that to establish a construction of a passage, it requires study and learning, I conclude that it is his duty who has chosen that construction to make use of· these means; and the burden rests on him of proving his interpretation, not on those who adopt the literal and obvious Therefore, when the explicit, plain, and literal construction of the words is that which we adopt, it becomes the task of those who maintain us to be wrong, and say that the words "this is my Body," did not mean that it was the Body of Christ, but only its symbol,-I contend, it becomes their duty to prove their figurative interpretation.

sense.

Their argument necessarily takes a two-fold form. Reasons must be brought by them to prove,―first, that they are authorized, and secondly that they are compelled, to depart from the literal meaning. This is usually attempted by two distinct arguments. First, an attempt is generally made to establish that our Saviour's words may be taken figuratively; that they may be so interpreted as to signify, "this represents my body, this represents my blood," by bringing together a number of passages, in which the verb 'to be,' is used in the sense of to represent, and thence concluding that here, in like manner, it may have the same meaning. In the second place, to justify such a departure from the literal sense, it is

*Par. ii. c. iii.

urged, that by it we encounter so many contradictious, so many gross violations of the law of nature. that, however unwilling, we must abandon it, and take the figurative signification. This is the clearest and completest form in which the argumentation can be presented. The author, for instance, whom I quoted just now, after giving us his reason why we are not obliged to take these words literally, inasmuch as there is no necessity for it,-gives us as a further motive for not understanding them so, that the literal meaning leads to direct contradictions, and gross absurdities. These are the two principal heads of objection which I shall have to discuss.

First, then, it is urged that we may take our Saviour's words figuratively, because there are many other passages of Scripture, in which the verb 'to be,' means 'to represent,' and a great many texts of a miscellaneous character are generally thrown together into a confused heap, to establish this point. In order to meet them, it is necessary to classify them: for although there is one general answer which applies to all, yet there are specific replies, which meet each separate class. The person who has given the fullest list of such texts, and, indeed, who has given sufficient to establish this point, if it can be established by such a line of argument, and the person above all others most popularly quoted, is Dr. Adam Clarke, in his Discourse on the Eucharist. He is, in fact, cited or copied by the two authors to whom I have already referred. I will give you all his quotations, only distributing them into classes, so as to simplify my answers.

In the first class I place all those passages of this form : Genesis xli. 26, 27; "And the seven good kine are seven years." Daniel vii. 24; “The ten horns are ten kingdoms.” Mathew xiii. 38, 39; "The field is the world, the good seed are the children of the kingdom, the tares are the children of the wicked one. The enemy is the devil, the harvest is the end of the world, the reapers are the angels." 1 Cor. x. 4; "The rock was Christ." Gal. iv. 24; "For these are the two covenants."

Rev. i. 20; "The seven stars are the angels

of the seven churches."

Here, it is said, are a great many

passages, in which the verb 'to be,' means 'to represent;' and this forms the first class of texts.

Secondly, John x. 7; "I am the door." John xv. 1; “I am the true vine."

Thirdly, Gen. xvii. 10; “This is my covenant between thee and me." Which is commonly supposed to mean, this is

a representation or image of my covenant.

Fourthly, Exodus xii. 11; "This is the Lord's passover." Here are four classes of passages. I wish, first of all, to show you, that independently of the general answer which I shall give to all, or at least of the minuter examination which I shall make of the first class, and which will apply to many of the others, the texts comprised in the three last classes have nothing at all to do with the subject; for the verb 'to be' does not signify in them 'to represent;' and we must consider only those to the purpose, in which it does mean 'to represent.' "I am the door;" "I am the true vine." I ask any one, on reflection, to answer,-does 'to be' mean in these passages to represent?' Substitute the latter verb; for if the two be equivalent, the one must fit in the other's place. Compare them with the words, "the rock was Christ." If you say, "the rock represented Christ," the sense is the same, because 'to be' is its equivalent. "I am the door;" I represent the door, that is not Christ's meaning. “I am as the door, I resemble the door;" that was what he wished to express. These passages consequently must be at once excluded. Because it is evident, that if we substitute the phrase considered equivalent, we produce a totally different sense from what our Saviour intended. Moreover, the answers which I will give to the first class of passages, will apply fully to these; but I consider this as a sufficient specific answer.

Secondly, "This is my covenant between thee and me." Does this mean that circumcision, of which this text speaks, represents, or was the figure of the covenant? Granted for a moment; God clearly explains himself; for He says explicitly

in the next verse, that it is the sign; "And it shall be a sign or token of the covenant." Therefore, if He meant to say that this was a figure of the covenant, He goes on to explain Himself afterwards; consequently no mistake could arise from His words. In the second place, circumcision was not only a sign, but the instrument or record of the covenant. Now common usage warrants us in calling by the name of the covenant, the document or articles whereby it is effected. If we hold in our hands a written treaty, we should say, “this is the treaty." But leaving aside these answers, it is easy to prove that the verb here noways means 'represents,' and that there is no allusion to type or figure in the case. This is evident, by comparing this text with every other in which a similar expression occurs. In all, the introductory formula signifies, that what follows is truly a matter of compact or covenant; so that this would be the construction of the entire text: "What follows is my covenant between you and me; you shall practise circumcision." Thus, for instance, Is. lix. 21; "This is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; my spirit which is in thee and my words, shall not depart out of thy mouth." Does God there mean, this is the figure of my covenant? Do not the words signify, "what I am going to express is my covenant;" so that they are only an introductory or preliminary formula? Another instance, 1 Sam. xi. 2; "In this will I make my covenant with you, in boring out your right eyes." Here again the hard covenant follows the introductory phrase. And this interpretation is further confirmed, by the many passages in which God premises, "this is my statute or command," after which follows the very command or statute. In like manner then, the words, "this is my covenant," do not mean "this represents my covenant," but simply, "what follows is my covenant." The examination of other passages, were there no other consideration, would thus take this out of the class applicable to our controversy; but when we further see, that in the next verse God expressly calls that rite a sign of his covenant, it is plain that the form

of expression is not parallel, as here an explanation is subse quently given, which is not the case with the words of insti tution.

count.

Thirdly. The fourth class contains the text, "This is the Lord's passover." This is an interesting text, not on account of its own intrinsic worth, but on account of some particular circumstances connected with its first application to this doctrine. It was on this text, and almost exclusively on its strength, that the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation was rejected; it was on this that Zuinglius, when he attempted to deny it at the time of the Reformation, mainly built; for he found no other text whereon to ground his objection against the words, "this is my Body," being literally taken. Now I think we can easily prove that the verb "is," has here its literal meaning. As the circumstances of his discovery are curious, I beg leave to give his own acYet though the narrative tells greatly in our favour, I feel a repugnance to detail it; it is degrading to humanity and to religion, that any thing so discreditable, so debasing should be recorded by any writer of himself, and I would willingly pass it over were it not that stern justice to the cause I am defending, demands that I show the grounds on which the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence was first supposed to be disproved. Zuinglius, therefore, tells us himself—that he was exceedingly anxious to get rid of the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence, but found a great difficulty in arguing against the natural and obvious signification of these words, "this is my Body,-this is my Blood"—that he could find nothing in Scripture to warrant him in departing from the literal sense, except passages manifestly relating to parables.

It was on the 13th of April, early in the morning, that the happy revelation occurred. His conscience, he says, urges him to relate the circumstances which he would gladly conceal; for he knows they must expose him to ridicule and obloquy. He found himself in a dream, disputing with one who pressed him close, while he seemed unable to defend his