rock; and the rock" (that is, the spiritual rock) "was Christ." In the Apocalypse, it is said to John, "Write down the things which thou hast seen; the mystery of the seven stars,” which, in the language familiar to St. John, signifies the symbol of the seven stars. It is after this introduction that he says, "And the seven stars are the angels of the seven Churches." In very case, the writer is careful to let us know that he is going to deliver the interpretation of a figurative teaching; and, therefore, before you can compel me to apply these passages to the explanation of the words of institution, I require you to show me, that a similar instruction is found in these words as in those other passages.

But let us try the process of our opponents on another application. In the first verse of the Gospel of John, we have this remarkable expression,-" And the Word was God." Now, this has always been considered by believers in the divinity of Christ, as an exceedingly strong text, and all its force lies in that little syllable "was." So strong has it appeared, that in different ways attempts have been made to modify the text,— either by separating it into two, or by reading "the Word was of God." What is the use of all this violence, if the word "was" may mean "represents?" If we are justified in giving it that interpretation in other cases, why not do it here? Compare these three texts together, and tell me between which is there most resemblance?

"The Word was God."

"The rock was Christ."
"This is my Body."

If in the third of these we may change the verb, because we can do so in the second, what is to prevent our doing it in the first? And instead of the Word "was God," why not interpret, "the Word represented God?" Suppose any one to reason thus, and still further to strengthen his arguments by saying, -that in 2 Cor. iv. St. Paul tells us, that Christ is "the image of God;" and in Coloss. i. says of Him, "who is the image of the invisible God,”—might he not as justly conclude, that Christ

being only the image of God according to St. Paul, the words of St. John may be well explained, conformably, as only intimating, that He represented God? No one has ever thought of reasoning in this way; and if any person had, he would have been answered, that these words cannot be explained or interpreted by "the rock was Christ," because St. Paul is manifestly explaining an allegory, or using a figurative form of teaching, of which there is no sign in St. John. He would be told that he has no right to interpret the one by the other, merely because in both, the sentence consists of two nouns with a verb between them; for that is a parallelism of words and not of things. He must first show that St. John, in this instance, was teaching in parables, as St. Matthew, Daniel, and the others whom I have quoted. Until he does this, he has no right to interpret the phrase, "the Word was God," as parallel with "the rock was Christ." Just, therefore, in the same way, you have no grounds, no reason, to put the words, "This is my Body," which still less resemble, "the rock was Christ," thar the text of St John, into the same class with it, and interpret it as parallel.

I conclude, that we must have some better argument than the simple assertion, that our Saviour spoke the words of institution figuratively, because, in some passages of Scripture, the verb 'to be,' means 'to represent.' It is manifest, that not one of these passages can be said to be a key to them, and that the words of institution cannot be figuratively interpreted by them, unless you show more than a resemblance in phraseology:—until you prove that the same thing was done in one place as in the others; otherwise whatever is denied to us, is thereby conceded to the impugners of Christ's di vinity.

Thus far we are authorized in concluding, that the attempt fails to produce passages demonstrative of the Protestant interpretation; for these are the only passages that have been quoted as parallel to the words of institution. I have shown you that they are not parallel, and consequently that they are

of no value. They are not adequate to explaining ours; and some other passages must be brought by our opponents, to justify them in interpreting, "this is my Body," by "this represents my Body."

I shall probably be obliged to delay until Sunday next the second portion of the argument—that is the examination of the difficulties in the Catholic interpretation, which are supposed to drive us to the figurative sense; because, before leaving this explanation of words, this examination of phraseology, I must meet one or two objections, which may lead me into some details. I should have kept myself within the bounds of general observations, had it not been for a particular circumstance, which makes it my duty to intrude a little more personally on your notice, than I should otherwise have been inclined to do.

The first difficulty which I have to meet has been repeated again and again, and owes its origin or revival to Dr. Adam Clarke, in his work already referred to, on the Eucharist. This gentleman enjoyed, I believe, a considerable reputation for his acquaintance with oriental languages, at least with that dialect which our Saviour and the apostles spoke. From this language he raised an objection against the Catholic interpretation, which was copied by Mr. Horne, in the very passage I have already referred to, and which has been recopied again and again by almost every writer on this subject. Instead of quoting his words from the book itself, I prefer doing it from a letter, sent to me a few days ago, after this course of instruction had commenced. And this is the circumstance on account of which I think myself justified in coming more personally before you, than otherwise I should have been inclined to do. The letter is as follows:

"REV. SIR,

London, March 4th.

"I beg most respectfully to invite your attention to the following remarks on the Eucharist by a late

divine, well skilled in the oriental and other languages, (Dr. A. Clarke) and which I think tend very much to weaken that which Roman Catholics advance in defence of transubstantiation.

"In the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Chaldeo-Syriac languages there is no term which expresses to mean, signify, or denote, though both the Greek and Latin abound with them; hence the Hebrews use a figure, and say, it is, for it signifies. The seven kine ARE seven years.' 'The ten horns ARE ten kings.' They drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ?' This Hebrew idiom is followed, though the work is written in Greek: 'The seven stars ARE the seven churches,' besides many other similar instances.

"That our Lord neither spoke in Greek nor Latin on this occasion needs no proof. It was most probably in what was formerly called the Chaldaic, now the Syriac, that he conversed with his disciples. In Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, the words in the Syriac version are honau pagree,' This is my Body,'henau demee,' this is my Blood, of which forms of speech the Greek is a verbal translation; nor would any man, at th present day, speaking in the same language, use, among the people to whom it was vernacular, other terms than the above, to express, this represents my Body-this represents my Blood.'-Discourse on the Holy Eucharist, by A. Clarke, D.D. London, 1808."

Here are three distinct assertions; First, that in the Hebrew or Chaldeo-Syriac, there is no word for "to represent;" Secondly, that with the people who spoke the same language as our Saviour did in instituting the Eucharist, it was familiar or common to say, "This is," when they meant to say, "this represents;" Thirdly, that if He meant to express, “this represents my Body," he could do it in no other way than by saying, "this is my Body." Supposing all this true, it would not be proved that our Saviour did institute a sign or symbol. For though he would have used these expressions in establishing it, yet the same phrase would be as applicable, or rather,

would be necessary, for the literal declaration of the thing itself. The words would be, at most, equivocal, and we should have to look elsewhere for their interpretation.

"I can

The writer of the letter concludes in these words:not but feel surprised that a doctrine should be so strongly upheld and defended by one who is a professor of Oriental languages, and who has access to the various versions of the Scriptures, and I humbly hope, Sir, that you will be led to see the error of your way."

I am thankful, exceedingly thankful, to the writer of this letter; in the first place, because he shows an interest regarding myself personally, which must be always a matter of obligation. And also in regard to the doctrines which I am endeavouring to explain, I am thankful, because it gives me reason to see that this objection is still popular,—still known; and that, on the other hand, its confutation is not by any means so public: and on this account I shall venture to enter more fully into the answer than perhaps I should have otherwise done. Now, I am challenged or called on by these words to account how, having acquired some little knowledge of the languages here referred to, I can maintain a doctrine so completely at variance, as Dr. Clarke asserts, with that language, or those scriptural versions, to which I have been accustomed. And I answer, that if any thing on earth could have attached me more to our interpretation,-if any thing could have more strongly rooted me in my belief of the Catholic doctrine, it would have been the little knowledge I have been able to acquire of these pursuits. For I will show you how, far from this assertion of Dr. Adam Clarke's having weakened my faith in the Catholic doctrine, it must, on the contrary, have necessarily confirmed it.

About eight years ago, when more actively employed in the study of these very matters, I saw this passage from Dr. Adam Clarke, as quoted by Mr Hartwell Horne. According to the principle I had adopted in conducting my enquiries, and in which I hope ever to persevere, I determined to