struction the dative is used, "This is the Sabbath to the Lord," but no one interprets this in the sense of its being emblematical, or a sign to the Lord, but of being sacred to the Lord. Again, speaking of the festival itself, it is said in Exodus xxxii. 5, " The festival sacred to the Lord"-the same construction again. Finally, in the twenty-seventh verse of the very chapter in question we have, "This is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover "—that is, the sacrifice of the passover sacred to the Lord. So that from these expressions, where exactly the same construction occurs in the original, he concludes that the verb "to be," is here taken literally for TO BE. These passages are all advanced by one of the most approved and soundest modern Protestant commentators, who does not merely give us his opinion, but supports it by three parallel passages, from which it would follow that the passage in question so far from supporting the figurative meaning of the words of the Institution, ought rather to enforce the literal interpretation, and consequently, when Zuinglius learnt this passage from his monitor as a ground for rejecting the Catholic doctrine, he rejected it upon a ground such as cannot be considered by any one tenable, because it is a passage in which the words cannot have that meaning.

I remove, therefore, these passages out of the inquiry, because according to the system I have always followed, I wish the observation I make to be strictly applicable to every part of the case in point, although all the remarks I am going to make regarding the first class of passages, where "to be" means to "represent," will apply to every one of them.

It is argued, then, that the words, "This is my body; this is my blood," may be interpreted by "This represents my body; this is the figure of my blood," because in many other passages which I quoted, it is obvious that the verb "to be," means "to represent "-in other words, these passages are quoted in the form of what is well known under the name of parallel passages, which authorize us to interpret passages constructed like them, in the same manner. Now, therefore, in these passages the verb "to be," means "to represent ;" but there are some thousands of passages in Scripture in which "to be," does not mean "to represent." I ask the reason why the words of the Institution are to be detached from these thousands of passages, and interpreted by the others? I want something that will authorize me in classifying it with these in preference to the others. It is not sufficient to tell me that the verb "to be," means "to represent," in one passage, and therefore it may in this. There must be surely some reason for it. It is not a sufficient reason to tell me that it is requisite or convenient, I want some good reason why it ought to be so. Merely considering the subject in this way, we have a right to demand why these words of the

institution are to be detached from the thousand of passages where "to be" has a literal meaning; and to be joined to the few which must always be considered the exception.

What are paralled passages?

Now let us come closer to the inquiry. Are any two passages in which the same word occurs to be considered parallel? There must be something more surely, to constitute parallelism let us therefore examine this. I will take Horne's rule again for parallel passages. It is only translated from Ernesti-one of the best commentators on Biblical interpretation, and is as follows," Whenever the mind is struck with any resemblance between passages, you must in the first place consider whether it is a true resemblance, and whether the passages are sufficiently similar-that is, whether not only the same word, but also the same thing answers together, in order to form a safe judgment concerning it. It often happens, that one word has several distinct meanings, one of which obtains in one place, and one in another place. When, therefore, words of such various meaning present themselves, all those passages where they occur are not to be immediately considered as parallel unless the passages have a similar power." The rule is translated, and not very accurately, because according to the original, it should be thus, "We must first consider whether there be a true resemblance, and the passages are sufficiently like one another— that is, whether in each there is not only the same words but the same thing." His commentator, Mr. Horne, makes this remark," We must therefore hold, that similitude of things, not of words, constitute a parallelism." Another writer on the same subject observes, Parallel passages are those which being dissimilar to one another, are yet like one another, in which the same words and phrases occur in the same context of speech, and in the same signification." Another says, "Those places which treat of the same thing are called parallel.”

66

Now, therefore, we have this rule laid down, that passages are not parallel, in other words, we are not authorized to interpret one passage by another unless the same word occurs in them, unless the same thing is found. We have to ascertain, therefore, whether the same thing is there, and not merely the same word. I will give you an example from the cases which I proposed to you at our last meeting, regarding the Eucharist. I quoted to you instances from our Saviour's discourses to illustrate his form of answering. I did not content myself with saying, There the same words are used, "Amen, amen, I say to you, if you do not this," then so and so. I showed you that the same circumstances occurred; that objections were made; that figurative expressions had been used, though the figurative expression might be right in one case and wrong in another. But it was not by our Saviour's words, but by showing that the same thing existed in two passages, that I established parallelism. Now, therefore, I ask what is the thing that is found in all these

passages? and let us see if the same thing is to be found in the words of the Institution. I come, therefore, to an example from the passages themselves. Supposing I wished to illustrate these passages together, Genesis xli. 26, 27, "The seven kine are seven years," and Matthew, xiii. 38, "The field is the world ;" and by both of these I wished to illustrate another, Galatians iv. 24, " For these are the two covenants -I have here three passages. Can I illustrate them one by another? Most certainly they are parallel passages. Why so? Because in every one of these the same thing exists; that is to say, in every one of these passages collected together there is the interpretation of an allegorical teaching-of a vision in one case, of a parable in another, and of an allegory in the third. I do not illustrate these one by the other, or put them into the same class, because they all contain the verb "to be," but simply because they all contain the same thing, they speak of something typical and mystical-the interpretation of a dream, an allegory, and a parable. Therefore, if I have ascertained that in one of these the verb "to be," means "to represent," having the same word under the same circumstances, I conclude that it means "to represent in the others. But when you tell me that "this is my body," may be interpreted by these passages, I ask, Why so? because in those passages where the verb "to be," means "to represent," there is only the same word. Before you can consider them as parallel because the same word occurs, you must first prove that there is the same thing-that is, that the words of the Institution explain an allegory, a vision, or a prophecy, and then I will allow that they are parallel, and may be interpreted one by another.

But let us look a little more closely into every one of those passages which I have quoted, which form the bulk Dr. Adam Clarke's and Mr. Horne's list, and which I have put into this class. "The seven kine are seven years"-Joseph is interpreting the dream of Pharaoh: "the ten horns are ten kingdoms "-Daniel is receiving the interpretation of his dream: "The field is the world, the good seed are the children of the kingdom "—our Saviour is interpreting a parable: "The rock was Christ "-St. Paul is interpreting the symbols of the old law, and he tells us that he is doing so: "These are the two covenants"-St. Paul is interpreting again an allegory which he established between Agar and Sarah: "The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches"—St. John explaining a prophecy. Every one of these passages is parallel with the other, because they mention the same thing. Now, therefore, before you take the words, "This is my body; this is my blood,” and say they are parallel to these, you must show me that they enter into the same class, that they contain not only the same verb "to be," which, as I said before, occurs in a thousand passages, but you must show me that the verb "to be" is used under the same circumstances, that is, in explanation of symbolical dreams, allegories, or any

other mystical method of teaching you please. Until you have done this, you have no right to consider the words as parallel, or interpret this passage by them.

Before, however, finishing this consideration, allow me to observe, that in every one of the instances I have quoted, not only is it manifest that there is an explanation of a parable or an allegory which has been laid down, but the writers themselves tell us that they are going so to interpret. For example, St. Paul in the case from Genesis, in the case of Daniel, in the case of our Saviour's parable, the speaker says, "This is the explanation of the dream ;" "This is a vision which I saw ;" "This is the meaning of the parable;" so that the speaker says expressly that he is going to interpret. St. Paul in his passage to the Galatians is equally careful: he says, "Which things are an allegory, for these are the two covenants." Our Saviour does not say, "This is an allegory," when he says, "This is my body:" he does not give us a key to the interpretation of the words. Again, St. Paul, in addressing the Corinthians, says, "Now these things were done to them in a figure," after he had said that the rock was Christ, so that he is speaking of a figure. In the Apocalypse, it is said in like manner to John," Write down the things which thou hast seen, the mystery "—which, in the language familiar to St. John, signifies also a symbol—" of the seven stars, which thou sawest on my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks." So that he tells him to write down the mystery, or symbols, he is teaching, and then he says, "The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches." So that in every case, the speaker or writer is most careful to let us know that he is going to apply the interpretation of a figurative teaching. I require, consequently, that before you can oblige me to interpret the words of our Saviour by the other passages, that you show me according to the rule adopted by all, that there is the same thing in them as in the other passages.

In the first verse of the

But now let us come to another application. gospel of St. John, we have this remarkable expression, "And the Word was God." This has always been considered by all who believe in the divinity of Christ, an exceedingly strong text, and all the force of the passage lies in the little word "was "-"The Word was God." It is so strong, that in different ways attempts have been made to modify the text. It has been proposed to separate it into two or to read, “The Word was of God." But what is the use of this alteration if the verb "was," means "to represent." If in a thousand other instances it means "to represent," why not make the substitution here? Compare these three passages together, and tell me which is most like one another; "The Word was God;" "The rock was Christ;" "This is my body." If in the second the rock represented Christ, why may not the word "was" in the first mean "represent" God? Supposing any one were to reason thus, and to urge it still further by that passage of

"to

St. Paul in 2 Corinthians iv, where he tells us that, "Christ," or the Word, “was the image of God;" or where the apostle tells us in Colos-sians i. that "Christ is the image of the invisible God." Might he not argue that according to St. Paul, Christ was a figure, a representation of God; and, therefore, why not say here, that "The Word was God," means just the same as "The rock was Christ "-that it means represent?" Now no one ever thought of reasoning in this way, and if he had he would have been answered, you cannot explain "The Word was God" by the expression, "The rock was Christ," because in that passage of St. Paul it is manifest that he is explaining an allegory, it is plain that he is interpreting a figurative form of teaching of which there is no proof in St. John. He would be told that he must not interpret the one passage by the other, just because in each case there were two nouns with the verb "to be" between them. It is not sufficient to establish a parallelism of words; you must establish a parallelism of things. You must first prove that St. John in this instance was teaching in parables; you must show that like Paul or Daniel, or the other writers whom I have quoted, he was interpreting a vision or an allegory. Until you have done that you have no right to explain the phrase, “ The Word was God," as parallel with "The rock was Christ." Just, therefore, the same with regard to the words, “This is my body,” which bear a less resemblance to "The rock was Christ," than does the expression, “The Word was God;" and you have no more reason to join the words of the Institution with the text of St. Paul, to put them into the same class, and claim to interpret them by it, than you have to put the passage of St. John into that class, and interpret the one by the other.

I conclude, therefore, that we must have something more than the simple assertion, that our Saviour used these words figuratively, because in other parts of Scripture the verb "to be means to represent." It is manifest that not one of these passages can be used as a key to interpret the words figuratively until it is shown that there is more than a resemblance in phraseology—until it is shown that the same thing is done in the one place as in the others. Unless this is done, whatever is taken from us is essentially and necessarily conceded to those who deny the divinity of Christ.

Thus far I think I am authorized in concluding, that the attempt fails to produce passages for the purpose of demonstrating that such an interpretation can be used: for these are the only passages, as I have shown you, which have been brought as parallel to those in question. I have shown you that they are not parallel; and consequently that they are of no value in explaining our words: and other passages therefore must be found to justify, upon the mere principles of biblical interpretation, the interpreting, "This is my body," by "this represents my body."