practical difficulties to recur to a figurative expla nation. To prove the first point, the following is the system ordinarily followed: to produce a number of passages from Scripture, and from other writers, where "to be" evidently signifies "to represent;" and from these it is concluded, that we can as well understand the verb here in the same sense. This is the method to which Dr. Paley alludes in the passage I have just quoted, and it is that used by almost every Protestant author on the subject. Mr. Faber, to whom I shall allude more distinctly just now, has reasoned precisely in the same manner. But Dr. A. Clark has accumulated this sort of passages together, in one heap,* and I suppose may be considered as approved of by modern writers of his way of thinking, as he is quoted and copied by them word for word. In fact his list is sufficiently complete, if the argument be worth any thing at all. If the passages collected already and here brought together, do not suffice to prove that the words of institution may be taken figuratively, no further discovery will prove it;-not to say that these texts are the only ground on which till now this figurative interpretation has been held by Protestants. As the passages in question are confusedly heaped together by Clarke and his copyists, I find it necessary to sift them, and reduce them to some * Ubi sup. p. 52. † Ruell, ubi sup. Horne, ubi. sup. arrangement. For the same answers do not apply exactly to all, and we shall gain in clearness by the separation of such incongruous materials. I shall be careful, however, not to omit one text. I distribute them, therefore, as follows: 1st class.-1 Gen. xli. 26, 27, "The seven good kine ARE seven years." Dan. vii. 24, "The ten horns ARE ten kingdoms." Mat. xiii. 38, 39, "The field is the world; the good seed is 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, " And the rock was Christ." Gal. iv. 24, "For these ARE the two covenants." Apoc. i. 20, "The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches." 2. Jo. x. 7, “I AM the door;” xv. 1, “I AM the true vine." 3. Gen. xvii. 10, "This is my covenant between thee and me," speaking of circumcision. 4. Exod. xii. 11, "This is the Lord's Passover." The texts composing the first class can alone cause us the slightest difficulty; I will show you that all the others are nothing at all to the purpose. I. The only way in which these texts can be brought to illustrate the words of institution, is by adducing them as parallel passages; and as such Mr. Horne has brought them. For he thus concludes his argument:-"It is evident, therefore, from the context, from parallel passages, and the scope of the passage, that the literal interpretation of Mat. xxvi. 26, 28, must be abandoned." My confutation will therefore consist in simply proving that they are not parallel. 1. The question in dispute is whether is in our case is to be taken figuratively or may be taken figuratively in the words of institution; and our adversaries bring a number of passages where it is so taken. But, on the other hand, I can bring them some thousands of passages where the verb "to be" is taken literally. If, therefore, they choose to take those passages as parallel, and reject mine, they must show some peculiarity in the words in question, which detaches them from the great mass of passages where "to be" occurs, and associates them with the few, where it bears a certain peculiar sense. attempted to do. Yet this they have never 2. To examine the matter a little more closely, let us see what it is that constitutes parallelism between two passages, and authorizes us to illustrate one from the other. I am willing to take Mr. Horne's own rule. "Whenever the mind is struck with any resemblance, in the first place consider whether it is a true resemblance, and whether the passages are sufficiently similar; that is, not only whether 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. When, therefore, words of such various meanings present themselves, all those passages where they occur are not to be immediately considered as parallel, unless they have a similar power. This rule is only a translation from Ernesti, whose words are even clearer; "proximum erit considerare, an vera similitudo sit, satisque similia sint loca, hoc est, an sit in utraque eadem res non modo verbum idem." Upon which words Ammon adds this pithy commentary: "Tenendum itaque similitudinem rei non verbi parere parallelismum."† The same is the opinion of the best writers on Hermeneutics. Jahn thus defines verbal parallelisms. "Parallela dicuntur loca, quæ a se invicem quidem distant, similia tamen sunt, quia eædem voces aut phrases in simili orationis contextu atque eodem significatu occurrunt." Not to multipl authorities, Arigler's definition is couched in equivalent terms: "Ejusmodi jam vero loca, quæ de eadem re tractant, dicuntur loca parallela."§ Such, then, is the rule given by Mr. Horne, in common with other writers, that to constitute a parallelism between two texts, so as to be warranted in illustrating one by the other, it is not sufficient that the words and phrases be alike, but that from the context, or other circumstances, a resemblance of things can be pointed out. Before, therefore, * Horne, ubi sup. p. 308. Ernesti Instit. p. 61. "Appendix Hermeneut." p. 81. the Protestant can have a right to explain the words "this is my body," by "the field is the world," it is not sufficient for him to show me that the word is occurs in both, but that the same thing or object is intended. I will illustrate the rule by a case in point. In my former lectures, I proved by the examination of many passages of the New Testament, that judging from our Saviour's conduct, the Jews must have been right when they understood his words, "the bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world," in their plain, literal sense. The passages which I brought, I cited as parallel passages. Well, I did not content myself with merely showing that there was a similarity of words, as that Christ in all the cases began his reply by "amen, amen," or that Nicodemus answered like the Jews, "how can a man be born again;' but I examined the facts of the different cases, and saw that Jesus spoke in a peculiar manner, and that the Jews, understanding his words rightly, objected, and that he invariably, when they were right, replied by repeating the obnoxious phrase. Then seeing that his conduct was the reverse, when they erroneously took his figurative expressions literally, and thereupon objected, I concluded that the former class of passages, wherein the same thing, the res eadem, occurred, were to be considered parallel, and the latter not. * See above, p. 110, |