Let us take another example from the same source. I contended that "the spirit which quickeneth" could not signify the spiritual or figurative meaning of Christ's words; but simply the agency of grace and the Holy Ghost in man, or man spiritualized by their influence. I did not prove this by simply showing you that “the spirit” sometimes means this; but I demonstrated by many examples, and by the concurrent acknowledgment of scholars, that whenever the flesh and the spirit are contrasted together, which they are in the text in question, they have an invariable meaning, the one which I gave them. This union of the two in contrast forms the fact, the thing, which authorises the admission of a parallelism; and in addition I pointed out to you, in the passage from the Epistle to the Romans, the very same thing said of the spirit and the flesh, as occurs in the text then under discussion; namely, the living or quickening power of the one, and the deadly unprofitableness of the other.

These, then, were instances of true parallelisms, founded on similarity or identity of things, and not of words. Now, then, let us apply Mr. Horne's rule, so illustrated, to the texts under our consideration. The rule is that the same thing must be found in the texts, for us to be justified in considering them parallel. In fact, this is the case with regard to all the texts of the first class; they are strictly parallel one with another.

To place this point beyond controversy, let us take an instance. If I desire to illustrate the phrase (Gen. xli. 26) "the seven good kine are seven years," by Matt. xiii. 38, "the field is the world," or both these by Gal. iv. 24, "For these are the two covenants," I am fully justified in doing so, and in considering the passages as perfectly parallel: because the context in all three demonstrates to me that the same thing exists in all; namely, the explanation of a symbolical instruction, in one instance a vision, in another a parable, in the third an allegory. But then it follows, likewise, that in order to thrust the words. "this is my body" into the same category, and treat them as parallel, we must show them also to contain the same thing (which every single instance in the first class of texts does show)-the explanation of a symbolical instruction. Till this be done, there is no parallelism established.

3. This argument receives still greater strength, from observing that in no one of the instances heaped together by our opponents, are we left to conjecture that an explanation of symbols is meant to be conveyed, but the context in each expressly informs us of the circumstance. This is evident of the examples from Joseph, Daniel, and our Saviour, for they are clearly said to be giving or receiving interpretations. St. Paul to the Galatians is equally careful to let us see the same; for this is his entire sentence: 66 Which things are an allegory; FOR

these are the two covenants." After the expression, "the rock was Christ," he is careful to add, (v. 6) "now these things were done in figure of us;" and in the very sentence he tells us that it was a spiritual rock whereof he spoke. In fine, the instance from the Apocalypse is equally explicit: "Write down the things which thou hast seen.... the mystery (allegory or symbol) of the seven stars....and seven golden candlesticks.

The

seven stars ARE the angels of the seven churches." And with passages so explained by the very writers, it is pretended to compare the simple narrative, "Jesus took bread, and blessed and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said, Take ye and eat; this is my body!"

4. But must I urge this reply still more home to our adversaries, by retorting their own argument against themselves, in the person of a Socinian. In the very beginning of his gospel, St. John says, "The Word was God." This has always been considered, by Protestants as well as Catholics, a strong argument for the divinity of Christ. Now the entire force of the argument rests upon the little word was. So important is this syllable, that, to

* I have proved this meaning of uvozgov drawn from the signification of the corresponding Syriac word rozo, on another occasion. See "Hora Syriaca," vol. i. Rome, 1828, p. 41. Consult "Eichhorn's Comment. in Apocalyp." Gotting. 1791, tom. ii. p. 206.

evade its force, Photinus thought it necessary to separate it from the following word, and read xai Our Fr. O' Móyos oros, &c. ;* Crellius, on the contrary, wished to read e, the Word was of God.t But, how useless is all this torture inflicted upon the text, after the simple process of reasoning which Protestants have employed against us, with such satisfaction to themselves.

Mr. Faber, doubtless one of the most strenuous and most ingenious of our modern antagonists, has chosen one text out of the mass of passages commonly collected, as particularly to the purpose in proving that the Eucharistic formulas may have been used in a figurative sense. For he thus writes: "Christ does not more explicitly say of the bread and wine this is my body' and this is my blood,' than St. Paul says of the rock whereof the Israelites drank in the wilderness, and the rock was Christ."" Well now, let us take this very text and compare it with the words of institution, on one side, and with the first verse of St. John, and see which it most resembles, to which it is more parallel. I write it thus between them :

"S. Ambrose, in procm. Luc." Rom. 1579. tom. iii. p. 5. "Auctor Quæstion. in Vet. et Nov. Test." in Append. iii. tom. Opp. S. Aug. ed. Maur. p. 82.

† See Bengel, "Apparatus criticus." Tubing. 1763, p. 214. Christ. Ben. Michaelis, "Tractatio critica de variis lectt. N. T. caute colligendis." Hala, 1749, p. 18. Wetstein. ad. Jo. i. 1.

+ "Difficulties of Romanism." Lond. 1826, p. 58.

"The word was God,"

"The rock was Christ,"

"This is my body."

Now tell me which have we most right to consider parallel. The construction of the two first is, word for word, identical; certainly much more so than that of the two last; and if parallelism have to depend only upon similarity of phrase, and if Protestants have a right to interpret the words "this is my body" by the help of "the rock was Christ," then I say the Socinian has an equal right to interpret the phrase "the Word was God," by the very same parallelism, and explain it by "the Word represented God." Nay, I will say he has a far greater right, not only because the parallelism is more complete, but because he could bring other passages of Scripture to support it, where it is expressly said that the Word, or Christ, was the image or representative of God; "Christ who is the image of God," "who is the image of the invisible God;"+ whereas Protestants cannot pretend to bring a single passage where it is expressly said, that bread is the image or representation of the body of Christ.

Yet has no Socinian ever thought of such a course of reasoning, and such principles of interpretation, too absurd to be used except in contest with Catholics. And if any of them had brought it forward, what answer would Protestants have † Coloss. i. 15.

* 2 Cor. iv. 4.