the hero. To be understood in this sense, I must say, “that is a fit emblem or type of Achilles."

5. In like manner, had our divine Saviour said, pointing to a vine, "that is I," or, "that is my body," the expressions would have borne some resemblance; but when he says that he is the vine, the usages of language, founded on necessity, make us recur to the idea of resemblance between the two objects; especially when a long context elaborately enumerates the point of resemblance.

Nor can it be said that the conclusion is the same, if we interpret the Eucharistic words in the same manner, by "this resembles my body and blood;" because a declaration of similarity does not constitute a type or commemorative symbol. This is a matter of positive institution, nor would Protestants presume to ground their ordinance of the Lord's Supper on nothing more than similarity. This would be as bad as Wetstein's resolution of this point, when he says, "We can easily understand how red wine could signify blood; but it is not easy to understand what resemblance exists between the human body and bread. It might be answered that a bloodless corpse, as that of one dead on a cross, is as dry as bread; and then that the body of Christ, mystically considered as the flesh of sacrifice, nourishes the mind as bread does the body!"*

Let us pass on to the third class.

* In loc. Nov. Test. p. 519.

III. The passage which I have placed in it, "this is my covenant between me and thee," is no more applicable to the present case.

1. Circumcision, of which this text speaks, was indeed a sign of God's covenant with his people, but then God was careful to let his people know this. He is not content with telling them that it is his covenant, and leaving them to conjecture or argue that this meant a sign of his covenant, for in the very verse following, he adds, "and ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a sign or token of the covenant between me and you." But are these two verses identical in meaning, and is the second only an explanation of the first; so that is really corresponds to "represent?" Certainly not.

2. Because, secondly, circumcision was, at all events, not merely the symbol or emblem, but actually the instrument whereby the covenant between God and his people was at once executed and recorded. It was, according to the established law of every language and country, the treaty itself. If I present any one with a writing or book, and say to him, "This is the treaty of Amiens, or Tolentino, or Westphalia," every one must understand me to mean the instrument or act of treaty. But if the book contained nothing more than a symbolical drawing of a treaty, for instance, two hands joined together, I should have been completely misunderstood; for no one could have

conjectured this to be my meaning. In the former sense, was circumcision not a bare and empty symbol, but an effective representative, that which formed the covenant, and recorded upon each individual his personal comprehension under its provisions, and his accession to it as a holder of its promises. Therefore, "this is my covenant between me and thee," signifies much more than "this is the sign of my covenant," to wit, this is "the act of my covenant;" taking the word "act" in both its meanings, of its execution and its record. This interpretation is fully borne out by what follows, v. "He who is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised, and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.”

13.

3dly. Satisfactory, however, as these answers are, and perfectly in harmony with each other, I am led by a more minute examination of Scripture phraseology, to adopt a third, which does not however, in any way disturb the correctness of all I have asserted. I have no hesitation in saying that the verb is must here be taken quite literally, and the pronoun this referred not to circumcision or its idea, but to the latter member of the sentence. "This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and thee....every male child among you shall be circumcised." As, if one said, "this is our agreement, you shall pay me a hundred pounds." I presume no one would hesitate to refer the pro

noun to the condition proposed. The idea of is meaning to represent, would never have entered into any one's head in either proposition, except in a controversial argument. I have said that I noways doubt this to be the true meaning.

First, because I see that as in the following verse, so in every other place, a sign of a covenant is clearly styled such, and no encouragement is given elsewhere by Scripture to this Protestant interpretation. Thus in Gen. ix. 12, 13, 17, the rainbow is not called a covenant, but thrice distinctly named the sign or token of the covenant.

Secondly, whenever the words "this is my covenant" occur in Scripture, they refer to the second member of the sentence, in which the covenant is described. Thus Is. lix. 21, "This is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; my spirit which is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth," &c.; Jer. xxxi. 33, "And this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their interior," &c.; 1 Sam. xi. 2, according to the original, "In this will I make a covenant with you, in boring out your right eyes." This is further confirmed by the analogous and parallel forms: "this is what the Lord hath commanded;"* "this is what the Lord hath said;"+ "this shall be

* Exod. xvi. 16.

† Ib. 23.

an everlasting statute to you;"*"this shall be a statute for ever unto them."+

In all these, and in similar phrases, reference is clearly made to what is proposed in the other member of the sentence. Now, in fact, no one has ever dreamt of interpreting these passages by, "this is a figure of my covenant," or "a figure of my statute," and consequently in the objected passage there is no reason whatever to render it similarly. On the contrary, it is evident by the real parallelism of these quotations, where not only the same words are used but the same things expressed, that it ought and must be explained in these terms: "the following is my covenant between thee and me, that every male child among you shall be circumcised."

IV. We come finally to the passage occupying the fourth class, which possesses an interest quite independent of its real value. "This is the Lord's passover." This text, you are doubtless aware, was considered by Zwinglius the ægis of his figurative interpretation, and the discovery of it was esteemed by him a complete triumph. For he himself tells us, that he made little or no impression upon his hearers with other texts, because in them all, it was evident, as I have shown you at full, that parables or allegories are treated. The history of his discovery you shall have in his own words.

*Levit. xvi. 34.

Ib. xvii. 7, where the proposition precedes.