This is my body, there is nothing, in the turn of phrase, to prevent its being understood figuratively; -in other words, they prove, not that-This is my body-must, but that it may, be taken figuratively. Whether the address must be taken figuratively, will depend upon other considerations.

Although I shall have occasion to examine the preceding instances somewhat more particularly, I may here point out their general bearing upon the subject to be elucidated. To begin with the first. "The seven good kine are seven years." Common sense teaches that "seven kine" cannot liter

ally be "seven years." The "kine" "kine" may be

emblems, tokens, indications, &c. of the " "years." More than that it is impossible for them to be. The same may be said of the "ten horns" and the "ten kings." On referring to Scripture, we find, as we might expect, that, by such affirmative language, the "kine" of Pharaoh's dream and the "horns" of Daniel's vision are made respectively to represent "years" and "kings." Again, "That rock was Christ." Even without the authority of Scripture, we should feel that this cannot be literally true; but Scripture informs us that the expression is figurative, and gives us the spiritual meaning. Moreover, as soon as we learn that it is our Lord, who says, "I am the door"-"I am the true vine"-we must have relinquished all claim to that power of understanding, without which the pages of Scripture will be laid before us in vain,

if we perceive not the figurative import of the phrases. With regard to the proposition, "These are the two covenants"—we know not, till we have ascertained to what the word "these" refers, whether a literal or a spiritual interpretation is required. When we find that the word "these" refers to the bond-woman and the free-woman, in the case of Abraham, we are aware that "these" cannot literally BE the two covenants; and accordingly, St Paul considers them as representing the two covenants, in the way of allegory. If we now take the affirmation, "This is my covenant between me and you," and compare it with the one just reviewed, we should, in my opinion, do very absurdly if we were to infer, from the similarity between the two, that, as the one is to be interpreted figuratively, so must the other. We must examine what the word "this" refers to; and supposing a natural incongruity, in the case, to preclude a literal explanation, we have not only that sort of warrant for adopting a figurative meaning, but that sanction which is derived from Scripture in the other instance. In the same manner must the import of the word "this," in "This is my covenant,” be ascertained, and the passage interpreted.....With these examples before us, let us now advert to the words of our Lord, when instituting the Eucharist. He took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, This is my body." We do not say that the words, "This

is my body," are to be interpreted figuratively, because similar expressions in other parts of Holy Writ are so interpreted; but we do say, that the word "this" indisputably refers to the "bread" which was broken-which bread can no more be literally our Lord's body, than the seven good kine can be seven years, or the rock can literally be Christ; and we also affirm that the numerous instances, in Scripture, of such figurative interpretation, do not only indicate that the words of institution may be understood figuratively, but seem strongly to authorize their being so understood.

For the more easy management of the passages which have now been discussed, Dr Wiseman supposes them to have been adduced solely because they are parallel passages; and having shown, by absolute quotations, from most learned and most hermeneutical writers, that the said passages are by no means parallel, according to the definitions of parallelism-he straightway concludes that they can have no weight in the scale, against the Roman Catholic interpretation of our Lord's words. no other part of the work is there a more obvious attempt to involve a plain matter in perplexity. While intent upon examining the force of the instances alleged, we are called off to determine the accuracy of the name, by which they have been collectively designated. So far as I can perceive, Hermeneutics may be described as that science in which sophistry is reduced to system; the main use

In

thereof being to afford aid in the substitution of artifice instead of thought.

And here, a few remarks may perhaps be warranted, with regard to this recurrence of the learned author to hermeneutical principles; more especially as he goes on to contrast his own exact mode of investigation (by virtue of truly parallel passages) in the case of John vi, with the irregular proceedings of the Protestants, in adducing the illustrative instances lately laid before the reader. Of the success of that mode of investigation (however parallel the passages might be) the first part of this volume has furnished the means of judging. As, however, the result was so satisfactory, why was not a similar plan adopted, with respect to the words of Institution? Without being very anxious about phrases from the Talmud and the Rabbins-from the Arabic and Syriac and Greek and Latin-we might have expected in this case some “parallel passages,” from the New Testament at least, in confirmation of his own literal interpretation of the words This is my body:—not irregular illustrations, after the manner of the Protestant texts-but real parallel passagesto be discoursed of, on sound hermeneutical principles. The absence of such proofs is the more remarkable, in consequence of the magnificent language employed (if I understand it rightly) as an indication of what might easily be done in that way. Such I take to be the purport of the following paragraph:

"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. Yet this they have never attempted to do." (p. 170.)

Notwithstanding Dr Wiseman's doubts on the matter, I cannot persuade myself that he was not pretty well aware of the peculiarities which led to the selection of the instances in question, with the design of illustrating the words of Institution. It is, at least, quite certain that he has taken some pains to avert the natural consequences of those peculiarities, with regard to his own views....I suppose him to assert, a little before-that, in proof of a literal interpretation of the words, he could bring some thousands of passages, quite as valid as those of the Protestants in favour of a figurative interpretation. Now, not being so literal an interpreter as Dr Wiseman is, I am enabled to make no small concessions. In matters of this kind therefore, where the learned author writes thousands, I am ready to understand scores; a considerable reduction truly but by no means out of the way, in the case of a person endowed with Dr Wiseman's prodigious powers of amplification. Amidst the scores, then for we have done with the thousands-of