?.,42 ?R,?NSUnT?'?T?,?TmN. [Ik)ox II. whereby we give to the sign the name of the thing si?o?ifled. We say concerning a picture of George Wuhington, This is George Washing- ton. Of. a map of the United States we say, This is Pennsylvania. Yet no person is so stupid as to believe that the l?icture is really Washington, but that it is only s representation of him; or that that part of the map called Pennsylvania is really that state, but only' a representation of' it. When, therefore, Christ took up 8 piece of bread, broke it, and said, This is my body', who can suppose he was handling and breaking his own body, any more than that the above*named pic- ture was George Washington, or that the map was truly the state of Pennsylvania ? The truth is, there is scarcely any figure more com- mon than t/as is, for t/as r/,rests, or (3.) As this is an ordinary figure in common speech, so it is pecu- liarly so in the language of Scripture. Indeed, in the Hebrew, Chal- dee, s. nd Cheldeo-Syrisc languages, there are either no words which express to raman, signify, ?t, or at least such words are of ex- ceedingly rare occurrence. Thus, "The seven kine are (i.e., s?) seven years," Gen xli, 26. "This is (represents) the b'?of a.?iction which our fathers ate in the land of l?.gypt.""The ten horns are (siify) ten kins," Dan. vii, 24. "That rock was (represented) Christ, 1 Cot. x, 4. We also find this idiom filching thro? the Greek language. Thus, "The seven stars are (represent) the angels of. the seven churches; and the seven candlesticks are (represent) the seven churches," Rev. i, ?20. "I am the vine, y.e are the branches," John xv, �ur Lord did not say, Hoc eat cotires m?um, as he did not ?sp?in the Latin tongue, though so much stress has been !aid upon quotation from the Vulgat? version, as if the origins2 htul been in Latin. Now as our Lord spoke in the Cheldaie or Chaldaio-Syrinc, he spoke according to the idiom of that language. And any' nmn apesking in that language would say, This is my body, This is blood, when he intended to convey the meaning that the bread ?m? wine represented the body and blood of Christ. Mr. Milner, however, informs us, that where Christ calls himself the v/n?, and his followers branches, the figurative meaning is obvious. This, bbwever? is fallacious; for supposing the roetaxing to have been literel, their senses, according to the Roman Catholic way of reason- ing, would no more have disproved thdm to be real branches, thin it would imve disproved Christ to be & real vine. When we rely that the senses testify that the bread remains bread, therefore the words of institution are figurative, they will not allow the argument, but discard the evidence of sense. Hence they emmet consistently adduce it to prove that our Lord did not mean that the s4mstles were vine branches. 'I'herefore the objection is rendered nugatory, and the pm'allelism stands t?od. (4.) is to be observed that the words of institution were, TA/? is re e?ct, v?srvov, drY. The words, therefore, TA/,? is my body, TA/? i: my b/ood, are not all the words embraced in the institution; for he spoke these words only once, as he instituted the eucharist only once. There- fore the expressions used by St. Luke and St. Paul, nunely, T/? is yo, embrace no more thru, wire our Lord hid the tu-st I 16 �
�
