body of Christ thereby given us?] " that is, "the reception of the bread and wine makes us partakers of the body and blood of Christ." According to the explanation of Paul, therefore, the sense of the words of the institution, is this: "This wine is that by which the sign of the new covenant which is made by my blood, is communicated; or, this wine is that by which my blood is given you," and "this bread is that which communicates to you my body." There is this difference between the Lord's Supper and all other feasts, that in the former there is not only visible food, but also nourishment of a peculiar nature, namely the body of the Lord, as we are taught in ch. 11:29.

IX. Subject continued. We shall now proceed to show by examples from the New Testament, that the figure of speech which, on the authority of Paul we have assumed in the words of the institution, is an authorized one; namely, "This wine is my blood," instead of " this wine gives you my blood "--"This bread is my body," instead of " this bread gives you my body." A trope perfectly similar is found in 1 Pet. 3:21, συνειδησεως αγαθης επερωτημα (baptism is) the witness of a good conscience &c. "baptism gives [procures for us confidence to address ourselves to God." Comp. $ 43. Ill. 4. The second example which we adduce, is Rom. 7:13, το ουν αγαθον εμοι γεγονε θανατος; did that which is good become death unto me? "was therefore the law which is good (v. 10, 12), productive of misfortune to me?" or " did it produce misfortune to me?" The third is 1 Cor. 11 : 29, κριμα ἑαυτῳ εσθίει και πινει he eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, " he eateth and drinketh that which will produce punishment unto him." The fourth is John 11:25, and Col. 3: 4, ειμι ή αναστασις και ἡ ζωη I am the resurrection and the life, "I give (am the author of) the resurrection and the life." The fifth, Rom. 10:4, Χριστος τελος νομου εστι Christ is the end of the law, "Christ makes an end to

the law;" that is, he has put a lawful end to the applicability of the law (by which perfect obedience was indispensable to happiness) to the human family.1

X. 1 Cor. 11: 23, εν τη νυκτι ἡ παρέδιδοτο in the night in which he was betrayed. Luke 22:15-18.

XI. The body and blood, spoken of by our Lord, were those which were shortly to be broken and shed. This is evident from the expressions εκχυνομενον, διδομενον (κλωμενον). 1 Cor. 11:24. compare παρων 2 Cor. 13: 2.2

Paulus, in his Commentary on the New Testament, has advanced the hypothesis, that the words "given for you," Luke 22: 19, and "broken for you," 1 Cor. 11: 24, were not spoken by Jesus, but were a part of the ritual of christians, and signify "This, fellow-communicants, which is now broken for yougiven for your use." This conjecture is refuted in the Allgem. Litter. Zeitung for 1802, p. 410 &c. As Jesus did, according to all three of the Evangelists, say, when mentioning his blood: "which was shed for many;" is it not probable that he also uttered those words mentioned by Luke concerning the bread, though Matthew and Mark have not mentioned them? They indeed seem to be essentially necessary to the design of Jesus, which was, to call their attention to the circumstance that he was about to give his body and blood a sacrifice for the welfare of mankind."

XII. The expression "flesh [body] and blood of Christ," σαρξ [το σωμα] και το αίμα Χριστου, is used in this passage, as in John 6: 53-56, by synecdoche, to express Christ himself; for those expressions are interchanged with εγω "Ι," in v. 57, 35, 41, 48, 51. They signify that Christ is a real man, and laid down his life for men.1 v. 62, 53, 42, 51. In other instances also, the entire man Christ is expressed by the phrases "Flesh," or "body," "blood," "flesh and blood" [σαρξ, σωμα, αίμα, σαρξ και αἱμα3], John 1: 14, he, the Word or Logos, became flesh, i. e. became man. Moreover, the body of Jesus is not severed from the rest of himself; and therefore he cannot be given us in a separated state. But the man Jesus himself who died for us, is present at the celebration of the Holy Supper, in that manner in which he now exists, that is, in a glorified state. Hence Paul uses the phrases "body" and "body and blood" of Christ as synonymous, in 1 Cor. 11:27, 29; for both, by synecdoche, signify the man Jesus himself, who is the Lord (15:47). And the object of his being thus designated by his body and blood, is to remind us, that it is the same Jesus who once died for us, though now he is Lord over all, and of whom it may therefore with truth be said, that he gave his body a sacrifice, and shed his blood.5

XIII. Christ is not to be regarded as a mere man, from whom nothing could be expected which transcends the powers of human nature. John 6:42. We must remember that the person who makes these promises, is in the most perfect union with the divine nature, which existed long before the time of the incarnation (v. 62), and is therefore possessed of advantages and

1 See the work on the Design of the Gospel of John, p. 193 &c.

2 Gataker de novi instr. stylo, c. X. p. 103-105, and Schleusner's Lex. art. σωμα no. 5.

3 See Kypke on Matth. 27: 4. Tom. I. obss. SS. p. 135, and Schleusner's Lex. voc. αἱμα no. 6. Tom. I. p. 59.

4 Libr. Symbol. p. 158, "Loquimur de praesentia vivi Christi." Seiler's Theol. Dogm. polem. p. 644, 639.

5" Flesh and blood" signify a mortal body. Heb. 2:14. 1 Cor. 15: 50. 53, 42. This signification of the words σαρξ και αίμα, is admitted in Eichhorn's Biblioth. Vol. 6, p. 759-772; in which Dissertation, however, the words of the institution themselves are explained in a very different way.

!

perfections of such a nature as cannot be measured by the contracted standard of human power.1 This is especially the case in the present state of Jesus, in which he has the full enjoyment of his divine greatness and power. That divine Logos, or Word, who is omnipresent, who became man (John 1:14), and whose human nature puts him into a peculiar union with us (Eph. 5: 29-32), is present at the eucharist, and exerts his influence in an incomprehensible manner. But although it is impossible for the finite mind of man to comprehend the mode of the omnipresence of God, in general, and consequently also the mode of his presence in the eucharist; we nevertheless believe the doctrine on the authority of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (John 6: 68). I do indeed willingly admit, that the 6th chapter of John does not treat of the Lord's supper; but we may at least learn from that chapter, that, in consequence of his peculiar union with the Deity, Jesus is the food of the soul to those who put their trust in him (see v. 35. 48-51. 53-56. 58); that is, that in consequence of a peculiar union (v. 56), he becomes ours, becomes as it were our meat and drink, and promotes our spiritual life and welfare, and that by virtue of this union with Christ, we may expect that our bodies will after death enter on a new and blessed existence. He who puts his trust in Christ, derives nourishment from him, but this nourishment does not consist merely in faith, or reliance on him, as Calvin himself declared. Just as in the case of bodily eating, the nourishment derived from the food does not result merely from the act of eating, but also depends on the presence and quality of the substance eaten; thus also the nourishment re

4

ceived in the Holy supper by the worthy communicant, does not depend merely on the act of believing, but also on the presence and influence of Christ, with whom we become united through the instrumentality of faith, and who thereby becomes ours (v. 56). Faith is merely the instrument by which this union of the believer with Christ is effected, Eph. 3: 17, that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith. Nor does this spiritual food consist merely in the recollection of that favour which Christ has long since shown us by his death. For, although the glorified state of Jesus could have had no beneficial influence on us, and could not have tended to nourish our souls, i. e. to promote our spiritual welfare, if he who had come from heaven, and who, after he had assumed human nature, returned to heaven as man (v. 62), had not previously laid down his life; still his death is not the only blessing which he intended to bestow on us. But the exalted1 Redeemer, desires to bestow on us a new and permanent blessing by taking us into an intimate union with himself, and by being present with us3 (Eph. 5:32) in an incomprehensible manner, and thus exerting a beneficial influence on us, and by this union, qualifying us for the benefits of his death. Had the idea which Jesus intended to convey in John 6, been merely this, that those are blessed (ζωην εχειν ν. 53, 58) who accept the blessings which he purchased by his death and make a proper improvement of them; he might have taught them this without giving such decided offence, as it