to himself a true body and a reasonable soul; but the union here spoken of arises from owr participa- tion of Christ’s body ; that is, of his flesh and of his bones. It is not his taking our flesh and blood, but our partaking of his, after he had assumed them, that is here asserted. Besides, so far as the mere assump- tion of human nature is concerned, it is a bond of union between Christ and the whole human race; whereas the apostle is here speaking of a union with Christ peculiar to his people.
Fourth ; Romanists, Lutherans, and the elder Cal- vinists, as Calvin himself and Beza, seek a solution of this passage in the Lord’s Supper. As in that ordinance we are said to partake of the body and blood of Christ, it is assumed that the union here spoken of is that which is thereby effected. We are “one flesh” with him, because we partake of his flesh. This of course is differently understood according to the dif- ferent views entertained of that sacrament. Roman- ists, believing that by the act of consecration the whole substance of the bread is transmuted into the substance of Christ’s body, which is received by the communi- cant, of course believe that in the most literal sense of the words, we are flesh of his flesh. Lutherans, although they believe that the bread remains bread in the Eucharist after consecration, yet as they hold that the true body of Christ is locally present in, with and under the bread, and is received by the mouth, come to the same conclusion as to the nature of the union thereby effected. Partaking literally of Christ’s