to understand that His flesh and blood were to be the means of life and deliverance from the wrath to come to smners. To a Jewish ear therefore there would be nothing so entirely new and strange in the sentence as at first S'gbt may appear to us. The thing that would startle them no doubt would be our Lord's assertion that eating His flesh and drinking His blood could be the means of hfe to their souls, as the flesh and blood of the pass- over lamb had been to their fathers the salvation of their bodies.
But what did our Lord mean when He spoke of " eating his flesh and drinking his blood," as things indispensably necessary to life ? This is a point on which wide differences of opinion prevail, have prevailed in every age of the Church, and probably will prevail as long as the world stands.
(a.) Some think that our Lord meant a literal " eating and drinking " with the mouth of our bodies, and that the " flesh and blood " mean the bread and wine in the sacrament of the Lord's supper. This is the opinion of almost all the Fathers, though occasional passages may be pointed out in the w^ritings of some, which seem irreconcileable with it. It is the opinion of most Roman Catholic waiters, but certainly not of all. It is the opinion of some modern English divines, such as Wordsworth and Burgon.
(&.) Some think that the ''eating and drinking" here mean the eating and drinking of heart and soul by faith, not of the body, — and that the "flesh and blood" mean Christ's vicarious sacrifice of His body on the cross. They deny entirely that there is any reference whatever to the Lord's supper in the words. They consider that our Lord meant to teach the absolute neces- sity of feeding by faith on His atonement for sin on the cross. Except a man's soul lays hold by faith on Christ's sacrifice of His body and blood as the only hope of his Salvation, he has no title to or part in eternal hfe. This is the opinion of Luther, Melancthon, Zvvingle, Calvin, Ecolampadius, Brentius, Gualter, Bulhnger, Pellican, Beza, Musculus, Flacius, Calovius, Cocceius, Gomarus, Nifanius, Poole, Cartwright, Hammond, Rollock, Hutcheson, Lightfoot, Henry, Burkitt, Whitby, Leigh, Pearce, Lampe, Gifl, Tittraan, A. Clarke, Barnes, and most modern divines.
Among Romanist writers, this opinion is held by Cardinal Cajetan, Ferus, and Jansenius of Ghent. Even Toletus, one of the ablest Romanist commentators on John, admits that the opinions of writers are not unanimous.
(c.) Some Ihink that our Lord did not mean any literal eating and drir.king, and that He did not refer directly to the Lord's supper when He spake of His flesh and blood. But they do
JOHN, CHAP. VI. Bd^
think that our Lord had the sacrament in view and prcispect, when He spoke these words, and that He did tacitly refer to that pecuhar communion with His flesh and blood, which He after- wards appointed the Lord's supper to be the means of imparting to beheving communicants. Tins is the opinion, apparently, of Trapp, Doddridge, Olshausen, Tholuck, Slier, Bengel, Besser, Scott, Alford, and some others.
I decidedly agree with those who hold the second of these opinions. I beheve that our Lord, botli in this text and all through this chapter, did not, either directly or indirectly, refer to the Lord's supper, — that by His flesh and blood He did not mean the bread and wine, — that by eating and drinking He did not mean any bodily act. I believe, that by "flesh and blood" He meant the sacrifice of His own body for us, when He offered it up as our Substitute on Calvary. I believe that by " eating and drinking," He meant that communion and participation of the benefits of His sacrifice which faith, and faith only, conveys to the soul. I believe His meaning to be,— " Except ye believe on me as the one sacrifice for sin, and by faith receive into your hearts the redemption purchased by my blood, ye have no spiritual life, and will not be saved." The atonement of Christ, His vicarious death and sacrifice, and faith in it, — these things are the key to the whole passage. I beheve this must be kept steadily in view.
It is easy to call the opinion to which I adhere ZwingKan, and low, and irreverent. Hard words are not arguments. It is easier to make such assertions than to prove them. I have already shown that many writers, wholly unconnected with Zwingle or Zwinglianism, maintain the opinion. But I submit that the following reasons are weighty and unanswerable : —
(1.) To say that our Lord meant the Lord's supper in this text is a most cruel and uncharitable opinion. It cuts off from eternal life all who do not receive the communion. At this rate all who die in infancy and childhood, — all who die of full age without conring to the communion, — the whole body of the Quakers in modern times, — the penitent thief on the cross, all — all are lost for ever in hell 1 Our Lord's words are stringent and exclusive. Such an opinion is too monstrous to be true. In fact, it was to avoid this pamful conclusion that many early Christians, in Cyprian's time, held the doctrine of infant communion.
Ferus, the Roman Catholic commentator, who considers the eating and drinking here to be only spiritual, and not to refer to the sacrament, sees this objection clearly and puts it strongh^
(2.) To ?ay that our Lord meant the Lord's supper in this text, opens a wide door to formalism and superstition. Thou- sands would wish nothing better than to hear, — " He that eateth