not mean the bodily act of eating any literal flesh, but a ver;y different kind of eating, and a very different sort of flesh." This IS the opinion of Zwing'e, Melaiicthon, Calvin, Bucer, Ecolampa- dius, Pellican, Flacius, Bullinger, ('occeius, Diodati. Piscator, Mus- cuius, Baxt'jr, Lampe, Henry, Scott, Stier, Besser, Alford.
(c.) Some think that " the Spirit" here means, "the sp'rituai doctrine, or sense," as opposed to 'Hbe letter," or literal sense of scriptural language. (2 Cor. iii. 6.) They consider the sentence to mean, " It is the spiritual sense of my words, and not the lite- ral, wliich is quickening, or liie-giving to the soul. When I spoke of ' my flesh,' I did not mean my flesh literally, but my fle^h in a spiritual sense. My flesh literally could be of no use to any one." This seems to be the opinion of Chrysostom, Tiieo- phylact, Euthymius, Brentius, Beza, Ferus, Cornelius ^ Lapide, Schotrgen, Pearce, Parkhu; st, A. Clarke, Faber, Barnes, Webster. But it is not easy to make out clearly, in every instance, what is the precise meaning put on the words, " the Spirit," by the in- terpreters who take this third view. There are not a few shades of variety in their opinions.
I must acknowledge, that I find it d fficult to give a decided opinion on the comparative merits of these three views of the expression before us. Tliere is ^oraething to be said for each of the three. On the whole, I think the second and third are more satisfactory than the first ; and I incline to prefer the second to the third. But I say this with much hesitation.
Rollock, who holds strongly that " the Spirit " means Christ'a divine nature, maintains, that " the flesh," means the whole human nature of Christ. He thinks that the meaning of " the flesh profiteth nothing " is, that all the works of our Lord's bodr, whether in life or death. His fulfilling the law, His sufferings on the cross, derive their whole efficacy from the union of the two natures — " It is the divine nature that is life-giving. The human nature, alone and separate from the divine, is useless and unpro- fitable."— He holds, therefore, that to eat the human nature of Christ alone, i. e.. His flesh, could do us no good ; as, unless we could eat His divine nature also, it would be unprofitable. He concludes, therefore, that the only eating of Christ that can be useful to the soul, must, of necessity, be the spiritual eating of faith, and not any car; al eatin- of the Lord's Supper. Hutche- son agrees with this view.
The expression, " the words that I speak imto 5''0u, they are spirit and they are life," is jusc as difficult as the former part of the text. The word "spirit,'' hei'e, at any rate, caimot mean the divine nature of Christ. IC it were so taken, the sentence would be unmeaning. — The word Spirits must either mean the " Holy Spirit," or " the spiritual sense," as opposed to the letter. The