reasonably be understood to denote bread in general or anything else except the actual pieces of bread which our Lord gave as He spoke. The word ' is ' is the logical copula between the subject ' this ' and the predicate ' my body. ' In the Aramaic sentence which our Lord spoke, the jire- dication was probably expressed simply by the juxtaposition of the subject and the predicate without any copula. Either the Greek copula, as used in the record which we possess, or the juxtaposition in the Aramaic sentence which it probably represents, denotes that the subject (' this,' i.e. the bread which our Lord gave to His disciples) and the predicate ('my body ') are viewed as identical. The interpretation of the sentence then dejjends on the sense in which the word ' body ' is to be understood. It must be remem- bered that (a) the idea of communion with God by means of a sacred meal was familiar, as in many religious rites outside Judaism, so also in the literature and the religion which Avere well known to the disciples, as shown in the Levitical peace-offerings with the threefold division into the portion for God, the portion for the priest, and the portion for the worshipper (Lv 3 ']^^-'^*) ; the bread and wine brought forth by Melchizedek, the ' priest of God Most High ' (Gn W^) ; the eating of tiie lamb in the Passover (Ex 12) ; the meal of Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders in the presence of God (Ex 24^'") ; the pro- phecy by Isaiah of the feast to be made by the Lord of hosts (Is 25^) ; and the invitations to a meal evidently of profound spiritual significance given by the personified ' Wisdom ' of the Sajiien- tial books (Pr 9^-^, Sir 24^^-'^^). (/3) This idea had been emphasized in our Lord's ministry in the Feeding of the Five thousand and the subsequent discourse, and the disciples had been taught that in eating His flesh and drinking His blood they would have participation in Divine life (Jn 6^^"*''). (7) There is nothing to indicate that the word ' body ' is used in any unreal or metaphorical sense, and the added words, ' which is for you,' alluding to the sacrihcial efficacy of our Lord's body, appear to identify that which is spoken of with His actual body. (5) The close connexion of the words ' The Spirit is the life-giver ; the flesh protiteth nothing ' (6''^) with the teaching about eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking His blood, suggests that in the rite which our Lord was instituting there woiild be the operation of the Holy Ghost and a work of spiritual efficacy, (e) However accomplished at the Institution, as in the parallel instances of anticipation in the walking of our Lord on the water and His Transfiguration during the days of His humiliation, the gift contemplated in the rite instituted must be viewed in the light of the spiritual nature and powers of the risen body of Christ, (f) The assertion of this spiritual aspect of the body denoted is confirmed when the language in which St. Paul describes Christians as ' the body of Christ ' (1 Co 12-') is compared ; but this comparison Avould be pushed beyond its proper force if it were held to imply that the meaning in the two passages is the same, since in St. Paul's teaching the gift in Baptism, which makes men 'the body of Christ' (12i3), is not identified with the gift in the Holy Communion. The exegesis of this part of our Lord's words at the Institution, then, as recorded by St. Paul, indicates that the gift in the Eucharist is the spiritual food of the risen and ascended body of our Lord. The same method of exegesis involves a similar interpreta- tion of the words ' in my blood,' though, in view of the spiritual nature of the risen body, it is impossible to make a sharp severance between the body and the blood.
That this line of exegesis, which is that which
is naturally deduced from the study of the Holy Scripture by itself, is right is sti'ongly confirmed by the traditional interpretation in the Church from St. Ignatius onwards.
Other interpretations are ( 1 ) that the words ' this is my body ' mean, ' This conveys the efficacy of my body but is not my body ' ; (2) that they mean, ' This represents my body but is not my body.' Both of these interpretations are vitally distin- guished from that which has here been adopted, namely, ' This not only represents my body and conveys its efficacy, but also is my body.' To adopt either of them involves putting aside the cumulative argument which has already been briefly detailed ; the main argument by which they have been supported is the supposed merely metaphorical character of certain phrases, alleged to be parallel, in which our Lord described Himself as ' the bread of life ' ( Jn Q^"- ^^- •*«), ' the living bread' (6^^^, ' the liglit of the world' {8^- 9^), 'the door of the sheep' (10'-^), 'the good shejiherd' (10"- 1^), 'the way' (W), 'the true vine' (15'- s). In regard to these phrases it must be observed that (1) neither the phrases themselves nor the circum- stances in which they were used were really parallel to the words and circumstances at the Institution ; and (2) the phrases in question are as a matter of fact very far from being simply metaphorical. In each of them an actual fact about Christ is set forth. Christ in spiritual reality feeds Chris- tians, and gives them light, and admits them into the Church, and tends them, and attbrds them access to the Father, and unites them in Himself. Similarly, in spiritual reality the bread which He gives in the Holy Communion is His body.