not concerned to support this particular interpretation of the passage;
it is sufficient to my purpose, to show that the words cannot possibly
relate to the nature of Christ's body one way or other.

The next passage relates to Christ's joining two of his
disciples upon the road and conversing with them without being known by
them: it grew dark, they pressed him to stay with them that night; he
went in with them, broke bread, blessed it, and gave it them, and then
they knew him; and immediately he disappeared.

The circumstance of disappearing, shall be considered under the
next head, with other objections of the like kind. At present I shall
only examine the other parts of this story, and inquire whether they
afford any ground to conclude that the body of Christ was not a real
one. Had this piece of history been related of any other person I
think such suspicion could have risen. For what is there unnatural or
uncommon in this account? Two men meet an acquaintance whom they
thought dead: They converse with him for some time, without suspecting
who he was; the very persuasion they were under that he was dead,
contributed greatly to their not knowing him; besides, he appeared in a
habit and form different from what he used when he conversed with them;
appeared to them on a journey and walked with them side by side; in
which situation no one of the company has a full view of another:
afterwards, when they were at supper together, and lights brought in,
they plainly discerned who he was. Upon this occasion, the Gentleman
asks what sort of witnesses these are? eye-witnesses? No; before supper
they were eye-witnesses, says the Gentleman, that the person whom they
saw was not Christ: and then he demands a reason for our rejecting the
evidence of their sense when they did not know Christ, and insisting on
it when they did.