After thus giving them the words of institution, Paul goes on to instruct them about worthy and unworthy communing.  In these instructions we cannot help but notice how he takes the real presence of Christ’s body and blood for granted all the way through.  Notice his language.  Verse 27:  "Whosoever shall eat of this bread and drink of this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." Verse 29:  "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body." Going back to chapter ten, verse sixteen, we find the Apostle giving the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper in a few words thus:  "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?  The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"

We have now noted all the passages that speak directly on this subject.  There are other strong passages that are often quoted in defence of the doctrine of the real presence, and which we doubtless have a right to use in corroboration of those above quoted.  We refer to John vi. 53-56:  "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you.  Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life ... for my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed.  He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him."

As it is a disputed point, however, whether this passage refers to the Lord’s Supper or not, we are willing to waive it here.  We are content to take those passages quoted above, which every one acknowledges as referring directly to our subject.  These we would have the reader carefully examine.  Note particularly the language, the words employed.  In the four accounts given of the institution, three by the Evangelists and one by Paul, we have the same clear, plain words concerning the bread and wine—­words of the last will and testament of the Son of God, our Saviour—­“This is my body.”  “This is my blood of the New Testament;” or “the New Testament in my blood.”  Note the language of Paul:  "Guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”  “Not discerning the Lord’s body." The cup is called the communion of the blood, and the bread, the communion of the body of Christ.  The word communion is made up of two Latin words, con and unio, meaning union with, or connection with.  The marginal reading in our family Bibles, as well as in the revised version, is “participation in.”  The plain English of the verse then is, the bread is a participation in, or a connection with Christ’s body, and the wine with His blood.

We are now ready to take all these passages together, to compare them one with another, and to ask, What do they teach?  What is the Bible doctrine of the Lord’s Supper?  Is it transubstantiation?  Is it consubstantiation?  Is it that the bread and wine are mere representations or memorials of the absent body and blood of Christ?  Or do these passages teach “That the body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form of bread and wine and are communicated to those that eat in the Lord’s Supper?” (Augsburg Confession, Art.  X.)