permitted to commune. But we digress.

We return to the question: Is the view just noticed in harmony
with and based on the Word? Let us see. If there is nothing on the
altar but bread and wine, why does Christ say, "This is _My body ...
My blood_?" Why not say, This is bread, this is wine? If Christ wanted
us to understand that the bread and wine merely represent or are
emblems of His body and blood, why did He not say so? Did He not know
how to use language? Did He use dark or misleading words in His last
Will and Testament? Why does Paul, in speaking of worthy and unworthy
communing, speak of the body of Christ as present, as a matter of
course? Was he inspired to misunderstand Christ and lead plain readers
astray? If there is nothing more in the sacrament than to remember
Christ, why--as already noticed--did not the writers of the first two
Gospels put in the words, "_Do this in remembrance of Me_?" Or why did
not Christ plainly say, "Take, eat this bread, which represents My
body, in remembrance of Me?" Clearly, the doctrine in question is not
based on the words of Scripture. It cannot be supported by Scripture.
Neither do its defenders attempt to support it by the passages that
clearly speak of this sacrament. If they try to bring in any Scripture
proof, they quote passages that have nothing to do with the subject.
They draw their proofs and supports principally from reason and
philosophy.

Surely a doctrine that changes the words of the institution,
wrests and twists them out of their natural sense, and does violence
to all sound rules of interpretation that must bolster itself up by
the very same methods of interpretation that are used to disprove the
divinity of Christ, the resurrection of the body, and the eternity of
future punishment, is not the doctrine of Christ.