Proposition 7

The breaking of the one loaf, and the joint participation of the cup of the Lord, in commemoration of the Lord's death, usually called "the Lord's Supper," is an established part of the worship and edification of all Christian congregations in all their regular meetings.

Argument 1. The first Christian congregation which met in Jerusalem, and which was established by the twelve Apostles, regularly attended the breaking of the loaf in their public meetings, just as they did any other part of Christian worship. So Luke records, Acts 2:42. 'They continued steadfast in the Apostles' teaching, in the fellowship, in the breaking of the loaf, and in the prayers.' Should we not, then, continue as steadfast in the breaking of the loaf as in the teaching of the Apostles, as in the fellowship, as in the prayers commanded by the Apostles?

Argument 2. The Apostles taught the churches to do everything the Lord commanded. Whatever the churches did by the appointment or agreement of the Apostles, they did by the command of Jesus Christ. Whatever acts of religious worship the Apostles taught and approved in one Christian congregation, they taught and approved in all Christian congregations, because all were under the same government of one and the same King. But the church in Troas met on the first day of the week, so all the churches met on the first day of the week for religious purposes.

Among the acts of worship, or the Lord’s institutions, to which the disciples attended in these meetings, the breaking of the loaf was so prominent and important that the churches are said to meet on the first day of the week for this purpose. We are explicitly told that the disciples at Troas met for this purpose; and what one church did by the authority of the Lord, as a part of his established worship, they all did. That the disciples in Troas met for this purpose is not to be inferred; for Luke says clearly, Acts 20:7, 'And on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together for the breaking of the loaf, Paul, being about to leave the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.' From the way this meeting of the disciples at Troas is mentioned by the historian, two things are very clear — 1st. That it was an established custom or rule for the disciples to meet on the first day of the week. 2nd. That the primary purpose of their meeting was to break the loaf. Those who object to breaking the loaf on the first day of every week when the disciples are gathered usually begin their objections by telling us that Luke does not say they broke the loaf every first day; and yet they argue against the Sabbatarians, saying they should observe every first day to the Lord in commemoration of his resurrection. The Sabbatarians raise the same objection to this passage, when cited by all Christians to authorize the weekly observance of the first day. They say that Luke does not tell us that they met for any religious purpose on every first day. How inconsistent, then, are those who use this sentence as a clear precedent for observing every first day when arguing against the Sabbatarians, and then turn around and say it does not prove that they broke the loaf every first day! If it does not prove one, it obviously will not prove the other; for the weekly observance of this day, as a day of the disciples’ meeting, and the weekly breaking of the loaf in those meetings, stand or fall together. Hear it again: 'And on the first day of the week, when the disciples assembled to break the loaf.' Now all must agree, who understand the meaning of words, that the meeting of the disciples and the breaking of the loaf, as far as these words are concerned, are expressed in the same terms regarding frequency. If one happened fifty-two times a year, or only once, so did the other. If they met every first day, they broke the loaf every first day; and if they did not break the loaf every first day, they did not meet every first day. But we argue from Luke’s style, or from his manner of

The definite article is, in Greek and in English, prefixed to stated fixed times, and its appearance here is not merely definitive of one day, but expressive of a stated or fixed day. This is true in all languages that have a definite article. Let us illustrate this with a very parallel and clear example. Suppose some 500 or 1000 years from now the annual observance of the 4th of July had ceased for several centuries, and that some person or persons devoted to the original institutions of this great Republic wanted to see the 4th of every July observed as the founders and fathers of the Republic did during the healthy and uncorrupted days of early republican simplicity. Suppose that none of the records from the first century of this Republic had explicitly stated that it was a regular and fixed custom for a certain group of citizens to pay particular attention to the 4th day of every July; but that a few incidental expressions in the biography of the leading men in the Republic spoke of it as Luke has done of the meeting at Troas. How would it be handled? For example, in the life of John Quincy Adams it is written, A.D. 1823, "And on the 4th of July, when the republicans of the city of Washington met to dine, John Q. Adams delivered an oration to them." Would not an American, a thousand years from now, in circumstances such as these, find in these words one piece of evidence that it was an established practice during the first century of this Republic to regard the 4th of July as described? He would tell his opponents to notice that it was not said that on a fourth of July, as if it were a particular occurrence; but it was, in the fixed meaning of the English language, expressive of a fixed and stated day of special observance. At any rate, he could not fail to convince even the most stubborn that the primary purpose of that meeting was to dine. Whatever the frequency or intention of that dinner might have been, it must be admitted, from the words

above cited, that they met to dine.

Another fact that must somewhat confuse the Sabbatarians and the irregular observers of the breaking of the loaf can be easily gathered from Luke's narrative. Paul and his company arrived at Troas either on the evening of the first day, or early Monday morning; for he left Monday morning, as we call it, at an early hour; and we are clearly told that he stayed exactly seven days at Troas. Now, had the disciples been Sabbatarians, or observed the seventh day as a Sabbath, and broke the loaf on it as the Sabbatarians do, they would not have delayed their meeting until the first day, keeping Paul and his company waiting, as he was clearly in a great hurry at this time. But his staying seven days, and his early departure on Monday morning, supports the evidence given that the first day of the week was the fixed and regular day for the disciples to meet for this purpose.14

From Acts 2, then, we learn that the breaking of the loaf was a regular part of the disciples’ worship in their meetings; and from Acts 20, we learn that the first day of the week was the regular time for those meetings; and above all, we should notice that the most prominent purpose of their meeting was to break the loaf. Other supporting evidence of the regular meeting of the disciples on the first day for religious purposes is found in the fact that Paul says he had given instructions to all the congregations in Galatia, as well as that in Corinth, to attend to the fellowship, or the collection of contributions for the poor saints on the first day of every week. 'On the first day of every week let each of you set something aside in store, as he may prosper, putting it into the treasury, so that when I come there will be no collections'15

for the saints. Kata mian Sabbaton Macknight rightly translates, 'the first day of every week;' for every linguist will admit that kata polin means every city; kata menan, every month; kata ecclesian, every church; and therefore, in the same usage, kata mian Sabbaton means the first day of every week.

Now this prepares the way for asserting not only that the disciples in Troas assembled on the first day of every week for 'the breaking of the loaf,' but also for presenting a third argument: —

Argument 3. The congregation in Corinth met every first day, or the first day of every week, to proclaim the Lord's death. Let the reader keep in mind that he has just heard that Paul commanded the church in Corinth, or every believer in Corinth, to contribute according to his ability by putting into the treasury every first day his contributions to avoid collections when Paul came. This is agreed by all to prove the weekly meeting of the believers. Now, with this concession in mind, we only need to notice what is said, chapter 11:20. 'When you come together in one place, that is, every week at least, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.' To act this way is unworthy of the purpose of your meeting. To act this way is not to eat the Lord's supper. It is not to proclaim the Lord's death. This declares that this is the main purpose of meeting. When a teacher reproves his students for wasting time, he cannot remind them more strongly of the purpose of coming to school, nor reprove them more pointedly, than to say, 'When you act this way, this is not to assemble to learn.' This is exactly what the Apostle means when he says, 'When you assemble this way, it is not to eat the Lord's supper.' We have seen, then, that the believers met every first day in Corinth; and when they gathered in one place it was to eat the Lord's supper, a statement of the practice of the early congregations as explicit as could be given incidentally, differing only from a direct command in the way it is expressed. But it is agreed by all that whatever the congregations did with the approval of the Apostles, they did by their authority. For the Apostles gave them all the Christian institutions. Now as the Apostle Paul approved their meeting every week, and their gathering in one place to proclaim the Lord's death — and only criticized their misunderstanding of the meaning of the institution — it is as strong an authority as we could require for the practice of the weekly meeting of the disciples. But when Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:20 and chap. 16: 1 & 2 are compared and combined, it appears that we act under the influence of apostolic teaching and precedent when we meet every Lord's Day for the breaking of the bread. But this is further demonstrated by a fourth argument drawn from the following fact: —

Argument 4. No example can be given from the New Testament of any Christian congregation assembling on the first day of the week, except for the breaking of the bread. Let an example be given by those who teach that Christians should meet on the first day of the week not to break the bread, and then, but not until then, can they challenge the above fact. Until this is done, a denial of it must seem completely futile. The argument, then, is, Christians have no authority, nor are under any obligation to meet on the Lord's Day, from anything the Apostles said or practiced, unless it is to show forth the Lord's death, and to attend to those means of edification and comfort connected with it.

Argument 5. If it is not the duty and privilege of every Christian congregation to assemble on the first day of every week to show forth the Lord's death, it will be difficult, if not impossible, from either Scripture or reason, to show that it is their duty or privilege to meet monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, annually, or indeed, at all, for this purpose. For from what premises can anyone show that it is a duty or privilege to assemble monthly, which will not also prove that it is obligatory to meet weekly? We challenge investigation here and affirm that no one can produce a single reason why it should or could be a duty or a privilege for a congregation to meet monthly, quarterly, or annually, which will not prove that it is its duty and privilege to assemble every first day for this purpose.

Argument 6. Spiritual health, as well as physical health, depends on food. It is necessary for physical health that the food not only be wholesome in its nature and sufficient in quantity, but that it be received at proper intervals, and these regular and fixed. Is it otherwise with moral health? Is there no analogy between the bread that perishes and the bread of life? Is there no analogy between natural and moral life — between natural and moral health? And, if there is, does it not follow that if the early disciples only enjoyed good moral health when they assembled weekly to show forth the Lord's death, then those who meet only quarterly or semi-annually for this purpose cannot enjoy good moral health?

Argument 7. But finally, what commemorative institution, in any age, under any religious system, was ordained by divine authority without a fixed time for its observance? Was it the commemoration of the completion of creation signified in the weekly Sabbath? Was it the Passover, the Pentecost, the Feast of Tabernacles? Was it the Feast of Purim either? What other significant practice was there whose times or occasions of observance were not fixed? How often was circumcision to be administered to the same person? How often Christian baptism? Is there a single institution commemorating anything, the meaning or frequency of whose observance is not clearly, either by command or example, laid down in the Holy Scriptures? Not one of a social character, and hardly one of an individual character. The commemoration of the Lord's death must, then, be a weekly institution — an institution in all the meetings of the disciples for Christian worship; or it must be an anomaly — a thing sui generis — an institution like no other of divine origin. And can anyone explain why Christians should celebrate the Lord's resurrection fifty-two times a year, and his death only once, twice, or twelve times? Whoever can do this will not lack a lively imagination, though they may be deficient in judgment or in familiarity with the New Testament.