Proposition 5

The one loaf must be broken before the saints feast upon it, which has obtained for this institution the name of "breaking the loaf."

But some, doubtless, will ask, 'Is it not called *the Lord's Supper?' Some have thought, amongst whom is Dr. Bell, that 1 Cor. 11:20. applies to the feasts of love or charity, rather than the showing forth the Lord's death. These may read the passage thus: — 'But your coming together into one place is not to eat a Lord's supper; for in eating it every one takes first his own supper; alluding, as they suppose, to a love feast eaten before the breaking the loaf.' But this Lord's supper is contradistinguished from their own supper. And might it not as reasonably be said, you cannot call your showing forth the Lord's death a Lord's supper; for before eating it you have eaten a supper of your own, which prevents you from making a supper of it? You do not make it a Lord's supper, if you first eat your supper. Nor, indeed, could the Corinthians call any eating a "Lord's supper," conducted as was the eating of their own suppers; for one ate and drank to excess, while another who was poor, or had no supper to bring, was hungry and put to shame. Could this be called a supper in honor of the Lord!

But as the Lord had eaten a religious supper, had partaken of the paschal lamb with his disciples, before he instituted the breaking of the loaf, and drinking of the cup, as commemorative of his death, it seems improper to call it a supper; for it was instituted and eaten after a supper. Not in the sense of one of the meals of the day, can it be called either dinner or supper; for it supplies the place of no meal. Deipnos, here rendered supper, in the days of Homer, represented breakfast.12 It also signified food in general or a feast.

In the times of Demosthenes, it signified a feast or an evening meal. But it is of more importance to observe, that it is in the New Testament used figuratively as well as literally. Hence, we have the gospel blessings compared to a supper. We read of the 'marriage supper of the Lamb,' and 'the supper of the Great God.' Jesus says, 'If any man open to me, I will (deipneso) take supper with him and he with me.' When thus used it neither regards the time of day, nor the quantity eaten. If applied, then, to this institution it is figuratively, as it is elsewhere called "the feast." For not only did the Lord appoint it, but in eating it we have communion with the Lord. The same idiom with the addition of the article occurs in Rev. 1:10. 'he kuriake hemera,' the Lord's day. Upon the whole it appears more probable that the Apostle uses the words kuriakos deipnos, or Lord's supper, as applicable to the breaking of the loaf for which they gave thanks in honor of the Lord, than to their own supper or the feasts of love, usual among the brethren. If we say in accordance with the Apostle's style, the Lord's day, the Lord's table, the Lord's cup, we may also say the Lord's supper. For in the Lord's house these are all sacred to him.

As the calling of Bible things by Bible names is an important item in the present reformation, we may here take the occasion to remark, that both "the Sacrament" and "the Eucharist" are of human origin. The former was a name adopted by the Latin church; because the observance was supposed to be an oath or vow to the Lord; and, as the term sacramentum signified an oath taken by a Roman soldier, to be true to his general and his country, the presumed to call this institution a sacrament or oath to the Lord. By the Greek church it is called the Eucharist, which word imports the giving of thanks, because before participating, thanks were presented for the loaf and the cup. It is also called the communion, or "the communion of the saints;" but this might indicate that it is exclusively the communion of saints; and, therefore, it is more consistent to denominate it literally 'the breaking of the loaf.' But this is the only preliminary to the illustration and proof of our fifth proposition.

We have said that the loaf must be broken before the saints partake of it. Jesus took a loaf from the paschal table and broke it before he gave it to his disciples. They received a broken loaf, emblematic of his body once whole, but by his own consent broken for his disciples. In eating it we then remember that the Lord's body was by his own consent broken or wounded for us. Therefore, he that gives thanks for the loaf should break it, not as the representative of the Lord, but after his example; and after the disciples have partaken of this loaf, handing it to one another, or while they are partaking of it, the disciple who brake it partakes with them of the broken loaf — thus they all have communion with the Lord and with one another in eating the broken loaf. And thus they as priests feast upon his sacrifice. For the priests ate of the sacrifices and were thus partakers of the altar. The proof of all that is found in the institution given in Matt. 26:1-75 : Mark 14:1-72 : Luke 22:1-71 : and 1 Cor. 11:1-34 : In each of which his breaking of the loaf, after giving thanks, and before his disciples partook of it, is distinctly stated.

It is not, therefore, strange, that the literal designation of this institution should be, what Luke has given it in his Acts of Apostles thirty years after its institution. The first time he notices it is Acts 2:42. when he calls it emphatically te klasei tou artou, the breaking of the loaf, a name at the time of his writing, A. D. 64, universally understood. For, says he, in recording the piety and devotion of the first converts, 'they continued steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the fellowship, in the breaking of the loaf, in the prayers — praising God.' It is true, there is more than breaking a loaf in this institution. But, in accordance with general, if not universal usage, either that which is first or most prominent in laws, institutions, and usages, gives a name to them. Thus we have our Habeas Corpus, our Fieri Facias, our Nisi Prius, our Capias, our Venditioni Exponas, names given from the first words of the law.

But to break a loaf, or to break bread, was a phrase common amongst the Jews to denote ordinary eating for refreshment. For example, Acts 2:46. 'Daily, with one accord, they continued in the temple and in breaking bread from house to house. They ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart.' Also, after Paul had restored Eutychus at Troas, we are informed he brake a loaf and ate. Here it must refer to himself, not only because it is used indefinitely, but because he that eats is the same number with him that breaks a loaf. But when an established usage is referred to, the article or some definite term ascertains what is alluded to. Thus, Acts 2:42. it is 'the breaking of the loaf.' And Acts 20:7. it is 'They assembled for the breaking of the loaf.' This loaf is explained by Paul, 1 Cor. 10:16. 'The loaf which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ.' This proposition being now, as we judge, sufficiently evident, we shall proceed to state our sixth.