# Introduction I thank God that many churches felt that closing their doors or significantly limiting attendance was an inappropriate response to COVID-19, but many of the same churches felt free to alter their practices regarding another essential part of the worship of God, the Lord's Supper. I find this notion of liberty concerning, and I find certain alterations to be unwarrantable from Scripture. Breaking of bread in the sacrament generally has fallen into obsolescence in evangelical and even reformed churches, even though it is clearly closer to the biblical example and historic reformed practice. When the bread is not broken in the sacrament, a vital part of the sacrament is missing, leaving the people of God with a deficient experience. I would like to explain how I have come to this conclusion based on the word of God, and I would hope and pray that these things will be considered.  # It is Commanded and Exemplified in Scripture First, there is the matter of how the scripture itself informs our practice. According to the Regulative Principle of Worship, everything done in worship must have a positive command or must be deduced by good and necessary consequence. Nothing having once been commanded must be altered or deviated from. >What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. >**Deuteronomy 12:32** In this case, it seems to me that the form of administration in breaking the bread is not something that must be deduced, but is clearly and repeatedly commanded. >And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, **and brake it**, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. >**Matthew 26:26** >And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, **and brake it**, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. >**Mark 14:22** >And he took bread, and gave thanks, **and brake it**, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. >**Luke 22:19** This form of breaking the bread is also repeated in the words of institution, which still remain spoken during the time of administration in the current practice of many reformed churches. >For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, **he brake it**, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. >**1 Corinthians 11:23-24** # It is Historically Confessional Second, there is the testimony of our confessional standards. >The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use; **and to take and break the bread**, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation. >**Westminster Confession of Faith 23.3** >Q. How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper? >A. Christ hath appointed the ministers of his word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord’s supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; **to take and break the bread**, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them. >**Westminster Larger Catechism Question and Answer 169** >The minister shall **take and break the bread**, and afterwards take the cup, and distribute both to the congregation. >**Associate Reformed Presbyterian Directory of Public Worship 8.c.6** >*other reformed churches may have similar language in their standards of order and discipline* This is important because both the **elements** and the **actions** of the administration of a sacrament are visible signs of what they signify. Our communion is not simply with Christ’s body, but with Christ’s broken body. >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? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. >**1 Corinthians 10:16-17** # It is Taught by our Fathers Third, there is the testimony of our reformed fathers who taught the reformed doctrine on this subject. In David Calderwood's *The Perth Assembly*, he rejects the changes of forms in the worship of God, and speaks heavily against declining from an established form for one that has less similarity to the examples of scripture. One such practice that he wrote against was kneeling in the Lord’s Supper. One of his arguments against kneeling was that it makes the communion of one broken bread impossible. >The third breach of the institution \[of the Lord’s Supper] made by kneeling is the taking away of that mystical rite representing Christ’s passion, to wit, the breaking of the bread. The apostle says not, the communion of one bread, but, the communion of one broken bread, hath in it a mystery of our unity. When the bread is carved in little morsels before it be presented to the table, it is not the sacramental and mystical breaking in the use of the sacrament which ought to be performed after the thanksgiving, according to Christ’s example. Augustine saith, ‘When that which is blessed on the Lord’s table, sanctified, and broken in small pieces to be distributed,’ etc. This breaking was needful both for mystery and distribution. The breaking of the bread was thought so needful in the sacrament, that it was called ‘breaking of bread.’ The Syriac interpreter translateth the breaking of bread Eucharist (Acts 2:24, 20:7). \[David] Pareus (on 1 Cor. 11) proveth at length this rite not to be indifferent, but a thing commanded. Where kneeling is practiced, we read not in their service-books of this breaking of bread after thanksgiving, whereby the passion of Christ is not set forth to the communicants as it ought to be. >**David Calderwood**, *The Perth Assembly* Calderwood is saying that the bread must be broken during the institution in order for the sacramental imagery to be fully displayed, when annexed to the preaching of the gospel. This seems to be the best interpretation of Paul in Galatians. >O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? >**Galatians 3:1** >Jesus Christ had been evidently set forth as crucified among them; that is, they had had the doctrine of the cross preached to them, and the sacrament of the Lordʾs supper administered among them, in both which Christ crucified had been set before them. >**Matthew Henry**, *Commentary on Galatians 3:1* Consider also the following testimonies. >That the very body of Christ is offered in the Lord’s Supper. For as we take the bread to be the body of Christ sacramentally by resemblance, and no otherwise, so the breaking of bread is sacramentally the sacrificing or offering of Christ upon the cross. And thus the fathers have termed the eucharist an immolation of Christ, because it is a commemoration of his sacrifice upon the cross. Augustine, Epistle 23, ‘Neither does he lie which says Christ was offered. For if sacraments had not the resemblance of things whereof they are sacraments, they should in no wise be sacraments. But from a resemblance, they often take their names.’ >**William Perkins**, *A Reformed Catholic, The Eleventh Point* >For if we duly consider what profit we have gained by the breaking of his sacred body, and the shedding of his blood, we shall clearly perceive that these properties of bread and wine, agreeably to this analogy, most appropriately represent it when they are communicated to us. >**John Calvin**, *Institutes III.17.3* >Christ commanded the element of bread to be broken, eaten, and distributed. The bread which is the communion of the body of Christ is the bread which we break (1 Cor. 10:16). >**David Dickson**, *Truth’s Victory over Error, ch. 29* >Q. What are the outward signs of this sacrament? >A. Sacramental elements and actions. >Q. What are the sacramental actions of the minister? >A. The taking, blessing, and breaking the bread, and giving it, with the wine, to the communicants. >Q. What is signified by the breaking of the bread? >A. God’s breaking and bruising Christ for our sin. >**John Brown of Haddington**, *Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism* > There is also the interaction with the elements by the minister who sprinkles the water, breaks the bread, pours the wine, and passes around the poured wine and the broken bread; and likewise by the communicant, who receives, takes, eats, and drinks them. These actions themselves also have their meaning and application... > The ceremonies associated with these signs are of express significance, and therefore are to be implemented as Christ has exemplified in the institution of it. Christ broke the bread, thereby signifying the breaking of his body, that is, his death. The apostle passes on to the congregation the ceremony of breaking; he refers to it as ‘the breaking of bread,’ and ‘the bread which we break’ (1 Cor. 10:16). The apostolic church did likewise, ‘...breaking bread’ (Acts 2:46); ‘...when the disciples came together to break bread’ (Acts 20:7). Therefore today the minister also must break the bread and give it as such to the communicants. The Papists and the Lutherans do this in an entirely different manner by giving a wafer to everyone without breaking it... > These external signs conceal spiritual matters. Christ has instituted bread as a sign and symbol of his body, and the breaking of it as a sign of the breaking of his body by suffering and death. ‘This is my body which is given for you’ (Luke 22:19); ‘...this is my body, which is broken for you’ (1 Cor. 11:24). >**Wilhelmus a Brakel**, *The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 2* >Q. How art thou admonished and assured in the Lord’s supper, that thou art a partaker of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross, and of all his benefits? >A. Thus, that Christ has commanded me, and all believers, to eat of this broken bread, and to drink of this cup, in remembrance of him; adding these promises, first, that his body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and his blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me, and the cup communicated to me: and further, that he feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, with his crucified body and shed blood, as assuredly as I receive from the hands of the minister and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, as certain signs of the body and blood of Christ. >**Heidelberg Catechism, Question and Answer 75** >This sacrament, therefore, consists in the rite and the promise annexed to it, or in the signs and the things signified. The rite, or signs are the bread which is broken and eaten, and the wine which is poured out, and drunk. The things signified are the broken body, and shed blood of Christ, which are eaten and drunk, or our union with Christ by faith, by which we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits, so that we derive from him everlasting life, as the branches draw their life from the vine... >Christ then broke the bread not merely for the purpose of distributing it, but also to signify thereby, 1. The greatness of his sufferings, and the separation of his soul from his body. 2. The communion of many with his own body, and the bond of their union, and mutual love. ‘The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ; for we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.’ (1 Cor. 10:16.) The breaking of the bread is, therefore, a necessary ceremony both on account of its signification, and for the confirmation of our faith, and is to be retained in the celebration of the Supper: 1. Because of the command of Christ, Do this. 2. Because of the authority and example of the church in the times of the Apostles, which in view of this circumstance, termed the whole transaction, the breaking of bread. 3. For our comfort, that we may know that the body of Christ was broken for us, as certainly as we see the bread broken. 4. That the doctrine of transubstantiation and consubstantiation may be rejected, and abandoned. >**Zacharius Ursinus**, *Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism* # Conclusion In conclusion, it is my opinion based on the doctrine of scripture that a change in the form of administration of the Lord’s Supper due to health concerns is not warranted or valid. If there are legitimate health concerns where celebrating the Lord’s Supper may not be wise, it would be better to leave off the administration altogether rather than obscure the sacramental nature of it by declining from the institution given by Christ. >For it is not the want \[lack], but the contempt of the sacraments which condemns. >**Zacharius Ursinus**, *Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism* #sacraments #lordssupper