"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" (Matt 26:26). It was during the eating of the Passover, an annual feast kept by the Jews for centuries since it was instituted in Egypt (Exodus 12), that Christ who is "our passover" (1 Cor 5:7) chose to introduce His Supper. Then, too, it was in the very shadow of the cross that Jesus gave the observance which would thenceforth commemorate his death. Could Jesus have more opportunely and effectively timed the deliverance of this new ordinance?

(1) Unleavened Bread - We must necessarily infer that the bread he took was unleavened bread because during the Passover week the Jews "for seven days" were commanded to put away "all leaven out of their houses" (Exodus 12:15) and to eat unleavened bread. Those who disobeyed were to be cut off from Israel (Exodus 12:19). Since Christ was observing the Passover, a part of the old law, he would not flagrantly violate that law by having leavened bread present. It is interesting to learn that leaven is a type of sin (Matt 16:11; 1 Cor 5:6-8). That the Church of Christ should use unleavened bread today in the communion is almost universally conceded by its members and is bound upon the church as law. Yet, it is an inference. But when we insist that the church should observe other things, with reference to the communion, which were given by example and command, both of which are stronger than inference, we are dubbed by some as "heretics" and accused of "binding where God has not bound." Brethren, is that the part of candor and consistency?

(2) Of What Does It Consist? Unleavened bread consists of bread made without yeast or leavening agents. Numerous times I have been asked for a specific recipe for making it. Some make it with salt and others without it. Some use a little oil arid others do not. After much Biblical research I have failed to find an exact recipe given by God for the making of the Pass-over bread. The important and essential thing is that it was to be unleavened. I think that Leviticus 2 will show to all fair minded students that the bread can be made with or without either salt or oil and still be unleavened. The Lord said, "No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the r1ord, shall be made with leaven" (Lev 2:11). "And every obligation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt" (Lev 2:13). "And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering taken in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil" (Lev 2:4). So, it was still unleavened with salt and oil in it. Of course Lev. 2 delivers no instructions concerning the Passover bread but it does prove that salt and oil are ingredients which may go into the making of unleavened bread. It certainly is not a matter over which brethren should have division. If some object to either salt or oil, or both, then my advice is to make the bread with flour and water. However, for his edification it would be good to request the critic to read Lev. 2.

That each assembly for the communion should have one loaf, since Christ had but one body, has been the general belief and understanding of disciples from the apostolic age until now. Research into the writings of the first several centuries and of the restoration bear out this statement. On page 205 of the Christian System Alexander Campbell said On the Lord's table there is of necessity but one loaf." In the booklet, "Around The Lord's Table," collated by A. B. Lipscomb in 1917 in more modern times, this was the position taken by E. A. Elan on Page 10 and 12 and by T. B. Larrimore on Page 21. There have been few dissenters. Among our brethren, regardless of their position on the breaking of the bread after thanks, there was practically universal agreement that there should be one loaf on the Lord's table.

But since there has been so much controversy on the cups question and the cups brethren were so hard pressed in trying to defend a plurality of cups in one assembly while holding to one loaf for one assembly, some have taken another step into the wilderness of error and surrendered another truth to try to bolster the cups contention. The reason is obvious, The same process of reasoning which proves one loaf for each assembly proves one cup for each assembly. So, instead of giving up the cups contention and coming to the truth, they have embraced another error. If each communicant can have an individual cup, why cannot he also have an individual loaf? Echo answers, "Why not?"

In one discussion my respondent insisted that because the King James Version said, "bread," we could have 200 loaves if we desired them, and challenged me to produce a translation by more than one man that rendered it "loaf." The American Standard Version, translated by 101 of the world's finest Greek scholars, gives the marginal translation of "a loaf" in several places (Matt 26:26; 1 Cor, 10:17; etc.). The marginal rendition is an optional translation, Christ took bread, not in the form of many loaves, but in the form of "a loaf." To those who are unbiased enough to consider a deeper study I would like to give you this to think about. The word "bread" (Matt 26:26; Mk 14:23; Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 10:16-17; 1 Cor 11:24) is translated from the Greek, "artos," which is singular in number. If more than one loaf of bread is to be meant the plural form, "artous," is used. "He gave the loaves (artous) to his disciples" (Matt 14:19). "How many loaves (artous) have ye?" (Matt 14:34). "They did eat of the loaves (artous)" (Mk 6:44).

(To be continued)