Dear Mr. Editor:-Your note in reference to the time of the Breaking of Bread at the Lord's Supper, in a recent number of Help and Food, was welcomed by many who were being perplexed by the teaching of some that the bread should be broken at the very beginning. The sponsor for this idea seems to be F. E. Raven, who in a "Heading on Fellowship and the Lord's Supper," says:"I think the supper is introductory in the assembly; the supper rallies the saints, and they come together in assembly to eat the supper:it is what is immediately before us in coming together, but as introductory to the assembly." When R. S. S. asks, "Does not the most blessed part of the meeting come properly after the breaking of bread?" F. E. R. makes the astounding reply, "The supper is introductory to the assembly; and that is the reason for finishing all that is formal at first. Passing round the bread and the cup and the box are so far formal; you cannot help this, but it is a great thing to be free of it, so that you may be prepared for the assembly in its proper character" (!)

On the above statement William Kelly remarks:"Surely no reverent believer will bear lightly such a profaning of that which is the very heart of true worship, as is the solemn calling of Christ to our remembrance. Can it be that the great thing which ordinarily follows is the speaking of one or more? And the same pair add yet more clearly to the same effect of irreverence and presumption."

When R. S. S. asks,"Is the first part of the meeting what you do, and the last part what the Lord does?" the answer of F. E. R. is, "Yes, it is the cup we bless and the bread we break. The Lord never does that again. And then the presence of the Lord is realized; He has His place, and we are conscious of Him as Head. If the supper is over, it is over. If you get hymns and thanksgiving after that, it is worship in connection with Christ as the Minister of the sanctuary. He leads the praises." Answering this, Mr. Kelly again says, "Can words disclose more clearly men who have broken loose from God's word? This never hints at such splitting in two the gathering for the breaking of bread. Least of all, does it sanction any such slight put on the saints in sharing the bread and the wine for remembrance of Christ. There is no part, time, or act, so profoundly near or deep in the meeting; and the contrast of what goes before with what follows is a myth. The Lord does not come into the midst at the Supper, nor does His word justify such words as 'you cannot help' the formality of 'passing round the bread and the cup and the box,' and 'a great thing to be free of it;' or again, 'When the Supper is over' it is 'worship in connection with Christ as the minister of the sanctuary.' It is letter work and theorizing, with little reality and not a little contempt for the Lord's Supper."

In another place of the same book, the same error is seen. The remembrance of our Lord in His death is lowered to a means:"The supper leads on to the assembly," says F. E. R., to which Mr. Kelly answers, "Where is such an idea in Scripture? In this page the error grows bolder still, where F. E. R. says, 'You cannot call Him to mind as dead, but as the One who is living, who did die.' This is to destroy the force of the Lord's repeated words, Do this for remembrance of Me; which is simply and exclusively recalling Him to mind in His death-His body given, His blood shed. It is in no way looking up to Him as alive again for evermore and glorified. This is a present joy, not at all His remembrance. His headship or our risen state are not what should then occupy the heart. I remember one put out by some of these brethren for this error:now it passes as precious truth!"

This was the chief reason for again "revising" the Hymns for the Little Flock-to make it more in conformity with these speculations concerning the Supper. It is taught that we do not call to remembrance Christ dying for us, but only the burnt-offering aspect of His death is properly before us then:hence all hymns speaking of His having given Himself for me, for His Church, are considered out of place.

This is the source from whence comes this notion about the breaking of bread at the very outset of the meeting. If it were only some brother's whim or fancy it might be passed by without notice; but since it is part of a system, and that system subversive of much truth, it becomes us to make known its origin and refuse it as unscriptural and profane. C. Knapp