practice. Now we do not deny that it is probable that this was the practice of the early Church. Indeed, we go further than this, and contend that it was the daily practice of the Church at Jerusalem. For we read that “they continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness,” etc. (Acts ii. 46). And from other sources we gather that in the first century the remembrance of the Lord in the breaking of bread was a daily custom. Seeing then that “the Brethren” claim to be “the assembly of God,” and that they alone have the authority of Scripture for their arrangements and procedure, I should like to ask them two things. First, Why they only break bread on the Lord’s-day ? and, secondly, Why they break bread in the morning ? for, strange to say, the only mention we have of it, otherwise than in the Pentecostal Church, describes it as held in the evening, and after preaching. (See Acts xx. 11.) The language of Paul, also, to the Corinthian Church implies that the Lord’s Supper (which I may observe in passing is a Scripture expression), was held in the evening.
If, then, yielding to the solicitations of “the Brethren,” I meet with them for the sake of following Scripture more closely, I find that in this simple matter I am as far away from it as I was before.
(2.) Worship and ministry is held to be under the presidency of the Holy Ghost.—Each one gives out a hymn, reads a chapter, or teaches as he is led by the Spirit at the time. This is a cardinal point. Thus Mr. Macintosh says, “We have often been asked to adduce Scripture in proof of the idea of Divine presidency in the assembly. We at once reply, ‘There am I;’ and ‘God is the author.’ On these two pillars, even had we no more, we can triumphantly build the glorious truth of Divine presidency—a truth which
