distant evidence of this. It was a mere family meal, and ended before it was well began."

The next passage which we may notice, is recorded, Acis, ii. 42, 46. As there are few persons who put a sacramental construction on this passage, as little need be said on this, as on the passage before mentioned. We find that meat is here mentioned, as well as bread. "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers, (verse 42,) and all that believed were together and had all things common, (verse 44.) And they continued daily in the temple, and breaking bread, from house to house, did eat their MEAT with gladness and singleness of heart," verse 46. The 46th verse is but a repetition of that which is mentioned in verse 42, the explanation laying between, in this, that they had all things common; therefore, their bread and meat was daily, and from house to house, as well as in the temple. The breaking of bread here referred to, is that which accompanied the use of meat, in a common daily meal. The passage shows us, that as every man's heart was open; so was his house, and all was common to all.

The breaking of bread is next mentioned, Acts, xx. 7. "Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them, ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his

Ff

speech until midnight." "Here," (says Barclay,*) "is no mention made of any sacramental eating; but only that Paul took occasion from their being together, to preach unto them. And it seems it was a supper they intended, (not a morning bit of bread, and sup of wine,) else it is not very probable, that Paul would from the morning have preached until midnight. But the 11th verse puts the matter out of dispute, which is this: "When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread and eaten and talked a long while, even until break of day, so he departed." This shows that the breaking of bread was deferred till that time; for these words [and when he had broken bread, and eaten,] do show, that it had a relation to the breaking of bread before mentioned; and that this was the time he did it. Secondly, those words joined together, [and when he had broken bread, and eaten, and talked,] show that it was no religious act of worship, but only an eating for bodily refreshment, for which the Corinthians used to meet."

We have before had an occasion to notice the agape, or feast of charity, or love feasts, which were in use among the early christians. It is most probable to me that this breaking of bread took place at one of these friendly meetings, for it does not appear that there was any thing like a sacrament known among the apostles. The word, sacrament See Apol. p. 489.

and eucharist are not scriptural words, but as the notion of the sacrament was planned after the days of the apostles, and matured about the times of JUSTIN MARTYR and IRENIUS they are unscriptural words, given to a new and unscriptural doctrine.

The simple and innocent use of love feasts, are still in use among christians in the eastern countries. Perhaps the abuse of these feasts gave rise to Paul's reproof, and instruction-I Cor. 11th chapter,from the 17th verse to the end-which place I shall proceed to notice, it being one of the principal passages in scripture considered in the support of

the sacrament.

Such as contend for the use of the sacrament from this scripture, generally feel themselves established on that part of the chapter which follows the 17th verse; but they would enforce the idea of the command from the 1st and 2d at the chapter's commencement; where the apostle says, "Be ye followers of me even as I also am of Christ."

That the apostle here intended that his brethren should follow him in certain ceremonies, is sufficiently obviated in that the saine apostle says "Let no man judge you in meats or in drinks. Saith he, "Touch not, eat not, handle not," that is, of such carnal things as perish with the using. "If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments [elements of the world, why, as though living in

the world, are ye subject to ordinances No one can say but what bread and wine are meats and drinks in the proper sense of our subject many contend that they are ordinances, but, none can say that they do not perish with the using, so that it could not be that the apostle would have the Corinthians follow him in carnal ordinances. But that the apostle did condescend to the weakness of the Corinthians in some things, there is no doubt, from what follows in the second verse. "Now I praise ye, brethren, that you remember me in ali things, and keep the ordinances, [traditions] as I delivered them to you."

Though the first and second verses of the chapter are urged in the support of the sacrament, they are but wrongfully understood, and misapplied, since they only enforce (if they enforce any thing) but Jewish and Gentile superstitions; such as women's praying with their heads covered, and that men should not wear long hair; things which the apostle says, if any man seem to be contentious about," we have no such customs" (as obligatory in religion) "neither the churches of God."

"Keep the ordinances," &c.-verse 2d.. The marginal note in the English Bible very properly reads (for ordinances) traditions. And this exhortation of the apostle should be understood in the potential mood, that is, I praise you, brethren, if you would keep

the traditions as I delivered them to you.It were better that the Corinthians had been ́established in the order of the law, than that they should so far depart from the law and rules of decency too, as they had done.

Saith the apostle, (chap. iii. 1, &c.) " I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto Spiritual but as unto carnal even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat, for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able, for ye are yet carnal, for whereas there is among you envying, and strife and division, are'ye not carnal and walk as men ?"

The Corinthians were in a miserable condition, as a body they had not the religion of Christ. Such was their foolish ambition in matters of religion that they were ignorant of the Spirit, dull in their understanding, content with a form, like thousands in this our day, but not content without spoiling it too. They had debased themselves with crimes unheard of among the Gentiles at large. They had some of them fallen into drunkenness, pride and wickedness, a disgrace to the cause which they professed, and a stumbling block and a shame to the weaker brethren which were among them. The design of the apostle in this first epistle, was to treat them with as much severity as their conduct deserved, and to be as Spiritual as their understanding would admit, that he might cause repentance among them (see Cor,