the order in which he has arranged the descent of meanings; for, instead of the word coming to denote the symbol of truth from its first denoting the truth itself, the order in this case would be that the word used to denote the symbol came frequently to designate the truth symbolised, or generally any sacred truth or mystery. Be this, however, as it may, the fact remains indisputable that the word was used by the ecclesiastical writers in both these senses, and it does not matter much as regards the sense in which we are to understand it when used of baptism and the Lord's Supper, which of the two had the precedence in point of time; the important point is, that in applying this designation to these sacred rites, the early christians meant to convey the idea that these were to be regarded as the symbols of sacred truth. That such really was the light in which they were viewed, may, we think, be justly inferred, from the express words of Augustine, when he styles a sacrament, 'verbum visibile,' and describes it as a sign of truth.

From ascertaining the meaning of the word sacrament, Dr. Halley passes on to consider the objects to which this term has been applied. Here he is principally occupied in examining the doctrine of the Romanists, that there are seven sacraments, and showing that the church of England, whilst professing with other protestant communions to repudiate five out of the seven, viz., Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, virtually retains, by the judgment of her own formularies, all except the last two, 'not regarding matrimony as a sacrament, and repudiating extreme unction. This part of the lecture is full of the soundest logic and acutest discrimination.

The concluding part of the lecture is devoted to the subject of the ancient Agape: these Dr. Halley thinks were entertainments provided at the expense of the wealthier members of the church, or of some wealthy individual member, for the relief of the poor and destitute in the church; and he even goes so far as to suggest, that there was appropriated for this purpose one house at least in connection with each church. For this view of the subject we greatly desiderate sufficient evidence. That such houses were attached to the Jewish synagogues, and such entertainments provided in them, affords to us no reason for believing that the same holds true of the christian churches, for we are by no means satisfied that the synagogue was the model in all things for the church; and further we suspect that Agapæ were frequently observed when the christians were not in circumstances to have either fixed places of worship or stated houses of entertainment. Dr. Halley asks whether it is credible that a christian church should celebrate the propitious and glorious festival of the resurrection, while her poor were dis

tressed with the cravings of hunger.' We answer, certainly not; but we would remind him that to prevent this there was the apostolic ordinance of the xovavia, the fellowship, instituted in the church at Jerusalem from the very first, and for the proper management of the fund formed by which the office of deacon was instituted. Further, when Dr. Halley quotes Rom. xvi. 23, to prove that Gaius was in the habit of providing for the whole church of which he was a member, a frequent if not a regular agapè, he does not appear to have adverted to the fact that the church in question was that at Corinth, of which on many grounds it is highly improbable that one individual could be the entertainer. To us it appears much more likely that all which Paul meant by the expression ξένος μου καὶ τῆς ἐκxanoias ons was that Gaius not only hospitably entertained him, but all who, like him, were travelling for the cause of Christ. It seems quite clear that Gaius could not be the host of the whole church at Corinth in the same sense in which he was Paul's host, unless we suppose that Paul means nothing more by calling him his host than that he occasionally provided him with a meal (which according to our author is all that we must understand in the case of the church, by his being called the host of the whole church); a supposition which we think very incompatible with the Apostle's words. If, moreover, the Gaius mentioned by Paul in this place be, as Dr. Halley thinks, the same with the Gaius referred to by John in his third epistle, the commendation bestowed on the latter for his hospitality to 'travelling preachers' (as the lecturer explains évous) would seem to us to favour the interpretation we have given above of Paul's words. We are not the least moved by the appeal made to John's use of the word aydan as descriptive of that which formed the chief topic of the testimony borne by these Eévoi in favour of Gaius; for we are quite sure that, delivered from the seductive influence of having a theory to support, Dr. Halley would be the last man gravely to propose that we should translate John's words, 'who have borne witness of thy love-feast before the church.' We can hardly forgive our friend for suggesting to us the idea of the primitive preachers returning from their self-denying labours full of grateful reminiscences of Gaius's feast, attesting its abundance and savouriness before the whole church, and conveying to the mind of the venerable apostle such a sense of its excellence, as led him to make it the subject of commendation in an inspired epistle.

After all, where is the evidence that these Agape had any existence in the apostolic churches, or that they were ever connected, as Dr. Halley and many others think they were, with

the observance of the Lord's Supper? In the church at Jerusalem, it is clear, from the narrative in the second chapter of the Acts, that there was a great deal of social intercourse among the christians, and that, prevented by circumstances from meeting together in large numbers 'to break bread'-a technical phrase for observing the Lord's Supper (compare Acts ii. 42; IX. 7)-they were accustomed to do so, xar' xov, in private houses; but where is the evidence that the social meal and the sacred rite were ever united, or observed as consecutive parts of the same ceremony? That this was the case at first, and during the earlier ages of christianity, has been very generally assumed, but we are quite unable to see on what grounds. The unvarying practice of the churches of the second and third centuries was to observe the Lord's Supper by itself; and the social meal, where any such was provided, was partaken of at a different time. Justin Martyr, whilst formally describing the worship of the christians, gives no hint whatever of an Agapè as forming any part of their service.* In the African church, which of all others adhered most rigidly to primitive forms, we find that the social meal had no connexion with the eucharist, but was an entertainment sui generis; † and in the account given by Pliny of the services of the christians, we are expressly told that after they had met in the morning of the sabbath, and bound themselves by a sacrament, they were wont to separate, and afterwards to come together again to partake of food, and that of the ordinary kind, and quite harmless.' In opposition to this array of evidence in favour of the opinion that the Agape was not observed along with the Lord's Supper, we have found positively nothing that is deserving of a moment's consideration. On what ground, then, we ask again, is it affirmed so confidently and so constantly, that in the mother church at Jerusalem, and among all the earlier churches this practice prevailed?

The only passage in the New Testament where these Agapa are supposed to be named, is in the twelfth verse of the Epistle of Jude, with which Dr. Halley compares 2 Pet. ii. 13, where he proposes to read ἀγάπαις for ἀπάταις. That these two passages refer to the same class of persons, that they affirm the same things concerning them, and that consequently the reading in both should be the same, we have no doubt. But the question remains, which is to be altered? whether shall we

Apol. i., c. 65.

† Tertull. Apol., c. 39. Quibus peractis, morem sibi discedendi fuisse rursusque cocundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium.-Ep. ad Traj. Imp. Bingham translates promiscuum, 'common to all;' but we have Augustine's authority for taking it in the sense we have given.

change ἀπάταις into ἀγάπαις in Peter, or ἀγάπαις into ἀπάταις in Jude? Our author seems to think there can be no question about the matter, but with us it is a grave and serious question. He appeals to the readings of the MSS.; how, then, stands their evidence? The answer is, that it is pretty nearly alike on both sides. The reading άyánαis, in Peter, has in its favour the authority of the Vatican MS. and the Alexandrian by a correction, of the Peschito-Syriac version, the margin of the Philoxenian, the Arabic, and the Vulgate. The reading, åñáτais, in Jude, is supported by the Alexandrian MS., the Codex Regius, a MS. of the 11th century in the British Museum, and one of the 15th. The evidence thus furnished will be admitted to be nearly on a par; or if a preference be allowed, it will be in favour of that reading which is supported by two uncial MSS. over that which is supported by only one, and the correction of another; to say nothing of the doubt which attaches to all various readings adduced on the authority of the Vatican MS., from the very imperfect collations which have hitherto been made of it. So far, nothing is certain, but that the reading of the text in the one passage has affected the readings of the other; which was the original reading, remains still in doubt. Happily, however, there is one circumstance which may serve as an instantia crucis to guide us here; and that is, that the various reading in Peter is incomplete, and therefore bears on its face evidence of having been an after correction, whilst that in Jude is complete. It is obvious, that if the true reading be άyánαis, the pronoun following must be iμäv, and not avτv, and if the true reading be ἀπάταις, the pronoun following must be αὐτῶν, and not ὑμῶν, for ἐν ἁγάπαις αὐτῶν and ἐν ἀπάταις ὑμῶν are alike meaningless. In none of the MSS., however, and in none of the versions which read ȧyárais in Peter, have we vuur; all give avrov, except the Arabic of the Polyglot, which omits the pronoun altogether. All the MSS., on the other hand, which read ἀπάταις in Jude, read also αυτῶν for ὑμῶν. On the assumption, then, that the original reading was the same both in Peter and Jude, this seems to us to decide the question as to what that reading was; for the question comes to be, whether we shall alter the passage in Peter into ἐν ἀγάπαις ἀντῶν, and so make nonsense of it, or alter the passage in Jude into ἐν ἀπάταις αυτῶν, which makes a very good sense, for we should translate the passage thus: These are by their own deceiving (or deception) stumbling-blocks, revelling together without fear, feeding themselves,' &c.

Só much for this point in textual criticism; if our remarks be sound, they will go to deprive Dr. Halley and those who agree with him, of the only case in which the Agape are sup

posed to be mentioned directly in the New Testament. If, however, the reading in Jude be retained, it will still remain for him to prove, that by ȧyáraiç vμor the apostle did not mean simply the Lord's Supper. That this ordinance was sometimes so designated, is proved, we think, by a passage in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans (§ 8), where he says that 'in the absence of the bishop it is not lawful either to baptize or to observe the Lord's Supper (άyáπην поιεйv).' Dr. Halley, indeed, contends, that Ignatius refers here to the love-feast; but this we think very improbable on many grounds, and among these is that which our author adduces in support of his interpretation, viz., that Ignatius had just before referred to the eucharist, for such a repetition is altogether Ignatian.

By almost all who have written on the Agapæ, reference has been made to 1 Cor. xi. 20-22, as affording evidence that such observances were recognized by the apostle, who is here supposed to be reproving an odious abuse of them. Dr. Halley tells us that, he must speak with some hesitation' on this point; but he evidently inclines to the opinion that the apostle really had these love-feasts in his eye, in writing this part of his epistle. He seems to think, that our only choice lies between viewing the object of the apostle's strictures as an abuse of the Lord's Supper, and viewing it as an abuse of the Agapæ. Were this the case, we should be inclined to agree with him in the conclusion to which he comes; but we suspect, that it is to neither the one nor the other of these that Paul refers. It is rather a suspicious circumstance attaching to the conclusion our author has adopted, that, in order to reach it, we must suppose that the practice of the Corinthians, in reference to the Agapæ, differed from that of all the other churches so far as we know; for it is clear, as Dr. Halley remarks, that if it is the love-feast which Paul here refers to, the observance of it must have preceded the observance of the Eucharist, whilst the testimony of ecclesiastical writers is uniform in affirming that the Agapæ followed the Eucharist. This naturally induces the suspicion, that it is not an abuse of the Agape which the apostle reprehends in the Corinthians, but the observance of some custom peculiar to themselves, and not under any form agreeable to the mind of the apostle. This is confirmed by the consideration, that had he been occupied here in reprehending an abuse of some practice harmless, if not commendable in itself, he would hardly have given the censure without following it up with some intimation of how it became them to observe the practice so as to preserve it from leading to the evils of which he complains. Nothing of this sort, however, is done; the censure is delivered, and the apostle passes on to describe the institution and design of the