The matter was treated in the council as if infant baptism was a custom of long standing. This proves, not that infant baptism is a correct doctrine, or that it was derived from the teachings of the apostles--as some aver [22]--but that in a century or so after the introduction of the gospel, men began to pervert it by changing and misapplying its ordinances. The false doctrine of infant baptism is now practiced by nearly all so-called Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant. Much as the simple rite of baptism was burdened with useless ceremonies, changed in its form and misapplied, it was not more distorted than was the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The nature of the sacrament--usually called Eucharist--and the purposes for which it was instituted are so plain that he who runs may read. From Paul's description of the ordinance, it is clear' that the broken bread was intended to be an emblem of the Messiah's broken body; the wine an emblem of his blood, shed for sinful man; and his disciples were to eat the one and drink the other in remembrance of him until he should return; and by this ceremony show forth the Lord's death. [23] It was designed as a memorial of Messiah's great atonement for mankind, a token and witness unto the Father that the Son was always remembered. It was to be a sign that those partaking of it were willing to take upon them the name of Christ, to remember him always and keep his commandments. In consideration of these things being observed, the saints were always to have the Spirit of the Lord to be with them.