denotes partaking of food at an ordinary meal See Matt.xiv. 19. Mark viii. 19. Luke xxiv. 35. In general, there is no difficulty in diftinguishing when the one and when the other is meant. When breaking bread is mentioned, Acts ii. 42. in connection with the apostles' doctrine, and the fellowship and prayers, we cannot doubt this to intend the ordinance of Chriftian worship, which confists in breaking bread. So when we read of the disciples at Troas coming together on the first day of the week to break bread, Acts xx. 7. we cannot be at a lofs to conclude that this means the Lord's fupper. They met on the first day of the week, because on that day Jefus rofe from the dead. The question then is, Whether the principal object of their meeting on the day which had come in place of the Sabbath, was to obferve a folemn ordinance intimately connected with the refurrection of Jefus, or to join in partaking of a common meal? for certainly breaking bread, in the one sense or in the other, was the chief purpose of their affembling, as is evident from the hiftory. This question may be answered without much difficulty. But if any one should object, that there is not an abfolute certainty that the Lord's fupper is meant, let him observe, that the church of Corinth, on the fame day, 1 Cor. xvi. 2. came together into one place, and did eat and drink, profeffing to obferve the ordinance of the fupper, 1 Cor. xi. 17. 20, 21.; let him farther

eftablished by the apoftles in every church, 1 Cor. iv. 17. and furely his doubts must be removed.

It is admitted, that we cannot fo clearly afcertain, whether breaking bread in Acts ii. 46. means the ordinance of the fupper, or partaking of ordinary food. But if it be at best doubtful, no folid argument can be built on it, and confequently we cannot be accufed of difcarding univerfal and approved apoftolic practice, because we do not follow what, in the opinion of fome, was the custom of an apoftolic church. Befides, as the Lord's fupper is evidently mentioned within four verses, it is not probable that an account of it should be here repeated. An important piece of inftruction is contained in the 46th verfe, if we fuppofe it only to relate to their common food. It fhews how these Chriftians ate their bread with joy, Ecclef. ix. 7. Being accepted in the beloved, and having their hearts fprinkled from an evil confcience, the fatisfaction produced by this entered into all their enjoyments and occupations, and their example is recorded that we may learn to rejoice in the Lord always.

With refpect to the practice of churches after the apoftles days, we do not hold ourselves bound by it, nor by any thing not recorded in Scripture. What we contend for is, the indifpenfable obligation. of all the ordinances recorded in the New Teftament as delivered to the churches; or, which is the fame thing, the practice of the churches men

does not appear that daily communicating was ever general, although it was doubtlefs the practice of fome churches in the third and fourth centuries.

The Lord's fupper was first observed on Thursday. We fhall not affert, that it is unlawful to obey Christ's dying commandment on any day; we only contend, that by the approved practice of apoftolic churches, it is demonftrated to be the appointment of Chrift, that his churches must observe it every first day of the week, and the evidence of this is juft as ftrong as that they or we are required to affemble at all on that day to fanctify it. If a church can affemble every day, they may do so, but at all events they must meet on the Lord's day, if they defire to keep his commandments. So, if they may eat the Lord's fupper every day, yet they are not warranted to condemn those who only observe it on the first day of the week.

With respect to the love feafts, we have no account in Scripture which fixes this to have been the practice of the apoftolic churches at all, or which gives us any direction with refpect to them. Jude indeed, ver. 12. fays, " these are spots in your feafts of charity." But certainly this is not fufficient to afcertain the custom of a church regularly affembling to eat together. The expreffion may refer to partaking of the Lord's fupper, which is called the Christian feast, 1 Cor. v. 8. one great end of which is to promote bro

therly love; or it may refer to Chriftians meeting together, not as a church, but in fmaller companies, just as they now do when they vifit one another, eat and drink together, and enliven their fociety by joining in prayer, and finging pfalms, and hymns, and fpiritual fongs. Would not a falfe profeffor be a spot in fuch a company?

But there is ftill greater ambiguity in the ori ginal expreffion, which we render feafts of charity, (ev rais aɣañas) nor are commentators well agreed about the meaning of the word. The apostle, writing to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. xi. 22. fays, "Have ye not houses to eat and drink in ?” and then goes on to defcribe the Lord's fupper, the only occafion on which, fo far as we learn from Scripture, the whole church is bound to eat and drink in their collective capacity. He concludes the fubject," If any man hunger, let him eat at home, that ye come not together to condemnation," ver. 34. By this he did not mean to prevent the members from eating and drinking together, but undoubtedly this discoun tehances the idea, that their meeting as a church, to eat and drink, was an ordinance of Chrift.

Much has been faid of the love. feafts being practifed in primitive times, fubfequent to thofe of the apoftles; but Tertullian is the first who mentions them, above two hundred years after Chrift, and he does it in fuch an ambiguous manner, that no one can say whether he intended more than Chri

highly proper, and which tends much to promote love, if these meetings be properly conducted.

The commandment for faluting one another with a boly kifs, is repeated once and again in the New Testament. In like manner, Christians are commanded to "wash one another's feet," John xiii. 14.; and one of the qualifications of those widows who were to be maintained by the church was, that they had washed the saints feet, 1 Tim. v. 10. Hence fome Chriftians hold the neceffity of the members of a church still saluting one another with a kifs, and washing one another's feet.

The kifs was enjoined as a token of affection. As fuch, it was much used in Judea and the eastern countries. This we learn from the Old Teftament. The apoftles, writing to those who lived in countries where it was customary, directed them to greet one another with a kifs of love; their faluting was not to be the effect of mere politenefs, as among the people of the world, but it must be the expreffion of the heart. But we do not know in what way it was conducted *. Confidering the jealoufy of the natives of eastern countries, it is not probable that the apostles fhould recommend, even in the cafe of

* It is common in the Eaft, for equals to falute one another by kiffing the head, the hand, or shoulder. See Harmar's Ob.