Chapter XI

Tha impropriety of women appearing unveiled in the public assemblies, vs. 2-16. The improperniniiner of OElebrating the Lord’s Supper which prevailed in the Corinthiao ohnroh, vs. lT-34.

Havingcorrected tho more private abuses which prevailed among the Corinthians, the apostle begins in this chapter to consider those which relate to the mode of conducting public worship. The first of these is the habit of women appearing m public without a veil. Dress is in a great degree conventional. A costume which is proper in one country, would be indecorous in another. The principle insisted upon in this paragraph is, that women should conform in matters of dress to idi those usages which the public sentiment of the comnmnity in which they live demands. The veil in all eastern countries was, and to a great extent still is, the symbol of modesty and subjection. For a woman, therefore, in Corinth to discard the veil was to renounce her claim to modesty, and to refuse to recognize her subordination to heihusband. It is on the assumption of thia signiiicancy in the use of the veil, that the apostle’s whole argument in this paragi-aph is founded. He begins by praising the Corinthians for their obedience in general to his instructions, v. 2. He then reminds them of the divinely constituted subordination of the woman to the man, V. 3. Consequently it was disgraceful in the man to assume the symbol of subordination, and disgraceful in the woman to discard it, vs. 4. 5. If the veil were discarded as the symbol of subordination, it must also be discarded as the symbol of modesty. An unveiled woman, therefore, in Corinth prooMmed heraelfas not only insubordinate, but as immodest, V. 6. The man ought not to wear a veil because he represents the authority of God; but the woman is the gloiy of the man, V. 7. This subordination is proved by the very history of her creation. Eve was formed out of Adam, and made for him, vs. 8. 9. and, therefore, women should wear, especially in the religious assemblies where angels are prent, the conventional syn3)ol of their relation, v. 10. This subordination, however, of the woman is perfectly consistent with the essential equality and mutual dependence of the sexes. Neither is, or can be, without the other, vs. 11. 12. The apostle next appeals to their instinctive sense of propriety, which taught them that, as it is disgraceiu! in a man to appear in the costume of a woman, so it is disgraceful in a woman to appear in the costume of a man, vs. 13-15. Finally he appeals to authority; the custom which he censured was contrary to the universal practice of Christians, v. 16.

2. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and ktjep the ordinances, aa I delivered (them) to yon.

Now Ipraise y<ni. The particle (St) rendered now either simply indicates the transition to a new subject, or it is adversative. ‘Though I exhort you to imitate me as though you were deficient, yet I praise you that you reniemlier me,’ The Corinthians, although backward in following the selfdeuial and coneiliatoiy conduct of the apostle, were neverthelesB in general mindful of the ordinances or rules which he had delivered to them. The word {TrapaZixni) tradition, here rendered ordinance, is csed not only for instructions orally transmitted from generation to generation, as in Matt, 15, 2. 3. 6, bat for any iostrwction, whether relating to faith or practice, and whether delivered orally or in writing, 2 Thess. 2, 16. 3, 6. In reference to the rule of feith it is never used in the Hew Testament, except for the immediate instructions of inspired men. “When used in the modernsense of the word tradition, it is always in reference to what is human and untrustworthy. Gal. 1, 14. Col, 2, 8, and frequently in the gospels of the traditions of the elders.

3. But I would have yon know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman (is) the man; and the head of Christ (is) God.

Though the apostle praised the Corinthians for their general obedience to his prescriptions, yet there were many things in which they were deserving of censure. Before mentioning the thing which he intended first to condemn, he states the principle on which that condemnation rested; so that, by assenting to the principle, they could not fail to assent to the conclusion to which it necessaiily led. That principle is, that order and subordination pervade the whole univereSj and is essential to its being. Tne head of the man is Christ; the head of the woman is the man; the head of Christ is God. If this concatenation be disturbed in any of its parts, ruin must be the result. The head is that on which the body is dependent, and to which it is subordinate. The obvious meaning of this passage is, that the woman is subordinate to the man, the man is subordinate to Christ, and Ohiist is subordinate to God. It is further evident, that this subordination is very difierent m its nature in the eevei’al cases mentioned. The subordination of the woman to the man is something entirely different ii-om that of the man to Christ; and that again is at an infinite degree more complete than the subordination of Christ to God. And still further, as the subordination of the woman to the man is perfectly consistent with their identity as to nature, so is the subordination of Christ to God consistent with his being of ilie smc nature Tvith the Father. There is nothing, therefore, in this passage, at all inconsistent with the true and proper divinity of our blessed lord. For a brief statement of the scriptural doctrine of the relation of Chiist to God, seo the comments on 3, 33. It need here be only farther remarked, that the word Christ is the designation, not of the Logos or second person of the Trinity as such, nor of the human nature of Christ as such, but of the Theanthropos, the God-man. It is the incarnate Son of God, who, in the great work of redemption, is said to be subordinate to the Father, whose will he came into the world to do. When Christ is said to be the head of every man, the meaning is of every believer; because it is the relation of Christ to the church, and not to the human family, that is characteristically expressed by this term. He is the head of that body which is the chiuch, Col. 1, 18. Eph. 1, 22. 23.

4. Every man praying or prophesying, having (his)
head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Such being the order divinely estabUshed, (viz., that mentioned hi V. 3,) both men and women should act in accoj’danoe with it; the man, by having the head uncovered, the woman by being veiled. As the apostle refers to their appeai-ance in public assemblies, he says, Miery man paying or prophesying, i. e. officiating in public worship. Prophesying. In the scriptural sense of the word, a prophet is one who speaks for another, as Aaron is called the prophet or spokesman of Moses. “Thou shalt speak unto him, and put words into his mouth,... and he shall he thy spokesman,” Ex. 4, 15. 16; or, as he is called, 7, 1, thy prophet. The prophets of God, therefore, were his spokesmen, into whose mouth the Lord put the words which they were to utter to the people. To prophesy, in Scriptui-e, is accordingly, to speak under divine inspiration; not merely to predict mtnre events, but to deliver, as the orgsm of the Holy Ghost, the messes of God to men, whether m the form of doctrine, exhortation, consolation, or prediction. This public function, the apostle says, should not be exercised by a man with his head covered; literally, having something on his head downward. Among the Greeks, the priests officiated bareheaded; the Romans with the head veiled; the Jews (at least soon after the apostolic age) also wore the TaUis or covei-ing for the head in their public services. It is not to he inferred from what ia here said, that the Chiistiau prophets (or inspired mon) had introduced, this eastom into the church. The thing to be corrected was, women appealing in pnblio assemblies unveiled. The apostle says,-the veil is inconsistent with the position of the man, but is required by that of the women. Men are mentioned only for the sake of illustrating the principle,

lyiahonoitreth hia head. It is doubtful whether we should read Mb op his own head, (aSroC or nvroE). This is a point the ancient manuscripts do not decide, as they are not ftii”nished with the diacritical marks. It depends on the connection. It is also doubtful whether the apostle meant to say that he dishonoured Christ who is his bead, or that he dishonoured himself. The latter, perhaps, is to be preferred, 1. Because, in the immediately preceding clause the word is used literally, ‘If he cover his head, he dishonours his head.’ 2. Because, in V. 5, the woman who goes unveiled is said to dishonour her own head, i, e. as what follows shows, herself, and not her liaaband. 3. It is more obviously true that a man who acta inconsistently with his station disgraces himself, than that he disgrace him who placed him in that station. A commandmg militaiy officer, who appears at the head of his troops in the dress of a common soldier, instead of his official dress, might more properly be said to dishonour himself than his sovereign. For a fl-eeman to appear in the distmguishing dress of a slave, was a disgraye. So the apostle says, for a man to appear with the conventional sign of subjection on his head, disgraced himself. If the man be intended to represent the dominion of God, ho must act accordingly, and not appear in the dress of a woman.

5. Bat every woman that prayeth or prophesietb with (her) head uncovered dishonoiireth her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Praying and prophesying were the two principal exercisos in the public worship of the early Christians. The latter term, as above stated, included all foiins of address dictated by the Holy Spirit, It was Paul’s manner to attend to one thing at a time. He is here speaking of the propriety of women speakmg in public unveiled, and therefore he says nothing about the propriety of their speaking in public in itself. When that subject comes up, he expresses hia judgment in the clearest terms, 14, 34. In here disapproving of the one, Biiys Calvin, he does not approve of the other.

The veils worn by Grecian women were of difl’erent binds. One, and perhaps the most common, was the peplum, or mantle, which in public was thrown over the head, and enreloped the whole person. The other was more in the fashion of the common eastern veil which covered the thee, with the exception of the eyes. In one form or other, the custom was universal for all respectable women to appear veiled in public. — The apostle therefore says, that a woman who spealis in public with her /lead uncovered, dishonoureth her head. Here eaurs is used, her ovm head; not her haeband, but herself This is plain, not only from the force of the words, but from the next clause, for thai is even all one as she were shaven. This is the reason why she disgi-aces herseltl She puts herself in the same class with women whose hair has been cut oS. Cutting off the hair, which is the priniapal natursJ ornament of women, was either a sign of giief, Dent, 21, 12, or a disgraceftd pimishment. The literal translation of this clause is; she is one and the came thing with one who ie shaven. She assumes the charaoteristic mark of a disreputable woman.

6. Poi” if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn 31’ shaven, let her be covered.

That is, let her act consistently. If she wishes to be regarded as a reputable woman, let her conform to the established usage. But if she have no regard to her reputation, let her act as other women of her class. She must confoi-m either to the reputable or disrepntable class of her sex, for a departure from the one is conforming to the other. These imperatives are not to be taken as commands, but rather as expressing what consistency would require. Shorn or shaven, the latter is the stronger term; it properly means to cut with a razor.

7. Por a man indeed ought not to cover (Iiis) head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

The woman, and the woman only, ought to be veiled; for the man ought not to cover his head. This does not mean, he is not bound to do it, but should not do it. The negative bolongs not to 6^6i£!, but to KaTOKaX-vTrTCfrai. The reason is that he is the image and glory of God. The only sense in which the man, in distinction fi’om the woman, ia the imE^e of God, is that he represents the authority of God. He is mvested with dominion. When, in Genesis 1, 26. 27, it ii said God created man in his own image, the reference ia as much to woman as to man; for it is immediately added, “male and female created he them,” So fh,r, therefore, as the image of God consists in knowledge, righteousness and holiness. Eve as truly, and aa much as Adam, bore the likeneaa of her Maker. But in the dominion with which man was invested over the earth, Adam was the representative of God. He is the glory of God, because in him the divine majesty is specially manifested, Jiut the woman is the glory of the man. That is, the woman is in this respect subordinate to the man. She ia not designed to reflect the glory of God aa a ruler. She is the glory of the man. She receives and reveals what there is of majesty in him. She always aasumea his station; becomes a queen if he is a king, and manifests to others the wealth and honour which may belong to her husband.

8. 9. T“or the man is not of the woman; “but the
woman of the man. Neither was the man created for
the woman; but the woman for the man.

The subordination of the woman to the man is here proved from two facts recorded in the history of their creation. Fii’st, the woman was foi-med out of the man, and denved her origin from him. He, and not she, was created first. Secondly, 3ie was created on his accomit, and not be on hers. In this way does the New Testament constantly authenticate, not merely the moral and reHgious truths of ttie Old Testament, but its historical facts; and make a those fiicts the grounds or prooS of great moral principles. It is impossible, therefore, for any Christian who believes in the inspu’ation of the Mwstles to doubt the divine authority of the Old Testament Scriptures, 01’ to confine the inspiration of the ancient wiitera to their doctrinal and preceptive statements. The whole Bible is the word of God.

10. For this cause ought the woman to have power
on (her) head because of the angels.

There is scarcely a passage in the New Testament which has so muoli taxed the learning and iB^enuity of commentators as this. After all that has been wiitten, it remsuns just as obscm-e as ever. The meaning which it naturaJly suggests to the most supei-ficial reader, is regarded by the most hiborioas Clitics aa the only true one. By iovtria, power, the apostle means the sign or symbol of authority; just as Diodorus Sic, 1, 47, speaks of an image as “having three kingdoms on its head.” The apostle had asserted and proved that the woman is subordinate to the man, and he had assumed aa granted that the veil was the conventional symbol of the man’s authority. The inference is that the woman ought to wear the ordinary symbol of the power of her husband. As it was proper in itseli, and demanded by the common sense of propriety, that the woman should be veiled, it was specially proper in the worshipping assemblies, for there they were m the presence not merely of men but of angels. It was, therefore, not only out of deference to public sentiment, but from reverence to those higher intelligences that the woman should conform to all the rules of decorum. This is the common and only satisfactory interpretation of the passage. Of those who dissent from this view, some propose various conjectural emendations of the text; others vainly endeavour to prove that the word efoiwto, may be made to mean a veil; others take the word literally. And as to the last clause, instead of taking the word angels in its ordinary sense, some say it here means the angels, or preding ofBcers, of the church; others, that it means messengei-s or spies from the heathen who came to observe the mode in which the Christians worshipped, and would report any thing they observed to their disadvantage. The great majority of commentators acquiesce in the interpretation stated above, which satisfies all the demands of the context.

11. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the
woman, neither the woman without the man, in the
Lord.

That is, although there is this subordination of the woman to the man, they are mutually dependent. The one cannot exist M-Ithout the other, Jn the Lord. This does not mean that the one is not in the Lord to the exclusion of the other. The apostle is not here speaking of the spiritual equality of the sexes. In Galatians 3, 28 and elsewhere ne abundantly teaches that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female; that the one is aa fully a partaker of all the benefits of rodoniption aa the other. And it is also true that be teaches that this equality of Jews and Greeks, bond and free, before Godia perfectly consistent with the social inequalities existJng in this world. But these truths, however important, and however they distinguish the Christian doctrine of the equality and dignity of woman fi-om all other forms of religious doctrine on the subject, are foreign to this connection. The a;postle’s single object is to show the true nature and limitations of the eiibordmation of the woman to the man. It is a real suboi’dination, but it is consistent with their mutual dependence; the one is not without the other. And this mutual dependence is ^1- Kvpi<f, i. e. by divine appointment — according to the will of the Lord. Tho words are used here, as so frequently elsewhere, as an adverbial qualification, meaning religtoiisl’y, after a Christian manner or divinely, i. e, by divine appointment. The same idea is substantially expressed by those who explain the words in the Lord as tantamount to “in Christianity;” in the sense that it is a Chi-istian doctrine that the man and the woman ai-e thus mutually dependent.

12. Por as the woman (is) of the man, even so (is) the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

The one is not without the other, for as the woman was originally fonned out of the man, so the man is born of the woman. This is a proof, not of the admitted equality of the sexes in the kingdom of God, but of their mutual dependence in the kingdom of nature. It therefore confirms the interpretation given of the preceding verse. £ut all things are of God J these subordinate relations of one creature to another are merged, as it were, in the supreme causality of God. It matters litUe whether the man was of the woman or the woman of the man, as both aUke are of God; just as he before said, it matters little whether a man were a Jew or Gentile, bond or free, since all are alike before God.

13. -Tudge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered P

This is an appeal to their own sense of propriety. The apostle often recognizes the intuitive judgments of the mind as authoritative, Rom, 1, 32. 3, 8. The constitution of our nature being derived from God, the iawa which he haa impressed ujKin it, are as much a revelation from him as any other possible communication of his will. And to deny this, is to deny the possibility of all knowledge. la it comely {apirruv ((TTi), is it becoming or decorovs?

14. 15, Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for (her) hair is given her for a covering.

Doth not natrure itself. The word (^iVts), nature, sometones means essence or substance, sometimes the laws of nature or of our natural constitution, sometimes, the instinctive feelings or judgments which are the effects of those laws. The foi-m which these feelings assume is neceesaiily determined in a great measure by education and habit. The instinctive sense of propriety in an eastern maiden prompts her, when surprised by strangers, to cover her face. In an European it would not produce that effect. In writing, therefore, to eastern females, it would he correct to ask whether their native sense of propriety did not prompt them to cover their heads in public. The response would infallibly be in the affirmative. It is in thia sense the word nature is commonly taken here. It may, however, mean the laws or course of nature. Nature gives the man short haii’ and the woman long hair; and therefore nature itself teaches that long hr is a disgrace to the one and an ornament to the other; for it is disgraceful in a man to be like a woman, and in a woman to be life a man. Wearing long hair was contrary to the custom both of the Hebrews and Greeks. The Nazarites, as a distinction, allowed their hair to grow. Num. fl, 8; see also Ezek. 44, 20. It was considered so much a mark of effeminacy for men to wear Jong hr, that it was not only ridicaled by Juvenal, but in after times seriously censured by chm-ch coimoils. To a woman, however, in dl ages and countries, long hair has been considered an ornament. It is given to her, Paul says, as a covering, or as a natural veil; and it is a glory to herSecawse it is a veil. The veil itself, liierefore, mit be becoming and decorous in a woman.

16. But if any man seem to be contentious, wo
have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

The arguments agnst the custom of women appearing in public unveiled having been presented, the apostle says, if any man, notwithstanding these arguments, is disposed to dispute the matter, or appears to be contentious, we have only further to say, tfiat we (the apostles) Aaue no such custom, neither have the churches of God. To be contentious, i. e. disposed to dispate for the sake of disputation. With such persons all argument is useless. Authority is the only end of controversy with such disturbers of the peace. The authority here adduced is that of the apostles and of the churches. The former was deeirfve, beeanse the apostles were invested with antbority not only to teach the gospel, but also to organize the church, and to decide every thing relating to Chnatian ordinances and worship. The aathonty of the churohea, although not coercive, was yet great. No man is justified, except on clearly scriptural grounds, and from the necessity of obeying: God rather than man, to depart from the established usages of the church in matters of public concern.

Calvin, and many of the best modern commentators, give a diffei’ent view of this passage. They understand the apostle to say, that if any one seems to be disputations, neither we nor the churches are accustomed to dispute. It is not our wont to waste words with those who wish merely to make contention. The only reason assigned for this interpretation, is Paul’s saying we have no such custom; which they say cannot mean the custom of women going unveiled. But why not? The apostles and the churches constituted a whole — neither the one nor the other, neither the churches nor their iufalhbie guides, sanctioned the nsage in question. Besides, no other custom is mentioned in the context than the one which he has been discusdng. “If any one appear contentious,” is not a custom and suggests nothing to which the words such a custom can naturally refer,

Oelehraticn of the Lord’s Supper, vs. 17-34. This section relates to the disorders connected with the celebration of the Lord’s supper. These disorders were of a kind which, a«iording to our method of celebrating that sacrament, seems almost unaccountable. It was, however, the early custom to connect the Lord’s supper in the strict sense of the words with an ordinary meal. As this Bacratnent wag instituted by our Lord at the close of the Paschal supper, so it appears to have been castomary at the beginning for the Christiana to assemble for a common meal and to connect with it the commemoration of the Redeemer’s death. Intimations of this nsajje may be found in saoh passages as Aets 2, 42. “They continued steadfastly in the apostle’s doctrine and fellowship, and in breaMng of bread, and in prayer.” In v. 46 it is said, this breaking of bread was from house to house. In Acts 20, 7, it is said, “The diaoiples came together on the first day of the week to break bread,” which, from the narrative wiueh follows, appears to have been an ordinary meal. Whatever may be thought of these passages, it is clear from the paragraph before as that at Corinth at least, the sacrament of the Lord’s supper was connected with a regular meal. This may have arisen, not so much from the original institution of the Eucharist in connection with the Paschal supper, as from the sacred festivals both of the Jews and Greeks. Both classes had been accustomed to unite with their sacrifices a feast of a more or Jess public character. It is also evident that, agreeably to a familiar Grecian castom, the pei-sons assembled brought their own provisions, which being placed on the table formed a common stock. The rich brought plentifully, the poor brought little or nothing. It “waa, however, essential to the veiy idea of a Christian feast, that it should be a communion; that all the gaests at the table of their common Lord should be on the teiTUS of equality. Instead of this fraternal union, theie were divisions among the Corinthians even at the Lord’s table. The rich eating by themselves the provisions which they had brought, and leaving their poorer brethren mortified and hungry. It is to the correction of these disorders that the concluding portion of this chapter is devoted.

It was no matter of praise that the assemblies of the Corinthians made them worse rather than better, v. 11. The proMiioent evil was, that there were schisms even in tlieii- most sacred meetings; an evil necessaiy in the state in which they were, and which God permitted in order that the good might be made manifest, vs. 18. 19. The evil to which he referred was not merely that they had degraded the Lord’s supper into an ordinary meal, but that in that meal they were divided into parties, some eating and drinking to excess, and others left without any thing, vs. 20. 21. This waa not only making the Lord’s supper a meal for satisfying hunger — contrary to ai8 I. CORINTHIAITS 11, 17.

its original design, but a cruel peryorsion of a foast of love into a means of humiliating and wounding their poorer brethren, V. 22. In order to show how inconsistent their conduct was with the nature of the sei-vice in which they professed to engage, the apostle recounts the original institution of the Lord’s supper, vs. 23-25, From this account it follows, first, that the Lord’s supper was designed not as an ordinary meal, but as a commemoration of the death of Christ; seeondlj, that to participate in this ordinance in an unworthy manner, was an otfence against bis body and blood, the symbols of which were so irreverently treated; thirdly, that no one ought to approach the Lord’s table without self-examination, in order that with due preparation and with a proper undei-standing of the ordinance, he may i-eceive the bread and wine as the symbols of Chiist’s body and blood, vs. 2a-29. In this way they would escape the judgments which the Loi-d had brought upon them on account of their profenation of his table, vs. 30- 32. In oonclttsion, he exhorts them to use their houses for their ordinary meals, and to make the Lord’s sapper a real

17. Now in this that I declare (unto you) I praise (you) not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

In V. 2 he said, I pvaiae you. His praise was consistent with grave disapprobation of many things in their condition as a church. He did not praise them for the manner in which they conducted their public worship. Their assemblies were disgraced not only by women appealing unveiled, contrary to the established rules of decorimi, but also by the unfratemal and irreverent manner of celebrating the Lord’s supper — and also by the disorderly manner in which they used their spiritual gifts. These evils he takes up in their order. Having dispatched the first, he comes now to the second.

JSFoiB in this that I declare unto you* The Greek is not in this, but this. The passage may be rendered, Declaring this J do not applaud. To fiiis, however, it is objected that

* ThB common Text hare rea3a impix-jiWsv ohx ivaaiH. I.acliiuaa’i and Tisohflndoif read ■aaa.-ffiWii lit iTawiiv on tbB authority of tie Msa. A. C. F. G. and others of later date, and the Syriae, Vnlgate, and Ethiopio versions. Tbe oommoa reading is preferred bj the laoi:^!; of editors.

I. CORINTHIANS 11, 17.18. 2lY

TrapayytXXeii’ in the New Testament never means to declare, but always to command. Hence, the better translation ia, Commanding or enjoining this I do not applaud. It is doubtful whether this refers to what precedes or to what follows. If the former, then the sense is, ‘While I command what precedes respecting women appearing veiled, I do not praise you, that,’ &c. If the latter, the meaning is, ‘Commanding what follows, I do not praise,’ &c. That ye come together not for the better, hut for the worse. That is, your public assemblies are so conducted that evil rather than good resulta. The censure is general, embracing all the grounds of complaint which are specified in this and the folio wmg chapters,

18. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

For first of all, or, Mir in the first place. Paul often begins an enumeration which he does not follow out. There is nothing to answer to these words in what follows. According to one view the first censure is directed against the divisions, and the second against their mode of celebrating the Lord’s supper. Bat the only divisions which he here refers to are those connected with their public worship, and especially with the celebration of the sacrament. Besides, the subject of divisions was treated in the beginning of the epistle. He is here speaking of their assemblies. The second gi-ound of censure is to be found in the following chapter. When ye come together in the chuureh. The word {IkkAjjot’o) chmah never means in the Kew Testament, a building. The meaning is, when ye come together in convocation, or assemble as a church, I hear that t/wre be divisions among you. Literally, schisms. For the meaning of that word, see 1, 10. The nature of these schisms is descnbed in what follows. They were digues, not sects, but parties, separated from ea«h other by alienation of feeling. It is evident that the rich formed one of these pai-ties, as distinguished from the poor. And probably there were many other grounds of diviaon. The Jewish converts separated from the Gentiles; those having one gif exalted themselves over those having another. It is not outward separation, but inward alienation, which is here complained of. A.nd I partly believe it. Paul intimates that he was loath to believe all he had heard to their disadvantage in this matter; but Jie was forced to believe etioiigh to excite his serious disapprobation.

19. Por there must be also heresies araoiig you,
that they which are approved may “be made manifest
among you.

This is the reason why he believed what he had heard. He iinew that such things must happen, and that God had a wise purpose in permitting them; comp. Matt. 18, 7, “It must needs be that offences come.” Evil as well as good ia included in the divine purpose. It is purposed not as evil, but for the sake of the good which infinite -wisdom evolves from it. Also heresies. This does not mean heresies in addition to schisms, as something different from them. But heresies as well as other evils. * I hear there are diviaons (tr)(io-/mTa) among you, and I believe it, for such divisions (aJpeo-tts) must occur,’ “What in the one verse are called schisms, in the next are called heresies; both words having the general sense of divisions. The nature of these divisions is to be determined by the context. The word (a’paris) heresy means hterally an act of choice, then a chosen way of life, a sect or party; not always in a bad sense, but in the sense of schools; as, “the heresies of philosophers” means “the schools or different classes of philosophers.” So in the New Testament it is repeatedly used of “the sect of the Phai-isees,” or “of the Sadducees,” Acta 15, 5. 5, 17. Here and in Gal. 5, 20 it means dissension. The eecleaastical sense of the word heresy, is, the choice of an opinion different from that of the church, or & doctrine contrary to Scripture. There is nothing to favour the assumption that such is its meaning here.

That they which are approved may he made manifesL This is tho end which God has in view in permitting the occurrence of such divisions. It is, that they which are approved (oi SoKijioi), the tried, those who have stood the test, and are worthy of approbation. The opposite class are called (dSoKi- /ioi) reprobate. By the prevalence of disorders and other evils in the church, God puts his people to the test. They are tried as gold in the furnace, and their genuineness is made to appear. It is a great consolation to know that dissensions, whether in the church or in the state, are not fortuitous, but are ordered by the providence of Gtod, and are designed, as storms, for the purpose of purification.

20. “VVlieii ye come together therefore into one
place, (this) is not to eat the Lord’s supper.

Te coming togetlisr tJten into one place. Verse 10 Is an interruption. The connection n’ith v. 18 is resumed by the particle (ow) then. When you assemble it is not to eat the LortPa supper. This is not the real, though it is your professed purpose. ‘You come together for a common, and that too, a disorderly, unbrotherly meal.’ The words, however, admit of two other interpretations. “We may supply, as our translators have done, the word this. ‘This is not to eat the Lord’s supper; your meal does not deserve that sacred clia acter,’ Or, ‘Ye cannot eat the Lord’s supper,’ The substantive verb (&Ti) followed by an infinitive often means can; ovK itrrtv thritv, one cannot say: o£k om ^ayiiv, one cannot eat. ‘Coming together as you do it is impossible to celebrate the Lord’s supper,’ This gives a very pertinent sense. The Lord’s supper is the supper instituted by the Lord, one to which he invites the guests, and which is celebrated in commemoration of his death. That was a very different service il-om the Agapae, or love feasts, as they wei-e afterwards called, and which, on accomit of the disorders attending them, were subsequently prohibited by the Coun<al of Carthage. These Agapae were feasts to which each one brought his contributions, during and after which (the bread during, and the cup after) Sie consecrated elements were distributed. See Augusti’s Antiquities of the Christian Church, I, p. 299; and FooPa Synopsis on Matt. 26, 26. Golemans Ancient Christianity, p. 443.

31. For in eating every one taketh before (other)
his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is
drunken.

For, i. e, the reason why the Corinthian suppers were not the Lord’s supper, is (so far as here stated) that there was no communion, or eating together, Thepr were not all partakers of one bread, 10, 17. They did not wait for each other. Comp, V. 33. On the contrary, each one took beforehand, i. e. before “others could joui with hhn, his own supper, i, e. that which he had brought. The consequence was, that one was hungry; the poor had nothing; whde another was dnmk. Such is the meaning of the word. Whether the apostle intended to say that any of the Corinthians actually became intoxicalecT at the table which they called the table of the Lord, or whether he meant simply to say, that while one had more, another had loss, than enough, it is not easy to decide. As they seem to have accommodated their service to the sacrificial feasts to which they had, while yet heathens, been accustomed, it is the less improbable that in some cases they were guilty of actual excess.” It is wonderful, and well nigh portentous,” says Calvin, “that Satan could have accomplished so much in so short a time. We may learn from this example, what ia the worth of mere antiquity; that is, what authority is due to custom unsustained by the word of God..,. Yet this ia the firmest foundation of Popery: it is ancient; it was done of old, therefore it has divme authority!” If, within twenty years of its institution, the Corinthians turned the Lord’s supper into a disorderly feast, although the apostles were then alive, we need not wonder at the speedy corruption of the church after their death.

23. What! have ye not houses to eat and to dvink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them which have not? “What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise (you) not.

The two grounds on which the apostle condemned this conduct of the Corinthians were, first, that it was a pervereion of the Lord’s supper; and secondly, that it was disrespectful and mortifying to their poorei- brefliren. It was a perversion of the Lord’s supper, because it made it an ordinary meal designed to satisfy hunger. For that purpose they had their own houses. The church comes together to worship God and to celebrate his ordinances, not for the pui-pose of eating and

bers of families, may appropriately do. The church does not come together to do wnat can better be done at home. Or despise ye the e/i-urch of Godf This was the second ground of condemnation. Their conduct evinced contempt of their brethren. They treated them as unfit to eat with them. Yet the poor were constituent members of the church of God. They were his people; those whom he had chosen, whom he had made kings and priests unto himself. These peraons, thus

highly honoured of God, the richer Corinthians treated with contempt; and that too at the Lord’s table, where all external distuictions are done away, and the master is not a hair’s breadth above his slave. And shame those who have not. To shame, i. e. to mortify and humble, by rendering conscioiia of inferiority. Those who have not may mean, either those who have not houaea to eat or drink in, or simply the poor. Those who have, are the rich; those who have not, are the poor. The latter interpretation is not only consistent with the Greek idiom, bnfc gives a better sense. Even the poorer members of the charoh did not, and ought not, come to the Lord’s table for the sake of food. Much as Paul was disposed to praise the Corinthians, in this matter he could not praise them.

33. Tor I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesos, the (same) night in which he was betrayed, took bread:

‘I cannot praise you, for your manner of celebrating the Lord’s supper is utterly inconsistent with its original institution,’ They were the more inexcusable in departing from the original mode of celebrating this ordinance, first, because the account of its orinal institution had been received by Paul from the Lord himself; and secondly, beoaase he had delivered it to them. Their an was therefore one of iri’everent disobedience, without the exoose of ignorance. For I have received of the luord. Paul averts that he received from the Lord the account here given. The whole context shows that he intends to claim for this narrative the direct authority of the Lord himself. As with regard to his doctrines generally, so with rcgai’d to the institution and dign of this ordinance, he disclaims all indebtedness to tradition or to the instructions of men, and asseils the fact of a direct revelation to himself. Of the gospel he says, “I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ,” Gal. 1, 12, To this interpretation, however, it is objected, 1. That he uses the preposition 5iro’, which properly expresses a mediate derivation (i, e. through the instrumentality of others), and notmxpo, which would imply a direct communication. This objection supposes a refinement in the use of the Greek particles, which is not consistent with the character of the Greek of the Hew Testament. The Apostle John says: “This is the message which we have heard of him (q-tt’ auroC),” 1 John 1, 5, which certainly does not refer to an inclirect communication received through others. In this place airo toB avpum, from the Lord, is evidently opposed to air &vApvmupv, from men. He received his knowledge fi’om the Lord, and not fi’om men. Comp, Gah 1, 12. So in Gal. 1, 1, he says he was an apostle not by men (ouk ar’ aspamaiv), but by Jesus Christ (8m Iijo-oi) “SpuTToS). Must it be inferred from thia latter expression that Christ was only the medium of Paul’s call to the apostleehip, because Sia expresses the inatmmental cause? This would be as reasonable as to infer from the use of av6 in the text, that the knowledge of Paul was derived indirectly from the Lord. The apostle however says in Gal, 1,1, that he received his apostleship, not only through Jesus Christ, but also through God the Father; must this also mean through the instrument tcUity of God? is God the Father a mere instrument f No writer uses language %vith such strict gi-ammatical accuracy as this objection supposes; much less did Jews writing Greek. It is of course important to adhere as fer aa possible to the exact meaning of the words; but to sacrifice the sense and obvious intent of the writer to such niceties is unreasonable. The use of Airo, in this case, probably arose from the desh’e to avoid the triple repetition of irnpa; irapiXa-^ov, irapa, TTopihioKa. 2. It is objected that, as the Lord’s supper had been celebrated without interruption from the time of its institution, the fects concerning it must have been universally known, and therefore needed no direct revelation. The same objection might be made to a special revelation of the gospel to Paul. Why might he not nave been allowed to leani it from the other apostles? Besides, Paul, as he shows in the firat and second chapters of hia epistle to the Galatians, had no communication with the other apostles for thi-ee years after his conversion, 3. It is objected that ideas and truths may be communicated by visions and inward influences, but not historical fiieta. Then a large part of the prophecies of the 03d Testament must be ijibulous. The evidence is so strong from the context, that Paul claims independent authority for what he here says, that many who bow to the force of the Greek

preposition, say that the account received by Paul from Christ through others, was authenticated to him by an inward revelation. But this is not what he says. Ha says he nsoeived it from Christ, which, in the connection, can only mean that he received it dii-eotly from Christ; for his object is to

1. COEINTHIANS 11, 23. 223

giYG authority to his account of the ordinance. It was not only of importance for the Coiintiiians, hut for the whole church, to be assured that this account of the Lord’s supper, was communicated immediately by Christ to the apostle. It shows the importance which our Lord attributes to this ordinance.

The account which Paul received was, ThM the same night in which he was betrayed, i. e. while he was being betrayed. — while the traitorous scheme was in progress. Under these affecting cironmstances the ordinance was instituted. This fact, which Christ saw fit to reveal to Paul, must be of permanent interest to his people. It is not a matter of indifference, that this sacred rite was instituted on the last night of oui-Redeemer’s life, and when he knew what the morrow was to bring forth. This fact gives a peculiar solemnity and interest to the institution. Romanists, in answer to the objections made by Protestants to the mass, that it is a departure from the original mode of celebrating the Lord’s supper, say that if the example of Christ be obUgatory, we should celebrate the ordinance at night, after a meal, and at a table covered with provisions, &c. Protestants, however, do not hold that the church in all ages is bound to do whatever Christ and the apostles did, but only what they designed should be afterwards done. It is not apostolic example which is obfigatory, but apostolic precept, whether expressed in words or in examples declared or evmced to be preceptive. The example of Christ in celebrating the Lord’s supper is binding as to every thing which enters into the nature and significancy of the institution; for those are the very things which we are commanded to do. They constitute the ordinance.

Took bread. Matt. 26, 26, it is said, “as they were eathig,” L e. during the repast, “Jesus took bread,” that is, he took of the bread lying on the table; and as it was at the time of the Passover, ttiere is no douht that the bread used was unleavened. It was the thin Passover bread of the Jews, But as no part of the significancy of the rite depends on the kind of bread used, as there is no precept on the subject, and as the apostles subsequently in the celebration of the ordinance used ordinary bread, it is evidently a matter of indifference what kind of bread is used. It was however for a long time a subject of bitter controveray. At first the Latins and Greeks used leavened bread; when the Latins introduced the unleavened wafer fi.-oiE superstitious fear of any of the frag buing dropped, the Greets retained the use of feroiented “bread, and accused the Latms of Judaizing. Romanists and Lutherans use unleavened wafers; Protestants generally ordinary broad,

34. And when he had given thanks, he brake (it), and said. Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Having given thanJcs. In Matt. 26, 26, and Mark 14, 22, it is, “Having bleed it.” In Luke 22, 1 9, it is as here. The two expresdons mean the same thing. Both express the act of consecration, by a grateful acknowledgment of God’s mercy and invocation of his blessing. See the remarks on 10, 16. Se brake it. This circumstance is included in all the accounts; in those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as in Panl’s. This is one of the significant parts of the service, and ought not to be omitted as is done by Romanists, by the Greek ehnrch and by Lutherans. An4 said. The words uttered by oar blessed Lord at this moment are differently reported by the different evangelists. In Matt. 26, 26, it is, “Take, eat.” In Mark 14, 22, the latter word (according to the best authorities) is omitted. In Luke 22, 19, both are omitted. Here, although both are fotmd in the common text, yet, as they are wanting in the oldest MSS., they should probably be omitted; so that Paul’s accotmt agrees as to this point with that of Lake. The proper inference from this diversity is, that the words were uttered by our Lord; but as the ideas which they express were sufficiently indicated by the gesture of reaching the bread to his disciples, they were omitted by some of the narrators as unnecessary. The idea, whether expressed by words or gesture, is however of importance. The bread was to be taken and eaten. — There mu-st be a distribution of the elements to those pai’ticipatin in the sei-vioe. Otherwise it is not a communion. This distribution is omitted by Romanists in the ordinary celebration of the Mass. The priest alone eats the conseei’ated wafer. The next words, this is my hody, are found in all the accounts. Probably the history of the world does not furnish a parallel to the controversies occasioned by these simple words. The ordinary and natural interpretation of them L?, that the pronoun this refers to the bread. ‘This bread which I bold in my hand, and wliicli I give to yon, is my body.’ That is, is the symbol of my body; precisely as we say of a statue, it is the pei’son which it represents; or as the Scriptures say that the sign is the thing of which it is the symbol, Ez. 5, 4. 5. Gal. 4, 24; or as our Saviour says, I am the vine, ye are the branches. I am the door; or as in the preceding chapter it was said, “that rock was Christ;” or as in John 1, 32, the dove is said to be the Holy Ghost; eras baptism is said to be regeneration. This is a usage so familiar to all languages that no one disputes that the words in question iviil bear this interpretation. That they must have this meaning, would seem to be plain, 1. J’rom the impossibility of the bread in Christ’s hand being his literal body then seated at the table; and the wine the blood then flowing in hia veins. 2. From the still more obvious impossibility of taking the words “this cup is the New Testament” in a literal sense. In Matt. 26, 28 it k said, “this (cup) is my blood,” But Bomanists do not hold to a transubstantiation of the cisp, but only of the wine. But if the words are to be taken literally, they necessitated the belief of the one as well as of the other. 3. From the utter subveraon of all the rules of evidence and laws of belief neceesai-ily involved in the assumption that the bread in the Lord’s supper is literally the crucified body of Christ. 4. From the infidehty on the one hand, and the superstitious idolatry on the other, which are the unavoidable consequences of calling upon men to believe so glaring a contradiction. It is only by denying all distinction between matter and spirit, and confoundmg all our ideas of substance and qualities, that we can believe that wine is blood, or bread flesh.

The Romish interpretation of these words is, that the bread is the body of Christ, because its whole substance is changed into the substance of his body. The Lutherans say, It is his body, because his body is locally present in and with the bread. Calvin says. It is his body in the same sense that the dove (John 1, 32) was the Holy tJhost. The Holy Ghost appeared under the form of a dove, which was the pledge of his presence. So the bread is the symbol of Christ’s body, because with the one we receive the other. What is received, Jiowever, and what Calvin calls Christ’s body, and sometimes thi! substance of his body, is not the body itself which, he admits, is in heaven only, but a hfe-giving power (vim viviiicam) which flows to us from the glorified body of our Lord, The only presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament admitted by 10* Calvin w this presence of power,* The “Befomied churchea teach that the bread is called the hody of Christ in the same sense that the cup is called the new covenant. He who in faith receives the eup, receives the covenant of which it was the pledge; and he who receives in feith the bread receives the benefits of Christ’s body as broken for sin. The one is the symbol and pledge of the other.

Broken for you. IvtljakitSs, given for you. In Matthew and Mark these words are omitted. In some manuscripts f the word (Kkiiiitvov), broken, is wanting in this passse; so that it would read sim.ply for you, leaving the participle to be supplied from the context. BroJeen or given for you means slsun, or given unto death for you. The sacrificial character of the death of Christ enters essentially into the nature of this ordinance. It is the commemoration of his death, not as a teacher, or a benefactor, but as a sacrifice; so that if this idea be kept out of view the sacrament loses all its significance and power.

This do in remembrance of me. These words are not found in Matthew or Maa-k. They occur in Lute 22, 19, as they do here. This do, i. e. ‘Do what I have just done; take bread, consecrate it, break it, distribute and eat it. Jn remenibranee of me, i. e. that I may be remembered as be who died for your sins. This is the specific, definite olgect of the Lord’s Supper, to which all other ends must be subordinate, because this alone is stated in the words of institution. It is of course involved in this, that we profess faith in him as the sacrifice for our sins; that we receive him as such; that we acknoii’- ledge the obligations which rest upon ua as those who have been redeemed by his blood; and that we recognize ourselves as constituent members of his church and all believers as our brethren. We are thus, as taught in the j)receding chapter, brought into a real commanion with Christ and with afl his people by the believing participation of this ordinance.

26. After the same manner also (he took) the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cap is the new testa-

* ilffio ooiamuiiioatio corporis OLriBtf, quam nobis in ooena exLiberl dico, neo loeslem praesentiam, neo Christi descensum, neo iufinitam estensioneiu, neo alind quioqnam tale flagitat.... Locum noa mnSatj nf tmhia nrfsif ^frf o coelo praeseiitera in nos earnis snae virtntem t: ‘” ’

t Tlia MSS. A. B. C. omit KXifrnv, Griealjach questioned its gcmiineaBBa, tachmami and Tisdieudori’ rsjeot it. mcnt in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink (it), ill remembrance of me.

This second part of the eervice is introduced by Luke with the same words which are here used, though our translators

latter version is the literal and simple it>..«oiJi.^ ui u.ic muki nal. In Matthew and Mark it is said, “Having taken the cup, and having given thanks.” This explains what Paul and Luke mean by likewise, or a/ier the same tnanner. They intend to say that Chiist did with the cup what he had done with the bread, i. e. he took it, and prononnced over it the eucharistical benediction, i. e. a blessing, connected with thanksgiving. In this partienlar there is a slight departnre in our mode of administering this ordinance, from the example of Christ. With us there is generally but one eucharistical blessing at the introduction ot the service, having reference both to the bread and to the oup. Whereas it seems that our Lord blessed the bread, and having broken, distributed it to his disciples; and then took the c«p, and having blessed it, gave it to them to drink, fier 8>^>per, i. e, aiter the conclusion of the pchal supper.

Sayinfft This cup is the New Testament in my blood. The same words occur in Lnke 23, 20. In Matthew and Mark the corresponding expression is, “This is my blood of the Kew Testament.” The sense must be the same. “The blood of the covenant” means here, as in Ex, 24, 8, the blood by which the covenant was ratified and its blengs secured. The passage refeiTed to in Exodus shows the manner in which covenants were anciently ratified in the East. A victim was slain and the blood spiinkled upon the contracting parties, by which they were solemnly bound to their mutual engagements. The word SiaS^KTi BO constantly, after the Vulgate, rendered T^tament by our translators, always in the New Testament means a covenant, unless Heb. 9, 16 be an exception. Here that sense is required by the context, as a covenant and not a testament was ratified by blood. This covenant is called new in reference to the Mosaic covenant. The latter was ratified by the blood of animals; the new, by the blood of the eternal Son of God; the one in itself could secure only temporal benefits and the remission of ceremonial ofibnccs; the other secures eternal redemption, and the remission of sin in the sight of God. As the Hebrews entered into covenant with God when

the “blood of the heifer waa ajirinldcd upon them, and thereljy bound themselves to be obedient to the Mosaic institutiocs, and as God thereby graciously bound himself to confer upon them all its promised blessings on condition of that obedience; BO, in the Loi-d’3 supper, those who receive the cup pi-ofess to embrace the covenant of grace, and bind themselves to obedience to the gospel; and God binds himself to confer on them all the benefits of redemption. In receiving; the cup, therefore, they receive the pledge of their salvation. The death of Christ, which is so often compai’ed to a sin-offering, is here, as well as in the Epistle to the Hebrews, compared to a federal sacrifice. The two, however, do not differ. The death of Christ is the latter only in virtue of its being the former. It ratifies the covenant of §race and seeurea its benefits, only because it was a propitiation, i. e. because it was a satisfaction to divine justice, as is so clearly taught in Rom, 3, 25. 26. Every time, therefore, the consecrated wine touches the believer’s lips, he receives anew the application of the blood of Christ for the remission of his sins and his reconciliation with God. If the Bible says we are sprinkled with the blood of Jesus, I Peter 1, 2, why may we not be said to receive his blood? If the former expression means the application of the benefits of his saciificial death, why may not the latter mean the reception of those benefits? Hei-e, as elsewhere, the diificulty is the want of fiiith. He who by faith appropriates a divine promise recorded in the word, receives the blesdng promised; and he who in the exercise of faith receives the sacramental cup receives the benefits of the covenant of which that cup is the symbol and the pledge. But what is fiiith? or rather, what is it that we are requii-ed to believe, in order to experience all thM? 1. We must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he loved us and gave himself for us. 2. That his blood cleanses from all sin. 3. That in the sacrament he offers us, with the symbols of his broken body and his shed blood, the benefits of his death; and that he will certainly convey those benefits to all those who hold out even a trembling hand to receive them.

In Luke, after the words in my blood, it is added, which is shed for you. In Mark the explanation is, which is shed for mam,; and in Matthew, still more fully, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. These are different forms of expressing the sacrificial character of the death of Christ. Though It was the blood of the covenant, yet it was at the Bame time shed for many, not merely for their benefit in the genera!, bat lor the speoilic object of securing the remission of sins. It was, therefore, truly a sin-offering. Thus does Scripture explain Scripture. What is said concisely in one place ia more fully and clearly stated in another.

27iis do, as oft as ye arink it, in remembrance of me. These words do not occur in Luke. In Matthew the words are, Brink ye all of if. Mark aas, Th&y all drank of it. In each account the feotismade plain that the cupivas distributed to all at the table and that all drank of it. The words This do are to be understood here aa in v, 35, ‘Do what I have done, i. e. blesa the cup and distribute it among yourselves.’ As oft as ye drink of it. This does not mean that every time Christians drank wine together they should do it in commemoration of Christ’s death; but, ’ as often as this ordinance is celebrated, do what I have done, to commemorate my death.’ T!:e Lord’s Sapper is a commemoration of Christ’s death, not only because it was deigned for that purpose, but also because the bread and wine are the significant symbols of his broken body and shed blood. In this ordinance therefore Chiist is set forth as a sacrifice which at once makes expiation for sin and ratifies the covenant of grace.

30. Por as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

What Paul had received of the Lord is recorded in the preceding vei-ses. Here and in what follows we have his own inierences from the account which the Lord had given him. The first of those inferences is, that the Lord’s supper is, and was designed to be, a proclamation of the death of Christ to continue until his second advent. Those who come to it, therefore, should come, not to satisfy hunger, nor for the gratification of social feelings, but for the dehnite purpose of bearing their testimony to the great fact of redemption, and to contribute their portion of influence to the presei-vation and propagation of the knowledge of that fact. Par indicates the connection with what precedes, ‘It is a commemoration of his death, for it is in its very nature a proclamation of that great fa«t.’ And it was not a temporary institution, but one designed to continue until the consummation. As the Passover was a perpetual commemoration of the deliverance out of Egypt, and a prediction of the coming and death of the Latnlj of Go3, who was to tear the sins of the world; so the Lord’s supper is at once the commemoration of the death of Chi-ist and a pledge of his comiBg the second time wltliout sin unto Balvation.

37. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and
drink (this) cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be
guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

This is the second inference. Wherefore, i. e. so that, hence it follows. If the Lord’s Supper be in its very nature a proclamation of the death of Christ, it follows that those who attend upon it as an ordinary meal, or in an irreverent manner, or for any other purpose than that for which it was appointed, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. That M, they contract guilt in reference to the body and blood of Christ, See James 2, 10, The man who tramples on the flag of his country, insults his country; and he who treats with indignity the representative of a sovereign, thereby offends the sovereign himsel£ In like manner, he who treats the symbols of Christ’s body and blood irreverently is guilty of irreverence towards Christ. The idea that he is so evil that he would have joined in the cracifixion of the Lord; or that he makes himself a partaker of the guilt of his death, does not He in the words. It is also obvious that this passage affords no ground for either the Romish or Lntheran view of the local presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, since an insult to the appointed symbol of his body, is an insult to his body itself. Neither does the passage countenance the doctrine held by both Romanists and Lutherans, that unbelievers receive the body and blood of Christ. If they do not receive them, it is asked, how can they be guilty in respect to them? By treating them, in their appointed symbols, irreverently. It is not necessary, therefore, in order to the guilt here spoken of, either that the body of Christ should be locally present, or that the unworthy receiver be a partaker of that body, which is received by feith alone. In our version it is, “whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup;” in the Greek it is (^) or, not and. And this the sense requires. The irreverent use of either the bread or the cup in this ordinance involves the guilt of which the apostle here speaks; because the indignity extends to the whole service.

But what h it to eat and drink vmworthily f It is not to

I. COEINTniANS U, 37.28. 231

eat and drink with a conscionsnesa of nnivorthiness, foi’ such a sense of ill-desert is one of the conditions of acceptable communion. It is not the whole, but the consciously sick whom Christ came to heal. Nor is it to eat with doubt and misgiving of our being duly prepai’ed to come to the Ixird’s table; for such doubts, although an evidence of a weak iaith, indicate * better state of mind than indifference or false security. In the Larger Cateohisin of our Church, in answer to the question, whether one who doubts of his being in Christ, may come to the Lord’s supper, it is said, “One who donbteth of his bein in Christ, or of Ms due preparation to the eaerament of the Lord’s supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God’s account hath it, if lie be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it, and raifeignedlv desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from inicimty; m which case (because pi-omises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief and labour to have his doubts resolved; and so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord’s supper, that he may be fui-ther strengthened,” To eat or diTuk unworthily is in general to come to the Lord’s table in a careless, irreverent spirit, without the intention or desire to commemorate the death of Christ as the sacrifice for our sins, and without the pmpoae of complying ^7ith the engagements which we thereby assume. The way in which the Corinthians ate nnworthily was, that they treated the Lord’s table as though it were their own; making no distmction between the Lord’s supper and an ordinary meal; coming together to satisfy their hunger, and not to feed on. the body and blood of Chiist; and reiuaing to commune with their poorer brethren. This, though one, is not the only way in which men may eat and drink unworthily. All that is necessaiy to observe is, that the warning is directly against the carele and profane, and not against the timid and the doubting.

38. But let a man examine himself, and so let him
eat of (that) bread, and drink of (that) cup.

This is the third inference from the account of the Lord’s supper which Paul had received. It requires self-examination and preparation in order to being worthily received. If it be a commemoration of Chi-ist’a death; if we are therein “made pai-tatera of his liody and blood;” if we contract such guilt by eating and drinking imwortliilj’; in other words, if such blessings attend the worthy receiving, and auch guilt the unworthy receiving of this ordinance, it ia evident that we should not approach it without due self-inspection and preparation. Let a man examine himself. In other words, let him ascertain whether he has correct views of the nature and design of the ordinance, and whether he has the proper state of mind. That is, whether he desires thankfully to commemorate the Lord’s death, renewedly to partake of the benefits of that death as a sacrifice for his ems, publicly to accept the covenant of grace with all its promise and obligations, and to signify hia fellowship with Ma brethren as joint members with himself of the body of Christ. A’nd so let him eat. That is, after this self-examination, and, aa ia evidently implied, after having ascertained that he possesses the due preparation. It is not essential, however, to this preparation, as before remarked, that we ahould be assured of our good estate, but simply that we have the intelligent desire to do what Christ requires of ua when we come to his table. If we come hnmbiy seeking him, he will bid ws welcome, and feed us with that bread whereof if a man eat, he shall never die.

29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily,* eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

This verse assigns the reason why self-examination in preparation for the Lord’s supper ia necessary. It is because he that eateth and drinketh unworthily (in the sense before explained), eateth and drinketh judgment to himself. That is, he incui-a the manifestation of God’s displeasure by the act of eating. The word damnation, used in om* veraion, originally and properly means simply condemnation, and not hopeless and final perdition, which is its modern and popular sense. In the original the word ia Kpt/Ao, without the article, and there-

The word aealaf, tottcorlhUs, ia omitted by the MSS. A. C, and is rejf cled by Lachmann and Tlsclitiidorf. If discarded, the sense of the pasan is either, ‘Thetnter and drinker, i, e. he who eats and drinks at the Loi-d’a tuble as at an ordinaiy meal, eats judgment to liimseifj ’ or, ‘He that eats, not discerning the Lord’s body, eats judgment to himself.’ The common test liaa in its lupport the msijority of ancient MSS., and is followed by moat editors. fore sim]y Judffment, not the judgment. The meaning obviously is, that the unworthy eater contracts gmlt; he exposes Jiiniself to the judgments of God. What kind of judgments the apostle had in his mind is plain from, the next verse, wherp he refers to sicknesa and death.* This verse is only a repetition of the sentiment expressed in v. 27, where he -vvho eats un-worthily is said to contract guilt in reference to the body of the Lord, Ifot discerning, i, e. because he does not discern the Lord’s body. The word ZiaKpCvvt, translated to discern, means to sarate, then to cause to diifer, as 4, 7; and also, judge of; either in the sense of discriminating one thing fvom another, or in the sense of estimating aright. This passage may therefore mean, not disorhnioating the Lord’s body, i. e. making no difference between the bread in the sacrament and ordinary food; or, it may mean, not estimating it aright, not reverencing it as the appointed symbol of the body of the Lord. In either case the offence is the same. The gi’onnd of the condemnation incurred is, regarding and treating the elements in the Lord’s supper as though there was nothing to distinguish them from ordinary bread and wine. Here, as before, it is the careless and profane who are warned. There is, therefore, nothing in these passages which should surround the Lord’s table with gloom. We are not called unto the mount covered with clouda and darkness, from which issue the signs of wrath, but unto Mount Zion, to the abode of mercy and grace, where all is love — the dying love of him who never breaks the bruised reed.

30. For this cause many (are) weak and sickly
among you, and many sleep.

Jibr iMa cause, that is, because those who partake of the Lord’s supper unworthily incur the judgment of God; many are weak and sickly. The distinction between these words made by commentators, is, that the former designates those whose strength decays as it were of Itself, and the latter, those rendered infirm by sickness. The latter term is the stronger of the two. Atm many sleep, i. e, have already died. As there is nothing in the context to intimate that these terms

* Bebqet.’s remark on this olnnse is

BQo luaiit. Kon die it ri KOTit/Ji/w, coqi are used figuratively of mora! infinnities and spiritual ctecleusion, they should be taken in their literjJ sense. Paul knew that the prevailing sickness and frequent deaths among the Chiistians of Corinth were a judgment from God on account of the in-everent manner in which they had celebrated the Lord’s supper.

31. Por if we would .judge ourselves, we should
not be judged.

lihr, i. e. these afflictions are judgments from God, because of your sin in this matter; for, n we judge ovrselves, that ia, if we examine ourselves (see v. 28) and prejiare om-aelves for the Lord’s table, we should not he Judged, i, e. thus afflicted. It is because we do not sit in judgment on ourselves, that God judges us.

33. But when we are judged, we are chastened of
the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the
world.

These judgments were chastisements designed for the benefit of those who suffered, to bring them to repentance, that they might not be finally condemned with the woi-ld; that is, with unbelievers. The world often means mankind aa distingukhed from the church, or those chosen out of the world, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world,” John 17, 16. What Paul says of the design of these judgments, proves that oven the extreme irreverence with which he charges the Corinthians in reference to the Lord’s supper, was not an unpardonable sin.

33. 34. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come
together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any
man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not
together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set
in order when I come.

The two great evils connected with the observance of the Lord’s supper at Corinth were, first, that it was not a communion, one took his supper before another, v. 21; and secondly, that they came to the Lord’s table to satisfy their hunger. That is, they made it an ordinary meal. They thus sinned against their brethren, v. 23, and they sinned against Christ, V, 27. In the conduaion, therefore, of the whole disouasion, fee exhorta them to correct these evil a; to wait for each other, and make it a joint service; and to satisfy their hunger at home, and come together only to commemorate the Lord’s death. Mildly as this exhortation ia expressed, it ia enforced by the solemn warning already given, that ye come not toffelher to condrtnation, that is, so as to incur the displeasure of God. The rest will I set in order when {whenever ois av) I may come. There were, it seems, other icregularities of less importance than those above mentioned, which the apostle leaves to be corrected until he should agmn visit Corinth, The epistles of Paul abound in evidence of the plenary authority exercised by the apostles over the churches. The word SwiTainTa), to Set in order, implies authoritative direction; see 7, 17. 16, 1. Matt. 11, 1. The apostles were rendered infilllible, as the representatives of Christ, to teach his doctrines, to organize the church and detennine its form of government, and to regulate its worship. And what they orddned lias binding force on the church to this day. What Paul teaches in this chapter concerning the nature and mode of celebrating the Lord’s supper, has determined the views and practice of evangelical Christians in every part of the world. It is not at all wonderful, conadering that the festivals of the Jews, and especially the Passover, as well as the saci-iflcial feasts of the Gentiles, were social repasts, and especially considering that our Lord instituted this ordinance in connection with the Paschal supper, that the early OhvLstians should have so generally combined it with a social meal; or that this custom should have continued so long in the church. Nor is it a matter of surprise, that the social element in this combined service should so often have prevailed over the religious one. That this was to a lamentable degree the case in Corinth, is evident from this chapter; and it ia probable from Jude 12, that the evil wafl by no means confined to Corinth. That apostle, speaking of certain sensual peraona, says, “These are spots in

S)ur feasts of charity, when they feast with you without fear.” ence the unspeakable importance of the instructions and directions ven by St, Paul, which are specially designed to separate the Lord’s supper as a religious rite from the social element with which it was combined. The apostle urges that neither the sacrament itself, nor any feast with which it might

be connected, should be regarded as the occasion of satisfying huiiwer. The communion of saints and the commemoration of the death of Chiist as a sacrifice for our sins, are the only legitimate objects which could be contemplated in the service. And by exhibiting the intimate fellowship with the Lord iiivoived in the right use of this ordinance, and the dreadful conseqaences of unworthily participatmg, he has raised it to a purely religious service, and made it the hiehest act of woi ship. Prom one extreme the church gi’aduaTly passed over to the opposite. From regarding it as it had been in Corinth, little more than an ordinary meal, it came to be regarded aa an awful mystery, a sacriiice which the people were to witness, and in which they were to adore the Redeemer as locally present in his coi-poreal nature under the form of a wafer! So strong a hold had this unsoriptural view taken of the mind of the church, that Lnther found it impossible to emancipate himself from the belief of the local presence of Christ’s real body in this sacrament. And even Calvin could not divest himself of the conviction, not only of its supernatural character, which all admit who regard it as a means of grace, but also of its bein truly miraculous. It was only after a severe struggle that the Refonned church got back to the simple, yet sublime view of the ordinance presented by the apostle Paul. The danger has often since been that the church should go back to the Corinthian extreme, and iooli upon the Lord’s supper as a simple commemoration, involving nothing supernatural either in its nature or effects. Our only safety is in adhering strictly to the teachings of the Scriptures. The apostle tells us, on the authority of a dii-eot I’evelation from the Lord himself, that while the orduiance is designed as a memoiial of Christ’s death, it involves a participation of his body and blood, not of their material substance, but of their sacrificial efficacy, so that, “although the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present in, vnth, or under the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper; and yet are spiritually present to the feith of the receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their outward senses; so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Chiist, not alter a corporal or carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really, while by fiiith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified and all the benefits of hia death.” Larger Oateohism.