1 Corinthians 11 commentary

The first verse of this chapter seems properly to be the close to the last. The apostle not only preached such doctrine as they ought to believe, but led such a life as they ought to live. Yet Christ being our perfect example, the actions and conduct of men, as related in the Scriptures, should be followed only so far as they are like to his.

Here begin particulars respecting the public assemblies, ch. 1Co 14. In the abundance of spiritual gifts bestowed on the Corinthians, some abuses had crept in; but as Christ did the will, and sought the honour of God, so the Christian should avow his subjection to Christ, doing his will and seeking his glory. We should, even in our dress and habit, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have “power,” that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. Their presence should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God. Nevertheless, the man and the woman were made for one another. They were to be mutual comforts and blessings, not one a slave, and the other a tyrant. God has so settled matters, both in the kingdom of providence and that of grace, that the authority and subjection of each party should be for mutual help and benefit. It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was right that they should do so. The Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness; affected singularities receive no countenance from any thing in the Bible.

The apostle rebukes the disorders in their partaking of the Lord's supper. The ordinances of Christ, if they do not make us better, will be apt to make us worse. If the use of them does not mend, it will harden. Upon coming together, they fell into divisions, schisms. Christians may separate from each other's communion, yet be charitable one towards another; they may continue in the same communion, yet be uncharitable. This last is schism, rather than the former. There is a careless and irregular eating of the Lord's supper, which adds to guilt. Many rich Corinthians seem to have acted very wrong at the Lord's table, or at the love-feasts, which took place at the same time as the supper. The rich despised the poor, and ate and drank up the provisions they brought, before the poor were allowed to partake; thus some wanted, while others had more than enough. What should have been a bond of mutual love and affection, was made an instrument of discord and disunion. We should be careful that nothing in our behaviour at the Lord's table, appears to make light of that sacred institution. The Lord's supper is not now made an occasion for gluttony or revelling, but is it not often made the support of self-righteous pride, or a cloak for hypocrisy? Let us never rest in the outward forms of worship; but look to our hearts.

The apostle describes the sacred ordinance, of which he had the knowledge by revelation from Christ. As to the visible signs, these are the bread and wine. What is eaten is called bread, though at the same time it is said to be the body of the Lord, plainly showing that the apostle did not mean that the bread was changed into flesh. St. Matthew tells us, our Lord bid them all drink of the cup, ch. Mt 26:27, as if he would, by this expression, provide against any believer being deprived of the cup. The things signified by these outward signs, are Christ's body and blood, his body broken, his blood shed, together with all the benefits which flow from his death and sacrifice. Our Saviour's actions were, taking the bread and cup, giving thanks, breaking the bread, and giving both the one and the other. The actions of the communicants were, to take the bread and eat, to take the cup and drink, and to do both in remembrance of Christ. But the outward acts are not the whole, or the principal part, of what is to be done at this holy ordinance. Those who partake of it, are to take him as their Lord and Life, yield themselves up to him, and live upon him. Here is an account of the ends of this ordinance. It is to be done in remembrance of Christ, to keep fresh in our minds his dying for us, as well as to remember Christ pleading for us, in virtue of his death, at God's right hand. It is not merely in remembrance of Christ, of what he has done and suffered; but to celebrate his grace in our redemption. We declare his death to be our life, the spring of all our comforts and hopes. And we glory in such a declaration; we show forth his death, and plead it as our accepted sacrifice and ransom. The Lord's supper is not an ordinance to be observed merely for a time, but to be continued. The apostle lays before the Corinthians the danger of receiving it with an unsuitable temper of mind; or keeping up the covenant with sin and death, while professing to renew and confirm the covenant with God. No doubt such incur great guilt, and so render themselves liable to spiritual judgements. But fearful believers should not be discouraged from attending at this holy ordinance. The Holy Spirit never caused this scripture to be written to deter serious Christians from their duty, though the devil has often made this use of it. The apostle was addressing Christians, and warning them to beware of the temporal judgements with which God chastised his offending servants. And in the midst of judgement, God remembers mercy: he many times punishes those whom he loves. It is better to bear trouble in this world, than to be miserable for ever. The apostle points our the duty of those who come to the Lord's table. Self-examination is necessary to right attendance at this holy ordinance. If we would thoroughly search ourselves, to condemn and set right what we find wrong, we should stop Divine judgements. The apostle closes all with a caution against the irregularities of which the Corinthians were guilty at the Lord's table. Let all look to it, that they do not come together to God's worship, so as to provoke him, and bring down vengeance on themselves.

1. Imitators of me. From this it appears, how absurdly chapters are divided, inasmuch as this sentence is disjoined from what goes before, with which it ought to have been connected, and is joined to what follows, with which it has no connection. Let us view this, then, as the close of the preceding chapter. Paul had there brought forward his own example in confirmation of his doctrine. Now, in order that the Corinthians may understand that this would be becoming in them, he exhorts them to imitate what he had done, even as he had imitated Christ

Here there are two things to be observed — first, that he prescribes nothing to others that he had not first practiced himself; and, secondly, that he directs himself and others to Christ as the only pattern of right acting. For while it is the part of a good teacher to enjoin nothing in words but what he is prepared to practice in action, he must not, at the same time, be so austere, as straightway to require from others everything that he does himself, as is the manner of the superstitious. For everything that they contract a liking for they impose also upon others, and would have their own example to be held absolutely as a rule. The world is also, of its own accord, inclined to a misdirected imitation, (κακοζηλίαν) “Κακοζηλία, an absurd invitation The term is used in this sense by Lucian. (V. 70.) Our author makes use of the same term in the Harmony, vol. 1, p. 209, n. 2. — Ed and, after the manner of apes, strive to copy whatever they see done by persons of great influence. We see, however how many evils have been introduced into the Church by this absurd desire of imitating all the actions of the saints, without exception. Let us, therefore, maintain so much the more carefully this doctrine of Paul — that we are to follow men, provided they take Christ as their grand model, (πρωτότυπον,) that the examples of the saints may not tend to lead us away from Christ, but rather to direct us to him.

2. Now I praise you He passes on now to another subject-to instruct the Corinthians, what decorum ought to be observed in the sacred assemblies. For as a man’s dress or gesture has in some cases the effect of disfiguring, and in others of adorning him, so all actions are set off to advantage by decorum, and are vitiated by the want of it. Much, therefore, depends upon decorum (τὸ πρεπον,) Τὸ πρέπον, may be defined to be the union of propriety and grace. Πρέπον and καλὸν being used among the Greeks and among the Romans, pulchrum and decorum, as synonymous terms. See Cic. de Off., 1, 27. — Ed and that not merely for securing for our actions gracefulness and beauty, but also to accustom our minds to propriety. While this is true in a general way as to everything, it holds especially as to sacred things; “Es choses qui concement le seruice de Dieu;” — “In things that concern the service of God.” for what contempt, and, eventually, what barbarism will be incurred, if we do not preserve dignity in the Church, by conducting ourselves honorably and becomingly? Hence he prescribes some things that are connected with public order, by which sacred assemblies are rendered honorable. But in order to prepare them the more for obedience, he commends, in the outset, their obedience in the past, inasmuch as they observed his ordinances; for inasmuch as he had begotten that Church to the Lord, (1 Corinthians 4:15,) he had delivered to them a certain system, by which it was to be governed. By retaining this, the Corinthians gave reason to hope, that they would also in future be docile.

It is surprising, however, that, while he now bestows upon them this commendation, he had previously blamed them for many things. Nay more, if we consider the state of the Church, such as has been previously described, they were far from deserving this praise. I answer, that there were some that were infected with those vices which he had previously reproved, and indeed, some with one, others with another; but, in the meantime, the form which he had prescribed to them had been retained by the entire body. For there is nothing of inconsistency in saying, that very many sins, and of various kinds, prevail among a particular people — some cheating, others plundering — some envying, others quarrelling, and another class guilty of fornication — while, at the same time, in respect of the public form of the Church, the institutions of Christ and his Apostles are maintained.

This will appear more clearly when we come to see what Paul means by παραδόσεις; (traditions;) “Traditions ou ordonnances;” — “Traditions or ordinances.” and independently of this, it is necessary to speak of this word, for the purpose of replying to Papists, who arm themselves with this passage for the purpose of defending their traditions. It is a common maxim among them, that the doctrine of the Apostles consists partly of writings and partly of traditions. Under this second department they include not merely certain foolish superstitions, and puerile ceremonies, with which they are stuffed, but also all kinds of gross abomination, directly contrary to the plain word of God, and their tyrannical laws, which are mere torments to men’s consciences. In this way there is nothing that is so foolish, nothing so absurd — in fine, nothing so monstrous, as not to have shelter under this pretext, and to be painted over with this varnish. As Paul, therefore, makes mention here of traditions, they seize, as they are accustomed to do, upon this little word, with the view of making Paul the author of all those abominations, which we set aside by plain declaration of Scripture.

I do not deny, that there were certain traditions “Quelques ordonnances;” — “Certain enactments.” of the Apostles that were not committed to writing, but I do not admit that they were parts of doctrine, or related to things necessary for salvation. What then? They were connected with order and government. For we know that every Church has liberty to frame for itself a form of government that is suitable and profitable for it, because the Lord has not prescribed anything definite. Thus Paul, the first founder of the Corinthian Church, had also framed for its regulation pious and seemly enactments — that all things might be done decently and in order, as he afterwards enjoins. (1 Corinthians 14:40.) But what has this to do with those silly trifles of ceremonies, which are to be seen in Popery? “Les sottes ceremonies et badinages, qu’on voit auiourd’huy en la Papaute;” — “The silly ceremonies and fooleries that are to be seen in Popery at this day.” What has it to do with a worse than Jewish superstition? What has it to do with a tyranny worthy of Phalaris, “Ceste tyrannic plus que barbare;” — “That worse than barbarous cruelty.” Phalaris, the tyrant of Agrigentum in Sicily, was infamous for his cruelty. Cicero on more than one occasion employs the term Phalarismus to denote excessive cruelty. See Cic. Att. 7. 12, and Fam. 7. 11. — Ed. by which they torture miserable consciences? What has it to do with so many monstrous rites of idolatry? For the foundation of all right enactment was this: to observe the moderation that Paul made use of — not to compel persons to follow their enactments, “Leurs arrests et determinations“ — “Their decrees and determinations.” while, in the meantime, contriving everything that might strike their fancy, but to require that they should be imitated, in so far as they are imitators of Christ But now, after having had the audacity to criticize everything agreeably to their own humor, to demand obedience from all is exceedingly absurd. Farther, we must know that Paul commends their obedience in the past, in order that he may render them docile also for the time to come.

3. But I would have you know It is an old proverb: “Evil manners beget good laws.” Matthew Henry makes use of this proverb in his Commentary, when summing up the contents of Luke 15. — Ed. As the rite here treated of had not been previously called in question, Paul had given no enactment respecting it. “N’en auoit rien touche es enseignemens qu’il auoit donnez;” — “Had not touched upon it at all in the instructions which he had given.” The error of the Corinthians was the occasion of his showing, what part it was becoming to act in this matter. With the view of proving, that it is an unseemly thing for women to appear in a public assembly with their heads uncovered, and, on the other hand, for men to pray or prophesy with their heads covered, he sets out with noticing the arrangements that are divinely established.

He says, that as Christ is subject to God as his head, so is the man subject to Christ, and the woman to the man We shall afterwards see, how he comes to infer from this, that women ought to have their heads covered. Let us, for the present, take notice of those four gradations which he points out. God, then, occupies the first place: Christ holds the second place. How so? Inasmuch as he has in our flesh made himself subject to the Father, for, apart from this, being of one essence with the Father, he is his equal. Let us, therefore, bear it in mind, that this is spoken of Christ as mediator. He is, I say, inferior to the Father, inasmuch as he assumed our nature, that he might be the first-born among many brethren.

There is somewhat more of difficulty in what follows. Here the man is placed in an intermediate position between Christ and the woman, so that Christ is not the head of the woman. Yet the same Apostle teaches us elsewhere, (Galatians 3:28,) that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Why then does he make a distinction here, which in that passage he does away with? I answer, that the solution of this depends on the connection in which the passages occur. When he says that there is no difference between the man and the woman, he is treating of Christ’s spiritual kingdom, in which individual distinctions “Les qualites externes;” “External qualities.” are not regarded, or made any account of; for it has nothing to do with the body, and has nothing to do with the outward relationships of mankind, but has to do solely with the mind — on which account he declares that there is no difference, even between bond and free. In the meantime, however, he does not disturb civil order or honorary distinctions, which cannot be dispensed with in ordinary life. Here, on the other hand, he reasons respecting outward propriety and decorum — which is a part of ecclesiastical polity. Hence, as regards spiritual connection in the sight of God, and inwardly in the conscience, Christ is the head of the man and of the woman without any distinction, because, as to that, there is no regard paid to male or female; but as regards external arrangement and political decorum, the man follows Christ and the woman the man, so that they are not upon the same footing, but, on the contrary, this inequality exists. Should any one ask, what connection marriage has with Christ, I answer, that Paul speaks here of that sacred union of pious persons, of which Christ is the officiating priest, “Autheur et conducteur;” — “Author and conductor.” and He in whose name it is consecrated.

4. Every man praying Here there are two propositions. The first relates to the man, the other to the woman He says that the man commits an offense against Christ his head, if he prays or prophesies with his head covered. Why so? Because he is subject to Christ, with this understanding, that he is to hold the first place in the government of the house — for the father of the family is like a king in his own house. Hence the glory of God shines forth in him, in consequence of the authority with which he is invested. If he covers his head, he lets himself down from that preeminence which God had assigned to him, so as to be in subjection. Thus the honor of Christ is infringed upon. For example, “Mais afin de mieux entendre ceci, prenons vn exemple;” — “But, that we may understand this better, let us take an example.” If the person whom the prince has appointed as his lieutenant, does not know how to maintain his proper station, “Se maintenir, et vser de son authorite;” — “To keep his place, and maintain his authority.” and instead of this, exposes his dignity to contempt on the part of persons in the lowest station, does he not bring dishonor upon his prince? In like manner, if the man does not keep his own station — if he is not subject to Christ in such a way as to preside over his own family with authority, he obscures, to that extent, the glory of Christ, which shines forth in the well regulated order of marriage. The covering, as we shall see ere long, is an emblem of authority intermediate and interposed.

Prophesying I take here to mean — declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers, (as afterwards in 1 Corinthians 14,) as praying means preparing a form of prayer, and taking the lead, as it were, of all the people — which is the part of the public teacher, “Du ministre et docteur de l’Eglise;” — “Of the minister and teacher of the Church.” for Paul is not arguing here as to every kind of prayer, but as to solemn prayer in public. Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this — that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is το πρέπον — decorum If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.

5. Every woman praying or prophesying Here we have the second proposition — that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonor their head For as the man honors his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection — involving contempt of her husband. It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly

prohibits women from speaking in the Church. (1 Timothy 2:12.)

It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty — not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses.

For it is all one as if she were shaven. He now maintains from other considerations, that it is unseemly for women to have their heads bare. Nature itself, says he, abhors it. To see a woman shaven is a spectacle that is disgusting and monstrous. Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability — that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not, therefore, without good reason that Paul, as a remedy for this vice, sets before them the opposite idea — that they be regarded as remarkable for unseemliness, rather than for what is an incentive to lust. “Sainct Paul pour remedier à ce vice, propose tout le contraire de ce qui leur sembloit; disant, que tant s’en faut qu’en cela il y ait vne beaute pour attirer les hommes a connoitise, que plustot c’est vne chose laide et deshonneste;” — “St. Paul, with the view of remedying this vice, sets forward quite the reverse of what appeared to them — saying, that so far from there being a beauty in this to allure men to lust, it is rather a thing that is ugly and unseemly.”

7. The man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image The same question may now be proposed respecting the image, as formerly respecting the head. For both sexes were created in the image of God, and Paul exhorts women no less than men to be formed anew, according to that image. The image, however, of which he is now speaking, relates to the order of marriage, and hence it belongs to the present life, and is not connected with conscience. The simple solution is this — that he does not treat here of innocence and holiness, which are equally becoming in men and women, but of the distinction, which God has conferred upon the man, so as to have superiority over the woman. In this superior order of dignity the glory of God is seen, as it shines forth in every kind of superiority.

The woman is the glory of the man There is no doubt that the woman is a distinguished ornament of the man; for it is a great honor that God has appointed her to the man as the partner of his life, and a helper to him, “Pour estre compagne a l’homme, pour viure auec luy, et pour luy aider;” — “To be a companion to the man, to live with him, and to aid him.” and has made her subject to him as the body is to the head. For what Solomon affirms as to a careful wife — that she is a crown to her husband, (Proverbs 12:4,) is true of the whole sex, if we look to the appointment of God, which Paul here commends, showing that the woman was created for this purpose — that she might be a distinguished ornament of the man.

8. For the man is not from the woman. He establishes by two arguments the pre-eminence, which he had assigned to men above women. The first is, that as the woman derives her origin from the man, she is therefore inferior in rank. The second is, that as the woman was created for the sake of the man, she is therefore subject to him, as the work ultimately produced is to its cause. “Ainsi que l’oeuure tendant a quelque fin est au dessous de sa cause et fin pour laquelle on le fait;” — “As a work fitted for some design is inferior to its cause and the design for which it is made.” That the man is the beginning of the woman and the end for which she was made, is evident from the law. (Genesis 2:18.)

It is not good for a man to be alone. Let us make for him, etc.

Farther,

God took one of Adam’s ribs and formed Eve. (Genesis 2:21, 22.)

10. For this cause ought the woman to have power “Doit auoir sur la teste vne enseigne qu’elle est sous puissance;” — “She ought to have upon her head a token that she is under authority.” From that authority he draws an argument “Vn argument et consequence;” — “An argument and inference.” in favor of outward decorum. “She is subject,” says he, “let her then wear a token of subjection.” In the term power, there is an instance of metonymy, “I1 y a de mot a mot au Grec, La femme doit auoir puissance sur la teste. Mais au mot de puissance il y a une figure appellee metonymie;” — “It is literally in the Greek, The woman ought to have power upon her head. But in the word power there is a figure called metonymy.” for he means a token by which she declares herself to be under the power of her husband; and it is a covering, whether it be a robe, or a veil, “C’est la couuerture de teste, soit un chapperon, ou couurechef, ou coiffe, ou chose semblable;” — “It is a covering of the head, whether it be a hood, or a kerchief, or a coif, or anything of that kind.” or any other kind of covering. The term ἐξουσία (exousia) is considered by Bloomfield to be the name of an article of dress of which mention is made in Ruth 3:15, and Isaiah 3:23, and consisted of “a piece of cloth of a square form thrown over the head and tied under the chin.” Granville Penn, on the other hand, considers it as nothing more than the (τι) κατα κεφαλης in the third verse of the chapter — something on the head, or a covering on the head, and notices it as remarkable, that in Wiclif’s version (1380) the rendering is — “the woman schal have an hilying on hir heed,” which the glossary explains by covering. — Ed

It is asked, whether he speaks of married women exclusively, for there are some that restrict to them what Paul here teaches, on the ground that it does not belong to virgins to be under the authority of a husband. It is however a mistake, for Paul looks beyond this — to God’s eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex. Otherwise it were an inconclusive argument that Paul has drawn from nature, in saying that it were not one whit more seemly for a woman to have her head uncovered than to be shaven — this being applicable to virgins also.

Because of the angels This passage is explained in various ways. As the Prophet Malachi 2:7 calls priests angels of God, some are of opinion that Paul speaks of them; but the ministers of the word have nowhere that term applied to them by itself — that is, without something being added; and the meaning would be too forced. I understand it, therefore, in its proper signification. But it is asked, why it is that he would have women have their heads covered because of the angels — for what has this to do with them? Some answer: “Because they are present on occasion of the prayers of believers, and on this account are spectators of unseemliness, should there be any on such occasions.” But what need is there for philosophizing with such refinement? We know that angels are in attendance, also, upon Christ as their head, and minister to him. “Et sont tousiours a son commandement et seruice;” — “And are always at his commandment and service.” When, therefore, women venture upon such liberties, as to usurp for themselves the token of authority, they make their baseness manifest to the angels. This, therefore, was said by way of amplifying, as if he had said, “If women uncover their heads, not only Christ, but all the angels too, will be witnesses of the outrage.” And this interpretation suits well with the Apostle’s design. He is treating here of different ranks. Now he says that, when women assume a higher place than becomes them, they gain this by it — that they discover their impudence in the view of the angels of heaven.

11. But neither is the man without the woman This is added partly as a check upon men, that they may not insult over women; “Qu’ils n’ayent les femmes en desdain et mocquerie;” — “That they may not hold women in disdain and derision.” and partly as a consolation to women, that they may not feel dissatisfied with being under subjection. “The male sex (says he) has a distinction over the female sex, with this understanding, that they ought to be connected together by mutual benevolence, for the one cannot do without the other. If they be separated, they are like the mutilated members of a mangled body. Let them, therefore, be connected with each other by the bond of mutual duty.” “Par ce lien d’aide et antitie mutuelle;” — “By this tie of mutual assistance and amity.”

When he says, in the Lord, he by this expression calls the attention of believers to the appointment of the Lord, while the wicked look to nothing beyond pressing necessity. “La necessite qui les presse et contraint;” — “The necessity that presses and constrains them.” For profane men, if they can conveniently live unmarried, despise the whole sex, and do not consider that they are under obligations to it by the appointment and decree of God. The pious, on the other hand, acknowledge that the male sex is but the half of the human race. They ponder the meaning of that statement — God created man: male and female created he them (Genesis 1:27, and Genesis 5:2.) Thus they, of their own accord, acknowledge themselves to be debtors to the weaker sex. Pious women, in like manner, reflect upon their obligation. “Pensent a leur deuoir, et que de leur coste elles sont obligees aux hommes;” — “Think of their duty, and of their being under obligation, on their part, to men.” Thus the man has no standing without the woman, for that would be the head severed from the body; nor has the woman without the man, for that were a body without a head. “Let, therefore, the man perform to the woman the office of the head in respect of ruling her, and let the woman perform to the man the office of the body in respect of assisting him, and that not merely in the married state, but also in celibacy; for I do not speak of cohabitation merely, but also of civil offices, for which there is occasion even in the unmarried state.” If you are inclined rather to refer this to the whole sex in general, I do not object to this, though, as Paul directs his discourse to individuals, he appears to point out the particular duty of each.

12. As the woman is of the man If this is one of the reasons, why the man has superiority — that the woman was taken out of him, there will be, in like manner, this motive to friendly connection — that the male sex cannot maintain and preserve itself without the aid of women. For this remains a settled point — that it is not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18.) This statement of Paul may, it is true, be viewed as referring to propagation, because human beings are propagated not by men alone, but by men and women; but I understand it as meaning this also — that the woman is a needful help to the man, inasmuch as a solitary life is not expedient for man. This decree of God exhorts us to cultivate mutual intercourse.

But all things of God God is the Source of both sexes, and hence both of them ought with humility to accept and maintain the condition which the Lord has assigned to them. Let the man exercise his authority with moderation, and not insult over the woman who has been given him as his partner. Let the woman be satisfied with her state of subjection, and not take it amiss that she is made inferior to the more distinguished sex. Otherwise they will both of them throw off the yoke of God, who has not without good reason appointed this distinction of ranks. Farther, when it is said that the man and the woman, when they are wanting in their duty to each other, are rebels against the authority of God, the statement is a more serious one than if Paul had said, that they do injury to one another.

Doth not even nature itself He again sets forth nature as the mistress of decorum, and what was at that time in common use by universal consent and custom — even among the Greeks — he speaks of as being natural, for it was not always reckoned a disgrace for men to have long hair. It is remarked by President Edwards, that “the emphasis used, αὐτὴ ἡ φύσις, nature itself, shows that the Apostle does not mean custom, but nature in the proper sense. It is true it was long custom that made having the head covered a token of subjection, and a feminine habit or appearance, as it is custom that makes any outward action or word a sign or signification of anything; but nature itself, nature in its proper sense, teaches that it is a shame for a man to appear with the established signs of the female sex. Nature itself shows it to be a shame for a father to bow down or kneel to his own child or servant, because bowing down is, by custom, an established token of subjection and submission.” Edwards on Original Sin, part 2, chapter 3, section 3. — Ed Historical records bear, that in all countries in ancient times, that is, in the first ages, men wore long hair. Hence also the poets, in speaking of the ancients, are accustomed to apply to them the common epithet of unshorn Instances of this occur in Ovid, Fast. 2. 30, and in Hor., Od. 2, 15, 11. Gaul, to the north of the Alps, was called Gallia comata, from the inhabitants wearing their hair long Homer applies to the Greeks in his time the epithet of καρηκομόωντες — long-haired Hom. Il., 2. 11. — Ed It was not until a late period that barbers began to be employed at Rome — about the time of Africanus the elder. And at the time when Paul wrote these things, the practice of having the hair shorn had not yet come into use in the provinces of Gaul or in Germany. Nay more, it would have been reckoned an unseemly thing for men, no less than for women, to be shorn or shaven; but as in Greece it was reckoned all unbecoming thing for a man to allow his hair to grow long, so that those who did so were remarked as effeminate, he reckons as nature a custom that had come to be confirmed. “I1 appelle Nature ceste coustume desia confermee par vn long temps et vsage commun;” — “He gives the appellation of Nature to this custom, already confirmed by length of time and common use.”

16. But if any man seem A contentious person is one whose humor inclines him to stir up disputes, and does not care what becomes of the truth. Of this description are all who, without any necessity, abolish good and useful customs — raise disputes respecting matters that are not doubtful — who do not yield to reasonings — who cannot endure that any one should be above them. Of this description, also, are those (ἀκοινώνητοι) would be singular persons “Qui ne se veulent en rien accommoder aux autres;” — “Who are not disposed to accommodate themselves to others in anything.” — The Greek word made use of by Calvin here (ακοινωντος) is employed by classical writers to mean — having no intercourse, or not caring to have intercourse with others. See Arist., Top. 3. 2, 8.; Plat. Legg., 774 A. — Ed who, from a foolish affectation, “Et appetit sans raison;” — “And unreasonable desire.” aim at some new and unusual way of acting. Such persons Paul does not reckon worthy of being replied to, inasmuch as contention is a pernicious thing, and ought, therefore, to be banished from the Churches. By this he teaches us, that those that are obstinate and fond of quarrelling, should rather be restrained by authority than confuted by lengthened disputations. For you will never have an end of contentions, if you are disposed to contend with a combative person until you have vanquished him; for though vanquished a hundred times, he would argue still. Let us therefore carefully mark this passage, that we may not allow ourselves to be carried away with needless disputations, provided at the same time we know how to distinguish contentious persons. For we must not always reckon as contentious the man who does not acquiesce in our decisions, or who ventures to contradict us; but when temper and obstinacy show themselves, let us then say with Paul, that contentions are at variance with the custom of the Church “Que ce n’est point la coustume de l’Eglise d’entrer en debats et contentions;” — “That it is not the custom of the Church to enter into strifes and contentions.”

1 Corinthians 11:17-22

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.

17. Hoc autem denuntians non laudo, quod non in melius, sed in peius convenitis.

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.

18. Primum enim, convenientibus vobis in Ecclesiam, audio dissidia inter vos esse: et ex parte credo.

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

19. Oportet enim haereses quoque esse in vobis, ut qui probe sunt, manifesti fiant inter vos.

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

20. Convenientibus ergo vobis in unum, non est Dominicam coenamedere.

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

21. Unusquisque enim propriam coenam praesumit edendo: atque hic quidem esurit, ille autem ebrius est.

22. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

22. Numquid domos non habetis, ad edendum et bibendum, aut Ecclesiam Dei contemnitis, et pudore afficitis eos qui non habent? Quid vobis dicam? Laudabo vos in hoc? Non laudo.

His reproof of the fault previously noticed was but a mild and gentle admonition, because the Corinthians sinned in ignorance, so that it was proper that they should readily be forgiven. Paul, too, had praised them in the outset, because they had faithfully kept his enactments. (1 Corinthians 11:2.) Now he begins to reprove them more sharply, because they offended more grievously in some things, and not through ignorance.

17. But, in warning you as to this, I do not praise. “Or ie vous rememore ceci, non point eu louant. I1 y a au Grec mot; a mot. Or rememorant ie ne loue point;” — “But I put you in, mind of this, not praising you for it. It is literally in the Greek: But putting you in mind I do not praise.” For I translate it in this way, because Paul appears to have made the participle and the verb change places. In explanation of this remark, let it be observed that the reading in the Alexandrine MS. is as follows: Τοῦτο δε παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐπαινῶν — But I warn you as to this, not praising. This reading is followed in the Latin and Syrian versions. In Wiclif (1380) the rendering is: “But this thing I comaunde, not preisynge.” In Rheims (1582) — “And this I commaund; not praising it.” — Ed I am also not satisfied with the interpretation of Erasmus, who takes παραγγέλλειν as meaning to command The verb to warn would suit better, but as to this I do not contend. There is an antithesis between this clause and the beginning of this chapter. “While I have praised you, do not think that it is unqualified commendation; for I have something to find fault with, as it is worthy of severe reproof.” This, however, in my opinion, does not refer exclusively to the Lord’s Supper, but also to other faults of which he makes mention. Let this then be taken as a general statement, that the Corinthians are reproved, because they came together not for the better but for the worse. Particular effects of this evil will be brought forward afterwards.

He finds fault with them, then, in the first place, because they come not together for the better, — and secondly, that they come together for the worse The second, it is true, is the more serious, but even the first is not to be endured, for if we consider what is transacted in the Church, there ought never to be a coming together without some fruit. There the doctrine of God is listened to, prayers are offered up, the Sacraments are administered. The fruit of the Word is, when confidence in God and fear of him are increased in us — when progress is made in holiness of life — when we put off more and more the old man, (Colossians 3:9) — when we advance in newness of life, etc. (Romans 6:4.) The Sacraments have a tendency to exercise us in piety and love. The prayers, too, ought to be of use for promoting all these purposes. In addition to this, the Lord works efficaciously by his Spirit, because he wills not that his ordinances should be vain. Hence if the sacred assemblies are of no benefit to us, and we are not made better by them, it is our ingratitude that is to blame, and therefore we deserve to be reproved. For the effect of our conduct is, that those things, which, from their own nature, and from God’s appointment, ought to have been salutary, become unprofitable.

Then follows the second fault — that they come together for the worse. This is much more criminal, and yet it almost always follows the other, for if we derive no advantage from God’s benefits, he employs this method of punishing our carelessness — that we are made worse by them. It usually happens, too, that negligence gives birth to many corruptions, especially on this account, that those who do not observe the natural use of things usually fall erelong into hurtful inventions. “Principalement pource que ceux qui ne regardent pas a tenir le droit et naturel usage des choses, sont suiets a tomber incontinent en beaucoup d’inuentions peruerses et dangereuses;” — “Chiefly because those who do not take care to observe the right and natural use of things, are liable to fall straightway into many perverse and dangerous inventions.”

18. When ye come together in the Church, I hear there are divisions Some take the words divisions and heresies, as referring to that disorder (ἀταξίαν) of which he speaks soon afterwards. I consider them as having a more extensive signification, and certainly it is not likely that he would employ terms so improper and unsuitable for the purpose of exposing that abuse. “Qu’il leur remonstrera qu’ils fout en la Cene;” — “Which he will show that they have fallen into as to the Supper.” For as to their alleging that he has expressed himself in more severe terms, with the view of exposing more fully the heinousness of the offense, I would readily grant this, if the meaning corresponded. It is, then, a reproof of a general kind — that they were not of one accord as becomes Christians, but every one was so much taken up with his own interests, that he was not prepared to accommodate himself to others. Hence arose that abuse, as to which we shall see in a little — hence sprung ambition and pride, so that every one exalted himself and despised others — hence sprung carelessness as to edification — hence sprung profanation of the gifts of God.

He says that he partly believes it, that they might not think that he charged them all with this heinous crime, and might accordingly complain, that they were groundlessly accused. In the meantime, however, he intimates that this had been brought to him not by mere vague rumor, but by credible information, such as he could not altogether discredit.

19. For there must be also heresies He had previously spoken of divisions (1 Corinthians 11:18.) Now he uses the term heresies, with the view of amplifying the more, as we may infer, too, from the word also, for it is added for the sake of amplification. (προς αὔξησιν.) It is well known in what sense the ancients used those two terms, “Schisme et Heresie;” — “Schism and Heresy.” and what distinction they made between Heretics and Schismatics. “Voyez l’Institution;” — “See my Institutes,” (volume 3.) Heresy they made to consist in disagreement as to doctrine, and schism, on the contrary, in alienation of affection, as when any one withdrew from the Church from envy, or from dislike of the pastors, or from ill nature. It is true, that the Church cannot but be torn asunder by false doctrine, and thus heresy is the root and origin of schism, and it is also true that envy or pride is the mother of almost all heresies, but at the same time it is of advantage to distinguish in this way between these two terms.

But let us see in what sense Paul employs them. I have already expressed my disapprobation of those who explain heresy as meaning the setting up of a separate table, inasmuch as the rich did not partake of their Supper along with the poor; for he had it in view to point out something more hateful. But without mentioning the opinions of others, I take schism and heresy here in the way of less and greater. Schisms, then, are either secret grudges — when we do not see that agreement which ought to subsist among the pious — when inclinations at variance with each other are at work — when every one is mightily pleased with his own way, and finds fault with everything that is done by others. Heresies are when the evil proceeds to such a pitch that open hostility is discovered, and persons deliberately divide themselves into opposite parties. Hence, in order that believers might not feel discouraged on seeing the Corinthians torn with divisions, the Apostle turns round this occasion of offense in an opposite direction, intimating that the Lord does rather by such trials make proof of his people’s constancy. A lovely consolation! “So far, says he, should we be from being troubled, or cast down, when we do not see complete unity in the Church, but on the contrary some threatenings of separation from want of proper agreement, that even if sects should start up, “De tous costez;” — “On all sides.” we ought to remain firm and constant. For in this way hypocrites are detected — in this way, on the other hand, the sincerity of believers is tried. For as this gives occasion for discovering the fickleness of those who were not rooted in the Lord’s Word, and the wickedness of those who had assumed the appearance of good men, so the good afford a more signal manifestation of their constancy and sincerity.”

But observe what Paul says — there must be, for he intimates by this expression, that this state of matters does not happen by chance, but by the sure providence of God, because he has it in view to try his people, as gold in the furnace, and if it is agreeable to the mind of God, it is, consequently, expedient. At the same time, however, we must not enter into thorny disputes, or rather into labyrinths as to a fatal necessity. We know that there never will be a time when there will not be many reprobates. We know that they are governed by the spirit of Satan, and are effectually drawn away to what is evil. We know that Satan, in his activity, leaves no stone unturned with the view of breaking up the unity of the Church. From this — not from fate — comes that necessity of which Paul makes mention. “De la vient ceste necessite de laquelle S. Paul fait mention, et non pas de ce Fatum que les Stoiques ont imagine, que l’on nomme communeement Destinee. Voyez l’ Institution;” — “From this comes that necessity of which St. Paul makes mention, and not from that Fate of which the Stoics have dreamed, and which is commonly called destiny. See the Institutes.” (Volume 1, p. 241.) We know, also, that the Lord, by his admirable wisdom, turns Satan’s deadly machinations so as to promote the salvation of believers. “Conuertit au profit et salut des fideles les machinations de Satan horribles et pernicieuses;” — “Turns the horrible and pernicious machinations of Satan to the advantage and salvation of believers.” Hence comes that design of which he speaks — that the good may shine forth more conspicuously; for we ought not to ascribe this advantage to heresies, which, being evil, can produce nothing but what is evil, but to God, who, by his infinite goodness, changes the nature of things, so that those things are salutary to the elect, which Satan had contrived for their ruin. As to Chrysostom’s contending that the particle that (ἴνα) denotes not the cause, but the event, it is of no great moment. For the cause is the secret counsel of God, “Car a parlet proprement, la cause de ceci depend du secret conseil de Dieu;” — “For, properly speaking, the cause of this depends on the secret counsel of God.” by which things that are evil are overruled in such a manner, as to have a good issue. We know, in fine, that the wicked are impelled by Satan in such a manner, that they both act and are acted upon with the consent of their wills. “Ce qu’ils font, et ce que Satan lear fait faire, ils le font volontairement, et non point par force;” — “What they do, and what Satan makes them do, they do voluntarily, and not from force.” Hence they are without excuse.

20. This is not to eat the Lord’s supper He now reproves the abuse that had crept in among the Corinthians as to the Lord’s Supper, in respect of their mixing up profane banquets with the sacred and spiritual feast, and that too with contempt of the poor. Paul says, that in this way it is not the Lord’s supper that is partaken of — not that a single abuse altogether set aside the sacred institution of Christ, and reduced it to nothing, but that they polluted the sacrament by observing it in a wrong way. For we are accustomed to say, in common conversation, that a thing is not done at all, if it is not done aright. Now this was no trivial abuse, as we shall afterwards see. If you understand the words is not as meaning, is not allowable, Paraeus and some others take the words ὀυκ ἔστι is not, as used for, ουκ ἔξεστι is not allowable. — Ed the meaning will amount to the same thing — that the Corinthians were not in a state of preparation for partaking of the Lord’s supper, as being in so divided a state. What I stated a little ago, however, is more simple — that he condemns that profane admixture, which had nothing in it akin to the Lord’s Supper.

21. For every one of you taketh before others his own supper. It is truly wonderful, and next to a miracle, “Quasi incroyable;” — “As it were incredible.” that Satan could have accomplished so much in so short a time. We are, however, admonished by this instance, how much antiquity, without reason on its side, can effect, or, in other words, how much influence a long continued custom has, while not sanctioned by a single declaration of the word of God. This, having become customary, was looked upon as lawful. Paul was then at hand to interfere. What then must have been the state of matters after the death of the Apostles? With what liberty Satan must have sported himself. “A ioue ses tours;” — “Have played off his tricks.” Yet here is the great strength of Papists: “The thing is ancient — it was done long ago — let it, therefore, have the weight of a revelation from heaven.”

It is uncertain, however, what was the origin of this abuse, or what was the occasion of its springing up so soon. Chrysostom is of opinion, that it originated in the love-feasts, “Vne sorte de banquets qui se faisoyent par charite;” — “A kind of banquets that were held, by way of love.” (ἀπὸ τῶν ἀγαπῶν) and that, while the rich had been accustomed “Premierement;” — “At first.” to bring with them from their houses the means of feasting with the poor indiscriminately and in common, they afterwards began to exclude the poor, and to guzzle over their delicacies by themselves. And, certainly, it appears from Tertullian, that that custom was a very ancient one. Pliny is supposed to refer to the Αγαπὰι (love-feasts) in his 97th letter to Trajan, where he says of the Christians in Blthynia, of which he was governor, that, upon examination, they affirmed, that after having taken their sacramenturn — “morem sibi discedendi fuisse, rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium;” — “it was customary for them to depart, and come together again for the purpose of taking an innocent repast in common.” — Ed Now they gave the name of Agapae “Agapas, c’est a dire Charitez;” — “Agapae, that is to say — Loves.” to those common entertainments, which they contrived among themselves, as being tokens of fraternal affection, and consisted of alms. Nor have I any doubt, that it took its rise from sacrificial rites commonly observed both by Jews and Gentiles. For I observe that Christians, for the most part, corrected the faults connected with those rites, in such a manner, as to retain at the same time some resemblance. Hence it is probable, that, on observing that both Jews and Gentiles added a feast to their sacrifice, as an appendage to it, but that both of them sinned in respect of ambition, luxury, and intemperance, they instituted “Par succession de temps;” — “In process of time.” a kind of banquet, which might accustom them rather to sobriety and frugality, “Qu’autrement;” — “Than otherwise.” and might, at the same time, be in accordance with a spiritual entertainment in respect of mutual fellowship. For in it the poor were entertained at the expense of the rich, and the table was open to all. But, whether they had from the very first fallen into this profane abuse, or whether an institution, otherwise not so objectionable, had in this way degenerated in process of time, Paul would have them in no way mix up this spiritual banquet with common feasts. “This, indeed, looks well — that the poor along with the rich partake in common of the provisions that have been brought, and that the rich share of their abundance along with the needy, but nothing ought to have such weight with us as to lead us to profane the holy sacrament.” “Mais il n’y a consideration aucune qui nous doyue tant esmouuoir, que pour cela nous venions a profaner ce sainct mystere;” — “But there is no consideration that should have so much influence over us, that we should come, on that account, to profane this holy sacrament.”

And one is hungry This was one evil in the case, that while the rich indulged themselves sumptuously, they appeared, in a manner, to reproach the poor for their poverty. The inequality he describes hyperbolically, when he says, that some are drunken and others are hungry, for some had the means of stuffing themselves well, while others had slender fare. Thus the poor were exposed to the derision of the rich, or at least they were exposed to shame. It was, therefore, an unseemly spectacle, and not in accordance with the Lord’s supper

22. Have ye not houses? From this we see that the Apostle was utterly dissatisfied with this custom of feasting, even though the abuse formerly mentioned had not existed. For, though it seems allowable for the whole Church to partake at one common table, yet this, on the other hand, is wrong — to convert a sacred assembly to purposes foreign to its nature. We know for what exercises a Church should assemble — to hear doctrine, to pour forth prayers, and sing hymns to God, to observe the sacraments, “Pour receuoir et administrer los sacrements;” — “To receive and administer the sacraments.” to make confession of their faith, and to engage in pious observances, and other exercises of piety. If anything else is done there, it is out of place. Every one has his own house appointed him for eating and drinking, and hence that is an unseemly thing in a sacred assembly.

What shall I say to you? Having fitly stated the case, he now calls them to consider, whether they are worthy to be praised, for they could not defend an abuse that was so manifest. He presses them still further, by asking — “What else could I do? Will you say that you are unjustly reproved?” Some manuscripts connect the words in this with the verb that follows — in this way: Shall I praise you? In this I do not praise you The earlier English versions follow this reading. Thus Wiclif, (1380) — What schal I seie to zou? I preise zou: but hereynne I preise zou not; Tyndale, (1534) — What shall I saye unto you? Shall I prayse you: In this prayse I you not; Cranmer, (1539) — What shall I saye unto you? Shall I prayse you? In this prayse I you, not. — Ed. The other reading, however, is the more generally received among the Greeks, and it suits better.

1 Corinthians 11:23-29

23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

23. Ego enim accepi a Domino, quod etiam tradidi vobis: quod Dominus Iesus nocte qua traditus est, accepit panem:

24. 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.

24. Et gratiis actis, fregit, et dixit, Accipite, edite: hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis frangitur: hoc facite in mei memoriam.

25. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

25. Similiter et calicem, postquam vum testamentum est in sanguine meo: hoc facite, quotiescunque biberitis, in mei memoriam.

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

26. Quotiescumque enim ederitis panem hunc, et biberitis hunc calicem, mortem Domini annuntiabitis, donce veniat.

27. 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.

27. Itaque quisquis ederit panem hunc, aut biberit calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis et sanguinis Domini.

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

28. Probet autem homo se ipsum, et sic de pane illo edat, et de calice bibat.

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

29. Qui enim ederit aut biberit indigne, iudicium sibi edit ac bibit, non discernens corpus Domini.

Hitherto he has been exposing the abuse; “Qu’ils commettoyent en la Cene;” — “Which they had fallen into as to the Supper.” now he proceeds to show what is the proper method of rectifying it. For the institution of Christ is a sure rule, so that if you turn aside from it but a very little, you are out of the right course. Hence, as the Corinthians had deviated from this rule, he calls them back to it. It is a passage that ought to be carefully observed, as showing that there is no remedy for correcting and purging out abuses, short of a return to God’s pure institution. Thus the Lord himself — when he was discoursing respecting marriage, (Matthew 19:3,) and the Scribes brought forward custom, and also the permission given by Moses — simply brings forward his Father’s institution, as being an inviolable law. When we do this at the present day, the Papists cry out, that we are leaving nothing untouched. “Que nous gastons tout, et ne laissons rien en son entier;” — “That we are destroying everything, and are leaving nothing entire.” We openly demonstrate, that it is not in one point merely that they have degenerated from our Lord’s first institution, but that they have corrupted it in a thousand ways. Nothing is more manifest than that their Mass is diametrically opposed to the sacred Supper of our Lord. I go farther — we show in the plainest manner, that it is full of wicked abominations: hence there is need of reformation. We demand — what it appears Paul had recourse to — that our Lord’s institution be the common rule, to which we agree on both sides to make our appeal. This they oppose with all their might. Mark then the nature of the controversy at this day in reference to the Lord’s Supper.

23 I received from the Lord. In these words he intimates, that there is no authority that is of any avail in the Church, but that of the Lord alone. “I have not delivered to you an invention of my own: I had not, when I came to you, contrived a new kind of Supper, according to my own humor, but have Christ as my authority, from whom I received what I have delivered unto you, in the way of handing it over.” Our Author seems to allude here to what he had said previously, when commenting on 1 Corinthians 4:1, as to the duty devolving on stewards of the mysteries of God. — Ed. Return, then, to the original source. Thus, bidding adieu to human laws, the authority of Christ will be maintained in its stability.

That night in which he was betrayed. This circumstance as to time instructs us as to the design of the sacrament — that the benefit of Christ’s death may be ratified in us. For the Lord might have some time previously committed to the Apostles this covenant-seal, “Car le Seigneur pouuoit bien quelque temps deuant ordonner a ses Apostres l’obseruation de ce Sacrement;” — “For the Lord might have on some previous occasion appointed to his Apostles the observance of this Sacrament.” but he waited until the time of his oblation, that the Apostles might see soon after accomplished in reality in his body, what he had represented to them in the bread and the wine Should any one infer from this, that the Supper ought, therefore, to be celebrated at night and after a bodily repast, I answer, that, in what our Lord did, we must consider what there is that he would have to be done by us. It is certain, that he did not mean to institute a kind of nightly festival, like that in honor of Ceres, “Vne ceremonie, qui ne peust faire que de nuit, comme les Payens auoyent la feste de Ceres;” — “A ceremony which could only be observed at night, as the heathens held the festival of Ceres.” The time when the festival was held, was in accordance with the peculiar secrecy with which its rites were observed. — Ed. and farther, that it was not his design to invite his people to come to this spiritual banquet with a well-filled stomach. Such actions of Christ as are not intended for our imitation, should not be reckoned as belonging to his institution. “Pour partie, ou de la substance de son institution;” — “As a part of his institution, or of the essence of it.” In this way, there is no difficulty in setting aside that subtilty of Papists, by which they shift off “Ils se mocquent;” — “They deride.” what I have already stated as to the duty of maintaining and preserving Christ’s institution in its simplicity. “We will, therefore,” say they, “not receive the Lord’s Supper except at night, and we will therefore take it — not when fasting, but after having dined.” All this, I say, is mere trifling; for it is easy to distinguish what our Lord did, in order that we might imitate it, or rather what he did with the view of commanding us to do the like.

24. Having given thanks. Paul observes elsewhere, that every gift that we receive from the hand of God

is sanctified to us by the word and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:5.)

Accordingly, we nowhere read that the Lord tasted bread along with his disciples, but there is mention made of his giving thanks, (John 6:23,) by which example he has assuredly instructed us to do the like. This giving of thanks, however, has a reference to something higher, for Christ gives thanks to the Father for his mercy “Sa misericorde infinie;” — “His infinite mercy.” towards the human race, and the inestimable benefit of redemption; and he invites us, by his example, to raise up our minds as often as we approach the sacred table, to an acknowledgment of the boundless love of God towards us, and to have our minds kindled up to true gratitude. “Et n’en soyons enuers luy ingrats, mats soyons enflambez a vne vraye recognoissance;” — “And may not be ungrateful towards him, but may be kindled up to a true acknowledgment.”

Take, eat, this is my body As Paul designed here to instruct us in a few words as to the right use of the sacrament, it is our duty to consider attentively “Et bien poiser;” — “And ponder well.” what he sets before us, and allow nothing to pass unobserved, inasmuch as he says nothing but what is exceedingly necessary to be known, and worthy of the closest attention. In the first place, we must take notice, that Christ here distributes the bread among the Apostles, that all may partake of it in common, and thus every one may receive his portion, that there may be an equal participation among all. Accordingly, when there is not a table in common prepared for all the pious — where they are not invited to the breaking of bread in common, and where, in fine, believers do not mutually participate, it is to no purpose that the name of the Lord’s Supper is laid claim to.

But for what purpose “Mais ie vous prie, a quel propos;” — “But for what purpose, I pray you.” are the people called to mass, unless it be that they may come away empty from an unmeaning show? “Comme s’il retournoit de voir vne bastelerie inutile et sotte;” — “As if they were returning from seeing a useless and foolish mountebank scene.” It has, therefore, nothing in unison with the supper. Hence, too, we infer that Christ’s promise is no more applicable to the mass than to the feast of the Salii; “Vn banquet de la confrairie des Sacrificateurs de Mars, lesquels les Romains nommoyent Salii;” — “To the banquet of the fraternity of the priests of Mars, whom the Romans called Salii.” They received this name from their going through the city leaping and dancing. The feast which they partook of, after finishing their procession, was exceedingly sumptuous. Hence the expression — “Epulari Saliarem in modum“ — “to feast sumptuously.” Cic. Att. 5. 9. — Ed. for when Christ promises that he will give us his body, he at the same time commands us to take and eat of the bread Hence, unless we obey this command, it is to no purpose that we glory in his promise. To explain this more familiarly in other words — the promise is annexed to the commandment in a conditional way, as it were: hence it has its accomplishment only if the condition also is accomplished. For example, it is written, Call upon me; I will answer thee (Psalm 91:15.) It is our part to obey the command of God, that he may accomplish for us what he promises; otherwise we shut ourselves out from the accomplishment of it. “Nous reiettons l’effet, et luy fermons la porte;” — “We reject its accomplishment, and shut the door against it.”

What do Papists do? They neglect participation, and consecrate the bread for a totally different purpose, and in the meantime they boast that they have the Lord’s body. While, by a wicked divorce, they

put asunder those things which Christ has joined together, (Matthew 19:6,)

it is manifest that their boasting is vain. Hence, whenever they bring forward the clause — This is my body, we must retort upon them the one that immediately precedes it — Take and eat For the meaning of the words is: “By participating in the breaking of bread, according to the order and observance which I have prescribed, you shall be participants also in my body.” Hence, when an individual eats of it by himself, the promise in that case goes for nothing. Besides, we are taught in these words what the Lord would have us do. Take, says he. Hence those that offer a sacrifice to God have some other than Christ as their authority, for we are not instructed in these words to perform a sacrifice.

But what do Papists say as to their mass? At first they were so impudent as to maintain, that it was truly and properly called a sacrifice. Now, however, they admit that it is indeed a commemorative sacrifice, but in such a way, that the benefit of redemption is, through means of their daily oblation, “Par leur belle oblation qu’ils font tousles iours;” — “By their admirable oblation, which they make every day.” applied to the living and the dead. However that may be, they present the appearance of a sacrifice. “Vne apparence et representation de sacrifice;” — “An appearance and representation of a sacrifice.” In the first place, there is rashness in this, as being without any command from Christ; but there is a still more serious error involved in it — that, while Christ appointed the Supper for this purpose, that we might take and eat, they pervert it to a totally different use.

This is my body I shall not recount the unhappy contests that have tried the Church in our times as to the meaning of these words. Nay rather, would to God that we could bury the remembrance of them in perpetual oblivion! I shall state, first of all, sincerely and without disguise, and then farther, I shall state freely (as I am wont to do) what my views are. Christ calls the bread his body; for I set aside, without any disputation, that absurd contrivance, that our Lord did not exhibit the bread to the Apostles, but his body, which they beheld with their eyes, for it immediately follows — This cup is the New Testament in my blood Let us regard it then as beyond all controversy that Christ is here speaking of the bread. Now the question is — “In what sense?” That we may elicit the true meaning, we must hold that the expression is figurative; for, assuredly, to deny this is exceedingly dishonest. “Ce seroit vne impudence et opinionastrete trop grande;” — “This were excessive impudence and obstinacy.” Why then is the term body applied to the bread? All, I think, will allow that it is for the same reason that John calls the Holy Spirit a dove (John 1:32.) Thus far we are agreed. Now the reason why the Spirit was so called was this — that he had appeared in the form of a dove. Hence the name of the Spirit is transferred to the visible sign. Why should we not maintain that there is here a similar instance of metonymy, and that the term body is applied to the bread, as being the sign and symbol of it? If any are of a different opinion they will forgive me; but it appears to me to be an evidence of a contentious spirit, to dispute pertinaciously on this point. I lay it down, then, as a settled point, that there is here a sacramental form of expression, “C’est a dire, qui est ordinaire en matiere des Sacremens;” — “That is to say, what is usual in connection with Sacraments.” in which the Lord gives to the sign the name of the thing signified.

We must now proceed farther, and inquire as to the reason of the metonymy. Here I reply, that the name of the thing signified is not applied to the sign simply as being a representation of it, but rather as being a symbol of it, “Vn gage et tesmoignage externe;” — “An outward token and evidence.” by which the reality is presented to us. For I do not allow the force of those comparisons which some borrow from profane or earthly things; for there is a material difference between them and the sacraments of our Lord. The statue of Hercules is called Hercules, but what have we there but a bare, empty representation? On the other hand the Spirit is called a dove, as being a sure pledge of the invisible presence of the Spirit. Hence the bread is Christ’s body, because it assuredly testifies, that the body which it represents is held forth to us, or because the Lord, by holding out to us that symbol, gives us at the same time his own body; for Christ is not a deceiver, to mock us with empty representations. “Pour penser qu’il nous repaisse d’ombres et vaines figures;” — “To think that he would feed us with shadows and empty representations.” Hence it is regarded by me as beyond all controversy, that the reality is here conjoined with the sign; or, in other words, that we do not less truly become participants in Christ’s body in respect of spiritual efficacy, than we partake of the bread.

We must now discuss the manner. Papists hold forth to us their system of transubstantiation: they allege that, when the act of consecration has been gone through, the substance of the bread no longer exists, and that nothing remains but the accidents. By the accidents of the bread are meant its color, taste, smell, and shape. — Ed. To this contrivance we oppose — not merely the plain words of Scripture, but the very nature of the sacraments. For what is the meaning of the supper, if there is no correspondence between the visible sign and the spiritual reality? They would have the sign to be a false and delusive appearance of bread. What then will the thing signified be, but a mere imagination? Hence, if there must be a correspondence between the sign and its reality, it is necessary that the bread be real — not imaginary — to represent Christ’s real body. Besides, Christ’s body is here given us not simply, but as food. Now it is not by any means the color of the bread that nourishes us, but the substance. In fine, if we would have reality in the thing itself, there must be no deception in the sign.

Rejecting then the dream of Papists, let us see in what manner Christ’s body is given to us. Some explain, that it is given to us, when we are made partakers of all the blessings which Christ has procured for us in his body — when, I say, we by faith embrace Christ as crucified for us, and raised up from the dead, and in this way are effectually made partakers of all his benefits. As for those who are of this opinion, I have no objection to their holding such a view. As for myself, I acknowledge, that it is only when we obtain Christ himself, that we come to partake of Christ’s benefits. He is, however, obtained, I affirm, not only when we believe that he was made an offering for us, but when he dwells in us — when he is one with us — when we are members of his flesh, (Ephesians 5:30,) — when, in fine, we are incorporated with him (so to speak) into one life and substance. Besides, I attend to the import of the words, for Christ does not simply present to us the benefit of his death and resurrection, but the very body in which he suffered and rose again. I conclude, that Christ’s body is really, (as the common expression is,) — that is, truly given to us in the Supper, to be wholesome food for our souls. I use the common form of expression, but my meaning is, that our souls are nourished by the substance of the body, that we may truly be made one with him, or, what amounts to the same thing, that a life-giving virtue from Christ’s flesh is poured into us by the Spirit, though it is at a great distance from us, and is not mixed with us. In this passage, as, also, in some other parts of his writings, Calvin seems to affirm the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, in some mysterious manner, while he was, as is well known, opposed to consubstantiation, as well as to transubstantiation. The late venerable Dr. Dick of Glasgow, while treating of the Lord’s Supper — while he makes mention of Calvin in terms of the highest respect, as “one of the brightest ornaments of the Reformation,” who, “in learning, genius, and zeal, had few equals, and no superior,” — animadverts on some expressions made use of in the Institutes, which seem not altogether in harmony with his general system of views in reference to the presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Supper. Dick’s Lectures on Theology, volume 4. — Ed.

There now remains but one difficulty — how is it possible that his body, which is in heaven, is given to us here upon earth? Some imagine that Christ’s body is infinite, and is not confined to any one space, but fills heaven and earth, (Jeremiah 23:24,) like his Divine essence. This fancy is too absurd to require refutation. The Schoolmen dispute with more refinement as to his glorious body. Their whole doctrine, however, reduces itself to this — that Christ is to be sought after in the bread, as if he were included in it. Hence it comes, that the minds of men behold the bread with wonderment, and adore it in place of Christ. Should any one ask them whether they adore the bread, or the appearance of it, they will confidently agree that they do not, but, in the mean time, when about to adore Christ, they turn to the bread. They turn, I say, not merely with their eyes, and their whole body, but even with the thoughts of the heart. Now what is this but unmixed idolatry? But that participation in the body of Christ, which, I affirm, is presented to us in the Supper, does not require a local presence, nor the descent of Christ, nor infinite extension, “Vne estendue de son corps infinie;” — “An infinite extension of his body.” nor anything of that nature, for the Supper being a heavenly action, there is no absurdity in saying, that Christ, while remaining in heaven, is received by us. For as to his communicating himself to us, that is effected through the secret virtue of his Holy Spirit, which can not merely bring together, but join in one, things that are separated by distance of place, and far remote.

But, in order that we may be capable of this participation, we must rise heavenward. Here, therefore, faith must be our resource, when all the bodily senses have failed. When I speak of faith, I do not mean any sort of opinion, resting on human contrivances, as many, boasting of faith on all occasions, run grievously wild on this point. What then? You see bread — nothing more — but you learn that it is a symbol “Vn signe et tesmoignage;” — “A sign and evidence.” of Christ’s body. Do not doubt that the Lord accomplishes what his words intimate — that the body, which thou dost not at all behold, is given to thee, as a spiritual repast. It seems incredible, that we should be nourished by Christ’s flesh, which is at so great a distance from us. Let us bear in mind, that it is a secret and wonderful work of the Holy Spirit, which it were criminal to measure by the standard of our understanding. “In the meantime, however, drive away gross imaginations, which would keep thee from looking beyond the bread. Leave to Christ the true nature of flesh, and do not, by a mistaken apprehension, extend his body over heaven and earth: do not divide him into different parts by thy fancies, and do not adore him in this place and that, according to thy carnal apprehension. Allow him to remain in his heavenly glory, and aspire thou thither, “Esleve ton esprit et ton coeur jusques la;” — “Raise thy mind and heart thither.” that he may thence communicate himself to thee.” These few things will satisfy those that are sound and modest. As for the curious, I would have them look somewhere else for the means of satisfying their appetite.

Which is broken for you Some explain this as referring to the distribution of the bread, because it was necessary that Christ’s body should remain entire, as it had been predicted, (Exodus 12:46,) A bone of him shall not be broken As for myself — while I acknowledge that Paul makes an allusion to the breaking of bread, yet I understand the word broken as used here for sacrificed — not, indeed, with strict propriety, but at the same time without any absurdity. For although no bone was broken, yet the body itself having been subjected, first of all, to so many tortures and inflictions, and afterwards to the punishment of death in the most cruel form, cannot be said to have been uninjured. This is what Paul means by its being broken This, however, is the second clause of the promise, which ought not to be passed over slightly. For the Lord does not present his body to us simply, and without any additional consideration, but as having been sacrificed for us. The first clause, then, intimates, that the body is presented to us: this second clause teaches us, what advantage we derive from it — that we are partakers of redemption, and the benefit of his sacrifice is applied to us. Hence the Supper is a mirror which represents to us Christ crucified, so that no one can profitably and advantageously receive the supper, but the man who embraces Christ crucified.

Do this in remembrance of me. Hence the Supper is a memorial, (μνημόσυνον It is worthy of notice, that our Author has made use of the same Greek term (when commenting on 1 Corinthians 5:8) in reference to the Passover, which was intended partly as a memorial (μνημόσυνον). The term is of frequent occurrence in the same sense in Herodious, and occasionally in other Classical authors. — Ed ) appointed as a help to our weakness; for if we were sufficiently mindful of the death of Christ, this help would be unnecessary. This is common to all sacraments, for they are helps to our weakness. What is the nature of that remembrance which Christ would have us cherish with regard to him, we shall hear presently. As to the inference, however, which some draw from this — that Christ is not present in the Supper, because a remembrance applies to something that is absent; the answer is easy — that Christ is absent from it in the sense in which the Supper is a commemoration. For Christ is not visibly present, and is not beheld with our eyes, as the symbols are which excite our remembrance by representing him. In short, in order that he may be present with us, he does not change his place, but communicates to us from heaven the virtue of his flesh, as though it were present. “Du ciel il fait descouler sur nous la vertu de sa chair presentement et vrayement;” — “He makes the virtue of his flesh pour down upon us from heaven presently and truly.”

25. The cup, when he had supped The Apostle seems to intimate, that there was some interval of time between the distribution of the bread and that of the cup, and it does not quite appear from the Evangelists whether the whole of the transaction was continuous. “Continuel et sans interualle;” — “Continuous, and without an interval.” This, however, is of no great moment, for it may be that the Lord delivered in the meantime some address, after distributing the bread, and before giving the cup. As, however, he did or said nothing that was not in harmony with the sacrament, we need not say that the administration of it was disturbed or interrupted. I would not, however, render it as Erasmus does — supper, being ended, for, in a matter of so great importance, ambiguity ought to be avoided.

This cup is the New Testament What is affirmed as to the cup, is applicable also to the bread; and thus, by this form of expression, he intimates what he had before stated more briefly — that the bread is the body. For it is so to us, that it may be a testament in his body, that is, a covenant, which has been once confirmed by the offering up of his body, and is now confirmed by eating, when believers feast upon that sacrifice. Accordingly, while Paul and Luke use the words — testament in the blood, Matthew and Mark employ the expression — blood of the testament, which amounts to the same thing. For the blood was poured out to reconcile us to God, and now we drink of it in a spiritual sense, that we may be partakers of reconciliation. Hence, in the Supper, we have both a covenant, and a confirmatory pledge of the covenant.

I shall speak in the Epistle to the Hebrews, if the Lord shall allow me opportunity, as to the word testament It is well known, however, that sacraments receive that name, from being testimonies to us of the divine will, to confirm “Confermer et seeller;” — “Confirm and seal.” it in our minds. For as a covenant is entered into among men with solemn rites, so it is in the same manner that the Lord deals with us. Nor is it without strict propriety that this term is employed; for in consequence of the connection between the word and the sign, the covenant of the Lord is really included in the sacraments, and the term covenant has a reference or relation to us. This will be of no small importance for understanding the nature of the sacraments; for if they are covenants, then they contain promises, by which consciences may be roused up to an assurance of salvation. Hence it follows, that they are not merely outward signs of profession before men, but are inwardly, too, helps to faith.

This do, as often as ye drink Christ, then, has appointed a two-fold sign in the Supper.

What God hath joined together let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:6.)

To distribute, therefore, the bread without the cup, is to man Christ’s institution. “L’institution du Fils de Dieu;” — “The institution of the Son of God.” For we hear Christ’s words. As he commands us to eat of the bread, so he commands us to drink of the cup To obey the one half of the command and neglect the other half — what is this but to make sport of his commandment? And to keep back the people from that cup, which Christ sets before all, after first drinking of it, as is done under the tyranny of the Pope — who can deny that this is diabolical presumption? As to the cavil that they bring forward — that Christ spoke merely to the Apostles, and not to the common people — it is exceedingly childish, and is easily refuted from this passage — for Paul here addresses himself to men and women indiscriminately, and to the whole body of the Church. He declares that he

had delivered this to them agreeably to the commandment of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:23.)

By what spirit will those pretend to be actuated, who have dared to set aside this ordinance? Yet even at this day this gross abuse is obstinately defended; and what occasion is there for wonder, if they endeavor impudently to excuse, by words and writings, what they so cruelly maintain by fire and sword?

26. For as often as ye shall eat. Paul now adds what kind of remembrance ought to be cherished — that is, with thanksgiving; not that the remembrance consists wholly in confession with the mouth; for the chief thing is, that the efficacy of Christ’s death be sealed in our consciences; but this knowledge should stir us up to a confession in respect of praise, so as to declare before men what we feel inwardly before God. The Supper then is (so to speak) a kind of memorial, which must always remain in the Church, until the last coming of Christ; and it has been appointed for this purpose, that Christ may put us in mind of the benefit of his death, and that we may recognize it “Que de nostre part le recognoissions;” — “That we, on our part, may recognise it.” before men. Hence it has the name of the Eucharist. From, εὐχαριστήσας, (having given thanks,) which is made use of by Paul, and also by the Evangelists, (see Harmony, vol. 3, p. 205, n. 1,) in their account of the original appointment of the Supper. The term is at the same time expressive of the spirit of the institution, in respect of thanksgiving. — Ed If, therefore, you would celebrate the Supper aright, you must bear in mind, that a profession of your faith is required from you. Hence we see how shamelessly those mock God, who boast that they have in the mass something of the nature of the Supper. For what is the mass? They confess (for I am not speaking of Papists, but of the pretended followers of Nicodemus) that it is full of abominable superstitions. By outward gesture they give a pretended approval of them. What kind of showing forth of the death of Christ is this? Do they not rather renounce it?

Until he come As we always need a help of this kind, so long as we are in this world, Paul intimates that this commemoration has been given us in charge, until Christ come to judgment. For as he is not present with us in a visible form, it is necessary for us to have some symbol of his presence, by which our minds may exercise themselves.

27. Therefore he who shall eat this bread unworthily. If the Lord requires gratitude from us in the receiving of this sacrament — if he would have us acknowledge his grace with the heart, and publish it with the mouth — that man will not go unpunished, who has put insult upon him rather than honor; for the Lord will not allow his commandment to be despised. Now, if we would catch the meaning of this declaration, we must know what it is to eat unworthily Some restrict it to the Corinthians, and the abuse that had crept in among them, but I am of opinion that Paul here, according to his usual manner, passed on from the particular case to a general statement, or from one instance to an entire class. There was one fault that prevailed among the Corinthians. He takes occasion from this to speak of every kind of faulty administration or reception of the Supper. “God,” says he, “will not allow this sacrament to be profaned without punishing it severely.”

To eat unworthily, then, is to pervert the pure and right use of it by our abuse of it. Hence there are various degrees of this unworthiness, so to speak; and some offend more grievously, others less so. Some fornicator, perhaps, or perjurer, or drunkard, or cheat, (1 Corinthians 5:11,) intrudes himself without repentance. As such downright contempt is a token of wanton insult against Christ, there can be no doubt that such a person, whoever he is, receives the Supper to his own destruction. Another, perhaps, will come forward, who is not addicted to any open or flagrant vice, but at the same time not so prepared in heart as became him. As this carelessness or negligence is a sign of irreverence, it is also deserving of punishment from God. As, then, there are various degrees of unworthy participation, so the Lord punishes some more slightly; on others he inflicts severer punishment.

Now this passage gave rise to a question, which some afterwards agitated with too much keenness — whether the unworthy really partake of the Lord’s body? For some were led, by the heat of controversy, so far as to say, that it was received indiscriminately by the good and the bad; and many at this day maintain pertinaciously, and most clamorously, that in the first Supper Peter received no more than Judas. It is, indeed, with reluctance, that I dispute keenly with any one on this point, which is (in my opinion) not an essential one; but as others allow themselves, without reason, to pronounce, with a magisterial air, whatever may seem good to them, and to launch out thunderbolts upon every one that mutters anything to the contrary, we will be excused, if we calmly adduce reasons in support of what we reckon to be true.

I hold it, then, as a settled point, and will not allow myself to be driven from it, that Christ cannot be disjoined from his Spirit. Hence I maintain, that his body is not received as dead, or even inactive, disjoined from the grace and power of his Spirit. I shall not occupy much time in proving this statement. Now in what way could the man who is altogether destitute of a living faith and repentance, having nothing of the Spirit of Christ, “Veu que par consequent il n’ha rien de l’Esprit de Christ;” — “Since he has, consequently, nothing of the Spirit of Christ.” receive Christ himself? Nay more, as he is entirely under the influence of Satan and sin, how will he be capable of receiving Christ? While, therefore, I acknowledge that there are some who receive Christ truly in the Supper, and yet at the same time unworthily, as is the case with many weak persons, yet I do not admit, that those who bring with them a mere historical faith, “Vne foy historique qu on appelle; (c est a dire pour consentir simplement a l’histoire de l’Euangile;”) — “An historical faith, as they call it; (that is to say, to give a simple assent to the gospel history.”) without a lively feeling of repentance and faith, receive anything but the sign. For I cannot endure to maim Christ, “Car ie n’ose proposer et imaginer Christ a demi;” — “For I dare not present and imagine Christ in half.” and I shudder at the absurdity of affirming that he gives himself to be eaten by the wicked in a lifeless state, as it were. Nor does Augustine mean anything else when he says, that the wicked receive Christ merely in the sacrament, which he expresses more clearly elsewhere, when he says that the other Apostles ate the bread — the Lord; but Judas only the bread of the Lord This celebrated saying of Augustine (which occurs in Hom. in Joann. 62) is quoted also in the Institutes, (volume 3,) where our author handles at great length the subject here adverted to. — Ed.

But here it is objected, that the efficacy of the sacraments does not depend upon the worthiness of men, and that nothing is taken away from the promises of God, or falls to the ground, through the wickedness of men. This I acknowledge, and accordingly I add in express terms, that Christ’s body is presented to the wicked no less than to the good, and this is enough so far as concerns the efficacy of the sacrament and the faithfulness of God. For God does not there represent in a delusive manner, to the wicked, the body of his Son, but presents it in reality; nor is the bread a bare sign to them, but a faithful pledge. As to their rejection of it, that does not impair or alter anything as to the nature of the sacrament.

It remains, that we give a reply to the statement of Paul in this passage. “Paul represents the unworthy as guilty, inasmuch as they do not discern the Lord’s body: it follows, that they receive his body.” I deny the inference; for though they reject it, yet as they profane it and treat it with dishonor when it is presented to them, they are deservedly held guilty; for they do, as it were, cast it upon the ground, and trample it under their feet. Is such sacrilege trivial? Thus I see no difficulty in Paul’s words, provided you keep in view what God presents and holds out to the wicked — not what they receive.

28. But let a man examine himself An exhortation drawn from the foregoing threatening. “If those that eat unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, then let no man approach who is not properly and duly prepared. Let every one, therefore, take heed to himself, that he may not fall into this sacrilege through idleness or carelessness.” But now it is asked, what sort of examination, that ought to be to which Paul exhorts us. Papists make it consist in auricular confession. They order all that are to receive the Supper, to examine their life carefully and anxiously, that they may unburden all their sins in the ear of the priest. Such is their preparation! “Voyla lear belle preparation;” — “See their admirable preparation!” I maintain, however, that this holy examination of which Paul speaks, is widely different from torture. Those persons, “Ces miserables;” — “Those miserable creatures.” after having tortured themselves with reflection for a few hours, and making the priest — such as he is — privy to their vileness, “Et qu’ils on debagoule leur turpitude a monsieur le prestre;” — “And when they have blabbed out their baseness to Mr. Priest” imagine that they have done their duty. It is an examination of another sort that Paul here requires — one of such a kind as may accord with the legitimate use of the sacred Supper.

You see here a method that is most easily apprehended. If you would wish to use aright the benefit afforded by Christ, bring faith and repentance. As to these two things, therefore, the trial must be made, if you would come duly prepared. Under repentance I include love; for the man who has learned to renounce himself, that he may give himself up wholly to Christ and his service, will also, without doubt, carefully maintain that unity which Christ has enjoined. At the same time, it is not a perfect faith or repentance that is required, as some, by urging beyond due bounds, a perfection that can nowhere be found, would shut out for ever from the Supper every individual of mankind. If, however, thou aspirest after the righteousness of God with the earnest desire of thy mind, and, trembled under a view of thy misery, dost wholly lean upon Christ’s grace, and rest upon it, know that thou art a worthy guest to approach the table — worthy I mean in this respect, that the Lord does not exclude thee, though in another point of view there is something in thee that is not as it ought to be. For faith, when it is but begun, makes those worthy who were unworthy.

29. He who shall eat unworthily, eateth judgment to himself. He had previously pointed out in express terms the heinousness of the crime, when he said that those who should eat unworthily would be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord Now he alarms them, by denouncing punishment; “La punition que Dieu en fera;” — “The punishment that God will inflict upon it.” for there are many that are not affected with the sin itself; unless they are struck down by the judgment of God. This, then, he does, when he declares that this food, otherwise health-giving, will turn out to their destruction, and will be converted into poison to those that eat unworthily

He adds the reasons because they distinguish not the Lord’s body, that is, as a sacred thing from a profane. “They handle the sacred body of Christ with unwashed hands, (Mark 7:2,) “Ils manient le corps precieux de Christ irreueremment, c’est a dire, sans nettoyer leur conscience;” — “They handle the precious body of Christ irreverently, that is to say, without washing their conscience.” nay more, as if it were a thing of nought, they consider not how great is the value of it. In the Vat and Alex MSS. and the Copt version, the reading is simply μη διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα — not distinguishing the body; while later copies have τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίον — the body of the Lord The verb διακρίνω is employed by Herodotus in the sense of distinguishing, in the following expression: διακρίνων ουδενα — without any distinction of persons (Herod. 3. 39.) It is supposed by some that the word, as employed here, contains an allusion to the distinguishing of meats under the Mosaic law. — Ed They will therefore pay the penalty of so dreadful a profanation.” Let my readers keep in mind what I stated a little ago, that the body “Le corps de Christ;” — “The body of Christ.” is presented to them, though their unworthiness deprives them of a participation in it.

1 Corinthians 11:30-34

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

30. Propterea inter vos infirmi sunt multi, et aegroti, et dormiunt multi.

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

31. Si enim ipsi nos iudicassemus, non iudicaremur.

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

32. Porro quum iudicamur, a Domino corripimur, ne cum hoc mundo damnemur.

33. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

33. Itaque, fratres mei, dum convenitis ad edendum, alii alios ex spectate.

34. 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.

34. Si autem quispiam esurit, domi edat, ne in iudicium edatis; caetera autem, quum venero, disponam.

30. For this cause, etc. After having treated in a general way of unworthy eating, and of the kind of punishment that awaits those who pollute this sacrament, he now instructs the Corinthians as to the chastisement which they were at that time enduring. It is not known whether a pestilence was raging there at that time, or whether they were laboring under other kinds of disease. However it may have been as to this, we infer from Paul’s words, that the Lord had sent some scourge upon them for their correction. Nor does Paul merely conjecture, that it is on that account that they are punished, but he affirms it as a thing that was perfectly well known by him. He says, then, that many lay sick — that many were kept long in a languishing condition, and that many had died, in consequence of that abuse of the Supper, because they had offended God. By this he intimates, that by diseases and other chastisements from God, we are admonished to think of our sins; for God does not afflict us without good reason, for he takes no pleasure in our afflictions.

The subject is a copious and ample one; but let it suffice to advert to it here in a single word. If in Paul’s times an ordinary abuse of the Supper “Vn tel abus de la Cene qui n’estoit pas des plus grans;” — “Such an abuse of the Supper, as was not one of the greatest.” could kindle the wrath of God against the Corinthians, so that he punished them thus severely, what ought we to think as to the state of matters at the present day? We see, throughout the whole extent of Popery, not merely horrid profanations of the Supper, but even a sacrilegious abomination set up in its room. In the first place, it is prostituted to filthy lucre (1 Timothy 3:8) and merchandise. Secondly, it is maimed, by taking away the use of the cup. Thirdly, it is changed into another aspect, “Vne forme estrange et du tout autre;” — “A strange and quite different form.” by its having become customary for one to partake of his own feast separately, participation being done away. “Sans en distribuer ne communiquer aux autres;” — “Without distributing or communicating of it to others.” Fourthly, there is there no explanation of the meaning of the sacrament, but a mumbling that would accord better with a magical incantation, or the detestable sacrifices of the Gentiles, than with our Lord’s institution. Fifthly, there is an endless number of ceremonies, abounding partly with trifles, partly with superstition, and consequently manifest pollutions. Sixthly, there is the diabolical invention of sacrifice, which contains an impious blasphemy against the death of Christ. Seventhly, it is fitted to intoxicate miserable men with carnal confidence, while they present it to God as if it were an expiation, and think that by this charm they drive off everything hurtful, and that without faith and repentance. Nay more, while they trust that they are armed against the devil and death, and are fortified against God by a sure defense, they venture to sin with much more freedom, “Ils pechent plus audacieusement, et a bride auallee;” — “They sin more daringly, and with a loose bridle.” and become more obstinate. Eighthly, an idol is there adored in the room of Christ. In short, it is filled with all kinds of abomination. The above paragraph is aptly designated in the old English translation by Thomas Tymme, (1573) “a lyuely description of the Popishe Masse.” — Ed.

Nay even among ourselves, who have the pure administration of the Supper restored to us, “Le pur vsage de la Cene en son entier, qui nous a este finalement rendu par la grace de Dieu;” — “The pure use of the Supper in its completeness, which has been at last restored to us by the grace of God.” in virtue of a return, as it were, from captivity, Calvin here employs the term postliminum, (restoration from captivity,) and most felicitously compares the restoration of the pure observance of religious ordinances, consequent upon the Reformation from Popery, to the recovery, by a Roman citizen, of his superior privileges, on his return from a state of captivity, during which they had been — not forfeited — but merely suspended. — Ed. how much irreverence! How much hypocrisy on the part of many! What a disgraceful mixture, while, without any discrimination, wicked and openly abandoned persons intrude themselves, such as no man of character and decency would admit to common intercourse! “Lesquels vn homme de bien, et qui auroit honnestete en quelque recommendation, ne receuroit iamais a sa table;” — “Whom a man of principle — that had any regard to decency — would never admit to his table.” And yet after all, we wonder how it comes that there are so many wars, so many pestilences, so many failures of the crop, so many disasters and calamities — as if the cause were not manifest! And assuredly, we must not expect a termination to our calamities, until we have removed the occasion of them, by correcting our faults.

31. For if we would judge ourselves Here we have another remarkable statement — that God does not all of a sudden become enraged against us, so as to inflict punishment immediately upon our sinning, but that, for the most part, it is owing to our carelessness, that he is in a manner constrained to punish us, when he sees that we are in a careless and drowsy state, and are flattering ourselves in our sins. “Quand il voit que nous ne nous soucions de rien, et que nous-nous endormons en nos pechez, et nous fiattons en nos ordures et vilenies;” — “When he sees that we are quite careless, and are asleep in our sins, and are flattering ourselves in our filthinesses and pollutions.” Hence we either avert, or mitigate impending punishment, if we first call ourselves to account, and, actuated by a spirit of repentance, deprecate the anger of God by inflicting punishment voluntarily upon ourselves. “Prions nostre bon Dieu d’addoucir la rigueur de sa iustice; par manier de dire nous punissans nous-mesmes sans attendre qu’il y mette la main;” — “We beseech our good God to mitigate the rigour of his justice — punishing ourselves (so to speak) instead of waiting till he put forth his hand to do it.” In short, believers anticipate, by repentance, the judgment of God, and there is no other remedy, by which they may obtain absolution in the sight of God, but by voluntarily condemning themselves

You must not, however, apprehend, as Papists are accustomed to do, that there is here a kind of transaction between us and God, as if, by inflicting punishment upon ourselves of our own accord, we rendered satisfaction to him, and did, in a manner, redeem ourselves from his hand. We do not, therefore, anticipate the judgment of God, on the ground of our bringing any compensation to appease him. The reason is this — because God, when he chastises us, has it in view to shake us out of our drowsiness, and arouse us to repentance. If we do this of our own accord, there is no longer any reason, why he should proceed to inflict his judgment upon us. If, however, any one, after having begun to feel displeased with himself, and meditate repentance, is, nevertheless, still visited with God’s chastisements, let us know that his repentance is not so valid or sure, as not to require some chastisement to be sent upon him, by which it may be helped forward to a fuller development. Mark how repentance wards off the judgment of God by a suitable remedy — not, however, by way of compensation.

32. But when we are judged Here we have a consolation that is exceedingly necessary; for if any one in affliction thinks that God is angry with him, he will rather be discouraged than excited to repentance. Paul, accordingly, says, that God is angry with believers in such a way as not in the meantime to be forgetful of his mercy: nay more, that it is on this account particularly that he punishes them — that he may consult their welfare. It is an inestimable consolation “Y a-il plus grande consolation pour le Chrestien que ceste-ci?” — “Is there a greater consolation for the Christian than this?” — that the punishments by which our sins are chastened are evidences, not of God’s anger for our destruction, but rather of his paternal love, and are at the same time of assistance towards our salvation, for God is angry with us as his sons, whom he will not leave to perish.

When he says — that we may not be condemned with the world, he intimates two things. The first is, that the children of this world, while they sleep on quietly and securely in their delights, “Sont tout asseurez, et ne se soucians du iugement de Dieu s’endorment en leurs plaisirs et voluptez;” — “Are quite confident, and not concerning themselves as to the judgment of God, sleep on in their pleasures and delights.” are fattened up, like hogs, for the day of slaughter (Jeremiah 12:3.) For though the Lord sometimes invites the wicked, also, to repentance by his chastisements, yet he often passes them over as strangers, “I1 aduient souuent qu’il les met en oubli comme estrangers;” — “It often happens that he overlooks them as strangers.” and allows them to rush on with impunity, until they have filled up the measure of their final condemnation. (Genesis 15:16.) This privilege, therefore, belongs to believers exclusively — that by punishments they are called back from destruction. The second thing is this — that chastisements are necessary remedies for believers, for otherwise they, too, would rush on to everlasting destruction, “Ils tomberoyent aussi bien que les autres en ruine eternelle;” — “They would fall, as well as others, into everlasting destruction.” were they not restrained by temporal punishment.

These considerations should lead us not merely to patience, so as to endure with equanimity the troubles that are assigned to us by God, but also to gratitude, that, giving thanks to God our Father, we may resign ourselves “Voluntairement, A soustenir tel chastisement qu’il luy plaira nous enuoyer;” — “Willingly to bear such chastisement as he may be pleased to send upon us.” to his discipline by a willing subjection. They are also useful to us in various ways; for they cause our afflictions to be salutary to us, while they train us up for mortification of the flesh, and a pious abasement — they accustom us to obedience to God — they convince us of our own weakness, they kindle up in our minds fervency in prayer — they exercise hope, so that at length whatever there is of bitterness in them is all swallowed up in spiritual joy.

33. Wherefore, my brethren From the discussion of a general doctrine, he returns to the particular subject with which he had set out, and comes to this conclusion, that equality must be observed in the Lord’s Supper, that there may be a real participation, as there ought to be, and that they may not celebrate every one his own supper; and farther, that this sacrament ought not to be mixed up with common feasts.

34. The rest I will set in order when I come It is probable, that there were some things in addition, which it would be of advantage to put into better order, but as they were of less importance, the Apostle delays the correction of them until his coming among them. It may be, at the same time, that there was nothing of this nature; but as one knows better what is necessary when he is present to see, Paul reserves to himself the liberty of arranging matters when present, according as occasion may require. Papists arm themselves against us with this buckler, too, for defending their mass For they interpret this to be the setting in order which Paul here promises — as if he would have taken the liberty “Mais c’est bien a propos, comme si ce sainct personnage se fust donne ceste license;” — “But this is a likely thing truly! As if that holy personage would have allowed himself this liberty,!” of overturning that eternal appointment of Christ, which he here so distinctly approves of! For what resemblance does the mass bear to Christ’s institution? But away with such trifles, as it is certain that Paul speaks only of outward decorum. As this is put in the power of the Church, so it ought to be arranged according to the condition of times, places, and persons.

CHAPTER 12

1 Corinthians 12:1-7

1. Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

1. Porro de spiritualibus, fratres, nolo vos ignorare.

2. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

2. Scitis, quum Gentes eratis, qualiter simulacra muta, prout ducebamini, sequuti sitis.

3. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed; and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

3. Quamobrem notum vobis facio, quod nemo in Spiritu Dei loquens, dicit anathema Iesum: et nemo potest dicere Dominum Iesum, nisi per Spiritum sanctum.

4. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

4. Divisiones autem donorum sunt, sed unus Spiritus.

5. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

5. Et divisiones ministeriorum aunt, sed unus Dominus.

6. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

6. Et divisiones facultatum sunt, sed Deus unus, qui operatur omnia in omnibus.

7. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

7. Unicuique autem datur manifestatio Spiritus ad utilitatem.

CHAPTER 11

1Co 11:1-34. Censure on Disorders in Their Assemblies: Their Women Not Being Veiled, and Abuses at the Love-Feasts.

1. Rather belonging to the end of the tenth chapter, than to this chapter.

followers--Greek, "imitators."

of Christ--who did not please Himself (Ro 15:3); but gave Himself, at the cost of laying aside His divine glory, and dying as man, for us (Ep 5:2; Php 2:4, 5). We are to follow Christ first, and earthly teachers only so far as they follow Christ.

2. Here the chapter ought to begin.

ye remember me in all things--in your general practice, though in the particular instances which follow ye fail.

ordinances--Greek, "traditions," that is, apostolic directions given by word of mouth or in writing (1Co 11:23; 15:3; 2Th 2:15). The reference here is mainly to ceremonies: for in 1Co 11:23, as to the Lord's Supper, which is not a mere ceremony, he says, not merely, "I delivered unto you," but also, "I received of the Lord"; here he says only, "I delivered to you." Romanists argue hence for oral traditions. But the difficulty is to know what is a genuine apostolic tradition intended for all ages. Any that can be proved to be such ought to be observed; any that cannot, ought to be rejected (Re 22:18). Those preserved in the written word alone can be proved to be such.

3. The Corinthian women, on the ground of the abolition of distinction of sexes in Christ, claimed equality with the male sex, and, overstepping the bounds of propriety, came forward to pray and prophesy without the customary head-covering of females. The Gospel, doubtless, did raise women from the degradation in which they had been sunk, especially in the East. Yet, while on a level with males as to the offer of, and standing in grace (Ga 3:28), their subjection in point of order, modesty, and seemliness, is to be maintained. Paul reproves here their unseemliness as to dress: in 1Co 14:34, as to the retiring modesty in public which becomes them. He grounds his reproof here on the subjection of woman to man in the order of creation.

the head--an appropriate expression, when he is about to treat of woman's appropriate headdress in public.

of every man ... Christ--(Ep 5:23).

of ... woman ... man--(1Co 11:8; Ge 3:16; 1Ti 2:11, 12; 1Pe 3:1, 5, 6).

head of Christ is God--(1Co 3:23; 15:27, 28; Lu 3:22, 38; Joh 14:28; 20:17; Ep 3:9). "Jesus, therefore, must be of the same essence as God: for, since the man is the head of the woman, and since the head is of the same essence as the body, and God is the head of the Son, it follows the Son is of the same essence as the Father" [Chrysostom]. "The woman is of the essence of the man, and not made by the man; so, too, the Son is not made by the Father, but of the essence of the Father" [Theodoret, t. 3, p. 171].

4. praying--in public (1Co 11:17).

prophesying--preaching in the Spirit (1Co 12:10).

having--that is, if he were to have: a supposed case to illustrate the impropriety in the woman's case. It was the Greek custom (and so that at Corinth) for men in worship to be uncovered; whereas the Jews wore the Talith, or veil, to show reverence before God, and their unworthiness to look on Him (Is 6:2); however, Maimonides [Mishna] excepts cases where (as in Greece) the custom of the place was different.

dishonoureth his head--not as Alford, "Christ" (1Co 11:3); but literally, as "his head" is used in the beginning of the verse. He dishonoreth his head (the principal part of the body) by wearing a covering or veil, which is a mark of subjection, and which makes him look downwards instead of upwards to his Spiritual Head, Christ, to whom alone he owes subjection. Why, then, ought not man to wear the covering in token of his subjection to Christ, as the woman wears it in token of her subjection to man? "Because Christ is not seen: the man is seen; so the covering of him who is under Christ is not seen; of her who is under the man, is seen" [Bengel]. (Compare 1Co 11:7).

5. woman ... prayeth ... prophesieth--This instance of women speaking in public worship is an extraordinary case, and justified only by the miraculous gifts which such women possessed as their credentials; for instance, Anna the prophetess and Priscilla (so Ac 2:18). The ordinary rule to them is: silence in public (1Co 14:34, 35; 1Ti 2:11, 12). Mental receptivity and activity in family life are recognized in Christianity, as most accordant with the destiny of woman. This passage does not necessarily sanction women speaking in public, even though possessing miraculous gifts; but simply records what took place at Corinth, without expressing an opinion on it, reserving the censure of it till 1Co 14:34, 35. Even those women endowed with prophecy were designed to exercise their gift, rather in other times and places, than the public congregation.

dishonoureth ... head--in that she acts against the divine ordinance and the modest propriety that becomes her: in putting away the veil, she puts away the badge of her subjection to man, which is her true "honor"; for through him it connects her with Christ, the head of the man. Moreover, as the head-covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (Ge 24:65), and conjugal chastity (Ge 20:16); so, to uncover the head indicated withdrawal from the power of the husband, whence a suspected wife had her head uncovered by the priest (Nu 5:18). Alford takes "her head" to be man, her symbolical, not her literal head; but as it is literal in the former clause, it must be so in the latter one.

all one as if ... shaven--As woman's hair is given her by nature, as her covering (1Co 11:15), to cut it off like a man, all admit, would be indecorous: therefore, to put away the head-covering, too, like a man, would be similarly indecorous. It is natural to her to have long hair for her covering: she ought, therefore, to add the other (the wearing of a head-covering) to show that she does of her own will that which nature itself teaches she ought to do, in token of her subjection to man.

6. A woman would not like to be "shorn" or (what is worse) "shaven"; but if she chooses to be uncovered (unveiled) in front, let her be so also behind, that is, "shorn."

a shame--an unbecoming thing (compare 1Co 11:13-15). Thus the shaving of nuns is "a shame."

7-9. Argument, also, from man's more immediate relation to God, and the woman's to man.

he is ... image ... glory of God--being created in God's "image," first and directly: the woman, subsequently, and indirectly, through the mediation of man. Man is the representative of God's "glory" this ideal of man being realized most fully in the Son of man (Psa 8:4, 5; compare 2Co 8:23). Man is declared in Scripture to be both the "image," and in the "likeness," of God (compare Jas 3:9). But "image" alone is applied to the Son of God (Col 1:15; compare He 1:3). "Express image," Greek, "the impress." The Divine Son is not merely "like" God, He is God of God, "being of one substance (essence) with the Father." [Nicene Creed].

woman ... glory of ... man--He does not say, also, "the image of the man." For the sexes differ: moreover, the woman is created in the image of God, as well as the man (Ge 1:26, 27). But as the moon in relation to the sun (Ge 37:9), so woman shines not so much with light direct from God, as with light derived from man, that is, in her order in creation; not that she does not in grace come individually into direct communion with God; but even here much of her knowledge is mediately given her through man, on whom she is naturally dependent.

10. power on her head--the kerchief: French couvre chef, head-covering, the emblem of "power on her head"; the sign of her being under man's power, and exercising delegated authority under him. Paul had before his mind the root-connection between the Hebrew terms for "veil" (radid), and "subjection" (radad).

because of the angels--who are present at our Christian assemblies (compare Psa 138:1, "gods," that is, angels), and delight in the orderly subordination of the several ranks of God's worshippers in their respective places, the outward demeanor and dress of the latter being indicative of that inward humility which angels know to be most pleasing to their common Lord (1Co 4:9; Ep 3:10; Ec 5:6). Hammond quotes Chrysostom, "Thou standest with angels; thou singest with them; thou hymnest with them; and yet dost thou stand laughing?" Bengel explains, "As the angels are in relation to God, so the woman is in relation to man. God's face is uncovered; angels in His presence are veiled (Is 6:2). Man's face is uncovered; woman in His presence is to be veiled. For her not to be so, would, by its indecorousness, offend the angels (Mt 18:10, 31). She, by her weakness, especially needs their ministry; she ought, therefore, to be the more careful not to offend them."

11. Yet neither sex is insulated and independent of the other in the Christian life [Alford]. The one needs the other in the sexual relation; and in respect to Christ ("in the Lord"), the man and the woman together (for neither can be dispensed with) realize the ideal of redeemed humanity represented by the bride, the Church.

12. As the woman was formed out of (from) the man, even so is man born by means of woman; but all things (including both man and woman) are from God as their source (Ro 11:36; 2Co 5:18). They depend mutually each on the other, and both on him.

13. Appeal to their own sense of decorum.

a woman ... unto God--By rejecting the emblem of subjection (the head-covering), she passes at one leap in praying publicly beyond both the man and angels [Bengel].

14. The fact that nature has provided woman, and not man, with long hair, proves that man was designed to be uncovered, and woman covered. The Nazarite, however, wore long hair lawfully, as being part of a vow sanctioned by God (Nu 6:5). Compare as to Absalom, 2Sa 14:26, and Ac 18:18.

15. her hair ... for a covering--Not that she does not need additional covering. Nay, her long hair shows she ought to cover her head as much as possible. The will ought to accord with nature [Bengel].

16. A summary close to the argument by appeal to the universal custom of the churches.

if any ... seem--The Greek also means "thinks" (fit) (compare Mt 3:9). If any man chooses (still after all my arguments) to be contentious. If any be contentious and thinks himself right in being so. A reproof of the Corinthians' self-sufficiency and disputatiousness (1Co 1:20).

we--apostles: or we of the Jewish nation, from whom ye have received the Gospel, and whose usages in all that is good ye ought to follow: Jewish women veiled themselves when in public, according to Tertullian [Estius]. The former explanation is best, as the Jews are not referred to in the context: but he often refers to himself and his fellow apostles, by the expression, "we--us" (1Co 4:9, 10).

no such custom--as that of women praying uncovered. Not as Chrysostom, "that of being contentious." The Greek term implies a usage, rather than a mental habit (Joh 18:39). The usage of true "churches (plural: not, as Rome uses it, 'the Church,' as an abstract entity; but 'the churches,' as a number of independent witnesses) of God" (the churches which God Himself recognizes), is a valid argument in the case of external rites, especially, negatively, for example, Such rites were not received among them, therefore, ought not to be admitted among us: but in questions of doctrine, or the essentials of worship, the argument is not valid [Sclater] (1Co 7:17; 14:33).

neither--nor yet. Catholic usage is not an infallible test of truth, but a general test of decency.

17. in this--which follows.

I declare--rather, "I enjoin"; as the Greek is always so used. The oldest manuscripts read literally "This I enjoin (you) not praising (you)."

that--inasmuch as; in that you, &c. Here he qualifies his praise (1Co 11:2). "I said that I praised you for keeping the ordinances delivered to you; but I must now give injunction in the name of the Lord, on a matter in which I praise you not; namely, as to the Lord's Supper (1Co 11:23; 1Co 14:37).

not for the better--not so as to progress to what is better.

for the worse--so as to retrograde to what is worse. The result of such "coming together" must be "condemnation" (1Co 11:34).

18. first of all--In the first place. The "divisions" (Greek, "schisms") meant, are not merely those of opinion (1Co 1:10), but in outward acts at the love-feasts (Agapæ), (1Co 11:21). He does not follow up the expression, "in the first place," by "in the second place." But though not expressed, a second abuse was in his mind when he said, "In the first place," namely, THE ABUSE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS, which also created disorder in their assemblies [Alford], (1Co 12:1; 14:23, 26, 33, 40).

in the church--not the place of worship; for Isidore of Pelusium denies that there were such places specially set apart for worship in the apostles' times [Epistle, 246.2]. But, "in the assembly" or "congregation"; in convocation for worship, where especially love, order, and harmony should prevail. The very ordinance instituted for uniting together believers in one body, was made an occasion of "divisions" (schisms).

partly--He hereby excepts the innocent. "I am unwilling to believe all I hear, but some I cannot help believing" [Alford]: while my love is unaffected by it [Bengel].

19. heresies--Not merely "schisms" or "divisions" (1Co 11:18), which are "recent dissensions of the congregation through differences of opinion" [Augustine, Con. Crescon. Don. 2.7, quoted by Trench, Greek Synonyms of the New Testament], but also "heresies," that is, "schisms which have now become inveterate"; "Sects" [Campbell, vol. 2, pp. 126, 127]: so Ac 5:17; 15:5 translate the same Greek. At present there were dissensions at the love-feasts; but Paul, remembering Jesus' words (Mt 18:7; 24:10, 12; Lu 17:1) foresees "there must be (come) also" matured separations, and established parties in secession, as separatists. The "must be" arises from sin in professors necessarily bearing its natural fruits: these are overruled by God to the probation of character of both the godly and the ungodly, and to the discipline of the former for glory. "Heresies" had not yet its technical sense ecclesiastically, referring to doctrinal errors: it means confirmed schisms. St. Augustine's rule is a golden rule as regards questions of heresy and catholicity: "In doubtful questions, liberty; in essentials, unity; in all things, charity."

that ... approved may be made manifest--through the disapproved (reprobates) becoming manifested (Lu 2:35; 1Jo 2:19).

20. When ... therefore--Resuming the thread of discourse from 1Co 11:18.

this is not to--rather, "there is no such thing as eating the Lord's Supper"; it is not possible where each is greedily intent only on devouring "HIS OWN supper," and some are excluded altogether, not having been waited for (1Co 11:33), where some are "drunken," while others are "hungry" (1Co 11:21). The love-feast usually preceded the Lord's Supper (as eating the Passover came before the Lord's Supper at the first institution of the latter). It was a club-feast, where each brought his portion, and the rich, extra portions for the poor; from it the bread and wine were taken for the Eucharist; and it was at it that the excesses took place, which made a true celebration of the Lord's Supper during or after it, with true discernment of its solemnity, out of the question.

21. one taketh before other--the rich "before" the poor, who had no supper of their own. Instead of "tarrying for one another" (1Co 11:33); hence the precept (1Co 12:21, 25).

his own supper--"His own" belly is his God (Php 3:19); "the Lord's Supper," the spiritual feast, never enters his thoughts.

drunken--The one has more than is good for him, the other less [Bengel].

22. What!--Greek, "For."

houses--(compare 1Co 11:34)--"at home." That is the place to satiate the appetite, not the assembly of the brethren [Alford].

despise ye the church of God--the congregation mostly composed of the poor, whom "God hath chosen," however ye show contempt for them (Jas 2:5); compare "of God" here, marking the true honor of the Church.

shame them that have not--namely, houses to eat and drink in, and who, therefore, ought to have received their portion at the love-feasts from their wealthier brethren.

I praise you not--resuming the words (1Co 11:17).

23. His object is to show the unworthiness of such conduct from the dignity of the holy supper.

I--Emphatic in the Greek. It is not my own invention, but the Lord's institution.

received of the Lord--by immediate revelation (Ga 1:12; compare Ac 22:17, 18; 2Co 12:1-4). The renewal of the institution of the Lord's Supper by special revelation to Paul enhances its solemnity. The similarity between Luke's and Paul's account of the institution, favors the supposition that the former drew his information from the apostle, whose companion in travel he was. Thus, the undesigned coincidence is a proof of genuineness.

night--the time fixed for the Passover (Ex 12:6): though the time for the Lord's Supper is not fixed.

betrayed--With the traitor at the table, and death present before His eyes, He left this ordinance as His last gift to us, to commemorate His death. Though about to receive such an injury from man, He gave this pledge of His amazing love to man.

24. brake--The breaking of the bread involves its distribution and reproves the Corinthian mode at the love-feast, of "every one taking before other his own supper."

my body ... broken for you--"given" (Lu 22:19) for you (Greek, "in your behalf"), and "broken," so as to be distributed among you. The oldest manuscripts omit "broken," leaving it to be supplied from "brake." The two old versions, Memphitic and Thebaic, read from Luke, "given." The literal "body" could not have been meant; for Christ was still sensibly present among His disciples when He said, "This is My body." They could only have understood Him symbolically and analogically: As this bread is to your bodily health, so My body is to the spiritual health of the believing communicant. The words, "Take, eat," are not in the oldest manuscripts.

in remembrance of me--(See on 1Co 11:25).

25. when he had supped--Greek, "after the eating of supper," namely, the Passover supper which preceded the Lord's Supper, as the love-feast did subsequently. Therefore, you Corinthians ought to separate common meals from the Lord's Supper [Bengel].

the new testament--or "covenant." The cup is the parchment-deed, as it were, on which My new covenant, or last will is written and sealed, making over to you all blessings here and hereafter.

in my blood--ratified by MY blood: "not by the blood of goats and calves" (He 9:12).

as oft as--Greek, "as many times soever": implying that it is an ordinance often to be partaken of.

in remembrance of me--Luke (Lu 22:19) expresses this, which is understood by Matthew and Mark. Paul twice records it (1Co 11:24 and here) as suiting his purpose. The old sacrifices brought sins continually to remembrance (He 10:1, 3). The Lord's Supper brings to remembrance Christ and His sacrifice once for all for the full and final remission of sins.

26. For--in proof that the Lord's Supper is "in remembrance" of Him.

show--announce publicly. The Greek does not mean to dramatically represent, but "ye publicly profess each of you, the Lord has died FOR ME" [Wahl]. This word, as "is" in Christ's institution (1Co 11:24, 25), implies not literal presence, but a vivid realization, by faith, of Christ in the Lord's Supper, as a living person, not a mere abstract dogma, "bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh" (Ep 5:30; compare Ge 2:23); and ourselves "members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones," "our sinful bodies made clean by His body (once for all offered), and our souls washed through His most precious blood" [Church of England Prayer Book]. "Show," or "announce," is an expression applicable to new things; compare "show" as to the Passover (Ex 13:8). So the Lord's death ought always to be fresh in our memory; compare in heaven, Re 5:6. That the Lord's Supper is in remembrance of Him, implies that He is bodily absent, though spiritually present, for we cannot be said to commemorate one absent. The fact that we not only show the Lord's death in the supper, but eat and drink the pledges of it, could only be understood by the Jews, accustomed to such feasts after propitiatory sacrifices, as implying our personal appropriation therein of the benefits of that death.

till he come--when there shall be no longer need of symbols of His body, the body itself being manifested. The Greek expresses the certainly of His coming. Rome teaches that we eat Christ present corporally, "till He come" corporally; a contradiction in terms. The showbread, literally, "bread of the presence," was in the sanctuary, but not in the Holiest Place (He 9:1-8); so the Lord's Supper in heaven, the antitype to the Holiest Place, shall be superseded by Christ's own bodily presence; then the wine shall be drunk "anew" in the Father's kingdom, by Christ and His people together, of which heavenly banquet, the Lord's Supper is a spiritual foretaste and specimen (Mt 26:29). Meantime, as the showbread was placed anew, every sabbath, on the table before the Lord (Le 24:5-8); so the Lord's death was shown, or announced afresh at the Lord's table the first day of every week in the primitive Church. We are now "priests unto God" in the dispensation of Christ's spiritual presence, antitypical to the HOLY PLACE: the perfect and eternal dispensation, which shall not begin till Christ's coming, is antitypical to the HOLIEST PLACE, which Christ our High Priest alone in the flesh as yet has entered (He 9:6, 7); but which, at His coming, we, too, who are believers, shall enter (Re 7:15; 21:22). The supper joins the two closing periods of the Old and the New dispensations. The first and second comings are considered as one coming, whence the expression is not "return," but "come" (compare, however, Joh 14:3).

27. eat and drink--So one of the oldest manuscripts reads. But three or four equally old manuscripts, the Vulgate and Cyprian, read, "or." Romanists quote this reading in favor of communion in one kind. This consequence does not follow. Paul says, "Whosoever is guilty of unworthy conduct, either in eating the bread, or in drinking the cup, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ." Impropriety in only one of the two elements, vitiates true communion in both. Therefore, in the end of the verse, he says, not "body or blood," but "body and blood." Any who takes the bread without the wine, or the wine without the bread, "unworthily" communicates, and so "is guilty of Christ's body and blood"; for he disobeys Christ's express command to partake of both. If we do not partake of the sacramental symbol of the Lord's death worthily, we share in the guilt of that death. (Compare "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh," He 6:6). Unworthiness in the person, is not what ought to exclude any, but unworthily communicating: However unworthy we be, if we examine ourselves so as to find that we penitently believe in Christ's Gospel, we may worthily communicate.

28. examine--Greek, "prove" or "test" his own state of mind in respect to Christ's death, and his capability of "discerning the Lord's body" (1Co 11:29, 31). Not auricular confession to a priest, but self-examination is necessary.

so--after due self-examination.

of ... of--In 1Co 11:27, where the receiving was unworthily, the expression was, "eat this bread, drink ... cup" without "of." Here the "of" implies due circumspection in communicating [Bengel].

let him eat--His self-examination is not in order that he may stay away, but that he may eat, that is, communicate.

29. damnation--A mistranslation which has put a stumbling-block in the way of many in respect to communicating. The right translation is "judgment." The judgment is described (1Co 11:30-32) as temporal.

not discerning--not duty judging: not distinguishing in judgment (so the Greek: the sin and its punishment thus being marked as corresponding) from common food, the sacramental pledges of the Lord's body. Most of the oldest manuscripts omit "Lord's" (see 1Co 11:27). Omitting also "unworthily," with most of the oldest manuscripts, we must translate, "He that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, IF he discern not the body" (He 10:29). The Church is "the body of Christ" (1Co 12:27). The Lord's body is His literal body appreciated and discerned by the soul in the faithful receiving, and not present in the elements themselves.

30. weak ... sickly--He is "weak" who has naturally no strength: "sickly," who has lost his strength by disease [Tittmann, Greek Synonyms of the New Testament].

sleep--are being lulled in death: not a violent death; but one the result of sickness, sent as the Lord's chastening for the individual's salvation, the mind being brought to a right state on the sick bed (1Co 11:31).

31. if we would judge ourselves--Most of the oldest manuscripts, read "But," not "For." Translate also literally "If we duly judged ourselves, we should not be (or not have been) judged," that is, we should escape (or have escaped) our present judgments. In order to duly judge or "discern [appreciate] the Lord's body," we need to "duly judge ourselves." A prescient warning against the dogma of priestly absolution after full confession, as the necessary preliminary to receiving the Lord's Supper.

32. chastened--(Re 3:19).

with the world--who, being bastards, are without chastening (He 12:8).

33. tarry one for another--In contrast to 1Co 11:21. The expression is not, "Give a share to one another," for all the viands brought to the feast were common property, and, therefore, they should "tarry" till all were met to partake together of the common feast of fellowship [Theophylact].

34. if any ... hunger--so as not to be able to "tarry for others," let him take off the edge of his hunger at home [Alford] (1Co 11:22).

the rest--"the other questions you asked me as to the due celebration of the Lord's Supper." Not other questions in general; for he does subsequently set in order other general questions in this Epistle.

Be ye followers of me - This verse certainly belongs to the preceding chapter, and is here out of all proper place and connection.

That ye remember me in all things - It appears that the apostle had previously given them a variety of directions relative to the matters mentioned here; that some had paid strict attention to them, and that others had not; and that contentions and divisions were the consequences, which he here reproves and endeavors to rectify. While Paul and Apollos had preached among them, they had undoubtedly prescribed every thing that was necessary to be observed in the Christian worship: but it is likely that those who joined in idol festivals wished also to introduce something relative to the mode of conducting the idol worship into the Christian assembly, which they might think was an improvement on the apostle's plan.

The head of every man is Christ - The apostle is speaking particularly of Christianity and its ordinances: Christ is the Head or Author of this religion; and is the creator, preserver, and Lord of every man. The man also is the lord or head of the woman; and the Head or Lord of Christ, as Mediator between God and man, is God the Father. Here is the order - God sends his Son Jesus Christ to redeem man; Christ comes and lays down his life for the world; every man who receives Christianity confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father; and every believing woman will acknowledge, according to Gen 3:16, that God has placed her in a dependence on and subjection to the man. So far there is no difficulty in this passage.

Praying, or prophesying - Any person who engages in public acts in the worship of God, whether prayer, singing, or exhortation: for we learn, from the apostle himself, that προφητευειν, to prophesy, signifies to speak unto men to edification, exhortation, and comfort, 1Cor 14:3. And this comprehends all that we understand by exhortation, or even preaching.

Having his head covered - With his cap or turban on, dishonoreth his head; because the head being covered was a sign of subjection; and while he was employed in the public ministration of the word, he was to be considered as a representative of Christ, and on this account his being veiled or covered would be improper. This decision of the apostle was in point blank hostility to the canons of the Jews; for they would not suffer a man to pray unless he was veiled, for which they gave this reason. "He should veil himself to show that he is ashamed before God, and unworthy with open face to behold him." See much in Lightfoot on this point.

But every woman that prayeth, etc. - Whatever may be the meaning of praying and prophesying, in respect to the man, they have precisely the same meaning in respect to the woman. So that some women at least, as well as some men, might speak to others to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. And this kind of prophesying or teaching was predicted by Joel, Joe 2:28, and referred to by Peter, Act 2:17. And had there not been such gifts bestowed on women, the prophecy could not have had its fulfillment. The only difference marked by the apostle was, the man had his head uncovered, because he was the representative of Christ; the woman had hers covered, because she was placed by the order of God in a state of subjection to the man, and because it was a custom, both among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews an express law, that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. This was, and is, a common custom through all the east, and none but public prostitutes go without veils. And if a woman should appear in public without a veil, she would dishonor her head - her husband. And she must appear like to those women who had their hair shorn off as the punishment of whoredom, or adultery.

Tacitus informs us, Germ. 19, that, considering the greatness of the population, adulteries were very rare among the Germans; and when any woman was found guilty she was punished in the following way: accisis crinibus, nudatam coram propinquis expellit domo maritus; "having cut off her hair, and stripped her before her relatives, her husband turned her out of doors." And we know that the woman suspected of adultery was ordered by the law of Moses to be stripped of her veil, Num 5:18. Women reduced to a state of servitude, or slavery, had their hair cut off: so we learn from Achilles Tatius. Clitophon says, concerning Leucippe, who was reduced to a state of slavery: πεπραται, δεδουλευκεν, γην εσκαψεν, σεσυληται της κεφαλης το καλλος, την κουραν ὁρᾳς· lib. viii. cap. 6, "she was sold for a slave, she dug in the ground, and her hair being shorn off, her head was deprived of its ornament," etc. It was also the custom among the Greeks to cut off their hair in time of mourning. See Euripides in Alcest., ver. 426. Admetus, ordering a common mourning for his wife Alcestis, says: πενθος γυναικος της δε κοινουσθαι λεγω, κουρᾳ ξυρηκει και μελαμπεπλῳ στολῃ· "I order a general mourning for this woman! let the hair be shorn off, and a black garment put on." Propriety and decency of conduct are the points which the apostle seems to have more especially in view. As a woman who dresses loosely or fantastically, even in the present day, is considered a disgrace to her husband, because suspected to be not very sound in her morals; so in those ancient times, a woman appearing without a veil would be considered in the same light.

For if the woman be not covered - If she will not wear a veil in the public assemblies, let her be shorn - let her carry a public badge of infamy: but if it be a shame - if to be shorn or shaven would appear, as it must, a badge of infamy, then let her be covered - let her by all means wear a veil. Even in mourning it was considered disgraceful to be obliged to shear off the hair; and lest they should lose this ornament of their heads, the women contrived to evade the custom, by cutting off the ends of it only. Euripides, in Orest., ver. 128, speaking of Helen, who should have shaved her head on account of the death of her sister Clytemnestra, says: ειδετε παρ' ακρας ὡς απεθρισεν τριχας, σωζουσα καλλος, εστι δε ἡ παλαι γυνη: "see how she cuts off only the very points of her hair, that she may preserve her beauty, and is just the same woman as before." See the note on 1Cor 11:5.

In Hindostan a woman cuts off her hair at the death of her husband, as a token of widowhood; but this is never performed by a married woman, whose hair is considered an essential ornament. The veil of the Hindoo women is nothing more than the garment brought over the face, which is always very carefully done by the higher classes of women when they appear in the streets. - Ward's Customs.

A man indeed ought not to cover his head - He should not wear his cap or turban in the public congregation, for this was a badge of servitude, or an indication that he had a conscience overwhelmed with guilt; and besides, it was contrary to the custom that prevailed, both among the Greeks and Romans.

He is the image and glory of God - He is God's vicegerent in this lower world; and, by the authority which he has received from his Master, he is his representative among the creatures, and exhibits, more than any other part of the creation, the glory and perfections of the Creator.

But the woman is the glory of the man - As the man is, among the creatures, the representative of the glory and perfections of God, so that the fear of him and the dread of him are on every beast of the field, etc.; so the woman is, in the house and family, the representative of the power and authority of the man. I believe this to be the meaning of the apostle; and that he is speaking here principally concerning power and authority, and skill to use them. It is certainly not the moral image of God, nor his celestial glory, of which he speaks in this verse.

For, the man is not of the woman - Bishop Pearce translates ου γαρ εστιν ανηρ εκ γυναικος, αλλα γυνη εξ ανδρος, thus: "For the man doth not Belong to the woman, but the woman to the man." And vindicates this sense of εκ, by its use in 1Cor 12:15. If the foot shall say, ουκ ειμι εκ του σωματος, I am not of the body, i.e. I do not belong to the body. He observes that as the verb εστιν is in the present tense, and will not allow that we should understand this verse of something that is past, γαρ, for, in the following verse, which is unnoticed by our translators, will have its full propriety and meaning, because it introduces a reason why the woman belongs to the man and not the man to the woman. His meaning is, that the man does not belong to the woman, as if she was the principal; but the woman belongs to the man in that view.

Neither was the man created, etc. - Και γαρ ουκ εκτισθη· for the man was not created upon the woman's account. The reason is plain from what is mentioned above; and from the original creation of woman she was made for the man, to be his proper or suitable helper.

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels - There are few portions in the sacred writings that have given rise to such a variety of conjectures and explanations, and are less understood, than this verse, and 1Cor 15:29. Our translators were puzzled with it; and have inserted here one of the largest marginal readings found any where in their work; but this is only on the words power on her head, which they interpret thus: that is, a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband. But, admitting this marginal reading to be a satisfactory solution so far as it goes, it by no means removes all the difficulty. Mr. Locke ingenuously acknowledged that he did not understand the meaning of the words; and almost every critic and learned man has a different explanation. Some have endeavored to force out a meaning by altering the text. The emendation of Mr. Toup, of Cornwall, is the most remarkable: he reads εξιουσα, going out, instead of εξουσιαν, power; wherefore the woman, when she goes out, should have a veil on her head. Whatever ingenuity there may appear in this emendation, the consideration that it is not acknowledged by any MS., or version, or primitive writer, is sufficient proof against it. Dr. Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Bishop Pearce, have written best on the subject, in which they allow that there are many difficulties. The latter contends,

1. That the original should be read, Wherefore the woman ought to have A power upon her head, that is, the power of the husband over the wife; the word power standing for the sign or token of that power which was a covering or veil. Theophylact explains the word, το του εξουσιαζεσθαι συμβολον, τουτεστι, το καλυμμα, "the symbol of being under power, that is, a veil, or covering." And Photius explains it thus: της υποταγης συμβολον το επι της κεφαλης καλυμμα φερειν; to wear a veil on the head is a symbol of subjection. It is no unusual thing, in the Old and New Testament, for the signs and tokens of things to be called by the names of the things themselves, for thus circumcision is called the covenant, in Gen 17:10, Gen 17:13, though it was only the sign of it.

2. The word angels presents another difficulty. Some suppose that by these the apostle means the fallen angels, or devils; others, the governors of the Church; and others, those who were deputed among the Jews to espouse a virgin in the name of a lover. All these senses the learned bishop rejects, and believes that the apostle uses the word angels, in its most obvious sense, for the heavenly angels; and that he speaks according to the notion which then prevailed among Jews, that the holy angels interested themselves in the affairs of men, and particularly were present in their religious assemblies, as the cherubim, their representation, were present in their temple. Thus we read in Ecc 5:6 : Neither say thou before the Angel, it was an error; and in 1Tim 5:21 : I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect Angels, etc. Parallel to these is what Agrippa says in his oration to the Jews, Josephus, War, b. ii. chap. 16: I protest before God, your holy temple, and all the Angels of heaven, etc. All which passages suppose, or were spoken to those who supposed, that the angels know what passes here upon earth. The notion, whether just or not, prevailed among the Jews; and if so, St. Paul might speak according to the common opinion.

3. Another difficulty lies in the phrase δια τουτο, wherefore, which shows that this verse is a conclusion from what the apostle was arguing before; which we may understand thus: that his conclusion, from the foregoing argument, ought to have the more weight, upon account of the presence, real or supposed, of the holy angels, at their religious meetings. See Bishop Pearce, in loc.

The learned bishop is not very willing to allow that the doctrine of the presence of angelic beings in religious assemblies is legitimate; but what difficulty can there be in this, if we take the words of the apostle in another place: Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? Heb 1:14. And perhaps there is no time in which they can render more essential services to the followers of God than when they are engaged in Divine ordinances. On the whole, the bishop's sense of the passage and paraphrase stands thus: "And because of this superiority in the man, I conclude that the woman should have on her head a veil, the mark of her husband's power over her, especially in the religious assemblies, where the angels are supposed to be invisibly present."

The ancient versions make little alteration in the common reading, and the MSS. leave the verse nearly as it stands in the common printed editions. The Armenian has a word that answers to umbram, a shade or covering. The Ethiopic, her head should be veiled. The common editions of the Vulgate have potestatem, power; but in an ancient edition of the Vulgate, perhaps one of the first, if not the first, ever printed, 2 vols. fol., sine ulla nota anni, etc.: the verse stands thus: Ideo debet mulier velamen habere super caput suum: et propter angelos. My old MS. translation seems to have been taken from a MS. which had the same reading: Wherefore the woman schal haue a veyl on her heuyd; and for aungels. Some copies of the Itala have also velamen, a veil.

In his view of this text, Kypke differs from all others; and nothing that so judicious a critic advances should be lightly regarded.

1. He contends that εξουσιαν occurs nowhere in the sense of veil, and yet he supposes that the word καλυμμα, veil is understood, and must in the translation of the passage be supplied.

2. He directs that a comma be placed after εξουσιαν, and that it be construed with οφειλει, ought; after which he translates the verse thus: Propterea mulier potestati obnoxia est, ita ut velamen in capite habeat propter angelos; On this account the woman is subject to power, so that she should have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

3. He contends that both the Latins and Greeks use debere and οφειλειν elegantly to express that to which one is obnoxious or liable. So Horace: - - Tu, nisi ventis

Debes ludibrium, cave.

Carm. lib. i. Od. xiv. ver. 15.

Take heed lest thou owe a laughing stock to the winds; i.e. lest thou become the sport of the winds; for to these thou art now exposing thyself.

So Dionys. Hal. Ant. lib. iii., page 205: Και πολλην οφειλοντες αισχυνην απηλθον εκ της αγορας· They departed from the market, exposed to great dishonor. So Euripides, Οφειλω σοι βλαβην· I am exposed to thy injury.

4. He contends that the words taken in this sense agree perfectly with the context, and with δια τουτο, wherefore, in this verse, "Because the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man, therefore she is subject to his authority, and should have a veil on her head as a token of that subjection; and particularly before the holy angels, who are present in the congregations of the saints."

For Dr. Lightfoot's opinion, that by angels we are to understand the paranymphs, or messengers who came on the part of others, to look out for proper spouses for their friends, I must refer to his works, vol. ii. fol., p. 772. The reader has now before him every thing that is likely to cast light on this difficult subject, and he must either adopt what he judges to be best, or else think for himself.

After all, the custom of the Nazarite may cast some light upon this place. As Nazarite means one who has separated himself by vow to some religious austerity, wearing his own hair, etc.; so a married woman was considered a Nazarite for life; i.e. separated from all others, and joined to one husband, who is her lord: and hence the apostle, alluding to this circumstance, says, The woman ought to have power on her head, i.e. wear her hair and veil, for her hair is a proof of her being a Nazarite, and of her subjection to her husband, as the Nazarite was under subjection to the Lord, according to the rule or law of his order. See notes on Num 6:5-7 (note).

Neither is the man without the woman - The apostle seems to say: I do not intimate any disparagement of the female sex, by insisting on the necessity of her being under the power or authority of the man; for they are both equally dependent on each other, in the Lord, εν Κυριῳ: but instead of this reading, Theodoret has εν τῳ κοσμῳ, in the world. Probably the apostle means that the human race is continued by an especial providence of God. Others think that he means that men and women equally make a Christian society, and in it have equal rights and privileges.

For as the woman is of the man - For as the woman was first formed out of the side of man, man has ever since been formed out of the womb of the woman; but they, as all other created things, are of God.

Judge in yourselves - Consider the subject in your own common sense, and then say whether it be decent for a woman to pray in public without a veil on her head? The heathen priestesses prayed or delivered their oracles bare-headed or with dishevelled hair, non comptae mansere comae, as in the case of the Cumaean Sibyl, Aen. vi., ver. 48, and otherwise in great disorder: to be conformed to them would be very disgraceful to Christian women. And in reference to such things as these, the apostle appeals to their sense of honor and decency.

Doth not - nature - teach you, that, if a man have long hair - Nature certainly teaches us, by bestowing it, that it is proper for women to have long hair; and it is not so with men. The hair of the male rarely grows like that of a female, unless art is used, and even then it bears but a scanty proportion to the former. Hence it is truly womanish to have long hair, and it is a shame to the man who affects it. In ancient times the people of Achaia, the province in which Corinth stood, and the Greeks in general, were noted for their long hair; and hence called by Homer, in a great variety of places, καρηκομοωντες Αχαιοι, the long-haired Greeks, or Achaeans. Soldiers, in different countries, have been distinguished for their long hair; but whether this can be said to their praise or blame, or whether Homer uses it always as a term of respect, when he applies it to the Greeks, I shall not wait here to inquire. Long hair was certainly not in repute among the Jews. The Nazarites let their hair grow, but it was as a token of humiliation; and it is possible that St. Paul had this in view. There were consequently two reasons why the apostle should condemn this practice: -

1. Because it was a sign of humiliation;

2. Because it was womanish.

After all it is possible that St. Paul may refer to dressed, frizzled and curled hair, which shallow and effeminate men might have affected in that time, as they do in this. Perhaps there is not a sight more ridiculous in the eye of common sense than a high-dressed, curled, cued, and powdered head, with which the operator must have taken considerable pains, and the silly patient lost much time and comfort in submitting to what all but senseless custom must call an indignity and degradation. Hear nature, common sense, and reason, and they will inform you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him.

But if a woman have long hair - The Author of their being has given a larger proportion of hair to the head of women than to that of men; and to them it is an especial ornament, and may in various cases serve as a veil.

It is a certain fact that a man's long hair renders him contemptible, and a woman's long hair renders her more amiable. Nature and the apostle speak the same language; we may account for it as we please.

But if any man seem to be contentious - Ει δε τις δοκει φιλονεικος ειναι· If any person sets himself up as a wrangler - puts himself forward as a defender of such points, that a woman may pray or teach with her head uncovered, and that a man may, without reproach, have long hair; let him know that we have no such custom as either, nor are they sanctioned by any of the Churches of God, whether among the Jews or the Gentiles. We have already seen that the verb δοκειν, which we translate to seem, generally strengthens and increases the sense. From the attention that the apostle has paid to the subject of veils and hair, it is evident that it must have occasioned considerable disturbance in the Church of Corinth. They have produced evil effects in much later times.

Now in this - I praise you not - In the beginning of this epistle the apostle did praise them for their attention in general to the rules he had laid down, see 1Cor 11:2; but here he is obliged to condemn certain irregularities which had crept in among them, particularly relative to the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Through some false teaching which they had received, in the absence of the apostle, they appear to have celebrated it precisely in the same way the Jews did their passover. That, we know, was a regular meal, only accompanied with certain peculiar circumstances and ceremonies: two of these ceremonies were, eating bread, solemnly broken, and drinking a cup of wine called the cup of blessing. Now, it is certain that our Lord has taken these two things, and made them expressive of the crucifixion of his body, and the shedding of his blood, as an atonement for the sins of mankind. The teachers which had crept into the Corinthian Church appear to have perverted the whole of this Divine institution; for the celebration of the Lord's Supper appears to have been made among them a part of an ordinary meal. The people came together, and it appears brought their provisions with them; some had much, others had less; some ate to excess, others had scarcely enough to suffice nature. One was hungry, and the other was drunken, μεθυει, was filled to the full; this is the sense of the word in many places of Scripture. At the conclusion of this irregular meal they appear to have done something in reference to our Lord's institution, but more resembling the Jewish passover. These irregularities, connected with so many indecencies, the apostle reproves; for, instead of being benefited by the Divine ordinance, they were injured; they came together not for the better, but for the worse.

There be divisions among you - They had σχισματα, schisms, among them: the old parties were kept up, even in the place where they assembled to eat the Lord's Supper. The Paulians, the Kephites, and the Apollonians, continued to be distinct parties; and ate their meals separately, even in the same house.

There must be also heresies - Αἱρεσεις· Not a common consent of the members of the Church, either in the doctrines of the Gospel, or in the ceremonies of the Christian religion. Their difference in religious opinion led to a difference in their religious practice, and thus the Church of God, that should have been one body, was split into sects and parties. The divisions and the heresies sprung out of each other. I have spoken largely on the word heresy in Act 5:17 (note), to which place I beg leave to refer the reader.

This is not to eat the Lord's Supper - They did not come together to eat the Lord's Supper exclusively, which they should have done, and not have made it a part of an ordinary meal.

Every one taketh before - his own supper - They had a grand feast, though the different sects kept in parties by themselves; but all took as ample a supper as they could provide, (each bringing his own provisions with him), before they took what was called the Lord's Supper. See on 1Cor 11:17 (note).

Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? - They should have taken their ordinary meal at home, and have come together in the church to celebrate the Lord's Supper.

Despise ye the church of God - Ye render the sacred assembly and the place contemptible by your conduct, and ye show yourselves destitute of that respect which ye owe to the place set apart for Divine worship.

And shame them that have not? - Τους μη εχοντας, Them that are poor; not them who had not victuals at that time, but those who are so poor as to be incapable of furnishing themselves as others had done. See the note on Mat 13:12.

I have received of the Lord - It is possible that several of the people at Corinth did receive the bread and wine of the eucharist as they did the paschal bread and wine, as a mere commemoration of an event. And as our Lord had by this institution consecrated that bread and wine, not to be the means of commemorating the deliverance from Egypt, and their joy on the account, but their deliverance from sin and death by his passion and cross; therefore the apostle states that he had received from the Lord what he delivered; viz. that the eucharistic bread and wine were to be understood of the accomplishment of that of which the paschal lamb was the type - the body broken for them, the blood shed for them.

The Lord Jesus - took bread - See the whole of this account, collated with the parallel passages in the four Gospels, amply explained in my Discourse on the Eucharist, and in the notes on Matthew 26.

This do in remembrance of me - The papists believe the apostles were not ordained priests before these words. Si quis dixerit, illis verbis, hoc facite in meam commemorationem, Christum non instituisse apostolos sacerdotes, anathema sit: "If any one shall say that in these words, 'This do in remembrance of me,' Christ did not ordain his apostles priests, let him be accursed." Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. Conc. 2. And he that does believe such an absurdity, on such a ground, is contemptible.

Ye do show the Lord's death - As in the passover they showed forth the bondage they had been in, and the redemption they had received from it; so in the eucharist they showed forth the sacrificial death of Christ, and the redemption from sin derived from it.

Whosoever shall eat - and drink - unworthily - To put a final end to controversies and perplexities relative to these words and the context, let the reader observe, that to eat and drink the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper unworthily, is to eat and drink as the Corinthians did, who ate it not in reference to Jesus Christ's sacrificial death; but rather in such a way as the Israelites did the passover, which they celebrated in remembrance of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage. Likewise, these mongrel Christians at Corinth used it as a kind of historical commemoration of the death of Christ; and did not, in the whole institution, discern the Lord's body and blood as a sacrificial offering for sin: and besides, in their celebration of it they acted in a way utterly unbecoming the gravity of a sacred ordinance. Those who acknowledge it as a sacrificial offering, and receive it in remembrance of God's love to them in sending his Son into the world, can neither bring damnation upon themselves by so doing, nor eat nor drink unworthily. See our translation of this verse vindicated at the end of the chapter, (1Cor 11:34).

Shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. If he use it irreverently, if he deny that Christ suffered unjustly, (for of some such persons the apostle must be understood to speak), then he in effect joins issue with the Jews in their condemnation and crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, and renders himself guilty of the death of our blessed Lord. Some, however, understand the passage thus: is guilty, i.e. eats and drinks unworthily, and brings on himself that punishment mentioned 1Cor 11:30.

Let a man examine himself - Let him try whether he has proper faith in the Lord Jesus; and whether he discerns the Lord's body; and whether he duly considers that the bread and wine point out the crucified body and spilt blood of Christ.

Eateth and drinketh damnation - Κριμα, Judgment, punishment; and yet this is not unto damnation, for the judgment or punishment inflicted upon the disorderly and the profane was intended for their emendation; for in 1Cor 11:32, it is said, then we are judged, κρινομενοι, we are chastened, παιδευομεθα, corrected as a father does his children, that we should not be condemned with the world.

For this cause - That they partook of this sacred ordinance without discerning the Lord's body; many are weak and sickly: it is hard to say whether these words refer to the consequences of their own intemperance or to some extraordinary disorders inflicted immediately by God himself. That there were disorders of the most reprehensible kind among these people at this sacred supper, the preceding verses sufficiently point out; and after such excesses, many might be weak and sickly among them, and many might sleep, i.e. die; for continual experience shows us that many fall victims to their own intemperance. How ever, acting as they did in this solemn and awful sacrament, they might have "provoked God to plague them with divers diseases and sundry kinds of death." Communion service.

If we would judge ourselves - If, having acted improperly, we condemn our conduct and humble ourselves, we shall not be judged, i.e. punished for the sin we have committed.

But when we are judged - See on 1Cor 11:29 (note).

When ye come together to eat - The Lord's Supper, tarry one for another - do not eat and drink in parties as ye have done heretofore; and do not connect it with any other meal.

And if any man hunger - Let him not come to the house of God to eat an ordinary meal, let him eat at home - take that in his own house which is necessary for the support of his body before he comes to that sacred repast, where he should have the feeding of his soul alone in view.

That ye come not together unto condemnation - That ye may avoid the curse that must fall on such worthless communicants as those above mentioned; and that ye may get that especial blessing which every one that discerns the Lord's body in the eucharist must receive.

The rest will I set in order, etc. - All the other matters relative to this business, to which you have referred in your letter, I will regulate when I come to visit you; as, God permitting, I fully design. The apostle did visit them about one year after this, as is generally believed.

I Have already been so very particular in this long and difficult chapter, that I have left neither room nor necessity for many supplementary observations. A few remarks are all that is requisite.

1. The apostle inculcates the necessity of order and subjection, especially in the Church. Those who are impatient of rule, are generally those who wish to tyrannize. And those who are loudest in their complaints against authority, whether civil or ecclesiastical, are those who wish to have the power in their own hands, and would infallibly abuse it if they had. They alone who are willing to obey, are capable of rule; and he who can rule well, is as willing to obey as to govern. Let all be submissive and orderly; let the woman know that the man is head and protector; let the man know that Christ is his head and redeemer, and the gift of God's endless mercy for the salvation of a lost world.

2. The apostle insisted on the woman having her head covered in the Church or Christian assembly. If he saw the manner in which Christian women now dress, and appear in the ordinances of religion, what would he think? What would he say? How could he even distinguish the Christian from the infidel? And if they who are in Christ are new creatures, and the persons who ordinarily appear in religious assemblies are really new creatures (as they profess in general to be) in Christ, he might reasonably inquire: If these are new creatures, what must have been their appearance when they were old creatures. Do we dress to be seen? And do we go to the house of God to exhibit ourselves? Wretched is that man or woman who goes to the house of God to be seen by any but God himself.

3. The Lord's Supper may be well termed the feast of charity; how unbecoming this sacred ordinance to be the subject of dispute, party spirit, and division! Those who make it such must answer for it to God. Every man who believes in Christ as his atoning sacrifice should, as frequently as he can, receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. And every minister of Christ is bound to administer it to every man who is seeking the salvation of his soul, as well as to all believers. Let no man dare to oppose this ordinance; and let every man receive it according to the institution of Christ.

4. Against the fidelity of our translation of 1Cor 11:27 of this chapter, Whosoever shall eat this bread, And drink this cup unworthily, several popish writers have made heavy complaints, and accused the Protestants of wilful corruption; as both the Greek and Vulgate texts, instead of και and et, And, have η and vel, Or: Whosoever shall eat this bread, Or drink this cup. As this criticism is made to countenance their unscriptural communion in one kind, it may be well to examine the ground of the complaint. Supposing even this objection to be valid, their cause can gain nothing by it while the 26th and 28th verses stand, both in the Greek text and Vulgate, as they now do: For as often as ye eat this bread, And drink this cup, etc. Let him eat of that bread, And drink of that cup. But although η, Or, be the reading of the common printed text, και And, is the reading of the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex Claromontanus, two of the best MSS. in the world: as also of the Codex Lincolniensis, 2, and the Codex Petavianus, 3, both MSS. of the first character: it is also the reading of the ancient Syriac, all the Arabic, the Coptic, the margin of the later Syriac, the Ethiopic, different MSS. of the Vulgate, and of one in my own possession; and of Clemens Chromatius, and Cassiodorus. Though the present text of the Vulgate has vel, Or, yet this is a departure from the original editions, which were all professedly taken from the best MSS. In the famous Bible with out date, place, or printer's name, 2 vols. fol., two columns, and forty-five lines in each, supposed by many to be the first Bible ever printed, the text stands thus: Itaque quicunque manducaverit panem, Et biberit calicem, etc.; Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread And drink this cup, etc.: here is no vel, Or. The Bible printed by Fust, 1462, the first Bible with a date, has the same reading. Did the Protestants corrupt these texts? In the editio princeps of the Greek Testament, printed by the authority of Cardinal Ximenes at Complutum, and published by the authority of Pope Leo X., though η, Or, stands in the Greek text; yet, in the opposite column, which contains the Vulgate, and in the opposite line, Et, and, is found, and not Vel, or; though the Greek text would have authorized the editor to have made this change: but he conscientiously preserved the text of his Vulgate. Did the Protestants corrupt this Catholic text also? Indeed, so little design had any of those who differed from the Romish Church to make any alteration here, that even Wiclif, having a faulty MS. of the Vulgate by him, which read vel instead of et, followed that faulty MS. and translated, And so who ever schal ete the breed or drinke the cup. That και, And, is the true reading, and not η, or, both MSS. and versions sufficiently prove: also that et, not vels is the proper reading in the Vulgate, those original editions formed by Roman Catholics, and one of them by the highest authority in the papal Church, fully establish: likewise those MSS., versions, fathers, and original editions, must be allowed to be, not only competent, but also unsuspected and incontrovertible witnesses. But as this objection to our translation is brought forward to vindicate the withholding the cup from the laity in the Lord's Supper, it may be necessary to show that without the cup there can be no eucharist. With respect to the bread, our Lord had simply said, Take, eat, this is my body; but concerning the cup, he says Drink ye all of this; for as this pointed out the very essence of the institution, viz. the blood of atonement, it was necessary that each should have a particular application of it, therefore he says, Drink ye All of This. By this we are taught that the cup is essential to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper; so that they who deny the cup to the people, sin against God's institution; and they who receive not the cup, are not partakers of the body and blood of Christ. If either could without mortal prejudice be omitted, it might be the bread; but the cup as pointing out the blood poured out, i.e. the life, by which alone the great sacrificial act is performed, and remission of sins procured, is absolutely indispensable. On this ground it is demonstrable, that there is not a popish priest under heaven, who denies the cup to the people, (and they all do this), that can be said to celebrate the Lord's Supper at all; nor is there one of their votaries that ever received the holy sacrament. All pretension to this is an absolute farce so long as the cup, the emblem of the atoning blood, is denied. How strange is it that the very men who plead so much for the bare, literal meaning of this is my body, in the preceding verse, should deny all meaning to drink ye all of this cup, in this verse! And though Christ has, in the most positive manner, enjoined it, they will not permit one of the laity to taste it! See the whole of this argument, at large, in my Discourse on the Nature and Design of the Eucharist.

I praise you - The greater part of you.

I would have you know - He does not seem to have given them any order before concerning this. The head of every man - Particularly every believer. Is Christ, and the head of Christ is God - Christ, as he is Mediator, acts in all things subordinately to his Father. But we can no more infer that they are not of the same divine nature, because God is said to be the head of Christ, than that man and woman are not of the same human nature, because the man is said to be the head of the woman.

Every man praying or prophesying - Speaking by the immediate power of God. With his head - And face. Covered - Either with a veil or with long hair. Dishonoureth his head - St. Paul seems to mean, As in these eastern nations veiling the head is a badge of subjection, so a man who prays or prophesies with a veil on his head, reflects a dishonour on Christ, whose representative he is.

But every woman - Who, under an immediate impulse of the Spirit, (for then only was a woman suffered to speak in the church,) prays or prophesies without a veil on her face, as it were disclaims subjection, and reflects dishonour on man, her head. For it is the same, in effect, as if she cut her hair short, and wore it in the distinguishing form of the men. In those ages, men wore their hair exceeding short, as appears from the ancient statues and pictures.

Therefore if a woman is not covered - If she will throw off the badge of subjection, let her appear with her hair cut like a man's. But if it be shameful far a woman to appear thus in public, especially in a religious assembly, let her, for the same reason, keep on her veil.

A man indeed ought not to veil his head, because he is the image of God - In the dominion he bears over the creation, representing the supreme dominion of God, which is his glory. But the woman is only matter of glory to the man, who has a becoming dominion over her. Therefore she ought not to appear, but with her head veiled, as a tacit acknowledgment of it.

The man is not - In the first production of nature.

For this cause also a woman ought to be veiled in the public assemblies, because of the angels - Who attend there, and before whom they should be careful not to do anything indecent or irregular.

Nevertheless in the Lord Jesus, there is neither male nor female - Neither is excluded; neither is preferred before the other in his kingdom.

And as the woman was at first taken out of the man, so also the man is now, in the ordinary course of nature, by the woman; but all things are of God - The man, the woman, and their dependence on each other.

Judge of yourselves - For what need of more arguments if so plain a case? Is it decent for a woman to pray to God - The Most High, with that bold and undaunted air which she must have, when, contrary to universal custom, she appears in public with her head uncovered?

For a man to have long hair, carefully adjusted, is such a mark of effeminacy as is a disgrace to him.

Given her - Originally, before the arts of dress were in being.

We have no such custom here, nor any of the other churches of God - The several churches that were in the apostles' time had different customs in things that were not essential; and that under one and the same apostle, as circumstances, in different places, made it convenient. And in all things merely indifferent the custom of each place was of sufficient weight to determine prudent and peaceable men. Yet even this cannot overrule a scrupulous conscience, which really doubts whether the thing be indifferent or no. But those who are referred to here by the apostle were contentious, not conscientious, persons.

In the church - In the public assembly. I hear there are schisms among you; and I partly believe it - That is, I believe it of some of you. It is plain that by schisms is not meant any separation from the church, but uncharitable divisions in it; for the Corinthians continued to be one church; and, notwithstanding all their strife and contention, there was no separation of any one party from the rest, with regard to external communion. And it is in the same sense that the word is used, 1Co 1:10; 1Co 12:25; which are the only places in the New Testament, beside this, where church schisms are mentioned. Therefore, the indulging any temper contrary to this tender care of each other is the true scriptural schism. This is, therefore, a quite different thing from that orderly separation from corrupt churches which later ages have stigmatized as schisms; and have made a pretence for the vilest cruelties, oppressions, and murders, that have troubled the Christian world. Both heresies and schisms are here mentioned in very near the same sense; unless by schisms be meant, rather, those inward animosities which occasion heresies; that is, outward divisions or parties: so that whilst one said, "I am of Paul," another, "I am of Apollos," this implied both schism and heresy. So wonderfully have later ages distorted the words heresy and schism from their scriptural meaning. Heresy is not, in all the Bible, taken for "an error in fundamentals," or in anything else; nor schism, for any separation made from the outward communion of others. Therefore, both heresy and schism, in the modern sense of the words, are sins that the scripture knows nothing of; but were invented merely to deprive mankind of the benefit of private judgment, and liberty of conscience.

There must be heresies - Divisions. Among you - In the ordinary course of things; and God permits them, that it may appear who among you are, and who are not, upright of heart.

Therefore - That is, in consequence of those schisms. It is not eating the Lord's supper - That solemn memorial of his death; but quite another thing.

For in eating what ye call the Lord's supper, instead of all partaking of one bread, each person brings his own supper, and eats it without staying for the rest. And hereby the poor, who cannot provide for themselves, have nothing; while the rich eat and drink to the full just as the heathens use to do at the feasts on their sacrifices.

Have ye not houses to eat and drink your common meals in? or do ye despise the church of God - Of which the poor are both the larger and the better part. Do ye act thus in designed contempt of them?

I received - By an immediate revelation.

This is my body, which is broken for you - That is, this broken bread is the sign of my body, which is even now to be pierced and wounded for your iniquities. Take then, and eat of, this bread, in an humble, thankful, obediential remembrance of my dying love; of the extremity of my sufferings on your behalf, of the blessings I have thereby procured for you, and of the obligations to love and duty which I have by all this laid upon you.

After supper - Therefore ye ought not to confound this with a common meal. Do this in remembrance of me - The ancient sacrifices were in remembrance of sin: this sacrifice, once offered, is still represented in remembrance of the remission of sins.

Ye show forth the Lord's death - Ye proclaim, as it were, and openly avow it to God, and to all the world. Till he come - In glory.

Whosoever shall eat this bread unworthily - That is, in an unworthy, irreverent manner; without regarding either Him that appointed it, or the design of its appointment. Shall be guilty of profaning that which represents the body and blood of the Lord.

But let a man examine himself - Whether he know the nature and the design of the institution, and whether it be his own desire and purpose throughly to comply therewith.

For he that eateth and drinketh so unworthily as those Corinthians did, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself - Temporal judgments of various kinds, 1Cor 11:30. Not distinguishing the sacred tokens of the Lord's body - From his common food.

For this cause - Which they had not observed. Many sleep - In death.

If we would judge ourselves - As to our knowledge, and the design with which we approach the Lord's table. We should not be thus judged - That is, punished by God.

When we are thus judged, it is with this merciful design, that we may not be finally condemned with the world.

The rest - The other circumstances relating to the Lord's supper.

1 BE ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ .

Interpreters judge, that these words do properly belong to the foregoing Chapter, in the last verse of which he had propounded his own example to them; but whether they be applied to that Chapter or this, is not much material. They teach us, That the Examples of the Apostles are part of our Rule; yet the modesty of the Apostle is remarkable, who requires of his people no further to follow him, than as he followed Christ: nor indeed ought any man to require more of those that are under his charge, than to follow him so far forth as he imitates the Lord Jesus Christ.

Marginal references: Chap. 4.16. Eph. 5.1. Phil. 3.17. 2 Thess. 3.9.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things , and keep the ordinances , as I delivered them to you.

That you remember my Doctrine, the Precepts and Instructions that I gave you,

and keep the Ordinances (so we translate it) the Greek word is [non-Latin text not transcribed]. The word signifieth any thing that is doctrinally delivered, or taught men, whether it concerns Faith, or Manners. It is thought, that in this Text it doth not signifie what the Apostle had delivered to them with respect to Faith, or their moral Conversation, but with respect to matters of Order, because such is the next instance which the Apostle mentioneth, about Praying or prophesying with the head covered, or uncovered, and undoubtedly any Precepts of that nature from one, guided by an infallible Spirit, ought to be observed: The Apostle doth not command them to keep any Traditions, which others should to the end of the World deliver to them, he only praiseth them for keeping those which he had delivered. There is a great Question betwixt us and the Papists, about the obligation that lieth upon Christians to observe unwritten Traditions, that is, such Rites and Observances as they tell us were Apostolical; and the Traditions of the Primitive Church, though they can shew us no Scripture for them; but no Christian disputes his obligation to keep Apostolical Traditions: Only we are at a loss to know how to prove those Traditions Apostolical, of which we find nothing in the Writings of the Apostles; it is praise-worthy to keep Apostolical Traditions; but for others, or such as do not appear to us to be so, it is but a work of Supererogation: Where hath God required any such thing at peoples hands?

Marginal references: Or, Traditions

3 But I would have you 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 .

The abuse which the Apostle is reflecting upon in the 7th or 8th following verses, is Womens praying or proph[illegible: 1 letter]sying with their heads uncovered, against which the Apostle strongly argueth. His Argument seemeth to be this, That the woman in Religious Services ought to behave her self as a person in subjection to her husband, and accordingly to use such a gesture, as according to the guise and custom of that Country, testified such a subjection; to this purpose he tells us in this verse, That the head of every man is Christ. Christ, considered as God according to his Divine Nature, is the Head of all men and women too in the World; but the Text seemeth rather to speak of Christ as Mediator: so the Apostle tells us, Eph. 5.23. He is the Head of the Church; and the New Testament often speaks of Christ in that notion, and of Believers as his Members: in this sense by every man, we must understand no more than every Christian, every Member of the Church.

The man is called the Head of the woman, because by Gods Ordinance he is to rule over her, Gen. 3.16. he hath an excellency above the woman, and a power over her.

And God is the Head of Christ, not in respect of his [illegible: 1 letter]ssence and Divine Nature, but in respect of his Office as Mediator: as the man is the Head of the woman, not in respect of a different and more excellent Essence and Nature (for they are both of the same Nature) but in respect of office and place, as God hath set him over the woman. Nor indeed could those who deny the Divine Nature of Christ, easily have brought a Text more against their own assertion, than this, which rather proveth, that God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are equal in Nature and Essence, than different; for surely the Head is not of a different, but the same Nature and Essence with the Members. Nor doth Christs subjection to his Father at all argue an inequality, or difference from him in Nature and Essence, more than the subjection of Subjects to a Prince argue any such thing. The Apostle then determines this to be the Order which God hath set. God is the Head of Christ, Christ is the Head of his Church, and every one that is a Member of it; and Man is the Head of the Woman, he to whom the woman ought to be subject, as the Church is subject to Christ, and Christ is subject to his Father, and from hence he argueth as followeth.

Marginal references: Joh. 14.2[illegible: 1 letter]. Chap. 3.2[illegible: 1 letter]. & 15.27, 28.; Phil. 2.7, 8, 9.

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

By every man praying and prophesying, some (amongst whom the learned Beza) understand not only he that ministreth in prayer, or in opening and applying the Scriptures, whether from a previous meditation and study of them, or from the extraordinary Revelation of the holy Spirit, which they had in those Primitive Times; but also all those that were present at those actions: The reason they give, is, Because the Reason given by the Apostle for his assertion, is such as is common to the people, as well as to him that ministreth: and the Woman was forbidden to speak in the Church, 1 Tim. 2.12. But out learned Bishop Hall assures us, he cannot agree with those of this mind. And indeed it [illegible: 1 letter]s an unreasonable interpretation [illegible: 1 letter] for though those who join with others in Prayer, may be said to pray, yet those that hear one preaching or expounding Scripture, can in no propriety of speech be said to prophesie. Nor is any such usage of the term to be parallell'd, neither are the reasons they bring, cogent; for though the reason of the Precept may concern the People as well as the Minister, yet it doth not follow, that the Rule or Precept must necessarily do so too. And although the woman be forbidden to teach in ordinary cases, yet it did not concern those who were immediately and extraordinarily inspired according to the Prophecy, Ioel 2.28. applied, Acts 2.17.

Having his head uncovered, i. e. with an hat or cap, or such covering of the head as is in use in the Country wherein he liveth. It is not to be understood of the natural covering of the head, which is our hair, nor yet of any other covering which is necessary for the preservation of life and health, but such a covering as he might spare, and is ornamental to him according to the fashion of the Country.

Either dishonoureth Christ who is his Head, and whom he ought to represent, and doth as it were make the Church the Head to Christ, which is subject to him, whiles by covering his head, he declares a subjection in his ministration. Or he dishonoureth his own head (so many interpret it) to wit, he betrayeth his superiority, lesseneth himself as to that power and dignity which God hath cloathed him with, by using a posture which is a token of inferiority and subjection. Interpreters rightly agree, that this and the following verses is to be interpreted from the customs of Countries: and all that can be concluded from this verse is, That it is the duty of men imployed in Divine Ministrations, to look to behave themselves as those who are to represent the Lord Jesus Christ, behaving themselves with a just authority and gravity that becometh his Ambassadors, which decent gravity is to be judged from the common opinion and account of the Country wherein they live. So as all which this Text requires of Christian Ministers, is Authority and Gravity, and what are external indications of it. Our learned Dr. Lightfoot observeth, That the Jewish Priests were wont in the Worship of God to veil their heads; so that Christian Ministers pray[illegible: 1 letter]ng or prophesying with their heads covered, Iudaized, which he judgeth the reason of the Apostles assertion. The Heathens also, both Romans and Grecians, were wont to minister in their Sacred things with their heads covered. Some think this was the reason, why the Christians used the contrary gesture; but the Apostles from arguing the mans headship, seemeth to import that the reason of this Assertion of the Apostle was, because in Corinth the uncovered head was a sign of Authority. At this day the Mahometans (or Turks) speak to their Superiors covered, and so are covered also in their religious performances. The custom with us in these Western parts is quite otherwise; the uncovering of the head is a sign or token of subjection: Hence Ministers pray and preach with their heads uncovered, to denote their subjection to God and Christ, but yet this custom is not uniform; for in France the Reformed Ministers preach with their heads covered; as they pray uncovered to express their reverence and subjection to God, so they preach covered, as representing Christ, the great Teacher, from whom they derive, and whom they represent. Nothing in this is a further Rule to Christians, than that it is the duty of Ministers, in praying and preaching, to use postures and hab[illegible: 1 letter]ts that are not naturally, nor according to the custom of the place where they live, uncomely and irreverent, and so looked upon. It is only the general observation of decency (which cannot by any be created, but ariseth either from Nature, or Custom, and Prescription) which this Text of the Apostle maketh to be the duty of all Christians: though as to the Corinthians he particularly required the mans ministring in Sacred things with his head uncovered, either to avoid the habit or posture used by Jews and Pagans; or for the shewing of his dignity and superiority over the woman (whom we shall by and by find commanded to pray or prophesie covered) or that he represented Christ who was the Head of the Church. The uncovering of the head being with them as much a sign of subjection, as it is with us of superiority and preheminence.

5 But every woman that prayeth, or prophesieth with her head uncovered , dishonoureth her head ; for that is even all one as if she were shaven .

Though the woman, 1 Tim. 2.12. be forbidden to teach, and commanded to be in silence; yet that Text must be understood of ordinary women, and in ordinary cases, not concerning such as prophesied from an extraordinary impulse or motion of the Spirit. We read of Women Prophetesses both in the Old and New Testament, such was Huldah in Iosiah's time, and Anna, of whom we read Luke 2.36. and we read that Philip had four daughters that did prophesie, Acts 21.9.

The uncovered head here (as before) must signifie not covered with some artificial covering, such as our Quoifs, Hats, Hoods or Veils, &c. or with her own hair, not hanging loose, but artificially used so, as to be a covering.

Dishonoureth either her husband, who is her Political or Oeconomical head, for by that habit she behaveth her self as if she were not one in subjection, and seemeth to usurp an undue authority over the man, or her natural head, it being in those places accounted an immodest thing for a woman to appear in publick uncovered. It is observed of Rebeccah, when she met Isaac, Gen. 24.65. She took a veil, and covered her self.

For, saith the Apostle, your selves would judge it an uncomely thing for a woman to be shaven; now to pray or prophesie with the head uncovered, is all one. This last clause will incline us to think, that by the uncovered head in this verse, is not only to be understood uncovered with some other covering besides her hair, but with her hair dishevelled, hanging loose at its length, for else it is not all one to have the head uncovered with an hat, or hood, or qu[illegible: 1 letter]if, and to be shaven; for the Apostle afterward, v. 15. saith, her hair is given to her for a covering or a veil: So that possibly that which the Apostle here reflecteth upon, is womens coming into the publick Assemblies with their hair hanging loosly down, and not decently wound up so, as to make a covering for her head; which, we are told, was the practice of those beastly she-Priests of Bacchus, who, like frantick persons, performed those pretendedly religious Rites with their hair so hanging loose, and were called Manades, because they behaved themselves more like mad persons, than such as were in the actual use of their reason: something like which, it is most probable, some women in the Christian Church at Corinth affected, against which the Apostle here argueth.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn : but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered .

Nature it self teacheth, that it is a shameful sight to see a woman revealing the Mind and Will of God, by an extraordinary pretended Revelation, in so indecent a manner, as with her hair all hanging down, let her hair be either shaven off, or at least cut after the manner of mens hair, if she will neither tie it up artificially, so as to make it a covering for her head, nor put on a veil to cover her; for though a woman prophesying from an extraordinary impulse, be not under the common Law of women not speaking in the publick Assembly, but keeping silence; yet she is under the Law of Nature to do no such grave and solemn actions in such a rude manner, that from the light of Nature, or the common account of all that live in that place, she should be judged to be irreverent, and brutish in her religious action. From this Text a Question hath been started, Whether Christian women may lawfully go without any other covering upon their heads than their hair? I must confess, I see not how such a question can have any bottom in this Text, where the Apostle is not speaking of womens ordinary habiting themselves, but only when they prayed and prophesied, and (if I mistake not) when they ministred in Prayer and Prophecy (as was said before.) We now have no such Prophetesses, so as I think that question about the lawfulness of womens going without any other covering upon their heads than their hair, must be determined from other Texts, not this, and is best determined from circumstances; for God having given to the woman her hair for a covering and an ornament, I cannot see how it should be simply unlawful, accidentally it may, from the circumstances of pride in her heart that so dresseth her self, or lust and wantonness in others hearts, or other circumstances of ill designs and intentions in the woman so dressing her self.

If Nature teacheth us, that it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, it also teacheth us, that it is a shame for her to be uncovered, either with her hair, or some artificial covering, which latter seemeth rather to be meant in this place, because Divines think, that the face is that part of the head, which the Apostle here intendeth should be covered in their Religious actions, which is not covered with the hair, but with a veil, &c.

Marginal references: Num. 5.18. Deut. 22.5.

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

Covering the head, being in those Countries a token of subjection, a man ought to uphold the power, preheminence, and authority, with which God hath invested him, and not to cover his head, further than it is naturally covered with hair,

because he hath a peculiar cause of glorying in God, as he to whom alone he is subject, and therefore ought by no habits or postures to shew himself in subjection to others: Or because God glorieth in him, as a most excellent piece of his workmanship, God is represented in man. Paul useth to call that ones glory wherein he glorieth, 2 Cor. 1.12, 14. 1 Thess. 2.20. So David calleth God his Glory, and Prov. 17.6. Solomon tells us, that the Glory of children are their parents. So as the Apostle here useth a double Argument for the mans not covering of his head. 1. Because the man is immediately subject to God, and therefore ought not by any habits, or civil Rites, to shew his natural subjection to men that are not by Nature his Superiors (for we must not think, that the Apostle by this Argument forbiddeth subjection to Natural, Oeconomical, or Political Superiours.) 2. Because God glorieth in man;

But the woman is the glory of the man, created for the honour of the man, and for his help and assistance, and originally made out of man, so as man may glory of her, as Adam did of Eve, Gen. 2.23. This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. The glory of God ought to be revealed, and uncovered, manifested to all: the glory of the man ought to be hidden and concealed.

Marginal references: Gen. 1.26, 27.

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man .

Here the Apostle openeth or proveth what he had before said of the woman's being the Glory of the man, the woman was made of the man, the man was not made of a rib taken out of the woman, but the woman was made of a rib taken out of the man: we have the History Gen. 2.21. and from hence the Apostle argueth her subjection to the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man .

We have this expounded, Gen. 2.18. where God said, It is not good that man should be alone, I will make him an help meet for him. God did not first create the woman, and then make man a meet help for her; but he first made the man, and then the woman, that she might be a meet help for him. Now it is a Rule in Reason, That whosoever or whatsoever is made for another person or thing, is less excellent than that person or thing for which the other is made. For the man, signifies to serve and help the man.

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

By power on her head is here to be understood (as some think) a covering on her head, in sign that she is under the power of her husband: the thing signified is here put for the sign, as the sign is often put for the thing signified. Thus the Ark, which is called, The Ark of Gods strength, Psal. 132.8. is it self called his Strength, 1 Chron. 16.11. But others here by Head, do not understand the womans natural head, but her husband, or the man who is the political head of the woman; and by having power on him, understand her exercising of her power in him, testifying it, by covering her head, and think this Text well expounded by 1 Tim. 2.12. where the Apostle forbiddeth the woman to usurp authority over the man. He addeth another Reason

Because of the Angels. By Angels here, some understand God himself, who by the ministry of Angels created man and woman in this order, and put this Law upon the woman. Others understand those Messengers which the man sent sometimes, by whom the woman was betrothed (but this was a custom only in use amongst the Jews.) Others here by Angels understand the Ministers and Officers of the Church, who are sometimes in holy Writ called Angels. Others understand the evil Angels, who watch to take advantage to tempt men from object appearing beautiful, to unchast thoughts, &c. But the most and best Interpreters understand here by Angels, the good Angels; for the Apostle would hardly have spoken of Devils under the notion of Angels, especially speaking to deter persons from actions; and so it teaches us, That the good Angels, who are ministring Spirits for the good of Gods Elect, at all times have a special ministration, or at least are more particularly present in the Assemblies of people for religious Worship, observing the persons, carriage, and demeanour; the sense of which ought to aw all persons, attending those Services, from any indecent and unworthy behaviour.

Marginal references: That is, a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband.

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

Lest the man upon the Apostles discourse of his preheminence and dignity over the woman, should wax proud and insolent, and carry himself too imperiously, the Apostle addeth this, That they both stand in need of each others help, so as neither of them could well be without the other, either as to matters that concern God, or that concern the World: the Lord so ordering and disposing it, that they should be mutual helps one to another. Or else the sense is, They are equal in the Lord as to a state of Grace, in Christ there is neither male, nor female, though there be a difference betwixt a man and woman in other things, and the man hath the priority and superiority; yet when we come to consider them, as to their spiritual state, and in their spiritual reference, there is no difference.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman : but all things of God a.

The man hath a priority to the woman, being first created, and a superiority over her upon that account, she being made for him, not he for her, this is indeed the mans advantage; but on the other side, since the Creation of the first Man, all men are by the woman, who conceives them in her womb, suckles them at her breasts, is concerned in their education, while children, and dandled upon her knees; the man therefore hath no reason to despise, and too much to trample upon the woman: and all these things are of God, by the wise ordering and disposing of God; so as neither hath the man, by reason of his Prerogative, in being first created, and the end for which the woman was created, any cause to insult and triumph over woman: neither hath the woman any cause, by reason of her Prerogative, that the man is by her, any cause to triumph over the man, but both of them ought to look upon themselves as having their Prerogatives from God, and in the use of them to behave themselves according to the Will of God, behaving themselves in their respective stations, as it is the Will of God they should behave themselves, the woman being subject to the man, and testifying such subjection by all the signs of it, and the man carrying himself towards the woman, as he who is the image and glory of God.

13 Judge in your selves; Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? .

No man is truly and thorowly convinced of an errour, till he be convicted by his own Conscience. It is therefore very usual in holy Writ, for God by his sacred Penmen, to make Appeals unto mens own Consciences, and put them to judge within themselves, to examine a thing by their own Reason, and according to the dictates of that, to give Sentence for or against themselves. The thing as to which he would have them judge within themselves, and accordingly pronounce Sentence, was, whether it were a decent thing for women to pray to God with their hair all hanging loose about their shoulders, or without any veil, or covering for their head and face.

14 Doth not even nature it self teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him .

He tells them, that they could not judge this as a thing comely; for Nature it self taught them, that it is a shame for a man to wear long hair. By Nature here, some understand the Law of Nature, according to which it would have an intrinsick evil in it, which it is plain, it hath not; for then neither must the Nazarites have used it, (as they did) neither would it be lawful for the sake of mens health or life. Others understand by Nature the Law of Nations, but neither is this true; for in many Nations men wear hair at the utmost length. Others understand common Sense, or the light and judgment of that natural Reason which since the Fall is left in man. But this must be the same in all men, and we know that all men do not judge this shameful. Others therefore by Nature here understand a common Custom, which (as they say) maketh as it were a second Nature, so the term is taken, Rom. 11.24. But it cannot so signifie here; for there neither is, nor ever was such an universal custom in any place, that none in it wore long hair. Others by Nature here understand Natural inclination, but neither can this be the sense; for there is in some men, as well as in women, a natural propension and inclination to wear their hair at excessive lengths. Others here by Nature understand the Difference of the Sex, as they take this word to be used, Rom. 1.26. the distinction of the Sexes teacheth us this, and this seemeth to be the most probable sense of this Text. The Apostle arguing that as the male and female Sex, are artificially distiguished by garments, and it was the Will of God they should be so, so they should also be distinguished by the wearing of their hair; and it was no less shame for a man to wear his hair like a woman, than to wear garments like a woman.

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering .

But he saith, if a woman hath long hair, it is a glory to her. Long hair is comely for the woman, and accounted to her for a beauty or ornament, for God hath given her her hair for a covering. There have been Books written about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of mens wearing long hair, and the due or undue lengths of mens hair, the substance of which were too much to transcribe here. That which in these verses seemeth to be commended to us, as the Will of God, in this matter, is: 1. That men and women should so order their hair, as by it to preserve the distinction of Sexes. 2. That men should not wear their hair after the manner of women, either dishevelled, or curled, and tricked up about their heads, which speaks too much of an unmanly and effeminate temper, much more was what became not Christians. And if this be forbidden men, as to the use of their own hair, they stand concerned to consider whether it be lawful for them thus to wear and adorn themselves with the hair of other men and women.

Marginal references: Or, v[illegible: 1 letter]il.

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

If any man hath a mind to quarrel out of a love to shew his wit in discoursing what may be said on the other side, or out of a desire to hold up a Party, and contradict us,

we have no such custom of womens praying, or prophesying with their heads uncovered, or mens praying, or prophesying with their heads covered. Or we have no such custom of contending for these little frivolous things,

neither any of the Churches of God; And good Christians, in their practices, ought, in things of this nature, to have an eye and regard to the custom of their own Church, and also of other Christian Churches. Thus the Apostle closeth this discourse, and proceedeth in the next verses to tax other abuses which were crept into this famous Church.

Marginal references: 1 Tim. 6. [illegible: 1 letter] ▪; Chap. 14.33.

17 Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not , that you come togeter, not for the better, but for the worse .

I come now to another thing of greater consequence, as to which I must much blame you; I am so far from being able to commend or approve of what you do, that I must for it smartly reflect upon you,

That when you meet in your Church-Assemblies, for the performance of your religious Duties to pray, preach, hear, or receive the holy Sacrament, you so meet and behave your selves, as your meeting tends to the increase of your sin, rather than to the increase of your Grace, and the promoting the work of God in your selves, and the Souls of others.

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

In the Church here must signifie the Religious Assembly; for at this time there were no Temples builded for Christians, but they met in private houses, as the iniquity of those times would hear: yet others think the place is here meant where the Church was wont to meet, and say, That the Christia[illegible: 1 letter] had a certain stated place, though in a private house, where they used to meet. But it is not very probable, that they should in the midst of Heathens be so quiet and secure to meet either constantly, or ordinarily in any one certain and stated place, so denominated. What Schisms, or divisions the Apostle meaneth, he expounded in the following verses, either they quarrelled about meats, or drinks, or their order in sitting down, or the time when they should begin, or did not stay till they were all met.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 letter].10, [illegible: 1 word]; [illegible: 1 paragraph]

19 For there must be also heresies amongst you, that they which are approved may be made manifest amongst you .

It is not simply and absolutely necessary, that there should be such divisions amongst you (they are caused from the free acts of mens corrupt wills) but yet these things do not fall out by chance, but through the Providence of God, who hath so immutably ordered and decreed, to suffer Satan to shew his malice, and men to discover the lusts and corruptions of their own hearts.

Though Heresie be a term, that by Ecclesiastical usage is restrained to signifie perverse Opinions in matter of Doctrine, as to which men are stubborn and tenacious; yet it is manifest, that the word is not natively so to be restrained, neither can it reasonably be here so interpreted, but signifies the same thing with Schisms and Divisions before mentioned: For though (as will appear from Chap. 15.) there were corrupt Opinions amongst them in matters of Doctrine, yet it is unreasonable to understand the Apostle here, as speaking with reference to them, these words being brought as a reason why he was inclined to believe that there were such Schisms or Divisions amongst them, because there must be Heresies.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word]. 18.7. [illegible: 1 word] 1[illegible: 1 letter].1.; [illegible: 1 paragraph]; [illegible: 1 word] 2 35. [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 letter].15. [illegible: 1 word] 13 3. [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 letter]0.30.; God hath his wise end in suffering breaches and divisions, that such as are true and sincere Christians, opposing themselves to such violations of Charity, might appear to you to be true and sincere and to have the Love of God dwelling, working, and prevailing in them.

20 When ye come together therefore into one place , this is not to eat the Lords supper .

The Greek words do not necessarily signifie into one place, they may as well be translated for the same thing, and possibly that were the better translation of them in this place. Divisions appearing the worse amongst persons that met as one and the same Body, and for one and the same grave action, and that such an action, as declared them one Body, and laid upon them the highest obligation to brotherly love imaginable.

Some words must be here supplied to compleat the sense. This is not to eat, that is, as you do it, is indeed not to do it; to eat the Lords Supper in an unlawful manner, is not to eat it. It is called the Lords Supper, either because he ordained and instituted it, or because it was instituted for the remembrance of his Death, v. 26. Luke 22.19. Some think that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is here meant, and so one would think, by comparing what is here with v. 23, 24. Others say, That the Love-feast is here intended, which ordinarily preceded the Lords Supper; the reason they give, is, Because the abuses here mentioned, viz. not staying one for another till the whole Church were met, one eating plentifully, another sparingly; some being hungry whiles others had ate and drank enough, could not be at the Lords Supper, where the Minister beginneth not till the whole Church be assembled, and where there is no such liberal eating and drinking. To this purpose we are told, That by an ancient custom in Greece (within which Corinth was) the rich men offered some things to their Idols (which after that action the poor had for their relief) and made Feasts in the Idols Temples, of which all had a liberty to eat. That the Christians imitated this practice of theirs, and the rich amongst them upon the Lords Days made Feasts, at which both poor and rich Christians might be, and the poor carried away what was left. But this Church growing corrupt every way, and having got Teachers to their humors, they at these Feasts neglected the poor, inviting only the rich to them, and also exceeding in their provision for their rich Guests. These Feasts were called Feasts of Love, or Love-feasts, either because, 1. Love to God was that which (pretendedly at least) caused them. 2. Or because they were representations of our Lords last Supper, in which he first ate the Paschal Lamb, then instituted what we call the Lords Supper; or because they immediately preceded or followed the administration of the Lords Supper, from whence the Love-feast being immediately before or after it, had also the same name. But if we allow this, we must make the Love-feasts also Christs Institution, and instituted in remembrance of him, neither of which can be proved. The meaning must be, you cannot rightly communicate at the Lords Table, when immediately before or after that Table at your Love-feast, you are guilty of such disorderly actions. In the mean time, only what Christ instituted for remembrance of his Death, is what the Apostle calls, The Lords Supper.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 paragraph]

21 For in eating, every one taketh before other his own supper , and one is hungry , and another is drunken .

There was at this time in most of the Christian Church a Iewish Party, viz. such as were converted from Judaism to Christianity, and had a tang of the old Cask, being too tenacious of some Jewish Rites. These looked upon the Lords Supper as an appurtenance to the Passeover, immediately after which we know that Christ at first instituted his Supper. As therefore Christ did eat the Paschal Supper before the Lords Supper; so they in imitation of him, though they forbare the Paschal Lamb, yet would have a Supper of their own to precede the Lords Supper, and having provided it at home, would bring it to the place where the Church was to meet,

and their poor Brethren contributing nothing to the charge of that Supper, they would not stay for them, but took this their own Supper: so it came to pass, that the poorer Christians were hungry, had none or very little share in their Feast,

whiles others, the richer part of the Church, had too much; for I take our Translation of this word [non-Latin text not transcribed] to be very hard and uncharitable. Hard, because the word doth not necessarily▪ so signifie, only drinking beyond what is strictly necessary, and our Translators themselves, Ioh. 2.10. render it well drunk. Uncharitable, because it certainly must be very uncharitably presumed of this Church of Corinth, that they should suffer persons, at that time actually drunk, to come to the Lords Table.

22 What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in ? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not ? What shall I say [illegible: 1 letter]o you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

Hence evidently appears, that these Love-feasts were kept in the place where the Assembly met for the publick Worship of God; for the Apostle would have them (if they would continue [illegible: 1 letter]hem) kept in their private houses: and he doth not only blame the abuses of these Feasts, but the Feasts themselves as kept in the place where the Church met; or as having in them any pretence to any thing of Religion: meet they might friendly to eat and to drink, but their private houses were the fittest places for that.

Or do you despise the place (as some think) where the Church of God meeteth; or the people met in that place, by carrying your selves so disorderly in such a grave Assembly; or the poorer part of the Church, who, though poorer, are a part of the Church, redeemed by the Blood of Christ: the next words would incline us to think that the sense; for it followeth, and shame them that have not, that is, that have not Estates to contribute to such Feasts, and so are forced to go away without any due refreshment.

Marginal references: Jam. 2.6.; Or, them that are poor.

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you , That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread .

About these Love-feasts preceding the Lords Supper, I have received nothing from the Lord, you have taken the practice up from the Jews or Heathens: I do not know that it is unlawful for you civilly to feast, and eat and drink in your private houses; but to come to make such Feasts immediately before you religiously eat and drink at the Lords Table, I have received no order from the Lord for any such practice. I have told you what I received from the Lord, which is no more than, That the Lord, &c.

See this in the Evangelists, Matt. 26.26. Mark 14.22. Luke 22.19. where all these words are opened. Some think that Paul received this from the Lord by immediate Revelation (as it is thought Moses received the History we have in Genesis and part of Exodus, which relates to a time before he was born, or arrived at mans estate.) Others think that he received it from S. Luke's Writings (for the words are quoted according to his Gospel.) Others think he received it from some other of the Apostles: certain it is, that he did receive it from the Lord, how, is uncertain.

Marginal references: Chap. 15.3.

24 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 .

These words we also met with, Luke 22.19, 20. and in the other Evangelists narration of the Institution of the Supper. (See the Explication of them in the Notes on those Texts.)

Marginal references: Or, for a remembrance.

26 For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lords death till he come .

From hence it appears, that the Bread and Wine is not (as Papists say) transubstantiated or turned into the very substance of the flesh and blood of Christ, when the Communicants eat it and drink it. It is still the same Bread and Cup it was. The end of the Institution is but to commemorate Christs Death, and upon that acount the waiting upon God in this Ordinance, will be a standing duty incumbent upon Christians, untill Christ shall come to Judgment. Soem think, shew ye, is a better Translation of the Verb, than (as we translate it) ye do shew; wherefore so behave your selves at this Ordinance, as those who know what they have to do in it, that is, to shew forth the Death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Marginal references: Or, shew ye.; Joh. 14.3. Acts 1.11.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this [illegible: 1 letter]up of the Lord unworthily , shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord .

Divines agree, that the unworthiness here spoken of, respecteth not the person of the Receiver so much as the manner of the Receiving; in which sense, a person that is worthy, may receive this Ordinance unworthily: 'tis variously expounded, without due Religion and Reverence, without Faith and Love, without proposing a right End in the Action, under the guilt of any known sin not repented of, &c.

shall incur the guilt of the profanation of this sacred Institution; for an abuse offered to a sign, reacheth to that of which it is a sign. As the abuse of a Kings Seal, or Picture, is justly accounted an abuse of the King himself, whose Seal and Picture it is. Some carry it higher, he shall be punished, as if he had crucified Christ, the profanation of Christs Ordinance reflecting upon Christ himself.

Marginal references: Num. 9.10, 13. Joh. 6.51.63, 64. & 13.27. Chap. 10.21.

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

He is to examine himself about his Knowledge, whether he rightly understands what Christ is, what the nature of the Sacrament is, what he doth in that sacred Action; about his Faith, Love, Repentance, new Obedience, whether he be such a one, as God hath prepared that holy Table for, it is the childrens bread, and not for dogs, a Table Christ hath spread for his Friends, not for his Enemies. And so let him eat, &c. having so examined himself, not otherwise. Whence it appears, that neither children in age, nor understanding, nor persons not in the use of their Reason, nor Unbelievers, nor persons under the guilt of sins not repented of, have any right to the Lords Supper: accordingly was the practice of all the Primitive Churches, and all rightly Reformed Churches. Whether they ought, if they will presume to come, be kept away by the Officers of the Church, and how, and by whom? Whether good Christians may communicate with such at the holy Table? And after what previous Duty performed? are questions that belong not to this Text.

Marginal references: 2 Cor. 13.5. Gal. 6.4.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily , eateth and drinketh damnation to himself , not discerning the Lords body

In the sense before mentioned, either having no remote right, or no present right to partake in that Ordinance, being an Unbeliever, or a resolved unholy, or ignorant person; or irreverently and irreligiously.

He eateth and drinketh [non-Latin text not transcribed], damnation, or judgment, it is no matter which we translate it; for if he bringeth Gods judgments upon him in this life, they will end in eternal damnation, without a timely repentance, but it is to himself, not to him that is at the same Table with him, unless he hath been guilty of some neglect of his duty to him:

And his guilt lieth here, that he doth not discern and distinguish betwixt ordinary and common Bread, and that Bread which is the representation of the Lords Body, but useth the one as carelesly, and with as little preparation and regard to what he doth, as he useth the other.

Marginal references: Or, judgment.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly amongst you, and many sleep .

You, it may be, are not aware of it, but look upon other causes, why so many amongst you are sick, and weak, and die immaturely; but I as the Apostle of Jesus Christ (and so know the Mind and Will of God) assure you, that this your irreverent and irreligious profanation of this holy Ordinance, is one great cause of so many among you being sick, and weak, and dying in unripe age. Some think that the word sleep argues that they were godly, penitent Christians that so died (for the death of wicked men is hardly called sleeping any where in holy Writ) to let us know, that even good people, who yet may be saved, may bring judgments in this life upon themselves, as by the profanation of Gods Name in other Ordinances, so more especially by their profanation of it in this Ordinance of the Supper.

31 For if we would judge our selves, we should not be judged .

This word judge in Scripture signifies all parts of judgment, examining, accusing, condemning, &c. here it signifies accusing our selves, condemning our selves, discriminating our selves by the renewings of Faith and Repentance, from Unbelievers, impenit[illegible: 1 letter]nt and profane persons; if we would thus judge our selves, God would not accuse or condemn us.

Marginal references: Psal. 32.5.

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

Lest they be terrified at what he had said, and look upon their afflictions as indications of Gods displeasure against them to that degree, that he would not look any more upon them as his Children; he tells them, that when Gods people are afflicted with the evils of this life, sickness, &c. God doth not deal with them so much as a Judge, as

a Father who chasteneth the child whom he loveth, and scourgeth whom he receiveth, Heb. 12.6, 7, 8.

and doth it for a good end, to prevent the eternal condemnation of the Soul with the impenitent sinners of the World, giving us our Hell in this life, that we may escape it in the life to come.

33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another .

The Apostle concludes this discourse with an exhortation to them, for the time to come to take heed of these irreligious and irreverent behaviours, with relation to the Lords Supper. That they should not take the Sacrament before the whole Church were met together, the rich should stay for the poor, and not receive it in Parties, but as one Body, eat that one Bread.

34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home , that ye come not together to condemnation . And the rest will I set in order when I come .

And if any one hungred, they should not make the place, where they met together for the solemn Worship of God, a place for eating and drinking at Feasts, but eat at home,

lest by these disorderly and irreverent actions, they incurred the displeasure of God, and brought down the judgment of God upon themselves.

Lastly, he minds them, that if there were any other things of this nature, which he had not spoken to, he did design suddenly to come to them, and then he would set them in order, by giving them Rules about them.

Marginal references: Or, judgment▪

Directions Concerning Attire; Female Subjection. (a. d. 57.)

1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you 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. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul, having answered the cases put to him, proceeds in this chapter to the redress of grievances. The first verse of the chapter is put, by those who divided the epistle into chapters, as a preface to the rest of the epistle, but seems to have been a more proper close to the last, in which he had enforced the cautions he had given against the abuse of liberty, by his own example: Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ (v. 1), fitly closes his argument; and the way of speaking in the next verse looks like a transition to another. But, whether it more properly belong to this or the last chapter, it is plain from it that Paul not only preached such doctrine as they ought to believe, but led such a life as they ought to imitate. "Be ye followers of me," that is, "Be imitators of me; live as you see me live." Note, Ministers are likely to preach most to the purpose when they can press their hearers to follow their example. Yet would not Paul be followed blindly neither. He encourages neither implicit faith nor obedience. He would be followed himself no further than he followed Christ. Christ's pattern is a copy without a blot; so is no man's else. Note, We should follow no leader further than he follows Christ. Apostles should be left by us when they deviate from the example of their Master. He passes next to reprehend and reform an indecency among them, of which the women were more especially guilty, concerning which observe,

I. How he prefaces it. He begins with a commendation of what was praiseworthy in them (v. 2): I praise you, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you. Many of them, it is probable, did this in the strictest sense of the expression: and he takes occasion thence to address the body of the church under this good character; and the body might, in the main, have continued to observe the ordinances and institutions of Christ, though in some things they deviated from, and corrupted, them. Note, When we reprove what is amiss in any, it is very prudent and fit to commend what is good in them; it will show that the reproof is not from ill-will, and a humour of censuring and finding fault; and it will therefore procure the more regard to it.

II. How he lays the foundation for his reprehension by asserting the superiority of the man over the woman: I would have you 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. Christ, in his mediatorial character and glorified humanity, is at the head of mankind. He is not only first of the kind, but Lord and Sovereign. He has a name above every name: though in this high office and authority he has a superior, God being his head. And as God is the head of Christ, and Christ the head of the whole human kind, so the man is the head of the two sexes: not indeed with such dominion as Christ has over the kind or God has over the man Christ Jesus; but a superiority and headship he has, and the woman should be in subjection and not assume or usurp the man's place. This is the situation in which God has placed her; and for that reason she should have a mind suited to her rank, and not do any thing that looks like an affectation of changing places. Something like this the women of the church of Corinth seem to have been guilty of, who were under inspiration, and prayed and prophesied even in their assemblies, v. 5. It is indeed an apostolical canon, that the women should keep silence in the churches (ch. xiv. 34; 1 Tim. ii. 12), which some understand without limitation, as if a woman under inspiration also must keep silence, which seems very well to agree with the connection of the apostle's discourse, ch. xiv. Others with a limitation: though a woman might not from her own abilities pretend to teach, or so much as question and debate any thing in the church yet when under inspiration the case was altered, she had liberty to speak. Or, though she might not preach even by inspiration (because teaching is the business of a superior), yet she might pray or utter hymns by inspiration, even in the public assembly. She did not show any affectation of superiority over the man by such acts of public worship. It is plain the apostle does not in this place prohibit the thing, but reprehend the manner of doing it. And yet he might utterly disallow the thing and lay an unlimited restraint on the woman in another part of the epistle. These things are not contradictory. It is to his present purpose to reprehend the manner wherein the women prayed and prophesied in the church, without determining in this place whether they did well or ill in praying or prophesying. Note, The manner of doing a thing enters into the morality of it. We must not only be concerned to do good, but that the good we do be well done.

III. The thing he reprehends is the woman's praying or prophesying uncovered, or the man's doing either covered, v. 4, 5. To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And this will help us the better to understand,

IV. The reasons on which he grounds his reprehension. 1. The man that prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonoureth his head, namely, Christ, the head of every man (v. 3), by appearing in a habit unsuitable to the rank in which God has placed him. Note, We should, even in our dress and habits, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman, on the other hand, who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head, namely, the man, v. 3. She appears in the dress of her superior, and throws off the token of her subjection. She might, with equal decency, cut her hair short, or cut it close, which was the custom of the man in that age. This would be in a manner to declare that she was desirous of changing sexes, a manifest affectation of that superiority which God had conferred on the other sex. And this was probably the fault of these prophetesses in the church of Corinth. It was doing a thing which, in that age of the world, betokened superiority, and therefore a tacit claim of what did not belong to them but the other sex. Note, The sexes should not affect to change places. The order in which divine wisdom has placed persons and things is best and fittest: to endeavour to amend it is to destroy all order, and introduce confusion. The woman should keep to the rank God has chosen for her, and not dishonour her head; for this, in the result, is to dishonour God. If she was made out of the man, and for the man, and made to be the glory of the man, she should do nothing, especially in public, that looks like a wish of having this order inverted. 2. Another reason against this conduct is that the man is the image and glory of God, the representative of that glorious dominion and headship which God has over the world. It is the man who is set at the head of this lower creation, and therein he bears the resemblance of God. The woman, on the other hand, is the glory of the man (v. 7): she is his representative. Not but she has dominion over the inferior creatures, as she is a partaker of human nature, and so far is God's representative too, but it is at second-hand. She is the image of God, inasmuch as she is the image of the man: For the man was not made out of the woman, but the woman out of the man, v. 8. The man was first made, and made head of the creation here below, and therein the image of the divine dominion; and the woman was made out of the man, and shone with a reflection of his glory, being made superior to the other creatures here below, but in subjection to her husband, and deriving that honour from him out of whom she was made. 3. The woman was made for the man, to be his help-meet, and not the man for the woman. She was naturally, therefore, made subject to him, because made for him, for his use, and help, and comfort. And she who was intended to be always in subjection to the man should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, that looks like an affectation of equality. 4. She ought to have power on her head, because of the angels. Power, that is, a veil, the token, not of her having the power or superiority, but being under the power of her husband, subjected to him, and inferior to the other sex. Rebekah, when she met Isaac, and was delivering herself into his possession, put on her veil, in token of her subjection, Gen. xxiv. 65. Thus would the apostle have the women appear in Christian assemblies, even though they spoke there by inspiration, because of the angels, that is, say some, because of the evil angels. The woman was first in the transgression, being deceived by the devil (1 Tim. ii. 14), which increased her subjection to man, Gen. iii. 16. Now, believe evil angels will be sure to mix in all Christian assemblies, therefore should women wear the token of their shamefacedness and subjection, which in that age and country, was a veil. Others say because of the good angels. Jews and Christians have had an opinion that these ministering spirits are many of them present in their assemblies. Their presence should restrain Christians from all indecencies in the worship of God. Note, We should learn from all to behave in the public assemblies of divine worship so as to express a reverence for God, and a content and satisfaction with that rank in which he has placed us.

V. He thinks fit to guard his argument with a caution lest the inference be carried too far (v. 11, 12): Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord. They were made for one another. It is not good for him to be alone (Gen. ii. 18), and therefore was a woman made, and made for the man; and the man was intended to be a comfort, and help, and defence, to the woman, though not so directly and immediately made for her. They were made to be a mutual comfort and blessing, not one a slave and the other a tyrant. Both were to be one flesh (Gen. ii. 24), and this for the propagation of a race of mankind. They are reciprocal instruments of each other's production. As the woman was first formed out of the man, the man is ever since propagated by the woman (v. 12), all by the divine wisdom and power of the First Cause so ordaining it. The authority and subjection should be no greater than are suitable to two in such near relation and close union to each other. Note, As it is the will of God that the woman know her place, so it is his will also that the man abuse not his power.

VI. He enforces his argument from the natural covering provided for the woman (v. 13-15): "Judge in yourselves—consult your own reason, hearken to what nature suggests—is it comely for a woman to pray to God uncovered? Should there not be a distinction kept up between the sexes in wearing their hair, since nature has made one? Is it not a distinction which nature has kept up among all civilized nations? The woman's hair is a natural covering; to wear it long is a glory to her; but for a man to have long hair, or cherish it, is a token of softness and effeminacy." Note, It should be our concern, especially in Christian and religious assemblies, to make no breach upon the rules of natural decency.

VII. He sums up all by referring those who were contentious to the usages and customs of the churches, v. 16. Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what he would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.

Profanation of the Lord's Supper. (a. d. 57.)

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. 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. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

In this passage the apostle sharply rebukes them for much greater disorders than the former, in their partaking of the Lord's supper, which was commonly done in the first ages, as the ancients tell us, with a love-feast annexed, which gave occasion to the scandalous disorders which the apostle here reprehends, concerning which observe,

I. The manner in which he introduces his charge: "Now in this that I declare to you I praise you not, v. 17. I cannot commend, but must blame and condemn you." It is plain, from the beginning of the chapter, that he was willing and pleased to commend as far as he could. But such scandalous disorders, in so sacred an institution, as they were guilty of, called for a sharp reprehension. They quite turned the institution against itself. It was intended to make them better, to promote their spiritual interests; but it really made them worse. They came together, not for the better, but for the worse. Note, The ordinances of Christ, if they do not make us better, will be very apt to make us worse; if they do not do our souls good, they do us harm; if they do not melt and mend, they will harden. Corruptions will be confirmed in us, if the proper means do not work a cure of them.

II. He enters upon his charge against them in more particulars than one. 1. He tells them that, upon coming together, they fell into divisions, schisms—schismata. Instead of concurring unanimously in celebrating the ordinance, they fell a quarrelling with one another. Note, There may be schism where there is no separation of communion. Persons may come together in the same church, and sit down at the same table of the Lord, and yet be schismatics. Uncharitableness, alienation of affection, especially if it grows up to discord, and feuds, and contentions, constitute schism. Christians may separate from each other's communion, and yet be uncharitable one towards another; they may continue in the same communion, and yet be uncharitable. This latter is schism, rather than the former. The apostle had heard a report of the Corinthians' divisions, and he tells them he had too much reason to believe it. For, adds he, there must be heresies also; not only quarrels, but factions, and perhaps such corrupt opinions as strike at the foundation of Christianity, and all sound religion. Note, No marvel there should be breaches of Christian love in the churches, when such offences will come as shall make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience. Such offences must come. Note that men are necessitated to be guilty of them; but the event is certain, and God permits them, that those who are approved (such honest hearts as will bear the trial) may be set to view, and appear faithful by their constant adherence to the truths and ways of God, notwithstanding the temptations of seducers. Note, The wisdom of God can make the wickedness and errors of others a foil to the piety and integrity of the saints. 2. He charges them not only with discord and division, but with scandalous disorder: For in eating every one taketh before the other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken, v. 21. Heathens used to drink plentifully at their feasts upon their sacrifices. Many of the wealthier Corinthians seem to have taken the same liberty at the Lord's table, or at least at their Agapai, or love-feasts, that were annexed to the supper. They would not stay for one another; the rich despised the poor, and ate and drank up the provisions they themselves brought, before the poor were allowed to partake; and thus some wanted, while others had more than enough. This was profaning a sacred institution, and corrupting a divine ordinance, to the last degree. What was appointed to feed the soul was employed to feed their lusts and passions. What should have been a bond of mutual amity and affection was made an instrument of discord and disunion. The poor were deprived of the food prepared for them, and the rich turned a feast of charity into a debauch. This was scandalous irregularity.

III. The apostle lays the blame of this conduct closely on them, 1. By telling them that their conduct perfectly destroyed the purpose and use of such an institution: This is not to eat the Lord's supper, v. 20. It was coming to the Lord's table, and not coming. They might as well have staid away. Thus to eat the outward elements was not to eat Christ's body. Note, There is a careless and irregular eating of the Lord's supper which is as none at all; it will turn to no account, but to increase guilt. Such an eating was that of the Corinthians; their practices were a direct contradiction to the purposes of this sacred institution. 2. Their conduct carried in it a contempt of God's house, or of the church, v. 22. If they had a mind to feast, they might do it at home in their own houses; but to come to the Lord's table, and cabal and quarrel, and keep the poor from their share of the provision there made for them as well as rich, was such an abuse of the ordinance, and such a contempt of the poorer members of the church more especially, as merited a very sharp rebuke. Such a behaviour tended much to the shame and discouragement of the poor, whose souls were as dear to Christ, and cost him as much, as those of the rich. Note, Common meals may be managed after a common manner, but religious feasts should be attended religiously. Note, also, It is a heinous evil, and severely to be censured, for Christians to treat their fellow-christians with contempt and insolence, but especially at the Lord's table. This is doing what they can to pour contempt on divine ordinances. And we should look carefully to it that nothing in our behaviour at the Lord's table have the appearance of contemning so sacred an institution.

Design of the Lord's Supper. (a. d. 57.)

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 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. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. 27 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. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34 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.

To rectify these gross corruptions and irregularities, the apostle sets the sacred institution here to view. This should be the rule in the reformation of all abuses.

I. He tells us how he came by the knowledge of it. He was not among the apostles at the first institution; but he had received from the Lord what he delivered to them, v. 23. He had the knowledge of this matter by revelation from Christ: and what he had received he communicated, without varying from the truth a tittle, without adding or diminishing.

II. He gives us a more particular account of the institution than we meet with elsewhere. We have here an account,

1. Of the author—our Lord Jesus Christ. The king of the church only has power to institute sacraments.

2. The time of the institution: It was the very night wherein he was betrayed; just as he was entering on his sufferings which are therein to be commemorated.

3. The institution itself. Our Saviour took bread, and when he had given thanks, or blessed (as it is in Matt. xxvi. 26), he broke, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. And in like manner he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do, as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me, v. 24, 25. Here observe,

(1.) The materials of this sacrament; both, [1.] As to the visible signs; these are bread and the cup, the former of which is called bread many times over in this passage, even after what the papists call consecration. What is eaten is called bread, though it be at the same time said to be the body of the Lord, a plain argument that the apostle knew nothing of their monstrous and absurd doctrine of transubstantiation. The latter is as plainly a part of this institution as words can make it. St. Matthew tells us, our Lord bade them all drink of it (ch. xxvi. 27), as if he would, by this expression, lay in a caveat against the papists' depriving the laity of the cup. Bread and the cup are both made use of, because it is a holy feast. Nor is it here, or any where, made necessary, that any particular liquor should be in the cup. In one evangelist, indeed, it is plain that wine was the liquor used by our Saviour, though it was, perhaps, mingled with water, according to the Jewish custom; vide Lightfoot on Matt. xxvi. But this by no means renders it unlawful to have a sacrament where persons cannot come at wine. In every place of scripture in which we have an account of this part of the institution it is always expressed by a figure. The cup is put for what was in it, without once specifying what the liquor was, in the words of the institution. [2.] The things signified by these outward signs; they are Christ's body and blood, his body broken, his blood shed, together with all the benefits which flow from his death and sacrifice: it is the New Testament in his blood. His blood is the seal and sanction of all the privileges of the new covenant; and worthy receivers take it as such, at this holy ordinance. They have the New Testament, and their own title to all the blessings of the new covenant, confirmed to them by his blood.

(2.) We have here the sacramental actions, the manner in which the materials of the sacrament are to be used. [1.] Our Saviour's actions, which are taking the bread and cup, giving thanks, breaking the bread, and giving about both the one and the other. [2.] The actions of the communicants, which were to take the bread and eat, to take the cup and drink, and both in remembrance of Christ. But the external acts are not the whole nor the principal part of what is to be done at this holy ordinance; each of them has a significancy. Our Saviour, having undertaken to make an offering of himself to God, and procure, by his death, the remission of sins, with all other gospel benefits, for true believers, did, at the institution, deliver his body and blood, with all the benefits procured by his death, to his disciples, and continues to do the same every time the ordinance is administered to the true believers. This is here exhibited, or set forth, as the food of souls. And as food, though ever so wholesome or rich, will yield no nourishment without being eaten, here the communicants are to take and eat, or to receive Christ and feed upon him, his grace and benefits, and by faith convert them into nourishment to their souls. They are to take him as their Lord and life, yield themselves up to him, and live upon him. He is our life, Col. iii. 4.

(3.) We have here an account of the ends of this institution. [1.] It was appointed to be done in remembrance of Christ, to keep fresh in our minds an ancient favour, his dying for us, as well as to remember an absent friend, even Christ interceding for us, in virtue of his death, at God's right hand. The best of friends, and the greatest acts of kindness, are here to be remembered, with the exercise of suitable affections and graces. The motto on this ordinance, and the very meaning of it, is, When this you see, remember me. [2.] It was to show forth Christ's death, to declare and publish it. It is not barely in remembrance of Christ, of what he has done and suffered, that this ordinance was instituted; but to commemorate, to celebrate, his glorious condescension and grace in our redemption. We declare his death to be our life, the spring of all our comforts and hopes. And we glory in such a declaration; we show forth his death, and spread it before God, as our accepted sacrifice and ransom. We set it in view of our own faith, for our own comfort and quickening; and we own before the world, by this very service, that we are the disciples of Christ, who trust in him alone for salvation and acceptance with God.

(4.) It is moreover hinted here, concerning this ordinance, [1.] That it should be frequent: As often as you eat this bread, &c. Our bodily meals return often; we cannot maintain life and health without this. And it is fit that this spiritual diet should be taken often tool The ancient churches celebrated this ordinance every Lord's day, if not every day when they assembled for worship. [2.] That it must be perpetual. It is to be celebrated till the Lord shall come; till he shall come the second time, without sin, for the salvation of those that believe, and to judge the world. This is our warrant for keeping this feast. It was our Lord's will that we should thus celebrate the memorials of his death and passion, till he come in his own glory, and the Father's glory, with his holy angels, and put an end to the present state of things, and his own mediatorial administration, by passing the final sentence. Note, The Lord's supper is not a temporary, but a standing and perpetual ordinance.

III. He lays before the Corinthians the danger of receiving unworthily, of prostituting this institution as they did, and using it to the purposes of feasting and faction, with intentions opposite to its design, or a temper of mind altogether unsuitable to it; or keeping up the covenant with sin and death, while they are there professedly renewing and confirming their covenant with God. 1. It is great guilt which such contract. They shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (v. 27), of violating this sacred institution, of despising his body and blood. They act as if they counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith they are sanctified, an unholy thing, Heb. x. 29. They profane the institution, and in a manner crucify their Saviour over again. Instead of being cleansed by his blood, they are guilty of his blood. 2. It is a great hazard which they run: They eat and drink judgment to themselves, v. 29. They provoke God, and are likely to bring down punishment on themselves. No doubt but they incur great guilt, and so render themselves liable to damnation, to spiritual judgments and eternal misery. Every sin is in its own nature damning; and therefore surely so heinous a sin as profaning such a holy ordinance is so. And it is profaned in the grossest sense by such irreverence and rudeness as the Corinthians were guilty of. But fearful believers should not be discouraged from attending at this holy ordinance by the sound of these words, as if they bound upon themselves the sentence of damnation by coming to the table of the Lord unprepared. Thus sin, as well as all others, leaves room for forgiveness upon repentance; and the Holy Spirit never indited this passage of scripture to deter serious Christians from their duty, though the devil has often made this advantage of it, and robbed good Christians of their choicest comforts. The Corinthians came to the Lord's table as to a common feast, not discerning the Lord's body—not making a difference or distinction between that and common food, but setting both on a level: nay, they used much more indecency at this sacred feast than they would have done at a civil one. This was very sinful in them, and very displeasing to God, and brought down his judgments on them: For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. Some were punished with sickness, and some with death. Note, A careless and irreverent receiving of the Lord's supper may bring temporal punishments. Yet the connection seems to imply that even those who were thus punished were in a state of favour with God, at least many of them: They were chastened of the Lord, that they should not be condemned with the world, v. 32. Now divine chastening is a sign of divine love: Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth (Heb. xii. 6), especially with so merciful a purpose, to prevent their final condemnation. In the midst of judgment, God remembers mercy: he frequently punishes those whom he tenderly loves. It is kindness to use the rod to prevent the child's ruin. He will visit such iniquity as this under consideration with stripes, and yet make those stripes the evidence of his lovingkindness. Those were in the favour of God who yet so highly offended him in this instance, and brought down judgments on themselves; at least many of them were; for they were punished by him out of fatherly good-will, punished now that they might not perish for ever. Note, It is better to bear trouble in this world than to be miserable to eternity. And God punishes his people now, to prevent their eternal woe.

IV. He points out the duty of those who would come to the Lord's table. 1. In general: Let a man examine himself (v. 28), try and approve himself. Let him consider the sacred intention of this holy ordinance, its nature, and use, and compare his own views in attending on it and his disposition of mind for it; and, when he has approved himself to his own conscience in the sight of God, then let him attend. Such self-examination is necessary to a right attendance at this holy ordinance. Note, Those who, through weakness of understanding, cannot try themselves, are by no means fit to eat of this bread and drink of this cup; nor those who, upon a fair trial, have just ground to charge themselves with impenitency, unbelief, and alienation from the life of God. Those should have the wedding-garment on who would be welcome at this marriage-feast—grace in habit, and grace in exercise. 2. The duty of those who were yet unpunished for their profanation of this ordinance: If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged, v. 31. If we would thoroughly search and explore ourselves, and condemn and correct what we find amiss, we should prevent divine judgments. Note, To be exact and severe on ourselves and our own conduct is the most proper way in the world not to fall under the just severity of our heavenly Father. We must not judge others, lest we be judged (Matt. vii. 1); but we must judge ourselves, to prevent our being judged and condemned by God. We may be critical as to ourselves, but should be very candid in judging others.

V. He closes all with a caution against the irregularities of which they were guilty (v. 33, 34), charging them to avoid all indecency at the Lord's table. They were to eat for hunger and pleasure only at home, and not to change the holy supper to a common feast; and much less eat up the provisions before those who could bring none did partake of them, lest they should come together for condemnation. Note, Our holy duties, through our own abuse, may prove matter of condemnation. Christians may keep Sabbaths, hear sermons, attend at sacraments, and only aggravate guilt, and bring on a heavier doom. A sad but serious truth! O! let all look to it that they do not come together at any time to God's worship, and all the while provoke him, and bring down vengeance on themselves. Holy things are to be used in a holy manner, or else they are profaned. What else was amiss in this matter, he tells them, he would rectify when he came to them.

CHAP. XI. Verſe 1. Be ye followers of me]

THis verſe properly belongs to the former Chapter. The diſtinguiſhing of the books of Scripture into Chapters is not very ancient. But that of verſes was deviſed and done by Robert Stephens, Pio quidem at tumultuario ſtudio (as one ſaith well) with a good intent,Soult[illegible: 1 letter]t. but with no great skill, as appears here and in divers other places. The Apoſtle chap. 10.33. had ſhewed his own practice: here he cals upon them to do accordingly. As the Oxe follows the herd,Sicut bos armenta, ſic ego bonos viros, &c. Cic, ad Attic. ſo will I follow good men, Etiamſi ruant, ſaith Cicero, although they do amiſſe. This was more then St Paul deſires: Be ye followers of me, ſaith he: but only ſo far as I am of Christ, not an inch further.

Verſe 2. And keep the ordinances] Gr. the traditions or doctrines by word of mouth. Theſe are 1. Dogmaticall, concerning faith and practice, 2 Theſſ. 2.15. 2. Rituall, Selater, in loe. and theſe again are 1. Perpetuall, as that of the manner of adminiſtring the two Sacraments. 2. Temporary, as that of abſtaining from certain meats, Act. 15.28, 29. And thoſe other pertaining to the obſerving of externall order and decency in Church-aſſemblies. And of theſe the Apoſtle here ſpeaketh.

Verſe 3. The head of the woman is man] Were it not an ill ſight to ſee the ſhoulders above the head, the woman uſurp authority over the man? A prudent wife commands her husband by obeying, [non-Latin text not transcribed]. 1 Tim. 1.1[illegible: 1 letter]. as did Livia.

Verſe 4. Diſhonoureth his head] As they accounted it then and there. In other places it is otherwiſe. The French preach covered. B[illegible: 1 letter]unts voiage, p. 88. The Turks neither kneel nor uncover the head at publike praiers, as holding thoſe poſtures unmanly. Severall countreys have their ſeverall cuſtoms. Baſiliades Duke of Muſcovia ſhewed himſelf a tyrant in nailing an Embaſſadours hat to his head, for not uncovering it before him.

Verſe 5. Praying or prophecying] That is, joyning with the man that praieth or prophecieth, and going along with, him in her heart. Thus the King and all Iſrael with him offered Sacrifice before the Lord, 1 Kin. 8, 62. And thus the unlearned ſey, Amen, 1 Cor. 14.16. See the Note on Rom. 16.1.

Verſe 6. For a woman to be ſhore] Our Hic-muliers hold it now no ſhame. If Henry the ſixth had ſeen ſuch creatures, he would have cried out, as once he did at the ſight of naked breſts, Daniels hiſt. p. 198. Fie, fie, Ladies, inſooth you are too blame, &c.

Verſe 7. He is the image and glory of God,] Even as an image in the glaſſe doth look toward us, from whom it is reflected: So (ſaith one) doth Gods image in us make the eyes of our minds view him the authour of it in us. Bayns letters. And as the eye becometh one with that which it ſeeth, and is after a ſort in that light it beholdeth: ſo are we by the viſion of God, which is begun in us, one with him and in him.

The woman is the glory of the man] Either becauſe he may glory in her, if ſhe be good: or becauſe ſhe is to honour him, and give glory to him.

Verſe 8. But the woman of the man] Of a bone ſhe was made, and but one bone, N[illegible: 1 letter] eſſet oſſea, ſaith a Divine: A bone of the ſide it was,Vitia Palatina. not of the head (ſhe is not to be his miſtreſſe) nor of the foot (ſhe is not to be his handmaid) but of the ſide, to ſhew that ſhe is a companion to her husband. A bone from under the arm, to minde the man of protection and defence to the woman. A bone not farre from his heart, to minde him of dilection and love to the woman. A bone from the left ſide, to put the woman in minde, that by reaſon of her frailty and infirmity, ſhe ſtands in need of both the one and the other from her husband.

Verſe 9. For the woman] ſc. To ſerve her: unleſſe it be ſome women,As Artemiſia, Zenobla, blandena. Anna Ateſtina Guiſiorum & Memorouſ. parens. Thuan. bi[illegible: 1 letter]t l. 124. Numb. 5.18. ſpecially called to, and qualified for government. Amongſt whom Queen Elizabeth that female-glory is famous: Of whom a great French Dutcheſſe ſaid, That ſhe was, Glorioſiſſima, & omnium quae unquam ſceptrum geſſerunt foeliciſſima faemina, Beſides her Sex, there was nothing in her woman-like or weak.

Verſe 10. To have power] That is, a veil, called in Hebrew Radid, of Radad to beat rule. And indeed what was this ſubjection to the husband, but a kinde of power and protection derived to the wife, in reſpect of her fromer eſtate?

Becauſe of the Angels] Preſent in the Aſſemblies of the Saints. This was ſet forth of old by the hangings of the Tabernacle wrought with Cherubims within and without. Others underſtand this Text of Miniſters, frequently called Angels, Hag. 1.12, 13. Revel. 2. and 3. Judg. 2.1. (that Angel is thought to be Phintas) Eccleſ. 5.6. Neither ſay thou before the Angel (i. e. before the Lords Prieſt) it was an errour.

Verſe 11. Nevertheleſſe neither is] This is added for the womans comfort. There muſt be all mutuall reſpects and melting-heartedneſſe betwixt married couples, which being preſerved freſh and fruitfull, will [illegible: 1 letter]fi[illegible: 1 letter]tely ſweeten and beautifie the marriage-eſtate. Love is a quom that muſt be exchanged betwixt them, and returned in kinde. Husbands love your wives, Coloſ. 3.16. He ſaith not, Rule over your wives, as he had ſaid, Wives ſubmit your ſelves to your husbands, but Love your wives; yea, let all your things be done in love: for neither is the man without the woman; he is not compleat without her, he wants a piece of himſelf: neither is the woman without the man, ſhe cannot ſubſiſt without him, as the Vine cannot without a ſupporter. The rib can challenge no more of her, then the earth can of him, &c.

Verſe 12. But all things of God] God conſulted not with man to make him happy (ſaith one.) As he was ignorant while himſelf was made, ſo did he not know while a ſecond ſelf was made out of him: Both, that the comfort might be the greater then was expected; as alſo, that he might not upbraid his wife with any great dependance or obligation, he neither willing the work, nor ſuffering any pain to have it done.

Verſe 13. Judge in your ſelves] All Chriſts ſheep are rationall, able to diſcern of things that differ, having their ſenſes thereunto exerciſed, Heb. 5.14. But ſome ſins are condemned by common ſenſe, as here: and religion is founded upon ſo good reaſon, that though God had not commanded it, yet it had been our wiſeſt way to have choſen it. But luſt doth oft ſo bleer the underſtanding, that a man ſhall thinke he hath reaſon to be mad, and that there is great ſenſe in ſinning.

Verſe 14. That if a man have long hair] Buſhes of vanity, which they will never part with (ſaid Marbury) untill the devil put a caudle into the buſh. But our Gallants object, That the Apoſtle here intendeth ſuch hair as is as long as womens hair. Whereunto we anſwer. That Homer calleth the Greeks hair-nouriſhing men, who yet did not wear their hair long as women. [non-Latin text not transcribed] Home[illegible: 1 letter] How Cromwell handled the ſhag-haired ruffian; See Acts and Monuments of the Church, folio 1083. How God hath puniſhed this unnaturall ſin by that loathſome and horrible diſeaſe in the hair, called Plica Polonica; See Hercules de Saxonia: And out of him Mr Bolion in his four laſt things, pag 40. It begun firſt (ſaith he) not many years ago in Poland: It is now entered into many parts of Germany. And methinks our monſtrous faſhioniſts both male and female, the one for nouriſhing their horrid buſhes of vanity: the other for their moſt unnaturall and curſed cutting their hair, ſhould every hour fear and tremble, leſt they ſhould bring it upon their own heads, and amongſt us in this kingdom.Daniels Hiſt: 67. Our henry 1. repreſſed the wearing of long hair: which though it were a gaiety of no charge, yet for the undecency thereof, he reformed it, and all other diſſoluteneſſe. See Mr Prins Ʋnlovelineſſe of love-locks.

Verſe 15. Her hair is given her] Now it is a vile thing to go againſt nature. Cyprian and Austin ſay, That gariſh apparell is worſe then whoredom: becauſe whoredom only corrupts chaſtity, but this corrupts nature.

Verſe 16. Seem to be contentious] Adectore glori[illegible: 1 letter]ſ[illegible: 1 letter], & Paſtore contentioſo, & inutilibus quaeſtionibus, liberet Eccleſiam ſuam Dominus, ſaid Luther. From a vain-glorious Doctour, from a contentious Paſtour, and from endleſſe and needleſſe controverſies, the good Lord deliver his Church.

We have no ſuch custome] viz. To ſtrive about trifles, but to ſubmit to our teachers, Bifield on 1 Pet. 3. Heb. 13.17. It is a vile thing, ſaith one, to vex our Miniſters by our obſtinacy; yea, though they were not able to make ſo full demonſtration, yet when they reprove ſuch things, out of a ſpirituall j[illegible: 1 letter]alouſie and fear that they corrupt the peoples hearts, they are to be heard and obeyed.

Verſe 17. I praiſe you not] q. d. I diſcommend and diſpraiſe you. The Corinthians were in many things faulty and blame-worthy. St Paul deals plainly and freely with them, and would not therefore take their offered kindeneſſe, 2 Cor. 12. leſt he ſhould be ingaged to them, and by receiving a curteſie, fell his liberty.

Verſe 18. [non-Latin text not transcribed] There be diviſions] Gr. Schiſmes, rents, yea, and that about the Sacrament of the Lords Supper (that bond of love) thorow Satans malice. Now there can be no greater ſinne committed, ſaith Chryſoſtome, Hom. 11. ad Epheſ. Lib. de unitate Eccleſie Oecol. ad frat. in Suevia then to break the peace of the Church. Cyprian ſaith, It is an inexpiable blemiſh, ſuch as cannot be waſht oſt with the bloud of martyrdome. The errour of it may be pardoned (ſaith Oecolampadius in his Epiſtle to the Lutherans of Suevia) ſo there be faith in Chriſt Jeſus: but the diſcord we cannot expiate, though we ſhould lay down our lives to doe it.

Verſe 19. There muſt be hereſi[illegible: 1 letter]s] Therefore much more ſchiſmes, which alſo, for moſt part, do degenerate into hereſies; as an old Serpent into a Dragon. In the time of Pope Clement the fifth, Frederick King of Sicily was ſo offended at the evil government of the Church, that he began to queſtion the truth of the Chriſtian religion. But Arnoldus de villa nova confirmed and ſetled him by this and ſuch like places of Scripture, Offences muſt come, there muſt be hereſies, &c. God having ſo decreed and fore-told it.

May be made manifest] As they are now, if ever, in theſe ſhedding and diſcriminating times. So in the Palatinase they fell to Popery, as faſt as leaves in Autumn.

Verſe 20. This is not to cat, &c.] When the Lords Supper therefore is not rightly adminiſtred, it is no longer his; eſpecially if the ſubſtantials thereof be omitted. As in thoſe Sacrifices, Hoſ. 9 4. Their bread for their ſoul ſhall not come into the houſe of the Lord; that is, the bread for their naturall ſuſtenance. He ſpeaks of that meat-offering, Levit. 2.5. appointed for a ſpirituall uſe, yet called the bread for their life or livelihood; becauſe God eſteemed it no other then common meat. So Jer. 7.21. in ſcorn he cals their ſacrifice, fleſh, &c.

Verſe 21. Every one taketh] Eateth and communicateth with thoſe o[illegible: 1 letter] his own ſect and faction only, not ſtaying for others. Such among the Philippians were thoſe of the conciſion, Chap. 3.2. that made diviſions, and cut the Church into little pieces and ſucking Congregations, making ſeparation.

Verſe 22. What? Have ye not houſes] Here he aboliſheth their love-feaſts, for the diſorder that fell out therein. The Greek Church nevertheleſſe retained them: but the Roman Church laid them down, as Juſtin Martyr witneſſeth.

Verſe 23. For I have received] Rectumeſt regula ſui & obliqui. The Apoſtle ſeems to rectifie them, by reducing them to the firſt inſtitution.

The ſame night, &c.] It was his laſt bequeath to his Church, for a [non-Latin text not transcribed], as Ignatius hath it, a ſoveraign both purgative and preſervative.

This is my body] En praeclaram illam conſecrationem, Behold that goodly conſecration (ſaith Beza) for the which the Shavelings ſay, that they are more holy, then the very virgin Mary. For that Mary only conceived Chriſt, but they create him.Beza in confeſſ: 241. Whereunto the Virgin might well reply, That ſhe carefully nouriſhed Chriſt whom they cruelly devour. Doſt thou beleeve (ſaid the Doctour to the Martyr) that Chriſts body and bloud is in the Euchariſt really and ſubſtantially? I believe, ſaith he,Act. and Mon. that that is a reall lie, and a ſubſtantiall lie. When Cranmer was brought forth to diſpute in Oxford, Dr Weston Prolocutour thus began the diſputation,Act. and Mon. fol. 1300. Convenistis bodiè fratres, profligaturi deteſtandam illam haereſin de veritate corporis Chriſti in Sacramento, &c. At which miſtake, divers learned men burſt out into a great laughter.

Verſe 25. He took the Cup] See the Note on Matthew 26.27.

Verſe 26. Ye do ſhew] We need no other crucifix to minde us of Chriſts paſſion.

Till he come] There ſhall be a Church then, and the pure worſhip of God, till the worlds end, maugre the malice of tyrants and heretikes.

Verſe 27. Shall be guilty] Becauſe they profane the holy ſymbols and pledges of Chriſts bleſſed body and bloud. Theſe are in ſome ſenſe, as guilty as thoſe that ſpit upon Chriſts face, or that ſpilt his bloud: As the Donatiſts that caſt the holy elements to dogs; or as that wretched Booth a Bachelour of Arts in S. Johns Colledge in Cambridge, who being Popiſhly affected, at the time of the Communion took the conſecrated bread, and forbearing to eat it, B. Morton Inſtit of the Sacr: l. 5. c. 3. convey'd and kept it cloſely for a time, and afterwards threw it over the Colledge-wall. Not long after this, he threw himſelf headlong over the battlements of the Chappel, and ſo ended his life.

Verſe 28. Let a man examine] A Metaphor from Metallaries or Lapidiſts, as they try their mettals or precious ſtones, and do it exactly, that they be not cozened, ſo here, men muſt make an exact ſcrutiny.

And ſo let him eat] After preparation, participation. The Heathens had their caena pura, the night before their Sacrifices. The Ruſſians receive children after ſeven years old to the Communion, ſaying,Breerwoods Enquit. 135. that at that age they begin to ſin againſt God. But can they ſay, that at that age they can examine themſelves, and receive preparedly? Chryſoſtome calleth the Lords Table, that dreadfull table, [non-Latin text not transcribed] and the Ancients call the Sacraments dreadfull myſteries.

Verſe 29. Eateth and drinketh damnation] He that came in without a wedding-garment on his back, went not away without fetters on his feet: He was taken from the table to the tormentours. Gods table becomes a ſnare to unworthy receivers; they eat their bane, they drink their poiſon. Henry the ſeventh Emperour of Germany, was poiſoned in the Sacramentall bread by a Monke. Pope Victor 2. by his ſub. Deacon in the Chalice; and one of our Biſhops of York by poiſon put into the wine at Sacrament. God will deal with ill communicants, as Job 20.23. They will ſpeed no better then Amnon did at Abſoloms feaſt.

Verſe 30. Many are weak] The mortality at Corinth began at Gods houſe, and that for unworthy communicating. God will be ſanctified of all that draw-near to him. He loves to be acquainted with men in the walks of their obedience, and yet he takes ſtate upon him in his ordinances, and will be ſerved like himſelf, or we ſhall hear from him.

Verſe 31. We ſhould not be judged] God ſhould be prevented, and the devil put out of office, as having nothing to ſay againſt us, but what we have ſaid before.

Verſe 32. That we ſhould not, &c.] Ferre minora volo, ne graviora feram.

Verſe 33. Wherefore my brethren] He that reproveth and adviſeth not, doth as it were ſnuff the lamp, and not pour in oyl.

Be ye followers of me. Imitate my example in the matter now under discussion. As I deny myself; as I seek to give no offence to any one; as I endeavour not to alarm the prejudices of others, but in all things to seek their salvation, so do you. This verse belongs to the previous chapter, and should not have been separated from it. It is the close of the discussion there.

Even as I also am of Christ. I make Christ my example. He is my model in all things; and if you follow him, and follow me as far as I follow him, you will not err. This is the only safe example; and if we follow this, we can never go astray.

(a) "ye followers" Eph 5:1, 1Thes 1:6 (*) "followers" "Imitators"

Now I praise you, brethren. Paul always chose to commend Christians when it could be done, and never seemed to suppose that such praise would be injurious to them. 1Cor 1:4; 1Cor 1:5. On this occasion he was the more ready to praise them, as far as it could be done, because there were some things in regard to them in which he would have occasion to reprove them.

That ye remember me in all things. That you are disposed to regard my authority and seek my direction in all matters pertaining to the good order of the church. There can be little doubt that they had consulted him in their letter (1Cor 7:1) about the proper manner in which a woman ought to demean herself if she was called upon, under the influence of Divine inspiration, to utter anything in public. The question seems to have been, whether, since she was inspired, it was proper for her to retain the marks of her inferiority of rank, and remain covered; or whether the fact of her inspiration did not release her from that obligation, and make it proper that she should lay aside her veil, and appear as public speakers did among men. To this the apostle refers, probably, in the phrase "all things," that even in matters of this kind, pertaining to the good order of the church, they were disposed to regard his authority.

And keep the ordinances. Margin, Traditions, (ταςπαραδοσεις). The word does not refer to anything that had been delivered down from a former generation, or from former times, as the word tradition now usually signifies; but it means that which had been delivered to them, (παραδιδωμι;) i.e., by the apostles. The apostles had delivered to them certain doctrines, or rules, respecting the good order and the government of the church; and they had in general observed them, and were disposed still to do it. For this disposition to regard his authority, and to keep what he had enjoined, he commends them. He proceeds to specify what would be proper in regard to the particular subject on which they had made inquiry.

(b) "that ye" 1Cor 4:17 (c) "keep" Lk 1:6 (1) "ordinances" "traditions"

But I would have you know. "I invite your attention particularly to the following considerations, in order to form a correct opinion on this subject." Paul does not at once answer the inquiry, and determine what ought to be done; but he invites their attention to a series of remarks on the subject, which led them to draw the conclusion which he wished to establish. The phrase here is designed to call the attention to the subject, like that used so often in the New Testament, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

That the head, etc. The word head, in the Scriptures, is designed often to denote master, ruler, chief, The word Γρεεκ is often thus used in the Old Testament. See Nu 17:3, 25:15, De 28:13,44 Jud 10:18, 11:8,11, 1Sam 15:17, 2Sam 22:44. In the New Testament the word is used in the sense of lord, ruler, chief, in Eph 1:22, 4:15; Eph 5:23, Col 2:10. Here it means that Christ is the Ruler, Director, or Lord of the Christian man. This truth was to be regarded in all their feelings and arrangements, and was never to be forgotten. Every Christian should recollect the relation in which he stands to him, as one that is fitted to produce the strictest decorum, and a steady sense of subordination.

Of every man. Every Christian. All acknowledge Christ as their Ruler and Master. They are subject to him; and in all proper ways recognize their subordination to him.

And the head of the woman is the man. The sense is, she is subordinate to him; and in all circumstances-in her demeanour, her dress, her conversation, in public and in the family circle--should recognize her subordination to him. The particular thing here referred to is, that if the woman is inspired, and speaks or prays in public, she should by no means lay aside the usual and proper symbols of her subordination. The danger was, that those who were under the influence of inspiration would regard themselves as freed from the necessity of recognizing that, and would lay aside the veil, the usual and appropriate symbol of their occupying a rank inferior to the man. This was often done in the temples of the heathen deities by the priestesses, and it would appear also that it had been done by Christian females in the churches.

And the head of Christ is God. Christ, as Mediator, has consented to assume a subordinate rank, and to recognize God the Father as superior in office. Hence he was obedient in all things as a Son; he submitted to the arrangement required in redemption; he always recognized his subordinate rank as Mediator, and always regarded God as the Supreme Ruler, even in the matter of redemption. The sense is, that Christ, throughout his entire work, regarded himself as occupying a subordinate station to the Father; and that it was proper from his example to recognize the propriety of rank and station everywhere.

(d) "head of every man" Eph 5:23 (e) "Christ" Gen 3:16, 1Pet 3:1,5,6 (f) "the man" Jn 14:28, 1Cor 15:27,28

Every man praying or prophesying. The word prophesying here means, evidently, teaching; or publicly speaking to the people on the subject of religion. Acts 2:17. See also the subject considered more at length in the Notes on chapter 14. Whether these persons who are here said to prophesy were all inspired, or claimed to be inspired, may admit of a question. The simple idea here is, that they spoke in the public assemblies, and professed to be the expounders of the Divine will.

Having his head covered. With a veil, or turban, or cap, or whatever else is worn on the head. To remove the hat, the turban, or the covering of the head, is a mark of respect for a superior when in his presence.

Dishonoureth his head. Does dishonour to Christ as his head, (1Cor 11:2;) that is, he does not, in his presence and in his service, observe the usual and proper custom by which a subordinate station is recognised, and which indicates respect for a superior. In the presence of a prince or a nobleman, it would be considered as a mark of disrespect should the head be covered. So in the presence of Christ, in whose name he ministers, it is a mark of disrespect if the head is covered. This illustration is drawn from the customs of all times and countries, by which respect for a superior is indicated by removing the covering from the head. This is one reason why a man should not cover his head in public worship. Another is given in 1Cor 11:7. Other interpretations of the passage may be seen in Bloomfield's Critical Digest.

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth. In the Old Testament, prophetesses are not unfrequently mentioned. Thus Miriam is mentioned, (Ex 15:20;) Deborah, (Jud 4:4;) Huldah, (2Kgs 22:14;) Nosdish, (Neh 6:14.) So also in the New Testament, Anna is mentioned as a prophetess, Lk 2:36. That there were females in the early Christian church who corresponded to those known among the Jews in some measure as endowed with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, cannot be doubted. What was their precise office, and what was the nature of the public services in which they were engaged, is not however known. That they prayed is clear; and that they publicly expounded the will of God is apparent also. Acts 2:17. As the presumption is, however, that they were inspired, their example is no warrant now for females to take part in the public services of worship, unless they also give evidence that they are under the influence of inspiration, and the more especially as the apostle Paul has expressly forbidden their becoming public teachers, 1Timm 2:12. If it is now pleaded, from this example, that women should speak and pray in public, yet it should be just so far only as this example goes, and it should be only when they have the qualifications that the early prophetesses had in the Christian church. If there are any such; if any are directly inspired by God, there then will be an evident propriety that they should publicly proclaim his will, and not till then. It may be further observed, however, that the fact that Paul here mentions the custom of women praying or speaking publicly in the church, does not prove that it was right or proper. His immediate object now was not to consider whether the practice was itself right, but to condemn the manner of its performance as a violation of all the proper rules of modesty and of subordination. On another occasion, in this very epistle, he fully condemns the practice in any form, and enjoins silence on the female members of the church in public, 1Cor 14:34.

With her head uncovered. That is, with the veil removed which she usually wore. It would seem from this that the women removed their veils, and wore their hair dishevelled, when they pretended to be under the influence of Divine inspiration. This was the case with the heathen priestesses; and in so doing, the Christian women imitated them. On this account, if on no other, Paul declares the impropriety of this conduct. It was, besides, a custom among ancient females, and one that was strictly enjoined by the traditional laws of the Jews, that a woman should not appear in public unless she was veiled. See this proved by Lightfoot in loco.

Dishonoureth her head. Shows a want of proper respect to man--to her husband, to her father, to the sex in general. The veil is a token of modesty and of subordination. It is regarded among Jews, and everywhere, as an emblem of her sense of inferiority of rank and station. It is the customary mark of her sex, and that by which she evinces her modesty and sense of subordination. To remove that, is to remove the appropriate mark of such subordination, and is a public act by which she thus shows dishonour to the man. And as it is proper that the grades and ranks of life should be recognised in a suitable manner, so it is improper that, even on pretence of religion, and of being engaged in the service of God, these marks should be laid aside.

For that is even all one as if she were shaven. As if her long hair, which nature teaches her she should wear for a veil, (1Cor 11:15, margin,) should be cut off. Long hair is, by the custom of the times, and of nearly all countries, a mark of the sex, an ornament of the female, and judged to be beautiful and comely. To remove that is to appear, in this respect, like the other sex, and to lay aside the badge of her own. This, says Paul, all would judge to be improper. You yourselves would not allow it. And yet to lay aside the veil--the appropriate badge of the sex, and of her sense of subordination--would be an act of the same kind. It would indicate the same feeling, the same forgetfulness of the proper sense of subordination; and if that is laid aside, ALL the usual indications of modesty and subordination might be removed also. Not even under religious pretences, therefore, are the usual marks of sex, and of propriety of place and rank, to be laid aside. Due respect is to be shown, in dress, and speech, and deportment, to those whom God has placed above us; and neither in language, in attire, nor in habit, are we to depart from what all judge to be proprieties of life, or from what God has judged and ordained to be the proper indications of the regular gradations in society.

(a) "woman" Acts 21:9

For if the woman be not covered. If her head be not covered with a veil.

Let her also be shorn. Let her long hair be cut off. Let her lay aside all the usual and proper indications of her sex and rank in life. If it is done in one respect, it may with the same propriety be done in all. See Note above.

But if it be a shame, etc. If custom, nature, and habit; if the common and usual feelings and views among men would pronounce this to be a shame, the other would be pronounced to be a shame also by the same custom and common sense of men.

Let her be covered. With a veil. Let her wear the customary attire indicative of modesty and a sense of subordination. Let her not lay this aside even on any pretence of religion.

(b) "shorn" Nu 5:18, De 21:12

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head. That is, with a veil; or in public worship; when he approaches God, or when in his name he addresses his fellow-men. It is not fit and proper that he should be covered. The reason why it is not proper, the apostle immediately states:

Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God. The phrase "the image of God" refers to the fact that man was made in the likeness of his Maker, (Gen 1:27;) and proves that, though fallen, there is a sense in which he is still the image of God. It is not because man is holy or pure, and thus resembles his Creator; but it evidently is because he was invested by his Maker with authority and dominion: he was superior to all other creatures, Gen 1:28. This is still retained; and this the apostle evidently refers to in the passage before us, and this he says should be recognised and regarded. If he wore a veil or turban, it would be a mark of servitude or inferiority. It was therefore improper that he should appear in this manner; but he should be so clad as not to obscure or hide the great truth that he was the direct representative of God on the earth, and had a superiority to all other creatures.

And glory of God. The word glory in the classic writers means,

(1.) opinion, sentiment, etc.;

(2.) fame, reputation. Here it means, as it often does, splendour, brightness, or that which stands forth to represent God, or by which the glory of God is known. Man was created first; he had dominion given him; by him, therefore, the Divine authority and wisdom first shone forth; and this fact should be recognised in the due subordination of rank, and even in the apparel and attire which shall be worn. The impression of his rank and superiority should be everywhere retained.

But the woman is the glory of the man. The honour, the ornament, etc. She was made for him; she was made after he was; she was taken from him, and was "bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh." All her comeliness, loveliness, and purity, are therefore an expression of his honour and dignity, since all that comeliness and loveliness were made of him and for him. This, therefore, ought to be acknowledged by a suitable manner of attire; and in his presence this sense of her inferiority of rank and subordination should be acknowledged by the customary use of the veil. She should appear with the symbol of modesty and subjection, which are implied by the head being covered. This sense is distinctly expressed in the following verse.

(c) "image" Gen 5:1

For the man is not of the woman. The man was not formed from the woman.

But the woman of the man. From his side, Gen 2:18,22,23.

(d) "For the man" Gen 2:18.22,23

Neither was the man created for the woman, etc. This is a simple statement of what is expressed in Genesis. The woman was made for the comfort and happiness of the man. Not to be a slave, but a help-meet; not to be the minister of his pleasures, but to be his aid and comforter in life; not to be regarded as of inferior nature and rank, but to be his friend, to divide his sorrows, and to multiply and extend his joys; yet still to be in a station subordinate to him. He is to be the head; the ruler; the presider in the family circle; and she was created to aid him in his duties, to comfort him in his afflictions, to partake with him of his pleasures. Her rank is therefore honourable, though it is subordinate. It is, in some respects, the more honourable because it is subordinate; and as her happiness is dependent on him, she has the higher claim to his protection and his tender care. The whole of Paul's idea here is, that her situation and rank as subordinate should be recognised by her at all times, and that in his presence it was proper that she should wear the usual symbol of modesty and subordination, the veil.

For this cause, etc. There is scarcely any passage in the Scriptures which has more exercised the ingenuity of commentators than this verse. The various attempts which have been made to explain it may be seen in Pool, Rosenmuller, Bloomfield, etc. After all the explanations which have been given of it, I confess I do not understand it. It is not difficult to see what the connexion requires us to suppose in the explanation. The obvious interpretation would be, that a woman should have a veil on her head because of the angels who were supposed to be present, observing them in their public worship; and it is generally agreed that the word power (εξουσιαν) denotes a veil, or a covering for the head. But the word power does not occur in this sense in any classic writer. Bretschneider understands it of a veil, as being a defence or guard to the face, lest it should be seen by others. Some have supposed that it was the name of a female ornament that was worn on the head, formed of braids of hair set with jewels. Most commentators agree that it means a veil, though some think (see Bloomfield) that it is called power to denote the veil which was worn by married women, which indicated the superiority of the married woman to the maiden. But it is sufficient to say in reply to this, that the apostle is not referring to married women in contradistinction from those who are unmarried, but is showing that all women who prophesy or pray in public should be veiled. There can, perhaps, be no doubt that the word "power" has reference to a veil, or to a covering for the head; but why it is called power I confess I do not understand; and most of the comments on the word are, in my view, egregious trifling.

Because of the angels. Some have explained this of good angels who were supposed to be present in their assemblies, (see Doddridge;) others refer it to evil angels; and others to messengers or spies who, it has been supposed, were present in their public assemblies, and who would report greatly to the disadvantage of the Christian assemblies if the women were seen to be unveiled. I do not know what it means; and I regard it as one of the very few passages in the Bible whose meaning as yet is wholly inexplicable. The most natural interpretation seems to me to be this: "A woman in the public assemblies, and in speaking in the presence of men, should wear a veil--the usual symbol of modesty and subordination --because the angels of God are witnesses of your public worship, (Heb 1:14,) and because they know and appreciate the propriety of subordination and order in public assemblies." According to this, it would mean that the simple reason would be that the angels were witnesses of their worship; and that they were the friends of propriety, due subordination, and order; and that they ought to observe these in all assemblies convened for the worship of God. I do not know that this sense has been proposed by any commentator; but it is one which strikes me as the most obvious and natural, and consistent with the context. The following remarks respecting the ladies of Persia may throw some light on this subject:-- "The head-dress of the women is simple: their hair is drawn behind the head, and divided into several tresses: the beauty of this head-dress consists in the thickness and length of these tresses, which should fall even down to the heels--in default of which, they lengthen them with tresses of silk. The ends of these tresses they decorate with pearls and jewels, or ornaments of gold or silver. The head is covered, under the veil or kerchief, (couvre chef), only by the end of a small bandeau, shaped into a triangle: this bandeau, which is of various colours, is thin and light. The bandalette is embroidered by the needle, or covered with jewelry, according to the quality of the wearer. This is, in my opinion, the ancient tiara, or diadem, of the queens of Persia: only married women wear it; and it is the mark by which it is known that they are under subjection, (c'est ld la marque a laquelle on reeonnoit qu'elles sont Sous PUISSANCE---power.) The girls have little caps, instead of this kerchief or tiara; they wear no veil at home, but let two tresses of their hair fall under their cheeks. The caps of girls of superior rank are tied with a row of pearls. Girls are not shut up in Persia till they attain the age of six or seven years; before that age they go out of the seraglio, sometimes with their father, so that they may then be seen. I have seen some wonderfully pretty. They show the neck and bosom; and more beautiful cannot be seen.'--Chardin. "The wearing of a veil by a married woman was a token of her being under power. The Hebrew name of the veil signifies dependence. Great importance was attached to this part of the dress in the East. All the women of Persia are pleasantly apparelled. When they are abroad in the streets, all, both rich and poor, are covered with a great veil, or sheet of very fine white cloth, of which one half, like a forehead cloth, comes down to the eyes, and, going over the head, reaches down to the heels; and the other half muffles up the face below the eyes, and being fastened with a pin to the left side of the head, falls down to their very shoes, even covering their hands, with which they hold that cloth by the two sides; so that, except the eyes, they are covered all over with it. Within doors they have their faces and breasts uncovered; but the Armenian women in their houses have always one half of their faces covered with a cloth, that goes athwart their noses, and hangs over their chin and breasts, except the maids of that nation, who, within doors, cover only the chin until they are married."--Thevenot.

(1) "power" "a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her" "husband"; Gen 24:55

(*) "on" "A veil on"

Nevertheless. Lest the man should assume to himself too much superiority, and lest he should regard the woman as made solely for his pleasure, and should treat her as in all respects inferior, and withhold the respect that is due to her. The design of this verse and the following is to show that the man and woman are united in the most tender interests; that the one cannot live comfortably without the other; that one is necessary to the happiness of the other; and that though the woman was formed from the man, yet it is also to be remembered that the man is descended from the woman. She should therefore be treated with proper respect, tenderness, and regard.

Neither is the man without the woman, etc. The man and the woman were formed for union and society. They are not in any respect independent of each other. One is necessary to the comfort of the other; and this fact should be recognised in all their intercourse.

In the Lord. By the arrangements or direction of the Lord. It is the appointment and command of the Lord that they should be mutual helps, and should each regard and promote the welfare of the other.

As the woman is of the man. In the original creation, she was formed from the man.

So is the man also by the woman. Is born of the woman, or descended from her. The sexes are dependent on each other, and should therefore cultivate an indissoluble union.

But all things of God. All things were created and arranged by him. This expression seems designed to suppress any spirit of complaint or dissatisfaction with this arrangement; to make the woman contented in her subordinate station, and to make the man humble by the consideration that it is all owing to the appointment of God. The woman should therefore be contented, and the man should not assume any improper superiority, since the whole arrangement and appointment is of God.

(a) "all things" Rom 11:36

Judge in yourselves. Or, "Judge among yourselves." I appeal to you. I appeal to your natural sense of what is proper and right. Paul had used various arguments to show them the impropriety of their females speaking unveiled in public. He now appeals to their natural sense of what was decent and right, according to established and acknowledged customs and habits.

Is it comely? etc. Is it decent, or becoming? The Grecian women, except their priestesses, were accustomed to appear in public with a veil.--Doddridge. Paul alludes to that established and proper habit, and asks whether it does not accord with their own views of propriety that women in Christian assemblies should also wear the same symbol of modesty.

Doth not even nature itself. The word nature (φυσις) denotes evidently that sense of propriety which all men have, and which is expressed in any prevailing or universal custom. That which is universal we say is according to nature. It is such as is demanded by the natural sense of fitness among men. Thus we may say that nature demands that the sexes should wear different kinds of dress; that nature demands that the female should be modest and retiring; that nature demands that the toils of the chase, of the field, of war --the duties of office, of government, and of professional life, should be discharged by men. Such are in general the customs the world over; and if any reason is asked for numerous habits that exist in society, no better answer can be given than that nature, as arranged by God, has demanded it. The word in this place, therefore, does not mean the constitution of the sexes, as Locke, Whitby, and Pierce maintain: nor reason and experience, as Macknight supposes; nor simple use and custom, as Grotius, Rosenmuller, and most recent expositors suppose; but it refers to a deep internal sense of what is proper and right--a sense which is expressed extensively in all nations, showing what that sense is. No reason can be given, in the nature of things, why the woman should wear long hair and the man not; but the custom prevails extensively everywhere, and nature, in all nations, has prompted to the same course. "Use is second nature;" but the usage in this case is not arbitrary, but is founded ill an anterior universal sense of what is proper and right. A few, and only a few, have regarded it as comely for a man to wear his hair long. Aristotle tells us, indeed, (Rhet. i.--see Rosenmuller,) that among the Lacedemonians, freemen wore their hair long. In the time of Homer, also, the Greeks were called by him καρηκομοωντεςαχαιοι, long-haired Greeks; and some of the Asiatic nations adopted the same custom. But the general habit among men has been different. Among the Hebrews, it was regarded as disgraceful to a man to wear his hair long, except he had a vow as a Nazarite, Nu 6:1-6, Jud 13:6; Jud 16:17, 1Sam 1:11. Occasionally, for affectation or singularity, the hair was suffered to grow, as was the case with Absalom, (2Sam 14:26;) but the traditional law of the Jews on the subject was strict. The same rule existed among the Greeks; and it was regarded as disgraceful to wear long hair in the time of AElian, (Hist. lib. ix. c. 14; Eustath. on Hom. ii. v.)

It is a shame unto him. It is improper and disgraceful. It is doing that which almost universal custom has said appropriately belongs to the female sex.

It is a glory to her. It is an ornament and adorning. The same instinctive promptings of nature which make it proper for a man to wear short hair, make it proper that the woman should suffer hers to grow long.

For a covering. Margin, Veil. It is given to her as a sort of natural veil, and to indicate the propriety of her wearing a veil. It answered the purposes of a veil when it was suffered to grow long, and to spread over the shoulders and over parts of the face, before the arts of dress were invented or needed. There may also be an allusion here to the fact that the hair of women naturally grows longer than that of men. See Rosenmuller. The value which eastern females put on their long hair may be learned from the fact that when Ptolemy Euergetes, king of Egypt, was about to march against Seleucus Callinicus, his queen Berenice vowed, as the most precious sacrifice which she could make, to cut off and consecrate her hair if he returned in safety. "The eastern ladies," says Harmer, "are remarkable for the length and the great number of the tresses of their hair. The men there, on the contrary, wear very little hair on their heads." Lady M. W. Montague thus speaks concerning the hair of the women: "Their hair hangs at full length behind, divided into tresses, braided with pearl or riband, which is always in great quantity. I never saw in my life so many fine heads of hair. In one lady's I have counted one hundred and ten of these tresses, all natural; but it must be owned that every kind of beauty is more common here than with us." The men there, on the contrary, shave all the hair off their heads, excepting one lock; and those that wear hair are thought effeminate. Both these particulars are mentioned by Chardin, who says they are agreeable to the custom of the East: "The men are shaved; the women nourish their hair with great fondness, which they lengthen by tresses and tufts of silk, down to the heels. The young men who wear their hair in the East are looked upon as effeminate and infamous."

(1) "covering" "veil"

But if any man seem to be contentious. The sense of this passage is probably this: "If any man, any teacher, or others, is disposed to be strenuous about this, or to make it a matter of difficulty; if he is disposed to call in question my reasoning, and to dispute my premises and the considerations which I have advanced, and to maintain still that it is proper for women to appear unveiled in public, I would add, that in Judea we have no such custom, neither does it prevail among any of the churches. This, therefore, would be a sufficient reasons why it should not be done in Corinth, even if the abstract reasoning should not convince them of the impropriety. It would be singular; would be contrary to the usual custom; would offend the prejudices of many; and should, therefore, be avoided."

We have no such custom. We the apostles in the churches which we have elsewhere founded; or we have no such custom in Judea. The sense is, that it is contrary to custom there for women to appear in public unveiled. This custom, the apostle argues, ought to be allowed to have some influence on the church of Corinth, even though they should not be convinced by his reasoning.

Neither the churches of God. The churches elsewhere. It is customary there for the woman to appear veiled. If at Corinth this custom is not observed, it will be a departure from what has elsewhere been regarded as proper; and will offend these churches. Even, therefore, if the reasoning is not sufficient to silence all cavils and doubts, yet the propriety of uniformity in the habits of the churches, the fear of giving offence, should lead you to discountenance and disapprove the custom of your females appearing in public without their veil.

(a) "But if any man" 1Timm 6:4

Now in this that I declare. In this that I am about to state to you; to wit, your conduct in regard to the Lord's Supper. Why this subject is introduced here is not very apparent. The connexion may be this. In the subjects immediately preceding he had seen much to commend, and he was desirous of commending them as far as it could be done. In 1Cor 11:2 of this chapter he commends them in general for their regard to the ordinances which he had appointed when he was with them. But while he thus commended them, he takes occasion to observe that there was one subject on which he could not employ the language of approval or praise. Of their irregularities in regard to the Lord's Supper he had probably heard by rumour, and as the subject was of great importance, and their irregularities gross and deplorable, he takes occasion to state to them again more fully the nature of that ordinance, and to reprove them for the manner in which they had celebrated it.

That ye come together. You assemble for public worship.

Not for the better, but for the worse. Your meetings, and your observance of the ordinances of the gospel, do not promote your edification, your piety, spirituality, and harmony; but tend to division, alienation, and disorder. You should assemble to worship God, and promote harmony, love, and piety; the actual effect of your assembling is just the reverse. In what way this was done he states in the following verses. These evil consequences were chiefly two: first, divisions and contentions; and, secondly, the abuse and profanation of the Lord's Supper.

For first of all. That is, I mention as the first thing to be reproved.

When ye come together in the church. When you come together in a religious assembly; when you convene for public worship. The word church here does not mean, as it frequently does with us, a building. No instance of such a use of the word occurs in the New Testament; but it means, when they came together as a Christian assembly; when they convened for the worship of God. These divisions took place then; and from some cause which it seems then operated to produce alienations and strifes.

I hear. I have learned through some members of the family of Chloe, 1Cor 1:11.

That there be divisions among you. Greek, as in the margin, Schisms. The word properly means a rent, such as is made in cloth, (Mt 9:16, Mk 2:21;) and then a division, a split, a faction among men, Jn 7:43, 9:16, 10:19. It does not mean here that they had proceeded so far as to form separate churches, but that there was discord and division in the church itself. 1Cor 1:10, 1Cor 1:11.

And I partly believe it. I credit a part of the reports; I have reason to think, that, though the evil may have been exaggerated, yet that it is true at least in part. I believe that there are dissensions in the church that should be reproved.

(b) "hear" 1Cor 1:11,12 (2) "divisions" "schisms"

For there must be. It is necessary, (δει;) it is to be expected; there are reasons why there should be. What these reasons are he states in the close of the verse. Comp. Mt 18:7, 2Pet 2:1,2. The meaning is not that divisions are inseparable from the nature of the Christian religion, not that it is the design and wish of the Author of Christianity that they should exist, and not that they are physically impossible, for then they could not be the subject of blame; but that such is human nature, such are the corrupt passions of men, the propensity to ambition and strifes, that they are to be expected, and they serve the purpose of showing who are, and who are not, the true friends of God.

Heresies. Margin, Sects. Greek, αιρεσεις. Acts 24:14. The words heresy and heresies occur only in these places, and in Gal 5:20, 2Pet 2:1. The Greek word occurs also in Acts 5:17, (translated sect;) Acts 15:6; Acts 24:5, 26:6, 28:22; in all which places it denotes, and is translated, sect. We now attach to the word usually the idea of a fundamental error in religion, or some doctrine, the holding of which will exclude from salvation. But there is no evidence that the word is used in this signification in the New Testament. The only place where it can be supposed to be so used, unless this is one, is in Gal 5:20; where, however, the word contentions or divisions would be quite as much in accordance with the connexion. That the word here does not denote error in doctrine, but schism, division, or sects, as it is translated in the margin, is evident from two considerations.

(1.) It is the proper philological meaning of the word, and its established and common signification in the Bible.

(2.) It is the sense which the connexion here demands. The apostle had made no reference to error of doctrine, but is discoursing solely of irregularity in conduct; and the first thing which he mentions is, that there were schisms, divisions, strifes. The idea that the word here refers to doctrines, would by no means suit the connexion, and would indeed make nonsense. It would then read, "I hear that there are divisions or parties among you, and this I cannot commend you for. For it must be expected that there would be fundamental errors of doctrine in the church." But Paul did not reason in this manner. The sense is, "There are divisions among you. It is to be expected; there are causes for it; and it cannot be avoided that there should be, in the present state of human nature, divisions and sects formed in the church; and this is to be expected, in order that those who are true Christians should be separated from those who are not." The foundation of this necessity is not in the Christian religion itself, for that is pure, and contemplates and requires union; but the existence of sects, and denominations, and contentions, may be traced to the following causes:

(1.) The love of power and popularity. Religion may be made the means of power; and they who have the control of the consciences of men, and of their religious feelings and opinions, can control them altogether.

(2.) Showing more respect to a religious teacher than to Christ. 1Cor 1:12.

(3.) The multiplication of tests, and the enlargement of creeds and confessions of faith. The consequence is, that every new doctrine that is incorporated into a creed gives occasion for those to separate who cannot accord with it.

(4.) The passions of men--their pride, and ambition, and bigotry, and unenlightened zeal. Christ evidently meant that his church should be one; and that all who were his true followers should be admitted to her communion, and acknowledged everywhere as his own friends. And the time may yet come when this union shall be restored to his long-distracted church; and that while there may be an honest difference of opinion maintained and allowed, still the bonds of Christian love shall secure union of heart in all who love the Lord Jesus, and union of effort in the grand enterprise in which ALL can unite--that of making war upon sin, and securing the conversion of the whole world to God.

That they which are approved. That they who are approved of God, or who are his true friends, and who are disposed to abide by his laws.

May be made manifest. May be known; recognised; seen. The effect of divisions and separations would be to show who were the friends of order, and peace, and truth. It seems to have been assumed by Paul, that they who made divisions could not be regarded as the friends of order and truth; or that their course could not be approved by God. The effect of these divisions would be to show who they were. So in all divisions, and all splitting into factions, where the great truths of Christianity are held, and where the corruption of the mass does not require separation, such divisions show who are the restless, ambitious, and dissatisfied spirits; who they are that are indisposed to follow the things that make for peace, and the laws of Christ enjoining union; and who they are who are gentle and peaceful, and disposed to pursue the way of truth, and love, and order, without contentions and strifes. This is the effect of schisms in the church; and the whole strain of the argument of Paul is, to reprove and condemn such schisms, and to hold up the authors of them to reproof and condemnation. See Rom 16:17: "Mark them which cause divisions, and AVOID THEM.

(a) "must be" Mt 18:7, 2Pet 2:1,2 (1) "heresies" "sects" (b) "that they" Lk 2:35

When ye come together therefore, etc. When you are assembled as a church. Comp. Heb 10:25, and Acts 2:1. Christians were constantly in the habit of assembling for public worship. It is probable that at this early period all the Christians in Corinth were accustomed to meet in the same place. The apostle here particularly refers to their assembling to observe the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. At that early period it is probable that this was done on every Lord's day.

This is not, etc. Margin, "Ye cannot eat." The meaning of this expression seems to be this: "Though you come together professedly to worship God, and to partake of the Lord's Supper, yet this cannot be the real design which you have in view. It cannot be that such practices as are allowed among you can be a part of the celebration of that supper, or consistent with it. Your greediness, (1Cor 11:21;) your intemperance, (1Cor 11:21;) your partaking of the food separately, and not in common, cannot be a celebration of the Lord's Supper. Whatever, therefore, you may profess to be engaged in, yet really and truly you are not celebrating the Lord's Supper."

The Lord's supper. That which the Lord Jesus instituted to commemorate his death. It is called "the Lord's," because it is his appointment, and is in honour of him; it is called "supper," (δειπνον,) because the word denotes the evening repast. It was instituted in the evening; and it is evidently most proper that it should be observed in the after part of the day. With most churches the time is improperly changed to the morning--a custom which has no sanction in the New Testament; and which is a departure from the very idea of a supper.

(2) "one place" "ye cannot eat"

For in eating. When you eat, having professedly come together to observe this ordinance. In order to understand this, it seems necessary to suppose that they had in some way made the Lord's Supper either connected with a common feast, or that they regarded it as a mere common festival to be observed in a way similar to the festivals among the Greeks. Many have supposed that this was done by making the observance of the Supper follow a festival, or, what were afterwards called, love-feasts, (αγαπαι --Agapae). Many have supposed that that custom was derived from the fact that the Saviour instituted the Supper after a festival, a feast in which he had been engaged with his disciples, and that thence the early Christians derived the custom of observing such a festival, or common meal, before they celebrated the Lord's Supper. But it may be observed, that the passover was not a mere preliminary festival, or feast. It had no resemblance to the so-called love-feasts, It was itself a religious ordinance; a direct appointment of God; and was never regarded as designed to be preliminary to the observance of the Lords Supper, but was always understood as designed to be superseded by that. Besides, I know not that there is the slightest evidence, as has been often supposed, that the observance of the Lord's Supper was preceded, in the times of the apostles, by such a festival as a love-feast. There is no evidence in the passage before us; nor is any adduced from any other part of the New Testament. To my mind it seems altogether improbable that the disorders in Corinth would assume this form--that they would first observe a common feast, and then the Lord's Supper in the regular manner. The statement before us leads to the belief that all was irregular and improper; that they had entirely mistaken the nature of the ordinance, and had converted it into an occasion of ordinary festivity, and even intemperance; that they had come to regard it as a feast in honour of the Saviour on some such principles as they observed feasts in honour of idols, and that they observed it in some such manner; and that all that was supposed to make it unlike those festivals was, that it was in honour of Jesus rather than an idol, and was to be observed with some reference to his authority and name.

Every one taketh before other his own supper. That is, each one is regardless of the wants of the others; instead of making even a meal in common, and when all could partake together, each one ate by himself, and ate that which he had himself brought. They had not only erred, therefore, by misunderstanding altogether the nature of the Lord's Supper, and by supposing that it was a common festival like those which they had been accustomed to celebrate; but they had also entirely departed from the idea that it was a festival to be partaken of in common, and at a common table. It had become a scene where every man ate by himself; and where the very idea that there was anything like a common celebration, or a celebration together, was abandoned. There is allusion here, doubtless, to what was a custom among the Greeks, that when a festival was celebrated, or a feast made, it was common for each person to provide, and carry a part of the things necessary for the entertainment. These were usually placed in common, and were partaken of alike by all the company. Thus Xenophon (Mem lib. iii. cap. xiv.) says of Socrates, that he was much offended with the Athenians for their conduct at their common suppers, where some prepared for themselves in a delicate and sumptuous manner, while others were poorly provided for. Socrates endeavoured, he adds, to shame them out of this indecent custom by offering his provisions to all the company.

And one is hungry. Is deprived of food. It is all monopolized by others.

And another is drunken. The word here used (μεθυει) means, properly, to become inebriated, or intoxicated; and there is no reason for understanding it here in any other sense. There can be no doubt that the apostle meant to say, that they ate and drank to excess; and that their professed celebration of the Lord's Supper became a mere revel. It may seem remarkable that such scenes should ever have occurred in a Christian church, or that there could have been such an entire perversion of the nature and design of the Lord's Supper. But we are to remember the following things:

(1.) These persons had recently been heathens, and were grossly ignorant of the nature of true religion when the gospel was first preached among them.

(2.) They had been accustomed to such revels in honour of idols under their former modes of worship, and it is the less surprising that they transferred their views to Christianity.

(3.) When they had once so far misunderstood the nature of Christianity as to suppose the Lord's Supper to be like the feasts which they had formerly celebrated, all the rest followed as a matter of course. The festival would be observed in the same manner as the festivals in honour of idolaters; and similar scenes of gluttony and intemperance would naturally follow.

(4.) We are to bear in mind, also, that they do not seem to have been favoured with pious, wise, and prudent teachers. There were false teachers; and there were those who prided themselves on their wisdom, and who were self-confident, and who doubtless endeavoured to model the Christian institutions according to their own views; and they thus brought them, as far as they could, to a conformity with pagan customs and idolatrous rites. We may remark here:

(1.) We are not to expect perfection at once among a people recently converted from paganism,

(2.) We see how prone men are to abuse even the most holy rites of religion, and hence how corrupt is human nature.

(3.) We see that even Christians, recently converted, need constant guidance and superintendence; and that if left to themselves, they soon, like others, fall into gross and scandalous offences.

(c) "another is drunken" 2Pet 2:13, Jude 1:12

What? This whole verse is designed to convey the language of severe rebuke for their having so grossly perverted the design of the Lord's Supper.

Have ye not houses, etc. Do you not know that the church of God is not designed to be a place of feasting and revelry, nor even a place where to partake of your ordinary meals? Can it be that you will come to the places of public worship, and make them the scenes of feasting and riot? Even on the supposition that there had been no disorder, no revelry, no intemperance, yet on every account it was grossly irregular and disorderly to make the place of public worship a place for a festival entertainment.

Or despise ye the church of God. The phrase, "church of God," Grotius understands of the place. But the word church (εκκλησια) is believed not to be used in that sense in the New Testament; and it is not necessary to suppose it here. The sense is, that their conduct was such as if they had held in contempt the whole church of God, in all places, with all their views of the sacredness and purity of the Lord s Supper.

And shame them that have not? Margin, Are poor. Something must here be understood, in order to make out the sense. Probably it meant something like possessions, property, conveniences, accommodations. The connexion would make it most natural to understand "houses to eat and drink in;" and the sense then would be, "Do you thus expose to public shame those who have no accommodations at home--who are destitute and poor? You thus reflect publicly upon their poverty and want, while you bring your own provisions, and fare sumptuously, and while those who are thus unable to provide for themselves are thus seen to be poor and needy." It is hard enough, the idea is, to be poor, and to be destitute of a home. But it greatly aggravates the matter to be publicly treated in that manner; to be exposed publicly to the contempt which such a situation implies. Their treatment of the poor in this manner would be a public exposing them to shame; and the apostle regarded this as particularly dishonourable, and especially in a Christian church, where all were professedly on an equality.

What shall I say to you? etc. How shall I sufficiently express my surprise at this, and my disapprobation at this course? It cannot be possible that this is right. It is not possible to conceal surprise and amazement that this custom exists, and is tolerated in a Christian church.

(1) "that have not" "are poor"

For, etc. In order most effectually to check the evils which existed, and to bring them to a proper mode of observing the Lord's Supper, the apostle proceeds to state distinctly and particularly its design. They had mistaken its nature. They supposed it might be a common festival. They had made it the occasion of great disorder. He therefore adverts to the solemn circumstances in which it was instituted; the particular object which it had in view--the commemoration of the death of the Redeemer; and the purpose which it was designed to subserve--which was not that of a festival, but to keep before the church and the world a constant remembrance of the Lord Jesus, until he should again return, 1Cor 11:26. By this means the apostle evidently hoped to recall them from their irregularities, and to bring them to a just mode of celebrating this holy ordinance. He did not, therefore, denounce them even for their irregularity and gross disorder; he did not use harsh, violent, vituperative language; but he expected to reform the evil by a mild and tender statement of the truth, and by an appeal to their consciences as the followers of the Lord Jesus.

I have received of the Lord. This cannot refer to tradition, or mean that it had been communicated to him through the medium of the other apostles; but the whole spirit and scope of the passage seems to mean, that he had derived the knowledge of the institution of the Lord's Supper directly from the Lord himself. This might have been when on the road to Damascus, though that does not seem probable, or it may have been among the numerous revelations which at various times had been made to him. Comp. 2Cor 12:7. The reason why he here says that he had received it directly from the Lord is, doubtless, that he might show them that it was of Divine authority. "The institution to which I refer is what I myself received an account of from personal and direct communication with the Lord Jesus himself, who appointed it. It is not, therefore, of human authority. It is not of my devising, but is of Divine warrant, and is holy in its nature, and is to be observed in the exact manner prescribed by the Lord himself."

That which also I delivered, etc. Paul founded the church at Corinth; and of course he first instituted the observance of the Lord's Supper there.

The same night in which he was betrayed. By Judas. See Mt 26:23-25, 48-50. Paul seems to have mentioned the fact that it was on the very night on which he was betrayed, in order to throw around it the idea of greater solemnity. He wished evidently to bring before their minds the deeply affecting circumstances of his death; and thus to show them the utter impropriety of their celebrating the ordinance with riot and disorder. The idea is, that in order to celebrate it in a proper manner, it was needful to throw themselves as much as possible into the very circumstances in which it was instituted; and one of these circumstances most fitted to affect the mind deeply, was the fact that he was betrayed by a professed friend and follower. It is also a circumstance the memory of which is eminently fitted to prepare the mind for a proper celebration of the ordinance now,

Took bread. Evidently the bread which was used at the celebration of the paschal supper. He took the bread which happened to be before him--such as was commonly used. It was not a wafer, such as the papists now use; but was the ordinary bread which was eaten on such occasions. Mt 26:26.

(a) "I have received" 1Cor 15:3 (b) "the Lord Jesus" Mt 26:26 (*) "bread" "loaf"

And when he had given thanks. Mt 26:26. Matthew reads it, "and blessed it." The words here used are, however, substantially the same as there; and this fact shows that, since this was communicated to Paul directly by the Saviour, and in a manner distinct from that by which Matthew learned the mode of the institution, the Saviour designed that the exact form of the words should be used in its observance, and should thus be constantly borne in mind by his people.

Take, eat, etc. Mt 26:26.

(2) "do in" "for a"

After the same manner. In like manner; likewise. With the same circumstances, and ceremonies, and designs. The purpose was the same.

When he had supped. That is, all this occurred after the observance of the usual paschal supper. It could not, therefore, be a part of it, nor could it have been designed to be a festival or feast merely. The apostle introduces this evidently in order to show them that it could not be, as they seemed to have supposed, an occasion of feasting. It was after the supper, and was therefore to be observed in a distinct manner.

Saying, This cup, etc. Mt 26:27,28.

Is the new testament. The new covenant which God is about to establish with men. The word "testament" with us properly denotes a will--an instrument by which a man disposes of his property after his death. This is also the proper classic meaning of the Greek word here used, διαθηκη, (diatheke.) But this is evidently not the sense in which the word is designed to be used in the New Testament. The idea of a will or testament, strictly so called, is not that which the sacred writers intend to convey by the word. The idea is evidently that of a compact, agreement, COVENANT, to which there is so frequent reference in the Old Testament, and which is expressed by the word --Berith--a compact, a covenant. Of that word the proper translation in Greek would have been συνθηκη, a covenant, agreement. But it is remarkable that that word never is used by the Seventy to denote the covenant made between God and man. That translation uniformly employs for this purpose the word διαθηκη--a will, or a testament--as a translation of the Hebrew word, where there is a reference to the covenant which God is represented as making with men. The word συνθηκη is used by them but three times, Isa 28:15, 30:1, Dan 11:6, and in neither instance with any reference to the covenant which God is represented as making with man. The word διαθηκη, as the translation of --Berith--occurs more than two hundred times. (See Trommius' Concord.) Now this must have evidently been of design. What the reason was which induced them to adopt this can only be conjectured. It may have been that, as the translation was to be seen by the Gentiles as well as by the Jews, (if it were not expressly made, as has been affirmed by Josephus and others, for the use of Ptolemy,) they were unwilling to represent the eternal and infinite JEHOVAH as entering into a compact, an agreement, with his creature man. They therefore adopted a word which would represent him as expressing his will to them in a book of revelation. The version by the Seventy was evidently in use by the apostles, and by the Jews everywhere. The writers of the New Testament, therefore, adopted the word as they found it; and spoke of the new dispensation as a new testament which God made with man. The meaning is, that this was the new compact or covenant which God was to make with man in contradistinction from that made through Moses.

In my blood. Through my blood; that is, this new compact is to be sealed with my blood, in allusion to the ancient custom of sealing an agreement by a sacrifice. Mt 26:28.

This do ye. Partake of this bread and wine; that is, celebrate this ordinance.

As oft as ye drink it. Not prescribing any time; and not even specifying the frequency with which it was to be done; but leaving it to themselves to determine how often they would partake of it. The time of the passover had been fixed by positive statute; the more mild and gentle system of Christianity left it to the followers of the Redeemer themselves to determine how often they would celebrate his death. It was commanded them to do it; it was presumed that their love to him would be so strong as to secure a frequent observance; it was permitted to them, as in prayer, to celebrate it on any occasion of affliction, trial, or deep interest, when they would feel their need of it, and when they would suppose that its observance would be for the edification of the church.

In remembrance of me. This expresses the whole design of the ordinance. It is a simple memorial, or remembrancer, designed to recall, in a striking and impressive manner, the memory of the Redeemer. It does this by a tender appeal to the senses--by the exhibition of the broken bread, and by the wine. The Saviour knew how prone men would be to forget him; and he therefore appointed this ordinance as a means by which his memory should be kept up in the world. The ordinance is rightly observed when it recalls the memory of the Saviour; and when its observance is the means of producing a deep, and lively, and vivid impression on the mind, of his death for sin. This expression, at the institution of the Supper, is used by Luke, (Lk 22:19;) though it does not occur in Matthew, Mark, or John.

For as often. Whenever you do this.

Ye eat this bread. This is a direct and positive refutation of the doctrine of the papists, that the bread is changed into the real body of the Lord Jesus. Here it is expressly called bread--bread still--bread after the consecration. Before the Saviour instituted the ordinance he took "bread"--it was bread then; it was "bread" which he "blessed" and "brake;" and it was bread when it was given to them; and it was bread when Paul here says they ate. How, then, can it be pretended that it is anything else but bread? And what an amazing and astonishing absurdity it is to believe that that bread is changed into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ!

Ye do shew the Lord's death. You set forth or exhibit, in an impressive manner, the fact that he was put to death; you exhibit the emblems of his broken body and shed blood, and your belief of the fact that he died. This shows that the ordinance was to be so far public as to be a proper showing forth of their belief in the death of the Saviour. It should be public. It is one mode of professing attachment to the Redeemer; and its public observance often has a most impressive effect on those who witness its observance.

Till he come. Till he return to judge the world. This demonstrates

(1.) that it was the steady belief of the primitive church that the Lord Jesus would return to judge the world; and

(2.) that it was designed that this ordinance should be perpetuated, and observed to the end of time. In every generation, therefore, and in every place where there are Christians, it is to be observed, until the Son of God shall return; and the necessity of its observance shall cease only when the whole body of the redeemed shall be permitted to see their Lord, and there shall be no need of those emblems to remind them of him, for all shall see him as he is.

(1) "ye do shew" "shew ye"

Wherefore. ωστε. So that; or it follows from what has been said. If this be the origin and intention of the Lord's Supper, then it follows that whoever partakes of it in an improper manner is guilty of his body and blood. The design of Paul is to correct their improper mode of observing this ordinance; and having showed them the true nature and design of the institution, he now states the consequences of partaking of it in an improper manner.

Shall eat this bread. 1Cor 11:26. Paul still calls it bread, and shows thus that he was a stranger to the doctrine that the bread was changed into the very body of the Lord Jesus. Had the papal doctrine of transubstantiation been true, Paul could not have called it bread. The Romanists do not believe that it is bread, nor would they call it such; and this shows how needful it is for them to keep the Scriptures from the people, and how impossible to express their dogmas in the language of the Bible. Let Christians adhere to the simple language of the Bible, and there is no danger of their falling into the errors of the papists.

Unworthily. Perhaps there is no expression in the Bible that has given more trouble to weak and feeble Christians than this. It is certain that there is no one that has operated to deter so many from the communion; or that is so often made use of as an excuse for not making a profession of religion. The excuse is, "I am unworthy to partake of this holy ordinance. I shall only expose myself to condemnation. I must therefore wait until I become more worthy, and better prepared to celebrate it." It is important, therefore, that there should be a correct understanding of this passage. Most persons interpret it as if it were unworthy, and not unworthily; and seem to suppose that it refers to their personal qualifications, to their unfitness to partake of it, rather than to the manner in which it is done. It is to be remembered, therefore, that the word here used is an adverb, and not an adjective, and has reference to the manner of observing the ordinance, and not to their personal qualifications or fitness. It is true that in ourselves we are all unworthy of an approach to the table of the Lord; unworthy to be regarded as his followers; unworthy of a title to everlasting life: but it does not follow that we may not partake of this ordinance in a worthy, i.e., a proper manner, with a deep sense of our sinfulness, our need of a Saviour, and with some just views of the Lord Jesus as our Redeemer. Whatever may be our consciousness of personal unworthiness and unfitness--and that consciousness cannot be too deep--yet we may have such love to Christ, and such a desire to be saved by him, and such a sense of his worthiness, as to make it proper for us to approach and partake of this ordinance. The term unworthily (αναξιως) means, properly, in an unworthy or improper MANNER; in a manner unsuitable to the purposes for which it was designed or instituted; and may include the following things, viz.:

(1.) Such an irregular and indecent observance as existed in the church of Corinth, where even gluttony and intemperance prevailed under the professed design of celebrating the Supper.

(2.) An observance of the ordinance where there should be no distinction between it and common meals, 1Cor 11:29; where they did not regard it as designed to show forth the death of the Lord Jesus. It is evident that where such views prevailed, there could be no proper qualification for this observance; and it is equally clear that such ignorance can hardly be supposed to prevail now in those lands which are illuminated by Christian truth.

(3.) When it is done for the sake of mockery, and when the purpose is to deride religion, and to show a marked contempt for the ordinances of the gospel. It is a remarkable fact that many infidels have been so full of malignity and bitterness against the Christian religion as to observe a mock celebration of the Lord's Supper. There is no profounder depth of depravity than this; there is nothing that can more conclusively or painfully show the hostility of man to the gospel of God. It is a remarkable fact, also, that not a few such persons have died a most miserable death. Under the horrors of an accusing conscience, and the anticipated destiny of final damnation, they have left the world as frightful monuments of the justice of God. It is also a fact that not a few infidels who have been engaged in such unholy celebrations have been converted to that very gospel which they were thus turning into ridicule and scorn. Their consciences have been alarmed; they have shuddered at the remembrance of the crime; they have been overwhelmed with the consciousness of guilt, and have found no peace until they have found it in that blood whose shedding they were thus profanely celebrating.

Shall be guilty. ενοχος. This word properly means, obnoxious to punishment for personal crime. It always includes the idea of ill-desert, and of exposure to punishment on account of crime or ill-desert, Mt 5:22, Ex 22:3, 34:7, Nu 14:18, 35:27, Lev 20:9. See also De 19:10, Mt 26:66.

Of the body and blood of the Lord. Commentators have not been agreed in regard to the meaning of this expression. Doddridge renders it, "Shall be counted guilty of profaning and affronting, in some measure, that which is intended to represent the body and blood of the Lord." Grotius renders it, "He does the same thing as if he should slay Christ." Bretschneider (Lex.) renders it, "Injuring by crime the body of the Lord." Locke renders it, "Shall be guilty of a misuse of the body and blood of the Lord ;" and supposes it means that they should be liable to the punishment due to one who made a wrong use of the sacramental body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Rosenmuller renders it, "He shall be punished for such a deed as if he had affected Christ himself with ignominy." Bloomfield renders it, "He shall be guilty respecting the body, i.e., guilty of profaning the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and consequently shall be amenable to the punishment due to such an abuse of the highest means of grace." But it seems to me that this does not convey the fulness of the meaning of the passage. The obvious and literal sense is, evidently, that they should by such conduct be involved in the sin of putting the Lord Jesus to death. The phrase "the body and blood of the Lord," in this connexion, obviously, I think, refers to his death--to the fact that his body was broken, and his blood shed, of which the bread and wine were symbols; and to be guilty of that, means to be guilty of putting him to death; that is, to be involved in the crime, or to do a thing which should involve the same criminality as that. To see this, we are to remember,

(1.) that the bread and wine were symbols or emblems of that event, and designed to set it forth.

(2.) To treat with irreverence and profaneness the bread which was an emblem of his broken body, was to treat with irreverence and profaneness the body itself; and in like manner the wine, the symbol of his blood.

(3.) Those, therefore, who treated the symbols of his body and blood with profaneness and contempt were united in spirit with those who put him to death. They evinced the same feelings towards the Lord Jesus that his murderers did. They treated him with scorn, profaneness, and derision; and showed that with the same spirit they would have joined in the act of murdering the Son of God. They would evince their hostility to the Saviour himself as far as they could do, by showing contempt for the memorials of his body and blood. The apostle does by no means, however, as I understand him, mean to say that any of the Corinthians had been thus guilty of his body and blood. He does not charge on them this murderous-intention. But he states what is the fair and obvious construction which is to be put on a wanton disrespect for the Lord's Supper. And the design is to guard them, and all others, against this sin. There can be no doubt that those who celebrate his death in mockery and derision are held guilty of his body and blood. They show that they have the spirit of his murderers; they evince it in the most awful way possible; and they who would thus join in a profane celebration of the Lord's Supper would have joined in the cry, "Crucify him, crucify him." For it is a most fearful and solemn act to trifle with sacred things; and especially to hold up to derision and scorn, the bitter sorrows by which the Son of God accomplished the redemption of the world.

(b) "unworthily" Jn 6:63,64, 1Cor 10:21

But let a man examine himself. Let him search and see if he have the proper qualifications--if he has knowledge to discern the Lord's body, (1Cor 11:29;) if he has true repentance for his sins, true faith in the Lord Jesus, and a sincere desire to live the life of a Christian, and to be like the Son of God, and be saved by the merits of his blood. Let him examine himself, and see whether he have the right feelings of a communicant, and can approach the table in a proper manner. In regard to this we may observe,

(1.) that this examination should include the great question about his personal piety, and about his particular and special fitness for this observance. It should go back into the great inquiry whether he has ever been born again; and it should also have special reference to his immediate and direct preparation for the ordinance. He should not only be able to say in general that he is a Christian, but he should be able to say that he has then a particular preparation for it. He should be in a suitable frame of mind for it. He should have personal evidence that he is a penitent; that he has true faith in the Lord Jesus; that he is depending on him, and is desirous of being saved by him.

(2.) This examination should be minute and particular. It should extend to the words, the thoughts, the feelings, the conduct. We should inquire whether in our family and in our business, whether among Christians and with the world, we have lived the life of a Christian. We should examine our private thoughts; our habits of secret prayer and of searching the Scriptures. Our examination should be directed to the inquiry whether we are gaining the victory over our easily besetting sins, and becoming more and more conformed to the Saviour. It should, in short, extend to all our Christian character; and everything which goes to make up or to mar that character should be the subject of faithful and honest examination.

(3.) It should be done, because

(a.) it is well to pause occasionally in life, and take an account of our standing in the sight of God. Men make advances in business and in property only when they often examine their accounts, and know just how they stand.

(b.) Because the observance of the Lord's Supper is a solemn act, and there will be fearful results if it is celebrated in an improper manner.

(c.) Because self-examination supposes seriousness and calmness, and prevents precipitation and rashness--states of mind entirely unfavourable to a proper observance of the Lord's Supper.

(d.) Because by self-examination one may search out and remove those things that are offensive to God, and the sins which so easily beset us may be known and abandoned.

(e.) Because the approach to the table of the Lord is a solemn approach to the Lord himself; is a solemn profession of attachment to him; is an act of consecration to his service in the presence of angels and of men; and this should be done in a calm, deliberate, and sincere manner--such a manner as may be the result of a prayerful and honest self-examination.

And so let him eat, etc. And as the result of such examination, or after such an examination; that is, let the act of eating that bread be always preceded by a solemn self-examination. Bloomfield renders it, "and then," "then only." The sense is plain, that the communion should always be preceded by an honest and prayerful self-examination.

(a) "examine himself" 2Cor 13:5, 1Jn 3:20,21

For he that eateth, etc. In order to excite them to a deeper reverence for this ordinance, and to a more solemn mode of observing it, Paul in this verse states another consequence of partaking of it in an improper and irreverent manner. Comp. 1Cor 11:27.

Eateth and drinketh damnation. This is evidently a figurative expression, meaning that by eating and drinking improperly he incurs condemnation-which is here expressed by eating and drinking condemnation itself. The word damnation we now apply, in common language, exclusively to the future and final punishment of the wicked in hell. But the word here used does not of necessity refer to that; and, according to our use' of the word now, there is a harshness and severity in our translation which the Greek does not require, and which probably was not conveyed by the word "damnation" when the translation was made. In the margin it is correctly rendered "judgment." The word here used (κριμα) properly denotes judgment; the result of judging, that is, a sentence; then a sentence by which one is condemned, or condemnation; and then punishment. See Rom 3:8, 13:2. It has evidently the sense of judgment here; and means that, by their improper manner of observing this ordinance, they would expose themselves to the Divine displeasure, and to punishment. And it refers, I think, to the punishment or judgment which the apostle immediately specifies, 1Cor 11:30,32. It means a manifestation of the Divine displeasure which might be evinced in this life; and which, in the case of the Corinthians, was manifested in the judgments which God had brought upon them. It cannot be denied, however, that a profane and intentionally irreverent manner of observing the Lord's Supper will meet with the Divine displeasure in the eternal world, and aggravate the doom of those who are guilty of it. But it is clear that this was not the punishment which the apostle had here in his eye. This is apparent,

(1.) because the Corinthians did eat unworthily, and yet the judgments inflicted on them were only temporal-that is, weakness, sickness, and temporal death, (1Cor 11:30;) and,

(2.) because the reason assigned for these judgments is, that they might not be condemned with the wicked; i.e., as the wicked are in hell, 1Cor 11:32.--Whitby. Comp. 1Pet 4:17.

Not discerning the Lord's body. Not discriminating μηδιακρινων between the bread which is used on this occasion, and common and ordinary food. Not making the proper difference and distinction between this and common meals. It is evident that this was the leading offence of the Corinthians, 1Cor 11:20,21 and this is the proper idea which the original conveys. It does not refer to any intellectual or physical power to perceive that that bread represented the body of the Lord; not to any spiritual perception which it is often supposed that piety has to distinguish this; not to any view which faith may be supposed to have to discern the body of the Lord through the elements; but to the fact that they did not distinguish or discriminate between this and common meals. They did not regard it in a proper manner, but supposed it to be simply an historical commemoration of an event, such as they were in the habit of observing in honour of an idol or a hero by a public celebration. They, therefore, are able to "discern the Lord s body" in the sense intended here, who with a serious mind regard it as an institution appointed by the Lord Jesus to commemorate his death; and who distinguish thus between this and ordinary meals, and all festivals and feasts designed to commemorate other events. In other words, who deem it to be designed to show forth the fact that his body was broken for sill, and who desire to observe it as such. It is evident that all true Christians may have ability of this kind, and need not incur condemnation by any error in regard to this. The humblest and obscurest follower of the Saviour, with the feeblest faith and love, may regard it as designed to set forth the death of his Redeemer; and observing it thus, will meet with the Divine approbation.

(1) "drinketh damnation" "judgment" Rom 13:2

For this cause. On account of the improper manner of celebrating the Lord's Supper. See 1Cor 11:21.

Many are weak. ασθενεις. Evidently referring to prevailing bodily sickness and disease. This is the natural and obvious interpretation of this passage. The sense clearly is, that God had sent among them bodily distempers as an expression of the Divine displeasure and judgment for their improper mode of celebrating the Lord's Supper. That it was not uncommon in those times for God in an extraordinary manner to visit men with calamity, sickness, or death, for their sins, is evident from the New Testament.

1Cor 5:5; Acts 5:1 and Acts 5:2-10. Acts 13:11; 1Timm 1:20, and, perhaps, 1Jn 5:16, and Jas 5:14,15. It may possibly have been the case, that the intemperance and gluttony which prevailed on these occasions was the direct cause of no small part of the bodily disease which prevailed, and which in some cases terminated in death.

And many sleep. Have died. The death of Christians, in the Scriptures, is commonly represented under the image of sleep, Dan 12:2, Jn 11:11,12, 1Cor 15:51, 1Thes 4:14, 5:10. Perhaps it may be implied by the use of this mild term here, instead of the harsher word death, that these were true Christians. This sentiment is in accordance with all that Paul states in regard to the church at Corinth. Notwithstanding all their irregularities, he does not deny that they were sincere Christians, and all his appeals and reasonings proceed on that supposition, though there was among them much ignorance and irregularity. God often visits his own people with trial; and though they are his children, yet this does not exempt them from affliction and discipline on account of their imperfections, errors, and sins. The practical lesson taught by this is, that Christians should serve God with purity; that they should avoid sin in every form; and that the commission of sin will expose them, as well as others, to the Divine displeasure. The reason why this judgment was inflicted on the Corinthians was, that there might be a suitable impression made of the holy nature of that ordinance, and that Christians might be led to observe it in a proper manner. If it be asked whether God ever visits his people now with his displeasure for their improper manner of observing this ordinance, we may reply,

(1.) that we have no reason to suppose that he inflicts bodily diseases and corporeal punishments on account of it. But,

(2.) there is no reason to doubt that the improper observance of the Lord's Supper, like the improper observance of any other religious duty, will be followed with the expression of God's displeasure, and with a spiritual blighting on the soul. This may be evinced in the following modes:

(a.) In hardening the heart by an improper familiarity with the most sacred and solemn ordinances of religion.

(b.) Increased coldness and deadness in the service of God. If the ordinances of the gospel are not the means of making us better, they are the means of making us worse.

(c.) The loss of the favour of God, or of those pure, and spiritual, and elevated joys which we might have obtained by a proper observance of the ordinance. There is no reason to doubt that God may make it the occasion of manifesting his displeasure. It may be followed by a want of spiritual comfort and peace; by a loss of communion with God; and by a withholding of those comforts from the soul which might have been enjoyed, and which are imparted to those who observe it in a proper manner. The general principle, is, that an improper discharge of any duty will expose us to his displeasure, and to the certain loss of all those favours which might have resulted from a proper discharge of the duty, and to the tokens of the Divine displeasure. And this is as true of prayer, or of any other religious duty, as of an improper observance of the Lord's Supper.

(*) "sleep" "are dead"

For if we would judge ourselves. If we would examine ourselves, (1Cor 11:28;) if we would exercise a strict scrutiny over our hearts, and feelings, and conduct, and come to the Lord's table with a proper spirit, we should escape the condemnation to which they are exposed who observe it in an improper manner. If we would exercise proper severity and honesty in determining our own character and fitness for the ordinance, we should not expose ourselves to the Divine displeasure.

We should not be judged. We should not be exposed to the expression of God's disapprobation. He refers here to the punishment which had come upon the Corinthians for their improper manner of observing the ordinance; and he says that if they had properly examined themselves, and had understood the nature of the ordinance, that they would have escaped the judgments that had come upon them. This is as true now as it was then. If we wish to escape the Divine displeasure; if we wish the communion to be followed with joy, and peace, and growth in grace, and not with blighting and spiritual barrenness, we should exercise a severe judgment on our character, and feelings, and motives; and should come to it with a sincere desire to honour Christ, and to advance in the Divine life.

(a) "we would judge" Ps 32:5, 1Jn 1:9

But when we are judged. This is added, evidently, to console those who had been afflicted on account of their improper manner of observing the Lord's Supper. The sense is, that though they were thus afflicted by God; though he had manifested his displeasure at the manner in which they had observed the ordinance, yet the Divine judgment in the case was not inexorable. They were not regarded by God as wholly strangers to piety, and would not be lost for ever. They should not be alarmed, therefore, as if there was no mercy for them; but they should rather regard their calamities as the chastening of the Lord on his own children, and as designed for their salvation.

We are chastened of the Lord. It is his act; and it is not vengeance and wrath; but it is to be regarded as the chastisement of a father's hand, in order that We should not be condemned with the wicked. We are under the discipline (παιδευομεθα) of the Lord; we are dealt with as children, and are corrected as by the hand of a father. Compare Heb 12:5-10, 2Cor 6:9. The design of God's correcting his children is, that they should be reclaimed, and not destroyed.

That we should not be condemned with the world. It is implied here,

(1.) that the world--those who were not Christians--would be condemned;

(2.) that Paul regarded the Corinthians, whom he addressed, and who had even been guilty of this improper manner of observing the Lord's Supper, and who had been punished for it, as true Christians; and,

(3.) that the purpose which God had in view in inflicting these judgments on them was, that they might be purified, and enlightened, and recovered from their errors, and saved. This is the design of God in the calamities and judgments which he brings on his own children. And so now, if he afflicts us, or leave us to darkness, or follows the communion with the tokens of his displeasure, it is that we may be recovered to a deeper sense of our need of him; to juster views of the ordinance; and to a more earnest wish to obtain his favour.

(b) "we are chastened" Ps 94:12,13, Heb 12:5-11

When ye come together to eat. Professedly to eat the Lord's Supper.

Tarry one for another. Do not be guilty of disorder, intemperance, and gluttony. 1Cor 11:21. Doddridge understands this of the feast that he supposes to have preceded the Lord's Supper. But the more obvious interpretation is, to refer it to the Lord's Supper itself; and to enjoin perfect order, respect, and sobriety. The idea is, that the table was common for the rich and the poor; and that the rich should claim no priority or precedence over the poor.

(*) "tarry" "wait"

And if any man hunger, etc. The Lord's Supper is not a common feast; it is not designed as a place where a man may gratify his appetite. It is designed as a simple commemoration, and not as a feast. This remark was designed to correct their views of the Supper, and to show them that it was to be distinguished from the ordinary idea of a feast or festival.

That ye come not together unto condemnation. That the effect of your coming together for the observance of the Lord's Supper be not to produce condemnation. 1Cor 11:29.

And the rest will I set in order, etc. Probably he refers here to other matters on which he had been consulted; or other things which he knew required to be adjusted. The other matters pertaining to the order and discipline of the church I will defer until I can come among you, and personally arrange them. It is evident from this, that Paul at this time purposed soon to go to Corinth. See 2Cor 1:15,16. It was doubtless true that there might be many things which it was desirable to adjust in the church there, which could not be so well done by letter. The main things, therefore, which it was needful to correct immediately, he had discussed in this letter; the other matters he reserved to be arranged by himself when he should go among them. Paul was disappointed in his expectations of returning among them as soon as he had intended, (see 2Cor 1:17,) and under this disappointment he forwarded to them another epistle. If all Christians would follow implicitly his directions here in regard to the Lord's Supper, it would be an ordinance full of comfort. May all so understand its nature, and so partake of it, that they shall meet the approbation of their Lord, and so that it may be the means of saving grace to their souls.

(1) "unto condemnation" "judgment"

The apostle had in the foregoing chapters, by many cogent arguments, exhorted the Corinthians to deny themselves the lawful use of their Christian liberty, for the benefit of their brethren; to enforce which argument he propounds to them his own example in this verse, Be ye followers of me even as I follow Christ.

Where note, 1. The duty recommended to their practice; namely, to follow their spiritual guide: Be ye followers of me. It is the standing duty of a people whom God honours with the enjoyment of faithful spiritual guides, to follow their faith, and to imitate their exemplary conversation; the graces of all Christians in general, but of the ministers of the gospel in particular, whether living or dead, are patterns set forth to the world for their careful imitation: and for omission herein they must certainly become accountable to God.

Note, 2. With what great modesty and caution, with what restriction and limitation, St. Paul propounds his own example to the Corinthian's view: Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.

As if he had said, "If at any time you find me, your spiritual guide, stepping aside, and walking unanswerably to that uniform pattern of holy and humble obedience, which the Lord Jesus set both before you and me, in his own examplary life, be sure you decline my example, and follow not my footsteps."

Learn hence, That the best of ministers, and the best of men, being but men, our imitation of them must be an universal, but a limited imitation; we must follow pastors, teachers, nay, apostles themselves, no farther than they follow Christ, their infallible Lord and master: Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

This commendation is to be restrained to the sounder part of the church at Corinth, who were mindful of his precepts and instructions which he had delivered to them concerning matters appertaining to the public worship of God; which precepts and rules for the worship of God he calls traditions, because they were immediately delivered to the church, either from the apostle's mouth, or by writing. This place, though produced, yet makes nothing for the unwritten traditions of the Romish church. Let them prove by authentic testimony, that their fardels of traditions were delivered to the church from the mouth of the apostles, and we will receive them.

Now I praise you, brethren. Here it deserves a remark, that the apostle, being about to reprove certain disorders in the church at Corinth, ushers in his reproof for what was amiss, with a commendation for what was praise-worthy among them; I praise you, brethren.

Like the physician, who wraps his bitter pill in honey or sugar before he gives it into his patient's mouth. It is wisdom to intermix commendations with our reproofs, that the latter may take more place when accompanied with the former.

Here our apostle answers the query, and resolves the case which the Corinthians had put to him, and laid before him, about church-order, and concerning the decent behaviour of men and women in church- assemblies.

And first he reminds them, that a subordination of persons in the church of God ought to be observed and kept: that as Christ, as Mediator, is inferior to God the Father, but is the head and lord of all men, as Creator and Redeemer; so the man is the head of the woman, and as such she must show her subjection unto the man. As Christ, as Mediator, acts in subordination to the Father, so must the woman act in subordination to the man.

The Socinians would wrest this text to confirm them in their blasphemous denial of the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. "Here, say they, the apostle declares that the head of Christ is God. Now the most high God can have no head above him; therefore Christ, who hath an head above him, cannot be the most high God."

The modern and general answer is, that God is here called the head of Christ as Mediator, in which relation he received his kingdom from him, and exercises it for him; and therefore is elsewhere styled the Father's servant, Behold my servant, &c. because he doth all things according to his Father's will, and with a fixed eye to his Father's glory.

But the ancients reply to this objection thus: "That God is said to be the head of Christ, as he is the Father of the Son, and so the cause of him; and as the woman is of the same nature with the man, who is her head, so is Christ of the same nature with God the Father, who is here called his head: The head of Christ is God."

By the man's praying and prophesying, understand his performing any divine offices in the church, as prayer, and expounding the scriptures, singing of psalms, and the like.

By doing this covered, understand not the natrual covering of the hair, but an artificial covering by a veil, after the manner of women, which is a token of subjection.

By dishonouring his head, understand either,

1. Christ, who in the former verse was called the head of every man. He that administers in the church in holy things represents Christ, who is the head of the church; therefore by covering the head he declares a subjection in his adminstration, and doth as it were make the church the head of Christ, instead of Christ's being the head of the church.

Or else, 2. By dishonouring the head, may be understood the minister's own head: he betrayed his superiority, and lesseneth the honour and dignity of his sex, by using such a gesture in divine offices, as is a token of inferiority and subjection; for in that country, at that time, it was a sign of subjection to have the head covered, but a sign of power and dominion to have the head uncovered.

The contrary is found with us at this day; for those that have power over others, now keep their heads covered, and those that are inferior to others, keep their heads uncovered before them, ver. 5.

By the woman's praying and prophesying, is understood either prophesying extraordinarily, (which we read the women sometimes did both in the Old and New Testament, and were called prophetesses, Luke 2:36; Acts 21:9.)

Or else, by the woman's prophesying, is to be understood praising God in hymns and psalms, They prophesied with harps, psalteries, and cymbals, giving thanks, and praising the Lord, 1Chr 25:1-3; where prophesying and praising the Lord are the same thing.

By the woman's prophesying with her head uncovered, to the dishonour of her head or husband, is to be understood her appearing unveiled in the church, open and barefaced in public; which was accounted,

1. An immodest, unbecoming, and unseemly guise.

2. Arrogant; her being unveiled and uncovered was a token of her usurping an undue authority over the man, and of her casting off that subjection which she was under by the law of her creation to him.

3. Superstitious; it being a fantastical imitation of the she-priests and prophetesses of the Gentiles when they served their idols, and particularly when they sacrificed to Bacchus, who used to have their faces uncovered, their hair dishevelled, hanging at its full length round about their ears.

Now the Corinthian women, in imitation of these heathen women, (for the female sex is very fond and exceeding prone to follow the fashion,) did cast off their veils, discovered their faces, dishonoured their heads, even their natural heads, (as well as their economical head, their husband,) it being then and there accounted as immodest a thing for a woman to appear in public uncovered, as to appear with her head shaven.

From the whole learn, That God requires at the hands of all persons, who either administer unto him, or stand before him, a decent behaviour and comely accommodation in his house, especially in the acts and exercises of his worship and service. For if in their habit and dress, surely much more in their gesture and deportment, doth he hate what is unseemly and unbecoming in any person.

Learn, 2. That it is especially the duty of persons employed in divine adminstrations to demean themselves as those who represent our Lord Jesus, managing themselves with a due authority and decent gravity, becoming the ambassadors of God.

So then it is a general obsrvation of decency in our outward behaviour, when worshipping God before others, which our apostle here recommends as a special duty.

Our apostle here proceeds by many arguments to evince and prove the woman's inferiority and subjection to the man, and that she ought to have a covering upon her head as a sign and token of it.

First, because the image of God, that is, the image of his majesty, dominion, and power, shineth forth most brightly in the man, therefore he ought to have his head uncovered: Man is the image and glory of God.

But is not the woman so likewise?

Ans. Consider the woman according to her specifical nature, and so she was created after the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness, as well as the man: but then consider the woman according to her personal relation to her husband, and in that regard the woman is not the image of God because dominion, which is the image of God, is the man's privilege; and subjection the woman's duty.

But she is the glory of the man; that is, it is the glory and honour of man, that God hath given him superiority over so excellent a creature as the woman; for if his dominion over the irrational creatures be his glory and honour, then what a glory and honour it is for a man to have so excellent a creature as the woman, a creature endued with reason like himself, subject to him?

But as in this sense the man is the glory of the woman, so in another sense the woman is the glory of the man. She communicates with him in all his dignity, how great soever; whatever natural or civil excellency is in him, reflects on her: Uxor fulget radiis mariti, the wife shines with the rays of her husband's honour.

And the woman being thus in a state of inferiority, she ought to profess her subjection to her husband by wearing a veil.

Another argument which the apostle offers, to prove the inferiority of the woman, is this, That originally the man was not made of the woman, or for the woman, but the woman was made of the man, (his rib,) and for the man, that is, for his service and comfort, to be an help meet for him, and to be in subjection to him.

Man had this prerogative, to be immediately from God; but the woman was from man, and to be administering and subservient to man, and consequently to cover her head in token of her submission to him.

Moreover, for this cause ought the woman to have power, (that is, a veil upon her head, as a sign and in token of her husband's power, and her own subjection,) because of the angels; that is, say some,

1. Because of the law of subjection given her by the ministry of angels.

2. Because of the pastors, teachers, and ministers of the church, say others, who are often in scripture styled angels.

3. Because of the evil angels, as some interpret it; the woman being tempted by Satan, the prince of evil angels, to commit the first sin, which is a perpetual cause of shame to her and her posterity, and which increased her and their subjection to the man; for which reason the woman ought to be veiled and covered (in the church-assemblies particularly) as a token of shamefacedness and subjection.

4. The more general interpretation is, because of the good angels, who are present in the assemblies of the saints, and eye-witnesses of their carriage there; therefore the woman ought to do nothing indecent in the presence of those holy spirits. And besides, she has the angels for her pattern and precedent, who cover their faces and veil their heads, in token of subjection to Almighty God.

Note here, 1. That it has been a general opinion among Jews, heathens, and Christians, that good angels are more particularly present with us in the places, and at the times, of God's public worship; yea, that they are not only present with us, but observant of us, and assisting to us, in the performance of all religious exercises, especially prayer: and therefore the Jews speak of a particular angel, whom they call the angel of prayer.

Note, 2. That therefore all persons, both men and women, ought to demean themselves with all modesty, reverence, and decency, in the worship of God, out of regard to the angels, who are there present, observing their carriage and behaviour.

True, the angels cannot penetrate into the inward devotion of the mind, which God only observes; but they observe and take notice of the outward decency of our carriage, and the reverence of our deportment.

But, Lord, how little is this considered, and by how few among us, in our religious assemblies! With regard to God, who sees our hearts, we should more particularly compose our minds to the greatest seriousness and sincerity in our devotions; and with a particular regard to the holy angels who are there present, we should be careful also of our outward behaviour: but to our shame be it spoken, there are multitudes amongst us in our Christian assemblies, whom neither the presence of angels, nor the observing eye of him who is the Lord of angels, can influence to any tolerable decency of behaviour in the house of prayer, where the eyes of God and angels, of ministers and men, are upon them.

Such without repentance must never expect to dwell hereafter with God and his holy angels in heaven, but take up their lodgings with the devil and his angels in an eternal hell, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Because the apostle might seem to have been too harsh towards the woman, and lest the man should thereupon take occasion to carry himself with pride and insolence towards her, he prudently intimates the mutual help and need which both man and woman stand in of one another; for since the creation of the first man, all men are by the woman. And as men have no being but by the woman, so the woman without the man cannot exist or propagate.

For as at the first creation the woman was taken out of the man, so now in generation the man is of the woman; and by the woman; she conceives him, brings him forth, suckles him, and brings him up; and all this by the wise disposal of God, who made the woman out of the man, and by his benediction increaseth man by the woman.

From which consideration our apostle infers, that both man and woman should look upon their distinct prerogatives as given them by God, and carry it not with pride and insolence, but with respect and kindness each to other; and especially that the woman be in subjection to the man, and testify that subjection by all the signs of it, particularly by her being veiled and covered, which is the argument our apostle is here insisting upon.

Observe here, 1. How our apostle closes his discourse, in which he had reproved the Corinthians, the men for covering, the women for uncovering, their heads, and laying aside their veils in time of religious worship: by an appeal to themselves and their own judgment concerning the matter he is speaking of, and reproving them for; namely, men's praying with their heads covered, and women with their heads uncovered.

Observe, 2. How the apostle proceeds to blame both sexes for another disorder; namely, that men wore their hair like women, and that women appeared in the guise of men as to their hair.

Here he lets them know that both these kinds of disorders are repugnant to the institution of God, and the dictates of natural reason; Doth not nature itself teach you?

That is, (1.) The general dictates of natural reason.

(2.) The particular law of nature, concerning the distinction of sexes.

(3.) Usage and common custom, which is a second nature.

All these suggest, that for men to wear their hair at full length like the woman, is uncomely and unnatural in the manly sex, but so to do is comely and natural in the female.

Learn hence, That God disallows,and even nature itself condemns, every thing that tends to the confounding of the sexes, which it is his will and pleasure should be visibly distinguished.

It is a great offence to God, and contrary to one end for which apparel was given, when either the man or the woman wears apparel contrary to their sex; and what is said of apparel, their artificial covering, may be affirmed of the hair, that is their natural covering.

"It is a shame for either sex to wear their hair in an uncomely and indecent manner, disagreeable to the natural modesty of either sex."

Observe, 3. How the apostle appeals to the custom and practice of the churches of God in the cases before us. The custom of all the churches is against women's being uncovered, as an unseemly thing.

It is a known rule, Ubi nihil certi statuit Scriptura, mos populi Dei, et instituta majorum, pro lege tenenda sunt: We ought not to dissent and differ from the custom and practice of the church of Christ in matters not positively determined: but the custom and practice of the church of Christ in matters not positively determined: but the custom of the church must sway with us, with whose practice it is our duty to be as concordant as we can. If any man will by contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Learn thence, That in things only respecting decency, and in compliance with which there is no violation of the command of Christ, the custom of the church of Christ should determine us, and be as a standing rule unto us.

Learn, 2. That it argues a contentious spirit, and savours very much of pride, in matters of little moment to be singular in our practice, and to create disturbance to the church of God. If any man seem to be contentious, &c.

Our apostle here enters upon a new argument or subject-matter of discourse; namely, to reprove the abuses which were crept in amongst them, in their administration of the holy sacrament of the Lord's supper.

And the first abuse which he blames them for, was, the divisions and factions which were found amongst them; I hear that there are schisms amongst you. Where we are to understand by schisms, not a separation from the unity of the catholic church, but of sects and divisions in the church; they did not separate from the church, but they ate the Lord's supper separately in the church, and the whole congregation did not join together in the celebration of that ordinance. Though we do not separate from the communion of the catholic church, yet if we occasion division and dissension groundlessly in the church, we justly fall under the imputation and charge of schism.

Observe next, The apostle argues a minori ad majus; he did easily believe there were divisions, because there must be also heresies among them. Heresies were worse than schisms, false doctrines more dangerous than divisions. Heresy is an error in the fundamentals of religion, maintained with obstinacy. When the green wound of an error is let alone, it soon rankles, and quickly grows into the old sore of an heresy.

But how comes the apostle to say, there must be heresies? what necessity is there for them?

Ans. 1. Negatively; there is not an absolute necessity for them on God's part, or a necessity of his making; but a conditional necessity, or a necessity ex. hypothesi, which must needs be, if such a thing be granted before: as supposing the sun be risen, it must be day.

Thus here, upon supposition of the pride, vain-glory, envyings, strife, and contentions, which are amongst the members of the church; upon supposition of the craft and subtilty, malice and malignity, of Satan, the church's grand enemy; upon supposition of God's permission, that Satan and wicked men should act according to their corrupt affections and inclinations; heresies must and will be.

Note farther, That the reason here assigned for the necessity of heresies is not causal, but eventual: not causal, as if the wisdom of God did design there should be heresies for this end, that they who are approved of him should be made manifest; but rather eventual; as if the apostle had said, "Hence it will come to pass, that they who are approved will be made manifest."

As if he had said, "True, ye Corinthians, when ye come together to one place, ye pretend to eat the Lord's supper, but though you eat it, yet ye do not eat it as ye ought to do; you perform the material part of the action, but you do not partake of it solemnly and religiously, according to the divine institution; this therefore is not to eat the Lord's supper."

Learn thence, That a duty not done as it ought to be done, is not done at all in the account of Christ. Sermons may be heard, and yet accounted no sermons; prayers made, yet not made; sacraments received, yet not received; alms given, yet not given; because not done in manner and form as God required.

A gracious heart will look not barely at the matter of the duty, but also at the manner of performance, and take care not only that he hears, but how he hears.

Here our apostle begins to reprove the Corinthians for the abuses found in their love-feasts. These love-feasts were founded on no express command in holy writ, but only on the custom of the church, who immediately before receiving the sacrament used to have a great feast, to which all the poor were invited at the charges of the rich, as an expression of their perfect love and charity one towards another.

Now in these feasts of charity they did not observe due order and decency: for every one, that is, every party and faction, being come to the place of the assembly, did presently sit down and eat what they had bought, in the company of their own party, not minding or regarding others; whereupon this holy feast of charity was neither celebrated at the same time by all, nor with that unanimity and concord which it was designed to represent: whilst the poor were excluded, and sent home hungry, the rich were feasted, and drank to some degree of excess, which is here called drunkenness; one is hungry, and another is drunken.

Behold what great irregularities and disorders are here found in the church of Corinth! Who can expect a church without spot in this imperfect state? God has left these miscarriages upon record, not for imitation, but for our caution.

A twofold sense and interpretation is given of these words, Some paraphrase them thus; What! must you make the house of God the place of your feasting? If you be disposed for mirth and jollity, have you not houses wherein you may do it with more privacy, and less offence? Or despise you the church of God? Do you undervalue and thus profane and unhallow the place set apart for God's worship and service, by converting it into a common banqueting-house? Thus many expound it of the material church; and their opinion is favoured by the antithesis and opposition betwixt church and houses; Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise you the church of God?

Learn, That holy duties, pious and public, are to be performed in the church or house of God.

Duties pious, but not public, better suit the closet than the church.

Duties public, but not pious, more befit a Guild-hall or Townhouse, than the house of God.

Others by the church of God understand the spiritual church, the poor members of Jesus Christ, and render the words thus; "What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in, if need be, before you come? Or despise you those poor Christians, who are members of the church of Christ as well as you, and put to shame them that have not what you eat and drink, by excluding them out of your company for their poverty-sake? For since God adopts them into his family, and admits them unto his table, you ought not to exclude them from this feast of charity, which was originally designed for the poor's relief."

Learn, He that despiseth the poor, despiseth the church of God; yea, despiseth Christ himself; as he that pincheth the little toe paineth the whole body, so the disgracing the poor members of Christ is a despising of the whole church.

In these love-feasts the poor were the most proper, and should have been the most principal guests; but, alas! the rich gorged themselves plentifully, whilst the poor stood and looked on hungry.

Yet observe, lastly, With what lenity and mildness the apostle reproves these great disorders in the church at Corinth: Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. It was the first time he had told them of their faults; therefore he doth it gently, in hope of amendment.

Learn thence, That though ministers must not commend but reprove people, when they do ill, yet they must use mildness, especially at their first reproving of a sin.

Some observe, That God so blessed the mild severity of St. Paul, that the Corinthians, upon the writing of this first epistle, reformed all their abuses: which they gather from hence, because no fault is taxed in the second epistle, which was reproved in the first.

Observe here, 1. How the apostle, for reforming those abuses which were crept into the church amongst them, relating to the holy sacrament, reduces them to the first institution of that sacred ordinance; I have delivered unto you what I have received of the Lord.

Mark, the apostle, did receive and deliver, but not institute and appoint, this venerable ordinance. Had he not received, he had wanted authority; and had he not delivered what he received, he had wanted integrity.

Observe, 2. The author of this institution, the Lord Jesus. To institute sacraments is an act of Christ's regal power and royal authority. The church has no power to appoint, but only to execute and administer what Christ appoints.

Observe, 3. The time of the institution: the same night in which he was betrayed. It is a night much to be remembered, in which he settles an ordinance in the church for the confirmation and consolation of his people to the end of the world.

Lord! what an evidence was here of thy tender care and affectionate concern for thy church and people, in spending so much of that little, very little time thou hadst left, upon their account!

Observe, 4. The sacramental elements, or the commemorative, significative, and instructive signs: and they are bread and wine, shadowing forth the body and blood of the crucified Jesus.

Where note, St. Paul calls it bread five times over, which Christ calls his own body, because it was a sign and representation of his body; not his real body, for then Christ ate his own body whilst he was alive, his disciples devouring that body over night which hung upon the cross next morning, with a thousand such absurdities which the doctrine of transubstantiation carries along with it.

Observe, 5. The ministerial actions: the breaking of the bread, and blessing of the cup.

The bread must be broken, to represent the breaking of Christ's body upon the cross, which comprehended all the sufferings of his human nature, all which were consummated in his crucifixion; and this broken bread must be taken and eaten by us, to intimate that all his breakings, bruisings, and woundings, both in soul and body, were for our sins, and for our benefits, and that the sole intention of all his sufferings was for us.

Wine also is poured forth, because as no liquor like wine doth cheer a sad and drooping spirit, in like manner nothing doth so glad and cheer the soul as faith in a crucified Saviour.

That spiritual life which a soul is raised to, by the death of Christ, is a life of the greatest delight and joy which we can conceive.

Observe, 6. The great design and end of this institution: Do it in remembrance of me, or for a memorial of me. Christ knew how apt our base hearts would be to forget him, amidst such a throng of sensible objects as we here converse with: and how much our forgetfulness of him and his sufferings would tend to our prejudice and disadvantage; and therefore doth he appoint this ordinance to bring him to remembrance.

Observe, 7. The strict mandate or charge given for the frequent celebration of this ordinance; Do this as oft as ye drink it; that is, do it often. We can no more live and thrive without our spiritual, than we can without our corporal food; as the body must be often fed, so the soul must have its frequent repast.

Observe, 8. The reason assigned for the frequent celebration of this ordinance: For as oft as ye do this, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come: that is, by frequenting this ordinance we commemorate the death of Christ during his absence from us. As the end of the ordinance was to be a standing memorial, so the obligation that lies upon all Christians to observe it is perpetual. Christians are, by this ordinance, to represent the sacrificing of Christ for their sins, till he come again in glory.

Learn from the whole, 1. That the sacrament of the Lord's supper was instituted by Christ as a standing memorial of his death and sufferings for us.

Here we ought to remember the painfulness of his death, the meritoriousness of his death, the voluntariness of his death to ourselves. And the manner how we should remember Christ and his death in the sacrament is various; with judgment and understanding, with reverence and humility, with sorrow and grief of heart for our sins; yet with joy and thankfulness for the sufferings of a Saviour, with faith and affiance, with live and affection, with resolutions for a new and better obedience.

Learn, 2. That the command of Christ lays it as a law upon, and makes it the standing duty of, all Christians, to commemorate his death at his holy table. Do this in remembrance of me.

Here it deserves our notice what kind of command this is; it is a sovereign and supreme command: it is a positive and express command: it is a permanent and lasting command; it is the command of a Saviour, yea, of a dying Saviour; it is a command of love; it is such a command as, if we duly observe, will be a blessed means to enable us to observe all the commands of God better.

Lastly, It is such a command, as whoever lives in the wilful neglect of it, cannot be called a Christian, but will be treated by Christ at the great day as an enemy and despiser of his dying love.

Learn, 3. That it is a Christian's duty not barely to do this, but to do it often: frequent communicating is a great duty. The primitive Christians received every Lord's day, yea, it is believed oftener than every Lord's day.

This is agreeable to the nature of the ordinance, which is a spiritual repast, banquet, and feast, and therefore to be received frequently. It is also agreeable to the Author of the ordinance; it is a feast of God's own providing, therefore to neglect it is to fly in the face of God: it is agreeable to the end of the ordinance, which is to renew our covenant, and that cannot be done too often.

The apostle having in the foregoing verses declared the original institution of the Lord's supper, he comes now to instruct the Corinthians in the right use of it; and to excite them to a due regard in their approaches to it, he acquaints them with the great danger of an unworthy receiving of it; Whosoever shall eat this bread, &c. unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Quest. 1. What is it not to eat and drink unworthily?

Ans. (1.) To receive the sacrament with many doubts and fears, with a weak faith, with a trembling hand and fearful heart, all this may be, and yet the person not receive unworthily.

(2.) The want of perfect holiness, and a complete freedom from sin, doth not denominate a person an unworthy receiver; for this ordinance was not instituted for angels, but for men; to make sinful men good, and good men better.

(3.) Backwardness to the duty, deadness and dullness in the duty, when involuntary and lamented, makes not a person an unworthy receiver.

Quest. 2. What is it to eat and drink unworthily?

Ans. (1.) It is to receive without such a disposition of mind, such a preparation of heart, such reverence and devotion, as ought therein to be exercised; to receive without knowledge, without repentance, without faith, without resolution for a sincere obedience, without sincere reconciliation to our neighbour.

Quest. 3. What is it to be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord?

Ans. (1.) It is an implicit approbation of the Jews' act in crucifying Christ.

(2.) It is implicitly a jesting with the body and blood of Christ, a playing with the most tremendous things in the world.

(3.) It is a crucifying the Son of God afresh: it is to stab the master of the feast at his own table, whilst he is treating us with the richest dainties.

Observe here, The duty required to prevent the danger of unworthy receiving, and that is, the great and necessary duty of examination. A metaphor taken from goldsmiths, who try the truth of their gold by the touch-stone, the purity of their gold by the fire, the weight of it by the scale.

Observe, 2. The examinant, or person, performing this duty of examination: Let a man, that is, let every man. This stands in a double opposition:

(1.) To our examining of others.

(2.) To our resting in another's examination of us.

Observe, 3. The frequency of this act; as often as we partake of the ordinance, so oft we should, if we have time, less or more, examine ourselves: Let him examine, and so let him eat. Let him pass through one duty to another.

Learn hence, That it is the special duty, and ought to be the singular care and endeavour, of all those that desire safely and comfortably to approach the table of the Lord, to examine themselves before they come: to examine their right unto it, and to examine their fitness for it.

What it is to eat and drink unworthily, we find explained before, at ver. 27.

Note here farther, That many persons of honest hearts, but weak heads, have sadly misunderstood the words of St. Paul, about unworthy receiving, thinking that such an excess of reverence and preparation is required, that either they dare not come at all, or they come with so much dread and fear upon their minds, that they are more terrified than comforted.

Observe farther, The unworthy person eats and drinks judgment; that is, temporal judgment will follow him in his life; and, without repentance, eternal damnation in the next.

Yet note, It is judgment to himself that receives not to another that receives with him. If a wicked man's presence at the sacrament pollutes the ordinanace to a worthy receiver, then Christ and his eleven apostles were defiled by the company of Judas at the passover; for at that he certainly was, and as many think, at the Lord's supper also.

Learn, then, that unworthy receivers of the Lord's supper do contract great guilt, and incur great danger, to themselves. The design of the apostle in these two last verses is this, that we should not sinfully omit the duty, because of the command; nor carelssly undertake it, because of the threatened judgment.

For this cause; that is, for profaning the sacrament, and not discerning the Lord's body at the Lord's table; for not approaching it as a feast of love designed equally for the benefit of all his members, and to knit them in the closest bonds of unity and friendship each to other: therefore it was that many were visited with sickness and weakness, and some with death; which being called sleep, some have charitably concluded from thence that were pious persons in the main; for the death of the wicked is hardly called sleep any where in scripture; and if so, then we learn that the holiness of an ordinance, or the habitual holiness of any person who approaches an ordinance, will not exempt from God's displeasure, and the infliction of temporal judgments here in this life, if they do not by actual preparation sanctify the name of God in the duties and ordinances of his worship.

Besides an habitual, there is required an actual preparation, in all those that will safely and comfortably approach to God in holy duties; without it we shall meet with a blow, instead of a blessing.

That is, if we would examine, try, censure, and sentence ourselves, and so come to the Lord's table as penitent believers, with a purity of aim, and a sincere intention; we should thereby escape the castigatory punishments, and condemnatory sentence, of God.

Learn hence, That as it is our duty often to examine and judge ourselves, so self-judging in particular, before we approach the Lord's table, will preserve us from the judgment and condemnation of God; we must first summon, then examine, then convict and try, then sentence and condemn ourselves, and all this in hopes of being absolved and acquitted by God, acting our faith upon his free mercy, and the Redeemer's satisfaction.

Observe, 1. The nature of those judgments, or afflictive evils, which do befall the children of God in this life: they are chastenings: we are chastened of the Lord. Chastenings belong properly to children who are wanton and ungovernable. To be chastened has a double aspect; first upon our privilege, it denotes our relation as children unto God our Father. Chastenings are a part of his children's portion; yet in that we are chastened, it taxes us with weakness; we are foolish, wanton, and unruly children, and therefore so long as we are here, must always go with a rod at our backs.

Observe, 2. Christ, who was also a Son, was chastened; The chastisement of our peace was upon him. But his were judiciary chastisements: God did not chastise him as a child, but as an enemy, as a malefactor, in our stead; as we must have been chastened, who were enemies and malefactors. Our chastenings are fatherly; Christ's judiciary.

Observe, 3. The merciful design of God in the chastenings of his children: it is to prevent their condemnation: We are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. When therefore at any time we are under chastisement, in all we say or do, let us justify God and condemn ourselves, seeing his chastisements are designed to prevent our condemnation.

Our apostle here concludes his discourse with an exhortation to the Corinthians, to take heed for time to come that all these fore-mentioned miscarriages may be rectified; that when they come together to eat the Lord's supper, and the love-feasts, they should tarry one for another, that they may all feed and feast together. And if any man pretend to be hungry, let him eat at home before he comes, lest by these irreverent actions he bring down the judgments of God upon himself.

Lastly, he tells them, that as to other points of church order, he would determine them when he came among them; The rest will I set in order when I come. Such unchristian disorders may arise in the church as will require the presence and coming of an apostle to correct and reform them.