Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 1 Corinthians 11:1-2 Follow Paul and follow Christ Dean Stanley. I. BE YE FOLLOWERS OF PAUL. But how can we be like a man who has been dead for centuries, whose language and occupations were wholly different from ours? Can the nineteenth century be changed into the first? No. There are hundreds of points in which we cannot be like him; and yet Paul is more capable of being an example to us than he has been to almost any previous age of the world. He is truly the apostle of Englishmen, because — 1. He is the apostle most congenial to our peculiar excellences. There is a real likeness between the English character and the freedom and love of truth which is the fibre and tissue of the teaching of St. Paul. 2. He is the apostle of progress. Are any of us inclined to think that Christianity is worn out, that it is too contracted for these broad, enlightened times? Some forms of it may have become so, but not the Christianity of St. Paul. He is the apostle of the vast and unknown future. St. Paul is always looking, not backward, but forward. He went beyond his own age, beyond the ages that followed; and, however far we have advanced in enlightenment and liberation, he has gone before us still. 3. The apostle of toleration. Have we outgrown the noble lessons of Romans 14 .? Are we more able to bear with those who differ from us, more tender to the rights of conscience, than he? Let us separate the essential from the non-essential, the temporal from the eternal, as he did. II. EVEN AS HE WAS OF CHRIST. 1. In many forms this is the burden of all his Epistles ( Romans 13:14 ; Colossians 2:6 ; Romans 8:29 ; Galatians 6:14 ; Galatians 2:20 ). He is but a servant of Christ. To carry in his own life a copy, however imperfect, of what Christ had said and done; to be one with Christ now and hereafter was his highest ambition and hope of salvation. And to this he calls us still. 2. True, we cannot imitate Christ in the letter, but we can in the spirit; we cannot "put on" His outward garb and actions, but we can put on "the mind which was in Christ Jesus." We cannot attain to His perfection; in great part He is rather the likeness of God than the example of man; but we can study in His life and character the will of God and the duty of man. He should be to us as a second conscience, to fix our wills, to calm our scruples, to guide our thoughts, the conscience of our conscience, the mind of our mind, the heart of our heart. III. HOW SHALL WE BRING HOME THIS JOINT EXAMPLE TO OURSELVES? How shall we concentrate on our own lives the rays of this double light, the greater light for ever going before, the lesser light for ever moving behind? Turn from the text to the context, and you will find laid down two fundamental principles of Evangelical religion — 1. For the service of God ( 1 Corinthians 10:13 .). Whatsoever ye do, in commerce and in labour, wheresoever it be, there is what you have to do to the glory of God. Here, joining in the prayers and hymns, etc., you are preparing for the service of God. But there, in your daily life, is the true "Divine service," in which we must all bear our parts.(1) Paul was ever employed in driving the enthusiasm of his followers into homely, useful, practical channels.(2) What was true of Paul was still more true of Christ. He did not retire to the wilderness. He lived and died in blessed companionship with men. In labour and in festivity, in moving multitudes and in crowded ship, He found alike His Father's work. 2. How are we to follow Paul and Christ in the service of man? ( 1 Corinthians 10:33 ; 1 Corinthians 9:22 ). Not by one uniform mode, but in ten thousand was, ever fresh, every varying with the wants and characters of each.(1) Every face that looks up from this crowd is different from every other; it expresses a history, a character, a weakness, a strength of its own. To every one the apostle would have been, as it were, a different man; he would have transformed himself into the thoughts and would have borne with the infirmities of each. No outward difference would have prevented him from seeing the good which lay beneath. He would have made straight for that and built it up, and so would have saved the soul in the midst of which he had discovered it.(2) And this example is not only for teachers or special times and places. It is for all times, places, and persons; for it is the example, not only of Paul, but of Christ Himself. He, too, "became all things to all men, if by any means He might save some." He came with a gracious word and touch for each. And as Christ and Paul have done to us, so ought we in our humble measure to do to our brethren; so ought we humbly to hope that they each in their turn will do to us, if by any means some of us may be saved. ( Dean Stanley. )

Benson Commentary 1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 1 Corinthians 11:1 . Be ye followers of me — Carefully, therefore, follow my directions, and imitate my example, in condescension to the weaknesses and prejudices of others, for their good; even as I also — In this, and in every thing else, copy after the perfect pattern of our great Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. This verse evidently belongs to the preceding chapter, where the apostle had proposed himself as an example, and ought not to have been separated from it. 1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 1 Corinthians 11:2-3 . Now I praise you, brethren — That is, the greater part of you; that you remember me — That you bear in mind all my directions; and keep the ordinances — Observe the rules of public worship in most points; as I delivered them to you — Formerly. But I would have you know — As if he had said, Yet I must further inform you respecting some things wherein you are defective in your attention to these rules. Consider, in particular, the subordination of persons appointed by God to be observed; That the head of every man is Christ — Who was the Creator, and is the immediate Supreme Governor of all mankind, especially of such as believe in him, being, in a peculiar sense, the head of his body the church, Colossians 1:18 . So that every Christian should often recollect the relation in which he hath the honour to stand to Christ, as an engagement to observe the most respectful decorum in his whole behaviour toward him. And comparing the different sexes, it must be observed, the head of the woman is the man — To whom therefore she ought to be in subjection, and to pay a reverent respect, as in the Lord. And the head of Christ — As Mediator and man; is God — The Father, from whom he derives all his dignity and authority. Christ, in his mediatorial character, even considered in his whole person, acts in subordination to his Father, who rules by him, and hath constituted him sovereign of all worlds, visible and invisible. And, as the Father’s glory is interested in the administration of Christ, so is the glory of Christ, in some measure, interested in the conduct and behaviour of those men, whose more immediate head he is; and it may be added, of those women, whose heads such men are. 1 Corinthians 11:3 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. 1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 . Every man, &c. — Now upon this principle, with a reference to the usages that prevail at this time with you at Corinth, I may properly observe: Every man praying or prophesying — By an immediate influence of the Spirit of God, in a public assembly; having his head covered — With a veil, which is a sign of subjection; dishonoureth his head — Christ, who, having made him the head of the woman, and given him authority over her, is dishonoured when the man renounces that authority by appearing veiled in the presence of the woman, as her inferior. But every woman praying or prophesying — Under an immediate impulse of the Spirit, for then only was a woman suffered to speak in the church; with her head uncovered — Without any veil over her head and face; dishonoureth her head — Disclaims subjection, and reflects dishonour on man, her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaven — 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 the woman be not covered — If she will throw off the badge of subjection; let her also be shorn — Let her appear with her hair cut off like a man, or like a woman of bad character, such being sometimes punished in that manner: but if it be a shame for a woman — To appear in public shorn or shaven — Especially in a religious assembly; let her be covered — Let her for the same reason keep on her veil. 1 Corinthians 11:5 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. 1 Corinthians 11:6 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. 1 Corinthians 11:7 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. 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 . A man indeed ought not to cover, or veil, his head — As a sign of subjection; forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God — Namely, in respect of the dominion over the inferior creatures, with which he is clothed, representing the supreme dominion of God; for in respect of mental qualities, the woman is also the image of God: but the woman is the glory of the man — By being subject to him, and of all creatures coming nearest to him in all the excellences of his nature. For the man is not of the woman — In his first production; but the woman of the man — As we read in the sacred history, Genesis 2:21-23 . Neither was the man created for the sake of the woman — To accommodate and assist her; but the woman for the man — That he might have a help meet for him, which before he found not in the whole creation, Genesis 2:20 . 1 Corinthians 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 1 Corinthians 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 1 Corinthians 11:10 . For this cause — As well as for the other reasons above mentioned; the woman ought to have power on her head — That is, a veil, as a token of her being under the power and subjection of the man: and so much the rather should she wear it in worshipping assemblies; because of the angels — Who are present there, and before whom all should be careful not to do any thing indecent or irregular. “Though there is no example, either in sacred or profane writers, of the word ??????? , here rendered power, being used to denote a veil; yet all agree that it can have no other meaning in this passage.” Whitby understands the latter clause of evil angels, paraphrasing and commenting on the words thus: “She, being tempted by the prince of evil angels to that which is a perpetual cause of shame to her, and which increased her subjection to the man, ( Genesis 3:16 ,) ought therefore to use this token of shame-facedness and subjection.” She is to have her head covered, say the Jews, “like one that mourneth, as a token of shame. Hence Philo calls the ?? ????????? , cover of the woman’s head, the symbol of her shame; and this shame, say they, is due to her, because she first brought sin into the world. It is with her as when one transgresseth and is ashamed; and therefore she comes forth with her head covered. She ought, saith Tertullian, by her habit to resemble Eve, a mourner and a penitent; ob ignominiam primi delicti,” for the shame of the first sin. See on 1 Timothy 2:11-14 . The former interpretation, however, which supposes that good angels are meant, who, being ministering spirits to the heirs of salvation, might be present in the religious assemblies of the Christians, seems much more probably to be the true one. 1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 . Nevertheless, neither is the man, since the first creation, produced without the woman, neither the woman without the man — And they cannot subsist without the mutual help of each other in many cases: in the Lord — By God’s appointment, and according to that order he has fixed in the creation. As if he had said, Yet let not the man be proud of his superiority, nor the woman troubled at her subjection, for there is a kind of equality in some respects, and many mutual obligations to engage them both to love and kindness. For as the woman is, or was, of the man — At first taken out of him; even so is the man also by the woman — Now in the ordinary course of nature: and therefore let him not despise, but honour and love her. But all things are of God — The man, the woman, and their dependance on each other: or both the dominion of the one, and the subjection of the other, are by God’s appointment, and therefore they should acquiesce therein. 1 Corinthians 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 1 Corinthians 11:13-16 . Judge in yourselves — For what need of more arguments in so plain a case? Is it comely — Decent, suitable to female modesty; that a woman pray unto God — The Most High, with that bold and undaunted air which she must have if, contrary to universal custom, she appears in public with her head uncovered? Doth not even nature — The light of nature, or natural reason; teach you — Previous to any arguments on the subject; that if a man have long hair — Carefully adjusted, it is a mark of such effeminacy as is a disgrace to him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory — An ornament; to her — Which does not incommode her, being suitable to her domestic state: for her hair was given her — Originally, and before the arts of dress were invented or needed; for — ???? , instead of; a covering — Or veil. “What a value the eastern ladies put on their hair may be known from this, that when Ptolemy Euergetes, king of Egypt, was about to march against Seleucus Callinicus, his queen, Berenice, who loved him tenderly, vowed, as the most precious sacrifice she could offer, to cut off and consecrate her hair, if he returned in safety.” But if any man seem to be contentious — And will dispute this matter, on his own different views of what is naturally decent, I shall not controvert it further, but content myself with saying, that we have here no such custom — For women to appear with their heads uncovered; neither the churches of God — In any other place, whether planted by me or any of my brethren. 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 not. But those who are referred to here by the apostle were contentious, not conscientious persons. 1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. 1 Corinthians 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 1 Corinthians 11:17-19 . Now in this that I am about to declare unto you, I praise you not — I cannot commend some, as I have done others, ( 1 Corinthians 11:2 ,) for other things; that ye come together — Frequently, and even on the most solemn occasions; not for the better — So as to gain any spiritual advantage by the increase of your faith and other graces; but for the worse — To the prejudice of your souls, by fomenting strifes and animosities, which produce factions. For first of all — Before I mention any other instance of your irregular and indecent conduct, I must observe, that when ye come together in the church — ?? ?? ???????? , in the public assembly, though it is evident that nothing but reverence to God, and love to each other, should reign on such occasions; I hear that there be divisions — ???????? , 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, 1 Corinthians 1:10 , and 1 Corinthians 12:25 , which are the only places in the New Testament, besides 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 schism; 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 while 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 any thing 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. For there must also be heresies among you — Parties formed, as the word ???????? properly signifies. These, in the ordinary course of things, must take place, in consequence of your contentions, and the declension of your love to one another: and God permits these divisions, that they which are approved may be manifest — That it may appear who among you are, and who are not, upright of heart. 1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 1 Corinthians 11:20-22 . When ye come together therefore — In such a manner as you do; into one place — Under pretence of celebrating the holy ordinance of the eucharist, and have such strife and contention among you, and act in the disorderly manner which I shall now mention; this is not to eat the Lord’s supper — That solemn memorial of his death; nor does it deserve to be called by that name, unless ye eat it in fellowship together, and in mutual love, as the disciples of one master. Instead of regarding it in a holy and religious point of view, you seem to confound it with a common meal; and do not indeed behave in the manner that decency would require, if it were no more than a common meal. For in eating it — Or when you eat it; every one taketh before other his own supper — Or, as Macknight renders ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ??????????? , every one taketh first his own supper; observing, that “what follows shows the apostle did not mean,” as in our translation, “that every one took before another his own supper; but that every one took his own supper before he ate the Lord’s supper. Christ having instituted his supper after he had eaten the passover, the disciples very early made it a rule to feast together before they ate the Lord’s supper. These feasts were called ?????? , charitates, love-feasts. They are mentioned, Jude, 1 Corinthians 11:12 , as also by some of the ancient Christian writers. From Xenophon, (see Memorab., lib. 3. cap. 14,) we learn that the Greeks, when they supped together, brought each his own provisions ready dressed, which they ate in company together. Probably the Corinthians followed the same practice, in their feasts previous to the Lord’s supper.” And one is hungry, and another is drunken — Or rather, is filled, or plentifully fed, “as ??????? signifies here, being opposed to one is hungry. The word is used in this sense by the LXX., Psalm 35:9 ; Jeremiah 38:14 ; John 2:10 ; where it is rendered by our translators, when men have well drunk, drunk plentifully. According to the grammarians, ??????? literally signifies to eat and drink, ???? ?? ????? , after sacrificing; on which occasions the heathen often drank to excess.” What? have ye not houses to eat and drink in — With your friends? Or despise ye the church of God — Which ye thus expose to contempt, and which you must greatly offend and grieve by such a conduct as this? That church of which the poor are both the larger and the better part; and shame — Expose to shame; them that have not — A supper to eat, while ye feast luxuriously? Do you act thus in designed contempt of them? What shall I say to you — On this occasion? Shall I praise you in this? — I wish I could fairly and honourably do it; but at present I praise you not — I must rather blame you, and exhort you to amend what is so grossly amiss. 1 Corinthians 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 1 Corinthians 11:22 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. 1 Corinthians 11:23 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: 1 Corinthians 11:23 . For I have received of the Lord — Doubtless by special revelation; that which also I delivered unto you — In my former preaching on this subject, in which, as in all things else, I have been careful most exactly to adhere to my original instructions. This epistle appears to have been written before any of the gospels, and it is probable from Galatians 1:17 , &c, that when the apostle wrote it, he had seen none of the apostles. And that the institution of this ordinance should make a part of that immediate revelation, with which Christ honoured this apostle, is both very remarkable, and also affords a strong argument for the perpetuity of it in the church. “For had others of the apostles (as Barclay in his Apology for the Quakers presumes to insinuate) mistaken what passed at the last passover, and founded the observation of the eucharist on that mistake, surely Christ would rather have corrected this error in his new revelation to Paul, than have administered such an occasion of confirming Christians in it.” — Doddridge. That the Lord Jesus — In his own person; the same night in which he was betrayed — That is, in the night which preceded his crucifixion, which circumstance, with the others that follow respecting the nature and design of the sacred ordinance here spoken of, with the appointed form of its administration, Macknight thinks was made known to Paul by Christ himself, as a matter which merited particular attention, because it was a strong proof of his innocence. He knew he was to be crucified the next day as an impostor, for calling himself the Son of God. Having so near a prospect of his punishment, would he, by instituting his supper, have taken care that his punishment, as an impostor, should never be forgotten, if he had really been an impostor? No: such a supposition exceeds all rational belief. But knowing himself to be the Son of God, and being absolutely certain that God would acknowledge him as his Son, by raising him from the dead on the third day, he instituted his supper, to be preserved by his disciples till he should return to judge the world; because he foresaw that his death could not be remembered by his disciples, without recollecting his resurrection, and expecting his return. Further, if Christ did not rise from the dead according to his express promise, frequently repeated, can it be thought that his disciples, who thus must have known him to be a deceiver, would have perpetuated the memory of his punishment as an impostor, and of their own shame, by beginning a service, in which his death, that is, his punishment, would be openly published to the world? Wherefore, since the apostles, and the other first disciples, who were eye-witnesses of their Master’s death and resurrection, by beginning this service, and their successors by continuing it from age to age, have published to the world the death and resurrection of their Master, as matters of fact known and believed by all Christians from the beginning; this certainly is an incontrovertible proof of the reality of Christ’s death and resurrection, and consequently it hath fully established his claim to be God’s Son, the true Messiah and Saviour of the world. Also, this ordinance hath been the source of unspeakable consolation to his disciples in every age, by assuring them that all his doctrines are true, and that all his promises shall be performed in their season; particularly his promise of returning to raise the dead, and carry his people into heaven. In this view the institution of the supper, in the night wherein he was betrayed, was a great instance of Christ’s love to men. And we are bound by continuing that excellent service in the world, to hand down to them who come after us those unspeakable consolations which we ourselves enjoy, through the pious care of our fathers, who believed in Christ before us. 1 Corinthians 11:24 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. 1 Corinthians 11:24 . And when he had given thanks — The word ???????????? , thus rendered, is the term used also by Luke, whence Macknight infers, that the word ????????? , used by Matthew and Mark, ought to be understood, not of Christ’s blessing the bread, but of his blessing God for saving sinners through his death, See on Luke 22:19 . He brake it — Into several pieces; and — Distributing it to his disciples who were present, said — With great sweetness and solemnity, This is my body which is broken for you — “As the clause, which is broken, cannot be taken literally, because it would imply that Christ’s body was broken, or put to death on the cross, at the time he said this, contrary to truth; so the clause, this is my body, cannot be taken literally: for the two clauses making but one proposition, if the clause, this is my body, which is the subject of the proposition, be interpreted literally, the predicate, which is broken for you, must be so likewise. Consequently the proposition will import, that the bread in our Lord’s hands was converted into a thing which at that time had no existence. Both the doctrine of the Papists, and that of the Lutherans, therefore, [on this head,] ought to be rejected, as implying an evident falsehood; namely, that Christ’s body, at the time he spake, was broken, or put to death.” In other passages of Scripture, we frequently find expressions perfectly similar to, this is my body, as is proved in the note on Matthew 26:26 , which see. The evident meaning of our Lord is, This bread is the representation of my body, which is to be broken for you. “The Papists contend, that in every age, by the priests pronouncing what they call the words of consecration, the same change is made in the bread and wine, which they affirm was made in these elements by Christ’s saying, This is my body, &c. But, to gain credit to their doctrine, they ought to show from Scripture, that the power of working that miracle was promised by Christ to all his faithful servants in the ministry to the end of the world. But this they cannot do. Besides, that St. Paul did not possess any such power is evident from 1 Corinthians 11:26-28 of this chapter, where he calls the elements bread and wine after their consecration, as he had named them before.” — Macknight. This do in remembrance of me — In an humble, thankful, obedient 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. 1 Corinthians 11:25 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. 1 Corinthians 11:25-27 . He also took the cup when he had supped — Or, after supper. “This circumstance is mentioned to show that the Lord’s supper is not intended for the refreshment of the body, but, as we are told 1 Corinthians 11:26 , for perpetuating the memory of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, to the end of the world, and declaring our expectation of his return from heaven to judge all mankind; that by seriously and frequently meditating on these things, the faith, hope, and gratitude of his disciples may be nourished. Now, that these ends may be effectually answered, this service must be performed by the whole members of each particular church, not in separate companies, but together, as making one harmonious society, by whose joint concurrence and communion in the service, the death of their Master is not only remembered, but declared in the most public manner to the world, as a fact known and believed by all Christians from the beginning.” Saying, This cup is the new testament — Or, new covenant, rather, as the word more properly signifies. That is, it is the solemn seal and memorial of the covenant which is established in my blood, by which all its invaluable blessings are procured for you. Our Lord did not mean that the covenant of grace was first made at the time he shed his blood. It was made immediately after the fall, on account of the merit of his obedience unto the death, which God then considered as accomplished, because it was certainly to be accomplished at the time determined. Now this likewise do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me — And in order to maintain the memory of my bleeding, dying love, in the church and in the world. The ancient sacrifices were offered in remembrance of sin; this sacrifice, once offered, is still represented in remembrance of the remission of sin. According to the Papists, the expression, as oft as ye drink it, “implies that the cup, in the Lord’s supper, may sometimes be omitted; and on that pretence they have denied the cup to the laity;” but how justly, may be known by taking notice that the words, as often as, are applied ( 1 Corinthians 11:26 ) to the bread as well as to the cup. Besides, Matthew hath told us, that when Christ gave the cup, he said, ( Matthew 26:27 ,) drink ye all of it; which being both an invitation and a command, all Christians are as much entitled to the cup as to the bread.” For as often as ye — The church of God in any age; eat this bread and drink this cup — With proper solemnity and seriousness, faith, love, and gratitude; ye do show forth the Lord’s death — Ye proclaim, as it were, and openly avow it to God and all the world; so the word ???????????? , here used, signifies: till he come — To close the present scene of things, and to receive all his faithful servants to a place where, for ever dwelling with him, they will no more need these memorials of an absent Saviour. Though at the institution of this ordinance our Lord spake nothing of his own second coming, yet in his discourse after the celebration of it, he connected his second coming with his death, John 14:3 . The apostle therefore truly expressed his Master’s intention, when he told the Corinthians, that by publishing the Lord’s death, they published also his coming to judgment, and that the service of the supper was intended as a publication of both. Wherefore — ???? , so that; whosoever shall eat this bread, &c., unworthily — That is, in an unworthy, irreverent manner, without properly regarding him that appointed it, or the design of its appointment; shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord — That is, of profaning that which represents his body and blood. 1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 1 Corinthians 11:27 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. 1 Corinthians 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 1 Corinthians 11:28-32 . But — That none may be involved in such guilt; let each one examine himself — Whether he knows the nature and the design of the institution, and whether it be his sincere desire and purpose thoroughly to comply therewith, and to do honour to Christ by living, in all respects, conformably to his word and example. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily — In an irreverent, profane, and careless manner; eateth and drinketh damnation — ????? , judgment; condemnation and punishment to himself — Or temporal judgments of various kinds. Thus the Corinthians, in the following verse, are said to be punished with debility, sickness, and death, for eating unworthily. Not discerning the Lord’s body — Not considering that the death of Christ, and the benefits he hath thereby procured for us, with his astonishing love to us, are represented in that solemn ordinance; and not distinguishing it from his common food. For if we would judge ourselves — Bring all our dispositions, words, and actions, especially those that relate to the worship of God, to the rule of his word, and condemn ourselves for what is amiss, and repent of it; and particularly if we would inquire respecting our knowledge of the nature of this holy ordinance, and the design with which we approach the Lord’s table; we should not be judged — Or chastised so severely; or we should avoid those sins which bring down the divine judgments upon us. But when we are judged — Thus punished with temporal calamities; we are chastened of the Lord — Corrected for our instruction and amendment; that — Being thereby purged from sin; we should not be condemned with the world — Should escape future condemnation and wrath. 1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 1 Corinthians 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 1 Corinthians 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 1 Corinthians 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 1 Corinthians 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 1 Corinthians 11:33-34 . Wherefore, my brethren — To conclude what I have to say to you on this subject; when ye come together to eat — To celebrate the Lord’s supper; tarry one for another — With decency and respectful love, till the whole assembly be convened, and then join all together at the same table and time, without such factions and divisions. And if any man hunger — Which probably was the pretence of those that were guilty of the fore- mentioned disorders; let him eat at home — At his own house; that ye come not together unto condemnation — That you may not, by profaning this holy ordinance, provoke God to punish you. And the rest — The other circumstances relating to the Lord’s supper, which require to be corrected; I will set in order — Will see regulated; when I come — To Corinth. 1 Corinthians 11:34 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. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary 1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Chapter 16 THE VEIL AT this point of the Epistle Paul passes from the topics regarding which the Corinthians had requested him to inform them, to make some remarks on the manner in which, as he had heard, they were conducting their meetings for public worship. The next four chapters are occupied with instructions as to what constitutes seemliness and propriety in such meetings. He desires to express in general his satisfaction that on the whole they had adhered to the instructions he had already given them and the arrangements he had himself made while in Corinth. "I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you." Yet there are one or two matters which cannot be spoken of in terms of commendation. He heard, in the first place, with surprise and vexation, that not only were women presuming to pray in public and address the assembled Christians, but even laid aside while they did so the characteristic dress of their sex, and spoke, to the scandal of all sober-minded Orientals and Greeks, unveiled. To reform this abuse he at once addresses himself. It is a singular specimen of the strange matters that must have come before Paul for decision when the care of all the Churches lay upon him. And his settlement of it is an admirable illustration of his manner of resolving all practical difficulties by means of principles which are as true and as useful for us today as they were for those primitive Christians who had heard his own voice admonishing them. In treating ethical or practical subjects, Paul is never superficial, never content with a mere rule. In order to see the import and importance of this matter of dress, we must first of all know how it came to pass that the Christian women should have thought of making a demonstration so unfeminine as to shock the very heathen around them. What was their intention or meaning in doing so? What idea was possessing their minds? Throughout this long and interesting letter, Paul is doing little else than endeavouring to correct the hasty impressions which these new believers were receiving regarding their position as Christians. A great flood of new and vast ideas was suddenly poured in upon their minds; they were taught to look differently on themselves, differently on their neighbours, differently on God, differently on all things. Old things had in their case passed away with a will, and all things had become new. They were made alive from the dead, they were born again, and did not know how far this affected the relationships with this world into which their natural birth had brought them. The facts of the second birth and the new life took such hold upon them that they could not for a time understand how they were yet connected with the old life. So that for some of them Paul had to solve the simplest problems, as, for example, we find that the believing husband was in doubt whether he should live with his wife who remained an unbeliever, for was it not abhorrent to nature that he, the living, should be bound to the dead, that a child of God should remain in the most intimate connection with one who was yet a child of wrath? Was this not a monstrous anomaly, for which prompt divorce was the fit remedy? That such questions as these should be put shows us how difficult these early Christians found it to adjust themselves as children of God to their position in a corrupt, condemned world. Now one of the ideas in Christianity which was newest to them was the equality of all before God, an idea well calculated to take powerful and absorbing hold of a world half slaves, half masters. The emperor and the slave must equally give account to God. Caesar is not above responsibility; the barbarian who swells his triumph and is afterwards slaughtered in his dungeon or his theatre is not beneath it. Each man and each woman must stand alone before God, and for himself and herself give account of the life received from God. Alongside of this idea came that of the one Saviour for all alike, the common salvation accessible to all on equal terms, and partaking of which all became brethren and on a level, one with Christ and one therefore with each other. There was neither Greek nor barbarian, male nor female, bond nor free, now. These three mighty distinctions that had tyrannised over the ancient world were abolished, for all were one in Christ Jesus. It dawned on the barbarian that though there was no Roman citizenship for him nor any entrance into the mighty commonwealth of Greek literature, he had a citizenship in heaven, was the heir of God, and could command even with his barbaric speech the ear of the Most High. It dawned on the slave as his fetter galled him, or as his soul sank under the sad hopelessness of his life, that he was God’s redeemed, rescued from the bondage of his own evil heart, and superior to all curse, being God’s friend. And it dawned on the woman that she was neither man’s toy nor man’s slave, a mere luxury or appendage to his establishment, but that she also had herself a soul, a responsibility equally momentous with the man’s, and therefore a life to frame for herself. The astonishment with which such ideas must have been received, so subversive of the principles on which heathen society was proceeding, it is impossible now to realise; but we cannot wonder that they should by their fresh power and absorbing novelty have carried the Christians to quite the opposite extreme from those at which they had been living. In the case before us the women who had been awakened to a sense of their own personal, individual responsibility and their equal right to the highest privileges of men began to think that in all things they should be recognised as the equals of the other sex. They were one with Christ; men could have no higher honour: was it not obvious that they were on an equality with those who had held them so cheap? They had the Holy Ghost dwelling in them; might not they, as well as the men, edify Christian assemblies by uttering the inspirations of the Spirit? They were not dependent on men for their Christian privileges; ought not they to show this by laying aside the veil, which was the acknowledged badge of dependence? This laying aside of the veil was not a mere change of fashion in dress, of which, Of course, Paul would have had nothing to say; it was not a feminine device for showing themselves to better advantage among their fellow worshippers; it was not even, though this also, alas! falls within the range of possible supposition, the immodest boldness and forwardness which are sometimes seen to accompany in both sexes the profession of Christianity; but it was the outward expression and easily read symbol of a great movement on the part of women in assertion of their rights and independence. The exact meaning of the laying aside of the veil thus becomes plain. It was the part of female attire which could most readily be made the symbol of a change in the views of women regarding their own position. It was the most significant part of the woman’s dress. Among the Greeks it was the universal custom for the women to appear in public with the head covered, commonly with the corner of their shawl drawn over their head like a hood. Accordingly Paul does not insist on the face being covered, as in Eastern countries, but only the head. This covering of the head could be dispensed with only in places where they were secluded from public view. It was therefore the recognised badge of seclusion; it was the badge which proclaimed that she who wore it was a private, not a public, person, finding her duties at home, not abroad, in one household, not in the city. And a woman’s whole life and duties ought to lie so much apart from the public eye that both sexes looked upon the veil as the truest and most treasured emblem of woman’s position. In this seclusion there was of course implied a limitation of woman’s sphere of action and a subordination to one man’s interests instead of to the public. It was the man’s place to serve the State or the public, the woman’s place to serve the man. And so thoroughly was it recognised that the veil was a badge setting forth this private and subordinate position of the woman that it was the one significant rite in marriage that she assumed the veil in token that now her husband was her head, to whom she was prepared to hold herself subordinate. The laying aside the veil was therefore an expression on the part of the Christian women that their being assumed as members of Christ’s body raised them out of this position of dependence and subordination. This movement of the Corinthian women towards independence, on the ground that all are one in Christ Jesus, Paul meets by reminding them that personal equality is perfectly consistent with social subordination. It was quite true, as Paul himself had taught them, that, so far as their connection with Christ went, there was no distinction of sex. To the woman, as to the man, the offer of salvation was made directly. It was not through her father or her husband that the woman had to deal with Christ. She came into contact with the living God and united herself to Christ independently of any male representative and on the same footing as her male relatives. There is but one Christ for all, rich and poor, high and low, male and female; and all are received by Him on the same footing, no distinction being made. While then in things civil and social the husband represents the wife, he cannot do so in matters of religion. Here each person must act for himself or herself. And the woman must not confound these two spheres in which she moves, or argue that because she is independent of her husband in the greater, she must also be independent of him in the less. Equality in the one sphere is not inconsistent with subordination in the other. "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 principle enounced in these words is of incalculable importance and very wide and constant application. Whatever is meant by the natural equality of men, it cannot mean that all are to be in every respect on the same level, and that none are to have authority over others. The application of Paul’s principle to the matter in hand alone here concerns us. The woman must recognise that as Christ, though equal with the Father, is subordinate to Him, so is she herself subordinate to her husband or her father. In her private worship she deals with Christ independently; but when she appears in public and social worship, she appears as a woman with certain social relations. Her relation to Christ does not dissolve her relations to society. Rather does it intensify them. The inward change that has passed upon her, and the new relation which she has formed independently of her husband, only strengthen the bond by which she is tied to him. When a boy becomes a Christian, that confirms, and in no degree relaxes, his subordination to his parents. He holds a relation to Christ which they could not form for him, and which they cannot dissolve; but this independence in one matter does not make him independent in everything. A commissioned officer in the army holds his commission from the Crown; but this does not interfere with, but only confirms, his subordination to officers who, like himself, are servants of the Crown, but above him in rank. In order to the harmony of society, there is a gradation of ranks; and social grievances result, not from the existence of social distinctions, but from their abuse. This gradation then involves Paul’s inference that "every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head." The veil being the recognised badge of subordination, when a man appears veiled he would seem to acknowledge some one present and visible at his head, and would thus dishonour Christ, his true Head. A woman, on the other hand, appearing unveiled would seem to say that she acknowledges no visible human head, and thereby dishonours her head-that is, her husband-and so doing, dishonours herself. For a woman to appear unveiled on the streets of Corinth was to proclaim her shame. And so, says Paul, a woman who in public worship discards her veil might as well be shaven. She puts herself on the level of the woman with a shaven head, which both among Jews and Greeks was a brand of disgrace. In the eye of the angels, who, according to the Jewish belief, were present in meetings for worship, the woman is disgraced who does not appear with "power on her head"; that is to say, with the veil by which she silently acknowledges the authority of her husband. This subordination of the woman to the man belongs not merely to the order of the Christian Church, but has its roots in nature. "Man is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." Paul’s idea is that man was created to represent God and so to glorify Him, to be a visible embodiment of the goodness, and wisdom, and power of the unseen God. Nowhere so clearly or fully as in man can God be seen. Man is the glory of God because he is His image and is fitted to exhibit: in actual life the excellences which make God worthy of our love and worship. Looking at man as he actually and broadly is, we may think it a bold saying of Paul when he says, "Man is the glory of God"; and yet on consideration we see that this is no more than the truth. We should not scruple to say of the Man Christ Jesus that He is the glory of God, that in the whole universe of God nothing can more fully reveal the infinite Divine goodness. In Him we see how truly man is God’s image, and how fit a medium human nature is for expressing the Divine. We know of nothing higher than what Christ said, did, and was during the few months He went, about among men. He is the glory of God; and every man in his degree, and according to his fidelity to Christ, is also the glory of God. This is of course true of woman as well as of man. It is true that woman can exhibit the nature of God and be His glory as well as man. But Paul is placing himself at the point of view of the writer of Genesis and speaking broadly of God’s purpose in creation. And he means that God’s purpose was to express Himself fully and crown all His works by bringing into being a creature made in His image, able to subdue, and rule, and develop all that is in the world. This creature was man, a masculine, resolved, capable creature. And just as it appeals to our sense of fitness that when God became incarnate He should appear as man, and not as woman, so does it appeal to our sense of fitness that it is man, and not woman, who should be thought of as created to be God’s representative on earth. But while man directly, woman indirectly, fulfils this purpose of God. She is God’s glory by being man’s glory. She serves God by serving man. She exhibits God’s excellences by creating and cherishing excellence in man. Without woman man cannot accomplish aught. The woman is created for the man, because without her he is helpless. "For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman." But as man becomes actually the glory of God when he perfectly subordinates himself to God with the absolute devotedness of love, so does woman become the glory of man when she upholds and serves man with that perfect devotedness of which woman so constantly shows herself to be capable. It is in winning the self-sacrificing love of man and his entire devotion that God’s glory appears, and man’s glory appears in his power to kindle and maintain the devotion of woman. Not in independence of God does man find either his own glory or God’s, and not in independence of man does woman find either her own glory or man’s. The desire of woman shall be to her husband; in the honourable devotedness to man which love prompts, woman fulfils the law of her creation; and it is only the imperfect and ignoble woman who has any sense of humiliation, degradation, or limitation of her sphere in following the lead of love for the individual. It is through this honourable service of man she serves God and fulfils the purpose of her existence. The woman who is most womanly will most readily recognise that her function is to be the glory of man, to mould, and elevate, and sustain the individual, to find her joy and her life in the private life, in which the affections are developed, principles formed, and all personal wants provided for. And man, on his part, must say, "If aught of goodness or of grace Be mine, hers be the glory." For, as a French writer says, "her influence embraces the whole of life. A wife, a mother-two magical words, comprising the sweetest sources of man’s felicity! Theirs is the reign of beauty, of love, of reason, always a reign. A man takes counsel with his wife: he obeys his mother: he obeys her long after she has ceased to live, and the ideas he has received from her become principles even stronger than his passions." The position assigned to woman as the glory of man is therefore far removed from the view which cynically proclaims her man’s mere convenience, whose function it is "to fatten household sinners," "to suckle fools and chronicle small beer." Paul’s view, though adopted and exhibited in individual instances, is far as yet from commanding universal consent. But certainly nothing so distinguishes, elevates, purities, and balances a man in life as a high esteem for woman. A man shows his manliness chiefly by a true reverence for all women, by a clear recognition of the high service appointed to them by God, and by a tender sympathy with them in all the various endurance their nature and their position demand. That this is woman’s normal sphere is indicated even by her unalterable physical characteristics. "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." By nature woman is endowed with a symbol of modesty and retirement. The veil, which signifies her devotement to home duties, is merely the artificial continuation of her natural gift of hair. The long hair of the Greek fop or of the English cavalier was accepted by the people as an indication of effeminate and luxurious living. Suitable for women, it is unsuitable for men; such is the instinctive judgment. And nature, speaking through this visible sign of the woman’s hair, tells her that her place is in private, not in public, in the home, not in the city or the camp, in the attitude of free and loving subordination, not in the seat of authority and rule. In other respects also the physical constitution of woman points to a similar conclusion. Her shorter stature and slighter frame, her higher pitch of voice, her more graceful form and movement, indicate that she is intended for the gentler ministries of home life rather than for the rough work of the world. And similar indications are found in her mental peculiarities. She has the gifts which fit her for influencing individuals; man has those qualities which enable him to deal with things, with abstract thought, or with persons in the mass. Quicker in perception and trusting more to her intuitions, woman sees at a glance what man is sure of only after a process of reasoning. These arguments and conclusions introduced by Paul of course apply only to the broad and normal distinction between man and woman. He does not argue that women are inferior to men, nor that they may not have equal spiritual endowments; but he maintains that, whatever be their endowments, there is a womanly mode of exercising them and a sphere for woman which she ought not to transgress. Not all women are of the distinctively womanly type. A Britomart may arm herself and overthrow the strongest knights. A Joan of Arc may infuse into a nation her own warlike and patriotic ardour. In art, in literature, in science, feminine names may occupy some of the highest places. In our own day many careers have been opened to women from which they had hitherto been debarred. They are now found in Government offices, in School Boards, in the medical profession. Again and again in the history of the Church attempts have been made to institute a female order in the ministry, but as yet both the clerical and the legal professions are closed to women. And we may reasonably conclude that as the army and navy will always be manned by the physically stronger sex, so there are other employments in which women would be entirely out of place. But it will be asked, Why was Paul so exact in describing how a woman should comport herself while praying or prophesying in public, when he meant very shortly in this same Epistle to write, "Let your women keep silence in the Churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak: but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the Law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the Church"? It has been suggested that although it was the standing order that women should not speak, there might be occasions when the Spirit urged them to address an assemblage of Christians; and the regulation here given is intended for these exceptional cases. This may be so, but the connection in which the absolute prohibition is given rather militates against this view, and I think it more likely that in his own mind Paul held the two matters quite distinct and felt that a mere prohibition preventing women from addressing public meetings would not touch the more serious transgression of female modesty involved in the discarding of the veil. He could not pass over this violent assertion of independence without separate treatment; and while he is treating it, it is not the speaking in public which is before his mind, but the unfeminine assertion of independence and the principle underlying this manifestation. Besides the direct teaching of this passage on the position of woman, there are inferences to be drawn from it of some importance. First, Paul recognises that the God of nature is the God of grace, and that we may safely argue from the one sphere to the other. "All things are of God." It is profitable to be recalled to the teaching of nature. It saves us from becoming fantastic in our beliefs, from cherishing fallacious expectations, from false, pharisaic, extravagant conduct. Again, we are here reminded that every man and woman has to do directly with God, who has no respect of persons. Each soul is independent of all others in its relation to God. Each soul has the capacity of direct connection with God and of thus being raised above all oppression, not only of his fellows, but of all outward things. It is here man finds his true glory. His soul is his own to give it to God. He is dependent on nothing but on God only. Admitting God into his spirit, and believing in the love and rectitude of God, he is armed against all the ills of life, however little he may relish them. To all of us God offers Himself as Friend, Father, Saviour, Life. No man need remain in his sin; none need be content with a poor eternity; no man need go through life trembling or defeated: for God declares Himself on our side, and offers His love to all without respect of persons. We are all on the same footing before Him. God does not admit some freely, while He shrinks from the touch of others. It is as full and rich an inheritance that He puts within the reach of the poorest and most wretched of earth’s inhabitants as He offers to him on whom the eyes of men rest in admiration or in envy. To disbelieve or repudiate this privilege of uniting ourselves to God is in the truest sense to commit spiritual suicide. It is in God we live now; He is with us and in us: and to shut Him out from that inmost consciousness to which none else is admitted is to cut ourselves off, not only from the deepest joy and truest support, but from all in which we can find spiritual life. Lastly, although there is in Christ an absolute levelling of distinctions, no one being more acceptable to God or nearer to Him because he belongs to a certain race or rank, or class, yet these distinctions remain and are valid in society. A woman is a woman still though she become a Christian; a subject must honour his king although by becoming a Christian he is himself in one aspect above all authority; a servant will show his Christianity, not by assuming an insolent familiarity with his Christian master, but by treating him with respectful fidelity. The Christian, above all men, needs sober mindedness to hold the balance level and not allow his Christian rank entirely to outweigh his social position. It forms a great part of our duty to accept our own place without envying others and to do honour to those to whom honour is due. 1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. Chapter 17 ABUSE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER IN this paragraph of his letter Paul speaks of an abuse which can scarcely be credited, still less tolerated, in our times. The most sacred of all Christian ordinances had been allowed to degenerate into a bacchanalian revel, not easily to be distinguished from a Greek drinking party. A respectable citizen would hardly have permitted at his own table the license and excess visible at the Table of the Lord. How such disorders in worship should have arisen calls for explanation. It was common in Corinth and the other cities of Greece for various sections of the community to form themselves into associations, clubs, or guilds; and it was customary for such societies to share a common meal once a week, or once a month, or even, when convenient, daily. Some of these associations were formed of persons very variously provided with this world’s goods, and one of the objects of some of the clubs was to make provision for the poorer members in such a manner as to subject them to none of the shame which is apt to attend the acceptance of promiscuous charity. All members had an equal right to present themselves at the table; and the property held by the society was equally distributed to all. This custom, not unknown in Palestine itself, had been spontaneously adopted by the primitive Church of Jerusalem. The Christians of those early days felt themselves to be more closely related than the members of any trade guild or political club. If it was convenient and suitable that persons of similar political opinions or belonging to the same trade should to some extent have common property and should exhibit their community by sharing a common meal, it was certainly suitable among Christians. Speedily it became a prevalent custom for Christians to eat together. These meals were called agapae-love feasts-and became a marked feature of the early Church. On a fixed day, generally the first day of the week, the Christians assembled, each bringing what he could as a contribution to the feast: fish, poultry, joints of meat, cheese, milk, honey, fruit, wine, and bread. In some places the proceedings began by partaking of the consecrated bread and wine; but in other places physical appetite was first appeased by partaking of the meal provided, and after that the bread and wine were handed round. This mode of celebrating the Lord’s Supper was recommended by its close resemblance to its original celebration by the Lord and His disciples. It was at the close of the Paschal Supper, which was meant to satisfy hunger as well as to commemorate the Exodus, that our Lord took bread and brake it. He sat with His disciples as one family, and the meal they partook of was social as well as religious. But when the first solemnity passed away, and Christ’s presence was no longer felt at the common table, the Christian love feast was liable to many corruptions. The wealthy took the best seats, kept hold of their own delicacies, and, without waiting for any common distribution, each looked after himself and went on with his own supper, regardless of the fact that others at the table had none. "Everyone taketh before other his own supper," so that, while one is hungry and has received nothing, another at this so-called common love feast has already taken too much and is intoxicated. Those who had no need to use the common stock, but had houses of their own to eat and to drink in, yet, for the sake of appearances, brought their contribution to the meal, but consumed it themselves. The consequence was that from being truly love feasts, exhibiting Christian charity and Christian temperance, these meetings became scandalous as scenes of greedy selfishness, and profane conduct, and besotted excess. "What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not." In this Paul anticipates the condemnation of these occasions of revelry and discord which the Church was obliged to pronounce after no great lapse of time. Thus then arose these disorders in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. By the conjunction of this rite with the social meal of the Christians it degenerated into an occasion of much that was unseemly and scandalous. To the reform of this abuse Paul how addresses himself; and it is worth our while to observe what remedies he does not propose as well as those he recommends. First, He does not propose to disjoin absolutely and in all cases the religious rite from the ordinary meal. In the case of the richer members of the Church this disjunction is enjoined. They are directed to take their meals at home. "Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God, and shame them that have not? If any man hunger, let him eat at home." But with the destitute or those who had no well-provided homes another rule must be adopted. It would shame the Christian community, and quite undo its quickly won reputation for brotherly love and charity, were its members observed begging their daily bread on the streets. It was equally unseemly for the rich to accept and for the poor to be denied the meal furnished at the expense of the Church. And therefore Paul’s recommendation is that those who can conveniently eat at home should do so. Bur as no quality of the Christian Church is more strictly her own than charity and no duty more incumbent or more lovely than to feed the hungry, it could not dishonour the Church to spread in it a meal for whosoever should be in need of it. Again, although the wine of Holy Communion had been so sadly abused, Paul does not prohibit its use in the ordinance. His moderation and wisdom have not in this respect been universally followed. On infinitely less occasion alterations have been introduced into the administration of the ordinance with a view to preventing its abuse by reclaimed drunkards, and on still slighter pretext a more sweeping alteration was introduced many centuries ago by the Church of Rome. In that Church the custom still prevails of receiving communion only under one kind; that is to say, the communicant partakes of the bread, but not of the wine. The reason for this is given by one of their most authoritative writers as follows: "It is well known that this custom was not first established by any ecclesiastical law; but, on the contrary, it was in consequence of the general prevalence of the usage that this law was passed in approval of it. It is a matter of no less notoriety that the monasteries in whose centre this observance had its rise, and thence spread in ever wider circles, were led by a very nice sense of delicacy to impose on themselves this privation. A pious dread of desecrating, by spilling and the like, even in the most conscientious ministration, the form of the sublimest and the holiest whereof the participation can be vouchsafed to man, was the feeling which swayed their minds However, we should rejoice if it were left free to each one to drink or not out of the consecrated chalice; and this permission would be granted if with the same love and concord a universal desire were expressed for the use of the cup as from the twelfth century the contrary wish has been enounced." One cannot but regret that this reverence for the ordinance did not take the form of a humble acceptance of it, in accordance with its original institution; and one cannot but think that the "pious dread of desecrating" the ordinance would have sufficiently prevented any spilling of the wine or other abuse, or ha