1 This precept I give you, not pruising

respect;

that

THURSDAY BEFORE EASTER.

1 Cor. xi. 17-34.

IN this that I declare unto you, I praise you not; that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For you in this first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you, and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper: for in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What, have ye not houses to eat and 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. 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; 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. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had

For as

supped, saying, This cup is the new testa-
ment in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye
drink it, in remembrance of me.
often as ye eat this bread, and drink this
cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he
come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this
bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, un-
worthily, shall be guilty of the body and
blood of the Lord. But let a man examine
himself, and so let him eat of that bread,
and drink of that cup. For he that eateth
and drinketh unworthily eateth and drink-
eth damnation 2 to himself, not discerning 2 ju
the [Lord's] body. For this cause many
are weak and sickly among you, and many
sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, 3 had
we should not be judged. But when we have
are judged, we are chastened of the Lord,
that we should not be condemned with the
world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye
come together to eat, tarry for one another.
And if any man hunger, let him eat at
home; that ye come not together unto
condemnation. And the rest will I set in
order when I come.

4

THE marginal alteration has been made according to the reading which is now adopted by all the best commentators (Alford, Stanley, Wordsworth). "I give you this precept as to your behaviour in public worship (see preceding verses), but I do not praise you for your mode of proceeding; you come together, not for the better, not to worship God, but for the worse. For, in the first place, I am told that you turn these religious meetings into scenes of party strife; and with regard to the greater part of you, I fear that I am told truly."

Heresies here mean, as is evident by the context, factions, divisions going on into violence and turbulence. "There must needs be these," says St. Paul, "to show who are good and wise enough to rise above them."

The Apostle then passes on to consider the most flagrant instance of the mischief done by these divisions, namely, the scandal attaching to their irregularities in celebrating the Lord's Supper.

This is the first mention of the Eucharist out of the Acts of the Apostles. The passages which speak of it in that Book seem to imply that it was a meal in the literal sense of the word, apparently the last meal of the day; and at the same time a direct act of religious worship. It appears to have been kept at the homes of the believers. See (1) Acts ii. 46. (In that passage," from house to house," should be "at home"). (2) xx. 7. Here we see it observed on the first day of the week, and it was kept up until late. On this very important

ment

judged

been

passage as throwing light both on the Eucharist and the observance of the Lord's Day, see Dr. Smith's Biblical Dictionary,' Art. "Lord's Supper." (3) xxvii. 35. This account is so like a narrative of the celebration of the Eucharist that it can hardly have been done without an intended reference to it; though St. Paul distributed this bread to the heathen sailors apparently.

Such are the notices in the Acts of the Apostles. They convey, as the notices in the Epistle before us convey more pointedly, the idea of communion as being the essential characteristic of the feast. Cf. Ch. x. 16-22, where St. Paul shows that the breaking of bread was a sign that the partakers were members of the One Body of Christ.

Such is what we gather from the New Testament concerning the Christian Feast, The general result is thus depicted in a recent commentary on this Epistle: We see here the most sacred ordinance of the Christian religion as it was celebrated by those in whose minds the earthly and the heavenly, the social and the religious aspect of life were indistinguishably blended. We see the banquet spread in the late evening, after the sun had set behind the western ridge of the hills of Achaia; we see the many torches * blazing, as at Troas, to light up the darkness of the community assembled; we see the couches laid and the walls hung,† after the manner of the East, as on the night of the Betrayal; we see the sacred loaf representing in its compact unity the harmony of the whole society; we hear the blessing or thanksgiving on the cup responded to by the joint' Amen,' such as even three centuries later is described as like a peal of thunder; we witness the complete realisation, in outward form, of the Apostle's words, suggested doubtless by the sight of the meal and the sacrament blended thus together, Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.'

But the Apostolical simplicity and joyousness of heart had become corrupted, as St. Paul proceeds to show. The outward form, indeed, of the rite was preserved, but the spirit of it had departed. First, in the Agape, or "Love-feast," which preceded the Communion, there were unseemly disputes about precedence, the poor were thrust aside by the rich (cf. James ii. 1-4). The words that follow-for in eating, &c., are illustrated by reference to Greek customs. The richer members, following probably the example of the common Grecian clubs, seized upon the portion of the food which they had brought before the poorer members could get hold of it, alleging in their own defence that they were hungry and could not wait; and the consequence was a scene of general disorder, and a complete disruption of the unity which the feast was intended to promote. When they came to the Eucharist afterwards "one was hungry, and another was drunken." The practice of the Grecian clubs was for each guest to eat that which he brought with him in his own basket. And the rule recommended by Socrates in order to prevent disorder was, as here by St. Paul, that they should not begin to eat till the contents of each basket were placed in public on the table."

Accordingly, in order to counteract this sore evil, the Apostle sets forward the religious character of the Communion. It is a social meal indeed, but the social character is subservient to the religious. "This is not Communion," he exclaims, "it is disorder and self-seeking. It is not the Lord's supper, it is merely your own."

St. Paul proceeds to relate the circumstances of the original institution of the Lord's Supper. The record is probably the oldest in existence, as having been written before the Gospels. The Apostle, by introducing the words in the same night that He was betrayed, seems to intend a protest against the Corinthian irregularities. It will be seen, on comparing the account with those of the Gospels, that it most resembles St. Luke's; and this fact confirms the tradition of the early Church, that Luke wrote under the direction of St. Paul. One of the principal features common to the two is the words, and when He had given thanks. From the Greek word thus translated (eucharistein) the name Eucharist, thanksgiving," is derived. Another peculiarity which both have is the expression, "This cup is the New Testament in my blood." The expression probably means, given in my blood, alluding to the libations poured out on the occasion of a treaty or covenant.

66

For as often, &c.] These are St. Paul's words, not our Lord's. The verse is a statement of the first object for which the Lord's Supper was ordained, namely, "for a continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ." Ye do shew forth (or preach) the Lord's death as a fact which has already taken place. He does not, say "You continue, or renew, the sacrifice of Christ's death." This idea is distinctly repudiated by the Reformers as a "blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit." For this reason it was that in our Prayer-Book the word "altar was carefully omitted, as implying sanction of the false doctrine. The Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice, but it is of praise and thanksgiving.

Till He come.] These words, as Bengel remarks, show that the beginning of the New Covenant, the death of Christ, and the close of it, His coming to judgment, are united by the Christian feast.

Wherefore, is the Apostle's conclusion from the facts he has stated, whosoever shall eat this bread, &c. When Christ ordained the holy feast He called it "His body and blood." To profane the feast therefore was to profane Christ. The unworthy eating is eating in the manner which the Apostle has been describing, with no thought of reverence toward that Death of which the feast was a showing forth; but instead, with self-indulgence, division, profanity. St. Paul does not mean to exclude anyone, except indeed the incestuous person (ver. 5), on the ground of his unworthiness. He never, one may say, contemplates the possibility of Christians absenting themselves from the feast. The Death of Christ was not for good men but for evil. So the feast is for the feeble, the tempted, the sinful; for those who feel that they have nothing, that they have need of all things. "We are not worthy to come to Thy Table, O Lord,” we say in the service, "therefore we come to Thee, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by Thy body, and our souls washed through Thy most precious blood."

But let a man examine himself, i. e. the state of his heart and mind, to see whether he has brought himself to realize the solemn significance of the holy feast. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself; and this judgment is, that he does not discern the body. His selfishness and spirit of division hinder him from realising that he belongs to the body of Christ. The bread and wine therefore have no meaning to him, convey no blessing.

For this cause, &c.] The judgments here spoken of are lesser judgments, intended to awaken them to a sense of their loss. Not to realize the body and their

membership in it was the great judgment. Sickliness of body was the punish-
ment of their ill-doings in the body, their excitement and drunkenness; to such
excess had these sins apparently gone.

66

For if we had judged, &c.] The Apostle places himself in their position:-
If you had considered, if you had meditated upon the nature of the Lord's
Supper, this excess would not have happened. But now that you are judged,
it is to bring you back from the world to God."

Then St. Paul sums up all the past in the general directions which follow.

Insert

the

e were

GOOD FRIDAY.

Heb. x. 1-25.

being

sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the this priest,
right hand of God; from henceforth ex-
pecting till his enemies be made his foot-
stool. For by one offering he hath per-
fected for ever them that are sanctified. Insert
Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness 5 And
to us for after that he had said before,
This is the covenant that I will make with
them after those days, saith the Lord, I
will put my laws into their hearts, and in
their minds will I write them; and their
sins and iniquities will I remember no
more. Now where remission of these is,
there is no more offering for sin.

THE law having a shadow of1 good | But this man,3 after he had offered one 3 or,
things to come, and not the very
image of the things, can never with those
sacrifices, which they offered year by year
continually, make the comers [thereunto]
perfect for then would they not have
ceased to be offered? because that the
worshippers once purged should have had
no more conscience of sins. But in those
sacrifices there is a remembrance again
made of sins every year. For it is not pos-
sible that the blood of bulls and of goats
should take away sins. Wherefore, when
he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacri-
fice and offering thou wouldest not, but a
body hast thou prepared me: In burnt- Having therefore, brethren, boldness to
offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
had no pleasure: Then said I, Lo, I come by a new and living way, which he hath
(in the volume of the book it is written of consecrated for us, through the vail, that
me) to do thy will, O God. Above, when is to say, his flesh; and having an High 6 6 a Great
he said, Sacrifice and offering, and burnt-Priest over the house of God; let us draw
offerings, and offering for sin thou would-
est not, neither hadst pleasure therein,
which are offered by the law: then said
he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He
taketh away the first, that he may esta-
blish the second. By the which will we
are 2 sanctified, through the offering of the
body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering, and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

near with a true heart, in full assurance of
faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an
evil conscience, and our bodies washed with
pure water. Let us hold fast the profession
of our faith without wavering; (for he is
faithful that promised ;) and let us consider
one another to provoke unto love, and to
good works; not forsaking the assembling
of ourselves together, as the manner of some
is; but exhorting one another; and so much
the more, as ye see the day approaching.

THIS passage is a continuation of that which we considered on the Wednesday
of this week, and is a solemn conclusion of the argument. The law having a
shadow of the good things to come, that is, which were to come, the blessings of
the Gospel, having a shadow of these in the sacrifices and types, and not the
image of them, i. e. the living manifestation of them in the Life and Death of

Christ, and in the Sacraments which show forth that Life and Death until He come,—was never able to make men perfect. Year by year the day of propitiation came round, and the sacrifices were duly offered, but they could not make perfect the comers to God. The sentence seems to require these last words. Our translators have supplied “the comers thereunto.”

For then, if they were able to make men perfect, would they not have ceased to be offered? There would have been no need to purge the consciences of men who were already delivered from sin. But it was not so,-they did not cease; on the contrary, there was a remembrance of sin made by them every year. Then we have the reason why they could not make men perfect: it is impossible, &c. Why then, it might be asked, were they offered at all? They were commanded by God, not that they might take away sin by their own inherent power, but as pointing forward to Christ. Men saw in them, commanded as they were by God Himself, a token of His good-will, until Christ the Reedemer should come.

Wherefore, seeing that a better sacrifice than these was needed, when He cometh into the world, i. e. when He enters upon His work of Redemption (cf. Luke ii. 13), He saith, Sacrifice, &c. The words are quoted from Ps. xl. They probably have a primary meaning, like most of the prophecies, and express the willingness of the Psalmist to do the will of God. The fulfilment could only find place in Christ, seeing that He alone fulfilled God's will to the uttermost. Christ then, we are told, adopted the words of the Psalmist. The spirit of them was the spirit in which He entered upon His work (cf. John iv. 34). A very remarkable variation will be noticed on comparing the quotation with the original passage. In the latter we read "mine ears hast thou opened." The variation is due to the Septuagint, which the author (perhaps the Alexandrian Apollos, see p. 37) uniformly follows. How the difference arose it is impossible to say. If, as is possible, the original expression refers to the boring of the ear, in the case of a man becoming another's servant for life (Ex. xxi. 6), then the LXX. translators may have used the words, "a body hast thou prepared me,” as a paraphrase of the original, such as would convey the sense to un-Hebrew minds. If so, both expressions equally point to Christ, Who, by coming in the Body, made Himself the servant of the Father, and carried out His Will.

We must note in passing that Hebrew books were written on a long sheet, which was rolled round a stick. Hence the expression, the volume of the book. The writer declares that the Law had set forth sacrifice as the will of God, This sacrifice was not to change His will, as the heathen thought, but was a manifestation to men of what His will was. Probably the particular passage in "the volume of the Book," which is referred to here, is the history of Abraham offering up Isaac. In that event the father of the nation was taught that "God would provide Himself a Lamb," that God's will would be fulfilled in the sacrifice of His son.

Then the prophecy is repeated somewhat more freely, a paraphrase being introduced. Above, that is, "in the passage just quoted," when he said, &c. Two things are placed in contrast. (1.) Burnt offerings and sacrifices. (2.) The carrying out of God's Will. The first was taken away in order to establish the second. By the which will of God, fulfilled in Christ, we were sanctified, namely when we put on Christ. The work was finished once for all on the Cross (John xix. 30). When we became members of Christ its benefit passed