But the best institutions are liable to corruption in the hands of men; and those who are most in reputation for wisdom are sometimes left to act in a very unaccountable manner. It is supposed by some, that the apostles introduced the practice of inviting the members of the churches to "feast together" in public, as a pledge of their mutual affection; and to these entertainments allusion seems to be made, Jude 12., under the title of ayaza, or love feasts. It may be also thought, that these repasts are referred to in Acts ii. 46. "And they continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread (xar' oxor,) from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart." It is certain that this was a very ancient practice in the church, and that the feasts of charity continued to be observed, till they were suppressed on account of the abuses to which they gave rise. Whether they are referred to in this passage, or whether indeed they were of apostolic origin, is not so clearly ascertained; but it seems evident that the Corinthians had begun to eat together in their place of worship, as at a common entertainment. This feast they either confounded with the Lord's supper, or rather partook of previously to the administration of that ordinance. Perhaps they defended the practice, on the ground, that the original institution of the Eucharist was preceded by the pascal supper; and as the former was not intended as a full meal, they thought it necessary to make up the deficiency by some other means. Dr Mosheim gives the following account of these entertainments. "The prayers of the first christians were followed by oblations of bread, wine, and other things; and hence, both the ministers of the church, and the poor, derived their subsistence. Every christian who was in an opulent condition 5 and, indeed, every one according to their circumstances, brought with them their gifts, and offered them as it were unto the Lord. Of the bread and wine presented in these offerings, such a quantity was separated from the rest, as was required in the administration of the Lord's supper.": "The holy supper was distributed by the deacons; and this sacred institu tion was followed by sober repasts, which, from the excellent ends they were designed to promote, were called agape, or feasts: of charity." If this were indeed the custom in well-regulated churches, it was very different in the church at Corinth. 21For in eating every one taketh before-hand (goban) his own sup➡. Eccles. Hist. part. 1. cent. 2. c.4. § 7.

per;" that is, every one first partook of the provisions he had brought, before the administration of the Lord's supper. This unfitted their minds for attending rightly to that holy ordinance; and, according to the selfish practice before alluded to, one person was allowed to want, while another gratified his appetite, without keeping strictly within the bounds of moderation. "This man hungers and another is filled (vi)." There is no necessity for rendering the word μvu, is drunken; for we cannot suppose that intoxication would be tolerated in any member of the primitive churches. It is here opposed, not to moderate eating, but to hunger. In John ii. 10. it is rendered "well drank,” and the same word is used by the LXX. in Ps. xxxvi. 8. where it evidently refers to eating, "They shall be abundantly satisfied (μstvo Incorras) with the fatness of thy house." Accordingly, the passage is rendered by Schleusner, "Alius quidem esurit et sitit, alius vero saturatur." The usual version is retained by some commentators, to shew that even the primitive churches were not faultless; but surely we are not at liberty to copy their defects. Even allowing the correctness of the received translation, it would only prove that the Apostle mentions their excesses in order to condemn them. It is paraphrased by Dr M'Knight, "another is plentifully fed." This method of feasting was utterly subversive of the design of the ordinance of the Supper. It was never intended for the gratification of the carnal appetite, but for the edification of the soul; consequently, only as much of the elements should be used by each person, as may be necessary to assist the mind in meditating on the spiritual blessings signified. The house of prayer must not be converted into a place of sensual enjoyment. Therefore the Apostle further asks, 22. "What! have ye not houses to eat and to drink in, or do ye despise (Kara@gers) the church of God, and shame them that have nothing (XHERIEXUVITE TOUS μn exortas)?" If they wished to satisfy their appetite, they had houses of their own for this purpose, in which they might eat and drink with their friends. Did they not perceive, that, by their present disorderly conduct, they were despising the institutions of God's house, and rendering the table of the Lord contemptible? Nor was it less inconsistent with brotherly love. Was it not calculated to put their poorer brethren to shame, who had no provision of their own to bring along with them? What should he say to them respecting such a practice?

Could he commend their spirit, or hold them up as an example to other churches? This was impossible. "Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not." Such a form of expression implies the strongest disapprobation.

In order to bring them back to the path of duty, he proceeds to explain the proper manner of celebrating the Lord's supper, as he had himself been instructed by divine revelation, and as he had taught the Corinthians before, if they had not presumptuously neglected his doctrine. He had not indeed been present at the original institution of that solemnity, but he had been fully instructed in its true nature and design, by our Lord himself; and the directions here laid down remarkably coincide with the account given by the four evangelists. 23. "For I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was betrayed, took bread (agrov)." On that memorable night in which the Son of God was delivered into the hands of sinful men, he was pleased to appoint a simple but solemn memorial of his sufferings and death, which might at once serve to establish the fact, and to confirm the faith and love of his disciples to the end of time, and which has always been viewed as a source of comfort and joy by the people of God. As he sat with the twelve at the passover table, he took a cake of unleavened bread, such as was commonly used on the occasion of the passover, and having given thanks to God for his goodness in the redemption of the world, he broke it, and distributed it among them, as the symbol of his body, which was shortly to be broken for their sins. 24. "And having given thanks (xagiornoas) he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me.” On this passage the Roman Catholics found their doctrine of transubstantiation, maintaining, that on pronouncing these words by the priest, the bread is converted into the real body of Christ. But the very occasion on which they were spoken, shews that they are not to be understood in a literal sense. Our Saviour was personally present with his disciples when he said these words; so that they could not partake of that body in which he addressed them. Besides, his body was not yet broken for them: that event was still future. We cannot conceive of a substance being changed, where its visible qualities remain as before. When the water was changed into wine, there was an actual transforma

tion submitted to the senses; but here we are required to believe a miracle, contrary to the evidence of our senses, which is the true way to bring the doctrine of miracles into disrepute. We cannot suppose a body to be at once present and absent in the same place; but the heavens have received the body of the heavenly Saviour till the times of the restitution of all things. When he spoke of giving men his flesh to eat, the Jews understood him literally; but he taught them, that "it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing," (John vi. 63.) Therefore, when he says, "this is my body," he must be understood to mean, "this represents my body broken for you ;" and he commands us to take and eat the bread as a memorial of his infinite goodness, in giving his sacred flesh to be the food of our souls. As the body is nourished with the bread that perisheth, so we must feed on him by faith as the bread of life.* 25." In the same manner (he took) the cup after they had supped (μsta To duroa), saying, this cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." According to the view formerly given, the cup of wine is an emblem of the Saviour's blood, by the shedding of which the covenant of grace is ratified, and remission of sins obtained. So in Matt. xxvi. 27, 28. he says, “Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." By mentioning that our Lord took the cup after the pascal supper, the Apostle intimates to the Corinthians that the Lord's supper is not designed for the gratification of the bodily appetite. By means of this ordinance, the followers of Christ proclaim the fact and the design of his death, to the world, and profess their faith in his second coming. 26. "For as often (iraxis) as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye declare, or publish (Tayyλ) the death of the Lord until he come." Those persons, therefore, who should partake of these symbols, merely to gratify their carnal appetite, or who should abuse them to purposes of strife, or profane them for secular ends, are chargeable with treating the sacred body of Christ with contempt, and must share in the guilt of those who crucified the Lord of glory, (Heb. vi. 6.) They also treat the

→ Some understand the words, us rav sμnv eveμvnow, as signifying "to put me in, remembrance ;” for in this ordinance we, as it were, remind the Saviour of the great love wherewith he loved us.

-blood of the covenant as a common thing, (Heb. x. 29.) 27. "Whosoever therefore shall eat this bread or (») drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty (oxes tola) of the body and blood of the Lord."

On this account, it is highly necessary that every communicant should prove or examine himself, with devout seriousness, respecting his knowledge of the nature and design of this institution, the purity of his motives for observing it, the reality of his faith and repentance, and the general tenor of his conduct. If, upon this impartial scrutiny, he has reason to believe that he is a partaker of divine grace, he may then safely and joyfully participate. 28." But let a man examine himself (doxiμaŋetw), and so let him eat of the bread (TM Tou agtov) and drink of the cup." This self-examination is not designed to drive him from the table of the Lord, under a dread of unfitness, but to render the path of duty clear to his own mind. But if he should neglect this salutary caution, and rush forward to this solemnity, in a light, presumptuous, or worldly spirit, he would only seal his own condemnation, and bring upon himself the displeasure of God. 29. "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily (aražas) eateth and drinketh judgment (xg) to himself, not discerning (diangi) the Lord's body." It has been said that the Apostle, by " eating unworthily," refers to the manner of receiving, not to the character of the communicant; and it is admitted that there is great danger in receiving the elements in a careless and irreverent manner, or merely to gratify the sensual appetite; but it is a more common, and an equally dangerous, error, to allow unworthy persons to receive them. To such persons the symbols of salvation become occasions of greater guilt, as if they should drink of a poisonous cup: The reason is, they make no difference between this divine ordinance and a common meal. They have not faith to partake of the emblems of the Lord's body in a spiritual manner. The word gμ is unhappily rendered by our translators, damnation, which has occasioned much distress and perplexity to tender consciences. It does not properly refer to the final sentence of condemnation, but to those supernatural judgments which were commonly inflicted on disorderly persons in the primitive church, as is afterwards explained by the Apostle, ver. 30. It is derived from the same root with the word xgvousvos, in ver. 32, which is rendered "When we are judged." Those persons are least in danger of