1 Corinthians 11

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

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

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ The abuse which the Apostle is reflecting upon in the 7th or 8th following verses, is Womens praying or proph sying with their heads uncovered, against which the Apostle strongly argueth. His Argument seemeth to be this, That the woman in Religious Services ought to behave her self as a person in subjection to her husband, and accordingly to use such a gesture, as according to the guise and custom of that Country, testified such a subjection; to this purpose he tells us in this verse, That the head of every man is Christ. Christ, considered as God according to his Divine Nature, is the Head of all men and women too in the World; but the Text seemeth rather to speak of Christ as Mediator: so the Apostle tells us, Eph. 5.23. He is the Head of the Church; and the New Testament often speaks of Christ in that notion, and of Believers as his Members: in this sense by every man, we must understand no more than every Christian, every Member of the Church.; and the head of the woman is the man The man is called the Head of the woman, because by Gods Ordinance he is to rule over her, Gen. 3.16. he has an excellency above the woman, and a power over her.; and the head of Christ is God And God is the Head of Christ, not in respect of his ssence and Divine Nature, but in respect of his Office as Mediator: as the man is the Head of the woman, not in respect of a different and more excellent Essence and Nature (for they are both of the same Nature) but in respect of office and place, as God has set him over the woman. Nor indeed could those who deny the Divine Nature of Christ, easily have brought a Text more against their own assertion, than this, which rather proveth, that God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are equal in Nature and Essence, than different; for surely the Head is not of a different, but the same Nature and Essence with the Members. Nor does Christs subjection to his Father at all argue an inequality, or difference from him in Nature and Essence, more than the subjection of Subjects to a Prince argue any such thing. The Apostle then determines this to be the Order which God has set. God is the Head of Christ, Christ is the Head of his Church, and every one that is a Member of it; and Man is the Head of the Woman, he to whom the woman ought to be subject, as the Church is subject to Christ, and Christ is subject to his Father, and from hence he argueth as followeth..

Every man praying or prophesying By every man praying and prophesying, some (amongst whom the learned Beza) understand not only he that ministreth in prayer, or in opening and applying the Scriptures, whether from a previous meditation and study of them, or from the extraordinary Revelation of the holy Spirit, which they had in those Primitive Times; but also all those that were present at those actions: The reason they give, is, Because the Reason given by the Apostle for his assertion, is such as is common to the people, as well as to him that ministreth: and the Woman was forbidden to speak in the Church, 1 Tim. 2.12. But out learned Bishop Hall assures us, he cannot agree with those of this mind. And indeed it s an unreasonable interpretation for though those who join with others in Prayer, may be said to pray, yet those that hear one preaching or expounding Scripture, can in no propriety of speech be said to prophesie. Nor is any such usage of the term to be parallell'd, neither are the reasons they bring, cogent; for though the reason of the Precept may concern the People as well as the Minister, yet it does not follow, that the Rule or Precept must necessarily do so too. And although the woman be forbidden to teach in ordinary cases, yet it did not concern those who were immediately and extraordinarily inspired according to the Prophecy, Ioel 2.28. applied, Acts 2.17., having his head covered Having his head uncovered, i. e. with an hat or cap, or such covering of the head as is in use in the Country wherein he liveth. It is not to be understood of the natural covering of the head, which is our hair, nor yet of any other covering which is necessary for the preservation of life and health, but such a covering as he might spare, and is ornamental to him according to the fashion of the Country., dishonoureth his head Either dishonoureth Christ who is his Head, and whom he ought to represent, and does as it were make the Church the Head to Christ, which is subject to him, whiles by covering his head, he declares a subjection in his ministration. Or he dishonoureth his own head (so many interpret it) to wit, he betrayeth his superiority, lesseneth himself as to that power and dignity which God has cloathed him with, by using a posture which is a token of inferiority and subjection. Interpreters rightly agree, that this and the following verses is to be interpreted from the customs of Countries: and all that can be concluded from this verse is, That it is the duty of men imployed in Divine Ministrations, to look to behave themselves as those who are to represent the Lord Jesus Christ, behaving themselves with a just authority and gravity that becometh his Ambassadors, which decent gravity is to be judged from the common opinion and account of the Country wherein they live. So as all which this Text requires of Christian Ministers, is Authority and Gravity, and what are external indications of it. Our learned Dr. Lightfoot observeth, That the Jewish Priests were wont in the Worship of God to veil their heads; so that Christian Ministers pray ng or prophesying with their heads covered, Iudaized, which he judgeth the reason of the Apostles assertion. The Heathens also, both Romans and Grecians, were wont to minister in their Sacred things with their heads covered. Some think this was the reason, why the Christians used the contrary gesture; but the Apostles from arguing the mans headship, seemeth to import that the reason of this Assertion of the Apostle was, because in Corinth the uncovered head was a sign of Authority. At this day the Mahometans (or Turks) speak to their Superiors covered, and so are covered also in their religious performances. The custom with us in these Western parts is quite otherwise; the uncovering of the head is a sign or token of subjection: Hence Ministers pray and preach with their heads uncovered, to denote their subjection to God and Christ, but yet this custom is not uniform; for in France the Reformed Ministers preach with their heads covered; as they pray uncovered to express their reverence and subjection to God, so they preach covered, as representing Christ, the great Teacher, from whom they derive, and whom they represent. Nothing in this is a further Rule to Christians, than that it is the duty of Ministers, in praying and preaching, to use postures and hab ts that are not naturally, nor according to the custom of the place where they live, uncomely and irreverent, and so looked upon. It is only the general observation of decency (which cannot by any be created, but ariseth either from Nature, or Custom, and Prescription) which this Text of the Apostle maketh to be the duty of all Christians: though as to the Corinthians he particularly required the mans ministring in Sacred things with his head uncovered, either to avoid the habit or posture used by Jews and Pagans; or for the showing of his dignity and superiority over the woman (whom we shall by and by find commanded to pray or prophesie covered) or that he represented Christ who was the Head of the Church. The uncovering of the head being with them as much a sign of subjection, as it is with us of superiority and preheminence..

But every woman that prayeth, or prophesieth Though the woman, 1 Tim. 2.12. be forbidden to teach, and commanded to be in silence; yet that Text must be understood of ordinary women, and in ordinary cases, not concerning such as prophesied from an extraordinary impulse or motion of the Spirit. We read of Women Prophetesses both in the Old and New Testament, such was Huldah in Iosiah's time, and Anna, of whom we read Luke 2.36. and we read that Philip had four daughters that did prophesie, Acts 21.9. with her head uncovered The uncovered head here (as before) must signifie not covered with some artificial covering, such as our Quoifs, Hats, Hoods or Veils, &c. or with her own hair, not hanging loose, but artificially used so, as to be a covering., dishonoureth her head Dishonoureth either her husband, who is her Political or Oeconomical head, for by that habit she behaveth her self as if she were not one in subjection, and seemeth to usurp an undue authority over the man, or her natural head, it being in those places accounted an immodest thing for a woman to appear in publick uncovered. It is observed of Rebeccah, when she met Isaac, Gen. 24.65. She took a veil, and covered her self.; for that is even all one as if she were shaven For, says the Apostle, your selves would judge it an uncomely thing for a woman to be shaven; now to pray or prophesie with the head uncovered, is all one. This last clause will incline us to think, that by the uncovered head in this verse, is not only to be understood uncovered with some other covering besides her hair, but with her hair dishevelled, hanging loose at its length, for else it is not all one to have the head uncovered with an hat, or hood, or qu if, and to be shaven; for the Apostle afterward, v. 15. says, her hair is given to her for a covering or a veil: So that possibly that which the Apostle here reflecteth upon, is womens coming into the publick Assemblies with their hair hanging loosly down, and not decently wound up so, as to make a covering for her head; which, we are told, was the practice of those beastly she-Priests of Bacchus, who, like frantick persons, performed those pretendedly religious Rites with their hair so hanging loose, and were called Manades, because they behaved themselves more like mad persons, than such as were in the actual use of their reason: something like which, it is most probable, some women in the Christian Church at Corinth affected, against which the Apostle here argueth..

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

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head Covering the head, being in those Countries a token of subjection, a man ought to uphold the power, preheminence, and authority, with which God has invested him, and not to cover his head, further than it is naturally covered with hair,, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God because he has a peculiar cause of glorying in God, as he to whom alone he is subject, and therefore ought by no habits or postures to show himself in subjection to others: Or because God glorieth in him, as a most excellent piece of his workmanship, God is represented in man. Paul useth to call that ones glory wherein he glorieth, 2 Cor. 1.12, 14. 1 Thess. 2.20. So David calleth God his Glory, and Prov. 17.6. Solomon tells us, that the Glory of children are their parents. So as the Apostle here useth a double Argument for the mans not covering of his head. 1. Because the man is immediately subject to God, and therefore ought not by any habits, or civil Rites, to show his natural subjection to men that are not by Nature his Superiors (for we must not think, that the Apostle by this Argument forbiddeth subjection to Natural, Oeconomical, or Political Superiours.) 2. Because God glorieth in man;: but the woman is the glory of the man But the woman is the glory of the man, created for the honour of the man, and for his help and assistance, and originally made out of man, so as man may glory of her, as Adam did of Eve, Gen. 2.23. This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. The glory of God ought to be revealed, and uncovered, manifested to all: the glory of the man ought to be hidden and concealed..

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

Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man We have this expounded, Gen. 2.18. where God said, It is not good that man should be alone, I will make him an help meet for him. God did not first create the woman, and then make man a meet help for her; but he first made the man, and then the woman, that she might be a meet help for him. Now it is a Rule in Reason, That whosoever or whatsoever is made for another person or thing, is less excellent than that person or thing for which the other is made. For the man, signifies to serve and help the man..

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head By power on her head is here to be understood (as some think) a covering on her head, in sign that she is under the power of her husband: the thing signified is here put for the sign, as the sign is often put for the thing signified. Thus the Ark, which is called, The Ark of Gods strength, Psal. 132.8. is it self called his Strength, 1 Chron. 16.11. But others here by Head, do not understand the womans natural head, but her husband, or the man who is the political head of the woman; and by having power on him, understand her exercising of her power in him, testifying it, by covering her head, and think this Text well expounded by 1 Tim. 2.12. where the Apostle forbiddeth the woman to usurp authority over the man. He addeth another Reason, because of the angels Because of the Angels. By Angels here, some understand God himself, who by the ministry of Angels created man and woman in this order, and put this Law upon the woman. Others understand those Messengers which the man sent sometimes, by whom the woman was betrothed (but this was a custom only in use amongst the Jews.) Others here by Angels understand the Ministers and Officers of the Church, who are sometimes in holy Writ called Angels. Others understand the evil Angels, who watch to take advantage to tempt men from object appearing beautiful, to unchast thoughts, &c. But the most and best Interpreters understand here by Angels, the good Angels; for the Apostle would hardly have spoken of Devils under the notion of Angels, especially speaking to deter persons from actions; and so it teaches us, That the good Angels, who are ministring Spirits for the good of Gods Elect, at all times have a special ministration, or at least are more particularly present in the Assemblies of people for religious Worship, observing the persons, carriage, and demeanour; the sense of which ought to aw all persons, attending those Services, from any indecent and unworthy behaviour..

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

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

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

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

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

But if any man seem to be contentious If any man has a mind to quarrel out of a love to show his wit in discoursing what may be said on the other side, or out of a desire to hold up a Party, and contradict us,, we have no such custom we have no such custom of womens praying, or prophesying with their heads uncovered, or mens praying, or prophesying with their heads covered. Or we have no such custom of contending for these little frivolous things,, neither the churches of God neither any of the Churches of God; And good Christians, in their practices, ought, in things of this nature, to have an eye and regard to the custom of their own Church, and also of other Christian Churches. Thus the Apostle closeth this discourse, and proceedeth in the next verses to tax other abuses which were crept into this famous Church..

Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not I come now to another thing of greater consequence, as to which I must much blame you; I am so far from being able to commend or approve of what you do, that I must for it smartly reflect upon you,, that you come togeter, not for the better, but for the worse That when you meet in your Church-Assemblies, for the performance of your religious Duties to pray, preach, hear, or receive the holy Sacrament, you so meet and behave your selves, as your meeting tends to the increase of your sin, rather than to the increase of your Grace, and the promoting the work of God in your selves, and the Souls of others..

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

For there must be It is not simply and absolutely necessary, that there should be such divisions amongst you (they are caused from the free acts of mens corrupt wills) but yet these things do not fall out by chance, but through the Providence of God, who has so immutably ordered and decreed, to suffer Satan to show his malice, and men to discover the lusts and corruptions of their own hearts. also heresies Though Heresie be a term, that by Ecclesiastical usage is restrained to signifie perverse Opinions in matter of Doctrine, as to which men are stubborn and tenacious; yet it is manifest, that the word is not natively so to be restrained, neither can it reasonably be here so interpreted, but signifies the same thing with Schisms and Divisions before mentioned: For though (as will appear from Chap. 15.) there were corrupt Opinions amongst them in matters of Doctrine, yet it is unreasonable to understand the Apostle here, as speaking with reference to them, these words being brought as a reason why he was inclined to believe that there were such Schisms or Divisions amongst them, because there must be Heresies. amongst you, that they which are approved may be made manifest amongst you.

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

For in eating, every one taketh before other his own supper There was at this time in most of the Christian Church a Iewish Party, viz. such as were converted from Judaism to Christianity, and had a tang of the old Cask, being too tenacious of some Jewish Rites. These looked upon the Lords Supper as an appurtenance to the Passeover, immediately after which we know that Christ at first instituted his Supper. As therefore Christ did eat the Paschal Supper before the Lords Supper; so they in imitation of him, though they forbare the Paschal Lamb, yet would have a Supper of their own to precede the Lords Supper, and having provided it at home, would bring it to the place where the Church was to meet,, and one is hungry and their poor Brethren contributing nothing to the charge of that Supper, they would not stay for them, but took this their own Supper: so it came to pass, that the poorer Christians were hungry, had none or very little share in their Feast,, and another is drunken whiles others, the richer part of the Church, had too much; for I take our Translation of this word to be very hard and uncharitable. Hard, because the word does not necessarily so signifie, only drinking beyond what is strictly necessary, and our Translators themselves, Ioh. 2.10. render it well drunk. Uncharitable, because it certainly must be very uncharitably presumed of this Church of Corinth, that they should suffer persons, at that time actually drunk, to come to the Lords Table..

What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in Hence evidently appears, that these Love-feasts were kept in the place where the Assembly met for the publick Worship of God; for the Apostle would have them (if they would continue hem) kept in their private houses: and he does not only blame the abuses of these Feasts, but the Feasts themselves as kept in the place where the Church met; or as having in them any pretence to any thing of Religion: meet they might friendly to eat and to drink, but their private houses were the fittest places for that.? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not Or do you despise the place (as some think) where the Church of God meeteth; or the people met in that place, by carrying your selves so disorderly in such a grave Assembly; or the poorer part of the Church, who, though poorer, are a part of the Church, redeemed by the Blood of Christ: the next words would incline us to think that the sense; for it followeth, and shame them that have not, that is, that have not Estates to contribute to such Feasts, and so are forced to go away without any due refreshment.? What shall I say o 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 About these Love-feasts preceding the Lords Supper, I have received nothing from the Lord, you have taken the practice up from the Jews or Heathens: I do not know that it is unlawful for you civilly to feast, and eat and drink in your private houses; but to come to make such Feasts immediately before you religiously eat and drink at the Lords Table, I have received no order from the Lord for any such practice. I have told you what I received from the Lord, which is no more than, That the Lord, &c., That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread See this in the Evangelists, Matt. 26.26. Mark 14.22. Luke 22.19. where all these words are opened. Some think that Paul received this from the Lord by immediate Revelation (as it is thought Moses received the History we have in Genesis and part of Exodus, which relates to a time before he was born, or arrived at mans estate.) Others think that he received it from S. Luke's Writings (for the words are quoted according to his Gospel.) Others think he received it from some other of the Apostles: certain it is, that he did receive it from the Lord, how, is uncertain..

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me These words we also met with, Luke 22.19, 20. and in the other Evangelists narration of the Institution of the Supper. (See the Explication of them in the Notes on those Texts.).

After he 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 you drink it, in remembrance of me.

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

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this up of the Lord unworthily Divines agree, that the unworthiness here spoken of, respecteth not the person of the Receiver so much as the manner of the Receiving; in which sense, a person that is worthy, may receive this Ordinance unworthily: 'tis variously expounded, without due Religion and Reverence, without Faith and Love, without proposing a right End in the Action, under the guilt of any known sin not repented of, &c., shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord shall incur the guilt of the profanation of this sacred Institution; for an abuse offered to a sign, reacheth to that of which it is a sign. As the abuse of a Kings Seal, or Picture, is justly accounted an abuse of the King himself, whose Seal and Picture it is. Some carry it higher, he shall be punished, as if he had crucified Christ, the profanation of Christs Ordinance reflecting upon Christ himself..

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

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily In the sense before mentioned, either having no remote right, or no present right to partake in that Ordinance, being an Unbeliever, or a resolved unholy, or ignorant person; or irreverently and irreligiously., eateth and drinketh damnation to himself He eateth and drinketh, damnation, or judgment, it is no matter which we translate it; for if he bringeth Gods judgments upon him in this life, they will end in eternal damnation, without a timely repentance, but it is to himself, not to him that is at the same Table with him, unless he has been guilty of some neglect of his duty to him:, not discerning the Lords body And his guilt lieth here, that he does not discern and distinguish betwixt ordinary and common Bread, and that Bread which is the representation of the Lords Body, but useth the one as carelesly, and with as little preparation and regard to what he does, as he useth the other.

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

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

But when we are judged Lest they be terrified at what he had said, and look upon their afflictions as indications of Gods displeasure against them to that degree, that he would not look any more upon them as his Children; he tells them, that when Gods people are afflicted with the evils of this life, sickness, &c. God does not deal with them so much as a Judge, as, we are chastened of the Lord a Father who chasteneth the child whom he loveth, and scourgeth whom he receiveth, Heb. 12.6, 7, 8., that we should not be condemned with the world and does it for a good end, to prevent the eternal condemnation of the Soul with the impenitent sinners of the World, giving us our Hell in this life, that we may escape it in the life to come..

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

And if any man hunger, let him eat at home And if any one hungred, they should not make the place, where they met together for the solemn Worship of God, a place for eating and drinking at Feasts, but eat at home,, that ye come not together to condemnation lest by these disorderly and irreverent actions, they incurred the displeasure of God, and brought down the judgment of God upon themselves.. And the rest will I set in order when I come Lastly, he minds them, that if there were any other things of this nature, which he had not spoken to, he did design suddenly to come to them, and then he would set them in order, by giving them Rules about them..