ingly divided among themselves, and that in fo violent a Manner, that they fhewed the Effects of their Divifions even in the Church. Inftead of eating together their Love-Feasts †, which then preceded the Lord's Supper, as a Token of their Amity, and in order to increase it, every one eat what he had brought without tarrying one for another, whereby it happened that thofe that could not bring any Thing were hungry, and the Rich that could bring

Thefe Divifions were probably about the feveral Superiorities of their Teachers, being puffed up for one against another. See Chap. iii, 3, 4. They thought that they did Honour to their Saviour, by contending for a Superiority of Merit in those Minifters of his, who had been the happy Inftruments of their Converfion. They weakly flatter'd themselves that the Goodness of the Caufe would fanctify all the Factions and Quarrels which were the unhappy Effects of it.

6

The Corinthians, before they partook of rhe Lord's Supper, used to have Repafts (in Memory of, and to imitate our Saviour's laft Supper, the Eve of his Crucifixion) which they called Agape, and were well contrived to promote Benevolence and Charity. Some learned Men have obferv'd in the Old Teftament fome Traces of the like Repafts, Deut. xiv, 29, xxvi, 11. Neb. viii, 12. Efther, ix, 19. Tertullian gives the following Account of them: Judge of our Entertainment by the Name we call them by, ayanai, or the Feafs of Love. Now, no Coft can be too much, " no Expence too profufe, that promotes Friendship and Love. 'Tis with thefe Supports that we comfort indigent and famished Souls, out of a charitable and good Delign. For thefe Men, tho' their Poverty and Want make them defpicable on Earth, yet are not the lefs grateful to Almighty God. We eat and drink only to fatisfy Nature, and our Meals are fuch as may best qualify us for the Of.. fices of Religion. Our Difcourfe is modeft and instructive,. as in the Prefence of that God who we know hears all we fay. When Supper is done, our Hands wash'd, and the Lamps lighted, we fing Hymns and Hallelujahs to 'God, either fuch as the holy Scriptures fupply us with,

C 4

'or

bring much, were full*. An Abuse + so contrary to the Defign of thefe Feafts (and productive of all Manner of Disorder and Confufion) could not but make them very unfit to at the Lord's Supper, fince these Agapa, inftead of being a Preparative to the receiving the Eucharift with more Amity ferved them for an Occafion of Difcord and Rancourt. St Paul,

after

or of our own Compofure. And if any one is guilty of Excefs or Intemperance, here he's difcovered. We con"clude all as we began, with Thanks to God'. Tertullian's Apology rendered into English, p. 214.

If thefe Feafts (whish St Chryfoftom thinks were inftituted for the Relief of the Poor, when Goods were no longer common among Chriftians) had always continued in this orderly Manner, they had been very commendable, but on account of the Exceffes which crept into them, they were fuppreffed by the Laodicean Council, (Car 28) and by that of Carthage, and foon after were every where difcontinued.

* Our Verfion tranflates it drunken; but I think it ought rather to be rendered full, being oppofedto bungry,and accordingly the French Geneva Translation has it fait bonne Chére ; and it has been obferved that the Greek Word μebuery is often taken in an innocent Senfe, that is of being affected with Liquor to a Degree of Chearfulness only: See John ii, 10. The like Manner of Speaking is met with in the Old Testament, Gen. xliii, 34. Pj. xxiii, 5. xxxvi, 8. Cart. v, 1. Isa. lviii, Jer. xxxi, 14. Hag. i, 6. (See Louth's Comment on Ezek. Xxxix, 19.) And this Senfe, I think fuits better with the Apoftle's Conclufion, ver. 34. Wherefore, my Brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. If the Corinthians had been guilty of Drunkenness, properly fo called, St Paul would probably have taken notice of it, in another Manner. See Calmet in Loc.

11.

† St. James Ch. ii, 1, and St Jude Verse 12, complain of the Disorders which happened in the Love-Feasts in their Time.

It is not eafy to decide whether in these Words, This is not to eat the Lord's Supper, St Paul intends to speak of the

†,

after reproving them for these fcandalous Divifions (and in order to reclaim them) fets before their Eyes an Account of the Inftitution t, and from thence takes Occafion to tell them, that whofoever shall eat this Bread, and drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily, without confidering the Ends for which this Sacrament was inftituted, of which Charity and Union were fome of the chief, fhall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, i. e. fhall be reckoned to fet at nought, and despise Jefus Chrift himself, whom thefe Elements reprefent. But let a Man, fays he, examine himself, let him look unto his own Heart, let him fearch his Conscience, to fee whether he intends to remember his Savi

Love-Feafts, or of the Eucharift. If of the firft, the Senfe will be,this is not to imitate our Saviour's pafchal Supper. If of the other, perhaps we might better tranflate the Words as Erafmus has done, Non licet Canam dominicam edere, it is not lawful for you (i. e. after this fcandalous Behaviour) to partake of the Lord's Supper. However, it must be own'd, that there is a great Difficulty in this Paffage, and it is not eafy precifely to feparate what belongs to the Love-Feasts, from that which belongs to the Lord's Supper.

The Argument lies thus, Chrift gave an equal Distri'bution of the Sacramental Bread to every one at the Table, in Token that he died equally for all; and he appointed them all to eat together of it, at one common 'Table in Remembrance of his Love to them all. Can you then eat every one feparately his own Supper, excluding 'those to whom he equally diftributed the facred Bread, and yet conceive you worthily eat the Lord's Supper, and 'duly participate of . this great Feaft of Love?" Whitby. See alfo Comment. de Sacy, in Loc.

That is, in an unfit, unbecoming Manner. The oppofite Word E, Matt. iii, 8. Luke iii, 8. is tranflated meet, and Phil.j, 27, as it becometh. C 5

Our

our with thofe good Difpofitions which naturally refult from this Commemoration, and then let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup; for whosoever shall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily, which was the Cafe of thefe Corinthians, eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself, not difcerning the Lord's Body, i. e. not perceiving (as probably they did not in the Midft of their Tumults and Disorders *) that what they eat and drank at the Lord's Table, was not common Bread and Wine, but the Emblems of the Body and Blood of Chrift, and that these Elements were for the fpiritual Comfort of the Poor, as well as the Rich. For this Caufe (for not difcerning the Lord's Body) many fays he, are fick among you, and many fleep, or are dead. And then he exhorts them to judge themselves,. whether they intend to come to their religious Affemblies with mutual Charity, and if in confequence thereof they eat their Love-Feafts, without breaking through the Laws of Order and of Decency, of Union and. Brotherly Love, in which Cafes he fuppofes them to come worthily to the Lord's Table.

So that St Paul's Defign in this Paffage was firft to fhew the heinous Nature of the Divifions which reigned at Corinth, and the fad Effects they produced even in the most sacred Part of religious Worship t; fecondly, the Contrariety

*It was probably out of the Love-Feafts that that the Sacramental Elements were provided; of which, it is not unlikely the Corinthians ate with the fame Unconcernedness after their Confecration, as while they remained common.

† Kerr 18, 22..

of

of fuch Proceedings, to the End of that holy Inftitution, and the Danger to which they thereby expofed themfelves *. Thirdly, to point out the Way to avoid these Dangers +.

Now, before I fhew wherein confift the true Difpofitions which qualify us for the due Reception of this Sacrament, I beg leave to make two or three general Remarks.

And firft, fince it appears that the Unworthiness of the Corinthians confifted in a good Measure in the Irregularity of their Behaviour át their Love-Feafts, is it not now as clear as the Light, that in a Church like ours, where the confecrated Elements are furnished at the publick Expence; and diftributed equally and decently; where an outward Profeffion of Friendfhip is implied, at leaft not contradicted, it is impoffible that the Unworthinefs charged on the Corinthians, can be ours? So that this Text is perverted to a very wrong Ufe, when made the Pretence of keeping Men from the holy Table, whose prefent Circumftances have no Manner of Concern in, or Relation to them. I do indeed allow that there are other Ways to receive the Sacrament unworthily (which there was no need to fpecify on this Occafion) befide that mentioned in this Paffage; fince we may fay in general, that all those that partake of it without having Regard to the Ends of the Inftitution, may be faid, in fome Senfe, to do it unworthily, tho' in a Degree much inferior to that of the Corinthians, whofe Offence was of + Ver: 31 to 34.

* Ver. 23 to 30*