To elucidate this, we must proceed according to the only rule for examining a difficulty; we must interpret scripture by scripture. One solitary text standing by itself, unless we know the context, unless we know what has preceded, and the course of the argument, and the circumstances of the argument, is of no authority whatever: and if we look to this passage with this view, all objection will quickly disappear.

In primitive times, and by the custom of the apostles, there was attached to the celebration of the sacrament another feast or banquet, called the Agape, or Feast of Charity, or Love-Feast. It is much disputed whether this agape, or love-feast, was celebrated before or after the actual celebration of the sacrament; but it matters not to the question before us. The origin of it was this :— The donations and offerings of the people being much more than was than was absolutely required for the sacrament, and being made in kind, that is, in bread, wine, grapes, and the like; at the conclusion of the sacrament, when they had set apart that portion which was required for the clergy, of the remainder they made a common meal in the church; and as it was the rich who thus contributed to feed the poor, it took the name of Agape.*

*

* St. Chrysostom describing the Agape, speaks thus: "The first Christians had all things in common, as we read in the

Most likely, therefore, as we know that the ancient custom was to celebrate the Eucharist fasting, early in the morning, the donations of the rich would be reserved for some later portion of the day, when the poorer communicants might again assemble in the church; and this would accord with Pliny's account, who says that the Christians, binding themselves by a sacrament, would afterwards meet at a common meal, in which was nothing criminal. However, be this as it may, whether after or before, there undoubtedly was some feast or banquet, at which the rich, making contributions for the poor, would join them, in charity and love, as equally in need of the blessings of God, and equal inheritors of his kingdom. As long as this banquet was observed with quiet thankfulness and due propriety of conduct, of course there could be no objection to it; and connected as it

Acts of the Apostles, and when that ceased, as it did in the apostles' time, this came in its room. For though the rich did not make their substance common, yet upon certain days they made a common table, and when their service was ended, and they had all communicated in the holy mysteries, they all met at a common feast, the rich bringing provisions, and the poor, and those who had nothing, being invited, they all feasted in common together."-Chrys. Hom. in 1 Cor. And it appears, from various other passages, that not only was it customary to join the Agape to the Eucharist, but the Eucharist was never celebrated without the Agape."-See Bingham, book xv.

was with the actual Eucharist, it was a means of diffusing that Christian brotherly feeling which the gospel so constantly inculcates. But the Corinthians had perverted its original use as a religious feast, into a common and ordinary meal, had assembled together in the church to eat and drink, having no regard whatever to Christ's institution, nor considering it in any way as the memorial of his death.

At this feast, so celebrated, there had been many instances of actual drunkenness, and various other excesses. Therefore the apostle, in writing to the Corinthians with the express purpose of correcting many erroneous opinions and practices which had crept into their church, among others, alludes to this. He says, "When ye come together 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 then, after describing the manner in which Jesus instituted the Eucharist, in order to give them a clearer conception of what it really was, he concludes with the text in question: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and

* 1 Cor. xi. 20-22.

drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." Now it is evident that this bears reference, not to the generality of mankind, but to the Corinthians only; that the sort of unworthiness here described, is that perversion of the holy sacrament, of which they had specifically been guilty. It is not the will of God that any should perish, but that all should repent and be saved. "It is not by one act of wickedness that infinite mercy will be kindled to everlasting anger, and the beneficent Father of the Universe for ever alienated from his creatures, but by a long course of crime, deliberately committed, against the convictions of conscience, and the admonitions of grace; by a life spent in guilt, and concluded without repentance. 'No drunkard, or extortioner,' says the apostle, 'shall inherit eternal life.' Yet shall no man be excluded from future happiness by a single instance, or even by long habits of intemperance, or extortion, because repentance and a new life may efface his crimes."* And the crime of unworthily receiving the Lord's Supper is not different from other crimes. Supposing that a man should come to the Lord's Supper unworthily. Supposing that he should be guilty, a case extremely improbable, yet supposing

* Johnson, Serm. xxii.

it for a moment, that he should be guilty of the sin of partaking unworthily of the Lord's Supper, is there anything in scripture to shew (sin though it be) that it is unpardonable? Though the soul is by such an act of wickedness endangered, it is not necessarily destroyed, or irreversibly condemned. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, contributes indeed, by eating and drinking, to his own damnation, as he that engages in any fraudulent or criminal transaction, contributes in the same way to his own damnation. But he that abstains altogether, is sure to be committing a sin; and therefore he does not the more ensure himself from danger by abstaining, than by communicating. As no short fervour of piety, nor particular acts of beneficence, however exalted, can secure a man from the possibility of sinking into wickedness, so no neglect of devotion, nor commission of crime, can preclude the means of grace, or the hope of glory, provided those conditions are fulfilled which the gospel demands as necessary to pardon. He that has eaten and drunk unworthily, may still enter into salvation by repentance and amendment, as he that has eaten and drunk worthily, may, by negligence, or presumption, perish everlastingly.

But, independently of this, the sin of the Corinthians can hardly, in any case, be applied to us. Our method of celebrating the Lord's