Page images
PDF
EPUB

example; he says they were puffed up, as though he would not come to them; he speaks of coming with a rod; and praises them for remembering him in all things. In the second Epistle he speaks of their Church as being itself a letter of commendation to his Apostleship, which would be quite to no purpose if the fact were denied, and though he says that some who were puffed up spoke of his bodily presence and speech as contemptible, yet this is evidently only the utterance of cowardly rebellion, bragging while the Apostle was away, not the voice of a faction which attempted upon principle to set his authority aside. The theory of the "Factions" which has got popular of late and which is developed in this commentary really reduces these Epistles to a most worthless position. But Mr. Stanley degrades the character of the Apostle still lower. Not only was his outward position, but also his inward stability destroyed. We read of "the bitterness of feeling with which from time to time he contrasts his deserts and his fortune." (I. 85.)

One would have supposed that none could read of the Apostle's sufferings for CHRIST without feeling convinced that he gloried in them. The mind indeed must be mean which can find a reflection of its own thoughts by attributing bitterness of feeling and disappointment to the self-sacrificing Apostle. Painful as was his work while he was doing it, yet he rejoiced to undertake it, and he gloried in it when done. He gloried in it, not with the littleness of self-satisfied pride, but in the consciousness of a power which was not of this world, working in him the likeness of the SAVIOUR Whom he loved.

We said that chapter i. 9. might be taken as the text of the Epistle. As the first part-upon faith-is founded on the words "called of GOD," so the second part-upon charity—is founded on the idea contained in the words "into the fellowship of JESUS CHRIST." The very words of our LORD JESUS are expressly appealed to as supplying rules for the difficult questions connected with marriage. The fact that persons have come into the fellowship of JESUS CHRIST under circumstances which would naturally be to be avoided, is taken as a sufficient reason for not desiring to be quit of them, the freedom of CHRIST counterbalancing the earthly privations of slavery. Virginity meets with its praise on the express ground of allowing more undisturbed communion with CHRIST. Meat offered in sacrifice to idols-and so all scandal arising from self-indulgence in misconstrued gratification-is to be avoided, lest we "sin against CHRIST." The Communion of CHRIST is seen exhibited in the type of the journeying Israelites. As in the first part we had the climax of faith exhibited as a heavenly sovereignty," All things are yours, and ye are CHRIST's, and CHRIST is GOD's;" so in the second we have the climax of love as a subordinated fellowship,-"The head of the woman is the man, and the head of the man is CHRIST, and the head of CHRIST is GOD." Here too we have the remarkable account of the Office of

the Holy Communion, expressly inserted as the crowning appeal to the Christians to be one in outward order and love.

Mr. Stanley's notes upon the Eucharistic passages require some attention :

The plural form (evλoyoûμev, kλŵμev) probably points to the fact, that the whole society in some manner took part in the blessing of the cup and the breaking of the bread. . . . . This joint act may have been performed either by themselves actually assisting in the blessing and the breaking, or as represented by the president of the feast; whilst they, in the case of the blessing, responded to it by the Hebrew Amen.'" I. 200.

Now, if their "saying 'Amen' at the giving of thanks," is all that is intended, it is hard to see what particular gain there is in this remark. The idea of a priesthood exercising on behalf of the people the ministry of mediation in the person of CHRIST, which we suppose is the point here aimed at,does not isolate the Clergy from the people,-does not prevent their being representatives of the people; but much rather shows how they can be so. Mankind have no right to choose for themselves a representative towards GOD; but the Priesthood whom CHRIST has ordained to represent Him, do effectually represent the people, because CHRIST has been ordained of GOD as the efficient representative of the people. The congregation, therefore, do take part in the act of the Priest, because all is done for them, and all is done in the person of CHRIST, Who is able to act not only for Himself, as one of them, but for them as the Head, gathering them into one body in Himself. The whole society do certainly take part in the act of the Priest, because what CHRIST does, He does in their name; but yet the use of the first person plural in this passage, is generally taken as implying the other part of the doctrine of the Priesthood, viz., that a Priesthood commissioned to act in CHRIST'S Name is essential to the validity of the Eucharist," the bread which we break," who are set apart for this office; and so the words of the Greek, in Acts ii. 46, imply not that any one could break the bread, but that the body of Christians continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine, and their fellowship, and their breaking of bread, and their prayers:—

"Communion,' (kovwvia) is here alone used of the Eucharist, and is the origin of the name, as applied to it. . . . . This general idea of Communion with Christ, he does not here further explain; but there is a more precise sense attached to the word in this passage, which naturally unfolds itself from the expressions he has used. 'You are one with CHRIST,' he would say, 'because you are one with each other; and this, too, is expressed in the Christian feast.' The thought is suggested to him (1.) By the sense always latent in the word koivwvia, not merely of a participation, but of a joint participation; so that although it is capable of application to a single person, it almost always involves

the notion of several. (2.) By the nature of the ceremony itself. Having for the reason above stated, begun with allusion to the cup, he proceeds to the bread or loaf,' (such is the meaning of Tòv apTov,) which, unlike the modern mode of celebration, seems to have been placed whole on the table, and then divided into its several portions, thus representing the idea so frequent in the Apostles' writings, of the one community with various parts and functions, but united in their common Head." I. 200.

In direct opposition to the theory here represented, the Apostle expressly argues that they are one with each other because they are one with CHRIST; that they do not partake of that one bread because they are one body, but that they are one Body because they are partakers of that one Bread. The Presence of CHRIST is the medium of their communion with each other; whereas in this note it is represented as being the result. It is true that the word Communion involves a joint participation, yet not by virtue of the combination in act, but by virtue of the oneness of the object of the act. Regarded, as Mr. Stanley seems to regard it, the breaking of the bread would represent rather the broken and divided character of the society. According to the Apostle, it does represent and teach them a lesson of unity, because while the bread is broken in its outward form, the thing signified is given whole and unbroken to each and all.

Again, we do not know what are Mr. Stanley's ritual observances, but the order of the English Church is exactly in accordance with what is here described, that the bread should be "placed whole on the table," before the prayer for the Church Militant, and “then divided into its several portions" at the moment of consecration.

"(3.) By the use of the word 'Body' (owμa) of CHRIST. This, in S. Paul's language never, or hardly ever, means His literal corporeal frame, but is always expressly declared to be that new Body which is His by virtue of His union with His followers, namely, the whole. Christian society."

If by "new body" is meant here the extended body,—the fulness of Him that filleth all in all,-the growth of the germinal principle introduced by Him into our nature, we do not much object to the words; but the apparent meaning is, that He aggregated to Himself that which still remained essentially separate, rather than that He, as the Bread from heaven, united and assimilated to Himself, by the communication of His glorious essential power,. that which should gradually lose all separate substantiality, by thus becoming one with Himself. Unhappily, the words are explained in the lower, and, we must say, carnal, unchristian, sense :

"This one body which we thus prove ourselves to be by this act, is the Body of CHRIST, of which we partake in the Eucharist."

What can be more trifling with devotion than to make the chief act of religion so empty a symbol? It almost reduces itself to some such explanation as this:-"We are known to be full of quarrels, parties, divisions, torn asunder by the unsympathizing distinctions of wealth, and by the deeper rents of contrarient prejudices; but we will prove ourselves to be one, by eating part of a common loaf together. Badly indeed we do it, for we cannot afford a few minutes to wait for one another, and eat at the same time. Yet if we do this, we shall have realized a sufficient unity to show that we have a new life, as members of one society, and that we are the Body of CHRIST."

Taking Mr. Stanley's ground, i. e. taking a ground which makes the Body of CHRIST dependent on what the congregation do, instead of what CHRIST Himself does, we come to this-we must say ridiculous—result, as the explanation of the Christian worship.

"It was through this act that the partakers became, or intimated that they were, no less than the Body of CHRIST." "-I. 237.

So that it seems they intimated that they were what they had yet need to become. Their ritual was, accordingly, a perpetual act of hypocrisy and self-deceit. A remembrance of CHRIST is reverentially conceivable at all times as an act of the individual mind; but such an unreal view respecting themselves could only make their life the worse for their religion,-salving over their differences with a fanciful sentimentality, and poisoning their language with cant.

"In the original institution, the intention was, that they should commemorate the LORD's Death, not only on stated occasions, but at all their meals, whenever they ate bread and drank wine.'"-I. 243.

[ocr errors]

This is the comment on those words, which naturally speak so very different an admonition, "Whenever ye eat [not " any bread," but] this bread, and drink this cup, you are showing forth [whether you think of it or no] the LORD's Death till He come." The force of the verse in the argument entirely depends on the fact, that this bread was distinct from common bread, and that the representation of the LORD's Death was a ritual act, independent of their own devotional temper.

The Apostle having now discussed the rule of Christian love as exhibited in outward acts, and necessitated by the rationale of Christian worship, proceeds to discuss the question of spiritual gifts which was occasioning so much difficulty at Corinth. All external duties are to be fulfilled out of love to the Body of CHRIST, and so with reference to the Holy Communion, as the great act by which that Body is perpetuated. The exercise of ministerial gifts is a function of CHRIST'S Body also, because it is only in the Body of CHRIST that we can have the Spirit who is the energizer of those manifestations. Membership with CHRIST is the prime necessity.

We are not to value this for its results, but for itself. Those who are out of CHRIST, who would call JESUS accursed, who would seek a more attractive, or intellectual, or spiritual, system than that of union with the Son of GOD in His Incarnation—whatever semblance of advantages they may possess, have not the Spirit of GOD: and if we call JESUS LORD, if we are His members, it is not by intellectual gifts, but by the Spirit of holiness. From these premises S. Paul goes on to treat of the variety of gifts.

"The Apostle had pointed out the necessary variety of the gifts; he had asked indignantly whether there was indeed anything in the actual state of God's dispensations to warrant the attempt to subordinate all gifts to one and then it would seem as if after his manner he suddenly paused. The fervour of his own rapid questions has, as it were, brought before him vividly the angry jealousy with which the Corinthians grasped at one out of these many gifts, and that, though the most startling the least useful. Already, in speaking of the factions, and of the scandals occasioned by the sacrificial feasts, he had seen how much they thought of themselves and how little of others; and he now wishes to urge upon them that far above any other gift-far above even the gift of tongues or the gift of knowledge, is the gift of love which would teach them that the true measure of the value of gifts was their practical usefulness."-I. 274.

This note introduces us very fitly to the great eulogy of Chris tian love which distinguishes this Epistle. We quote it with much more pleasure than we can quote the following with.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"It is perhaps vain to ask by what immediate means this new idea was introduced to the Apostle's mind; it may be that this very passage is the expression of his delight at first fully grasping the mighty truth which henceforth was never to pass from him It is further remarkable that a word and an idea which first appears in the writings of S. Paul should receive its full meaning and developement in those of S. John. In the minds of both these great Apostles, amidst all their other diversities, 'Love' represented the chief fact and the chief doctrine of Christianity. Has it occupied the same place in Christian theology or Christian practice at any later period?"—I. 289.

It is to us quite inconceivable that the 13th chapter should have been written as an ecstatic utterance of delight at first realizing the character of Christian love. It singularly implies the devotion, the self-discipline, the practical experience, the Divine meditation of years. Nor can we bring ourselves to think that S. Paul put down just his first thoughts as they occurred to him. We have been anxious in these observations, as far as space would permit, to show how much of what we may call technical arrangement underlies the current of his thoughts. Nor could he certainly have called love the chief fact of Christianity, although the

« PreviousContinue »