assemblies, and who would report greatly to the disadvantage of the Christian assemblies, if the women were seen to be unveiled. I do not know what it means; and I regard it as one of the very few passages in the Bible whose meaning as yet is wholly inexplicable. The most natural interpretation seems to me to be this: "A woman in the public assemblies and in speaking in the presence of men, should wear a veil, the usual symbol of modesty and subordination; because the angels of God are witnesses of your public worship, (Heb. i. 13,) and because they know and appreciate the propriety of subordination and order in public assemblies." According to this, it would mean that the simple reason would be, that the angels were witnesses of their worship; and that they were the friends of propriety, due subordination, and order; and that they ought to observe these in all assemblies convened for the worship of God. I do not know that this sense has been proposed by any commentator; but it is one which strikes me as the most obvious and natural, and consistent with the context. The following remarks respecting the ladies of Persia may throw some light on this subject: "The head-dress of the women is simple; their hair is drawn behind the head, and divided into several tresses: the beauty of this head-dress consists in the thickness and length of these tresses, which should fall even down to the heels; in default of which, they lengthen them with tresses of silk. The ends of these tresses they decorate with pearls and jewels, or ornaments of gold or silver. The head is covered, under the veil or kerchief, (course chef) only by the end of a small bandeau, shaped into a triangle: this bandeau, which is of various colours, is thin and light. The bandalette is embroidered by the needle, or covered with jewellery, according to the quality of This is, in my opinion, the ancient tiara or diadem of the queens of Persia: only married women wear it; and it is the mark by which it is known that they are under subjection, (c'est là la marque à laquelle on reconnoit qu'elles nt sous PUISSANCE-power.) The girls have little caps, instead of this kerchief or tiara; they wear no veil at home, but let two tresses of their hair fall under their cheeks. The caps of girls of superior rank are tied with a row of pearls. Girls are not shut up in Persia till they attain the age of six or seven years; before that age they go out of the seraglio, sometimes with their father, so that they may then be seen. I have seen some wonderfully pretty. They show the neck and bosom; and more beautiful cannot be seen."-Chardin. "The wearing of a veil by a married woman was a token of her being under power. The Hebrew name of the veil signifies dependence. Great importance was attached to this part of the dress in the East. All the women of Persia are pleasantly apparelled. When they are abroad in the streets, all, both rich and poor, are covered with a great veil, or sheet of very fine white cloth, of which one half, like a forehead cloth, comes down to the eyes, and, going over the head, reaches down to the heels; and the other half muffles up the face below the eyes; and being fastened with a pin to

the wearer.

the left side of the head, falls down to their very shoes, even covering their hands, with which they hold that cloth by the two sides, so that, except the eyes, they are covered all over with it. Within doors they have their faces and breasts uncovered; but the Armenian women in their houses have always one half of their faces covered with a cloth, that goes athwart their noses, and hangs over their chin and breasts, except the maids of that nation, who, within doors, cover only the chin until they are married."-Thevenot.

VER. 11. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Nevertheless.-Lest the man should assume to himself too much superiority, and lest he should regard the woman as made solely for his pleasure, and should treat her as in all respects inferior, and withhold the respect that is due to her. The design of this verse and the following is to show, that the man and the woman are united in most tender interests; that the one cannot live

comfortably without the other; that one is necessary to the happiness of the other; and that though the woman was formed from the man, yet it is also to be remembered that the man is descended from the woman. She should therefore be treated with proper respect, tenderness, and regard. Neither is the man without the woman, &c. - The man and the woman were formed for union and society. They are not in any respect independent of each other. One is necessary to the comfort of the other; and this fact should be recognised in all their intercourse. In the Lord.—By the arrangements or direction of the Lord. It is the appointment and command of the Lord that they should be mutual helps, and should each regard and promote the welfare of the other.

VER. 12. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman: but "all things of God.

n Rom. xi. 36.

As the woman is of the man.-In the original creation she was formed from the man. So is the man also by the woman. - Is born of the woman, or descended from her. The sexes are dependent on each other, and should therefore cultivate an indissoluble union. But all things of God. All things were created and arranged by him. This expression seems designed to suppress any spirit of complaint or dissatisfaction with this arrangement; to make the woman contented in her subordinate station, and to make the man humble by the consideration that it is all owing to the appointment of God. The woman should therefore be contented, and the man should not assume any improper superiority, since the whole arrangement and appointment is

of God.

Judge in yourselves.—Or, “Judge among yourselves." I appeal to you. I appeal to your natural sense of what is proper and right. Paul had used various arguments to show them the impropriety of their females speaking unveiled in public. He now appeals to their natural sense of what was decent and right, according to established and acknowledged customs and habits. Is it comely, &c.-Is it decent or becoming? The Grecian women, except their priestesses, were accustomed to appear in public with a veil.Doddridge. Paul alludes to that established and proper habit, and asks whether it does not accord with their own views of propriety that women in Christian assemblies should also wear the same symbol of modesty.

VER. 14. Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Doth not even nature itself.-The word nature (poc) denotes evidently that sense of propriety which all men have, and which is expressed in any prevailing or universal custom. That which is universal we say is according to nature. It is such as is demanded by the natural sense of fitness among men. Thus we may say that nature demands that the sexes should wear different kinds of dress; that nature demands that the female should be modest and retiring; that nature demands that the toils of the chase, of the field, of war-the duties of office, of government, and of professional life, should be discharged by men. Such are in general the customs the world over; and if any reason is asked for numerous habits that exist in society, no better answer can be given than that nature, as arranged by God, has demanded it. The word in this place, therefore, does not mean the constitution of the sexes, as Locke, Whitby, and Pierce maintain; nor reason and experience, as Macknight supposes; nor simple use and custom, as Grotius, Rosenmüller, and most recent expositors suppose; but it refers to a deep internal sense of what is proper and right; a sense which is expressed extensively in all nations, showing what that sense is. No reason can be given in the nature of things, why the woman should wear long hair and the man not; but the custom prevails extensively every where, and nature, in all nations, has prompted to the same course. "Use is second nature;" but the usage in this case is not arbitrary, but is founded on an anterior universal sense of what is proper and right. A few, and only a few, have regarded it as comely for a man to wear his hair long. Aristotle tells us, indeed, (Rhet. i.-see Rosenmüller,) that among the Lacedemonians, freemen wore their hair long. In the time of Homer, also, the Greeks were called

by him kapηkoμówVTEC 'Axaio, long-haired Greeks; and some of the Asiatic nations adopted the same custom. But the general habit among men has been different. Among the Hebrews, it was regarded as disgraceful to a man to wear his hair long, except he had a vow as a Nazarite. (Numb. vi. 1-5. Judg. xiii. 5; xvi. 17. 1 Sam. i. 11.) Occasionally, for affectation or singularity, the hair was suffered to grow, as was

the case with Absalom; (2 Sam. xiv. 26 ;) but the traditional law of the Jews on the subject was strict. The same rule existed among the Greeks; and it was regarded as disgraceful to wear long hair in the time of Elian. (Hist. lib. ix. c. 14. Eustath. on Hom. ii. v.) It is a shame unto him.-It is improper and disgraceful. It is doing that which almost universal custom has said appropriately belongs to the female sex.

VER. 15. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her for her hair is given her for a ⚫ covering.

o Or, veil.

It is a glory unto her.-It is an ornament and adorning. The same instinctive promptings of short hair, make it proper that the woman should nature which make it proper for a man to wear suffer hers to grow long. For a covering.Marg. Veil. It is given to her as a sort of natural veil, and to indicate the propriety of her veil when it was suffered to grow long, and to wearing a veil. It answered the purposes of a spread over the shoulders and over parts of the

face, before the arts of dress were invented or needed. There may also be an allusion here to the fact that the hair of women naturally grows | The value which eastern females put on their longer than that of men. See Rosenmuller. long hair may be learned from the fact that when Ptolemy Euergetes, king of Egypt, was about Berenice vowed, as the most precious sacrifice to march against Selencus Callinicus, his queen which she could make, to cut off and consecrate her hair if he returned in safety. "The eastern ladies," says Harmer, "are remarkable for the their hair. The men there, on the contrary, wear length and the great number of the tresses of Montague thus speaks concerning the hair of the very little hair on their heads." Lady M. W. women: "Their hair hangs at full length behind, divided into tresses, braided with pearl or riband, which is always in great quantity. I never saw in my life so many fine heads of hair. In one lady's I have counted one hundred and ten of these tresses, all natural; but it must be owned that every kind of beauty is more common here than with us." The men there, on the contrary, shave all the hair off their heads, excepting one lock; and those that wear hair are thought effeminate. Both these particulars are mentioned by Chardin, who says they are agreeable to the custom of the East: "the men are shaved; the women nourish their hair with great fondness, which they lengthen, by tresses and tufts of silk, down to the heels. The young men who wear their hair in the East are looked upon as effeminate and infamous."

VER. 16. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

p 1 Tim. vi. 4.

But if any man seem to be contentious.-The sense of this passage is probably this: "If any man, any teacher, or others, is disposed to be strenuous about this, or to make it a matter of

1

difficulty; if he is disposed to call in question my reasoning, and to dispute my premises and the considerations which I have advanced, and to maintain still that it is proper for women to appear unveiled in public, I would add that in Judea we have no such custom, neither does it prevail among any of the churches." This, therefore, would be a sufficient reason why it should not be done in Corinth, even if the abstract reasoning should not convince them of the impropriety. It would be singular; would be contrary to the usual custom; would offend the prejudices of many; and should, therefore, be avoided. We have no such custom. - We the apostles in the churches which we have elsewhere founded; or we have no such custom in Judea. The sense is, that it is contrary to custom there for women to appear in public unveiled. This custom, the apostle argues, ought

to be allowed to have some influence on the church of Corinth, even though they should not

be convinced by his reasoning. Neither the

churches of God.-The churches elsewhere. It is customary there for the woman to appear veiled. If at Corinth this custom is not observed, it will be a departure from what has elsewhere been regarded as proper; and will offend these churches. Even, therefore, if the reasoning is not sufficient to silence all cavils and doubts, yet the propriety of uniformity in the habits of the churches, the fear of giving offence, should lead you to discountenance and disapprove the custom of your females appearing in public without their veil.

VER. 17. Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

Now in this that I declare. In this that I am about to state to you; to wit, your conduct in regard to the Lord's supper. Why this subject introduced here is not very apparent. The connexion be this. In the subjects immemay diately preceding he had seen much to commend, and he was desirous of commending them as far as it could be done. In ver. 2 of this chapter he commends them in general for their regard to the ordinances which he had appointed when he was with them. But while he thus commended them, he takes occasion to observe that there was one subject on which he could not employ the language of approval or praise. Of their irregularities in regard to the Lord's supper he had probably heard by rumour; and as the subject was of great importance, and their irregularities gross and deplorable, he takes occasion to state to them again more fully the nature of that ordinance, and to reprove them for the manner in which they had celebrated it. That ye come together.-You assemble for public worship. Not for the better, but for the worse.Your meetings, and your observance of the ordinances of the gospel, do not promote your edification, your piety, spirituality, and harmony; but tend to division, alienation, and disorder. You should assemble to worship God, and promote harmony, love, and piety; the actual effect of your assembling is just the reverse. In what

way this was done he states in the following verses. These evil consequences were chiefly two first, divisions and contentions; and, secondly, the abuse and profanation of the Lord's supper.

VER. 18. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions" among you; and I partly believe it.

9 Chap. i. 11, 12. r Or, schisms. For first of all.-That is, I mention as the first thing to be reproved. When ye come together in the church. When you come together in a religious assembly; when you convene for public worship. The word church here does not mean, as it frequently does with us, a building. the New Testament; but it means when they No instance of such a use of the word occurs in came together as a Christian assembly; when they convened for the worship of God. These divisions took place then; and from some cause which it seems then operated to produce alienations and strifes. I hear.-I have learned through some members of the family of Chloe. (Chap. i. 11.) That there be divisions among you.-Greek, as in the margin, Schisms. The word properly means a rent, such as is made in cloth, (Matt. ix. 16. Mark ii. 21;) and then a division, a split, a faction among men. (John vii. 43 ; ix. 16 ; x. 19.) It does not mean here that they had proceeded so far as to form separate churches, but that there was discord and division in the church itself. See Notes on chap. i. 10,11. And I partly believe it.—I credit a part of the reports; I have reason to think that, though the evil may have been exaggerated, yet that it is true at least in part. I believe that

there are dissensions in the church that should be reproved.

VER. 19. For there must be also heresies among you, that "they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

s Matt. xviii. 7. 2 Tet. ii. 1, 2.
u Luke ii. 35.

t Or, sects.

For there must be.-It is necessary (de ;) it is to be expected; there are reasons why there should be. What these reasons are he states in the close of the verse. Comp. Matt. xviii. 7. 2 Pet. ii. 1, 2. The meaning is, not that divisions are inseparable from the nature of the Christian religion; not that it is the design and wish of the Author of Christianity that they should exist; and not that they are physically impossible, for then they could not be the subject of blame; but that such is human nature, such are the corrupt passions of men, the propensity to ambition and strifes, that they are to be expected, and they serve the purpose of showing who are, and who are not, the true friends of God. Heresies.Margin, Sects. Gr. Αἱρέσεις. See Note, Acts xxiv. 14. The words heresy and heresies occur only in these places, and in Gal. v. 20. 2 Pet. ii. 1. The Greek word occurs also in Acts v. 17, (translated sect;) xv. 5; xxiv. 5; xxvi. 5; xxviii. 22, in all which places it denotes, and is translated, sect. We now attach to the word usually

ner.

the idea of a fundamental error in religion, or some doctrine the holding of which will exclude from salvation. But there is no evidence that the word is used in this signification in the New Testament. The only place where it can be supposed to be so used, unless this is one, is in Gal. v. 20, where, however, the word contentions or divisions would be quite as much in accordance with the connexion. That the word here does not denote error in doctrine, but schism, division, or sects, as it is translated in the margin, is evident from two considerations. (1.) It is the proper philological meaning of the word, and its established and common signification in the Bible. (2.) It is the sense which the connexion here demands. The apostle had made no reference to error of doctrine, but is discoursing solely of irregularity in conduct; and the first thing which he mentions, is, that there were schisms, divisions, strifes. The idea that the word here refers to doctrines would by no means suit the connexion, and would indeed make nonsense. It would then read, "I hear that there are divisions or parties among you, and this I cannot commend you for. For it must be expected that there would be fundamental errors of doctrine in the church." But Paul did not reason in this manThe sense is, "There are divisions among you. It is to be expected; there are causes for it; and it cannot be avoided that there should be, in the present state of human nature, divisions and sects formed in the church; and this is to be expected in order that those who are true Christians should be separated from those who are not." The foundation of this necessity is not in the Christian religion itself, for that is pure, and contemplates and requires union; but the existence of sects, and denominations, and contentions may be traced to the following causes : (1.) The love of power and popularity. Religion may be made the means of power; and they who have the control of the consciences of men, and of their religious feelings and opinions, can control them altogether. (2.) Showing more respect to a religious teacher than to Christ. See Notes on chap. i. 12. (3.) The multiplication of tests, and the enlargement of creeds and confessions of faith. The consequence is, that every new doctrine that is incorporated into a creed gives occasion for those to separate who cannot accord with it. (4.) The passions of men, their pride, and ambition, and bigotry, and unenlightened zeal. Christ evidently meant that his church should be one; and that all who were his true followers should be admitted to her communion, and acknowledged every where as his own friends. And the time may yet come when this union shall be restored to his long distracted church, and that while there may be an honest difference of opinion maintained and allowed, still the bonds of Christian love shall secure union of heart in all who love the Lord Jesus, and union of effort in the grand enterprise in which all can unitethat of making war upon sin, and securing the conversion of the whole world to God. That they which are approved.-That they who are approved of God, or who are his true friends, and who are disposed to abide by his laws. May be made manifest.-May be known, recognised, seen.

The effect of divisions and separations would be to show who were the friends of order, and peace, and truth. It seems to have been assumed by Paul, that they who made divisions could not be regarded as the friends of order and truth; or that their course could not be approved by God. The effect of these divisions would be to show who they were. So in all divisions, and all splitting into factions, where the great truths of Christianity are held, and where the corrup tion of the mass does not require separation, such divisions show who are the restless, ambitious, and dissatisfied spirits; who they are that are indis- | posed to follow the things that make for peace, and the laws of Christ enjoining union; and who they are who are gentle and peaceful, and disposed to pursue the way of truth, and love, and order, without contentions and strifes. This is the effect of schisms in the church; and the whole strain of the argument of Paul is to reprove and condemn such schisms, and to hold up the authors of them to reproof and condemnation. See Rom. xvi. 17. Mark them which cause divisions and avoid them."

VER. 20. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

Or, ye cannot eat.

When ye come together therefore, &c.—When you are assembled as a church. Comp. Heb. x. 25, and Note on Acts ii. 1. Christians were constantly in the habit of assembling for public worship. It is probable that at this early period all the Christians in Corinth were accustomed to meet in the same place. The apostle here par- 1 ticularly refers to their assembling to observe the ordinance of the Lord's supper. At that early period, it is probable that this was done on every Lord's day. This is not, &c.-Margin, "Ye cannot eat."

The meaning of this expression seems to be this. "Though you come together profess edly to worship God, and to partake of the Lord's supper, yet this cannot be the real design which you have in view. It cannot be that such practices as are allowed among you can be a part of the celebration of that supper, or consistent with it. Your greediness, (ver. 21;) your intempe rance, (ver. 21;) your partaking of the food se parately, and not in common, cannot be a celebration of the Lord's supper. Whatever, therefore, you may profess to be engaged in, yet really and truly you are not celebrating the Lord's supper. The Lord's supper.-That which the Lord Jesus instituted to commemorate his death. It is called the Lord's," because it is his appointment, and is in honour of him; it is called "supper," (divov,) because the word denotes the evening repast; it was instituted in the evening; and it is evidently most proper that it should be observed in the after part of the day. With most churches the time is improperly changed to the morning-a custom which has no sanction in the New Testament; and which is a departure from the very idea of a supper.

VER. 21. For in eating, every one taketh before

w 2 Pet. ii. 13. Jude 12.

For in eating. When you eat, having professedly come together to observe this ordinance. In order to understand this, it seems necessary to suppose that they had in some way made the Lord's supper either connected with a common feast, or that they regarded it as a mere common festival, to be observed in a way similar to the festivals among the Greeks. Many have supposed that this was done by making the observance of the supper follow a festival, or what were afterwards called love feasts, ('Ayanaι—Agapæ.) | Many have supposed that that custom was derived from the fact that the Saviour instituted the supper after a festival, a feast in which he had been engaged with his disciples, and that thence the early Christians derived the custom of observing such a festival, or common meal, before they celebrated the Lord's supper. But it may be observed, that the passover was not a mere preliminary festival, or feast. It had no resemblance to the so called love feasts. It was itself a religious ordinance; a direct appointment of God; and was never regarded as designed to be preliminary to the observance of the Lord's supper, but was always understood as designed to be superseded by that. Besides, I know not that there is the slightest evidence, as has been often supposed, that the observance of the Lord's supper was preceded, in the times of the apostles, by such a festival as a love feast. There is no evidence in the passage before us; nor is any adduced from any other part of the New Testament. To my mind, it seems altogether improbable that the disorders in Corinth would assume this form-that they would first observe a common feast, and then the Lord's supper in the regular manner. The statement before us leads to the belief that all was irregular and improper; that they had entirely mistaken the nature of the ordinance, and had converted it into an occasion of ordinary festivity, and even intemperance; that they had come to regard it as a feast in honour of the Saviour, on some such principles as they observed feasts in honour of idols, and that they observed it in some such manner; and that all that was supposed to make it unlike those festivals was, that it was in honour of Jesus rather than an idol, and was to be observed with some reference to his authority and name. Every one taketh before other his own supper. That is, each one is regardless of the wants of the others; instead of making even a meal in common, and when all could partake together, each one ate by himself, and ate that which he had himself brought. They had not only erred, therefore, by misunderstanding altogether the nature of the Lord's supper, and by supposing that it was a common festival like those which they had been accustomed to celebrate; but they had also entirely departed from the idea that it was a festival to be partaken of in common, and at a common table. It had become a scene where every man ate by himself; and where the very idea that there was any thing like a common celebration, or a celebration together, was abandoned. There

among the Greeks, that when a festival was celebrated, or a feast made, it was common for each person to provide, and carry a part of the things necessary for the entertainment. These were usually placed in common, and were partaken of alike by all the company. Thus Xenophon (Mem. lib. iii. cap. xiv.) says of Socrates, that he was much offended with the Athenians for their conduct at their common suppers, where some prepared for themselves in a delicate and sumptuous manner, while others were poorly provided for. Socrates endeavoured, he adds, to shame them out of this indecent custom, by offering his provisions to all the company. And one is hungry. -Is deprived of food. It is all monopolized by others. And another is drunken.—The word here used (uvo) means properly to become inebriated, or intoxicated; and there is no reason for understanding it here in any other sense. There can be no doubt that the apostle meant to say, that they ate and drank to excess; and that their professed celebration of the Lord's supper became a mere revel. It may seem remarkable that such scenes should ever have occurred in a Christian church, or that there could have been such an entire perversion of the nature and design of the Lord's supper. But we are to remember the following things: (1.) These persons had recently been heathens, and were grossly ignorant of the nature of true religion when the gospel was first preached among them. (2.) They had been accustomed to such revels in honour of idols under their former modes of worship, and it is the less surprising that they transferred their views to Christianity. (3.) When they had once so far misunderstood the nature of Christianity as to suppose the Lord's supper to be like the feasts which they had formerly celebrated, all the rest followed as a matter of course. The festival would be observed in the same manner as the festivals in honour of idolators; and similar scenes of gluttony and intemperance would naturally follow. (4.) We are to bear in mind, also, that they do not seem to have been favoured with pious, wise, and prudent teachers. There were false teachers; and there were those who prided themselves on their wisdom, and who were self-confident, and who doubtless endeavoured to model the Christian institutions according to their own views; and they thus brought them, as far as they could, to a conformity with pagan customs and idolatrous rites. We may remark here, (1.) We are not to expect perfection at once among a people recently converted from paganism. (2.) We see how prone men are to abuse even the most holy rites of religion, and hence how corrupt is human nature. (3.) We see that even Christians, recently converted, need constant guidance and superintendence; and that if left to themselves they soon, like others, fall into gross and scandalous offences.

VER. 22. What! have ye not houses to eat and to

drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I

a are poor.