“But now I have written unto you not to keep company,
if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or
covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an
extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.”—_I. Cor. v. 11._
“Let every man examine himself and so let him eat.”
—_I. Cor. xi. 28._
The passage evidently has reference to common associating—in visits,
ordinary, eating and the like. Such a man should not be in the church
at all, to say nothing about communing. Christians should not visit and
receive visits from such persons, or associate with them, but make them
feel keenly the smart of being thus low and corrupt.
The remark of the apostle, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him
eat,” is misapplied almost invariably every time it is quoted. It
certainly has no reference to examining to determine whether a man is
worthy to commune or not, for he says, “Let a man examine himself, and
_so let him eat_.” The examination was to _precede_ the eating, and not
to decide whether he should eat or not. The matter of trouble among
the Corinthians was not to determine _who_ shall eat, but _how to eat
worthily_. They were not to do this by coming together and eating a
pagan feast, not discerning the Lord’s death and blood, by partaking of
the loaf and wine, as the Lord appointed.
It is not the work of the administrator to tell who are communicants,
when administering, any more than he should tell who should sing, pray,
or give thanks. The communion was delivered to the church, and we are
communicants by virtue of being in the church. If any are walking
disorderly they should be dealt with, and not allowed to continue in
disorder, but forbidden to commune. The whole church should be kept in
order and all worship, not at the Lord’s table only, but in all parts
of the worship. The question is about _who are members of the church_,
and not about _who shall commune_. All the members should commune, all
_christians_, and there should be no others in the church.