The absence of teaching on the subject of the Holy Communion in the Epistles is no argument that the Holy Communion was an unimportant part of Divine worship in apostolic days. It only bears witness to the fact, which we know very well from other sources, that the Holy Communion was that part of a Christian's duty and privilege in early days which he was least likely to neglect. So far as I have observed, there are only two places in which direct reference is made to the subject; they are both in the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians.
I. In the first the circumstances were these. Some of the Corinthians had been induced to take part in idol worship: at least, they had done so indirectly. They were not easy in their consciences about the matter; they fancied that after all it might possibly be wrong, and they applied to St. Paul for a determination of the difficulty. St. Paul solved the difficulty by explaining to them that, as in joining in Holy Communion they really became partakers of Christ, so in joining in an idol feast they really became partakers of idolatry. St. Paul was led to speak of the Holy Communion because the Corinthians had done something which they ought not to have done, because they had brought disgrace on their Christian name, and because the privilege which they enjoyed as partakers of Christ in the Holy Communion was the best proof possible of the manner in which their Christian name had been disgraced.
II. How came it that the Apostle wrote the latter part of chap. xi.? The reason is obvious enough. The most horrible abuses had crept into the Corinthian Church: men did not discern the Lord's body; they treated His table as a common table, made it a table of revelry; they ate and drank unworthily, and so received condemnation to themselves. It is this horrible profanity to which we are indebted for St. Paul's views on the subject of the Lord's Supper.
III. When he did take the subject in hand how did he treat it? He went back at once to the first institution of the Holy Sacrament by the Lord Himself. He deals in no harsh and severe language; he simply recounts the history of what our blessed Lord did on the eve of His passion. He put more faith in the recital of this simple tale than in any strong language he could use. You can add nothing which will give the argument more strength, and you can find no better commentary upon the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons,5th series, p. 335.
References: 1 Corinthians 11:27. Preacher's Monthly,vol. ii., p. 96. 1 Corinthians 11:28. R. D. B. Rawnsley, Village Sermons,4th series, p. 40; Sermons on the Catechism,p. 285. 1 Corinthians 11:29. G. E. L. Cotton, Sermons to English Congregations in India,p. 207; Church of England Pulpit,vol. ix., p. 183; R. Tuck, Christian World Pulpit,vol. xii., p. 350. 1 Corinthians 11:30. G. Salmon, Gnosticism and Agnosticism,p. 100. 1 Corinthians 11:31. Clergyman's Magazine,vol. iii., p. 18. 1 Corinthians 11:31; 1 Corinthians 11:32. E. L. Hull, Sermons,1st series, p. 216. 1 Corinthians 11:32. E. White, Christian World Pulpit,vol. xxvi., p. 50.