UNCOLLECTED PROSE
by Ralph Waldo Emerson
The Lord's Supper The Editors to the Reader Thoughts on Modern Literature Two Years before the Mast. A Personal Narrative of Life atSea.
Social Destiny of Man: or Association and Reorganization ofIndustry.
Michael Angelo, considered as a Philosophic Poet, withTranslations.
Essays and Poems. By JONES VERY.
Walter Savage Landor Transcendentalism The Senses and the Soul Prayers Fourierism and the Socialists Chardon Street and Bible Conventions Agriculture of Massachusetts The Zincali: or an Account of the Gypsies of Spain. Ancient Spanish Ballads, Historical and Romantic. Tecumseh; a Poem. By GEORGE H. COLTON.
Intelligence Harvard University.
English Reformers Poems. By ALFRED TENNYSON.
A Letter to Rev. Wm. E. Channing, D. D. By O. A. BROWNSON Europe and European Books The Bible in Spain, or the Journeys, Adventures, andImprisonments of an Englishman in an attempt to circulate the
Scriptures in the Peninsula.
Past and Present By Thomas Carlyle.
Antislavery Poems. By JOHN PIERPONT. Boston: Oliver Johnson. 1843. Sonnets and other Poems. By WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON. America -- an Ode; and other Poems. By N. W. COFFIN. Poems by WILLIAM ELLERY CHANNING.
A Letter The Huguenots in France and America The Spanish Student. A Play in Three Acts. By H. W. Longfellow.
The Dream of a Day, and other Poems. By JAMES G. PERCIVAL.
The Tragic------------------------------------------
The Lord's Supper The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness,
and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. -- ROMANS XIV. 17.
In the history of the Church no subject has been more fruitful
of controversy than the Lord's Supper. There never has been any
unanimity in the understanding of its nature, nor any uniformity in
the mode of celebrating it. Without considering the frivolous
questions which have been lately debated as to the posture in which
men should partake of it; whether mixed or unmixed wine should be
served; whether leavened or unleavened bread should be broken; the
questions have been settled differently in every church, who should
be admitted to the feast, and how often it should be prepared. In
the Catholic Church, infants were at one time permitted and then
forbidden to partake; and, since the ninth century, the laity receive
the bread only, the cup being reserved to the priesthood. So, as to
the time of the solemnity. In the fourth Lateran Council, it was
decreed that any believer should communicate at least once in a year
-- at Easter. Afterwards it was determined that this Sacrament
should be received three times in the year -- at Easter, Whitsuntide,
and Christmas. But more important controversies have arisen
respecting its nature. The famous question of the Real Presence was
the main controversy between the Church of England and the Church of
Rome. The doctrine of the Consubstantiation taught by Luther was
denied by Calvin. In the Church of England, Archbishops Laud and
Wake maintained that the elements were an Eucharist or sacrifice of
Thanksgiving to God; Cudworth and Warburton, that this was not a
sacrifice, but a sacrificial feast; and Bishop Hoadley, that it was
neither a sacrifice nor a feast after sacrifice, but a simple
commemoration. And finally, it is now near two hundred years since
the Society of Quakers denied the authority of the rite altogether,
and gave good reasons for disusing it.
I allude to these facts only to show that, so far from the
supper being a tradition in which men are fully agreed, there always
been the widest room for difference of opinion upon this particular.
Having recently given particular attention to this subject, I
was led to the conclusion that Jesus did not intend to establish an
institution for perpetual observance when he ate the Passover with
his disciples; and, further, to the opinion, that it is not expedient
to celebrate it as we do. I shall now endeavor to state distinctly
my reasons for these two opinions.
I. The authority of the rite.
An account of the last supper of Christ with his disciples is
given by the four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
In St. Matthew's Gospel (Matt. XXVI. 26-30) are recorded the
words of Jesus in giving bread and wine on that occasion to his
disciples, but no expression occurs intimating that this feast was
hereafter to be commemorated.
In St. Mark (Mark XIV. 23) the same words are recorded, and
still with no intimation that the occasion was to be remembered.
St. Luke (Luke XXII. 15), after relating the breaking of the
bread, has these words: This do in remembrance of me.
In St. John, although other occurrences of the same evening are
related, this whole transaction is passed over without notice.
Now observe the facts. Two of the Evangelists, namely, Matthew
and John, were of the twelve disciples, and were present on that
occasion. Neither of them drops the slightest intimation of any
intention on the part of Jesus to set up anything permanent. John,
especially, the beloved disciple, who has recorded with minuteness
the conversation and the transactions of that memorable evening, has
quite omitted such a notice. Neither does it appear to have come to
the knowledge of Mark who, though not an eye-witness, relates the
other facts. This material fact, that the occasion was to be
remembered, is found in Luke alone, who was not present. There is no
reason, however, that we know, for rejecting the account of Luke. I
doubt not, the expression was used by Jesus. I shall presently
consider its meaning. I have only brought these accounts together,
that you may judge whether it is likely that a solemn institution, to
be continued to the end of time by all mankind, as they should come,
nation after nation, within the influence of the Christian religion,
would have been established in this slight manner -- in a manner so
slight, that the intention of commemorating it should not appear,
from their narrative, to have caught the ear or dwelt in the mind of
the only two among the twelve who wrote down what happened.
Still we must suppose that the expression,
"This do inremembrance of me," had come to the ear of Luke from some disciple
who was present. What did it really signify? It is a prophetic and
an affectionate expression. Jesus is a Jew, sitting with his
countrymen, celebrating their national feast. He thinks of his own
impending death, and wishes the minds of his disciples to be prepared
for it. "When hereafter," he says to them, "you shall keep the
Passover, it will have an altered aspect to your eyes. It is now a
historical covenant of God with the Jewish nation. Hereafter, it
will remind you of a new covenant sealed with my blood. In years to
come, as long as your people shall come up to Jerusalem to keep this
feast, the connection which has subsisted between us will give a new
meaning in your eyes to the national festival, as the anniversary of
my death." I see natural feeling and beauty in the use of such
language from Jesus, a friend to his friends; I can readily imagine
that he was willing and desirous, when his disciples met, his memory
should hallow their intercourse; but I cannot bring myself to believe
that in the use of such an expression he looked beyond the living
generation, beyond the abolition of the festival he was celebrating,
and the scattering of the nation, and meant to impose a memorial
feast upon the whole world.
Without presuming to fix precisely the purpose in the mind of
Jesus, you will see that many opinions may be entertained of his
intention, all consistent with the opinion that he did not design a
perpetual ordinance. He may have foreseen that his disciples would
meet to remember him, and that with good effect. It may have crossed
his mind that this would be easily continued a hundred or a thousand
years -- as men more easily transmit a form than a virtue -- and yet
have been altogether out of his purpose to fasten it upon men in all
times and all countries.
But though the words,
Do this in remembrance of me, do occur
in Matthew, Mark, or John, and although it should be granted us that,
taken alone, they do not necessarily import so much as is usually
thought, yet many persons are apt to imagine that the very striking
and personal manner in which this eating and drinking is described,
indicates a striking and formal purpose to found a festival. And I
admit that this impression might probably be left upon the mind of
one who read only the passages under consideration in the New
Testament. But this impression is removed by reading any narrative
of the mode in which the ancient or the modern Jews have kept the
Passover. It is then perceived that the leading circumstances in the
Gospels are only a faithful account of that ceremony. Jesus did not
celebrate the Passover, and afterwards the Supper, but the Supper
was the Passover. He did with his disciples exactly what every
master of a family in Jerusalem was doing at the same hour with his
household. It appears that the Jews ate the lamb and the unleavened
bread, and drank wine after a prescribed manner. It was the custom
for the master of the feast to break the bread and to bless it, using
this formula, which the Talmudists have preserved to us, "Blessed be
Thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, who hast produced this
food from the earth," -- and to give it to every one at the table.
It was the custom of the master of the family to take the cup which
contained the wine, and to bless it, saying, "Blessed be Thou, O
Lord, who givest us the fruit of the vine," -- and then to give the
cup to all. Among the modern Jews who in their dispersion retain the
Passover, a hymn is also sung after this ceremony, specifying the
twelve great works done by God for the deliverance of their fathers
out of Egypt.
But still it may be asked, why did Jesus make expressions so
extraordinary and emphatic as these -- "This is my body which is
broken for you. Take; eat. This is my blood which is shed for you.
Drink it." -- I reply they are not extraordinary expressions from
him. They were familiar in his mouth. He always taught by parables
and symbols. It was the national way of teaching and was largely
used by him. Remember the readiness which he always showed to
spiritualize every occurrence. He stooped and wrote on the sand. He
admonished his disciples respecting the leaven of the Pharisees. He
instructed the woman of Samaria respecting living water. He
permitted himself to be anointed, declaring that it was for his
interment. He washed the feet of his disciples. These are admitted
to be symbolical actions and expressions. Here, in like manner, he
calls the bread his body, and bids the disciples eat. He had used
the same expression repeatedly before. The reason why St. John does
not repeat his words on this occasion, seems to be that he had
reported a similar discourse of Jesus to the people of Capernaum more
at length already (John VI. 27). He there tells the Jews, "Except
ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no
life in you." And when the Jews on that occasion complained that they
did not comprehend what he meant, he added for their better
understanding, and as if for our understanding, that we might not
think his body was to be actually eaten, that he only meant,
weshould live by his commandment. He closed his discourse with these
explanatory expressions: "The flesh profiteth nothing; the
wordsthat I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life."
Whilst I am upon this topic, I cannot help remarking that it is
not a little singular that we should have preserved this rite and
insisted upon perpetuating one symbolical act of Christ whilst we
have totally neglected all others -- particularly one other which had
at least an equal claim to our observance. Jesus washed the feet of
his disciples and told them that, as he had washed their feet, they
ought to wash one another's feet; for he had given them an example,
that they should do as he had done to them. I ask any person who
believes the Supper to have been designed by Jesus to be commemorated
forever, to go and read the account of it in the other Gospels, and
then compare with it the account of this transaction in St. John, and
tell me if this be not much more explicitly authorized than the
Supper. It only differs in this, that we have found the Supper used
in New England and the washing of the feet not. But if we had found
it an established rite in our churches, on grounds of mere authority,
it would have been impossible to have argued against it. That rite
is used by the Church of Rome, and by the Sandemanians. It has been
very properly dropped by other Christians. Why? For two reasons:
(1) because it was a local custom, and unsuitable in western
countries; and (2) because it was typical, and all understand that
humility is the thing signified. But the Passover was local too, and
does not concern us, and its bread and wine were typical, and do not
help us to understand the redemption which they signified.
These views of the original account of the Lord's Supper lead
me to esteem it an occasion full of solemn and prophetic interest,
but never intended by Jesus to be the foundation of a perpetual
institution.
It appears however in Christian history that the disciples had
very early taken advantage of these impressive words of Christ to
hold religious meetings, where they broke bread and drank wine as
symbols.
I look upon this fact as very natural in the circumstances of
the church. The disciples lived together; they threw all their
property into a common stock; they were bound together by the memory
of Christ, and nothing could be more natural than that this eventful
evening should be affectionately remembered by them; that they, Jews
like Jesus, should adopt his expressions and his types, and
furthermore, that what was done with peculiar propriety by them, his
personal friends, with less propriety should come to be extended to
their companions also. In this way religious feasts grew up among
the early Christians. They were readily adopted by the Jewish
converts who were familiar with religious feasts, and also by the
Pagan converts whose idolatrous worship had been made up of sacred
festivals, and who very readily abused these to gross riot, as
appears from the censures of St. Paul. Many persons consider this
fact, the observance of such a memorial feast by the early disciples,
decisive of the question whether it ought to be observed by us. For
my part I see nothing to wonder at in its originating with them; all
that is surprising is that it should exist among us. There was good
reason for his personal friends to remember their friend and repeat
his words. It was only too probable that among the half converted
Pagans and Jews, any rite, any form, would find favor, whilst yet
unable to comprehend the spiritual character of Christianity.
The circumstance, however, that St. Paul adopts these views,
has seemed to many persons conclusive in favor of the institution. I
am of opinion that it is wholly upon the epistle to the Corinthians,
and not upon the Gospels, that the ordinance stands. Upon this
matter of St. Paul's view of the Supper, a few important
considerations must be stated.
The end which he has in view, in the eleventh chapter of the
first epistle is, not to enjoin upon his friends to observe the
Supper, but to censure their abuse of it.
We quote the passage
now-a-days as if it enjoined attendance upon the Supper; but he wrote
it merely to chide them for drunkenness. To make their enormity
plainer he goes back to the origin of this religious feast to show
what sort of feast that was, out of which this riot of theirs came,
and so relates the transactions of the Last Supper.
"I havereceived of the Lord," he says,
"that which I delivered to you."By this expression it is often thought that a miraculous
communication is implied; but certainly without good reason, if it is
remembered that St. Paul was living in the lifetime of all the
apostles who could give him an account of the transaction; and it is
contrary to all reason to suppose that God should work a miracle to
convey information that could so easily be got by natural means. So
that the import of the expression is that he had received the story
of an eye-witness such as we also possess.
But there is a material circumstance which diminishes our
confidence in the correctness of the Apostle's view; and that is, the
observation that his mind had not escaped the prevalent error of the
primitive church, the belief, namely, that the second coming of
Christ would shortly occur, until which time, he tells them, this
feast was to be kept. Elsewhere he tells them, that, at that time
the world would be burnt up with fire, and a new government
established, in which the Saints would sit on thrones; so slow were
the disciples during the life, and after the ascension of Christ, to
receive the idea which we receive, that his second coming was a
spiritual kingdom, the dominion of his religion in the hearts of men,
to be extended gradually over the whole world.
In this manner we may see clearly enough how this ancient
ordinance got its footing among the early Christians, and this single
expectation of a speedy reappearance of a temporal Messiah, which
kept its influence even over so spiritual a man as St. Paul, would
naturally tend to preserve the use of the rite when once established.
We arrive then at this conclusion,
first, that it does not
appear, from a careful examination of the account of the Last Supper
in the Evangelists, that it was designed by Jesus to be perpetual;
secondly, that it does not appear that the opinion of St. Paul, all
things considered, ought to alter our opinion derived from the
evangelists.
One general remark before quitting this branch of the subject.
We ought to be cautious in taking even the best ascertained opinions
and practices of the primitive church, for our own. If it could be
satisfactorily shown that they esteemed it authorized and to be
transmitted forever, that does not settle the question for us. We
know how inveterately they were attached to their Jewish prejudices,
and how often even the influence of Christ failed to enlarge their
views. On every other subject succeeding times have learned to form
a judgment more in accordance with the spirit of Christianity than
was the practice of the early ages.
But it is said: "Admit that the rite was not designed to be
perpetual. What harm doth it? Here it stands, generally accepted,
under some form, by the Christian world, the undoubted occasion of
much good; is it not better it should remain?"
II. This is the question of expediency.
I proceed to state a few objections that in my judgment lie
against its use in its present form.
1. If the view which I have taken of the history of the
institution be correct, then the claim of authority should be dropped
in administering it. You say, every time you celebrate the rite,
that Jesus enjoined it; and the whole language you use conveys that
impression. But if you read the New Testament as I do, you do not
believe he did.
2. It has seemed to me that the use of this ordinance tends to
produce confusion in our views of the relation of the soul to God.
It is the old objection to the doctrine of the Trinity, -- that the
true worship was transferred from God to Christ, or that such
confusion was introduced into the soul, that an undivided worship was
given nowhere. Is not that the effect of the Lord's Supper? I
appeal now to the convictions of communicants -- and ask such persons
whether they have not been occasionally conscious of a painful
confusion of thought between the worship due to God and the
commemoration due to Christ. For, the service does not stand upon
the basis of a voluntary act, but is imposed by authority. It is an
expression of gratitude to Christ, enjoined by Christ. There is an
endeavor to keep Jesus in mind, whilst yet the prayers are addressed
to God. I fear it is the effect of this ordinance to clothe Jesus
with an authority which he never claimed and which distracts the mind
of the worshipper. I know our opinions differ much respecting the
nature and offices of Christ, and the degree of veneration to which
he is entitled. I am so much a Unitarian as this: that I believe the
human mind cannot admit but one God, and that every effort to pay
religious homage to more than one being, goes to take away all right
ideas. I appeal, brethren, to your individual experience. In the
moment when you make the least petition to God, though it be but a
silent wish that he may approve you, or add one moment to your life,
-- do you not, in the very act, necessarily exclude all other beings
from your thought? In that act, the soul stands alone with God, and
Jesus is no more present to the mind than your brother or your child.
But is not Jesus called in Scripture the Mediator? He is the
mediator in that only sense in which possibly any being can mediate
between God and man -- that is an Instructor of man. He teaches us
how to become like God. And a true disciple of Jesus will receive
the light he gives most thankfully; but the thanks he offers, and
which an exalted being will accept, are not
compliments --
commemorations, -- but the use of that instruction.
3. Passing other objections, I come to this, that the
use ofthe elements, however suitable to the people and the modes of
thought in the East, where it originated, is foreign and unsuited to
affect us. Whatever long usage and strong association may have done
in some individuals to deaden this repulsion, I apprehend that their
use is rather tolerated than loved by any of us. We are not
accustomed to express our thoughts or emotions by symbolical actions.
Most men find the bread and wine no aid to devotion and to some, it
is a painful impediment. To eat bread is one thing; to love the
precepts of Christ and resolve to obey them is quite another.
The statement of this objection leads me to say that I think
this difficulty, wherever it is felt, to be entitled to the greatest
weight. It is alone a sufficient objection to the ordinance. It is
my own objection. This mode of commemorating Christ is not suitable
to me. That is reason enough why I should abandon it. If I believed
that it was enjoined by Jesus on his disciples, and that he even
contemplated making permanent this mode of commemoration, every way
agreeable to an eastern mind, and yet, on trial, it was disagreeable
to my own feelings, I should not adopt it. I should choose other
ways which, as more effectual upon me, he would approve more. For I
choose that my remembrances of him should be pleasing, affecting,
religious. I will love him as a glorified friend, after the free way
of friendship, and not pay him a stiff sign of respect, as men do to
those whom they fear. A passage read from his discourses, a moving
provocation to works like his, any act or meeting which tends to
awaken a pure thought, a flow of love, an original design of virtue,
I call a worthy, a true commemoration.
4. Fourthly, the importance ascribed to this particular
ordinance is not consistent with the spirit of Christianity. The
general object and effect of this ordinance is unexceptionable. It
has been, and is, I doubt not, the occasion of indefinite good; but
an importance is given by Christians to it which never can belong to
any form. My friends, the apostle well assures us that "the kingdom
of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy, in
the Holy Ghost." I am not so foolish as to declaim against forms.
Forms are as essential as bodies; but to exalt particular forms, to
adhere to one form a moment after it is out-grown, is unreasonable,
and it is alien to the spirit of Christ. If I understand the
distinction of Christianity, the reason why it is to be preferred
over all other systems and is divine is this, that it is a moral
system; that it presents men with truths which are their own reason,
and enjoins practices that are their own justification; that if
miracles may be said to have been its evidence to the first
Christians, they are not its evidence to us, but the doctrines
themselves; that every practice is Christian which praises itself,
and every practice unchristian which condemns itself. I am not
engaged to Christianity by decent forms, or saving ordinances; it is
not usage, it is not what I do not understand, that binds me to it --
let these be the sandy foundations of falsehoods. What I revere and
obey in it is its reality, its boundless charity, its deep interior
life, the rest it gives to my mind, the echo it returns to my
thoughts, the perfect accord it makes with my reason through all its
representation of God and His Providence; and the persuasion and
courage that come out thence to lead me upward and onward. Freedom
is the essence of this faith. It has for its object simply to make
men good and wise. Its institutions, then, should be as flexible as
the wants of men. That form out of which the life and suitableness
have departed, should be as worthless in its eyes as the dead leaves
that are falling around us.
And therefore, although for the satisfaction of others, I have
labored to show by the history that this rite was not intended to be
perpetual; although I have gone back to weigh the expressions of
Paul, I feel that here is the true point of view. In the midst of
considerations as to what Paul thought, and why he so thought, I
cannot help feeling that it is time misspent to argue to or from his
convictions, or those of Luke and John, respecting any form. I seem
to lose the substance in seeking the shadow. That for which Paul
lived and died so gloriously; that for which Jesus gave himself to be
crucified; the end that animated the thousand martyrs and heroes who
have followed his steps, was to redeem us from a formal religion, and
teach us to seek our well-being in the formation of the soul. The
whole world was full of idols and ordinances. The Jewish was a
religion of forms. The Pagan was a religion of forms; it was all
body -- it had no life -- and the Almighty God was pleased to qualify
and send forth a man to teach men that they must serve him with the
heart; that only that life was religious which was thoroughly good;
that sacrifice was smoke, and forms were shadows. This man lived and
died true to this purpose; and now, with his blessed word and life
before us, Christians must contend that it is a matter of vital
importance -- really a duty, to commemorate him by a certain form,
whether that form be agreeable to their understandings or not.
Is not this to make vain the gift of God? Is not this to turn
back the hand on the dial? Is not this to make men -- to make
ourselves -- forget that not forms, but duties; not names, but
righteousness and love are enjoined; and that in the eye of God there
is no other measure of the value of any one form than the measure of
its use?
There remain some practical objections to the ordinance into
which I shall not now enter. There is one on which I had intended to
say a few words; I mean the unfavorable relation in which it places
that numerous class of persons who abstain from it merely from
disinclination to the rite.
Influenced by these considerations, I have proposed to the
brethren of the Church to drop the use of the elements and the claim
of authority in the administration of this ordinance, and have
suggested a mode in which a meeting for the same purpose might be
held free of objection.
My brethren have considered my views with patience and candor,
and have recommended unanimously an adherence to the present form. I
have, therefore, been compelled to consider whether it becomes me to
administer it. I am clearly of opinion I ought not. This discourse
has already been so far extended, that I can only say that the reason
of my determination is shortly this: -- It is my desire, in the
office of a Christian minister, to do nothing which I cannot do with
my whole heart. Having said this, I have said all. I have no
hostility to this institution; I am only stating my want of sympathy
with it. Neither should I ever have obtruded this opinion upon other
people, had I not been called by my office to administer it. That is
the end of my opposition, that I am not interested in it. I am
content that it stand to the end of the world, if it please men and
please heaven, and I shall rejoice in all the good it produces.
As it is the prevailing opinion and feeling in our religious
community, that it is an indispensable part of the pastoral office to
administer this ordinance, I am about to resign into your hands that
office which you have confided to me. It has many duties for which I
am feebly qualified. It has some which it will always be my delight
to discharge, according to my ability, wherever I exist. And whilst
the recollection of its claims oppresses me with a sense of my
unworthiness, I am consoled by the hope that no time and no change
can deprive me of the satisfaction of pursuing and exercising its
highest functions.
September 9, 1832.
...
[Next page]Pages:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [1-12]
