by Ralph Waldo Emerson
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 in remembrance 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 not 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, we should live by his commandment. He closed his
discourse with these explanatory expressions: "The flesh profiteth nothing; the
words that 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.