網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Emerson thereupon formally resigned the pastorate, and preached this notable discourse.

THE FAREWELL SERMON.

The text and theme of the sermon was Romans xiv. 17, where Paul declares that "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy and peace in the Holy Ghost." The discourse began in a quiet way, touching first upon some of the disputes which have been waged in respect to the rite of the Lord's Supper. Some of the conclusions being that

"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 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 for the priesthood. . . . 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 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 it was not a sacrifice, but a sacrificial feast; and Bishop Hoadley that it was neither a sacrifice nor a feast after a 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."

Having premised that these facts were alluded. to "only to show that so far from the Supper being a tradition in which men are fully agreed, there has always been room for the widest difference of opinion upon this particular," Mr. Emerson goes on to define his own position, and the essential grounds upon which it was based :

"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 now do."

He then proceeds to discuss the question as to the authority of the rite. An account of the Last Supper, he says in substance, is given by the four Evangelists: Matthew records the words of Jesus in giving the bread and wine to his disciples on that occasion; but there is nothing said which indicates that the feast was hereafter to be commemorated. Mark gives the same words, still

Iwith no intimation that the occasion was to be remembered. Luke, after relating the breaking of the bread, has these words, "This do in remembrance of me." In John, although the other transactions of the evening are related, this whole transaction is passed over without notice. The whole matter is thus summed up:

SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY AS TO THE SUPPER.

"Now observe the facts. Two of the Evangelists, Matthew and John, were of the twelve disciples, and were present on the 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 had happened. But supposing that the expression, 'This do in remembrance of me,' had come to the ear of Luke from some disciple who was present, what does it really signify?"

Mr. Emerson goes on to state what he supposes lay in the mind of Jesus upon this memorable occasion: "He was 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. He says to them : 'When hereafter you shall keep this Passover, it will have an altered aspect to your eyes. It is now an 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."" And much more to the same general purport; the upshot of all being that the supper was not a sequel to the Passover, but was the Passover itself. "Jesus did with his disciples exactly what every master of a family in Jerusalem was doing at the same hour with his household." He thus proceeds:

TEMPORARY DESIGN OF THE RITE.

"I see natural feeling and beauty in such language from Jesus-a friend to his friends. I can readily im

agine that he was willing and desirous, when his disciples met, that his memory should hallow their intercourse; but I cannot 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. 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 retain 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."

Mr. Emerson admits that St. Paul presents a view of the supper which accords in general with the common view of its origin and nature. But in this matter he gives little weight to the authority of Paul. To us, who regard the authority of Paul as not inferior to any other, the argument of Emerson and the conclusions based upon it have no validity. Still, it is fitting that they should be fairly presented :

THE AUTHORITY OF ST. PAUL QUESTIONED.

"I am of opinion that it is wholly upon the Epistle to the Corinthians, and not upon the Gospels, that the ordinance stands. 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 that the second coming of Christ

« 上一頁繼續 »