]Ittt)er$iibe €tittion MISCELLANIES BEING VOLUME XI. OF EMERSON'S COMPLETE WORKS I MISCELLANIES RALPH WALDO EMERSON BOSTON HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY New York: 11 East Seventeenth Street ^h^ ^. Copyright, 1883, Br EDWARD W. EMERSON. All rights reserved. The Riverside Press, Cambridge : Electrotyped and Printed by H. 0. Houghton & Co. NOTE. The first five pieces in tliis volume, and the Ed- itorial Address from the " Massachusetts Quarterly Review" were published by Mr. Emerson, long ago. The speeches at the John Brown, the Walter Scott, and the Free Religious Association meetings were published at the time, no doubt with his con- sent, but without any active co-operation on his part. The " Fortune of the Republic " appeared separately in 1879: the rest have never been pub- lished. In none was any change from the original form made by me, except in the " Fortune of the Republic," which was made up from several lect- ures for the occasion upon which it was read. J. E. CABOT. CO]^TEKTS. —4 PAGE The Lord's Supper 7 Historical Discourse in Concord .... 31 Address at the Dedication of the Soldiers' Mon- ument IN Concord 99 Address on Emancipation in the British West Indies 129 War 177 The Fugitive Slave Law 203 The Assault upon Mr. Sumner .... 231 Speech on Affairs in Kansas 239 Kemarks at a Meeting for the Relief of John Brown's Family 249 John Brown: Speech at Salem .... 257 Theodore Parker : Address at the Memorial Meet- ing IN Boston 265 American Civilization 275 The Emancipation Proclamation 291 Abraham Lincoln 305 Harvard Commemoration Speech , . . .317 Editors' Address: Massachusetts Quarterly Re- view 323 Woman 335 Address to Kossuth 357 Viii CONTENTS. PA6S Egbert Buens 363 Walter Scott 373 Remarks at the Organization of the Free Relig- ious Association 379 Speech at the Annual Meeting of the Free Re- ligious Association 385 The Fortune of the Republic 393 THE LORD'S SUPPER. SERMON DELIVERED BEFORE THE SECOND CHURCH IN BOSTON SEPTEMBER 9, 1832. THE LOKD'S SUPPER. The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink ; but righteous- ness, 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 Sup- per. 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 de- bated as to the posture in which men should par- take 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 10 SERMON ON 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 re- specting 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 commemo- ration. And finally, it is now near two hvuidred years since the Society of Quakers denied the au- thority 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 has always been the widest room for difference of opinion uj)on 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 THE LORD'S SUPPER. H observance when he ate the Passover with his dis- ciples ; 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, Mat- thew, Mark, Luke, and John. In St. Matthew's Gospel (Matt. xx\a. 26-30) are recorded the words of Jesus in giving bread and wine on that occasion to his disciples, but no ex- pression occurs intimating that this feast was here- after to be commemorated. In St. Mark (Mark xiv. 22-25) the same words are recorded, and still with no intimation that the occasion was to be re- membered. St. Luke (Luke xxii. 19), after re- lating 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 with- out notice. Now observe the facts. Two of the Evangelists, namely, Matthew and John, were of the twelve dis- ciples, and were present on that occasion. Neither of them drops the slightest intimation of any inten- tion on the part of Jesus to set up anything perma- nent. John especially, the beloved disciple, who 12 SERMON ON has recorded witli minuteness the conversation and the transactions of that memorable evening, has quite omitted such a notice. Neither does it ap- pear 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 re- membered, is found in Luke alone, who was not present. There is no reason, however, that we know, for rejecting the account of Lid^e. I doubt not, the expression was used by Jesus. I shall pres- ently 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 ap- pear, 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 svippose 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 af- fectionate expression. Jesus is a Jew, sitting with his countrymen, celebrating their national feast. He thinks of his own impending death, and wishes THE LORD'S SUPPER. 13 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, feel- ing 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 opin- ions may be entertained of his intention, all con- sistent 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 14 SER3I0N ON 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 imag- ine that the very striking and personal manner in which the eating and drinking is described, indi- cates a striking and formal purpose to found a fes- tival. 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 tliis impression is removed by reading any narrative of the mode in which the an- cient or the modern Jews have kept the Passover. It is then perceived that the leading circumstances in the Gospels are only a faithfid 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 LORD'S SUPPER. 15 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, 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 Egyi)t. 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 extraor- dinary 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 readi- ness which he always showed to spiritualize every occurrence. He stopped and wrote on the sand. He admonished his disciples respecting the leaven of the Pharisees. He instructed the woman of Sa- maria respecting living water. He permitted him- self 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 16 SERMON ON 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 Caper- naum more at length already (John vi. 27-60.) 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 lie only meant we should live by his commandment. He closed his discourse with these explanatory ex- pressions : " The flesh profiteth nothing ; the words that I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life." Whilst 1 am upon this topic, I cannot help re- marking 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 aU others, — particularly one other which had at least an equal claim to our ob- servance. Jesus washed the feet of his discij^les 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 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 17 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 author- ized 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 im- possible to have argued against it. That rite is used by the Church of Rome, and by the Sande- manians. 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 understood that humility is the thing signi- fied. 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 ftdl 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 18 SERMON ON impressive words of Christ to hold religious meet- ings, 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 nat- ural than that this eventful evening should be af- fectionately 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 Pa- gan converts whose idolatrous worship had been made up of sacred festivals, and who very readily abused these to gross riot, as appears from the cen- sures 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. There was good reason for his personal fi'iends to remember their friend and repeat his words. It was only too prob- able that among the half converted Pagans and Jews, any rite, any form, would find favor, whUst THE LORD'S SUPPER. 19 yet unable to compreliend 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 enjom upon his friends to observe the Supper, but to censure their abuse of it. We quote the passage nowadays 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 have received of the Lord," he says, " that which I delivered to you." By this expres- sion it is often thought that a miraculous communi- cation is implied ; but certainly without good rea- son, 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 con- trary to all reason to suppose that God shoidd work a miracle to convey information that could 20 SERMON ON so easily be got by natural means. So that the im- port 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 dimin- ishes our confidence in the correctness of the Apos- tle'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 wliich we receive, that Ms 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 reajDpearance of a temporal Messiah, which kept its influence even over so spir- itual 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 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 21 it was designed by Jesus to be perpetual ; secondly, that it does not appeal' 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 this 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 au- thorized and to be transmitted forever, that does not settle the question for us. We know how in- veterately they were attached to their Jewish preju- dices, and how often even the influence of Christ failed to enlarge their views. On every other sub- ject succeeding times have learned to form a judg- ment more in accordance with the spirit of Chris- tianity than was the practice of the early ages. II. 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 occa- sion of much good ; is it not better it should re- main? " 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 au- thority should be dropped in administering it. You 22 SERMON ON say, every time you celebrate the rite, that Jesus enjoined it ; and the whole* language you use con- veys 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 ordi- nance tends to produce confusion in our views of the relation of the soul to God. It is the old ob- jection 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 occasion- ally conscious of a painful confusion of thought be- tween the worship due to God and the commemoration due to Christ. For the service does not stand uj^on the basis of a voluntary act, but is imposed by au- thority. It is an expression of gratitude to Christ, enjoined by Christ. There is an endeavor to ke^ 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 wor- shipper. I know our opinions differ much respect- ing 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 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 23 can admit but one God, and tliat 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 your mind than your brother or your child. ' But is not Jesus called in Scripture the Media- tor? He is the mediator in that only sense in which possibly any being can mediate between God and man, — that is, an iustrudtor of man. He teaches us how to become like God» And