and anon with joy receive it. All men on whose souls the light of God's revelation truly shineth, with whatever apparent differences, are substantially of one mind, work together, whether consciously or not, for one and the same good. Faces that never beheld each other are lighted up by it with the same expression. Hands that were never clasped toil unceasingly at the same work. This it is which makes the omnipotence of truth in the keeping of feeble men, this fellowship in all its servants, this swift consenting acknowledgment with which they hail it when it appears God's truth; it is that electric spark which flies instantaneously through the countless bands that compose the chain. Truth, not like each form of error, depending for its repute on the powers and influence of here and there a solitary mind that espouses it, combines hosts for its support, and makes them co-operate across mountains, yea, and ages of time."

Emerson took an active interest in the public affairs of Boston. He was on its School Board, and was chosen chaplain of the State Senate. He invited the anti-slavery lecturers into his church, and helped philanthropists of other denominations in their work. Father Taylor, to whom Dickens gave an English fame, found in him his most important supporter when establishing the Seaman's Mission in Boston. This was told me by Father Taylor himself in his old age. I happened to be in his company once when he spoke rather sternly about my leaving the Methodist Church; but when I spoke of the part Emerson had in it, he softened at once, and spoke with emotion of his great friend. I have no doubt that if the good Father of Boston Seamen was proud of any personal thing, it was of the excellent answer he is said to have given to some Methodists who objected to his friendship for Emerson. Being a Unitarian, they insisted that he must go to hell. "It does look so," said Father Taylor; "but I am sure of one thing, if Emerson goes to hell, he will change the climate there, and emigration will set that way."

VII.

DISAPPROBATION.

IN June 1832 Emerson invited the most active members of his church to his house, "to receive a communication from him in relation to the views at which he had arrived respecting the ordinance of the Lord's Supper." He there made his statement of objections to the existing form, and proposed to "so far change the manner of administering the rite as to disuse the elements and relinquish the claim of authority." He suggested a modification. After hearing this communication a committee was appointed (Deacons Mackintosh and Patterson, Dr. John Ware, George B. Emerson, George A. Sampson, Gedney King, and Samuel Beal) to consider the subject. They reported and submitted: "(1.) That in the opinion of this church, after a careful consideration of this subject, it is expedient to maintain the celebration of the Lord's Supper in the present form. (2.) That the brethren of this church retain an undiminished regard for their pastor, and entertain the hope that he will find it consistent with his sense of duty to continue the customary administration of the Supper." The minister, however, having given an explanatory sermon on the subject, offered a kindly but firm resignation of his charge.

It is significant that the only sermon by Emerson ever published was this of September 9, 1832, in which he announced his resignation of his pulpit and assigned his reasons for it. It is given in full in O. B. Frothingham's "Transcendentalism in New England." Reading it, one cannot but wonder that the Unitarians should have let

go such a preacher. The text was Romans xiv. 17, "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." The history of the controversy on the subject is condensed in a page, yet in a way which shows that every phase of it had been carefully studied, up to the time when "the Society of Quakers denied the authority of the rite altogether, and gave good reasons for disusing it." Next are given his reasons for believing that Jesus did not intend to establish an institution for perpetual observance when he ate the Passover with his disciples. The only reporter of the incident whose words, "This do in remembrance of me," would bear a different construction, was Luke, who was not present. But what did this expression 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." Then follows a statement of the Eastern way of teaching, the

readiness of Jesus to spiritualise every occurrence—as in washing his disciples' feet, more emphatically enjoined as an example than any sacrament. The communism of the first disciples, which rendered such a festival natural; the expectation of the second coming of Jesus, which influenced the mind of Paul to preserve the local rite, were considered with great force, and led up to the general view. As to the question of expediency, he thinks the ordinance produces confusion in our views of the relation of the soul to God. "For the service does not stand upon the basis of a voluntary act, but is imposed by authority." "The use of the elements, however suitable to the people and modes of thought in the East, where it originated, is foreign and unsuited to affect us." This alone is 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 glorious 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 true, a worthy commemoration." Freedom, he declares, 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." 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?"

In conclusion Emerson said:-"My brethren have considered my views with patience and candour, 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