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 has 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.