days we need not try to determine.  The sermon was only a more formal declaration of views respecting the Lord’s Supper, which he had previously made known in a conference with some of the most active members of his church.  As a committee of the parish reported resolutions radically differing from his opinion on the subject, he preached this sermon and at the same time resigned his office.  There was no “discord,” there was no need of a “council.”  Nothing could be more friendly, more truly Christian, than the manner in which Mr. Emerson expressed himself in this parting discourse.  All the kindness of his nature warms it throughout.  He details the differences of opinion which have existed in the church with regard to the ordinance.  He then argues from the language of the Evangelists that it was not intended to be a permanent institution.  He takes up the statement of Paul in the Epistle to the Corinthians, which he thinks, all things considered, ought not to alter our opinion derived from the Evangelists.  He does not think that we are to rely upon the opinions and practices of the primitive church.  If that church believed the institution to be permanent, their belief does not settle the question for us.  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?”

He proceeds to give reasons which show it to be inexpedient to continue the observance of the rite.  It was treating that as authoritative which, as he believed that he had shown from Scripture, was not so.  It confused the idea of God by transferring the worship of Him to Christ.  Christ is the Mediator only as the instructor of man.  In the least petition to God “the soul stands alone with God, and Jesus is no more present to your mind than your brother or child.”  Again:—­

“The use of the elements, however suitable to the people and the modes of thought in the East, where it originated, is foreign and unsuited to affect us.  The day of formal religion is past, and we are to seek our well-being in the formation of the soul.  The Jewish 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 that purpose; and 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 acceptable to their understanding or not.  Is not this to make vain the gift of God?  Is not this to turn back the hand on the dial?”

To these objections he adds the practical consideration that it brings those who do not partake of the communion service into an unfavorable relation with those who do.