words this meaning, they limit the duration of this spiritualized Passover, but do not specify the time. It might have ceased, they say, with some of those present on the day of Pentecost, when they began to discover the nature of Christ's kingdom; and they think it probable, that it ceased with all of them when they found this kingdom realized in their hearts. For it is remarkable that those, who became Gospel-writers (and it is to presumed that they had attained great spiritual growth when they wrote their respective works) give no instruction to others, whether Jews or Gentiles, to observe the ceremonial permitted to the disciples by Jesus, as any ordinance of the Christian Church. And in the same manner as the Quakers conceive the duration of the spiritualized Passover to have been limited to the disciples, they conceive it to have been limited to all other Jewish converts, who might have adopted it in those times; that is, till they should find, by the substantial enjoyment of Christ in their hearts, that ceremonial ordinances belonged to the old, but that they were not constituent parts of the new kingdom.

SECTION XII.

Quakers believe, from the preceding evidence, that Jesus Christ intended no ceremonial for the Christian Church-for, if the custom enjoined was the Passover spiritualized, it was more suitable for Jews than GentilesIf intended as a ceremonial, it would have been commanded by Jesus to others besides the disciples, and by these to the Christian world—and its duration would not have been limited-Quakers believe St. Paul thought it no Christian ordinance-three reasons taken from his own writings.

THE Quakers, then, on an examination of the preceding evidence, are of opinion that Jesus Christ, at the Passover supper, never intended to institute any new supper distinct from that of the Passover, or in addition to that enjoined at Capernaum to be observed as a ceremonial by Christians.

For, in the first place, St. Matthew, who was at the supper, makes no mention of the words "Do this in remembrance of me."

Neither are these words, nor any of a similar import, recorded by St. Mark. It is true, indeed, that St. Mark was not at this supper. But it is clear he never understood from those who were, either that they were spoken, or that they bore this meaning, or he would have inserted them in his Gospel.

Nor is any mention made of such words by St. John. This was the beloved disciple, who was more intimate with Jesus, and who knew more of the mind of his master, than any of the others. This was he, who leaned upon his bosom at the Passover-supper, and who must have been so near him as to have heard all that passed there; and yet this disciple did not think it worth his while,

except manuscripts have been mutilated, to mention even the bread and the wine that were used upon this occasion.

Neither does St. Luke, who mentions the words "Do this in remembrance of me," establish any thing, in the opinion of the Quakers, material on this point. For it appears from him that Jesus, to make the most of his words, only spiritualized the old Passover for his disciples, all of whom were Jews, but that he gave no command with respect to the observance of it by others. Neither did St. Luke himself enjoin or call upon others to observe it.

St. Paul speaks nearly the same language as St. Luke, but with this difference, that the supper, as thus spiritualized, by Jesus, was to last but for a time.*

Now the Quakers are of opinion, that they have not sufficient ground to believe, from these authorities, that Jesus intended to establish any ceremonial as an universal ordinance for the Christian Church. For, if the custom enjoined was the spiritualized Passover, it was better calculated for Jews than for Gentiles, who were neither interested in the motives nor acquainted with the customs of that feast. But it is of little importance, they contend, whether it was the spiritualized Passover or not; for, if Jesus Christ had intended it, whatever it was, as an essential of his

* The extraordinary silence of St. John on this subject, as before mentioned, is considered by some as confirming the idea, that this evangelist himself believed that the Passover, as spiritualized by Jesus Christ, was to cease with the Jewish constitution, or after the destruction of Jerusalem. For St. John did not write his Gospel till after this great event. But if he thought the ceremonial was then to cease, he would have had less reason for mentioning it, than any of those who wrote prior to this epoch.

new religion, he would have commanded his disciples to enjoin it as a Christian duty and the disciples themselves would have handed it down to their several converts in this light. But no injunction to this effect, either of Jesus to others, or of themselves to others, is to be found in any of their writings. Add to this, that the limitation of its duration for a time seems a sufficient argument against it as a Christian ordinance, because whatever is once, must be for ever, an essential in the Christian Church.

The Quakers believe, as a further argument in their favour,that there is reason to presume that St. Paul never looked upon the spiritualized Passover, as any permanent and essential rite, which Christians were enjoined to follow. For nothing can be more clear, than that, when speaking of the guilt and hazard of judging one another by meats and drinks, he states it as a general and fundamental doctrine of Christianity,that the "kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost*"

It seems also by the mode of reasoning, which the apostle adopts in the Epistle to the Corinthians on this subject, that he had no other idea of the observance of this rite, than he had of the observance of particular days; namely, that if men thought they were bound in conscience to keep them they ought to keep them religiously. "He that regardeth a day," says the apostle, “regardeth it to the Lord:" that is, "He that esteemed a day," says Barclay, and placed conscience in keeping it, was to

* Romans xiv. 17.

regard it to the Lord (and so it was to him, in so far as he regarded it to the Lord, the Lord's day): he was to do it worthily; and if he were to do it unworthily, he would be guilty of the Lord's day, and so keep it to his own condemnation." Just in the same manner, St. Paul tells the Corinthian Jews, that if they observed the ceremonial of the Passover, or rather, "as often as they observed it," they were to observe it worthily, and make it a religious act. They were not then come together to make merry on the anniversary of the deliverance of their ancestors from Egyptian bondage, but to meet in memorial of Christ's sufferings and death. And therefore, if they ate and drank the Passover, under its new and high allusions, unworthily, they profaned the ceremony, and were guilty of the body and blood of Christ.

It appears also from the Syriac and other oriental versions of the New Testament, such as the Arabic and Ethiopic, as if he only permitted the celebration of the spiritualized Passover for a time, in condescension to the weakness of some of his converts, who were probably from the Jewish synagogue at Corinth. For in the seventeenth verse of the eleventh chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, the Syriac runs thus: "As to that, concerning which I am now instructing you, I commend you not, because you have not gone forward, but you have gone down into matters of less importance.'

It

"Hoc

*The Syriac is a very ancient version, and as respectable, or of as high authority, as any. Leusden and Schaaf translate the Syriac thus: autem, quod præcipio, non tanquam laudo vos, quia non progressi estis, sed ad id, quod minus est, descendistis." Compare this with the English edition.