remonial ordinances belonged to the old, but that they were not constituent parts of the new kingdom.

SECTION VI.

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 Gentiles-If 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 from that enjoined at Capernaum to be observed as a ceremonial by Christians.

For, in the first place, St. Matthew, who

was

was at the supper, makes no mention of the words "Do this in remembrance of me.'

Neither are these words, nor any of a si milar 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

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 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

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 órdinance, 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 his Epistle to the Corinthians on this subject, that he had no other idea of the observance of this rite, than

* Romans xix. 17,

he

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 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 ob served 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 an cestors from Egyptian bondage, but to meet in memorial of Christ's sufferings and death. And therefore, if they ate and drunk the Passover, under its new and high allusions, unworthily, they profaned the ceremony, and were guilty of the body and blood of Christ.