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 does 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 spiritualised 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 the same 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, most be for ever, an essential in the Christian church.

The Quakers believe, as a farther argument in their favour, that there is reason to presume that St. Paul never looked upon the spiritualised 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 [189] “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”

[Footnote 189:  Romans 14. 17.]

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 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, “as 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