A Portraiture of Quakerism, Volume II (of 3) by Thomas Clarkson

T >> Thomas Clarkson >> A Portraiture of Quakerism, Volume II (of 3)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

The Quakers are of opinion that no institution of this kind can be
collected from Matthew, Mark, or John. [186]St. Matthew mentions the
celebration of the passover supper in the following manner: "And as they
were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave to
his disciples, and said, take, eat, this is my body."

[Footnote 186: Mat. 26. 26.]

"And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,
drink ye all of it."

"For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for
the remission of sins."

"But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the
vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my father's
kingdom."

St. Mark gives an account so similar to the former, that it is
unnecessary to transcribe it. Both mention the administration of the
cup; both the breaking and giving of the bread; both the allusion of
Jesus to his own body and blood; both the idea of his not drinking wine
any more but in a new kingdom; but neither of them mention any command,
nor even any insinuation by Jesus Christ to his disciples, that they
should do as he did at the passover supper.

St. John, who relates the circumstance of Jesus Christ washing the feet
of his disciples on the passover night, mentions nothing even of the
breaking of bread, or of the drinking of the wine upon that occasion.

As far therefore as the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and John, are
concerned, it is obvious, in the opinion of the Quakers, that Christians
have not the least pretence, either for the celebration of the passover,
or of that which they usually call the Lord's Supper; for the command
for such a supper is usually grounded on the words, "do this in
remembrance of me." But no such words occur in the accounts of any of
the Evangelists now cited.

This silence with respect to any command for any new institution is
considered by the Quakers as a proof, as far as these Evangelists are
concerned, that none was ever intended. For if the sacrament of the
supper was to be such a great and essential rite as Christians make it,
they would have been deficient in their duty, if they had failed to
record it. St. Matthew, who was at the supper, and St. Mark, who heard
of what had passed there, both agree that Jesus used the ceremony of the
bread and the wine, and also that he made an allusion from thence to his
own body and blood; but it is clear, the Quakers say, whatever they
might have heard as spoken by him, they did not understand him as
enjoining a new thing. But the silence of John, upon this occasion, the
Quakers consider as the most impressive in the present case. For St.
John was the disciple, who leaned upon the bosom of Jesus at this
festival, and who of course must have heard all that he said. He was
the disciple again, whom Jesus loved, and who would have been anxious to
have perpetuated all that he required to be done. He was the disciple
again, who so particularly related the spiritual supper which Jesus
enjoined at Capernaum, and in this strong language, that, "except a man
eat his flesh, and drink his blood, he has no life in him."
Notwithstanding this, St. John does not even mention what took place on
the passover night, believing, as the Quakers suppose, that it was not
necessary to record the particulars of a Jewish ceremony, which, being a
type, was to end when its antitype was realized, and which he considered
to be unnecessary for those of the Christian name.

SECT. IV.

_Account of St. Luke examined--According to him Jesus celebrated only
the old Jewish passover--Signified all future passovers with him were to
be spiritual--Hence he turned the attention of those present from the
type to the antitype--He recommended them to take their meals
occasionally together in remembrance of their last supper with him; or
if, as Jews, they could not relinquish the passover, to celebrate it
with a new meaning._

St. Luke, who speaks of the transactions which took place at the
passover-supper, is the only one of the Evangelists who records the
remarkable words, "do this in remembrance of me." St. Luke, however,
was not himself at this supper. Whatever he has related concerning it,
was from the report of others.

But though the Quakers are aware of this circumstance, and that neither
Matthew, Mark, nor John, give an account of such words, yet they do not
question the authority of St. Luke concerning them. They admit them, on
the other hand, to have been spoken; they believe however, on an
examination of the whole of the narrative of St. Luke upon this
occasion, that no new institution of a religious nature was intended.
They believe that Jesus Christ did nothing more than celebrate the old
passover; that he intimated to his disciples, at the time he celebrated
it, that it was to cease; that he advised them, however, to take their
meals occasionally, in a friendly manner, together, in remembrance of
him; or if, as Jews, they could not all at once relinquish the passover,
he permitted them to celebrate it with a new meaning.

In the first place St. Luke, and he is joined by all the other
Evangelists, calls the feast now spoken of the passover. Jesus Christ
also gives it the same name; for he says, "with desire I have desired to
eat this passover with you before I suffer."

Jesus Christ, according to St. Luke, took bread and broke it, and
divided it among his disciples. He also took the cup, and gave thanks,
and gave it among them. But this, the Quakers say, is no more than what
the master of every Jewish family did on the passover night: nor, is it
any more, as will have already appeared, than what the Jews of London,
or of Paris, or of Amsterdam, or of any other place, where bread and
wine are to be had, do on the same feast at the present day.

But though Jesus Christ conducted himself so far as other masters of
families did, yet he departed from the formula of words that was
generally used upon these occasions. For in the first place, he is
described to have said to his disciples, that "he would no more eat of
the passover, until it should be fulfilled in the kingdom of God;" and a
little farther on, that "he would not drink of the fruit of the vine,
till the kingdom of God should come; or, as St. Matthew has it, till he
should drink it new with them in his father's kingdom."

By these words the Quakers understand, that it was the intention of
Jesus Christ to turn the attention of his disciples from the type to the
antitype, or from the paschal lamb to the lamb of God, which was soon to
be offered for them. He declared, that all his passover suppers with
them were in future to be spiritual. Such spiritual passovers, the
Quakers say, he afterwards ate with them on the day of pentecost, when
the spirit of God came upon them; when their minds were opened, and when
they discovered, for the first time, the nature of his kingdom. And
these spiritual passovers he has since eaten, and continues to eat with
all those whose minds, detached from worldly pursuits and connexions,
are so purified and spiritualized, as to be able to hold communion with
God.

It is reported of him next, that "he took bread, and gave thanks, and
brake it, and gave to his disciples, saying, this is my body which is
given for you."

On these words the Quakers make the following observations:--The word
"this" does not belong to the word "bread," that is, it does not mean
that this bread is my body. For the word "bread" in the original Greek
is of the masculine, and the word "this" is of the neuter gender. But it
alludes to the action of the breaking of the bread, from which the
following new meaning will result. "This breaking of the bread, which
you now see me perform, is a symbol or representation of the giving, or
as St. Paul has it, of the breaking of my body for you."

In the same manner, the Quakers say, that the giving of the wine in the
cup is to be understood as a symbol or representation of the giving of
his blood for them.

The Quakers therefore are of opinion, when they consider the meaning of
the sayings of Jesus Christ both with respect to the bread and to the
wine, that he endeavoured again to turn the attention of his disciples
from the type to the antitype; from the bread and wine to his own body
and blood; from the paschal lamb that had been slain and eaten, to the
lamb that was going to be sacrificed; and as the blood of the latter
was, according to St. Matthew, for the remission of sins, to turn their
attention from the ancient object of the celebration of the passover, or
salvation from Egyptian bondage, to a new object, or the salvation of
themselves and others by this new sacrifice of himself.

It is reported of him again by St. Luke, after he had distributed the
bread and said, "this is my body which is given for you," that he added,
"this do in remembrance of me."

These words the Quakers believe to have no reference to any new
institution; but they contain a recommendation to his disciples to meet
in a friendly manner, and break their bread together, in remembrance of
their last supper with him, or if as Jews, they could not all at once
leave off the custom of the passover, in which they had been born and
educated as a religious ceremony, to celebrate it, as he had then
modified and spiritualized it, with a new meaning.

If they relate to the breaking of their bread together, then they do not
relate to any passover or sacramental eating, but only to that of their
common meals; for all the passovers of Jesus Christ with his disciples
were in future to be spiritual. And in this sense the primitive
Christians seem to have understood the words in question. For in their
religious zeal they sold all their goods, and, by means of the produce
of their joint stock, they kept a common table, and lived together. But
in process of time, as this custom from various causes declined, they
met at each other's houses, or at their appointed places, to break their
bread together, in memorial of the passover-supper. This custom, it is
remarkable, was denominated the custom of _breaking of bread_. Nor could
it have had any other name so proper, if the narration of St. Luke be
true. For the words "do this in remembrance of me," relate solely, as he
has placed them, to the breaking of the bread. They were used after the
distribution of the bread, but were not repeated after the giving of the
cup.

If they relate, on the other hand, to the celebration of the passover,
as it had been modified and spiritualized with a new meaning, then the
interpretation of them will stand thus: "As some of you, my disciples,
for ye are all Jews, may not be able to get over all your prejudices at
once, but may celebrate the passover again, and as it is the last time
that I shall celebrate it with you, as a ceremonial, I desire you to do
it in remembrance, or as a memorial of me. I wish the celebration of it
always to bring to your recollection this our last public meeting, the
love I bear to you, and my sufferings and my death. I wish your minds to
be turned from carnal to spiritual benefits, and to be raised to more
important themes than the mere escape of your ancestors from Egyptian
bondage. If it has been hitherto the object of the passover to preserve
in your memories the bodily salvation of your ancestors, let it be used
in future, if you cannot forsake it, as a memorial of your own spiritual
salvation; for my body, of which the bread is a representation, is to be
broken, and my blood, of which the wine is an emblem, is to be shed for
the remission of your sins."

But in whatever sense the words "do this in remembrance of me" are to be
taken, the Quakers are of opinion, as far as St. Luke states the
circumstances, that they related solely to the disciples themselves.
Jesus Christ recommends it to those who were present, and to those only,
to do this in remembrance of him. But he no where tells them to order or
cause it to be done by the whole Christian world, as he told them to
"preach the Gospel to every creature."

To sum up the whole of what has been said in this chapter:--If we
consult St. Luke, and St. Luke only, all that we can collect on this
subject will be, that the future passover-suppers of Christ with his
disciples were to be spiritual; that his disciples were desired to break
their bread together in remembrance of him; or if, as Jews, they could
not relinquish the passover, to celebrate it with a new meaning; but
that this permission extended to those only who were present on that
occasion.

SECT. V.

_Account of St. Paul--He states that the words "do this in remembrance
of me" were used at the passover-supper--That they contained a
permission for a custom, in which both the bread and the wine were
included--That this custom was the passover, spiritualised by Jesus
Christ--But that it was to last but for a time--Some conjecture this
time to be the destruction of Jerusalem--But the Quakers, till the
disciples had attained such a spiritual growth, that they felt Christ's
kingdom substantially in their hearts--And as it was thus limited to
them, so it was limited to such Jewish converts as might have adopted it
in their times._

The last of the sacred writers, who mentions the celebration of the
passover-supper, is St. Paul, whose account is now to be examined.

St. Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, reproves[187] the
latter for some irregularities committed by them in the course of their
religious meetings. What these meetings were is uncertain. They might
have been for the celebration of the passover-supper, for there was a
synagogue of Jews at Corinth, of whom some had been converted. Or they
might have been for the celebration of the passover as spiritualized by
Jesus Christ, or for the breaking of bread, which customs both the
Jewish and Gentile converts might have adopted. The custom, however, at
which these irregularities took place, is called by St. Paul, the Lord's
Supper. And this title was not inapplicable to it in either of the cases
supposed, because it must have been, in either of them, in
commemoration of the last supper, which Jesus Christ, or the Lord and
Master, ate with his disciples before he suffered.

[Footnote 187: Chap. 11.]

But whichever ceremonial it was that St. Paul alluded to, the
circumstances of the irregularities of the Corinthians, obliged him to
advert to and explain what was said and done by Jesus on the night of
the passover-supper. This explanation of the Apostle has thrown new
light upon the subject, and has induced the Quakers to believe, that no
new institution was intended to take place as a ceremonial to be
observed by the Christian world.

St. Paul, in his account of what occurred at the original passover,
reports that Jesus Christ made use of the words "this do in remembrance
of me." By this the Quakers understand that he permitted something to be
done by those who were present at this supper.

He reports also, that Jesus Christ used these words, not only after the
breaking of the bread, but after the giving of the cup: from whence they
conclude, that St. Paul considered both the bread and the wine, as
belonging to that which had been permitted.

St. Paul also says, "for as often as ye eat this bread and drink this
cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." By these words they
believe they discover two things; first, the nature of the thing
permitted; and, secondly, that the thing permitted, whatever it was, was
to last but for a time.

The thing then, which was permitted to those who were present at the
passover-supper, was to show or declare his death. The words "show or
declare," prove, in the first place, the connexion of the thing
permitted with the Jewish passover. For after certain ceremonies had
been performed on the passover night, "the showing forth or
declaration," as it was called, followed; or the object of the meeting
was declared aloud to the persons present, or it was declared to them
publicly in what particulars the passover feast differed from all the
other feasts of the Jews. Secondly, the word "death" proves the thing
permitted to have been the passover, as spiritualized by Jesus Christ;
for by the new modification of it, his disciples, if they were unable to
overcome their prejudices, were to turn their attention from the type to
the antitype, or from the sacrifice of the paschal lamb to the sacrifice
of himself, or to his own sufferings and death. In short, Jesus Christ
always attempted to reform by spiritualizing. When the Jews followed him
for the loaves, and mentioned manna, he tried to turn their attention
from material to spiritual bread. When he sat upon Jacob's well, and
discoursed with the woman of Samaria, he directed her attention from
ordinary, or elementary to spiritual and living water. So he did upon
this occasion. He gave life to the dead letter of an old ceremony by a
new meaning. His disciples were from henceforth to turn their attention,
if they chose to celebrate the passover, from the paschal lamb to
himself, and from the deliverance of their ancestors out of Egyptian
bondage to the deliverance of themselves and others, by the giving up of
his own body and the shedding of his own blood for the remission of
sins.

And as the thing permitted was the passover, spiritualized in this
manner, so it was only permitted for a time, or "until he come."

By the words "until he come," it is usually understood, until Christ
come. But though Christians have agreed upon this, they have disagreed
as to the length of time which the words may mean. Some have understood
that Jesus Christ intended this spiritualized passover to continue for
ever as an ordinance of his church, for that "till he come" must refer
to his coming to judge the world. But it has been replied to these, that
in this case no limitation had been necessary, or it would have been
said at once, that it was to be a perpetual ordinance, or expressed in
plainer terms, than in the words in question.

Others have understood the words to mean the end of the typical world,
which happened on the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Jews were
dispersed, and their church, as a national one, done away. For the
coming of Christ and the end of the world have been considered as
taking place at the same time. Thus the early Christians believed, that
Jesus Christ, even after his death and resurrection, would come again,
even in their own life time, and that the end of the world would then
be. These events they coupled in their minds; "for[188] they asked him
privately, saying, tell us when these things shall be, and what shall be
the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world?" Jesus told them in
reply, that the end of the world and his coming would be, when there
were wars, and rumours of wars, and earthquakes, and famine, and
pestilence, and tribulations on the earth; and that these calamities
would happen even before the generation, then alive, would pass away.
Now all these things actually happened in the same generation; for they
happened at the destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus Christ therefore meant
by the end of the world, the end of the Jewish world, or of the world of
types, figures, and ordinances: and he coupled naturally his own coming
with this event, because he could not come fully into the hearts of any,
till these externals were done away. He alluded, in short, to the end of
the Jewish dispensation and the beginning of his own spiritual kingdom,
or to the end of the ceremonial and the beginning of the Gospel world.

[Footnote 188: Matt. 24.]

Those therefore who interpret the words "till he come" to mean the end
of the typical world, are of opinion that the passover, as spiritualized
by Jesus Christ, was allowed to the disciples, while they lived among a
people, so wedded to religious ceremonies as the Jews, with whom it
would have been a stumbling block in the way of their conversion, if
they had seen the Apostles, who were their countrymen, rejecting it all
at once; but that it was permitted, them, till the destruction of
Jerusalem, after which event the Jews being annihilated as a nation, and
being dispersed and mixed among the infinitely greater body of the
Gentiles, the custom was to be laid aside, as the disuse of it could not
be then prejudicial to the propagation of the Gospel among the community
at large.

The Quakers, however, understand the words "till he come," to mean
simply the coming of Christ substantially in the heart. Giving the words
this meaning, they limit the duration of the spiritualized passover, but
do not specify the time. It might have ceased with some of them, they
say, 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 be
presumed that they had attained great spiritual growth when they wrote
their respective works, give no instructions 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.

SECT. 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 his 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 on this subject._

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 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 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 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.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19