A discourse CONCERNING THE true NOTION OF THE LORDS supper. By R. C. LONDON, Printed for Richard Cotes. 1642. The Chapters of the following TREATISE. CHAP. I. THat it was a custom among the Jews and Heathens, to Feast upon things Sacrificed; and that the custom of the Christians, in Partaking of the Body and blood of Christ, once Sacrificed upon the cross, in The Lord's Supper, is analogical hereunto. Page 3. CHAP. II. An Objection taken from the Passeover, Answered, Proved, that The Passeover was a True Sacrifice, and The paschal-feast, a Feast upon a Sacrifice. From Scripture, and Jewish Authors. pag. 16. CHAP. III. An Answer to some Objections against the passovers being a Sacrifice. And the controversy about the Day, upon which the Jews kept the Passeover, about the time of Our saviour's death, Discussed. Proved against Scaliger and others of that Opinion, that no Translations of Feasts, from one Feria to another, were then in use. pag. 33. CHAP. IV. Demonstrated, that the Lord's Supper in the Christian Church, in reference to the True Sacrifice of Christ, is a Parallel to the Feasts upon Sacrifices, both in the Jewish Religion, and Heathenish Superstition. pag. 52. CHAP. V. The Result of the former Discourse. That the Lord's Supper is not a Sacrifice, but a Feast upon a Sacrifice. pag. 54. CHAP. VI. The further Improvement of that general Notion. How The Lord's Supper is a federal Rite between God and us, at large. Concluded with a memorable Story out of Maymonides and Nachmanides. pag. 56. THE true NOTION OF THE LORDS supper. ALL great errors have ever been intermingled with some Truth. And indeed, if falsehood should appear alone unto the world in her own true Shape and native Deformity, she would be so black and horrid, that no man would look upon her; and therefore she hath always had an Art to wrap herself up in a Garment of Light, by which means she passes freely disguised and undiscerned. This was elegantly signified in the Fable thus; Truth at first presented herself to the world, and went about to seek enter ainment, but when she found none, being of a Generous nature, that loves not to obtrude herself upon unworthy spirits, she resolved to leave earth, and take her flight for Heaven, but as she was going up, she chanced, Eliah-like, to let her Mantle fall, and falsehood waiting by for such an opportunity, snatched it up presently, and ever since goes about disguised in truth's attire. Pure falsehood is pure nonentity, and could not subsist alone by itself, wherefore it always twines up together about some Truth {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, In Orat. De Resurrect. Mort. as Athenagoras the Christian Philosopher speaks, like an Ivy that grows upon some Wall, twining herself into it with wanton and flattering embraces, till it have at length destroyed and pulled down that which held it up. There is always some Truth which gives Being to every error: Est quaedam Veritatis Anima, quae Corpus omnium Errorum agitat & informat: There is ever some soul of Truth, which doth secretly Spirit and Enliven the dead and unwieldy Lump of all errors, without which it could not move or stir. Though sometimes it would require a very curious Artist, in the midst of all errors Deformities, to descry the defaced lineaments of that Truth which first it did resemble: Lib. De Iside & Osiride. as Plutarch spoke sometime of those Egyptian Fables of Isis and Osiris, that they had {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, certain weak apparences and glimmerings of Truth, but so as that they needed {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, some notable Diviner to discover them. And this I think is the case of that Grand error of the Papists, concerning the Lord's Supper being a Sacrifice: which perhaps at first did rise by Degeneration from a Primitive Truth, whereof the very Obliquity of this error yet may bear some dark and obscure intimation. Which will best appear when we have first discovered the True Notion of the Lord's Supper, whence we shall be able at once to convince the error of this Popish Tenet, and withal to give a just account of the first Rise of it: Veritas Index sui & obliqui. CHAP. I. THe Right Notion of that Christian Feast called The Lord's Supper, in which we eat and drink the Body and blood of Christ, that was once offered up in Sacrifice to God for us; is to be derived (if I mistake not) from Analogy to that ancient Rite amongst the Jews of Feasting upon things Sacrificed, and eating of those things which they had offered up to God. For the better conceiving whereof, we must first consider a little, how many kinds of Jewish Sacrifices there were, and the Nature of them. Which although they are very well divided, according to the received opinion, into four, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: The Burnt-offering, the sin-offering, the trespass-offering, and the Peace-offering. Yet perhaps I may make a more notional Division of them, for our use, into these three species. First, such as were wholly offered up to God, and burnt upon the Altar, which were the Holocausts, or Burnt-offerings. Secondly, such wherein besides something offered up to God upon the Altar, the Priests had also a part to eat of. And these are subdivided into the Sinne-offerings, * Concerning the difference between these two, see Petite in his Variae Lectiones. and the trespass-offerings. Thirdly, such, as in which, besides Something offered up to God, and a Portion bestowed on the Priests, The Owners themselves had a share likewise: and these were called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or Peace-offerings, which contained in them, as the Jewish Doctors speak, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a Portion for God, and the Priests, and the Owners also; and thence they use to give the Etymon of the Hebrew word Shelamim {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Because these Sacrifices brought Peace to the Altar, the Priests, and the Owners, in that every one of these had a share in them. Now for the first of these, although (perhaps to signify some special Mystery concerning Christ) they were themselves wholly offered up to God, and burnt upon the Altar; yet they had ever Peace-offerings regularly annexed to them when they were not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Offerings for the whole Congregation, but for any particular persons, that so the Owners might at the same time when they offered up to God, feast also upon the Sacrifices. And for the second, although the Owners themselves did not eat of them, the reason whereof was, because they were not perfectly reconciled to God, being for the present in a state of guilt, which they made atonement for in these Sacrifices, yet they did it by the Priests who were their Mediators unto God, and as their Proxies, did eat of the Sacrifices for them. But in the Peace-offerings, because such as brought them had no uncleanness upon them, (Levit. 7. 20.) and so were perfectly reconciled to God, and in covenant with him; therefore they were in their own persons to eat of those Sacrifices, which they had offered unto God, as a federal Rite between God and them, which we shall explain at large hereafter. So then, the Eating of the Sacrifices, was a due and proper appendix unto all Sacrifices, one way or other, and either by the Priests, or themselves, when the person that offered was capable thereof. Wherefore we shall find in the Scripture, that Eating of the Sacrifices, is brought in continually as a Rite belonging to Sacrifice in general, Which we will now show in divers instances. Exod. 34. 15. God commands the Jews, that when they came into the Land of Canaan, they should destroy the Altars, and Images, and all the Monuments of Idolatry among those Heathens, giving the reason thus. Lest thou make a Covenant with the Inhabitants of the Land, and they go a-whoring after their Gods, and do Sacrifice unto their Gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of their Sacrifice: Which indeed afterward came thus to pass, Numb. 25. 2. They called the people to the Sacrifice of their Gods, and the people did eat, and bow down to their Gods; or as it is cited in Psal. 106. they joined themselves unto Baal-peor, and ATE the Sacrifice of the dead. When Jethro, Moses' Father in Law came to him, Exod. 18. 12. He took a Burnt-offering and Sacrifices for God, and Aaron came, and all the Elders of Israel TO eat BREAD before the Lord; by Sacrifices there, are meant Peace-offerings, as Aben-Ezra, and the Targum, well expound it, which we said before were regularly joined with Burnt-offerings: So Exod. 31. When the Israelites worshipped the golden calf, the Text saith that Aaron built an Altar before it, and made a Proclamation, saying, To morrow is a FEAST unto the Lord, (see how the Altar and the Feast were a kin to one another) And they rose up early in the morning, and brought Burnt-offerings and offered Peace-offerings, and the people sat down TO eat AND drink. Which passage Saint Paul makes use of, being about to dehort the Corinthians from eating things sacrificed to Idols, 1 Cor. 10. Neither be you Idolaters as some of them were, as it is written, The People sat down TO eat AND drink: for this was no common Eating, but the Eating of those Sacrifices which had been offered up to the golden calf. The first of Sam. 1. It is said of Elkanah, that he went up out of his City yearly to worship, and to Sacrifice to the Lord of Hosts in Shiloh: and when the time was come that he offered; he gave to Peninnah his wife, and to all her Sons and daughter's PORTIONS, and unto Hannah he gave a double PORTION: that is, Portions to eat, of those Sacrifices that had been offered up to God, as R. David Kimchy notes. And in the eight Chapter of the same book, when Saul was seeking Samuel, going towards the City, he met some maidens, that told him, Samuel was come to the City, for there was a Sacrifice for the people that day in the High-place: As soon (say they) as you come into the City you shall find him before he go up to the High-place TO eat, for the people will not eat until he come, because he doth bless the Sacrifice: Where though the word Bamah properly signify a High-place, or place of Sacrifice, whence the Greek word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is thought to be derived. Yet it is here rendered by the Targum, as often elsewhere, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Domus Accubitus, A house of feasting, because feasting and sacrificing were such general Concomitants of one another. So again in the 16. Chap. Samuel went to Bethlehem to anoint David: I am come (saith he) to sacrifice to the Lord, sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the Sacrifice; but when he understood that jesse's youngest son was absent, he saith to Jesse, Send and fetch him, for we will not SIT down until he come. So I understand that of the Sichemites, according to the judgement of the Jewish Doctors, Iudg. 9 They went into the house of their God, and did eat and drink, and cursed Abimelech; that is, they went into the house of their God to Sacrifice, and did eat and drink of the Sacrifice: which perhaps was the reason of the name by which they called their God, whom they thus worshipped, BERITH, which signifies a Covenant, because they worshipped him by this federal Rite of eating of his Sacrifices, of which more hereafter. Thus likewise the Hebrew Scholiasts expound that in the 16. Chapter of the same book Verse 23. concerning the Philistines when they had put out Samson's eyes. They met together to offer a great Sacrifice unto Dagon their God, and TO rejoice, that is, in Feasting upon the Sacrifices. Hence it is that the Idolatry of the Jews in worshipping other Gods, is so often described synecdochically under the Notion of Feasting. Isa. 56. 7. Upon a lofty and high mountain hast thou SET that BED, See Casaub. Exercit, Eccles. 16. 22. and thither wentest thou up to offer Sacrifice; for in those ancient times they were not wont to sit at feasts, but lie down on beds or couches. Ezek. 23. You sent for men from far, Sabeans from the wilderness, (i. e. Idolatrous Priests from Arabia) and lo they came, Of Saba see Salmasius in Plinianis Exercitat. p. 497. & 500 for whom thou didst wash thyself, and sattest upon a stately BED, with a TABLE prepared before thee. Amos 2. verse 8. They laid themselves down upon clothes laid to pledge by every Altar: i. e. laid themselves down to eat of the Sacrifice that was offered on the Altar. And in Ezek. 18. 11. Eating upon the mountains seems to be put for Sacrificing upon the mountains, because it was a constant appendix to it. He that hath not done any of these things, but hath even EATEN upon the mountains, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. Hath worshipped Idols upon the mountains, so the Targum renders it. Lastly, Saint Paul makes Eating of the Sacrifice a general Appendix of the Altar, Heb. 12. We have an Altar, whereof they have no right TO eat that serve the Tabernacle. I will observe this one thing more, because it is not commonly understood, that all the while the Jews were in the wilderness, they were to ear no meat at all at their private Tables, but that whereof they had first sacrificed to God at the Tabernacle. For this is clearly the meaning of that place, Levit. 17. verse 4, 5. Whatsoever man there be in the house of Israel that killeth a Lamb, or a Goat, or an ox, within the Camp, or without the Camp, and bringeth it not to the door of the Tabernacle, to offer an offering to the Lord, blood shall be imputed to him. And so Nachmanides there glosses according to the mind of the Ancient rabbins, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. Behold God commanded at first that all which the Israelites did eat should be Peace-offerings. Which command was afterward dispensed with, when they came into the land, and their dwellings were become remote from the Tabernacle, so that they could not come up every day to sacrifice; Deut. 12. 20, 21. If the place which the Lord thy God hath chosen, be too far from thee, than thou shalt kill of the Heard and of the Flock, and thou shalt eat within thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after. only now there were instead thereof, three constant and set times appointed in the year, in which every male was to come up and See God at his Tabernacle, and eat and drink before him: and the Sacrifice that was then offered, was wont to be called by them {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} A Sacrifice of Seeing. Thus I have sufficiently declared the Jewish Rite of joining Feasting with Sacrificing: and it will not be now amiss, if we add as a Mantissa to that discourse something of the custom of the Heathens also in the like kind, the rather because we may make some use of it afterward. And it was so general amongst them in their idolatrous Sacrifices, that Isaak Abravanel, a learned Jew, observed it, in Pirush Hattorah, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Diebus antiquis quisquis Idolis sacrificabat, statim convivium instruebat de sacrificiis: and the original of it amongst them was so ancient, that it is ascribed by their own Authors to Prometheus, as Salmasius in his Solino-Pliniane Exercitations notes. P. 129. a. Hunc Sacrificii morem à Prometheo originem duxisse vol●nt, quo partem hostiae in ignem conjicere soliti sunt, partem ad suum victum abuti. Which Prometheus, although according to Eusebius his Chronicon●▪ and our ordinary Chronologers, his time would fall near about the 3028. year of the Julian Period, which was long after Noah. Yet it is certain that he lived far sooner, near about Noah's time, in that he is made to be the son of Japhet, Note that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the lands of the Nations, is commonly used in Scripture as a Proper Name to express Europe by. which was Noah's son, from whom the Europaeans descended, (Gen. 10. 5.) called therefore by the Poet japeti Genus. For there is no great heed to be given to the Chronology of human writers concerning this age of the world, which Censorinus from Varro calls {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Although I rather subscribe to the judgement of the learned Vossius, Lib. 1. de Idol. that this Prometheus was no other than Noah himself, the Father of Japhet, and not his son; because the other things do so well agree to him, & we may easily allow the Heathens such a mistake as that is, in a matter of so remote antiquity: and then if this be true, the whole world received this Rite of Feasting upon Sacrifice, at first, together with that of Sacrifice, at the same time. Instances of this custom are so frequent and obvious in Heathen Authors, that Homer alone were able to furnish us sufficiently. In the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of the Iliads, he brings in a description of a Hecatomb-Sacrifice, which Agamemnon prepared for Apollo by his Priest Chryse, and a Feast that followed immediately after it: In {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the same Agamemnon offers up an ox to Jupiter, and inviteth divers of the Grecian captains to partake of it: In the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of the Odyssees, Nestor makes a magnificent Sacrifice to Neptune of eighty two Bullocks, with a Feast upon it, on the shore: In {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Alcinous offers up a Bullock unto Jupiter, and then immediately follows, — {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}— Plato in his second De Legibus, acknowledges these Feasts under the name of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Feasts after Divine worship offered up to the Gods. Among the Latins, that of Lycus in Plautus his Poenulus belongs to this purpose, Convivas volo Reperire vobis commodos qui unà sient, Interibi attulerint exta. And that of Gelasimus in Stichus, jamne exta cocta sunt? quot agnis fecerat? After this manner he in Virgil's eclogues invites his Friend. Cum faciam vitula pro frugibus, ipse venito. And thus Evander entertains AENEAS in the eighth Aenead, Tum lecti juvenes certatim, araeque Sacerdos, Viscer a tosta ferunt taurorum— Plutarch somewhere observes it as a strange and uncouth Rite, in the worship of the goddess Hecate, that they which offered Sacrifice unto her did not partake of it. And the same Author reports of Catiline and his conspirators, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that sacrificing a man, they did all eat samewhat of the flesh, using this Religious Rite as a Bond to confirm them together in their Treachery. But Strabo tells us of a strange kind of worship used by the Persians in their Sacrifices, where no part of the flesh was offered up to the Gods, but all eaten up by those that brought it, and their Guests, they supposing in the mean while, that whilst they did eat of the Flesh, their God which they worshipped, had the soul of the Sacrifice that was killed in honour to him. The Authors own words are these in his fifteenth book {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}— Suâ quisque acceptâ abeunt, nullâ parte diis relatâ, dicunt enim Deum nihil velle praeter hostiae Animam: quidam tamen (ut fertur) omenti partem igni imponunt. From this custom of the Heathens of Feasting upon Sacrifices, arose that Famous controversy among the Christians in the Primitive Times, sometime disputed in the New Testament, Whether it were lawful {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}▪ To eat things sacrificed to Idols. These Gentile Feasts upon the Sacrifices, were usually kept in the Temple where the Sacrifice was offered; as may be gathered from that passage of Herodotus in Clio, where speaking of Cleobus and Bithene, and what happened to them after that prayer which their Mother put up to the Gods for them, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (saith he) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. As soon as they had sacrificed and feasted, lying down to sleep in the same Temple, they died there, and never rose more. But it is very apparent from that of Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 8. If any man see thee which hast knowledge, sit at meat, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that is, not as Erasmus translates it, In Epulo simulacrorum, but as Beza, and from him our Interpreters, In the Idols Temple; for so both the Syriack Metaphrast expounds it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and the Arabic {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} In the house of Idols. If any thing were left when these Feasts were ended, they were wont to carry Portions of them home to their Friends; So that learned Scholiast upon Aristophanes in Plutus tells us, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Whence Petite in that excellent Collection of Attic laws, inserted this for one, viz. That they that go home from a Sacrifice should carry part of it to their friends. And that Greek Comedian himself alludeth there to it, in these words: — {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Theocritus in his Bucoliastes, doth express it fully: — {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} And Plautus in Miles, — Sacrificant? Dant inde partem majorem mihi quam sibi. These Portions which they carried home, were called commonly by the greeks {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and in the Umbrian Language, as Festus tells us, Strobula. Theophrastus in his Characters uses the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in this sense {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}▪ ad sacrificantes & epula concelebrantes accedit, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. ut inde Portionem auferat. And because they thought they did receive some blessing from the Gods with it, therefore it was sometime called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as we find in Hesychius upon that word. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. But otherwise if there were any thing yet remaining, it belonged to the Priests, as we learn from that Scholiast, which we have already commended, upon Vespae; {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. It was an ancient Law among the Athenians, that the Priests should have the remainder. Which is not only to be understood of the skin and such like parts, but of the flesh of the Sacrifice itself, as we learn from Saint Austin in his exposition upon Rom. 2. who tells us also that these relics were sometimes sold for them in the Market, whence that speech of Paul, 1 Corin. 10. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. I will shut up all, with this one observation more, that as we said of the Jews, that in the wilderness they did eat no meat, but of that which they had first sacrificed: In like manner the Heathens were wont to Sacrifice before all their Feasts: Whence it is that Athenaeus observes, Feasts among the ancient Heathens were ever accounted Sacred and Religious things. And thus we must understand that speech of Paul in the 27. verse of the forenamed Chapter. If any one that believes not, invite you, and you be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. Nay, it was accounted a profane thing amongst them, to eat any meat at their private tables, whereof they had not first Sacrificed to the Gods, as appeareth by that Greek Proverb, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, used by Anacreon, and others, as a Brand of a notorious wicked man, viz. one that would eat meat whereof he had not sacrificed. Now having thus shown, that both amongst the Jews under the Law, and the Gentiles in their Pagan worship, (for paganism is nothing but Judaism degenerate) it was ever a solemn Rite, to join Feasting with Sacrificing, and to eat of those things which had been offered up; The very Concinnity and Harmony of the thing itself, leads me to conceive, that that Christian Feast under the Gospel, called THE LORDS SUPPER, is the very same thing, and bears the same Notion, in respect of the true Christian Sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, that those did to the Jewish and Heathenish Sacrifices: and so is EPULUM SACRIFICIALE, a sacrificial Feast, I mean, a Feast upon Sacrifice; or EPULUM EX OBLATIS, A Feast upon things offered up to God. Only this difference arising in the Parallel, that because those legal Sacrifices were but Types and shadows of the true Christian Sacrifice, they were often repeated and renewed, as well as the Feasts which were made upon them: But now the True Christian Sacrifice being come, and offered up once for all, never to be repeated; we have therefore no more typical Sacrifices left amongst us, but only the Feasts upon the True Sacrifice still Symbolically continued, and often repeated, in reference to that ONE GREAT SACRIFICE, which is always as present in God's sight, and efficacious, as if it were but now offered up for us. CHAP. II. BUT me thinks I hear it objected to me, Object. that the true Notion of the Lord's Supper is to be derived rather from the Passeover among the Jews: It being the common opinion of Divines, that the Jews had but two Sacraments, viz. Circumcision and the Passeover, that answer to those two amongst us, baptism, and The Lord's Supper: But the Jewish Passeover had no relation to a Sacrifice, being nothing else but a mere FEAST, and therefore from Analogy to the Jewish Rites, we cannot make the Lord's Supper, to be EPULUM SACRIFICIALE, a Feast upon Sacrifice. To which I answer, First, That I know not what warrant there is for that Divinity so magisterially imposed upon us by some, that the Jews had but two Sacraments, Circumcision and the Passeover, and that it should thence follow by inevitable consequence, that the Lord's Supper must {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, answer only▪ to the Jewish Passeover; Sure I am, the Jews had many more, for not to instance in that of Paul, Our Fathers were all baptised unto Moses in the Cloud, and in the Sea, like our Christian baptism; And did all eat the same spiritual meat, (viz. The Manna) and did all drink the same spiritual drink, (viz. The Water of the Rock that followed them) like the Bread and Wine in the Christian Lords Supper: Nor too Examine all the other sacramental Ceremonies which they had, that were almost as many Sacraments as Ceremonies; These Feasts upon the Sacrifices, which we have all this while insisted on, were nothing else but true and proper Sacraments * See Cloppenburg in Schol● Sacrif. and of the right Notion of the word Sacrament, Vossius in Thes. Theolog. joined with Sacrifices. But secondly, I will grant that the Jewish Passeover, hath a special resemblance to the Christian LORDS SUPPER, although upon other grounds; For I say undoubtedly, the Passeover was a true and proper Sacrifice, and therefore the pascal-feast, a Feast upon a Sacrifice; So that this shall still advance and improve our former Notion. For the better conceiving whereof, we must understand, that besides those four general kinds of Sacrifices among the Jews before mentioned, The Burnt-offering, The Sin-offering, The trespass-offering, and the Peace-offfering; there were some other Peculiar kind of Sacrifices, as the Masters tell us, viz. these three, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} The Firstlings of Cattle, and the Tenth, and the Passeover; And the reason why these in the Distribution of Sacrifices, are thus distinguished by them from all the other general kind of Sacrifices, is thus given by the famous Maymonides upon the Misna of the Talmud, in Massecheth Zebachim, the sixth Chap. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: Because those four fourenamed, were such kind of Sacrifices as that a private person was often bound to each of them in several cases, and the whole Congregation in several seasons, but these three were not of that nature, being peculiarly restrained to some one case or season. Now, these three kind of Peculiar Sacrifices, were in their nature, all nearest of kin to the Peace-offerings, and are therefore called by the Jewish Doctors, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} like to Peace-offerings, because they were not only killed in the same place, being all {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Light Holy things, and had the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or inward parts thereof to be burnt likewise upon the Altar; but also in that part of them was to be eaten by the Owners. In so much that the Talmudists put many cases, in which a Lamb that was set apart for a Passeover, and could not be offered in that Notion, was to be turned into a Peace-offering, as that which was near of kin to it. But yet these Masters tell us, there were three precise differences between the Pascah, and the ordinary Peace-offering: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} First, in that there was no laying on of hands upon the Passeover in the killing of it, for this was nowhere commanded as in all the Peace-offerings; Secondly, that there was no Mincah, or Meat-offering, nor Libamen, or Drink-offering to be joined with it, (for so they use to include both in the word Nesachim) Thirdly, that there was no waving of the breast & Shoulder for the priest's Portion; the reason whereof was, because the Priests were bound always to have passover-offerings of their own, as it is expressed, Ezra 6. and so needed not any Wave-offering. But that the passovers were in other respects, of the same nature with the Peace-offerings, and therefore true and proper Sacrifices; because it is a thing generally not so well understood, and therefore opposed by divers, I shall labour the more fully to convince it. I say, That the passovers were always brought to the Tabernacle or the Temple, and there presented and offered up to God by the Priest, as all Sacrifices were: That the blood of them was there sprinkled upon the Altar, of which the Hebrew Doctors well observe, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the very Essence of a Sacrifice, is in the sprinkling of the blood: and also that the Imurim (as they call them) that is, the Fat and kidneys were burnt upon the Altar; All this I shall endeavour to demonstrate. Only first I must premise this, that when I say the Passeover was brought to the Tabernacle, and offered by the Priests, I do not mean that the Priests were always bound to kill the passovers: For I grant that the people were wont to kill their own passovers, and so I find it expressly, in the Misna of the Talmud. Massech. Zebach. Cap. 5.§. 6. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, All Israel killed the Passeover, and the Priests received the blood: Which talmudical Expression alludes to that place, Exod. 12. 6. The whole assembly of the Congregation of Israel shall kill it in the Evening: Where this seems to be commanded by God. And the Practice consonant hereunto, I find intimated at least, in Scripture, in Hezekiah's Passeover, 2 Chron. 30. 17. There were many in the Congregation that were not sanctified, therefore the Levites had the charge of killing the Passeover for every one that was not clean to sanctify it unto the Lord: Where R. Solomon writeth thus: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: Wonder not why the Owners themselves did not kill them, for it followeth that many in the Congregation had not sanctified themselves, therefore the Levites were appointed in their place to sanctify the work unto the Lord. And R. D. Kimchy to the same purpose: Though many of them did eat the Passeover in uncleanness, it being a case of necessity, in that they had no time to purify themselves, yet for them to come into the Court and kill the passovers, this was not needful, when it might be done as well by the Levites. And therefore the same is to be thought likewise of the Priests and Levites killing the Passeover, Ezr. 6. because the people returning newly from Captivity, were not yet purified, as it is there also partly intimated. But this doth not at all hinder our proceeding, or evince the Passeover not to be a Sacrifice; For it is a great Mistake in most of our learned Writers, to think that the killing of every Sacrifice was proper to the Priest, whereas indeed there was no such matter, but as we have already granted that the people commonly killed their own passovers, so we will affirm, that they did the same concerning any of the other Sacrifices. Levit. 1. 4, 5. It is said concerning the Burnt-offering: If any man bring a Burnt-offering to the Lord, he shall lay his hand upon the head of the Burnt-offering, AND HE SHALL KILL the Bullock before the Lord, and the Priests Aaron's sons shall take the blood: So concerning the Peace-offerings, Chap. 3. HE shall lay his hand on the head of his offering, and KILL it at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation: And concerning the sin-offering, Chap. 4. 24. HE shall lay his hand on the head of the beast, and KILL it at the place, where they kill the Burnt-offering before the Lord. We see then what incompetent Judges our own Authors are, in Jewish customs and Antiquities. The Jewish Doctors and Antiquaries, (which are so much contemned by some of our magisterial Dictators in all Learning) would have taught us here another Lesson. For thus Maimonides, in Biath Hammik. speaks to this point, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that is, The killing of the Holy things may lawfully be done by strangers, yea of the most holy things, whether they be the Holy things of a private person, or of the whole Congregation: as it is said, (Levit. 1.) And He shall kill the Bullock; & the Priests Aaron's sons shall take the blood. The same is avouched again afterward by the same Author in Maaseh Korban. Chap. 5. But if any one would therefore fain know what were properly the priest's actions about the Sacrifice, which might not be done lawfully by any stranger; the same Jewish authors have a Trite Rule amongst them concerning it: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, The Receiving of the blood and the other parts that were to be offered up, and all that followeth after that, belongeth to the priest's office. And Isaak Abrabanel will teach us more particularly, in his Comment on Leviticus, that there were five things to be done by the Owners of the Sacrifice that brought it, and Five, things by the Priest that offered it; the first Five, were Laying on of hands, Killing, Flaying, Cutting up, and Washing of the innards; the other Five were, the Receiving of the blood in a vessel, the Sprinkling of it upon the Altar, the Putting * Of this vide Magistrorum Placita. of fire upon the Altar, the Ordering of the wood upon the fire, and the Ordering of the pieces upon the wood. Hence it is, that upon the forequoted place of the Misna, which I brought to show, that the People did kill the passovers, Rabbi Obadiah of Bartenora thus glosseth, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. i. e. The people of Israel might all kill the passovers themselves, if they pleased, because the KILLING OF ANY SACRIFICE might be done lawfully by strangers, but the Priests Received the blood. Now I come to prove what I have undertaken. And first, That the Passeover was always brought to the Tabernacle or the Temple, and there offered unto God as the other Sacrifices were, is clear enough, from Deut. 16. Thou shalt not Sacrifice the Passeover within any of the gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, but at the place which the Lord thy God chooseth to place his Name there, there thou shalt sacrifice: And that this is to be understood, not of Jerusalem in general, but of the Tabernacle or Temple, appears, both because the same expressions are used of the other Sacrifices, Deut. 12. ver. 5, 6. 11. 14, Where it is clearly meant that they were to be brought to the Temple: And because it is certain that every thing that was killed amongst the Jews, was either to be killed at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, or else might be killed indifferently in any part of the whole Land. Let us now see how the Jewish Doctors Comment upon this place, men better skilled in these Rites than our own authors are. R. Moses BEN MAIMON, in Halachah Pesach, Cap. 1. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} &c. They kill not the Passeover but in the Court, as the rest of the Holy things, yea in the time when High-places were permitted, they sacrificed not the Passeover in a private High-place, for it is said (Deut. 16.) Thou mayst not sacrifice the Passeover in any of thy gates: We have learned, that this is a Prohibition to kill the Passeover in any private High-place, although it be in a time when High-places are permitted. From which excellent gloss of theirs, it appeareth that there was more preciseness to be observed in bringing of the Passeover to the place where God's name was put, and offering of it at the Tabernacle, or the Temple, then of any of the other Sacrifices. And this was the reason as was before intimated out of KIMCHI, why in Hezekiah's Passeover the Levites had the charge of killing: because the passovers were to be killed in the Court of the Temple, whither the people being unclean could not enter; for otherwise if it had been done without the Court, they might as well have killed their own passovers as have eaten them. And this may be further confirmed, in that the Passeover is called a Korban: Numb. 9 7. When certain men were defiled by a dead body, that they could not keep the Passeover, They came to Moses and said: Wherefore are we kept back that we may not OFFER an OFFERING of the Lord in his appointed season: And again, ver. 13. If any one be clean and forbeareth to keep the Passeover, even that soul shall be cut off, because he brought not an OFFERING (or a KORBAN) to the Lord in his appointed season. Nothing was called an OFFERING, or a KORBAN, but that which was brought and offered up to God at the Tabernacle or Temple, where his Name was put. That the Blood of the passovers was to be Sprinkled by the Priest, and the Fat to be burnt upon the Altar, although this must needs follow from the former, yet I prove it more particularly, thus, Exod. 23. 18. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my Sacrifice with leavened Bread; Neither shall the Fat of my Feast remain until the morning: For by the general consent of the Jewish Scholiasts, and all those Christian interpreters that I have seen, this place is to be understood only of the Passeover; and therefore ONKELOS that famous Chalday Paraphrast for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the blood of my Sacrifice, made no question but to read it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Blood of my Passeover. But it appears undoubtedly, from a parallel Place in the 34. Chap. of the same book, ver. 23. 25, 26. Where those 17, 18, and 19 verses of the 23. Chap. are again repeated; Thrice in the years shall all your man-children appear before the Lord.— Thou shalt not offer the blood of my Sacrifice with leaven, neither shall the Sacrifice of the Feast of the Passeover be left unto the morning: The first of the first fruits of thy land, thou shalt bring into the House of the Lord thy God: Thou shalt not seethe a Kid in its mother's milk. Here, what was wanting in the former, is supplied. Neither shall the Sacrifice of the Feast of the PASSEOVER be left unto the morning. And I have set down the whole Context with it, because it will be needful for the better clearing of it, to consider its coherence with other verses, which is the very same in both Chapters; and Isaak Abrabanel hath set it down excellently in this manner. First therefore, saith he, when God had spoken of the Jews appearing thrice before him every year, viz. at The Feast of the Passeover or of Unleavened bread, The Feast of weeks or Pentecost, The Feast of Tabernacles or In-gathering, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. i. e. When he had spoken of these three Feasts, he subjoins immediately some Rule Concerning every one of them in particular: First, for the Passeover in those words, Thou shalt not offer the blood of my Sacrifice with leaven, neither shall the Sacrifice of the Feast of the Passeover be left until the morning: Secondly, for the Feast of Pentecost, in those, The first of the first fruits of the Land thou shalt bring into the house of the Lord thy God. Thirdly, for the Feast of Tabernacles, or In-gathering, Thou shalt not seethe a Kid in his mother's milk: which words, for want of this Light of the Context, were never yet sufficiently explained by any of our Interpreters. And the thread of this Coherence alone, led Abrabanel very near the true meaning of them, ere he was aware: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. i. e. It seems most probable, that this command was occasioned from a custom amongst the Idolatrous Heathons', that at the time of their gathering in of fruits, they were wont to boil a Kid in the dams milk, thinking that by this means, they were made acceptable to their gods, and did procure a blessing by it. To confirm which gloss, he tells us of a custom somewhat like to this, used in his time in some parts of Spain. But because Abrabanel doth not tell his tale so handsomely as he should, I will help him out a little from an ancient Karraite, whose Comment I have seen upon the Pentateuch, MSS. (For the Monuments of these Karraite Jews were never yet Printed, and are very rarely seen in these European Parts) And it is thus. It was a custom of the ancient Heathens, when they had gathered in all their fruits, to take a Kid and boil it in the dams milk, and then {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in a magical way, to go about and besprinkle with it, all their Trees, and Fields, and Gardens, and Orchards: thinking by this means they should make them fructify, and bring forth fruit again, more abundantly the following year. Wherefore God forbade his people the Jews at the time of their Ingathering to use any such superstitious or Idolatrous Rite. And I produce this the rather, because Abrabanel, toward the end of his Comment on this place, mentions a gloss of some KARRAITISH author upon it, although it be altogether unlike to this which we have here related. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Scribunt Sapientes KARRAEORUM, Ne coquas hoedum in lacte matris suae: Hoc est, Ne commisceatur germane cum Radicibus. But to return; As from the coherence of the whole Context thus cleared, it is manifest that this verse in both places, is to be understood only of the Passeover: so it may be further confirmed from the Talmudists, who ever expound it in this sense, as appears by the Misna in Zebachin, Chapter the 6. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, He that killeth the Passeover with leaven, sinneth against a Negative Command, (which is more amongst the Jews, then to sin against a Positive) viz. That in these places already quoted, Thou shalt not offer the blood of my Sacrifice with leaven: From whence they Collected, as Maymonides tells us, that they were to put away Leaven the fourteenth day, a day before the killing of the Passeover, Nay, this place cannot possibly be understood in any other sense, as of Sacrifices in general, because Leaven was sometimes commanded with Sacrifices, as Levit. 7. 13. But that the Blood of the passovers was sprinkled, may be demonstrated further, not only from that of Hezekiah's Passeover, 2 Chron. 30. 16. The Priests sprinkled the blood, which they received from the hand of the Levites: For there were many in the Congregation that were not sanctified, therefore the Levites had the charge of killing the passovers: but also from Josiah's, chap. 35. ver. 11. which can no ways be evaded: They, that is, The Levites, killed the Passeover, and the Priests Sprinkled the Blood from their Hands, and the Levites Flayed them▪ Now the Sprinkling of the Blood is the Essence of a Sacrifice, as before we noted from the Jewish Doctors. And therefore the Passeover must needs be a Sacrifice, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. For a Confirmation of all this, I will describe punctually the whole manner of the PASCHAL SACRIFICE, from the Misna of the Jewish Talmud, a Monument of such antiquity as cannot be disinherited in these Rites. Nothing (say they) was killed before the morning Sacrifice, and after the Evening Sacrifice, nothing but the Passeover: The Evening Sacrifice was usually killed between the eighth and ninth hour; that is, half an hour after two in the afternoon, and offered between the ninth and tenth, that is, half an hour after three: But in the Evening of the Passeover, the daily Sacrifice was killed an hour sooner, and after that, began the killing of the Passeover, which was to be done between the two Evenings, whereof the first began at noon from the sun's declination toward the West, the Second at sunset: yet the Pascha might be killed before the Daily Sacrifice, if there were but one to stir the blood, and keep it from coagulating, till the blood of the Daily Sacrifice were Sprinkled, for that was always to be sprinkled first: The passovers were always killed by three several Companies: When the Court was once full, they shut the doors, and the Priests stood all in their ranks with round vessels in their hands to receive the blood, those that were of Gold in a rank by themselves, and those that were of silver, all without bottoms, lest they should be set somewhere on the ground, and the blood congeal in them. And they killed the passovers, as the Peace-offerings, in any part of the Court, because they were {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} The less holy things, as the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, The Holy of Holies, were always to be killed at the North-side of the Altar. The Priests than took the blood, and gave it from one to another, till it came to him that stood next the Altar, and he sprinkled it all at once toward the bottom of the Altar: which was a Square of 32. Cubits, save that the southeast Home had no bottom. After the blood was sprinkled, the lamb was flayed, and cut up, the Imurim, or inwards taken out and laid upon the Altar, than the Owner took up the lamb with the skin of it, and carried it to his own home, The First company having ended, than the Second came in, and afterward the Third; and for every Company they began anew the HALLEL, and sang all the while the passovers were killing; but it was never known that they had sung out the HALLEL quite, or came any further than {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} before the Priests had done. But because, besides these Talmudisticke Jews, there is another Sect of KARRAITES, mentioned before, (that reject all talmudical Traditions which are not grounded upon Scripture) though little known amongst us, yet famous in the Orient: I will produce one Testimony of theirs also, froman ancient Manuscript, that so it may appear we have the full consent of all Jewish Antiquity for this Opinion. The author's name to me is uncertain, because the Papers have lost both their beginning and end. But they contain in them, divers large and complete Discourses upon several Arguments in the Karraite way, as about the Jewish year, The Sabbath, The Passeover, &c. Concerning the Passeover, he divides his Discourse into several Chapters, whereof the Title of one is this: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Concerning the Place where the Passeover was to be Offered and Eaten: Where he thus begins. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. Know, that the Offering of the Passeover was always in the place which God had chosen, (to put his Name there) as it is Written, Thou shalt not sacrifice the Passeover within any of thy gates, and the place of the killing of the Passeover was in the Court called HESRA, and the blood of it was poured out toward the bottom of the Altar, and the Imurim, or inward parts of it were burnt upon the Altar, &c. Hence it was that when Cestius once demanded what the number of the Jews was that resorted to Jerusalem at the time of their solemn Feasts, The Priests made answer, and told him exactly, how many Lambs and Kids were sacrificed at the Passeover, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, twenty five Myriads, five thousand and six hundred; Which they could not have done, had not they sacrificed them at the Temple. But what need have we of any more dispute? when the Passeover was first kept in Egypt, were not the Paschall-Lambs there killed in a sacrificial and Expiatory way, When the blood thereof was to be sprinkled upon the houses, for God to look upon, and so pass over them? It is true, they were killed in every private house, but the reason of that was, because there were then Priests in every Family, viz. The * Vide Claris. Seldenum. De success. in Pontificat. Hebraeo. c. 2. & de success. ad Leges Heb. 1. c. 5. firstborn, which were afterward redeemed when the children of Israel gave up the whole Tribe of Levi to God for his service. Such Priests as these were those whom Moses sent to sacrifice, Exod. 24. 4. called there young men. Moses sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered Burnt-offerings and sacrificed Peace-offerings to the Lord; Where Onkelos the Chaldee Paraphrast reads it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} He, sent the firstborn: to which agreeth the Arabic Translation of R. Saadiah, and the Persian of Tawasius as Master Selden notes, whom I cannot without honour mention, as the Glory of our Nation for Oriental Learning. And was not the killing of the Passeover a special Type of the death of Christ, the true Sacrifice of the world? Give me leave to note one thing to this purpose, upon the credit of Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho: That in the ancient Hebrew Copies of the Bible, there was in the book of Ezra a speech of his which he made before the Passeover, Expounding the Mystery thereof concerning Christ, which because it favoured the Christians, was timely expunged by the Jews. The speech was this; {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, i. e. Et dixit Esdras populo, Hoc Pascha Salvator noster & Perfugium nostrum. Et si in animim induxeritis & in Cor vestrum ascenderit, quòd humiliaturi eum simus in signo, & posteà speraturi in eum, non desolabitur locus iste in omne tempus, Dicit Deus exercituum. Sin in eum non credideritis, neque audieritis annunciationem ejus, deridiculum eritis gentibus. Remarkable it is, if it be true; and the Author deserves the better credit in it, because he was Samaritane, and therefore might be the better skilled in Jewish Writings. But however, I am sure the Apostle tells us, not only that the Passeover was a Type of Christ in respect of his death, but also that the Proper Notion of the paschal-feast, was, to be a Feast upon Sacrifice, in those words, 1 Cor. 5. 7. Christ our Passeover is Sacrificed for us, Therefore let us keep the Feast: (that is, The paschal-feast upon this sacrificed Christ) with the Unleavened Bread of sincerity and truth. Where alluding to that common Jewish custom of Feasting upon Sacrifices, of which we have before spoken; he implies that the Paschall Supper was a Feast of the same nature, A sacrificial Feast. CHAP. III. BUT yet we will not dissemble, what there is of any moment either in Antiquity or Reason, against our own opinion, ere we let this discourse pass: But subject all to an impartial view. And first, the Authority of Philo, who in his third book, De Vitâ Mosis, speaks thus concerning the Passeover: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. i. e. In quâ non ut aliâs plebeii homines victimas adducunt ad altare mactandas, à sacerdotibus, sed jubente lege, tota gens sacrificat, dum pro se quisque mactat hostiam suis manibus. Tunc universus populus exultabat, unoquoque existimante, se Sacerdotii dignitate honoratum. And again in his book De Decalogo, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Quando populariter singuli sacrificant non expectatis sacerdotibus, ipsi permissu legis fungentes Sacerdotio, quotannis per unum diem destinatum huic negotio. But to this we answer; That Philo doth not here deny the Passeover to be a Sacrifice, but confirm it rather, in that he calls it often here and elsewhere {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and saith that they did {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, bring it to the Altar; and that the people did {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Sacrifice it; and doth only distinguish this paschal-sacrifice from all the other Sacrifices, in this, that here according to his opinion, every one of the people was {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, honoured with the Priestly-office, and that the Law did {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, make every one a Priest for that time to offer up their own Passeover: But moreover, it is well known, that Philo though he were a Jew by Nation, yet was very * Scalig. Elench. Trihaer. cap. 25. circa finem. ltem in Emend. Temp. De Cyclo Iudaeorum Karraim. & Hug. Grotius in Mat. 26. ignorant of Jewish customs, having been borne and bred up at Alexandria: and we have a Specimen of his mistakes here, in that he seems to make this difference between the Passeover and the other Sacrifices, that they were only killed by the Priest, but the people themselves killed their own passovers {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, according to the Law; where he means doubtless, that in Exod 12. 6. The whole Assembly of the Congregation of Israel shall kill it; For this is that Solenne delirium of our late Authors also, which we have chastized before. But if he mean moreover, that the people did not only kill their passovers, but do all other Priestly offices concerning them; when he says they were {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, this, as it hath no ground from Scripture, and I think will hardly find a Patron now to defend it, so it doth not prejudice our opinion of the passovers being a Sacrifice, but still much confirm it. Secondly, it may seem to some, a kind of impossibility to conceive, How so many Sacrifices as there must be at every Passeover, could all be offered upon one Altar, since there was no more by the Law permitted. To which nevertheless I need not answer any thing but this, that there was nothing but the Fat, and some of the innards, burnt upon the Altar, and that the bigness of the Altar was greater than perhaps is ordinarily conceived; for under the second Temple, the Area thereof upon the Top, was a Square of twenty eight Cubits, as the Talmudists constantly relate, to which Josephus also agreeth very near, if the difference of those Cubits which he useth be allowed. Only, they may please to learn from the Instance of Josias Passeover, which was said to be so great, that there was no Passeover like to that kept in Israel from the days of Samuel the Prophet unto that time; that this was possible to be done: For it either is, or must be confessed, that then they were all offered upon the Altar. But lastly, we must confess ingenuously, that there is one Great Difficulty yet behind, concerning our saviour's last Passeover, which according to the general Consent of our best Divines, critics, and Chronologers, was kept a Day before the Jews kept their Passeover: Whether therefore his paschal-lamb which he with his Apostles did then eat, were first Sacrificed at the Temple, and How that could be? Where not to engage ourselves any more than needs we must, in that nice & perplexed, but Famous controversy, concerning the time of the Jewish Passeover about our saviour's death. It will not be amiss, first to take notice, that the Latin Church ever maintained the contrary opinion against the Greeks, viz. that the Jews kept the Passeover on the same night which our Saviour did: and though it be true that of later times, most of our Best-Learned Authors have quitted that opinion of the Latins, and closed altogether with the Greeks, as Paulus Burgensis, Munster, Scaliger, and Casaubon, yet notwithstanding, our countryman Master Broughton, understanding perhaps better than they did, that the Jewish Passeover was a true and proper Sacrifice, & first, according to God's command, was to be offered up to God, before Feasted on; he espied a difficulty here concerning our saviour's Passeover, (which they took no notice of) that could not easily be solved; and therefore he thought good Scindere nodum, as Alexander did, to cut the knot, which he could not lose, and absolutely to deny that the Jewish Passeover and our Saviours were then celebrated on two several Nights. And he is of late seconded by Johannes Cloppenburg a Belgic Divine, [in a learned Epistle written upon this Argument to Ludovicus De Dieu] insisting upon the very same ground, because the paschal-lamb, which Christ with his Disciples did eat, could not have been sacrificed at the Temple, unless it had been, at the same time when the Jewish Passeover was solemnly celebrated. His words to this purpose expressing: fully Master Broughtons' sense, are these. Non potuit mactars Agnus Paschalis extra Templum Hierosolymitanum: In temple mactari non potuit citra generalem populi consensum; Quarè neque Dies mactationis potuit anticipari: It follows, Vel ergo d●cendum Christum comedisse agnum mactatum in Templo, atque hoc facto (qùod absit) Legem violasse; juxta legem enim agnus privatim Comedendas, è Templo deferendus domi erat in aedes privatus, post igne absumptum in Templo adipem, & sanguinem delatum ad altare. But I must confess, although I am as much addicted to that Hypothesis, of the passovers being a Sacrifice, and as tender of it, as Master Broughton could be, or anybody else; yet I cannot but yield myself captive to Truth, on which side soever it present itself, and though it be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (as Aristotle saith a Philosopher should do) to the destruction of our own phenomena. And indeed those two Places especially, brought out of Saint John's Gospel, to prove that the Jews kept their Passeover, the day after our Saviour did his, seem to me to be unanswerable, nor any way cured by those {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which are applied to them. The first is Chap. 19 ver. 14. where, the next day after Christ had kept his Passeover with his Disciples, when Pilate delivered him up to the Jews to be crucified, it is said, that it was then, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, The Preparation of the Passeover, where they tell us, that by The Preparation of the Passeover; is meant, The Preparation of the Sabbath on which the Second day of the Feast of the Passeover fell. But En jecur Criticum! as Scaliger sometimes cries out: and what a far-fetched conceit is this? The second is that in Chap. 18. vers. 28. when Jesus was led into Pilate's Judgement-Hall, early in the morning, it is said, that the Jews themselves went not into the Judgement-hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passeover. Here we are told, that by Eating of the Passeover, is meant the eating of the Chagigah, that was killed the day before with the Passeover, whereof something perhaps remained till the day following. And this gloss is little better than the former: for although they appeal to that place in Deut. 16. 2. to prove that the Chagigah was sometimes called by the name of Passeover; which indeed if our English Translation were authentic, would make something for them; Thou shalt therefore Sacrifice the Passeover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock, and the Heard, as if there had been a Passeover of Oxen, as well as sheep. Yet in the Hebrew the words run thus, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which according to a several Punctation, and a several supplying of something that must be understood, may be expounded several ways; any of which is far better, then that which our English Translators unhappily pitched upon. Onkelos in his Paraphrase (which seldom merits that name, being indeed commonly nothing but a Rigid Version) reads it thus: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. And thou shalt sacrifice the Passeover before the Lord thy God, of the sons of the Flock, and the Peace-offerings (thereof) of Oxen: which interpretation is followed by R. Solomon, and Aben-Ezra, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, i. e. sheep for the Passeover, and Oxen for the Peace-offerings, or the Chagigah. And it may be confirmed from that of Hezekiabs Passeover, 2 Chron. 35. v. 7. Josiah gave to the people, of the flock, Lambs, and Kids, all for the passover-offerings to the number of thirty thousand; and three thousand Bullocks: where the Bullocks or the Heard, are divided from the passover-offerings, because they served for the Peace-offerings, or the Chagigah, as appeareth from v. 13. They roasted the passovers with fire according to the ordinance, but the OTHER HOLY OFFERINGS (that is, the Peace-offerings or Chagigah) sod they in Pots, and Cauldrons, and Pans. Nachmanides hath another interpretation of it, to this purpose, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, i. e. He commandeth here the Passeover, which was a lamb as he had said before, (making the Pause there) and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, The Flock and the Heard, or the sheep and the Kids, and the young Bullocks, for the Chagigah. Giving other instances in which the Conjunctive Particle Vau, which he doth here supply, is in like manner to be understood. And this Exposition is rather approved than the former, not only by Abrabanel, but also by the Karraite, which I have so often commended, who quoting one R. Aaron for the Author of it, doth express it thus, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, i. e. The word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (thou shalt Sacrifice) is to be repeated, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} before, THE FLOCK AND THE HEARD, thus, And thou shalt Sacrifice the Passeover to the Lord thy God, and thou shalt Sacrifice sheep and Oxen, or the Flock and the Heard; as in like manner, Prov. 30. 3. the Particle {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} non, is to be repeated {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, From the former verse. So that it cannot hence be proved that the Peace-offerings offered with the Passeover, were ever called by the name of Passeover. There is another place in the same Evangelist, that hath not been observed by any one to this purpose, which if it were rightly understood, would be as clear a Testimony as any of the rest. And it is in the 19 Chapter, v. 31. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, For that Sabbath day was a great Day. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, in the Greek of the Hellenists, is used for the first or the last day of every solemn Feast, in which there was a Holy Convocation to the Lord. This appeareth from Esay 1. 13. Your new-moons, and Sabbaths, the Calling of Assemblies (which was the first and last day of the Feast) I cannot away with. Which the Septuagint renders thus, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Your new-moons and Sabbaths, and your GREAT days. For the last day of the Feast, we have it used by our Evangelist, Chap. 7. ver. 37. In the last Day, the GREAT DAY of the Feast, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. And doubtless by the same Evangelist, for the First day of the Feast, in this place: and therefore the Jews did not eat their Passeover, till the night before, which was the same night that our Saviour was crucified. Which may be strengthened further by this Argument. That if the Jews had celebrated their Passeover the same night which our Saviour did his, it is certain they would never have gone about immediately, with swords and staves to have apprehended him, and then have brought him to the High-Priests Hall, and afterward have arraigned him, at Pilate's Judgement seat, and lastly have crucified him, all the same day. For the Frist day of unleavened Bread, was by the Law an Holy Convocation to the Lord, on which it was not lawful to do any work: And we know the Jews were rigid enough in observing these legal Ceremonies. If then it must be granted that our Saviour with his Disciples kept the Passeover the night before the vulgar Jews did celebrate it, Our next work is, to show how it might be probable, that our saviour's Passeover was first Sacrificed at the Temple. And here perhaps I might run for shelter to that story in Suidas upon the Word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that Christ was enroled into the number of the two and twenty legal Priests that served at the Altar; from the pretended Confession of an ancient Jew in Justinians time; and then he might possibly Sacrifice his own Passeover at the Temple, though the Jews had not solemnised theirs till the day after. But that I hold this to be a mere Fable, and that not only ridiculous, but impious. Or, I might take up the opinion of the greeks, that Christ did not keep a true legal Passeover, but a Feast of Unleavened Bread in Imitation of it. Or as the learned Hugo * In Annot. ad Matth. cap. 26. Grotius, who hath lately asserted this opinion, expresseth it, not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, such as the Jews at this day keen, because the Temple being down, their Sacrifices are all ceased. But this opinion hath been exploded by most of our late authors, and indeed I can no way satisfy myself in it, and therefore will not acquiesce in this answer. But before we be able to give a true account of this Quaere, We must search a little deeper into the true ground of this difference between our saviour's Passeover and the Jews. The common opinion is, that the Jews in our saviour's time were wont to translate their Festivals from one Feria to another upon several occasions, as when ever two Festivals were immediately to follow one another, to join them into one, and therefore when any fell upon the sixth Feria, to put it over to the next Feria, or the Sabbath, to avoid the concurrence of two Sabbaths together: in the same manner as the Jews use to do in their Calendar at this day, where they have several Rules to this purpose, expressed by Abbreviatures thus, Adu Badu, Gahaz, Zabad, Agu. Whereof each Letter is a numeral for some Feria; The Rule for the Passeover is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Badu: that is, that it should not be kept on the Second, Fourth, or Sixth Feria. (There is an Extract of a rabbinical Decree to this purpose under the name of R. Eliezer: in Munster upon Matth. cap. 26.) And therefore at this time when our Saviour was crucified, the Passeover falling upon the sixth Feria, or Friday; was (say they) by the Jews translated, according to this Rule, to the next Feria, and kept on Saturday, or the Sabbath; but our Saviour not regarding these Traditions, observed that day precisely which was commanded in the Law, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Luk. 22. 7. that is, as they expound it, Upon which the Passeover OUGHT to have been killed, which was Friday, the day before. But, under favour, I conceive that all these Decrees, together with that Ratiocinium or Calendar, to which they do belong, were not then in use in our saviour's time, although it be so confidently averred by the incomparable Joseph Scaliger, but long since invented by the Jews. Which I shall make appear, First, in that the ancient Jews, about, and since our saviour's time, often solemnised as well the passovers, as the other Feasts upon the Feria's next before, and after the Sabbaths, and those other Feria's, which have been made Rejectitious since, by that Calendar: In the talmudical Title Succoth, Chap. the last, we read of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: that is, A Feast going immediately before, or following immediately after the Sabbath. And in Betzah, c. 1. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} And, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: A Feast that falls to be on the evening of the Sabbath, or the day after the Sabbath. In Chagigah, the second Chapter, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which is to the same purpose with the former. More particularly concerning the Passeover. Pesachim chap. 7. Sect. 10. Ossa, nervi, & omne residuum Agni Paschalis cremantor sexto decimo. Si is dies SABBATUM, decimo septimo. From this and divers the like places of the Talmud, Aben Ezra, on Levit. 23. ver. 4. observes, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, There be divers instances in the Misna, and the Gemara, of the passovers being kept in BADU. That is, on those days which were made Rejectitious in the late Calendar, the Second, Fourth, and Sixth Feria. Therefore these Translations were not in use, when the Doctors of the Misna and Gemara lived. Secondly, In that the Jews ever while the Temple stood, observed their new-moons and Feasts according to the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or appearance of the moon, and therefore had no Calendar for their Rule to sanctify their Feasts by, but they were then sanctified by the Heavens, as the Misna speaks. This is so clearly delivered by R. Moses Ben Majemon in that excellent Halachah entitled KIDDUSH HACCHODESH, that I wonder so many learned men, that are well skilled in these authors, should miss of it. For having spoken of the Rules of observing the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, he than adds, that these were never made use of since the Sanhedrin ceased in the Land of Israel, after the destruction of the Temple; since which time they have used a Calendar, calculated according to the middle Motion of the moon, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Et haec erat Traditio Mosis in Monte Sinai, quòd omni tempore quo duraret Sanhedrin, constituerent Neomenias juxta {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Hoc verò tempore quo jam cessavit Sanhedrin, constituerent secundum Calculum hunc Astronomicum quo nos hodie utimur; nec ullo modo jam ad {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} nos astringimus, cùm saepe contingat ut dies Legitimus secundum nostrum calculum, vel concurrat cum Lunari {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, vel antevortat eam unica die, vel etiam subsequatur. And again a little after most punctually, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Quandò primum coeperunt omnes Israelitae computare secundum hunc calculum? A Fine doctorum Talmudicorum, quandò jam desolata erat Terra Israel, neque erat Consistorium aut Synedrium quod determinaret; Nam per omnes dies Doctorum Misnae & Doctorum Gemarae, usque ad Abaeum & Rabbaeum, acquiescebant omnes judaei in Sanctione Terrae Israelis. And those Rules forementioned of not keeping the several Feasts upon such and such Feria's, were made together with this Calendar, as the same author there also avoucheth, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. i. e. In this account, they never constituted the New Moon of Tisri upon Adu, because this account was made according to the Conjunction of the sun and moon, in the middle Motion, therefore now they constituted some Legitimate and other Rejectitious days, which they could not do before, when the New moon (and therefore all the other Feasts) were determined according to the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. But the Talmud was not completely finished, till about the 500 year of the Christian Aera, therefore this Jewish Calendar, and these Rules concerning the Translation of Feasts were not in being, till about that time: and so could be no reason of this difference between the time in which our Saviour solemnised the Passeover, and the other Jews. For further confirmation hereof, we may observe that the Karraites, which have rejected the fond Traditions of the Pharisees, retain still the ancient custom of reckoning their New-Moons, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as * Emend. Temp. p. 149. 150. Scaliger himself hath well observed: though in this he were mistaken, that he thought they had assumed it of late, merely out of hatred to the other Jews, whereas they have kept it in a constant succession from antiquity, and hold it still, as necessary by Divine Right. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (saith my Author) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. This is confessed by all Israel, that from the time of the kingdom, they were ever wont to consecrate the new-moons by the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; and the very Etymon of the word Chodesh implies so much, for it signifies The Renewing of something, so that it is denominated from the Change of the moon, or Phasis, as the Epocha and beginning of it. And this is one of the Great Controversies to this day, between those two Sects of the Jews the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or Karraei, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or Rabbanaei: which is grown at length to such a height, that the Karraites, deciphering the conditions of those witnesses, whose Testimonies might be accounted valid for the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, make this for one, that they should no way belong to the Sect of Rabbanists: which perhaps to observe in the Authors own words, would not be unpleasing {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, i. e. A second condition is, that they be not such as hold an opinion concerning the Sanctification of the new-moon different from the opinion of Our Wisemen. And therefore in this regard, we may receive the Testimony of the Ishmaelites (that is, the Turks and Saracens) because they follow the opinion of Our Wisemen Concerning the Phasis, and in most of their appointed times they agree with us: But we may not receive the testimony of any one that is of the Sect of the Rabbins, because they are divided from us in this; And although they be our brethren and our flesh, yet herein they have rebelled and grieved his holy Spirit. Having thus disproved the common and received opinion, and removed the false Ground of this Difference of time, between our saviour's Passeover and the Jews, we come in the next place to lay down the True, which must be derived from that way of reckoning the months, and of determining the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the Head or Beginning of the month, which was in use in our saviour's time, which as we have showed already in general, was by the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, so it will be expedient to describe the whole manner of it more particularly from authentic Authors. * Talmud. Babyl. in Rosh. Hashanah. & Maimon. in Kiddush Hachod. In the great or outer Court of the Temple, there was a House called Beth-Iazek, where the Senate sat all the thirtieth day of every month, to receive the Witnesses of the moon's appearance, and to examine them. And here they always had a Feast provided for the entertainment of those that came, to encourage men to come the more willingly. In ancient times, they did admit of strangers, and receive their Testimony, if it were approved upon examination. But when the heretics (that is, the Christians) afterward grew up, by whom, they say, they were sometimes deluded, they began to grow shy, and to admit of none but such as were approved of, to be of the Jews Religion. If there came approved Witnesses upon the thirtieth day, of the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} seen, than the chief man of the Senate stood up and pronounced MEKUDDASH, it is sanctified: and the people standing by, caught the word from him, and cried out, MEKUDDASH, MEKUDDASH. Whereupon there was notice presently given to all the Country: which was done at first by Torches from mountain to Mountain, till at length the Christians (they say) abused them in that kind also with false fires: wherefore they were fain to send Messengers from place to place, over the whole Land to give intelligence of the new-moon. But if, when the Consistory had sat all the thirtieth day, there came no approved Witnesses of the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, than they made an intercalation of one day in the former Month, and decreed the following, one and thirtieth day, to be the Calends. And yet notwithstanding, if after the fourth or fifth day, there should come some Witnesses from afar, that testified, they had seen the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in its due time, nay, though they came toward the end of the month, ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) The Senate, when they had used all means by affrighting them from that Testimony, that so, if it were possible, they might decline a New Consecration; (after they had already made an embolism in the former month) if the Witnesses remained constant, were then bound to alter the beginning of the month, and reckon it a day sooner, to wit, from the thirtieth day. Here we see the True Ground of the Difference of a day, that might arise continually about the Calends of the month, and so consequently about any of the other Feasts which did all depend on them, viz. between the true Time of the moons {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, upon the thirtieth day, and that of the senate's Decree a day after. For since it appears out of their own Monuments, how unwilling they were, having once made a Consecration of the Neomenia, to alter it again; it may be probably conceived that in those degenerated times, the Senate might many times refuse to accept the Testimony of undoubted Witnesses: And then it seems they had such a Canon as this: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} That whatsoever Time the Senate should conclude of for the Calends of the month, though it were certain they were in the wrong, yet all were bound to order their Feasts according to it: Which I cannot think was approved of by our Saviour, and the most pious Jews. And therefore I conceive it most probable, that this was the very case between our saviour's Passeover and the Jews, in that he followed the True {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, confirmed by sufficient and assured Witnesses; but the other Jews superstitiously observed the Pertinacious Decree of the Senate or Sanhedrin, which was for the day after. And now at last, we are come again to the Acme of the Question, that was first propounded; How our saviour's Passeover, notwithstanding all this, might be sacrificed the day before those of the other Jews were. To which I answer, that upon this Ground, not only, our Saviour & his Apostles, but also divers others of the most religious Jews, kept the Passeover upon the fifteenth day from the true {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of the moon, and not from the senate's Decree; which I may confirm from the Testimony of Epiphanius, that reports, there was at this time {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, In Panario Har. ll. a Tumult, and contention amongst the Jews about the Passeover; and so we may easily persuade those other Evangelists, that intimate Christ's Passeover to have been solemnised, when many others kept it, to agree with Saint John, who assures us, that it was also by divers Jews kept the day after. Now it was a custom among the Jews, in such doubtful cases as these, which oftentimes fell out, to permit the Feasts to be solemnised, or passovers killed, on two several days together. Maymonides affirmeth, that in the remoter parts of the Land of Israel, they always solemnised the Feast of the new-moons two days together, nay, in Jerusalem itself where the Senate sat, they kept the new-moon of Tisri, which was the beginning of the year, twice, lest they should be mistaken in it. In the Talmud we have an instance, of the passovers being kept two days together, because the new-moon was doubtful, in Gemara Rosh Hashanah. cap. 1. Hence the Karraites who still keep the ancient custom of observing the moons {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, retain it as a Rule to this day, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Observare duos dies propter dubium. Nay, the rabbinical Jews themselves since they have changed the Phasis, for the Synod or Conjunction of the moon in the middle motion, in imitation hereof still observe to keep the Passeover two days together, iisdem ceremoniis, as the learned Author of the Jewish Synagogue reports: and Scaliger himself, not only of that, but also of the other Feasts. judaei post institutionem hodierni computi, eandem solennitatem celebrant biduò: propterea quòd mensem incipiant à medio motu Lunae: itaque {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} propter dubium Conjunctionis Luminarium, Pascha celebrant 15. & 16. Nisan. Pentecosten 6. & 7. Sivan. Scenopagiam. 15. & 16. Tisri. idque vocant {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Festum Secundum Exiliorum. Now than we see that nothing hinders but that the Passeover might be a Sacrifice. And thus we have hitherto cleared the way. CHAP. IV. BUT lest we should seem all this while, to Set up Fancies of our own, and then Sport with them; We come now to Demonstrate and Evince that the Lord's Supper in the proper Notion of it, is EPULUM EX OBLATIS, or, A FEAST UPON SACRIFICE; in the same manner with the Feasts upon the Jewish Sacrifices under the Law; and the Feasts upon {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (things offered up to Idols) among the Heathens: And that from a place of Scripture where all these three shall be compared together, and made exact Parallels to one another. 1 CORIN. 10. 14. Wherefore my dearly beloved, flee from Idolatry. 15. I speak as to wise men, judge you what I say. 16. The Cup of Blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? 18. Behold Israel after the flesh, are not they which ear of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar? 20. Now I say the things which the Gentiles Sacrifice, they Sacrifice to Devils and not to God; and I would not that you should have Fellowship with Devils. 21. Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table, and the Table of Devils. Where the Apostles Scope being to convince the Corinthians of the unlawfulness of Eating things Sacrificed to Idols; He doth it in this manner: showing, that though an idol were truly Nothing, and things Sacrificed to Idols were Physically, Nothing, as different from other meats; [as it seems they argued, and Saint Paul confesses, ver. 19] Yet Morally and Circumstantially, to eat of things Sacrificed to Idols, in the Idols Temple, was to consent with the Sacrifices, and to be guilty of them: Which he doth illustrate, First, from a Parallel Rite, in Christian Religion. Where the Eating and Drinking of the Body and Blood of Christ, offered up to God upon the cross for us, in the Lord's Supper, is a real Communication in his Death and Sacrifice, ver. 16. The Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? &c. Secondly, From another Parallel of the same Rite among the Jews. Where, always they that eat of the Sacrifices, were accounted partakers of the Altar, that is, Of the Sacrifice offered up upon the Altar, ver. 18. Behold Israel after the flesh, are not they which eat of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar? In veteri Lege quicunque admittebantur ad Edendum de Hostiis Oblatis, censebantur ipsius Sacrificii tanquam pro ipsis Oblati, fieri Participes, & per illud Sanctificari: As a Late Commentator fully expresses it. Therefore, as to eat the Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, is to be made partaker of his Sacrifice offered up to God for us; as to eat of the Jewish Sacrifices under the Law, was to partake in the legal Sacrifices themselves: So to eat of things offered up in Sacrifice to Idols, was to be made partakers of the idol-sacrifices: And therefore was unlawful. For, the things which the Gentiles Sacrifice, they Sacrifice to Devils, but Christ's Body and Blood was offered up in Sacrifice unto God, and therefore they could not partake of both together; the Sacrifice of the true God, and the Sacrifice of Devils. Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of Devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table, and the table of Devils. S. Paul's Argument here, must needs suppose a perfect Analogy between these three, and that they are all Parallels to one another, or else it hath no strength. Wherefore I conclude from hence, that the LORDS SUPPER is the same among Christians, in respect of the Christian Sacrifice, that among the Jews the Feasts upon the legal Sacrifices were, and among the Gentiles, the Feasts upon the idol-sacrifices: and therefore EPULUM SACRIFICIALE, or, EPULUM EX OBLATIS: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. CHAP. V. THUS having Declared and Demonstrated The True Notion of The Lord's Supper: We see then, How that theological controversy, which hath cost so many Disputes, Whether the Lord's Supper be a Sacrifice, is already decided; for it is not SACRIFICIUM, but EPULUM eke {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: Not A SACRIFICE, but A Feast upon Sacrifice: or else in other Words, Not OBLATIO SACRIFICII, but as Tertullian excellently speaks, PARTICIPATIO SACRIFICII: Not the Offering of something up to God upon an Altar, but the Eating of something which comes from God's Altar, and is set upon Our Tables. Neither was it ever known amongst the Jews or Heathens, that those Tables upon which they did eat Their Sacrifices, should be called by the Name of Altars. Saint Paul speaking of the Feasts upon the idol-sacrifices, calls the places upon which they were eaten, The Tables of Devils, because the devil's meat was eaten on them, not the Altars of Devils: and yet doubtless he spoke according to the true Propriety of speech, and in those technical Words that were then in use amongst them. And therefore keeping the same Analogy, he must needs call the Communion Table, by the name of the Lord's Table: i. e. The Table upon which God's meat is eaten, not his Altar, upon which it is offered. It is true, an Altar is nothing but a Table, but it is A Table upon which GOD himself eats, consuming the Sacrifices by his Holy Fire: but when the same meat is given from GOD unto Us to eat of, the relation being changed, the place on which WE eat, is nothing but a Table. And because it is not enough in any Discourse, as Aristotle well observeth in his ethics, to confute an Error, unless we can also show {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, The Cause of that Error; Having thus Discovered The True Notion of the Lord's Supper, we may easily from hence discern also, How that mistake grew up, and that by the Degeneration of this Truth. There is a Sacrifice in the Lord's Supper Symbolically, but not there as Offered up to God, but Feasted on by us; and so not a Sacrifice, but a sacrificial Feast: Which began too soon to be misunderstood. CHAP. VI. I Should now come, to make some further improvement of this general Notion of the Lord's Supper: By showing what these Feasts upon the Sacrifices did signify, under the Law; and then applying the same in a more perfect manner to the Lord's Supper under the gospel; being warranted thereunto by that Analogy which is between them. But because there may be divers glosses and Interpretations of These Feasts upon the Sacrifices, which are obvious to every common understanding; We will decline them all, and pitch only upon one, which is not so vulgarly understood. And it is this, that, The Eating of God's Sacrifices was a federal RITE, between God and those that offered them, according to the custom of the Ancients, and especially in those Oriental Parts, to confirm and Ratify their Covenants, by Eating and Drinking together. Thus when Isaak made a Covenant with Abimelech the King of Gerar, the Text saith, He made him and those that came with him a Feast, and they did eat and drink, and rose up betimes in the morning and swore to one another. When Laban made a Covenant with Jacob, Gen. 21. ver. 44. Now therefore come (saith Laban) let us make a Covenant, I and thou, and let it be for a witness between me and thee; Then it follows in the Text, They took stones, and made a heap, and did eat there upon the heap, and Laban called it JEGARSAHADUTHA, in his Chalday Tongue, but Jakob (in the Hebrew Language) GALEED, i. e. A heap of witness. Implying that those stones upon which they had eaten and drunk together, should be a witness against either of them that should first violate that Covenant. R. Moses Bar Nachman in his Comment, thus glosseth upon this place, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. They did eat there, a little upon the heap, for a memorial: Because it was the manner of those that entered into Covenant, to eat both together of the same Bread, as a Symbol of love and friendship: And Isaak Abrabanel much to the same purpose, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. It was an ancient custom amongst them, that they which did eat Bread together upon the same Table, should be accounted ever afterward as entire Brethren. And in this sense he conceiveth, that place, Lamentations 5. v. 6. may be expounded: We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians by fullness of Bread, i. e. We have made a Covenant with them. Joshua 9 verse 14. When the Gibeonites came to the Israelites, and desired them to make a league with them, it is said; The Men of Israel took of their victuals and asked not counsel of the mouth of the Lord: that is, they made a Covenant with them, as Kimchy learnedly expounds it, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Acceperunt de Viatico ipsorum, & comederunt cum illis per modum foederis. For so it follows afterward in the Text, And Joshuah made peace with them. Hence also was that emphatical expression, Psalm. 41. 10. spoken literally by David of Achitophel, Mine own familiar friend, that did eat of my Bread, hath lift up the heel against me: but seeming prophetically, to glance at Judas, that dipping with Christ in the same dish, betrayed him. The Singular Emphasis of which speech, we that are unacquainted with this custom of the Oriental Nations, cannot easily perceive; neither can we anywhere better learn it, then from that passage of Celsus in Origen, who carping at that History of Judas his betraying Christ, in the gospel, as an incredible thing; made in the mean while, an excellent Comment upon this Prophecy, when he little thought of it. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. i. e. Si homini nemo insidiaretur, ejusdem mensae particeps, multò minus Deo. And Origens Reply to him, which shows that though this were an unusual thing, yet it sometime came to pass, is very pregnant also for our purpose: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. i. e. Quis ignorat multos ad Communionem Salis & Mensae adhibitos, insidiatos tamen suis contubernalibus? Plena est Historia tam Graecorum, quam Barbarorum, exemplis ejusmodi. Et Parius ille jamborum Scriptor, exprobrans Lycambae violatum foedus, quod Sal & Mensa conciliaverat, sic eum alloquitur. Sacramentum irritasti magnum, Salem atque Mensam. All which makes manifest, what an heinous offence it was accounted anciently, to be guilty of the breach of a Covenant, which had been confirmed by Eating and Drinking together. In the seventh verse of Obadiah, that Prophet speaks to Edom in this manner, All the men of thy confederacy have brought thee to the border, the men that were at peace with thee have deceived thee, they that eat thy Bread, have laid a wound under thee. In the New Testament, that place, John the fourth, verse the ninth, is well observed by Heinsius in his Aristarchus to carry this notion: How is it that thou being a Jew askest drink of me, being a Woman of Samaria? Suavissimè dictum (saith that forenamed critic) ex eorum more qui cum peregrini essent, aut alieno fuissent animo, animis conciliandis cibum mutuò a●potum alter alterius gustabant. Wherefore I think from all these instances, I may conclude that this is the true Etymon of that Hebrew word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which signifies a Covenant, or any federal Communion betwixt parties, from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Comedere, because it was the constant custom of the Hebrews and Oriental Nations, to establish Covenants by eating and drinking together, as hath been showed. And, as the Jews, so likewise did the Heathens in the same manner use to ratify their Covenants, between Parties, by Eating together. Lucian in Toxaris, reports it of the Scythians, That when any one was injured and could'not revenge himself, the manner was, that he should kill and ox, and cut it into small pieces, which being boiled, he was to sit down by them, with his hands behind him, (which was a gesture of earnest supplication amongst them) and than whosoever was minded to help him, came, and did eat a piece of his flesh, and so, with this Ceremony promised to assist him. And this was counted a sacred and inviolable Covenant of mutual defence between them, whence that Greek proverb, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, In tergore bovis desedit, of which Erasmus in his adages. Herodotus reporteth of the Persians, that they made their Leagues and Covenants at Feasts: and of the Nasamones a People of Lybia, that they composed Peace, by stretching out a Cup full of Wine to each other, and pledging one another in it. Alexander ab Alexand. relates this of the Thracians and Egyptians, that, Ecornibus boum (quae veteribus poculorum loco erant) Vina sibi invicem propinantes, id firmissimum contracti foederis vinculum esse putabant. Curtius▪ Reporteth of the Macedonians, Quod patrio ritu foedus quod sanctissimum vellent haberi, sic inibant, Ut panem gladio divisum uterque libaret. And therefore Alexander when he fell in love with Roxana, commanded Bread forthwith to be brought before him, which when he had divided with his sword, and they had both tasted together of, he took her presently to himself as his Wife. And there remaineth a custom to this day, something like this, at Weddings in many Countries; That when the bridegroom and Bride are come from Church, they have a piece of Cake brought them, which when the Bridegroom hath tasted, he gives it to the Bride to taste of likewise, in token of a Covenant between them. The Germans still use to conclude of bargains, and ratify Friendship between Parties by drinking together, as appeareth by that phrase which they have Den Friden Trinchen, Pacem bibere. The Emperor of Russia to this day, when he would show extraordinary Grace and favour unto any, sends them Bread and Salt from his Table. And when he invited Baron Sigismond, the Emperor Ferdinand's ambassador, he did it in this form, Sigismunde comedes sal & panem nostrum nobiscum: as Sigismond himself relates it in his Muscovian Commentaries. It is an Axiom in the civil Law, that if a man drink to one, against whom he hath an Accusation of slander, or other verbal injury, he loses his Action, because it is supposed he is reconciled to him. In like manner, I say, the Eating of Sacrifices, which were God's mere, was a federal Rite, between God and those that did partake of them, and signified that there was a Covenant of friendship between him and them. For the better conceiving whereof, we must observe, that Sacrifices, beside the Nature of expiation, had the Notion of Feasts, which God himself did, as it were, feed upon. Which I explain thus: When God had brought the Children of Israel out of Egypt, resolving to manifest himself in a peculiar manner present among them, He thought good to Dwell amongst them in a visible and external manner: And therefore while they were in the wilderness and sojourned in Tents, he would have a Tent or Tabernaole built, to sojourn with them also. This Mystery of the Tabernacle was fully understood by the Learned Nachmanides, who in few words, but pregnant, thus expresseth it: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: And again, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: That is, The Mystery of the Tabernacle, was this, that it was to be a Place for the Shechinah, or Habitation of Divinity to be fixed in: And this, no doubt, as a special Type of God's future Dwelling in Christ's human Nature, which was the TRUE SHECHINAH. But when the Jews were come into their Land, and had there built them Houses, God intended to have a fixed Dwelling-House also, and therefore his movable Tabernacle was to be turned into a Standing Temple. Whence by imitation came came all those Temples among the Heathens, which they apprehended as so many places of Peculiar Residence or Habitation, for their Deities next the Heavens to dwell in. As appears by that of Silius amongst many others, — Tarpeie Pater, qui Templa secundam Incolis à Coelo sedem— Now the Tabernacle or Temple, being thus as a House for God to Dwell in visibly, to make up the Notion of Dwelling or Habitation complete, there must be all things suitable to a House, belonging to it. Hence in the Holy Place, there must be a Table and a candlestick; because this was the ordinary furniture of a room, as the fore-commended Nachmanides observes, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. i. e. He addeth a Table and a candlestick, because these suit the Notion of a Dwelling-House. The Table must have its Dishes, and spoons, and bowls, and Covers belonging to it, though they were never used, and always be furnished with Bread upon it. The candlestick must have its Lamps conninually burning. Hence also there must be a continual Fire kept, in this House of Gods, upon the Altar, as the Focus of it; to which Notion, I conceive, the Prophet Esay doth allude Chap. 31. ver. 9 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: which I would thus translate, Qui habet ignem suum in Zion, & focum suum in Jerusalem. And besides all this, to carry the Notion still further, there must be some Constant meat and Provision brought into this House, which was done in the Sacrifices, that were partly consumed by Fire upon God's own Altar, and partly eaten by the Priests which were God's Family, and therefore to be maintained by him; That which was consumed upon God's Altar, was accounted God's mess, as appeareth from the first chap. of Malachy; Where the Altar is called God's TABLE, and the Sacrifice upon it God's MEAT; You say the Table of God is polluted, and the fruit thereof his Meat is contemptible: and often in the Law, the Sacrifice is called Gods {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that is, his Bread or Food. Whence in that Learned Hebrew book Cozri, The King Haber objects to the Jew Cozar against his Religion, that it seemed to place Corporeity in God, in making him to feed upon the Flesh of Beasts in these Sacrifices: to which the Jewish Doctor replieth Cabalistically in this manner: That as in men, Corporeal meat is a means to unite and continue the soul (which is a Spirit) to the Body: So in the Land of Israel, the blood of Beasts offered up in Sacrifice, had an Attractive power to draw down Divinity, and unite it to the Jews. And methinks this may be a little further convinced from that passage in the 50. Psal. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee, for the world is mine, and the fullness thereof: Will I eat the Flesh of bulls, or drink the the blood of goats? For though it be here denied that God did really feed upon the Sacrifices, yet it is employed there was some such Allusive Signification in them. Wherefore it is further observable, that beside the flesh of the beast offered up in Sacrifice, there was a Mincah or Meat-offering, made of flower and oil, and a Libamen, or Drink-offering, that was always joined with the daily Sacrifice. As the Bread and Drink which was to go along with God's meat. It was also strictly commanded, that there should be Salt in every Sacrifice and oblation: Because all meat is unsavoury without Salt, as R. Moses Bar Nachman hath here also well observed, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. i. e. Because it was not honourable, that God's meat should be unsavoury, without Salt. Lastly, all these things were to be consumed on the Altar, only by the Holy Fire that came down from Heaven, because they were God's Portion, and therefore to be eaten or consumed by himself, in an extraordinary manner. And this the devil sometime imitated, in some Sacrifices offered up to him. For so I understand that Passage of Pindar in his Obympiacks, Ode 7. speaking of the Rhodians, That when they had prepared, and were come to offer Sacrifice to Jupiter, they had by chance forgotten to bring Fire with them: But Jupiter being conscious of their good intentions, rained down upon them A GOLDEN shower, that is, (as I understand it) A shower of Fire. A pure imitation of the Sacred Story. Take it in that elegant Poets own words. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. That is, according to Benedictus his Metaphrase: Etenim Rhodii ascenderunt, quamvis non habentes ardentis semen ignis. Verum dum instruunt Sacrificiis igni carentibus, aram in aroe, illis quidem flavam adducens nebulam, multum pluit [Jupiter] aurum. And Solinus reports it of the Vulcanian Hill in Sicily, that they which offered Sacrifice upon it, never put fire to it, but expected it should be kindled from Heaven. His Words according to Salmasiu's Edition, are these, Nec longè indè Collis Vulcanius, in quo qui divinae rei operantur, ligna vitea super aras struunt: nec Ignis adponitur in hanc congeriem. Cum prosicias intulerunt, si adest Deus, si sacrum probatur, Sarmenta licet viridia, sponte concipiunt, & nullo inflagrante halitu, ab ipso mimine fit accendium. Ibi Epulantes adludit flamma, quae flexuosis excessibus vagabunda, quem contigerit non adurit: nec aliud est quam imago nuncia perfecti ritè Voti. The place is very remarkable; & where he says thus, Epulantes adludit f●amma; he alludeth to that custom of Feasting on the Sacrifices, which was before explained. I will add to all this, the words of a late learned Author, that sometime stumbled unawares upon this very Notion, which we are now about, and yet expressed it happily in this manner, Deus ad suam cum populo Iudaeorum familiaritatem significandam, sibi ab illo carnes, sanguinem, asque fruges, in ALTARI atque NENSA offerri voluit, ut ostenderet se quasi COMMUNEM in illo populo Habere MENSAM, esse illius CONVIVAM perpetuum, atque it a familiariter cum illis habitare. And as it was thus among the Hebrews, so it seems that Sacrifices had the Notion of Feasts likewise among the ancient Persians, that worshipped the Fire: of whom Maximus Tyrius thus relateth {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, i. e. Bringing in the Sacrifices to the Fire, which was their God, they were wont to say, Ignis Domine Comede. The Sacrifices then being God's Feasts, they that did partake of them, must needs be His CONVIVAE, and in a manner eat and drink with him. And that this did bear the Notion of a federal Rite, in the Scriptures account, I prove from that place, Levit. 2. 13. Thou shalt not suffer the SALT OF THE COVENANT of thy God to be lacking, with all thine offerings thou shalt offer Salt. Where the Salt that was to be cast upon all the Sacrifices, is called THE SALT OF THE COVENANT, to signify, that as men did use to make Covenants by Eating and Drinking together, wh●re Salt is a necessary Appendix, so God by these Sacrifices and the Feasts upon them, did ratify and confirm his Covenant with those that did partake of them, in as much as they did in a manner eat and drink with him. For Salt was ever accounted amongst the ancients, a most necessary Concomitant of Feasts, and Condiment of all Meats: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, saith the Jewish Proverb, in Berachoth; own Convivium in quo non est salitum non est convivium. And therefore, because Covenants and Reconciliations were made by Eating and Drinking, where Salt was always used, Salt itself was accounted among the ancients, AMICITIAE SYMBOLUM; {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Sal & Mensa, was used proverbially among the greeks to express friendship by; {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, in the words of Origen before quoted, out of Archilochus, Sal & Mensam transgredi, was to violate the most Sacred League of friendship. Aeschines in his Oration De perperam habita Legatione, hath a Passage very pertinent to this purpose, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Etenim Civitatis Sales & communem mensam, ait, se plurimi facere debere. Thus I understand that symbol of Pythagoras, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, (by Erasmus his leave) for friendship and hospitality. There is a pregnant instance of this very Phrase in the Scripture, Ezra 4. 14. Where our translators read it thus, Because we have maintenance from the King's Palace. But the words in the Chaldee run after this manner, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. Quod Sale Palatii Salivimus, Because we have eaten of the King's ●alt, [that is, because we have engaged ourselves in a Covenant of Friendship to him, by eating of his meat] therefore it is not meet for us to see the King's dishonour. That Proverb mentioned in Tully makes to this purpose, Multos modios Salis simul Edendos esse ut amioitiae munus completum sit. Which was, because that federal symbol had been so often abused. Nay, hence there remaineth a Superstitious custom amongst us and other Nations, to this day; To count the Overturning of the Salt upon the Table Ominous, as betiding some evil to him towards whom it falls: Quia Sal amoris & amicitiae Symbolum. And by this time I think, I have given a sufficient Comment upon {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, The Salt of the Covenant in the Text. Only I must not forget, that as in God's Sacrifices, there was ever Salt to be used; So the like was generally observed in the Heathen Sacrifices; as that one place out of Pliny, amongst many, shall sufficiently testify, Maxima Salis authoritas è Sacris veterum intelligitur, apud quos nulla sacra sine molâ salsâ conficiebantur. And the reason of it also is thus given by that famous Scholiast, upon Il. a. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Because Salt is a symbol of friendship: which is the same with that reason given by God, why he would always have Salt in his Sacrifices, because it was {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that is, Sal Symbolum foederis, as before was shown. And this Phrase being thus explained, will clearly expound that other Phrase, about which critics have laboured so much in vain, where the same words are used, but inverted, and a Covenant is called A covenant of Salt, as Salt is here called The Salt of the Covenant, Numb. 18. 19 and 2 Chron. 13. 5. viz. Because Covenants were established by Eating and, Drinking together, where Salt was always a necessary Appendix. Now therefore, that we may return; As the legal Sacrifices, with the Feasts upon those Sacrifices, were ●●●ERALL RITES between God and Men: In like manner I say The Lord's Supper under the Gospel, which we have already proved to be EPULUM SACRIFICIALE, A Feast upon Sacrifice, must needs be EPULUM FOEDERALE, A Feast of Amity and Friendship, between God and Men. Where by Eating and Drinking at God's own Table, and of his meat, we are taken into a sacred Covenant, and inviolable League of friendship with him. Which I will confirm from that fore-commended place, whence I have already proved that the Lord's Supper is A Feast upon Sacrifice. For there the Apostle thus deliorts the Corinthians from Eating of the Feasts upon idol-sacrifices, which are a Parallel to the Feast upon the Christian Sacrifice, in the Lord's Supper, Because this was to have Fellowship, and federal Communion with Devils; The things that the Gentiles Sacrifice, they Sacrifice to Devils, and not to God, and I would not Brethren, that you should have fellowship (or COMMUNION, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) with Devils. Where the Comment of Saint Chrysostom is excellent to our purpose: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} That is, if among men to communicate of Bread and Salt, be a token and symbol of friendship; it must carry the same Notion between men and Devils, in the Idoll-Feasts. If therefore to eat the Sacrifice of Devils be to have federal Communion with those Devils, to whom it was offered; then to eat of the Sacrifice of Christ, once offered up to God, in the Lord's Supper, is to have federal Communion with God. There is an excellent Story in Maimonides his Moreh Nevochim, concerning an ancient custom of the Zabii: Of Feasting together with their Gods in this federal way, which will much illustrate this Notion. For going about to give the reason, why the Eating of Blood was forbidden in the Law, he ferches it from that Idolatrous use of it then in Moses time among the Zabii; according to his Principles, who thought the reason of all the Ceremonial Precepts was to be fetched from some such accidental Grounds, because those Laws were not Prim●, but Secundae intentionis in God. Multarum legum rationes & causae (saith he) mihi innotuerunt ex cognitione fidei, rituum, & cultus Zabierum. By these Zabii, he means the ancient Chaldeans; the Word in the original Arabic, according to the Copy of Joseph Scaliger, being thus written, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; A Vento Apeliote sic dicti, (as he * In Epist. 62. ad Isacium Casaubonum. observes) quasi dicas Orientales. And that book which Maymonides so often quoteth, concerning that Nation, their Rites, and Religion, is still extrant among the Mahumetane Arabians, as the same Scaliger avoucheth. The Story then is this, according to the Hebrew Translation of R. Abben Tibbon, Lib. 3. cap. 46. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. i. e. Licet Sanguis impurus & immundus admodum fuerit in oculis Zabiorum, tamen ab illis comestus fuerit, eò quòd existimarunt CIBUM HUNC ESSE DAEMONUM, & quòd is qui eum comedit, hâc ratione COMMUNICATIONEM aliquam cum Daemonibus haberet: ità ut familiariter cum illo conversentur, & futura ei aperiant. But because others of them did abhor the eating of blood, as a thing repugnant unto Nature, they performed this service in a little different manner; {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. Mactantes Bestiam aliquam, Sanguinem in circulo sedentes comedebant: imaginantes sibi in hoc opere, ipsis CARNEM COMEDENTIBUS, Daemones ILLUM SANGVINEM COMEDERE, & hunc esse IPSORUM CIBUM, hocque medio AMICITIAM, FRATERNITATEM & FAMILIARITATEM inter ipsos contrahi, quia omnes in unâ mensâ edunt, uno consessu accumbunt. As for the former part of this Story, I find it also in R. Moses Bar Nachman, upon Deuteron. 12. 23. Where he goes about to give the reason why blood was forbidden in the Law, as Maymonides did, although in the first place, he saith, it was because Blood served in the Sacrifices for expiation, otherwise than Maymonides; (for there was a great controversy between these two Doctors, about the Nature of Sacrifices) but yet in the Second place, he brings in this also; Because it was used superstitiously by the Heathens in the Worship of their Idoll-Gods, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. They performed their Superstitious Worship, by eating of Blood in this manner; They gathered together Blood for the Devils their Idoll-Gods, and then they came themselves, and did eat of that blood with them: As being the devil's GUESTS, and INVITED to eat at the TABLE of Devils, and so were joined in federal Society with them. And by this kind of Communion with Devils, they were able to Prophecy, and foretell things to come. FINIS.