second proof As many as I love I rebuke and chasten be zealous therefore and repent now they who are blessed in a future state are past all manner of rebuke and chastisement and they need no repentance no more do the damned neither for any good it will do them for their repentance is but one part of their misery therefore it would be fruitless to exhort either of them to it which the Amen that is Christ in this place manifestly doth I might urge a third and a fourth Argument from the 21. and 22. verses of this Chapter but this is enough for which reason I will omit these and proceed to the second observable in the words which is the thing I aim at and that is this If any man hear the voice and open the door that is if he have a mind fitly qualified and prepared to give a due reception and entertainment to the Spirit of God and Christ if he do not wilfully harden himself and shut him out Christ will come in unto him and will sup with him that is he will at all times be sufficiently present to him by the grace and assistance of his good Spirit to encourage him in well doing to strengthen him in temptations and comfort him in and under afflictions and will at last bring him to glory by the merits of his Passion and the powerful interest of his Intercession It is impossible it cannot be denied that this is the very sence Christ cannot be said to sup with us in any other sence but this it is likewise impossible and absurd to deny that Christ in this sence does sup with every true Believer at the receiving of the Sacrament but he cannot both sup with us and also be that very meat on which we feed our selves therefore I conclude that the Elements of Bread and Wine in this holy solemnity are not changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ And if it be objected that this is only a figurative way of speaking and so nothing can be inferred from it I grant indeed that it is a figure but then it is such a strange figure as was never heard of before that our fellow-boarder our fellow-commoner should be taken for our diet it would be worth travelling a great way to see such another figure Again I will come in unto him and will sup with him and he with me Let it be granted for once that by the Pronoun I in this place is meant not the spiritual but the personal and corporeal presence of Christ by the fear of Transubstantiation and one of these must be allowed unless they will deny that Christ does as really sup with that is is as much present to Believers at the receiving of the Sacrament as upon other occasions What will be the consequence of this The Bread and Wine thus transubstantiated into the Body and Bloud of Christ is not only the spiritual but the material and literal food of Believers they do really and truly eat his Body and drink his Bloud so then I will come and sup with you that is my Body and Bloud will come and sup with you is as much as to say they will feed upon themselves for these are the two things that make the entertainment Lastly since we are told That we being many are one Bread and one Body 1 Cor. 〈◊〉 17. for we are all partakers of that one Bread it will follow if we take these words literally that the whole Church by being partakers of that one Bread are transubstantiated into that one Bread which is that one Body which is Christ and so at this rate the Church and the two Elements of Bread and Wine and Christ himself will be all one and the same thing namely a certain strange kind of unintelligible Banquet left all alone to feed and solace its self upon its self and this is wonderful pretty indeed this is a figure too but 't is a new one and wants a name therefore you may call it a Romanism if you please and I wish no Protestant may ever use it Thus I have proved in general I could do it much more particularly if the time would permit or if there were any doubt of it amongst Christians that Christ is our Passeover and shown what are the consequences of that proposition The Jews themselves confess that the Passeover was a Type of the Messias as well as we though they will not allow our Jesus to be that Messias and accordingly they tell us fine stories of the deliverance of their Nation by him upon that very day on which the Passeover was instituted being some time or other to happen on the Anniversary of their deliverance from the Aegyptian bondage and this if they had known what kind of deliverance that was which they were to expect together with the rest of mankind had been right enough for it is on all hands agreed they themselves have not the impudence to deny it that our blessed Lord suffered upon the Cross at this very time but this was not that deliverance from Temporal bondage and from the Roman power which they with so much earnestness expected although it be manifest at first sight that the Paschal Lamb could be no Type of the Messias if they had been to be delivered by any other way than that of his Suffering and being put to death for their sakes For this reason they have some of them employed their thoughts in finding out objections why our Jesus could not be Typified by the Passeover under the Law I will propose their objections as nigh as I am able in their own words and answer them with such fairness that they shall have no reason to complain of foul play The first objection which you may see with the rest that follow in the Notes of Munster upon the 26th of St. Matthew is this If the Lamb of the Passeover be a Type of the suspended or the accursed that is in their language of Christ it would be necessary that there should be many new Christs and new Jesus's born into the world one after another for ever because of the multitude of Paschal Lambs and the annual repetition of that Sacrifice according to the Law amongst the Jews This Objection is answered by a Christian in the same place who brings these difficulties only to resolve them and I have some reason to believe it may be Munster himself thus That this may as well be that all the Paschal Sacrifices might be a joynt Symbol of that one Sacrifice of Christ as that such an infinite number of Rainbowes succeeding one another through all times and ages should be a concurrent and joynt Seal of that one Covenant which God had entred into with man that he would not drown the world any more I shall not dispute the validity of this answer but the scruple will admit of several other solutions besides this as first That that solemn Feast which was or was to be
be but once offered to bear the sins of many Heb. 9. 28. And we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all Heb. 10. 10. Wherefore if the eating the Body of Christ in the Sacrament and the drinking of his Bloud which is the effusion of it be a renewal of his Passion a sacrificing of and a feeding upon the Passeover afresh then I affirm that no such thing is done or at least we must be reduced to this Dilemma Either the Scriptures are not true or the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is false Now whether the determination of the Author to the Hebrews that is of an inspired writer that is in effect of God himself and of S. Peter in his first Epistle Chap. 3. ver 18. where he tells us that Christ hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust and a man would think he was every whit as infallible as any of his pretended successors I say which of these is most to be believed and stood to judge ye nay let our Adversaries themselves be judges Again Christ being our Passeover was for this very Deut. 16. 2 5 6 7. reason among others offered up at Jerusalem because it was unlawful to kill the Passeover at any other place after such time as the Temple was built Thus those three great and solemn Passeovers which we read of in the times of Hezekiah Jesiah and Ezra were 2 Chron. 30. 2. 2 Kings 23. 23. Ezra 6. 19 Luk. 2. 41. every one of them celebrated at Jerusalem and it is said of Joseph and the blessed Virgin the Mother of our Lord that they went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passeover Now if Christ suffered at Jerusalem because the Passeover was to be killed there if Christ be our Passeover and if the Passeover could not be sacrificed any where else nay if it cannot now be offered at Jerusalem its self because the City and Temple are demolished because God hath taken his name from thence because instead of being the Metropolis of true Religion it is now the seat of the grossest Idolatry and Superstition because the law of Moses is abolished because the meaning and intention of the Passeover is completed if all these things be true as most certainly they are then is it plain that if Christ be corporeally and substantially present in the Sacrament if his Body and Bloud be truly and properly eaten and drunk by us yet he is not present neither do we feed upon him as our Passeover Wherefore it is clear that either Christ hath ceased to be our Passeover and then it will be more easie than pleasant to pronounce what will become of us we are all in a very miserable condition or else it is not lawful to feed upon him since the Passeover cannot now be eaten in any part of the world and therefore we may assure our selves from this as well as from what has been said above that he could be offered up but once that we neither do nor ought to feed upon him if we will follow his own Institution and why he should enable any Romish Priest to work a Miracle such a strange Miracle as this of Transubstantiation in contradiction both to the Law and Gospel is a most Prodigiously strange and unaccountable thing I am confident it will puzle the Ablest person of Their Church to give a Tolerable account of this Lastly Christ is our Passeover therefore it is unlawful to Drink his Bloud for the bloud of the Passeover as of other Sacrifices could not by the Law of Moses be either Eaten or Drunk therefore we may boldly affirm that the Priest when he pronounces those words This is my bloud or This is my bloud of the New Testament does not by this means Transubstantiate the Wine into it therefore neither is the Bread changed into the Body of Christ by his saying this is my body for the case is the same in both and it is altogether incredible that such a wonderful power should accompany those words This is my Body when those other This is my Bloud which one would imagine in all reason should be considered by themselves of equal force and validity with the former have no such virtue or efficacy at all I take the confidence to affirm that all this is absolute irresistible demonstration if there be such a thing as Demonstration in the world for Christ was not truely and literally a Paschal Lamb no he was a man born of a woman as we are though after a more divine and heavenly manner by the Overshadowing of the Holy Ghost in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin but he is called our Passeover only in respect of the Likeness or Analogy which there was betwixt his Sacrifice of himself upon the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb under the Law Now I beseech you where is the Analogy if those Paschal Lambs whose bloud was first sprinkled in that great deliverance upon the Posts and Lentils of the Jewish houses could be but once Offered and all succeeding Paschatizations were nothing else but Thankful acknowledgements and commemorations of this while all this while the same the very self same Christ may be offered every day in the Year and every hour in the day as often as ever we Receive the Sacrament and as many times told almost at the very same instant as there are people that receive it Where is the Analogy if the Mosaical Passeover could be Offered no where but at Jerusalem and cannot be Offered so much as there any more if one and the same Christ at the very same instant may be Offered in all parts of the world and all this as many times repeated as there are days and hours nay moments the most incredibly small parts the most exquisite subdivisions and as it were Atoms of time from the first Institution of the Sacrament to the end of the world Lastly Where is the Analogy if the Bloud of the Paschal Lamb were most strictly prohibited to be either Drunk or Eaten and yet there is a necessity of drinking the Bloud of Christ An Imputation which the Priest with all his Artifice and Sophistry cannot possibly avoid and the people also are affirmed to do it Collectively though they do not take the Elements in sunder and certainly this if it be not Eating and Drinking bloud yet it is at least Eating with the bloud which was as much unlawful as the other and this was the sin of the Israelites in the 14th Chapter of the first book of Samuel which I have formerly cited in what I have said elsewhere upon this subject So that it is manifest a man must have the impudence to contradict plain Texts of Scripture as well as common sense he must destroy the Analogy of Types to their Antitypes of Symbols to their Substance as well as the Agreement and Connection of things with one another before he can assert the doctrine of
far forth as humane nature is capable and by an unfeigned repentance for what by humane frailty they have done amiss are made partakers of the benefits of Christs Sufferings by having fulfilled the Conditions of his Gospel So likewise in the other Marriage in St. Matthew it is said that when the King came in to see his guests he saw Ch. 22. 11. there a man which had not on a wedding garment and that indeed was no great wonder nor any such hainous fault if you take the words in the literal sense for it was not to be expected that the poor and the lame the halt and the blind should come all furnished with their wedding garments Wherefore the meaning is he did not come rightly prepared to the Participation of this Holy Table There is indeed one main difference between the Marriage Feast of the Lamb and that of the King's Son and that is this that of the first it is said blessed are they which are called to Rev. 19. 9. the marriage supper of the Lamb but of the latter many are called but few are chosen Matth. 22. 14. The reason of which difference is to be taken from the different perfection of the Feasts themselves the one being only a pledge or earnest an imperfect taste and relish of our future happiness which may be afterwards forfeited by sin or at that very instant become forfeit by the lazy indifference and indisposition by the ingratitude and unthankfulness or by the filth and impurity the naughtiness and uncleanness of a mans mind and will at the participation of this holy Feast but the other is the full and final and irreversible enjoyment of it To which purpose it is likewise that to the marriage of the Kings son the good and bad are equally admitted Matth. 22. 10. So those servants went out into the high ways and gathered together all as many as they found both bad and good and the wedding was furnished with guests The reason is because it is naturally impossible in this life in very many cases to distinguish the Saint from the Hypocrite a due preparation from an imperfect a sincere from a pretended and counterfeit repentance and he that does presume to approach this Holy Table without that awful preparation which becomes it he does it at his own peril and must expect to hear of it another day But in the marriage of the Lamb that is in the other world in that state which is not the trial of virtue but the reward of it none will be admitted but such as are in some sence or other perfect such as have at least a conditional and Evangelical though not an absolute and legal righteousness a perfection of true Faith and of sincere Repentance though not of universal and unsinning obedience such as have maintained a sharp conflict with their lusts and passions though they have not perfectly conquered and subdued them but to the rest it will be said as it was to him who had not on his wedding garment Friend how camest thou hither not having on thy wedding Matth. 22 12 13. garment bind him hand and foot take him away and cast him into utter darkness there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth To make an end of this comparison of Christ to the Paschal Lamb it is in allusion to this that John seeing Jesus Joh. 1. 29. coming unto him saith Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world as the Paschal Lambs by redeeming the first born may be said to have taken away the sins of the Israelites for by taking away sins nothing else is meant but remitting that punishment which was due to them otherwise a sin being once committed it is impossible it should ever be uncommitted again and so cannot be said to be taken away in any other sence but this and this the Paschal Lamb did by the Divine appointment the Israelites being otherwise as obnoxious to this or any other punishment as the Aegyptians themselves were though not for the very same sins for which Pharaoh and his subjects were yet for sin in general which no man but is more or less guilty of and which is enough to stand in need of a redemption And truly he that shall consider their repinings in the Wilderness and their murmurings in the Desart their disobedience to God and his servant Moses their relapses to Idolatry both in the Wilderness and after their want of an entire system of a law in Aegypt to be the rule of their lives and the perfect measure of their behaviour either towards God or Man lastly whoever shall reflect upon their gross ignorance in matters of a more speculative and refined nature their utter unfitness for all such Philosophical considerations as are the best preservatives against Idolatry will not think otherwise but that they had some tang of it from their converse in Aegypt especially considering that by such compliances as these some of their hard Taskmasters might be rendred less cruel to them perhaps their hankering so vehemently after the Garlick and Onions in Aegypt may well enough bear something of this sence for we know very well what veneration such trifles met with in those parts Porrum caepe nefas violare frangere morsu O sanctas gentes quibus haec nascuntur in hortis Numina Now if it be true that the Paschal Lamb was a type of Christ the Saviour and redeemer of mankind if it be likewise true that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is the marriage-Feast of the Lamb or somewhat more imperfectly the marriage-Feast of the Kings son that is of Christ to his Church there being nothing which either does or ought more closely to unite us to him than the observation of this blessed Banquet then is it plain that the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are not Transubstantiated either by any Priestly charms or by any Divine power into the very body and bloud of Christ himself otherwise the Bridegroom and his marriage-Feast will be the same and his guests instead of congratulating with him upon so happy an occasion will but devour him and eat him up playing the perfect Cannibals with their friend and benefactor which as I take it is an improper way of congratulation Again in the third Chapter of the Revelations at the 20. verse it is said Behold I stand at the door and knock if any man hear my voice and open the door I will come in to him and will sap with him and he with me Now in the first place it cannot be denied that these words have reference to the Church militant that is to the Church of God on this side Heaven For first it appears from the 14. verse of this Chapter that these words were spoken to the Angel of the Church of Laodicea which is also alike clear all the way from the 14. verse to the 19. and in that verse it is said which is my
Passeover for by both of these taken together our deliverance from the jaws of Death and Hell is completed and we are delivered from the bondage of corruption from the intolerable servitude of sin and Satan into the glorious liberty of the sons of God a deliverance of so high a nature that though we had not been commanded to commemorate it by our Saviour himself who with his own bloud purchased it for us yet mere gratitude and good nature nay common honesty and common sence themselves would have prompted all hearty Christians not to sit down contented with a bare narrative a cold story of such a redemption but they would certainly have found out some symbols the better to represent it as much as may be to our outward senses and fix it deeper in our minds according to that saying Segniùs irritant animas demissa per aures Quà m quae sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus And there could not possibly better symbols have been found out than those of eating Bread and drinking Wine by which both the manner of our Lords Passion by the rending of his Body and the spilling of his Bloud is signified and the union of the Church by the participation of the same Table which was always accounted a symbol of the strictest friendship and which was another end of this holy Feast was intended to be inviolably maintained and preserved And thus the feeding upon the Paschal Lamb under the law is more than answered by our spiritual feeding upon the Body of Christ that is by our being more than nourished by our being saved and Eternally made happy by the merit and satisfaction of his Death After this the same Objector goes on to raise difficulties not so much against the resemblance of the Paschal Lamb to the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross as against the Sacrament its self which bears an Analogy with the Paschal Feast he demands therefore how we can be said to eat the Body and drink the Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament whether it were that he cut off pieces of his own Flesh and gave them to eat or whether his Body was made up of nothing but Bread and Wine instead of Flesh and Bloud animated with a humane Soul and the matter out of which it was taken being more than would suffice to make an entire humane Body whether the remainders of it were not that which he gave to his Disciples saying This is my Body and This is my Bloud that is it is a part of that substance or it is a substance of the same nature with that of which my Body and Bloud are composed I am pretty sure I do not wrong the Objector he that has a mind to be better satisfied may read him in his own words in the Notes of Munster upon the 26. Chapter of S. Matthew which suppositions of his the more frivolous and impertinent they are the more clearly do they show that nothing can be so absurd which a man let alone to make use of his own faculties would not rather pitch upon than this mysterious Doctrine of Transubstantiation But he goes on further to object that Body which the Disciples are said to have eat and drank whither did it go did it go through certain private passages of its own or was it mixt in the stomach and Intestines with the rest of their usual diet Which I confess against the doctrine of Transubstantiation would be no very weak or impertinent objection for upon supposition that the Elements of Bread and Wine are really and substantially changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ which cannot now be distinguished from his glorified Body it being the same Body which was once crucified and is now glorified one of these Four things must of necessity follow Either we do not really receive it in the Sacrament but only seem to do it and so there is a double cheat put upon our senses or else it passes out by some hidden and peculiar passages of its own or else the person of Christ is really united to the person of every Communicant which union is as often multiplied as we receive the Sacrament a thing not only absurd but blasphemous to suppose or else lastly which I abhor to think it is as he expresses it Mehouraf bekeebah him shear haochel and passes out by the infamis ductus into the common slime and saburra of the world The wit of man cannot think of a fifth thing I am sure whereas all this is easily taken off by saying that the true Elements taken in the Lords Supper are only a remembrance of his meritorious Death and Passion and of that blessed Feast of Happiness and Joy which all good Christians will partake with him in the world to come Whither God of his infinite mercy bring us all by the merits and mediation of the same Jesus Christ our Lord to whom with the Father and the blessed Spirit be ascribed as is most due all honour glory and praise from this time forward and for evermore Amen THE END
for the sins of men who though he neither did nor could suffer above once yet is he virtually offered up by the merits and efficacy of his Passion every time we come to the participation of this Holy mystery behaving our selves in it like reverent and worthy partakers Lastly How is this the unleavened bread of Sincerity and Truth if it be no bread at all but a perfect cheat in the shape and appearance of it Does not that Religion think you give good encouragement to all manner of fraud and Imposture whose very basis and foundation is laid upon so great a juggle as this or what obligation can there be to believe and practice that doctrine which does so manifestly destroy its self by taking a way all safe appeal to our senses and consequently invalidating and diâ—annulling the evidence of all those miracles upon which its own authority is founded Thus I have in general considered the words I will be somewhat more particular if you please and I will begin again with the first particular Christ is our Passeover It is with respect to this that Isaac who was a type of Christ is prophetically called a Lamb though the business of the Paschal Lamb were not then known in the world Gen. 22. 7 8. And Isaac spake unto Abraham his Father and he said my Father and he said here am I my Son and he said behold the fire and the wood but where is the Lamb for a burnt offering and he said my Son God will provide himself a Lamb for a burnt-offering meaning his son Isaac whom he was about to sacrifice S. Peter also tells us that we are redeemed by the precious 1 Pet. 1. 18 19. bloud of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot alluding to that place in the Twelfth of Exodus Your Lamb shall be without blemish verse 5. In the fifty third of Isaiah at the seventh verse it is said of the Messias that he was brought as a Lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before his shearers was dumb and in the Eighth of the Acts at the thirty second verse the place is inverted He was led as a sheep to the slaughter and like a lamb dumb before his shearers In the Thirteenth of the Revelations at the Eighth with allusion to this Paschal Feast he is called the lamb slain from the foundation of the world and in the 19. Chapter at the Ninth verse we find mention of the marriage supper of the lamb by which marriage supper in that place is immediately understood the final completion and consummation of the happiness of Saints in Heaven by being perfectly freed and exempted from all the miseries of humane life and brought to a complete enjoyment of God and Christ in his glorified estate but it has also a respect to that marriage supper which is to be celebrated in this life that is the due and worthy participation Matth. 9. 15 c. of the body and bloud of Christ in the Holy Eucharist for Christ even with respect to the Church in this life is called the Bridegroom and every particular disciple is a child of the Bed-chamber and the Church in the general considered is his Spouse Now a man would think in all reason where there is a Bridegroom and a Spouse there must also be a wedding and a marriage Feast and accordingly we find both of these in the 22. Chapter of S. Matthews Gospel and in Verse 2. the 14. of S. Luke where the Kingdom of Heaven that Verse 16. is the gracious offers of blessedness and immortality by the Gospel is likened to a certain King which made a marriage for his son at the solemnity of which marriage a Feast is made to which many rich and noble guests such as were most suitable to the splendor of a Kingly entertainment are invited but they refusing to come that is in truth for this is at the bottom of the parable being prejudiced against the Gospel by reason of the seeming meanness of the first promulger of it and of its manifest contrariety to their worldly designs and Interests what was at first intended for magnificence is afterwards converted into charity and he sends his servants into the streets of the City to call in the poor and the maimed the halt and the blind by which is signified the mean and seemingly contemptible condition of the first Disciples and Apostles of Christianity Now as this marriage of the Kings son is really nothing else but the conversion of Jew and Gentile Greek and Barbarian bond and free to the faith of Christ and their admittance into the Church by Baptism so the marriage Feast or the more especial solemnities of this marriage together with that union of the Spouse to her Husband which is consequent thereupon are no where better set forth than in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ which is a thankful commemoration of that Passion by which this marriage is finally consummated and by which the children of adoption who are born under it and engrafted by the merits of it into that body of which Christ is the head are made heirs of grace and partakers of Eternal life So that this Feast in S. Luke differs only in degree from that in the Revelation the presence of Christ by his Grace and Spirit by the merits of his Passion and the power of his Intercession to every worthy Communicant at this blessed Table being only a pledge or earnest of those joys unspeakable and pleasures at the right hand of God where Christ himself is in the other World And this is all that can be understood to be included in the true notion of the Sacrament It is first a grateful commemoration of the sufferings of God for the sins of men which cannot possibly be unattended with sorrow for sin and resolutions of a new life neither can it when it is hearty and sincere be unassisted by the gracious encouragements of the Holy Spirit It is Secondly a pledge or earnest of our future happiness with the Saints in Heaven The first Notion of the Sacrament has been sufficiently proved already our Saviour himself if we will believe him and certainly he knew best what was his own meanning tells us plainly that he instituted this Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a remembrance of himself and Luk. 22. 19 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. Ib. ver 26. St. Paul likewise tells us that as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup we do shew forth the Lord's death till he come The second also has the very same Authority to vouch it Matth. 26. 29. I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when I drink it new with you that is when I drink it after a more excellent manner than you do now when I enjoy that Happiness that Infinite
Celebrated every year by the nation of the Jews was not to speak properly the true Passeover it self but only a commemoration of it Secondly That they may as well say that none other of the Jewish Sacrifices were Types of Christ though most certainly they were because of their often nay indeed much more frequent repetition than that of the Passeover And then Thirdly that we are to make an infinite distinction betwixt the Bloud of brute animals and the Bloud of God neither was it possible that one nay that one hundred thousand such Sacrifices an hundred thousand times told could worthily Typifâ—e and represent so great an Attonement A second Objection is this Your Lamb shall be without blemish a male of the first year Exod. 12. 5. whereas Jesus at his Crucifixion was three and thirty To which the Christian answers excellently well That the Lambs being but a year old was to Typifie the Innocence of Christ who was as free from all sin as a child of a year old or under for the place is not so to be understood as if the Lamb were precisely to be a year old neither more nor less but only that it was not to exceed that age and therefore as I remember the opinion of the Jewish Masters in this case is that every Lamb being furnished with those other qualifications above mentioned that is being a male and without blemish is fit for this purpose all the time from a moneth to a year old and it is certain that in all other Sacrifices such as were either in whole or in part to be consumed by fire upon the Altar as this was not only the bloud was sprinkled by the Priests and Fat cawl and kidneys were indeed burnt upon the Altar these two things being essential to all Sacrifices in general insomuch that even in the sin trespass offerings which by reason of Lâ—â— 7. 2 3 4. 7. 2â— 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Treatise of the Sacrament ad 〈◊〉 de Sacriâ—â—â—â—â—â— p. 47. their pollution were burnt without the Camp or else after much legal purification eaten by the Priests yet in these very offerings themselves the fat cawl and kidneys were consumed upon the Altar I say in all other Sacrifices whatsoever 〈◊〉 in the sin offering the Trespass-offering the Burnt-offâ—â—ing and the Peace offering of all kinds the rule was this Leâ— 22. 27. it shall be seven days under the dam and from the eighth and thenceforth it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And that this rule was extended to the Peace offering wherein the Priest and they by whom it was offered were to have their share so as God and they did in a manner all of them feed together at one common table as well as in other Sacrifices wherein either the Priest or people or both had no share is manifest from verse 29. of the same Chapter where Moses immediately speaks of the Sacrifice of Thanksgiving which was one sort of Peace-offering as if what had been said before had given occasion to it And when saith he ye will offer a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving unto the Lord offer it at your own will His third Objection or rather cavil is this That our Saviour was Crucified that is put to death by being nailed to the Cross whereas the Paschal Lamb was to be killed by cutting its throat as animals killed for food use to be But to this it is there answered and proved out of Scripture That the words Shachat and Tabach made use of in the Hebrew to denote the killing of the Passeover may sometimes be taken in a larger signification which evasion of his is also sufficiently justified by that place of the Author to the Hebrews where he compares the suffering of Christ in Heb. 13. 11 12. general without the gate to the burning of the sin-offering without the Camp which place will likewise furnish me with another answer and that is That Christ was not only a Passeover but also a sin-offering and so was to dye an accursed death and this punishment being to be inflicted by the Roman Authority the burning of his body being more honourable and in better esteem among them would not have answered to the sin-offering's being burnt without the gate but the best representation of it was Crucifixion which was the most servile and ignominious punishment in use among them and also by the Jews themselves who cryed so loudly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let Matth. 27. 22 23. him be crucified let him be crucified accounted and taken for such Wherefore this Objector betrayes himself extreamly when he tells us that whereas the Paschal Lamb Been hâ—harbaim Exod. 12. 6 was to be killed as the Hebrew phrase imports between the two Evenings yet Jesus Christ must needs have suffered in the morning Chi col dinei Iisrael ella beboker because all the punishments inflicted by the Jews were inflicted in the morning For besides that this exception it self is a manifest confession that he suffered some time or other of that day on which the Passeover was to be killed and not to mention that he forgets the History of those times by which it is plain that the power of life and death was for several years before in the hands of the Romans It is further clear that our Saviour was nailed to the Cross at the third hour that is at Nine in the morning though it is true indeed that he did not give up the Ghost till the ninth hour that is till three or between three and four in the afternoon and that is just been haharbaim between the two evenings being about the middle space betwixt the meridian and settingsun which was the very time when the Passeover ought to be killed according to the Law of Moses However let it be how it will when the same thing is Typified and shadowed out by several Types it is impossible it should exactly answer them all for that were to suppose the Types themselves to be all of them the same otherwise it is absurd to expect when they differ from one another that the Antitype should exactly correspond with them all To maintain the similitude between the Paschal Lamb and the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross it is enough to say That as the destroying Angel spared the first-born of the Israelites upon seeing the bloud of the Passeover sprinkled upon the posts and lentils of their several houses so God for the sake of Christ will pass over us and will not impute sin to us whereever he sees the bloud that is the Meritorious passion of his Son rightly applied by a hearty belief of the Gospel and by a conversation answerable to it and that as this preservation of the First-born by the bloud of the Paschal Lamb while the Aegyptians had nothing but the voice of mourning and lamentation in their streets was the last miracle wrought in the behalf of his people while they
continued in Aegypt accompanied with the last plague inflicted on the Aegyptians bating their being drowned and finally destroyed in the red Sea which red sea was likewise a Type of the bloud of Christ by which they who are not saved by making a right use of it will be more effectually and inexcusably condemned for having abused so great a mercy so the shedding of the Bloud of Christ upon the Cross is the last deliverance the last Atonement which God will afford his people it will likewise in the end prove the last plague of those who have not duly applyed it to themselves but living in a perpetual opposition to the Laws of God and the doctrine of the Gospel have slighted all the gracious offers of pardon and forgiveness and wilfully neglected so great Salvation And as the same red sea gave a safe and secure passage to the Israelites but executed the utmost of its rage and fury upon Pharaoh and all the Host of the Aegyptians so will the bloud of Christ give a safe and comfortable passage to all his hearty followers and disciples into the joys of Heaven while it will but serve more effectually to overwhelm and ruine the unbelieving world Again as that first Passeover of the destroying Angel passing by the habitations of the Israelites did but prepare the way for the second Passeover that is the passage of the Israelites through the red sea and wilderness into the land of Canaan so God's passing over us that is his pardoning and forgiving our sins and not imputing them to as many of us as heartily believe and obey the Gospel does but prepare the way through the wilderness and red sea all the troubles and difficulties of this life into the land of Canaan that is if we do not repine and murmur if we do not disbelieve his Word distrust his Providence and disobey his Laws as the Israelites did into the compleat and entire possession of Eternal happiness of which the land of Canaan was a Type Farther as the Paschal Lambs which the Jews fed upon for ever after neither were nor could be the same with those which were killed by the respective families the evening before the great deliverance of the first born but only a memorial a commemoration of them so neither is that Eucharistical Feast which we celebrate in the Christian Church a Feast upon the Body of Christ himself but only a memorial of our deliverance in by and through him and a Sanction of that Covenant which he hath purchased for us by his bloud Lastly as it was unlawful either to eat or drink the bloud of the Paschal Lamb so also it must needs be unlawful for us either to eat or drink the bloud of Christ for contraries cannot possibly be Types of contraries the bloud of the Paschal Lamb cannot possibly be a Type of the bloud of Christ if it be unlawful for us to feed upon the one and necessary to drink the other And this is enough to make out the resemblance between the Paschal Lamb and Christ and to shew that one was a Type of the other he that will have more than this before he will admit it to be a Type does not understand the nature of Types and Parables and Symbols nay not so much as of Metaphors in common discourse in which there is required no more than only some plain agreement in one or more particulars without any gross repugnancy or inconsistency in any But Jesus was at the same time our Paschal Lamb and our sin offering too wherefore being to fulfil two such different representations of himself under the Law it is not much to be wondered if the similitude do not hit in all points By being our Paschal Lamb he takes away the punishment of our sins which God passeth over and will not impute them to us by being our sin-offering he takes away the guilt of them too to as many as are sanctified by Faith in his bloud as the sin-offering under the Law did by the guilty persons laying their hands upon it truly and properly receive that guilt which was to be expiated by this way of atonement which by the way may be sufficient to shew us how bad Interpreters the Socinians are of the New Testament and how little they understand the nature of our Saviour's Sacrifice for sin when they deny him to have made a true and proper satisfaction to the justice of God for it for there can be no resemblance between him and the sin-offering but only in this particular for this reason it is that he is said to have born our sins in his own body on the tree to have been a Ransom for us to have been made sin for us who knew no sin and the like and from hence it was that Jesus that he might sanctifie the people with his own Bloud suffered Heb. 13. 12 without the gate as the sin-offering under the Law was to do without the Camp by reason of its uncleanness being polluted with the sins of those on whose behalf it was offered as the same inspired writer likewise takes notice in the same place for the bodies saith he of those beasts whose bloud is brought into the Sanctuary Heb. 13. 11 by the High Priest for sin are burnt without the Camp upon which account it was that if the bloud of these Sacrifices were brought into the Tabernacle to make reconciliation withal it was unlawful not only for God himself for that he never did in the sin trespass-offering but even for the Priests or any body else to partake of them to which the same Author in the same place manifestly alludes and brings the comparison home to the Sacrifice of Christ We have an Altar saith he whereof they have no right to eat that serve the Tabernacle for the bodies Heb. 13. 11 12. of those beasts whose bloud is brought into the Sanctuary by the Priest for sin are burnt without the Camp wherefore Jesus also that he might sanctifie the people with his own bloud suffered without the gate now it being unlawful for the people in all cases and for the Priest himself in this to partake of the sin offering and Christ being our sin-offering and having sanctified the people with his own bloud it is manifest that it must needs be unlawful for us to partake of this Sacrifice in that sence which the Papists would have that is we must not truly and properly eat his Body and so those words This is my Body must not be understood in the literal sence much less must we imagine that God will work miracles to contradict himself and his Apostles and destroy the nature of those Types by which the Sacrifice of his Son was signified under the Law But yet notwithstanding this nothing hinders but that we may celebrate an Eucharistical or a Mnemoneutical feast in both of these respects as well because he is our sin-offering as upon account of his being our