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 afarre that testified they had seene the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in its due time nay though they came toward the end of the Moneth {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} The Senate when they had used all meanes by affrighting them from that Testimony that so if it were possible they might decline a New Consecration after they had already made an Embolisme in the former Moneth if the Witnesses remained constant were then bound to alter the beginning of the Moneth 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 Moneth and so consequently about any of the other Feasts which did all depend on them viz. Betweene the true Time of the Moones {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} upon the thirtieth day and that of the Senates Decree a day after For since it appeares out of their owne Monuments how unwilling they were having once made a Consecration of the Neomenia to alter it againe 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 seemes 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 Moneth though it were certaine they were in the wrong yet all were bound to order their Feasts according to it Which I cannot thinke was approved of by our Saviour and the most pious Jewes And therefore I conceive it most probable that this was the very case betweene our Saviours Passeover and the Jewes 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 Jewes superstitiously observed the Pertinacious Decree of the Senate or Sanhedrin which was for the day after And now at last we are come againe to the Acme of the Question that was first propounded How our Saviours Passeover notwithstanding all this might be sacrificed the day before those of the other Jewes were To which I answer that upon this Ground not only our Saviour his Apostles but also divers others of the most religious Jewes kept the Passeover upon the fifteenth day from the true {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of the Moone and not from the Senates 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} a Tumult and contention amongst the Jewes about the Passeover and so we may easily perswade those other Evangelists that intimate Christs Passeover to have beene solemnized when many others kept it to agree with Saint Iohn who assures us that it was also by divers Jewes kept the day after Now it was a Custome among the Jewes in such doubtfull cases as these which oftentimes fell out to permit the Feasts to be solemnized or Passeovers killed on two severall dayes together Maymonides affirmeth that in the remoter parts of the Land of Israel they alway solemnized the Feast of the New-Moones two dayes together nay in Ierusalem it selfe where the Senate sate they kept the New-Moone of Tisri which was the beginning of the yeare twice lest they should be mistaken in it In the Talmud we have an instance of the Passeovers being kept two daies together because the New-Moone was doubtfull in Gemara Rosh Hashanah cap. 1. Hence the Karraites who still keepe the ancient custome of observing the Moones {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} retaine it as a Rule to this day {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Observare duos dies propter dubium Nay the Rabbinicall Jewes themselves since they have changed the Phasis for the Synod or Conjunction of the Moone in the middle motion in imitation hereof still observe to keepe the Passeover two dayes together iisdem ceremoniis as the learned Author of the Jewish Synagogue reports and Scaliger himselfe not onely of that but also of the other Feasts Iudaei 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 then 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 seeme all this while to Set up Fancies of our owne and then Sport with them We come now to Demonstrate and Evince that the Lords 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 dearely beloved flee from Idolatry 15. I speake as to wise men judge you what I say 16. The Cup of Blessing which we blesse is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ 18. Behold Israel after the flesh are not they which eare 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 drinke the Cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and the Table of Devils Where the Apostles Scope being to convince the Corinthians of the unlawfulnesse of Eating things Sacrificed to Idols He doth it in this manner Shewing that though an Idoll were truely Nothing and things Sacrificed to Idols were Physically Nothing as different from other Meates as it seemes they argued and Saint Paul confesses ver. 19. Yet Morally and Circumstantially to Eate 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 Crosse for us in the Lords Supper is a Reall Communication in his Death and Sacrifice ver. 16. The Cup of blessing which we blesse is
it not the Communion of the blood of Christ c. Secondly From another Parallel of the same Rite among the Jewes Where alwayes they that Eate 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 Eate 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 Eate the Body and Blood of Christ in the Lords Supper is to be made partaker of his Sacrifice offered up to God for us as to Eate of the Jewish Sacrifices under the Law was to partake in the Legall Sacrifices themselves So to Eate of things offered up in Sacrifice to Idols was to be made partakers of the Idoll-Sacrifices And therefore was unlawfull For the things which the Gentiles Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devils but Christs 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 drinke the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and the table of Devils S. Pauls 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 Jewes the Feasts upon the Legall Sacrifices were and among the Gentiles the Feasts upon the Idoll-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 Lords Supper We see then How that Theologicall Controversie which hath cost so many Disputes Whether the Lords Supper be a Sacrifice is already decided for it is not SACRIFICIUM but EPULUM EK {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 speakes PARTICIPATIO SACRIFICII Not the Offering of something up to God upon an Altar but the Eating of something which comes from Gods Altar and is set upon Our Tables Neither was it ever knowne amongst the Jewes or Heathens that those Tables upon which they did eate Their Sacrifices should be called by the Name of Altars Saint Paul speaking of the Feasts upon the Idoll-Sacrifices calls the places upon which they were eaten The Tables of Devils because the Devils meate was eaten on them not the Altars of Devils and yet doubtlesse he spake according to the true Propriety of speech and in those Technicall Words that were then in use amongst them And therefore keeping the same Analogy he must needes call the Communion Table by the name of the Lords Table i. e. The Table upon which Gods Meate 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 himselfe eates consuming the Sacrifices by his Holy Fire but when the same Meate is given from GOD unto Us to Eate of the relation being changed the place on which WE Eate is nothing but a Table And because it is not enough in any Discourse as Aristotle well observeth in his Ethicks to confute an Error unlesse we can also shew {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} The Cause of that Error Having thus Discovered The True Notion of the Lords Supper we may easily from hence discerne also How that mistake grew up and that by the Degeneration of this Truth There is a Sacrifice in the Lords Supper Symbolically but not there as Offered up to God but Feasted on by us and so not a Sacrifice but a Sacrificiall Feast Which beganne too soone to be misunderstood CHAP. VI I Should now come to make some further improvement of this Generall Notion of the Lords Supper By shewing what these Feasts upon the Sacrifices did signifie under the Law and then applying the same in a more perfect manner to the Lords Supper under the Gospell being warranted thereunto by that Analogy which is betweene 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 onely upon one which is not so vulgarly understood And it is this that The Eating of Gods Sacrifices was a FEDERALL RITE betweene God and those that offered them according to the Custome of the Ancients and especially in those Orientall Parts to Confirme 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 eate and drinke and rose up betimes in the morning and sware to one another When Laban made a Covenant with Iacob Gen. 21. ver. 44. Now therefore come saith Laban let us make a Covenant I and thou and let it be for a witnesse betweene me and thee Then it followes in the Text They tooke stones and made a heape and did eate there upon the heape and Laban called it JEGARSAHADUTHA in his Chalday Tongue but Iakob in the Hebrew Language GALEED i. e. A heape of witnesse Implying that those stones upon which they had eaten and drunke together should be a witnesse 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 eate there a little upon the heape for a Memoriall Because it was the manner of those that entred into Covenant to eate 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 custome amongst them that they which did eate 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 fulnesse of Bread i. e. We have made a Covenant with them Ioshua 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 tooke of their victuals and asked not counsell 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
A DISCOVRSE CONCERNING THE TRVE NOTION OF THE LORDS SVPPER By R. C. LONDON Printed for Richard Cotes 1642. The Chapters of the following TREATISE CHAP. I. THat it was a Custome among the Iewes and Heathens to Feast upon things Sacrificed and that the Custome of the Christians in Partaking of the Body and Bloud of Christ once Sacrificed upon the Crosse in The Lords Supper is Analogicall hereunto Page 3. CHAP. II. An Objection taken from the Passeover Answered Proved that The Passeover was a True Sacrifice and The Paschall-Feast a Feast upon a Sacrifice From Scripture and Iewish Authors pag. 16. CHAP. III. An Answer to some Objections against the Passeovers being a Sacrifice And the Controversie about the Day upon which the Iewes kept the Passeover about the time of Our Saviours 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 Lords Supper in the Christian Church in reference to the True Sacrifice of Christ is a Parallel to the Feasts upon Sacrifices both in the Iewish Religion and Heathenish Superstition pag. 52. CHAP. V. The Result of the former Discourse That the Lords Supper is not a Sacrifice but a Feast upon a Sacrifice pag. 54. CHAP. VI The further Improvement of that Generall Notion How The Lords Supper is a Federall Rite betweene God and us at large Concluded with a memorable Story out of Maymonides and Nachmanides pag. 56. THE TRVE NOTION OF THE LORDS SVPPER ALL great Errours have ever been intermingled with some Truth And indeed if Falshood should appeare alone unto the world in her owne true Shape and native Deformity she would be so blacke and horrid that no man would looke upon her and therefore she hath alwayes had an Art to wrap her selfe up in a Garment of Light by which meanes she passes freely disguised and undiscerned This was elegantly signified in the Fable thus Truth at first presented her selfe to the world and went about to seeke enter ainment but when she found none being of a Generous nature that loves not to obtrude her selfe 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 Falshood waiting by for such an opportunity snatch'd it up presently and ever since goes about disguised in Truths attire Pure Falshood is pure Non-Entity and could not subsist alone by it self wherfore it alway twines up together about some Truth {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as Athenagoras the Christian Philosopher speakes like an Ivy that growes upon some Wall twining her selfe into it with wanton and flattering embraces till it have at length destroyed and pul'd downe that which held it up There is alway some Truth which gives Being to every Errour Est quaedam Veritatis Anima quae Corpus omnium Errorum agitat informat There is ever some Soule of Truth which doth secretly Spirit and Enliven the dead and unweildy Lump of all Errours without which it could not move or stirre Though somtimes it would require a very curious Artist in the midst of all Errours Deformities to descry the defaced lineaments of that Truth which first it did resemble as Plutarch spake sometime of those Aegyptian Fables of Isis and Osiris that they had {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} certaine weake 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 thinke is the case of that Grand Errour of the Papists concerning the Lords Supper being a Sacrifice which perhaps at first did rise by Degeneration from a Primitive Truth whereof the very Obliquity of this Errour yet may beare some dark and obscure intimation Which wil best appear when we have first discovered the True Notion of the Lords Supper whence we shall be able at once to convince the Errour of this Popish Tenet and withall 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 Lords Supper in which we eate and drinke the Body and Bloud 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 Jewes 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 foure {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} The Burnt-offering the Sinne-offering the Trespasse-offering and the Peace-offering Yet perhaps I may make a more Notionall 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 eate of And these are subdivided into the Sinne-offerings and the Trespasse-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 signifie some speciall 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 eate 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 eate of the Sacrifices for them But in the Peace-offerings because such as brought them had no uncleannesse upon them Levit. 7. 20. and so were perfectly reconciled to God and in covenant with him therefore they were in their owne persons to
eate of those Sacrifices which they had offered unto God as a Federall Rite betweene God and them which we shall explaine 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 Wherfore we shall find in the Scripture that Eating of the Sacrifices is brought in continually as a Rite belonging to Sacrifice in generall Which we will now shew in divers instances Exod. 34. 15. God commands the Jewes 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 goe a whoring after their Gods and doe Sacrifice unto their Gods and one call thee and thou EATE of their Sacrifice Which indeed afterward came thus to passe Numb. 25. 2. They called the people to the Sacrifice of their Gods and the people did EATE and bow downe to their Gods or as it is cited in Psal. 106. they joyned themselves unto Baal-peor and ATE the Sacrifice of the dead When Iethro Mose's Father in Law came to him Exod. 18. 12. He tooke a Burnt-offering and Sacrifices for God and Aaron came and all the Elders of Israel TO EATE 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 joyned with Burnt-offerings So Exod. 31. When the Israelites worshipped the golden Calfe 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 kinne to one another And they rose up early in the morning and brought Burnt-offerings and offered Peace-offerings and the people SATE DOWNE TO EATE AND DRINKE 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 SATE DOWNE TO EATE AND DRINKE for this was no common Eating but the Eating of those Sacrifices which had beene offered up to the golden Calfe The first of Sam. 1. It is said of Elkanah that he went up out of his City yearely 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 Daughters PORTIONS and unto Hannah he gave a double PORTION that is Portions to eate of those Sacrifices that had been offered up to God as R. David Kimchy notes And in the eight Chapter of the same booke 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 soone say they as you come into the City you shall finde him before he goe up to the High-place TO EATE for the people will not EATE untill he come because he doth blesse the Sacrifice Where though the word Bamah properly signifie 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 rendred 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 generall Concomitants of one another So againe in the 16. Chap. Samuel went to Bethlehem to anoint David I am come saith he to sacrifice to the Lord sanctifie your selves and come with me to the Sacrifice but when he understood that Iesse's youngest sonne was absent he saith to Iesse Send and fetch him for we will not SIT DOWNE untill 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 EATE and DRINKE and cursed Abimelech that is they went into the house of their God to Sacrifice and did eate and drinke 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 worshiped him by this Federall Rite of eating of his Sacrifices of which more hereafter Thus likewise the Hebrew Scholiasts expound that in the 16. Chapter of the same Booke Verse 23. concerning the Philistims when they had put out Sampsons eyes They met together to offer a great Sacrifice unto Dagon their God and TO REIOYCE that is in Feasting upon the Sacrifices Hence it is that the Idolatry of the Jewes in worshipping other Gods is so often described synecdochically under the Notion of Feasting Isa. 56. 7. Upon a lofty and high mountaine hast thou SET THT BED and thither wentest thou up to offer Sacrifice for in those ancient times they were not wont to sit at feasts but lie downe on beds or couches Ezek. 23. You sent for men from farre Sabeans from the Wildernesse i. e. Idolatrous Priests from Arabia and loe they came for whom thou didst wash thy selfe and satest upon a stately BED with a TABLE prepared before thee Amos 2. verse 8. They laid themselves downe upon clothes laid to pledge by every Altar i. e. laid themselves downe to eate of the Sacrifice that was offered on the Altar And in Ezek. 18. 11. Eating upon the Mountaines seemes to be put for Sacrificing upon the Mountaines because it was a constant appendix to it He that hath not done any of these things but hath even EATEN upon the Mountaines {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. Hath worshipped Idols upon the Mountaines so the Targum renders it Lastly Saint Paul makes Eating of the Sacrifice a generall Appendix of the Altar Heb. 12. We have an Altar whereof they have no right TO EATE that serve the Tabernacle I will observe this one thing more because it is not commonly understood that all the while the Jewes were in the Wildernesse they were to Eare no meate at all at their private Tables but that whereof they had first sacrificed to God at the Tabernacle For this is clearely 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 Oxe within the Camp or without the Camp and bringeth it not to the door of the Tabernacle to offer an offering to the Lord bloud shall be imputed to him And so Nachmanides there glosses according to the mind of the Ancient Rabbines {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. Behold God commanded at first that all which the Israelites did Eate should be Peace-offerings Which command was afterward dispensed with when they came into the land and their dwellings were become
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 signifie that as men did use to make Covenants by Eating and Drinking together whâ—re Salt is a necessary Appendix so God by these Sacrifices and the Feasts upon them did Ratifie and Confirme his Covenant with those that did partake of them in as much as they did in a manner EATE and DRINKE 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 Owne Convivium in quo non est salitum non est convivium And therefore because Covenants and Reconciliations were made by Eating and Drinking where Salt was alwayes used Salt it selfe was accounted among the ancients AMICITIAE SYMBOLUM {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Sal Mensa was used proverbially among the Greekes to expresse 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 Symboll 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 Translatours read it thus Because we have maintenance from the Kings Palace But the words in the Chaldee runne 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 Kings â—alt that is because we have engaged our selves in a Covenant of Friendship to him by eating of his Meate therefore it is not meete for us to see the Kings 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 Federall Symboll had beene so often abused Nay hence there remaineth a Superstitious custome amongst us and other Nations to this day To count the Overturning of the Salt upon the Table Ominous as betiding some evill to him towards whom it fals Quia Sal amoris amicitiae Symbolum And by this time I thinke 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 Gods 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 testifie 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 Symboll of friendship which is the same with that reason given by God why he would alwayes 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 shewen And this Phrase being thus explained will clearely expound that other Phrase about which Criticks have laboured so much in vaine 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 alwayes a necessary Appendix Now therefore that we may returne As the Legall Sacrifices with the Feasts upon those Sacrifices were â—â—â—ERALL RITES betweene God and Men In like manner I say The Lords 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 betweene God and Men Where by Eating and Drinking at Gods owne Table and of his Meate we are taken into a sacred Covenant and inviolable League of friendship with him Which I will confirme from that fore-commended place whence I have already proved that the Lords Supper is A Feast upon Sacrifice For there the Apostle thus deliorts the Corinthians from Eating of the Feasts upon Idoll-Sacrifices which are a Parallel to the Feast upon the Christian Sacrifice in the Lords Supper Because this was to have Fellowship and Federall 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 FELLOVVSHIP or COMMUNION {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} with Devils Where the Comment of Saint Chrysostome 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 Symboll of friendship it must carry the same Notion betweene men and Devils in the Idoll-Feasts If therefore to Eate the Sacrifice of Devils be to have Federall Communion with those Devils to whom it was offered then to Eate of the Sacrifice of Christ once offered up to God in the Lords Supper is to have Federall Communion with God There is an excellent Story in Maimonides his Moreh Nevochim concerning an ancient custome of the Zabii Of Feasting together with their Gods in this Federall 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 accidentall Grounds because those Laws were not Primâ— but Secundae intentionis in God Multarum legum rationes causae saith he mihi innotuerunt ex cognitione fidei rituum cultus Zabierum By these Zabii he meanes the ancient Chaldeans the Word in the Originall Arabicke according to the Copy of Ioseph Scaliger being thus written {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} A Vento Apeliote sic dicti as he * observes quasi dicas Orientales And that Booke 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 abhorre 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 finde 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 then Maymonides for there was a great Controversie betweene 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 eate of that blood with them As being the Devils GUESTS and INVITED to EATE at the TABLE of Devils and so were JOYNED in Federall Society with them And by this kind of Communion with Devils they were able to Prophecy and foretell things to come FINIS In Orat. De Resurrect. Mort. Lib. De Iside Osiride Concerning the difference betweene these two see Petite in his Variae Lectiones See Casaub. Exercit Eccles. 16. 22. Of Saba see Salmasius in Plinianis Exercitat p. 497. 500. P. 129. a. Note that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Ilands of the Nations is commonly used in Scripture as a Proper Name to expresse Europe by Lib. 1. de Idol {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Object * See Cloppenburg in Scholâ— Sacrif. and of the right Notion of the word Sacrament Vossius in Thes. Theolog. * Of this vide Magistrorum Placita * Vide Claris Seldenum De Succes in Pontificat Hebraeo c. 2. de Succes ad Leges Heb. 1. c. 5. * Scalig. Elench Trihaer cap. 25. circa finem ltem in Emend Temp. De Cyclo Iudaeorum Karraim Hug. Grotius in Mat. 26. * In Annot. ad Matth. cap. 26. * Emend Temp. p. 149. 150. * Talmud Babyl in Rosh Hashanah Maimon in Kiddush Hachod In Panario Har. ll * In Epist. 62. ad Isacium Casaubonum
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 farre from thee then thou shalt kill of the Heard and of the Flock and thou shalt eate within thy gates whatsoever thy soule lusteth after Onely now there were instead thereof three constant and set times appointed in the yeare in which every male was to come up and See God at his Tabernacle and eate and drinke 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 joyning Feasting with Sacrificing and it will not be now amisse if we adde as a Mantissa to that discourse something of the custome of the Heathens also in the like kinde the rather because we may make some use of it afterward And it was so generall 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 Originall of it amongst them was so ancient that it is ascribed by their owne Authors to Prometheus as Salmasius in his Solino-Pliniane Exercitations notes Hunc Sacrificii morem à Prometheo originem duxisse volâ—nt quo partem hostiae in ignem conjicere soliti sunt partem ad suum victum abuti Which Prometheus although according to Eusebius his Chroniconâ— and our ordinary Chronologers his time would fall near about the 3028. year of the Iulian Period which was long after Noah Yet it is certaine that he lived farre sooner neare about Noahs time in that he is made to be the sonne of Iaphet which was Noahs sonne from whom the Europaeans descended Gen. 10. 5. called therefore by the Poet Iapeti Genus For there is no great heed to be given to the Chronology of Humane writers concerning this age of the world which Censorinus from Varro cals {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Although I rather subscribe to the judgement of the learned Vossius that this Prometheus was no other then Noah himselfe the Father of Iaphet and not his sonne because the other things doe 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 custome 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 immediatly after it In {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the same Agamemnon offers up an Oxe to Iupiter and inviteth divers of the Grecian Captaines 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 shoare In {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Alcinous offers up a Bullock unto Iupiter and then immediatly followes {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 Iamne exta cocta sunt quot agnis fecerat After this manner he in Virgils Eclogs invites his Friend Cum faciam vitula pro frugibus ipse venito And thus Evander entertaines 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 Goddesse Hecate that they which offered Sacrifice unto her did not partake of it And the same Author reports of Cataline and his Conspiratours {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that sacrificing a man they did all eate samewhat of the flesh using this Religious Rite as a Bond to confirme them together in their Treachery But Strabo tels 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 meane while that whilst they did eate of the Flesh their God which they worshipped had the Soule of the Sacrifice that was killed in honour to him The Authors owne words are these in his fifteenth Booke {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 Custome of the Heathens of Feasting upon Sacrifices arose that Famous Controversie among the Christians in the Primitive Times sometime disputed in the New Testament Whether it were lawfull {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} To eate 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 hapned 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 soone as they had sacrificed and feasted lying downe to sleepe in the same Temple they dyed 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 meate {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 Arabick {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 tels us {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Whence Petite in that excellent Collection of Attick Lawes inserted this for one viz. That they that
restrained to some one case or season Now these three kind of Peculiar Sacrifices were in their nature all neerest of kinne 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 onely 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 neere of kinne to it But yet these Masters tell us there were three precise differences betweene 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 no where commanded as in all the Peace-offerings Secondly that there was no Mincah or Meat-offering nor Libamen or Drink-offering to be joyned with it for so they use to include both in the word Nesachim Thirdly that there was no waving of the Brest Shoulder for the Priests Portion the reason wherof was because the Priests were bound alwayes to have Passeover-offerings of their owne as it is expressed Ezra 6. and so needed not any Wave-offering But that the Passeovers 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 Passeovers were alwayes brought to the Tabernacle or the Temple and there presented and offered up to God by the Priest as all Sacrifices were That the bloud 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 bloud and also that the Imurim as they call them that is the Fat and Kidnies were burnt upon the Altar All this I shall endeavour to demonstrate Onely first I must premise this that when I say the Passeover was brought to the Tabernacle and offered by the Priests I doe not meane that the Priests were alwayes bound to kill the Passeovers For I grant that the people were wont to kill their owne Passeovers and so I find it expressely 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 bloud Which Talmudicall Expression alludes to that place Exod. 12. 6. The whole assembly of the Congregation of Israel shall kill it in the Evening Where this seemes to be commanded by God And the Practice consonant hereunto I finde intimated at least in Scripture in Hezekiahs 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 cleane to sanctifie 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 sanctifie the Worke unto the Lord And R. D. Kimchy to the same purpose Though many of them did eate the Passeover in uncleannesse it being a case of necessity in that they had no time to purifie themselves yet for them to come into the Court and kill the Passeovers this was not needfull 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 thinke 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 owne Passeovers so we will affirme 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 Aarons sonnes shall take the bloud So concerning the Peace-offerings Chap. 3. HE shall lay his hand on the head of his offering and KILL it at the doore of the Tabernacle of the Congregation And concerning the Sinne-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 owne Authors are in Jewish Customes and Antiquities The Jewish Doctors and Antiquaries which are so much contemned by some of our Magisteriall 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 Aarons sons shal take the bloud The same is avouched againe afterward by the same Author in Maaseh Korban Chap. 5. But if any one would therefore faine know what were properly the Priests actions about the Sacrifice which might not be done lawfully by any stranger the same Jewish Authours 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 Priests 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 inwards the other Five were the Receiving of the blood in a Vessell the Sprinkling of it upon the Altar the Putting * 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