ever called by the name of Passeover There is another place in the same Evangelist that hath not beene observed by any one to this purpose which if it were rightly understood would be as cleare a Testimony as any of the rest And it is in the 19. Chapter v. 31. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} For that Sabbath day was a great Day {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the Greeke of the Hellenists is used for the first or the last day of every solemne Feast in which there was a Holy Convocation to the Lord This appeareth from Esay 1. 13. Your New-moones and Sabbaths the Calling of Assemblies which was the first and last day of the Feast I cannot away with Which the Septuagint renders thus {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Your New-moones and Sabbaths and your GREAT DAYES For the last day of the Feast we have it used by our Evangelist Chap. 7. ver. 37. In the last Day the GREAT DAY of the Feast {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} And doubtlesse by the same Evangelist for the First day of the Feast in this place and therefore the Jewes did not Eate their Passeover till the night before which was the same night that our Saviour was crucifyed Which may be strengthened further by this Argument That if the Jewes had celebrated their Passeover the same night which our Saviour did his it is certaine they would never have gone about immediately with swords and staves to have apprehended him and then have brought him to the High-Priests Hall and afterward have arraigned him at Pilates Judgement seate and lastly have crucified him all the same day For the Frist day of unleavened Bread was by the Law an Holy Convocation to the Lord on which it was not lawfull to doe any worke And we know the Jewes were rigid enough in observing these Legall Ceremonies If then it must be granted that our Saviour with his Disciples kept the Passeover the night before the vulgar Jewes did celebrate it Our next Worke is to shew how it might be probable that our Saviours Passeover was first Sacrificed at the Temple And here perhaps I might runne for shelter to that story in Suidas upon the Word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that Christ was enrolled into the number of the two and twenty Legall Priests that served at the Altar from the pretended Confession of an ancient Jew in Iustinians time and then he might possibly Sacrifice his owne Passeover at the Temple though the Jewes had not solemnized theirs till the day after But that I hold this to be a meere Fable and that not onely ridiculous but impious Or I might take up the opinion of the Greekes that Christ did not keepe a true Legall Passeover but a Feast of Unleavened Bread in Imitation of it Or as the learned Hugo * Grotius who hath lately asserted this opinion expresseth it not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} such as the Jewes at this day keene because the Temple being downe their Sacrifices are all ceased But this opinion hath beene exploded by most of our late Authours and indeed I can no way satisfie my selfe in it and therefore will not acquiesce in this answer But before we be able to give a true account of this Quaere We must search a little deeper into the true ground of this difference betweene our Saviours Passeover and the Jewes The common opinion is that the Jewes in our Saviours time were wont to translate their Festivals from one Feria to another upon severall occasions as when ever two Festivals were immediately to follow one another to joyne them into one and therefore when any fell upon the sixth Feria to put it over to the next Feria or the Sabbath to avoyd the concurrence of two Sabbaths together in the same manner as the Jewes use to do in their Calendar at this day where they have severall Rules to this purpose expressed by Abbreviatures thus Adu Badu Gahaz Zabad Agu Whereof each Letter is a Numerall for some Feria The Rule for the Passeover is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Badu that is that it should not be kept on the Second Fourth or Sixth Feria There is an Extract of a Rabbinicall Decree to this purpose under the name of R. Eliezer in Munster upon Matth. cap. 26. And therefore at this time when our Saviour was crucified the Passeover falling upon the sixth Feria or Friday was say they by the Jews translated according to this Rule to the next Feria and kept on Saturday or the Sabbath but our Saviour not regarding these Traditions observed that day precisely which was commanded in the Law {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Luk. 22. 7. that is as they expound it Upon which the Passeover OUGHT to have beene killed which was Friday the day before But under favour I conceive that all these Decrees together with that Ratiocinium or Calendar to which they doe belong were not then in use in our Saviours time although it be so confidently averred by the incomparable Ioseph Scaliger but long since invented by the Jewes Which I shall make appeare First in that the ancient Jewes about and since our Saviours time often solemnized as well the Passeovers as the other Feasts upon the Feria's next before and after the Sabbaths and those other Feria's which have beene made Rejectitious since by that Calendar In the Talmudicall Title Succoth Chap. the last we read of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that is A Feast going immediately before or following immediately after the Sabbath And in Betzah c. 1. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} And {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} A Feast that fals to be on the evening of the Sabbath or the day after the Sabbath In Chagigah the second Chapter {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which is to the same purpose with the former More particularly concerning the Passeover Pesachim chap. 7. Sect. 10. Ossa nervi omne residuum Agni Paschalis cremantor sexto decimo Si is dies SABBATUM decimo septimo From this and divers the like places of the Talmud Aben Ezra on Levit. 23. ver. 4. observes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} There be divers instances in the Misna and the Gemara of the Passeovers being kept in BADU That is on those dayes which were made Rejectitious in the late Calendar the Second Fourth and Sixth Feria Therefore these Translations were not in use when the Doctors of the Misna and Gemara lived Secondly In that the Jewes ever while the Temple stood observed their New-Moones and Feasts according to the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or Apparence of the Moone and therefore had no Calendar for their Rule to sanctify their Feasts by but they were then sanctifyed by the Heavens as the Misna speakes This is
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
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
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