thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the calling of assemblies is rendered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great or high day which in other places is termed an holy convocation by which is meant the first and last day of the three great Feasts which were kept for seven days together in the first and last of which there was a more extraordinary concourse of the People and besides a Sabbath or day of Rest from all manner of secular imploiment which notion if Boâ—â—artus had understood so thoroughly as he should have done if he had known that the seventh day of a Feast was as well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a great or high day as the first though it was not equally so for by this time most of those that lived at any distance from Jerusalem were gon home he would not have uttered these words Quin apud Jadaeos nullum fuit Festum in quod non quadret hoc nomen that there was no Feast-day among the Jews which might not properly enough be called a great or high day for which he cites that Text of Joh. c. 7. v. 37. speaking of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the last day that great day of the Feast neither is this any more than what is usual in our own Age as Bochartus could not chuse but know for what day or night is so guilty of excess and riot as that which is the last of the Carnival in Popish Countries and here among our selves the Solemnities of Twelftide and Candlemass are in a manner equal to that of Christmass day Procopius himself whose Authority is produced by Bochartus may be sufficient to put him to silence his words are these expresly asserting a great or high day to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is every day which is termed an holy convocation as the first and seventh day of Vnleavened-bread the day of Pentecost the tenth day of the 〈◊〉 Tisri and in one word every more remarkable â—â— extraordinary Feast-day But you see he expresly tells â—â— as to the Feast of the Passover that onely the first and seventh were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great or high days â—â—â— the same is to be understood of the Feast of Pentecâ—â— or Weeks and of the Feast of Tabernacles for the latter of which we have the express Authority of Saint Joâ—â— it being absurd to call the seventh day of the Feast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great or high day of the feast if all the seven daies were so as well as that so that Bechartus his darling Testimony does sufficiently conâ—â—â—â— that opinion which he endeavours to establish upon it for that which he designs to prove is that the second day of Vnleavened bread upon the approach of which he supposes our Saviour to have suffered was a great or 〈◊〉 day which this Testimony will by no means doe nor that of Procopius neither Since therefore it is agreed â—â— all hands that our Saviour did not suffer upon the seventh day of Vnleavened-bread or upon the approach of it what can be more plain than that he underwent his Passion upon the approach of the Feast at that very time when the Paschal-lamb was to be slain and from hence it is though I did not intend to have betray'd that Secret now that Easter sunday by the ancient 〈◊〉 Church was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great or 〈◊〉 Sunday as I have seen it in their Liturgies both in Manuscript and printed For although the Tessarescaidecatitâ— so called from their following the Jewish account celebrated their Easter upon any day of the week indifferently as Eusebius Epiphanius Saint Austin Theodoret and Philastrius assure us yet it was the general way of the Church which we retain to celebrate it upon the Sunday after the anniversary of the Passion which being coincident with an ordinary or weekly commemoration of 〈◊〉 Resurrection which every Sunday is was called the 〈◊〉 or high Sunday as well because of the concurrence 〈◊〉 it were of two Holydaies in one as for that this being our Christian Passover it answers to the first day of Unleavened bread which was an Holy Convocation among the Jews The last place mentioned by Bochartus is Matt. 26. 5. But they said Not on the Feast day lest there be an uprore 〈◊〉 the people Which place to speak truly proves nothing either way For thus much is certain that the Jews were wont to put to death notorious Malefactours and such some of them looked upon our Saviour and others would have had him thought to be upon the Preparation of their solemn Feast-days when there was a general conslux of the People that so the Punishment might be of greater example but at this time because of the great reputation and esteem which our Blessed Lord had gained among the People it was resolved among the Chief-priests and Scribes that his Crucifixion should not be on the Feast-day lest the Concern of the People for him might occasion a Tumult but now it being clear that the Concourse would be in a manner equal either on the first day of Unleavened-bread or on the day before it when all that were to partake of the Passover were actually come to Jerusalem to prepare themselves in order to it we must refer it wholly to the Providence of God who put it into the hearts of the Chief-priests and Scribes upon occasion of Judas his betraying him to doe what they designed at a time when they did not design it that so he might approve himself to be Christ our Passover as Saint Paul calls him and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world in the Divine Decree but not to be brought actually to the Slaughter untill this fulness of time For this reason it was that not a bone of him was â—â—â—ken when the Theives who were crucify'd together with him not being yet actually dead were dispated this way because a bone of the Passover was not tâ— be broken for this reason he expired at the ninth hour that is about three in the afternoon the very time whâ—â— the Passover was to be killed for this reason he cameâ— Jerusalem as Bochartus himself ingeniously and learâ—ly observes upon the tenth of Nisan the time whâ— the Passovers according to the Law of Moses were 〈◊〉 be set by for Sacrifices on the fourteenth and for the same reason it was as the same Learned man conjectures that he began to preach in the thirtieth year of his age which being the perfect age of a man in his full strength and vigour answers to the Passover of a year old and â—â— continued preaching till his thirty fourth year where if you take years for daies in the Prophetick style 〈◊〉 entring upon his Preaching in his thirtieth year will 〈◊〉 as it were his setting apart in order to his being a Saâ—â—â—fice in the thirty fourth Lastly Our Saviour himself expresly saies Matt. 26. v. 2. Ye know that
the express command of Scripture And here before I pass by farther let me ask our dissenting Brethren one Question they in their Congregations are used to sing together the Psalms of David converted into English Rhimes some of them of one man's composing and some of another now though the words of the Psalms themselves especially as they are in the original were divinely inspired and therefore they may pretend though it be a Form yet it is not a Form of humane Institution yet the words of him that puts them into Meeter are not David's words any more than a Paraphrase and the Text are the same the same sense may be expressed in different words and those different words are so many different forms to them that reade them from whence it is manifest that they do not pray by David's Form which was inspired but by the Translator's which is of humane Institution and why then do they declaim so loudly against a Form of Prayer Why they will tell us the Scripture has no where enjoyned it but I have proved the contrary and they themselves confute their own Pretences by their Practice But suppose the Scripture did not enjoyn it what then if we must neither pray with a Form nor without unless the Scripture bid us doe one or the other then we must not pray at all for the Scripture does not any where command either of these unless it be in the use of the Lord's Prayer and yet at the same time enjoyns us to pray without ceasing But these Gentlemen if they were half so good Philosophers as they are bad Divines would have understood before now that all Prayer is a Form and that without a Form it is impossible to pray at all for the sense at the bottom of all Prayer is the same it is either a devout acknowledgment and admiration of the Divine Excellence and Perfection or it is a thanksgiving for his Mercies or an humbling our selves before him for our Sins or entring into new engagements and resolutions of a new Life by offering up the Sacrifice of a broken and a contrite Heart or lastly it is a deprecating those Judgments which hang over our heads for our Sins and an entreating his Goodness for those Blessings which the necessities of our nature or the circumstances of our fortune and condition do require and let these things be expressed with never so much variation of phrase yet it is not that variation in which the true nature of the Prayer consists but it is the sense which is at the bottom which is alwaies the same as a tune is the same though it be pricked down by never such variety of marks and a sentence the same express'd by several cyphers It is not the words that God regards but it is the inward Ardency and Devotion of the mind which may be the same with a Form as without it â—ay in trutâ— it may be greater with a Form than it can be without it because then he that officiates not being to seek for what he is to say and his fancie and invention not being perpetually upon the rack his mind is the more intent and fixt upon the Object of his Devotion and upon a sober and considerate reflexion upon those things which make up the entire theme and subject of his Prayer he is not apt to dishonour God nor to expose himself and Religion to contempt by rash and inconsiderate expressions uttered in the heat of a distempered and inconsiderate Zeal which we find by experience I speak without reflecting upon any particular person many of our non-conforming Brethren doe as well in their Prayers as Sermons for want of duly considering what they have to say before-hand which shows plainly what extream Presumption and â—olly they are guilty of when they pretend to utter such contemptible stuff by the assistence of the Spirit It is true indeed there was in the first ages of the Church such a thing as the Gift of utterance but it was when men of mean parts and education were sent forth to preach the Gospel by our Saviour himself who without this could not have delivered themselves as became the Embassadors of so great a King it was at a time when the World could not be converted without Miracles when the Fears of Death and Torments and Persecution would have put all their natural faculties to silence had they not been assisted and encouraged by an extraordinary influence of Divine Grace from above It was at a time when they were to be carry'd before Magistrates and Rulers to give an account of themselves and of that Gospel which they preached and then it was necessary indeed that a particular assistence of the Divine Spirit should overpower the fears of death and remove all apprehensions of danger out of their way and that the words which they were to speak should be given them and put into their mouths at that very instant lest otherwise for want of ability or courage they should expose and betray themselves and the Gospel But at this time of day there is no necessity of any such supernatural assistence and that it is not actually afforded appears partly from the experience which we have of those that pretend to it and partly from this that Saint Paul expresly tells us that the Gift of Prophecie of Tongues and of Knowledge were in time to fail and if they be not failed already as well as those other miraculous Powers of Healing Diseases and of Casting out Devils we have little or no reason to believe that ever they will besides that the Gift of Tongues being manifestly ceased and these three being mentioned together we have abundant reason to conclude that those of Prophecie and Knowledge are ceased together with it But after all we have no Promise in Scripture that God though by his Spirit he will furnish us with affection and zeal to the end of the World will ever put the very expressions into our mouths the Spirit it self helpeth our infirmities saith Saint Paul speaking of this very business of Prayer but it is not with a Gift of utterance but with Groans that cannot be uttered let our words be what they will so our hearts be but right God is well pleased Compositum jus fasque animo sanctosque recessus Mentis incoctum generoso pectus honesto Hoec cedo ut admoveam templis farre litabo It is true indeed such is the nature of style that the same sense clothed in different expressions shall either extort respect or laughter the reason is because all speech is either proper or metaphorical in proper speech where the words are the real and immediate marks of the things they express there we are affected with the sentence according to the opinion we have of those things which are contained under it but in metaphorical we are differently affected as the Metaphors are taken from things of a contemptible or a serious and usefull nature Now nothing
temporary Canon of the Council of Jerusalem must needs give very great offence and scandal to the Christians of those daies who did not understand so well as Saint Paul did that an Idol was nothing and that the consideration of the Food might well enough be prescinded from that of the Idol and that therefore it was lawfull for one who was well grounded in the reason of things and might doe it without offence to any weaker than himself to eat whatever was sold in the shambles From which last cited place of St. Paul we may observe a threefold difference in the practice of those times as to this Affair First There were some and they the most perfect Christians in which number St. Paul himself was who would make no scruple of eating the Idolathyta though they knew them to be such so they might doe it without scandal to others Secondly There were others who could not justifie to themselves the eating of such food but yet by Saint Paul's permission they would not be at the pains of a solicitous enquiry but suffering themselves to remain in ignorance would eat whatsoever was sold in the shambles asking no question for conscience sake Lastly There were a third sort more scrupulous than either of the former who thought themselves bound not to eat any manner of meat but what they were sure had not been sacrific'd to Idols and it is to these especially that Saint Paul's condescention is with abundance of equity and justice made because their scruple was founded not in a Circumstance or Ceremony onely but in a deep sense of Devotion and in a jealousie for the Honour of God and Religion The second Instance of this Tenderness of St. Paul's is taken from the Jewish Abstinence from things strangled and from bloud which was not onely strictly enjoyned by the Ceremonial law but also continued and confirmed by the same temporary Edict of the Jerusalem Synod and what hath been said of Abstaining from Bloud the same was true likewise of Circumcision which in some cases was dispensed with even after Conversion to Christianity this was the reason why Paul circumcised Timothy because of the Jews in the 16th of the Acts and it is his advice in the first to the Corinthians c. 7. v. 18. Is any man called being circumcised let him not become uncircumcised is any called in uncircumcision let him not be circumcised And then it follows For Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the Commandments of God What is meant in this place by becoming uncircumcised is needless to my purpose at present to examin and scarce consistent with Modesty to explain But that which is more pertinent to my design at present to take notice of is this that in both these instances of abstaining from Bloud and of Circumcision the case is far different from the scruples of our daies since it was not the squeamish aversation of a Ceremonie but an obstinate adherence to the Ceremonial Law on which those scruples were founded with which notwithstanding Saint Paul as it were on purpose to show how little an enemie he was to Ceremonies was pleased for the time to dispense although the retaining of those two Ceremonies in the Church pursued into those consequencies of which they were not sensible did in reality include in it a Denial of Christ and his Gospel For Circumcision what was it but the Seal of that particular Covenant which God had entred into with Abraham and his Posterity whereas now that enclosure was laid open and that partition wall was broken down the renting of the vail in sunder at the instant of our Saviour's Passion was to signifie the final abolition antiquation and repealment of the Abrahamitical Covenant and Mosaick Law the Holy of Holies was at that instant lay'd open whereinto not onely the High priest with Sacrifices once a year but all mankind by virtue of that great propitiatory Sacrifice which was at that time offered up upon the Cross without any other Sacrifice of their own than that of a broken spirit and a contrite heart might enter and be happy and there was now ratified a New and better Covenant established upon better Promises whereinto not the Jews onely but all men that would accept of the conditions of the Gospel of what sort or quality or Nation soever they were whether Jew or Gentile bond or free Greek or Barbarian had a free and welcome admittance and it was in this sense onely that the Promise was litterally fulfilled to Abraham that his seed should be as the stars of heaven and as the sands of the sea shore for number that is not the carnal but the spiritual seed which was much larger than the other Rom. 9. 6 7 8. For they are not all Israel which are of Israel Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called That is They which are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed And again Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise The Abstinence from Bloud though it be not so much a Jewish Institution but was as old as the Creation it self and continued all along in force till our Saviour's time yet then its obligation together with its reason was to cease the reason given in the Law which was the same before it being this that God had given it upon the Altar to be an attonement for the souls of men it is manifest therefore that when the Sacrifice and the Oblation ceased as they actually did upon the suffering of the Messias as to their efficacy and virtue and as the Prophet Daniel had long before expresly prophesied it should doe I say when the Sacrifices were no longer allowed in which this legal Abstinence was founded it is plain the Obligation to the Abstinence it self must cease together with it because sublatâ causâ tollitur effectus that Cause upon which Abstinence was enjoyned being now finally antiquated and abolish'd the Effect that Cause which was this Abstinence from Bloud must of necessity be supposed to be abrogated likewise But yet I know not how it came to pass not onely the converted Jews in the Apostolical times but the primitive Christians for many Ages together did generally abstain from Bloud and this Abstinence has not wanted very learned Assertors even in our daies Curcelleus has written a particular Diatriba or Dissertation De esu sanguinis wherein he defends this practice with what success I leave others to determin when they shall have considered what I have here said to which I will now adde to strengthen the Demonstration that that Text of Saint Paul's which I have already cited whatsoever is sold in the shambles that eat asking no question for conscience sake may as well refer and does as necessarily doe so
after two days is the feast of the Passover and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified because â—â— his Person and Sufferings at that time the meaning and intention of all the Paschal Sacrifices under the Law â—â—â— to be fulfilled Against so plain and so manifold evidence of Scripture to prove that our Saviour's Supper with his Disciples â—â—â— the night before the Passover of the Jews there are â—â— three Places that I know of produced in favour of â—â—â— contrary opinion which if they had been so well â—â—derstood as I hope they will be hereafter had insteâ—â— of confirming that opinion overthrown it The first is Matt. 26. v. 17. Now the first day of tâ—â— feast of unleavened-bread the disciples came to Jesus saâ—ing unto him Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover The second is Mark 14. 12. And the first day of unleavened-bread when they killed the Passover his disciples said unto him Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayst eat the Passover The third and last place is that of Luke 22. 7. Then came the day of unleavened bread when the Passover must be killed In which Places if those Learned men who have stood up in defence of the Latin Church had observed that upon this first day of Unleavened bread wherein the stress of their Argument lies the Passover was to be killed they would then have concluded that this first day could not be any of those seven mentioned in Exodus the first and last of which were to be an Holy Convocation For it was the day before the first of these that the Passover was to be killed that is to say about three of the clock in the afternoon upon the fourteenth of Nisan whereas the Feast upon the Paschal lamb was to begin upon the beginning of the fifteenth which was at six of the clock that evening Besides it is worth our while to observe the particular Phrases by which the two latter Evangelists St. Mark and St. Luke have expressed themselves in which they killed the Passover saith Saint Mark that is when it was the usual custom of the Jews to kill their Passover which was as I have said upon the fourteenth of Nisan which answers to part of our months of March and April but Saint Luke is still more express 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the Passover must be killed or as a man would express it in Latin quo die solenne erat ex proescripto Legis ex instituto Mosis ex Hebroeorum disciplina ex proecepto Dei ut mactaretur Pascha But then you will ask how it comes to pass that the Parasceve or Preparation to the Passover is called the first day of unleavened-bread to which I answer that first we may look upon it as a Roman way of speaking of which there are many in the New Testament as there must needs be in the Language of those times when Judoea was become a Roman Province and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in Latin Pridie calendarum is Primo die calendarum that is Primo die ante calendas But this though it cannot be deny'd by any that have a distinguishing palate in these matters to be a very plausible conjecture yet I must confess ingenuously I do not think it to be true and therefore I shall not stand upon it That which I take to be the very truth is this That upon this day the Unleavened-cakes were made and the Leaven purged out of all the Jewish houses in order to the Feast which is the present practice of the Jews as you may see in Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judaica and to both of these it is that Saint Paul alludes 1 Cor. c. 5. v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Purge out therefore the old leaven that ye may be a new lump as ye are unleavened Ludovicus Capellus in his Epicrisis against Cloppenburge somewhere observes that the Leaven is usually purged out of all the Jewish houses by one of the clock upon the day of the Preparation which is two hours before the Passover was to be killed and therefore that day wherein this was done might well enough be called by a Synecdoche of the part for the whole the first day of unleavened-bread not because any Unleavened bread was eaten that day but because upon that day it was made in order to the Feast and because after such a certain time there was no Leaven to be found to which purpose the words of Grotius upon Matt. 26. 17. are considerable Incipiebant autem Judoei locum in quo comesturi erant Pascha parare ab ea nocte quoe antecedit solem decimum quartum pars est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decimi quarti quod nunc etiam faciunt ejus proeparationis magna est pars anxia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad quam alludit Paulus 1 Cor. 5. 7. solicitè enim eâ nocte antemeridiano tempore sequenti inquirunt ecquid usquam fermentatum supersit etiam micas colligentes and upon this account it is that Josephus in the Third of his Antiquities speaking of the Feast of Unleavened-bread speaks of it in the most proper acceptation of those words for that Feast of seven daies continuance wherein there was no Leaven to be touched or eaten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the fifteenth of Nisan after the feast of the Passover follows the feast of Vnleavened-bread which continues for seven daies But in his Second Book speaking of the same Feast he saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We celebrate the feast of Vnleavened-bread for eight daies together In which last place it is manifest he must of necessity include the Preparation to the Feast as well as the Feast it self otherwise his eight days will want of their number Having thus vindicated these three Texts of the Evangelists Saint Matthew Mark and Luke from the false Interpretations which the Latin Church and their Defendours whether among themselves or of the Reformation have made and shown that these very places do equally conspire with the rest to overthrow the opinion of that infallible Dictatress the Church of Rome and of all that in this particular have taken her part I will now add one Text more to confirm what hath said and then consider very briefly the Exceptions that have been made or rather the Evasions that are made use of to justifie an indefensible cause The place is Matt. 26. 18. And he Jesus said Go into the city to such a man and say unto him The Master saith My time is at hand I will keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples Where the Reason given why he would needs keep the Passover at this man's house was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My time is at hand lest the Master of the house should wonder at his message when the time of the Passover was not yet
come And now having shewn so plain and so unanimous a consent of the Evangelists as to the time of our Saviour's last Supper I am not obliged to expose all the Evasions in which the Patrons of the Roman opinion take shelter yet that the thing may appear still more plain and that I may not seem to avoid any difficulty or any objection I will consider a little Bochartus his Evasions meddling with others onely so far as they are included in him or borrowed by him from them for Baronius and Toletus have already been considered by Isaac Casaubon in his Exercitations upon the Annals of the former and Cloppenburge has been taken to task by Lud. Capellus To the first place of Saint John he answers that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the feast is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the entrance upon the feast or in the beginning of it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a part of an Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a part of an House 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a part of the Tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a part of the Hair 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a part of the Forehead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a part of a City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a part of a Wall and the like But supposing there were such a word as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I believe it will be difficult to find yet I deny 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the same no more is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so in the rest of the Instances the Preposition with the Genitive case annext being manifestly of greater latitude of signification than any of the compound words It is true indeed that Greg. Nazianzen has somewhere put two such words together as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but then he understands it not of the beginning of a Feast but of the day before it which will not serve Bochartus his turn Dr. Lightfoot though with no better success has deny'd that which ought onely to be deny'd if any thing ought and that is that this Chapter of Saint John does any way concern our Saviour's last Supper with his Disciples But if you consider that this was that Supper from whence Judas went out to betray him that this was that Supper in which he preached Charity and mutual Condescention to his Disciples which he is found to doe likewise in Saint Luke's Gospel that the story of that Supper which Dr. Lightfoot refers to is manifestly contained in the twelfth Chapter of the same Gospel and that it is not likely we should have two several relations of the same Supper in two several Chapters immediately following one another Lastly If you consider that that expression which immediately follows those words now before the feast of the Passover viz. when Jesus knew that his hour was come when he should depart out of this world unto the Father having loved his own which were in the world he loved them unto the end cannot so properly be applied to any Supper as to his last you will then easily conclude with me and with Grotius who in this matter concurrs very strongly in opinion with me that it was indeed his last Supper and that it could be no other To that Text of the same Evangelist c. 18. v. 28. they themselves went not into the judgment-hall lest they should be defiled but that they might eat the Passover he answers after several others that by the Passover is meant the Chagigah or Peace offerings which were to be eaten together with the Unleavened-bread for all the seven daies of the Feast but to this it is enough to answer that this is by no means the most natural and easie sense and therefore when there are other places which in their most genuine and first acceptation do so unanimously conspire to prove the same truth That our Saviour kept his Passover the night before the Jews observed theirs it ought by no means to be allow'd but yet though I am not obliged to put the cause upon this Issue being supported by so many Authorities besides that of this Text if so much as one single place can be produced besides this which is in question and must not therefore be alledged to justifie it self where the word Pesach or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the singular number is used for the chagigah or Peace-offering of any of the seven daies of Unleavened-bread then I will be content to allow that Bochartus and those whom he follows in this particular are in the right notwithstanding that supposing the chagigah or Peace offering of the daies of Unleavened-bread to be understood in this place by the Passover yet this would have been no reason of their not entring into the judgment-hall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might not be defiled For in the first place there was not that Purity required to the feeding upon the chagigah which was requisite for the Passover it self and therefore though the first and last day of the seven were a Sabbath and an Holy Convocation yet the other five daies were not of a sabbatical nature as you may see plainly in Exodus where the Institution of this Solemnity is appointed sed ita erant Festi as Grotius expresseth it ut tamen essent ex aliqua sui parte 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were daies of a middle state and condition between the work of the week daies and the Rest of the Sabbath and if the later Jews have taken so solicitous a care by the Rubrick as I may call it of their Calendar to hinder the concourse of two Sabbaths together of which I shall speak more by and by much less can we think as indeed it is not possible to be done that either they or their Ancestours ever kept seven daies together with a sabbatical of observation But secondly it is agreed on all hands If our Saviour did not suffer upon the Passover it self yet that it was upon the first day of Unleavened-bread which being a Sabbath and kept among the Jews with all the religion and strictness that can be conceived it would have been no reason of their not entring into the judgment-hall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might eat the Chagigah but that they might not be defiled upon the first day of Unleavened-bread which was so sacred among the Jews that there needed no other reason to make them afraid of being defiled From all which it follows plainly that by the Passover in this place the Paschal-lamb in its utmost strictness and propriety of acceptation is to be understood To the Text of c. 19. v. 14. and it was the preparation of the Passover he answers that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the preparation the Friday in every week was ordinarily understood which I should readily have granted him though he had not confirmed it out of Beresith Rabba and the Arabian testimony of
Giauhari with which his admirable skill in Oriental Learning hath supply'd him but that the Passover if it happen'd to fall upon a Friday was ever called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is that which he and divers others contend for this is that which I deny because first it must be acknowledged to be precarious having no Authority of any Hebrew Calendar to vouch it in the second when the Friday is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is an elliptical way of speaking which must be supply'd thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if it be asked What is meant by those words the answer will be that It is the day before the Sabbath and so a man would think by the same way of construing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the day before the Passover and not the very day of the Passover it self but thirdly if the Jewish Calendar must be called in to determine this important Question which has exercised the wits of so many Learned men we may remember that in the sixth of Saint Luke's Gospel there is mention made of the second Sabbath after the first which in the Greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and which no question was a day of special remarke in the Calendar of those times and because it is very apposite to my purpose after the vain attempts of Scaliger Cloppenburge Capellus and Grotius I will now give a clear Explanation what is meant by it It is plain therefore that the Sabbath being a period or revolution of seven daies the first Sabbath of Nisan must of necessity fall upon one of the daies inclusively of seven and for the same reason the Passover being a Feast of seven daies it must alwaies have a Sabbath for one of the number which being either the Passover it self or one of the daies of Unleavened-bread it was for that reason of greater Solemnity because it was at once a commemoration of the Divine Rest after the Creation of the World and of his Goodness in their Deliverance out of the Land of Aegypt and it had besides the daily morning or evening Sacrifice the celebration of the Passover or the Chagigah into the bargain and this Sabbath is that which is properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second Sabbath after the first of Nisan which must of necessity fall either upon the Feast of the Passover it self supposing the first day of that month to fall upon the Sabbath or else upon one of the daies of Unleavened-bread Now if you consider how many places of Scripture there are which have been already produced which do manifestly savour its falling upon the Sabbath that year when our Saviour suffered upon the Cross if you consider what Solemnity the conjunction of the Sabbath would add to that of the Passover if you reflect upon this that no Execution could be done upon the Feast-day it self which was a Sabbath in which it was not lawfull to doe any Work Exod. 12. 16. or for the Bodies of men to remain or be upon the Cross Joh. 19. 31. and that upon the first day of Unleavened-bread in the morning they that lived at a distance from Jerusalem were used to repair to their respective homes Deut. 16. 7. because it not being without great detriment to their affairs that many of them were forced to repair from the uttermost parts of Judaea to Jerusalem while God by a Miracle preserved their Flocks and their Substance at home from the Incursion of the neighbour Nations Exodus c. 34. v. 24. who not being miraculously restrained would have made use of this occasion at once to enrich and revenge themselves for the Injuries they had received he was pleased upon so necessary an occassion to dispense so far with the fabbatical Rest as to suffer every man to depart to his own home upon the first day of Unleavened-bread notwithstanding it had in other respects all the solemnity and strictness of a Sabbath by which means it would have come to pass if our Saviour had been crucify'd upon that day that he would not have been slain by all the Congregation of Israel as the Law required the Paschal-lamb to be Lastly If you shall observe what in this case is very material to be considered that if our Saviour had not suffered upon the usual time when the Passover was to be considered that if our Saviour had not suffered upon the usual time when the Passover was to be killed that is to say upon the fourteenth of Nisan but upon the fifteenth or upon the first day of Unleavened-bread he would not in this have represented the Passover but the Chagigah or Peace-offering of the days of Unleavened-bread neither would he so fully have answered the Legal Types being no otherwise typify'd by the Chagigah than he was by all Sacrifices whatsoever which though they did all of them point at that great Sacrifice which was in the fulness of time to be offered up once for all yet the Passover and the Sin and Trespass-offering had some sort of preheminence above the rest in this umbratical designation as is manifest from his being called so frequently the Lamb and the Lamb of God and the Lamb without blemish and Christ our Passover and from his suffering without the Gate to answer the typical adumbration of the Sin offering which was for this reason burnt without the Camp certainly from all this you cannot chuse but see it absolutely necessary to confess that on the year of our Lord's Passion the first day of Unleavened-bread and the Sabbath were co incident with one another and that the Sabbatum Deuteroprotum was alwaies either upon the fifteenth of Nisan or else inclusively from that to the one and twentieth What the true meaning of this Sabbatum Deuteroprôtum or the second Sabbath after the first as we render it should be has been a Mystery which has been hid from Ages and which it is now my happiness for the better adjusting the true time of our Saviour's Passion and for the farther vindication of the Scripture History which receives at once light and credit by being solidly explained now first of all to discover Erasmus upon this occasion gives a pleasant Specimen of Monkish Ignorance and Saint Jerom so long ago have Learned men been ignorant of the true meaning of this passage in Saint Luke consulting Gregory Nazianzen upon this question was answered onely with a Jest instead of giving his opinion De vocis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interpretatione saith Grotius dici ferme potest quot capitatot sententioe Syrus Arabs Tanto quam nos sumus illi seculo loco propiores satis manifeste ostendunt se quid hoec vox velit ignorâsse and of this disagreement among the Ancients as to the meaning of this place you may see abundance more in Isaac Casaubon in his fourteenth Exercitation against Baronius Neither have any
of those modern Writers who have either occasionally or ex professo inquired into this matter succeeded any better than the Ancients have done Scaliger's conjecture though approved by Casaubon and other Learned men and of which he was very fond himself is yet upon account of the harshness of the composition which he being so good a Grammarian would have understood had it been any man's conjecture but his own and for other very good reasons rejected by Grotius and Ludovicus Capellus Scaliger's Conjecture is founded upon Levit. 23. 15 16. And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering seven sabbaths shall be compleat Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty daies and ye shall offer a new meat-offering unto the Lord. From whence he would needs have it that the Jews were used to count their Sabbaths to the Feast of Pentecost from the second day of Unleavened-bread after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. reckoning from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say the second day of unleavened-bread but then it should not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without an adjection would not nor ever did that can be proved signifie the second day of Unleavened-bread but as they say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in another place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the first day of unleavened-bread and the last day of the Feast so if they had a mind to be understood they must speak out as plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otherwise what second day or what second thing which might be any thing with a seminine gender was meant it would be impossible for any man to divine Thirdly In the place upon which this Conjecture is founded it is not from the second day but from the morrow mimacharath in the Hebrew and in the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that it is plain if they had followed either the original Hebrew or the Translation of the LXX with which they were better acquainted in those days and from whence they must have borrowed this way of numbering of their Sabbaths if any such thing had been they would not have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fourthly The Jews in this case did not count by Sabbaths but by days for though it be true what Moses saith that from the morrow after the Sabbath seven Sabbaths were to be compleat yet when he speaks of the way of counting these seven Sabbaths he saith v. 16. Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days and so the Jews at this day keep their account saying the first after Omer the second after Omer c. till they come to fifty daies as Grotius upon this place-hath-observed Fifthly and lastly which I believe has not yet been taken notice of by any other though it be plain demonstration against Joseph Scaliger's opinion he proceeds upon a mistaken notion of the word Sabbath which in this Text hath two significations but neither of them such as will serve his turn for when it is said from the morrow after the sabbath by the Sabbath is understood the first day of Unleavened-bread which was as hath been shewn of a sabbatical nature let it fall upon what day of the week it would and from hence they numbred seven Sabbaths that is not seven Saturdays or Jewish Seventh-daies but seven times seven daies so as if Scaliger's opinion be true and if the Sabbaths were to be counted after his manner then it would not be alwaies the Saturday or Jewish Sabbath on which the Sabbatum Deuteroprôtum would fall but upon any day of the week indifferently so as for example if the second day of Unleavened-bread were upon the Munday then the next Sabbath after it excluding that day that is the next sabbatical Period of seven daies would be upon the Tuesday come seven night and this according to Scaliger would be the Sabbatum Deuteroprôtum and the Wednesday come six Weeks after would be the day of Pentecost But now it is plain that in that Instance of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gospel of Saint Luke gives us it is to be understood of the Saturday or of the Jewish Sabbath properly and strictly so called for otherwise the Cavil of the Pharisees instead of deserving that solid and judicious answer which our Saviour gives to it would have been ridiculous and would have needed no answer at all since a Sabbath in the meaning and sense of that place from whence Scaliger borrows his Argument might have been understood of any day of the week let it be what it would and though there were no manner of Sanctity in it But if either Scaliger had he been living would have understood or if any now will needs understand for him the word Sabbath of seven revolutions of the Saturday or first day of the week and will have it that the day of Pentecost was the day after the seventh or last of these then let us suppose the Passover it self to be coincident with the Sabbath in which case the second day of Unleavened-bread will be upon our Sunday and upon the Munday come seven weeks the fifty daies will be compleat upon the Tuesday the first day of the Feast of Weeks or the first day of the Feast of Pentecost ought to fall but in regard there have not yet been seven revolutions of the Saturday come about we must stay yet five entire daies longer that is five and fifty daies and the first day of the Feast of Pentecost must alwaies happen upon our Sunday both of which since they are very absurd and contrary to the express words of the Law which reckons but fifty daies from the second day of Unleavened-bread let that day happen upon what day of the week it will it is manifest what is become of Scaliger's opinion of which as absurd as it is Grotius was pleased to say Sententia ista magnis argumentis à suo Authore desensa est that it was defended by its Authour by great and weighty arguments though for some reasons he thought it necessary to dissent from him and Casauben speaking of the same Conjecture saies Tantum dicam Certum atque indubitatum sententioe Scaligeri Fundamentum esse in verbis Mosis Lev. 23. 15. that is I will onely say this that Scaliger ' s opinion is grounded upon a certain and undoubted foundation of Levit. 23. 15. for we have seen how sandy and infirm and rotten that foundation is and how unable it is to support that little building of a very small conjecture how great soever in the opinion of its Authour which Scaliger would have built upon it Scaliger's pretended solution of this difficulty being thus confuted though in truth much the most ingenious and the nighest to truth of any which have been thought
be offered up at half an hour past seven or as we would say at half an hour past one and Epiphanius in his solution of the sabbatum deuteroprotum of which there hath been so much discourse already doth manifestly suppose the concurrence of two Sabbaths sometimes among the Jews and so doth S. Chrysostom and Isidore likewise which solutions of theirs though they have been already considered and exploded yet if no such concurrence had been ever known they had not onely been false in themselves but also built upon a false foundation The reason why these Learned men who have stood up in defence of the Talmudical Canons have made the difference between our Saviour's Supper and the Jews to arise from thence was this that so it might appear that our Saviour did celebrate his Passover upon the legal day whereas the Jews being governed rather by the Traditions of their Masters than by the Law of Moses to avoid the concurrence of two Sabbaths the Passover that year as they tell us happening upon the Friday transferred it to the next day and so made a coincidence of the Passover and Sabbath together but how indefensible this opinion is we have abundantly seen and I account my self not a little happy that after the gleanings of so many Learned men I have been able to confirm the truth by some new authorities not taken notice of by them The second Expedient thought of by Learned men for the solution of this Difficulty is this that both our Saviour and the Jews celebrated their Passover upon the legal time to the best of their understanding on both sides but that they onely differed in their way of computation our Saviour he went more exactly to work and computed his Passover from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or astronomical conjunction of the Sun and Moon while the Jews not being it seems so good Astronomers proceeded onely by the sensible phasis which was about a day after but to this though it may be sufficient to answer with Bochartus that all this is gratis dictum fine ullo teste vetustatis that it is spoken without any the least colour of authority to vouch it yet it is farther true that Maimonides does expresly affirm that it was a Tradition of Moses from Mount Sinai that they should compute their New-moons by the phasis and that as long as the Sanhedrin lasted and all the while the Doctours of the Mishna and the Gemara lived till the days of Abijah and Rabba they had no other way of computation and so it is also expresly asserted in that passage of Clemens Alexandrinus of which I have already made so much use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that the Jews never celebrate any of their feasts or solemn days but they compute them from the phasis of the moon The third Expedient is that of Ludovicus Capellus who pretends as I remember to solve the difficulty by the Embolism or Intercalation of a day at the end of the month foregoing which being observed by the Jews but not by our Saviour makes the Jewish Passover a day later than his but to this though we may answer as to the former that it is perfectly precarious it is onely faid and not proved yet there is one place of Scripture yet behind which will serve for a sufficient Confutation of all these three Expedients it is Joh. 13. 29. when Judas went out to betray his Master it is said of his fellow Disciples that some of them thought because Judas had the bag that Jesus had said unto him Buy those things that we have need of against the feast which Feast if it be meant of the Passover as it can be meant of no other then we have here an express Testimony of the Disciples themselves and certainly that is as good authority as can be produced that the Passover was not yet come For as for those that expound it of the Chagigah they do not consider that upon the first day of Unleavened-bread as this must be if it were not the day before it was unlawfull either to buy or sell But besides these three there has another way been thought of as insufficient in my opinion as any of the former and that is that as the Jews now a-days do use to keep the fifteenth and sixteenth of Nisan both of them with a Paschal solemnity that they may be sure to avoid a mistake as to the time of the conjunction of the two Heavenly bodies so from thence there are some that will needs infer that this was the ancient practice and at that rate that night when our Saviour supped with his Disciples was no less the Passover night than that which followed it But first it is to be considered that there is no testimony of antiquity that can be produced to prove that this was the ancient practice and therefore it is precarious Secondly The ancient Jews if they did practise it yet the practice of the modern can be no argument to prove it because what they doe is propter dubium conjunctionis luminarium as Scaliger observes whereas the Ancients went altogether by the Phasis Thirdly Maimonides observes that even in old time those Jews that were in captivity or lived in foreign Countries were used to observe two days together because they could not certainly tell what day the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem had consecrated for the New-moon But as this exception is an argument that it was not the general practice so the reason given of it proves that at Jerusalem this custome never obtained for there they could not be ignorant what day the Sanhedrin had pitched upon Fourthly When the Friday on which our Saviour suffered is called by Saint John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preparation of the Passover it is certain it could not be the Passover it self for the preparation was onely in order to it and was of necessity a day before it Fifthly The place of St. John which I have produced upon the former head is every whit as good an argument upon this for had that day upon which Judas went out to betray his Lord been a Passover as well as that which followed next after it certainly the Disciples could never have been so silly and so ignorant of their own customs and Nation and of the Law of Moses as to suspect he was gone to buy any sort of provision at a time when nothing could either be bought or sold Sixthly and lastly it is an unanswerable argument against this and all other ways of making our Saviour's Supper a properly Paschal or Sacrificial Feast that He himself was that Lamb of God whom all the mosaick Passovers represented and that he might unquestionably approve himself to be so and unexceptionably fulfill the legal Types it was necessary that he should suffer at the true time when the Passover was to be killed and therefore that true time could not possibly be come when he supped with his Disciples So