Animadversions upon the doctrine of transubstantiation a sermon preached before the Right Honourable the lord mayor and the Court of Aldermen, Octob. XIX, 1679, at the Guild-Hall Chappel, London / by John Turner ...

A SERMON PREACHED Before the Lord MAYOR. 1 Cor. chap. 5. verſ. 7, 8. For even Chriſt our Paſſeover is Sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the Feaſt, not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedneſs, but with the unleavened bread of Sincerity and Truth.

FROM theſe words I deſign to ſpeak ſome little of that great deal, which may be urged againſt the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation; a doctrine which though weak and unable to ſupport its ſelf, yet it is of that conſequence to the whole Fabrick of the Romiſh Church, that if this be but once throughly defeated and expoſed, the other muſt of neceſſity fall together with it.

Wherefore as this Doctrine unable to maintain its ſelf, upon any bottom or foundation of its own, flies for refuge to a vain pretence of an infallible Spirit, that is, of the Spirit of God; ſo if it be but once granted, that this Spirit cannot contradict its ſelf, or act inconſiſtently to its own declared revelations, and then ſolidly proved, that the revealed will of God in the Scriptures of the New Teſtament, do plainly and directly oppoſe and condemn this Doctrine, then is it manifeſt that the Catholick Church, as they call themſelves, that is, the Biſhop of Rome and his followers, are not only fallible, but actually deceived, in their main Article of Faith, and in one of the moſt eminent marks of diſtinction betwixt thoſe of That and the Reformed Communion.

So that to overthrow this Doctrine by unqueſtionable ſtrength of Reaſon, and by plain and undeniable teſtimony of Scripture, is in effect to do by the Religion of Rome, as ſhe would have done by the perſons of all that are not of the ſame grain and tincture with her ſelf, to cut it off and utterly deſtroy it at a blow. Not that we are to expect that Faction, or Prejudice, or Intereſt will ever be diſputed out of an opinion; this perhaps will never wholly be brought to paſs, ſo long as there are either diverſe men, or diverſity of Opinions and Intereſts in the World: but I ſay if men would act according to the true dictates of natural conſcience and reaſon, then if it be acknowledged on both hands, that the Scriptures are infallible and divinely inſpired; and if it be equally clear, that the truth of the Scriptures cannot poſſibly conſiſt with that of the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation; then, if men will not give themſelves over to all manner of Impoſture and deluſion, without meaſure and without end, they muſt of neceſſity diſclaim that doctrine as an error, which is ſo far from being defended, that it is manifeſtly and ſtrongly oppoſed by the confeſſedly infallible Authority of Scripture.

And becauſe both parts of a contradiction cannot poſſibly be infallibly true, but the one muſt of neceſſity be infallibly true, the other infallibly falſe; there is nothing more plain, than that, if they acknowledge the truth of the Scriptures, they muſt at the ſame time unavoidably renounce the pretended infallibility of the Church of Rome, and conſequently the Church its ſelf, the certainty of whoſe Faith and Doctrine is built upon this rotten and ſandy foundation; and which by conſequence may under this falſe, though ſpecious pretence, lead us into innumerable errors and miſtakes, and that in matters as well of Practice as Belief: for when things come to be throughly examined, it will be difficult to ſet bounds to this infallible Spirit, ſo as to draw a line where infallibility borders upon the poſſibilities of error, or upon downright miſtake, and to ſay, thus far ſhalt thou go and no farther.

In the words therefore lately read to you, there are two things worthy of your ſpecial notice; Firſt, That Chriſt is our Paſſeover. Secondly, that we are to keep the Feaſt in memory of this Paſſeover, as the Jewiſh Feaſt was a memorialExod. 12. 14. of the Jewiſh Paſſeover, with the unleavened bread of Sincerity and Truth. 1. Chriſt is our Paſſeover, that is, he is the ſame thing to all mankind, but in a more eminent and tranſcendent manner, which the Jewiſh Paſſeover was to the Jews, only with this difference, that whereas the ſolemnity of the Paſſeover among the Jews was to be repeated every year at the ſtated and uſual time, that isSee Numb: 9. 5 collar. cum v. 9. 10. & 2 Chron 30. 13. to ſay, on the Fourteenth day of the firſt, or in ſome caſes of the ſecond Moneth, Chriſt who was typified by it, was to be but once offered to bear the ſins of many, Heb. 9. 28. And we are ſanctified through the offering of the body of Jeſus Chriſt once for all, Heb. 10. 10.

Wherefore if the eating the Body of Chriſt in the Sacrament, and the drinking of his Bloud, which is the effuſion of it, be a renewal of his Paſſion, a ſacrificing of and a feeding upon the Paſſeover afreſh, then I affirm that no ſuch thing is done, or at leaſt we muſt be reduced to this Dilemma, Either the Scriptures are not true, or the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation is falſe. Now whether the determination of the Author to the Hebrews, that is, of an inſpired writer, that is, in effect of God himſelf, and of S. Peter in his firſt Epiſtle, Chap. 3. ver. 18. where he tells us, that Chriſt hath once ſuffered for ſins, the juſt for the unjuſt; and a man would think, he was every whit as infallible as any of his pretended ſucceſſors; I ſay, which of theſe is moſt to be believed and ſtood to, judge ye; nay, let our Adverſaries themſelves be judges.

Again, Chriſt being our Paſſeover, was for this veryDeut. 16. 2, 5, 6, 7. reaſon among others offered up at Jeruſalem, becauſe it was unlawful to kill the Paſſeover at any other place, after ſuch time as the Temple was built.

Thus thoſe three great and ſolemn Paſſeovers which we read of in the times of Hezekiah, Jeſiah, and Ezra were2 Chron. 30. 2. 2 Kings 23. 23. Ezra 6. 19 Luk. 2. 41. every one of them celebrated at Jeruſalem; and it is ſaid of Joſeph and the bleſſed Virgin the Mother of our Lord, that they went to Jeruſalem every year at the Feaſt of the Paſſeover.

Now if Chriſt ſuffered at Jeruſalem, becauſe the Paſſeover was to be killed there, if Chriſt be our Paſſeover, and if the Paſſeover could not be ſacrificed any where elſe, nay, if it cannot now be offered at Jeruſalem its ſelf, becauſe the City and Temple are demoliſhed, becauſe God hath taken his name from thence, becauſe inſtead of being the Metropolis of true Religion, it is now the ſeat of the groſſeſt Idolatry and Superſtition, becauſe the law of Moſes is aboliſhed, becauſe the meaning and intention of the Paſſeover is completed; if all theſe things be true, as moſt certainly they are, then is it plain, that if Chriſt be corporeally and ſubſtantially preſent in the Sacrament, if his Body and Bloud be truly and properly eaten and drunk by us, yet he is not preſent, neither do we feed upon him as our Paſſeover.

Wherefore it is clear, that either Chriſt hath ceaſed to be our Paſſeover, and then it will be more eaſie than pleaſant to pronounce what will become of us, we are all in a very miſerable condition; or elſe it is not lawful to feed upon him, ſince the Paſſeover cannot now be eaten in any part of the world: and therefore we may aſſure our ſelves from this, (as well as from what has been ſaid above that he could be offered up but once) that we neither do nor ought to feed upon him, if we will follow his own Inſtitution; and why he ſhould enable any Romiſh Prieſt to work a Miracle, ſuch a ſtrange Miracle as this of Tranſubſtantiation, in contradiction both to the Law and Goſpel, is a moſt Prodigiouſly ſtrange and unaccountable thing. I am confident it will puzle the Ableſt perſon of Their Church to give a Tolerable account of this.

Laſtly, Chriſt is our Paſſeover, therefore it is unlawful to Drink his Bloud, for the bloud of the Paſſeover as of other Sacrifices, could not by the Law of Moſes be either Eaten or Drunk, therefore we may boldly affirm that the Prieſt when he pronounces thoſe words, This is my bloud, or This is my bloud of the New Teſtament, does not by this means Tranſubſtantiate the Wine into it, therefore neither is the Bread changed into the Body of Chriſt, by his ſaying this is my body; for the caſe is the ſame in both, and it is altogether incredible that ſuch a wonderful power ſhould accompany thoſe words, This is my Body, when thoſe other, This is my Bloud, which one would imagine in all reaſon, ſhould be conſidered, by themſelves, of equal force and validity with the former, have no ſuch virtue or efficacy at all.

I take the confidence to affirm that all this is abſolute, irreſiſtible demonſtration, if there be ſuch a thing as Demonſtration in the world; for Chriſt was not truely and literally a Paſchal Lamb, no, he was a man born of a woman as we are, though after a more divine and heavenly manner, by the Overſhadowing of the Holy Ghoſt in the Womb of the Bleſſed Virgin; but he is called our Paſſeover, only in reſpect of the Likeneſs or Analogy, which there was betwixt his Sacrifice of himſelf upon the Croſs, and the Sacrifice of the Paſchal Lamb under the Law.

Now I beſeech you, where is the Analogy, if thoſe Paſchal Lambs, whoſe bloud was firſt ſprinkled in that great deliverance upon the Poſts and Lentils of the Jewiſh houſes, could be but once Offered, and all ſucceeding Paſchatizations, were nothing elſe but Thankful acknowledgements and commemorations of this, while all this while the ſame, the very ſelf ſame Chriſt, may be offered every day in the Year, and every hour in the day, as often as ever we Receive the Sacrament, and as many times told, almoſt at the very ſame inſtant, as there are people that receive it?

Where is the Analogy, if the Moſaical Paſſeover could be Offered no where but at Jeruſalem, and cannot be Offered ſo much as there any more, if one and the ſame Chriſt at the very ſame inſtant may be Offered in all parts of the world, and all this as many times repeated, as there are days and hours, nay, moments, the moſt incredibly ſmall parts, the moſt exquiſite ſubdiviſions, and, as it were, Atoms of time, from the firſt Inſtitution of the Sacrament to the end of the world?

Laſtly, Where is the Analogy, if the Bloud of the Paſchal Lamb were moſt ſtrictly prohibited to be either Drunk or Eaten, and yet there is a neceſſity of drinking the Bloud of Chriſt? An Imputation which the Prieſt with all his Artifice and Sophiſtry cannot poſſibly avoid, and the people alſo are affirmed to do it Collectively, though they do not take the Elements in ſunder: and certainly this, if it be not Eating and Drinking bloud, yet it is at leaſt Eating with the bloud, which was as much unlawful as the other, and this was the ſin of the Iſraelites in the 14th. Chapter of the firſt book of Samuel, which I have formerly cited in what I have ſaid elſewhere upon this ſubject.

So that it is manifeſt a man muſt have the impudence to contradict plain Texts of Scripture, as well as common ſenſe, he muſt deſtroy the Analogy of Types to their Antitypes, of Symbols to their Subſtance, as well as the Agreement and Connection of things with one another, before he can aſſert the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, to be a True doctrine.

And I doubt it is not worth our while to go thus far about, this is more coſt than worſhip; certainly 'tis a very hard bargain, for a man to relinquiſh common ſenſe, to abandon his Reaſon, to bid adieu to Revelation, and ſtop his ears againſt the Voice of Heaven, purely for the ſake of Unintelligible Non▪ſenſe. Let any thing but the crafty impudence of a Romiſh Prieſt expoſe ſo hard a penny-worth as this to ſale, and he may count the Stars of Heaven, the Sands of the Sea-ſhore, and the minutes of Eternity quite over, before he get a Chapman.

This is the firſt thing, Chriſt is our Paſſeover: but then ſecondly, we are to keep the Feaſt in memory of this Paſſeover with the Unleavened Bread of Sincerity and Truth.

It is Grotius his obſervation out of Servius, Flamines Farinam fermentatam contingere non lic • bat, nimirum, ſayes he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſignificationem habent puritatis & animi ſub • iſſi; which is a very good reaſon and is ſufficiently confirmed by Teſtimony of Scripture: from whence it plainly appears, that Leaven was anciently looked upon as a Symbol of every thing which was bad, but more eſpecially of Pride, which is a certain Leaven or puff paſt of the mind; and the contrary to this, that is, Unleavened bread, was a Symbol of every thing which was good and virtuous, but more eſpecially of Humility and Sincerity of mind. Thus you ſee in the Words of my Text, we are bid to keep the Feaſt not with the Old Leaven, neither with the Leaven of malice and wickedneſs, but with the Unleavened Bread of Sincerity and Truth.

Thus our Saviour forewarned his Diſciples to beware of the leaven of the Phariſees and Sadducees, Matth. 16. 6. which in the twelfth verſe is expounded of their doctrines; and the reaſon why falſe doctrines are called by the name of Leaven, is becauſe they are naturally corruptive of the mind, and fill it commonly as full of Pride as Error, neither is there any man for the moſt part ſo poſitive, ſo ſeemingly infallible, ſo full of arrogance and ſelf▪ conceit, ſo great an admirer of himſelf and his own ſect or party, and ſo great a deſpiſer of all other men beſides, as he that labours under a religious miſtake, he that conſecrates error by making it an Article of his Creed, and upholds, by the ſtrength of Impudence and the ſtrength of a ſtrang • • nd of obſtinate Faith, the diſcriminative non-ſence 〈…〉 rty which cannot be defended by the ſtrength of Rea 〈…〉

But if a falſe doctrine, which is commonly 〈◊〉 more than a miſtake in the greateſt part of them that e •• race it, though it may be, and is uſually Knavery in their Teachers, if this be called by the name of Leaven, then certainly a bad life and a vicious practice ought much more to be branded with this hateful name: From whence • t is, that in the Twelfth Chapter of S. Lukes Goſpel, at the firſt Verſe, our Saviour bids his diſciples beware of the leaven of the Phariſees, which is Hypocriſie; and in this very Chapter from whence the Text is taken, Fornication, Pride, Idolatry, Covetouſneſs, Extortion▪ and in a word, every thing almoſt that is but bad, are manifeſtly compared to Leaven; and it is of all theſe as well as of that glorying which is not good, that the Apoſtle ſays, Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are, unleavened.

He ſpeaks chiefly of one of the Church of Corinth, who had taken to himſelf his Fathers wife, and conſequently was guilty of ſuch Fornication, as was not ſo much as to be named amongſt the Gentiles, for fear of giving occaſion of ſcandal to the Goſpel of Chriſt: He exhorts them with great earneſtneſs to deliver ſuch an one unto Satan, to the deſtruction of the fleſh, that the Spirit might be ſaved in the day of the Lord Jeſus; and the reaſon he gives, why he would have this done, is taken from the neceſſity of it, Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, that is, a wicked man in a Party or Society is the ſame thing as Leaven in the kneaded lump, they both communicate their own bad qualities to the whole maſſe; and the whole Society is in equal danger of being infected by the pernicious example of a bad man, as the whole lump of being ſeaſoned by a ſmall quantity of leaven. Wherefore leaven has a double ſymbolical meaning. Firſt, it is a ſymbol of ſpreading and propagation: Secondly, it is a ſymbol of wickedneſs, and of every naughty habit of the mind.

In the firſt reſpect, the Kingdom of Heaven, that is▪ the miraculouſly ſtrange propagation of the Goſpel ofMatth. 13. 3 • , 32, 33. Mark 4. 31, 32. Luke 13. 18 ad 21. Chriſt, notwithſtanding all the oppoſition of its profeſſed enemies is likened to Leaven, and a grain of Muſtardſeed by our Saviour himſelf; and upon account of both theſe reſpects taken together it was, that Leaven was in all kind of ſacrifices whatſoever forbidden, Levit. 2. 11. no meat-offeringS • e alſo Exod. • 4. 25. & Levit. 6. 17. which ye ſhall bring unto the Lord ſhall be made with Leaven; for ye ſhall burn no Leaven nor any Hony in any offering of the Lord made by fire; and offering a ſacrifice of thankſgiving with Leaven is mentioned by the Prophet Amos as one of the higheſt inſtances of the Jewiſh Amos 4. 5. abominations.

Ye ſhall burn no Leaven nor any Hony in any offering of the Lord made by fire; what was the reaſon of this? why, the reaſon is plain, becauſe the fire would agitate and provoke the fermenting nature of the Leaven and Hony, and by that means render them more effectual ſymbols of thoſe bad habits and qualifications of mind, which the Jews by this prohibition were ſymbolically commanded to avoid.

Let us keep the Feaſt with the unleavened bread of Sincerity and Truth.

From theſe words we may obſerve theſe three things. Firſt, it is manifeſt that this was a real Feaſt, and therefore could not be kept with Metaphors and Allegories; now the only thing here mentioned with which we are to keep it, is unleavened bread, which was as has been ſhown, a ſymbol of Sincerity and Truth: ſo that to keep the Feaſt after this manner, was in effect to enter upon new reſolutions of a Holy and Virtuous life.

Secondly, This Feaſt is the Feaſt of Chriſt our Paſſeover, therefore there is no doubt at all, but there is here a plain alluſion made to that unleavened bread, which was made uſe of at the ſolemnity of the Paſſeover and other Sacrifices; but this bread was not the very Paſchal Lamb which was offered up for ſacrifice, and to which it was annext; therefore neither is this bread the ſame thing in its ſelf, or by any means changed into it, with that ſacrifice of Chriſt, by which he offered up himſelf for the ſins of men; who though he neither did nor could ſuffer above once, yet is he virtually offered up by the merits and efficacy of his Paſſion, every time we come to the participation of this Holy myſtery, behaving our ſelves in it like reverent and worthy partakers.

Laſtly, How is this the unleavened bread of Sincerity and Truth, if it be no bread at all, but a perfect cheat in the ſhape and appearance of it? Does not that Religion, think you, give good encouragement to all manner of fraud and Impoſture, whoſe very baſis and foundation is laid upon ſo great a juggle as this? or what obligation can there be to believe and practice that doctrine, which does ſo manifeſtly deſtroy its ſelf, by taking a way all ſafe appeal to our ſenſes, and conſequently invalidating and di • annulling the evidence of all thoſe miracles upon which its own authority is founded?

Thus I have in general conſidered the words; I will be ſomewhat more particular, if you pleaſe, and I will begin again with the firſt particular, Chriſt is our Paſſeover. It is with reſpect to this that Iſaac who was a type of Chriſt is prophetically called a Lamb, though the buſineſs of the Paſchal Lamb were not then known in the world, Gen. 22. 7, 8. And Iſaac ſpake unto Abraham his Father, and he ſaid, my Father, and he ſaid, here am I my Son: and he ſaid, behold the fire and the wood, but where is the Lamb for a burnt offering? and he ſaid, my Son, God will provide himſelf a Lamb for a burnt-offering; meaning his ſon Iſaac, whom he was about to ſacrifice.

S. Peter alſo tells us, that we are redeemed by the precious 1 Pet. 1. 18, 19. bloud of Chriſt, as of a Lamb without blemiſh and without ſpot; alluding to that place in the Twelfth of Exodus, Your Lamb ſhall be without blemiſh, verſe 5.

In the fifty third of Iſaiah, at the ſeventh verſe, it is ſaid of the Meſſias, that he was brought as a Lamb to the ſlaughter, and as a ſheep before his ſhearers was dumb: and in the Eighth of the Acts, at the thirty ſecond verſe, the place is inverted, He was led as a ſheep to the ſlaughter, and like a lamb dumb before his ſhearers.

In the Thirteenth of the Revelations, at the Eighth, with alluſion to this Paſchal Feaſt, he is called, the lamb ſlain from the foundation of the world: and in the 19. Chapter, at the Ninth verſe, we find mention of the marriage ſupper of the lamb; by which marriage ſupper, in that place, is immediately underſtood, the final completion and conſummation of the happineſs of Saints in Heaven, by being perfectly freed and exempted from all the miſeries of humane life, and brought to a complete enjoyment of God and Chriſt in his glorified eſtate; but it has alſo a reſpect to that marriage ſupper which is to be celebrated in this life; that is, the due and worthy participationMatth. 9. 15, &c. of the body and bloud of Chriſt in the Holy Euchariſt; for Chriſt even with reſpect to the Church in this life, is called the Bridegroom; and every particular diſciple is a child of the Bed-chamber, and the Church in the general conſidered is his Spouſe.

Now a man would think in all reaſon, where there is a Bridegroom and a Spouſe, there muſt alſo be a wedding and a marriage Feaſt; and accordingly we find both of theſe in the 22. Chapter of S. Matthews Goſpel, and inVerſe 2. the 14. of S. Luke, where the Kingdom of Heaven, thatVerſe 16. is, the gracious offers of bleſſedneſs and immortality by the Goſpel, is likened to a certain King, which made a marriage for his ſon, at the ſolemnity of which marriage a Feaſt is made, to which many rich and noble gueſts, ſuch as were moſt ſuitable to the ſplendor of a Kingly entertainment are invited, but they refuſing to come, that is in truth; for this is at the bottom of the parable, being prejudiced againſt the Goſpel, by reaſon of the ſeeming meanneſs of the firſt promulger of it, and of its manifeſt contrariety to their worldly deſigns and Intereſts: what was at firſt intended for magnificence is afterwards converted into charity; and he ſends his ſervants into the ſtreets of the City, to call in the poor and the maimed, the halt and the blind, by which is ſignified the mean and ſeemingly contemptible condition of the firſt Diſciples and Apoſtles of Chriſtianity.

Now as this marriage of the Kings ſon is really nothing elſe, but the converſion of Jew and Gentile, Greek and Barbarian, bond and free to the faith of Chriſt, and their admittance into the Church by Baptiſm; ſo the marriage Feaſt, or the more eſpecial ſolemnities of this marriage, together with that union of the Spouſe to her Husband, which is conſequent thereupon, are no where better ſet forth than in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Chriſt; which is a thankful commemoration of that Paſſion, by which this marriage is finally conſummated, and by which the children of adoption, who are born under it, and engrafted by the merits of it into that body of which Chriſt is the head, are made heirs of grace and partakers of Eternal life.

So that this Feaſt in S. Luke differs only in degree from that in the Revelation, the preſence of Chriſt by his Grace and Spirit, by the merits of his Paſſion, and the power of his Interceſſion, to every worthy Communicant at this bleſſed Table, being only a pledge or earneſt of thoſe joys unſpeakable, and pleaſures at the right hand of God, where Chriſt himſelf is in the other World. And this is all that can be underſtood to be included in the true notion of the Sacrament; It is firſt a grateful commemoration of the ſufferings of God for the ſins of men, which cannot poſſibly be unattended with ſorrow for ſin, and reſolutions of a new life; neither can it when it is hearty and ſincere, be unaſſiſted by the gracious encouragements of the Holy Spirit.

It is Secondly a pledge or earneſt of our future happineſs with the Saints in Heaven.

The firſt Notion of the Sacrament has been ſufficiently proved already, our Saviour himſelf, if we will believe him, (and certainly he knew beſt what was his own meanning,) tells us plainly that he inſtituted this Sacrament, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for a remembrance of himſelf; and Luk. 22. 19 1 Cor. 11. 24, 25. Ib. ver. 26. St. Paul likewiſe tells us, that as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup, we do ſhew forth the Lord's death till he come.

The ſecond alſo has the very ſame Authority to vouch it, Matth. 26. 29. I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when I drink it new with you, that is, when I drink it after a more excellent manner than you do now, when I enjoy that Happineſs, that Infinite, complete, and entire ſatisfaction, undiſturbed by any of the miſeries or incumbrances of humane life, of which this banquet is but a Type and figure. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſayes Grotius, Laetitiam immortalem quae per vinum adumbrata intelligebatur, ſo we read of the New Jeruſalem in the Book of the Revelation, Rev. 3. 12. Gal. 4. 26. which St. Paul calls the Jeruſalem which is above, that is, the Spiritual Jeruſalem of which the earthly City was a figure. Thus we find mention alſo of a New Song, that is a moſtPſal. 33 3. excellent, pleaſant, and delightful ſong, an exquiſite compoſition of ſome very famed and celebrated maſter. Praiſe-the Lord with the Harp, ſing unto him with the Pſaltery; See alſo Rev. 5. 9. & 14. 3. and an Inſtrument of ten ſtrings: Sing unto him a new ſong, play skilfully with a loud noiſe.

In the ſecond of the Revelation at the 17th. we read of a new name, to him that overcometh, ſaith the Spirit to the Churches, I will give to eat of the hidden Manna, that is, the new, the ſpiritual Manna, and will give him a white ſtone, and in the ſtone a new name written, which no man knoweth ſaving he that receiveth it. What was this new name which the Spirit would beſtow upon him that overcometh? why in the 3d Chapter at the 12th verſe, it ſeems to be explained, I will make him a pillar in the Temple of my God, and he ſhall go no more out, and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the City of my God, which is New Jeruſalem which cometh down out of Heaven from my God, that is, I will make him an inhabitant of the New Jeruſalem, an inheritor of Eternal life, I will bring him to the infinitely pleaſant and delightful enjoyment of the Beatifical Viſion in Heaven, and he ſhall be a Pillar in the Temple of my God and ſhall go no more out, that is, his happineſs ſhall be as durable as it is exceeding great, and all this I will do becauſe I will write my new name upon him, that is, I will ſet a mark upon him, by which he ſhall be known to be mine, he ſhall appear ſprinkled with my Bloud, adorned with my Merits, cloathed with my Righteouſneſs, and ſhall lay a juſt Title to the Promiſes of my Goſpel, after having performed the conditions of it, which is the true ſenſe of overcoming.

And this New name of Chriſt is by the Author to the Hebrews called a more excellent Name, and all that is meantChap. 1. 4. by it is, the tranſcendent happineſs and glory of Jeſus Chriſt far beyond the moſt excellent ranks and orders of Created Beings, who being the brightneſs of his Father's Glory and the expreſs Image of his perſon, when he had by himſelf purged our ſins, ſat down on the right hand of the Majeſty Verſe 3. on High, being made ſo much better than the Angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. Verſe 4. For unto which of the Angels ſaid he at any time, thou art my ſon, this day have I begotten thee; and again, I will be to him a Father and he ſhall be to me a ſon, &c. In fine, to concludeVerſe 5. this matter, we are told likewiſe of a New and better Covenant, a New Commandment, and a New Doctrine, all which may well enough comport with this Interpretation.

And now from all this it may be pretty plain, that the true ſence of that place, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom, is as much as if he had ſaid, I have now done with Types and Shadows and am haſting to the full and compleat enjoyment of the ſubſtance its ſelf, to the actual poſſeſſion of that happineſs of which this Wine is but a Symbol: which notion however true in it's ſelf if it will not paſs upon the credit of this expoſition, there are other places of Scripture which may be produced to help it out; In the 22d. Chapter of St. Lukes Goſpel at the 15th verſe, our Saviour tells his Diſciples, with deſire have I deſired to eat this Paſſeover with you before I ſuffer, For I ſay unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God, and again in the 18th verſe, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the Kingdom of God ſhall come; the ſenſe of both which places is certainly the ſame, I will neither eat this Paſſeover nor drink this Wine any more, but am now leaving mortality and things below, and am haſtening to the poſſeſſion of that glory, which I had with the Father before the world was, that Feaſt of Eternal joy and comfort, of which this Paſſeover is a Type and ſhadow; I am now preparing for my ſolemn Inauguration and inveſtiture in that ſpiritual dominion, which I, as the King of Saints and Soveraign of Angels and Judge of all the world, am to exerciſe over all created Beings, from the time of my Aſcenſion and for ever, and ſo the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the fulfilling of the Paſſeover, and of the Wine in St. Luke, will be the ſame with the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the renovation of them in St. Matthew, and the Analogy between theſe two the Earthly and the Heavenly Feaſt is ſufficiently manifeſt from the 29th and 30th verſes of that Chapter of St. Luke, which I have juſt now cited, where immediately after the Inſtitution and Celebration of the Lords Supper, our Saviour plainly alluding to that Feaſt, with which they had been juſt now entertaining one another, thus beſpeaks his Diſciples: I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table and ſit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Iſrael.

Again, as theſe Feaſts had a plain alluſion, reſpect and relation to one another, ſo the qualifications of the Gueſts are in both caſes the ſame, only that the degree of thoſe Qualifications in the Marriage of the Lamb, is much more high and intenſive than in that of the King's ſon, for the Lamb's wife in the 8th verſe of the 19th Chapter of the Revelation, was to be arrayed in fine linnen, clean and white, which fine linnen, ſaith the voice there ſpeaking, is the righteouſneſs of ſaints, that is, no man muſt expect to be partaker of the Heavenly inheritance, who hath not wrought out his own Salvation with Fear and Trembling, not every one who puts in a lazy claim to the Merits and ſatisfaction of Chriſt, by an unactive Faith, a Faith without an inward and vital principle of goodneſs, a Faith without good works, but they who by patience and perſeverance in well-doing, by an effectual conqueſt of all their luſts and paſſions to the obedience of God and Chriſt, ſo far forth as humane nature is capable, and by an unfeigned repentance for what by humane frailty they have done amiſs, are made partakers of the benefits of Chriſts Sufferings, by having fulfilled the Conditions of his Goſpel.

So likewiſe in the other Marriage in St. Matthew, it is ſaid, that when the King came in to ſee his gueſts, he ſaw Ch. 22. 11. there a man which had not on a wedding garment; and that indeed was no great wonder, nor any ſuch hainous fault, if you take the words in the literal ſenſe: for it was not to be expected, that the poor and the lame, the halt and the blind ſhould come all furniſhed with their wedding garments. Wherefore the meaning is, he did not come rightly prepared to the Participation of this Holy Table. There is indeed one main difference between the Marriage Feaſt of the Lamb, and that of the King's Son, and that is this, that of the firſt it is ſaid, bleſſed are they which are called to Rev. 19. 9. the marriage ſupper of the Lamb; but of the latter, many are called but few are choſen. Matth. 22. 14.

The reaſon of which difference is to be taken from the different perfection of the Feaſts themſelves; the one being only a pledge or earneſt, an imperfect taſte and reliſh of our future happineſs, which may be afterwards forfeited by ſin, or at that very inſtant become forfeit, by the lazy indifference and indiſpoſition, by the ingratitude and unthankfulneſs; or by the filth and impurity, the naughtineſs and uncleanneſs of a mans mind and will at the participation of this holy Feaſt; but the other is the full and final and irreverſible enjoyment of it.

To which purpoſe it is likewiſe, that to the marriage of the Kings ſon, the good and bad are equally admitted, Matth. 22. 10. So thoſe ſervants went out into the high ways, and gathered together all, as many as they found, both bad and good; and the wedding was furniſhed with gueſts.

The reaſon is, becauſe it is naturally impoſſible in this life in very many caſes, to diſtinguiſh the Saint from the Hypocrite, a due preparation from an imperfect, a ſincere from a pretended and counterfeit repentance; and he that does preſume to approach this Holy Table, without that awful preparation which becomes it, he does it at his own peril, and muſt expect to hear of it another day.

But in the marriage of the Lamb, that is, in the other world, in that ſtate which is not the trial of virtue, but the reward of it; none will be admitted but ſuch as are in ſome ſence or other perfect; ſuch as have at leaſt a conditional and Evangelical, though not an abſolute and legal righteouſneſs, a perfection of true Faith and of ſincere Repentance, though not of univerſal and unſinning obedience; ſuch as have maintained a ſharp conflict with their luſts and paſſions, though they have not perfectly conquered and ſubdued them; but to the reſt it will be ſaid, as it was to him who had not on his wedding garment; Friend, how cameſt thou hither, not having on thy wedding Matth. 22, 12, 13. garment, bind him hand and foot, take him away, and caſt him into utter darkneſs, there ſhall be weeping and gnaſhing of teeth.

To make an end of this compariſon of Chriſt to the Paſchal Lamb, it is in alluſion to this that John ſeeing Jeſus Joh. 1. 29. coming unto him, ſaith Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the ſins of the world; as the Paſchal Lambs by redeeming the firſt born, may be ſaid to have taken away the ſins of the Iſraelites: for by taking away ſins, nothing elſe is meant, but remitting that puniſhment which was due to them; otherwiſe a ſin being once committed, it is impoſſible it ſhould ever be uncommitted again, and ſo cannot be ſaid to be taken away in any other ſence but this, and this the Paſchal Lamb did by the Divine appointment; the Iſraelites being otherwiſe as obnoxious to this or any other puniſhment, as the Aegyptians themſelves were; though not for the very ſame ſins for which Pharaoh and his ſubjects were, yet for ſin in general, which no man but is more or leſs guilty of, and which is enough to ſtand in need of a redemption.

And truly he that ſhall conſider their repinings in the Wilderneſs, and their murmurings in the Deſart, their diſobedience to God and his ſervant Moſes, their relapſes to Idolatry both in the Wilderneſs and after; their want of an entire ſyſtem of a law in Aegypt to be the rule of their lives, and the perfect meaſure of their behaviour either towards God or Man: laſtly, whoever ſhall reflect upon their groſs ignorance, in matters of a more ſpeculative and refined nature; their utter unfitneſs for all ſuch Philoſophical conſiderations, as are the beſt preſervatives againſt Idolatry, will not think otherwiſe, but that they had ſome tang of it from their converſe in Aegypt; eſpecially conſidering that by ſuch compliances as theſe, ſome of their hard Taskmaſters might be rendred leſs cruel to them; perhaps their hankering ſo vehemently after the Garlick and Onions in Aegypt may well enough bear ſomething of this ſence; for we know very well what veneration ſuch trifles met with in thoſe parts.

Porrum & caepe nefas violare & frangere morſu, O ſanctas gentes quibus haec naſcuntur in hortis Numina—

Now if it be true that the Paſchal Lamb was a type of Chriſt the Saviour and redeemer of mankind; if it be likewiſe true, that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is the marriage-Feaſt of the Lamb, or ſomewhat more imperfectly, the marriage-Feaſt of the Kings ſon, that is, of Chriſt to his Church; there being nothing, which either does or ought more cloſely to unite us to him, than the obſervation of this bleſſed Banquet; then is it plain, that the Bread and Wine in the Euchariſt are not Tranſubſtantiated, either by any Prieſtly charms, or by any Divine power, into the very body and bloud of Chriſt himſelf; otherwiſe the Bridegroom and his marriage-Feaſt will be the ſame, and his gueſts inſtead of congratulating with him, upon ſo happy an occaſion, will but devour him and eat him up, playing the perfect Cannibals with their friend and benefactor, which, as I take it, is an improper way of congratulation.

Again, in the third Chapter of the Revelations, at the 20. verſe, it is ſaid, Behold, I ſtand at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will ſap with him, and he with me: Now in the firſt place it cannot be denied, that theſe words have reference to the Church militant, that is, to the Church of God on this ſide Heaven. For firſt, it appears from the 14. verſe of this Chapter, that theſe words were ſpoken to the Angel of the Church of Laodicea, which is alſo alike clear all the way from the 14. verſe to the 19. and in that verſe it is ſaid, which is my ſecond proof; As many as I love I rebuke and chaſten, be zealous therefore and repent: now they who are bleſſed in a future ſtate, are paſt all manner of rebuke and chaſtiſement, and they need no repentance; no more do the damned neither for any good it will do them; for their repentance is but one part of their miſery, therefore it would be fruitleſs to exhort either of them to it, which the Amen, that is, Chriſt in this place manifeſtly doth. I might urge a third and a fourth Argument from the 21. and 22. verſes of this Chapter, but this is enough; for which reaſon I will omit theſe and proceed to the ſecond obſervable in the words, which is the thing I aim at, and that is this; If any man hear the voice and open the door; that is, if he have a mind fitly qualified and prepared to give a due reception and entertainment to the Spirit of God and Chriſt; if he do not wilfully harden himſelf and ſhut him out, Chriſt will come in unto him and will ſup with him; that is, he will at all times be ſufficiently preſent to him by the grace and aſſiſtance of his good Spirit, to encourage him in well doing, to ſtrengthen him in temptations, and comfort him in and under afflictions, and will at laſt bring him to glory by the merits of his Paſſion, and the powerful intereſt of his Interceſſion: It is impoſſible, it cannot be denied that this is the very ſence, Chriſt cannot be ſaid to ſup with us in any other ſence but this; it is likewiſe impoſſible and abſurd to deny, that Chriſt in this ſence does ſup with every true Believer at the receiving of the Sacrament; but he cannot both ſup with us, and alſo be that very meat on which we feed our ſelves; therefore I conclude that the Elements of Bread and Wine in this holy ſolemnity are not changed into the Body and Bloud of Chriſt.

And if it be objected, that this is only a figurative way of ſpeaking, and ſo nothing can be inferred from it; I grant indeed that it is a figure, but then it is ſuch a ſtrange figure as was never heard of before, that our fellow-boarder, our fellow-commoner ſhould be taken for our diet; it would be worth travelling a great way to ſee ſuch another figure.

Again I will come in unto him, and will ſup with him, and he with me. Let it be granted for once, that by the Pronoun [I] in this place, is meant not the ſpiritual, but the perſonal and corporeal preſence of Chriſt, by the fear of Tranſubſtantiation; and one of theſe muſt be allowed, unleſs they will deny, that Chriſt does as really ſup with, that is, is as much preſent to Believers at the receiving of the Sacrament, as upon other occaſions. What will be the conſequence of this? The Bread and Wine thus tranſubſtantiated into the Body and Bloud of Chriſt, is not only the ſpiritual, but the material and literal food of Believers; they do really and truly eat his Body and drink his Bloud; ſo then, I will come and ſup with you, that is, my Body and Bloud will come and ſup with you, is as much as to ſay they will feed upon themſelves; for theſe are the two things that make the entertainment. Laſtly, ſince we are told, That we being many, are one Bread and one Body: 1 Cor. 〈◊〉 . 17. for we are all partakers of that one Bread; it will follow, if we take theſe words literally, that the whole Church by being partakers of that one Bread, are tranſubſtantiated into that one Bread, which is that one Body, which is Chriſt; and ſo at this rate the Church and the two Elements of Bread and Wine, and Chriſt himſelf will be all one and the ſame thing; namely, a certain ſtrange kind of unintelligible Banquet left all alone to feed and ſolace its ſelf upon its ſelf; and this is wonderful pretty indeed; this is a figure too, but 'tis a new one, and wants a name, therefore you may call it a Romaniſm, if you pleaſe, and I wiſh no Proteſtant may ever uſe it.

Thus I have proved in general, I could do it much more particularly if the time would permit or if there were any doubt of it amongſt Chriſtians, that Chriſt is our Paſſeover, and ſhown what are the conſequences of that propoſition. The Jews themſelves confeſs, that the Paſſeover was a Type of the Meſſias as well as we, though they will not allow our Jeſus to be that Meſſias; and accordingly they tell us fine ſtories of the deliverance of their Nation by him, upon that very day on which the Paſſeover was inſtituted, being ſome time or other to happen on the Anniverſary of their deliverance from the Aegyptian bondage; and this, if they had known what kind of deliverance that was which they were to expect, together with the reſt of mankind, had been right enough; for it is on all hands agreed, they themſelves have not the impudence to deny it, that our bleſſed Lord ſuffered upon the Croſs at this very time; but this was not that deliverance from Temporal bondage, and from the Roman power, which they with ſo much earneſtneſs expected, although it be manifeſt at firſt ſight that the Paſchal Lamb could be no Type of the Meſſias, if they had been to be delivered by any other way, than that of his Suffering and being put to death for their ſakes. For this reaſon they have ſome of them employed their thoughts in finding out objections why our Jeſus could not be Typified by the Paſſeover under the Law: I will propoſe their objections, as nigh as I am able in their own words, and anſwer them with ſuch fairneſs, that they ſhall have no reaſon to complain of foul play.

The firſt objection which you may ſee with the reſt that follow in the Notes of Munſter, upon the 26th of St. Matthew is this, If the Lamb of the Paſſeover be a Type of the ſuſpended, or the accurſed, that is in their language, of Chriſt, it would be neceſſary that there ſhould be many new Chriſts and new Jeſus's born into the world one after another for ever, becauſe of the multitude of Paſchal Lambs, and the annual repetition of that Sacrifice according to the Law amongſt the Jews.

This Objection is anſwered by a Chriſtian in the ſame place, who brings theſe difficulties only to reſolve them, and I have ſome reaſon to believe it may be Munſter himſelf, thus: That this may as well be that all the Paſchal Sacrifices might be a joynt Symbol of that one Sacrifice of Chriſt, as that ſuch an infinite number of Rainbowes ſucceeding one another through all times and ages, ſhould be a concurrent and joynt Seal of that one Covenant, which God had entred into with man that he would not drown the world any more.

I ſhall not diſpute the validity of this anſwer, but the ſcruple will admit of ſeveral other ſolutions beſides this: as firſt, That that ſolemn Feaſt which was, or was to be Celebrated every year by the nation of the Jews, was not, to ſpeak properly, the true Paſſeover it ſelf, but only a commemoration of it. Secondly, That they may as well ſay, that none other of the Jewiſh Sacrifices were Types of Chriſt, though moſt certainly they were, becauſe of their often, nay indeed, much more frequent repetition than that of the Paſſeover. And then Thirdly, that we are to make an infinite diſtinction betwixt the Bloud of brute animals and the Bloud of God, neither was it poſſible that one, nay, that one hundred thouſand ſuch Sacrifices an hundred thouſand times told, could worthily Typif • e and repreſent ſo great an Attonement.

A ſecond Objection is this, Your Lamb ſhall be without blemiſh, a male of the firſt year, Exod. 12. 5. whereas Jeſus at his Crucifixion was three and thirty. To which the Chriſtian anſwers excellently well, That the Lambs being but a year old, was to Typifie the Innocence of Chriſt who was as free from all ſin as a child of a year old, or under: for the place is not ſo to be underſtood as if the Lamb were preciſely to be a year old neither more nor leſs, but only that it was not to exceed that age; and therefore, as I remember, the opinion of the Jewiſh Maſters in this caſe is, that every Lamb being furniſhed with thoſe other qualifications above mentioned, that is, being a male and without blemiſh, is fit for this purpoſe all the time from a moneth to a year old; and it is certain that in all other Sacrifices ſuch as were either in whole or in part to be conſumed by fire upon the Altar, as this was not, only the bloud was ſprinkled by the Prieſts, and Fat, cawl and kidneys, were indeed burnt upon the Altar, (theſe two things being eſſential to all Sacrifices in general, inſomuch that even in the ſin & treſpaſs offerings, which by reaſon of L •• . 7. 2, 3, 4. 7. 2 • , 25. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Dr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his Treatiſe of the Sacrament ad 〈◊〉 de Sacri •• •••• . p. 47. their pollution were burnt without the Camp, or elſe after much legal purification eaten by the Prieſts, yet in theſe very offerings themſelves the fat, cawl, and kidneys were conſumed upon the Altar) I ſay in all other Sacrifices whatſoever, 〈◊〉 in the ſin offering, the Treſpaſs-offering, the Burnt-off •• ing, and the Peace offering of all kinds the rule was this, Le • . 22. 27. it ſhall be ſeven days under the dam; and from the eighth and thenceforth, it ſhall be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And that this rule was extended to the Peace offering wherein the Prieſt and they by whom it was offered were to have their ſhare, ſo as God and they did in a manner all of them feed together at one common table, as well as in other Sacrifices wherein either the Prieſt or people or both had no ſhare, is manifeſt from verſe 29. of the ſame Chapter, where Moſes immediately ſpeaks of the Sacrifice of Thankſgiving which was one ſort of Peace-offering, as if what had been ſaid before had given occaſion to it. And when, ſaith he, ye will offer a Sacrifice of Thankſgiving unto the Lord, offer it at your own will.

His third Objection or rather cavil is this, That our Saviour was Crucified, that is, put to death by being nailed to the Croſs, whereas the Paſchal Lamb was to be killed by cutting its throat, as animals killed for food uſe to be. But to this it is there anſwered and proved out of Scripture, That the words Shachat and Tabach made uſe of in the Hebrew to denote the killing of the Paſſeover, may ſometimes be taken in a larger ſignification; which evaſion of his is alſo ſufficiently juſtified by that place of the Author to the Hebrews, where he compares the ſuffering of Chriſt inHeb. 13. 11, 12. general without the gate, to the burning of the ſin-offering without the Camp; which place will likewiſe furniſh me with another anſwer, and that is, That Chriſt was not only a Paſſeover but alſo a ſin-offering, and ſo was to dye an accurſed death, and this puniſhment being to be inflicted by the Roman Authority, the burning of his body being more honourable and in better eſteem among them, would not have anſwered to the ſin-offering's being burnt without the gate, but the beſt repreſentation of it was Crucifixion which was the moſt ſervile and ignominious puniſhment in uſe among them, and alſo by the Jews themſelves, who cryed ſo loudly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , let Matth. 27. 22, 23. him be crucified, let him be crucified, accounted and taken for ſuch. Wherefore this Objector betrayes himſelf extreamly when he tells us that whereas the Paſchal LambBeen h • harbaim, Exod. 12. 6 was to be killed as the Hebrew phraſe imports between the two Evenings, yet Jeſus Chriſt muſt needs have ſuffered in the morning, Chi col dinei Iiſrael ella beboker, becauſe all the puniſhments inflicted by the Jews were inflicted in the morning.

For beſides that this exception it ſelf is a manifeſt confeſſion that he ſuffered ſome time or other of that day on which the Paſſeover was to be killed, and not to mention that he forgets the Hiſtory of thoſe times, by which it is plain that the power of life and death was for ſeveral years before in the hands of the Romans; It is further clear that our Saviour was nailed to the Croſs at the third hour, that is, at Nine in the morning, though it is true indeed that he did not give up the Ghoſt till the ninth hour, that is, till three or between three and four in the afternoon, and that is juſt, been haharbaim, between the two evenings, being about the middle ſpace betwixt the meridian and ſettingſun, which was the very time when the Paſſeover ought to be killed according to the Law of Moſes.

However, let it be how it will, when the ſame thing is Typified and ſhadowed out by ſeveral Types, it is impoſſible it ſhould exactly anſwer them all; for that were to ſuppoſe the Types themſelves to be all of them the ſame: otherwiſe it is abſurd to expect when they differ from one another, that the Antitype ſhould exactly correſpond with them all.

To maintain the ſimilitude between the Paſchal Lamb and the Sacrifice of Chriſt upon the Croſs, it is enough to ſay, That as the deſtroying Angel ſpared the firſt-born of the Iſraelites upon ſeeing the bloud of the Paſſeover ſprinkled upon the poſts and lentils of their ſeveral houſes; ſo God for the ſake of Chriſt will paſs over us, and will not impute ſin to us, whereever he ſees the bloud, that is, the Meritorious paſſion of his Son rightly applied by a hearty belief of the Goſpel, and by a converſation anſwerable to it, and that as this preſervation of the Firſt-born by the bloud of the Paſchal Lamb, while the Aegyptians had nothing but the voice of mourning and lamentation in their ſtreets, was the laſt miracle wrought in the behalf of his people while they continued in Aegypt, accompanied with the laſt plague inflicted on the Aegyptians, bating their being drowned and finally deſtroyed in the red Sea (which red ſea was likewiſe a Type of the bloud of Chriſt, by which they who are not ſaved by making a right uſe of it will be more effectually and inexcuſably condemned for having abuſed ſo great a mercy) ſo the ſhedding of the Bloud of Chriſt upon the Croſs is the laſt deliverance, the laſt Atonement which God will afford his people; it will likewiſe in the end prove the laſt plague of thoſe, who have not duly applyed it to themſelves, but living in a perpetual oppoſition to the Laws of God, and the doctrine of the Goſpel, have ſlighted all the gracious offers of pardon and forgiveneſs, and wilfully neglected ſo great Salvation.

And as the ſame red ſea gave a ſafe and ſecure paſſage to the Iſraelites, but executed the utmoſt of its rage and fury upon Pharaoh and all the Hoſt of the Aegyptians, ſo will the bloud of Chriſt give a ſafe and comfortable paſſage to all his hearty followers and diſciples into the joys of Heaven, while it will but ſerve more effectually to overwhelm and ruine the unbelieving world.

Again as that firſt Paſſeover of the deſtroying Angel, paſſing by the habitations of the Iſraelites did but prepare the way for the ſecond Paſſeover, that is, the paſſage of the Iſraelites through the red ſea and wilderneſs, into the land of Canaan; ſo God's paſſing over us, that is, his pardoning and forgiving our ſins, and not imputing them to as many of us, as heartily believe and obey the Goſpel, does but prepare the way through the wilderneſs and red ſea, all the troubles and difficulties of this life, into the land of Canaan, that is, if we do not repine and murmur, if we do not disbelieve his Word, diſtruſt his Providence, and diſobey his Laws, as the Iſraelites did, into the compleat and entire poſſeſſion of Eternal happineſs, of which the land of Canaan was a Type.

Farther, as the Paſchal Lambs which the Jews fed upon for ever after, neither were nor could be the ſame with thoſe which were killed by the reſpective families, the evening before the great deliverance of the firſt born, but only a memorial, a commemoration of them; ſo neither is that Euchariſtical Feaſt, which we celebrate in the Chriſtian Church, a Feaſt upon the Body of Chriſt himſelf, but only a memorial of our deliverance in, by, and through him, and a Sanction of that Covenant, which he hath purchaſed for us by his bloud.

Laſtly, as it was unlawful either to eat or drink the bloud of the Paſchal Lamb; ſo alſo it muſt needs be unlawful for us either to eat or drink the bloud of Chriſt, for contraries cannot poſſibly be Types of contraries, the bloud of the Paſchal Lamb cannot poſſibly be a Type of the bloud of Chriſt, if it be unlawful for us to feed upon the one, and neceſſary to drink the other.

And this is enough to make out the reſemblance between the Paſchal Lamb and Chriſt, and to ſhew that one was a Type of the other: he that will have more than this, before he will admit it to be a Type, does not underſtand the nature of Types and Parables and Symbols, nay not ſo much as of Metaphors in common diſcourſe, in which there is required no more than only ſome plain agreement in one or more particulars, without any groſs repugnancy or inconſiſtency in any.

But Jeſus was at the ſame time our Paſchal Lamb and our ſin offering too, wherefore being to fulfil two ſuch different repreſentations of himſelf under the Law, it is not much to be wondered, if the ſimilitude do not hit in all points.

By being our Paſchal Lamb he takes away the puniſhment of our ſins, which God paſſeth over and will not impute them to us; by being our ſin-offering he takes away the guilt of them too, to as many as are ſanctified by Faith in his bloud, as the ſin-offering under the Law did, by the guilty perſons laying their hands upon it, truly and properly receive that guilt, which was to be expiated by this way of atonement; which by the way, may be ſufficient to ſhew us, how bad Interpreters the Socinians are of the New Teſtament, and how little they underſtand the nature of our Saviour's Sacrifice for ſin, when they deny him to have made a true and proper ſatisfaction to the juſtice of God for it; for there can be no reſemblance between him and the ſin-offering, but only in this particular; for this reaſon it is, that he is ſaid to have born our ſins in his own body on the tree, to have been a Ranſom for us, to have been made ſin for us who knew no ſin, and the like; and from hence it was that Jeſus, that he might ſanctifie the people with his own Bloud, ſuffered Heb. 13. 12 without the gate, as the ſin-offering under the Law was to do without the Camp, by reaſon of its uncleanneſs, being polluted with the ſins of thoſe on whoſe behalf it was offered, as the ſame inſpired writer likewiſe takes notice in the ſame place, for the bodies, ſaith he, of thoſe beaſts, whoſe bloud is brought into the Sanctuary Heb. 13. 11 by the High Prieſt for ſin, are burnt without the Camp: upon which account it was, that if the bloud of theſe Sacrifices were brought into the Tabernacle to make reconciliation withal, it was unlawful not only for God himſelf, (for that he never did in the ſin & treſpaſs-offering,) but even for the Prieſts or any body elſe to partake of them: to which the ſame Author in the ſame place manifeſtly alludes, and brings the compariſon home to the Sacrifice of Chriſt, We have an Altar, ſaith he, whereof they have no right to eat that ſerve the Tabernacle, for the bodies Heb. 13. 11, 12. of thoſe beaſts, whoſe bloud is brought into the Sanctuary by the Prieſt for ſin, are burnt without the Camp, wherefore Jeſus alſo that he might ſanctifie the people with his own bloud ſuffered without the gate: now it being unlawful for the people in all caſes and for the Prieſt himſelf in this, to partake of the ſin offering, and Chriſt being our ſinoffering, and having ſanctified the people with his own bloud, it is manifeſt that it muſt needs be unlawful for us to partake of this Sacrifice, in that ſence which the Papiſts would have; that is, we muſt not truly and properly eat his Body; and ſo thoſe words, This is my Body, muſt not be underſtood in the literal ſence, much leſs muſt we imagine, that God will work miracles to contradict himſelf and his Apoſtles, and deſtroy the nature of thoſe Types, by which the Sacrifice of his Son was ſignified under the Law.

But yet, notwithſtanding this, nothing hinders, but that we may celebrate an Euchariſtical or a Mnemoneutical feaſt in both of theſe reſpects, as well becauſe he is our ſin-offering, as upon account of his being our Paſſeover; for by both of theſe taken together, our deliverance from the jaws of Death and Hell is completed, and we are delivered from the bondage of corruption, from the intolerable ſervitude of ſin and Satan, into the glorious liberty of the ſons of God; a deliverance of ſo high a nature, that though we had not been commanded to commemorate it by our Saviour himſelf, who with his own bloud purchaſed it for us, yet mere gratitude and good nature, nay, common honeſty and common ſence themſelves would have prompted all hearty Chriſtians not to ſit down contented with a bare narrative, a cold ſtory of ſuch a redemption; but they would certainly have found out ſome ſymbols, the better to repreſent it, as much as may be, to our outward ſenſes, and fix it deeper in our minds, according to that ſaying,

Segniùs irritant animas demiſſa per aures, Quàm quae ſunt oculis ſubjecta fidelibus—

And there could not poſſibly better ſymbols have been found out, than thoſe of eating Bread and drinking Wine, by which both the manner of our Lords Paſſion, by the rending of his Body and the ſpilling of his Bloud is ſignified; and the union of the Church by the participation of the ſame Table, which was always accounted a ſymbol of the ſtricteſt friendſhip, and which was another end of this holy Feaſt, was intended to be inviolably maintained and preſerved.

And thus the feeding upon the Paſchal Lamb under the law, is more than anſwered, by our ſpiritual feeding upon the Body of Chriſt; that is, by our being more than nouriſhed, by our being ſaved and Eternally made happy by the merit and ſatisfaction of his Death.

After this the ſame Objector goes on to raiſe difficulties, not ſo much againſt the reſemblance of the Paſchal Lamb to the Sacrifice of Chriſt upon the Croſs, as againſt the Sacrament its ſelf, which bears an Analogy with the Paſchal Feaſt; he demands therefore how we can be ſaid to eat the Body and drink the Bloud of Chriſt in the Sacrament; whether it were, that he cut off pieces of his own Fleſh, and gave them to eat, or whether his Body was made up of nothing but Bread and Wine, inſtead of Fleſh and Bloud, animated with a humane Soul; and the matter out of which it was taken, being more than would ſuffice to make an entire humane Body, whether the remainders of it were not that which he gave to his Diſciples, ſaying, This is my Body, and This is my Bloud; that is, it is a part of that ſubſtance, or it is a ſubſtance of the ſame nature with that of which my Body and Bloud are compoſed. I am pretty ſure I do not wrong the Objector; he that has a mind to be better ſatisfied, may read him in his own words, in the Notes of Munſter upon the 26. Chapter of S. Matthew; which ſuppoſitions of his the more frivolous and impertinent they are, the more clearly do they ſhow, that nothing can be ſo abſurd, which a man let alone to make uſe of his own faculties, would not rather pitch upon, than this myſterious Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation.

But he goes on further to object, that Body which the Diſciples are ſaid to have eat and drank, whither did it go? did it go through certain private paſſages of its own? or was it mixt in the ſtomach and Inteſtines with the reſt of their uſual diet? Which I confeſs againſt the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation would be no very weak or impertinent objection: for upon ſuppoſition that the Elements of Bread and Wine are really and ſubſtantially changed into the Body and Bloud of Chriſt, which cannot now be diſtinguiſhed from his glorified Body, (it being the ſame Body which was once crucified and is now glorified) one of theſe Four things muſt of neceſſity follow: Either we do not really receive it in the Sacrament, but only ſeem to do it; and ſo there is a double cheat put upon our ſenſes; or elſe it paſſes out, by ſome hidden and peculiar paſſages of its own; or elſe the perſon of Chriſt is really united to the perſon of every Communicant; which union is as often multiplied as we receive the Sacrament; a thing not only abſurd, but blaſphemous to ſuppoſe; or elſe laſtly, which I abhor to think, it is as he expreſſes it, Mehouraf bekeebah him ſhear haochel, and paſſes out by the infamis ductus into the common ſlime and ſaburra of the world.

The wit of man cannot think of a fifth thing I am ſure; whereas all this is eaſily taken off by ſaying, that the true Elements taken in the Lords Supper, are only a remembrance of his meritorious Death and Paſſion, and of that bleſſed Feaſt of Happineſs and Joy, which all good Chriſtians will partake with him in the world to come. Whither God of his infinite mercy bring us all, by the merits and mediation of the ſame Jeſus Chriſt our Lord, to whom with the Father and the bleſſed Spirit be aſcribed, as is moſt due, all honour, glory and praiſe, from this time forward and for evermore.

Amen. THE END.