reftrained to a certain Month, and Day, and to be offered but once in the Year, and eaten in the Evening of the Day, and followed with a Feast of Unleavened Bread, yet these are not the Laws of the Eucharist, or Ufages peculiar to the Mafs.

II. As to the second; 'Tis granted that the Paschal Lamb was flain, and its Blood put upon the DoorPofts, to avert the destroying Angel; and continued afterwards as a Memorial of the Deliverance out of Egypt. But however this fuits with the Death of Chrift, by which we are faved from the Wrath of God, and rescued from the Power of the Devil; yet it by no means correfponds with the Eucharift, or unbloody Sacrifice of the Maís.

III. As to the third; Whatever the Eucharift be to the devout Partaker, yet no stress ought to be laid upon this Correfpondence between it and the Paffeover kept in Egypt, because that was a Rite peculiar to the Paffeover of Egypt, as the Hebrew Doctors well obferve, and not used in after-Ages. Befides, 'tis from the Death of Chrift we hope to enter into an Heavenly Country, of which the Eucharift is but a Sacra

ment.

IV. As to the fourth; Thofe Refemblances mentioned do not infer that the Pafchal Lamb was a Figure of the Eucharift, because thofe Conditions, as to Perfons and Place, were required in other Religious Ser-! vices: Befides, there are many other things in which the difference between the Paffeover and Sacrifice of the Mass is very difcernible: Not to repeat, that the Paffe

C

Paffeover was reftrained to a Month, a Day, an Evening, &. it ought to be celebrated according to its firft Inftitution, to be eaten that Evening and not referved, and not to be carried abroad in Proceffion. Let our Adverfaries fay how this can agree with their Sacrifice of the Mass.

For the Pains which the Cardinal takes to prove the Paffeover a Sacrifice, he need not have taken it, for I do readily grant it, nor do I fee any juft caufe to deny it: But all this will not prove it a Figure of the Eucharift. Befides; though it be a Sacrifice, yet it was not propitiatory, much lefs fo for the Dead as well as Living, and therefore no very fit Figure of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. Again, were it proved a Figure of the Eucharift, this would be no competent Proof for the Sacrifice of the Mafs. For the Paffeover among the Jews may be confidered either as a Sacrament of that Church, or as a Sacrifice ftrictly fo called; fuppofing it a Figure of the Eucharift in the first refpect, this will not establish the Sacrifice of the Mafs.

I now proceed to the third Pretence from the Holy Scriptures for the Sacrifice of the Mafs, and that is fetched from Exod. xxiv. where, after the Law given at Mount Sinai, God enters into Covenant with the Ifraelites, promifeth them much Good, and they pro mife Obedience: This Covenant was confirmed by a folemn Sacrifice and the fprinkling of Blood. "Tis faid, Behold the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words. ver. 8. 'Tis pretended that this Figure was fulfilled in the laft Supper in the Inftitution of the Eucharift, and there

fore

fore the Blood of that Old Teftament being the Blood of a Victim properly facrificed, the Blood of the New Teftament must be the Blood of a proper Sacrifice alfo, and therefore Chrift is a Victim facrificed in the Eucharift.

From this it might have been as well inferred, and with as much Truth, that that of Mofes being a Sacrifice of Blood, that of the Mass must also be a bloody Sacrifice. But this would be too much. And they who maintain the Doctrine of the Mass, will infer no more from thefe Figures than will juft ferve their purpofe; otherwife 'twere very natural to infer the Subftance of Bread and Wine in the Eucharift, and not Accidents only, from the Bread and Wine of Melchifedec ; and that both kinds are in the Eucharift to be received. But they that we have to do with will take care that thefe Figures fhall not be used against their received Doctrine. And yet we find that the Ancient Fathers of the Church do affirm, that Chrift offered the fame Oblation with Melchifedec; and infer from thence that the Symbols in the Eucharift are Bread and Wine. Full View of For inftances to this purpofe, I refer the Reader to the pag. 101, &c. Learned Author of a late Treatife.

the Eucharift,

Cardinal Bellarmine takes a great deal of Pains to prove the Mafs from this Chapter of Exodus. This Figure he conceits must be compleated in the laft Supper and Inftitution of the Eucharift: Then he fays the New Teftament was made, and the words, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood, &c. confirm him in this Belief; after this he fays, If Chrift's Teftament was not made in the last Supper, it must be made on

the

Mifsâ, l. 1. c. 3.

the Crofs; and yet (fays he) all the Conditions of a Bellarm. de Teftament agree with the laft Supper, none of them with the Cross; and here he enlargeth to no lefs than feven Particulars.

But he might have spared his Pains: For we do not believe that the New Teftament, or Covenant, ftrictly fpeaking, was made either on the Crofs, or in the laft Supper. Not on the Crofs: For we are well affured that it was then ratified and dedicated, Heb. 9. 18. which supposeth it to have a Being before. And for the Lord's Supper it is grofs to call it the New Teftament or Covenant, though it be indeed one of the Sacraments of it. Were it the New Testament it felf, Baptifm (a Sacrament of the New Teftament) would be a Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Befides, were the Supper the New Teftament, none could be faid to partake of this New Teftament, who did not partake of the Eucharift, which would exclude not only those who deceased before the Inftitution of the Eucharift, but all others alfo who died before they did partake of it: When Chrift calls the Cup the Blood of the New Testament, it is fuppofed the New Testament was in being before. And thus it was when the Covenant was ratified in the time of Mofes. Behold the Blood of the Covenant (fays he) which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words, (Exod. 24. 8.) That Blood was not the very Covenant, for that was in being before and we read of the Book of the Covenant, ver. 7. But it was the Blood by which it was ratified and confirmed. If the Old Covenant were not made in the Ceremony mentioned, Exod. 24. then is that matter ill applied to the Eucharift by him that affirms

Ggg

x Sam. 2. 35.

affirms the New Covenant or Teftament to be therein made. And if that Ceremony did but dedicate and confirm the Old Teftament (Heb. 9. 18.) then was it accomplished on the Crofs, and ftill does not belong to the Eucharift, much less prove the Sacrifice of the Mafs.

The Figure (Exod. 24.) is fo far from proving the Sacrifice of the Mass, that it rather makes against it. The Blood of the New Teftament in Correfpondence to that of the Old (Exod. 24.) must be the Blood of a Victim flain before, but Jefus Chrift in the laft Supper was not flain, and therefore the Blood of Jefus in the laft Supper was not the Blood of the New Teftament, and Anti-type of that Figure. If these words of Jefus, This is my Blood of the New Testament, fpeak the Blood already fhed, then must Christ have fuffered before; if they do not, then are they no proof of the Sacrifice of the Mafs.

I proceed now from the Figures, to confider what Pretences are fetched from the Prophets for the establishing the Sacrifice of the Mafs.

And I find the firft which Cardinal Bellarmine urgeth, is fetched from the words of the Man of God to Eli, viz. I will raise me up a faithful Priest, that fball do according to that which is in mine Heart, and in my Mind; and I will build him a fure Houfe, and he ball walk before mine Anointed for ever. This place fome of the Antients expound (fays he) of the Prieft-hood and Sacrifice of Chriftians, fucceeding the Aaronical, and which would remain to the end of the World.