produced (as that both these Sacraments were foederal Rites, both of divine Institution, and the like) we may perceive, that the Ceremonies are in a good Measure the fame: For as in the pafchal Supper (according to the Method obferved in our Saviour's Time) the Mafter of the Houfe ufed to take Bread, to blefs, and break it; likewife to take a Cup of Wine * and confecrate it, which was afterwards called a Cup of Bleffing; diftributing both, one after the other, to thofe that were with him at Table; fo it is obvious to every one, that our Saviour does exactly the fame. Moreover, as when the firit Paflover was celebrated in Egypt,. before the deftroying Angel had paffed over the Houses, we find the Lamb flain on that Occafion was called, by Anticipation, the Lord's Paffovert, tho' it could not be the real Paffover, but only a Reprefentation of it; fo our Saviour makes Ufe of the very fame Manner of Expreffion, This is my Body which is broken, and this my Blood which is fhed for you, i. e. “These are the Signs and Symbols which "I appoint to reprefent my Body which is foon "to be broken, and my Blood which is foon. 66 to be fhed for you and for many, for the "Remiffion of Sins." And indeed this Manner of Speaking, of giving to the Sign the Name

* Some fay that the Master of the House used to take four Cups, one after the other, and that it was the third or fourth, which our Saviour was pleased to fanctify, by taking into his Hands, and giving Thanks over it.

+ Exod. xii, II.

The Jesus in the Celebration of the Paffover used to fay, This is the Bread of Affliction which our Forefathers eat

Name of the Thing fignified, was fo common: in the Old Teftament 1, and fo often ufed by our Saviour himfelft, that the Difciples exprefs'd no Sort of Surprize at it, which they would have done, in all Probability, had they thought the Words capable of being underflood in a literal Senfe *; nay, the Jews are obliged to speak in that Manner, having no Word in the Hebrew which expreffes the Term fignify.

Our

in Egypt; and, this is the Body of the Passover. Whether this Form of fpeaking is fo ancient as our Saviour, I pretend not to fay; I only mention it to fhew, that these Kinds of Phrafes are very familiar to the Jews.

Juftin Martyr takes Notice, that Efdras, at a Paffover, had faid to the Jews, This Paffover (i. e. Pafchal Lamb) is our Saviour and our Refuge, and that the Jews after Chrift's Time had erafed thefe Words out of the Septuagint; Whether he was right or no, the Words are worth obferving, as delivering what the Chriftians in his Time understood to be pafchal Phrafes, parallel to this is my Body.

Gen. xvii. 13, xli. 26. Dan. ii. 38, &c. iv. 20, vii. 17. Ezek. xxxvii. Ir.

Mat.xiii,38. John x.7. xv. 1. As to this last Text, I cannot forbear faying, How would the Church of Rome exult, if our Saviour had faid, at the Inftitution of this holy Sacrament, This is my true Body, as he fays here, I am the TRUE Vine, which yet the understands, as well as we, in a metaphorical Senfe? See alfo Rom. vi, 4. 1 Cor. x, 4. Col. ii, 12. Rev. i, 20. xvii, 7.

The Church of Rome, at the fame Time that she would have the Words, this is my Body and Blood, taken literally, is obliged to have Recourfe to a Figure in other Parts of the Inftitution itself: For fhe does not pretend that it is the Cup, but the Wine in the Cup, which is the Blood of Chrift; nor that the Cup itself is the Blood of the New Testament (or Covenant), tho' the Words are as exprefs, as those fhe lays fo great a Strefs on: Now if the Abfurdity of understanding thofe Expreffions literally obliges the Romanists to fly to a metaphorical Senfe, why fhould it not extend for that very Reason to the whole Paffage? Surely, if they would act confiftently, they muft interpret the fame Form

Our Saviour feems further to allude to the Jewish Pallover, when he fays, This Cup is the new Covenant in my Blood; for as the Blood of the Lamb was the Token, and was to be the Memorial of the Covenant between God and his People, whereby the Plague was not to be upon them to destroy them, when he fmote the Land of Egypt; fo the Cup is a Reprefentation of the Blood of Chrift, which Blood was the Token and Ratification (nay the very Foundation) of the Covenant of Grace, made between God and Men for the Remiffion of Sins .

Thus far we may fee the very striking Re

femblance there is between these two Sacraments: It appears that both were intended to preferve to the then prefent Generation, and to Pofterity after them, the Remembrance of fome fpecial Deliverance which God had wrought for his People; and in this Refpect they perfectly agree: But there are fome Differences which occur between them, and which of Speech in one uniform Way, and not against all Rules of Criticifm, and in the moft arbitrary Manner, understand one Part literally, and another Part figuratively, without giving any Rule for fuch Licence, but what will in the End turn against themfelves.

*Exod. xii, 13.

At the Inftitution of the Paffover, it was faid, THIS BLOOD fhall be to you for a Token upon the Houfes where you are; and when I fee the Blood, I will pass over you, and the Plague fhall not be upon you. Exod. xii. 13. In the Inftitution of the Eucharift, the Cup is by a Figure put for Wine; and Covenant, according to the ancient Scripture Phrafe, is put for Token of a Covenant; and Wine, Reprefentative of Chrift's Blood, anfwers to the Blood of the Paffover, typical of the fame Blood of Chrift; and the Remiffion of Sins here, anfwers to the paffing over the Ifraelites, and preferving them from the Plague.

will appear to be greatly to the Advantage of the Eucharift.

Thus, for Inftance: The Paffover was meant to point out a Deliverance from a temporal Bondage; whereas the Eucharift was intended to be a Memorial of á greater Deliverance from fpiritual, and eternal Bondage. The Passover prefigured, but in an obfcure Manner, the Death of Chrift, before it was accomplish'd ; while the Eucharift reprefents, and fets forth in the plaineft Manner, the Death of our Saviour as paft *. The Jewish Deliverance was confined and peculiar to that People; whereas the Deliverance we commemorate is univerfal, and extends to all the World. The Paffover was only to continue during the Jewish Oeconomy; but the Eucharift is to laft till the Confummation of all Things t, till our Sa·viour comes again || to Judgment, to render to every Man according to his Deeds §.

* Our Saviour, probably in Allufion to the Paffover, is often called the Lamb of God. John i. 29. I Pet. i. 19. Rev. v. 9, and even the Paffover itself: Chrift our Paffover is facrificed for us. 1 Cor. v, 7.

When it is here faid of the Cup, that it is the NEW Teftament (or Covenant) that feems to carry a plain Infinuation, that the Old one was to be abolished: In that he faith a new Covenant, he hath made the first old: Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Heb. viii. 13.

Not as fome Quakers vainly pretend, till He comes fpiritually into our Hearts; for furely our Saviour was come into the Heart of the Apostle before he wrote this Epiftle, A. D. Circ. 58, many Years after his Conversion; so that it appears that the Inftruction he gives was to be of standing Force and Obligation, till our Saviour comes to the final Judgment :---And accordingly, after this Epiftle was wrote, the Difciples ufed to come together to eat Bread, at one of which Meetings St Paul is exprefsly mention'd to have been prefent, Acts xx. 1 Cor.xi 26. § 2 Cor. v, 10. Rom.¡¡,6.

After this fhort Expofition of the Lord's Supper, we might very aptly here take Notice. of the extreme Simplicity of this holy Ceremony: Our Saviour being at Table with his Difciples, takes only Bread and Wine, which he found ready on the Table, and makes Ufe. of them to reprefent his Body broken, and his Blood fhed for the Redemption of Mankind: Here are none of thofe coftly and troublesome Rites, which before burthen'd all Nations, in fome Kind or other; but only two cheap Elements t, the one produced in moft, if not in all Places,

*Learned Men are very much divided in their Sentiments. concerning the Bread bleffed at the Eucharift, whether it was leavened or not? The Solution of that Question depends on another: Whether our Saviour kept the legal Paffover? For if he did, he used no doubt unleavened Bread: But if, on the contrary, he kept a commemorative Supper, and before the legal Paffover, he used probably leaven'd Bread. --The Practice of the Church has been variable; but that of the leaven'd Bread (which the Greek Church strenuously infifts to have been used by our Blefjed Lord) feems to have been the most univerfal.

The Wine in Judaa being extremely strong, it was cuftomary to mix Water with it, which has induced many learned Men to conclude that our Saviour made ufe of that Mixture for the Euchariftical Cup. It must be confeffed that this was a Cuftom for many Ages; but as the Scriptures have not spoken any Thing concerning it, every Church may do therein as fhe thinks best. Thofe who ufe Wine alonefeem to flick clofer to our Saviour's Words, who calls the Cup the Fruit of the Vine, Matth. xxvi, 21.

And I cannot here but admire the Condefcenfion shewn to the Poor in these bleffed Ordinances.---Under the Law there was a Difference indeed made in Favour of the Indigent, who, instead of a Lamb, were indulged, in fome Cafes, to bring two Turtle Doves, or two young Pidgeons, Lev. v, 7, 11. xii, 3; but yet there was in this kind Provifion fomething mortifying to human Nature, as it feem'd rather to expofe than conceal their Poverty; which, among fuch aughty Feople especially, was attended with fome Difgrace:

Whereas