commonly affumed the name, viz. The written Predictions of the Jewish Prophets, Where, in a detailed account of the PROMISED MESSIAH, the principal part relates to his death and fufferings on the cross, under the idea of a SACRIFICE. And if, as hath been pretended, these things relate to Jefus only in a Secondary fenfe, and to the Jewish Leaders in a primary; this would only make the analogy between these two kinds of Prediction more complete, and the connexion between the two Religions more ftrong and durable. For the Jewish Sacrifices, though as types they refer ultimately to Chrift, yet as a religious fervice not typical, they had, like Prophecy, a prior reference to the LAW. So admirable is this coincidence between these two sorts of prediction. As to the logical and moral fitness of SECONDARY SENSES, I have explained that matter at large in the former parts of this work *,

Hitherto in fupport of the Doctrine of the GREAT SACRIFICE ON THE CROSS.

* See Book VI. Sect. 6,

And

And this alone feems abundantly fufficient to establish it.

But this is not the whole. It was not only FORETOLD by the Types and other Prophecies of the old Law, but the Remembrance of it was PERPETUATED by a divine Institution in the new and an explanation of this Rite is the last step we fhall take to fix this fundamental Article of our holy Faith.

In thofe Ages of the World * when Victims made a principal part of the Religioh both of Jews and Gentiles, the Sacrifice was commonly followed by a religious Feast on the thing offered, called a Feaft upon, or after, the Sacrifice; the partakers of which were fuppofed to become partakers of the BENEFITS of the Sacrifice. In allufion to this custom, Jefus was pleased to inftitute a Feast of the fame kind.-In order of time, indeed, the Feaft naturally followed the Sacrifice. But in this great. Atonement, where the VICTIM, the OFFERER,

* See the Discourse on the Nature and End of the Lord's Supper. R. W.

and

and the PRIEST, were all one and the fame Perfon, the Feast was, of neceffity, to precede the Sacrifice.

The hiftory of this inftitution is recorded, by the Evangelifts, in these words :"And as they were eating, Jefus took "bread and bleffed it, and gave it to his

difciples, and faid, Take, eat, THIS IS "MY BODY: and he took the cup, and

gave thanks, and gave it to them, fay"ing, Drink ye all of it; for THIS IS MY "BLOOD of the New Teftament, which "is fhed for many, for the remiffion of "fins *"

Now, to manifeft that we are not mif taken in the idea here given of this Rite, let us reflect on the precife time of its celebration.

As Jefus, with his Disciples, (fays the text), was concluding the Pafchal Supper, which was a Jewish Feaft after the Sacrifice, his own approaching Sacrifice naturally fuggefted to him the idea of this cuftomary Feaft. But being himself both the

*Matt. xxvi. 26, &c..

Victim and the Offerer, the Inftitution of this Rite muft of neceffity, as we observed, precede the Sacrifice-The Sacrifice on the Crofs was the Antitype of the Pafchal-Lamb; and the Feast on Chrift's Sacrifice was the Antitype of the Pafchal-feaft. So that the propereft season we can conceive for the inftitution of the last Supper, was the instant of time betwen the celebration of the type, and the offering of the Antitype. This time likewise corresponded with Chrift's usual practice, who was wont to deliver his inftructions by actions and expreffions, bearing allufion to what paffed before his eyes, or prefented itself, in the natural course of things, to his observation *. These confiderations fhew, that the action, in the celebration of this Rite, was fo ftrongly declarative of its nature, that had Jefus only

*See Sir Ifaac Newton's Obfervations on the Prophecies, p. 148; where he takes notice how Jefus, from the approach of harveft-from the lilies in bloom-from the leaves of the fig-trees fhot out from the Sheep kept in folds near the temple for facrifice-was accustomed to take occafion of inculcating his spiritual Doctrines and Precepts,

broken

broken the bread and given the cup in remembrance of himfelf, without adding, this is my body and this is my blood, no ingenuous Hearer could entertain a doubt, whether this was defigned by him as a Feaft upon the Sacrifice. But when to this we add the remaining part of the explanatory words, in the confecration of the Elements

THIS IS MY BODY-THIS IS MY BLOODwhat is here contended for becomes almost felf-evident.

In thefe feafts upon Sacrifice, the very body that had been offered was eaten for the repaft. Now, as the laft fupper was to be inftituted, and the Rite firft celebrated, before the great Sacrifice was actually offered, (for the reafon juft now given,) it was on that account (not to mention other reasons) neceffary that fome fymbolic elements fhould be fubftituted in the place of the very body and blood. These elements were BREAD AND WINE: on this occafion naturally, properly, and elegantly called, THE BODY

AND BLOOD.

For if the specific nature of the laft fupper was a feaft upon Sacrifice, we must needs

con