Of the second Typicall Scripture, which is the Passeover: shewing the weaknesse of the Argument taken from thence, for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse.
FIrst it is meet we heare your Objector speake, even your a 1.1 Car∣dinall, who albeit he confesseth the Paschall Lamb to have been the figure of Christ on the Crosse, yet did it in the Ceremonies thereof (saith he) more immediatly and principally prefigure the Eucharist than the Passion, which is proved by Scripture, 1. Cor. 5. [Our Passeover is offered up, therefore let us feast it in the Azymes of Sincerity and Truth.] Which offering up was not fulfilled on the Crosse; but it is evident that the Apostle did eat this true Paschall Lambe, the flesh of Christ, at his Supper: and this Apostle exhor∣teth us to this Feast, in saying, [Let us therefore keepe our feast, &c.] So hee, bestowing a large Chapter of Arguments, wherewith to bleare our eyes, lest that we should see in this Scripture [Our Passeover is offered up] Rather the Immolation of Christ on the Crosse, than in the Eucharist. We willingly yeeld unto his allea∣ged Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, who by way of Allusion, or Analogie, doe all call the Eucharist a Paschall Sacrifice. But yet that the words of this Scripture should more properly and principally meane the Eucharisticall Sacrifice (as if the Iewish Passeover did rather prefigure the Sacrifice of Christ in the Masse, than on the Crosse) not one.