we have a Mind to with the Euchariftic Bread. There was a ridiculous Sect of Montanift Heretics, in the fecond Century, call'd Artotyrita, who thought it neceflary to eat Cheese with the Euchariftic Bread: And, might with as good a Grace have pleaded, that Chrift had no where exprefsly prohibited the Ufe of Cheese, his Words did not neceffarily exclude it. Befides we are not now enquiring, whether the Mixture be forbidden, fo as to make the Use of it finful, but whether it be fo enjoined, as to make it neceffary? Neoph. I fhall prove it to be fo enjoyned, by fhewing, that Chrift's Words include Water; for he being a Jew, is to be understood to fpeak according to the Jewish Phraseology, in which Wine mix'd with Water is called the Fruit of the Vine, and pure Wine the Fruit of the Tree. This is clear from the Talmud, as cited by Dr. Lightfoot. on, Iren. This is a fenfelefs Diftinction without a Difference: For of what Tree but the Vine, canWine be called the Fruit? Or what Vine ever produced Wine and Water? Inftead of pinning our Faith on fuch an abfurd Distinctiit would be much fafer and better tofollow St. Paul's Advice to Titus, Chap. i. 14. nat to give beed to Jewish Fables, and Commandments of Men that turn from the Truth. Neoph. Will you not allow the Jews to fettle their own Language, to affign the Notes of Diftinction, and exprefs their Thoughts, as they please. Iren. Yes, but this Diftinction was never a common manner of expreffing among the Jews; and the Talmud (which the great Patron of your new Separation confeffes, in his Dictionary, to contain a Multitude of ridiculous Traditions and Fables, and Blafphemies of feveral Kinds) can be no Rule to interpret Chrift's Words, especially when the Interpretation would make them Nonsense. But in truth, had the Mishna, the most valuable Part of the Talmud, been confulted, you had never been led by the Authority of Dr. Lightfoot into this Miftake; for the Talmud is as exprefsly against you, as we can wish: Therein we are told, that the Blessings used for the Fruit of all other Trees, are, Blessed be thou, that createft the Fruit of the Tree; but, for Wine, Thou that createft the Fruit of the Vine; and, that though Rabbi Eliezer was of Opinion, that this Bleffing was not to be used till the Wine was mix'd, yet the wife Men bleffed it before; and, that the Decifion was according to the wife Men. This proves, that in your own dear Talmud, the Fruit of the Vine fignifies unmix'd Wine; and though you could have proved the Contrary from it, yet, I think the Judgment of St. Bafil and St. Chryfoftom, would be of more Weight to determine the Sense of our Saviour's Words: The firft of whom calls the Cup, before the Mixture, Mixture, the Fruit of the Vine; and the latter on Matt. xxvi. 29. in exprefs Words afferts, that our Saviour made ufe of Wine, fuch as the Vine produces; and that the Vine produces Wine, not Water. Neoph. Well, but though the Fruit of the Vine fignifies Wine only, Wine only may be mentioned, because it is the principal Ingredient. Iren. This is poorly begging the Question, fince nothing can be produced to prove it. Neoph. I prove it by the Authority of Plutarch, who fays, that a Mixture, though it had moft Water in it, was from the principal Liquor call'd Wine. Iren. This is arguing contrary to your own Rules, from the Phrafeology of the Greeks, to the Phrafeology of the Jews: And though the Word Wine may in an improper Sense be us❜d for a Mixture, yet where there is no Proof of a Mixture, as in the prefent Cafe, it ought to be taken in its own proper Sense. Neoph. By your Favour, Sir, I have a demonftrative Proof of the Mixture and its Effentiality too, taken from the very End of the Inftitution of the Sacrament; which being that we might fhew forth the Lord's Death, till be come, the Cup must be supposed to reprefent his Blood fhed in fuch a manner, as to manifeft the Reality of his Death: This can be done only by a Cup of Wine and Water; for all fhedding of Blood does not neceffarily infer Death; but the Blood and Water which flowed out of our Saviour's Heart, when the Soldier pierced his Side with the Spear, was a Demonstration of his being truly dead: This therefore is the shedding of our Lord's Blood, which we are to reprefent in the Eucharift; and fince Water flowed from his Side at the fame time, we cannot fhew forth the Reality of his Death, but by a Cup of Wine and Water. Iren. Though fhedding Blood from a Wound, which has not reached the Heart, do not neceffarily infer Death, yet it is evident in Fact, that not one in ten of those who die of a Wound, are pierced into the Heart: And as to the particular Cafe of our Saviour; that Wound, from whence the Water and Blood flowed, was fo far from being the Cause of his Death, that he was actually dead before. This appears from the Account of it by St. John, who is the only Evangelift, that mentions this Circumftance of our Saviour's Paffion. Chap. xix. v. 30. he tells us, that Jefus having received the Vinegar, faid, it is finished: And bowed his head and gave up the ghoft. v. 33. That when they came to Jefus, and faw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs; but one of the Soldiers with a fpear pierced his fide, and forthwith there came out blood and water. I believe by this time you are afhamed of your Argument, and am forry to find a Clergyman fo groísly ignorant of the 7 the most important Part of Scripture-Hiftory, as to run into fuch a fatal Mistake, and to affert fo pofitively and confidently, that nothing can demonftrate the Reality of Chrift's Death, but that, before, and exclufive of which, the Holy Ghoft witneffes him to have been actually dead. Neoph. Though I have been guilty of a Miftake here, yet you cannot deny, that the Water and the Blood are by St. John in his first Epistle Chap. v. 8. faid to bear Witness to our Saviour on Earth: And these Witnesses, whom God has connected, we must not facrilegiously put afunder. And I fhould be glad to know, if Water may be omitted, why not Wine? Iren. That the Water and Blood bear Witnefs to Christ on Earth is an undoubted Truth; but how does this prove the Mixture? The Fathers all understand by the Teftimony of the Water the Sacrament of Baptifm. Neoph. What then? Did not they notwithftanding use a mix'd Cup? Iren. Who among them did, and on what Grounds, we shall fee, when we come to their Teftimonies: In the mean time to your Queftion, why Wine may not be omitted as well as Water? I reply, becaufe Chrift plainly tells us, that what he appointed to reprefent his Blood, was the Fruit of the Vine; but as he fays not a Word of Water, fo neither have you the leaft Shadow of Proof, that he us'd it; for if you |