communicated to them at the Coming of the Holy Ghoft.

Iren. This is another of your Poffibilities, and fo ridiculous a one, that I am amazed to hear it from a Man of your Learning: The things, which the Apoitles were not able to bear, and of which Chrift fpeaks, John xvi. 12. are by the best Expofitors fuppofed to be, the Spiritual Nature of the Kingdom of the Meffias, the Abrogation of the Ceremonial Law, the Rejection of the Jews, and the calling in of the Gentiles. Thefe Myfteries were fo contrary to thofe Prejudices the Disciples had entertained, that they were not able to bear them then: But what fo aftonishing, fo fhocking to their Faith, could there be, in the mixing Water with the Euchariftic Wine? Was this fo deep and amazing a Mystery, that the Apostles could not then be in Prudence entrufted with? Befides what was then concealed from them, was revealed at the coming of the Holy Ghoft, but we have not a Word in any of the Apoftolic Writings concerning the Mixture.

8

A

Neoph. To my Arguments from Scripture I fhall now add the Teftimonies of the FATHERS; and my firft Witness for the Mixture is, Justin Martyr, who was probably born before the Death of St. John, and lived in Palafine, where the Chriftian Religion was first publifhed:Thisgreat Father defcribing the Practice of the Church, exprefsly. teftifies, that Water

was

was mix'd with Wine in the Euchariftic Cup This proves the Mixture an Apoftolical Ufage, and coeval with the Inftitution.

Iren. I think this Argument needs no other Confutation, but to be put into Syllogifm, and then it will, ftand thus.

That which was in Ufe in the Church of Pa laftine above 500 Years after the Institution of the Eucharift, muft needs be coeval to the Inftitution.

The Mixture is affirmed by Justin Martyr, to have been in Ufe in the Church of Palatine above 100 Years after the Inftitution of the Eucharift:

Ergo,

The Mixture muft needs be coeval with the Inftitution.

Prove the Major of this Syllogifm, and I'll be your Convert? One wouldhave imagined by your affuming to your felvesthe Name of PrimoPrimitive, that you had the first Century exprefs on your Side, that Clemens Romanus, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp had been full and clear in your Favour, but fince this of Justin Martyr is the first Teftimony you can produce, his bare Mention of the Mixture, as the Cuftom of the Church, where he lived, is not early enough to prove it coeval with the Inftitution. In the Words immediately preceeding those you quote, Justin tells us, That at the Conclufion of their Prayers before the Eucharift, they faluted each other with a Kifs: This Ufage feems to

be

be enjoyned in the New Testament. See Rom. xvi. 16. 1 Cor. xvi. 20. 2 Cor. xiii. 12. I Theff. v. 26. 1 Pet.v. 14. Yet this is not thought neceflary to be revived, as neither the Order of Deaconefes, nor the Love-Feafts before the Eucharift, though certainly in Use in the Apoftles Time, and approved of by them.

Neoph. Your Love-Feafts were only Praatice without Precept.

Iren. And your Mixture has neither Precept, nor (fo far as appears from any Evidence) Pratice in the Apoftolic Age.

Neoph. We muft diftinguish between a Ceremony and the Matter of an Inftitution: The former are left to discretionary Latitude, and the Appointment of Governors; the latter are indifpenfable, unalterable. The Love-Feafts, and the Holy Kifs are of the former fort; the Mixture of the latter.

Iren. That is, in your Opinion; but as I have already confidered your Arguments from the Hiftory of the Inftitution, and fhewn Water not to be the inftituted Matter of the Cup, I fhall take leave to call this begging the Question,

Neoph. My next Teftimonies are from Irenaus and Clemens Alexandrinus.

Iren. The Paffages you cite from thofe Fathers are very dark and obfcure, and we illiterate Lay-Men are neither Judges what is the true Tranflation of them, nor what is the Senfe of the very English you render them by; I muft D2 defire

over affirms in other Parts of this Epiftle; and Water is only an Emblem of the People. I have faid enough to prove, that St. Cyprian pleads for the Ufe of Water, only as a mystical Rite practis'd by the Church, not as the Matter of the Cup. To confirm this, I with you would obferve, that he allows the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood to be prefigur'd in Melchifedec's bringing forth Bread and Wine, whence I→→→→

མ

Neoph. To fpoil the Force of your Argument, the great Author of the Defence of the Reafons has obferv'd, that it is moft probable, that Melchifedec offer'd what was commonly drank in thofe warm Countries, which was Wine diluted.

Iren. This at best is but Conjecture, and tho' true, will prove the Mixture to be only accidental, by reafon of the Heat of the Clime. This I take to be the true Reafon, why the Fathers ufed the Mixture. And then, in the Ufe of unmix'd Wine, we conform to the Cuftom of our Climate, as in the Ufe of mix'd Wine they did to the Cuftom of theirs. But St. Athanafius, a much greater Man than that Author, affirms, that Melchifedec, the Type of the unbloody Sacrifice, gave to Abraham Bread and the unmix'd Cup.

Neoph. Be it fo then: But what Neceffity is there, that the Type and Antitype fhould agree in every refpecta

Iren. In the main fundamental Particular, wherein they are neceffarily defign'd to agree, they can admit of no Addition of any other typical Symbol to make them differ: Now, if, as St. Cyprian fays, the Image of Chrift's Sacrifice confifted of Bread and Wine, the Sacrifice it felf must be allow'd to confift of Bread and Wine alfo, and this being the main fundamental Point, in which Melchifedec was the Type of Chrift, will admit of no Addition. St. Cyprian being thought fo decifive in this Point, and fo great, Weight laid by you on his Authority, I defire to know, whether you think it neceffary to revive the Cuftom of Communicating Infants, of which he fpeaks with fo much Favour, and which the whole Church down to the twelfth Century practifed, and is continued in the Oriental Church to this Day?o Iron só unigo has e The great Author of the has

3

Neoph may revive it as foon as

told you, that

you please lies ab 1 senborg touring Iren. And yet that very Author, before fe veral Witneffes confefs'd, That this Cuftom was built on a miftaken Senfe of John vi. 53. And would he have us restore all the Miftakes of the Ancients ? det to continued 30

Neoph. This Cuftom is not mentioned before St. Cyprian's Time, and he does not plead for it as neceffary, or enforc'd by a Command of our Saviour: Whereas the Mixture is

t