I Speak of the general Queftion concerning Tradition, as if it had been spoken of the Tradition of the four Points in Controversy, and to pretend, that I allow them to be Apoftolical Traditions, when in the very Place refer'd to, I exprefly deny, that they can be derived from the Apoftolical Age. Such unfair Dealing at first fetting out gives me but little Hopes of any ingenuous Ufage in the Progress of the Book. Page 8. he takes great Pains to prove, that the Words Fruit of the Vine do not relate to the Inftitution of the Cup; yet Pag. 9, 12, 13, &c. he largely infifts on that Expreffion as a pofitive Proof of Chrift's inftituting a mixt Cup: Which is a manifeft Inconfiftency. In Page 12, 13, 14, &c. he endeavours to defend the ridiculous Diftinction between the Fruit of the Vine, and the Fruit of the Tree, which, he fays, is a figurative Expreffion, and that the Difference of the Liquors was the Reason of the Diftinction of the Names; but he ought to have remembred, what he has been told more than once, that the Names are not diftinct, but Synonimous, whatever is the Fruit of the Vine being equally the Fruit of the Tree call'd the Vine. It is a Figure, he fays, common and allow'd in all Languages, to call the whole by the Name of the principal Part: But was it ever call'd fo by way of Diftinction from that very principal Part? To ufe his own Inftance: The antient Greeks call'd a Mixture of Wine and Water by the Name of Wine, because that was the principal Ingredient: True; but did they ever give Wine and Water the Name of Wine, as a Note whereby to diftinguish it from pure unmix'd Wine? If not, how is this a parallel Inftance? Or what Confirmation can it give to the Diftinction between the Fruit of the Vine and the Fruit of the Tree? Is it the fame thing, to give the whole the Name of the princi * pal pal Part, and to diftinguish between a thing and its felf? Befides, to appropriate the Appellation of the Fruit of the Vine to a mixt Cup, merely because it is mixt, is to call it the Fruit of the Vine, merely because it is lefs fo, than it was before the Mixture: And if the Learned Jews, whom he mentions, Page 16, could ufe fuch a fenfelefs Diftinction, he may well diftinguish them from the wife Men; for what ever Learning they might be Mafters of, it is plain, they were not blefs'd with a great Share of Wits. What Pity is it, this fubtile Diftinguisher aud his Friends were not born an Age or two fooner? What excellent Advocates might they have proved for the celebrated Difinition between the King and Charles Stuart? Page 15. he is very angry at me for faying, that the Talmud can be no Rule to interpret Chrift's Words, efpecially when the Interpretation would make them Nonfenfe. This he calls a very free way of speaking of Chrift's Words, and very unusual among Chriftians : But wherein lies this indecent Freedom? Is it in denying his Party the Liberty, with the Help of the Talmud, to interpret our Saviour's Words into Nonfenfe? To guard against fuch a Practice is an Argument of Reverence to our Saviour; and the Charge of Prophaneness will lie at their Doors, who do not flick to take this ftrange Liberty of interpreting them, merely to ferve a defperate Caufe. Pag. 11, 12, he fays, that I affirm the Time of our Saviour's keeping the Paffover to be foreign to the prefent Purpose, (viz. his using unleaven'd Bread,) becaufe it is a thing much difputed among Commentators: But this is a notorious Falsehood; and had not his Zeal run away with both his Understanding and Eyefight, he might have feen,that tho' it is indeed obferv'd, Abr. Page 9. that the time of Chrift's keeping the Paffover is much difputed among the Commentators, get this is not offer'd as a Reason why the Time of his ck his keeping it is nothing to that Purpofe; but on the contrary, this plain Reafon for its being fo is exprefly affign'd: That on whatever Day he kept it, there being a pofitive Command of God, that with unleaven'd Bread, and bitter Herbs, they should eat it, Exod. xii. 8. we cannot imagine, that he would in direct Contradiction thereto, make Use of leaven'd Bread. It was not to his Purpose, to take Notice of this in its proper Place; and therefore he breaks the Connexion of the Argument, abfurdly introduces this Paffage in Page 11. and there endea vours to elude it with this Cavil; that there was as pofitive a Command for the Time of eating the Palover, as for the Ufe of unleaven❜d Bread; and that Chrift bad as much Power to difpenfe with the one as with the other. In Anfwer to which I obferve, 1. That the Question is not, what Chrift had Power to do, but what he actually did? 2. That it being fo much controverted amongst the greatest Divines, whether Chrift anticipated the Time of keeping the Palover, or not, it ought not to be taken for granted that he did. 3. That even fuppofing him to have anticipated it, it will be of no Advantage to our Adverfaries; for a plain reafon may be assign'd for it, viz. bis being to be offer'd the next Day, for our Redemption; but no fuch Reafon can be affign'd for his not ufing unleaven'd Bread: And I hope this Gentleman will not fo much as infinuate, that he, who came to fulfill all Righteousness, would without reafon neglect to obferve a pofitive Command of God. St. Chryfoftom was produced in the Abr. Page 12, 13.expressly interpreting the Words Fruit of the Vine, of Wine,not Water. To this my Anonymous Answerer replies, Pag. 18. That he was arguing against Heretics, who adminiftred the Cup in Water only, and where he was pleading for the Neceffity of Wine, he had no Occafion to prove the Neceffity of Water. This is a poor Equivocation, to say no worse of it; for St. Chry Chryfoftom's Word are exprefs against the Neceffity of Water: His Affertion is, that our Saviour made Ufe of Wine, fuch as the Vine produces, and that the Vine produces Wine, Nor WATER. And thence this Author may learn, that the Practice of the Mixture by any of the Fathers is no Proof of their deriving it from the Inftitution, upon which inconclufive Suppofition be fo often nauseously barangues. Page 52. be repeats this shuffling Argument, only varying the Expreffion: For there he fays, it would have been very frange, if St. Chryfoftom had complain'd of adminiftring without Water, when he was difputing against the Aquarians, who adminiftred in nothing, but Water. And yet we shall fee by and by, this very Author affirming St. Cyprian, in his Controverfy with the Aquarians, not only to have done that very ftrange thing, but to have afferted decifively the Neceffity of using Water; but with what regard to Truth be affirms this, I shall then examine. Page 21. he attempts to reduce my Anfwer to their Argument from Proverbs ix. into Syllogifm; and to fhew bis Skill in Logic, he has made the fame Propofition, varying the Words a little, both Major and Minor of his Syllogifm, and drawn a negative Conclufion from affirmative Premiffes. His Syllogifm is this, The fame Words, which properly fignify, to mix, fignifie alfo fometimes to pour out, or to give to drink; But they fignify, to pour out, or to give to drink; Ergo, They do not fignify, to mix. He may be as merry as he pleafes upon this Argument; but let him remember it is his own, not mine, and that his Mirth is only making a Fest of himself. To fave him the Trouble of bungling at it a fecond Time, I shall reduce my Argument into Syllogifm for him; and then it will stand thus : From From the bare ufe of Words, which fignify, to pour out, or to give to drink, as well as to mix, a Mixture cannot neceffarily be infer'd; But the Words in Prov. ix. fignify to pour out, or to give to drink, as well as to mix. Ergo, From the bare ufe of thofe Words in Prov. ix. a Mixture cannot neceffarily be infer'd. And now let him try his Strength on this Syllo-" gifm, whenever he pleafes. Page 22, 23. be contends, that the only way of fhewing forth the Lord's Death in the Eucharift, is (not by reprefenting the Blood fhed from thofe Wounds of which he died, but) by reprefenting that Blood and Water, which flowed from a Wound given him after his Death; than which nothing can be more abfurd, Page 24, 25. he gives us a large Citation from Juftin Martyr's Apology; in which I defire the Reader to obferve, that when that learned Father Speaks of the Cup then in Ufe in the Church of Palæftine, he mentions Wine and Water as the Ingredients of it, but when he speaks of our bleffed Saviour's Inftitution, as deliver'd to us by the Apostles, be does not give the leaft hint of any Water in the Cup; nay, on the contrary, his different way of expreffing himself on thefe two occafions, feems to imply his Carefulness in diftinguishing what was then the Practice of the Church, in which he flourished, from the original Inftitution. A due Attendance to this Obfervation will ferve for a fufficient Answer to all be bas urged from this learned Father's Teftimony; and fully evince, that the Minor of his Firft, and both Major and Minor of his fecond Syllogifm, are very precarious and inconclufive. Page 35. he undertakes to prove, that St. Cyprian is exprefs for the Neceffity of Water, and affirms it to be as effential as Wine, in Virtue of the original InK ftitu |