eat of his Bread. This proves the Neceffity

of the Mixture.

Iren. Your Argument is founded on a Miftake, which thro' this whole Controversy you frequently run into: Wherever you meet with thofe Greek, Latin, or Hebrew Words, which are fometimes properly render'd a Mixture, to mingle, &c. you imagine, that they muft neceffarily have the fame Signification; whereas the learned in these Languages affert, that in the best Authors they frequently fignify no more than to pour out, to give to drink. This has been confirm'd by Abundance of Citations, but more particularly from Rev.xiv. 10. where the Word, which fometimes fignifies to mingle, is applied to unmix'd Wine, and therefore muft neceffarily fignify poured out, as our Tranflation rightly renders it; The Wine of the Wrath of God, which is poured out without Mixture. So alfo Ch. xviii. 6. In the Cup, which fhe bath filled, fill to her double, fays our Tranflation; where the Greek Word, which they twice render to fill, is the fame, that fometimes fignifies to mingle. To confirm this, the Note of Theodorus Mopfueftenus on Pfalm lxxv. 9. may be not improper, in which he puts the Question, how the Pfalmift having fpoken of unmix'd Wine, prefently calls it mix'd; and the Reafon he affigns is, because the Word, which fignifies a Mixture, is often us'd for fuch a Quantity of Liquor as is fufficient for a Draught, fuch as will fill a Cup.

Whilft therefore it is an Idiom of those Languages to exprefs any Liquor poured out by the fame Phrafe as fignifies mixing, it cannot be evident that this Text in the Proverbs ought not to be tranflated, She bath poured out her Wine, and Drink of the Wine, which I have poured out.

Neoph. In the Judgment of Hammond, and Grotius, the Texts you cited are to be interpreted of a Cup containing Wine unmix'd, with refpect to any foftning, allaying Liquor, mix'd with refpect to thofe poisonous Herbs, which were ordinarily given to Perfons put to Death, and to which St. John alludes, as alfo does the Pfalmift.

Iren. OurTranflators understood them otherwife; and though we should grant your Conftruction right, yet you cannot deny it to be the Idiom of thofe Languages to exprefs mixing, pouring out, and giving to drink, by the fame Words.

Neoph. But, if I can make it appear from the Hiftory of the Inftitution, that Water was an effential Part of the Cup, I hope you will then grant, that the Text in the Proverbs ought to be underflood of a Mixture. I think, it will not be denied, that our blessed Saviour fettled the Sacrament at his laft Supper, upon a Resemblance with the Pafchal Solemnity: Now, Dr. Lightfoot obferves from Maimonides and the Talmud, That at the

Pafchal

Pafchal Festival, the Jews mix'd Water with their Wine.

Iren. Suppofing the Pafchal Cup to be mix'd, yet it follows not that Chrift's was neceffarily fo, becaufe, he did not institute the Eucharift, till the Pafchal Supper was over; and fo what Cup he ufed cannot be inferred from what had ne before it.

Neoph. The Cups aner the Pafchal Supper was over, are most reafonably to be fuppofed the Remainder of what was provided for the Paffover; for the Scripture gives not the leaft Hint of any new Provifion..

1

Iren. You quoted Dr. Lightfoot juft now, and do not both he and Buxtorf say, that though a few ufed pure. Wine at the Paffover, he did his Duty, how then can we be fure, that our Lord used a Mixture? But though we should be fo liberal as to grant, what it is impoffible for you to prove, viz. That our Saviour us'd the mix'd Pafchal Cup, it will no more prove the Neceffity of the Mixture, than his ufing the Pafchal unleavened. Bread, will the Neceffity of unleavened Bread.

Neoph. It is not certain, that he did ufe unleavened Bread; for the fews were not obliged to put away Leaven till the fourteenth Day in the Evening; whereas the Eucharift was inftituted on the thirteenth, our Saviour keeping the Passover a Day fooner than the fet Time, as being at that time to be offered himfelf.

Iren. The Time of our Saviour's keeping the Passover, is a thing much difputed among the Commentators, and is foreign to our prefent Purpose: For, on whatever Day he kept it, there being a pofitive Command of God, that with unleavened Bread and bitter Herbs they should eat it: Ex. xii. 8. we cannot imagine, that he would, in direct Contradiction thereto, make use of leavened Bread. Dr. Hammond, indeed, in his Note on Mark xiv. 12. gives probable Reasons, to prove, that our Saviour did not eat the Pafchal Supper at all; and, if that hold good, the whole Foundation of your Arguments, from the Refemblance of the Eucharift and the Pafchal Supper, is entirely overthrown.

Neoph. I fhall not meddle at present with Dr. Hammond's Notion; but to take off the Force of your Objection about unleavened Bread, I defire you to confider, that leavened Bread is a Species of Bread, but Wine is not a Species of Wine and Water; the Water is a diftinct Substance from the Wine, Part of the instituted Matter of the Cup; but the Leaven is not a diftinct Subftance from the Bread.

Iren. No, what Subftance then does it inhere in, before the Bread is leavened? Can one Accident inhere in another? This is fine Philofophy indeed.

Neoph. Experience may convince you, that Dough, if you let it lie till it grow fowre, will leaven it felf.

Iren. What then? Would you infer from thence, that the Salt and Yeaft, with which: it is generally leavened, are not a diftinct Subftance from the Bread? Would you draw an univerfal Conclufion from one particular Inftance? And now I think it clear, that if you would act confiftently, you ought to adminifter in unleavened Bread; it being more certain, that it was Bread unleavened, which Chrift gave to his Difciples, when he faid; Take, eat, this is my Body, than that it was a mix'd Cup, which he gave them as the Symbol of his Blood. I have already obferved, that the Customs of the Jews do not neceffarily prove the Pafchal Cups to be mix'd Cups; and I think it highly reasonable to fuppofe, that had our Saviour defigned to have the Eucharift celebrated in Water as well as Wine, he would have told us fo: But in the Hiftory of the Inftitution we find not the leaft Hint of any thing more in the Cup, than the Fruit of the Vine; Matt. xxvi. 29. which muft .needs imply, either that there was no Water in the Cup, or that Chrift did not make it a neceffary effential Part of the Institution.

Neoph. Our Saviour's Words do not neceffarily exclude Water.

Iren. Neither do they neceffarily exclude any other Liquor, if nothing but an exprefs Prohibition will fuffice: At this rate, provided we ufe Wine, we may add whatever other Liquor we pleafe, and eat any thing

we