VI. Common and ordinary bread is to be made use of, as Chrift ufed that which lay before him, Mat. xxvi, 26. But it was an old fubject of debate between the Greek and Latin churches, whether it ought to be leavened or unleavened, both of them appealing to the example of our Lord. The Latins infift that Chrift ufed unleavened bread, becaufe immediately after the pafchal feaft he inftituted the fupper; at which time it was altogether unlawful for any leaven to be feen among the Ifraelites. The Greeks, on the other hand, contend, that Chrift eat the pafchal lamb, the day before the Jews celebrated their paffover; from which they infer, that the days of unleavened bread were not yet come, when our Lord célebrated the first fupper, and therefore it is moft probable, that our Lord used leavened bread, which, before the days of unleavened bread came, was most commonly made ufe of. And indeed, as to Chrift's example, we make no manner of doubt, but the Latins have the better of the Greeks in this argument. For, whether our Lord celebrated the paffover on the fame, or on a different day from the other Jews: what was the day of the paffover to him, was also to him the day of unleavened bread: which the Evangelifts exprefsly affirm, Mat. xxvi, 17, Mark xiv. 12. Luke xxii. 7. Nor is it fo certain, that Chrift celebrated the paffover before the Jews, as Gerard Voffius imagines with the Greeks. The difputes of the celebrated John Cloppenburg and Lud. Capellus have already laid before the learned world, what probably may be faid on both fides of the queftion. Nay, the oppofite opinion feems to be much better founded, as Bochart, whom we have already fo often quoted, has made out by cogent aruments, who feems to have taken off all the difficulty of this question, Hierozoic. Lib. 2. c. 1. However, we agree not with the Latins, who would have the example of Chrift, in fo flender a circumstance, to retain the force of a perpetual law. For as this is no part of the effence of the facrament, fo the use of either fort of bread at this facred feaft, as occafion fhall offer, is indifferent and arbitrary; fince Chrift, without any decifion of this question on either fide, used that bread which was then at hand, Wherefore it is a matter both of astonishment and grief, that the Greek and Latin churches fhould have difputed, with fo much eagerneís and warmth, now for above five hundred years about fuch a trifling matter. Du Plefis de Euchariftia, Lib. 2. c. 5. may be confulted on this fubject.

VII. But we can by no means approve of the fmall round things, made of meal, commonly called hofts or wafers, such as now the Romish church is pleased to make ufe of. 1st, Be-cause they are most difagreeable to the inftitution and practice

of

of Christ. For it is very probable, that Chrift ufed fuch an unleavened cake, as the master of the family, in whofe house he kept the paffover, laid before him, according to the custom of the Jews. But thefe cakes were fomething large, in order to be diftributed in pieces among the guests at the table; they were alfo thin and broad, but yet of a moderate thicknefs like our fweet and round cakes, that they might be adapted for the nourishment of the body. As to their matter, form, and preparation, fee Buxtorf's Synagoga Judacia, c. 12. 2dly, Becaufe in that cafe, there is either no analogy, or an obfcure one, between the fign and thing fignified. Neither is there that ferviceableness for fupporting life, nor that nourifhing quality, nor fweetnefs of flavour in those wafers, as in common bread; by which both the ferviceablenefs, and nourishing efficacy and grateful fweetnefs of the grace of Chrift are reprefented. 3dly, Because they were unknown in the church for near a thousand years. Voflius in his Thefis de S. cana Dominica Symbolis, has laid open their origin from Honorius Auguftodunenfis. His words are thefe." It is faid, that formerly the priests received from every houfe or family, a quantity of meal, which custom at this day the Greeks ftill obferve, and of that made the Lord's bread, which they offered for the people, and after confecration, diftributed among them. But after the church really increased in numbers, but abated in holiness: it was decreed, on account of the carnal, that fuch as could fhould communicate every Lord's day, or every third Lord's day, or on the high feftivals, or thrice a year. And becaufe the people did not communicate, there was no occafion to make fo large a cake, it was decreed to make it in the form of a penny." This is the true reafon, why the hoft has the form of a penny but afterwards men of fubtlety fought, as is ufual in fuch cafes, for a mystery, where there was none; whence he immediately fubjoins," and that the people, instead of offering meal fhould offer a penny,, as an acquittance for receiving the Lord." Durandus in Rationali, Lib. 4. c. 14. has words alfo to the fame purpose. "It is prepared in the form of a penny, both because the bread of life was betrayed for pennies, and becaufe a penny was given as wages to the labourers in the vineyard." Thefe are foolish conceits, and foreign to the auguft mystery of the holy fupper.

VIII. The other fymbol is wine: which the evangelists call Yevrnux ans auxine, the fruit of the vine, in conformity to the Hebrew phrafeology, Mat. xxvi. 29. Mark xiv. 25. Luke xxii. 18. But it does not certainly appear, whether it was red or white. The Jews ordered the beft and moft generous wine to be pur

chafed

chafed for celebrating the paffover. But in that country the red was generally accounted fuch, Prov. xxiii. 31. Ifa. xxvii. 3. Hence in the Jerufalem Talmud, Tractat. de Sabbato, fol.. 11. "it is commanded, that red wine be used for that purpofe." But if it appeared, that the white was better than the red, the preference was given to that. It is therefore probable, and only probable, that Chrift ufed red wine. And it feems we fhould not altogether overlook the fimilitude there is between the blood of the grape, by which name red wine is chiefly intended, and the blood of Chrift.

IX. And with no greater certainty can we determine, whether Chrift ufed pure neat wines, or wine mixt with water. Thofe fpeak too freely, who affirm, that it was the custom of that country, in order to moderate the ftrength of their wine to mix it with water, that all might drink of it. For that this was left to the difcretion of the Jews, as a matter of indifferency, on the very folemnity of the paffover, appears from Sepher Mitzvoth Haggadol, fol. 118. col. 1. "The measure of the cup is a quart of wine either new or old; either neat or diluted." On the other hand, the argument of thofe is also weak, who contend, that Chrift ufed pure wine, because it is called the fruit of the vine: but the vine produces wine not water. We have fhewn above, that Christ speaks after the manner of his country. But the Jews called the wine, even that mixed with water, in their folemn bleffings over it, the fruit of the vine, having regard to the greater and better part of it. Thus the Jewish mafters exprefsly write in Talmud. Babylon. Tit. Berachot, fol. 5o. col. 2. They pronounce not the bleffing on the wine, in which no water is mixed, faying, Bleffed be he, who created the fruit of the vine-tree, but bleffed be he, who created the fruit of the tree."

X. Nothing therefore can here with any certainty, be affirmed concerning Chrift's practice. Yet it has been the prevailing custom of the ancients, as well the western as eastern church, if we except the Armenian, to mix the wine with the water; because, after the fupper, they kept their Agpaa, or love-feafts, with the fame wine, not choofing to give any handle to the Gentiles, as if they ufed pure wine to excefs. They add a threefold mystery in this, in framing which they have given too much fcope to their own fancy. Ift, That by the wine and water might be held forth the blood and water, which flowed from the pierced fide of Chrift. 2dly, That by that mixture the union of the two natures in Chrift might be represented. 3dly, That fince, in the Revelation of St John, the people are called water, the union of the fame faithful people with Chrift,

the

way

the head is exhibited by that mixture. And as it is the of human nature, to be fond of its own fancies, the Greeks put not only water, but also boiling water into the wine, and leaft it fhould, on any account, cool before they receive it, they do not pour it in till after the elevation: to fignify, fay they, that, from the side of our Lord on the cross, flowed hot blood and water, as quickening things from a quickening body: or even (adds Cabafilas in Exposit. Liturg. c. 37.) " to fanctify the defcent of the Holy Spirit upon the church, who is otherwise compared to fire." Nor did the rafhness of their determining, and allegorizing stop here. In the fynod of Tribur, under the emperor Arnulphus, in the year 895, or according to others, 899, it was provided, that "none fhould perform the holy mysteries, without mixing wine and water; but that two parts fhould be wine: because the majefty of the blood of Christ is greater than the weakness of the people.

XI. Our judgment is this: It does not appear, whether Chrift mixed the wine, or drank it pure. Yet we grant the former to be probable; because it was a more frequent practice among the Jews, on account of the generoufnefs of their wines: hence, in the rubric of the festivals, when they speak of the wine, they always use the phrafe, they mix him a cup. There are alfo thofe, who forbid pronouncing a bleffing over the cup, before the wine is mixed with water. It is probable, Christ did what feemed to be most suitable to the rules of fobriety. However, we imagine it cannot thence be proved, that Chrift would prescribe any thing by this his example, especially to those people whose wines are not fo generous, as to require mixing in common use. For every thing, that Chrift did, according to the cuftom of his nation, and on occafion of the paffover, does not belong to the effence of the facrament nor has a mystical fignification, nor in all its circumstances obtains the force of a perpetual law. The allegorical interpretations of the ancients appear fomewhat infipid, and without any foundation in the facred writings. Nor is the practice of the ancient church to be too much infifted upon in this cafe: for, as the thing is indifferent, the modern church has the fame right that the ancient had. In such things, the liberty, which Chrift hath left his people, ought to remain inviolable; who are to look on nothing as binding and neceffary, but his word only. Nay, after the rite of mixing began to be accounted neceffary, it was prudently done in the reformed churches, for the preservation of liberty, to prefer pure wine. Juft as if ever the neceflity of pure wine should begin to be established, it would be, perhaps, better to return to the practice of mixing it. Certainly thofe VOL. II.

3 L

plainly

plainly fhew, that they put a greater value on their own imaginations, than on the very inftitution of Christ, who have thought it fuperfluous to ufe wine in the holy fupper, which by the command and prefcription of our Lord, is a neceffary part but on the contrary, have judged water neceffary, which is of human appointment, as if we were left to our own liberty by the divine inftitution.

XII. But as it is poffible, nay, frequently happens, that, in fome countries, neither bread nor wine are ufed, as in America, and other parts of the world, where, instead of bread, they have a food prepared of pulfe, or herbs, or of the fruits or even the barks of trees; and inftead of wine, their drink is made of honey, or fugar, or other aromatics, or even the juice of the cocoa-tree. It is justly queried whether, in thofe countries, they are wholly to abstain from the Lord's fupper, or whether, inftead of bread and wine, it may be lawful to ufe that food in the supper, which answers the purposes of bread and wine, and is adapted for ftrengthening the body and cheering the heart, Indeed we think, that no rash innovations fhould be made in the ufe of the facraments: but then neceflity has no law. And it feems very hard, fhould any one take upon him to order, that the natives and the foreigners in thofe fpacious countries of the world, fhould be deprived of the Lord's fupper, and their Christianity maimed without the facramental food. Efpecially, as the principal thing in the analogy is retained, when that food and drink is made ufe of, by which the body may be properly nourished, and the heart made glad. Thus much for the fymbols or elements.

XIII. Let us now confider the actions with refpect to the fymbols. And they are either thofe of Chrift, to be performed, after his example, by his ministers; or of the difciples, to be imitated by the guests or communicants. The actions of Chrift are either words or deeds, and both these again either about the bread, or about the wine.

XIV. With refpect to bread, there are four things mentioned, which Chrift did. 1ft, He took the bread; namely, into his hand. For, it was provided, by an exprefs canon of the Jewifh law, that the mafter was not to pronounce the bleffing, till he took the bread into his hand, that all might fee, over what he pronounced the bleffing.

XV. 2dly, He bleffed it. This action is in the Evangelists called whoy, bleffing, Mat. xxvi. 26. Mark xiv. 22. at other times gisa, giving of thanks, Luke xxii. 19. It is a fine faying of the Jews, mentioned by Buxtorf on this occasion:

man is forbid to enjoy any thing in this world without a

bleffing,"