who was crucify'd. And yet granting that this was the Sacrament, yet fince there is no other Account given of the Manner of its Celebration, nor any other Circumftance mention'd, but only the Breaking of Bread; it cannot from hence be infer'd, that our Saviour did not confecrate the Wine as well as the Bread, or that the Communion was given in one Kind only. But fo ready are the Papifts to fnatch at the Shadow of an Argument that they will let nothing pafs, which they think they can wind and turn to their purpose, tho' they lose the Substance thereby.

But N. C. confidently affirms, that by breaking Bread in the Acts of the Apostles, is always meant the Communion; and therefore I defire him to confult Acts 27. 35. where St. Paul took Bread, and gave Thanks to God in prefence of them all; and when he had broken it, he began to eat. Which I believe N C. himfelt will not fay, was meant of the Sacrament; and becaufe he adds, that four Great Men were of Opinion, that the breaking of Bread at Emmaus was the Celebration of the Sacrament, I fhall only oppofe the Authority of one, no very great Man, against them all, (i. e. himself) who confeffes, that this is not fo interpreted by the univerfal confent of the Church.

G

And

And now having examin'd these Texts of Scripture which N. C. has brought, to prove his Half Communion; I cannot imagine what reafon he has to break out into the following Remonftrance, with fuch foul Language, and fo many indecencies of Expreffion.

"And now, who would believe, fays " he, that the Roman Catholicks had fuch $( grounds in Scripture for the Communion in one Kind, confidering the loud and clamorous Accufations, yea, and the s* horrible Sacrileges they are charg'd 66 with upon this Subject? Well, and who are these who charge us? Why,

"

they are great and eminent Men; great indeed, not only for the Rank and Station wherein the Powers of this World have plac'd them,but also great for their Learning, and other excellent Endowments. But then, 'tis that they must 66 fo do; the Proteftant Religion, as all "the World knows, was planted in these Kingdoms by open Force and Violence. "Thefe Gentlemens Predeceffors pof66 fefs'd themselves of the rich Benefices of "the Church; and when Mens Intereft and Honour are once engag'd, 'tis hard if they do not stand by them. Now there is no way left to juftifie thefe Pro"ceedings, but by railing at the Church of Rome, &c. In which few Lines, there

is so much Scandal cram'd in, and pack'd fo close together, that it would require more Time and Paper than I have here to take it off, and retort it; nor indeed do I care to foul my Fingers with that Filth, which without Sense or Reason, he fo liberally cafts about him.

66

But, fays N. C. fuppofing that our "Saviour did inftitute the Sacrament in "in both Rinds, yet to Administer the Sa

66

crament in one Kind only, is not contra66 ry to our Saviour's Inftitution, because "the Administration of the Communion, whether in one or both Kinds, is quite "another thing from the Inftitution of

66

es it.

To which I answer, That our Saviour did both inftitute and administer the Sacrament at the fame time; but with refpect to us, the Administration and the Institution of the Sacrament is quite different; and therefore His Grace argues thus ; Christ instituted the Sacrament in both Kinds, and therefore thus it ought to be adminiftred, because every Adminiftration ought to come as near as poffibly it can to the first Institution; and tho' fome Circumstances may be alter'd, yet no ef fential Part ought to be omitted, efpecially when our Saviour has made his Inftitution the Copy by which we ought to act, and commanded us to do the fame

that he did. And that the giving the Cup is not a Circumftance, but an effential part of this Sacrament, is plain; by confidering the End for which this Sacrament was inftituted, which was to reprefent to us the Death and Sufferings of our Blessed Saviour, to feal to us the Pardon of our Sins, and to convey down to us thofe Benefits which he has purchas'd for us by his Death and Paffion.

Now this cannot be fo effectually and fignificantly perform'd by receiving the Bread only, which reprefents to us only the Body of Chrift, as by the receiving the Cup, whereby the pouring out of his Blood and his Death upon the Crofs is fignified to us. This N. C. confeffes; "But, fays he, the

Question is not, Whether Chrift gave "it in both Kinds, but whether we ought "neceffarily to give it in both Kinds, be"cause he did fo? This the Doctor af"firms, and we deny. But is it not plain, that Chrift commanded his Difciples to do what he did? And if fe, then if our Saviour Chrift gave the Sacrament in both Kinds, we ought fo to do. But, fays "N. C. the giving it in one Kind, or <6 both, is only a Circumftance, and not "effential to the Sacrament: But, why fhould not the giving the Bread be a Circumstance as well as giving the Cup? and

then

then both may be omitted; and if fo, what will become of the Sacrament ?

es

"But, fays N. C. we are not oblig'd

to do every thing that Christ did, nor "imitate what he did both before and af

ter the Sacrament, and therefore we are not oblig'd to give the Cup in the Saέσ crament. But this doth in no wife follow; because we are ftrictly charg'd to obferve all the Effential Parts of this Ordinance; nor can any Power upon Earth dispense with our non-obfervance of them. And therefore we may justly wonder at the Council of Conftance, which decreed the giving the Sacrament in one Kind only, with a non obftante to the Inftitution of Chrift, and the Practice of Chriftians in the first Ages of the Church.

But that the Council of Conftance did thus decree it, N. C. roundly denies, and delivers himself after this following manner: Good God! What may not Men undertake, who have the confidence to give out fuch Calumnies for Truth? 'Tis a vulgar Obfervation, but a true one, that when Mountebanks pretend moft to infallible Cures, they are then "farthest from them; juft fo 'tis with thofe Gentlemen, when they pretend "most to Evidence and Demonstration in Matters of Religion, then they have the leaft colour, or reafonable prétence

66

to