ly rook'd of their Money, but perfuaded out of their Senses. For, as his Grace tells us, Credulity is certainly a Fault as well as Infidelity; and he who faid, Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed, hath no where faid, Blessed are they that have feen, and yet have not believed; much lefs, Bleffed are they that believe directly contrary to their Senses.

I had like to have forgot the Challenge which this Champion of the Roman Caufe makes to all his Adverfaries; That if any one will bring but one fingle Argument in Mood and Figure, to prove that Transubftantiation doth either contradict Senfe or Reason, he doth fincerely promife, he will be of his Opinion the very next moment. This is fo Light and Boyish, that I fhall only make this Reply to it; That when he has return'd a ferious and folid Answer to any one Paragraph in the Archbishop's Treatife, or made good one Leaf he has written,his Challenge fhall be accepted. And for his fincere Promises of Converfion, I fhall pray to God that by the affiftance of his Grace, he may be in this as good as his word.

As to the Quotation he brings from the Socinian, I have already prov'd that the Socinian is mistaken, and that his Lordship is certainly in the right in affirming, That Tranfubftantiation may be difprov'd by the Senfes of Mankind, and that for this plain

Reason,

Reason, because there can be no change in the Substance which doth not affect the Accidents; but his Lordfhip has explain'd this Matter fo well himself, that I shall have no need to take up the Cudgels, and and therefore I fhall only remark, that it is at the Forge of thefe Philistines, that the Papists sharpen their Weapons, who are for failing with every Wind which flatters them with the least hopes of Ad.vantage.

I should now take my leave of this Subject, but that I find he has reserv'd his moft doughty Objection for a parting Blow, and tells us that the Archbifhop fays; That Tranfubftantiation was first introduc'd into the Catholick Religion, about the latter end of the Eighth Century in the fecond Council of Nice, and that it was almost 300 Years before this misshapen Monster was lick'd into that Form in which it is now fettled and eftablish'd in the Church of Rome. But that he is mistaken near 200 Years; well then, he grants that it was not introduc'd till the latter end of the fixth Century. But, how doth he prove that the Archbihop was mistaken? Why, Dr. Humphry fays, that St. Auftin brought this Dotrine into England; I have not the Book by me, and therefore cannot contradict him; but however, from thofe Words he

has

has quoted, no fuch Inference can be made, because the first Notion of Tranfubftantiation was far different from that which obtained in After times, this mif-fhapen Monster growing ftill more deform'd, till it obtain'd that frightful Afpect we now find it in; of which the Popish Doctors are fo fenfible, that they are continually employ'd in taking off the Excreffences, paring the Claws, licking it into Shape, and yet they do but render it more ugly by that awkward Refemblance it bears to a Rational Form.

And now, I hope, it will eafily be determin'd, whether His Grace or N. C. has the most right to those hard words (as he calls them) with which N. C. concludes this Chapter.

of

Of Communion in one kind.

IN

ftating the Subject of Dispute on this Head, our Author tells us, that the main Stress lies here:

Whether or no it be in the Power of the Church, to alter her Difcipline, in a Matter of this Importance; fo as ro reftrain the Faithful, to the Receiving the Sacrament in one kind only.

But this is a false Representation. For First, This is no Matter of Difcipline, but of Right, and Pofitive Institution. 2dly. 'Tis effential to the Nature of this Sacrament, that it should be adminiftred in both kinds; and therefore 'tis not in the Power of the Church to alter it. Nor 3dly. Is there any Reasonable Caufe, fo to do.

Firft, Our Saviour instituted this Sacrament in both kinds. Matth. 26. 26. And as they were eating, Jefus took bread, and bleffed it, and brake it, and gave it to the difciples, and said, take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, faying, drink ye all of this; for this is my blood of the New Teftament, which is shed for many, for the remiffion of fins. But I lay unto you, I

will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. In which Inftitution 'tis very remarkable that our

Saviour lays a particular Stress upon the Administration of the Cup; foreseeing. that there would arife a Set of Men, who would facrilegioufly deprive the People of

it.

And therefore whereas he fays only of the Bread, take, eat; he fays of the Cup, drink ye all of this; and gives the Reason why they should all drink of it; because this denoted to them his Blood which was shed for the Remiffion of their Sins: And therefore as many as expected Remiffion of Sins by the shedding of his Blood, ought to partake of this Fœderal Rite, and be frequently put in mind of his Death and Paffion : And agreeably hereunto, in 1 Cor. 11. 23, 24, &c. the Apostle St. Paul writing to the Corinthians, tells them: For I have received of the Lord, that which also I delivered unto you; that the Lord Jefus, the fame night in which he was betray'd, took bread; and when he had given thanks be brake it, and said, take eat, this is my body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the Same manner also he took the cup, when he had Supped, Saying, This cup is the New Teftament in my blood, this do, as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me: For as often

as