Primitive Invocation, which he called a supplement to Waterland's Review of the Eucharist. He does not exactly controvert Waterland's positions, but seems rather to view them as falling below the reality. This is implied in the title of his work. The author gives a most interesting historical sketch of the whole subject.[1] Brett also took a part in the controversy, publishing "Remarks on Waterland's Charge," and "A Supplement to the Remarks." In the former, he contends, that the differences between Hickes and Johnson on the one side, and Waterland on the other, were rather verbal than real: in the latter, he defends Johnson's view of a material sacrifice in the Eucharist, which was opposed by Waterland.[2]
It has been already mentioned, that the disputes among the Nonjurors, respecting the Usages, were terminated, the whole body, with very few exceptions, concurring in their adoption. The few, who refused to receive them, did not offer any active opposition, but contented themselves with adhering to the Book of Common Prayer. Probably some, who dissented from the majority, united with the
- ↑ A Brief Historical Account of the Primitive Invocation, or Prayer for a Blessing upon the Elements, in Confirmation of some things mentioned in the learned Dr. Waterland's Review, &c., and by way of Supplement to it. In a Letter to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. To which is added, a full Confutation of Beza's Arguments against the Primitive Doctrine of the Eucharist, &c. 8vo. 1740.
- ↑ Some Remarks on Dr. Waterland's Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, with regard to the seeming Difference between his and Mr. Johnson's concerning the Sacrifice and some other Points. In defence of myself and some others, who maintained Mr. Johnson's Opinions in our late Answers to the Plain Account. 8vo. London, 1738.
