chariftical Sacrifice, then fhe has not the Eu"chariftical Sacrifice. But he does not offer "what our Saviour inftituted to be offered. You "know our Saviour offered Wine mixed with Wa"ter at the Inftitution of the Euchariftical Cup, " which our Church does not, therefore cannot "be faid to offer what our Saviour instituted to " be offered. I fay, you know that our Saviour "did offer Wine mixed with Water, because you "have owned, p. 7. of your Introduction, that "we have Antiquity and Univerfality for the "Churches Practice in this Point: And most of "thofe early Fathers, Councils, and Liturgies "(Authorities too great to be difputed) which "inform you of the Church's Practice, affure cc you likewife that our Saviour did it.

"Nor is this the only effential Defect our "Church is to be charged with in the Comme"moration of this great Myftery, but fuch alfo cc are, First, The want of the Invocation of the "Holy Spirit upon the Elements. Secondly, The not making an Oblation of the Sacrifice.

"The latter of these you own to be an essential "Defect in your Letter to Mr. Hart, which is prefixed to his Bulwark ftormed, fo that I need "not endeavour at the Proof of it.

"For the former, viz. the Invocation of the "Holy Spirit, &c. we have the Authority of "Three of the Evangelifts that our Saviour did "it: i. e. that he eulogized or euchariftized the "Elements, and we have likewise the Testimony "of St. Paul, when he reminds the Corinthians "of what he had received of the Lord, and deli"vered to them concerning this Sacrament, "Epift. 1. Chap. XI.

" And

"And our Saviour himself at the Inftitution of this Sacrament lays this Injunction upon his *Difciples, To WOLATE, &c. Now take the Verb

o in what Senfe you pleafe, it will afford "me an Argument, either for the Matter (as « above infifted on) or for the Form of the Ce"lebration which I am here contending for. If

you take it as a facrificing Term, the Com"mand will run, Sacrifice this, viz. the Bread and "the Cup, as I have mixed it, in remembrance of me: If you take it in the common Acceptation of the Word, Do this, then the Command will run, Blefs the Elements, and do all other Alts "which I have now done, in remembrance of me. And "that the Primitive Church conformed herein, "with refpect both to the Matter and the Form, દ we have the Authority of the earliest Fathers "who give us an Account of the Chriftian Worfhip, and likewife of the moft authentick Li« turgies now extant.

"Give me Leave therefore to ask you in what "tolerable Sense we may be faid to retain this "Inftitution of our Lord's, when we obferve & neither the Matter nor the Form of it? If it be "answered, that we do retain the Inftitution,

tho' maimed in fome Parts of it, I ask again, "whether in a pofitive Inftitution every Part of it "be not equally necessary to be obferved, efpeci

ally when there is nothing in the Nature of the "Things themselves, which can produce the Ef"fects, but all the Benefits we receive thereby σε are derived to us upon Account of our exact "Conformity to the Will of him that inftituted "them? But again, if every Part of a pofitive Inftitution be equally neceffary, where is the

"Power

"Power that can difpenfe with our Non-obfer

vance of the foregoing Particulars? If there be "fuch a Power, that Power may dispense with as "many more Particulars, and fo on till the "whole be taken away, and then it will follow "that our Saviour inftituted fomething for a conti“nual Remembrance of his Death, which might laws fully be taken away before his coming again.

"It is urged by fome, that two of the three "Things I have been fpeaking of, viz. the In"vocation and Oblation, are implied in the Prayer " of Confecration as it now ftands in our Liturgy; if fo, I defire you to point out the Paffages to me, and give me your Comment upon "them; but I judge by your Practice that you "do not think they are to be met with there. If "they are, the third, i. e. the mixed Cup, is want

ing, and the Ufe of it forbid by the Rubrick "before the Prayer for the whole State of Chrift's "Church.

To this long Objection against the Church of England's having all things necessary to Salvation, I must confefs I know not how to return a fatisfactory Answer. And muft acknowledge, that when I afferted that it has all things necessary to Salvation, I fpoke what I did think, because I was willing to believe and perfuade my self that it was fo. However, I will confider thefe Particulars more carefully when I come to treat of the Eucharift, as I have propofed to do in the Course of this Work. And fhall be very glad if in the mean time any Body will take off the Force of this Objection, by fhewing, either that the mixed. Cup, the Invocation, and Oblation, are not necessa ry, or that they are to be found in the Liturgy as

it

it now ftands. This Objection has been already urged in Print in a Pamphlet called, Reasons for reftoring, &c. which was answered by another called, No reafon for restoring, &c. But a full Reply has been made to the No reafon, &c. in a Defenfe of the Reafons. And I must own that I do think (till I can be better informed) that the mixed Cup, the Invocation, and Oblation, are neceffary, and that I cannot find them in the prefent Liturgy.

Then the Writer of the Letter proceeds, and fays, "A third Point I defire to be fatisfied in, "is, that it was a good Reformation." Then he goes on, and fays, "Let us fettle the Account,

and fo we fhall better judge how much we are "Gainers by it. First, We divefted the Pope of "his ufurped Power; but then we gave it to a "Lay-man, who was not qualified to receive it. "Secondly, We reftored the Cup to the Laity, "but then we reftored it but in part. Thirdly, "We condemned the abfurd Doctrine of Tranfubσε ftantiation; but then we'deftroyed the Sacrifice "too. Fourthly, We rejected the Whim of PurCC gatory; but then we ftruck off an Article of the "Creed, and refused Communion with the Saints "departed. I might inftance in feveral other Par"ticulars, but I have not Time, and indeed it is "fit I fhould beg Pardon for having detained you "fo long; however, I hope my good Intentions " herein will justify me, which were to fhew, that "altho' I am an Enemy to the Corruptions of "Popery, yet I cannot flatter Martyr and Bucer fo "far as not to think we ftand in almost as much " need of a Reformation from Calvinifm now, as we did from Popery in the Reign of Edward the * Sixth."

Well

Well then, fince the Writer of this Letter, whoever he is, will not allow me to fay that we have a good Reformation, and has given fuch Reafons for it as indeed I know not how to answer, yet I fhall ftill fay, that it is better than any other Reformation that was made from the Church of Rome about the fame time with it, or any time fince, as it preferved to us the Epifcopal Succeffion of the Priesthood, and thereby kept it in our Power to make it a very good Reformation, without any foreign Affiftance. The Lutherans and Calvinifts, who have caft off Epifcopacy, and thereby deftroyed that Priesthood which was fettled by Christ himself, cannot reform their Errors, and return to a perfe& Unity with the truly Ancient, Primitive, Catholick and Apoftolick Church, without making their Application to Strangers, to restore to them that Epifcopal Succeffion of the true Priesthood, which they wilfully reje&ed; but we have nothing to do to compleat our Reformation, and make it perfect, but to reftore that Part of the Doctrine and Worfhip of the Chriftian Church which we ftill want, to make us one and the fame with that which was fettled by Chrift and his Apoftles, and which was extended thro' all the known World at the Time of the Council of Nice: until which Time, and longer, there was one Communion of Saints in all Nations and Languages, and the Charifmata, or extraordinary Operations of the Holy Spirit, continued in the Church. Therefore I cannot but think it the Duty of all Bishops and Pastors of this, and every other Church, impartially to examine and enquire what was the Doctrine and Worship of the Chriftian Church at that Time, Ο

and