food: you say, you are our doctor, we desire to be taught. This is the best way to win us, and the best for you to use. The laws and authority of men, should not set aside the laws and authority of God. The popish logic of slander and imprisonment will not prevail at last. The Fleet, the Gatehouse, the White-lion, the King's-bench, and Newgate, are weak arguments to convince the conscience."

Upon the 20th day of the same month, Mr. Johnson was brought to trial before his judges, and examined at Westminster-hall, in the presence of the queen's commissioners, the bishop of London, the dean of Westminster, the lord chief justice, and others. He was accused of marrying without the ring, and of baptizing without the cross, which he did for a time; but upon complaint against him, he begun again to use them. He was accused, also, of a misdemeanour, as it is called; because when he was once administering the sacrament, the wine falling short, he sent for more, but did not consecrate it afresh, accounting the former consecration sufficient for what was applied to the same use, at the same time. The examination which he underwent at his trial, was as follows:

Johnson. If it please your honours, may I not submit myself, and declare the truth of things as they were done? Lord Chief Justice. Yes, you may.

J. I stand here indicted for three points. The first is, that I have not repeated the words of the institution; or, as they commonly call it, I did not consecrate the wine, when I delivered it to the communicants.-Secondly, that I have not married with the ring.-Thirdly, that I have not used the cross in the administration of baptism, and have left out the whole sentence for that purpose. Unto these charges, I answer, that respecting the contempt, as expressed in the indictment, I plead, not guilty. And as to the first of those charges, I answer under my protestation, that at no time, in celebrating the communion, have I omitted any prayer or words of the institution, which the book prescribeth, but have used them in as full and ample a manner * Parte of a Register, p. 101-105.

+ In Mr. Johnson's indictment, he was charged with having solemnized matrimony, between one Leonard Morris and Agnes Miles, without using the ring. And having baptized a male child that he did not know, he did not make the sign of the cross on its forehead, nor use the following words: "We receive this child into the congregation of Christ's flock, and do sign him with the sign of the cross," as contained in the Book of Common Prayer: "And that he did the same voluntarily, and in contempt of the " queen and her laws, and against the peace of the realm.”—MS. Register, p. 199.

as they are appointed. Only upon a certain occasion, when the wine failed, I sent for more, which I delivered to the people, using the words appointed in the book to be used in the delivery of the sacrament, not again repeating the words of the institution: partly, because, as I take it, being an entire action and one supper, the words of the institution at first delivered were sufficient; and partly, because, in the Book of Common Prayer, there is no order appointed to which I could refer the case. And as to the second, I answer that once or twice, I did not use the ring. For looking into the mass-book, I found the words with which the papists hallow the ring; and because this seemed to me no less derogatory to the death of Christ, than holy bread and holy water, I thought as other persons had omitted those, I might omit this.

Commissioner. There is no such thing in the Book of Common Prayer.

Dean. He speaketh of the mass-book.

Bishop. Then you compare the mass-book and the common prayer book, and make the one as bad as the other.

J. My lord, I make no such comparison. But after I was complained of to my ordinary, Dr. Watts, archdeacon of Middlesex, who reprehended me, I used the ring, as I have good and sufficient witness. Since, therefore, I did in this default correct myself, I refer myself to your honour's discretion, whether I have herein stubbornly and contemptuously broken the law. As to the third charge, 1 answer, that I have omitted to make the sign of the cross, but not of contempt. But seeing I have already suffered seven weeks imprisonment, with the loss of my place and living, I beseech you, be indifferent judges, whether this be not sufficient for so small a crime.

Mr. Gerard. You were not sent to prison for that, but for your irreverent behaviour.

J. I trust, sir, I did not behave myself more irreverently than I do now. Whereas the indictment is, that I omitted the whole prayer, "We receive this child," &c. This is false; for I never administered baptism without using that prayer, though I omitted making the sign of the cross.

B. Those two are but trifles. The chief is the consecration of the sacrament. For, as it had not the word, it was no sacrament, and so the people were mocked.

J. My lord, I did not mock the people; for it was a

sacrament.

D. St. Augustin saith, "That the word must be added to

the element, to make a sacrament." You lacked the word, therefore, it was no sacrament.

J. I had the word.

B. How had you the word, when you confess that you recited not the institution?

J. I had recited the institution before, and that was sufficient.

D. Yea, for that bread and wine that was present; but when you sent for more bread or wine, you should again have rehearsed the words of the institution.

J. The book appointed no such thing.

B. Yes, sir, the book saith, you shall have sufficient bread and wine, and then the prayer of the institution must be recited. Now, as you had not sufficient, you should, therefore, have repeated the institution.

J. There is no such caveat, nor proviso, appointed in the book.

B. But that is the meaning of the book.

J. Men may make what meaning they please; but I refer myself to the book, whether or not it be so appointed. D. You are not forbidden to use the repetition.

J. Neither am I cómmanded.

D. I will prove this to be the meaning of the book. For it is said in the prayer, "these creatures of bread and wine:" so that the book hath respect to the bread and wine there present, and not to any other. Therefore, if there be any more brought, it must be consecrated afresh, by the words of the institution.

J. I pray you tell me one thing. Are the words of the institution spoken for the bread, or for the receivers ? D. For both.

J. I deny that. For the evangelist declares, that Christ said unto his disciples, to teach them for what end and purpose they should take the bread.

D. Then the word is of no force.

J. I deny that. The word is necessary to the substance of the sacrament. But this is not the question: we both confess this. Herein is the controversy, whether it be ne cessary for the institution to be repeated, seeing it is but one and the same action, and the same communicants as before, for whom the words are spoken. If it had not been the same supper, or if the communicants had been changed, it would have been necessary to rehearse the institution.

B. You like yourself very well, and you are stubborn

and arrogant. I have before heard of your stubborn heart, but now I perceive it.

J. My lord, who he is that liketh himself so well, and is so stubborn and arrogant, that Lord, who trieth the hearts of all, must judge.

B. Why, you being unlearned, stand stubbornly against us all, and so no learning will satisfy you.

J. I would fain understand with what words Christ did consecrate.

Dr. Wilson, With this word, benedixit.

J. Be it so. But we know not the words with which Christ did benedicere. Therefore, we must consecrate with we know not what.

L. C. J. Ah! Johnson. Is this your submission?

J. I must needs defend my own innocence.

G. Johnson, you in a manner confess as much as you are charged with. For you confess, that when the words of the institution were recited, you had no wine.

J. I do not confess that. I had both bread and wine." G. But you had not that wine.

J. No.

G. Therefore it was not consecrated.

J. The words before repeated were sufficient for the consecration.

D. Then, with those words you consecrated all the wine in the tavern.

J. No, sir, it was the wine that was brought from the tavern to the church, and of a common wine, was appointed to be a sacramental wine, to represent Christ's blood; and this is consecration.

D. Why then, with you, the word is of no force.

J. It is not of force to bring any holiness to the sacrament. I trust you do not think that the word maketh the bread any holier when used in the sacrament.

W. Yes, it is holy bread.

B. It is a holy sacrament.

J. That I confess. But holiness is in the use and end, not in the substance. For otherwise you would make a magical enchantment of it, and not a consecration. Dr. Cranmer, in his book on the sacrament, saith, "There cometh no holiness to the bread by consecration."

G. If thou wert well served, thou wouldst be used like a magician.

J. Whatever your judgment may be, I stand or fall to my own Lord.

B. You know not what harm you have done, by defending an error before this company, bringing them so into doubt, that they know not which way to take.

J. My lord, I defend no error. I maintain the truth.

D. Nay, you maintain a horrible heresy.

Bromley. Yea, if you were well served, you should fry a faggot.

J. As you say that I maintain a heresy, I pray you shew me by what commandment I am bound to the precise words of the institution.

D. As the word in baptism is, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost:" so the word in the Lord's supper is the rehearsal of the institution.

J. Bullinger was of another mind; for he saith, "The consecration of sacraments is not by the nature, will, command, or precept of Christ, nor from the authority of any other."

D. Where doth he say this?

J. Sermon vi. decad 5.

D. You falsify his words.

J. No, I cite them right. And the churches of Geneva and Scotland consecrate with other words, without using the words of the institution, except in preaching.

D. You slander those churches, as appeareth from their own words, which I have here in a book.

J. I have not slandered those famous churches. Let their liturgy witness. And as to that book, there is nothing in it which I do not believe. But I pray you, my lord of London, answer me one question. Must consecration be performed before the delivery of the elements, or after? B. I will not answer it.

J. It is only a question. I pray you answer it.
B. Answer it thyself.

D. It shall be answered. The consecration must go before; for Christ gave a sacrament, which could not be without the word. Consecration, therefore, must go before.

J. But Christ spake the word after the distribution. For he first gave them the bread, and then said, "Take, eat, this is my body."

D. And what then?

J. Then, according to what you say, Christ did not consecrate aright.

D. You defend a horrible heresy: for you reject the word.