Will you have yet ancienter precedents? The Priest was appointed of old, to use a set form, under the Law; Num. vi. 23-26: so the people; Deut. xxvi. 3, 5-10, 13, 14, 15: both of them a stinted psalm, for the Sabbath; Ps. xcii.

What saith your Doctor to these? "Because the Lord," saith he* 66 gave forms of prayers and psalms, therefore the Prelates may! Can we think that Jeroboam had so slender a reason for his calves?"

,

Mark, good reader, the shifts of these men. This Answerer calls for examples, and will abide no stinting of prayers, because we shew no patterns from Scripture. We do shew patterns from Scripture: and, now, their Doctor saith, "God appointed it to them of old: must we therefore do it?" So, whether we bring examples or none, we are condemned.

But, Master Doctor, whom, I beseech you, should we follow, but God, in his own services? If God have not appointed it, you cry cut upon inventions: if God have appointed it, you cry, we may not follow it. Shew, then, where God ever enjoined an ordinary service to himself, that was not ceremonial (as this plainly is not), which should not be a direction for us?

But if stinting our prayers be a fault, for as yet you meddle not with our blasphemous Collects†, it is well that the Lord's Prayer itself beareth us company, and is no small part of our idolatry: which, though it were given principally as a rule to our prayers ; yet, since the matter is so heavenly, and most wisely framed to the necessity of all Christian hearts, to deny that it may be used entirely in our Saviour's words, is no better than a fanatical curiousness. Yield one and all: for, if the matter be more divine, yet the stint is no less faulty. This is not the least part of our patchery: except you unrip this, the rest you cannot.

But might not God be purely and perfectly worshipped without it?

Tell me, might not God be purely and perfectly worshipped without churches, without houses, without garments, yea, without hands or feet? In a word, could not God be purely worshipped, if you were not yet would you not seem a superfiuous creature: speak in yourself. Might not God be entirely worshipped with pure and holy worship, though there were no other books in the world, but the Scripture? If yea, (as who can deny it, that knows what the worship of God meaneth?) what then do the Fathers, and Doctors, and learned Interpreters? To the fire with all those curious Arts and Volumes, as your predecessors called them. Yea, let me put you in mind, that God was purely and perfectly worshipped by the. Apostolic Church, before ever the New Testament was written. See, therefore, the idleness of your proofs: God may be served

* Answ. to the Minist. Counterpois. 237. + Counterpois. 236. Omnibus arietibus gregis, id est, Apostolis suis dedit morem orandi, Dimitte nobis &c. Aug. Epist. 89.

without a prescription of prayer: but, if all Reformed Churches in Christendom err not, better with it.

The Word of God is perfect, and admits no addition: cursed were we, if we should add ought to it: cursed were that, which should be added: But cursed be they, that take ought from it; and dare say, "Ye shall not pray thus, Our Father, &c.'

Do we offer to make our prayers canonical? Do we obtrude them as part of God's Word? Why cavil you thus? Why doth the same prayer written add to the Word, which spoken addeth not?" Because conceived prayer is commanded, not the other :"-But, first, not your particular prayer: secondly, without mention either of conception or memory, God commands us to pray in spirit, and with the heart. These circumstances, only as they are deduced from his generals, so are ours.

But, whencesoever it please you to fetch our Book of Public Prayer, from Rome or Hell; or to what image soever you please to resemble it; let moderate spirits hear what the precious Jewell of England saith * of it. "We have come as near as we could to the Church of the Apostles, &c. neither only have we framed our Doctrine, but also our Sacraments, and the Form of Public Prayers, according to their Rites and Institutions." Let no Jew now object swine's flesh to us +. He is no judicious man (that I may omit the mention of Cranmer, Bucer, Ridley, Taylor, &c. some of whose hands were in it, all whose voices were for it) with whom one Jewell will not overweigh ten thousand Separatists.

SECT. 37.

Marriage not made a Sacrament by the Church of England. Sep.-" Multitudes of Sacraments. The number of Sacraments seems greater amongst you by one at the least, than Christ hath left in his Testament; and that is Marriage: which howsoever you do not in express terms call a Sacrament (no more did Christ and the Apostles call Baptism and the Supper, Sacraments,) yet do you in truth create it a Sacrament, in the administration and use of it. There are the parties to be married and their marriage, representing Christ and his Church and their spiritual union; to which mystery, saith the Oracle of your Service-Book, expressly, God hath consecrated them there is the ring, hallowed by the said Service-Book, whereon it must be laid, for the element: there are the words of consecration; "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" there is the place, the church; the time, usually, the Lord's Day; the Minister, the Parish-Priest: and, being made as it is a part of God's worship and of the Ministers' office, what

Apolog. p. 170. Accessimus &c.

+ II. Barr. against Gyfford.

is it, if it be not a Sacrament? It is no part of prayer, or preaching; and, with a Sacrament, it hath the greatest consimilitude. But an Idol, I am sure it is, in the celebration of it; being made a Ministerial duty and part of God's Worship, without warrant, call it by what name you will."

How did Confirmation escape this number? how did Ordination? It was your oversight, I fear; not your charity.

Some things seem, and are not. Such is this your number of

our Sacraments.

You will needs have us take in Marriage into this rank. Why so? we do not, you confess, call it a Sacrament, as the Vulgate, misinterpreting Paul's mysterium; Eph. v. 32. Why should we not, if we so esteemed it? Wherefore serve names, but to denotate the nature of things? If we were not ashamed of the opinion, we could not be ashamed of the word.

"No more," say you, " did Christ and his Apostles call Baptism and the Supper, Sacraments:"-but we do, and you with us. See now, whether this clause do not confute your last. Where hath Christ ever said, "There are two Sacraments?" Yet you dare say so what is this, but, in your sense, an addition to the word? Yea, we say flatly, there are but two: yet we do, say you, in truth create it a Sacrament.

How oft and how resolutely, hath our Church maintained against Rome, that none but Christ immediately can create Sacraments! If they had this advantage against us, how could we stand? How wrongful is this force, to fasten an opinion upon our Church, which she hath condemned!

But, wherein stands this our creation? It is true, the parties to be married and their marriage, represent Christ and his Church and their spiritual union.

Beware, lest you strike God through our sides: what hath God's Spirit said, either less or other than this? Eph. v. 25, 26, 27, and 32. Doth he not make Christ the Husband, the Church his Spouse? Doth he not, from that sweet conjunction and the effects of it, argue the dear respects, that should be in marriage? Or, what doth the Apostle allude elsewhere unto, when he says, as Moses of Eve, we are the flesh of Christ's flesh, and bone of his bone? And, how famous amongst the Ancient is that resemblance of Eve taken out of Adam's side sleeping, to the Church taken out of Christ's side sleeping on the Cross! Since marriage, therefore, so clearly represents this mystery, and this use is holy and sacred, what error is it, to say that marriage is consecrated to this mystery But what is the element? The ring:-these things agree not: you had, before, made the two parties to be the matter of this Sacrament: what is the matter of the Sacrament, but the element? If they be the matter, they are the element; and so not the ring: both cannot be. If you will make the two parties to be but the receivers, how doth all the mystery lie in their representation? Or, if the ring be the element, then all the mystery must be in the

?

ring, not in the parties. Labour to be more perfect, ere you make any more new Sacraments.

But this ring is laid upon the Service-Book :-Why not? For readiness, not for holiness. Nay but it is hallowed, you say, by the book--if it be a sacramental element, it rather hallows the book, than the book it: you are not mindful enough for this trade. But what exorcisms are used in this hallowing? or who ever held it any other than a civil pledge of fidelity?

Then follow the words of consecration:-I pray you what dif ference is there, betwixt hallowing and consecration? The ring was hallowed before by the book now it must be consecrated how idly! By what words?" In the Name of the Father, &c." These words, you know, are spoken after the ring is put on. Was it ever heard of, that a sacramental element was consecrated, after it was applied? See how ill your slanders are digested by you.

The place, is the Church; the time, is the Lord's Day; the Minister, is the actor:—and is it not thus, in all other Reformed Churches, as well as ours? Behold, we are not alone: all Churches in the world, if this will do it, are guilty of Three Sacraments.

Tell me, would you not have Marriage solemnized publicly? You cannot mislike: though your founder seems to require nothing here, but notice given to witnesses, and then to bed *.

Well, if public, you account it, withal, a grave and weighty business therefore such, as must be sanctified by public prayer. What place is fitter for public prayer, than the Church? Who is fitter to offer up the public prayer, than the Minister? Who should rather join the parties in Marriage, than the public deputy of that God, who solemnly joined the first couple? who, rather than he, which, in the Name of God, may best bless them?

The prayers, which accompany this solemnity, are parts of God's worship, not the contract itself. This is a mixed action; therefore, compounded of ecclesiastical and civil: imposed on the Minister, not upon necessity, but expedience: neither essential to him, but accidentally annexed, for greater convenience.

These too frivolous grounds have made your cavil, either very simple or very wilful.

SECT. 38.

Commutation of Penance in our Church.

Sep.-" Power of Indulgences. Your Court of Faculties, from whence your dispensations and tolerations for Non-Residency and Plurality of Benefices are had, together with your commuting of penances, and absolving one man for another. Take away this power from the Prelates, and you maim the Beast in a limb."

SEE if this man be not hard driven for accusations, when he is fain to repeat over the very same crime, which he had largely urged

Brown, State of Christians, 172.

before. All the world will know that you want variety, when you send in these twice-sod coleworts.

Somewhat, yet, we find new; Commutation of Penance.

Our Courts would tell you, that here is nothing dispensed with, but some ceremony of shame in the confession which, in the greater sort, is exchanged, for a common benefit of the poor, into a pecuniary mulct: yet, say they, not so as to abridge the Church of her satisfaction, by the confession of the offender. And, if you grant the ceremony devised by them, why do you find fault that it is altered or commuted by them ?

As for Absolution, you have a spite at it, because you sought it, and were repulsed. If the censures be but their own (so you hold) why blame you the managing of them in what manner seems best to the authors?

This power is no more a limb of the Prelacy, than our Prelacy is that Beast in the Revelation: and our Prelacy holds itself no more St. John's Beast, than it holds you St. Paul's Beast ; Phil, jii. 2.

SECT. 39.

Oath Ex officio.

Sep." Necessity of Confessions. In your High Commission Court very absolute, where, by the oath ex officio, men are constrained to accuse themselves of such things as whereof no man will or can accuse them: what necessity is laid upon men in this case, let your prisons witness."

I ASK of Auricular Confession: you send me to our High Commission Court. These two are much alike!

But here is also very absolute necessity of confession :-True; but as in a case of justice, not of shrift; to clear a truth, not to obtain absolution; to a bench of Judges, not to a Priest's ear. Here are too many ghostly Fathers, for an Auricular Confession. But, you will mistake: it is enough against us, that men are constrained in these Courts to confess against themselves :-Why name you these Courts only? Even in others also, oaths are urged; not only ex officio mercenario, but nobili. The honourablest Court of Star-Chamber gives an oath, in a criminal case, to the defendant. So doth the Chancery, and Court of Requests. Shortly, to omit foreign examples, how many instances have you of this like proceeding in the common laws of this land!

But, withal, you might learn *, that no Enquiry ex officio may be thus made, but upon good grounds; as fame, scandal, vehement presumption, &c. going before, and giving just cause of suspicion.

* D. Cosens's Apol.