8i

MATTHEW WREN, D. D.

He began so to do, by the Example of that learned and holy Prelate,Bishop Andrews , now with God, under whom this Defendant was broughtup from his Youth, and had depended upon him more than forty Yearssince, who constantly and religiously practised the same upon all Occasions ;this Defendant therefore, even then, considering with himself, that the saidBishop being an ancient, grave Divine, of high Account for his Piety,Knowledge, and great Learning, and one who had conversed with most ofthese holy Fathers, which lived in this Church at the Beginning of the Re-formation under Queen Elizabeth , it could not be but that he had receivedthe same from their Usage and Practice.

As his own Years and Studies increased, he found first, the bowing at theName of the Lord Jesus, had not only been practised by the Clergy, buthad also been enjoined to all the People, eves since the first Reformation, asappeareth by the Injunctions, i° Eliz. Cap. 52. thereby to testify our dueAcknowledgement, that the Lord Jesus Christ, the true and eternal Sonof God, is the only Saviour of the World, in whom alone the Mercies,Graces, and Promises ot God to Mankind, for this Life, and the Life tocome, are fully and wholly comprised, i° Jac. Can. 18 .

Secondly, the bowing before the holy Table had been anciently used in theChurch of England by the Clergy, as appeareth by the Rule which the mostnoble Lords ot the Garter did let unto themselves when they began to use thesame Gesture under King Henry V. that they would do it humititer & admodum ecclcfiajlicorum zirorum, which Usage, that it might continue still inthe Church of England after the Reformation, appears out of Bishop Jew ell,who in his Reply to Harding , allows it for a commendable Gesture, anda Token of Devotion, Art. 3. Div. 29. neither was it forbidden by the In-junctions of K. Edward or Elizabeth, in both of which, other Gestures areprohibited. And as for any Fear of popish Superstition, Bishop Morton , inhis Defence of this Gesture, shews, that cannot be; for that the Papists doonly use it for their Opinion of Transubstantiation, and would deride us fordoing it in any other respect. Book oj Sacrum, p. 463.

Lastly, for that this Defendant ever humbly conceived, that no Christianwould deny that bowing or doing Adoration, was to be used as a part of God’sWorship, the affirmative Act being necessarily included in the negative Pre-cept, non adorabis ea: ergo adorabis me, to say nothing of the frequent Exhorta-tions in holy Scripture lo to do; and because he found in Antiquity, thatit was the constant Practice of the Church of Christ, ever to use an Adorati-on when they enter’d into God’s House. For which Purpose <u enite ado-remus seems to have been placed at the very beginning of our Morning Prayer,therefore he himself was further induced to observe the fame, though noCanon injoined it, seeing Reason, Piety, and the constant Practice of Antiquitydoth commend it.

Also this Defendant considered, that lifting t?p of the Hands, or castingdown of the Eyes, or smiting the Breast, or giving a Sigh, or any other thehhe Gestures, as liable to just Offence as bowing is, are no way prohibited.^ n d he could never apprehend why the using of this particular Reverence,should not be as free as is the using of no kind of Reverence at all. Speciallywhen never yet any Exception (which he could hear of j hath been brought?pinst it, which would not he as applyable against uncovering the Head atR'Urance into God’s House, or against kneeling down in the Church at ap r against Men’s holding their Hats before their Faces in praying,willy also he saw the same done at every Access to the earthly Majesty,and at the Recess from it toties qnoties. And it is holden no Mockery in that

nne, but a Sign of Duty and Loyalty, when the King is not present, to ex-

Y It ibit