Several arguments for concessions and alterations in the common prayer, and in the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England in order to a comprehension / by a minister of the Church of England, as by law established.

Arguments for taking the Ceremonies away, or leaving the Ʋse of them indifferent; especially the Sign of the Cross.

HEre is the most proper place to premise somewhat concerning the Lawfulness of Ceremonies, least I should in any thing which follows be thought to condemn my own practice, in point of Con∣formity to these Ceremonies.

As to Kneeling at the Sacrament, I think the Rubrick should sa∣tisfie Persons; it speaks very plainly: It is hereby declared, that no Adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacra∣mental Bread and Wine, there Bodily received, or unto any Corpo∣real Presence of Christs Natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramen∣tal Bread and Wine remain still in their very Natural Substances,

and therefore may not be Adored, (for that were Idolatry to be ab∣horred of all faithful Christians) and the Natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, &c.

Mr. Bayns Christian Letters, p. 201. Kneeling is neither an occa∣sion, nor by participation Idolatry. Kneeling never bred Bread-Worship, and our Doctrine of the Sacrament known to all the World, doth free us from suspition of Adoration in it. Thus he though a Nonconformist.

Mr. Tombs Theodulia, p. 168. That whatsoever Gesture our Sa∣viour used it doth not oblige us, because the Gesture seems not to have been of choice used by Christ. 2. Because St. Paul omits the Gesture, which he would not have done, if it had been binding. 3. He men∣tions the Night, and calls it the Lords Supper; and if the Time be not necessary, much less the Gesture. 4. If the Gesture doth oblige, then Christians must use the self-same that Christ used, i. e. Lying down or Leaning, &c. Mr. Baxter in this Christian Directory (I think speaking of the Sacrament) tells us, he thinks Mr Paybodies Book in defence of Kneeling to unanswerable.

As to the Surplice; Platina mentions it to be brought in very ear∣ly into the Church, in the days of the good Bishops of Rome, Anno Domini 250, by Stephen, a Martyr under Decius the Emperour; And none can deny but that in the Apostles days, after Baptism (the Baptized in those hot Countries of the East, being commonly at least dipped or plunged in the Water with their naked Bodies) the persons Baptized put on new white Vestments to shew the Purity of a Chri∣stian: Whence the Lords day after Easter (which Easter was their chief time of Baptizing) was called Dominica in Albis, the Lords day in White. Mr. Leighs Annotations on the New Testament tell you those expressions of putting on, the Lord Jesus, and putting off the Old Man have allusion to the Garments. Peter Martyr speaks in his Answer to Bishop Hoopers Letter: The Defenders of this Ceremony may pretend some honest and just signification, and Zepperus himself, (though no Friend to the Sign of the Cross in the Baptismal Office, as Mr. Sprint tells us in his Cassander Anglicanus) speaking of the Papists, saith thus; We read nothing of the Superstitious Habits in the Monu∣ments of Antiquity, except only of the White Vesture; Qua usi

sunt sine superstitione in signum & Commone factionem honestatis vitae. So that if it were a significative Ceremony (as it is not in the Church of Englands use of it) yet in their judgments the use of it might be innocent.

Bishop Taylors Ductor Dubitantium, p. 668. Great Reason have we to honour the Wisdom of the Church of England, which hath in all her Offices retained but one Ritual or Ceremony that is not of Di∣vine Ordinance, or Apostolical Practice, and that is the Cross at Bap∣tism: Which, though it be a significant Ceremony, and of no other use, yet as it is a compliance with the Antient Church, so is it very innocent in it self, and being one alone is not troublesome [or burthen∣some]. Archbishop Whitgift said, the Surplice was not enjoyned as a significant Ceremony. The Canon about the Surplice mentioneth nothing of using it for signification of purity or unspotted innocency. We do not wear it as monitory or instructive to keep the inner man pure and clean, but as a Garment of use in the Antient Church, and transmitted down from them to us, and retained at our Reformation: And some urge it to be decent, and no ways unbecoming a Minister of the Gospel, who may wear certainly White as lawfully as Black, without placing Holyness or Unholyness in any Garment. If we see not so great reason for the imposition or continuance, yet we may see sufficient reason for the submission. It is not used by us as by the Pa∣pists, who must have it hallowed or consecrated by Praying over it, that it may defend him that wears it from the Devil. They use it indeed with a Superstitious opinion of Holyness, but we have no Con∣secrating Surplices, nor any such opinion that it is a fence against the Devil, or preservative from his assaults and temptations.

Several Nonconformists have said, they would be content to Preach the Gospel in a Fools coat rather than be silent; as the Famous Mr. Daille of France being asked his judgment by some Nonconfor∣mists of England, said (as I am told by a French Minister, and that he had seen it mentioned in a Book wrote by one of our Bishops) That our Ceremonies were good, and before he would make a rent in the Church for such things as the Surplice, &c. If the King of France would give him leave to Preach at Paris, (which the King forbid him) he would Preach, though it were in a Fools coat.

As to the Lawfulness of the Sign of the Cross at Baptism, It is, I Baptize, I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father, &c. which is all that is Essential to Baptism, or the Substance of that Ordinance: Then it follows, We receive this [Baptized] Child into the Congre∣gation of Christs Flock, as the Priviledge. Baptism makes him a Member of the Catholick Church, and particularly of that Church into which he is Baptized: But the owning and receiving into Commu∣nion is the Churches Act. Then follows, and sign him with the Sign of the Cross in token, &c. as significative, and with the words decla∣rative of that Duty, which he is obliged and bound unto by Baptism, to own the Faith of Christ Crucified, &c. And though the Words are, In token that he shall not be ashamed to own, &c. It is only in the Judgment of Charity, what the Church hopeth and expecteth from him hereafter, when he is come to years to know Good and Evil, his Faith, Profession, and Obedience to the Trinity, according to his Baptism. And thus Dr. Bourges in his Subscription with Expli∣cation of his meaning, allowed by King James the First, and the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, and declared to be the sense of the Church of England: Where the Book saith, And do sign him with the Sign of the Cross, in token, &c. I understand, saith he, that Book not to mean, That the Sign of the Cross hath any Vertue in it to effect or further this Duty, but only to intimate and express by that Cere∣mony (by which the Ancients did avow their profession of Christ Crucified) what the Congregation hopeth and expecteth hereafter from that Infant: And therefore also when the Twentieth Canon saith, That the Infant is by that Sign Dedicated unto the Service of Christ, I understand that Dedication to import, not a real Consecra∣tion of the Child, which was done in Baptism it self; but only a Ce∣remonial Declaration of that Dedication, like as the Priest is said to make clean the Leper, whose being clean he only declared.

There was undoubtedly a lawful use of the Cross in some Primitive Christians, while they lived among professed Jews and Heathens, Ene∣mies of the Cross of Christ, as Phil. 3.18. upbraiding the Christians that their God dyed upon a Cross. It began at his Crucifixion, Matth. 27.41, 42; The Chief Priests mocking him with the Scribes and Elders said, If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the Cross, and we will believe him. The more others scoffed at the Christians for their Crucified Saviour, with the greater Courage, Resolution, and

Constancy did the Christians own and make profession of him. And this was a sign professing Christ, which at the sight of Jews and Infidels, in the Markets, and any where else was of common use among the Christians, used at their Meals many times, and Transla∣ted to Baptism. When the Empire became Christian, Constantine used it, and others in their Ensigns of War, to signifie, Christ Cru∣cified was the God they owned, and expected Victory in Battel from him. In their Coats of Arms, in their Coynes at this day, it is used as of Old, to shew the Religion of the Persons, or the Coun∣tries, that they were Christians. If any Object that was a Civil use of it, and not Religious, I say it was of Religious signification there. Yet indeed with Peter Martyr, for mine own part, I wish that all things may be done simplicissime, most free from Humane mixtures in the Worship of God; Again, Its signification and use is, ad homi∣nem, and not ad Deum. For first, If it were permanent, and im∣printed on the Forhead (which in Scripture is used to signifie boldness and confidence, in a good, and in all ill sense, as Ezek. 3.8. Jer. 3.3. And so the sign of the Cross made there signifieth of the Child boldness, Christian Courage and Confidence, that he shall not be asha∣med, &c.) it would signifie to Men, and not to God; unto Chri∣stians, that he was one of their number. Secondly, The use of it among the Primitive Christians was to signifie to Christians among themselves, or more especially to Jews and Heathens their Christian Profession. Thirdly, The Dissenters call them significant teaching signs, and bring that as an Argument against them, but do we teach God or Man, surely Man is fit for Instruction. And as to Addition, the Curse is equally against diminishing, as adding: But the Love∣kiss, Signaculum reconciliationis; Washing the Disciples Feet a token of Humility; The Feasts of Charity mention'd at the Sacrament by St. Jude; the Community of Goods, the Deaconesses, &c. Things of this Nature are not of the substance of the Word, or the Ordinan∣ces, but are Circumstantials, and may be changed, added, or taken away safely. I could cite too an Eminent Nonconformist, where he saith, it cannot be called an Addition in Scripture sense, unless the Governours stamp Holyness upon it, or Necessity, as a necessary Du∣ty, Doctrinal Necessity he means: Or unless by adding they mean, giving the same Efficacy to Humane Institutions as God doth to his, by making them to confer Grace upon the rightly disposed; and by di∣minishing that the Service is not compleat without it. I shall conclude

with a saying of Mr. Calvin, Let not any think me so austere or bound up, as to forbid a Christian to accommodate himself to the Papists, in any Ceremony or Observance: For it is not my purpose to condemn any thing, but what is clearly Evil, and openly Vitious. I have said thus much, lest some that are uncharitable to our Church should think, I wrote, Be∣cause I was pinched, and could not tell how to satisfie my Conscience in Conformity.

Doctor More's Mystery of Godliness, Pref. Sect. 10. The Cross, so seasonable at the first Institution of it, while professed Pagans, were mingled among Christians, and so significant alwayes, that if the Church cannot make such an Additional as this (in his Judgment) she can make none at all.

True State of Prim. Christ. p. 18; I will name another Ceremony, which gives great offence with greater reason; the bowing towards the Altar, which in my own Judgment I allow, and practise in some measure, when I come into such Congregations as generally use it, avoiding still to give offence to any, as far as I may with safe Con∣science. I affirm it is a very fitting thing to shew Reverence in the House of God, and to shew it by bowing as well as any other means, and to bow that way, to the East as well as any other way: Bowing towards the Altar is grown into abuse, by the Papists supposing Christ to be Corporally present there. With us the Minister bows to shew some, particular Reverence in that place, where the Blessed Sacrament is Consecrated. Let this pass for good, though something also may be said against it.