Laud: A Speech, 1637

Project Canterbury

A Speech Delivered in the Star Chamber, Concerning Pretended Innovations in the Church, 14 June 1637

by William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury

Transcribed by the Revd Dr John D Lewis
Murdoch University, Western Australia
AD 2000

This address to the Star Chamber was given in respect of the Puritan pamphlets published in 1637 by John Bastwick, Henry Burton and William Prynne, attacking episcopacy and the supposed innovations to religion brought in by Laud and other bishops. The Speech refutes many of the ‘charges’ of the pamphleteers, and is largely a ‘speech for the prosecution’, but the central portion is a justification of Laud’s policy with respect to putting the Altar back into its traditional position in Church, and the superiority of the Eucharist over the sermon.

Bastwick, Burton and Prynne were sentenced to have their ears cropped, and Prynne to be branded on the forehead—all three became instant martyrs for the Puritan cause.
Note:
Spelling, capitalisation and italics are as in the original except that a few ‘gaps’ probably caused by broken type have been filled in, and one instance of a letter omitted has been added in brackets. There are no page numbers in the original for the Dedication to Charles I, but in the Speech the original page numbers are enclosed in square brackets and indicate the top left-hand corner of the page. Marginal notes in the original have been enclosed in bracket within the text.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

| Top | Dedication | Text |

Project Canterbury

[Title page]

A S P E E C H

DELIVERED IN THE
STARR CHAMBER,
ON WEDNESDAY, THE
XIV^th of IUNE, MDCXXXVII
AT THE CENSURE,

Iohn Bastwick,
Of í Henry Burton, &
è William Prinn;

Concerning pretended Innovations

In the C H U R C H

______________________________________________

By the most Reverend Father in GOD,

WILLIAM
L. Archbishop of Canterbury his Grace.

_______________________________________________

LONDON,
Printed by
RICHARD BADGER,
MDCXXXVII

[i]

H I S M O S T

SACRED MAJESTIE,
CHARLES, BY THE GRACE OF GOD,

King of
Great Brittaine, France and Ireland,
DEFENDER of the Faith, &c.

| Top | Title page | Text |

Most Gracious, and Dread Soveraigne;

I Had no purpose to come in Print, but Your Majesty commaunds it, and I obey. Most sorry I am for the Occasion, that induced mee to speake, and that since hath moved You to command me to Print. Nor am I ignorant that many things, while they are [ii]

spoken and passe by the Eare but once, give great content; which when they come to the Eyes of men, and their often scanning, may lye open to some exceptions. This may fall to my lot in this particular, and very easily, considering my many diversions, and the little time I could snatch from other Imployment to attend this. Yet choose I rather to obey Your Majesty, than to sacrifice to mine owne privacy and content. Since then this
Speech uttered in publike, in the Star-chamber, must now come to be more publike in Print; I humbly desire Your Sacred Majesty to protect mee, and it, from the undeserved Calumny of those men, whose mouths are spears and arrowes, & their Tongues a sharpe sword. Psal.57.4. Though as the wiseman speakes, their foolish mouthes have already called for their owne [iii] stripes, and their lippes (and pennes) been a snare for their soules, Prov.18.6,7.

The

Occasion which led mee to this Speech are knowne. There have of late beene divers Libells spread against the Prelates of this Church. And they have not beene more bitter, which is the shame of these raging waves, (Jude ver. 13.) than they are utterly false, which is Our happiness. But I must humbly beseech Your Maiesty to consider, that ’tis not Wee onely, that is, the Bishops, that are strucke at, but through our sides, Your Majesty, Your Honour, Your Safety, Your Religion, is impeached. For what safety can You expect, if You lose the hearts of Your people? And how can You retaine their hearts, if You change their Religion into superstition? And what Honour can You hope for, either Present, or derivative to Posterity if you attend your Government no better [iv] then to suffer Your Prelates to put this change upon You? And what Majesty can any Prince retaine, if hee loose his Honour and his People?

GOD be thanked ’Tis in all points otherwise with You: for God hath blessed You with a Religious heart, & not subject to change. And He hath filled You with Honor in the Eyes of Your People: And their Love and dutifulnesse, He hath made You safe. So that Your Maiesty is upheld and Your Crowne flourishing in the Eyes of Christendome. And God forbid any Libellous blast at home from the Tongues or Pennes of a few, should shrivell up any growth of these.

Wee have received, and daily doe receive from

GOD, many and great Blessings by You. And I hope they are not many that are unthankfull to You, or to God for You. And that there should be [v] none in a Populous Nation, even Enemies to their owne happinesse, cannot bee expected. Yet I shall desire, even these to call themselves to an account, and to remember, that Blasphemy against God, and slandering the footsteps of his Annointed are joined together, Psal. 89 (Psalm 89 verse 50. Wherewith thine Enemies have blasphemed Thee, and slandered the footsteppes of thine Anointed) For he that blasphemes God will never sticke at the slander of his Prince; And he that gives himself the Liberty to slander his Prince, will quickly ascend to the next highest, and Blaspheme God. But then, as I desire
them to remember, so I doe most humbly beseech your Maiesty to account with Your selfe too: And not to measure your peoples love by the unworthinesse of those few. For a loyall and obedient people You have, and such as will spare nor Livelyhood, nor [vi] Life, to doe You service: And are joyed at the heart to see the Moderation of your Government and your constancy to maintaine Religion, and your Piety in Exampling it.

And as

I thus beseech You for Your People in generall, so doe I particularly for the three Professions which have a little suffer’d in these three most Notorious Libellers Person.

And first for my owne

Profession, I humbly begge of your Majesty to thinke M. Burton hath not in this many followers, and am heartily sorry hee would needs lead. The best is, your Majesty knows what made his Rancour swell; Ile say no more.

And for the

Law, I truly honor it with my heart, and believe Mr Prynn may seeke all the Innes of Court, (and [vii] with a Candle too if he will) and scarce find such a Malevolent as himselfe against State and Church. And because he hath so frequently thrust mistaken Law into these Pamphlets, to wrong the Governors of the Church, and abuse your good and well-minded people, and makes Burton and Bastwick utter law which, God knows, they understand not, (for I doubt his Pen is in all the Pamphlets,) I doe humbly in the Churches name desire of your Majestie, that it may be resolved by all the Reverend Iudges of England, and then published by your Majesty, That our keeping Courts and issuing Processe in our owne Names, and the like Exceptions formerly taken, and now renewed, are not against the Lawes of the Realme, (as ’tis most certaine they [viii] are not) That so the Church-Governors may goe on cheerfully in their dutie, and the peoples minds be quieted by theis Assurance, that neither the Law, nor their Libertie, as Subjects, is therby infringed.

And for

Physicke, the Profession is honourable, and safe; and I know the Professors of it will remember that Corpus humanum, mans body, is that, about which their Art is conversant, not Corpus Ecclesiasticum, or Politicum, the Body of the Church, State, or Common-wealth. Bastwick onely hath been bold that way. But the Proverbe in the Gospel, in the fourth of S. Luke is all I’le say to him, (S.Luke, 4.23) Medice cura teipsum, Physician heale thy selfe. And yet let me tell your Majestie, I believe hee hath gained more by making the [ix] Church a Patient, then by all the Patients hee ever had beside.

Sir, both my

selfe, and my Brethren have been very coursely used by the Tongues and pennes of these men, yet shall I never give your Majestie any sower counsell; I shall rather magnifie your Clemencie, that proceeded with these Offenders in a Court of Mercie as well as Iustice: Since (as the Reverend Iudges then declared) you might have justly called the Offenders into another Court, and put them to it in a way that might have exacted their Lives, for their stirring (as much as in them lay) of mutinie and sedition.

Yet this I shall be bold to say, and

your Majesty may consider of it in your Wisdom; That one way of Government [xi] is not alwaies fit or safe, when the Humors of the people are in a continuall Change. Especially, when such men as these shall worke upon your people, and labour to infuse into them such malignant Principles, to introduce a Parity in the Church or Common-wealth. Et, si non satis suâ sponte insaniant, instigare, And to spur on such among them as are too sharply set already: And by this meanes make and prepare all advantages for the Roman party to scorne Us, and pervert them.

I pray

God blesse Your Majestie, Your Royall Consort, and Your hopefull Posterity, That You may Live in happinesse; Govern with Wisdom; Support Your people by Iustice; Relieve them by Mercy; Defend them by power [xii] and successe; And Guide them in the true Religion by Your Lawes and most Religious Example, all the long and lasting dayes of Your Life: Which are and shall be the daily prayers of

Your Sacred Majesties most

loyall SUBIECT,

AND,

Most dutifull SERVANT,

as most bound,

W. Cant.
[1]

MY LORDS,

I Shall not need to speake of the infamous course of Libelling in any kind: Nor of the punishment of it, which in some cases was Capitall by the Imperiall Lawes. As appears*: (Cod. l. 9. T. 36)

Nor how patiently some great Men, very great Men indeed, have borne Animo civili (that’s Sueton: his word*) (In Iul. c.75) laceratum existimationem, The tearing and rending of their credit and [2]

reputation with a gentle, nay, a generous minde.

But of al Libels, they are most odious which pretend Religion: As if that of all things did desire to bee defended by a Mouth that is like an open Sepulcher, or by a Pen that is made of a sicke and loathsome Quill.

There were times when Persecutions were great in the Church, even to exceed Barbarity it selfe: did any Martyr or Confessor, in those times Libel the Governours? Surely no; not one of them to my best remembrance: yet these complaine of Persecution without all shew of cause; and in the meane time Libel and rayle without all measure. So little of kin are they to those which suffer for Christ, or the least part of Christian Religion.

My Lords,

it is not every mans [3] spirit to hold p against the Venome which Libellers spit. For S.Ambrose, who was a stout and a worthy Prelate, tels us, not that himselfe, but that a far greater Man than he, that’s K. David, had found out (so it seemes in his judgment ’twas no matter of ordinary ability) Grande inventû, a great and mighty invention, how to swallow and put off those bitter Contumelies of the tongue*: (In Apol. I. David. c.6) and those of the pen are no whit lesse, and I spread farther. And it was a great one indeed, and wel beseemed the greatness of David. But I think it wil be far better for me to look upward, and practise it, than to look downward, and discourse upon it.

In the meane time I shal remember what an Ancient under the name of S. Hierom tels me*, (Ad Ocean. de Ferend. Oprob.)

Indignû est & præposterû, ’tis unworthy in it selfe, and [4] preposterous in demeanour for a man to bee ashamed for doing good, because other men glory in speaking ill.

And I can say it clearly and truly, as in the presence of God, I have done nothing, as a Prelate, to the uttermost of what I am conscious, but with a single heart, and with a sincere intention for the good Government and Honour of the Church; and the maintenance of the Orthodox Truth and Religion of Christ professed, established, and maintained in this Church of England.

For my care of this Church, the reducing of it into Order, the upholding of the Externall Worship of God in it, and the setling of it to the Rules of its first Reformation, are the causes (and the sole causes, what ever are pretended) of all this malicious storme, which hath lowred so black upon Me, & some [5]

of my Brethren. And in the meane time, they which are the only, or the chief Innovators of the Christian world, having nothing to say, accuse us of Innovation; They themselves and their Complices in the meane time being the greatest Innovators that the Christian world hath almost ever known. I deny not but others have spread more dangerous Errors in the Church of Christ; but no men, in any age of it, have been more guilty of Innovation than they, while themselves cry out against it: Quis tulerit Gracchos?

And I said wel, Quis tulerit Gracchos? For ’tis most apparent to any man that will not winke, that the Intention of these men, and their Abettors, was and is to raise a Sedition, being as great Incendiaries in the State (where they get power) as they have ever been in the [6]

Church; Novatian himselfe hardly greater.

Our maine Crime is (would they al speak out, as some of them do (Burton Apo. p. 110)

) that we are Bishops; were we not so, some of us might be as passable as other men. And a great trouble ’tis to them, that we maintain that our calling of Bishops is Iure Divino, by Divine Right: Of this I have said enough, and in this place, in Leightons Case, nor will I repeate. Only this I will say, and abide by it, that the Calling of Bishops is Jure Divino, by Divine Right, though not all Adjuncts to their calling. And this I say in as direct opposition to the Church of Rome, as to the Puritan humour.

And I say farther, That from the Apostles times, in all ages, in all places, the Church of Christ was governed by Bishops: And Lay-Elders never heard [7]

of, till Calvins new-fangled device at Geneva.

Now this is made by these men, as if it were Contra Regem, against the King, in right or in power.

But that’s a meere ignorant shift; for our being Bishops, Jure Divino, by Divine Right, takes nothing from the Kings Right or power over us. For though our Office be from God and Christ immediately, yet may wee not exercise that power, either of Order or Iurisdiction, but as God hath appointed us, that is, not in his Majesties, or any Christian Kings Kingdomes, but by and under the power of the King given us so to doe.

And were this a good Argument against us, as Bishops, it must needs be good against Priests and Ministers too; for themselves grant that [8]

their Calling is Iure Divino, by Divine Right; and yet I hope they will not say, that to be Priests and Ministers is against the King, or any His Royall Prerogatives.

Next, suppose our Callings, as Bishops, could not be made good Iure Divino, by Divine Right; yet Iure Ecclesiastico, by Ecclesiastical Right it cannot bee denyed. And here in England the Bishops are confirmed in their power and means, by Act of Parliament. So that here we stand in as good case, as the present Lawes of the Realme can make us. And so we must stand, till the Lawes shall bee repealed by the same power that made them.

Now then, suppose we had no other string to hold by (I say suppose this, but I grant it not) yet no man [9]

can Libell against our Calling (as these men doe) bee it in Pulpit, print, or otherwise, but hee Libels against the King and the State, by whose Lawes wee are established. Therefore, all these Libels, so farre forth as they are against our Calling, are against the King and the Law, and can have no other purpose, than to stirre up sedition among the people.

If these men had any other intention, or if they had any Christian or charitable desire, to reforme any thing amisse; why did they not modestly Petition His Majesty about it, that in his Princely wisedome he might set all things right, in a Just and Orderly manner? But this was neither their intention, nor way. For one clamours out of Pulpit, and all of them from the Presse, and in a most [10]

virulent and unchristian manner set themselves to make a heat among the people; and so by Mutiny, to effect that, which by Law they cannot; And, by most false and unjust Calumnies to defame both our Callings and Persons. But for my part, as I pitty their rage, so I heartily pray God to forgive their malice.

No Nation hath ever appeared more jealous of Religion, then the people of England have ever beene. And their zeale to Gods glory hath beene, and at this day is a great honour to them. But this Zeale of theirs, hath not beene at all times and in all persons, alike guided by knowledge. Now Zeale, as it is of excellent use, where it sees its way; so is it very dangerous company, where it goes on in the [11]

darke: _a And these men, knowing the Disposition of the people have laboured nothing more, than to misinform their knowledge, and misguide their Zeale, and so to fire that into a sedition, in hope that they, whom they causelessly hate, might miscarry in it. (
_a You may see it in the Example of S.Paul himself, whose very zeale in the darknesse of his Understandin, which hee then had, made him persecute Christ & his Church, Act 22.3,4. And hee was very dangerous company then; for he breath’d out threatnings against the Disciples, Act. 9.1. So true is that of Saint Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. Zelus Iracundiam acuit: All zeale puts an edge to anger it selfe. And that must needs be dangerous in the darke.)

For the maine scope of these Libels is, to kindle a Jealousie in mens mindes, that there are some great plots in hand, dangerous plots (so sayes Mr Burton expresly (Page 5.)

) to change the Orthodox Religion established in England; and to bring in, I know not what, Romish superstition in the roome of it. As if the externall decent worship of God could not bee upheld in this Kingdome, [12] without bringing in Popery.

Now in this Art of theirs, give me leave to tell you, that the King is most desperately abused and wounded in the minds of his people; and the Prelates shamefully.

The King most desperately:
for there is not a more cunning tricke in the world, to withdraw the peoples hearts from their Soveraign, than to perswade them that he is changing true Religion, and about to bring in grosse Superstition upon them. And the Prelates shamefully;
For they are charged to seduce, and lay the plot, and be the Instruments.

For his Majesty first.

This I know, and upon this occasion take it my duty to speak: There is no Prince in Christendome more sincere in his Religion, nor more constant to it, than the [13] King. And he gave such a Testimony of this at his being in Spain, as I much doubt, whether the best of that Faction durst have done halfe so much, as his Majesty did, in the face of that Kingdome. And this you my Lord, the Earle of Holland, and other Persons of honour, were eye and eare-witnesses of, having the happinesse to attend Him there. And at this day, as His Maiesty (by Gods great blessing both on him and us) knows more, so is he more settled and more confirmed, both in the Truth of the Religion here established and in Resolution to maintaine it. And for the Prelates;
I assure my selfe, they cannot be so base, as to live Prelates in the Church of England, & labour to bring in the Superstitions of the Church of Rome, upon themselves and it. And if any should be so foule, I [14] do not only leave him to Gods Judgement, but (if these Libellers, or any other, can discover that this base and irreligious falshood) to shame also, and severe punishment from the State: And in any just way, no mans hand shal be more, or sooner against him, than mine shall be. And for my selfe
, to passe by all the scandalous reproaches, which they have most injuriously cast upon me, I shall say this onely. First
, I know of no plot, nor purpose of altering the Religion established. Secondly
, I have ever beene farre from attempting any thing that may truly be said to tend that way in the least degree: and to these two I here offer my Oath.

Thirdly

, if the King had a mind to change Religion, (which I know hee [15] hath not, and GOD forbid hee should ever have) he must seek for other Instruments. For as basely as these men conceive of me, yet I thanke GOD, I know my duty well both to GOD and the King: And I know that al the duty I owe to the King, is under GOD. And my great happinesse it is (though not mine alone, but your Lordships and all his subiects with me) that we live under a Gracious and a Religious King, that will ever give us leave to serve GOD first, and Him next. But were the daies otherwise, I thank Christ for it, I yet know not how to serve any man against the Truth of GOD, and I hope I shall never learne it.

But to returne to the businesse: what is their Art to make the world believe a change of Religion is endevoured? What? why, forsooth, they say, [16]

there are great Innovations brought in by the Prelates, and such as tend to the advancing of Popery.

Now that the Vanity and falshood of this may appear, I shall humbly desire your Lordships to give me leave to recite briefly al the Innovations charged upon us, be they of lesse or greater moment, and as briefly to answer them. And then you shall clearely see, whether any cause hath bin given of these unsavoury Libels; and withall, whether there bee any shew of cause to feare a change of Religion. And I will take these great pretended Innovations in order, as I meet with them.

First,
I begin with the Newes from Ipswich.

Where the* (Pag. 2)

first Innovation is, that the last yeeres Fast was enjoyned to bee [17] without Sermon in London, the Suburbs, and other infected places, contrary to the Orders for other Fasts in former times: Whereas Sermons are the onely meanes to humble men, &c.

To this I say First, That an after-age may, without offence, learn to avoid any visible Inconvenience observed in the former. And there was visible Inconvenience observed in mens former flocking to Sermons in Infected places.

Secondly
, This was no particular Act of the Prelates; but the businesse was debated at the Councell-Table, being a matter of State, as well as of Religion. And it was concluded for no Sermons in those infected places, upon this Reason; That infected Persons or Families, knowne in their owne Parishes, might not take occasion upon those [18] by-dayes to run to other Churches, where they were not knowne, as many use to doe, to heare some humorous men preach; For on the Sundayes, when they better kept their owne Churches: the danger is not so great altogether.

Nor Thirdly is that true, that Sermons are the Onely meanes to humble men. For though the preaching of Gods word, where it is performed according to his Ordinance, be a great meanes of many good effects in the soules of Men; Yet no Sermons are the only meanes to humble Men. And some of their Sermons are fitter a great deale for other operations: Namely, to stir up sedition, as you may see by Mr. Burtons; for this his printed Libel was a Sermon first, & a Libell too. And ’tis the best part of a Fast to abstaine from such Sermons.

[19]

2. The second Innovation is. * (Pag.3.) That Wednesday was appointed for the Fastday, and that this was done with this intention, b the example of this Fast without preaching, to supresse all the Wednesday-Lectures in London.

To this I answer First, that the appointing of Wednesday for the Fast-day was no Innovation. For it was the day in the last Fast before this: and I my (s)elfe remember it so, above forty yeares since, more than once.

Secondly
, if there had beene any Innovation in it, the Prelates named not the day; my Lord Keeper, I must appeale to your Lordship: The day was first named by your Lordship, as the usuall, and fittest day. And yet I dare say, and sweare too, that your Lordship had no aime to bring in Popery; nor to suppresse al, or any the Wednesday-Lectures [20] in London. Besides, these men live to see the Fast ended, and no one Wednesday Lecture suppressed.

3. The third Innovation* (Pag. 3.) is, that the Prayer for seasonable weather was purged out of this last Fast-booke, which was (say they) one cause of Ship-wracks and tempestuous weather.

To this I say, First in the Generall; This Fast-booke, and all that have formerly beene made, have beene both made, and published by the command of the King, in whose sole power it is to call a Fast. And the Arch B. and Bishops to whom the ordering of the book is committed, have power under the King, to put in, or leave out, whatsoever they thinke fir for the present occasion; As their Predecessors have ever done before them [21]

Provided that nothing be in contrary to the Doctrine or Discipline of the Church of England.

And this may serve in the Generall for all Alterations, in that or any other Fast-booke or bookes of Devotion upon any particular occasions, which may and ought to vary with severall times, and we may, and doe, and will justifie, under His Maiesties power all such Alterations made therein.

Secondly
, for the particular. When this last booke was set out, the weather was very seasonable. And it is not the custome of the Church, nor fit in it selfe to pray for seasonable weather when we have it, but when we want it. When the former booke was set out, the weather was extreame ill, and the Harvest in danger; Now [22] the Harvest was in, and the weather good. Thirdly
, ’tis most inconsequent to say, that the leaving that Prayer out of the booke of devotions, caused the Shipwrackes and the Tempests, which followed. And as bold they are with God Almighty, in saying it was the cause: For sure I am, God never told them, that was the cause. And if GOD never revealed it, they cannot come to know it; yet had the Bishops beene Prophets, and foreseene these Accidents, they would certainly have prayed against them. Fourthly
, Had any Minister found it necessary to use this prayer at any one time during the Fast, he might with ease, and without danger, have supplied that want, by using that prayer to the same purpose which is in the Ordinary Liturgy. [23]
Fifthly, I humbly desire your Lordships to weigh well the Consequence of this great, and dangerous Innovation. The Prayer for faire weather was sett out of the Book for the Fast; Therfore the Prelates intend to bring in Popery. An excellent Consequence, were there any shew of Reason in it.

4. The Fourth Innovation* (Pag. 3.) is, That there is one very usefull Collect left out, and a clause omitted in another.

To this I answer First, As before; It was lawfull for us to alter what we thought fit.

And Secondly, since that Collect made mention of Preaching, and the Act of State forbad Sermons on the Fast dayes in infected places; we thought it fit, in pursuance of that Order, to leave out that Collect.

[24]
And Thirdly, for the branch in the other, w^ch is the first Collect, Though God did deliver our forefathers out of Romish superstition, yet (God be blessed for it) we were never in. And therefore that clause being unfittingly expressed, we thought fit to passe it over.

5. The fifth Innovation* (Pag. 3.) is, That in the sixth Order for the Fast, there is a passage left out concerning the abuse of Fasting in relation to merit.

To this I answer. That he to whom the ordering of that Booke to the Presse was committed, did therefore leave it out; Because in this Age and Kingdome there is little opinion of meriting by Fasting.

Nay, on the contrary, the contempt and scorne of all fasting (save what humorous men call for of themselves) is [25]

so ranke, that it would grieve any Christian man to see the necessary Orders of the Church concerning Fasting, both in Lent, and at other set times, so vilified as they are.

6. The Sixthe Innovation* (Pag. 3.) is, That the Lady Elizabeth and her Princely Children are dashed (that’s their phrase) out of the new Collect, whereas they were in the Collect of the former Booke.

For this First, The Author of the Newes knowes full well that they are left out of the Collect in the latter Editions of the Common Praier-Book, aswel as in the Booke for the Fast. And this was done according to the Course of the Church, which ordinarily names none in the Praier, but the Right line descending. Yet this was not done till the King himself commanded it; As I have [26]

to shew under his Majesties hand.

Secondly

, I beseech your Lordships to consider, what must be the Consequence here: The Queene of Bohemia and her Children are left out of the Collect, therfore the Prelates intend to bring in Popery; For that (you know) they say is the end of all these Innovations. Now if this be the end and the Consequence; Truly (t)he Libellers have done very dutifully to the King, to poyson his people with this conceit; that the Lady Elizabeth and her Children would keepe Popery out of this Kingdom, but the King and his Children will not. And many as good offices as these have they done the King quite thorow these Libels, and quite thorow his Kingdoms. For My part, I honour the Queene of Bohemia, and her Line, as much as any man whatsoever, and shall be as ready [27] to serve them, but I know not how to depart from my Allegeance, as I doubt these men have done.

7. The Seventh Innovation* (Pag. 3.) is, That these words (who art the Father of thine Elect and of their seed) are changed in the Preface of that Collect, which is for the Prince and the Kings Children. And, with a most spitefull inference, That this was done by the Prelates to exclude the Kings Children out of the number of Gods Elect. And they call it an intollerable impietie and horrid treason.

To this I answer, First, That this Alteration was made in my Predecessors time before I had any Authority to meddle with these things, further then I was called upon by him.

Secondly
, This is not therefore to lay any aspersion upon my Predecessor, for [28] he did in that but his dutie: For his Majestie acknowledges, it was done by his speciall direction, as having then no Children to pray for.

And Thirdly, this Collect could not be very old, for it had no being in the Common Prayer Book all Q. Elizabeths time, she having no Issue.

The truth is, it was made at the coming in of K. IAMES; and must of necessitie be changed over and over againe pro ratione Temporum, as Times and Persons varie. And this is the Intolerable Impiety, and horrid Treason they charge upon Us.

In this Method the Innovations are set down in the Newes from Ipswich. But then in Mr. Burtons Newes from Friday-street (called his Apologie) they are in another Order, and more are added. Therefore with your [29]

Lordships leave I will not repeat any of these, but goe on to the rest, which Mr. Burton addes.

8. The eighth Innovation* (Burtons Apologie, pag. 2.) is, That in the Epistle the Sunday before Easter, we have put out In, and made it, At the Name of Iesus every knee shall bow; which alteration, he saith, is directly against the Act of Parliament.

Here give me leave to tell you ’tis At the Name of Jesus, in the late learned Translation made in K. IAMES his time. About which many learned Men of best note in the Kingdom were imployed, besides some Prelates.

But to this I answer: First, ’Tis true, the Common Prayer Book was confirmed by Act of Parliament, and so all things contained in it, at the passing of that Act. But I hope if any thing were [30]

false printed then, the Parliament did not intend to passe those slips for current. Secondly
, I am not of opinion, that if one word be put in for another, so they beare both the same sense, that there is any great matter done against the Act of Parliament.

Thirdly,

this can make no Innovation. For In the Name, as At the Name of Iesus, can make no Essentiall difference here And Mr Pryn (whose Darling businesse it hath long been to cry downe the honour due to the Son of GOD, at the mentioning of his saving Name IESVS) knowes the Grammar Rule well, In a place, or at a place, &c. Fourthly
, if there were any error in the change of In to At; I do here solemnly protest to you, I know not ho It came: For authority from the Prelates, [31] the Printers had none; and such a word is easily changed in such a negligent Presse as we have in England. Or if any altered it purposely, for ought I know, they did it to gratifie the Preciser sort. For therin they followed the Geneva Translation, & printed at Geneva, 1557* (In Octavo.). where the words are, At the Name of IESVS, And that is ninety foure yeares agoe; and therefore no Innovation made by us. Fifthly
, this I find in the Queenes Injunctions* (Injuction 52.), without either word, In or At. When soever the Name of Jesus shal be in any lesson, Sermon, or otherwise pronounced in the Church (’tis injoined) that due reverence be made of al persons, young and old, with lowlinesse of Coursy, and uncovering of the heads of the menkind, as therunto doth necessarily belong, and heretofore hath beene accustomed. [32] So here’s necessitie laid upon it, and custome for it, and both expressed by Authoritie in the very beginning of the Reformation; and it is therefore no Innovation now.

9. The Ninth Innovation* (Pag. 3.) is, That two places are changed in the Praiers set forth for the fifth of November: And ordered to be read (they say) by Act of Parliament. The first place is changed thus, From, Root out that Babylonish and Antichristian Sect, which say of Jerusalem, &c. Into this forme of words. Root out that Babylonish & Antichristian Sect (of them) which say, &c. The second place went thus in the old: Cut off these workers of iniquity, whose Religion is Rebellion. But in the Booke printed 1635. ’tis thus altered: Cut off those orkers of Iniquity, who turne Religion into Rebellion, &c.

[33]

To this I say First, ’Tis a notorious untruth, that this Booke was ordered to be read by Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament indeed is printed before it; and therein is a Command for Prayers and Thankesgivings every fifth of November: but not one word or syllable for the Forme of Prayer. That’s left to the Church, therefore here’s no Innovation against that Act of Parliament.

Secondly

, The Alteration first mentioned, that is, That Sect, or That Sect of them: is of so small consequence, as ’tis not worth the speaking of. Besides if there be any thing of moment in it, ’tis answered in the next. Thirdly
, both for that and the second place, which seemes of more moment; & so for the rest not only in that Book, but that other also for his Majesties Coronation; His Majestie expressly [34] commanded Me to make the Alterations, and see them printed. And here are both the Bookes with his Majesties warrant to each of them. So that herein I conceive I did not offend, unlesse it were that I gave not these men notice of it, or asked them leave to obey the KING.

Against this there can be but two objections, should malice itself goe to work. The one is, that I moved his Majesty to Command the change. And the other, that now, when I saw my selfe challengd for it, I procured His Majesties hand for my security.

To these I answer cleerly; First, that i did not move the King, directly or indirectly; to make this change.

And Secondly, that I had His Majesties hand to the Booke, not now, but then, and before I ever caused them to [35]

be printed, as now they are. And that both these are true, I here againe freely offer my selfe to my Oath.

And yet Fourthly, that you may see His gracious Majestie used not his power only in commanding this change; but his wisdome also; I shall adventure to give you my Reasons, such as they are, why this Alteration was most fit, if not necessary.

My first Reason is, In the Litany in Hen. 8. his time^a: and also under Edw. 6.^b there was this Clause: From the tyrany of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, frô al fals doctrine, &c. Good Lord deliver us. But in the Litany in Q. Elizabeths time this Clause about the Pope was left out, and it seemes of purpose, for avoiding of scandall: And yet the Prelates for [36]

that not accounted Innovators, or Introducers of Popery. Now ’tis a farre greater scandall to call their Religion Rebellion, then ’tis to call their chiefe Bishop Tyrant.

(

^a It was put into the Litany of H. 8 his time, as appears in his Primer, with his Injunction before it. ^b And ’tis in both the Service Bookes of Ed. 6. both that which was printed, 1549. And in that which was after. Ann. 1552.)

And this Reason is drawne from scandall, which must ever be avoided as much as it may.

My second Reason is, that the learned make but three Religions to have been of old in the world, Paganisme, Iudaisme, and Christianitye. And now they have added a fourth, which is Turcisme, and is an absurd mixture of the other three. Now if this ground of theirs be true (as ’tis generally received) perhaps it will be of dangerous consequence sadly to avow, that the Popish Religion is Rebellion. That some opinions of theirs teach rebellion, [37]

that’s apparently true, the other would be thought on, to say no more. And this Reason well weighed, is taken from the very foundations of Religion it selfe.

My Third Reason is, Because if you make their Religion to be Rebellion, then you make their Religion, and Rebellion to be all one. And that is against the ground both of State, and the Law. For when diverse Romish Priests and Iesuites have deservedly suffered death for Treason, is it not the constant and just profession of the State, that they never put any man to death for Religion, but for Rebellion and Treason onely? Doth not the State truly affirme, that there was never any Law made against the life of a Papist, quatenus a Papist onely? And [38]

is not all this starke false, if their very Religion be Rebellion? For if their Religion be Rebellion, is it not onely false, but impossible, that the same man in the same Act should suffer for his Rebellion, and not for his Religion.

And this King James of ever blessed memory understood passing well, when (in his premonition to all Christian Monarches* (Pag. 336.)

) he saith, I doe constantly maintaine that no Papist either in my time, or in the time of the late Queen, ever dyed for his conscience. Therfore he did not thinke, their very Religion was Rebellion. Though this Clause passed through In advertencie in his time. And this Reason is grounded both upon the practise, and the Iustice of the Law.

Which of these Reasons, or [39]

whether any other better, were in His Majesties thoughts, when he commanded the Alteration of this clause, I know not. But I tooke it my duty to lay it before you, that the King had not onely power, but Reason to command it.

10. The Tenth Innovation* (Pag. 3.) is, That the Prayer for the Navy is left out of the late booke for the Fast.

To this I say, there is great Reason it should. For the King had no declared Enemy then, nor (God be thanked) hath he now. Nor had he then any Navy at Sea. For almost all the Ships were come in, before the Fast-booke was set out.

But howsoever, an excellent consequence it is, if you mark it; The prayer for the Navy was left out of the [40]

booke for the Fast, therefore by that, and such like Innovations the Prelates intend to bring in Popery. Indeed, if that were a piece of the Prelates plots to bring in Popery from beyond Sea, then they were mightily overseene that they left out the prayer for the Navy. But else what reason or consequence is in it, I know not, unlesse perhaps Mr. Burton intended to befriend Dr. Bastwicke, and in the Navy bring hither the Whore of Babylon to be ready for his Christening, as hee most profanely scoffes. Well:
I pray GOD the time come not upon this Kingdome, in which it will be found, that no one thing hath advanced or Ushered in Popery so fast, as the grosse Absurdities even in the Worship of God, which [41] these Men, and their like, maintaine both in Opinion and practise.

11. The eleventh Innovation,* (Page 105) is the reading of the second Service at the Communion-Table, or the Altar.

To this first I can truly say, that since my owne memory, this was in use in very many places, as being most proper (for those prayers are then read which both precede and follow the Communion,) and by little and little this Auncient custome was altered, and in those places first, where the Emissaries of this faction came to preach. And now if any in Authority offer to reduce it, this auncient course of the Church is by and by called an Innovation.

Secondly

, with this the Rubricks of the Common-prayer booke agree: [42] for the first Rubricke after the Communion tels us, that upon Holy-dayes, though there be no Communion, yet all els that’s appointed at the Communion shall be read. Shall be read? That’s true, but where? Why, the last Rubricke before the Communion tels us, that the Priest, standing at the North side of the Holy Table, shall say the Lords Prayer, with that which followes. So that not only the Communion, but the prayers w^ch accompany the Communion (which are commonly called the Second service) are to bee read at the Communion-Table. Therefore if this be an Innovation, tis made by the Rubricke, not by the Prelates; And Master Burtons scoffe that this second service must be served in for dainties*, favours too much of Belly and prophanation.

(* Pag. 105. [Then the Second service, as dainties, must bee said there.])

[43]

12 One thing stickes much in their stomacks, and they call it an Innovation* (Pag. 105.)

too. And that is, bowing, or doing Reverence at our first coming into the Church, or at our nearer approaches to the Holy Table, or the Altar, (call it whether you will) In which they will needs have it, that we worship the Holy Table, or God knows what.

To this I answer. First, that God forbid we should worship any thing but GOD Himselfe.

Secondly
, that if to Worship GOD when we enter into his house, or approach his Altar, bee an Innovation, tis a very Old one.

For Moses did reverence at the very doore of the Tabernacle, Num. 20. Hezekiah, and all that [44]

were present with him, when they had made an end of offering, bowed and worshipped, (^d 2 Chron. 29.29.) David cals the people to it with a Venite, O come let us worship, and fall downe, and kneele before the Lord our Maker, (^e Psal. 95.6.) And in all these places (I pray mark it) ’tis bodily worship.

Nor can they say, that this was Judaicall worship, and now not to be imitated. For long before Judaisme began, Bethel, the House of GOD, was a place of Reverence, (^f Gen. 28.17 &c.) Therefore certainly Of, and To GOD.

And after Judaicall worship ended, Venite, Adoremus, as farre upwards as there is any track of a Liturgie, was the Introitus of the Priest, all the Latine Church over.

And in the daily prayers of the [45]

Church of England; this was retained at the Reformation; and that Psalme, in which is Venite, Adoremus; is commanded to begin the Morning Service every Day. And for ought I know, the Priest may as well leave out the Venite, as the Adoremus; the calling of the people to their duty, as the duty it selfe, when they are come.

Therefore even according to the Service-booke of the Church of England, the Priest and the People both are called upon, for externall and bodily Reverence and Worship of GOD in his Church. Therefore they which do it, doe not Innovate. And yet the Government is so moderate (God grant it be not too loose therewhile) that no man is constrained, no man questioned, only religiously called upon, Venite, Adoremus, Come, let us worship.

[46]
For my owne part I take my selfe bound to worship with Body, as wel as in Soule, when ever I come where GOD is worshipped. And were this Kingdome such as would allow no Holy Table, standing in its proper place (and such places some there are) yet I would worship God when I came into His house. And were the times such, as should beat downe Churches, and all the curious carved worke thereof, with Axes, and Hammers, as in Psal. 74.6. (and such times have beene) yet I would worship in what place soever I came to pray, though there were not so much as a stone laid for Bethel. But this is the misery; tis superstition now adaies for any man to come with more Reverence into a Church, then a Tinker & his Bitch come into an Ale-house; the [47] Comparison is too homely, but my Just indignation at the profanenesse of the times, makes me speake it.

And you my Honourable Lords of the Garter, in your great Solemnities, you doe your Reverence, and to Almighty God, I doubt not, but yet it is Versus Altare, towards his Altar, as the greatest place of Gods Residence upon earth. (I say the greatest, yea greater then the Pulpit. For there ’tis Hoc est Corpus meum, This is my Body. But in the Pulpit, tis at most, but; Hoc est Verbum meum, This is my Word. And a greater Reverence (no doubt) is due to the Body, then to the Word of our Lord. And so, in Relation, answerably to the Throne, where his Body is usually present; then to the Seate, whence His Word useth to be Proclaimed. And [48]

God hold it there, at His Word; for, as too many men use the matter, ’Tis Hoc est verbum Diaboli. This is the word of the Divell, in too many places. Witnesse Sedition, and the like to it.) And this Reverence yee doe when ye enter the Chappel, and when you approach nearer to offer. And this is no Innovation, for you are bound to it by your Order, and thats not New.

And Idolatry it is not, to worship God towards His Holy Table; For if it had beene Idolatry, I presume Queene Elizabeth, and King Iames would not have practised it, no not in those Solemnities. And being not Idolatry, but true Divine Worship, You will, I hope, give a poor Priest leave to Worship God, as Your selves doe. For if it be Gods Worship, [49]

I ought to doe it as well as You: And if it be Idolatry, You ought not to doe it more than I.

I say againe, I hope a poore Priest may Worship God with as lowly Reverence as you doe, since you are bound by your Order, and by your Oath, according to a Constitution of Hen. the fifth (as appears ^a (In Libro. Nigro. Windesoriens. p. 65.)

) to give due honour and Reverence, Domino Deo, & Altari ejus, in modum virorum Ecclesiasticorum; That is, to the Lord your God, and His Altar (for there is a Reverence due to that too, though such as comes farre short of Divine Worship) and this in the Manner, as Ecclesiasticall Persons both Worship and doe Reverence.

The Story which led in this Decree is this: King Henry the fifth, that Noble and victorious Prince, returning [50]

gloriously out of France sat at this Solemnitie; and finding the Knights of the Order scarce bow to God, or but slightly, and then bow towards Him and His Seat, started at it (being a Prince then grown as religious, as he was before victorious,) and after asking the reason; for til then the Knights of the Order never bowed toward the King or his Seat; the Duke of Bedford answered, it was setled by a Chapter Act three yeares before. Hereupon, that Great KING replied, No, Ile none of this, till you the Knights doe it Satis benè, well enough, and with due performance to Almighty GOD. And hereupon the forenamed Act proceeded, that they should doe this duty to Almighty God, not slightly, but Ad modum virorum Ecclesiasticorum, as low, as well, as decently, as Clergie-men use to doe it. [51]
Now if you will turne this off, and say, it was the superstition of that Age so to do; Bishop Jewell will come in to help Me there. For where Harding names divers Ceremonies, and particularly bowing themselves, and adoring at the Sacrament, I say, adoring at the Sacrament, not adoring the Sacrament; there Bishop Jewel (that learned, painefull, and reverend Prelate) approves all both the Kneeling and the bowing, and the standing up at the Gospell (which as ancient as it is in the Church, and a common custome, is yet fondly made another of their Innovations: ^a (B. Jewels reply to Hardings answer. Art. 3. Div. 29.)) And further, the Bishop addes*, That they are all commendable gestures, and tokens of devotion, so long as the people understand what they meane, and apply them unto GOD. Now with us the people did [52] ever understand them fully, and apply them to GOD, and to none but God, till these factious spirits, and their like, to the great dis-service of God and his Church, went about to perswade them, that they are superstitious, if not Idolatrous gestures: As they make every thing else to be, where God is not served slovenly.

13 The Thirteenth Innovation* (Pag. 4.5.105.) is: The placing of the holy Table Altar-wise, at the upper end of the Chancell, that is, the setting of it North and South, and placing a Raile before it, to keepe it from prophanation, which M^r. Burton sayes, is done to advance and Usher in Popery.

To this I answer, That ’tis no Popery, to set a Raile to keep prophanation from that Holy Table: nor is it [53]

any Innovation to place it at the upper end of the Chancell as the Altar stood. And this appears both by the Practice, and by the Command and Canon of the Church of England.

First

, by the Practice of the Church of England. For in the Kings Royall Chappels, and divers Cathedrals, the Holy Table hath ever since the Reformation stood at the upper end of the Quire, with the large or full side towards the people.

And though it stood in most Parish Churches the other way, yet whether there be not more reason, the Parish Churches should be made conformable to the Cathedrall and Mother Churches, than the Cathedrals to them, I leave to any reasonable man to judge.

And yet there is nothing done [54]

either by violence or command to take off the Indifferency of the standing of the Holy Table either way, but only by laying it fairely before men, how fit it is there should bee order, and uniformity; I say still reserving the Indifferency of the standing.

But howsoever I would faine know, how any discreet moderate man dares say, that the placing of the Holy Table Altar-wise (since they will needs call it so) is done either to advance or Usher in Popery? For did Queen Elizabeth banish Popery, and yet did she all along her Raigne from first to last leave the Communion Table so standing in her owne Chappell Royall, in Saint Pauls and Westminster, and other places; and all this of purpose to advance or Usher in that Popery which shee had driven out.

[55]
And since her death have two Gracious Kings kept out Popery all their times, and yet left the Holy Table standing, as it did in the Queenes time, and all of purpose to advance or Usher in Popery which they kept out?

Or what’s the matter? May the Holy Table stand this way in the Kings Chappell or Cathedrals, or Bishops Chappels, and not elsewhere? Surely, if it be decent and fit for Gods service, it may stand so (if Authority please) in any Church. But if it advance or Usher in any superstition and Popery, it ought to stand so in none.

Nor hath any Kings Chappell any Prerogative (if that may bee called one) above any ordinary Church to dis serve God in by any Superstitious [56]

Rites. Where, give me leave to tell you, that the King and his Chappell are most jeeringly, and with scorne abused, in the last leafe of Mr. Burtons Mutinous Appeale, for such it is. Secondly
, this appears by the Canon or Rule of the Church of England too, for ’tis plaine in the last Injunction of the Queene; That the Holy Table ought to stand at the upper end of the Quire, North and South, or Altar-wise. For the words of the Queenes Injunctions are these. The Holy Table in every Church
(marke it I pray, not in the Royall Chappel or Cathedrals only, but in every Church) shall be decently made and set in the place where the Altar stood. Now the Altar stood at the upper end of the Quire North and South, as [57] appeares before by the practise of the Church. And there to set it otherwise, is to set it crosse the place, not In the place where the Altar stood: and so Stulti dum vitant vitia -- weake men, as these Libellers are, run into one Superstition, while they would avoyd another; For they runne upon the superstition of the Crosse, while they seeke to avoyd the superstition of the Altar. So you see here’s neither popery nor Innovation in all the practise of Queene Elizabeth, or since. These
words of the Injunction are so plaine, as that they can admit of no shift.

And give me leave to tell you, that a very learned Prelate of this Church, and one, whom I think these men will not accuse, as a man like to [58]

advance or Usher in Popery, is of the same opinion: ’Tis my Lord the Bishop of Salisbury.

Some difference was lately rising about placing the Communion-Table in a Parish Church of his Diocesse. The Bishop caarefull to prevent all disorder, sends his Injunction (May 17. 1637.)

under his hand and seale to the Curate and Church-Wardens, to settle that businesse: In which hee hath these two passages remarkeable. I have seene and read the Order.

The first passage is this; By the Injunction of Queene Elizabeth (saith hee) and by Can. 82. under King James, the Communion Tables should ordinarily be set and stand with the side to the East wall of the Chancell. Therfore this is no Innovation, since there is Injunction and Canon for it.

[59]
The other passage is this; ’Tis Ignorance (saith that learned Bishop) to thinke that the standing of the Holy Table there, relishes of Popery. Therfore, if it doe not so much as relish of popery, it can neither advance it, nor Usher it in. And therefore this a most odious slaunder, and scandall cast upon Us.

So here’s enough both for the Practise and Rule of the Church of England since the Reformation. Now before that time, both in this and other Churches of Christendome, in the East and West ordinarily the Holy Table or Altar stood so; Against this Mr. Burton sayes little.

But the Lincolne-Shire Minister comes in to play the Puritane for that. Concerning which Book (falling thus in my way) and the [60]

Namelesse Author of it, I shall only say these two things.

The one is, that the Author prevaricates from the first word to the last in the book; for he takes on him both for the Name and for the placing of the Holy Table, and the like, to prove, that Generally and Universally, and Ordinarily in the whole Catholicke Church, both East and West, the Holy Table did not stand at the upper end of the Quire or Chancell. And this hee must prove, or he doth nothing.

Now when hee comes to make his Proofes, they are almost all of them particular, few or none generall and concludent; For hee neither brings Testimonies out of the Generall and received Rituals of the Easterne and Westerne Churches, nor of Fathers and Histories of the Church, [61]

which speake in Generall termes of all, but where they speak of particular Churches only.

So that suppose the most that can be, that is, suppose his quotations bee all truly alledged, and true too in the sense that the Minister takes them (though in very truth, the places, most of them, are neither truly alledged, nor sensed,) yet they are but exceptions of, and exemptions from the Generall practise. And you know both in Law and Reason, Exceptio firmat Regulam in non exceptis. So that upon the sudden I am notable to resolve, whether this Minister hath done more wrong to himselfe or his Readers, for he hath abused both.

The other is, that in the judgement of very many learned men, which have perused this book, the Author [62]

is clearly conceived to want a great deale of that learning to which hee pretends: or else to have written this Book wholly, and Resolvedly against both his science and his conscience.

And for my owne part, I am fully of opinion, this Booke was thrust now to the Presse, both to countenance these Libellers, and as much as in him lay, to fire both Church and State.

And though I wonder not at the Minister, yet I should wonder at the Bishop of the Diocesse (a man of learning and experience) that he should give Testimony to such a businesse, and in such times as these.

And once more, before I leave the Holy Table, Name, and Thing, give me leave to put you in minde, that there is no danger at all in the Altar, Name, or Thing. For at the beginning [63]

of the Reformation, though there were a Law for the taking downe of the Altars, and setting up of Holy Tables in the roome of them; yet in some places the Altars were not suddenly removed. And what sayes the Queene in her Injunction to this? (Injunct. ultim.) Why she sayes, That there seems no matter of great moment in this, saving for uniformity, and the better imitation of the Law in that behalfe. Therefore for any danger or hurt that was in the Altars, Name, or Thing, they might even then have beene left standing, but for Uniformity, and the Imitation of the Law.

But howsoever, it followes in the same Injunction, that when the Altar is taken downe, the Holy Table shall bee set In, (not crosse) the place where the Altar stood; which (as is aforesaid) [64]

must needs be Altar-wise.

14 The Fourteenth and the last Innovation comes with a mighty Charge, & ’tis taken out of an Epistle to the Temporall Lords of his Majesties Privy Councell. Of which Epistle we got one sheet, and so (for ought I yet know) that Impression stay’d: In that Sheet is this charge, The words are,

The Prelates, to justifie their proceedings, have forged a new Article of Religion, brought from
Rome (which gives them full power to alter the Doctrine and Discipline of our Church at a Blow, as they Interpret it) and have foisted it (such is their language) into the beginning of the Twentieth Article of our Church. And this is in the last edition of the Articles, Anno 1628. in affront of his Majesties Declaration before them, &c. [65]
The Clause (which they say is forged by us) is this: The Church, (that is, the Bishops, as they expound it) hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and Authority in matters of Faith (The word is Controversies of Faith, by their leave) This Clause (say they) is a forgery fit to be examined, and deeply censured in the Star-chamber. For ’tis not to be found in the Latine or English Articles of Edw. 6. or Q. Elizabeth, ratified by Parliament.

And then in the margent thus, If to forge a Will or Writing be censurable in the Star-chamber, which is but a wrong to a private man: How much more the forgery of an Article of Religion, to wrong the whole Church, and overturne Religion which concerns all our soules.

[66]
This is a heavie charge, my Lords: But I thank GOD the Answer’s easie.

And truly I grant, that to forge an Article of Religion in whole or in part, and then to thrust it upon the Church, is a most haynous crime, farre worse then the forging of a Deed. And is certainly very deeply censurable in this Court. And I would have humbly besought you, that a deepe censure might have beene layd upon it, but that this sheet was found after, and so is not annexed to the Information, nor in Iudgement at this present before you.

But then, my Lords, I must tell you, I hope to make it as cleere as the day, that this forgery was not, that this clause mentioned was added, by the Prelates to the Article, to gaine power to the Church, and so to serve [67]

our turnes. But that that clause in the beginning of the Article was by these men, or at least some of their Faction, razed out, and this to weaken the just power of the Church to serve their turnes.

The say (to justifie their charge) that this clause is not to be found in the Articles, English or Latine, of either Ed.6. or Q.Elizabeth.

I answer:

The Articles of Edw.6. and those made under Q.Elizabeth differ very much. And those of Ed.6. are not now binding. So whether the Clause be in or out of them, ’tis not much materiall.

But for the Articles of the Church of England, made in the Queenes time, and now in force, that this clause for the power of the Church to decree Ceremonies, and to have Authority in [68]

controversies of faith, shold not be found in English or Latine Copies, till the Yeare, 1628. that it was set forth with the Kings Declaration before it, is to me a miracle; but your Lordships shall see the falsehood and boldnes of these men. What?
Is this affirmative clause in no Copie, English or Latine till the Yeare 1628? Strange: Why, my Lords, I have a Copie of the Articles in English, of the Yeare, 1612. And of the Yeare, 1605. and of the Yeare, 1593 and in Latine of the Yeare, 1563. which was one of the first printed Copies, if not the first of all. For the Articles were agreed on but the Nine and twentieth day of January, Anno 1562/3 (2 According to the English Account. 3 According to the Iulian Account)

And in all these, this Affirmative Clause for the Churches power is in. [69]

And is not this strange boldnes then to abuse the World, and falsely to say ’tis in no Copie, when I my selfe, out of my own store, am able to shew it in so many, and so aunciently.

But My Lords, I shall make it plainer yet: For ’tis not fit concerning an Article of Religion, and an Article of such consequence for the Order, Truth, and Peace of this Church, you should rely upon my Copies, be they never so many or never so auncient.

Therefore I sent to the Publike Records in my Office, and here under my Officers hand, who is a Publike Notary, is returned mee the Twentieth Article with this Affirmative Clause in it. And there is also the whole Body of the Articles to be seene.

[70]
By this your Lordships see how free the Prelates are from forging this part of the Article. Now let these men quit themselves and their faction, as they can, for their Index Expurgatorius and their foule Rasure in leaving out this part of the Article. For to leave out of an Article is as great a Crime as to put in; And a Maine Rasure is as censurable in this Court as a forgery.

Why

, but then my Lords; what is this Mystery of Iniquity?

Truly, I cannot certainely tell, but as farre as I can, I’le tell you.

The Articles you see were fully, and fairly agreed to, and subscribed in the yeare --- 1562/3 But after this, in the yeare 1571. there were some that refused to subscribe, but why they did so is not recorded. Whether [71]

it were about this Article or any other I know not. But in fact this is manifest, that in that yeare 1571. the Articles were printed both in Latine, and English, and this Clause for the Church left out of both. And certainely, this could not bee done, but by the malicious cunning of that Opposite Faction. And though I shall spare dead mens names where I have not certainty; Yet if you bee pleased to looke backe and consider who they were that Governed businesses in 1571, and rid the Church almost at their pleasure; And how potent the Ancestors, these Libellers began then to growe, you will thinke it no hard matter to have the Articles printed, and this Clause left out.

And yet ’tis plaine, that, after [72]

the stirre about Subscription in the yeare 1571. the Articles were setled and subscribed unto at last, as in the yeare 1562. with this Clause in them for the Church: For looking farther into the Records which are in mine own hands, I have found the Booke of 1562/3 subscribed by all the Lower house of Convocation, in this very yeare of Contradiction, 1571. Dr. Iohn Elmar (who was after Lord Bishop of London) being there Proloquutor: Alexander Nowell Deane of Saint Pauls, having beene Proloquutor in 1562/3 and yet living and present and subscribing in, 1571. Therefore, I doe here openly in Star-chamber charge upon that pure Sect this foule corruption of falsifying the Articles of the Church of England; let them take it off as they can. [73]
I have now done, and ’tis time I should, with the Innovations charded upon the Prelates, and fit to be answered here.

Some few more there are, but they belong to matter of Doctrine, which shall presently be answered, Iusto Volumine, at large, to satisfie all wel-minded people. But when M^r. Burtons Booke, which is the maine one, is answered, (I meane his Booke, not his Rayling) neither Prynne, nor Bastwicke, nor any Attendants upon Rabshakeh shall by me or my care be answered. If this Court find not a way to stop these Libellers mouthes and pennes, for me they shall rayle on till they be weary

Yet one thing more I beseech you, give Me leave to adde. ’Tis Master Burtons charge* (Pag 175)

upon the [74] Prelates That the Censures formerly laid upon Malefactors, are now put upon Gods Ministers for their Vertue and Piety.

A heavy charge this too. But if he or any man else can shew that any man hath been punished in the High Commission, or else where, by the Prelates, for Vertue and Piety, there is all the reason in the world we should bee severely punished our selves. But the truth is, the Vertue and Piety for which these Ministers are punished, is for preaching Schisme and sedition, many of their Sermons being as bad as their Libels; As Burtons Libell was one of his Sermons first. But whether this stuffe have any Affinity with Vertue and Piety, I submit to any Christian Reader.

[75]
And yet Mr. Burton is so confident of his Innocency, even in this cause wherein hee hath so fouly carryed himselfe, that hee breaks forth into these words*, (Pag. 7.) I never so much as once dreamed, that Impiety and Impudency it selfe in such a Christian State as this is, and under such a gracious Prince, durst ever thus publikely have called me in question, and that upon the open Stage, &c.

You see the boldnesse of the Man, and in as bad a Cause, as (I think) in this kind ever any man had.

I shall end with a passage out of S.Cyprian,^f (Lib.1. Ep.3.)

when he, then Bishop of Carthage, was bitterly rayled upon b a pack of Schismaticks, his answer was, and ’tis now mine; They have rayled both bitterly and falsly upon [76] me, and yet Non oportet me paria cum illis facere; it becomes not me to answer them with the like, either Levities or Revilings, but to speake and write that only wich becomes Sacerdotum Dei, a Priest of GOD.

Neither shall I in this give way (though I have beene extreamly vilified) to either griefe or passion to speak, remembring that of the Psalmist^a Psal. 37.8. Fret not thy selfe, else shalt thou be moved to do evill.

Neither yet by Gods grace shall the Reproaches of such men as these, make me faint or start aside, either from the Right way in matter of practise (they are S.Cyprians words againe* (Ib.p.10)) or à certâ regulâ, from the certaine rule of faith.

And since in former times, some [77]

spared not to call the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they bee bold with them of his household, as in S.Matthew*, Chap.10.25. And so bold have these men been; but the next words of our Saviour are, Feare them not.

I humbly crave pardon of your Lordships for this my necessary length, and give you all hearty thankes for your Noble patience, and your Just and Honourable censure upon these Men, and your Vnanimous dislike of them, and defence of the Church.

But because the businesse hath some reflection upon my selfe, I shall forbeare to censure them, and leave them to GODS mercy, and the Kings justice.

FINIS

| Top | Title page | Text |

Project Canterbury