99

MATTHEW W R E N, D. D.

Defendant, who was no Actor at all therein; surely, was neither first Mo-ver, nor last Agent in it. He therefore referreth himself to such Proofs as Æiallhe truly brought of any Thing therein done by himself, and will not refuse todefray all such Charges as shall appear to have been unjustly put upon themby him, provided that he may have the Materials safe and sound delivered tohim. He is also informed, that Thomas Dixon and Alexander Ha?-rifon lChurch-wardens of St. Edmund’s in Norwich , being required to give in a Noteof such Charges as the Parish was put unto, by this Defendant’s Visitation,did return but 131. and \d. which being rejected, and they sent back tobring in a greater Sum, Alderman Parrot reproaching them, and saying,

'what no more f Well, we perceive you would willingly have Popery come inagain. The Account of the Years besides that of the Visitation, was takenand put into the Information given into the honourable House of Com-mons ; and the like, he doubts not, was done in many other Places.

To the fifteenth Article this Defendant answereth and denieth, that he pro*posed any unlawful Innovations or Injunctions, or that any were molestedby him in their Estates and Consciences for not coming to the Rail, andkneeling before the Table altar-wise, or for not standing up at the Gospel.And for further Answer herein, referreth himself to that which is alreadyanswered in the 7th Article.

And he further humbly conceiveth, that the reducing of the Forms and Ritesof the Church, which were in Use in the Reign of Eliz. and the drawingof the People to a due Obedience to those Ordinances of the Church, isnot now justly to be called an Innovation, but rather a part of a ReformationOr Renovation: inasmuch as then (in those Times) the contrary thereof wasstiled and reputed an Innovation : For so he findeth by that Enquiry whichthe Bishop of London made in anno 1583. [dothyour Minijler teach any Doc-trine oj Innovation , to withdraw the People from due Obedience to the Ordinan-ces oj the Church ? Art. 6.] and again [ doth your Minijler in his Minis rationuse the precise Form and Rites which are prescribed , without Innovation or Alte-ration of the fames Art. 31. And so the Bishop of Chichester in anno 1600.inquired [Are there any which preach any Do&rine of Innovation in your Parijh ,t0 % withdraw the People Jrom their due Obedience , or are there any new Presbyte-ries or private Conventicles and fchijmatical Dealings among you H Art. 42.] Ringfames also, in the Conference at Hampton-Court , terin’d those Things an Innova-tion, which were then insisted on against the Orders of the Church; [pag. 47. Jand, in his Proclamation for Uniformity of Common-prayer, faith, that hew ill not admit Innovations in Things once settled by mature Deliberation,Meaning the Rites of the Church, 10. facobi.

Speaking therefore of the Religion and Ceremonies in the Church of England ,tn as much as New and Old are Terms of Relation, and are laid but respec-tively to former or later Things, he humbly conceiveth it necessary, first, todesign the Times, upon which the State of our Church is to be bounded, andto which we intend to refer, when we fay (with the holy Fathers in Council)£p%ciiu fflv) KparuTM.- Let the old Usages carry it. And those he hum-

bly conceiveth, are the blessed Times of Reformation, [6 Edward VI. and* -fife.] with the Times then next ensuing: so that whatsoever may appear tohave been then in Use in oar Church (tho’ perhaps in some sort sinpe thend'fcontinued) the taking of that up again, cannot (but by a Mistake, and very^Properly) be termed an Innovation, and hath no Crime at all in it; efpe-c «ally where the general Rule of Devotion, Decency and Uniformity dothaiso go along to guide us in point of Discretion and Practice.

But